We’re very lucky to have the BBC. Yes, it’s the British Broadcasting Corporation, but it produces programmes of a quality and range that no other broadcasting company I’ve come across can begin to match. But it is obsessed with balance.
We saw it the other night in political editor Nick Robinson’s commentary on the Clegg-Farage debate. Anybody watching that programme regardless of their political loyalties would have seen that Farage wiped the floor with Clegg. Yet Nick Robinson’s commentary on it managed to avoid saying that Clegg was dithering and Farage dominant. Instead he quoted the exit polls on the debate, which of course gave Farage a 2:1 win. Auntie reported, didn’t dare make any judgement.
Every so often, however, this pseudo-neutrality gets busted. At the time of Tony Benn’s death, there was a clip going the rounds where he’s being interviewed by a BBC News woman, who tries to keep him nicely neutral like herself. Benn refuses to shut up, insists he will speak, accuses the BBC of caving in to pressure from the Israeli embassy and tells her that the BBC has the blood of innocent Palestinian women and children on its hands. The poor woman didn’t know where to look or what to say.
Something similar happened on The View last night. Peter Robinson had been interviewed and Mark had moved over to his two commentators, to get their reaction. Now normally this is a pale imitation of the official BBC balance line. That is, commentators hint at criticism, emphasise the complexity of things, and if they deliver negative comment make sure that they deliver a double negative comment: that is, one lot’s as bad as the other, which maintains the BBC balance of beating both children.
Not this time. The academic Cathy Gormley Heenan was forensic in her comments.The normal line is to be mildly critical if critical at all, or if it must go further hit the other lot as well. This time there was no ambiguity. Peter Robinson’s contemptuous comments on Gerry Adams, his references to economic illiteracy among Sinn Féin viewers – the carping tone of his entire address was well and truly nailed. Whatever about the letter of the Good Friday Agreement, Cathy Gormley Heenan said, Robinson’s entire interview was totally divorced from the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. It had a “nasty, mean tone”. Sitting beside her Newton Emerson, despite his brown suit, looked colourless. Whether the BBC will be able to cope with someone who speaks her mind with such clarity and authority remains to be seen.
I have no truck with Peter Robinson however he is entirely right about economic illiteracy amongst SF “viewers”
Spirit of good friday agreement seriously what waffle you support anybody who tries to defend the republican movement nothing wrong with that but your absolute inability to see any fault in the republican movement reflects on your credibilty as a writer.
if you think that imposing all kinds of cut backs on the most vulnerable in our society whether north or south is right.
Let it be known that the 4 churches and the trade unions don’t agree with you and have opposed austerity on both sides of the border and in england scotland and wales.
This is an opportunity for the northern ireland executive to show leadership to others and implement a more radical approach which would support the weakest in all our communities instead of making them pay for the greed of bankers and tories
Let it be known that the 4 churches and the trade unions don’t agree with you and have opposed austerity on both sides of the border and in england scotland and wales.
So what nobody listens to churches anymore if they were so worried perhaps they would dip their hands into their pockets as for trade unions who really cares what they think?
Your radical approach is to tax the people who make the wealth and create jobs and you wonder why that approach never works?
your comments have no credibility except to those like yourself with closed minds and no vision . you should take a look at the countries of scandinavia and germany who pay high taxes in some cases up to 50% of basic salary and dont cry about it why i hear you ask ? well look at their social welfare education , health, public services, and you will find the answer no paying off greedy banks or making the rich richer but providing the essential services expected for the money they pay and that includes the unemployed for a period of time unless in special circumstances ie health or long term illness where its extended .
So the question asked is what are your low taxes for i would suggest they are being used to pay banks to the detriment of the less well of and to improve the wealth of the already wealthy and certainly not for the benefit of society ie health ,education etc
Good rant about banks wealthy people and the like tell me Philip who creates the wealth in a country go on tell me?
its the people who provide the labour which creates the wealth that others spend and if the proper taxes were applied and reinvested in the people ie education, health, infrastructure,training then this would be a better place for all and not a society of have and have nots, a place where there are jobs for most if not all, and i think if this was caught on to we might have less trouble on our streets be they flag protesters or dissidents republicans or trade unions
I dont have any problem with self employed or business get up and go all to their own but after spending 30 odd years in business the one thing i learned is that i would have no business only for the people who worked with me it was their efforts combined with my own that made it work ,
my main reason for this is that i and my fellow workers paid huge amounts of tax and social insurance to government only to see it wasted on others ie banks while our health system and our education system are starved of resources or the housing crisis rambles on and older people at the whim of government have to give up the home that in many cases they reared their families and holds many heartfelt memories of good and bad times you can’t in all conscience support such immoral policies
How? Taxes and on whom?
Peter reverts to type, he is still peddling the myth that Sinn Féin are somehow divided. This from the DUP, whose founder wouldn`t have Robinson or the Mighty Dodds round if you paid him. Nice picture in the Irish News yesterday, there was Peter warmly shaking hands with one Jackie McDonald, well known UDA leader. Now, what was that stuff a while back about `victims`? I agree Jude, the woman was straight to the point and deserves credit.
Peter the not so great did come across as an angry man last night. I’ve seen this with quite a lot of his interviews – I find myself having to turn the volume down a notch almost everytime he’s interviewed.
Now for a bit of religious generalisation – My Protestant colleagues are almost all right wing anti welfare, whereas Catholics, for the most part are socialist (to varying degrees) and strongly supportive of the welfare state and universal healthcare etc
I think this is down to the greater social conscience nurtured by Catholic theology.
I am completely anti welfare except for people who genuinely need it the sick disabled and people who have lost jobs i despise people who are fit and able to work but prefer to sit on their backsides and do nothing
It is up to parents to be good role models for their children to educate them and to instill good values if that makes me right wing then so be
I see welfare as a safety net; you fall, are caught and you get off.
1 – 5 years of welfare (economy depending) should be enough to come up with a plan*, there is no excuse for three generations of the same family to be continually unemployed.
(ANTI-WHATABOUTERY MEASURE: I do NOT include people who have to quit work to look after disabled relatives or any similarly affected people in that group)
Neill,
Do not be foolish enough to lump all people in to one basket, most SF ‘viewers’ are well informed on economics. However, we have people from all walks of life in Sinn Fein and each person carries their own uniqueness in areas of expertise. To label them shows your own ignorance.
The Good Friday Agreement may not be the best but it did open doors for more negotiations. Are we were we want to be, no but we are moving slowly and methodically to where we wish to be.
It is time for unity, time for everyone to stop all the nonsense and work towards an ever lasting peace and unification of our country. The only way this can be accomplished is by each us working together and to stop all this tribalism.
Your post leads me to believe you are a unionist, am I correct?
A great article Jude, as I always tell ya ‘Keep ’em comin’
Robinson, gives angry mean spirited interview, bashes republicans and especially SF. Sounds like all his other interviews to me. More of the same. He still thinks he can return to the halcyon days of ” a protestant state for a protestant people” Sorry Peter, those days are gone and they are not coming back. Why not tackle somthin g valid like the education failings of loyalists? While you sell homes in florida, your constituents are ignored. One of the most hypocritical ‘leaders’ on earth
It is time for unity, time for everyone to stop all the nonsense and work towards an ever lasting peace and unification of our country. The only way this can be accomplished is by each us working together and to stop all this tribalism.
Your post leads me to believe you are a unionist, am I correct?
Yes I am unionist i obviously want a lasting peace to however I do not want to be unified with the rest of Ireland i am quite happen with the status quo we already have so why would i want that to ever change?
A Re-United Ireland is inevitable Neill – unionists have nothing to fear as you’ll pretty much get what you want, exception lording it over Nationalists as those days are gone and never to return. We have zero interest in lording it over unionists or in humiliating unionists – that’s an Orangey/Colonial unionist thingy – we want to Re-Unite our country – and we will.
we want to Re-Unite our country – and we will.
I dont ever so there you go give me one good reason why i ever would want to join a united ireland?
Neill, if I may ask politely (!) what is it that makes you never want to be live in a United Ireland? You seem vociferously opposed to it, and I am just interested as to why this is. Would your life be considerably different if the border ceased to exist?
‘never want to be live in a United Ireland’ argh, cross out that ‘be’
Thats a very good question i like the Republic very much however i just feel that being British represents me more equally if somebody feels that being Irish represents them more thats fine with me.
What did Peter Robinson mean when he used the word, “crankery” as reported on the Nolan Show (4.4.14)? He used the word in the same sentence as “economic illiteracy” in a reference to the Republic of Ireland. One does not need a degree in Economics to establish the real cause of the demise of the Celtic Tiger. It had more to do with greed and corruption than economics. Tory ideology is being rejected by many in Scotland, England and Wales. The acid test for welfare reform will be established through pending elections. Bankruptcy is a fact of life for many on these islands. Bankruptcy of thought would appear to be another sad feature among some of our elected representatives. It is said that a measure of civilization may be found in the way we treat older people. We have prima facie evidence of ongoing resource issues in the Health Service and the political response is chilling. Further “efficiency savings”, or “cuts” and return devolved powers for welfare back to Westminster. The elections may generate change. Will the change make things better or worse? Food for thought.
Interesting piece here on the recent Peace Monitoring Report
http://www.thedetail.tv/columns/steven-mccaffery/northern-ireland-politics-and-the-rule-of-7
‘To live in denial and die in despair’ seems to sum up Unionism at the minute
” I have no truck with Peter Robinson however he is entirely right about economic illiteracy amongst SF “viewers”
Neill – Would you like to justify that statement. To me it represents the typical “mouthing off” of just another Protestant/Unionist bigot.
Anyone with even half a brain and an iota of objectivity can see from the progress made by Catholics in Education, the professions and business over the past fifty years, how stupid Robinson’s statement was.
Or are you stuck In the traditional Unionist mind-set, that all Nationalist/Sinn Fein supporters live on benefits in Council Housing and spend most their time and money in the pub and the bookies. Except of course when they are “doing the double”
Neill – Would you like to justify that statement. To me it represents the typical “mouthing off” of just another Protestant/Unionist bigot.
Anyone with even half a brain and an iota of objectivity can see from the progress made by Catholics in Education, the professions and business over the past fifty years, how stupid Robinson’s statement was.
Far from it look I will make this really clear if your country is running a huge defecit surely it makes economic sense to cut back on the biggest expenditure item which guess what is welfare spending for parties and there supporters to deny this does smack of economic illiteracy something the late Lord Ballyedmond would have agreed with.
Cal, you are spot on. I think it has to do with Catholic social teaching, which makes the fact that Ian Duncan Smith is a Catholic all the more incredible. Unionists are mostly hard on what they would refer to as `scroungers`, Simon Hamilton can`t wait to sign off the so called reforms instigated by the Con Dems, yet Unionists turn a collective blind eye to the greatest scroungers in history, the so called `royal family`. Go figure.
Jude
How did Cathy Gormley Heenan propose we avoid these reforms?
Neill – knocking a few scroungers off the DLA will not solve the economic problems of the State and Peter Robinson knows that.
The total welfare budget is over £200 Billion and Sickness, Disability and Unemployment account for 18% of this and don’t forget that the vast majority of this is spent on people in genuine need not on bluffers and work dodgers.
If you’re interested in where the rest goes check out:
http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/scroungers-scumbags-and-soaring-welfare-costs/
Also for a sensible analysis and comparison to other countries:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/welfare-spending-spiralling-out-of-control-wrong.
” De mortuis nil nisi bonum”. – So I will forego any comment on Eddie Haughey.
No offence mate a Guardian columist would be the last person i would listen to on economis next thing you will using Polly Toynbee to justify your arguments
Resorting to Ad Hominem mate is a sure indication that you have lost the argument. And sadly a tactic all to common in what passes for political debate in N. Ireland.
Oh come off your high horse your against welfare reform ok how would you reduce the deficit?
How would I reduce the deficit – very simple Neill.
Northern Ireland costs around £20 Billion a year to run and contributes £9 Billion in taxes, So hand the misbegotten, dysfunctional, impecunious little state over to Dublin and at a stroke save £11 Billion and get rid of all the scroungers that have your good self and little Peter in such a lather.
You and your Protestant/Unionist friends had a free hand in running the ill. conceived entity for over fifty years and the only growth industries were, Hatred, Discrimination, Gerrymandering and Sectarian Bigotry
Resorting to Ad Hominem mate is a sure indication that you have lost the argument. And sadly a tactic all to common in what passes for political debate in N. Ireland.
Pay attention to your very good advice
you wont like this…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597501/SIMON-HEFFER-Lets-feckless-buy-food-not-fags-booze.html
Jude:
Cathy Gormley Heenan got it exactly right.Petter Robinson is throwing yet another transparent hissy fit and is using this latest thing as a hook. There was mention of a la carte devolution.That’s what Peter and his gang seem to want . They want to shunt the hard decisions like the Haass proposals out of the way so that the Mother of Parliaments can take the rap as they hide under her skirts.
They want to appear to their followers at every move to be great big tough guys like an aggressive Putin but when they have to make a compromise , which is required every time in a divided society, they want someone else to take the blame for it. They would feel safer and more “british” if under Direct Rule because only then would they be sure that they were still under those same skirts, and not taking the first steps as independent adults.Their problem is that they want it both ways so every time Peter is forced to have a little fit of pique.It’s actually embarrassing now to see the pomposity of the man,….the veins popping in Peter’s neck. His steadily colouring face. His need to insult. He’ll give himself a heart attack.
In light of the coming elections this is a standard unionist shtick which we are all used to but it does seem that unionism is heading backwards in some vain attempt to re-write the Agreement. They appear to be clearing ground for such an assault and are prepared to use anything , even “nuclear” solutions , to get their way..Nothing new there, then….time for a wee march and a bit of guldering again.