, why, oh why is the BBC unable find space on its well-funded website to report this? For a government monopoly, the Beeb ought to be able to cobble together something.
Thanks to Hugh Hewitt.
Update 20th May:
As our B-BBC commentariat observe, there are doubts about this story. Amir Taheri, the Iranian-born scholar whose detailed report of new laws pushing an Islamic dress code has not been disproven, though the story based on Taheri’s report has been removed from the National Post website.
It’s not unheard of in recent memory for non-Muslim minorities to be given yellow ribbons, but I see why the BBC would be careful not to repeat an unsubstantiated report.
Could they not at least report the actual concerns governments have about this issue and others. Could they not at least report the undisputed debate by the Iranian parliament to strongly encourage (if not impose) more strict Islamic dress requirements on the populace?
Like a good nanny, the Beeb seems unwilling to report menacing signs from Iran lest those in her charge become overwhelmed.
Update 25th May: The Knowns: The National Post story has been withdrawn with an apology due to its lack of sourcing. Amir Taheri, a highly respected journalist of Iranian extraction stands by his original column, the basis of the National Post story. A law requiring distinctive dress conforming to Islamic practices AND identification of people by their ethnicity has been drafted and is under consideration. The Iranian Jewish community and the Jewish community at large express thanks for the public outcry against the apparent anti-semitic thrust of this proposal. The reaction to the story, even if the story turns out to be unfounded, is chillingly believable, and newsworthy of its own accord. History gives plenty of warrant for paying attention to this. The BBC is unable or unwilling to report on any of these knowns.
Disgraceful – both the proposal and the BBC’s lack of attention to this.
Although this report is plausible and Amir Tehari (sp?) has put his name to a copy, all the links I have found come back to a single source – namely the National Post (Canada).
Perhaps we should be cautious about this until further confirmation arises.
By the way Canda is a good place to go to for a holiday, but not for the whole weekend. (Old US joke.)
I have just seen archduke say the same thing on another thread at 19.05.06 – 5:35 pm.
And dumbcisco | 19.05.06 – 6:33 pm
My system of reading thread by thread scrolling up, ie catching up with oldest threads first, is not working when new threads are inserted out of sequence.
Oh do come off it – BBC as government monopoly?
From your link:
‘government monopoly is a form of coercive monopoly in which a government agency is the sole provider of a particular good or service and competition is prohibited by law’
(looks at TV, radio, looks at lots of non BBC channels)
Your point is obscured by the falsehood. There are many other TV/ radio broadcasters in Britain.
Getting stuff as basic as this as wrong as this makes you, and b-bbc, look stupid.
The Canadian PM has mentioned it.
The BBC will act as usual over this – they’ll ignore it and hope it goes away after a few days, and if it doesn’t they will reluctantly report it but in the most anodyne fashion. Then, three months later, they will blithely whitewash criticisms against them in another ludicrous “Newswatch” column.
Andrew D.: Oh do come off it – BBC as government monopoly?
Consider the following, from here:
A monopoly is a market structure where one firm dominates the market. In its purest sense, a monopoly provider is the only supplier and is therefore both the firm and the industry. However, this simple definition hides a multitude of degrees of monopoly power exerted not only by a single firm but also by groups of firms who may be acting together to protect their combined interests whilst engaging in a competitive market in another.
and:
A complex monopoly occurs where a group of firms totalling over 25% of market share engage in actions, not associated with formal collusion (i.e. an agreement to work together) which may result in a distortion of competition or which prevents or restricts competition.
That happens to be about the perfume market, but the definition is applicable across the board. The BBC is so big that, in Competition Commission terms, it would not be allowed to buy up competitors, simply because of its existing market dominance – for just the same reason that Tesco et al weren’t allowed to buy Safeway, whilst the much smaller Morrissons were.
Andrew D.: Getting stuff as basic as this as wrong as this makes you, and b-bbc, look stupid
What you said makes you look uninformed, to say the least. I wish the carpers who sometimes pop-up to moan would take a more constructive approach to participating at Biased BBC, rather than posting their personal moans and then buggering off as quick as their legs can carry them!
Andrew D:
There are lots of other media organisations in the UK, but none of them are permitted to jail people for refusing to pay a tax on owning a television. The BBC, through its front organisation, is the only media organisation in the UK with the power to levy a tax on citizens, and to criminalise those who do not wish to pay. For me, that counts as a Government monopoly, or at least close enough.
Ron, Andrew – All that’s as maybe – but the OP linked to, and quoted from a specific source –
‘competition is prohibited by law’
Which it clearly isn’t, in Britain. Hence my comments.
(other) Andrew – I pass through b-bbc, but throw my hands up in horror at the likes of Verity, Susan, GaryP, etc.
Mixing racist abuse with claims of ‘Nazi’ and disgraceful anti-religious slurs, along with just basic factual errors like the one I quoted above means I sadly don’t see much point in staying. And the ridiculous gubbins from the bloke from Guardian Lies…., blimey, not much debate there is there?
Andrew D., I understand exactly what you’re getting at about the rants that some third-parties see fit to post in the comments here.
I try to keep a modicum of order when I have time, and have introduced the ‘open thread’ idea to at least try and differentiate between on-topic discussion threads and the free-for-all approach on other topics.
A small number of persistent tossers have been banned in the past, much to their annoyance and persistent abuse. To ban a wider range of persistently off-topic and/or unwelcome commenters would be quite burdensome.
To this end, we have often considered moving to moderated comments – but this too is burdensome – although I am getting to the stage where I think we really ought to try it just to see how burdensome or otherwise moderation might actually be.
In the meantime, I hope you will tune out those you dislike and make your own contributions, improving the B-BBC comments signal-to-noise ration with any luck.
Apologies for my earlier grumpiness – I replied at some length to a couple of moaning minnies earlier in the week, and was acknowledged in part by one of them, with not a peep from the other git.
Andrew D
In economic theory, monopoly does not mean TOTAL monopoly. It means a significant degree of market dominance. Which in several respects the BBC undoubtedly has. Radio and radio news, for example.
And it has by far the largest news operation in broadcasting – TV, radio, the online stuff.
If the BBC doesn’t broadcast the Iran clothing story, which has been in circulation all day (I posted a reference here on this site early this afternoon) , basically it is uncertain whether it gets broadcast in the UK.
The BBC has not even found room for it among the dozens of stories on its Middle East webpage.
One thing the BBC certainly has a monopoly of. The £3 billion plus licence tax.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9070ec32-f409-4161-9e96-7bae0436ccc3&k=66789
“The prime minister couldn’t vouch for the accuracy of the report, but said Iran was capable of such actions, which he compared to Nazi practices.”
dumbcisco – I have no complaint with debates around ‘virtual’ monopolies. As I said, the OP used a specific, and very emotive term – which they linked to, in case we weren’t aware of it ( Government Monopoly)
A good example of this is an army, or the right to issue passports, etc. The BBC is not, by any means, a ‘Government Monopoly’. Pointing this out makes me neither for, or against, the BBC, but on the side of fact. This website, as I said, descends into hyperbole too often – masking any rational debate about the pros and cons of what I perceive to be its original intent. I need no explanations about other methods of monopoly.
(other) Andrew. No offence taken, assumed you’d had a bad day 😛
I might stay around, if the flames against anyone who doesn’t toe the party line (Islam=bad, BNP=’Socialist’, Blair as bad as Stalin, welfare state=real axis of evil) stay low in the fireplace.
jewish organisations are seeking clarification on the “badge” issue:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961378016&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I might stay around, if the flames against anyone who doesn’t toe the party line (Islam=bad, BNP=’Socialist’, Blair as bad as Stalin, welfare state=real axis of evil) stay low in the fireplace.
Andrew D | 19.05.06 – 10:37
My emphasis added.
Plenty of documentation to prove both these points – perhaps you should stay away.
And the ridiculous gubbins from the bloke from Guardian Lies…., blimey, not much debate there is there?
Andrew D | 19.05.06 – 10:04 pm
Read the website and come back here with cogent arguments and you will be treated with respect. Otherwise…
Yes, you’re right. The entire religion of Islam is bad, and the BNP is a socialist party. Good grief. No wonder you think the world’s against you.
‘perhaps you should stay away.’
Agreed. Bye.
sorry, (other) andrew.
ps, anon was me, for the (2nd? 3rd?), certainly the last time.
The merest whiff of grapeshot and he’s gone. Not much fun in that.
The BNP *is* a socialist party. Have you read their policies? Nationalism doesn’t automatically mean right wing, people. 🙂
The merest whiff of grapeshot and he’s gone. Not much fun in that.
These pro-Beebies do not like it up ’em (apologies Corporal Jones).
gordon-bennet – do not presume to speak for Biased BBC, or to tell people to, in effect, get lost – lest it’s you that gets the boot next.
national post (canada) has an update on the jewish badge story:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
Andrew
It seems that you want to indicate to gordon-bennet myself and others to get lost because someone that likes the BBC and has only contibuted here once likes “throwing his hands up in horror.”
Personaly, whether I am boring you or not, if a lover of the BBC is “throwing his hands up in horror” I am quite happy.
My comments may be rants but they are also honest opinion. Opinion which I know many will agree with. Which possibly do not have the confidence to take on the vast amount of overqualified jumped up grammer school boys that inhabit most blogs.
It is very interesting to access other peoples links. I dont put them on because I dont know how to. However honest opinions from people with as much wide experience of life as I have had, I think even people smart enough to start their own Bias BBC website, would be well advised to keep reading.
gordon-bennet – do not presume to speak for Biased BBC, or to tell people to, in effect, get lost – lest it’s you that gets the boot next.
Andrew | Homepage | 20.05.06 – 12:17 am
I didn’t speak for bbbc – I spoke for myself, picking up his own suggestion.
I dont have the authority to tell him to go, nor would I if I did. I prefer to discuss dissent rather than dismiss it just in case someone could be converted.
A much more mature and rewarding attitude.
gordon-bennett: “perhaps you should stay away”
gordon-bennett: “I dont have the authority to tell him to go, nor would I if I did. I prefer to discuss dissent rather than dismiss it just in case someone could be converted”
How do you spell hypocrisy?
gordon-bennett: “A much more mature and rewarding attitude”
If only.
You’ve driven away someone who is interested in what Biased BBC has to say, because you disagreed with that person on non-BBC related matters.
Thanks very much. Not.
GP – not correct – I will comment on what you said at greater length later.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
archduke | Homepage | 20.05.06 – 12:59 am
Looks like I was right to be cautious. A useful lesson for those who jumped in with both feet.
Honest correction by NP – no stealth editing a la beeb.
Andrew:
Andrew D at 10:04 pm said, of me and my website:
“And the ridiculous gubbins from the bloke from Guardian Lies….”
To which Gordon Bennett responded in my defence and achieved a ticking off from you for his efforts.
With a couple of exceptions – of whom Gordon-Bennett is prime – so far I’ve attracted about as much support from Biased BBC as Gary Glitter has from the NSPCC. How on earth do you and your fellow adjudicators and the contributors to B-BBC expect television journalists to spurn the endemic media bias and sacrifice their careers for the sake of the truth when this site finds it so difficult to champion the research of someone who did exactly that, especially when that person’s research exposes the endemic posturing and institutionalised bias of the BBC like no single case study ever has or is ever likely to in the future?
Instead of helping rout BBC bias, the indifference to my work exhibited by this site actually helps strengthen it. If I was one of the BBC’s Leftwing news editors and one of my staff exhibited signs of rebelling against the BBC’s ethos, all I would have to do to bring him or her back into line would be to point out how J. B. Hunt’s promising journalistic career was destroyed for breaking ranks and how Hunt couldn’t acquire support from anywhere – not even B-BBC.
Gordon-Bennett:
Thank you.
gordon-bennett
I hope you are not suggesting that the Canada stories about what had been proposed in Iran were entirely false.
I suggest you look at the Amir Taheri story, which was very detailed. And then look at the small print of the “denial” story you posted. It looks clear that some sorts of discriminatory dress code have certainly been under discussion in Iran. Even the Iranian authorities admit that. And in an opaque society like Iran – read what the London spokesman says.
At the very least this needs a lot more watching before we can be clear what is actually going to happen, what will actually be promulgated. All in your article admit that a uniform dress code for all Iranians is moving forward – and also that dress codes that could distinguish religious minorities have been at least tabled. That in itself is bad, and it is a flag that should be raised.
I suggest you read again the Amir Tahiri article that I posted yesterday. He used to be editor of the biggest newspaper in Teheran, he has a reputation to protect and would not risk it by totally false reporting.
I would prefer to await further comment from him before saying that this story is flimflam.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4&k=28534
Andrew D,
There is an argument that fascists are socialists (Hayek – The Road to Serfdom). If you get past the racism the BNP has a socialist agenda.
Bigots come in all forms.
dumbcisco | 20.05.06 – 8:17 am
I accept entirely what you are saying and I did read your link to Taheri right through. I referred to it in my post.
I have also read the other Taheri piece (about the real situation in Iraq) and was sufficiently impressed to praise it in another thread. It’s clear to me that the man has expertise and integrity.
I did refer to Taheri in my “proceed with caution” post but the NP are unequivocal in warning that their story is wrong.
(Quote from NP: “Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue”.)
I simply urge caution on hotheads until more than one source is telling the same story.
Generally people posting on this site are quick to repost when an article turns out to be false or to have changed significantly and this is exemplary. In this case I was lucky that my slight suspicions were quickly confirmed but I am sure that there is more to come on this story and that its premise is entirely plausible.
Andrew | Homepage | 20.05.06 – 2:39 am
This posting is absolute bollocks – no other word for it.
update on the iranian “badge” issue
seems like they are discussing a law to enforce islamic dress on women
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-dress20may20,1,7723249.story?coll=la-headlines-world
archduke | Homepage | 20.05.06 – 1:26 pm
Where are the feminists on this issue? We ask yet again
g-b
That story went round the blogs like wildfire yesterday. People will be keeping a very sharp eye on what actually emerges in Iran.
And the sheer amount of protest may actually impel the President there to pushing even harder for harsh dress codes.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/buzztracker/permalink/?id=40836
And the sheer amount of protest may actually impel the President there to pushing even harder for harsh dress codes.
Anonymous | 20.05.06 – 2:32 pm
I dont see how the leverage you imply could apply.
Does armadinnerjacket know or care what happens outside Iran?
I agree with Powerline’s analysis on the Iran uniform thing
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014137.php
No doubt Madmood I’monajihad is aware that many young Iranians follow the fashion (and other) trends of the West.
He may be trying to see how far he can go here without tipping the people over into revolutionary mode. Dress codes could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
But he also ain’t the only power in that country.
But all the powers in that country are similar – the isdea that their Pres is speaking out of turn is dangerous IMHO.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html
True, he’s probably merely the worst of a bad bunch.
What is undoubtedly true is that there are Islamist extremists in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran is a full supporter of Hizbollah, for example, pictured here in Lebanon :
http://www.whataretheysaying.org/blog/images/lebanese-nazis.jpg
But we should not think that that anti-Jewish animus is something that has been transmitted from Nazism across to the Middle East. This essay gives a historical context over many centuries of animus in Persia/Iran :
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5513
It seems from this essay to be pretty deep-seated ? So any change on dress code would be more of a reversion to type than an innovation in Iran.
Since the mullahs took over in 1979, Iran has been a rogue state, an active supporter of terrorism and indeed a perpetrator of terrorism. It is a main seat of the whole jihad threat we face. Just as the Danish cartoons were an accidental expose of the huge intolerance in Islam, so the clothing story – correct or wrong – may be lifting the lid on some very deep undercurrents of religious apartheid.
Sure. Arab/Muslim Apartheid, oppression and pogroms against Jews predate Nazism by ages.
“What is undoubtedly true is that there are Islamist extremists in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.”
It is surely by now evident that islam is in itself extremist and there can no more be a ‘moderate’ muslim than a moderate nazi.
Can anyone even begin to imagine that the BBC would write such an adulatory article about a white Republican?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5002860.stm
This man redefines the word “incompetent”.
Yeah. Not a word of criticism of a man who proved unable to lead his city, and could do nothing but moan and whine at others for his own failures.
In 1994 Marion Barry was reelected Mayor of Washington DC after being convicted of drug related crimes. He was later convicted of tax evasion. He was never Mr Competence or Mr Clean. In other words the electorates in (some) US cities can’t or won’t distinguish up from down. Also race plays a far bigger part in local elections in the US than it (used to do) here.
As a current example in the UK: I have no doubt that Livingstone will be reelected Mayor of LondON in 2008 despite (or maybe because of) his adulation of Latin American dictators and apologists for Islamic terrorism (sorry, militancy). His careless attitude to Jews probably also plays well to the (bigger) Muslim electorate in London. However, if you reduce democracy to a mere counting of heads, that’s what you get both here and in the US.
Umbongo
Agree about KL. However he, in my opinion,( I would and will put money on it), has less chance of getting re-elected as we do of finding out that George Bush and Osama Bin-Larden are secret gay lovers.
Will BiasedBBC be publishing an apology on their website for slating the BBC for not covering a story that turned out not to be true?
Nah, thought not!