UKC

What a deeply repellent human being.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39056786
It is staggering how many believe the lies and, possibly more disturbing, how many want to believe the lies.

In reply to TMM:

If people stop reacting to him and sharing his opinions it will dramatically reduce his influence.

News websites crave clicks and (better yet) shares. Farage is easy click bait, that is why an ex leader of a minor party gets so much more coverage than he should.

In reply to TMM:

Looks like he's ramping up the bullshit rhetoric in the wake of Trumps success with the same tactic. I guess we can expect more of this.

In reply to TMM:

Ironic Farage talks b*ll*cks about Swedish sexual offences given the Trump - Assange information axis

In reply to TMM:

The monkey dancing to the organ-grinders tune

After Trump's gaffe over Sweden, his followers are desperate to cover it up by claiming there is truth to what he says. And through mis-use of statistics they can hit the headlines and not worry that the details paint a different story

In reply to TMM:

He is actually correct but what the right wing nutters don't tell you is that Sweden has broadened the definition of rape in recent years. Now acts that would be serious sexual assault here are rape in Sweden. Quite rightly so I might add. It's clear to anyone with access to Google and a desire to fact check to get the truth that this is the reason for the increase in rape stats in Sweden. The university of Stockholm has done some interesting research on the subject.

In reply to Jungel:

Actual facts if anyone is interested

Reality Check: Is Malmo the 'rape capital' of Europe? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39056786

In reply to Jungel:
The artic in the op is a link to a BBC factcheck, which explains the points you've made in your post.

Ps. He still isn't right, even with those caveats.

In reply to ebdon:

Thank god someone has posted a link to a 'reality check'

In reply to TMM:

Just noticed this was posted in the op, whoops, too much facts perhaps.
Still well done bbc.

In reply to TMM:

I would be much more likely to believe Farage than the BBC...

In reply to Jim 1003:


We have noticed that.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Well yes. That's because you are deluded; there is no other explanation.

In reply to Jim 1003:


I can think of 350 million reasons not to

In reply to Jim 1003:


But not on this occasion obviously.

In reply to Jim 1003:

That's no surprise at all coming from you.

Farage isn't the chief 'kipper any more though. What about Paul Nuttall, do you believe him?

Was he at Hillsborough? Does he have a PhD? Was he a professional footballer? Did he single-handedly thwart the terrorist attack at Bowling Green?

In reply to TMM:


I strongly object to that statement. He is not a human being.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Ah, there you go, good old left wing sensibilities well displayed.

In reply to Big Ger:


Not really.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Just a very naughty boy?

In reply to TMM:

I don't know why this is in the UKC forums but for the record. Trump and Farage are totally wrong:

Here is the Radio4 `More or Less` stats program explaining where this claim came from and completely and emphatically dismantling it...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04txtsm

In reply to Malarkey:


According to your profile, you've been registered here since 2014. Have you not noticed until now that people talk about things other than climbing? In fact, a lot more about other things than about climbing?

If you don't want to talk about anything other than climbing, turn off the 'off belay' and 'down the pub' forums in your preferences, then you won't have the real world intrude into your experience on UKC.

In reply to Malarkey:

How many UKIP voters do you think listen to radio 4?

Unfortunately, the current appeal of quick-fix populism is such that soundbite lies have far greater reach than considered argument.

In reply to Malarkey:

I just heard that earlier - superb isn't it? You just realise what utter shite Trump spews - I mean I think we all knew anyway, but that More or Less Extra just really drums the point home.

In reply to Malarkey:
I will add that it's not even the fact of what defines rape, but also the proportion of the population who are willing to report it.

I can imagine in some US God bothering states where it's a woman's duty to be either in the kitchen or the bedroom, many woman daren't go to the police as the local chief, their husband and happy clapper church leader are all buddies... so rape stats are practically zero.

In reply to TMM:
Once upon a time politics was about things that were vaguely truth, or at least loosely based on real nformation. Now it's about whatever you can convince the public to believe.

Try this article from today's Observer for a tak on how this phenomenon is being promoted:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-wa...

Anyone know an aggressively left wing billionaire who could fund a counter offensive?

In reply to TMM:

I really struggle to find some way of understanding the minds of people who will use "data" in such ways.

This was flagged to me on Facebook and I'm flabbergasted by it:

http://www.europeancivilwar.com/every-4-8-seconds-a-white-woman-or-girl-is-...

It may seem utterly ludicrous to the sensible mind, but plenty are prepared to buy it!

In reply to Rampikino:

Interesting that that article, deplorably manipulative as it is, seems well aware of its tactics. Within a few paragraphs of scanning it we get this: "If this article is your first exposure to this website, or even your first exposure to what is really going on in Europe, then please allow whatever outrage it engenders in you to catalyze action on your behalf. Donate money to Preservationist groups and websites that fight for Europe’s survival. "

The implication can only be: do so quickly before you have time to consider the issue properly. We've pulled the strings of your gut instinct and we realise it may only be a matter of time before your brain takes over and puts the figures into meaningful perspective, so we need you to act now before you're no longer a believer. It's like snake-oil salesmen - the most successful ones are those that really believe the lies they tell, and as soon as they start doubting the credibility of the product it takes a much rarer person to keep selling it convincingly.

In reply to john arran:

Quite right. It plays on a number of levels, not least confirmation bias, but effectively attempts to build a very reasonable rationale with a jaw-dropping conclusion.

Hideous.

In reply to ebdon:
If I read the BBC link correctly, the number of rapes/sexual offences declined dramatically in 2015, the year that saw a large influx of migrants.
Does anyone care to offer an opinion on why this should be or is it just a coincidence. (Or have I misread the article?).

In reply to ebdon:

I listened to a Swedish MP ( interviewed by Andrew Neil I think it was) defending Sweden deliberately NOT recording the ethnic origins of criminals.

She seemed overly defensive of the policy, and did not put up a logical case for not recording this information.
(If they had then she may have been able to demonstrate that there was no correlation between the issues. That would have been useful in itself. )
( Edit , but would not explain why they had so suddenly cut immigration youtube.com/watch?v=SXMZhJxceio& )

In reply to baron:

It's a country ( apparently , according to a Swedish MP ) if a wife reported that she had been raped by her husband for a year, then that is then recorded as 365 rapes by police.

If not every country records crime in the same way, then even if the stats are gathered, without knowing these details, means that comparisons to other countries is meaningless.

So we should all gather stats, but also clearly understand what we are then comparing them to.
Edit :- youtube.com/watch?v=2a0L8oGzYEk&

In reply to john arran:
Interestingly I was pretty sure I had seen the horrible bloody photo used in that article before. A quick google search shows it has been used thousands of times around the web just like it is in the link Rampikino found, as a demonstration of "muslim rape victim". In that link the suggestion at least is that she is Swedish, but she is claimed to be Finnish in quite a few links, and German in many others, but always the victim of a Muslim rapist. But it is a strange state of affairs in this world of fake news when googling deeper back in time for that image turns up the Daily Mail as a source of sanity and truth! It would appear the woman in the photo is British and the injuries were not done by the supposedly marauding Muslim rape gangs that have turned 'Europe' into a civil war zone, but some good old British pointless, potentially drunken, violence - at the hands of another woman. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524638/Mother-beaten-black-blue-wo...

In reply to TMM:

The first graph in the BBC report doesn't say much. It would be amazing if there was a large effect on national rape numbers since it is only about 100,000 male immigrants in a population of about 4,500,000. Even if they were twice as likely to commit rape as Swedish men it would only mean 260 instead of 130 additional rapes onto a baseline of about 6000 and still be buried by other factors on that graph. Also, the graph stops at 2015, which the article says is the year when most of the migrants arrived but if they arrived in 2015 then they weren't in Sweden for the full year, from what I remember the migrant surge was in summer/autumn. It is the 2016 numbers when they'd been in Sweden and affecting the statistics for a full year that would show the impact.

The second graph, for individual towns goes up to 2016 and does show a rise in the rate of rapes per 100,000 inhabitants for Malmo and Gothenburg in 2016. So my reading is there is a problem but it's on nothing like the scale that Farage and his cronies are pretending. It would be amazing if there wasn't an impact - if you built a military base with a few thousand young men and very few women in a town there'd be an impact on local sex crime statistics.

Farage is obviously exaggerating and distorting the statistics massively by exploiting Sweden's statistics not being directly comparable to other countries but to a lesser extent the BBC and governments are also distorting things by trying to pretend there is no impact on rape statistics from migrants at all. The problem with pretending there is no effect is that people conclude that everybody is lying so they may as well believe what they want to hear. It actually helps Trump and Farage lie as much as they like.

In reply to john arran:


Nothing 'current' about it, at least not in the sense of 'novel'. Mein Kampf has an interesting discussion of the same phenomenon, and the effectiveness of the big lie. Trump and Farage are simply following the 30's playbook in this as in much else.

jcm

In reply to Robert Durran:


The other explanation is the BBC distort facts like many news organisations. Politicians do it as well, however I find the BBC the worst. Daily Mail second.

In reply to Jim 1003:


In that case why is the BBC almost universally respected, probably above all other news organisations worldwide, for its even handed, balanced reporting?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That a a long message to say there is nothing in available data to support the massive contention that Malmo is rape capital Europe- before bizarrely criticising the BBC for not being able to prove the negative of no measurable effect at all with as yet non-existent data.

Three points -
1) The rise in rape stats precedes by about 5 years the rise in rape in Sweden. That's what a moments consideration of the first and second graphs show.
2) There are stats there for Malmo there itself - where you might see an effect but you claim there is no " rise in the rate of rapes per 100,000 inhabitants for Malmo and Gothenburg in 2016". It is no more up in 2016 than it was down in 2015 -- it's obvious to anyone with a passing experience of data - or an ounce of common sense - that graph has basically no trend for the last 5 years.

Not sure if this has been linked yet, but heard this More or Less with half an ear last night discussing the topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04t4kb7

In reply to Malarkey:

I agree there is no data to support the assertion that Malmo is the rape capital of Europe, in fact the data disprove it.

The BBC article went beyond that though and seemed to be trying to give a gloss that there wasn't any impact from the asylum seekers at all. They've updated the article since I commented and now have national data for 2016 in the first graph. The graphs are showing a small but significant uptick in 2016 - you can argue whether it is noise but asylum seekers are a reasonable explanation for a small rise.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I don't think that's true, it has been severely criticise for allegedly biased reporting, and dubious polls. Certainly, many incidents/cases I have been personally involved in have been misreported by them. Very selective reporting of facts. It's constant harping on about Trump/Farage/ annoys me to the extent I can't be bothered to listen to the BBC anymore.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Could it be that the facts just don't coincide with what you want to believe?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
since I commented and now have national data for 2016 in the first graph. The graphs are showing a small but significant uptick in 2016 - you can argue whether it is noise but asylum seekers are a reasonable explanation for a small rise.

As long as the swedes continue to not collect data on the ethnic origins of criminal acts, then it is all guesswork, for all we know immigrants may be the most law abiding people in Sweden, there is nothing to prove otherwise.

Meanwhile Sweden has quietly reduced numbers allowed in by 80% from their peak.

If that it is nothing to do with crime then they must have another good reason for this turnaround.
Any ideas?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"The graphs are showing a small but significant uptick in 2016 - you can argue whether it is noise but asylum seekers are a reasonable explanation for a small rise."

Asylum seekers are only a reasonable explanation to someone who clearly really wants to imagine a "significant uptick" in a flat trend.

In reply to Jim C:


Public opinion perhaps? Pressure on services?
jk

In reply to Jim C:


There was nothing quiet about it - the change in policy was announced in a press conference during which the deputy prime minister broke down in tears (if the policy itself wasn't newsworthy enough, surely the image of a tearful politician would grab a few photo stories) and was subsequently covered by media throughout europe.


A few months back Postmanpat linked to a very interesting article with a lot of background on why Sweden changed their policy - i believe it was from the Atlantic - which i have been trying to find, but couldn't. From memory, there were a number of reasons, mainly to do with the government's ability to process asylum seekers and the capacity of things like housing and education.

From memory, I don't believe crime was a big part of it but would have to re-read the article to be sure.

In reply to Malarkey:


No way are those graphs a flat trend. There is a general rising trend with significant changes year on year and if you dig into it I'm sure there are explanations of the year on year movement in terms of changes to reporting criteria and particular events during the year.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Unfortunately not, it's the volume, they're on a mission to discredit both, and it has the opposite effect with me...

In reply to Jim 1003:


Trump and Farage hardly need any extra help from the BBC or anyone else to discredit themselves - the facts do that perfectly adequately.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The 'reported' facts...are often not facts...

In reply to Jim 1003:

Where do you get your facts from then Jim?

In reply to TobyA:


May, Johnson, Farage, Nuttall, Trump, Spicer, Conway, Murdoch and Breitbart.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Could you give an example or two?

In reply to Robert Durran:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
It's endless...

In reply to Jim 1003:

what are your trusted news sources ?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The first graph shows a rising trend, mostly due to mollestation, but also increasing numbers of reported rapes, but is not controlled for population, or population density, so could be due to other changes.

The second is controlled and shows some up and down, but not significant. In fact 2016 was not the highest year for any of the 3 cities looked at. So I don't understand why you think they are rising.

In reply to lummox:


Thats not the point is it, it's the bollocks in the media Im referring to, particularly the obsession with Trump and Farage.
I have found reporters to be on a par with estate agents, politicians and lawyers for being unable to tell the truth.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Given that you have been so dismissive of the BBC, which is held in high regard globally, I think it would be of general interest for those of us on the thread. As for the " obsession " with Trump and Farage, given that they are consummate self publicists who whore themselves at any opportunity, I think you might want to consider who manufactures this " obsession."

In reply to Jim 1003:


Fine, that's an opinion and you're entitled to it but it doesn't answer the simple question: where do you get your information from, which sources do you trust?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:
It's endless...

A quick scan suggests that the BBC is highly accountable for its output and that when mistakes occur they are dealt with appropriately. I doubt any other news organization in the world is subject to such scrutiny and accountability.

In reply to Oliver Houston:

The population of Sweden rose from about 9.11 to 9.85M over that period so population growth doesn't explain the size of the increase. There is clearly a fairly substantial increase over the period of the first graph. A lot of it will be explained by different reporting criteria.

>The second is controlled and shows some up and down, but not significant. In fact 2016 was not the highest year for any of the 3 cities looked at. So I don't understand why you think they are rising.

Over the period of the graph the Malmo and Gothenburg numbers rise by quite a bit. The annual variation is quite significant. If the number per 100,000 inhabitants goes from 55 to 69 in a year in a city with 550,000 inhabitants there are more than 70 additional rapes and there will be some underlying reason or reasons. The peak in 2014 seems to be explained by a change in reporting. The BBC article suggests the rise in 2016 is due to sexual harassment in music festivals, the right of centre press coverage at the time says that sexual harassment was by immigrants similar to what happened in Koeln, the left wing press coverage denies that. They are probably both lying and/or suppressing information because the most likely scenario that there is a significant measurable increase in sexual crimes after importing 10,000 young males from another culture into a town but the increase is manageable and not an existential threat is not politically acceptable to either side.

In reply to lummox:


I thought there had been a few problems with the BBC, Jimmy Saville comes to mind....or do you think it's okay to have paedophiles hosting chat shows and having kids sat on his knee despite numerous warnings....

In reply to Robert Durran:

Would this include Mr Hall and Mr Saville....? LOL....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Jim- where do you get your objective news about Trump and Farage from ? If you share your sources with us, perhaps we might change our opinions of them.

In reply to lummox:

I thought there had been a few problems with the BBC, Jimmy Saville comes to mind....or do you think it's okay to have paedophiles hosting chat shows and having kids sat on his knee despite numerous warnings....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Why don't you want to share your news sources with us Jim ? If you think the BBC is a deeply unreliable source, surely you would want us to have alternative facts ? Please share.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Jimmy Saville is not where the BBC gets its news from.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Come on, you cannot expect people to believe you are this daft.

Saville has no bearing on the quality of the BBC's journalism. They are unrelated, it's like saying "trains are dangerous because fish", it makes no sense.

Where do you get your information, which sources do you trust?

Me in roughly descending order of frequency/volume: Radio 4, BBC news online, print i most days, Independant online, Economist online and various other established/mainstream online sources as flagged up by friends/ukc/facebook etc.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:

Oh FFS

In reply to jkarran:


Except when the BBC holds back stories about Saville - it is the cover up that is relevant to the BBC's journalism, not the crime.

The BBC has a very definite 'conservative' in the sense of favouring the status quo political agenda. It tries to be unbiased on the left/right, Labour/Tory axis of Westminster politics but it is completely biased with regard to issues like Scottish Independence, the monarchy, the EU and multi-culturalism.

The Independent is getting almost as bad as the Telegraph for exaggerated 'fake news' click bait where you have to read two thirds of the article carefully before you discover the headline was a complete misrepresentation designed to provoke outrage.

In reply to GrahamD:


Thanks for this post. A withering answer to one of the dumbest assertions around.

At first I was mildly surprised when Trump started criticising the BBC and I was gobsmacked when he banned it from briefings. Then it dawned on me that he has dinner with Farage.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"No way are those graphs a flat trend. There is a general rising trend with significant changes year on year".

I don't know which graphs you were looking at, but the second graph goes up and down in all 3 cities, contradicting your above statement.
In fact, the year on year changes (up and down) suggest that this is just noise in the data (Stockholm is the same in 2016 as 2006).

The trend maybe slightly upwards, but I don't see how you can have done statistical tests to show it is significant.
In fact, I don't think there's enough numbers in either of those graphs to do proper statistics.
As you said and the article suggests, the change could just be to do with reported assaults being taken more seriously, therefore more people are willing to report. Which would be a good thing and nothing to do with the population/demographic at all.

In reply to jkarran:


The incompetence displayed by the heads of the BBC in relation to Saville and others was astounding. These people are in charge of editorial as well, you're not telling me they have good decision making skills are you? There have been a number of enquiries into BBC editorial over the years. Get with the facts.

In reply to Jim 1003:

So which news sources do you trust?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Which news sources do you trust?

In reply to Jim 1003:

How hard is it to answer a simple question without rambling off into conspiracy nonsense? Seriously, how embarrassing can your reading list be?

The people in charge of editing news at the BBC are not the people who managed Saville or failed to report their suspicions of his crimes.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Your wrong there mate, the heads of the BBC got numerous reports about Saville but failed to act them. Read the enquiry report, not what the BBC tell you.

In reply to TMM:

Dame Linda concluded that the late BBC executive, a former news editor based in Manchester when Hall was the “star” of the news magazine show Look North, was “probably aware that Stuart Hall was involved in inappropriate sexual conduct on BBC premises” but did not share that knowledge with his line manager. This, said Dame Janet, was another “missed opportunity”.

In reply to Jim 1003:


But the board of the BBC does not edit the news.

Who do you trust for your news Jim?

In reply to jkarran:


He said above he prefers the mighty, trusted and diligent Farage newscorp over the BBC, and clearly has nothing more to further to say on this point, which I think tells us all we need to know.

In reply to MG:


It doesn't actually and I never said that. You made that up, that's the sort of behaviour that makes people vote for Farage and Trump. I've been out climbing all afternoon, back now, sorry to disappoint the luvvies. Now, what about all the paedophiles and sex offenders the BBC has supported, can you trust the BBC to do editorial news stuff, if they can't even sort out one of the worst sex offenders, paedophiles in recent UK history. So much for investigative reporters, they couldn't detect a nuclear explosion if they were stood on top of it...

In reply to Jim 1003:


You mean I can't trust the BBC?

In reply to jkarran:


It was my understanding that news reporters seek out news.
In the case of Saville and the BBC the huge news story was happening right under their noses, and so they either missed it completely ( and are therefore crap reporters) or they knew exactly what was going on , and did not report it.
Either way a pretty poor performance.

In reply to lummox:


It's like reading history books, each author/ country has their own bias.
There are no completely trustworthy news sources.

In reply to Jim 1003:


"I would be much more likely to believe Farage than the BBC..."

In reply to MG:

Now, what about all the paedophiles and sex offenders the BBC has supported, can you trust the BBC to do editorial news stuff, if they can't even sort out one of the worst sex offenders, paedophiles in recent UK history. So much for investigative reporters, they couldn't detect a nuclear explosion if they were stood on top of it...

In reply to Jim 1003:

You said you would be more likely to believe Farage than the BBC. (An example of the sort of random relation to the truth that makes people despise Trump, Farage etc)

Which news sources do you trust? (Or, at the least, can you explain your obsession with Saville and where you got your news about him?)

In reply to Jim 1003:

How about you accept I wasn't making stuff up?

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Saville etc.

In reply to mac fae stirling:
Just explain how criticising the BBC for not dealing properly with Saville is an obsession...are you some sort of weirdo?
You and the other luvvies have been praising the BBC, I'm pointing out the BBC is a poor organisation because it didn't deal properly with Saville and had a cover up later exposed in an enquiry.
Are you a supporter of Saville?

In reply to Jim 1003:

You won't find a single comment from me praising the BBC. (What kind of odd fantasy land do you live in?) I am not a fan of the BBC, but I do think it is a more trustworthy source of news than Farage.
No I am not a supporter of Saville.
What news sources do you trust?

In reply to MG:
I'm criticising the BBC mate, your defending them...do you think they dealt well with Saville?
Here's some more areas of concern about the BBC

In 2005, two independent reports deemed the BBC's coverage of the European Union to be rather inadequate and one of the reports noted a "cultural and unintentional bias".[38]

In July 2013, a report[39] commissioned by the BBC Trust found that the organisation had been slow to reflect widespread public concerns about immigration to the UK, and shifts in public attitudes within the UK towards the European Union. The report, by Stuart Prebble, stated that Helen Boaden, the former director of BBC News, had said that when she arrived at the organisation there had been a "deep liberal bias" in the handling of immigration issues. It also stated that, within the BBC, "the agenda of debate is probably too driven by the views of politicians", but that "overall the breadth of opinion reflected by the BBC on this subject is broad and impressive, and no persuasive evidence was found that significant areas of opinion are not given due weight today." It also stated that the BBC was "slow to give appropriate prominence to the growing weight of opinion opposing UK membership of the EU, but in more recent times has achieved a better balance".[40][41]

Not really a good news organisation...but keep your rose tinted specs on MG/Robert Duran etc

In reply to Jim 1003:

If you think BBC news cannot be trusted, what sources of news can you trust, Jim? How do you get to be as enlightened as you are?

In reply to john arran:

Grow up and cut the sarcasm.
How did you feel about the BCC handling of Saville? The thread was about reliability of news organisations, not which I like or dislike.

In reply to Jim 1003:

BBC handling of Saville sounded terrible. For an organisation that big and that old it's actually surprising there haven't been far more major cock-ups, but that's not to excuse them for the ones they'e made.

But since this thread is about "reliability of news organisations", which ones do you think are the most reliable?

An answer would be so much nicer than another tangential question.

In reply to Jim C:


It happened under a lot of people's noses, in hospitals, care homes, hospices, hotels, tv and radio studios... *Nobody* reported on it yet this failure to identify and illuminate Saville is a stick specifically to beat the BBC with, then and now years after his death?

Obviously the BBC is a huge and diverse organisation and Saville's offending has spanned decades, that he was able to continue to offend with perceived impunity does not reflect well on some members of management in place at the time but then it is also worthwhile noting the standards of the times in which he was most active were different, much of the lower level offending that would today raise flags was not unusual in many workplaces.

None of this has a bearing on the quality of the modern day BBC's news reporting and obsessing about it I suspect demonstrates either a lack of intellectual capacity to understand that or a desperate need to discredit by means fair or foul an organisation who's reporting does not fit with Jim's world view.

The thing about almost all of the more legitimate criticism of the BBC is that it is from across the political spectrum, liberals moan about right wing bias, right wingers moan about liberal luvvies and in most cases the criticism comes with caveats and tends to indicate problems were, where correctly identified, temporary. That isn't criticism of a failed organisation, it's criticism of a large, diverse and responsive one.

Where do you get your information Jim 1003? It seems you trust bits of Wikipedia, shall we add that to Farage?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


I'm not actually. I've only mentioned the BBC in relation to your posts. Since you seem to be unable to remember what you wrote over a period of 24hrs, and clearly can't understand the simplest of questions, I'll leave you to rant and rave.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Yes, for the reliability of their news, not their handling of paedophiles. You are simply using Saville as a distraction to avoid telling us why you think BBC news is unreliable and telling us which news organisations you do consider reliable. Which are they?

In reply to Jim 1003:
>The thread was about reliability of news organisations, not which I like or dislike.

Ok, what do you condisder to be reliable news organisations?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Lets face it, Jim 1003 is primarily a wind up merchant (and, to give credit, quite a successful one) and doesn't actually give a Scooby Doo about accurate news sources.

In reply to GrahamD:


Scooby Doo... actually, I think that may well be one of his reliable news sources; 'Yeah, and Fargae would have gotten away with branding Malmo the rape capital of Europe if it wasnt for you meddling luvvies'

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't trust any journalists, more fool you if you do.

I don't think Saville was a distraction, slightly odd remark about possibly the worst predatory sex offender the UK has seen.
The point about it is the cover up, which is why the BBC is unreliable as other posters have pointed out to you. People in editorial positions were responsible for that. It's not a distraction, it's evidence of a cover up, if they are prepared to cover up and lie about a sex offender why do you trust them with delivery of News?

I see, as usual, when the luvvies lose an argument they resort to insults. You can't defend the BBC over Saville, just admit it.

In reply to Jim 1003:


What informs your opinion then, Jim? Where do you get your informed and balanced views from?

In reply to john arran:
How did you feel about the BCC handling of Saville? The thread was about reliability of news organisations, not which I like or dislike.
Do you support the cover up of Saville, you won't answer that, so I'm presuming your happy with covering up predatory sex offending?

In reply to Jim 1003:

We know who you don't trust. Who *do* you trust to inform you of what's happening in the world, where do they get their information and how do you find your way to your sources?

The indignation and mud slinging about Saville is wasting everyone's time, how about we drop it and have a sensible conversation about reliable news sources. I've said which I consider reliable, you've disagreed, that's ok but now how about you signpost us to some better sources.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:

Try harder, Jim. You know you can answer the question if you try hard enough.

edit: have you really run out of diversionary questions, such that you need to repeat the same ones that have already been answered? I think you're better than that.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Where did you get your reliable info re Saville?

In reply to jkarran:

It's not just the Saville cover up though is it?

In July 2013, a report[39] commissioned by the BBC Trust found that the organisation had been slow to reflect widespread public concerns about immigration to the UK, and shifts in public attitudes within the UK towards the European Union. The report, by Stuart Prebble, stated that Helen Boaden, the former director of BBC News, had said that when she arrived at the organisation there had been a "deep liberal bias" in the handling of immigration issues. It also stated that, within the BBC, "the agenda of debate is probably too driven by the views of politicians", but that "overall the breadth of opinion reflected by the BBC on this subject is broad and impressive, and no persuasive evidence was found that significant areas of opinion are not given due weight today." It also stated that the BBC was "slow to give appropriate prominence to the growing weight of opinion opposing UK membership of the EU, but in more recent times has achieved a better balance".[40][41]

In reply to Jim 1003:

Oh for goodness sake, you've used that one before and I discussed it less than an hour ago. Was it still on your clipboard or did you have to look it up again.

It's rather tame criticism which concludes "...but in more recent times has achieved a better balance".

Where can I get more reliable news Jim?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:

That's copied from wiki where reference 39 is a BBC review and the other references are reporting on that review. So, if you don't trust the BBC, you clearly won't trust the review, so you must in fact trust the BBC. Happy to help.

In reply to jkarran:


You might have discussed it an hour ago, but I was not happy with your glib response. You might like and trust the BBC, I don't. I was put off them by their cover up of the Saville enquiry, so were many other people. So many in fact there was a major enquiry. You think everything is okay now, I don't.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


There's an enquiry report, I take it you got yours from the BBC. Your hilarious....Mac fae Stirling....do you wear a C U Jimmy wig to.

In reply to john arran:


Here's another....

Out of all 40 editions of Newsnight, of all the guests who have appeared to discuss the EU, there were 25 who clearly supported the Remain perspective and just 14 who want Britain to leave the EU.

News-watch also claims that those who support Remain were clearly given much greater prominence than those who want to leave.

The report highlights an interview of Labour Grassroots Out lead campaigner Kate Hoey MP on February 5, in what is “a very rare appearance on the BBC of a Labour figure supporting EU exit".

The main thrust of the interview by James O'Brien was not her reasons for wanting to leave, but rather the extent to which the exit movement was split, and what was happening next.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Cognitive Dissonance?

In reply to Jim 1003:

And more diversion. What's the point, what are you so worried will happen if you tell us where you get your news?

At this point in the discussion you couldn't come across as any more of a wally if you actually answered Stormfront and Razzle. I'm out, you're a waste of time.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


The point is you just can't defend them, nor trust them with the News, it was a national disgrace.

In reply to Jim 1003:


What news sources do you trust?

In reply to Jim 1003:


Where did you get all those facts, Jim? And how can you be sure they're accurate and not selectively presented to give the illusion of bias? Was it from a trustworthy source? I'd be keen to know if you've found one.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Did Newswatch give similar figures for The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Guardian?

The overwhelming problem with the TV discussion of Brexit, was the complete lack of depth that was given. We spent 6 months hearing the same sound bites and learning almost nothing.

In reply to jkarran:
There is a stong irony about Saville coming up on a thread about this Farage's rant. One was a multi-institutional cover up of obvious facts ignoring 'PC complaints' for 'the wider good' (he was hugely important in charity fundraising but a very well known liar and sex pest at the time, albeit not a known paedophile) and the other is an anti PC campaigner making shit up to attach unfair blame in a very emotive area.

In reply to Jim 1003:


So if a teacher in a school turned out to be a paedophile and the school management had tried to hush it up to avoid a scandal, would you conclude that the quality of teaching in the school was poor? Obviously not - even the paedophile might have been a brilliant subject teacher.

Anyway you still havn't told us where you get your trusted news from.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Ok, lets ask another question - Do think Malmo actually is the rape capital of Europe?
After all, that is what Farage said.

In reply to Robert Durran:


You don't sound like you have kids. If a school did that, I would never trust them again, very similar to my BBC example.

In reply to Jim 1003:


You insist on completely missing the point. You might not trust them with your child's safety, but you could not conclude that the standard of classroom teaching was poor.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Your missing the point, teaching includes the care of the child.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

I was thinking about this and it has elements of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

NF makes the allegation and the Swedish Government have to deny it, whether it's true or not. If it's true, they will not admit to it because the repercussions for the govt. and Europes immigration policy is not worth thinking about. If it's not true, they give the same answer. So NF is safe on his allegation because he knows the Swedes will deny, and his crowd will deem it as a cover up, whilst the rest of us hope the Swedes are right . The element of doubt is there and his job is done.

In reply to Jim 1003:


You are either thick or pretending to be thick I'm afraid.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think it was your comment above that I responded to that shows that if anybody is thick, it is you.
The BBC are certainly not universally respected, there's been many enquiries into their editorial, not to mention the Saville disgrace.
Not much substance to your replies....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Christ, 'the Saville Disgrace'. The past is a different country. The BBC employed him back then because the British public demanded that they do so. Why? I have no idea, presumably the same reason that Simon Cowell still has a job. The management would have been pilloried if they hadn't. The police wouldn't have acted if anyone had complained. The press assumed that's what celebrities did - and if you think that Saville was anything more than a particularly egregious example of what was common practice back in the 70s then you're pathetically naïve.

But because of all that you think that BBC journalists are cr*p. You're an idiot.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Do you believe Farage's assertion that Malmo is the rape capital of Europe ? If so, what credible evidence do you have to support that assertion ?

I think it's pathetic that a 60 year old is either trolling or simply won't answer a straightforward question.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's you that is an idiot, do you not get it is the cover up that is the problem. The BBC are supposed to produce news from investigative journalists, they housed one of the worst sex offenders in the country and not only did they not investigate it, they actively covered it up. Doesn't really inspire confidence in them, does it? How naive can you get?
The British public demanded that the BBC employed Saville, are you serious? Was this some sort of Brexit vote on employing Saville. Get a grip mate, you can't even make a good job of making it up. LOL.

In reply to Jim 1003:


It's a good point, but it was years ago and as bad as it was things will have changed now, just as cultural values have changed. Rob points that fact out. He also points out another undeniable fact in his post !

In reply to Hugh J:

Really, years ago, check your facts mate.

'Former BBC Radio 1 DJ Andy Kershaw has said he believes senior management were “still trying to cover their tracks” over Jimmy Savile’s sex abuse as late as 2012.

Kershaw, who worked with Savile for a number of years at Radio 1, said that he found Dame Janet Smith’s conclusion that complaints about Savile never reached BBC management impossible to believe.

“Dame Janet Smith is asking us to believe that people at a certain level of management at the BBC and above, those in the loftier positions of management, had not heard the persistent and consistent rumours that everybody else who worked in the BBC, on the shop floor, had heard for years,” he said, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday. “For anyone to claim they hadn’t heard those rumours at the time, it is a little disingenuous I think.”

No doubt this would include all the investigative reporters...beloved by Dorran, Lummox, Karran etc..

In reply to Jim 1003:
I think you need.to move on. Protesteth too much and people might start to draw opinions about you...

In reply to MG:


I'm sure plenty of people already have opinions about him ... although perhaps not the ones you're alluding to

In reply to Jim 1003:
Let's forget the fact that a long dead former DJ commited crimes that may have been covered up or more likely not taken seriously by some BBC management (as well as senior police officers and Margaret Thatcher) several decades ago. In relation to the OP, can you explain why Nigel Farage is correct, rather than deliberately lying to push an agenda of hate.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I am not political but enjoy politics, i would have said the same years ago however I have found the BBC very one sided on certain subjects almost behaving at times like a British FOX news, IMO.
And don't even get me started on question time!

In reply to payney1973:


Would agree, I do find the near weekly heckling on QT or Any Questions by far left supporters both irritating and childish.

In reply to payney1973:


So you perceive it as biased to the right and Jim perceived it as biased to the left then? Seems they're getting it about right most of the time then. I'd only be worried if there was a consensus that it was biased in one direction.