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.
Pounce
“Note the prefix of Anglican in front of the title in which to allege that the present incumbent is a white (therefore racist) person ”
You are being really paranoid id you think the BBC uses the word Anglican to suggest ‘white’. In fact, it uses it to distinguish between C of E and Catholic bishops.
In any case, some of the best known Anglican bishops are black – John Sentamu, Desmond Tutu etc.
And it’s pretty widely known that Michael Nazir-Ali was born in Pakistan.
John Reith –
So why does the BBC not in this case put his name as well as mention his position? It’s usual to name an individual as well as title. Seems that in this case naming him may have somewhat undermined the messgage. Nice to see you’re still around. It’s just a shame you have a habit of disappearing when some pertinent questions come your way.
Umbongo –
I agree. I’m no expert on the 1967 arse-kicking that the yids handed out to the camel jockeys but I do recall reading that their were fears of the Soviets getting involved too and the thing escalating right up. As for the oil, I’m no eco-weenie but I pray for the day that some bod somewhere cracks the mystery of generating vast amounts of energy from peanuts. Or something. I’d pay money to be see the looks on the faces of the Arabs when the infidels pack up the oil wells and go home. They’ll be back in goatskin tents within a generation. We can march on to the future, they can drift back to ancient days.
Pete London
This wasn’t even a news story that pounce was on about….it was an HYS question. I imagine that they try to keep those brief.
Besides the bish was presumably speaking as a professional man of God, not as a professional Pakistani.
BTW – what pertinent Qs do you have in mind?
Pete_London,
Ten years after we stop relying on oil, the Middle East will look like Africa.
No people deserves that fate more than the arabs.
John Reith –
Do forgive me for not being specific, the grey matter isn’t holding up so well these days. However, I do recall you contributing to a thread on a number of occasions before disappearing just Qanagate began. I did ask you to ask a couple of points but ….. tumbleweed …..
Now I do like to read contrary pooints of view. As an argumentative git I appreciate someone giving it a go. But I do detect a pattern here of avoiding substantive issues such as Orla Guerin managing to avoid seeing untouched suburbs in Bint Jbeil, whilst a fella from Channel 4 News, standing in the same spot, has no problem spotting them, in favour of (say) defending the BBC on the basis of how they word (D)HYS pieces.
Umbongo,
I disagree. Arab oil is not the only issue here. Imagine Arabs without oil. The Arab-israeli conflict would still be of crucial interest to the majority of the world’s nations – simply because they yearn to see Israel obliterated.
And of course the conflict would also be of crucial interest to Israel’s few friends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4797425.stm
Mr Reith wrote;
“You are being really paranoid id you think the BBC uses the word Anglican to suggest ‘white’. In fact, it uses it to distinguish between C of E and Catholic bishops.”
Thank you ever so much for highlighting my mistake there Mr Reith. You prevented me from making an even bigger fool of myself as my next post was going to be about how the BBC uses the noun ‘Asian’ instead of ‘Muslim’ when ever it reports on brown skinned idiots in the UK. But because of your swift intervention I won’t post such a stupid allegation.
Dong wrote;
Quite a few tanks were hit from the higher ground across the tops of their turrets where armour in every tank is inevitably thin because no tank would be otherwise able to move. The percentage of any other armoured surface hits was lower than it is made out to be.
The IDF had a few incidents with ATGWs with the Merkava 3 where the turret was penetrated by strikes in answer they added modular armour and came up with the Merkava Baz
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava3d_3.jpg
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava3d_2.jpg
Note the join line between turret and extra armour.
Bryan –
I disagree. Arab oil is not the only issue here. Imagine Arabs without oil. The Arab-israeli conflict would still be of crucial interest to the majority of the world’s nations – simply because they yearn to see Israel obliterated.
But how would the Arabs and Iranians pay for arms without oil? It’s their only substantial source of income. I once read that excluding oil, the entire Arab world together has a smaller economy than Finland’s. They don’t produce anything, they don’t manufacture anything, without oil they have bugger all income. Dubai has seen the future: it knows the oil won’t always flow and is diversifying its economic base to reduce its dependency on the black stuff. Have you heard of Saudi Arabia’s funding of madrassas worlwide? Where do you thik that money comes from? All the tanks, planes and guns in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudia Arabis has to be paid for. Without oil they can’t do that.
How do the ragheads obliterate Israel without arms? They will be left banging their fists in impotent rage at the seperation fence.
Bring it on.
I agree. I’m no expert on the 1967 arse-kicking that the yids handed out to the camel jockeys…
Pete_London | 16.08.06 – 10:39 am
How do the ragheads obliterate Israel without arms?
Pete_London | 16.08.06 – 12:18 pm
Could we refrain from using such terms to refer to both Jews and Arabs, please?
No.
Pete_London | 16.08.06 – 12:18 pm
Arabs without oil would be like the palestinians and look what a backward, uncivilised mess they are – even though they get millions of dollars in aid.
US criticised for HIV aid effort
US policy is undermining the efforts of African countries to fight the HIV epidemic, a leading UN figure has said.
Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy on Aids, said President George Bush’s $15bn Emergency Plan for HIV/Aids was too focussed on promoting abstinence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4797537.stm
Why not headline it
“UN official again bites hand that feeds him” or “UN again misleads over US aid”
If you persist down below the fold you are eventually informed
Mark Dybul, US Global Aids coordinator, said only 7% of funding for 2005 had been spent on abstinence programmes.
I’m interested in the answers to a couple of questions.
1) Do you think that the general public in the UK are generally for or against Israel ?
2) My answer to the above question from personal experience is that they’re highly critical of Israel. Is this blogs premise that is because of biased reporting by the main news source i.e. the BBC ?
3) Follow on question that may not be relevant is that do you think this implies that the US for example has a pro Israel bias since its assumed that it’s public supports Israel ?
4) Is the US public generally aware of the amount of their taxes spent there and do they support that ? It seems to be given scant mention in the press I see from there.
Thanks
Pete_London
As a Jew I find being referred to as a yid highly offensive. Just bear that in mind the next time you decide to use the term here.
Biodegradable –
The fact that it offends you is neither here nor there. In the words of Stephen Fry: “You’re offended? So fucking what?” In any case, if you’d had your head switched on you’d have picked up a bit of humour there, in the vernacular from where I originate, a bit of Alf Garnett and all that. It’s part of my culture, don’tcha know? Please don’t try to deny it me, I may be offended.
The fact that it offends you is neither here nor there.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
“You’re offended? So fucking what?”
Nice…
… where I originate, a bit of Alf Garnett and all that. It’s part of my culture, don’tcha know?
Bollocks to that. I was brought up in Hackney in the 1950s and ’60s so I do know about your culture, only too well.
I like this BBC article about Jews making aliyah (moving to Israel). It’s titled “Why leave the UK for this?”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4797425.stm?ls
Its asking why anyone would want to leave the UK for Israel as though the UK is a modern paradise for Jews. Considering the anti-Semitism of the BBC and the underlying Jew hatred in the UK, the appropriate title would be “Why stay in an expensive dump when you can move to a Meditteranean paradise free of Jew-hatred and obnoxious BBC lecturing”.
“US criticised for HIV aid effort
US policy is undermining the efforts of African countries to fight the HIV epidemic, a leading UN figure has said.”
Don’t worry, America’s most popular ex-president and darling of the Beeboids is a key figure at an AIDS conference in Toronto.
Biodegradable –
You seem pretty think skinned for someone brought up in 50s/60s Hackney. What did you do, cry all the time? And what’s with the your culture? Don’t go seperating yourself off over there. You might go left into the synagogue when I turn right into the Papist church, but when it comes to culture, what’s mine is clearly yours.
Don’t worry, America’s most popular ex-president and darling of the Beeboids is a key figure at an AIDS conference in Toronto.
And what an arse-kissing “Mr President, Mr Clinton Sir, Your Mr Wonderfullness” got on the Toadey Show this am. Just why is the lying, corrupt, fornicating, dress-staining, liberal Clinton such a hero to left wing filth?
OT
Wot, no licence fee?
How come the only people in the world who are forced to pay for the BBC twice are the Brits, whilst the rest get it for free? (in one form or another – internet, World Service etc etc)
UK Citizens Pay Twice
So, not only do I have to pay for UK BBC tv via the tv tax/licence fee, I have to pay again for
“Al-JazBBC” out of my taxes to the tune of £246 million – ie I pay twice! How about getting the arabs to pay for something for once????
BBC’s mission to take on al-Jazeera with free Arabic TV channel
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1194142006
“The operating costs will come from existing grant-in-aid funding from the government, which is £246 million for 2006-7.” ie the UK taxpayer, again.
Pete_London:
Biodegradable –
You seem pretty think skinned for someone brought up in 50s/60s Hackney. What did you do, cry all the time?
Actually I spent some of my time in Ridley Road hearing Oswald Mosley and his mates talking about the yids while my father was obliged to defend himself, and me, with his fists. Later, when I was a little older, I broke the arm of a kid at school who called me a yid and was caned by the head teacher for my sins.
You should take your Alf Garnett impressions to Edinburgh, by all accounts they’re going down a treat this year:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2312891,00.html
Pete,
When you’ve finished offending people I’d like to refer you to a conversation we had a while ago regarding the sainted Melanie Phillips and your contention that she was something approaching an infallible deity.
One of the issues under discussion (amidst lots of hysterical abuse of mainstream UK and US opinion) was her claim that a ceasefire pre-empting the total destruction of Hezbollah, most of Lebanon etc etc would result in a “second Jewish holocaust”. Just a quick reminder – here we are and thankfully little seems to have happened along those lines yet. I’m starting to think that she may be WRONG.
@Mark.
Whats funny about the whole BCC/Euroleftist criticism of the American efforts at promoting abstinence: is that abstinence is the only 100% effective way of avoiding VD.
If people would just keep it in their pants, they wouldn’t be getting AIDS and other STD’s.
Bio
I was brought up in Hackney in the 1950s and ’60s
you weren’t at Hackney Downs with John diamond were you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4797425.stm?ls
Why leave the UK for this?
Wednesday, 16 August 2006, 13:47 GMT 14:47 UK
=====
Some of the comments are just priceless, and explain exactly why British Jews are leaving the UK. They aren’t wanted anymore.
The problem in africa with aids if you were to ask me is religion once again. When the head of your religion (i.e. the pope) tells you that using a rubber is immoral then you’re hardly going to listen to george bush. It’s another example of religious dogma getting in the way of common sense.
rb
Well thank you. There’s Biodegradable having me in goosestep with Oswald Moseley up and down Cable Street because of a (tongue in cheek) use of one word, so it’s nice to know someone has actually read something I’ve posted here. Just to be clear:
1. My (admittedly increasing) use of the vernacular is employed to annoy those who deserve to be annoyed. This is usually the prissy, self-regarding left. As a lower-upper-middle working class white boy I’m sick to death of the attack on my culture, so I’ll drop it the day I wake up and find hostilities ceased by the cultural marxists. Until then they can shove it.
2. I’m a Zionist.
3. Melanie Phillips is well close to being an infallible deity.
I can’t believe so many words have been spilt over one bloody word. What a shit world this is becoming.
you weren’t at Hackney Downs with John diamond were you?
Anonymous | 16.08.06 – 3:19 pm
No, I didn’t do well enough in the 11+ but I lived very close to the school and the name Diamond rings a bell. I went to Shacklewell Lane Primary then Woodberry Down.
For what its worth I’m just as offended by camel jockey and raghead. But more important than any offence I may feel I do not want to see this blog branded as a rabid hate speech spewing site by anybody who may casually surf in on a bad hair day like today.
Well thank you. There’s Biodegradable having me in goosestep with Oswald Moseley…
Not at all. You asked me what I was doing in Hackney in the 1950s – ’60s. I told you.
For what its worth I’m just as offended by camel jockey and raghead.
You’re having a laugh now. How can you be offended on behalf of others? Sheesh!
Look, I may pop into the chinky on the way home from the pub on Friday night. Would you mind awfully if I were to suggest to my chums that we pop into said ‘chinky’, or must I now employ something along the lines of ‘an eating establishment of Cantonese heritage’?
How can you be offended on behalf of others?
In the same way as you as a self-declared “papist” can also claim to be a Zionist.
If, on the way home from the pub, you came across a group of skinheads calling a Jew a yid or if they were calling a Muslim raghead would you feel offended or angry?
And if not why not?
Well you live and learn. I wasn’t aware that Papists couldn’t support the right of Jews to have a homeland.
Now, if on Friday night I came across that group of skinheads … blah blah … I’d be angry but not offended. How can I be offended when the offence isn’t aimed at me? Sheesh. Now when a group of hairy arsed camel jockeys wave placards about in the capital of England, stating that infidels must die etc, that’s cause for offence where I’m concerned, and I don’t expect anyone to be offended on my behalf.
“Some of the comments are just priceless, and explain exactly why British Jews are leaving the UK. They aren’t wanted anymore.
Market Participant |”
i cant blame them, to be honest.
i think they know that the writing is on the wall with Britains “multi cult” experiment. when the shit hits the fan, i’d rather the IDF over limp-wristed , multi-cultist Met police any way…
By the way, you seem to be under the impression that yid was used by me in a deliberately offensive way. Well, nope. I used it in the same way that I’ve always used it. In the same way that I and my peers use ‘chinky’ and ‘wop’ and ‘yank’. It’s shorthand slang, and I’ll stop using it when the cultural marxists stop telling me not to use it.
Biodegradable –
One more thing, then I leave it. archduke’s comment highlights the rub:
i think they know that the writing is on the wall with Britains “multi cult” experiment. when the shit hits the fan, i’d rather the IDF over limp-wristed , multi-cultist Met police any way…
You see, I’m reject this multiculti bullshit. It’s what has lead to an ever more confident left wing and muslim coalition which is whipping up anti-semitic feeling. If there were more people like me around that wouldn’t happen. And here you are, the Jew, getting all multi culti on me.You need to aim your fire elswhere.
Test
“The problem in Africa with aids if you were to ask me is religion once again. When the head of your religion (i.e. the pope) tells you that using a rubber is immoral…..”
test…..puhleeze….not that stupid argument again!
It’s stupid for the following reasons:
1. AIDS in Africa is spread either by rape, fornication, adultery (often with prostitutes) or • in a tiny number of cases relatively speaking – spouse to spouse. For observant Catholics, only the last category is significant. Why? Because only a complete moron would scrupulously follow the Church’s teaching on the (mildly) sinful nature of condoms, while at the same time be prepared to flagrantly disobey the Church’s teaching on the (serious) sinfulness of rape, fornication (with or without prossies) or rape. Catholics, on the whole, aren’t morons. So changing the teaching on condoms would most likely help only married couples. But……
2. although condoms are pretty reliable as contraceptives, they aren’t 100% reliable. Even the manufacturers of the top of the range, electronically tested models claim only 96% reliability. Now you have to be seriously unlucky for one of the 4% failures to coincide with one of the 5 days a month the average woman is likely to conceive • yet everybody knows someone that happened to.
With AIDS the calculation is rather different. The averge sexually active African will have sex one hundred times in……I don’t know…..3 months, 4 months, 6 months tops. So, if a condom failure is going to happen four times in that period…..HE’S STILL GOING TO INFECT HIS WIFE. He might delay it a few weeks……but infected she will be eventually.
3. You also have to take into account cultural factors. One AIDS project in Zimbabwe recently reported that the propaganda of secular aids charities was resulting in less (not more) condom use. Why? Because condoms have become totally associated with AIDS in the minds of the public. So when a Zim guy is spotted buying a pack of 3 in his local shop, or collecting his freebies from the medical centre, then the village gossips are quick to pass the word round that he’s HIV positive. He then gets shunned. Nobody will even share a cup with him, let alone a toilet seat. And if said Zim guy is making progress seducing a local lovely and then whips out his rubbers, her likely reaction is to scream “aagh! You’ve got AIDS” and run for her life. Unsurprisingly, Zim guys have more or less stopped using condoms.
Some facts you should know:
25% of all Africa’s AIDS treatment centres are run by the Catholic Church.
AIDS infection rates are LOWER in Catholic countries than in comparable non-Catholic countries.
So stop blaming the Pope.
Biodegradable: “Enemies like Hizbollah need to be thoroughly thrashed and humiliated or else, as we now see, they will simply lick their wounds and come back for more.”
Amen, Amen, Amen!!! Kill the bastards!
Pete_London
I wasn’t aware that Papists couldn’t support the right of Jews to have a homeland.
That’s not what I said. My wife is a Catholic. I said that just as you, a non-Jew, can consider yourself to be a Zionist, so can I, a Jew, feel offence at Arabs being called ragheads and the like. I can feel offended by something that doesn’t directly affect me. Your lack of sensitivity prevents you from understanding that.
By the way, you seem to be under the impression that yid was used by me in a deliberately offensive way.
Nope, I realised you didn’t want to offend Jews, that’s why I’m surprised that now you know you have offended at least one Jew here you still insist on defending it. If I didn’t know you better from your posts here I’d see shades of Ken Livingstone in your insistence.
And here you are, the Jew, getting all multi culti on me.
No I’m not. It has nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with respect for the feelings of others, and as I’ve said, the general tone of this blog.
Amen, Amen, Amen!!! Kill the bastards!
Roxana | 16.08.06 – 4:44 pm
Pete_London please note: I am not offended by the term bastards 😆
France sees ongoing terror risk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4796873.stm
Why do France have an ongoing terror risk? According to the BBC, the UK has an ‘ongoing terror risk’ becuase of our foreign policy in Iraq. France are not in Iraq and stauchly opposed the toppling of Saddam.
So, if France is not in Iraq and was/is Saddams best friend, how come the Muslims want to blow up themselves in France???????????
Answers on a postcard to Humphries, Today, socialist house etc
A typical effort on the Today programme :
Here’s Des Browne (Defence Minister) explaining his decision to pardon WW1 soldiers 90 years on. He’s obviously acting as an advocate for his own position, but he’s reasonably measured. Note that he admits that he has no evidence for his view that a majority of the public supports his position :
“… address the ongoing feelings of the families and many other people…and a substantial number of the public, I believe although I haven’t done any testing a majority of the public, that the families deserve to have the stigma that they have been under addressed.”
The piece is introduced by the egregious Humphreys J who is, unsurprisingly, also an advocate of the pardon and far less measured than Des Browne :
Humphreys : “A great injustice is being put right that’s how many people, probably most people, will feel about the decision to give posthumous pardons to the World War One soldiers who were shot at dawn for cowardice when many of them were obviously suffering from shell shock”
Amongst my own acquaintances, I would guess that about 2% have strong views in favour of the pardon, and 2% have strong views against, while the other 96% are in the don’t know / don’t care category.
UN drive to build Lebanon force
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4797187.stm
“France is hesitant to make specific troop commitments until it knows what other countries are prepared to do – but those countries are waiting to hear what Paris will decide, he says.”
Q. Why the French delay in troop deployment to Leba-Hizbollon?
A. French troops undergoing intensive linquistic refresher course so they can speak fluently in arabic to local Hezbollox thugs – key phrases being “We surrender, please take our weapons” and “any chance you can leave my head attached to my body?, theres a good chap”
Biodegradable –
Your lack of sensitivity prevents you from understanding that.
Could be. Combined with the booze and I’m a right heartless bastard. I’ll enroll on a sensitivity awareness course immediately.
It has nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with respect for the feelings of others …
See above.
I’m signing off from this issue now. Trust me to run into a Jew who has feelings for the sensitivities for people who to kill him. At least I know not to buy a lottery ticket this week. My luck’s on holiday.
Besides, I’m about to settle down to watch Our Boys give the kebab-eating bubbles a damned good thrashing and my cheap Filipino maid’s got the dinner on.
Ritter –
France is hesitant to make specific troop commitments until it knows what other countries are prepared to do – but those countries are waiting to hear what Paris will decide, he says.
Seems like the options are run, hide or surrender then.
Amongst my own acquaintances, I would guess that about 2% have strong views in favour of the pardon, and 2% have strong views against, while the other 96% are in the don’t know / don’t care category.
Lee Moore | 16.08.06 – 6:08 pm
I think des browne has made the calculation that:
1. Issuing the pardons makes him seem magnanimous.
2. The soldiers who were betrayed are probably all dead now and cant raise a protest.