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.
GCooper | 17.11.06 – 1:30 pm
{also: Arthur Dent & Anonymous}
“a far cry from your wild allegation that there are five or six BNP members who regularly contribute here”
That’s not what I said.
You should remember – since my post was in reply to one of yours, GCooper – that what I actually said was “members/supporters”.
Okay, so now we have JimBob saying the BNP would get his vote.
Cockney reminds us that John Archer said he’d vote BNP too. And so he did.
“I’ve decided the best way I can do that legally is to vote for the BNP. Voting for UKIP seems too lame now.”
John Archer | 30.10.06 – 12:00 am | # http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116215556968625691/
Asked why, John Archer replied:
“In short, islam. The BNP is the only party not only to identify this vile creed as the ‘root cause’ of terrorism and many other threats, immediate and long-term, to us and the rest of the West, but is also willing to tackle it head on, in the UK at least…. Secondly, a halt to all third-world immigration and its possible reversal, and thirdly their anti-EU stance.
These three are largely bound up with each other too, so they all need to be treated together. Again only the BNP fits the bill….. Perhaps the BNP will go from strength to strength. I hope so.” John Archer | 31.10.06 – 1:53 am
and then there’s Henry:
I’m not a member but I send money when I can and I was outside Leeds crown court on the first day of the trial.
Henry | 19.04.06 – 11:08 pm | # http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/114542639603043515/
Joe – well he may or not be a ‘member/supporter’ but he sure as hell sounds like one. He’s posted a number of comments supportive of Griffin/BNP – like this one:
joe:
But 25% at Rotherham last week can’t be ignored
http://www.radical-and-right.org…g/ 20061031.html
The media will ignore the result unless it can find a way to totally denigrate it, but the significance of the voting will not be lost on the ‘main’ Parties, or the Media Class and its Leftist street thugs, or the nation’s police chiefs, or the voters of Rotherham.
joe | 04.11.06 – 5:35 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116237145289012732/
Here’s how JeffDuke replied to Pounce when Pounce was critical of the BNP:
JeffDuke:
Pounce….. I think you’re an utter moron.
The BNP are all mouth and no trousers? ………
News for you, 95% of the population do not find them repugnant. Nearly a million that voted, voted for them in the Euro elections. If you’re going to state stupid, unfounded, made up figures, get a job at the BBC. Once again, you’re a moron.
JeffDuke | 11.11.06 – 9:10 am | # http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116293336940453411/
Recognize the rhetorical style?
….contd.
….contd/
You should check out Francis too. As far as I can see he only posts about Kriss Donald and immigration. Both current BNP fixations.
I haven’t re-visited the long thread about Question Time – when there was quite a chorus demanding Nick Griffin be invited on as a guest. You’ll be able to spot a few more there. Not seeming such a ‘wild’ notion now, is it?
I’m not the only one to notice. Two of the moderators have too.:
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Laban #
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_biased-bbc_archive.html
“Some time ago I saw a comment about I-forget-what on this blog that set alarm bells ringing in my head. It purported to come from just another ordinary commenter, but the language just sounded too press-releasy to be true. I googled and found the exact same words in a BNP press release. So I deleted it.”
Natalie Solent | Homepage | 25.10.06 – 9:50 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116143882800422527/
No surprise that the BBC rush to give exposure to Yusuf Islam. He appears tonight on “Later with Jools”
Wonder if:-
a) He will be just plain old Yusuf.
b) Jools will ask him whether he still wants Salman Rushdie topped.
C) With the BBC’s help, his album will be the Christmas best seller.
Nice try JR. In common with a number of HYS there are people on these message boards who would vote BNP as a last-ditch attempt to wake the bigger parties up. I have yet to read anyone on this site who wants a BNP government. These are not supporters, merely people who see the BNP as a (rather underhand, I admit) way of getting the major parties’ head out of the sand. There is a bit of me that would like to see them do well, even though I disagree with 95% of what they say, and am appalled by them. I have generally voted conservative, but I am not a supporter. I would imagine that the majority of BBC hacks will have voted labour, but you’d be the first to be up in arms if I said that “the BBC is full of Labour supporters.”
The objections here extend way beyond this board. The present Government’s reaction to Islamic terror is to grant yet more power to the unelected Islamic lobbies, and to erode our civil liberties. The BBC’s reaction is to encourage more of the same, and to criticise even the slightest hint of a criticism of the Muslims. If you went round every living room in the country you would find a very large percentage who agree with us; yet are our views represented in parliament? No. Are our views represented by the tax-funded broadcaster? No-sirree.
This website has been set up to try and hold the BBC to account over these, and other, grievances. It is inevitable that some people’s votes will be used to hold the government to account over these grievances. Seeing as NuLabour would sooner the Tories won a seat off them than the BNP, maybe a BNP vote is not a bad idea. But that does not make us supporters.
And your penchant for bending the truth, misquoting people (you’ve still not explained why you misquoted me before), and smearing as a BNP fascist anyone who questions the BBC’s impartiality (a) shows that you’re worried we’re right, and (b) only makes us more determined to hold the BBC to account.
Enjoy your weekend; I’m off for a beer (with some socialist friends, as it happens…).
John, you forget one of the first dictums of objective analysis: correlation does not equal causation. Certainly a great many people around here might sound supportive of the BNP, but that’s because they are hacked off with the mainstream parties who simply refuse to address or even acknowledge certain issues. I’m not a BNP member. I’m not even a supporter, and I would be quite happy to live in a world where the BNP doesn’t exist. However, they do exist, and they have support for a very good reason: they’re talking to pople. They’re listening to their concerns. However nasty some of their policies are, the fact that they’re listening and responding to the concerns of the general public is giving them a huge cachét, something that the other parties couldn’t hope to achieve with their focus on westminster and “higher things”. The BNP engages in local party politics, where the vaccuum left by what I guess you could call the Labconlibpact has left millions without a voice in how the country is run.
I probably won’t vote for the BNP. In the end they’re socialists (their policies include re-nationalising industry and transport amongst other things), and I generally don’t vote for socialists, no matter how responsive they might seem. But, and this is a big but, I might be tempted to suspend that rule if the main parties don’t get their act together and start responding to the needs of the country outside notting hill.
That’s why people will support and vote for the BNP. Not because they’re nasty racists, but because the BNP is the only party that looks like it cares.
The BNP’s actual stance on a lot of issues, as opposed to the media’s portrayal of their stance, is actually quite positive if you happen to be on the old left. The only real difference between them and the Labour of John Smith and his predecessors is that they’re much tougher on immigration.
The ordinary people of the UK are sick of the way that the ‘mainstream’ (political parties and entrained media) are kow-towing to islam and pursuing the muslim vote. The clearest example of this is NuLab’s insistence in imposing postal voting in areas which are heavily muslim.
But what about the rest of us?
I think that JR (the BBC) and his cronies are driving decent people towards the BNP in the same way as the other parties have abandoned them. BTW, islam is a wicked, vicious faith – does that statement of fact make me a fascist?
Meanwhile over at the BBC ‘Have Your Say Message Boards’:
Who do you support on immigration?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4681&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20061117164413
“Added: Friday, 10 November, 2006, 18:27 GMT 18:27 UK
I will back the BNP on immigration
[johnilmalin1], Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Recommended by 67 people“
and lets look at the ‘recommended’ posts:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4681&edition=1&ttl=20061117164413&#paginator
“Added: Thursday, 9 November, 2006, 09:46 GMT 09:46 UK
the British National Party are the only true people that will sort this immigration devastation out
john beatson, sheffield, United Kingdom
Recommended by 267 people
Hmmm, so by using JR’s sophisticated ‘BNP detector-sense’ I make that 267+ BNP members/supporters using the BBC message boards and 5 at biased bbc.
1. Is that right JR?
2. What exactly was/is your point?
jr provides the following list of BNP supporters/members
“A” list of “definite” BNP supporters/members
JimBob
John Archer
Henry
JeffDuke
“B” list of possibles
joe (who just “sounds” like one because he drew attention to BNP voter support in Rotherham)
“C” list
unidentified commenters who were removed by Natalie/Laban sharpish
Looks to me that what happened is that jr made a wild accusation to smear B-BBC. When called he sought desperately for some “evidence” and (after a considerable time) found the (irregular) commenters as listed. Considering the resources (probably) at jr’s disposal his performance is not impressive and very unpersuasive. I think the sponsors of B-BBC, at least, deserve an apology.
.
Global Warming: Relax and Enjoy
Yes, the world is getting warmer, but the Earth does this roughly every 1,500 years, and we cannot stop it. The good news is humans and most other species tend to do better during the warm periods.
There is a wonderful new book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” by distinguished climate physicist Fred Singer and award-winning environmental economist Dennis Avery. The conclusion of their book in a nutshell is that, yes, the world is getting a bit warmer, but this is just the natural cycle.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1663
.
Archonix
“John, you forget one of the first dictums of objective analysis: correlation does not equal causation.”
I never forget it. Indeed it is almost the sole topic of conversation round the water-cooler these days.
You might remind yourself of that pearl of wisdom next time you are tempted to ascribe absurd motives (e.g. support for Islamofascist terrorism) when the BBC reports an Israeli air-strike in Gaza.
As for:
“The only real difference between them {the BNP} and the Labour of John Smith is that they’re much tougher on immigration”
Pull the other one.
I don’t recall John Smith being in favour of eugenic sterilization of the handicapped.
Nor of wanting to outlaw miscegenation.
He wasn’t keen on Holocaust-denial either.
Can’t imagine JS saying (as Nick Griffin did):
‘anti-Semitism’ may be provoked by the actions of certain Jews themselves and thereby have a rational basis”.
Good to see we’ve provided an afternoon’s employment for the BBC rebuttal team (aka ‘John Reith’), but there seems to be some confusion in its hive mind.
The fact that people express opinions also held by the BNP does not make them either supporters, in the sense you clearly meant, or (more importantly) members of that organisation. And it was ‘John Reith’ who used the word ‘members’, which has a very precise meaning.
I have seen much condemnation of the BNP here – and rather more convincing stuff than the knee-jerk agitprop shrieks one is used to. I have also seen some people say they have (usually a grudging) respect for the BNP’s stance on Islamism and immigration.
So what, as I have asked before, is it that you are proposing? That anyone who happens to share a point of view with the BNP be barred from commenting on this blog? That anyone who says it is the BNP’s popularism that is winning it support in the face of establishment liberalism should be denied a voice?
True, that would be congruent with the regulation BBC approach, which is to shut-down debate and silence opinions it finds uncomfortable (eg the Toady message boards). But, mercifully, this is not the BBC.
That both its, and your, technique seems to be to silence debate by screaming ‘racist!’ or ‘BNP supporter!’ at anything you dislike, shouldn’t come as a surprise. But, as techniques go, it has gone. People have seen the circus act before and they are tired of it. That’s why this blog and others of its kind exist. They are places where people can discuss things without having a finger-wagging bien pensant deciding what they can, or cannot, think.
And no amount of smearing, nor any amount of scare-mongering is going to stop people, now that the institutionalised media have lost control of the means of broadcast. No wonder you and your colleagues are so scared!
Reith
Take the BNP at face value on what it says today, as opposed to what Nick Griffin said to his aunty Enid in 1996. Immigration aside, what substantive differences are there between the BNP of today and Labour pre-1994?
Apologies if anyone’s already posted this, but it deserves the widest possible coverage:
Auntie Beeb, anti-Israel?
November 17th, 2006
(The American Thinker)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6048
Cheers.
Awwww, poor BBC, is it those nasty bloggers again?
Has the web fuelled a crisis in politics?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4786&edition=1&ttl=20061117172744&#paginator
“Does the internet, its independent contributors, and their attitude hinder political-public relations?
Matthew Taylor, Tony Blair’s outgoing strategy adviser has spoken of a “crisis” in the relationship between the electorate and politicians, begun or made worse by the ever-burgeoning world of unaccountable blogging.
Are you a blogger? Or do you use the internet for political debate? Is there a crisis? Whose fault is it ?”
Ho ho ho!
Al Beeb paints the BNP as purely evil whereas they’re not remotely as critical of Hamas and Hizbollah. I wonder who got more tax-payer sponsored air-time in 2006, Nick Griffin or Adolf Nasrallah. You’ll probably enlighten us, Reith.
“Is there a crisis? Whose fault is it?”
Oh Blair and the BBC, how can you be so blind. You don’t know what you’re dealing with! If you look at conservativehome, you will find out. The crisis is for conventional media, not for politicians. For politics, it’s more a renaissance and coming together of exchanges of views – real, live, exciting political debate not possible in a “broad”-casting world. This IS modern politics.
George Osborne tells it how it is. It’s _new_ media.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/11/george_osborne__1.html
and
>>
Take Conservativehome.com. It’s an on-line community of Conservative activists that engages in a constant commentary on what the Conservative Party leadership is up to. Thanks to them our attempts to keep our new A-list of candidates secret lasted about 24 hours • not because it leaked but because individual candidates were identified one by one by friends and friends of friends on the network. My first reaction was to be annoyed. And then I paused and thought about it, and realised something exciting was happening. There was a vibrant, noisy, irreverent Conservative community out there. Our party was alive not dying. Although I am sometimes the target of members on Conservativehome.com, it is unambiguously a good thing that it exists. For it • and other websites like Iain Dale’s blog and the new conservative internet TV station 18 Doughty Street – are sure signs of the health of the Conservative movement. That’s why my fellow Shadow Cabinet colleagues and I regularly take part in interviews and discussions on websites like these.
John Reith:
To my knowledge (admittedly I don’t know much about them) at least the BNP don’t don’t advocate the kind of Nazi/Commie-style political censorship like the BBC does.
D Burbage at 17.11.06 – 12:17 pm said:
“btw, any chance of answering the question about your access to BBC databases? Your silence is deafening.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116363909058391709/#318246
25 minutes later at 12:42 pm you said:
“No.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116363909058391709/#318251
So at last we have your answer on this question. That is, you refuse to provide an explanation as to how you acquired information from the BBC’s running orders. Fair enough.
When Ritter asked you at 12:57pm:
“JR – Why so shy?”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116363909058391709/#318253
– G Cooper provided the most rational explanation at 1:16 pm. He said:
“It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Whoever was wearing the ‘John Reith’ mask that day dropped a monumental clanger. S/he revealed access to BBC information and resources far beyond that of either the average feelancer or staff member working in her/his own time to defend her/his masters.
“That and the attempt to smear B-BBC with BNP infiltration have just about destroyed any credibility the ‘John Reith’ persona may have had.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116363909058391709/#318258
If I were you I would have left it at that. But then you blew it big time by implying with typical BBC institutional dishonesty that because such detailed information is (so you say) available in public libraries that’s where you acquired it.
The mask slipped again, John. You should have just kept your trap shut. That was blatantly disingenuous of you.
Moving on, regarding the supposed infiltration of this blog by 5-6 BNP members, you made a fair old attempt at providing two or three possible candidates. No proof mind, but at least you had a go. Fair enough again.
That just leaves the really awkward question, as per my offer of 05.11.06 at 9:03 p.m. which I concluded thus:
“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?”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116263356306588978/#316402
– an offer which I later emended thus:
“I wouldn’t object to someone standing in your place. All you would need to do to earn £1,000 for charity is obtain the attendance of two nationally-known senior BBC reporters to take part in a demonstration of the evidence of The Guardian’s perversion of the Downey Inquiry. Say, one from Panorama and another from the Political Unit at 4 Millbank will do nicely, thank you. If you can get Nick Robinson I’ll find another £100 from somewhere.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116263356306588978/#316531
– and which, following RB’s post of 07.11.06 – 5:34 pm
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116263356306588978/#316669
– I later downgraded my stipulation thus:
“to find two BBC reporters of integrity who would be willing partake in a day-long demonstration of the evidence of The Guardian’s perversion of the Downey inquiry”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116263356306588978/#316674
Come on John. You’re clearly in regular contact with BBC staff. Surely, with the BBC so keen to demonstrate its impartial credentials, and with Children in Need just around the corner, you should be able to find a couple of BBC journalists of integrity who would be prepared to sit in on a demonstration of our work and so earn a whopping £1,000 for charity.
Methinks you’re having difficulty finding two BBC staff to sit in on a demo of The Guardian’s cover-up because you and everyone else at BBC N & C A know only too well that our research is unimpeachable, and because the BBC suffers institutionally from the usual BBC bigot’s disease: “if the BBC sees no truth, and hears no truth, the BBC doesn’t have to report the truth.”
Which, in my humble opinion, makes you and your clan at White City/Broadcasting House far worse than the BNP, as they never did claim to be impartial about anything.
Or am I wrong?
Mr John Reith thank you for pointing out to the people on this board about how many BNP supporters there are on this board. I did so much like how you exposed this racial bigot;
You wrote this;
JeffDuke:
Pounce….. I think you’re an utter moron.
The BNP are all mouth and no trousers? ………
Now if you wrote the full story;
Pounce, was that post really from you? You’ve always seemed a well balanced type of guy, now I think you’re an utter moron. The BNP are all mouth and no trousers? So the BNP go around mouthing off that they’re going to cause terror do they? I’ve never heard any such claim and I’ve never read that in their manifesto.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116293336940453411/#317193
A different story emerges.
It appears that Mr Jeff Duke was replying to his assertion that I make the claim that the BNP threaten to blow people up. (Not actually the direction I was leaning towards, but I understood where he was coming from) The point I was trying to put across was that the BNP while odious (Anybody else think that Griffin is simply in it to fleece his followers for every penny he can get at a £1 a minute phone calls) are not in the same league as the Islamic idiots who have no problem killing the sick .lame and lazy. I’ll even put money on the table saying that Jeff Duke is a troll invented simply to lend weight to this very argument.
But before I bugger off for the night a quick bash at the clone pretending to be a BNP supporter.
Err jeff you wrote;
”News for you, 95% of the population do not find them repugnant. Nearly a million that voted, voted for them in the Euro elections.”
You are right and I stand corrected it wasn’t 95% it was actually 96.1% of the British population who find the BNP repugnant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/euro_uk/html/front.stm
The very definition of unnacountable is being funded by a tax that dissatified customers cannot withdraw their custom from.
The BBC is Unnacountable.
Where’s the Balen Report?
women. The House of Compassion, as it is known, is run by a charity and funded entirely by private donations For its 160 clients, it is a tiny oasis in a city of 12 million people, where homeless people are an increasingly common sight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6156142.stm
Anybody read the above report; anybody notice how not one battered women lives there;
“The women who live in the House of Compassion range in age from 18 to 70. Many of them look much older than their years – a legacy of life on the street.
They include runaways, drug addicts and prostitutes. Many are suffering from severe mental health problems.”
Oh we have runaways (from what?) drug addicts and prostitutes why they even throw in the catch all “severe mental health problems” in other words what the BBC is saying is that every women there is partly to blame.
But it gets better contrast the above Oasis statement with the following;
The house rules say that women brought in by the police, cannot leave unless their families take them back. “I want to get out here,” she says, “I want to live my life, go shopping and go to the park with my friends.””
Oasis, more like a Prison. But just to reinforce it’s the women’s fault angle promulgated by the BBC they insert this;
“Her face is clouded by the shadows of drug addiction. When she holds up her hands, her fingers are permanently clenched – the tendons in her wrist have been severed by repeated suicide attempts.”
See its all her fault. But not to worry the BBC does try to claim that the refuge come prison does try to help them out, (but with little success)
“Staff at the shelter have tried to help the women turn their lives around by organising training courses and teaching them new skills. But so far they’ve met with little success. For many of the residents, it’s just too late to make a new start.”
Err BBC how about what’s the point of learning a new trade if you can’t leave the 4 walls of said refuge unless accompanied by one of the prison wardens.
“They like it when the staff take them on outings to the city. And they would love it if someone could buy them a tape recorder so they could have some music.”
It seems BBC that the above was written by somebody working at the ministry of disinformation in Tehran.
The BBC and half a story.
(Sorry I missed the top half of the post)
The BBC and half a story;
Tehran homeless women find refuge
Tucked away down a overgrown side street in one of Tehran’s poorest districts is an ordinary-looking house with an extraordinary story. This yellow brick building surrounded by high concrete walls and railings, is Tehran’s only shelter for homeless women. The House of Compassion, as it is known, is run by a charity and funded entirely by private donations For its 160 clients, it is a tiny oasis in a city of 12 million people, where homeless people are an increasingly common sight.
link
Anybody read the above report; anybody notice how not one battered women lives there;
“The women who live in the House of Compassion range in age from 18 to 70. Many of them look much older than their years – a legacy of life on the street.
They include runaways, drug addicts and prostitutes. Many are suffering from severe mental health problems.”
Oh we have runaways (from what?) drug addicts and prostitutes why they even throw in the catch all “severe mental health problems” in other words what the BBC is saying is that every women there is partly to blame.
But it gets better contrast the above Oasis statement with the following;
The house rules say that women brought in by the police, cannot leave unless their families take them back. “I want to get out here,” she says, “I want to live my life, go shopping and go to the park with my friends.””
Oasis, more like a Prison. But just to reinforce it’s the women’s fault angle promulgated by the BBC they insert this;
“Her face is clouded by the shadows of drug addiction. When she holds up her hands, her fingers are permanently clenched – the tendons in her wrist have been severed by repeated suicide attempts.”
See its all her fault. But not to worry the BBC does try to claim that the refuge come prison does try to help them out, (but with little success)
“Staff at the shelter have tried to help the women turn their lives around by organising training courses and teaching them new skills. But so far they’ve met with little success. For many of the residents, it’s just too late to make a new start.”
Err BBC how about what’s the point of learning a new trade if you can’t leave the 4 walls of said refuge unless accompanied by one of the prison wardens.
“They like it when the staff take them on outings to the city. And they would love it if someone could buy them a tape recorder so they could have some music.”
It seems BBC that the above was written by somebody working at the ministry of disinformation in Tehran.
The BBC and half a story.
[I have added some missing “close italics” tags to this post and also reduced the amount of bold – NS]
Edited By Siteowner
Re: Apologies if anyone’s already posted this, but it deserves the widest possible coverage:
Auntie Beeb, anti-Israel?
November 17th, 2006
(The American Thinker)
I’ve posted it to digg. So digg it.
http://digg.com/politics/Auntie_Beeb_anti_Israel
JR
Please take me off your alleged list of BNP supporters. I have already made it clear whom I will be voting for, although it should be of no concern to you.
joe:
JR
Please take me off your alleged list of BNP supporters. I have already made it clear whom I will be voting for, although it should be of no concern to you.
joe | 17.11.06 – 7:48 pm | #
C’mon JR – you’ll have to do better. If B-BBCers were to deride Beeboids as RESPECT voters/members you’d be outraged.
Jr
I’m afraid i haven’t time to go through all of the above but I did alight on this from you:
“Some time ago I saw a comment about I-forget-what on this blog that set alarm bells ringing in my head. It purported to come from just another ordinary commenter, but the language just sounded too press-releasy to be true. I googled and found the exact same words in a BNP press release. So I deleted it.”
Natalie Solent | Homepage | 25.10.06 – 9:50 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments…43882800422527/
John Reith | 17.11.06 – 4:08 pm | #
You really need to take a step back my old son because you (the BBC) are in danger of being hoist by their own petard on this.
I was meandering the other day on old posts when I came across something that was clearly so anti-semitic that it would put Tom Paulin and Newsnight Review to shame. It had been slipped in on a comments field that went back to the 1st of the month, yet was dated the 14th. I raised it with Natalie and she removed it.
Then someone (I think Rimmer) highlighted a comment on a BBC HYS, a comment that was so off the wall as to be unually stupid (even by HYS standards). The fact that the moderators had chosen to include it showed poor judgement. The author of the comment, I am convinced, was the same who had left the anti-semitic remark.
If I am right then we have the BBC indulging the racist rantings of a lunatic.
JR – Who I vote for is a matter for me and my conscience – not yours.
So can we move on and debate what we are here for namely your pals and the way they distort the news.
Yo bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6159046.stm
Dutch government backs burqa ban.
I’ll leave those who wish to view this to make their own minds up. My own take:
The bbc wants to ramp up the ‘clashing’ bit.
The reality:
The vast majority of the population are now fed up with the antics of a small minority.
“has anybody been able to listen to this week’s moral maze, with BNP’s griffen, yet?
aunty leftism | 17.11.06 – 3:28 pm |”
you can hear it from here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml
click on Listen Again.
quite interesting though that Nick Griffin isnt mentioned anywhere on the page – he’s actually interviewed by the panel.
Bollocks to it!
I’m now going to vote BNP, just to piss JR off!
So there!!!and!
By the way.
You have to visit the Bbc climate change pages.
They are so funny.
In about a 100 years or so, people will look back and piss themselves on how stupid those “predicted” graphics really are.
newsnight just now..
bush visits vietnam, why? didnt tell us , what’s next for relations between vietnam and usa? didnt tell us, how is vietnam developing? didnt tell us.
but they did have a scene with bush talking followed up by a scene by bush playing a traditional vietnamese musician with this line by the presenter “he had a better time stringing the notes together”
oh!!! and Iraq was mentioned more then vietnam i think.
above could of been itv , not sure .
but watching some nut on newsreview who wants roger moore to be tortured like all the bombs dropped.
seriously u cant make this sh*t up what these people come out with , it would be good comedy, its like the office but there being serious.
Archduke:
I’ve just listened to Nick Griffin on the “Moral Maze”. As a dedicated activist anti-racist, what disturbs me greatly is that I found little fault with his conduct or argument.
Rather it seemed that the panel were going out of their way to take issue with him in order to demonstrate their own anti-racist credentials.
Indeed, the only issue I found repugnant was his advocacy of repatriation, albeit not by force, but through financial incentive.
So if someone like Nick Griffin can appear more rational and reasonable than supposedly rational educated broadcasters, what does that say about the arbiters of proper behaviour?
news 24 leads with the Dutch burqa ban.
top story.
why is this a top story?
” Anonymous | 17.11.06 – 11:35 pm |”
i found the panel (apart from Portillo) to be quite vicious at times – which , of course , plays entirely into Griffin’s hands.
there was a lot of needless,point scoring from the panel rather than talkling griffin head on, logically. Portillo ,to be fair , was probably the only one who was reasonable and well argued.
AntiCitizenOne: “The BBC is Unnacountable.”
That’s a bit unfair isn’t it? Are there any other news organisations that partake in dicussions about the quality of their own coverage more than the BBC?
Are there any other news organisations with a written charter enforced on them and an obligation to provide fair and balanced news coverage?
I would argue that the way the BBC is funded makes is more accountable than private news organisations.
The BBC. I think they think of themselves as the part the new orthodox secular priest-hood.
This occurred to me strongly when I heard a Radio 4 report about Milton Freidman’s death, along with the obligatory mention of his advising General Pinochet and Thatcher, they authoritively stated that his career was based on a free market economics “at odds with the post war orthodoxy” as if this was a statement of regrettable fact about the late Nobel prize winner.
not really BBC, but it exposes the mindset of the Beeboid/Nu Liebore drones…
by Eu Ref..
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2006/11/they-cant-cope-with-freedom.html
talks about Matthew Taylor’s speech on blogs (he’s a No.10 adviser wonk)…
classic quote from his speech:
“We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government,”
i think i’ll print that out and frame it.
“I would argue that the way the BBC is funded makes is more accountable than private news organisations.
MisterMinit | 18.11.06 – 1:30 am | ”
private news organisations dont threaten me with prison time if i refuse to renew my subscription to them.
thats something called the market – something that you should open your tiny brain up to and actually try to figure out.
further to the above about the moral maze discussion with nick griffin – one thing i noticed is that NONE of the panellists had half a braincell to go after him about the his ludicrous “we’ll pay the Pakis to f*** off back to Pakistan” policy – although he worded in much more velvety tones.
its ludicrous because of
The Gurkhas
That chap who won the Victoria Cross in Iraq (wasnt exactly “white” was he?)
The likes of pounce on here – who love Britain and want to contribute to Britain – even served in the forces.
The Gurkhas
Your friendly Indian doctor
All those rather nice Ghanan nurses who are propping up the NHS
Mixed race kids – do we export them too?
Americans – loads of them here too. loyal to the U.S and they vote in U.S. elections – do we export them too cos they dont like monarchy?
The Irish – several million of them in the UK. me included. and i aint exactly loyal to the Queen. i’d rather a republic.
Carribeans – been here for 50 odd years now. do we export pensioner Jamaicans back to Jamaica?
i could go on and on.. but its just a nutty policy. instead , we got “oh dear -this will lead to the gas chambers” , which allowed Griffin to swat it away , and thus appear “reasonable”.
oh – and its also ludicrous because of the Gurkhas.
just thought i’d emphasise that point.
archduke writes:
“thats something called the market – something that you should open your tiny brain up to and actually try to figure out.”
Indeed! And MisterMinit’s hapless attempt to defend the BBC would be improved if he could demonstrate any willingness to admit it is ever wrong.
He could learn much from R4’s ‘Feedback’, where listeners’ protests are ritually dismissed by the BBC’s ‘right-on’ types as if they were the buzzing of flies.
Accountable? Don’t be so silly. The only people the BBC is accountable to are liberal, Leftist Guardian/Independent readers. Much, no doubt, like MisterMinit.
in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick with regards to my beliefs – i belief in free immigration. human beings should be free to emigrate to anywhere on this planet in order to better their lives. the market, in term of wage rates, will sort it out – government just screws that up.
BUT – and a big but it is too – if you are a foreign national and you have committed a crime , you should NOT be locked up in our prisons -you should be charged and deported immediately to serve your sentence in the country you came from. otherwise , other countries will just make the UK a dumping ground for criminals , as we pick up the tab for their prison costs.
and i suspect that is exactly what is happening right now – hence the “lack of prison spaces” crisis.
What about this new ban on junk food during some TV programs? The revenue of all broadcasters except one will be affected. There is something very sinister about the government passing laws which restrict access to cash for all broadcasters except the one it chooses to lavishly finance. It would be better if the government didn’t involve itself in broadcasting at all.
the ofcom head was a senior policy advisor the Tony Blair. He was also an advisor to Gordon Brown, and held positions at the BBC where he was “Controller of Corporate Strategy”.
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-richards-seems-like-bit-of-twat-to.html
in other words he’s a typicla beeboid-new-liebore-policy-wonk tosser.
and how will they define “junk food” in law? i suspect that lawyers across the country are rubbing their hands with glee as their hourly billable rates are extended into endless arguments about what “junk food” really is.
lots of dosh for the lawyers, in other words.
just watching news 24 now – commons coverage…
blair admitted in parliament that UK carbon emissions amounted to only 2% of the global total.
he also said that if the UK shut down tommorow, the Chinese would make up for it in about 2 years.
hmmm… bit of a sign that Miliband’s eco-facism is a bit of vote loser?
“What we today call ‘environmentalism’ is … based on a fear of change. It’s based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it’s not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it. The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.”
Frank Furedi – professor and a communist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Furedi
above quote from this (Marxist) critique:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/nazi_ecology.htm
makes the head spin doesnt it?
J R
Point taken about the rest of the BBC obit of Milton Friedman. It was all even handed. Only the news anchor of the News at Ten mentioned mass unemployment. Perhaps I should start a Biased Huw Edwards web site. Or perhaps I should keep the claret further from the keyboard.
Pounce Vs JR is one of the highlights of the blogosphere keep up the good work gents.
Did I just hear Andrew Pearce, who works for the Daily Telegraph, reviewing the papers say “There is ten million presents in this warehouse” and “There is no church vows”? I certainly did.
anyone else having issues with (D)HYS?
WHY ON EARTH WAS MY ORIGINAL MESSAGE MODERATED?
I WROTE:
“France is turning to the right wing – It is the FN party of Jean Marie le Penn who will succeed next time”
DOES MY OPINION (I DO LIVE THERE AFTERALL) NOT AGREE WITH THE BBC OUTLOOK ON THE WORLD?
MAYBE THERE’S A FREEDOM OF SPEECH PROBLEM AT THE BBC THESE DAY’S