of yesterday’s Daily Express coverage of my Biased BBC story from Tuesday about the BBC’s “disproportionate” Question Time audience that was deliberately packed out with over five-times as many Muslims as a proportion of the British population.
 |
 |
 |
|
Click on each thumbnail to see clippings of the Daily Express front page coverage of Biased BBC’s original Question Time audience story. Courtesy Daily Express/PressDisplay.com. |
||
Just for good measure, there are a couple of cracking follow-up letters in today’s Daily Express:
Letter of the day
We don’t pay TV licence fees for BBC Muslim bias
THANK you for your excellent and courageous coverage of the BBC’s programme on questions of security (“Fury over BBC’s bias to Muslims”, August 4).
Last week I had an exchange of letters with one of the editors of the Today programme about another biased piece of reporting that was nakedly anti-American. The editor told me the BBC also took issue with British foreign policy.
Where does it enjoin the BBC to take issue with British policy abroad? The Royal Charter lays fown a duty of impartiality. The BBC was found severely wanting by Hutton and is now fighting a shameless rearguard action.
Undermining the credibility of this country, its government and the vast majority of its people seems to be top of the BBC agenda. That this should be done in our name, as licence fee-payers, is nothing short of sickening.
The vast majority of the Muslim community in Britain and the rest of us share a common good. To allow the BBC and others to undermine it is unacceptable.
Professor Rene Weis, London.
and:
Corporation’s PC brigade is slowly killing ‘Auntie’
WITH reference to the diabolical Questions of Security programme screened on BBC TV (“Fury over BBC’s bias to Muslims”, August 4), I am afraid that we have to face an obvious truth – that the corporation is now just a grovelling apology of its former self, infested with politically correct types whose opinions bear no relation whatsoever to the vast majority of the public.
Auntie now resembles a once-magnificent oaken beam, riddled with woodworm and crumbling into its final collapse – like the country it used to so proudly represent.
Andrew Hathaway, East Grinstead, West Sussex.
pumpkin is on minimum wage and thinks the BBC is worth every penny.
ok mate, just dont bother me with your public service mindset.
I feel that my previous post requires some amplification. The BBC seems not to consider Eric Nesbitt worthy of a name, and by descibing his murder as being ‘over beer money’, leaves open the interpretation that it was the tragic climax to a dispute between drinking chums over ‘beer money’ that got out of hand. For the facts, see here:
Incidentally, Eric Nesbitt was white. Atkins’ accomplice, William Jones was sentenced to life in prison after providing a full confession.
I think Pumpkin boy has already agreed that the bbc is biased on the ‘environmental’ front (why is it assumed that if you’re a global warming sceptic you don’t care about the environment?).
Pumpkin boy explains that only extremists believe global warming isn’t happening or isn’t deleterious & perhaps he is right HOWEVER there is great scientific debate over how long this warming period has been going on for (are we still recovering from the little ice age of the 1800’s for instance), how much additional heat will be/has been created by co2 (it seems likely that some of the 0.6 degree increase in heat over the past 50 years has been due to human activity), whether or not this heat will cause ‘the end of the world’ (during warmer periods in history civilization went on) or whether it’s in the interests of the worlds poor to stunt the worlds economy by trillions of dollars.
If you can ever remember when such views are shown on the bbc you probably watch too much of it (I remember a Swedish guy on the daily politics once).
I’ve seen the bbc’s scientific coverage of this topic from a scientists point of view and it has been awful (a recent radio 4 programme even fawned all over the extremely controversial ‘hockey stick’ which even leading climatologist think is dodgy… the programme didn’t EVEN mention there was any controversy over the graph) and akin to those awful 10 page pull outs you occasionally get in the Guardian or Independent.
“As a person who grew up in Co.Durham during the 1980’s, my memories of the BBC include … a distinct lack of fairness towards a certain band of striking men.
That’s a bias I CAN relate to.
Pumpkinsboy, given that you were aged about 3 and 4 during the miners strike and had accumulated about nine years of experience by the end of that decade, I would venture that your “memories” of BBC bias in this area are actually impressions instilled in you by adults around you at the time.
Even at the age of 24 the adult experience you mention is higher education in an apparently economically superfluous field and a job you are able to enjoy for reasons other than monetary necessity. So I would further venture that your perception of the BBC is still largely due to the influence of others’ opinions rather than a direct comparison of its output against your own wisdom gained through worldly experience.
At age 24, I too was a deluded leftoid.
“However, I do believe that the BBC, cuturally and socially speaking, has an unofficial agenda, in that it does promote multiculturalism.”
??
The BBC has a long-standing, open and official agenda to not only promote multiculturalism, but actually be multicultural:
BBC THREE will be an inherently multicultural, interactive channel…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/10_october/16/bbcthree_logo.shtml
.
“Cleric compares Blair to Hitler”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4126688.stm
Now why do they publish this piece? Do they want to give this moron Naseem a forum or do they want to make sure he gets arrested and deported? I’m not a friend of Blair but you can’t compare him to Hitler (or Stalin).
That Naseem, a muslim, uses the Jews and their historical plight as well as the Holocaust is a joke beyond jokes. After all Hitler worked with muslims in order to reach his Endloesung (final solution).
I guess when Naseem says “these are dangerous times” he means for himself. Send the guy back to the hole he has crawled out of!
Re. the above:
1. Should have read “Do they want to give this moron…”
2. “…but the chairman retaliated by saying 4,000 worshippers had voted for him to stay.”
So that’s the small minority who have extremist views then? Interesting! And that’s only in context of the Birmingham mosque… Wonder where Naseem’s got his doctorate from as well.
may i also say again how dismayed i am at the continued sneering on the bbc at the very mention of mrs thatcher’s name.
she is perhaps one of the great prime ministers of the last 100 years.
pumkinsboy sounds very wet behind the ears.
He was suggesting, for example, that the BBC is mostly in cahoots with New Labour. That is a false view of what most people post here.
Perhaps he could tell us why Orla Guerin never ever uses the word “terrorism” to describe suicide bombings in Iraq or Israel ?
pumkin boy suggested on the previos thread that people who post here would like to see the BNP given a platform on the BBC. That is an outright insulting lie.
What a closed mind he has. Anyone who disgrees with his immature views is deemed to be extremist.
Still, at least he hasn’t called us racists yet.
to teddy bear and dan.
british tv license payers are not interested in the intricacies of the east.I remember an american state department who said”i dont care who p-ssed in who’s well in nablus”that
orla guerin does not like israel is obvious to all.but it is of no interest.
what is of interest is when the bbc shoves its ideology down our throats.
ideology that is of direct concern to britons.
the only people who care about the middle-east are those with direct concerns there.and that is how it should be.
pumpkinsboy has put forward his views.i do not agree with him but he is genuine.
richard | 06.08.05 – 8:01 am | #
Since when were you voted as the voice for the British license payer? Your arrogance in promoting yourself to that position is exceeded only by the lack of vision you possess.
JiL – Welcome back – good to see you posting again 🙂
Teddy, really, no need to get personally aggressive.
Actually, just because I read the Guardian doesn’t mean I approve entirely of everything it chooses to print (indeed, I alluded as much when I said I read it).
If you think it’s `ignorant` to point out that this recent murder clearly has a social context (that’s context, not motive) then I’m afraid the ignorance is entirely yours.
I say again: if a black man is lynched in Alabama a reporter would be INCOMPETENT not to mention the social context of racism.
The US State Department maintains there is social descrimination against Arabs in Israel.
It’s really simple even for a minimum wage person like myself (by the way, I’m very proud of my job, which I don’t do for money, so stick your snobbish personal insult somewhere else)
Pumpkinsboy | 06.08.05 – 3:25 am | #
Instead of confessing to being wrong with your previous assertions you now attempt to change them. Our debate was NOT about whether the recent murders in Israel had a social context, which of course they have, but whether social discrimination had anything to do with it – which it doesn’t. ANYONE can see the world in terms of discrimination – single/married, male/female, straight/gay, rich/poor, old/young, black/white, etc, and to some extent they will all be right. It is entirely without merit to mention it in reporting an incident that has nothing to do with it just for the purpose of further villifying Israel.
As for your response about the Guardian, if it is clear to you that they are either too ignorant to give you a better understanding of world events, or have an agenda not to, and you are content to go along with it, then I have no incentive to debate further with you.
teddy bear
my apologies.no offence meant.
Thank you Richard – apology accepted. I am still surprised that you write what is of interest is when the bbc shoves its ideology down our throats. and don’t see how their vilification of a fully democratic nation combating the same terrorism that is endemic worldwide is part of that ideology.
Me above 🙂
From Mosey’s “farewell” piece:
“…Partisanship from left or from right is fine in its place, but it never provides the whole picture: the BBC’s values of trust and independence and impartiality matter more today than ever, precisely because there are those who seek to undermine them for reasons of commercial advantage or ideological spite…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4740000/newsid_4748000/4748011.stm
You wot? Does he possibly think the Beeb are actually the ones who are fair and balanced? What are you on, mate???????
Oh yes… I forgot. I salute Fox News because it’s the only conservative TV News Channel and without Fox I’d probably have gone insane already. Thanks for providing a different view which a lot of people share! Thanks for calling terrorists terrorists and for not bashing Israel all the time… and so on
JoC – After reading the BBC article about Atkins you linked above, I think they must be writing for those with similar IQ’s. Not only do they not give very much details of the crime, but repeat almost word for word at least twice, the facts they do include.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4126154.stm
Muslim party condemns Blair’s ban
Compare the Beeb’s piece with a report on Jihadwatch.org
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4127642.stm
vs.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007547.php
The Beeb still manage to make radical muslims sound like main-stream politicians in the Western sense.
pumkin boy suggested on the previos thread that people who post here would like to see the BNP given a platform on the BBC. That is an outright insulting lie.
What a closed mind he has. Anyone who disgrees with his immature views is deemed to be extremist.
Still, at least he hasn’t called us racists yet.
I’m against BBC bias. I don’t think they have a right to interfere with the Parliamentary process. They allow minority political parties, such as the Greens, onto Question Time. However, they won’t allow the BNP (who received more votes than the Green Party) onto Question Time.
Personally, I find the BNP to be an offensive, deluded bunch of twats. However, the BBC has no right to decide which democratic views are “acceptable”.
Just becaue I believe in free speech and an end to BBC bias, it doesn’t make me a racist. The more the BBC try to ignore the BNP, the more “illicit appeal” they will have. The BNP get to tell prospective voters “the views ‘they’ don’t want you to hear”.
I appreciate there are arguments against giving the BNP publicity, but their share of the vote continues to rise. Perhaps a new tactic is called for?
I thought BBC corrspondents had been banned from writing political columns for newspapers. But Frank Gardner is given the opportunity in the Sunday Telegraph to tell us how we can sue for peace with al-Qaeda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/07/do0703.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/08/07/ixop.html
Their demands are (he says)
These are: the withdrawal of all Western forces from Muslim lands, especially Iraq, the withdrawal of support for Israel, and of support for “apostate” governments, specifically in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
But he thinks the following are enough to buy off the Arab street
the invasion of Iraq and – to a lesser extent – the denial of a viable Palestinian homeland are two burning, emotive issues for many, many Muslims. If these can be resolved then the extremist ideologues risk being left as rebels without a cause
Does he deliberatly understate their demands in repect of Israel. They don’t want an end to Western support for Israel, they want the end of Israel (see last week’s al-Q statement)
Would it only be the “extremist ideologues” who would not be satisfied with the 2 state solution?
Bin Laden is already losing favor with Muslims around the world. If we give him what he wants, his stock will rise with them, not fall.
Frank “Help Me I’m a Muslim” Gardiner — I’m sorry for his terrible injuries, but what a dhimmi.
Further to the question I pose at the end of the above posting, I wrote to Peter Wilby following his article in the Guardian.
I wrote
You ask in your Guardian article
Do we want to continue the war? If not, what will we do to stop it?
But al-Qaeda’s demands go beyond Iraq.
al-Zawahri said, you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine
So should you get your way & the UK appeases al-Qaeda by withdrawing from Iraq, will you then be calling for all non-Arabs to leave Israel? Where do you expect those people to go?
He replied
We are not exactly non-Arabs who happen to live in Iraq; we are military occupiers. Israel is a different matter, though Arabs may wonder why Israel was originally established on their land to solve a European problem, i.e. endemic anti-semitism in Europe.
Which leads me to think that Western lefties, never mind incensed Muslims, can see no justification for the exisrence of Israel.
Dan,
it’s not the hardcore conservatives who hate Israel and the Jews but the Left. The Holocaust was a result of a socialist ideology and just by making Hitler “far right” the Left buy themselves a clear conscience. I never considered Hitler a conservative. As well we all know conservative comes from “conserve” and Hitler didn’t want to conserve anything – he wanted to create a new World order (as did Stalin)… I wonder what the World would look like if the Left actually had their way (I dread to think of the implications!)
Well said Dan.
Hitler was a socialist (a national socialist; as opposed to a universal socialist). And Lord Reith, and the the other BBC heads, fought hard to keep Churchill off the airwaves for 10 years (i.e. his so called “wilderness years”), in an attempt to appease the more acceptable form of socialism (as they saw it) at that time.
I’m amazed that Frank Gardner has any crediblity left whatsoever and particularly disappointed to see him given a column in The Sunday Telegraph. The fact that he’s typing the article from a wheelchair should be warning enough – this is not someone with a great track record in assessing a terrorist Al Qaeda threat.
teddy bear
we have to convince those who pay the tv license that the bbc should go to the market and raise finance to pay for itself and not force us to pay on pain of imprisonment.
the bias that will tell with the license payers is bias that directly concerns them.the fact for instance that the bbc did not represent british interests during the bombing campaign.that its news was biased and misleading.
in particular its socialist world-view does not represent the views of the majority of these islands.
how can we expect the majority to care about the middle-east?
teddy bear i have to add one more point.
i am personally convinced that the bbc and many of its journalists have an intense dislike of israel.in particular people like orla guerin.the list of names is however rather long and tedious
your views on the middle-east are identical with mine.
i do not believe that frank gardiner is anything but well-meaning.
further his suffering has been too great and he is best left alone.
Broadcasting House, the main 9 am Sunday morning radio news programme, starts with Robin Cook’s death as first item. With the presenter ending with the question “Won’t history show him to be the man who was right on Iraq ?”
Second item – the dramatic rescue of the Russin submariners ? Heck no. We got several minutes of attack on the US military over Pat Tillman case nd his death under friendly fire in Afghnistan.
A sad case, for sure, but an old case now. What the heck has this got to do with today’s British news ? It was just the BBC grinding its anti-US axe as usual.
I do NOT believe Frank Gardner is well-meaning.
I believe some of his reporting has been misleading, and biased to put a good gloss on Islam. I believe that Peter Taylor in his current series on Al Qaeda has done a far better and clearer job than Gardner. Taylor could obviously see that something serious was brewing for Britain. By contrast, Gardner as BBC Security Correspondent never gave this impression.
Gardner said when shot that he is a Muslim. I have never seen that disputed. When we are faced with terrorism that has its roots in a jihadist reading of Islam, and the BBC airwaves are full of “Muslim spookesmen”, I do not believe Gardner should be reporting without declaring his own attachment.
And he should NOT be writing in the Telegraph, attacking the US administration, criticising Blair’s view of Al Qaeda, and advocating a policy of appeasement. The BBC’s new rules preventing staff writing for newspapers surely preclude such an article ? Was the article cleared by senior BBC management ?
(Richard says we should leave Gardner alone. Rubbish – he has drawn further attention to himself by this article, and he mentions being shot in the article. Oddly he does not mention that the cameraman he took with him into the back streets of Riyadh was killed.)
The BBC has carried several reports of the shooting of two sisters and a man in a flat in North London. The victims had been bound to chairs.
The press has been reporting that the police are asking for info. about three hooded black youths seen at the building that evening.
The BBC reports I have heard mention only “three hooded youths”.
Now ain’t that strange ?
BBC respond to criticism regarding that newsnight program that featured ‘moderate’ fascists
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2005/07/15/20600.shtml
Re Max’s link
The purpose of the item was to respond to an authored film shown on Newsnight a couple of nights earlier made by David Frum, George Bush’s former speechwriter, which gave a neo-conservative, pro-Israeli perspective, and we pointed this out in the introduction.
I bet they did.
revealing to show that some of even the most moderate Muslims support the notion of suicide bombing in the context of Israel.
See my earlier post doubting that “moderate” Muslims support the 2 state solution.
Cristina Odone in the Observer writes in general support of a Spectator article
This week, John Hayes, Tory MP for South Holland and The Deepings, ..raises the alarm: our culture has grown so decadent that Muslims are right to hold us in contempt. The MP points to the usual suspects – Big Brother, family breakdown, gay rights and lager louts – as evidence of our louche mindset. We can only hope to beat the terrorists, he claims, if we undergo a cultural and moral renaissance.
I would add to our failings that we allow the BBC & other media to undermine our resolve by excessive negativity over the deaths of our brave troops in Iraq.
In what other war would losses of less than 100 UK & 2000 US troops, over a 2 year period, be regarded as too high a price?
Reporting last week’s cluster of Ohio based troop deaths the BBC, of course, find parents of a dead soldier who condemn the war. I have heard elsewhere parents speaking with great pride at a time of their great suffering. But never on the BBC.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1544103,00.html
“…and revealing to show that some of even the most moderate Muslims support the notion of suicide bombing in the context of Israel.”
To me this means that most muslims support suicide bombings (in the context of Israel) and therefore have to be considered terrorists or supporters of terrorists.
The BBC reports on Aswat’s extradition from Zambia. What’s amazing about the article is the BBC never once mention Aswat’s connection to the London terrorists. The BBC article only mentions Aswat is wanted in the US for trying to set up an al Qaeda camp and how some are “afraid” he will end up in Guantanamo.
This despite the fact that “Investigators have sought him since discovering that he made up to 20 calls from his mobile phone to two of the bombers. Intelligence sources told The Times that during his stay in Britain Aswat visited the home towns of all four bombers as well as selecting targets in London.”
Sloppy journalism, covering for the terrorists, or appeasing British Muslims, any of which show just how bad the BBC is.
BBC article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4128992.stm
my post here: http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-covers-for-terrorist.html
yesterday the overfed alistair leithead? was bullying his interlocutors into agreeing with him that the hurricane season in the united states has been made worse by the ubiquitous climate change.
hey alsitair have a word with lord wakeham (and please try not to insult him) the chairman of the house of lords committee which reported on global warming.the committee includes two former chancellors of the exchequer and a former governor of the bank of england.ask them if they agree with you and then report to us.
for good measure have a word with john kay and samuel brittan of the ft.
teddy bear
we have to convince those who pay the tv license that the bbc should go to the market and raise finance to pay for itself and not force us to pay on pain of imprisonment.
the bias that will tell with the license payers is bias that directly concerns them.the fact for instance that the bbc did not represent british interests during the bombing campaign.that its news was biased and misleading.
in particular its socialist world-view does not represent the views of the majority of these islands.
how can we expect the majority to care about the middle-east?
richard | 07.08.05 – 9:31 am | #
You may well be right that the majority don’t care about the Middle East, but only because they’re uninformed or ignorant to see its relevance. The BBC is consistently pro-militant Islam, regardless whether it’s here, Iraq, Iran, Israel, or wherever. They follow a strategy of appeasement with those that they should really be exposing.
Regarding Frank Gardner, I agree with John in London that there is nothing ‘well-meaning’ about this man. He would happily sacrifice Israel and those that would have a democracy in Iraq to appease these terrorists. Can you imagine how AQ would wipe the floor with any nation where they can exert influence on their foreign policy? His idea of ‘well-meaning’ is that we should all become Muslims – well NO THANKS.
Running through the thread, I noticed:
“Get with who’s program? Yours? The New Labour government’s? ”
Pumpkinsboy of 05.08.05
“I’m a minimum wage-earning guy (my English degree about as useful as a surfing degree in the job market, lol), working class, 24, from Co.Durham, who could never have any kind of connection to the Oxbridge network that is the BBC.”
Pumpkinsboy of 06.08.05 at 12.01
Surely anyone with an English degree would know the difference between whose and who’s. This is no typo! Don’t believe anything this guy says.
As for the main item, there is no doubt that Muslims are disadvantaged in the UK and other western countries.
This is because they are adherents of a dogma which denies science, human rights, gender equality and respect, freedom of worship etc. (We all know what etc. means, don’t we, pumpkinsboy et al.) Is it any surprise that they complain about being disadvantaged in the West. They are retrograde, backward obscurantists.
So Blair is now threatening Sheikh Half Baked and other “British” Islamofascists with treason charges?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4129502.stm
Will this apply to al-Gallawi too?
This powerful piece in the Observer by Nick Cohen explaining his break from the left over their fellow-travelling with Islmofascism ought to be required reading for every BBC hack :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1544111,00.html
This article attacks appeasement to Islamist terrorism in much of Europe. But it could equally be aimed at those who think appeasement at the BBC, those who would say anything as long as they can criticise Bush and Blair.
Starting with Frank Gardner’s piece in today’s Sunday Telegraph.
memories of question times past
i remember years ago how the bbc packed its audiences with those holding their views.
so inevitably when conservatives were speaking there was a massive howl of boos.the result was that everybody appearing on the programme learned to say only that which was acceptable to the bbc “controllers”.
all became afraid lest they angered the wolves that was the audience.
now looking back i have to say that i had no idea the bbc was manipulating us.
so it is to the bbc we must go to seek answers as to how we arrived into this era of politically correct speech.
Sorry here is the Sunday Times article attacking appeasement to terrorism. Pin it up on the walls at the BBC, say I. And send it to BBC hacks who still refuse to use the word terrorism – their Middle East reporters, for example.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1723842,00.html
Another 2-page article that could have been written with the BBC in mind. When it is terrorism – call it terrorism, wherever it happens.
Including Iraq and Israel. Stop the weasel words, Hawley and Guerin !
http://www.startribune.com/stories/161/5545921.html
So Blair is now threatening Sheikh Half Baked and other “British” Islamofascists with treason charges?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/41…/uk/ 4129502.stm
Will this apply to al-Gallawi too?
Susan | 07.08.05 – 5:54 pm | #
Exactly my thoughts when I heard the news as well.
JiL
Re: Times article. Interesting, I’m not sure but I think I read this article a couple of years ago. It seems that the writer has a template copy to give to anyone interested. Funny that it stays relevant for so long.
BTW from the link Susan provided (broken I think 🙂 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4129502.stm )
He said [Abu Uzair, a former member of al-Muhajiroun, told the same programme – Newwsweek] Muslims had previously accepted a “covenant of security” which meant they should not resort to violence in the UK because they were not under threat there.
“We don’t live in peace with you any more, which means the covenant of security no longer exists,” he said.
“covenant of security” or in one word dhimma.
Now, here’s a concept that should be explored further by the beeb.
Dan, please pass this message on to Tory MP Tony Hayes next time you see him 🙂
“The MP points to the usual suspects – Big Brother, family breakdown, gay rights and lager louts – as evidence of our louche mindset.”
Can you guess which is the odd one out? Which of these options exposes your homophobic bigotry and fuels the very lifeblood of the righteously moralising Left? Please explain to me in detail the devastating social or economic damage you attribute to gays. Alternatively, kindly keep your primitive gut emotions under control in future. Your baseless views are a disgraceful liability to the Party and an asset to the Left.