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 BBC and half a story,
A young Muslim girl who was suspended for wearing the veil in front of children she was supposed to be teaching lost her case today over her suspension;
And how do the BBC report on that story:
Veil row assistant ‘victimised’
A Muslim classroom assistant suspended for wearing a veil in lessons wins £1,100 from her education authority.
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9233/biasedbbcis9.jpg
Any of the anon clones wish to defend the BBC here.
Make it quick as I’m out on the town tonight.
Sure.
The quotes round “victimised” in the headline make it perfectly clear it is a claim that is being made by someone.
Sure enough, the first line says it:
“Muslim classroom assistant suspended by a school for wearing a veil in lessons has won her claim of victimisation at a tribunal”
Is there anything factually inaccurate in either of those two statements? No?
Interestingly, one of the most common complaints here about use of quote marks is that it undermines the credibility of the statement. Which is it – endorsement or undermining?
Do you believe the following stories endorse the person making the claim?
Tories ‘to be responsible on tax’
‘Millions wasted’ on court cases
Parties ‘near critical condition’
Mmmmm…..
Pounce rightly described this as a ‘breaking-story’. He then says the BBC is guilty of bias by ending its initial report with a quotation by the teacher.
GCooper seems to agree.
So now, a few minutes later, the story has been expanded and the last lines are no loger those of the teacher but those of one of her critics:
“Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik said the decision to reject her claims of religious discrimination was “a victory for common sense”.
So, tell me, has the BBC REVERSED its bias?
DA when the BBC pretends to report a viewpoint it is actually endorsing a viewpoint
Take a look at this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/5236164.stm
What the BBC fails to report, like I said before, is that the cuban regime controls every aspect of cuban life and oppreses those who speak against the regime, so what the cuban citizen living in Cuba said, is not just invalid but unrepresentative of the cuban feelings in Cuba, because it is known that if JORGE CASTELLANOS NUNEZ or any other cuban in Cuba speaks against the cuban government, the regime will enforce its power and threaten his life or that of his family.
Yet, by publishing this article without specifying the truth, the rest of the world, who have never lived in Cuba like the cuban-exiles have, will think that the Cuban-exiles desire for a free and democratic Cuba are not founded, because according to the BBC “life appears to be continuing as normal” in Cuba.
Of course it is “normal” BBC, if anyone dares speak up or protest pacifically against the government they will be harrassed, threatened, and beat by the regime’s special forces.
BTW Castro has complete control over the military and Cubans have no way to defend themselves, so you bet that ALL you will get from Cuba is silence, silence due to fear, BBC.
But no, the BBC would rather endorse the idea that everything in Cuba is “normal” because to the BBC left-wing communist and socialist propaganda is not just normal but maybe even acceptable.
Is it “normal” to have political prissioners, BBC? Is it “normal” to continuously violate the human rights of cuban citizens, BBC? Is it “normal” to allow only ONE political party, or to not have withheld ANY free elections in 47 years?
What the BBC sees as “normal” is the reason why thousands of cuban rafters have tried and still try to reach US soil every day. A dictatorship is not “normal” BBC, FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY are.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
Kirklees Council was ordered to pay her £1,100 for victimising her.
……………………………….
no word that she actually won on a technicality,because the school did not follow certain guidelines.
from sky news.
She was awarded £1,000 and an extra £100 because the respondent failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure.
Good evening Mr Reith I see that you’ve taken up the mantle of defending the BBC yet again;
“So now, a few minutes later, the story has been expanded and the last lines are no loger those of the teacher but those of one of her critics:”Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik said the decision to reject her claims of religious discrimination was “a victory for common sense”. So, tell me, has the BBC REVERSED its bias? “
Good point Mr Reith. But the simple fact you leave out from the above is that the BBC did reverse the both the heading and the footer.
The title from the original (Link below) used the headline
“School wins tribunal in veil row”
It then ended with the victim statement at the end.
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1350/kirkleesqz8.jpg
In the latest incarnation of this story (Now you know why I took a screen dump)
The header is the exact opposite from the footer.
Please feel free to carry on trying to promote black is white, I’ll pop in later but I must go and iron my kit for tonight.
‘The Cuban Tragedy or Diana’s Mad Againe…..’
Of course the BBC has reported the Cuban regime’s human rights violations – long programmes about it.
But you don’t put every fact into every item.
This one creates its own balance.
In any case, Anselmo – the Miami-based son of one of Batista’s ministers gets the last word. According to current B-BBC doctrine, that means the BBC is on his side.
Or has the orthodoxy changed in the past twenty minutes?
I just heard this story on radio 4 – and they said that she had lost her case – but was given £1,000 for the suffering she had been caused???
John Reith when you have proof to support that I am mad, only then will I tolerate your insults, I hope you learn to respect others as I have respected you. Show me proof, otherwise you can eat your insults towards me, as they show that you cannot debate rationally, since you have to resort to ofenses.
If you take a look at the article, the BBC clearly states that “life appears to be continuing as normal” in Cuba, and by interviewing two individuals, one who is subjected to the regime (something the BBC does not mention) so he only speaks good things about Castro, and the other who lives in a free country, the BBC tries to portray a difference in opinions, as if by implying that the cuban-exiles (who lived in Cuba unlike you John Reith) have no reason to ask for democracy or freedom in Cuba since all is “normal” according to the BBC.
John Reith: But you don’t put every fact into every item.
So you are saying that it is irrelevant to metion the repression the communist government exercises on cubans, when interviewing a cuban who lives under that regime.
You assume, like the BBC, that the rest of the world knows that there is a communist dictatorship in Cuba, and as you can see in the link below, there are always ignorant people who will be manipulated by the BBC’s omission of facts
http://www.seeingblack.com/article_75.shtml
Here’s a strange story for the BBC to be reporting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6065460.stm
Awhile back (‘Power of Nightmares’) they were claiming al-qaeda didn’t exist, it was all a plot by the powers that be to keep us in line! What’s more, how can there be such a thing as ‘terrorism’ and ‘anti-terrorism’ when, again according to the BBC, there is no such thing as ‘terrorists’ – only ‘misguided criminals’, ‘militants’ and ‘extremists’?
10 mins of today’s Radio 4 PM prog dedicated to terrible justice system in Pakistan.
How often do they give air time to mis-carriage’s of justice in the UK because criminals have avoided justice by escaping to the terrible justice system in Pakistan?
Ans: Never.
BBC1 News & the veil case.
The broadcast report stated more than once that the case concerned the Muslim woman’s refusal to unveil in front of male staff at the school, implying that she was prepared to unveil in the classroom.
The onlne report is more correct
Muslim classroom assistant suspended by a school for wearing a veil in lessons has lost her claim of religious discrimination at a tribunal.
Aishah Azmi, 23, was asked to remove the veil after the school in Dewsbury, W Yorks, said pupils found it hard to understand her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
Channel4 stated that at the press conference she had been asked whether she would remove her veil in front of male staff.
The woman’s reply was that she could teach perfectly well whilst wearing the veil. She obviously did not consider that it should be removed at all whilst at work.
The BBC1 News appears to be deliberately downplaying her objections to removing the veil.
Hi jr
Column inches, air time, which ever way you want to measure it, the only issue about Cuba which seems to get the BBC exercised is a small enclave at the eastern end of the island.
Apart from the blinkered, the socialist experiment in Cuba has been a dismal failure for all to see, yet somehow your organisation managed to promote some utter tosh on the ‘marvels’ of the Cuban healthcare system. Not a rebuttal in sight from any quarter.
oh and by the way, if a Tory minister had dared to holiday in apartheid South Africa don’t you think your organisation would have been all over the story like a rash.
Somehow the BBC managed to miss the odious Hodge woman extolling the virtues of Castro’s cuba after her holiday there.
Nice to see you back however.
not bbc bias but who is going to watch DEATH OF A PRESIDENT today on channel 4, porn for lefties.
tom atkins
The BBC have been at great pains to point out that the man under sentence of death in Pakistan is British. I’ll wager that the individual concerned is the holder of two passports, the second being Pakistani.
you plays the system to your advantage.
John Reith-
Are you related to Verity? Neither of you seem to be able to refrain from lacing your posts with sneering insults that bespeak an overweening cultural arrogance and, frankly, carry the whiff of Empire to those of us not lucky enough to be members of the ruling class in your multicultural paradise. Or is discourtesy simply the new orthodoxy in White City?
Natalie,
Sorry. I just like to remind people that National Socialist is the long form of Nazi.
TPO ” I’ll wager that the individual concerned is the holder of two passports”
No need. He would be eligable for a Pakistan Origin Card (a right to return!)
http://www.pakmission-uk.gov.pk/HC/nicop.htm
here’s a bit of trivia for the pub quiz:
Sozi, was German slang for “socialists”.
from the german spelling Sozialist.
this was from the time when you had
Nazi v Sozi street brawls in the late 20s /early 30s.
“not bbc bias but who is going to watch DEATH OF A PRESIDENT today on channel 4, porn for lefties.
DofF | 19.10.06 – 7:29 pm | ”
seen it already. its shite. an “eco-warrior” nutcase shoots him.
(despite the fact that every islamist on the planet REALLY DOES want to kill Dubya…)
Re Death of a President
The BBC’s previewer in Radio Times says
the overall effect is to leave your palms sweating and your conscience more than a little uneasy.
What can he mean??
Had I been at the press conference given by The Veiled One I would have asked the obvious question:
How do we know that it is Aishah Azmi behind that veil?
gordon-bennet 8.18
“How do we know that it is Aishah Azmi behind that veil?”
I’d know that screech anywhere.
I was pretty dissapointed that you could still see a bit of her nose…
If she is going to hide her face in shame, we should at least demand she do it right…..
Still…seeing her is another nail in the coffin of Islamic expansion…who is going to want their kids anywhere near that repressed moron??? Courts or no…people will just get more angry at the Islami nutters in this country, bringing forward the inevitable backlash…
Muslims are their own worst enemy…and I’m not just talkig about the 100s of each other they slaughter like pigs, everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan…
Anon wrote: “Don’t pretend that “anti-semite” doesn’t have holocaust conotations. It’s why the term is so offensive.”
You really are ignorant aren’t you? Anti-semitism has existed to various degrees since Roman times. It would have been as fair to say I was citing the Dreyfus case as the Holocaust! Or the pogroms of the 16th – 19th c. Or the expulsion from England; from Spain; from Portugal.
Anyway at least I know know why you are so sympathetic to fundamentalist Islam – birds of a feather and all that.
DifferentAnon:
“Amazing how so much of the UK press is supposed to be “in league with the enemy.”
Not really. Most of the American MSM is fighting for defeat too.
John Reith
here are some pictures of the Cuban Tragedy
http://therealcuba.com/Poverty.htm
and more
http://therealcuba.com/Unhappypeople.htm
and more
http://therealcuba.com/Page21.htm
and more
http://therealcuba.com/HurricaneCastro.htm
and about the BBC’s acclaimed “great” healthcare for cubans
http://therealcuba.com/Page10.htm
and about the BBC’s acclaimed “free” education for cubans
http://therealcuba.com/FreeEducation.htm
And in case you blamed the US embargo here is the truth, the US blockade has not worked because European, South American countries, Canada, Russia and China have still traded and made business with the dictator. However, cubans do suffer from an embargo, but that is Castro’s internal embargo.
http://therealcuba.com/whereistheblockade.htm
Now take a look at the Cuba where I lived, and compare it to the Cuba that Castro has made for foreigners like you John
http://therealcuba.com/two_cubas.htm
I know the BBC would not put these pictures so I put them here because I think you have a right to know the truth
My regards, I really hope you can see beyond the BBC’s bias.
Lurker: “Ritter – The US maintains its population by importing millions of Mexicans. Just as ‘our’ birthrate is propped up by our own vibrant minorities. Killing ourselves just the same as if we werent breeding at all.”
This is incorrect. Fortunately we still have whole states full of people eager to go forth and multiply. And we most certainly do *not* ‘import’ Mexicans. They come in on their own very much against our wishes and laws, (excepting of course the DNC which depends on their votes)
Diana,
Just because you lived and fled Cuba, doesn’t mean you know more about Cuba than Reith who reads the Grauniad.
/sarcasm
Just because you lived and fled Cuba, doesn’t mean you know more about Cuba than Reith who reads the Grauniad.
/sarcasm
AntiCitizenOne
ha ha, ok, I’ll take that into account lol 🙂
“How do we know that it is Aishah Azmi behind that veil?
gordon-bennett | 19.10.06 – 8:18 pm |”
its not – its Ali G doing the biggest wind-up in the world ever.
Roxana
“You really are ignorant aren’t you? Anti-semitism has existed to various degrees since Roman times. It would have been as fair to say I was citing the Dreyfus case as the Holocaust! Or the pogroms of the 16th – 19th c. Or the expulsion from England; from Spain; from Portugal.”
It would only have been “as fair” to suppose you were citing any of those events (events that I am only now aware of thanks for mentioning them) if they were all the same. Ah, but then again I suppose just because the BBC didn’t cover “Jewish expulsion form portugal circa 1600 memorial day” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or looms as large as the Holocaust in the European and Jewish pysche.
You really are stupid.
oh sweet god. they’ve got that head-scarfed Respect nutter on Question Time now.
why do these “Respect” people keep popping up? didnt the BNP get a bigger vote at the last local elections?
even though i hate the BNP with a passion, when *was* the last time you saw a BNP member on the panel?
Question Time is on right now, take a look at the balanced panel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/6065700.stm
Are they perhaps trying to protect Muslim “sensitivies” by not having a “right-wing” representative on at all?
might be just me – but i’m seeing a loaded audience on QT right now.
lo and behold , we have a Darth Vadar outfitted Islamoloon in the audience making comments now.
and now, we’ve got two of them now.
anyway – here’s the panel:
Hilary Armstrong – Labour – leftwing
Theresa May – Tory
Chris Huhne – Lib Dem
Hardeep Singh – Sikh actor, writer
Salma Yaqoob – Respect.
Hardeep Singh also presents Newsnight Review, so he’s in the liberal/elite/chatterati group.
so , the left to right ratio , assuming Theresa May is “right wing”, is 4 to 1.
but then, Ms May isnt on the right of the Tory party. so the real ratio is
5 – nil.
god – even though i’m atheist this panel is screaming out for an fire-and-brimestone Ian Paisley to be on it, as a counterbalance.
come to think of it – Richard Dawkins would be even better.
The usual heavily loaded Question Time panel, together with an audience of hand-wringing lefties. I wonder what sort of screening questions the researchers ask before they allow audience members in? And how many are “specially invited?”
I’m all for free speech, but isn’t it time you all stopped rising to the bait of the various (or same) ‘anons’ around here just lately?
He/she has nothing to offer, but simply goes around in circles.
Please don’t be tempted to bite, the trolling IS having the desired effect.
bbc reports that al qaeda are setting up boy scout groups in the uk.
“They set up groups a bit like Boy Scouts or Boys’ Brigade… totally legitimate
BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6065460.stm
no hints beyond that. i’m staggered – what ARE they on about?
Funny how the BBc did not have this in their HYS:
“The evolving threat of al-Qaeda”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6066732.stm
I was hoping the HYS was going to ask a question like “Do you think we are more at risk from Al-Queda?” – I was hoping to be able to post the following “How can we be at risk from something that the BBc have told us does not exist” – maybe they expected this and therefore did not ask.
stating the obvious. from what i linked to above:
***************************
BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the view was Britain was particularly vulnerable because “it may be easier for al-Qaeda to strike the UK than other targets”
***************************
hmm.. i wonder why?
here’s a hint – “Londonistan”.
in other words – whilst everyone else has been clamping down HARD on the jihadists, the Islamonutters have nowhere else to bomb from the UK , as they are based in the UK. so the only thing left for them to bomb is – the uk.
doesnt take a genius to figure this out.
Pete_London | 19.10.06 – 2:10 pm/
mick in the uk 19.10.06 – 11:40 pm ,
Hear hear. I told him/her/it/them I will no longer be wasting my time responding to the crap they dole out.
I heard the veiled “teacher” on the World Service today:
I just would like people to understand that the veil does not cause a barrier…
Hell, not even between the wearer’s face and the spectator’s eyes?
She had more to say. I couldn’t deccipher it all:
I think people sh… open up t… th… perception that even with the veil on I can teach and I do teach perfectly well.
It hardly seems necessary to point out that there’s a powerful incongruity in her talking about “perception” and insisting that people “open up” from behind a veil.
archduke writes:
”
hmm.. i wonder why?
here’s a hint – “Londonistan”.”
Well… yes…. but there is another reason, too – and it is one the BBC is absolutely terrified of admitting. The decades-long uncotrolled admission of Pakistani immigrants to the UK – connived at by all three main political parties and enthusiasticaly endorsed by the BBC and fellow multi-cultis – has resulted in a septic well of discontent from which the jihadis can draw at will.
Like the rest of the liberal Left, the BBC dare not admit this – not least because of the inevitable finger of accusation that would be pointed.
Bad News
Broadcaster France 2 won a libel case on Thursday over accusations it faked a report into the killing of a Palestinian boy whose death in 2000 became a symbol of the uprising known as the second intifada.
Even though
Two senior French journalists given access to the footage as part of an investigation into the affair later said that the film did not show that Israeli troops had killed the boy or even that he had died at all.
But they also said there was no evidence to suggest deliberate staging or manipulation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061019/wl_nm/france_mideast_libel_dc
via LGF
An Anon recently asked how the US networks were doing OK even though they followed the liberal MSM line.
NBC Universal plans to cut US$750 million in operating expenses by the end of 2007 by eliminating employees, cutting back on scripted shows, and slashing its news budget, according to a report Thursday in the Wall Street Journal
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_X101902AU.xml.html
via Instapundit
Roxana – I use the word import in a loose/sarcastic sense. The fact is those people are coming into the US and breeding at a higher rate than Americans. Its possible the US population would actually be falling without them.
Yes the Dems are excited by the prospect of millions of illegal immigrants. The only person even more excited by it is GWB. He has the power to stop it – but doesnt even try.
John Reith | 19.10.06 – 6:09 pm | #
a cynic might say they are simply trying to cover it (you know, like companies that deny their racism by pointing out black employees)
similarly, i would suggest that the bbc simply refuses to identify muslim culprits – alleged or otherwise – but are very happy to flaunt them as victims with religion-trumpeting HEADLINES such as “muslims flee” or “muslim-owned bakery destroyed” (as i remember them roughly – but not the muslim bit)
Here’s a possibility.
I might be wrong, and it might just be me, but it seems that as more and more people cotton on to the lousy – I’d say systematically lousy – quality of BBC journalism, it gets progressively and brazenly worse.
Could it be that what we’re seeing is a defensive organisation getting ever-more assertive in its ways as the criticism mounts? Ie, ever-clearer demonstrations of self-righteous hubris as the threats to its survival grow?
M Taylor — Yes, I’ve been thinking the same thing. Way to test it is to hammer harder and harder and see what shakes or breaks.
The folks at the BBC are not brave people. Trouble is, Brits generally are now so whipped and passive that, frankly, who knows what it’ll take to shake them out of their denial. Maybe too late.