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.
William H Taft IV is father of William H Taft V and great-grandson of William H Taft I, President of the United States 1908-1913 and Chief Justice of the Us Supreme Court
It must have been a hectic Easter weekend for BBC news editors – many hours spent on hot telephones to frantic ZaNuLabour spin doctors, judging from today’s World At One.
Yes, the holiday’s over so all hands to the pumps, chaps! Whitewash the investiagtions into Bliar’s Bent Academies Plc, talk up the concept: anything to divert attention from the court of King Tony and his legion of creepy courtiers!
And they have the cheek to call themselves a news organisation!? This was a blatant diversionary tactic, complete with a full supporting cast of ZaNuLabour hacks, trying to sell listeners the chosen non-story. What a farce!
I dont think I’ve heard it mentioned on the beeb but the point should be made that the way of funding these academies was open to exactly what has happened.
In the context of gov spending the amounts raised by sponsorship are miniscule.
I cannot therefore understand why nulab took the political risk of courting such a big pr disaster for such a small return.
Either they didn’t realise the consequences or, more likely, they reckoned that with the help of the beeb’s whitewashing ability they could get away with it. After all, the public has a short memory, it’s 3 or 4 years to the next election and the beeb can muffle any opposition.
I wonder if they expected the other Bliar to make sure that there was no Police investigation?
BNP Leader Nick Griffin will be on Sky News Live at 5 this evening.
Sky News
http://jeremythompson.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/bnp_to_vote_or_.html#comments
anon -> the stand out quote from that sky news article
“Migrants fill 90% of low-paid jobs in London”
but it doesnt add the obvious ending to that sentence – “which were formerly done by the white working class.”
the thing is – the white working class hasnt gone away and moved to leafy suburban Surrey.
Piss-poor BBC News headlines:
Blair to ‘hold nerve’ over NHS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4917370.stm
Blair is holding his nerve? Who told the BBC that? Against what?
“Tony Blair has insisted now is the time to “hold our nerves” over NHS reforms in the face of criticism.”
Oh, Tony Blair himself said it himself. Must be true then. So following this ‘controversial’ journalistic methodology, if Blair announces “I am the greatest”, the following BBC headline should be produced: Blair “is greatest”.
Controversial
A bit like the BBC’s use of the word ‘controversial’. Who at the BBC decides such things? This morning on Today, we were told that the government’s NHS reforms were “controversial”. Though how continually throwing the highest budget in history at a creaking soviet-style state provider who can’t come up with the goods is ‘controversial’ is beyond me. When someone actually tries to reform the NHS ie with a bit of market forces, what will the BBC call it? “Extreemist plans” probably.
Remember the italian election? Two guys the main runners. Both get around 50% of the vote, but one gets a few more. The BBC determine and report that one of these candidates is ‘controversial’, the other one is not. Can you guess which one is the ‘controversial’ one?
Profile: Silvio Berlusconi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3034600.stm
In the run-up to Italian elections this April, one of the most controversial aspects of the campaign has been the media coverage.
Even more controversial, however, are legal inquiries into Mr Berlusconi’s business dealings.
Ignore bloggers at your peril, say researchers
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1755894,00.html
Didn’t hear this on ‘Today’ this morning which is strange as most of the Guardian’s media content is reproduced by ‘Today’ in audio format….
Interesting article, poses the question:
“Can the BBC fall foul of our internet buzz?”
ritter -> guardian article is registration only.
re: guardian link
if you arent registered , you can use this:
email: bugmenot@dodgeit.com
password: firefox
‘We’re the guerrilla wing of the BBC’
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1755026,00.html
“Yet it is equally clear that he is relishing the increased freedom BBC3’s huge £93m-a-year budget…
Yes, thats 93 MILLION a year, for a channel that is only on air from 7pm to 6am!!!
BBC Three Listings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/search/grid.cgi?range=1800&day=Today&medium=tv
“He wants BBC3 to continue to be the “maverick, subversive, guerrilla wing” of the corporation while, at the same time broadening its appeal. “Ultimately, you’re judged by hits,” he concedes. “I’m here because I want to make telly that touches people’s lives. It sounds cheesy but it’s true. Television that makes people laugh, lifts their spirits, moves them.”
…and robs them of £126.50 a year…?
Apologies if this has already been covered, but it does restore my faith in the Great British Public.
In the following survey, conducted by YouGov:
http://www.unbiased.co.uk/media/media-resources/press-releases/petrol-duty/
“Petrol duty, TV licence fee and inheritance tax are Britain’s most resented taxes…the tv licence is Britains second most resented tax”
So the BBC licence is more resented than the Council Tax. Despite us constantly being told that the BBC is a “much loved” organisation, and that people are “in favour” of the tv licence tax, what “good value” for money it is, etc, etc,…A cynic could say it is spin generated by a self- serving bureacracy. Does the BBC do such a thing or is it only politicians and people they disagree with who are capable of spin?
Hey, archduke, you’re a wizard! How didya do that?
I’ll prove my ignorance here, but is it only applicable to the Guardian site?
robs them of £126.50 a year
No, now robs them of £131.50 pa
Last from BBC in-house magazine ‘The Guardian’
BBC still hideous
http://media.guardian.co.uk/diary/
Five years after Greg Dyke called the BBC “hideously white”, it appears the corporation still has some way to go towards equal representation. A double page picture in the Radio Times of most of the 200 production staff behind Doctor Who reveals just two black faces, one of them Noel Clarke, who plays Mickey Smith. Defeating the Daleks is one thing, employing more members of an ethnic minority apparently quite another.
I do believe that a major part of the BBC’s utter incompetence when it comes to dealing with race, religion and political correctness, is that they don’t have enough ethnic minorities to listen to what the hand-wringing, self-hating BBC liberals are saying (like er “lets not mention christianity when we talk about easter incase we offend anyone”) and so can retort “Oh, don’t be so bloody stupid!”
robs them of £126.50 a year
No, now robs them of £131.50 pa
will
thieving b*stards! thanks will.
anon -> yes. its only for the guardian site.
i got it from here:
http://www.bugmenot.com
Baaaad Nuclear.
The Chernobyl nightmare revisited
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4918742.stm
This is the first instalment in a week of reports shedding light on aspects of the Chernobyl disaster
Whoopeee! I’m so glad the BBC can ‘shed light’ on the baadness of nuclear power (and George Bush, Gitmo etc), thanks to the ‘unique’ way I am taxed.
BBC & Greenpeace, political campaigners both?
.
Off theme I know but can anyone answer two questions that have been puzzling me for the last couple of days?
1.The government has created a super organisation to combat organised crime taking 4000 public servants (Customs Officers, Police Officers Tax Investigators etc) to create this monolith thus leaving less police oficers, customs officers tax ibspectors on the ground.It then has the gall to say that it wants to merge provisional police forces to combat organised crime. What is the point?
2.As of May next year a person wishing to sell a house has to provide at no insignificant cost a housing pack. This pack will be created by yet another public servant belonging to Two Jags department. The cost is estimated to be around a thousand pounds. My question is this, will local authorities who will be providing this service to the home owning fraternity, have to provide housing packs when and if they sell council houses, and will I as a rate payer have to pay for this as well.
“As of May next year”
expect a surge in selling prior to that deadline – and a possible housing price collapse?
whoops should read inspector not ibspector
You couldn’t make it up. With the BBC, you don’t have to:
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.
Ahhh so gay-bashing is all Uncle Sam’s fault. Baaaad democracy and freedom loving USA!
Gay bashing has nothing to do with USA, it’s muslims, following their Islamic teachings that kill gays.
The article does go on to cover the Islamic aspect, but the first para about ‘since the US-led invasion’ as if the US had taken direct action against gays, is a cheap and nasty shot, courtesy of the BBC.
Of course, under Saddam, gays were revered:
“Saddam was a tyrant, but at least we had more freedom then,” said Hussein. “Nowadays, gay men are just killed for no reason.”
Bring back Saddam!, bring back Saddam!
It’s not a choice between Saddam and the US – if freedom for the Iraqi’s means the Islamists try to exploit, the situation is the Islamists who need to be dealt with. It’s hardly an argument for bringing back Saddam. Islamists kill gays in many countries, including recently in Iran.
peugeot plant to close – 2700 jobs to go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4919414.stm
no mention of Britains Brownstuffed tax situation versus the flat-tax & more business friendly Eastern European countries.
Anon was me, Archduke, thanks.
no mention of Britains Brownstuffed tax situation versus the flat-tax & more business friendly Eastern European countries.
archduke | Homepage | 18.04.06 – 4:58 pm | #
archduke – with the departure of Jeff Randall I don’t think the Beeb has a ‘business’ journo left who would understand the concepts you describe (low tax base, low labour costs etc and their relationship to capital flows and jobs).
The BBC see this happening and the first reaction is to get on the phone to the unions. Pathetic.
David Jessel of Hardtalk buzzes like an annoying gnat around a cool and dignified Efraim Halevy, ex-Mossad head.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4875414.stm
Interesting 23 minutes.
It’s no wonder that the Palestinians have to resort to suicide bombing, is it? I mean, as shown by the BBC’s photo in this article, its otherwise defenceless boys facing heavily armed Israeli soldiers….
“Israel blames Hamas for bombing”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4917704.stm
Re: gays in Iraq.
If Islamists (or at least extreme homophobes) are in a democratic majority – as one suspects they are in Iraq – then how do reconcile ‘dealing with’ that in the context of introducing democracy?
A question worth asking by a grown up broadcaster.
Of course what you don’t get on the BBC is a study of the 70something percent of Iraqis who reckon they’re better off post Saddam and how this is reconciled with the hardcore anti-war crowd.
‘It’s no wonder that the Palestinians have to resort to suicide bombing, is it? I mean, as shown by the BBC’s photo in this article, its otherwise defenceless boys facing heavily armed Israeli soldiers….’
Er – they seem to have some stones?? Presumably the Palestinian’s tanks and stealth bombers were parked around the corner?? Whatever one thinks of the moral equivalency issues is hardly biased to report that the Israelis are heavily armed and the Palestinians ain’t – what’s important is why this is the case.
A gloomy view of what is developing just over the Channel – and maybe here as well. There are several possible outcomes, all bad.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/04/fall-of-france-and-multicultural-world.html
RB
Perhaps the BBC, with a nod to ‘balance’ could sometimes show a picture of people sitting outside a cafe enjoying a coffee, whilst in the foreground a youth wearing a suspiciously heavy jacket for the time of year, shouts ‘Allah Akbar!’ before blowing himself up? Maybe the BBC could split the pic into a ‘before and after’ montage?
But they won’t. The stones vs guns fits their biased ‘agenda’ better
The BBC headline ‘Israel blames Hamas’, IS misleading. A much more appropriate headline would be ‘International community isolates Hamas’ – Japan has suspended aid to the PA, Denmark has restated the case for the EU suspending funding. Even Romania – two of whose citizens died in the suicide bomb attack – has spoken out for a peace process. The PA could be developing the infrastructure of the Gaza strip (with enormous support internationally) – but what do they do instead? Draw down fire on their own people by sending rockets over the green line, develop bomb factories in refugee camps and defend the actions of suicide bombers. The TA bomb was a straight act of terror and as the Daily Telegraph pointed out today, the BBC should have the decency to call it what it is.
How the BBC reports when one of its own get’s shot by the religion of Plumbers. (Note the missing words that start with M,T,I and of M again)
A BBC cameraman who was shot dead while filming in Saudi Arabia was “unlawfully killed”, a London coroner has ruled.
Simon Cumbers, 36, was killed on 6 June 2004 when gunmen opened fire on a news team in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4919756.stm
And how Middle East online reported it at the time;
Stricken Frank: Help me, I’m a Muslim
Bullet-riddled BBC reporter cried in Arabic for help from bystanders as they watch him bleed in Riyadh.
RIYADH – Riddled with bullets, BBC correspondent Frank Gardner pleaded for his life in the Saudi capital shouting to bystanders to help a fellow Muslim, a police officer said on Monday.
“I’m a Muslim, help me, I’m a Muslim, help me,” the British father of two daughters cried in Arabic, the officer said.
Gardner was stretched on the road, covered in blood from multiple bullet wounds in a slum area of southern Riyadh known as a hotbed of hardliners.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=10204
Oscar
Here is the link to the Telegraph editorial which swiped the BBC as well as Hamas for using weasel words to describe terrorism.
Great – the BBC in the same basket as Hamas. Why don’t the useless BBC Governors intervene on this scandal of the BBC ducking the T word yet again ? Even Al-Ahram of Egypt used the T word.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/18/dl1801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/04/18/ixoplead.html
Thanks dumbcisco – and even Abbas used the t word but not Al Beeb – as you rightly say the useless BBC Governors should intervene.
Re inquest into death of Simon Cumbers (Frank Gardner’s cameraman), the report says
Recording her verdict, West London Coroner Alison Thompson said it seemed likely the pair had been the victims of an opportunistic attack
Makes it appear to be street mugging? Despite
The suburb was known as a militant stronghold and at the time was home to 15 of the 26 most wanted men in Saudi Arabia.
The BBC wants to know what I want to talk about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2804227.stm
So I told them:
Let’s talk about the reform of Islam, or if it is indeed possible to reform it before the fundamentalists unleash such evil on the world that there will be no going back.
Let’s talk about the near-total silence of the ‘moderate’ Muslims as their co-religionists sink into ever-increasing savagery.
And about the role the media has played in blinding people to this threat.
And why, in the eyes of the BBC, Muslims can do no wrong.
And why the BBC has chosen to demean the Christian faith while elevating Islam to an honoured status.
And let’s have a free and fair debate. Stop your stealthy manipulation of comments to favour Muslims.
Do you think you could cope with all that?
Bryan
The BBC hasn’t posted your list, or any single item from it. Now isn’t that odd ?
I don’t recall the BBC publishing these poll results or making a fuss over them. Including the 74% of Iraqis approving the 2003 removal of Saddam by the Coalition. And the small minority of people favouting na pullout in all the Coalition countries that matter.
Click to access 27_02_06world_poll.pdf
I am fed up of hearing about “the Irish Teashop” – I never hear about “Presyadatel Putin” or “Bundeskanzlerin Merkel”
It is so bizarre – it makes Ireland seem a joke country. Then we have them with a “military parade!” on Easter Sunday of all days !!!
Even the Russians do not parade like that – does any European country apart from France ?
Ireland is being caricatured in the BBC
Rick -> what bbc news story are you referring to?
The Irish parade was (according to the Guardian and the Beeb) accompanied by the roar of military jets. What bloody jets? The Air Corps have a few choppers a civvie transport for the President etc and a squadron of trainers. They have no strike aircraft, no fighter defence and the Royal Air Force not the Air Corps do most of the sea rescues in mid Atlantic coz the Irish won’t buy choppers with long enough range! The BBC and Guardian etc make them look like the wee country led by Margaret Rutherford in ‘The Mouse that Roared’…..
Won’t ssee this on the Beeb:
“Mr Rumsfeld, by contrast, has had far more success than Kennedy in shaking up the US Army. Until September 11 it was still too much of a garrison force, geared up for Cold War contingencies. Or, in the quip of one of Rumsfeld’s intimates, it was full of “Fulda Gap warriors”, rather than the kind of expeditionary forces required for the War on Terror.
The Defence Secretary has trod on toes in this process. He has insisted on interviewing every appointment to four and three-star rank — something that was more of a pro forma process under his predecessors. He appointed a retired Special Forces general, Peter Schoomaker, as US Army Chief of Staff, thus passing over stacks of serving officers. And with his greater emphasis on high-tech “jointery”, he has forced both the Army and the Marines to depend more on Air Force and Navy supporting fire.
The real criticism of Mr Rumsfeld is not that he “kicked to much butt”, but that he kicked too little
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2138690,00.html
The other point is that we are talking about 6 or seven Generals including Zinni and Clark both Democrats both of whom said a few years back that they agreed that Saddam was a bad boy and he had or was wanting WMD which they now keep quiet about.
There are estimated to be 4700 retired Generals/Flag Officers in the US. So 7 out of 4700…..and the serving Generals are all lining up to back Rumsfeld! Good old Beeb – yet another left wing New York Times/Washington Post hacket job falls by the wayside as they pick yet another fake story to run with whilst real stories keep getting missed!
The LA Times, are most certainly not friends of Bush etc but if even THEY are saying this, then the situation is finally getting through to some people. Pity the BBC won;t run this verson even though it comes from a paper they quote all the time when they want to bash ther Yanks or their President:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-israel18apr18,1,4666035.story?track=rss
“THE HORROR OF MONDAY’S SUICIDE bombing in Tel Aviv, which killed the bomber and nine other people and wounded scores more, presented Hamas with an opportunity to break from its history as a supporter of terrorism. Instead, a spokesman for Hamas, which formed a Palestinian parliamentary government last month, described the attack carried out by another group, Islamic Jihad, as an act of self-defense.
If there was any lingering doubt that the U.S. and Europe were right to ostracize the Hamas government and cut off economic aid, it has been dramatically dispelled. It remains part of the problem, not part of any Arab-Israeli solution.
That doesn’t mean Israel should respond to the attack with self-defeating actions, such as a wholesale reoccupation of the Gaza Strip. It does mean that Israel has cause to crack down anew on Islamic Jihad and institute stronger security measures along the “Green Line” separating Israel and the West Bank — even if that means injuring and inconveniencing innocent Palestinians. As always, they are hostages to the extremists.”
However the point they miss is that the Palestinians VOTED for this HAMAS government who must now take responsibility for terrorist acts committed in their name.
rick
I do not mean to criticise Eire by the way – just pointing out the way BBC et al sneer at some countries as well as their own!
The Washington Post editorial page:
“It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control — the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton’s attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime. If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?
If things were so bad before, they should have resigned in protest instead of complaining publicly once they were safely in retirement and, in some cases, had books to promote.”
http://instapundit.com/
Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni — the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, “What bothered me … [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.”
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_04_16_corner-archive.asp#095179
Crikey ANOTHER paper that the Beeb quote all the time when bashing Bush comes out in support of his staff! The Beeboids must be having a very bad day today when all their pals are supporting Bush not bashing him? Whwere ARE they going to get a quote or two from to support their normal line? The North Korean Daily?
Off to bed!
I heard Frank Gardner on the World Service on Sunday. He was part of a panel talking about forgiveness on politics UK. Interesting programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/politics_uk.shtml
This is how he was introduced:
…the BBC’s security correspondent who was shot and seriously injured by Islamist terrorists in Saudi Arabia two years ago.
Hmmm, the ‘I’ and the ‘T’ word in one?! Knock me over with a feather!
Gardner is adamant about not forgiving his attackers:
The people who attacked us, neither they nor their relatives, friends, nobody has ever asked for forgiveness. I see absolutely no reason to forgive them. I asked for mercy, they showed none, I would never forgive them.
But he is equally adamant about the superior qualities of other Muslims:
But I would differentiate that from forgiving the Saudi people and the country – not that I feel they are to blame though many of them do somehow…. I’ve had so many letters saying we feel so awful about it. I’ve even had letters from British muslims in Luton and Bradford saying on behalf of my co-religionists please accept my apology. I totally forgive them although forgiveness is perhaps the wrong word because I never felt that they were guilty…
…my personal one-on-one encounters with Muslims have up until 2004 been entirely positive or nearly because they are in my experience people of enormous generosity, far more generous than we are in the West, far more charitable, far more respectful of elders and old people, with bigger hearts, actually.
A bit of Laurentian romanticism creeping in here perhaps?
Of course, there is inevitably an unpleasant side to the religion – the whole suicide bombing thing which is couched in religious terms.
It’s fascinating that when he talks about the negative side, he lessens the impact and makes it more vague by dwelling on the religion and not the person. And suicide bombing is unpleasant??
The problem I think with the Koran and some of the other scriptures is it’s very much open to interpretation. You can find passages in there that talk of love and forgiveness and you can also find passages that speak of violence – as you can in the Bible.
Here he lapses into ridiculous moral equivalence and stops short of the most important observation of all: that Muslims take the violent exhortations found in the Koran literally.
And after all that, I still don’t know whether or not he’s a Muslim. Maybe there’s some kind of taboo on admitting that you are a Muslim in front of infidels.
Here’s another rant. Greenpeace/BBC are over-egging the story as ever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm
“I do not mean to criticise Eire by the way – just pointing out the way BBC et al sneer at some countries as well as their own”
they still cant figure out why the Irish policy of low taxation has lead to increased tax revenue and a booming economy.
then again – maybe they do, which is why al Beeb never mentions it or covers it in any detail. instead we get “sneering”, which is what they are very good at.
rick
I do not mean to criticise Eire by the way – just pointing out the way BBC et al sneer at some countries as well as their own!
dave t | Homepage | 18.04.06 – 8:10 pm | #
As I said Dave Ireland is caricatured by the BBC – it is as you say “The Mouse that Roared” – or even a bit ridiculous. Nowhere did they point out how it might “impact the peace process by antagonising the DUP” – nor what reaction would be to a British Army parade throigh Belfast
if anything, the Easter Sunday parade in Dublin proves one thing – that you can take back your national culture from the grip of fascists, like Sinn Fein.
there’s a glimmer of hope in there , for anyone who wants a St Georges Day in England.