By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
will:
Hard day's work at the licence fee payer's expense
I was almost alcoholic, John Humphrys admits
As a reporter in his twenties and early thirties he would drink large quantities before, at and after lunch. “I got hugely fat and was on the verge of becoming an alcoholic,” he said. “I would have a couple of Martinis before lunch, a bottle of wine with lunch, a brandy and a cigar after lunch, come back to the office, crack open a bottle of wine and carry on drinking,” he told The Daily Telegraph.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
new...2415244,00.html
Eamonn:
Any Answers
Just how do the BBC do it? How do they filter out all normal people who must ring in to allow on a completely unrepresentative cross section of Moonbats?
Last week the first caller thought that Iraq would be better if Saddam was brought back. This week we have people ringing in who are supportive of the teaching assistant wearing the veil. Have you met anyone who reflects these views in normal life? I haven't. Then to cap it all we have the caller who says that being not allowed to wear the veil is like Nazi Germany in the 1930s when Jews had directives about clothing. I mean, for goodness sake, where do they get these idiots?
Pete_London:
Eamonn
I mean, for goodness sake, where do they get these idiots?
From the TalkSport poll, held the other day. 99% of voters wanted the veil banned, 1% didn't. Hey, it's only 1%, but someone voted that way.
Pete_London:
In other news, the BBC finds a bunch of people to whom they are willing to ascribe conservative values, without trotting out the 'right wing' thing.
It's the Taleban.
On the road with the Taleban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ent/
6069842.stm
Last Updated: Saturday, 21 October 2006, 11:09 GMT 12:09 UK
Those at the centre of this resurgent Taleban force are the same single-minded Muslims I remember from the time when I travelled with them in the late 90s. They observe their interpretation of Islamic law to the letter, and support the primitive conservative values of the villages in this region.
john:
Eamonn:
Any Answers
Just how do the BBC do it?
The tendency that you alight upon seems to me to be a predictable course now for the BBC. According to Peter Oborne’s piece in the Daily Mail today
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1787
“Labour has made the extraordinary decision to place the politics of religious identity at the centre of public discourse, in the same sort of way that Jorg Haider's Freedom Party does in Austria and Pim Fortuyn's List Party did in the Netherlands”
An interesting question is what exactly will be the role of the BBC in all of this? Have we already witnessed this in the QT studio debacle from Thursday? My impression is that they will steadily chastise Labour for this attempt, in the same way as they do apropos of Iraq. They will adopt the Liberal-we are oh so tolerant perspective- and, surprisingly the Tory approach, with Cameron’s apparent disinterestedness and don’t rock the boat interpretation, they will warm towards. Cameron must love this as the mantle of the old Tebbit style Tory intransigence on race & immigration, is now being taken up by Labour. Orborne is right “Labour has cut its losses, and decided instead to stir up racial tension as a means of appealing directly to the white working-class vote.”
The same logic that Orborne uses for the Muslim vote must surely apply as well to the BBC? I seriously think that the BBC will do its utmost to expose this new Labour strategy.
Does this mean Labour will henceforth also start to attack the BBC more? Are these plans being laid as we speak?
The nature of Any Answers and the editorial “steering” of these unrepresentative contributions is a political strategy.
Watching BBC2s Newsnight last night, I couldn't help thinking that the same BBC "steering" logic had quickly drafted on to the selected panel of their Arts Review, that outrageous man in a dress and womans wig, Grayson?, as some clever cultural counter-weight to all the images of Muslim women in veils. The same in-yer-face shock approach, so common to the BBC fraternity.
will:
Re Oborne in the Mail - it seems he is all for the veil & other trappings of Muslim fundamentalism as he will take any path which is opposite to Blair's. Similar to the attitude of the Mail's usual editorial position, but perhaps not on this subject.
Maybe the Mail & BBC will become uneasy bedfellows.
1327:
A while ago a read a comment on this blog which said watching/listening to the BBC gave you the same insight into the views of the ruling UK elite as listening to Radio Moscow gave you of the views of the Kremlin in the old days. There was a prime example of this on Fridays News Quiz on Radio 4. Just a couple of weeks ago any jokes at the expense of the religion of peace would have been a complete no no. However yesterday following an item on the the veiled teaching assistant Sandy Toksvig told a couple of very childish and unfunny jokes about veils and curtains which came as a bit of a shock to me. I can only presume the recent comments by Jack Straw and the PM have changed the the rules for the BBC types. Even odder was the fact that Mark Steel the RESPECT member said nothing in response. Just last month the program was following the RESPECT line exactly
but now things have changed.
will:
Even the Radio Times previewer has doubts over the so called war on terror allegory of BBC's "Robin Hood".
"We are going to win hearts and minds!" declares the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham, as he vows to uphold law and order in the face of terrorism. Sorry, I mean in the face of Robin Hood's acts of "random, chaotic cruelty", as he puts it, but I think we all know what the writer is driving at here. It's all part of the subtle-as-a thumbscrew subtext of this adventure yarn. The only problem with a Robin Hood: Prince of Pacifists angle is that our war-damaged hero ends up seeming bloodless in every sense
john:
Maybe the Mail & BBC will become uneasy bedfellows.
will | 21.10.06 - 5:26 pm | #
Agreed, Orbone's piece is slippery and slimy. Difficult though to imagine them as bedfellows with Littlejohn & Melanie P on board.
The Mail on Sunday, however, is of a very Left-wing editorial persuasion. From the very beginning they were anti-Guantanamo. The web site of the MOS is controlled by hysterical Guardianista types that make the BBCs HYS site look tame.
pauls:
let's not forget Littlejohn used to be a BBC presenter.
Melanie P is always on the BBC and has her regular perch on Moral Maze.
Hitchens and Oborne are much the same. The BBC and MoS are interchangeable.
Small msm village.
mick in the uk:
Re the Talk Sport polls.
I am a member of a certain ROP forum, and I get regular text massages when there is a poll that might be swayed by my vote.
1: I wouldn't waste my money.
2: I would, of course, vote the opposite way.
There are many places on the Internet where there are collections of the ROP working for the (their) common good in various vote rigging scenarios.
mick in the uk:
Oops!
Sorry, I forgot to add...the main target is often the BBC HYS.
dave t:
There are many places on the Internet where there are collections of the ROP working for the (their) common good in various vote rigging scenarios.
Good heavens! You mean..they're not playing the game?!! Harumphhh!
Tim:
I am watching a series of programmes on BBC news 24
Something like; Direct from America.
OK Repeat after me;
America is bad, Islam is great
-
Look into the eyes, not around the the eyes, look into the eyes.
and repeat 1,000 times...
America is bad, Islam is great.
Got the message yet?
henry:
Proof that everything said on this site is correct.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
Hmmm what do you make of that Reethy
mick in the uk:
Aaaargh!
Henry said 'ethnic minorities', 'homosexuals' and the 'M' word.
Dammned racist bigot.
Probably.
Dave t :
Yes I was shocked, they're not playing the game, and it's not cricket.
mick in the uk:
On a serious note, from Henrys link:
"Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims."
Disgusting, but, blatant BBC.
mick in the uk:
Folks, you gotta read it all...
"It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
Anonymous:
BBC owns up,"All your biases are belong to us"
Anonymous:
It was always full of them.
deegee:
Re BBC owns up:
Do we have any evidence at all that this meeting actually happened or that any of the quotes were actually said?
s.h:
this one's a corker.
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'
max:
A bad case of moral equivalency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
5377914.stm
It's all just a misunderstanding.
Note the use of the term 'hardliners' applied equally to both sides.
Further, there's the implication (as in the case of North Korea) that Bush's inclusion of Iran in the 'axis of evil' speech has somehow changed Iran's moderate stance towrds the US/west/its nuclear plans.
In the same manner Israel (who else?) is also responsible for straining US Iran relations because they were bolstering Washington's notorious hardliners: "But the hardliners in Washington had been bolstered by Israel's discovery just a few weeks before the speech of a consignment of arms alleged to be heading from Iran to Palestinian groups."
The gall of them Israelis.
Overall, the gist of this story is that the Iranian regime is pragmatic and reasonable but its efforts to reach some sort of an agreement are thwarted by an uncompromising US regime that's hijacked by hardliners (who are bolstered by Jews). It uses the formula of 'extremists on both sides' for doing so.
Also, the only highlighted quote in the article comes from..."I believe the nuclear issue could have been resolved long time ago" Javad Zarif, Iran ambassador".
Pete_London:
Henry
Thanks for the link. So there we go, we are right. I love being proven right.
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.
Let's not forget though, this has only come to light because someone spilled the beans. They carry on being Stalinist even when they admit to it. I'll be offing a FOI request this week, I want to know what else was said.
Anonymous:
.
The only way to cure the treacherous BBC is to privatise it and make it`s snout in the trough employees work in the real world.
The BBC telling us what we have known for years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
Ralph:
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'
but earlier he said:
"We get from time to time people saying you're biased in favour of the Labour Party. Every time I ask people - show me a case of that bias, explain to me where we got it wrong and why what we said was so unfair - they seem to be unable to do so"
Odd that.
Matt:
Enormous credit is due to this blog, and others of course, but this one in particular, for shining such a bright and continuous light into the murky corners of BBC bias.
I have a feeling that 'Biased-BBC' was a significant factor in prompting this conference in the first place.
POWER TO THE BLOGGERS !!!
Matt:
Enormous credit is due to this blog, and others of course, but this one in particular, for shining such a bright and continuous light into the murky corners of BBC bias.
I have a feeling that 'Biased-BBC' was a significant factor in prompting this conference in the first place.
POWER TO THE BLOGGERS !!!
milesinfront:
Lets see how John Reith tackles this one when he gats back to Television Centre on Monday!
archduke:
Groan - they're visiting a mosque on Balamory right now.
Mini-Archduke is asking questions. oh dear - i'm currently fobbing them off with "i dont know".
weird thing is - they didnt mention "God" or "Allah" once. there was absolutely zero explanation as to what a mosque actually is.
archduke:
LGF has picked up on that "bbc is biased" story
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...vious_Bias&
only
paulc:
Brian Walden has been 'talking up' the 'Cameroonian brand' of conservatism on R5.
Net conclusion; died-in-the-wool, true-blue, hardcore conservative voters will not desert the party - they have nowhere to go.
Voting UKIP is 'stabbing the conservative party in the back' and will usher in another 5 years of Labour hegemony.
Is the conservative party now more in-line with BBC multi-culti thinking than Nu Labour?
(I cite the recent pronouncements by Ministers concerning veils, integration, al-Qa'Ida, Civic Commitment, and contrast that with the impression given by the Cameron Clan)
GCooper:
paulc writes:
"Is the conservative party now more in-line with BBC multi-culti thinking than Nu Labour?"
Funnily enough, I have just said almost exactly this in my comment on the "Told You So" thread, above.
It is no coincidence that "Dave" is a media goldfish and swims in a small, but fantastically self-regarding pond, in which all the usual Left-liberal views are considered axiomatic.
Having spent his entire life being first educated (perhaps) and then working (also questionable) in such an environment, he was perfectly placed to conform to all the norms demanded of a potential candidate by the all-powerful BBC (and, one might as well add, ITV too, for what little use it is).
Cameron is the perfect product of the UK media's liberal-left mindset and was chosen by bewildered Conservatives, who could see no way of winning an election unless they conformed to what the overwhelming majority of the British media demanded: a young, metropolitan, telegenic Leftie with views straight out of Newsnight, or the saner op-ed pages of the Guardian.
Anyone else - as was proved by the media assassinations of Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard - would have guaranteed another lost election. The Tory grandees recognised this and, being Tory grandees (whose dedication to honour and principle was demonstrated so well during the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher), the fact that appointing the boy wonder also meant abandoning everything the Conservative Party stood for, was no obstacle at all.
That is why the BBC is so damned dangerous. It, and the media circus it dominates, can force an agenda on the entire nation.
We are, truly, governed in the UK - not represented. Our opinions do not matter. Those that do are held by a small, liberal elite which has seized the organs of propaganda, which it uses to promote them and to set government policy. Joseph Goebells would have been proud.
archduke:
Somebody is warning of rivers of blood, about 30 years too late...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6074286.stm
I can hear the ghost of Enoch Powell roaring saying "i told you so"
archduke:
just caught news 24 using the "non-muslim" term when interviewing Saheed Malik MP. Am i the only one that is extremely uncomfortable with the growing usage of this term?
whats wrong with "white English"? or "Christian"?
TPO:
You're not alone in feeling uncomfortable about it ad.
will:
GCooper "It, and the media circus it dominates, can force an agenda on the entire nation."
I agree stongly. Media folk often claim that they are but poor, humble & powerless.
I once complained to Andrew Neil (Daily Politics) about an interview with a backbench MP & the Mirror's Brown propagandist Paul Routledge. Neil had jumped all over the MP, but allowed Routledge to spout his pro-Brown conspiracy theories without challenge.
Mr Neil took the trouble to reply to me, but claimed that the MP had to get the rougher treatment as he was powerful. Really! In what way is a backbench MP more powerful than a leading columnist at a major newspaper?
In truth the media set the political agenda.
billyquiz:
GCooper
History repeating?
MIt is no coincidence that "Tony" is a media goldfish and swims in a small, but fantastically self-regarding pond, in which all the usual Left-liberal views are considered axiomatic.
Having spent his entire life being first educated (perhaps) and then working (also questionable) in such an environment, he was perfectly placed to conform to all the norms demanded of a potential candidate by the all-powerful BBC (and, one might as well add, ITV too, for what little use it is).
Blair was the perfect product of the UK media's liberal-left mindset and was chosen by desperate Labourites, who could see no way of winning an election unless they conformed to what the overwhelming majority of the British media demanded: a young, metropolitan, telegenic Leftie with views straight out of Newsnight, or the saner op-ed pages of the Guardian.
Anyone else - as was proved by the media assassinations of Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock would have guaranteed another lost election. The Labour grandees recognised this and, being Labour grandees, the fact that appointing the boy wonder also meant abandoning everything the Labour Party stood for, was no obstacle at all.
It seems like your comment could easily have come from 1994, IMHO.
GCooper:
billyquiz writes:
"It seems like your comment could easily have come from 1994, IMHO."
An amusing re-write and I wouldn't entirely disagree. Bliar cetainly was a product of Islingtonian thinkers. One could almost laugh at how badly it backfired on them - that is, if one hadn't had to live through his reign of mendacious medocrity.
However, it is one thing for the chattering classes to foist-off their half-baked ideas onto an already Left-wing party, but quite another when they do it to the Conservatives!
Verity:
Well said, GCooper! It is astounding that one group has managed to take over an entire country by propaganda alone.
David Cameron was chosen for the reasons you stated. David Davis is too independent minded and clear-sighted for this group. David Cameron is perfect. Not overly bright. Embarrassingly self-regarding. Shallow. Showy. Hungry for praise. All those words also apply, of course, to his doppelganger, Tony Blair.
Had the party membership have been able to vote, they would have voted for Mr Davis. That's why they must never have a vote.
And I'd like to echo whoever wrote above that Biased-BBC deserves a huge vote of thanks, for it is largely due to them that Andrew Marr et cie admitted that they are biased and, by implication, are not fit to be working in a licence-payer funded organisation. But, if the Conservatives get in, as long as Dave's in charge, they'll never have to worry.
Jon:
The BBc is once agin flooding its news site with Muslim stories. can anyone tell me what percentage of the British population is muslim? I thought it was only 2% in 2001 has it now grown to 75% because the news seems to be 75% muslim stories and 25% for the rest (and thats on a good day)
pounce:
The BBC and its master’s voice.
Anybody else noticed how the BBC loves to promote the premise that resistance is futile against Islam;
"Resistance is futile — you will be assimilated."
“Taleban leader in new war threat”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
6075278.stm
"We are the Religion of Peace. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us."
“Warning over UK race riot danger”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6074286.stm
“"We are *****.. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile."
“On the road with the Taleban”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ent/
6069842.stm
“ Plumbers do not evolve, they conquer.”
Young and Muslim: The French exchange
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
4500414.stm
Err BBC it seems for all your posturing about how great the Borg are. It appears you forgot that the federation defeated them.
More tea vicar?
Verity:
I may be on the wrong thread, in which case, please forgive me, but I've just seen the BBC's scary news about the burqa, aka the niqab, blah blah blah blah where drawings of the two islamacist oppressed women are pictured and their "veils' are explained to those of us who are confused about these lovely people with their lovely religion and would just like instruction on the difference between a hijab or niqab.
Why is the default assumption that we would give a rat's arse? A monkey poo? A flea fart? Hello?
disillusioned_german:
Try this jihadwatch.org story: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/
013694.php
These poor oppressed (muslim) women
disillusioned_german:
This (also via jihadwatch) is also good:
UK govt funds moderate Muslim website
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/
013702.php
RB:
Verity,
Why would anyone want instruction on the difference between a hijab or niqab?
Intellectual curiousity perhaps? Or is the accumulation of information (i.e. learning stuff) a sinister plot by the trendy metropolitan liberal chattering classes against the rights of the steadfast downtrodden majority to stay stupid?
peter:
Sorry, off-topic:
please follow this link, this is the Russian online game about bears. every your click very important for me. Thank You!
Abandon ship!:
Anyone notice the attempts by the BBC today to step up a gear in the "There's going to be a cut and Run" strategy for Iraq? The BBC already assume it is cut and run, because it has all been a disaster of course, and to them there is no other choice. But my ears are definitely picking up the sound of over-egging the pudding from Beeboids
Abandon ship!:
But the BBC, in their excitement, could at least be consistent. Was it Hugh Sykes on the Today programme this morning who mentioned repeatedly that the Iraqis hate the coalition, our presence there is making the situation worse etc, then bizzarely states that "Iraqis fear a cut and run strategy". So which is it Hugh? Or is excitement at the thought of the Americans "cutting and running" addling your brain? Poor old Beeboids - they are salivating over scooping that last helicopter taking off from the Green zone with massed jihadis and other members of the "resistance" closing in from all sides...
Abandon ship!:
Can't help noticing that the Beeboid approach today on Iraq is strikingly similar to that presented by today's Guardian and Independent. Coincidence? Surely not.
TheCuckoo:
What a nasty little piece this is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6076596.stm
'Seven dead' in Israeli Gaza raid
OK, so it's a raid
Seven Palestinians including a senior militant figure have been killed in clashes with Israel [sic] troops in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say.
Ah, OK, only the Palestinians say it was a 'raid'
Local people in the northern town of Beit Hanoun say several men were gunned down during a mourning ceremony.
'Gunned down'???? Why use such emotive language? Was this a direct quote? If so, where are the quote marks?
The Israeli army said 10 gunmen had been hit during exchanges of fire in north Gaza in an operation to stop militants firing rockets into Israel.
The Israelis only claimed to 'hit' the men, not kill them? Odd...
It denied operating in the town, but said it had been near Beit Lahiya.
...and they weren't in the town at all?...
The Israeli army also denied Palestinian claims that the clashes had occurred during an undercover raid.
...and it wasn't a raid? Funny that despite the Israeli denails, the Palestinian version of events is what is driving the narrative of the story.
The incident came as Palestinians celebrated Eid al-Fitr, a holiday marking the end of Ramadan.
Why is this even remotely relevant? It's only purpose seems to be to make clear who the 'victims' are in this story. i.e. At an otherwise happy, holiday time, some innocent mourners were shot at by the Israelis. Oh yeah, nearly forgot - they returned fire with the guns they had with them at the happy, holiday funeral.
Missile fire
Local people in Beit Hanoun say the men who were gunned down were paying their respects to a militant who was shot recently by the Israelis.
More use of 'gunned down'? Why? What's wrong with 'killed'?
Among those who died in the burst of fire was a man named Ata Shinbari, a senior commander in a militant organisation called the Popular Resistance Committees, the group and witnesses said.
'burst of fire'? Oh come on!
The group is heavily involved in launching crudely made rockets across Gaza's border into Israeli territory.
Not the crudely made rockets again! It's about time they started to build them properly!
The militant groups often say that such missile fire is a response to Israeli army actions in occupied Palestinian territory.
Thanks for the justification of the terrorist cause, BBC, I needed that.
Mr Shinbari has been described as the man in charge of his organisation's activity in northern Gaza.
So he was the head of a group of terrorists?
Palestinian sources say that his death was an assassination carried out by an Israeli undercover unit.
But only the Palistinians said this. Why do you re-state it?
Violence between Israelis and Palestinians in recent weeks has been at its worst since June, when the Israelis launched an offensive to try to rescue a captured soldier.
No, no, no. Just because you say it is so, does not make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.
What a load of rubbish.
Allan_D:
"Had the party membership have been able to vote, they would have voted for Mr Davis. That's why they must never have a vote."
But surely, Verity, the party membership did have a vote and they voted for Cameron over Davis by a 2-1 margin (thanks party to Nick Robinson and other media supporters):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Con..._election,_2005
(The only party members who were denied a choice were the Fox & Clarke supporters). The Conservative Party has noone but itself to blame for its present difficulty. The membership deliberately chose to sacrifice their principles in return for the prospect of a return to office (which may not in happen until the election after next and then only if the electoral system is not changed in the interim).
As far as the BBC is concerned the Labour Party poses no threat to its positions. Despite the various run-ins with its leaders notably Wilson, Callaghan and Blair Labour has always maintained the BBC's ring-fenced access to public funding. The worse things that have happened under Labour have been changes at the top caused by the Hutton Report under Blair and when Wilson transferred the former Tory M.P. Lord Hill (aka the "Radio Doctor") from his post as Chairman of the ITA to Chairman of the BBC in 1967 to spite Hugh Carleton Greene, then D-G. However despite these changes the ethos and dominance of the BBC remained unperturbed.
However Conservative Governments broke the televison monopoly of the BBC in 1953 and its radio monopoly 20 years later. Both these events had significant consequences for the BBC. However with Cameron the BBC will have nothing to fear. No doubt, he will continue to maintain the licence fee (albeit with backbench complaint) and continue to give the BBC a monopoly control of digital broadcasting thus preventing viewer from exercising freedom of choice and opting out of access to BBC services (surely one of the worst decisions of the Blair Government).
GCooper:
abandon Ship writes:
"Anyone notice the attempts by the BBC today to step up a gear in the "There's going to be a cut and Run" strategy for Iraq? The BBC already assume it is cut and run, because it has all been a disaster of course, and to them there is no other choice."
I said much the same thing to a friend in the States, last night. You get a definite sense from the UK media that they feel they have won their war.
Perhaps they are right. But it will reap them a very uncomfortable 'peace' - of that we can be certain.
max:
Cuckoo, the version you refer to was edited. Thanks to the new revisionista feature you can now see clearly the fifference between the two latest versions. It is quite telling. I like the way the quotes migrated in the title.
http://newssniffer.newworldodour...s/7827/diff/2/
3
marc:
Test comment.
Sorry folks. I tried posting in another thread but it wouldn't post, so I'm trying here.
marc:
That worked but when I try and post the comment I want it fails to post.
Does Haloscan not truncate a post if it is too long and instead fails to post it now?
dave t:
Used to be a 1000 character limit at one time marc, but it seems that has been changed now judging by the length of some of the posts!
marc:
On the road with the Taleban
This is what the BBC said, speaking of the Taleban, in that report Pete pointed out.
"They observe their interpretation of Islamic law to the letter, and support the primitive conservative values of the villages in this region."
The Taleban don't "support" any such thing - they impose it and kill all those who don't obey.
Unlike the BBC who do support the Taleban.
marc:
Thanks Dave. I've tried several times to post a long rebuttal to Reith's nonsense but it won't post. I'll try to post it in parts and see what happens.
marc:
I had to split the post in two to get it to post.
I did a lenghty rebuttal to Reith's defense of the BBC over at the post about the BBC's bias admission.
GCooper:
Good grief! Menzies 'Zombie' Campbell on PM yet again this evening, banging on inter alia about US politics as if he knew anything about them.
And the BBC isn't biased?
Ritter:
Was that George Galloway 'reporting' hysterically from the BBC bunker in Basra on R4 'Today' this morning, or John Humphries? When it comes to Iraq, I can no longer tell the difference.
BBC = Respect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
toda...aq_20061023.ram
Anonymous:
.
"Poll slump"..Hardly surprising as the guy is a wimp, Britain needs a Conservative leader that will call a spade a spade and do something about it.…
"Cameron appeals for time after poll slump"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
archduke:
completely OT: "Wired" magazine article on the "New Atheism" movement
http://www.wired.com/news/wiredm...ml?
tw=rss.index
very interesting stuff - considering the BBCs output and all the usual politically correct "dont give offense" rubbish.
Lynette:
I'm American, though I've spent time over there - the BBC is shameless in its disdain for my country, and they spread it all over the world (financed by the British public). The HYS section drives me up the wall. I occasionally try to get a comment in, though they are not printed - left off in favor of illiterate conspiracy theory rants. My latest tactic was to simply address a comment about one of the more outlandish hate-America posts to the censors themselves. Seems it's gotten me de-registered with the BBC! Considering the things they DO print, it was pretty tame.
archduke:
"Britain needs a Conservative leader that will call a spade a spade and do something about it.…"
I would agree. Britain needs a John Howard.
archduke:
there's a very interesting paragraph in that wired article i linked to above - in particular , when one wonders why the BBC has wall-to-wall "islam islam islam" stories.
quote:
"The number of nonreligious people in the U.S. is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says. "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."
Tim:
Totally off topic;
I bumped into the leader of UKIP Nigel Farage and his PR chic (Not unnatractive) Annabell, in The Audeley Pub on South Audeley Street W1 (For those of you who know it)
Amongst other subjects we got onto BBC Biased - He is a huge fan of this site - Best be careful what I say, thats enough for the Beeb to publically assinate him at the next election.
archduke:
"Best be careful what I say, thats enough for the Beeb to publically assinate him at the next election."
he's probably the only well known politician who speaks the truth on the European Union and what it gets up to.
(Tony Benn would be another ,well known and very outspoken critic)
he could so easily jump onboard the gravy train and just shut up (with a nice safe Tory seat), but he doesnt. I admire people like that.
and thats why you rarely see him on Al-Beeb.
archduke:
gotta love Hungarian protestors.
they nick tanks.
no i'm not kidding... have a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
6078052.stm
GCooper:
Lynette writes:
"The HYS section drives me up the wall. I occasionally try to get a comment in, though they are not printed - left off in favor of illiterate conspiracy theory rants."
Take heart, Lynette - you're not alone! HYS is known here as (Don't)HYS and for good reasons.
The web-monkeys employed by the BBC to censor HYS posts do a wonderful job. Assuming, that is, you're a Respect admirer!
One of the nastier aspects of the BBC's corruption is the way it stokes the fires of anti-Americanism. It's one of so many reasons why we would be better off without the corporation and its student politics.
dave t:
Gasp ! - talking of mad atheists...did you spot that "Torchwood" (the Dr Who cynical spin off) had one of the dead people say there was nothing on the other side...(in between males and females snogging to get audience ratings etc) - bet the Holy Father Pope Benny will have a thing or two to say about that! Oh wait - you mean there aren't any 72 virgins either? Oops! Stand by for a bricking at the BBC! 8-)
Market Participant:
Seven dead 'in Israeli Gaza raid'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6076596.stm
Last Updated: Monday, 23 October 2006, 13:56 GMT 14:56 UK
===
"But Israel said its troops were engaged in a gunfight with armed men threatening Israel with rocket fire.
Palestinian sources said the incident was in Beit Hanoun but Israel said it was operating near Beit Lahiya."
How about we say that this story is a mash-up and that what ever happened is too unclear to report on?
"The group is heavily involved in launching crudely made rockets across Gaza's border into Israeli territory."
I thought they were home-made rockets. I guess the hard ship of the embargo has caused the rockets to become crude.
" militant organisation called the Popular Resistance Committees, the group and witnesses said."
And the PRC is associated with which government faction? Hint: Starts with an F and ends with an H.
"The militant groups often say that such missile fire is a response to Israeli army actions in occupied Palestinian territory."
Such as? Which groups? What occupied territory?
"Violence between Israelis and Palestinians in recent weeks has been at its worst since June, when the Israelis launched an offensive to try to rescue a captured soldier.
The Popular Resistance Committees was one of the groups that claimed joint responsibility for the abduction of Cpl Gilad Shalit. "
Ok, the BBC is still having a hard time with basic journalistic editing.
1.) Mention people's name the first time they are mentioned.
2) What other groups were involved in the "Joint operation". Perhaps one starting with an "H"?
3) Where was the solider abducted?
Perhaps Kidnapped is a better simpler term.
Let's try this version:
===
"Violence between Israelis and Palestinians in recent weeks has been at its worst since June. The most recent violence began when Palestinian militants kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Cpl Gilad Shalit, during a cross border raid into Israel. Several palestinian groups participated including the Popular Resistance Committees and Hamas.
Since the kidnapping, Israel has launched regular military operations into gaza to stop the firing of rockets and rescue the solider.
The palestinian government, lead by Hamas, has refused to return Cpl Shalit, outside of a general prisoner exchange. Israel demands his unconditional return.
Market Participant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6075408.stm
Israel admits phosphorus bombing
Last Updated: Sunday, 22 October 2006, 17:09 GMT 18:09 UK
===
"Israel has for the first time admitted it used controversial phosphorus shells during fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July and August.
Cabinet minister Jacob Edery confirmed the bombs were dropped "against military targets in open ground"."
Shelling or bombing which is it? Can the BBC please decide for us?
"
The Geneva Conventions ban the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas."
What other "human rights groups"?
What about the Human rights of the two solider's kidnapped by Hezbollah. Do they have names? How did this fighting start in the first place
""The Israeli army made use of phosphorus shells during the war against Hezbollah in attacks against military targets in open ground," he said.
No information was given on when, where or how the shells were used. "
They were used in attacks against military targets in open ground.
The BBC corespondent is thick as brick.
====
It seems to me that this story could use a little footwork to determine what the IDF means by marking targets.
WP is a sticky incindiary, so its good to paint targets with as a beacon for later air raids. The allies used a good amount of it in WWII.
The IDF uses Artiliry for fast response return fire after target aquisition.
After marking the target, its easy to call in an air raid at the same coordinates.
mick in the uk:
Not to be seen on the BBC...a moonbat crashes to earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1...h?
v=1b2QhQQpHck
pounce:
The BBC and half a story;
Votes scam 'may have swayed poll'
Postal vote-rigging may have influenced the outcome of local elections in London, a Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) report has revealed. Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman said minority communities were most vulnerable to the corruption.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
6078654.stm
And I wonder which minority community the BBC refers to. I wouldn’t know as the terms South Asian and Muslim don’t seem to apply to this BBC half story.
archduke:
dispatches (c4) right now. they *might* (shudder) show the cartoons
Pete_London:
mick in the UK
Thanks for the link. It's powerful stuff, and as you say, a moonbat has had her eyes opened: "They never had any other intention except to eliminate Israel."
One of the teenage boys cited "the dead of Jenin", by way of excusing child suicide bombers. Another feather in the cap of the lying MSM.
archduke:
dispatches audience vote
69% yes
however, john snow has a statement from channel4 , which orders that they dont be shown.
so there you have it. democracy in action - c4 style.
archduke:
dispatches site
http://www.channel4.com/news/mic...dispatches2006/
"The Dispatches Debate:
Muslims and Free Speech
Channel 4 Monday 23 October 2006, 8pm
Jon Snow chairs a special Dispatches debate on whether Muslims are threatening freedom of speech in the UK. Recent events such as the protests over remarks made by the Pope about the nature of Islam; to demonstrations over the publication of Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed; to the censorship of works of art depicting holy scriptures have all raised an urgent question: whether the objections made by Muslims are legitimate reasons to prevent publication or display? Jon Snow will question a series of guests who have been directly involved in these controversies."
Chris:
@ Lynette 6.19 and GCooper 7.46 pm
I started noticing a while back that not a single one of the comments I sent to the BBC's 'Have Your Say' section was ever posted. Not one. I then tried experimenting. I tried on stories - stories it seems being the operative word - that had only just come out, I tried sending two conflicting viewpoints, I tried from a range of different computers/places, deleting cookies beforehand so they could not know I was the same person, but still nothing. It seems crystal clear that 'fully moderated' is merely a euphemism for 'in-house propaganda'.
archduke:
they have a Hizb-Ut-Tahir rep on now (c4 - dispatches).
pounce:
The BBC and half a story;
Seven dead 'in Israeli Gaza raid'
Seven Palestinians including a senior militant figure have been killed in clashes with Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials said. The officials said the men were shot at a mourning ceremony during an Israeli undercover raid.
But Israel said its troops were engaged in a gunfight with armed men threatening Israel with rocket fire.
Among those who died in the burst of fire was a man named Ata Shinbari, a senior commander in a militant organisation called the Popular Resistance Committees, the group and witnesses said. The group is heavily involved in launching crudely made rockets across Gaza's border into Israeli territory. The militant groups often say that such missile fire is a response to Israeli army actions in occupied Palestinian territory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6076596.stm
So according to the BBC these men may have been innocent and that sometimes the group the men belong to lob rockets over the border into Israel.
Here are a few snippets missing from that BBC report;
2 Qassam rockets land in western Negev
Palestinians launched two Qassam rockets from the northern Gaza Strip Sunday afternoon. One of the rockets landed in an open area on the outskirts of Sderot and the second in an open field near one of the Sha'ar Hanegev communities.
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3318116,00.html
Rocket falls near Ashkelon
Police said a Qassam rocket fired by gunmen from the northern Gaza Strip into Israel on Sunday morning landed in open fields near a kibbutz in the Ashkelon area.
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3317794,00.html
Qassam lands near IDF base in western Negev
A Qassam launched from northern Gaza landed in an open area near an IDF base in the western Negev.
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3318325,00.html
3 Qassam rockets fired from Gaza
Three Qassam rockets we fired at Israel from the northern Gaza Strip, the Sderot Municipality and the Israeli army say.
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3317573,00.html
Qassam land in garden of Sderot home; one wounded
One person was wounded when a Qassam rocket landed in the garden of a Sderot home Friday.
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3317503,00.html
The last of the above incidents transpired on Friday last.(3 days ago)
The BBC and really half a story about why the IDF slotted the terrorists behind the above artillery barrage.
There are a lot more but I couldn’t be asked to cut and paste them all;
DofF:
c4 hahahahha
Diana:
Chris I posted a comment on the BBC with the link of the real number of civilian cassualties in Iraq, which is about 48 000 and not 655 000 like the Lancet said, and the next day when I checked my post had been erased from the discussion, and all the posts you would see were from those who believed the Lancet report
CBC Listener:
BBC = CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp[se]oration: same force-paid, left-wing, PC propaganda and spin. Only, so far, CBC hasn't admitted a thing.
Great news these days: The bloggers are outing this sissy fifth column
DofF:
18 doughty street
the so called alternative to the bbc is a joke,
it is just another extension of the metropolitan elite excusing the left wing domination of the media.
Diana:
pounce
you know what pissed me off, how the BBC uses the word "militant" which refers to someone "active or aggressive in support of a cause" and the synonyms are "activist" or "militant reformers."
I don't think that an organization that bombs places with rockets is an "activist" or militant. They are terrorists because they walk around with guns and they fire rockets at others. Yes, maybe they do have a cause: to destroy everyone else that doesn't think like them and to extinguish democracy.
BTW terrorist in the dictionary is not a synonym of militant, so the BBC IS using that term with a manipulative intention.
Just like the use the word alleged to their convenience
Ohh and take a look at the antonym of "militant," it is "conformist or conservative"
It all fits in doesn't it!!
GET A DICTIONARY BBC!!! YOU CAN GET IT ONLINE FOR FREE
Pete_London:
Jon Snow chairs a special Dispatches debate on whether Muslims are threatening freedom of speech in the UK ..... during the course of which Channel states it won't show a bunch or pertinent cartoons.
Pete_London:
A couple of other things:
1. The Lib Dems' greatest financier, Michael Brown, was recently jailed. The money he donated to the Lib Dems was earend fraudulently. I saw no mention of this on the. I think the day the news broke was the one day on which Sir Mingzies Campbell was - mysteriously - absent from a BBC studio. Michael Howard admits to 'being questioned' as part of the cash-for-honours investigation, and that story is currently number one on the front page.
2. French police face 'permanent intifada'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20061...rban_violence_4
This one's been doing the rounds for some time now. The world's biggest dump - Paris - seems to have a permanent level of islamic violence. The BBC seems not to have noticed.
3. And finally folks, never forget: liberalism kills.
Sex offenders register increase
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60.../uk/
6076664.stm
The latest figures show there were 29,973 people on the sex offenders register last year. And the number of violent offenders and other sex offenders under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Mappa) has also shown an increase. These went up more than 13% year-on-year to a total of 14,317. Mappa were monitoring 47,653 violent and sex offenders in England and Wales at the end of 2005/06.
I'm sure every single one of those 47,653 'violent and sex offenders' is being monitored very very closely. Don't you?
This is the first annual report since the system was criticised for its failings in the case of convicted rapist Anthony Rice. In May this year an inquiry by Chief Inspector of Probation Andrew Bridges highlighted how Rice killed mother-of-one Naomi Bryant nine months after being freed from a 16-year jail term because officials placed his human rights above protecting the public. The local Mappa was "distracted" when Rice had been freed, because it had been considering his human rights, the report said. Rice, 49, strangled and stabbed to death Ms Bryant, 40, at her home in Winchester in August last year, only days after they had met.
Maybe not then, but I'm sure the distraught family of Naomi Bryant are now relieved to hear that lessons will be learned. Those lessons are always learned after liberals do what liberals do and someone is killed.
The number of individuals already on the register who have re-offended has fallen from 79 in 2004/05 to 61 in 2005/06 - a drop of 22.78%
Ah, maybe those lesson aren't learned after all. Never mind eh, mustn't upset NACRO. What the BBC hasn't said, and what I discovered on Sky News earlier, is that some 250 rapes and murders have been committed by murderers and sex cases who have been released early from prison. Liberalism kills.
Roxana:
quote:
"The number of nonreligious people in the U.S. is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says.
Quite possible but I'd love to know where he got his numbers from - Lancet?
"That's more than all the Jews in the world put together."
So?
"I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. "
oh poo! It is perfectly safe to be an atheist in this country. In fact it gets you strokes from the MSM and Liberal Establishment when you demand your sensibilities not be offended by any reference to religion.
Pete_London:
CBC Listener
BBC = CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp[se]oration: same force-paid, left-wing, PC propaganda and spin. Only, so far, CBC hasn't admitted a thing.
I was Australia not so long and the ABC is the same. It peddles exactly the same liberal-left lines on Iraq, immigration, the US, popular culture. In fact I think they have it worse over there. Not only do they have to put up with the drivel, but it comes in an Aussie accent.
DofF:
i know this is not BBC bias but just now on Doughty street , Spooks the most leftist propagana bollocks ever filmed was called right wing , un-challenged by the supposed consevative ian dale. Apparently story lines like mossad killers and white racists trying to subert democracy ( every episode by the way)
and then being foiled by well meaning guardian readers.
the hand which controls the media goes deeper and deeper
Allan@Aberdeen:
Pete_London:
Jon Snow chairs a special Dispatches debate on whether Muslims are threatening freedom of speech in the UK ..... during the course of which Channel states it won't show a bunch or pertinent cartoons.
That kinda ends the debate.
Lynette:
Hi Roxana,
(Actually I'm not 100% certain which country you're referring to, so please exuse me if I get it wrong)It's not at all safe to admit to being an atheist in many parts of the US. When I lived In Tennessee I once had a letter published in a major newspaper, in defense of a boyscout who admitted to being an atheist. My mailbox was filled with hate mail, including rants about "wops", and my back woods was set on fire.
In NJ, my children were harrassed in the schools during the years the Christian kids were going through confirmation classes, by both classmates and teachers.
It seems atheists are the last group it IS PC to intimidate. The easier course is to keep your mouth shut. I'm not very good at that.
GCooper:
Doff writes:
"i know this is not BBC bias but just now on Doughty street , Spooks the most leftist propagana bollocks ever filmed was called right wing , un-challenged by the supposed consevative ian dale."
I must say I'm not greatly surprised. In fact I regret my early enthusiasm for 18 Doughty St which, I agree, is seeming more and more like just another opportunity for the chattering classes to... er... chatter.
The problem, as I have said here before and which was also brought out in that excellent piece from The Times that someone quoted earlier, really stems from our education system. Until we get that sorted out, it is hard to see how we can prevent the media remaining an almost wholly-owned subsidiary of the liberal-left.
Roxana:
My word but Dr. Dawkins and Mr. Harris are unpleasant people! And given that the three most murderous, totalitarian and destructive ideologies of the 20th c. were blatantly atheistic, (Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism) they haven't a leg to stand on ethically.
As any Star Trek fan can tell you from observing Mr. Spock and his fellow Vulcans Logic is not only limited by your premises but a lousy basis for a life-philosophy.
Chris:
I am sure most of you are familiar with Sacha Baron Cohen's charater 'Borat'. He has done a whole range of sketches - check for yourself on Google/video or similar - from taking social etiquette classes, sports & hobbies classes, and 'interviewing' all types from employment advisors to politicians and feminists to hunters.
HOWEVER, when the BBC does an article on 'how Borat hoaxed America', over half the article is a platform for feminists. Check out the link. In particular, notice the 'related internet links' part on the right. There's five links. The first is for Borat's own site and of the remaining four links, three of them are for the feminists and their organisation. ...And there I was thinking that there was no advertising on the BBC. Silly me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
6071486.stm
Roxana:
I'm American too Lynette, however I've lived on both coasts in areas where it's dangerous to be a conservative - forget religious! (I am not btw Christian). Idiots belong to all ideologies.
Roxana:
Betcha 'Borat's made fools of some Brits too. I don't see how anybody wouldn't pick up he was a phony, but then it sounds like most of his victims were liberals anyway and common sense is *not* their strong suit. Nor a sense of humor either.
God knows I don't know much about Khazakhstan - and what I know about Khazakhs is about eight hundred years out of date - but even so!
Diana:
Well Lynette, everyone is entitled to believe or not in any religion they want as long as it doesn't threaten other's rights.
I don't think it was right what was done to you, but that doesn't mean that in the rest of the country those things happen. Also I don't think that because we have to be "politically correct" we have to be forced to change things such as the Pledge of Allegiance, or a court seal because they have religious things in it. After all we can't deny history, and the truth is that the Founding Fathers of this nation were Christian, and even when they were Christian they included the right for everyone to worship or not as they wish.
I live in Miami and I've never heard of those problems.
In fact, when I took biology in highschool I was quite upset that my teacher barely mentioned the divine-creation and made a joke out of it, yet when we went on to discuss evolution and the Soup-Model theory, the theory itself was extremely vague, although my teacher gave it more emphasis, it was full of somehow's and spontaneously's, but it failed to explain why this theory contradicted entropy.
Lynette:
Diana, I'm happy you've never had those problems - Miami is a cosmopolitan city. I never had any problems in NYC, Baltimore, Long Island, Boston, Miami - it's the rural areas. It's a huge country and attitudes vary tremendously. (One of the things that bugs me about the BBC is that they don't ever seem to admit that. There's a lot of "they" think this, "they" think that when they mention Americans).
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a minister, yet didn't originally include the phrase "Under God" -- that was inserted during the McCarthy era, at the same time that "in God we Trust" first appeared on US money.
I'm not a rabid atheist - just someone who doesn't happen to be able to believe it, and doesn't want to be hypocritical.
Abandon Ship!:
Let's have a chat by the fireside.
Otherwise known as "Ming Campbell interviewed by Eddie Mair on PM about Iraq".
Number of tough questions posed on Lib Dem Iraq policy by Mair? Answer: zero.
Interruptions by Mair? Answer: zero.
Number of times Ediie Mair's voice reached a higher pitch due to cross-questioning when interviewing? Answer: zero.
Pete_London:
From Laban Tall:
Your 8 search results for "Lent"
Your 164 search results for "Ramadan"
Ralph:
'Let's have a chat by the fireside.'
That rule applies to most Lib Dims even the repellent Mark Oaten, and people like Tony Benn.
Ralph:
Lets see, Michael Howard is interviewed as a witness and on the main BBC page and on the News frontpage it says 'Howard quizzed in honours probe'. The article on it starts 'Former Conservative leader Michael Howard has been questioned by Scotland Yard as part of the cash-for-honours investigation, he has said.'
Now I'm sure 'John Reith' will claim the wording is correct but to the average reader it implies Howard was a suspect not a witness.
dave t:
Meanwhile nothing being said about the fact that Ming as Chancellor of St Andrews Uni is going to award a degree to Khatami:
"During the eight years of Mohammed Khatami's presidency of Iran
* More than 200 people were executed
* There was a ten-fold increase in women being sentenced to death by stoning
* Many homosexuals were arrested and flogged, tortured, jailed or
executed
* Tens of thousands of Ahwazis, members of Iran's persecuted Arab
minority, were forcibly removed from their land, with little or no
compensation
* Hundreds of workers’ strikes and demonstrations, including strikes by nurses and teachers, were savagely attacked and suppressed"
http://
hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne...gets_capped.php
Funny how Ming's uni is happy to praise (as they will have to during the ceremony)a theocrat and murderer yet Ming keeps whinging that we should bring our troops home and leave the Iraqis etc to the mercies of these same murderers. He actually said on BBC News tonight that we should involve Syria and Iran then the UN!
FFS Syria and Iran are the CAUSE of much of the so called insurgency - it is their men that are doing most of the fighting and their anti tank weapons that are killing British and coalition soldiers you half witted moron Ming! And did the Beeboid not raise this rather important point ? Did he heck!
dave t:
I just emailed Ming on the lines above - let us see if he replies and also if the next time he's on the Beeb that they actually DO ask him some hard questions......
disillusioned_german:
Dave: Expect Al Beeb to ask Mr. Campbell something along the line of
"...are you related to the former Chinese emperor, dear leader?"
Bryan:
Lynette | 23.10.06 - 6:19 pm,
I was also banned by HYS from one of their rare "reactively moderated topics becuse I objected to them deleting one of my comments after it had been up for half an hour. they then deleted the objection and the next time I tried to comment I was blocked, getting a message that I was not allowed to comment. I tried to comment on another topic to check and saw I was banned there as well.
Then I tried a few days later and saw I was unbanned. So try again. The ban could be temporary.
dave t:
"Expect Al Beeb to ask Mr. Campbell something along the line of"
So. The MacDonalds anna happy wiv yee Mingie Boy....comments?
Why are your soups made with the sweat of Chinese labourers and force grown tomatoes?
A whole new game methinks!
disillusioned_german:
Dave: If you had a more exotic name than Dave you might be leader of the LibDimbs. Hm.
Finally Al Beeb have come up with some "end of ramadan" pictures. They're linked to from their (international version) news homepage. Been waiting for those. Thanks, Al Beeb!
disillusioned_german:
Here's nice cartoon re. the "veil discussion": http://kenlydell.typepad.com/pho...s/
englehart.jpg
Lynette:
Thanks Bryan, I suspect you are right.
TThe reactively moderated topics are more fun- I could usually get a couple in before they shut either it or me down.
Most of the time I write comments just to annoy whoever has to scan them, knowing very well they'll never see the light of day.
I would love to actually be able to post the "Official BBC HYS approved adjective list" -- arrogant, Zionist, naive, stupid, racist....
CBC Listener:
Pete_London
Thanks for your message about the Australian BC, though it's somewhat discouraging. A surprise? Not at all. The blogs are a godsend.
A-B-C Broadcasting Corporations: poor us! I hope we might get governments with the cojones to get rid of these traitors. Canada has a fine, principled PM, Stephen Harper. So far, he's got a minority government. As one might imagine, the MSM are spinning against his government fast and furiously.
(Sorry, I LIKE Aussie accents: I once knew a girl from "Path", i.e., "Perth" . . . But I really like Brit accents too!)
Cheers!
chevalier de st george:
BBC reports on the "Disaffected French youth riots" today.
'About 9,000 cars were torched in the three weeks of unrest last year, which spread through the country's housing estates - dominated by immigrants and their French-born children'
No M word of course, but was'nt the figure over 30,000 not 9,000
Market Participant:
Oi, this is a good one.
The revision
http://newssniffer.newworldodour...s/7893/diff/0/
1
--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6078180.stm
Olmert appoints right-wing deputy
Last Updated: Monday, 23 October 2006, 19:09 GMT 20:09 UK
---
"The deal is expected to be approved by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, later this week."
How loacking in context of how Israeli governments are formed. The Government passes a first bill which acknoledges itself as being the government.
"He also recently accused some Israeli Arabs of treason for speaking to Palestinian militant group, Hamas."
Is this opinion unusual? Context please.
""One Israeli Arab leader has described Mr Lieberman's party as being "fascists"."
Name and party of this IA leader? BTW
what is the name of Mr Liberman's party? The article doesn't mention the name of his party a single time!!!
"But the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has decided he needs to broaden his coalition in the wake of the debacle in Lebanon."
Debacle? Isn't that a bit of a judgemental term for an unbiased BBC correspondent to be using.
"Avigdor Lieberman wins much of his support from Israel's big Russian community.
He sees himself as a strongman, the sort of authoritarian leader he believes Israel needs."
Do you we have a quote? Or is this something that our correspondant wants us to believe on faith?
"For the Israeli government, this will be a significant move to the right less than seven months after the general election seemed to strengthen the centre of Israeli politics."
And what has happened in the past seven months that might lead to a politcial shift?
====
This article is worse than overboiled oatmeal. Lacking in any flavor or detail. We still don't know what the name of Mr Lieberman's party is !!!!
This is awful reporting.
Market Participant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
6068858.stm
Total executive in bribery probe
Last Updated: Friday, 20 October 2006, 07:32 GMT 08:32 UK
===
"A number of global figures have been caught up in the oil-for-food scandal, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in September that he took personal responsibility for the failures of the programme."
Surely these global figures are notable enough to have names? Does anyone one of these global figures name start with "K"
Michael Taylor:
Market Participant
You're right, the first piece about Avigodor Lieberman was basically rubbish reporting, but by the time the subs had got through, it's just dreadful - unsourced, opinion-riddled, take-it-from-me-I'm-from-the-BBC guff. Where to start? Lack of attribution ("One Israeli Arab leader. . . "); attribution of motive ("But the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has decided he needs to broaden his coalition in the wake of the debacle in Lebanon); unattributed self-description by Lieberman ("He sees himself as a strongman, the sort of authoritarian leader he believes Israel needs"). And, as you say, not even the party's name.
Lazy lazy lazy. Arrogant arrogant arrogant.
Abandon ship!:
Today programme 6.20am this morning. I have to say that the business section is a trifle dull for me, but I couldn't help noticing the first thing I heard by the BBC commentator as I switched on:
"are the profits made by the company excessive?"
Which aspect of "private enterprise" doesn't the BBC understand?
A more pertinent question would be "is the BBC licence fee excessive?"
Buster0158:
Pete_London
There is a difference between the BBC and apparently the CBC to the ABC in Aus.
The Aussies can turn it over and DONT PAY A Seperate TAX,oops sorry licence/charge to watch the programs.
I was a young fella when the Government REMOVED THE TV licence in Aus.
Abandon ship!:
Today programme at 7.45am.
Discussion of the worst tv programmes of all time. Rather predictably programmes like 3-2-1 were mentioned and sneered at (yes that phenomenally successful 3-2-1 one enjoyed by millions in the early 1980's). Also the Charlotte Church show (dumb) and Love thy Neighbour (evil/racist). Also Christian tv in the US was mentioned (why miss an opportunity to sneer at the Christian right in the US?).
Question to the BBC: how many more people used to watch 3-2-1 every Saturday compared to the number who listen to the Today programme every day? I expect that the numbers would be rather sobering for our sanctimonious and sneering "betters" at the BBC.
Abandon ship!:
Today programme at 7.45am.
Discussion of the worst tv programmes of all time. Rather predictably programmes like 3-2-1 were mentioned and sneered at (yes that phenomenally successful 3-2-1 one enjoyed by millions in the early 1980's). Also the Charlotte Church show (dumb) and Love thy Neighbour (evil/racist). Also Christian tv in the US was mentioned (why miss an opportunity to sneer at the Christian right in the US?).
Question to the BBC: how many more people used to watch 3-2-1 every Saturday compared to the number who listen to the Today programme every day? I expect that the numbers would be rather sobering for our sanctimonious and sneering "betters" at the BBC.
Richard:
Diana
the reason your biology teacher failed to "...explain why this theory contradicted entropy" is that it doesn't!
You are simply your own misunderstanding of the lies creationists use to attack something they don't like which has proved itself to every true test. I am presuming you mean the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the overall increase of entropy in a closed system. However the Earth is not a closed system, energy is exchanged, and in partiular is input by the sun. If you include this the second law is not voilated.
So why do creationists, supposedly godly people, lie to you?
Unfortunately it seems your biology teacher was not well-versed on evolution. It is not at all vague, in fact it is very firm and straightforward (although the soup theories are sometimes vague, and are not the only theories around, they relate to abiogenesis, not evolution!).
Abandon ship!:
But if you are right Richard, it means that you and James Naughtie evolved from the same primordial amoeba. Creationism sounds better on that level, except that I can't think why God created the BBC....
archduke:
Al bbc is on full on "prison is bad" mode - they've got a "life on the inside" segment , and al-beeb has been given access to Wandsworth prison.
ahhh - the poor prisoners. ah diddums. they should be out doing flower arranging for the local Women's Institute, and baking cookies for the boy scouts.
archduke:
"But if you are right Richard, it means that you and James Naughtie evolved from the same primordial amoeba."
its actually worse than that - there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% difference between the evolved DNA of James Naughtie with that of Richard.
being influenced by supernatural demons, satan versus the Holy Spirit and all that stuff sounds far more attractive.
TPO:
CBC Listener
Did I understand you correctly?
Are you compelled to fund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
archduke:
"Also Christian tv in the US was mentioned"
when i was working in the states, i found christian tv to be quite interesting - covered social problems like family breakdown, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies etc. a real discussion on these issues and how to use prayer to get over them or to use the bible to encourage chastity and self discipline.
now, i'm an atheist, but i was looking at it going - "well, if that helps people, and makes their lives better, who am i to sneer at it?"
archduke:
abadon ship asked:
"Question to the BBC: how many more people used to watch 3-2-1 every Saturday compared to the number who listen to the Today programme every day?"
answer: first series , 16.5 million PER EPISODE.
later series: 12 million or more , consistently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-2-1
Today programme audience figures:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2298457,00.html
5.87 million PER WEEK.
so ,Dusty Bin , was around 12 million per episode, Today is 5.87 million per week. You can do the maths.
Umbongo:
Professor "Rod" Morgan on "Today" asserts (perhaps correctly) that more locking up of juveniles has occurred simultaneously with a drop in crime commmitted by juveniles. No-one (not even Naughtie) asks him to explain why (or, presumably in Rod's case, why not) these two phenomena might be causally related and that prison might actually work in lowering crime. Not (necessarily) bias but the usual crap journalism.
archduke:
" Roxana | 23.10.06 - 9:26 pm "
i think you're missing the point Roxana.
the point being that 2% of the population results in wall to wall Islam coverage. try to find a recent discussion or program on atheism on the BBC. you'd be hard pressed to find it.
Here's a pertinent graphic that shows "belief in god" percentages across Europe.
The UK is pegged at between 30 and 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ima...lief_in_god.png
archduke:
"And given that the three most murderous, totalitarian and destructive ideologies of the 20th c. were blatantly atheistic, (Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism)"
communism - yes.
socialism - Err..no. its a bit more complex than that. Ever hear of the Quakers? Or Christian Socialism?
Nazism - So , all those German infantry belt buckets with "Gott Mit Uns" were just for show , eh?
And then we have one of the greats of American republican history - Thomas Paine, who was blatantly anti-organised religion:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/h...uotes/
paine.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho...ki/
Thomas_paine
http://www.positiveatheism.org/h...uotes/
paine.htm
Prior to Marx, atheism was identified with radical Libertarianism. Admittedly, it will take decades more before that link is re-established in people's minds.
archduke:
BBC - lying by omission
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6076410.stm
"Limits on Bulgarians' and Romanians' right to work in the UK are to be unveiled by Home Secretary John Reid."
Err.. no . its not quite like that. What Mr Reid is "announcing" has actually been agreed at a European level. It's not Mr Reid announcing something that he came up with himself - he is merely re-stating EU policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/...s/
chap_2_en.htm
"The essential components of the transition arrangement are as follows:-
A two year period during which national measures will be applied by current Member States to new Member States. Depending on how liberal these national measures are, they may result in full labour market access."
So basically the UK just went for full access with regards to the Poles. For the Romanians and Bulgarians its going for the 2 year transition. My point being, this isnt Mr Reid suddenly coming up with this.
this has all been already agreed and signed on.
Pete_London:
Buster0158 -
There is a difference between the BBC and apparently the CBC to the ABC in Aus. The Aussies can turn it over and DONT PAY A Seperate TAX,oops sorry licence/charge to watch the programs.
Neither do I as I haven't had a licence for years, but that's by the by. Thanks for putting me right on that however. Given that the ABC is the BBC in all but accent and the fact that Australia is a British overseas territory, I feel I can be excused for assuming the funding/extortion arrangement were the same.
archduke -
Speaking as a Papist agnostic, I'd love to see atheism decline, even if atheists are right. It would be worth it just to see that insufferable bore, Richard Dawkins, made even madder.
Rueful Red:
Tom Paine was of course also in favour of the "revolutionary violence" that murdered 400,000 catholics in La Vendee, wasn't he? Hadn't they been at liberty to believe in what he approved of, and nothing else?
archduke:
"Speaking as a Papist agnostic, I'd love to see atheism decline, even if atheists are right. It would be worth it just to see that insufferable bore, Richard Dawkins, made even madder."
personally speaking, i much preferred the more gentle, humanist approach of Carl Sagan.
but in the wake of 911 and the rise of Islamofascism, i'm not so sure. Insufferable bore that he is, maybe its time to out-Choudary the likes of Choudary - why are *those* Islamofascists allowed to rant and rave?
I'd love to see a Choudary v Dawkins debate.
archduke:
Rueful Red -> most of the signatories to the American revolution saw nothing wrong with slavery either. you dont have to subscribe to absolutely everything they believed in.
john:
Did anybody else notice the BBC coverage the other day of the Duke of Edinburgh’s surprise visit in Basra, addressing soldiers from The Queen’s Royal Hussars. Prince Philip, 85, said: “Everyone at home has been following what has been going on in this part of the world with a great deal of sympathy for those of you at the sharp end who are trying to do your best to make life civilised and tolerable for the locals.”
The BBC edited the speech so that after the “to make life civilised and tolerable for the locals” it cut the film to a woman soldier grinning like a Cheshire cat for a number of seconds. Clearly, the intention was to pour ridicule and scorn on what the BBC thought was a culturally inappropriate sentiment. The Duke was not in a humorous mood, he did not say it as a joke, he was very well away of the deaths and suffering. The images of the soldier were shot at a different moment, they did not have two cameras, one filming the reception of his short speech. The BBC News & editing is really Orwellian and straight out of 1984.
Rueful Red:
Quite agree Archduke, though whether the reperesentatives of the two northern folkways saw "nothing wrong" with slavery is a bit debatable.
But wasn't revolutionary violence the distinguishing mark of T Paine's thought when compared with Burke, who trusted people and institutions? Hadn't Paine signed up for the full package that went with the Rousseauian retreat from Reason? The General Will, as determined by a revolutionary vanguard? The Thetford Lenin?
marc:
There was a demonstration organized by the Stop the War Calition and the Muslim Assocaiation of Britain for last Sunday in Glasgow. The Independent wrote a glowing report and predicted thousands would show up. The protest was over the governments stance on the Muslim veil.
On Monday I checked many news sources and couldn't find any report on the protest. So, I called STOP HQ who gave me the local group's number in Glasgow, who said they weren't at the protest (??) but gave me two mobile numbers to people who were supposedly there. Neither number worked. Here's my post on that so far.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com...ation-
bust.html
Today I recieved an email and photogrpah from someone who was at George Square on Sunday. He says no one showed up at the protest. My post and photo is here.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com...-
coalition.html
Revealing how the media trumpet these events before hand and when people show up but ignore the story when no one shows up.
Ritter:
The BBC may be running their "prison is bad" day, but they still have time for a "we're all doomed" eco-rant from the usual suspects:
Global ecosystems 'face collapse'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/t...ech/
6077798.stm
"Paul King, WWF director of campaigns, said the world was running up a "serious ecological debt"."
Paul King, WWF director of campaigns....
is he a well know scientist?
"It (the report commissioned by WWF) warned that if demand continued at the current rate, two planets would be needed to meet global demand by 2050.
The biodiversity loss was a result of resources being consumed faster than the planet could replace them, the authors said.
They added that if the world's population shared the UK's lifestyle, three planets would be needed to support their needs."
Three planets by 2050! Seriously, what drugs are these guys taking? I want some!
Bryan:
But if you are right Richard, it means that you and James Naughtie evolved from the same primordial amoeba. Creationism sounds better on that level, except that I can't think why God created the BBC....
Abandon ship! | 24.10.06 - 9:22 am
Thanks for the laugh, AS. That's so funny, and so true.
Rueful Red:
That's like the time last month when a handful marched from Faslane to Edinburgh. Even using its most crowd-swelling camera techniques the Beeb couldn't make the event look like anything other than a fiasco.
TPO:
An article appeared in ‘The Londoner’s Diary’ of the Evening Standard last night.
I can’t find a link to it, but here is a straight lift transcript.
‘Top BBC figures such as Andrew Marr and Justin Webb confessed at the weekend that the corporation is dominated by left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multi-culturalism and political correctness.
My Beeb mole says this was reflected at an audience festival at the TV Centre last week in which participants included Helen Boaden, head of news, Rod Mckenzie, radio news, John Williams, foreign editor, Nick Robinson, political editor and Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, representing the press.
They were invited to discuss whether the BBC should give its audiences what they want to hear or whether it should lead the agenda and tell them what they ought to know.
“It might seem strange that Rusbridger is invited to represent the British press” says my spy. “But all the BBC leadership read The Guardian and nothing else.”’
By the way my spell checker doesn’t like culturalism. It keeps coming up with cultureless.
jr........ Any clues on the mole and is the BBC going to squander zillions in trying to identify him.
Intersting to see Boaden's latest entry in the 'editors blog'
It reads like "Yes the BBC does makes mistakes, the last one was in 1971"
Ritter:
Bias at the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed...at_the_bbc.html
Helen Bowden, Director of BBC News writes......
"no bias to see here, move along now..."
john:
I watched 2 episodes of Spook last night (BBC1 & 3), and thought that the portrayal of the Israelis was quite outrageous! These BBC Spook creators are really closet anti-semites! The writer Raymond Khoury
http://www.lasttemplar.com/autho...thor/
author.asp
is obsessed with MOSSAD he really is a head case.
I wonder,could this have anything to do with the fact that he is LEBANESE?
Writer RAYMOND KHOURY
Director ANDY HAY
Producer ANDREW WOODHEAD
Creator DAVID WOLSTENCROFT
Executive Producer SIMON CRAWFORD COLLINS
Executive Producer JANE FEATHERSTONE
The very latest episode 8 with its preposterous “League of Christ” and Mossad assassins, doesn’t say if it was written by Khoury again, but it has all his hallmarks. A Muslim cleric who advocates violence against the West is assassinated. Are Christians retaliating with their own form of extremism? In this episode we have a black Bishop who is a close advisor to the PM putting out a contract for the killing, and then later the PMs legal advisor recruiting Mossad to kill a priest and bothersame MI5 agent.
Perhaps, in future, if the BBC announced the programme as written by the Lebanese author KHOURY, it might help in understanding the bias of the silly narrative!
Would they not announce it if it had been critical of Islam and had been written by Rushdie?
It's all so silly; rather like Dr Who meets Dads Army.
Simpson John:
Given the above link, perhaps BBCBias would like to apologise? I won't hold my breath.
Great to see BBC doesnt just limit its bias to party politics and global governments but also to the 321 tv programme. (sarcasm)
archduke:
Rueful Red | 24.10.06 - 12:31 pm :
"Hadn't Paine signed up for the full package that went with the Rousseauian retreat from Reason? The General Will, as determined by a revolutionary vanguard? The Thetford Lenin?"
Initially yes - but he ended up on death row in Robespierre's France, only managing to escape by chance.
still , i cant disagree with what he wrote in 1793, in "The Age of Reason"
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
Just pointing out that Paine is a major influence on the ideas of freedom and liberty. Both left and right took ideas and influences from him.
How this links to AL-Beeb - well, if you look at their wall-to-wall Islam coverage , usually, in their news programs , you have , usually a rep from Islam, and then a rep from Christianity as a perceived "counter balance".
there seems to be an almost unquestioning acceptance of "faith" under the Nu Labour project, whereas there is a rather large constituency of non-believers in the UK that dont adhere to any religion. This is simply not reflected in current BBC output. Maybe its because "faith" is the new trendy thing for the likes of AL-beeb - we should give "offense" should we?
archduke:
typop -"we shouldnt give offense"...
another example of the Nu Labour project - "the religious hatred bill", which thankfully, had its guts ripped out of it.
archduke:
"It's all so silly; rather like Dr Who meets Dads Army.
john | 24.10.06 - 1:18 pm"
its also VERY dangerous - its a seal of approval to the Islamo nutters that think that Mossad was behind 9/11.
Anonymous:
.
usa today.com
"Britain is turning on the U.S. — at its own peril"
"Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism have poisoned British politics. In a world of terrorism, the timing couldn’t be worse".
By Melanie Phillips
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/
2...in_is_turn.html
.
john:
Archduke
Maybe its because "faith" is the new trendy thing for the likes of AL-beeb
The BBC functions like an established Church.
As long as we have an established Church, and the calls for a separation of Church from State go unheeded (which is what not what happened in America!), the BBC will feel safe in not being separated from its licence fee.
John Reith:
john | 24.10.06 - 1:18 pm
Typical. Of all the things that might be noteworthy or unusual about Spooks screenwriter Raymond Khoury:
....that he's a former investment banker with an MBA
....that he's a qualified architect
.....that he's adapted a Melvin Bragg novel for Robert de Niro..
.......that he wrote the bestseller 'The Last Templar'....
all you find significant is that he's Lebanese by birth.
Funny how you don't bother to point out the salient facts that:
...he's from a Christian Lebanese family.....
.....was raised as a Catholic....though (like archduke - is now lapsed)
.....in New York State...where he went to school.
Perhaps you were trying to imply he is a MUSLIM?
Now why would you want to do that?
Ritter:
From Helen Bowdens post on BBC bias:
Bias at the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed...at_the_bbc.html
"Asked recently which of the four main broadcasters they would term "trustworthy", nearly two thirds - 60% - cited the BBC. In contrast, 26% said ITV, 16% mentioned Channel 4, and 14% Sky. (Mori, 2006)"
For the life of me I can't find the source document for those stats - anyone?
If 40% of respondents didn't cite the BBC as "trustworthy", I'd say we have more support for the scrapping of the licence fee than we thought.
Lee Moore:
If they are sincere in wondering about what to do about left-liberal bias, today’s main Have Your Say page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talki...int/
default.stm
might be a useful place to start. Below is a list of all today’s visible Have Your Says (NB these are the titles in the links – the actual question may be slightly different when you follow the link.)
Questions 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,13 come directly from the standard progressive playbook – are you green enough, let’s be cuddlier to criminals, isn’t Iraq a failure, let’s change the voting system (a long standing Lib Dem policy), there must be more sex education. All the rest bar two then also become obviously progressive once you follow the link into the detail
1.Is the justice system failing young people?
By young people they mean young perps, rather than young victims. Obviously. Auntie’s solution is not hard to seek either – “Is the justice system failing society? Should there be more use of non-custodial sentences?”
2. How large is your ecological footprint?
ie are you green enough ?
3. Do primary pupils 'need sex lessons'?
standard progressive fare on the need for sex education
4. What's your tranquil spot?
stop the world I want to get off ( a subset of are you green enough)
5. How energy efficient is your home?
I said “are you green enough ?”
6. Is it time for a change of policy in Iraq?
Quaaaaaagmire !
7. More traffic cameras?
Fairly neutral, actually.
8. Has Muslim veil row been useful ?
Auntie doesn’t think so.
9. Is Britain too fearful of its young ?
Hug a hoodie
10. Are UK historic sites under threat ?
ARE YOU GREEN ENOUGH !
11. Who should provide our energy ?
Just a cover for “are you green enough again” viz
“In this week's Green Room Dr Matt Prescott of banthebulb.org argues that market forces alone cannot cure the environment's ills, and that political leaders must take tough, maybe even unpopular decisions on investment, technology, regulation, and more.”
12. Solutions for prison overcrowding
Auntie asks :
What more could be done to tackle overcrowding in Britain's prisons? Should sentencing of offenders be reviewed?
and avoids asking
What more could be done to tackle overcrowding in Britain's prisons? Should more prisons be built?
which is the solution which recommends itself to 95% of Auntie’s customers.
13. Is voting system change needed ?
I haven’t heard that one, oh, since the last time a Lib Dem MP was on the telly.
14. Tory tax plans – Your views
Surprisingly neutral
15. Can North Korea be restrained ?
lest you be tempted by the idea of rattling a few rockets, Auntie clarifies instantly :
Can the crisis be resolved through "dialogue and consultation"?
16. What’s life like inside Britain’s prisons ?
which looks like a neutral question, but it’s actually about whether there is enough rehabilitation going on in prisons
Pete_London:
Ritter
I thought so too. Very few organisations can be said to have an obligation, both morally and legally, to be trustworthy such as the BBC has. It's central to the BBC's very existence. Trust has been the very foundation, a reason for being, of the BBC since its creation. That 40% of respondents said the BBC isn't trustworthy is utterly damning.
RB:
I think that Mel P article is the most vomit inducing I've seen in a long time.
Talking absolute crap about your own country in another nation's national press is tantamount to treason. She should be ashamed of herself.
Ritter:
Adam Brookes - a Beeboid in the States:
The Iraq Problem
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
there..._problem_1.html
"I took my kids to the zoo on a beautiful fall afternoon. It was teeming, Latino families picnicking in warm sunlight, tourists from China waiting for the pandas, a huge church group from the Midwest.
I bought popcorn and we gawped at the elephants.
In the crowd, I caught sight of a young man with a high-and-tight military haircut. He wore the black Iraq veteran's T-shirt. Where his right arm should have been, a stump protruded. He stood stock still for a long time, then wandered away. He seemed utterly alone.
The war spreads across public discussion of these elections like a stain. Yet still, it seems to me, the war has few tangible consequences for most Americans. Gas prices are down, the Dow is up, American society continues on its vibrant, eclectic way. Unless you are serving, or a member of your family is serving, Iraq is an abstract problem.
Can I play this game too?
In the UK:
Petrol prices are down:
UK inflation eases on petrol dip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
6057820.stm
and, the FTSE is up:
FTSE advances to five-year high
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
6047546.stm
Do I therefore conclude that "...the war has few tangible consequences for most Britons" also?
Is Adam implying ambivilence towards the war becase energy prices are down and stock market is up? Or is he implying that most Americans don't care cause they're stoopid?
Go figure - I can't work it out (other than he's having a standard 'go' at the US).
IanLondon:
I haven't read though this thread so apologies if it has already been mentioned, but an interesting entry in the "BBC blog" appeared this morning which is open for comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed...at_the_bbc.html
john:
Perhaps you were trying to imply he is a MUSLIM?
Now why would you want to do that?
John Reith | 24.10.06 - 1:43 pm | #
No actually I wasn't.
BTW he wrote into one of his BBC scripts an Arab Yemeni Jew as the Mossad agent.
But what are you doing still contributing here Capt. Mannering, and getting all upset about now.... tail between legs?
Pete_London:
RB
Talking absolute crap about your own country ....
Since when has 'talking absolute crap about your own country' bothered you wierdo noncebag liberals? It's what you did for much of the 20th Century. It's why history is no longer taught in any meaningful sense in British schools - liberals would have to talk to children about 1000 glorious years of civilisation. You'll have to do better than that to disguise your fake outrage, you unwashed handwringer.
Pete_London:
This Boaden woman. A brief (very brief) profile is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
3917563.stm
The only clues as to what she's about are a short haircut and the statement: After finishing her degree she went to live in the US, where she began her journalistic career in 1979 at New York radio station WBAI.
It's good, this interweb. WBAI looks like 'Radio RESPECT' and glories under the banner 'Your Peace and Justice Community Radio Station'. Granted, things may have changed since '79 but I doubt it. And you don't just pitch up and happen to work for these commie organisations, they're the kind of places which those of the same creed target for work.
Ritter:
Anyone here subscribe to Prospect magazine?
Self-hatred at the BBC
http://www.prospect-magazine.co....ils.php?
id=7886
The broadcaster is feeling guilty about its liberal guilt. Can it fix it?
by
John Lloyd
"Andrew Marr, the former BBC political editor, recently stood before an audience and said that "the BBC is not impartial, or neutral. It's a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party political bias: it's better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."
Quite a few in the audience could claim to have been his boss. There was Mark Byford, deputy director general and head of journalism; Jana Bennett, head of television; Alan Yentob, director of drama and entertainment; Helen Boaden, head of news; Mark Damazer, head of Radio 4… and so on. Highest of all was the BBC's head of state, Michael Grade, chairman of the board of governors, who had called this meeting. The BBC had set aside a day for a discussion of impartiality—mainly for themselves, with some others invited to share in the reflections.
It was an extraordinary day, momentous even. Extraordinary in that it did not discuss impartiality as one might have expected: as a set of practices for use in describing events through broadcast journalism. These concerns did come up, but mainly from the invited audience. Tim Gardam, former..."
Full atricle by subscription only
Roxana:
"now, i'm an atheist, but i was looking at it going - "well, if that helps people, and makes their lives better, who am i to sneer at it?"
Archduke, you are the kind of Atheist we need more of. 'By their fruits ye shall know them.' Religion may make one person strap on a dynamite belt but it can make another go feed the hungry. Atheist ideology is just as uncertain in outcome. Could it be the people not the belief that's the problem?
archduke:
roxana - yeah its people alright.
thats why separation of church and state, the rule of law, and democracy are just about the only things that'll save us from ourselves. they are artificial constructs that , out of all the political systems invented, appear to be the best ones we've come up with.
Schoolboy Error:
I think posting on their website may be usefull just in terms of letting them know we're onto them.I for one would laugh if asked if I trusted the BBC.
Pete_London:
From the pro-islam BBC, yet another piece bashing Israel and the Israelis:
Olive harvest sparks tensions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
6054854.stm
Palestinians downtrodden .... Israelis bad .... Palestinians are just peaceful people ..... the Israeli army is beastly to the Palestinians .... blah blah blah
pounce:
RB wrote;
Talking absolute crap about your own country in another nation's national press is tantamount to treason. She should be ashamed of herself.
Well the thing is, this blogg is about the BBC who are more than guilty of the crimes you accuse Mel P of. The thing is Mel P doesn't get paid by the Billions taken from the people in the form of the BBC tax in which to say what she wants. Lastly I don't she her calling terrorists misguided criminals.
CAIR to carry on.
Abandon ship!:
Pete
I am particularly worried about the Israeli use of "cluster olives". Does Human Rights Watch know about this? I think we need to know.
Ritter:
Hey look! It's our politically correct police force in action. Unable to deal with 'threatening youths'......
Abusive youths try to stop arrest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/
6079740.stm
"Two police officers in Stroud barricaded themselves in a takeaway shop after youths became abusive.
The teenagers, who were aged between 14 and 17, ran off when the support units arrived.
Chief Superintendent Dean Walker, of Gloucestershire Police, said: "This was an exceptional event and not something we have had to contend with very often.
"I would like to take this opportunity to praise the officers involved for dealing with the incident in a thoroughly professional manner."
Errrr... the police were completely ineffecive. But that's ok, becase they went about their incompetence in a 'professional' manner!
Ritter:
sorry, above it quite OT......
Pete_London:
Chief Superintendent Dean Walker, of Gloucestershire Police, said: "This was an exceptional event and not something we have had to contend with very often.
Making an arrest?
Pete_London:
Anyone fancy editing the Today Programme? Tempting, so tempting .....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/toda...rog/
index.shtml
The webpage reminded me of a comment I read from someone on Samizdata who remarked on how Stalinist looking it is. I have to say, he has a point.
AntiCitizenOne:
Imagine if RB had to pay the Melanie Philips Broadcasting Corporation 120 +++ pounds a year or go to jail.
Imagine if RB had his choice of media constrained because of the ability of the Melanie Philips Broadcasting Corporation to distort the market.
Imagine if the Melanie Philips Broadcasting Corporation had a duty to represent the views of RB but ignored them and belittled them everyday.
Imagine the BBC.
AntiCitizenOne:
"Could it be the people not the belief that's the problem?": Roxana
Some religions are much higher risk than others. No cults started by paedophiles mentioned.
archduke:
"The webpage reminded me of a comment I read from someone on Samizdata who remarked on how Stalinist looking it is. I have to say, he has a point.
Pete_London | 24.10.06 - 5:00 pm |"
it certainly does look Stalinist.
Although the choice of white, red and black reminds me of another ideology.
archduke:
knock me down with a feather - the Reid restrictions story has had its headline changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6076410.stm
"Reid outlines new EU work curbs"
bit more accurate. previously it was something like "Reid outlines migrant restrictions" or something like that - as if it was Reid himself coming up with it.
archduke:
thanks to newsniffer, found the difference:
http://newssniffer.newworldodour...s/7851/diff/4/
5
previous headline:
"Reid to set new EU migrant rules"
as if it was Reid doing it.
now its:
"Reid outlines new EU work curbs"
"outlines" - implies , he's not doing the "setting" of the rules.
subtle difference.
Ritter:
Fresh call for English Parliament
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6081130.stm
Canon Kenyon Wright wants to see "a strong English Parliament" and a strengthened Welsh legislature.
The English Constitutional Convention is meeting for the first time, at Westminster on Tuesday.
BBC won't like that... the Conservatives won the election outright in England last time.
Schoolboy Error:
They printed one of my comments (No.110) on the Editors Blog but not the second about their 'impartiality' that ,by demanding absolute proof before criticism is tolerated ,they deny airtime to common sense mockery of government fabrications.This allowed them to get away with the Iraq intelligence fabrications and enabled the governments innumerable relaunches.Read it all at:
www.bbcbiasonemansopinion.blogspot.com
pounce:
The BBC and half a story;
I see the BBC has another article out on how bad life is for Muslims in the UK;
Muslims face 'serious prejudice'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
6080210.stm
The article is a synopsis on a report generated by ken Livingstone and the MCB
http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/pub...s-in-
london.pdf
In fact on the mayor’s foreword (page 2) he mentions nothing of serious prejudice.
He does mention the ignorance and the prejudice of so much of the media coverage.
But serious prejudice? Nah.
The BBC then goes on to say
“The report, Muslims in London, also said that the community has the lowest rates of employment.
But BBC the MCB stats show that one of the reasons for this is because Muslims don’t bother picking up any qualifications from school;
“Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are most likely to be unqualified. Nearly half of Bangladeshi men and women had no qualifications. Anmong Pakistanis, 27% of men and 40% of women had no qualifications.”
http://www.mcb.org.uk/library/
st...tatistics.php#6
That isn’t prejudice BBC it’s just that some people prefer religion to school work.
The onus is on them to learn. Just because they can’t be asked isn’t a sign of racism.
“In 2005-2006, there were more than 1,000 religiously aggravated attacks reported in the capital, which is a 87% increase since the previous year, the report said.”
And what the BBC leaves out of the above from the report is that rise was because of the tube bombings (Page 84 )
Oh and that report BBC was written in conjunction by the MCB not the most honest of people. (You can thank Panorama for that)
On page 95 in red they quote Babar Ahmad as getting arrested and then released without charge in which to try and paint the image that an innocent man was nicked and then kicked by the police. I think you will find BBC if you actually looked up a certain Babar Ahmad you will find he is still nicked and waiting to be extradited to the states.
http://www.freebabarahmad.com/
The BBC (in conjunction with ken and the MCB) and half a story.
Andrew:
Ritter: "the Conservatives won the election outright in England last time"
Not quite - they got a few more votes (in the grand scheme of things), but that's not the same as winning. They still took fewer seats in England than Labour did.
This sort of thing has happened before, for instance, in 1951, Churchill won the election, but got fewer votes than Labour (across the UK).
Anonymous:
.
London Muslims "should play greater role"
LONDON (Reuters) - Muslims must play a greater role in London's politics and the economy to help stem prejudice and discrimination, a report said on Tuesday.
Muslims make up 8.5 percent of the capital's population, but are under-represented on its councils and among its workforce, adds the "Muslims in London" report.
Mayor Ken Livingstone, jointly presenting the report, said: "Muslims in London face serious discrimination and prejudice.
The report called for more Muslims to be elected to public office and to serve in public bodies like the police, the education system and the civil service.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/...K-C1-Headline-
9
.
Little Bulldogs:
Slightly OT:
On the point of whether Muslims are really disproportionally targetted, I did some research.
Here is my post in full: http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.c...bia-
claims.html
In short, Muslims are slightly less targetted than Jews, not to mention that some of their "incidents" are extremely dubious.
Another case of claimin false victimhood.
dave t:
Again when Michael Howard was "questioned" by Police ref the Honours probe the BBC has a full report and leaves it to the end to report that he was not questioned under caution etc. Menawhile it is reported by several sources that J Powell Esq aka Tony's Little Helper was interviewed under caution and yet not a sausage on the BBC website....and no apology from Nigel Griffiths MP who claimed last week that the investigation was over and that there would be no charges! Aye right...come Beeboids - do your job! Report the facts not just those that affect the Tories!
Anonymous:
Having returned fron 3 weeks in the USA and tuned in again to BBC News I now watch with a deaf ear. The usual agenda, the same mix as before I left still haunts the silver screen.
The BBC bias is that of the thought Police of the PC elite. The BBC may say it represents British Culture with its constant emphasis on the global warming of the doomed planet (doomed by us, so start feeling guilty - now) Muslim Community issues, with other articles I cannot mention for fear of prosecution, to the mixed bag of presenters from every corner of the world.
The BBC does not represent the Licence payer, it represents vested interests, not our own, but the ones the propgandists want to instill in us. At my age it will be difficult for them to succeed but we know how they infiltrate education and thus brain wash the next generation.
GCooper:
Anonymous writes:
"Having returned fron 3 weeks in the USA and tuned in again to BBC News I now watch with a deaf ear"
An experience common to many here, I suspect! In my case, I now watch US TV (on the rare occasions I bother watching any TV at all), via a slingbox.
A short break away from the sickly, sapping, guilt-ridden decay the BBC promotes with almost every programme is a tremendous eye-opener, I quite agree!
Anonymous:
the mixed bag of presenters from every corner of the world.
uh-hu.
Diana:
Richard said:
the reason your biology teacher failed to "...explain why this theory contradicted entropy" is that it doesn't!
You are simply your own misunderstanding of the lies creationists use to attack something they don't like which has proved itself to every true test. I am presuming you mean the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the overall increase of entropy in a closed system. However the Earth is not a closed system, energy is exchanged, and in partiular is input by the sun. If you include this the second law is not voilated.
So why do creationists, supposedly godly people, lie to you?
Unfortunately it seems your biology teacher was not well-versed on evolution. It is not at all vague, in fact it is very firm and straightforward (although the soup theories are sometimes vague, and are not the only theories around, they relate to abiogenesis, not evolution!).
Richard | 24.10.06 - 9:14 am | #
I was referring especifically to the Soup-Model theory, not evolution, and to the fact that in the universe entropy tends to increase, so the word spontaneously was definetely out of question since in order for life to be created energy had to be put into the process.
You must recognize that after all the Soup-Model theory has not been proven a fact, just like the divine-creation theory has not been proven a fact, that's why they teach both in school, so you cannot say that creationists lie, because there has not been concrete proof to certify which theory is right, and you konw that well.
BTW I have never talked about this to a religious person, in fact, all my PHYSICS professors, who know very well thermodynamics, believe in God.
Also my chemistry professor
Look at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ori...e#Bubble_Theory
"As of 2006, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. "
Here is something related to the Soup Model theory
"The answer to Darwin's question was beyond the reach of the experimental science of his day, and no real progress was made during the 19th century. In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that, pace Pasteur, it was the presence of atmospheric oxygen, and other more sophisticated life-forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These would combine in ever-more complex fashion until they dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets would "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, those that don't become extinct. All modern theories of the origin of life take Oparin's ideas as a starting point."
Notice how the theory says that these lifeless molecules would combine in more complex fashions, grow and reproduce, isen't that a little bit too much to expect from inorganic molecules because the concept of reproduction can only be aplied to living organisms, not molecules.
As you can see, YOU CANNOT call a creationist a liar because then you would have to call many scientists liars since both views are theories and NONE HAS BEEN PROVEN
Now I have a question for you Richard, if with the technology that we have today we cannot make life, how do you suppose that in those times, life would just sprout without a purpose or meaning for its existence?
Diana:
archduke
Socialism in Cuba was against Christianity or any religion whatsoever. In Cuba all the private schools, which most of them were religious based, were stolen by the regime and also many monasteries and churches were closed down. Many jesuits, nuns, priests and religious figures had to flee from Cuba and in the streets as well as in schools many Jehova's witnesses and others were beaten, humiliated and persecuted. That also extended to anyone who the government knew disagreed with the regime. Just for having dollars or doing anything considered to be divergent from the socialist ideology, such as listening to American and British music, you would have been sent to jail or expelled from school or work.
Things changed a bit only when the Pope John Paul II came to Cuba in 1998, but up to then, it was a taboo to mention religion, although a number of people still went to the few churches that were open.
I'm not sure how it was aproached in the rest of the world, but in Cuba socialism is anti-Chritian and anti any belief that is not communist or socialist.
dave t:
Di
Love the background stuff on Cuba but you are preaching to the converted here. BBC bias is what we are about - let's get more examples of how they misreport Cuba so we can ask all the Labour and other MPs why they keep going on holiday there.
PS And there was me thinking mulberry bushes were involved in the great procreation/evolution activity......damm. 8-)
Billyquiz:
John Reith.
I remember you claiming somewhere in this blog that the recent self-examination of BBC bias was something they did on a regular basis and that we mustn't read too much into it.
Why then would the day be described as:
"It was an extraordinary day, momentous even."
PS. Any chance of the dates of the previous examinations of BBC bias or was this the first one?
Diana:
ha ha ha 
ok dave
billyquiz:
From the Beebs latest anti-Bush story:
"According to the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington, the Bush administration is trying its best to suggest it has a plan to end the violence."
But it hasn't really, has it. QUAGMIRE!
Of course, you know that for a fact don't you Justin, you smug git.
gordon-bennett:
They're all coming out of the bias closet.
I've just seen Mark Halperin, the political editor of the US ABC News, admit that "the old liberal media" (by which he means the NYT, Washington Post, ABC, CBS and CNN) have always been biased in favour of the Democrats.
He quoted the obvious example of rathergate but also said that he had seen a favourable 60mins special on nancy pelosi recently but had never seen the same for Newt Gingrich.
Matt:
Anyone see this week's episode of Spooks? Group of swarthy terrorists take hostages and demand the release of Al Qaida prisoners. But it’s okay, because they’re not really Muslims - it’s a fiendish Mossad plot, and those wicked Jews get their bloody comeuppance in the end.
Next week our Spook heroes battle Christian extremists who plan to attack a Muslim community.
Business as usual at Al-Beeb then.
pounce:
The BBC and its master's voice;
Travelling with the Taleban
The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.
There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
6081594.stm
Mobile?
Tell me BBC can the Taliban (whom you wet yourselves when ever they are mentioned) move 1000s of miles?
No
Can they project themselves 1000s of miles?
No
Can they even get their people to First aid after they have been hurt
No
Then how the hell can you claim they are mobile?
The BBC defending those who steal food from the people they pretend to defend. (But the BBC calls it sharing)
terry johnson:
You beat me to it , pounce. The "Travelling With The Taleban" article is one of the most sickening, anti-Western, one-sided
pieces of pro-Taleban propaganda I've ever read. Al-BBC hack Loyn shows an almost school-girlish admiration for the terrorist Islamic thugs. His simpering prose praises the Taleban's "determination", "ferocity", "toughness" and he revels in their exploits in fighting the British. These brainwashed fascists are busy killing British troops and this creep from the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation pens a love letter to the enemy. This is the kind of drivel I imagine that Nazi publications would print about the Waffen SS. Can the traitors at Al-BBC sink any lower ?
terry johnson:
More from "Travelling With The Taleban"......
"Afghanistan has been in the grip of a severe drought for several years, but the lack of clean water does not seem to concern these hardy men.
They clean their teeth with sharpened sticks taken from trees, and sleep with only the thinnest shawls to cover them.
They have surprised the British by the ferocity of their fighting and their willingness to take casualties.
Their belief in the imminence of paradise means that few exhibit fear."
" We rose up and saved almost the whole country from the evils of corruption and corrupt commanders... that's why people are supporting the Taleban again now" Taleban Spokesman
This is our TV Tax money at work -- providing succour and propaganda for our enemies . We are financing a PR campaign for those who would destroy our our way of life.
Peter Golds:
On Sunday came details of the seminar where named newsreaders complained of perceived BBC bias and hostility to the USA and Christianity.
On Monday morning there was a slot in the Today programme when the "reporter" got a laugh from the presenter when he stated "Have you ever been in an American Hotel room and switched on the TV to receive a Christian Channel"
Interesting as the independent Christian Channels are usually way down on channel numbers and the big three (ABC,CBS,NBC) at the top.
Never mind, for the uninitiated the BBC managed to imply that in the US the TV media is effectively run by Christian Fundamentalists.
This from a "service" that spent a week pumping out pro-Iranian propaganda.
Abandon ship!:
The Today programme
Yesterday one of the presenters read out an e-mail (apparently one of a number expressing the same sentiment) saying that the listener was sick of hearing about Iraq every day.
The BBC's answer to this is to continue almost wall-to-wall coverage of Iraq, or more accurately coverage of "We must cut and run from the Bush/Blair disaster that is Iraq". The BBC's central editorial plank is that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and probably illegal and is now a completely disastrous situation.
Post-Hutton, the BBC is desperate to show that it was right all along, and so we get extensive coverage of bad news from Iraq. There is bad news from Iraq of course, but do you get the impression that the BBC is not there to report news, but to find evidence that it was right all along?
Just listen to John Humphreys reporting from Iraq these last couple of days - can anyone be in any doubt that he has gone there with a preset agenda?
It's worth remembering that over eleven hundred British soldiers and security personnel (RUC) were killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland. In those dark times the people who urged us to cut and run from Northern Ireland are largely the same ones who want us to cut and run now. But we stayed the course in Ireland, and now things are much much better, but it has taken a long time.
Abandon ship!:
As an example of the above, just listen to Humphrey's intro to the interview with Hillary Benn at 8.32am.
It's all black, black, black, black.
Bryan:
They printed one of my comments (No.110) on the Editors Blog but not the second about their 'impartiality'...
Give them time. I'll grit my teeth and defend The Editors here. They are actually quite good at publishing negative comments. Give them time. There's a delay before they publish comments while they check for...well, whatever they check for.
Bryan:
The comment above was directed at
Schoolboy Error | 24.10.06 - 5:34 pm
will:
BBC TV is this morning stating that actor Michael J. Fox is campaigning for the Democrats. The deskpeople state that Bush has banned stem cell research. The accompanying video report (available online at the BBC website) states that Fox is seeking to
overturn a block on embryonic stem cell research by President Bush's Republicans.
But there is no block or ban. Bush vetoed the use of federal funds for research.
will:
gordon-bennett above comments on the liberal stance of the US broadcasting networks, but even they have more balance than the BBC.
Last night's R5 "Upallnight" interviewed an ABC man to discuss an analysis of US opinion/voting intentions.
After discussing the effect of Iraq, the BBC man asked how influential was voters' concern over terrorism, describing this as "a vote inspired by fear".
Even the ABC man had to baulk at this description.
Alan G:
Re: Travelling with the Taleban...
Here is the news from 1944:
Travelling with the Nazis
The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Nazi forces mobilised against the British army in Europe.
There is no army on earth as mobile as the German army.
I remember it as their secret weapon when I travelled with them in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, as they swept aside rival armies in Europe.
Piled into the back of open Panzerspähwagen, their vehicle of choice, and carrying no possessions other than their weapons, they can move nimbly.
They have surprised the British by the ferocity of their fighting and their willingness to take casualties.
The Nazi official spokesman explained: "When the Nazi movement of Germany started in the first place, the main reason was because of concern among people about corruption. "People were fed up with having to bribe governors, and other authorities.
"We rose up and saved almost the whole country from the evils of corruption and the Jews. That's why people are supporting the Nazis again now."
The intensifying conflict itself also plays into their hands. It is hard for the Allied Forces to promote its mission as humanitarian given the inevitable civilian casualties of conflict.
In a village damaged by a British attack on the night of 7 October, some people were too angry to talk to me because I was British. One merely pointed to the torn and bloody women's clothing left in the ruins of the house and said bitterly, "Are these the kind of houses they have come to build - the kind where clothing is cut to pieces?".
Allied sources describe this village as being heavily defended by the Nazis, who fired on their forces throughout the operation.
Thousands of people have fled the fighting, many seeking refuge in various cities and towns, where they are putting severe pressure on the ability of the League of Nations to help.
They fear for the homes and farms they have left behind, and while not active Nazi supporters, it is clear that most blame the Allies more for the worsening violence.
One man, Rudolph Schneider, now squatting with his family in a building site in Dresden, said the Nazis have most to gain in the continuing conflict.
"It's very obvious. Right now we see foreigners with tanks driving through our vineyards. They destroy people's orchards.
"They break through the walls and just drive across. When they take up positions in the village like this, nobody can cooperate with them.'
There is one other factor that increases Nazi morale.
Few have any education beyond years spent in the Hitler Youth, the fundamentalist organisation in Germany that has produced an endless supply of Nazis for more than a decade.
Five years on they are back, and regrouping against an old enemy.
Umbongo:
On the BBC News at 8:30 am during the "Today" programme there were just 5 items: the main item concerned the decision by Richmond Council to penalise residents parking non-green cars; another was the appearance by Madonna on the Oprah Winfrey show. Are these the most earth shattering events that happened in the world today? No mention, for instance, of the defeat yesterday by the government of attempts in the Commons to amend the UK-US extradition treaty: of course not, that is just a matter of personal freedom - loony LibDems in Richmond and the appearance of an American pop star on a US TV programme are much more newsworthy.
Again, not necessarily bias, but certainly crap journalism.
john:
The BBC (in conjunction with ken and the MCB) and half a story.
pounce | 24.10.06 - 5:57 pm | #
The BBC bias is that of the thought Police of the PC elite.
anon.
I watched BBC London News last night 6.30-7pm, hosted by newsreader Asad Ahmad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/
First item…Ken Livingstone “The treatment of Muslims right now is like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, bla bla bla” Muslims face 'serious prejudice'
London's Muslim community is 'disproportionately' a victim of faith hate crimes, a report from the mayor's office says.
Interview with Muslim Councillor Ahmed challenges him that Livingstone’s analogy is OTT. Councillor: ‘Ken was basically right…no apologies’
Then interview with Ahmed Versi, editor of the Muslim News, repeated showing of news headline in Muslim News that “ A pigs head was placed outside a Mosque”
There are 706,000 Muslims in the city, of which 40% were born in the UK (according to the 2001 census).
Change of topic on news poetry. A very bright young Muslim poet (half Egyptian) with serious attitude towards police and Islamophobes expressed in his rhyming couplets, has just won a competition. Young poet reads out his anti-police poetry.
New exhibition at Croydon Museum about the 1920s & 1930S. Quick look at some exhibition items. Followed by an interview with an OEP from Croydon who knew of the airport? No, BBC London can't have that, instead, followed by interview with a black ethnic org. representative of Croydon, singing the praises of Croydon’s new found diversity!
Tell me that I’m not living in a European colony Mark Steyn? And the BBC has the temerity to suggest ‘yourlondon’! I notice that BBC London are doing there own HYS, no comments are published. I am a little angry that I am addressed by the BBC as a "non-Muslim" and asked what I can do!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/
cont...e_feature.shtml
Have your say
• If you are a Muslim have you been a victim of discrimination or a hate crime?
• What can non-Muslims do to encourage tolerance and equality in the capital?
Send in your views and experiences - email: yourlondon@bbc.co.uk
riddiford:
well done all
Keep pounding the BBC you have got em all rattled.
The campaign for an English Parliament and the English Democratic party received some coverage yesterday.
Fleeting though it was its appearance at all is a testament to you lot.
deegee:
Alan G:
Your parody of BBC news was brilliant.
For everyone else:
The 'news fairy' has given me the power to set priorities for BBC news. Help me.
Should some countries (other than Britain) receive more coverage than others? What are the criteria?
Percentage of immigrants from that country?
Trade figures?
The amount of blood shed? The amount of blood likely to be shed?
Historic ties?
Geographical area?
Percentage of followers of that religion worldwide/nationally?
Percentage of English speakers?
Existence of visual or auditory material?
Public interest (however defined and by whom)? or interest by the public?
Liklihood to lead to war against Britain or in general?
Cost to produce?
Time relationship to another story already broadcast?
What have I missed?
gordon-bennett:
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Try this little diversion.
HowManyOfMe.comThere are:
30
people with my name
in the U.S.A.
How many have your name?
Disgruntled:
There used to be a time when I watched the BBC News from beginning to end. No more, my patience is at an end. Dutifully I tune in at 6pm to watch BBC TV News. I listen to the headlines and that familiar nausea flows over me. I could be physically sick if I was not of a strong disposition. It appears ugly and misleading. Nowadays I have to leave the room immediately for fear of painful embarrassment.
deegee:
Could writers of long posts (mea culpa) please learn to use the very basic HTML available for this site and paragraphing? It makes reading so much easier and helps convey your point. 
Compare this post below (not formatted or paragraphed) with my previous one (formatted).
Alan G:
Your parody of BBC news was brilliant.
For everyone else:
The 'news fairy' has given me the power to set priorities for BBC news. Help me.
Should some countries (other than Britain) receive more coverage than others? What are the criteria?
Percentage of immigrants from that country?
Trade figures?
The amount of blood shed? The amount of blood likely to be shed?
Historic ties?
Geographical area?
Percentage of followers of that religion worldwide/nationally?
Percentage of English speakers?
Existence of visual or auditory material?
Public interest (however defined and by whom)? or interest by the public?
Liklihood to lead to war against Britain or in general?
Cost to produce?
Time relationship to another story already broadcast?
What have I missed?
dave t:
If the Muslims are being treated like the Jews of 1930s can we expect the camps to be built any day now?
It is the same as all these morons out chanting for CND at Faslane etc. They KNOW they are not going to be shot or thrown into jail for 15 years without trial with free torture sessions thrown in. If they went to Iran or Syria to protest they wouldn't last five minutes and they'd be screaming for the British Embassy to get them home!
Who do the BBC give these clowns the time of day?
dave t:
Still nothing on the Beeb about the Chief of Staff at Number 10 being quizzed under caution (unlike most of the others so far).....gosh if only he'd been a Tory it would be on the front page with a huge photo of gold coins on an ermine robe or suchlike to make sure you couldn't miss it!
John Archer:
FWIW, following Ritter’s (24.10.06 - 2:09 pm) link to the Helen Boaden piece I submitted the following comment. If it had been as equally intense but in favour of the BBC I guess it would have been posted. As it stands, it wasn’t.
---
[To Helen Boaden http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed...at_the_bbc.html ]
Is the BBC biased in favour of all those things dear to the left/liberal grauniad-reading bien pensantistas?
Is the Pope a Catholic?
I have no interest in what the Daily Mail says, nor the BBC and certainly not in giving your piece any credence. The evidence has been plain for all to see for decades. Yes, decades.
As far I am concerned the rot is so utterly ingrained that your once decent institution is now way beyond any hope of redemption. Case closed. The BBC should be broken up and any useful bits auctioned off.
Requiescat in pace. And good riddance.
john:
Fleeting though it was its appearance at all is a testament to you lot.
riddiford | 25.10.06 - 10:39 am | #
Riddiford. Did you catch Eddie Mair’s interview with Canon Wright on Radio 4s “PM” programme in advance of his speech yesterday? Scroll to [36 minutes.58 sec.] of the hour long programme it lasts until [41 min.26 seconds ]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/r...shtml?radio4/
pm
He mischievously suggested to listeners that if they had any suggestions of how an English constitutional settlement could be framed to send it in as a text message. to “84844” The fact that he is Scottish himself wasn’t revealed, but Mair was wallowing in a pseudo BBC objectivity, where the Canon revealed his Scottishness, Mr. Mair tried to play the role of some disinterested interviewer. Problem was, the text message jibe, says rather a lot.
In fact how dare this Scot ridicule the English so! But this form of subtle racism is allowed on the BBC, such ethnic disparaging is permitted.
Eddie Mair’s nationality ?
Eddie was born in Dundee, and began his journalistic career at Radio Tay in the city, hosting weekly phone-ins, news shows and the breakfast show. In 1987 he joined the BBC, starting as a sub-editor for Radio Scotland and later presenting the station's flagship television and radio news programmes, Reporting Scotland and Good Morning Scotland.
BBC bias, what bias?
GCooper:
Of the loathsome Eddie Mair, john asks:
"BBC bias, what bias?"
One might equally ask 'journalism, what journalism?'
Hosting radio phone-ins is hardly journalism, is it? I'm not so sure about the rest of his CV either. On the face of it, it sounds like he's a little more than professional newsreader/programme presenter.
Perhaps the CV omits something...
D Burbage:
Pete_London : the Wiki on WBAI is pretty clear. The corollary to your assertion "she sought them out" I can't imagine anyone with centre-right views would choose to work there! Also, there was a big fight in 1977, presumably when
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBAI
at one point described as 'an anarchists circus'.
Good training, no doubt - "Its programming is leftist/progressive, an admixture of leftist political orthodoxy tinged with aspects of its more complex and varied past..."
Another insight into that station's philosophy is the case that went to the Surpreme Court about Carlin's Filthy Words where the WBAI owners lost to the FCC over broadcasting indecent material during the afternoon.
More tea, vicar?
D Burbage:
edited out by mistake "presumably when it made its name in the 'progressive' broadcasting community"
Alan G:
Deegee,
About my "parody" of BBC News.
I should have pointed out that I took the BBC report commented on by pounce and Terry Johnson and changed the words Taleban to Nazi and Afghanistan to Germany. In true BBC style, I left out information that I felt irrelevant.
I should also point out that what I did wasn't original - a few months back, there were several such parodies on this website. What amazed me was how easy it was to take the David Loyn article from the BBC website and turn it into something that would have been regarded as traitorous sixty years ago.
D Burbage:
PS readers may also be interested in this
http://www.goodlight.net/wbai/im...ge02/
racism.gif
which is a newsletter from 1977 on the crisis at the station. It contains that well known phrase "institutional racism". Someone should tell the OED so they don't get their derivations confused with Macpherson. It also says that WBAI staff should "include more Blacks and Latins" - future echos of the BBC's Greg Dyke, perchance? can we spot some similarities here in our national broadcaster?
(linked from http://www.goodlight.net/wbai/ph...tos/
default.htm )
Jonathan (Cambridge):
Did anyone catch the interview Humphries did with the (christian) Archbishop of Basra on the Today programme just before 9pm? He sounded utterly p*ssed (the Archbishop not Humph)
I'd drink as well if I had his job.
Schoolboy Error:
Helen Boaden claimed the 'impartiality seminar' was streamed live on the web.Was it open to all viewers?Is there a record somewhere?(Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere).Could someone direct me to where?
Pete_London:
D Burbage
Many over here think that the McPherson coined the phrase 'institutional racism'. It was actually the marxist, racist Stokely Carmichael back in the 60s or thereabouts and he did so for leftist, racist reasons. It seems that the no doubt spliffed-up McPherson of the time at paid least attention to something.
Ritter:
A day in the life of the BBC left-liberal agenda driven so-called 'news':
Fancy a bit of US-bashing? BBC give their sofa favourite Ming Ding some publicity:
Extradite US soldiers - Campbell
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6083962.stm
Up for some eco-guilt? Here's a free slice from the BBC:
How green is your office?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
6081556.stm
How about some namby pamby liberal 'justice'? Didn't you know prison doesn't work? BBC tell you why:
'I grew up in secure units'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60.../uk/
6080868.stm
and finally desert - the BBC's favourite minority group. Here's a reminder - they are persecuted dontcha know?
Muslims face 'serious prejudice'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
6080210.stm
will:
their sofa favourite Ming Ding
I wonder whether his chums at "Today" will invite him to comment on the views of Dean Godson
WE MUST thank the University of St Andrews for that rare opportunity — the chance to employ with a straight face the cliché “it’s like Caligula appointing his horse as consul”. How so? Because Scotland’s oldest university has decided to award an honorary doctorate of law to former President Khatami of Iran “in recognition of his efforts to encourage interfaith dialogue”.
I kid you not. No less a person than Sir Menzies Campbell, the university’s Chancellor, will bestow the accolade on the acceptable face of violent, arbitrary clerical rule. It will come to be seen as one of the most shameful days in the university’s history — on a par with the honorary degrees granted by the University of Edinburgh to Robert Mugabe, of Zimbabwe, or the Central London Polytechnic to Elena Ceaucescu, of Romania. They, too, were once fashionable items among the appeasing classes, of which Sir Menzies is the contemporary personification.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
new...2420043,00.html
I suppose the firsr question to Ming would be "Shouldn't this honour really be going to President Ahmadinejad, the embodiment of the glorious democratic & tolerant state of Iran?"
Pete_London:
Ritter
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy from the institutionally islamist BBC.
I grew up in secure units
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60.../uk/
6080868.stm
You'll notice what I thought of as a photo of the yob in question ('Diana'). The caption even mentions her name. Yet the story states:
I ended up making a complaint against the staff in the South East because they wouldn't provide any ethnic food for me. I was young and I was used to eating African food. The Muslims get halal food, so why couldn't I get African food?
Diane described her family situation as "messed up" - her father died in 1996 and her mother later remarried. She did not get on with her stepfather and soon began to get into trouble.
He shaved my head - he said it was discipline or something. But I was brought up in Europe, he wasn't. He didn't understand that you can't just shave someone's head. After that, I didn't want to listen to anyone.
Sounds like she's an African girl then. Does that photo look like an African?
D Burbage:
Pete_London
The photo alt tag says
"teenager (generic)"
Diana:
I grew up in secure units
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60.../uk/ 6080868.stm
The article contradicts itself. The girl says
"Sometimes, when I came up before the judge in court, I'd plead guilty to stuff I hadn't done just to get locked up. I didn't mind at the time, I preferred being locked up to being at home.
""Even though it was much further from where I lived, things in Hull were much better. You'd have one-to-one sessions with staff who would try and help you solve your problems."
Her only visitors were from the Howard League for Penal Reform, who helped her to find a place to live when she was finally released. "
So obviously the girl felt that being locked up was better for her than being at home, and in fact she even admitts that she received help when she was locked up, so how can she then complain about the authorities, when according to her it was better to be locked up and she had lied in order to stay locked up.
Did she expect the authorities to treat her in a condescending way when she had admitted she was a criminal?? The authorities even changed her to a different unit when she made the complain and was having problems with the staff. What more could she expect?? A hotel reservation and private servants???
They even helped her find a place to live when she left, and she was an admitted criminal
Pete_London:
They're still at it.
EU migrants fuel UK growth debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
6083328.stm
The British government's curbs on Romanian and Bulgarian workers clearly come in response to the embarrassment it suffered over the previous wave of Eastern European immigration.
Pete_London:
Mods - the bold thingy is cocking up again (I hope that's not too technical for you).
DumbJon:
That Terry Lloyd article's a classic as well.
Leaving aside the basic premise, namely that jounalists should be able to wander freely round a battlefield in complete safety, two things are particularly outrageous. Look how the circumstances of his death are phrased:
Mr Lloyd was killed by a US Marine's bullet during the Iraq invasion.
Sounds like some crazed Marine gunned him down right ? Actually, he was killed in a vehicle-vehicle clash when his vehicle was raked by US fire. There's all the difference in the world between someone being shot by someone else (where they might reasonably be expected to identify the target as a jounalist), and a passenger being hit in an exchange between two groups of vehicles.
Now, about that Iraqi vehicle:
Mr Lloyd was shot in the head while in a makeshift ambulance.
Because of the nature of my job, I often eat lunch in my car. This must make it a 'makeshift restraunt'. The vehicle was a minibus that was part of a group of similarly civilian type vehicles being used by the Iraqi Army to transport troops. Not only was the bus not marked in any way as an ambulance, it was carrying unwounded Iraqi troops as well as casaulties. Or, to put it another way, it would far more accurate to say 'Mr Lloyd was shot in the head while in a makeshift Iraqi Army troop carrrier', except of course, that would make the whole thing sound stupid.
John Reith:
Natalie et al
I was just looking through the comments on Helen Boaden’s editors’ blog trying to spot the B-BBC regulars when I came across one peddling a familiar line.
Someone called Richard Davies wanted to know why Stephen Lawrence is a household name and Kriss Donald isn’t. He then (wrongly) claims the BBC haven’t reported the case outside Scotland.
That’s been said in these threads – and in just the same terms – a number of times recently. To murmurs of general agreement too.
The quick answer is obvious: it wasn’t his murder that made Stephen Lawrence famous but the campaign to try to secure justice when the Police failed (a campaign helped in large measure by Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, who’d employed Stephen Lawrence’s father to work on his house). By contrast, the Glasgow cops were quick to identify suspects in the Kriss Donald case and the story has since been subject to tight sub judice reporting restrictions.
But something nagged at me about the suspiciously similar wording. So I googled a bit – and sure enough the BNP site, stormfront and various other of a similar ilk are all peddling the same lines. Nick Griffin’s even been up to Pollockshields himself.
Not the first time B-BBC has been playing Little Miss Echo to a BNP propaganda meme.
Just thought you ought to know. You do, after all, have a reputation to keep up.
Zevilyn:
69% Vote to see the Mohammed cartoons.
The elites at Channel 4 say no, because they know best, and besides, they are scared.
I am, like most British people, sick of hearing about Muslims and their grievances. And this is with just 3% of the population. I dread to think what will happen when they get to 20 - 30%.
I would add that it is Atheists who have challenged and confronted the Islamist's most. Alot of Christians have a naive Rowan Williams view of Islam.
Ritter:
Mr Lloyd was shot in the head while in a makeshift ambulance.
Because of the nature of my job, I often eat lunch in my car. This must make it a 'makeshift restraunt'.DumbJon | 25.10.06 - 3:41 pm | #
Nice on DJ - raised a smile. 'makeshift' can be added to 'so-called' along with all the other TruthSpeak words and phrases approved by the BBC in their aim to present biased news.
Pete_London:
Ritter
Let's not forget those 'homemade' Palestinian missiles which 'irritate' Israel.
dave t:
Not the first time B-BBC has been playing Little Miss Echo to a BNP propaganda meme.
And the Guardian, BBC, Reuters et al don't slavishly copy the decreed leftie talking points......so JR finds ONE possible post by someone whose name doesn't ring any bells (is this alleged BNP copier a regular here?) and tries to insinuate that B-BBC are merely echoing the BNP. Nice one JR!
By Harry, God and St George (in a non-nationalist way of course) he's getting desperate!
Diana:
ohh and "alleged" and "militants." It seems that most of the facts that the BBC dislikes are just "allegations" and the innocent groups of civilians who happen to be carrying guns, shooting, and have fired "homemade" missiles are "militants" never terrorists. Poor innocent activists that just want to blow up places and who are unjustly "gunned down" (sarcasm)
Bob:
JR: nice to see the hilarious 'impartiality summit' has got you so rattled! Now, to business:
the comparison was not made here with Stephen Lawrence, so much as with the equally horrendous murder of the black youth Anthony Walker on Merseyside. This received heavy, and justified coverage on the BBC, NOT due to police corruption, but to the horrific nature of the crime. The Kriss Donald case has NOT received equal BBC coverage. YOU may say it's got some 'sub judice' reasons (you're always bringing that up when you want to cover something up), but others may conclude it has something to do with the religion of the accused, something the BBC repeatedly avoids mentioning in a negative light. It's got nothing to do with the BNP, you fool
yankeemychain:
Mr. Reith:
Take up the White City Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
Diana:
JR I am from the US, what do I have to do with the BNP??
in any case it would not justify the fact that the BBC's agenda is biased in favor of leftist-liberal propaganda because the BBC is funded by BRITISH TAXPAYERS, which includes conservatives and liberals, so the BBC should not be biased at all towards any viewpoint, we just want facts not absurd and manipulative commentaries in between.
Also Biased-BBC is not sponsored by British taxpayers and yet it allows anyone to comment freely such as yourself John Reith, even though you disagree with Biased BBC.
The BBC IS CENSORED and it does not allow a free debate, although it claims it does, because it deletes posts that express views disagreeing with the BBC's point of view. Don't you think it is biased to delete my posts and to not allow all opinions to be expressed??? Your posts have never been deleted on this website, yet the BBC does delete my posts and that of others. Be fair John Reith, otherwise you will be just like the BBC.
If you censor opinions then you are biased, and thus the BBC is biased.
Ritter:
Question Time up for grabs
http://media.guardian.co.uk/
broa...1931059,00.html
"Independent producers will have the chance to bid for Question Time, one of the BBC's flagship current affairs shows, after the corporation decided to put the contract out to tender.
David Dimbleby is expected to stay on as presenter of the BBC1 Thursday night show for the new production contract, which will start next autumn.
The Tinopolis subsidiary Mentorn, which has made Question Time for seven years, is expected to be among the bidders when the tender is issued later this year.
The BBC is understood to be interested in new ideas about areas, such as the make-up of the studio panel and audience, how the show reflects the location it is broadcast from each week, and how it uses the internet."
Here are some handy tips for bidding production companies aiming to land the QT contract:
1. Pick 4 panelists from the left (Respect/LibDum/Lab etc), add in a token soft tory from the left of the party and a comedian or 'broadcaster' (or Billy Bragg if he's available). Do not invite UKIP or BNP etc.
2. Shows should be broadcast from Labour constituiencies with high ethnic minority demographics eg Bradford
3. For studio audience purposes, up the muslim contingent to about 30%. Add 60% left wing voters (Respect/LibDum/Lab). 10% for 'other'. (try not to let too many of those pesky tories through the door)
4. For QT on the internet, propose a 'muslim panel' to comment on political issues of the day e.g. victimisation of muslimzzzzzz
job done.
TPO:
Diana 1
jr 0
john:
Uncensored BBC quote
"Instead of a veil we have a mass of scar tissue"
Consultant surgeon, Peter Butler (Royal Free Hospital)on face transplants.
Interviewed by Eddie 'bonnie' Mair, BBC Radio 4 "PM" who thought it interesting to raise the subject of the Muslim veil, as they were talking about the importance of seeing the face in human communication.
DumbJon:
Hey, did I halluciante it or did JR really try and bag B-BBC for covering the same issues as the BNP, NF and the like ?
Abstract away from euphamisms like 'neo-con', and the 'some people say' type distancing, and there's not much to choose between the BBC's coverage of the War on Terror and that of the BNP/NF loons. Anyone remember 'The Power of Nightmares' ? Or, for that matter, coverage of a well-known source of oranges.
John Reith:
Hello again TPO.
Far be it from me to suggest the lady is drunk, but I can't make head nor tail of it. Can you?
Diana:
The lady JR deserves respect, and for your information I don't drink, it numbs my reasoning and I can't afford that when there are people like you and like the BBC in the world.
Now if you want to answer my comment directly with rational arguments then you are more than welcome, otherwise, it is still 1 to 0 on that part.
Francis:
Mr Reith, nice to see you back on the subject of Kriss Donald again. Two weeks ago I posted this;
Francis:
Mr Reith, you must be on a different BBC site than I because when I do a search on 'Kriss Donald' I get 48 articles. 'Anthony Walker' brings back 96 PAGES, i.e. 960 articles.....
I took your non-response as an admission of guilt. So if you're going to talk about BBC non bias over Kriss Donald then please answer why the stark difference between the number of articles on the BBC.
Also explain why everyone has heard of Walker but virtually no one has heard of Donald? And if the BBC is the No. 1 news agency in this country do you think the blame can be placed firmly at the door of broadcasting house?
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Diana,
If you want to make it 2-0 ask JR if he thinks it's right for the BBC to broadcast an interview of Osama Bin Laden (as was apparently agreed during the recent "impartiality seminar") but not broadcast news about this -
http://www.guardianlies.com/Cont...m/
Contents.html
given that all these people -
http://www.guardianlies.com/Pegs...20up/
index.html
have valued the merits of the research that underpinned it.
Francis:
Also Mr Reith, can you explain why the murder of Lawrence has always been reported as a racist murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ast/
2965569.stm
I can't remember anyone being convicted of his murder, yet the BBC seems to know the colour of the attackers and would, given the chance, conduct some sort of kangaroo court to convict who they think is guilty.
Grateful if you could send a link to prove that it was in fact a racist murder.
Henry:
Amazing thing happened at 5.20pm.
News 24 reported on the Kriss Donald trial.
gordon-bennett:
jr:
Many of us have pointed out frequently that we would have no truck with left-wing organisations like the bnp.
You know this and you are demeaning yourself (not for the first time) by this ad hominem crap.
Anonymous:
As I mentioned previously I have just returned from 3 weeks in the USA. When I left BBC News was giving a running commentary on Hamster Hammond who had been involved in a near fatal car crash. 3 weeks later and another piece on the nearly dead hamster. Pity you, have you really been subject to 3 weeks of this stuff and nonsense?
Tonight the BBC presenter on News 24 gives the distinct impression that he finds the Borak film about Kazakhstan hilariously funny. Could this be because such countries are vied as right wing? If such a country was Muslim or in Black Africa would the BBC be taking this line? In a similar vein the BBC ran a short piece of K Livingstone spouting about 'Nazis' when will they run a piece on someone spouting about 'Commies' or can't they find any? Or are they even looking?
J.G.:
"Far be it from me to suggest the lady is drunk"
What a nasty little man you are JR.
When the argument is lost, just resort to abuse. It's not the first time either.
J.G.:
Anyone else find it amusing that Hammond has so little respect for the BBC he did his first interview with the Mirror.
John Reith:
Francis
There must be something wrong with your computer.
I just entered ‘Kriss Donald’ and got 208 BBC stories.
I entered ‘Anthony Walker’ and got 393 – but some were about a different Anthony Walker.
So I included in the ‘with at least one of the words’ filter: ‘Merseyside’ and ‘murdered’ – which produced 267 BBC stories.
As for the Lawrence case, I think you’ll find that the Macpherson Inquiry ruled it was racially motivated.
Zvi:
BBC style guide for Israel/Palestinian reporting, with comments in the EDITORS blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theed...0/13/
index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/...000/
6044090.stm
Carl Johnston:
Why not have an interview with Bin Laden? Inform?Educate?
How is that bias?
I will take your non response as an admission that I'm right.
If I say CJ 10 BBias 0, does that mean I won the argument?
Diana:
JR
So can you tell me why the BBC censors me when I exposed a valid argument with references and did not result to insults such as the ones from others in the BBC website who were calling the coalition forces assassins. In fact, why even does the BBC have a right to censor?? I understand cursing to be censored, but arguments should not be censored. Why, in a claimed "open debate" on "Have Your say," would the BBC allow to be posted ONLY the comments that have THEIR say. Why did they censor opinions that disagree with the BBC's views??? Is that freedom JR??? Why does the BBC have a view at all, if it should just be reporting the facts along with the evidence to proof that they are facts.
The answer is simple: The BBC is biased and it applies its bias to its "news."
gordon-bennett:
Interesting 6 pm news on beeb1.
They had a report on the Kriss Donald case. However, the report didn't contain any specific new developments and was simply an interim report. Do you think jr is reporting this blog's concerns back to the beeb's news feuhrers?
John Reith:
The supposedly ‘unreported’ story sure got a lot of coverage:
“A 15-year-old Glasgow schoolboy who was stabbed and set on fire was attacked because he was white, according to one of the men who abducted him.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
5409734.stm
The first BBC story on Kriss Donald was on the day after the killing:
“The body of a teenager found in Glasgow's east end is that of a 15-year-old boy who was abducted, police have confirmed.
The victim, named as Kriss Donald, was forced into a silver Mercedes or BMW car after a struggle shortly after 1500 GMT on Monday.
He had been approached by five Asian men in Kenmure Street, Pollokshields.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scot...and/
3517042.stm
Here is a small random sample of other reports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
6044474.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
4022261.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
4016631.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
6076884.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
6048974.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scot...est/
6055446.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/
5406912.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
4296434.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
4022567.stm
gordon-bennett:
Another hit on the 6 pm news.
They reported on a michael j fox ad for the democrats saying that the Republican candidate was against stem cell research, which would help alleviate/cure fox's Parkinson's Disease. They then reported that Rush Limbaugh had commented that fox was exaggerating his condition during the ad.
The real story is that fox is on record as saying that he deliberately doesn't take his medication before events such as interviews or ads about PD in order to accentuate the impact of his case.
In addition, the Republican was not against stem cell research per se, only embryo stem cell research (because it involves the death of embryos) so fox was lying about that as well.
As usual, half a story from the beeb.
Diana:
Carl Johnston
You can have an interview with Bin Laden once he is behind bars and awaiting trial for his murders.
Bin Laden funded the attacks on 9/11 and has admitted through his videos of promoting and carrying out terrorist acts.
A journalist or reporter should practice journalism which is defined as "The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation"
http://dictionary.reference.com/...owse/
journalism
Therefore, a journalist has a duty to uphold the facts, and the fact is that Osama Bin Laden is wanted for acts of terrorism, if the reporter gives more value to keeping Bin Laden's hiding place secret than to the fact that he is a murderer and a terrorist, who, if given the chance, would kill the people that the journalist reports the news for, then that reporter is not practicing journalism. The only thing honorable for a reporter to do would be to inform the public of the location of Osama Bin Laden, that would be NEWS, but Osama Bin Laden's opinions or points of view are not news because they don't represent facts.
Carl, I can start naming reasons, about 3000, why Osama Bin Laden should not be interviewed until he is captured, all this reasons have first and last names.
How would Osama Bin Laden "inform" or "educate" us, please explain to me how would a terrorist "inform" or "educate" the public?? I would really like to know that one.
Allan@Aberdeen:
All the links supplied by JR on the Kris Donald murder are in the BBC's Scotland section. I would have thought that a racist murder/mutilation would have been in the national lead page.
Francis:
John Reith, you are a liar.
Go to your poxy website (www.bbc.co.uk) and in the search box on the top left type in
'anthony walker liverpool' and press 'Search'.
30 PAGES.
Do the same for 'Kriss Donald'.
7 PAGES.
Since my original posting I think we have an extra 2 pages for the current court case but still a big difference.
Henry:
Yes Reeth it has the trial has been reported on the Scotland page. Don't you think such a vile crime like the kidnap, torture and burning alive of a child should be on the main page. You know yourself that Anthony Walkers murder was extensively covered and rightly so.
But as you know the bbc is bias
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'
Francis:
John Reith,
of the few references you supplied, have any ever been in the headlines section of your website or always hidden deep in the West Scotland section? The latter I believe.
As you probably know, the BBC also uses the media of TV and radio to present us the 'news'. I'd put my hand on the bible (or the Koran if you prefer) and swear that I have NEVER heard his name mentioned on these outlets. Not so for Anthony Walker.
Diana:
JR your gullibleness goes beyond imagination
From YOUR ARTICLE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...est/ 5409734.stm
look at the names of the accused:
Zahid Mohammed
Imran Shahid, 29
his brother Zeeshan "Crazy" Shahid,28
Mohammed "Beck" Mushtaq, 27
AND the BBC still dares to say without quotes: He told the court that he had driven around with a group of Asian youths
ASIAN!!!, GIVE ME A BREAK, LOOK AT THE GUY'S PICTURE JR, LOOK AT THE NAMES
ANd you are gonna tell me that the BBC is not biased, please!!!
AND ANOTHER PIECE OF GREAT ENGLISH FROM THE BBC:
"Zahid Mohammed was jailed for five years in 2004 after admitting he had assaulted Kriss Donald."
How was he "jailed for five years" if from 2004 to 2006 there have only been 2 years BBC, where is the calculator!!!
On a second note, the guy only got 5 years for abducting a person, being an accomplice to murder, and lying about it!!!! what is this?? what kind of crap justice is that??
No wonder the 3% of Muslim feels free to overpower the majority of British, of course, they will only get 5 years in prison if they help kill a Briton. Kidnapping and abduction in the US will definetely get you many more years than that, because the point of justice is that if people don't feel a moral obligation to not break the law, at least they will be aware that they will suffer very harsh consequences if they do break the law.
pounce:
Terry Johnson wrote;
"This is the kind of drivel I imagine that Nazi publications would print about the Waffen SS. Can the traitors at Al-BBC sink any lower ?"
Oh yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/
avdb...955_16x9_bb.asx
gordon-bennett:
pounce | 25.10.06 - 8:17 pm
Sorry, can't watch that again.
As Stephen Fry said in another context, it makes you realise that there is just not enough vomit in the whole world to do justice to that report.
Lynette:
Diana, yeah it's nuts.
If criminals are actually locked up, there will be more people in prison (makes the incarceration stats look bad), and more prisons would have to be built, since they are at capacity (80,000 inmates, I think) Prisons -- bad. (Guantanomo -- triple bad). You know the spiel.
Last I read there was a plan to pay foreign prisoners to serve their sentences in their home countries - next plan was to revert to prison ships.
john:
at least they will be aware that they will suffer very harsh consequences if they do break the law.
Diana | 25.10.06 - 7:30 pm | #
That's so true, I wish it was so here! Unfortunately the BBC is chiefly responsible for whipping up a liberal frenzy about how hard done by criminals are. I think it was Pym Fortune, who magnificently gate-crashed the Dutch consensual political system when he said, I paraphrase, 'hold on, what is happening when we are paying more attention to the fate of criminals than our old people in nursing homes.'Why is it that people worry about criminals sharing cells, and that old people in nursing homes doing the same doesn't seem to matter? Don't we have our priorities wrong here?
The BBC, or its editors, in the last few weeks have run headlines throughout the day on prison overcrowding and the 'lamentable' conditions of youth offenders. The BBC is tugging on the heart strings of the public regarding the fate of criminals! It is really quite sick. That together with the Institutional Islamism of the BBC is enough to make one weep.
Common sense says build more of them and make the penalties harsher! For some reason the BBC seems to think that we ought not to do that. We are witnessing a strange ritual,
Building more homes for people to live in- yes.
Building more prisons for criminals- no.
At the same time they get worried that there isnt enough room for the criminals? Like bad magicians they seem to think that if they shut their eyes hard enough, the problem just might vanish when they open them again. When they do, they find that they have even more criminals, and yet they still haven't built any more prisons, and then the BBC runs a headline again. What is to be done... It's quite mad!
Diana:
Lynette, totally agree. It's frightening to think that guy will be released in just three more years.
I think Bush proposed a plan about privatizing some prisons but I don't recall exactly what it was. It would be good to be able to analyze it, since it may reduce the costs of prisons and making prisoners work might be a kind of rehabilitation.
GCooper:
Stuck in the car again this afternoon, with nothing worth troubling a spare braincell over on R4 (not much change there) so the press of a button takes us to R5 and.... behold!, there's little Billy Bigmouth trying to stuff his half-baked political views down the listeners' ears yet again .
Does a month go by when somewhere on the BBC, this Marxist stooge isn't given a platform for his opinions, free, gratis and entirely at our expense?
GCooper:
I must add my voice to the chorus of disgust at Reith, incidentally.
There seems to be no belt so low that he won't aim beneath it. Now B-BBC is castigated for allegedly allowing a platform for the same views as held by members of a perfectly legal political party.
On the very day that his employer airs stomach-churning billing and cooing over the Taleban.
Eye, mote, beam....
Tim:
Kondapoga:
The northern Russian town where race riots broke out.
BBC 24 nearly mentioned the M word, but settled for the phrase that:
"the Chechen immagrants at the centre of the riots had taken refuge in a local mosque"
That is a step in the right direction, a small one, but a step all the same.
dave t:
And living up here I can confirm that the coverage of Kriss Donald's murder is being reported albeit often not as the lead story. However it is NOT being reported nationally as much as Reith claims.Indeed the BBC National News had five minutes on a funeral for Jesse James the lad shot (almost certainly by a member of his own race if the TRIDENT Squad are involved) in Manchester but yet again nothing about Kriss.
This wishy washy approach by the liberals is the CAUSE of much of the problem and they have the cheek to wonder why some uninformed people think the BNP can solve their problems! It is liberal morons via the BBC and Guardian etc that are driving people into the arms of the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum!
Natalie Solent:
John Reith writes in this comment: "I was just looking through the comments on Helen Boaden’s editors’ blog trying to spot the B-BBC regulars when I came across one peddling a familiar line.
Someone called Richard Davies wanted to know why Stephen Lawrence is a household name and Kriss Donald isn’t. He then (wrongly) claims the BBC haven’t reported the case outside Scotland.
That’s been said in these threads – and in just the same terms – a number of times recently. To murmurs of general agreement too.
[snip]
But something nagged at me about the suspiciously similar wording. So I googled a bit – and sure enough the BNP site, stormfront and various other of a similar ilk are all peddling the same lines. [snip]
Not the first time B-BBC has been playing Little Miss Echo to a BNP propaganda meme.
Just thought you ought to know. You do, after all, have a reputation to keep up."
This absurd argument doesn't do your reputation any good.
Some time ago I saw a comment about I-forget-what on this blog that set alarm bells ringing in my head. It purported to come from just another ordinary commenter, but the language just sounded too press-releasy to be true. I googled and found the exact same words in a BNP press release. So I deleted it. (Not primarily because I dislike the BNP, though I do, but because I don't appreciate our space being used by stealth as a launch point for their press releases) For a moment, that is what I thought you meant in this case, i.e. that you had a reasonable point to make. But this idea, that we should flee from discussing certain entire subjects because the BNP has also discussed them, is just the counter-productive strategy we have come to expect from your employers. The BBC should be ashamed that the manifest disproportion of coverage by the BBC of the two murders has given the BNP an opening.
Incidentally, don't use the BBC's own search function to find all the stories. Typing the domain name bbc.co.uk into Google works much better.
archduke:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
6081594.stm
"The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan."
pardon me, but aren't we supposed to be at war with Taleban?
or does the BBC think its a pretendy-war?
archduke:
afghanistan - time to press the panic button?
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.co...nic-
button.html
kind of fits into my "pretendy war" thesis. there just doesnt seem to be a sheer political WILL to defeat the taleban.
pounce:
Question for Mr John Reith.
Please be so kind as to explain how you may see me as some sort of closet BNP supporter?
Pete_London:
kind of fits into my "pretendy war" thesis. there just doesnt seem to be a sheer political WILL to defeat the taleban.
That's exactly what it is, a pretendy war. It's a pretendy war which enables Blair to strut and posture on the world stage and fill his and the wicked witch's boots with dollars when he leaves politics.
Serious people with serious intentions know that war is so bad that when you prosecute it you do so with overwhelming violence generated by as much power as you can put in the field. Our forces should only be in Afghanistan if we have enough men and equipment to prosecute a swift and overwhelmingly violent war against the enemy. Right now we don't have anything like that number. There is not even the prospect of putting anything like enough men and equipment in the field because we just don't have enough of either. Conservative and Labour governments have hacked and cut and slashed at the Armed Forces until there's little left.
Conservative governments did this out of sheer stupidity because most things they do are out of sheer stupidity. Labout governments have done this and continue to do this because they are still a bunch of commie bastards who hate the Armed Forces, hate their excellence, hate the fact that the Soviet Union fell and becasue they want to destroy one of the few remaining reasons to be proud of this country.
dave t:
So you are coming out of the closet as well now pounce? 8-) Bloody hell, newly declared gay ex Muslim, former sapper and Reith's best mate - at this rate you'll have an episode of 'Spooks' all to yourself!
Ritter:
'Taliban Special' on BBC2 Newsnight now.
archduke:
"That's exactly what it is, a pretendy war. It's a pretendy war which enables Blair to strut and posture on the world stage and fill his and the wicked witch's boots with dollars when he leaves politics."
my thoughts exactly Pete_London. The BBC reported tonight (and indeed many other sources have reported) that the Madrassas of Pakistan are virtual "taliban factories". In real war, what would you do? You'd bomb Pakistan, thats what - or at the very least, *threaten* to turn Pakistan into a glass desert.
its pretendy - and our boys are dying out there.
Allan@Aberdeen:
And who the hell was that jerk on Radio 4 just after (I missed) the Moral Maze? He droned that "Europe appreciates that there is more to be gained from immigration ..." Europe? No definition provided.
And there was mentioned the Danish People's Party which published an electoral pamphlet which showed a blonde 4-year-old Danish girl saying that when she is a pensioner, Denmark will have a muslim majority: said pamphlet was accused of fostering division etc BUT absolutely no inquiring as to whether there was any truth in its assertion.
It was - from The Times - presented by the former government adviser, Geoff Mulgan, and one of the sonic atrocities which he uttered was that those on the left are better educated than those on the right. Those on the left have had more of the polytechnico-leftist-BS kneaded into them than those who studied real subjects such as engineering and sciences.
archduke:
newsnight - richmond car tax. good to see newsnight to point out that the chinese will cancel out any "eco friendly" initiatives by money grabbing councils.
Ritter:
Excerpt from the TBC (Taliban Broadcasting Corporation) newsnight interview with Adam Ingram (Armed Forces Minister)
Paxman "We spoke to a building contractor in Afghanistan who put up six schools. Two of them are now madrassas, two of them have been burned down by the Taliban, and two of them have been bombed by the Americans".
Adam Ingram "And? Does that mean that we (the British) somehow condone this? no it doesn't. What's your point?"
I think at that stage Ingram should have just told Paxo to f*ck off with his juvenile questions. To take up the popular WW2 analogies, this would be akin to Paxman berating Churchill because the nazis are killing jews in numerous places in Germany & Poland and concluding therefore the whole British war effort was a waste of time.
archduke:
newsnight - pensioners.
i've got a very simple solution.
Scumbags like the Al Gurabaa lot all seem to survive on "welfare". Throw in the millions of layabout chavs and the millions of "disabled" loungers - and bingo - you've got a ton of money for pensioners.
simple.
(i wait with baited breath if this is mentioned on newsnight)
Allan@Aberdeen:
Following John Reith's lead on the (non-) reporting of the mutilation and murder of Kris Donald in that far-away land of which you know little if the BBC has its way, I visited the BNP's website and found:
"High-profile cases such as Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker, which have received an extraordinary amount of media coverage, have entered the public consciousness much more than equally horrific murders, such as the abduction and murder of Scottish teenager, Kriss Donald, in March 2004 by a gang of Asians. Also, the brutal murder of Christopher Yates in the same year by a gang of drunken Asian youths in Barking, East London."
That is pure, unadulterated racism. How can the murders of whites be "equally horrific" to those of blacks? JR, I see your point.
GCooper:
Allan@Aberdeen writes:
"I visited the BNP's website and found:..."
Meanwhile, I watched the BBC 1 news, where the Donald case was virtually dismissed with a few seconds coverage near the end of the broadcast.
Not for the first time, I have to conclude that John Reith lives in a parallel universe.
As someone else remarked, no wonder people are being attracted by the BNP. The BBC is its best recruiting sergeant.
pounce:
Dave T wrote;
Bloody hell, newly declared gay ex Muslim, former sapper and Reith's best mate - at this rate you'll have an episode of 'Spooks' all to yourself!
I'm sure the BBC would love me to be Gay. As would a certain faith that happens to be a victim in the Uk.
Funny enough I was in front of the Oscar Charlie today and I found out he actually is.. Wow how the world moves forward.
Anonymous:
If the victim was called Zahid Mohammed and the accused were Donald, Smith and jones we would never hear the last of it.
john:
Our forces should only be in Afghanistan if we have enough men and equipment to prosecute a swift and overwhelmingly violent war against the enemy.
Pete_London:
Watching that Newsnight film of the Taleban, I was reminded of that criticism that went up a few months back....where the hell are the RAF? For the Taleban to drive around like that in conveys with impunity, weapons on show,strikes me as very odd.
Hezbollah were not doing that in Lebanon they were too afraid.
dave t:
Err with only half a dozen Harriers for the whole TAOR (Tactical Area of Responsibility) it is a bit difficult to cover an area the size of Wales. Even the Ruskies found it hard and they used hundreds of aircraft and choppers.
PS : Using Firefox version 2. Spell checker works great!
dave t:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60.../uk/
6086042.stm
The propaganda war on the net. No mention of the propaganda being broadcast by the BBC on behalf of the Taliban.....
Bijan Daneshmand:
As pounce and others have commented. This Al Beeb paean to the Taliban and their bestial form of Islam is astounding even by the Al Beeb standards.
[The remainder of this comment has been deleted. ]
Edited By Siteowner
Bryan:
Bijan,
Natalie reprimanded me for a violent personal attack on Jeremy Bowen during the Israel-Hezbollah war. We have every justification to be angry with the BBC but we need to be careful how we channel that anger.
Your observation is funny and may even be true but, as Natalie said, we should play the ball and not the man.
[Added by NS: yes.]
Edited By Siteowner
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
What was it that House of Dumb was saying about the "Berlin Wall moment"?
Here's more concrete coming off in big chunks:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/ne...tive/
article.do
BBC 'guilty' of ignoring public opinion says senior executive
A senior BBC executive has admitted the politically correct views of the corporation are at odds with most of its viewers.
BBC commissioning editor for documentaries Richard Klein admitted the broadcaster was out of touch with the British public, saying it was guilty of "ignoring" mainstream opinion.
Speaking to a room full of TV viewers and BBC staff, he suggested that if the current situation continued it could affect the organisation's long-term future.
Klein said: "By and large, people who work at the BBC think the same and it's not the way the audience thinks. That's not long term sustainable."
"We pride ourselves on being 'of the people', and it's pathetic.....Channel 4 tends to laugh at people, the BBC ignores them."
His comments, reported in the corporation's in-house magazine [!!!!!], come on the back of news earlier this week that a string of BBC executives and journalists have admitted that the corporation is institutionally biased.
Natalie Solent:
Mr Daneshmand and others,
please don't get personal about BBC presenters.
1) It looks bad.
2) It is bad.
dave t:
But Jon Snow on Channel Four is fair game thanks to his appalling dress sense in ties and socks.... 8-)
Richard:
Diana
"...in order for life to be created energy had to be put into the process"
Yes. The sun was probably the source of the energy, although the extant heat of the Earth and radioactivity are also energy sources that were present.
"You must recognize that after all the Soup-Model theory has not been proven a fact, just like the divine-creation theory has not been proven a fact, that's why they teach both in school ..."
That is not why I said creationists lie! Please read my post before answering.
Divine creation is not a theory. A scientific theory must explain the observed facts (which divine creation doesn't - it simply defers explanation or is contradicted by the observed facts) and most importantly it must also make testable predictions, which again divine creation does not.
I don't care if your physics teacher was a Christian. Some of the people I learnt evolution with were Christians, it didn't stop them understanding that the theory of evolution fits all the evidence. Your physics teacher probably understood that evolution does not mean an overall fall in entropy. However I am shocked that you studied science and still don't know what a theory is. Not exactly a good physics teacher, was he? I am confused a little as you said "professor", I believe in the US that is like a lecturer in the UK. Surely you didn't study science at university without ever understanding what a theory is?
"Notice how the theory says that these lifeless molecules would combine in more complex fashions, grow and reproduce, isen't that a little bit too much to expect from inorganic molecules because the concept of reproduction can only be aplied to living organisms, not molecule"
No.
Here you are simply not knowledgeable enough about sciences. For a start we are probably considering organic molecules, no inorganic (although Dawkins has some intriguing thought about self-replicating minerals perhaps catalysing the formation of self-replicating organic molecules). Why do you say that molecules canot reproduce themselves? known molecules do.
Can you show me every molecule, under every set of environmental conditions present in the early Earth, and demonstrate that it doesn't cause other, similar molecules to form, which also have that property? One such molecule is all that is required to start a process of evolution. To anyone who understands organic chemistry, it is almost inconceivable that this would not happen in a carbon and hydrogen-rich body the size of the Earth, so close to an energy source like the sun.
"As you can see, YOU CANNOT call a creationist a liar because then you would have to call many scientists liars since both views are theories and NONE HAS BEEN PROVEN..."
I can call them liars, as they lie.
[Aside: as explained before creationsit models do not fall within the definition of theories. I can add that even if something is called a theory it can still have been proven.]
All you do there is show that you didn't read my post - said they lie about entropy not about the nature of a theory (which I hope you now undertand a little better).
You clearly do not even understand the rather simple science you quote as your own evidence (and I suggest that in any argument you should at least understand your own case, even if you can't understand your opponent's). The lie I was talking about was the creationists' lie that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics. Re-read my earlier post to see why this is not the case.
"Now I have a question for you Richard, if with the technology that we have today we cannot make life, how do you suppose that in those times, life would just sprout without a purpose or meaning for its existence?"
You really have an exagerated assumption of human capability. The surface area of the Earth is a little over 200 million square miles. First evidence for life was a little after 4 billion years ago, on a planet roughly 4.55 billion years old. All that is required is that somewhere, on that surface being pounded with energy, in the air above or the depths of the oceans forming, over a time period of 550 million years, one self-replicating molecule happened to form.
We don't even know what the conditions were. Typical laboratory experiments happen in a few millilitres of fluid, and as you point out the experiments have been going on for a few decades. Yet you expect it to be esier to synthesise a replicating molecule in the lab?
Ironically you are also wrong (sort of). Although life has not been created (that was never the purpose - it is possible that millions of years of evolution were needed for recognisable life, which is where you are also misinterpreting your Wikipedia quote), molecules that might have self-replicated have. The argument is whether the conditions in those labe might have existed, or whether we have yet to replicate how it really happened.
Even if the soup model is wrong (there are other hypotheses) then that doesn't mean creationism is right. An argument against one hypothesis for abiogenesis is not an argument that life happened due to divine will. You would have to prove that there is no possible theory for abiogenesis, and since you haven't even argued successfully against your favourite you have your work cut out.
A question for you:
Why do you think life could not have sprung up without purpose? Why do you think life has to have purpose? Why do creationists lie about evolution?
Craig:
Regarding Terry Loyns 'Walking with Taliban’s' I can only think the motivation behind this left-wing propaganda piece in favour of the Taliban is just another result of the epidemic that has swept many other nations since Sept 11th. The epidemic I speak of is a variant of what is know as 'Stockholm Syndrome'
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sto...ckholm_syndrome
I first noticed this effect when former Daily Express journalist Yvonne Ridley was kidnapped in Afghanistan in the build up to the war in Afghanistan. After her release she converted to Islam and only just recently made a call for the Muslim community not to cooperate with police regarding people the suspect for terrorism. What other answer is there for this type of absurd change of character and these irrational irresponsible comments. Through this fear The BBC, The Mirror, Yvonne Ridley and a fare chunk of the nation who have been brainwashed by left-wing fear dribble mixed with conspiracy theories and Pareidolia, especially those who attend the BBCs question time need to be informed of their condition. Because with out this we will see much more strange bizarre behaviour which could include some hacks, and TV news readers planting roadside bombs. Remember the protests the other month, 'we are all Hezbollah now?'
Spread the word!
Dan:
But Jon Snow on Channel Four is fair game thanks to his appalling dress sense in ties and socks.... 8-)
dave t
But also his pompous, intellectual pose, coming from a man (who, like Humphrys) has no proven academic ability (Snow - 2 attempts to get A levels, didn't complete degree).
gordon-bennett:
jon snow is also rather inarticulate (but I mean... is his catchphrase), as well as being a bit dim, as are many of the rest of the c4 reporters.
Perhaps this is a consequence of recruiting from a small pool which excludes centre and right people and from which most of the remainder have been snapped up by the beeb.
Anon:
THE BBC attitude to the Kriss Donald case is typical of the reponse of the liberal establishment to any crime commited by Moslems or Arabs. Where "minorities" are the criminals multiculturalism takes priority over any rights the victim should have been afforded in giving unbiased coverage especially when the victim was selected because of his/her ethinic background.
Whats happened here also happened in 2004 Australia when groups of Australian girls were raped by a gang of Lebanese teens. (A case which was never reported on by the BBC)
... although it went "eventually" mainstream in Austalia and got covered by their MSM.
Here by contrast because of BBC dominanace of the MSM cases like the Kriss Donald one never see the light of day.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/
2...6185124700.html
Anon:
The BBC doesnt mind giving sensationalised coverage to "race riots" in Australia. It never examines the reasons for the pent up anger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...fic/
4519818.stm
Instead it goes for the easy sterotyping of Australians violent drunks.
"Thousands of young white men have converged on Cronulla Beach in Sydney, Australia, and attacked people of Arabic and Mediterranean background ..... several people were injured in the alcohol-fuelled violence, and at least 12 were arrested."
When the BBC doesnt refer to the Lebanese gang rapes and many other cases of violent assault that triggered this reaction the reader is left with no context.
Pete_London:
Richard
I have to stick my oar in here. But firstly, I'm neither a creationist nor a Dawinist. I haven't a clue what the truth is. Far greater minds than mine have wrestled with these questions without success so I'm not about to start up with it. As Harry Callaghan said, a man's gotta know his limitations. And I know mine. I just regret that plenty of scientists seem not to now theirs, or do yet try to dupe the public. You say:
Some of the people I learnt evolution with were Christians, it didn't stop them understanding that the theory of evolution fits all the evidence.
Well that's not what I've been reading. In fact I've read that there are quite a few gaping holes in the theory of evolution ( and a theory is what it is, nothing more.) Of course creationism is a theory, but I've learnt that scientists are often in the business of talking up what they know rather than proving it.
You see, I recently found myself with a few hours to kill and decided to check out this stuff which scientists call 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'. It's long intrigued me so I thought I'd find out more. Well I was certainly enlightened!
What I found out was that for all the chatting and muttering and reporting on the Dark Stuff in the universe by scientists, what they actually mean by 'Dark Matter' and Dark Energy' is: "we haven't a clue what 96% of the universe is made up of."
Now they have their PhDs and professorships and their big fancy telescopes and computers and their big beardy scientist faces, and for all that it comes down to "we haven't a scooby doo mate!"
That's not all by a long stretch. When it comes to getting it wrong, even spectacularly so, science is up there with the best of them. In the 70's we were heading for a catastrophic ice age. Humanity was under threat from walls of ice which were about to appear in the north. Many of those very same scientists can now, within just a few years, do a complete volte face and tell us the complete opposite, but with equal certainty. Frankly, people who get it so wonderfully, gloriously wrong should have a bit of humility, crawl away and shut up for a bit.
When science can tell me what 96% of the universe is made up of I'll be more receptive to the idea that alot of them aren't a bunch of charlatans passing of a little knowledge as the wisdom of the ages.
will:
When science can tell me what 96% of the universe is made up of
& when a religious person can tell me why god created the other 99.999999999999% of the universe to intigue his chosen creation on a small part of one of the billions of solar systems I may consider believing in a god that gives a damn about us.
Richard:
Pete
"Far greater minds than mine have wrestled with these questions without success..."
Not true. They have had great success, as you would know if you looked into the issue in any depth.
Unlike you, I have studied rather a lot on the subject, as it related closely to part of my degree and it was an area I found especially interesting. There are no "gaping holes". There are debates about the importance of various effects of, and various influences on, evolution. The theory of the origin of species by natural selection is not itself in dispute among scientists in the field.
That is nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy. Why on earth do you start using cosmology as part of your argument about evolution?
What exactly have you been reading that questions the veracity of the theory of evolution? Why should you not believe something for which there is strong evidence, simply because other scientists entirely have the honesty to admit they don't know something when there is no evidence? Admitting they don't know, that there might be more to find out, is the great strength of science, not a weakness.
I agree that the presentation to the public of the science of climate is less than honest, but that is the fault of politicians, the media and a few overbearing scientists (who have priorities, such as funding, distorted by the politicians), not scientists as a whole. If you want to criticise them, do a survey of the scientific literature, look at what scientists say not the tiny fraction that gets clasped onto by politicians or makes a good headline in your newspaper. There is much evidence against the dominance of human influence in climate change out there, and both int he 70s and today scientists are far more cautious than fools like Al Gore.
3 important questions. Any answers?
dave t:
Calm down you lot or I'll turn you into tadpoles and send you 65 million years back.....
GOD
Bijan Daneshmand:
Natalie
You are being a little pathetic, both with you censoring and your comments above.
I happen to know that the BBC reporter who filed the Panageric to the Taliban is gay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...sia/
6081594.stm
THE BBC appears to have pulled or edited the original article filed by Lloyan but just have a look at a few choice quotes from his follow up:
"Taleban fighters appear both ferocious and fearless"
"The bare arid landscape of northern Helmand suits them well"
"There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban"
"Afghanistan has been in the grip of a severe drought for several years, but the lack of clean water does not seem to concern these hardy men. "
Thats fine by me. I have nothing against gays, or "fine hard fearless mobile fighters."
You dont have to make it out thats my comment wasca personal attack or an attack on homosexuals in general. In fact I was the one who made several posts on this website asking why the BBC jumped to Graham Norton's defence but has always under-reported the hanging of young homosexual boys in Islamic countries like Iran because of their homosexuality.
So please Natalie dont get all high and mighty about what "looks bad, and is bad"
The more inportant point I was trying to make is that within Pakistan and Southern Afganistan it is a well known FACT that many of the Taliban are known for raping the young boys that they force into their ranks. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. The BBC and its reporters ceratinly wont do it.
Whats more its wrong of you to censor that part of my previous post.
Hanging around BBC issues/types has bred bad habits in you Natalie. You are begining to be more concerned about what others think of you than of stating hard truths.
RobbieKeane:
F***ing hell Bilge-an, you really are full of the brown stuff. Your previous post was nothing about 'hard facts' just a grammatically dubious spewing of popular terms for homosexuals.
If your claim of sexual assaults within the Taliban were true then that would be newsworthy - where's the evidence?
LMO:
Speaking of John Snow,did anyone see that C4 "debate" asking if Muslims were a danger to free speech? (Monday 8pm)This whole set up reminded me of another debate,one of a series of six hosted by Snow, in the run up to the last election.The previous five debates were conducted with a scientificaly-chosen audience, as proudly stated by Snow;but when it came to the sixth debate there was no mention of a scientificaly-chosen audience,only a "very diverse" one.The debate was about immigration.The audience was visibly over-represented by ethnic groups.
Well this Monday it happened again. It was quite clear there was a complete bias in the audience.The Left are terrified of having a debate on issues like this with a truly representative audience.Btw, the smug satisfation of Snow as he read his final piece to camera has to be seen.He had won the debate which was exactly what he and his production team would have forecast based on the audience make-up.
Diana:
Richard
"Even if the soup model is wrong (there are other hypotheses) then that doesn't mean creationism is right."
I cannot prove to you that creationism is right, and my answer to why I cannot is philosophical ( if you want to know it just ask), BUT YOU AND MORE INTELLIGENT SCIENTISTS CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS WRONG. Therefore like I said, you CANNOT call a creationist a liar.
In FACT, the theory of evolution or the soup model HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN with sufficient proof to call it a law. BTW one of the definitions of theory is "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture" so it does not necessarily imply a fact.
Also if you know a bit about evolution then you will know that the theory bases itself on supposed patterns from fossil records, yet there is something called "THE MISSING LINK" which has never been found, therefore it cannot be proven that humans evolved from monkeys.
My professors were not lecturers, they were teachers, who studied in the university and graduated in physics and chemistry, I think they know a bit more than you about physics given that they had to take Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism and other required courses to graduate. One of them is even getting his PHD next spring.
I think you ought to be aware that "reproduction" is characteristic of living organisms and an organic molecule is not a living organism, it is just any molecule composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, such as Methane, Do you consider Methane a living organism?? cause the rest of the scientific community doesn't.
Also self-replication is a term assigned to living organisms (a cell), not to molecules, Methane, an amino acid, a vitamin, a mineral, a virus DO NOT self-replicate.
Here is the proof that the theory is just a theory, NOT A FACT, and that it has many critics, including scientists:
"Since it is difficult to prove abiogenesis has occurred, and even more difficult to falsify it, the hypothesis has many such critics: even in the scientific world, unlike many other theories. Nonetheless, research and hypothesizing continues in the hope of putting together the specific building blocks thought to yield abiogenesis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
THUS like I said you cannot call me a liar for believing in God and I cannot call you a liar either. Only when the theory of evolution becomes a fact and a law, will you be able to make such a statement and not be called ignorant about your own theory. Evolutionists have to learn to admitt when there is not enough proof to validate their theory as factual. Just like creationists admitt that theirs is also a theory.
Diana:
Richard: Sorry for the long long post, I am answering your 3 questions
Why do you think life could not have sprung up without purpose?
Because in order for life to survive it must have a purpose, if every human being remains in isolation for the rest of their life, the human race will become extinct, therefore, that implies that we have a need implanted in ourselves to not become extinct. This need is not energetic, since you can feed and still be in isolation and still the human race will become extinct. This need is not found in inorganic or organic molecules, only in living creatures. This need is called purpose, and is in living creatures' instincts to want energy in food, to grow, and to reproduce. Molecules do not have these instincts, in fact if anything molecules have the tendency to opt for equilibrium and stability in lower energy states, while living organisms as a whole constantly require more energy to not be in equilibrium with the surroundings, for example you have a higher concentration of water in your body than the environment, yet water by osmosis moves from high concentration to low concentration so you require energy and certain structures to prevent osmosis from naturally taking place, which would result in your dehydration and death.
Why do you think life has to have purpose?
Evolutionists believe in natural selection, a part of the theory to which I have no objection. Therefore, they believe that the purpose of the specie is to survive, and they do so by natural selection.
Organic and inorganic molecules do not follow natural selection, because molecules do not show any sign of will of this sort. Why would molecules want to become more complex or to pass on their traits, or to replicate without a purpose? So far Oxygen or Carbon do not have a purpose within themselves, they just interact in order to achieve a lower energy state, yet living organisms try to achieve a higher energy state by becoming more organized, developing, and self-replicating, something which is never seen in other inorganic or organic molecules.
Why do creationists lie about evolution?
Like I said, creationists do not lie about evolution, the theory of evolution defeats itself by its own evidence and experiments which show that it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN A FACT, thus, it reamins a theory, a conjecture.
Cockney:
Hey, as long as they don't teach creatinism or intelligent design theory in science lessons people can surely believe what they like.
Richard:
Diana
"BUT YOU AND MORE INTELLIGENT SCIENTISTS CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS WRONG. Therefore like I said, you CANNOT call a creationist a liar."
Are you wilfully misrepresenting what I am saying, or are you simply unable to understand a simple statement about your own argument? The lie I was talking about the suggestion that evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics. Many creationists make that argument, including you in your first post (that was the whole origin of this discussion, in case you hadn't noticed). That argument is a lie.
"In FACT, the theory of evolution or the soup model HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN with sufficient proof to call it a law ...
I am sorry, you now show that you don't understand the concept of a theory or a law. Find out before you try to use the terms. Evolution could never become a law, however much evidence existed. A vast body of evidence has already been found to support it though. What is the evidence to support creationism?
Anyone who talks about missing links clearly learnt all they know from poor-quality TV documentaries. The concept of a "missing link", of expecting to find particular fossils, is ridiculous. In your terms, many "missing links" have been found, so you are now lying in denying this. However then they are not missing links any more! If the missing link between type A and type C is found, and called B, then all that has happened is that there are two new missing links, between A and B, and between B and C. It is a completely useless term!
The fossil record is not complete. We do not expect to find intermediate forms between known types. In fact some are found, others are not. The latter are your missing links. The former are part of my evidence.
"I think they know a bit more than you about physics given that they had to take Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism and other required courses to graduate"
For a start we are not talking about physics. To carry on, I also had to know about those subjects to graduate, so how can you have the arrogance to assume they know more than I do? You, on the other hand, did not need to know, and we are now comparing my knowledge with yours, and it is obvious who is making it up from popular misconceptions.
Clearly you learnt little from your clever teachers [why call them professors when they don't even have PhDs, let alone academic posts let alone senior academics? In this country you need not only a doctorate but a chair (senior post) at a university to be a professor] about the nature of science, if you don't even know the definitions of a law, a hypothesis and a myth.
The debate about abiogenesis is nothing to do with the possibility of divine creation. In fact Wikipedia exagerates the debate, which is not as to whether it happened but where and how it happened. It is certain that it happened, as without abiogenesis there could be no life (in case your classical education is as poor as your scientific knowledge, it means roughly the making (of life) without life).
However, in case you still don't understand the theory of evolution is independent of theories of abiogenesis. However life started, it changed through natural variation and natural selection. The evidence for that is as vast as the evidence for abiogenesis is sparse, for well-established reasons.
"I think you ought to be aware that "reproduction" is characteristic of living organisms..."
True. However it is also a characteristic of some molecules that are not living organisms. Just because it is not a property of methane doesn't mean it is not a property of any other organic molecule. All you are doing here is saying that you don't know about these things - your ignorance is not a valid argument! Iam not ignorant. Had I been I would not have graduated.
Richard:
"Because in order for life to survive it must have a purpose..."
No it doesn't. You are simply making an emotional plea.
"...if every human being remains in isolation for the rest of their life, the human race will become extinct..."
Only because we could not reproduce - entirely in line with evolution.
"...we have a need implanted in ourselves to not become extinct
Finally a correct statement. This one favours evolution though, as such an instinct is one of the strongest evolutionary pressures. It has nothing to do with creation.
"...they believe that the purpose of the specie is to survive...
No they don't, except as a useful shorthand way of discussing how evolution occurs. They are talking about apparent purpose not actual, conscious purpose. They believe that the effect of evolution is (sometimes) survival of species. That is not a purpose.
"Organic and inorganic molecules do not follow natural selection, because molecules do not show any sign of will of this sort"
It is not a will. It is completely unwilling. You are misunderstanding evolution.
In fact some organic molecules do follow natural selection. The simplest viruses are just complex organic molecules, so you will prove that next time you catch a cold. However in the right environment it could happen to far simpler molecules.
"...yet living organisms try to achieve a higher energy state by becoming more organized, developing, and self-replicating..."
No they don't. Sub-atomic particles have energy states, not organisms, so you are talking there like a cheap TV mystic. Organisms don't "try" to do anything except respond to instinct (a desire that humans can to a degree subjugate). They certainly don't have conscious will for improvement of the species.
As I said before, the complained that your biology teacher didn't mention divine creation (why should she? That is religious myth, nothing to do with science, of which biology is a part) and that your discussions in class "... failed to explain why [evolution and abiogenesis] contradicted entropy"
That statement that biological theories contradict entropy theories is a lie. Neither evolution nor any theory of abiogenesis contradicts any theory about entropy, especially (as I think you are refering to) the second law of thermodynamics.
So why is that lie perpetuated by creationists?
Since you are so keen to call divine creation a theory, where is the large bulk of evidence that is required to call something a theory? Where are the testable predictions it makes? What the observations that it explains, in order even to call it a hypothesis?
Richard:
Cockney
That is the point I am arguing. Diana expectd her biology teacher to teach divine creation, and spread creationist lies.
Diana:
no Richard, my biology book HAD THREE THEORIES: Divine creation, Soup Model and the Alien theory, I forget what it's name was
I expected my biology teacher not to mock the creationist theory, since he does not have proof to say it is wrong
Diana:
As I said Richard, look at the definition of a theory, it is not always a fact.
And the FACT is that EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, because all the evidence you say, cannot proove it a fact. HELLO!! the MISSING LINK
please take a look at the sources I am sitting. Scientists may BELIEVE in EVOLUTION and accept it, but it is NOT A FACT.
Diana:
Tell me Richard which molecule that is not a living organism reflects the characteristic of reproduction??? I am intrigued to know how these molecules defy the definition of reproduction in the dictionary which is "The sexual or asexual process by which organisms generate new individuals of the same kind; procreation."
http://dictionary.reference.com/...se/
reproduction
J.G.:
"there is something called "THE MISSING LINK" which has never been found"
I’m sorry but this is utter rubbish.
The missing link was coined when early evolutionary biologists found both fossils of Neanderthal man, and fossils of 'modern' humans. There seemed to be no intermediate fossils. However, we now know that actually there were two strands of humans alive at the same time. They interbred and competed with each other and the Neanderthal line became extinct (although there is still evidence of them in our genes).
I am a geneticist and I can tell you that evolution is not a theory it is a fact. My field of study is fisheries, and at the moment we are examining the genetic and phenotypic changes in fish populations due to selection by fishing nets. Fish are maturing earlier and at smaller sizes as the chances are that they will not make it to reproduce if they wait too long or grow too big. The population is evolving. This is not theory, it is fact, come to my lab and I will show you.
It is so simple really:
1) a population has variation that is heritable
2) there is a selective pressure that causes some individuals with a certain trait to out-perform and hence out-breed the rest
3) the population evolves
There is so much evidence for this that to deny it is just willful ignorance.
"Also self-replication is a term assigned to living organisms (a cell), not to molecules"
Again rubbish. Fire self replicates, as do crystals. Imagine this. A crystal growing in a soup. It breaks into two, each part continues to grow, ie it replicated. Now imagine if one day a bit of different material got stuck to one of these crystals and this meant that, by chance, it replicated faster than the rest. It would soon dominate the population of crystals. Then this happened again..and again..., eventually you end up with a cel, then a..etc etc
Life is too short to go on. Just to say that the denying of evolution because it is a theory is, well, rubbish. A scientist is always very careful in his/her choice of words. There is a theory that the sun will come up tomorrow. However, I cannot prove it. It may explode n the night. But, the massive balance of evidence says that this will probably not happen so we accept the theory. The only people who refer to the 'theory' of evolution are those who willfully ignore the evidence. The theory has been accepted as fact by the rest of us.
Diana:
Richard, to make our debate simpler, give me a credible source that states with valid evidence to support it, that the theory of evolution is a fact, and is accepted as a fact in science.
If you cannot do that, then you have to conclude that the theory of evolution is a conjecture, not a fact.
Since the same happens with the creationist theory and the Alien theory, we cannot say that these are facts, they are simply THEORIES, word used in the sense of CONJECTURE.
Therefore you cannot call someone who believes in the creationist theory a liar, just like you cannot call someone who BELIEVES in the evolution theory a liar.
Therefore, THERE IS NO CERTAINTY ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, and schools are right in teaching ALL THREE THEORIES.
J.G.:
Diana
You do not have to believe in evolution, you just have to look at the evidence.
Why do you not want to do that?
J.G.:
Take an African wild dog. Select those dogs which have lighter coats and are better at fetching sticks and breed them. Do this again and again and you end up with a Labrador. Now take those dogs that are small and do not have much hair and breed with them, eventually you end up with a Chihuahua.
If there is no evolution, please tell me how we ended up with all the different breeds of dogs starting from the wild type?
Diana:
J.G. I am not talking about micro-evolution or adaptation, I am talking about the theory of evolution as it relates to the formation of life.
You can say that I speak rubbish all you want but if you believe so much on the theory of evolution, maybe you should write a thesis and put your arguments and research data on it, and present to the scientific community, to see if they find your research to be the proof that the theory of evolution is a fact and not a conjecture as it stands now.
A fact means absolute certainty, if there is a probability that it is not true, then it is not a fact.
There is a high probability that I will die in 60 years, given the life expectancy, but IT IS NOT A FACT that I would die in sixty years.
BTW I think your research must be very interesting
Diana:
J.G.
If you can interbreed them and create offspring that can reproduce, then, it is not a different specie. Take for example the breeding of a horse and a donkey, it gives a mule, but the mule cannot reproduce, therefore these are different species.
Creationism does not refute variations in traits from one individual to the other of the same specie.
Diana:
J.G.
I have looked at the evidence and it doesn't convince me because it does not prove it as a fact.
Creationism does not prove it as a fact either but at least it can convince me philosophically.
You can argue that science is not philosiphical and that is true. But since the theory of evolution cannot prove itself as a fact within science and neither can creationism, it is a matter of choice, which is perfeclty explainable within the boundaries of creationism. Thus, I rather take creationism which can convince me phisophically but not scientifically, than take the theory of evolution which cannot convince me philosophically nor scientifically.
i have to go to class now, I'll be back later
J.G.:
“I am not talking about micro-evolution or adaptation, I am talking about the theory of evolution as it relates to the formation of life.”
There is no difference. If you accept the fact that there is heritable variation, and that some individuals will do better and pass their traits on to the next generation you have accepted evolution, because that is all it is. It is such a simple processes with mountains of evidence that to deny it is to be willfully ignorant.
“maybe you should write a thesis and put your arguments and research data on it, and present to the scientific community”
Well, start with 'On the Origin of Species' and then look at the thousands of scientific papers published since then, including my own. In fact part of my own PhD thesis examined the genetics of the evolution of parasite resistance in populations of fish.
“A fact means absolute certainty, if there is a probability that it is not true, then it is not a fact.”
Yes indeed it does. As I said before, a scientist chooses their words with care. They will never tell you something is a fact. It is ALWAYS a probability. However, there comes a time when the evidence is so great that we just have to accept something. Its all about the evidence.
“BTW I think your research must be very interesting”
Thanks, it really is. I am sorry if I have come over a bit heavy, but it just gets to you sometimes. There is reams of evidence of evolution in action I find it hard to imagine how someone who is obviously intelligent does not ‘Get it’.
To be honest I rarely get into this type of discussion, because it always comes down to the same bottom line. “I know there is masses of evidence for evolution, but I don’t believe it. I believe in god/kama/the all seeing eye/etc”.
J.G.:
"I have looked at the evidence and it doesn't convince me"
QED
Anonymous:
Personally I've never had any trouble in believing in both God and Evolution.
The *Alien* theory?? Now that's really laughable!
DennisThe Menace:
The mere existance of crapules such as Simpson, Bowen, Guerin 'et al' blows both the 'intelligent design' and 'natural selection/evolution' hypotheses I reckon -
Anyway - BBC BIAS everyone !!!!!!
That why we're all here on this site after all, doing our wee bit for evolution/revolution.
Francis:
J.G., you sounded like a normal, free thinking, intelligent person until you mentioned 'african dog'! Are you one of the lefty weirdos who believes all life started in Africa and that basically just like the BBC believe, we're all derived from something African?
My science lessons always taught me that all land masses were once joined and they split over eons. So, when the landmasses were all intertwined did the native folk refer to them as 'Africa'? And if they weren't all joined then where the hell did the Aborigines come from? Another race that just happened to develop at the same pace, independently as those African folk?
There is a missing link, a much publicised missing link. Perhaps you could provide the answer?
Francis:
J.G., if you believe in 'survival of the fittest', can you explain why we pay single mothers to pop kids whenever they feel like it while the rest of us hard working folk toil every day in the hope that one day we can afford to have a kid which may hopefully have the morals and the work ethic that we have?
J.G.:
Frances
Yes "'African dog'" was wrong, so read "canine wolf-like ancestor" (my field is fish). The point of my argument was that dogs have evolved due to selection.
Have to agree with your second post. But there is a part of evolutionary study called altruism.
Anyway, Isn't the BBC biased?
Richard:
Diana
If it contained divine creation then it wasn't a biology book. Taht is theology, not biology. As I said before, that is not a theory. A theory requires evidence. It is not even a hypothesis, as it does not explain any observations. I am not even sure of the status of the other models, they would have started out as hypotheses but might have gathered enough evidence to be theories now.
Your biology teacher was right not to give the same status to divine creation. He was wrong to mock it, as that is simply discourtesy, but he should have pointed out that it belongs in theology classes, not in science classes as it is not science.
He could then have explained why, and you would not have the difficulty you are now having in understanding what science is, and what a theory is. It is not what you think it is. It is not as used in the vernacular - and most definitely not "conjecture". There you display further that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can't just make up the meaning of what you read as you go along!
As a technical term I have only seen the word conjecture used in mathematics, where proof also means something completely different to science. You are mixing up the two sets of terminology. The term theory is not synonymous with conjecture in the common usage of that term. Hypothesis would be closer to conjecture, but even that is much more tightly defined.
Evolution is a theory by the strict scientific definition of theory. This does not indicate any doubt about its veracity, in fact it has to accumulate a large amount of evidence to become a theory. Gravitation is still only a theory - but do you doubt that?
There are many molecules that reproduce. Try looking at a piece of gypsum sometime - it is clear that each crystal has influenced the shape of the next. That is only in the loosest term reproduction, but the accuracy of reproduction in some organic molecules is far greater. There is a continuous scale, and at the top is the virus, at its simplest just strands of RNA (a molecule) that reproduces, almost always exactly. The fact that there are occasional variations means that it evolves, so if you are immune to one cold strain you can still catch the next that comes along.
As I say, just because you don't know about it don't assume it doesn't exist. I can't name other molecules, but don't expect to. I am a geology graduate, seeing evolution from the point of view of fossils (and I can name some of those that would blow many of your views out of the water). However I read around the subject, and studied some organic chemistry at university too, so I know that there are molecules out there that, in the right environmental conditions of temperature, pressure and chemicals will cause other, similar molecules to form.
There is no certainty about the origin of life. However there is som certainty in its development - that is evolution. Evolution is nothing to do with the origin of the first reproducing molecules. It simply acts on the reproduction process.
Please do not continue to call divine creation a theory. It is not, I have asked you to provide the required evidence and you have not, as expected. While it was excusable when you first used it, as you did not know the meaning of the term, I have explained to you the requirements for a theory, and since divine creation does not fit those requirements to continue to call it a theory is now a lie on your part.
The distinction between macro and micro evolution is a false one.
You say you have studied the evidence and it doesn't convice you. The problem is you show here a remarkable lack of knowledge of the evidence. So what are the earliest known macro fossils? Where do similar forms exist today? Where were the earliest known probable fossils found? How old are they? How to we know the age? How do we generally date fossils? What was the distinctive pattern of development of ammonoids? What was the probable habitat of acanthostega? What was the Cambrian explosion? What were the mattress-like macrofossils found from before that known as? What is the Burgess Shale, and who reinterpreted it in the 1970s, one of the team making what slightly embarrassing error (he supervised me, by the way, and we knew each other quite well) he corrected later? What did agnathans lack? From what did the first teeth develop in our ancestors? What body part in early tetrapods evolved into your ear? What is the importance of the echinoids to human evolution?
Off the top of my head I have listed a few key points in the study of evolution. I don't expect you to know all of them, they are just a few of those that I can remember. However if you have actually seen the evidence then you should be able to answer most of them.
Francis
You are mistaking the time scales here. The BBC presents the (very strong) case that human and hominid life started in Africa. This was a hundred million years after the American continent split off, and the continental plate boundaries were very similar to today's.
Life probably began in the ocean - certainly for the first 3 billion or so years of fossils there was not a lot that was from the land. It would be maningless to discuss the location first land invasion by macroscopic life, because as soon as it happened it probably spread to all areas within a million years, a trivial time to a geologist.
Anonymous
Actually the cosmic, or alien origin hypothesis (perhaps a theory now, with recent developments) was postulated by Fred Hoyle, an exceptional and well-respected astrophysicist (he is the reason Stephen Hawking decided to study at Cambridge for his PhD, for example). However for a long time it was derrided by palaeobiologists. On the other hand remarkably complicated organic molecules have recently been found in space, hence my uncertainty about whether it might now be a theory.
The main problem is that it just shifts the problem - abiogenesis had to happen somewhere. However it increase the timescale to about 10 billion years and the space available greatly.
Francis:
Richard, I also asked about aborigines. Are we to believe that if hominid life started in Africa then at some point thousands of years ago, a boat load went to Australia? This bit perplexes me.
Richard:
Francis
Yes, they did. Can't remember the details, but didn't some anthropologist show they could have done by reconstructing what he thinks might have been their journey as far as Polynesia? [Just found the name of the chap, was Heyerdahl].
Never underestimate survival, especially of that ultimately adaptable creature, Homo Sapiens sapiens.
Lee Moore:
With reference to the discussion about the Taleban and gays, I should report that one of my ancient relations, who served in the North West Frontier Police during the days of Empire says the Pathans
(a) (who make up most of the Taleban fighters) were magnifient, if poorly disciplined, fighting men
(b) were generally very good looking
(b) were universally known as the "bu**ering Pathans"
It should be no surprise if a gay BBC reporter finds himself sympathetic to Pathan tribesmen
AntiCitizenOne:
"can you explain why we pay single mothers to pop kids whenever they feel like it while the rest of us hard working folk toil every day in the hope that one day we can afford to have a kid which may hopefully have the morals and the work ethic that we have?"
The reason is simply that if we don't stump up the money we will be kidnapped by the state and held until we pay up. The states skill is in Extortion Kidnapping and Murder, that's why most of us consider the state far far too large (i'd say 80% too large).
bombay:
Diana: / Richard :
On Entropy, biochem wise many constructs self assemble and sometimes even reproduce without violation of entropy.
It is tough to explain without a ton of biochem, but in a summary:
Although the constructs are more ordered themselves, the boundary between the ordered and non-ordered is so chaotic the overall system tends towards chaos and therefore support self assembly. Search Micelles, it is a start.
Richard:
Interesting. Of course some of the most complicated patterns known are on the border of order and disorder of certain fractals, such as the mandelbrot set.
Bryan:
Richard,
With all your study of these fascinating phenomena, don't you suspect the presence of a divine guiding hand behind it all?
And what about devolution? If we can apply the meaning of the term as "the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality,"
http://www.answers.com/devolution&r=67
then where does the BBC fit in here and when did it start its slide down the curve? And more importantly, what can we do about it?
novelPhenomena:
A few points on the evolution / creationism debate.
Probably the defining characteristic of science is that, in the long run, communities of scientists are prepared to change or ultimately abandon their theories in the face of evidence.
Creationists are not. So even though they use scientific language they are not playing the same game.
Creationists generally believe in a very specific narrative, the details of which they might debate, but that is not susceptible to total removal and replacement.
Finally, creationism is utterely sterile because it's 'project' is so restricted. Here are some simple questions the creationist program lacks the tools to tackle (apart from simply saying God willed it to be so).
Why do all animals share similar biology?
Why are there polar bears only in the northern hemisphere and penguins only in the southern hemisphere?
Why did all animal and plant species not appear at the same time?
TPO:
'It should be no surprise if a gay BBC reporter finds himself sympathetic to Pathan tribesmen'
Are we referring to'the fruit of his loins'?
Richard:
Bryan
"With all your study of these fascinating phenomena, don't you suspect the presence of a divine guiding hand behind it all?"
No. There was never anything that might suggest any sort of guidance, in fact if anything there is a strong suggestion of no guidance.
Of course there is nothing to prove there is no guiding hand, but then there is nothing to prove that unicorns never existed either, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (look it up in Google, use "I Feel Lucky").
It has little to do with the BBC I am afraid - I made a simple response to a misrepresentation Diana made and she attacked my correction. Interesting discusion though, to see where her misconceptions of science and lack of knowledge of the more bizarre aspects bible push her towards religion, so more science and religion should be taught to allow people the rational choice she has been denied. It was learning more about the bible, after my science degree, that lead me from agnosticism into atheism.
Bryan:
Richard,
Well, I dunno. I suspect that the BBC must fit into the scheme of things somewhere, on some downward curve. But forgive me, I was being a bit flippant and also attempting to direct the debate back to the BBC.
Thing is, if there is no God, and chaos trumps order, what is the purpose of life? Is it to build something stable and enduring out of chaos or simply to go with the flow? What are we here for?
Richard:
Why do you assume there is a purpose in life? I have never seen or heard anything substantive that suggests there is.
Chaos does not necessarily trump order; as we have found out over the last few decades, often chaos causes order, and nature lies on the cusp of the two.
Bryan:
There must be a purpose beyond seeking shelter and food and defecating and procreating. Otherwise what's to differentiate us from animal life? It's a very old argument, I know, but it's still valid.
Surely there should be room for both creationism and evolution. Could be that our tiny minds can't conceive of the concept of creation, especially the purpose of creation, and we therefore parcel it up neatly into the theory of evolution. Problem is, that still doesn't explain what we are evolving towards.
Getting up off our fours and standing erect made us more vulnerable - with a woman's breasts and a man's genitals exposed and unprotected. So what is the next shape that the human species will adopt?
DennisThe Menace:
Next human shape ?
Head up our arses if the BBC have anything to do with it.
Bryan:
Thanks for the laugh, DTM!
Richard:
Bryan
Why must there be any purpose? Why do you assume we are evolving towards anything? In fact the theory of evolution specifically precludes the concept.
Why is there any requirement for divine creation? What does it explain that is not explained otherwise? On the contrary it simply leaves the origin of the divine in question, as an additional unexplained phenomenon.
Standing up had epenalties, but the benefits outweigh the penalties. There is no way to predict the exact path evolution will take. That is a fundamental fact of evolution. tere is no reason yto suppose we will take any other shape, especially as we are now massively subverting evolution. As francis points out, we are allowing the least fit benefits in reproduction and survival of their offspring, so have reversed evolutionary pressure. Personally I think it's nuts, but the alternatives (refusing support single mothers or eugenics) are not politically acceptible. I cannot think of a solution.
Bryan:
You betray a purpose by straying into the territory of eugenics.
I'm not going to travel down that particular road.
Richard:
Errrrmmmmm .. where do I "...[stray] into the territory of eugenics"? I mention eugenics, and the fact that it is unacceptible. I think you mean "back away from the territory of eugenics". Please don't fall into the PC/liberal trap of jumping at the mere sight of some unmentionable word.
You still have not answered as to why you assume there is any purpose, or any aim to evolution.
Bryan:
I don't jump. I follow logical trains of thought. But I don't have the time to debate this right now.
Richard:
Logical progress from me pointing out that eugenics are unacceptible to you suggesting I am "straying into the territory" of eugenics, to you then refusing to answer a completely separate question?
Perhaps the logic goes "oh, I have no answer to that, but he mentioned eugenics so I don't have to answer anyway"?
Paul:
Richard
It seems that Bryan has as little idea as Diane about how natural selection works, otherwise he wouldn't have written a sentence like this:
"Problem is, that still doesn't explain what we are evolving towards."
'Towards' indeed.
Richard:
Mmmm, comes of the problem of people having religious preconceptions and bringing them to science without questioning them.
Bryan:
Richard, perhaps you could bring yourself to stop being such a judgemental and pompous twit for just a moment or two. I said I had no time to debate in my last comment. I meant it. But the prospect of continuing this debate with you is beginning to look like a serious waste of time.
This site is predominantly about BBC bias. Perhaps you need another reminder about that.
Richard:
I was not challenging the time taken to debate. Take your leisure. I was just pointing out that you claimed to "...follow logical trains of thought..." when your post was anything but a logical analysis of what I say. I am happy to give you as much time as you like, as long as you don't misrepresent what I say!
Commenting by HaloScan.com
