By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
Big Mouth:
Exactly right Andrew when you say that there is no clear bbc explanation of exactly what U.S. objections are concerning the plans for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
If the beeboids weren't so intent on finding fault with America they could have spent a second or so making things clear, as did this bit I found in today's New York Times:
The original treaty - since ratified by 189 nations, including the United States - has no binding restrictions. The Kyoto pact does impose mandatory limits on industrialized nations, but they do not apply to developing nations, including China and India. The United States and Australia have rejected that pact.
Bryan:
"...one in three have been executed by their captors."
There are only two possibilities here: either Matt Frei genuinely doesn't know the difference between 'execute' and 'murder' - in which case he is an ignoramus - or he is following standard BBC soft-on-Islamic-terror propaganda.
Whatever the case, this is not journalism.
Anonymous:
This whole blog is so very sad. Why don't you go and get a life ?
Bryan:
Anonymous, if you had a life you wouldn't be reading an entire blog just to reach the profound conclusion that it is so very sad.
Rob:
Well, I will brave Anonymous' ire and continue (I think he's probably Matt Frei)...
Using the word 'executed' is quite bold from the BBC in ths context. I would have thought they would have written "one in three have died in Iraq", allowing us to choose for ourselves the reason for their death, e.g. global warming, Zionist agents, multi-national pharmacutical companies, the Catholic Church's stand against contraception, you get the picture.
Bryan:
Yeah, but in the context of hostage-taking, even BBC staff realise that it's absurd to talk of hostages that 'died'.
They have to maintain at least a semblance of logic.
But, of course, the most they'll stretch to is the wimpy passive voice, as in have been executed.
Michael Taylor:
I wonder how many people watching that programme just sighed as the usual lies and evasions and structured incuriosities were tricked out once more.
As for Anonymous, what's sad is that he has so little knowledge about the rest of the world and how it thinks, that he can't see or feel the ideological bubble within which our dominant media provider operates.
Andrew:
As for Anonymous... given where anonymous posted from, he/she and his/her compatriots aren't paying for the BBC anyway, even though most of them choose to watch it.
As an aside, I daresay that were our arrangement with the EU as generous as that English speaking country's arrangement, we'd all be quite keen on the EU too (six pounds back for every one they put in, as I recall from a few years back).
Anonymous, given your tone and location, you're not John Simpson, are you? 
Kulibar Tree:
It's not just Frei and the BBC that refer to 'execution'.
I'm afraid that even the Telegraph is guilty of such sloppiness:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
...xportaltop.html
disillusioned_german:
I bet they'll somehow come up with the term "murder" when Tookie Williams gets executed next week!
DisMaid:
It's not just Frei and the BBC that refer to 'execution'.
even the Times are unable to call a spade a spade...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1918836,00.html
Rob:
An environmental crisis which the BBC somehow doesn't blame on "Yankee Imperialists":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
4516430.stm
I wonder if Iran signed the Kyoto protocol?
Socialism is Necrotizing:
Is nukeing Israel covered by Kyoto?
Where are the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad = Chimp jokes so beloved of BBC funny men?
Jack Bauer:
Here's something else Shukman and all the "global warming" nutters also never mention in their delusions that mankind has any effect on the world's climate.
95% of the carbon dioxide, now “identified” by Greens, i.e., U.S. and worldwide environmentalists, as a form of pollution, is produced by natural sources such as evaporating seawater, decaying organic matter, and from plant and animal respiration.
Each year, 157 billion metric tons is released in the atmosphere. Of this amount, 457.2 million tons comes from cars and trucks.
According to American Enterprise Institute researcher, James Johnson, "Eliminating all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by 0.18%." Less than one half of one half of one percent.
Alternatively, imagine a mountain made up of 157,000 M&Ms, remove 458 from the mountain. That’s how much carbon dioxide emissions come from US cars, the world’s biggest car nation.
If you want to know how much the UK is boasting it reduced its carbon emissions by in 2004, take away 14 from 157,000. Impressive huh? Well for people who don't engage their brains, the Watermelons, Blair's chief "scientific" advisor, Sir David Tosspot, et al, it's impressive.
They also never mention that any treaty has to be ratified by the US Senate, who voted against the Kyoto fraud by 97 to ZERO, with 3 abstentions. That's 97 Republicans and democrats.
Susan:
Iran has money for nukes but no money for car exhuast filters, I see.
I wonder how the IBC will blame this one on the US?
Oh, I get it now -- we've been embargoing car exhaust filters from the poor widdle helpless Iranian polluters!
You heard it here first!
JH:
Interesting news here regarding Cameron's effect on the opinion polls.
http://headlines.virgin.net/
stor...6581134236874A0
Don't expect to see it on BBC website - Move along Nothing to see here.
Pete_London:
Jack Bauer.
Thanks for the info, I'm always willing pick up on simple facts to bash an eco-weenie round the head with.
dave t:
OT Still nothing on the BBC about the shooting dead of 20 villagers in China by the Police....
GCooper:
dave t writes:
" OT Still nothing on the BBC about the shooting dead of 20 villagers in China by the Police...."
They're probably busy studying the video footage to see what they can learn for dealing with license 'dodgers'.
Big Mouth:
Jack Bauer,
Nice one. You might also ask how the beeboid eco warriors explain the "mini" ice age that began in the 1500's and continued for about 300 years. Also how do they explain the four great ice ages that ended about 12,000 years ago when humans were barely learning how to cook?
Galahad Tackaberry:
Off topic
BBC News reports that a China official is held over shooting of protestors in Shanwei, claiming that "Local residents have alleged that up to 20 people were killed." Note that, despite the officials having actually killed protestors, BBC News chooses to refer to a "shooting" in the wording of the article's title. Worst is the reporting that residents allege that "up to 20 people were killed", when The Epoch Times indicates that "One villager reported that 33 residents had been shot dead and more than 20 were still missing, most of whom were in their twenties" and previously that "as many as 70 villagers killed in the incident."
Commendable journalism from the Beijing Broadcasting Corporation.
Jack Bauer:
Biggie and Pete
Thanks. Again the important "fact" to throw in the mental enviros' faces is that 95% of carbon dioxide (the so-called greenhouse gas) is produced by "nature".
No that this will make any difference because the problem with the mental enviros, watermenlons and assorted leftoids is their lack of nuance, their globalist closed minds and their blind faith in the unprovable.
Like the 14th Century Catholic Church who put the Earth at the centre of the Universe, they put mankind at the centre of everything.
Just look at the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials for clues into odd behaviour. Like them, the watermelons are in the grip of a mass psychosis that precludes rational thought. How un-nuanced can you get?
Anonymous:
Global warming is such an issue because it can be used as an easy swipe at America, The Great Polluter. These people have never heard of the "South East Asia Brown Cloud" caused by wood burning stoves used for cooking and heating. Look it up on the Internet. India and China haven't even started yet, the Greens will have apoplexy when the car economy gets going in these countries. Overlooked of course is Americas green credentials, I understand that they have more electrical vehicles by a long way than any other country. The US military even has an electrically propelled battle tank under development. The sub-text appears to be "Global Warming? Blame America" How naive.
mrdgriff:
Our children are being brainwashed into believing that nature is the victim of man, when, in fact man is a victim of nature, as it proves daily. I bet the greens wish they could pin earthquakes and volcanic eruptions on global warming caused by America.
mrdgriff:
The greens love trees, won't they don't admit is that the average oak tree sucks up eighty gallons of water a day. The eucalyptus tree (available in a garden centre near you) sucks in oxygen and exudes carbon dioxide. This double speak is evident in the UK when every year the Water Boards talk of water shortages and impose hose pipe bans while the oak trees at the bottom of the garden are sucking the garden dry.
mrdgriff:
Asian brown cloud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The Asian Brown Cloud is an enormous three kilometre thick layer of haze covering the northern Indian Ocean, India, Pakistan, and much of South Asia, Southeast Asia, and China. It is created by a range of airborne particles and pollutants, characteristic of biomass burning and industrial emissions. A notable example is the burning of cattle dung as household fuel by people in rural India. The cloud can last for up to four months, most commonly in the winter (December to April). The haze is toxic in itself and has an adverse impact on rainfall and sunlight.
It was properly defined and measured by the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) INODEX (Indian Ocean Experiment) running from 1995.
dan:
The BBC likes to bring us every suggestion of "rip off" by those nasty supermarkets that take trade away from nice bijou grocery stores by the underhand tactic of charging less.
But if there is 1 thing worse than supermarkets in general, it is Wal Mart/Asda in particular.
So this story makes the NEWS pages on ceefax (but not carried elsewhere per Google news search).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
4518696.stm
Asda believes Sainsbury's may retake its position as the UK's second largest supermarket, its chief executive Andy Bond has warned.
Under the circumstances the BBC does not want to add comment to the fact that Asda's competitors are gaining market share by most specifically targeting those food boutiques.
(Asda) has previously focused solely on large out of town stores, despite both Sainsbury's and market leader Tesco opening a network of smaller inner city or convenience outlets.
dan:
(but not carried elsewhere per Google news search).
sorry, a better reading of the BBC article shows the information has come from the FT (but behind the subscription wall).
JohnOfBorg:
OT
If you want to get an inkling of what goes on at protest marches etc, check this out.
It only covers demos in the San Francisco Bay Area, but it gives you an idea of the sort of people the BBC are siding with when they promote their pet causes.
Rob:
zombietime is a great site. These people really are lunatics.
Archonix:
Dan, for once I share the BBC's attitude. I worked for Asda for a long time and, after what I saw in the back of that place, I decided to never shop in an Asda store ever again. Tesco is a little better...
Fortunately I don't have a state-funded media organisation that I can use to push my view on other people.
PJF:
"...the problem with the mental enviros, watermenlons and assorted leftoids is their lack of nuance..."
Classic.
.
Susan:
O/T
The IBC's favorite ethnic group is rioting and rampaging in Sydney, Australia right now. I couldn't find anything so far on the "Asia-Pacific" page about it.
Reason for the delay? Probably called an emergency meeting of the top marketing directors (er, editors) to figure out how they will spin the story.
Meanwhile the blogsphere has already seen the photographs and bought the t-shirt.
dave t:
And I wodner if the BBC will tell us that the reason there has been rioting is because for months now certain ethnic groups have been attacking or slagging off women for wearing swimsuits on the beach and they also attacked and hospitalised two lifeguards which was the last straw for many. Of course booze played a part but the whole situation has been boiling for a while. Go read Tim Blair
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php...x.php/member/2/
[Shouldn't this link to:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php...sh_duke_it_out/
?]
Jack Bauer:
PJF - thanks..
Isn't it great to use their own leftoid jargon against them. As we know, leftoids suffer from what nuthouses call "projection", in that they're always accusing others of their own glaring faults.
Acting like good little Nazis, so they call anyone else a Nazi.
Having a monlothic, one world answer to everything (socialism) they accuse eveyone else of being "globists."
Seeing everything in black and white, they accuse others of lacking nuance.
And so on!
dave t:
Sorry got my link switched by some damm purple lizard dressed as a member of the Royal Family/BBC staff...thanks to the moderator who sorted it.
*soggy thumping sound is my head bouncing off nearby wall*
Socialism is Necrotizing:
Well said Jack Bauer.
Here`s Times columnist Gerhard Baker on a recent trip to Brussels, home of the European Union;
"The mise en scène for a start is quite brilliant. The skies can’t really be that grey; the shop workers can’t really be that malevolent; the buildings can’t really be that monstrous. It all must be some ingenious but slightly implausible parody of a grim post-industrial northern European conurbation in the grip of a humourless bureaucratic elite: George Orwell as realised by Fritz Lang, a cautionary metaphor for all that can go wrong in the human spirit"
The World as The BBC and the Global (Luke)Warmers would have it.
disillusioned_german:
The BBC have finally picked up the riot story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...fic/
4519818.stm
Read it for yourselves - the usual agenda and bias is there for all to be seen.
disillusioned_german:
Just look who gets his comments highlighted in a box!
james:
off subject i know
Rob:
Note how attacks by whites are reported as fact, whereas attacks by youths 'of arabic or meditteranean appearance' are doubted, i.e. "reportedly by". Also note that the ethnicity of the groups who destroyed cars is not mentioned, nor is that of the two stabbing victims. The absence of this information gives us a very large clue as to what they actually were.
Same old story.
Susan:
Area residents accuse the visitors of being disrespectful and of sometimes intimidating other beach-goers.
Sometimes being intimidating?
--they called little girls at beach swim classes "little tarts" just for wearing Western-style bathing suits
--they threatened to rape a group of 16-year-olds
--they stabbed a young man trying to protect several young girls from being raped
--they beat up a Maori while rampaging in a suburb destroying cars
--they beat up several life guards whose only "crime" was trying to save peoples' lives
I don't approve of the mob action of the non-Muslims trying to "take back" their beach, but let's face it: knowing what I do about the Aussie Lebanese/Muslim gang rapes and gang attacks on non-Muslim Australians, especially on young and vulnerable femalesI fully understand the "root causes" of their anger.
Or doesn't the "root causes" excuse count for non-Muslims who behave badly? (Rhetorical question for the IBC lurkers -- I already know the feckin' answer.)
Anonymous:
O/T
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4514414.stm
Occasional Biased-BBC commenter Paul Reynolds is mentioned in the piece:
The BBC News website's World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the survey shows a degree of optimism at variance with the usual depiction of the country as one in total chaos.
Of course, it is the Beeb that is responsible for the "usual depiction".
Big Mouth:
You want more proof that al-beeb is stranger than strange? Check this out:
The BBC describes Iran’s appointed President Ahmadinejad as “conservative,” but a democratically elected Israeli politician as “right-wing.”
Ahmadinejad just publicly denied that the Holocaust ever occurred, called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel, and in October demanded that Israel “be wiped off the map.”
So, in the BBC’s eyes, a transparently elected official who has never made such inflammatory statements is further to the “right” than a genocidal maniac pursuing nuclear weapons?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
4506348.stm
Bryan:
The BBC will never talk about "root causes" in connection with racial groups that they would love to uproot and cast aside.
Here's a glaring contradiction from the mayor:
It is the actions of a few, but let's not kid ourselves that people didn't come from far and wide to participate.
The mayor is so wrapped up in PC that he's not making any sense.
But I'm sure he makes perfect sense to the BBC.
Cockney:
BM,
I think you're confusing your terminology. In the Iranian context Ahmadinejad is indeed 'conservative' in the non political sense as he seems to favour an extremely traditionalist, restrictive interpretation of Islamic rule. As I'm sure you'll agree, there's nothing 'right wing' per se about being anti-Israeli or indeed apparently being a bit of a twat all round. I suppose you could argue that nationalistic, islolationist projects such as the nuclear policy are right wing but economically he's more left wing as he was elected on a populist platform of throwing some of Iran's oil wealth at the poor.
Likud is right wing on the economic and nationalistic fronts (i.e. an entirely understandable aggressive defence of what they perceive to be national interests irrespective of international opinion).
mrdgriff:
Cockney,
So what does that make a National Socialist? A Nazi ( surely extreme right wing) was a member of the German WORKERS National SOCIALIST Party.
Cockney:
Well, I seem to recall that there was a purge of the genuinely socialist element of the Nazi party pretty soon after they assumed power and that the party wasn't hugely sympathetic to organised labour thereafter. There was also a distinct lack of equality of economic outcome in Nazi Germany, particularly if one happened to be Jewish or indeed a member of a genuinely left wing party. So in this respect the Nazi's name had all the accuracy of the German Democratic Republic's. There was certainly fairly rigid centralist control of the economy although Hitler was content to let private companies drive much of this forwards in a way that would excite PPP fans immensely.
Kind of highlights the limitations of left/right labels really (see also the Bush administration's extremely left wing approach to public spending and fiscal discipline).
Nick (South Africa):
It's far from clear what happened in the Australian riots, however there does on the face of it seem to be a bit of an Islamic angle as well as a yob angle. I wonder how it will be spun by the Beeb....
APL:
Cockney: "Kind of highlights the limitations of left/right labels really ..."
Indeed it does. If you look at Nazi Germany it was highly developed industrially, it would have been counterproductive to the aims of the Nazis to dismantle the whole German industrial base in order to start again with full control of the means of production, bla bla bla. Compare them with the Soviets, who took over a largly peasant economy with a few industrial cities. The Soviets forcibly took over the 'means of production and enslaved the peasant population. The end result, was the same, repression of individual expression and elevation of the State as the sole reason for the existence of the individual.
That, is where National Socialism and Communism are similar. They both use the same tools, repression of the indivudual, elevation of the state above all else, they both have outward militaristic aggressive manifistations.
dan:
Big bad US corporations (part 1001)
Paramount buys rival Dreamworks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
4519012.stm
And it appears to show that even a top name like Mr Spielberg cannot create a new independent film studio these days.
But was Dreamworks really unviable? Could not Spielberg & co have continued in business? After all the company was hardly small -
Viacom, which owns Paramount, has agreed to pay $1.6bn (£914m; 1.36bn euros) - more than $1bn in cash, plus taking over Dreamworks' debts.
Perhaps Spielberg found a share of $1.6billion hard to resist.
Socialism is Necrotizing:
.........and of course, nobody was forced under penalty of law to fund Dreamworks.
Susan:
Well, rare kudos to the IBC for actually printing that Iraqi poll, and for publishing comments like "My life is a thousand times better since Saddam is gone." They must have done it with gritted teeth, though.
Rob White:
OT.
Spot the missing word...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/
4520682.stm
David Smith:
Re the use of the word 'execute'.
Well, the BBC is not the only one. Other 'berks' with no 'decency' include the Bush White House who use the word in precisely the same context (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/
20040512-2.html). If the BBC is biased, then it seems to be biased in favour of using White-House vocab.
With respect, this is one of the problems with your site. You decide in advance that a story is biased, and then construct a posting around that pre-conceived conviction. As in this case, I think you miss the mark.
dan:
David Smith's White House link doesn't work, but it seems he's found a gotcha.
Other people delight in finding the same wordings at sites such as Fox News. But I think that arises from the BBC, Fox, CNN etc all sticking to the agency release (Reuters, AP etc). It is perhaps the news agencies that set the vocabulary.
Socialism is Necrotizing:
Rob White
He`s an electrical engineer, the last one was a plumber.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/44.../uk/
4499480.stm
These pesky tradesmen!!
Kulibar Tree:
SiN -
At the risk of being pedantic, it's the victim who was an electrical engineering student; the culprit was in fact a waiter. But your point is well made.
Cheers.
Susan:
Second day of rioting in Australia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...fic/
4521442.stm
Notice how MinTruth doesn't give any racial or ethnic identifier for the thugs currently destroying cars and throwing bricks in Mabroubra and Brighton-le-Sands (Sydney suburbs). That's your infaliable Orwellian clue to the actual ethnic identity of the thugs.
Notice that they DO apply a racial/ethnic identifier to the "white youths" who organized the violent row at the Cronulla beach previously.
"White youths" riot at the beach.
But generic "youths" throw bricks and destroy cars in the suburbs.
MinTruthSpeak reigns supreme.
Andrew:
DS, you're not the first to point out the use of the term 'execute' elsewhere.
Wherever it is used in this context it is extremely insensitive. Executed implies some kind of judically sanctioned process - not the random capture, incarceration, public exhibition and protracted brutal murder of conscious individuals. This lazy journalistic sloppiness jars dreadfully.
That is why I contend that the unfortunate victims of islamo-head-hackers are not executed - they are murdered - and the BBC, paid by and for the British public, ought to reflect the common decency of their compulsorily paying public. After all, if Frank "Help me, I'm a Muslim" Gardner's cameraman, Simon Cumbers was "murdered" in Riyadh, then so were Ken Bigley and all the other victims of kidnapping in Iraq.
Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but American usage in can often sound harsh or unsubtle compared to British English - that's not to say that either is right or wrong - but I'd expect the BBC to reflect the latter rather than the former. It would be a misunderestimation to expect any better of The White House in this regard
Lastly, not everything on Biased BBC is necessarily concerned with BBC bias. Whilst that is our primary focus, we can and do cover other aspects of BBC output, and sometimes further afield too. In short, we blog about what interests us. If that is, in your view, a problem, do feel free to apply for a full refund of your subscription!
Susan:
(D)HYS now has a thread up on the Sydney violence:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20051212165809
Some Aussies are getting the truth out, although the thread appears to be heavily censored:
These riots are a result of gang intimidation by some bad elements within the lebanese community as well as the assault of two volunteer life-guards last weekend in Cronulla. These tensions have been brewing for a long time and local government must take some of the blame for not clamping down on these gangs sooner. We all know that violence only leads to more violence but these people have had enough.
Dee, Delft
I read every response in this thread this morning. There was one from an Aussie which pointed out that the Lebanese Muslim gangs were sexually threatening white Australian women at the beach. I suspect it has been pulled just now, as I can't find it anymore.
I meant to copy it and post it here, but it seems it has "disappeared" in just the amount of time it took for me to make this post.
Susan:
Wait a minute, sorry, the "sexually threatening" post is still there, I just missed it:
I am an 18 yr old living in Sydney and these actions are NOT supported by the majority, but are still very serious. The riots started due to gangs of middle eastern men not just beating up a lifeguard, but also sexually threatening women on the beaches and other actions. I do not support the riots, they make me ashamed as an Australian, but some of these posts from people who dont live here suggests many dont know the truth.
Joel, Sydney
Posting it here for preservation in case it is censored.
Lurker:
Re Susan's post.
Joel in Sydney is ashamed of the activities of Australians in fighting muslims. Fair enough thats his pov. Whats interesting is that he doesnt feel the unpleasant antics of muslims in Sydney shame him. So whether he realises it or not he implicitly knows the muslims do not represent him and are therefore not Australian.
So ultimately an encouraging Christmas message from Joel, there is still hope for Australia and the rest of us!
Natalie Solent:
Speak for yourself, Lurker.
Susan:
Lurker,
I only reproduced that post from "Joel" because I wanted people to know about the sexual harassment of the Australian women at that beach, which is horrible (to hear the Australian women talk about it). It was not meant as an endorsement of anyone's views.
Thom Boston:
Now I'm interested in Susan's post earlier on, and the fact she thought it had disappeared from the BBC site, only to find it hadn't. I've seen it described as (D)HYS, assuming that (D) stands for "don't", indictating that many of the bloggers here believe the BBC is refusing to post their comments, presumably to instead just run a wide selection of liberal/soft left ones.
But a quick glance at the READERS RECOMMENDED on the HYS debates, and the top quotes would all seem to contradict this...
Here's top of WILL WTO TALKS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?:
"A fair trade system has been developed. It's called capitalism and its record was the unprecedented economic growth (of all classes) of the 19th Century. Each man, left free, rose to the level his abilities and ambition allowed him.
But that is not what is meant by fair anymore. 'Fair' has been twisted to mean the unjust taking from the productive to give to the undeserving."
And LIFE IN IRAQ POLL: YOUR VIEWS:
"What is there to say?
The Iraqi people are optomistic for the first time in decades. They can speak openly without fear of Saddam. They can see democracy being created for them and their children.
Perhaps the anti war moaners and groaners will now SHUT UP!
And from DO WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN POLITICS?:
What you need are articulate sensible people who are interested in the needs and welfare of the people of this country, and the country itself; not in lining their own pockets or achieving some infamy - surely the gender doesn't matter.
Pretty neutral, that one, but then from SHOULD THE UK GIVE UP MORE EU REBATE:
We postpone our pensions to 67 or 69; so that we can pay for the corrupt CAP; so that the French can afford a 35 hour week. Now tell me we're not being screwed by the supine Mr. Blair.
Next is one on the use of torture evidence: Isn't it strange that it is the unelected Lords who guard our civil liberties rather than the elected polotitians
Top of ARE HUMAN RIGHTS BEING ERODED?: Someone said in a previous topic that the UK is almost a Taliban state. You can't put up Christmas decorations; can't wear a cross; can't tell religious jokes; you can be banged up for 90 days just for heckling Blair; you’re banged up if you're very old & with-hold a part of your council tax; you’re stung for parking; stung for driving; you can't have an operation if you're fat. Your pension funds have been raided by Brown so you’re poor.
The list goes on.
And finally, from ACCESS TO NHS TREATMENT: I would have thought that the first 'lifestyle choice' that ought to be discouraged from using the service are those who've chosen unemployment thereby failing to contribute to the enormous cost of running the outdated service.
We either have a 'National' Health Service or we don't, if we don't then why the hell should we all be forced to pay for it through stealth taxes?
So there you have it. The top Readers Recommended quotes from the six top political HYS debates, and none are remotely left-wing, or anything to do with supporting the supposed "editorial line" the BBC is alleged to be pushing.
Susan:
Thom Boston,
The (D)HYS moniker is a hold-over from the old days when the IBC did indeed exercise a very heavy and obvious hand over readers' comments.
The new arrangement appears to be more fair, I do agree with that, but I'm still wary of (D)HYS because I know of its past history of heavy-handed censorship.
I doubt if the "reader's recommend" function will be allowed to stand, frankly.
GCooper:
Thom Boston writes:
"The top Readers Recommended quotes from the six top political HYS debates, and none are remotely left-wing, or anything to do with supporting the supposed "editorial line" the BBC is alleged to be pushing."
As Susan explains, the (D) prefix relates to the system as it was before the very recent changes. How those changes have gone down with the BBC and whether it allows readers to continue ranking posts according to their own tastes, remains to be seen.
Beyond that, your use of "alleged" is inappropriate. It is demonstrated on a daily basis on this Blog (and others) that the BBC has a liberal agenda which it misses almost no opportunity to promote - right from the selectivity and wordplay used in its news broadcasts to the subject matter and plotlines of its radio dramas.
There is almost no facet of the BBC's output which is not permeated by a Guarnianista worldview. Quite simply, there is no "alleged" about it. It is a fact which many (probably most) BBC employees will candidly admit, and which the corporation's supporters, like the media journalist (and self-confessed "woolly liberal") Gillian Reynolds, has openly acknowledged and commended.
Thom Boston:
There is almost no facet of the BBC's output which is not permeated by a Guarnianista worldview. It is a fact which many (probably most) BBC employees will candidly admit, and which the corporation's supporters, like the media journalist (and self-confessed "woolly liberal") Gillian Reynolds, has openly acknowledged and commended.
I'd like to just get this straight. "No facet"? "NO FACET"? In which case shouldn't you be also be checking CBeebies, BBC Parliament, Radios 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, the GCSE Bitesize revision website? Seems to me the scope of this blog is somewhat wider than the usual "Matt Frei said 'executed' when he should have said 'murdered' that I've seen here. In which case want to see evidence of the Teletubbies sending out "vote Blair" through their stomachs; Abu Mazen and Sharon on Strictly Come Dancing, and perhaps a documentary on Why George Bush Should Die in the middle of Chris Moyle's Breakfast Show.
And of course, some, ooh, 70-80% percent (would that constitute "most"?) of the 27,000 BBC employees "candidly" admitting that they alter ALL of their broadcast output - however many millions of hours it is - to reflect the beliefs of the Guardian. I'm not interested in some media commentator - give me some actual BBC names and their "candid" admissions.
Andrew:
Thom Boston, you ought to be getting your employer's permission before using their time, equipment and resources to engage in obtuse arguments here - unless of course you are here on official business, in which case it would be polite to say so!
If you really have nothing better to do than investigate the legitimate complaints of those of us who are dragooned into paying your wages I suggest you read back through a couple of years of this blog to satisfy your quest for evidence and examples before engaging people in debate.
GCooper:
Thom Boston writes:
"I'm not interested in some media commentator - give me some actual BBC names and their "candid" admissions."
I doubt the BBC staff with whom I've spoken on this issue (most notably the senior news editor, who said to me that he honestly believed he might have been the single Conservative voter in the huge department of which he was a part) would be particularly grateful if I did. As for your contempt for Gillian Reynolds (of whom, I suspect, you have never heard) she is a former BBC employee, widely regarded as the doyen of radio critics and with a far better insight into the BBC than most. Of course, the fact that she is in favour of such a bias is uncomfortable for BBC apologists, I do understand.
That aside, you doubt that the BBC worldview permeates its output on other channels? In what sense do you believe that Radio 1 doesn't promote a liberal agenda? Or Radio 2? Or the BBC World Service? Or BBC 4? You really can see nothing deliberate in the cloyingly "inclusive" station idents chosen by Lorraine Heggessey for BBC 1?
In passing it's hard not to laugh at the tired old use of the 'Marr gambit' (as used in the headline for this Blog). The accusation isn't that the BBC is biased in party political terms, but that it is clearly and unequivocally biased in favour of the broad liberal 'Guardianista' agenda.
Luci Sandor:
Your understanding of the "execution" word is more British than I expected (and in a way I'm glad to see that).
Princeton WordNet ( http://wordnet.princeton.edu/per...bwn?
s=execution ) says "execution" might mean "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being". I noticed now that the British dictionaries don't include this sense. It looks strange for me, because I expected taht only an American will consider executions a state monopoly.
Andrew:
P.S. TB, if you wish to debate the merits or otherwise of this blog, kindly confine yourself to the main blog posts by the Biased BBC team - we are no more accountable for the views of third-party commenters here than you are for the views expressed in (D)HYS.
While we're on the subject of (D)HYS, I too will be surprised if the remarkably sensible views promoted by the Readers Recommended feature is allowed to stand unaltered - BBC Views Online used to run regular reader polls that produced similarly sound results - that's why they were done away with (except for non-contentious topics) in favour of the first version of (D)HYS.
Kulibar Tree:
Thom Boston writes:
I'd like to just get this straight. "No facet"? "NO FACET"?
I mostly listen only to Radio 4, but taking that as a microcosm of the BBC I can tell you that there is indeed "No facet" of its output that doesn't represent the Guardanista worldview, from news, current events, features, comedy, drama (especially drama), social issues (mainly especially social issues) right down to their beloved environmental progs, which refuse even to contemplate the possibility that global warming might not be man made.
Thom reminds me of a very good friend who has the trick of saying ultra-provocative things in a very deadpan way, just to wind people up and watch their reactions. I used to fall for this, but eventually wised up, and no longer take the bait. I suggest we do the same to Mr B.
Cheers
GCooper:
Kulibar Tree writes:
"... drama (especially drama)..."
I'm glad to see someone else mention this. While the clear bias of BBC news is regularly documented here, the more insidious kind that runs like a vein throughout BBC programming tends to be overlooked.
I defy anyone to read the synopses of a fortnight's worth of R4 drama offerings and deny that they show every bit as much bias as that perpetrated by the likes of Matt Frei and Orla Guerin.
Thom Boston:
I doubt the BBC staff with whom I've spoken on this issue (most notably the senior news editor, who said to me that he honestly believed he might have been the single Conservative voter in the huge department of which he was a part) would be particularly grateful if I did.
Ah, but you see, that's my whole point. If you're going to bandy around words like "candid" then you are in fact saying they couldn't care less if their Guardianista views were public, and would freely admit to them. I merely suggest that this is not the case.
Similarly, when you say "no facet" you are implying the whole BBC - not just Radio 4 or the news - is tainted with this outlook. But given that so much of the BBC's output is patently non-political - Eastenders? Sport? Just A Minute? - this allegation is, I would contest, not entirely true.
if you wish to debate the merits or otherwise of this blog, kindly confine yourself to the main blog posts by the Biased BBC team - we are no more accountable for the views of third-party commenters here than you are for the views expressed in (D)HYS
That's fair enough - I didn't mean to contest the merits of the blog. Genuine apologies for any offence.
I don't work for the BBC though.
dan:
Thom Boston - try a little exercise. Before a BBC news interview starts, see if you can guess the angle from which the questioning will come.
You're a clever chap. You will guess right every time.
Andrew:
TB: "That's fair enough - I didn't mean to contest the merits of the blog. Genuine apologies for any offence."
None taken - it's just important to be clear about the target of your arguments - it'd be wrong to criticise the whole blog on the basis of third-party comments.
TB: "I don't work for the BBC though."
Perhaps not, but a whois of your IP address shows that it belongs to this rather large IP block:
inetnum: 132.185.0.0 - 132.185.255.255
netname: BBC
descr: British Broadcasting Corporation
descr: ********************************
descr: * This address space is used for BBC Staff members *
descr: * accessing the internet. In case of any problems *
descr: * with users of this address space (spam, attacks, *
descr: * illegal activity, etc) please email abuse@bbc.co.uk *
descr: ********************************
Evidently you have some connection with the BBC - outsourced employee, friend, visitor, whatever. Care to elucidate?
Kulibar Tree:
'Similarly, when you say "no facet" you are implying the whole BBC - not just Radio 4 or the news - is tainted with this outlook. But given that so much of the BBC's output is patently non-political - Eastenders? Sport? Just A Minute? - this allegation is, I would contest, not entirely true.'
I do not merely imply it, I state it as fact: the allegation is entirely true.
You won't have to listen to Just a Minute for very long before hearing some anti-Bush or anti-War jibe, and the same goes for The News Quiz, and even I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue (I'm sorry to say); Eastenders I can't answer for, but the Archers, its R4 elder brother, is wholly in thrall to political correctness (and if you ever had the misfortune to hear the World Service's late, unlamented Westway you wouldn't even be asking the question); and even R3 manages to sneak in a useful amount of anti-Israel propaganda, usually in In Tune, its evening drivetime prog.
As a taster, here's the synopsis for last night's drama on R3 (and it's by no means unique):
ANDALUS
A young English writer sets out to discover Spain's hidden Moorish past. He visits an enormous plastic-sheeted farm and witnesses farmers terrorising the largely north African workforce, and finds life threatened as he covertly tours this agricultural gulag. An illegal immigrant saves him, and writer and desperado take off on a rollercoaster ride through Andalusia.
Shall I go on to discuss R3's recent Shakespeare season, which comprised largely multi-cultural (read, Afro-Carribbean) casting, including Bejamin Zephania in Pericles?
Shall I mention R4's dramatisation (for children) of the Professor Branestorm books (apologies if spelling's wrong) a couple years or so back which featured a totally gratuitous anti-monarchical rant in one episode?
Shall I allude to the constant denigration of Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph readers by bien pensant contributors in any discussion prog (like Saturday Review, Broadcasting House, Start the Week, Any Questions, et al)?
Shall I refer to the near monopolisation by Guardian, Oberver and Indie writers of political progs like The Week in Westminster and The Westminster Hour, and of arts progs like Front Row?
Shall I merely hint at the near universal anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism that pervades almost any prog you tune into?
Shall I dissect You and Yours, the granddaddy of all politically-correct, eco-friendly, tax-and spend progs?
If you've got something useful to contribute, Thom, then do so; otherwise, please button it.
Cheers.
Allan@Aberdeen:
Eastenders is non-political? why not compare the reality of the East End of London with its majority-white depiction on the BBC. The BBC doesn't want to give the game away and the depiction of the East End as cockney is a Gramscian lie.
GCooper:
Thom Boston writes:
"Ah, but you see, that's my whole point. If you're going to bandy around words like "candid" then you are in fact saying they couldn't care less if their Guardianista views were public, and would freely admit to them."
Leaving aside (though it's hard to do) that Andrew has you bang to rights as a BBC well... what do we call you? Supporter? Someone connecting from a BBC domain, at any rate, what is it about the word 'candid' and its use in context that you don't understand?
I used it to imply that such admissions were the exception, rather than the rule. That's certainly been my experience.
Most often, BBC employees lie about the corporation's biases. Some of them even do things like... well, connect to anti-BBC Blogs from BBC addresses, disputing bias while claiming they don't work for the BBC.
Well, maybe you don't. But it's interesting behaviour, wouldn't you agree? Possibly even rather telling...
Thom Boston:
The Archers, its R4 elder brother, is wholly in thrall to political correctness (and if you ever had the misfortune to hear the World Service's late, unlamented Westway you wouldn't even be asking the question)
Being "in thrall to political correctness" implies to me that you feel there were too many, ah, "characters of an ethnic background". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Yet, why not compare the reality of the East End of London with its majority-white depiction on the BBC. The BBC doesn't want to give the game away and the depiction of the East End as cockney is a Gramscian lie.
So Eastenders has too many white people, and Westway not enough. If only the BBC had thought of swapping the bits of London round, you'd all be happy...
Thom Boston:
I would agree it is interesting behavior - further, I'd say it would be downright bizarre - if I were a "Beeboid" (is that the right terminology?), but, sadly for you conspiracy theorists, I'm just a poor student who occasionally uses the open computer centre at BBC Radio Sheffield when ours at Sheffield Uni is too full. Sorry. Gosh, that could have been quite exciting, couldn't it?
Lurker:
Susan - Sorry, I wasnt implying any endorsement (or criticism) by you or anyone else of "Joel's" views I was drawing attention to the information which you presented ie "Joel's" post. If you see what I mean.
Natalie - I thought I was! Though I suspect Ive rumbled Joel's worldview, unconscious as it may be.
I cant believe you think allowing any significant numbers of muslims to settle in the west is a good idea. At the very best its a highly dangerous experiment. The test tube in Sydney just cracked a little.
The French have spent decades fooling themselves that the huge numbers of muslims they have imported are just as French as they are.
Oh dear, look what just happened there.
Perhaps the Aussies should try just a few extra years of pretending arab muslims are real Aussies as well.
We on the other hand in the UK & Oz have tried a more laid back multi-culti approach (fully endorsed by the Beeb). And what a resounding success we have made of it. 7/7 anybody.
Unless you think that 7/7 was a response to Iraq. I dont think the linkage is that important even if true. As I think it was the war nerd who said war is just demographics in a hurry. When the number of muslims reaches critcal mass (check out the Lebanon) they will try and stake their claim for power anyway.
Of course Im just speaking for myself. You Natalie know better than me as you take a keen interest in the civilised and oh-so-tolerant doings of the religion of peace in its treatment of Israelis.
Kulibar Tree:
Thom Boston writes:
The Archers, its R4 elder brother, is wholly in thrall to political correctness (and if you ever had the misfortune to hear the World Service's late, unlamented Westway you wouldn't even be asking the question)
Being "in thrall to political correctness" implies to me that you feel there were too many, ah, "characters of an ethnic background". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
You're totally wrong: it's true that the "ethnicity" of some of The Archer's characters is irritating, but only because their introduction has been so artificial, and so aggressively "right on", and there's not one of them that's not a saint (only the White folks ever get in trouble with the law); but their number is not an issue.
But you won't need me to tell you that political correctness covers far more than just ethnicity, and it informs almost every plot line in The Archers: that's my complaint.
The current thing is gay marriages, so of course Ambridge has its gay (male) couple. In the time of female vicars being a novelty, Ambridge had to have its female vicar. Is there some ludicrous new farming directive from Brussels? The farmers embrace it joyfully, with nary a murmer of discontent.
In 2000 (or 1999) there was a Millennium March for third world debt relief, so of course Ambridge's (then) token ethnic person, Usha, the Indian solicitor, had to go on it (along with the female vicar, natch). No matter that there was (economically) a lot to be said against the idea, you weren't going to hear any of the villagers gainsaying the project. And Usha, being Indian, was obviously in favour: I mean, she's Asian, so she's gotta be, right? I mean, Asians just all think and act the same, right? I thought that it was all just a little patronizing to any "ethnic" listeners who may have had other thoughts about the wisdom of the project.
And PC informs most other progs: there is a lecturing, hectoring, preaching, didactic quality to everything that is, frankly, becoming very wearing and tedious.
And too often the BBC simply acts as a government mouthpiece.
Does the govt. want to promote green energy? You won't hear a word about the proven inefficiency and adverse environmental impact of windfarms on the BBC.
Does the govt want to limit health care for people who simply refuse to adopt a healthy lifestyle? You won't hear any BBC person pointing out that NHS contributions are compulsory, so that limiting care is both inequitable and highly unethical. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Does the govt. want a drive against obesity, salt, sugar, fast food, you name it? Up pops a feature to parrot the govt. line.
And so on.
Incidentally, Westway was awful, not because it didn't have enough white people, but because: there was a totally unrealistic, artificial mix of races (like, exactly one of every type of person you could imagine, although I don't think Eskimos or Bushmen were ever featured, but that's probably only because they pulled the plug on the series before they could work them in); the characters weren't even two-dimensional; the plots were embarrassing; the dialogue was risible; and the acting was something the cast are probably trying to forget about.
Forgiveness isn't really an issue, but why don't you stop trying to be such a wise guy, and think a little harder before posting your oh-so-achingly-clever comments?
Cheers
Andrew:
TB: "...sadly for you conspiracy theorists, I'm just a poor student who occasionally uses the open computer centre at BBC Radio Sheffield when ours at Sheffield Uni is too full."
No conspiracy theory at all - it's not unreasonable to query the motives of an unquestioning BBC supporter posting from a BBC staff IP address is it? It's not as if your arguments to date have been terribly well constructed - quite typical of a bought and paid-for Beeboid!
As it is, I suppose we can regard you as a beneficiary of BBC largesse with telly-taxpayers cash. How kind of them! I didn't realise they were so generous with our money. Next they'll be giving it to convicted criminals like Brendon Fearon!
I see from Google that you're a keen (D)HYSer! Interesting how you're published so often - from London, EU, no less, ooh, get him! You're not a Lib Dem are you?
Anyway, stick around - you might learn something. If not, at least you'll keep the regulars entertained!
Lurker:
London, EU. Is that true? Really? Do you do that Thom? Priceless!
London, EU? Thats interesting, I was born in London, ENGLAND, part of BRITAIN. But Ive never heard of this other London, how curious.
You're right Andrew, it's entertaining me at least! (For how much longer I don't know, I think I've upset Nat, I fear I may become an unperson as regards the B-BBC)
Big Mouth:
In the financial news at about 6.15 am does anyone else ever notice how they always talk about the £ exchange rate in a screwy way? You have to remember the closing rate of the day before. It was $1.75 to the £. So today he reports it as "down" at $1.77! This happens virtually all the time -- the bbc confusion between up and down. Makes you wonder what they do with our licence money!
Allan@Aberdeen:
Thom clearly has little comprehension of the BBC's mindset. They are imposing their multi-culti agenda on the middle-classes through Radio 4 (The Archers, for example) but they do not wish to let the country see the results hence the cockney depiction of an East End (in Eastenders)which has been transformed into a 3rd world morass.
Bryan:
Thom Boston, be wary of BBC computers. Once you sit down at one, you're swallowed by a PC fog generated by the BBC thought police.
Rob White:
OT Just read last nights posts. Priceless. Hope that chap stays around.
London, EU.
lol!
bc10:
Well, you can't say Dr Who isn't political...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
4523852.stm
Allan@Aberdeen:
TB: "...sadly for you conspiracy theorists, I'm just a poor student who occasionally uses the open computer centre at BBC Radio Sheffield when ours at Sheffield Uni is too full."
This guy Thom is a media studies student or something similar. Given that China and India are each producing around 250,000 top class engineers annually from their universities, do we really need people like Thom? Indeed, if Thom is as clever a chap as he may think that he is, why is he doing a Mickey Mouse subject instead of something more challenging and useful?
Jimbo:
Cockney,
"...irrespective of international opinion..." you wrote referencing Likud. Well, I would be skeptical too if I saw everyone in the world, bar the US,and maybe sometimes Britain, wanting to kill me!
Unlike al-beeb,I do know the difference between right and wrong, between peace and violence, and am therefore not a terrorist-hugger. Perhaps you would like to explain from where your antipathy to self defence and decency comes. Is it from the lessons of classic anti-Semitism, or just blind illogic?
bc10:
Allan@aberdeen, that's a bit harsh. Fair enough disagree with him over his beeb defence but to question his degree choice - mickey mouse or otherwise - is a bit personal.
Cockney:
Jimbo,
Blimey - it takes a pretty hardcore set of ideological blinkers to pounce on an entirely non judgemental discussion on political terminology from 764862 posts up and see rabid anti-Semitism.
Nice one.
Thom Boston:
Allan@Aberdeen - I've been toying with idea of confirming your summation - or better yet, telling you I'm studying Sociology! - just to see the state of apoplexy you would end up driving yourself into. But sadly, it's Economics. Now, if you class that as "Mickey Mouse", that's your call. I know of few economists who find the subject neither "challenging" nor "useful", but perhaps Allan, you know of some?
Now, if you'll forgive me, I'd like to explore THIS comment, which I find very interesting...
"Given that China and India are each producing around 250,000 top class engineers annually from their universities, do we really need people like Thom?
Now, is the "we" here a collective, global "we"? If so, then right on, Comrade - much love to you for thinking about the advancement of the world, and the entire human race, as a whole. (You are aware that a hefty proportion of these Indian graduates you're bigging up will be Muslims, aren't you? Just checking).
Or is the "we" in a British sense, meaning that with all these "top-class engineers" graduating in less developed countries, we can rush them over here where the pay is better and put them to use, I don't know, building bridges or fixing lifts or finally finishing Wembley Stadium. Which is fine, as long as you're aware that you are, in fact, advocating mass immigration. (Many of whom will again be, um, Muslims.)
Or perhaps you are advancing trading graduates with China and India - who produce engineers at a cheaper cost - while the UK specalises in "Mickey Mouse" graduates with degrees like Economics? As Ricardo's the theory of compartive advatage shows, both countries should benefit from such an arrangement. But what do I know? What with economics being such a "Mickey Mouse" subject and all. (And you still get that nasty immigration problem, only compounded by the fact that many British people are removed from the country at the same time).
Or perhaps you were just calling for my elimination from the human race for - gasp! - going to University. I believe there was a chap in Cambodia a few years back who had similar ideas. Perhaps you'd have got on...
J.G.:
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathemetician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"
conan:
[Comment deleted. Please do not make inflammatory comments about religion here.]
Edited By Siteowner
Allan@Aberdeen:
The 'we' refers to Britain which to me is a natural reflex but to a Gramscianised would-be economist like Thom, it is effectively neo-nazi. Let's have a closer look at what economists like Thom are currently advocating with respect to how Britain is to live in the world. They say that we should simply import from India and China all the consumers goods we want and, in return, we'll do all the clever hi-value stuff like design, consultancy etc. I have had the pleasure of working with both Indian and Chinese engineers and they are at least as good as we are so, typically, the economists' theories are soon reduced to the BS that they always have been. There's only one economist - Adam Smith - and the rest are superfluous.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
