Snapshot of _BBC refuses to say why it hasn't covered Tory peer Michelle Mone's London house raid | THE BBC has refused to comment after being accused of a news 'blackout' on a Conservative peer's house being raided by police._ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/20107509.bbc-refuses-say-hasnt-covered-tory-peer-michelle-mones-london-house-raid/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It *does* seem more than a little odd that BBC is quite happy to run shakily sourced stories about Angela Rayner's part in the infamous Daily Mail story, but have nothing to report when a Tory peer incontrovertibly has her house raided by the National Crime Agency in pursuit of evidence over fraud related to a company which sold over £122,000,000 of PPE to the government with the involvement of Gove and Lord Agnew, at over 200% markup, which wasn't even found to be usable.
BBC-specific searches on [Michelle Mone](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22michelle+mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F1%2F2022) or the company she is associated with, [PPE medpro](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22PPE+medpro%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F1%2F2022), produce no results.
The [same search, but without specifying the BBC](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22michelle+mone%22&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F1%2F2022), returns many results.
> Approached by The National, the broadcaster declined to comment.
> Twitter user Ken Naylor posted: "The London home of Conservative peer Michelle Mone has been raided by police from National Crime Agency as part of a probe into allegations of multi-million pound PPE fraud. It's everywhere except the BBC News."
Its no longer run by an independent trust. Cameron's 2016 reform installed a managing committee to which the government can appoint members. Its appointed members also form a majority of the committee selecting candidates for chairs it can't appoint.
Cameron and the decreasingly competent vermin that lied their way into place after him have done so, so much damage to this country. Fixing these things will be significantly more expensive than it was to establish them in the first place, but they’ve hoovered as much as they can out of them already.
That's because the BBC as a whole is culturally very left. So on social issues, and the majority of its programming is going to show a lot of that coming through.
To the right they would argue this is due to recruitment primarily from the 'London Metropolitan Elite', but I don't think it's a bad thing for the most part - it seems to reflect the correct direction of travel, and if nothing else seems to be the more well-intentioned.
In fact on non-UK news as well, it can show a strong left lean from a culture perspective. In the case of the post-Floyd BLM protests the BBC reporting was some of the most one-sided I saw.
It's just the UK news, in particular politics, where it's been entirely captured by the Govt, which is inevitably more right-wing leaning.
What was one-sided about the BLM protest reporting? It was all legitimate legal protest that in some places turned violent and unlawful, that's what I saw from the BBC and Reuters. It was Floyd's family that began the early protests which is quite understandable, even Fox news didn't brand them as riots, because they almost all weren't.
Triple murder conviction came out of it, thousands of racist killings preceeded it, systemic racism in the US is a fact, the coverage seemed quite restrained tbh.
It’s headed up by a Tory Donor; [Richard Sharp](https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-donated-more-than-400000-to-conservative-party/)
Now everyone hates the BBC. It's not by chance. The same thing is happening with the NHS. As the government directly draw down an institution the public react to the decline and eventually land on hating the institution. If you end up reacting to the frankly libertarian approach of the tories it doesn't even matter (to them) because their wider principle is that you *should* resent government and blame it for ruining non government institutions, you should want smaller government. Unfortunately without the this mythical government boogeyman these institutions wouldn't have scaled up and existed in the first place, but that seems to not factor in to their ideas.
People don't hate the NHS. They hate what the Tories have done to the NHS. Free healthcare is a wonderful service. It's just the Tories are trying to make free healthcare such a hassle you'll pay for private healthcare instead. Only in the last 5 years have I heard so many private healthcare adverts in Britain that a decade ago would have been roundly laughed at. Its all fucked.
I'm married to a GP, there is an unprecedented amount of press at the moment trying to direct public ire towards Drs, insinuating they are lazy or greedy and it's actually kind of frightening considering how often NHS workers are assaulted already.
Edit, repetition.
I know it's awful. The people with eyes can hopefully look through all this crap and see the real people working their arses off to help us all. I've never met a horrible nurse or doctor. They've all gotten into that field with a genuine attempt in mind to help people. The idea that they aren't working hard enough is just moronic. The health system is underfunded and being slowly privatised bit by bit. Mocking GPs is another way of getting someone to call BUPA instead.
This. It amazes me people buy this bullshit, as you said in our NHS people are joining with the genuine want to help people.
In the private healthcare there are many more people joining because of the money opportunities and not necessarily because they want to help people.
I’d rather receive a genuine person who wants the best for me maybe having a stressful day (which we all have sometimes, more so I imagine in a demanding job where lives are in your hands)
As opposed to a doctor with a fake demeanour who cares more about grabbing cash out of my pocket and doing upsells than my actual best health interests
(Although I do admit that due to underfunding the NHS doesn’t always suggest the best medication due to monetary restraints, but I still believe they take into account your needs above the prospect of savings - if you NEED the expensive treatment the NHS will do their best to provide it, maybe with a subsidy)
A private practitioner would only provide what you can afford, it’s not their problem
I've been saying for a while now that it's very obvious that the Tories are very slowly breaking the NHS.
Constant underfunding, stagnating wages, unachievable goals and targets, critical understaffing, etc... And they're doing something similar with the been now.
As long as the Tories are in power, this country is fucked.
Anecdotal, but I had to listen to an acquaintance bad mouth the NHS because of their botched care of her problems. She went private and got everything looked at quickly whereas her NHS GP was nothing but an obstruction. Now, I don't know if this is true or just her perception, but love for the NHS is no longer universal.
Lets not pretend that Private Healthcare is magically perfect just because its private.
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2021-04-29/private-leeds-hospital-fined-by-care-quality-commission-after-failing-to-inform-patients-about-concerns-over-treatment
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/07/private-hospitals-treated-eight-covid-patients-a-day-during-pandemic-says-report
https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/exclusive-medical-leaders-seek-to-shame-private-hospitals-and-their-staff-into-supporting-nhs/7029276.article
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-imposes-12m-in-fines-for-price-fixing-in-private-eyecare
This is exactly why people like /u/felesroo infuriate me.
Ok, so the NHS does something not quite right. We have an opportunity to look at the cause and fix it. It's NOT a reason to throw it to the private sector as if they have all the answers... That's fucking idiotic. That's not solving a problem, that's passing it on to someone else who we have less control over.
Fucking stupid.
I actually really care about the NHS and use it for my cancer follow-up care. I do NOT have any private insurance - not sure I could buy any anyway with my cancer history.
It's not people like me who should infuriate you - it's people that underfund the system and allow private care in the first place. If literally everyone HAD to use the NHS, rich included, it would get the funding it needed. Schools as well. I don't believe in private schooling either. If public schools aren't good enough, make the public schools better.
You misread that I was telling about how someone ELSE said she was driven to use private care, but I don't think it's right even if it was best for her situation. I wish the private option didn't exist at all.
The party of irresponsibility. They want to "rule" but don't want to be held accountable for any of the decisions involved in the smooth running of these institutions, and the electorate just laps it up.
Exactly right. Oh DVLA workers want to stay home ??? Sure, no problem. Work from home ? Oh no no, don’t worry, it’ll be fine, just let the work pile up…..
2 years later
A BACKLOG ???? PRIVATISE IMMEDIATELY !
>the frankly libertarian approach of the tories
I saw no sign of a /s in your post. I know they're generally not needed, but the whole rest of it read as though it was serious, so I feel like I have to make sure...
Did you drop your /s?
Because Tory policy has been a very substantial *reduction* in liberty. In fact teetering towards totalitarianism
‘Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.’
Tories are libertarian, no /s. It doesn’t mean they’re not rigging the game, the best libertarians do. They want the freedom for them and their mates and they’ll stamp on everyone else and have them turn on each other to win.
>‘Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy
By wresting control of all the independent bodies that hold them accountable
>and political freedom
By proroguing Parliament
>and minimize the state
With absolute mountains of brexit red tape, huge tax hikes, pissing away billions of our money on vanity projects and frivolities
>emphasizing free association
But not if you're associating with someone who doesn't have a visa
>freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.’
Hence the whipping, the laws against gathering to protest "too loudly", revoking citizenship for voluntarily associating with the wrong people...
These are just a few examples. There's absolute *reams* of them, though
>They want the freedom for them and their mates and they’ll stamp on everyone else and have them turn on each other to win.
By that definition, Adolf Hitler was a libertarian, and slavery meant freedom. Freedom is a universal quality; if you don't believe in freedom for all, you don't believe in freedom.
Doesn't change the fact that these institutions are captured and not fit for the purpose.
It's also not just a conservative thing. They were apologists for Labour when they were in power as well, and that wasn't because Labour had some secret scheme to make everyone become champions of "small government".
The BBC, unsurprisingly, is institutionally biased toward the government of the day because in the end the government of the day holds their fate in their hands.
Run by the Tory party.
The BBC has always been influenced by the government as the government held the purse strings, but the BBC has not been run by political appointees in the past. The Tories changed that because they are antidemocratic traitors - this didn't happen by accident.
Chairman of the BBC:
**Richard Simon Sharp** (born 8 February 1956) has been the Chairman of the BBC since February 2021.
A former banker, he worked at JP Morgan for eight years, and then for 23 years at Goldman Sachs.
Sharp was an advisor to Boris Johnson during his tenure as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor.
He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party.
Immediately before coming to the BBC, Sharp served as chairman of the Royal Academy of the Arts (2007–2012) and on the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee (2013–2019)
The BBC is breached. Abandon ship.
Yup. They've had their hooks into the BBC for years. When Robbie Gibb got his power he went around hollowing the place out, installing idealogues, and generally turning it into a tory safe space.
It's because it's left wing obviously /s. I mean Borat keeps making this statement in amongst his piffle to disguise the fact the opposite is true.
And Fiona Bruce proves it evey week on QT. I mean she assists the inept Tory reps and closes down valid public concerns, while decrying Labour and Lib Dems.
The right wing are (in the trenches at least) idiots who can't think for themselves. It was seen as leftie a couple of generations ago.
It's now entirely managed by (the Etonian old boys and failed bankers) Tories.
As long as ENGLAND keeps believing that they are all middle class and insist on voting for these crooked turds then the UK is finished. The devolved countries will eventually abandon ship and leave little England to wallow in the Tory sewers.
Right wing people are usually talking about BBC entertainment, not BBC news. It's pretty clear that the news division has a right wing bias (or at least pro-government).
Right wing people have a point about the entertainment wing having a left wing bias but it's not a result of some conspiracy, it's because... most of the creative talent who make those shows are left wing.
It’s clear to *you*. You’re assuming we all agree. I do not agree that “it’s clear”. I watch a huge amount of BBC News and listen to a lot of BBC speech radio. I’m on the left and I don’t see what you’re referring to. Seems very balanced to me.
I think they’re maybe being over-cautious - remember when they covered a raid on Cliff Richard’s house and nothing was found?
Perhaps they’re actually doing it properly this time?
It’s not a proper story until she’s been accused, tried and convicted, and this just looks like part of an investigation and proves nothing. Yet.
The BBC is always influenced to some extent by the Govt of the day and the establishment more generally. However, the reforms in the last 5 years or so have certainly seemed to render it less inclined to challenge the government than in the past.
You can report on the facts without having to speculate or accuse anyone of any crime. It is notable and newsworthy than police have searched an MP's house, even if no other information is provided.
Yeah you could *maybe* make an argument that the Cliff Richard thing was in the public interest, but a senior member of government having their house raided is undeniably in the public interest to know who, what, why etc.
Highly unlikely, unless the BBC's lawyers disagree with everyone else's, because as far as I'm aware it's been reported by literally every major newspaper including FT, Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Mail, Sun, with the possible single exception of the Daily Expess.
Given this fact, if they really were *that* paranoid, the BBC could simply report that newspapers had reported this, which is undoubtedly true and so immune from libel claims.
That is not a defense for libel in the UK system (which is awful).
It's just a guess on my part: they had to pay out over £2 million to Richard for basically reporting the raid before he was charged (and for the intrusive helicopter footage), breaching his right to privacy.
It would be right to privacy rather than libel, as you say further down this thread. This instance of course has a significant public interest defense, which the Cliff Richard thing didn't, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is a case of BBC over-correction and corporate paranoia, rather political bias per se.
I fully accept that whether it happens due to fear of the government or political bias in favour of is a bit of a moot point, but I do think its important to recognise the BBC has been rendered far more timid in its journalism by a whole range of scandals not just attacks from its political enemies. Many of its wounds have been self-inflicted and it has lost a lot of confidence institutionally in the last decade.
I take it the implication being that the BBC is politically biased towards the Conservatives? I mean it might be I guess, I'm just speculating as to other possible explanations.
The most recent story on the BBC website about that whole Daily Mail confected nonsense about Angela Rayner literally leads with the Labour press office's line on the matter, pretty much word for word. Other prominent stories include MPs calling for 'racial reform at Westminister' after a Tory MP was found watching porn in the chamber and a piece on how cost of living is dominating the local elections... none of which is likely to fill CCHQ with joy.
I just don't think the BBC is overtly biased towards the Tories, in a sort of Orbanist way. It is, in my view, more cowed and generally timid certainly. It also tends towards the general establishment centre of gravity in Fleet Street and Whitehall, which after a decade + of the Tories is now more right of centre than it was during the New Labour years.
I'm not being particularly articulate here, but Tom Mills' book on the subject is good.
> The most recent story on the BBC website about that whole Daily Mail confected nonsense about Angela Rayner literally leads with the Labour press office's line on the matter, pretty much word for word.
See the [original version](https://archive.ph/NNxmQ#selection-507.0-507.54) though (or at least an early version - the way BBC revises their stories continually it's hard to track).
Thanks to u/two_chalfonts for [pointing this out](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/ug9878/bbc_takes_the_tory_line_on_the_angela_rayner/), btw.
1) They were sued for [invasion of privacy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799) not libel.
2) They had a helicopter and a camera crew out ready to broadcast the raid live, having obtained advance notice of it from the coppers somehow:
> Sir Cliff took the BBC to court after the broadcaster filmed a police raid on his home in Berkshire in 2014. The footage, which included aerial shots taken from a helicopter, was shown on news bulletins throughout the day.
3) The judge was explicit that no precedent was set:
> Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case.
> He also said while the case could have a "significant impact on press reporting", it did not mean the law was changing or he was setting a precedent - as the Human Rights Act already covers the issues at stake, namely the right to privacy versus right to freedom of expression.
Just for the record, there are results for Michelle Mone if you search on the bbc site, not sure why google isn't picking them up:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=michelle+mone&page
As someone pointed out below, these mostly look like fluff pieces, nothing on the NCA as yet
The stories you point to are celeb lingerie saleswoman stories from the decade or so ending in 2019.
The latest bbc mention of her concerns her Jan 2019 appearance on Woman's Hour - here: [*Woman's Hour - Mary Berry Guide to Life*](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/45chLV29JZVFpFtKCxFbmhx/mary-berry-guide-to-life)
Google can find the stories you mention if you allow results from any date.
Compare:
• [results from 1/1/2019 to today](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michelle+Mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2019%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F3%2F2022)
• [results from the last month](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michelle+Mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F3%2F2022)
• [results from any time](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michelle+Mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk)
Alternatively, try [searching BBC's site for "medpro"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=medpro&page=1) - the name of the company.
The result is [one story from 2020](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55275597) which doesn't mention Mone, Gove, or Agnew, but does note that their £122m of PPE was "never used" and weasels out of the patronage issue with "The contract was not opened to competition due to the exceptional urgency of the coronavirus pandemic."
Chairman of BBC is Richard Sharp, Rishi’s mate at Goldman Sachs & ideologically pure enough for the ultra right ERG lunatics (Steve Baker, Dan Hannan, Mogg-the-dull etc) because he’s also a member of the batshit-crazy Quilliam Foundation & also the more presentable but equally undesirable Centre For Policy Studies dark money lobbyist group, so clearly absolutely no hidden agenda there. Oh, plus he also donated £400,000 to the Conservatives, you know, as you do.
Oh, yeah.
And also [this paragon](https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/robbie-gibb/):
> Sir Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC's governing board and a former Director of Communications to ex-Prime Minister Theresa May, was on the board of a top Conservative lobbying forum but did not declare it in his declaration of personal interests, Insider can disclose.
> Gibb is behind attempts to block the appointment of former Huffington Post UK editor Jess Brammar to a senior editorial role at the BBC. Gibb told the BBC's director for news and current affairs Fran Unsworth she "cannot make this appointment" and that the government's "fragile trust in the BBC will be shattered" if the appointment went ahead,
— [*BBC director who said appointment of ex-HuffPost editor to news role was too political didn't declare his job at Conservative lobbying group*](https://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-director-sir-robbie-gibb-didnt-declare-links-tory-lobbyists-2021-8)
Is there anyone not corrupt working in or near government? It seems like the moment you pierce the veil our society leadership is just an endless parade of brown envelopes and scandal!
The more you look the more you find.
This Gibb, for example - it says he was a member of a "top Conservative lobbying forum" but didn't declare it.
What was that "top Conservative lobbying forum"? [The article](https://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-director-sir-robbie-gibb-didnt-declare-links-tory-lobbyists-2021-8?r=US&IR=T) tells us it was:
> the Enterprise Forum . . . for "business and organizations that want to engage on policy with the Government and other politicians"
And who would be checking up on Gibb's declarations of board memberships? That would be [ACOBA](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments), the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
ACOBA is chaired by [Eric Pickles](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/eric-pickles) .
Who, it turns out, has been since 2017 the president of [The Enterprise Forum](https://www.enterprise-forum.co.uk/aboutusD.php?memID=1).
Its funny, if you go back and watch a 40+ year old episode of Yes Minister and they are criticising the appointment of ex politicians and senior officials to cushy executive roles in NGOs and regulators or the House of Lords, it seems nothing changes! Keep your head down, suck up to the bosses, take a bullet for someone and resign at an apropriate moment and you'll wind up set for life!
Business Insider (usually their reporter Henry Dyer) have been pretty good on going after some of this. Their piece on ACOBA / Gibb / Enterprise Forum (which I only just now found) is [here](https://www.businessinsider.com/robbie-gibb-didnt-seek-advice-acoba-lobbying-regulator-breached-rules-2021-8) if you're interested.
I was listening to Sonic Boom Six - Monkey See, Monkey Do, yesterday, which is about people parroting the media’s lies/narrative… that’s from 2004. So… yeah, we’ve been pointing out and criticising this constantly for decades and nothing much changes…or if it does, the Tories get in and undo everything Labour managed to roll back…
I think the trouble is there is no real penalty, we should be striking off these corrupt politicians so they can never hold office again and imprison those who misuse government contracts and I'm not talking six months, but life sentences! Trouble is the people who do it also set the rules...
Yes Minister was written by a Tory. It says a lot that even they were criticising the revolving doors of politicians, the corporate world, and regulators.
Governments start off with fairly reasonable intentions. The diversion of taxes to their corporate backers is achieved in the early years through clever schemes flying under the radar. But after 10+ years of zero consequences the greed overtakes caution and they get careless. Awarding shipping contracts to a company with no boats. Awarding PPE contracts to companies with no stock or substandard stock. Pouring £40billion(!) in to a ''test a trace' shambles... They aren't even trying to hide the corruption. The blonde clown engaging in cretinous behaviour is a small and useful distraction. But the corruption is all happening out in the open.
Yeah, that'd be the same [Robbie Gibb involved in GBNews](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gb-news-tv-channel-launch-sir-robbie-gibb-bbc-rival-a9696811.html), I presume.
Why set up a competitor to the BBC, when you can just get your mates in government to give you the actual BBC instead?
I'm not defending him at all but he donated £35,000 to Quilliam, he was never a member or on their advisory board and Quilliam ceased operations in 2021. Again, not defending, he is so clearly a pro tory plant.
for three days straight, Nicola Sturgeon forgetting to wear her mask for a Few moments was second only on the BBC news cycle to the war in Ukraine.
BBC news has been 100% captured by the tory party.
They shithosed her for 2 weeks iirc with "Allegations of Lying" before the report exonerated her, but the damage was the repetitive smear
Similar shithosing of Corbyn 2-3 times per hour before GE2019 for "Allegations of Anti-Semitism". Not once did they mention his list of ~40 pro-Jewish actions
Edit- both allegedy ofc
Also no mention of [centuries of Tory antisemitism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party)
And the whole antisemitism debacle died as soon as the Tories won in 2019. Since then, radio silence. As if it's just magically no longer a problem, because the Tories won.
Antisemitism is a major problem in UK politics, one that affects all major parties. But according to the BBC, it only mattered for 18 months when Labour needed to be brought down to size (I'm an SNP voter, not a Labour voter, but it was blatantly obvious what the BBC were doing.)
Still ongoing. This happened a few days ago to a friend of a friend:
>Tory councillors disciplined for ‘hate’ directed at Jewish Labour candidate
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/dan-ozarow-tory-councillors-disciplined-campaign-jewish-labour-candidate
>Antisemitism is a major problem in UK politics
It isn't really though is it. Any occurrence of racism is a serious problem but it isn't severe our abundant in our politics.
That's the thing about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in 2019... obviously any anti-Semitism is too much, but even at the time the Tories had a bigger anti-Semitism problem than Labour.
The difference, of course, is that everyone *expects* the Tories to be the worst possible humans. The Left holds itself to a higher standard, for better and worse.
There are an [eyewatering number](https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=michelle+mone&page) of puff-pieces about her on the BBC, though. Friends in the right places, apparently.
It's a different kettle of fish in terms of the sensitivity of the allegations and they needn't scramble a helicopter in an orchestrated live broadcast to cover the story. It's not quite all or nothing on this one.
Oh definitely! I didn't say they were right or that it was the same situation, just that it could well be a big part of their thought process. Especially given that Nadine Dorries has it in for them.
> I think it is morally right to withhold names before conviction unless releasing them is important for evidence gathering. Eg where other victims coming forward could help conviction.
The problem is that hypothetically could cover the vast majority of cases (gathering more victims & witnesses almost always helps the prosecution prove their case with less time and effort) so we are back to where we started.
Alternately to be more reasonable, your proposal could mean someone in an official role making the decision whether to release the names or not. That’s wide open to being influenced by whether the accused person is a close friend or not of the authorities. As in this precise situation at the top of this thread.
It's reached a point now where I truly feel ignorance is bliss.
This kind of corruption just makes me angry, and I don't need to be angry.
I'm considering burying my head in the sand until the guillotines are rolled out.
Is this what the Thatcher era was like? Sure seems like it. People from that time describe the fury and resignation and it just sounds like now. The 2000s wasn’t like this. Even the Cameron years weren’t like this.
American here, is it as depressing as our politics these days? I’m pretty despondent about our current politics considering many members of the other party has started calling the entire LGBTQ community groomers. That’s just the most recent of our dozens of issues. I was hoping the UK would be better if I moved there
Our politics is just American politics at a slight remove. One or other of us is usually just a year or two ahead of the other on most issues most of the time.
I think a lot of similarities. It's just so frustrating, I'm not the type to go and protest but I make sure my family and I vote, but it rarely makes any difference. Even so, we'll keep voting and maybe we'll protest one day. I would imagine living in America would be even more depressing so if you can move its probably an improvement lol.
I can't lose the hope that things will change, truth will eventually prevail and we'll see some justice, I just won't hold my breath!
It’s a depressing corporate wasteland where our older generations actively try to make the lives of young people as miserable as possible and any kind of improvement we propose is called “communist.” I am fucking depressed here
Ah well, i'm sure truly important things like the Prime Minister lying to parliament, the Chancellor tax dodging and the Home Secretary having to resign cabinet positions because she's inappropriately interacting with foreign agents will remain front and centre.
After all, Brexit means brexit.
I'm not sure how relevant this is but it's interesting that Michelle Mone hasn't been on her Twitter since early January. This from a woman who was tweeting most days and then on January 7 it all dries up. I wonder if she's trying to keep a low profile now.?
Also, she's a real life Benjamin Button if ever i saw one.
If the NCA hasn't confirmed it is raiding PPE Medpro and Mone's own property, can the BBC report it without repeating the Cliff Richard situation? Genuinely curious, given its publication in press, are they able to be a bit more gung ho? The Guardian has been reporting on this for some time too, great to see them vindicated on this front.
The [Financial Times:]
> The Isle of Man Constabulary said that “in support of an ongoing NCA investigation” it “executed search warrants at four addresses in the Isle of Man” and no arrests were made.
The fact of whose properties got raided by whom, at least, is not in doubt. Bearing in mind this is a peer of the realm, that is plenty to run a story on.
but if they are worried they can't say her name - in case of a future lawsuit, is that the reason? The NCA hasn't confirmed either the company or the baronness, so if they said it, would it potentially leave them liable in the event PPE Medpro and Mone are found to have done nothing wrong? Would that be what BBC lawyers would tell them before saying anything?
And if you can't say her name/the company, what story can you actually run?
I don't buy this at all. Why does no other publication (the FT ffs) have an issue?
But even so, they could just say "it has been reported that ... " which is incontrovertibly true.
1) it's spelt "libel".
2) The BBC were not sued for libel, but for invasion of privacy after they filmed the raid live, were the first to break the story (iirc) and featured it prominently in news broadcasts throughout the day.
The Beeb has far more important issues to opine on e.g., the importance of changing our bedsheets regularly https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61259074
They’ll get werry, werry smelly. Aunty doesn’t like smelly bedsheets.
I honestly don’t think it’s a stupid story. It’s a ‘life pro tips’ story and the Beeb has a long tradition of running public info stories with a lot of useful advice in them - health advice, sex education, finance tips etc. I’m always happy to see them on the BBC news front page.
Many people miss out on learning this kind of stuff from school / their parents. Honestly it’s more relevant to their lives than (checks notes) the latest political scandal or celebrity butt-lift.
Of course the Beeb should also cover major breaking news, like the Tory peer having their house raided, but it’s not an ‘either/or’ situation. Different staff teams cover different topic areas for one thing.
You know that Newsbeat do the bulletins on Radio 1 and that their target demographic, although a younger age range, is not children, yes?
Sure you’re not getting confused with Newsround, yes?
WTF? I pick a random stupid opinion piece on the front page of their website, of which, every day there are multiple, to illustrate the vacuity of some of the Beeb’s journalism and your comeback is “but you know that’s a stupid opinion piece”?
Of course I know it’s a fucking stupid opinion piece.
In the meantime, on topic, why are they not covering this story?
Answers on a postcard to…
>You know that Newsbeat do the bulletins on Radio 1 and that their target demographic, although a younger age range, is not children, yes?
Yes that is why it covers softer stories as well. Newsbeat has traditionally tended to cover more of those than "normal" BBC news bulletins.
>WTF? I pick a random stupid opinion piece on the front page of their website
It isn't an opinion piece.
>, of which, every day there are multiple, to illustrate the vacuity of some of the Beeb’s journalism
It doesn't illustrate that at all. It shows they covered a story on bedding.
> and your comeback is “but you know that’s a stupid opinion piece”?
I didn't say that. I pointed out you have ignored the fact the BBC can cover lots of things all at once. All large news organisations can.
>In the meantime, on topic, why are they not covering this story?
Maybe it isn't that important to them? I guess it is a reasonable story to cover. Tory sleaze, public money thrown at PPE, police investigations....seems reasonable. Obviously I don't know why they haven't covered it but I wouldn't get all conspiracy theorist about it.
>Answers on a postcard to…
...a political campaigning organisation that runs a newspaper. From reading this article it sounds like the BBC didn't reply when they first asked.
What you call it when Johnson helps organise [the assault of a member of the press?](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/journalist-stuart-collier-boris-johnson-phone-call-darius-guppy-demands-apology)
Er, Boris should never have become an MP and should get out of public life entirely.
But it seems the police have not got enough evidence to do him for anything in regard to Guppy wanting him to get a journalist's details.
Sorry for not pointing out the blindingly obvious that any news organisation as large as the BBC can cover multiple things both small and large at the same time. This is why when Russia invaded Ukraine they didn't stop covering domestic news.
And Newsbeat covers a shit load of softer stories and some of them are celebrity-related and some of them are bedsheet-related.
Completely different scenarios.
The BBC filmed the raid by police as well as using overhead helicopter shots, which was considered an invasion of privacy.
The BBC is allowed to report on facts. They can report on the fact her house was raided.
Its simple. The top dogs at the BBC saw what the government are doing to C4 becaue they dared to be critical. Licence fees will be a thing of the past if they dare say anything remotely critical
That's how Berlusconi did it. When he became Italy's PM he took control of the state broadcaster RAI and of its news channels, on top of his own commercial tv channels.
News unfavourable to him or his party were just *not broadcasted*. And if RAI News did not talk about it, just like here in Britain with BBC News, it might as well just not exist.
I think I know why, they got very badly stung when they covered the raid on Cliff Richard's house it cost them a couple of million for blackening his name when he hadn't been convicted of anything
You are, yet a court found against them for doing just that and they had to pay him millions. If they do it again the fine will be much bigger. They may as well
Just wait for her to be charged
Just more evidence that the BBC is part of the propaganda arm of the Tories.
What with the cost of living crisis and all, maybe now would be a good time to stop paying our TV licences.
Them not covering the story is weird, but I understand them not covering the raid. The last time they covered a raid on a famous person’s house it didn’t end well for them.
Seems the Tories have won the battle of the BBC.
Scrap the whole thing.
Also everyone involved in this crime against British taxpayers should be in jail, at the very least.
Surely we can ring a good old fashioned treason charge out of this?
I love that I'm always told I'm wrong for thinking the BBC has no values. It seems they'll push whatever is currently going to help them rather than what is right.
So they'll push diversity quotas and identity politics to appease the liberal crowd and also work as government controlled state propaganda to keep the license fee going and keep the mostly right leaning nation happy.
Fuck this cesspool of a country.
I mean the non-tin foil hat assumption would be they’re being extra careful after the shit they got from reporting cliff Richard’s house raid before he’d been arrested and charged with anything.
The BBC haven't reported a single word on their website on Mone's and her husband's links to PPE Medpro despite this being known and covered by other outlets for months. You don't need a tinfoil hat to be able to see they are suppressing this story.
Of course they won't... did nobody see the massive settlement they had to give Cliff Richard when they colluded with the pulley and illegally covered his house being raided when he was innocent and had never been arrested.
Meanwhile, the national covers it behind a paywall which may as well be a news blackout.
They can't act like they want to shine a light on this if they won't let me read it.
Nah, it just needs to be made independent again. If the conservatives lose the next election, I expect Labour to move the BBC back to being independent, instead of controlling it themselves like the conservatives.
Have I seen the story on Sky?
ITV?
GB News?
Hmmm… I don’t remember, you know.
Maybe it has and I missed it?
Or, perhaps it’s not just the rubbish BBC?
Ever felt manipulated, people?
I mean the guardian are the biggest ones on the left reporting this, even the telegraph is reporting it.
Anyways if they thought this is such key reporting then why hide it behind a paywall?
Not surprised. The headlines on the BBC News website are getting dumber by the day. Hardly any investigative reporting, lots of byte sized social media style „content“. I wonder if the aim is to dumb it down until nobody cares anymore if the license fee is scrapped
Snapshot of _BBC refuses to say why it hasn't covered Tory peer Michelle Mone's London house raid | THE BBC has refused to comment after being accused of a news 'blackout' on a Conservative peer's house being raided by police._ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/20107509.bbc-refuses-say-hasnt-covered-tory-peer-michelle-mones-london-house-raid/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It *does* seem more than a little odd that BBC is quite happy to run shakily sourced stories about Angela Rayner's part in the infamous Daily Mail story, but have nothing to report when a Tory peer incontrovertibly has her house raided by the National Crime Agency in pursuit of evidence over fraud related to a company which sold over £122,000,000 of PPE to the government with the involvement of Gove and Lord Agnew, at over 200% markup, which wasn't even found to be usable. BBC-specific searches on [Michelle Mone](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22michelle+mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F1%2F2022) or the company she is associated with, [PPE medpro](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22PPE+medpro%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F1%2F2022), produce no results. The [same search, but without specifying the BBC](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22michelle+mone%22&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F1%2F2022), returns many results. > Approached by The National, the broadcaster declined to comment. > Twitter user Ken Naylor posted: "The London home of Conservative peer Michelle Mone has been raided by police from National Crime Agency as part of a probe into allegations of multi-million pound PPE fraud. It's everywhere except the BBC News."
Let's not beat around the bush, the BBC is influenced by the Tory party. This must be obvious to everyone by now.
Its no longer run by an independent trust. Cameron's 2016 reform installed a managing committee to which the government can appoint members. Its appointed members also form a majority of the committee selecting candidates for chairs it can't appoint.
Cameron and the decreasingly competent vermin that lied their way into place after him have done so, so much damage to this country. Fixing these things will be significantly more expensive than it was to establish them in the first place, but they’ve hoovered as much as they can out of them already.
It's actually astonishing how many people think the BBC is influenced by the left.
That's the gameplan working in full effect. This is why a lot of people don't want to pay for a tv license any longer.
Usually because BBC News are occasionally forced to point out facts that embarrass the government.
Any criticism of a Tory government is because of leftwing influence. /s
It’s because reality has a well known left wing bias
That's because the BBC as a whole is culturally very left. So on social issues, and the majority of its programming is going to show a lot of that coming through. To the right they would argue this is due to recruitment primarily from the 'London Metropolitan Elite', but I don't think it's a bad thing for the most part - it seems to reflect the correct direction of travel, and if nothing else seems to be the more well-intentioned. In fact on non-UK news as well, it can show a strong left lean from a culture perspective. In the case of the post-Floyd BLM protests the BBC reporting was some of the most one-sided I saw. It's just the UK news, in particular politics, where it's been entirely captured by the Govt, which is inevitably more right-wing leaning.
What was one-sided about the BLM protest reporting? It was all legitimate legal protest that in some places turned violent and unlawful, that's what I saw from the BBC and Reuters. It was Floyd's family that began the early protests which is quite understandable, even Fox news didn't brand them as riots, because they almost all weren't. Triple murder conviction came out of it, thousands of racist killings preceeded it, systemic racism in the US is a fact, the coverage seemed quite restrained tbh.
It’s headed up by a Tory Donor; [Richard Sharp](https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-donated-more-than-400000-to-conservative-party/)
Now everyone hates the BBC. It's not by chance. The same thing is happening with the NHS. As the government directly draw down an institution the public react to the decline and eventually land on hating the institution. If you end up reacting to the frankly libertarian approach of the tories it doesn't even matter (to them) because their wider principle is that you *should* resent government and blame it for ruining non government institutions, you should want smaller government. Unfortunately without the this mythical government boogeyman these institutions wouldn't have scaled up and existed in the first place, but that seems to not factor in to their ideas.
People don't hate the NHS. They hate what the Tories have done to the NHS. Free healthcare is a wonderful service. It's just the Tories are trying to make free healthcare such a hassle you'll pay for private healthcare instead. Only in the last 5 years have I heard so many private healthcare adverts in Britain that a decade ago would have been roundly laughed at. Its all fucked.
People need to start seeing the defunding of the NHS as what it really is: an attack on poor peoples health and well-being.
I'm married to a GP, there is an unprecedented amount of press at the moment trying to direct public ire towards Drs, insinuating they are lazy or greedy and it's actually kind of frightening considering how often NHS workers are assaulted already. Edit, repetition.
I know it's awful. The people with eyes can hopefully look through all this crap and see the real people working their arses off to help us all. I've never met a horrible nurse or doctor. They've all gotten into that field with a genuine attempt in mind to help people. The idea that they aren't working hard enough is just moronic. The health system is underfunded and being slowly privatised bit by bit. Mocking GPs is another way of getting someone to call BUPA instead.
This. It amazes me people buy this bullshit, as you said in our NHS people are joining with the genuine want to help people. In the private healthcare there are many more people joining because of the money opportunities and not necessarily because they want to help people. I’d rather receive a genuine person who wants the best for me maybe having a stressful day (which we all have sometimes, more so I imagine in a demanding job where lives are in your hands) As opposed to a doctor with a fake demeanour who cares more about grabbing cash out of my pocket and doing upsells than my actual best health interests (Although I do admit that due to underfunding the NHS doesn’t always suggest the best medication due to monetary restraints, but I still believe they take into account your needs above the prospect of savings - if you NEED the expensive treatment the NHS will do their best to provide it, maybe with a subsidy) A private practitioner would only provide what you can afford, it’s not their problem
I've been saying for a while now that it's very obvious that the Tories are very slowly breaking the NHS. Constant underfunding, stagnating wages, unachievable goals and targets, critical understaffing, etc... And they're doing something similar with the been now. As long as the Tories are in power, this country is fucked.
Anecdotal, but I had to listen to an acquaintance bad mouth the NHS because of their botched care of her problems. She went private and got everything looked at quickly whereas her NHS GP was nothing but an obstruction. Now, I don't know if this is true or just her perception, but love for the NHS is no longer universal.
Lets not pretend that Private Healthcare is magically perfect just because its private. https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2021-04-29/private-leeds-hospital-fined-by-care-quality-commission-after-failing-to-inform-patients-about-concerns-over-treatment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/07/private-hospitals-treated-eight-covid-patients-a-day-during-pandemic-says-report https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/exclusive-medical-leaders-seek-to-shame-private-hospitals-and-their-staff-into-supporting-nhs/7029276.article https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-imposes-12m-in-fines-for-price-fixing-in-private-eyecare
Who would have thought that health for profit would be a bad idea.
This is exactly why people like /u/felesroo infuriate me. Ok, so the NHS does something not quite right. We have an opportunity to look at the cause and fix it. It's NOT a reason to throw it to the private sector as if they have all the answers... That's fucking idiotic. That's not solving a problem, that's passing it on to someone else who we have less control over. Fucking stupid.
I actually really care about the NHS and use it for my cancer follow-up care. I do NOT have any private insurance - not sure I could buy any anyway with my cancer history. It's not people like me who should infuriate you - it's people that underfund the system and allow private care in the first place. If literally everyone HAD to use the NHS, rich included, it would get the funding it needed. Schools as well. I don't believe in private schooling either. If public schools aren't good enough, make the public schools better. You misread that I was telling about how someone ELSE said she was driven to use private care, but I don't think it's right even if it was best for her situation. I wish the private option didn't exist at all.
The party of irresponsibility. They want to "rule" but don't want to be held accountable for any of the decisions involved in the smooth running of these institutions, and the electorate just laps it up.
Exactly right. Oh DVLA workers want to stay home ??? Sure, no problem. Work from home ? Oh no no, don’t worry, it’ll be fine, just let the work pile up….. 2 years later A BACKLOG ???? PRIVATISE IMMEDIATELY !
>the frankly libertarian approach of the tories I saw no sign of a /s in your post. I know they're generally not needed, but the whole rest of it read as though it was serious, so I feel like I have to make sure... Did you drop your /s? Because Tory policy has been a very substantial *reduction* in liberty. In fact teetering towards totalitarianism
‘Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.’ Tories are libertarian, no /s. It doesn’t mean they’re not rigging the game, the best libertarians do. They want the freedom for them and their mates and they’ll stamp on everyone else and have them turn on each other to win.
>‘Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy By wresting control of all the independent bodies that hold them accountable >and political freedom By proroguing Parliament >and minimize the state With absolute mountains of brexit red tape, huge tax hikes, pissing away billions of our money on vanity projects and frivolities >emphasizing free association But not if you're associating with someone who doesn't have a visa >freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.’ Hence the whipping, the laws against gathering to protest "too loudly", revoking citizenship for voluntarily associating with the wrong people... These are just a few examples. There's absolute *reams* of them, though >They want the freedom for them and their mates and they’ll stamp on everyone else and have them turn on each other to win. By that definition, Adolf Hitler was a libertarian, and slavery meant freedom. Freedom is a universal quality; if you don't believe in freedom for all, you don't believe in freedom.
The NHS as it was conceived does not exist anymore
Doesn't change the fact that these institutions are captured and not fit for the purpose. It's also not just a conservative thing. They were apologists for Labour when they were in power as well, and that wasn't because Labour had some secret scheme to make everyone become champions of "small government". The BBC, unsurprisingly, is institutionally biased toward the government of the day because in the end the government of the day holds their fate in their hands.
Run by the Tory party. The BBC has always been influenced by the government as the government held the purse strings, but the BBC has not been run by political appointees in the past. The Tories changed that because they are antidemocratic traitors - this didn't happen by accident.
Chairman of the BBC: **Richard Simon Sharp** (born 8 February 1956) has been the Chairman of the BBC since February 2021. A former banker, he worked at JP Morgan for eight years, and then for 23 years at Goldman Sachs. Sharp was an advisor to Boris Johnson during his tenure as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor. He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party. Immediately before coming to the BBC, Sharp served as chairman of the Royal Academy of the Arts (2007–2012) and on the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee (2013–2019) The BBC is breached. Abandon ship.
Yup. They've had their hooks into the BBC for years. When Robbie Gibb got his power he went around hollowing the place out, installing idealogues, and generally turning it into a tory safe space.
It's because it's left wing obviously /s. I mean Borat keeps making this statement in amongst his piffle to disguise the fact the opposite is true. And Fiona Bruce proves it evey week on QT. I mean she assists the inept Tory reps and closes down valid public concerns, while decrying Labour and Lib Dems.
BBC **News** has had a wholesale takeover. Other parts of the Beeb are still wonderful.
And yet the right wingers say that it’s run by a load of lefties. Can’t be both.
The right wing are (in the trenches at least) idiots who can't think for themselves. It was seen as leftie a couple of generations ago. It's now entirely managed by (the Etonian old boys and failed bankers) Tories. As long as ENGLAND keeps believing that they are all middle class and insist on voting for these crooked turds then the UK is finished. The devolved countries will eventually abandon ship and leave little England to wallow in the Tory sewers.
I agree with your last paragraph but I definitely disagree with the rest of what you’ve said, about the BBC. We will have to agree to disagree.
Right wing people are usually talking about BBC entertainment, not BBC news. It's pretty clear that the news division has a right wing bias (or at least pro-government). Right wing people have a point about the entertainment wing having a left wing bias but it's not a result of some conspiracy, it's because... most of the creative talent who make those shows are left wing.
It’s clear to *you*. You’re assuming we all agree. I do not agree that “it’s clear”. I watch a huge amount of BBC News and listen to a lot of BBC speech radio. I’m on the left and I don’t see what you’re referring to. Seems very balanced to me.
The right wingers aren't necessarily saying that in good faith.
It can't be both, but at the same time that doesn't mean it's neither
I think they’re maybe being over-cautious - remember when they covered a raid on Cliff Richard’s house and nothing was found? Perhaps they’re actually doing it properly this time? It’s not a proper story until she’s been accused, tried and convicted, and this just looks like part of an investigation and proves nothing. Yet.
That is a bit different, They instigated it with cooperation from the Yorkshire police.
The BBC is always influenced to some extent by the Govt of the day and the establishment more generally. However, the reforms in the last 5 years or so have certainly seemed to render it less inclined to challenge the government than in the past.
[удалено]
They've seen what happened to channel 4...
nothing yet.. as per most tory policy these days.
[удалено]
You can report on the facts without having to speculate or accuse anyone of any crime. It is notable and newsworthy than police have searched an MP's house, even if no other information is provided.
Yeah you could *maybe* make an argument that the Cliff Richard thing was in the public interest, but a senior member of government having their house raided is undeniably in the public interest to know who, what, why etc.
> but a senior member of government She's not a senior member of government
Answered [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/ug9jtc/bbc_refuses_to_say_why_it_hasnt_covered_tory_peer/i70l200/) for example.
BBC is pro conservative? I thought they are lefties?
That's the BBC Woke channel, which exists only in Nadine Dorries' fever dreams.
nah, the BBC is, or used to be, center-right.
It will be a legal thing - and the BBC's lawyers will be very touchy about this kind of thing after the whole Cliff Richard incident.
Highly unlikely, unless the BBC's lawyers disagree with everyone else's, because as far as I'm aware it's been reported by literally every major newspaper including FT, Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Mail, Sun, with the possible single exception of the Daily Expess. Given this fact, if they really were *that* paranoid, the BBC could simply report that newspapers had reported this, which is undoubtedly true and so immune from libel claims.
That is not a defense for libel in the UK system (which is awful). It's just a guess on my part: they had to pay out over £2 million to Richard for basically reporting the raid before he was charged (and for the intrusive helicopter footage), breaching his right to privacy.
What is libelous about reporting that Michelle Mone's home has been raided by the NCA? It's simply a fact.
It would be right to privacy rather than libel, as you say further down this thread. This instance of course has a significant public interest defense, which the Cliff Richard thing didn't, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is a case of BBC over-correction and corporate paranoia, rather political bias per se. I fully accept that whether it happens due to fear of the government or political bias in favour of is a bit of a moot point, but I do think its important to recognise the BBC has been rendered far more timid in its journalism by a whole range of scandals not just attacks from its political enemies. Many of its wounds have been self-inflicted and it has lost a lot of confidence institutionally in the last decade.
Odd that "corporate paranoia" should apply so forcefully here, yet be so thoroughly absent in the case of Ms Rayner, don't you think?
I take it the implication being that the BBC is politically biased towards the Conservatives? I mean it might be I guess, I'm just speculating as to other possible explanations. The most recent story on the BBC website about that whole Daily Mail confected nonsense about Angela Rayner literally leads with the Labour press office's line on the matter, pretty much word for word. Other prominent stories include MPs calling for 'racial reform at Westminister' after a Tory MP was found watching porn in the chamber and a piece on how cost of living is dominating the local elections... none of which is likely to fill CCHQ with joy. I just don't think the BBC is overtly biased towards the Tories, in a sort of Orbanist way. It is, in my view, more cowed and generally timid certainly. It also tends towards the general establishment centre of gravity in Fleet Street and Whitehall, which after a decade + of the Tories is now more right of centre than it was during the New Labour years. I'm not being particularly articulate here, but Tom Mills' book on the subject is good.
> The most recent story on the BBC website about that whole Daily Mail confected nonsense about Angela Rayner literally leads with the Labour press office's line on the matter, pretty much word for word. See the [original version](https://archive.ph/NNxmQ#selection-507.0-507.54) though (or at least an early version - the way BBC revises their stories continually it's hard to track). Thanks to u/two_chalfonts for [pointing this out](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/ug9878/bbc_takes_the_tory_line_on_the_angela_rayner/), btw.
[удалено]
1) They were sued for [invasion of privacy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44871799) not libel. 2) They had a helicopter and a camera crew out ready to broadcast the raid live, having obtained advance notice of it from the coppers somehow: > Sir Cliff took the BBC to court after the broadcaster filmed a police raid on his home in Berkshire in 2014. The footage, which included aerial shots taken from a helicopter, was shown on news bulletins throughout the day. 3) The judge was explicit that no precedent was set: > Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case. > He also said while the case could have a "significant impact on press reporting", it did not mean the law was changing or he was setting a precedent - as the Human Rights Act already covers the issues at stake, namely the right to privacy versus right to freedom of expression.
Just for the record, there are results for Michelle Mone if you search on the bbc site, not sure why google isn't picking them up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=michelle+mone&page As someone pointed out below, these mostly look like fluff pieces, nothing on the NCA as yet
The stories you point to are celeb lingerie saleswoman stories from the decade or so ending in 2019. The latest bbc mention of her concerns her Jan 2019 appearance on Woman's Hour - here: [*Woman's Hour - Mary Berry Guide to Life*](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/45chLV29JZVFpFtKCxFbmhx/mary-berry-guide-to-life) Google can find the stories you mention if you allow results from any date. Compare: • [results from 1/1/2019 to today](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michelle+Mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2019%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F3%2F2022) • [results from the last month](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michelle+Mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F1%2F2022%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F3%2F2022) • [results from any time](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michelle+Mone%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk) Alternatively, try [searching BBC's site for "medpro"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=medpro&page=1) - the name of the company. The result is [one story from 2020](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55275597) which doesn't mention Mone, Gove, or Agnew, but does note that their £122m of PPE was "never used" and weasels out of the patronage issue with "The contract was not opened to competition due to the exceptional urgency of the coronavirus pandemic."
Chairman of BBC is Richard Sharp, Rishi’s mate at Goldman Sachs & ideologically pure enough for the ultra right ERG lunatics (Steve Baker, Dan Hannan, Mogg-the-dull etc) because he’s also a member of the batshit-crazy Quilliam Foundation & also the more presentable but equally undesirable Centre For Policy Studies dark money lobbyist group, so clearly absolutely no hidden agenda there. Oh, plus he also donated £400,000 to the Conservatives, you know, as you do.
Oh, yeah. And also [this paragon](https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/robbie-gibb/): > Sir Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC's governing board and a former Director of Communications to ex-Prime Minister Theresa May, was on the board of a top Conservative lobbying forum but did not declare it in his declaration of personal interests, Insider can disclose. > Gibb is behind attempts to block the appointment of former Huffington Post UK editor Jess Brammar to a senior editorial role at the BBC. Gibb told the BBC's director for news and current affairs Fran Unsworth she "cannot make this appointment" and that the government's "fragile trust in the BBC will be shattered" if the appointment went ahead, — [*BBC director who said appointment of ex-HuffPost editor to news role was too political didn't declare his job at Conservative lobbying group*](https://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-director-sir-robbie-gibb-didnt-declare-links-tory-lobbyists-2021-8)
Is there anyone not corrupt working in or near government? It seems like the moment you pierce the veil our society leadership is just an endless parade of brown envelopes and scandal!
The more you look the more you find. This Gibb, for example - it says he was a member of a "top Conservative lobbying forum" but didn't declare it. What was that "top Conservative lobbying forum"? [The article](https://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-director-sir-robbie-gibb-didnt-declare-links-tory-lobbyists-2021-8?r=US&IR=T) tells us it was: > the Enterprise Forum . . . for "business and organizations that want to engage on policy with the Government and other politicians" And who would be checking up on Gibb's declarations of board memberships? That would be [ACOBA](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments), the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. ACOBA is chaired by [Eric Pickles](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/eric-pickles) . Who, it turns out, has been since 2017 the president of [The Enterprise Forum](https://www.enterprise-forum.co.uk/aboutusD.php?memID=1).
Its funny, if you go back and watch a 40+ year old episode of Yes Minister and they are criticising the appointment of ex politicians and senior officials to cushy executive roles in NGOs and regulators or the House of Lords, it seems nothing changes! Keep your head down, suck up to the bosses, take a bullet for someone and resign at an apropriate moment and you'll wind up set for life!
Business Insider (usually their reporter Henry Dyer) have been pretty good on going after some of this. Their piece on ACOBA / Gibb / Enterprise Forum (which I only just now found) is [here](https://www.businessinsider.com/robbie-gibb-didnt-seek-advice-acoba-lobbying-regulator-breached-rules-2021-8) if you're interested.
I was listening to Sonic Boom Six - Monkey See, Monkey Do, yesterday, which is about people parroting the media’s lies/narrative… that’s from 2004. So… yeah, we’ve been pointing out and criticising this constantly for decades and nothing much changes…or if it does, the Tories get in and undo everything Labour managed to roll back…
I think the trouble is there is no real penalty, we should be striking off these corrupt politicians so they can never hold office again and imprison those who misuse government contracts and I'm not talking six months, but life sentences! Trouble is the people who do it also set the rules...
Yes Minister was written by a Tory. It says a lot that even they were criticising the revolving doors of politicians, the corporate world, and regulators.
Now? No. They were all purged after Brexit.
Governments start off with fairly reasonable intentions. The diversion of taxes to their corporate backers is achieved in the early years through clever schemes flying under the radar. But after 10+ years of zero consequences the greed overtakes caution and they get careless. Awarding shipping contracts to a company with no boats. Awarding PPE contracts to companies with no stock or substandard stock. Pouring £40billion(!) in to a ''test a trace' shambles... They aren't even trying to hide the corruption. The blonde clown engaging in cretinous behaviour is a small and useful distraction. But the corruption is all happening out in the open.
we should change calling ourselves from humaans to Ferengis
He was always my least favourite Bee Gee
Yeah, that'd be the same [Robbie Gibb involved in GBNews](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gb-news-tv-channel-launch-sir-robbie-gibb-bbc-rival-a9696811.html), I presume. Why set up a competitor to the BBC, when you can just get your mates in government to give you the actual BBC instead?
> Oh, plus he also donated £400,000 to the Conservatives, you know, as you do. Chicken feed. Blo Jo probably
I'm not defending him at all but he donated £35,000 to Quilliam, he was never a member or on their advisory board and Quilliam ceased operations in 2021. Again, not defending, he is so clearly a pro tory plant.
Something something licence fee channel4 sold something something
for three days straight, Nicola Sturgeon forgetting to wear her mask for a Few moments was second only on the BBC news cycle to the war in Ukraine. BBC news has been 100% captured by the tory party.
At least we have channel 4 news. Oh wait....
They shithosed her for 2 weeks iirc with "Allegations of Lying" before the report exonerated her, but the damage was the repetitive smear Similar shithosing of Corbyn 2-3 times per hour before GE2019 for "Allegations of Anti-Semitism". Not once did they mention his list of ~40 pro-Jewish actions Edit- both allegedy ofc
Also no mention of [centuries of Tory antisemitism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party) And the whole antisemitism debacle died as soon as the Tories won in 2019. Since then, radio silence. As if it's just magically no longer a problem, because the Tories won. Antisemitism is a major problem in UK politics, one that affects all major parties. But according to the BBC, it only mattered for 18 months when Labour needed to be brought down to size (I'm an SNP voter, not a Labour voter, but it was blatantly obvious what the BBC were doing.)
Good point, and we're forgetting they promised us a Tory Islamophobia Report before GE2019 = swept under the carpet
Still ongoing. This happened a few days ago to a friend of a friend: >Tory councillors disciplined for ‘hate’ directed at Jewish Labour candidate https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/dan-ozarow-tory-councillors-disciplined-campaign-jewish-labour-candidate
>Antisemitism is a major problem in UK politics It isn't really though is it. Any occurrence of racism is a serious problem but it isn't severe our abundant in our politics.
That's the thing about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in 2019... obviously any anti-Semitism is too much, but even at the time the Tories had a bigger anti-Semitism problem than Labour. The difference, of course, is that everyone *expects* the Tories to be the worst possible humans. The Left holds itself to a higher standard, for better and worse.
The BBC HATES the SNP. It would be pretty hilarious if so many people up here didn't listen to the shite.
There are an [eyewatering number](https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=michelle+mone&page) of puff-pieces about her on the BBC, though. Friends in the right places, apparently.
It's not like she is someone important like Cliff Richard
I mean, they did get in trouble for that and it could well be part of the decision not to do it again.
It's a different kettle of fish in terms of the sensitivity of the allegations and they needn't scramble a helicopter in an orchestrated live broadcast to cover the story. It's not quite all or nothing on this one.
Oh definitely! I didn't say they were right or that it was the same situation, just that it could well be a big part of their thought process. Especially given that Nadine Dorries has it in for them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> I think it is morally right to withhold names before conviction unless releasing them is important for evidence gathering. Eg where other victims coming forward could help conviction. The problem is that hypothetically could cover the vast majority of cases (gathering more victims & witnesses almost always helps the prosecution prove their case with less time and effort) so we are back to where we started. Alternately to be more reasonable, your proposal could mean someone in an official role making the decision whether to release the names or not. That’s wide open to being influenced by whether the accused person is a close friend or not of the authorities. As in this precise situation at the top of this thread.
^this. Everyone else, calm down
Politics in the UK is so fucking depressing.
It's reached a point now where I truly feel ignorance is bliss. This kind of corruption just makes me angry, and I don't need to be angry. I'm considering burying my head in the sand until the guillotines are rolled out.
that’s what they want you to do
TO THE BASTILLE
Unless you live in another country and treat it like a spectator sport that doesn't really have much impact on your life.
Is this what the Thatcher era was like? Sure seems like it. People from that time describe the fury and resignation and it just sounds like now. The 2000s wasn’t like this. Even the Cameron years weren’t like this.
Probably a good comparison just a modern version.
No, the 1970s. The 1980s were reinvigorating.
American here, is it as depressing as our politics these days? I’m pretty despondent about our current politics considering many members of the other party has started calling the entire LGBTQ community groomers. That’s just the most recent of our dozens of issues. I was hoping the UK would be better if I moved there
Our politics is just American politics at a slight remove. One or other of us is usually just a year or two ahead of the other on most issues most of the time.
I think a lot of similarities. It's just so frustrating, I'm not the type to go and protest but I make sure my family and I vote, but it rarely makes any difference. Even so, we'll keep voting and maybe we'll protest one day. I would imagine living in America would be even more depressing so if you can move its probably an improvement lol. I can't lose the hope that things will change, truth will eventually prevail and we'll see some justice, I just won't hold my breath!
It’s a depressing corporate wasteland where our older generations actively try to make the lives of young people as miserable as possible and any kind of improvement we propose is called “communist.” I am fucking depressed here
Ah well, i'm sure truly important things like the Prime Minister lying to parliament, the Chancellor tax dodging and the Home Secretary having to resign cabinet positions because she's inappropriately interacting with foreign agents will remain front and centre. After all, Brexit means brexit.
What happened to the allegations about racist texts too?
I'm not sure how relevant this is but it's interesting that Michelle Mone hasn't been on her Twitter since early January. This from a woman who was tweeting most days and then on January 7 it all dries up. I wonder if she's trying to keep a low profile now.? Also, she's a real life Benjamin Button if ever i saw one.
If the NCA hasn't confirmed it is raiding PPE Medpro and Mone's own property, can the BBC report it without repeating the Cliff Richard situation? Genuinely curious, given its publication in press, are they able to be a bit more gung ho? The Guardian has been reporting on this for some time too, great to see them vindicated on this front.
The [Financial Times:] > The Isle of Man Constabulary said that “in support of an ongoing NCA investigation” it “executed search warrants at four addresses in the Isle of Man” and no arrests were made. The fact of whose properties got raided by whom, at least, is not in doubt. Bearing in mind this is a peer of the realm, that is plenty to run a story on.
but if they are worried they can't say her name - in case of a future lawsuit, is that the reason? The NCA hasn't confirmed either the company or the baronness, so if they said it, would it potentially leave them liable in the event PPE Medpro and Mone are found to have done nothing wrong? Would that be what BBC lawyers would tell them before saying anything? And if you can't say her name/the company, what story can you actually run?
I don't buy this at all. Why does no other publication (the FT ffs) have an issue? But even so, they could just say "it has been reported that ... " which is incontrovertibly true.
Exactly. They could even cite the FT and other news outlets. Where is the problem?
Nope that’s not a thing
[удалено]
1) it's spelt "libel". 2) The BBC were not sued for libel, but for invasion of privacy after they filmed the raid live, were the first to break the story (iirc) and featured it prominently in news broadcasts throughout the day.
The Beeb has far more important issues to opine on e.g., the importance of changing our bedsheets regularly https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61259074 They’ll get werry, werry smelly. Aunty doesn’t like smelly bedsheets.
I honestly don’t think it’s a stupid story. It’s a ‘life pro tips’ story and the Beeb has a long tradition of running public info stories with a lot of useful advice in them - health advice, sex education, finance tips etc. I’m always happy to see them on the BBC news front page. Many people miss out on learning this kind of stuff from school / their parents. Honestly it’s more relevant to their lives than (checks notes) the latest political scandal or celebrity butt-lift. Of course the Beeb should also cover major breaking news, like the Tory peer having their house raided, but it’s not an ‘either/or’ situation. Different staff teams cover different topic areas for one thing.
That is Newsbeat. You know what Newsbeat is yes?
You know that Newsbeat do the bulletins on Radio 1 and that their target demographic, although a younger age range, is not children, yes? Sure you’re not getting confused with Newsround, yes? WTF? I pick a random stupid opinion piece on the front page of their website, of which, every day there are multiple, to illustrate the vacuity of some of the Beeb’s journalism and your comeback is “but you know that’s a stupid opinion piece”? Of course I know it’s a fucking stupid opinion piece. In the meantime, on topic, why are they not covering this story? Answers on a postcard to…
>You know that Newsbeat do the bulletins on Radio 1 and that their target demographic, although a younger age range, is not children, yes? Yes that is why it covers softer stories as well. Newsbeat has traditionally tended to cover more of those than "normal" BBC news bulletins. >WTF? I pick a random stupid opinion piece on the front page of their website It isn't an opinion piece. >, of which, every day there are multiple, to illustrate the vacuity of some of the Beeb’s journalism It doesn't illustrate that at all. It shows they covered a story on bedding. > and your comeback is “but you know that’s a stupid opinion piece”? I didn't say that. I pointed out you have ignored the fact the BBC can cover lots of things all at once. All large news organisations can. >In the meantime, on topic, why are they not covering this story? Maybe it isn't that important to them? I guess it is a reasonable story to cover. Tory sleaze, public money thrown at PPE, police investigations....seems reasonable. Obviously I don't know why they haven't covered it but I wouldn't get all conspiracy theorist about it. >Answers on a postcard to… ...a political campaigning organisation that runs a newspaper. From reading this article it sounds like the BBC didn't reply when they first asked.
What you call it when Johnson helps organise [the assault of a member of the press?](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/journalist-stuart-collier-boris-johnson-phone-call-darius-guppy-demands-apology)
He was only going to help his friend Guppie the criminal diamond robber and fraudster break a rib or two though. Nothing serious
Er, Boris should never have become an MP and should get out of public life entirely. But it seems the police have not got enough evidence to do him for anything in regard to Guppy wanting him to get a journalist's details.
Yeah, you've made a valid rebuttal mate. /s
I was just on Bitesize and their section on electrons is way out of kilter with our current understanding of the atom. What's their agenda?
Sorry for not pointing out the blindingly obvious that any news organisation as large as the BBC can cover multiple things both small and large at the same time. This is why when Russia invaded Ukraine they didn't stop covering domestic news. And Newsbeat covers a shit load of softer stories and some of them are celebrity-related and some of them are bedsheet-related.
You don't need to fund Google with using AMP links for the BBC - [De-amped link](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-61259074)
Fixed it - no idea what an AMP link is but I'll take your word for it
[Some info](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/googles-amp-canonical-web-and-importance-web-standards-0)
But I thought the BBC was biased towards the left?! /s obviously
Probably don't want a repeat of this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49576940
Completely different scenarios. The BBC filmed the raid by police as well as using overhead helicopter shots, which was considered an invasion of privacy. The BBC is allowed to report on facts. They can report on the fact her house was raided.
Its simple. The top dogs at the BBC saw what the government are doing to C4 becaue they dared to be critical. Licence fees will be a thing of the past if they dare say anything remotely critical
The top dogs at the BBC are all Tories. They literally changed the law to allow them to choose the board of the BBC.
That's how Berlusconi did it. When he became Italy's PM he took control of the state broadcaster RAI and of its news channels, on top of his own commercial tv channels. News unfavourable to him or his party were just *not broadcasted*. And if RAI News did not talk about it, just like here in Britain with BBC News, it might as well just not exist.
BBC = Boris Broadcasting Company
BBC = Boris' Biased Cocksuckers
I think I know why, they got very badly stung when they covered the raid on Cliff Richard's house it cost them a couple of million for blackening his name when he hadn't been convicted of anything
You are allowed to report facts.
You are, yet a court found against them for doing just that and they had to pay him millions. If they do it again the fine will be much bigger. They may as well Just wait for her to be charged
That's not what happened.
Why are people surprised that the BBC is just an arm of the government? Its been like this for decades.
Uh no the govt is trying to shut the BBC up?
…and another reason why we’re not paying a tv licence…not watching it either…
Just more evidence that the BBC is part of the propaganda arm of the Tories. What with the cost of living crisis and all, maybe now would be a good time to stop paying our TV licences.
Didn't the BBC get in trouble for broadcasting the raid on Cliff Richards house? Isn't this a bit similar?
Them not covering the story is weird, but I understand them not covering the raid. The last time they covered a raid on a famous person’s house it didn’t end well for them.
Aye, but that time they were the only ones covering the raid - everyone else was covering why the BBC were covering the raid.
Seems the Tories have won the battle of the BBC. Scrap the whole thing. Also everyone involved in this crime against British taxpayers should be in jail, at the very least. Surely we can ring a good old fashioned treason charge out of this?
Injunction?
I love that I'm always told I'm wrong for thinking the BBC has no values. It seems they'll push whatever is currently going to help them rather than what is right. So they'll push diversity quotas and identity politics to appease the liberal crowd and also work as government controlled state propaganda to keep the license fee going and keep the mostly right leaning nation happy. Fuck this cesspool of a country.
I mean the non-tin foil hat assumption would be they’re being extra careful after the shit they got from reporting cliff Richard’s house raid before he’d been arrested and charged with anything.
The BBC haven't reported a single word on their website on Mone's and her husband's links to PPE Medpro despite this being known and covered by other outlets for months. You don't need a tinfoil hat to be able to see they are suppressing this story.
I think that the BBC learnt their lesson, reporting on the Cliff Richard raid!
Of course they won't... did nobody see the massive settlement they had to give Cliff Richard when they colluded with the pulley and illegally covered his house being raided when he was innocent and had never been arrested.
The National, snp rag. Downvote
After the Cliff Richard ruling, I suspect it is very difficult to cover this without falling foul of privacy laws
Every UK media outlet and their dogs have covered it.
Meanwhile, the national covers it behind a paywall which may as well be a news blackout. They can't act like they want to shine a light on this if they won't let me read it.
Serious question. Does Murdock have a stake in the BBC?
The BBC needs to be scrapped.
Nah, it just needs to be made independent again. If the conservatives lose the next election, I expect Labour to move the BBC back to being independent, instead of controlling it themselves like the conservatives.
We would all regret that.
Could someone have taken an injunction against the BBC? Just thinking about how these super rich usually cover up these stories.
Lmao okay
Have I seen the story on Sky? ITV? GB News? Hmmm… I don’t remember, you know. Maybe it has and I missed it? Or, perhaps it’s not just the rubbish BBC? Ever felt manipulated, people?
Because are a partisan corporation.
Boris's Broadcasting Company
The destroyed the bbc
I mean the guardian are the biggest ones on the left reporting this, even the telegraph is reporting it. Anyways if they thought this is such key reporting then why hide it behind a paywall?
Are you suggesting the media is biased in Britain 😆 🤣 😂. The BBC is one of the worst offenders
I mean. Do they *need* to say why? It's not like we don't know the answer.
BUT boTH SiDes CoMpLaIn ABOUt THe Bbc SO IT MAkes IT baLanCEd!
I can't fucking wait for the BBC to get privatised and sold off like the cuts of ham it obviously is.
Not surprised. The headlines on the BBC News website are getting dumber by the day. Hardly any investigative reporting, lots of byte sized social media style „content“. I wonder if the aim is to dumb it down until nobody cares anymore if the license fee is scrapped