has a good example of BBC think:
Abroad Again in Britain
BBC2 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Salisbury Cathedral
Salisbury Cathedral boasts the highest spire in Britain. Jonathan Meades, who was raised in its shadow, returns to one of the country’s finest medieval buildings. He wonders how an atheist can love a building dedicated to the propagation of medieval superstitions and fears.
Can you imagine that last sentence being used to refer to, say, a mosque or a temple or a synagogue? No, me neither.
Naturally the critics are out, the US led initiative on climate change won’t crippple their economy you see. To many Kyoto fanatics that was the main objective (which surely wasn’t stopping tackling climate change given that even Kyoto’s bent science concluded that it would have minimal effect).
Here is another outrageous example of BBC bias by omission. A local Muslim MP calls on the Chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque to resign – but the report gives virtually none of the cause of the big fuss over what he said. The flavour is only that he had been critical of Blair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4723731.stm
In fact in his moonbat statement the Chairman had sought to DENY that Muslims were involved in recent bombings – that Blair and everyone else was probably lying about it all. Total DENIAL.
Reports in newspapers give a COMPLETELY different slant to the anodyne BBC report. The FT headline was “Muslims nothing to do with attacks”. The guy also claimed that Al Qaeda does not exist – it is all a CIA get-up :
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e63828c0-ff04-11d9-94b4-00000e2511c8.html
This story has the Chairman denying that the CCTV photos were of the perpetrators :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/nas28.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/28/ixnewstop.html
NONE of all this dangerous denial nonsense is reflected in the BBC report. Who wrote it or edited it ? Another apologist for terrorism ?
BBC Fan
Abolish the licence fee and lets see how many people volutarily pay for its crappy output.
Until thn, bear in mind that you are supporting an organizaion funded by coersion. Support of the BBC reminds me of the kind of support that used to be enjoyed by Saddam Hussain i.e. non existant once people had a choice.
When the BBC enters the battle for ideas on a level playing field and removes from the population the threat of prosecutiion, you may start crowinng again, until then remember that its my goddamnned cash that funds your little fantasy.
Apparently the offending Birmingham mosque Chairman was given a long chunk of airtime on Radio 5 Midday News to spout his nonsense – unchallenged.
With no mention that he is the main funder of the Respect party.
And he has been on Radio 5 live again this morning. And the BBC Midland News.
Have the BBC NO CLUE???
Another indication of the BBC moving even further to the moonbat extreme in its coverage.
If the BBC kept giving a platform to the BNP there would be massive criticism. Yet the BBC persists in giving extensive platform to Respect.
An example of the kind of ‘auto-bias’ due to recuiting staff from left-wing sources:
MPs press Charles to quit Duchy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4721517.stm
Can someone explain why ‘Republic’ (http://www.republic.org.uk/) are linked to under the
“RELATED INTERNET LINKS:” for this article? They are not quoted in the article, have not made a statement and infact are nothing to do with the MPs report out today.
This is just ‘auto-bias’, any report on a ‘Royal’ is accompanied by links to left-wing anti-royal campaign groups whose views fit in with the BBC’s underlying agenda, even when the group have nothing to do with the news report of the page.
So that clear then: the Chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque (Dr Mohammed Naseem – I suspect we’ll be hearing from him again) funds George Galloways extremist anti-semitic party, states that al Quaeda doesn’t exist, it’s a creation of the CIA, that Muslims did not commit mass murder in London on 7/7 and that Blair and the Police are lying about it.
The BBC’s response is to soft soap him, to airbrush the grisly details away. How glad I am that I don’t pay for this charade.
BBC fan (wtf?)
You’re obviously not aware that Parliament, Congress and Canberra aren’t obliged to do what the French and Germans would like. I know it’s not very internationalist of us but, hey, suck it up. As you are so fond of polls and obliging governments to follow them, I look forward to your statements of support for a return of tight immigration controls, corporal punishment in schools and hanging.
Pete
I thought people here would like that one !
I hope our hard-working blog hosts give a separate thread to the BBC non-story on the Birmingham Mosque Chairman. That is so blatant – a lot of other blogs would pick up on it and link to it.
The last days of ‘Londonistan’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4720603.stm
Paul Reynolds highlights the issues surrounding deportation of those preaching jihad or glorifying terrorism.
Decent article. The title is a little misleading though. As the article points out, there are huge difficulties in deporting these people, so we are far from the i>’last days’ of Londonistan, unless we can begin to take action that is not prohibited by current Human Rights legislation.
Useful to quote Cherie in the article, I think this story, “Cherie, Human Rights, and Terrorists” has further to go……
Susan
We know that leftism is a mental illness. The left keeps on demonstrating this, day after day. No one person can keep up with the madness which pours out of the left, hence the popularity of sensible bloggers (I think the left likes to call them ‘right-wing.)
Does leftist sickness have limits? Who knows, but no example of what the left can do winds me up, really gets under my skin as much as this:
HEAD’S WIDOW ASKED TO APLOGISE TO KILLER
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/28/napol28.xml
In short, Philip Lawrence, a school Headmaster, was murdered by a 15 year old Filipino, Learco Chindamo, while trying to protect another pupil from Chindamo’s bunch of thugs. Chindamo is found guilty and sentenced to life, which in the UK is now down to about 10 years.
Chindamo is never remorseful for what he did, never apologetic, for which Mr Lawrence’s widow criticises him. Now get this (from the Telegraph link):
A probation officer telephoned the widow of the murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence and asked her to apologise to her husband’s killer for upsetting him. The woman told Frances Lawrence that Learco Chindamo was upset because she had criticised him for not showing remorse for the murder. Mrs Lawrence, 51, a mother of four, was deeply distressed by the call. She said the officer claimed that an apology would make Chindamo “feel happier” when he came before prison authorities for assessment.
That Probation Officer just about sums up for me the whole damned left. Batting for the killer, looking out for the killer, working for the killer, feeling for the killer and screw the victim. They are a sick sick bunch.
Pete_london and johninlondon.
You guys are priceless!
Paul Reynolds (I know you’re out there)
A couple of points on your ‘The last days of Londonistan’ piece:
1. Some favour more radical solutions than hoping for a more compliant judiciary. Sir Andrew Green, a former senior British diplomat who now runs campaign group Migration Watch UK, says there needs to be “fundamental review of the whole system”. “We should withdraw from the 1951 Convention and have a national convention for asylum which would cut out the abuse.
These measures are not ‘more radical’ in any sense. They are certainly ‘more sensible’ and ‘more popular’ but not radical. I’m sure one of the BBC’s famous polls or ‘Have Your Say’ threads will demonstrate this.
2. But a warning against such an approach has come from none other than Mr Blair’s wife, Cherie Booth, a lawyer.
When the spouse of the PM uses their professional status in an attempt to influence government policy, that’s ‘radical’.
The Telegraph found the Birmingham mosque Chairman/main funder of Respect to be worth an editorial.
But was it covered on BBC main TV news, or main radio news ? Or Five Live ? Or the Today programme – or ANYWHERE significant on the BBC other than to simply broadcast his poisonous dangerous words ? Was it hell. Respect gets another platform and clear run – at our expense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/28/dl2802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/28/ixoplead.html
Pete
Yes, quite unnecessary use of epithets such as “radical” and “controversial” for anyone thinking outside the BBC bubble is another hallmark of BBC bias.
OT
Miam,
Funny listening to Humphries this morning and the piece on USA/Australia/China/Japan et al voluntary agreement on climate change technologies
It was funny to hear Humphries go through contortions because they would dare pretend to actually do something about climate change rather than wring their hands,have a few meetings, and sign a questionable international agreement to which barely any of the signatories are meeting targets for…
He said a cynical person might point out that the US just wants to make Third World counties purchase the new technology…
I don’t know…if I came up with a new technology, I think I would prefer my target demographic to be those who could afford it rather than people I’m going to have to give the money with which to purchase it to.
That’s just me, though…
Sheesh.
Yeah, abolishing the rule of law isn’t radical at all, is it? Maybe we can intern and gas all the Muslims afterwards; I’m sure that wouldn’t be seen as radical either.
BTW, this is absolute nonsense: “The people on Ark Royal would have access to the true information on the war’s progress. They would be perfectly placed to assess BBC bias. You, sitting safely at home, only know what the BBC tells you.“. No, aside from the senior commanding officers, military personnel serving in the frontline of a war will (for obvious operational reasons) know far less about the overall progress of the war than someone at home viewing a wide range of press sources…
“if I came up with a new technology, I think I would prefer my target demographic to be those who could afford it rather than people I’m going to have to give the money with which to purchase it to.”
The latter business model has worked reasonably well for the arms industry.
BTW, Pete: the probation officer story is appalling. You forgot, however, to mention that the relevant officer was sacked for misconduct; that the guidelines for probation officers specifically tell them not to contact victims; that the probation officers’ union agreed the sacking was justified; and that nobody involved with the case tried to justify it or showed any signs of anything other than horror that it had happened. In other words, one idiot != the left.
Here’s john b again, folks. The guy who recommends the assassination of specific public figures on his site.
Did anyone notice anyone calling for abolition of the rule of law ? I must have missed it. And who is talking about interning and gassing all Muslims – except john b ?
“Moonbat infestation in Aisle 3 !”
Actually John, a nation state withdrawing from an international treaty isn’t in the slightest bit radical at all. “International Law” is such a misunderstood beast and the fact that you any many others would believe that changing or withdrawing from a treaty would be such an scandalous proposition is indicative of that. I recommend: “The Limits of International Law” by Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner. : Oxford
University Press, 2005, as a good overall picture of what International law is intended for and how it develops.
Further to the opinion polls on Iraq, covered much higher on this thread –
This was the state of play among the BBC’s funders immediately before the war, ie after the UN resolution became impossible
YouGov poll 18/3/03
Do you think the United States and Britain are right or wrong to take military action against
Iraq (unless Saddam leaves the country)?
Right 50
Wrong 42
Don’t know 8
Click to access CLO020101003.pdf
Sorry, I misread the original piece and thought the Beeb was describing lobbying for “a more compliant judiciary” as radical, which it would be (as well as dreadfully, dreadfully wrong). While I disagree with Browne’s proposal, and would still rate it as radical (every other state in the world seems to discharge its responsibilities under the 1951 treaty without any major problems), it clearly isn’t damaging the rule of law.
Well John there clearly is an huge problem here, it’s a matter of what is responsible. I would say it’s the combination of the Human Rights Act with the 1951 Geneva Convention, and I’m more minded to scrap the latter, not only due to its use in not allowing the deportation of foreign individuals who act or preach against the state but mostly due to the fact it’s a particualarly poor, ambiguous piece of legislation that does not live up to the overall standards of British Law.
Sorry, scrap the former ie the Human Rights Act 1998
I bet I couldn’t turn up in any Middle East country claiming to be under threat of political violence (eg the dangers of Belfast), say the magic words “asylum seeker” and then be safe there for several years if not forever, defended at the host country’s cost by a whole industry of Human Rights lawyers. And even allowed to stay while I preached hatred and even violence against my new hosts.
The trouble is that the 1951 Convention no longer fits modern times including mass air travel; and the UK legal superstructure slavishly follows the badly-drafted HR Act without proper attention to our security. Others may say they adhere to the convention – but they don’t.
“one idiot != the left”
For once I agree. You need a whole group of idiots to start socialism.
From a N. American point of view, the Beeb has indeed become an odd organ that bears little or no resemblence to the Corporation we could at least recognize as British.
BBC World’s coverage of the Iraqi invasion was completely and utterly disgraceful, and left me wanting to burn my television. British troops were on the ground in Iraq risking their lives, and we had to watch these socialist, bleeding heart reporters, running around with mikes trying to find any Iraqi willing to express impromptu rage about the arrival of allied troops on their soil. The BBC reporters were like fifth columnist working with a script that was the polar opposite of the allied strategy, determined to side with any Ba’athist ex-torturer willing to vent on camera.
From a cosmetic point of view, the news shows on BBC World also reflect the changing cultural agenda at the Corporation. While immigration accounts for a rise in the British east Asian population … in the population at large the split between Brits of Asian descent and indigenous Brits is not even close to 50/50, yet on BBC World on-air personnel of obvious anglo-saxon lineage are fast becoming extinct. By the way, this is no sense a racial issue for me because news readers like Michelle Hussein are second to none. But it does reflect the mind set of the BBC and it’s determination to alter “the face” of all and everything that can be remotely taken to be traditionally British.
It’s a bit like the media equivalent of ethnic cleansing.
Just like the BBC should be funded by voluntary subscription, Asylum should be funded by voluntary charity.
After the debacle of the terrorist asylum granted criminals. Taxpayers should have the choice to decide who deserves their money.
You had enough money to cross the whole of europe. If there’s no charity money for you, then find another country! Don’t dip in MY wallet or crawl on MY back.
BTW, this is absolute nonsense: “The people on Ark Royal would have access to the true information on the war’s progress. They would be perfectly placed to assess BBC bias. You, sitting safely at home, only know what the BBC tells you.”. No, aside from the senior commanding officers, military personnel serving in the frontline of a war will (for obvious operational reasons) know far less about the overall progress of the war than someone at home viewing a wide range of press sources… Bollocks
The crew of the Ark Royal would know far more about the progress of the war than any civilian sitting at home. The Military imposes a news blackout on the locations and strengths of our forces for obvious reasons. However, do you not think a Fleet Air Arm pilot might need to know where the British/US/Aussie troops are, if he’s going to avoid dropping a bomb on them. You obviously don’ know the first thing about the millitary and are talking total shit (as usual).
Rob Read – try not getting your news from the Daily Express: the terrorists were not asylum cases. The 7/7 terrorists (ie the ones who actually did any harm) were native-born Brits with non-asylum-seeker parents; even the rubbish ones we’re currently trying to catch had asylum-granted parents rather than being asylum cases themselves.
Also, I sincerely hope that one day you find yourself poor, desperate and reliant on the generosity of others. Maybe then you’d be less of a callous b*stard.
The BBC. Helping people of the world know their ‘rights’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/index.shtml
Many interesting articles, but how can the BBC keep it’s impartiality when most of it’s journo’s worldwide are wrapped up in happy-clappy human rights r-us campaigns with strong ties to NGOs/campaign groups?
They then apply the same ‘rights’ criticism/framework to the UK as if the country was run by the likes of Mugabe.
You can see how this rubs off on BBC news output. This is their world. It’s ‘normal’.
I don’t give a toss whether they are poor, desperate and verging on expiring. When people from Islamic countries seek asylum in the UK, they better understand that they are entering a pluralistic, democratic society in which their Islamo fascist ideology will never fly. No amount of prior persecution, starvation or hardship in parts unknown justifies any action ‘soever that targets innocent civilians – period. Bleeding heart lefties need to realize they are being used as dupes, and that their compassion is perceived by the unscrupulous as weakness.
Which “rubbish” ones ? The ones the Met Commissioner describes a A Team not B Team ? There was virtually the same explosive found in Leeds as was used last Thursday in London and was found the Southgate flat.
Rubbish ? but they came close to killing scores of people ? If you think they are rubbish I hope you meet them in a dark alley. The sooner the better.
Anonymous: yes, refugees who come here to blow up British civilians deserve to be punished. Refugees who do not should not. The ratio at the moment appears to be approximately 250,000:2.
JiL: rubbish in that their bombs didn’t go off, they didn’t kill anyone, one of them got caught, and the others will follow suit before long. Being rubbish terrorists doesn’t stop them from being evil bastards – indeed, there are plenty of utterly rubbish criminals I still wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley.
(if I were as tedious as you, I’d seriously consider following up every comment you make from today onwards with “remember JohninLondon has expressed a desire for a named individual to be killed by terrorists for his political views”).
Using the description “rubbish terrorists” shows how insanely stuppid you are.
You john b recommend the assassination of named, elected politicians.
I have expressed a wish that you meet what you call rubbish terrorists in a dark alley. If they are indeed rubbish you will obviously come to no harm. Indeed I am sure they will be welcoming you advising them of all their legal rights, while complaining about the brutality of the British police.
The 4.40 post was me. Nowhere did I say anyone should kill john b. But I would like him to meet the people whose danger he dismisses. With none of the powers the police rightly need – because he opposes these powers, including the right-to-protect with firearms shots.
He doesn’t like it when his glib remarks are turned back in his direction. He recommends assassinations, but makes light of terrorists who want to blow us up and most of whom are still out there.
John B,
“Also, I sincerely hope that one day you find yourself poor, desperate and reliant on the generosity of others. Maybe then you’d be less of a callous b*stard.”
Projecting again? Coercion funding of Asylum guarantees that it had nothing to do with generosity. Only voluntary donations can be described as generous!
I hope you one day have to convince someone to voluntarily give you something. Relying your whole life on coercing and enslaving the innocent is rather immoral. But then you are a lefty with a standard disgust for other peoples individualism.
The left has done much more to destroy the UK population that muslim terrorsists ever could. It’s the 120 million murdering lefty group think thats callous Matey boy.
let us not get distracted.the idea is to convince the majority of the uk population that the bbc is not providing a useful service.that it is a monoploy and takes public funds which it uses to reinforce its own prejudices.that we are better served by the free market.
i quote from the marvellous work of trevor asserson of bbc watch.
“chapter 2 of the producers guidelines.
the bbc is explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own opinions on current affairs….we consider that the bbc ignores this as if the obligation did not exist.”
are they not arrogant?
Miam
Thanks for the link to this, at first glance, bizarre site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/index.shtml
I haven’t got time right now to look through it but I wouldn’t be surprised to find some madness contained therein.
The BBC have pulled the Belmarsh Letters programme which was due on tonight (Thursday 28/7/05).
Unfortunately, they have not replaced it with the missing episode of Greenmantle.
Good news Andrew.
I’m sure it was my “1943” parody that did the trick š
Yep, I thought my ears were decieving me when I heard the R4 link man announcing that “blah blah…replaces tonight’s ‘Letters from Belmarsh'”.
A good call. I’d like to think that Biased-BBC had a hand in this by highlighting how unforgivable it would have been if the BBC had broadcast this sick programme. The earlier parody from Susan summed it up perfectly.
maybe Byford is an avid B-BBC reader and made a couple of “like WTF??!!” internal calls……
JohninLondon you can turn up any time in Israel – preach hatred against the country and be supported by every civil rights lawyer you choose – Amira Hass does it every day in Ha’aretz!
We’re now in the position which lefty theoreticians always use to demonstrate how liberal they are – the scenario the authorities have captured the bomber who knows where the bombs are (in this case, walking suicide bombs). The police must make the prisoner talk, but how much ‘compulsion’ can they use? The Left says none because it’s a price worth paying: a price paid by those who would die from the failure of the authorities to extract the necessary info from the captive. If the police fail to crack the would-be bomber and his coleagues succeed in blowing themseves to kingdom-come along with several victims, is this actionable by the relatives of the dead? Indeed, what does the Left (incl. the BBC) say about this real-life situation?
Actually, who *is* of my ilk around here? Hopefully not people who think references to cow dung and rectums constitute part of a meaningful debate.
Is ‘Teddy Bear’ indicative of the quality of conversation around here?
Teddy Bear:
I would advise you to stop reading ‘The Sun’ if you want to improve your analytical abilities.
Rather than looking through the archives of an anti-BBC forum, largely written by conservative thinkers who, against non-US first world public opinion, thought a pre-emptive strike on Iraq was a good idea, I found this article…:
My God guys š , you’ve torn a new rectum in this spouter of cow dung.
If at first you don’t succeed…
Burglar documentary to be shown
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4725931.stm
“Letters from Belmarsh” will be broadcast as soon as they think they can get away with it. Scum.
“The BBC’s coverage today reflects international public opinion”.
I agree BBC Fan.It is bigoted,often racist, arrogant, selective (i.e.biased)and often pig ignorant. Whenever it strays into science,it is double pig ignorant.
JiL – you really don’t get it, do you? As I said in my original comment, there are a great many people who could probably do me (or you, unless you’re very large or very skilled in martial arts) harm and/or do me in if I met them in a dark alley. Most of them are also rubbish.
Allan – since AQ are trained to resist torture, and someone under torture can always lie and say what he believes his torturers wish him to say, the ‘effectiveness vs morality’ tradeoff doesn’t arise. Nonetheless, even if it did I’d rather be blown up than have the government torture people in my name. If you would rather otherwise, I pity you for your lack of courage or morality.
John B
Do you watch 24? Ridiculous plots obviously but…. A terrorist has a nuke, he’s willing to kill millions of people. You know its him. You have him in custody. He won’t talk. What do you do?
You might be willing to die rather than have a government that tortures terrorist, but do you think many parents would prefer their children to die rather than a terrorist get tortured?
Obviously a very extreme and unlikely scenario (I hope). But do you honestly think that torture can never be justified?
In the Second World War Britain executed spies, do you honestly believe that they weren’t tortured before their execution? “Winners write history” and all that.
Andrew – apologies again.
Am I allowed to call john b a NASTY, DANGEROUS PRAT ? A TROLL ? Who twists words any which-way to support his evil views? Who only trolls here to try to sate his attention-seeking psyche ?
He HATES the idea that (brave) British policemen now have powers in extremis to shoot-to-protect.
We all hate that they are now forced into that position. But HE thinks they should go in soft. Handcuff the “rubbish” killers, not se lethal force.
Basically, he despises our police, and he despises British society. WE are beneath him. His address is Stalinist for good reason.
Allan – since AQ are trained to resist torture, and someone under torture can always lie and say what he believes his torturers wish him to say, the ‘effectiveness vs morality’ tradeoff doesn’t arise. Nonetheless, even if it did I’d rather be blown up than have the government torture people in my name. If you would rather otherwise, I pity you for your lack of courage or morality.
john b | Homepage | 28.07.05 – 11:53 pm | #
jb – I already sussed out your purpose on these boards weeks ago, along with a few others. Fact is you may well be blowing yourself up sometime in the future, although for the time being you have opted for the safer choice of patrolling these and similar boards. Since I am well aware of Islamist strategy against our society, as are most of us here, I’d be more surprised if you and your kind weren’t here. I’m willing to bet that I could torture any of you Islamist ‘heroes’ and you wouldn’t be able to resist, and I could also tell if you were lying to me, same as I know that you are misrepresenting yourself here, but you don’t have a clue as to how I know, and I won’t be telling you. For the record, All of the ‘government regimes’ you really work for already do torture people in what you call ‘your name’. You are the scum of the earth.