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 trial of the men accused of the racially agravated murder of Luke Connel began this week.
Luke who? I hear people ask.
He was a white schoolboy in Glasgow but I don’t suppose that we’ll hear much (if anything) about the trial on national BBC radio news, only on Scottish regional news(I don’t watch tv). I know that it hasn’t made Radio 4’s 6o’clock news.
Compare this to the equally appalling racist murders of Anthony Walker and Stephen Lawrence and you realise what the BBC are about
Expect “John Reith” to provide us with plenty of coverage!
DG wrote;
“Expect “John Reith” to provide us with plenty of coverage!”
Nah he’s far too busy trying to label me as a liar.
Anonymous
“He was a white schoolboy in Glasgow but I don’t suppose that we’ll hear much (if anything) about the trial on national BBC radio news, only on Scottish regional news..”
There’s devolution for you.
I hear your TV watching fellow Scots only get the first half of Newsnight.
But it ain’t all bad. Down Sout we only have to suffer Tommy Sheridan when there’s a sex scandal. Don’t think I could stomach him on politics too.
Nah he’s far too busy trying to label me as a liar.
pounce | 04.10.06 – 10:43 pm
So stop making it easy for him. You have been using your own brand of taqiah recently. I read your comment about ‘big white teeth’ and assumed it was Barbara Plett saying it.
Only when Reith pointed it out did I discover it wasn’t a beeboid but a floozie called Starflake or something.
(sorry not to give the reference but there’ve been so many open threads running)
Anonymous
Are you sure it’s Luke Connel? I can’t even find anything at the Scotsman or on Google generally, never mind the beeb.
Paul wrote;
So stop making it easy for him. You have been using your own brand of taqiah recently. I read your comment about ‘big white teeth’ and assumed it was Barbara Plett saying it.
That’s funny as Paul Danahar wrote that article. Please point out where i said Plett wrote it.
(I take it your not really Paul are you?)
Justin Webb has been mugged by reality!
this is excellent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/livefreeordie/pip/cemgr/
I’ve never seen Huw Edwards so miserable and concerned by any item of domestic news as on the Ten O’Clock News on Tuesday evening. What was making hime so miserable? Why, Tesco’s record profits, of course. And they do this without any tax upon the domestic population. Perhaps, unlike the Beeb, they have a balanced output!
Now the timeing of the “Iran Uncovered” series on the BBC makes sense. It served as a welcome mat to a certain Mullah that will be here very soon. Get ready for lots of fawning from the BBC, Guardian, …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1887550,00.html
Now the timing of the “Iran Uncovered” series white washing the Mullah’s dictatorship becomes clear. It was obviously a welcome mat for a Mullah that will soon be on these shores.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1887550,00.html
the first tactic of the appeasers will be an attempt to show the visit as one which was against the wishes of the “hardliners”, … its nothing of the kind. Khatami is just a front man for the thugs that run Iran (which is Khameini and his followers). He will play the role of the “good” cop to Ahmadinejad’s bad cop as the Mullah’s string out their negotiations with the EU and its limp wristed negotiator Javier Solana. This is nothing more than an attempt to buy enough time to attain nuclear weapons.
“Fatemeh Rajabi, the wife of Mr Ahmadinejad’s official government spokesman, denounced Mr Khatami as a “mercenary” who had gone to the US to get “rewards for the eight years of implementing American plots disguised as reforms”. The hardline newspaper Kayhan also criticised the trip as inappropriate in light of the nuclear dispute.”
Khatami is remembered in Iran for 8 years of building false hopes for a “moderation” in the regime. His movement were unceremoniously dumped out of parliament in sham elections
Visiting Britain, seen by many Iranians as an even greater enemy than the US, is bound to provoke equally fierce condemnation. Mr Ahmadinejad routinely singles out Britain in his frequent denunciations of western policies.
Britain has been historically distrusted by many Iranians because of its monopoly of the country’s oil industry during the 20th century.
Ordinary Iranians distrust Britain directly as a result of the Foreign Office and the BBC Iranian service. Every Iranian child knows that the FO has worked hand in glove with the Mullahs since the constitutional revolution of 1904, and the BBC has played its part in promoting their rule.
For an example of what the BBC will soon be serving us all have a look at this piece of socialist trash journalism
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/604/604_06_Iran.shtml
and compare it with a few glimpsese of the reality of Iran under the facist dictratorship of the Mullahs
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2252
http://forfreedominpictures.blogspot.com/2005/08/night-at-ganjis-house-to-support-his.html
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1434247/posts
this last is difficult to watch. Its the stoning to death of a young person.
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/video.html
BTW here is Khatami’s views on stoning to death
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/khatami.html
For those of you who dont have RealMedia. Here is a chance to see Islamic justice in Iran on Winndows Media.
Its not easy viewing but its neccessary viewing if you want to understand the depth of the hypocracy that is spouted by the left in this country and the BBC.
Before being stoned the victims are typically lashed with a Bull whip.
http://www.amitiesquebec-israel.org/texts/stoning.htm
Pounce: I was wondering if Al Beeb actually employed people like “John Reith” as full-time blog trolls. I mean he’s been on here so many times -he can’t do much “real” work, can he?
Having said that – I wonder who at Al Beeb actually works more than 30 minutes a day (I’m referring to their lunch-break when they read Al Guardian and Al Independent).
.
Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union.
Radical Muslims in France’s housing estates are waging an undeclared “intifada” against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.
As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were “in a state of civil war” with Muslims in the most depressed “banlieue” estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.
It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.
More
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml
You could have knocked me down with a feather. In an extraordinary example of political correctness gone mad, the Secretary of State of the greatest nation on earth bows and scrapes before Abbas and fellow Palestinians in Ramallah:
Mr. President, I think you know that we have great admiration for you and for your leadership….Let me say that I think president Abbas has enormous respect in the international community and in the United States. And it is indeed because of that respect….even after the refusal of the Hamas government to accept the international norms…the United States found a way to get humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. This is in large part because of our respect for president Abbas and what he’s trying to do. …And because he is a leader that people respect he is going to continue to have not just the attention of the international community but its very intensive efforts to break through some of the deadlocks that have been there.
One wonders why Rice had to fawn over Abbas quite so slavishly. This is the same Abbas who:
*wrote a thesis, or something, denying the Holocaust as part of his university “education”, and never retracted it.
*was the financial mastermind behind the 1972 PLO murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.
*was Arafat’s right hand man.
In other words, he’s a terrorist. But the worldwide obsession to wrap the Palestinians in cotton wool and hand them a state no matter what they do, perfectly exemplified by Condoleeza’s address to them in Ramallah, trumps any considerations of who the Palestinians actually are and what they stand for.
I notice that the BBC story, although referring to The Sun, doesn’t have an internet link. I wonder why this is?
I listend to James Naughty on the Today programme this morning after 7am interviewing Dal Babu from the Association of Muslim Police Officers he never once raised the subject of Anti-Semitism and the Jews. Now, after 8am, Naughty is interviewing Iranian, Ali Desai, of the Association of Black Police Officers. Apparently it is a “Welfare issue” nothing to do with protecting the Jews and the fact that he is a Muslim!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006460306,00.html
Cop Out Muslim PC is excused duty at Israel embassy…’on moral grounds’
ANOTHER Muslim removed from the DPG after his security clearance was rejected is trying to sue the Met. Vetting revealed PC Amjad Farooq had a close acquaintance with alleged links to an extremist Islamic group.
Paul 04.10.06 – 11:25 pm,
Here’s John Reith’s defence of the BBC’s “big white teeth” quote.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115956983850998052/#309828
Note that even John Reith, BBC apologist that he is, did not say that pounce was inaccurate but that pounce implied that the quote came from the BBC’s mouth. That’s Reith’s opinion.
The point I made at the time, and that I’ll repeat here, is that so much of the BBC’s bias is revealed in who and what it quotes on any issue.
Would the BBC quote someone referring to Islamic terrorists as greasy and unwashed?
Never in a million years. But they will quote dizzy, flattering, hero-worship of terrorists. Therein lies the bias.
right now – bbc 4 has melvyn bragg on about early Islamic scholars. i switch over to radio 2 and somebody is wittering on about Ramadan.
you just cant get away from it…
(switches over to classic fm)
“Note that even John Reith, BBC apologist that he is, did not say that pounce was inaccurate but that pounce implied that the quote came from the BBC’s mouth. That’s Reith’s opinion.”
So… we’re for scrapping all comments that are someone’s opinion and which dwell on what is implied?
Should make for light posting on B-BBC’s comment boards.
This one should be interesting…
When should a police officer be excused duty?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4121&edition=1&ttl=20061005095644&#paginator
This is what very brave policemen & women put themselves up against every day and get ever less thanks for it.
Three percent anyone?
http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/three-percent-anyone.html
(3% I believe relates to the most recent pay award for police)
Maybe, given this morning’s developments with PC Muslim, our other plods could state that they will no longer police our streets at night because they fear for their ‘safety’.
Richards confirmed as new Ofcom chief
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,,1887998,00.html
“Media watchdog Ofcom has appointed its chief operating officer, Ed Richards, to be its new chief executive.
Mr Richards, who joined the regulator’s board in March 2003, will take on his responsibilities immediately.
Prior to his appointment at Ofcom, Mr Richards was Tony Blair’s senior policy adviser on media, telecoms, internet and e-government.
Before that he was controller of corporate strategy at the BBC.“
Oh dear…….
So… we’re for scrapping all comments that are someone’s opinion and which dwell on what is implied?
Anon, that’s a stretch, even for you. Why don’t you reply to the point I made instead of going off on some weird fantasy that I would like this forum censored?
Brown urged to reach deal on licence fee
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,1887545,00.html
“The Liberal Democrats have called on the chancellor, Gordon Brown, to stop obstructing a “fair BBC licence fee deal”, after earlier reports of a cabinet split on the issue.
No surprise at LibDim backing of the BBC – given that Ming Ding is the darling of much BBC political output.
Looks like that HYS forum on ‘When should a police officer be excused duty?’ isn’t going at all well for Al-Beeb. Technical problems in 5…4…3…
“Here’s John Reith’s defence of the BBC’s “big white teeth” quote.”
I’m sorry, but what pounce wrote didn’t accuratly represent the article – very Moore-esque I must say.
And what about the second and third parts of his “defence”? Again more dishonesty it seems, unless you can defend pounce on that too.
You can say what you like about JR and him being a BBC apologist, but I would rather be a BBC apologist than a pounce apologist.
For all the ills of the BBC, pounce is far worse. He is certainly more biased and, in my opinion, less intellectually honest. And he doesn’t always get his facts straight either.
Spot the difference;
From the mail
“Despite a lack of planning permission to use Technor House as a place of worship, workers and visitors have been praying there”
From the BBC
“the dairy, which is part of a complex that also houses an Islamic centre”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408689&in_page_id=1770
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5408254.stm
“Anon, that’s a stretch, even for you. Why don’t you reply to the point I made instead of going off on some weird fantasy that I would like this forum censored?”
I don’t think that Anon (please get a name) is suggesting that you want this forum censored.
I think that he/she was pointing out that “someone’s opinion … which [dwells] on what is implied” is a common theme among B-BBC commenters’ fisking of BBC articles.
In other words, it’s a bit rich for somone to criticise JR for doing it, when that’s pretty much everyone else on this blog does.
That’s how I read it anyway – Anon, can clear it up if I misread it (AFTER getting a name please).
But I’m pretty sure he wasn’t suggesting that you want this forum censored.
Interesting conversation…..
The bigheaded Beeb
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_mckie/2006/10/drowning_in_selfsatisfaction.html
“The BBC would be far more enjoyable if it didn’t insist on self-promotion at every opportunity, whatever the underlying reasons.”
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_mckie/2006/10/drowning_in_selfsatisfaction.html
Reith vs Pounce:
I know who I’d gladly buy a drink … and enjoy a nice political discussion with. And, no, it’s not the person who calls himself “John Reith”. This is obviously a very subjective view (I’m a very subjective person) but then I consider Pounce to be more of a journalist that “JR”. Come to think of it – Pounce’s output is better than most of the stuff Al Beeb put out.
Just read Mark Mardell’s piece on the French Socialist woman (I refuse to remember her name):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5406926.stm
Brilliant stuff. Exactly what you expect from Al Beeb!
“I know who I’d gladly buy a drink…”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure pounce is fantastic. And as he is an ex-serviceman I believe, I can guarantee that I’ll be getting the drinks all night.
What about Mark Mardell’s piece then? Don’t tell me he hasn’t got the “hots” for this French Socialist woman. He sounds more like a style advisor to me though.
MisterMinit,
While you get involved in the minutiae of semantics here, the BBC continues pumping out its appalling bias on an hourly basis, and continues to do its propaganda damage.
John Reith is a dishonest in that he seldom responds to challenges to debate specific instances of BBC bias.
I’ve been trying to get him to debate Alan Little despicable little anti-Israel propaganda piece on Gaza, which was part of a series titled “Inside the Red Cross”. He says Little is not anti-Israel but he wont/can’t back his argument up.
Could be that Reith listened to the piece, originally broadcast on the World Service, and realised that I am correct in my assessment. If so, the last thing Reith would do is come back to me and acknowledge that I’m right, whereas I have admitted mistakes I’ve made in combatting BBC bias a little too enthusiastically.
On the other hand, maybe he hasn’t listened to it and simply intends to avoid the issue. Yet he demands, as you do, that we respond to every minor quibble raised by the pro-BBC crowd who pop in here.
The BBC is, by and large, implacably biased, selective and dishonest in its reporting. Of that, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
buried on the bbc website – 3 nights of riots in Windsor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5409444.stm
eh? how come i’m only hearing about it now.
see if you can try to find that story from the front page
http://news.bbc.co.uk
“I think that he/she was pointing out that “someone’s opinion … which [dwells] on what is implied” is a common theme among B-BBC commenters’ fisking of BBC articles.”
Correct. And as Bryan has showed, he first misunderstands the point, secondly doesn’t recognise the hypocrisy it refers to and thirdly wildly misinterprets as support for something he vehemently disagrees with.
A fairly succint example of the quality of analysis of “bias” here.
“thirdly wildly misinterprets as support for something he vehemently disagrees with.”
refusing to call terrorists “terrorists” infers either support or sympathy for the terrorist cause. there is no other way of reading into that. Merely falling behind the “impartial” argument is a disservice to the reader and dishonest as well.
Archduke, read the thread. The “wildly misinterprets” comment has nothing to calling terrorists anything.
Bryan writes: “On the other hand, maybe he hasn’t listened to it and simply intends to avoid the issue. Yet he demands, as you do, that we respond to every minor quibble raised by the pro-BBC crowd who pop in here.”
Precisely. As several of us have pointed out before, Reith’s technique is transparent: he’s a sniper. He will try to discredit a largely accurate comment by picking at a small detail, hoping the thread will unravel.
The intellectual dishonesty of the BBC’s apologists is more amusing than troubling, once one has seen through their tactics.
But (just for the hell of it) let me ask our little coterie of BBC fans (Reith, Anon and MisterMinit) a question I’ve asked before and to which there is always a resounding silence.
How many external media commentators used by the BBC on news, arts and other topics come from the Guardian and Independent, compared with the Times and Telegraph? And how does the BBC square that with the respective circulations of the newspapers concerned?
There seems to be aa marked reluctance to discuss this. I wonder why?
On your second point, refusing to call terrorists “terrorists” infers no support. It, does, however, also infer no support for the position of people that call them terrorists insofar as it relates to that particular group.
If you read failing to support one group = de facto supporting/legitimising another, then it’s easy to arrive at your view, which would leave no room for an organisation that positioned itself as neutral.
At the heart of the debate is a wider one than the longstanding internal discussions the Beeb has had on use of “terrorist” – and which rarely gets discussed here. In fact, quite the opposite.
While calling for the BBC to be unbiased, a number of commenters simulataneously express the view that, as a “British” organisation, the BBC should tend to support the British position.
I’ve asked more than once, and would still be interested to see the owners of this site actually define what they define as “biased” and “unbiased” in terms of the global coverage and audience the BBC clearly has. What would “unbiased” coverage look like and what structural changes to BBC news gathering/reporting would the site owners implement to ensure it remained so?
Ritter | 05.10.06 – 10:23 am
I think the interesting aspect of this is that, although the Sun and the beeb are trying to push the PC’s request as being on moral grounds, in fact the officer feared arab/muslim violence against his family in Lebanon.
Another black mark for the RoP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5408470.stm
But MPA member Peter Herbert said the row was a “ridiculous fuss about nothing” and attacked Sir Ian over an “unwise judgement” on opting so quickly for a review.
“From a security point of view, the Met would be seriously criticised if this guy has relatives in Lebanon and his picture was used around the world to demonstrate the irony about having a Muslim defending the Israeli embassy in the UK.”
Well blow me down – “Lefty Lawyer Lets Cat Out of the Bag”
You may be aware of Clive Stafford Smith. He’s a British, commie, ‘human rights’ lawyer who’s arrogance leads him to campaign for the abolition of capital punishment in the US. It takes a liberal, I suppose.
He also represents nine so-called British terrorist suspects in Gitmo, and has been calling for their release back into the bosom of their families:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5409022.stm
UK accused over Guantanamo nine
So anyway, in citing Angela Merkel’s example in getting a Turk (who lives in Germany) released, Clive Stafford Smith says:
“Angela Merkel, who is not known for being a leftie, made it the top issue in her discussions with (President) Bush and he was released without any restrictions or preconditions,”
So there you go, straight from the traitorous, commie horse’s mouth – lefties are more likely to want terrorist suspects roaming free in the streets of Blighty. But then I could’ve told you that.
Anon writes:
“…refusing to call terrorists “terrorists” infers no support.”
No – but what it does is confer a moral equivalence. Why you seem unable to understand this is quite beyond me.
Well blow me down with a feather…
BBC news presenter Darren Jordon is to leave the corporation to join Arabic television station al-Jazeera.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5409696.stm
“…refusing to call terrorists “terrorists” infers no support.”
Now what was the BBC’s justification for wearing out a thesaurus in coming up with alternatives …… ah yes, that’s it: ‘terrorists’/’terrorism’ are value laden and judgemental words. Well yes, that because it’s right, proper and just to hold values and be judgemental where terrorists are concerend.
I detect a whiff of the 60s unwashed hippie radical in all off this. When half a generation is allowed to mature with a silly, romantic view of the likes of Che Guevara and the PFLP, it’s gonna come back at you one day.
GCoooper
“…more amusing than troubling,…”
Well done, i think you’ve nicely summed up this entire site and most of its proponents (I say most because some are probably quite dangerous racists and not amusing in the least), half of whom don’t even sound like they live in the UK.
You lot are so up your own arse it isn’t true. You regard anyone who disagrees with your world view as being of somewhat lower intelligence and hopelessly naive in light of their inferior choice of reading material.
The views of most of the country effectively push your own hard right agenda onto the fringes and so you resort to attacking the BBC for not pandering to your marginal opinions. It’s common place to find deeply critical and discrimnatory atitudes towards muslims here and it seems your main beef is that the BBC doesn’t call them “ragheads” as well.
If you were to ask the British public whether they want to keep paying £2 a week for the BBC or whether we should leave our proud boradcasting heritage to the ravages of the private sector, I know what they’d pick, and I bet you do too.
Does the phrase “pissing in the wind” mean anything to you ?
It’s common place to find deeply critical and discrimnatory atitudes towards muslims here and it seems your main beef is that the BBC doesn’t call them “ragheads” as well.
I’ve never once claimed that the BBC should call’em ragheads.
“No – but what it does is confer a moral equivalence. Why you seem unable to understand this is quite beyond me.”
Moral equivalence to what?
If you mean calling them “militants” gives them the moral equivalence of, say die-hard labourites of the northeast, we agree. Personally, I dislike the term militants for what are clearly terrorist acts. I suspect many in the BBC do, too, hence why they were unable to call the 7/7 bombers “militants”.
But no-one disputes the policy is easy to criticise. How would you resolve the naming issue, specifically in three examples:
– where the group in question had a defined and legitimate political wing largely indistinguishable from the fighting/terror bit?
– where the validity cause being fought for was morally/legally unclear aka “whose land is it anyway” or “the ruling government is illegitimate”?
– where the “official” army also engaged in tactics that could objectively be termed as designed to cause terror, or just plain illegal.
Let me answer that question for you DifferentAnon :
“Where the protaganist is a muslem” is what nost people on this site think I’ll bet.
Once again, bereft of argument, ‘Anon’ resorts to bluster, insults and invective.
Ho hum.