"Two Cabinet ministers have rounded on rebel Labour MP Frank Field, after he suggested Gordon Brown was "unhappy" as PM and would step down by 2010."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
7396796.stm
So Field is a "rebel" - how long will it take for him to become a "militant" ?
Scarey stuff
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8..._1210010683&
p=1
you should have heard the adverts they had on the radio about a year ago. They ran those at the same time they were running the "information" advertisements about paying your car tax, which had this computer-muffed voice talking about how they know where you live.
I was really trying to figure out what they were trying to prove. "Yeah, we're oppressive bastards who will threaten you openly on national radio broadcasts and there's not a damn thing you can do about it."
The billboards were the best. "Three houses in Stockton Lane, Bradford, do not have a a TV license." Never mind that they might not have a TV either, they don't have a license according to the database, so they must be fucking criminals.
A column in the Times today damns the BBCs oppresive advert for its tax.
" archonix | Homepage | 05.14.08 - 11:51 pm "
maybe we should get some hackers together with an aim to wipe the fucking database clean...
here's the times article:
"watch out , the gestapo are about"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3933535.ece
"But however fine and well-spoken the words, this Orwellian campaign - with its menacing soundtrack of licence-dodgers being rounded up by airborne police dog-handlers - is complete thuggery."
The thing is, the BBC justifies its telly tax by extolling its public service broadcasting remit.
So where are the BBC programmes giving the alternative side of the man-made global warming debate? The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary was a C4 effort, wasn't it?
And what about the crippling negative effects of mass immigration on British society? For that side of the story we have C4 to thank too (okay, maybe a few decades late but better late than never).
And yet, the BBC's chairman has the bloody gall to state that the licence fee is the BBC's and only the BBC's.
The BBC must be really worried about what the Tories might do when they get into power - the report on last night's news about George Osborne's failure to properly register a donation were so down the pecking order and so played down it actually made be burst out laughing - while the report on the Beeb's website doesn't even feature on its UK Politics home page - in 1997 it would have been the lead story.
Blimey - the Beeb really must be worried. I just hope the Tories don't succumb to the Beeb's soft-soaping once they're in power... It really is time to get rid of the whole fucking outfit - for the world's sake as well as Britain's.
Does anyone at the BBC feel nervous about the economy ? Jobs at risk ? Cut in wages ? Reduced expenses ?
It seems that the people who really should be honoured - die unoticed - while the big headed useless politicos hog the lime light.
"A Polish Catholic, she spirited some 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto, displaying casual and extraordinary courage. She kept a list of the children she had saved, hoping one day to reunite them with their parents – although, in the event, almost all lost their families in Treblinka. In 1943, she was arrested by the Gestapo and tortured. Her legs and feet were broken, but she refused to give up her list. She was sentenced to death, but rescued, whereupon – almost unbelievably – she went back to work.
Here, though, is the sentence that leapt off the page at me: “Last year she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, eventually won by Al Gore.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/pol...may08/
irena.htm
It really does make you despair - how many other really brave, unselfish people die unknown.?
Needless to say there is no mention of this brave ladies death here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
default.stm
Imagine if theese people were BNP
"Radical Islam Over Runs London Streets"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8...h?
v=8ZNx0xHe0p0
Bringing the third world to a town near you.
Here we go again
"British Airways profits soar 45% "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
7404085.stm
Nasty private companies making profits.
But what about this
"BBC Worldwide has reported record profits of £111.1 million, a rise of 24% on last year."
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broa...rd-
profits.html
The BBC apprently put it back into the corporation - but is it really on programmes or the salaries of BBC fat cats - like Jonathan Ross etc.
The difference is I am not forced to pay for British Airways - if the BBC is that profitable why do we have to pay a tax not to watch it.
not a comment about bias - just an observation... absolutely staggering images from James Reynolds in China, in a town near the epicentre of the earthquake...
only that the ENTIRE town is levelled... the imagery was staggering. poor people - my heart goes out to them, honestly.
btw , this was just on the beeb's ten o clock news...
" The Stig | 05.16.08 - 7:40 am "
and "undercover mosque".. again, thats a C4 documentary.
with such quality C4 docus coming out, i half wonder myself what is the point of the bbc to be honest.
on another note - has anyone noticed how the ENTIRE media has not referred to who or what Rangers supporters ARE...?
hint: it begins with the letter "L"...
small hint: all the union jacks and hand of ulster flags...
anyone else notice that?
This blog has a fine take on the US media's grotesque "reporting" on President Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...rael-
themselves
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bre...an-attack-
obama
It’s in three parts on You Tube. It was actually quite an extraordinary speech – courageous, from the heart and throwing down a gauntlet to terror:
http://youtube.com/watch?
v=pILLE...feature=related
Tried to see how the BBC were handling the story, if at all, but there was no link to Bush's speech on the Middle East page, just one to the older story of ths arrival in Israel. Trying to check that one out I got Page cannot be displayed and since then (five minutes ago) I haven't been able to get into the BBC site at all - not on Firefox or IE.
What have you been up to, archduke?!
Bryan
I watched the Bush speech live on CNN. It was indeed a fine speech, a very full speech. If Bush was criricising anyone for being naive about appeasing evil men, it was aimed at the dangerously soft European approach - and possibly Jummy Carter.
But Obama had to go into whining mode - as usual. As someone said, that guy has a skin about a millimetre thick. Touchy - as (I believe) he has a bullying nature, is used to people kowtowing to him. An arrogant young pup. Nil experience, but loads of front. He regards any statement about plocy options as a mark if disrespect to his Messianic vision.
Yes, the media are overwhelmingly on Obama's side. But the voters won't always play ball - just look at all those who believe Clinton should stay in the race.
The more I see of Obama, the more I worry about America being suckered by this extreme, callow leftie. He plays on the theme of being a uniter - in fact all his policy positions are jighly divisive.
Evidently some 32,000 (and rising)scientists have signed a petition denying that there is a consensus on climate change. There will be a news release on Monday. I just bet the BBC will give it full prominence - NOT !
http://network.nationalpost.com/...00-
deniers.aspx
The BBC's support for terrorists around the world adds Sri Lanka to the list of Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, N Ireland etc.
From Sri Lanka's largest circulation English language newspaper The Sunday Observer.
(The prose is a little breathless, and confusing even, but you get the points:
1. the BBC's man in Sri Lanka, Roland Buerk, doesn't know his arse from his elbow
3. He editorialises instead of reports
2. He sneers at former Tamil Tiger terrorists who've renounced violence in favour of democracy)
The BBC Reporter in Colombo reporting or commenting?
by Indeewara THILAKARATHNE and Ranga CHANDRARATHNE
The BBC Reporter, Roland Buerk now domiciled in Colombo has marvellous writing and research skills and he can report from Colombo, Kurunegala or Batticaloa as he likes. Sri Lanka is an oyster in his hand.
He writes reports, on peace, the Sri Lankan Government, the “limited devolution” and the ethnic minority Tamil people’s decades-long complaints of domination by Sinhalese-led central governments.
But unfortunately he hasn’t learned how to differentiate Sinhala first name from family names. With a by-line of Batticaloa Roland Buerk writes: Last week the Kusumawathi family from Kurunegala. Kusumawathi is a first name and not a family name. It is like some one referring to Tony Blair’s family as Tony’s family!
We don’t know what Kusumawathi’s family means but our research suggests that she is not from Kurunegala town! (Unlike Mr Roland, we speak our languages and get good friends in Kurunegala town!).
Surely Kurunegala cannot stand for a district, in which case the BBC correspondent should have given some clues such as a name of a village and a few more concrete evidence where Mrs Kusumawathi resides!
We have reasonable doubts that Mrs Kusumawathi’s story is a fictionalized “event” as we are unsure how Roland Buerk spoke to Kusumawathi family, and when and where? We know that Roland can’t speak Sinhala.
No references to an interpreter in his report. Another justification in support of our claim of BBC’s fictionalised reports hypothesis is his strongly biased attempt to highlight the cost of war in Sri Lanka! What about the cost of life and public property destroyed by LTTE terrorists in Sri Lanka? Why Mr Roland is not covering the destruction of innocent lives and public property carried out by LTTE whom he always describe as rebels?
The BBC correspondent who in our view is clearly biased and has a plenty of unsubstantiated words about Sri Lanka, it’s government (who provide security for him!).
The following is just one sentence in which he packages his pro-LTTE sentiments: “The poll will lay the foundation for limited devolution that the government bills as the answer to ethnic minority Tamil people’s decades-long complaints of domination by Sinhalese-led central governments.”
How does he write with so much confidence that
How low can the BBC sink ? Their biog on Maggie has a storyline that she tried to seduce Ted Heath in her search for a Tory seat. Utter bloody filth - even Labour politicians say it is nonsense.
Time was, previous BBC Directors-general and Chairmen would sack anyone who tried this sort of filthy smear. If Maggie was a few years younger, and fitter, she would have sued them out of sight. Is there any leagl way of stopping this smut from being broadcast ? Has the BBC no shame ?
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/
Prog...tion.4095340.jp
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/
pa...in_page_id=1879
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ama-
claims.html
More BBC lies :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/
...bbc.television2
and the BBC deliberately turning down the real story about corruption in Ken Livingstone's empire :
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ast-
830131.html
BBC attacked for its crap treatment of Young Musician of the Year - yet more dumbing down :
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
musi...oung_music.html
BBC tried nicking money due to charities :
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ity-
825411.html
"'Fewer hurricanes' as world warms"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/t...ech/
7404846.stm
But the world isn't warming - why can't the BBc read their own stories
"Next decade 'may see no warming' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/
7376301.stm
Why don't they ask the expert
http://youtube.com/watch?
v=mzedK...feature=related
JohnA | 05.17.08 - 9:59 pm,
Yeah, and I noticed that Obama, having got all indignant after assuming that Bush's comment re appeasment was aimed at him personally, suddenly woke up to the realisation (or probably was advised) that he was coming across as petulant, childish and illogical.
So he moderated his language and tried to do some damage control. But we are not fooled.
Meant to add that the BBC, at least as far as the World Service and the website goes, has ignored Bush's speech to the Knesset on Thursday as well as the subsequent throwing of toys out of cot by Obama. Funny, the BBC usually hangs on Obama's every word. I w
onder what happened.
Despicable, disgusting organisation. I'm currently having a debate of sorts on World Have Your Say:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpres...-changed-china/
This earthquake is a major disaster and certainly worthy of coverage. But you covered it on WHYS earlier in the week so I’m wondering why it is necessary to cover it again now. It’s not like there were no other major news stories in the world on Wednesday. For example, President George Bush arrived in Israel. Here was the president of the most powerful country on earth visiting one of the major hot spots on this planet and it was not newsworthy enough?
Now I’m not one for conspiracy theories but I was amazed that back in January when the president visited Israel WHYS chose to concentrate instead on the Democratic Party primaries (totally ignoring the
Republican primaries, but I’m digressing). So here we had the the president’s visit completely ignored in favour of the very beginning of a contest to choose the next president. And the the BBC in general could not have given the visit less coverage.
Now I see that tonight you have chosen this topic: “Who should protect the Amazon rainforest?”
Has a memo gone out, guys. We know you don’t like him, but are you deliberately snubbing President Bush?
Mark Sandell, apparently WHYS "editor" responded here:
Bryan - we discussed Israel on two separate programmes in the last week or so, one last week talking about the country’s 60th anniversary. Of course we’ve discussed the earthquake before (and the cyclone in Burma) but i reject the view that an issue, once you’ve discussed it once, is somehow “done”.
Typical of the BBC, he sidesteps the point. I responded but there's been nothing further from him. From his responses to others, he appears to be quite an arrogant twit. Apparently Victoria Derbyshire is married to someone in charge of WHYS It's probably him.
On the Daily Politics today the junior presenter asked Eric Pickles why the Tory campaign in Crewe and Nantwich was so negative and said Labour was complaining about it.
You have to admire their nerve at least.
JohnA - You're right the BBC have not published the news of 32,000 scientists who dispute the "consensus"
Probably because Harribin (media studies) would not qualify to sign it.
"Qualifications of Signers
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."
http://www.petitionproject.org/
g...Of_Signers.html
Yet they BBC quote Al Gore (BA in Politics) ad infinitum.
Jon
What better proof is there that the ignoramus Harribin is deliberately biased in his reporting There is NO CONSENSUS. Period.
His reports originally suggested total consensus. Now he has backed away a little bit to the position suggesting there are SOME (ie a few) dissenters. With the innuendo that they are fruitcakes.
32,000 science graduates, including many at M Sc level or Ph D is NOT "a few".
Harrabin is the fruitcake on all this.
This is just from the US - the IPCC quote "2,000 scientists" who support thier theory worldwide. The BBC often quote this.
I do realise that in reality the numbers do not count for much - but it is because the IPCC and BBC started the numbers game and the "science is settled" mantra, that it has become an issue. If this is the BBCs tactics to quote numbers then they should report this to fullfil their charter obligations on impartiality.
Hotair notices the BBC spouting Mugabe propaganda - without any quote marks in the headline.
Also - they ran a Google and found just 2 instances of the word terrorist across the entire BBC website - the largest news website in the world.
In the BBC's eyes, there is no such thing as terrorism.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/...he-bbc-fantasy/
Hah, just a complete aside but, I can see a swastika in the little region map at the side of the BBC website. For some reason that's making me giggle right now.
Hey, everyone... I'm still in Ohio until tomorrow evening but I've been checking the Al Beeb Sport Website. Isn't it fitting how they managed to get their pal Lenin into the picture before the Champions League Final:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/...all/
7408082.stm
Talk to you later
d_g
"archonix | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 1:17 pm |"
got a url? where is it?
Just on the BBC news international front page.
here. Just the mind seeing a pattern, I found it very amusing though.
eta: I've highlighted it so you can see what my mind see's, just so you're clear.
I just now noticed my link didn't go in. How annoying...
http://thumbsnap.com/v/pV3CH5Yq.png
On BBC1 Breakfast News at around 9.50am there was a report about some Jules Verne-type art scupture called a "Telecroscope", consisting of two large brass pipe ends of around 7ft diameter jutting out of the ground in London and New York.
The idea is that these are actually the ends of a 3000 mile telescope connecting the two cities. Londoners peering into one end can see New Yorkers peering into the other end, and vice-versa.
Well, the BBC presenter said that people were communicating "through the telescope," as it were, by writing messages on signs and holding them up for people across the pond to read.
She said: "I've heard that New Yorkers love the BBC," and promptly wrote out a message: "HI NEW YORK - WAVE IF YOU LOVE THE BBC!" and held it up to await the response from the other end.
Well, none of the four people at the other end waved. Instead one chap promptly wrote out his response and held it up. It said: "ONLY THE COMEDY."
Upon seeing this, the crestfallen Beeb presenter said, with fixed rictus grin, "Touché!"
It was remarkable. For this presumably ordinary American bloke to have made such a conscious, negative statement about the Beeb's output in such a lighthearted context said it all: Stateside the Beeb's bias is becoming widely recognised.
Have any of you had an Email from BBC Green www.bbcgreen.com ?
Is this for real or a joke ?
dispatches do it again - this time reporting from the war in somalia.
on c4 now. not the bbc.
"The Stig | 05.24.08 - 11:25 am"
and remember stig - that was in Democrat/Liberal New York City!!!!
which makes it even more remarkable. then again, the Americans are no fools.
Archduke:
Hmm. I take the point but he did kinda have the look of an army guy to me! Still, it was remarkable - imagine a bubbly cute-looking girl in the UK asking for a wave from some Yanks confirming that they love the BBC - I mean, it takes quite some resolve to spike the moment with a negative response.
It would be nice to think that the Beeb's days are numbered - but the way the BBC keeps on relentlessly empire-building it looks determined to grow until it's so large it's beyond democratic control.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/
st...storycode=41224
God bless Stephen Sugar and here's hoping for all our sakes - not just Israel's - that he prevails:
Balen Report FOI battle goes to House of Lords
The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords decided last week to allow solicitor Stephen Sugar to appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling that the BBC did not have to disclose the Balen report on its Middle East reporting under the Freedom of Information Act.
The decision, noted in the Judicial Business section of the Minutes for 22 May, gave leave for Sugar's appeal and said that the petition of appeal should be lodged by June 5.
Sugar, a commercial solicitor from Putney, south-west London, has been campaigning for the BBC to release the Balen report - written by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen - to be published as part of the on-going public debate about alleged BBC bias against Israel.
Some have said that the Balen conclusion is that the BBC reporting was slipshod, careless, ill-informed - rather than biased per se.
But that in itself would be a bad finding for the BBC.
I'd give a 35 to 40% chance of the action succeeding. It all depends which Law Lords take the case. But this is now win-win - the BBC loses if the report is eventually published, plus its "cover-up", or the BBC is criticised for continuing to cover up the report.
There could indeed be a ruling that the BBC is not bound under the FOI Act to release Balen - but that it is crass of the BBC to refuse access.
And it is spurious of the BBC to calim that Balen was a "debate among its journalists" - it was a REVIEW, a detached examination of the record by Balen.
apologies for the hiccups in commenting service - haloscan's hamsters seem to be a tad tired this evening.
Feelgood story about a Muslim jumping in to help a Jew being beaten up on the subway
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
1212...slim_381263.htm
In today's Sunday Times:
The former Today editor Rod Liddle joins the burgeoning ranks of former BBC staff who admit to the BBC's inherent Leftism. He says, of Question Time:
Determined to prove that it is as smug, middle class, vacuous, public school and left-wing as its critics allege, BBC’s Question Time has taken to including on its panel each week a smug, middle-class, public-school, vacuous and left-wing employee or former employee of the corporation.
A few weeks back it was the BBC “anticomedian” – that means he’s not remotely funny; just incredibly pleased with himself – Marcus Brigstocke (King’s Bruton). The week before last we had the pious, handwringing former head of news Tony Hall (Birkenhead school), whom I well remember – without enormous happiness – from my time in the corporation. And last Thursday it was the extraordinarily empty Dan Snow (St Paul’s), son of the broadcaster Peter and a great-great-grandson of Lloyd George, telling us all that knife crime was a terrible problem but that prison didn’t work, okay, yah? We should, like, get these juvenile stabbers to do something, you know, constructive.
Good point, Dan. Maybe they could use their knives to whittle us a new generation of liberally inclined public-school boys to staff the BBC in the future. Out of ash, because of its high density. Why, in a supposed meritocracy, are these people still on our television screens – because of their brilliance?
Wonderful stuff.
Stig - Great piece by Rod Liddle - the piece on the Victoria Climbié case was also brillient. The blame is never put in the right place - its always someone elses fault - and this is what the BBC like to do.
Not Beeb-related but funny: Check out the comments to this Independent column lamenting the "fall of the left" in Britian:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opi...rce-
838215.html
Commentators are really bashing poor old Yazza -- and socialism too! It's hilarious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...all/
7451178.stm
"David Cameron Heckled in Cornwall"
Headlines headlines headlines...
When you see the headline you often might skip the story.
What's the story here? David Cameron making a speech and some angry Tory ranting about the way he's taking the party perhaps?
Maybe it's a Labour supporter taking him to task for voting against the massively popular (according to the BBC) 42 detention rule?
Nope, he was approached on the street by a man who asked him to give him some advice about a problem he had with the NHS (his local trust refused treatment and he had to use his life savings to pay for treatment in France).
So far from being 'heckled', he took the time to chat to the man and got his details for a follow-up and then made a statement to the BBC about what he'd just discussed.
Why the BBC chose to opt for a headline which appears so negative I'll leave up to eveyone's own view - mine is that the reporter can't see a Tory talking to the public as anything other than an argument.
Commenting by HaloScan
