Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.
This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Ritter,
It is an interesting opinion piece. However, the conclusions are far too predictable from the Beeb.
It is not easy to resist the urge to quiet an irritant voice like Hirsi Ali’s.
Who wants to silence Hirsi Ali? The Dutch people or the Islamofascists?
The whole article is basically saying that the Dutch should continue to bend over backwards to accept more Islamic immigrants. Whereas, Pim Fortuyn argued that Islam was incompatible with Holland’s liberal democracy. He described Islam as a ‘backward religion’ because of its treatment of gays and women.
The Dutch are certainly not looking to persecute Muslims withing their nation, instead they are trying to get a grip on their borders and integrate the people already living there. What is the problem with that? Holland is under no obligation to allow failed asylum seekers to remain, why shouldn’t they ‘jail’ and then ‘deport’ them?
I understand the arguments that we shouldn’t let terrorists change our way of life, through the loss of freedoms. However, we shouldn’t let uncontrolled immigration of ‘incompatibles’ change our way of life either.
That is the crux of the argument.
The Dutch are trying to preserve their liberal society for those people that are already Dutch. Whereas this BBC piece argues that they should operate an open border policy and feel happy that they’ve done the right thing, while their society is destroyed and freedom lost forever.
Note also the continuing attempt to blame the Israelis for the explosion in Gaza:
In a separate development, a Hamas militant was killed in a blast in a refugee camp near Gaza City. The cause of the explosion has not been confirmed.
The 30-year-old Hamas militant died and his wife and son were injured in the explosion at a house in the Jabaliya camp. Israel said it was not involved.
The Israeli army frequently carries out air strikes against Palestinian militants in Gaza, usually claiming responsibility shortly afterwards.
In this case Israel has catagorically denied it was involved but the BBC continues to insinuate that the the Jews must have been behind it.
Is the BBC suffering a DoS attack. It is taking ages to open up pages.
Eamonn writes:
“I remember that Radio 5 Live used to have on an “academic expert” to comment on the Iraq war. However, they never mentioned that this person was affiliated with the antiwar movement. I happened to know that this person was….”
Indeed. Similarly, another academic (sic) who was prominent in the anti-war movement regularly had his missives published all over (D)NHYS and read-out on listeners’ letters segments of R4 programmes.
Of course, it was the clarity of his prose and force of his arguments that earned him such exposure…
disillusioned_german;
Wait… don’t they get plenty of airtime on Al Beeb anyway?
Not according to the Beeb on Beeb report, which found that coverage was biased towards Israel.
BTW, good post at LGF on the MCB’s new boss with links to last year’s Panorama on him:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20895_MCB_Elects_New_Front_Man&only
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm#
archduke
“geographical context is everything – the alleged bomb factory was within walking distance/bus ride of Stratford station. Docklands railway, central line, and buses all operate out of there -not to mention the new Eurostar terminal being built there.
its quite a busy transport hub.”
I don’t give a rat’s arse what it’s near unless it’s relevant. You could equally say the house was close to the Boleyn ground. So, are we looking at Arsenal supporters then? (No, let’s make that Leyton Orient.) Neighbours report that the family have been there FOR YEARS – i.e. before the Olympics bid was won and before the Eurostar terminal got planning permission. Stratford (East) is perhaps most famous for its theatre – does a v. good pantomime IME. Don’t suppose the luvvies were a target either. They were sited there because that’s where they lived. That’s a fact. The rest is media babble.
Cockney & Umbongo……..hear what you say. My experience of watching/listening is also one of frustration/irritation that some dimwit/partisan/transparent fraud/ ideologically motivated idiot etc. is spouting off dodgy views. But that’s because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and …..defence solicitors. The bias issue only arises if these guys were to crowd out the Police and the Home Secretary. No danger of that IMHO.
comparing Islamists to the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?
The BBC recently broadcast Springsteen’s “roots” concert.
Springsteen introduced “We shall overcome” as being the anthem of the civil rights movement, but still relevant & sung by pro-immigration marchers last month.
The rights of citizens & illegal aliens appear to be the same to Springsteen. sure way of securing a BBC gig.
>> But that’s because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and …..
so why didn’t Panorama show any climate change sceptics, even to rubbish them?
>>But that’s because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and …..defence solicitors.
Add to the above entry:
Ah, that’s why they usually have fruitcakes like Nick Griffin on Question Time.
Ritter If the BBC spent half as much time Islamist bashing as it does Bush bashing we might be getting somewhere.
Not the BBC, but Channel4, will tonight have the courage to give the scary lowdown on the fundamentalists
God’s Next Army
8:00pm – 9:00pm
Channel 4
Of which the BBC Radio Times says
It’s hard to believe that people who are being taught that geological strata were all laid down by the Great Flood may be taking control of America’s levers of power, but that’s the way it looks here. Gulp.
Oh, sorry, these are Christian fundamentalists.
Shouldn’t that read:
But that’s because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes/defence solicitors.
“I don’t give a rat’s arse what it’s near unless it’s relevant. You could equally say the house was close to the Boleyn ground. So, are we looking at Arsenal supporters then? (No, let’s make that Leyton Orient.) Neighbours report that the family have been there FOR YEARS”
911 – transport target (aircraft)
Madrid – transport target (trains)
London, 7/7 – transport target (tube)
Tokyo mid 90s, cult release sarin gas – transport target. tube.
D Burbage, phil and others
Sorry but I can’t be much use to you about the panorama. until a few weeks ago I’d counted myself a climate change sceptic too. I’ve never been able to stomach the priggish faux moralising of the environment lobby and find their dead metaphors and dreary jargon unpalatable.
I caught on to Bjorn Lomborg fairly early on and mostly pour epater les islingtoniens would bring his name up whenever conversation showed any sign of straying into this jejune territory. I was cured of this not by knee-jerk lefties but by a gang of Tory MPs (Cameroons all) who slapped me over the wrist for boosting Lomborg and set me a reading list. I approached this with the same sense of dread as I currently experience at the prospect of wading through Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s website. But duty is duty.
In the end I have to admit that the climate change enthusiasts have a pretty strong case in terms of 1. It’s happening. and 2. It’s man made. Beyond that – all the hockey stick stuff still smells strongly of hokum. It was slightly offstage contributions by people I like and trust that really made the difference. Contributions like this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062-2140574,00.html
That said, I still can’t be arsed to watch TV programmes about it. But I’d defend to the death the BBC’s right to make them.
john reith
“But that’s because the BBC charter compels it to give a platform to all sorts INCLUDING mavericks, fruitcakes and …..defence solicitors.”
The BBC is not compelled to give the defence lawyers no 1 spot in the coverage of this incident particularly as the Met wasn’t alleging anything, only that “a man had been shot”. By all means the BBC can (and should) report that the lawyers were denying speculation that the arrested men were connected to the manufacture of chemical weapons and, also, that the circumstances surrounding the “shot man” were unclear. This does not require wall-to-wall coverage by the BBC of defence denials (although hard news about any aspect of this incident has been difficult to obtain).
The BBC attitude to the incident plays well along with the views expressed on “Today” by a local dignitary who appeared to be suggesting that police action should only take place with the knowledge and approval of the local community. (This dignitary also announced that the incident would be the subject of a local meeting tonight at which the guest of honour is to be Moazzam Begg.) It also appears from his “Today” appearance that the new front man for the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, seems to suggest that the local community should be consulted before police action of this type occur.
Difficult to believe what “John Reith” just wrote!
I don’t give a rat’s arse what it’s near unless it’s relevant. You could equally say the house was close to the Boleyn ground. So, are we looking at Arsenal supporters then? (No, let’s make that Leyton Orient.) Neighbours report that the family have been there FOR YEARS – i.e. before the Olympics bid was won and before the Eurostar terminal got planning permission. Stratford (East) is perhaps most famous for its theatre – does a v. good pantomime IME. Don’t suppose the luvvies were a target either. They were sited there because that’s where they lived. That’s a fact. The rest is media babble.
Whether or not the alleged terrorists have lived there FOR YEARS. Regardless of what football team they may or may not support or their fondness for pantomime. Whether or not “John Reid” gives a rat’s arse or a tinker’s toss, there is no doubt that archduke is right in saying that the location of the alleged bomb factory is of major relevance.
“Media babble” is what “John Reid” and his workmates specialise in!
Archduke
9/11 Perps normally resident in Florida & S California boarded the planes in Boston, Mass.
Madrid – Perps lived in Leganes, NOT Atocha.
7/7 Perps came all the way from Leeds via Luton. None resident near Russell Square or Edgware Road.
You make my point.
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=204
Oh dear. Homophobia dropping off the BBC radar of PC issues. Or ‘assimilating’ with Islam, if you like. Dhimmis.
BBC homophobia complaint rejected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5049566.stm
Some fun stuff in here though:
“The governors’ programme complaints committee – which operates independently of the BBC – acknowledged Chris Moyles’ description of a ringtone he did not like as “gay” could cause offence.
BBC governors independent of the BBC??!! Don’t make me laugh!
“Media babble” is what “John Reid” and his workmates specialise in!
I meant of course John Reith.
re JR’s comment @ 5:10 pm:
Why are you going out of your way to minimise the possibility that an alleged bomb factory has been found?
Umbongo
‘By all means the BBC can (and should) report that the lawyers were denying speculation that the arrested men were connected to the manufacture of chemical weapons and, also, that the circumstances surrounding the “shot man” were unclear.’
That’s what the BBC did.
‘This does not require wall-to-wall coverage by the BBC of defence denials ‘
Whether or not you perceive them as ‘wall to wall’ rather depends on how long you spend with the same network. I heard them twice.
‘hard news about any aspect of this incident has been difficult to obtain’
You got it. But dumbcisco rages at the BBC for adopting due minimalism in its reporting.
‘It also appears from his “Today” appearance that the new front man for the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, seems to suggest that the local community should be consulted before police action of this type occur.’
Just because he’s on the Today programme doesn’t mean you have to agree with him. Equally, just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the Today programme.’
(Parenthetically: Grimer – nice point about the placing of fwd slashes vs. dots of elipsis. If I had emoticons I’d use a smiley.)
“You make my point.”
good god, you are missing the point entirely.
what i’m trying to point out is that the alleged bomb factory is near a rather important transport hub in East London.
i was merely pointing out that this was *never* mentioned in BBC reporting – which i found incredible, considering that the London Tube was targetted last summer.
that is all.
BioD
‘Why are you going out of your way to minimise the possibility that an alleged bomb factory has been found?’
I’m not. I was discussing what the BBC should and shouldn’t have said on Friday. The Police were firm, nay resolute, in refusing to confirm or deny anything outwith the terms (carefully thought out) of DAC Clarke’s statement. I think it was right that the BBC respected that and were prepared to wait until the Police rather than jumping to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions. Unlike some commenters here.
Archduke
Pretty well everywhere in London is near the tube system. If you live in Thirsk then Forest Gate is (relatively) near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. If the BBC had picked on Eurostar Stratford or the Olympic village – that would have suggested they knew about the likely target of the alleged bomb/chemical vest. No such info was available. No such speculation was warranted.
Of the infantile Panorma programme on climate change, John Reith writes:
“But I’d defend to the death the BBC’s right to make them.”
Codswallop! Not when it absolutely refuses to give fair treatment to opposing points of view, of which there are many.
If the BBC can’t play fair, it should simply STFU on the subject, not lie about a consensus that is anything but.
In the end I have to admit that the climate change enthusiasts have a pretty strong case in terms of 1. It’s happening. and 2. It’s man made.
John Reith | 05.06.06 – 4:59 pm
I do not think many people are arguing about 1. – it’s a matter of measurement of facts.
The controversy is about Man’s part in the warming. You have shown no propensity to understand and present a logical case so I am not surprised that you (glibly) accept the “It’s man made” viewpoint.
However, I dont see agreement between scientists about causes and I dont see how you can be so unequivocal about the matter. For example, 1 volcano can discharge a lot more pollution that the world population.
Try if you can to understand how sceptics like most of the posters here would be dismayed but not surprised that a beeb apparatchik such as yourself can so readily believe in fairies (so to speak) and be so adamant in that faith that you do not allow people who dont believe in fairies to put their case on your beeb.
Beeboids have been selected for their particular spectrum of beliefs and cannot conceive that anyone with a different view is worthy of airspace.
GCooper
‘not lie about a consensus that is anything but.’
If you look into it I think you’ll be unpleasantly surprised by how much of a consensus there actually is among the science Establishment. Particularly among those involved in advising on or reviewing public policy. I rather got the impression that they considered anyone so much as doubting the twin principles of climate change as they see it (it exists; it is man made)as being somewhere between a seven-day creationist and a flat earther.
That’s not, of course, to say they’re right. I remember when the same science Establishment were adamant that BSE would never jumb species. And that Gulf War syndrome doesn’t exist ( many still holding fast on that one).
But consensus there jolly well is.
Of course the BBC should give airtime to those who want to challenge this consensus. But maybe not in the same breath (or on the same programme) as the mainstream view. There is a danger of never getting past first principles if you have to ritually debate the predicate of every argument.
Mistakes were made during the heat of the moment of 7/7.
I wonder how many of those mistakes are as bad as Simpson’s mistakes in talking of a massacre which didn’t occur and had already been widely reported as having not happened. And he didn’t make his mistakes in the heat of the moment.
Will the beeb be giving as much airtime to his serious errors as they are giving to nitpicking about 7/7?
John Reith @ 5:44 pm
BioD
‘Why are you going out of your way to minimise the possibility that an alleged bomb factory has been found?’
I’m not. I was discussing what the BBC should and shouldn’t have said on Friday.
No John, you went much further than that:
9/11 Perps normally resident in Florida & S California boarded the planes in Boston, Mass.
Madrid – Perps lived in Leganes, NOT Atocha.
7/7 Perps came all the way from Leeds via Luton. None resident near Russell Square or Edgware Road.
The police certainly haven’t used the same logic (thank heavens!) Why should you? You seemed to be following the BBC line of not saying anything to upset the (alleged) terrorists, to the point of appearing to defend them, or at least distracting attention away from the risks they pose to us all.
Gordon Bennett
Since when does admitting that somebody has ‘a pretty strong case’ amount to ‘glibly accepting’ the said viewpoint, still less being ‘so adamant’ that one would deny anyone the chance to put the contrary position or being ‘so readily’ inclined to believe in fairies?
‘I dont see how you can be so unequivocal about the matter’
Actually, I am fairly equivocal about the matter – as any fule who read my last two posts on the matter knowes.
As for:
‘no propensity to understand and present a logical case ‘
Pots, kettles, black.
I remember some commenter arguing here a while back (in the context of Cameron etc) that the logical argument was dead and that all that ‘trained mind’ stuff was somehow inappropriate in today’s polemical scene. It was sneeringly dismissed as ‘the Etonian factor’ or some such. In its place he seemed to be calling for a combo of sly elision and emotive non sequitur. No-one at the time was moved to demur and the latter approach certainly seems to have become the house style hereabouts. Call me old-fashioned, but I’m still a syllogism kinda guy.
BioD
‘No John, you went much further than that:
9/11 Perps normally resident in Florida & S California boarded the planes in Boston, Mass.
Madrid – Perps lived in Leganes, NOT Atocha.
7/7 Perps came all the way from Leeds via Luton. None resident near Russell Square or Edgware Road.’
The point here is that terrorists don’t always (or even often) attack the target that’s round the corner from where they live. Indeed, they often travel some distance to attack their targets. Therefore, the media should not assume that because a suspected terrorist lives near a particular tube station, then that particular tube station (or indeed the tube) will necessarily be his target.
“You seemed to be following the BBC line of not saying anything to upset the (alleged) terrorists, to the point of appearing to defend them, or at least distracting attention away from the risks they pose to us all”
How you can twist such a reasonable and straightforward observation into an allegation that I am giving aid and comfort to terrorists would be astonishing if it weren’t just another example of the habit of advancing arguments by sly elsion and emotive non sequitur that I have just noted above.
john reith
In a spirit of genuine enquiry, do you deliberately misinterpret my (and others) comments? I commented quite clearly that 1. it is the BBC’s duty to report the defence lawyers’ contention, and 2. it is not the BBC’s duty to make the contention the no 1 item (on – at least – BBC 24 News for an extended period). You quote me on 1 and ignore me on 2 when the weight of my argument is on the latter rather than the former.
Further, I merely commented that this bias probably plays well with the 2 people selected by “Today” to comment on the incident. The choice of people to interview is interesting: I can accept that the local community or the Muslim community at large might have something to say. I consider it’s overegging this particular pudding to get in 2 people to represent the Muslim community. And guess what – their comments, if not identical, were more or less the same. It’s possible somebody from the wider world might have had some input worth considering. Also you’re right, I don’t agree with what they said but, if the BBC decides to interview 2 individuals it would have been clearly unbiased to have somebody supporting an opposing view.
JR, let’s as you say, “walk the ground”. archduke made a point that the alleged terrorist house was in close proximity to a lot of places that bona fide terrorists would love to target.
He (archduke) questioned why the BBC did not also point that out. You have made one argument after another to justify NOT making that point.
If the journalist’s job is to report and not posit theories then why are you pretending to think like a policeman when you say that none of the perps of 3 other attacks lived near the targets, therefore the alleged terrorists in Forest Gate probably wouldn’t target the places archduke pointed out as being in the vicinity?
Let’s bear in mind that the police in this case were looking for some kind of chemical device – not an explosive as in the 3 cases you mentioned.
Perhaps chemical agents don’t travel well so the device would need to be prepared and primed close to the target?
Perhaps terrorists are aware of hightened security and won’t in the future risk transporting their devices further than absolutely neccesary?
All of this is possible and while I don’t wish to “twist” anything and imply that the suspects currently under arrest are guilty of anything until we know more than is in the public domain at this time, I do get the impression that your mind is more made up than mine is. That is to say, while I’m trying to be careful about rushing to judgement and am willing to consider all possibilities, you seem to be to keen to discard certain possibilities for reasons that fail to convince me.
Please don’t exagerate, I am not accusing you of aiding terrorists, I said you could “appear to defend them, or at least distract attention away from the risks they pose to us all”, which is no more than the BBC does every day anyhow.
gordon-bennet
I have 6 science O levels so I dont claim to be an expert. However my common sense forces me to be very sceptical indead. Does John Reith have any education in science at all?
It is possible for Christians to prove the present of God with more concreat evidence than exsists for man made globle warming. However I cant prove the non-exsistance of either. So it all depends on what religion John Reith and his converts want to belong to. “The BBC is right about everything and does not take resonsibility for anything” religion is as good as any other.
I prefer “The common sense” religion. It gets me though life OK and I dont have to lie to make a living. Or obtain other peoples opinions with my own brain down the karzi.
It is one thing to believe that globle warming is happening.
Another thing to believe that it has anything to do with man.
Another thing to think the damage is caused by recent industrial growth.
Another thing to believe with the confidence that John Reith does, that anything the BBC thinks or does will help anything whatsoever.
And yet a even more incredible and dangerous thing to believe that America, capitalism, George Bush, and just about every thing else in the world that the BBC does not like, are resposible for this maybe problem.
Dangerous because if you dont correctly identify the cause of a problem, your chances of coming up with a workable solution are non-exsistant.
Letts just hope this globle warming thing is a load of leftist “sky is falling down” rubbish. Because one thing I am sure about is, the left and the BBC dont have a solution for it now, or in the future.
I remember a time when the likes of John Reith at the BBC confidently predicted that by the year 2050 the population will have grown so much we would all be falling over the cliffs of Dover. Dont here from these experts any more, do we?
Umbongo
I didn’t ignore you on point 2. I said:
“Whether or not you perceive them as ‘wall to wall’ rather depends on how long you spend with the same network. I heard them twice.”
Now you’ve made clear that it was on News 24 you kept seeing them, I’m not surprised you thought it was wall-to-wall. News 24 frequently repeats the same material.
I heard a couple of v.short sound bites on the radio and I don’t think they were top of the news either. So it didn’t seem so wall to wall to me.
You refer to what you call ‘the BBC attitude’ to the incident. I don’t think the BBC HAS any attitude to it. Nor do I think Today programme producers meet to conspire to put two Muslim spokesmen on to say the same thing. Very often they don’t know what any particular guest will reply to a given question. Nor very often do they know until the last moment exactly who else will be on to address the same subject. Some people agree and drop out. Sometimes govt departments can’t say whether minister so and so is available until it’s too late. So what you actually hear isn’t pre-planned and loaded with a particular spin by calculating and ideologically driven programme makers. Time and chance are more significant than you allow.
BioD
We were discussing whether or not it was remiss of the BBC not to point up the proximity of the raided premises to Stratford Station in its News reports.
My contention is and remains that the News was right to stick to reporting confirmed facts.
I have no problem with having security experts on TV or radio programmes to speculate about possible targets….so long as there’s a clear line between speculation and news.
Let’s forget about Stratford for a moment. Only a few minutes further away there’s a much bigger – and equally likely if not more likely – target…the City.
If the BBC had ended its news bulletin on this subject with the statement: ‘The suspected chemical bomb-factory lies only a few minutes travelling time from the financial hub of the City of London’ then many people would conclude that the BBC had been given an off the record steer by the security services that the City was the intended target.
Quite possibly many City workers would be chary of going into the office as a result. Of those who did go to work regardless, many would have families who would have been concerned for their welfare.
These people would rightly be indignant if it later turned out that there had been no steer and the BBC had mentioned the City purely capriciously. The BBC would be said to have indulged in irresponsible scaremongering….and of doing the terrorists work for them by promoting fear and disruption.
That’s why the BBC should…and did…report as NEWS what was put into the public domain by the Police…and not seek to gild the lily by irresponsible extrapolation.
Did anyone here about the BBC banning world cup songs from radio 1 with the word England in the song?
Does anyone know of an Unbiased BBC Blog where John Reith might feel at home?
John Reith wrote;
“First, according to the next door neighbours the Koyairs are NOT Pakistani; they’re from Bangladesh.”
And Bangladesh used to be called??????
“Meanwhile, the family next door – whose house was also entered by Police – come from neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh; they’re from India.
Seems like that term ‘Asian’ (admittedly unsatisfactory much of the time) was the right call here.”
Not at all. The people whose parents came from the Sub continent hate been referred to as Asians.
Ask the vast majority and they will tell you they are British Sikhs, British Hindu, or British Muslims. Not Asian, not Indian but British. The term Asian is used by the BBC in which to blend everybody of a certain colour into a convenient banding which allows them to do away with naming the religion of the vast majority of terrorists and terrorist suspects. Now when the story is a feel good one then AL Beeb has no problem in which to shout out the religion of the subject;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5046970.stm
Yet when the story is negative then the term Asian is brought out in which to dilute the story by not directly pointing the finger. I mean is Hitler ever referred to as a central European? Nah he is the Nazis who ruled Germany during the 30s and 40s.
“Also, it wasn’t a bomb factory.”
Who said it was a Bomb Factory? I think you will find the media did.
“Why do B-BBC posters always appear to want the BBC to jump the gun? Waiting until the facts are established would be much more conducive to accurate and impartial reporting, surely?”
While there are a few posters who do come across with that frame of mind, I think you will find that the vast majority berate the BBC for omitting stories, posting them late or even keeping them on the front page for weeks on end in which to promote a political bent, when the BBCs charter demands them to be apolitical.
Have a look at the BBC Middle east news site and tell me, how long has this video clip of Palestinians teachers working for no pay been up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da68003fc60/bb/09012da68003fd7e_16x9_bb.asx
Around 4 weeks I think you will find. Why so long? Could it be because it makes out the Palestinians (Note not Middle Easterners?) are victims at the expense of the Aid givers. (I wonder who they could be?) Who if they don’t cough up may attack the Jews as a sign of frustration? (Isn’t that blackmail?)
“Given that on a previous occasion a suspected Somali plumber turned out to be a Brazilian electrician, I’d have thought you lot would have grasped that by now.”
And if you are going to invent stories in which to defend the Anti British stance of the BBC, please be so kind as to substantiate that Somali Plumber angle. I for one haven’t heard that and I do keep my nose to the ground when it comes to the News.
P.S
While you’re at it. Maybe you could explain why the BBC is more than happy to promote the fundies in Mogadishu as a means in which to stamp out crime. (The last time that happened the Taliban took control and we all know what that lead to) Yet they blame everything on the Yanks. Yet as I pointed out with UN Security Council links, the US isn’t been blamed but rather the neighbours are.
As I stated in my post on the above topic. The BBC is more than happy to promote the words of an Islamic fundamentalist as gospel, yet remain silent on a UN report.
That is the bias the majority of people on these boards are against. We pay for a news service. Elsewhere if the service isn’t good enough then you either change service providers or demand changes from them. Last time I looked we are stuck with the BBC so I think you will find we are protesting in the only way the world will take notice. Now if you deem that we are wrong with our facts please post actual corrections. Not half truths which I have taken the time to correct from somebody whose parents came from abroad but who classes himself as English and not an Asian.
John Reith
I note that two words in particular seem to have gone missing from BBC reporting about 7/7.
IAN BLAIR
Do you remember that very day he had been resposible for blowing an innocent mans brains out, say that he was ” very proud of the emmergency services and that they had performed wonderfully.” and seemed very happy to take the credit for it.
Could it have something to do with the fact your bosses bosses gave IB the job in the first place? What happened to some mud getting thrown at the government, whose job it is to make sure the emergency services work properly.
Can I ring up David Cameron and tell him the BBC are going to give him such an easy ride, when he gets elected?
“Perhaps chemical agents don’t travel well so the device would need to be prepared and primed close to the target?”
generally they dont, given the highly volatile nature of chemical agents – hence the need to be near the target.
thats also the reason why the police acted immediately on the intelligence.
if there were bog standard explosives, they could have held back a bit to gain more intell.
John Reith writes:
“If you look into it I think you’ll be unpleasantly surprised by how much of a consensus there actually is among the science Establishment.”
I know you work for the BBC and that professional habits can be hard to break, but please don’t patronise me. I have looked into it, and there is a substantial body of scientific opinion that disputes the manmade global warming hypothesis.
What is more, that opposition comes from the ‘hard’ end of the scientific business. Many of those who delight in appending their names to hand-ringing letters to the press, hoping to impress us with their PhD credentials, turn out, on examination, to have qualifications in subjects other than climatology or other related disciplines.
And even if they hadn’t, when people like Prof Richard Lindzen (professor of meteorology at MIT) start to dispute the case, when scientists at Duke University dispute the alarmist fears propounded almost nightly on the BBC (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420- 115953-7360r.htm) when no less that 60 scientists risk their reputations and livelihoods to urge the Canadian government to look again at the ‘science’ (www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 ) , then that consensus by which you seem so impressed, looks rather less real than your colleagues want you to believe.
Above all, it remains the BBC’s duty to present both sides of such an undecided argument and it has not. Pictures of drowning polar bears and dewy-eyed Eskimo children are not scientific debate and they do nothing to enhance it – yet they are the staple fare of an argument that has been hijacked by sentimentalists with a clear political (not to say quasi-religious) agenda.
So in thrall to the Green lobby is the BBC that it has never treated this subject even-handedly, so your breezy: “There is a danger of never getting past first principles if you have to ritually debate the predicate of every argument.” is, as so often the case with your parries, quite wide of the mark.
The BBC has never treated the predicate to this debate with anything like seriousness – and certainly squashes any debate that rears its head today.
As ever, it has simply propounded the currently fashionable Liberal-Left received opinion.
pounce pounces!
Well said!
As far as ‘science consensus’ goes, does anybody remember why they’re supposed to eat polyunsaturated fat?
All through my youth during the 1980’s, that was hammered into our brains. Everybody agreed, and the BBC constantly repeayed, that:
Saturated fat = bad
Polyunsaturated fat = good
I haven’t heard that one for a while. I wonder why?
Polyunsaturated oils also contain transfats, which are harmful. So, the entire food industry quietly dropped all claims of ‘low in saturates, high in polyunsaturates’. The BBC never broadcast a retraction, so there are probably still people out there, trying to do the ‘right thing’ and actually harming their health.
‘Scientific consensus’ means nothing unless they are actually ‘right’.
The man-made global warming theory is just a theory. I studied Geochemistry at university and the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels than today, and also been much hotter (and colder) than today. Somehow, life survived?!?!?
Global warming isn’t a problem, so long as species are able to migrate. If the earth warms, then animals that require certain temperatures and ecosystem will migrate towards the poles. If the earth cools, they move towards the equator.
Rather than wasting a trillion dollars a year on Kyoto, trying to slow global warming by 7 years, maybe we should concentrate our efforts on cleaner fuels and habitat protection?
Don’t you think the BBC should explore these ideas? At the moment is just peddles Green Peace ‘research’ as fact and shouts down/stiffles any opposing views
“Rather than wasting a trillion dollars a year on Kyoto, trying to slow global warming by 7 years,”
i concur. kyoto has been a miserable failure – rather than focusing on reducing emissions, they should have pumped that money into alternative energy technology. The Americans have the right idea in that regard.
i cant help wondering if the whole “climate change” bandwagon is just a distraction from the “oil running out”.
lets face it – if you say “the oil is running out” , the price will shoot up , people will panic , companies will stockpile oil – which will lead to higher prices, and more panic.
however, if you say “climate change – we need to lower oil dependence” , you dont get as much market panic.
correct me if i’m wrong, but that Panorama documentary never mentioned global dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
in short : pollution is “good”. it reflects the sunlight back, thereby lowering temperatures and counterbalancing the greenhouse effect.
but i suppose that doesnt fit into the Beeboid Greenpeace mindset.
archduke,
There is actually another factor at work. Steam ships at sea chuck out a load of smoke. This rises really high into the atmosphere and the sulphur is important in cloud formation. These clouds then reflect the suns heat, back into space.
Bit too complicated for the BBC’s mantra of fossil fuels = bad
John Reith
Do me a favour.
You have a degree in English, I do not. As I am paying your wages. Please use words that I and other people, not as overeducated as yourself, can understand. Your explanations are complicated enough.
I always find the simplest explanations are the most honest ones.
You seem to read this site a fair amount, so you must have read my opinion about bias on the BBC, which you have never replyed to.
So as simply as I can put it, here it is.
There is no such thing as being honest and unbias at the same time. Or put another way all moral and honest people are bias. This is not open to debate it is a trueism.
So why do you and the BBC still claim that the BBC is doing the impossible?
I want honest personal expert opinion. I dont want the BBCs idear of impartiality, as it MUST come from dishonest reporters. Therefore excuses for such, must also come from dishonest people employed to make those excuses.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925385.500.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16322001.100.html
That was me
Grimer
I tend to believe that there are many very very smart people working at the BBC. With the sort of wages pensions and working conditions there, this is not remarkable. Therefore it is not to “complicated” for them to understand. The point is, they dont want to understand.
Even if they did want to understand, they dont want to tell us, the suckers that pay their wages.