A fair cross-secton?

Apparently the audience of QT last week was "slanted towards the young, multi-cultural and metropolitan"

Was it really? Here is the picture the Mail use as evidence

Click to enlarge, but here's a run down, starting from the back down

1: Old white guy, white guy, ethnic lady in veil, ethnic man, white woman, white man
2: Old white guy, old white guy, old white guy,old white woman, old white guy, ethnic man
3: White guy, ethnic lady, white guy, slightly dark-skinned lady, white guy, white woman
4: White guy, white guy, black guy, white guy, white guy, old white guy
5: White guy, white woman, black woman. ethnic woman, white woman, ethnic woman
6: Black guy, white guy, white guy, ethnic man, white guy, white guy
7: White woman, white guy, white woman, possibly-ethnic woman, black woman, white guy
8: White guy, ethnic man, white guy, white guy, white woman, old Chinese man

Hmmm, I wrote 'white' quite a lot there, notice I separated 'black' and 'ethnic' - mainly for the reason that I have little doubt that the black people would be British Londoners, and second it's harder to identify people who look vaguely foreign, let's do a quick tally

48 people - 33 were white, 11 were ethnic in some way (and that's the conservative estimate), 4 were black

So that's 69% white, 23% ethnic, and 8% black

From Wikipedia (source: ONS)

According to the Office for National Statistics, based on 2006 estimates, 69.4 per cent of the 7.5 million inhabitants of London were White...Some 13.1 per cent are of South Asian descent. 10.7 per cent of London's population are Black, with around 5.5 per cent being Black African, 4.3 per cent as Black Caribbean and 0.7 per cent as "Other Black". 3.5 per cent of Londoners are of mixed race; 1.5 per cent are Chinese; and 1.9 per cent belong to another ethnic group.^[3]

That appears to be a scarily representative group there - white people almost perfectly represented, m sloppy label of 'ethnic' is a bit over-represented, and black people are slightly under-represented

So can I ask what exactly the Mail have a problem with? London is full of people who are non-white and they put up a picture showing a clear majority of white people and claim it is slanted to 'multicultural' people, and god knows what 'metropolitan' people are - by definition people who live in a metropolis (otherwise known as 'London') - funny that, it being filmed in London and all...

I hope anyone who read that noticed the idiocy of the suggestion with that photo, and the underlying theme that, in my opinion, was 'it wasn't white enough', despite being shot in London - all the while the Mail go out of their way to publish articles condemning the BNP, while railing against immigrants and implying non-whites are unfairly over-represented. This is surely a new height of ludicrousness for the Mail, having a go at the audience for being too young and multicultural, while providing the evidence that totally smashes their argument

So was it a fair cross-section? Yes, you idiots!

This is getting silly

I thought silly season was over?

But apparently not, as Labour MPs seem convinced they are right to try and suppress the BNP, a legal and democratically-elected political party as Peter Hain has shown today by writing a letter threatening legal action against the BBC

Right...that's not remotely fascist at all

Hain's grounds for complaint are a tad thin - Griffin has admitted that their constitution may break 'race-relations legislation', as found by the Equalities and Human Rights commission and will have to reform it in the near future - however, this does not make them an illegal party, as the BBC responded:

"If there were to be an election tomorrow, the BNP would be able to stand"

Indeed they would, I seem to remember Labour broke certain equality legislation in 1996 by having all female shortlists - were they an illegal party then?

Hain's grounds are so feeble that they do nothing to hide his own bigotry, in his letter he says to the BBC

"in addition to the moral objections that I make. In my view, your approach is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful."

Moral objections? Moral? Why should I be giving a toss about your moral complaints any more than I should because Jonathon Ross swears? We start listening to morals then we're in big trouble, as for 'unreasonable and irrational' - who is the one providing fair coverage to a legal party based on their electoral successes, and who is the one trying to censor them because they dislike their politics?

Labour don't understand freedom - and unless the BNP are outlawed they have no case here, they don't like racism, and neither do I (and I really hate having to put in disclaimers every sodding time I mention the BNP) but it is not against the law to think racist thoughts or have racist beliefs and so you can't suppress them anymore than I can suppress a socialist because I really dislike their ideas - government cannot pick and choose who to censor, unless we wish to use the proper legal channels - in my view they could do exactly the same thing to Tories or Greens by this 'opinion' criteria, it's far more dangerous than anything a few bigots say on a soapbox

In other 'left-wingers are the most annoying hypocrites ever' news, the broadcasting trade union Bectu has warned that their members cannot be forced to work on the show - now I'm not an expert on current trade union law, maybe they are allowed time-off to protest anything (which is within the realms of probability I guess), but as far as I can see they refuse to work on the show because they dislike the BNP, and maybe want to protest outside

So does that mean that Bectu can do this to any party? What if they dislike Tories? Can members just refuse to work - it's exactly the same grounds, the BNP are a legal party, and if I didn't like the Tories view on, say...inheritance tax, could I refuse to work and get my union to threaten my bosses? If so, fair enough - otherwise it's pretty disgraceful that a union would throw their weight around

Feeling lazy

I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment - haven't posted all weekend, and now I've lost my rhythm a bit

I want to say something on tuition fees and all the bollocks about it right now, but I just don't feel like getting my head round it, think I'll just read around til something really pisses me off

Update: Greg Dyke's take on the world also pleases me - he's not accusing the BBC of an actual conspiracy but he clearly feels the establishment, which includes the BBC and all mainstream media, are natural roadblocks to improving our democracy - he makes some very good points

The BBC - licking labour's boots yet again

I see those dastardly chaps, Nick Robinson and Robert Peston, are at it again - Peston having had a 'lovely chat' with Brown according to Frankos at B-BBC


And just look at this glowing review he gave him after that 'lovely chat':

I have just interviewed the prime minister. Which is often challenging, because of his famous habit of ignoring his interlocutors' questions and saying what he intended to say all along.

And, I'm afraid to say, he didn't choose today to engage precisely and directly with my lines of enquiry.

Translation: "My love for the great leader is undying!"

And meanwhile, Robinson is even more simpering:

Peter Mandelson has been re-writing the government's line on public spending cuts but no-one can re-write political history.

I suggested on the Today programme this morning that if you listened hard you might just hear the sound of shredders in Whitehall as Gordon Brown's "lines to take" on spending were disposed of - in particular, the prime minister's insistence that the choice facing the electorate was "Tory cuts" versus "Labour investment". Lord Mandelson suggested that the words had never actually been used. Not so. [here follows several Hansard examples]

Unquestioning loyalty!!

Hmm, it does appear that my allegation of bias is a little weak here...

Aha! You see, they have realised Labour are a lost cause and have jumped ship

The BBC - even when they're not biased, they're biased

*satire

On the BNP...

September and already the news is getting more interesting

No doubt you have heard the news that the BBC may invite the BNP onto Question Time (or will, according to other outlets)

Well personally I'm all for it - as far as I can see the BBC are 100% right to represent a party with two MEPs, there's no way anyone could justify not giving them airspace while seeking to be 'fair' - hence, I do not agree with 'anti-fascist' groups like Searchlight, who are just as scary to me - and nor do I agree with Labour's strange boycott, more reason why I could never be a leftie

But I thought I should take a look across the spectrum at who thinks what

The Indie, as I would expect, agrees with me

The Times, again unsurprisingly is quite happy to promote free speech with an article from Matthew Syed and gets a kick in at Labour as well, happily pointing out the Tories are happy to debate with racists

The Telegraph do much the same, again criticising Labour for being cowards

The Gruniad next: they've gone for the liberal approach and are still shying away from Labour

Now we move onto the tabloid hacks: The Mail have predictably gone for the man (or the Aunty), rather than the ball and apparently support Labour MP Denis MacShane and Searchlight...anything to get a dig in at the BBC, eh, boys? I can't find any other comment on that so therefore I must conclude they are pro-Labour on this

The Express ('crusading for a fairer Britain' these days) don't seem to have covered it...

The Sun have tried to have their cake and eat it - there is only 'anger at the BBC' in the headline, and they have been 'blasted' apparently - but it then goes on to say Labour (the only people doing the attacking) are in a 'panic' and presents a two-sided argument...some truly great journalism there

And the Mirror...sigh, I guess I have to...have gone for the attack on the BBC route and put more weight against giving them airtime - they call it a BBC stunt and give MacShane the most space, allowing him to imply the BNP aren't a 'democratic party' (aren't they? Racists maybe, but I think they like the whole voting thing)

So in conclusion, pretty much all the papers are happy with debate, and only the Mirror really have a problem, the Sun and the Mail just want the BBC's blood

And also, if you subscribe to the Mirror you're a moron, but we already knew that

Equality and 'equality' are not the same thing

Hear the news that Mandy wants to give poorer students a two-grade advantage? - in essence those from bad schools or under performing areas will be given an advantage over their privately educated (or even grammar school educated...) peers

A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school

It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people

In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools

I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing

I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo

It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned

It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run

(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)

---------

Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings

He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery

You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas

---

Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist

Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however

p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could

Hang on...didn't he quit?

Apparently Tony Blair will be our 'official' candidate for the formal position of 'EU president'

The point that nobody got a chance to vote on this issue, and even when the Irish did they were told to go back and do it again, is by-the-by here

But why does a man who willingly quit his elected position for no actual reason feel he should be the unelected president of the EU? 'I can't run a state...but I can run a super-state'

And why should I trust a man who was elected on a lie (I will serve a full third term...) - slippery bastard

And to top it all off sodding 'Mrs. unelectable Kinnock' is the one who announces it...I know politics has always been about jobs for the boys, but even the vague facade of democracy is just being sidelined by this lot

In related news, this is a clearly pro-government headline from the no.2 spot:

The government is expected to announce a scaled-down version of its grand plan to create up to 10 "eco towns".

Not at all condescending...

A bit o' bias

I must say, I wasn't too impressed with this BBC (magazine) article on battling the pirates

It is principally focused on trying to stop 'pirates', and then goes to pains to point out that people doing the downloading are using a false logic to justify what they do

This is one area I could see bias - it's rare that I find an article that I feel cheated by, most complaints of BBC bias are from right-wingers whinging the Beeb don't criticise gays or promote the death penalty

As I would say to them, it's because the law supports that position - you can't place a huge amount of emphasis on a minority group who oppose the right to be gay, they are allowed to exist of course, but you can't promote every group that opposes the law (although the BBC 'balance' policy may become that farcical one day)

If you look at more mainstream issues - there's plenty of space given to debate gay marriage, but there's little point pandering to a small group when society is broadly in favour and the law backs it up

The same goes for piracy, it is technically a crime - some areas are grey, but to give too much space to this sort of act would be very anti-establishment and would arguably be just as biased, I wouldn't expect it from the Beeb

I would expect a slightly less one-sided article, but welcome to the Magazine, it's a very strange and opinionated area of the site for old people - and I also remembered the fairer write-up the Pirate Party of Sweden got recently, and here's a clip from them

This article does grate at me, but thinking rationally I don't regard it as making the BBC biased, but what I will point out is the patronising of those who promote downloading as 'neutralisation' - there is no weight given to those theories and that I felt was going too far (allowing the industry to get their own way basically)

Issues such as regional coding, DRM, and exploitation are all valid - this is very much a battle between those who want to keep the power and those utilising a new method of distribution - for the article to simply belittle those arguments as being some sort of denial was wrong in my view

Just because there's a law against something doesn't make it wrong (so Lisa, go to your room) - when seven million people apparently break that law it means something needs to change, or be ignored (mince pies...)

What's the old adage - when one person does it, you arrest them, when five people do it, you move them along, when fifty people do it...you join in

You can't expect the BBC to promote it, just like they can't promote cannabis use - but they will do regular features on the issues because they are largely in the public interest

And as an aside - if the government actually want people to take note of their arguments they should stop lying in cannabis adverts - nobody trusts you to tell the truth so telling somebody 'piracy' is wrong is doing nothing when you aren't seen as a trustworthy public guardian

Aside #2 - why do Labour allow bullying in their 'knock-off Nigel' advert? As far as I'm aware it clearly promotes bullying of somebody doing something they dislike - calling a person names, seems pretty low to me, and if I were called Nigel I wouldn't be very impressed - should the government be picking on a name? Not that I hugely care, you understand, but that this government is so PC it seems rather hypocritical to me

New thread for a new day

I just had to laugh at the BBC's live feed title

LIVE: Gordon Brown fights for his future

It really is a bloodsport isn't it?

In other news, Darling is staying, because he threatened to quit entirely if he was moved - this cabinet ain't going anywhere*, so basically we're reduced to moving deckchairs

*...except down

Edit: Is it just me or has the BBC live feed got a bit too many pro-Labour messages? Methinks a certain party is spamming...and for BBC 'balance' enquiries - see them referring to new Lord Alan Sugar as 'Tsar' - applying soviet labels to the party you supposedly prop up is always clear bias....

Why won't he go?

I said yesterday that Labour were looking shakier and shakier, and low and behold the next day (actually it was the same day, if you live in GMT) they lose an opposition day debate on the Gurkhas

How wonderful, and if you don't know what this means - well the last time a government was defeated was 1978, under Callaghan (there's that parallel again) and to Jim's credit he at least didn't have a working majority

Furthermore this is a rather massive blow as it would appear the public never agreed with the government - the Daily Politics did not receive a single message against today's motion, obviously it's not a fair sample but it is unprecedented for everyone to agree like that - it shows how deeply out of touch the government are

And this comes in the wake of the expenses fiasco, the climbdown on the database, oh and a certain little petition that is now No.1 on the PM's own website, so I don't even need the address, just head to petitions.number10 and it's on the front page under 'most popular' - not bad for less than a week (I can't wait for the government response)

Also while you're there numbers 4 and 5 also piqued my interest - the national speed limit change is clearly deeply opposed and there's one against the proposed changes to tuition fees, two issues I feel pretty strongly about, and they're worthwhile petitions now they're so large

I don't really want to talk at length about the Gurkha situation, I've always believed they have a right to live here, and as every blogger and newspaper journo in the land is saying the same thing I see little point in adding my tiny voice

What I will say is that the government have not only been foolish, but callous

Why did they feel that it was appropriate to use the rule of 20 years service when Gurkhas are forced to retire after 15? That's pretty clearly a stitch-up

And why exactly did the government suddenly bring up a brick wall against immigration when this government (rightly or wrongly) are well known for having a lax attitude towards it? Personally I think they saw it as a soft target in an attempt to look tough, unfortunately for them the public don't actually mind soldiers who fight for this country being allowed in

Allowing pre-1997 Gurkhas in would allow approximately 36,000 in, the government said this could equate to just over 100,000 people, accounting for dependants

Big number isn't it? Well not really, that's the worst case scenario, or in government language: their strongest argument - it's a bit like saying we could expect over 300 million coming in from the EU

And 100,000 is not particularly large, it might be a logistical problem should they all descend within one year, but that's unlikely - as an example net foreign immigration was 333,000 in 2007 - and we've received over half a million Poles since 2004 (same source), if the government could handle all the 'opening the floodgates' headlines from the Mail over that then I see little reason they should have a problem with up to 100,000 people who have a pretty strong claim

Other arguments include, 'it'll cost too much and we're trying to cut costs' - well unfortunately Labour were happy to spend massively until about 2 weeks ago, so they had a good eleven years to throw more money away - and their estimates of it costing over a billion pounds are worthy of the tabloids, including potential healthcare costs for a bunch of elderly soldiers, the government neglect to mention that Gurkhas paid tax and National Insurance and so are therefore paid in

And seriously, a billion is nothing - pointless and unpopular I.D cards will be over five billion, the Olympics are set at 5.3billion, and will probably be nearer ten billion, and exactly how much did the bailout cost?

Then of course the Tories are 'do-nothings' and Labour were the ones who gave Gurkhas right of settlement in the first place...yes, because what else happened in 1997? That's right we gave back Hong Kong and so had to change the rules

Incidentally, the idea of calling the Tories 'do-nothings' is now ridiculous as they just voted for a much bigger measure than the government, seriously I'm not a Tory but when all Labour can produce is negative campaigning at the opposition it grates at me

I think all you have to remember is the government's 20-year regulation: Gurkhas only serve 15 years, and that's just brazen

*I also have some quick mentions:

Nick Clegg performed very well (even if Cameron did muscle in) - I think he did a great job on this, well done to him

Andrew Neil for simply revelling in Brown's misery, what with hundreds of thousands laughing at him on the net (I haven't the heart to tell Andrew we've been doing that for nearly two years anyway)

Nick Robinson says that Gordon is constantly misjudging issues

So how's that for BBC bias? There is of course a simpering analysis by Gary O'Donoghue to prop up the dear leader, just kidding - he thinks he's lost his authority

Callaghan was defeated in late January 1978, but didn't lose confidence til March 1979, and the election was in May 79, a year and three months later - Gordon only has a year and one month left - pity

Huge bias

As per my decision to highlight the many contradictory examples when idiots claim the BBC is biased towards Labour:

Gordon Brown gives his first interview after the g20 (is that like an election to him?) to Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2

The calls were clearly vetted to provide support to our ailing Dear Leader...

What was that last one on about? - she doesn't even provide any reasoning, you know, like 'you saved the world...I mean banks' - sounds like a party plant if you ask me