This is a photo of the Secretary of State for Scotland addressing the Tory Party Scottish Conference (courtesy of Wings). I have analysed this and other photos taken from different angles, and learnt this.
There are only six rows of seats at the Scottish Tory Conference. The front row has 24 seats, the second 26, the third 28, the fourth 32 (sic), the fifth 34 and the sixth 36. That is a total of 180 seats.
How many delegates does a party Conference have, which only has 180 seats? There is, for example, no separate gallery for the media. In this photo there are, including those standing, less than 200 people.
My wife is a film producer. She is completing her first two feature films as producer this year, having previously done a couple of shorts, including one short as director. In supporting her, largely by making the tea, I have picked up a basic smattering of comprehension of camera work.
The BBC coverage has been, systematically and undoubtedly deliberately, utilising shots that create a completely false impression of the numbers at the conference. This has been done by setting the cameras low and well zoomed in, to show speakers above an apparent tight sea of heads and shoulders. Wider shots and higher shots have been quite deliberately eschewed. Any side shots or front shots have again been quite deliberately low set and highly zoomed. A tight zoomed diagonal shot across the hall will get sixty heads densely in it, and create the false impression of a packed crowd.
I want to emphasise the question of directorial choice. These are deliberate directorial choices to make the Tories look good, and deliberately to present a distorted perspective of the size of the audience (and the strength of the Tories) to the viewer. The media are, in effect, deliberately hiding from the viewer how tiny the Tory Conference is.
This is the only audience reaction shot used – twice – by the BBC during their main news item on Theresa May’s speech to the Scottish Tory conference:
This is of course only the visual representation of a much larger con trick in the boosting of Ruth Davidson. The BBC Politics operation in Scotland was devoted all weekend to the return of Ruth Davidson from maternity leave, and she was touted again and again, breathlessly and shamelessly, as a future First Minister after the next Holyrood elections. Not once did any BBC presenter point out that the Tories currently stand at 22% in Scotland, and that Ruth Davidson’s chances of becoming First Minister are, even with full on MSM adulation, much the same as my chances of being Britain’s Next Top Model.
The myth of the free press in the UK is finished. The media is owned by right wing billionaires, or by the Tory state. Look forward next week to hearing how Ruth shot a round of 23 at Gleneagles. While driving a tank.
Finally, here is a statistic to cheer you up. The 1,200 plus Tory councillors who have just lost their seats in the English local elections represent precisely an astonishing 1% of the entire membership of the Tory Party. Not of Tory councillors, 1% of all Tory members just lost their job. That is a very happy thought.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
A similar case of MSM lying is the Washington Post’s coverage of a pro-Maduro May Day rally a few days ago which they reported as attracting 500 supporters.I’m no expert on head-counts but it looks more like tens of thousands to me. Photos and videos of the event prove the lie, for example
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/05/03/venezuela-coup-failure-necessitates-a-new-policy-bolton-the-stache-is-pushing-for-war/
The exaggeration of numbers attending a political speech and applauding has been quite normal since 1997. The phenomenon is outlined in one of Peter Oborne’s books: either ‘The Triumph of the Political Class’ or ‘The Rise of Political Lying’. (Sorry I can’t remember which). Perhaps the high point or low point was when Blair bussed in Labour members and pretended they were overwhelmed with joy at his entering No 10.
Nothing new here Craig, they did it with Murphy all the time. Tight shots of a few people to create the impression of a crowd. And what about that front page pic of a particular Yes march where a small bunch o Yoons were shot in such a way as to appear equal to the thousands of Yes marchers passing them? Same old, same old my friend.
The Sunday Herald put that photo on its front page, this lost the editor his job, halved the readership and gave birth to the Sunday National
Agreed, it appears to be standard practice to frame camera angles to exaggerate the crowd size. This happens at the branch LibDem and Labour conferences as well. I wouldn’t read too much into it. The mojahedin-e khalq hire students from agencies to provide “extras” for their conferences.
What I find much more invidious is the lack of editorialising applied to Davidson’s preposterous claims. If a football manager claimed that they would win the league despite being 11 points behind with 4 games to play, the reporter would allow them to make their claim and then provide context by giving the hard statistics. Davidson is allowed to claim that she is a realistic proposition for next First Minister and that claim goes unchallenged.
The turnout for the elections in England yesterday was 36.3%. A new low?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Would be interesting to hear some analysis of this. Are there figures about how people switched? Maybe the tories lost seats because their voters didn’t turn out, and they’re not the kind of people to switch allegiance.
A lot of ill educated subjects chose their 5 seconds of power to allow the Lib Dems in again, their hipocritical slogan ‘we can stop Brexit’ when they were part of the cause that led us there is breath takingly stupid.
If the Lib Dems had resigned their coalition whilst in power, we would have had a chance at least to discuss the implication of this economic lunacy.
Politics needs a wholesale reform,, but the vesteld interest status quo merchants and self servers will never change.
The current lot of cllrs elected by a pitiful third of eligible voters pump themselves up and claim to have a mandate.
As much of an eyewash as the Bibice’ ss blatant conjured pictures.
I went to a Top Gear production, where we had a warm up comedian and a lot of encouragement from BBC staff to laugh as much as we could at Jeremy’s antics. On one occasion we had to do a retake because we didn’t laugh enough (a reduced audience reaction, is the term). In the broadcast programme there were shots of people hysterically laughing, and enhanced and sustained laughter and applause, none of which I recall. I enjoyed the evening because there was a lot of fun and bloopers, and off camera shenanigans. It’s just entertainment after all. Live events, of course, use these same skills.The BBC can even put an apparent Russian hat on Jeremy Corbyn in front of the Kremlin.
I am finding it harder and harder to find “real” news. I usually get the headlines from RT Russia but YouTube has taken it down and I can only get the RT America “crap” version now. The water is at the boiling point people.
Real news . . . . . in no particular order
Thoughtcontrolscotland Craig Murray RT
Wings Over Scotland The Canary.
The National
No shortage of Real News . . . . . If you seek it out!
Aloha, you can also try directly going to some news outlets of ‘questionable’ reliability such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations assembly, they ruled yesterday that they were disappointed with the UK over arbitrary detention – I must have missed that news item in the BBC?
website here https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/detention/pages/wgadindex.aspx
criticism here https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24552&LangID=E
the only crumb of Assange/WGAD related info that I found on the BBC website was related to 2015/2016 where they mention UN WGAD but also give a quote The UK Foreign Office says the [UN WGAD] report “changes nothing” and it will “formally contest the working group’s opinion”
searching BBC website for any clues
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:bbc.co.uk+Assange = Gap Propaganda, nothing from yesterday, does the BBC not have ANY investigative journalists?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:bbc.co.uk+Working+Group+on+Arbitrary+Detention Gap Propaganda
there are quite a few BBC “hits from history” , when WGAD was investigating Iran rather than England,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2766607.stm , 15th February 2003 WGAD to visit “illicit or arbitrary detention” says the BBC correspondent in Tehran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2802339.stm , 26th February, 2003 Iranian justice is flawed , claim WGAD
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41966412, 13th November 2017 WGAD say Mrs Nazanin-not-a-spy is “deprived of her liberty”
but this best of British news organisation, based at W1A 1AA, with an annual budget is in excess of £350 million, and 3,500 staff, 2,000 of whom are journalists, is seemingly unable to report the United Nation’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention comments about English justice, that happened yesterday. I’m doing it here and I don’t have a £350M budget
David
“26th February, 2003 Iranian justice is flawed , claim WGAD”
Less than one month before the invasion of neighbouring Iraq – coincidence?
Well done for digging that out. Have you confronted the bbc with this very serious omission?
David, thank you very much for all of that info and I will look into those sites!
If you can read French, I find francais.rt.com useful.
The thing that puzzles me though, is why are the Tories the second most popular party in Scotland after the SNP? What drives the people in Scotland to allow this to happen?
Remember the SNP is on about 46% and the Tories about 22%, so the Tories are much less popular than in the rest of the UK. The answer to your question is quite simple – it is the bulk of Labour support which has defected to the SNP. The reasons for this are that until recently the Scottish Labour leadership was proudly Blairite, and that they stood shoulder to shoulder with Tories in the Indyref.
Q. Where is Murphy, the hero in the aftermath of the helicopter crash on the Clutha pub? 🙂
A. Raking it in. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16395305.former-mp-jim-murphy-earns-150k-as-political-consultant/
Who would pay for advice from him? Read on and see ‘the Tony Blair Institute foe Global Change’.
Some other good links on that page including one about Davidson being caught on a ‘hot mic’ when rehearsing her speech to the adoring few.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17618212.listen-ruth-davidson-caught-hot-mic-at-tory-conference/?
The ‘Eddie’ to whom Davidson refers several times in her Hot Mic effort is obviously this one –
New Director of Strategy for Scottish Conservatives
14 Jan 2014
Former Scotland on Sunday Political Editor Eddie Barnes is to take on a new role as Director of Strategy and Communications for the Scottish Conservative party.
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2014/01/new-director-strategy-scottish-conservatives/
He must write her stuff. What a sham.
The Unionist vote has coalesced around the Tories. The Scottish party prefer Scotland to be governed by Westminster Tories than the SNP. Their previous leader advised voters to vote Tory if they had more chance of beating the SNP.
The Labour Party in Scotland have deserted their roots and deserve their fate.
There are a lot of incomers from south of the Border in Scotland too, around 600,000 out of a population of 5.1 million which skews the vote. By no means all of these folks are Tory voters (some of them are SNP voters and there is a thriving English Scots for Yes group) but a good percentage of them are, mainly the retirees. There are British military establishments too in Scotland which attract a number of southerners committed to the British union such as the RAF at Lossiemouth and the nuclear base at Coulport and they all tend to vote Tory.
How people vote is determined rather more by their dominant culture (and emotion according to Cambridge Analytica) as well as by place of birth, MBC. The families of those coming to Scotland from rest-UK/England will tend to develop similar cultural beliefs and attitudes to their parents when it comes to national identify which will also be influenced by wider family connections, education (e.g. private schools) etc. When you include the families of those from rest-UK/England who may be born in Scotland we probably have well over one million No voters who may not consider themselves as primarily Scottish in terms of their culture and heritage. In other words, perhaps half or more of No voters may not consider themselves culturally Scottish and will therefore tend towards British alternatives politically and nationally. They may even view the very concept and offer of Scottish nationality as a threat to their sense of British national identity and affiliation which may help explain the rather aggressive responses one gets from some ‘unionists’ which border on a colonial mentality. The Tories do play the ‘One (British) Nation’ card after all and for good reason. Culture (incl language, class etc) appears to be the real dividing line in the Yes/No debate as it has been in so many other nations (Quebec, Catalonia, Ireland, Baltic States etc etc).
Remember when Scotland was a Tory Free Zone back in the mid 1990s? It is not Scots behind the Tory ‘revival’. Since devolution, over the past 20 years around one million people have moved from rest-UK (mainly England) to Scotland. A great deal of this movement comprises middle class professionals and retirees who tend to vote to the right. As most are not Scots this group understandably do not view Scottish independence with much if any favour (also according to voting intention surveys) and irrespective of the state of play in Westminster. The short answer is that quite probably most Tory voters in Scotland today are not Scottish and they have no interest in or desire for Scottish citizenship and Scottish nationality, indeed they actively block our self determination.
It may surprise you to learn that plenty of folks are not left wing. It may surprise you that quite a few Scots are pro the Union. It may surprise you that a sizable minority oppose the EU.
They look for an outlet for their views and it does not sit with Labour, SNP, Libdem or Greens.
You may not agree with them, but in a democracy you must accept that those folks exist.
Voting is often like a choice between a fat prostitute, a prostitute with BO, a prostitute stinking of cigarettes, a prostitute needing their next smack fix. Some folks believe that at least those prostitutes do not have an STD, so they are at least votable for.
And sometimes if the dreaded other lot are running the competing brothel across town, voting is merely away of keeping their business down at tolerably low levels….
Rhys
Imho there are no metaphors powerful enough to describe what is currently referred to as politics. But right now your metaphor sees some benefit in prostitution but zero benefit in politics.
Please strengthen your metaphor or add a to the power of factor in order to be more accurate.
As the tiny Tory conference takes place in Aberdeen, amidst much backslapping that Colonel Rape Clause Ruth Davidson is returning to the fold, but no mention of the multitude of Tory councillors rejected by the public.
The British government has been secretly polling in Scotland to test the strength of feeling for Scottish independence.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17618282.downing-street-caught-out-secretly-polling-scots-voters-on-independence/
And so the mind games and threats begin, as Westminster runs scared of Scottish independence.
“Radical plans to hold back tens of millions of pounds from Holyrood and allow UK ministers instead to spend the cash directly north of the Border have been set out by environment secretary Michael Gove.”
https://archive.fo/VoLfA
Let’s hope it’s Boris next.
I’d prefer Jacob Rees Mogg
To scrub the toilet… ?
In other BBC news, Radio 4’s Today Programme introduced its morning lineup today by saying: “The opposition was supposed to oust President Maduro this week, what went wrong?”
To see what’s wrong with this headline, imagine if the BBC had carried this item in September 1940: “Hitler was supposed to invade England this week, what went wrong?”
They are not even ashamed. Plotting a coup in another country like it is just a normal thing.
The issue at large is, this will keep on aslong as no group, politicians – and it has to be from the left – actually raise this issue to change the structure and bias of the public service companies.
Just take the attack on Corbyn past years. From antisemite to russian agent. Now when Tory/Gavin Williamson was caught being a useful stooge for Huawei the same BBC do not frame his criminal activities as they did with Corbyn.
Just imagine Corbyn being caught doing the same thing as Williamson, just imagine the headlines!
Gavin Williamson a useful stooge for Huawei? Talk us through that, if you would.
“What did you say Gavin? Speak up, I can’t hear you….”
https://twitter.com/JuneSim63/status/1123638064428068864
“So “Gavin Williamson” who has spent his short ministerial career calling jeremy Corbyn a traitor, has just been sacked for leaking classified government information have I got that right?”
https://twitter.com/mellow_elephant/status/1123639027662508040
The Met’s Neil Basu (of Salisbury Novichok infamy) is saying that no crime has been committed by Williamson and police time will not be wasted further. Where does that leave May’s decision to sack him?
Ref Huawei, Auntie has helpfully compiled a short programme expounding on the power of the Chinese organisation. Be very afraid etc There was included a simulation of the lights going out.
‘4/05/2019 GMT
Click
They are one of the biggest and most powerful technology companies in the world, but can we trust the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei? They have the equipment to run the next generation telecoms network – which will power everything from the superfast phones to smart homes and driverless cars – but as we come more reliant on this type of technology, concerns have grown about Huawei allowing this network to be used to spy on us and even shutting the country down. As the government prepares to make the decision about who will build the network in the UK, Click investigates one of the most important and controversial companies in the world.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmd5
Registration and signing in required.
I’ve recently installed an internet radio in my workshop. With a choice of thousands of news channels, I find myself drawn to to Radio Sputnik. At first I listened to obtain an alternative view on the news, but increasingly it’s because it treats me like I’m an educated adult. Sputnik offers in-depth discussions instead of sound bites; intelligent analysis instead of contradictory nonsense; opposing views instead of orchestrated hymn-sheet singing.
Sputnik respects my intelligence, the BBC insults it. I learn more from Sputnik’s propaganda than the BBC’s.
Agree, Node. Sputnik’s Loud and Clear podcast with Brian Becker and John Kiriakou (and guest commenters) is my daily must-listen.
What people who obsess about the BBC never seem to recognise is that the BBC is about a lot more than just news and current affairs coverage. What percentage of (for example) BBC Radio 4 airtime is given over to news and current affairs?
What the anti-BBC obsessives never come into the open about either is what they would like to see in the BBC’s place. That is because the truth is that they would like a BBC which toes the line that THEY happen to support, so nothing to do with “democracy” or “honest reporting” or any of the other slogans trotted out.
@CB, I’d be happy to try this approach for a couple of years
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/state-broadcaster-ert-shut-down-greece
and I suppose this /terrible quote/ in the URL from Dan Brown is the correct response to no BBC
http://www.christopherfowler.co.uk/blog/2009/09/20/i-have-to-get-to-a-library-fast/
Why do we need anything in its place? If, at the height of the debate about whether we should intervene in Syria, I want to look at a photo of “hundreds of child victims of a massacre by Bashir Assad in 2012” which is actually a photo of “hundreds of bodies unearthed from a mass grave in Iraq in 2003” I’m perfectly capable of doing that for myself. I don’t really need an eye-wateringly expensive, greedy and condescending middle-man to do it for me.
You are probably correct in that a fair number of people dislike the BBC because it does not reflect their personal opinions.
The BBC seem to be fully aware of this argument and have used it as a distraction in order to cover their descent into the gutter where they just spew lie after lie about substantially everything. The BBC is rotten to the core and due to its power and influence it acts as a conduit to metastasize its repugnant ideology throughout society.
Take just one example. Since 1954 The BBC has run something called Sports Personality of the Year where people get to select their favorite sports personality. 2018 saw the return of Tyson Fury to heavyweight boxing. T
his is a man that suffered from a range of mental health conditions, drug and alcohol abuse and who ballooned in weight to such an extent that he need to lose over 112 lbs, In December of last year he fought a world champion boxer (Deontay Wilder) to a draw – notably recovering after being knocked to the floor in the final round. Fury is reported to have donated his entire $6 million purse to homeless charities.
Fury;s performance in this fight earned him the recognition of Ring Magazine and World Boxing News (specialist boxing publications) and the WBC. The BBC acted to ensure that Tyson Fury was excluded from its shortlist of sporting candidates thus ensuring that the general public would have no opportunity to vote for him.
The shortlist consists of 6 people and it is not possible to make an argument that in 2018 the achievements of Tyson Fury were not at least in the top 6 of British sporting achievements.
You can go though every aspect of the BBC and find the same kind of sickening idiocy masquerading as impartial journalism.
Its not beholden for licence payers to say what should be in place of the BBC if anything at all.
It is beholden on BBC apologists to explain why we should be forced to pay for it and go to prison if we don’t.
I do think that, in general, it is for those who wish to change something to set out their stall and make their case. That is the way most reforms have been kicked off throughout history. That applies also to the BBC, in my opinion.
To put things the other way round, as Plum does, raises the suspicion that the anti-BBC brigade are prolific with their criticism of the existing state of affairs but have not thought any further about what the state of affairs should be in the future.
I note that a couple of people seem to be suggesting that the BBC should simply be abolished. Fair enough, but the question still remains : how should radio and TV broadcasting take place thereafter?
PP
Why should I be deemed to be able to afford the BBC I don’t watch when I get to 65? I was looking forward to watching many other things with news in them.
Who made that decision ? Very rich Tory politicians whose warped message is delivered by the beeb?
Something demonstrably less right-wing, Mr. B.
Given that many people (on the right) find the BBC demonstrably left-wing, one would have to start by deciding what we mean by “demonstrable” and who should get to decide whether something is “demonstrable”.
Well as it’s allegedly a ‘ Public Broadcasting ‘ Corporation it would be useful if the ‘ Public ‘ were consulted as to what is broadcasted.
That means having members of the ‘ public’ having an input into what is ‘ broadcasted ‘
Everyone talks about the Propaganda.
Propoganda is not just about what is said and how it is said – it is about what is not said and discussed.
This is known as ‘ Lying by omission.
The BBC does this beautifully.
Charles Bostock
May 4, 2019 at 11:16
The BBC has been infiltrated by the Common Purpose Group and has been for a number of years.Which came out of Exegesis Cult which used EST created by Werner Erhard.You can trace all the brainwashing methods right back to Esalen Institute
with input from the Stanford Research Institute.We knew all about this in the early 1970`s.These are facts.
This is Illuminati-type conspiracy crap. It does not merit my response (unlike Ken Kenn’s post).
“The BBC coverage has been, systematically and undoubtedly deliberately, utilising shots that create a completely false impression of the numbers at the conference.”
Same thing at the general election of 2017.
@CM
This has to be your saddest blog entry to date. Is this really all you care about?
Yes Goodwin. This is all he cares about. That is why he has made several hundred blog posts, of which this is precisely one.
Apart from that, great comment.
What became of my reply to Goodwin/Stonky? It seemed to post OK. The comment was justified, and I can’t see how it broke any site rules, if indeed it was removed. Shall I upload it again?
Only those who were born and live in Scotland should be allowed to vote on them future of Scotland no Incomers should be allowed a vote it is not their country pure and simple in the last ind., ref., 80 per cent of Incomers voted no thus helping to overturn the true Scots vote for yes this must not be allowed to happen again also no postal votes as that is open house for fraud re Davidson stating the results live on air before they were supposed to be counted in England and I want exit polls we must close every way that is opeop to deny the true Scots their voice if we do not implicate these things they will exploit again and we will lose again
No, Mr Paterson, a thousand times no. While I understand your frustration with some of those who chose to live here, your argument is aimed at the wrong people.
I was born and brought up in England. In 2002 I chose to come to live in Scotland. Since that time I have reached the conclusion that it would be best for Scotland to be a normal independent country.
I supported and campaigned for Scottish independence in 2014. I argued that independence for Scotland would also be good for democracy for our friends and neighbours in England. I am still active.
I am not alone. I have spoken to many English people who voted No in 2014 and who are now seriously considering voting Yes.
It’s the Don’t Knows that we need to persuade.
Or in other words let’s deny all immigrants the right to vote.
Like the English did when they denied Eu citizens their right to vote in the Tory/Lib Dem. Angst referendum I suppose.
Making the same mistakes as the subjects down south will not be a good idea, Blair, do you really want to copy the deep alienation that now exist in England?
Only those who were born and live in Scotland should be allowed to vote
That excludes the writer of this blog BP. Nice one.
I understand the normal process in any national voting franchise may be more likely to be determined to some extent by parental descent and if one or both of our parents are a ‘national’ of the country concerned then we have a case to register for a vote in that country irrespective of where we may be born. However a residence-based franchise for a national election or national referendum, and more especially one on the critical issue of national self-determination, seems to be unique to Scotland. We might wish to consider why that is the case.
Some describe the latter unique and somewhat altruistic approach to be a kind of ‘civic nationalism’, others claim that it is naïve and akin to shooting oneself in the foot (i.e. by asking ‘peoples’ from other nations, including many from a nation’s ‘administrative power’, to vote on the self-determination of another ‘people’). On the key question of our preferred national identity, which is what a Scottish independence referendum is primarily about, the Yes/No answer is inevitably largely determined by one’s culture (influenced by language, social class/background, national heritage etc.) and hence our related emotions. Given Scotland’s population census data and voting intention data for different groups it does appear that perhaps as much as 50% or more of No voters in 2014 (i.e. some one million voters or thereabouts) were either not Scottish or did/do not consider themselves to be Scottish (by culture/heritage or as ‘nationals’). That No vote also rejected the referendum offer that was being given to them of Scottish citizenship and Scottish nationality, hence No voters effectively rejected and blocked being ‘Scottish’ in any meaningful sense such as for instance gaining international recognition for Scottish nationality and Scottish citizenship. The Yes vote on the other hand appears to have been predominantly supported by those primarily of Scottish culture/heritage and who clearly did seek to create and enjoy Scottish citizenship and Scottish nationality as one reasonably might expect. As language is the basis of culture this is reflected in the probability that the vast majority of Yes voters speak Scots in one form or another, whilst the same perhaps cannot be said for the No vote. Holyrood offers a useful illustration, with nationalist MSP’s almost 100% Scots speakers whilst unionist MSP’s are possibly around 50:50 Scots/English in linguistic terms. in summary, the unique residence-based voter franchise probably cost Scotland its independence in 2014.
Want to know more about the BBC? Try this.
Someone called Dharshini David is the BBC Senior Economics Respondent. On May 2nd she reported “Today the Bank of England’s Governor admitted to me that rates are likely to rise faster than markets expect, So when can we expect the first move? My analysis for BBC Business”
At no point in this analysis does Ms David mention that in June 2014 the very same Governor of the BoE advised that “interest rates would rise sooner than markets expect” At no point was this issue raised by the BBC with the BoE.
However Ms David gets right to the heart of educating the public regarding the complexities of monetary policy by reporting that the BoE press conference was notable for the “perhaps unprecedented number of female hacks…taken a while but face of financial journalism is changing, all the better to reflect our audiences”
‘Scottish independence march in Glasgow’:
https://www.facebook.com/RTUKnews/?__tn__=%2CdkC-R&eid=ARBZ73Sw_MEHWnN-hVyLTfdnlqznuFFv8_spd46i7DfOXZtl7V4DU4PD0jwomVQ66hbHroO9YqL4DkGs&hc_ref=ARRgPFmqHtw_yRlx8W0kRD70Z9gBoHGTNpLgMPTIk8AXRs6MTV7KFhWm7Tb3c3KhLPk
Live RT feed.
The BBC say 35,000 people attended.
Thousands take part in independence march
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48154679
Talk about selective quotations! The BBC figure on the link you provided was last years.
The BBC link I gave is timed for today and has been updated 1 hr ago.
Hope the march went well for all you Scots living under the yoke of the ‘union’.
“Finally, here is a statistic to cheer you up. The 1,200 plus Tory councillors who have just lost their seats in the English local elections represent precisely an astonishing 1% of the entire membership of the Tory Party. Not of Tory councillors, 1% of all Tory members just lost their job. That is a very happy thought.”
That reminds of a joke (usually associated with dead lawyers):
Q: What do you call 1200+ Tory councillors who have lost their seats?
A: A good start.
@ Yonatan May 4, 2019 at 14:08
On the other hand, it could be a good recruiting angle: Join the Tories! You have at least 1 chance in a hundred of getting a cushy job with ‘perks’.
I found it more depressing to contemplate that they still have over 3000 councilors. Why do people still keep voting for cuts?
This is a often repeated method by many broadcasters to change perceptions of size. I recall a similar technique used in the Owen Smith/Corbyn battle for the Labour Party leadership. Smith’s threadbare meetings (often attended by barely 50 people) were made to look like a large crowd in order to create a non-existent surge of support. Corbyn’s meetings typically had thousands of supporters.
TV producers also use sound techniques to change perceptions. Ambient microphones plus a subtle amount of reverb can make a hut sound like the Albert Hall, and close miking with bone dry ambience can make a large meeting sound like a much smaller gathering. This kind of manipulation has been going on for years.
The BBC has always been one of the main weapons in the British Establishment’s arsenal. None of this should surprise anyone; it’s been going on for decades.
What is surprising is that some people only deem it important when it counters their own particular causes or beliefs. OK, it’s not that surprising, just disappointing.
It is a huge (possibly deliberate) mistake to conflate BBC bias with Left or Right wing ideology – it’s a tool for TPTB to manipulate the rest of us. While we’re fighting among ourselves, they win.
The current “Tory” leadership is not conservative, it is liberal and globalist.
It’s the BBC’s job to put an equals sign between the major parties.
The Tories have a ‘challenging ‘ problem at the current time.
Labour are equally challenged they say.
One is true and the other is a matter of nuance.
Labour’s nuanced position is awkward but the Tories are heading for meltdown ( particularly if no deal isn’t ‘done ‘ ) and the BBC’s job as they are Cameronists is to keep the Tory Party together otherwise it’s death.
This is not a Remain v Leave problem for the Tories it’s about keeping the Tory Party together for the future otherwise they will split disastrously.
My view is simple – get to the EU elections fight Farage and bury the Tories.
As I’ve said previously genuinely progressive parties may form a government in the future – that is Labour and the SNP.
The enemy is the Tories and every progressive should make sure that the Tories are literaly buried.
The bigger the shovel used – the happier I am.
The Lib Dem result is equivalent to a move away but more like a trowel but it’s a move away from the nasty right.
Random comment
Liberal and
Globalist?
In ordinary speech liberal means tolerant and global means outreaching to foreign countries.
By what sleight of sloganism has globalism come to mean 30 years of continual war against Europe’s Muslim neighbours and liberalism meant intolerance of all foreigners including our closest Ireland and France?
Four videos on this link from the AUOB march today.
https://livestream.com/IndependenceLive
Speaking about propaganda, anyone know the reason for the alleged palestinian attack on Israel, because that is how it is presented in the media now. Palestinians rarely start sending off rockets just like that, I wonder if this is a retaliation for something Israel did earlier.
A lot of carping and moaning from the usual suspects but the point is well made. It is not the job of the BBC to give a false impression of the attendance for a Scottish Tories conference and by inference an impression of it being more popular than it actually is. If anything their job should be to provide an accurate impression of proceedings. Clearly they did not do so.
On other matters, the BBC faked an atrocity in Syria which was the fictional subject of a (what does one call a faked documentary?) television programme called Saving Syria’s Children. It aired as Cameron’s government was seeking to gain parliamentary approval for bombing Syria. Robert Stuart has pursued this doggedly in the intervening years and is crowd funding his own documentary: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/saving-syria-s-children-did-the-bbc-lie#/
Recent Talk Radio interview here: https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1556884800# (Select the 15:00 – 15:30 segment and then listen from 04:50 to 17:24)
Very good pint J, the BBC should be neutral.
The BBC’s fake Syria story is in a different league, outright war propaganda shown on Panorama, as demonstrated by Robert Stuart. It makes the Conservative conference manipulation look pathetic in comparison.
I hope the money is raised to expose this scandal , which must have taken considerable planning.
I have contributed.
The BBC is a major substation of MI6 and numerous spooks are embedded.
Most UK organisation embed spooks. London medicine is littered with them, KPMG is an organised spying front and everyone knows that major US banks are conduits of CIA policy and money laundering.
You literally cannot rise in most organisations without becoming a peeping tom.
Jaggar
You are absolutely right, but you forgot to mention organised religion (one in ten Church of England vicars are govt spies), the teaching profession (one in five), the advertising profession (one in three) and the security services (all of them).
The rise and role of the ‘presenter’in hosting and presenting news programmes has morphed into the ‘doctor’ or ‘dentist’ who advertises products – professional and knowing but entirely fake. White teeth, White coats, White helmets.
Is there any difference between activism and journalism these days? And, if so, where does one find it?
I am sure I had a bigger garden shed at one point in time than that room for the British Tory party in Scotland.
I also had some garden gnomes in the shed that had a greater aura of competence about them. Also I guess garden gnomes will never lie either.
I would vote for the garden gnome party before the Tories.
What is their manifesto?
“The front row has 24 seats, the second 26, the third 28, the fourth 32 (sic), the fifth 34 and the sixth 36. That is a total of 180 seats.”
How come Craig includes a “sic” for the fourth row, capacity 32? Is there some reason the reader might otherwise think it was a typo?
—
[ Mod: The progression from 28 to 32 breaks the simple “add 2” rule applying to the rest of the sequence, and “(sic)” – i.e. “written like that deliberately” – indicates that a 30-seat row hasn’t been omitted accidentally. ]
Very solicitous.
Makes you wonder what they do with votes. Apparently the word Brexit and an arrow are enough to infer a Tory vote. Doesn’t surprise me what with the average age and intelligence there.
Another bit of BBC fakery was over the ‘Extinction Rebellion’ protests. I was astonished how limited they actually were. On a visit to London, admittedly mid-week, I had been bracing myself for a Westminster that would be virtually impassable and cordoned off. Not a bit of it – there were probably more police than protesters at the sites in Parliament Square and Waterloo Bridge, and even in the small cordoned off areas it was spot-the-activist.
Sharp Ears said the bbC are saying 35,000.. The bbC can Fuck off with that Lie.
Try the police estimates at 150.000..It was HUGE..Stunning Example of peaceful March.
Craig Gave a Great Storming speech..Interrupted by Hundreds of the Yes Bikers, and by my Daughter..
So; in two parts,, Craig peaks –
Part One –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C6Jv_OLEcs&t=81s
Part Two –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_7VeNaulBE&t=9s
Cheers Brian. I knew you would do those for us.
I am shocked but not surprised at the BBC’s gross under estimate of the march numbers, ie a quarter of the actual number.
The YouTube videos supplied by Fuji-san don’t allow watchers t get any sort of idea of the size of the audience listening to him, How come ?
That’s Because Mr Charlatan………………. YOU HAVEN’T WATCHED THEM
Thanks for linking and taking Craigs excellent speech Brian, much appreciated.
The billionaire peers of the realm, aristocrats and nobility understand too many crevices in the aegis and the bastion crumbles. Thus far the main weapon of disinformation; ‘Auntie’ must continue developing, the ‘official narrative’ poisoning that posits truth is relative and the facts must always fit the Establishments official narrative. Even when that narrative keeps changing…
Great men have the antidote to that ‘poisoning, that pollution, subversion and Craig heads my hero list along with ‘gender neutral’ boxing champion and bug finder Admiral Alan West who unraveled the Syria Douma chemical attack as a ruse and exposed the ‘white helmets’ as propaganda robots. Bravo! HMS Junu/Ardent Alan and Bravo Craig! We are constantly in your debt.
The facts are embraced admirably, graciously and perfectly in this ‘Auntie’ display: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foj29LIXpy4
The stooge/harpie there is Annita McVeigh. She normally shouts the script out and I once wrote to the programme to complain about her presentation.
How vain can somebody be? https://twitter.com/annita_mcveigh/status/1123951472088109056
The BBC lot are up their own *****.
I remember the days of ‘school governor’ when most seem to shout their message mostly to gain advantage for their own kids… (retweets are not endorsements).
I wouldn’t dream of ‘bigging myself up’ in that way. How superficial and, as you say, vain. Coincidentally, something that I have long said about Theresa May is that we might well be better off if she spent more time thinking about the things that matter to the country than deciding what outfit and co-ordinating accessories to wear each day and obviously spending an age on having her hair and make up done. Someone needs to remind her that it’s actions not appearance that win votes. I don’t agree with Angela Merkel’s politics but I think she gets the balance right. And before I am accused of being sexist, I am a woman!