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.
Bijan Daneshmand | 05.12.06 – 4:42 pm
I’m sorry to see BD that you’ve abandoned your hitherto feisty-but-sane approach and succumbed to the prevailing lunacy.
The Iranians began blocking BBC web sites lat year. To begin with they were using an off-the-shelf filtering product called SmartFilter manufactured by the US company Secure Computing. That company had not sold or licensed their product to the Iranians – so one must presume that Iran got hold of the software through commercial channels and were effectively pirating the product.
The BBC initially found ways round the blocking. This year there’s evidence that the Iranians have gone up-market with their filtering.
The BBC’s planned Farsi TV channel is paid for by the FO and will be launched in much the same spirit as the BBC Russian and East European Services were during the Cold War.
Far from being launched in collusion with the mullahs, it will probably help bring an end to their tyranny.
The BBC Farsi channel will be based in London and will not need the co-operation of the Iranian state.
At present the BBC finds it very hard to operate in Iran. Nearly all visa requests by reporters and producers are turned down. Those correspondents – like Frances Harrison – who can operate there are subjected to all kinds of insult and obstruction by the regime. See this FOOC for a taste:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6087434.stm
Interesting to note that despite quite a bit of uninformed speculation about why Ms Harrison wears a headscarf in reports, no-one has seen fit to quote Harrison herself:
” I could face a jail sentence of up to two months in this country if I do not wear a scarf. And I am supposed to wear it in the office too because I am working with men I am not related to.”
Commenters here have also pointed out (in an accusing sort of way) that her husband is Iranian. What they do not bother to point out though is that when they met he was living outside Iran and working as a journalist for CNN. When he went to live in Iran when Frances took up her present posting, the government denied him a work permit for one year – effectively rendering him unemployed.
Your statement that the FO wouldn’t fund a channel if there was any chance that the mullahs would disapprove is extremely silly. As are your other absurd allegations that the UK government and the BBC are in bed with the Islamic regime.
John Reith
“Given the audience figures, I’d say the ‘Today’ formula goes down pretty well with the audience.”
I listened virtually every morning to the Today programme since I was a small child. And I’m talking several decades. Then, in the lead up to the Iraq war, I saw such blatant bias in the presentation of the arguments for and against the war that I was sickened.
For example, the tone of interviewers was encouraging towards anti war contributors. They were fed questions in which their answers were already implicit. Those who argued for the war were subject to hostile, hectoring questioning, their every point being received in a sneering tone by the Today team.
Then again, whenever a group of contributors was invited to discuss the issue there would invariably – and I mean ALWAYS – be more anti-war apologists than pro-war.
And this at a time when opinion polls were saying that 62% of the total population supported a war to remove Saddam.
What this told me is that the Today programme had stopped being a news programme and had turned into a pressure group.
And having noticed THAT bias, others became glaringly obvious. Its anti-US, anti-Israel bias for example. Its pro-socialist bias from the likes of Jim “when WE win the election” Naughtie, and so on and so on. Its anti-family, anti traditional Christian bias.
I can truly say that I felt bereft. I discovered that a family friend had turned into a monster.
Now, of course, I can see the values of the Today programme woven into the very fabric of BBC output. News, documentaries, ‘comedy’, even drama, such as Spooks, and Robin Hood, with its luvvies spouting claptrap about the ‘bravery’ of script writers referencing opposition to the Iraq War in their scripts.
Which is why, John, I no longer listen to the Today programme.
But even worse than that, John, the BBC compels me on pain of having a criminal record to subsidise those very values which I find increasingly offensive or irrelevant, simply because I live in Britain and wish to watch other TV channels’ output.
But what do you care? Quite frankly, sweet F A. Because ultimately, the government refuses to make you truly answerable to your audiences by throwing you to the market forces. And while I have to keep paying, the BBC needn’t listen to anyone but themselves.
jr
“There is a reaon why ‘Today’ is called ‘Today’. It is because the programme’s remit is to discuss today’s agenda – as opposed to yesterday’s or last week’s”
It’s today alright but it’s later today that the news occurs. Brown was not going to say (and didn’t say) anything except propaganda about how well he’s doing because he’s saving it for his statement: there is nothing to say unless it’s a meaningless discussion about what he might say. It’s a waste of everybody’s time because giving just context with nothing to contextualise about is a form of journalistic masturbation in which “Today” specialises and you apparently applaud. Accordingly, tomorrow’s “Today” will ignore todays’s pre-Budget statement because it’s yesterday’s agenda – ridiculous, of course, but that seems to be the logic of your position.
Anonymous | 06.12.06 – 1:37 pm |
You are wrong about just about everything.
E.g.
“Saturdays night “Blockbuster” Robin Hood is officially “In ratings trouble”, getting a paultry 5 mill……but even that is numbers that the Today team can only dream about……”
Actually the Today programme audience is 6.1 million. No need to dream of ‘a paltry 5m’ then.
As for 5 – Live – it’s just posted a reach of 6.14m – up from 5.75m last year.
Radio 4 is ever so slightly down (from 9.59 to 9.19m) on the year. (R4 usually is down a touch in the year after a General Election).
Podcasts are running at 2m and internet listening at 440,000.
All in all, BBC radio audiences are fairly stable:
32.85 million in June 2006 as against 32.88 in June 2005 (not counting new media).
The BBC and its pro Muslim bias.
Mr John Reith wrote;
“ I could face a jail sentence of up to two months in this country if I do not wear a scarf. And I am supposed to wear it in the office too because I am working with men I am not related to.”
The above statement was written by Mrs Harrison based in Tehran by the BBC in which to deflect criticism of her gravitation to Mecca.
Now if the BBC investigated Islamic stories as it does the far right in the UK. The BBC would have a program about how in Islamic countries religious sexism keeps females chained to the male gender never mind the Kitchen.
They would have a report on how in Malaysia Muslims have enforced their religious mores onto Non-Muslim females. As they have in Nigeria and Kenya.
In France Muslim women who don’t cover up are abused and in a lot of cases raped.
Throughout the western world Islamic females are kept in the gutter by their so called male superiors and the BBC remains silent. The veil isn’t a religious right, it’s there simply to prevent another bloke from eyeing up your missus. It’s all about honour and we all know how the faithful feel about honour.
I saw an extremely interesting programme on Monday night on BBC4 about how the New Testament was put together, the reasons why some of the ‘lost gospels’ didn’t make the cut and the different interpretations that would have been put on Christianity if they had. Really put a historical perspective on the subjectivity of something that influences hundreds of millions of people.
Be interesting to see if they do something similar with Islam, perhaps based on the German(?) research into how big sections of the Quaran have been inaccurately translated resulting in adherents following the ‘wrong’ example. Not holding my breath.
Mike | 06.12.06 – 9:22 am
Here’s a link to the (D)HYS on climate change:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4859&edition=1&ttl=20061206145951&#paginator
And here’s a link to the list of all (D)HYS topics – bookmark it for future use.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/index.jspa?&&&edition=1&ttl=20061206145821
Islamists gains access to the US counter-terrorism base.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6210090.stm
On the radio 4 Today discussion boards (where all topics are now started by BBC staff), I reproduce it verbatim below;
—————–
Today’s debate:
He destroyed a pension system in this country which was the envy of many other countries.” Albert Venison, Chairman of the Devon Pensioners’ Action Forum on the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
What’s your view?
——————
That’s a controversial topic for BBC staff member to initiate I thought. Sure enough when I click on it it appears that the subject has been deleted. Now the number one subject up for discussion is the all-important matter of “should music to be banned on public transport”. Plenty of posters protesting about the deleted topic, no answer from the mods, and seemingly lots of deleted posts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/
I have screen grabs btw.
Fran,
Thank you for voicing what I’ve felt over the last few years. Your trajectory of gradually switching off from the BBC is exactly the one I followed. I had no idea they were so virulently biased until the Iraq War with literally countless interviews/documentaries/debates alwasys with the same preconceived anti-War context. It’s amazing to me that more people haven’t realized. Maybe it’s because bias allegations often seem to come from conservative newspapers. Now if more politicians would call them on it while on air to millions…
But I can’t think of any politicians who would, for example, challenge either Dimbleby on biased questioning or audience/panel-rigging.
Even if they did, I don’t think Keith Allen would be rushing to describe it as brave.
Reith,
4Q (heading not insult):
1) Would you accept that the BBC is pro-islamist wrt Hezb’llah (i.e. not telling the audience what Anderson Cooper revealed that you, the MSM, in beirut and South of the Litani River were being used for blatant propaganda) and Somalia (when you are seen by the indigenous people as a tool of the islamists)?
2) Roughly how many muslim Palestinian members of staff in and around Israel? Feel free to use standard form.
3) Roughly how many Jewish Israeli members of staff in and around Israel? Feel free to use the fingers of one hand.
4) Which BBC dept are you from?
John Reith:
Glad to see you’re on such ripping form. I have a few questions for you. But first, a message for everyone else:
If mention of the name “Neil Hamilton” causes you to roll your eyes into your forehead or worse I apologise, but on the basis that the BBC’s decade-long censorship of hard evidence proving that The Guardian perverted a major parliamentary inquiry constitutes a peerless case study of BBC bias, I’d like to give John Reith another opportunity to show just how impartial both he and the BBC really are.
John Reith:
As I stated on a previous open thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116472683581918354/#320518
“several of The Guardian’s staff and lawyers lied and acted in concert with each other and Fayed and his staff to support a number of false contentions with respect to the political controversy that helped bring down John Major’s administration: the Neil Hamilton affair. The evidence proving that they did is utterly overwhelming.
Given that BBC News & Current Affairs and Factual Programmes is stuffed to the rafters with leftist liars, this explains why the BBC refuses all pleas to instigate an assessment of that evidence.
And there we have it: the absolute proof of the BBC’s utter corruption is its steadfast failure to yield to requests to instigate an assessment of the merits of evidence-based allegations of a conspiracy concerning a major political controversy levelled by two freelance journalists at the newspaper in which the BBC places most of its advertising and from which the BBC recruits so many of its staff and guest commentators.”
Now then John, as per my previous offer to donate a whopping £1,000 to the charity of your choice:
Q: Have you found two reputable BBC staff yet who would be willing to sit in on a demo of evidence showing that The Guardian perverted the 1997 Downey Inquiry?
Q: If not, why not? Is it:
A: Because you haven’t tried to find two BBC staff who would give a day of their time for charity?
or
B: Because those BBC staff you’ve asked so far have refused to give a day of their time for charity?
Q: If A, why haven’t you?
Q: If B, who were these mean-hearted people?
.
Pounce
The BBC is not ‘silent’ on the mistreatment of women in Islamic society.
Woman’s Hour special on honour killings:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2006_03_wed_03.shtml
Link to about 20 audio/video clips on honour killings:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=av&q=%22honour%20killings%22&recipe=all&scope=all&edition=d
Link to 923 results for ‘muslim honour killings’ on bbc news website:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=muslim++honour+killings+&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=news.bbc.co.uk&as_rights=&safe=images
Link to 297 results for ‘muslim domestic violence’ on BBC website:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=muslim&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=domestic+violence&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=news.bbc.co.uk&as_rights=&safe=images
Newsnight special on honour killings in 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3638014.stm
JR
Why do you use the mealy-mouthed liberal euphemism “honour killings”? Why not call them what they are – sexist murders?
J B-H
When you first made your generous offer (and I mean that) I told you that I was away travelling and that I would try to find you two journos as specified once I returned ‘in early December’.
You pressed the issue a couple of times after that and I referred you to my original post. (Once, I admit rather impatiently – saying ‘which part of xyz do you not understand?’)
Since then I have been away – much of the time out of internet contact.
Yesterday ( 5th Dec – second day back)
I approached someone who would have been ideal. He reads this blog and had seen your original invitation and had even considered volunteering himself.
However, he had noticed that despite everything I had said, you had continued to raise the matter (six times) he reckons while I was away.
This had led him to the conclusion that you are ‘incontinent’ – to use his term and would doubtless pester him to death with calls and e-mails if he did take part. So – sadly – he’s refused.
It really is a shame because he would have been just the person to engage seriously with your evidence. By foolishly playing to the gallery here you have driven away your best prospect.
I will try others – but you really are your own worst enemy sometimes…
JR
You’re in voluble form today.
JR
So which BBC dept do you work for?
Is it public relations?
John Reith | 06.12.06 – 4:21 pm
This had led him to the conclusion that you are ‘incontinent’ – to use his term and would doubtless pester him to death with calls and e-mails if he did take part. So – sadly – he’s refused.
Even if this is a true account, it’s still not good enough a reason for not being profesionally interested in a very important case of alleged beeb & grauniad corruption.
From the HYS on Climate Change – sadly deleted, undoubtedly for purely innocent reasons:
I am interested to note that you say you get a lot of e-mails from sceptics. Why do these never make it onto BBC broadcasts ? BBC News continues to just read out press releases from Greenpeace as though they were carefully researched journalism, while ignoring the enormous number of people who are not taken in by this nonsense.
Why don’t you do a program on the Wegman report to Congress ? (Which, I notice, does not even show up on a search of this site.)
Freddy, London
Recommended by 6 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Mr Reith?
john reith
” BD…I’m sorry to see……..you’ve succumbed to the prevailing lunacy.”
JR,presumably this refers to the majority of opinion on this site.
When I stumble on a site populated by lunatics,I click and move on,as I think do most people.
Why do you keep coming back so frequently ,when you clearly find the views expressed here distasteful?
Labour of love?
Still not a peep from the BBC about the report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes. Instead we have this:
Two Palestinians shot in Gaza
Why isn’t that Two would-be terrorists shot in Gaza?
The shootings are the first cracks in a local ceasefire that has been in place since last week.
Eh, wot???
What about the more than a dozen ‘crudely made missiles’ fired at Israel from Gaza?
The men appeared to be attempting to lay an explosive charge and were driven off with warning shots.
Seems to me like quite a restrained reaction from the IDF considering the terrorists’ intentions…
However, they returned with a crowd of several dozen people and made a second attempt to place the explosives, a military spokesman said.
That’s called pushing one’s luck. I’d bet a pound to a penny there were plenty of women and children in that crowd too…
One of the men was then shot in the leg as he lay on the ground, apparently placing a mine.
If I’d have been one of those IDF squaddies I would aimed at the mine – sod the legs!
Palestinian health officials said two civilians were treated for leg wounds after being shot by Israeli forces, the Associated Press news agency reported.
Poor diddums!
These are the first casualties in Gaza since a ceasefire was declared around a week and a half ago, despite a number of rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel.
The BBC’s Alan Johnston in Gaza says there is little optimism either in Gaza or Israel that the truce will hold for long.
Ha-fsking-ha, Alan Johnston!
gordon bennett
Thanks for that.
Mr John Reith thank you for illustrating with lots of BBC facts and figures exactly what I was trying to elucidate in my previous post.
That the BBC can’t be asked in which to ask the question about “Why is Islam, such a violent religion?” So we have numerous non stories about this that and the other, yet it appears that nobody at the BBC can join the dots (of those stories) and make the common connection of just why are Muslims so bloody violent towards other human beings..
Instead the BBC goes out of its way in which to paint a picture of a peaceful religion and even to splash all over the front page, back page and centre pages just how much of a maligned culture ‘Islam’ is.
Funny thing, I once did a search on the BBC search engine for this murder;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3193918.stm
I couldn’t find it and had to search using her first name. The results then of typing in ‘Honour killing’ gleaned me about 8 pages and not many of them concerned Plumbers and how they love drinking a certain type of Bleach. (Clean round the bend) now when I type in ‘Honour killing’ I get hundreds of results. So thank you BBC for waking up to the fact that you can fool some of the people some of the time. But not all of the people all of the time.
P.S
Loved your story about a poor 12 year old Nigerian girl and forced marriages. Pity you left out just what religion she belongs to. (The clue is in her name)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6211258.stm
Now that is what I am on about Mr Reith. The reason behind why so many 12 year old girls are married off to older men not for love but because the leader lusted after a 6 year old child and shagged her when she was 9. Now I wonder if the BBC will reveal just why Muslim women have to cover up. (It’s in the Koran and concerns the wife of Mohammed messing about with another man)
K
Or can I call you Joseph?
re: your 4Qs
1. No. The BBC in Lebanon only had one brush with Hezbollah spin enforcers. Fran Unsworth set it all out in her editors’ blog posting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/fran_unsworth/
As for Somalia – the same people who say the BBC is biased towards the Islamic Courts were last year saying the BBC was biased towards the warlords. Since the Islamists have been fighting the warlords, that puts the BBC behind both dogs in the fight. The real reason these people are upset is because the BBC has broadened its reporting base. For historical reasons (British Somaliland…colonial legacy…blah blah…) BBC staff used to be drawn almost exclusively from northerners. A couple of years ago it recruited some southerners (the story was in the south – so it made sense). Many northerners are upset by this. Somalia is very tribe conscious. In fact, it’s very sub-tribe conscious. Whatever you do, you’ll upset somebody. The BBC tries (and largely succeeds) to give them all a fair shout.
2. & 3. I don’t know for sure. The correspondents in the ME bureau -as you’ll know – are Jeremy Bowen , Katya Adler (German parents/born in UK) and Matthew Price. The staff cameraman is called Jimmy. The admin people have what might be Israeli Jewish names – but might not be. I’ve never asked. Anyway, they aren’t Arabs. There are three producers – one with a distinctively Israeli name, one with a Spanish name and one with an English first name – don’t know about the surname. There’s an Israeli (?) .. Hebrew-speaking assistant. That’s the staff. Freelance cameramen and fixers are sometimes hired on day rates or short contracts to work in Gaza and the West Bank or when Jimmy is busy. These may often be Palestinians. World Service also have some part-time Arab stringers.
4. No comment.
Another HYS not going the BBC’s way:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4895&edition=1&ttl=20061206172356&#paginator
Can’t see this being still open tomorrow morning. I love the way the BBC pounce on the report as if it’s news, even though anyone with a brain could have predicted its consequences as soon as they heard who was on the panel (as Mark Steyn actually did last week).
Mr Reith
Whilst there may be 923 results for muslim + honour + killings. There are precisely none for “muslim honour killings”. I wonder why?
Mr John Reith wrote;
“As for Somalia – the same people who say the BBC is biased towards the Islamic Courts were last year saying the BBC was biased towards the warlords. Since the Islamists have been fighting the warlords,”
What you omit from the above Mr Reith is that the Islamists are composed mainly of those very same warlords.(who now have Allah on their side)
JR:
Thx. I really appreciate the stuff on Somalia. I was totally unaware of how factional it is. I have some supplementaries. You can call me whatever you choose.
May I call you Paul Reynolds? And if not, is he aware of your contributions to this site?
Re: your answers to the 4Qs.
1) does this mean that the BBC was not present at the Hezbullah charade of an ambulance rally as reported by Anderson Cooper. I was under the impression they were along with all major western MSM outlets. Also, the infamous Green Helmet propagandist was stood next to John Simpson on one Lebanese report during the last conflict with his helmet bandaged up. Are you unaware of this? If half the blog community was aware of this guy, surely the BBC must have been.
2 and 3) As you said “often Palestinians”. May I ask if you often use Israelis? And am I correct in thinking you don’t broadcast in Hebrew?
4) Why can’t you reveal your dept? I mean your managers know that you are contributing to this blog, don’t they?
Pounce – read up on Somalia. You’re flat out wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Courts_Union
Islam’s gunmen rout Somali warlords :
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yx2z3x
http://tinyurl.com/y88eoy
John Reith:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116517758638684416/#320866
“By foolishly playing to the gallery here you have driven away your best prospect.”
Bloody hell John that’s an absolute corker! You’ll have to write a book: “How To Escape From Between A Rock And A Hard Place.”
Except that you don’t escape, do you? You can call me all the names under the sun, but the trouble is, you’re still left facing the fact that you’re either not able or not willing to find two BBC journos out of thousands who would spend a day of their time learning about an untold side of a major controversy and so earn £1,000 for charity.
This is what the BBC is missing out on John:
The former Downing St Press Secretary to Harold Wilson – that’s the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson – wrote this about our research:
‘Hunt [& Keith-Hill] has done meticulous research to produce his book, Trial by Conspiracy… The book is compelling and convincing… Hunt has mounted a case that demands fair, open and careful consideration and a much fuller airing than has so far been permitted… So let us have another — this time, open and honest — look at the Hamilton affair and overturn a gross miscarriage of justice’
Pretty cool stuff eh John? Then there’s the Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness Turner of Camden – oh, that’s the Labour Baroness Turner of Camden, just in case there’s two of them:
“To my mind at least the issue remains unresolved… [Hunt & Keith-Hill] have been working on an extremely detailed and comprehensive account which casts doubt on much of the so-called evidence and particularly calls into question the role of The Guardian newspaper in the affair; and I have a copy of the report here. It demonstrates conclusively that there are still investigative journalists who have the courage, occasionally, to challenge received opinion.”
– Hansard, 14 January 1998.
Then there’s BBC researcher Tom Anstiss, who, after journeying up to see me and after poring over the evidence, went on to meet up with Baroness Turner, following which he sent her a letter – on BBC-headed notepaper – in which he opined:
‘I am writing to thank you for all the time you gave up to see me on 10th September 1998. I thoroughly enjoyed our meeting and found it very helpful for the background to my research into The Cash for Questions affairs. It does seem quite strongly that there has been a miscarriage of justice and many people have had their lives significantly hurt and affected by the whole affair. I read your speech on press complaints which I thought contained very strong and compelling arguments as to the general changes that need to be put in place or at least addressed in some form. Your comments on the Cash for Questions affair being ‘largely a media stunt’ and your questioning of the role and ethics of The Guardian I think are also very pertinent. As I suggested to you I would be very interested in doing a more formal interview with you on this whole subject area. It would greatly help us redress the imbalance of reporting that has occurred over the Cash for questions’ affair and the work of Ian Greer Associates. I hope that is still agreeable with you and you are still willing to help us further.’
Would you believe it John, Tom Anstiss suddenly departed the BBC for Granada before the programme on which he was the chief researcher, The Mayfair Set, produced by Adam Curtis of The Power of Nightmares infamy, was broadcast. And would you believe it, instead of “blowing wide open” the CFQ affair, as Tom promised it would, The Mayfair Set actually followed the Guardian’s line!! I know, difficult to believe, isn’t it?
And then there’s BBC NW’s Political Editor, Jim Hancock, now retired, who broadcast reports on our work several times (but who was prevented from doing an in-depth report), who wrote:
‘Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for letting me have a copy of your research into Neil Hamilton.
It is never easy to swim against the tide of received wisdom and I have been impressed with the effort and diligence that you have put into your work… I do believe that you have raised questions that have not been addressed in the general media clamour to find Neil Hamilton guilty before the Standards committee give their verdict… You know that the Head of our Political Unit and I are sufficiently persuaded, that we wish to interview you about your efforts to clear Mr. Hamilton.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Hancock’
You know John, back in October 1986 Neil Hamilton exposed the BBC for the corrupt Leftist rabble that everyone on this blog knows it to be, including you, when he sued the pants off Panorama. But when this story eventually breaks, the BBC is going to have to explain ten years’ steadfast censorship, and it’s my guess that it won’t be able to do so. In fact, the “Hamilton cash for questions” affair might well turn out to be the very device that brings the BBC and its corrupt mentor The Guardian crashing down.
So don’t give up trying to find two BBC staff to sit in on a demo of the evidence. By examining our work and starting a chain of events that ought to lead to the BBC proactively broadcasting a proper airing of it, albeit ten years too late, they might, repeat might, save the Beeb’s bacon. Doubt it myself, though.
K,
I beleive JR still thinks the rusty ambulance with the light fitting missing was hit by a missile!
AntiCitizenOne
Maybe it was one of those special rust missiles. You know how fiendishly clever those jews…er..zionists are. Literally, out of this world.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23558_Evil_Zionist_Death_Queen_Sci_Fi&only
DifferentAnon wrote;:
Pounce – read up on Somalia. You’re flat out wrong:
Thank you for enlightening the world over just who is who down south(east) in the horn of Africa. As for suggesting that I read up on the subject I think you will find that in the region (as in other Islamic clannish areas) Smaller groups (I’m talking warlords here) have no problem gravitating towards the big kid on the block, simply because they know they can continue with their money making ways as a big fish in shoal of like fish rather than facing the risk of defeat by facing a shoal of piranhas. (It has nothing to do with God/Allah or whatever deity. It washes down to one thing ‘Power’ switching allegiances is nothing new for the faithful (just look back to Afghanistan)
Oh by the way here is a snippet from that Google link you posted;
“Shaykh Yusuf Siad “Inda-Addeh” serves as deputy and financier for Hasan Dahir Aweys. He is the chief security of Islamic Courts. He is controversial for the fact that he was a former warlord who occupied Lower Shabeele in 2003. He later allied himself with the Islamic Courts.”
Before you wish to try and trip me up in order to defend the duplicitous BBC. It kind of helps if you took the time to read the articles you post in which to base your stance in which to attack this little kitty..
Pounce the cat’s whisker.
The BBC and Not the Nine O/Clock news;
U.N. chief: Darfur is in ‘free fall’
UNITED NATIONS – The conflict in Darfur has spread to two neighboring countries and is now in “free fall” with six million people facing the prospect of going without food or protection, the outgoing U.N. humanitarian chief said Tuesday.
Advertisement Jan Egeland, who steps down on Dec. 12, told The Associated Press in an interview that one of the most difficult problems he has faced was convincing countries of the dire situation in the western region of Sudan.
“I think some of the Arab countries and Asian countries have not really understood we’re in a free fall. It’s not a steady deterioration. It’s a free fall and it includes Darfur, eastern Chad, northern Central African Republic,” he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_re_af/un_darfur
Saniora appeals to protesters in Lebanon
BEIRUT, Lebanon – Prime Minister Fuad Saniora appealed Wednesday to those who are trying to topple him through mass protests to stop “digging bunkers,” return to the negotiating table, and help rebuild Lebanon.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon
France says Iran will face UN sanctions
PARIS – France’s foreign minister said Wednesday that
Iran will face U.N. sanctions for refusing to halt its nuclear program, but major world powers remain divided over exactly how far punishment should go.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
Somalia official issues beheading threat
MOGADISHU, Somalia – Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an Islamic courts official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_re_af/somalia_prayer
I’m sure the BBC will parrot the line (ref my last) that the Islamists have brought law and order to Somalia.
The BBC and Not the Nine O/Clock news
Why John Simpson likes working for the BBC:
” It’s because we don’t have to apologise for what we do.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2490928,00.html
Like when, for instance, one the eve of the first democratic Iraqi elections, he broadcast a lie that Coalition were responsible for most civillian deaths. A lie which was broadcast on TV and retracted only on the internet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/low/newsid_4220000/newsid_4222300/4222353.stm
The clear purpose of this was to suppress voter turnout. The same purpose as that of the “insurgency”. So tell me again, whose side are they on.
Pounce:
Good to see Yahoo News covering important stories that the BBC ignores. Er, don’t expect it to last though…
http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=yahoo120406.htm
“SANTA MONICA/NEW YORK, December 4: Yahoo! News has begun offering video content from BBC News…
“Richard Sambrook, the director of the BBC’s Global News division, said of the deal, “The demand for BBC content in the United States is growing all the time…”
” “The BBC has established itself as an unparalleled global news-gathering organization …” added Scott Moore, the head of news and information at Yahoo! Media Group.”
Cockney writes: Lessons we could learn from America – let’s not study the scientific evidence for or against a proposed phenomena which, if the majority view in the scientific community is correct, might be catastrophic for humanity (or alternatively might be a crock of sh*t wasting us billions). Let’s look at how the media presents it instead.
Personally I think that the misreprentations and propaganda of the Global warming cultists could use some scrutiny. Like the myth that the ‘majority’ of scientists support human activity as the prime cause.
Newsnight special on honour killings in 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr…ght/ 3638014.stm
John Reith | 06.12.06 – 4:07 pm | #
Hmmm, strange how Newsnight’s report didn’t cover Islam’s role in these ‘honour’ killings.
A bit like when that rancid sow Orla Goering covered this topic in Ramallah and led off with a killing from the Christian side…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4522465.stm
Even when the Beeb covers this subject they seek to downplay the RoP’s involvement.
jr
I see you’re back.
I salute your Indefatigability. (For US readers what George Galloway said to Sadam Hussein)
Unfortunately you seem to have bought that idiotic meedja studies buffoon, DifferentAnon, with you. An alter ego perhaps.
Knock it off son, it’s too obvious.
Roxana: “Like the myth that the ‘majority’ of scientists support human activity as the prime cause.”
What percentage of scientists do support human activity as the prime cause?
TPO 9:46 pm
“Knock it off son, it’s too obvious”
Wonderful stuff.
P.S. Er, as I’ve said, you being an ex-forces man with intelligence connections, I’d really appreciate your input on research into an area involving national security which the said John Reith has previously rubbished: i.e. the aforementioned “The Webs They Weave” doc. Any chance of receiving your dispassionate assessment of same for the benefit of contributors to this blog? I value and await your honest opinion.
As an aside, but also as a demonstration (I hope) of the internet’s ability to defeat the looniest of judges, who is the adulerous male ‘celeb’ who had his privacy protected even though he wrecked another man’s marriage?
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/
Hmmmmmm,
The skies are gonna fall. An unbiased report by Gaza’s Alan Johnston on the World Service today???!!
He actually mentioned that the Palestinians had violated the cease-fire by firing rockets into Israel AND HE DIDN’T CALL THEM HOME-MADE OR CRUDELY-MADE OR INACCURATE ROCKETS!!!
Could it be that someone in higher management at the BBC is kicking biased butt??
No, it ain’t possible. It’s just too good to be true.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt,
John Reith always gets peevish and complaining and whiny when he tries to wriggle out of answering direct questions and meeting direct challenges. As an example, some months ago I mentioned a World Service programme on Gaza by Alan Little called Inside the Red Cross – which revealed Little’s gross anti-Israel bias. Reith claimed that Little was not anti-Israel and undertook to listen to the programme and get back to me with his evaluation thereof. Then, true to form, he let a few months lapse and then said he was disinclined to discuss Little because he disapproved of a comment I’d made about him, i.e. Reith.
In fact, Reith has no answer to my observations about Little. That’s either because he hasn’t listened to the programme, or he has and is aware of Little anti-Israel stance, but is not big enough to admit it. Reith eternally picks away at the minor things here. Anything to avoid actually engaging with us in honest debate on the big issues.
So don’t hold your breath waiting for Reith to cross swords with you or for him to find anyone else willing to do so.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt
Is the former press sec to Labour PM Harold Wilson who gave such a fulsome review to your research by any chance the former Mirror columnist and Cap’n Bob Maxwell crony – Joe Haines?
If so, I wouldn’t boast about it.
Nice puff. Shame about the provenance.
The problem with global warming is how the media choose to represent the data.
1) Report comes out saying temperatures will rise 2-10C. Media reports “up to 10C”
2) Report comes out saying temperatures will rise 2-6C. Media ignore, no new headlines here
3) Report comes out saying temperatures will rise 3-12C. Media reports “up to 12C”
4) Media continues to say “up to 12C”
5) Media starts to say just “12C”
6) Scientists start to say “12C isn’t true, it’s only an average of 5.8C”
7) People like Bush cut that to “12C isn’t true” and take it to mean “global warming isn’t true”
8 ) The climate change lobby responds by becoming more hostile, people like Bush become more defensive
9) Nothing is accomplished and everyone loses, especially if global warming does turn out to be the worst case scenario
If we want to beat climate change (global warming is just 1 part of it) then it would help if people like the BBC gave people who don’t read journals proper information. The BBC has even had 2 articles on their site within the last year or so pointing out this problem yet they continue to do it. Does the BBC not realise that criticism of the general media applies to them as well, or do they think of themselves as something different. Perhaps something higher than the general media?
For Christ sake, people here in Scotland think that they’re going to be under the sea in a 100 years. Yet Scotland is actually rising (along with Scandinavia and I assume north Russia and Canada too, and Antarctica down at the south).
The BBC and its hatred of America.
So many people slither onto this board in which to defend the BBC;
So with the above in mind I wonder how the BBC clones are going to crawl out of this one;
Serb suspect ‘can be force-fed’
Judges at The Hague have ordered that Serbian war crimes suspect Vojislav Seselj be force-fed if necessary to stop him dying from a hunger strike. A doctor who examined Mr Seselj said he could die within two weeks if he persisted with his protest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6214862.stm
Now compare the above BBC coverage with another example of forced feeding;
Guantanamo man ‘wants to starve’
A Kuwaiti detainee on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay wants a judge to order the removal of his feeding tube so he can be allowed to die, his lawyer says. Force-feeding is highly controversial. Campaigners in London on Tuesday said it was unethical and painful, but US authorities say they are saving lives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4378282.stm
So BBC just what is your stance on reporting force-feeding.
Saving a life or unethical and painful?
The funny thing is on the Vojislav Seselj article I saw nothing similar to this found on the Guantanamo article;
“Rights groups and doctors have expressed concern over the health of hunger strikers, and have also highlighted ethical concerns over the practice of force-feeding.
“Fundamental to doctors’ responsibilities in attending a hunger striker is the recognition that prisoners have the same right as any other patient to refuse medical treatment,” said 18 doctors in a letter to the UK’s Guardian newspaper on Tuesday.”
I wonder why?
The BBC and its hatred of America.
Allan@Aberdeen:
As an aside, but also as a demonstration (I hope) of the internet’s ability to defeat the looniest of judges, who is the adulerous male ‘celeb’ who had his privacy protected even though he wrecked another man’s marriage?
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/
Allan@Aberdeen | 06.12.06 – 10:29 pm | #
Allan, Justice Eady awarded George Galloway £150,000 in the Saddam libel case.
Justice Eady is a loony alright.
The BBC and Not the Nine O/Clock news.
Israeli tycoon offers $1bn for Mideast peace
JERUSALEM • In a new Middle East initiative, an Israeli businessman is offering the Palestinian prime minister $1bn if he and his Israeli counterpart can sit down and reach a peace agreement. Billionaire businessman Avi Shaked, who made his fortune running Internet gambling sites, says he has lined up a consortium of international financiers who are ready to inject the money immediately if a deal is struck.
An initial instalment of $100m would be made if Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, a leader of the Islamist group Hamas, and Israel’s Ehud Olmert can just manage to sit down and start talking. Odds on the initiative succeeding would appear to be slim. Hamas advocates the Jewish state’s destruction and Israel regards the movement as a terrorist group. “The killing must be stopped,” Shaked said in an interview yesterday to explain a plan that he says even has the approval of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “My initiative is to both leaders: please sit down, start negotiations and try to reach an agreement.
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=December2006&file=World_News200612073122.xml
Jordan, Israel, Palestinians To Launch Dead Sea Canal
Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority meet Sunday to launch a feasibility study to build a canal linking the Red Sea to the slowly vanishing Dead Sea, a Jordanian official said Tuesday. “Representatives of Jordan, Israel, Palestine will meet on the shores of the Dead Sea with representatives of the World Bank and countries willing to finance the project,” Jordanian water ministry spokesman Adnan Zohbi told AFP.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Jordan_Israel_Palestinians_To_Launch_Dead_Sea_Canal_999.html
Israeli surgeons repair young Palestinian hearts
HOLON, Israel (Reuters) – Her lower lip quivering with every breath, Hala Ketnani, a 10-month-old girl from Gaza, sleeps beneath an oxygen hood in an Israeli intensive care unit as she recovers from heart surgery.She had been unable to have the operation in Gaza, where many hospitals are suffering from worsening conditions since a Western aid embargo was imposed this year to pressure a Hamas-led Palestinian government to recognize Israel.Under the private Israeli program “Save a Child’s Heart”, doctors at Wolfson Hospital near Tel Aviv repair congenital heart defects for children like Ketnani from the Palestinian territories, Iraq, Jordan and
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyID=2006-12-06T153131Z_01_L29506164_RTRUKOC_0_US-ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS-HEARTS.xml&src=120606_1249_DOUBLEFEATURE_iraq_report
The BBC and half the story;
BBC version;
Two Palestinians shot in Gaza
Israeli forces have shot and injured two Palestinians in separate incidents on the Gaza perimeter fence, according to the Israeli military. The shootings are the first cracks in a local ceasefire that has been in place since last week. In the first incident, Israeli soldiers shot a man who appeared to be laying a mine near the border. The second shooting occurred when a Palestinian man ignored soldiers’ warnings near the Erez crossing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6214440.stm
Arab News version;
Israeli Fire Hurts Two in Gaza
GAZA CITY, 7 December 2006 — Breaking a Nov. 26 truce for the first time, Israeli soldiers shot and wounded two Palestinians who approached the Gaza Strip border yesterday.Palestinian ambulance workers said the two men were unarmed. An Israeli military spokesman said they had behaved suspiciously and ignored warning shots to make them move away from an Israeli-built border fence. The shootings occurred in separate locations, the spokesman said.
In the first incident, one Palestinian climbed a pole near the fence while another appeared to place an explosive charge on the ground, he said “The Israeli force called on them to move back and fired in the air. They moved away,” the spokesman said.
“Later, several dozen people crowded near the fence, along with the same two men. One of them, using the crowd for cover, appeared to continue to place a charge. The force then fired at him, and according to our information, he was shot in the leg.”
In the second incident, near the Erez Border Crossing, a Palestinian crossed a perimeter fence, drawing shouted warnings from Israeli soldiers to turn back before he reached the main frontier barrier.”He didn’t. They fired in the air and he still didn’t stop. Then they fired at him, hitting him in the leg,” the spokesman said.
Local residents said the two men may have been collecting scrap metal in the area.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=89682&d=7&m=12&y=2006
I do like how the BBC has the neck to quote this;
“The shootings are the first cracks in a local ceasefire that has been in place since last week”
Meanwhile the Islamic Arab news has this to say on the subject;
“Since the cease-fire was declared, Palestinian fighters in Gaza have fired several rockets into southern Israel, drawing no Israeli military response amid pledges by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to show restraint for the time being.Meanwhile, Palestinians fired a rocket at southern Israel yesterday afternoon, causing no damage or casualties, in the latest violation of the frail truce, the army said.The rocket landed in an uninhabited open field near the border with the coastal strip, an army spokesman told AFP.It brought to 17 the total number of rockets fired into Israel since the truce, he said.Under the terms of the cease-fire, Israel withdrew troops from Gaza and Palestinian fighters were supposed to stop firing rockets in the Jewish state.”
So according to the BBC the Israeli shooting of two Palestinians who first ignored verbal warning followed by warning shots over their heads were both shot in the leg.
Not exactly the indiscriminate version pushed out by the BBC as hard fact.
The BBC and half a story.