Having misrepresented US aid commitments to Pakistan (as noted previously), the Beeb found it convenient to do so again.
This report says that the aid effort has been ‘stepped up’, immediately following this with the statement that ‘In Balakot, close to the epicentre in Pakistan, US helicopters have been used for the first time to ferry supplies.’ This is a report dated today- I’m pretty confident it wasn’t around yesterday. What a decent news organisation might have pointed out here is some salient points from the following:
‘RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN AND NEW DELHI – US military helicopters arrived Monday from neighboring Afghanistan, assigned to help out in the relief effort of a key US ally devastated by the Oct. 8 earthquake. But on arrival in Pakistan, severe thunderstorms and hail kept the choppers all but grounded Tuesday, a source of frustration here.
“Thunderstorms are preventing us from doing our job,” says Staff Sgt. Lance Albert, a member of a five-man chopper crew of the Oregon National Guard, aboard a Chinook helicopter.’
When put alongside the BBC’s eyewitness account (also reported as part of the main story intro) that “I have seen people eating grass…. People are dying of starvation.” , it can be seen that the slant of article suggests that the US response is somehow implicated in that situation. Very unfair, in context– dangerously so, given US-muslim relations.
Oh, looky here:
Some “gunmen” have raided a North Caucusus city and killed dozens of people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4337100.stm
The Beeb quotes Kavkaz Center, a radical Chechnan Islamic Caliphatist group, identifying it simply as a “pro-rebel” organization.
Down at the very bottom though, the Beeb does admit that the suspected “gunmen” might just possibly have a connection to the “I” word.
What would the Basic Sky Package cost if it was able to extort it’s CURRENT total income from every household instead of just willing subscribers?
SCANDAL EVERYONE
No News from the BBC,
but apparently the Blairs have been caught up in another scandal involving property in Barbados…has anyone got any news. cos i can;t find anything on bbc.co.uk
BSkyB received a revenue of £3,600,000,000 from subscriptions last year.
I’m having trouble finding the total number of licence fee payers in the UK. However, the BBC claims that 69% of households have Digital TV and this equates to 15,715,178 households.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4247622.stm
Therefore:
15,715,178 / 0.69 = 22,775,620 households have a TV (and are presumably paying their licence fee)
£3,600,000,000 / 22,775,620 = £158.06
Hoever, this would include every single Sky channel (Sports, Movies, Etc).
If you are talking about just the basic package:
Sky charge £15 per month (£180 per year). They have 7.5 million subscribers. Therefore Sky’s total revenue is:
7,500,000 x £180 = £1,350,000,000
If you divide that by the number of UK households with a TV, you get:
£1,350,000,000 / 22,775,620 = £59.27 per year.
So, If everybody in the country was forced to pay a “Sky Fee”, they could have:
Perfect reception in all parts of the country for £60 per year (£5 per month) and the option of all the sport, movies, music, etc, for an additional sum (maybe £20 per month depending on the number of people that sign-up)
Obviously these are just rough figures that I put together with a bit of “googling”, but I think they are useful as a guide.
The Moonbats at (D)HYS are ecstatic that Moonbat Extraordinaire Harold Pinter has won the Nobel Prize:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4338082.stm
One of them wants to have a worldwide moment of silence to express their awe of the great man.
At this rate I suspect that George Monbiot’s Nobel Prize is already on the horizon!
Andrew
1. Some time ago I queried the habit of people going off topic. Andrew Patterson (you?) stated that he was all in favour of it.
2. If you have a problem with some posts then have the courage to name names and delete them. If you won’t delete posts then don’t get prissy over them; they are either acceptable or not.
3. If you were referring to me with your ‘moronic’ comment I suggest you take remedial English lessons. My response to Natalie was:
Natalie – no, it’s not admirable to be indifferent but indifferent I am. One thing I am not is callous. My words may have read that way but I know what my feelings are. I’m also human with human feelings and some things I just can’t rise above. When the little boy next door spends years poking his tongue out at me, insulting me and kicking my shins I just can’t leap to it like a samaritan when he falls over.
If that’s not ‘nice’ enough for you then say so, but I’m not interested in ‘nice’. ‘Nice’ doesn’t dig people from rubble, it doesn’t feed people and it doesn’t give them shelter. The victims of this earthquake wouldn’t give a damn if nice people in the west were looking glum on their behalf. Practically, ‘glum’ rates no higher than ‘indifferent’. Unless someone intends to pick up a shovel and start digging I don’t give a damn how nice someone is.
‘1 in 3’ want troops out of Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4335272.stm
Strange to go with the minority headline. Wouldn’t a more accurate and less misleading headline be:
‘2 in 3’ want troops to stay in Iraq
??
Ritter – That’s the BBC in a nutshell. They never let the facts interfere with spin.
Pete_London: “1. Some time ago I queried the habit of people going off topic. Andrew Patterson (you?) stated that he was all in favour of it.”
No. not I, and no, I’m not in favour of people using the comments facility here for general o/t chit-chat. Whilst the comments facility is useful and informative it can also be a liability at times too, and recently it has been a bit more of the latter than is desirable.
Pete_London: “2. If you have a problem with some posts then have the courage to name names and delete them. If you won’t delete posts then don’t get prissy over them; they are either acceptable or not.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the Biased BBC team are quite in favour of freedom of expression, but I don’t think we’re so keen on a free-for-all in our own virtual ‘living room’, as it were. It would be a shame to have to intervene more heavily in the way you suggest – I hope that those who value this facility will take the hint and comment correspondingly and with due respect to the wishes and standards of the Biased BBC team. If not, then perhaps moderation is the way forward.
Pete_London: “3. If you were referring to me with your ‘moronic’ comment I suggest you take remedial English lessons. My response to Natalie was:
Natalie – no, it’s not admirable to be indifferent but indifferent I am. One thing I am not is callous. My words may have read that way but I know what my feelings are. I’m also human with human feelings and some things I just can’t rise above. When the little boy next door spends years poking his tongue out at me, insulting me and kicking my shins I just can’t leap to it like a samaritan when he falls over.
Spare me the patronism about English lessons. I read what you said at the time, and my immediate thought was, to continue your metaphor, “if the boy next door’s house collapses on his family I’m still going to do my best to dig him and the rest of his family out, in the hope that one day the boy next door will grow up and respect other people too”. Not a perfect metaphor, but it works on a number of levels.
Pete_London: “If that’s not ‘nice’ enough for you then say so, but I’m not interested in ‘nice’. ‘Nice’ doesn’t dig people from rubble, it doesn’t feed people and it doesn’t give them shelter. The victims of this earthquake wouldn’t give a damn if nice people in the west were looking glum on their behalf. Practically, ‘glum’ rates no higher than ‘indifferent’. Unless someone intends to pick up a shovel and start digging I don’t give a damn how nice someone is.
For all practical purposes the best most of us can do is donate some cash (say the cost of a decent hardback book), perhaps through gritted teeth as Susan says (and I agree very much with her sentiments expressed above), through a competent secular/western/Christian oriented charity (http://www.dec.org.uk is a good choice for online donations). It’s not a case of being nice – it’s a case of rising above man’s inhumanity to man. I don’t care if you don’t want to be ‘nice’ – though I do care if third parties look at what you or others say here and think that that in some way reflects the views of Biased BBC as a whole.
Grimer,
Thanks very much.
Basic Sky would cost 1/2 the license fee for more Channels (and IMHO quality!)
Pete,
I normally respect your posts but on this one I do think Andrew is correct, and you are not.
From your other posts I suspect that you are a supporter of many traditional Western values. Showing mercy for those who despise us, who are in distress, is part of those traditions (e.g. Good Samaritan).
It’s for the Beeb, the leftoid Gramscians and the Islamists to sneer at and disrespect our traditional Western values.
We don’t need to help them do it by sneering at them ourselves!
Ok, I’ll try one last time, as I’m obviously failing to make a simple point. For the third time, I am not callous. For the fouth time, I am not callous. Understood? Five times now, I have no callous feelings over this. This was a natural event, one that happens. I will not go through my life looking glum for the benefit of others when these things happen. Get over it.
Yes Susan, I very much value our traditions, including stoicism, reticence, a good old fashioned stiff upper lip and humour at times. Yes, my comment about the earthquake being “the will of that allah bloke” was actually just a mockery of pious muslims who claimed the same for Katrina and the Space Shuttle. I will not join in the Dianafication of my society, I will not throw myself to the floor and howl when an earthquake happens and I will not demand it of others. I quietly sympathise, I have mercy, I give money to charity (that’s a standing order for causes I believe in, not one-off payments to be sucked into the vast NGO black hole) and if I were in Kashmir then yes, I’d happily get stuck in and dig children from the rubble.
Now, please, can we all read posts more clearly before leaping about?
Er, where exactly do I fit into that? Mistaken identity I assume.
Here is a story you wont read on the BBC. Remember Anthiny Walker
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=QO1018479I&news_headline=asian_gang_in_campus_killing
From some of the comments above it appears that my reference to a statement made by Golda Meir was not understood in the context it was meant.
Consider again – “that we may forgive you for killing our children, but we may never forgive you for making us kill yours”.
Before anybody here seeks to impose their view of morality, I think they should consider who they might be preaching to. The UK has hardly been touched by terrorism, compared to Israel which has faced THOUSANDS of terror attacks from militant Islam, and been living with it, and trying to appease it for a darn sight longer. Israel also felt that the majority of Palestinians “want to raise their families, educate their kids and live their lives as best they can, just like most people everywhere”, because they viewed them as people just like themselves. So they built them hospitals, schools and universities to help them advance their lives. However, the Palestinians, assisted by the likes of the BBC, are part of a society which imposes its will in a manner very different then Israel or what we have come to regard as the civilised world. So the schools and universities were used as places to inculcate hatred and belligerance against Israel, exactly the opposite of what Israel was trying to achieve. The innocent children were used like pawns and driven by hate without regard for any enrichment of life that they might otherwise have inspired. It was not their fault, but the system they live under prevents them from accepting you and your beliefs and living in peace and harmony, and no matter what you will do, short of bringing about an end to the forces generating that society, they are the seeds of future and present terrorism.
No sane being wishes to see suffering and misery, much less inflict it. But if there are those who rejoice to create this misery and suffering to achieve their dubious goals – may they reap it. Those who can’t see it, have the luxury of so far being untouched by it, but don’t be so quick to regard those that have been so touched as callous. Just be thankful that so far it hasn’t happened to you. You will always save your own innocents over those of others who seek to destroy yours. How many innocents were killed and maimed in Dresden, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This may yet come to pass again. We had no choice in that war, neither do we in this one.
Ok, while we’re on the subject of callous comments, my comment on another thread was taken by Natalie as callous. I asked the question, “wasn’t it the Pakistanis who were chanting ‘Death to America?” Pete answered me, saying that it was the whole muslim world and that the media wouldn’t really tell us that, or something to that effect. Pete’s answer, I’m sure, was right because if I recall correctly, those images in the media were just from Pakistan and nowhere else. I wasn’t sure though, so that’s why I asked, since we were on the subject of Pakistan. That is all. Like Susan said, those images of the Twin Towers will never leave me either, so the celebrations of those Pakistanis were a bit hard for me to swallow. However, I wasn’t insinuating that innocent people there deserve to die. I’m sorry if my comment was interpreted that way.
Sure, I feel sorry for anyone in a disaster like that no matter where they live. As a Christian, I can pray for people even if they don’t share my beliefs and give money to help out if I think the money will actually go to those in need. There are times when I don’t give money because I don’t trust those in charge of it. I agree with Susan that we in the west should never stoop to the level of gloating over the suffering of others. But Pete has a point. I’m not going to wring my hands and wail over it either. I didn’t over Katrina and I won’t for this earthquake. Doing so accomplishes nothing. All that does, is give people a chance to compete over who deserves the best pat on the back for who “cares” the most. Just like what happened after the tsunami. On this planet, there is no such thing as a utopia. Suffering is a part of life that everyone goes through at some point, no matter who you are or where you live. Unfortunately, that’s life and crap happens. But life goes on.
Pete_london is the best.
Pakistan harbours hundreds of madrassas which teach people it is justified to kill us
Pakistan is probably where Osama has been for the last 4 years
Pakistan has allowed and supported terrorism against Indian Kashmir for decades
Pakistan refused aid from India, the only nation with dozens of local helicopters
In Pakistan there have been dozens of murderous attacks against Christians and Muslim minorities
Pakistan sells cheap baagpipes
Pakistn illegally developed NUCLEAR WEAPONS and has been trying to spread the technology to other Muslim nations
Pakistn has failed to properly mobilise its own army to help in the current disaster
The schools that collapsed mostly had boy pupils, no girls.
Pakistan sells cheap bagpipes.
Which factor should one take into account ?
Me, I am donating to the Balinese. I could not trust any money sent to Pakistan. Charity begins at home, or by extension somewhere one has fellow-feeling with.
JohninLondon
Nice to see you posting again!
JohninLondon, have you replied to Natalie’s email to you from some time ago yet?
Which email ? I have been abroad
I don’t think there is a middle way for the BBC any more.
There have been endless challenges about the BBC’s bias, over many years. It is PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt.
The BBC is beyond reform.
I loved the BBC, I grew up with it. But I now despise the way it is run, I despair for any change,
I would rather see the whole damn thing closed down. It is not a zero-sum gme. I would be content to pay £50 a year for some thing worthwhile and UNBIASED.
You’ll know it when you see it. Where’ve you been? Anywhere interesting?
The new BBC panel on Middle East bias ?
“Independent” – my ass. It’s a joke.
I dealt with the main guy, Sir Quentin Thomas, many years ago when he was in charge of BBC affairs at the Home Office.
He was a total BBC patsy. He refused for a couple of years to accept that the BBC’s strategy for satellite TV was a dead duck. He ignored evidence from NASA, from leading satellite manufacturers, from the DTI even.
He stuck to the BBC brief. We paid his wages as a civil servant, he followed the BBC nostrums.
It is called in the trade “agency capture”. I found hin slippery in the extreme. He never answered the facts that were put to him. Always “Mmm, Interesting, we must keep in touch.” Period. Events proved him totally wrong. clssic vacillator.
A Widmerpool in my book.
He effectively prevented the UK owning its own satellite sustem. HE GAVE THE WHOLE SATELLITE GAME AWAY TO RUOERT MURDOCH.
God help us.
Andrew
Nepal and Tibet, Annpurna Circuit for 3 weeks and then Everest from the north
Does anyone know what “Widmerpool” means any more ?
Andrew
I have no email in my tray from Natalie. But I have a very fierce firewall. Why was she emailing me – what did I say here to cause trouble?
JohninLondon.
I would add the following to your list on Pakistan:
Pakistani nationals were resonsible for the brutal racist murder of journalist Daniel Pearl.
Pakistan has succeeded in spreading nuclear technology to at least one Muslim nation – Iran.
Three out of the four London suicide bombers hailed from Pakistan.
President Musharraf condones rape by claiming that women publicise their rape as a means to get foreign visas and “become milionaires.”*
Pakistan fields a good cricket side, with which the ‘international community’ cheerfully competes, rather than imposing richly-deserved isolation on it.
Denise, I agree that charity begins at home.
*This link is from a feminist site. Good to see them challenging Musharraf.
Right on Teddy Bear.
Al-beeb never bothers to ask or wonder why the Arabs live in the Territories. Three basic reasons — Their standard of living would drop like a stone if they went to an Arab country; their brother Arabs won’t let them move because they are useful pawns just where they are; and they’d be viewed as pariah ‘collaborators’ for partaking of Israeli largesse for all those years.
Al-beeb is too shallow, or maybe just moonbat, or dumb like a fox to report any of that.
Their Elusive Peace programme failed to explain any of the reasons for Israel “seizing” the Golan, or for “firing” on Arabs rioting on the Temple Mount. The translations were also poor. In English the subtitle said “military” area when Barak was speaking but in Hebrew he did not use that word. He just said “closed” area.(many other examples, but I won’t bore you)
Anyway, how come the Arabs all spoke in English, and the Israelis in Hebrew? Is this some kind of al-beeb attempt to imply that… well, better not go down that road without more evidence. I’m dreading the next two segments of the broadcast.
“what did I say here to cause trouble?”
You caused trouble the day you emailed John Band’s employers as “John Anderson” threatening negative exposure, and mentioning how you would talk to your clients. A move that ultimately led to him shutting his blog. Blackmail, in not so many words.
I’d hazard a guess that, from both an objective standpoint and that as a site administrator, Natalie is pretty uncomfortable with individuals taking it upon themselves to curb free speech by taking online conversations between private individuals to their employers in a bid to shut them up.
Would you, for example, like what you and your co-commenters here at Free Republic and LGF have written taken out of context and taken to your clients as an example of how much time you spent posting during the day, your political views and the company you keep?
Would Natalie like commenters here harassed in the fashion you chose? I doubt it.
Ultimately, you are a spineless, spiteful individual who responded to ridicule when you posted at more left wing sites, where your views aren’t more readily accepted, with a personal attack designed only to damage John Band.
Just the kind of liability a site admin wouldn’t want, both for their own actions and what kind of retribution it could attract from similarly spiteful people.
I’m only surprised Natalie hasn’t banned you already. You do nothing whatsoever to enhance the credibility of this site.
To Natalie – you may act as you please, of course. I will state unambiguously that on my account you may rest easy and that none of the above represents a threat that I will retread JiL’s path to personal attacks.
OT
BBC Question Time last night,
David Cameron did brilliantly, the whole audience loved him and yet no mention of that on the BBC, just the usual attempts to undermine him:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4340328.stm
He is going to be the next PM. Enough said really.
Ian B
Thanks for the link; I also think you are correct with the beebs attempted hatchet job on DC. Now if DC’s alleged past crime was, oh lets say endangering lives through arson! It wouldn’t even get a mention.
Who can blame them for being peevish though? After all their choice of candidate looks set to blow in a puff of smoke.
O/T
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4339388.stm
“With Hurricane Katrina there is now a rallying point for those talking about the racial divide in America.”
…suprised Iraq was not mentioned.
Why was Widmerpool mentioned?
I am surprised that no-one on this blog has mentioned Ben Bradshaw’s comments on QT last night. If I remember rightly he said something along the lines of “the licence fee mechanism is unsustainable”.
“the licence fee mechanism is unsustainable” and it must not be replaced by generalised extortion through taxation.
Voluntary Subscription and Voluntary Charity only. Nothing else.
Ian B
>David Cameron did brilliantly, the whole audience loved him and yet no mention of that on the BBC, just the usual attempts to undermine him:< and >He is going to be the next PM. Enough said really.< In the interests of balance on this blog, is not the first of the above statements somewhat self-contradictory: he was, after all, appearing on the BBC who gave him the platform to 'do brilliantly', although perhaps that was not what they intended. Moreover it was the earlier Luntz piece on Newsnight that kicked off the whole Cameron clamour, because the 'workshop' changed its mind dramatically and plumped for Cameron after Luntz's presentation. So if their intention was to rubbish Cameron, they shat and fell back into it, twice! As for the the second of the above statements: don't you mean the next but one PM. If Blair doesn't hand over to Gordy before the next election, I suspect that the latter will transmogrify into a neo-Guy Fawkes and conspire to blow up the Palace of Westminster. And given current security there, unlike Guy Fawkes himself he would undoubtedly succeed.
Ian B
Postscript to above: however, if Cameron were to defect and join New Labour there would be an even chance that TB would hand over No 10 to him instead of GB. Tony Blair to Tory Blair Would be a seamless transition. So then you would be proved correct.
More power to the cause….
Axe the fee to free my beloved BBC
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=2087782005
The Director General can rationalise the BBC as often as he wants but it will not change the smothering superior attitude that pervades Broadcasting House.
The BBC can be like that because it is not accountable to its viewers and listeners. Oh, yes, it can have its interactive websites and public meetings where we can all chip in. How jolly, but how limiting. If you stop watching a commercial channel or cancel your cable and satellite contract these broadcasters feel it and adjust or die. The BBC has no such relationship.
Why should its unaccountable news service live off the backs of this tax when newspapers have to fight hard to make a living?
why indeed….
Stealth broadcasting…..
New BBC listings/clips website….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/
eg “Watch epidode two online”
There is no way the BBC should be broadcasting their programmes online FREE to everyone in the world except us in the UK. It’s UK citizens that are now paying for this Worldwide Broadcasting Service – programmes free the rest of the world on the internet. How come??
‘Listening to BBC bosses it was hard to believe it was still Tuesday on Earth’
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1824826,00.html
“Listening to BBC bosses go through the shopping list of extra spending this week — £6 billion over seven years — it was hard to believe that it was still Tuesday morning on Earth. One of the extra expenses — £1.4 billion no less — was a preposterous notion of superinflation, reflecting the escalating salaries of Graham Norton, or some other famous on-screen personality. So much was being asked for that one could imagine that the next on the list was cash to fund a bid for Google.”
The Sun kicks the boot in….as usual the BBC manages to send more than double the people to an event that most other news organisations…..
BBC blows £40k on jaunt
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005470766,00.html
“BBC bosses are squandering £40,000 on a junket to Amsterdam — just days after announcing plans for massive TV licence fee increases.
They are sending 18 senior news executives to Europe’s drug and sex capital for a conference at a plush hotel.
The News Xchange 2005 conference brings together news chiefs from all over the world.
But while the Beeb is sending 18 people, Denmark’s main channel is doing with four, Germany’s Deutsche Welle TV is sending two delegates and the main French channel has just one.
Re Assinder’s piece on Baroness T.: “hadbag-wielding, unapologetic class warrior”
i don’t mind if it is “analysis”, i find it somewhat preposterous that a former, democratically elected leader of your country can be so labelled by an entity force-funded by that same electorate, but which would never be so rude in their descriptions of no less than the terrorists in your midst.
civil disobedience, anyone?
Interesting that the Million Man March piece linked by Rob White did not mention that Farrakhan was banned from the UK as a hate-inciting racist.
Re Assinder again
and at 341 words of IMHO high-school quality, where exactly was the analysis that answered the “why” of the headline “Why Thatcher still looms over politics”?
There is no way the BBC should be broadcasting their programmes online FREE to everyone in the world except us in the UK.
Ritter, I’m not sure that they are. I’m from outside the UK and they told me to get lost when I clicked on one of the video clips. The message said something like, “This programme is only available to UK viewers.”
amimissingsomething
“civil disobedience, anyone?”
Do you mean by, say, ceasing to pay for a TV licence? Ah, I’m afraid I’ll have to decline. You see, in order to do that one would have to be paying for one in the first place and that’s something I have done in donkey’s. In fact it’s been so long now I’d probably have no idea how to go about buying one.
OT, but too funny from Newsbusters
http://newsbusters.org/node/2199
I haven’t heard the BBC yet blame the situation on global warming or George Bush, though I don’t recall an earthquake in this area when Clinton was President, the eruptions were elsewhere.
On the other hand the BBC has not called it “An Act of God” as insurance companies would…………so perhaps they have not yet found anyone to blame………….
There is no way the BBC should be broadcasting their programmes online FREE to everyone in the world except us in the UK.
It is the only way people in the Irish Republic get English-language broacasts – by free-riding on British licence-payers
John R
Ho ho! What a hoot. To me that’s very much on topic, as a piece of smoking gun evidence of the MSM’s willingness to mask, deceive, lie and distort.
“It’s really tough to control a canoe or boat when you’re out in it.”
Really? Well try walking, darling. You’ve just been overtaken by two blokes in wellies.