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
With regrets over the removal of habeus corpus for the duration of hostilities, Churchill and his Home Secretary John Anderson did not have many people to intern in WW2. Even knowing that there were a lot of innocents involved, parking a few hundred people in the Isle of Wight or wherever was an administrative simplicity and it eliminated virtually all the risk of a fifth column.
It would be a damn sight harder to do that now, if the whatsit really hit the fan. If not impossible. The numbers of sympathisers/backers/fellow-travellers with jihad must be far far larger than Churchill faced. Shades of Mao and his notion of communist cadres swimming hidden and safe among the fish of the Chinese workers.
DD,
I thought that liberal politics and presumably liberal media such as the BBC went down better in the richer parts of the US like the East coast and California, wheras Conservative attitudes are more prevalent in the poorer South and inland regions.
Does this not partly explain the apparent imbalance between the skew of US media towards liberal views against the majority of consumers being broadly conservative – its the media chasing the ABC1 advertising cash.
Happy to be corrected.
You are confusing your Iraq with your Iran
You’re right, I stand corrected.
All these dictatorial, Jew hating, megalomaniacal regimes look the same to me 😉
However the message is pretty much the same – “if the Israelis hadn’t done it things would have been better.”
They sprinkled HYS on the World Service last night liberally with people from Forest Gate as well as a motley crew from Canada, including one Mara from CBC who giggled when another guest called Peter King, Chairman of the US Homeland Security Committee, a “fool” for pointing out Canada’s liberal immigration policy. He continued his little rant against King uninterrupted by the HYS host.
Mara added that Americans should get their facts straight before “shooting off at the mouth.”
Amazing. London and Toronto are targeted by terror and the US comes in for criticism.
Well, not so amazing, really. Standard fare for the British Bullsh*tting Corporation.
Worry not, the BBC employs more people to ensure the muslim community are taken care of:
BBC appoints diversity executive
http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/media/article/562767/bbc-appoints-diversity-executive/
Diversity, maybee – but it’s ok to slag off the gays though, as that’s in compliance with official MCB rules as outlined by Sacranie:
BBC defends DJ’s ‘gay’ jibe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/06/ugay.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/06/ixnews.html
Bryan, the Canadians seem to be taking a leaf out of the Beeb’s book and trying hard to be PC:
ANALYSIS | `They represent the broad strata of our community,’ the RCMP says.
SURYA BHATTACHARYA, NASREEN GULAMHUSEIN AND HEBA ALY
STAFF REPORTERS
…
[And] still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.
Perhaps there’s a clue as to the “common denominator” in the photo, and the names of the staff reporters.
What’s this doing on the BBC website?
Oh wait, check the date.
Cockney writes:
“Does this not partly explain the apparent imbalance between the skew of US media towards liberal views against the majority of consumers being broadly conservative – its the media chasing the ABC1 advertising cash.”
Not really. The liberal bias of the US media stems (much as it does here) from the Left’s hegemony in higher education, from which almost all meejah employees are recruited these days.
Without an alternative, there was nowhere else for advertisng dollars to go.
Now there is. Fox and talk radio.
Of course, the best thing to listen to remains the hysterical screeching of Lefties as their monopoly is snatched away.
“Without an alternative, there was nowhere else for advertisng dollars to go.
Now there is. Fox and talk radio.
Of course, the best thing to listen to remains the hysterical screeching of Lefties as their monopoly is snatched away.
GCooper | 06.06.06 – 12:20 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Things are a bit slower in the UK. Channel4, has just launched Channel 4 Radio in competition with the BBC but it might take up to 2 years for Channel 4 to get a national licence.
The BBC is still ‘squashing’ all competition infront of it, using it’s ample tax funds.
Channel 4 ready to launch radio service to rival BBC
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article625627.ece
“Ofcom will reach a decision on who will run the new multiplex by spring next year. If Channel 4 is successful, its full radio service will be up and running by 2008.
Channel 4 Radio
http://www.channel4radio.com/
JohnOfBorg,
Re: Check the date.
1998,that’s two years after neocons landed on the sun.
back up and running, still only 68 comments?!
East London raid: Your views
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1998&edition=1&ttl=20060606125239&#paginator
“How will the recent terror raid affect the local community relations with the police?
Trust between the police and the local community affected by the terror raid that took place in east London “could break down”, according to the new Muslim Council of Britain leader……”
DumbJon’s ***** movie review.
Today-Real Clear Politics: “BBC Bringing ‘Sophisticated’ News to America”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bbc_bringing_sophisticated_new.html
“The Other British Invasion”
Wise up America, and wise up fast.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22458
.
I don’t understand the hand wringing about the ‘threat’ of the BBC (and indeed the Grauniad) going into the US. Obviously there’s a niche market there amongst Europhiles and ultra (from a US perspective) liberals, but it surely is very niche – I sincerely doubt that anyone will be ‘influenced’.
Fox has been available to the majority(?) of the UK population via satellite/cable/digital for a while now and I’m pleased to note a distict lack of US conservative social norms creeping into UK society. You can’t convert a stable, affluent, relatively happy society by throwing your alien ideas at it.
I am fed up of the media and assorted mouthpieces pointing out how the “muslim Community” might fall out of love with the Police. Well why do they assume the majority “White” population is deeply in love with the Police ?
It seems to be a politically-correct instrument of Government policy and not a locally-accountable police force.
I don’t trust them and find Muslims hilarious when they say how awful it is the the police suspect some of their boys might have incendiary personalities with explosive tendencies.
And as for the BBC proclaiming “the newly-elected Head of the MCB”………….just who elected him ? what was the turnout ? What was his Manifesto ? Who were the other candidates ?
Does this not partly explain the apparent imbalance between the skew of US media towards liberal views against the majority of consumers being broadly conservative – its the media chasing the ABC1 advertising cash.
Happy to be corrected.
Cockney
To ignorant to correct you, Cockney, but consider Channel4 News.
Unashamedly lefty, aired after you have struggled home from EC2, yet very poorly supported by advertising – usually 1 ad per break.
Good article here:
“Nonetheless, the rigorous media practice in Phase One is to suppress any reference to Islam, the single thread that runs through virtually all modern terrorism—from New York, to Virginia, to Bali, the Djerba, to Baghdad, to Mombassa, to Tel Aviv, to Nairobi, to Dar es Salaam, to Ankara, to Paris, to Riyadh, to Amman, to Sharm el-Sheikh, to Aden, to London, to Madrid, and, now, to Toronto.
Consequently, the piece of information most obviously pertinent to the public’s understanding of what could be catalyzing this global savagery is consciously withheld. Such a revelation might, after all, lead people to ask the sensible question: What is it about Islam that makes it such a fertile breeding ground for this pathology?”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmRjMThlNDA0YmNmZWU1NzM4MGQ0NmVkOTUwMzExZTA=
“Look North” at 1:30pm has report on sexual abuse of a young boy.
We are told that a description of the wanted man has been issued.
It appears on half the screen in grey on lighter grey.
The information is not read out by the newsreader, who continues with the story.
The first word of the description, “Asian”.
Can’t bear to say it?
Is it possible that the police and MI5 have been infultrated by “the enemy”. I think it likely that they have, in some ways anyway. By its nature the Muslim community is hard to scutinise in the way the IRA may have been. It means that the police and MI5 only have British muslims to use for their inside information.
Maybe I have read to many spy books,however.
What better way for the enemy to undermined the governments efforts to controll terrorism and the Muslim community? That is to send the security services out on repeated high profile, BBC reported, “wild goose chases.”
Shooting an innocent Brasilian for instance, straight after 7/7, may have been a clue.
“Cock up,” conspiracy or good police work, who knows? However if it is a cock up and this continues to happen, smell a rat, I will.
Britain’s dirty little secret:
The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July’s London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain’s dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a “gentlemen’s agreement” that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was “Londonistan”, as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe.
More
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2212130,00.html
Cockney writes:
” I don’t understand the hand wringing about the ‘threat’ of the BBC (and indeed the Grauniad) going into the US.”
Who’s wringing their hands? Many Americans seem to have been offended by the BBC’s patronising attitude and US media interests resent the intrusion of a foreign government-owned outlet taking unfair advantage of its revenue source.
Brits of a non-Islington persuasion, at the same time, resent having to pay for the BBC’s megalomanic expansion plans when it can’t even (or refuses even) to offer a decent, unbiased domestic service.
As for the Grauniad – who cares?
BBC continues Brown promotion…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5052152.stm
Has anybody else noticed that although it appears on the main “On This Day” page the anniversary of D-Day is missing from the revolving OTD topics on the main news page.
Even this story here fails to mention it:
Honours for Britain’s oldest man
Britain’s oldest surviving war veteran has celebrated his 110th birthday at the Grand Hotel in Eastbourne.
…
As the celebrations got under way, Mr Allingham said he was profoundly honoured to receive the congratulations which included a letter from Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup.
Perhaps dave t could confirm that “Stirrup” pronounced with a Glaswegian accent sounds a lot like “Strap”? 😉
G cooper
One good thing that might come out of the BBCs venture to hollywood is that they might just piss-off enough Americans, to help us get rid of the BBC for good. Maybe just wishfull thinking.
Cockney cant see a problem, with the BBC risking our “force funded” cash to propergandise the American public. Which is also why he does not want to see BBC bias when he is looking right at it. Cockney would also not see an elephant even if it was standing on his foot. However I warn him and the BBC that many ordinary Labour voters HAVE noticed. They are still waiting for the Labour party to keep at least some of the many prommises on which it got elected. They in my opinion are not going to give Cockneys lot another chance.
These remarks by the new leader of the MCB sound distinctly like threats of violence from the Muslim community.
Is the BBC reporting this ? If not – why not ? They must have heard the same words as Agence France Presse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060606/wl_uk_afp/britainpolicesecurity_060606094605
Not covered elsewhere in this thread I think …
Yesterday’s “Start the Week”, 9am R4. Supposedly a program designed to air cutting edge developments in a broad range of arts, literature, philosphy and politics.
The guests: two self-declared “Old Labour” socialists and a woman from LSE who revealed herself to be a Labour Party member discussing the right direction for the Labour Party. I quote from LSE woman: “The problem for Labour is that no-one knows what it stands for anymore. We need to be able to say in a word or two … ‘What do we stand for'”. The political leanings of the fourth panellist were not apparent.
OK, this was only about a 10-minute chunnk of the program, but all the same.
I thought this showed a severe lack of political balance on the program, possibly indicative of the producers’ own social networks and preferences.
I’m only just beginning to realise how much left-wing opinion I’ve ingested through the BBC throughout my life in a context which presents it as if it were received wisdom.
“The problem for Labour is that no-one knows what it stands for anymore. We need to be able to say in a word or two … ‘What do we stand for'”.
I can do it in one.
ANYTHING
These remarks by the new leader of the MCB sound distinctly like threats of violence from the Muslim community.
“Is the BBC reporting this ? If not – why not ? They must have heard the same words as Agence France Presse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ 2006…ty_060606094605
dumbcisco | 06.06.06 – 6:26 pm | # ”
——————————————————————————–
Yeah,
But the BBC is **** when it comes to foreign languages.
dumbcisco,
These remarks by the new leader of the MCB sound distinctly like threats of violence from the Muslim community.
correct URL:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060606/wl_uk_afp/britainpolicesecurity_060606094605
Search google for “THE COVENANT OF SECURITY”
http://clublet.com/why?CovenantOfSecurity
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/08/08/bye_bye_bakri.php
Omar Bakri Mohammed was a proponent of the doctrine of the “covenant of security”. The essence of the doctrine was that as long as British-based jihadists were tolerated, the United Kingdom, those individuals would not commit acts of terrorism in Britain. The covenant did not bind non-UK based jihadists, who refrained from bombing Britain for the pragmatic reason that their activities would result in the arrest and prosecution of jihadists who used the United Kingdom as a base for their activities. Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly revoked the “covenant” in February “because of the clampdown by the British government” on British based jihadists.
Anonymous writes:
“I’m only just beginning to realise how much left-wing opinion I’ve ingested through the BBC throughout my life in a context which presents it as if it were received wisdom.”
You have put your finger on what is, in fact, by far the greatest threat from the BBC – not the overt political bias of its intentionally political output, but the inherent bias present in almost all of its offerings.
Anyone trapped in a car, as I frequently am, who listens to Radio 4 (or, at a pinch, the awful R5) will soon hear for themselves what I mean – whether it be the liberal-Left leaning of R5 types like Simon Mayo, or the subject matter of afternoon R4 plays. It’s not that the latter deal with Marxist dialectic – rather that they come at life with all the presuppositions and prejudices of the Guardian reader stumbling out of the staff room, off to take year 4 geography. The tone, the subject matter, the concerns…
Mix in the almost naked biases of offerings as diverse as You and Yours, The Food Programme, The Now Show, Four Corners and what you have is a constant feed of Left-liberal ideas – almost subliminal advertising – which the listener absorbs, as if by osmosis.
This is, I should add, not a purpose, but an effect. The BBC cannot be any other way because of what it is and who works for it.
While our universities continue to churn-out graduates imbued with Leftist ideas, or until the BBC starts recruiting from a wider pool, it will never change.
This is why I believe the BBC to be the single most dangerous body at work within the UK. And, yes, that includes the MCB!
Has anyone noticed on the ‘Have your say’ forums that anytime a view that is against the politically correct viewpoint of the BBC (pro-USA/Israel or anti-Muslim) that the top votes seem to suddenly dissappear and when you refresh the screen, the pc points suddenly have the highest number of votes? I’ve also noticed that hys comments unpopular with the BBC have had their votes removed, so they are not highly rated. Has anyone else noticed this happening? I hope I make sense!
Well Said GCooper.
Community reacts to terror raid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5053542.stm
“I’m angry – very angry,” says Farhana Pandor and so on…
My heart goes out for them (not!). Shouldn’t it read “Muslim community reacts to infidel terror raid”?
Babs, if you can prove this it would be pretty shocking. They may remove posts they might consider likely to incite hatred etc which might be popular – but if more general posts are removed just because they become popular and they “don’t like”, that’s terrible. Worth doing the occasional screen capture (google it) to follow proceedings 🙂
BBC appoints ‘minorities’ executive
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06062006/344/bbc-appoints-minorities-executive.html
10 o’clock news on beeb makes great play of the death rate in Iraq with the egregious John (“It’s a massacre and the US did it”) Gimpson sounding off. They cite a death toll of 6000 over the last 5 months, an annual rate of 14,400.
See the link below where 4 countries exceed this rate: India, Russia, Colombia and South Africa.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
Are these 4 countries in civil war?
Babs:
Please correct me if I have misinterpreted, but are you saying you think that the BBC is rigging its HYS ‘readers recommend’ poll?
I can think of a reason they could give to do this legitimately (and if they are ‘pruning’ the poll results, the excuse will no doubt surface shortly)
What seems obvious is that they set some value on the ‘readers recommend’ results otherwise they would never have included as part of the HYS section.
D Burbage. I actually did do a screen capture a while ago, just to prove to myself that I wasn’t imagining it. However, they can always say that I photoshopped it so I don’t think it could be proved. I’ve seen it happen on more than one HYS thread. It happened earlier on the ‘should Ahmadininejad be allowed to watch his team in Germany at the world cup”. All the top posts were against him being allowed in to Germany. The next time I looked these posts had either mysteriously disappeared or had devalued in vote numbers. The highest votes had suddenly become ‘yes lets let a holocaust denying homophobe into Germany as he is no worse than Bush’ and other stupid lefty votes that had been at the bottom before.
BBC program tonight:
Five Disasters Waiting to Happen
from Radio Times
“Documentary, based on climate scenarios predicted by leading experts, examining how prepared five threatened places are for potential catastrophic events. London is building on stilts to counter the threat of river flooding; Paris is searching for new ways to beat the heat after 15,000 heatwave deaths in 2003; Shanghai and Mumbai are threatened by typhoons and monsoonal flooding; and a South Pacific island may provide a warning to the world with the first climate change environmental refugees.”
Very balanced I think! Where are the scenarios from other “leading experts” that suggest this is all a load of tosh. I am not saying it is, just that it would be nice to see views from all sides. I keep hearing about some sort of charter thingy that says something about the BBC being impartial.
Biased BBC reporting on the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
“Former Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr Imad Khadduri speaks to the BBC News website:
We had just finished a day’s shift work and were back at our homes around 1800 [1500 GMT] that day. I heard the explosions all the way from my home, which is about 25km [16 miles] away.
I ran to the roof for a better view, and witnessed the smoke plumes rising from the area of the Tuwaitha Research Centre [where the Osirak reactor was located] and watched the Israeli planes flying west into the sunset.
It was immediately clear that they were Israeli airplanes.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4774541.stm
Oh really, lets look at the above in detail.
Osirak is actually much closer to Iran than Israel.
Iraq was at war with Iran at the time.
Iran had actually bombed the reactor 7 months before by launching an air attack on the 30th Sept 1980 with 2 American built F4 Phantom jets.
In response, the official Iraqi news agency issued the following statement: “The Iranian people should not fear the Iraqi nuclear reactor, which is not intended to be used against Iran, but against the Zionist entity.”
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2002/0802osirak.html
Hang on isn’t Al Beeb saying the exact opposite here?
Anyway somebody who lives 16 miles away from the reactor knew they were Israeli (thus perpetuating the evil Jew angle from the BBC) by noting they were flying west into the sunset. Must have bloody good eyesight as anybody following jets from otherhead has a hard time trying to make out the craft never mind from 16 miles away.
Point to note BBC Israel had never bombed Iraq, wasn’t at war with Iraq and flew over 2000 miles (round trip) through Saudi Arabia in which to launch their attack.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/OsirakLocation.gif
And the BBC sells the image that Dr Imad Khadduri knew they were Israeli Jets.
Tell me BBC, if that was so, how come the world community still reports on the attack on the Osirak reactor as daring and totally by surprise?
pounce,
always great, keep-up
Some time ago, the BBC had problems with a text-in vote. The RoP got its message out and any self-respecting mo with a mobile texted into the Beeb.
They flooded the Beeb with messages and it jammed up Auntie’s text handling system for two days. At the end the BBC was left with a ludicrous vote result.
Babs:
MinTruth will say that groups of people are voting ‘en bloc’ and the results of the HYS ‘RR’ polls are being skewed. The BBC will then say that the results are being filtered to make them more representative.
I say it’s their poll and they are entitled to rig it anyway they want.
Google finds 842 results for “Dr Imad Khadduri”.
He certainly has a lot to say for himself, just what the BBC likes, and this page is from June 2003:
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/ikhadduri.htm
Biased BBC and how it apologises and covers up for terrorists
Nice little article about a suicide bomber in Afghanistan from Al Beeb;
“Encounter with an Afghan suicide bomber
The blast was loud enough to drown out the sounds from my personal music player. In the same instant, it seemed as if we and the tonnage of our armoured vehicle were airborne.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5052952.stm
Great a first hand account from the Beeb about a suicide bomber attack on them.
Note that he states he was in an armoured vehicle?
Which he further elaborates by saying this;
“Further inquiries to the BBC’s office in Kabul revealed that, while we were saved by the Canadian armour, it had reflected the blast into the street, killing four Afghan civilians and wounding 15.”
And this;
“Ten inches of Canadian amour had meant that I was able to ring home and tell Linda, my partner, that I was okay.”
And this;
“I carry no pretence about being brave. After all, I was behind 10 inches of armour and I’m going home at the end of the week.”
So what image do you glean from that? That the reporter was in an Armoured personal carrier like this;
http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/image_666.asp?page_id=720
I mean it must be as he states that the blast from the car bomb was reflected back into the crowd killing 4 wounding 15.
Only one problem with that enforced scenario he also said this;
“The only damage to us was a flat tyre and a smashed window. Miraculously everyone in the convoy escaped serious injury.”
Now as the Battlefield taxis which I linked in with its huge sides in which to reflect that blast into the crowd is an M113 has tracks then the vehicle he was in was either a Nyala
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehnyala.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31
or a G wagon
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehgwag-cr.htm
(The LAV doesn’t have windows, but armoured ports)
The former is designed with IEDs in mind and thus is designed to push the blast wave up and away from the vehicle and not back (which requires a lot of weight) and at 7.8 tonnes I very much doubt that it has armour 10 inches thick.
So lets go back to that blast wave which bounced off that armoured vehicle killing 4 people.
What our reporter fails to state is that when a car bomb (or any bomb goes off) everybody in the local area gets a piece. (Think water and how the ripples move outwards when a drop of water hits it from the middle)To state that a blast wave was responsible for the deaths of a number of people fails to acknowledge that a much more destructive blast wave had already got there first. The only way for a blastwave to be reflected back in the direction it came and kill people behind the detonation point would be to use some form of shaped charge. (Not withstanding the back blast) as a load of explosives in a motor is somewhat omni directional I think we can discount that idea.
So would I be correct in saying that Al Beeb is once again trying to allocate the deaths of innocent bystanders on the Western forces operation on a UN mandate (American, Britain and Canada) rather than the true idiots who wish to impose their ideals on others.
10 inches of armour indeed?
The main armour on the Bismarck was 12” thick and that was to protect it from the likes of 14” guns not car bombs.
Rare sighting of unbiased article on US and its companies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5051544.stm
AntiCitizenOne:
Generally unbiased apart from
“But while giving climbed 14%, average income among 62 of the donors studied was up 17%, while profits rose 15%.”
Which means the Beeb wants them to donate 15 – 17 percent…
That should have read “…to increase their donations by…”
When will the Chairman of the BBC Board, Michael Grade, intervene to stop all this arrant nonsense from the BBC ? When will Grade, who like all of us lauds Stanley Baxter on his 80th birthday – the most un-PC comedian he WORKED WITH – stop all this ridiculous and DANGEROUS PC crap the BBC is pumping out on all channels 24/7 ?
What would Stanley Baxter have said about the MCB ? How would Stanley Baxter have played Iqbal Saccranie ?
MICHAEL GRADE – do you ever listen ?
Your Press Office will put the stuff published here on your desk.
Do you give a monkey’s toss about how low the BBC has brought itswef ?
Unhappy but Blunt Question – Is Michael Grade, because he is Jewish, inhibited to crack down on the pro-Islam line we are being fed all the time ?
Do we need a new Chairman of the BBC whom we know will not be inhibited ? Can we have a non-religious Chairman ?
Grade is an honourable man. A man with more TV calibre then most of the rest of them put together.
But he may be the wrong man in the slot.
Destination UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/destination_uk/default.stm
And the Beeb are pleased about the UK being the main destination. Tells you a lot, doesn’t it.