We have this every few months. Last time, I remember, the debate in the comments was about whether Islam was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. This time it’s the BNP.
Email :“The threads at BBBC seem to be being hijacked by a few people interested in slipstreaming their support for the BNP under cover of discussing BBC bias. For example, the current thread has one correspondent who has popped up two or three times recently with links to the BNP site over various issues – Nick Griffin talking about this and that, some BNP list of Conservative and Labour MPs who’ve been convicted of crimes, etc etc.
It’s beginning to feel like BBBC has become a covert portal for introducing the BNP and its policies to BBBCs moderate, but disgruntled right-wingers. The last third or so of the current thread, illustrates what I mean. It makes me, for one, feel very uncomfortable. I do not wish to limit anyone’s free speech, but if I want to read a defence of the BNP I think I should have to go to dedicated sites to do it! And frankly, I can’t see how being associated with the BNP in any way can be of any possible benefit to BBBC.”
Reply : “I took a look today. Ed, Natalie (and I, when I’m posting – I tend to do it in bursts) have pointed out to the commentariat before that the blog is a place to discuss BBC bias, not (for example) whether Islam is a Good or a Bad Thing.
There are other blogs for that.
Our problem is that if we moderate comments
a) it takes up a lot of somebody’s time – which they may not have spare
b) it takes some of the spontaneity out – and the commenters are the life-blood of BBBC, as they spot lots of things that we don’t.
On the other hand, if we do nowt
a) the BBC and its media allies (Guardianistas etc) can say – it’s a site for racists and anti-Islamic bigots – which absolves them of the need to address the actual issues
b) sympathetic people who are neither will be put off reading or contributing by the tone of the debates”
So if you want to debate the BNP, there are places on the Web where you can do just that – type “BNP blog” into Google and go from there.
Debate is a good thing. But this blog debates BBC bias – that alone, that above all, that all the time. Please respect that.
Off topic: Interestingly http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/ – this blog seems to think that the BBC is biased AGAINST the liberal-left. Bizzare, isn’t it? Perhaps the BBC isn’t truely biased at all, just sloppy and incompetent.
Acording to Scott Burgess today, there are Guardian readers who believe the paper is objective.
And of course, the Flat Earth Society still exists.
Noticed this story this morning while I was eating breakfast. But since then the BBC has taken if off general release.
Had to look it up in the guardian. (Yes I read the guardian)and then back track.
Anyway here is the story;
“A British man has been sentenced to 15 years in prison by an Iraqi court for passport violations. Mobeen Muneef, 27, from Tooting, London, was sentenced by the Central Criminal Court in Iraq, after a trial last week.
He was detained by US forces in December 2004 over claims he had gunpowder on his hands.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4924826.stm
I liked this part;
“However it is not known exactly what charges were brought against him, or on what grounds he was held.”
That’s funny as the guardian states he was nicked by the yanks in the town of Ramadi. With a group of men in Dec 2004
Now here’s what the BEEB had to say in Nov 2004 about that city;
“And Ramadi, close to Falluja, has seen continued fighting, after insurgents took control of the city centre on Tuesday, and paraded guns and rocket launchers.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3992137.stm
and here’s a little something the Beeb kind of left out;
“Muneef reportedly was detained after being caught passing weapons to insurgents and was in possession of an Iraqi ID card he allegedly admitted was fake. He was carrying an Iraqi pistol and four AK-47s, according to a report.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42296
Now that may explain why he had gunpowder on his hands.
But of course the BBC had to report this little beauty from his brother;
“Mr Muneef said that while he had not spoken to his brother to hear his account, the gunpowder proved nothing.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4342791.stm
Don’t tell me. He was doing charity work..
Probably gone there to take a computer course.
And the gunpowder was dust off the circuit boards he was making….
He’s a good little boy really arnt they all .Must have cost him a few bob in the taxi from Syria too !
His lawyer was on BBC Radio Bloke this afternoon. It was a truly astonishing display of the human ability to twist and turn like a snake in a forked stick.
And was he subjected to properly rigorous and sceptical questioning?
Now, I did say this was the BBC, didn’t I?
British statesman
I dont think it is bias against the liberal left, because that term is an oxymoron. They can not be bias against something that does not exsist. Except that is, in the MSMs and American Democratic Parties, imagination.
However they are bias against being a liberal, libertarianism, and just plain believing in liberty.
China is a good example of how the “liberal left” dont exsist. Where are they in Britain when the subject of China comes up?
The answer is nowhere.
This is because they DONT EXSIST.
The notion that “human rights” are somehow objective and universal is a farce. A Security Council member drove tanks over students in 1989 in breach of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
The so-called “human rights” are an Anglo-American imposition on a world which does not altogether accept them. They are there because of American Power both economic and military. The day Wal-Mart ceases to be China’s No7 export market and Asia becomes a self-contained economic zone you will have that bi-polar world so desired of the Left and a different set of “values” for people to live by.
Perhaps “Islamic Values” might become the new norm ? Certainly the human rights which satisfied 17th Century England in The Bill of Rights, or 18th Century America; are not comparable with the European Convention, European Charter – and these in turn are alien in every respect to cultures which have only Group Rights not Individual Rights.
The lazy liberal assumption is that because they have subscribed everyone else must. Then again we built an empire upon the liberal desire to spread our Christian values to the heathen as much as the desire to loot what the Portuguese and Spanish and French had looted before us.
Gary Powell –
Clearly the ‘liberal left’ are not particularly liberal, but they are somewhat more liberal than the ‘regular’ left, which they try to hush their connections to (eg. interviewing Communists but just telling the reads they are “spokesmen”, Etc.). I agree, though, they’re fooling themselves as much as they’re fooling others into thinking they truly are liberal.
Please note today’s mega coverage of Cherie Blair’s hairstyling bill vs coverage of the BBC’s excessive wage bill AND excessive Christmas party bills:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/19/nradio19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/19/ixnewstop.html
and let us not forget the 60,000 pound bird on a pole…. courtesy of Feminist Tracy Emin and her BBC funders
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=339166&in_page_id=1773
Cautiously Off Topic:
D(HYS)
Will you give aid for Africa’s drought?
Oxfam says it needs £20m ($35m) to feed 11m people in East Africa – will you be helping?
Several hundred people and tens of thousands of livestock have died from hunger and thirst since the drought began in late 2005, and despite recent rains Oxfam says the number of deaths could rise if aid isn’t delivered fast.
The United Nations appealed for $426m earlier this month to help over 8m east Africans – mainly in in Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia – hit by the drought.
Whose responsibility is it to help the victims of natural disasters? Can you make a difference? How do you choose which charities or campaigns to give your money to? Or are you fed up with aid appeals? Send us your comments.
Published: Thursday, 20 April, 2006, 11:56 GMT 12:56 UK
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1594&&&edition=2&ttl=20060421133619
OK, I just keep looking at this… Oxfam is asking for 35 million dollars to feed 11 million people in Africa. So, that comes out to just over 3 million dollars per person. No wonder people in Africa are starving, if it takes 3 million dollars then I’d be starving too. Shouldn’t the BBC be questioning why it costs 3 million dollars per person? I know this is “Have Your Say” and not the news but, it seems to me, the BBC push Western money donations to Africa, without question. This is a touchy subject, and I don’t begrudge starving Africans whatever they need, but it seems to me the BBC spends more time pushing it’s own agenda in this area (First World bad, Third World good) than helping. Shouldn’t the absurdity of Oxfam’s figures send up alarm bells at an investigative news agency? Or is it just me?
OK, I did the math wrong, sorry, nevermind… My mistake
Oxfam is asking for 35 million dollars to feed 11 million people in Africa. So, that comes out to just over 3 million dollars per person.
and you work in the payroll department !!!!!!
Britishstatesman
I would not be so generous to them. The only thing liberal about a liberal lefty is their own suspect personal habits. When it comes to politics, you would be very supprised to know what even they really do believe.
Ofcause unless they are not really socialists at all, they just like the sound of the name, and it got them more shags at university.
“Oxfam is asking for 35 million dollars to feed 11 million people in Africa. So, that comes out to just over 3 million dollars per person.”
I’m no good at maths either. But you have to factor in the length of time that Oxfam plans to feed these people, and whether Oxfam is going to simply donate food, or purchase farm equipment, water drilling rigs etc.
According to your quote the UN wants $426m, but this is to “help” rather than just “feed” – perhaps the UN wants to buy a huge amount of high-quality fertiliser.
Given recent news stories about Oxfam’s financial worries in Aceh, perhaps a better question would be “How confident are you that Oxfam will maintain control of your money until it reaches the starving bellies of the needy?”
I can remember a BBC article about second-hand clothing that people donate to charity shops. A company in the UK buys it up and sells it in bulk for a healthy profit abroad – using cheap foreign labour to sort the clothes. The report was cool about this, and only a couple of the comments exhibited surprise or alarm at what would might equally be called profiteering.
Ah, here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4813032.stm
Oddly, it is a repeat of a story that was posted two days earlier, according to the BBC News search engine.
“(The second hand clothes are) sorted in a factory in the East Midlands town, owned by textile exporters Savannah Rags.
…
The company’s accounts for 2004 show the business was healthy enough for the three directors to receive £100,000 each.”
That’s almost as much as a GP.
I would gladly give money to stop poverty in Africa. If I did not have infinetly less than NO confidence that the people who I was giving the money to had any idear how to acheive this.
Gordon Browns record on this is already in minus figures and hes got all our spare cash already.
Capitalism and the free market does not cause poverty, it is the compleat lack of it in Africa that does.
Has Gordon or anyone at Oxfam ever tryed to start a small business anywhere, never mind Africa? Were it is compleatly impossible without direct goverment and or criminal corruption taking place.
As for keeping and spending any of the profits….Dont even think about it. Banks and Insurence companys in Africa only exsist for the ordinary people in fairy stories.
As for law and order?…Well believe it or not it is even worse than here.
How exactly does GB and Oxfam think wealth is created? It sure is not by giving things away to anyone. Or by taxing your own econemy and its people to death.
How do we a imagine the econemy of Britain would have done if a man from Mars had given us free food everytime we were hungary?
The answer is, as bad as Africa.
The best way to start to get rid of poverty in Africa. Is not to give them more, just stop robbing them first. Then try to help them ,stop robbing from each other.
As Gordon Brown has shown himself to be the cleverest thief since the “artfull dodger” he is the last to give advice.
“How do we a imagine the economy of Britain would have done if a man from Mars had given us free food everytime we were hungary?”
You might also ask how the economy of Hungary have have fared if Masterfoods had set up a factory there, and exported Mars bars to Britain.
In Slough, we manufacture some 200,000 tons of confectionery each year and we make a staggering 3 million MARS bars a day
Masterfoods does have a factory in Hungary……………I wonder what Slough is like with 3 million Mars bars stacked up around town ?