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.
Given that the BBC believes that the Taliban philosophy, principles, ethics and morality are so wonderful and effective. Isn’t it high time they were adopted more generally and applied (for example) energetically to the BBC and others of the same mindset.
After all who decreed that it is only nations and religions who should be subjects for terror (sorry) I meant militancy/resistance/insurgency.
They shouldn’t have a problem with this as after all its all perfectly reasonable behaviour, according to them, as long as you have a ’cause’.
To paraphrase Corporal Jones “They don’t/won’t like it up them”.
The BBC and half the story – that is, half the story in India and Pakistan as well as the U.K.:
http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2866
“One does not know how the event was covered by the BBC World (TV channel) as the ‘patriotic’ local cable operator had apparently decided long ago that BBC reports (along with Pakistan TV) were bad for Indian stomachs and stopped beaming signals from the two channels to the subscribers. The impression of biased reporting by that ‘premier’ world news dispenser was, however, strengthened after reading the account of the same rally in the Times of India. Judge for yourself.
“The first thing that struck one as rather odd was that the BBC report failed to mention the fact that …
“What was perhaps even more newsy and not reported by the BBC was her declaration at the ‘parallel’ rally that she was … “
Somebody on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ section has posted this comment:
“I support anyone who tracks Grimer down and does something unspeakable to him.”
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/manzila_pola_uddin/2006/10/history_will_not_forgive_us_fo_1.html#comment-270293
Despite a complaint to the Guardian, the comment is still there 24 hours later.
Given that a man was recently tracked down and attacked over a discussion in an internet chatroom, how would I go about forcing the Guardian to remove the comment and reporting the commenter to the Police?
I don’t know anything about UK law, mate… I’m not sure you have anything to worry about but in this day and age I wouldn’t take any risks either.
One thing: Why do you actually post stuff on a website frequented by moronic lefties and islamofascist loons?
Grimer,
Take care. I’m with disillusioned_german on this one. I very rarely frequent comment sections of sites like The Guardian.
Even a disgusting, subversive rag like The Guardian should remove a comment like that, but I wouldn’t know how to force them to do so or report the commenter. I imagine the law in most countries is very hazy in terms of what is legal on the internet.
The BBC and half a story;
Woman burned in France bus attack
A woman has been seriously burned and three others are suffering from smoke inhalation after youths set fire to a bus in the French city of Marseille.
A group of teenagers reportedly forced open the doors of the vehicle and threw flammable liquid inside before fleeing.
There have been several attacks on buses over the past week, coinciding with the one year anniversary of riots in poor suburbs across the country.
The riots were sparked by the deaths of two teenagers in the capital, Paris.
Minor skirmishes were reported in Paris on Saturday. An additional 4,000 officers had been deployed – six were injured and 47 people were arrested, according to the interior ministry. At least six buses have been set on fire in suburbs around the capital this week in an upsurge of violence ahead of the anniversary of the riots.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6095668.stm
So the BBC reports that a few buses have been set on fire as these unnamed groups of teenagers protest over the deaths of 2 boys last year. (Which saw them torch 10000 cars)
Here is how the Guardian reports the events that transpired last night in France;
CLICHY-SOUS-BOIS, France (AP) – Marauding youths torched hundreds of vehicles overnight and on Saturday in renewed violence coinciding with the first anniversary of riots that exposed a deep schism between poor North African immigrants and mainstream France. A group of teenagers set one bus on fire Saturday in the southern French port city of Marseille, seriously wounding a passenger. Three others suffered from smoke inhalation, police said. Two other public buses and 277 vehicles around the country were burned overnight, police said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6177727,00.html
I wonder why the BBC omitted this penchant that these unnamed groups have for lighting up the sky with burning cars. Even the Guardian has no problem naming the guilty party; “Police had braced for a bigger replay of violence in the poor suburbs predominantly made up of Muslims from former French colonies in Africa. Friday marked the one-year anniversary of the deaths of two teens that ignited three weeks of riots in 2005.”
So once again the BBC and half a story.
Grimer,
Contact the editor of the Guardian by post, e-mail and phone.
Contact you MP
Promote the image that if the victim had being a Muslim this missive would have being referred to as a hate crime and police action would have been instigated.
Contact the Daily Mail. Daily Telegraph and the Sun in which for them to slate the Guardian.Do not reveal your real name to the lefty rags.
Oh yes have a butchers at this;
http://www.met.police.uk/computercrime/index.htm
But for future reference do not allude to who you are or even where you live. One trick that idiots use is to reinvent themselves as somebody with your train of thought in order for you to reveal yourself. (Somebody pretending to be an ex sapper comes to mind on this board in my case.) If you must play around with them invent false addresses and send the idiots on a wild goose chase.
City Academy eh?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426788,00.html
Sponsorship for favours?
The BBC finally allowed a straight-talking non-PC academic onto the hallowed pages of its website to express his opinion on Darfur:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6058920.stm
About bloody time.
But of course it had to “balance” him with an apologist for the government of Sudan who makes it clear that he feels there should be no intervention in Sudan beyond the ineffective African Union. In other words, he’s happy for Sudanese Arabs to carry on killing Sudanese Africans en masse while the world twiddles its thumbs.
So, it seems, is the BBC. Now if an African Muslim government were carrying out a programme of genocide against its Arab Muslim citizens, there’s no doubt that the BBC would be screaming about it from the rooftops.
” wonder why the BBC omitted this penchant that these unnamed groups have for lighting up the sky with burning cars. Even the Guardian has no problem naming the guilty party; “Police had braced for a bigger replay of violence in the poor suburbs predominantly made up of Muslims from former French colonies in Africa. Friday marked the one-year anniversary of the deaths of two teens that ignited three weeks of riots in 2005.””
Just returned from the Land of the Burning Vehicle.
French TV was pretty parsimonious in its coverage of events outside of Paris. The channel I caught seemed to be fixated on the Parisian Bus Burnings, especially in Bagnolet.
At a guess, I think the BBC hires Guardian rejects. The ‘journalists’ for the Grauniad probably speak francais, the BBC bods just look at the pictures from a TV feed.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-10-26T145747Z_01_L26501554_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE-SUBURBS-VIOLENCE.xml&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C2_worldNews-1
Note the use of a firearm.
Burning cars are so commonplace that they no are longer worthy of a mention (possibly a state scheme for keeping french car workers in jobs). Bombing Buses is new, so TV takes an interest.
The whole sorry tale, and more, from:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2006_10_22_no-pasaran_archive.html
I’ve not seen the particular form of ‘taxation’ exhibited by the thieves in ‘Helpful Advice’ but I did bear witness to an example of ‘aggressive begging’* being perpetrated by a gang of ‘ethnics’ on unsuspecting tourists.
(*more sort of money-with-menaces)
The entire place has a coarser, more degraded ‘feel’ to it than the last time I visited, about seven years ago.
What is more depressing is this piece;
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609
“Better to light une Voiture than to curse the Darkness”
Excellent piece by the DG:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ pa…in_page_id=1770
Does anyone seriously disagree with a word of it?
..sorry, here’s that link again:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413190&in_page_id=1770
David Loyn lies through his teeth.
David Loyn answers your questions on the Taleban
Q: Do the Taleban foresee a time when they will lay down their arms and stop fighting? What is their objective and can they see a time when there will be peace?
Edward McCarthy, Edinburgh, UK
‘Islam’ means ‘the way of peace’. That is their dream…
Lies. ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Etymology
I can’t remember the Taleban being so peaceful (especially against their women) when they were in power. Oh, well – peace is how you define it, I suppose. The Taleban would say “balanced reporting, Al Beeb”.
Maybe all Hitler wanted was peace – once he had achieved world domination.
jr
In the topmost thread I suggested that Nick Reynolds (who has confessed to working for the BBC) was brown nosing to his supreme boss by ‘bigging’ up his article in the Mail.
I see you’re not averse to a bit of brown nosing either.
jr
An example of some of the comments about your supreme leader’s article, taken from the Mail.
Complete and utter ‘The world revolves around me’ droning monologue. If he was a good director general he would start by making the brave decision to scrap Eastenders and start working 24/7 on getting evening schedules full of varied and decent programming AND not spouting about political correctness.
– Peter, Leeds
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413190&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
So far running at about 90% disagreement with him.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413190&in_page_id=1770
the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
i couldn’t possibly disagree,seriously
though, mark thompson is obviously rattled and in my view seriously deluded.he’s obviously never watched
spooks.
TPO
and …. two whose spouses work for the BBC.
TPO | 28.10.06 – 2:08 pm
2? Coyle/Cellan-Jones….who’s the other one?
It’s not ALL to do with Iraq.
The BBC is pleased to announce, for the umpteenth time
Iraq war ‘fuelling UK terrorism’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6096016.stm
But …
An al-Qaeda strategist has warned Canada to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan or face terrorist attacks similar to 9/11, Madrid and the London transit bombings.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91&k=70612
Didn’t the West get involved in Afghanistan with the blessing of Team UN, the world police?
above via LGF
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
jr
Lost the link but I think it’s Richard Tait
BBC seminar
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ pa…in_page_id=1770
Mark Thompson:
“In fact the seminar was open to external participants and many outside guests took part. Far from being secret, it was streamed live on the internet.”
‘live stream’….Does anybody have a copy?
“Does anyone seriously disagree with a word of it?”
Do you seriously accept a word of it? Did you also know the word gullible isn’t in the dictionary?
TPR:
John Reith:
Re: Richard Tait
“Auntie keeps it in the family
As the government received more than 500 applications for the eight remaining positions on the BBC Trust, Monkey wonders if it couldn’t have made more effort to find members who don’t have some involvement with the BBC, like Diane Coyle, married to BBC correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, and Richard Tait, whose wife is also employed by the corporation. Another of last week’s appointees was Dame Patricia Hodgson, the former ITC chief executive who stepped down “with great reluctance” from the board of GCap in August, pleading too many work commitments. Let’s hope the good people of GCap aren’t too offended.”
Source? The Guardian….
http://media.guardian.co.uk/pda/avantgo/latestarticleinsection/0,,SECTION%3D105247$NAME%3DMedia+Monkey$PDATENO,00.html
TPO 1
John Reith 0
TPO:
John Reith:
Everyone else with a nose for something that stinks to high heaven:
Re: Richard Tait again.
ITN’s Westminster-based Senior Political Producer Graham Forrester had a two-man crew cover the 19 October 1998 House of Commons launch of my book Trial by Conspiracy accusing The Guardian of perverting the Downey Inquiry into the CFQ affair through forgery and lies.
There’s a brief profile of Graham Forrester here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Pegs%20that%20stood%20up/page2.html
Graham thought it was all sensational stuff. So did BBC NW Political Editor Jim Hancock, who broadcast several reports in the NW region.
However, inexplicably, Graham Forrester’s intention to have ITN broadcast news of the sensational allegations aired at the press conference levelled against the Guardian by 1) Labour Peeress Baroness Turner of Camden (now Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords); 2) Tory MP Gerald Howarth (now shadow defence minister); Neil Hamilton; and me, were thwarted by, er, ITN’s then editor-in-chief, Richard Tait.
Richard Tait later justified his decision to impose a news blackout on the press conference in a letter to the ITC dated 19 December 2000 on the following grounds:
“The decision not to cover Mr Hunt’s book launch was taken purely on editorial grounds on a day when the news agenda included stories of real importance.”
Note: “Real importance”
Meanwhile, the BBC’s online reporter Nick Assinder reported the conference thus:
“This was a press conference to mark the launch of a new book which claims disgraced ex-Tory MP Neil Hamilton was the victim of a conspiracy by The Guardian newspaper and Harrods’ boss Mohamed al-Fayed.
Before the last election, Mr Hamilton was accused of accepting brown envelopes stuffed with cash from Mr Fayed in return for asking Commons questions on his behalf.
He came to epitomise the sleaze which wracked the last Tory administration in the run up to the poll and which contributed to its humiliating defeat.
He lost his Tatton seat to the man in the white suit, Martin Bell, and has become a pariah in his own party.
But freelance reporter Jonathan Boyd Hunt has now produced a 300 page book, Trial by Conspiracy, to back up Mr Hamilton’s claim that he is innocent of any corruption.
The book claims to be “the story of how a group of Britain’s most senior journalists conspired to destroy the lives of one man and his wife and helped bring down a government in the process.”…
There were claims from the platform – which included Mr Hamilton, his friend and Tory MP Gerald Howarth, Mr Hunt, and Baroness Turner – that the newspaper had falsified documents and, along with Mr Fayed, had lied to the Downey Inquiry into the sleaze allegations.
None of it was particularly new…”
Yeah, right, books are published every second Tuesday articulating in detail how a Leftwing newspaper helped bring down a democratic government…
Tait and Assinder can’t both be right….
Be in no doubt, Richard Tait was chosen to be a member of the BBC Trust because he’s just another leftwing trooper who can be relied on to toe the line, as was no doubt all the rest of them, including Patricia Hodgson.
There’s some info on Patricia Hodgson that B-BBCers ought to be aware of here:
http://www.coverup.net/2%20Contents/index.html
John Reith asked “Does anyone seriously disagree with a word of it?”
I feel compelled to send everyone over to LGF on this one: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23138_Howler_of_the_Day
Charles (LGF) comments: “Notice Byford’s refusal to say that the BBC will not have a Muslim woman read the news while wearing a radical Islamic face mask. This strongly suggests that such a thing is already in the planning stages, and we should expect it to be a reality soon. The Beeb will probably wait until the current furor over the veil cools off, but don’t be surprised to see a veiled newsreader within the next few months.”
Interesting thought… I guess we’ll know soon.
Reality TV: A harbinger?
“The BBC is sending six British women to be “second wives” to tribesmen in some of the world’s most remote communities”
What is this – softening us up for whats coming up? Prepare for islamic polygamy, British women!