, many of the nation’s younger telly-taxpayers have been bemused this morning (and will be again tomorrow morning), because the usual fare of children’s holiday entertainment has been pulled from BBC2, to be replaced with continuous coverage of the World Athletics Championships 2005. Whoopee, not! If the BBC’s tedious sports coverage matters so much, why not drop the endlessly repeated CelebrityHomeCookingAuctionMakeover Show from BBC1 for a change and give us all a break from the irritating tunes, tired clichés and faux-drama therein? Still, going by the BBC’s past performance, it could have been a lot worse.
Turning away briefly from the issue of BBC bias
Bookmark the permalink.
BBC/MORI survey today on BBC website NEWS (?) page essentially:
UK : Multiculturalism rocks
“The survey shows that 62% of British people – and 82% of Muslims in Britain – agree with the statement: “Multiculturalism makes Britain a better place to live”. When asked if the ‘policy’ of multiculturalism is a mistake that should be abandoned, 68% of people ( 74% Muslims ) disagreed. ”
There is clear confusion either in the leading questions asked or most likely people’s perception of what multiculturalism actually is ~ given the following:
“On the topic of immigrants coming to Britain, 82% (90 % Muslims ) say they should be made to learn English, 73% ( 76% Muslims ) say they should pledge their primary loyalty to Britain, 73% (69% Muslims ) say they should integrate fully into British society and 96% ( 95% Muslims ) say they should accept the rights of woman as equal citizens”
In other words people perceive multiracial and multicultural as one in the same.
Multicultural has meant
-tolerating other languages over English (you only have to examine the fourteen pages attached to a council tax bill which translate the bill into 14 different languages to see an example of what i mean),
-not requesting loyalty to Britain by any means (multi cultural is the BBC and leftos buzzword so hardly go hand in hand with loyalty..),
-not requesting full integration into a British way of life
-and certainly we would seem to accept fundamentalism in the present multi cultural climate so accepting the rights of women as equal citizens challenges this notion.
What the poll is actually saying – multi-racial ok – multi-cultural not ok.
So the BBC sweep it all into one corner and post it up as news.
Donkeys.
Richard – what makes you think angela merkel has a chance? The Beeb knows that the left will triumph in the forthcoming German elections…
New German Left gains momentum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4125832.stm
Simply called “Die Linke” (The Left), the new alliance has surged to 12% support in opinion polls – and blown the election wide open.
Not that the Beeb ever delude themselves by puffing up the left wingers at election time….. John Kerry anyone?
If the opinion polls look dodgy for Mrs Merkel I’m going to send advisory letters to German voters signed ‘Best wishes from Guardian reader’. That worked before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4137990.stm
UK majority back multiculturalism
62% say MC makes Britain a better place.
But other reponses (see pdf file link) would lead to conclusion that only a small proportion of respondents lived in areas with a high ethnic minority presence. (For example only 12% said that their area no longer felt like Britain, but 54% were prepared to concede that some areas of the country no longer felt like Britain.)
I wonder how heavily MC is backed by people (with some knowledge of what Britain “felt like”) living in areas of high ethnic presence.
About the same or slightly more than 62% of the population when polled say they want capital punishment back. We don’t hear too much about that on the BBC because the people are clearly wrong in this case and therefore can be ignored. The multicultural poll result tells us little more than how successful BBC and other propaganda for multiculturalism has been over the last couple of decades. The government forces us to fund a pro-multiculturalism broadcasting giant. It’s astounding that only 62% are in favour of the policy. Ther is hope for freedom of thought yet.
i am loosing my patience a little with the dame john simpson advertisments.you know the one where he shows us his rent garments and tells us how he braved american rockets and iraqi bullets.and they keep repeating the bloody thing at all hours of the day.has he no sense of shame?
i think most us agree that we are accusing the bbc not of evil but of massive bias and self-indulgence.
richard | 10.08.05 – 3:36 pm | #
Considering the power that the BBC has to affect peoples opinions and understanding of world and national events and personalities under the guise of an independant, impartial, and objective media outlet which TVL gives them, when they knowingly and purposefully distort this news to suit their own global agenda, with the profound effects that this causes against the very society and ideals that set them up in the first place – THIS IS PURE EVIL They are the traitors in our midst that masquerade as our ally.
Buried away right at the bottom of the BBC News online story about their MC survey are the lines:
“According to the survey, 74% of Muslims think Britain should deport or exclude foreigners who encourage terrorism, compared with 91% of the population as a whole.”
So it’s ok to flag up the headline: “Britain backs multiculturalism” but not “More than a quarter of Muslims are against deporting foreigners who encourage terrorism”
No, on Planet right-on Beeb it’s far far better to hide that statistic at the very bottom of the page….knowing most people never read that far.
I think the headline should read “BBC and friends back multiculturalism”
BTW;The Muslim Parliament Of Britian
How do you stand for election and can women vote for the candidates?
No Joerg it should read “BBC backs multiculturalism and suggests that the majority of British people think the same.”
On the subject of the Beeb’s multiculti push, note that the main article here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4137990.stm
includes a link to a second article here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4137990.stm
in which we are favoured with the views of:
[Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)] Trevor Phillips
Former CRE chairman Herman Ouseley
Race activist and diversity consultant Linda Bellos
Rhian Beynon of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
Rob Berkeley of the race think tank the Runnymede Trust
Apparently, ‘diversity’ isn’t always a good thing.
Apparently, ‘diversity’ isn’t always a good thing.
DumbJon | Homepage | 10.08.05 – 10:10 pm | #
Except in a ‘multicultural’ society, which in itself can make the society richer. The problem is when a particular segment of this ‘diversity’ does not want to assimilate positively into the society, and the BBC does little to promote their change. Instead it seeks to appease their differences at odds with our own.
OT ish
Tonight at 21.00hrs on BBC2 “The Slave Business”(RT Choice) described as Britain’s first global business • slavery.
My history is rather rusty and always was a little poor but considering that in 16th century Britain under the reign of HM Queen Elizabeth 1st, we ruled two thirds of the world’s seas. I would have thought that prior to the infamous union between the crown and Sir John Hawkins that some other trade existed, perhaps spices would be the first or coffee or grain or tobacco or copper or timber or rice or pearls or sugar etc?
Always prepared to be re-edumacated……enlighten me.
Tom
1759 has been called the ‘year it all began’ when Britain under the Hannoverians really started going for the Empire etc. During QE1’s reign we were a small upstart battling the might and power of Spain who ruled the oceans. Even the Dutch had more colonies in the Far East than we did.
Hawkins, Drake et al were slave traders and also shipped tobacco etc from the New World. Don’t forget that until we started kicking hell out of France etc that their Empire ruled most of what is now the USA and a large part of Canada.
Will try and dig out the reference to ‘1759’ a very good book on the whole subject.
Well… Surely a trade in mollasses and cotton would have to exist, before a demand for more labour to produce the mollasses and cotton?
I think they might be getting confused over “cause and effect”.
As far as I’m aware, Britain’s first “global trade” was in wool. During the Middle Ages, Britain produced a huge surplas of wool for export. Not too sure how far away it ended up, but I imagine it was traded freely all over Europe and beyond.
They just used the description “first global business” as a way of connecting the word “globalization” with something evil. (Key messaging, folks, key messaging!)
Yes, everyone knows about the wool exports from England during the Middle Ages.
why are the bbc in favour of Globalization in human traffic (i.e inward immmigration) but not in the goods they poduce or the companies they create?
Main topic on the Today prog was nuclear energy. Who do they get to rant against it but Michael Meacher.
I thought they were meant to get expert to face expert, not socialist ranter to face expert. All part of the BBC bias against science and real-world economics, I suppose.
imojen folks?
she of the bbc started our morning by frightening us with the comments that western cities are warming at faster rates.however dublin is ok but london is not.where do they get this stuff from?why their fellow salvationists at the world wildlife fund.the silly women then showed a bunch of elderly people and stated that they are in danger.
whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
does the bbc have the honesty to broadcast a programme on the lords committee paper on global warming.chaired by lord wakeham it refutes their sanctimonious nonsense.
Salman Rushdie has a column in “The Times” in which he tells it like it is about Sacranie.
We all know of the Sacranie quote over the Rushdie fatwa, but one wonders how wide that knowledge has been.
Rushdie is a man whom the BBC types could well admire. Will they have pause for thought when seeking further rent-a-quote offerings from Sacranie?
Rushdie writes –
” However, this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that “Death is perhaps too easy” for the author of The Satanic Verses. Tony Blair’s decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of “moderate”, “traditional” Islam is either a sign of his Government’s penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Mr Blair’s options really are.
Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernised? That would indeed make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they’re just the “traditional” part of the problem.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1729998,00.html
Radio 4 really is becoming the BBC’s flagship for its bias and idiocy. This morning, the Today program highlighted a report which shows that certain groups in society are dying earlier than average. Hmmm.. earlier than average? This must mean that some are dying later than average. The problem is that those who are dying earlier are the poorer groups – possibly something to do with cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, methinks? Then came the question of how to close the gap of two years premature death. Surely if the groups who die earlier live as long as the current average, then the average moves and the social ebgineers would still be chasing the same shadow. This is a measure of the education level of the BBC’s editorial staff.
Allan@Aberdeen,
Surely the BBC looked into the role the welfare states’ penchant for rewarding irresponsibility funded by punishing the financially succesful had in this….
As the BBC is an integral part of the welfare state (i.e. its mouthpiece and organ of justification and cheerleader for ever higher contributions) I`m confident that they will be looking into this. Wont they?………….
Has anyone ever listened to You and Yours on Radio 4? It’s the socialist nanny state taken to the nth degree. Every article seems to include the sentence ‘and yet anyone can set up in business as a french polisher/ flower arranger/ window cleaner without any regulation at all’.
don
I thought “You and Yours” was a parody, a midday comedy take-off of endless bleating about “rights” with nary a mention of responsibilities.
Are you saying it is for real ? Would the BBC really go that far ?
Radio 5 Live
James Reynolds giving the “Israeli view” about Gaza disengagement. Only, he doesn’t give the Israeli view, but the BBC view, including the lie of saying that the removal of settlements was pert of the Oslo process. Neither the status of Jerusalem, settlements, or the right of return were part of the accords.
Reynolds knows this, but he has no doubt been well tutored by Orla.
On the 8.00am news bulletin on today’s (11/8/05) Today program there was a piece about the possibility of cleaning up our nuclear sites, perhaps a bit quicker than was previously thought, but at a greater cost. The story was quite well summarised, but then, the bias kicked in. The report was followed by comments by just a single person, a representative from the Green party saying that basically all nuclear power was very bad and we could get all our power needs from wind. There was not a single question or point put to her by the reporter questioning her statements, and there was no comment from anyone with differing views. Do you think this is un-biased? I am sure that in the rest of the program greater depth was gone into, but I did not listen to that, I listened to what was supposed to be an un-biased round up of the news, not a chance for BBC-lefties to get their editorial spin in without anyone disagreeing with them.
Is this how the news round-up on the today program is going to work in the future: a news story followed by comments by someone chosen to back-up the bias of the Today programs editorial staff.
JG
It was Caroline Lucas, claiming that wind power can provide all our energy needs. That statements such as this can go unchallenged on the Today programme just about sums up the sorry state of the BBC.
Meanwhile, on the Radio 5 Live Gaza article, we have a Guardian journalist and someone from the council for Arab-British understanding providing comment. Need I go on?
JG – same on every news prog.
World at One dealing with deportation of foreign national and their ‘rights’ etc etc. Left wing commentators all over being given a free ride to state their view, with no opposing view given. Then Hazel Blears comes on and is given the once over. In the news summary at the end of the prog the headline is changed to “Hazel Blears has denied that…..”
Easy formula for BBC. How about some lawyers who say the government is right to deport these guys and the action is within international law? Is there a human rights group that believes in the human rights and safety of the majority overriding the rights of a terror suspect? They never appear on the BBC.
The annoying thing about the awful Today program is knowng that it would still be broadcast even if nobody listened to it. We know this to be true, just look at BBC4, BBC3, BBC 7, BBC News 24 etc. It must be great having a job at the BBC, a job for life, not having to worry if anybody wants your product or not as they have to pay for it anyway.
Current (D)HYS
Should extradition laws be used?
“Have the circumstances of national security changed sufficently to warrant extradition?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4141796.stm
ok, how about
Should TV Licence laws be used?
“In a multi-channel television world, should the collection of the BBC “TV poll-tax” still be enforced?
Check the picture at the (D)HYS link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4141796.stm
A Socialist Worker backed demo. “Belmarsh is Blair’s Guantanamo”. Catchy, but utter crap.
However these guys with minority views get the majority of airtime at the Guardian/BBC News – why?
Because, as the twerp who follows Jermy Vine on R2 said yesterday “….we`re starting to sound like Middle Englanders”.
Crime No 1 at White City – Never, ever sound like or represent those who pay your salary.
Very significant article by Salman Rushdie in the Times today, challenging Sir Iqbal Sabranie, the BBC’s poster-boy for “moderation”, to push for REAL reform of Islam, to stop dissembling. And pointing out that Sir Iqbal had once said that death was too good for Rushdie.
But did the BBC get him on air ? No – more important to have Michael Meacher.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011321.php
“Have you ever read a history of war that focused almost entirely on casualty figures (with an occasional torture story and grieving parent thrown in), to the exclusion of any real discussion of tactics, operations, and actual battles? I haven’t. But that’s what our self-proclaimed “rough drafters” of history are serving up with respect to Iraq.”
BBC is surely one of those “rough drafters”
“But did the BBC get him on air ? No – more important to have Michael Meacher.”
The BBC obviously want to beef up their comedy output.
OT: World’s largest solar energy plant being built in Southern California:
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=204053&source=r_science
Normally this is the kind of news that would send the BBC into fits of orgasmic ecstacy, but since it doesn’t fit into their narrative of evil pollution-meister Yanquis destroying the world with global warming, do you think they’ll cover it?
i have been trying to recall his name for a while.white hair,glasses and a smirk.
finally i remembered it is the delightful brian hanrahan.he makes the top of my list for those with a lack of affection for all things american.co-stars are steven sacker and ben brown.
his pc opinions are straight out of the guardian.a job for life as someone said here earlier.
I think now with the islamofacist terrorists caught/dead the pressure on the BBC to hide their anti-british feelings is off and the !bBC staff are reverting to type.
They aren’t even trying to follow the charter (except the one Marx wrote).
http://powerlineblog.com/archive…ives/ 011321.php
“Have you ever read a history of war that focused almost entirely on casualty figures (with an occasional torture story and grieving parent thrown in), to the exclusion of any real discussion of tactics, operations, and actual battles? I haven’t. But that’s what our self-proclaimed “rough drafters” of history are serving up with respect to Iraq.”
BBC is surely one of those “rough drafters”
I’m sure the BBC do consider themselves to be a “historoic resource”. However, they will have no accademic standing at all if they continue to “stealth edit” their website. Every piece of editing should include a link to a copy of the webpage before it was edited. The BBC don’t do this and consequently are worthless as a historical record.
http://publicinterest.blogspot.com/2005/08/okay-so-its-matter-of-when-not-if.html
Anyone spot the incredible, and dangerous bias about the recent agreement signed with Jordan about the treatment of people deported from the UK?
On today’s BBC1 6.00 news (11/8/05) the outside broadcast reporter repeatedly referred to this agreement as a ‘piece of paper’, as in (paraphrased) ‘will this [sneer] piece of paper be able to stop mistreatment’. He must have used the phrase ‘piece of paper’ 5 or 6 times in a couple of minutes. It was obvious he had decided to use this description before the broadcast.
This raises two serious questions:
1) As every agreement ever made in the history of man has been written on ‘pieces of paper’ why does the BBC news decide to use this description for this particular agreement? Can it be, by any chance, because it gives the impression that the agreement will not work? And could the reason the BBC news team want to give this impression be that it fits in with their usual institutionalised-leftism? The bias was quite hard to believe (but unfortunately not surprising!)
2) The second question is, I think the most serious. On the same night, on the radio4 5.00 news, the exact same phrase was pushed multiple times by the studio reporter when performing an interview. He repeatedly asked whether “this piece of paper can guarantee no mistreatment”. Again, multiple uses of the same ‘piece of paper’ phrase. It was again quite obvious that the phrase had been decided on before hand. This is where the serious charge against the BBC news team arises. Who made the decision to push this phrase across the BBC news output and at what editorial level was this decision taken? A supposedly un-biased news organisation has taken a decision to rubbish a particular agreement made by our elected politicians, across all its network outlets, just because it does not agree with their particular political viewpoint.
Incredible, it makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration, because we just have no come back. A complaint (from which I cut the above, sorry for the long-windedness 😉 just brings a couple of lines saying “sorry you were unhappy, but we were right”. Just what can someone really do to get through to them. Any suggestions anyone (apart from the obvious non-payment which we all should be doing anyway)?
JG,
Isn’t the Kyoto Accord which the BBC treats as essential for the survival of the human race also just “a piece of paper”?
Kyoto Accord: a “piece of paper” that is sacred writ and which will save the entire world from “global warming”.
Jordan agreement: “piece of paper” that is completely ineffective because it is, after all, only a piece of paper.
Logicus Al-Beebus in a nutshell. Don’t try to figure it out, just drink the purple Kool-Aid and you’ll feel much better in the morning. 🙂
O/T
While believe we should (but not yet) … have a look at the rare, very rare, vote from 2004 I stumbled on…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3397937.stm
Obvious why they stopped them now.
My blood pressure is sooooo high now…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4142088.stm
Six paragraphs down…
“It had originally been scheduled for 12 July, but was postponed for technical reasons by Arianespace. ”
WHY- WHY does this only get reported in the midst of the sci/tech when the Atlas launch gets front page news???. WE, as the being part of the EU, pay for this launch – WE DONT pay for any NASA work.
So WHY is this artical not on the fp.???
BBC NEWS tonight featured Frank “Don’t Shoot Me – I’m A Muslim” Gardener finally admitting that “All Arab states use torture as a matter of routine” . That’s the first time the BBC has said anything that negative about the region but it was only to show how “inhumane” it would be to send islamic clerics currently residing in the UK back there. Gardner also added his usual comment about the “So-called War On Terror”. So predictable.
If you read the comments on the (D)HYS on the deportantion issue you will find that the Beeb hasn’t managed to swing public opinion this time. Most comments are pro deportation – very enjoyable that one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4141796.stm
Just watched Newsnight coverage of the Gaza pullout. The only thing missing from this ‘Israel is to blame for everything that happened, happens and will happen in Gaza’ feast is BBC correspondents and presenters wearing a small Palestinian badge and waving a small Palestinian flag. They don’t even disguise how pleased they are.
Comic highlight: Showing Hamasniks operate Gaza’s international airport security x-ray devices. Hilarious. ‘Sir, you forgot to coat your bomb with nails, follow me please’.
Nice line from the BBC report on the (un)likely deportations
Gareth Peirce, who represents a number of former Belmarsh detainees who have now been held, said Thursday’s arrests were “insane and dangerous government at its worst”.
Well she should recognise insane when she sees it. Peirce is a member of the Vanessa Redgrave school of quivering indignation.