How many times does a BBC writer laugh at a piece of satire in the Wall Street Journal?
Three times. Once when he reads it, once when it is explained to him and once when he understands it.
This post from the American Expatriate will make you smile.
And if you want to hear the audio of the “torture in Gitmo is established fact” issue of Any Questions, it was covered by TAE here – and his link works.
More humour
apropos nothing at all Gavin Esler considers it essential to share the following wisdom with the recipients of the daily Newsnight e-mail
Today’s Quote for the Day comes from the Scottish comedian, Billy
Connolly, who is on tour in Australia and is clearly unimpressed by the
country’s Prime Minister, John Howard:
“What a silly boring little man. His only function is to let you know
what Harry Potter’s going to look like when he’s old.”
Look forward to the day when a comic & the BBC are brave enough to gratuitously bad mouth the Iranian president (or somesuch).
So that’s what Billy Connolly does, is it? I thought he’d given up comedy years ago.
As for Esler, I wonder what he wants to be when he grows up and leaves the sixth form? He’ll get nowhere with those Paxman impersonations.
Just read all the posts.
My view is that even if the BBC is not biased (yeh – right) why should I have to pay them to watch TV? I rarely watch the BBC.
OT The HYS section on the issues in Iraq has dropped to the small print.
Obviously of more importance is…
“Tonbridge security depot raid: Your views”
“Are we paying too much for energy?”
“Should women have to pay for epidurals?”
“Should we switch to metric road signs?”
Ok – right.
But I really dont know what the BBC mods are doing (there must be a cold going round) here is the top recommended comment on the last one – “Should we switch to metric road signs?”
“Here is an idea – instead of us bending over backwards to do what the EU suggests, how about the rest of them changing their countries to convert to our way of doing things – now that would be a change!
BBCMods AreBadAtTheirJob
Recommended by 61 people
”
Was that one of us?
Just posting this one out – interesting development – the Vatican is waking up to the plight of Christians in the Muslim world:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060223/2006-02-23T175457Z_01_L2369100_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RELIGION-VATICAN-MUSLIMS-DC.html
i’ve yet to find a reference to this on the BBC news site.
Even the amended BBC story is decidedly odd, containing the headline “Righteous anger” half way down, immediately above a report of the WSJ’s spoof (which wasn’t even slightly angry, merely humorous.) So the “righteous” • obviously intended as a pun on “right” • anger, must refer to the only other people mentioned after the WSJ – the “influential” [sic] Ariana Huffington and Robert Schlesinger, both anti-Bush moonbats.
Eh ?
may i add – note the language being used in the above Reuters report.
“Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves”
“they have no right to destroy us”
this is quite a turnaround, dont you think , from previous Catholic policy towards Islam (which was basically appeasement).
And thus, it deserves to be reported. Whats the percentage of Catholics in the UK – 20%? maybe more?
John Howard is still a bigger man than the lanky Scottish twerp…………
Billy Connolly appears to share a propensity with Bob Geldof for using the “F” word. Wasn’t this word first heard on the BBC many moons ago and now appears de riguer for any one with a huge ego who wants to draw attention to themselves?
What would happen if Prince Charles threw a few “F’s” into the BBC?
hey
Cor Blimey Mate you give them what for.
“Blair: British taxpayer to fund rebuilding of Iraqi Mosque”
no thats not the headline.. it tucked away at the bottom of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4743466.stm
“Mr Blair has said Britain was ready to contribute to the cost of rebuilding the al-Askari mosque.”
Is this the same Tony Blair who refuses to intervene to increase the criminal compensation limit of £7,000 for the fatally injured on 7/7?
Question Time:
“How long until Iraq decends into civil war, after the bombing of the Shia Mosque?”
I was wondering how long it would be until Iraq got mentioned. Typically, its a leading “doom and gloom” question.
I’m starting to think that my friends/family, must be out of touch with the rest of the UK. The BBC assures us that the QT audiences reflect the general population, but my views never seem to get aired….. Surely they can’t be lying to us? They wouldn’t pack out the audience with people that conform to the BBC worldview, would they? They’d never give preference to those people that ask the questions the BBC agree with. Surely not?
This is the “world respected” BBC afterall.
Grimer
Which part of the world are you thinking of?
Just watched BBC Question time tonight, i wanted to ask the very simple question: Please ask this question to the Government:
**
When will the British government increase substantially funding for the Armed Forces? Very simple question. Not this, oh look 1.5% over 3 years,. more like 5% per year for the next 10 years. There is nothing left!
When will it provide our men and women with NEW helicopters in abundance?
NEW armoured vehicles that protect them?
Enough NEW Aircraft to transport them?
And most importantly when those young men and women come back wounded make sure they get the best medical treatment and help to get new jobs once they leave the forces?
Support our forces for they cannot support themselves, they need our help and i wont allow Blair’s spin machine to destroy it to his end.
Why doesnt the BBC stand up for our people? They would stand up for you!!
I did feel that the producer of the show who constantly speaks into dimbleby’s ear needs to be fired, because the producer is blatantly pro govt. especially when the question about Iraq was put to the panel from the audience and then quickly shifted away from A Darling.
Overall, a good show, but still somewhat biased when questions are asked of the government.? And the audience? blimey i;m not even going there.
Democracy? or controlled freedom? from the BBC?
…………………………..
I might also add, the comments made by Mrs Clinton on the Ports deal in the USA, ARE RACIST. (probably why they arent shown below, how convenient) ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4744086.stm
Mrs Clinton’s views have basically been sumarised below:
“The president of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, has described some of the language being used against the deal as “shameful and irresponsible”.
The media in Dubai itself has also condemned the US criticism of the deal as ” Islamophobia”. ”
So its ok for a british company to own it, but when an arab wants to buy the company its national security?
I think Clinton should be held to account for implying such discriminatory views. And the public should be made aware of just how wrong and rude she is.
the ports issue has a long history behind it – there’s been loads of news stories about the lack of security at U.S. ports – stuff like only 5% of containers are checked by homeland security.
so, its not just because the UAE is involved – its a steady steam of pressure thats just blown off, and its got the Americans freaked out.
dubya is trying to play the honest broker, but politically its a suicidal position for him to take. he knows that. but he needs to give the impression that he’s a bit of a honest broker in all of this.
he’ll back down in a week or two, so that the UAE can’t point directly to him as president being “islamophobic”.
sorry but port security has nothing to do with foreign ownership, lets not confuse the issue, Clinton is saying it shouldnt be sold because they are Arab. No one said anything when the British bought it?
He wont back down at all, he’s a man of his word, and i doubt he’ll say no.
Put it this way, if Bush said no because of national security the BBC and others would be screaming racist…
So lets put the shoe on the other foot for a change, and see how Clinton likes being labled a racist..
Grimer
“world respected BBC” NOT BY NASA SCIENTISTS ITS NOT, in their opinion:
Utter rubbish
Last Wednesday, the BBC’s online news site ran this headline: “Space rock ‘on collision course.'” The top of the story read: “An asteroid discovered just weeks ago has become the most threatening object yet detected in space. A preliminary orbit suggests that 2002 NT7 is on an impact course with Earth and could strike the planet on 1 February, 2019 — although the uncertainties are large.”
“This is just utter rubbish,” said Alan Harris, a researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) who focuses on asteroid risk. “The reader is told that NT7 is on a collision course, followed by an ambiguous ‘uncertainties are large.’ Uncertainty of what? Time? Place? Maybe the end won’t come until Feb. 5, or maybe it will hit the BBC studios and not us.”
If 2002 NT7 were to hit the BBC studios, it would wipe out a lot more than a few buildings. The rock is estimated to be 2 kilometers (1.4 miles) wide, big enough to disrupt the global climate and possibly threaten civilization as we know it.
The BBC story pointed this out, then went on to note that astronomers expected more observations to show that the asteroid is not on a collision course. Scientists remain frustrated, however, at finding these facts preceded by what they view as scary misinformation.
“Scary Misinformation” GEDDIT?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/asteroid_scare_020729-1.html
It’s hard to imagine a bigger breach of journalistic ethics than this: a news network attempts to create a fake election story by planting rabblerousers? What a sad state of affairs for the news business.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/04/networks-hecklers-planted-at-tory.html
sarge what the hell is this rubbish? are you working for the bbc?
“sorry but port security has nothing to do with foreign ownership, lets not confuse the issue, ”
oh i know that. its got bugger all to do with security, as the yanks will still control port security.
but we’re talking politics here – how does your average Texan say, feel about the UAE buying american ports?
thats the issue.
its pure politics – based on a post 9/11 sitution in America – irrespective of the rational arguments.
but granted – the anti-Arab line if it were pushed by Bush, would have the MSM shouting “racist”. i grant you that alright.
damn right, and more importantly its only in New York where we are hearing noises from, the company in question owns 4 other ports across the USA, included in the deal and none of them are complaining?
Only in Clinton’s back yard? What a surprise?
And yet again the BBC fails to report that…
new york is where 9/11 happened. i think thats something to do with it, irrespective of Hilary Clinton.
quite frankly, i cant blame them. it puts the heebies jeebies up my back too, and i’m not even American.
It’s been a while since I last commented on this blog.
Archduke
What you said about the heebie jeebies is the way I and many people I know feel. I am a yank from Georgia. I’m a supporter of Bush but this deal about the ports has got me worried. And who knows, maybe I just don’t have all the info. But I’m VERY concerned.
Ian
You said, “So it’s ok for a British company to own it but when an Arab wants to buy the company it’s national security?”
I see what you’re getting at here when you say that if Bush said no, people would be screaming racism at him but not Clinton. However for me, it isn’t a matter of race as it is who we can trust. We trust the British. Many of us do not trust the Arabs. Just think of Osama Bin Laden and where he came from. And he wasn’t the only one.
If you are worried about a Dubai co paying US stevedores to load & unload containers, what about this
Inquiries have started after an aeroplane landing at Birmingham International Airport came in too low.
The passenger airliner is reported to have descended to 600ft (182m) six miles from the airport – experts said it should have been at 1,800ft (550m).
The Airbus A310, with an unknown number of passengers on board, was being operated by Iranian airline Mahan Air.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4744614.stm
Archduke
So what you said earlier, “-how does your average Texan say, feel about the UAE buying American ports? That’s the issue.”
Exactly.
Well unreported in the British Press was the fact that there were protest marches and dock strikes across Europe a few weeks ago – the EU opened ip ports in Europe – and Lai-Kai Shing owns I think Rotterdam and some German ports.
The Us situation is weird – P&O has sold itself to Dubai, but I cannot understand why the US does not require a US Board for each port and all corporate documents to be on US soil. In Defence acquisitions a US presence is required….I cannot understand why records are not kept in the Us in reach of US courts.
its all very odd Rick.
i cant make head or tail of it either.
the UAE firm involved has now delayed the deal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4744086.stm
however, the above bbc report still only says that “the UAE was the home of two of the hijackers” , and doesnt make any reference to the funding of 911, which was traced back to transactions conducted via UAE banks.
The trouble is that this is a State-owned Company so in any court case it can plead “sovereign immunity” and this means The State Department gets involved in any labour dispute which involves the Taft-Hartley Act……………to see how likely this is read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2311127.stm
Ian Barnes
Nope