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.
(UPDATE: I’ve bumped the timestamp on this open thread forward rather than start a new one so soon. Several new posts below.)
ooh now I’m a teacher not a SNCO does that mean I get free accommodation and no Poll Tax if I work with Forces brats? AND get officer status as well! I kid you not a Headmaster in Cyprus actually signed his letters (Brigadier Equivalent)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When I was at NATO HQ in Brussels I paid the BAOR rates for fuel and light as well as rent and the then council tax. The filing clerks from MoD and the Foreign Office paid nothing AND had better accomodation than my family! THAT is an anolomy that needs sorting!
And ref that Lancet “survey”Key Graph
Good comment here
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/10/11/#006700
Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3•7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9•16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion.
According to the CIA Fact Book
The average death rate for
Afghanistan is 20.34/1000(est)
Hungary is 13.31/1000(est)
The World is 8.67/1000 (est)
The EU is 10.10/1000 (est)
US is 8.26/1000 (est)
Pakistan 8.23/1000 (est)
But Iraq stood miraculously at 5.5/1000 (est).
oops – looks like the John Hopkins registered Democrat docs’methodolgy is wrong again…..is this yet another Democrat October surprise that will fall flat? How come the BBC in their in depth examination didn’t see this strange aspects of the Lancet graphs?
Pete_London | 11.10.06 – 4:53 pm
The Khamenei link you posted has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It’s about civil nuclear programmes (he says so anyway).
So the ‘denial’ is still in force.
“Cash help to root out extremism”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6039496.stm
so , we’re bribing them, rather than using the full force of our security services.
unbelievable.
Anon “You’d get much much more support if licence fee abolition was your goal rather than attempting to destroy the credibilty of the entire BBC and all of its journalists”
I think all on here along with millions of others want the abolition of the bbc tax.But writing to your mp like you say will not change a thing as you know. As for destroying the credibility of the bbc we all know they do that themselves very well on a daily basis and have done so for many many years.
Anon: If you don’t like the BBC, don’t watch it and protest to your MP about the licence fee,
As I’ve said before, I live in Norway and do not pay the TV tax (although my parents do). My main beef with the Beeb is that it is forcing it’s liberal leftist anti-US propaganda down the throats of the rest of the world. Many people have no access to impartial news in their own country and continue to accept what the BBC broadcasts as being unbiased reporting of the highest standard (which it was, once upon a time) when it is so plainly evident, to an exponentially increasing audience, that nothing could be further from the truth.
I do not “scour” the BBC website for examples of bias because, as you so succinctly stated, it “is like shooting fish in a barrel”. As I read the stories I think “there’s one”, read a bit, “there’s another one” etc, etc.
As for trying to brand the majority of readers here as racists, I think you’re just trying to put up a smokescreen. Im not a racist and never have been but I am sick to death of all the pandering that the EU, the Government and the BBC feel is required to make certain persons in society feel “integrated” when most of their reported actions indicate that that is the last thing they want.
How many other races or religions have been offered more than 10% 0f the effort that has been made to accommodate muslims. I’m surprised that Afro-Carribean Rastafarians, Mormons or jews aren’t up in arms about the preferential treatment being given to Muslims.
All other religions (and races) have the option of “put up” or “get out” but not muslims. Why?
Which MP should I complain to BTW?
Anon | 11.10.06 – 4:16 pm | #
but anon…i thought the point of this blog was to argue that the bbc is not living up to its charter re bias (you seem to agree with that), which is its LEGAL OBLIGATION given its taxpayer funding
it may be sad if other members of the media are biased, but so what? they are perfectly entitled to be if they want, aren’t they?
i don’t care if the guardian is left, or if the mail (?) is right because I’M NOT FORCED TO PAY FOR THEM: in a free country that is their right
How would you feel if you were forced to pay for something like fox news?
If anon did pay for Fox News then at least he’d be fair and balanced….. 😎
Check LGF for a snippet on ‘The Lancet’ blokes mindset!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22920_Lancet_Editor-_Certified_Moonbat&only
Letfy lies as ever!
“What exactly is the problem with an attempt to demostrate moral equivalence when Bryan was trying to suggest that one form of supremism/racism is better than another. You’ll have to do better than simply trotting off a few glib cliches.”
You would have done much better if you had mentioned that BNP is actually its own worst enemy. There is a very problem with muslim immigrants that do not integrate into British society (or any other European society for that matter).
When a former BNP candidate turns out to be a would-be bomber, it only serves the cause of the left by proving that BNP members are diehard nazis.
But if you are honest with yourself, you admit that the islamic extremists pose a far greater danger to the British society than some marginal rightwing whackos.
If you ignore the islamic extremism and try to appease it with multiculturalist platitudes, you are only giving ammunition to the right wing extremists.
“Since you are such an accomplisehed linguist, you should have realised that bleating about character assasination is somewhat dim witted when you open your post with an attempt to discredit it’s author.”
I have encountered this kind of style so many times that I see RED every time. So, I’m sorry if I offended you in any way.
http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.947927.0.exbnp_man_held_in_bomb_swoop.php
goto:
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006_10_08_ukcommentators_archive.html
(that’s Laban Tall)
&
Lancastrian “Bomber” Update
for a little more perspective.
Anon
It is not that we want to destroy the credibility of the BBC, it is the fact that the BBC is not a credible source given that it publishes biased articles and sometimes straight-out lies.
If a newspaper is biased it is unacceptable, but if it publishes lies such as the ones about Cuban healthcare, then it is a threat to the public, because in order to manipulate the public the BBC is willing to make up stories as it suits their agenda.
It is insulting to me, as a Cuban-born and raised, to see how the BBC just publishes lies. You might not see the effect that a few lies have, but as a Cuban I have seen how most of the european community and latin american community ignores the fact that there are 11 million cubans enslaved under a totalitarian communist regime, and they just go and invest money and make deals with Castro, or simply visit the island, which enriches Castro even more because he gets all the profits from tourism and from any business made in Cuba. The media including the BBC is very responsible for this kind of misinformation and for making themselves available as tools of Castro’s political propaganda.
The only reason the US embargo has not worked is because Europe is still making business with Castro and providing him with funds, last week Russia extended its credit to Castro to 350 million dollars.
As long as Castro has money he will keep his power and enslave cubans.
Don’t you think the BBC ought to be promoting freedom and democracy, rather than supporting the lies that Castro tells?
If you have watched the BBC 10 o’clock news tonight you may have been lead to believe that Bush strolled up to the podium & launched into a tirade over ‘The Lancet’ death toll figures for Iraq exposé. In fact the first item on his agenda was the halving of the budget deficit. Just watch the edit via the web site if you can!
See what dirty games they play!
Re Iraqi death estimates. The BBC cover it as if it were the coalition forces who have done the killing.
We know that it is down to sectarian strife – but that always seems to be ignored by anti-war folk.
Some of the anti-war faction, including I think the LibDems, contend that, in time, Saddam could have been overthrown from within. Wouldn’t that have resulted in a similar, or greater, bloodletting?
Diana:
“Don’t you think the BBC ought to be promoting freedom and democracy, rather than supporting the lies that Castro tells?”
No.
It should not be promoting anything, only reporting news facts only, from around the world.
If we want any kind of bias, we can choose to buy a version of the print media which concurs with our own bias, but we have no real choice about buying the BBC output, because there is a licence fee which, if unpaid may result in imprisonment.
BBC, give me straight, factual, and accurate news reporting, and I will be happy to play.
The BBC is making a song and dance about that death count figure they come with as systematic as a US failure. Why John Simpson is saying that half as many people have died under Bush than under Saddam. Really Lets look at those figures Mr Simpson;
The total death count used by that survey lists 547 deaths.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3773/image2jv3.jpg
taken from;
http://www.thelancet.com/
(page 3 from the PDF file)
Lets break that figure down;
102 died of chronic heart disease
33 died of cancer
28 died of chronic illness
29 died as infants
23 died from accidents
19 died from old age
3 died from infectious diseases
10 died from other non violent means.
That adds up to 247 out of a total of 547.
That’s just over 45% of the total death count.
But lets look at that remaining 300 (65%)of people who died from violent means
169 died from gunshots
42 died from explosives
39 from airsrikes
38 from car bombs.
6 were unknown
6 were accidents
Surely the last entry shouldn’t be included, but hey it only increases the % to 46%
Now how did they glean that info? Well from May 2006 to July 2006 (As they don’t say exactly when to when I’ve given it the ball park figure of 90 days. something tells me it’s a lot less) 2 teams of 5 people visited 1849 families containing 12801 people.
From that figure they gleaned a violent death toll of 300 people (294 if you remove accidents) Over a 2 year period. That means roughly 150 people a year have died since the yanks went in 2003 for the sample undertaken.
Now back to the survey team 1849 families visited in 90 days by 2 teams works out at 10 families a day. That works out at roughly 1 family an hour saying they worked a 10 hour day (minus travelling time)
Now in contrast 10 years after the Civil war in Yugoslavia with a lot more people on the ground in a much safer environment we still don’t know how many people died in F.R.Y.
(Well for one thing the figure keeps on falling)
So how can the BBC quote figures as just after 3 months by 10 people when the figures for the Balkans are still unclear.
Hey I’m not saying people haven’t died in Iraq and I do believe that the US and Uk have f-ked up. But I get the impression that the anti-war crowd actually rejoice at this Estimated death count. As it reinforces their hatred of all things American.
As I have pointed out a lot of the deaths on that hit list are not the fault of the US led collation. By adding accidents and deaths by natural causes and then say the Americans are at fault for them is not only criminal by a falsehood.
Mick in the Uk – I agrre with you – this is what I have been saying for a long time. The BBc should have no opinion at all. The reason it does is not only because of its left wing journalists – its also because there is too much air time for them to play with. They could not possibly string the facts alsong for 24 hours without boring the pants off everyone – what we need is less time and money spent on so called news and more on decent programmes. About 20 years or so ago there was about 2 news programmes which lasted for about 1 hour, I think that would be enough for anyone. This would alow them to give us the facts and then push off so we could get some entertainment.
“Firm bans ‘ageist’ birthday cards”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6040196.stm
I knew this would happen – One day I may wake up and find that the last 10 years have been just an awful nightmare.
mic in the uk
supporting human rights (AND I SAY THIS NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT THE GROUP LIBERTY SAYS IS HUMAN RIGHTS) ,freedom and democracy in the news is not bias , it is drawing boundaries,,, FACTS can be spun , our motives should be open to criticism.
the BBC should pursue the goal of promoting liberty and democracy..
if you want facts , open a bloody encyclopedia because news is always going to be relative.
Alan Man | 11.10.06 – 1:53 pm,
Good post, but I’m afraid it’s wasted on Anon. His neurons can’t fire without producing left-wing cliches.
Umbongo | 11.10.06 – 3:30 pm,
The oppression of the dumbed down “justice” system has pervaded every corner of society with the police willingly enforcing it.
Watch it there, you’re giving a bit much of you’re typically boring and predictable conservative self away.
Anon | 11.10.06 – 1:30 pm
If you’re going to try to fling insults around the place, at least get your grammar right.
You left out a too. Maybe you can figure out where to insert it.
And you also need to replace an e with a y.
I see you came up with a rare comment on BBC bias on this thread. Maybe you can shelve all the other crap you keep spouting for just a little while. After all, BBC bias is what this site is about.
Why don’t you write and ask the picture editor?
John Reith | 11.10.06 – 1:23 pm
Thanks for that John Reith. That had me rolling on the floor in helpless mirth.
So helpless, in fact, that all I could do was throw the question back at you inbetween convulsions of merriment:
Why don’t you ask the picture editor?
Pete_London,
Did I mention that you wouldn’t get an answer from Mr. Reith?
Perhaps somebody at the BBC has a sense of humour after all:
Al-Qaeda man on US treason charge
A California man who appeared in al-Qaeda propaganda videos has been charged with treason by a US court.
Bottom line:
Mr Gadahn grew up on a goat farm near Los Angeles.
One can’t help but remember this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm
some context/background to the “600,000 dead iraqis” story.
here’s the lancet editor – where he was a star speaker at a Stop The War rally.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22920_Lancet_Editor-_Certified_Moonbat&only
Lancet figures are already being flung around as gospel truth. Look at the New York plane crash HYS.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4232&edition=1&ttl=20061012065417&#paginator
Re opinion rather than reporting.
R5 “Upallnight” had a report on President Bush’s press conference.
The BBC could have just played the tape of the event, after all it does feature their anti-Bush chums.
But they don’t do that. Instead the item is covered by the BBC desk person chatting with an anti-Bush US journalist.
This allows Bush’s words to be twisted.
As an example, Bush had pointed out how N. Korea had unilaterally repudiated agreements with both his & the Clinton administrations.
A journalist at the press conference, looking for controversy, followed up with
Q You talk about failures of the past administration with the policy towards North Korea
getting the reply
THE PRESIDENT: My point was bilateral negotiations didn’t work. I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn’t work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061011-5.html
So we get to the BBC & Upallnight who tell us that Bush was trying to offload the blame onto Clinton for the position with N Korea.
With more TV choice & access to internet sources more & more people will come to realise that you just can’t trust the BBC to tell it straight.
Interesting discussion on Islam on World have Your Say last night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/wservice_aod.shtml?wservice/world_hys
The two studio guests were a professor of Islamic studies from Glasgow University and an imam and spokeman for the Islamic Society of Britain. When I heard that I thought, well, here we go again, but strangely enough the two did not agree on many issues and the debate got a little heated at times.
The last ten minutes were particularly interesting with the imam insisting that Islam is perfect and wonderful and it is Muslims who must be blamed for distorting it while the prof took the view that you can’t separate Islam out from the Muslims who practice it. (Listening, Paul Robinson?)
However, the prof, who had been refreshingly frank throughout the programme, ended on a seriously disappointing note which smacked of taqiya in her PC answer to a caller who wanted to know if she regarded Islam as superior to other religions.
“No,” she insisted, as if the idea was really distasteful – and the imam agreed, mentioning Islam’s ties to Jesus and Moses. But elsewhere we learn that Muslims do regard Islam as superior since they see it as the final word of God – a perfection of Judaism and Christianity.
Still, this was one of the better programmes on Islam I’ve heard on WHYS.
Bryan
I’m surprised that a man with your command of the English language would write this :
“The oppression of the dumbed down “justice” system has pervaded every corner of society with the police willingly enforcing it.”
Meaningful stuff.
Re bias in the media and the latest figures regarding the Iraq death toll. Clearly most of the people on this site think that its findings are entirely spurious. Leaving that aside, and there are strong arguments that I can’t be bothered to make that support its findings, it is obvious to us that the report is going to be used as a political tool.
The BBC to their credit said this last night, John Simpson himself explaining to viewers that figures regarding the true number of deaths in Iraq caused by the invasion are extremely difficult to take as fact or as beincg close to the truth because of the political power they wield.
Now, I’m sure that before even considering the reports methods most people on this site had decided it was rubbish and nothing more than another attempt by political opponents of the US administration to highlight the folly of our involvement in the country. We are all guilty of making our minds up before considering the evidence. The BBC I think do make a decent stab at an objective report about the report.
The deliberate manipulation of public opinion by the media is a serious problem in any democracy. The BBC presented this item last night with a clear disclaimer about the findings of the report. I think that the Britain is arguably the best democracy in the world, our politicians face grillings from interviewers of the sort rarely seen in the US, observe last nights PM on Radio 4 where the irritating Eddie Mair attempted to get someone from ruth kelly’s office (forget his name) to explain all the ways that “muslims” values differ from our own, with the implication that they “muslims” are a homogenous group who all share exactly the same ideas about democracy and integration.
Despite being a “liberal” of sorts I despise much of the private media which has well known but rarely publicised political leanings. I object to publications like the Sun trading as news papers as the standard of journalism therein (as an example of tabloid journalism) is far worse than the BBC’s. “News”papers are pretty much half comment and opinion and half news these days. But in a free society with free markets the government can’t go banning private media just because it’s a load of poltically motivated drivel.
Britain does pretty well I think and the BBC have an important place as the most objective of the major broadcasting comapnies. I dunno what you think, but it worries me that the deomcratically elected leader of the country should have to suck up to rupert murdoch. But the fact is that no one can really be trusted when they have such (undemocratic) power to influence public opinion. No prime minister would suck up to the BBC, nor would they need to. I think this speaks for itself.
Clearly most of the people on this site think that its findings are entirely spurious.
Anon | 12.10.06 – 11:28 am
Not only ‘people on this site’, people on this left wing site too:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
Anon –
You couldn’t be more wrong with this:
Britain does pretty well I think and the BBC have an important place as the most objective of the major broadcasting comapnies.
And to follow it up with this (about Murdoch) nearly caused me to wet myself:
But the fact is that no one can really be trusted when they have such (undemocratic) power to influence public opinion.
You know what? So what if Murdoch’s papers have an opinion? Rupert Murdoch doesn’t send me letters saying he’ll have me fined and deprived of my liberty if I don’t pay him for his product. And you have the cheek to talk about ‘undemocratic’ power. Hah! Come on, when was the last time the BBC asked people if they would rather opt out of the threat violence-backed extortion? Sorry, I must have thrown that particular letter away with the junk mail.
When was the last time the BBC bigged it up for capital punishment and harsher penal regimes? GB’s withdrawal from the EU? The end of mass immigration? Great majorities of the British people are in favour of the lot of them, yet the BBC constantly pushes the opposite line, and you have the utter cheek to accuse Murdoch’s power to influence public opinion as ‘undemocratic’. At least he doesn’t have to use the threat of violence to sell his damned products! If he doesn’t sell, he goes out of business. THAT’S people power.
Nice comment from Guido:-
“Kevin Anderson, the new head of “blogging” at the Guardian (ex-BBC of course) was urgently looking for a moderator Tuesday for the comments on CiF”
Pete_london
I get my cable TV supplied by Telewest. No other option where I live. On their most basic package I get Sky News. No option about that.
“I can’t phone them up and say, I don’t watch that channel, please take it off my package”
You may say that technically it’s “free”, but it doesn’t look like I can avoid it.
Too true, Pete London.
I’m surprised that a man with your command of the English language would write this :
“The oppression of the dumbed down “justice” system has pervaded every corner of society with the police willingly enforcing it.”
Meaningful stuff.
I’m not sure what your complaint is here. Maybe you could stop writing in such an obscure way and actually debate the issue – whatever you think it is.
Unless you’re practising to work for the BBC.
I don’t generally complain about people’s English here and I don’t regard mine as perfect. It’s not an English class. But with you, I’ll make an exception. You’ve evidently been kicking around blogs so long you’ve adopted a cliched style of bitching at your perceived opposition. Now that’s boring.
Still, it’s good to see at least some attempt on your part to debate media bias. I’d love to stay and Fisk it, but I gotta go.
Pete, I’ve never seen a poll showing a great majority of Brits support EU withdrawal?
when was the last time the BBC asked people if they would rather opt out of the threat violence-backed extortion?
To that regime, add blackmail
Mark Thompson, the BBC’s Director-General, has threatened to drop plans to move 1,500 jobs to Salford, in Manchester, if the licence fee does not rise above inflation. “The licence fee is not an endlessly stretchable rubber band,” he said, responding to suggestions that the Government planned to cap the fee.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2400504,00.html
Expensive place, is Salford!
Francis:
Cockney
Sorry, meant to say even Iran says it has an ‘atomic weapons programme’.
This is easily found, even on the BBC site
Francis | 11.10.06 – 4:46 pm
Find one then. Just one.
Anon
I get my cable TV supplied by Telewest. No other option where I live. On their most basic package I get Sky News. No option about that.
Well don’t bloody well pay them then. If you don’t want Sky News that much then write to the boss of Telewest or stop subscribing. At least Telewest isn’t demanding your money just for owning a TV.
“This is what we do – regard life cheaply like all liberals”
You may have heard the news today that tagged criminals are responsible for 1000 violent crimes, including 5 murders. That’s right folks, if it wasn’t for liberals five people would be alive today who are otherwise dead.
So the BBC ran a piece on it (can’t be bothered to read it) which didn’t make the top slot:
Tagged offenders went on to kill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6038926.stm
You’ll see it went up at 10.22 GMT. It soon went down in importance and currently shows only on the right hand side of the page. You’ll have to look carefully.
Att 11.39 GMT, 77 minutes after the story above appeared, the BBC posted:
‘Tagging is good rehabilitation’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6043712.stm
I can’t be bothered to read this one either, but I assume it aims to show how tagging is good rehabilitation, as long as you’re not murdered, raped or bashed over the head by someone wearing a tag.
The news today wasn’t about rehabilitation being good, it’s about the revelation that 1000 violent, including 5 murders, have been committed by criminal with tags. The BBC itself decided to balance out the news with a bit liberal nonsense going the other way. Never forget folks, liberalism kills.
BBC ‘Man’Watch
Man admits UK-US terror bomb plot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6044938.stm
Who is the mysterious so-called ‘man’? What could be his motive for killing innocent people?
Can you guess? What the BBC forget is that the vast majority of us can find out via the internet in two seconds:
Dhiren Barot – Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dhiren+Barot&btnG=Google+Search
Dhiren Barot, 32, also known as (aka) Bilal aka Abu Musa al-Hindi aka Abu Eissa al-Hindi.
Barot convert is a convert to……?
Islam.
Even Reuters give us the FACTS. The BBC censor facts because they are biased.
Briton admits bomb plot against NYSE
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12102006/325/briton-admits-bomb-plot-against-nyse.html
“Dhiren Barot, a Muslim convert,…
Want the facts? Don’t watch or listen to the BBC.
The BBC, ever keen to report on the fiscal deficit in the USA (even though it is below that of many of the EU countries*), has not seen fit to pick up on this
European Commission warns of pension time-bomb
In a report on future of EU public finances, the European Commission said the public debt in the bloc would more than treble to 200 percent of gross domestic product in 2050 unless governments implement reforms urgently.
“Unless most member states do something serious about defusing the pension time-bomb, it will go off in the hands of our children and grand-children, presenting them with a burden that is simply not sustainable,”
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-12T095340Z_01_BRS000110_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ECONOMY-EUROZONE-FINANCES.xml
(*BOOMING tax revenues have helped to cut America’s budget deficit drastically to its lowest for four years)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2399818,00.html)
Further on US deficits, the BBC seeks to conflate the two (& of course it is political)
The US trade deficit widened by more than expected during August, raising concerns about the state of the world’s largest economy.
But that may come too late to help Mr Bush and his Republican party in the mid-term elections scheduled for November, analysts said.
Democrats are arguing that the size of the budget deficit, and especially the shortfall with China, are evidence that the Bush administration is mishandling trade and economic issues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6044650.stm
here is will’s link on the:
(*BOOMING tax revenues have helped to cut America’s budget deficit drastically to its lowest for four years)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2399818,00.html
the other link has an extra parenthesis at the end so it gives error
The thing that REALLY got my goat (not the UN sponsored ones….) was that on the ten o’clock last night John Simpson kept gibbering about how horrible it was in Iraq ignoring the fact that most deaths etc are Blue on Blue if you like ie not as a result of coalition actions but terrorist (mostly Iranian/Syrian sponsored) attacks.No mention of the fact that many of the deaths caused by the coalition are terrorists or former members of the Iraqi Army who died during the war.
He also ‘forgot’ to mention WHY these figures came out now etc.
Anything to do with an election in the States? Hmm when did the LAST (now discredited) Lancet piece come out oohh just before an election….
8500 journalists and not one mentioned this as a major reason for the way the figures are being pushed with such vigour by the likes of the BBC and other media in the States……..
I now use the same methodology and expolerate that most of the BBC hacks are secret squirrels who hate their country based on the input from Anon and others. Hey- it worked for the Lancet!
dave t. John Simpson talked at length last night about the figures being difficult to verify because of the political nature of statistics regarding the Iraq war. I watched it.
” their country based on the input from Anon and others”
So i assume you are blind/deaf as well as stupid.
Anon… Yes, your right about John Simpson. He did indeed talk at length about the casualty figures in Iraq and, it seemed to me, came to the conclusion that (allowing for the discrepancies and bias inherent in the figures given by pro- and anti-Bush researchers) the ‘actual’ death toll was around 500,000.
Remember, this is the same John Simpson who managed to keep a straight face during his interview with Syrian President Assad when he asked him about the dictator’s support for “insurgent attacks against US and British forces” • forgetting, of course, the murderous attacks supported by the Ba’athist regime against countless thousands of Iraqi civilians.
So i assume you are blind/deaf as well as stupid.
Anon | 12.10.06 – 4:26 pm
This from the person who accuses others of getting involved in slanging matches!
Well actually I’m 55% deaf and 25% lame thanks to nasty men with bombs and the RSM shouting at me but hey…I can type too!
Simpson spoke at length yes, but AT NO TIME did he point out WHY the figures are being released NOW which is what many of my chums were wondering.
Can you also explain why the 10pm BBC spent around 8 minutes on this story (and made it the headline one) whereas the ITN 1030pm gave it two sentences halfway through their bulletin?
No need to shout – I can’t hear you so softly typed words please….I thank you.
The BBC and Fact and fiction;
The families of three British residents held in Guantanamo Bay since 2002 have failed in a bid to force the government to request their return to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6043594.stm
British residents BBC?
I’m a little confused about just who can claim to be a British citizen BBC.
So I clicked on the link to the right on the above website and had a butchers at these so called Forgotten British Residents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5409254.stm
Well for a start can somebody explain how all of the above were caught abroad?
(Yes the top 2 were living in the UK. )
But the rest,
Omar Deghayes, 36
Is pictured as a poor young lad who was studying law in the UK. Err BBC he picked up radical Islam at Uni, dropped out, left the country ended up in Afghanistan , married to an Afghan girl and even had the time to give her a rug rat. So how the hell can he be classed as a British resident when he walked out of the Uk ?
Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, 39
The BBC quotes;
“He had been applying for citizenship and had indefinite leave to stay in the UK when he was captured.” And “He lived in London with his wife and three children, all British citizens, and worked as an interpreter for a firm of solicitors. A fourth child has been born since his capture. He has never seen her.”
And here’s what the Guardian says about the man;
“He was working as a solicitor’s translator in London and had been given indefinite leave to remain in the UK. He was in the process of applying for British citizenship when he moved, with his family, to Kabul. He says he wanted to live in a Muslim country while his application was processed. There his family shared a house with Moazzam Begg, the Birmingham man who was freed from Guantánamo last year.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1886309,00.html
British resident my arse. He packed his bags and upped sticks to Muslim central.
Binyam Mohammed al Habashi, 28
The BBC says;
“Binyam Mohammed al Habashi was born in Ethiopia but sought asylum in the UK in 1994 and was given leave to remain.”
And the Guardian says;
“In June 2001 Mohammed left his bedsit off Golborne Road, Notting Hill, and travelled to Afghanistan, via Pakistan. He maintains he wanted to see whether it was “a good Islamic country or not”. It appears likely that he spent time in a paramilitary training camp.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1540752,00.html
Ahmed Errachidi
The BBC says;
“He travelled to Afghanistan via Pakistan and the US authorities claimed he attended a terrorist training camp. Mr Errachidi worked as a chef in LondonBut his family have wageslips showing that he was cooking at a restaurant in Muswell Hill, north London, at the time he was supposedly in the camp.”
And the Guardian says;
Errachidi did travel to Afghanistan a couple of months later, however. He says he went first to Pakistan, in November 2001, to buy cheap silver jewellery which he could sell at a profit in Morocco to raise funds for medical treatment for one of his two children, who live in Tangier. He says he then crossed the border to offer whatever help he could to civilians caught up in the post-9/11 conflict.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1886309,00.html
Can somebody explain how somebody from Morroco would travel to the bandit country areas of Pakistan in which to buy silver and then decided to pop over the border in which to help the people during a full blown war.
Ahmed Belbacha, 36
The BBC says;
“Ahmed Belbacha is a former footballer from Algeria who came to Britain in 1999 as an economic migrant. He was denied asylum in 2003 but was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK.”
And Cage Prisoners says;
“He lived in the United Kingdom between the years of 1999 and 2001. On 17 May 2001 , Ahmad was denied asylum but was given leave to remain. In June 2003, Ahmeds final asylum appeal was denied but he was granted exceptional leave to remain. It is believed he left for Pakistan to study in 2001”
http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=2044
Abdulnour Sameur, 33
The BBC says
“He was arrested in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan while in the company of a group of Arabs. He was shot in the leg. Mr Sameur admitted having prior knowledge of 9/11”
Pounce says, say no more.
British residents BBC?
It appears that the vast majority had left Britain looking for something better. (Funny enough nearly all around the same time) They made their beds, let them lie in it. I don’t need bloody terrorists living the high life in the Uk at my expense. I also don’t need the public BBC fighting their case.
“Ah bless Mr Aziz is not only blind, he’s deaf and suffers from leg tremours.”
And yet, he shows the tenacity and stiff upper lip that has made england a great country.
Mr Aziz refuses to allow disability to prevent him from fully reaching his potential as a motorist.
I also admire his pluck in his decision to attend court in a T-shirt emblazoned with “B4D MO7H3R FU5K3R”. Most of todays native youth would not be so bold.
OT – BBC science reporting.
Climate change law being planned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6045680.stm
“Last month, Mr Miliband said people “should be scared” by global warming and that more were recognising that “something funny is going on with the weather”.
Indeed. (as they say on ‘Today’).
Keeping Prescott and the Greenies who keep flying all over the world for conferences on global warming at home might stop a large percentage of the carbon tons used…
BBC pandering the official Turkish government line that Armenian genocide never happend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6043730.stm
It was ‘Genocide’ in the title and “Genocide” in the text.