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.
Islamisation of the UK, continued:-
“UK: primary school students issued
headscarf, prayer mats, prayer cap
poster of Muslim prophets,compass to find direction of Mecca.” (Title of report, source below.)
“According to Daily Express, the teaching resource, provided by the Muslim Council of Britain, is intended to provide children aged between seven and 11 with information
about true Islamic beliefs.”
http://www.dawn.com (10 Dec.).
LESSON 1 in Religious Education:
reject the MCB’s lie that Islam is the religion of peace; it is the religion of JIHAD.
LESSON 2 in Religious Education:
reject al Beeb’s reporting on this;
it is sheer dhimmitude.
LESSON 3 in Religious Education:
look for the critical truth about Islam at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ (10 Dec.).
Reithy said;
“Why is it that the cognitively-challenged element on this blog can’t get their heads around the fact that ‘bias’ is the noun and ‘biased’ the adjective?”
I’m well aware of the difference thanks. It was a typo caused by the speech-recognition software I use – a ‘speecho’ if you prefer. The software helps keep the RSI at bay, but needs checking – this one slipped thru. I typed it as ‘buyers’ recently – haha.
Anything to say about the interviews I mentioned? Or are you taking refuge in pointing out typos – usually done by people who have no argument.
Bodo
Sorry, Bodo. Yours was indeed a one-off.
Not so with certain others.
Bodo:
Don’t worry, it’s a tried and tested reithian method: find ANYTHING to avoid confronting the germane points in hand (spelling, typos, ‘lone parent’ hair-splitting etc etc). The rule of thumb with JR is that if he doesn’t comment or reply, one can take it as a tacit admission that he accepts the critique!
Bodo
….sorry…again….but I didn’t catch the Peter A ints…..
My guesses • based on previous form – are:
1. The boy Miliband gabbled his way through the impenetrable jargon points written for him by his press office so fast that the interviewer didn’t get a look-in in the time available • which on 5 Live is never long.
2. The boy Cameron was well up for a ruckus • ‘cos he still needs to prove to his own ‘core’ that he can mix it with the hard men. He did it with Paxo. He did it with Humphrys. Rather well, I thought.
John Reith | 12.12.06 – 2:13 pm
Once more you come across as reasonable. A number of times previously I have been inclined to believe that you were genuinely sincere rather than posturing, tactically, only for you to dash my mellowing towards you by your subsequent gross disingenuousness. These contradictory traits lead me to suspect that perhaps there are indeed more than one person using your moniker, as has been suggested by others. Regardless I don’t press the point. I guess it’s possible for you to blow hot and cold like most of us are so capable.
However, you’re quite wrong to ridicule my research into The Guardian’s take-over of The Observer, which, I submit, was exhaustive and exact. I am careful not to allege anything that isn’t borne out by the stark facts.
I do not allege that the entire Guardian staff or even many staff conspired to defame The Observer’s journalists, editor, and their proprietor Tiny Rowland. I do indeed state that the evidence shows that there was such a secret campaign and that a few key people were party to it.
Those I name are The Guardian’s then Editor Peter Preston; The Observer’s David Leigh (now of course of The Guardian); and the then Labour MP Dale (now Lord) Campbell-Savours. Though I have no evidence to prove it, I do not believe that The Guardian’s columnist and Chairman Hugo Young would have been unaware of what was going on or that he did not sanction it. There is no reason to believe that anyone else was involved, though they might have been aware or suspected.
The facts speak for themselves John. If you haven’t digested carefully the entire two documents that make up Section Eight of my website that deals with this issue then do so. If you have already but didn’t get it, then do so again. Slowly
Given his longstanding record of collusion with David Leigh, the very notion that The Guardian’s editorial line and Dale Campbell-Savour’s and David Leigh’s provably invalid campaign denigrating proprietor Tiny Rowland, Editor Donald Trelford, Political Editor Adam Raphael, and City Desk staff Melvyn Marckus, Lorana Sullivan, and Michael Gillard, was somehow wholly unconnected with Preston’s previous frustrated attempts to purchase The Observer from Rowland, would be taking naiveté to new heights.
The conclusion that there was such a secret campaign instigated to bring about The Guardian’s acquisition of The Observer is a reasonable and logical conclusion and the product of hundreds of hours of research. Regardless, even if this conclusion is set aside, what is undeniable is that the stark indisputable facts show that the attacks on The Observer by Leigh, Campbell-Savours, The Guardian, and other journalists taken in by their activities is unwarranted and a perversion of the true facts.
The fact that The Guardian might have, on the surface, run an editorial championing The Independent’s attempt to buy The Observer in 1993 means nothing when seen in the light that it was the prime candidate itself. It would not be the first time that Preston has run an editorial to mask his behaviour behind the scenes.
(To those who are interested in what JR and I are discussing visit:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%208/indexa.html
– and download the two Rich Text Format documents.)
As for your comment that I allege the BBC to be anti-Hamilton, of course, I do not suggest that the entire BBC is against the man • just the vast majority of BBC News and Current Affairs personnel. It’s one thing to employ him and his wife on game shows or to throw custard pies at or drop mackerel on etc. If I was a BBC commissioning editor and I wanted the man to move on and forget the CFQ affair it’s exactly what I would do. (They both love to see their faces on the TV after all.) But it’s quite another suppressing hard facts about the political controversy that put him and scores of other Tory MPs in otherwise safe seats out of politics. In this the BBC has a solemn legal duty to examine all the facts relating thereto. But the BBC hasn’t and the BBC steadfastly refuses so to do.
Should the day arrive when I see the BBC inviting Neil Hamilton on the panel of Question Time or Any Questions, as it does with George Galloway and anyone to the left of Castro, or when the BBC eventually airs the evidence my colleague and I unearthed supporting the man’s claims of innocence and exposing his accusers as liars and forgers, I’ll then consider changing my views.
Until that happy day arrives, the creation of this blog remains entirely validated.
J Boyd hunt
How do you square your claim that Tiny Rowland was a hands-off proprietor who never dictated the leader line with the surprise midweek edition of the Obs scooping the DTI Report?
Nom de guerre | 12.12.06 – 2:27 pm
There’s a BIG difference between being objective and being impartial.
BBC correspondents are required to be impartial.
> BBC correspondents are required to be impartial.
Well they fail that requirement spectacularly every single day.
newsflash: the police have found two more bodies in Ipswich. it was the two that were missing.
jr
‘There’s a BIG difference between being objective and being impartial.
BBC correspondents are required to be impartial.’
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a member of this jr.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
I agree the trouble with the BBC is that it’s too usefull to whomever is in power to be done away with.But the De-branding of the Conservatives together with the falsehood of the accusations against Hamilton (which I was unaware of until reading JBH here)make it clear that the BBC (and therefore the rest of the media which it drives)are too controlled by the Left (as they’ve most likely got away with it,human nature dictates that they’ll see how far they can push their IMO criminality rather than repenting).Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s case, being the only properly documented one,make him the only game in town.So he has my full support.
TPO
Actually I’m not.
But at least your suggestion is a refreshing change from this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
It was meant as tongue in cheek!!
Now that JR has pointed out that contributors occasionally make typographical and grammatical errors, let those same contributors now point out the atrocious gaffes made by his £multi-billion organisation every day and ask him to ensure that those ‘journalists’ responsible have them corrected – no cheating, no false date stamps etc.
I must state that I find the quality of argument put by those same people maligned by JR to be higher than that of the bog-standard BBC ‘reporter’, and they are bog-standard. If JR doubts this, then let him highlight any use of “experts say” or “it is said” or “some say” or any other unattributed statement made on this blog by the stalwarts.
I’ve heard that at certain times of the year anything up to 100 of these people gather and are suckled by a transported-by-delight Polly Toynbee.While the rest of us have our powers of critical thinking dulled by Natasha Kaplinsky.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6171503.stm
Most even-handed.
OpEd | 12.12.06 – 5:00 pm:
You make a valid point, which is dealt with comprehensively in context in the document entitled “A Dastardly Campaign” in Section Eight of my website.
But for the sake of those reading this who might be pressed for time, imagine that you were, say, a painstaking financial investigative journalist of integrity and professionalism, such as The Observer’s Lorana Sullivan.
Imagine that you had access to information showing that Fayed had acquired several powers of attorney to act on behalf of the then richest man in the world, the Sultan of Brunei, prior to his purchase of House of Fraser, the then parent of Harrods.
Imagine that your own efforts helped untangle a Byzantine array of massive transfers of cash from the Sultan’s accounts to Fayed’s, prior to the man’s purchase of House of Fraser, showing where Fayed had got his cash for the deal.
Then imagine that the Tory press was sticking to the line that the Sultan had nothing to do with it and that basically Fayed was a jolly good chap, while the liberal newspapers which ought to have been supporting you were instead cowered by Fayed’s libel writs.
Imagine you’d broken your balls to discover the amazing truth: that Fayed had acquired the world’s most prestigious store with the thick end of $1 billion that he’d filched from the bank accounts of the world’s richest man; and, what’s more, the Tory government had voted the deal through in record time despite being presented with evidence of Fayed’s illicit activities.
Imagine how you would feel, if you were the editor of that newspaper, Donald Trelford, or the City Desk Editor Melvyn Marckus. What would you do if your proprietor Tiny Rowland turned up in March 1989 with an illicitly-acquired copy of the eight month old still unpublished DTI Inspectors’ report, which happened to vindicate your journalists’ research completely and blew wide open one of the financial scandals of all time? A report that happened to be deeply embarrassing to Margaret Thatcher’s government too?
What would you do if you were an honourable and proud journalist? Quite. You’d want the story that you and your colleagues had strived to unearth out into the open where it belonged, not locked away in a government cupboard never to see the light of day.
Read the lies that Fayed had duped the British press into printing prior to his purchase of Harrods here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%206/page2.html
Read the story of the events that led to the publication of the famous March 89 Observer midweek special edition and the actual DTI report that it forced to be published the following year here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%206/page3.html
Read extracts from the Inspectors’ sensational and damning report of March 1990, cataloguing Fayed’s lies and vengefulness here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%206/page6.html
Read the ten articles that The Guardian published upon the DTI report’s release, not a single one, repeat, not a single one of which credited The Observer’s financial staff for their painstaking work here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%206/page13.html
Lorana Sullivan, whom I came to know as a decent person and a fine journalist, went to her grave, not famed for her life’s best work, but defamed, thanks to The Guardian’s conspiratorial then editor Peter Preston.
Read Lorana’s obituary in The Times here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%201/page11.html
Read the first page of the index of Lorana’s and her colleagues’ articles that led to the Inspectors’ Report being commissioned here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Pre-DTI%20press/index.html
Now then OpEd, did that answer your question?
Mr John Reith wrote;
First there was Gary Powell getting it consistently wrong. Then Pounce donned the dunce’s cap.
Must you always take to abuse when its that time of the month? You know for somebody who bitched about people throwing abuse you don’t do so bad yourself.
If you can’t take the flack on this board then turn the bloody computer off. Throwing abuse over the internet doesn’t make you hard. It makes you look the prat you allege others are.
[remainder deleted]
Edited By Siteowner
Schoolboy-Error | 12.12.06 – 5:47 pm
Obviously I’m heartened and thankful to you for your recognition of the usefulness of my work as a case study of BBC bias. Trust me, you’re not wrong.
John Reith | 12.12.06 – 5:06 pm
“There’s a BIG difference between being objective and being impartial.
BBC correspondents are required to be impartial.”
Let’s focus on what Jeremy Bowen said rather than dwell on semantics.
Bowen, who is a contributor to the BBC’s new College of Journalism, is honest enough to say that objectivity is beyond him. “We all come from somewhere; we all have a prism through which we see the world; we all have an education, and views and experiences. It’s a false objective to be objective.
Are you saying that the BBC staff are not required to be objective in their output? Isn’t their journalism expected to be based on real facts? (Actually sounds like the BBC we know all too well!) How can reports influenced by personal beliefs and feelings claim to be unbiased and impartial?
“Top Panorama reporter quits over dumbing down”
John Ware’s previous documentary about Palestinian charity Interpal was a fine piece of investigative journalism.
Mr Ware’s resignation will be a huge blow for BBC but a probable gain for some other broadcaster.
Pete London: “It must be because the Palestinians had their own homeland before the Jews chased thenm out.”
I could be wrong but the Neturei Karta could belong to the small circle of ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe we should wait for the Messiah before establishing a state.
.
Presently enduring the BBC Royal Variety Performance
sorry to but in – but is anyone else having problems with the 18 doughty street video feed?
its the same problem as last night – i just get a “connecting” and then no video or audio. tried it on internet explorer on xp and on linux. no problems previously.
http://www.18doughtystreet.com
several others have reported it on iain dales blog (so its not just me and my technical setup)
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6214838&postID=116586537791660685
“I could be wrong but the Neturei Karta could belong to the small circle of ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe we should wait for the Messiah before establishing a state.
Roxana | 12.12.06 – 9:06 pm |”
you’re right.
they also come from the same Judaic philosophy that believes that the holocaust was punishment from God for Jews who weren’t Jewish enough.
thankfully, the vast majority of Jews told them to f**k off and went ahead with the creation of Israel.
if my historical memory is correct a lot of Neuterei Karta – or rather that srain of Judaism – were Kapos in the concentration camps. Why resist when this is all “Gods will”?
in other words – deluded tossers.
A few months back Frances Harrison, the BBC’s Teheran reporter, drew the unwelcome attention of this blog when she reported that she had been confronted by a suspicious group of Iranians whose hostility melted away when she mentioned her religion. (Islam, obviously, though she didn’t name it for her listeners.) I thought at the time, and up until today, that she would be the latest in a long line of BBC reporters to bring us a sanitised, prettied-up view of the Muslim world.
But lo and behold, the girl is showing some grit. She had rather strong words for the Iranian regime over its Holocaust conference, pointing out that, “Many Iranians must be wondering why they have the freedom to deny the Holocaust with impunity but not to question their own leaders without risking jail.” She also said that the people who arrived for the conference “looked like a roll call of the world’s most infamous Holocaust deniers, white supremacists and Israel-bashers.” And she spoke about journalists being jailed in Iran.
Now it looks that I’m going to have to admit that I was wrong about Frances Harrison. We know that there is a lot of resentment and anger in Iran, particularly among the young, university-educated crowd, about the way their country is being led by the current crew of sociopaths and it could be that Frances Harrison is simply reflecting this state of affairs. Still, it takes guts, even though as a BBC-ite she’s probably safer than the average Iranian journalist. And it’s a welcome change from the timid, subservient reporting we’ve had from the BBC for ages on Iran.
Don’t worry, it’s a tried and tested reithian method: find ANYTHING to avoid confronting the germane points in hand (spelling, typos, ‘lone parent’ hair-splitting etc etc). The rule of thumb with JR is that if he doesn’t comment or reply, one can take it as a tacit admission that he accepts the critique!
Bob | 12.12.06 – 3:42 pm
Exactly
Now that JR has pointed out that contributors occasionally make typographical and grammatical errors, let those same contributors now point out the atrocious gaffes made by his £multi-billion organisation every day …I must state that I find the quality of argument put by those same people maligned by JR to be higher than that of the bog-standard BBC ‘reporter’, and they are bog-standard.
Allan@Aberdeen | 12.12.06 – 6:21 pm
Again, exactly.
John Reith is on really shaky ground when he complains about the standard of English on this blog.
Unlike the BBC, we ain’t gettin’ paid wagon loads of taxpayer’s money for our poor English.
The BBC’s once-excellent standard of English is dropping as I type this.
Bryan | 12.12.06 – 10:24 pm
You remark on Tehran-based BBC reporter Frances Harrison:
“But lo and behold, the girl is showing some grit. She had rather strong words for the Iranian regime over its Holocaust conference, pointing out that, “Many Iranians must be wondering why they have the freedom to deny the Holocaust with impunity but not to question their own leaders without risking jail.” ”
There’s more. On tonight’s BBC 1 10.00 News and again on Newsnight, there was a hefty report by Mark Easton on the high cost of interpretation services and the damaging impact on society of foreigners who failed to learn English.
JUST WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?? Could the BBC be finally coming to its senses and be starting to break free from the groupthink?
There may well be a differene between objectivity and impartiality, however that doesn’t prove bugger all. You simply can’t be impartial without a certain amount of objectivity, whereas you can be objective without being impartial.
I can impartially state that gravity pulls an apple to the ground. That’s the objective truth. I can impartially state that some people don’t believe this. This is still impartial and objective. I can remain objective by stating that they are wrong in their assumption. I am no longer impartial, but that makes me no less correct, because I am stating objective truths.
Impartiality requires objectivity in order to create a foundaton for impartial assessment. The BBC does not practice objectivity, therefore it cannot, by its actions, be impartial.
Incidentally, on the subject of spelling, I am dyslexic. It espresses more in the recognisance of large numbers than anything else (though I was very good at maths when I was at school) but it can trip me up very occasionally in spelling – although I suspect this is more a function of my typing style than anything else these days… my point is, bad spelling, by itself, is not proof of anything other than that person can’t spell, or has some difficulty spelling correctly. Bad spelling by individual members of this site proves nothing, except that they are perhaps overenthusiastic typers, dyslexic or just bad spellers. Bad spelling in an organisation that really should be able to afford a few proofreaders does prove something. It proves that its employees are either lazy or stupid. I was hazard that it’s the former rather than the latter, but you never know… when each member of this site is able to afford a proofreader, then BBC employees can criticise their bad spelling.
As they say, people in glass houses and all.
I’ve just seen Starkey’s Last Word on More 4. He was discussing whether there was a ‘pinko’ bias at the BBC.
He certainly thought so.
He had Kelvin MacKensie, Marina Hyde and Greg Dyke on with him, and the accusation was made (by MacKensie) that the BBC news room was full of commies who read the Guardian. Nick Robinson was championed as a (lone) Tory, which was presumably meant to counter the pinko claim.
Greg Dyke said that he brought in a financial editor who was very right wing in order to counter the (then) current left wing financial team.
The debate was very quick (it was on More 4, after all!), and seemed to end with the claim that the BBC was actually pretty middle of the road. Starkey’s finishing quip was good – he said that we all know what happens to people who stand in the middle of the road 🙂
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 12.12.06 – 11:09 pm
Well, we’ll keep track of them. And we’ll continue to give them credit where it’s due. Unlike John Reith, who has never given any credit to anyone on this blog for uncovering the BBC’s gross bias on a daily basis.
Archonix,
Impartiality requires objectivity in order to create a foundaton for impartial assessment. The BBC does not practice objectivity, therefore it cannot, by its actions, be impartial.
Too true.
Starkey’s finishing quip was good – he said that we all know what happens to people who stand in the middle of the road
Jonathan Miller
Interesting. I wonder what will happen to people like BBC staff who insist that there is a middle ground between Islamic terrorists and their victims.
It’s unlikely that the Islamic crocodile will eat them last. It’s getting far too hungry to discriminate.
Seeing as being in the mddle puts them closer to it they may well be eten first.
I think that’s irony.
In ref to Biodegradable 09:25:
Christians, and all other non-muslims, are not allowed under any circumstances to enter Makkah (Mecca) in Saudi Arabia, or even the region around the city. Any non-muslim attempting to enter the city or region can be arrested and imprisoned, and then harshly dealt with under Sharia law… a very, very outdated and primitive system of justice.
In addition, the Saudi authorities prohibit the practice of any other religion other that Islam – no preaching, no prosletizing, no religious materials (like Bibles) allowed to enter or be brought into the country, no Christain service, – bloody hell, not even Christmas is recognized in Saudi Arabia.
So, my question is: why the hell does England allow all these bloody mosques to be built around the country, and also why does England protect the Muslim community so much so that real English communities are in danger of disppearing?
I say, if the bloody Muslims can’t integrate into a predominantly Christain society, then they should not be molly-coddled and protected and pampered, they should all be shoved on to a large cargo ship and be hauled back to Saudi Arabia or from where ever they came. It’s time to stop treating Muslims with kid gloves… enough is enough.
My one pence worth.
George of the Jungle | 15.12.06 – 7:05 am
Furthermore, TPO mentions on another thread mentions the fact that infidels cannot use the road that goes to Mecca, they are obliged to use another route adding 70 miles to their journey:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321724
My Dutch friend, now sadly dead, and I were working on an Italian run contract in the back end of Saudi (and yes we weren’t allowed through Mecca, we had to use the 70 mile detour road built for infidels)…
Now doesn’t Jimmy Carter say in his latest book accusing Israel of ‘apartheid’ that there are roads close to settlements that “Palestinians” aren’t allowed to use?
The difference is the Saudis ban infidels from use of a road, and exclude them from a city, on the basis of them being infidels while the Israelis ban “Palestinians” from using certain roads on the basis of them being potential terrorists.
Ooops sorry about the multiple mentions 😉
Sorry, George, it’s unclear – do you think what the Saudis are doing in terms of hindering religious freedom is a good thing, and we should replicate it? Or do you think it is a bad thing and we should replicate it?
DifferentAnon:
It’s perfectly clear what George thinks, read his last paragraph. You’re just trolling.
As usual.
“It’s perfectly clear what George thinks, read his last paragraph. You’re just trolling.”
Not at all. The first part, in which George rails against the discrimination against Christians reads like a criticism.
The second bit, including the last paragraph, makes it clear George wants to do the same and send muslims home in a cargo ship.
People don’t normally recommend a course of action they’ve just criticised, hence the question.
@ DifferentAnon, re: George of the Jungle | 15.12.06 – 7:05 am
Your homework project for the weekend – research the meaning of the following:
sarcasm
cynicism
rhetoric
James Wankie on Today programme yesterday was an absolute shocker. It was a very hostile interview with Al Fayed with Wankie giving very short shrift to his conspiracy theories – fair enough you may say – but the tone was brutal.
‘You’re the one with the agenda, Mr Al Fayed’
And when Al Fayed accused Dominic Lawson of being on the MI6 payroll Wankie actually snorted.
Wankie may well snort, but Mrs Dominic Lawson’s name appeared a couple of years ago on a list of of ‘outed’ MI6 agents, so who knows?
Not Wankie that’s for sure.
Bio – those are awfully long words. Can’t you get one of the resident scholars to explain them?
Are you saying George was using rhetoric to be sarcastic in a cynical sort of way while cunningly dressing up his comments as something you’d find from a D-grade student at BNP Sunday school?
Or was “you’re just trolling” some new form of sarcasm uncommonly seen on these comment boards?
Yours confusedly,
DifferentAnon
DifferentAnon – stay confused, it suits you.