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.
Come to think of it – I’d rather have Ramses II back. He was more civilised and up-to-date than most “modern” leaders in the Middle East I would say.
Another thing: So he’s the 12th iman? Why do they want him back after 1000 years? I mean he couldn’t get into their first team back in 1000 A.D. so what makes them think he’s improved that much???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5331142.stm
laughing my head off here…
“Tehran was lit up on the eve of the birthday of the 12th Imam, sometimes known as the Mehdi. He is said to have gone into hiding in the 10th Century but is expected to return.”
Return from where?
Mu Mu Land? Fairytopia? the North Pole? Flying Spagetti Monster Park?
i have no doubt that the actual legend of the Mahdi has a bit more detail in where he will return from – this is religion after all. but the dumb BBC coverage is laughable.
As I stated before… think Tehran National Stadium 1000 A.D.:
Annoucer: And now the substitutes: Number 12, Imam Mehdi
To prevent other posts- yes, I know, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 not 1973. Many apologies, bad proof-reading on my part. I’ve logged a similar post (but hopefully with my dates correct!) on the Newsnight discussion site. Interesting to see if the mods let it through. I think the odds are 60-40 against me though!
“Sorry chap, hated it. My choice. I’ll stick with m$.”
stick with firefox mate. you’ll like it in the long wrong. less viruses for starters.
using firefox is like going out the front door, locking it behind you and saying hello to that bloke in the street, knowing full well that your house has a fort knox security system in place.
using IE is like going out the front door, leaving the front door open, whilst watching all the chavs running in and walking out with your plasma screen.
(that is a very non tech explanation… but its the best i can do for non-techies on this blog)
“To prevent other posts- yes, I know, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 not 1973. Many apologies, bad proof-reading on my part”
actually , i think you might be right, in a way – something happened in 1973 in afghanistan. i cant remember what exactly, but its a significant date in afghan history, so maybe thats where you got mixed up.
hmmm..
just checking on wikipedia.
my my – i think you are actually were on the right path, albeit wrong, but 1973 is where the whole sorry tale really started from…
“However, in 1973, Zahir’s brother-in-law, Sardar Mohammed Daoud launched a bloodless coup. Daoud and his entire family were murdered in 1978 when the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan launched a coup known as the Great Saur Revolution and took over the government.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
Nasrallah demands militant freed
Samir Qantar was captured during a cross-border raid into the northern Israeli town of Nahariya in 1979.
Several people, including a policeman and a young girl, died in the attack on a civilian apartment block. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.
Not only does the BBC choose to ignore Qantar’s role in the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, they choose to emphasize that a terrified mother accidently suffocated her baby girl rather than tell how this savage beat the brains out of another child against a rock.
Disgraceful!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2740-2003May17¬Found=true)
(free login from http://bugmenot.com if required)
cbs news tonight (its on sky news .. ) – i kid you not. MPAC UK were on. doing an opinion piece.
Not only does the BBC choose to ignore Qantar’s role in the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, they choose to emphasize that a terrified mother accidently suffocated her baby girl rather than tell how this savage beat the brains out of another child against a rock.
I remember the Israelis mother’s searing account of how the POS murdered her family, including the 4-year-old child whose head was bashed against a rock — it was posted on LGF a few years ago. The piece was unforgettable.
The Beeb is just sickening, beyond amorality, they make Alex in A Clockwork Orange look like a paragon of virtue.
It appears that no lie or omission is too foul for the Beeb to commit in its ever=expanding quest to propagandize for the plumbing community.
Excuse me while I wretch. I have no words to describe the behavior of the Beeb.
Here’s my latest complaint to the BBC.
(In addition it is interesting to compare and contrast the extent of coverage of the Pope’s visit to Germany with the Mehdi fest)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5338498.stm
In your article Pope “rejects hatred in God’s name”, you not only present the Pope’s view inaccurately but actually state the exact opposite to what he said.
Specifically the article says:
“He said that a purely mathematically ordered cosmos would be nothing more than the chance result of evolution.”
Note to writer: this is what evolutionist/atheistic scientists philosophers believe; they believe that the ordered cosmos IS nothing more than the CHANCE result of evolution.
The Pope the idea that purely mathematically ordered cosmos would be nothing more than the chance result of evolution.
Here’s the proof based on the text of Benedict’s speech [extract from part where he discusses explanations for the origin of the universe]
“we end up with two alternatives.” Something came first, “Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, still somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason.”
“Faith is, always and inseparably, hope: the certainty that we have a future and will not end up as nothing.” He went on to say, “when God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe…as Christians, we say: “I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth” – I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end.”
Here’s a link to a reuters article that covered the exact same event:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-09-12T105753Z_01_MOL238517_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-GERMANY.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Notice the following sentences:
Reiterating some of his past statements, Benedict dismissed the notion
that
man and reason could be “nothing more than a chance result of
evolution.”
How can BBC get such simple basics wrong? I confess I’ve lost faith in you guys? Why not skip the journalism and just quote the Holy Father, it would come out much clearer…
Ooops the line
“The Pope the idea that purely mathematically ordered cosmos would be nothing more than the chance result of evolution.”
was supposed to say
“The Pope dismissed the idea that purely mathematically ordered cosmos would be nothing more than the chance result of evolution.”
Looks like I’m now qualified enough to work for the BEEB!
HOW STRANGE!
Two almost exactly the same questions on (Don’t) Have your say
Topic; Extra troops to Afghanistan?
The first round of votes I topped, perhaps beebiods not happy with that outcome so have now restarted the voting.
For the record I posted the following:
topic/Added: Tuesday, 12 September, 2006, 13:54 GMT 14:54 UK
“If that’s what it takes.
At the end of the day, if the Taliban/al Queda are tied down in Afghanistan and/or being killed, they are not killing and/or planning to kill innocent people on the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Moscow, Bangkok, Sydney….
Tim, Toulon, France”
I have noticed that when their lefty view gets hammered on voting topics they do not stay up for long.
Also very hard to get your views past the thought police in the first place!
Feel free to vote (again) if you agree with my view on this topic.
Democracy rules.
But not in BBC lala land….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3706370.stm
On this link even the BBC recognise Hekmatyar is a key player in Afghanistan….
They say that the “Leader of the Hezb-e Islami faction, Mr Hekmatyar is a warlord who is in hiding – evading American forces – and is believed to be somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
He is opposed to President Karzai and the presence of US-led foreign forces in Afghanistan and is blamed for carrying out several major attacks in the country.”
So why haven’t they reported his capture even now days after the event? And he was evading the British, Canadian and Afghan (who caught him) forces as well NOT just the Americans but hey, make it look as if only the nasty foreign Yankee imperialist McChippyHaliburtonHitlerBushite invaders are after him….
The BBC – leaving out the news that doesn’t fit our agenda – this is what we do.
Just heard a reference on BBC radio to “T.U.C. militants” at Brighton yesterday!The militants, one would assume, being those who protested peacefully and held up placards, plus engaged in the odd heckling with TB. So this is what militants do!
Not straightforward bias perhaps but certainly inept – or should I say, crap – journalism:
The Lord Chancellor is interviewed on “Today” just before he’s going to lecture the Australians on how terrible Gitmo is. Asked why he’s waited until now before condemning the US he denies that he has in fact waited and says that he said as much, oh, a year ago. “Today” (is it Ms Montague?) repeats the question, Lord F repeats the answer, “Today” repeats the question, Lord F repeats the answer and asks in return what part of his answer does the interviewer not understand. Abrupt shift to ask Lord F if a long-term resident (but not national) of UK now in Gitmo deserves UK government intervention on his behalf. Lord F temporises.
Now (in all humility, since I am not a journalist) the question to ask Lord F – and something for which he would be unprepared and thus vulnerable to incisive enquiry – is something like “if you have problems with the apparent US abrogation of the rule of law as exemplified by Gitmo, what about the erosion of the rule of law in the UK since 1997?” She could have instanced lots of things like, say, the abolition of the double jeopardy rule. But no, this, after all, is the BBC “flagship” news programme: the agenda is hit the US, hit the putative supporters of the US like Blair and Falconer.
More important, what do we learn from the actual interview? Nothing we didn’t already know: Lord F is a nonentity, the BBC is anti-American.
Given its own funding model, the BBC is hardly likely to be pro American.
Many of the people there are unreconstructed Communists.
archduke:
(that is a very non tech explanation… but its the best i can do for non-techies on this blog)
I’ve been a C programmer for 14 years chap.
Anyway – back to that crap bit of reporting I mentioned earlier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5337994.stm
First spacewalk for Atlantis crew
“A bolt, spring and washer floated free during the work, and Nasa is examining whether it could cause problems.”
“The washer went into space, but the astronauts were concerned that the bolt and spring might have got caught up in the wiring and tubing they were fitting.”
Meanwhile on the NASA site this is simply not an issue any more.
Crap reporting.
Umbongo
The problem with your proposed question is this:
While many people may be concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in Britain and the abrogation of a number of cherished legal principles (such as the double jeopardy rule), it would be inaccurate to cast this as the erosion of ‘the rule of law’. The changes were, after all, made by a sovereign parliament after due reflection and debate. They were not made by the executive branch of government wholly or partly in defiance of the legislature.
If the BBC were to go about describing the changes as ‘the erosion of the rule of law” it would rightly face criticism for bias. It would sound like ‘campaigning.’
That said, there is a set of questions to be asked about this in another context.
Socialism is Necrotizing | 13.09.06 – 9:59 am
“Given its own funding model, the BBC is hardly likely to be pro American.”
Huh?
Individual TV Programme sales: the Americas account for £65.3m of a global total of £173.1m.
Global TV Channel operations: BBC America is….
In 45 million homes, …Aimed at a 25-54 demographic, BBC America attracts blue chip advertisers. The channel is supported by its own website, bbcamerica.com, which this year increased unique users by 22%.
http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annualreviews/review2006/channels.htm
Ju
What the Pope actually said:
Seit der Aufklärung arbeitet wenigstens ein Teil der Wissenschaft emsig daran, eine Welterklärung zu finden, in der Gott überflüssig wird. Und so soll er auch für unser Leben überflüssig werden. Aber sooft man auch meinen konnte, man sei nahe daran, es geschafft zu haben • immer wieder zeigt sich: Das geht nicht auf. Die Sache mit dem Menschen geht nicht auf ohne Gott, und die Sache mit der Welt, dem ganzen Universum, geht nicht auf ohne ihn. Letztlich kommt es auf die Alternative hinaus: Was steht am Anfang: die schöpferische Vernunft, der Schöpfergeist, der alles wirkt und sich entfalten läßt oder das Unvernünftige, das vernunftlos sonderbarerweise einen mathematisch geordneten Kosmos hervorbringt und auch den Menschen, seine Vernunft. Aber die wäre dann nur ein Zufall der Evolution und im letzten alsodoch auch etwas Unvernünftiges. Wir Christen sagen: Ich glaube an Gott, den Schöpfer des Himmels und der Erde • an den Schöpfer Geist. Wir glauben, daß das ewige Wort, die Vernunft am Anfang steht und nicht die Unvernunft. Mit diesem Glauben brauchen wir uns nicht zu verstecken, mit ihm brauchen wir nicht zu fürchten, uns auf einem Holzweg zu befinden. Freuen wir uns, daß wir Gott kennen dürfen, und versuchen wir, auch anderen die Vernunft des Glaubens zugänglich zu machen, wie es der heilige Petrus den Christen seiner Zeit und so auch uns ausdrücklich in seinem ersten Brief aufgetragen hat.
John Reith,
How much did Iran pay to get the BBC to advertise it as a holiday destination?
john reith
This is not really the place to discuss matters of constitutional law but I have to disabuse you of the notion that just because an Act is legislated by the Crown in Parliament, the operation of that Act is necessarily part of the “rule of law”: it just ain’t so. For instance, an Act of Attainder could be passed by Parliament against the alleged killers of Stephen Lawrence: this would be “legal” but it removes from them the right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers – a key element of our (that is British) notion of due process and thus the rule of law: please refer to Dicey or to this paper on the subject http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/5_043000/what_is_rule_of_law.htm .
You fail to distinguish betwee rule by law and rule of law which is a subtle – but ever so important – difference in the ways we and our continental friends rule ourselves. Of course, and this is no criticism of you but just a general observation, the decline in education coupled with the increasing resort to legislation as PR has further fudged the distinction between the legality and legitimacy of law.
Umbongo
On reflection, I agree.
Am still not sure I want to hear Ms Montagu debating this with the Lord Chancellor in a 3 min slot on Today, though.
What I wouldn’t mind hearing is some questionning of the assumption that the constitutional safeguards/civil liberties that we (subjects of HM) or the citizens of the US choose to enshrine for our own protection should necessarily be regarded as universal in application (ie extended to foreigners…..including hostile ones….with ref to Gitmo etc.).
I’d be interested in your thoughts on that too.
They used not to be regarded as universal – they weren’t extended to German prisoners of war who were held until the end of hostilities – which is presumably what will happen to the Gitmo residents. Dunno when the War on Terror’s going to end, mind you.
I remember the Israelis mother’s searing account of how the POS murdered her family, including the 4-year-old child whose head was bashed against a rock — it was posted on LGF a few years ago. The piece was unforgettable.
Susan | 13.09.06 – 3:13 am
You must be referring to this, which is an excerpt of the full article I linked to at the WaPo.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6714&only
I previously commented on this piece regarding a BBC interview with the murderer’s brother.
‘Technical Issues’ Kill BBC Balance
They were at it again. Al-beeb trots out someone called Gutto Hari ( not sure about the sp) on “9/11”. But instead of devoting the report to the memorial services, they couldn’t help themselves and lost no time dissolving to a sketch about US policy problems in the Middle East.
Perhaps the bbc should ask itself if given a choice of friends anywhere in the world they would want some of the slime-ball, oppressive oligarchies and dictatorships, or the USA. Haughty Humph would say “humph” disdaining to even consider the question.
Perhaps the beeboids should go to New York and ask the UN if they would disband and reunite as the United Democracies.
Socialism is Necrotizing | 13.09.06 – 9:59 am |
The BBC see has had its system of funding since … when? the late 20’s. The endemic bias we see now has nothing to do with the system of funding. It has to do with the fact it has been subverted by the Marxist left and noone in political life is willing to slay this dragon with the Statutory Instruments that are already available.
John Reith | 13.09.06 – 10:24 am |
“They [changes in legislation]were not made by the executive branch of government wholly or partly in defiance of the legislature.”
anti-Reith (as should be your nic) how is Guantanamo either wholly or partly in defiance of the US legislature?
hippiepooter,
The BBC has allways been statist.
All the statists are now leftists.
OT:
Someone needs an emergency air drop of the road to serfdom.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125681.800
Yuck…is this the sort of “People” the BBC hires?
Is this the sort of people that poor grannies and single mums are threatened over, forced to pay the BBC Licence Fee???
No wonder people are turning away from the BBC in their MILLIONS!!!!
Vile….
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1233837,00.html
hippiepooter | 13.09.06 – 2:01 pm |
“how is Guantanamo either wholly or partly in defiance of the US legislature?”
A question both irrelevant and interesting.
Irrelevant • because I never said it was. I was talking about UK executive policy NOT being in defiance of Parliament, not about Gitmo.
Interesting (-ish), though • ‘cos I don’t know.
Nor do you.
Congress is yet to opine.
Certainly there’s a clash with the judiciary…… Hamdan vs Rumsfeld:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf#search=%22supreme%20court%20hamdan%22
But where does Congress stand? Will it depend on the mid-terms?
Sen Patrick Leahy (D- Vmt) is a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He sounds rather negative (and claims cross party support):
“The administration got itself into this mess because it refused to
accept Congress as a partner in its so-called war on terror and
insisted on acting unilaterally. It would not even involve Congress,
even though Congress is controlled by members of the President’s party. ………I urged President Bush to work with Congress to fashion appropriate rules and procedures for detaining and punishing suspected terrorists. All of us agree, if you have terrorists, if it is proven they are terrorists, they should be detained and punished. As I noted at the time, our Government is at its strongest when the executive and legislative branches of Government act in concert. Unfortunately, the President was determined to go it alone.
………….The Constitution provides that Congress, not the
President, has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land
and Water.” Congress, not the President, has the power to “define and punish Offenses against the Law of Nations.” And perhaps most
importantly, Congress, not the President, has the power of the purse.
Maybe each one of us should take a few moments and reread the
Constitution that we are sworn to uphold…………………this doesn’t reflect the feeling of just the Democratic Senator from Vermont. Similar expressions have been made by Republicans”
(sorry, no link but here’s the ref:
Congressional Record (Senate) : 13 June, 2005
Page S6390-S6391 )
John Reith
It would be an interesting discussion but not, I think, on this thread (or even this blog). However, I still think that pinning (or trying to pin) down Lord F on the decline of the rule of law in the UK presided over by the administration of which he is the senior lawyer would be a more fruitful exploration (even in a 4 minute interview) than going over Gitmo yet again. We know what Lord F is going to say and nothing Ms Montagu is going to ask him will deepen our knowledge of Lord F’s opinions.
And even if he does say something surprising on Gitmo – so what? He has very little influence on the US administration and anything he might say on the rights and wrongs of the issue are vitiated by his government’s fast and loose treatment of constitutional proprieties in the UK. As to extending our (previous) practice of the rule of law to the rest of the world – bring it on. I would note though that living according to the rule of law (as I understand it) is something which is learnt through the generations. It’s not something which is easily imposed or adopted. Accordingly, there are very few jurisdictions outside the Anglosphere that can pretend to practise genuine freedom under the law in the way my ancestors (but not, unfortunately, it seems my descendants) experienced it. [Grammatic problems there but you get my meaning – I hope]
The BBC never misses a chance to blame the Joooos!
Mediterranean ‘a dumping ground’
Bottom line?
The Mediterranean was also recently threatened by its worst ever environmental disaster after Israel’s bombing of a power plant in Lebanon sent thousands of tonnes of fuel gushing into the sea.
No explanation of exactly who’s to blame for the rest of this crap polluting the Mediterranean:
THE MEDITERRANEAN
650m tonnes sewage
1m tonnes of lead
60,000 tonnes mercury
36,000 tonnes phosphates
4,000 tonnes of lead
Is it really the Med’s “worst ever environmental disaster” anyway or simply another modern-day “bood libel”?
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADDF4BADB4C706&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
CATASTROPHE FEARED AS OIL TANKER SINKS OFF ITALY
Published on April 15, 1991
Author(s): Associated Press
GENOA, Italy — Rocked by one last explosion, a fire-ravaged tanker holding millions of gallons of oil sank yesterday off the Italian Riviera, and experts worked to avert an ecological catastrophe in the Mediterranean.
The Cypriot-registered tanker Haven appeared to have remained intact on the sandy sea bottom 1 1/2 miles off the shore, and it was believed that most of the vessel’s crude remained inside, officials said. The tanker held nearly 42 million gallons of Iranian crude
PS: John Reith – why the ‘scare quotes’ around ‘a dumping ground’ and why no ‘scare quotes’ around The United Nations has launched a campaign in Greece to clean up the Mediterranean, warning the sea is being treated like a dustbin.? No direct quote attributed to anybody even similar in the actual report – where does the UN say “the sea is being treated like a dustbin”?
‘Huh?’
“bood libel”
should of course read “blood libel”
Im fascinated by the information that the Med is polluted by a million tonnes of lead and 4,000 tonnes of lead.
Is it actually 1.4 million tonnes then or has the beeb screwed up in some other way?
Someone ought to save a screenshot of that, sooner or later its going to be spotted, I dont think I will bother telling them.
Ooops! 1,000,000 + 4,000 is only 1.004 million. Sorry!
Lurker:
Im fascinated by the information that the Med is polluted by a million tonnes of lead and 4,000 tonnes of lead.
Well spotted! :+:
The photo of the oily beach and the caption Israel’s bombing of Lebanon led to a major oil spill on the Mediterranean has been stealth-added since my post.
Interestingly the CLEAN UP THE MEDITERRANEAN website linked from the BBC piece indicates that Lebanon is not participating in the Clean Up Weekend, although “Palestine”, which is not a country, has “joined the initiative”:
http://www.cleanuptheworld.org/en/Activities/clean-up-the-mediterranean.html
The countries that have joined the initiative so far include Algeria, Egypt, Greece, France, Israel, Morocco, Palestine, Portugal, Serbia & Montenegro, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and the UK (Gibraltar).
Pssh! Don’t tell the Beeb but Bush’s poll numbers have risen sharply to 44% and you know how they like to splash these numbers at every opportunity….or is it only when they are going down?
Truly appaling article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5339280.stm
First there’s a picture of a APC on fire (that did it zero damge).
Second armies are debating the future of the Main Battle Tank, an expensive piece of kit and, as losses in Israel and Iraq show, vulnerable to anti-tank weapons
a) The UK forces in Iraq haven’t lost a single tank to enemy fire.
b) Of the Israeli tanks hit by ATGMs almost all were repaired and operational in less than 24 hours.
Still nothing about the capture of one of the mian terrorist players in Afghanistan…also did you know that the US had a drone circling a funeral today attended by many senior Taleban but because the Rules of Engagement say you can’t attack in a cemetery they all got away?
So let us get this right – BBC say Yanks nasty Bushhitlermcchimpy- haliburton pigs yet they have rules which they follow EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW that the enemy will not do the same – think of how many have did at funerals targetted by Islamic suicide bombers etc. Amamzing – our side follows the rules and get criticised constantly by desk bound warriors from the Beeb etc, the others don’t even behave like human beings some days and get a free ride from the media?
Just like at Yorktown when the Brits lost to the Yanks, the BBC Symphony should be playing ‘The World Turned up side down’…..
‘did’ at funerals obviously is ‘died’ – apologies. I have put myself down for a punishment essay later on.
if a muslim posted this on a bbc discussion board what would you tell him.
Message 5 – posted by sheronb (U3487282) , Yesterday
yes, well the banning of headscarves is more important than 9/11, and Muslims died in this as well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=3460191&post=40651401
dave T.
Forget the BBC if you want the truth about what is happening in Afghanistan.
Check out Bill Roggio instead…
http://billroggio.com/
(oh, and the report of Hekmatyar’s capture have proved to be incorrect)
werter5075:
if a muslim posted this on a bbc discussion board what would you tell him.
There seem to be at least four replies queued waiting for moderation.
I’d ask him/her to give me an example of somebody who died as a result of a headscarf ban.
The more these people speak the clearer it becomes that we can’t reason with them.
Anonymous 3:27
The actor in question (Chris Langham)was extremely funny.
He may well be proven to be a peadophile. (And as a father of 2, I feel as strongly as any)
However, we are about BBC biased, not the BBC itself, who convict “right wingers” in their documentries and defend “Misguided muslims from Tipton” who are stood next to a pile of RPG’s in Afghanistan, because they are there for a wedding of a friend who runs the local baby milk factory.
Lets not stoop down to their level please.
John Reith | 13.09.06 – 4:14 pm |
The piece you were commenting on were the views of the Lord Chancellor on Guantanamo.
And Gitmo is not in defiance of the House of Representatives. I know because you don’t know that it is.
anti-Reith, you cling to the view that the BBC is unbiased like little children cling to the view Santa Claus exists.