BBC Views Online often seems to report unexplained phenomena – for instance, from the last few days, off the top of my head, we have:
- Inquiry as stolen car kills woman – I presume the car stole itself and ran the woman over, rather than a car thief (or suspected car thief even) being responsible;
- A 15-year-old boy is being prosecuted in connection with the case of a girl who fell pregnant at the age of 11 – did he trip her up then? Girls obviously need to be careful in case they fall over and get up pregnant;
- A woman was killed and several people were injured when a stolen bus went on a five-mile rampage through Dublin – naughty, naughty bus – don’t do that again.
I’m sure readers of Biased BBC can spot many more unexplained phenomena reported by the BBC. Let us know in the comments – and mind how you go – it’s a strange world out there!
jr
you say ‘Being a Muslim doesn’t make you ill.’
I’m sorry to say that it does if you’re female and have to endure ritual mutilation of your genitalia on the whim of some clown who takes literally the ramblings of a discredited book.
I was just pondering the Race Relations Industry on my ciggie break.
I think it operates in the same way as the American Arms Industry. When a large project is undertaken, e.g. B2 Stealth Bomber, the manufactures delberately locate factories in every single US State. This makes it very hard to ditch projects.
The UK Race Relations Industry has done exactly the same thing. They offices in every single government office, education authority, local council, large business, hospital, etc, etc.
There is now a huge vested interest in keeping things the way they are. People have mortgages, school fees, holiday homes, etc, to pay for.
Nobody can speak out against the lunacy, without having the combined forces of this vast industry turned upon them. People immediately start screaming ‘racist’ (the PC UK version of ‘Counter Revolutionary’ in China).
Anyway, sorry about that. Way off topic, but I thought I’d share my thoughts with you.
Well, it began with an extraordinarily misleading article on the “Sunday” programme by Katya Adler (Radio 4 – try 7.35 or thereabouts) on the reasons for the haemorrhage of Palestinian Christians from the PA in recent years and particularly since Hamas took over.
Fran
Fran, she was the BBC correspondent in Austria for years, regularly providing ammunition to shoot down the Austrian Nationalists, yet another rotation on the BBC wheel of jorunalist fortune. Her mindset has been well and truly formed from the outside, so illustrations of such bias are to be expected. I doubt she is an arabist. No doubt previous BBC journlists have left handy lexica and such stuff for unbiased reporting on the airwaves in the studios
archduke
The good thing about it is that. When the chips are down we can all change our race anytime we want by changing our religion. See how Orwell was right about everything.
“Anyway, sorry about that. Way off topic”
not at all. the recent relevations by immigration officers that they were flooded with endless “diversity training” days and battered with mind-numbing politcally-correct ideology, rather than getting on with their jobs, says it all.
Gary,
I now play the muppets at their own game and put down ‘mixed race’ on any application forms.
I’ve yet to be challenged.
jr
I never did fathom out who you worked for.
I posed the question once that ‘john reith’ was a collective pseudonym for a group of highly paid BBC staffers.
I think you responded by saying you were a ‘lone voice in the wilderness’.
Of course I could be facetious and say that its a mighty expensive wilderness (about £3 Billions worth).
The way you construct many of your arguments suggests that a great deal of thought has gone into them. Couple that with your, sometimes prodigious, output, and I’m left wondering that you are either a literary genius or that you are a multiple.
Of course in this country every suspect has the right to remain silent, but would you mind stating if you work for the BBC or not?
Have you any connection whatsoever with the BBC?
If you are the sole conduit for all your postings, are you fed by other people? If you are, are those people employed by the BBC?
If they are not employed by the BBC, do they have any connection whatsoever with the BBC?
Perhaps I’m being a tad intrusive, but I eagerly await your reply.
P.S. – You started one of your posts with the word ‘Blimey’. Not all that often used these days by anyone under 50, unless you write Dr. Who scripts.
I expect he needs to check with his line manager, before he can disclose who he works for.
Cockney:
This really isn’t the place to discuss details of a complex conspiracy. Are your trying to manouvre me into overstaying my welcome on these pages? If you want to know all about the Guardian-Fayed conspiracy read the document entitled “The Concise True Story of the Cash for Questions Affair” in Section Two of my website. Here’s the link:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/page2.html
Make a note of all the contentions you would like to see proven through documentary evidence. Then digest Section Three: “The Guardian’s Liars and Their Lies.”
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%203/indexa.html
Then pop up to Manchester with your list and we’ll go through the evidence. Bring some fact-seeking truth-seeking famously impartial BBC reporters with you. I might be able to persuade my supporter Jim Hancock – that’s the BBC’s NW Political Editor Jim Hancock – to watch over proceedings.
Nevertheless, and hoping that the contributors and adjudicators of this site will indulge me one last time this month:
You say:
“Is it not the case that Tim Smith accepted receiving cash for questions from Al Fayed?”
The Guardian’s orginal story of 20 Oct. 1994 did not accuse Mohamed Fayed of paying anybody. Check it out here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/page8.html
The Guardian claimed that Fayed had approached the paper as an honour-bound whistleblower to disclose how his lobbyist Ian Greer had paid two Tory MPs, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith.
Tim Smith resigned not because he had taken money from Ian Greer, as the Guardian alleged. Tim Smith resigned because he had taken money secretly from Fayed. THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE GUARDIAN DID NOT KNOW ABOUT SMITH’S PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT WITH FAYED.
It took a further six week for Fayed to allege that he himself had bribed Hamilton, thus giving us two quite distinct sets of allegations:
a)cash from the lobbyist Ian Greer
b)cash from Fayed
The Guardian subsequently conflated both sets of allegations seamlessly into one, with the help of passive language. Take the intro from The Guardian’s special website report “Corruption in the Commons”, (which The Guardian removed when Keith-Hill and I asked for interviews):
“In October 1994, the Guardian published a lead story which told how two ministers, Tim Smith, Northern Ireland Minister, and Neil Hamilton, Trade and Industry Minister, HAD BEEN PAID [my emphasis] to ask questions in the House of Commons. Smith resigned. Hamilton decided to sue for libel.”
The BBC and the rest of the MSM did not clarify why Smith had resigned and instead took the Guardian’s lead and used “passive language” too. Compare the BBC’s original reports to its reports the next day, after Smith resigned and Hamilton and Greer issued libel writs:
“BBC Radio 4 News 18.05 hrs 20/10/9494:
“The government has spent the day fighting off fresh allegations that it’s become tainted by sleaze after more than 15 years in power. The latest controversy centres on claims that two ministers were paid by A FIRM OF POLITICAL LOBBYISTS [my emphasis] to table parliamentary questions while a backbencher. It’s alleged that the payments were made on behalf of the House of Fraser company. One of the men, Tim Smith, has resigned.”
and
BBC World Service “Europe Today” 21.30 hrs 20/10/94
“Britain’s ruling Conservatives are having to cope with yet another political scandal, seen by opponents as further evidence of the sleaze factor, in which the government, in power for 15 years now, has endured a number of financial and other misdemeanours. This particular set of allegations concerns two government ministers said by the Guardian newspaper to have asked questions in parliament on behalf of the boss of Harrods store who was involved in a battle over the firm’s ownership. They were said to have been paid £2,000 per question BY A FIRM OF LOBBYISTS [my emphasis] who were employed to argue the businessman’s case… Well, today, one of the ministers named by the Guardian resigned, but the other has denied any wrongdoing and has issued a libel writ.”
It MUST have been deliberate that the BBC FAILED TO REPORT THAT IAN GREER HAD ALSO ISSUED A LIBEL WRIT AGAINST THE GUARDIAN AS WELL AS HAMILTON. Had the BBC done so this would have immediately given rise to a stark paradox: “How on earth could Ian Greer hope to win a libel action over allegations that one MP had admitted?” But instead of airing Greer’s libel writ and reconciling that paradox by clarifying that Smith DENIED the Guardian’s story and was resigning because he had actually taken cash FROM THE GUARDIAN’S SUPPOSED HONOUR-BOND SOURCE, the BBC simply airbrushed Ian Greer our of the story and never mentioned him again until years later by which time the entire country had become so convinced of Hamilton’s guilt and so sick of the issue that no one gave a damn.
Brilliant Goebbelesque news manipulation indeed.
Here’s how the BBC’s famously impartial Today programme reported the story the very next day:
BBC Radio 4 “Today” 07.50 hrs 21/10/94
“The government is once again fighting the sleaze factor. A minister has resigned, another is taking his fight to the courts to clear his name. The opposition has another stick with which to beat the government. But is it just the government who should be in the dock, or the system that allows these grey areas to exist? With me in the studio is Labour’s new home affairs spokesman Jack Straw. First of all Mr. Straw, congratulations….”
It is a bloody disgrace that the BBC and the British MSM should have colluded (or acquiesced) with The Guardian to help mislead the UK population into believing that the Guardian’s original allegations against Smith were true and had been borne out by Smith’s resignation. They were not true. They were as false as they were against Hamilton.
Later, for the Downey Inquiry, Smith admitted receiving money from Fayed but fervently denied being paid by Ian Greer. In his letter to Sir Gordon Downey Smith said:
“Mr Greer has never paid me any money at any time.”
Read it here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0172.htm
Read Smith’s testimony to the Inquiry here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0120.htm
You say:
“If the affair affected the election result at all (which I doubt) surely the damage would already have been done.”
The Guardian says in a document chronicling the paper’s history lodged in its newsroom archive:
“The Guardian was at the forefront of the sleaze revelations that contributed to the downfall of the Conservative government in 1997.”
Read it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/theguardian/story/0,,1038110,00.html
This answers your question:
“This being the case why does it deserve the immense media scrutiny which you seem to expect?”
It deserves scrutiny because it helped bring down a democratically elected government. Call me a romantic softie but generations gave their lives to defend this country’s democratic freedoms and I don’t think it’s okay for a bent newspaper to get away with what the Nazis and Soviets failed to achieve – the brainwashing of the nation.
You say:
“If you had the Beeb painted into a corner as you allege then why does nobody else seem to care?”
Ever heard the story about small acorns? Or the one about snowballs and hills?
You say:
“I’d have expected the Telegraph, Mail etc etc to be all over this like a rash if it was the scandal you believe it to be?”
Well, I did too. But apart from the Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans Pritchard, they all closed ranks. Which simply makes the story even bigger and even more important that I eventually prevail.
Dumcisco writes:
‘Gardner is supposed to be security correspondent. He fails to keep us properly informed of the threats within our midst.’
Frank Gardner was shot on 6 June 2004. In one of his last reports before leaving for Saudi Arabia he said:
‘Over the past few weeks I’ve been talking to experts and others, in London, Birmingham and Paris, to try to define the nature of the al-Qaeda linked terror threat facing Britain today. My research has led me to a number of conclusions. At some time during the last year Britain moved right to the top of the hitlist for al-Qaeda and some of its networks.
London, long a sanctuary for certain extremist political dissidents from the Arab world, is now considered in jihadi (militant Islamist) circles to be a favoured target for attack.’
19th May 2004
TPO
Sorry to be unhelpful but I shall guard my anonymity at least until the real Colin Broughton stands up. Ditto the real Natalie Smith. And probably even after those unlikely eventualities.
I can assure you though that I am not a multiple, that no-one feeds me anything and that I am not a secret agent of the Ministry of Truth tasked to monitor this blog. I am under fifty.
John Reith:
You’ve obviously seen my post to Cockney, above. The same applies to you. If you want to strengthen your credibility on these pages take up my offer to visit me in Manchester then report back to these pages as to the merits of the material you had opportunity to examine.
Jonathan,
I’ve had a glance at your site, but I have to agree with Cockney about the layout and content.
1) Navigation is appauling?
2) Everything is too spread out?
3) Where are the links leading to the evidence (i.e. scans of letters, newspapers, etc)
I’m not having a go at you. I appreciate the website was set up before the advent of friendly webtools. However, if you want to get your message to the masses, you need to update the site.
This is essential.
As it is, hardly anybody will even bother to try, let alone finish.
There are thousands of blogs that all detest the left-wing media in the UK and USA. If you have a good case and you can present it convincingly (and digestably), you will get plenty of support.
It may only take you a month to get the website up to date, but may increase your web traffic by a factor of a 1000.
Tell me if I’m wrong, misheard, or that my paranoia is running away with me, but I heard the news headlines about 3 times this morning on R4 and R3 at breakfast time, and seemed to hear something along the lines of “Islam should be taught in universities”. It was in conjunction with the “aah, muslims, poor dears, they’re so downtrodden, ill and alienated” reports. Did I mishear?
jr
I’ve never heard of Colin Broughton and I wouldn’t dream of asking for your home address, telephone number, or even your real name.
You can still remain anonymous. I’m only after the confession that you work for the BBC.
By the way, if your curious, I’m 10 months short of 60, I’m ex armed forces, ex instructor in the Middle and Far East, ex police and ex intelligence.
I have first hand knowledge of how the BBC allows Whitehall to manipulate it when it serves a common purpose.
I once had an extremely unpleasant discussion in the Far East with a Stalinist masquerading as a VSO school teacher and a BBC man concerning the Vietnamese boat people escaping the communist regime. The Stalinist thought it hilarious that countries in the region were towing the boats back out to sea where they faced certain death. The BBC man didn’t disagree with the Stalinist, nor did he upbraid him.
The discussion (fairly wide ranging)came to an end with the Stalinst saying that, as a school teacher, he could control childen’s minds. The BBC man added that he controlled what they watched so people like me would never win.
I lost track of the Stalinist.
The BBC man, well he went on to become head of BBC news gathering.
Its things like that that make me want to contribute to this blog.
The Other British Invasion
15/5/06
“Two immensely influential and politically motivated British news organizations are currently establishing serious bridgeheads in the United States, namely: the world’s most influential news broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation; and its mentor: the scheming, anti-conservative, anti-American ideologue The Guardian.
With an annual income of $6.5 billion, the BBC certainly has the financial muscle to establish itself in America. The Guardian also has more than enough means to become a player, with assets approaching $3 billion.
Beware, patriots of all hues, you have good reason to be fearful. Like the classic sci-fi movie “The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers,” the infecting of America’s national psyche has already begun but almost nobody has noticed
If the U.S. doesn’t wake up to the threat, monitor it, and deal with it, the likelihood is that within a generation the United States will end up like the inured P.C. basket-case that is now Great Britain.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22458
reith
It is obvious that you are fed stuff from the BBC. That is how you get references to obscure reports that have AT SOME TIME been made by someone at the BBC. You cite a report by Frank Gardner before he was injured. But you fail to give any web link to it, to substantiate it.
The report you cite suggests that Al Q and its linked organisations had put Britain at the top of its hit list in the previous year. By which you imply that Gardner was on the ball.
How come the Madrid bombings came after this info that you claim Gardner claimed ? How come the view at the moment is that the 7/7 bombings in London were home-grown, not Al-Q linked.
Gardner does NOT give the clear view on all occasions that Islamic terrorism is an ever-constant danger. Instead, he paints Islam with a cloying sentimentalism. He does not even use the word terrorism to describe the attack upon himself – which killed the cameraman he took along on his trip to the backstreets of Riyadh.
And if Gardner as the so-called BBC specialist on the terrorist threat was really warning people – how come the BBC went along with the power of Nightmares nonsense ?
I see Gardner as a mediocre reporter at best. And as an apologist at worst.
JBH
So essentially we all agree that a Conservative MP admitted accepting cash for questions. This presumably constitutes sleaze. Those members of the electorate for whom sleaze came above all other considerations in casting their 1997 vote would have thus voted other than Tory irrespective of what Hamilton had got up to.
The Guardian may or may not have unjustifiably pursued Hamilton, however this is hardly unique to the Grauniad (see Rooney smacking his missus etc etc). I have no doubts that your reserach is entirely unquestionable, what I’m questioning is whether this really counts as the greatest scandal of our time. If Hamilton wasn’t such a publicity seeking clown with a comedy wife nobody would recall his existence.
And for the record I’ve never criticised the format of your website, although I find some of the self congratulatory tone somewhat counter productive.
The BBC producer Phil Rees was mentioned here yesterday. His book got a warm welcome from Naom Chomsky. That’s the Chomsky so bel9oved of Guardianistas – who has been sucking up to the killers at Hesbollah :
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/13495
Great friends the BBC types have.
sharpsuit,
dunno about the Beeb which presumably has the resources to ‘localise’ itself to the US but I sincerely doubt you have anything to fear from the Guardian.
Just as Fox News taps into a specifically American culture and political sphere, the Guardian’s influence is specific to a very British (well, North London actually) mode of thought.
Nobody in Britain watches Fox as its utterly unBritish. Nobody in the US will read the Guardian as its utterly unAmerican.
I watched Fox News throughout the whole 2003 Gulf War as I could not believe a word that the BBC was peddling.
I seem to recall that all the RN crews serving in the Gulf at the time also boycotted the BBC for exactly the same reason I did.
I also recall a BBC reporter in Doha complaining to his management about the appalling bias the BBC was displaying at the time.
Cockney,
My mistake. It was Archduke that took issue with the layout of JBH’s website.
My humblest apologies to you, Sir.
I find the snippets of Fox News available on their website a damn sight more interesting than most of the tepid leftie BBC stuff. People like Hannity and Colmes run both sides of any story – unlike the BBC keep-to-the-left approach.
Fox gives a far clearer and more acuurate view of US politics than the bloated BBC.
The BBC has spent years tryi g to break into the US. Mostly6 it has failed. Any other orgabisation taking normal commerial risk appraisals would have dropped the effort long since. But the BBC is happy to go on risking our money.
One area the BBC tries to work is educational publishing. For primary school maths, English and science, as far as I can see most of its publications are incomplete and fairly amateur. There are plenty of publishers in that field (Letts, WH Smith, CGP, Collins etc) – the BBC should not be in it at all.
Who audits all this stuff ? Who lets the BBC cross-subsidise and cross-promote like crazy ? In my local shopping centre there is now a plush new BBC bookshop. It is usually empty, staff wandering around doing damn-all. Who needs it ?
The only answer we get is to the question – who pays ? We do.
“In my local shopping centre there is now a plush new BBC bookshop.”
huh? are you really serious?
small independent booksellers have enough problems as it is , trying to fend off the waterstones & ottakers, without the bbc coming in and distorting the market even further.
you got a link or a photo of that bbc bookshop?
dumbisco,
But surely it is a price worth paying for a ‘World Respected’ institution?
Oh wait…..
For those concerned with the motives of ‘john reith’, a whois of his/her IP address shows that it is part of this range:
inetnum: 132.185.0.0 – 132.185.255.255
netname: BBC
descr: British Broadcasting Corporation
descr: *************************************************
descr: * This address space is used for BBC Staff members *
descr: * accessing the internet. In case of any problems *
descr: * with users of this address space (spam, attacks, *
descr: * illegal activity, etc) please email abuse@bbc.co.uk *
descr: *************************************************
country: GB
QED.
Scott Burgess at “The Daily Ablution” is quoting from Alibhai-Brown’s column in The Independent (I think the gist of it is that hijackers should be welcomed into the UK), which includes the following
“Our freedoms are fast being snipped and hacked; we are more vulnerable to state invasions into privacy, debate, freedom of thought and legitimate opposition.”
Ms. Alibhai-Brown’s evidence for this is undeniably chilling:
“I have been told by good friends at the BBC not to expect to be invited on to key political programmes any more. Too much trouble, apparently.”
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/
Perhaps the BBC are developing a rota of lefty hacks so that AB gets less gigs.
For a link to BBC Bookshops see the recent Hugh Pym/Frank Gardner post…
Cockney
I have cable, and I watch Fox News. So do, I suspect, anyone who has any interest in knowing what a large amount of Americans think. If it did not represent this, it would not survive in the market.
However it shames me deaply that anyone looks at the BBC and thinks it represents anything other than what the BBC and the ruling institutions of Britain think. The ordinary people of Britain have no control over the output of the BBC whatsoever. Unless they can choose whether they pay for it or not.
Dumbcisco
Frank Gardner was hors de combat for the year running up to 7/7 so it’s a bit unfair of you to carp about any supposed failure to predict that event precisely.. In any case the extent to which the 7/7 bombers were ‘homegrown’ is moot. At least two of them seemed to have pretty strong al-Q connections. Maybe Frank Gardner was right back in July 2002 when he wrote:
‘They (Al-Qaeda) are reported to have told their followers: go back to where you came from, lie low, and strike when you can.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2092471.stm
Then there was another FG warning you must have missed – under the headline -Sleeper cells terror threat to the UK:
“Britain is clearly now a target for Al-Qaeda and other militant groups. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2639625.stm
Perhaps you missed this one too…headlined ‘Why Terror Threat Has Deepened’ by security correspondent Frank Gardner:
‘over the summer the volume of intelligence coming in about al-Qaeda and its network of sympathisers and supporters has been steadily growing.
Some of it is based on electronic eavesdropping by organisations like GCHQ that can secretly intercept telephone calls, faxes and e-mails.
Other information comes from the interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects like Ramzi Bin Al-Shaybah who was seized by Pakistani police in September and handed over almost immediately to US agents.
Trained to resist and mislead their captors, the more senior members of al-Qaeda in detention have not always proved co-operative.
But what they are telling their interrogators is rattling them.
They talk of multiple plots conceived months ago, of sleeper cells concealed in western capitals’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2444775.stm
Only you dumbciso never heard/saw/read any of it.
The following appeared on a previous thread today.
“This whole site is a disgusting mistake. You would have a barbarian like murdoch provide advertisements disguised as facts instead of the BBCs NPOV. Thankfully your crass penny pinching will never prevail. You’re a disgusting troll of a chinless tory, get back into the dustbin of history.
Seán | Homepage | 15.05.06 – 1:12 pm | # ”
It really is worth a quick visit to the following which are linked to Sean. It certainly demonstrates why this blog is invaluable.
http://nilbud.com/
http://www.bloggerheads.com/bbc/
Perhaps archduke can throw more light on Sean.
Above anon is me
You mean Reith is using the internet on the public’s time since he is being paid by our TV tax? Is this not a sackable offence in the real business world?
*chirping of crickets in BBC Human Resources*
“For those concerned with the motives of ‘john reith’, a whois of his/her IP address shows that it is part of this range:”
bogus?
how can you get his ip address when you are hosting the blog on third party servers that you have no control over (i.e. blogger.com and haloscan.com)
About BBC Shop
http://www.bbcshop.com/page/aboutbbcshop
“BBC Shop is a multi-channel retailer selling over 4,000 products at any one time including books, dvds, videos, audio books, toys and more. 98% of orders processed within one working day.
BBC Shop provides easy and convenient access to the complete range of BBC Worldwide published products, plus selected BBC-related products that are published by third parties.
You can purchase through any of the following channels:
Online: http://www.bbcshop.com
Telephone: 08700 777 001 (Monday – Friday, 8.30am-6.00pm)
Mail: BBC Shop, PO Box 308, Sittingbourne, Kent MW9 8LW, United Kingdom
In-store : BBC Shop currently has six retail stores, 3 in London – TV Centre, W12; Margaret Street, W1; Bush House, WC2, plus stores in Belfast, Tunbridge Wells and Norwich.”
Visit Our Stores
http://www.bbcshop.com/page/shop
Other BBC Stores
http://www.bbcshop.com/bin/venda?ex=co_disp-view&bsref=bbc&page=otherstores
http://nilbud.com/
dear god. i thought the blink tag had died in the 90s. (“Message Board”)
dustbin of history indeed. nilbud.com is registered in Dublin.
beyond that i have no idea , for i am resident in Her Majesty’s realm at the moment.
http://www.bbcshop.com/page/shop
what next?
Foreign Office travel bookshops.
DEFRA farm supplies.
NHS version of “Boots”
Tessa Jowell sports shops
are we sleepwalking into another Soviet Union?
jr
Now that we have established the following may I call you Frank?
inetnum: 132.185.0.0 – 132.185.255.255
netname: BBC
descr: British Broadcasting Corporation
Is’nt it funny how the only people who seem to support the BBC are screaming left wing loonies……lol.
Even if you look on the BBC forums, the only posts that seem to support the BBC come from New Labour Trolls and Muslims……..
And why is there no Biased-BBC screaming about all their “right wing” Bias? Surely, if they were balanced, they would get close to an equal number of complaints from the various “sides”………..
But it’s always the screming left wingers who support it…..and everyong else just scremaing out for fairness….
The BBC is a national disgrace, and it will lead us to ruin…….it represents nobody but the selfish left wingers and losers who just want to take our money, then bombard us with PC Propaganda…..
I predict the BBC will be gone within 5-10 years…the British public are already sick to death of Loonie Lefty politics, as prooven by the recent Elections………when Labour goes….the BBC will soon follow….
We’re violently sick of their hopless PC Bias…….
And if they really can’t see it, then they must be thick or collectively delluded. A bit like an Alcholic who refuses to admit he has a serious life threatening problem.
The BBC is an anti human rights one way message propaganda oppressor, the internet will free us all…….(until they start charging a licence fee for it and taking another 30,000 terrified poor people a month to court)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali the Dutch MP has resigned her seat and fled to the United States because of threats to her and the Dutch TV have started a campaign against her.
Looks like criticism of Islam in Holland gets your throat slit in Amsterdam as with Van Gigh or you have to seek asylum in the USA as with Hirsan Ali……….I bet the KLM flights to the US will get fuller and fuller
Rick -> i’ve not googled yet – are you serious? she really *has* fled to the U.S?
i’ve heard about the campaign to get rid of her, but this is news to me.
archduke: “For those concerned with the motives of ‘john reith’, a whois of his/her IP address shows that it is part of this range:”
bogus?
how can you get his ip address when you are hosting the blog on third party servers that you have no control over (i.e. blogger.com and haloscan.com)
Okay archduke, just for you, would you care to confirm that your IP address matches this:
217.204.xxx.xx (xxx’s to preserve your privacy)
As for John Reith, he is posting from a BBC IP address.
Similarly, our chum Sean, quoted above, is posting from Eircom in Ireland, and is therefore a hypocrite who isn’t coerced into paying the BBC tellytax…
Andrew -> aha. i’ve figured out how you are doing it.
and Sean sounds like your average rabid Sinn Feiner.
you have Red Ked, we have Sinn Fein.
its true – Hirsi Ali is leaving for the U.S.
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=30003&name=Hirsi+Ali+to+leave+Netherlands+for+job+with+US+think+tank+
and she’s going up in the world:
“She is going to work for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington think tank. The institute was founded in 1943 and is seen as one of the most important advisors to the government of George Bush.”
not bad for a Somali refugee, eh?
OT but interesting POV of blogger attending the BBC sponsored ‘WeMedia’ event, on the MSM vs ‘Numedia’ dialogue:
Where’s the ‘we’ in WeMedia?
http://strange.corante.com/archives/2006/05/05/wheres_the_we_in_wemedia.php
ooops type – i meant “Red Ken“
Yes Archduke – I just read it in Der Spiegel. She is giving a press conference.
http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/categorie/46044
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/05/infidel-babe-of-week_14.html
Hey Tory fuckers! Get ready for another 10-years of no-one listening to your childish rants and propaganda. The tories are finished forever now please go FUCK YOURSELVES
re FG.
I listened to the Andrew Marr interview this morning, and couldn’t believe the enthusiasm FG expressed for Islam, despite the fact that he is in a wheelchair and narrowly escaped death. Marr put his finger on things when FG admitted that he was disheartened with England & Secularism, and that he was seeking something greater. He clearly envies the more powerful national expression of Christianty in Italy & Spain, and loathes the expression in the UK. Marr didn’t ask him if he was Catholic? I remember the same enthusiasm on TV in Cairo(when he was walking)for Newsnight, when he was chatting with students at the American University. He is an accomplished Arabist, he was treated like a King in Saudi, and received the world’s best medical treatment, including that magical drug he has spoken of, only reserved for kings! I think we still hear his eternal gratitude for the Muslims that saved his life, this far outweighs criticism of those who nearly took it away.
I have always listened with great interest to his reports, and, as is the case with Newsnight’s Mark Urban, it would be servile and false to refer to him as an “ordinary” reporter. Since 2001 he has had his finger on the governments pulse vis a vis intelligence on Islamist terrorism- what he says is inevitably the stuff that the British intelligence services have been feeding him, which isnt wiothout interest. JR is right to defend him. As an advert for Islamic terrorism the BBC have a genuine icon on their hands, I have never thought that he was mean or deceptive in his reporting(pre wheelchair), once you know of his academic enthusiasm for Islam, this compensates and provides sufficient guidelines. For those who don’t think about what they hear or see, his wheelchair will speak volumes, seeing him interviewed on the news is like seeing Christopher Reeve. BTW his taste in music is atrocious