On Sunday I noticed a report on BBConline which talked about the international aid effort to Pakistan which was then underway. Knowing that such affairs are almost becoming a catwalk for the compassion of the developed world, I approached with caution.
Anyway, a read of the report showed the BBC magnanimously including the US in the lede about international aid swinging into action- generally an upbeat presentation. However, I say maganimously because the US is listed as having pledged just 100,000 dollars- far less than the EU or even the UK (this issue of EU aid versus individual EU countries giving aid is very much an unresolved reporting issue for the Beeb- for instance, having effectively headlined the EU in lede and list, they throw this line in at the end, ‘France, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece have all allocated funds or pledged to assist with immediate needs.’Meanwhile, Ireland had pledged about a third of that, I subsequently learnt.)
Needless to say, the BBC’s assertion that the US had pledged just $100,000 seems to have been flat out wrong: this report (of the same day, timestamp ‘earlier’- but later given transatlantic timezones) says the US had given– not pledged (a v. important distinction oft abused in BBC journalism as elsewhere)- 500,000 dollars to the Pakistan Red Cross via the relevant US agency, and that this took place on Saturday, by way of a beginning.
Although the Beeb follow up the 100,000 assertion- a figure I found was actually repeated from an earlier article– by quoting Bush that ‘”Our initial deployments of assistance are under way, and we stand ready to provide additional assistance as needed,” they fail to point out what that initial deployment had actually meant- all they needed to do was quote Bush… a little more:
‘Speaking in the Oval Office with the Pakistani Embassy’s deputy chief of mission, Mohammad Sadiq, by his side, Bush said that the United States has already sent some financial aid — the U.S. Agency for International Development sent $500,000 to the Red Cross in Pakistan on Saturday.
A second relief package in the form of emergency supplies, military helicopters and emergency management personnel was on its way. Two C-130 and a C-17 U.S. military aircraft containing blankets, winterized tents and other relief supplies were in motion already.
“We’re moving choppers. Secretary Rumsfeld is surveying the assets they may be able to move in the area,” Bush said. “Pakistan’s a friend, and the United States government and the people of the United States will help as best as we possibly can.’
Geddit Beeb?- costly, present actions: the choppers probably no-one else will send, plus aircraft and crewmen. I wonder how much it costs per day to fuel, maintain and man these kinds of items in foreign terrain? Wassa matter, Beeb, Bush’s colloquialism ‘choppers’ too low brow for ya t’report? $100,000- pah!
The Beeb, it seems clear, learnt nothing from their failures over reporting the US contribution to the tsunami. Even if situations move quickly, what would have been wrong in updating the report (the most recent I can find under a ‘Pakistan Aid’ search of the BBC website)?
One last note- I see that in addition to top-billing the EU, the Beeb also co-mentioned the ‘several Islamic nations’. Concerning this latter group: A)Where’s the beef? (statistically, in the article, I mean- no doubt the Beeb would get the facts wrong but still it would be something to go on) and B)Where’s the rest of Allah’s righteous nations in showing love to the Ummah? (a question I am sure they’d rather leave to the relevant heralded Panorama)
Update: Well, I did say ”c’mon’, and lo! they came (on)- the Beeb got to the US aid delivery 24 hours (or more) after their competitor news organisation. They also updated the old story (similarly late). But the explicitness with which they refer to the US role (could actually be more explicit) almost makes me think they took a hint from someone…
‘The US has promised $50m for relief operations and Kuwait pledged $100m.Six helicopters have now arrived in Pakistan from the US airbase in neighbouring Afghanistan.
(that’ll be ‘US helicopters’- ed’s guess)
The US ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, said planes with US relief supplies were forming a “virtual air bridge” into Pakistan.’
Yet I do notice how Kuwait gets a starring role, in grating juxtaposition with the US’ effort. And, if you’re going to talk in those terms, why not Ireland, the ultimate David-like persona to grate with? Didn’t they pledgemuch more than Kuwait? And (cherry on top time) why leave it to an ambassador of the USA to say that the US airforce is forming a ‘virtual air bridge’? Isn’t it near enough a very expensive and yet vital fact?
The US is acting, promptly and decisively (surprise!), and this is doubtless costly too. Knowing the US stance on aid, it probably isn’t even counting the gift of the choppers etc as part of any sum of money it’s pledging to give. After all, you can’t pledge what you’ve already given. One thing that’s certain is that while all the other aid may line the pockets of various bureaucratic layers, trickling on down to the bereaved and the homeless, this is one donationgoing where it’s really needed. It’s just difficult to get the BBC to admit it.
O/T:
Global warming is a settled debate right? Hence this “magazine” article makes no effort to be balaced:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm
Good Blog! Although the BBC is a bit lefty, I still love it as an institution. It is clear that it is becoming more and more politicised, and that programming is losing out as more and more is outsourced. A sign of the times unfortunately. They need to go back to being neutral, independent, and not afraid to be ‘british’ (whatever that means – prob. a bit less PC). Did anyone notice how US-centric all news is becoming. The recent hurricanes dominated the news even though they were pretty tame in terms of fatalities. The recent hurricane and landslides in Central America barely got a mention and I bet that the news channels did not send over armies of presenters and analysts for minute-by-minute updates on trivial crap. I’ll shut up now.
lawchimp, welcome. I also agree 100% with your comment re “armies of presenters and analysts”. The latest Bali bombings were also a prime example. I think they managed one reporter.
O/T
“Merkel named German chancellor” .
mmm, Front page main item? no.
Secondary item? no.
Its the small link on the left. Not surprising really. The largest country in the EU gets a new chancellor and the beeb seem more concerned about the Wallace and Gromit set fire.
Also, while I have my rant. Why is there no report about the EU polluting the Arctic Ocean by dumping space craft there?
Reuters and CNN say Bush has pledged 50 million dollars as of late Sunday. BBC wesite lists US aid as 100000 dollars as of Monday pm. I agree with those who say the BBC is anti-US, but has anyone else noticed how BBC news is often very slow compared to other providers? I suppose that could be the unique way it is funded. No need to try too hard if your income is guaranteed. The BBC reminds me of the local council or the government. They are eager for your cash, but not so eager to give much in return.
O/T
Back to the $135m firework.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/08/cryosat_crashes_and_burns/
“Cryosat was supposed to examine the effects of global warming on the polar ice caps. Instead it did its own little bit for global warming as it plunged into the icy Arctic Sea.”
Oddly not reported by the (B)BBC.
Rob, yeah, saw that and giggled. Actually I was expecting a “US warplanes shot down enviromental sat; World’s about to drown on thursday” headline. Well, any way OT. get this:
The BBC’s financial scandal.
I saw footage of that EuRoman Candle going up on Sky News at the weekend. What a giggle I had when the voiceover stated the thing decided to go for a cold swim. Ahh the best things in life certainly are free.
the USA are the only country who can afford any assistance, helicopters and crew costs loads, and its great to see them help out.
We in Britain cant because we dont have any helicopters left the government sold them all, and is taking an age to replace them??
How pathetic?
All the soldiers look up to Blair and yet he constantly stabs them in the back?
A friend recently tried to join the army and had to fill in 20+ pages of forms, countless interviews and was asked of all things what newspapers he reads (so as to identify his political views) once they found out he voted conservative, he never got invited back.
He was gutted. and i found it disgraceful that in the 21st century such discrimination takes place. Communism is coming soon.
But in all honesty, the BBC should portray anyone who helps in good light, including the americans, they always help. I just wish the BBC reported that.
Ian – your point on Army recruiting sounds surprising. I have some experience of the Army recruitment process and being identifiable as a conservative voter won’t stop your application. However, choice of paper is says a surprising amount about one and one’s political views. In my experience, this seems to be a peculiarly English phenomenon. For Army Officer, the paper to read is still the Telegraph, with the Times a close second. The Armed Forces are not exactly bastions of pro-Labour thought. For a selection of honest current views on a great range of subjects, visit the Army Rumour Service at http://www.arrse.co.uk and read the forums.
Ian,
I would be completely astonished if the British armed forces were covertly recruiting only those with left-wing opinions. I think you and your friend are reading a bit too much into this.
As regards the spacecraft, where was the sneering condescension? Where was the barely concealed mocking of the state which launched it? Where was the whinging about what the hundreds of millions could have been spent on instead? Strange.
Well guys, maybe i;m right maybe i’m wrong. Fact is, it all sounds rather strange to me.
ARRSE is a joke, having visited before and tried to post anything remotely questioning the government its always instantly removed..
Democracy for you…and another pro labour site, if you dont believe me visit yourself, you’ll see..
fact is guys, the army is in a state, and it was recently announced that the planned cut backs i.e. 40 to 36 regiments are now on hold till 2008. Why? because they are desparately short of personnel,, my goodness. that is amazing..
when you really sit down and look at what blair has committed the country to, and then just how bad the forces have been chopped, you wonder whether or not they actually understand what damage they’re doing. whilst all along, the forces are loyal to the government?
completely bizarre.
What the US should do is to “unilaterally” send its entire Pacific Fleet to Pakistan. Under no circumstances should it wait for the actual Pakistani government (okay – criminal conspiracy really) to say exactly what it needs.
Then, of course, the BBC can claim that the US is being arrogant and isn’t listening to a sovereign government.
final word:
spend more on defence.
More than 30,000 dead – what a horrible tragedy. Good to see the BBC stays at the kiddies table and starts to imply the US is either (a) at fault or (b) should feel guilty for their wealth.
What has happened in Pakistan is the net result of a country that has never embraced freemarket capitalism and open democracy. Countries that do unlease human creativity, innovation and a result of that is wealth. Wealth buys security from earthquakes, or at least permits countries to mitigate the scale of these disasters. If New Orleans had happened in Pakistan, millions may have died.
Once again the US will be the greatest provider of aid. That’s because it is the wealthiest nation, wealth EARNED by sheer hard work and not destroyed by governmental intervention. The rest can sneer and try to devise ways to turn this productive machine off. It can never work, as the wealth is not a result of luck but the genius of the creators in that country, and the values of the working population that convert these ideas into products and services.
America is also the most generous nation to have ever existed on the planet. But dont expect the BBC to ever report that.
Ian, which bit of ARRSE did you go to?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=23838.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=23839.html
and
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=23854.html
are all critical of the government and are still there after several days. I’d suggest the New Labour conspiracy isn’t there. If you want really strong criticism of New Labour, look at the threads on Defence cuts, Hoon (TCH) and voter registration for the last election.
Spot on Ted.
I am not sure that our present government really embraces fee market capitalism and open democracy in the way the USA does.
Barnet
All it would take is for Cameron or Davis to say :
‘Great nations are the product of individual genius that is funded by government, not bureaucratic government that is funded by individual genius’.
The population would swing to Tory if that simple message was hammered home, time and time again.
I still think that the UK has benefited enormously from Thatcher and Blair. Both have been outstanding leaders and have made the UK a far wealthier nation than before. Innovation and creative genius have flourished as a result, in all areas. The country is quite simply the economic, military, social, cultural and technological powerhouse of Europe.
France is the opposite. Innovators, creative geniuses, hard workers and people who believe that money and wealth must be earned, have left the country in droves. They are replaced by people who are little better than thieves – those who believe they are entitled to something for nothing. As a result, the wealth creators, those who make the engine run, are damned. The place is in a spiral of underachievement, underconfidence and lack of self belief. They’ll be back, the French, as this country knows the spirit of greatness – but not for another 15-20 years, I’m afraid.
Ian Blair
Whilst I agree with you on the matter of cuts in the defence budget it should be pointed out that the Armed Forces (Gawd bless’em) are NOT supposed to be loyal to the government and God help us if they ever are. They are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen, Head of State, Governor of the Nation and the emodiment of all that is just, right and proper in the British people.
Stephen Pollard links to a piece by Nick Cohen – http://www.nickcohen.net/ – who’s an old lefty but seems to have trodden the same path as Christopher Hitchen to enlightenment and sanity. This article is about left-wing anti-semitism. It’s interesting but I think he needs to come clean and name names:
As the months passed, and Iraqis were caught between a criminally incompetent occupation and an “insurgency” so far to the right it was off the graph, I had it all. A leading figure on the left asked me to put him in touch with members of the new government. “I knew it! I knew it!” he cried when we next met. “They want to recognise Israel.”
I experienced what many blacks and Asians had told me: you can never tell. Where people stand on the political spectrum says nothing about their visceral beliefs. I found the far left wasn’t confined to the chilling Socialist Workers Party but contained many scrupulous people it was a pleasure to meet and an education to debate. Meanwhile, the centre was nowhere near as moderate as it liked to think. One minute I would be talking to a BBC reporter or liberal academic and think him a civilised man; the next, he would be screaming about the Jews.
UK needs to spend far more on defence, not just navy/army/air force, but particularly special forces and internal intelligence. We particularly need people inside the mosques and infiltrating extremist groups. The French did this in the 1990s and basically white anted the entire extremist terror structure in Algeria.
Dangerous work – is there anyone up to it in this country? I think that there probably is and that we’d be suprised if we knew of the work already being done in this area.
Ted
I still think that the UK has benefited enormously from Thatcher and Blair. Both have been outstanding leaders and have made the UK a far wealthier nation than before.
It is impossible for any politician to make any country richer. What did Thatcher and Blair do? Find buried treasure? The British people make this country what it is, and if that’s rich then it comes about through millions of people hauling their backsides out of bed every day to go to work and create wealth. Thatcher loosened the bonds of the state somewhat, Blair has been an utter disaster. Each year his government now takes from the British people some £300 billion more than the government took in 1997. That’s per year. How does that make us richer? His Chancellor has stolen so much money from our private pension funds that millions of us will be toiling until the day we die, fed on a diet of gruel. How does this make us richer? Is it 66 tax rises since 1997? Please, how does that make us richer? Maybe it’s the ever-increasing Council Tax, the increases for which are now so punitive that our pensioners choose imprisonment as an alternative to payment, which makes us richer?
You make the mistake which countless people make; that of believing that politicians can manage and guide us to better times. They can only do that by leaving us alone to enjoy the fruits of our own damn labour. Civil society is perfectly capable of managing itself without Dear Father Blair to guide to the promised land, thanks very much
OT
Outside experts to review BBC licence fee
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1587509,00.html
“Insiders say estimates show much of the broadcaster’s plans can be achieved with a rise equal to the retail price index plus just over 1% – less than the BBC’s projected opening bid of RPI plus 2%.
Earlier this year BBC governors and senior executives were given a presentation setting out a “menu” of options to be submitted to the DCMS.”
Isn’t it about time the menu had an option of RPI -3%? (yes, that’s RPI MINUS 3%!)
The BBC’s aim, pure and simple, is to do as much damage to the USA’s international image as possible. This is just one example of their standard operating proceedure:
1. Get a dig in, i.e. “the US is only contributing $100,000”.
2. Tens (Hundreds?) of millions their international audience see it, register it, and and it to their catalog of BBC-provided anti-American exaggerations and outright falsehoods.
3. In the rare event that a correction is issued, it is buried and downplayed, or subtly undermined with insinuations that it was issued under “pressure”. Meanwhile, the damage has been done, and the mission once more accomplished.
Off-topic, but indicative of anti-US BBC reporting at its most ludicrous:
This morning on BBC World reports of US offers to cut agricultural subsidies was giventhe final comment that the EU subsidises agriculture more, but as it “has no exports” they don’t affect world trade to the extent that US subsidies do.
In itself I found this quite a shock, but it was then followed in the next item with a report on the EU dumping 2m tons of sugar on th world market – no effect on world trade anyone?
Rob
“I saw footage of that EuRoman Candle going up on Sky News at the weekend. What a giggle I had when the voiceover stated the thing decided to go for a cold swim. Ahh the best things in life certainly are free.”
Not exactly free.
The UK contributes 14% of the 2,700,000,000 Euro budget.
I make that to be:
135,000,000 Euros x 0.14 = 18,900,000 Euros (or about 33 Euro cents for every man, woman and child in the UK).
Not too bad I suppose. Especially by EU standards.
Rob Good point.
Only a couple of weeks ago, in a Bangkok supermarket, there were bags of apples with “grown in the EU” printed on them.How did this fruit reach SE Asia then if the EU hadn’t exported it?
Needless to say, I didn’t buy
OT
Journalism is not just another business
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1588369,00.html
Kim Fletcher on BBC ‘Think’:
“It was easier to stand up to Conservative ministers. No one liked them and you did not meet them socially. New Labour walks like you, talks like you, looks like you. It shouts at you if it is Peter Mandelson, or appeals to your liberal conscience if it is Tessa Jowell. How would you feel if you were big in the BBC and everywhere you went, members of your peer group took you aside to ask why you were letting a group of bloody-minded, egocentric old journalists destroy the fine work of the corporation?”
Pete
You must have misunderstood me. I agree 110% that it is individual creative genius, multiplied by hard work of other individuals, that transform ideas into goods and services that contribute to the wealth of the nation. I thought I was crystal clear on that.
You then get the politicians. On one extreme is communism, the subjugation of the individual to the group. At the other extreme is the promotion of the individual to the group. Thatcher unleashed the power of creative genius, by using government to support it. I don’t agree Blair has been bad – he has moved Labour to the centre-right from far left, in itself a spectacular achievement. Brown has done a magnificent job, only now is his hubris starting to show in dramatic overspending. It has only been in the last 2 years that Blair has started to lose his steam, but this is to be expected.
I have no doubt that the community wants a change. I would say Davis or Cameron would both be excellent. My point was that the messages we need to hear – simple por-individual messages – are not coming through yet.
Regarding the fact that the EU “has no exports”, do they mean that the EU itself has none but the member states have? This would be one of the rare occasions (unique?) when the BBC has not meant “Europe” when saying “EU”.
Last word – Blair will be remembered as a magnificent PM, and rightly so. Overall his performance has been outstanding. Quite simply, he’d win any election he contested, not because he is a BS artist but becuase he is a truly formidable leader. As was Thatcher.
We’ll see just how good he was when he departs the Labour scene and we’re left with Two Jags, Brown and Livingstone.
Not “broken, beaten or cowed”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4320000/newsid_4326800/4326892.stm
“BBC journalism is about trust; trusted reporting, trusted interviewing, trusted analysis. It can never be about throwing loose, half-baked allegations around in the hope that something will stick.”
…..still laughing…..!
Where’s Matt Frei when you need him…??!!
Ritter — I just spit Dr. Pepper all over my monitor again!
The BBC is trusted reporting? The same BBC that repeats and legitimizes Internet rumors that the US military caused the tsunami?
These people are delusional.
I have to confess to a bit of schadenfreude when the Ice satellite bought the farm. Sorry guys — I know you helped pay for it. But considering how nasty the Europress (especially the Beeb) was about our space shuttle, I felt entitled…
Ted
I understood you perfectly well and just cannot believe that a sentient adult in 2005 can hold your opinion of Blair:
Blair will be remembered as a magnificent PM, and rightly so. Overall his performance has been outstanding. Quite simply, he’d win any election he contested, not because he is a BS artist but becuase he is a truly formidable leader.
Magnificent and outstanding? Be specific, name just one rock solid, tangible achievement.
He’d win any election? Look at the facts. Blair won fewer votes in May this year than Callaghan did in losing the 1979 general election. Four out of five people eligible to vote in May did NOT vote Labour. The Conservative Party polled more votes in England than the Labour Party did. That Blair is an awesome election-winning machine is a myth, it has no substance. He has been PM since 1997 for no other reason than the Conservative Party has been astoudingly useless. A mildly competent opposition would have ground lying, corrupt, grubby PM to dust.
Susan
Have that one on us 😉
Pete
You don’t like Blair and your lack of objectivity shows. It also betrays how much Blair has got under your skin. He has been PM for years because he is a good leader, pure and simple. Get over it.
He transformed Labour into a winning machine and the confidence has propelled them forward. Under his stewardship, almost every economic indicator in the UK has improved. I lived in France for 5 years and sensible people revere him and what he has achieved for the UK. He is seen as the de facto leader of Europe. He is the only leader in Europe the Americans will deal with.
All this is starting to slow down now, but to say 80% of eigible voters in May did not vote Labour is plain dumb. He won and won convincingly. He would win the next election as well, but the Labour machine is going to put in Brown, who will lose.
Ted
Of course I’m not objective when it comes to Blair. I’m a free-born Englishman with a brain and self respect. The day I’m fair to that tyrant is the day I take up French citizenship. But what’s your game anyway? Why are you talking him up so much? You sound just like one of those Nu Labour voters, Ted!
All this is starting to slow down now, but to say 80% of eigible voters in May did not vote Labour is plain dumb.
I hold my hand up. That statement is very close to dumb indeed. All that seperates it from dumb is the fact that it’s true.
Pete
I am not talking the guy up, but facts are facts. If we want to beat New Labour, you have to face that he is a formidable leader and it aint just spin.
I agree that he has become too much like an emperor, but the beaity of our system is that the average voter out there can see it and may bring him down, IF Cameron or Davis are against him.
I also say a lot of dumb things that are true, so I understand where you are coming from!
I always read Ted with great interest; he has provided some great comments on this blog. But … I’m a little puzzled that someone of his perspicacity would use great and Blair in the same sentence. Once Blair became Prime Minister, his own party could do little to get rid of him – though that was the original idea. ‘You are the Trojan Horse, Tony, people like your brand of bullshit, they may not vote for Gordy. But Gordy is our Leader, Right Tone? You can have your day, but you are a device. So stand down when we say so, right Tone?’ Tony nods and crosses his fingers behind his back.
Well .. he didn’t! And that’s why he is still PM. He won’t go. That doesn’t make him a good leader, surely? It makes him a stubborn and egotistical sod. That can be part of the qualities of a leader. But most of his party don’t want him.
He thinks of himself as a Great Leader now because events keep putting him in the driving seat. But a leader is someone who inspires the Nation, particularly his own party. He does neither. By lying over the real reason for the Iraq war, he did irreperable damage to the war effort when the exaggeration emerged, playing into the hands of the peaceniks and the Eucowards and Eucrooks who didn’t join in for hidden and venal reasons. Bush would have been more up front about his own motives (take out the biggest bully on the block ‘pour encourager les autres’) had he not been trying to talk up Blair to Blair’s own party’s backsliders. It was absolutely right that the allies should take out Saddam after 9/11. The aftermath so far , IMHO, was mainly due to Blair’s prevarication and bullshit; he held Bush back. Then they halted the major assault all too soon; they should have taken out all of Saddam’s Ba’athist thugs before they declared ‘victory’. The Arabs understand only one thing – strength! We have exposed our weakness through bad decisions and a Western MSM that is predominately leftist, internationalist and Gramsci inspired. Stormin’ Norman should have done in the Ba’athist army during Desert Storm. instead of getting squeamish on ‘the road to Basra’. GWB was right to correct his Dad’s mistake. Blairs has been more of an impediment to the war effort than a stanchion. And the thought of Blair Mark Two in the person of Cameron is depressing. Apart from which, Tony Blair is pussy-whipped. ‘Er indoors calls the shots. Great Leader? Not with you on this one Ted
Interesting debate between Pete and Ted.
For the first time in ages I’ve seen a conservative post something that is not just a knee jerk “I hate all lefties” type post.
As liberal leftie I don’t agree with Ted about Blair being a great PM I think it would be foolish and narrow minded not to recognise his electoral achievements, whether you agree with his policies or not.
he has won 3 elections on the trot – same as Mrs T. It doesn’t matter about the share of the overall vote – that’s just sour grapes. To be honest what does it say about the alternatives to Tony Blair and if they can’t beat him when he’s got such a low proportion of the vote.
Blair has repositioned the Labour Party and made it a credible government. You may disagree with the policies but you can argue with the fact that the Tories are struggling to present themselves as a credible government – tho to be fair to the Tories they are getting their act together.
Think back to the Labour governments of the 60s and 70s which were seen as in fighting and basket cases when it came to running the economy. Brown may be taking more of your money in tax (a good thing I say) but he’s kept the economy afloat – no other Labour chancellor would have managed that.
As to comments about him raiding the pension funds I think some of you may have forgotten the opening up of the pensions market, the abolition of SERPS and the massive pensions mis selling that the Thatcher government was directly and indirectly responsible for.
So keep posting on here Ted – it’s interesting to see someone with an open mind.
Marx would say all political ideas should be developed by dialectics 😉
O/T:
Melanie Phillips blogs on how a BBC radio program sought to discredit an organization that fights anti-Semitism. The radio program included as one of its “experts” on anti-Semitism the revolting Inayat Bungawala of “Let’s Abolish Holocaust Day” fame:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001447.html
Frank
I am looking at his entire record, not just the last 2-3 years. In fact I have admitted he is losing steam now. But history will judge him as a great PM.
I also think that Labour have convinced themselves that they can win without him, which will be remembered as a huge error. Why? Quite simply, they need him to win.
Regarding Iraq, the circumstances at the time required him to be the honest cop to Bush’s drive. I think he did his best, but like you I think they should have gone in far sooner. I doubt it will be the same strategy when they take down the mullahs, a process which I am certain they have already started.
A Lurker – happy to continue debating, but I can assure you that it will not be on marxist principles!
Re-Blair and his government – I go along with Pete_London at 5.39 today. I haven’t read all the comments but I think someone mentioned pensions. Don’t know how many of you are pensioners, but I retired 11 years ago and our pension fund was thriving, as were practically all others. Come New Labour and they’re nearly all in difficulty, and one of the main reasons is that Brown has taxed them all to the hilt. Our thriving fund has now turned into one where we have to go cap in hand to the company who pays them to keep adding millions so that we can keep going. New Labour – bah, they’re all con-artists
A Lurker
Let’s do a deal. You think it’s good that the thief in No 11 takes more and more of my money, I think it’s bad; bad for me, bad for my friends, bad for the economy and an outright theft of my property. So you pay my tax. Walk the walk, email me and refund me my tax money and the money that Brown has thieved from my pension.
Look at the words of Jim T above. Brown is rapidly bankrupting the nation. Already our pensioners are in poverty and the next two generations will suffer the same.
And I’m still waiting for Ted to give me one gold standard, unarguable Blair triumph.
O/T
Sorry, Ritters post made me have a coughing fit! LOL!
“BBC journalism is about trust; trusted reporting, trusted interviewing, trusted analysis. It can never be about throwing loose, half-baked allegations around in the hope that something will stick.”
HAHAHA!
In their new series on Israel and its terrorist Muslim neighbours, the BBC just used footage found in the “Pallywood” documentary.
If you haven’t seen it, it’s available in its entirety here: http://seconddraft.org/movies.php
It shows “Palestinians” faking battle scenes and feigning injuries for the cameras.
On the subject of earthquake relief, I’ve been watching with some fascination the BBC’s reporting from the disaster area on the 10 o’clock news. To get some perspective on what has happened there, a series of huge seismic waves hit an area where the local constructions and infrastructure were simply unable to cope – total collapse, everywhere. The BBC’s reporters were whining and moaning that not enough is being done, utterly oblivious to the fact that earthquakes of this scale cause such difficulties; just like hurricanes and tsunamis.
There was of course the usual quota of plugs for islam, the irony of survivors singing “allahu akbar” being completely lost on the reporter, and the survivors. No such plugs for Christians in the reporting from hurricane Katrina – nice balance.
While Ted’s busy organising a parade in honour of the Dear Leader’s triumphs …
Was that Barbara Plett narrating tonight’s “Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace”? And did the programme really make the claim that not only did Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount spark the intifada (boo hoo, get over it) but that Barak and Arafat were on the verge of concluding a peace deal when Sharon’s move scuppered it? This is a huge lie and one that can be easily disproven simply by looking at the Palestinian record. It’s a known fact that Arafat planned the violence long before Sharon made his visit. Ahh bollocks, more anti-semitic lies from the left. I repeat the words of the lefty Nick Cohen:
I found the far left wasn’t confined to the chilling Socialist Workers Party but contained many scrupulous people it was a pleasure to meet and an education to debate. Meanwhile, the centre was nowhere near as moderate as it liked to think. One minute I would be talking to a BBC reporter or liberal academic and think him a civilised man; the next, he would be screaming about the Jews.
Ted
I would say that the economy appearing to be in a good state is in spite of Brown’s chancellorship and most certainly not because of it.
He is responsible for one masterstroke, the independence of the Bank of England. That was a great idea.
Other than that, IMHO he has been disastrous. The “buoyant” economy at the moment has been funded entirely almost entirely by debt. This is money that will have to be repaid. When the bailiffs come a-knocking, the money will dry up very quickly. Then, there are going to be LOTS of people with no money because noone’s spending anything, but owing serious cash in debt servicing.
Brown goes on about no return to boom and bust. Well, there is a bubble supporting us at the moment, and when it bursts, we have a long way to fall. I think he knows this and is just desperately hoping that he gets out of 11 before it happens. Regardless of whether he does or not, it will be his fault and he’s done it all under Tony’s watch. The buck stops here.
We’re in the **** and it’s their fault. I just hope I’m wrong.
Allan@Aberdeen
Regarding the earthquake and relief, I take the view that it must be the will of this allah fella. Everything is the will of allah according to pious muslims so the earthqualke must be too. And who are we to argue with his work? To give aid would be to compromise the intended effects of his divine works and we don’t want to do that now, do we?