May I firstly thank all those who have been commenting recently. There have been some riveting exchanges, and I feel Paul Reynolds may be regretting slightly that he came along to make our site even a little livelier! (I hope not regretting too much). Personally I think it’s clear- we all care about the media we have, and that makes our discussions full of interest to people of all kinds.
Anyhow, let me start the ‘BiasedBBC’ aspect of this post by pointing you to the triumphant return- after holidays- of the brilliant Melanie Phillips. Paul Reynolds has been arguing here doggedly that the BBC does not demonstrate any certifiable institutional bias, while acknowledging isolated instances, so it was interesting to read Melanie’s take on BBC radio’s flagship news programme- The Today Programme (I highlight the most interesting phrasing):
‘The rules of the BBC Radio Four Today programme’s game clearly have not changed one whit. Wednesday’s edition demonstrated that, bombs or no, it is still performing its iconic function as the noticeboard of a sick establishment.’
Read on for commentary on the latest C4Newsesque BBC reportage.
Melanie has relentlessly pointed out the biases on this particular programme. They are repeatedly noticed by many who visit this site. And this is theflagship of BBC radio news- the talk-based service that almost unarguably epitomises the BBC’s approach to broadcasting.
Second item is to flag up the American Expatriate’s great exchanges with the aforementioned Mr Reynolds. I followed glued to the screen (yes, a little sad- I know) on our own comments box, but was hesitant to lift the exchange from our comments to the main blog to widen their exposure. Fortunately Scott has been chronicling the exchange on his own site– and we don’t mind visiting, do we? You can find two posts so far- here and here.
A taster to read on this site:
‘Paul Reynolds: You raise a very fair point about how many examples of bad journalism you need to discredit the whole output.I do not think the examples put forward actually come close to reaching a critical mass. Some I agree cannot really be defended. But they are selected from hours and hours of coverage and some go back quite a long way.TAE: While the “stunning” type of bias examples may not exemplify the general standard of BBC reporting, they are no doubt facilitated by this institutional bias. It is obviously possible, since it happened, that the BBC might produce a “woeful piece of work” about the Holocaust without mentioning the Jews. But it is darn near inconceivable that the BBC might ever produce a “woeful piece of work” about, say, the wonderful US prisoner of war facilities without mentioning Abu Ghraib. This is because its institutional sympathy with Palestine (Barbara Plett’s tears?) and hostility to Israel allow the first to sneak by, while its institutional hostility to US power (and GWB) and sympathy with whoever might be challenging the US (and GWB) would never allow the latter to sneak by.’
To which I feel like saying only: indeed.
Ed, I left a comment on Scott’s post re this subject.
It’s plain to me that Paul cheery picked the issues raised and gave a broad dismissal to my challenges by saying the BBC was not a giant conspiracy.
I think my post, using the BBC’s own reporters and insiders words, on the subject proves beyond a doubt that the BBC is anti-American, anti-Israeli and biased.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
Can I flag my disagreement with the claim that Melanie Phillips is ‘brilliant’ and with Marc’s claim that he has ‘proved beyond a doubt’ the BBC’s bias.
Thank you.
Just read that other blog and if the BBC did indeed refer to conservative protestors as “conservative lmilitants” i find that astonishing. It really shows a nasty left-wing prejudice that runs deep.
Islamist terrorists are “militants” yet people who counter demonstrate against this american woman (and i couldn`t care less whether she is right or wrong with her protests) are also described in the same way, “militants”.
I’ve been thinking about Red Ken’s comments on the “ANC Test”. He seems to think that any legislation that would have expelled members of the ANC would be unacceptable.
Personally, I think that any terrorism that kills innocent people is wrong. If South Africa still practiced apartheid today and black South Africans were killing innocent women and children as part of their struggle, then I would definitely condemn them (as I would condemn the apartheid regime).
Red Ken seems to think that killing innocent people it OK, so long as “the struggle is just”. Why is the Palestinian murder of Israelis any more “just” than the murder of Iraqis by Saddam? He opposed the war in Iraq (presumably because he didn’t care about the plight of Iraqis) but supports the terrorist killing of Israelis.
Can anybody from “the left” please explain his logic, because it honestly makes no sense to me, at all?
(I’ve been to the pub for lunch, so sorry if I’m a bit incoherent)
Good old Melanie.
Her latest article manages to condemn the Police in Nottinghamshire for having the audacity to reassure the Muslim community there after a rise in racist attacks by showing they’re not against them just for being Muslims.
Melanie thinks that Muslims – and I’m guessing, y’know, the vast majority of them are not involved in the planning stages of a terrorist attack – should all be shaking with fear at the sight of the police.
The funny thing is that some of her article makes sense. Extremist preachers should be deported. The Muslim community should step up and denounce extremists. They should be more active against extreme views.
But Melanie manages to nullify her more reasonable points with absolutely venomous attacks on people – the Police – who are trying to keep the peace, keep a calm and level-head in a difficult situation and protect all British citizens against crime, no matter what their faith or skin colour.
I fear the only option that would appease Melanie would be a pogrom to flush out the extremists along with the law-abiding Muslims.
To Hell with community relations and protecting Muslims. Especially when…Oh God…the Police are asked…not forced…to wear a ribbon to reassure Muslims (including Muslim children, I presume) that if they are not criminals they have nothing to fear.
I know, what a liberal wuss I am.
Christ.
Seamus – complain to Ms Phillips, not here
Re Livingstone’s ANC test given during R4 “Today” interview.
He was not examined on this stance (wot a surprise).
But Livingstone should really be pinned down on what he means by “occupation”.
The Hamas miliants, whose suicide bombing tactics he understands, do not want the return of the 67 land, they want an end to the state of Israel.
Why do the BBC not ask Livingstone whether he supports Hamas’s objective?
Er, Roy, this site posted the link to the article and sang her praises, so I don’t think it’s out of line to talk about it in this same websites forum for debate.
Seamus,
Surely the Muslim community should wear armbands to show their solidarity with the victims of the bombings – “Muslims against extremists”?
Why should the police have to wear a wristband to show solidarity with muslims?
To me it seems like a pathetic bit of multi-culti bullshit. Pandering to the “victims” (when the true victims are getting their body parts put into coffins for buriel).
Its exactly this kind of thing that leads to resentment of the Muslim community. Everybody is beding over backwards to make sure their feelings aren’t hurt. Did the police wear “Salman Rushdie” wrist bands? I doubt it somehow….. Oh yeah I forgot, that would be racist.
“Surely the Muslim community should wear armbands to show their solidarity with the victims of the bombings – “Muslims against extremists”?
I agree, Rob. I really mean that, as I indicated by mentioning the parts of Phillips article I agreed with.
But I don’t think trying to reassure innocent Muslims that the police will protect them from violence is a bad thing at all.
A ribbon? Why not? If it reassures, say, a mother with her children, what’s the problem?
It isn’t about their “feelings” in the flippant sense of the word.
It’s about letting them know that just because we want them to deal with extreme elements in their community, doesn’t mean we’re going to let them feel threatened in their own community by racist attacks.
But Phillips doesn’t care if they feel threatened. She’s hinting (although too smart to admit it outright) that they’re ALL complicit in the terrorist atrocities.
And that they all should be scared.
Hence the attack on measures to make them (the vast majority of whom are innocent, remember) feel safer.
From the editor’s desktop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4187118.stm
“The call for comments on BBC journalism prompted hundreds of e-mails, and you can see a wide selection of them here.
I’ve read them all, and many applied to other parts of BBC News. The majority were upbeat about the BBC and its reputation for detailed, accurate and impartial reporting, but common concerns included:
too left wing
mouthpiece of the UK government
too many clichés in TV news reporting
mindless two-ways between presenters and reporters
not enough context for major stories
assuming too much knowledge
dumbing down
too serious, not catering for the “average” person’s interests
anti-Bush
not enough investigative reporting
too cautious, holding back information on important, breaking stories
Some interesting contrasts in the mix then. I have passed on all the comments to my colleagues looking at the future of BBC journalism and we will factor many of them into our thinking.”
Ho Ho Ho.
“One that caught my eye was about being too cautious. There’s a big debate to be had about this one. The BBC prides itself on accuracy, and being sure of the facts before broadcast. But in 24-hour news it finds itself up against rivals who are more willing to quote sources and then rein back if necessary.
Yeah, you really held back on this wild speculation that turned out to be utter cr*p:
I saw Tube man shot – eyewitness
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
Good call….
“Boss from Memphis, US, wrote: “I must be truthful, and this critique probably won’t get to air. The BBC is at best just a typical general source of news that slightly scratches the surface of important world events. The BBC is definitely state-controlled politically biased, manipulated, and spoonfed to the masses who refuse to search and gather deeper understanding from more in-depth news sources. Informed individuals understand that there are very few sources of this nature available.”
BBC gets its first subscriber – wahay!….
“Swiftly followed by Ken Morley from Pacific Grove, US: “I have a problem finding any fault with BBC online coverage. I use your site to get a feel for what is going on (both in the US and not ). You coverage is broad (I don’t try to read even a small part, but it is there if I need/want it). Wonder if I should give to you for this service. I guess I would, at a low enough level. Something per year ($10 or $15 by card).”
Yeah, I could agree to that, $15, thats about £9.
Idris Demarco from Glasgow, Scotland, raged: “I feel sorry for the poor minion that has to sift through these messages, just to satisfy that w***** Peter Clifton’s ego. I don’t give a f*** about your thoughts or views, just do your job and tell the news. Can someone tell me has Peter Clifton based himself on David Brent?”
Some more good comments here
From the editor’s desktop: Your response
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4166918.stm
“There is now sloppiness in reporting where reporters make remarks like “a number of people” without specifying what that number is and who they are; or at the end of a report the reporter makes a snide remark to finish. Again with no evidence. What the news should be about is the facts – not the reporters opinions, there are other places for those. Sir John Reith must be turning in his grave!
Roy Turner, Yeovil”
Critics say [blah, blah, insert whatever moonbat lefty rant here].
Reoposted from below….
Compare and contrast (Didn’t PaulR say that to me?):
Unbiased Sky:
LONDON LEFT STRESSED
http://www.sky.com/skynews/ artic…1342185,00.html
Any mention of a race element to the story? Nope. Now read BBC version of same story…..
Biased BBC
Bombings ‘severely stressed’ 31%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt…lth/ 4183712.stm
“Almost a third of Londoners overall but nearly two-thirds of Muslims suffered substantial stress following the 7 July bombings in the city, researchers say.
Muslims may have suffered more because of fears of reprisals, they said.
Dr Greenberg said Muslims might have been more vulnerable to stress because of concern about the consequences of the bombings, such as possible reprisals from those who blamed the Islamic community in general.”
Of course, muslims are the real victims….aren’t they? If you only get your news from Al-BBC output, that would have to be your conclusion.
Never miss a chance to play the race card do they? Are the dead victims ‘stressed’?. Oh I forgot, they can’t be ‘stressed’ cause they are dead. What about the victim’s families – they a bit stressed? I forgot, victims relatives and loved ones are not important. Unless they are muslim. Or an illegal immigrant.
Not mentioning the massively higher stress levels of an entire religious group after a terrorist attack related to extremists from that group is a negligent piece of reporting.
(Sheenan’s) arguments against the war have sparked a heated controversy, and conservative militants from California are on their way to Crawford to launch a tour called “You don’t speak for me, Cindy!”. (BBC News-site)
So people who disagree with Sheenan and have also lost loved ones are labelled ‘conservative militants’ from California that well known loopy State…even thouhg most are coming from outside Californai! …yeah right. Hamas and Hizbollah could also be described as conservative militants!
Seams
There is no evidence of ny increse in ntiMslim incidents in the Northmpton re. That ribbon ide ws jst stpid PC gestre. It probbly did morte hrm thn good, by ntgonising lot of people.
If it ws tht good n ide, why was it not adopted elswhere ? Why not in Leeds or London.
The real danger in Leeds seems to come from the threatening behaviour of Muslim friends of the Dewsbury bombers, trying to attack aanyone who criticises of their murderous friends. Blue-onblue – maybe a blue ribbon is needed ?
Yes, you are a vapid wuss, as you say. It is softheaded looniness from your ilk that got us into this mess.
There has been a rise of anti-Muslim violence since the terror attacks.
That is a fact.
There is nothing softheaded about reassuring innocent Muslims that the Police will protect them against racist thugs.
As for for the likes of me being responsible for terrorist attacks, that is a despicable thing to say – I have clearly outlined what I believe should be done by Muslim community to combat extremists in their midst.
I just don’t think making sure they fear getting no protection from the Police against racists is a decent incentive for them to do this.
Seamus
It is your ilk that happily accepts huge increases im immigration, tolerates the illegals that were involved in the 21/7 incidents, cheers on Human Rights lawyers nd judges that block the exclusion or deportation of extremists that foment violence, and are forever handwringing about the poor Muslims.
And your ilk tolerates indeed supports a blind and idle BBC that failed to report properly on these risks. John Ware’s Panorm was simply closing the stable door after thye …..
And you are happy to have Question Time stuffed with vociferous Muslims who shout down the views of the indiginous community.
What about poor us facing risks on the London tube ?
Trust yo to support the ribbon idea. Facile waste-of-money. If the ide was tyhat clever, why not for london nd Leeds ? Answer – because even the PC PC in London, Ian Blair, is not that daft.
Seamus,
Let’s see. We have followers of an ideology that advocate murdering anyone trying to leave it, that advocates the overthrow of the secular laws of the land, that regards non-members as lesser human, and yet we’re meant to wear ribbons showing solidarity! Unbelievable!
Fear of backlash I hear you say? Well he’s some backlash following 9/11 that was all quickly forgotten about:
here, here and here
Perhaps Ross Parker should have been wearing a “ribbon of solidarity”.
How many muslims in Britain showed any solidarity what so ever with the murdered victims on 9/11? How many after Bali? After Madrid? After Belsan? After the video beheadings? And now after London? I must have missed all the “Not in our name” and “no to terrorism” marches, and the mass ribbon wearing events by muslims.
Nope. Solidarity, as with much else in islam, only ever flows one way. And dhimmis like Seamus here fall hook, line and sinker for the old islamic victimhood routine.
You’ve just made a list of assumptions about me that are not true.
I DO NOT cheer on Human Rights laywers when they protect terrorists from, say, being deported, I DO NOT cheer on immigration, I DO NOT tolerate illegals who ferment violence against our country.
I DO believe Question Time should be a forum for FREE SPEECH and that ALL views, extreme or not, should not be censored on the BBC (that means BNP, Islamic extremist, Zionist Jew etc).
I DO believe in the Muslim community making heavy steps towards rooting out the extremists amongst them and thus protecting us all, Christian and Jew and Muslim and all.
As for the ribbon – why does it bother you that the Police tried to find a way to reassure innocent Muslims that they would protect them against anti-Muslim racist violence, which has been on the increase? I mean, why does that bother you? Why don’t you want innocents to feel reassured in the face of violence?
Also, please don’t attribute views to people on issues they have not yet expressed a view on.
And polling after 7/7 showed that 26% of UK Muslims would NOT report to the police if they knew of any plot for terrorist activity.
That is ONE in FOUR !!!
Get your head into ger, Seamus. Engge brin, look t reality. Rigtht now you and your ilk are acting as “useful idiots” – look it up on google. Fellow-travelling through naivete with terrorism.
Television faces up to the future
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4184286.stm
“…..is causing problems for the once-dominant terrestrial channels. Their audiences are steadily going down, as competition grows and more time is spent watching digital channels.
Not a month goes by without another newspaper headline proclaiming the “worst-ever” day or week for BBC One or ITV1.
The BBC has a different problem in the digital age.
Its income is guaranteed, but it needs to maintain wide public support to justify the continuation of the licence fee.
The debate over its next Royal Charter continues, although the government has made it clear the licence fee will continue for another 10 years after 2007.”
Scrap the Telly Tax!
BoyBlue, why are you assuming all Muslims are extremists?
They are not.
But too many – far far too many – show sympathy for the extremists.
I want the Muslim community to root them out, I want the Muslim community to show more solidarity with victims of Islamic extremism. How many times do I have to say this?
I DO want to show solidarity with the INNOCENT Muslims who ARE facing an increase in anti-Muslim attacks.
A ribbon? Wouldn’t have been my choice. But why on Earth does a gesture to reassure innocent Muslims anger you so much?
To be British means, to me, being fair and decent.
Just because Muslims don’t do enough to condemn Islamic extremism (and it ANGERS ME that they don’t) doesn’t mean I want them to be scared in their own homes and communities.
Therefore, I am pleased to see the Police reassure them that in this country, we protect innocent people against violence.
The green ribbons gave nil reassurance. Just an empty gesture. But trust you to believe in liberal twaddle like that.
Again – are you Brit ? Or just preaching at us ?
If the Iraq project fails, then you can forget the US intervening in any genocide for decades.
The Lefties should be careful what they wish for, as they may well get an isolationist US, which won’t do their dirty work (Kosovo, Somalia etc) for them.
Did you ask the Muslim community about how much reassurance the ribbons gave/would give them?
Yes, I am a Brit.
We do NOT protect innocent people from violence. The criminal stats show there is a far more serious incidence of crimes of violence these days. Older people who were not afraid to go out in wartime London are now afraid to walk the streets at night. Hitler didn’t scare them, but community disorder does.
And far too little was done to prevent the violence, the murders, of 7/7. Partly because the BBC blinded people to reality.
If even ONE innocent Muslim family feels less afraid of being attacked by racist thugs because of one copper wearing a ribbon, it’s worth it.
I don’t want anyone to be afraid in Britain of racist/religious violence.
That goes equally for everyone.
I’m sorry a lot of British people don’t feel the same way.
Did ANYONE ask the Muslim community about the green ribbons ? If they were that damn good, how come no other Chief Constable adopted them.
Answer – because it was a stupid PC idea. Calculated to appeal to Guardianistas.
What were the police doing to protect voters in Bethnl Green nd Bow ginst intimidation ? What are they doing to stop the extremist bullying in Dewsbury ? Why didn’t they clear the streets of Finsbury Park of extremist Muslim preachers ? That is REAL policing, not stupid ribbons.
But John, we SHOULD protect innocent people from violence, ALL people.
I’m as appalled by violence against old people as I am by violence against innocent Muslims. Disgusted. Angry about it.
If you were to say, the Police should do make old people feel safer, I would say, do ANYTHING that might help them feel safer.
Anything.
I’m a supporter of ASBO’s, so your `liberal civil liberties type` argument doesn’t wash with me.
And if ribbons make innocent Muslims feel safer, even one innocent Muslim feel safer, I have no problem with them.
You’re assuming I’m sticking up only for Muslims. But I’m sticking up for all innocent British people who don’t want to be afraid, including innocent Muslims.
No idea why that would bother any fair-minded person.
John, you’re obsessed with the ribbons. Ok, let’s out them in the bin.
How about if the Nottinghamshire police had just held a meeting with the Muslim commnunity to show solidarity with the innocent amongst them and told them they would protect them against racist violence?
Good idea, yes or no?
I haven’t seen the police wearing red, white and blue ribbons to show support and sympathy with the British people.
I’d be particularly wary of any policeman who decided to show sympathy for the ummah.
Political Correctness, scares the VAST majority of the general public, because they know that they are more at risk from “more equal” communities.
When are the police going to reassure us that they won’t take community relations into account when dealing with serious crime. If a community is against the British police dealing with serious crime, then they shouldn’t be here.
Fine. Such a meeting or series of meetings would have been able to stress the importance of people reporting on any info. or worries about extremists in their midst. And quite apart from that, the police should be monitoring extremists. Because we are all in danger from them.
I happen to think the Muslim community needs to snap out of its victim mentality. The extremists and possible terrorists are in their communities, they have failed to do enough to flush them out, and far too many of them give extremists and terrorism tacit support. THAT is what all police forces should be concentrating on, not empty gestures.
And THAT is what the biased BBC deliberately neglected until the bombs went off.
Incidentlly, you are just as “obsessed” about the utility of the ribbons as we are about their stupidity.
Why is the Palestinian murder of Israelis any more “just” than the murder of Iraqis by Saddam? He opposed the war in Iraq (presumably because he didn’t care about the plight of Iraqis) but supports the terrorist killing of Israelis.
Can anybody from “the left” please explain his logic, because it honestly makes no sense to me, at all?
Rob,
The explanation for Livingstone’s revolting beliefs is that old left-wing ranking system, by which it assigns preference to client causes, about which I have posted before.
Muslims score high at present, so anything any Islamofascist does must be excused by the left. Beating up women is wrong, unless it’s a Muslim doing it, just as executing homosexuals is wrong unless it’s a Muslim state doing it.
With me so far?
Livingstone endorses the murder of Israelis by Palestinians because to condemn it would entail his criticising Muslims. This he cannot do.
Criticising the murder of Muslims by Saddam Hussein would entail his agreeing with the United States on something. This he also cannot do.
The only position he can adopt which reconciles with the left’s right-on take on the two matters is to excuse the killing of Muslims in Iraq and to excuse the killing of Jews by Muslims in Palestine.
The key issue is that there are certain points of view to which your generic hate-filled lefty is required to subscribe, and hatred of America trumps support for Muslims.
Consistency of attitude toward Muslims is therefore not required. Muslims are of no intrinsic account. They are just a here-today, gone-tomorrow client group, with no permanently special status beyond where they happen to rank today for the purposes of favours.
The left routinely gets its knickers in a twist over this because while the preference list – who trumps whom – is rigidly prescriptive, on the other hand it is always liable to change at a moment’s notice. At any moment, a group could become less useful to the left, and slip down the rankings.
Women, for instance, were a popular left-wing cause in the 70s and 80s. Today? Black rappers can rap about pimping their “bitches”, Muslims can murder them judicially for having been raped, they can die of dodgy contraceptive pills and the left hasn’t a word to say about any of it. Women have been trumped as a special favours group by blacks and muslims.
The same applies to homosexuals: black rappers can rap about shooting them in the head, and the Taliban can execute them for being gay by having a wall bulldozed onto them, but it’s just fine by the left because it’s Muslims doing it. If a member of the Catholic church were to advocate anything even mildly reminiscent of such intolerance, well, he could forget getting any kind of job with the EU, for instance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3741866.stm – of course al-BBC would consider mainstream Catholic views ‘controversial’, wouldn’t it?).
Gays still rank over the Catholic Church; just not over Muslims.
There are other examples, of course: miners, children in need of a grammar school education, the unemployed, pensioners. They have all fallen from favour with the left over the years.
I am convinced that the only way to understand and anticipate the left’s perspective on anything is via the above cynical analysis, not through an attempt to discern some guiding logical principle, when behind it all there is none to be discerned.
The left is very much like the HAL9000 computer in 2001 in many ways. It doesn’t actually think; it just processes whatever programmes are downloaded to it. It chants slogans as a substitute for thought. Quite often these programmes / slogans accidentally conflict, and the result is the moral squalor we see in Livingstone and his chums at the BBC.
Seamus,
Asians are about 4% of the UK population but carry out about 30% of the racially-motivated crimes, according to the last British Crime Survey I looked at.
Whites are 94% of the population and responsible for about 40% of the racially-motivated crimes.
Which means that an Asian is about 18 times more likely to carry out a racist crime than is a white person.
On the basis that most of the cowering scaredy-cat Muslims are presumably to be found among the Asian segment of the population, the statistics suggest that they’re not the ones who should be afraid of attack. If they are, they are simply projecting their own murderous moral inadequacy onto everyone else, which is as insulting as it is stupid.
The EU found something similar recently, but it suppressed the report because it didn’t like hearing the fact that most race crimes were most likely to be committed by Muslims. We can’t have anything nasty said about Muslims when the victims are mostly only Jews anyway – right?
Seamus ” Er, Roy, this site posted the link to the article
No, Ed’s piece linked to Melanie Phillips’ piece on the BBC “Today” programme, not the wheeze to spend tax payers’ money on ribbons, i.e. BBC relevent to this site Notts Police not.
Actually John, if I was obsessed with the ribbons I wouldn’t have suggested the alternative you agreed was a good solution. I couldn’t care less about the ribbon. I don’t care what method is used to reassure innocents.
And I agree such a meeting, instead of the gesture of a ribbon, could also stress rooting out extremists within the community.
Now I know that you do think the Police SHOULD reassure innocent Muslims that they’ll protect them against racists attacks.
Which is good.
If you’d said as much, but only stressed that you didn’t think the ribbon was a good way to go about it, there would have been no argument.
Roy, if the website doesn’t want people to discuss writers they praise and post links to their articles, it’s simple.
Stick to the BBC and don’t deviate by posting such links and praising such writers.
I know many on here want to censor free speech they find inappropriate on the BBC, but I’ll comment on anything related to the post.
Unless my posts are removed. Wouldn’t surprise me.
camp_commandant, can you provide a link to those statistics?
The entire Ribbon issue typifies the type of childish view of the world so often expressed on “From our own Correspondent”.
Muslims must not be singled out for reassurance, to do so only increases thier seperateness in society. Left wingers can never see beyond the colour of a persons skin and thier kneejerk reaction is to accord minorities special status. Inevitably this makes manifest any percieved “difference”, locks it into the culture for all time and ensures that Racism and resentment endure.
To Paraphrase Kennedy, I say that we must judge a man according to his character, not the colour of the ribbon on his lapel.
Seamus, you`ve got some growing up to do boy.
camp_commandant, I actually agree with your criticism about the indulgence amongst SOME of the left towards hardline Muslim behaviour.
You said: “miners, children in need of a grammar school education, the unemployed, pensioners. They have all fallen from favour with the left over the years.”
I agree! It disgusts me. My leftist beliefs are rooted in concern for these people, not for Galloway/Ken’s bloody `freedom fighters` who only want the freedom to throw acid in women’s faces and do away with democracy.
I have no problem with some of the criticism of sections of the Islington liberals on here, although I don’t share some of the venom against them I’ve seen around.
But the left in the working class Labour heartlands is not THEIR left, the Galloways’s of the left, the middle-class North london liberal left.
So fair point.
Another example of major news not being reported:
Associated Press:
Italy’s Red Cross treated four Iraqi insurgents and hid them from U.S. forces in exchange for the freedom of two Italian aid workers kidnapped last year in Baghdad, an official said in an interview published Thursday. Maurizio Scelli, the outgoing chief of the Italian Red Cross, told La Stampa newspaper that he kept the deal secret from U.S. officials, complying with “a nonnegotiable condition” imposed by Iraqi mediators
“The mediators asked us to save the lives of four alleged terrorists wanted by the Americans who were wounded in combat,” Scelli was quoted as saying. “We hid them and brought them to Red Cross doctors, who operated on them.”
They took the wounded insurgents to a Baghdad hospital in a jeep and in an ambulance, smuggling them through two U.S. checkpoints by hiding them under blankets and boxes of medicine, Scelli reportedly said. …
When terrorists released the two aid workers last September, Italian dailies published reports of high-priced ransoms being paid. Italian Foreign Minister Francisco Frattini hotly disputed that any deal had been made, saying that the release showed the love and esteem in which the Arab world held Italy.
Hardly; now we know that the Italians double-dealt us, and then allowed the two freed women to spout anti-American rants after they abused the Red Cross vehicles and broke with the Geneva Convention
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Yet another case (it has happened in Gaza) where Red Cross ambulances have been abused to carry terrorists. And who is the first to scream about the Geneva Convention (Abu Grahib etc) the Red Cross. And you wonder why Islamic Terrorists do not care about the Red Cross or Geneva Convention?
Now. When will we see this story on the BBC? Nothing on the website or in BBC Europe website etc
Seamus but I’ll comment on anything related to the post.
Er (to use your elegant word, Phillips was linked to because she had written about the BBC.
You are suggsting that makes it appropriate to discuss on this site anything else ever written on a linked blog. You must be a clown.
Rob Read FC:
Muslims don’t need to be singled out for reassurance in the light of increased racist violence against them after the London terror attacks?
It’s not liberal pandering to reassure a targeted group.
It’s common sense.
Just as it was common sense to reassure Londoners with a heavy police presence on London’s streets after the attacks.
Because they were being targeted.
You say Muslims get special treatment.
I say they deserve equal treatment.
Roy, if you’re irritated by the debate, feel free to ignore it.
Roy, if you’re irritated by the debate, feel free to ignore it.
Seamus
You condescending twat
Rob, it was Martin Luther King who dreamed of a day when his children would be judged not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character. A day his so-called successors are determined to see never comes. These days the push is for permanent separatism and privileges based on the sufferings of long dead forbearers.
So now we can enjoy the spectacle of middle and upper class young people of color coddled with ‘ethnic’ dorms, special academic departments and social supports whine they are ‘oppressed’. Nauseating – and dangerous. White guilt isn’t going to last forever, and the backlash of the majority against a privileged minority could get very ugly indeed.
No they don’t. They want Islam to spread globally and have to be fought by any means possible. Islam is not a religion but a death-cult created by a child molester who, by claiming to be a prophet, managed to create probably the most anti-humane policital / pseudo-religious cult in the history of mankind. Read one of Robert Spencer’s books or Eurabia by Bat Ye’or before you tell us that muslims aren’t different from the rest of us.
It is Asians doing more proportionately of the targetting, say the statistics.
What colour ribbon should the police wear for us, to reassure us gainst fer of their attacks on us ?
And that doesn’t include 2 sets of tube/bs bombings launched from within the Muslim commnity. How many more before the Muslim community gets a grip, before its “spokesmen” stop endorsing suicide bombings ? How mny more before the BBC stops giving free pbl;icity to ftwas that are NOT absolte condemntions of terrorism.
Oh – and when will the BBC be showing us hundreds of thousands of Muslims marching agaainst terrorism, as against marching against action against a dictator like Saddam ?
Oh, personal insults involving offensive swear words, time to leave.
Stop cheering.