By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
backwoodsman:
Every little helps : beeboids deploy their pro nulab airhead dolly bird to simper at evil defra vegetablist, hillarity benn and feed him planted questions on Farming Today..
will:
The BBC appear to allow, without comment or challenge, a defence of ignorance over illegal party donations.They merely repeat Alexander's mantra
The MSP has rejected any suggestion of "intentional wrongdoing" and said she was confident of being cleared.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
7126034.stm
The BBC funding adverts don't seem to have the same approach, with the sofa relishing the upcoming prosecution of its owner, who will definitely not be cleared even though he committed no "intentional wrongdoing" when he stuffed the TV Licence fee reminders under the sofa cushion.
John Reith:
John Reith spins in his grave 03.12.07 - 11:29 pm | #
isn't most of the Beeb's output produced by outside contractors nowadays?
I once asked you how much, but never got a reply.
Sorry, must have missed it.
The answer is no. In TV it goes like this: 50% guaranteed in-house; 25% guaranteed indy; 25% open to competitive bids between in-house and indies.
Dina:
The Beeb has done a stirling job of creating disharmony between East/West and Muslims/Non Muslims. They are deliberately stirring things, throwing the terms "insulting Islam" and "blashpemy" with gay abandon.
Every responsible news outlet, even the left-leaning Guardian, have reported this incident for what it exactly was: a teacher victimized for naming a toy Mohammed.
MattLondon:
There's an interesting finding of BBC bias reported in Computer Shopper today:
BBC exaggerated Wi-Fi dangers
www.computershopper.co.uk/news/143355
Hm, how do you make a link like this clickable?
[Answer: Job done MattLondon. Here's what to do next time:
<a href="http://target-url-here/">Link Description Here</a>
Sometimes haloscan does it automatically, sometimes not! Andrew.]
Andrew:
Ali P, email biasedbbc@gmail.com if you have questions about blog admin.
Ritter:
Christianophobia warning from MP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
7125521.stm
Bit o/t but good move - throw another 'phobia' at the PC liberals to worry about offending.....
"No nativity play this year? Chhristianophobia!!"
Anonymous:
The BBC and it's hatred of America.
The BBC poses a question on HYS which implies that it is US policy that is wrong and should change. Why isn't there also a question asking if Irans policy toward the US, or the West in general for that matter, should change?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20071204122525
John A:
Today's climate change alarmism quiz at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/
7126069.stm
Q1: How does the widening of the tropics, which are the lushest, wettest part of the planet produce "...obvious implications for agriculture and water resources, and could present serious hardships in marginal areas."?
Q2: Why would "Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020" if the major subtropical deserts (principally the Sahara) are contracting?
Q3: Why are climate modellers consistantly unable to predict supposedly averse changes or is it time to retire the following alarmist cliché:
"The scientists behind the new study note that the tropical zone appears to be expanding much faster than predicted by computer models."
Q4: Why does the IPCC simultaneously predict fewer hurricanes but more extremely powerful hurricanes when during the 20th Century, the number of such powerful hurricanes declined?
David Morris:
Q5 What has caused more accumulation of greenhouse gasses than all aviation combined since 1903?
Answer: (never mentioned on the BBC as it doesn't fit the agenda)
The destruction of rainforests across the globe, much accelerated by the production of the "wonderful" bio fuels, much championed by the BBC and their green friends (none of whom see through the consequences of their meddling). And never mind the wildlife that is destroyed by the clearing of rain forest the size of Wales every year.
But never fear, as that nice Joanna Lumley told us this morning the best thing about receiving Christmas Cards is that you can recycle them! D'Oh
Martin:
On the Wifi article. It was probably the BIGGEST pile of steaming crap the BBC has output in years.
This is what you get when a bunch of leftie leaning arts graduates try to tackle a science subject.
How can ANYONE have any trust in any article on Science when the BBC doesn't employ (well OK that have Susan Watts on Newsnight) enough people with Science or engineering backgrounds?
Lurker in a Burqua:
Comment from HYS on Mohammed The Teddy Bear
Added: Monday, 3 December, 2007, 21:42 GMT 21:42 UK
What's happened to the bear in all of this?
Yann, Edinburgh
Recommended by 14 people
Sign in to recommend comments
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20071204134627
Lurker in a Burqua:
Nought out of ten for the News at Ten
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffe...ws-at-
ten.thtml
backwoodsman:
beeboids getting bucket loads of flack on all the boards for continuing to refer to Donationgate in todays' news bulletins as "infringing the rules".
David:
Last week I complained about the fact that Question Time had two Labour people on the panel. I didn't raise the bias in the questioning or the obviously slanted audience. I just said it was wrong for there to be two Labour people on the same panel. I just got this response:
"I understand that you were annoyed that the above programme featured two panellists who you believe are labour supporters.
Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience."
See, it was my fault after all. It wasn't that both people were Labour supporters, it was that I believed them to be, when they were nothing of the sort. How could they have both been Labour supporters when the BBC doesn't seek to promote any viewpoint?
I'm actually furious about this fobbing off. Does anyone know the best way to re-complain; to follow up the issue? The e-mail address the message came from isn't one I can return things to, and I know if I submit the same complaint form again it won't be connected with my original one.
Abandon Ship!:
Hain, Hain, where art thou?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/de.../uk/
default.stm
Not there anyway. What a surprise. Oh well, we'll just have to make do with a proper news source:
http://www.order-order.com/2007/...ty-as-
well.html
Abandon Ship!:
Come on Beeboids, the teddy bear has run its course. What about some real news now? A headline on allegations about Hain would be a starter. Or is it only Tory sleaze that gets your pulse racing?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...tics/
573803.stm
Susan:
"The calm after the teddy storm":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ews/
7126529.stm
Beeboids go to extraordinary lengths to convince us that Sudanese Muslims are really, really, really wonderful people after all! Just read the superlatives that al-Beeb applies to the Sudanese:
"I've had an amazing couple of months. Out here, in a country where tourism is non-apparent, people are very kind and hospitable.
"I arrived here not knowing anyone but it was impossible to walk down the street without someone offering to buy me lunch or look after me."
He said that he believed that out of a country of five million people, just a tiny minority of 400 protested and called for Mrs Gibbons to face tougher punishment.
"No-one else is really thinking like this minority," he said.
He believes the majority are "unbelievably horrified" by what happened and hope that they can now move on.
Yes, it's just a tiny minority who think like this -- in a nation where religious fanatics were at civil war for 23 years, resulting in the deaths of several million people!
Martin:
400 protesters? He's clearly been listening to that idiot Mynott. The pictures I saw clearly showed several thousand protesters, not a few hundred.
Rob:
Just feel the love:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
7126883.stm
Nice photo too - Saint Wendy. Lots of guff about "fighting to clear her name". Nothing about lying about the donation, or the document which sought to mislead the Electoral Commission. This 'article' might as well have been written by her staff and published verbatim by the BBC.
Rueful Red:
Nice bit of burial here on Radio Humber:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ber/
7126137.stm
"Ex-police authority boss arrested."
For gross indecency. And, oh, by the way, he's a Labour councillor on Hull City Council. And a candidate to take over from "Two Jags" as Labour MP.
Move along there....
nelson:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
7125521.stm
What's interesting is that if you replaced Christian with Muslim you'd have a story (complete with "quote") that would NEVER be published by our beloved "impartial" BBC.
George R:
I haven't found a national BBC report on this story from Dewsbury, Yorkshire. (Dewsbury ,Yorkshire, now made infamous because the Islamic jihad massacres on London on 7/7):
"Hospital turns Muslim patients' beds to face Mecca."
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/
n...beds.3553137.jp
Anonymous:
Andy Marr's moonlighting is not going so well...
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/in...449&
itemID=8727
ShugNiggurath:
Lord Ahmed on BBC24 around 16:15
Asked about the Teddy Bear 'outrage' he went to great lengths to state (paraphrasing)
The ruler of Sudan met with me and pointed out that Miss Gibbons had been tried and sentenced by Sudanese courts whereas we have things like Guantanamo Bay and people in prison not on trial - and we really do have to look at this
For John Reith:
Considering that Lord Ahmed is a Labour peer as they have been more than keen to show us recently, can we expect to see a story about Labour being split over policy on terrorism?
George R:
Yes, now Ahmed's Islamic priority and propaganda take hold, and the BBC (and others) are on hand to give him an uncritical platform. Clearly he prefers the Sharia law injustice of the Islamic Republic of Sudan to western justice, as practiced in the USA; and astute about the 'moral equivalence' conditioning of Beeboids, he gets away with it.
Matthew:
Allowing Nazir Ahmed to make unchallenged his comments about the wonders of the Sudanese justice system was outrageous from the BBC. Of course, Ahmed has never thought to mention that in Sudan huge swathes of people are detained without charge, subject to torture, summary justice and undergo unfair sham trials.
http://www.sudan.net/news/press/...stedr/
292.shtml
SHAME on the BBC for allowing this man to promote Sudanese propaganda unchallenged.
There is no excuse for BBC journalists to be uninformed: any reputable news outlet has information on Lord Ahmed's views. It is only the BBC that has failed to question critically i) his support for punishing those who criticise Islam, like Salman Rushdie, ii) his close links with government figures in Sudan (which apart from having an appalling human rights record is engaging in genocide in Darfur), iii) his support for anti-semites ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...ticle378140.ece ) and iv) his apologies for suicide bombers ( http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art...asp?
art_id=8508 ).
He is one of the most appalling of all Blair's appointments to the House of Lords - I cannot imagine a Conservative Peer with similar reactionary views, plus links to dubious regimes, getting the same treatment from the BBC.
Martin:
Yet more toilet dung from the BBC.
6PM news (where stupidity seems the norm for some reason)
Firstly the useless BBC reporter claimed [in relation to Teddygate) that she had insulted Islam. No she didn't. She allowed a teddy bear to be named after a child.
Then, the pillock claimed that she had "insulted the Prophet". So who's that then? THE PROPHET? There are lots of them. To me Brian Clough was the greatest Prophet of all time. A real God.
Then we had the interview with Lord whats his name (he who hung up on Niki Campbell) who said that the protesters in Sudan wanted Ms Gibbons shot. Oh really, Well the BBC said it was all smiles and good natured fun. So who's telling the truth?
Then the BBC hack stated that the Sudanese had rejected any harsher punishment? No they didn't. The President made our CRAP Government crawl like dogs to humiliate us (which Nu Labour did) and once the fun was over he let her go.
If Ms Gibbosns went back to the Sudan, they'd still want to cut her head off.
Yet more crap useless reporting by the BBC.
Martin:
In regards to that Labour pillock of a Peer. The reason the scum are locked up in Cuba is that they want to go around hacking peoples heads off or blowing up tube trains.
Ms Gibbons "crime" was to let small children name a teddy bear. Oh dear, we're all doomed.
Matthew:
Martin:
I really do think we are all doomed. I'm not right-wing, and have traditionally leaned more liberal than conservative, but watching this farcical reporting by the BBC I'm shocked by how much nonsense they allow to be paraded unchallenged. I did smile when Ahmed said that the protestors wanted Ms Gibbons shot - Adam Mynott you should be fired. But by any other religion's standards, Ahmed is hardliner, and holds some deeply unpleasant and partisan views.
Why on earth are they discussing the British justice system, which works admirably well, or even the American one, when this whole case revolves around the appalling Sudanese government, their contempt for justice in many parts of their country, and the repulsive nature of much Shar'ia law? This is relativism gone mad.
cassis:
David
"...Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience."
This reminds me of a time I complained to 5Live - about a Sunday morning programme with Fi Glover, Charlie Whelan and Andrew Pierce. At the time William Hague was the Conservative leader (who Pierce, as the token right-winger hated).
The programme was one long Tory bashing fest. Even so-called 'neutral ' guests weren't. For example they had a designer (Simply Red?) who trashed Hague's style and was very much encouraged to do so.
I complained of bias. Got a reply which more or less said that well, they had a Tory (it was Patton or some other wet), a Labour and Lib Dem so therefore it was 'balanced'.
It wasn't of course.
David:
Cassis, I'm going to be sending a reply back. They haven't actually answered my question; they've almost denied bias without me really accusing them of it. I just wanted a valid reason why they had two Labour supporters. They did. I want to know why. Not unreasonable, but apparently it's all in my mind.
Chuffer:
But you have to forgive the 6 O'clock news, 'cos they had a lovely fluffy baby tiger on at the end. Aaah. The Jackanoryization continues.
fnu snu:
What no story on Pravda running the line that it was only the rules that were broken in Donorgate?
There is a difference between breaking 'rules' and criminal acts.
One doesn't normally go to prison or have to pay a hefty fine for breaking the rules in, football for instance.
Martin:
Has the BBC got it wrong again?
"...They were abducted from the area of Baghdad supposed to be the most heavily defended - the city's Green Zone, which houses the US embassy and government ministries..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/71.../uk/
7127050.stm
I thought the Ministry of Finance was OUTSIDE the Green Zone? I Googled it and reports say it's outside not in.
Is this just some thicko Beeboid wanting to have a go at the US military? Was it not Iraqi checkpoints that the kidnappers passed through?
meggoman:
If I buy a teddy bear for £10 call it Mohammed and sell it for £20 have I made a prophet?
Matthew:
Martin:
Well spotted. I can no longer see the reference to the Green Zone in this link - looks as if they may have taken it down.
Martin:
Yes, they've updated the story. Took them long enough to notice. Perhaps they read this blog and let us find their stupid errors?
Matthew:
Perhaps they read this blog and let us find their stupid errors?
Let's hope so! Wasn't there a report in the BBC's in-house magazine recently in which journalists were encouraged to read this blog?
Martin:
BBC 10PM News. Another "classic". In the report about the hostages in Iraq, the BBC reporter emphasised that the rifles pointed at the man in the video were "M16's standard American issue"
And the point of that was? Are the BBC suggesting that they are arming the terrorists? Or perhaps it's US soldiers that are doing it? Does anyone care what make of rifles they are?
I can't remember the BBC ever mentioning in other videos that the rifles were AK-47's supplied by the Communists in Russia nad China.
Funnily enough in the same report the US General interviwed claimed the terririst group in question was armed and funded by Iran. Was this a way of the BBC sort of saying, "so where did the M16's come from then?" or "you're a liar"
M16's are available arcoss the world In fact I think the USA supplied them to Iran when the US sold them equipment back in the 1970's, or the rifles could have simply been taken from dead US soldiers. Not that the BBC would explain that.
Martin:
Matthew: Well if we're going to act as editors for the BBC I'd like paying please!!!!
Bryan:
David | 04.12.07 - 2:23 pm,
Infuriating, isn't it? I complained recently and got led on a time-consuming maze through BBC red tape, without anyone dealing with the substance of the complaint, until I ended up back where I'd started. The unaccountable BBC shows absolute contempt for the public with its joke of a complaints process.
Well, at least you got an initial response. I seldom do. They usually simply ignore my complaints.
Martin:
As shareholders in the BBC shouldn't we have the ability to call for shareholder meetings where we can take the BBC to task?
Ok hang on I forgot. The BBC is full of Socialists who don't believe in democracy or accountability.
Bryan:
korova,
I thought we were talking about the BBC. The BBC makes a big deal about its "complaints process."
Would be nice if it worked.
korova:
In my experience it works better than Sky. Every time I have complained I have received a proper response. Every time I complain to Sky, I get a 'Thanks for your email...' template that is sent out automatically. I have never once had a proper reply. Comapred to the competition, the BBC does an excellent job of dealing with complaints.
dave t:
BBC NEWS | Education | School work priority for children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/educa...ion/
7121442.stm
"The survey of 507 boys and 493 girls, across all social classes, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, revealed that half think they are British and half are patriotic saying they are English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish."
Soooooo BBC ...are you therefore saying that being or wanting to be British is unpatriotic? Hmm?
random:
Korova
You are having a laugh aren't you?
I complained to the BBC about genuine, unarguable bias (the Today presenter agreed with the Labour guest that the Conservatives were selfish unlike Labour, but said that the LibDems were not either). I got no reply at all. I now realise that this breaks their charter, so is illegal.
dave t:
Re the Nimrod crash. What gets me more than anything about the whole sorry affair (which also includes the fact that the guilty penny pinching bastards in MoD got off yet again...) is that NO-ONE in the BBC or any of their so called Defence Correspondents have asked the big question.
WHY are we using Nimrods for tasks which could have been (and are) filled by small light aircraft or RPVs in Afghanistan and Iraq? Their role is anti submarine maritime warfare not being underutilised as video capture platforms etc! So much for the BBC's vaunted investigative powers and superior knowledge.....
Bryan:
korova,
That's your experience. Around 90% of the time I don't even get an automated response from the BBC. Go to the BBC "Complaints" website - the thing with the funny green colour. It looks like it hasn't been updated in ten years:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Send them a complaint and you don't even get a reference number back, leave alone an automated response. If they want to, they can simply trash complaints - and this seems to be how they handle mine most of the time, since they don't come back to me and I have no evidence that I have sent the complaint.
I'm not exaggerating. Even the BBC's self-appointed panel of a few years back investigating the question of BBC bias re the Israeli-Palestinian conflict concluded that the complaints system was inadequate.
Maybe they like your political bent and that's why you get a decent response. They sure as hell don't like mine.
WoAD:
Korova (a student anarchist) is just trying to troll you again. Basically it's saying "Yeah the BBC is that bad, but get a load of SKY NEWS!! It's even worse!?!"
Miles:
BBC double standards at play:
Complaint by MP about 'Christianophobia' - bring in the opinion of the National Secular Society to rebut said complaint:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ics/
7125521.stm
Complaint by MP about 'Islamophobia' - NOTHING in rebuttal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ews/
6051814.stm
It's beyond a joke.
WoAD:
Neither 'Christianophobia' nor 'Islamophobia' exist anymore than "inventomania" (the tendency to create psychiatric diagnoses in excess)
Miles:
Agreed. In fact labelling something a 'phobia' is designed to imply that the fear is, by definition, 'irrational.' So the BBC tows the line that there is nothing whatsoever to fear from Islam, and anyone who thinks otherwise is suffering from delusions. I wonder how far society is from classifying 'Islamophobia' as a disorder requiring psychiatric treatment to overcome.
Richy:
This is almost comical really.
BBC 'took terrorist trainers paintballing'
"The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.
The BBC paid for Mr Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari and Mousa Brown to go on a paintballing trip at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent, in February 2005. The men, accused of terrorism training, were filmed for a BBC programme called Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, screened in June 2005.
The BBC paid Mr Hamid, an Islamic preacher who denies recruiting and grooming the men behind the failed July 2005 attack, a £300 fee to take part in the programme, Woolwich Crown Court was told".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3001102.ece
Matthew:
BBC funding terrorist training? Look forward to John Reith explaining away this one. Obviously it's all down to their new sense of comedy:
'Phil Rees, who produced the show, told the court that he was impressed by Mr Hamid’s sense of humour while looking for someone to appear in the documentary. He said: “I think he had a comic touch and he represented a strand within British Muslims. I took it as more like a rather Steptoe and Son figure rather than seriously persuasive. I saw him as a kind of Cockney comic.” Mr Rees, who now works for the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera, gave Mr Hamid a signed copy of his book Dining With Terrorists.'
Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be something of a trend with BBC journalists leaving for the al-Jazeera Arab and Hamas propaganda machine? Darren Jordan, Rageh Omaar, David Frost, Phil Rees... One of the clearest indications yet of the cultural bias of their staff.
Matthew:
Re: 'BBC took terrorists paintballing'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...9/
nmedia619.xml
I've looked in vain for this on the BBC website: the closest I can find is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/70.../uk/
7064270.stm .
No mention of the BBC's involvement or connection with the terror suspects. Surely a breach of their guidelines: 'Our reporting must remain accurate, impartial and fair even when our content, or the BBC itself, becomes the story,' or do they assume they can get away with non-reporting?
Anonymous:
Yup, lots of Beeboids seem to cross over to the other side - al-Jazeera.
How many go to Fox News?
Anonymous:
korova:
In my experience it works better than Sky. Every time I have complained I have received a proper response. Every time I complain to Sky, I get a 'Thanks for your email...' template that is sent out automatically. I have never once had a proper reply. Comapred to the competition, the BBC does an excellent job of dealing with complaints.
korova | Homepage | 04.12.07 - 11:09 pm | #
So don't pay for SKY you imbecile. Unlike the BBC payment you have a choice you numbskull.
Tim:
Martin,
I think your find that the M16 rifles that you are referring to, would indeed of come from dead US soldiers. The insurgent TV channel in Iraq used to love showing these as trophies.
OR -
They were the guys own weapons before they were taken hostage.
Either way the Beeb really are scum there is no argument in that.
bob:
Matthew:
That really is priceless! "He represented a strand within British Muslims"... that's about as close as we'll get to (unintentional) honesty from these pro-terrorist BBC scum!
marc:
Reference the Muslim terrorists and paintballing scandal at the BBC, you might want to do some research on Suleaman, the BBC presenter and researcher at the heart of the scandal. I did.
For example, did you know that she, like the Muslim terrorists, is a British born Muslim of Pakistani descent? I'm not saying she is a terrorist but might this not help explain why she "felt no obligation to inform police"?
There's more.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com...-
terrorist.html
Zdarma:
This indecipherable story makes a lot more sense with added facts.
It's white girls being targeted.
It's Asian men doing the grooming.
Here's the story from a slightly different angle, making a fair bit more sense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...21/
ngroom21.xml
MattLondon:
Bryan:
David | 04.12.07 - 2:23 pm,
Infuriating, isn't it? I complained recently and got led on a time-consuming maze through BBC red tape, without anyone dealing with the substance of the complaint, until I ended up back where I'd started. The unaccountable BBC shows absolute contempt for the public with its joke of a complaints process.
Well, at least you got an initial response. I seldom do. They usually simply ignore my complaints.
Bryan | 04.12.07 - 10:52 pm | #
Have you tried writing a letter to your MP about the way your complaint was handled, asking him/her to forward it to the chairman or whatever?
Most MPs will do that, even if they don't agree with the complaint, and usually there will be a response to the MP from whoever they wrote to.
Anonymous:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/70.../uk/
7092401.stm
Group targets grooming of girls so says the BBC but it's actually young Pakistani men in Yorkshire and Lancashire. Ask CROP. Yorkshire TV was barred from showing a programme about this a few years ago. West Yorkshire Police got an injunction I believe on the grounds that it would raise racial tensions. The BBC make it sound like its widespread across all races. It's not.
backwoodsman:
Another Toady programme, another valient attempt by the beeboids to airbrush the appaling nulab sleeze of Donorgate out of the nations conciousness !
The technique is to relegate it to the margins, then present it as a general debate on party funding. Nice try guys ! All you are achieving in reallity , is to strengthen the determination of people to end the existence of another corrupt institution, the bbc !
John Reith:
MattLondon | 05.12.07 - 9:18 am
{Bryan} Have you tried writing a letter to your MP about the way your complaint was handled?
I'd be interested to see what response the chairman made to to a letter from the Knesset Member for Tel Aviv Central complaining that Bryan hasn't had a prompt reply.
keith:
Today's report from the BBC on "groups" targeting teenage girls for prostitution is a typical example of the BBC's economy with the truth, when the truth happens to contain the word Muslim.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/70.../uk/
7092401.stm
It is well known in the Midlands and the North East that these "groups" are exclusively Muslim men targeting under age naive white girls. There have been documentaries on this problem before, but they were not so mealy mouthed as to refer to the easily identifiable culprits as "groups"
teddy:
the bbc never cease to suprise me how
predictable they are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../05/
nbbc105.xml
George R:
BBC and CHRISTIANOPHOBIA:
"Follow the soap star: a modern BBC nativity" -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../05/
nbbc105.xml
"Tory MP criticises 'Christiamophobia'" -
http://www.christiantoday.com/ar...hobia/
15197.htm
George R:
Is the BBC ready to play the
dhimmi in Dubai?:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3001314.ece
Ritter:
Shame.
Springer opera court fight fails
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
7128552.stm
The word 'scum' comes to mind again.
Bryan:
From what I've read on this site and elsewhere about the BBC complaints process, the following personal experience is typical:
26/10 and 27/10: I sent 2 comments to the HYS on Iran, breaking no House Rules, but pointing out the terrorist nature of the regime:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/
...=20071205085628
27/10: I noticed both comments had been rejected, i.e. had apparently broken the rules. One has to register at HYS to get one's own page and a breakdown of how one's comments have been handled. If HYS doesn't like a comment, it can simply not publish it. It is apparent that by rejecting comments in this instance, the "moderators" made a statement of PC disapproval. This is backed up by the Debate Status:
Total comments: 3105
Published comments: 1883
Rejected comments: 1111
That number of rejected comments is unprecedented. Taken together with the fact that the comments published by the moderators were mostly supportive of Iran or only mildly critical, the inescapable conclusion is that there was a deliberate move here to stifle and distort debate in favour of Iran.
30/10: I sent a detailed complaint via the website, pasting in the rejected comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
05/11: Received a response from a living being at BBC Information to the effect that the complaint had been sent to the wrong place and advising as follows: If you disagree with a moderation decision about your own post please email Centralcommunitiesteam@bbc.co.uk including a complete copy of the moderation email that you were sent when your post was removed. The Central Communities Team will then review the posting - if an incorrect decision has been made the post will be reinstated and you will be notified.
06/11: Sent a detailed response to the living being at BBC Information pointing out, among other things, that, While I have contributed to "Have Your Say" for a few years now and have had quite a few comments published and then removed and others rejected, I have never received an e-mail advising me of that fact.
06/11: Received an automated response, including the following: We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms.
I should point out here that nowhere in the original e-mail from BBC Information did it advise me not to respond to the e-mail.
Bryan:
Contd....
07/11: OK, e-mailed the Central Communities Team outlining the state of play up till then and pasting in the original complaint sent to the website.
No response.
27/11: Scolded the Central Communities Team mildly for their lack of interest and courtesy and pasted in the complaint sent on 07/11.
28/11: Received the following reply:
Dear BBC Visitor
Thank you for your email.
The Central Communities Team are not involved in the running of the Have Your Say site.
Have Your Say users should contact the site owners using their feedback form - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/...elp/
4181102.stm
Kind regards,
Central Communities Team.
Clicking on their link above accesses a Have Your Say page where they point out that complaints about moderation decisions should be submitted to Newswatch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/...500/
4000561.stm
And Newswatch cheerfully informs us that, While we try to read all e-mails, we cannot guarantee a response.
29/11: Gave up in disgust.
Bryan:
MattLondon | 05.12.07 - 9:18 am,
As Reith points out, I live in Israel and therefore obviously don't pay the licence fee. However, nowhere on the BBC site do I see anything that tells me that I cannot complain about the BBC from outside of the country. And if they had such a ruling, it would obviously be ridiculous in the light of the fact that the BBC spreads its pernicious propaganda worldwide and people living in other countries have every right to complain about its biased output.
The complaints website acknowledges the fact that the BBC accepts complaints from all over the place by including the entire planet on the official complaint form:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/
co...tistageform3.pl
So Reith can be as snide as he likes about it, but as long as the BBC keeps pumping out bias, it should expect complaints worldwide - and stop throwing up every obstacle it can think of to avoid dealing with them.
Ben:
You have every right to complain, but as someone who doesn't pay the license fee, you can't justifiably demand a response (any more than you can from CNN or Fox)
Maureen:
BBC has put 4,500 through trust course
About 4,500 BBC editorial staff have participated in a Safeguarding Trust workshop, it has been revealed.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broa...ust-
course.html
Bryan:
Ben | 05.12.07 - 11:14 am,
You mean the BBC is unaccountable to people outside the UK? You must work for them.
Ben:
I think you need to re-read what I posted.
Should license fee payers be paying for the additional resources required to satisfy the demands of those that put nothing into it (it was about time they put ads on the news site)?
I'm not saying they shouldn't respond, but you can hardly give them additional grief for acting like their other commercial rivals.
additionally, Worldwide enterprises are funded by high street banks...
Reimer:
"Group targets grooming of girls
Girls are threatened and isolated from their families
The scale of the problem of British girls being lured into prostitution in their own country is being examined by the Home Office"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/70.../uk/
7092401.stm
Little specific about quite where in Britain this 'internal trafficking' is going on, or what sort of 'British' people are involved. C4 ought to do a docu on this - non-specific aspersions are one of the great menaces of our time.
Lurkingblackhat:
keith | 05.12.07 - 9:54 am |
Keith this is widespread across the North West as well.
Speak to the police in NE Lancashire and it is a big issue.
http://
www.lancashiretelegraph.c...ren_for_sex.php
http://
www.lancashiretelegraph.c...ex_grooming.php
http://
www.lancashiretelegraph.c...ex_grooming.php
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.c...aint&
cid=799736
Oddly enough for a widespread problem it does not get must national media attention.
John Reith:
Bryan | 05.12.07 - 10:40 am
We may have had our spats in the past, but I am genuinely sympathetic to your experience of getting stuck in the BBC’s e-mail equivalent of the voicemail void.
Though no expert on HYS, perhaps I can suggest an explanation of what happened to your posts.
You appear to have jumped to the conclusion that your posts were read by a moderator and rejected, despite not breaching any house rule.
Given that you did not get any e-mail pointing out a rule-transgression, I’d have thought it far more likely that your posts were never read by a moderator at all.
According to the HYS faq:
We currently moderate about half of the comments we receive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/...elp/
4798015.stm
i.e. any individual post only has a 50-50 chance of even being seen by a moderator.
In the case you cite the figures at close of play as:
Total comments: 3105
Published comments: 1883
Rejected comments: 1111
Here more than half the total comments were actually published, suggesting that the moderators put in extra time to get a higher than usual proportion of comments through the system.
As you say, the number of rejected comments looks huge. Typically rejections appear to run a 4 or 5 per cent, maybe 10 per cent on topics like Iran.
I’d guess that the moderator who closed the thread probably tipped the 900 or so unread posts into the ‘rejected’ category. Actually, that seems quite sensible to me, as suggesting they’re still in a moderation queue could be a bit misleading if the thread is absolutely closed.
D Burbage:
Martin
re: BBC 10 O'clock news
I saw that. In between saying that this lot of hostage takers were different from the last lot of hostage takers (Shia not Sunni or the other way round) they managed to have a 10 second piece of a US general talking from April 2006 (!) saying that the terrorists had Iranian weapons, apparently criticising the earlier shot of terrorists with M16s (even though the general was talking 18 months prior to the current situation, and about a different circumstance altogether). Really crass.
John Reith:
ShugNiggurath | 04.12.07 - 4:34 pm
For John Reith:
Considering that Lord Ahmed is a Labour peer as they have been more than keen to show us recently, can we expect to see a story about Labour being split over policy on terrorism?
No. Lord Ahmed seems to me to be rather predictably ‘on-message’.
The closure of Gitmo has been a UK Government policy objective for some time now (see below) and Control Orders have replaced dentention without trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
5340104.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
4759317.stm
Allan@Oslo:
The 'reports' on the BBC's website which seek to mask the ethnicity and culture (to BBC - we know who they are anyway) of the 'group' responsible for most of the predatory pimping of young white girls in Lancs/Yorks appear to have been written by.... well, nobody. Perhaps JR or another BBC visitor would care to clarify the BBC's policy on this absence of journalistic accountability?
Martin:
KOROVA:
How do you know that what you buy goes to Sky? Not all products get advertised on Sky and generally speaking 99% of products don't get advertised on Sky.
You are more than entitled to refuse to purchase products advertised on Sky. For example buy food and other products from your local independent store rather than Tesco or Asda.
How do you expect companies to survive without advertising? Are you a Communist?
The difference with the BBC is that the TV tax is compulsory even if you don't want to watch the BBC. The Sky Subscription is not.
Oh and the BBC carry adverts as well. They advertise the Guardian and Independent newspapers all the time.
Lee Moore:
korova : Every time I purchase a product I 'pay' a bit to Sky. Any suggestions on how I could avoid this, short of living a hermit lifestyle? I can choose not to pay for BBC and know that they will never receive a penny from me. I can refuse to pay a subscription to Sky and yet know that a proportion of every product I buy goes to Sky.
You haven't thought this bit of teenage sophistry through. If you argue that by paying for your toothpaste, you are ultimately funding Sky (absurd but let's stay with it) then you are obviously also paying for the BBC by exactly the same chain of "reasoning." For some of your toothpaste money will go on wages of toothpaste workers, or on dividends to toothpaste company owners, some of whom will have Sky subscriptions.
What distingusihes the TV licence from the ordinary chain of commercial flows is that you have to pay it for a government licence to possess a working TV, not in return for a service, or for goods. With your toothpaste purchasing there's a quid pro quo, as there is with tootpaste suppliers buying advertising space, or wages for working, or dividends for providing capital (all of which are simply components of the cost of buying the goods or services that you are buying.) Every link in the commercial chain is an entirely voluntary arrangement with a quid pro quo. The TV licence involves no quid pro quo. The quo is not a valuable service, but just an annual waiver from a threatened jail sentence.
Andy:
More predictable and vacuous tripe from bug-eyed oaf Jeremy Bowen. Does he never tire of repeating himself?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/
7126541.stm
To summarize: Palestinian society's problems are nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with Israel's military activities and settlement building.
In common with the populace of many dung-heaps, the easy cop-out is to blame others, but never take a cold clinical look at themselves.
The sad reality is that many Palestinians don't want peace as this means having to make sacrifices and compromises. They want victory and nothing less than the total destruction of Israel.
George R:
John Reith:
"Lord Ahmed seems to me to be rather predictably 'on-message'."
Does JR mean this sort of thing?:
"'Lord' Ahmed, Baron Ahmed, of Rotherham"
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/...d-of-rotherham/
bodo:
WRT the so-called "internal trafficking" of young girls. I suspect the use of such phrases is a bit of Newspeak used to divert attention from what is really happening. Anyone in the areas affected knows full well that it is young white girls being targeted by Asian men - the crime does indeed have a very nasty racist angle to it, but the colours are the wrong way round and so the BBC will ignore it -- just as the police and social services do.
As an aside, I suspect the young girls in question have been left dreadfully vulnerable because of some of the "citizenship lessons" which are now compulsory in school and which paint the Asian/Muslim population as being very family orientated, and that criticism or even suspicion of Asians is Islamophobic or simply racist. Any parent trying to rescue their daughter from the clutches of these paedophiles will also be fighting against the school indoctrination of their daughter.
wally greeninker:
As far as this story about pimping up north, the BBC gave quite enough information, for them, about the nature of the gangs involved when they mentioned that the story came from the Yorkshire police. Anyone with the smallest amount of background knowledge would have instantly filled the story out for themselves.
Listening to any story about non-specific youths, broadcast by the BBC, is comparable to having to think like one of those Kremlinologists in the days of the cold war: you just have to learn to read between the lines.
Still, it is a somewhat bizarre procedure in a free and open society.
Lee Moore:
Sorry my second sentence a few comments above should have said :
For some of your toothpaste money will go on wages of toothpaste workers, or on dividends to toothpaste company owners, some of whom will have BBC TV licences.
dr:
Still, it is a somewhat bizarre procedure in a free and open society.
wally greeninker | 05.12.07 - 2:46 pm | #
sadly thanks to the likes of the BBC and nulabour we no longer live in a free and open society.
meggoman:
Reimer:
"Group targets grooming of girls
Little specific about quite where in Britain this 'internal trafficking' is going on, ........
Reimer | 05.12.07 - 12:03 pm | #
Actually this morning on Radio 5 Live Nicky Campbell asked a representative from CROP if this 'internal trafficking' was being done by any specific ethnic groups to which she replied along the lines of Yes they found that Pakistani Asians youths are the main perpetrators and paritcularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Ritter:
Have a read of this DHYS 'Most Recommended' views here:
How can we deal with prison overcrowding?
Do you support the building of new "super-prisons"?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/...2533&
#paginator
In response to the questions posed, the majority of commentators say "yes, get on with building the prisons already" (I paraphrase obviously).
Why are these views not represented fully and fairly on BBC News?
In the actual news article referring to the 'super prisons', BBC News have highlighted one DHYS comment. Does it reflect the balance of views submitted to the BBC? Not a chance - the DHYS quote picked is
"I feel that "super-prisons" will just result in more professional criminals"
Dave Mudie, Edinburgh
I call that bias. No more no less.
Rob Clark:
Perhaps JR or another BBC visitor would care to clarify the BBC's policy on this absence of journalistic accountability?
Allan@Oslo | 05.12.07 - 1:34 pm | #
***
Pick up any newspaper the world over, Allan, and you’ll find stories without by-lines. There are any number of reasons for this and I don’t really see the relevance.
Whoever it’s written by, the BBC is accountable.
Mugwump:
Matt Frei on good form in today's Washington diary, sneering about America's 'new terror' over unsafe Chinese-made toys.
Frei comments that the phrase toxic toys "...trips off the tongue like, well, Yellow Peril." After ticking the Americans = Racists box, he moves on to the Hong Kong port call controversy, sarcastically observing that the Chinese snubbed "the mightiest navy the world had ever seen".
His advice to the Americans? "Calm down about the toys. Let American sailors spend their dwindling dollars in the strip clubs of Wan Chai.."
The news from America, seen through the eyes of the BBC.
George R:
Marc 8:29 am
- raised the issue of the BBC sponsorship of paintballing for Islamic terrorist supporters.
Where's the BBC's reply?
"BBC took alleged terrorists paintballing"
http://www.newenglishreview.org/...m/blog_id/
11668
meggoman:
Asian pimps. Was this reported on BBC website.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2538090.ece
meggoman:
Not forgetting the BBC version.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ews/
7092401.stm
Tim:
My comment on prison overcrowding:
Stop jailing people who refuse/ can't afford to pay the TV licence.
Surprise, surprise it's not being posted, despite it not breaking any of their rules.
ThinAndBritish:
Yep. John Reith: meggoman's Times link clearly shows that race is an issue here. So why aren't the BBC mentioning it?
Ritter:
Half a million to 'train' staff not to lie. Only at the BBC.
BBC to spend £500k on trust classes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/
...bbc.television1
"Two-hour classes to teach the BBC's editorial staff how to avoid deceiving viewers are likely to cost around £500,000, the corporation revealed today."
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d'etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Ritter:
BBC 'took terrorist trainers paintballing'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3001102.ece
Truly shocking.
If I am correct, a crime may have been committed by this (and possibly other) BBC employees under the Terrorism Act 2000. BBC Editorial Guidelines confirm this.
BBC Editorial Guidelines
The Terrorism Act 2000
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/
...rorismact.shtml
"We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.
securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism."
A criminal offence with up to 5 years in prison no less.
I hope the police throw the book at them all.
D Burbage:
Roland Thompson-Gunner
Whatever it shows, it doesn't show that the BBC is unbiased...
Andrew:
RT-G, third-party commenters are not posters, let alone regular posters. The fact that you should try to smear Biased BBC on the basis of the location of third-party commenters speaks volumes about you.
That aside, the BBC's influence and effect, for better or worse, is not limited to the shores of the UK, so it seems reasonable that those outside the UK should also be permitted to complain about the BBC.
D Burbage:
Ritter - I have complained about that story. They will probably change the comment just as they move it into the archive.....
meggoman:
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d'etre of combating intellectual dishonesty ........
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 - 5:02 pm | #
If that's the best you can do to defend the bias on BBC you shouldn't really bother.
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
Andrew. I have absolutely no problem with people who are not obliged to fund the BBC being allowed to comment on it and complain about it. But if I felt strongly enough to take regular issue with the policies of the public broadcasters of Cyprus or Israel while resident in the UK, I'd have the intellectual honesty to let people know where I was coming from, (in both senses rather than just the transferred one) rather than wait for someone else to point it out.
Martin:
Well left wing losers in the UK and BBC are always attacking Fox News. So is it not fair that those outside the UK should be able to attack the BBC?
Allan@Oslo:
Pick up any newspaper the world over, Allan, and you’ll find stories without by-lines. There are any number of reasons for this and I don’t really see the relevance.
Whoever it’s written by, the BBC is accountable.
Rob Clark | 05.12.07 - 3:51 pm | #
Rob; given that the BBC is not impartial, I want to see the name of the person has written the biased article in order that I or others may check that person's journalistic history and political affiliations. The BBC is all too aware of this and so does not enforce accountability. How much does it really take for the drafter of an article to add his/her name?
Rob Clark:
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d'etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 - 5:02 pm | #
RT-G, I’ve only been coming here a matter of a few weeks and I was aware that Bryan lived in Israel.
You can’t have been paying attention!
Rob Clark:
Allan, you raise a very interesting question, in fact.
As I’m sure most commentators here are aware, a piece of journalism is subjected to an editing process involving several editors/deputy editors/sub-editors cutting and re-writing.
So even where a journalist might be a freelancer and not necessarily to the left of centre personally, any copy – whether for broadcast or website – will be filtered through the hands of numerous BBC employees who are likely to ensure the party line on any given subject is adhered to.
Unless there is added the standard disclaimer of ‘The views of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the company blah blah blah’ or words to that affect, then the BBC can be held accountable for anything it publishes. This is publishing 101.
recovering liberal:
meggoman thanks for linking to the Times article on the pimping of young White girls.
John Reith (or any other Beeboid or fellow traveller) would you care to comment on the BBC's lack of coverage of the false accusations of racism and Anglophobia at the heart of this story. In case you missed it here are a few examples from the Times article:
"Police seem to be very cautious about this. They fear being branded racist,”... “All of a sudden Sally was only interested in hanging out with Pakistani boys,” says Jean. “She started saying I was racist, and that is why I objected to her hanging out with them.” ...”The pimps are adept at trading on teenage rebellion and use similar methods, according to Crop, of convincing the girls all white people are racist”... “says Gemma. “Amir told me they didn’t understand me and were racist and ignorant”..."Hussein says he took “great pleasure” in having young white girls at his beck and call"..." A number of families affected by Pakistani pimping gangs have said that police inaction and the refusal of white liberals to acknowledge the problem has resulted in more girls being at risk than ever before"..."However, he does believe some young Asian men “hold very disparaging attitudes towards white girls"..."Sally’s photographs and profile were posted on a website. She was posing with the flag of Pakistan. There were 97 names of Asian men posted on it who had made contact with her. She was asking for Asian men to “date”. She said she hated white people."
I don't think it stretching things too far to say that the BBC shares an MO with these Pakistani pimp gangs
David Preiser:
Mugwump,
Frei just moves from strength to strength, doesn't he? After trying to (mis)lead the reader into thinking the lead paint issue is the reason for China giving the US Nay the two-fingered salute, he reluctantly admits that some experts think it was about Taiwan. He tells a little white lie of omission when he says there was just a "recent announcement" and does not mention that there was a meeting with US Def. Sec. Gates specifically about the Tawain missile defense issue, and the US held firm. That's what pissed off China, everyone knows it. Yet Frei brings up the lead paint scare, which is getting past its sell-by date.
We'll just ignore the rest of it the article, as it is opinion and not news. After all, he's just a journalist with stories to tell, so I can't expect him to realize that China was keeping the yuan artificially pegged to the "Greenback", which has been part of the problem, and puts quite a different light on the subject.
Oh, except there's a bit at the very end worth pointing out. Matt closes by telling that if we can't be with the China we love, we should love the China we're with. No connection to the constant pimping for China I see on the BBC, I'm sure. Matt tells us to calm down about the lead paint (no sympathy for all those whose pets died from tainted Chinese kibble, since that might mean something). Then he informs us:
"...if you really are worried about lead poisoning, there is a handy stocking-filler from a company called IDenta coming soon.
Made in Israel - phew! - it will allow you to test for lead poisoning in the comfort of your home, costs just $15 or so and fits snugly into every party bag."
I know from watching his low budget US affair just what old Matty thinks of Israel. So y'all pardon me if I infer a bit of sarcastic venom in that "phew!"
John Reith, who is the stock Principal Boy to Frei's Demon King? Or his he just an Ugly Sister? Or maybe Pulchinello?
ThinAndBritish:
"ThinAndBritish:
Yep. John Reith: meggoman's Times link clearly shows that race is an issue here. So why aren't the BBC mentioning it?"
John? John?
David Preiser:
Korova,
With all the adverts I see from the China tourist bureau during BBC World News America broadcasts, it looks like a portion of your license fee supports the Communist government of China.
Thought you might enjoy that.
WoAD:
"As an aside, I suspect the young girls in question have been left dreadfully vulnerable because of some of the "citizenship lessons" which are now compulsory in school and which paint the Asian/Muslim population as being very family orientated, and that criticism or even suspicion of Asians is Islamophobic or simply racist. Any parent trying to rescue their daughter from the clutches of these paedophiles will also be fighting against the school indoctrination of their daughter."
There it is, right there. This website is racist.
John Reith:
ThinAndBritish | 05.12.07 - 6:09 pm
Well, ain’t that just typical of B-BBC commenters?
Instead of comparing like with like, you compare the Times’s coverage of a trial back in September with the BBC’s coverage of a Home Office Report today.
Other media - Lord Rothermere’s Metro and ITN-Channel 4 have covered the same HO report. Compare their coverage with the BBC’s and we may be having a sensible conversation.
The Times, interestingly, doesn’t seem to have covered it at all.
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?o...&
ncl=1124525661
John Reith:
and.....
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/arti...3&
in_page_id=34
BaggieJonathan:
So the BBC wins its case and trumpets it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
7128552.stm
"The BBC called the ruling an important decision in defence of free speech."
This despite the fact that "The corporation received a record 63,000 complaints"
After all "It also received many messages of support for screening the musical" you note numbers undisclosed because they werent in the same ballpark as a figure even though the article clearly implies they were.
Then it goes on from the BBC "We, of course, believe that broadcasters should continue to exercise great care and sensitivity when dealing with potential religious offence, and that has not changed" which is less than factual, exactly what great care and sensitivity was exercised here - none. what they mean is it wouldnt have been allowed if it had been about islam. If it was Mohammed not Jesus would we have seen it - answer no. I defy a beeboid to come on here and lie that it would, we all know what a laughing stock they would be.
Its outrageous bias and they know it, they just dont seem to care who does know it.
ThinAndBritish:
JR: True enough - I should have checked the other sources.
It's clear from the original Times report that there is a race issue here - looks like all sources are covering it up to appease the Asian contingent.
Of course there's only one source which we are forced to pay to do the appeasement....
meggoman:
John Reith:
ThinAndBritish | 05.12.07 - 6:09 pm
You seem to be suggesting that the 2 are not linked.
Quote from the TIMES article:
'Research, conducted in 2005 and involving 106 families seeking help from the Leeds-based campaigning organisation Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), found that in Yorkshire alone more than 30 girls were sexually exploited, with some being forced into prostitution, by what Crop says are predominantly Asian networks. As many as 200 families have gone to the organisation for advice.'
So Mr Reith if the 2 are not linked then why did Nicky Campbell interview someone from Crop on his programme this morning (Radio5) and ask if the 'internal trafficking' was being carried out by any particular element of society. To which she gave a very similar response to the above naming Pakistani Asians as the main culprits.
meggoman:
ThinAndBritish:
JR: True enough - I should have checked the other sources.
ThinandBritish
Don't give in so easily to the Anonymous poster posing as John Reith. The BBC and the other beeboids on here think we're all fick and stoopid. So we couldn't possibly have the intelligence link the 2 stories. See my post before this one re Nicky Campbells interview.
Niallster:
Jawdropper of the decade!
Speechless.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3001102.ece
Mugwump:
David Preiser,
Wonder if Frei's reporting would have had a somewhat different tone if the US (or Israel - phew!) had been caught exporting lead-tainted products as opposed to China.
I have a hunch he wouldn't be treating the whole thing as some kind of joke.
ANOther:
What is it with the BBC and canooists?
The lead story on the news page relates to the man who was believed drowned and the possibility of a fraudulent insurance claim for a few thousand
Meanwhile, the Standard and other outlets are running articles on £2 1/2 million that seems to have evaporated from London ratepayers in the direction of some of Ken's pals. Maybe our friend Jr can point us at the story, because I've just clicked through half a dozen of the likeliest pages without a glimpse. Oh hang on I haven't looked in the arts section yet...
George R:
A poster from outside the UK, makes these criticisms of the BBC's international political coverage, which includes coverage of his own country, the USA:
"Clean out the BBC" (by Hugh Fitzgerald):
http://www.newenglishreview.org/...m/blog_id/
11670
Lee Moore:
Following on from ritter's comment above.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/71.../uk/
7129277.stm
A typically balanced BBC assessment of the proposed Titan “super-prisons.”
The furthest right person we hear from is Jack Straw. At least half the story is full of lengthy objections from a LibDem Councillor and “Criminology” Professor; and the Howard League, who are on their usual track of “let’s send fewer people to prison.” For balance we get a short comment from the president of the Prison Governors Association…. who also seems to be hostile. And, er, a second spokesman from the Howard League.
Steve Edwards:
Causing offence
==============
The BBC is in triumphalist mood today as it was deemed by the High Court that Jerry Springer the Opera could not be banned simply because it caused offence.
I wait with baited breath as every HYS or MessageBoard post that has been banned because it criticised sodomy or Islamism is restored to public view.
bodo:
And while the Beeb is today celebrating over the Jerry Springer Opera affair, they are at the same time apologosing to muslims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/...ec/05/
bbc.radio
BBC apologises for Muhammad joke
The BBC was forced to broadcast an on-air apology today after a local radio presenter in Nottingham joked that freed British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons had a dog named Muhammad.
Steve Edwards:
I think the BBC, like all cowardly liberals, supplicate to Islamists in the hope they will eat them last. Which explains why they spit bile at Christians.
jimbob:
LDA "funding disputes " are becoming very common.
please see ongoing investigations
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembl...ov27/
item04.rtf
and
http://media-newswire.com/
releas...se_1057441.html
of course to question how the bernie grant arts centre has spent it's £4.5 million would be a "hideously white" thing to do so it's best left to the evening standard and daily mail isn't it beeboids...
Bryan:
Reimer | 05.12.07 - 12:03 pm,
They had a piece on the World Service today which carefully avoided any racial description of the young girls and their predators, using the passive voice a lot, as in "They were approached by/groomed by young men..."
The BBC is incurably sick.
korova:
David Preiser:
Korova,
With all the adverts I see from the China tourist bureau during BBC World News America broadcasts, it looks like a portion of your license fee supports the Communist government of China.
Thought you might enjoy that.
David Preiser | 05.12.07 - 6:09 pm | #
Not really. Try and get your tiny little brain around the idea that just because I am 'left' doesn't mean I support communist regimes. Tricky I know for the small minded imbeciles that comment here, but give it a try.
korova:
And as for the comments regarding advertising and Sky, I quite literally pissed myself at that one. It's quite simple. There is a 'tax' on every product we buy that goes towards advertising on Sky. It is not exactly an e3asy task to purchase an item and be confident that that company doesn't sponsor/advertise on Sky. In fact, practically every majotr brand does advertise on Sky. The fact is, even if I didn't have a TV, I would still pay money to keep Sky operation.
The bottom line is that the BBC defends the capitalist system all the way. That you fail to see this suggests a high degree of illiteracy at best and at worst utter ignorance.
Bryan:
I call that bias. No more no less.
Ritter | 05.12.07 - 3:44 pm
They keep on doing this. That's how they "rebalance" a HYS that has gone wrong - in their eyes.
Those busy little propagandists on the BBC website really need to be confronted with this.
Maybe I should complain....
David Preiser:
Korova,
Then you ought to be protesting the license fee as much as you are complaining about having to support SKY when you buy toothpaste.
I was just reminded that my own government funds the BBC according to your logic. NPR is supported by my tax dollars, as is PBS, both of which broadcast BBC World News. I'm not happy about that at all.
Bryan:
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d'etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 - 5:02 pm
You should engage you brain before you comment. How do you think Reith knew I live in Israel? Because I'd been hiding the fact?
RT-G, I’ve only been coming here a matter of a few weeks and I was aware that Bryan lived in Israel.
Rob Clark | 05.12.07 - 5:54 pm
Thanks for pointing that out.
Bryan:
John Reith | 05.12.07 - 1:12 pm,
No, they didn't dump comments into the "rejected comments" category right at the end. I was following the debate quite closely and the rejected comments steadily increased over the course of the debate.
HYS is quite specific about the categories of comments. Here's the breakdown people see on their personal page:
COMMENT STATUS KEY
Published
Your comment has been published on a debate.
Awaiting moderation
Your comment is in the moderation queue.
Unpublished
As the debate is now closed your comment will not be published.
Rejected
Your comment broke the house rules so was rejected by the moderators.
I have come to know how these people operate. Though I must admit they sometimes surprise me - as in the huge number of highly critical and insulting comments they allowed through on Islam and Sudan re the teddy bear.
Bryan:
Ben | 05.12.07 - 11:51 am,
I take your point and I see that the issue is a little more complex than I at first imagined.
But the BBC is a public service broadcaster. And it seems a trifle unbalanced for it to be able to spread bias worldwide through distortion and omission of facts and then blithely ignore or dismiss complaints that arise from outside the UK as a result of its actions. The BBC has a tremendous amount of power and influence. And so often it uses it for evil, rather than for good. It needs to be continually reined in and challenged.
Anonymous:
A self-confessed incontinent said…And as for the comments regarding advertising and Sky, I quite literally pissed myself at that one.
Ugh!
Korova: loads of stuff never gets advertised on Sky. Buy only that stuff. Don’t buy stuff that does get advertised on Sky. Easy – no funds get passed along to that nasty Wupert chappie.
The bottom line is that the BBC defends the capitalist system all the way.
noobie:
Steve Edwards:
I think the BBC, like all cowardly liberals, supplicate to Islamists in the hope they will eat them last. Which explains why they spit bile at Christians.
Not at all. A beeboid, aka John Reith, will spin this one as evidence that beeboids treat christianity in a higher regard, thus with a higher moral standard, than they do Islam!
WoAD:
"Not at all. A beeboid, aka John Reith, will spin this one as evidence that beeboids treat christianity in a higher regard, thus with a higher moral standard, than they do Islam!"
Touché!
"Not really. Try and get your tiny little brain around the idea that just because I am 'left' doesn't mean I support communist regimes. Tricky I know for the small minded imbeciles that comment here, but give it a try."
Yeah you bloody student anarchist. Communism is the apotheosis of leftism, it all ends up there. Read up on the Ukraine famine to see where lenins ideas on the "national" "question" end up.
meggoman:
korova:
And as for the comments regarding advertising .......There is a 'tax' on every product we buy........
But shouldn't I only pay that tax if I WANT the the product and decide to buy it.
The BBC is NOT a product
It's a state imposed institution that has no place in todays free society. An dthe sooner it dies the better.
Martin:
Korova: So refuse to buy products that get adversised on TV and Sky in particular.
Plenty of people manage to buy things that don't contain animal products so why can't you manage to do the same?
Write to the companies that sell the things you buy and ask where they spend their advertising budget.
I for example strongly object to the likes of the BBC only advertising jobs in the Guardian newspaper. Why don't the BBC advertise jobs in the Sun or the Daily Mail? Why should the Guardian be propped up by a huge wedge of public money from the likes of the BBC and local authorities?
Of course the BBC is capitalist!!!!! It's run by Champagne Socialists the very same lot that run Nu Labour and most of the media.
You're probably on eof those idiots that thinks the BBC is "great value for money" Of course it is when your leftie viewing pleasures are paid for by everyone.
Would it not be fairer then to make everyone pay for Sky as well?
Oh and without paying for a Sky HD box how would you watch BBC programmes in HD??????????? Nice of the BBC to shaft the viewing public.
Lurker in a Burqua:
Not on Newsnight
Kirsty Wark's husband loses court battle as judge frowns upon his email hacking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
Bryan: I have read probably hundreds of your postings here but never one where you disclose that you live in Israel. I would recommend that if someone wants to express opinions like...
"If the Labour government had any backbone it would be investigating the BBC with a view to charging them with...well, whatever's left to charge them with..."
... and wants to be regarded as intellectually honest by people who do fund the BBC and have a vote for the British government, they should front up with that information on a pretty regular basis.
As for Andrew's distinction between people posting to the blog and third-party commenters like us, I think that's a bit of a fine point as far as entries which consist solely of solicited comments is concerned.
deegee:
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 - 5:02 pm
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d'etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Only two?
Your complaint is important to us even if it comes outside of the UK
http://thumbsnap.com/v/MwLi9Qc9.gif
The BBC is a world broadcaster and proud of the fact. As well as the World Service in English (for the last 75 yrs), it broadcasts in 33 separate languages with separate websites in those languages. No one tuning in from outside the UK is forced to pay a license fee and all are asked to have your say in response to questions posed by the BBC. Much of the World Service material is rebroadcast in the UK and vice versa.
The BBC World Service Trust receives funding from many organizations (Our funders). Some of these institutions are British such as the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK (FCO) but many are not. In other words, UK citizens pay for some of it. Citizens from other countries (directly and indirectly) pay for other parts.
In addition many of these countries broadcast BBC material on cable. In Israel (oops - I've outed myself 
) the two cable networks carry BBC Prime and BBC World News. We do pay for them albeit indirectly as we pay the cable companies who then pay the BBC for broadcasting rights. In addition, a slew of BBC product appears occasionally on other channels including Channel One (originally modeled after the BBC and funded by a compulsory tax as in the U.K.)
If the BBC didn't constantly propagandise for people whose stated aim is my destruction perhaps I wouldn't read and contribute to this group as much as I do. On the other hand where, other than Biased-BBC, would I post?
deegee:
korova | Homepage | 05.12.07 - 10:38 pm
The bottom line is that the BBC defends the capitalist system all the way. That you fail to see this suggests a high degree of illiteracy at best and at worst utter ignorance.
It also suggests, unlike much of its output, that the BBC takes a position here overwhelmingly supported by its British viewers and listeners; the UK population as a whole; and although I can't prove it empirically, the BBC worldwide audience.
The BBC defends capitalism - I hope so.
deegee:
BTW (I'm busy today, huh?)
The BBC Complaints process largely upheld a complaint that Panorama was exaggerating about the dangers of Wi-Fi.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/.../30/
51156.shtml
Bryan:
deegee | 06.12.07 - 7:58 am,
I'm fascinated by this last bit from the complaint ruling you linked to:
The finding against this edition of Panorama will be marked on the programme website in the appropriate place.
I recall that Nick Reynolds, prompted by Biodegradable on this very blog, got the BBC website to mark the weepy Barbara Plett's infamous article on Arafat in a similar fashion. Up till then, of course, the BBC had been happy to avoid any mention of the fact that the article had been the subject of a (partially)-upheld complaint.
The BBC can change.
George R:
BBC 'Today' programme's Pavlovian response:'ah, there's a Parliamentary debate on whether to extend detention of terror suspects to beyond 28 days,- wheel out our old chum, Chakrabarti, of that democratic representation of the British people, the lobby group 'Liberty''.
Now the Chakrabarti the BBC wheels out on these occasions is Shami Chakrabarti of 'Liberty', which seems to represent the Parliamentary constituency of the 'Today' programme at the BBC. The other Chakrabarti is Reeta, who works for the BBC full-time, as a political correspondent. I find it's easy to confuse the two. I don't know why.
Anyway, Mr. Stoughton's breathless, gabbling interview with S. Chakrabarti this morning was totally uncritical, and full of helpful prompts for her. The case FOR an extension beyond 28 days, in the interests of the security of British people was not pursued, but dismissed.
I know the the BBC can't get enough of S.Chakrabarti's views; but I must have missed her defending Ms. Gibbons against the repressive, Islamic Republic of Sudan's Government last week. Or is that a different sort of liberty at stake? For different sorts of people?
Bryan:
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 06.12.07 - 6:07 am,
I can see why you might have believed I'm British. I was born and educated in South Africa and lived there most of my life. South African English, virtually identical to British English of course, is my mother tongue.
Re your comment on my comment on the Labour government, I see the latter as engineering and maintaining the PC, multi-culti, pro-Islamist, leftist virus that has swept Britain and that is so ably propagated by the BBC. This is precisely the virus that endangers the very existence of Israel and I will challenge it wherever and whenever I can. However, I am interested in exposing all aspects of the BBC's bias, not simply that which is directly aimed at Israel. No doubt if I concentrated on Israel exclusively, people would accuse me of lobbying for the country on a narrow, partisan basis.
I find your suggestion that I frequently "out" myself as Israeli quite ridiculous. Maybe I could save myself the trouble by simply calling myself Bryan from Israel. The internet is an arena where people do battle largely on an anonymous basis. People don't have any obligation to reveal anything about themselves other than the opinions they hold on any issue. And frankly, I am insulted by your insinuation of my "intellectual dishonesty" as well as the implication that I am somehow misguided in perceiving the BBC as intellectually dishonest.
The BBC is guilty of far greater sins than mere intellectual dishonesty. Since you are such a frequent visitor to this blog, you should be aware of them.
Martin:
Chakrabarti just popped her ugly mug onto 5 lite with Nu Labour attack dog Victoria Derbyshire spouting her usual dribble.
Funy that Ms Chakrabarti has been AWOL over Teddygate and the Saudi Arabia Gang rape.
Is she a Muslim that thinks only human rights in the west matters?
Expect her to pop up on the following
BBC News 24
BBC 6PM news
BBC 10PM news
Newsnight
backwoodsman:
Beeboids, if its Farming Today, it can reasonably be expected to reflect the views of the farming / rural community ?
Your line that badgers must be protected at all costs, from any form of sensible control, and that you are prepared to shamefully twist all points of view to this end, is a nonsense.
It merely reinforces the point that you are a totally urban organisation, with no understandng of nature - never mind if badgers eat all the ground nesting birds eggs and hedgehogs, they look cute on our token one hour programme on fluffy bunnies.
Overseas Expat:
More positive news for Islam from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol...&news=1&
bbcws=1
Yes, it's our surfing Imam in Australia. Nicely on the front page of the BBC News web-site. Sometimes articles on here feel more like the old St Albion's Church column in Private Eye...
Steve Edwards:
I once wrote to the BBC, asking why Chakrabarti, whose organisation only has about 2000 members, gets the kind of podium that organisations with far larger constituencies only dream of. No reply.
meggoman:
Tricky I know for the small minded imbeciles that comment here, but give it a try.
korova | Homepage | 05.12.07 - 10:32 pm | #
You said it while commenting here. Hmm
meggoman:
bodo:
..
The BBC was forced to broadcast an on-air apology today after a local radio presenter in Nottingham joked that freed British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons had a dog named Muhammad.
bodo | 05.12.07 - 8:38 pm | #
What I would like to know is WHO or WHAT FORCED the BBC to make an apology. Would it be the Labour Government, the radical islamists, the Muslim Council of Britain, a bomb threat?
George R:
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI spotting:
As predicted by Martin, 9:21 am, BBC
News 24 has trumpeted that SHE will be
on its programme within the hour.
Ben:
David Preiser:
Korova,
With all the adverts I see from the China tourist bureau during BBC World News America broadcasts, it looks like a portion of your license fee supports the Communist government of China.
Thought you might enjoy that.
David Preiser | 05.12.07 - 6:09 pm | #
And you're sure this is funded by the license fee?
BaggieJonathan:
From the BBC - Compare and contrast:
Up yours Christians!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
7128552.stm
We are most terribly terribly sorry about the slightest possible thing even if it isnt really offensive o muslims...
http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/
...umentid=6917911
Brought to you courtesy of the British Bias Corporation
Tom:
The difference between these two stories is unbelievable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ews/
7092401.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2538090.ece
The BBC know what is happening but quite deliberately refuse to report the full picture. If ever someone were to ask you to explain bias at the BBC, point them to these two articles. Worthy of a slot on the BBBC homepage I think.
Ben:
Bryan:
Ben | 05.12.07 - 11:51 am,
I take your point and I see that the issue is a little more complex than I at first imagined.
But the BBC is a public service broadcaster. And it seems a trifle unbalanced for it to be able to spread bias worldwide through distortion and omission of facts and then blithely ignore or dismiss complaints that arise from outside the UK as a result of its actions. The BBC has a tremendous amount of power and influence. And so often it uses it for evil, rather than for good. It needs to be continually reined in and challenged.
Bryan | 05.12.07 - 11:35 pm | #
Bryan, the BBC is a public service broadcaster, for those in the UK that pay the license fee. The services available to non-license fee payers such as yourself are commercial enterprises and they are funded in this manner (World Service aside, but that's up to the FO).
As people on here rage about, unlike a commercial broadcaster, they have to pay even if they don't watch it. You don't have to pay for it. If the consumers don't like what they see, they can all switch to a competitor and BBC World etc will cease to be (and you'll miss out on all those ads for Emirates). It's a free market.
You also have the opportunity to complain as you would with Fox, CNN, Sky et al
Rob Clark:
‘I for example strongly object to the likes of the BBC only advertising jobs in the Guardian newspaper. Why don't the BBC advertise jobs in the Sun or the Daily Mail?’
Martin | 06.12.07 - 12:37 am |
***
That’s nothing, Martin. As a journalist I have to buy the blooming thing every Monday because it’s the only national newspaper that covers the media (in general) properly and where I can keep an eye on job movement etc
I can assure you that I never inhale, though. Everything except the media section goes straight into the bin…
Bryan:
Ben, my exposure to the BBC is through the World Service and the website.
The BBC seems to have been transformed remarkably quickly into a commercial organisation in your eyes. What happened to the trusted broadcaster of old?
Ritter:
More and more people noticing how the BBC has dispensed with 'news', preferring to 'campaign' instead:
Chief scientist attacks health reporting by Today and Daily Mail
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
scienc...ncenews.gmcrops
The government's chief scientific adviser criticised the BBC's Today programme and the Daily Mail yesterday over what he called their "campaigns" against GM food and the MMR vaccine. Sir David King said Britain's failure to adopt GM crops had cost the economy between £2bn and £4bn and that falling measles vaccination rates as a result of negative publicity about MMR would lead to between 50 and 100 child deaths.
He singled out Today's lead presenter, John Humphrys, over the current affairs programme's editorial line on GM, saying: "What a massive shot in the foot that was for the UK economy." Humphrys is known for his enthusiasm for organic farming."
Ironic isn't it that Sir David sees little difference between in campaigning style between the BBC and the Daily Mail, only one of which people are forced to buy and is supposedly is forced to be impartial?
Scrap the BBC poll tax.
Geoff:
Has anybody else noticed the remarkable similarity in the tone of the postings of Messrs Reith, Thompson-Gunner and Korova?
The general profile and 'music' in their snide, sneery postings leads me to believe that they are one and the same person. Or is it that the BBC, like many totalitarian regime often employs the use of doubles.
Ritter:
Ho, ho, ho
Jonathan Ross 'worth 1,000 BBC journalists'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/...06/
nross106.xml
Bob:
"Shami Ch. answers your questions"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...lit/
view03c.xml
... except that she doesn't!
Ritter:
A BBC Direcor General writes.....
Delicate balance between beliefs and liberty
By Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...5/
njerry305.xml
"Editorial decisions such as that to broadcast Jerry Springer - The Opera typically turn on a delicate judgement between competing claims and rights. The claim of minorities to have their beliefs treated with respect; the claim of writers and directors to enjoy freedom of opinion and expression; the right of the public at large to decide for themselves whether to watch something they may find offensive. Such decisions are often difficult and contentious and should certainly be subject to challenge and review.
Hmmm. So, you'll be publishing the Muhammud cartoons next week then? I don't hold a candle for any religion, but the (unwritten) policy of the BBC appears to be it can offend all religions except Islam. Where is the impartiality in that?
The BBC - institutionally Christianophobic.
Ritter:
Question Time bias update. Following on from earlier commentators on the two Labour reps on last weeks QT:
Tories want Myners sacked for BBC attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
money...cnmyners106.xml
"The Conservatives have called for Paul Myners, the prominent businessman who is head of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority (PADA), to be sacked after he attacked the party during an edition of BBC1's Question Time last week.
The complaint comes after Mr Myners, former chairman of Marks and Spencer, accused David Cameron of being a "superior young toff" whose only job outside politics was to work at a TV company that "lost billions".
However, last night it was reported that Mr Myners said in a statement that he appeared on Question Time in a personal capacity and no mention was made of his role at the government body.
So whilst the Conservatives are lucky if someone on the left of the party gets invited to the table, NuLab can have two reps on QT, one a minister, and one who works for the Government, so long as one appears 'in a personal capacity'
Question Time - BBC bias in action.
Ritter:
Loadsamonaaaay!
MPs slate BBC move
http://
www.manchestereveningnews..._slate_bbc_move
"BBC bosses have been accused of inadequate planning for a planned `high risk' £400m move to Salford."
The cost of this relocation is staggering. How on earth does it cost £400million of licence fee money to move from London to Manchester?
Ben:
Bryan:
Ben, my exposure to the BBC is through the World Service and the website.
The BBC seems to have been transformed remarkably quickly into a commercial organisation in your eyes. What happened to the trusted broadcaster of old?
Bryan | 06.12.07 - 11:09 am | #
I've never said the BBC is a commercial organisation - BBC Worldwide is. Whether it's a trusted commercial broadcaster - well, that's up to the viewer to decide.
If their commercial ventures are as anti-american as people here say the BBC as a whole is, I'm sure BBC America won't last long - let's leave the American public to show their verdict through the free market.
The Fat Contractor:
Martin | 06.12.07 - 9:21 am |
Is she a Muslim that thinks only human rights in the west matters?
Is she a muslim? 'Chakrabarti' sounds hindu to me, western Bengali perhaps?
See here
J:
The BBC - institutionally Christianophobic.
Ritter | 06.12.07 - 12:26 pm
Thompson is to be found each Sunday morning in the church of St Aloysius Gonzaga on the Woodstock Road. With him will be his children, as it falls to him to raise them as Catholics, because his wife is Jewish.
Though Thompson inherited his religion from an Irish mother, he is not your usual kind of contemporary Catholic. St Aloysius Gonzaga is one of the three English oratories established by Cardinal John Henry Newman in the 19th century. Here, Mass is still said in Latin and there is no compromise with the happy-clappy modernism that has left many Catholic services elsewhere as banal as their C of E counterparts. Worship is wholly orthodox and utterly serious.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200405030021
Ritter:
Shami spotting on BBC...
Nick Robinson's Newslog
6 Dec 07
Surprise announcement
http://blogs.bbc.co.uk/
nickrobin...ise_announ.html
There she is!!!
Ritter:
Douglas Alexander withdraws from QT..
BBC Question Time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ime/
default.stm
"Douglas Alexander has withdrawn from tonight's programme. His replacement will be announced on the Question Time site later today."
Err.. got something to hide Douglas?
Guess who the Tory rep is on tonight's QT - Ken Clarke!
Others are:
Simon Sebag Montefiore
Allison Pearson
James Rubin
One guest TBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ime/
7124733.stm
BaggieJonathan:
J
Bogusly talking about an indivdual's beliefs and religion (even if he is the head) and juxtaposing it against a statement that an institution is christianophobic is entirely bogus and surely you know it.
Or do you accept there is no there's no racism in the police if an individual chief constable is black or no homophobia in the law because a chief justice is gay.
The argument is utter nonsense.
An institution is not an individual.
Matthew:
Shami Chakrabarti is most certainly of Hindu background, not Muslim, though I think she styles herself as agnostic.
She does have an extraordinarily high media presence, but I don't think this is something for which only the BBC is responsible. And the NCCL may be a small organisation, but it is comparable to the ACLU in the United States, which also gets ridiculous overexposure from all media organisations. One might question why she seems to be the sole spokesperson for the group, but then she is the director, so is best placed to represent it.
The trouble is that the organisation is the pre-eminent campaign body for civil liberties in the UK. If you want to critcise its high profile in the media, you would need to identify i) alternative organisations to the NCCL promoting civil liberties that should be consulted ii) anti-NCCL groups that ought to be consulted as a counterweight and iii) instances where the NCCL is being consulted on issues not involving questions of civil liberties.
BaggieJonathan:
J
...and the grossly offensive unfactually substantiated nature of the article does nothing for its credibility either.
Claiming that you inherit your religion, would all those here that dont follow their forebears religion care to disagree.
Having services in a language you dont understand is good, only if you are from this tiny minority or perhaps islam.
Claiming that mainstream sevices are banal without a shred of evidence, it makes a soundbite, no more.
The assertion of the superiority of orthodox seriousness, without evidence.
Somehow I dont expect similar disregard for say shia and sunni in their mainstream religious services.
The new statesman it seems in many ways is the BBC in another guise when its not being the guardian.
Woeful.
Ritter:
"Or do you accept there is no there's no racism in the police if an individual chief constable is black or no homophobia in the law because a chief justice is gay.
The argument is utter nonsense.
An institution is not an individual.
BaggieJonathan | 06.12.07 - 2:58 pm | #"
Exactly. A well put riposte.
Matthew:
The New Statesman is the pre-eminent magazine of pseudo-liberals and disappointed Marxists. It has come close to bankruptcy a number of times following legal cases against its fabricated reporting (remember John Major's 'affair' with his cook?).
In the case of Thompson, it is a fact that he worships at the Oratory in Oxford. It is false, however, to claim that every Mass is conducted in Latin. This observation, however, is merely circumstantial: in any case editors have much more input into News and programming than the DG, especially after the tenure of the appalling Greg Dyke.
I see the problem less as one of 'Christianophobia', which is as ridiculous a concept as its Islamic counterpart, but rather one of unbalanced exposure. In too many cases we find news stories whitewashing Islam in a way which never happens for other religions (look to the thread on the terrorist training scandal as evidence), and the exposure these stories receive are out of all proportion to the relative presence of Islam in the UK, which currently accounts for just 2.8% of the population.
Reimer:
"Tom:
The difference between these two stories is unbelievable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ews/ 7092401.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol...icle2538090.ece
The BBC know what is happening but quite deliberately refuse to report the full picture. If ever someone were to ask you to explain bias at the BBC, point them to these two articles. Worthy of a slot on the BBBC homepage I think."
The details of the cases alleged in the Times piece, and the indolence & cowardice (& collusion, arguably) of the authorities are shocking, like something I'd expect to read of happening in the Third World. On top of that UK-Tass's selective presentation makes the whole thing positively Kafka-esque.
Strange to think back on the events of 18 years ago with the Eastern Bloc emerging from totalitarianism, events I followed avidly. Rather than Communism collapsing per se, stuff such as this brings home to me the extent to which the West has been being quietly absorbed into a kind of Communism V2.0
George R:
Unlike the BBC which fawns, I regard S.Chakrabartl and her Liberty organisation as over-indulged, unrepresentative of the British people, morally equivalent, UK-centric and non-critical of dictatorial governments outside the West.
S.Chakraparti must have campaigned on behalf of British citizen Ms. Gillian Gibbons' loss of liberty to the Islamic Republic of Sudan, for example. But I still can't find the reference. Remind me of the reference.
After all, 'Liberty's stated 'Mission', says:
"'Liberty' seeks to protect civil liberties and human rights for EVERYONE" (Capitals added). Look at 'Liberty's site: it doesn't look that way to me. No mention of Saudi Arabia,etc.
Martin:
Funny thing about Chakrabart is that she won't go on Talksport with Jon Gaunt who as much as I despise him is gunning for her.
Can ANYONE think of an occasion where she refused to put her ugly mug in the media?
Perhaps because Mr Gaunt will ask her the sort of questions the BBC and Channel 4 won't?
I was asking if she was a Muslim. She certainly likes to defend them which is surprising as the fanatics she defends would probably have her locked up at home if they got their way.
Perhaps a few months living under the Taliban might be an education for her?
I'm betting she's on Question Time tonight. No doubt. After all we could do with an extra "liberal" view couldn't we??????
Martin:
Oh and Liberty has a membership of around 10,000 so why do they get such a high profile when the BNP has far more supporters but never gets BBC airtime? Fair and balanced? Er no that's Fox News not Al BBC.
David Gregory (BBC):
Martin: Re Panorma and Wifi. I did see one BBC journalist who said it was about as "scientifically literate as the famous Panorama on the Spagetti Harvest"
Well, alright it was me. I even made it into the Sunday Times!
Rob Clark:
Can someone tell me, is Liberty an official body which receives government backing regardless of which party is in power, or is it a more self-appointed body not unlike a pressure group?
I’ve looked at their website but still aren’t entirely certain. Could someone clarify its status for me?
Thanks.
Ritter:
Tonights Question Time panel:
This week's panel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ime/
7131380.stm
The last minute shoe-in for Wee Douggie Alexander (who bottled it at the last minute) is Baroness Ashton, Labour Peer and wife of ex-BBC political commentator, and YouGov founder Peter Kellner.
Martin:
No Libery are just a very small bunch of liberal lefties that seem to get the attention of politicians for some reason. They have no political mandate (I don't think they put candidates up for election)
Politicians will always want to suck up to people who get media attention.
What's interesting are the lies being put about. Yes we already have longer periods where people can be held without trial than many other European Countries, but in those Countries people have be charged, then held and still questioned. You never hear Liberty mention that do you?
Martin:
GEORGE R. you are correct. liberals are COWARDS. Just like CND they were quick to jump over the fence at Greenham Common to protest, but none of them ever had the bottle ot go to the Soviet Union and protest there? Why not? Are they not prepared to die for the cause they believe in?
None of these Liberals are ever prepared to put their lives on the line to defend freedom. It's always done to the working class to put on a uniform and get slaughtered on a battlefield, defending the freedom of these cowards.
That's why I have no time for them. They are no better than used toilet roll in my view.
Jack Hughes:
Maybe one of the beebers can explain why they have the steady flow of "fluffy muslim" stories?
The latest one is "Surf Imam changing Islam down under" - this has been on the news home page for over 24 hours now. Its not a news story. Human interest - maybe.
Then I skip to "the world in pictures" and somehow there's always at least one muslim.
Odd that no other religion gets this "product placement".
Shug Niggurath:
For John Reith:
(From my earlier post above)
Considering that Lord Ahmed is a Labour peer as they have been more than keen to show us recently, can we expect to see a story about Labour being split over policy on terrorism?
No. Lord Ahmed seems to me to be rather predictably ‘on-message’.
The closure of Gitmo has been a UK Government policy objective for some time now (see below) and Control Orders have replaced dentention without trial.
(Two links to Guantanamo stories)
-----
First off, both stories are the opinions of Lords, not policy statements of government, and while I appreciate that it's all part of a diplomatic game, Lord Ahmeds point was aimed at contrasting the legal situation of the woman in the Teddy bear fiasco with Guantanamo Bay and Britain detaining terror suspects without trial.
His opinion, aired on the BBC, was that Sudan had acted in some way better than we do, now see;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
7130072.stm
So it is still very much government policy to detain people for as long as possible without trial - which is exactly what was stated in Ahmed's quote - so where are the BBC headlines telling us about a 'rebel' peer, or a split in the government?
Shug Niggurath:
How can the template file for the Question Time submission form be missing?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ime/
7124733.stm
Filling out the form and asking this question:
If someone has broken the law in respect of political donations, is it right that they continue in the position they hold while a police investigation is underway - shouldn't they at the very least be suspended on full pay?
Which yields this result:
Error
No email was sent due to an error.
500 Could not open template - No such file or directory
/home/system/www/questiontime/form_qt.txt
cgiemail 1.6
If this file is missing, I am happy to state that it's been removed to prevent people from submitting questions, unless you're willing to believe that it's decided to pop out for a latte since it's so quiet tonight.
Not bias, but preventing a traceable pile of public opinion about what the topics on tonights show should be.
meggoman:
When reading this story I found the quote in the report highly relevant. I thought it was referring to the TV licence fee.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/busin...ess/
7130529.stm
"Extortion hits low-income households with a regressive tax that saps scarce household resources," the report said
jimbob:
shami c was on radio 5 today.
she had an easy ride from derbyshire who perhaps could read this...
http://www.prospect-magazine.co....ils.php?
id=9928
time and again we are told that we have the most draconian laws of all the western democracies. actually usa hold "material witnesses " for an indefinite period of time.
about time liberty's research was challenged i think.
WoAD:
Asian paedo muslims are now just "group"
Al-Beeb getting more and more extreme.
Martin:
Jimbob: Yes I made this point earlier. European law is very differnt to ours. People in many Eueopean Countries can be charged THEN held for long periods and still questioned.
What people forget is that Libery is politically driven, in particular with laws that "they" feel might be used against so called ethnic minorities.
I always thought that "Human rights" were menat ot be Universal? However, our own beloved John Reith makes it clear that the left in the BBC belive that only the USA nad ourselves should be attacked over human rights.
Where is the attack on Saudi Arabia from the BBC or Liberty over the Saudi gang rape case? It's been totally ignored. As I said, the left are cowards. They act all big and tough cmaping outside Heathrow ariport but none of them have the balls to go to Saudi Arabia and protest do they?
David:
This complaint apparently merits a news article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
7131352.stm
32 people complain that the BBC don't like Poles, and they get a grovelling apology and a news story. I, and I'm guessing a damn sight more than 32 people, complain about a topical debate programme being ideologically slanted, and I get told it's all in my mind and that the BBC are awesome.
Bryan:
Martin | 06.12.07 - 7:59 pm,
I was surprised to hear a programme on the World Service today - it might have been Assignment but I don't have time to check right now - actually critical of the Iranian judiciary for the appalling case of a young woman who had been sold into prostitution as a very young girl and then sentenced to death. She was given a reprieve.
Also another appalling case of a young man accused of rape and then hanged even though the accusations had been withdrawn.
A human rights lawyer and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were involved so I guess the BBC was prompted into action here, but still it's good (and unusual) to see the BBC publicising the satanic actions of the evil regime in Iran.
AJukDD:
I am a Brit, I live in France and though I do not pay the licence fee (I do pay one in France) I vote still in the UK and therefore the bias of the BBC impacts me.
Bryan in Israel is directly affected by the bias of the BBC in that it is directly threatening his country's survival by withdrawing support of normal people in the UK from Israel. Because the BBC is also aimed at a world audience. He has just as much right as I have to criticise the BBC, especially as the BBC wrongly declares that it is impartial.
I understand that the World Service is funded by the FO, be it fully or in part I do not know, but if that is the case then the licence fee is not relevent to Bryan at all.
John Reith:
Shug Niggurath | 06.12.07 - 6:32 pm
First off, both stories are the opinions of Lords, not policy statements of government...
One was the Lord Chancellor and the other the Attorney General!
What does qualify as 'the opinion of a lord' is what Ahmed says.
stuck-record:
Mr Reith finally appears, but in the wrong thread.
One word: paintball.
Bryan:
AJukDD | Homepage | 07.12.07 - 9:24 am,
Thanks for that. I find it a bit rich that Roland Thompson-Gunner (and Reith probably feels the same) expects the BBC to be able to spread its biased tentacles all over the planet without being accountable to those outside the UK who are seriously affected by the bias.
AJukDD:
Bryan, no problem, it was very rich indeed. Keep up the great posts.
David Preiser:
Ben | 06.12.07 - 10:28 am |
"And you're sure this is funded by the license fee?"
Yes. BBC America is technically a semi-autonomous company, your Auntie Beeb is the ultimate owner and proprietor. The cable channel itself is a commercial channel, driven by advertising dollars. The original funding for the creation, development, and operation of BBC America came from the mother ship, using a portion of the telly tax.
While the channel does get some reasonable advertising revenue these days (if the rates are similar to BBC World, it's something on the order of $175K per 30 second spot in prime time, like the news hour). The advertising is currently handled by Discovery Communications, as part of the ad bundle they flog to cable and satellite distributors. That will change next April, I believe, when BBC America has its in-house advertising division up and running. But that's not the whole picture, is it?
Fully half the content of Matt Frei's low budget affair comes directly from the mother ship. Video footage and pre-recorded reports are from BBC News in the UK and/or BBC World. The production of these segments is fully funded by the license fee, and BBC America does not pay a royalty or commission to run them. It's only the second half of the broadcast, generally, that has content produces in Frei's studio or by his skeleton crew.
The ad money pulled in by the channel probably doesn't come anywhere near paying for the operations budget.
So yes, the license fee does fund a significant portion - at the very least - of what I call propaganda on BBC America. That goes for polishing China's turd or telling me how to vote.
amimissingsomething:
has anyone ever seen the bbc put phrases like "insulting islam" in square quotes?
to my reckoning, bbc-style scare quotes a la "war on terror" mean either a direct quote, or a distancing by the bbc of itself from any objective validation of the words or sentiment in question...
David Gregory (BBC):
stuck-record: Three words; "contempt of court"
Ben:
However the segments would presumably be made with our without the existance of BBC America - I think it's a bit of a stretch to say my license fee money has suddenly started to be used to produce unique commercial content
The ad money maybe doesn't cover it, but it'll be worldwide footing the bill won't it? just as World only relatively recently became profitable
if these commercial enterprises fail, as far as I'm aware the BBC has no financial responsiblity (unlike the private backers)
this all came out when people accused the BBC of using license fee money to buy lonely planet....which it wasn't
David Preiser:
Ben,
The BBC won't get left holding the bag if the commercial enterprise which is BBC America fails, but that's the legal loophole of an LLC. That doesn't have anything to do with where the founding money came from, nor where the money comes from now to prop it up.
BBC America as a marketing and distribution division has been around for many years, much longer than the tv channel. It is ultimately under the umbrella of, as you point out, Worldwide, which makes oodles of cash.
Of course, BBC Worldwide is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC. It makes a profit on its own, but as owner, Auntie makes a packet.
We could also discuss at length just how much money BBC Worldwide makes on the magazines. The bulk of that money is tied directly into the incestuous relationship Auntie has with the child company. Top Gear Magazine wouldn't exist without the show itself, etc.
As you well know, BBC World gets its own funding from a grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but that's also your tax money at work, just a different tax.
It shouldn't be too difficult to find out which of the news reports they show on BBC World News America are made by BBC World, and which are made by your own BBC in Britain. Any of the latter are essentially funded by the license fee. If they are crap propaganda pieces and are shown in the US, that's your license fee being used for crap propaganda in my country.
Any of the former are crap propaganda pieces being shown in my country which are paid for by another branch of your own government. So it's still crap propaganda in my country being paid for by the government of an ally.
It all adds up to this: When Matt Frei and Katty Kay tell me how to vote, their salaries are paid for by BBC America, owned by BBC Worldwide, owned by the BBC. You pay various taxes which fund all of them.
Ben:
"As you well know, BBC World gets its own funding from a grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but that's also your tax money at work, just a different tax."
Actually I wasn't aware of that. I was aware that the World Service is funded by the FO, but not World.
"It all adds up to this: When Matt Frei and Katty Kay tell me how to vote, their salaries are paid for by BBC America, owned by BBC Worldwide, owned by the BBC. You pay various taxes which fund all of them."
Are you sure that their wages are paid for by the license fee and not Worldwide's various other sources of income? I'm certainly not, and I'd be surprised considering the sensitivity regarding how license fee money is used.
"BBC Worldwide has £350m available to spend on deals so critics ought to start getting used to these sorts of purchases. That money comes in the form of a loan from a syndicate of high-street banks."
http://
business.timesonline.co.u...icle2602557.ece
David Preiser:
Ben,
I'll accept that the license fee doesn't go towards Frei's compensation for his show over here, but I think he must get some compensation straight from Auntie for things like his recent, wrongheaded Washington Diary about China. Maybe that's why he doesn't come to the studio on Fridays, because he has a second paying gig, and not just because the budget is so low.
In any case, some of the news content shown in the first half hour of the daily broadcast is most certainly from the mother ship, BBC News specifically, which is part of what the license fee pays for. No matter where it's shown, paid for by the license fee.
Aside from any financial details, BBC Worldwide is still beholden to the Royal Charter, so even when he's doing his low budget show in the US, Frei needs to follow the guidelines. The blatant bias featured regularly on the news broadcast is definitely in breach of that. Further, giving favorable treatment to China by running a China Tourist Board advertisement immediately after a news segment on China (I've seen it three times in the last two months), is in breach of the Fair Trade Guidelines for commercial activities by BBC entities.
Robin:
Climate-Change Love-in:
The Corp's obsession with climate change reaches orgasmic new heights this morning with blanket doom-mongering coverage of the Bali scarefest.
On the website, environment correspondent Roger Black provides 'analysis' which contains not one iota of alternative opinion, and casts (surprise, surprise!) George Bush as the villain who won't go along with the tide.
There's nonsense galore about the billions needed for an 'adaptation' fund, and of course, Indonesia's call for more money to protect forestry - without a single mention that one of the the biggest pressures on rainforests is now the EU's insane targets to generate 20% of energy via biofuels based on palm oil.
It's time our 'leaders' and the BBC read the Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of the Witches) - the 1520 Inquisition document by two anti-witch fanatics that defined new crime of 'witchcraft' and led to the judicial murder of thousands of innocent women. They would find many chilling parallels.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
