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.
Re: Robin Hood
All they need now is a probation officer, a social worker and a diversity counsellor and the merry band will be complete.
John Simpson performs mindreading act in Baghdad :
Saddam Hussein shouted out “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Greatest) and “Long live Iraq. Long live the Iraqi people!” after the judge announced the verdict.
Correspondents say the former leader looked visibly shocked as the sentence was passed, but the BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson said that as he was led away Saddam Hussein seemed to have a small smile on his face.
“It was as if he was thinking ‘I’ve come here and done what I intended to do’,” our correspondent said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
“I can’t see Al-Beebyas journalists managing “bimodal sigmoid activation functions” and “edge detection” somehow.”
I’ve got to ask, what’s a bimodal sigmoid activation function? I’m guessing this is a neural network activation function we’re talking about here, but I’ve never heard of using bimodal sigmoids as opposed to regular sigmoids. Nor do I know what a bimodal sigmoid function is.
So I (but probably no-one else) would be grateful if you could just elaborate a little on what a bimodal sigmoid is and when it is used. Thanks.
James of England | 05.11.06 – 12:08 am & Mark | 05.11.06 – 5:12 am
You couldn’t make it up.
Anyone wanting an illustration of the combination of rampant, paranoid conspiracy theorizing and mean-spirited ness that characterize this blog should take a peek at the classic exchange between James of England and Mark.
First James spots a picture caption that includes ‘Oliver North (R)’.
He at once imagines that (R) stands for Republican and that crafty BBC caption writers (who are in league with Jews, Freemasons, Islamist terrorists, the secret services, the Commies – take your pick) are abusing their global media power to discredit someone.
He doesn’t tell us whether he thinks they are out to discredit Ollie North in a guilt-by-association smear by branding him a Republican, or whether they’re out to discredit the GOP by reminding folks that Ollie North is a supporter.
Either way, he declares himself ‘stumped’ in his mental search for any other plausible explanation.
Enter Mark.
He points out that (R) most likely means ‘right’, indicating that Ollie is the one on the right of the pic rather than the bloke on the left.
So far, so sensible.
But he can’t quite bring himself to let the BBC off the hook entirely.
No, the corporation has to be chided for employing a ‘cryptic’ caption labelling convention.
Chuck it Mark. It’s a damned nearly universally employed (and damned nearly universally understood) convention.
Nothing cryptic about it.
Priceless!
Surely a battery of moonbats?
The BBC has done its job well.
The DHYS comments are majoring on “why aren’t we hanging Bush and Blair also?” type comments.
Come on JR, you’re still losing 11-0 against JBH. Stop focusing on single errors, it does you no favour.
Tim Berners-Lee and [BBC/Guardian] media misrepresentation:
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1491
Has anyone else noticed that John Reith is now so frustrated at being unable to counter the barrage of true bias reported that he has to write a huge long post about a tiny side issue? Why is he so determined to defend the BBC, despite all the evidence?
.
“Climate chaos? Don’t believe it”
The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the ‘facts’ of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Actually JR given that Oli North was and is a Republican of the Reagan era, and also given the wall to wall coverage of how the Republicans are (a) evil and (b) going to lose the mid terms badly I actually thought it was a reasonable assumption to make at first sight. You see, you are assuming that everyone knows who the white haired guy is on the left of the photo……so why didn’t you lot put Fred Bloggs (L) as well? Who IS the guy on the left anyway?
billyquiz:
Come on JR, you’re still losing 11-0 against JBH. Stop focusing on single errors, it does you no favour.
billyquiz | 05.11.06 – 11:51 am |
Losing, Billyquiz? You must be joking.
1. I’ve established that J B-H knew about the amendment-for-cash that Hamilton failed to tell both the Standards Commissioner and the Committee on privileges and that J B-H
too failed to tip off the investigators – as was his clear civic duty.
2. I’ve established that J B-H was being more than economical with the truth about Hamilton’s declaration of interest. A week ago JBH was insisting it was registered ‘at the time’, ‘when he put down the amendment’ and ‘properly’. Now even he admits that registration was delayed from May ’til November.
3. That delay supports Mobil’s side of the story: that a bogus consultancy agreement was cobbled together in September to cover a payment they never expected to make.
4. J B-H’s position now is that not only are the Guardian co-conspirators with Fayed, but so are the rest of Fleet Street, the BBC AND now Peter Whiteman QC, one of the leading tax barristers in the land. Anyone else? You bet – JB-H cites Lord Campbell Savours as well as the intelligence services of Britain, the US and the defunct Soviet Union on his website too.)
J B-H came on this site in a fit of pique when the BBC’s Director General Mark Thompson refused to commit BBC resources to J B-H’s ten year project to clear Neil Hamilton.
Points 1 & 2 above prove the DG was right to do so.
I’ve been listening to the Dutch Radio 1 (the equivalent of BBC radio four) in the car for a while now, and I thought a comparison between Dutch public media and the BBC was in order:
The Dutch media is certainly leftwing biased, about which the VVD (the “right wing” party who are essentially classical Victorian Liberals) do occasionally complain.
Anyway, listening to the radio yesterday, they were interviewing a Dutch film director who had just come back from a Dutch language film Festival in Cuba (apparently they have them…). The interviewee immediately announces that he is back in Holland attending some young socialist conference (we are in the run-up to general elections here), so I thought “Oh, here we go”. Imagine my surprise when the interviewer starts to ask vaguely probing questions concerning freedom of expression and political freedom in Cuba! And especially when the interviewee doesn’t attempt a total whitewash! Smile? I grinned from ear to ear and enjoyed a nice warm fuzzy feeling which was a very pleasant contrast to the teeth grinding which is normally the result of any BBC piece involving Cuba.
The DHYS comments are majoring on “why aren’t we hanging Bush and Blair also?” type comments.
Abandon Ship!
Among those receiving the most recommendations (no in parenthesis)
Most people never heard of Saddam Hussein before Bush senior invaded Iraq.
We invaded his country twice, (65)
His death will erradicate the final piece of evidence about who supplied him with the weapons in the first place (53)
It’s a sad irony that the United States put this man in power so many years ago, (47)
Typical America. Install a dictator, then when he gets a bit too big for his boots, bring him down in a bloodbath. (36)
I think he should be re-instated with full honours and an apology.
There was far less killing and corruption present under Saddam than there is in Iraq now. (24)
A pathetic parade of those who must go out of their way to remain ignorant of Saddam’s history so that their “blame US first” mindset is not disturbed.
More crap writing from the Beeb. On the Saddam verdict the following paragraph appears:
As the judge began reading the death sentence Saddam Hussein shouted out “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) and “Long live Iraq! Long live the Iraqi people! Down with the traitors!”
Everything he shouted was in Arabic so why pick up on the “Allahu Akbar” bit. He never said “Long live Iraq! Long live the Iraqi people! Down with the traitors!” at all. The paragraph should have been written like this:
As the judge began reading the death sentence Saddam Hussein shouted out, in Arabic, “God is Great! Long live Iraq! Long live the Iraqi people! Down with the traitors!”
Is this just the usual incompetence or is the BBC preparing us for the future by making sure we all know the correct vocabulary?
Is this just the usual incompetence or is the BBC preparing us for the future by making sure we all know the correct vocabulary?
billyquiz | 05.11.06 – 1:22 pm |
I agree-the BBC dutifully reminding all of us “non-muslims”!
The BBC and half a story;
Thailand ‘rebels’ attack schools
Suspected Muslim insurgents in southern Thailand have burnt down three schools and shot and wounded a teacher. The attacks took place overnight on Saturday in the Muslim-dominated province of Yala. They came after Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, installed in an October coup, apologised for the policies of the previous government.
———————————-xxx—————————————————————-
On Friday, the new government ordered the release of 92 Muslims charged with taking part in an anti-government rally two years ago during which 85 protesters died while in army custody.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6116220.stm
You mean this anti-government rally BBC?
S Thailand protest turns violent
At least 1,500 men clashed with police during the protest
Thailand’s three southernmost regions are emerging from a curfew that was imposed after violent clashes left six people dead. Police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse at least 1,500 protesters gathered in Narathiwat province. The incident was one of the most serious to have taken place in Thailand’s troubled south in months.
The men had gathered at a police station to protest against the detention of six Muslim men.
Pistol shots
More than 350 people have died this year in clashes between militants and security forces in Thailand’s Muslim-majority southern provinces. Despite the curfew, that was due to end at 0600 local time (2300GMT), Reuters new agency reports that during the night, protesters set fire to a school building and burned tyres on major roads. During the earlier clashes, Thai television showed footage of soldiers in riot gear firing M-16 automatic rifles. Police said the protesters also used weapons, and one witness told Reuters that pistol shots came from the crowd. At least 30 people, including 14 police officers, were wounded in the fracas, which lasted several hours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3951387.stm
It seems, that to the BBC when certain people turn to violence in which to protest the locking up of 6 gun runners. It has no problem in editing out the salient parts of its reporting in which to promote a vision of innocence on those who protest against the Thai government.
So from the BBC here are a few more anti government protests against Thailand in the months running up to the deaths of those 85 peaceful protesters.
two men have been killed by suspected Muslim militants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3738828.stm
Thai officials shot dead in south
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3896503.stm
Thai teachers march for security
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3790221.stm
Thai Buddhist shrine ransacked
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3765861.stm
Thai beheading prompts patrols
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3763085.stm
Blasts rock Thai Buddhist temples
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3719483.stm
Scores killed in Thai gun battles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3665293.stm
Thai bomb suspects ‘in Malaysia’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3581699.stm
So the BBC promotes a story of innocence against a bunch of religious thugs who have no problem on playing the victim card once they are caught. (Sounds kind of familiar) But somehow leaves out all the deaths, terrorist acts and threats that have been caused by those religious thugs which leads up to them saying;
“taking part in an anti-government rally two years ago during which 85 protesters died while in army custody.”
The BBC and half a story..
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Billy Quiz wrote;
Is this just the usual incompetence or is the BBC preparing us for the future by making sure we all know the correct vocabulary?
I noticed that as well, strange how when ever somebody is reported by the BBC for uttering “Allah Ackba” they always to the letter report it as “God is great , god is greater or even no god but Allah.” but never “Allah Ackba”The most infamous one being this one;
He shouted “There is no God but Allah” as Mohamed Moallim stepped up to take his revenge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4967108.stm
But then the BBC does love Islamic Sharia law.
In between the hanging news on Radio 4 this morning we had 10 minutes of rather ecstatic noises being made about Barack Obama, by Time Egan on (A Point of View) now published online in the BBC magazine:
New kid on the block
For if America is truly ready for a black President, Obama may be the one.
Just look at him work the crowd – the broad grin, those slightly off-centred ears, the Lincolnesque frame – and you see something else. Look at the faces of the people waiting to touch him.
Some are even teary-eyed. Barackomania, they call it – and the comparison to that other mania more than 40 years ago is apt, the time when people fainted after they got to touch a young John Kennedy.
Racial hybrid
It’s not just that Barack Obama is the idealised image of New Century America that many want to project – that undefined racial hybrid, with the white mother from Kansas, the black father from Kenya. Tiger Woods in a suit.
Now, for the BBC thought police to allow this description of him as a “racial hybrid” , as well as emphasise this in their online magazine, raised my eyebrows a bit. I seem to remember noises being made that one can no longer say “mixed race” and that “dual heritage” was a far better term. Now it seems the BBC is encouraging us all to use the term “racial hybrid” to describe a black man with a white mother. Moreover, Tim Eggen writes something, that on the face of it appears ridiculous:
And unlike Jesse Jackson, who tried mightily to become the first black President, Obama seems almost race-neutral.
How can hybridity be neutral? One doesn’t have to be a Darwinian to see that this is palpably absurd. But, of course, we expect such things from BBC magazines! So BBC please tell us non-muslims, is now the former Labour MP Oona King, to be called a “racial hybrid” when she next appears on TV- as I believe that she fulfils all the above criteria that Barack Obama has, and do we henceforth junk both “dual heritage” & “mixed race” and say “racial hybrid” instead?
Stoatman:
The Dutch? Oh, you mean those people who get angry when you ask them why they find convenient to murder their old and sick instead of caring for them? Sorry, but I loathe the Netherlands and regard it as an abomination. Any part of the world that routinely practice the murder of the old and sick (a.k.a. “euthanasia”, since these days we dislike proper English) is no friend of mine. So the bastards allow a little truth about Cuba to caress their ears. Pity they allow none about Holland.
The BBC and how it loves Islamic tyrants.
Saddam dominates courtroom drama
By John Simpson
World affairs editor, BBC News
The melodramatic end of Saddam Hussein’s trial was as fascinating as the first moment when he stalked into the courtroom at the beginning of the trial, just over a year ago. But Saddam Hussein himself seemed a little different – less tense, less angry, more aware of his ability to manipulate the atmosphere and produce the effect he required.
—————————————–xxxx——————————————————–
But in a way Saddam has achieved a good deal. He has given new heart to his supporters and to the insurgency. He has made up for the humiliation of being pulled, dirty and dishevelled, from a hole in the ground. And he has put his own stamp on the proceedings, from start to finish. As he was escorted out of the courtroom today, I was standing only a couple of feet from him, in the press-box. I watched a small smile pass across his face. He had achieved precisely what he had come to the courtroom to do.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6118590.stm
So the BBC waxes lyrical over how a certain Arabic despot has been sentenced by the people he oppressed to death. According to the BBC he achieved a great deal.
Was that the war against Iran?
No!
Was that the invasion of Kuwait?
No!
Was it about how he oppressed millions of Shia Muslims?
No!
Was it the gassing of the Kurds?
No!
Was it how he allowed millions to die during the sanctions era while he built his many palaces?
No!
Oh and BBC ref that smile when he was given the death sentence? The last time that happened the guilty party played the victim card afterwards. But then the reporter did say this at the start; “manipulate the atmosphere and produce the effect he required.”
Bali bomber Amrozi appeals
Lawyers for the Bali bomber Amrozi, who was sentenced to death for his role in the blasts, have lodged an appeal against his conviction. A member of his defence team said the Islamic militant had authorised the appeal, despite his claim to be “happy to die as a martyr” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3134235.stm
John Reith:
You take dishonesty to new heights. I’ve already dealt with Mobil comprehensively but you leave me with no alternative to respond and expose you and the BBC for what you are. Yet again.
Following the collapse on 30 September 1996 of Neil Hamilton’s and Ian Greer’s libel actions against The Guardian, Neil Hamilton requested that parliament should investigate the matter. His wish was granted.
On 8 October 1996 The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Sir Gordon Downey. In his letter Rusbridger outlined in general, non-specific terms a list of allegations against Neil Hamilton. This included a single vague reference to Mobil. Rusbridger stated:
“allegations about money he had received for tabling questions helpful to Mobil Oil some years before declaring any interest therein”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0124.htm
On 16 December 1996 Mohamed Fayed submitted his formal complaint against Neil Hamilton. There was no reference to Mobil.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0107.htm
On 16 January 1997, Sir Gordon Downey wrote to The Guardian’s solicitor Geraldine Proudler clarifying what he understood the Guardian’s list of charges against Neil Hamilton to be. There was no reference to Mobil.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0136.htm
On 10 February 1997 The Guardian’s journalists and lawyers gave chapter and verse on the case against Neil Hamilton in oral hearings that began with question number 789 and ended with question number 866. There was no reference to Mobil.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0113.htm
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0114.htm
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0115.htm
On that same day of 10 February 1997 The Guardian submitted its first submission in response to Neil Hamilton’s answer to the charges against him. There was no reference to Mobil.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0138.htm
On 19 February 1997 The Guardian submitted its second submission in response to Neil Hamilton’s answer to the charges against him. There was no reference to Mobil.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0139.htm
On that same day of 19 February, Neil Hamilton replied to a letter Downey had written listing further allegations against him. This included Rusbridger’s original vague allegation that he had tabled parliamentary questions for Mobil for payment. In his reply Hamilton wrote:
“MOBIL OIL
I was a consultant on taxation matters to Mobil Oil plc in 1989 and this interest was duly registered at the time. I asked no Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the company; nor was I ever asked to do so.”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0166.htm
In fact, as Downey clarified, the charge that Hamilton had tabled questions for Mobil for payment was contained not in any official complaint from The Guardian or Fayed, but buried within the pages of David Leigh’s poisonous novel “Sleaze”.
In his report Downey stated:
“Mobil Oil
703. The allegation against Mr Hamilton relating to Mobil Oil was set out in the book Sleaze. It is that Mr Hamilton, either during or shortly after a one year consultancy with Mobil (worth, according to The Guardian, £10,000), tabled Parliamentary Questions in return for payment.
704. Mr Hamilton stated that he had been appointed in 1989 as a consultant on taxation matters to Mobil Oil and that this interest had been registered (a fact confirmed by the Register for 1990). Mr Hamilton added: “I asked no Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the company; nor was I ever asked to do so”.
705. The analysis of Mr Hamilton’s Parliamentary activity between late 1989 and 1991 does not indicate that he tabled any questions, or tabled or signed any Early Day Motions, or made any interventions in the House that could be construed as directly relevant to the interests of Mobil Oil.
706. The Guardian questioned the reason given by Mr Hamilton for his employment by Mobil, arguing that Mr Hamilton was not at that stage an active tax lawyer. The book Sleaze also, however, quotes Mobil as saying that one of their subsidiary companies was involved in a dispute with the Inland Revenue over US/United Kingdom taxation, a subject on which they regarded Mr Hamilton as an expert. The Guardian pointed to the significance, in their view, of the fact that at about the same time as Mobil concluded a consultancy agreement with Mr Hamilton, they had engaged IGA as a Parliamentary lobbyist.”
So, John Reith, you’re now saying that Hamilton is dishonest because he didn’t answer allegations that hadn’t actually been made against him, or, presumably, because he didn’t scour The Guardian’s books so he could invent some himself. What you should ask yourself is this: why, with so much proving to hang on the Mobil allegation in Hamilton’s libel action against Fayed of November 1999, it took a series of happy accidents on the eve of the trial to reveal that Hamilton had demanded £10,000 to table an amendment to the Finance Bill.
The Guardian was well aware that Peter Whiteman had been responsible for engaging Hamilton as Mobil’s parliamentary consultant since October 1994. The Guardian would certainly have been aware that Whiteman was Fayed’s tax adviser too and so could be leaned on to help. The fact that the Mobil allegation didn’t appear until a full five years after allegations of non-registraqtion of Hamilton’s consultanncy with Mobil had first been raised, right on the eve of Hamilton’s new libel action, ought to stimulate the nostrils of any decent person with a nose for a stench.
Unless, that is, you’re a died-in-the-wool bigot of the worst order, for whom justice is something that should be denied Conservative MPs, in which case you avert your eyes and defend the indefensible with lies, bluff, and bluster. Just like you do, John Reith, as do all your bigoted buddies at the oh-so impartial BBC and the Guardian.
As for the supposed misappropriation of TV licence-payers’ money being the justification for the BBC’s refusal to accede to my many requests to instigate an official evaluation of my research, frankly, your posturing front leaves me struggling for words.
You are, in all honesty John Reith, not only a dishonest and shameful person, in my experience you’re also wholly typical of the vast majority of people who work at BBC News & Current Affairs. The more you defend the BBC with patent dishonesty the more you validate the creation of this blog.
Today, everything about the Saddam verdict and John Simpson in particular.
I have elaborated on my site
J B-H
You make the case against yourself and Hamilton well.
When Sir Gordon Downet wrote asking about Mobil the truthful answer was not:
“MOBIL OIL
I was a consultant on taxation matters to Mobil Oil plc in 1989 and this interest was duly registered at the time. I asked no Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the company; nor was I ever asked to do so.”
The truthful answer was:
MOBIL OIL
I asked no Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the company; nor was I ever asked to do so. But I did table an amendment to the Finance Bill on Mobil’s behalf. I did not register this interest at the time. Subsequently I raised the matter of payment with Mobil and they gave me £10,000. It was agreed that this would be disguised as a consultancy fee to save face all round. A couple of months after this bogus consultancy was established I finally got round to declaring my interest (but it was, of course, too late).
And your duty, given that Hamilton wasn’t prepared to do this was to do it for him.
All your references to ‘there was no Mobil’ in Fayed’s/the Guardian’s/Rusbridger’s allegations only goes to diaprove what you have been alleging against Mr Peter Whiteman QC. He obviously wasn’t in some corrupt conspiracy to perjure himself.
The Mobil story only came out when Carman’s team got hold of the Cabinet Secretary’s minutes.
That’s certainly what the jury believed.
Invited by Carman to find Hamilton corrupt, they did.
Fayed’s stories about brown paper envelopes look well dodgy. But nothing you say can persuade me that various Mobil executives and their lawyers were all part of one of your crackpot conspiracies.
You yourself have lost any feel for truth. You have lain down with dogs. No wonder you have fleas.
Defiant Saddam
As the judge began reading the death sentence Saddam Hussein shouted out “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) and “Long live Iraq! Long live the Iraqi people! Down with the traitors!”
He wasn’t so chippy at the time of his capture, was he?
He didn’t get satellite or cable TV in his rat hole. He thought he was a loser. It was only in the comfort of his cell that he could listen to the likes of John Simpson & Gavin Esler & realise that the BBC et al were rooting for him.
I presume Bush & Blair will be joining Hussein on the scaffold?
william fletcher
Recommended by 175 people
The BBC must be over the moon their nasty political agenda is working.
.
“For those who must go out of their way to remain ignorant of Saddam’s history so that their “blame US first” mindset is not disturbed”.
Saddams Mass Graves
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
Saddams Bloody Friday
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html
.
Many of the responses show clearly how people are willing to ignore facts and history in order to satisfy their own bigotry. They are so brainwashed by the, admittedly shambolic, aftermath of removing Hussein that they lose all sense of perspective. Read the history; it started in 1979 with his accession to power as head of the evil Baath party, where opposition politics were punishable by death. His track record is clear for all to see if you can remove the veil of bigotry. It’s all too easy to ignore just because anti US sentiments are now a more popular hobby among the chattering classes.
Paul B, Oxford
Recommended by 56 people
They still haven’t got everyone brainwashed though.
Sorry – links to above
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4607&start=15&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20061105194636&#paginator
General re BBC and MSM bias –
1) The boys WILL be returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in the next few years to their various home countries.
2) They WILL remember how much support and assistance they got from the MEDIA versus the comfort given to the folk’s who were trying to kill them.
3) They WILL have scores to settle !!!!! On that you can count.
4) If the MSM ‘creeps’ think that the local police forces will react swiftly to save their withered little butts after the MSM has been pissing on THEM over the last decade or so they are likely to be severely disappointed.
I foresee interesting times for certain groups of people a few years from now.
Emigration to Venezuela for them, definitely recommended !!!
John Reith:
Your mask of supposed impartiality and objectivity has slipped so far down it is now around your ankles. Which explains why you keep on tripping yourself up.
Though you use disingenuous argument to try and make your case stick, the fact remains you fail to address the principal unarguable features of the Mobil issue • that it depends entirely on the suspicious last minute word of a highly paid, suspiciously-shy employee of Mohamed Fayed of 14 years’ standing. Which frankly isn’t much. The fact that Peter Whiteman is also a Queen’s Counsel means, unfortunately in today’s Britain, zip. Hamilton was after all a Minster of the Crown. Shouldn’t his word be treated equally?
Yes, Hamilton tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill. Like I said, he declared his interest when he spoke. But there is nothing to support the charge that he did so because he was paid to do so • which in my view is exactly why the allegation took five years to surface and why neither The Guardian nor Fayed levelled any such allegation during the Downey inquiry. In my view, the fact that he made known his conflict of interest when he tabled the amendment shows that he had nothing to hide.
Indeed, when George Carman broke the Mobil allegations, a former executive of the Calor Gas Company, Richard Barry, who was also an officer of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association, after hearing the charges on the radio, immediately sought out and contacted Hamilton’s solicitors to inform them that Hamilton had saved the LPG industry from taxation torment by tabling an amendment to the Finance Bill that was later adopted to exclude gas bottle refillers from V.A.T. Up to that point in time the bottled L.P.G. industry had been V.A.T. exempt and the cost of administering the tax would have exceeded the revenue generated therefrom. Mr Barry told how, after being briefed by Andrew Smith of IGA, Hamilton accepted the merits of the argument and tabled an amendment exempting gas refillers which was later enshrined in the Act. He did so because he believed it was an appropriate amendment and the question of payment never arose.
To your way of thinking, John Reith, the more one knows about a subject the less one should involve oneself. But the fact remains, Hamilton did declare his conflict of interest at the time he tabled the Mobil amendment, and he properly declared his consultancy with Mobil, albeit following the Summer recess instead of prior to it • which is quite unlike the former Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, who never declared his £12,500 consultancy with the (criminal) Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
So, that’s Mobil dealt with yet again. Its a question of disingenuous spin on your part versus facts on mine.
More difficult for you to wriggle out of • hence my eagerness to return to the issue • is the BBC’s longstanding steadfast refusal to instigate an assessment of the research conducted by Malcolm Keith-Hill and myself into the CFQ affair (which, lest you forgot, remains one of this country’s biggest and most damaging political controversies of all time), in the face of endorsements of our research by the BBC’s own journalists.
Why, John, oh why? To save a few hundred pounds wages, when the Beeb grosses billions and spends £12 million per annum on taxis, for example? Come come now!
Is it not because you and your cohorts know full well that once you’ve been seen witnessing being presented with hard evidence of The Guardian’s conspiracy you’ll then be in an even more invidious position than you are now? That is, less able to bluster your way out of the corner you’re now in?
I’ll tell you what. I’m not a wealthy person. In fact, I’m heavily in debt, with no assets to speak of. But I’ll still raise £500 to pay you and another BBC journalist to spend a day with me examining the evidence of The Guardian’s conspiracy to pervert the Downey inquiry.
That’s £250 for you John, and £250 for some other BBC staffer of your choosing, for one single day of your time.
But will you take me up on my offer? No, of course you won’t.
So I’ll make you an even more difficult-to-resist offer. But not for your benefit, rather the benefit of the B-BBCers who, thanks to your stupidity in taking me on, have started to take an interest in our exchanges.
I’ll raise from my friends and supporters a full £1,000 and donate it to Children in Need, or Comic Relief, or whatever charity you care to nominate John, in exchange for you and another BBC journalist of standing agreeing to partake in a demonstration of the evidence of The Guardian’s conspiracy. Now think about this. That’s a full £1,000 to charity and all you have to do is sit still with your eyes and ears open while I demonstrate the evidence to you.
What do you say?
Of course, for my £1,000 I’ll want to video your reaction to the evidence when I present it, but hey, according to the Beeb my evidence isn’t up to much is it? So that shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?
So when do you want the demo of the Guardian’s conspiracy John? And will it be okay with you if I bring along Alan@Aberdeen and perhaps a couple of others in addition to a certain BBC cameraman of my acquaintance?
I’ll await your answer with baited breath.
Would the BBC show a programme like
‘Obsession: the threat of Radical Islam’ now showing on the FoxNews channel (9-10pm local time? wwwfoxnews.com
JBH, who do you think the correspondent masquerading under the pseudonym ‘John Reith’ actually is? A contributor on another thread believes that it is a group of people within the BBC who have at their finger tips the entire resources of the BBC. I am inclined to agree given the rapid response backed up with arguments (I almost said ‘facts’) to each post which you make.
I came across something called “Free Thinking 2006”, a “festival of ideas” on Radio 3 and listened to some of the opening lecture by Brian Eno. (Does “free thinking” mean unconstrained by dogmas, or have I got it wrong?).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/freethinking2006/pip/132yy/
Excellent example of lefty clichés, lefty speaking to other lefties, cosy feeling of lefty self-congratulation and exclusivity.
Early on we get the standard dig at America when mentioning Darwin’s Origin of Species ” . . . so radical and counterintuitive I gather it’s still banned in some schools in the United States”.
Mentions the Victorian era with its hierarchy of species: “God at the top, white English males, then horses and dogs, then women . . .”
Later: “. . . who were so fed up with the hysteria around 9/11 . . . that they founded a site . . .
About 43 minutes in “we don’t have . . . that many papers, and most of them are owned by rather unpleasant people, in my opinion”. (Does it matter if the owner is unpleasant?)
Then the ritual sneering reference to the Daily Mail: “if I thought The 4 four million readers of the newspaper I can’t mention on the BBC which is sort of tabloid form and has gothic lettering at the top” (cue laughter from audience) . . . if I thought they were sitting trigger fingers on their modems I would be worried a lot”… (as we know, the Daily Mail reader is the lowerst of the low, the untouchable, in the lefty caste system).
At 45 minutes there is a question from one Sean McTew in the audience: “is there such a thing as right-wing art, and what is your take on that?”.
I’m sure there is more, but I had had enough by then.
Allan@Aberdeen | 05.11.06 – 10:04 pm
Who knows Allan – but “John Reith” exhibits disingenuousness and avoidance of the issue in hand with a style and intensity that I’ve only encountered once before – and that is in the guise of The Guardian’s David Leigh, the mendacious author of Sleaze and one of The Guardian’s principal conspirators.
I have no proof, but I wouldn’t mind betting that whoever “John Reith” is (or are), he’s in regular, perhaps even daily communication with David Leigh.
For a profile of David Leigh and his conspiratorial colleagues Dale Campbell-Savours, Andrew Roth, Mark Hollingsworth, Peter Preston and others, digest “The Webs They Weave”:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%203/page2.html
The BBC and half a story;
Bishop attacks ‘Muslim hypocrisy’
A senior Anglican bishop has accused many Muslims of being guilty of double standards in their view of the world.
The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, told the Sunday Times some had a “dual psychology” in which they sought “victimhood and domination”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6117912.stm
How the BBC quotes what he said;
“Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims… and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists”.
And what he actually said;
“Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq,” said Nazir-Ali.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2438570,00.html
Now before any BBC clones get all in a tizzy and try to jump down my throat by saying “Well if you happen to read the next paragraph you would have see this”:
“He compared Bosnia and Kosovo, where he said Muslims were oppressed, with the powerful position of the Taleban in Afghanistan, who he said had been the oppressors.”
Good point however by removing as in Bosnia or Kosovo and as with the Taliban or in Iraq the BBC dilutes the message the Bishop of Rochester is trying to promote. By adding it afterwards dilutes it even further. But what really takes the biscuit is the fact that the MCB (Muslim council of Britian) are on the Beebs speeddial;
A Muslim Council of Britain spokesman said the remarks in the paper appeared “rather broad brushed”. He added: “We would normally expect a bishop to display more humility and work towards bringing communities closer together rather than contributing towards fostering greater divisions.”
Yeah right BBC, pray post one fact from the MCB which has contributed to bringing different communities together. Everything the MCB does promotes the opposite but not to worry as the BBC is on hand to castigate anybody who complains as a racist.
The BBC blowing its masters flute,yet again.
The BBC and how it defends terrorists;
Anybody else notice how the BBC always publishes the deaths of terrorists at the hands of Israel as the deaths of Palestinians.
Three Palestinians have been killed in Gaza on the fifth day of Israel’s offensive in the territory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6119088.stm
So from the above we get the initial impression that Palestinians (innocent of all crimes and under Israeli oppression) are getting slotted by the nasty jews. But hang on. Read a bit further on from that headline;
“Israeli forces shot dead three Palestinians, including two gunmen,”
So two out of those 3 people killed by the IDF happened to be gunmen. So why couldn’t the BBC simply say that? Instead the BBC always seems to quote Palestinians when it refers to Terrorists?
Could it be if they quoted gunmen, terrorists or even misguided criminals then the reader would know straight away that Israel is removing terrorists from this plane of existence. But the BBC cannot have that as they deem all Palestinians as innocent.
Why they even shed a tear or two when the biggest terrorist of them all went to meet his maker down stairs.(Oh I do hope the devil is having fun)
It seems the BBC blows what ever tune its masters tell it to.
The BBC and how it defends terrorist..
Pete London
I usually find myself in agreement with your posts but I have to say old Arsene didn’t look very cultured, urbane ,sophisticated or worldly this afternoon.
Can’t think what he was saying as he tried to land one on Pardew,but I don’t think it was a dissertation on economics or fine wines.
The BBC and the veil.
Yet again the pro Islamic BBC feels it has to defend the veil in an open and free society like that found in the UK.
How veil remarks reinforced its support
A month after ex-foreign secretary Jack Straw suggested that Muslim women who wear veils over their face can make community relations harder, what do people within the Muslim community in the UK think of his remarks? Jack Straw’s comments on veils have been good news for the owner of The Hijab Centre in the MP’s constituency of Blackburn.
Nadeem Siddiqui tells me he is selling more veils than he did before his local MP made his controversial remarks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6117480.stm
The author Na’ima B Roberts has written about her experiences as a veiled woman in her book From My Sister’s Lips.
“I fear that this could change everything in Britain and this country will become like France and ban the veil,” she said.”
Err BBC the veil isn’t banned in France, it is banned from public buildings and from public schools (Its main target) but the veil (Actually the head scarf) can be worn freely around the country. Unless of course if you work or are taught in a public building.
That brings me to the comments made today by the The Bishop of Rochester;
“Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq”
You see the British Muslims are up in arms over how Jack Straw asks Muslims to uncover their faces if they wish to speak to him. Claiming some sort of macavelian intent towards them,they play the victim card against the Uk and France. Yet remain strangely silent on Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, and even Pakistan;
Pakistan judge forbids Muslim veils in courtroom
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/11/pakistan-judge-forbids-muslim-veils-in.php
All of whom are 98% Islamic in nature. So where are the Islamic outcries against those countries from the BBC aired. Because I for one haven’t seen one. But boy oh boy have I seen post after post from the BBC about how bad the UK is towards the religion of peace.
The BBC and how it draws a veil over the facts.
MisterMinit
The range of the activation is different -1 -> +1
it’s just fits more nicely with the bias input IMHO.
Biased BBC or what?
The Beeb and its coverage of the verdict on Saddam as seen by Members of Parliament in the UK
Government hails Saddam verdict
The UK government has welcomed the conviction by a Baghdad court of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6118134.stm
So we have the views of;
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett,
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague,
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell,
Home Secretary John Reid,
Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Alex Salmond
And at the bottom of that page we have the views of;
Anas Altikriti, the British Muslim Initiative
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8610/image1pu5.jpg
Hello?
Since when have the last two being elected members of parliament?
“is there such a thing as right-wing art, and what is your take on that?”.
It’s art that people like and choose to purchase, such as computer games, popular books, good films, and posters.
Left wing art is allways funded by threats.
The BBC and half a story.
Benn calls for cluster bomb ban
A worldwide ban on the use of cluster bombs is being called for by the international development secretary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6117924.stm
The BBC then goes on to say;
A charity says 10,000 people have been killed or injured by cluster bombs.
Followed by;
. A report by Handicap International last week also claimed that civilians made up 98% of the casualties, in 23 countries and regions including Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
So according to handicap international over 10,000 people have been killed or injured and of course they would put in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon in which to have a surreptitious dig at the US, UK and Israel. (The axis of evil for the BBC)
Err BBC I did a little digging at Handicap International. (Thanks for leaving out the link unlike the link for the MCB) That 10,000 figure is a lot isn’t it.
Click to access Fatal%20Footprint%20FINAL.pdf
You do know that the time frame for that collective figure starts in 1973. (33 years) and that the combined population figure for those 23 countries (using BBC stats) as of 2006 is. 394.2 million . (10,000 out of 394.2 million over 33 years)
But lets go into a little more detail here.
Confirmed deaths according to that report by size;
Laos (survey period 1973-2006)
2521
Chechnya (survey Period 1994-2006)
305
Vietnam (survey period 1973-2006)
278
Iraq (survey period 1991-2006)
200
Afghanistan (survey period 1980-2006)
150
Lebanon (survey period 1975-2006)
118
http://img417.imageshack.us/img417/4632/image1rt0.jpg
Of course I’ll be the first to admit that those figures aren’t exactly correct. (I’ll even go as far to say 10 times that amount isn’t even near the full number of people killed)
And the report actually says that. (Might explain why only 36 people are down for getting killed in Sudan)
But trying to lump Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon as the 3 worse countries when 3 others have a much larger death toll is wrong.
Personally I think that Benn is pissing into the wind. Oh he has the right idea, but like Oppenheimers little toy not everybody wishes to play by the rules in which to limit their use. However that is politics and I am berating the BBC for its biased news coverage against the US,UK and Israel.
The BBC and half a story.
The BBC and irony;
This HYS comment currently in use by the BBC on its Middle East page;
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6118/image1po2.jpg
It appears that who ever at the BBC used that comment as a showcase of its stance against Bush seem to have forgot that Saddam invaded Kuwait 16 years ago and that Bush senior removed him. (Unless of course the BBC uses child labour for its evening despatch, then they stand acquitted)
Pounce
It’s so bloody obvious what Al-Beeb are doing with regard to “Palestinians” being killed rather than militants but it could be effective, a bit like subliminal messages.
You also quoted:
Nadeem Siddiqui tells me he is selling more veils than he did before his local MP made his controversial remarks.
Sounds like we can expect a veiled crime wave sometime soon then don’t you think.
JR 0-13 JBH
A contributor on another thread believes that it is a group of people within the BBC who have at their finger tips the entire resources of the BBC.
JR certainly seems to have plenty of free time. I thought he was just another ‘lazy’ ‘public servant’
IMHO a BBC staff member with the job of reading criticism and defending their bias is probably a good thing. It is certainly much more transparent than playing games with date stamps and HYS comments.
BTW I’m self employed. If I write to B-BBC it’s on my own time.
Re: Arsene Wenger
“The football teams he creates are loved and admired in equal measure the world over.”
That’s funny cause everyone I know of whatever affiliation (apart from the sprinkling of mutes who occasionally visit Al-Emirates Islamic SuperLibrary) loathes Arsenal with a passion. Something to do with the very unBritish way they squeal like a stuck pig every time someone goes within 20 yards of them, has the temerity to beat them or suggests that they might not be quite as good as they’d like to believe.
Anyway, MOTD2’s panel last night showed a bias that put Question Time’s lefty stacking firmly in the shade – TWO ex filth ‘stars’ spitting bile and a random Brazilian??!! And surely Ian Wright is the ultimate symbol of BBC dumbing down?? If it wasn’t for the footy I’d have put down my champers for long enough to be disgusted.