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.
John, please answer the question.
Why are celebrities deemed more appropriate than some fully fledged politicians?
(I’m sure for every supposed non lefty who’ve appeared on QT I can give you a lot more who are)
M Taylor says: One of the things that marks Brits out is a perpetual disatisfaction with the status quo
…and a perpetual failure to do anything about it. I agree that’s inherently unstable, but the dam will break at the bottom, i.e., when Brit proles have had a bellyfull of the b.s. they’ve been fed by their elites. And it won’t be pretty.
The Brit middle classes, fairly well represented by those who post here, are just too enervated. Often, unfortunately, they also manage to be simultaneously smug and dumb as a brick.
For example: RB, who says: …maybe we’re just perfectly happy with our extremely pleasant lives in our very nice country and don’t feel the need to constantly whine …What are we denying exactly?
…and if a cow had tits…
I was just in the smelly bits of Nottingham, Bradford and Middlesbrough. RB is some combination of a fool, a liar or a troll. Take your pick.
John Reith writes:
“Freddie Forsyth isn’t a leftie though, is he?”
And who else? Would you care to give us your estimate of the proportion of liberal-left panelists as opposed to those on the Right?
AIW
Audience research consistently shows the punters don’t want QT panels to be entirely made up of politicians.
Usually the non-pols are journos/pundits : Heffer, Hitchens, Simon Jenkins, Mary Ann Sieghart etc.
Sometimes they’re NGO types. Sometimes cultural types (Germaine Greer etc)
Looking back over the panels over the past few months the only celebs per se I’ve noticed were Richard Madeley, Clive Anderson and a footballer called Dougan and Ian Hislop.
No idea why Madeley.
Clive Anderson (apart from being a barrister as well as a celeb)was very good and can be relied on to be clever and funny.
Dougan, again – beats me.
Mariella F may just be TV totty to you, but she writes columns in various papers and probably thinks of herself as a journo as much as a celeb. (see her Wiki entry for long list…)
Ian Hislop is a bloody good journo as well as a celeb.
I agree if they had some daft supermodel, it would be a bit odd.
I didn’t actually see the Madeley or Dougan editions, so have no idea if they were good or not.
Which celebs got up your nose?
OT
Is this Matt Frei doing a ‘Justin’?
Vultures of Vietnam
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/matt_frei/2006/10/vietnam_redux.html
“This is the world post 9/11. We are fighting a “global war on terror”.
Wot no ‘so-called’?
GCooper
Here are the non-pols on QT over the summer:
8th June: Max Hastings (Right)
13th June: Shami Chakrabarti (Left)
Derek Dougan ( Right • the footballer turns out to be a leading light of UKIP!)
21st June • Germaine Greer (hard to classify because she’s so unpredictable • but put her down as a leftie if you want)
29th June • Melanie Phillips (Right)
6th July • Richard Madeley (can’t tell: according to the blurb he’s pro-war on Iraq, pro-Euro; a Christian who had things to say about the Danish Cartoons. Neutral??)
Matt Pollard • a schools poll winner. Dunno his politics either. Didn’t see it.
21st September Christopher Meyer (Right) and Tariq Ali (Left)
28th Septemeber • Piers Morgan (??????? •not nuLab-friendly ); Lance Price (Left)
John, to be honest, I don’t watch QT. After 5 minutes, like last night, I get so infuriated with the panel that I have to switch over (or off nowadays). The last celebrity I saw was that idiot from the Mail, Littlejohn and the time before, Frostrup.
It’s not about what celebrities p1ss me off, it’s about their worth and why they have precedence over some politicians. The reason Nick Griffin isn’t on is not about having MPs, he doesn’t get on because he can deliver a good argument, he can hold his own, he has the ability to make Dimbleby look like a fool and he is despised by the BBC.
As I said previously, I would wager that 80%+ of the population disagree with the full face veil and I bet a majority would have it banned. This view was in no way represented on QT last night. Therefore BBC is biased.
Personally I don’t have any objection to the general selection of celebs or journos that go on QT, although I think Mark Steyn would be absolutely superb on it. The make-up of the panel is usually not that bad. The last two editions, from Glasgow and Preston, have been so unrepresentative of the British public it has been untrue. Usually there are 2 people outside the main 3 parites; it would make sense for one to be aligned a little to the right and one to the left. I think (although the Sikh guy was quite good in bits) that didn’t really happen last night. John Reith rightly makes the point about a fairly high Muslim population in Preston and “neighbouring Blackburn”, but what about the “neighbouring Fylde Coast” or the neighbouring area towards Southport, both of which have extremely low Muslim populations. The other consistent bias is the venues. It makes sense for venues to be in large towns and cities, where Labour tend to hold sway, but the question time venues go something like this:
Bournemouth – Conservative
Glasgow – Labour/SNP
Preston – Labour
Exeter – Labour
London – Predominantly Labour
Burton-on-Trent – Labour
Hartlepool – Labour
Belfast – Social Democratic Labour Party
London – Predominantly Labour
So out of 8 consecutive editions, 7 came from Labour strongholds and one from conservatives. Other regular editions come from Oxford (Lib Dem/Labour), Cambridge (Lib Dem), Manchester (Labour), Liverpool (Labour), Leeds (Labour), Tonbridge (Conservative) and Norwich (Labour), meaning 5 Labour, 1 Conservative, 2 Lib Dem. In total I have counted 16 venues, 12 of which are Labour seats, which, per se, are likely to attract more Labour/socialist voters.
Seeing as England has more Conservative voters than Labour, one would at least expect more than 2 programmes out of 15 (I have excluded Glasgow) to come from Conservative constituencies.
Any comments on that Mr Reith?
P.S. While watching QT last night, this idea came into my head to dress up in a full burqa, stick my hand up, and when Dimbleby addressed me as “the lady at the back”, I would ask “Does the panel think that wearing a veil is a danger to security?” Seeing as I am a man, I would love to have seen that little dear from Respect wriggle her way out of answering that one.
John, so Melanie Phillips is ‘right wing’ is she? Is that because she opposes the advancement of Islam in the UK, because she defends women’s rights or because she writes for the Daily Mail?
From her website,
‘Styled a conservative by her opponents, she prefers to think of herself as defending authentic liberal values against the attempt to destroy western culture from within.’
And Derek Dougan, because he wants to leave the European Union he’s a ‘right winger’!!!
Part of the problem with lefties/liberals is that anyone who disagrees on anything they say is automatically labelled ‘right wing’.
John Reith is quite correct there is always or nearly always a panel member on QT from the political right, but there is always a left wing majority, coupled with a less than independant chairman. I now watch the programme very rarely because it is so cravenly biased but not only the panel but members of the audience are predominantly left wing in their views.
So it is quite plausible for John Reith to say that QT does represent all shades of opinion, but that doesn’t mean that its general tone is not BBC compliant and thus left of centre. The disgraceful post Sept 11th Programme for which the BBC eventually gave a reluctant partial apology was simply a more blatent version of the norm.
Heron,
Good point about the venues. As most cities tend to be Labour and Conservative areas tend to be rural I wonder what chance of getting QT hosted at my local village hall?
>That QT audience selection >questionnaire:
>
>How old are you?
>What is your occupation?
>What two issues would you like to >discuss in the current news?
>What is your opinion of the situation >in Iraq?
>
>Are you pro Europe or sceptical?
It should say “pro EU”. Typical EU-phile trick is to conflate Europe, the geographical area and peoples, with the political project known as the EU. It helps them to smear those who criticise the EU project as xenophobic.
Heron
Just because a certain town happens to be represented for the time being by a NuLab MP doesn’t mean that you can’t get a balanced audience there. There are plenty of Conservative voters in London. Manchester ditto. Exeter too. Harder perhaps in Hartlepool but not impossible. If a programme comes from Swindon, it also draws part of its audience from Marlborough and Devizes. If you think some areas are underserved, avail yourself of the ‘suggest a venue’ facility on the QT website.
As a person of conservative temper myself, I too am often jolted by the prevalence of leftie opinion. But then I pinch myself and remember that NuLab have won three elections on the trot, so perhaps it’s not too surprising there are a lot of ‘em out there.
AIW
No, of course Melanie P shouldn’t be branded ‘right-wing’ in a sneering way. Tikkun olam is her thing. She resists labels but reluctantly accepts ‘liberal moralist’. Left/right distinctions are pretty blunt instruments nowadays. Labour has (to some extent) embraced the market; the Tories are often too libertarian for my (and Melanie’s) taste. I agree with her on many things: schools, drugs, family policy, welfare etc. But in terms of the shorthand GCooper and I were using to assess QT guests, Melanie P certainly does belong in the right rather than the left hand column. Particularly on the multi-culti/Muslim agenda. That is not a derogatory placement; just sensible.
Dougan I know nothing about. But UKIP isn’t supposed to be a single-issue party any more, is it? It claims to be creaming off Conservatives who resist being taken into the centre ground by the ‘liberal-Conservative’ Mr Cameron.
How to get on QT:
That QT audience selection questionnaire:
How old are you?
42
What is your occupation?
Brother chairperson of the Save The Baby Whale and Stop Climate Change NGO
What two issues would you like to discuss in the current news?
How Bush is the biggest threat to the world today
How 4x4s are destroying the world
What is your opinion of the situation in Iraq?
The murdering terrorists of the mad dogs Bush/Blair will all die
Are you pro Europe or sceptical?
Pro, more power to the politicos and raise taxes.
If there were a General Election tomorrow, which political party would you be most likely to vote for?
There is no god but Allah, vote Respect
Do you fully support the leader of that party?
Oh Gorgeous one, please dress like a cat for me
Are you a member of a political party?
Socialists of the world unite. Sings:
Debout, les damnés de la terre
Debout, les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C’est l’éruption de la fin……………………
Which of these groups do you consider yourself to belong to?
White
African-Caribbean
Indian
Pakistani
Chinese
African
Mixed Origin
Other (please specify)
Other: Asian
Well seeing as it’s open season on Mr John Reith.
Mr Reith a few weeks back you accused me of behaviour unbecoming of a gentleman when I mentioned the fact that I used to date a BBC world service controller.
Oh how you bitched a good one over what a cad I was and how I wasn’t fit to shovel shit because of my words.
If that is so could you be so kind as to explain how you can get off throwing abuse at a female by name last night.
“’The Cuban Tragedy or Diana’s Mad Againe…..’”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116109198026990418/#313251
It seems that you subscribe to the notions of a certain faith which while shouting out females need to be respected, you have no problem putting them in their place if they dare speak out.
Tell me Mr Reith do you work as a Merchant banker for your day job, because to me you come across as one. The term Hypocrite just doesn’t seem to do you justice.
Well pounce I suppose it was a risky to venture a literary allusion.
I can’t really be arsed to go into it all, but you might check out one of the subtitles of Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy.
Then read the Wasteland.
Then reflect on the meaning of ‘mad’ in idiomatic American English (it means ‘cross’).
Then go and lie down in a quiet, curtained room and as Ken Clarke said ‘keep taking the tablets’.
J.G. | 20.10.06 – 6:18 pm
Your season ticket is in the post.
Mr Reith wrote;
“Well pounce I suppose it was a risky to venture a literary allusion.”
Utter brass monkeys dangly bits.
As usual the BBC apologist tries to get out of the sticky brown stuff (just like his employer) by playing the art car.
Err yer wet blanket I didn’t see the BBC defending the Danish cartoons as art, I didn’t see the BBC defending the satanic verses as art nor did I see the BBC defending Mozart as art. So please don’t presume that I was born yesterday by trying to say that throwing abuse at a young lady is art. Now how about you acting smart and offering the lady an apology.
Anon: “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)”
Like I said, ignorant.
“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.”
Whose got the Jewish psyche here, you or me? We still celebrate the escape from Egypt, the Maccabees’ victory over the Seleucids, and the failure of Haman’s plot to destroy the Jews in the Persian Empire c. 5th c. BC. Maybe you have no historical memory but *we* do!
Enough about Question time, lets talk about getting paid based on how you dress for work.
==
Muslim teacher awarded cash for ‘injured feelings’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QLB3YSFPQY3W1QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/19/uveil.xml
“The Muslim teaching assistant who sparked a political storm after she refused to remove her veil during lessons, has won her employment tribunal case for victimisation against the school which suspended her but lost her claims for discrimination and harassment.
Aishah Azmi, 23, received compensation but did not succeed in her discrimination claim
Ms Azmi was awarded £1,000 for “injury to feelings” after she succeeded in her claim of victimisation. But her claims of direct and indirect discrimination, and her claim of harassment, were dismissed.”
====
When I was child you had to do alot more than that to earn 1,000 quid.
Has the BBC reported on this?
Roxana
“(events that I am only now aware of thanks for mentioning them)”
Like I said, ignorant. “
That was what’s called sarcasm. “We” are good at it.
Has the BBC reported on this?
Market Participant
Yes. In fact, she’s was interviewed on BBC TV and, amazingly, given a really hard time by the BBC guy. He tripped her up with a question about whether she had worn the veil in front of a male member of the school staff at her interview for the job. Sje wouldn’t answer the question but he eventually made her admit that she hadn’t worn it, exposing her as a politically-motivated hypocrite. Great stuff.
Here’s my take on the veil story from another thread:
I heard the veiled “teacher” on the World Service yesterday:
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 decipher 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.
Market Participant:
I’m convinced that the reason she was suspended is the fact that she can’t actually speak acceptable English.
Here’s a small clip of all her answers together in one small file….quite frankly, she’s intelligible.
[audio src="http://www.solpics.com/muslimteacher.mp3" /]
This point seems to be missing from the argument.
Listen to her repeat the words ‘intimidating’ and ‘alienating’ which Peter Sissons jusr said 2 seconds before.
That’s really the point. Even without a veil, she’s unsuitable as a teacher.
With a veil, she’s unthinkable as a teacher.
And STILL the BBC et al fail to point out her bias given that Daddy is linked with what is described as an extremist Muslim organisation. Which might account for why she has only just popped up NOW given she was suspended in FEBRUARY????? Come on guys give us all the story not the bits that cover your agenda!
offtopic:
Fjordman has posted part 4 of his Eurabia code series.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1589
well worth reading.
John Reith –
But in terms of the shorthand GCooper and I were using to assess QT guests, Melanie P certainly does belong in the right rather than the left hand column. Particularly on the multi-culti/Muslim agenda.
Rubbish. She is merely being reasonable. To claim that opposition to seperatist multiculturalism and a rejection of political islam makes you right wing is plainly ludicrous.
Mr Reith-
So you read the classics at school!
Ever so clever…
“You think you’re so clever, classless and free……”
Bollocks to you, but for the classless part.
Reith is [deleted]
He knows he is wrong, and we also know that 96% of the nation are against him….and loath the BBC and licence fee…so as such, he is anti-democratic, and a socialist lover of dictatorship….
I look forward to the Day when he finaly grows up, as most lefties do at some point…well, the ones with brains do…..the rest just stay as idealistic morons who never live in the real world.
Next….
Edited By Siteowner
Ok then, let’s move on past the question of the propriety of earning 1000 quid for wearing a bedsheet, to the question of the use of cluster bombs by lebanese political parties.
===
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193478190&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“Human Rights Watch condemned Hizbullah on Thursday for using cluster bombs on an estimated 113 occasions during this summer’s war, according to research performed by the NGO’s investigators.”
“”We are disturbed to discover that not only Israel but also Hizbullah used cluster munitions in their recent conflict, at a time when many countries are turning away from this kind of weapon precisely because of its impact on civilians,” said Steve Goose, director of Human Rights Watch’s Arms Division.
HRW spoke to people in the Israeli Druse village of Mughar whose family members – civilians – were wounded by Hizbullah’s cluster bombing, as well as with Israel Police officials.”
===
Of course these were probably crude home-made cluster bombs which rarely cause injury or offense.
Has the BBC reported on the use of cluster bombs by Hezbollah?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6069092.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 20 October 2006, 10:05 GMT 11:05 UK
Iran ‘blocks Israel soldier deal’
====
(I am so happy that the BBC is covering this. Any critiques should be taken with a frosting of earnest praise.)
“The soldier, Cpl Gilad Shalit, was captured in June in a cross-border raid from Gaza by Palestinian militants.”
And who where these “militants”? Did they belong to any organised poltical factions. Perhaps starting with an “H” and ending with an “s”?
“Hamas, the militant group that runs the Palestinian Authority, says that in return for freeing Cpl Shalit, Israel must release some of the several thousand Palestinians held in its jails.
Since the end of June 2006, more than 300 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli army operations in Gaza and the West Bank, according to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. ”
A non sequiteur. How is this paragraph related to the previous one? This sort of choppyness exemplifies bad editing.
“On Thursday, the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot reported that a deal on Cpl Shalit’s release was foiled when an Iranian delegation met Khaled Meshaal in Damascus and offered him $50m (£26.6m).”
This should go in the first paragraph. More detail is needed about the Ynet story. Don’t make us surf over to Y-net in order to get unbiased news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6068154.stm
Hezbollah denies cluster bomb use
Last Updated: Thursday, 19 October 2006, 19:24 GMT 20:24
=====
I have to say that this article is a real cut above the typical BBC article. One thing that is missing is an interview from an IDF/Police source about this:
“Israeli police told the group [HRW] that they had documented 113 cluster rockets fired at Israel, causing one death and 12 injuries.
HRW says until now Israel prevented publication of the details for security reasons. ”
Surly the BBC’s corespondents can give a ring to the IDF/Police public affairs department?
Hamas, the militant group that runs the Palestinian Authority, says that in return for freeing Cpl Shalit, Israel must release some of the several thousand Palestinians held in its jails.
Anyone unfamilir with the history of Palestinian prisoner releases in exchange for Israeli hostages might think that Hamas is simply making a reasonable request for the release of a handful of Palestinians among the thousands being held.
Delete some of the and you have a more accurate picture of Hamas’ demands. But accuracy in the portrayal of this conflict is low on the BBC’s priority list.
Still, it’s interesting to note that they are starting to get this one right:
The soldier, Cpl Gilad Shalit, was captured in June in a cross-border raid from Gaza by Palestinian militants.
That’s a big departure from the lie they kept pushing for months – that he was captured in Gaza.
Now someone needs to tap them on the shoulder and explain the meaning of the words “kidnapped” and “abducted”.
How odd, the BBC for once seems unwilling to accept the word of HRW.
jr
Despite the valiant efforts of your researchers to provide you with ammunition on this Question Time issue, you really are getting a pasting. Time to stop digging.
Worth looking at this again and then recalling that the day after all this broke, and before Dyke’s apology, Nick Higham popped up on the bimbo slot to declare that “Middle England has uncomplicated view on such issues”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1544897.stm
For such a patronising statement to made at that time warranted instant dismissal yet Higham still represents the BBC.
I notice that the BBC have purged or cleansed their current web pages of stories about the veil from last night and Shahid Malik’s “Let it go” advice. Maybe they too are doing the same? One, so called,”in-depth” story is still there:
The Islamic veil across Europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5414098.stm
This is a very clear example of BBC bias,” Countries across the continent have wrestled with an issue” but which countries are included here by the BBC?
France Turkey, Britain, Germany, Russia, Italy & Belgium. Paltry offerings all of them, that hide the truth about what is going on…well at least Russia is included as European, thats a novum for the BBC. Compare The Guardian’s approach and reporting today
The veil controversy
________________________________________
White pupils less tolerant, survey shows
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1928113,00.html
which includes the Netherlands (doesn’t the BBC think that a reminder of Theo van Gogh’s murder with a mention that his film was on the Muslim veil??)
Austria, Denmark & Switzerland. One is left with the conclusion that the BBCs article wishes to give the impression that this problem isn’t common throughout Europe. Listing every nation would have been more scientific and objective, the sprinking of a few makes it look random.
The Guardian piece by the way is shocking; according to Vikram Dodd, English white youth “and their attitudes are more of a barrier to integration than those of Muslims, a study for the government has found.”
SO there you have it in BBC/Guardian worldview, it’s not the Muslims that are the problem. What a topsy turvey world these people live in.
Again the BBC foaming at the mouth about a small enclave at the eastern end of Cuba whilst ignoring the greater evil on the rest of the island of Cuba.
Red Cross lambasts US terror law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6068394.stm
The definition of lambasts/lambastes is to be ‘harshly critical’ and the origins of it are to beat or thrash. Are the Red Cross (a highly politised organisation) lambasting the US? Well actually they aren’t. They are expressing concern. Never mind the seed is already sown.
And here is something the BBC are not reporting from elsewhere in the world.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=north+AND+korea+AND+disabled&scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&x=69&y=9
North Korea locks up disabled in ‘subhuman’ gulags, says UN
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/21/wnkorea121.xml
Yes folks, a UN report that is ignored by the BBC.
Having seen a comment by a BBC contributor to this site saying that the BBC agonises over impartiality, I would imagine that they are agonising over this particular story. If we put this out, the US reaction to nuclear tests by North Korea will be vindicated and their description of that country as part of ‘an axis of evil’ to be correct.
The BBC and sleeping with the enemy;
On the road with the Taleban
By Taliban familiar David Loyn
BBC News, Afghanistan
Nato troops in Afghanistan have been facing a growing number of suicide bomb attacks. It was hoped the troops would be able to make peace, win friends and provide security for reconstruction projects, but now it seems the regime they removed is beginning to return.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6069842.stm
Once again the BBC plays its sycophant card towards the terrorists by spreading the word of Allah for their ideological masters. Anybody notice how great the Taliban are made out to be in the above report.
Anything about chopping off woman’s heads? No
Anything about blowing up Shopping markets? No
Anything about oppressing females? A hint.
“This was so we would not lay our eyes on the women who would come to sit down where we had been, to eat the scraps from communal bowls the men had left half-full of food.”
Anything about how corrupt the Taliban really were no? No
But oh how we are regaled to how corrupt life is outside the tenets of the Koran.
The BBC promoting death and destruction and oppression as far superior than peace, prosperity and freedom.
I did watch QT the other night and the discussion about Madonna & her newly adopted African baby David. This mornings Today prog. had Carolyn Quinn regurgitating the subject again, and it appears that what Madonna has done is “racist”, or, rather, would not be allowed in this country. London boroughs like Hackney & Haringay, we were told this morning “have large numbers of dual heritage(sic) children” but applications can only be from parents with a similar race & erhnicity. The BBC raised the subject of “transracially adopted” children and appeared to be siding with Madonna’s position. I’m not sure what Quinn really meant when she talked of “If your trying to broaden the pool”, I’m sure she didn’t mean gene pool though. Usually the BBC adopts(no pun intended) the most politically correct line. However , from a BBC web site, I came across this shopping list of children, and it states clearly that if you are white its no deal.
http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/campaigns/lbhadoption.html
One can’t help thinking that if Madonna tried to shop online and came across this, it’s no wonder she pursued other routes. I’m not sure if I approve of children being advertised like this online, it looks very tacky.
From TPO’s link to the post 9/11 QT apology
The BBC’s Media Correspondent, Nick Higham, said there was a recognition in the corporation that the audience could have been more representative of wider opinion.
So the audience wasn’t representative on that occasion despite the careful vetting we have been told about.
Any reason to consider that the vetting has changed to produce a more representative audience? Not from the evidence of later programmes.
And it would appear that the anti-Americans on 9/11 didn’t need the Afghan & Iraq wars to motivate them & were so deranged as to have no sense of decency.
The BBC and half a story;
Asylum for circumcision-fear teen
A teenager who fears being subjected to female circumcision if returned to Sierra Leone has been granted asylum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6062700.stm
Anybody read the story of a poor girl who was given sanctuary in the Uk because she didn’t wish to go under the knife for…… well I just don’t know as the report doesn’t mention why? It does say this;
“That was because the custom was so widespread in Sierra Leone and so bound up with its culture and traditions.”
But whose culture and traditions do you think it is?
Here is a clue from the BBC country profile on Sierra Leone;
Major religions: Islam, indigenous beliefs, Christianity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1061561.stm
Here is a map of Africa from Afrol news showing areas where FGM is mostly prevalent.
http://www.afrol.com/images/maps/fgm_map.gif
Taken from
http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/index_fgm.htm
and here is a map of Africa showing just what faith is dominant in those areas.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7595/576/1600/Africa_Islam_87.jpg
Oh and how the BBC loves to berate the US for its culture, yet remains silent on the most insidious culture going.
The BBC and half a story.
Today’s Daily Telegraph has this article:
“Too many cooks spoil the BBC”
It starts with:
‘It is not always the grand gesture that gives the game away. The small ones can count for just as much. So it proved this week, when it emerged, sotto voce, that some bright spark at the BBC had invited Yoko Ono, the New York-based “conceptual artist” and full-time celebrity, to edit Today, Radio 4’s flagship news programme, one morning before Christmas.’
And includes such gems as:
‘There is no serious television programme on the performing arts — one cannot possibly describe as serious Newsnight Review, on BBC2, populated as it is by small armies of pseuds who find it hard to speak intelligible English.’
And:
‘Public service broadcasting is not some popularity contest, nor should it be a rest home for discredited trendies.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/21/do2103.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/21/ixopinion.html
Well worth the read.
LOST IN TRANSLATION
Below is the latest contribution by the BBC’s most cherished President. No doubt BBC will rapidly put out a statement saying that this is a wrongly translated statement (its not as I understand farsi – if anything its downplayed). Notice the innocuous headline that the BBC have already given this highly inflamatory speech. “Iran warns of revenge over Israel”
Once again reaffirming teh BBC positiontha that the original “blame” lies with Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6069456.stm
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday called Israel’s leaders a “group of terrorists” and threatened any country that supports Israel.
“You imposed a group of terrorists … on the region,” Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. “It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals… This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow.”
i (briefly) switched to “any answers”. still on about the bloody veil.
i switched it off.
oh by the way – in case you missed it “Today” will be live from Iraq on Monday…
thats a morning of Classic FM sorted out for me anyway.
Cartoon in The Times
Niqabed woman in theatrical agency.
Agent says “Ventriloquism may not be your best option.”
She’d get a gig with the BBC. After all ventriloquist Peter Brough worked BBC radio for years with his Archie Andrews doll (well we think Archie turned up for the show!)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-2414708,00.html
Just announcing that there is a new open thread up.
“Oh and how the BBC loves to berate the US for its culture, yet remains silent on the most insidious culture going.”
Are you saying that the BBC should have said that this practice is caused by Islam?
Do you honestly believe that if it wasn’t for Islam, this sort of thing wouldn’t be going on in Africa? Is that what you are saying?
If so can you explain to me why:
– 90% of women in Sierra Leone have had the procedure (according to the BBC), yet only 60% of the population are Muslim (according to the CIA World Factbook), yet Islam is still to blame
– Half of the Islamic countries on your map don’t practice this at all and this practice is not mentioned in the Koran, yet Islam is still to blame.
– Why this practice can be dated back to the Ancient Egyptians, yet Islam is still to blame:
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices2.htm#4
Anon writes: “That was what’s called sarcasm. “We” are good at it.”
I would disagree on that – you’re much too blatant. BTW who’s ‘we’?
If you were aware of all that then why jump to the conclusion any reference to anti-semitism refers to the holocaust?