By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
RJ White:
O/T
I just dont believe it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
4130980.stm
NOT ONE mention of the countless satellites currently in use to manage land use in Africa and elsewhere hence IMPROVING the precious environment. Can we have a vote please BBC? No? didnt think so.
Please, please land safely tomorrow.
Nicholas Wood:
Posted this on another thread, but...
Saw BBC Breakfast this morning, which is never a good start. The hideous Natasha Kaplinsky embiodies so much of what I dislike about the BBC - a third-rate local news presenter, seemingly devoid of independent thought, turned into a C-list celeb by virtue of Celebrity Come Dancing, that paragon of public service broadcasting. At about 8:25am there was much hand-wrigning and sneering from the auto-cutie Kaplinsky and her gormless Dermot replacement over the NASA shuttle problems. The viewer could be left in no doubt as to where they stood on this piece of US funded extravagance. I emerged from the shower at around 8:45 and the lacquered one (for that is her) was rattling on about it again, this time to a couple of experts. She actually asked the question "Is space exploration worthwhile when we live in a world of poverty and inequality?" The expert, to her credit, seemed somewhat dumbfounded. If it was down to Beeb, the West would undertake no frivolous, privateering activity (never mind an important piece of scientific research) until the 'inequality' issue was resolved.
Communism lives on at Narrowcasting House.
Simon:
Is the BBC necessary in a world of poverty and inequality? I'd rather my £126.50 television watching tax be sent to needy people than to fund the affluent and cosy lifestyle of BBC employees.
Penny:
How would the BBC know what is worthwhile? They gave us Mr Blobby.
Ritter:
You couldn't make it up. But they do.
US targets Sahara 'terrorist haven'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ica/
4749357.stm
Bad, stupid Americans!
RJ White:
O/T
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ica/
4749357.stm
Ah, the "Uk expert on the Sahara" is none other than Mr Keenan, who is also famed for the article "Review of African Political Economy - Vol. 31 No. 99
Americans & 'Bad People' in Sahara-Sahel" which (I quote) summarises "how North-West Africa fits into America's imperial grand design" and other such America bashing ROAPE articles.
http://www.roape.org/cgi-bin/roa.../show/
ak_j.html
RJ White:
Sorry Ritter, posted it three mins after you!!! Great minds think a like!
Ritter:
Guess the headline......
"EU Superpower forces Iran to disarm.."?
er, no it doesn't
"Iran concedes to UN diplomacy....."?
er, nope.
"Iran restarts nuclear programme"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4131706.stm
Yeah, that's about right.
The BBC constantly paints the EU & UN as "saviours of humanity" & US as "dumb cowboys". The EU & UN have had a chance to show the world what they can do. The result speaks for itself.
How about a few "critics say" in the puff pieces for this sorry excuse for a diplomatic negotiation? The EU will now be relying on the US to 'do something'. Then BBC can whine from the sidelines about Uncle Sam's hegemoney etc.
If the EU is a "superpower", I'm a "banana".
anon:
Is the BBC necessary in a world of poverty and inequality? I'd rather my £126.50 television watching tax be sent to needy people than to fund the affluent and cosy lifestyle of BBC employees.
Simon | 08.08.05 - 5:08 pm |
Well it won't be £126.50 for much longer. Apparently they are asking the Government for a 2% + inflation rise in the tv tax every year for the next five years.
Rob Read:
anon,
2% more reasons per year NOT to pay.
dave t:
As I said on the other post: The BBC claiming they can't publish front pages of the Morning Star etc anymore is rubbish because this site gives you the front pages of hundreds of papers throughout the world including British ones.....so their feeble 'copyrigth' excuse fails (how unusual). Will they EVER tell the truth to those who pay for all this?
espresso:
Oh yes newspapers which exist to earn a profit* would quite naturally rush to sue the BBC for giving them free publicity and encouraging a person to buy a copy.
*All except the Guardian which makes a massive loss despite it's huge cover price and massive government subsidy via ads for thousands of useless pointless PC jobs also paid for by the taxpayer.
Rob Read Reader:
o/t
channel 4 news presenter just mugged by reality. another muslim pisses all over the lefty dream. a classic.
(note Channnel 4 news and BBC are indistinguishable in thier lefty coverage)
anon:
OT and not that important in the grand scheme of things but...
A lot of viewers find DOG's (the logo in the corner of the TV screen) an annoying distraction. BBC3 increased the size of theirs over the weekend and received a lot of complaints from viewers. This prompted a discussion on the BBC3 news on which they invited two guests on to discuss the issue, both guests were in favour of DOGS and one of them worked at the BBC. Do these guys have any idea of BALANCE!
In addition there was also an article on their website which basically exposed their contempt for anyone with a differing view,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/
ne...gs_080805.shtml
Im sick of funding this bloated organisation which couldn't care less what its forced customers think!
Rob Read Reader:
BBC 4 The World has Zeinab Badawi practically begging the Oil for Food inquiry Judge to give Annan a break.
Wonder what the tone would have been had Annan been a Conservative??
Rob Read Reader:
Nicholas Wood
this will make you feel a little better
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...2/19/
do1902.xml
Bishop Hill:
OT:
Lib Dem blog advocating scrapping of the licence fee.
Link
Robin:
Natasha Kaplinski is right there is a lot of poverty and inequality in the world and frivolous things should stop immediately.Start with Come Dancing.Women to wear burquas.
Alan:
The inhabitants of planet Beeb have long hated dirtying their hands with newspapers that don't agree with their world view.
If the Beeb thought it could get away with it, the only newspaper headlines it would ever show would be from The Guardian, it's pages handled with hallowed, bum-kissing reverence.
Just as you'd expect, really; as The Guardian sets the agenda for most BBC current affairs programmes.
I'm surprised Planet Beeb doesn't combine forces and form Guardian TV News 24....presented by Polly Toynbe...er...oops she's already been there done that.....
Joerg Appreciation Society:
Is that the same Polly Toynbee who sees a link between the Kyoto Accord and Islamofacism?
Anonymous:
For those who aren't old enough to remember, Polly Toynbee used to be a BBC reporter, along with Jacqui Ashley, another leftie fellow-traveller, who has the distinction of also being Mrs. Andrew Marr.
Joerg:
Okay, if I get the (hidden) analogy the Space Shuttle now kills fish in Spain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
4130980.stm
Or does anybody read it differently? Maybe I've simply become too cynical.
Joerg:
Let's see what the Beeb says once Iran starts its Space programme, shall we?
Anonymous:
Who is Bilal Patel and why does he Have His Say so often?
http://tinyurl.com/9s9gk
JohninLondon:
Mark Steyn has a swipe at the BBC halfway through this article :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...08/09/
ixop.html
dave t:
A busy chap this Mr Patel:
Bilal Patel is a British Muslim Leader in East London
He is a spokesman for Stop Political Terror, a pressure group campaigning against ATCSA and other recent anti-terror laws whose patron is Yvonne Ridley, former journalist and apologist for the Taliban.
Has spoken on a number of occasions to the media, and in particular in relation to the case of Babar Ahmad, a British prisoner awaiting the outcome of an extradition hearing to the United States.
Socialist worker - a letter
Blair is using the London bombs for political gain—and some Muslim leaders have shamefully capitulated, writes Bilal Patel
Red Ken used him as well:
"Livingstone also favourably quotes a condemnation of the London
community coalition’s criticisms of Dr al-Qaradawi from a discussion
board on Imaan’s website. He claims it was typical of Imaan’s views
and fails to acknowledge that the passage he quotes is from one person
taking one position. He does not mention that it was this one person,
Bilal Patel, who posted 9 of the 22 posts in the discussion." (Harry's Place)
He stood as an independent Muslim candidate in Preston in the 2001
general election,
Also seems to be involved with MCB, MPACUK and other rather 'excitable' organisations…
So why do the BBC not tell us this when publishing his views etc? He is by no means unbiased!
Susan:
Perhaps Bilal Patel is related to Srinivasan Toft, Copenhagen or Pancha Chandra, Brussels:
http://www.google.com/search?
hl=...G=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=...say&
btnG=Search
max:
Anon, good question LOL.
Here's part of the answer:
Bilal Patel, now 35, stood as an independent Muslim candidate in Preston at the 2001 general election.
He canvassed young men and women and picked up 1,300 votes - not enough to save his deposit, but enough to make him think about doing it again.
Mr Patel says young British Muslim disaffection comes from a belief that their elders "kow-tow" to politicians who refuse to give them an equal stake in society.
SASSY!
"Many of us are annoyed with the older generations. The sort of leadership we need is something more radical than what we have. But if you speak out as a young Muslim you are labelled extremist.
Rock the boat sort of approach, don't you think?
Heh. I must be very bored :o
The rest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/35.../uk/
3586421.stm
max:
It seems I'm not the only one 
max:
Why are girls higher achievers?
Girls are more conscio...
conscienc...
... conscientious.
Have I spelled that right?
Bilal Patel (a bloke), London, UK
max:
And to complete the picture, he's also Charles Kennedy's speech writer.
He's in a little trouble, isn't he, our Tony? He's just run out of excuses on Iraq. He can't find those damned 'weapons of mass destruction'. You know - those things that we went to war in Iraq for. Well Tony - you've finally found those 'weapons of mass destruction'. In Brent, through the ballot box, where we destroyed you. And I promise you, you'll find plenty more 'weapons of mass destruction' come the next General Election. Because we will destroy you as surely as we destroyed Labour in Brent. And THIS is what you call 'weapons of mass destruction' - the power of the people! And the people are no longer with you, Tony!
Bilal Patel, London, UK
max:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
3111266.stm
Bilal:
You're wrong. I've got nothing to do with anything!
Joerg:
Oh Dear!
Andrew:
Two things:
1) 'Bilal' above has a Deutsche Telekom IP address, coincidentally the same as Joerg's. Joerg - don't dick around with the comments, there's a good chap.
2) Whilst it's interesting how much 'Bilal Patel' has 'Had His Say', we should remember that neither Bilal nor Patel are uncommon names in multi-culti Britain - so without further evidence it would be imprudent to suggest that they are all one and the same person - but, perhaps the Beeb-lurkers hereabouts would care to look into the matter and report back to put people's mind's at rest.
richard:
may i state my view that the bbc should go to the markets for finance and not force the british people to pay for its agenda.if the bbc is so confident of support then let them sink or swim in the market-place.
yesterday the witch zainab badawi tried to bully the good,kind and wise judge richard goldstone into giving the corrupt kofi anan a break.
"how can mr anan go to an upcoming important meeting with this sword of damocles hanging over him?" asked the witch.
judge goldstone was too kind to answer that corrupt men should not be going to important meetings.
the witch thinks her abrupt head movements makes for great television.
richard:
rob read reader
i did not see your posting but interesting that we both used the words "a break" in relation to the corrupt anan and the egregious zainab badawi.
JohninLondon:
Is it me, or does it seem that the Today presenters are actually enjoying the delays in the Shuttle landing ?
Ritter:
JohninLondon - I detect the sneering re shuttle delays as well. The tone is "those 'stupid' Americans and their 'silly' little shuttle."
Sorry, I had R4 on for a few minutes this morning on the radio/alarm. I heard a few seconds of 'legal rights/human rights of beach towels' before hitting the 'snooze' button. Oh FFS! What a load of crap.
Joerg Appreciation Society:
Naughty, Naughty Joerg!
Rob Read Reader:
Richard
Proof! its not all in my mind.
james:
What i think is outrageous is how the BBC website has a "what the papers say" section or "headlines" and all the press is left wing, there is even the Morning Star dare i say another Communist newspaper, being promoted at the expense of taxpayers.
I think its disgraceful, the BBC needs to be brought down to size and fast.
Eamonn:
Great stuff on Radio 5 Live this morning with the clueless Victoria Derbyshire.
First we have a discussion of Omar Bakri, with Victoria standing up for the plucky muslim's rights. She also said something disparaging like this about public opinion (paraphrased)
"well, most people want to bring back hanging, but we don't want to go down that route" etc.
Then there was a text vote on whether or not to ban the plucky muslim from returning to the UK. The result:
98% of texters said he should be banned!
Poor old Victoria, she seemed shocked by the result. Or maybe it just reflects the level of presenter airheadedness at the BBC these days.
Just after the Bakri discussion, she also got a bit shirty with a former gay man, who was gay no longer, and who criticised some aspects of the gay lifestyle and community.
Beeboid conclusion:- we are OK to call for the killing of Jews and infidels (as long as we are muslim), but don't dare criticise the gay lifestyle (unless you are a muslim).
simo:
Good call, Eamonn. I have posted on this site before about the dilemma the BBC now finds itself in re their new best friends, the Islamopaths, and their old best friends, the gay community, given their new best friends seem to have a slight problem with the lifestyles, in fact, with the mere existence, of their old best friends.
When a proiminent figure in the gay community is slaughtered in broad daylight and a note pinned to his chest with a knife, will tedious drones like Derbyshire stop equivocating and wake up to the true nature of the problem?
Politically correct poker is truly fascinating. The rules concerning who trumps who seem to change with the zeitgeist, and now the Islamists are in the ascendency.
The Jet Jump Jiver:
Simo, thanks for the laugh. I needed cheering up.
RJ White:
Omar Bakri Mohammed is to return to the BBC, sorry, UK according to BBC news online.
No "Have Your Say", no vote (should he be allowed). Nothing. Nada.
Instead we have his biographer telling us how much of a nice chap he is.
Still - Roobarb and Custard are back on Channel 5.
JohninLondon:
I think the Clangers have more sense than most BBC interviewers and presenters.
Rob Read:
"well, most people want to bring back hanging, but we don't want to go down that route"
Who's this "we" and why should their views hold more sway than opther peoples?
Typical arrogant BBC Socialists.
P.S. I personally think the death penalty is a bad idea.
dave t:
Hang them all let God sort them out.....on second thought perhaps we'd better not go down that route - knowing the lawyers there'll be another 20 odd innocent people hung.
I note that Bakri says he will come back - must be safer in the UK then!
So why is he always whinging it is not - and does he do so before or after he collects his welfare benefits in his Motability car?
A lurker:
James wrote:
"What i think is outrageous is how the BBC website has a "what the papers say" section or "headlines" and all the press is left wing, there is even the Morning Star dare i say another Communist newspaper, being promoted at the expense of taxpayers.
I think its disgraceful, the BBC needs to be brought down to size and fast."
The left wing press such as The Time and The Sun (owned by that world renowned socialist Rupert Murdoch); The Telegraph and the Mail (the two papers of choice for all trade unionists, communists and leftie whingers); and The Express and The Star, owned by Richard Desmond the well known liberal especially on issues such as freedom of expression (when it comes to publishing porn).
Whilst I disagree with much of what Andrew writes in the blog, I still find it interesting.
Whilst I find musch of what is posted iun the comments reactionary, bigotted whinging I do recognise there is often some intelligent debate on issues - even if I disagree with the views I can appreciate the arguments.
But sometimes people you paranoid right wingers (and yes the left has them too) write some utter crap and your post James, was in this category.
JohninLondon:
And you, lurker, are patronising. Please try to comment on the issues, not on people.
Can you explain why the BBC gives space to the Morning Star ? Most newsagents don't even stock it, it is so unimportant.
lurker in a burqua:
..........the Big Issue probably has a larger circulation.
A lurker:
JohninLondon wrote:
" And you, lurker, are patronising. Please try to comment on the issues, not on people.
Can you explain why the BBC gives space to the Morning Star ? Most newsagents don't even stock it, it is so unimportant."
Patronising, maybe. Especiallay if someone posts that the press is left wing - a little tongue in cheek patronising illustrates a point.
Comment on the issues not the people? Fair comment John. Rereading that post made me realise I was out of order. Can only say in my defence that it was probably a latent reaction to some of the replies to my previous posts by others who did the same. That said I shouldn't have stooped so low.
Why the beeb comment on the Morning Star? It bloody beats me cos you are right it's not a "popular paper" by any stetch of the imagination. Tho my local newsagent does stock it, albeit only one copy per day on the shelves. And before you ask I don't live in Islington or any such place full of middle class lefties - I live in a very working class area.
Joerg:
Re. the Bilal entry: Sorry, Andrew - but I felt a sudden urge to be silly. I excuse this urge by my poor upbringing and the fact that I was once a leftie. Didn't do me any good!
(In actual fact I was a member of the Young Socialists - the youth section of the Social Democratic Party of Germany - when I was in my teens)
JohninLondon:
Lurker
You still regard us as reactionary and bigoted whingers, though ? (Your post of 8.07pm)
Susan:
I think it was the camp_commandant who once posted the current order of which victim group trumps which other victim groups in the left's current edition of Hoyle's Official Rules of Victimology.
I forget the exact order but Muslims trumped everybody, even blacks. (Although maybe they make an exception for white Muslims -- I'm not sure.)
StinKerr:
Joerg,
Your forthrightness in taking responsibility demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are no longer a lefty. 
JohninLondon:
On the Today programme Sarah Montague was taking Michael Howard to task over his article in the Telegraph today. Seemed to me that she was not trying to ELUCIDATE - she was trying to defend the human rights legislation even though it has contributed to current follies.
And they had already set up the professional Human Rights lawyer Lord Lester to criticise Howard - with no aggressive questioning of Lester, of course. No attempt to shove Lord Hoffman's stupid words at him.
I really can't see why Howard puts up with this bias any more. He must know it is coming - why does he not take the John Reid approach ? Really bite back, slap them down as being tendentious and grinding an axe.
lurker in a burqua:
.........a proper Conservative would do just that. Stand his ground and defend his positions. Howard et al are crypto Conservatives.
dan:
I guess that until the Conservatives look like forming a government the BBC can continue to sneer at them. But the BBC's left stance will help delay that time.
Then should they form a government, the Conservatives will also have to have a desire to get even with the BBC, something for which they have never shown any appetite.
Like all politicians they are keen to join the media in kicking their political opponents rather than to realise that at some times the BBC is their bigger long term foe.
Lurker:
Could you refer to "A Lurker" when talking about A Lurker. Only for a minute I thought you were on about me - just plain "Lurker".
dave t:
And when he/she is lurking in a burka it gets jolly confusing....
PS Bibal Patel's back in the Daily Mail this morning...!
A lurker:
JohninLondonw wrote:
"Lurker
You still regard us as reactionary and bigoted whingers, though ? (Your post of 8.07pm)"
I guess the answer is yes - some, tho not all of you, tend to post reactionary (and sometimes bigoted) knee jerk comments.
Many comments do not even relate to the bias of the beeb but are just a self congratulatory reationary "love in." All of which is a shame cos there are a lot of other well thought out, intelligent and thought provoking posts.
I might be a leftie but I've got an open mind and am prepared to consider a reasoned argument. I know that there are many on the left who are equally as guilty of self serving ranting and it seems those on the right are not immune to this affliction either.
That said I shall continue to read the blog and the comments and I shall continue to post as and when I feel like it. I will try not to fall into the trap of posting in a manner similar to many on this forum as you are right to point out that this is childish. We'll see if the others on the forum can post intelligent comments or will resort to such witty and incisive commetns as Joerg's accusation that I was a "Closet Muslim" (see one of the earlier blog entries.
JohninLondon:
A lurker
I guess we just have to expect trite and patronising stuff from you.
Many comments on websites usually veer further to the extreme nonsense or vitriolic end than the main leaning and themes of the site owners.
For real moonbats look at Daily Kos - or the BBC Have Your Say columns.
If you want reasonable left-wing discussion - FAR more reasonable and based-in-reality rather than unhinged "we hate the West" BBC/Guardian idiocies - go to Harry's Place.
Another Lurker:
JohninLondon,
Hi I'm new to this forum and would probably count myself more to Labour/Beeb side. This could be due to the fact that I am a young person and must have been subject to the spin, lies and propoganda for the last 20 years of my life. However in regard to your last comment, it seemed to me to be slightly more patronising than the comment that you were refering to. I don't think that 'A Lurker' does want a reasonable Left Wing discussion. I think he just wants to point out things as he sees them.
Just throwing my two sents in. Can we get back to the debate now please instead of mud-slinging and I'll get back to texting my mates and generally hanging around outside the newsagent.
Safe brah!
Another Lurker:
By the way, what is trite?
Lurker in a Burqua:
everyone knows its cows stomach, usually sliced and sauteed with onion gravy.
Rob Read:
That's TRIPE.
JohninLondon:
Another lurker
I was simply responding to "a lurker" saying we were loopy and effectively calling us racist. Still no apology from him for that cheap jibe.
While you are at the newsagent, check out if they stock the Morning Star. Probably not, few do. It is not even a newspaper in the real sense, it is a propagands sheet for a political group, financially in hock to them. But the BBC insists on telling us all what it says every day.
Lurker in a Burqua:
Rob Read
sorry, couldn`t see properly through the eye holes.
Rob Read Reader:
Trite? isn`t that how they pronounce Trout in Mayair?
A lurker:
JohninLondon if you re-read my last post you will see I said "I guess the answer is yes - some, tho not all of you, tend to post reactionary (and sometimes bigoted) knee jerk comments." Note the "tho not all of you" part of the post.
I also said "Many comments do not even relate to the bias of the beeb but are just a self congratulatory reationary "love in." All of which is a shame cos there are a lot of other well thought out, intelligent and thought provoking posts." I am acknoledging that many do post thoughtful comments.
You say I didn't apolgise for calling some people racists. Well if it makes you happy I am more than happy to apolgise for calling you or anyone else a racist, of you aren't a racist. Tho I did comment on Joerg's "Closet Muslim" post about me which might not strictly be racist - but is at the very least trite and offensive.
I am surprised that you aren't even able to acknowledge that my recent posts have not been trite or inflamatory.
On the issue of posting on leftie websites - I do do this. But I am genuinely interested in hearing what folk on the right with measured and thoughtful posts have got to say - and despite my comments about some folk being "reactionary whingers" many posts are thoughtful and interesting to read.
JohninLondon:
A lurker
Yo relly re damned rde, aren't you ?
Because I have twice objected to you clling those who post here racist, you come back with
"I am more than happy to apologise to you or anyone else a racist, if you aren't a racist"
What the hell is the "if" about ?
In effect, it still leaves the jibe or accusation hanging there.
So - your last post was both trite nd inflammatory. And snide.
A lurker:
JohninLondon
The "if" was clearly a a reasonable (well in my view) qualification on my apology for the general accusation of racism I made.
You don't expect me to say I'm sorry for calling some people racist even if they are, do you?
That said, enough of this flaming cos it aint getting us anywhere. I will limit my comments to the debate and only make accusations of bigotry etc specifically to those indivduals who make bigoted comments.
JohninLondon:
A lurker
Your racist smear was sent against all who post here. It was a general remark you made.
You are a bigoted fool if you think that all who disagree with you are racist.
Please try NEVER using the leftie kneejerk word "Racist" again. It is cheap and it demeans you.
Deal with the arguments here, don't smear people with the CHEAP epithet "racist" again.
Think about it.
Are we calling you "communist" ? Or "fascist" = which is an extrene form of the Guardian socialism you support?
Of course we aren't.
So stop leaving the SMEAR word "racialist" here.
Just apologise totally for the insult you sent at all of us.
Then start again.
Have yo been to Harry's Place to see the crrent evil that Grdinistaaa leqads ? Tht is where yo can red avot patronising r4acial
If yo clled ny one of s a racist to our face, FALSELY, you would get what you deswerve.
Yo re chep clowen, How dare you cqll people racist.
Marion:
The only way to get out of paying the hated bbc fee in this bloody monarchy is to emigrate! hmm...
Commenting by HaloScan.com
