Hosham UKIP public meeting tonight in Horsham at 19:30

[BadFish]

Now, that's funny.

ISIS & KKK are good places to start.

You are wrong, BBC staff past and present admit to political bias so there is no need for any further debate.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-leftwing-bias-6509105.html

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/11/john-humphrys-bbc-immigration-debate-today-programme

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-share-licence-fee-says-former-executive.html

My particular favourite anecdote of this bias is from Rod Liddle, a self confessed "lefty" who recounts how anyone opposed to the EU and euro (when Labour were pressing the case to join) were described as mad.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...e-bbc-officially-regards-eurosceptics-as-mad/

A salient reminder of how bigoted the BBC is on this important matter, a point they are heavily conflicted on given they receive millions of taxpayers money from the EU..............the good news is that on the horizon is a bill to decriminalise non payment of the licence fee, and this will be the death knell for the current BBC.

Once this cat is out the bag and people stop paying it will all be over............given the scandals of how execs have abused licence fee payers, quite right too.

Still waiting for someone to give me the names of a few news agencies that are less biased than the BBC

 

[brighton fella]

You see this is why lots of people don't take UKIP suupporters seriously. Ludicrous conspiracy theories like this don't help your cause they just ake you look like cranks.

there you go again you just cant help yourself can you ..you've just confirmed my point.

f*ck me that's rich being addressed a crank from someone who believes in everything he is told.

you carry on believing everything you hear mate I guess your kind trustworthy media will thank you one day.

 

[Soulman]

I have read a few studies of the bias at the BBC and none of them have suggested a left wing bias, most have suggested it is fairy neutral with a small leaning to the right.

Struth Bruce, where have you been, the Director General of many years plus a number of presenters openly admitted that the BBC was left wing.

Here you go, can be found in many tabloids, former DG of BBC Mark Thompson.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

 

[JCL666]

You are wrong, BBC staff past and present admit to political bias so there is no need for any further debate.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-leftwing-bias-6509105.html

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/11/john-humphrys-bbc-immigration-debate-today-programme

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-share-licence-fee-says-former-executive.html

My particular favourite anecdote of this bias is from Rod Liddle, a self confessed "lefty" who recounts how anyone opposed to the EU and euro (when Labour were pressing the case to join) were described as mad.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...e-bbc-officially-regards-eurosceptics-as-mad/

A salient reminder of how bigoted the BBC is on this important matter, a point they are heavily conflicted on given they receive millions of taxpayers money from the EU..............the good news is that on the horizon is a bill to decriminalise non payment of the licence fee, and this will be the death knell for the current BBC.

Once this cat is out the bag and people stop paying it will all be over............given the scandals of how execs have abused licence fee payers, quite right too.

Haha no need for further debate?

Have you actually read the links you posted?

Mark Thompson said it was biased THIRTY YEARS ago.

John Humphrys says that they were guilty of shying away from the immigration debate FIFTEEN YEARS ago.

Both of the above say it's getting better and has improved.

And in the Telegraph (that well known unbiased paper), they refer to Rod Liddle, who is known as some one who writes pieces in order to generate a response, kind of like Katie Hopkins.

 

[JCL666]

Struth Bruce, where have you been, the Director General of many years plus a number of presenters openly admitted that the BBC was left wing.

Here you go, can be found in many tabloids, former DG of BBC Mark Thompson.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

OH FFS READ THE LINK


""n the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too. We have an honourable tradition of journalists from the right [working for us]. It is a broader church. "

 

[Stato]

Struth Bruce, where have you been, the Director General of many years plus a number of presenters openly admitted that the BBC was left wing.

Here you go, can be found in many tabloids, former DG of BBC Mark Thompson.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

All that Thompson says in that interview is that there was a left leaning bias in the seventies pre Thatcherism. He goes on to say that the current BBC is a broader church. This merely suggests that the BBC takes a mainstream view. The establishment view in the seventies was more left leaning after a succession of Keynesian governments. The middle ground has shifted and the BBC shifted with it. I would argue that only an organisation which concerns itself with neutrality would do the sort of analysis which Thompson has done. Fox News, which is widely regarded as a campaigning channel with a right wing agenda claims to be 'Fair and Balanced' and would never submit itself to the rigorous self analysis which the BBC does.

Interesting that someone else gave the BBC's percieved pro EU stance as an example of left wing bias. The Politcal Compass Website has an interesting graph which shows that the pro and anti EU debate has very little to do with left wing politics.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

The EU is an organisation which protects free trade for capitalists from capitalist countries. A market economy is a requirement for membership:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm

The pro and anti EU argument is an argument between right wing capitalists of varying shades.

 

[Soulman]

All that Thompson says in that interview is that there was a left leaning bias in the seventies pre Thatcherism. He goes on to say that the current BBC is a broader church. This merely suggests that the BBC takes a mainstream view. The establishment view in the seventies was more left leaning after a succession of Keynesian governments. The middle ground has shifted and the BBC shifted with it. I would argue that only an organisation which concerns itself with neutrality would do the sort of analysis which Thompson has done. Fox News, which is widely regarded as a campaigning channel with a right wing agenda claims to be 'Fair and Balanced' and would never submit itself to the rigorous self analysis which the BBC does.

Interesting that someone else gave the BBC's percieved pro EU stance as an example of left wing bias. The Politcal Compass Website has an interesting graph which shows that the pro and anti EU debate has very little to do with left wing politics.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

The EU is an organisation which protects free trade for capitalists from capitalist countries. A market economy is a requirement for membership:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm

The pro and anti EU argument is an argument between right wing capitalists of varying shades.

Thompson can say what he likes, conveniently about the left leaning being in the past, for some they still feel it has not changed much to this day.
I prefer to watch the other news channels rather than the BBC, personal choice.

In the past eh, this from THIS year.
BBC accused of 'left-wing bias' for employing ex-Labour adviser as economics reporter
BBC'S Newsnight programme has found itself the centre of a political row after its new economics correspondent was revealed to be a former adviser to Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman.
The appointment of Duncan Weldon, who also worked as an economist at the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has led one Tory to claim the BBC is "sticking two fingers up at those who are concerned about Left-wing bias" at the organisation.
A BBC spokesman said Mr Weldon, who has little experience as a journalist, is "widely respected" across the political spectrum for his economic analysis.
Left-wing commentator Owen Jones has denounced claims that the BBC has a left-wing bias as a "fairytale".

Other appointments seen as fitting with a left-wing bias include former Guardian reporter Ian Katz as Newsnight editor and ex-Labour Cabinet Minister James Purnell as the BBC's Director of Strategy and Digital.

LAST WEEK........ Today co-presenter John Humphrys admitted people who work for the organisation tend to come from backgrounds which promote "broadly liberal
views".
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/46...oying-ex-Labour-adviser-as-economics-reporter

 

[cunning fergus]

Haha no need for further debate?

Have you actually read the links you posted?

Mark Thompson said it was biased THIRTY YEARS ago.

John Humphrys says that they were guilty of shying away from the immigration debate FIFTEEN YEARS ago.

Both of the above say it's getting better and has improved.

And in the Telegraph (that well known unbiased paper), they refer to Rod Liddle, who is known as some one who writes pieces in order to generate a response, kind of like Katie Hopkins.

He joined 30 years ago, when the staff were actively biased against Thatcher, ergo in your own independent view, they operated entirely impartially from 1995 onwards with Major and the new Labour Govt?.

The undisputable facts are that BBC is biased, they recruit overwhelmingly via the Guardian (that well known unbiased newspaper) with over 85% of its appointments) and when they bump up against people with opposing views they are not treated fairly………….

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/31/nicky-cambell-guido-fawkes

The EU is a case in point, and whilst you may want to smear those who have pointed to frankly outrageous attacks on those opposing the Pro EU orthodoxy that exists with our political classes and in media, are you seriously suggesting that whilst this was clearly embedded in the debates about joining the euro and Lisbon Treaty in 2002 -2005 this bias has now been corrected.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoJOwm3zIj4

You have obviously forgotten the recent cases of BBC Execs like Jasmine Lawrence vilifying UKIP on the twitter accounts……….she tweeted on an Anti UKIP site in the lead up to this year’s euro elections:

#WhyImVotingUkip – to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views, totally under represented in politics today—
Jasmine Lawrence (@journomummy) May 21, 2014

Given her senior role in the News Dept which had to deal with the rise of UKIP, to escape disciplinary action is unbelievable…………..but systematic of the culture.

 

[Soulman]

OH FFS READ THE LINK


""n the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too. We have an honourable tradition of journalists from the right [working for us]. It is a broader church. "

Thompson JOINED the BBC 30 years ago, you know what years he was DG though.

 

[Captain Sensible]

SO what is our net gain per annum in pounds sterling?

Your question is put simply, so I will TRY to answer it simply.
Uk pays roughly £12bn per year to the EU and recieves money from the EU as around 110bn is spent inside the EU, with the UK making a net loss on the 12bn. I have no idea how much of that 12 is loss. I would estimate that the uk recieves around 2-4bn.
The current figures on direct trade with EU countries is 78bn per year to our GDP. So being an EU member produces around 70bn per year. If we left the EU, you can only estimate how much of that 70bn you would lose.
You also have to factor in the huge expense of leaving the EU, the rough economic conditions of an exit and the fall out after. It would be like flicking a switch to start an over night crash.
Farage is willing to risk those things because he worries about Bulgarians? I don't believe even he is that stupid. I have to question his motives and where ukip are concerned those motives seem to come from a nasty place.

 

[Stato]

LAST WEEK........ Today co-presenter John Humphrys admitted people who work for the organisation tend to come from backgrounds which promote "broadly liberal
views".
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/46...oying-ex-Labour-adviser-as-economics-reporter

They do come from backgrounds which promote 'broadly liberal views' because we are a 'broadly liberal' country.

I would imagine that the background of a lot of the top echelon at the BBC is the same as it is for banking, politics, industry, the civil service etc. i.e. Public school, often followed by Oxbridge.

I would also guess that, if the BBC has a distaste for UKIP it is probably the same distaste which the establishment had for Thatcherism, less about political ideology and more about class snobbery.

The BBC has been happy to give plenty of air time to man of the people Farage (Public School and the City), and did the same for BNP class warrior Nick Griffin (Public School and Cambridge). We live in a country where even our loony ranting about the dangers of elite power and the establishment has to be done privileged white, middle aged, upper-middle class men.

 

[Brovion]

All that Thompson says in that interview is that there was a left leaning bias in the seventies pre Thatcherism. He goes on to say that the current BBC is a broader church. This merely suggests that the BBC takes a mainstream view. The establishment view in the seventies was more left leaning after a succession of Keynesian governments. The middle ground has shifted and the BBC shifted with it. I would argue that only an organisation which concerns itself with neutrality would do the sort of analysis which Thompson has done. Fox News, which is widely regarded as a campaigning channel with a right wing agenda claims to be 'Fair and Balanced' and would never submit itself to the rigorous self analysis which the BBC does.

Interesting that someone else gave the BBC's percieved pro EU stance as an example of left wing bias. The Politcal Compass Website has an interesting graph which shows that the pro and anti EU debate has very little to do with left wing politics.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

The EU is an organisation which protects free trade for capitalists from capitalist countries. A market economy is a requirement for membership:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm

The pro and anti EU argument is an argument between right wing capitalists of varying shades.

No one who is pro-EU can remotely describe themselves as 'left wing'. After the capitalist class (and their lickspittle toadies) the bulk of pro-EU support comes from right-of-centre Social Democrats such as our own dear Herr Tubthumper.

Not that 'left wing' means what it used to these days.

 

[Leighgull]

It would be a proper kick in the nads for the porridge wogs who, after just voting to stay within the UK, now face being dragged out of Europe into the bargain.

The impetus is with the eurosceptics now whatever we might want to believe. The rise of Front Nationale and the German people's party (whatever that is in German Deutche Bund or something) who are re shaping the national debate over bailouts and immigrants. I think that Britain, having just overtaken France as the second biggest economy in the EU, will get a very sympathetic ear from the other members. It's true we need them but, by Christ, they need us too.

 

[BadFish]

So how are we going with those news organisations that are less biased than the BBC?

 

[BadFish]

Struth Bruce, where have you been, the Director General of many years plus a number of presenters openly admitted that the BBC was left wing.

Here you go, can be found in many tabloids, former DG of BBC Mark Thompson.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too. We have an honourable tradition of journalists from the right [working for us]. It is a broader church. The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can't be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat. Often that plays as bias. People think: 'Why can't they come out and say they are *******s?' And that can play out on left and right."

From your very own article.

So how is that list of news organisations that are less biased than the BBC going?

Here is one such study I refer to. http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.

 

[piersa]

Your question is put simply, so I will TRY to answer it simply.
Uk pays roughly £12bn per year to the EU and recieves money from the EU as around 110bn is spent inside the EU, with the UK making a net loss on the 12bn. I have no idea how much of that 12 is loss. I would estimate that the uk recieves around 2-4bn.
The current figures on direct trade with EU countries is 78bn per year to our GDP. So being an EU member produces around 70bn per year. If we left the EU, you can only estimate how much of that 70bn you would lose.
You also have to factor in the huge expense of leaving the EU, the rough economic conditions of an exit and the fall out after. It would be like flicking a switch to start an over night crash.
Farage is willing to risk those things because he worries about Bulgarians? I don't believe even he is that stupid. I have to question his motives and where ukip are concerned those motives seem to come from a nasty place.

I get the impression that you are not too sure. Do we make a net profit from the EU? Yes or No. Then if so, how much.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I get the impression that you are not too sure. Do we make a net profit from the EU? Yes or No. Then if so, how much.

Read the post again, then, if you still aren't sure, there's nothing else to say.

 

[Leighgull]

Your question is put simply, so I will TRY to answer it simply.
Uk pays roughly £12bn per year to the EU and recieves money from the EU as around 110bn is spent inside the EU, with the UK making a net loss on the 12bn. I have no idea how much of that 12 is loss. I would estimate that the uk recieves around 2-4bn.
The current figures on direct trade with EU countries is 78bn per year to our GDP. So being an EU member produces around 70bn per year. If we left the EU, you can only estimate how much of that 70bn you would lose.
You also have to factor in the huge expense of leaving the EU, the rough economic conditions of an exit and the fall out after. It would be like flicking a switch to start an over night crash.
Farage is willing to risk those things because he worries about Bulgarians? I don't believe even he is that stupid. I have to question his motives and where ukip are concerned those motives seem to come from a nasty place.

The key being that (by your reckoning) that 70bn trade upside is at risk by leaving the EU (or a percentage thereof) but doesn't recognise the 60+ bn of inward trade which is done directly with the UK or via US multinationals headquarted here for reasons of language and business culture compatibility with the US.

The current EU chief Mr. Junker is playing a very dangerous game with a cornered British government over immigration and Britains utter exasperation with it being beyond our own ability to control.

I say again. The UK is now the second largest EU economy having overhauled France, last week, by many measures the prospect of losing us will ause massive consternation within European businesses as well as within our own. Junker will drop his guts if Britain really looks like exiting. We are one of the largest contributor nations to the EU project.

 

[cunning fergus]

From your very own article.

So how is that list of news organisations that are less biased than the BBC going?

Here is one such study I refer to. http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

What does it matter how more or less biased other organisations are, this is about the BBC, and if key execs are making mealy mouthed admissions then the reality on the ground will be much worse than they would admit, even to their own funded "independent" reviews.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/03/bbc-deep-liberal-bias-immigration

The pro EU position is a case in point given that any impartiality they would have is compromised by the contributions they receive from that organisation.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/cultur...millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

The analysis of BBC output by the BBC funded "independent" review you reference is interesting because in the commentary they highlight how the BBC reporting was focused on the political clashes between different politicians, pro/anti EU to the detriment of the underlying substance of the matters being debated.

The Lisbon Treaty debate is a case in point, and had the BBC independently researched what the treaty meant they could have provided a truly independent journalistic view.

Had they done so, the British people would know it was a major surrender of sovereignty and political influence to the EU, whilst also creating the architecture to enable the EU to operate as a state...........hence we have a President. This was all done in the treaty because the EU constitution was rejected in French and Dutch referenda.

Their failure to do so was scandalous for a publicly funded broadcaster.

 

[Captain Sensible]

The key being that (by your reckoning) that 70bn trade upside is at risk by leaving the EU (or a percentage thereof) but doesn't recognise the 60+ bn of inward trade which is done directly with the UK or via US multinationals headquarted here for reasons of language and business culture compatibility with the US.

The current EU chief Mr. Junker is playing a very dangerous game with a cornered British government over immigration and Britains utter exasperation with it being beyond our own ability to control.

I say again. The UK is now the second largest EU economy having overhauled France, last week, by many measures the prospect of losing us will ause massive consternation within European businesses as well as within our own. Junker will drop his guts if Britain really looks like exiting. We are one of the largest contributor nations to the EU project.

Yes I get your point, however the question was about the EU income and not that outside the EU. I agree with most of what you say. We might be in a better position to negotiate better border controls (a point that most are associating with EU membership) at the moment. This thread is about ukip really, their stance on wanting an in/out with no negotiating and wanting it yesterday. The UK contributes and benefits from EU membership, the vast sums of liquidity that enters the uk from the EU is undenyable. To simply deny the uk profits from EU membership and to have absolutley no exit strategy or proposals on anything at all going forward apart from cloud cookoo ideas is irresponsible. Ukip supporters seem to ignore this fact, and others, like when their own deputy leader says the NHS would have NO way of existing under a ukip government.