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.
Identikit BBC idiot on Newsnight, a few moments ago, speaking of George Bush’s presidency:
‘So far, America has had one-party government during his term of office….’
And what does he think the British system consistently delivers, save for the vanishingly rare incidences of a hung parliament?
One wonders if these people are any longer capable of rational thought, or whether they are so blinded by their prejudices that they have become incapable of understanding what balance and impartiality mean.
The other day in the Daily Mail Gavin Esler, despite a 1000 biased words, made a pathetic statement of his neutrality about US politics.
His Newsnight e-mail today shows how neutral is his choice of source material.
Here in Washington over the usual heart-attack-on-a-plate American
breakfast this morning I turned to the Washington Post for a summary of
today’s big story, the mid term elections.
“Has there ever been a more negative, dispiriting election?” asks
columnist Eugene Robinson, clearly not expecting an answer. So I
switched to the New York Times. Columnist Barry Schwartz called these
elections “the sorriest, sleaziest, most disheartening and embarrassing
in memory.” Then I switched on the TV just to cheer myself up. The
presenter was asking a pundit from the Los Angeles Times what it would
be like if the Democrats failed to win the House of Representatives.
“Jonestown,” replied the pundit, referring to a bizarre cult involved in
a mass suicide many years ago.
Not sure if anyone’s mentioned this yet, but the BBC has run out of quotation marks again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6121646.stm
So, we’re not sure if people who blow up trains are terrorists, but that e-mail is definitly racist.
BBC Newsreaders as seen by Jan Moir
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/08/do0804.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/11/08/ixopinion.html
You could have knocked me over with a feather!
World service news: British Muslim gaoled for life
Later the same story became: British man gaoled for life but the story lead off with Dhiren Barot, a convert to Islam
The website says Al-Qaeda plotter jailed for life further demotes the Muslem element to a 6th paragraph and a third from last paragraph. Still that’s not ignoring it completely and al-Qaeda implies Islam.
The day before yesterday, the story ran Muslim convert who plotted terror That’s Muslim and terror in the same line and that line is the headline!
The article continued Barot attended terrorism training camps
Dhiren Barot was raised a Hindu in the UK before he converted to Islam.
How did that slip through the PC filters?
Commenting on my own comment.
Al-Qaeda plotter jailed for life
Shouldn’t that be gaoled? American vs.British English?
On Gavin Esler’s comment, “usual heart-attack-on-a-plate American breakfast”, this statement had absolutely nothing to do with what he had to say about US politics, yet he just HAD to throw it in there to support the old ‘all Americans are fat from eating such a breakfast and dying of heart attacks from it’ line. Yet it’s funny that such a breakfast was on his plate. Who’s twisting his arm to eat it? Besides, did he never learn in school how to remove phrases from sentences in a paragraph that have nothing to do with the subject? Why couldn’t he have just said, “Here in Washington this morning, I turned to the Washington Post…” and get to the freakin point!
.
“Why is the Muslim sense of victimhood so inflated, given that many Muslim societies won’t put their own houses in order? And why is this double standard downplayed so much in Britain?”
Muslims in glass houses
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6-2442565-6,00.html
.
How come the BBC are saying the election was an anti-Iraq liberation message?
Joe Lieberman won big with a pro removing Saddam ticket against an 1 issue anti-war candidate.
The change was also less than average for this time in a presidency.
I think it’s safe to say that as the MSM falls away even more over the next 2 years, we should see another Republican president (if they don’t pick a right wing version of John “traitor” Kerry).
When it comes to the US and it’s elections the BBC really doesn’t have a clue.
The Democrats that are winning are in some cases more conservative thant the current elected Republicans they replace. Most of them did not run on Iraq but on the Republican congress’ spend thrift ways. The one Democratic Senate candidate that ran on Iraq lost to Joe Lieberman and lost badly. This election is not an endorsment of the Democrats and their liberalism but on the Republicans and their crappy performance on promises they made to teh people of the US of A.
BBC really, you’re going to have to do better at the news. Leave the politics and propaganda to the politicians.
Let’s have a bigger BBC licence fee!
And which sort of person puts forward this sort of argument?
Ones who are anti-American, are no friend of Israel, and love statism, particulkarly high taxes, that’s who:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1941786,00.html
Palestinians killed, possibly by IDF tank shells. Script unchanged:
Stourton gets irate at an IDF spokesman:
“Well who else could have done it?”
Then Stourton turns to a Hamas spokesman, and gives him free rein to talk about the latest “massacre”.
Come on Stourton. You could at least have asked whether a number of rockets were fired from this site into Ashkelon over the last few days. But then again, such details rarely trouble your average Beeboid.
This latest ‘massacre’ already has the look of a Pallywood production, and the only reports of deaths etc. emanate from pally sources alone. Naturally, the BBC broadcasts these ‘reports’ without checking.
Abandon ship!:
Let’s have a bigger BBC licence fee!
And which sort of person puts forward this sort of argument?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1941786,00.html
Someone who is a former advisor to the party of vermin, members of whom get a very easy ride from the BBC.
I really don’t see how the BBC is going to avoid some ball busting with their mid-terms coverage. Basically the whole thing has been about what the democrats need to win and what the republicans “need” to lose. They would never get away with covering a UK election this way.
I don’t even like Bush or the neocon party within a party that has control of the Republicans right now (not that the BBC would tell us about the good Republicans). It’s really something that I’ve been cornered into almost defending them in many cases recently.
The BBC mindset for all to see.
First Muslim congressman elected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6127234.stm
He overcame personal attacks emphasising his past association with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the radical Nation of Islam group.
So to point out that someone was (and probably still is) a member of an islamofascist group is a ‘personal attack’
Just like Nick Griffin is overcoming personal attacks about being a former racist.
This only emphasises to me that the BBC, by their own admission over-represented by ethnic minorities, is also heavily in hock to a muslim agitation within their midst.
The man who left a girl to drown, and then lied about it because he was having an affair with her behind his wife’s back.
The man who shielded a murderer.
The man who lied about a rapist in his family.
The man who supported terrorist bombers.
The man whose father was a supporter of Adolf Hitler and who made his money with a criminal boot-legging empire to match Al Capnone’s.
A debauched drunk.
The man who has been re-elected to the Senate alongside of the discredited John Kerry.
No, it’s not Bill Clinton
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/vote_usa/html/21.stm
I should have added
A man whose record the BBC never questions.
Did anyone have any policies or was it all about who was marginally more repulsive? The BBC and indeed everyone else’s coverage seems to be based solely on the fact that one side is Bush’s lot and the other aren’t.
Did anyone have any policies
Well all I hear fom Democrats is that their must be a new approach to Iraq. But the media never presses to say “& what exactly?”
The first few words on Today I heard this morning were Jim Naughtie (in the States) at about 7-45am. He was talking about an organisation in Leicester (UK).
But from his jubilant tone of voice I knew that the Democrats had done well. And when the news came around, I was not wrong.
will
of course they don’t ask, a) because there isn’t any good answer and b) the listener should be happy that people are angry about the situation (ie emotional response) rather than an intellectual debate about what they might do (ie informed response). It’s really sloppy journalism.
> I knew that the Democrats had done well
They haven’t done that well at all.
Just came across an interesting article on the BBC website about the Mungiki sect, an organisation accused of being responsible for several days of gang violence in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi.
The article is genuinely interesting but near the bottom of the report (filed by by Gray Phombeah), some interesting language is used.
‘Away from the running battle with the police, the Mungiki members have also been involved in other anti-social acts:
– Stripping women wearing miniskirts and trousers in public
– Forcibly imposing female circumcision
– Raiding police stations to free their own members who were under police custody”
Anti-social acts?
The BBC and half a story.
Al-Qaeda plotter jailed for life
An al-Qaeda plotter who planned to kill thousands of people in the UK and US has been sentenced to life and told he must serve at least 40 years in jail. Dhiren Barot, 34 and from London, had admitted conspiracy to murder. The prosecution told Woolwich Crown Court Barot intended a “memorable black day” of terror and considered using a radioactive “dirty bomb”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6123236.stm?ls
and how this mornings Guardian reports the same story;
Most senior al-Qaida terrorist yet captured in Britain gets 40 years for plotting carnage
A terrorist who plotted carnage on a colossal and unprecedented scale on both sides of the Atlantic was jailed for at least 40 years yesterday by a judge who said his plans struck at the heart of democracy. Dhiren Barot, 34, regarded as one of the most senior al-Qaida figures British security agencies have dealt with, wanted to kill thousands of people in a series of atrocities in the UK and US. He was arrested in August 2004 but only admitted conspiracy to murder last month. Barot, a convert to Islam, was sentenced to life imprisonment at Woolwich crown court in south-east London yesterday, and will not even be considered for parole until he is 74.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1941988,00.html
So the BBC refers to the most senior Al Q terrorist so far captured as just an Al Q plotter. But you know what I find really galling is how this idiot had plans to detonate a bomb under the river in which to flood the tube system. Anybody remember that stupid BBC program aired just after 9/11 by the BBC in which they had invented worse case scenarios and then had teams of so called experts try and deal with them.
Recollect the so called terrorist attack on London one, where a jet crashed into the Houses of parliament, It also had bombs going off all over London .(the major one was a tube train stuck under the Thames) I wonder where Barot got his idea from?
(The BBC
However I do feel the BBC made a big mistake by not airing these two snippets from the courtcase:
1) Mr Justice Butterfield told Barot, who moved to London as a child and converted to Islam aged 20, that British Muslims would also suffer because of his actions. “In this country there are thousands and thousands of ordinary, decent, hard-working, law-abiding Muslims, British citizens just like you, who have to live their lives under a deep cloud of suspicion and distrust caused by you and others like you.”
2) “As Barot was sent down, he strode out of the dock, deliberately pausing just before he left it to give the judge a hard stare.”
Lastly BBC the fact remains this person was bent on killing as many American and British people he could before America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Kind of says it all doesn’t it.
But not according to the BBC who have no problem portraying Terrorists as something else.
The BBC and half a story.
.
This is a display of American voter ignorance..”Democrats swept Republicans out of power in the House of Representatives”..Congratulations to the Democrats and the terrorists who endorsed them.
They’ve been found guilty but even now the BBC cannot bring itself to say (what every one else is saying) that 3 muslims have been found guilty of the RACE-HATE murder of a 15 year old white boy.
The reason why is that the employees of the BBC are compelled to attend diversity awareness courses where they are fed the line that only white people ar capable of race-hate.
Glad to see full and frank discussion of Kriss Donald verdict on BBC News 24. They aren’t holding back from calling it a racist murder, saying that Kriss was killed by asians because he was white.
Cowardly scum – three men in their late twenties against one teenager. I hope every day they spend in prison is a nightmare.
D Burbage:
But from his jubilant tone of voice I knew that the Democrats had done well.
I really got the impression that Naughtie likes to emphasize his Scottish accent in the US. Listening to those interviews he made at both Democratic & Republican parties he really let his hair down. In one interview Naughtie sounded not too dissimilar to Borat. Perhaps he feels that by lapsing into a thick brogue and heavily accented r’s he can even distance himself from the American English? St James of smug, followed by Susan Ray reading the BBC news this morning- it really sounded as if I was listening to radio Scotland!
Btw Chris Hitchin’s was in fine form… “This was not a referendum on the war- that would be a serious mistake! “
The BBC and half a story;
Kember court testimony ‘unlikely’
Former British hostage Norman Kember has said he is unlikely to testify at any trial over his kidnapping in Iraq. The Christian peace activist was seized last November in Baghdad with four other men and held for 117 days. Mr Kember told Channel 4 News he had been informed there had been arrests but said he faced a “moral dilemma” as he was against the death penalty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6126794.stm
and here is what he actually said;
“He said: “I have yet to be convinced that it would be a sensible thing to do. If by testifying we could get further clemency for them, then perhaps I might.”
“If I knew they were either going to be executed or they were going to have very long prison sentences, I wouldn’t be happy.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1941902,00.html
even better watch him speak.
http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/asx/showvideofeature.jsp?id=show:2949:4024
Hang on the BBC says he was primarily against the death penalty. It kind of leaves out the latter part of his statement about prison sentences Neither do the BBC inform the great unwashed that their mouthpiece for all things Anti nuclear. (Unless it belongs to Iran) Mr Bruce Kent CND actually states he should testify. I mean they had no problem quoting BK when kembers supporters were stood in the way of pedestrians in Trafalgar square last Christmas contributing to the greenhouse effect by burning candles in order to get kember released. So why gag BK when he goes against the Corporation view. You didn’t have that problem when he was released.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4836438.stm
The BBC and half a story.
TPO wrote;
The reason why is that the employees of the BBC are compelled to attend diversity awareness courses where they are fed the line that only white people ar capable of race-hate.
I attended one of those courses last year and on the second day as we walked into the classroom we (both groups) were met by Indian women wearing saris. The woman then explained who she was and why she was wearing such an outfit (so as to dispel any presumed negative feelings we had towards such an outfit) but what got my back up was she picked me out and jokingly berated me if I didn’t understand what she was on about. I went ballistic and explained that the crux of her lesson plan was about presumed intentions. She presumed that because I am dark skinned and have a muslim name that I would gravitate towards her geo-political leaning and substantiate her stance.
Wrong.
I found her viewpoint that all whites are inherently racist somewhat flawed and I took the time and effort in which to air my disapproval. Oh the fun we had and I can assure everybody here that if I had been white skinned my arse wouldn’t have touched the floor for being a racist. Afterwards one of the women on the group came up to me and thanked me for speaking out reinforcing my last by stating she would have loved to have spoken out, but the threat of being classed a racist kept her incommunicado. A situation the PC people of this world use to great effect.
Pounce: I don’t work for the BBC but I was made to attend a diversity training course a couple of years back where I was accused of being a “typically bullying manager” by a woman who used to work for the CRE. I was so shocked, I made no official complaint – a stance I deeply regret now.
On another subject, must give praise to the BBC website today for FINALLY stepping up to the mark with their coverage of the Glasgow race murder. To all Beeb staff – look at those pages and take them in: THAT is what equality is all about!!!
The BBC and its use of smoke and mirrors.
Racism and race crime redefined
By Mark Easton
BBC News Home Editor
Racism was once defined as ‘prejudice plus power’ – a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population. However, the ‘racist murders’ of Kriss Donald in Glasgow in 2004 and Ross Parker in Peterborough in 2001, young white men killed by Asians, demonstrate how society has been forced to redefine racism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6128466.stm
Too little too late BBC. Even in the above post you obfuscate the fact that whites are more likely to be victims of race-hate in the UK (where only 10% of the population are non white) than people of a dark complexion.
Mind you I did like this;
“In the Lozells district of Birmingham last year, tensions defined around race exploded into violence. Asian gangs and black gangs clashed in what have been described as ‘race riots’. But, in reality, the disturbances were about poverty, housing and fear.”
Yeah right. Tell me BBC how many good Muslim girls do you know are married to Black men?Asian Muslims are taught from birth that Blacks are lazy and thieves. (I know it was taught to me) There is no cross pollination between Asians and blacks on the genetic level in the UK. Trying to say it is all about “poverty, housing and fear” is simply the BBC way of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming the tune to ‘Goodness gracious me.’ (Would Peter Sellers and Sophia Loren, be now deemed as racists for acting like Indians?)
But to end with this;
“Racism, prejudice and bigotry are not defined by the colour of someone’s skin.”
Really? I would never have guessed by how you report on racist crimes in the UK. Kriss Donald is the only case that has turned up (And only today at that) where the headline has used the word “Racist” But then that poor child wasn’t wearing the veil so the BBC didn’t feel the need to automatically refer to it as a racist hate crime.
Why BBC, even Kien Shih would HAND it to you about how you confuse your target audience with your use of smoke and mirrors.
Pounce and less than half a story:
Another pack of lies from pounce at pounce | 08.11.06 – 1:47 pm
Pounce writes:
“the BBC says he was primarily against the death penalty. It kind of leaves out the latter part of his statement about prison sentences”
Is this true?
No. A lie,
The BBC story to which pounce himself links says:
“He added he would rather his captors went free than face a long prison term. ….Mr Kember said: “Unless I could be persuaded that by giving a testimony, and asking for clemency, and that that would help, then I wouldn’t be prepared to testify. ”
Is that ‘kind of leaving out’ his point about prison?
No, it’s reporting it.
Is Mr Kember against the death penalty?
Yes – he said so.
A big thank you to Mr Reith
Another pack of lies from pounce at pounce
I do love it when you have a paddy fit and stamp your feet in fustration.
pounce | 08.11.06 – 2:22 pm
Pounce lying again – and this time a double-whammy
pounce writes:
“you obfuscate the fact that whites are more likely to be victims of race-hate in the UK (where only 10% of the population are non white) than people of a dark complexion.”
First, is it a ‘fact’ that you are more likely to be a victim of race-hate {crimes] if you are white.
No. You are more likely to be a victim if you are a member of a racial minority.
“According to the most recent Home Office analysis, the chances for a white person is less than 1%. For Black and Asian people it is put at about 1%. ”
Second, does the BBC ‘obfuscate’ the facts of this issue.
No. It makes them crystal clear.
jr
I’d be interested on your take on the above which I kicked off with;
‘The reason why is that the employees of the BBC are compelled to attend diversity awareness courses where they are fed the line that only white people are capable of race-hate.’
I was lucky, because I could retire any time I wanted, I always told the management to stuff it whenever they suggested I would have to go on any of these courses.
I know many people who work either in government organisations, NGOs or large companies who have to go on these courses. Without exception they all allude to the same thing, viz a liberal-left propaganda agenda usually run by people from an ethnic minority background out to make a fast buck.
Its even worse for the poor sods in the police. They get herded into a room to be subjected to a rant by a criminal with convictions for street robbery (I refuse to use the term mugging) and more often than not black. And that passes for a racial awareness course.
Please tell me that the BBC are above all of that.
jr
You’re playing a numbers game with percentages here.
It is an indisputable fact that more white people in this country are victims of racially motivated crime than non white people.
John Reith tries in these pages to apologise for the comical bias and the equally comical denial of such bias by the State Funded Broadcaster the BBC.
With its redefinition of Racism (see pounce above) Reith has been made to look particularly spud-thick as the BBC have admitted to a lesser standard of Racism for people of colour (or, without “power” as they would have it).
The double standard so beloved of the left is, if you will excuse the usage, the Ni**er in the woodpile of leftwing thinking and is now being tested to destruction by cases such as the Kriss Case, such as the intolerance of Homosexuals and women by Islam, such as the idiocy of Ken Livingstone and his punishment of the poor both in London and potentially in Venezuela, such as the chaos surrounding the issue of the Veil.
Sir Walter Scott, I believe it was who said;
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”
The indentured Social Engineers at the BBC would do well to think about that.
pounce
I coulnd’t believe this when I read it:
Racism and race crime redefined
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6128466.stm
Why does ‘race hate crime’ need to be redefined? And who appointed the BBC to do it?
The whole thrust of the article is to attempt to confuse the reader by raising doubt as to when a race crime is or isn’t a race crime. The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that BBC news staffers are in denial about the facts of the Kriss Donald case. Asian on white race hate? Nope, it just can’t be.
So they get one of their own to write a piece in an attempt to completely re-write the definition of ‘race hate’. The narrative is “this (Kriss murder) isn’t really a ‘race hate’crime”.
It’s just sickening.
Can you imagine the BBC publishing the Easton revision after Steven Lawrence. No, and quite right too. The fact that the BBC is attempting to suggest that the Kriss Donald murder isn’t really a race hate crime is just indefensible.
TPO is right. More white people are victims of race hate than non-whites.
John Reith is also right. As a percentage, fewer white people are victims than non-right.
But to accuse Pounce of lying when he was clearly attempting to make TPO’s point is a rather pathetic and below-the-belt smear.
To correlate these figures, it would appear that there would be a massively higher percentage of racists among the non-white population than among the white population.
Correction to above post. Non-right should be non-white. Concentrate, boy!
Heron
I was waiting for jr to step onto my trapdoor but als he’s too shrewd for that.
‘John Reith is also right. As a percentage, fewer white people are victims than non-white.’
Ergo, as a percentage of their ethnicity, more non white people are the perpetrators of race-hate crimes than whites.
Ritter
That Mark Easton piece, near the end, says:
In the Lozells district of Birmingham last year, tensions defined around race exploded into violence. Asian gangs and black gangs clashed in what have been described as ‘race riots’. But, in reality, the disturbances were about poverty, housing and fear.
Oh yeah?
http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2005/10/birmingham_race.html
pounce
That line:
Racism was once defined as ‘prejudice plus power’ – a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.
Should read:
Racism was once defined as ‘prejudice plus power’ – a definition which, in a Marxist context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.
Smoke and mirrors indeed.
or even
Racism was once defined as ‘prejudice plus power’ – a definition which, in a BBC context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.
“Racism was once defined as ‘prejudice plus power'”
Eh? Racism in my book has allways been “treating people differently because of their skin colour”.
i reckon its another attempt by the left to “memory whole” the history of racism now the truth of the multicultural disaster they advocated is apparent.
The oxymoronic “Multicultural society” is a quagmire, not Iraq.
AntiCitizenOne:
i reckon its another attempt by the left to “memory whole” the history of racism now the truth of the multicultural disaster they advocated is apparent.
Couldn’t agree more.
They are at it again….denial and race crime revisionism from the BBC
Community pain after Kriss trial
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6103408.stm
“But many feel that the murder was more the result of a violent gang culture which has made the area a no-go area for some.
One local shopkeeper said: “The lads in the area tend to congregate in groups and that’s when the trouble starts.
“In other parts of the city where the community is mostly white, the gangs will be made of white people.
“It’s not a black, white or Asian issue, its a youth issue.”
See? No ‘race hate crimes’ to see here, move along now….
In their ‘anaysis’, the BBC have now demoted the Kriss Donald race hate murder to a ‘youth issue’.
Oh, very subtle, but not subtle enough.