A reader called Dina writes:
Hi, I just wondered if anyone else watched the programme on BBC2 on Friday 17th March about called “The Family that Walks on All Fours”?
I watched this expecting it to be a scientific documentary about the curious anomaly of a rural Turkish family who have several mentally handicapped children who walk on all fours, like monkeys. The programme started well. About half way through, one of the scientists interviewed the Imam at the local village Mosque who was afraid that the programme might hint at Darwinian evolution in explaining the childrens symptoms. The programme went on sympathetically to explain that the idea of evolution is generally anathema in Turkey as an Islamic country, especially in rural areas and the Imam thought that to allow a Western programme to make the connection could invoke the wrath of an Al Qaeda attack on the village. The programme then went on to emphasise that hostility to the idea of evolution is not exclusive to Islamic countries and then, in classic BBC style, the programme switched to show an American Evangelical Church discussing the bible. At this point I changed the channel. I thought I was watching a genuine scientific documentary, but I should have known that the BBC needs to insert a political (especially anti-American) angle into such a programme. I try not to watch the BBC as much as possible as I cannot stomach the boring and predictable PC, anti-American drivel that is their stapel diet. Anyway, I just wondered if anyone had seen this and agrees with me?
Just be grateful they didn’t find some reason to show a clip of Gitmo.
BBC Radio 5 Up All Night gets worse – today they interviewed a Sudanese man in the US – Simon Deng – who will walk from New York to DC to highlight the situation in Sudan.
He was kidnapped aged 9 from (Christian) Southern Sudan and used as a domestic slave by a family in the (Muslim) Arab North…………..of course the BBC missed out the bits in brackets.
When he started talking about Darfur and how the UN had failed to honour its 1949 Charter and let the OAU delay matters and how people were treated in Sudan – the interviewer interrupted
did we really win the triple crown yesterday? man i have a sore head this morning. i guess we did so.
the bbc-brownstuff lovefest continues:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4808450.stm
a puff piece of speculation, devoid of content, and yet its on the front page of the website.
good god – theres even bias in the sports coverage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/default.stm
“England 24-28 Ireland”
(Rugby Union – right hand side)
http://www.rte.ie/sport/
“Ireland claim triple crown”
archduke
An “interesting” news piece there. Includes the following paragraph:
“So some sort of feelgood surprise cannot be entirely ruled out, even though no one expects this to be one of the chancellor’s big budgets like previous public spending or tax rising statements.”
So tax rising statements are a feelgood surprise then? Or have I misread that? Certainly shows which side of the political divide the author falls on.
“For his part, the chancellor is likely to attempt to portray Mr Cameron as an old-style public sector cutting Tory, with a new PR sheen.”
as opposed to a new-style public sector increasing Tory?
WTF???
“It will be the Chancellor’s 10th, it will be the first time he has faced David Cameron over the despatch box”
correct me if i’m wrong – but isnt it the tradition that the shadow chancellor i.e Osborne , faces the chancellor?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41353000/jpg/_41353940_brown05_pa.jpg
BBC caption:
“Mr Brown has left himself room to move”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4808450.stm
my caption would be
“i’m going to take this much of your money”
intresting read. http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/03/friends_like_th.html
I stand to be corrected but I believe that it IS the Leader of the Opposition (wot opposition??) who traditionally makes the first response to the Chancellor of the Exechequer’s Budget Speech
Her Royal Cherieness 18.03.06 – 8:17 pm,
Good post.
In BBC-think it works something like this:
Muslims commit their three-millionth atrocity:
Keep them anonymous. Especially, don’t mention their religon.
Non-Muslims murder a Muslim:
Trumpet his name, occupation, family background and religion to the heavens.
A Muslim is the unintended victim of a drugs test gone wrong:
Respect his and his family’s privacy.
(Otherwise ‘militants’ might put a fatwa on him since he ‘took drugs’.)
Sarge uncensored,
The funeral in Belgrade was ” viewed by many with disdain and disgust”.
In Iraq, Sunnis blow up Shiites attending funerals of fellow-Shiite victims – just to prove the point, I suppose, that there are no depths to which they will not sink in their attacks on Shiites who they evidently regard as subhuman.
The BBC does the same thing with words. Bloody jackals feeding on their prey. No respite for the BBC’s chosen targets, not even immediately following their death.
And who are these ‘many’ who were disgusted?
“iraq in a civil war”
highlighted on the main page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
donald rumsfeld:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701797_pf.html
“Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis”
OT
This story is bound to be taken up by bbc editors this week, will they also show the racist UN Lego poster?
http://plusultrablog.com/blog/?p=1040
“The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is marked every year on 21 March with activities led by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, New York and at the field-presences. This year’s theme is Fighting Everyday Racism.”
yet another example of dumbed down idiotic bbc reporting – its about computer viruses:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/pip/h1dy0/
not a single mention of
“Microsoft Windows” – well, not until about 23 minutes into the documentary.
when its briefly mentioned. just the once. Alternative operating systems , such as Mac OS X or Linux are never mentioned.
incredible.
The BBC has degenerated into such a vile propaganda machine even Goebbels would be ashamed of it.
This week, the BBC will give the nation – the “C” word.
Broadcasting Minister James Purnell
smugly acknowledges that MP’s are exempt from paying the TV licence fee if the set is used for official purposes. This is Orwellian. The Palace of Westminster alone has 1,515 TV sets. Required licence fee for these would amount to £191,647.50, at todays rates.
I know that there are several supporters of the Conservative Perty who contribute to this site, and I would describe myself as favourably inclined to the pre-Cameron, non-Major principles of conservatism. Cameron’s elimination of these principles has left the BBC with little to attack so, would any Tory be willing to state clearly what differences a Conservative government would make to the lives of me as a taxpayer and my fellow Britons. I don’t mean politicking and posturing like withdrawal from federalist blocs in Brussels: I mean real and tangible differences. Please advise.
It’s worth buying the Sunday Times today just to read Jeremy Clarkson in Good car and Bad car. In his inimitable style he has a riposte to the Pravda politics espoused by the green battalions of the BBC.
Here’s a taster
“News reports always say global warming scientists, ‘have found that…’ This makes it a fact. Whereas BP and Shell ‘claim that’
Which makes it seem like a lie.”
From a link to the BBC’s reporting of a (sparsely attended) demo:
Lindsey German, Convenor of Stop the War Coalition, said: “We believe that a peaceful solution to the chaos caused by the illegal war in Iraq will only be possible when the occupying foreign armies have all been removed so that the Iraqi people will be free to decide on their own political future.
Surely it is only because the troops are there that the Iraqis had elections to decide the composition of a future government.
On the matter raised elsewhere of the tie-in between nonsensical views on CND’s non-opposition to Iranian acquisition of WMD, the burqa in France etc, the views held by people such as Bruce Kent, Lindsey German, Benn Galloway etc, such views are perfectly consistent – consistent that is with pure and unadulterated stupidity. The BBC promotes such views and they are equally consistent.
Allan@Aberdeen
For the Tory Party to succeed at the next election they would do well to consider:
1. Cast the BBC adrift, like all other state organisations before them, onto the sea of privatisation, deny them the milk of the taxpayers money and cancel the TV licensing fee.
2. Promise to re-imburse all those honest hardworking people whose pensions have gone belly up. It’s a lot of money, about £15 billion I think, but a little creative thinking could bridge this gap.
These two actions alone would win a lot of points and have electors voting for the party.
Allan@Aberdeen
As for Cameron’s green policies, he must under no circumstances use this as a cover for increased taxes. Constructive policies only, no vat on green power systems such as solar panels. Why can’t new houses be built with solar panels already fitted? and recirculated water systems as standard. All it takes is legislation for the building regs.
100% grants to existing householders for thermal energy, cavity wall and loft insulation.
In the States skyscrapers are being built powered mainly from solar energy.
No vat on electric, biodeisel,hybrid and fuel cell car engines.
Why can’t British Leyland be tasked with building a British green car.
The BBC’s fawning attitude towards islam, the religion of peace, as opposed to their “just the facts, ma’am” treatment of Christianity, is skewered in the New Criterion:
“Compare, for example, the introductory caption describing Islam with the one that describes Christianity:
Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Those who follow Islam are called Muslims. Muslims believe that there is only one God. The Arabic word for God is Allah.
Got it? Now here’s the bit introducing Christianity:
Christianity is the world’s biggest religion, with about 2.1 billion followers worldwide. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago…”
http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/03/craven-bbc/
simo,
It is interesting that the only part of Christianity borrowed by Mohamed is the belief in immortality and the doctrine of the last judgement. An invention of St Paul’s by which the priestly caste can exercise power over the masses.
“As for Cameron’s green policies, he must under no circumstances use this as a cover for increased taxes”
sunday times is reporting that Brownstuff is going to do just that – by raising taxes on 4x4s
they also report that tax levels are currently the highest since the 1970s.
Sarge uncensored
Gordon Brown has so far stolen about £45billion from private pension funds. By the end of this year it’ll be around £50billion. This was money earned and taxed already as income. He came along and just stole it. Gordon Brown is, by a long long way, the greatest thief in history.
“taxes hit all-time high”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2092829,00.html
I assume we all know what the New Statesman is all about. The magazine sums it up nicely on it’s ‘About New Statesman’ page:
The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas.
And look who pops up in the current edition, the Lion of Kabul, John Simpson.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603200007
This looks depressingly familiar: shocking pro-Left (Communist)anti-US bias, and, once again, ‘thousands expected to turn out…’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4821750.stm
Don’t worry about tax rises or Gordon Brown’s pension grabs; don’t worry about the slowdown in the economy, climbing unemployment or the cash crisis in the NHS. Take the Budget trivia test instead!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/4821882.stm
I expect the BBC will run some non-story about how much a pint of beer will be increased by, while ignoring most of the stealthy stuff (which Brown never announces in his Budget speech anyway – it only comes to light afterwards). It’s always the same.
The Budget speech is a purely political exercise and the broadcasters should scrap it. It is an hour’s worth of free publicity for the incumbent Chancellor. If they do run it, they should allow the opposition parties to make considered responses and broadcast them too. But they never do.
The BBC WANTS everything to go wrong in Iraq, they amplify the bad news, the negative views, they seldom credit the positive.
Simpson himself is on a campaign. He says “I have made eight visits to Baghdad in the past year or so and on each occasion the situation was worse than the last one.
This notion of a strictly linear descent into chaos is patently absurd. There have been ups and downs, not any constant decline. The statistics of terrorist incidents (Simpson never ever uses the word terrorist) show that. So that sentence by Simpson is pure rhetoric. Any good editor would have spiked thatv sentence. But of course Simpson is his own editor. He can write whatever he likes, without any check on sense or veracity. He can lard his stuff (lard is not a bad word) with as much bias as he likes, without fear of correction at the BBC, because he is preaching to the choir there.
Gordon Brown has so far stolen about £45billion from private pension funds. By the end of this year it’ll be around £50billion. This was money earned and taxed already as income. He came along and just stole it. Gordon Brown is, by a long long way, the greatest thief in history.
Pete_London | 19.03.06 – 12:51 pm |
Pete
That’s not entirely true. Pension contributions (both those of individuals and companies) are tax deductible. They are then taxed when pension is received. Before 1997, pension funds could reclaim tax paid on dividends enjoying as they did, tax free status (while holding assets). Brown said that he was removing this tax relief in an attempt to make companies hold onto money rather than paying out dividends. That was of course rubbish. He just wanted to get his grimy mitts on our money.
Your assertion that this money will be taxed twice is however true. Once in the hands of the company that pays the dividend and once in the hands of the pensioners when they receive their benefits. It hasn’t however been taxed as income on the way in. The gist of your point however is perfectly valid.
FIVE NORTH KOREANS DEFECT BY BOAT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4822066.stm
….. from a left-wing, communist state to a capitalistic one. Only the BBC, which never slacks in pointing out the right-wing devils out there, neglects to point this out.
Another day another lie!
It’s clear a memo has gone round the BBC that no major news (sic) programme may go out unless it has an anti-Bush/Iraq story.
So, desparately scratching around to fill the quota for Sunday, the World at One invents a rebellion against Chimpy, by his fellow Republicans.
Does no one at the BBC realise that it has squandered whatever credibility it had by this relentless distortion and partiality?
Anyone who has alternative sources of news knows that the BBC is no longer of any value whatsoever as a provider of reliable, unbiased stories. It is simply a propaganda vehicle for the fads and fancies of Left-liberalism.
The real dissension in US politics is in the democrat ranks, between the total pacifist moonbats who are out of step with mainstream US opinion, and the moderates. Right now, the moonbats are in the ascendent, and this could spell serious trouble for the Dems when the mid-term elections come in November. No matter what the unease about Iraq, people will not vote for outright pacifists and appeasers. The polls on Bush and Iraq may look poor, but other polls which the BBC does not report show that the moonbat line eg on phonetapping of Al Q calls is widely rejected. The Dems will be tarred with the pacifist brush, deservedly for most of them, and they will NOT win the seats in Congress that the BBC thinks they will.
Of course this is par for the course. The BBC is well-known for calling the wrong verdict on US elections, because it views US politics mostly through an MSM prism and Beltway platitudes.
Well well, the things you find. While looking for something else I clicked on this ON THIS DAY story:
1988: THOUSANDS DIE IN HALABJA GAS ATTACK
1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack
Which tells us:
Thousands of people are reported to have been killed and many others injured in a poison gas attack on a Kurdish city in northern Iraq.
Up to 20 aircraft, said to include Iraqi Migs and Mirages, were seen overhead at around 1100 local time in Halabja.
Now I’ve long thought that for a regime which ‘we’ (i.e. Britain and the US) armed, the Baathists showed remarkably few of ‘our’ arms. But I suppose that ‘we’ sold the Baathists thos MiGs and Mirages.
Whoops, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm
OT
The coldest spring in the UK for twenty years, come back global warming, all is forgiven.
As Jeremy Clarkson writes,
” Television News……it never gives credence to those who deny man has anything to do with global warming, painting them as mad, or George Bush.”
TA ol
I made the score in Saturdays three games
Referees 2 Players 1
Pete_London
Life under New Labour:
“Green” equals “tax”
“shortage” equals ” higher prices”
“pensions” equals “theft”
Newspeak, Oldspeak, duckspeak doublespeak?
In “1984” Orwell introduced us to the words doublethink and newspeak.
A word he DIDN’T use – but which combines the two – is doublespeak.
Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite.
In 1984 when BIG BROTHER and the Party say PEACE they mean WAR, when they say LOVE they mean HATE, and when they say FREEDOM they mean SLAVERY.
Doublespeak is distinguished from other euphemisms through its deliberate usage by governmental, military, or corporate institutions.
On Friday, 17.03.06 – 9:33 pm, I posted on the David Pryce-Jones thread that Paul Reynolds’ piece on Juan Cole referred the Michigan University, rather than the correct University of Michigan. Today I go back to Reynolds’ article and see that it now says, correctly, “University of Michigan”. Yet the Last Updated bit at the top of the article is dated Friday, 17 March 2006, 04:11 GMT. So what’s going on here?
Gordon Brown will probably be even handed, taxing those who drive big cars on one hand, while giving money to deserving causes such as Africa with the other.
Well Sarge enjoy your budget theatricality – no doubt I shall have to pay for it all as usual !
The BBC is well-known for calling the wrong verdict on US elections
It’s offices tend to be on 5th Avenue in New York, in DC, and in LA…………..that leaves a lot of the US population invisible to BBC journalists
The way to cure the tendency of all politicians (and BrownStuff in particular) is to say that there should be no taxes other than income tax.
If they haven’t got the guts or a good case for asking us upfront and unequivocally for our money then they shouldn’t get it.
Taxing a variety of goods and services is designed to lessen the PERCEIVED impact of taxes. However, the law of unintended consequences usually kicks in at some point.
The tax on pension funds (£5 billion pa) is a classic in this context.
As concerns deserving(?) causes in Africa etc, there is a statistic which runs like the top 10% owning something like 80% of the national wealth or thereabouts.
On these Children in Need and Food for Africa fund raisers, the great and the good celebs, luvvies, human rights lawyers (who feature in the top 10%) are urging the other 90% to give of their 20% share in the nation’s wealth to help those who are poorer (and grossly more corrupt – a link, perhaps?). The BBC provides them (loaded luvvies) the airtime to push this agenda. Those wealthy lefties should be asked HOW MUCH DO YOU GIVE?
Totally O/T but: I notice in their coverage of Milosevic’s funeral, the BBC completely ignores the presence of Ramsey Clark, former US attorney general under LBJ and champion of all things left, who spoke as a strong supporter of Milosevic. Mustn’t embarass the Dems!
I found this Blog ……but I just had idea what to say……
http://www.thankyoutony.com/
Ramsey Clark has also been offering to defend Saddam. He kinda likes dictators ?
well…..stuttering as I was ……I had NO idea what I could say……
The BBC TV and radio news has been splashing the former Iraqi PM’s comments on Iraq being near a civil war. But they do not say that his remarks are part of the current political moves in Iraq towards forming a government – where Allawi clearly has his own ambitions. Even though they haqve pointed this out in an article on their website.
Nor do the quote Donald Rumsfeld’s robust statement :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701797.html
DHYS on “Is Iraq in a civil war ?”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1341&start=0&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20060319154519&#paginator