bigoted partial purveyors of bias

the BBC that is...
Whatever you think of the BNP and Mr Griffin and lets be fair most of us dont think much of their policies. if they have won some sort of recognition into the mainstream of british politics then they should be afforded a fair hearing and not a trial,indeed unless they change their membership policy that may come.

The behaviour of the BBC's most senior political broadcaster was as hopeless as that of the performances of the representitives of the major parties with Jack Straw particularly weak.

As for the furore of whether Griffin should of appeared well he has already had a slot previously on the daily politics show with andrew neil which has been forgotten,on which some of his opinions were especially open and stomach churning.
If the BBC were afraid or genuinely concerned with the reaction of the country to griffins appearence then why didnt they offer him a place on Radio 4's version of the show'any questions'.
It seems they were trying to maximise their 'right on' values of free speech.
Whether this was afforded all of the panelists is questionable.
Does this mean then that the BBC is impartial?
Politically meandering and offering trials by television.
Will this then be extended t other flagship BBC programming.


Only time will tell if this appearence has powered the BNP or done them harm,the BBC were right to offer them a place as they have a core support who voted in a european representitive,indeed twice as many as Plaid Cymru.

What is not acceptable however is the political bias of the BBC in the name of free speech.

the beeb in meltdown!

This morning i heard tony benn on r4's today impassioned pleas to allow an appeal to be made in the name of humanity to help aid the poor people in palestine.
The bbc has taken the line that to allow such an appeal would show a bias to one political group.
Does this stance not endorse zionism or indeed the power brokers and powerfull pay masters of zionism both on this side of the atlantic and in the US.
what are they so afraid of!
Or who is pulling the strings.
I dont remember such an attitude in other humaniterean crisis' such as those during the balkan wars.

In the same programme was charles moore ,editor of the telegraph and his reaction to the return of the jonathen ross show.
Moore has pledged to not pay his tv license and says that the beeb has broken their code of conduct by not keeping to their charter which stated that they should produce programmes that maintain social standings and taste.
He continued by correctly stating that as a public service broadcaster funded by license payers and granted by legislation that he is in the right to challenge the decision not to get rid of ross.
However as we know the broadcast that caused such offence was on the radio in a unpopular slot.
This doesnt diminish the abuse of power or bullying of a pensioner who had fled nazi germany,which ross is so guilty of.

And the jonathen ross show itself just happens to have an independent production company bringing it to our screens,a company owned by ross himself.How could justice be truly delivered there.We know the real reason why ross was not sacked was because the beeb could not afford to get embroiled in a court case over such a handsome contract.
So it would seem then the beeb is not only endorsing ross but opening itself to huge political ambiguities.
refusing to support a humanitarean crisis on one hand and endorsing a bully with a possible writ or court case ensuing.

In the same interview another guest the loathsome kelvin mckenzie claims that channel 4 who are in huge debt are getting further in debt in the hope that the government will bail them out like they have the banks.
Under the terms of the broadcasting act this may be likely.
All in all it just shows what a mess our tv broadcasters are and this at a time when we are preparing for expanding airwaves and the digital revolution.
Could be a revolution most unwelcome.