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.
Why the BBC can’t use journalists such as The Daily Stars’s Michael Young in it’s coverage from Lebanon?
Hizbullah has overplayed its hand
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=77455
Erm, maybe it’s because it prefers instead to quote from ‘journalists’ in Tehran, Damascus and Cairo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6205810.stm
Heard on the BBC yesterday – I think it was on the World Tonight.
They were reporting on the launch of France Vingt Quatre, Chirac’s state 24 hour news channel. Amongst the comments was a British journalist they’d hired who said “Of course France 24 can be independent. The BBC is a good example, they can be very critical of the British Government”.
[recalled from memory, so may be inaccurate word/word but the main point is there]
The BBC, taking a critical position? Whatever was he referring to?
Anti-enterprise Scotland go it alone? What a hoot
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2483490,00.html
One recent calculation estimates that just 163,000 Scottish taxpayers, from a population of 5m, make any net contribution to the British exchequer. The rest receive more than they pay out in reliefs, subsidies and benefits.
Yet another good reason to eject the chronically socialist North Britain from the Union like a midget from a cannon. The point of course is to announce that I can’t find this being reported anywhere by the BBC. Mustn’t be too harsh on them though, they’re busy using £3 billion reporting on the fact that Aberdeen is getting a new bus station, or something:
Aberdeen bus HQ site is announced
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6214690.stm
Pete_London – yes but that study presumably excludes the Scottish “black gold” of oil revenues that has been underwriting the British economy for the last 30 years (hat tip: Alex Salmond 🙂 )
But Channel4 is effectively subsidised by the taxpayer as the Exchequer has waived any payment for Channel4’s use of bandwidth.
will | 07.12.06 – 4:07 pm |
By ‘bandwidth’ I assume you mean spectrum? Neither Channel 4 nor BBC currently pay a ‘spectrum’ levy to HM Treasury (and OFCOM has told the BBC it will not have to pay until at least 2014). But Ch4 doesn’t levy a poll tax on us all. That was my point.
D Burbage
Oh I see. So if it wasn’t for the fact that the British Exchequer receives the receipts from British oil, 4,837,000 Jocks out of 5,000,000 (or 97%) wouldn’t be layabout dole thieves.
Have your oil, D Burbage. You can take it today and go your own way as far as I’m concerned. Just leave behind a cheque for a few hundred billion to cover the oil infrastructure development costs and the fact that the English taxpayer has been keeping Jocks in deep fried mars bars and booze for decades.
Darfur conflict zones map
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6213202.stm
The conflict in Darfur in western Sudan began in 2003 after rebel groups began attacking government targets, saying their communities were being discriminated against in favour of Arabs.
Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities.
The BBC News website examines how this instability has spilled over into neighbouring Chad and the Central African Republic… Without ever mentioning the race of the rebels or the word genocide.
It seems to me that the entire conflict revolves around race. Why avoid saying it?
BBC Scotland’s TV arm has hit on a wonderful wheeze for saving money – last night it broadcast the Newcastle to Hull edition of “Coast” for the third time in eight days. That’s what I call extracting full value from one’s investment….
Always carefu’ wi’ the bawbees….
It pains me to admit it, as a dyed-in-the-wool Briton, but there is a rationale behind supporting an ‘independent’ Scotland. If Scotland is discarded, England will have a more rightist Government which will be inclined to cut taxes. If a gaping disparity in taxes were to exist across the new border, then money will flow across it so Scotland will simply have to shadow England’s taxation rates, for personal and business.
Not that Scotland would be ‘independent’. All the SNP want to do is hand over everything to Brussels because they don’t hate Brussels like they hate England: and they really hate England – and that hatred disgusts me.
Steve-Mack wrote;
It seems to me that the entire conflict revolves around race. Why avoid saying it?
The situation in Darfur doesn’t have much to do with race, rather the whole situation (including the smouldering problem in the south) has got everything to do with Oil.
Have a look at this map of Sudan in which to see that the vast majority of Oil fields are to be found in the south.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/images/image004.jpg
now contrast the above picture of Oil deposits with the religious map of the country;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Sudan_politicaly_distrikt_map_Jul2006.png
The wars in Sudan are all about Oil. The Mullahs crave for it, they sell to countries who don’t give a shite about human rights, China, France, Malaysia, Algeria, (Note Canada has now pulled out of Sudan) US firms are forbidden to deal with Sudan.
Chinese Oil companies bring in their own people in which to operate the Oil wells.
There lies one of the main reasons why Sudan ethic cleanses Oil rich parts of the country. And that brings me to Darfur.
The Islamic government in Khartoum has allocated the southern part of Darfur to the Chinese in which to search for Oil. Khartoum can’t be doing with sharing the oil wealth with anybody else. Hence they send in the bailiffs in the guise of militias (whom they and the BBC contend they can’t control) in which to make the road clear for the Chinese.
Here read the full story;
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/
You won’t find the BBC mentioning any of the above as it involves slating her ideological masters Socialism and Islam.
joke doing the rounds @ sky news:
Al-Jazeera were planning to launch an interactive service. They decided against it when they realised if they told their viewers to press the red button, half of them would blow up.
boom boom.
pounce, this is once more half a story from you. On the web alone:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:news.bbc.co.uk+oil+sudan&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
The BBC has made the link between oil and Sudan on countless occasions, going back years.
And specifically China and Sudan and oil.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+oil+sudan+china&meta=
See above and below, a small selection of articles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1287188.stm
“The government, he explained, had found oil in the ground beneath his village.
“They want the oil,” he said. “But they don’t want us.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3383921.stm
“Recent years have seen European and American names pull out under pressure from human rights groups, who have made public the displacements and other more violent abuses perpetrated by government forces to clear people from oil-rich territory.
China’s CNPC, India’s ONGC and Malaysia’s Petronas are now the biggest players, pumping billions into exploration and exploitation.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4739269.stm
“The untimely death of the South Sudanese leader John Garang in a helicopter crash has re-ignited competition between oil companies”
“Oil linked to Sudan abuses [..]
The report says Sudanese Government troops, and militias allied to them, have killed or terrorised tens of thousands of civilians into leaving their homes to make way for foreign oil companies to explore and extract the new reserves.”
Roger wrote:
“Most worrying for Israel?”
You could say so.
What have Golan Heights got to do with the situation in Iraq?
Nothing, unless you want to have something to negotiate with the Syrians.
It also shows how far the ISG is prepared to go to ‘talk to Syria’ meaning, of course, the despotic Assad regime.
Last Updated: Wednesday, 6 December 2006, 20:02 GMT
Captured Israelis ‘were injured’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6215270.stm
—
“Two Israeli soldiers captured in July by the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, suffered serious injuries in the attack, according to reports”
No mention that this was cross border raid.
“The capture of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev sparked 34 days of fighting in which more than 1,000 people died.”
Ranks?
“Three Israeli soldiers were also killed in Hezbollah’s cross-border attack on 12 July that sparked a 34-day war.”
But later in we do mention it. This is so tiresome. Alot of BBC editors need to take a refresher on news copywriting.
The report says Sudanese Government troops, and militias allied to them, have killed or terrorised tens of thousands of civilians into leaving their homes to make way for foreign oil companies to explore and extract the new reserves.”
DifferentAnon
And yet a week or so ago “The Daily Politics” chose to read one e-mail, from the many they must receive, which suggested that Bush’n’Blair were doing nothing about Darfur because there was no oil. Why did the BBC want to so mislead its audience, that it used a viewers e-mail to spread misinformation?
“Not that Scotland would be ‘independent’. All the SNP want to do is hand over everything to Brussels because they don’t hate Brussels like they hate England: and they really hate England – and that hatred disgusts me.
Allan@Aberdeen”
i suppose , if England was part of Greater Germany, there would be a English Nationalist Party, with a hatred of all things German.
my point being , is that the lesson of history tells us that generally, multi-national nations dont work.
could somebody from Scotland explain this to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm
the hebrides constituency in the far north west was an SNP gain from Labour.
but Stornoway is home to a strong Presbyterian community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stornoway#Stornoway.27s_Sabbath
so, is it the case that the Presbyterians in that neck of the woods are Scots nationalists?
just curious, because as an Irishman, i know that Irish Presbyterians are , by and large, Ulster Unionists.
is there such a thing a nationalist Protestant Scot – in other word, the SNP vote isnt necessarily a sectarian one?
Some time in the next few days I will address myself to another big-issue: the mendacious campaign of racist vilification you personally have been waging.
You flatter me John Reith. My comments on this blog are a big issue? And I can’t wait to hear about this alleged campaign. But then, I’m likely to be disappointed. A John Reith promise ain’t worth the keyboard it’s typed on. How about your promise to discuss Alan Little on this blog? Or the many other undertakings you have failed to undertake in response to valid queries raised by people here? You shouldn’t promise and not deliver. It’s negative.
….Each and every time, you and your motley crew have screamed ‘bias’. The BBC, we were told, was asking the wrong questions, probing the wrong issues.
Maybe you’ve got the wrong blog. I don’t recall waxing eloquent on Iraq. In fact, I don’t have a definite opinion on Iraq, other than being appalled by the wanton savagery of the civil war.
But I don’t think you should be quite so triumphant about the recommendations of a group co-led by James Baker. He’s an anti-Israel Arabist, and it’s unsurprising to me that the idea of rapport with Syria and Iran and the linking of peace with the Arab world to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should come from a group he co-led.
The Palestinians are very good propagandists and they have succeeded in fooling people into believing that the resolution of the conflict on their terms is the key to a broader peace. Baker is simply propagating this idea out of his love for the Arab world and his long-standing animosity towards Israel.
Wake up, John Reith. The fact that others buy into the BBC’s bias doesn’t diminish or justify that bias.
Appalling Thought for the Day this morning with that bloke from Iona.
In between talking about the bad capitalism of christmas, managed to talk about a secular society that couldn’t afford to sort out child poverty, but could afford to fund international wars.
(whilst forgetting that Bush and Blair are both Christians).
I’m applying for the Free-market capitalist slot on Thought For the Day…
BBC News 24 just now
Report on funky new education system in Wales where they teach kids maths through play.
Chris Woodhead is interviewed at the end and he says “I am very worried for the kids in Wales”. Parents are interviewed and the two they speak to like the system. Back to the studio.
Presenter says “Seems like not a bad idea at all. Now, the weather”
Pete_London: I’m not scottish, I’m just putting to you the SNP rebuttal to your point which is, on their independence terms, a valid point. On unionist terms it’s the UK companies that have invested in the oil fields etc not Scottish companies. You can go round in circles on this…
Different Anon it appears that I have got under your skin (well your superiors anyway) on how I (as do many other here) expose the BBC for the biased public entity it is.
To that end you’ve just spent a while knocking up a post in which to shout out;
“Hey we (The BBC) do report on the subjects you say we don’t.”
To that end let me point you in the direction of the current BBC “Sudan in Depth” web page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/sudan/default.stm
A montage of different BBC articles which the BBC uses in which to help explain
The situation in Sudan but primarily Darfur to the great unwashed and here is the screen shot of said montage;
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/8209/image1jg8.jpg
Now that is the place where the vast majority of people who visit the BBC website will go to if they wish to delve a little more into the background of Darfur. (Most people don’t know what a search engine is never mind use refined attributes in which to narrow a search)So lets look at the articles on said collection of BBC articles on which it wishes to impart the truth to those who seek it.
Lets start with the lead article;
African force to stay in Darfur
Is Oil mentioned? NO (when I quote ‘Oil’ I refer to my statement this is all about Oil)
Ok lets narrow the search parameters how about this article?
Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur conflict
Is Oil mentioned? NO
Ok lets look at the 8 and 1 video articles under the key stories heading;
Is Oil mentioned? NO
Dying as Darfur awaits peacekeepers
Is Oil mentioned? NO
How the in pictures story?
No, sorry Oil isn’t mentioned there either.
In fact only one article touches on what I stated “That the killing fields of Sudan are all about Oil” and that is this one;
Head-to-head: Darfur situation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6058920.stm
and here is what the BBC has to say on the subject;
“There is no evidence of oil in Darfur Eric Reeves Sudan researcher and analyst”
And
“The effort to suggest that oil interests in Darfur – where there is no present oil production or exploration – are what lie behind Western diplomacy is deeply misleading.”
And this
“In fact, there is no credible evidence that Darfur has significant oil reserves.”
So there you have it folks according to a BBC article written in late Oct this year the problem in Darfur isn’t Oil.
And here is what Reuters came out with 18 months ago;
“Oil discovery adds new twist to Darfur tragedy “
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/111885496661.htm
add the Oil map from Humanrights watch which clearly highlights that China has been given the right to explore for Oil in Southern Darfur. Note the as of date on that Map
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/images/image004.jpg
(and for the non techy folks out there it was last amended “2003:10:23 10:12:01”)
So please somebody explain to me how anybody can defend the BBC as reporting the facts about Sudan,Oil and ethnic cleansing when its main folder on the very subject points in the opposite direction.
Oh Different anon it’s one thing posting articles the BBC writes about any subject, its completely another finding them. The Racist murder of a young Scottish school boy comes to mind, I mean how many people in the UK even knew who Kriss Donald was until those racist thugs got sentenced? But as Mr John Reith likes to point out the BBC posted hundreds of articles on the subject.
Please feel free to reply, as I really do wish to see how you are going to recover from this post.
One thing that annoys me about Biased-BBC is the endless concentration on the middle east. While it is quite obvious from early BBC report which way they swing, they do at least make an effort to show neutrality in follow up reports.
There are, however, masses of areas that the BBC sees no reason to hide its bias. A few months ago I researched where the BBC had obtained its articles on badgers and TB and nearly all came from pressure groups in the South West. That they were pro-badger pressure groups doesn’t need saying.
Another example, the ECJ recently decided to disallow personal shopping by mail. Every formal comment published was from groups or individuals supporting the decision. This was the clearest case of bias by a tax raising organising towards another, HMRC, that have ever seen, not a single dissenting voice was present.
Stop focusing on areas that the BBC know they are being watched on. Look to areas that affect you personally. The lies that push can only be countered by personal experience.
I apologise for the rubbish grammar and spelling, I rushed it.
From the BBC’s news website:
“The original inscription on the top reads: Paolo Apostolo Martyr – Latin for “Paul Apostle Martyr”.”
Don’t you just gasp in awe when you are so educated by the all-knowing ones of White City?
Doesn’t North Sea Oil account for something like 8% of the tax collected by the government? From here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6070866.stm
I’m not sure if I’m getting the right information here, but the government collects £516bn in total. From here: http://budget2006.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html
So does that mean that the government collects £41.28bn from North Sea Oil?
The Times article about Scotland said that the UK sends £20bn a year their way. From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2483490,00.html
So does the remainder of the UK stand to lose £21.28bn a year if Scotland leaves? Well according to international laws on borders, something like 40-60% of North Sea Oil lies in English waters anyway. So going by North Sea Oil alone the remainder of the UK could lose up to £3.5bn or gain up to £4.8bn a year. (This also of means that the Scottish aren’t scrounging as much as some say and maybe not at all.)
Scotland accounts for 8.3% (5m) of the UK population (60m) and from oil alone can take with it 3.2-4.8% of government revenue. So where can they get the extra 3.5-5.1%, plus a little bit more to pay for all the new embassies and government buildings that cost 10x more than planned? Scotland’s GDP is only 4.4% (£78.5bn, ref) of the UK’s £1,782bn (CIA) so I just don’t see where it’s going to come from. Not to mention that without Scotland the rest of the UK would move further rightwards and cut back socialism and probably increase GDP, whereas the way things look Scotland will move in the opposite direction and make things worse for itself.
I would like to add that I’m half Scottish and have lived about a third of my life in Scotland (not all at once). I’m in Scotland right now though. I think independence would be stupid but it might be the only way teach a lot of Scotsmen some hard lessons.
I think the SNP might get in in May, but I doubt a referendum on independence would pass. If the SNP gets in it will be because they got the largest share of the votes in a 4 party system (probably something like 30%). But that’s still up to 70% of people voting against independence. Labour are mostly suffering because of Blair and Iraq, not because of any major domestic issue. If Blair leaves before May then the prospects of a Labour re-election go up massively. Also, the Tories may be 4th or 5th in seats, but they’re still 2nd or 3rd in actual votes and they’re what matters in a referendum.
Today
Sir Richard Doll joins the BBC’s axis of evil. All the right buzzwords to smear him with – American big business, agent orange and Vietnam, cancer, 1500 dollars a day. They even get on a Scandinavian scientist, with whom Doll disagreed with in life, to smear him further.
Fortunately Today got on a former colleague of Doll’s to give a different aspect, and to show that the much of the BBC’s reporting of the issue was innacurate and skewed. Although the BBC would say they gave a balanced view, it was clear which way the BBC report was skewed. More very shoddy reporting from the BBC.
pounce, let’s deal with your misdirection point by point:
“”Hey we (The BBC) do report on the subjects you say we don’t.”
I don’t work for the BBC. Believe it or not, it’s not actually a requirement to find obvious fault in your regular “the sky is down, the ground is up” statements.
You seem to require that all articles on Sudan or Darfur require reference to oil: “Is Oil mentioned? NO”
Your original statement “You won’t find the BBC mentioning any of the above as it involves slating her ideological masters Socialism and Islam” is patently false. As it was when you admonished Reith for not mentioning that Islamists were mainly ex-Warlords. Misdirecting this to a few cherry picked examples of articles on Sudan or Darfur where oil isn’t mentioned among the countless others that clearly do is, as normal, just your normal selection bias.
For an example of your cherry-picking and your telling of half the story:
You point to the article “Head-to-head: Darfur situation” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6058920.stm
And then claim that “the BBC” has said when the “head to head” article makes it very clear that the debate is between “Gamal Nkrumah, the foreign editor of leading Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, and Eric Reeves, professor at Smith College” and not anyone at the BBC.
Nonetheless, in the self same article in which you claim the BBC is ignoring oil in Darfur, one finds that the debate is precisely about that: of the two participants, the one you quote, Eric Reeves, believes there isn’t evidence for oil, the one you’ve misleadingly omitted claims the following:
“The Chinese and TotalFinaElf of France know all too well that the potential for exploiting Darfur’s oil in commercial quantities is tremendous.”
As Reith has pointed out several times already. Scratch a little deeper and who’s really telling half the story and cherrypicking to suit his biases?
“Stop focusing on areas that the BBC know they are being watched on. Look to areas that affect you personally. The lies that push can only be countered by personal experience.
Peregrine | 08.12.06 – 12:55 am | ”
darn good point.
John Humphreys on “Today” berates an official of the State Department about the lack of “special” in the “special relationship” and relies on the statement put out by Kennard Myers. Now it is possible by oh, at least 30 seconds blogging/googling to find out the reality of Mr Myers’ credibility. The “credibility” was snuffed out by EU Referendum within hours of the BBC (and the rest of the MSM) trumpeting the so-called insider view of the special relationship. Although the State Department interviewee this morning noted that Mr Myers, when he had contact with the Department, had absolutely no involvement with Anglo-US affairs, he might as well not have spoken. Humphreys continued to pursue his (and the BBC’s view) that there is no special relationship and that Blair is Bush’s puppet.
Now it might be that Blair is a crap negotiator (his surrender on the EU rebate is a case in point) and he might have failed to obtain from Bush anything in return for the UK’s support for the US position in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the question I ask is would the BBC and Humphreys been so overjoyed if Mr Myers had said that the special relationship is up and well and valued by the US? The question answers itself: of course not, it wouldn’t have seen the light of day, and – if it had – Mr Myers’ credentials for making such a statement would have been (rightly) torn to shreds. BTW, Mr Myers’ day job is with an EU lobby group in Washington: hence EU Referendum’s initial interest: but shouldn’t his background interest us all and shouldn’t the BBC have told us this?
Sorry it is, of course, Kendall Myers
Now it might be that Blair is a crap negotiator (his surrender on the EU rebate is a case in point) and he might have failed to obtain from Bush anything in return for the UK’s support for the US position in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We (the UK) were offered a free trade deal with the US and the timing made it seem like a reward. The isolationist EU blocked it of course.
Now I don’t know how beneficial a free trade deal with the US would be for us. The UK and US are similar enough for there not to be a race to the bottom (if such a thing really exists, I think it probably does) but the UK might have had things like its TV and film industries crushed. It would just have been nice if the UK got to decide for itself.
Right on Umbongo. Humphrys doesn’t really listen any more anyway. And did you hear the scurrilous way Humphreys managed to blame it all on Israel?
The BBC and half a story;
Misbah to stay in Lahore for now
The Scottish schoolgirl at the centre of an international custody battle is to stay in Pakistan until at least the middle of January.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6220112.stm
—————————————XXX—————————————————–
The legal battle for custody of the girl began in August after she left her mother’s home. Misbah’s mother, Louise Campbell, claimed that her daughter had been taken to Pakistan illegally.
I see the BBC is playing half the bloody story again;
1) The Childs name is Molly not Misbah
2) Molly is 12 years of age
3) How the hell can the BBC report that her Mother ‘Claims’ that her daughter was taken illegally when as the legal guardian of her daughter she has to give permission for her child to leave the country. The correct term is abduction
The BBC and half a story.
The above was me, I brushed my keyboard before i had the chance to add the ‘e’ in pounce.
Peregrine,
“Stop focusing on areas that the BBC know they are being watched on. Look to areas that affect you personally.
Unfortunately the BBBC’s gross anti-Israel bias does affect me personally.
Different Anon,
I did a search on Sudan a couple of months back (admittedly using the BBC’s near-useless search engine) and found one line in one article that mentioned China’s oil interest – in the mildest of terms.
It’s possible that the BBC is now starting to modify its reporting on Sudan. I don’t know since I haven’t checked it out lately. But the coverage in the past – with its minimising of the Arab-inspired genocide of Africans and near-total ignoring of China’s role – was an appalling example of bias.
A funeral service for Mr Litvinenko was held at a central London mosque on Thursday.
Finsbury Park by any chance?
Chechen separatist Zakayev[and wanted terrorist in connection with Moscow/Beslan]….had said earlier this week the body would not be taken to the mosque because of concerns about the radiation it contained.
The former spy, a vocal critic of the Kremlin,
I would have thought BBC that it may have been more interesting to learn that he was a former Christian and to investigate why he thinks Putin was behind 9/11 and the London bombings of 7/7. But, then again, his religious conversion should not influence us in the slightest when he hear such accusations from a former spy Now, such accusations from a former Christian do grab my attention! Strange how the subject of conversion is absent!
BBC doing what it does best, avoiding the pertinent questions!
‘Solemn’ burial for murdered spy
A Latin description for an imam officiating? Surely, wrong adjective, I would not say that it was customary
His wife, son and parents attended North London’s Highgate Cemetery, where an imam said an “unscheduled” prayer.
Since when have Moslems been buried at Highgate Cemetery, I know Karl Marx is there, but I was under the
impression that it was full in the late 19th century? Amazing what friends(sic) like billionaire Boris Berezovsky can do for you! Has Boris been ruled out of the murder investigations yet?
I watched Question Time on BBC 1 last night- was disappointed by the deeply ingrained Russophobia, Martin Amis in particular, should know better!
The only difference between the BBC & other news broadcasters is the fact that we must pay for the BBC’s operation.
Sky News is toaday showing a report by its “Africa Correspondent”, Emma Hurd.
She reports from the floods in Somalia. She adopts the finest Orla tones.
She tells us about the UN aid operation, whilst we see film of sacks & boxes stamped “USA” being offloaded to the needy.
She then gives us a list of the cause of the troubles in Somalia, they are in part caused by “American meddling”.
We are not given any informnation about the nature of this meddling. She has decided that the US is part of the problem, we are expected to accept her opinion without evidence.
Umbongo “John Humphreys on “Today” berates an official of the State Department about the lack of “special” in the “special relationship” and relies on the statement put out by Kennard Myers.
The excellent Gerard Baker put the boot into Kendal Myers’ relevence
For starters, it is impossible to read too little into the words of Mr Myers. He is a genial part-time academic who works for the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a widely forgotten and largely ignored part of the vast US foreign policy bureaucracy where the only noise is the occasional sound of axes being ground on the anvils of employees’ resentments.
It is probable that, among serious policymakers in the foreign policy establishment, Kendall Myers is about as familiar as Kendal Mint Cake, and slightly less central to policy discussions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2490888,00.html
john | 08.12.06 – 12:12 pm
John – if you actually bothered to read the story you linked to then maybe your mind wouldn’t be so full of unanswered questions.
“Mr Litvinenko’s coffin, a dark-stained Jacobean oak Garratt casket, was supposed to be laid to rest in a strictly non-denominational ceremony.
But after Mr Litvinenko’s father Walter had spoken at his graveside – watched by Mr Litvinenko ‘s wife Marina and the couple’s son Anatoly – an Islamic associate of his Chechen friend Ahmed Zakayev interrupted and performed a Muslim prayer. ….
lex Goldfarb, one of the former spy’s closest friends, described it as an “unfortunate distraction”.
He said: “It was supposed to be a non-religious, non-denominational ceremony according to the wishes of the widow.”
The solemn bit came later:
“Mr Litvinenko’s father had said earlier this week that his son had requested before his death to be buried according to Muslim tradition.
But his closest friends said they had “strong reservations” about the suggestion.
After the burial service, a “solemn and dignified” memorial service was held in a private function room in Lauderdale House on the other side of Waterlow Park. ”
The Mosque bit was elsewhere at another time:
“Earlier, mourners, including Mr Litvinenko’s father had joined Muslims for midday prayers at the Central London mosque in Regent’s Park, where a funeral reading was given.”
All clear now?
The poor bloke was not a Muslim, but suddenly asked on his deathbed to have a Muslim funeral. Most of his friends and family – thinking that this was so out of character that it must have been a side effect of the Polonium – decided not to bother.
But the Chechen contingent went ahead anyway.
Seems straightforward enough.
Different Anon thank you for once again playing the character assassination card in which to try and discredit me and my stance of a very biased BBC.
(Why do you keep on trying to rehabilitate Mr John Reith in your posts?)
But back to the subject in question. “Is the BBC deliberately ignoring the main reason over the genocide in Sudan and instead reinventing it as a bitch fight over who controls the string purses over regional development albeit with Helicopter gunships, artillery and mass killings”
You wrote;
“And then claim that “the BBC” has said when the “head to head” article makes it very clear that the debate is between “Gamal Nkrumah, the foreign editor of leading Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, and Eric Reeves, professor at Smith College” and not anyone at the BBC.”
If the debate is theirs alone, could you please explain why the BBC article includes this at the start of the topic;
“We also want to know what you think, so please use the form at the end of the page to join the debate.”
Now back to the Oil question you accuse me of promoting half a story yet I make it very clear that the thirst for Hydrocarbons is the prime motivator for the biggest genocide this world is currently seeing and yet the BBC feels fit to push the image that there is no Oil in Darfur. Therefore saying that the reasons for over 200,000 death and the displacement of 2 million people+ is not Oil. In fact to substantiate that stance they drag out of the middle of no-where an expert on Sudan to say just that.
Now you can defend the BBC all you want. That is your right. But to take this board personally to heart and go out of your way in which to attack posters for highlighting the Bias the BBC has for people who don’t support their political bent tells me you need to get out more. (Or get a better Job)
On another note. I have just bought a new MP3 player. (and no it isn’t a fruity one)
John Reith
All clear now?
The poor bloke was not a Muslim, but suddenly asked on his deathbed to have a Muslim funeral.
Litvinenko’s father Valter….said recently his son had converted to Islam only days before he died.
Dailyrecord.co.uk
Strange how you avoid the subject of his conversion. So that means, given that he had British citizenship, he was a British Moslem when he died!
Why do you want to say “he was not a Moslem?”
Strange too how with what is going on in Iraq daily, and all the sectarian killing of Moslems, that
nobody asks what sort of Moslem (Shia or Sunni?) It appears that it makes about as much difference as the fact that nobody asks what he was a few days before he died(Russian orthodox?)
On last nights Question Time, I was annoyed at the tones of indignation expressed for the fact that Russia would not extradite any suspects in the Litvinenko poisoning case “to face trial” in Britain.
Hold on, Britain is refusing the extradition of suspects to Russia by granting them British citizenship. Litvinenko himself was a wanted man! To grant Citizenship to people with criminal records is very dodgy- but then again dodgy things happen all the time with the granting of British passports! Just look at how the Chechen separatist Zakayev, was feted by Trotskyite Luvvies like Vanessa Redgrave.
Why is it that there is no BBC indignation for refusing to hand over people like that wanted by Russia in connection with the Beslan massacre or the Moscow Theatre siege? It’s as if these never happened and the people basking in exile here are whiter than white.
How can a BBC panel and an audience be so biased? Well, they make sure that nobody in the audience will raise such questions at Question Time: Silly Question. BBC doing what it does best.
From the very beginning of this coverage the BBC has been eating out of the hands of Lord Bell and Berezovsky as well as hysterical Russophobia. Don’t you know Putin is worse than Hitler?
JR
postcript there were a number of posts here when he first died reporting the fact of his conversion and the reaction in the Chechen media.
The fact that it wasn’t reported in the BBC until his funeral yesterday, and in such a way that it all appears “confusing” says quite a lot really. I think people here in Biased BBC were anticipating it. The reporting on last nights news avoided his conversion. But Highgate cemetery!! Highgate cemetery!!! Isn’t this news in itself and for itself? When was the last time we had burials in Highgate cemetery?
Unfortunately the BBBC’s gross anti-Israel bias does affect me personally.
(Myself 12:03 pm)
Put an extra ‘B’ in there by mistake.
John
From the very beginning of this coverage the BBC has been eating out of the hands of Lord Bell and Berezovsky
Who invited the BBC production team along to film the private ceremony?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
*****************************
Akhmed Zakayev, the former commander of Chechen fighters who lived next door to Mr Litvinenko and considered him “as a brother”[32], said: “He was read to from the Koran the day before he died and had told his wife and family that he wanted to be buried in accordance with Muslim tradition.
*****************************
pounce
It’s not character assassination and it’s not even necessarily about defending the BBC.
You accused the BBC of doing something for ideological reasons they weren’t doing. At least have the intellectual honesty to appreciate that if you are going to accuse someone or something of factual errors as a prelude for accusing them of bias then your own accusation needs to be factually correct.
Your persistent gripe is that the BBC glosses over or omits facts in a bid to promote an ideological agenda – the half story And yet your own attempts to show this are as, if not more, flawed than what you complain about.
Oh, come on, DifferentAnon | 08.12.06 – 1:52 pm
Want to find out what’s really going on in Darfur?
The long-standing civil war in Sudan is often represented as a conflict between the Arab and Muslim North and the African and Christian South. While there is some truth in this dichotomy, it fails to account for the social and cultural complexity of either the North or the South. The NIF government is an Islamist regime and part of its explicit and stated policy is the full islamization of Sudan. The NIF uses the term “jihad” to describe its war against the Southern Sudanese rebels who are referred to as “infidels.” Yet in Western Sudan, where all the people are Muslims, it has become apparent that the discourse of Islamization is a code word for something else. Behind the banner of Islamization in Northern Sudan is a deeply racist policy of Arabization and it is a part of the logic of this policy that the non-Arab ethnic groups of Western Sudan have come under attack. Despite their deep roots in Islam, and their traditional loyalty to the Umma Party, the NIF regime considers non-Arabs to be potential fifth-columnists in the civil war because of their “African” identity and cultural heritage. Consequently, the NIF regime has sought to destroy the traditional bases of authority in these communities and change the ethnic composition of Western Sudan to preempt this imagined danger.
There’s quite a lot more:
http://www.usafricaonline.com/sudanusafrica.html
Have a peek at the truth. You wont get it from the BBC, that’s for sure.
Fox news is far superior to the BBC on its reporting of
Litvinenko’s conversion. The BBC tip-toes around in a politically correct straight-jacket, BBC journalists continually write as if somebody is standing behind them weary of a rap on the knuckles if they say something contentious, or slightly out-of-place!
Why are we complaining? Because we are forced to pay for the BBC under penalty of imprisonment! Even if we prefer to gather our news from elsewhere in, what is ostensibly, a free market! BBC News reporting is second-rate. In the 21st century we demand the abolition of the enforced BBC licence fee with its threats of imprisonment for those who don’t pay! We wish to be liberated from this 21st century form of slavery!
CHECHNYA’S GHOSTS LOOM LARGE IN DEATH OF FORMER SPY
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235140,00.html
“On his deathbed, he asked to be buried when the war is over in Chechen soil,” Vladimir Bukovsky said after a memorial service at a London mosque. ”
“For Litvinenko, his conversion meant that he associated his struggle for justice with the struggle of the Islamic communities worldwide and in Russia in particular,” said Geidar Dzhemal, the head of Islamic Committee of Russia, the leading Islamic advocacy group in Russia.
“Litvinenko must have felt that he shared responsibility for the actions toward Muslims in Russia over the past decade, and he apparently was seeking atonement for the feeling of guilt he had.”
The BBC tip-toes around in a politically correct straight-jacket, BBC journalists continually write as if somebody is standing behind them weary of a rap on the knuckles if they say something contentious, or slightly out-of-place!
John, your “weary” should be “wary”.
Yours was such a perceptive and accurate description of the BBC that I felt compelled to tweak that one word.
Sorry about the nit-picking!