LYNDA: “How come you don’t watch it?”
THE DOCTOR: “I didn’t pay my licence fee.”
LYNDA: “Wha-? You get executed for that!”
Comment would be superfluous dangerous.
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- tomo May 16, 2024 at 11:05 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1791189354049884226?t=ddPhDlifFp2Kpov6obqtnw&s=19
- Northern Voter May 16, 2024 at 10:21 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024No, Deborah, cows chew cud, the bbc and msm are at the other end of the bovine alimentary canal.
- Deborah May 16, 2024 at 10:09 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024Just heard on GBNews that the cause of the bug in the water in the South West COULD have been...
- tomo May 16, 2024 at 9:55 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024The idea that the dynamic duo of Woodward + Bernstein were just lucky, hardworking journos ...
- StewGreen May 16, 2024 at 9:54 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024What's the difference between Boris John and Starmer ? Boris Johnson is a liar, WITH charm
- Fedup2 May 16, 2024 at 9:44 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024Yes those are fair points . I still think he got the do do end of the stick over the...
- Thoughtful May 16, 2024 at 9:39 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024You might want to rethink that as Nixon took the US off the Gold Standard which has led to all...
- Fedup2 May 16, 2024 at 9:28 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024Harry - I still don’t get the 46% thing - did she have a DNA test showing 46% African genes...
- harry142857 May 16, 2024 at 9:21 pm on Midweek 15th May 202446% accounts for the dishonesty, race baiting, delusionary and scamming that is the hallmark of Nigeria.
- Fedup2 May 16, 2024 at 9:12 pm on Midweek 15th May 2024Not the BBC But talk of Ukraine using more US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory - and Russia...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Sorry, I’m still in awe at this: “I recommend jihadwatch.org generally as a forum for people who are afraid that their heads are going to be cut off in the long run.”
I agree. Oh yes, I agree. My word, how I agree…
I love you guys.
Just a reminder – john b’s silly website has repeatedly recommended the assassination of named politicians.
SOME CLOWN ON THE TODAY SHOW THIS MORNING, I THINK HE WAS CALLED NAUGHTIE, OR SOMETHING, WAS TALKING ABOUT THE JACKSON JURY AFTER THE TRIAL SPEAKING TO THE MEDIA. “Well, that’s what American juries are like…” or words to that effect. IS THAT AN OPINION FROM THE NEWS DEPARTMENT OF THE HOLY BBC? Well, hush my mouth!
Easy on the caps lock button, Winston.
Getting back to what matters, anonymous said, “Can everyone accept now that the “45 second” thing was just a joke, and not an anti-war conspiracy?”
Actually I could not suspend disbelief in the most recent episode of Dr Who because it was all too jokey and knowing. It rested on the premise that even after enough time has passed for the human race to be on its fourth galactic empire people will still be obsessed with British television programmes of the period 2000-2005. While it is nice to have BBC acknowledgement that the world view of this website is the human norm, I felt that the makers had a slightly exaggerated view of the historical importance of their own colleagues.
Must admit that the kids loved it, though.
Check it out, Natalie et. al:
Omar from Iraq the Model was interviewed extensively for the Beeb’s “One Day in Iraq” series but nothing from his interviews was used.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/restricted-blog-bbc-not-allowed.html
Excerpt from OMar:
“The name “One Day in Iraq” seemed interesting to me and I thought that this time the BBC was really trying to get the news from the people who live here but obviously that wasn’t the case as it now appears that they couldn’t get rid of their selective biased attitude in choosing the news they want to show.
As I said yesterday, I was out of town for a few days so I couldn’t follow up the story until yesterday and when I did I found that my story was not there; it was for some reason ignored or omitted from the part of the show that talked about blogs and media. Instead I found two stories where other two bloggers where featured; one of them was a teenage Iraqi girl who was pissed off because she couldn’t read French and the other one was actually in the States on June 7!!
john b,
What’s wrong with Jihadwatch? Robert Spencer is a Maronite Christian whose family lived under racist, discriminatory Islamic laws for centuries. Strangely enough, he doesn’t want to see similar laws come to the fore in his new country. Imagine that, how unfriendly of the man.
I suppose that a similar website critiqueing discriminatory Jim Crow or apartheid laws against black people would also meet with your disapproval?
If there was a block option I would have blocked John B(ullshit)’s posts a long while ago. I’ve got one reply to him and his likes – a cricket-bat.
Susan – if an Arab whose family had been oppressed by Jews in Palestine were to turn up in London and start ranting about how the Jews were plotting to take over the UK and cut all our heads off, then I’d think he was a gibbering maniac too.
Joerg – glad to know you realise you can’t beat me without resorting to violence…
It’s not like you on the left are strangers to violence though – remember your mate Stalin’s Gulags?
John b,
Spencer doesn’t rant. He methodically exposes various attempts to sharia-ize the West.
Your analogy to Judaism is ignorant and holds no water. Jews do not have as an essential doctrine of their theology an admonition to “convert all the world to a Jewish state.”
Unfortunately, Islam DOES have the admonition to “convert the whole world to an Islamic state” as part of their politico/religio doctrine. Sharia law is an essential part of their religion. That’s why all Muslim countries have some variation of it, although most do not go whole hog into the stonings and hand-choppings. (The partial implementation of sharia, with its unjust laws against women and non-Muslims, is bad enough.)
Spencer’s writings are backed up by hundreds of Islamic dawah websites that routinely brag, or at least hint very strongly, about how they are going to create Islamic states in the West, by hook or by crook. Do you know how many Islamic websites do just that, and that, no, not all of them are run by a “tiny minority of extremists”?
Take IslamOnline for instance — which is considered a “mainstream” and “moderate” Islamic site — but which is affiliated with Sheikh al-Qaradawi of “let’s throw gay people off of tall buildings” and “I’m Red Ken’s best buddy” fame.
I disassociate myself from Joerg’s comments btw. Some of your view points are easily beatable without resorting to violence.
Susan, in regards to the left I like to polarise and – if you like – use Reagan’s stragety: Don’t use force unless absolutely necessary but be ready to show that you’re willing to use it. No blood on my cricket bat so far. 😉
By the way: The Beeb’s 10 O’Clock News just had an interview with Iran’s designated President Rafsanjani. Did they ask him tough questions? Nah… I seem to have heard the “reporter” asking him: “So is the US the big satan to you and Britain little satan?” What the heck was that all about??????
Joerg – This webpage should explain it – LOL
http://www.tvradioworld.com/region2/irn/
It would be the same as a commercial media operation giving a hard time to on of their major advertisers – ain’t gonna happen.
Yes, I know but I was still hoping they might ask him what he made of stonings of women and so forth. Oh no, I forgot, we’re talking about the BBC – not a network that asks controversial questions…
I wonder who desecrated the Jewish Cemetary in West Ham… probably the Tories, Rumsfeld, Bush???
I guarantee the BBC will report the racist offenders as ‘youths’ – LOL
A really tough question for the BBC to ask Rafsanjani would be – “We know your feelings about homosexuality, but how do you feel about us kissing your arse?”
Rafsanjani is on record as stating that Iran would nuke Tel Aviv the minute Iran obtains workable nuclear weapons. He said that even if Israel retaliated, they wouldn’t be able to kill all the Irananians, but Iran would be able to kill all the Israelis.
The MSM is presenting this man as “pro-Western.” Just like Sheikh “Throw-the-gay-people-from-tall-buildings” al-Qaradawi, bosom buddy of Red Ken.
The MSM is not our friend.
Rafsanjani is on record as stating that Iran would nuke Tel Aviv the minute Iran obtains workable nuclear weapons. He said that even if Israel retaliated, they wouldn’t be able to kill all the Irananians, but Iran would be able to kill all the Israelis.
I’m sure all the Palestinians will be happy to know that – not to mention the Syrians, Jordanians. Lebanese, Egyptians, and Saudis. Until they realise that the nuclear fallout, assuming the Iranis were successful, will take out most of them as well. It would be interesting to see how they’ll all tackle the issue should it become nearer to liklihood.
How would they tackle the issue? By moving to the West claiming asylum – how else! (And once again it would be the Jews fault)
“Rafsanjani is on record as stating that Iran would nuke Tel Aviv the minute Iran obtains workable nuclear weapons.”
If he’s on record, you’ll be able to provide us with a link…
.
Susan,
All universalist creeds, religious or political, of necessity think that it would be for the good of all men to act according to the truth. Thus I
do not hold it against Islam that it has an imperative to convert the whole world to an Islamic state: once one accepts the truth of Islam, they can’t help it.
I do not accept the truth of Islam. Hence I do not wish a world Islamic state and will oppose it. However my opposition to that has a different character than my opposition to those Muslims who wish to use violence. The former are playing within the rules of the game, so to speak, and the latter are not.
I realise that the distinction I have made is a product of patterns of thought originating in European/Western historical circumstances, but I do not think that it is forever inaccessible to Muslims (or anyone else) thereby. Quite large numbers of Muslims accept the “democratic envelope” now.
Ah yes – that would comments such as these:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
But don’t feel obliged to apologise to Susan, PJF.
DumbJon, not surprisingly, there is nothing in your link to sustain Susan’s statement that “Rafsanjani is on record as stating that Iran would nuke Tel Aviv the minute Iran obtains workable nuclear weapons.”
Even if it had, I hardly think the suggestion of providing a link requires an apology. Links are supposed to be what makes blogs better than the MSM.
.
Come off it, PJF. Your use of ellipsis is clearly meant to imply that you think Susan is making it all up. Rafsanjani’s comments are well known in the blogosphere – just becuase you personally have not read them is not grounds to suggest Susan is lying.
As to the comments themselves, Rafsanjani calls on Muslim states to nuke Israel and, yes, Iran is indeed a Muslim state developing nukes. That ought to be enough to convince anyone outside Santa Monica – or the BBC.
this excerpt,
“It’s not that radical Islamism is getting a pass from Western progressives and liberals, but it is the case that many are not being critical enough,” says Anderson. When certain polemicists are spreading simplistic ideas about “Islamo-Fascism,” he continues, “there’s a tendency to say that this isn’t so. But the fact is that while radical Islamism has many features and faces, everywhere it is antifeminist, everywhere it is authoritarian, and everywhere it is intolerant of other religions and other interpretations of Islam.”
from this article,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/06/12/the_philosopher_and_the_ayatollah/?page=full
all from arts & letters daily.
PJF
Come on, be fair. I had never seen those awful statements by Rafsanjani. Don’t you think they are incredibly bloodthirsty ?
And he is supposed to be a moderate. The BBC made great play yesterday to suggest that he would not be seeking nuclear weapon capability. Why did they not challenge him with those statements – so that we can judge whether to trust him ?
PJF – do you trust him? Or do you take the BBC airbrushed view of a benign old geezer ?
I have no love for the Iranian government; nor for Islam in general. I desire very strongly that nuclear weapons are kept out of (and removed from) the hands of the Islamic world. I believe the BBC is biased about this and a great many other issues.
Nevertheless, Susan’s statement:
“Rafsanjani is on record as stating that Iran would nuke Tel Aviv the minute Iran obtains workable nuclear weapons.”
has not been supported. No link. No evidence. Is it true or not? If not, was it made out of ignorance or bias?
I believe I am being fair.
.
PJF,
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=iran&ID=SP32502
Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem
Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons] – on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.
(See article for sources).
A contrary Rafsanjani statement:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=399
Our country is in a position to be an important center for the study of nuclear issues, and to help others in this field – for peaceful purposes.
Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we’re entitled to.
2 Raf. statements there. Choose which one you think is more likely to be true.
Susan may have been a little too precise but ‘Raf’ certainly is on record as promoting the nuclear destruction of Israel. Big surprise.
That’s the thing. For all the desperate hairsplitting, Susan’s precis seems pretty accurate. More to the point, for all the people who argue that actually, Rafsanjani probably meant a week and…and…he didn’t mean Israel specifically, he just meant a hypothetical country, and…, it’s a country mile closer to the truth than our friends in SW1 portraying him as some kind of Al-Mandela.
An apology to Susan might be in order ? She is in the US so has not been able to post the link anyway ?
Or certainly – thanks Susan for pointing out how bad Rasfanjani really is. And therefore what creeps the BBC are for hiding this.
“An apology to Susan might be in order?”
Perhaps you phrased it as a question because you know no apology is warranted.
Some here seem to think that I didn’t do a web search before I suggested Susan back up her statement; that I hadn’t seen the Memri page in max’s link. And, of course, there is nothing in the Memri link to substantiate Susan’s statement. Not one thing.
“For all the desperate hairsplitting, Susan’s precis seems pretty accurate.”
What you see as desperate hairsplitting is in fact a straightforward ability to distinguish profoundly different things. Unless Susan, or someone else, can provide substantiation for her statement, it is utterly inaccurate to the extent of belonging in a right-wing equivalent of the Independent newspaper, written by a right-wing equivalent of Robert Fisk.
An apt analogy of Susan’s version would be:
As soon as I get a gun I’m going to come and kill you.
An appropriate analogy to (the relevant part of) Rafsanjani’s speech would be:
When I get a gun like yours you won’t be able to continue oppressing me because I’ll have a gun too and you’re a much easier target than I am.
It’s also worth making an analogy of a further part of Rafsanjani’s speech:
If shooting breaks out it’ll be a disaster so let’s stay calm.
I make that last one because it flies in the face of the Memri page supporting the notion of Rafsanjani stating Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it gets the Bomb. Again, nothing has been offered to back up Susan’s claim.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually believe Rafsanjani’s moderation in his speech. I do actually believe it likely that Iran (current theocracy) will attempt to use a nuclear weapon as a first strike (via a proxy) should it get hold of them; and the most likely target will be Israel. That’s my belief based on an overall, ongoing assessment of the nature of the beast. But my beliefs don’t incline me to make factual statements about things that I don’t know to be factual. To do so would not be conducive to clear thinking or worthy debate.
And annoyance at the lack of clear thinking and worthy debate on the comments section of Biased-BBC Blog is what led me to invite Susan to substantiate her statement. The general ill-considered barking and frothing here is tarnishing the reputation of this place. It’s making it easy for BBC supporters to dismiss everything else here. It’s making it difficult to find the real gems amongst the total crap.
Think on this: if President Bush made a statement that America’s nuclear deterrent works because China would be destroyed by America’s weapons, would you regard it as acceptable for the BBC to misrepresent his statement as, “We’re going to nuke China as soon as we can”?
If not, then why should Susan, or any of us here, get a pass for similar indiscretions?
.
**Confidential UN Report: Iran Admits to Early Plutonium Use
Iran has acknowledged working with small amounts of plutonium, a possible nuclear arms component, for years longer than it had originally admitted to, according to a confidential UN report made available to The Associated Press on Wednesday, THE JERUSALEM POST reported. The report, to be delivered today to a board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also said the Islamic republic received sensitive technology that could be used as part of a weapons program earlier than it originally said it did.
Marked “highly confidential,” the report was made available by a diplomat accredited to the agency who is not authorized to release such information to the media. The three-page report took stock of the present stage of a two-year probe of Iran’s nuclear activities. Full story
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1118802601390
Peter, Re:And, of course, there is nothing in the Memri link to substantiate Susan’s statement. Not one thing.
Memri gives the source for this story. Unless you are splitting hairs, which would mean that only that which you know to be true from direct experience can be considered valid, and everything else is unsubstantiated, then any debate with you is always going to be pointless. What proof are you looking for?
Also, there is no real contrariness to Rafsanjani’s statements, only a strategy. On the one hand he wants to set himself up as THE MUSLIM LEADER, that is going to destroy Israel – the Islamic arch enemy. On the other, said a few years later, as he approaches the realisation of his nuclear attainment, and the last thing he wants is for Israel to make a pre-emptive strike, so he preaches peaceful intention.
Makes perfect sense to me.
P.S. Otherwise, why do you think Saudi Arabia is so worried about Iran’s nuclear capability, after all they wouldn;t be thinking that they would be the target – at least not directly.
A confidential European Union briefing note made available to The Associated Press cited the Saudi deputy foreign affairs minister, Prince Turki bin Muhammad bin Saud al-Kabira, as telling European envoys over the weekend that “Iran should cooperate for the safety of the whole region” in ensuring its nuclear aims were peaceful.
“Memri gives the source for this story.”
Where? Show where it illustrates that Rafsanjani is on record as saying Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it acquires nuclear weapons.
The Memri page does include the words “Rafsanjani”, “Iran”, “nuclear” and “Israel”. Is that it?
“Unless you are splitting hairs, which would mean that only that which you know to be true from direct experience can be considered valid, and everything else is unsubstantiated, then any debate with you is always going to be pointless. What proof are you looking for?”
Utter, utter bollocks. By your reasoning we can’t dispute anything the BBC or the Guardian say because we’d be splitting hairs.
You do expect the BBC to be able to verify its stories, yes?
.
These are the sources that Memri gives.Following are core elements of the speech, as reported in Iran’s English, Farsi and Arabic newspapers.[1] As none of these sources provided a direct transcript of Rafsanjani’s speech, all style problems can be attributed to the original Iranian English version which we adhered to:
Who else do you think will be allowed into Tehran University to hear the sermon, or is this enough for you?
PJF
I had never realised that Tafsanjani had uttered such warlike statements. OK he was not saying HE would launch bombs on Day 1, but he seemed very happy to think bombs should be launched against Israel.
In that sense, it is not in the same league as the right-wing moonbats saying that Bush is like Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot.
And you have not commented on whether the BBC is giving him an easy ride.
“Who else do you think will be allowed into Tehran University to hear the sermon, or is this enough for you?”
I don’t see where you are going with this. Are you saying that because there isn’t an official transcript of the speech, everyone should use their judgement and add value to the translations? And from that it’s OK to conclude that something that wasn’t said anywhere indicates that that something is on the record as being said?
Looks like sheer moonbattery to me.
.
“And you have not commented on whether the BBC is giving him an easy ride.”
That’s because I’m not addressing the BBC’s standards in this discussion; I’m addressing ours.
You can’t tackle the BBC’s standards by adopting the standards of Robert Fisk.
.
But surely inflammatory statements like the one he made are worthy of mention by the BBC.
This is the pattern of BBC reporting – they consistently underplay the rabid utterances from leaders expressing utter hatred of Israel and the Great Satan – and then blame all the ills of the Middle East on Israel, and even allow others without challenge to say that the Great Satan brought 9/11 on itself.
Peter, I must admit, that for somebody I normally regard as intelligent, your stubborness in this matter really surprises me.
Memri obtains all their information from monitoring radio, tv, and newspapers reports. Here they give the sources where they obtained the gist of Rafsanjani’s speech. You can be sure that ALL newspapers and media outlets in Iran, are very much under the thumb of the ruling elite. If you imagine for one moment that they are going to misrepresent Rafsanjani, by reporting something that he didn’t say or infer, then the fate desired by Iran for Salman Rushdie would be pale by comparison as to what would happen to them.
All Memri has done, and does do, is to present this news to the international reader. They don’t give opinions, but it then up to the individual to deduce whatever they do from it.
Why on earth are you being so obstructive about this:?::?::?:
Upon reflection I see a couple of flaws in Mr. Rafsanjani’s nuclear strategy, chief of which is ignoring the fact that the biggest nuclear power on the planet is an ally of Israel and quite capable of reducing Iran, Iraq and associated regions to radioactive glass.
Of course we don’t do the sort of thing…at least not yet.
When we talk about people to whom suicide bombing is an acceptable strategy, the fact that their logic is flawed by our standard, still leaves one wondering.
It is possible they are trying to draw Israel into making a pre-emptive attack on them, that would in turn lead to sanction being imposed on Israel. If they can get the world to get rid of Israel’s nuclear weapons, then then would leave Israel as a softer target than it is right now.
For sure, any Muslim leader that can diminish Israel’s power is going to gain immense kudos within the Muslim world. This was Saddam’s strategy until he was deposed.
Sorry folks, I have been offline a couple of days due to Internet malfunction.
PJF,
The Memri story was indeed what I was thinking of when I made that statement, but I quoted from memory and it did appear 2 1/2 years ago. Sorry if I wasn’t precise enough to pass your muster.
“This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”
This to me sounds like a threat. So I’ll change my statement to “Rafsanjani is on record as hinting that Tehran would nuke Israel when Iran gets nuclear weapons.” A very strong hint.
At any rate: why isn’t the Beeb (and other MSM) reporting his comments? Are they not newsworthy?
And now the opponent in the election run-off is described by the BBC as hard-line compared with Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani is presented as nice cuddly moderate.
More BBC bias and incomplete reporting. We should be told some of the nasty things that Rafsanjani says, some of the causes he supports. And then told specifically how the Teheran mayor is even more harsh.
Rafsanjani has also been fingered as the bagman for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people:
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000216-print.html
Don’t suppose the Beeb mentioned that, either.
Here’s a clue from this article at Forbes, as to why the BBC are calling Rafsanjani ‘moderate’. It’s worth reading the whole article, to see what the BBC are not reporting.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0721/024.html
…None of this sits well with the populace, whose per capita income is $1,800 a year. The gossip on the street, going well beyond the observable facts, has the Rafsanjanis stashing billions of dollars in bank accounts in Switzerland and Luxembourg; controlling huge swaths of waterfront in Iran’s free economic zones on the Persian Gulf; and owning whole vacation resorts on the idyllic beaches of Dubai, Goa and Thailand. But not much of the criticism makes its way into print. One journalist who dared to investigate Rafsanjani’s secret dealings and his alleged role in extrajudicial killings of dissidents is now languishing in jail. He’s lucky. Iranian politics can be deadly. Five years ago Tehran was rocked by murders of journalists and anticorruption activists; some were beheaded, others mutilated. Some of the family’s wealth is out there for all to see. Rafsanjani’s youngest son, Yaser, owns a 30-acre horse farm in the superfashionable Lavasan neighborhood of north Tehran, where land goes for over $4 million an acre. Just where did Yaser get his money? A Belgian-educated businessman, he runs a large export-import firm that includes baby food, bottled water and industrial machinery.
Teddy Bear:
Everyone who follows Iranian politics knows that Raffers and the other mullahs have made huge bucks off the so called “Islamic Revolution” (which they hypocritcally prefer to invest in the infidel West.) Bribery is a fact of life and is one of the reasons why so many people always die in Iranian earthquakes — building codes are a joke, the builders just pay the local mullah to look the other way at sub-standard buildings.
More than 70,000 people died in the last major Iranian earthquake — a quake of a magnitude that might have killed two or three people in California. The difference is shoddy building standards.
Su’ – It’s revealing that in the BBC profile of Raf..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4104532.stm
They only mention the fact of his embezzlement, reckoned to be @ 9 billion dollars, (which would put him among the top 25 richest men in the world), under the sub-heading of
‘US plots’
There have been persistent accusations that he amassed a personal fortune thanks to his political connections – allegations that he has always denied.
After the war in Iraq, he used Friday prayers to denounce US “plots” in the region.
Highly misleading at first glance. The BBC prefer to call him a ‘pragmatic conservative’. The only definition I can think of to justify that title, is “will stop at nothing, and use every means to get his way”. Somebody(ies) must be getting huge kickbacks to present this tyrant in such a soft light.