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.
Oh, and I BTW recommend you check out this great post from BBC Eye.
Another misleading story via the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da680050600/bb/09012da680050752_16x9_bb.asx
Anybody seen this film clip by the BBC purporting to show battle scenes in Afghanistan.
Anybody notice the misleading claims made by the BBC.
“The lightly armed troops have to call for air support”
Note the emphasis on lightly armed troops. Pray tell BBC what weapons should the lads be given?
155mm AS90s, Challenger 2, MLRS,?
Err BBC the terrorists don’t have tanks, they aren’t launching human wave attacks (as used by the Chinese in Korea) in fact BBC they don’t even have visible bases. Why should the armed forces use a sledge hammer in which to crack a nut. A sledgehammer which could cause civilian casualties. I’m sure the BBC would be the first to ensure that any civ pop casualties would get extra billing as British forces commit war crimes”
Now look up combined operations and see how integrating air and land assets is used to great effect in defeating an enemy.
I find the first such successful advocate of such tactics was a certain A Hitler and he used it to great acclaim.
P.S
If would help if your so called reported picked up on how the sights on the javelin has been used to great effect in spotting the enemy. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/
Since June it is reported the British army has used 30000 rounds in Southern Afghanistan”
And then you show a film clip of a machine gun being fired and quote the words “It is being used like this”
To the great unwashed it appears that the firing is unconstrained and the soldiers are firing at will.
But listen, listen to the sounds of the rounds. That is controlled fire. It is in short, sharp bursts. that tells me it is aimed and directed and not indiscriminate and undirected.(Not the image given by the BBC)
Lets go back to that 300000 rounds since June. 2000 British troops in theatre. Divide the former figure by the latter and we arrive at 150 rounds. Divide that figure by 90 days (approx 3 months) and that works out at 1.6 rounds a day per British soldier. Hardly the huge ammo expenditure portrayed by that 300000 figure.
“Some question the military logic of defending such small isolated fire bases”
Err BBC read up on how Edward 1 built isolated castles on the border with Wales. How the French did the same in the African desert and the Americans in the great Wild West. And why did they build castles, forts and firebases in the middle of nowhere.? To deny ground to your enemy and to disrupt his movements.
Just because your reporters haven’t read up on history doesn’t mean the rest of us haven’t. and then you go on to say if we abandon them then that would give a great propaganda coup to the Taliban. At a stroke you make the whole issue of Afghanistan a political one and that the only reason we are still there is simply because to leave now would be politically embarrassing. I’m sorry BBC but something you left out of the above story is that the UK is there because of the UN. We are working as part of a team for peace. It’s not just Britain on the ground but the whole UN. in other words it’s the international community and not imperialistic intentions which has troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
The BBC opens up a second front for the terrorists in which to promote with the distortion of facts by presenting a “We are all going to die” and “why are we even there” scenario to the great unwashed at home.
The BBC really scrapes the barrel with this story;
South Asians recall Katrina disaster
By Shahzeb Jillani
BBC News, New Orleans, Louisiana
The small but vibrant South Asian community in New Orleans recalls with pain the day America’s deadliest natural disaster swept through the Gulf of Mexico on 29 August 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5294894.stm
BBC is there anywhere in the world where Muslims aren’t bloody victims?
I don’t care. All I see is people braying for blood and you blaming somebody else for them braying for blood. Give it a rest already.
Oh yes please re-write this;
In the immediate aftermath, Americans of Pakistani and Indian origin sprung into action to help those in desperate need. Pakistani doctors volunteered to set up urgent medical camps.
Because according to Pakistan People born in Pakistan but who move abroad cannot call themselves Pakistani.
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Pakistani authorities are investigating how a Pakistani-born American woman entered a “Miss Bikini” pageant in China as a representative of predominantly Muslim, conservative Pakistan. Houston-based Mariyah Moten, 22, took part in the pageant in the Chinese resort of Beihai on August 28. She won a “Best in Media” title, for being the most photographed and interviewed contestant, according to media reports.A government official said Moten did not have permission to represent Pakistan, where many women only go out in public covered in a veil. The country does not hold beauty contests.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060907/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_pakistan_china_bikini
and what they got upset about;
http://www.misspakistanworld.com/images/contastant/big/mariyahmoten.jpg
well actually this photo;
http://img101.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-25501/loc337/88419_mariyah_moten_debonairblog_123_337lo.jpg
This may be a stupid question but why does the BBC actually appease Islamic terrorism? I can guess why the likes of George Galloway does as he is a megalomaniac. But surely what can the BBC actually get out of this appeasement? Are they carrying out some leftist propaganda to forestall any anti-muslim backlash that may happen in the UK? and if so why? Can they really be anti-Israeli because they are supported by George Bush – Israel has always been supported by the US from both republican and democrats for years. Do the editors of the BBC not realise that this type of appeasement does not actually work and if god forbid Britain does become an Islamic State do the people at the BBC not see that they will be the first to suffer?
Or is it (if I dare ask the question) that the BBC are not actually bias at all but are telling the truth? (NB I don’t really believe this last question is true but it does need to be said.)
“This may be a stupid question but why does the BBC actually appease Islamic terrorism? ”
Becasue they are left wing nutters that HATE Bush…….and an enemy of my enemy is my friend…..
Next?
Anonymous wrote:
“”This may be a stupid question but why does the BBC actually appease Islamic terrorism? ”
Becasue they are left wing nutters that HATE Bush…….and an enemy of my enemy is my friend…..
Next?”
And the right (and the American’s in particular have never done that!)
The US have:
– armed the Taleban in their fight against the Soviets
– armed Saddam Hussein in his fight against the Iran (a one D Rumsfeld fanously pictured meeting Saddam)
Yes I agree the doctrine of “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” is bloody stupid but it’s not just a disease of the left.
Note the time on Big Ben during the current interview, 10.45, the real time is now 10.53. The Beeb running their “live” interviews on a 7/8 minute delay so they can edit if they want, typical.
Sorry Anonymous but that is not a very reasoned answer.
I think this question has to be answered if the reason for this bias can be uncovered it may help a lot of people see the truth.
Don’t get me wrong I am not siding with the BBC as every day their reporting makes me cringe at best and scream at worse. But just calling them “left wing nutters” does not get to the core of the problem.
There is no organisation in the world where all the staff are in total agreement, by the law of avearges there must be people in the BBC who are not “left wing nutters”. and if it is true that the BBC employ thousands of reporters they cannot all have the same political alegiences. Just look at NuLabour – yes most of them are complete leftist loonies but then look at Frank Field would you label him the same?
Jon –
You’re not wrong about Frank Field, but look how quickly he was sidelined after New Labour’s first election victory.
Then try to think when you last heard even a vaguely pro-capitalist, pro-western, pro-American (forget pro-Israel!) reporter / commentator / analyst on any BBC prog.
Cheers.
A lurker: wrote;
“The US armed the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets”
No they didn’t. The Taliban came to power after the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan . The Americans never armed them. Oh the Americans armed the mujahideen when they fought the Russians but the Taliban no. That fact can be exemplified by OBLs interview with Robert Fisk on the 6th December 1996 in Sudan for the independent newspaper;
Osma Bin laden quotes;
“”Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.”
If you wish to find out who armed the Taliban look towards Islamabad.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/
“The US armed Saddam Hussein in his fight against the Iran”
Again they didn’t. This powerful misconception (exemplified by the left by that photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam) is based on nothing but thin air. If anything during the war with Iran. America armed Iran. (Look up Contragate )
To that end (and I was a vehicle recognition instructor in the army) Please name me any Military weapon system used by Saddam that was made in either America or Britain.
Here is the URL for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute http://www.sipri.org/
Here is the link to a PDF file for the arms imports for Iraq from 1975 to 2005
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_75-05.pdf/download
Just to help you even further you will find;
31 Bell 214-t helicopters (sold after that Rumsfeld visit) read the comments part at the rightof its entry.
30 Hughes 300 /TH 55 helicopters (again sold after that Rumsfeld visit) and again please read the comment at the right of that entry.
30 MD 500 MD Defenders helicopters please read the comments at the right of the entry
26 MD 530 F helicopters. Please read the comments at the right of its entry.
And before somebody tries to say they could be converted into Helicopter gunships. Why should they when Iraq fielded 52 Hind 24 gunships.(virtually a flying battleship) that may explain why after the Airforce requisitioned them (the American helicopters) they were handed over to the coast guard and Ba’th party officials as private taxis.
Now once again I ask the question;
“Please name me an American weapon system fielded by Iraq that was made by the US ?”
Matt Frei outdoes even the great BBC Relativist in Chief, Andrew Marr with this choice cut;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5325590.stm
“Osama Bin Laden and George Bush have in commmon the need to remind thier audiences of 9/11, the day that has defined the lives they lead and the wars they fight”
So, Osama & George and just two peas in the same pod eh Matt?
They both have, like, audiences. Wow.
To hell with the Western Liberal Tradition, We`re all equal. GREAT!
BBC. Biased. Spud-thick. Dangerous and hostile to Western values.
SIN quotes;
“Osama Bin Laden and George Bush have in commmon the need to remind thier audiences of 9/11, the day that has defined the lives they lead and the wars they fight”
Ah, that old cultural relativism – and Matt Frei, a master of the craft!
Remove both bin Liner and George Bush: the war would still exist. Sadly, narrow little minds, like Frei’s, cant see that. He’d be better off on Hello! That believes all news is generated by personalties. He’d feel right at home.
Yet at no point is it pointed out that OBLs “message” for today was from the grave?
I mean, showing 5 year old video tape is hardly a current message from OBL is it??……
I can see where Matt might say that GWB is making a political statement….but where does he get off saying that OBL is doing the same? Is there ANY indication that the message broadcast on AlJax tonight, came from OBL today? as part of a media campaign???…..more likely, that Al Jaz has been sitting on the footage for a few months, or someone has been sitting on it for a few years…and finaly handed it over…….probably the CIA….lol.
Would someone please shoot the conspiracy theorists / terrorists who believe bin Laden is an American Jew?
I’ve given up any hope I still had for the UK. As soon as Blair’s resigned things are going to get a lot worse and then you guys have to choose between Brown(nose), Cameron, the LibDims and GeorgieBoy Galloway.
Europe is doomed – Al Beeb has already done enough damage in the UK. Maybe we should all take the islamic way out and self-implode.
Pounce: I don’t think you told us whether you consider running your own blog. Your military knowledge seems to be second to none (at least re. most people on here)…
You can communicate with us, you know.
I’m off to bed… but here’s list of “people” Al Beeb care about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5322694.stm
I wonder who’ll do the cuddling once Al Beeb manages to get them released. Simpson? Goering? Platt?
Sorry, can’t stop here…
RAMZI BINALSHIBH
“…is described by the US…”
“…is said to have become…”
“According to US officials…”
“…intelligence officials say…”
“…he reportedly assisted…”
“US intelligence says…”
Militantism / freedom-fighterism is a vague business, innit, Al Beeb???
This morning BBC radio reported on Khatami’s visit to the USA without once mentioning he had been President of Iran or that his father was an Ayatollah and he himself Chairman of the MIlitant Clerics League
How can a statement like “The lightly armed troops have to call for air support” be perceived to be all that you claim it means. It doesnt mean that. It just means the troops had ‘light arms’. The interpretation you put on it , is just that, YOUR interpretation, tainted by YOUR bias! your stated opinions which are clear.
You must know that neither the BBC nor any maninstream accepted standard such as OFCOM would find that to be biased (though no doubt you think Ofcom have been infiltrated by Arab sympathisers too!)
“Can they really be anti-Israeli because they are supported by George Bush ” – demonstrates the kind of conspiracy theory paranoia all too prevelant here. How exactly is the BBC supported by a US president??
“Then try to think when you last heard even a vaguely pro-capitalist, pro-western, pro-American (forget pro-Israel!) reporter / commentator / analyst on any BBC prog.”
Hopefully you never hear a reporter like this on the BBC! ThaTs the whole point! it amazes me that users of a website called BBC Bias dont understand what bias is!!!!
pounce | 07.09.06 – 9:12 pm |
Pounce
Once again it is you who is distorting the facts, not the BBC.
You say the film is ‘purporting’ to show battle scenes in Afghanistan.
Presumably you use the word ‘purporting’ to suggest the BBC has faked it.
Well, actually it was filmed by the Army • by soldiers serving in the base that came under Taleban attack. As was made clear.
And the accompanying narrative (‘lightly armed troops’, having to “call for air support” was based on information provided by them, the soldiers on the spot.
You dismissively quote the line:
“Some question the military logic of defending such small isolated fire bases”
But who are the “some” who question this logic?
As has been widely reported on the BBC and elsewhere, one person who has questioned this is Lieutenant General David Richards, the current commander of ISAF and the most senior British officer in theatre.
I don’t think Lt Gen Richards needs any lessons in strategy from a gobby former NCO who spent the fag end of his career as a TA instructor. I doubt whether he needs any lessons in history either.
Richards has been supported in this by Patrick Mercer MP • a former senior Army officer who is now a front-bench Conservative spokesman.
The points made in the film on the need to concentrate British forces so they can be redeployed….AND the point about the danger the Taleban would present any withdrawal as a NATO defeat were made by a senior officer at MoD quoted in the Daily Telegraph:
“Last night one senior officer in the Ministry of Defence said that the British forces were being asked to do “too much with too little”. He said: “We have limited forces here. We can’t be everywhere at once. It may be necessary to rebalance British forces; sometimes it is necessary to trade ground for influence. It is a mistake to develop an obsession with holding ground, though the Taliban will try to present this as a reverse for us.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/wafg23.xml
Your commentary on this item was both utterly ignorant and wholly dishonest.
Simpson John –
“‘Then try to think when you last heard even a vaguely pro-capitalist, pro-western, pro-American (forget pro-Israel!) reporter / commentator / analyst on any BBC prog.’
Hopefully you never hear a reporter like this on the BBC! ThaTs the whole point! it amazes me that users of a website called BBC Bias dont understand what bias is!!!!”
It wouldn’t matter if BBC reporters, editors, et al WERE strictly neutral, but the fact is their own bias and prejudices shine through as soon as they open their mouths – whether it’s news, current affairs, analysis, business, even comedy, you know in advance that any words like Bush, Blair, America, Israel, Tory, profit, etc., etc., etc. are never used except perjoratively.
Cheers.
“The interpretation you put on it , is just that, YOUR interpretation, tainted by YOUR bias!”
Of course it is, and anyone can take pretty much any report, remove certain sentences and spin it in almost any way they want.
And yet ounce does this a lot in his comments, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m not the only one who struggles to take him seriously. And this applies to pretty much all of B-BBC’s output – again something that I find hard to take seriously.
I didn’t actually come on here to make personal attacks – I spotted John Simpson last night outside South Kensington tube station and I thought that maybe that might be of interest to some people here. When I told her my girlfriend, she just said “Who?”
America did not arm the taliban, the taliban wasn’t formed until 1996
Good afternoon Mr Reith.
Thank you ever so much for once again dissecting one of my posts.
I hope this most beautiful of days finds you in good health and that all is well with you.
Mr Reith wrote;
“You say the film is ‘purporting’ to show battle scenes in Afghanistan. Presumably you use the word ‘purporting’ to suggest the BBC has faked it.”
Not all Mr Reith. I used it in the same context in which the BBC uses “Alleged “ in which to dilute the story. I never said it was fake you did. But hey I don’t see you complaining when the BBC uses that suggestion.
“And the accompanying narrative (‘lightly armed troops’, having to “call for air support” was based on information provided by them, the soldiers on the spot.”
Actually it is a term banded about by the media in which to invent a story. Tell me what targets would you aim a missile salvo from an MRLS from? The enemy in Afghanistan is using asymmetrical warfare tactics in which to fight. As you suggesting that symmetrical tactics are used in which to defeat them. The only result from using such tactics would result in huge civilian casualties and a huge erosion of public support. Both here and there.
“I don’t think Lt Gen Richards needs any lessons in strategy from a gobby former NCO who spent the fag end of his career as a TA instructor.”
Now, now Mr Reith is that the correct way to communicate to somebody who has been more than civil with you. In fact Mr Reith I even went as far to ask people to leave off attacking you. So tell me. What’s with the hissy fit?
Do I make you see red?
Do you hate it when I post something which corrects the mistakes the BBC posts as facts.
In otherwords am I exposing the BBC (As do the rest of the posters on this board) for shoddy and erroneous reporting?
So what does your little ad hominal outburst tell me.
It tells me I have got under your skin.
It tells me, that when I expose mistake after mistake presented by the BBC as fact. I put pressure on you from somewhere.
Now if I can get the BBC to correct just one news item then I am happy. I think in conjunction with the rest of the posters on this board (and a few other bloggs) we have managed to get the BBC to change quite a few.
Throw all the abuse you want to Mr Reith. At a stroke you discredit your stance and the organisation you defend and in turn polarize yet more of the great unwashed (who read this forum) away from the BBC.
Mr Minit wrote;
And yet ounce does this a lot in his comments, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m not the only one who struggles to take him seriously.
So tell me Mr Minit did you also struggle to take seriously the BBC news items where it reporters have been caught out time and time again.
You know where the reporter caught in a suicide bomb attack thanked his lucky stars on the 12 inches of thick Canadian steel plate armour. (Yeah right)
The reporter who painted a picture that a town had been wiped off the map when it hadn’t
How about declaring reporting restrictions when reporting from America/British/Israeli positions but not when reporting from the Terrorists side.
How about how I take Mr Bowen seriously after I read in his book that the USS liberty was destroyed by the Israelis.
(It wasn’t)
How about last week and the angle where 3 Iranian air crashes were all the fault of American sanctions.
And as I pointed out there were 1 bad weather, 1 mid air collision, and 1 crashing into a mountain in heavy fog. Hardly the fault of America.. That may explain why the BBC has removed that allegation.
Could that be why people like you resort to character assassination in a petty attempt in which to discredit people on this board.
This boards message about BBC bias is striking home.
P.S
Have a nice weekend.
This from Guido
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/09/which-cabinet-minister-told-nick.html
BBC employees protect New Labour?
m.minit
And this applies to pretty much all of B-BBC’s output – again something that I find hard to take seriously.
……………………………….
i feel exactly the same way about the
bbc,so i come here for an alternate view and people like pounce give it to me and for that i’m thankful.
Main News Page Headline –
“Problem delays shuttle take-off”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5326828.stm
Wrong.
Its not been delayed yet.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
“At this time the team is pressing forward with launch preparations. Mission Management Team members are meeting to determine if they will consider launching with three working sensors or if it will be necessary to de-tank and come back tomorrow.”
The BBC and selective reporting;
Notice how the BBC refers to Miss Molly Campbell as Misbah Rana.
“Molly, who asked to be called by her Islamic name Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana, said she wanted to stay in Pakistan.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5304126.stm
“Molly Campbell, who prefers to be called Misbah Rana.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5304126.stm
and now contrast it with this;
“Two more men have been charged in connection with the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners.
Don Stewart Whyte, of High Wycombe, Bucks, and Mohammed Usman Saddique, of Walthamstow, east London, are charged with preparing acts of terrorism.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5322048.stm
Notice how the BBC left out this snippet about Mr S Whyte;
Abdul Waheed (born Don Stewart-Whyte), 21, of Hepplewhite Close, High Wycombe
One of two suspects known to have converted to Islam, which he is said to have done six months ago, when he also changed his name to Abdul Waheed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2308722,00.html
“Stewart-Whyte, 21, who works at an electrical shop, was seized at the home he shares with his mother, Dorothy, in High Wycombe’s Hepplewhite Close on Thursday. He is a former grammar school pupil and art student who converted to Islam about a year ago and married a Muslim woman, allegedly to the consternation of his mother, a month ago. He also changed his name to Abdul Waheed. ”
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1173932006
So the BBC is more than happy to quote the Islamic name of a child because shes asks them to. Yet a Terror suspect who changed to his Anglican one to a Muslim one is referred by his previous name. What is the BBC trying to hide here?
“Could that be why people like you resort to character assassination”
I hardly think that it was character assassination. You publish your thoughts for the world to see, and I have every right to comment on them.
“i feel exactly the same way about the bbc”
And I’m not saying that you shouldn’t.
“so i come here for an alternate view and people like pounce give it to me and for that i’m thankful.”
But surely you would prefer to view/partake in a discussion about BBC bias in a sensible, logical, honest and open minded way? An “alternative view” is not what I was complaining about.
I’d like to see that Reith chap banned. His idiotic mission to “educate and enlighten” us to the error of our free minds is so annoying I skip his ramblings. Thanks to Pounce for noticing this gem in his outpoutrings:
“I don’t think Lt Gen Richards needs any lessons in strategy from a gobby former NCO who spent the fag end of his career as a TA instructor. I doubt whether he needs any lessons in history either.”
Well in the same vein I don’t need lessons in BBC propaganda from a Twat.
The teachings of Sun Tzu advocate:
“The feigning of weakness and the use of deception to evade and suprise the enemy”
I think that for once the military have got the tactics right this time – We are losing very few in combat compared to them.
Drawing them out into the open and killing them.
I think the media have swallowed the lot hook, line and sinker this time.
Well done lads, you deserve our support.
nick robinson – and his non-blogging of the “fucking dreadful” quote…even though, on the 6 o clock news yesterday, he said himself that he had pages and pages of swearing-filled quotes in his notebook…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
not bias but unfortunate :
http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diffrntstrokesex0.jpg
Top marks – for the late star of Diff’rent Strokes…. (sorry for the popunder at imageshack)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Plato
dr:
I’d like to see that Reith chap banned.
I disagree. I have from time to time mentioned that certain “anons” and “Anonymouses” should perhaps be banned for their foul language and/or hate speech, but I go along with what is probably the majority opinion here, ie: that Reith and others should be free to make fools of themselves.
I wouldn’t even suggest banning this POS, but I won’t waste my time replying to him either.
pounce | 08.09.06 – 1:43 pm | #
“So the BBC is more than happy to quote the Islamic name of a child because she asks them to. Yet a Terror suspect who changed to his Anglican one to a Muslim one is referred by his previous name. What is the BBC trying to hide here?”
Distorting the facts again Pounce, I see.
If you were honest, you would have pointed out that the BBC HAD INDEED reported DSW’s conversion to Islam and his name change many days earlier.
“Abdul Waheed, 21, was arrested in High Wycombe.
He had changed his name from Don Stewart-Whyte about six months previously”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4783215.stm
The reason only the English name is used in the report you link to is that it is a court report.
The BBC and most newspapers obey certain conventions when reporting court proceedings and are under obligations not to report extraneous detail that might be prejudicial to subsequent proceedings.
One of them is to identify defendants only under the name(s) used in the formal charge sheet.
Aliases are sometimes included by the police and prosecuting authorities.
E.g.
AHMED ABDULLAH ALI (AKA ABDULLAH ALI AHMED KHAN), 25, OF WALTHAMSTOW, EAST LONDON
Or:
OND UMAR ISLAM (AKA BRIAN YOUNG), 28, OF STRATFORD, EAST LONDON
BUT
But • you will notice….DSW was charged under his English name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5272264.stm
So, once again you accuse the BBC of having a sinister agenda, when all they are doing is following best practice as laid down by the courts.
Can’t you get anything right?
No sign of this, U.N. refugee chief warns of “catastrophe” in Darfur, on the BBC’s news site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/default.stm
But they do report this:
UN warns of Gaza ‘breaking point’
What we do get from Sudan is that old favourite among the “Most Emailed”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm
Of course Reith shouldn’t be banned.
But maybe he should pay £130 to read this or else be sent to prison.
m.minit
But surely you would prefer to view/partake in a discussion about BBC bias in a sensible, logical, honest and open minded way?
……………………………..
for the most part i think they do all
of these things.
“Yes I agree the doctrine of “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” is bloody stupid but it’s not just a disease of the left.”
Actually it’s not stupid at all. As Winston Churchill famously observed; ‘If Hitler invaded Hell I’d find a few good words to say about the Devil in the House of Commons’. And allying with Stalin wasn’t much short of allying with the devil.
The true problem lies in the fact taht Leftists regard their own Countries and civilization as ‘the Enemy’. Ever since WWII they have inevitably fallen in love with every
anti-Western, anti-Capitalist movement
that came down the pike, however much it might violate their supposed ‘ideals’.
disproportionate stupidity
note the civillians…
“”I don’t think Lt Gen Richards needs any lessons in strategy from a gobby former NCO who spent the fag end of his career as a TA instructor.”
I wouldn’t be too sure of that. It is well a well known fact that NCOs are the backbone of any army – and that smart officers *listen* to what their experienced non-coms have to say.
Those who take a passing interest in American politics will be aware of Plamegate, succinctly summarised by the BBC :
There were widespread accusations that Ms Plame’s identity had been disclosed in revenge for an article Joseph Wilson had written criticising the Bush administration’s use of intelligence to allege that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.
The other shoe has now dropped and it is confirmed that the leaker was a chap called Armitage :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5326130.stm
For BBC readers, whether there was in fact a Cheney/Rove plot to jeopardise the life of a brave CIA agent for political gain remains unclear • all we have is Armitage denying that he was involved in any such conspiracy :
[Armitage] said the revelation had not been made maliciously and that he was not part of a conspiracy to reveal Ms Plame’s identity and did not know whether one existed.
But why should we believe him ? Is he not a Bush lackey like the rest of them ?
We have to turn to the New York Times, one of the most fanatically anti-Bush media outfits in the US, for context that the BBC does not choose to trouble us with :
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washington/07cnd-armitage.html?ex=1315281600&en=4070a2eddf580dc7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The confirmation of Mr. Armitage’s role, long the subject of media speculation, shows that the initial disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identify did not originate from the White House as part of a concerted political attack, but was divulged by a senior State Department official who was not regarded as a close political ally of Vice President Dick Cheney.
The idea that it is possible to give the news a more anti-Bush slant than the New York Times would astonish most Americans. But Auntie shows it’ s possible.
Biodegradable | 08.09.06 – 3:18 pm
The Guterres Darfur story has been running on BBC radio bulletins since 1500
‘Disproportionate Stupidity’
So Palestinian civilians normally stand around in crowds watching raids and firefights? No wonder they have high casualities! Did you note the two small boys well to the front? Can you say ‘posed’?? I knew you could!
Thanks for clearing this up…
“There is No Democracy in Islam”
“There is no democracy in Islam, so do not try to interpret the Quran and turn Islam into a democracy to suit your needs. God’s law comes first. It is not up to the will of the people to decide what is right and how to live. Rather the will of the people have to be bent to suit the will of God. It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy!
“The principles of Islam cannot be altered and and there is no democracy in Islam or nonsense like ‘democratic Islam’.
“Democracy is shirk [polytheism] and haram [forbidden]. Here we do not compromise. Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support Shariah one hundred percent are all munafik [hypocrites] and kafirs, they are out of Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they are not part of the ummat anymore. There is no need to listen to public opinion: kafirs, apostates, liberals, atheists – they are all non-believers…
“Islam’s victory can only come through dawah [preaching] and jihad, not elections. That’s why Islamic parties are on the wrong path… As long as democracy is their chosen path, the end result is haram. Nothing good can come from that which is haram, is that not the case? So if democracy is haram, then what kind of Islamic state can come from that? Certainly not a pure Islamic state. Elections are quite useless.”
“There Can Be No Islam Without Jihad”
“The struggle for Islam can only come through crisis and confrontation. Islam is here to change the world, not to be changed by the world. So there is bound to be resistance, that is why the West fears us.
“If we accept Western norms like democracy then we can never reach the Allah-cracy I mentioned earlier. Democracy must be replaced by Allah-cracy and this cannot come from elections. Those who oppose us must be educated, that is why dawah is important, to show them that Islam is the only way. But if they still resist, and are willfully stubborn, or if they create obstacles for us, then they must be opposed. In particular all the Muslims who oppose us are apostates (murtad) and they in particular need to be dealt with firmly…
“This is the Islamic view of things. We must never compromise, relent, give up, submit to our kafir enemies. We must always keep to the Islamic path, jihad in the name of shar’ia, and never be apologetic…
“Remember that jihad is what brought Islam to power and built our community. There can be no Islam without jihad….”
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD128506
the bbc are insane.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5326734.stm
The show, which has been filmed in high definition, is full of the expected swordsmanship, archery, fast-paced action, goodies and baddies – but the story has uncanny parallels with the war on terror and modern politics.
In one episode I say ‘we can hold and execute outlaws without trial’, which is not far removed from what’s happening now,” adds Armitage.
Name me one terrorist who has been executed without trial? For that matter name me one terrorist who’s been executed….
it’s not just robin hood either,did
anyone see that puke inducing episode
of dalziel and pascoe,or the horror
that was murphys law…both educating
a certain world view they feel we just
dont hear enough about.what ever happend to being entertained.
s.h
amazing indeed!
In the opening episode, nobleman Robin returns from a war in the Middle East to find Nottinghamshire controlled by an unpopular leader where taxes are heavy and a climate of fear reigns.
Actor Richard Armitage, who plays the the Sheriff of Nottingham’s henchman Guy of Gisborne, says the story is about “the perpetuation of terror” where Robin and his men are the “terrorists”.
“It’s in the Sheriff’s interests to keep fear of the outlaws alive so he can control the populace.
“In one episode I say ‘we can hold and execute outlaws without trial’, which is not far removed from what’s happening now,” adds Armitage.
Keith Allen, who plays the despicable Sheriff – and was injured during filming in Hungary – says he partly based his portrayal on Gordon Brown due to his “cool, calculating political mind”.
BTW that “war in the Middle East” was also known as The Crusades.
The Guterres Darfur story has been running on BBC radio bulletins since 1500
John Reith | 08.09.06 – 4:23 pm
Now tucked away in the Africa section since 1555.