39 Responses to I Wonder Why

  1. Sarge says:
    February 20, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    “Spouting all sort of nonsense and loving the media attention”
    BBC Radio 4 1712hrs.
    Is this Saddam Hussein I see before me? Get Over, it’s that “Holocaust Denier” David Irving, wouldn’t you guess.
    Perhaps the BBC can dream up an equally emotive tag for Saddam? Take your pick – Gas bomb denier, Kurdish genocide denier.

       0 likes

  2. disillusioned_german says:
    February 20, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    On topic: I quoted the Ynet article which got posted on jihadwatch.org yesterday… I’m pretty sure you won’t hear about it on the Beeb.

    They’re masters at hiding information (especially when it comes to the RoP). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730810.stm

    where it reads “…In Belgrade’s Gallery of Frescoes he shows me the reproductions of Christian religious icons from the province.

    Many of the originals were destroyed by ethnic Albanian rioters during a violent upheaval in 2004…”

    Ethnic Albanian rioters? I see…

       0 likes

  3. Ritter says:
    February 20, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    Is a licence needed for TV on a mobile?
    http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1713057,00.html

    Forget the mobile, this guy might be on to something:

    “If correct, this would mean if you only watched programmes on demand via new services – such as the BBC’s emerging seven-day catch-up facility, or in any way other than via a live broadcast stream, however delivered, you would not be liable to pay the licence fee even if you used your old-fashioned TV.

    It seems it is not just hapless producers and broadcasters who have under-estimated the true potential significance of new media delivery systems – witness the growing rumble over programme rights – but the government departments who drafted the new regulations may have missed it too. It may be that the statutory underpinning of the BBC’s licence-fee funding, rooted in legislation dealing with “wireless telegraphy” from the early part of the last century, could be about to come undone.

    Hmmm. If correct, what you need is a device capable of recording ‘live’ TV, but not capable of receiving the signal, only capable of playing the recording, say from hard disk.

    Then indeed, I think that device would be exempt from the licence fee as the law currently stands.

    I don’t know of a TV that is only capable of playback though. Maybe you could get a TV with digital freeview tuner, rip out the tuner so that the TV is incapable of recieving live TV. Then buy a PVR with hard disk drive & two digital freeview tuners. The PVR is capable of receiving but has no screen, so would be treated same as a VHS player? (exempt?)

    SO, you could tape and watch tv withough having to pay the licence fee so long as the TV has no tuner in it?

    Am I right? Any ideas?

       0 likes

  4. simon says:
    February 20, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    Here is the wording of an email to me from the TV licencing people.

    ‘If your television equipment is not used to receive or record television programmes, it does not need to be covered by a television licence. You must ensure that it is not connected to an aerial, cable or satellite, and does not receive a signal when it is switched on. If you have simply removed the plug from a socket, the set will still be classed as ‘in use’, and will require a television licence.’

    This seems an odd and vague reply, but it was the second they sent me after I had questioned an even vaguer first one. I don’t think the TV licencing people know what they are talking about really, or else they mean to be vague to frighten everyone into paying the TV tax. How can a TV be ‘in use’ if it is unplugged, as in that condition it cannot be used ‘to receive or record television programmes’ and therefore ‘does not need to be covered by a television licence’. It seems that a plugged in TV with the aerial disconnected doesn’t need a licence, but an unplugged TV with the aerial attached does. They really do make it up as they go along.

       0 likes

  5. archduke says:
    February 20, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    “Am I right? Any ideas?”

    you’re right – the license fee only refers to “live” broadcasts. it doesnt not refer to you watching a stream of video that was recorded last night say or even 5 minutes ago – its not “live” in both cases.

    but i doubt if you’ll get away with it for long, if the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill gets passed:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/2006111.htm

    if that gets passed, then the definitions that govern the tv license could be changed on a whim,by ministerial dictat, without recourse to parliament.

       0 likes

  6. archduke says:
    February 20, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    “You must ensure that it is not connected to an aerial, cable or satellite, and does not receive a signal when it is switched on”

    what about a flat screen TV connected via VGA cable to a laptop?
    (and the laptop has a tv card? )

    no aerial, no cable, no satt.

    how about that?

       0 likes

  7. disillusioned_german says:
    February 20, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    That had to happen:
    Irving tests Europe’s free speech
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710508.stm

    “…But as Europe proudly flexes its freedom of speech credentials in the ongoing row over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, even some of his enemies were uncomfortable that he faced incarceration for his unpalatable historical views…”

    Does it flex, Clare – does it? I thought dhimmitude was just getting the better of our politicians (again).

       0 likes

  8. archduke says:
    February 20, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    “What about freedom of expression when anti-Semitism is involved? Then it is not freedom of expression. Then it is a crime. Yet when Islam is insulted, certain powers raise the issue of freedom of expression.
    Amr Mousa
    Arab League Secretary General”

    Idiot.

    The Jews are defined BY LAW as a race of people.

    The reason why is because it is a legacy of the numerous cases where converted Catholic Nuns for example, were sent off the gas chambers , merely because they were born Jewish. There are other cases were people were shipped off merely because one of their parents were Jewish.

    It is that reason why there is a blanket ban – it was all part of the U.S. de-nazification process in the wake of WW2.

    It has absolutely ZERO to do with favoured status for Jews over Islam – its got everything to do with context and history.

    Now, if the Arab League members stopped publishing anti-Christian cartoons, stopped persecuting Christians and stopped calling us pigs and infidels and kaffirs, i might listen. Until then, they can just f**k off with lecturing *us* on OUR laws.

       0 likes

  9. A lurker says:
    February 20, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Archduke – from your post above, presumably you agree with the UK law that makes it unlawful to incite racial hatred? This relates to race as do your comments about any semitism.

       1 likes

  10. disillusioned_german says:
    February 20, 2006 at 9:07 pm

    Furthermore I can’t recall that 6 Million muslims were killed in German concentration camps or am I missing something?

    P.S.: I guess if BBC News had been around in 1945 the headline would have read “Six Million die in camps”

       1 likes

  11. archduke says:
    February 20, 2006 at 9:50 pm

    “Archduke – from your post above, presumably you agree with the UK law that makes it unlawful to incite racial hatred? This relates to race as do your comments about any semitism.”

    difficult one.

    insofar as the laws regarding “incitement to violence”, which go back over a hundred years – those laws were not enough to stop Moseley and the blackshirts.

    Indeed they werent enough to stop the rise of Nazism in Weimar Germany (i would assume that incitement to violence laws would also have existed).

    and indeed , if you read any of Hitlers speeches , he never explicitly says “i want you to go out and kill Jews tonight”. instead he’s more vague, talking about the virus of Jewishness, the Zionist conspiracy , the Zionist Bolsheviks, and such like.

    in light of all that kind of history and experience, the race hate laws are just a safeguard in my view. a necessary one, much as i dont like them fundementally.

    in an ideal world, my only limit on free speech would be just direct incitement to violence.

    but i understand that we dont live in that philosophically pure world do we.

    HOWEVER – my beef is with the British government and why they didnt apply the law EQUALLY -to Abu Hamza for example, or that first batch of Islamist protestors. in my view the law should be utterly blind – political correctness shouldnt come into it. it should be applied equally – we either have race hated/incitement laws or we dont.

    because if one thinks (as Sir Ian Blair does) that P.C. supercedes the law of the land, then you are then undermining respect for the law amongst the general population.

       1 likes

  12. archduke says:
    February 20, 2006 at 9:55 pm

    “Furthermore I can’t recall that 6 Million muslims were killed in German concentration camps or am I missing something?”

    no you’re not. they were busy killing Jews in Bosnia, and an entire Muslim S.S. division also existed.

    Himmler at one staged commented that he wished Germany had been Islamic rather than Christian – he was very much in awe at the fanaticism of the Muslim S.S.

    “P.S.: I guess if BBC News had been around in 1945 the headline would have read Six Million die in camps”

    if they were Jews it would be :

    Jews claim “6 million” dead

    if it was RoP it’d be:
    6 million dead in camps

       1 likes

  13. gordon-bennett says:
    February 20, 2006 at 10:36 pm

    My problem with race hate laws is this.

    If you approach a fat, black man, say “I hate FAT people” and kill him you get n years in jail. I have no problem with that, of course.

    However, if you had said “I hate BLACK people” your sentance would be doubled.

    Is this factually correct? If it is then it shouldn’t be.

       1 likes

  14. Rick says:
    February 20, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    what about a flat screen TV connected via VGA cable to a laptop?
    (and the laptop has a tv card? )

    no aerial, no cable, no satt.

    YOu spend your time in a courtroom trying to explain to a judge while a lawyer is busy accusing you of murder and defaming your character to get you convicted. The judge of course has not read the case so you suddenly find you have been convicted of manslaughter and the guys from Capita are laughing themselves silly

       1 likes

  15. dumbcisco says:
    February 20, 2006 at 11:17 pm

    Rick

    You have a device capable of receiving TV signals. That makes it taxable – with or without an aerial.

    OT

    When oh when will a British politician speak up like John Howard, and put the BBC multi-culti nonsense back in its box :

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pms-muslim-comments-offensive/2006/02/20/1140283978611.html

       1 likes

  16. deepdiver says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:19 am

    “…But as Europe proudly flexes its freedom of speech credentials in the ongoing row over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, even some of his enemies were uncomfortable that he faced incarceration for his unpalatable historical views…”

    This is rather disingenious – anti-holocaust denial laws don’t exist in all european countries. This is a German/Austrian issue, and these countries sure have a lot of baggage in that area. I’m not comfortable with jailing a turd like Irving – primarily because of free speech and also because it will turn a shit into a martyr – not good in my book. And there is also the fact that “Europe” is by no mean unanimous in it’s support of Denmark over the cartoons issue.

    Anyway, I’m gonna have a great time slapping neo nazis in the face with his retractions (metaphorically of course).

    As for those Muslim countries who constantly peddle the vilest blood libels against Jews and then have the cheek to come preaching to us about freedom of speech – well, they can get their house in order and get off their ruddy high horse before I’ll pay much attention to them.

    rant over..

       1 likes

  17. chevalier de st george says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:43 am

    Back on topic
    read the guardian’s take on this horror story , which unlike the Beeb they featured with glaring ommissions.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712961,00.html
    The french press are also in damage overdrive on this
    http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/

       1 likes

  18. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 1:28 am

    newsnight – bird flu.
    the ravens at the tower of london have been brought indoors “for reasons of national security”.

    was paxo joking, cos he kept a straight face.

       1 likes

  19. Rick says:
    February 21, 2006 at 6:22 am

    Try this story on BBC World Service this morning. George Bush under fire for allowing Dubai to take over US ports in a $6.8bn deal.

    Never once did the BBC mention this was because Dubai Ports Authority had acquired a British Company called P & O in a takeover and that P & O owned ports throughout the world including the United States.

    Funny how the BBC missed out that bit – and they call it “World News”

    Just before that they had dwelled on David Irving at length and linked it to some cartoons in Denmark though now it appears a Saudi newspaper called “Shad” has printed them to urge more attacks on Denmark

       1 likes

  20. Rick says:
    February 21, 2006 at 6:24 am

    Deep Diver – in Pakistan you can carry placards saying “God Bless Hitler” which shows how much more free Pakistan speech is than in Germany……………maybe the BBC ought to have a programme glorifying Hitler since his Minister at the Aufklaerungsministerium seems to have been so inspirational for BBC executives today

       1 likes

  21. Epi-Me says:
    February 21, 2006 at 9:37 am

    OT a new BBC series, I could never imagine reading the same text below with all instances of the word “Right” replacing the word “left”…

    LEFTIES
    Wednesday 8 February – Wednesday 22 February 2006 TBC
    In this new three-part series, Vanessa Engle revisits the turbulent era when the extreme Left was a serious and significant political force that believed it could change the world for the better.

    Weaving together interviews and archive footage, each film relives a different aspect of the Left in Britain in the 1970s and 80s.

    1. PROPERTY IS THEFT
    Wednesday 8 February 9pm-10pm
    Fascinating story of a squatted street in the 1970s, where the residents lived by the unconformist ideals of the time.

    2. ANGRY WIMMIN
    Wednesday 15 February 9pm-10pm
    The rise and fall of an extreme strain of feminism, that called on women to become ‘political lesbians’.

    3. A LOT OF BALLS
    Wednesday 22 February 9pm-10pm
    The story of the News on Sunday, an attempt by a group from the far left to launch a left-wing, mass-market Sunday tabloid.

       1 likes

  23. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 11:13 am

    “now it appears a Saudi newspaper called Shad has printed them to urge more attacks on Denmark”

    personally, i can excuse the bbc for for not publishing them – unlike most other european papers/broadcasters they truely have a global reach.

    its the craven spinelessness of the likes of Private Eye and the Spectator who i have an even bigger beef with. Both of those publications you would fully expect to publish the cartoons.

       1 likes

  24. Rob Read says:
    February 21, 2006 at 11:32 am

    I can’t see the BBC doing a documentary on Hayek and Mises anytime soon.

    It’s low Marx all the time.

       1 likes

  25. dumbcisco says:
    February 21, 2006 at 11:53 am

    I bet the BBC does not report how much the Gitmo detainess are helping UK intelligence services on the 7/7 enquiries :

    http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/21/nguan21.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/21/ixhome.html

       1 likes

  26. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    the bbc doesnt seem to have room for this story:
    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/02/not-newsworthy-churches-burn-in.html

    its about the christian churches that were burnt down by muslim mobs in pakistan recently.

       1 likes

  27. Trofim says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    Offtopic:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/21/nlive821.xml

    By the by, interesting article here. Predominantly about swearing during the Live8 show. But my eye was caught by the following words:

    In a separate judgment, Ofcom cleared Coronation Street for having an Asian character use the term “poor white trash”, despite more than 500 complaints.

    It ruled that, although it had racist overtones, the term could describe those from a “lower socio-economic group”.

    Can we now assume that the term “poor b***k trash” is also now admissible, because although it has ‘racist overtones, the term could describe those from a “lower socio-economic group” ‘.

       1 likes

  28. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    nor have i detected any hint on the bbc about the current pogroms in nigeria – again by muslims against christians there

    over 58 dead, 30 churches burnt so far:
    http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/newsonthehour/2006/feb/20/newsbreak-20-02-2006-001.htm

    there is a hint here:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4735014.stm

    but note : no mention of “christian” – just a bland reference to “churches”.

    and no mention of “muslim” as a description of the attackers.

    this isnt “news” – its just crap BBC reporting.

    How can you report sectarian violence in a country if you dont mention religious affiliation?

       1 likes

  29. Grimer says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    Archduke and Ritter,

    Some students were procecuted for receiving a TV picture on their PC’s using TV cards. But I expect they were receiving them live

    What is needed, is a TV card with perhaps 4MB of onboard memory. The TV card could then save the Digital TV stream into the memory. 4MB would introduce a delay of about 7 seconds to the broadcast. Hey Presto! You’re no longer watching live TV (One downside would be the 7 second delay in changing channels).

    Actually…… Do you need a TV Licence if you watch Freeview? If you place 2 sets side by side (one analogue and one digital) and tune into the same channel, the Freeview TV will have a delay of 3 or 4 seconds. Part of this delay is caused by the conversion/compression process at the broadcaster’s ‘end’ and the rest of the delay is caused by the conversion process at your ‘set top box’

    A good example is the ‘pips’ on Radio 4. They are inaccurate if you listen to Radio 4 via your Freeview Box. By definition, you are not watching TV live, if you are watching Freeview. In fact, you are never watching anything live, due to the time it takes for electricity to travel around the circuits in your TV.

    Surely there must be a catch?

       1 likes

  30. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    U.S. Ports story.
    Spot the difference

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4734728.stm
    bbc: “Critics fear an increased risk of terrorist attacks, pointing out that the United Arab Emirates was the home of two of the hijackers involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks.”

    well, its not just that. its a bit more than that – in fact , its a LOT more than the BBC implies:

    from yahoo:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/port_security
    “Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.”

    thats a bit more than just being “home” to 9/11 hijackers , isnt it?

    but thats par for the course with BBC – you only get half the news, and none of the depth.

       1 likes

  31. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    “Surely there must be a catch?
    Grimer” – its all a bit vague. Ofcom say you dont need a license for a PC tv-card, the TV License people say you do.

       1 likes

  32. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Eric Idle was on fine fighting form on Today this morning on the cartoon row:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_montypython_20060221.ram

    man – bring back Monty Python! we need that sort of satirical humour now more than ever.

       1 likes

  33. Rob Read says:
    February 21, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Only Mugs pay the TV-Tax thugs.

    Don’t worry, just DON’T pay.

       1 likes

  34. Archonix says:
    February 21, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    newsnight – bird flu.
    the ravens at the tower of london have been brought indoors “for reasons of national security”.

    was paxo joking, cos he kept a straight face.
    archduke | Homepage | 21.02.06 – 12:33 am | #

    Don’t forget the legend surrounding the ravens. If they ever disappear from the tower the nation will collapse and be destroyed.

       1 likes

  35. archduke says:
    February 21, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    oh. so he was serious so! fair enough – those beefeaters are erring on the side of caution i suppose!

       1 likes

  36. Rob Read says:
    February 21, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    “the nation will collapse and be destroyed”

    I couldn’t think of a better epitaph for zanu-labour and the bBC.

       1 likes

  37. Grimer says:
    February 21, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    Rob Read,

    Did you ever photoshop those stickers we were talking about? I’ve seen loads of intimidation posters around the East End recently (buses, trains, tube, etc). I think they could all benefit from a “don’t get one, don’t get done” sticker.

       1 likes

  38. Rob Read says:
    February 21, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Grimer,

    The tube is awash with TV-tax threats.

    Time to dip into my savings and get the copy sorted out.

       1 likes

  39. Grimer says:
    February 22, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    I thought you were just going to photoshop some stickers and then we could download and print our own?

       1 likes