By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
Eamonn:
Official: Blair were to blame for the death of Margaret Hassan.
In a stunning revelation, brought to us on the Today programme, Edward Stourton interviewing Margaret Hassan's sister, reveals for the first time that Iraqi terrorists were not to blame for the Mrs Hassan's death. Apparently, Tony Blair was to blame.
On a serious note, I wonder why the Today programme feel it is important to highlight this now, and why Stourton didn't refer to these comments by the sister following Mrs Hassan's death:-
"Those who are guilty of this atrocious act, and those who support them, have no excuses".
Unless of course, even then Mrs Hassan's sister considered Blair as the guilty one.
and
"We are the Irish family of Margaret and we are pleading with you to set her free," she said."
Why, then does she not blame the Irish as well as the British Government?
I can quite understand that Mrs Hassan's family will say all sorts of things in response to the terrible events surrounding the death of Mrs Hassan. But it is another thing for the BBC to allow these views to be broadcast, without comment or challenge. Ken Bigley's brother, who also blamed Tony Blair for everything, was also allowed to make unchallenged claims on Today.
Grimer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5047102.stm
Gaza militant shootings kill five
'A car carrying a Hamas militant....'
'blamed his death on the Hamas movement.'
Why do these 'gunmen' keep 'clashing'? Isn't the term 'clash' used more for demonstrations that turn a bit ugly? 'Protesters clashed with police', 'Rival demonstrators clashed...', etc.
How long until the BBC actually start referring to 'Civil War'?
dumbcisco:
And the interview was at the peak Today timeslot - 8.10am.
The Hassan family may have a grievance - for instance about getting the men now on trial interviewed by someone to find out where Mrs Hassan is buried - but is it really the biggest item of the news today ? And isn't it the function of the Iraqi authorities to do any such interviewing ?
The interview was pre-recorded as well as pre-arranged. The BBC website story is timed as being last updated at 7.15am. I think it went up much earlier than that.
Stourton mentioned that British Governments have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with hostage-takers. Stourton mentioned this - but more in passing than as the primary, over-arching reason for not intervening in the phone calls made to Mrs Hassan's Iraqi husband.
Given their normal appeasing manner, the BBC probably disagree with that policy. It would follow the French/Italian/German line, which ends up with yet more kidnappings.
John:
Can we have a thread on the apalling Panorama program last night.
What a pretty pathetic showing....
archduke:
who was the utter tosser on Today this morning comparing Islamists to the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?
i swear , i nearly self-detonated.
[ to be utterly fair, John Humphries did give a quip in response along the lines of "well, the Civil Rights people werent going around blowing us up, were they?". ]
archduke:
John -> the stereotypes of "Republicans" came thick and fast. i swear, i thought i was watching Cuban propaganda.
Ralph:
John and Archduke,
You actually bothered watching it? Let me guess what the story was, evil neocons couple with the oil industry got Bush to lie.
Ritter:
What lessons have been learned from 7 July?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...5953&
#paginator
The first page of 'Recommended' to a man (& woman) common sense silent majority view. The Beeb must be hating it. Expect the thread to be 'Closed' soon.
"Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:55 GMT 09:55 UK
I am afraid of another attack because the police aren't allowed to do their job properly without offending communities. There are clearly still people willing to cause harm in this country, but the more the media and muslim communities attack the police for raids they carry out because 'they didn't find a bomb' the more unsafe this country becomes. You don't have to have a bomb strapped to you to be guilty. You can still be guilty of intent and planning.
amanda, peterborough
Recommended by 19 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:55 GMT 09:55 UK
I do wish certain (usually left wing) groups in the UK would stop attacking the police and security services. They are doing their best to prevent extremists (some of them traitors) from attacking us. Sometimes they will make mistakes, most of the time they will be correct. The only people who should be attacked and ridiculed are those who want to attack us or who support those who want to attack us.
Kev, Chester
Recommended by 19 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:47 GMT 09:47 UK
Lessons? None! We still criticise the police and emergency services at every opportunity, whilst trying to find excuses for the terrorists and their supporters. This encourages extremists and demoralises those who risk their lives to defend us.
Jack, London
Recommended by 17 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:37 GMT 09:37 UK
In this country we seem hell bent on blaming anyone but the bombers. The emergency services appear to have done a fantastic job but are now being opened up to blame, why? bombers caused this carnage and now by publicly criticising our emergency services they are winning a propoganda war.
[mufcnews], Stockport, United Kingdom
Recommended by 17 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:51 GMT 09:51 UK
I hope the Government has learnt that London should not be a refuge for religious extremists and international terrorists.
They chose to ignore the advice from the French government and other countries that we had some dangerous fundamentalists exploiting our liberal society.
Griff from Cardiff, Cardiff, Wales
Recommended by 14 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:47 GMT 09:47 UK
Anyone in such a situation has a hard and arduous task, no amount of paper planning can really prepare for such an event.
I would feel happier if we tightened our border controls (not difficult) and increased the effectiveness of MI5 and other security forces.
I would also feel happier if the human rights and PC brigade didn't hamper investigations and extraditions - to anywhere!
Tom Smith, Ipswich
Recommended by 11 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:35 GMT 10:35 UK
Why is it that the media seem more concerned with criticising the emergency forces risking their lives to save people than the actual bombers? Blame culture at it's worst.
Gouranga Patel, Norwich
Recommended by 7 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:49 GMT 09:49 UK
The lesson for the police seems to be this:
If you shoot to kill, you're damned. If you shoot to injure, you'll be damned. If you don't shoot, you'll be dead.
Curiously, terrorist attacks happen every day in Iraq. In US there was ONE attack. In UK there was ONE attack. Where is the terrorism?
Iain Mair, Stirling
Recommended by 6 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:53 GMT 09:53 UK
I feel safe enough not to need a compulsory ID card.
Michael Allison, Preston, United Kingdom
Recommended by 6 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:33 GMT 09:33 UK
There's more chance of dying in a road accident than in a terrorist attack. So, I about as worried as I was this time last year. Ie/ not very.
Richard O'Shea
Recommended by 5 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:40 GMT 09:40 UK
July 7th woke me up to the fact that no-one is safe from these attacks. Although while these attacks are terrible and totally unnecessary, it is unfair to criticise the police and intelligence services. It's easy to say "this could've been done", or "that could've been done" in hindsight. The only people we can blame are the terrorists themselves.
Graham Longlands, Bolton, United Kingdom
Recommended by 5 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:15 GMT 10:15 UK
I spent years in N.Ireland where terrorist attacks happened on a daily basis Enniskillen Omagh bombings etc where was the public enquiry into just these 2 attacks NEVER just 1 attack on the US 1 attack on London and everyone is in uproar The thing is the RUC new & still do who planted those bombs and were powerless to arrest them because of UK politics cmon people get a grip maybe if the IRA had bombed London more in 69 the troubles would’ve been over in a year but they needed the US $
DAVE SCOTT, WINCHESTER, United Kingdom
Recommended by 4 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:08 GMT 10:08 UK
The main lesson of 7/7 is that we are at war with an enemy that our own governments and legal system have brought right into our midst and which they seem to be doing very little to expel.
Michael Jamieson
Recommended by 4 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:43 GMT 10:43 UK
This is what I have learned...
Our police, emergency services, anti terrorism squads and intellegence services will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
There are thousands of scenarios of terrorism attacks and if you put thousands of systems in place there will always be one scenario not covered.
I, for one, give 100% support to our police and emergency services and my only critisism will be directed towards terrorists.
Elizabeth Philips, Halifax, United Kingdom
Recommended by 3 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:44 GMT 09:44 UK
Judging by the number of raids and arrests since then ...and other outrages in other parts of the world... (and the subsequent "failed" second attack) , there are clearly a significant number of people sufficiently motivated to harm innocent people to merit the police and security services to be very active.
Do not be complacent....we will be hit again if they get the chance.
jackie scott, london, United Kingdom
Recommended by 3 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Biodegradable:
Its blame the Jews time again!
Gaza blast kills Hamas militant
An explosion in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip has killed a Palestinian militant and injured his wife and son, medical sources said.
...
The cause of the explosion is not yet known. Israel says there were no military operations in the area.
The Israeli army frequently carries out air strikes against Palestinian militants in Gaza, usually claiming responsibility shortly afterwards.
...
The explosion comes just hours after five other Palestinians were killed the most serious round of deadly feuding between supporters of Hamas and the former ruling party Fatah.
Given that (a) "work accidents" are possibly the most common cause of "Palestinians" dying in explosions in the Palestinian administered terroritories and, (b) as the bottom line indicates there's a civil war going on with rival factions merrily murdering each other, why even mention that The Israeli army frequently carries out air strikes against Palestinian militants in Gaza...?
(That's a rhetorical question - we all know the answer)
AntiCitizenOne:
BBC invites SEXIST & RACIST as regular commentator.
From this afternoon's (Sunday) Dateline London:
'I don't like middle-aged white men' Yasmin Alibi-Brown.
Biodegradable:
The "What lessons have been learned from 7 July?" HYS comments are indeed encouraging.
So is this:
Palestinian support 'crashes' in Europe
Take note BBC, your public does not want more appeasement and PC puff-pieces on terrorists and their enablers!
John Reith:
All day Friday B-BBC posters were berating the BBC for its coverage of the Police raid in Forest Gate.
One example:
'key things missing:
1. Pakistani
2. Islam/Muslim
3. bomb factory
4. Usage of the vague "Asian" term
The BBC - not bringing you the news.'
archduke | Homepage | 02.06.06 - 3:29 pm | #
Mmm. A curious silence seems to have decended as things became clearer.
First, according to the next door neighbours the Koyairs are NOT Pakistani; they're from Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, the family next door - whose house was also entered by Police - come from neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh; they're from India.
Seems like that term 'Asian' (admittedly unsatisfactory much of the time) was the right call here.
Also, it wasn't a bomb factory.
Why do B-BBC posters always appear to want the BBC to jump the gun? Waiting until the facts are established would be much mopre conducive to accurate and impartial reporting, surely?
Given that on a previous occasion a suspected Somali plumber turned out to be a Brazilian electrician, I'd have thought you lot would have grasped that by now.
Biodegradable:
Oy vey! John Reith the shlub's back!
;-Þ
archduke:
and yet the BBC seems to have no problem jumping the gun with Iraq "massacre" stories - such as the John Simpson lead item on the ten o'clock news with his "Ishaqi" scoop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5042036.stm
i sense double standards at work here.
archduke:
"You actually bothered watching it? Let me guess what the story was, evil neocons couple with the oil industry got Bush to lie."
Ralph -> yup. you got in one.
Andrew:
John Reith - you mean third-party commenters at Biased BBC, not Biased BBC posters.
To add a typical BBC style aside, third party commenters at Biased BBC often include BBC staff.
Eamonn:
"Waiting until the facts are established would be much mopre conducive to accurate and impartial reporting, surely?"
Oh dear Reith, try reading the article posted by Andrew below re: croquet and get back to us.
Andrew:
John: "Can we have a thread on the apalling Panorama program last night. What a pretty pathetic showing...."
Feel free to write something and post it here! Given the sheer volume of the BBC's output it's not possible for the regular Biased BBC team to watch and respond to every questionable thing they broadcast.
P.S. As I keep having to remind my offspring, there's a word missing from your request 
Cockney:
John,
For some of us, the issue isn't that the BBC is loathe to start banging on about evil Islamic monsters threatening armageddon until full facts are established. It's that it doesn't appear to show the same reluctance to fling around speculation in respect of various unproven allegations elsewhere.
i.e. I find it wholly appropriate to report that a major police raid has been carried out in London under anti terrorism laws. I'm more than happy for the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators, details of the alleged plot and the story of who shot who to remain out of the public domain until police have fully investigated - hence lurid language about 'bomb factories' etc can be avoided as the Beeb has rightly been careful to do.
Equally though I can do without all the bullsh*t about excessive force and agonised interviews with family members about brutality and innocence etc etc - why are resources being devoted now to investigating this stuff when there may be a bomb to find? Do it later for f**ks sake. The Beeb has been involved in stirring this up without any hard evidence.
Similarly in Iraq, it's wholly appropriate to report findings and in brief factual terms allegations of improper conduct from US troops. The arguments about civilian casualties and unpleasantries happening in war so that's all right then are bollocks in my view - this isn't WWII it's a pre-emptive war and occupation in the name of 'freedom' and against a tyrranical regime which surely places behavrioural obligations to the fore (and incidentally is costing us all a fortune).
However, the fact that unlike WWII we had a choice as to whether to do this places obligations on the media to call it down the line. How can the public make an informed CBA next time (Iran?) if the feedback is skewed? Gung ho bullsh*t is inappropriate but the Beeb's constant spinning of every unfounded allegation is equally so and increasingly nauseating. Only an idiot could say that the War is/was a good/bad thing at the moment - it'll become clear over the next decade and more and we need facts on which to judge this.
Grimer:
Is it a 'magic word'?
_______________-
John Reith,
Have you had a chance to watch that Kofi Annan interview yet? What did you think? I'd really like to know what you thought of the 'balance'.
Reith:
Andrew
'you mean third-party commenters at Biased BBC, not Biased BBC posters.'
The rule-of-thumb taxonomy I've been working by has been to call people who post a comment 'posters' while you, Natalie, Ed etc. would be 'bloggers'.
I'm happy to use some other classification if you can suggest one. But 'third-part commentators at Biased BBC' seems a bit of a mouthful.
Umbongo:
Once again Gordon Brown gets an easy ride in the "Today" programme. No questions on the destruction of UK pension schemes, the tax credits fiasco etc etc. Nevertheless there were questions on what the Chancellor is going to say to the CBI about globalization: why not wait until he's said it rather than let him set the agenda?
dumbcisco:
reith
Yes - the BBC kept saying "Asian" which includes all sorts of religions. It avoided the word Muslim.
I can't see why you are challenging this. It is true.
Also - the BBC could not even get its London geography right.
And there has been precious little investigative work by the BBC since then. All the new news we get comes from elsewhere.
Pathetic.
archduke:
BBC in Third World exploitation shocker:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
me...ticle625111.ece
"He was pleased to learn Thai extras would receive 400 baht [£6], almost double the standard wage for a day labourer."
"But Robert Reynolds, who runs a charity for tsunami orphans in Krabi province, was incensed after discovering Western extras were routinely paid 1,400 baht [£20]."
You see - the BBC is really in favour of capitalism and market forces - when it suits them.
Phil:
Re Panorama "Bush's Climate Of Fear".
Having not watched a BBC political documentary for several years and having nothing better to do I decided to watch this last night. Having become attuned to BBC bias recently, I found myself both laughing and angry at this programme. It was pretty obvious within the first few minutes that this programme was intended not as an intelligent discussion of the issues but as a partisan attack upon George Bush; luckily for us it failed to land any punches.
Firstly the title: "Bush's Climate Of Fear", suggesting that people are living in fear of an overpowering Bush Whitehouse. As the programme progressed it was pretty clear that this "charge" was not substantiated in any way. Scientists interviewed all looked pretty comfortable to me. None were cowering in fear or asking to have their faces blacked out.
In the opening minutes we were subjected to background music (what is its purpose in a political documentary?), said music being the ominous "Dance of Death" from "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". Hmmm.... Then various talking heads (actors?) were presented in a manner which I am fairly sure was meant to invoke the image of US Christian TV preachers. Geddit?
The impression I got from these opening scenes was vaguely unnerving - my unease being directed not at George Bush, but at the fact that this was Panorama, supposedly the BBC's flagship political current/affairs programme. After this, the programme meandered badly.
The main body of the programme was really just a mish-mash of the usual enviromentalist talking points. Various themes were mixed in in seemingly random order, you could almost be forgiven for thinking that the producer couldn't find enough material to fill out the programme. We got:
Sinister editing of scientific reports
A series of pro-global warming scientists expressing their opinions and frustration at US policies
1 guy on a mountaintop in Virginia complaining about coal mines
Residents of New Orleans whinging about the state of their homes and lack of government assistance
The world is getting hotter and it's all man's fault!
There will be more hurricanes!
ExxonMobil controls the US state dept
George Bush has links to the oil industry
Texas is the most polluted state in the Union and it's the fault of George Bush
Americans drive Hummers (though they have just stopped making them...)
America produces 25% of the world's pollution
It's now too late to do anything about global warming - "precious time has been lost" (yes that is a direct quote) and it's America's fault
Americans don't care about the rest of the world and they are going to do what's best for their economy (shocking, I know)
Some pollster demonstrating his polling technology which allows favourability to be tracked in real-time as a politician actually gives his speech. Just what was the relevance of that? Oh...did I mention that he was a Republican who has now "seen the light" and is anti-Bush's Kyoto policies?
The programme really didn't land any blows, it was pretty poor all round. No doubt it will be lapped up in Guardian-land as more "proof" of how evil George Bush is, but frankly the point the programme made best, to those who like to think, is just how poor the BBC's documentaries can be.
archduke:
"hence lurid language about 'bomb factories'"
it wasnt lurid - it was based on what intelligence sources were saying at the time to their contacts in the media- it ran on numerous newspaper websites, even ITN ran with it - and you cant accuse ITN of being a UK version of Fox News, can you?
and it WAS a bomb factory - it was only later we found out the type of bomb factory that the police were targetting - a chemical bomb factory.
no whether that was in the house or not is by-the-by.
Phil:
Re Panorama "Bush's Climate Of Fear", part deux.
The programme was notable for what it omitted - that will not be a surpise to any reader of this blog. A few examples, please note this is all off the top of my head:
There was not a single interview with a scientist that is sceptical on global warming. NOT ONE. Some of the pro-global warming scientists were asked about the "anti" opinion, but not surprisingly they dismissed it and said the issue was now "settled".
The old canard about America producing 25% of the world's pollution was trotted out. The fact that America produces 25% of the world's wealth was conveniently omitted.
The fact that Kyoto was rejected 99-0 by the US Senate during Bill Clinton's presidency was not mentioned.
The fact that there might be benefits from global warming was not discussed.
The fact that even if the whole world implemented Kyoto it would make sod-all difference to the world's climate in 100 years time was not mentioned.
A cost-benefit analysis of implementing Kyoto vs dealing with global warming was not mentioned.
The fact that America's population and economy have both grown significantly during the past 10 years was not mentioned. This makes it essentially IMPOSSIBLE for the US to cut its emissions to 1990 levels (as required by Kyoto).
The fact that the rapdily growing economies of India and China are far more inefficient in their use of energy per unit of GDP was not mentioned.
The fact that Kyoto is effectively a dead duck was not mentioned. For example, the Canadian government is backing away from its commitments. And just how many European governments are on track to meet their commitments?
The slam-dunk refutation of the so-called "hockey stick" model which underlies much global warming alarmism was not mentioned.
The fact that the world cooled in the middle of the last century was not mentioned.
The disparities and divergencies in the main global warming computer simulations were not mentioned.
The politicisation process behind the original IPCC report was not mentioned.
Phil:
My homepage abive is not my homepage! It is the Panorama home page - you can watch the "documentary" here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programm...ama/
default.stm
John Reith:
Dumbcisco
'the BBC could not even get its London geography right.'
The BBC used 'Forest Gate'. Why? Because that's what the Met said.
'This morning, shortly before 4am, the Metropolitan Police executed a search warrant at a house in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, East London.'
http://cms.met.police.uk/met/
new...ranch_operation
Now there may be some who insist that Forest Gate really only starts north of the Romford Road. But actually they're wrong. Green St, for example, is often said to be in Forest Gate. Upton Park would do too.
But it's third party commentators on this blog who get it wrong. Archduke, despite having spent time in Plaistow ('near West Ham Park') says he's never heard of Forest Gate and wants the BBC to say 'Newham'. I've never met an eastender who talks about Newham in other other context than the council. 'Newham' like Cumbria and Avon is a figment of the municipal imagination dreamed up by bureaucrats and politicians in some sort of reorganization. There is no such place.
As is becoming clear, most of the the speculation on the blogs and elsewhere is steadily proving to be unreliable. Many of those claiming to have 'contacts in the security services' are turning out to be fantasists.
The BBC has been responsible and accurate. Just ask DAC Peter Clarke.
Cockney
I broadly agree with you. Except that I do not accept your line about the BBC's 'constant spinning of every unfounded allegation'. Sometimes the BBC reports allegations....and the replies/ripostes/rebuttals etc. That's called impartiality.
archduke:
why do i get lots more information from the Seattle Post, regarding recent Iraqi violence:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/na...tml?
source=mypi
as opposed to this on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5045608.stm
the BBC appears to be filtering out the news fragments , such as this, which is in that Seattle Post article:
"He said the gunmen ordered the Shiites to lie down and before they opened fire one shouted, "On behalf of Islam, today we will dig a mass grave for you. You are traitors.""
max:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5040806.stm
The Israeli killing bots attack a hospital in order to snatch an innocent patient.
In an attempt to provide context the BBC elaborate on another body snatching incident:
"In March, the Israeli military snatched four members of the PFLP from a jail in the West Bank town of Jericho.
They are alleged to have shot Rehavam Zeevi, a hardliner who advocated deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories."
They just forgot to mention that alleged hardliner was a serving cabinet minister at the time. It's probably not such an important fact.
archduke:
"despite having spent time in Plaistow ('near West Ham Park') says he's never heard of Forest Gate and wants the BBC to say 'Newham'."
geographical context is everything - the alleged bomb factory was within walking distance/bus ride of Stratford station. Docklands railway, central line, and buses all operate out of there -not to mention the new Eurostar terminal being built there.
its quite a busy transport hub.
but we never got a hint of that in the BBC reports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5042724.stm
archduke:
re max's link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5040806.stm
"and arrested an injured Palestinian militant said to be seriously ill."
Seriously ill! deary me - sounds terrible. was he in hospital because of cancer maybe? err no..
"Reports said the man had been shot in the stomach during clashes with Israeli forces"
Big Mouth:
Grimer,
You are quite right in calling attention to al-beeb's use of terms like Hamas "movement", and "militant" and aunty's reluctance to use the "T" word.
But what we must understand is that this is indeed a cvil war, but only on the surface. Underneath lies the clue to what the "clashes" are really about: gangs, family rivalries, drugs, prostitution,general smuggling, and a lot of other struggles carried on by a bunch of slimy bottom-feeders. These issues have been happening for centuries and have nothing to do with Israel.But licence payers will have to wait a long time for the story behind the story.
Andrew:
John Reith, my own preference is to make clear the distinction between 'posts' from bloggers (i.e. Biased BBC team members) and 'comments' from commenters, so it is clear whether you're referring to Biased BBC posts or third-party comments. Within this forum, the term 'commenters' should be sufficient for clarity.
GCooper:
It's tempting not to add comments once the thread count goes past 200 - like as not a new one will be started and your timeless remarks (!) will have been lost to the discussion.
So, at risk of paraphrasing myself from the previous 'open comments', last night's Panorama was so shoddy I'm astonished Hilary Anderson still has a job this morning.
All the usual polemical tricks were pulled. The programme opened with the mandatory heart-tugging routine, presenting her case by implication and innuendo, relying on sympathy to overcome any nagging questions of fact or relevance of the subject matter she'd chosen to dramatise her point.
It progressed to the selective choice of interview subjects, laboratory controlled to rule out the possibility of dissenting opinions from equally qualified scientists who believe her chosen bunch were talking nonsense, then staggered on to the mandatory 'poor blacks from the South' section (complete with the pricelessly gratuitous vox pop "I don't think the Bush government takes anything seriously") before descending back into the mire of soft-reporting, designed to plaster over any cracks in her tar and paper argument.
Certainly there is censorship in the 'global warming' debate. It is the ruthless censorship of any dissenting view - even of those who accept the hypothesis, like Bjorn Lomborg. And why this matters is because Anderson and her kind take our money by force to feed us propaganda and ruthlessly extend that censorship. The lazy viewer (which we all are, to some extent or other) takes in the drip-feed of BBC propaganda and ends-up holding opinions she or he has no idea how they arrived at. Which then enables other BBC pundits to claim that 'public opinion has shown a remarkable shift...'. You don't say!
That edition of Panorama was nothing more than thinly-disguised anti-Bush ranting from an organisation that has clearly lost the dictionary.
If Reith likes to give me the right address, I'll gladly go and buy one and post it to the right department.
The word 'impartial' will be helpfully highlighted in fluorescent ink.
Umbongo:
john reith
"Sometimes the BBC reports allegations....and the replies/ripostes/rebuttals etc. That's called impartiality."
A small point: the Met hadn't said anything about how the suspect came to be shot - only that "a man was shot". In fact they are precluded from commenting until the IPCC investigation is complete. However, solicitors for the arrested men were all over BBC News like a rash claiming that the shot was "not an accident" and implying police brutality and a de Menenzes situation. What does the BBC expect defence solicitors to say? "It's a fair cop" or "Yeah our clients are terrorists"? Claims of innocence coupled with veiled allegations of police brutality are to be expected from defence solicitors in this type of case: it isn't "news" so why does the BBC give it such extensive and high priority coverage? This kind of editing is certainly not "impartial" and it allows the defence solicitors and the suspect bombers to set the agenda for future coverage and analysis.
Cockney:
John,
Re: spinning of allegations against US troops.
Report the allegation, in brief (particularly where the complainants may not be entirely impartial observers) with appropriate caveats. Report any conclusions of official US military investigations, without necessarily accepting at face value - i.e. report conflicting evidence. As in the vast majority of cases it will be impossible to subsequently establish exactly what happened stress ambiguity at all times. Raise thereafter in the context of an overall assessment on the pros and cons of the war, not in exclusion.
At the moment it just seems that hopelessly unreliable commentators are invited to waffle at length over atrocities, massacres etc etc without any substantive evidence.
Cockney:
and Umbongo has it absolutely right re: Friday in my view. STFU and let the police do their job.
GCooper:
Umbongo writes:
"This kind of editing is certainly not "impartial" and it allows the defence solicitors and the suspect bombers to set the agenda for future coverage and analysis."
Neither is it impartial (do remind me where to send that dictionary, Reith) to concentrate your reporting on the reaction of aggrieved local 'yoof', to the exclusion of examining why an air exclusion zone was in place over East London, investigating the terrorist bust in Canada, the mysterious detention of a surface-air missile by French customs and one or two other recent incidents, which are of a great deal more news value than the apologetic spin your employer is feeding us, day after day, after tiresome day.
Ritter:
BBC USE 'I' WORD SHOCKER!
Islamists claim Mogadishu victory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ica/
5047766.stm
Shouldn't the correct headline be:
'Asians claim Mogasishu victory'.?
Of course, no 'Islamists' here though...
Police await shot terror suspect
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5047200.stm
"A terror suspect shot in the shoulder during a police raid is not yet well enough to be interviewed by detectives, his solicitor has said.
Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, and his brother Abdul Koyair, 20, were arrested after Friday's raid on a terraced house in Forest Gate, east London.
Oh my god.... is that the Prophet Mohammed?? I get confused, so many Mohammeds....
Ritter:
Second surprise of the day.....
Liberalism under pressure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
5042418.stm
This (excellent) 'point of view' could eaily have been titled 'Wake Up and Smell the Coffee'.
What surprises me is how dhimmis like the BBC fail to see this coming, nor do they see the MSM's role in supporting the Islamists, as a result of their politically correct search for moral equivalence between thought systems supporting democracy and peace and thought systems consisting of death and conquest.
If the BBC spent half as much time Islamist bashing as it does Bush bashing we might be getting somewhere. For the time being the BBC continues to feed the crocodile.
Rick:
Margaret Hassan lived in Iraq and was married to an Iraqi. She was an Irish Citizen with an Irish Passport.
Just what possble benefit would it have been to her to have the British Government intercede on her behalf ?
Eamonn:
Umbongo - Good points well made.
"solicitors for the arrested men were all over BBC News like a rash"
A characteristic of the BBC is the way they allow certain "experts" all over the BBC News like a rash. Here they often "omit" or hide any mention of the connections that the person has with various "peace" or "antiwar" or other left wing organisations.
I remember that Radio 5 Live used to have on an "academic expert" to comment on the Iraq war. However, they never mentioned that this person was affiliated with the antiwar movement. I happened to know that this person was, but from the BBC the listener would never have known, except by the anti-coalition views that he always conveyed. I e-mailed the BBC to complain about the fact that his antiwar standpoint should be made clear to the listener; I haven't heard that person on radio 5 Live again but have no idea whther my e-mail had anything to do with this.
There are many, many examples of this on the BBC.
A good example of this in the media is the way in which the Guardian employed a member of a radical Islamist group to write articles. The Guardian knew who he was, but kept it quiet until exposed by Scott Burgess at the Daily Ablution.
Phil:
Eamonn,
The most common example I have spotted is when the Today programme wheels on an American for "balance" when commenting on George Bush. So often it turns out to be a former member of the Clinton administration. But the BBC doesn't declare that.
AntiCitizenOne:
so many Mohammeds. So many problems.
To misquote Mark Steyn.
disillusioned_german:
Liberalism under pressure
A point of view by Lisa Jardine
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
5042418.stm
I don't quite get it. What does she want? More tolerance for the intolerant? Why doesn't she just write what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying on a regular basis?
Biodegradable:
I hope nobody here at Biased BBC gets any ideas after reading this:
Militants storm TV studio in Gaza
Armed supporters of the Palestinian governing party Hamas have stormed a TV office in Gaza, complaining of bias towards the rival Fatah party.
The gunmen fired into studio equipment and called Palestine TV staff "dirty collaborators", before ordering them off the premises.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting here some kind of invasion of the BBC news room recently.
hmmm...
Andrew:
Somebody who would have been dealt with if they had...
disillusioned_german:
Biodegradable: The people at the Beeb would understand it - as long as it's some deprived plumber from Newham storming their offices. Wait... don't they get plenty of airtime on Al Beeb anyway?
Grimer:
Ritter,
It is an interesting opinion piece. However, the conclusions are far too predictable from the Beeb.
It is not easy to resist the urge to quiet an irritant voice like Hirsi Ali's.
Who wants to silence Hirsi Ali? The Dutch people or the Islamofascists?
The whole article is basically saying that the Dutch should continue to bend over backwards to accept more Islamic immigrants. Whereas, Pim Fortuyn argued that Islam was incompatible with Holland's liberal democracy. He described Islam as a 'backward religion' because of its treatment of gays and women.
The Dutch are certainly not looking to persecute Muslims withing their nation, instead they are trying to get a grip on their borders and integrate the people already living there. What is the problem with that? Holland is under no obligation to allow failed asylum seekers to remain, why shouldn't they 'jail' and then 'deport' them?
I understand the arguments that we shouldn't let terrorists change our way of life, through the loss of freedoms. However, we shouldn't let uncontrolled immigration of 'incompatibles' change our way of life either.
That is the crux of the argument.
The Dutch are trying to preserve their liberal society for those people that are already Dutch. Whereas this BBC piece argues that they should operate an open border policy and feel happy that they've done the right thing, while their society is destroyed and freedom lost forever.
Biodegradable:
Note also the continuing attempt to blame the Israelis for the explosion in Gaza:
In a separate development, a Hamas militant was killed in a blast in a refugee camp near Gaza City. The cause of the explosion has not been confirmed.
The 30-year-old Hamas militant died and his wife and son were injured in the explosion at a house in the Jabaliya camp. Israel said it was not involved.
The Israeli army frequently carries out air strikes against Palestinian militants in Gaza, usually claiming responsibility shortly afterwards.
In this case Israel has catagorically denied it was involved but the BBC continues to insinuate that the the Jews must have been behind it.
Grimer:
Is the BBC suffering a DoS attack. It is taking ages to open up pages.
GCooper:
Eamonn writes:
"I remember that Radio 5 Live used to have on an "academic expert" to comment on the Iraq war. However, they never mentioned that this person was affiliated with the antiwar movement. I happened to know that this person was...."
Indeed. Similarly, another academic (sic) who was prominent in the anti-war movement regularly had his missives published all over (D)NHYS and read-out on listeners' letters segments of R4 programmes.
Of course, it was the clarity of his prose and force of his arguments that earned him such exposure...
Biodegradable:
disillusioned_german;
Wait... don't they get plenty of airtime on Al Beeb anyway?
Not according to the Beeb on Beeb report, which found that coverage was biased towards Israel.
BTW, good post at LGF on the MCB's new boss with links to last year's Panorama on him:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/..._Front_Man&
only
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ma/
4171950.stm#
John Reith:
archduke
"geographical context is everything - the alleged bomb factory was within walking distance/bus ride of Stratford station. Docklands railway, central line, and buses all operate out of there -not to mention the new Eurostar terminal being built there.
its quite a busy transport hub."
I don't give a rat's arse what it's near unless it's relevant. You could equally say the house was close to the Boleyn ground. So, are we looking at Arsenal supporters then? (No, let's make that Leyton Orient.) Neighbours report that the family have been there FOR YEARS - i.e. before the Olympics bid was won and before the Eurostar terminal got planning permission. Stratford (East) is perhaps most famous for its theatre - does a v. good pantomime IME. Don't suppose the luvvies were a target either. They were sited there because that's where they lived. That's a fact. The rest is media babble.
Cockney & Umbongo........hear what you say. My experience of watching/listening is also one of frustration/irritation that some dimwit/partisan/transparent fraud/ ideologically motivated idiot etc. is spouting off dodgy views. But that's because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and .....defence solicitors. The bias issue only arises if these guys were to crowd out the Police and the Home Secretary. No danger of that IMHO.
will:
comparing Islamists to the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?
The BBC recently broadcast Springsteen's "roots" concert.
Springsteen introduced "We shall overcome" as being the anthem of the civil rights movement, but still relevant & sung by pro-immigration marchers last month.
The rights of citizens & illegal aliens appear to be the same to Springsteen. sure way of securing a BBC gig.
D Burbage:
>> But that's because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and .....
so why didn't Panorama show any climate change sceptics, even to rubbish them?
disillusioned_german:
>>But that's because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and .....defence solicitors.
disillusioned_german:
Add to the above entry:
Ah, that's why they usually have fruitcakes like Nick Griffin on Question Time.
will:
Ritter If the BBC spent half as much time Islamist bashing as it does Bush bashing we might be getting somewhere.
Not the BBC, but Channel4, will tonight have the courage to give the scary lowdown on the fundamentalists
God's Next Army
8:00pm - 9:00pm
Channel 4
Of which the BBC Radio Times says
It's hard to believe that people who are being taught that geological strata were all laid down by the Great Flood may be taking control of America's levers of power, but that's the way it looks here. Gulp.
Oh, sorry, these are Christian fundamentalists.
Grimer:
Shouldn't that read:
But that's because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes/defence solicitors.
archduke:
"I don't give a rat's arse what it's near unless it's relevant. You could equally say the house was close to the Boleyn ground. So, are we looking at Arsenal supporters then? (No, let's make that Leyton Orient.) Neighbours report that the family have been there FOR YEARS"
911 - transport target (aircraft)
Madrid - transport target (trains)
London, 7/7 - transport target (tube)
Tokyo mid 90s, cult release sarin gas - transport target. tube.
John Reith:
D Burbage, phil and others
Sorry but I can't be much use to you about the panorama. until a few weeks ago I'd counted myself a climate change sceptic too. I've never been able to stomach the priggish faux moralising of the environment lobby and find their dead metaphors and dreary jargon unpalatable.
I caught on to Bjorn Lomborg fairly early on and mostly pour epater les islingtoniens would bring his name up whenever conversation showed any sign of straying into this jejune territory. I was cured of this not by knee-jerk lefties but by a gang of Tory MPs (Cameroons all) who slapped me over the wrist for boosting Lomborg and set me a reading list. I approached this with the same sense of dread as I currently experience at the prospect of wading through Jonathan Boyd Hunt's website. But duty is duty.
In the end I have to admit that the climate change enthusiasts have a pretty strong case in terms of 1. It's happening. and 2. It's man made. Beyond that - all the hockey stick stuff still smells strongly of hokum. It was slightly offstage contributions by people I like and trust that really made the difference. Contributions like this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2140574,00.html
That said, I still can't be arsed to watch TV programmes about it. But I'd defend to the death the BBC's right to make them.
Umbongo:
john reith
"But that's because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and .....defence solicitors."
The BBC is not compelled to give the defence lawyers no 1 spot in the coverage of this incident particularly as the Met wasn't alleging anything, only that "a man had been shot". By all means the BBC can (and should) report that the lawyers were denying speculation that the arrested men were connected to the manufacture of chemical weapons and, also, that the circumstances surrounding the "shot man" were unclear. This does not require wall-to-wall coverage by the BBC of defence denials (although hard news about any aspect of this incident has been difficult to obtain).
The BBC attitude to the incident plays well along with the views expressed on "Today" by a local dignitary who appeared to be suggesting that police action should only take place with the knowledge and approval of the local community. (This dignitary also announced that the incident would be the subject of a local meeting tonight at which the guest of honour is to be Moazzam Begg.) It also appears from his "Today" appearance that the new front man for the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, seems to suggest that the local community should be consulted before police action of this type occur.
Biodegradable:
Difficult to believe what "John Reith" just wrote!
I don't give a rat's arse what it's near unless it's relevant. You could equally say the house was close to the Boleyn ground. So, are we looking at Arsenal supporters then? (No, let's make that Leyton Orient.) Neighbours report that the family have been there FOR YEARS - i.e. before the Olympics bid was won and before the Eurostar terminal got planning permission. Stratford (East) is perhaps most famous for its theatre - does a v. good pantomime IME. Don't suppose the luvvies were a target either. They were sited there because that's where they lived. That's a fact. The rest is media babble.
Whether or not the alleged terrorists have lived there FOR YEARS. Regardless of what football team they may or may not support or their fondness for pantomime. Whether or not "John Reid" gives a rat's arse or a tinker's toss, there is no doubt that archduke is right in saying that the location of the alleged bomb factory is of major relevance.
"Media babble" is what "John Reid" and his workmates specialise in!
John Reith:
Archduke
9/11 Perps normally resident in Florida & S California boarded the planes in Boston, Mass.
Madrid - Perps lived in Leganes, NOT Atocha.
7/7 Perps came all the way from Leeds via Luton. None resident near Russell Square or Edgware Road.
You make my point.
archduke:
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/pres....php?
ann_id=204
Ritter:
Oh dear. Homophobia dropping off the BBC radar of PC issues. Or 'assimilating' with Islam, if you like. Dhimmis.
BBC homophobia complaint rejected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
5049566.stm
Some fun stuff in here though:
"The governors' programme complaints committee - which operates independently of the BBC - acknowledged Chris Moyles' description of a ringtone he did not like as "gay" could cause offence.
BBC governors independent of the BBC??!! Don't make me laugh!
Biodegradable:
"Media babble" is what "John Reid" and his workmates specialise in!
I meant of course John Reith.
re JR's comment @ 5:10 pm:
Why are you going out of your way to minimise the possibility that an alleged bomb factory has been found?
John Reith:
Umbongo
'By all means the BBC can (and should) report that the lawyers were denying speculation that the arrested men were connected to the manufacture of chemical weapons and, also, that the circumstances surrounding the "shot man" were unclear.'
That's what the BBC did.
'This does not require wall-to-wall coverage by the BBC of defence denials '
Whether or not you perceive them as 'wall to wall' rather depends on how long you spend with the same network. I heard them twice.
'hard news about any aspect of this incident has been difficult to obtain'
You got it. But dumbcisco rages at the BBC for adopting due minimalism in its reporting.
'It also appears from his "Today" appearance that the new front man for the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, seems to suggest that the local community should be consulted before police action of this type occur.'
Just because he's on the Today programme doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Equally, just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the Today programme.'
(Parenthetically: Grimer - nice point about the placing of fwd slashes vs. dots of elipsis. If I had emoticons I'd use a smiley.)
archduke:
"You make my point."
good god, you are missing the point entirely.
what i'm trying to point out is that the alleged bomb factory is near a rather important transport hub in East London.
i was merely pointing out that this was *never* mentioned in BBC reporting - which i found incredible, considering that the London Tube was targetted last summer.
that is all.
John Reith:
BioD
'Why are you going out of your way to minimise the possibility that an alleged bomb factory has been found?'
I'm not. I was discussing what the BBC should and shouldn't have said on Friday. The Police were firm, nay resolute, in refusing to confirm or deny anything outwith the terms (carefully thought out) of DAC Clarke's statement. I think it was right that the BBC respected that and were prepared to wait until the Police rather than jumping to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions. Unlike some commenters here.
Archduke
Pretty well everywhere in London is near the tube system. If you live in Thirsk then Forest Gate is (relatively) near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. If the BBC had picked on Eurostar Stratford or the Olympic village - that would have suggested they knew about the likely target of the alleged bomb/chemical vest. No such info was available. No such speculation was warranted.
GCooper:
Of the infantile Panorma programme on climate change, John Reith writes:
"But I'd defend to the death the BBC's right to make them."
Codswallop! Not when it absolutely refuses to give fair treatment to opposing points of view, of which there are many.
If the BBC can't play fair, it should simply STFU on the subject, not lie about a consensus that is anything but.
gordon-bennett:
In the end I have to admit that the climate change enthusiasts have a pretty strong case in terms of 1. It's happening. and 2. It's man made.
John Reith | 05.06.06 - 4:59 pm
I do not think many people are arguing about 1. - it's a matter of measurement of facts.
The controversy is about Man's part in the warming. You have shown no propensity to understand and present a logical case so I am not surprised that you (glibly) accept the "It's man made" viewpoint.
However, I dont see agreement between scientists about causes and I dont see how you can be so unequivocal about the matter. For example, 1 volcano can discharge a lot more pollution that the world population.
Try if you can to understand how sceptics like most of the posters here would be dismayed but not surprised that a beeb apparatchik such as yourself can so readily believe in fairies (so to speak) and be so adamant in that faith that you do not allow people who dont believe in fairies to put their case on your beeb.
Beeboids have been selected for their particular spectrum of beliefs and cannot conceive that anyone with a different view is worthy of airspace.
John Reith:
GCooper
'not lie about a consensus that is anything but.'
If you look into it I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by how much of a consensus there actually is among the science Establishment. Particularly among those involved in advising on or reviewing public policy. I rather got the impression that they considered anyone so much as doubting the twin principles of climate change as they see it (it exists; it is man made)as being somewhere between a seven-day creationist and a flat earther.
That's not, of course, to say they're right. I remember when the same science Establishment were adamant that BSE would never jumb species. And that Gulf War syndrome doesn't exist ( many still holding fast on that one).
But consensus there jolly well is.
Of course the BBC should give airtime to those who want to challenge this consensus. But maybe not in the same breath (or on the same programme) as the mainstream view. There is a danger of never getting past first principles if you have to ritually debate the predicate of every argument.
gordon-bennett:
Mistakes were made during the heat of the moment of 7/7.
I wonder how many of those mistakes are as bad as Simpson's mistakes in talking of a massacre which didn't occur and had already been widely reported as having not happened. And he didn't make his mistakes in the heat of the moment.
Will the beeb be giving as much airtime to his serious errors as they are giving to nitpicking about 7/7?
Biodegradable:
John Reith @ 5:44 pm
BioD
'Why are you going out of your way to minimise the possibility that an alleged bomb factory has been found?'
I'm not. I was discussing what the BBC should and shouldn't have said on Friday.
No John, you went much further than that:
9/11 Perps normally resident in Florida & S California boarded the planes in Boston, Mass.
Madrid - Perps lived in Leganes, NOT Atocha.
7/7 Perps came all the way from Leeds via Luton. None resident near Russell Square or Edgware Road.
The police certainly haven't used the same logic (thank heavens!) Why should you? You seemed to be following the BBC line of not saying anything to upset the (alleged) terrorists, to the point of appearing to defend them, or at least distracting attention away from the risks they pose to us all.
John Reith:
Gordon Bennett
Since when does admitting that somebody has 'a pretty strong case' amount to 'glibly accepting' the said viewpoint, still less being 'so adamant' that one would deny anyone the chance to put the contrary position or being 'so readily' inclined to believe in fairies?
'I dont see how you can be so unequivocal about the matter'
Actually, I am fairly equivocal about the matter - as any fule who read my last two posts on the matter knowes.
As for:
'no propensity to understand and present a logical case '
Pots, kettles, black.
I remember some commenter arguing here a while back (in the context of Cameron etc) that the logical argument was dead and that all that 'trained mind' stuff was somehow inappropriate in today's polemical scene. It was sneeringly dismissed as 'the Etonian factor' or some such. In its place he seemed to be calling for a combo of sly elision and emotive non sequitur. No-one at the time was moved to demur and the latter approach certainly seems to have become the house style hereabouts. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm still a syllogism kinda guy.
John Reith:
BioD
'No John, you went much further than that:
9/11 Perps normally resident in Florida & S California boarded the planes in Boston, Mass.
Madrid - Perps lived in Leganes, NOT Atocha.
7/7 Perps came all the way from Leeds via Luton. None resident near Russell Square or Edgware Road.'
The point here is that terrorists don't always (or even often) attack the target that's round the corner from where they live. Indeed, they often travel some distance to attack their targets. Therefore, the media should not assume that because a suspected terrorist lives near a particular tube station, then that particular tube station (or indeed the tube) will necessarily be his target.
"You seemed to be following the BBC line of not saying anything to upset the (alleged) terrorists, to the point of appearing to defend them, or at least distracting attention away from the risks they pose to us all"
How you can twist such a reasonable and straightforward observation into an allegation that I am giving aid and comfort to terrorists would be astonishing if it weren't just another example of the habit of advancing arguments by sly elsion and emotive non sequitur that I have just noted above.
Umbongo:
john reith
In a spirit of genuine enquiry, do you deliberately misinterpret my (and others) comments? I commented quite clearly that 1. it is the BBC's duty to report the defence lawyers' contention, and 2. it is not the BBC's duty to make the contention the no 1 item (on - at least - BBC 24 News for an extended period). You quote me on 1 and ignore me on 2 when the weight of my argument is on the latter rather than the former.
Further, I merely commented that this bias probably plays well with the 2 people selected by "Today" to comment on the incident. The choice of people to interview is interesting: I can accept that the local community or the Muslim community at large might have something to say. I consider it's overegging this particular pudding to get in 2 people to represent the Muslim community. And guess what - their comments, if not identical, were more or less the same. It's possible somebody from the wider world might have had some input worth considering. Also you're right, I don't agree with what they said but, if the BBC decides to interview 2 individuals it would have been clearly unbiased to have somebody supporting an opposing view.
Biodegradable:
JR, let's as you say, "walk the ground". archduke made a point that the alleged terrorist house was in close proximity to a lot of places that bona fide terrorists would love to target.
He (archduke) questioned why the BBC did not also point that out. You have made one argument after another to justify NOT making that point.
If the journalist's job is to report and not posit theories then why are you pretending to think like a policeman when you say that none of the perps of 3 other attacks lived near the targets, therefore the alleged terrorists in Forest Gate probably wouldn't target the places archduke pointed out as being in the vicinity?
Let's bear in mind that the police in this case were looking for some kind of chemical device - not an explosive as in the 3 cases you mentioned.
Perhaps chemical agents don't travel well so the device would need to be prepared and primed close to the target?
Perhaps terrorists are aware of hightened security and won't in the future risk transporting their devices further than absolutely neccesary?
All of this is possible and while I don't wish to "twist" anything and imply that the suspects currently under arrest are guilty of anything until we know more than is in the public domain at this time, I do get the impression that your mind is more made up than mine is. That is to say, while I'm trying to be careful about rushing to judgement and am willing to consider all possibilities, you seem to be to keen to discard certain possibilities for reasons that fail to convince me.
Please don't exagerate, I am not accusing you of aiding terrorists, I said you could "appear to defend them, or at least distract attention away from the risks they pose to us all", which is no more than the BBC does every day anyhow.
Gary Powell:
gordon-bennet
I have 6 science O levels so I dont claim to be an expert. However my common sense forces me to be very sceptical indead. Does John Reith have any education in science at all?
It is possible for Christians to prove the present of God with more concreat evidence than exsists for man made globle warming. However I cant prove the non-exsistance of either. So it all depends on what religion John Reith and his converts want to belong to. "The BBC is right about everything and does not take resonsibility for anything" religion is as good as any other.
I prefer "The common sense" religion. It gets me though life OK and I dont have to lie to make a living. Or obtain other peoples opinions with my own brain down the karzi.
It is one thing to believe that globle warming is happening.
Another thing to believe that it has anything to do with man.
Another thing to think the damage is caused by recent industrial growth.
Another thing to believe with the confidence that John Reith does, that anything the BBC thinks or does will help anything whatsoever.
And yet a even more incredible and dangerous thing to believe that America, capitalism, George Bush, and just about every thing else in the world that the BBC does not like, are resposible for this maybe problem.
Dangerous because if you dont correctly identify the cause of a problem, your chances of coming up with a workable solution are non-exsistant.
Letts just hope this globle warming thing is a load of leftist "sky is falling down" rubbish. Because one thing I am sure about is, the left and the BBC dont have a solution for it now, or in the future.
I remember a time when the likes of John Reith at the BBC confidently predicted that by the year 2050 the population will have grown so much we would all be falling over the cliffs of Dover. Dont here from these experts any more, do we?
John Reith:
Umbongo
I didn't ignore you on point 2. I said:
"Whether or not you perceive them as 'wall to wall' rather depends on how long you spend with the same network. I heard them twice."
Now you've made clear that it was on News 24 you kept seeing them, I'm not surprised you thought it was wall-to-wall. News 24 frequently repeats the same material.
I heard a couple of v.short sound bites on the radio and I don't think they were top of the news either. So it didn't seem so wall to wall to me.
You refer to what you call 'the BBC attitude' to the incident. I don't think the BBC HAS any attitude to it. Nor do I think Today programme producers meet to conspire to put two Muslim spokesmen on to say the same thing. Very often they don't know what any particular guest will reply to a given question. Nor very often do they know until the last moment exactly who else will be on to address the same subject. Some people agree and drop out. Sometimes govt departments can't say whether minister so and so is available until it's too late. So what you actually hear isn't pre-planned and loaded with a particular spin by calculating and ideologically driven programme makers. Time and chance are more significant than you allow.
John Reith:
BioD
We were discussing whether or not it was remiss of the BBC not to point up the proximity of the raided premises to Stratford Station in its News reports.
My contention is and remains that the News was right to stick to reporting confirmed facts.
I have no problem with having security experts on TV or radio programmes to speculate about possible targets....so long as there's a clear line between speculation and news.
Let's forget about Stratford for a moment. Only a few minutes further away there's a much bigger - and equally likely if not more likely - target...the City.
If the BBC had ended its news bulletin on this subject with the statement: 'The suspected chemical bomb-factory lies only a few minutes travelling time from the financial hub of the City of London' then many people would conclude that the BBC had been given an off the record steer by the security services that the City was the intended target.
Quite possibly many City workers would be chary of going into the office as a result. Of those who did go to work regardless, many would have families who would have been concerned for their welfare.
These people would rightly be indignant if it later turned out that there had been no steer and the BBC had mentioned the City purely capriciously. The BBC would be said to have indulged in irresponsible scaremongering....and of doing the terrorists work for them by promoting fear and disruption.
That's why the BBC should...and did...report as NEWS what was put into the public domain by the Police...and not seek to gild the lily by irresponsible extrapolation.
Gary Powell:
Did anyone here about the BBC banning world cup songs from radio 1 with the word England in the song?
disillusioned_german:
Does anyone know of an Unbiased BBC Blog where John Reith might feel at home?
pounce:
John Reith wrote;
"First, according to the next door neighbours the Koyairs are NOT Pakistani; they're from Bangladesh."
And Bangladesh used to be called??????
"Meanwhile, the family next door - whose house was also entered by Police - come from neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh; they're from India.
Seems like that term 'Asian' (admittedly unsatisfactory much of the time) was the right call here."
Not at all. The people whose parents came from the Sub continent hate been referred to as Asians.
Ask the vast majority and they will tell you they are British Sikhs, British Hindu, or British Muslims. Not Asian, not Indian but British. The term Asian is used by the BBC in which to blend everybody of a certain colour into a convenient banding which allows them to do away with naming the religion of the vast majority of terrorists and terrorist suspects. Now when the story is a feel good one then AL Beeb has no problem in which to shout out the religion of the subject;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5046970.stm
Yet when the story is negative then the term Asian is brought out in which to dilute the story by not directly pointing the finger. I mean is Hitler ever referred to as a central European? Nah he is the Nazis who ruled Germany during the 30s and 40s.
“Also, it wasn't a bomb factory.”
Who said it was a Bomb Factory? I think you will find the media did.
“Why do B-BBC posters always appear to want the BBC to jump the gun? Waiting until the facts are established would be much more conducive to accurate and impartial reporting, surely?”
While there are a few posters who do come across with that frame of mind, I think you will find that the vast majority berate the BBC for omitting stories, posting them late or even keeping them on the front page for weeks on end in which to promote a political bent, when the BBCs charter demands them to be apolitical.
Have a look at the BBC Middle east news site and tell me, how long has this video clip of Palestinians teachers working for no pay been up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/
avdb...d7e_16x9_bb.asx
Around 4 weeks I think you will find. Why so long? Could it be because it makes out the Palestinians (Note not Middle Easterners?) are victims at the expense of the Aid givers. (I wonder who they could be?) Who if they don’t cough up may attack the Jews as a sign of frustration? (Isn’t that blackmail?)
“Given that on a previous occasion a suspected Somali plumber turned out to be a Brazilian electrician, I'd have thought you lot would have grasped that by now.”
And if you are going to invent stories in which to defend the Anti British stance of the BBC, please be so kind as to substantiate that Somali Plumber angle. I for one haven’t heard that and I do keep my nose to the ground when it comes to the News.
P.S
While you’re at it. Maybe you could explain why the BBC is more than happy to promote the fundies in Mogadishu as a means in which to stamp out crime. (The last time that happened the Taliban took control and we all know what that lead to) Yet they blame everything on the Yanks. Yet as I pointed out with UN Security Council links, the US isn’t been blamed but rather the neighbours are.
As I stated in my post on the above topic. The BBC is more than happy to promote the words of an Islamic fundamentalist as gospel, yet remain silent on a UN report.
That is the bias the majority of people on these boards are against. We pay for a news service. Elsewhere if the service isn’t good enough then you either change service providers or demand changes from them. Last time I looked we are stuck with the BBC so I think you will find we are protesting in the only way the world will take notice. Now if you deem that we are wrong with our facts please post actual corrections. Not half truths which I have taken the time to correct from somebody whose parents came from abroad but who classes himself as English and not an Asian.
Anonymous:
John Reith
I note that two words in particular seem to have gone missing from BBC reporting about 7/7.
IAN BLAIR
Do you remember that very day he had been resposible for blowing an innocent mans brains out, say that he was " very proud of the emmergency services and that they had performed wonderfully." and seemed very happy to take the credit for it.
Could it have something to do with the fact your bosses bosses gave IB the job in the first place? What happened to some mud getting thrown at the government, whose job it is to make sure the emergency services work properly.
Can I ring up David Cameron and tell him the BBC are going to give him such an easy ride, when he gets elected?
archduke:
"Perhaps chemical agents don't travel well so the device would need to be prepared and primed close to the target?"
generally they dont, given the highly volatile nature of chemical agents - hence the need to be near the target.
thats also the reason why the police acted immediately on the intelligence.
if there were bog standard explosives, they could have held back a bit to gain more intell.
GCooper:
John Reith writes:
"If you look into it I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by how much of a consensus there actually is among the science Establishment."
I know you work for the BBC and that professional habits can be hard to break, but please don't patronise me. I have looked into it, and there is a substantial body of scientific opinion that disputes the manmade global warming hypothesis.
What is more, that opposition comes from the 'hard' end of the scientific business. Many of those who delight in appending their names to hand-ringing letters to the press, hoping to impress us with their PhD credentials, turn out, on examination, to have qualifications in subjects other than climatology or other related disciplines.
And even if they hadn't, when people like Prof Richard Lindzen (professor of meteorology at MIT) start to dispute the case, when scientists at Duke University dispute the alarmist fears propounded almost nightly on the BBC (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420- 115953-7360r.htm) when no less that 60 scientists risk their reputations and livelihoods to urge the Canadian government to look again at the 'science' (www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?
id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 ) , then that consensus by which you seem so impressed, looks rather less real than your colleagues want you to believe.
Above all, it remains the BBC's duty to present both sides of such an undecided argument and it has not. Pictures of drowning polar bears and dewy-eyed Eskimo children are not scientific debate and they do nothing to enhance it - yet they are the staple fare of an argument that has been hijacked by sentimentalists with a clear political (not to say quasi-religious) agenda.
So in thrall to the Green lobby is the BBC that it has never treated this subject even-handedly, so your breezy: "There is a danger of never getting past first principles if you have to ritually debate the predicate of every argument." is, as so often the case with your parries, quite wide of the mark.
The BBC has never treated the predicate to this debate with anything like seriousness - and certainly squashes any debate that rears its head today.
As ever, it has simply propounded the currently fashionable Liberal-Left received opinion.
dave t:
pounce pounces!
Well said!
Grimer:
As far as 'science consensus' goes, does anybody remember why they're supposed to eat polyunsaturated fat?
All through my youth during the 1980's, that was hammered into our brains. Everybody agreed, and the BBC constantly repeayed, that:
Saturated fat = bad
Polyunsaturated fat = good
I haven't heard that one for a while. I wonder why?
Polyunsaturated oils also contain transfats, which are harmful. So, the entire food industry quietly dropped all claims of 'low in saturates, high in polyunsaturates'. The BBC never broadcast a retraction, so there are probably still people out there, trying to do the 'right thing' and actually harming their health.
'Scientific consensus' means nothing unless they are actually 'right'.
The man-made global warming theory is just a theory. I studied Geochemistry at university and the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels than today, and also been much hotter (and colder) than today. Somehow, life survived?!?!?
Global warming isn't a problem, so long as species are able to migrate. If the earth warms, then animals that require certain temperatures and ecosystem will migrate towards the poles. If the earth cools, they move towards the equator.
Rather than wasting a trillion dollars a year on Kyoto, trying to slow global warming by 7 years, maybe we should concentrate our efforts on cleaner fuels and habitat protection?
Don't you think the BBC should explore these ideas? At the moment is just peddles Green Peace 'research' as fact and shouts down/stiffles any opposing views
archduke:
"Rather than wasting a trillion dollars a year on Kyoto, trying to slow global warming by 7 years,"
i concur. kyoto has been a miserable failure - rather than focusing on reducing emissions, they should have pumped that money into alternative energy technology. The Americans have the right idea in that regard.
i cant help wondering if the whole "climate change" bandwagon is just a distraction from the "oil running out".
lets face it - if you say "the oil is running out" , the price will shoot up , people will panic , companies will stockpile oil - which will lead to higher prices, and more panic.
however, if you say "climate change - we need to lower oil dependence" , you dont get as much market panic.
archduke:
correct me if i'm wrong, but that Panorama documentary never mentioned global dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glo.../
Global_dimming
in short : pollution is "good". it reflects the sunlight back, thereby lowering temperatures and counterbalancing the greenhouse effect.
but i suppose that doesnt fit into the Beeboid Greenpeace mindset.
Grimer:
archduke,
There is actually another factor at work. Steam ships at sea chuck out a load of smoke. This rises really high into the atmosphere and the sulphur is important in cloud formation. These clouds then reflect the suns heat, back into space.
Bit too complicated for the BBC's mantra of fossil fuels = bad
Anonymous:
John Reith
Do me a favour.
You have a degree in English, I do not. As I am paying your wages. Please use words that I and other people, not as overeducated as yourself, can understand. Your explanations are complicated enough.
I always find the simplest explanations are the most honest ones.
You seem to read this site a fair amount, so you must have read my opinion about bias on the BBC, which you have never replyed to.
So as simply as I can put it, here it is.
There is no such thing as being honest and unbias at the same time. Or put another way all moral and honest people are bias. This is not open to debate it is a trueism.
So why do you and the BBC still claim that the BBC is doing the impossible?
I want honest personal expert opinion. I dont want the BBCs idear of impartiality, as it MUST come from dishonest reporters. Therefore excuses for such, must also come from dishonest people employed to make those excuses.
Grimer:
http://www.newscientist.com/
chan...925385.500.html
http://www.newscientist.com/
arti...322001.100.html
Gary Powell:
That was me
Gary Powell:
Grimer
I tend to believe that there are many very very smart people working at the BBC. With the sort of wages pensions and working conditions there, this is not remarkable. Therefore it is not to "complicated" for them to understand. The point is, they dont want to understand.
Even if they did want to understand, they dont want to tell us, the suckers that pay their wages.
Grimer:
Gary,
I think it comes down to taking the 'most reasoned' and 'civilised' side in any debate.
If the evil baby killing, oil stealing, redneck, crazy Christian Bush is on one side of the argument, then the 'civilised' and 'enlightened' people must be on the other. It's as simple as that.
Nobody at the BBC has the balls to stick their neck out and challenge the 'consensus'. To be outspoken at the Beeb will be professional suicide. If you want to get on, you adopt the corporate ethos. My ex worked at Disney (as an accountant). Believe it or not, but you aren't an employee, you're a 'cast member' (pass the sick bucket). You aren't going to get on at Disney unless you adopt their bullshit and tow the 'party line'. The BBC will be exactly the same. Unless you conform to and adopt the prevailing ethos, you'll be sidelined permenantly.
Umbongo:
john reith
Much as I - and others - appreciate an "opposing view" such as yours on this blog there is no point in engaging if you do not argue the point that's made to you. Even giving "Today" the benefit of any doubt concerning the uncertainty of getting interviewees to the microphone in a running story, opting for two Muslim spokesmen who effectively express the same opinion was 1. predictable, 2. boring and 3. biased. Not only lazy but crass.
dumbcisco:
Shouldn't reith be dealing with that stack of questions he promised to find answers on ?
Why was it relevant for the BBC to be interviewing a bunch of young people about the police raid ? What do they KNOW that will be any help in the matter ? If a bunch of local youths are to be interviewed - how come there was not a single "white face" - don't the indigenous yoof get a look in ever ?
The answer of course is that it waas totally irrelevant for the BBC to be interviewing any yoof. But the BBC's purpose was to keep stirring the Islamophobia/we are victims pot, to keep peddling the MCB line.
On the Panorama programme, it is fatuous of reith to try to deny that there is a real debate. Even the "fact" of global warming is in contention. Going beyond that, there is a very large debate about possible causes, and about the best remedies. I have NEVER heard the BBC state that the US Congress virtually unanimously rejected the Kyoto approach as the remedy.
No-one who has given any thought to the matter denies that there is contention. Strip away all the rank amateurs on either side commenting on stuff they have nil professional expertise in - and there is still a serious argument going on between experts.
It was reprehensible of the BBC to mount a Panorama programme as one-sided as last night. As BIASED.
In just one week, we have had serious bias by omission by Panorama, by omission by John Simpson, and by the reporting on the police raid which gave undue prominence to the defence lawyers and local yoof.
Allan@Aberdeen:
I watched Top Gear last week and Jeremy Clarkson remarked that (I'm paraphrasing) thanks to global warming, it's the coldest May that he can remember. On Any Questions on Friday night, it was discussed whether he should have "been allowed" to make such a remark.
Firstly, up here it has been a very late start to summer but I doubt whether that fact will see the light of day - so what Clarkson said is probably true. Secondly, it is evident that anyone who disputes any aspect of the religion of global warming is considered a heretic by the 'opinion formers'.
archduke:
newsnight tonight refers to "Newham" rather than "forest gate"
archduke 1
john reith 0
archduke:
police are getting a hammering on newsnight right now.
oh dear.
archduke:
newsnight panel - muslim guy is a member of the
"association of newham muslims"
archduke 2, john reith 0
archduke:
"how come there was not a single "white face" - don't the indigenous yoof get a look in ever ? "
when i lived in newham, there were a lot of white families still living there. and a lot of afro-carribean families. and a lot of Hindus.
but newsnight gave the impression that the area was some sort of Muslim enclave.
why hasnt newsnight interviewed any non-muslims in Newham? what about their fears about bomb factories in their midst?
why were the newsnight interviews tonight limited to muslim "yoof"?
jack:
Paxman.... "US Client Government in Iraq"
dumbcisco:
All the BBC is bringing us is injured innocence from the Muslim community - "Wot me Guv ?", complaints against the police for ethnic targetting, .
The idea apparently being that all Muslims in London and Britain are innocent, pure as the driven snow, whereas the police are scoundrels who rush in firing guns with minimal justification or cause.
All following the MCB line that British Muslims are victims, that Islamophobia is behind everything, that all Muslims in the UK are peaceful and law-abiding.
This is such an obvious crock that it is amazing that the BBC should keep trying to ram it down our throats. It is less than a year that home-grown Muslims killed dozens in London, and within a fortnight another bunch apparently set out with the same intention. We know of the killing desires of people like Reid the shoe-bomber and Massouri, we know of allegations of people trying to obtain huge quantities of fertiliser with no farm to spread it on, we know that hundreds if not thousands of British Muslims have attended camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, we know the security services say that over 100 British Muslims have gone on jihad to Iraq, we know that many more have been stopped from going, we know that there are at least 1200 suspected jihadists in Britain that the security services are hard-stretched to monitor.
We know that for years there have been preachers of hate here in Britain, inside and outside mosques. We know that the internet has many many sites preaching jihad, that jihadi videos and CDs have been widely sold. Here is some info on a current example :
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3258963,00.html
The BBC is treating its audience as blind deaf fools.
But we live in a new era - we are not restricted to the traditional media for news, and on any topic we can rapidly check out multiple sources, multiple commentators. The BBC groupthink may work for them inside the bubble, but it can be far more easily challenged now than ever before.
The BBC presented us with a puff piece on the election of a new bosscat of the MCB - elevating this dross to a major news item. The guy popped up in the Newsnight report just now. But INSTANTLY people can check the name and point out that he was one of the people in the John Ware Panorama programme who was temporising on issues of terrorism or anti-semitism. One of the smooth-talkers unable to answer straight questions about what is really going on, what are the real attitudes and views as against the stuff presented for public consumption or disinformation.
In a time of serious terrorist threats in our midst, the RESPONSIBLE line to take is to urge everyone to cooperate with the police and security authorities. The IRRESPONSIBLE line is to keep presenting critics of the authorities, to keep spinning things so that the views of the MASS of the British simply don't get presented.
The BBC chooses the IRRESPONSIBLE line.
Biodegradable:
John Reith:
If the BBC had ended its news bulletin on this subject with the statement: 'The suspected chemical bomb-factory lies only a few minutes travelling time from the financial hub of the City of London' then many people would conclude that the BBC had been given an off the record steer by the security services that the City was the intended target.
That's a good point. If you'd said that instead of talking about the perps of other attacks living nowhere near their targets we could have saved a lot of agro!
"Simplicity", as Steve Jobs once said, "is the ultimate sophistication."
Gary Powell:
Dumbcisco
What makes all that you say even more irresponsible is that when the next terrorist attacks do happen. The BBC will not take any responsibilty for deaths it may well be responsible itself. We know who will be the one in the BBCs dock, George Bush.
boblog:
Some while ago the BBC were very excited about the hole in the ozone layer.
I thought we were supposed to have fried by now.
Has that one slipped out of fashion?
I recall jr insisting that he had nothing to do with the BBC. I've not noticed him recanting that since Andrew's revelation about where he posts his comments from. I used to enjoy watching him carefully selecting topics to defend but can't take him at all seriously now.
boblog:
P.s. Thanks Natalie!
archduke:
boblog - re ozone layer.
right now in 2006 we should be frying, and not able to walk outside without lashings of suntan lotion factor 30.
funny how that one has dropped off the agenda.
archduke:
"All the BBC is bringing us is injured innocence from the Muslim community - "Wot me Guv ?", complaints against the police for ethnic targetting, ."
utter joke alright - i want to find out about the real issues. not what some muslim "yoof" think about things. this is newsnight after all
dumbcisco:
The BBC is not the only "old media" to wear blinkers, to be in denial about the existence of terrorist planning within the Muslim community.
This glorious headline and intro to a
Toronto Star article about the 17 suspected terrorists arrested in Canada is worthy of Monty Python. It asks "The ties that bind".... and finds in para 2 that it is difficult to find a common denominator linking the 17. But it is accompanied by a photo that SHOUTS OUT what the common denominator is !
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/
cs...d=1149371435839
The BBC is trying to deny that there is an elephant in the room.
GCooper:
I'd like to endorse what dumbcisco has just posted about the sycophantic drivel the BBC has been dishing out tonight on Neswnight.
The only good thing to emerge from this is that, so absurd has been the BBC's position on this issue that even the most bovine BBC consumers I know have started to laugh at the Corporation's output.
Which is, all things considered, the best fate for Reith and his pals. That their absurd posturing is just openly laughed at.
Until their poll tax is abolished and they all have to get proper jobs. That will be even funnier.
archduke:
1970S, IRA = Irish nationalists - which leads to "be suspicious of people from Ireland" - and if you hear anything, inform the police.
its not *that* hard.
unfortunately, political correctness has made it hard.
Ted Schuerzinger:
Andrew wrote:
P.S. As I keep having to remind my offspring, there's a word missing from your request
Would that word be "now"?
Andrew:
Ah Ted, the offspring are also often puzzled, in the first instance at least, as to the missing, indeed magic, word.
Amazingly though, obduracy on my part is all that's needed to remind them of it, followed of course by a suitably dramatic "eh-heh-hemmm" to elicit a departing thank you from said offspring - another thing that the small number of ingrates around here might care to practice from time to time
dumbcisco:
The message is spreading !
Gerard Baker, US editor of the Times, has written a superb hatchet job on the BBC and its move into the US. He refers to biased-bbc as a source of daily examples of BBC bias.
He admits that he works for News International so there is a link to Fox. But he happens to have worked at the BBC for 7 years so he speaks with authority.
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...icated_new.html
The BBC will really hate this article.
And as I have mentioned before, the real-clear-politics site is a "must-read" for politics watchers in the US. This will be picked up all over the place.
dumbcisco:
Scott Callaghan over at AmericanExpat has pointed out that the claim that BBC World is a fraud when it claims that it is commerically funded - its news content is largely drawn from hundreds of mainline BBC staff who WE pay for.
http://www.theamericanexpatinuk....k.blogspot.com/
Scott links to the BBC World PR on itself. What struck me is how ridiculous the BBC looks to choose as its first photo across the banner of the page that passe guy Terry Waite. News values in a bubble.
Oscar:
'Hamas operatives working on adding toxic chemicals to bombs'
Headline in today's Ha'aretz. Will the BBC report it? Not likely. They'd rather act as PR agents for the Abbas referendum that Hamas is boycotting and suppress news of Palestinian terrorism.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/
723309.html
Eamonn:
I would have thought that a far more interesting Panorama would be to take a critical look at climate change science (religion?), and really how well the science stands up to scrutiny, and how much is instead based on political bias and junk science.
On Today this morning MontaQuinn asks "How is the Government going to tackle global warming?".
Note the usual implicit BBC assumptions here:- global warming is a given (is it?), we have caused it (have we?), there's nothing we as individuals can do about it since evil big business, especially American business, is largely to blame (is it?); the only solution is a statist one (is it?).
I am willing to accept global warming and that we have caused it, if based on rigorous science. I am willing to accept that Jeremy Clarkson is talking a load of bull, if based on rigorous science. However the depressing tendancy of the BBC to unquestioningly accept the views of Pot-Porritt clones undermines any faith in the ability of this tax-funded organisation to deliver objective news and current affairs.
dumbcisco:
Today has just interviewed the Times Editor on the newspaper's setting up of a New York edition. The have the gall to ask "How long has Rupert Murdoch given you to see if this works?".
The question was parried in a neutral fashion. I wish the proper answer had been given - "We obviously have to make this work on commercial terms. We don't have the luxury the BBC enjoys of setting up new ventures with no timescale whatsoever for proper return, because the licence tax payer bales everything out anyway, however bad the original venture was planned or executed".
The BBC's activities over past years in the US are a case in point.
deegee:
We were discussing whether or not it was remiss of the BBC not to point up the proximity of the raided premises to Stratford Station in its News reports.
What's wrong with locating the incident? It might be relevant to the investigation. It might be simple background for BBC listeners who don't live in London. It may have nothing to do with the story and can be easily corrected in the future, if and when further information on alleged targets becomes known.
I'm not a Londoner and don't have a good idea of the city apart from the obvious tourist sites - Madame Toussards, Tower of London, etc. I'm grateful for more information.
IMHO the issue here is whether the BBC was attempting to influence public opinion and imply those arrested were innocent victims of incompetent police before investigation, court procedures or a Police/Government press statement could present a different view.
Does proximity to Stratford Station bias the report one way or another? I doubt it.
pete:
The real tragedy of the BBC is not its self-indulgent and biased news programs, but the fact that it broadcasts low quality, ratings chasing rubbish for 90% of its output. If the BBC were a shop it would be a junk food takeaway.
dumbcisco:
Cheer up everyone. Billy Bragg is on BBC TV tonight.
Jreith:
Grimer
Watched the Kofi A. Lamentable. Outrageous. Worst I've ever seen. Indefensible. Can't say plainer than that.
[This is not the same IP as "john reith." Since the commenter has signed him/herself somewhat differently, I'm going to assume it was a joke and not intended to deceive. Even quite a funny one.
But not one we want to see repeated. Impersonation corrupts debate.]
Edited By Siteowner
will:
Eamonn "global warming ... the only solution is a statist one (is it?)."
A recent poll was re-assuring. When asked who could make the biggest contribution to reducing emissions, the largest response was "me".
Bryan:
Is that really you agreeing with Grimer, John Reith?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
[No, it wasn't. Please see above.]
Edited By Siteowner
JohnOfBorg:
Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but you can watch John Ware's 'A Question of Leadership' Panorama programme online at the Corporation's own website here.
Click the link on the right to watch the video, or scroll down to read the transcript.
D Burbage:
Reith - sure, the weight of scientific opinion is there for global warming. Doesn't mean you can ignore the sceptics; in fact, it's even more reason to give balance to the debate to show the case being made is a solid one when you put the evidence to the sceptics. I happen to agree that there is global warming but that doesn't excuse the lack of balance in a BBC programme.
Grimer:
Is that you John Reith? If so, you're at odds with the BBC's complaints procedure. They reminded me how much they 'strive' to be impartial. Complaint rejected.
Grimer:
The issue isn't really whether or not there is Global Warming (i.e. the planet is getting hotter). The issues are:
1) Is man contributing to the warming?
2) If so, by how much?
3) Is global warming a bad thing?
4) If so, what can we do about it?
The BBC has decided that:
1) Yes we are
2) 100% man made
3) It will destroy life on earth
4) Kyoto will solve everything, if only America/Bush would sign the piece of paper.
A more rational interpretation of events might be:
1) Possibly, so it might be wise to proceed under the assupmtion that we are.
2) Impossible to tell, but highly unlikely to be the 'majority partner'.
3) It depends what species you are and where you live.
4) Concentrate on habitat protection (which we should be doing anyway, to safeguard the planet's biodiversity), cut pollution through the use of new technologies and educate the public of the importance of conserving natural resources (e.g. don't waste water, electricity, etc).
The BBC is so obsessed with the Baby Killer's refusal to sign a piece of paper, they are blind to the big picture:
People will not have their lifestyle curtailed by busybody politicians/NGO's/Greenies/social-engineers.
The only way forward is to invest in R&D for new, non-poluting, power sources
dumbcisco:
D Burbage
Yes, there should still be balance.
Especially - if one agrees there IS global warming - what are the causes ? Is it actually proven to be essentially man-made ? There seems to be a lot of dispute about this.
And as a step after that - if one agrees that there IS global warming, and one also agrees it IS man-made, what are the best policies to improve things ? Parroting "Kyoto, Kyoto" is simply too shallow, too kneejerk. There is genuine dispute about this THIRD step in the analysis.
reith truly is a BBC bot if he genuinely thinks that all debate is closed, that the arguments on all three steps are overwhelmingly settled except for a few nutters falsely arguing the contrary.
I have seen close-up big technical arguments that gather a momentum of their own. Huge mass of pressure stifles proper debate and can lead to disatrous errors. Eg Concorde - endless arguments about how it was a world-beater, and if anyone suggested it would be a commercial disaster for Britain they were promptly sat on. Same with Advanced Gas-Cooled reactors. On both issues, Britain was wrong and the Americans were right. Meanwhile Britain poured endless PUBLIC funds into special-purpose electronics. The Americans went for the all-purpose microprocessors that can be programmed to do anything under the sun - and the main funding was through venture capitalism, not the taxpayer. In telecoms, Britain followed the ATM Holy Grail. In the US they were turning the world upside down with TCP/IP - which the Europeans derided. The BBC view is anti-nuclear, pro-windpower - when both arguments can be shown to be seriously flawed.
When there is a bandwagon rolling - that is often the time to jump off. Or at least to be very sceptical.
The clear fact remains that the Panorama programme was entirely one-sided. Not even BBC bots like reith could deny that. It was a PARODY of the notion of balance.
dumbcisco:
Grimer
Obviously I was having much the same thoughts as you !
will:
Panorama
We are told that it is in the Arctic that change is most dramatic. We are told that major species face extinction.
This is voiced over film of polar bears and ........... penguins.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programm...ama/
default.stm
(6 min 39 sec into programme)
Incidentally, do the BBC go looking for clones of Orla, or are other BBC female reporters so smitten by her that they copy her looks & mimic her vocal delivery? Hilary Andersson is certainly Orla Mk2.
Rick:
http://www.isu.net.sa/saudi-inte...ock-
requist.htm
http://ubergirl87.blogspot.com/
http://eveksa.blogspot.com/
Musings of a blocked bloggerette
..
..
..
..
What happens when a site gets singled out and blocked in Saudi?
It gets more hits than it ever did.(Remember; there's no such thing as bad publicity)
..
..
What can you –my fellow bloggers- do about it (if you want to do something about it)?
1- you can fill in an unblock request
or,
2- You can post about it and do what : Aya, Farooha, Fouad A. AlFarhan, Kharabee6, My Head, Pheras, Richard, sandmonkey, and Yael K did.
..
..
Why was Saudi Eve singled out and blocked?
Raf* has an entertaining take on why of all blogs Saudi eve was the one to get blocked first. He says: " it's all because of love. a bunch of o.c.s.a.b. kids fell heads-over-heals in love with your writing and the only way that their bosses could prevent them from leaving the forces of evil and come running towards the light (i.e. you) was to block your blog."
My Head thinks it's all because of the Jewish prayer I posted a month ago. Could it be?
will:
dumbcisco "reith truly is a BBC bot if he genuinely thinks that all debate is closed, that the arguments on all three steps are overwhelmingly settled except for a few nutters falsely arguing the contrary."
That was the whole premise of the Panorama programme, which was further compounded by the impression that the nutters were all politicians & evil capitalists - not even the slightest suggestion that scientists differed.
dumbcisco "and the main funding was through venture capitalism, not the taxpayer."
Interesting column on this theme in yesterday's Times
Can science get by without your tax money? Just ask them over at IBM
Science Notebook by Terence Kealey
The Times Higher Education Supplement’s survey last year showed that Harvard University’s science papers are the most cited globally (20.6 citations per paper on average) but coming in second was IBM (18.9), outranking all other universities and research bodies.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2211018,00.html
Biodegradable:
According to the BBC Israel is to blame for Iran's determination to build nuclear weapons. We knew that anyway, but not in these terms:
Scientist says Israeli raid was catalyst for weapons programme
Israeli attack 'jump-started nuclear programme'
"Until Israel's attack, we were only dabbling with some calculations relating to nuclear fuel burn-up and criticality calculations - nothing sophisticated and focused."
Just to be clear, according to the BBC if the Israelis had not destroyed Iran's reactor 25 years ago Iran would now have a peaceful nuclear program and the world would be a safer place.
If you believe that you'll believe anything!
Ritter:
Guess the BBC headline:
Terror raid could 'damage trust'
OR
Self-exploding Muslims could 'damage trust'
Go here to find out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5051078.stm
Gary Powell:
Grimer
Agree. The point is, the BBC neads a constitution to stop this from happening. Private business can do what it wants, nobody has ever been locked up for not going to Disney.
Oh I just remembered the BBC does have a constitution, in the form of a charter. So why is this ignored?
It is ignored partly because it is humanly impossible to keep to.
The government has got out of running and financing industry, so why have the left not got out of the media.
This because a truly free media is the corner stone of a free sociaty, and the only free thing socialists like is our free cash.
Which is why the best thing to do is privatise it, or just close it down.
One other thing that would at least be honest. Which is just give the "blood soaked" overpaid inefficient mess to the Labour party, they own it in spirit anyway. Lett the people that benifit from it PAY for it. The propergander could not get worse if Hamas had shares in it.
The very last thing any Conservative should want is to stifle political idears and debate. So the above solution would be the best solution for our countries democracy.
Ritter:
archduke - what's your take on the similarities between the Irish 'troubles' and the Londonistan 'troubles'?
By that I mean do you think that the war has already been lost in London and London will increasingly become more Islamic. It will be difficult to turn back the clock. The 'enemy' are already here.
Often, Hitler and the Nazis are brought up by commentators perhaps illustrating a similarity in the type of war we are engaged in. I am coming to the view that WW2 was an easier win.
The big difference in WW2 being that the UK remained an uninvaded whole unified people against the enemy Nazis. Listening to Radio4 6 O'Clock News last night, I fear London has already been lost so a creeping Islamism, supported by a variety of groups including the BBC, human rights lawyers and a raft of PC legislation.
Sorry, this is getting well off topic. Gosh it's depressing listening to BBC News......
dumbcisco:
The BBC assault on the US market is pitched entirely the wrong way.
If it follows the usual BBC lines, it will be insulting to a lot of Americans. On average - the RICHER Americans. Now that ain't a very good model to attract advertising.
They should take a tip from Rupert. Fox News saw a completely liberal line-up of US TV channels, including the cable channels such as CNN and MSNBC. So it introduced a right-leaning approach - but with a lot of balance, aiming for some debate rather than just the drip-drip of one side's propaganda.
result - Fox News is wiping the floor with channels such as CNN and MSNBC. Five times as many people watch the Fox news progs as watch the CNN or whatever equivalent.
Ritter:
Wanted - one sports editor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/...600/
5051640.stm
And where would the BBC be advertising for this position...?
"There's an advert in this morning's Guardian for a sports editor for the BBC....
Al-Guardian, naturally.......
Anonymous:
Biodegradable
You are confusing your Iraq with your Iran.
This is about Iraq not Iran.
Israeli attack 'jump-started nuclear programme'
dumbcisco:
BBC could send in Theodore Dalrymple as Social Affairs correspondent, maybe. Hirsi Ali or Norm geras as Religious Affairs correspondent. Simon Heffer or Chris Hitchens as politics correspondent. Jeremy Clarkson as Environment correspondent. Mark Steyn as Security correspondent.
They'd build ratings far faster than they will with their present shallow and boring liberal tosh. They could leave the leftie fiction to Doctor Who inserts.
http://www.city-journal.org/html...06-06-
04td.html
Ritter:
OT
Flag target provokes racism probe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...set/
5051162.stm
Glad to see the police spending time on real threats to the safety of the nation.......
Anonymous:
Ritter
With regrets over the removal of habeus corpus for the duration of hostilities, Churchill and his Home Secretary John Anderson did not have many people to intern in WW2. Even knowing that there were a lot of innocents involved, parking a few hundred people in the Isle of Wight or wherever was an administrative simplicity and it eliminated virtually all the risk of a fifth column.
It would be a damn sight harder to do that now, if the whatsit really hit the fan. If not impossible. The numbers of sympathisers/backers/fellow-travellers with jihad must be far far larger than Churchill faced. Shades of Mao and his notion of communist cadres swimming hidden and safe among the fish of the Chinese workers.
Cockney:
DD,
I thought that liberal politics and presumably liberal media such as the BBC went down better in the richer parts of the US like the East coast and California, wheras Conservative attitudes are more prevalent in the poorer South and inland regions.
Does this not partly explain the apparent imbalance between the skew of US media towards liberal views against the majority of consumers being broadly conservative - its the media chasing the ABC1 advertising cash.
Happy to be corrected.
Biodegradable:
You are confusing your Iraq with your Iran
You're right, I stand corrected.
All these dictatorial, Jew hating, megalomaniacal regimes look the same to me
However the message is pretty much the same - "if the Israelis hadn't done it things would have been better."
Bryan:
They sprinkled HYS on the World Service last night liberally with people from Forest Gate as well as a motley crew from Canada, including one Mara from CBC who giggled when another guest called Peter King, Chairman of the US Homeland Security Committee, a “fool” for pointing out Canada’s liberal immigration policy. He continued his little rant against King uninterrupted by the HYS host.
Mara added that Americans should get their facts straight before “shooting off at the mouth.”
Amazing. London and Toronto are targeted by terror and the US comes in for criticism.
Well, not so amazing, really. Standard fare for the British Bullsh*tting Corporation.
Ritter:
Worry not, the BBC employs more people to ensure the muslim community are taken care of:
BBC appoints diversity executive
http://www.brandrepublic.com/bul...sity-executive/
Diversity, maybee - but it's ok to slag off the gays though, as that's in compliance with official MCB rules as outlined by Sacranie:
BBC defends DJ's 'gay' jibe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../06/
ixnews.html
Biodegradable:
Bryan, the Canadians seem to be taking a leaf out of the Beeb's book and trying hard to be PC:
ANALYSIS | `They represent the broad strata of our community,' the RCMP says.
SURYA BHATTACHARYA, NASREEN GULAMHUSEIN AND HEBA ALY
STAFF REPORTERS
...
[And] still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.
Perhaps there's a clue as to the "common denominator" in the photo, and the names of the staff reporters.
JohnOfBorg:
What's this doing on the BBC website?
Oh wait, check the date.
GCooper:
Cockney writes:
"Does this not partly explain the apparent imbalance between the skew of US media towards liberal views against the majority of consumers being broadly conservative - its the media chasing the ABC1 advertising cash."
Not really. The liberal bias of the US media stems (much as it does here) from the Left's hegemony in higher education, from which almost all meejah employees are recruited these days.
Without an alternative, there was nowhere else for advertisng dollars to go.
Now there is. Fox and talk radio.
Of course, the best thing to listen to remains the hysterical screeching of Lefties as their monopoly is snatched away.
Ritter:
"Without an alternative, there was nowhere else for advertisng dollars to go.
Now there is. Fox and talk radio.
Of course, the best thing to listen to remains the hysterical screeching of Lefties as their monopoly is snatched away.
GCooper | 06.06.06 - 12:20 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Things are a bit slower in the UK. Channel4, has just launched Channel 4 Radio in competition with the BBC but it might take up to 2 years for Channel 4 to get a national licence.
The BBC is still 'squashing' all competition infront of it, using it's ample tax funds.
Channel 4 ready to launch radio service to rival BBC
http://news.independent.co.uk/
me...ticle625627.ece
"Ofcom will reach a decision on who will run the new multiplex by spring next year. If Channel 4 is successful, its full radio service will be up and running by 2008.
Channel 4 Radio
http://www.channel4radio.com/
max:
JohnOfBorg,
Re: Check the date.
1998,that's two years after neocons landed on the sun.
Ritter:
back up and running, still only 68 comments?!
East London raid: Your views
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...5239&
#paginator
"How will the recent terror raid affect the local community relations with the police?
Trust between the police and the local community affected by the terror raid that took place in east London “could break down”, according to the new Muslim Council of Britain leader......"
max:
DumbJon's ***** movie review.
Sharpsuit:
Today-Real Clear Politics: "BBC Bringing 'Sophisticated' News to America"
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...icated_new.html
"The Other British Invasion"
Wise up America, and wise up fast.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=22458
.
Cockney:
I don't understand the hand wringing about the 'threat' of the BBC (and indeed the Grauniad) going into the US. Obviously there's a niche market there amongst Europhiles and ultra (from a US perspective) liberals, but it surely is very niche - I sincerely doubt that anyone will be 'influenced'.
Fox has been available to the majority(?) of the UK population via satellite/cable/digital for a while now and I'm pleased to note a distict lack of US conservative social norms creeping into UK society. You can't convert a stable, affluent, relatively happy society by throwing your alien ideas at it.
Rick:
I am fed up of the media and assorted mouthpieces pointing out how the "muslim Community" might fall out of love with the Police. Well why do they assume the majority "White" population is deeply in love with the Police ?
It seems to be a politically-correct instrument of Government policy and not a locally-accountable police force.
I don't trust them and find Muslims hilarious when they say how awful it is the the police suspect some of their boys might have incendiary personalities with explosive tendencies.
And as for the BBC proclaiming "the newly-elected Head of the MCB".............just who elected him ? what was the turnout ? What was his Manifesto ? Who were the other candidates ?
will:
Does this not partly explain the apparent imbalance between the skew of US media towards liberal views against the majority of consumers being broadly conservative - its the media chasing the ABC1 advertising cash.
Happy to be corrected.
Cockney
To ignorant to correct you, Cockney, but consider Channel4 News.
Unashamedly lefty, aired after you have struggled home from EC2, yet very poorly supported by advertising - usually 1 ad per break.
dave t:
Good article here:
"Nonetheless, the rigorous media practice in Phase One is to suppress any reference to Islam, the single thread that runs through virtually all modern terrorism—from New York, to Virginia, to Bali, the Djerba, to Baghdad, to Mombassa, to Tel Aviv, to Nairobi, to Dar es Salaam, to Ankara, to Paris, to Riyadh, to Amman, to Sharm el-Sheikh, to Aden, to London, to Madrid, and, now, to Toronto.
Consequently, the piece of information most obviously pertinent to the public’s understanding of what could be catalyzing this global savagery is consciously withheld. Such a revelation might, after all, lead people to ask the sensible question: What is it about Islam that makes it such a fertile breeding ground for this pathology?"
http://
article.nationalreview.co...mVkOTUwMzExZTA=
will:
"Look North" at 1:30pm has report on sexual abuse of a young boy.
We are told that a description of the wanted man has been issued.
It appears on half the screen in grey on lighter grey.
The information is not read out by the newsreader, who continues with the story.
The first word of the description, "Asian".
Can't bear to say it?
Gary Powell:
Is it possible that the police and MI5 have been infultrated by "the enemy". I think it likely that they have, in some ways anyway. By its nature the Muslim community is hard to scutinise in the way the IRA may have been. It means that the police and MI5 only have British muslims to use for their inside information.
Maybe I have read to many spy books,however.
What better way for the enemy to undermined the governments efforts to controll terrorism and the Muslim community? That is to send the security services out on repeated high profile, BBC reported, "wild goose chases."
Shooting an innocent Brasilian for instance, straight after 7/7, may have been a clue.
"Cock up," conspiracy or good police work, who knows? However if it is a cock up and this continues to happen, smell a rat, I will.
Sharpsuit:
Britain’s dirty little secret:
The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July’s London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain’s dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a “gentlemen’s agreement” that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was “Londonistan”, as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe.
More
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2212130,00.html
GCooper:
Cockney writes:
" I don't understand the hand wringing about the 'threat' of the BBC (and indeed the Grauniad) going into the US."
Who's wringing their hands? Many Americans seem to have been offended by the BBC's patronising attitude and US media interests resent the intrusion of a foreign government-owned outlet taking unfair advantage of its revenue source.
Brits of a non-Islington persuasion, at the same time, resent having to pay for the BBC's megalomanic expansion plans when it can't even (or refuses even) to offer a decent, unbiased domestic service.
As for the Grauniad - who cares?
AntiCitizenOne:
BBC continues Brown promotion...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ies/
5052152.stm
Biodegradable:
Has anybody else noticed that although it appears on the main "On This Day" page the anniversary of D-Day is missing from the revolving OTD topics on the main news page.
Even this story here fails to mention it:
Honours for Britain's oldest man
Britain's oldest surviving war veteran has celebrated his 110th birthday at the Grand Hotel in Eastbourne.
...
As the celebrations got under way, Mr Allingham said he was profoundly honoured to receive the congratulations which included a letter from Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup.
Perhaps dave t could confirm that "Stirrup" pronounced with a Glaswegian accent sounds a lot like "Strap"?
Gary Powell:
G cooper
One good thing that might come out of the BBCs venture to hollywood is that they might just piss-off enough Americans, to help us get rid of the BBC for good. Maybe just wishfull thinking.
Cockney cant see a problem, with the BBC risking our "force funded" cash to propergandise the American public. Which is also why he does not want to see BBC bias when he is looking right at it. Cockney would also not see an elephant even if it was standing on his foot. However I warn him and the BBC that many ordinary Labour voters HAVE noticed. They are still waiting for the Labour party to keep at least some of the many prommises on which it got elected. They in my opinion are not going to give Cockneys lot another chance.
dumbcisco:
These remarks by the new leader of the MCB sound distinctly like threats of violence from the Muslim community.
Is the BBC reporting this ? If not - why not ? They must have heard the same words as Agence France Presse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/
2006...ty_060606094605
anonymous:
Not covered elsewhere in this thread I think ...
Yesterday's "Start the Week", 9am R4. Supposedly a program designed to air cutting edge developments in a broad range of arts, literature, philosphy and politics.
The guests: two self-declared "Old Labour" socialists and a woman from LSE who revealed herself to be a Labour Party member discussing the right direction for the Labour Party. I quote from LSE woman: "The problem for Labour is that no-one knows what it stands for anymore. We need to be able to say in a word or two ... 'What do we stand for'". The political leanings of the fourth panellist were not apparent.
OK, this was only about a 10-minute chunnk of the program, but all the same.
I thought this showed a severe lack of political balance on the program, possibly indicative of the producers' own social networks and preferences.
I'm only just beginning to realise how much left-wing opinion I've ingested through the BBC throughout my life in a context which presents it as if it were received wisdom.
anonymous:
"The problem for Labour is that no-one knows what it stands for anymore. We need to be able to say in a word or two ... 'What do we stand for'".
I can do it in one.
ANYTHING
anonymous:
These remarks by the new leader of the MCB sound distinctly like threats of violence from the Muslim community.
"Is the BBC reporting this ? If not - why not ? They must have heard the same words as Agence France Presse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ 2006...ty_060606094605
dumbcisco | 06.06.06 - 6:26 pm | # "
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Yeah,
But the BBC is **** when it comes to foreign languages.
Biodegradable:
dumbcisco,
These remarks by the new leader of the MCB sound distinctly like threats of violence from the Muslim community.
correct URL:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/
2006...ty_060606094605
Search google for "THE COVENANT OF SECURITY"
http://clublet.com/why?
CovenantO...enantOfSecurity
Biodegradable:
http://
hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne...e_bye_bakri.php
Omar Bakri Mohammed was a proponent of the doctrine of the "covenant of security". The essence of the doctrine was that as long as British-based jihadists were tolerated, the United Kingdom, those individuals would not commit acts of terrorism in Britain. The covenant did not bind non-UK based jihadists, who refrained from bombing Britain for the pragmatic reason that their activities would result in the arrest and prosecution of jihadists who used the United Kingdom as a base for their activities. Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly revoked the "covenant" in February "because of the clampdown by the British government" on British based jihadists.
GCooper:
Anonymous writes:
"I'm only just beginning to realise how much left-wing opinion I've ingested through the BBC throughout my life in a context which presents it as if it were received wisdom."
You have put your finger on what is, in fact, by far the greatest threat from the BBC - not the overt political bias of its intentionally political output, but the inherent bias present in almost all of its offerings.
Anyone trapped in a car, as I frequently am, who listens to Radio 4 (or, at a pinch, the awful R5) will soon hear for themselves what I mean - whether it be the liberal-Left leaning of R5 types like Simon Mayo, or the subject matter of afternoon R4 plays. It's not that the latter deal with Marxist dialectic - rather that they come at life with all the presuppositions and prejudices of the Guardian reader stumbling out of the staff room, off to take year 4 geography. The tone, the subject matter, the concerns...
Mix in the almost naked biases of offerings as diverse as You and Yours, The Food Programme, The Now Show, Four Corners and what you have is a constant feed of Left-liberal ideas - almost subliminal advertising - which the listener absorbs, as if by osmosis.
This is, I should add, not a purpose, but an effect. The BBC cannot be any other way because of what it is and who works for it.
While our universities continue to churn-out graduates imbued with Leftist ideas, or until the BBC starts recruiting from a wider pool, it will never change.
This is why I believe the BBC to be the single most dangerous body at work within the UK. And, yes, that includes the MCB!
Babs:
Has anyone noticed on the 'Have your say' forums that anytime a view that is against the politically correct viewpoint of the BBC (pro-USA/Israel or anti-Muslim) that the top votes seem to suddenly dissappear and when you refresh the screen, the pc points suddenly have the highest number of votes? I've also noticed that hys comments unpopular with the BBC have had their votes removed, so they are not highly rated. Has anyone else noticed this happening? I hope I make sense!
anonymous:
Well Said GCooper.
disillusioned_german:
Community reacts to terror raid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5053542.stm
"I'm angry - very angry," says Farhana Pandor and so on...
My heart goes out for them (not!). Shouldn't it read "Muslim community reacts to infidel terror raid"?
D Burbage:
Babs, if you can prove this it would be pretty shocking. They may remove posts they might consider likely to incite hatred etc which might be popular - but if more general posts are removed just because they become popular and they "don't like", that's terrible. Worth doing the occasional screen capture (google it) to follow proceedings
ek:
BBC appoints 'minorities' executive
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/0606200...-
executive.html
gordon-bennett:
10 o'clock news on beeb makes great play of the death rate in Iraq with the egregious John ("It's a massacre and the US did it") Gimpson sounding off. They cite a death toll of 6000 over the last 5 months, an annual rate of 14,400.
See the link below where 4 countries exceed this rate: India, Russia, Colombia and South Africa.
http://www.nationmaster.com/grap...r-crime-
murders
Are these 4 countries in civil war?
anonymous:
Babs:
Please correct me if I have misinterpreted, but are you saying you think that the BBC is rigging its HYS 'readers recommend' poll?
I can think of a reason they could give to do this legitimately (and if they are 'pruning' the poll results, the excuse will no doubt surface shortly)
What seems obvious is that they set some value on the 'readers recommend' results otherwise they would never have included as part of the HYS section.
Babs:
D Burbage. I actually did do a screen capture a while ago, just to prove to myself that I wasn't imagining it. However, they can always say that I photoshopped it so I don't think it could be proved. I've seen it happen on more than one HYS thread. It happened earlier on the 'should Ahmadininejad be allowed to watch his team in Germany at the world cup". All the top posts were against him being allowed in to Germany. The next time I looked these posts had either mysteriously disappeared or had devalued in vote numbers. The highest votes had suddenly become 'yes lets let a holocaust denying homophobe into Germany as he is no worse than Bush' and other stupid lefty votes that had been at the bottom before.
J.G.:
BBC program tonight:
Five Disasters Waiting to Happen
from Radio Times
"Documentary, based on climate scenarios predicted by leading experts, examining how prepared five threatened places are for potential catastrophic events. London is building on stilts to counter the threat of river flooding; Paris is searching for new ways to beat the heat after 15,000 heatwave deaths in 2003; Shanghai and Mumbai are threatened by typhoons and monsoonal flooding; and a South Pacific island may provide a warning to the world with the first climate change environmental refugees."
Very balanced I think! Where are the scenarios from other "leading experts" that suggest this is all a load of tosh. I am not saying it is, just that it would be nice to see views from all sides. I keep hearing about some sort of charter thingy that says something about the BBC being impartial.
pounce:
Biased BBC reporting on the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
“Former Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr Imad Khadduri speaks to the BBC News website:
We had just finished a day's shift work and were back at our homes around 1800 [1500 GMT] that day. I heard the explosions all the way from my home, which is about 25km [16 miles] away.
I ran to the roof for a better view, and witnessed the smoke plumes rising from the area of the Tuwaitha Research Centre [where the Osirak reactor was located] and watched the Israeli planes flying west into the sunset.
It was immediately clear that they were Israeli airplanes.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4774541.stm
Oh really, lets look at the above in detail.
Osirak is actually much closer to Iran than Israel.
Iraq was at war with Iran at the time.
Iran had actually bombed the reactor 7 months before by launching an air attack on the 30th Sept 1980 with 2 American built F4 Phantom jets.
In response, the official Iraqi news agency issued the following statement: "The Iranian people should not fear the Iraqi nuclear reactor, which is not intended to be used against Iran, but against the Zionist entity."
http://www.afa.org/magazine/
Aug2...0802osirak.html
Hang on isn’t Al Beeb saying the exact opposite here?
Anyway somebody who lives 16 miles away from the reactor knew they were Israeli (thus perpetuating the evil Jew angle from the BBC) by noting they were flying west into the sunset. Must have bloody good eyesight as anybody following jets from otherhead has a hard time trying to make out the craft never mind from 16 miles away.
Point to note BBC Israel had never bombed Iraq, wasn’t at war with Iraq and flew over 2000 miles (round trip) through Saudi Arabia in which to launch their attack.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wiki...rakLocation.gif
And the BBC sells the image that Dr Imad Khadduri knew they were Israeli Jets.
Tell me BBC, if that was so, how come the world community still reports on the attack on the Osirak reactor as daring and totally by surprise?
Rachel:
pounce,
always great, keep-up
anonymous:
Some time ago, the BBC had problems with a text-in vote. The RoP got its message out and any self-respecting mo with a mobile texted into the Beeb.
They flooded the Beeb with messages and it jammed up Auntie's text handling system for two days. At the end the BBC was left with a ludicrous vote result.
Babs:
MinTruth will say that groups of people are voting 'en bloc' and the results of the HYS 'RR' polls are being skewed. The BBC will then say that the results are being filtered to make them more representative.
I say it's their poll and they are entitled to rig it anyway they want.
Biodegradable:
Google finds 842 results for "Dr Imad Khadduri".
He certainly has a lot to say for himself, just what the BBC likes, and this page is from June 2003:
http://www.redress.btinternet.co...k/
ikhadduri.htm
pounce:
Biased BBC and how it apologises and covers up for terrorists
Nice little article about a suicide bomber in Afghanistan from Al Beeb;
“Encounter with an Afghan suicide bomber
The blast was loud enough to drown out the sounds from my personal music player. In the same instant, it seemed as if we and the tonnage of our armoured vehicle were airborne.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
5052952.stm
Great a first hand account from the Beeb about a suicide bomber attack on them.
Note that he states he was in an armoured vehicle?
Which he further elaborates by saying this;
“Further inquiries to the BBC's office in Kabul revealed that, while we were saved by the Canadian armour, it had reflected the blast into the street, killing four Afghan civilians and wounding 15.”
And this;
“Ten inches of Canadian amour had meant that I was able to ring home and tell Linda, my partner, that I was okay.”
And this;
“I carry no pretence about being brave. After all, I was behind 10 inches of armour and I'm going home at the end of the week.”
So what image do you glean from that? That the reporter was in an Armoured personal carrier like this;
http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/ima...asp?
page_id=720
I mean it must be as he states that the blast from the car bomb was reflected back into the crowd killing 4 wounding 15.
Only one problem with that enforced scenario he also said this;
“The only damage to us was a flat tyre and a smashed window. Miraculously everyone in the convoy escaped serious injury.”
Now as the Battlefield taxis which I linked in with its huge sides in which to reflect that blast into the crowd is an M113 has tracks then the vehicle he was in was either a Nyala
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehnyala.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31
or a G wagon
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehgw...-vehgwag-
cr.htm
(The LAV doesn’t have windows, but armoured ports)
The former is designed with IEDs in mind and thus is designed to push the blast wave up and away from the vehicle and not back (which requires a lot of weight) and at 7.8 tonnes I very much doubt that it has armour 10 inches thick.
So lets go back to that blast wave which bounced off that armoured vehicle killing 4 people.
What our reporter fails to state is that when a car bomb (or any bomb goes off) everybody in the local area gets a piece. (Think water and how the ripples move outwards when a drop of water hits it from the middle)To state that a blast wave was responsible for the deaths of a number of people fails to acknowledge that a much more destructive blast wave had already got there first. The only way for a blastwave to be reflected back in the direction it came and kill people behind the detonation point would be to use some form of shaped charge. (Not withstanding the back blast) as a load of explosives in a motor is somewhat omni directional I think we can discount that idea.
So would I be correct in saying that Al Beeb is once again trying to allocate the deaths of innocent bystanders on the Western forces operation on a UN mandate (American, Britain and Canada) rather than the true idiots who wish to impose their ideals on others.
10 inches of armour indeed?
The main armour on the Bismarck was 12” thick and that was to protect it from the likes of 14” guns not car bombs.
AntiCitizenOne:
Rare sighting of unbiased article on US and its companies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/busin...ess/
5051544.stm
disillusioned_german:
AntiCitizenOne:
Generally unbiased apart from
"But while giving climbed 14%, average income among 62 of the donors studied was up 17%, while profits rose 15%."
Which means the Beeb wants them to donate 15 - 17 percent...
disillusioned_german:
That should have read "...to increase their donations by..."
Anonymous:
When will the Chairman of the BBC Board, Michael Grade, intervene to stop all this arrant nonsense from the BBC ? When will Grade, who like all of us lauds Stanley Baxter on his 80th birthday - the most un-PC comedian he WORKED WITH - stop all this ridiculous and DANGEROUS PC crap the BBC is pumping out on all channels 24/7 ?
What would Stanley Baxter have said about the MCB ? How would Stanley Baxter have played Iqbal Saccranie ?
MICHAEL GRADE - do you ever listen ?
Your Press Office will put the stuff published here on your desk.
Do you give a monkey's toss about how low the BBC has brought itswef ?
Unhappy but Blunt Question - Is Michael Grade, because he is Jewish, inhibited to crack down on the pro-Islam line we are being fed all the time ?
Do we need a new Chairman of the BBC whom we know will not be inhibited ? Can we have a non-religious Chairman ?
Grade is an honourable man. A man with more TV calibre then most of the rest of them put together.
But he may be the wrong man in the slot.
disillusioned_german:
Destination UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_de..._uk/
default.stm
And the Beeb are pleased about the UK being the main destination. Tells you a lot, doesn't it.
Anonymous:
The 12.43 post was me, haloscan messing up again.
The time has come, the Walrus said...
Michael Grade as BBC Chairman is in the final analysis responsible for the travesty of Sunday's Panorama programme, for the un-checked and seditious crap that John Simpson came out with last week about Ishaqi, for the tendentious anti-US rubbish we hear all the time from Justin Webb and Matt Frei, for the Orla Guerin spite and the Caroline Hawley (stay-local) whinges about the US, for Jeremy Bowen "I am the unbiased referee, please ignore all the biased stuff I have written before") and the for the whole damn lot of the World Service people who seem to have no SENSE, let alone sympathy, for this country's history, who slag Britain off 24/7 in foreign accents.
It is the anniversary of D-Day. The BBC hardly gives a monkey's. No coverage.
It is Stanley Baxter's 80th bithday. Monkeys again. No replays of even a single one of his Christmas shows that he sweated 6 months over. GRADE was his boss, GRADE knew Baxter well.
GRADE is a wimp if he can't get a Baxter replay. GRADE is a hasbeen, as far as I can see. 2 years in the Chair and no discernible difference.
And GRADE is a total WUSS if as Chairman of the BBC he cannot put a stop to the pro-Muslim bias on the BBC news reports
GRADE is a man of entertainment, with an innate sense of what works. A great guy. But he is NOT a suitable man to hold the ring in a clash of civilisations. He is too urbane, too metropolitan even to admit there might be a clash. When did Grade ever see Bradford, Oldham, the East End these days ?
If the BBC Director General was a journalist by background, he might be a fitting Editor-in-Chief. He is not. He seems more intent om empire-building than dealing with BBC bias.
There is no-one at the top of the BBC who appears concerned about the allegations of SYSTEMIC BIAS at the BBC. Allegations being made worldwide.
Neither the Chairman nor the D-G are from a news background.
Come back Alastair Milne or someone like that. Milne had his own views - but he could SMELL BIAS.
dumbcisco:
1.19 was me. Haloscan again
disillusioned_german:
No bias at work here either, John Reith???
dumbcisco:
Absolutely amazing.
For the first time ever that I have seen in a news broadcast, a moderate Muslim slagging off a jihadi preacher, and slagging off the Saudi Wahhabi extremist message that oil money has spread round the globe.
A brave, articulate man.
When - my God when - will the BBC ever show a critic as forthright as this of the EVIL inside a slice of the Muslim community ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5...h?
v=5n1lC9YPyUY
disillusioned_german:
Dumbcisco:
When it will suit their agenda? They're not interested in real moderate muslims.
TAoL Reincarnated:
Asad Rehman interviewed as part of a piece on the fall-out from last week's raid in Newham.
Rehman is spokesman for a group that is "helping" those affected by the group to recover.
Rehman, an advisor to George Galloway also popped up as a spokesman for the de Menezes family and is a tireless activist for the Stop the War coalition. He is also an outspoken Islamist.
No agenda there, then.
Well done, Beeb. Thanks for letting us know.
[He appeared on Five Live recently and was introduced as a spokesman as for the de Menezes family and again, there was no full disclosure.]
Mark:
I tuned in late yesterday evening to watch part of a documentary about football hooliganism, and guess who one of the commentators was ?
Billy bloody Bragg.
This smug Leftie tosser did his very best to link hooligan behaviour with the Falklands war, and hence pin the blame on the evil Thatcher government.
Bias by selectivity / omission or what ?
Who was PM when Spurs' lunatic fringe sacked Rotterdam in 1974 ? Or when Leeds' counterpart trashed Paris in 1975 ?
Which government effectively forced the clubs to implement all-seater stadia ?
Which party was in power during the relatively trouble-free Euro 96 tournament ? (IRA atrocity in Manchester notwithstanding - terrible structural damage, but mercifully no loss of life)
Which party was in power during Euro 2000 when a few England fans ran riot in Charleroi, Belgium ?
Eamonn:
Was it a sketch from Smith and Jones, or was it Radio 4's Flagship news programme?
I refer to the joke piece (around 8.10) featuring Yvonne "death to the Zionists" Ridley and some nameless multicultural inclusiveness muppet from the police. It was so bad that James Naughtie sounded like a hawk.
Eamonn:
And on the 9am Radio 4 news Yvonne Ridley is featured (again).
Why do we have to listen to the truly nasty, divisive views of Ridley and Respect on a flagship news programme that I have to pay for when other people with equally nasty views (you know who I mean BBC) would never be given such a platform.
Eamonn:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5053542.stm
Yawn.
Eamonn:
But the people of Britain are clearly not reacting in the Beeboid-prescribed fashion:-
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...=901729&
#901729
Read all the top recommended messages, all from right wing racist Islamophobic fascists. BBC, when will you get out of your bubble?
AntiCitizenOne:
Is it going to be war with between the UK population and ummah colonists?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5054600.stm
AntiCitizenOne:
disillusioned_german
"But while giving climbed 14%, average income among 62 of the donors studied was up 17%, while profits rose 15%."
Good for spotting that. How many BBC watchers could say the economy in the US was doing so well? That's the only place the information has been released, it's all doom and gloom on the US economy, and selective reporting on France and Germany (e.g. German economy EXPECTS to grow).
Maybe the BBC were shocked at the amounts donated (whether share holder owned companies should be donating is another story).
archduke:
i , briefly, switched over to Radio 4 this morning, only to hear the ranting of Yvonne Ridley.
i switched back to classic fm.
archduke:
eamonn's link above was broken. here it is corrected:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...essageID=901729
archduke:
"archduke - what's your take on the similarities between the Irish 'troubles' and the Londonistan 'troubles'?"
it wasnt uncommon for the police to swoop down the Kilburn Road picking up every Irish person they could lay their hands on - no ifs, buts, whatever - you were picked up. Not to mention the internment camps in Northern Ireland.
an equivalent situation today would see the police rounding up the entire attendance at a mosque and tossing them into a camp on the isle of man.
that just isnt happening - mainly because they've learned their lesson from the Irish experience.
I find the bleating of Yvonne Ridley types to be utterly devoid of any historical knowledge or comparison.
it was even worse during WW2 - when all German nationals , including Jewish refugees, were rounded up and carted off to prison camps on the Isle of Man and elsewhere.
Eamonn:
Thanks Archduke.
One thing I have noticed about DHYS is that on issues such as race relations, immigration, threat of Islamist terrorism in the UK, and pc things like flying the flag, alternative therapies etc the most recommended comments are always overwhelmingly right of centre.
Interestingly, on issues such as Iraq, Iran and the Arab/Israeli crisis, the most recommended are nearly always left of centre. An interesting dichotomy, but what is the reason I wonder?
Grimer:
Pounce,
Maybe the BBC reporter, doesn't know his arse from his elbow. He might have written his article while in a state of shock/fear/survivor's-guilt.
Bryan:
Eamonn,
Food for thought, indeed.
I note that the issues you mention that attract rightwing recommendations are local UK ones and the leftwing are international.
Could be that the left sense that they are closer to winning hearts and minds in the international arena than they are at home.
Could also be that issues such as Iraq, Iran and Israel/Palestine are well-established as dear to the leftwing heart: imperialism, oil, the evil US, Zionist land-grabbers, innocent Palestinian freedom-fighters - you get the drift.
archduke:
why does yvonne ridley get so much airtime, and yet we hear little of Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
gordon-bennett:
If the current anti-terrorism action goes wrong does it become Forest Gate Gate or Forrest Gump?
gordon-bennett:
Mark | 07.06.06 - 8:44 am
I think that the difference between Euro 96 and the rest is that the British Police managed Euro 96 but not the others.
Mark:
gordon-bennett
I take your point re the better police handling of Euro 96. Perhaps we should have more 'European-style' policing now, seeing how much the BBC want us to be 'more like Europe'?
The main thrust of my comment, though, was how Billy Bragg shamelessly put his snide political hooter in the issue, just to score cheap points against the Thatcher government.
dumbcisco:
BBC World Service is running the allegations of US CIA rendition flights and torture of detainees as its top story, every half-hour.
Why is this topline news ? It is largely speculation, not fact. They get Amnesty to join in to say it is like the Disappeared in South American regimes. All they have is unsupported assertions by jihadists and NGOs. The report's author "feels" that something is going on. He says it is not for the CIA and European governments to prove that nothing has been happening - not for his enquiry to prove that it has.
dumbcisco:
And the BBC has been running all these rendition headlines BEFORE the report is published. The programme I am listening to has just spent 8 minutes at the top of its programme dealing with this speculation.
dumbcisco:
I don't remember the BBC taking the line that it was up to Iraq to prove that it wasn't planning to bring in restrictive dress codes. In fact I seem to recall that for some reason the BBC didn't touch the story at all - even though some form of legislation is under way.
gordon-bennett:
Mark | 07.06.06 - 10:56 am
I agree with the main thrust of your comment, my comment was a side-issue. I have never seen that point made before and wanted to "run it up the flagpole and see if anyone saluted it".
I'm no admirer of billy toerag.
gordon-bennett:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5052000.stm
"Even the visiting German team has to observe strict Islamic dress codes covering all their hair, although there are no men present"
This reminds me of our cricket team to South Africa in the d'Oliviera years. The impetus was to go up against the restrictions imposed by apartheid SA (quite right too) but this item shows meek acceptance of diktats from rulers who propogate gender apartheid.
Where is Peter Hain? Where are the wimmin? We ask yet again
Ritter:
i , briefly, switched over to Radio 4 this morning, only to hear the ranting of Yvonne Ridley.
i switched back to classic fm.
archduke | Homepage | 07.06.06 - 9:24 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Having said that, I wonder whether the BBC, do their 'cause' no favours by having Yvonne Ridley on. It's difficult to tell how much the tide of PC multi-culti is turning outwith the BBC bubble.
I suppose Radio4 Today producers thought the interview was 'balanced' having a extreme left winger on with a 'PC' policeman ie no right of centre voice (Naughtie had to try to fill that void!). The debate would have been better served by pitting Respect up against the BNP. Unlikely to happen on the BBC, but I could see it on Sky. This is a good example of where the 'centre' of the pendulum is for the BBC - not the centre but it's quite far left. Where was the right-wing voice this morning - was a Tory not available??
I'm in reflective mood this morning, but again I wonder if the BBC actually does damage to the multi-culti PC cause by letting the likes of Ridley on the airwaves.
dumbcisco:
Let's Respect has a hotline to the BBC newsrooms. If Yvonne Ridley asks for a platform - she usually gets it.
We'll probably have George Galloway back on Question Time again as well.
I am still tuned in to the World Service. They ran an 8-minute slot at 11.02 on the "extraordinary rendition" story - even though the report's author says he has no proof, just suspicions.
Surprise surprise - they are running the story again as lead item. At 11.34.
dumbcisco:
I think the BBC should put Yvonne Ridley on the TV news. Let people SEE her for the moonbat she is.
Ritter:
U.K. Conservatives' Cameron Says BBC Radio Encourages Crimes
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...6YXGi0&
refer=uk
Not about this morning's broadcast by Ridley though, but should be.
Why do the BBC give a platform to those who incite others to break the law?
Ritter:
BBC hires its own cultural watchdog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...7/
ixuknews.html
"Jana Bennett, the BBC's director of television, said that the move was to "put audiences at the heart of what we do". She added: "To meet audiences' expectations in a changing world, we need our programmes to reflect fully and accurately the diversity of the UK population."
Great, so we can expect Question Time to increase the non-muslim proportion of the studio audience to accurately reflect the diversity of the UK population ie the many other demoninations, faiths and no faiths as opposed to the 'special' programmes where muslim voices are currently over-represented?
Ritter:
BBC & the Guardian: Lefties take Manhattan!
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
orga...fties_take.html
Why would The Guardian call the BBC leftie? - Don't they know the BBC is 'impartial'?
Ritter:
BBC made to wait on licence fee
http://media.guardian.co.uk/
broa...1792171,00.html
"The culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, said last night that a final decision on the BBC licence fee from April next year, under the corporation's new charter, would be made "towards the end of the year".
Ms Jowell's comment suggests that licence fee negotiations with the BBC will not be completed until the autumn - scotching speculation that a deal might be concluded before parliament goes into summer recess next month."
Handy for Jowell - That's many more months 'kid-gloves' treatment from the Beeb for her and her husband Mills.
Ritter:
BBC Sport shuts down football message boards:
BBC Complaints: 606 football message boards
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/.../06/
32718.shtml
You and BBC Sport now and in the future
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
sport...w_and_in_t.html
Crikey! You don't see this every day, the BBC invoking the Graf report to justify shutting down a service! Seems like they couldn't hack the moderation any more. Obviously the BBC like to tell you what is happening - they don't want your opinion on it!
Hmmm will BBC News (D)HYS be next?......
Eamonn:
Here's something of interest.
I submitted a comment (under a psudonym) to (D)HYS on the rendition flights. The comment has been published, but interestingly the part of my message that criticised the BBC for giving unproven facts such prominence (lead story on the International News Page and near top of Home News Page) has been edited out!
Now, now BBC, either publish my message in full or don't publish it, but don't you dare edit it.
Oh , and while we are at it BBC, how about responding to the one and only official complaint that I have ever sent to you some time ago? You take my money under threat, so the least you could do is respond to an official complaint. Even an acknowledgement would be something.
Eamonn:
Just switched on World at One.
Rendition
Rendition
Rendition
Rendition
Rendition
Outside of Yvonne Ridley sycophants, Shami and her "Selective Liberty" mates, and the BBC newsroom, who else (i.e. of the other 99% of the population) is remotely interested in this?
dumbcisco:
As well as leading all its World services reports with the SPECULATIVE rendition report, not yet published to be critiqued, the BBC are now running it on World at One. Interviewing all on one side, of course. The item now being discussed FAILED to mention by way of introduction the fact that the Prime Minister has just slapped the report down as showing nothing concrete.
That's brilliant. Some damn Swiss MP is now providing the BBC's headlines and material. But we can't see the report being discussed - being PUSHED by the BBC. All part of their snotty tone of "Europe is better than the US".
dave t:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...1609&
#paginator
I also sent a comment in asking why the US/UK get charged tried and found guilty with as the Swiss bloke AND a separate EU enquiry both admit NO EVIDENCE!
The comments that are saying similar things about "why publish this rubbish when there is no proof" have all got 34-46 recommendations but have all mysteriously been moved back to page 2 and even when you click on most popular the anti US comments are at the top despite having only 1 or 3 recommendations.....
Must be having technical problems again chaps!
It would like saying Cherie Blair killed Humphrey the Downing Street cat with no proof! Then again....
dumbcisco:
This story could be easily applied to the methods of John Simpson - inflating to headline news unproven allegations as a sort of smear of ALL the US troops.
Never ever do we see the BBC acknowledging that US and British troops in Iraq are on patrol in great danger that is compounded by their rules of engagement which often mean they take extra risks with their lives to avoid innocent civilian casualties.
The BBC would rather splash a story based on stuff fed by our enemies than give a fair picture of what is happening in Iraq.
dumbcisco:
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...se_macabre.html
Grimer:
Our old friend Bilal Patel has been busy again.
For those new to Biased-BBC, Bilal was one of the BBC's favoured commenters, using the old style Have Your Say. No matter how rabid or biggoted his views, he'd always get his comments posted by the BBC.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?a...ts=&
safe=active
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/vi...nt/view/2201/1/
Bilal Patel:
Mad Mel [Melanie Phillips] is just another old poisonous Jew. That's right - she's old, she's poisonous, and she's a Jew. Plenty of them around. As for Muslim youth, they should be encouraged to ignore old poisonous Jews (because they keep on repeating the most boring lies ever) and concentrate their fire on the Police. Certainly the community as a whole should not forget this incident and should push for the Police to explain themselves. We should push for nothing less than the disclosure of the grass who nearly caused the death of another innocent young man. And until this is done, there should be no cooperation with any so-called security services. The police are now part of the problem and the enemy.
I think we can all see why the BBC loved his input.
gordon-bennett:
dumbcisco | 07.06.06 - 1:32 pm
Actually, later in the prog Shaun Ley did allude to there being no real evidence.
However, that ws only to discomfit a Conservative MP who was taking an interest in the subject.
Steve E.:
So has John Simpson done a Cronkite and declared the Iraq War “officially” lost?
BBC News at Ten and Newsnight. 06/06/06
“In any war, there is a tipping point. A moment
when it is too late to change the inevitable outcome. Has the tipping point come for Iraq?… Maybe, we will look back to June 2006 as the time when the Americans and their Allies knew that it was a war that they could no longer win.”
(Initially, Cronkite was something of a hawk on the Vietnam War. However, returning from Vietnam after the Tet offensive Cronkite addressed his massive audience with a different perspective. "It seems now more certain than ever," he said, "that the bloody experience of Vietnam is a stalemate." He then urged the government to open negotiations with the North Vietnamese.)
Can we now expect Simpson to urge the new Iraqi government to embark on negotiations with Al-Qaida and the remnants of the Ba'athist regime in order to secure “peace with honour”?
Ralph:
Our old friend Bilal Patel has been busy again.
As the BBC could stop him commenting and block his IP address one can only assume they think its comments are acceptable.
AntiCitizenOne:
The Tet Offensive was a disaster for the Viet Cong (except for the traitor media aspect).
I'm not sure what will happen to the traitor media in the Internet age, but I think they will end up like that US traitor John Kerry. Namely laughed at.
John Reith:
Dumbcisco
'Neither the Chairman nor the D-G are from a news background.'
inaccurate as usual.
Mark Thompson: BBC News trainee. Newsnight Producer. Editor, Nine-O'clock News. Editor, Panorama.
Grimer:
Steve E,
I recorded that report by Simpson. I uploaded it to You Tube last night, and forgot to mention it earlier.
See the 'Liberator of Kabul', the 'BBC's Finest', 'Everybody's Hero' Joooooohn Simpson.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r...h?
v=rekkfdTBXQ8
John Reith:
Pounce
You forgot to mention the Bison. The Canadians have about thirty or so in Kabul.
archduke:
"inaccurate as usual"
i think he means that Mark Thompson has never had a life outside of the BBC - besides that stint at Channel 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar...i/
Mark_Thompson
1979 BBC trainee
1981 - assisted launching consumer programme Watchdog
1983 - assisted launching Breakfast Time
1985 - Output Editor, Newsnight
1988 - Editor, Nine O'Clock News
1990 - Editor, Panorama
1992 - Head of Features
1994 - Head of Factual Programmes
1996 - Controller, BBC TWO
1999 - Director, National and Regional Broadcasting
2002 - Chief Exec channel 4
2004 - D.G of the BBC
dumbcisco:
mea culpa about Thompson. I was referring to his recent background.
He seems to have become Editor of the Nine O'Clock News just nine years after joing the BBC as a trainee - and he appears to have had nil journalist experience in politics or mainline news. How could that happen - except at the BBC ? Would someone become Editor of the Times or suchlike on the basis of such skimpy experience ?
Grade is certainly not a news man.
The BBC's standards of journalism and its bias are under so much attack these days, there really seems to be no proper oversight by the Governors. Who actually runs John Simpson, for example ? He seems to be a loose cannon able to pontificate endlessly about quagmire and civil war in Iraq, grinding away at his own agenda. When do we see him doing what he should be doing - interviewing the movers and shakers in Iraq, the senior political and religious leaders, the senior military? - rather than yapping his own views all the time.
dumbcisco:
Why is the BBC giving such blanket coverage to the totally-dodgy rendition story - and very little to the FACT that 17 suspected home-grown terrorists have been arrested in Canada with 3 tonnes of explosive material ?
The authorities have indicated that the canadians had links with jihadists in other countries - including Britain. The story of the plumber arrested at Manchester Airport yesterday is suggested to be linked in some way to the Canadian arrests.
THESE are the stories the Brits are interested in. NOT some obscure Swiss politician huffing and puffing with nil direct evidence about rendition.
dumbcisco:
THIS should be the BBC's headline news concerning the war on terror :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
5054198.stm
Instead, they have been pumping out speculation on rendition as lead item all day and all round the world.
Any stick to beat the Americans with ?
TAoL Reincarnated:
Re Yvonne Ridley and the de Menezes 'family spokesman', Asad Rehman, on today's Today.
Of course, their views should be aired on Today and every other news programme because they work for a legitimate political party. But all I ask for is full disclosure when they are interviewed.
Rehman is a political beast and he has popped up in two guises now: regularly, as the aforementioned 'family spokesman; latterly, as a Newham residents' spokesman.
He may not be appearing "in his capacity" as a Respect spokesman or an Islamist activist but it is important to highlight his other activities to listeners and viewers, surely?
If X were invited onto Today to talk about racial issues and X just happened to be a member of the BNP, would the BBC withhold this information from us? No, of course not.
John Reith:
GCooper
'Mix in the almost naked biases of offerings as diverse as You and Yours, The Food Programme, The Now Show, Four Corners and what you have is a constant feed of Left-liberal ideas'
I know what you're getting at. I sometimes feel that myself. Then I reflect that we do, after all, live in a fairly left-liberal country where NuLab have won three elections on the trot.
The answer, I find, is to pour myself a gin and tonic and settle down in the deckchair with my retro Roberts radio tuned in to Radio 4 and reflect how discomfited the Islingtonians, the multi-culti brigade and those Guardian- reading year 4 Geography teachers of yours must be by Gardener's Question Time, or Matthew Parris introducing a programme about WC Grace, by Simon Heffer, Frederick Forsyth and Peter Hitchens on Question Time or Peter Oborne on the Week in Westminster, by the 'almost naked' sod-the-proles bias of Nigel Rees's Quote Unquote and by that sublime antidote to the Now Show, Humphrey Littleton's I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue.
I'm alarmed to note your inclusion of the Food Programme. I haven't heard it for ages. it used to be presented by a namesake of yours, Derek Cooper - a decent seeming old cove who knew his single malts and could tell you a thing or two about unpasteurised cheese. Has it been hi-jacked by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Biodegradable:
Derek Cooper - a decent seeming old cove who knew his single malts and could tell you a thing or two about unpasteurised cheese. Has it been hi-jacked by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Has he mentioned pork or bacon recently?
;-Þ
Barker John:
The Beeb & Government are happy with the forced marriage issue amoungst Muslims. I imagine that they also have no problem with six year old girls being married off to 50 year old men.
It's the way the article won't mention the dreaded M word when suggesting the problem is not exclusively South Asian.
'Baroness Scotland said people with links to the Middle East, the Balkans and Africa were also affected'
Bleedin Muslim Countries the lot of them, just bleedin say it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5054286.stm
TAoL Reincarnated:
I may be at risk of a public lynching by saying this but I think The Now Show is the funniest programme on the wireless without exception.
Well, with the possible exception of ISIHAC.
Oh well. Each to his own.
dumbcisco:
When is reith going to come up with the answers to all those questions he was researching ?
John Reith:
Dumbcisco
'he appears to have had nil journalist experience in politics or mainline news. '
Not so. The wiki cv is somewhat abbreviated. Thompson was, I think, at Tiananmen Square at the crucial time. He also worked in the US bureau. And for much of the time between 1980 and 1988 when he wasn't helping to launch Watchdog and Breakfast, he was working his way up the ranks at Newsnight: assistant producer, producer, output editor etc.
dumbcisco:
none of the progs mentioned by reith have people slagging off opponents of Bush, slagging off socialism, slagging off enviro-nutters etc. Slagging off things the lefties don't like.
Whereas the programmes mentioned by GCooper do slag off things the right doesn't like.
By far the worst area of bias in non-news progs is the endless drivel dished up as "humour" where most of the so-called comedians are far-left. Till Death Do Us Part was funny because it included both extremes - the rabidly right Dad and the layabour leftie son-in-law. That is called BALANCE, counterpoint, and it adds to the comedy.
Many of the current "comedy" shows eg in the 6.30 slot are simply UNFUNNY - just a platform for lefties to rant at us.
And we are forced to pay for it.
dumbcisco:
Thompson did not have HEAVYWIGHT journalistic experience before he was appointed as editor of Newsnight. Certainly not heavywight in the political arena compared with some of the pol. correspondents of the national dailies.
dumbcisco:
Saying Thompson was in Tianenmen Square is meaningless. The BBC sends planeloads of people to things like that. Is reith trying to kid us that it was Thomson solo bringing us the news from Beijing, like John Simpson solo relief of Kabul ?
dumbcisco:
David cameron is quite rightly criticisng the hip-hop crap that Radio 1 puts out. The BBC response has been a waffly liberal defence.
There really is no need for Radio 1 to be funded by the licence tax. It is NOT public service broadcasting. It should be privatised to help reduce the licence tax. And in the meanwhile the supine BBC Governors should be getting Radio 1 to clean its act up.
Little L:
Sky News "Doors Locked after Anthrax Alert in Parliament"
BBC "Reports of something thrown in lobby, now to today's business news"
Traitors
dumbcisco:
This interview with Laura Ingraham is all about the failure of TV channels and major newspapers to report fairly on Iraq - always accentuating the negative.
Halfway through there is a swipe at the BBC for that disgraceful John Simpson report on Ithaca based on stuff fed to him by our enemies.
dumbcisco:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/200.../ingraham-iraq/
pounce:
John Reith wrote;
>>”Pounce
You forgot to mention the Bison. The Canadians have about thirty or so in Kabul.”
Market Participant:
The BBC invites you to have your say. Was Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor a bad thing?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060607201720
Was Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor 25 years ago justified?
Israeli warplanes set back Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme when they bombed his main reactor in 1981.
The UN Security Council condemned the attack and called on Israel to account for its own undeclared nuclear programme - a demand Israel still ignores.
Do you think Israel was justified in bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor? Is it right for any state in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons when the region is so unstable?
Op Ed:
dumbcsco
Thompson becoming editor of the nine o-clock news at around 30 wasn't SO out of line with Fleet Street.
Charles Moore was editor of the Spectator at 28 and editor of the Sunday Telegraph at 36.
Michael Gove joined the Times from the BBC in 1996 aged 29. By the time he was 35 he'd already been comment editor, news editor and assistant editor.
Simon Heffer was Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph at 33.
Ritter:
More BBC support for terrorists:
Taleban vow to defeat UK troops
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
5057154.stm
"We have to give them a teeth-breaking defeat again," he told the BBC in an exclusive interview.
Thatcher was right about the "oxygen of publicity". The BBC will stoop to any depth to promote and support those who wish us harm when given the opportunity.
The MoD should slap some 'D' notices on them.
Bob:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5056728.stm
Oh dear! A teenager, poor soul! Note that we never hear about a would-be terrorist (sorry, ALLEGED terrorist) being a muslim, pakistani, arab etc in a BBC headline. Teenager, yer sertainly: that implies the police are brutalising the minority "communities" again... Buried in this crap piece was the little-known (if you read only BBC) fact about major al-Qaeda projects in Canada. Funny, BBC have been remarkably quiet about that upton now. What's wrong, can't find the Iraq angle?
gordon-bennett:
John Reith | 07.06.06 - 5:41 pm
"The answer, I find, is to pour myself a gin and tonic and settle down in the deckchair with my retro Roberts radio tuned in to Radio 4 and reflect how discomfited the Islingtonians, the multi-culti brigade and those Guardian- reading year 4 Geography teachers of yours must be by Gardener's Question Time, or Matthew Parris introducing a programme about WC Grace, by Simon Heffer, Frederick Forsyth and Peter Hitchens on Question Time or Peter Oborne on the Week in Westminster, by the 'almost naked' sod-the-proles bias of Nigel Rees's Quote Unquote and by that sublime antidote to the Now Show, Humphrey Littleton's I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue."
A glimmer of sense from jr!!!!!!
Our argument here is that the proportion of airtime taken up by the above non-leftie output is miniscule compared to the amount of leftie crap (excuse the tautology) we have to endure and for which we have to pay or go to prison.
A small example for you to ponder:
Which of these two contemporary political editors represents the grauniad?
Michael White: 569 appearances on the beeb since 1982;
George Jones: 191 appearances on the beeb since 1986;
dumbcisco:
Op Ed
Thomson had far less practical journalistic experience focussed on politics than any pof the people you mentioned.
9 years from BBC trainee to get to Editor of the main evening TV news is NOT a match for what the others did.
Point me to a single important interview he carried out, or an important article he wrote.
And aside from Thomson, no-one can deny that the Chairman of the Governors has no news background.
The BBC sorely needs an editor-in-chief of Alastair Milne calibre. Someone who is a journalist to his fingertips. I don't see Thomson as a journalist - he is a manager.
dave t:
Good God! After months of trying I got onto HYS(D)!
"Oh dear. Yet again even when the Swiss senator and the separate EU commission survey both ADMIT they have NO EVIDENCE people still cry foul.....so the bad guys get off free thanks to human rights and their lawyers but the US/UK etc have to be charged found guilty and hung without any evidence.....two different enquiries no evidence yet a story is run claiming this is true.
Get a grip. Reporting the story if there WAS evidence is fine. Stop spreading rumours and unsubstantiated rubbish.
dave t, elgin"
Does this mean it will be August 2019 before I get on again? Damm. Perhaps we need to start up our "daftest name on a comment" competition again?
dumbcisco:
Al Qaeda in Iraq apparently think they are losing in their military struggle - things getting worse for them year by year.
When will John Simpson refer to this captured Al Q document ?
When will pigs fly ?
Simpson will avoid it, smother it, because he continues to play along like a pawn in Al Q's media war. He just grinds out his spiel about failure.
Simpson is a danger to the Coalition cause and therefore to our troops, because he concentrates on negative stories and seldom brings anything positive. He just pops over to Baghdad every few weeks and opinionises.
Piss-poor reporting.
Some of us remember war correspondents like James Cameron or Martha Gellhorn.
Simpson is a self-regarding blatherer compared to people like Cameron and Gellhorn.
dumbcisco:
Here are the references to the Al Q in Iraq document
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...ge_in_iraq.html
AntiCitizenOne:
"daftest name on a comment"
tobias d hebebece
pounce:
John Reith
(Accept my apologies I didn’t check straight away when I posted)
Here I will post it again
John Reith wrote;
”Pounce
You forgot to mention the Bison. The Canadians have about thirty or so in Kabul.”
No I didn’t. I quoted;
“The LAV doesn’t have windows, but armoured ports”
LAV is actually an acronym for Light Armoured Vehicle.
The Canadian Armed forces took the route a few years back in which to replace tracks for wheels.(A route the US and UK are now following) To that end they developed a family of wheeled armoured vehicles based on the original Swiss Piranha which they classed as LAVs
The Bison falls under that category and its chassis is based on that original Vehicle.
(That may explain why they all look somewhat similar)
Oh yes the Canadian army web page on the Bison;
http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf...n=26&
uSection=1
Note they have all getting configured to be used in the support role. That means Ambulances, Sigs, NBC and recovery. (Not troop carrying)
BTW.The Bison doesn’t have windows either. It has armoured ports.
Rob White:
I have my pills.
I believe I am ready for Question Time tomorrow night.
(I guess I will last 5 mins tops)
(and I have a £100 bet on that no one will ask "where is the evidence of torture or rendition flights")
Babs:
Rob White - why don't you ask the question yourself if you are attending?
archduke:
re - the chat about thompson.
i really thought Greg Dyke was ok - at least he had a private sector background. and remember that he was the guy that brought in Jeff Randall, who is quoted on the right hand side of this blog - Randall was specifically told by Dyke to shake things up.
having said that - thompson is understandable - a safe pair of hands in the wake of the Hutton stuff. but a safe pair of hands is bad for the license payer - it just means that the BBC has turned into an arm of the government - numerous glowing tributes to Gordon Brown are a testimony to that kind of "safe" mindset.
archduke:
omg! sorry, being sexist here, but theres a bit of hot totty anchoring Newsnight right now.
sorry folks...
archduke:
newsnight have a piece on child brides in India right now.
its happening in the province of Rajasthan.
i am left wondering - what is the religion that is encouraging this "child bride" culture? its never mentioned in the newsnight report.
i dont care if the religion is islam, hindu, sikh, spagetti monster or whatever - but whatever it is , is a key factor in the culture of child brides there.
why newsnight refuse to mention the religious context throughout the entirity of their report is beyond me.
archduke:
and no - before other folks jump the gun - rajastan isnt a muslim province. its only 8% muslim.
which leaves me still none the wiser as to why child-brides are happening in that part of the world...
i was intrigued and interested in this report - but the BBC didnt give me the answers.
pounce:
Oh look Al Beeb isn’t happy at the verdicts reached at Military tribunals where soldiers wrongly convicted of crimes are found not guilty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5056944.stm
In fact on a number of these case ,which the BBC appears to be very upset over,
It has transpired that a lot of these allegations (Now there’s a word the BBC loves to use in which to defend those who wish to kill us) have been fabricated for financial gain.
Mind you I must admit I had to stifle a laugh when I read this from Al beeb;
“Some touch on the conduct of British forces in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion”
Now add this little article from AL Beeb about how the Taliban are going to give us a good kicking;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
5057154.stm
Add the feel good factor from the BBC about Sharia law in Somalia, A female Muslim preacher in Egypt.(Err Al Beeb I think you will find that woman are forbidden to lead prayers or preach to men. In fact Al Beeb go to any major mosque in the Uk (never mind the rest of the world) and you will find that woman are not only forbidden to pray along side men (either at the back or in another room) you will find they have to enter from a different door)
So why is the BBC currently promoting the image that Islam is all happy faces, could the fact that aspirant terrorists are currently getting arrested around the western world. Anything to take that nasty taste away eh Al Beeb.
P.S
All these stories about the CIA spiriting people away, funny how every one of those people who claim they were kidnapped by the X fools..is able to complain about it. Now contrast that with any third world country where people really do disappear.
(Strange how Al Beeb doesn’t put as much time and effort into those stories…
mick in the uk:
It seems that the North Americans are having the same problems with the definition of Muslim/terrorists vs plumbers.
http://
article.nationalreview.co...mVkOTUwMzExZTA=
Tim Blair has a good take on identities here.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php...ts/csi_toronto/
Bryan:
The World Service is endlessly pushing the rendition story. And in the midst of all the blah blah blah they come up with little gems like the following:
Rendition is the secret transfer of suspects whom the Americans believe in some way have been complicit in the war waged as they see it by terrorists.
In spite of all the evidence, the BBC just can't concede that Islamic terrorists are waging a war on civilization because then they would have to concede that the war on terror is not just something dreamed up by George W Bush.
And we have chief Gaza propagandist Alan Johnston in fine poetic form:
Gaza has always been a hopelessly crowded, very poor place, battered by decades of Israeli occupation....
Johnston must have forgotten about the years inbetween intifadas and earlier when Palestinians would pour into Israel to work in jobs such as construction. Some battering.
....and years of internal political instability.
Johnston always finds a way to make himself appear evenhanded.
But....it is now driven to deeper levels of poverty by the American and European economic boycott.
Colourful turn of phrase here. It's the first time I've heard a disinclination to hand over cash for terror being described as a boycott.
dumbcisco:
mick in the uk
That article about never mentioning the Elephant in the Room when terrorists are discussed fits the BBC very well.
dumbcisco:
The BBC gives a platform to moonbat Yvonne Ridley so she can whinge about poluce brutality.
But does not bring us real info about the East London arrests :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
But even worse bias was that BBC parade of loving photos of Ayatollah Khomeini. The same guy who declared categorically that Islam IS jihad. But of course the BBC won't report that - becasue Islam is an RoP.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs....lls.com/weblog/
archduke:
google launched there online version of Excel today.
big stuff - and it has implications for Microsoft's share price.
do i see any mention of this on BBC news - err... no.. i dont.
Andrew:
GB: "dumbcisco | 07.06.06 - 1:32 pm
Actually, later in the prog Shaun Ley did allude to there being no real evidence.
However, that ws only to discomfit a Conservative MP who was taking an interest in the subject"
Heard the prog. - thought it was okay. Shaun Ley is generally alright in my experience - interested in the story for the story's sake - as it should be.
archduke:
bbc news 24 just did a report on outsourcing to india , mentioning "lower wages".
i think you'll find that "lower wages" arent the only factor.
just look at Ireland - no outsourcing to India going on there - in fact , the outsourcing is in reverse.
hmmm ... i wonder why - tax levels maybe? better educated workforce maybe?
Andrew:
archduke: "google launched there online version of Excel today"
'twas on the Tech page of Views Online yesterday though - I honestly don't reckon this is that big a story in itself (outside the Tech. pages) - Google is certainly a developing force vis-a-vis Microsoft - but this alone is no real threat to MS - yet. If Google were to launch an Office suite online or offline (a la OpenOffice), I reckon that would be a story worth a mention in passing on the TV news.
Andrew:
archduke: "hmmm ... i wonder why - tax levels maybe? better educated workforce maybe?"
Do I detect a spot of green trumpet blowing there?
I expect taxes would be a damn sight lower here too if we had the same arrangement with the EU as the Irish do!
Not sure what the figures are at the moment, but a while back it was a case of here's one Punt for EU, and here's six Punts back for us...
dumbcisco:
Yes the Shaun Ley piece did end up with some balance. But the coverage on the World Service was FAR worse, and was being recyled twice per hour.
The main question is - why did the BBC give this matter such extreme prominence all day. The average Brit couldn't give a monkey's, and there is more important news going on.
The ONLY reason is that there is an editorial wish to embarass the US at every possible opportunity.
Even if the story is based solely on allegations, not fact, the BBC will run with it.
But where there are documented facts - in this case about what a particular person has repeatedly said, the BBC covers up the facts if they don't fit. Here is some info on Yvonne Ridley - it surely shoud be the duty of the BBC to preface any pice involving her with a statement that she has explicitly sided with terrorists :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvo...i/
Yvonne_Ridley
GCooper:
John Reith writes:
"Then I reflect that we do, after all, live in a fairly left-liberal country where NuLab have won three elections on the trot."
Oh, we do, do we? Maybe this is where the germ of the BBC's problem lies. Hint: compare circulations of Daily Mail and Telegraph with those of Daily Mirror and Guardian. For further consideration, consider the hatred of the Bliarite tendency by the vast mass of Leftist activists (both within the Labour Party and the BBC). "2005: Did Britain really vote Labour?" Please write on both sides of the paper.
As for the rest of your response, this technique of yours is getting pretty tired - as I'm sure you must be uncomfortably aware. The examples of bias pile up on this site, day after day. You respond by picking a nit here, a nit there. I offer almost the entire output of R4's piss-poor drama department as an example of the BBC's relentless liberal-Left bias. How do you reply? By avoiding the issue - suggesting that GQT isn't similarly skewed. Hardly worthy of comment, is it?
As for Matthew Paris and the rare appearances of Hitchens, Oborne et al are you really inviting a round of 'count the appearances?'. Want to play 'let's count the times Billy Bragg is given air time'? Or, 'How many namechecks does Nadine Gordmer get this month'? See your Simon Heffer and raise you a Tony Benn.
Just two more things before I get back to reality. Even 'I'm Sorry...' has the obligatory 'Bush is a moron' quips, these days. And Derek Cooper was eased-out many moons ago, in favour of some sharp Lancastrian harpy by the name of Sheila Dillon. Those who actually listen to R4 will be familiar with the mix: much drooling over the wonders of organic farming, plenty of ethnic cuisine, endless attacks on modern farming, big business, supermarkets, 'exploitation of the third world'... Not a lot about single malts, actually. More like a Greenpeace handout, in fact.
Perhaps it isn't wise to comment on what you clearly don't listen to?
Andrew:
Which of those Wiki edits were you DC?
I see someone has added 'And a nutcase' to the first line, which is in itself a reversion of the previous version, which someone abridged to read:
"Yvonne Ridley (born 1959?, Stanley, County Durham) is a British journalist and politician. And a nutcase. And a total bitch i fukin hate her"
to which I must add, allegedly!
gordon-bennett:
Andrew | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 12:18 am
I dont agree with your judgement of Shaun Ley. Like all of his beeboid type he's easy on nulab, easier on old lab, even easier on libdims and truculent towards Conservatives.
I recognise that if he didn't act this way he wouldn't get anywhere within the beeb.
dumbcisco:
Andrew
I too saw that someone (not me) seems to have inserted inserted "And a nutcase" to Yvonne Ridley's entry at Wikipedia. But I don't know how long that had been there. You seem to know how to look further back - presumably that will tell you when the changes were made ?
I had simply googled her name and found that the Wiki entry was top of the list - giving the sort of description of her background that the BBC should let its listeners know about. Before seeing the Wiki entry I had not realised how pro-terrorism she is.
dumbcisco:
Why are the BBC not broadcasting this story about links between the alleged canadian jihadi plot and Britain ? Instead they churn out the rendition stuff.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2215988,00.html
Bob:
Dumbcisco:
See my link, above. The BBC reported this in their own weaselly way, that is, with the stress on a poor "teenager arrested in Dewsbury" (another of those 'tight-nit communities' we hear so much about). Beheading the Canadian prime minister? Al-Qaeda links between Canadian and British muslims? What do YOU think....
dumbcisco:
Bob
Exactly !
Why isn't the Manchester arrest a top story, focussing on the links to Canada and the plans to take hostages in the Canadian Parliament and possible beheadings of top politicians ? With ALL the details, not the damn sob stuff the BBC loves to give us.
Eamonn:
Cue the funereal music on the Today programme.
One of their heroes has bit the dust.
Eamonn:
Today was playing up Ming Campbell at Prime Minister's QT yesterday. He's made a recovery, apparently.
However, any idiot would realise that the only reason Campbell "came over well" is that he was talking about rendition, a subject for which he has had numerous run-throughs on the Today programme. Just wait until someone starts to ask him about his new tax proposals, and he will be floundering again.
archduke:
AL-Zarqawi has been killed.
Iraqi Prime Minister is about to start a press conference.
Mark:
"David cameron is quite rightly criticisng the hip-hop crap that Radio 1 puts out. The BBC response has been a waffly liberal defence.
There really is no need for Radio 1 to be funded by the licence tax. It is NOT public service broadcasting. It should be privatised to help reduce the licence tax. And in the meanwhile the supine BBC Governors should be getting Radio 1 to clean its act up."
The waffly liberal defence of cultures which glorify crime and violence always seemes to involve the buzzword:
"Hip-hop has a VIBRANT scene"
Am I alone in being sick of the over-use of the word 'vibrant' as a euphemism for 'dangerous' or violent ?
Property and business owners should probably also be charging Radio 1 and the music industry for removing hip-hop's other all-too-visible legacy - the disfiguring and obnoxious (sorry, 'vibrant') graffiti 'art' which has become a worldwide plague.
Go to any country, and you'll find a scrawly pseudo-ghetto 'tag' written on some wall with a marker-pen or a multi-coloured spray-paint vomit show on the exterior of a train.
archduke:
"Do I detect a spot of green trumpet blowing there?"
to be honest, not really. if i was Estonian, i'd be talking about the equally dramatic tech boom there. and again it would be for the same reasons - low taxes + good education system.
Eamonn:
Shock hawkishness from John Simpson on Today:-
AL-Zarqawi was "fairly distasteful"
Barker John:
Haditha: Reasonable Doubt
Special from Hawaii Free Press via LGF.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/st...a6-
0066e7629ace
Could The BBC be wrong again? Looks possible!
Al-Zarqawi killed. Great news!!
archduke:
anthrax alert - its on yahoo - and its the lead item
http://uk.yahoo.com/
can't find it on the bbc site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
most odd.
Thoroughly Pissed Off:
I'm waiting for the BBC HYS
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed.
Your tributes.
Bryan:
AL-Zarqawi has been killed.
Hmm. Let's see how the BBC handles that info. They'll probably glance around furtively to see how other media are reporting it and then consult a few imams for advice on the proper Islamic response to the news.
Am I alone in being sick of the over-use of the word 'vibrant' as a euphemism for 'dangerous' or violent ?
Nope. Me too. The BBC is a world leader in mangling the English language for the sake of PC. They really have a way with words - that is, they know how to render them meaningless.
On Ridley, luckily I didn't have a big breakfast before I sat through that video. The woman is a hate-riddled devil:
Israel is America's watchdog, festering in the Middle East.
Condoleeza Rice is a war-mongering, blood-soaked....
[Or something like that.]
It's incredible that the BBC gives this woman the time of day. Oh...hang on, I get it.
Eamonn:
The BBC's view will be something like:-
This is significant but it won't affect the underlying spiral of violence/chaos/quagmire/edging towards civil war
Ha! Already on the Radio 4 news we have had:-
"some think he is not as significant a figure as the Americans make out"
Eamonn:
Meanwhile the BBC website hits back:-
This is currently top billing on the International page. I mean, why bother about headhackers when we have squaddies to toy with?
"MoD investigating Iraq shooting
Claims that British troops killed a 13-year-old Iraqi boy after firing at an angry crowd are being investigated by the Ministry of Defence."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5058224.stm
Bryan:
Well at least the World Service understands that this is a big story. They've suspended regular programming to bring us a special briefing on Zarqawi.
The newsreader was careful to give Zarqawi his full abu blah blah blah title, but a couple of analysts have just been on who just called him 'Zarqawi'.
Hmmm, but they spent less than ten minutes on it and then moved on to Sri Lanka.
Jeffrey Mushens:
Zarqawi has been killed. I thought this was great news and turned to Ceefax page 107. They reported him as saying on video that the us was'arrogant'. Only thing he was supposed to have said. Nothing about urging civil war, or urging the Sunnis to kill Shia. They've updated the page now, but it made me furious. No wonder that The Labour Party prefers to watch Sky News as the BBC are regareded as the enemy. Next time you visit the Treasury, look what TV channel they have up. It'll be Sky not BBC 24.
Bryan:
On HYS:
What will al-Zarqawi's death mean for Iraq?
The alleged leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been killed in a US air raid. Send us your comments.
Is this the BBC's way of sticking its tongue out at America and saying, "See, you can't be sure you've got your man."
Is there really any doubt that the terrorist scumbag was the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq?
Anonymous:
Zarqawi gone - "Aluha Akbar!!!"
dumbcisco:
Well well well.
In their lead story the BBC somehow manages to avoid calling Zarqawi a terrorist.
And our friend Mr Paul Reynolds was involved in the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5058304.stm
No T word in the "Obituary" either :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5058262.stm
AntiCitizenOne:
Thoroughly Pissed Off,
You beat me to it. I too am waiting for "BBC HYS: your tributes to charismatic insurgent hero"
dumbcisco:
How can the BBC say he was just the "alleged" leader of Al Q in Iraq ?
That truly is ridiculous.
Do the BBC have any genuine doubt ?
Are they worried he may not be dead and will sue them for defamation ?
Bloody idiots. They really are pathetic.
Biodegradable:
I'm very disappointed in the online News Player video coverage. I thought I'd be able to see him actually being killed:
Watch coverage on BBC TV coverage as militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed.
dumbcisco:
The Today prog did not report the news of Zarqawi's death until almost 8.30am our time.
But ABC started to carry the story at 7.41am our time.
That suggests it was on the wire services such as AP by 7.30am or before. The Iraqi PM's press conference had been set up long before 8.30am - Ian Pannell's reply to James Naughtie at 8.30am indicated that the press conference was over by then.
Blogs were carrying the news by 8am. Why couldn't the BBC - even witrh a caveat ?
dumbcisco:
BBC. The biggest news organisation in the world.
Last with the news ?
(Unless of course it is a bunch of speculation critical of the Coalition. Then we'll be first.)
Maybe they get slowed down by having to excise the T-word from all their copy - plus inserting "alleged" a few times.
Or maybe they were trying to get Yvonne Ridley on line to lead us in mourning her hero.
archduke:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5058262.stm
"a shadowy figure associated with spectacular bombings"
what crock. they werent "spectacular" for the hundreds of Iraqis killed and maimed.
dave t:
"Zarqawi has been accused of leading the rash of kidnappings and beheadings of foreign workers.
It has been suggested that he appeared personally on one video posted on the internet, cutting off the head of a hostage. "
Really BBC....did not Zaqibaby admit to this on several cocasions only to backpedal when his PR gurus (ex BBC staff by any chance?) said he was losing the PR war....
"If it significantly weakens the al-Qaeda structure in Iraq, it could open the way for easier contacts between the government and other insurgents, who are more Iraqi nationalists than Islamists seeking to set up an Islamic state not only Iraq but across the region.
It might also lead to a lessening of tension between Sunnis and Shias, whom Zarqawi targeted. "
Since most if not all of the terrorists killed are foreigners how can BBC say the insurgents are mostly local?!!!!!!! AQ are the main group and the majority are foreign; add the Iranian backed militia of AL Sadr and you have yet more foreign interference in Iraq by Islamist 'militants'. The bulk of the "local" insurgency are criminals or former Ba'ath stirring things up not an Iraqi resistance so beloved by Mcihael Moore and John Pilger!
Biodegradable:
I'm watching the live coverage streaming in RealPlayer.
Comments that viewers have phoned in.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Sheesh, how many times do we have to hear that?
A caller from Tel Aviv, Israel:
"Freedom fighters do not torture and behead innocent people"
That's more like it!
... unbelieveable!
They left the camera on and the mic open in the studio while they presumably ran the titles and such on air in the intro to the 11 o'clock news... I caught Martine Dennis wiping tears from her eyes telling somebody, "I'm quite sad really".
Incredible!
Biodegradable:
(D)HYS:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060608110738
Added: Thursday, 8 June, 2006, 09:44 GMT 10:44 UK
I guess many of you BBC journalists will feel a deep miss in their heart (your sympathies with the "resistance" is public domain) but I'm pleased, I hope many of zarquawy's friends will go to hell, where they belong. Please spare us hypocritical comments; another resistance Hero may soon come to fill your needs and kill more people.
Fuchs Charles, Florence, Italy
Recommended by 5 people
D Burbage:
this is a wind-up, right?
D Burbage:
my comment was to Biodegradable - based on the Martine Dennis allegation. This is a wind-up, surely.
Biodegradable:
No D Burbage, I swear I heard her say that. Of course I couldn't hear what anybody else in the studio was saying so she may have been talking about her cat having died. I don't exclude that when these people are off camera they talk about mundane things and don't comment on the news they're presenting on camera.
This is the link to the stream I'm watching:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctr...deo/
now4_nb.ram
archduke:
Galloway is on Question Time tonight.
be interesting to see what weasel words he'll say about that Al Zaqwari scumbag
dumbcisco:
I have just caught up with the 8.40am interview with John Simpson.
His description of Zarqawi as "fairly distasteful" will get a lot of opprobrium, I hope.
Simpson goes on to try to minimise the importance of Al Q in Iraq.
Yet earlier he had said that the death of Zarqawi is as significant as the capture of Saddam.
But at least we were spared any further prediction that Iraq is on the tipping-point of civil war. Be thankful for small mercies, I suppose.
Grimer:
What a shocker!
Terrorist cell in Bethnal Green. BBC in denial. What to do?
Phone Gobshite George and get him in QT to educate us all on how 'It's all our fault' and 'The Police are to blame'.
dumbcisco:
archduke
I was predicting yesterday that Galloway would be invited to appear on Q Time.
The BBC is SOOOOOOOO predictable. It is like a kneejerk with them.
I just wish there is a voluble Iraqi in the audience to tell him that he does NOT speak for Iraqis.
Better yet - put an Iraqi on the Q Time panel. Or a real fierce critic of Galloway who is able to chop his lies apart, Hitchens-style. Not some token leftie Tory. Why doesn't the BBC get Louise Ellman on the panel, for example - someone who could counter Galloway's bluster ? Someone who coud say what the Repsect party comprises, who runs it, how they are basically the enemies of Britain.
I doubt if the BBC gave the sort of airtime to Oswald Mosley that they give to Galloway. Respect gets airtime way out of proportion to its national vote.
The question remains - how many Respect supporters are there among the BBC news staff and at the news website ?
D Burbage:
dumbcisco - "we were spared any further prediction that Iraq is on the tipping-point of civil war"
The war is lost - the insurgents have won and the coalition are defeated. So reported John Simpson, if I remember correctly. No need for civil war now!
john:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5058304.stm
Zarqawi killed in Iraq air raid
....Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not a global mastermind like al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, says the BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner.
Instead he was a bloodthirsty and violent thug, who made enemies and several mistakes that might have contributed to his downfall....
help me here please BBC. Does that mean that Osama Bin Laden is not bloodthirsty, and is not a violent thug?
D Burbage:
"fairly distasteful" - amazing. Is there no level to which J "Homer" Simpson will stoop. I wonder how bad a "really distasteful" terrorist would need to be? How about "extremely distasteful" one.... maybe you'd need to kill a few million innocent people to be "extremely distasteful" as - balanced opinion, remember - a comment from the esteemed senior reporter? With his recent Ishaqi exclusive, is this the best we can expect for 3 billion a year?
Grimer:
D Burbage,
Indeed it is. I made a recording of Simpson's declaration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r...h?
v=rekkfdTBXQ8
dumbcisco:
Al Q in Iraq is now confirming the death of Zarqawi.
I bet they didn't say "our alleged leader"....
Rick:
I bet there are tears streaming down Barbara Plett's face right now.
I suppose the BBC will do an Al-Zarqawi Special bringing together all his friends and family to mourn his passing - and dig out all the old Parkinson Interviews and Ken Livingstone will moan the loss of a great democrat
Rick:
Does that mean that Osama Bin Laden is not bloodthirsty, and is not a violent thug?
Of course not he's a Yemeni with rich Saudi relatives not a Jordanian.........there is a class structure you know
archduke:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
updated - zarqawi gets the full maximum headline treatment.
hys:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060608120311
he still the "alleged" leader of al q in iraq.
archduke:
oops.. looks like somebody has been doing a quick edit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
"The leader of al-Qaeda in iraq"
amazing. i wonder who put in the "alleged"
dumbcisco:
Quite a good couple of days really.
BBC has been telling us that there is a huge groundswell against the Repubs, they will be decimated in the autumn Congressional elections. Whoops - the wheel fell off that BBC wagon when the Repubs retained the San Diego seat up for actual election. Dems stopped in their tracks. Oddly - I heard no report on this from the BBC.
A large number of jihadis arrested in Canada - with links to Britain, apparently, that the BBC disguises. But the BBC can't trot out Iraq as a "root cause" on that one.
Iraq has appointed a defence minister and an interior minister. Great news, the logjam shifted. But the BBC will be able to smother that good news a bit with all the Zarqawi rule.
Zarqawi killed - there is nothing the BBC can do to minimise this good news, no matter how much they use the word "but....."
And now Mark Malloch Brown, Kofi's deputy, has picked a fight with John Bolton, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Middle America et al. Just at the point when the UN is trying to get the US to pay for the second half of the year - in spite of failing to reform itself. Watch out for Congress to block or cut further funding. Nice one, UN. Real diplomatic. How to make friends and influence people.
Babs:
Interesting to note that Yvonne Ridley's second marriage was to a guy named "Ilan Roni Harmush" (according to Wikipedia). Ilan is a very Jewish/Israeli name. I wonder if it goes anyway to explaining her hatred for Jews, whoops - I mean Zionists? Something went wrong with the marriage so she blames the people best representative of her ex-husband? Just a theory, but I'm sure Freud would have a lot to say about it.
Ralph:
Archduke,
It's still there.
Nicely hidden we have: 'The alleged leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been killed'.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060608121658
Mike Davies:
You could have knocked me down with a feather. What's this doing here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5052020.stm
dumbcisco:
Even the New York Times has no trouble describing Zarqawi as a TERRORIST.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/
0...artner=homepage
And the NYT story is miles more thorough, more cpmplete and more fully contextual than the BBC's wet efforts.
Ritter:
Yup, George is top billing:
Question Time Panel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ime/
default.stm
Very predicable, however we may have reached a 'tipping-point' with the 'rather distasteful' views of Respect. Ridley's call to not co-operate with the Police didn't go down well with joe public and if Galloway comes out with crap like that tonight, fine. He will increasingly be viewed as a dangerous crackpot.
Maybe he will repeat his view that the PM should be murdered. That will give PC Plod something to think about.
This was Ming's day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
5055544.stm
snigger...
"His style was no different to previous performances - all ramrod straight and, frankly, sparkle-free. But this time he pulled it off.
Pulled what off exactly? Had Ming managed to get the PM to admit collusion in rendition? Nope. Not even close.
Ming got slapped down twice by Blair and got absolutely nothing.
I fail to see how this was in any way "Ming Ding's day", aside form the fact that he was talking about 'rendition' which is the BBC's favourite topic, and they will fawn over anyone like Ming who goes on and on and on about it. Most of the public aren't interested, which is why the libdims are suffering under Ming.
What will Al-Zarqawi's death mean for Iraq?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...2702&
#paginator
Vast majority of 'Recommended' say "Good riddance". Nice one. BBC must hate it.
Iraq terrorist leader Zarqawi 'eliminated'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...1792817,00.html
That's how far left the BBC has become. Even the Guardian calls Zarqawi a terrorist.
and maybe something you didn't know...
Media Monkey's Diary
http://media.guardian.co.uk/diary/
"Signing frenzy
The Times' People diary wonders today whether the BBC's muted coverage of the Cherie Blair and Alastair Campbell Hutton report signing row is anything to do with the fact that Today rottweiler John Humphrys had also signed a copy for a charity auction. "It was sold months ago. Although not, I hasten to add, for the Labour party," Humphrys said. "I sign all kinds of things for charity," he added."
dave t:
Malloch Brown lives in a house owned by George Soros the No 1 of SPECTRE (allegedly) and the moneybags behind most liberal organsiations such as MoveOn....now what does that say about his leanings then...?
Well done Bolton! The sooner we scrap the UN and start a free nations forum of DEMOCRATIC nations ONLY the better.
nbc:
This morning on Radio 4 John Simpson described Zarqawi as "fairly distasteful".
And this after listing his alleged involvement in multiple attacks and at least one beheading.
Unbelievable.
dumbcisco:
Basically, I find the BBC to be fairly mediocre in its standards of journalism. Incomplete, unthorough, late, lots of omissions.
And that is before they inject the spin and the bias.
Their standards are especially poor when one considers how lavish their budget is.
Incidentally - David Dimbleby frequently interrupts Question Time panellists. I bet he doesn't interrupt Galloway to quote back at him some of the Respect statements - eg on how Zarqawi is a good guy. The BBC should be stuffing those quotes down Galloway's throat.
Eamonn:
I wouldn't get your hopes up for Galloway on QT tonight; he is a master of deflection and will within seconds be into Bush/Blair/blood for iol/war criminals/Memri is an ISRAELI organisation before you can say Jenny Tonge. And there will be a sizeable section of the local Stop the War/ Palestinian Solidarity Movement in the audience, so he will get plenty of cheers as well as boos.
It's pretty depressing stuff and I won't be watching it.
Biodegradable:
Please don't say Jenny Tonge!
archduke:
interesting - bbc radio 2 news reported that the iraqi journalists broke into spontaneous applause at the press conference this morning.
i wonder how the Galloway Islamists will try to spin that one. oh right - they're all really Jews and working for Mossad...
silly me.
D Burbage:
Grimer - I laughed at the tags you used on that youtube vid
D Burbage:
Grimer - I laughed at the tags you used on that youtube vid
dumbcisco:
The more one reads about the Malloch Brown gaffe in criticising and patronising Middle America, the more deliberate his attack appears - and the more stupid he and Kofi's entrenched position.
http://www.nysun.com/article/34079
This is a very big row indeed - and it could thunder on all year. It deserves far more attention than the BBC are giving it. Quit the renidion stuff, BBC, it's going nowhere. Get back to realpolitik.
And the BBC seems to be in danger of wholly misjudging the risks that the Repubs will lose control of either side of Congress this year. The BBC will of course fail to recognise how potent an issue illegal immigration may become in individual Senate and House contests :
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/c...games?
pid=89300
The BBC has of course failed to tell us that Bush's poll ratings have been improving over recent weeks from some results in the low 30%'s for approval. The death of Zarqawi will likely give Bush (and Blair) and fillip. But it will probably need Bush's approval ratings to get back well above 40% before the BBC deigns to tell us.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/c...games?
pid=89300
"The BBC. Last place to go if you want to know what is really happening in the US"
Biodegradable:
As somebody on (D)HYS commented; compare the coverage of the death of al-Zarqawi with the "targeted assassination" of Sheik Yassin.
archduke:
"Malloch Brown lives in a house owned by George Soros the No 1 of SPECTRE (allegedly) and the moneybags behind most liberal organsiations such as MoveOn....now what does that say about his leanings then...?"
to be fair, Soros's early background is one of growing up under first Nazism , and then communism , in his native Hungary. He's Jewish, and managed to escape the Budapest holocaust (where 500,000 Budapest Jews were wiped out)
He also supported and funded Charter 77 in Prague and Solidarity in Poland.
we might disagee with his views on many things, but he is a firm believer in freedom and a democratic society.
he's lived through dictatorship and knows what it is first hand.
dumbcisco:
archduke
Soros a clean pair of hands these days? Really ?
When he supports people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan who regard Zarqawi's people as Minutemen/freedom fighters, how can you say he believes in democracy in Iraq ?
Biodegradable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ edited again, back to Militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed in Iraq, in an operation hailed by US President George W Bush as a serious blow to al-Qaeda.
I guess that's because they now mention Bush's comments :-/
archduke:
"how can you say he believes in democracy in Iraq ?"
it probably does - but he disagrees with how we went about bringing democracy to Iraq.
disagreeing with the method doesnt equate with being pro-Saddam...
At least he doesnt fund the Respect party...
archduke:
bizarre biodegrable - utterly bizarre.
first it was "alleged leader", then it was "leader of al qaeda", now its "militant leader"
they cant bring themselves to say the T word, so we're getting all sorts of contortions and twists and general head-up-ones-own-arse crap...
unbelievable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
archduke:
ITN call him a "terror chief":
http://www.itn.co.uk/
sky news call him a "al Qaeda terror leader"
http://www.sky.com/skynews/home
the Mirror, call him a "al qaeda terror chief"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/
and, even the Guardian!
"terrorist leader"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...1792817,00.html
archduke:
get a load of this folks.
DFH has the goods.
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot...c-
insiders.html
seems like MPACUK has some insiders working at the BBC.
Ritter:
BBC Obituaries dept is quick off the mark...
In pictures: Life of Zarqawi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pi...res/
5058476.stm
Steve_Mac:
How long do you think it will take before the BBC runs the inevitable "Americans kill innocent civilians in Zarqawi air raid" story? "Bystanders claim..."
Umbongo:
Slightly OT of the current thread but, for a moment, forget about bias in "Today" and look at its basically poor journalism.
The story of the 3 soldiers acquitted of murder: "Today" interviews one of the defence lawyers (predictably emphasising that there was no case to answer and the case should not have been brought) and the Attorney General (predictably claiming that there was a prima facie case and good evidence etc etc.) Good journalism would have 1. given an idea of what the crucial evidence was on which the prosecution was launched 2. set out why this evidence might have been considered weak or strong, and 3. got the protagonists to say WHY their view of the evidence is the correct one. Instead "Today" gives us pure assertion from either side which neither sheds light on what happened nor allows the listener to make up his or her own mind. Frankly, why bother?
AntiCitizenOne:
Ritter
The BBC is institutionally treasonous.
Lets hope the newspapers mention it.
Eamonn:
Umbongo. Quite right.
At the end of the coverage I had no idea on what evidence the case was brought, and on what evidence it was thrown out. A few facts from the BBC would have helped.
The Today coverage left me with the uncomfortable feeling that the soldiers were released simply because of a lack of evidence. So, were the BBC implying that the soldiers were probably guilty, but there wasn't enough hard evidence to prove it in court, or that there was no evidence and the whole thing should not have gone this far?
archduke:
zaqwari dead - oil prices fall
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
5058822.stm
my my. my day is just getting better and better...
archduke:
yet more islam propaganda, paid for with my tax money...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/s...hers/html/
1.stm
Biodegradable:
Here we go again with one of the BBC's favourite and most used phrases, except this time I note a slight and welcome change.
Until now its always been "Palestinians often fire crude rockets into Israeli territory but these rarely cause any casualties."
Today's Israel kills three by Gaza border now reads thus:
Rockets fired by Palestinians often land in Israeli border towns, occasionally causing casualties.
From rarely cause to occasionally causing is progress of sorts, I suppose.
Umbongo:
Archduke
Re "women preacherS" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/s.../s...hers/html/
1.stm - even here the BBC speaks with forked tongue: there appear to be 10 photos of a single woman preacher not 1 photo each of 10 women preachers: what a breakthrough for the RoP!
boblog:
Just seen the BBC World coverage of the US news conference following the killing of the Militant Zarqawi during which the US General, although constrained by int and security considerations did say that the operation had included input from the terror cell, the Iraqi Police and others and also other countries. Well, he could hardly have openly thanked Jordan for quickly confirming the finger prints matched. (speculation but just an illustration)
A security expert was wheeled out, one Frank Gardner, beloved of these pages and his opening and main point was to criticise the US for claiming all the credit. Perhaps he has a brief attention span. Is he the best that the BBC can produce? I don't understand why you all admire him so. He seemed woefully ignorant of the security world and all in all a bit of a dork. Natalie, feel free to substitute "fool"
if the "d" word offends.
boblog:
Oh and I forgot to mention that during the questions part there was a female Arab voice as the representative of the BBC. Sadly no shot of her so I couldn't see if she had the table cloth on.
boblog:
and finally, well O/T
Gary, you seem to be growing very eloquent of late. Is there a ghost writer involved ? I think I could do with him.
Bob:
Boblog: no, you're absolutely spot-on in yr impression of dork Gardner. he gets sympathy for his injuries after being shot by "militants", but apart from that he's a dead loss. NEVER gives the slightest worthwhile prediction, is always wise after the event etc. When have we heard him predicting al-Qaeda link-ups between Dewsbury and Canada? When did he ever produce anything uptotheminute on Zaqari when he was still on the run?
archduke:
headline change!
"Bush hails Zarqawi death"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
gordon-bennett:
Spent an idle moment this am watching a proppoganda film on beeb2 about Islam.
There was an interesting allegory of how effective it is if they all pull together, illustrated by a wooden stake trying to hold up a tree in a strong wind. The aforesaid anthropomorthic stake called out for his fellow stakes to help him and they formed a bundle and saved the tree.
Clearly, the cartoonist was sublimely oblivious of the fact that he had just animated a fasces, icon of the Fascist movement.
Well it made me smile, anyway.
Biodegradable:
"Bush hails Zarqawi death"
But he's still a "militant"
What does it take to be a terrorist?
Breaking news!
Swiss 'foiled hit on Israeli jet'
But wait, this isn't new!
May. 19, 2006 9:21 | Updated May. 19, 2006 19:
Plot to down El Al jet in Geneva foiled
WTF is going on with the BBC?
Rick:
I wonder what Zarqawi will be saying to Che Guevara..............."nice T-shirt ?"
Biodegradable:
Maybe this is the new part:
The federal prosecutors' office said seven people of North African origin had been arrested.
In May jpost.com had reported Swiss officials reported that no arrests were made following the discovery since the plan had yet to reach its final operational stages.
dave t:
I have noticed the way BBC et al are trying to downgrade Zagibaby's influecne and reach in the world of terrorist activities after months if not years of building him up to be the biggest bogyman after Osama BL.
Meanwhile News 24 today - "I'm no expert but I'll comment anyway" whilst waiting for the US Press conference was the order of the day! Get a former military expert onto discuss things on the programme you clowns instead of stupid people with no experience beyond what they've read in Gardner's book or having studied Bobby Fisk's uninformed often wrong missives for years! (Fisk is the guy who claims Jesus was born in Jerusalem amongst other things...) Jeez at least Fox News haul military guys on so they get the up to date military perspective etc.
Can we start a 'BBC must employ pounce' thread and see if we can get Gardner sacked?
dave t:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/...quba-
prime.html
John Simpson's bestest buddy speaks:
"There is no evidence of operational links between his Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don't expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon."
So where DOES Cole get his facts from? Is he really a CIA plant or something? He is always SO sure of his facts, oui?
Gary Powell:
boblog
No; I think its all still me. I think its just practice. Also maybe, what I have always said, has just started to make sense to more people. I live in hope.
I also got bored with making excuses for "sloppy work," so started trying a bit harder.
dumbcisco:
Zarqawi and his lot killed thousands of Iraqis. THOUSANDS. He was mostly too scared to take on the Coalition head-on - he concentrated on cowardly attacks on civilians.
He can be nothing but a terrorist. He and his deeds define the word terrorism.
The BBC needs to be taken to the cleaners on its refusal to use the T word about him. They have been caught out once, on 7/7, on their weaselly avoidance of the T word.
They need to be exposed far and wide for their sick attitude, their moral equivocation - their refusal to recognise pure evil.
He is merely "distasteful" said John Simpson. Is he recorded in writing as saying that on the BBC website, not just on the Today prog ?
Oh Lord - the BBC have just brought on another of their "experts" - Paul Pillar, ex-CIA. They don't preface his remarks by saying he has been a fierce critic of the White House. He has NIL specific info - so why interview him ? Except he has inserted the "quagmire" remarks that the BBC wanted.
dumbcisco:
boblog
Let's say it plain in case you misread some of the comments here.
We do NOT admire Frank Gardner's journalism. I for one think he is totally disingenuous in failing to say that Islamic ideas of jihad are the real root cause of terrorism. I think he is wet for failing to call terrorism for what it is - even when it hit him. I think he has been pretty useless in giving any real insight on the terrorist threats here in Britain.
He is one of the well-spoken people who will grate on American audiences. Along with most of the BBC's US crew - the likes of Matt Frei and Justin Webb, plus the Middle East crew and of course Mr Kabul Simpson.
We have sympathy for Gardner's injuries, for his disablement and of course for his family. But his journalism is not rated highly round here.
Ritter:
Fair & balanced headline from FOX:
'Terminated'
http://www.foxnews.com/
and FOX provide a handy reminder of the innocent people that this terrorist scum has murdered:
Fast Facts: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,198661,00.html
and more....
Complete Coverage of Zarqawi's Death
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,198700,00.html
When do we get FOX UK??
Rick:
Good old BBC PM Radio 4 telling us Zarqawi worked in a video store in Jordan - funny i thought he was a petty thief who was in prison and was also heavy into drugs
John Reith:
Dumbcisco
Is that the same Paul Pillar who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year?
You know, the one who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005?
The one who spent 28 years in the CIA and was regarded as the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst and was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community?
That Paul Pillar?
dumbcisco:
Ritter
On the right-hand side of the Fox home page there are links to Fox video clips.
As you will know, if you go to any clip, you can then scan what clips they have under each heading - News, Politics, etc, O'Reilly, John Cavuto, Brit Hume, Hannity and Colmes etc etc.
10 times more worthwhile than the BBC for a vivid and actually pretty balanced view of US events.
dumbcisco:
reith
Yes - the Pillar who if he was that good on counter-terrorism he failed to get Clinton to deal with Osama when he was in the cross-hairs. The Pillar who everyone knows is a fierce critic of the White House, which the BBC fails to tell us. The Pillar who just said he has no specific info on the Zarqawi termination - so why interview him ? The Pillar whose testimony on other matters has been attacked as disingenuous and indeed wrong. The Pillar whom the BBC could rely on to say that things are a quagmire.
Market Participant:
Obituary: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5058262.stm
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was Iraq's most notorious insurgent - a shadowy figure associated with bombings, assassinations and the beheading of foreign hostages."
But at least he wasn't a terrorist.
Market Participant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
4774541.stm
Israeli attack 'jump-started nuclear programme'
"Until Israel's attack, we were only dabbling with some calculations relating to nuclear fuel burn-up and criticality calculations - nothing."
Lol, sucessfully worked out criticality calculations mean you have a nuclear weapon. The BBC is more naive than evian.
dumbcisco:
reith
and the same Pillar who was heavily involved in the CIA's failure to get the assessment of Saddam's WMD's right - but who now tries to blame the White House. The Pillar who thinks terrorism is something you manage, not something you attack.
You see the BBC can't just slide these slippery people past us any more - the Internet lets us get our own handle on them in an instant :
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co...06/
713hkkee.asp
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.c...blic-
again.html
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
013104.php
The Pillar whose judgment seems decidedly flawed - who in various ways FAILED at the CIA. And who is so partisan that the BBC should not be using him without a health warning. They are the fools for thinking we are fools.
But why aren't you tracking down the answers to all those questions you promised to pursue ? Try dealing with at least one concrete issue out of your long list of overdue answers - at present your rep round here is zilch because you avoid direct questions.
archduke:
bbc 6 o'clock news say that al zaqwari "was the leader of the iraq insurgency"
leader?
huh? i dont think the Sadr Army was answerable to him,
Roxana:
Isn't it interesting how the price of oil dropped when al-Zarqawi did?
Am I the only one who's noticed that the more you whump Islamists the tamer they get? But the minute you start making concessions watch out!
dumbcisco:
archduke
The insurgents of Al Anbar - the local Sunnis - kicked him out of their province. That is why he was eventually terminated.
dumbcisco:
reith popped off again ?
anonymous:
I listen to R5 all day.
Today I listened to the accounts of the death of Abu Moussaib al Zarqawi.
From the first Reuters reports at about 8:20 Not once, not a single time did the BBC call this man a terrorist. BBC News readers? No. Correspondent in Iraq? No. John (I’ve been to Iraq 5 times now ) Simpson? No. Frank (I’m a Moslem, help me) Gardiner? No. The presenters, Derbyshire and Mayo, no way jose!
A man who had himself videoed, personally sawing the head off one of his bound and helpless hostages. A man who masterminded the Hotel bombings in Jordan. A man who kidnapped, bombed, shot and hacked his way through Iraq. A man who Frank Gardiner says got Terrorist training!!
But still this man is not a terrorist to the BBC.
He has been a ‘militant’.
‘The leader of Al-Qa’Ida in Iraq’
‘A leader of the Jihadist group in Iraq’
‘Believed to be a leader of al-Qa’Ida in Iraq’
‘One of the leaders of the insurgency’.
‘A key figure in the Insurgency’
‘An important figure in al-Qa’Ida in Iraq’
‘The man thought to be the al-Qa’Ida leader in Iraq’ (this one after ******* al-Qa’Ida had just issued a statement calling him the leader and welcoming the ‘martyrdom’ of the ‘warrior Sheik’!)
‘The alleged leader of Al-Qa’Ida in Iraq’
‘The self-proclaimed leader of Al-Qa’Ida in Iraq’
(I added this at 11.45):
By the end of the day I believe Zarqawi will be ‘Some guy in Iraq brutally murdered by American Forces’
By 1:15 Simon Mayo was already airing e-mails claiming Z’s death was an American act of assassination, and some BBC apparatchik running BBC website said the appointment of the 3 remaining Iraqi government posts was far more significant than the death of Z.
By 1:31 what had been referred to as ‘the death of al Z’ was now being called ‘the killing of al Z’
By 2.00 News reports talk of US spokesmen displaying photographs ‘apparently’ showing the dead body of al Z
Sure Zarqawi was called a terrorist; but not by the BBC. The Prime Minister of Iraq, the US ambassador to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock (former UK ambassador to theUN and former UK ambassador to Iraq), Tony Blair (self-styled British PM) all referred to this mass murderer as a terrorist. (I cannot say if Ann Clwyd (special envoy to Iraq) can be included in this group as the BBC transmitter went down for the two minute period of the interview)
What I don’t understand is why the BBC chose to play a recording of the words
of aZ exhorting Moslems to World Wide action against the west. A clear recording in Arabic with the translation in the background. Not just a translation with some faint mumbling in the background as the speaker’s native language proves to be less concise than English
Oh pardon me I just remembered part of a poem
“Les sanglots longs des violins de l'automne
Blessent mon cœur d'une langueur monotone" (The long sobs of autumn violins wound my heart with a montonous langour)
And al-Qa’Ida gets the same treatment. Is al-Qa’Ida referred to as a terrorist organisation? Not a chance.
This seems to be part of an ongoing ‘wash, rinse, spin’ cycle. Osama bin Laden is a Robin Hood figure, dodging the evil Coalition Forces. Al-Qa’Ida itself is an oppressed association of, well, nothing really…….
This is of course logical and fits in with the BBC reality.
There are no terrorists.
Two brothers held in a raid by Anti-Terrorist Police.
Are the police heavy handed?
Obviously: there are no terrorists.
Their neighbours protest outside the hospital where one of the brothers is being treated: perfectly understandable, the brothers are innocent because there are no terrorists
Just two days ago BBC R5 wanted to talk about the two brothers held by the police.
They talked to Bill Durodie, Senior Lecturer in Risk and Corporate Security Cranfield University.
Bill Durodie, asserted quite plainly, there is no World-Wide conspiracy against the West. It exists only in the heads of the Security Services.
‘The Ricin Plot in Manchester? There was no Ricin found.'
http://www.spiked-online.com/
Art...000000CA9A0.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/44.../uk/
4433459.stm
There are no terrorists.
There are only isolated, alienated individuals carrying out acts of desperation against society, like the Columbine High School massacre.’
Oh yeah?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2215988,00.html
archduke:
"The insurgents of Al Anbar - the local Sunnis - kicked him out of their province. That is why he was eventually terminated."
ah yes - thats correct. didnt the U.S. marines there report on the remarkable spectacle of two gangs of insurgents/terrorists shooting at each other!
archduke:
ITN , 6.30 news - they pull no punches
"butcher of baghdad" is the headline.
no problems using the "terror" word.
"how significant is this victory over terror?" asks the news presenter.
archduke:
ITN
"the Iraq PM made the announcement to the nation that he had terrorised"
archduke:
ITN news presenter:
"he was a terrorist for the modern age, who used the internet to broadcast his medieval murders"
good lord. are ITN turning into the Fox News of the UK?
I swear, after hearing the hang-wringing ,wimpish, apologetic BBC, this straightforwardness is refreshing.
dumbcisco:
Will Channel 4 News go alongside ITN and Sky in using the T word ?
That would leave the BBC more exposed to criticism - to a pasting.
archduke:
dumbcisco -> good point. i'll be switching over when its on and make a note of it here...
when even THE GUARDIAN are using the T word, then the BBC really doesnt have a leg to stand on.
if anything, this T word fiasco is a good case for a severe complaint.
archduke:
just got Jon Snow's "snowmail"
no T word unfortunately. but he go one further - more severe than "terrorist" - he uses the word "psychopath":
QUOTE:
"He’s been responsible for the beheading and slaughter of untold numbers of people. He was certainly a Godfather of the Sunni insurgency and specifically of targeted sectarian killings.
In short, one has to conclude that few people will mourn this psychopath's passing."
dumbcisco:
Yes, the BBC might be left absolutely alone in avoiding the T word while every UK TV channel or newspaper uses it.
This is in spite of the fact that the recent panel on Israeli/Palestinian affairs recommended the use of the T word for acts clearly targetting civilians. Which is pretty well all that Zarqawi did. Targetting THOUSANDS of civilians.
Frank Gardner, John Simpson and lots of others at the BBC need to get some history into the heads. Drop that clown Juan Cole - go to the most eminent commentator in the world on Islam :
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/
2...dex.php#a002359
A man who remembers appeasement back in the 1930s and can smell it now.
archduke:
c4 news
john snow
"....psychopathic leader of al qaeda in iraq..."
"He was the face of terror in Iraq..."
dumbcisco:
On the Channel 4 website is a headline "Terror chief "terminated" over a report by Alan Thomson.
http://www.channel4.com/news/spe...age.jsp?
id=2526
People are reporting that 7 of Zarqawi's senior aides were also killed. So it is NOT just a hit on one man who can easily be replaced, as the BBC has been half-suggesting today.
Roxana:
"By 1:15 Simon Mayo was already airing e-mails claiming Z’s death was an American act of assassination"
And the problem with that is? Since when is the leader of a terrorist ring not a legitimate target. If we deliberately set out to get Z and succeeded good on us!!
Gary Powell:
Roxana
Yes; In my opinion the reason may be partly this.
Ehere is a problem with your followers believing that what they are doing is in a large part THE WILL OF GOD,. When the ordinary people find that you are a loser or are indead loseing the illusion can quickly evaporate.
This is why in the past real overwhelming power has, for a fair while at least, always WORKED. People have a genuine instinct to follow the winning side. Being "sucessfull" in all religions I know, only happens by the will of god.
Remember the French resistance. We only started to hear much from these guys when they were sure the "yanks were coming."
Propergander had a lot to do with this in 1943/44.
Just imagine how much encouragement our enemies get from watching BBC and US MSM news coverage. The enemy can use the BBC etc, to justify saying to their followers that the American and British public are almost on the brink of a revolution.
The BBC has more blood on its hands, possibly than even Zarqawi himself.
I dont expect the BBC or any one else to report on what seems to me an obvious fact.
dave t:
Remember we started today with 'iraqi boy killed by british troops' on the Beeb as they tried to bring the story back to the nasty vicious colonisers?
No proof, no boy in hospital, BBC back pedalling like mad.....
By the way - go to dailykos and see the grief on display there....so sad. First comment 'justice is a bomb out of the sky'? You can't make it up with some of these funny people!
Oh and the BBC STILL don't have anything on the Americas part of their site about the REPUBLICAN wins in California...they have stuff from days ago but nothing from yesterday about the Democrat losses.....
Rick:
http://www.durodie.net/
anonymous:
By 1:15 Simon Mayo was already airing e-mails claiming Z’s death was an American act of assassination"
And the problem with that is? Since when is the leader of a terrorist ring not a legitimate target. If we deliberately set out to get Z and succeeded good on us!!
Roxana | 08.06.06 - 7:27 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Assassination is a political act and as 'War is a continuation of Politics by other means' the 'double tap' with 500lb bombs is legitimate.
But as the adjective 'American' is a pejorative in the BBC's Lexicon,
'an American act of assassination' acquires a different meaning when broadcast by MinTruth
archduke:
on here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5059494.stm
is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/s...ling/html/
1.stm
"zarqawi's hometown, zarqa, reacts to his killing - in pictures"
hippiepooter:
Zarqawi:
This time round, one hopes The Sun carries the headline 'Gotcha!'
Simon Mayo is a serial BBC leftie (and unlike a number of BBC Broadcasters who have the talent to justify their jobs but not the professional integrity) Mayo would barely justify a place on a school radio.
I wonder what made the likes of Simon Mayo feel more anguish, the beheadings of western hostages in Iraq or the whacking of the monster who did them?
archduke:
"This time round, one hopes The Sun carries the headline 'Gotcha'"
we should place bets on it.
my guess is that it'll be
"Rot in Hell"
the Sun headline writers will be doing some serious overtime tonight.
Market Participant:
@archduke
Z may have been the "Godfather" of the insurgency. He may have been a merciless thug, a shadowy figure, or a psychopath. He may have been associated with bombings, assassinations and the beheading of foreign hostages."
But he was not a terrorist. Why does BBC have a wierd sense of auto-mutism. Is it too much to ask that people not kill each other? And they when they do, that it be reported fairly and honestly.
korova:
'Just imagine how much encouragement our enemies get from watching BBC and US MSM news coverage. The enemy can use the BBC etc, to justify saying to their followers that the American and British public are almost on the brink of a revolution.
The BBC has more blood on its hands, possibly than even Zarqawi himself.'
No Gary, the US and UK governments actions make the enemy think we are on the brink of revolution. The very fact that they are dismantling our liberties piece by piece while the 'MSM' say nothing and do nothing (including the BBC) to highlight the very fact that the 'War on Terror' is nothing more than a ploy to keep us scared and allow governments to control us now more than ever.
The sad thing is that the majority of you guys on here feed the same lies as the 'MSM'. You are as much a part of the problem as the BBC and every other media outlet.
The truth is that governments (in conjunction with the media) have always found a new 'enemy' to control the population. Whether it be Bolshevist revolution in the 1920s, Fascism in the 1930s, Communism from the 1950s to the 1990s. Then we had a little lull while governments and the mainstream media sought new enemies. But thank god for the 'MSM' and some bloggers, we have a new enemy..........ISLAM.
Keep preaching the lies Biased BBC, your government needs you.
AntiCitizenOne:
"That Paul Pillar?"
You missed the fact he totally missed the ismalofascist attack on Sept 11 2001.
middle east expert? My F**king arse.
Anonymous:
korova
Many commentators here didn't vote for Blair's Government.
And you don't think Fascism was an enemy ? Or then Stalinism ?
Nice tinfoil hat you have there.
Time you went and did your homework.
archduke:
"The truth is that governments (in conjunction with the media) have always found a new 'enemy' to control the population. Whether it be Bolshevist revolution in the 1920s, Fascism in the 1930s"
so those Luftwaffe planes over London were really controlled by Churchill so, eh?
are you one of these people that believe in a worldwide Zionist conspiracy?
archduke:
"the very fact that the 'War on Terror' is nothing more than a ploy to keep us scared and allow governments to control us now more than ever."
you can be in favour of the war on terror, and be against Blair's liberty destroying laws.
its not that hard.
lurker:
korova
thanks for putting us straight.
now you can go back to planet moonbat.
AntiCitizenOne:
korova,
Have a shave with occams razor and stop beleiveing conspiracy theories.
I frequently walk past a mosque and I know what's going on and what the 'b'BC is covering up.
archduke:
interesting article on Times Online
http://
technology.timesonline.co...2214663,00.html
"An Internet trail left by a British computer expert has led investigators to an intricate terror network spreading from the backstreets of Baghdad through cells of young militants living in European capitals to Islamic extremists plotting car-bomb attacks in North America."
Umbongo:
And to get a disinterested and informed comment on Z's demise BBC 24 interviews James Zogby of the American Arab Institute http://www.militantislammonitor..../article/id/
304 , a spokesman from one of the 212,572 Muslim organisations in the UK and a representative from (the notoriously Arabist) Chatham House (see http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/
bl...hatham_hou.html )
Is this bias? No just a talk among old friends.
archduke:
QT on now.
galloway.. hmmm.. he's growing a beard.
archduke:
galloway - in full moral equivalence mode...
"bush and blair are biggest killers on the globe"... big applause.
dumbcisco:
But Paul Pillar is the sort of discredited "expert" that reith and the BBC just love.
Because he bashes Bush.
dumbcisco:
Kirsty Wark on Newsnight was criticising the fact that some civilians were killed in the Zarqawi raid.
Why aren't Yvonne Ridley's words being shoved down Galloway's throat.
dumbcisco:
Max Hastings has always been negative on Iraq. The LibDem is, well, LibDem.
Nice balance BBC.
joc:
Yes - Gorgeous George in fine form.
Looks like a well spiked audience.
archduke:
to be honest - it looks like he's really losing it.
korova:
I didn't say that the fascists were not a threat. Perhaps you guys should improve your reading skills. I said that the governments always have an enemy to focus the mind, whether real or imaginary. That is how they control the population.
For me, the 'moonbats' are the ones who believe everything their governments and the MSM tell them. Like the fact there is a shadowy terrorist organisation waiting to strike against the west. The reality is an ideology that radicalises individuals. The idea that there is an organised group is far easier for the public to comprehend than a bunch of loose cannons following some bizarre ideology. A group can be controlled and monitored. A single mad individual cannot for obvious reasons.
Ralph:
It's Ranting Time.
It's fascinating how Dimblebore always buts in with other guests but not Galloway.
I love it when Galloway asks a new MP if he said anything Parliament in the 1980s.
Grimer:
Galloway looks depressed. Anything to do with Zarqawi?
pete:
Roger Mosey, head of BBC sport tells us he is pleased that the BBC has kept the right to screen Premiership highlights. On Ceefax he says that all the 'main action' will be 'free to people' until 2010.
Free? Can I watch football on BBC without a licence fee?
Do the BBC staff know how their station is financed?
archduke:
Grimer -> i'm thinking the same thing too.
Grimer:
Galloway once again peddled out the lie that we armed Saddam. Why doesn't anybody ever take him to task and point out the facts?
His Socialist heroes armed Saddam (France, Russia and China). Germany provided the chemical weapons factory.
I don't understand why people just sit there and let him trot these lies out.
Grimer:
I'm recording it on my PC. If anybody wants clips made available on You Tube, jot down the times and I'll try and get them online in the next couple of days.
archduke:
"I didn't say that the fascists were not a threat. Perhaps you guys should improve your reading skills. I said that the governments always have an enemy to focus the mind, whether real or imaginary. That is how they control the population."
so churchill stayed up all night thinking
"hmmm.. how can i control the population this week.. hmmm"
sorry mate. you can take your paranoid fantasies elsewhere - i'd suggest MPAC UK, they'd love you.
archduke:
grimer -> thanks.
galloway ranting has happened pretty much all the way through.
its 23:02 right now, and we're onto a question about yvonne ridley.
archduke:
he's having a rant about the police in forest gate.
Ralph:
Rants are his default status.
archduke:
galloway - "there is no al qaeda"
23:04
Ritter:
QT audience 15%+ muslim? Maybe because it's a 'special' programme?
archduke:
"I don't understand why people just sit there and let him trot these lies out."
damn good point.
watch through your recording - galloway never mentions the French - who supplied a frigging nuclear reactor to Saddam...
its all bush/blair.
Grimer:
They keep cutting to shots of Galloway and he looks like he's going to cry.
Nobody else, is getting a look-in
archduke:
to be honest - this panel is crap. it really needs somebody like Peter Hitchens or Freddie Forsyth or Norman Tebbit (pbuh) to counter the Galloway ranting... and to really pin him down and demolish his arguments. this isnt happening.
I'm staggered that Liam Fox is letting him get away with this.
Grimer:
Tebbit versus Galloway would be superb. I know why the BBC would never set it up, but it would undoubtedly go down as the most explosive/electric QT ever.
archduke:
jesus h christ ... galloway is really losing it.
liam fox - "george, just calm down..."
Grimer:
23:12
"Was the Brazillian Boy shot and slandered?"
(it is not possible to slander the dead)
Umbongo:
archduke
"I'm staggered that Liam Fox is letting him get away with this"
It's all part of the constructive opposition (= no opposition) policy of the so-called Conservatives. Find something positive in what Galloway (or any other shite) is saying and agree with it. That way we make ourselves electable - as if.
Grimer:
Over time, I've really come to respect Tebbit. He'd eat Galloway for breakfast. But of course he is 'an old Tory dinosaur', so he's been sidelined.
archduke:
same here grimer. the man is fountain of 100 per cent common sense.
Grimer:
Great comment from the audience regarding the PC obsession destroying the Police's ability to do their job.
archduke:
there was one shot a few minutes ago that went to galloway's face - yeah- he sure did look as if he was going to cry.
archduke:
pc obsession -> yeah, but it got short shrift. onto the next item..nobody on the panel followed it up.
Grimer:
Dimbleby didn't seem keen to explore that one, did he?
archduke:
english flag issue - everyone lying through their teeth. even galloway , with his support of the england team.
yeah right.
if tottenham were playing madrid in some UEFA cup final, would arsenal supporters be cheering on tottenham cos they were fellow londoners? course not.
i'm irish - but living in england. but it'd be bloody ridiculous for me to go walking around in a england shirt , waving an england flag. lets be honest here...
archduke:
but may i add - i love england , and love living here. but when it comes to footie, its a bit more tribal.
archduke:
on teletext:
"what is this? a galloway political broadcast?"
that beard though...hmmm. might we see galloway making a visit to a certain area of saudi arabia , around november?
[i'm trying my best not to say anything libellous]
archduke:
liam fox comes down on the side of censoring rap/hip hop - he mentions the "social impact"
oh dear. shades of the anne windecombe statist mindset there i think.
dumbcisco:
The BBC seem to have overlooked the fact that Hamas has issued a statement regretting the death of Zarqawi :
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/
724681.html
Of course we should send them shiploads more taxpayers' money.
korova:
Galloway once again peddled out the lie that we armed Saddam. Why doesn't anybody ever take him to task and point out the facts?
His Socialist heroes armed Saddam (France, Russia and China). Germany provided the chemical weapons factory.
I don't understand why people just sit there and let him trot these lies out.
Grimer, you are right we did not 'arm' Iraq, we merely provided them with the funds to buy the military hardware they required. Not to mention the BNL scandal. 'We' just were a little more subtle than Russia, France and China. I suggest you read this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...SAEBB/NSAEBB82/
It's all in the national archives.
Oh yes, might be worth noting that 'Germany' did not exist during this period.
dumbcisco:
Germany didn't exist ? That's funny, I served in Germany in the early 1960s and visited a few times in the 1980s.
I must have been imagining it.
dumbcisco:
Apparently the applause at the press conference when Zarqawis death was announced was just the Iraqi journalists. The Western MSM reps did not clap, just folded their arms.
I bet the BBC didn't applaud. Their fox had just been shot.
archduke:
korova -> nobody doubts that the UK and U.S. governments were involved in some wayt with the arming of Saddam in the 1980s
the point grimer was making was that Galloway is allowed to rant about the UK/USA exclusively arming Saddam - while Dimbelbey looks on, doesnt interrupt and doesnt mention the French, Russian, German angle.
archduke:
"Apparently the applause at the press conference when Zarqawis death was announced was just the Iraqi journalists."
true. i got word of that too. a collective sigh of relief.
Grimer:
We didn't give Saddam $30 billion. Get real. The man had oil coming out of his ears and spent the proceeds on Migs, T64s, T72s, Mirage jets, etc.
Look at:
http://www.sipri.org
http://www.sipri.org/contents/ar...04.pdf/
download
http://www.sipri.org/contents/ar...04.pdf/
download
Gary Powell:
Korova
We had a Conservative government for 18 glorious years in that time we had one war that lasted less then 3 months. so I dont know what you mean by "ALL GOVERNMENTS."
The BBC, MSM or Tony Blair ( I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE ) did not want or cause 9/11 7/7 or the hundreds of recent terrorist attacks all over the world, since the mid 90s.
The twin towers HAPPENED OK you did not DREAM IT. However the BBC does give our nation and our allies enemies the oxygen of publicity, the BBC much more then most, and much much more then it has to.
Hinding ones head in the proverbial sand never helped anything ever. I personaly have no problem with you doing this if it helps you get though your day. However I have four children and feel a resposibiliy to see them not only live to grow up . But also to grow up in a free country, and possibly a safe free world. As Archduke says you can fight terrorism without destroying the British peoples freedom. If that is what you want to do and the people that vote for you also want this. In a democracy you will not stay in power for long if you dont do what the people want.
Socialists dont give a damm about freedom, never have and never will. They dont even use the word if they can avoid it. Except when describing something they allow a enemy of the British people to have. I despise all government efforts to restrict the personal freedom of all law abiding British people, wherever they were born. The best and most practical way of doing this is making sure thay as much as humanly possible are not in the country in the first place. If they are found locked up for the rest of their natural lives. There is no sane person that thinks any different. Before wondering if WE have taken in PROPERGANDER look in the mirror first, then look into your childrens eyes, if you have any. Then wonder how stupid you would feel if one of those non-exsistent unorganised missguided muslim friends of yours blew your kidds legs off, on the way to school.
It is not the MSM that blows up the people of the worlds confidence in the country in which they live, it is a delliberate policy of our enemies. This is the nature of terrorism, acheiving something without the need for a large expensive army. The BBC is the terrorists biggest and stongest weapon it can use and they are quite aware of this FACT. Trust me on that one.
BTW how do you think a small poor country like Viet-nam "defeated" the most powerfull army in the world, if not by useing the western media as a tool? Apart from the draft I dont recall civil rights in America being curtailed because of the war. It may have escaped your notice that the American army has no conscripts anymore, this is very largly because of Viet-nam.
Grimer:
Britain's arms supplies to Iraq account for about 0.3% of the total.
To claim "we armed Saddam" is a lie. Pure and simple.
Gary Powell:
AnotherBTW
There will never be a revolution in Britain while there is a Labour government. This is because it is only the Labour movement that could ever organise such a thing.
There could never be one in America because Americans might moan a bit but they nearly all LOVE their country, and so they should.
archduke:
"To claim "we armed Saddam" is a lie. Pure and simple."
i think the yanks provided the funds - to counter the Iranian invasion.
so , technically, we didnt "arm" him - but we did support him. but galloway and his ilk ignores the geopolitical consequences of NOT supporting saddam at the time.
it would have allowed the Iranians to conquer the saudi oil fields.
archduke:
we can nitpick away Grimer - but didnt the BBC broadcast, in the wake of Saddam's defeat, wall to wall Russian tanks?
funny how galloway forgets that in his "bush/blair armed saddam" rants.
boblog:
Dumbcisco, 08.06.06 - 5:23 pm
'Let's say it plain in case you misread some of the comments here.'
Sorry, it was a sad attempt at irony on my part. I understand why he is not universally admired.
Gary Powell:
Grimer
And I think you will find that most of that .3% was things like army cooking equipment.
The fact that I have spoken to life long Tory voters that take that large slice of Gallowian Propergander, as "inconvenient TRUTH "is very serious.
I see our current western problems in the world, not caused by to much FREE WORLD propergander.
IT IS CAUSED BY 60 YEARS OF A COMPLEAT ABSENSE OF ANY AT ALL
Coca-COLA may be good at selling coke, but fairly crap at selling an ideology.
Grimer:
Here are the Galloway clips:
Do with them, what you will.
I'm off to bed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m...h?
v=mXTchOuHmFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s...h?v=s2-
EB34zXG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...h?
v=Kro2feMp4Gw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B...h?
v=BaHmW1MgIxI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i...h?
v=izfz2oXGUvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?
v=gMPPuvua31M
boblog:
Korova 08.06.06 - 10:07 pm 08.06.06 - 10:59 pm
Well that's alright then. I can stop worrying. Your lucid and thorough presentation of the relevant facts and telling turn of phrase have convinced me that there are no more Islamic Terrorists. What a relief. The BBC were right all along. Goodnight everyone. Sleep tight.
Gary Powell:
Archduke
I think you will find that the Americans "funded" Saddam by BUYING his oil. Also by not stopping other countries supplying him with arms. Not exactly a moral outrage when your allies enemy wants to start an Iranian stile Islamic revolution all over half the worlds oil supplies. With the dedicated conviction to wipe out the Israeli nation and all its people.
But dont tell the likes of Korova because to him/her they are just a bunch of unorganised non-exsistant misfits with a social problem.
How many Iraqis and Iranians does the likes of Korova think died in that war, over nothing very important really?
Where would the world be now if the Iraqis had been sweeped from the field by the far bigger Iranian Army? We might already have had nuclear bombs going off in the area at least. One thing for sure we would be in a much worse possition than we are now.
dumbcisco:
Frank Gardner on BBC 24 Hours gives a detailed profile of Zarqawi. NEVER uses the T word.
Market Participant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5062360.stm
"He was one of Israel's most wanted men in Gaza, and was thought to be involved in a 2003 attack on a US convoy."
And the BBC fails to mention that it was a Diplomatic Convey, and that three security guards were killed and a US diplomat severely wounded.
Market Participant:
"Despite the outcome of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, in which Israeli occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount, the enclosure and the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and a superb range of Muslim Medieval buildings, remain under the jurisdiction of the Muslim religious authorities who control its day-to-day activities."
How about mentioning that the Israeli authorities specifically restored the Islamic waqf to control the temple mount. This was quite controversial in the israeli government at the time
Rick:
How about noting that The Dome on The Rock is an illegal settlement on Jewish holy ground
Rick:
Where would the world be now if the Iraqis had been sweeped from the field by the far bigger Iranian Army?
Probably where we would be if the Germans had swept the British from the Western Front..............ie. nowhere because neither side could gain a victory, it was stalemate.
The real issue is had Bremer not disbanded the Iraqi Army would we now have any terrorism in Iraq ?
Rick:
i think the yanks provided the funds - to counter the Iranian invasion.
No I don't think so.
I think Saudi Arabia did - it was afraid of Shia threats to its Sunni traditions. France and Russia and China supplied the kit - after all it was a Super Etendard which fired the Exocet at USS Stark - flown by an Iraqi pilot.
pounce:
Biased BBC and its continuing drip, dripping of anti English sentiments towards the typical English supporter;
“With the start of the 2006 World Cup just hours away, the UK's bookmakers must be praying that England do not go all the way in Germany.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
5051276.stm
But how they lament for this football team over how they failed to get to Germany?
“World Cup Inshallah, a film following the difficult formation, training and World Cup qualifying attempts of the Palestinian national team, will receive its UK premiere in London on Thursday.
Of all the teams that battled it out on the pitch to qualify for this year's World Cup, the Palestinian national team had its own particular conflict to endure.
Made up of a disparate group of players from the occupied territories, Lebanon, Kuwait, Chile and the United States, it was only recognised by Fifa in 1996 and has so far failed to qualify for any major international tournaments.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
5049878.stm
Eamonn:
Sometimes the BBC just go too far.
Witness on Today at 7.35am the analysis and interviews with regard to 3 Para actions in Afghanistan. After arriving in a certain area, within seconds 3 Para came under heavy attack by Taliban fighters. Over the next few hours 3 Para dispatched up to 50 Taleban without taking casualties. But rather than celebrating yet another superb feat of arms by our first class soldiers, the BBC instead worries about civilian casualties, hearts and minds etc. At one point the interviewer questions whether one Taleban fighter (now very dead courtesy of 3 ara bullets) was trying to usher civilians away from danger rather than using them for cover.
What gutless depths will the BBC not go to? Just for once, can't they simply rejoice in the fantastic military that this country is fortunate to have, rather than whining about the human rights of barbaric theocratic fascists?
Eamonn:
You lot only have yourselves to blame; I did warn you not to bother watching QT last night. I think the best policy is simply to ignore Galloway, otherwise your blood pressure will simply go up.
Are you willing to learn? If so, then at all costs avoid Any Questions on Radio 4 tonight, as John Pilger is on. You have been warned! Also avoid Any Answers tomorrow, which will feature Pilger groupies phoning in.
Eamonn:
According to the Independent (see extract below), Zarqawi was a creation of the Americans, so Bush is to blame. Wonderful. However, I have no doubt that this is a view held by many in the BBC news rooms; they just can't say it openly.
Indy:-
"It was the end of a strange but murderous career. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a little-known Jordanian petty criminal turned Islamic fundamentalist fanatic until he was denounced by the US in 2003 as an insurgent leader of great importance.
This enabled him to recruit men and raise money to wage a cruel war, mostly against Iraqi civilians."
Instead the BBC in its typical "Independent-lite" fashion says such things as:-
"President George W Bush has said the death would help "turn the tide" in Iraq - but there are real doubts over whether it can turn around the tide of American public opinion. Saddam's capture gave Mr Bush only a temporary blip in the polls, and that was at an early stage in the war when the public was far more optimistic than at present. Growing anxiety over Iraq since then has helped drive down the president's public approval ratings."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5061838.stm
and of course, the BBC finishes its main article on the website with:-
"The violence in Iraq continued on Thursday, with at least 35 people killed in a spate of bombings in Baghdad."
Elsewhere the BBC website opines:-
"But the insurgents might also use this as a chance to refocus their campaign, perhaps concentrating their fire on the security forces, and away from the attacks on civilians that Zarqawi pursued so cynically.
That in turn could help the fractured insurgency to work together more effectively, and might also help them win more support from the Iraqi people."
Perhaps not really Indy-lite, but Indy-heavy.
Also the Today programme wheeled on Jeremy Bowen to give the Imprimatur to this view with:-
"Iraq will be a mess for many years to come".
So it wasn't before the fall of Saddam, Jeremy?
Bryan:
Biodegradable | 08.06.06 - 3:25 pm,
Rockets fired by Palestinians often land in Israeli border towns, occasionally causing casualties.
It must have cost the BBC dearly to inch a little closer to the truth about the Kassams. It must have been a real wrench for the poor darlings.
But it's unlikely that they will actually tell the truth:
Rockets fired by Palestinians often land in Israeli border towns, occasionally causing fatalities.
The blogosphere will make sure that the Bullsh*t Backfiring Company's bullsh*t continues to backfire on them.
gordon-bennett:
Eamonn | 09.06.06 - 8:09 am
Remember the term "pilgerisation", ie out-Mooreing Michael Moore.
Michael Moore was the bastard love-child of John Pilger and Noam Chomsky (in an "intellectual" rather reproductive sense).
Bryan:
You lot only have yourselves to blame; I did warn you not to bother watching QT last night. I think the best policy is simply to ignore Galloway, otherwise your blood pressure will simply go up.
I dunno about that. I like to think it's possible to keep plugging away at the BBC and its fellow-travellers without smashing your screen.
Eamonn:
Bryan
Probably right, but on a personal basis think of your own cardiovascular health when exposed to Galloway on a regular basis. I would suggest that Biased BBCers who regularly watch Galloway, Pilger, Ridley, Bunglawala etc should be prescribed a combination of beta blockers and statins. Regular Today listeners like myself, whilst still at risk, can probably manage on a salt free low cholesterol diet.
Bryan:
dumbcisco | 08.06.06 - 5:23 pm,
He is merely "distasteful" said John Simpson.
Yeah, and Frank Gardner regards suicide bombing as an "unpleasant" aspect of Islam.
DumbJon:
Hey, wasn't the excuse for the behaviour that gave Don't Have Your Say its name that they needed to keep censoring/deleting stuff to exclude extremists ?
I just wondering in the light of what's on page 1 of the Zed's Dead thread at the moment:
the death of heroic Al Qaeda leader will slow down the insurgency for a moment, two or three days. but like what they say, the death of one great man will lead us to the newborn of thousand great man. believe me, it's mean nothing but two or three days headlines in a major newspaper.
zulhazry, kuala lumpur, malaysia
So, if you've ever been censored by DHYS, this is how to get published.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...5325&
#paginator
Grimer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5062360.stm
Wanted militant dies in Gaza raid
He was one of Israel's most wanted men in Gaza, and was thought to be involved in a 2003 attack on a US convoy.
Not too sure what to make of that last bit... Are they saying he 'worked' in Iraq, or did he attack American forces in Israel?
dumbcisco:
The line now being taken by the BBC is "Zarqawi is dead BUT......" They are in lockstep on this. The party line has been defined.
It is positively Stalinist the way the de facto ban on the T words stops EVERY BBC commentator from using the T word. Has ANYONE at the BBC used it yesterday or today ? Do people get punished if they use it ? Are they all sheep ? It is not just the Middle East staff plus Gardner and Simpson (and Paul Reynolds ?) - it is all the people in London too. There appears to have been an absolute taboo on the T word for Zarqawi, and on this occasion the BBC looks to be totally isolated among all the British media.
But they are not content with
failing to call him a terrorist - a moral failure. They report that he has been responsible for myriad major and minor atrocities - but then try to minimise his significance. The Coalition and Iraqi forces kill Zarqaqi, his "spiritual advisor" and 6 other leading Al Q members (the top grouping ?), and carry out a total of 17 raids - but somehow the effectiveness of Al Q in Iraq will not be harmed ? The Iraqis dance in the streets - but Al Q has not suffered a serious reverse ? Zarqawi is shown to be a "weak horse" - but there will be no effect on recruiting ? His financial web is broken - but that will hardly matter ? There won't be an accretion of support towards constitutional government, towards the efforts of the new group of ministers to curb the violence ? There won't be a significant boost to the morale of the strengthening Iraqi army and police force ?
All these "minimal lasting effect of Zarqawi's termination" arguments are being trotted out by BBC staff left right and centre - even though many of them have nil grounds or experience to make such claims. It is all pure speculation on their part - and of course all their speculation is negative to the Coalition cause. They try comparing it to the capture of Saddam - but Saddam was not actively ORGANISING terrorism, was not ACTIVELY CONDUCTING TERRORIST ACTS.
Here are a couple of articles countering the BBC's view :
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...to_alqaeda.html
and Chris Hitchens :
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...to_alqaeda.html
Out of interest - has ANYONE heard ANYONE at the BBC apply the T-word to Zarqawi in the past 24 hours ?
Alsia Bavary:
ultimaestrazionesuperenalotto
un-attimo.gif
venditacolonnesonore
Bryan:
Out of interest - has ANYONE heard ANYONE at the BBC apply the T-word to Zarqawi in the past 24 hours ?
Nope.
Re Saddam, he may not have been involved in terrorism al-Qaeda style, but obviously terrorised his own people. And of course he promoted Palestinian terror against Israelis by funding the families of suicide bombers.
I wonder which Iraqis, if any, have been handed that particular baton.
But of course it's ludicrous to compare Saddam's capture and Zarqawi's killing.
Ritter:
I like to think of my wife as your average viewer/listener of BBC output. She's not that interested in news or current affairs, but sees and hears enough to have a superficial knowledge of what's going on....... from the BBC.
Last night we were watching news at 10. Zarkawi killed. Then the BBC mention that maybe 6 civilians dies also. Wife says "That's terrible, why didn't they just arrest him (Zarkawi)?"
I asked her "Do you know what an evil, dangerous man he was, what he had done?" Nope. She hadn't a clue. I had the laptop out so straight to Fox news website to show her some details.
The BBC never said Zarkawi was a Terrorist, infact they have made him out to be some sort of Iraqi "freedom fighter" when he is neither Iraqi, and has killed plenty innocent Iraqi's.
Good example of bias by omission.
................
Bolton was good on R4 Today this morning. I think I am quoting correctly:
Naughtie: "UN deputy blah says the US should blah blah..."
Bolton: "Here's how it is. The elected governments tell the UN officials what to do, not the other way around."
Fantastic.
John Bolton on the UN
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
toda...on_20060609.ram
gordon-bennett:
Out of interest - has ANYONE heard ANYONE at the BBC apply the T-word to Zarqawi in the past 24 hours ?
dumbcisco | 09.06.06 - 9:38 am
I have heard just one use of the T word. It was during PM yesterday (Wed).
Eddie Mair introduced a report thus:
"Dominic Arkwright reports now on how a former videoshop worker became such a bogeyman."
[Bogeyman? Did he jump out in front of kids and shout boo?]
DA's report started...
"When he died Al Z was the most ruthless and wanted terrorist in Iraq...".
Listen Again shows it at about 17.33.
gordon-bennett:
dumbcisco | 09.06.06 - 9:38 am
The 2 links you show go to the same place.
Anonymous:
g-b
Sorry. Here is the chris Hitchens link :
http://www.slate.com/id/2143305/...43305/nav/tap1/
gordon-bennett:
Let's clear up this Al Z was promoted by the Coalition solely for PR reasons crap.
If the Coalition had wanted to big up Al Z then the beeb and the msm would have ignored him.
How do I know this? Because the Coalition puts out a lot of reports about progress in repairing the Iraqi infrastructure and almost none of it gets published by the beeb or msm.
Anonymous:
Eamonn wrote:
"Are you willing to learn? If so, then at all costs avoid Any Questions on Radio 4 tonight, as John Pilger is on. You have been warned! Also avoid Any Answers tomorrow, which will feature Pilger groupies phoning in."
The arguments(??) of Galloway and Pilger are not difficult to refute: I could do it. The BBC's trick is that it ensures that no-one is present on the debating panel who will do just that. Having Liam Fox on with George Galloway was no accident. And I will wager that no-one willing to challenge the lies and falsehoods peddled by John Pilger will be on AQ tonight.
Umbongo:
Anonymous
I think you've got it absolutely right. We all know EXACTLY the Pilger/Galloway line on their favourite themes. These lines have been solidly refuted by endless articles (yes even in the MSM) let alone on endless blogs. The same has happened to Robert Fisk (which is why analytical in-depth exposure of crap is called fisking). All it would have taken is for Fox to have done 5 minutes homework to see off Galloway. But for some reason he stayed his hand. And the same should happen tonight on Any Questions (but it won't).
Ritter:
BBC ups it's revenue base to include all companies with a PC....
Watching World Cup online could land you in court
http://www.theregister.co.uk/200...net_tv_licence/
"Employees watching World Cup matches on the internet without a TV licence could for the first time land company directors in court as the TV Licensing Authority extends its World Cup clampdown to broadband and internet usage."
dumbcisco:
Ritter
The BBC Scottish Labour mafia were all over John Bolton.
As well as Naughtie on Today - Kirsty Wark had two clips with him on Newsnight - describing him as "hawkish". Don't they ever get tired of these worn-out epithets. The first was 7 minutes in, getting his comments on Zarqawi. I thought Bolton should have reached across and throttled her to stop her wittering. She was about as juvenile as that kid that Dimbleby asked two comments from last night. "Ooo-er, isn't war horrible". Wark was trying to say that the insurgency was caused by the Americans.
Later she had a panel discussion including Abdul Bari Atawn -the Arab with funny eyes they always trot on even though he gets hysterical, last night he was forecasting an increase in violence - plus William Shawcross who slapped Atwan down as the raving loonie he is, and tried to put Wark right when she asked totally silly questions like "Is this the time to start withdrawing troops?"
The second snip of Wark versus John Bolton was when they switched to the spat with Mark Malloch Brown - the PR/lobbyist guy now Kofi Annan's deputy. This starts at 30 minutes in. Liz MacKean gave an intro that was fair to the US attitude towards the UN, and even the Chatham House guy was critical of Malloch Brown. But Wark was having none of this :
Wark - "When was the last time you went on TV to say how great the UN is ?"
Bolton - long pause "I tell the truth"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ght/
default.stm
Having both Bolton (even though cast as a villain) and William Shawcross on Newnight was delicious. Telling it like it is.
dumbcisco:
William Manchester is the guy to "fisk" John Pilger or George Galloway.
Anonymous:
Why is the BBC dredging up Pilger again ? I thought he was over the hill ?
Oh no - the BBC have a penchant for gaga lefties - Pilger/Benn/Hurd/Jimmy Carter/Giscard/Ming/Kofi
dumbcisco:
anon at 11.13am was me
Ritter:
Having both Bolton (even though cast as a villain) and William Shawcross on Newnight was delicious. Telling it like it is.
dumbcisco | 09.06.06 - 11:05 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
dumisco - I saw Shawcross v Abdul Bari Atawn last night and pretty good it was too. Shawcross tried hard to out Abdul as an apologist for Saddam and Zararwi, which just made Abdul go into hysterical eye bulging mode. You could see Shawcross thinking "my work here is done, just wind him up and let him go....."
Bryan:
HYS moderators must have loved this comment from an unpatriotic American:
Added: Friday, 9 June, 2006, 02:00 GMT 03:00 UK
I'll be watching the Cup on ESPN and Univision here in America, but I'll be hoping to see the US team fall flat on its face to show the world that the USA cannot dominate in all international affairs.
Keith Bramstedt, San Anselmo, California, USA
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060609105100
This is one response he got:
Oh, c'mon Keith, that's not what it's all about. I'm just a "soccer mom" but even I know that. Lighten up - or better yet, go kick a ball around. GO USA! GO ENGLAND!
Ann Curtin, Annapolis,Maryland, United States
I've been boycotting cable and satellite TV for a few years now because of the way they keep raising the price for fewer channels while having the breathtaking cheek to call these rip-offs 'sales'.
Anyone know if BBC World will have any of the games online?
I think I've earned a free game or two, having waded for years through the propagandist crap the BBC pumps out.
Umbongo:
David Starkey (fellow guest on Any Questions) might fisk Pilger - if he's allowed to - but I wouldn't bet on it. BTW look forward to an avalanche of Pilger support on Any Answers on Saturday.
D Burbage:
John Simpson's report on al-Z last night: seemed to come from London. He was in a suit and tie and clearly in a studio. I wonder if this is the (feeble) reason behind his self-indulgent, mournful gloomy and dejected "war is lost" report the other day, strolling in the park with his mate.
Bad timing pulling him out just as al-Z got killed.....
dumbcisco:
The BBC keeps describing Zarqawi as an "insurgent".
This is surely a misuse of English.
Isurgency means to RISE UP in one's own country - to throw off what is perceived as an oppressive yoke. To REBEL. Like the Maoists in Nepal are genuinely insurgent. The Malay communists were insurgent. Eoka was insurgent.
There are times when the methods of insurgency shift across into terrorism - when the targets of the insurgents are not the military but are the civilians.
Insurgency does NOT mean a Jordanian INVADING Iraq and bringing hundreds of other invading jihadis in from Syria, Yemen, Saudi, Britain etc etc. Especially when the methods are almost entirely terrorist - kidnappings of civilians, attacks on civilian men, women and children at weddings, mosques, in the market etc.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dicti...ry?
va=insurgent
http://www.answers.com/topic/insurgent
http://dict.die.net/insurgent/
Zarqawi could have been an insurgent in Jordan. But he was NOT an insurgent in Iraq. He was a terrorist invader.
dumbcisco:
Any sign of Paul Reynolds these days ? The BBC has been behaving especially badly recently. Why ?
reith is a poor substitute/no substitute for Mr Reynolds, who at least tries to answer questions.
Umbongo:
dumbcisco
"Having both Bolton (even though cast as a villain) and William Shawcross on Newnight was delicious. Telling it like it is."
I don't think the BBC will make that mistake again in the near future.
Abdul Bari Atwan is a regular on BBC 24's Dateline London chaired these days by Gavin Esler. He (ABA) is allowed to rave uninterrupted and unchalleged by Esler or the other 3 journalists, even by those who you might consider would oppose his views. Let's be charitable and assume that BBC policy is to let this particular loony tunes contributor say his bit and then to allow the other panellists to continue the discussion on a more rational basis (rational in this case = the usual anti-Bush, anti-American etc agenda but at lower volume and slower speed of address).
dumbcisco:
We'll soon have the BBC pushing the Al Gore film on global warming (even though Columbia have taken his name off the posters as it damages audience appeal).
Here's a pre-fisking of the movie, before Wark gushes over it.
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...like_scien.html
Biodegradable:
Grimer:
He was one of Israel's most wanted men in Gaza, and was thought to be involved in a 2003 attack on a US convoy.
Not too sure what to make of that last bit... Are they saying he 'worked' in Iraq, or did he attack American forces in Israel?
Market Participant ponted out above:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9804100/
#286828
And the BBC fails to mention that it was a Diplomatic Convey, and that three security guards were killed and a US diplomat severely wounded.
The ambush occured in "Palestinian" controlled Gaza or the West Bank, I can't remember which.
Rachel:
June 2006 | 123 » Web exclusive » Bias at the Beeb
The BBC's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is riddled with bias
by Michael Gove&Mark Dooley
Michael Gove is a Conservative MP and author of “Celsius 7/7,” a study of Islamist terror published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson this month. Mark Dooley is a political commentator and columnist for the Sunday Independent
http://www.prospect-magazine.co....ils.php?
id=7483
Anonymous:
Rachel
Excellent article.
As I have said here before, I dealt with Quentin Thomas 20 years ago when he was in the broadcasting division of the Home Office. He was evasive, defensive of the BBC position, and proved to be totally wrong in the line he took. That abortive line cost the BBC at least £30 million in cash in 1986 prices, and directly resulted in the BBC losing any proper place in satellite TV.
dumbcisco:
anon at 12.21 was me
Bryan:
Biodegradable - it was in Gaza. I still find it incredible that the Americans appeared to have done nothing about it.
HYS has an reactively-moderated topic:
How will you watch the World Cup?
Tell us the story and send us the pictures of your World Cup
How are you preparing to support your national team in the World Cup?
We want to see your pictures and hear your stories of the tournament. English fans have already sent us photos of homes, pubs and places of work decked out with England flags. We also want to see pictures from across the world. Are you covering your home or bar in your national flag? Send your photos now to yourpics@bbc.co.uk
Where will you mark your team's successes or failures? Have you heard some gossip that we haven't reported?
Or have you made preparations to watch the action at home or in your local bar? Do you plan to watch the action from somewhere a little unusual? If so, we would like to hear from you.
We are also giving you the opportunity to produce short films using your 3G phone or video camera, showing your preparations, celebrations or commiserations.
Send your pictures and video to yourpics@bbc.co.uk, or by mms by dialling +44 (0)7725 100100 and 3G: +44 (0)7888 100 100.
Published: Wednesday, 31 May, 2006, 13:50 GMT 14:50 UK
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060609121835
Silly me, I thought I'd make a reactively-moderated contribution:
Added: Friday, 9 June, 2006, 11:15 GMT 12:15 UK
With difficulty.
The 'non-political' FIFA chose to censure Israel for firing at an empty Palestinian soccer field used to fire rockets at Israel while completely ignoring the fact that Palestinian rockets narrowly missed people on a soccer field on a kibbutz.
Yet rogue nation Iran is welcomed as an honoured member of the international sporting community.
I love soccer and will try to catch a few of the games. But I certainly wont be lining FIFA's pockets to do so.
HYS deleted my comment after it was up for about a half an hour.
BBC bias? What bias!?
Ritter:
BBC blowing their own trumpet with trheir new Ross deal:
TV host Ross signs new BBC deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
5063110.stm
So, how much will the Ross deal cost licence fee payers? Strange, the BBC article doesn't tell us.
Ross wooed back to BBC with £18m deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1773
£18million over 3 years? Methinks the BBC have far too much money.
Biodegradable:
Bryan,
It looks like the "Palestinians" are trying to use the World Cup as an excuse for a hudna:
Palestinian fighter urges truce during World Cup
Zakariyah Zubaidi, a commander of the Aksa Martyrs' Brigade, said a few weeks of peace and security was what was needed from both sides so that everybody could enjoy the football. "We are a nation that encourages sports and we, like other nations, like to watch and to follow the World Cup in peace and security," Zubaidi said in the town of Jenin.
That'll be why they previously threatened to kill Arabs who played a "friendly" match against an Israeli team.
"We undertake to be committed to calm so that our neighbours, the Israelis, can also feel at ease watching the World Cup in peace," he said, adding that he hoped Israel would suspend patrols in towns in the occupied West Bank.
Sure, that would be handy wouldn't it? A good chance to move more weapons and explosives in.
Meanwhile the Beeb thinks its all about money:
World Cup unity in the West Bank
It is about the only issue Israelis and Palestinians can agree upon. The TV subscription rates to watch the football World Cup are too high.
RB:
World cup peace.
Like El Salvador and Honduras in 1969 presumably.
Bryan:
Hmmm, well the Paleolithics would like to set the agenda with yet another false truce, but the Israelis cottoned on to the trick long ago.
I've also observed that every time the Israelis are pounding the terrorists particularly effectively they shout "truce."
Rachel:
OT, sorry completely off subject, but I feel some of you (even if one) might benefit from this information:
extremely vicious computer virus
Subject: Fw: Please Read and Send Out ASAP
1. Emails with pictures of Osama Bin-Laden hanged are being sent and the moment that you open these emails your computer will crash and you will not be able to fix it!
This e-mail is being distributed through countries around the globe, but mainly in the US and Israel.
Don't be inconsiderate; send this warning to
whomever you know.
If you get an email along the lines of "Osama Bin
Laden Captured" or "Osama Hanged" don't open the attachment.
2. Please read the attached warning issued today.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS WARNING AMONG FRIENDS, FAMILY AND CONTACTS: ;
You should be alert during the next days:
Do not open any message with an attached filed
called "Invitation" regardless of who sent it .
It is a virus that opens an Olympic Torch which "burns" the whole hard disc C of your computer. This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list, that is why you should send this e-mail to all your contacts. It is better to receive this message 25 times than to receive the virus and open it.
If you receive a mail called "invitation", though sent by a friend, do not open it and shut down your computer immediately.
This is the worst virus announced by CNN, it has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever.
This virus was discovered by McAfee yesterday, and there is no repair yet for this kind of virus.
This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, & gt; where the vital information is kept.
SEND THIS E-MAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, COPY THIS E-MAIL AND SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS AND REMEMBER: IF YOU SEND IT TO THEM, YOU WILL BENEFIT ALL OF US.
Ritter:
Zarqawi 'survived initial strike'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5064590.stm
"Zarqawi had "mumbled something indistinguishable but it was very short", the US spokesman added.
Bet the Beeb are looking for a 'human rights' angle here. It's highly likely his last words were "Allah Akbar.." or similar....
D Burbage:
Rachel:
It's a hoax. Please try to check these things out before spamming!!
http://www.breakthechain.org/
exc...ympicvirus.html
D Burbage:
as is the other one
http://antivirus.about.com/od/
em...osamahanged.htm
Biodegradable:
Rachel,
Its always a good idea to check these things at snopes.com before forwarding to all your friends thus making a fool of yourself.
I'd also suggest that its hardly ever a good idea to post "virus warnings" on blogs or discussion forums.
see here: http://www.snopes.com/computer/v.../
invitation.asp
and here: http://www.snopes.com/computer/v...virus/
osama.asp
(if you get an email that says to forward it to all your friends, please forget that i am your friend...)
Biodegradable:
Virus Hoaxes and the Real Dangers They Pose
I took The Boulder Pledge:
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase
anything offered to me as the result of an
unsolicited email message. Nor will I forward
chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or
virus warnings to large numbers of others.
This is my contribution to the survival of
the online community."
The Boulder Pledge
A simple part of the solution to the spam problem,
devised by Roger Ebert at the Conference on World
Affairs at the University of Colorado. (He announced
this pledge in his column in Yahoo! Internet Life's
December 1996 issue.)
dumbcisco:
Substitute "BBC" for Democrats in the headline here and it still fits :
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2278
dumbcisco:
I hope the BBC will pass on this warning to plumbers not to watch the World Cup :
http://www.memritv.org/search.as...?ACT=S9&
P1=1162
Bryan:
Hmmm, but what happens when it's not 'cry wolf'?
About four years ago, new to the computer world, I was using an old computer with, I think, a 'V-catch' anti-virus when I got a virus called 'klez 2'. Or something like that. A box appeared on the screen giving me a few choices as to what to do about it. One of them, I recall, was 'quarrantine'.
As I was scratching my head and wondering what to do I noticed that there was a counter counting down from 20 to 0. When it reached 0 it switched the computer off. A computer expert friend managed to extract most of the info but couldn't get it going again and it had to join the big computer in the sky.
Bryan:
Well, I was pissed off at having my comment deleted from DHYS so I posted another one, managing to get myself banned from posting on their site:
Added: Friday, 9 June, 2006, 13:48 GMT 14:48 UK
I post a comment that obeys the House Rules, employs no swear words and contributes to the topic, indicating why I will be watching the World Cup with difficulty. Yet your censors delete it.
I don’t suppose it has anything to do with my writing about FIFA wagging its finger at Israel while warmly embracing the soccer team of rogue nation Iran?
And you call this your blog?! You should find out what a blog is!
That one lasted about ten minutes before they deleted it as well.
So I posted this one:
To the HYS censor with his/her trigger finger on the ‘delete’ key, this is a topic about sport. You might like to find out what the word means!
In return I got this message:
Sorry. User Bryan not allowed to post.
I see I'm now blocked from posting on any of their topics but strangely enough I can still recommend posts.
If they had a complaints procedure worth anything I'd complain, but it's probably not worth the effort.
In the old days, they could get away with their censorship - but not with the blogosphere!
Biodegradable:
Bryan,
Hmmm, but what happens when it's not 'cry wolf'?
I have been online since 1996 and have never recieved a genuine virus warning. To avoid "crying wolf" you should simply check that any warning you receive is genuine before forwarding it to others.
You could subscribe to one of the many virus companies' mailing lists to be advised of new viruses, but literally hundreds of new viruses appear each and every day. See here: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/
Your PC cannot become infected simply by receiving an attachment in an email - you must open that attachment for it to work.
The best advice is to simply practice "safe computing", like safe sex; do not open attachments that come from people you don't know. Many viruses send themselves out to all the email addresses they find on an infected computer so it may appear to come from somebody you know. Discourage your contacts from sending you unsollicited attachments and do not open any attachments you are not expecting. Before sending attachments email the recipient first and ask if you may.
The simplest solution of all is to use a Mac.
http://www.apple.com/getamac/vir...ac/
viruses.html
Apologies to all for going off topic, but you did ask
Biodegradable:
The BBC's macro/template gets stuck:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5065008.stm
For many months, the Israelis have been pounding away at open areas such as fields and orchards in an effort to prevent Palestinian militants using them to fire their home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory.
Home made crudely made clichés all rolled into one rarely cause damage to the Palestinian cause.
John Reith:
'Rachel, Its always a good idea to check these things at snopes.com before forwarding to all your friends thus making a fool of yourself. '
Good principle. Why not apply it to all the loony-toons conspiracy theories about so-called BBC bias that so disfigure this blog?
gordon-bennett:
Just a thought.
Isn't all the intelligence work that went into tracking and eliminating Al Z a clear case of racial profiling, since all the surveillance would have been concentrated on dusky people of a middle eastern appearance?
It's a disgrace. And isn't it discrimination to pick out just 1 person?
I wonder what gorgeous george would say.
Rachel:
re-virus,
thanks for advice
Biodegradable:
"John Reith" returns!
Good principle. Why not apply it to all the loony-toons conspiracy theories about so-called BBC bias that so disfigure this blog?
Good idea. Most of the BBC's output is part hoax and part virus.
In fact we do check, that's what annoys you ;-Þ
pounce:
Really Biased BBC reporting.
On the ‘South Asian’ BBc web site. Al Beeb runs a report on how 3 Para took out 21 Plumbers who decided to run riot on a town.
Even I must admit Al Beeb is really scrapping the Barrel with this one;
“British commanders say it is significant that the Taleban stood and fought and that they earned the grudging respect of the parachute regiment soldiers.
According to British sources, the Afghan police fired indiscriminately putting civilians at risk and when confronted by the Taleban they broke and ran.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
5062828.stm
So let me get this right Al Beeb, Terrorists attack a civilian town and because the police fought back, they placed civilians at risk. Just think Al Beeb if the Taliban hadn’t opened fire, or pushed out woman and children in front of them as human shields. (As per the British soldier report on this incident from the BBC)
Then maybe, just maybe those civilians may not have been put at risk?
John Reith:
BioD
"The simplest solution of all is to use a Mac."
Well, at least we agree about something.
I see no-one has disagreed with Gary Powell's statement:
'Korova
We had a Conservative government for 18 glorious years in that time we had one war that lasted less then 3 months.'
One for the accuracy in non-M media awards.
pounce:
How Baised BBC promotes an image of Islamophobia in which to support its ideological masters.
“Anti-terror police have raided the home of a Muslim cleric known in his community for moderate views.
Maulana Yakub Munshi is a community leader in Dewsbury with a reputation for preaching peace.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/
5064290.stm
And how the Yorkshire post reports on this story;
“POLICE are investigating whether a Yorkshire man and schoolboy arrested on terrorism charges were in-volved in planning an attack.
Their inquiry is also understood to be looking at whether the 16-year-old from Dewsbury and man aged 21 from Bradford were being groomed by extremists.
The youth, described by friends as an A-grade student, is said to have logged on to extremist websites. He had been under surveillance by West Yorkshire Police and MI5 for some time.
Police are also investigating links with an alleged
terrorist plot in Canada, where the Bradford man's fiancée lives.
The teenager, grandson of a respected Islamic scholar, was arrested on Wednesday after police questioned the 21-year-old at Manchester Airport on Tuesday evening.
Yesterday police were searching his home and a second property also owned by his parents. His grandfather's house, with a large library, was also raided.”
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/
...ticleID=1554803
and how the Dewsbury Reporter tells the story;
“A 16-year-old Dewsbury youth is still being questioned under the Terrorism Act following police raids in Savile Town on Wednesday.
The Reporter understands police arrested the teenager at school at around 3pm on Wednesday.
At the same time, police raided three addresses in Savile Town belonging to the youth's family – two in Warren Street and one in South Street.
More than 20 police officers guarded the Warren Street addresses as forensic police specialists began their painstaking search on Wednesday.
Teams of about 12 officers have been combing each of the properties for evidence.”
http://www.dewsburytoday.co.uk/
V...ticleID=1553250
So the real story is that a young man who it appears was getting groomed to do something nasty in the UK happens to be the grandson of the so called peace loving cleric. But instead of stating that in the story Al Beeb runs with a persecution story in which to rile the masses on this the most holy day for Islam by leading with this headline;
Cleric targeted by terror police
Shame on you Al Beeb.
Biodegradable:
pounce, I just listened to the audio link on that page. Sounds to me the Paras performed bloody marvelously! In a six hour engagement they took no casualties despite being ambushed with RPGs - one of the paras talks about a plumber pushing women and kids out in front of him.
Listen to those blokes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/
avdb...d94_16x9_nb.ram
Anonymous:
"BBC ups it's revenue base to include all companies with a PC....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/200...net_tv_licence/
ritter"
This is the story that alarmed me the most today. It points towards compulsory government registration for anyone buying a PC in a shop, and opens the way for a PC license:
"Previously it was believed that only PCs with a broadcast card designed specifically to pick up TV signals needed a licence. But ahead of the BBC's streaming of live World Cup coverage, TV Licensing has said that it will prosecute in cases where TV is watched on a PC regardless of how it is received."
"The Licensing Authority operates by cross referencing equipment sales against licence holders and chasing down those with equipment but no licence. "We have a database of more than 28m addresses, so our enquiry officers know exactly which unlicensed business premises to target," said a TV Licensing press release.
But retailers are only forced to send information about buyers of television equipment. Retailers told OUT-LAW that no request had yet been received for information on purchases of computers, unless those computers are fitted with TV cards."
"The authority for insisting on a licence comes from the definition of TV equipment in the Wireless Telegraph Act 1967, last amended by the Communications Act 2003 and subsequent orders of the government related to it.
The 2003 Act says:
"'Television receiver' means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part."
In 2004, the Secretary of State ruled in the Television Licensing Regulations that:
"'Television receiver' means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
The law is almost certain to include the Television Licensing Authority's new definition. "It seems pretty clear that the definition is drawn so widely that it looks as though a PC would be a television apparatus which under the Act needs to be licensed," said Kim Walker, media and technology partner with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW."
NB OUT-LAW is where the story comes from. For all I know it could be a bunch of cranks. It is part of Pinsent Masons, who also could be a bunch of cranks:
http://www.pinsentmasons.com/
Ashley Pomeroy:
NB That was myself. Ashley Pomeroy: The Jeweller (formerly Ashley Pomeroy: The Human Cartoon).
Anonymous:
reith
Go answer some of those questions you promised many times to exdplore before you come back with cheap and inaccurate gibes.
You just make BBC look even more arrogant.
Jorrocks:
OT, and it's a bit lengthy so apologies in advance but I thought folks might like to see this.
This is very much off-topic because it's about government not the BBC, but it's from the Countryside Alliance about the icons poll that was held/rigged earlier this year. Apparently the hunting fans voted in large numbers - good for them - but some of the more right-on nominations - Brick Lane, the Notting Hill Carnival - seem to have some way to go before they become national icons. Won't stop the Beeboids treating them as such, though.
"Figures released this week by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reveal the £1million ICONS project* as a Government-inspired fiddle.
The DCMS figures, released in response to a Countryside Alliance request under the Freedom of Information Act, are from a web-based voting system, and were supposed to be a determining factor in whether a nomination would be considered an icon of England.
Foxhunting gained more supportive votes than all the other 22 icons (listed below) put together, but was denied “icon” status by the Department. The DCMS pre-empted the publication of the votes by creating a new icon of “fox-hunting and the ban” an option that was never available to vote on, and which implies that animal rights activity is somehow iconic.
Icon Name
Total Votes
% yes
Yes Votes
No Votes
Big Ben
3321
87.70%
2913
408
Blackpool Tower
1090
65.20%
711
379
Brick Lane
20
65.00%
13
7
Cricket
2650
87.80%
2327
323
Domesday Book
1126
80.90%
911
215
Eden Project
597
30.80%
184
413
Globe Theatre
637
73.20%
466
171
Hadrian’s Wall
1040
74.60%
776
264
Hay Wain
610
70.80%
432
178
HMS Victory
1378
82.10%
1131
247
Lindisfarne Gospels
245
61.20%
150
95
Mini-Skirt
933
45.30%
423
510
Morris Dancing
6923
88.30%
6113
810
Notting Hill Carnival
2189
15.30%
335
1854
Origin of Species
727
69.30%
504
223
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
790
65.80%
520
270
Pub
4353
87.90%
3826
527
Queen’s head stamp design by Machin
596
68.60%
409
187
St George Flag
2265
87.80%
1989
276
Sutton Hoo Helmet
661
64.10%
424
237
York Minster
735
68.20%
501
234
Fox-hunting**
36302
67.20%
24395
11907
Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Simon Hart commented: “This project has been politically manipulated by the Government to disguise the truth rather than to reflect the views of the general public. In effect the Government has spent £1 million of taxpayers’ money telling the public what it should think not what it does think. It is another example of the Government’s inability to deal with any issue without obsessively tinkering.”
dumbcisco:
I believe the elderly cleric is genuine, apparently he wants the communities to live in peace and he preaches against violence.
But I can also believe that the police have genuine concerns about the 16-year-old.
The BBC as usual fails to give us the full picture.
The news since 5pm has been headlined by a small rabble of 100 people protesting in Forest Gate - against the wishes of the family affected by the recent arrests. Trust the BBC to play straight into the hands of the extremists, they KNOW they are extremists yet they still give them the oxygen of top-of-the-news publicity.
Who the hell in senior editorial positions at the BBC can see this as a serious big story ? They go from worse to worse. It truly is becoming Al Beeb.
Notice that reith popped in to make stupid snide remarks - but avoided the issue of the T word on which he has frequently posted before. He has repeatedly defended the BBC's avoidance of the T word for Zarqari and Al Q in Iraq.
pounce:
I see Al Beeb continues with the Americans are kidnapping people and torturing them elsewhere (rendition stories) In fact in its attempts to smear the CIA it has story after story after story about how the Yanks are guilty;
Europe under 'rendition' cloud
If the allegations of secret CIA jails in Poland and Romania prove to be true, the results could be very serious for both countries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
5057640.stm
The one story they don’t promote is this one;
“EU official: No evidence of illegal CIA action
Antiterror chief advises committee
By Jan Silva, Associated Press | April 21, 2006
BRUSSELS -- Investigations into reports that US agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union's antiterrorism coordinator said yesterday.
The investigations also have not turned up any proof of secret renditions of terror suspects on EU territory, Gijs de Vries told a European Parliament committee investigating the allegations.”
So AL Beeb promotes the image that the yanks are playing the game of hide the silly sausage by using every tin pot org out there. Yet the EU which has a committee investigating these allegations (EU is pretty good at forming committees Serbs killing Bosnians, EU lets form a committee, Saddam killing the Kurds, EU lets form a committee, Arab Muslims killing black Muslims in Darfur, EU let’s form a committee. Spot the trend folks)
Hears that there is no evidence what so ever other than hearsay.(And I don’t mean the pop group)
http://www.boston.com/news/world...gal_cia_action/
But the funny thing is that if you do a search on the above story on AL Beeb you find nothing what so ever.
I wonder why???
Biodegradable:
Where's the word alleged here "John Reith"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5065008.stm
Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say.
We know it's not from the air force and not from the navy and we are checking if it was artillery [fire]. We also don't know for certainty if it was Israeli fire - Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal
...
For many months, the Israelis have been pounding away at open areas such as fields and orchards in an effort to prevent Palestinian militants using them to fire their home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory.
copy -paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - copy - paste - Error: Not enough memory: The error message cannot be displayed because there is not enough m
J.G.:
BBC can't decide how to describe the fluffy missiles that are fired into Israel:
"For many months, the Israelis have been pounding away at open areas such as fields and orchards in an effort to prevent Palestinian militants using them to fire their home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5065008.stm
J.G.:
oops, must read posts before posting!
Barker John:
Biodegradable,
Looked a tad Pallywood to me. All the palestinians wailing & corvorting, yet very little in the way of blood or missing limbs!
Biodegradable:
J.G.
I also commented about this yesterday:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9804100/
#286666
Follow the links there to HonestReporting too
PJ:
Apologies for backtracking, but I've been unable to keep up with BBBC posts for a few days:
As he still is visiting this site I'd like to take Reith back to something he said re the Forest Gate incident
"My experience of watching/listening is also one of frustration/irritation that some dimwit/partisan/transparent fraud/ ideologically motivated idiot etc. is spouting off dodgy views. But that's because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and .....defence solicitors."
About half of my family live in the Forest Gate area, mostly in properties that they've owned since they were built in the 19th Century.
The BBC keeps quoting and interviewing what it describes as 'community leaders'. WTF,- WE ARE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY !!! The moslems are a minority group. Where are the interviews with the majority? Why are the fears of white people sidelined? If the BBC want 'community spokepeople' I've got aunts who'd like nothing better than to breath fire down a BBC microphone. Foreigners trying to blow them up was the background to their lives for 6 years. They've faded photographs of missing brothers and sisters to remind them of the sucesses. Are their voices not worth hearing?
Biodegradable:
Barker John, given the IDF spokesman's comments I'll be surprised if it was an Israeli shell.
Past form points to a Pally missile launch team mingling with families on the beach, and a home-made/crudely made missile gone awfully wrong. A work accident in other words.
Bryan:
J.G.,
It don't matter. This issue is important enough to bear repetition! a few have us have been watching these Kassam rockets transform themselves from firecracker type harmless fizzy things that go pop into more serious and accurate weapons and then back into the fizzy things as the BBC realises that it has wandered too close to the truth for comfort. The BBC telling the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? We can't have that!
What I'd like to see is the BBC reporting the fact that the Kassams have killed a number of Israeli civilians, including children instead of this endless home-made/crudely-made chant.
Doesn't look likely to happen.
Ritter:
Muslims protest over terror raid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5064454.stm
Earlier the sister of two brothers held in connection with an alleged terror plot criticised the police's "barbaric and horrific actions".
Torture maybe?
How long before demands for the disbanding of the Met and the introduction of the "London Communities Police Service" with local mosques operating the police service in their own areas?
Bryan:
PJ,
Are their voices not worth hearing?
Al-Beeb is too busy with its programme of subversion even to make a pretence of balanced reporting.
Ritter:
Good take on Forest Gate from Littlejohn:
The real intelligence failure of forest gate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...ticle_id=389845
"A couple of months ago, a crowd of foaming Muslims marched through London preaching death and hatred, praising the 7/ 7 bombers and threatening another attack in Britain in a spurious, manufactured fit of fury over a couple of Danish cartoons no one had seen.
Among that vile mob was the older brother of the men arrested in Forest Gate. He was on day-release from prison at the time.
We are told that the two brothers now in police custody had become 'radicalised' after 9/ 11, grew beards, adopted extreme Islamic dress and were fond of spouting jihad against the West.
First we're told that the 4am knock on the door woke the family up. Then we're asked to believe that, actually, the police disturbed 'morning prayers'.
Yeah, right.
Speaking of the family, the rest of them all went off on holiday to Mauritius the following day. As you do.
Ask yourself this: if two of your sons were being held by police on terrorist charges — one of them with a gunshot wound — would you pack up your bucket and spade and head off to sunnier climes?
Precisely.
Assorted 'friends' and 'community leaders' have been given free rein by our friends in the rolling news media. At one stage, Sky News seemed literally to be stopping Muslims in the street and inviting them to slag off the police. The local BBC news this week has been one long catalogue of Muslim grievances.
On Sky, two alleged 'friends' of the men arrested were interviewed. Well, I say 'interviewed'. They were given a platform to rant and rave unchallenged. One of these 'friends' was hooded, the other was wearing an intifada headscarf, and they were filmed from behind to protect their identity. They could have been anybody."
Biodegradable:
J.G.
my post with the link to HonestReporting:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8782703/
#224117
Barker John:
Biodegradable,
That picnic blanket seemed to have withstood the force of the blast pretty well! Teflon-coated or something?
Hamas can now bomb Israeli's without leftist reproach since the ceasefire is now over according to them. Guess they couldn't bare to think that the World was watching the World Cup & not little dem, AaaH!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5065008.stm
Biodegradable:
I still can't help shaking my head in amusement about the BBC tying themselves in knots with their "home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory"
Biodegradable:
Barker John, it does seem that there were casualties. The IDF have offered assistance and there is the possibility that it was an unexploded dud from previous artillery fire. But any excuse is a good one for the Phonystinians to scream "massacre!" (remember Jenin).
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/
724811.html
However, IDF sources said that a preliminary investigation showed there had been no shelling from land or sea. IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz ordered an end to the shelling until the completion of an investigation into the civilian deaths. The military also offered assistance in the wake of the strike.
Major General Yoav Galant, head of Israel's southern command, said on Friday evening that the army is looking into the circumstances of the explosion. One possibility under examination is that an IDF shell strayed from its path, or that a work accident caused the explosion.
"It is not our intention to harm innocent civilians. We are investigating the incident in order to try to clarify what happened here," he said, adding that the IDF is aware of areas in which civilians are present, and that military gunners are ordered to prevent firing on these areas.
Earlier Friday, an Israel Air Force strike killed three Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) militants in Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, just minutes after they fired a Qassam rocket into Israel.
IDF sources said that at approximately 3 P.M., the militants fired a rocket that landed in an open field near Sderot. One of the militants, who was standing outside the car, was killed by an IAF missile soon after the rocket launch. The other two men attempted to drive away, but were killed by another missile that hit the moving car.
Bear in mind that all of these rocket launches and air strikes are going on within a few kilometres, if that, of each other.
Barker John:
Yeah, I see what your saying & yet don't believe a word of the story.
Why did the cameraman film the distraught young child running amoungst the dunes? Why had nobody tried to calm her down, cuddle her in the time it must have taken the crew to arrive? Why so many complete bodies? I know the BBC sanatise images for our supposedly weak palettes, but still!
Hamas are on a deadline to submit to Abbas & have decided to fake this 'supposed massacre' & deny him. The Beeb laps it up! Mind you the ran a Herceptin story first on the 7 o'clock news, even they may doubts?
Barker John:
Should have read-
Hamas are on a deadline to submit to Abbas & have decided to fake this 'supposed massacre' & deny him. The Beeb laps it up! Mind you they ran a Herceptin story first on the 7 o'clock news, even they may have doubts?
Too many World Cup beverages!!
Market Participant:
C'mon Mr Rieth, why cant the BBC update
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5062360.stm
To say:
"He was one of Israel's most wanted men in Gaza. Samhadana was thought to be involved in a 2003 attack on a US diplomatic convoy, which killed three civillians and severely wounded the US envoy."
Must the BBC always minimise the violence caused by terrorists?
The BBC would be all over it if Israel attacked a UN convoy.
Bryan:
Barker John,
This is how the Jerusalem Post, usually quite reliable in these matters, opens with the first paragraph of the story. (Last updated 18:43 GMT):
A day after the successful targeted killing of Popular Resistance Committees leader Jamal Abu Samhadana, the apparent misfiring of an IDF artillery shell resulted in thirteen civilian deaths and left dozens wounded Friday evening. The shell hit a crowded Gaza beach in between Sudaniya and Beit Lahiya.
If there's any further clarification, it will certainly come from the IDF.
pounce:
Misinformation BBC and its biased reporting on all things Islamic.
Al Beeb is running an article over how a load of people (muslims) have protested about a certain raid in London the other week. The first paragraph is followed by this succulent piece in which to give the impression that the family are behind the protests:
“Earlier the sister of two brothers held in connection with an alleged terror plot criticised the police's "barbaric and horrific actions".
Really Al Beeb as I happened to watch CH4 news and the film clip they played showed that the family were not only against the march (Stating radical idiots as hijacking the incident for their own political purposes ) but they also showed film clips of the local mosques informing the faithful to stay away.
Now if that wasn’t enough here is what the Torygraph has to say on the matter;
“A protest against alleged police brutality has attracted a smaller crowd than organisers hoped, after the family of two brothers arrested on terror charges last week urged Muslims not to attend.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...09/
uprotest.xml
So with the above contrasting view points can somebody from Al Beeb please explain why they give the impression that every Mohamed, Mustfa and Fatima were out in force shouting out expletives such as “"British police go to hell" in which to paint the expression that the Muslim community are totally disappointed with the British police force.
Oh yes Al Beeb when you use this person in which to garner an inflammatory anti British comment;
“Protest organiser Anjem Choudary said: "When you start to violate the sanctity of Muslims and their homes, and handle their mothers and fathers then there is going to be some kind of backlash."
It kind of helps the reader if you explain just who he really is;
“Anjem Choudary, who is 39 years old and from Ilford, Essex, was, along with Omar Bakri Muhammad, a leader of Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist group operating in the United Kingdom, until its dissolution in 2004. He now speaks for Bakri, who was banned from Britain on 12 August 2005 by Home Secretary Charles Clarke on the grounds that his presence in Britain was "not conducive to the public good"[1][2]. He is also a spokesman for Al-Ghurabaa, an extremist group widely believed to be a successor to Al-Muhajiroun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anj.../
Anjem_Choudary
But it’s not as if you didn’t know who he was;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ght/
4700976.stm
(Nice clip of a policeman verbally attacking a British van driver and we wonder why the BNP has a growing following. Do take note Al Beeb. Oh silly me it’s a newsnight report) Oh Choudary opens up at the 7 min point.
Bryan:
Market Participant,
It's past Reith's bedtime and he isn't listening. But even if he were, it wouldn't make any difference at all.
The man can't face up fairly and squarely to a duel of wits.
Market Participant:
How about a duel of twits?
Bryan:
I just had a look at that policeman abusing the driver. This is the typical cowardly PC behaviour that we've come to expect from them. You'd never in a million years see the police threaten a Muslim like that. They just take the line of least resistance and threaten a lone opponent of the Muslim mob.
The BBC, of course, would consider that proper behaviour on the part of the police.
Bryan:
How about a duel of twits?
Then we'd have to find another one to pit against Reith.
sean:
anyone who runs this site interested
in starting a fighting fund for
advertising bbbc to the wider public.
i'd certaintly be willing to help.
anonymous:
Pounce:
We're public guardians bold yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When danger threatens we're not there
But when we see a helpless woman
Or little boys who do no harm…
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
To show them we're the beaux gendarmes (bis)
When young men like to make a riot
And punch each other’s heads at night
We are disposed to keep it quiet
Provided that they make it right
But if they do not seem to see it
Or give to us our proper alms…
We run them in, etc.
Sometimes our duty’s extramural
Then little butterflies we chase
We like to gambol in things rural
Commune with nature face to face
But when we go back to our duties
Refreshed by Nature’s holy charms…
We run them in, etc.
dave t:
TIME Magazine which started the whole Haditha affair is backpedalling and making corrections to their original story. Turns out the young student who filmed it etc turns out to be a political activist etc. More here
http://www.sweetness-light.com/a...s-about-
haditha
Anonymous:
Right now on Newwnight is Ms Chakrabati (Liberty) and Mr Inayat "Zionist Pig" Bunglawala.
pounce:
I see AL Beeb is running with a story on the news about how an explosion on the Gaza strip (beach) is because of Israeli action. Not alleged as any atrocity committed by the faithful but hard fact.
“Seven people, including three children, died on Friday when Israeli shells hit a beach in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say.”
Ref that story Al Beeb opens with this film clip narrated by Jeremy Bowen ;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/
avdb...df2_16x9_bb.asx
Notice something, that screaming little girl is not only unharmed but on her own.
The camera is already there to witness her searching for her family. Hang on let me get this right, the camera is there before the ambulances, in fact the camera man films the ambulance men running onto the beach (Baywatch style)
So for a crowed beach can somebody please explain where all the people were? I mean even if they had run off they would have left a lot more than I saw on that beach. Now any other killing attributed to those nasty jews. We see thousands of people crowding round the dead. Not this time. And those ambulances look at the film clip, there is only one road onto the beach from the built up area? So how come one is facing in the other direction to the other? Please it looks to me if it was pre-positioned? (Pallywood anyone?)
Back to that little girl, if the area was full of people as Jeremy Bowen suggests why isn’t anybody there comforting her? I mean he does say it was crowded. So where are they?
Have a look at the film clip of where her family are covered by blankets? Anybody notice the discarded book giving the impression they died where they sat? Then notice the drag mark where somebody or something was dragged there. Dragged? The impression Bowen gives is they died where they sat. But if they were dragged there by the locals why is the little girl the only one in the picture? Where are the people who dragged the bodies there. But there can’t be as the little girl is the first on the scene. So who covered up the bodies?
So Al Beeb how about showing the impact marks of that artillery barrage. I’ve watched that video time and time again and not only do I fail to see scorch marks but I fail to see any blast waves from those rounds detonating? Lots of foot prints? No actual bodies (since when have the Pals been keen to cover up the dead. Rather they love to show bodies off) and come to think of it in the hospital a lack of injuries? No blood on the people carrying the wounded, in fact no blood on the victims. Bloody bandages, but no actual wounds.
P.S
Ref the technologically superior Israeli not knowing that the beach was crowded before they opened fire. You do know Mr Bowen that the world leaders in the use of UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are the Israelis.(not my words but Janes defence weekly vol 43 issue 19, 10th may 2006. Page 21, under Israel)The destruction of the entire Syrian anti aircraft defence in the Becca Valley was due to the use of the UAV. In other words they looked for the enemy before they destroyed them. So tell me Al Beeb how the IDF which logs more time flying UAVs (18000 hours in 2005)than any other country in the world didn’t know where those shells were going to land. Add the fact that a major Hamas player was killed last night and now Hamas have said the gloves are off because of this so called shelling. It appears to me that Al Beeb is now the voice piece of Hamas the terrorist organisation
mick in the uk:
'Raids may cost police our support'
"Community leaders have warned police they risk losing public support after two days of anti-terror raids in Bradford.
Residents say they are living in fear after last night's swoop at an internet caf in Manningham."
-----------------------------
Living in fear?
I would have thought that the Police doing their job would be re-assuring!
------------------------
Shamsuddin Ahmed, 40, has lived for 15 years on Hanover Square.
"We are law-abiding citizens and our lives have been a nightmare since the arrests."
http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/
...our_support.php
Barker John:
Pounce, exactly! This is Pallywood. No Crater, no major injuries on supposed casulties. Lot's of distressed chilren being dragged along by unknown people. Lot's of shaky camerawork. It's more crap from the beeb in believing this rubbish.
Hamas playing them for the fools they are.
Grimer:
ioD
"The simplest solution of all is to use a Mac."
Well, at least we agree about something.
John Rieth
___________
Given the BBC's blatant promotion of Apple products, I expected no less from you Reith.
PS: I'm still waiting for your views on the that Kofi Annan interview. You're not scared to offer an opinion are you?
korova:
dumbcisco....you were in WEST Germany I suspect not Germany. As I said, Germany was not a country. There was West Germany and East Germany, which were two very different countrys. One generally free to prosper and one controlled by a totalitarian regime. As I am sure you must be aware.
Gary two small points you seem to have overlooked. One war in 18 years of Conservative rule??? What planet are you on??? Which one was the ONE then??? The Falklands War, or the first Gulf War?? Did the other one not really happen?? Are you in some delusional state??
Second:
'Then wonder how stupid you would feel if one of those non-exsistent unorganised missguided muslim friends of yours blew your kidds legs off, on the way to school.'
I never said anything about them being non-existent. I said there is no such thing as an organised terrorist group. It is portrayed that way because people cannot handle the thought of random individuals conducting the violence against innocents. As you prove in your comments, the idea of it being individuals is beyond the comprehension of many people because one man who suddenly decides to commit such an atrocity is impossible to stop. A group can be monitored. You cannot monitor one man's thoughts. Still thank you for proving my point through your childlike eyes.
dumbcisco:
What was really disgraceful was Jeremy Bowen presenting the story as if it was definite that it was an Israeli shell that hit the beach - when the intro said that this was not yet certain.
Bowen suspends all doubt, pitches straight into Israel.
Yes, a lot of it looked very contrived. Bowen is there in the London studio - so has not been able to vouch for anything - the cameraman, checks with claimed witnesses etc. But he gave a verdict of definite guilt for the Israelis. No question of how about shells/munitions from the Palestinians, an errant "home-made rocket" - or an elaborately-staged Pallywood job.
That isn't journalism. That's running an agenda.
Top management at the BBC - and the Governors - must be real stupid if they think they can continue ad infinitum the licence tax while having such endless bias. It is the bias that is causing a lot of people to say "to hell with the BBC, break it up, chop it down to size".
dumbcisco:
korova
We called it Germany. Everyone called it Germany. Germany called itself Germany.
I think the best thing is for us to ignore you if you want to be silly every time you pop in. If you don't think there is any such thing as orgasnised terrorism, what about ETA, what about the IRA, what about Zarqari's organisation in Iraq.
Go play your delusional denial games elsewhere. This site is about BBC bias, not your nutty ideas.
Barker John:
Pounce,
I'm also arguing this at FFI. Can I copy/paste your synopsis over there too? Just give me a nod.
Anonymous:
dave t
Sweetness and Light has been doing the heavy lifting in assessing the haditha story. This article brings their work into a single summary.
Looks like there is now a lot of room for doubt about what happened in Haditha.
http://www.americanthinker.com/
a...article_id=5566
and here is some circumstantial evidence in the Scotsman suggesting nothing morally bad had happened :
http://news.scotsman.com/latest....fm?
id=853792006
dumbcisco:
anon at 12 midnight was me
Biodegradable:
Pounce's invaluable expert opinion confirms my layman's impressions regarding lack of craters on the beach, footprints in the sand and little girl running around.
Here we have an alleged eye witness account from Gaza journalist Sami Yousef who tells us that "... we heard some loud explosions. As soon as we heard this we ran towards the area where the shells landed."
He didn't say if he heard the whistle of incoming shells before the explosions. One must assume he didn't and still accept the rest of his account.
If anybody is still uncertain as to whether the BBC has an agenda look at photo #4 here:
In pictures: Gaza violence
A Getty Images stock photo of what one presumes is an Israeli gunboat's cannon firing a round captioned Israel launched a probe. The army said it had not fired from the air or from gunboats operating off the Gaza coastline.
So why include that image?
dumbcisco:
FIERCE attack on the BBC by Bill O'Reilly at Fox News half-way through this piece on Zarqawi :
http://hotair.com/archives/vent/...9/zarqawis-end/
Barker John:
Pounce, I had to use your piece. They were so naive & you put it so eloquently. They do love an apostate though!
Barker John:
Whoo, they have a HYS already. Really playing the angry leftists/liberals dance then.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20060610005931
I would comment if I thought it was worth the effort.
disillusioned_german:
Opinion divided as brothers freed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5066470.stm
"Because of this breakdown in trust you then see Muslims getting far more agitated and angry," he said.
Oh, really? What are they going to do next? Blow themselves up? Hardly, after all it's the religion of peace, right?
disillusioned_german:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pi...res/
5063258.stm
The Iraqi prime minister announces the death of militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a US air strike.
disillusioned_german:
That's picture eight, by the way...
Biodegradable:
disillusioned_german - they really are bloody useless!
Grimer:
Pounce,
Spot on. I thought exactly the same thing when I watched the clip.
Where is the blood on the beach?
Where are the shell craters?
Why are the Press there first?
Where is everybody?
Who is the old lady carried into the hospital? She gives a good go of acting, but there appears nothing wrong with her.
Where is the blood on any of the casualties at the hospital?
The saddest thing about the whole affair is that I came home and my 2 flatmates (1 dentist, 1 IT specialist) asked it I'd heard the news about an Israeli boat killing civilians on the beach.
They got that story from somewhere. I wonder where....
I'm not even sure if I should mention that, because I don't really want the BBC to know their propaganda is so effective.
The BBC is the enemy (I've never stated things this strongly before, but they really are)
Biodegradable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5065468.stm
After Friday morning prayers, Sheikh Jarrah Kada, 42, sporting a thick salt-and-pepper beard, gathers with his companions at a friend's house to drink tea.
...
For Sheikh Kada, wearing a pale blue prayer cap, Zarqawi's death is a reason to celebrate. But not because the Sheikh sees him as a terrorist - indeed, quite the opposite.
He regards Zarqawi is a hero, a martyr who died in the name of Islam.
"He was a great leader - he fought for Islam," says Sheikh Kada, drawing nods of approval from the 10 men sitting in the circle.
"I'm happy that he is dead because he is now going to heaven."
...
"America must leave all the places it occupies in the Middle East because it is killing our women and children," the sheikh says.
"The Jews must also leave Israel and give back the land to the Palestinians."
...
Destination Iraq
The men bristle at the idea that they are in any way extremist.
"We are true believers in Islam," says Abu Roman, 55, an accountant.
"Islam is not terrorism. I don't kill Americans in America, I don't kill the British in Britain, and I don't kill the Chinese in China. I just want the Arab lands to be free and Islamic."
Brought to you by the British tax payer.
disillusioned_german:
Biodegradable:
I've stopped watching BBC News a while back and switched over to Fox News (I state that fact regularly). Nowadays the Beeb's news output is funnier than their comedy output. It would be even funnier if they meant it to be funny though.
My theories are:
1. The Beeb think muslims already are a majority in the UK / Europe and that's why they're so biased towards them.
2. The Beeb have stopped their UK based broadcasts and have the news made in the Middle East (but not Israel).
What do you think?
Gary Powell:
Korova
Sorry I made a mistake I was going to post a correction but as nobody seemed to notice I did not bother. I meant to say 12 years of a Thatcher government. You know that Right -wing nutter that used to run this place. I count 5 at least since Tony arrived and counting.
boblog:
Reith,
I do not take kindly to being called a loon. Unless you were jesting. If so, ho ho, very witty.
I have resisted the temptation to call you a liar. But I am tempted. Mr BBC Reith.
Oscar:
Talking about BBC news descending into a joke - on the Today programme as I speak they are interviewing Michael Berg - whose son was killed by Zaqawi - a total moonbat who outstrips Norman Kember for horrendous moral equivalence (Bush and Blair are as bad as Zaqawi indeed worse). Death of Zaqawi is a tragedy. Al beeb will hunt these people down wherever they are and interview them with absolute deference.
Eamonn:
Oscar
Righteous anger.
William Shawcross finally loses it and gets angry with John Humphrys after the Berg interview. Shawcross is basically saying that the BBC are only interviewing the tragic Berg (again) and broadcasting his well known but frankly lunatic views because they are in line with the BBC editorial agenda.
Ritter:
OT - but interesting in the context of reporting on police dealing with threat from Islamists. This is one Guardian story I don't see the BBC leading with. Funny that.
Secret report brands Muslim police corrupt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/
s...1794445,00.html
"The document, which has been seen by the Guardian, has caused outrage among ethnic minorities within the force, who have labelled it racist and proof that there is a gulf in understanding between the police force and the wider Muslim community. The document was written as an attempt to investigate why complaints of misconduct and corruption against Asian officers are 10 times higher than against their white colleagues.
Superintendent Dal Babu, chairman of the Association of Muslim Officers, said the report had racist undertones."
Eamonn:
Here the BBC are up to the same trick on a different front:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5065468.stm
"City of martyrs salutes Zarqawi"
The BBC constantly hides behind the defence that they have a responsibility to report all sides. So when will the families of, for instance, the seven Rachels be interviewed? And how many times has Rachel Corrie's family been interviewed.
Ritter:
BBC News24 just now telling us all how the police need to build bridges with the community who feel threatened etc. Pretty much the PR line of these guys.
Police: Trigger Happy Crusaders
http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/
Bryan:
On the Gaza beach 'attack', it's looking more and more like Pallywood.
At the end of this CNN 46-second video clip you can clearly see an apparently-injured man in military dress, who has been lying down, sit up as the Red Crescent arrives, revealing the weapon he's been holding:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORL...east/
index.html
The clip is courtesy Ramattan TV, whoever they are.
The CNN report is typical. They've swallowed the Palestinian version whole, claiming that an Israeli gunboat fired on the beach.
lmo:
BBC News 24: A review of the morning papers finds our BBC friends ignoring the Guardian front page this morning.I thought that was very odd, this being the in-house paper of the Beeb.But then the paper's top story is about a "top secret" report by the Met police on why so many muslim officers are reported for corruption.It finds that the culture from which these officers hail has something to do with it.So typical of the BBC to ignore it.The report is being denounced as racist by the usual suspects.
nbc:
On the subject of rocket attacks.
It would appear that the BBC is getting quite good at Photoshop. Have a look at this from today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5066768.stm
And compare it to this:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...ntry=20812&
only
lmo:
Btw, the Met report had to be toned down before it was published.Please go to the on-line Guardian and read it.
gordon-bennett:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/20.../
D8I50R200.html
Kamal Ghobn said he had just arrived at the beach on a bus with about 50 relatives when the attack took place. "I was still parking the bus and everyone got out to go to the beach. As I locked the door I felt the thud of the shells and felt a sting in my side," said Ghobn, who was slightly wounded by shrapnel. Gobn said he saw four shells land.
Did he feel the thud and then see 4 shells land - that would make at least 5, wouldn't it. We'll see how this "eyewitness evidence" stacks up with other "facts" as they are released.
Why is the girl seen both running about as the ambulance sirens are sounding and lying passively by the "bodies". What's the sequence. Was she lying there and got up and ran about when the ambulances arrived? That doesn't seem natural.
Bryan:
lmo,
Although it's fundamentally a disgusting, left-wing, anti-Semitic rag, the Guardian is far less politically-corect than the BBC.
It also appears to have a bit more balls and will break stories that the BBC wouldn't touch out of fear of offending Muslims.
Bidegradable:
Why is it that when "Palestinian" suicide bombers deliberately attack civilians with the clear intention of causing as many casualties as possible we only hear mumblings of vague "condemnation" from the International community along with the terrorists falling over themselves to claim responsibility and justify their murderous acts, yet when Israel accidently kills some civilians (if that is indeed the case) Kofi Annan "calls for an investigation" and fresh threats from the terrorists are met with silent approval?
Hamas claims Israel rocket attack
Palestinian radical group Hamas says it has fired rockets into Israel for the first time since beginning its unofficial truce 16 months ago.
Its armed wing said it had launched the attack in response to the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians which the Hamas government blames on Israel.
Israel, which has been using artillery against suspected Gaza rocket squads, has promised to investigate the deaths.
The head of the United Nations has called for a full inquiry.
Hamas's Izzedine al-Qassam Brigade said it had fired rockets at Israel from the Gaza Strip.
"This is only the start and rocket firings will continue," a spokesman was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.
"Next time, the rockets will be longer in range and they will hit places deeper inside the Zionist entity."
The spokesman said the attacks were a response to Israeli "crimes and the killings of civilians in Gaza".
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for a full investigation into Friday's deaths.
His spokesman said the UN chief was deeply disturbed by the killings.
Gary Powell:
What does the BBC put forward as the reasons why the Israeli government or the IDF should want to carry out a Terrorist attack when they would be fully aware of the political PR problems this will give them? What could the Israeli government possibly get from this attack? Has the BBC got evidence that IDFs troops get paid for killing innocent people? Has George Bush put a bounty on Palistinian children?
I stongly suspect they do not.
The BBC does not even put forward even ONE idear as to WHY the Israelis would want to do such a thing?
Reasons why HAMAS would want to do this themselves or pretend that it happened however, are many, and obvious, to any one that cares about truth and human beings.
An important question is, what does the BBC get from, taking even the slightest risk of throwing whats left of its credibility down the kazi like this.
This is a genuine question: Is it possible that someone at the BBC is being payed to run stories like this? Because much stanger things in the past have been known. For instance many soviet spys that would probely have done the job for free were still paid money whether they wanted or neaded it or not.
This issue is not just important, it is going to be the excuse for REAL deaths to take place of Real children. This WILL be used to justify some of the worst REAL human suffering imaginable.
I appeal to any human beings still taking the BBC shilling, to have the courage to stand up for what in your hearts you know is right. If you do not, young BLOOD from the next episode of Jewish genocide will be on YOUR HANDS.
I dont want to overstate my point however the second WW "kicked off" with a German attack on Poland. This at the time the Germans said was a reprisal for a Polish attack on Germany. Film evidence was shown by the Nazis to confirm this to the world. The German propergander industry had simply dressed dead Polish troops in German uniforms.
This lott arnt that clever, they just get out the bottles of Tomato sauce. It dont take much to fool a fool that wants to be fooled or is getting payed to be foolish.
Ritter:
BBC BraggWatch
Bragg removes songs from MySpace
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
5065632.stm
The story?
Bragg = leftie = good
News International = Murdoch = baaad
With free sidebar link to billybragg.co.uk of course...
next week..
'Bragg goes shopping', 'Bragg makes a cup of tea' etc etc
Bidegradable:
His spokesman said the UN chief was deeply disturbed by the killings.
If the victims had been Israelis it would have been:
His spokesman said the UN chief was deeply disturbed by the deaths.
Gary Powell asks:
This is a genuine question: Is it possible that someone at the BBC is being payed to run stories like this?
Whether they're paid or not we don't know, but we have talked in the past about BBC correspondents training Arab journalists and taking part in forums and the like organised by the "Palestinians" with the aim of helping them "get their message across".
Ritter:
Opinion divided as brothers freed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/50.../uk/
5066470.stm
How 'divided' is that, BBC? 50/50? 70/30? Do you mean 'divided' between muslims and just about everyone else? Has any organisation carried out a poll to see what the general public think of the police action?
I'd put it at least 90%+ in favour of the police. You wouldn't gain that impression from the BBC article though, it's full of quotes from the muslim 'victim' groups.
Even with the BBC censorship on their (D)HYS boards, opinion appears to be 90% in favour of police taking action to investigate when they have reasonable suspicion to do so.
Release of terror raid pair: Your views
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...2832&
#paginator
Needless to say, the bbc sidebar on this page has three links all to muslim organisations who have the view that they are being victimised by the police:
Muslim Council of Britain
http://www.mcb.org.uk/
Islamic Human Rights Commission
http://www.ihrc.org/
Muslim Public Affairs Committee
http://www.mpacuk.org/
How about balance in the links to some organisations that support the police and are fed up with muslims claiming victim status?
Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Melanie Phillips
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Transcript of BBC London interview with Melanie Phillips
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/
cont...n_feature.shtml
But no, no non-muslim voices get a look-in on the BBC.....
Gary Powell:
One more bit of evidence as to why you never let the workers run the place they work in or indead your government, comes today.
The government proposes to make people that are NOT staff working for the NHS and social services, second class citizens.
You in the future will be finded £1000 for conplaining to load about paying for a service that is not serving your needs. Im just suprised that the BBC has not considered itself important enough to be added to the list of the "protected elites of socialist government."
Or can I look forward to fineing my customers who complane to load about my service?
I dont think so,do you?
I dont force my customers to pay for my service nor are they in pain when the service is bad. Which of cause as my customers are not forced to pay for it, my service and products are never bad anyway.
Has it escaped government that it is already against the criminal law to PHYSICALY abuse anyone or even any animal?
Sticks and stones etc.
The socialist state only protects its socialist mates, party members and affiliates. It does not have the political inclination or the money to give a flying-figg about the rest of us.
Barker John:
The Pali's are not cooperating with the Israeli's over the Gaza beach bombing. No surprise there!
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3260996,00.html
Gary Powell:
Does anyone doudt that the government will anounce in a few years time that the NHS is a great success due to the fact that the public no longer complane about the service?
Biodegradable:
Barker John, I (don't) wonder why. The thot plickens.
The body of the famous al-Dura boy has never been seen, nor an autopsy ever performed. His "dead" father has been spotted several times alive and well in Ramallah, just like Elvis.
Gary Powell:
Barker John
How about the UN.
Do they do nothing at all for all that western unaccountable, free cash they get.
Answer: no. They possitively make the situation worse.
We are used to the BBC and the UN being a bunch of corrupt politicaly motivated dangerously incompetent freeloaders, so I will not wait long for the UN to get involved any day soon. However important this situation may turn out to have been in the future.
J.G.:
Link with picture on BBC news front page:
Zarqawi saluted
Jordan's city of martyrs hails dead militant leader as hero
Yet the actual story makes no mention of celebrations in any city, no crowds of cheering plumbers, no marches or speeches, just a platform for some mad sheik to rant against the usual suspects. I defy anyone reading the story to find the link to the actual headline and tagline used.
The BBC do not even try to hide their bias anymore. Get me a story to fit this headline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5065468.stm
Gary Powell:
I dont know if me being part Jewish has anything to do with these next comments, as I would like to believe it makes no difference at all.
If it does turn out that this is a Pallywood production, and the BBC does not make a full and unmissable humble apology for this mind blowingly dangerous bit of delliberate incompetence.
There should be a full public independant enquiry, and a large amounts of heads must roll at the BBC. As we pay for this propergander WE are moraly responsible for the damage the BBC does in our name. Just as much as a pervert is responsible for paying for child pornography.
In my opinion the BBC would have declared itself as an entity, to be THE ENEMY OF HUMANITY. Has put itself clearly on ONE SIDE of one of the worlds most violent and intractible conflicts the world has ever known. The BBC must suffer direct consequences of such a possition. Or we will all go to our own personal HELLs.
Gary Powell:
As you can probely tell this shit today has very deaply upset me. Does any one out there really believe that Jews like killing Muslims for FUN?
Because this is the implication that the BBC leaves you with, as it does not even bother to give any reasons why it believes the Israelis would want to do such a thing or what they could possibly gain from this act other than entertainment.
Gary Powell:
The reasons why I believe a full public enquiry will not be made is this.
This government only gets its nickers in a twist about the BBC when itself it attacked or when its ex PR man AC is "throwing a tantrum."
Also an investigation at the BBC might open up many other "cans of worms" that this or any other Labour government can not risk doing.
Also what should be clear to all is, the BBC has the GOODS on all politicians or it will simply make it up. RE: The Hamiltons.
I have mentioned before that I believe that the tail in Britain is now wagging the dog. What I should have added is that it seems that the hair on the end of that tail is in fact wagging the whole animal.
Ritter:
Banks move into Islamic finance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5064058.stm
"Many Middle Eastern Islamic banks are more social or co-operative banks in the West.
Charity is a core value, or pillar, of Islam. Every Muslim is obliged to pay "Zakat", a payment of 2.5% of his annual income to benefit the poor.
Engku Rabiah Adawiah Engku Ali, a professor of the International Islamic University of Malaysia hopes that growth of Islamic banking will help to create a better distribution of wealth in the Islamic world.
"Greed is a problem. We have to keep reminding ourselves not to follow greed", she says.
Aaaaw, nice and cuddly those kind islamic banks.
just incase you're confused, BBC provide more islamzzzzz sharia law cut out'n'keep guides...
Islam, ethics and finance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/re...atures/banking/
pounce:
Ref the film clip of the little girl running on the beach looking for her parents. Something about it didn’t seem right and now having watched the CNN version
(Thanks to Bryan)
I now know what wasn’t right.
The camera pans with the girl. Not from a distance. But next to her. In other words the child is running on cue. (Maybe that explains why she looks across in order to see if she is keeping pace with the camera crew not the look of “who the hell are you?” but a quick peek) Mind you I am somewhat surprised how little young lady knows it’s her father without having to check his face first? (You know remove the blanket, turn the body over and see for yourself?)
Another thing about that CNN clip. When those two ambulance men run towards those so called bodies. Very briefly in the clip we see the young girl walking very calmly in the other direction (something Al Beeb omitted in their film clip) She isn’t screaming and nobody is with her. In other words nobody is consoling her? But the film clip shows a child stricken with grief? So why isn’t somebody comforting her.
Instead she is allowed to simply walk off?
Following on from that clip, where oh where did that bloke (lying on the floor next to the bodies) come from? I mean he’s holding his arm as if he is in pain. But seconds before when young lady was crying her eyes out, he wasn’t there? So just where did he come from?
Now if I somebody with no media training what so ever can spot those little snippets, then why can’t the worlds media. (It appears al Beeb did as they removed those from their version of little miss crying hood)
Ritter:
BBC attacked over £18m Ross deal
http://news.scotsman.com/celebri...fm?
id=855962006
a licence (fee) to print money.
Anonymous:
Ritter
When I used to go on about the fact that this current load of nationalist loonies are socialists, a lot of people accused me of being the loony. Thank you for coming up with the evidence of what my common sense had told me a long time ago.
Ritter:
BBC Staff Bemoan Ad Plans
http://blog.clickz.com/archives/...608-
170002.html
Once beeboids have their mouth sucking on the teat of state handouts, its difficult to wean them off it...
Anonymous:
Pounce
Thank you for your comments and work. However another simpler way to look at it is this. Does the film resemble in a general way anything you have seen before from any simular incident, that you know happened. The answer is a simple easy to understand NO.
So the really scary thing is why is it not obvious to the BBC. So obvious that they should at least "qualify" there own reporting?
mick in the uk:
I've only just managed to view the full video of the beach 'massacre'.
It's blindingly obvious that this is indeed a Pallywood production!
disillusioned_german:
Zarqawi saluted
Jordan's city of martyrs hails dead militant leader as hero
Says it all... They're taken their newsfeeds from Al Jazeera. Amen!
Anonymous:
Just to show how paranoia can take hold when the media does not make sense anymore.
I have just been to a Crystal Palace pub to watch the footy, on my motor bike. When I came out in the hot weather my alarm on my bike would not function. After walking around in the heat for 20 mins trying to get a new battery for my alarm fob I gave up and returned to my bike. Only to find a black guy having the same problem. He told me we had to roll our very heavy bikes down the hill to paxton green before they would work as the BBC antena was blocking the signal. Which we did and they both worked. Thanks BBC for really buggering up my day, in more ways than one.
Gary Powell:
That was me
dave t:
So Gary: Does this mean you're a married, hetrosexual, part Jewish, Tory, avid commentator, exciteable footie fan, small businessman and hairy motorbiker as well?
No wonder the BBC hate you! You're not part of their desired viewing public!
Join the great unwanted here on B-BBC 8-)
Biodegradable:
Charity is a core value, or pillar, of Islam. Every Muslim is obliged to pay "Zakat", a payment of 2.5% of his annual income to benefit the poor.
Jews also support the poorer members of their communities. Synagogues are built and maintained by contributions from the community. But Jews are accused of "sticking together" and "looking after their own".
Biodegradable, not-very-practising Jew, married, hetrosexual, commentator, self employed, mostly self-taught, and ex-hairy ex-biker (ex-BSA, Norton and Ducati owner) ;-Þ
Biodegradable:
When will we see similarly emotive coverage of the funerals of Jewish victims of deliberate attacks by Arabs?
Funerals for Gaza beach victims
Or when will hear "Palestinians" make similar declarations as these (as called for by the famous Oslo accords)?
Israel, which has been shelling open areas of northern Gaza to prevent rocket attacks, promised to investigate the deaths but said their cause was not yet clear.
"If innocent civilians have been killed by an Israeli shell, that is totally unacceptable," said government spokesman Mark Regev.
"It will be investigated thoroughly and if people have to pay a price with their careers because of negligence or some other factor, then that will be done ..."
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Gary Powell | 10.06.06 - 2:07 pm
You say:
"I have mentioned before that I believe that the tail in Britain is now wagging the dog. What I should have added is that it seems that the hair on the end of that tail is in fact wagging the whole animal."
Nailed it again. Here's how it goes:
1. The embittered leftist oiks who dominate the Scott Trust set The Guardian's leftist agenda
+
2. The Guardian sets the Beeb's agenda
+
3. The Beeb sets the media's agenda
+
4. The media sets the nation's agenda =
5. Entire nation going down the toilet.
=
6. Embittered leftist oiks happy
Bryan:
pounce,
Thanks for that analysis, but the picture just gets more and more confusing. Why did they go to such Pallywood lengths if the beach was indeed hit by an Israeli missile?
I suppose they could be trying to cover up a self-inflicted explosion here, but that doesn't explain the reaction of the Israelis - who seem prepared to admit guilt.
Still ain't nobody commented on the fact that at the guy who gets up at the end of the clip is almost certainly holding a gun of sorts. It's black, short, but bigger than a handgun.
I suppose he was simply an 'extra'.
Bryan:
And here’s another fine example of pro-Israel BBC reporting:
In the past, it [Israel] has refused to differentiate between political and armed wings, assassinating a number of Hamas leaders, including its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5067414.stm
Yassin, in fact, was the essence of a terrorist, indoctrinating and dispatching suicide bombers to blow up Israeli civilians.
He was not part of any mythical 'political wing'.
The BBC is the enemy.
Disgruntled Right Winger:
Because of the disruption to the TV schedules for the benefit of the worshippers of the football cult I have been forced to sit down in front t'telly when John Snows show, Channel four news was on.
If the BBC is for readers of the Guardian then Channel Four appears to cater for those who waste their money on the Independent. I have just listened to a misrepresentation of the Police raid on a house in Forest Gate.
" 250 Police stormed this house wearing chemical suits"
Oh dear, how do you get 250 people through a window and into one house? The Black Hole of Forest gate perhaps? If 250 people were in one house at the same time then it's not surprising someone got shot. I think it is more likely that some of the Officers were in fact engaged on the periphery on the road blocks for example. Others may have been in a control room, and others waiting to receive and process any prisoners.
All this proves of course is that you just cannot trust news readers and news teams to tell the truth. BBC or Chanel 4.
hippiepooter:
message for Johnathan Boyd Hunt:
I tried ordering a copy of your book on the Guardian stitch up of the Hamilton's but it doesn't appear to be available from your website anymore. Any way of getting hold of it?
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Hippihooter (and anyone else):
If you type either my full name or the title of my book, Trial by Conspiracy, in inverted commas in Google you'll find it available all over the place for a few quid, plus postage.
Alternatively, if you sent me a crisp tenner I'll send you a signed copy plus a 90 minute DVD plus a CD containing more than thirty high-res j-peg photographic scans of articles and reviews of the book, plus whatever else I think you might like.
(My book is in hardback: the tenner would just about cover the cost of the postage, the padded bag, and the discs.)
If that interests you send it to my home address:
82 Seymour Grove,
Manchester M16 0LW
And thanks for your interest.
Barker John:
I see the seven year old survivour has gone from surviving the bombing because she was swimming to being asleep under a blanket. Those Teflon coated blankets are a must in any Palli household thesedays.
'Huda, who was asleep under a blanket when the explosion occurred, has been symbolically adopted by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniya.'
Who does the weekend visit?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
5067414.stm
Biodegradable:
The most absurd HYS quote-in-a-box on that page:
"Cool heads should intervene and think about the consequences. Israelis and Palestinians are now so intertwined they cannot exist without the other"
Sam Wren, Woking, UK
I think the Israelis would do very well without the Palestinians.
The Pals on the other hand haven't managed to do anything much with newly Judenrein Gaza, other than use it as a base to launch rockets into Israel.
Sam Wren of Woking doesn't seem to realise that Palestinians do not want Israelis to exist anywhere in the Middle East.
By the way, I once spent a fortnight in Woking one afternoon.
Grimer:
JBH,
I really would be careful giving out your full address. Set up a disposable e-mail account at yahoo for that kind of thing.
The last thing you want is some nutter starting a personal vendetta against you.
dumbcisco:
Palestinian rockets hit an Israeli school the other day. Luckily it was empty at the time.
Did the BBC show us film of the incident ? To say that dozens of children could have died from the direct hit ?
Allan@Aberdeen:
The bias of the BBC is spreading beyond its boundaries. Normally my newspaper of choice is The Daily Telegraph yet today's report on the 'deaths' on the beach stated clearly that 'it woz the jooz wot dun it'. For a split second I thought that there had been incontrovertible evidence released by Israel to that effect, then the author of the piece came to mind - Tim Butcher, ex-BBC, and doesn't it show.
BTW, that video is definitely a Pallywood production. Israel needs to get its act together and refute this shit pdq. They've already been caught in the starting blocks before and the sooner they realise that the BBC is Pallywood's main distributor the better.
Bryan:
Well, the Israelis could brush up on their PR, but I don't think it would make much of a dent anywhere.
It's just a matter of irreconcilable differences between Israelis, who celebrate life, and terrorists and their numerous sympathisers, who celebrate death.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Grimer, thanks a lot.
It's okay. I (think I) know what I'm doing. Anyone with 30 minutes to spare on Google can find out where I live. And I've fixed it so that should anything happen to me the fucking balloon goes up.
dave t:
Wot?! You've wired all the Trident missiles to launch at the BBC TV Centre if you 'fall' onto the Central Line....?
Grimer has a good point actually mate. Email not so bad, website fine as you can always keep the spammers etc away with a bit of effort. Giving out the home address - I know it is often public anyway but why make their job easier?
Set up a PO Box on the Island of Gruinard or somewhere and arrange for mail to be forwarded that way if they come visiting in person they'll get an itch or two to take home with them and they'll never really be sure the island was properly decontaminated......
*insert evil laugh here*
dave t:
Now 670 odd posts on this thread....Gawd it is getting hard to find the latest entries....
Andrew:
Since we are nearly at Wimbledon...new threads please!
deegee:
Bryan,
but that doesn't explain the reaction of the Israelis - who seem prepared to admit guilt.
Perhaps we should refer back to the Mohammed Dura fiasco. The IDF were very quick to 'admit' they were probably responsible for the 'death'. Only later did forensic evidence show how improbable it was that the IDF had anything to do with it. It was much later that the staged elements of the 'shooting' gained credibility.
So why do they do it?
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Dave t:
Of course I take your point entirely – I'm not totally bereft of common sense.
But I guess I've been conditioned by the ballsy, don't-give-a-flying-fuck example of one of my supporters, the noted historian and former editor of the New Statesman, Paul Johnson of The Spectator, who published his home telephone number, his fax number, and his home address in the Spectator on 11 April 1998 and invited readers to contact him with examples of The Guardian's maleficences.
I guess I figure that if Paul Johnson had the balls to do it then so ought I.
Let the bad fuckers do their worst. I've gone through enough shit as it is so a little more shouldn't be too much to stomach. But thanks anyway. I really do appreciate it.
Andrew:
Dave T, consider your wish granted - sorry about the lack of posts - I've been a bit busy, as, I presume, have been my B-BBC colleagues.
If you can't see the new posts straightaway try holding down shift and clicking on refresh/reload in your browser.
gordon-bennett:
Just phoned 08700 100 222 to try to point out to the beeb that there were inconsistencies in the Gaza Beach Massacre story.
I said that there were several points but I would restrict myself to 2 for the sake of brevity.
1. I said that the obvious scene that was missing from the clips was any sign of a crater on the beach.
2. I then said that the little girl who had been running around in distress was later seen calmly walking along as the ambulancemen ran past her (a point made by pounce above).
The beeboid then interrupted me to say that what I was saying was just personal opinion and the beeb really could not allow such comment to go forward on the management log.
It sounded to me as if they had received some other calls along these lines and had worked out this policy for ignoring them.
Perhaps others could phone up and see if they get the same reaction.
Peregrine:
Heard a little snippet on Radio 2 very early this morning (about 5:15am)that I know you will enjoy.
Newsagent from Nottingham: "I'm just putting in the little bits of paper that you like to shake out of your Guardian".
Pete Marshall: "I'm glad you said the Guardian and not the Daily Mail".
Grimer:
Gordon Bennett,
I've somehow managed to get a comment published on HYS that points out the inconsistencies in that video. They seem to be moving the debate off the main HYS site very quickly. Maybe they realise they've messed up and want the whole thing to disappear.
gordon-bennett:
Grimer | 11.06.06 - 1:07 am
Yes, I saw your comment (chatmandu?) and was surprised that you managed to get that under their radar. Needless to say, I recommended it.
Having looked at that topic a few times I get the impression that a lot of pro-pal comments with high recommendation counts have suddenly appeared.
Looks like the fix is in.
gordon-bennett:
After SimpsonGate, their treatment of the "Gaza Beach Massacre" is deja vu all over again.
dave t:
Nesws 24 are merely saying 'an explosion' instead of shell fire or whatever......hmm
dave t:
JBH - I have a spare flak jacket should you need it.....
Andrew: Cheers me dear!
*said in a Cornish accent* (to confuse those trying to work out where I live..)
Bryan:
deegee,
So why do they do it?
I believe it's out of a sense of humanity. The world's anti-Israel assault when these incidents occur is so judgemental and implacable that Israel feels the need to counter it by pointing out that it regrets civilian deaths.
dumbcisco:
She went for a swim ?
In all her clothes ? They didn't look wet.
Or NOT in her dress ? So her parents would have kept the dress ? So how come she has it back on again ?
dumbcisco:
A bomb hitting a building will cause the sort of high-pressure body damage that appears to have killed Zarqaqi.
But the alleged family was not all standing together - the girl is seen running to a lone body.
Dows a shell explosion in the open air kill EVERYONE ? No - there were claims of wounded being taken to hospital. So how come ALL the family is claimed to have died - when it appears that they were not all standing together ?
Bryan:
One helluva lot more questions than answers on this incident. Just heard on Israel radio that the IDF stated that they were not firing artillery at the time of the incident. However, earlier Israel radio reported that six artillery shells were fired and they can only account for five.
Still, it could also have been a radically misfired Kassam or perhaps kids playing with an unexploded artillery shell.
The Palestinians would not cooperate at first witht the IDF probe but have now apparently handed over the shell fragments to the IDF. Interesting. This story is far from over.
Meanwhile a Sderot cleaner is fighting for his life after an early-morning Kassam attack on a school.
korova:
hello dumbcisco, sorry it took so long to reply to your nuttiness. Perhaps I won't comment any further if you continue to mis-represent what I am saying (not like a right-winger to do that). However, you provide me with so many good laughs I will keep reading your interesting viewpoint (even if it is like listening to a Bush government spokesman....my god you're not are you???). I am slightly concerned by the way you have been brain washed by the MSM but at least you express your own point of view, not that of the Republican government (er.....). Given that I live in Toryland, I have come across many right-wingers before (in this part of the country everyone is a rightie). Thankfully, your views are in the minority as most people tend to think for themselves instead of parroting Bush, Fox et all.
As for 'orgasnised' terrorism...there is no such thing. Organised terrorism is a different thing (maybe that was a typo due to your reactionary tendencies...it is so easy to wind up a right-winger and watch him go!!). When I said there was no organised terroist threat, I meant from al-Qaeda. As any fool would understand (as far as I know ETA is not a threat to the world - but then you may know differently) from my previous comments. Of course ETA and the IRA was organised, that is obvious in the extreme but thanks for pointing it out.
And don't lump Germany into one country. While your point may be geographically accurate, it is not politically or historically. I for one don't want to forget the difference between the evil regime in the East and the government of Western Germany. By refusing the distinction you whitewash the evils of Honecker et al (which surprises me from a right-winger).
Finally, when you guys worship at the altar of Bill O'Reilly, what are your thoughts on him accusing allied forces at Malmedy of shooting prisoners?? Not bad going demonising the allied forces who were liberating countries from a fascist regime. Is that what you want to replace the BBC???
gordon-bennett:
korova | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 6:44 pm
I notice your blog receives almost no comments and has links to such "intellectuals" as noam chomsky, george monbiot and michael moore.
Nuff said.
dumbcisco:
time for ignore for korova, methinks
korova:
good answer. wow. I feel bowled over by your intellectual points of view. You might want to work on your powers of persuasion, as well as your comprehension.
dumbcisco:
Yawn
AntiCitizenOne:
korova,
Then you feel too much.
sergio:
I think this is a great website truck bed covers
Liza907:
Hi Guys! I'm sorry, but I want to present you BEST links(P.S. as for me) about Super Girl Naughty Nati Crotch Naughty
Please see this special link Naughty Naty Fuck
Or see this link about Naughty Nati Naughty Shot
Thank's!
46
lastchaos money:
But I never angry, instead I want to thank them, thank them let me find a sense of challenge. Let me also thank them for themselves to see the inadequacies of myself. Though I am always killed by them, they let me continue my efforts with the progress. I can earn much lastchaos money in the game when I finish one task. But I still want to they will happy and healthy in the daily life.
Buy rupees:
My gentle breeze is always a very good friend. Buy rupees always as a manner. Be not allowed to deny, in fact in me in the heart, not only he being my good friend. My hope keeps this delicate feeling forever or he can pass an ordeal.
Rappelz money:
Rappelz money also has we get! I am able to marry him. My all the time believe wind contain my all self willed lower fault.
sealonline cegel:
You can buy sealonline cegel when you have no energy!
seal online cegel:
Of course, you can get more and more seal online cegel, be used to yours equip!
Entropiauniverse ped:
In games, you must be use Entropiauniverse ped, it is also Becomes your main goods, because many things must depend on him to complete.
Entropia Universe Gold:
When you have Entropia Universe Gold, you will feel you need a lot of equipment and supplies must!
fiesta money:
fiesta money give me a lot, it help me spend the days when is the most difficult
second life linden:
It is the charm of the second life linden . You will not regret to buy it.
Rolex Submariner watches:
Rolex Submariner watches and replica Rolex Submariner watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
elsie:
cheap aoc gold
aoc money
luxury watches:
I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch Just what possble benefit would it have been to her to have the British Government intercede on her behalf
Sperman:
EU leaders have agreed to guarantees to enable the Lisbon Treaty to win a "Yes" vote in a second Irish referendum.
Biodegradable:
testing
luxury watches:
rtyui
luxury watches:
watches-c-24.html">replica Gucci watches ||
Replica Bell & Ross watches ||
Replica Chanel watches ||
Replica Gucci watches ||
Commenting by HaloScan.com
