The Today programme like to think that they don’t just report the news, that they “help to set the agenda” – and to a great extent they’re correct. You can hear Humphrys or Naughtie worrying away at a point like a terrier with a rat. hoping to get an admission which will make the NEXT news headlines.
“In an interview on the BBC Today programme, the Minister revealed that …”
But there are scoops and scoops. The BBC has an institutional bias towards a pro-abortion viewpoint – I’m sorry, the approved BBC term is ‘pro-choice’, and against the pro-life viewpoint – I’m sorry, that should have read ‘anti-abortion’.
Which might explain why this remarkable interview (RealAudio, 25 minutes in) with ‘pro-choice’ Dr Stuart Derbyshire wasn’t the main headline at nine-o’clock, and would just have been quietly forgotten before the Web.
Dr Derbyshire argued that babies did not feel pain until they were up to several months old, an argument which seems to fly in the face of common sense and human experience, as John Humphrys acknowledged. Such a bizarre claim made by a proponent of an unpopular (to liberals) ideology would have been picked up and amplified by the BBC, used to discredit their cause. The two sides of bias are promoting that which supports a view and ignoring or suppressing that which discredits it.
I can imagine how a pro-life BBC would have spun it.
“A pro-abortion doctor today claimed that babies cannot feel pain until up to several months after birth. Controversial psychologist Dr Stuart Derbyshire – who has previously claimed that vivisectionists have no duty to care for laboratory animals beyond what is necessary for successful experimentation, said that …”
Here’s the transcript (note Humphrys’ self-correction of ‘baby’ to ‘foetus’, so characteristic of the BBC):
John Humphrys : “Right – so your contention is that the baby – er, the foetus, cannot feel pain until … ?”
Dr Stuart Derbyshire, psychologist : “Until it’s had an opportunity to undergo some sort of learning process – until it’s had an opportunity to undergo a process whereby pointing and showing occurs”
Humphrys (interrupting) – “But that would suggest it’s weeks – possibly months – after birth – and surely that’s nonsense, isn’t it ?”
Derbyshire : “It possibly is weeks, possibly months – I mean it’s very difficult of course to ever draw a line as to precisely when it happens – but I do think we can draw a line and say that it is vitally dependent upon a process that’s going to take place outside of the womb. Pain – in the same way – all experience is in a sense social – it’s dependent on other people, and that doesn’t occur until the point of birth.”
Humphrys : “Dr Derbyshire, many thanks”
Dr Derbyshire was propounding an identical theory in the magazine Living Marxism ten years ago. Why is the BBC suddenly publicising him ?
“The US is considering legislation to make doctors tell women seeking an abortion it will cause the foetus pain.”
Ah, the Great Satan. Now I understand. Happy Easter.
Sarge: You will find that the usage of subhuman in the German language is non-existent (I’ve never heard the term used by a German speaking in German). The term “Untermensch” is so much a Nazi term that it is not being used (for obvious reasons) – unless you’re talking to Neo-Nazis, that is and you wouldn’t find me talking to any of them. I also keep away from lefties though.
Gays in Iraq fear for their lives
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4915172.stm
“…They say that since the US-led invasion, gays are being killed because of their sexual orientation…”
Ah, and it’s got nothing to do with the fact that Sistani is a (term starts with an M and finishes with an M but can’t be used for the sake of political correctness). Nice one, Beeb!
Last year there was a lot of discussion of BBC using Reuters and AP sources for stories.
Michelle Malkin has an interesting twist.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004976.htm
I wonder if all the free publicity given to the BNP by the BBC is not a cynical plot to split the right of centre vote in the May elections.
The BBC is after all the Broadcasting Service of the Labour Party.
“Gays in Iraq fear for their lives”
As gays do in every Muslim country. To be fair, the BBC have covered this… back in March 2003
‘Death threat’ to Palestinian gays
Palestinian Gays Flee to Israel
A number of gay Palestinian men are risking their lives to cross the border into Israel, claiming they feel safer among Israelis than their own people.
According to some estimates, there are now 300 gay Palestinian men secretly living and working in Israel.
But of course today’s news from Iraq is intended to cast the blame somehow on the US “occupation”.
Re Marge Hodge’s comments about immigration, I am surprised we haven’t heard from a famous Barking resident and the BBC’s favourite patriot.
Yes, I am talking about Mr. Billy Bragg, the ‘Bard of Barking’. I am sure he would have a thing or two to say in defence of his home.
Ah…but doesn’t he live in rural Wiltshire these days?
Michelle Malkin has an interesting twist.
This’ll have Nik Gowling in a tizz.
(I used to have a link to Gowling’s article accusing the US military of targetting journalists. Can’t find it, can’t google it, anyone got it?)
so, who is going to vote BNP in the local elections?
i’m getting wall to wall coverage from Al Beeb about this shocking development
will
What does Gowing actually DO ? That is, apart from lie about US military targetting “journalists”.
Here are a couple of links to Gowing, also Eason Jordan of CNN.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003788.php
here’s a whole speech of anti-US vitriol by Gowing :
Click to access Berkley2.pdf
http://www.blitheringbunny.com/archive/feb05.html#bbcman
http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/2005/02/the_gowingjorda.html
the Nik Gowing links were from me
Is the town of Barking where the phrase “barking mad” comes from?
Just curious as to the origin.
Thanks dumbcisco – it didn’t help that I was googling Gowling rather than Gowing.
I listened to James Naughtie’s interview with the BNP’s Dr Phil Edwards this morning. Naughtie spluttered his usual splutter when Edwards stated that Third World migrants are importing diseases. Naughtie is a splendidly ignorant man. In an article in The Spectator of 25th January 2003, Anthony Browne wrote:
” …..from sub-Saharan Africa…700 HIV-positive nurses are entering the country each year. Each of them is allowed to bring in an HIV-positive spouse, and both will receive NHS treatment costing £11,000 a year for the rest of their lives, a potential total cost to the NHS of £1 million. One HIV doctor told me that some hospitals are spending their entire HIV budgets treating their imported nurses.
” Last year, African immigration overtook gay sex as the main cause of HIV in Britain and a quarter of all those being treated by the NHS for HIV are African migrants.
“The Public Health Laboratory Service has estimated that 6,300 hepatitis B infections were imported in each of the last four years, compared with under 300 domestically acquired cases – in other words, a staggering 95% of cases of this incurable liver disease, one of the world’s worst killers, are imported.
“In this age of mass transport, all developed countries are touched by the globalisation of disease, but Labour, with its policy of encouraging mass Third World immigration while refusing health tests, is ensuring that Britain is fer more seriously affected than most.”
If you can read the article as it appeared, please do so.
BBC news have been giving the BNP vote “shock” full coverage for two days, yet there is still no HYS.
I wonder why ?
If there is a council candidate in my area, I will be voting BNP.
disillusioned_German
Thanks for the enlightenment on subhumans.
The English punk band of that name presumably sell their albums in Germany under that name. How do German D.J’s introduce this band? If they won’t use Untermensch then presumably they utter subhuman surely?
The term subhuman can refer to several concepts:
Infrahuman, an inferior human being
Last Man, the antithesis to the Over Man in Nietzschean philosophy
Slave, a person who is under the control of another
Subhumans, a UK punk rock band
The Subhumans (band), a Canadian punk rock band
Untermensch, an inferior human being in Nazi racial ideology.
You don’t have to be a Nazi to take a view on your fellow human beings.
People who we in the UK nowadays call ‘gays’ and travellers’ up until recently had a host of derogatory names not suitable for repeating. They were assaulted and some times murdered, without any encouragement from the National Socialist Party.
In the middle ages these people were just lumped together under the broad description ‘witches’ and put to death in a variety of ways.
180 organised crime gangs tracked
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4916276.stm
17/04/2006
Is the same story as:
London has 170 organised crime gangs, say Met – 15/03/2006
http://www.newswatch.co.uk/headlines.asp?ref=VT1523479O
The beeb have added an extra 10 gangs for the month it has taken them to report the story.
BTW – the local BNP organiser thinks the less bias reporting over the last couple of days is just Labour spin to get their vote out, but he welcomes the publicity all the same.
Great spoof about what the White House thinks of the press corps. (Or “reptiles” as Dennis T was alleged to call them )
http://www.exposetheleft.net/video/norah-snl.wmv
A thought strikes like lightning out of a clear blue sky.
If, as the BBC and its little friends and paymasters in ZaNuLabour are trying to convince us, 25% of the GBP are considering voting BNP, by what possible right does the Corporation refuse to represent their point of view or air their concerns?
Sarge: I’ve never heard of that Punk Band (I probably should stop listening to Radio One) but I guess they’d call them by their name Subhumans. As I don’t listen to German radio I couldn’t tell you – maybe Rick can.
Susan: As far as “barking mad” is concerned see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bar2.htm – this is confirmed by my Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang (barking like a mad dog)
The ultimate in bleeding heart liberalism:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4915722.stm
Many other people come from broken homes, but they don’t conspire to fly planes full of people into tall buildings full of more people.
Moussaoui ‘came from broken home’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4915722.stm
“…Al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui came from a broken home where his mother was repeatedly beaten, a US court in Virginia has been told…”
Erm, sorry Beeb, but as far as I’m aware that’s normal in muslim families. Maybe you should talk to some muslim women who got away from their abusive husbands (hint: there aren’t many)
Nice one Joerg!
will,
Now that both(?) have gone, the BBC is clean as a whistle
After the Jordan bombing they did the same thing with a comment that picked up on a false Ha’aretz report that Israelis at the hotel had been forewarned and had left the hotel before the bombing. Someone must have complained because they removed the comment. I wrote to them to complain that a comment like that can’t just be removed – it needs to be pointed out that both the comment and Ha’aretz were wrong.
Naturally they did nothing about it because propaganda is easy but real journalism is too much like honest, hard work.
disillusioned_german
I just put the English term ‘low life’ into babel fish and it came out:
niedriges Leben
Does this make sense?
Not only are there bands called subhuman but this band garbage has a song called subhuman:
Subhuman” was the second single released by the band Garbage. It was their first charting single in the UK, which was the only territory it was released in. Although not included on the basic configuration of the group’s debut album, Subhuman appears on Japanese pressings of album Garbage and also on the “Vow” and “Subhuman” singles.
Sarge uncensored,
Egypt is as much ‘occupied’ by Arabs as Palestinians claim they are, the difference is the Palestinians are not forced to convert ti Judaism.
I like that one, Sarge! Maybe you should submit it to the BBC as an idea for a programme….oh, hang on…
SiN: Cheers, I appreciate it! See Robert Spencer on wife beating in Australia: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008795.php
“…Muslim husbands, of course, can point to Qur’an 4:34 to justifying wife-beating: ‘…good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them…’
Sarge: I remember Garbage’s Subhuman – I think I got it on CD somewhere. Not a bad piece at all.
Low life can be translated as “niedriges Leben” but that would be the direct translation. I’m currently at a loss what the German equivalent for low life would be. We’ve got “Abschaum” which means scum and which I more or less consider to be similar to low life. I guess I know more English swearwords than German ones these days. It pays off to support West Ham for almost 30 years! 😉
“Ah, and it’s got nothing to do with the fact that Sistani is a (term starts with an M and finishes with an M but can’t be used for the sake of political correctness). Nice one, Beeb!”
d_g,
The very article you link to has the line:
“Islam considers homosexuality sinful” and describes him as a “Shia cleric.”
I don’t think that they are trying to make out this has nothing to do with Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.
Mister Minit: I may have missed that. Are you sure it was in the original piece? We’ve seen a lot of stealth editing by the Beeb over the past few years.
“25% support BNP” – I presume thats nearer 30% of the white population.
As we all know how much more law abiding minorities are (Casualty and The Bill etc are always reminding us) I wonder how this %age shapes up as a %age of BBC license payers.
There was/is a band called Subhumans. The first and last “S” were rendered in a runic SS style as I remember.
Punks not dead!
Well it seems the Subhuman lads are still operational in some form:
http://www.citizenfish.com/
disillusioned_german,
We’ve seen a lot of stealth editing by the Beeb over the past few years.
The BBC certainly doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stealth editing.
Its stealthy modus operandum indicates its contempt for proper journalistic practice and for the long-suffering public.
Nearly fell off my chair listening to The World Today on the World Service about half an hour ago.
THEY USED THE ‘T’ WORD!!!!
Some Neanderthal Hamas spokesman was spewing, inbetween inarticulate grunts, the standard rubbish about the ‘occupation’ and ‘Israeli aggression’, and actually managed to get something resembling a full sentence out, which went something like this:
The Isra-aelis encouraging violence.
To which The World Today responded:
You are encouraging violence when you fail to condemn what is clearly an act of terror.
I expect there’ll be a repeat of the programme sometime today. I’ll try to catch it to make sure I wasn’t hearing things.
Um….err….wait. Let’s hope The World Today presenters don’t get an urgent memo in the interim.
Well Laban, I was wondering what in the world you were on about until I got to the last bit about Big Satan. Of course for the final zinging bbc rationale it would be the clincher to discover that the research for it all came from scientists in Little Satan (Israel).
By the way, al-beeb might well ponder what the Arabs and other Muslims have given the world recently. Hmm. Which pebble shall we look under to find something… anything?
But wait, the BBC giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other:
They’ve been presenting yesterday’s suicide bombing as the first since Hamas assumed power. I guess that means that four Israelis who were blown to bits in their car at the end of March don’t count:
Hamas Justifies first suicide bombing since taking power
http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46859
Oh, I think I get it:
Disguised as a religious Jew and carrying a 22-pound bomb, a terrorist hitched a ride with a couple traveling in the West Bank, then blew up their car at the entrance to the West Bank settlement of Kedumim.
What’s the BBC saying here? That the killing of “settlers” is justifiable?
Why do people think of voting BNP?
An example of what influences voters has just occurred on BBC Breakfast and the 0830 South Eastern News.
The BBC visited Bromley to report on unsafe houses, fair enough, it’s SE London, the next clip, was about ALI, the boy from Iraq who came to London for treatment after he lost both arms in an explosion.
Hold on, thinks the voter, why am I being told this? What does this have to do with the South East?
The viewer knows that a British women with breast cancer was denied treatment with the drug Herceptin on the grounds of cost. This plucky lady took a huge gamble and sued the Health Authority and after two court appearances won her case on appeal.
It is sad that people face amputation of limbs, however the Easter weekend in Spain has left over 100 dead on Spanish roads, killed in a mangle of steel, glass, and fire as fatal as any bomb blast, not counting those who will have amputations.
Will Spanish children come to London for treatment, we don’t expect so, we have enough road victims to deal with ourselves.
Ali is one case but there are countless other examples daily of non-British people being treated in NHS Hospitals.
However this is manipulation of the system and the BBC won’t report this.
People talk about these things, nurses return from work and pass on what is happening, such as the English man who was refused entry to the maternity ward to see his newborn child because Muslim mothers on the ward said it was against their faith to see men in a womens ward.
This kind of discrimination goes down like a lead baloon and leaves a feeling of impotence and frustration which translates to the ballot box.
Hodges ask “Why are you voting BNP”
The short answer is ” because of you and people like you”
Will
In response to your previous post about the anti-Israel article in the Telegraph.
Check out the person who wrote it. One Tim Butcher, who has been the anti-Israel correpondent in Jerusalem for Al Beeb. Adloyada has posted on him. More than once.
http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2005/11/tim_butchers_is.html
Surprised at the tone of the Telegraph article now?
Bryan
Maybe you should submit it to the BBC as an idea for a programme….
The BBC does not use the full and correct name of The Arab Republic of Egypt
The Arabization of Egypt was a cultural process that began with the introduction of Islam and the Arabic language following the Arab Muslim conquest in the 7th century AD. In the centuries to follow, a social hierarchy was created whereby Egyptians who converted to Islam acquired the status of mawali or “clients” to the ruling Arab elite, while those who remained Christian, the Copts, became dhimmis. The privilege enjoyed by the Arab minority continued in a modified form into the modern period in the countryside, where remnants of Bedouin Arab tribes lived alongside Egyptian farmers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt
On the BBC’s normal refusal to use the T word on the Middle East, we had an extreme example this morning of how ridiculous they are. Caroline Hawley on the Today prog was using the word militant to describe the terrorist murderers, whereas Al-Ahram – the semi-official newspaper in Egypt, described the bombing as terrorism.
So – an Arab semi-official newspaper can use the T word, can call a spade a spade, but BBC reprotersw in the field and their editors and presenters back home will bend every muscle to avoid using the T word on Israel – or anywhere else in the Middle East. Including when the object of terrorism is British or other coalition troops.
Are the BBC trying to convey some particular message by following Moussaoui’s name in every report with :-
the only person convicted in the US in connection with the 9/11 attacks.?
dumbcisco,
Could it be that the World Service is a little less dhimmified than the UK-oriented BBC?
Apart from the example I cited at 7:42 am above, Robin Lustig of Newshour had this to say yesterday:
The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has already condemned what he called a “terrorist attack” but what about Hamas, which has now formed the Palestinian government?
[Unspellable] is a spokesman for Hamas. Does he call it ‘terrorism’?
I tried to find a transcript for the Newshour show but all I could get was a partial broadcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour/
But I recorded the show at work, so I’ll do the transcript of the fascinating dialogue between Lustig and the Hamas spokesman with the unspellable name.
Bryan
I too had seen a reference to Abbas calling the bombing a terrorist attack – but in quotes, so I don’t know how accurate that is as a translation of his actual words.
If the Abbas as their President can call the bombing terrorism, that further undercuts the specious excuses that the BBC uses to avoid the T word. They must have editors on duty making sure that if they have to use the word because they are quoting someone else used it, the required quotation marks are always inserted. You can’t just print that XYZ condemned the terrorist attack, but neither should you duck the fact that XYZ had used the T word (the BBC has been caught out to many times altering people’s words), So you have to write “terrorist attack”. And look stupid.
Caroline Hawley managed to slip in to her report that the Israelis had killed a very young child. She somehow forgot to mention that the child was in a car full of terrorists returning from a terrorist training area. Bias by omission, bias by smear. The BBC all over.
Fran “the anti-Israel article in the Telegraph.
Check out the person who wrote it. One Tim Butcher, who has been the anti-Israel correpondent in Jerusalem for Al Beeb.
Though we are not here to criticise the Daily Cameron, the following is relevant to Fran’s statement & the use of quotes
While Hamas was not behind the bombing, spokesmen for the movement issued statements justifying the attack as “self defence” in the face of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/18/wmid18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/18/ixnewstop.html
Telegraph journalists Butcher & Gozani consider self defence as deserving of quotes, but not Isaeli atrocities.
An example of “Press release as news”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm
“…….In its new report, Greenpeace says recent studies suggest….”
What recent studies, BBC? I suppose the BBC want me to take it as read.
On the other hand, there is this…..
“But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that “the largest public health problem created by the accident” is the “damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.”
From “”Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century”
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, Washington, D.C.
November 6, 2005
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html
Christopher Hitchens taks a scalpel to the lying Joe Wilson again :
http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/
That’s the lying Joe Wilson that the BBC likes quoting, without pointing out clearly that the man is full of porkies, has been trotting out the same porkies since 2003. His lies were definitively nailed by the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report of 2004. But where does that get mentioned by the BBC ? If the same Committee had supported Wilson’s lies, the BBC would have quoted chapter and verse of their report at every opportunity.
Last week the BBC was headlining the “revolt of the generals’ – criticism by a handful out of some 4700 retired generals. For some reason the BBC has omitted reporting the strong criticism of those dissidents by generals much more senior and much more closely involved in the planning for Iraq – especially Tommy Franks who led the Iraq invasion and Richard Myers who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The BBC had already omitted to quote the supporting remarks last week by the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace.
The BBC spent much of last week recycling stories from the liberal Washington Post and New York Times. The top story for much of the week, when everyone knew that the true target was Bush rather than Donald Rumsfeld. But now the wind is blowing in the other direction, the BBC stays curiously silent on the matter. How odd !
Here are some current FACTS on who is saying what – on both sides of the argument. But as the BBC only wants to present one side, pointing to this is just casting pearls before swine.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/incompetence_exists_in_the_mil.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008249
some generals sp[eak out in support of civilian control of the military :
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/04/16-week/index.php#a001916
I won’t be holding my breath waiting for the BBC to report these ripostes to the dissident generals.
dumbcisco,
I agree 100%. But there appears to be a change in attitude, or at least a serious modifying of the knee-jerk sympathetic response to anything and everything that the Palestinians do. It could be that elements in the BBC are slowly waking up to the true nature of terror. Here’s the promised transcript. See what you think:
World Service Newshour 17/04/06
The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has already condemned what he called a “terrorist attack” but what about Hamas, which has now formed the Palestinian government?
[Unspellable] is a spokesman for Hamas. Does he call it ‘terrorism’?
Hamas: Of course no, because you know, eh, Hamas said always that , eh, resistance is the right of Palestinians because they are still under occupation. They are still suffering from Isra-aeli oppressive measures, eh, many Palestinians have been killed and many others have been injured last week and, eh, every week in addition to that you know was has happened from stopping aids from USA Europe and stopping you know the, eh, tax revenue from the Isra-aeli in order to punish Palestinians for, eh, because they conduct a democracy….
Newshour: I’m sorry to interrupt you, I want to be clear what you’re saying. Are you saying, Mr. [Unspellable], that in Hamas’ view the attack today and other attacks are justified by what has happened in the past?
Hamas: You know if you want to be fair and you want to say this is right or wrong you have to talk about both sides, not only one side. You know Palestinians are suffering always from Isra-aeli occupation….they have the right to resist this occupation.
Newshour: But you regard what happened today as resistance, do you – you don’t call it terrorism?
Hamas: No, it’s resistance and it’s legitimate resistance and it’s expected as well after the hunger punishment from USA from Europe and Isra-ael against Palestinians.
Newshour: But surely, Mr. [Unspellable], Hamas makes it even less likely than it perhaps already was that the international community will be prepared to do business with it if it continues to say that suicide bombing – deliberate attacks on civilians – is justified?
Hamas: You know who is responsible on this is not Hamas and not the Palestinians, who is responsible is international community who, eh, treat Palestinians with double standards because they are supporting the Isra-aelis and the Isra-aelis still continue the occupation and aggression against Palestinians and on the other side they say we’ll stop aids from Palestinians because you know, eh, do resistance against occupation.
Newshour: What a lot of people, I think, listening to you, Mr. [Unspellable], will find it difficult to understand is how you can say we have several grievances against the international community and that justifies attacking Israeli civilians as they go about their business outside a fast food restaurant.
Hamas: We, eh, advise you know international community if they want to stop this resistance we advise them to impose pressure against the occupation and to end the reason for this resistance which is the occupation. Unfortunately they are not imposing pressure they are supporting this occupation.
Newshour: If indeed it is true that either Islamic Jihad or the al-Aksa Martyrs brigade was responsible for this attack would Hamas as the party which now dominates the new Palestinian government take any action against those it believed ordered it or helped it to take place?
Hamas: Of course no because as you know we believe it is a legitimate right for Palestinians to resist Palestinian government has no right to punish them.
Newshour: So Hamas will be attempting to carry out similar attacks itself?
Hamas: It’s up to you know military wing of Hamas.
Newshour: Because for the last year or more there’s been an implicit ceasefire, hasn’t there, by Hamas’ military wing?
Hamas: Of course because you know this is to improve to international community that you know Hamas and Palestinians are not responsible we want peace and we are ready to talk to international community regarding peace. But you know we need just peace.
Newshour: Well that was[Unspellable] from the Palestinian group Hamas.
TomL -> thanks for the michael crichton link. Seriously interesting reading.
Smack on cue the 9am prog on Radio 4 this morning after the Today prog was Clive Anderson presenting “Unreliable Evidence”. All about the US and whether it has been acting illegally in terms of international law. You know – stir the pot, Iraq was illegal, Gitmo is illegal, Abu Ghraib was dragged in, even Afghanistan was illegal, plus the tinge that the US was “illegal” or outside the law in refusing (Congress vote 99-1) to subscribe to Kyoto and to subscribe fully to the International Criminal Court. who simply made the usual sweeping generalisations. (The crude and mostly false generalisations that are the warp and weft of so much BBC reporting.) He was opposed by The general flavour was that the US is some sort of international bandit, out of control.
For a supposedly forensic programme, the discussion was ludicrously truncated. There was no proper listing of the pros and cons in each case. Anderson first summoned one of the severest critic of Bush and Blair – a lawyer in the same chambers as Cherie Booth –
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1660
Brief moments to rebut all this were given to a US attorney, William H Taft.
And then, worst of all, he asked Dr Gillian Triggs to act as “referee”. His words were “a judge of the world court”. But this is the same lawyer that was declaring Iraq to be illegal even before it happened. So what sort of “referee” is that ?
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s736908.htm
Another example of the BBC presenting a grossly biased discussion of current political events. A so-called debate with a foregone conclusion because the “referee” has been a consistent critic of Bush for over 3 years now.
Can anyone imagine the BBC mounting a programme that stacked the issues in the other direction ? Can pigs fly ?
TomL
The BBC continues to plug such issues in a Blue Peter way. They really do patronise us.
I am fed up hearing about for example:
FGW.
I am far more interested in the here and now and how it affects me today for example:
FHP.
Recent BBC reports have forewarned us of approaching apocalypse from all sides, maybe an asteroid cleaving the planet in half in 2009, or FGW resulting in a rise of 3%C.
In the first case we are all in the same boat, in the second, if I have to wear suntan in Brighton then I’m sure I will cope.
The BBC and it seems Nu Labour have been blabbing about how we affect the world and have only just woken up to the fact that local elections are looming and people are going to vote on local issues.
The FHP by Thames water is more of an issue to me than Chernobyl or FGW.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2137751.html
The Times April 17, 2006
London Olympic dream could sink in tide of sewage
By Ben Hoyle
Ageing water plant blights plans.
THE bid that won the 2012 Olympics pledged to deliver “an environmental showcase” in London at the heart of “a model for 21st-century living”. But ten months on, that idealistic promise is looking increasingly far-fetched because of the failure of the Government to modernise the so-called “Cathedral of Sewage”, which stands less than a mile from the Olympic site.
At low tide the creek in front of it looks like a vast mudflat: a glistening brown sludge full of compacted human detritus. A sign on the railings overlooking it reads “Olympic Walk”. The only visitors are tramps, under-age smokers and consultants involved with Olympic projects.
In 2012 the world will be looking at NE London and Thames Water will be filling the swimming pools and supplying water.
The BBC should be on the case with Thames Water and its apparent ineptitudes, instead they highlight the doom and gloom scenario of FWS.
This is why the BBC loses respect.
TomL -> thanks for the Michael Crichton link. Seriously interesting reading.
Ditto.
This really does sound like a grown up talking, of whom there are precious few in the BBC.