, presenter Deborah Mackenzie introduced a report on Her Majesty’s trip to Malta with:
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth…
What a damn cheek! Almost everyone in the UK refers to Her Majesty as ‘The Queen’, but no, not the other worldly BBC News 24, even though it’s the BBC’s domestic 24 hour rolling news channel, targetted at and paid for by the BBC’s UK telly-taxpayers (as distinct from BBC World, or for that matter, News 24’s own ‘The World Today’ programme).
P.S. Is it just me, or is that moustached twat who pops up frequently on News 24 to exclaim:
This week on Talking Movies…
exceedingly irritating? Still, I suppose he does at least jolt me into changing channel as fast as I can before I get too brainwashed to resist!
No, its not just you!
Is there another Queen Elizabeth somewhere in the world? I mean, so you’d have to distinguish “Britain’s” Queen Elizabeth from somebody else’s?
What a bunch of maroons!
You shouldn’t switchoff that mustacheoed twat, he produces some of the most excruciatingly PC reviews in the media. Much grist for your mill there I’d have thought.
If we had a real democracy the bbc wouldn’t be allowed to exist. As for “Britain’s” Queen, have a good think and perhaps go here:
http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/index.htm
Damn right on both points. What about the one who presents “Online” desperately trying to be trendy with his artfully untidy (grey) hair.
On another point why do so many pieces to camera have the camera below the journalists eye level. They couldn’t be talking down to us could they?
Something we won’t see on the BBC…
http://newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20051123033909&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&Topic=0
LONDON: A large amount of cash intended for ‘hawala’ transactions in the Indian subcontinent was the main target of a burglary at a British travel agency in which one woman police officer was shot dead.
The killing of the officer, Sharon Beshenivsky, 38, last Friday has dominated media coverage here, including the coverage of a public outpouring of grief in Bradford and elsewhere in Britain.
Beshenivsky, described as a woman full of joy and life, had three children and two stepchildren. She and colleague Teresa Milburn were the first to respond when the emergency alarm was sounded at the travel agency during the burglary.
As the two reached the Asian-owned Universal Express travel agency, they were shot by the burglars who were fleeing the scene, shooting wildly as in a wild-west movie. Beshenivsky died in hospital while the injured Milburn has now been released from hospital.
Reports from Bradford say that the agency arranges ‘hawala’ or money laundering transactions besides tours to Pakistan and Makkah, and usually large amounts are deposited after Friday prayers for onward transmission to the Indian subcontinent.
Large donations from Pakistan-origin families in Bradford for the earthquake victims are also reported to be sent through such illegal channels.
Money-laundering expert Jeffrey Robinson told reporters: “Somebody obviously knew there was money there on Friday but the fact that a gun was involved says to me that this is not just ordinary guys looking for money to buy drugs.”
The police have detained six people – five men and one woman – in three police raids in southeast London over the weekend. Four of the men are Somalis and one Asian but reports say immigration checks have shown nothing to suggest that any of them were in Britain illegally.
A member of the family owning the travel agency said the actual figure stolen by the burglars was less than 2,000 pounds because the week’s collection had been deposited in the bank earlier.
To be fair, Hawala is not synonomous with “money laundering” as that report claims.
Susan, there are quite a few Queen Elizabeth’s. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and quite a few other places have one.
Not that she does much for them. As close to zero as makes no difference.
Seeing that galoot grandson of hers (the Nazi-dressing photographer puncher) jumping up and down at the RWC final in 2003 really grated.
Didn’t the twit realise his granny is Queen of both countries playing in that match, and therefore he at least ought to be seen to be a bit neutral?
Adrian D,
Having a “powerless” monarchy means we have no need for a president, and that’s one less politician!
Interesting too that Fox News just headlines “Queen Makes First Trip Since Bombing” – so they seem to assume that Americans know who the Queen is. Only the biased, spiteful BBC treats our head of state like an low-profile foreigner, not very widely recognised. (In their dreams.)
Rob, I agree. I live in the UK now (and love both countries), but voted for her in 1999 for the very reason that she is so far away, and pretty much leaves Australians alone to get on with it. Just goes to show that a country doesn’t really need a head of state. Suits us perfectly.
The day after she was voted in, she handed John Eales the RWC in Wales – she was suitably dressed in green, and a true dinki di Australian for just about the only day in her life. Probably the greatest moment in Monarchy-Australia relations ever.
Sadly, not mirrored by the tactlessness of the grandson 4 years later.
Yep, love the BBC, but that talking movies guy is enough to drive me to SKY.
The reason that BBC News 24 would use an expression such as “Britain’s Queen Elizabeth” in its transmissions during the small hours of the British night are also being relayed by BBC WORLD to viewers across the planet, and particularly, at that time, in North America.
The question which should be asked is, “Who is actually paying for these early morning to be relayed by BBC WORLD? Clearly British tv licence payers are doing so in whole or in part.
Sweden will have a Queen Victoria when the current king decides to call it a day. No real relation to anything, just thought I’d mention that little tidbit…
Oh yes, the republican site linked further up has a few little flaws in its reasoning. They evidently haven’t read up on the history oft he monarchy or they’d know that our parliamentary system was the strongest and safest form of democracy in the world until the Labour party decided to start fiddling with the seperation of powers in the 1950s. Up to that point, the monarchy had acted as an enormous check against the current accrual of powers to the PM’s office and the Home Office. Now we’ve got the culmination of that meddling in “president” Blair.
I can gaurantee that any elected head of state would be completely powerless to resist the will of the executive in parliament, whereas the monarchy can still dissolve parliament if so desired, and can refuse assent to any bills passed by parliament, if so desired… Unless the republic campaigners believe that a sitting PM would allow someone else to have those powers rather than taking them to him- (or, it has to be said, her-) self.
I often visit this website and am hugely impressed by the detailed critisism of the BBC and it’s output. This must require the devotion of a considerable amount of time and effort just watching and listening to the bastards. I gave up doing that a long time ago.
I am deeply suspect of BBC World’s funding. As Geoffrey said between 1am and 6am News 24 and World simulcast the news bulletins. Also World Business Report on News 24 at 10.30pm is made for BBC World but shown on N24 presumably so licence fee payers can help fund it. In fact nearly all of News 24’s non news programmes are shown on BBC World – Dateline London, Hardtalk etc.
The question is, if BBC World didn’t need these programmes would News 24 spend the cash on making them or go with the cheaper option of rolling news?
It seems to me that most of the people who want to get rid of the Queen aren’t really that sincere about republicanism — they seem more like they want to tear down one of Britain’s stronger institutions, because well, it’s one of Britain’s stronger institutions.
Do they qualify references to other heads of state by identifyying the country in question? I think sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. Since however they are the British Broadcasting Corporation and operate under a royal charter they might for once assume their audience knew that she is our head of state and simply call her HRH Queen Elizabeth!
Sorry, she is of course Her Majesty, but you get my point.
I am with you, Susan. The BBC and the Left are not, in my opinion, generally noted for being in love with the monarchy – except maybe those in the Middle East. If the Left wishes to disparage the British version of the head of state and replace it with republicism then the greater the need to keep it.
And as for Harry dressing up as a Nazi as a joke – so what! He is now in the British Army and how any of his whimpish critics have ever or will ever serve their country in such a capacity? Answer? Not many.
What a shame National Service had to go. It was a great way of sorting out the men from the boys and imbueing a love of British traditions. Good luck to you, Harry (and, soon to William who will follow in his footsteps) We should be proud of them.
If the BBC are going to insist on saying British when referring to the Queen then they should apply it to themseves as well-no more BBC but the full British Broadcasting Corporation.
The TV licencing and all that jazz should also be the British TV licence,just so that we know.
One gripe I have is that the Beeb (both the World Service and domestic Radio 4) have taken to often referring to “the President” or “President Bush”, etc, without saying just where he is President of. Given that the BBC is not the public broadcasting corporation of that country surely this is a greater outrage still, even if we take for granted that no listeners are in any doubt about Bush’s nationality.
venichka – thought it was usually just “Bush”.
venichka – thought it was usually just “Bush”.
roy | 25.11.05 – 1:02 am | #
No, usually it’s “unjust Bush” 😉
They’d call him Shrub if they thought they could get away with it.
Look out for the “Talking Movies” man, & the rest of the BBC doing lots of talking about Speilberg’s upcoming film on the Munich Olympic massacre, if Speilberg’s views are any indication.
“Viewing Israel’s response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms. By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today.”
The American Thinker comments
So the slaughter of Israel’s Olympic athletes is a “tragedy” and Israel’s response to capture or kill those responsible is classified as a “horrific episode”, which over time raised “troubling doubts” among the Israelis involved. . What more do you need to know about the film?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5017
‘Britain’s Queen Elizabeth’? That’s like an American broadcaster saying; ‘The United States President Bush’. Or isn’t the BBC part of the United Kingdom any more?
Archonix et al,
There is no way that anyone can convince any rational person that an unelected, hereditary head of state has anything to do with real democracy. If we want a head of state to have certain powers than we must devise a written constitution that confers such measures. We must all have a chance to choose. Here we are squawking about dictatorships in the Arab world and elsewhere, but in our own little semi-democracy Lords are still leaping and a queen still has too many powers. So if anyone says “Britain’s Queen”, they’re not talking about someone I or anyone else voted for!
BM, we already have a constitution, but itisn’t called “the constitution” and is made up of several documents. These documents quite clearly proscribe the powers of the monarchy and establish the primacy of parliament.
It’s obvious that your mind is made up, but so is mine. I’m convinced tha tplacing the current powers of the herditary monarchy in to the hands of an elected politician would be disastrous for this country. You only have to look at France, where the president is untouchable while in office, or Germany, where the chancellor more often than not ends up crippled by politics. On the other hand, most of the scandanavian nations have monarchies, some with even more powers than our own, and they seem to be doing alright.
I do however face the problem that Charles is currently the best argument against the monarchy that I have ever seen…
By the way, I resent the implication that I’m somehow irrational when I state that I support the presence of the monarchy. Something of a rash jugement, I fear… 😉