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.
Who would have thought that Jack Straw would ever say anything I agree with?
Limbo – the idea that unbaptised babies who die go to neither heaven nor hell, but Limbo. The Catholic Church is rethinking this idea. Fair enough. But what did the BBC compare it to on the Today programme this morning? You’ve guessed it – the reporter told us that (paraphrased) “in Islam, it is believed that babies who die can go to heaven as well”. Again, fair enough, but why did the BBC include that as a relevant point? To show that Islam is more “progressive” than Catholicism? Much more relevant and sensible would be the comparison of Catholic doctrine with Protestant doctrine. But too much to ask from your average Beeboid.
“A man who posted racist messages on a website set up in memory of murdered black teenager Anthony Walker has been jailed for three years and two months.
He pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to publishing material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5412558.stm
I’m not defending this person but comments I have posted on websites, extremely critical of the religion of peace, could well be construed by overzealous police or MPAC nutters as “likely to stir up racial hatred.”
Something to ponder, particularly if the incitment to religious hatred bil gets passed. I read this in wiki
16 February 2006 – The Bill received Royal Assent to become the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 c. 1. The act will not come into force until the publication of a Statutory Instrument.
Does anyone know what’s happening with this bill?
MOSLEMS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD
It looks like that there are limits to the BBC’s ability to brainwash the British public. Have a look at the comments they are getting in reaction to Jack straw’s comments on the BBC “Have Your Say” (should in fact be re-labelled as “Give the Right Answer”
Have never seen so many people “reccomend” a politician for saying something.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4123&&edition=1&ttl=20061006114208
radio 5 live had a phone in vote – 93% backed what straw said.
“Does anyone know what’s happening with this bill?
simo | 06.10.06 – 11:34 am ”
pretty sure that “religious hatred” bits were amended out.
From the BBC’s website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5411320.stm
“Tell the faithful women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarf to cover their bosom”
Koran, 24:31 (English translation)
But verily this applies especially to these shameless whores.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/01_january/15/news_presenters.shtml
Bijan
“faithful women”, I think those “shameless whores” are not. Get a grip.
Off topic from the Jack Straw thing.
It seems that the BBC bias has been picked up by the Nobel Committee:
http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/10/nobel-committee-notices-bbc-bias.html
From today’s Newsnight email:
Subject: What not to wear
————————————————————
FROM NEWSNIGHT EDITOR, PETER BARRON
————————————————————
The hot debate in BBC News at the moment concerns a hypothetical question. What would we do if a newsreader of Muslim origin returned from holiday in Pakistan and said that from now on she wants to read the news wearing a headscarf?
Tricky, certainly. But I think the chances of that particular scenario happening are so unlikely it’s not worth worrying about unduly. It’s far more likely surely that one day soon a Muslim journalist who happens to wear a headscarf will become a reporter and then a presenter on national television. I reckon it might cause a stir for a day or two and then we’d all carry on. On Newsnight, Hardeep Singh Kohli http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/4229074.stm has been presenting Newsnight Review http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/default.stm for more than a year wearing a turban – sometimes a shocking pink one – and as far as I’m aware the world has not ended.
The uniqueness of a Jewish head covering is hinted at in the blessing we say every morning, thanking God for “crowning Israel with splendor” (Talmud – Brachot 60b)
The Talmud says that the purpose of wearing a kippah is to remind us of God, who is the Higher Authority “above us” (Kiddushin 31a). External actions create internal awareness; wearing a symbolic, tangible “something above us” reinforces that idea that God is always watching. The kippah is a means to draw out one’s inner sense of respect for God.
It’s easy to remember god while at the synagogue or around the Shabbat table. But Jewish consciousness is meant to pervade all aspects of our lives — how we treat others, how we conduct business, and how we interpret world events.
Appropriately, the Yiddish word for head covering, “yarmulke,” comes from the Aramaic, yira malka, which means “awe of the King.”
In Hebrew, the head covering is called “kippah” — literally “dome.”
To wear a kippah is to proclaim “I am a proud Jew.” There is a fascinaing phenomenon whereby non-observant Jews visiting Israel will wear a kippah for the duration of their stay. It may be out of a sense that the entire Land of Israel is holy like a synagogue. Or it may be the removal of any self-consciousness that can often accompany public expression of Jewishness in the diaspora.
Indeed, wearing a kippah is a big statement, and obligates the wearer to live up to a certain standard of behavior. A person has to think twice before cutting in line at the bank, or berating an incompetent waiter. Wearing a kippah makes one a Torah ambassador and reflects on all Jews.
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_kippah.htm
Just as we are FINALLY coming to grips with the imbeciles that dictate dress to women … we get Anonymous giving us drivel on the benefits of wearing the Jewish Kippah!
One step forward, two steps back. Im waiting now for a Hindu contributor to tell us all about the glories of painting a red dot at the centre of one’s forehead.
You mean they paint it on ? I thought there were a lot of Indians with birthmarks….
Anyway, to biz, let’s not let the BBC’s superficial sleaziness on this issue disguise the more profound sleaze. This author is no fan of Islam, but she makes an important point about the Islamic headscarf:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/3843
Yep, it ain’t religious in the slightest. It’s an ideological marker not a religious one (whatever that means in the case of Islam). Or to put it another way, we’re not talking about people being dicriminated against just because they’re expressing their religious affiliation, we’re talking about whether people should take into account that someone is wearing the regalia of an extremist ideology that calls for mass murder, slavery and other delights.
The real anlaogy is with a reporter who wished to wear Klan regalia.
Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the BBC headline on the Jack Straw story is currently ‘Straw “opposes all Muslim veils”‘. I am curious as to why the Beeb are using quotation marks. Are they actually quoting Straw? Did he actually say that he ‘opposed’ veils, or the wearing of veils? So far I haven’t seen any evidence that he said this at all. Why are they putting words in his mouth, I wonder…
Bijan Daneshmand:
… we get Anonymous giving us drivel on the benefits of wearing the Jewish Kippah!
I don’t think Anonymous, (get a nickname for insert deity‘s sake, was either demanding or encouraging anyone, particularly a non-Jewish anyone, wear a skullcap (Kippah). Nor do I think he (generic) would take part in or encourage violence or intimidation against someone not wearing one.
Skullcaps, turbans, crucifixes, tikis, long dresses and most other signs of religious identification do not provide any barrier to communication or identification.
Bijan Daneshmand: Lighten up!
Compre & Contrast
this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5409262.stm
with this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408836&in_page_id=1770
as someone has said here recently; the BBC is intersting not for what they say, but for what they do not say.
Has anyone spotted the latest scandal with the BBC and radical Islam. Apparently a Muslim taxi driver working for the BBC refused to carry an “unclean” guide dog:
http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/10/muslim-cabbie-refuses-to-take-guide.html
Words fail me.
It’s been edited its “Straw dislikes all Muslim veils” now!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5411954.stm
And also another stealth edit:
The captioned comment from “Have Your Say” which previouly said
“The right to wear whatever you want is a part of the liberty we all enjoy”
Simon W, King’s Lynn, England
has been changed
to
“Of course Jack Straw has a valid point… Communication isn’t just verbal it is also to do with body language and facial expression”
I can’t seem to find the original comment from Steve W. (?? tried with the search function and only comments on his comment came up) but it certainly wasn’t in the top 30 or so comments.
Of course we are all use to HYS using the least popular comments for the HYS captions.
Ju
PS Did anyone catch the 1:00 news on this issue. I thought it was biased – ur thoughts?
Bijan Daneshmand:
“Just as we are FINALLY coming to grips with the imbeciles that dictate dress to women ..”
Ah – another interesting lesson from the insightful Bijan. Silly old me thought that a lot of muslim women in Britain make a personal choice to wear the veil because they’re proud of their faith. Now we learn that infact they have been told to dress this way, by “imbeciles”, and have no choice in the matter ?
Pathetic.
“make a personal choice to wear the veil because they’re proud of their faith”
Its the same pride and joy that a dog takes in wearing its collar and leash.
Pathetic is a person who posted Anon(ymously).
I’ve only just got around to seeing last night’s Newsnight. The female hijab-wearing representive of MPACUK had the chutzpah to say that many mosques in Jack Straw’s constituency don’t allow women to enter. She thinks that Straw should be doing something about that rather than asking women who visit him in his surgery to lift their veils. I couldn’t quite believe what I was hearing!
I can imagine the outrage if Straw dared attempt to tell mosques in Blackburn that they should allow (Muslim) women in to prayers. And Kirsty Wark didn’t bat an eyelid!
Muslim Cabbie Refuses to Take Guide Dog
Last week I reported that Muslim leaders had complained to the police about the use of police dogs while searching a mosque. Well, according to the Daily Mail, it isn’t just mosques that dogs are banned from and it isn’t just police dogs who are “unclean”.
A Muslim taxi driver refused to allow a guide dog into his cab because it is against his religion. Licensing laws insist that he must carry guide dogs, the maximum penalty is to have the license revoked. The driver apparently said that “what had happened to me [the blind victim] wasn’t really very important, and I should have more respect for other people’s culture”.
The driver was fined Ă‚ÂŁ1,200, but kept hislicensee, despite stating that he would continue refusing to take guide dogs because of his religion.
And just as if this couldn’t get any worse, the cab company is contracted by the BBC to carry guests and it was after an appearance on News 24 that the incidentoccurredd.
Hmmm blind person being interviewed on News 24. Wouldnt be this geezer by any chance?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,881683,00.html
Personally I would have taken the dog and left him by the sidewalk.
Anon )(who else?) writes:
“Now we learn that infact they have been told to dress this way, by “imbeciles”, and have no choice in the matter ?”
You mean like the choice they have in ‘honour killings’ and forced marriages?
Pretty clear you learned absolutely nothing at all from feminism, isn’t it, Anon?
I’m glad that somebody else noticed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/10/thursday_5_october_2006.html#c169086
GCooper and Bijan.
Don’t say that no muslim women in the UK wear the veil out of choice, because it’s an outright lie.
Feminism is about choice. Morons like you will judge that no one would make this choice and women wearing the veil are unfortunate prisoners of a backward religion, and they are being forced to dress like they are. It simply isn’t true, so I want you to admit that this is not the case and move on.
has the headline changed?
its now
“straw dislikes all veils”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
hmm.. friday prayers. i wonder how long it’ll be before you have a “straw rage”..
“Silly old me thought that a lot of muslim women in Britain make a personal choice to wear the veil because they’re proud of their faith.”
it actually a vile, disgusting statement , that says that “i’m alright – but all those other non-Burka clad women deserve to be raped”
The BBC forgot to mention something in the coverage of the Windsor unrest
http://www.di2.nu/200610/06c.htm
Anon
Hejab & Burqa is about the respek for Allah inn’it?
“for more than a year wearing a turban – sometimes a shocking pink one – and as far as I’m aware the world has not ended.”
last time i checked , Sikhs werent blowing up tube trains. big difference.
Feminism is about choice. Morons like you will judge that no one would make this choice and women wearing the veil are unfortunate prisoners of a backward religion, and they are being forced to dress like they are. It simply isn’t true, so I want you to admit that this is not the case and move on.
Ho2w do you know what true or not. Have you interviewed all Burqua Hejab wearing women we are not moving on. We are here to stay the point. If it sticks in your throat, then choke on it. If you want to move on go here.
http://www.moveon.org/
It simply isn’t true, so I want you to admit that this is not the case and move on.
Anon | 06.10.06 – 2:37 pm
Or what? Will you organise a demonstration and call for the death of Biased BBC commentors’ Will you issue a fatwa?
You really are a pretentious, and rude, POS!
Anon:
“…so I want you to admit that this is not the case and move on.”
Your arrogance and presumption know no bounds, do they?
Clearly, the persective of a dyed in the wool male chauvinist of the least conmprehending kind.
Meanwhile why dont you address the more pertinent subject of the real way that choices are handled in the Islamic community as Francis has pointed out.
Francis:
The BBC forgot to mention something in the coverage of the Windsor unrest
http://www.di2.nu/200610/06c.htm
Francis writes:
“The BBC forgot to mention something in the coverage of the Windsor unrest”
They appear almost to have forgotten the entire event. I can’t find a mention of the story on News Online’s front page – again.
Clearly, the comrades are getting badly rattled, as the pressure cooker lid they helped screw down so tightly in the first place starts to buckle and flex.
gcooper -> you have to dig deep to find it. its now relegated to the BBC Berkshire pages.
here’s the sequence of pages to get to it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/default.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5412918.stm
“pitchforks and a bomb – windsor’s week of violence”
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200berkshireheadlines/tm_headline=pitchforks-and-a-bomb—windsor-s-week-of-violence&method=full&objectid=17883631&siteid=50102-name_page.html
I’m arrogant !? I’m not the one claiming that all muslim women are forced into wearing the veil and none of them choose to dress the way they do. Just for clarity, go on and actually say it.
GCooper
“Clearly, the persective of a dyed in the wool male chauvinist of the least conmprehending kind
WTF !? Come on say it, for me. All muslim women are down trodden and all of who wear the veil are forced to do so, none of them do it through choice. Since you assume when you see the veil that the wearer is being bullied into doing so, who’s really arrogant and presumptious ? Who’s really not respecting choice ? Got it yet ?
Biodegradable You “don’t get involved in personal slanging matches”. Yet you offended John Reith in the other thread, and now you call me a “peice of shit”. You’re a class act all right.
Thanks for revealing that, Francis. How many of the BBC-fed audience are aware of that? reminds me of the way the prelude to the last lebanese War was (that is, ‘wasn’t’) reported on the BBC… Thanks, BBC, for keeping us all in the dark about facts that might prove awkward to the BBC agenda (you know best)
Not only has the title on the Straw story changed, but those revealing quotation marks have also been removed. I wonder if someone complained. I considered doing so, but work unfortunately got in the way. 🙂
Anon writes:
“I’m arrogant !? I’m not the one claiming that all muslim women are forced into wearing the veil and none of them choose to dress the way they do.”
That’s a very ill-formed argument Anon. You write as if completely unaware of the effects of the pressure to conform to cultural norms.
Decisions aren’t taken in a vacuum.
Have you really never read anything written by feminist writers?
Or are just trolling?
Archduke writes:
“you have to dig deep to find it. its now relegated to the BBC Berkshire pages.”
I wonder why we are so deafened by the silence from Reith and the other BBC apologists over this? Surely, a story sufficiently important to warrant front page status on newspapers, deserves significant coverage from the BBC?
The only explanataion that makes any sense is that an editorial decision has been taken to downplay this story.
And that is proof positive that the BBC seeks to manipulate public opinion by the selectivity of its news coverage.
anyone else notice the curious similarity between Darth Vadar and the black hijab thingie?
both are very creepy. anytime a see a black clad Islamofeminazi i’m half expecting a deep breathing noises and a light saber.
Did anybody see Dianne Abbot play the race card on ‘This Week’ last night?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/default.stm
14 minutes 30 seconds in.
The BBC is more than happy to promote the image that the wearing of a Hijab and the like is actually the choice of the wearer.
And goes to great detail in which to sell the great unwashed that line.
Err BBC why don’t you visit any number of Universities where Hijab wearing girls are dropped off by their male kin on a rning. You know those girls who then march into the toilets and remove said head covering, also the Salwar Kameez.(the small dress like thing worn on top of trousers by Muslim and Hindi women.) Seeing these young girls remove these signs of male induced oppression at the first chance they get tells me they have very little choice in the matter of what they wear.
(I had to laugh when France banned the Hijab in public schools, the Uni newsletter had an article about this been against female human rights. Then I pointed out it had been written by a man. Oh the red faces)
Now lets go to full Islamic blown Islamic countries where the girls have no choice but to wear what they are told.
In Saudi, Iran, Parts of Pakistan and Paris not wearing full blown Islamic clothing gets you arrested or in the latter a good kicking. Malaysia last year pushed through a law that non Muslim school girls have to wear the Hijab.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1823632,00.html
As promoted by countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and France. The wearing of covering clothing by Islamic woman isn’t a matter of choice but rather a lack of choice. It is a form of oppression against woman which strangely is defended by the liberal elites of this world. I hear a lot of people say out loud that one way in which to turn Islamic moors away from violence is by educating the women folk. Strange how the Libs (and I include the BBC in that) are more than happy in which to keep the females of Islam in the gutter.
pounce writes:
“Strange how the Libs (and I include the BBC in that) are more than happy in which to keep the females of Islam in the gutter.”
Good post, pounce.
It’s fascinating watching the BBC’s female programme presenters as they wrestle with the inherent contradictions in trying to appease Islam and simultaneously be true to post-70s feminism.
One of these days a Kirsty Walk or a Jenni Murray is just going to start foaming at the ears.
I hope I’m watching when it happens!
I’m sure there’s a thread of “close male-male relations” running through Islam.
(If your female Imagine) Your a “typical bloke”, BUT you’re also founder of a religion so you can decide what women wear…
Lets just say that, if I had to make the decision, female ACOists wouldn’t be wearing a shapeless black sack!
AntiCitizenOne | 06.10.06 – 5:02 pm |
Hear, hear. It sounds like the bloke who thought of imposing the kind of clothing we are discussing was one or more of the following:
1. Extremely insecure.
2. Insanely jealous.
3. Inadequate in some way.
4. Married to a very ugly woman.
5. Gay.
Interesting to note that the BBC News ‘Have Your Say’ on Jack’s anti veil speech is almost 100% supportive.
Yet – Mark Easton ends a hostile comment column with ‘He said he wanted a debate. Well, he has got one’
Also their ‘Street Debate’ concludes that his vews get a ‘mixed response’. What are these people on ???
t mann:
maybe he “will learn his lesson” (to use BBC paralance)