Matt Frei visits the home town of the American held hostage in Iraq. Amidst much tired hackish blather, he informs us that over 200 westerners have been kidnapped in Iraq, and that:
“…one in three have been executed by their captors.”
What a putz. Have the berks at the BBC no decency? To any reasonable human being these people were murdered – there is no other word for it. Simple as that.
Lead item today was, of course (for seasoned BBC monitors), the UN climate change conference in Canada. Much general blather about how the Americans have refused, so far, to agree on draft plans for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, though strangely, no clear explanation as to what the American’s objections actually are.
That said, the reporter, David Shukman, did refer to China as being similarly unencumbered by the Kyoto Protocol – voiced over film of a Chinese coal mine with, we are informed, a methane capture system – so they’re obviously doing their high-tech bit.
Unfortunately, doubtless for reasons of space, David was unable to explore the Chinese aspect of this story, to inform us, for instance, that China has, er, 24,000 coal mines (all kitted out with methane recovery systems?) or that China has “plans for 544 new coal-fired power stations to meet an insatiable demand for energy”. Must try harder David – if you’re not going to tell us the whole story you might as well not bother!
Big bad US corporations (part 1001)
Paramount buys rival Dreamworks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4519012.stm
And it appears to show that even a top name like Mr Spielberg cannot create a new independent film studio these days.
But was Dreamworks really unviable? Could not Spielberg & co have continued in business? After all the company was hardly small –
Viacom, which owns Paramount, has agreed to pay $1.6bn (£914m; 1.36bn euros) – more than $1bn in cash, plus taking over Dreamworks’ debts.
Perhaps Spielberg found a share of $1.6billion hard to resist.
………and of course, nobody was forced under penalty of law to fund Dreamworks.
Well, rare kudos to the IBC for actually printing that Iraqi poll, and for publishing comments like “My life is a thousand times better since Saddam is gone.” They must have done it with gritted teeth, though.
OT.
Spot the missing word…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4520682.stm
Re the use of the word ‘execute’.
Well, the BBC is not the only one. Other ‘berks’ with no ‘decency’ include the Bush White House who use the word in precisely the same context (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040512-2.html). If the BBC is biased, then it seems to be biased in favour of using White-House vocab.
With respect, this is one of the problems with your site. You decide in advance that a story is biased, and then construct a posting around that pre-conceived conviction. As in this case, I think you miss the mark.
David Smith’s White House link doesn’t work, but it seems he’s found a gotcha.
Other people delight in finding the same wordings at sites such as Fox News. But I think that arises from the BBC, Fox, CNN etc all sticking to the agency release (Reuters, AP etc). It is perhaps the news agencies that set the vocabulary.
Rob White
He`s an electrical engineer, the last one was a plumber.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4499480.stm
These pesky tradesmen!!
SiN –
At the risk of being pedantic, it’s the victim who was an electrical engineering student; the culprit was in fact a waiter. But your point is well made.
Cheers.
Second day of rioting in Australia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4521442.stm
Notice how MinTruth doesn’t give any racial or ethnic identifier for the thugs currently destroying cars and throwing bricks in Mabroubra and Brighton-le-Sands (Sydney suburbs). That’s your infaliable Orwellian clue to the actual ethnic identity of the thugs.
Notice that they DO apply a racial/ethnic identifier to the “white youths” who organized the violent row at the Cronulla beach previously.
“White youths” riot at the beach.
But generic “youths” throw bricks and destroy cars in the suburbs.
MinTruthSpeak reigns supreme.
DS, you’re not the first to point out the use of the term ‘execute’ elsewhere.
Wherever it is used in this context it is extremely insensitive. Executed implies some kind of judically sanctioned process – not the random capture, incarceration, public exhibition and protracted brutal murder of conscious individuals. This lazy journalistic sloppiness jars dreadfully.
That is why I contend that the unfortunate victims of islamo-head-hackers are not executed – they are murdered – and the BBC, paid by and for the British public, ought to reflect the common decency of their compulsorily paying public. After all, if Frank “Help me, I’m a Muslim” Gardner’s cameraman, Simon Cumbers was “murdered” in Riyadh, then so were Ken Bigley and all the other victims of kidnapping in Iraq.
Perhaps it’s a cultural thing, but American usage in can often sound harsh or unsubtle compared to British English – that’s not to say that either is right or wrong – but I’d expect the BBC to reflect the latter rather than the former. It would be a misunderestimation to expect any better of The White House in this regard 🙂
Lastly, not everything on Biased BBC is necessarily concerned with BBC bias. Whilst that is our primary focus, we can and do cover other aspects of BBC output, and sometimes further afield too. In short, we blog about what interests us. If that is, in your view, a problem, do feel free to apply for a full refund of your subscription!
(D)HYS now has a thread up on the Sydney violence:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=581&&edition=2&ttl=20051212165809
Some Aussies are getting the truth out, although the thread appears to be heavily censored:
These riots are a result of gang intimidation by some bad elements within the lebanese community as well as the assault of two volunteer life-guards last weekend in Cronulla. These tensions have been brewing for a long time and local government must take some of the blame for not clamping down on these gangs sooner. We all know that violence only leads to more violence but these people have had enough.
Dee, Delft
I read every response in this thread this morning. There was one from an Aussie which pointed out that the Lebanese Muslim gangs were sexually threatening white Australian women at the beach. I suspect it has been pulled just now, as I can’t find it anymore.
I meant to copy it and post it here, but it seems it has “disappeared” in just the amount of time it took for me to make this post.
Wait a minute, sorry, the “sexually threatening” post is still there, I just missed it:
I am an 18 yr old living in Sydney and these actions are NOT supported by the majority, but are still very serious. The riots started due to gangs of middle eastern men not just beating up a lifeguard, but also sexually threatening women on the beaches and other actions. I do not support the riots, they make me ashamed as an Australian, but some of these posts from people who dont live here suggests many dont know the truth.
Joel, Sydney
Posting it here for preservation in case it is censored.
Re Susan’s post.
Joel in Sydney is ashamed of the activities of Australians in fighting muslims. Fair enough thats his pov. Whats interesting is that he doesnt feel the unpleasant antics of muslims in Sydney shame him. So whether he realises it or not he implicitly knows the muslims do not represent him and are therefore not Australian.
So ultimately an encouraging Christmas message from Joel, there is still hope for Australia and the rest of us!
Speak for yourself, Lurker.
Lurker,
I only reproduced that post from “Joel” because I wanted people to know about the sexual harassment of the Australian women at that beach, which is horrible (to hear the Australian women talk about it). It was not meant as an endorsement of anyone’s views.
Now I’m interested in Susan’s post earlier on, and the fact she thought it had disappeared from the BBC site, only to find it hadn’t. I’ve seen it described as (D)HYS, assuming that (D) stands for “don’t”, indictating that many of the bloggers here believe the BBC is refusing to post their comments, presumably to instead just run a wide selection of liberal/soft left ones.
But a quick glance at the READERS RECOMMENDED on the HYS debates, and the top quotes would all seem to contradict this…
Here’s top of WILL WTO TALKS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?:
“A fair trade system has been developed. It’s called capitalism and its record was the unprecedented economic growth (of all classes) of the 19th Century. Each man, left free, rose to the level his abilities and ambition allowed him.
But that is not what is meant by fair anymore. ‘Fair’ has been twisted to mean the unjust taking from the productive to give to the undeserving.”
And LIFE IN IRAQ POLL: YOUR VIEWS:
“What is there to say?
The Iraqi people are optomistic for the first time in decades. They can speak openly without fear of Saddam. They can see democracy being created for them and their children.
Perhaps the anti war moaners and groaners will now SHUT UP!
And from DO WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN POLITICS?:
What you need are articulate sensible people who are interested in the needs and welfare of the people of this country, and the country itself; not in lining their own pockets or achieving some infamy – surely the gender doesn’t matter.
Pretty neutral, that one, but then from SHOULD THE UK GIVE UP MORE EU REBATE:
We postpone our pensions to 67 or 69; so that we can pay for the corrupt CAP; so that the French can afford a 35 hour week. Now tell me we’re not being screwed by the supine Mr. Blair.
Next is one on the use of torture evidence: Isn’t it strange that it is the unelected Lords who guard our civil liberties rather than the elected polotitians
Top of ARE HUMAN RIGHTS BEING ERODED?: Someone said in a previous topic that the UK is almost a Taliban state. You can’t put up Christmas decorations; can’t wear a cross; can’t tell religious jokes; you can be banged up for 90 days just for heckling Blair; you’re banged up if you’re very old & with-hold a part of your council tax; you’re stung for parking; stung for driving; you can’t have an operation if you’re fat. Your pension funds have been raided by Brown so you’re poor.
The list goes on.
And finally, from ACCESS TO NHS TREATMENT: I would have thought that the first ‘lifestyle choice’ that ought to be discouraged from using the service are those who’ve chosen unemployment thereby failing to contribute to the enormous cost of running the outdated service.
We either have a ‘National’ Health Service or we don’t, if we don’t then why the hell should we all be forced to pay for it through stealth taxes?
So there you have it. The top Readers Recommended quotes from the six top political HYS debates, and none are remotely left-wing, or anything to do with supporting the supposed “editorial line” the BBC is alleged to be pushing.
Thom Boston,
The (D)HYS moniker is a hold-over from the old days when the IBC did indeed exercise a very heavy and obvious hand over readers’ comments.
The new arrangement appears to be more fair, I do agree with that, but I’m still wary of (D)HYS because I know of its past history of heavy-handed censorship.
I doubt if the “reader’s recommend” function will be allowed to stand, frankly.
Thom Boston writes:
“The top Readers Recommended quotes from the six top political HYS debates, and none are remotely left-wing, or anything to do with supporting the supposed “editorial line” the BBC is alleged to be pushing.”
As Susan explains, the (D) prefix relates to the system as it was before the very recent changes. How those changes have gone down with the BBC and whether it allows readers to continue ranking posts according to their own tastes, remains to be seen.
Beyond that, your use of “alleged” is inappropriate. It is demonstrated on a daily basis on this Blog (and others) that the BBC has a liberal agenda which it misses almost no opportunity to promote – right from the selectivity and wordplay used in its news broadcasts to the subject matter and plotlines of its radio dramas.
There is almost no facet of the BBC’s output which is not permeated by a Guarnianista worldview. Quite simply, there is no “alleged” about it. It is a fact which many (probably most) BBC employees will candidly admit, and which the corporation’s supporters, like the media journalist (and self-confessed “woolly liberal”) Gillian Reynolds, has openly acknowledged and commended.
There is almost no facet of the BBC’s output which is not permeated by a Guarnianista worldview. It is a fact which many (probably most) BBC employees will candidly admit, and which the corporation’s supporters, like the media journalist (and self-confessed “woolly liberal”) Gillian Reynolds, has openly acknowledged and commended.
I’d like to just get this straight. “No facet”? “NO FACET”? In which case shouldn’t you be also be checking CBeebies, BBC Parliament, Radios 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, the GCSE Bitesize revision website? Seems to me the scope of this blog is somewhat wider than the usual “Matt Frei said ‘executed’ when he should have said ‘murdered’ that I’ve seen here. In which case want to see evidence of the Teletubbies sending out “vote Blair” through their stomachs; Abu Mazen and Sharon on Strictly Come Dancing, and perhaps a documentary on Why George Bush Should Die in the middle of Chris Moyle’s Breakfast Show.
And of course, some, ooh, 70-80% percent (would that constitute “most”?) of the 27,000 BBC employees “candidly” admitting that they alter ALL of their broadcast output – however many millions of hours it is – to reflect the beliefs of the Guardian. I’m not interested in some media commentator – give me some actual BBC names and their “candid” admissions.
Thom Boston, you ought to be getting your employer’s permission before using their time, equipment and resources to engage in obtuse arguments here – unless of course you are here on official business, in which case it would be polite to say so!
If you really have nothing better to do than investigate the legitimate complaints of those of us who are dragooned into paying your wages I suggest you read back through a couple of years of this blog to satisfy your quest for evidence and examples before engaging people in debate.
Thom Boston writes:
“I’m not interested in some media commentator – give me some actual BBC names and their “candid” admissions.”
I doubt the BBC staff with whom I’ve spoken on this issue (most notably the senior news editor, who said to me that he honestly believed he might have been the single Conservative voter in the huge department of which he was a part) would be particularly grateful if I did. As for your contempt for Gillian Reynolds (of whom, I suspect, you have never heard) she is a former BBC employee, widely regarded as the doyen of radio critics and with a far better insight into the BBC than most. Of course, the fact that she is in favour of such a bias is uncomfortable for BBC apologists, I do understand.
That aside, you doubt that the BBC worldview permeates its output on other channels? In what sense do you believe that Radio 1 doesn’t promote a liberal agenda? Or Radio 2? Or the BBC World Service? Or BBC 4? You really can see nothing deliberate in the cloyingly “inclusive” station idents chosen by Lorraine Heggessey for BBC 1?
In passing it’s hard not to laugh at the tired old use of the ‘Marr gambit’ (as used in the headline for this Blog). The accusation isn’t that the BBC is biased in party political terms, but that it is clearly and unequivocally biased in favour of the broad liberal ‘Guardianista’ agenda.
Your understanding of the “execution” word is more British than I expected (and in a way I’m glad to see that).
Princeton WordNet ( http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=execution ) says “execution” might mean “unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being”. I noticed now that the British dictionaries don’t include this sense. It looks strange for me, because I expected taht only an American will consider executions a state monopoly.
P.S. TB, if you wish to debate the merits or otherwise of this blog, kindly confine yourself to the main blog posts by the Biased BBC team – we are no more accountable for the views of third-party commenters here than you are for the views expressed in (D)HYS.
While we’re on the subject of (D)HYS, I too will be surprised if the remarkably sensible views promoted by the Readers Recommended feature is allowed to stand unaltered – BBC Views Online used to run regular reader polls that produced similarly sound results – that’s why they were done away with (except for non-contentious topics) in favour of the first version of (D)HYS.
Thom Boston writes:
I’d like to just get this straight. “No facet”? “NO FACET”?
I mostly listen only to Radio 4, but taking that as a microcosm of the BBC I can tell you that there is indeed “No facet” of its output that doesn’t represent the Guardanista worldview, from news, current events, features, comedy, drama (especially drama), social issues (mainly especially social issues) right down to their beloved environmental progs, which refuse even to contemplate the possibility that global warming might not be man made.
Thom reminds me of a very good friend who has the trick of saying ultra-provocative things in a very deadpan way, just to wind people up and watch their reactions. I used to fall for this, but eventually wised up, and no longer take the bait. I suggest we do the same to Mr B.
Cheers
Kulibar Tree writes:
“… drama (especially drama)…”
I’m glad to see someone else mention this. While the clear bias of BBC news is regularly documented here, the more insidious kind that runs like a vein throughout BBC programming tends to be overlooked.
I defy anyone to read the synopses of a fortnight’s worth of R4 drama offerings and deny that they show every bit as much bias as that perpetrated by the likes of Matt Frei and Orla Guerin.
I doubt the BBC staff with whom I’ve spoken on this issue (most notably the senior news editor, who said to me that he honestly believed he might have been the single Conservative voter in the huge department of which he was a part) would be particularly grateful if I did.
Ah, but you see, that’s my whole point. If you’re going to bandy around words like “candid” then you are in fact saying they couldn’t care less if their Guardianista views were public, and would freely admit to them. I merely suggest that this is not the case.
Similarly, when you say “no facet” you are implying the whole BBC – not just Radio 4 or the news – is tainted with this outlook. But given that so much of the BBC’s output is patently non-political – Eastenders? Sport? Just A Minute? – this allegation is, I would contest, not entirely true.
if you wish to debate the merits or otherwise of this blog, kindly confine yourself to the main blog posts by the Biased BBC team – we are no more accountable for the views of third-party commenters here than you are for the views expressed in (D)HYS
That’s fair enough – I didn’t mean to contest the merits of the blog. Genuine apologies for any offence.
I don’t work for the BBC though.
Thom Boston – try a little exercise. Before a BBC news interview starts, see if you can guess the angle from which the questioning will come.
You’re a clever chap. You will guess right every time.
TB: “That’s fair enough – I didn’t mean to contest the merits of the blog. Genuine apologies for any offence.”
None taken – it’s just important to be clear about the target of your arguments – it’d be wrong to criticise the whole blog on the basis of third-party comments.
TB: “I don’t work for the BBC though.”
Perhaps not, but a whois of your IP address shows that it belongs to this rather large IP block:
inetnum: 132.185.0.0 – 132.185.255.255
netname: BBC
descr: British Broadcasting Corporation
descr: ********************************
descr: * This address space is used for BBC Staff members *
descr: * accessing the internet. In case of any problems *
descr: * with users of this address space (spam, attacks, *
descr: * illegal activity, etc) please email abuse@bbc.co.uk *
descr: ********************************
Evidently you have some connection with the BBC – outsourced employee, friend, visitor, whatever. Care to elucidate?
‘Similarly, when you say “no facet” you are implying the whole BBC – not just Radio 4 or the news – is tainted with this outlook. But given that so much of the BBC’s output is patently non-political – Eastenders? Sport? Just A Minute? – this allegation is, I would contest, not entirely true.’
I do not merely imply it, I state it as fact: the allegation is entirely true.
You won’t have to listen to Just a Minute for very long before hearing some anti-Bush or anti-War jibe, and the same goes for The News Quiz, and even I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue (I’m sorry to say); Eastenders I can’t answer for, but the Archers, its R4 elder brother, is wholly in thrall to political correctness (and if you ever had the misfortune to hear the World Service’s late, unlamented Westway you wouldn’t even be asking the question); and even R3 manages to sneak in a useful amount of anti-Israel propaganda, usually in In Tune, its evening drivetime prog.
As a taster, here’s the synopsis for last night’s drama on R3 (and it’s by no means unique):
ANDALUS
A young English writer sets out to discover Spain’s hidden Moorish past. He visits an enormous plastic-sheeted farm and witnesses farmers terrorising the largely north African workforce, and finds life threatened as he covertly tours this agricultural gulag. An illegal immigrant saves him, and writer and desperado take off on a rollercoaster ride through Andalusia.
Shall I go on to discuss R3’s recent Shakespeare season, which comprised largely multi-cultural (read, Afro-Carribbean) casting, including Bejamin Zephania in Pericles?
Shall I mention R4’s dramatisation (for children) of the Professor Branestorm books (apologies if spelling’s wrong) a couple years or so back which featured a totally gratuitous anti-monarchical rant in one episode?
Shall I allude to the constant denigration of Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph readers by bien pensant contributors in any discussion prog (like Saturday Review, Broadcasting House, Start the Week, Any Questions, et al)?
Shall I refer to the near monopolisation by Guardian, Oberver and Indie writers of political progs like The Week in Westminster and The Westminster Hour, and of arts progs like Front Row?
Shall I merely hint at the near universal anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism that pervades almost any prog you tune into?
Shall I dissect You and Yours, the granddaddy of all politically-correct, eco-friendly, tax-and spend progs?
If you’ve got something useful to contribute, Thom, then do so; otherwise, please button it.
Cheers.
Eastenders is non-political? why not compare the reality of the East End of London with its majority-white depiction on the BBC. The BBC doesn’t want to give the game away and the depiction of the East End as cockney is a Gramscian lie.
Thom Boston writes:
“Ah, but you see, that’s my whole point. If you’re going to bandy around words like “candid” then you are in fact saying they couldn’t care less if their Guardianista views were public, and would freely admit to them.”
Leaving aside (though it’s hard to do) that Andrew has you bang to rights as a BBC well… what do we call you? Supporter? Someone connecting from a BBC domain, at any rate, what is it about the word ‘candid’ and its use in context that you don’t understand?
I used it to imply that such admissions were the exception, rather than the rule. That’s certainly been my experience.
Most often, BBC employees lie about the corporation’s biases. Some of them even do things like… well, connect to anti-BBC Blogs from BBC addresses, disputing bias while claiming they don’t work for the BBC.
Well, maybe you don’t. But it’s interesting behaviour, wouldn’t you agree? Possibly even rather telling…
The Archers, its R4 elder brother, is wholly in thrall to political correctness (and if you ever had the misfortune to hear the World Service’s late, unlamented Westway you wouldn’t even be asking the question)
Being “in thrall to political correctness” implies to me that you feel there were too many, ah, “characters of an ethnic background”. Forgive me if I’m wrong.
Yet, why not compare the reality of the East End of London with its majority-white depiction on the BBC. The BBC doesn’t want to give the game away and the depiction of the East End as cockney is a Gramscian lie.
So Eastenders has too many white people, and Westway not enough. If only the BBC had thought of swapping the bits of London round, you’d all be happy…
I would agree it is interesting behavior – further, I’d say it would be downright bizarre – if I were a “Beeboid” (is that the right terminology?), but, sadly for you conspiracy theorists, I’m just a poor student who occasionally uses the open computer centre at BBC Radio Sheffield when ours at Sheffield Uni is too full. Sorry. Gosh, that could have been quite exciting, couldn’t it?
Susan – Sorry, I wasnt implying any endorsement (or criticism) by you or anyone else of “Joel’s” views I was drawing attention to the information which you presented ie “Joel’s” post. If you see what I mean.
Natalie – I thought I was! Though I suspect Ive rumbled Joel’s worldview, unconscious as it may be.
I cant believe you think allowing any significant numbers of muslims to settle in the west is a good idea. At the very best its a highly dangerous experiment. The test tube in Sydney just cracked a little.
The French have spent decades fooling themselves that the huge numbers of muslims they have imported are just as French as they are.
Oh dear, look what just happened there.
Perhaps the Aussies should try just a few extra years of pretending arab muslims are real Aussies as well.
We on the other hand in the UK & Oz have tried a more laid back multi-culti approach (fully endorsed by the Beeb). And what a resounding success we have made of it. 7/7 anybody.
Unless you think that 7/7 was a response to Iraq. I dont think the linkage is that important even if true. As I think it was the war nerd who said war is just demographics in a hurry. When the number of muslims reaches critcal mass (check out the Lebanon) they will try and stake their claim for power anyway.
Of course Im just speaking for myself. You Natalie know better than me as you take a keen interest in the civilised and oh-so-tolerant doings of the religion of peace in its treatment of Israelis.
Thom Boston writes:
The Archers, its R4 elder brother, is wholly in thrall to political correctness (and if you ever had the misfortune to hear the World Service’s late, unlamented Westway you wouldn’t even be asking the question)
Being “in thrall to political correctness” implies to me that you feel there were too many, ah, “characters of an ethnic background”. Forgive me if I’m wrong.
You’re totally wrong: it’s true that the “ethnicity” of some of The Archer’s characters is irritating, but only because their introduction has been so artificial, and so aggressively “right on”, and there’s not one of them that’s not a saint (only the White folks ever get in trouble with the law); but their number is not an issue.
But you won’t need me to tell you that political correctness covers far more than just ethnicity, and it informs almost every plot line in The Archers: that’s my complaint.
The current thing is gay marriages, so of course Ambridge has its gay (male) couple. In the time of female vicars being a novelty, Ambridge had to have its female vicar. Is there some ludicrous new farming directive from Brussels? The farmers embrace it joyfully, with nary a murmer of discontent.
In 2000 (or 1999) there was a Millennium March for third world debt relief, so of course Ambridge’s (then) token ethnic person, Usha, the Indian solicitor, had to go on it (along with the female vicar, natch). No matter that there was (economically) a lot to be said against the idea, you weren’t going to hear any of the villagers gainsaying the project. And Usha, being Indian, was obviously in favour: I mean, she’s Asian, so she’s gotta be, right? I mean, Asians just all think and act the same, right? I thought that it was all just a little patronizing to any “ethnic” listeners who may have had other thoughts about the wisdom of the project.
And PC informs most other progs: there is a lecturing, hectoring, preaching, didactic quality to everything that is, frankly, becoming very wearing and tedious.
And too often the BBC simply acts as a government mouthpiece.
Does the govt. want to promote green energy? You won’t hear a word about the proven inefficiency and adverse environmental impact of windfarms on the BBC.
Does the govt want to limit health care for people who simply refuse to adopt a healthy lifestyle? You won’t hear any BBC person pointing out that NHS contributions are compulsory, so that limiting care is both inequitable and highly unethical. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Does the govt. want a drive against obesity, salt, sugar, fast food, you name it? Up pops a feature to parrot the govt. line.
And so on.
Incidentally, Westway was awful, not because it didn’t have enough white people, but because: there was a totally unrealistic, artificial mix of races (like, exactly one of every type of person you could imagine, although I don’t think Eskimos or Bushmen were ever featured, but that’s probably only because they pulled the plug on the series before they could work them in); the characters weren’t even two-dimensional; the plots were embarrassing; the dialogue was risible; and the acting was something the cast are probably trying to forget about.
Forgiveness isn’t really an issue, but why don’t you stop trying to be such a wise guy, and think a little harder before posting your oh-so-achingly-clever comments?
Cheers
TB: “…sadly for you conspiracy theorists, I’m just a poor student who occasionally uses the open computer centre at BBC Radio Sheffield when ours at Sheffield Uni is too full.”
No conspiracy theory at all – it’s not unreasonable to query the motives of an unquestioning BBC supporter posting from a BBC staff IP address is it? It’s not as if your arguments to date have been terribly well constructed – quite typical of a bought and paid-for Beeboid!
As it is, I suppose we can regard you as a beneficiary of BBC largesse with telly-taxpayers cash. How kind of them! I didn’t realise they were so generous with our money. Next they’ll be giving it to convicted criminals like Brendon Fearon!
I see from Google that you’re a keen (D)HYSer! Interesting how you’re published so often – from London, EU, no less, ooh, get him! You’re not a Lib Dem are you?
Anyway, stick around – you might learn something. If not, at least you’ll keep the regulars entertained! 🙂
London, EU. Is that true? Really? Do you do that Thom? Priceless!
London, EU? Thats interesting, I was born in London, ENGLAND, part of BRITAIN. But Ive never heard of this other London, how curious.
You’re right Andrew, it’s entertaining me at least! (For how much longer I don’t know, I think I’ve upset Nat, I fear I may become an unperson as regards the B-BBC)
In the financial news at about 6.15 am does anyone else ever notice how they always talk about the £ exchange rate in a screwy way? You have to remember the closing rate of the day before. It was $1.75 to the £. So today he reports it as “down” at $1.77! This happens virtually all the time — the bbc confusion between up and down. Makes you wonder what they do with our licence money!
Thom clearly has little comprehension of the BBC’s mindset. They are imposing their multi-culti agenda on the middle-classes through Radio 4 (The Archers, for example) but they do not wish to let the country see the results hence the cockney depiction of an East End (in Eastenders)which has been transformed into a 3rd world morass.
Thom Boston, be wary of BBC computers. Once you sit down at one, you’re swallowed by a PC fog generated by the BBC thought police.
OT Just read last nights posts. Priceless. Hope that chap stays around.
London, EU.
lol!
Well, you can’t say Dr Who isn’t political…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4523852.stm
TB: “…sadly for you conspiracy theorists, I’m just a poor student who occasionally uses the open computer centre at BBC Radio Sheffield when ours at Sheffield Uni is too full.”
This guy Thom is a media studies student or something similar. Given that China and India are each producing around 250,000 top class engineers annually from their universities, do we really need people like Thom? Indeed, if Thom is as clever a chap as he may think that he is, why is he doing a Mickey Mouse subject instead of something more challenging and useful?
Cockney,
“…irrespective of international opinion…” you wrote referencing Likud. Well, I would be skeptical too if I saw everyone in the world, bar the US,and maybe sometimes Britain, wanting to kill me!
Unlike al-beeb,I do know the difference between right and wrong, between peace and violence, and am therefore not a terrorist-hugger. Perhaps you would like to explain from where your antipathy to self defence and decency comes. Is it from the lessons of classic anti-Semitism, or just blind illogic?
Allan@aberdeen, that’s a bit harsh. Fair enough disagree with him over his beeb defence but to question his degree choice – mickey mouse or otherwise – is a bit personal.
Jimbo,
Blimey – it takes a pretty hardcore set of ideological blinkers to pounce on an entirely non judgemental discussion on political terminology from 764862 posts up and see rabid anti-Semitism.
Nice one.
Allan@Aberdeen – I’ve been toying with idea of confirming your summation – or better yet, telling you I’m studying Sociology! – just to see the state of apoplexy you would end up driving yourself into. But sadly, it’s Economics. Now, if you class that as “Mickey Mouse”, that’s your call. I know of few economists who find the subject neither “challenging” nor “useful”, but perhaps Allan, you know of some?
Now, if you’ll forgive me, I’d like to explore THIS comment, which I find very interesting…
“Given that China and India are each producing around 250,000 top class engineers annually from their universities, do we really need people like Thom?
Now, is the “we” here a collective, global “we”? If so, then right on, Comrade – much love to you for thinking about the advancement of the world, and the entire human race, as a whole. (You are aware that a hefty proportion of these Indian graduates you’re bigging up will be Muslims, aren’t you? Just checking).
Or is the “we” in a British sense, meaning that with all these “top-class engineers” graduating in less developed countries, we can rush them over here where the pay is better and put them to use, I don’t know, building bridges or fixing lifts or finally finishing Wembley Stadium. Which is fine, as long as you’re aware that you are, in fact, advocating mass immigration. (Many of whom will again be, um, Muslims.)
Or perhaps you are advancing trading graduates with China and India – who produce engineers at a cheaper cost – while the UK specalises in “Mickey Mouse” graduates with degrees like Economics? As Ricardo’s the theory of compartive advatage shows, both countries should benefit from such an arrangement. But what do I know? What with economics being such a “Mickey Mouse” subject and all. (And you still get that nasty immigration problem, only compounded by the fact that many British people are removed from the country at the same time).
Or perhaps you were just calling for my elimination from the human race for – gasp! – going to University. I believe there was a chap in Cambodia a few years back who had similar ideas. Perhaps you’d have got on…
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathemetician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”
[Comment deleted. Please do not make inflammatory comments about religion here.]
Edited By Siteowner
The ‘we’ refers to Britain which to me is a natural reflex but to a Gramscianised would-be economist like Thom, it is effectively neo-nazi. Let’s have a closer look at what economists like Thom are currently advocating with respect to how Britain is to live in the world. They say that we should simply import from India and China all the consumers goods we want and, in return, we’ll do all the clever hi-value stuff like design, consultancy etc. I have had the pleasure of working with both Indian and Chinese engineers and they are at least as good as we are so, typically, the economists’ theories are soon reduced to the BS that they always have been. There’s only one economist – Adam Smith – and the rest are superfluous.