Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC defeatism is shameful. The British army had faced much worse losses in a single day during WWII, to say nothing of WWI.
Of course the death of our soldiers is a tragedy, but five soldiers in three weeks is not at all heavy casualties.
I can only imagine what today’s BBC would say about the Dambusters raid in WWII, in which 53 of the 133 aircrew were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambusters
Dave P
I am sorry if you were offended. I was disputing your suggestion that there were no polls other than the 29% one that could have taken Bush’s ratings down to 30 or thereabouts.
I re-iterate – I saw the average at RCP lower than the 34 or 35 you suggest, at the time when the BBC kept yapping on about Bush’s low approval ratings.
And what about all those newspaper articles talking about the “low 30s” – that surely does not imply 35 or even 34% which people would describe as the mid-30s. Google gave DOZENS of articles with the phrase “low 30s” for Bush approval ratings. I suggest you set those journalists’ perceptions against your calculations in the garden – or are you suggesting the UK and US journalists all made it up ?
There is also the Times article that will has posted :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2251285,00.html
I am emailing RCP to ask them if they have records of how low their average went. It certainly wasn’t 34 or 35% at the low point. I will post any reply I get from RCP.
Meanwhile I hold to the notion that to move from the low 30s to 40 is a significant bounce-back.
And the substantive point remains – the BBC was yapping about Bush’s approval ratings when they were very low. They aren’t yapping now. If the movement was from, say, 32 to 40 on the RCP average – that is a 25% increase. 31 to 40 would have been 29%.
Anon at 8.45pm was me
dave t
Thank you for your post about the weenies at the BBC quaking in their boots every time the Army loses a soldier.
They really are ridiculous.
My father was on the Somme in 1916. Like so many others, he never talked about it – I merely have his faded army papers.
The problem these days is that the BBC has virtually no-one in their news staff with direct military experience, and they seem more willing to criticise our forces than to get a close feel for the mood, for what is really happenoijng on the ground. My impression is that the Brits have inflicted a fair amount of damage on the Taleban – that does not come through clearly and consistently from BBC reporting.
Just reporting the bad stuff – including rumour and in some cases lies – is not what the BBC should be doing. They KNOW their reports are then used against us in the propaganda battle.
Where oh where to begin with Andrew Marx? (Socialism This) Sunday AM BBC 1 9am.
Another Garrilous female Gonzo Journalist (how Marx hates women, let us count the ways!) and then a girlie man in the form of Chris Patten who was sure that “the little people dont even know what the EPP is”, bless thier cotton socks.
Later in the (freak)show, Marx had the gall to put George Soros in the same league as Bill Gates & Warren Buffet (like putting Billy Bragg in the same league as Frank Sinatra & Tony Bennett) and was visibly salivating as he grovelled before the man who had used his mountain of cash not to fund global health & education programs but to overturn the Democratically elected George Bush. This naturally makes Soros a hero in the BBC Bowel.
Later, Marx`s relativism was pounded by a spokesman for Israel who was forced by events to inhabit a place far less comfortable than the Taxpayer (pbuh) funded Freakin` La La Land in which Andrew Marx touts for trade. “This cant go on” chided Marx from thhe comfort of SW1.
No Andrew Marx, this cant go on. Your clapped out generation of Pontificating TellyTax funded White Bwana Chiefs have to realize that Authoritarian Socialism is a massive turn off, and furthur more, being Tolerant, Multicultural and Anti Racist is something that you ARE, not something that you DO.
You may want to tell Paxman, Naughtie, Humphries & Bolderson and Montague that too.
Tossers.
bbc news 24’s second lead item was about the 2 paras killed in afghanistan – “5 soldiers in three weeks killed” , and much hang wringing about it.
however, one has to wonder – how many British soldiers die each week in accidents? crashes?
whilst the 2 paras being killed in undoubtedly very sad, whats not mentioned , as reported in the Sunday Times this morning, is that in one engagement , the paras eliminated 25 Taliban – for no wounded or killed on our side.
may i add – why dont the BBC have a lead story about that engagement i mentioned.
why no “25 Taliban killed – our boys victorious” headline?
hmmmm. from reading dumbciscos point about, i’m half wondering if the Taliban are gaining propaganda ground in the conflict – for the BBC is not blaring out THEIR casualties.
the question comes to mind that if the BBC started doing this, then surely the brothers of Beeston would have second thought about joining the Jihad in Afghanistan.
SiN
Andrew Marrx and Patten showed the comtempt that the political elite hold for the masses and democracy.Notice how they talk to people of”influence”and think that only ideas can go forward if theInfluential People approve them.
The proles are ignorants who are susceptible to—POPULISM.Oh dear I`ve shownI dont find the word or its meaning reppellent.
archduke:
hmmmm. from reading dumbciscos point about, i’m half wondering if the Taliban are gaining propaganda ground in the conflict – for the BBC is not blaring out THEIR casualties.
the question comes to mind that if the BBC started doing this, then surely the brothers of Beeston would have second thought about joining the Jihad in Afghanistan.
Menawhile:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20060524.aspx
“The last two weeks have seen an ambitious Taliban offensive shot to pieces. As many as a thousand Taliban gunmen, in half a dozen different groups, have passed over the Pakistani border, or been gathered within Afghanistan, and sent off to try and take control of remote villages and districts. The offensive was a major failure, with nearly half the Taliban getting killed, wounded or captured. Afghan and Coalition casualties were much less, although you wouldn’t know that from the mass media reports (which made it all look like a Taliban victory). The Taliban faced more mobile opponents, who had better intelligence. UAVs, aircraft and helicopters were used to track down the Taliban, and catch them. Thousands of Afghan troops and police were in action, exposing some of them to ambush, as they drove to new positions through remote areas.
Yes, as Bill Roggio noted, and Michael Yon confirmed, the news reports, rather exaggerated to begin with, are of the form “Dozens killed in renewed fighting,” without mentioning that most of those killed are people who should be killed.”
BBC et al – the new HawHaw
“Since May, more than 600 Afghans, mostly militants, have been reported killed in Afghanistan, according to an Associated Press tally based on coalition and Afghan figures.”
In return 5 Brits and around 10 US/Canadian soldiers have died including an Apache heli pilot today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201830,00.html
Look at this page in Fox and see the wee window with the linked stories – almost all showing defeats and losses for the Taliban (another 26 Taliban killed today), and most of which I’ve not seen on the BBC.
And they wonder why people prefer Fox!
The other day I questioned the idea that we have had large-scale immigration for decades. This article gives a few figures that show the recent levels are historically very high. It also challenges the nostrum we always hear from the BBC that immigration is a net economic gain. Much of the current immigration is an economic drain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/07/02/do0202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/07/02/ixop.html
Broadcasting House this morning had an item on Somali immigration, for example. It started by giving the very misleading impression that there have always been significant numbers of Somalis here – and that large numbers of Somalis fought for Britain. With the flavour “Why are people making such a fuss?”
It skated over the fact that only part of what may now be called Somalia was a former colony. And it gave virtually NIL numerical info about the recent large influxes, about the levels of unemployment etc. The figures are available, there have been studies on the Somali population – a properly researched report should have provided them.
Market Participant,
Has the story of “Mariyah” who was so tragicly paralysed by a stray bit of shrapnel, been verified by the BBC yet?
I’m afraid I don’t know. But on the subject of shrapnel, we have a new descriptive term for the Kassams, courtesy of a UN guy called de Souta or something who has been plonked in Gaza to pretend to do whatever it is the UN pretends to do in conflict situations.
Here he is on HYS on the World Service today:
….Israelis ….who live in the fear that one of these improvised rockets will one day actually hit a target – which they haven’t done, at least not recently.
[Right, tell that to the guy who was recently seriously injured by a Kassam fired into a Sderot school. Or the people more recently injured by Kassam shrapnel in Sderot.]
It’s incredible. It’s like a virus. Anyone sympathetic to the Palestinians immediately wants to turn their rockets into firecrackers that continually veer off target.
On the same show there was a wonderfully revealing moment when a Palestinian who was moaning endlessly about the ‘occupation’ and how the whole world is against the Palestinians suddenly stopped and corrected herself because she realised she’d been using the second person “you” and that the BBC could take that as directed at itself.
I don’t mean you she hastened to add.
I only caught part of the HYS programme on the radio. But it can be watched here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm#
The video link is under Gaza incursion: your views. Worth watching.
SiN Later in the (freak)show, Marx had .. George Soros .. and was visibly salivating as he grovelled before the man
However at the end of the interview his salivating was prompted by panic as Soros bumbled about the set, repeatedly getting between Marx, the camera & teleprompt, whilst exiting stage left.
Further Taliban propaganda from the vile Alex Thomson writing the snowmail for today’s C4 News
Two more soldiers have been killed by Taliban forces in northern Helmand, southern Afghanistan. So too, was their Afghan translator. From the dusts of Helmand three things are now clear beyond any doubt; firstly, the Talibs are well organised fighters, able to call upon large numbers of volunteers and lay on professional ambushes apparently at will.
Secondly, with a force of just over 3000 in an area at least 250 miles north/south by 100 miles east/west, the task of establishing military control is virtually impossible if the Taliban does not wish for it.
“The Germans are well organised fighters, able to call upon large numbers of volunteers and lay on professional ambushes apparently at will.”
— Lord Haw-Haw doing an impression of the modern BBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw
Doesn’t the BBC sound alot like what a professional traitor would say?
Broadcasting House this morning had an item on Somali immigration, for example. It started by giving the very misleading impression that there have always been significant numbers of Somalis here – and that large numbers of Somalis fought for Britain. With the flavour “Why are people making such a fuss?”
It no doubt forgot that the latest 2900 who arrived in Slough are part of an exodus from The Netherlands where the benefits climate is getting harsher – the move to the green pastures of England are obviously a reason for their being 100.000 Somalis in Britain (sorry England) today………………
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050105-094454-3064r.htm
Somalis exiting Netherlands for Britain
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
TILBURG, Netherlands — An estimated 20,000 Dutch Somalis have left the Netherlands for Britain over the past five years, escaping a multicultural model once touted as the most enlightened in the world.
They have expressed frustration with a system they say keeps them trapped in welfare dependency and fosters ethnic tension.
Somali Muslim families are moving en masse to Leicester and Birmingham in England from the industrial cities of Tilburg and Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2004/02/18/euro_immigration040218.html
The Netherlands began tightening its immigration laws in 2001. It has since lowered limits on the number of newcomers to the country and opened a number of “departure centres.”
Entire families are held at the centres until flights can be arranged to send them back to their countries of origin.
The 26,000 to be deported will be put in detention and offered assistance to leave voluntarily. At the end of eight weeks, they would be forcibly flown to their home country.
http://www.somaliland.org/arcns.asp?ID=04032705
Desperate Somalis yearn to escape anarchic lives for jobs and peace in UK
In war-scarred capital bristling with guns, getting food on the table is first priority
Jeevan Vasagar in Mogadishu
Thursday March 25, 2004
The Guardian
A knack for making the best of a poor situation is a prerequisite for most estate agents, but few need it more than Abdurashid Abdullahi. Business is bad. Mr Abdullahi needs to sell at least one property a month to support his family, but not many people want to buy a home in Mogadishu.
Thirteen years after the collapse of Somalia’s last functioning central government, the civil war has cooled but there is still no security for the ordinary citizen, and little hope of a lasting peace.
When asked where he would rather be, Mr Abdullahi answers without a moment’s hesitation: “Ingiriis” – “Britain”. Four of his relatives have already been granted asylum in the Netherlands, but he would prefer to go to London than join them in Rotterdam.
“Britain is a country with a big Somali community, where it is easy to get jobs,” Mr Abdullahi said. “It is easier than the rest of Europe. Jobs are the problem. Holland hasn’t got many. Work permits as well. In Holland, it takes a very long time. I want to leave for the safety of my family, because there is no government here, and no police.”
More than 2,500 asylum seekers from Somalia were granted refugee status in Britain in 2002, the largest number from any country. More than 6,000 applied last year.
With all of the problems in Somalia, is it not possible that Somalis may be the cause of them? Or is that question ‘racist’?
Somalia’s problems are the result of socialist chaos, following by islamic chaos.
Without free markets and economic development: war and poverty naturally ensure.
I may be nit picking, but I find the BBC’s continued use of the word ‘rockets’ to describe the deadly missiles fired by Hamas terrorists into Israel as another piece of spin and manipulation.
Rocket is almost benign, conjuring up images of Guy Fawkes night, or of a millenium celebration.
My dictionary defines ‘Rocket’ as a cylindical projectile that can be propelled to a great height or distance by the combustion of its contents, used typically as a firework or signal.
Presumably Hamas are trying to brighten up the lives of those living on the Israeli side of the border, or maybe trying to signal something.
‘Missile’ however is described as an object which is forcibly propelled at a target, a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosives.
jr, as a journalist, broadcaster and, no doubt, a commentator for the BBC, wold you care to comment on this minor anomaly
Read this link where the Beeb gives a thoroughly unbiassed and neutral pen sketch of the two main candidates, Obrador (Left) and Calderon (Right)…..now is it all that difficult to work out which one the Beeb has the hots for………..especially as the beeboids must be always lovingly kissing their DVDs of Viva Zapata…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5114388.stm
No, that question hits the nail on the head.
Er… I was responding to Allan@Aberdeen | 03.07.06 – 7:05 am
So, MP. The problems in Somalia are nothing to do with Somalis? How about their high rates of criminality in this country and in Holland – any link to Somalis?
callingall comets
That piece you posted about the candidates in Mexico is a real find.
Totally unbiased, of course.
(Horse laughs off)