(Apologies for linking to many of my own blog’s postings, but I have been following this story since it first broke).
Last Wednesday saw what I believe was a first for BBC news. A racist murder featured as the main story on the PM Radio Four five o’clock bulletin. The same murder featured in subsequent bulletins and was the top story on the BBC UK News website the same afternoon. Only the Rumsfeld resignation knocked it off top spot on the six o’clock news – and the murder was discussed on Radio Five that night and again the following day.
What’s so unusual about that ? The perpetrators were not white. Previous coverage of such murders have been low-profile to the point of invisibility, in stark contrast to the BBCs coverage of racist murder where the perpetrators, or alleged perpetrators, were white.
Six examples, in chronological order, will illustrate. The 1993 murder of teenager Stephen Lawrence (830 BBC news search results) will be well-known to anyone living in the United Kingdom. No one has been convicted of his murder.
The racist murder of Ghanaian Michael Menson in 1997 – 25 results. Initially thought to have been the work of white racists, three people of varied ethnicity were convicted.
The racist murder of teenager Scott Parker (7 BBC news search results) in September 2001 will be less familiar. Unusually, the BBC have accepted, in a piece by TV editor Jon Williams, that ‘in hindsight, it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively’.
The reason the murder slipped under the BBC radar ?
“On the same day that Shied Nazi, Ahmed Ali Aswan and Sarris Ali were jailed for the murder of Ross Parker, another murder dominated the headlines.
The uncle of Danielle Jones – a schoolgirl who disappeared in Essex — was found guilty of killing her. The search for Danielle had been extensively covered. The conviction of Stuart Campbell closed a chapter on a continuing mystery.
Add to that the build up to the war in Iraq and Hans Blix’s verdict on Iraq’s weapons dossier, and you begin to see how a newsworthy story about the murder of a teenager – in appalling circumstances – might be squeezed out by other stories.
The murder of Ross Parker took place ten days after the September 11th attacks – at a time when the BBC had all antennae alert for attacks on Muslims, not by Muslims. On the day he died this is what the BBC were reporting. I’d respectfully suggest that, had a 17 year old Muslim been chased and butchered in Peterborough on September 21, 2001, it would have not only have been reported on BBC news – it would have dominated BBC news – Hans Blix or no Hans Blix.
The third murder is the one the BBC are now covering, that of Kriss Donald, the 15-year old schoolboy, snatched from the street by strangers and held captive overnight before being slaughtered in the most appalling fashion. At the end of the first trial (of one of his killers, at the end of 2004) there were 36 BBC news search results. The verdict was covered in one report on the Today programme and one report on the PM news.
In June 2005 student Anthony Walker (127 BBC news search results) was killed in a racist attack in Liverpool. In their own words : The BBC has given a lot of national coverage to the murder of Anthony Walker, the 18-year-old boy killed with an axe in Merseyside last Friday. It made the One, Six and Ten O’Clock News bulletins; there were constant live updates on News 24; and it led the UK index of the BBC News website.
Why did the Anthony Walker murder get such coverage ? BBC News editor Amanda Farnsworth said “It is this racial element to the crime that makes it different …In addition, there was a planning and premeditation in the murder of Anthony Walker that was also particularly shocking. Anthony had walked away from the man racially abusing him but the man appears to have gone to find his friends, and an axe, and chased and killed the 18-year-old.”
And in October 2005 Isiah Young-Sam (16 BBC news search results) was killed in a racist attack in Birmingham.
830 reports, 25 reports, 7 reports, 36 reports, 127 reports, 16 reports.
In two racist murders the victim was non-white, the alleged perpetrators white. 957 reports.
In two racist murders the victim was white, the alleged perpetrators non-white. 42 reports.
In two racist murder both victim and alleged perpetrators were non-white. 41 reports – and of the 25 Michael Menson stories, several relate to the claim that his killers were a white gang (Mr Menson was actually killed by a Mauritian, a Turkish Cypriot, and a Greek – a Mr Hussein Abdullah was also convicted of perverting the course of justice).
Do we see a pattern here ?
It can be argued that the Lawrence case was an exceptional one, because of the response which the campaign of the Lawrence family engendered from government, the enquiry which was convened, and the effect of the enquiry upon society in general and government in particular. There is some truth in this. People will have to judge for themselves. It could also be said that some alleged racist murders where the alleged perpetrators were white, such as the killing of 80 year old Akberali Tayabali Mohamedally, receive little coverage. As the BBC did not report the trial, if indeed there was one, it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions either way.
The most telling contrast is between the coverage of the Anthony Walker and Isiah Young-Sam murders. Both were bright young black men from similar churchgoing backgrounds and loving families – yet the coverage ratio (127 stories to 16) is remarkable – especially when you consider the nature of the attack.
All murders – including racist ones – are abhorrent, and difficult to rank in order of ghastliness. The victims are just as dead. Yet the Young-Sam murder was particularly vile in that, like the murder of Kriss Donald, it was targeted rather than opportunistic.
The murderers of Anthony Walker and the alleged murderers of Stephen Lawrence were thugs with criminal records and histories of violence against people of all races. They met their victims by chance in the street – the Walker murderers were actually on their way to commit a robbery. Although it is impossible to be sure, it is unlikely that either set of murderers had planned the killings.
In contrast, the murderers of Isiah Young-Sam, like those of Kriss Donald, were cruising the streets looking for someone of the right race to attack. The murder took place at a time of heightened tension and street clashes between Asian and Afro-Caribbean Britons in Birmingham. So why did he get so much less coverage than Anthony Walker, despite ticking all Amanda Farnsworth’s boxes for a ‘racial element’ and premeditation ?
The coverage fits a pattern. It’s exactly what you’d expect to see from people who have been taught and believe that –
a) racism by the majority community against minority communities is widespread and is a major social and cultural problem
b) racist murders by members of the majority community are the most striking expression of this racism
In other words, anyone who’s studied politics or social science in a British university in the last thirty years.
Anthony Walker and Stephen Lawrence are important in this context not so much as individuals but as icons. It’s because their murders resonate with assumption a) that they get big air. The stories fit into an existing, larger narrative.
There’s nothing wrong, of course, with assumptions a) or b). They are legitimate views to hold. The problem comes when you pick and choose news stories on the basis of how well they fit into and illustrate it. You run the risk of being perceived as grossly unfair – racist, even – when almost identical stories get different levels of coverage.
Unstated – and until recently, maybe even unthought, are two other assumptions.
c) racism by minority communities against the majority or any other community is not widespread and is not a problem
d) what racist murders ?
I can quote statistics from the BBC News pages forever, but it’s easier to give examples of c) and d). You’ll find a number of stories on BBC news where a member of a minority community has died and (far-left) campaigners are convinced a racist murder has been committed. The deaths of the McGowans in Telford or Ricky Reel come to mind. They’re reported because they fit assumption a). You won’t find any stories where a member of the majority community has died and (far-right) campaigners are convinced a racist murder has been committed. Protests about the killing of Gavin Hopley went unreported. The story doesn’t fit the narrative.
And “what murders ?” On 1st December 2005, the day when the Walker killers were sentenced, Jane Garvey of BBC Radio Five’s Drive programme interviewed Peter Fahey, Chief Constable of Cheshire and race spokesperson for ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and asked him :
“Has there ever been a white victim of a racist murder in this country ?”
If the regular presenter of a daily BBC three-hour news and current affairs show is unaware of such murders what does that say about the coverage they get ?
At the time Ms Garvey asked her question BBC researchers must surely have been aware of the 2004 Home Office data (p20) which states : “Over this three-year period, the police reported to the Home Office 22 homicides where there was a known racial motivation. Twelve victims were White, 4 Asian, 3 Black and 3 of ‘Other’ ethnic origin. There were no current suspects identified for 5 of these victims, 3 of who were White, 1 Black and 1 ‘Other’.” Anyone whose only news source was the BBC would be amazed to learn from the same Home Office figures (Table 3.6) that for every non-white person killed by a white person in England and Wales, two whites are killed by non-whites.
But it all changed last week. Kriss Donald Trial 2 got the full treatment denied Trial 1. An extended seach returns 82 stories – the majority dating from after the first trial. Why ?
Everyone will have their views on this – mine are not relevant here. I’m just grateful that victims are starting to be treated more equally, no matter what their skin colour. More rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner, and all that.
But the BBC’s Mark Eason does attempt an explanation-cum-justification for this sudden about-turn – which is unintentionally revealing (although yet again poor Isiah Young-Sam is ignored).
Racism was once defined as “prejudice plus power” – a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.
Yes, racism was once defined that way – in left-wing sociology and social services departments between, say, the Brixton riots and the 7/7 bombings. And “tended to exclude all but the white population” boils down in practice to “only whites can be racist“. In other words, the attitude underlying the BBCs discriminatory reporting up until last week. Mr Easton’s rather let the cat out of the bag there. Thanks for being so upfront about it.
To everyone else the definition of racism remained what it had always been – judging someone on the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.
PS – Mr Easton’s piece is worthy of a full fisking, but I’ll just take one small poke :
“The far right has tried to exploit what it claims is the untold story of racial attacks on white people. On the National Front website they feature a long list of “The Fallen”, white people they say were killed by non-whites.”
It is absolutely true that the paucity of coverage of the Kriss Donald murder – arguably by far the worst racist murder ever committed in Britain (at least since the sectarian barbarities of the Shankill Butchers), has been a propaganda gift to parties like the BNP. But it’s a gift that was handed them by the BBC. If the BBC doesn’t report something which is of interest to large numbers of people, other organisations will attempt to fill the void. There are some murders which are only documented at various far-right sites – and it is a disgrace that the BBC don’t report them, leaving such sites as literally the only sources of information. I’ll be interested to see if the BBC cover the Charlene Downes murder trial next year.
the silence from Reith on this point (not to mention the ludicrous BNP membership accusations) has been deafening.
GCooper | 13.11.06 – 1:24 pm | #
Blogs are difficult for the BBC, GCooper. It’s easy to smear an interviewee as a “Tory” or “right-winger” in a live broadcast and swiftly move on, job done. Or they can stack the deck with question time audiences drawn from favoured minorities.
Blogs present unique problems, however, and their corporate affairs dept has probably lighted on the “Reith” amalgam as an attempted solution.
Is it working? B-BBC’s influence continues to grow. As does the BBC’s reputation for biased reporting. The recent findings from Michael Grade’s “impartiality summit” must have been a painful kick in the minorities.
If anyone needs to refresh themselves, ie., you, Reith.
“We are biased, admit the stars of BBC news”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We%20are%20biased,%20admit%20the%20stars%20of%20BBC%20News/article.do
Simo
“Or they can stack the deck”
Like on today’s World at One, where the Syrian Ambassador, Alex Salmond and Ken Clarke were all interviewed to give, shall we say, a particluar point of view on Iraq.
Googling:
“ISLAM: RAPE CASES IN EUROPE”,
there is a large list of reports/
discussions about the increase in
this phenomena.
I don’t seem to remember many
reports/discussions of this on the
BBC in recent times; but it’s
probably me who amiss here as usual,
not the BBC.
You’d laugh if it wasn’t so serious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6143734.stm
“A gang of armed robbers have been jailed for life for kidnapping people off the streets and subjecting them to “sadistic and brutal violence”.
More than a dozen pedestrians and motorists in London were beaten and stripped of their valuables. London’s Wood Green Crown Court heard one man had his arm broken and another was tortured with a cigarette lighter.
Pedro Frota, 19, Sofian Majera, 22, and Robert Lincoln, 18, all from east London, admitted 17 robberies.
Note that – all from East London.
Then further on:
“All four defendants, who have previous convictions, face deportation after their sentences have been served.”
So then, not from East London! Where then Beeb?
Also interesting to note that they will be deported after they have served their life sentences, so presumably their bodies will be deported.
Jamaica, Rwanda and Portugal, that’s where.
Can we please forbear in pestering JR?
He’s only into the third hour of his lunch break.
Alan and Abandon Ship,
Please put general stories on the general thread.
If JR really does have access to an internal BBC database of broadcast items perhaps he can compare for us the relative broadcast coverage of the various cases mentioned by laban. How much coverage was given to the funerals by BBC TV and Radio? Was there a Victoria Derbyshire phone-in after the verdict? Did the trial make it onto R1 headlines on a daily basis? Were the families interviewed? etc.
Commenters on this site place way to much emphasis on the BBC internet pages (for obvious reasons). For the BBC psyops operation to work its magic it has to lead the electorate around by the nose. That is not done by the website, but by constant repetition across local and national radio and TV. Newsnight, Jeremy Vine, Victoria Derbyshire, R1 news bulletins, That is where their propagandist work is done. That and the use exclusively of liberal, patsy academics to provide background and balance.
recovering liberal writes:
“Newsnight, Jeremy Vine, Victoria Derbyshire, R1 news bulletins, That is where their propagandist work is done. That and the use exclusively of liberal, patsy academics to provide background and balance.”
An excellent comment! To which I would like to add, a constant stream of Left-leaning “celebrities”, a hugely disproportionate number of journalists and ‘analysts’ from the Guradian and, most neglected of all, a constant stream of “liberal” propaganada spewing out of the BBC, disguised as entertainment, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
John Rieth,
I’m still interested (as are many others) in how you know the numbers of BNP members visiting this website.
Regards,
Alan
JR,
Fourth hour of BBC lunch break??????
Don’t tell me.
It’s what you do.
JR.
Hmmmm…..please tell us how you have reached the conclusion that this site is infested with BNP supporters?
Probably the same mindset that told us that Dr David Kelly was “a senior intelligence source that drew up the Dossier”
Or is it the same source that claims that Jessica Lynch wasn’t rescued but it was was some Hollywood production.
Or that the American arn’t at the Saddam International Airport when CNN is showing live pictures…..
Or that the only people that commit war-crimes are Jews and Americans (as one “independant” reporter said last year on your Iraq “debate” show…..
THE BBC-Bring you Bullsh*t first.
How many of you are sick of the sight of Mark “I’ve got my bestlines from George Galloway and Qusay” Steele……
In fact when was the last time the Beeb had a “right wing” comic on?
Very good post Laban, amazing how the BBC employees admit to the BBC’s own bias
G Cooper-
I’m assuming you mean tripe like Spooks, The State Within, et al.
You’ve also forgotten the other facet of the BBC “infotainment”, the “documentary”.
The truly cringe worthy “The Power of Nightmares”, the occasional expose on Al Qaeda (no mention of the Spanish Authorities getting intel from “dubious means” from Morocco, might offend the current socialist Government) and the plethora of lesser “Fahrenheit 9/11” that the Beeb seems so adept in producing now.
This from the same people that once produced “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”, “Threads”,” Edge of Darkness”
Mark Steel’s a comedian? I thought comedians were meant to be funny. And then there’s that posh Communo-fascist Jeremy Hardy – he has this hilarious habit of pausing for laughter, and there’s this hilarious pause while the audience catches on that it’s a cue to laugh. Stand-up, Stalin-style.
“Edge of Darkness” was Yorkshire Telly, I thought.
Keith Thomas writes:
“I’m assuming you mean tripe like Spooks, The State Within, et al.”
I do, but also such stalwarts as R4’s afternoon plays and even The Archers, which is currently proselytising the idea of ‘gay marriages’ to Middle England – and doing it with a very heavy hand.
The promotion of the liberal agenda runs deep in the veins of the BBC – almost everything the corporation does is touched by it.
For a classic example of Al-BBC reporting on what it believes is “real racism” look at this story on al-bbc online
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6135590.stm
“Act of faith
How Islamophobia has reached the playground ”
In this non-story al-bbc rant , for five hundred words, over the alleged abuse of muslim girls for praying [deleted] in the playground. Read the whole thing, the liberal use of the word “racist”, the all too apparent outrage of the al-bbc hack and the free ride given to the spokesman of the fascistic Muslim Council of Britain. Compare and contrast the tone of this piece with any Al-BBC report on the Kriss Donald
case. Notice that the comrades at the Corporation show more emotion over the alleged “abuse” of Muslim girls at play time then they ever managed to show at the callous, evil slaughter of a white boy killed by Muslim men.
Al-BBc – all the news that Allah wants to print.
Edited By Siteowner
It suits your agenda to pretend that the Kriss Donald murder was covered up because of some anti-white agenda in the BBC.
Well, it wasn’t.
It was ‘covered up’, or rather, ‘not covered at all’, because it happened in Scotland. The BBC’s national news division has no interest in what happens outside England. And they’ve been caught this time because they’ve, coincedentally, offended another lobby group.
That’s all there is to it.
Frank,
They’ve already shown their bias with the poor coverage of Isiah Young-Sam.
So, why not Kriss Donald? Why seek two explanations when one will do.
Ask Occam.
Face it, the BBC indulge in biased reporting on these issues.
btw, I’m always intrigued by people who only comment on this site to trash it. Why would you come to this blog unless you’re interested in BBC bias? I mean, I wouldn’t go to a moonbat site and criticise them as it would be wasted effort. Unless, of course, you’re yet another BBC staffer.
English Lambs to the slaughter at the altar of progressive liberalism.
What an eye opener this post is!!
thank you for that insight.
Some BBC lickspittle said
* I think that it is important to analyse the BBC’s output in the context of the rest of the British media”
Why?
I’m not forced to pay for them and they don’t claim to be impartial.
Natalie: The BBC interviewer, whose name I ought to know but it’s slipped my mind, does a commendable job.
His name is Ray Snoddy. As I mentioned earlier, Snoddy also interviewed head of TV news Peter Horrocks over the Donald case; Horrocks conceded that there should have been more coverage on national TV bulletins. I notice that John Reith hasn’t addressed this, choosing instead to swamp the comments with links to which Laban has already made reference. I look forward to Reith’s defence of Fran Unsworth’s lamentable effort on the earlier NewsWatch (she claims the Walker trial “was a more newsworthy case in our terms“ not least because it was a racist murder, and yet she wasn’t even aware that the Donald case was also racist. Head of BBC Newsgathering, eh?
One more thing from the Unsworth interview – check the continuity when Snoddy says the following (3 mins 15secs in) :
But you said earlier that part of the newsworthiness of the Liverpool murder was its particularly horrific detail. [Cut to different camera] One case that always comes up is that of Kriss Donald…
Before the change of camera shot Snoddy has both hands on his notes and is looking down. After it he is looking ahead and his left hand is up in the air. Was something edited out?
If anyone has trouble with John Bull/Natalie’s link to the Unsworth interview, try this RealPlayer version.
And here’s the Horrocks interview.
Why no BBC coverage?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2450131.html
Race case MP’s son targeted by bomb
Mark Macaskill
POLICE are investigating an apparent attempt to kill a son of Mohammad Sarwar, the Labour MP, in revenge for the politician’s role in bringing the racist murderers of a white schoolboy to justice.
“Their alarm is shown by the desperate attempts of JR and the other al-beeb minion “Mister Minit” to use the “nazi” smear against their critics.”
I used a “Nazi” smear did I?
“yes JR and Mister Minit I’m talking about you and your paymasters”
My paymasters are not the BBC, I can assure you.
But back to my point about the context of the rest of the media. I KNOW that the private media don’t have any obligation to be balanced but that is not the point.
The point is that there seems to be a feeling here that the BBC highlighted the case of Anthony Walker more than Kriss Donald because of their PC world view and that because the victim was white rather than a minority.
However, the fact that I think all other news outlets handled these cases in pretty much the same way as the BBC is significant.
It is significant because any slur you make against the BBC such as:
“When will the BBC realise that we aren’t a bunch of racists but ordinary people who are tired of BBC PC-ness and spin?”
Can apply equally well to all of the news organisations in question. If the commentators here truely believe that the BBC silenced this story only because of their leftwing PC agenda, then logically all other British national news organisations share this agenda, which doesn’t seem very likely. If Kriss Donald got equal coverage to Anthony Walker on ITV or Sky then that would be a different matter.
So you see, I DO NOT believe that the BBC should be judged on what it does or does not report compared to the rest of the media, BUT the context is still important. Especially if there are going to be accusations of the BBC having sinister motives.
And just for the record, I think that this murder was covered very poorly by the BBC (and it seems as if they agree with me).
“I’ll stop now. Good to see the nerve has been touched. As it should be.”
The only nerve of mine that has been touched is the usual B-BBC habit of totally ignoring logic and reason. I suggest that someone here should write up all this ‘evidence’ that B-BBC unearths and try and get it published in a peer reviewed journal (assuming a relevant one exists) and see how far you get.
Again, for the record, in my time at this blog I have never stated that the BBC produces balanced news coverage, nor have I said that its coverage does not need to be improved.
I would love to have a decent discussion about BBC news coverage – I really would. Obviously I have come to the wrong place.
Can apply equally well to all of the news organisations in question.
MisterMinit | 13.11.06 – 8:30 pm | #
Sounds like you accept there is a degree of bias within the BBC, mrminit. Of course, the difference between the BBC and other news organisations is I’m not threatened with jail if I refuse to cough up for the Guardian and choose the Times instead.
MisterMinit | 13.11.06 – 8:30 pm
Can apply equally well to all of the news organisations in question. If the commentators here truely believe that the BBC silenced this story only because of their leftwing PC agenda, then logically all other British national news organisations share this agenda, which doesn’t seem very likely. If Kriss Donald got equal coverage to Anthony Walker on ITV or Sky then that would be a different matter.
My emphasis added.
On the contrary, it is overwhelmingly probable that all the msm share this agenda. This is because there are plenty of organisations monitoring “racism” where non-whites are victims but none of any consequence monitoring “racism” against whites. Probably only the bnp which, as we know, gets no air time. Also bear in mind that a black Police Association is allowed to exist to monitor black victimhood but if there was a proposal for a white PA it would not be allowed.
Let’s face it, if non-whites can blame white racism for their lack of career success that’s a story for the beeb and the msm. If a non-white said his/her career has stalled because s/he isn’t good enough at the job to earn promotion it wouldn’t be an msm story.
(I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the british national party.)
MisterMinit writes:
“I suggest that someone here should write up all this ‘evidence’ that B-BBC unearths and try and get it published in a peer reviewed journal (assuming a relevant one exists) and see how far you get.”
Peer reviewed by whom, would you suggest? Guardian columnists? Some of the Leftist academics that have created the problem?
The success of B-BBC is best measured by the urgency with which BBC apologists try to dismiss the accumulating evidence.
The more hysterical and inarticulate the denunciations, the more absurd the smears, the clearer it is that the blows are landing in the right place.
Both Mister Minit’s statement that the context is important and simo’s statement of the difference of compulsion between the BBC and other news organisations are true.
The same culture affects the BBC as affects other news organisations – including those claiming to be right wing. Look at newspapers or TV from the fifties and you will soon see that, say, the Guardian and the Telegraph now have more in common than the Telegraph now and the Telegraph then.
(Continued) The cultural changes since the fifties are not all bad, but one change that is bad is the growth of Western self-loathing. For most media organisations, though, I’d grant them the right to be self-loathing if they can make a living doing it. A broadcasting organisation financed by compulsion allegedly to protect and disseminate British values does not have this right.
Frank Grimes, there was no lack of coverage or interest on the part of the BBC in the Kriss Donald case. It was broadcast on the National bulletin for three days after his body was discovered, while it was suspected he might be a gang member. The idea that “The BBC’s national news division has no interest in what happens outside England” is erroneous. They had no interest once they realised the murder was a racially motivated murder of a white child by Asian men.
Mistermint, all your point proves is that other News organisations seem to be lazy enough to follow suit and let the BBC decide what the news of the day should be. We don’t know the reasoning behind Sky’s decision on whether to broadcast the Donald case in 2004, but we do know the type of thinking at the beeb based on Fran Unsworth’s interview.
If you can sit through that and tell me her logic is anything other than sickening then you deliberately have your head in the sand. Donald wasn’t promising enough perhaps, or “the manner of the death” wasn’t horrific enough (but it was, wasn’t it?). Maybe his family didn’t show as much dignity as the Walker family? I’m baffled.
That’s apart from Mark Easton’s sickening “Prejudice plus power” comment; a far left idea I thought was even too far to the left for BBC journalists to sympathise with. I was wrong! I suppose you’ll find a way to defend Easton as well.
It’s great that you can speak for these BBC Guardianistas on the Kriss Donald case, since they do such a pathetic job of speaking for themselves.
Thanks DFH for the real player link – the other was unwatchable.
Ray Snoddy does a superb job of puting Fran on the spot.
She waffles and uses the body language that I have never seen in private industry – only in public sector types. She does not really convince anybody – not even herself.
Who is Ray ? Maybe we need more people like him ?
Personally, I loved the bit where ol’ Fran was explaing why the BBC didn’t report racial murders properly becuase they were busy keeping people up to date with art gallery openings. It was a truly Blearsian performance of toeing the party line even as it descends into absurdity.
DFH – thanks for the link – my only concern about ray Snoddy is that he didn’t ask the obvious question in regard to the Chancellor’s panto coverage, which would have been “Do you think your audience are idiots that you have to report things in this stomach churning patronising way?”
Dumbjon – I would have asked her “If there were four “racist” murders on the same day, 3 against white people and one against an ethnic minority , which one would have take priority?”
John Reith:
On 12.11.06 – 12:07 pm you listed several BBC TV and radio news reports of the Kriss Donald murder on three particular days in March and April 2004:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116043227974617317/#317279
35 minutes later Ritter repeated your list and requested of you:
“Please can you provide the links to the BBC News & radio stories you mention above. I will then watch/listen for myself.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116043227974617317/#317287
Ten minutes later JX advised Ritter:
“Reith clearly has the complete BBC internal news archive at his disposal here.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116043227974617317/#317289
Another 5hrs 35 mins later at 7:27 pm I too repeated your list of broadcasts from two and a half years ago and I asked you a question:
“Simple question: How did you acquire this information John?”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116043227974617317/#317314
Ritter, JX and I are still awaiting your answer. Just where did you acquire information about these broadcasts from over two years ago John?
JBH,
I’m sure you said that the BBC was engaged in a cover up of your research but they appear to have even covered your book launch?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/196596.stm
Jonathan Boyd Hunt –
Ritter, JX and I are still awaiting your answer. Just where did you acquire information about these broadcasts from over two years ago John?
Day 2 and the scrum’s getting bigger:
John Reith –
We’re still waiting for you to tell us who the 5 or 6 BNP members/supporters on this site are.
no problem giving this guy the front page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6145774.stm
sorry here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm
I wonder what bits of “Britishness” he’s most proud of? The pubs? The social security security system his father milked? The privileges accorded to Muslims by the state broadcasting corporation?
Do tell, Mo lad.
RB:
You’re obviously afflicted with the same blindness and bigotry-inducing brain disease that afflicts John Reith and the entire BBC management and the staff of BBC News & Current Affairs.
I think most B-BBCers who visit this blog would agree that (as a consequence of the BBC’s agenda-setting censorship) the vast majority of the British population – probably over 99% – have never heard about the investigation into the “Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair” conducted by Malcolm Keith-Hill and myself.
However, thanks to the BBC web report to which you provided the link, we most certainly know that the BBC is well aware of our investigation and what our findings are. I quote directly from the BBC web report:
“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 … that the newspaper had falsified documents and, along with Mr Fayed, had lied to the Downey Inquiry into the sleaze allegations. ”
Hmm. Now then, RB, think about this for a moment if you’re able. Clearly, this is pretty serious stuff, don’t you think? I mean, two independent journalists, one of whom represented Granada TV for best NW News Reporter of 1997, who allege, following a six month investigation, that The Guardian perverted the course of the parliamentary inquiry into one of this country’s most damaging political controversies in recent years.
So then, what was the BBC’s spin on these grave, sensational allegations. Here’s what:
“None of it was particularly new and there was a marked lack of enthusiasm amongst the gathered media.”
That’s right, RB. “None of it was particularly new”.
Now then RB, how on earth can such allegations of forgery and perjury amount to “None of it was particularly new”. ???!!!???
Here’s how: when you’re a fact-and-truth-suppressing leftist Beeboid, that’s how.
The BBC is only too ready to air, and justify airing, the views of seditious fascistic Islamists and terrorist sympathisers. The BBC is only too ready to air, and justify airing, the views of the Taliban. But the BBC nevertheless shies away from investigating the claims by two freelance journalists to have unearthed hard proof that The Guardian perverted our country’s parliamentary system by enacting a criminal conspiracy.
How so? Why the double standards, RB?
Answer: Because the BBC is institutionally biased, that’s why – and the BBC’s 9-year censorship of our investigation from the airwaves is the absolute proof.
John Reith,
I apologise for asking the question yet again but I am interested to know how you can identify BNP members in these comments section.
Kind regards,
Alan
JBH: why hasn’t the rest of the media picked up on the claims in your book, out of interest?
Alan G
In two cases because they said so back during the local elections.
Otherwise – by the same deductive process that leads me to conclude that someone who bangs on about ‘the society of the spectacle’ or how ‘the Hacienda must be built’ is most likely a Situationist.
You can call it ‘meme structure’ if you like.
I call in the Duck principle.
If it waddles, has feathers and quacks……………….
RB & Different Anon
You might be interested to know that J B-H has form when it comes to making false accusations of bias against broadcasters.
Back in July 2000 he wrote in the following terms to the ITC (the then industry watchdog)”:
“The weight of evidence proves that Granada’s failure to discharge its obligations for impartial reporting of news is deliberate, showing it to be a politically-biased organisation unwilling to report news dispassionately. The transgression is so grave, and sustained, it warrants the ITC Commission considering the withdrawal of Granada Television’s broadcasting licence at the first appropriate juncture.”
The ITC dismissed his complaint.
Not satisfied, J B-H sought leave to have the ITC’s decision subjected to Judicial Review.
He got it.
What happened at the Judicial Review?
“Following a full hearing held on 10-11 October, on 6 November 2002 The Honourable Mr Justice Newman dismissed Hunt’s application.”
http://www.coverup.net/3%20Main%20body/page6.html
http://www.coverup.net/2%20Contents/index.html
So it’s not just the BBC who think that J B-H’s ravings are so much twaddle. The High Court of Justice thinks so too.
Before I retired I used to attend a myriad of meetings covering a wide range of subjects with a host of different departments, each with their own budgetary considerations.
After I’d been had over one day the penny finally dropped and from then on I could sniff a hidden agenda before a meeting had commenced, almost predicting what it would be.
Some were absolute corkers, not your Le Carre stuff, more like Yes Minister, one involving a false briefing to the BBC which they swallowed hook line and sinker.
So
John Reith, RB & Different Anon what are you actually defending? The Guardian? A ‘newspaper’ that could not survive without massive subsidies in part contributed to by the BBC. A ‘newspaper’ that employs people who have been caught out working for the KGB. A ‘newspaper’ with a track record of falsification.
As for judicial reviews…………how naïve.
You missed the BBC’s non-reportage of the utterly barabarous murder of 14 year-old Charlene Downes.
Readers of this blog who do not know the case can find a little on it here:-
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/charlene_downes_a_murder_too_far_for_the_msm/
and here:-
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_rape_murder_trial_hits_the_bbc_headlines/
John Reith:
TPO:
I’ve posted my response on the current thread by mistake. Here it is:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116349658588854997/?a=49570#317616