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.
Archduke
Maybe its because “faith” is the new trendy thing for the likes of AL-beeb
The BBC functions like an established Church.
As long as we have an established Church, and the calls for a separation of Church from State go unheeded (which is what not what happened in America!), the BBC will feel safe in not being separated from its licence fee.
john | 24.10.06 – 1:18 pm
Typical. Of all the things that might be noteworthy or unusual about Spooks screenwriter Raymond Khoury:
….that he’s a former investment banker with an MBA
….that he’s a qualified architect
…..that he’s adapted a Melvin Bragg novel for Robert de Niro..
…….that he wrote the bestseller ‘The Last Templar’….
all you find significant is that he’s Lebanese by birth.
Funny how you don’t bother to point out the salient facts that:
…he’s from a Christian Lebanese family…..
…..was raised as a Catholic….though (like archduke – is now lapsed)
…..in New York State…where he went to school.
Perhaps you were trying to imply he is a MUSLIM?
Now why would you want to do that?
From Helen Bowdens post on BBC bias:
Bias at the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html
“Asked recently which of the four main broadcasters they would term “trustworthy”, nearly two thirds – 60% – cited the BBC. In contrast, 26% said ITV, 16% mentioned Channel 4, and 14% Sky. (Mori, 2006)”
For the life of me I can’t find the source document for those stats – anyone?
If 40% of respondents didn’t cite the BBC as “trustworthy”, I’d say we have more support for the scrapping of the licence fee than we thought.
If they are sincere in wondering about what to do about left-liberal bias, today’s main Have Your Say page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
might be a useful place to start. Below is a list of all today’s visible Have Your Says (NB these are the titles in the links • the actual question may be slightly different when you follow the link.)
Questions 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,13 come directly from the standard progressive playbook • are you green enough, let’s be cuddlier to criminals, isn’t Iraq a failure, let’s change the voting system (a long standing Lib Dem policy), there must be more sex education. All the rest bar two then also become obviously progressive once you follow the link into the detail
1.Is the justice system failing young people?
By young people they mean young perps, rather than young victims. Obviously. Auntie’s solution is not hard to seek either • “Is the justice system failing society? Should there be more use of non-custodial sentences?”
2. How large is your ecological footprint?
ie are you green enough ?
3. Do primary pupils ‘need sex lessons’?
standard progressive fare on the need for sex education
4. What’s your tranquil spot?
stop the world I want to get off ( a subset of are you green enough)
5. How energy efficient is your home?
I said “are you green enough ?”
6. Is it time for a change of policy in Iraq?
Quaaaaaagmire !
7. More traffic cameras?
Fairly neutral, actually.
8. Has Muslim veil row been useful ?
Auntie doesn’t think so.
9. Is Britain too fearful of its young ?
Hug a hoodie
10. Are UK historic sites under threat ?
ARE YOU GREEN ENOUGH !
11. Who should provide our energy ?
Just a cover for “are you green enough again” viz
“In this week’s Green Room Dr Matt Prescott of banthebulb.org argues that market forces alone cannot cure the environment’s ills, and that political leaders must take tough, maybe even unpopular decisions on investment, technology, regulation, and more.”
12. Solutions for prison overcrowding
Auntie asks :
What more could be done to tackle overcrowding in Britain’s prisons? Should sentencing of offenders be reviewed?
and avoids asking
What more could be done to tackle overcrowding in Britain’s prisons? Should more prisons be built?
which is the solution which recommends itself to 95% of Auntie’s customers.
13. Is voting system change needed ?
I haven’t heard that one, oh, since the last time a Lib Dem MP was on the telly.
14. Tory tax plans • Your views
Surprisingly neutral
15. Can North Korea be restrained ?
lest you be tempted by the idea of rattling a few rockets, Auntie clarifies instantly :
Can the crisis be resolved through “dialogue and consultation”?
16. What’s life like inside Britain’s prisons ?
which looks like a neutral question, but it’s actually about whether there is enough rehabilitation going on in prisons
Ritter
I thought so too. Very few organisations can be said to have an obligation, both morally and legally, to be trustworthy such as the BBC has. It’s central to the BBC’s very existence. Trust has been the very foundation, a reason for being, of the BBC since its creation. That 40% of respondents said the BBC isn’t trustworthy is utterly damning.
I think that Mel P article is the most vomit inducing I’ve seen in a long time.
Talking absolute crap about your own country in another nation’s national press is tantamount to treason. She should be ashamed of herself.
Adam Brookes – a Beeboid in the States:
The Iraq Problem
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/adam_brookes/2006/10/the_iraq_problem_1.html
“I took my kids to the zoo on a beautiful fall afternoon. It was teeming, Latino families picnicking in warm sunlight, tourists from China waiting for the pandas, a huge church group from the Midwest.
I bought popcorn and we gawped at the elephants.
In the crowd, I caught sight of a young man with a high-and-tight military haircut. He wore the black Iraq veteran’s T-shirt. Where his right arm should have been, a stump protruded. He stood stock still for a long time, then wandered away. He seemed utterly alone.
The war spreads across public discussion of these elections like a stain. Yet still, it seems to me, the war has few tangible consequences for most Americans. Gas prices are down, the Dow is up, American society continues on its vibrant, eclectic way. Unless you are serving, or a member of your family is serving, Iraq is an abstract problem.
Can I play this game too?
In the UK:
Petrol prices are down:
UK inflation eases on petrol dip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6057820.stm
and, the FTSE is up:
FTSE advances to five-year high
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6047546.stm
Do I therefore conclude that “…the war has few tangible consequences for most Britons” also?
Is Adam implying ambivilence towards the war becase energy prices are down and stock market is up? Or is he implying that most Americans don’t care cause they’re stoopid?
Go figure – I can’t work it out (other than he’s having a standard ‘go’ at the US).
I haven’t read though this thread so apologies if it has already been mentioned, but an interesting entry in the “BBC blog” appeared this morning which is open for comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html
Perhaps you were trying to imply he is a MUSLIM?
Now why would you want to do that?
John Reith | 24.10.06 – 1:43 pm | #
No actually I wasn’t.
BTW he wrote into one of his BBC scripts an Arab Yemeni Jew as the Mossad agent.
But what are you doing still contributing here Capt. Mannering, and getting all upset about now…. tail between legs?
RB
Talking absolute crap about your own country ….
Since when has ‘talking absolute crap about your own country’ bothered you wierdo noncebag liberals? It’s what you did for much of the 20th Century. It’s why history is no longer taught in any meaningful sense in British schools – liberals would have to talk to children about 1000 glorious years of civilisation. You’ll have to do better than that to disguise your fake outrage, you unwashed handwringer.
This Boaden woman. A brief (very brief) profile is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3917563.stm
The only clues as to what she’s about are a short haircut and the statement: After finishing her degree she went to live in the US, where she began her journalistic career in 1979 at New York radio station WBAI.
It’s good, this interweb. WBAI looks like ‘Radio RESPECT’ and glories under the banner ‘Your Peace and Justice Community Radio Station’. Granted, things may have changed since ’79 but I doubt it. And you don’t just pitch up and happen to work for these commie organisations, they’re the kind of places which those of the same creed target for work.
Anyone here subscribe to Prospect magazine?
Self-hatred at the BBC
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7886
The broadcaster is feeling guilty about its liberal guilt. Can it fix it?
by
John Lloyd
“Andrew Marr, the former BBC political editor, recently stood before an audience and said that “the BBC is not impartial, or neutral. It’s a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party political bias: it’s better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”
Quite a few in the audience could claim to have been his boss. There was Mark Byford, deputy director general and head of journalism; Jana Bennett, head of television; Alan Yentob, director of drama and entertainment; Helen Boaden, head of news; Mark Damazer, head of Radio 4… and so on. Highest of all was the BBC’s head of state, Michael Grade, chairman of the board of governors, who had called this meeting. The BBC had set aside a day for a discussion of impartiality—mainly for themselves, with some others invited to share in the reflections.
It was an extraordinary day, momentous even. Extraordinary in that it did not discuss impartiality as one might have expected: as a set of practices for use in describing events through broadcast journalism. These concerns did come up, but mainly from the invited audience. Tim Gardam, former…”
Full atricle by subscription only
“now, i’m an atheist, but i was looking at it going – “well, if that helps people, and makes their lives better, who am i to sneer at it?”
Archduke, you are the kind of Atheist we need more of. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ Religion may make one person strap on a dynamite belt but it can make another go feed the hungry. Atheist ideology is just as uncertain in outcome. Could it be the people not the belief that’s the problem?
roxana – yeah its people alright.
thats why separation of church and state, the rule of law, and democracy are just about the only things that’ll save us from ourselves. they are artificial constructs that , out of all the political systems invented, appear to be the best ones we’ve come up with.
I think posting on their website may be usefull just in terms of letting them know we’re onto them.I for one would laugh if asked if I trusted the BBC.
From the pro-islam BBC, yet another piece bashing Israel and the Israelis:
Olive harvest sparks tensions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6054854.stm
Palestinians downtrodden …. Israelis bad …. Palestinians are just peaceful people ….. the Israeli army is beastly to the Palestinians …. blah blah blah
RB wrote;
Talking absolute crap about your own country in another nation’s national press is tantamount to treason. She should be ashamed of herself.
Well the thing is, this blogg is about the BBC who are more than guilty of the crimes you accuse Mel P of. The thing is Mel P doesn’t get paid by the Billions taken from the people in the form of the BBC tax in which to say what she wants. Lastly I don’t she her calling terrorists misguided criminals.
CAIR to carry on.
Pete
I am particularly worried about the Israeli use of “cluster olives”. Does Human Rights Watch know about this? I think we need to know.
Hey look! It’s our politically correct police force in action. Unable to deal with ‘threatening youths’……
Abusive youths try to stop arrest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/6079740.stm
“Two police officers in Stroud barricaded themselves in a takeaway shop after youths became abusive.
The teenagers, who were aged between 14 and 17, ran off when the support units arrived.
Chief Superintendent Dean Walker, of Gloucestershire Police, said: “This was an exceptional event and not something we have had to contend with very often.
“I would like to take this opportunity to praise the officers involved for dealing with the incident in a thoroughly professional manner.”
Errrr… the police were completely ineffecive. But that’s ok, becase they went about their incompetence in a ‘professional’ manner!
sorry, above it quite OT……
Chief Superintendent Dean Walker, of Gloucestershire Police, said: “This was an exceptional event and not something we have had to contend with very often.
Making an arrest?
Anyone fancy editing the Today Programme? Tempting, so tempting …..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/editprog/index.shtml
The webpage reminded me of a comment I read from someone on Samizdata who remarked on how Stalinist looking it is. I have to say, he has a point.
Imagine if RB had to pay the Melanie Philips Broadcasting Corporation 120 +++ pounds a year or go to jail.
Imagine if RB had his choice of media constrained because of the ability of the Melanie Philips Broadcasting Corporation to distort the market.
Imagine if the Melanie Philips Broadcasting Corporation had a duty to represent the views of RB but ignored them and belittled them everyday.
Imagine the BBC.
“Could it be the people not the belief that’s the problem?”: Roxana
Some religions are much higher risk than others. No cults started by paedophiles mentioned.
“The webpage reminded me of a comment I read from someone on Samizdata who remarked on how Stalinist looking it is. I have to say, he has a point.
Pete_London | 24.10.06 – 5:00 pm |”
it certainly does look Stalinist.
Although the choice of white, red and black reminds me of another ideology.
knock me down with a feather – the Reid restrictions story has had its headline changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6076410.stm
“Reid outlines new EU work curbs”
bit more accurate. previously it was something like “Reid outlines migrant restrictions” or something like that – as if it was Reid himself coming up with it.
thanks to newsniffer, found the difference:
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/7851/diff/4/5
previous headline:
“Reid to set new EU migrant rules”
as if it was Reid doing it.
now its:
“Reid outlines new EU work curbs”
“outlines” – implies , he’s not doing the “setting” of the rules.
subtle difference.
Fresh call for English Parliament
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6081130.stm
Canon Kenyon Wright wants to see “a strong English Parliament” and a strengthened Welsh legislature.
The English Constitutional Convention is meeting for the first time, at Westminster on Tuesday.
BBC won’t like that… the Conservatives won the election outright in England last time.
They printed one of my comments (No.110) on the Editors Blog but not the second about their ‘impartiality’ that ,by demanding absolute proof before criticism is tolerated ,they deny airtime to common sense mockery of government fabrications.This allowed them to get away with the Iraq intelligence fabrications and enabled the governments innumerable relaunches.Read it all at:
http://www.bbcbiasonemansopinion.blogspot.com
The BBC and half a story;
I see the BBC has another article out on how bad life is for Muslims in the UK;
Muslims face ‘serious prejudice’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6080210.stm
The article is a synopsis on a report generated by ken Livingstone and the MCB
Click to access muslims-in-london.pdf
In fact on the mayor’s foreword (page 2) he mentions nothing of serious prejudice.
He does mention the ignorance and the prejudice of so much of the media coverage.
But serious prejudice? Nah.
The BBC then goes on to say
“The report, Muslims in London, also said that the community has the lowest rates of employment.
But BBC the MCB stats show that one of the reasons for this is because Muslims don’t bother picking up any qualifications from school;
“Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are most likely to be unqualified. Nearly half of Bangladeshi men and women had no qualifications. Anmong Pakistanis, 27% of men and 40% of women had no qualifications.”
http://www.mcb.org.uk/library/statistics.php#6
That isn’t prejudice BBC it’s just that some people prefer religion to school work.
The onus is on them to learn. Just because they can’t be asked isn’t a sign of racism.
“In 2005-2006, there were more than 1,000 religiously aggravated attacks reported in the capital, which is a 87% increase since the previous year, the report said.”
And what the BBC leaves out of the above from the report is that rise was because of the tube bombings (Page 84 )
Oh and that report BBC was written in conjunction by the MCB not the most honest of people. (You can thank Panorama for that)
On page 95 in red they quote Babar Ahmad as getting arrested and then released without charge in which to try and paint the image that an innocent man was nicked and then kicked by the police. I think you will find BBC if you actually looked up a certain Babar Ahmad you will find he is still nicked and waiting to be extradited to the states.
http://www.freebabarahmad.com/
The BBC (in conjunction with ken and the MCB) and half a story.
Ritter: “the Conservatives won the election outright in England last time”
Not quite – they got a few more votes (in the grand scheme of things), but that’s not the same as winning. They still took fewer seats in England than Labour did.
This sort of thing has happened before, for instance, in 1951, Churchill won the election, but got fewer votes than Labour (across the UK).
.
London Muslims “should play greater role”
LONDON (Reuters) – Muslims must play a greater role in London’s politics and the economy to help stem prejudice and discrimination, a report said on Tuesday.
Muslims make up 8.5 percent of the capital’s population, but are under-represented on its councils and among its workforce, adds the “Muslims in London” report.
Mayor Ken Livingstone, jointly presenting the report, said: “Muslims in London face serious discrimination and prejudice.
The report called for more Muslims to be elected to public office and to serve in public bodies like the police, the education system and the civil service.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-24T121323Z_01_L24778607_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-MUSLIMS.xml&WTmodLoc=UK-C1-Headline-9
.
Slightly OT:
On the point of whether Muslims are really disproportionally targetted, I did some research.
Here is my post in full: http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/10/investigating-islamophobia-claims.html
In short, Muslims are slightly less targetted than Jews, not to mention that some of their “incidents” are extremely dubious.
Another case of claimin false victimhood.
Again when Michael Howard was “questioned” by Police ref the Honours probe the BBC has a full report and leaves it to the end to report that he was not questioned under caution etc. Menawhile it is reported by several sources that J Powell Esq aka Tony’s Little Helper was interviewed under caution and yet not a sausage on the BBC website….and no apology from Nigel Griffiths MP who claimed last week that the investigation was over and that there would be no charges! Aye right…come Beeboids – do your job! Report the facts not just those that affect the Tories!
Having returned fron 3 weeks in the USA and tuned in again to BBC News I now watch with a deaf ear. The usual agenda, the same mix as before I left still haunts the silver screen.
The BBC bias is that of the thought Police of the PC elite. The BBC may say it represents British Culture with its constant emphasis on the global warming of the doomed planet (doomed by us, so start feeling guilty – now) Muslim Community issues, with other articles I cannot mention for fear of prosecution, to the mixed bag of presenters from every corner of the world.
The BBC does not represent the Licence payer, it represents vested interests, not our own, but the ones the propgandists want to instill in us. At my age it will be difficult for them to succeed but we know how they infiltrate education and thus brain wash the next generation.
Anonymous writes:
“Having returned fron 3 weeks in the USA and tuned in again to BBC News I now watch with a deaf ear”
An experience common to many here, I suspect! In my case, I now watch US TV (on the rare occasions I bother watching any TV at all), via a slingbox.
A short break away from the sickly, sapping, guilt-ridden decay the BBC promotes with almost every programme is a tremendous eye-opener, I quite agree!
the mixed bag of presenters from every corner of the world.
uh-hu.
Richard said:
the reason your biology teacher failed to “…explain why this theory contradicted entropy” is that it doesn’t!
You are simply your own misunderstanding of the lies creationists use to attack something they don’t like which has proved itself to every true test. I am presuming you mean the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the overall increase of entropy in a closed system. However the Earth is not a closed system, energy is exchanged, and in partiular is input by the sun. If you include this the second law is not voilated.
So why do creationists, supposedly godly people, lie to you?
Unfortunately it seems your biology teacher was not well-versed on evolution. It is not at all vague, in fact it is very firm and straightforward (although the soup theories are sometimes vague, and are not the only theories around, they relate to abiogenesis, not evolution!).
Richard | 24.10.06 – 9:14 am | #
I was referring especifically to the Soup-Model theory, not evolution, and to the fact that in the universe entropy tends to increase, so the word spontaneously was definetely out of question since in order for life to be created energy had to be put into the process.
You must recognize that after all the Soup-Model theory has not been proven a fact, just like the divine-creation theory has not been proven a fact, that’s why they teach both in school, so you cannot say that creationists lie, because there has not been concrete proof to certify which theory is right, and you konw that well.
BTW I have never talked about this to a religious person, in fact, all my PHYSICS professors, who know very well thermodynamics, believe in God.
Also my chemistry professor
Look at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Bubble_Theory
“As of 2006, no one has yet synthesized a “protocell” using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called “bottom-up-approach”). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. ”
Here is something related to the Soup Model theory
“The answer to Darwin’s question was beyond the reach of the experimental science of his day, and no real progress was made during the 19th century. In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his “The Origin of Life on Earth”, demonstrated that, pace Pasteur, it was the presence of atmospheric oxygen, and other more sophisticated life-forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life. Oparin argued that a “primeval soup” of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These would combine in ever-more complex fashion until they dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets would “grow” by fusion with other droplets, and “reproduce” through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote “cell integrity” survive, those that don’t become extinct. All modern theories of the origin of life take Oparin’s ideas as a starting point.”
Notice how the theory says that these lifeless molecules would combine in more complex fashions, grow and reproduce, isen’t that a little bit too much to expect from inorganic molecules because the concept of reproduction can only be aplied to living organisms, not molecules.
As you can see, YOU CANNOT call a creationist a liar because then you would have to call many scientists liars since both views are theories and NONE HAS BEEN PROVEN
Now I have a question for you Richard, if with the technology that we have today we cannot make life, how do you suppose that in those times, life would just sprout without a purpose or meaning for its existence?
archduke
Socialism in Cuba was against Christianity or any religion whatsoever. In Cuba all the private schools, which most of them were religious based, were stolen by the regime and also many monasteries and churches were closed down. Many jesuits, nuns, priests and religious figures had to flee from Cuba and in the streets as well as in schools many Jehova’s witnesses and others were beaten, humiliated and persecuted. That also extended to anyone who the government knew disagreed with the regime. Just for having dollars or doing anything considered to be divergent from the socialist ideology, such as listening to American and British music, you would have been sent to jail or expelled from school or work.
Things changed a bit only when the Pope John Paul II came to Cuba in 1998, but up to then, it was a taboo to mention religion, although a number of people still went to the few churches that were open.
I’m not sure how it was aproached in the rest of the world, but in Cuba socialism is anti-Chritian and anti any belief that is not communist or socialist.
Di
Love the background stuff on Cuba but you are preaching to the converted here. BBC bias is what we are about – let’s get more examples of how they misreport Cuba so we can ask all the Labour and other MPs why they keep going on holiday there.
PS And there was me thinking mulberry bushes were involved in the great procreation/evolution activity……damm. 😎
John Reith.
I remember you claiming somewhere in this blog that the recent self-examination of BBC bias was something they did on a regular basis and that we mustn’t read too much into it.
Why then would the day be described as:
“It was an extraordinary day, momentous even.”
PS. Any chance of the dates of the previous examinations of BBC bias or was this the first one?
ha ha ha 🙂 ok dave
From the Beebs latest anti-Bush story:
“According to the BBC’s Justin Webb in Washington, the Bush administration is trying its best to suggest it has a plan to end the violence.”
But it hasn’t really, has it. QUAGMIRE!
Of course, you know that for a fact don’t you Justin, you smug git.
They’re all coming out of the bias closet.
I’ve just seen Mark Halperin, the political editor of the US ABC News, admit that “the old liberal media” (by which he means the NYT, Washington Post, ABC, CBS and CNN) have always been biased in favour of the Democrats.
He quoted the obvious example of rathergate but also said that he had seen a favourable 60mins special on nancy pelosi recently but had never seen the same for Newt Gingrich.
Anyone see this week’s episode of Spooks? Group of swarthy terrorists take hostages and demand the release of Al Qaida prisoners. But it’s okay, because they’re not really Muslims – it’s a fiendish Mossad plot, and those wicked Jews get their bloody comeuppance in the end.
Next week our Spook heroes battle Christian extremists who plan to attack a Muslim community.
Business as usual at Al-Beeb then.
The BBC and its master’s voice;
Travelling with the Taleban
The BBC’s David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.
There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6081594.stm
Mobile?
Tell me BBC can the Taliban (whom you wet yourselves when ever they are mentioned) move 1000s of miles?
No
Can they project themselves 1000s of miles?
No
Can they even get their people to First aid after they have been hurt
No
Then how the hell can you claim they are mobile?
The BBC defending those who steal food from the people they pretend to defend. (But the BBC calls it sharing)
You beat me to it , pounce. The “Travelling With The Taleban” article is one of the most sickening, anti-Western, one-sided
pieces of pro-Taleban propaganda I’ve ever read. Al-BBC hack Loyn shows an almost school-girlish admiration for the terrorist Islamic thugs. His simpering prose praises the Taleban’s “determination”, “ferocity”, “toughness” and he revels in their exploits in fighting the British. These brainwashed fascists are busy killing British troops and this creep from the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation pens a love letter to the enemy. This is the kind of drivel I imagine that Nazi publications would print about the Waffen SS. Can the traitors at Al-BBC sink any lower ?
More from “Travelling With The Taleban”……
“Afghanistan has been in the grip of a severe drought for several years, but the lack of clean water does not seem to concern these hardy men.
They clean their teeth with sharpened sticks taken from trees, and sleep with only the thinnest shawls to cover them.
They have surprised the British by the ferocity of their fighting and their willingness to take casualties.
Their belief in the imminence of paradise means that few exhibit fear.”
” We rose up and saved almost the whole country from the evils of corruption and corrupt commanders… that’s why people are supporting the Taleban again now” Taleban Spokesman
This is our TV Tax money at work — providing succour and propaganda for our enemies . We are financing a PR campaign for those who would destroy our our way of life.
On Sunday came details of the seminar where named newsreaders complained of perceived BBC bias and hostility to the USA and Christianity.
On Monday morning there was a slot in the Today programme when the “reporter” got a laugh from the presenter when he stated “Have you ever been in an American Hotel room and switched on the TV to receive a Christian Channel”
Interesting as the independent Christian Channels are usually way down on channel numbers and the big three (ABC,CBS,NBC) at the top.
Never mind, for the uninitiated the BBC managed to imply that in the US the TV media is effectively run by Christian Fundamentalists.
This from a “service” that spent a week pumping out pro-Iranian propaganda.
The Today programme
Yesterday one of the presenters read out an e-mail (apparently one of a number expressing the same sentiment) saying that the listener was sick of hearing about Iraq every day.
The BBC’s answer to this is to continue almost wall-to-wall coverage of Iraq, or more accurately coverage of “We must cut and run from the Bush/Blair disaster that is Iraq”. The BBC’s central editorial plank is that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and probably illegal and is now a completely disastrous situation.
Post-Hutton, the BBC is desperate to show that it was right all along, and so we get extensive coverage of bad news from Iraq. There is bad news from Iraq of course, but do you get the impression that the BBC is not there to report news, but to find evidence that it was right all along?
Just listen to John Humphreys reporting from Iraq these last couple of days – can anyone be in any doubt that he has gone there with a preset agenda?
It’s worth remembering that over eleven hundred British soldiers and security personnel (RUC) were killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland. In those dark times the people who urged us to cut and run from Northern Ireland are largely the same ones who want us to cut and run now. But we stayed the course in Ireland, and now things are much much better, but it has taken a long time.