Pounce comments on one of today’s front page stories at the BBC:
Skin bleaching cream couple fined
A couple believed to have earned £1m selling toxic skin lightening creams were ordered by a court to pay nearly £100,000 in fines and costs. Yinka and Michael Oluyemi sold banned bleaching concoctions from their two cosmetics shops in south-east London.
[snip]
The church-going couple, who lived in a £725,000 house in Sydenham, have three children, including one who is studying law.
Pounce writes:
Ok help me here. Why is the fact that these people go to church (thus pointing out they are Christians) in the story?
Pounce goes on to say that there are numerous BBC stories that pointedly don’t inform you of the faith of non-Christian criminals or alleged criminals, even where it is much more relevant than that of the Oluyemis. One such, the plumber charged with terrorism offenses, Kazi Nurur Rahman, whose mastery of the mysteries of the U-bend is always considered worthy of mention when other more relevant aspects of his life are not, has become an in-joke here. When I went looking for a comparative story to illustrate Pounce’s point I knew my search would not take long. In the event it took about ten seconds. Also on the England front page this morning was a story concerning the murder of his wife and four daughters by Mohammed Riaz. This crime took place in Accrington last November.
A search for “Accrington” and “Riaz” on the BBC news website got fifteen relevant results (the one at the bottom of page 2 refers to someone else). Only one of these fifteen, this one, mentions that Mr Riaz was a man who “did not socialise much, other than at his local mosque.”
Note that I am not saying that the murder of his family necessarily had anything to do with Mr Riaz’s religion. The possibility of a so-called “honour killing” was raised widely in the press and explicitly not discounted by the police, but eventual investigations pointed to the most likely prime motive being something to do with the breakdown of the Riaz marriage. We’ll never know. However the likelihood of religion being a factor was higher than for the vastly lesser crime of Mr and Mrs Oluyemi.
BBC’s biggest bias of them all – despise/hate/ridicule all things Christian at every opportunity, but join in the love in for Islam at all times…
and the mosque bit was of course only incidental to commenting on his (non)socializing…anyone here ever heard/read the phrase ‘mosque-going’ or ‘mosque-attending’ on anything bbc, other than islamic love-ins?
it’s just so pathetic: muslims can declare themselves muslem and declare their commission of atrocities in the name of their religion, but the bbc refuses to link any such acts with the religion. THEY have decided that anyone so doing is de facto not a ‘true’ moslem, (who else commonly mouths that?) but who are the bbc to decide who is and isn’t a ‘true’ muslim?
beeb, may i suggest a phrase or two?
when islamists commit terror (acts of insurgency?) in the name of their religion, often with the blessing of imams, why not refer to them as “so-called moslems” or “self-styled moslems”?
or is even that too daring?
Or even Literal Koranists.
Natalie
This is an interesting one because I can imagine that if you were black you could come up with a bias allegation along the following lines:
The inclusion of the fact these people were church-going together with the extraneous details that they lived in a £750,000 house and had a son studying law shows the BBC’s bias against blacks. The subtext clearly is: ‘You can’t trust black people • even if they have a respectable, middle-class lifestyle, they’re still criminals…….’
I haven’t looked into it, but I bet the truth is more prosaic and has nothing to do with bias of any kind.
Once again this piece shows no sign of having been written by a BBC staffer and every sign of being an agency court report.
I’d put a fiver on the fact that the Oluyemis’ lawyer made an eloquent plea in mitigation before sentencing along these lines:
‘these people have spent years building up a business, they’ve provided a home for their children who are doing well at school and university, they are church-going folk, pillars of the local community…… a custodial sentence will bring all this crashing down……the disgrace of conviction is sufficient punishment…..blah blah…..”
When people get off lightly (as in this case • with a fine) the court reporters generally slip in a taster of the mitigation plea….otherwise readers are left scratching their heads asking ‘If the judge thought them ‘hard nosed’, why just a fine? Why didn’t he give them three years?’
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 3:44 pm
This is an interesting one because I can imagine that if you were black you could come up with a bias allegation along the following lines:
The inclusion of the fact these people were church-going together with the extraneous details that they lived in a £750,000 house and had a son studying law shows the BBC’s bias against blacks. The subtext clearly is: ‘You can’t trust black people • even if they have a respectable, middle-class lifestyle, they’re still criminals…….’
What has being black got to do with whether or not one could come to the conclusions in your second paragraph?
You’re a racist.
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 3:44 pm
Once again this piece shows no sign of having been written by a BBC staffer and every sign of being an agency court report.
But who has editorial responsibility for the content of beeb website pages?
John Reith, you and your excuses are getting increasingly more pathetic.
None of these reports mentions anything about going to church:
http://www.legal-medical.co.uk/news/10323.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/04/europe/EU_GEN_Britain_Skin_Lightening.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2532431,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6321529,00.html
http://www.adfero.co.uk/news/news/crime/couple-sentenced-over-illegal-skin-cream-$462482.htm
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 3:44 pm
I’d put a fiver on the fact that the Oluyemis’ lawyer made an eloquent plea in mitigation before sentencing along these lines:
‘these people have spent years building up a business, they’ve provided a home for their children who are doing well at school and university, they are church-going folk, pillars of the local community…… a custodial sentence will bring all this crashing down……the disgrace of conviction is sufficient punishment…..blah blah…..”
When people get off lightly (as in this case • with a fine) the court reporters generally slip in a taster of the mitigation plea….otherwise readers are left scratching their heads asking ‘If the judge thought them ‘hard nosed’, why just a fine? Why didn’t he give them three years?’
Maybe. But what the beeb has to explain is why they use an identifying phrase such as “church-going folk” (when they have never used “mosque going folk”) and not a neutrally informative phrase such as “pillars of the local community”
By Melvyn Howe, PA
677 words
4 January 2007
16:40
Press Association National Newswire
English
(c)2007, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved
By Melvyn Howe, PA
A greedy couple believed to have pocketed up to £1 million peddling toxic skin lightening creams to black women were ordered to pay nearly £100,000 in fines and costs today.
Yinka Oluyemi, 46, and her 49-year-old husband Michael, who were also given suspended prison sentences, ignored official warnings and even previous convictions to sell banned bleaching concoctions from their two cosmetics shops.
The illicit products, some of which were bought during undercover test purchases, contained outlawed prescription-only steroids and a potent chemical dangerous in excessive quantities.
Their many unsuspecting customers, who paid between £1.99 and £5.99 for the preparations, risked permanent skin and blood vessel damage and even infection.
The pair, who live in a £725,000 house in Lawrie Park Avenue, Sydenham, south east London, variously admitted – either in person or through their companies – a total of 10 charges of flouting medical and safety regulations between July 1 and December 2, 2005.
Inner London Crown Court heard six of the counts concerned the supply of cosmetic goods containing a hair bleaching agent called hydroquinone, while the others involved selling or offering for sale products containing prescription only drugs.
Passing sentence, Judge Nicholas Philpot told the church-going couple, who have three children, including one studying law, it was plain they were ‘hard-nosed business people determined to make money regardless of the danger to public health”.
He said while immediate custody would normally be ‘entirely justified” exceptional personal circumstances meant he could suspend nine-month prison sentences against each of them for two-years.
However they would personally be fined a total of £70,000, while their companies would face similar penalties including £2,500. In addition, they would have to pay more than £22,000 in prosecution costs as well as being disqualified from being company directors for five years.
The court heard the couple’s companies, Yinka Bodyline and Beauty Express Cosmetics, were based in Peckham, south east London.
Anthony Dunkels, prosecuting, said the defendants – thought to have made half their annual £2 million turnover from illegal trading – committed the offences against a background of previous convictions and official warnings.
As early as April 2000 Medicines Control Agency officers visited one of the outlets and left Michael Oluyemi in no doubt it was illegal to sell creams containing steroids.
He was also told there was a similar ban on products containing more than two percent of hydroquinone.
‘This is a bleaching agent which is known to cause permanent skin damage when used over long periods,” said counsel.
But just a few months later one of the companies was caught red handed supplying banned goods, including illegal skin lightening creams containing more than three and a half times the legal level of bleach. It was fined £500.
Not long afterwards he and Yinka Bodyline was ‘at it again”, charged with 10 similar offences and this time fined a total of £6,000.
A few weeks after these offences came to light he signed a ‘statement of future compliance” – an undertaking to obey the law.
But, the court heard, the couple remained undeterred and by 2004 were once again suspected of putting their greed before public safety.
Mr Dunkels said test purchases of ‘under the counter” creams at the beginning of July led to a raid a few days later by both local trading standards officers and officials from the Medicines and Health Care products Regulatory Agency.
Altogether nearly 6,600 banned products were seized from their shops and a nearby railway arch warehouse.
The court was told that even then the pair refused to change their ways.
In 2005, not long after appearing before a judge to enter not guilty pleas, they restocked with more illegal creams and were caught again.
Nicholas Barraclough, defending, said his remorseful clients had now put their ‘regrettable history of trading” behind them and were now concentrating instead on selling wigs and hair extensions.
DifferentAnon, your excessively long post (a link would have sufficed) only goes to show that out of the 677 words of a Press Association National Newswire report the BBC chose to use “church-going”, and not many of the other words or phrases contained therein.
DifferentAnon | 05.01.07 – 4:16 pm
Well spotted DA.
if you don’t mind me rubbing it in, I’ll just repeat the operative part for those with a limited attention span:
Passing sentence, Judge Nicholas Philpot told the church-going couple, who have three children, including one studying law, it was plain they were ‘hard-nosed business people determined to make money regardless of the danger to public health”.
He said while immediate custody would normally be ‘entirely justified” exceptional personal circumstances meant he could suspend nine-month prison sentences against each of them for two-years.
DA, can you supply the link to that newswire?
You’ve said in the past you’re not an employee of the BBC. I’m beginning to wonder if you are in fact another moniker for JR.
Supply the link and I’ll take it all back!
BioD
the BBC chose to use “church-going”, and not many of the other words or phrases contained therein.
Almost every single one of the 200 or so words (standard length for a story like this) used by the BBC appears in the PA version.
The BBC is a[deleted], filled with loathed reporters…..
The BBC is hated as much as the Government in this country….and will soon be dead………
John Reith, lets all hope you get your marching orders when your master Blair gives the BBC a [deleted ]licence deal, and thousands of you dangerous left wing propagandists get fired…..lol.
Edited By Siteowner
JR I refer you to Biodegradables point in the previous comment. The fact that the words church going appear in the 677 word report do not explain why the BBC chose to include them in their report when, as has been pointed out many many times the same BBC almost universally deletes similar references to Muslims.
Well spotted DA.
Well spotted my aunt Fanny’s arse!
All that shows is the original source of “the church-going”. It is not a direct quote from Judge Nicholas Philpot.
If the other reports I linked to above didn’t see fit to include it why did the BBC?
He said while immediate custody would normally be ‘entirely justified” exceptional personal circumstances meant he could suspend nine-month prison sentences against each of them for two-years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2532431,00.html
Judge Nicholas Philpot called the couple “hard-faced business folk determined to make money regardless of the danger to public health” before giving each of them a nine-month jail term, suspended for two years. He decided against a custodial sentence after hearing that one of the Oluyemis’ three children is disabled and requires constant care.
Note that he did not decide against a custodial sentence after hearing that they attended church.
Almost every single one of the 200 or so words (standard length for a story like this) used by the BBC appears in the PA version.
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 4:41 pm
I repeat my question: Why did the BBC choose to include the “church-going” part while other news outlets chose to edit it out?
It is not a quote directly attributed to anybody and has no relevance to anything.
John Reith quoth:
Passing sentence, Judge Nicholas Philpot told the church-going couple, who have three children, including one studying law, it was plain they were ‘hard-nosed business people determined to make money regardless of the danger to public health”.
Note my link in previous post to the Times report where the judge is “quoted” as saying “hard-faced business folk…”
You either “quote” or you report. We have shown on many occasions how the BBC changes quotes to reported speech while maintaing the “quotes”.
You either “quote” or you report.
John Reith
You still haven’t come up with any reason that their church attendance is relevant to the story. I add my voice to those asking you, since you try to defend the Beeb.
I don’t care if the Press Association said the same, their bias is known, and shown by their publication of anti-American propoganda relating to Iraq recently. The BBC must take responsibility for anything it publishes, not just blindly reproduce the newswires. Otherwise why don’t we all just read AP’s output?
You were very enthusiastic in another thread to explain that the BBC shouldn’t put in details about someone’s race if it is not relevant to the story. Why should they then put in irrelevant details about religion? Remember, they miss out religious details even when relevant, if that religion is Islam.
I love JR/DAs duplicity
Once again this piece shows no sign of having been written by a BBC staffer and every sign of being an agency court report.
and then
Almost every single one of the 200 or so words (standard length for a story like this) used by the BBC appears in the PA version
So, JR/DA who puts in the extra words not in the PA version? (maybe a BBC staffer)?
And who decides on what words are omitted?
I seem to remember a poster at this site, called John Reith, actually lectured everyone about the reason why the term black was often not included in news articles because the BBC had rules about sterotyping people by including irrelevant facts such as age, religion, colour etc.
Perhaps someone more electronically capable then I can find the original quote. I doubt if Mr Reith will help us by repeating it.
Or perhaps someone from the BBC can explain what the relevance of “church-going” is in this particular article.
“DA, can you supply the link to that newswire?”
I’m afraid not, or I would have. I accessed it via Factiva.
Bio – I supplied the whole article because I know that most people don’t have access to Factiva.
BioD
Before DifferentAnon posted, I was going to ask commenters here to clarify whether their allegation was that the BBC chose to add the detail of ‘church going’:
1. Because the BBC is institutionally prejudiced against the religiously observant (unless they’re Muslims)
Or
2. Because the BBC, fearing that readers would take the unusual name Oluyemi for a Muslim one, slipped it in to prevent that.
I was also going to ask at what editorial level you thought this supposed intervention was decided.
Once it became clear that this was a cut-and-paste job, I initially thought these questions redundant.
But clearly you can’t keep a conspiracy theorist down.
So I ask now: what do you think was the BBC’s motive in keeping in this story a phrase used by the Press Association? At what level do you think this was decided?
Oh and…..is the PA biased too?
3 Billion extorted so JR can basically say “we don’t Quality Control news we buy in from AP etc.”
I’m so glad I don’t fund the bbc.
John Reith
“Almost every single one of the 200 or so words (standard length for a story like this) used by the BBC appears in the PA version”
Tut, tut, tut. Hiding behind poor application of statistics.
What is, of course, relevant, is that the AP story has 645 words, but the BBC story is only 216 words. So they have removed at least 429 words, trimming the article by around 2/3, yet of those they chose to leave in (a far more relevant statistic) the words “church-going” were selected.
Why is it that the people who have no idea of the meaning of statistics try to use them in arguments? Dr Meadows lost his career out of it, JR simply looks either foolish or devious.
Mr Reith,
I have no idea what the BBC’s motives were for including the “church going” irrelevancy in their report – I’ve asked you to explain why the BBC thought it important and salient while all the other news outlets I can find through news.google.com do not.
Here are another two examples, presumably also based on the original wire service version:
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news-channels/headline-channel/couple-sentenced-over-illegal-skin-cream-$1037087.htm
http://www.manchester.com/National_News/Couple_sentenced_over_illegal_skin_cream-18024214.html
John Reith
“So I ask now: what do you think was the BBC’s motive in keeping in this story a phrase used by the Press Association? At what level do you think this was decided?
Oh and…..is the PA biased too?”
Motive: bias against Christianity in BBC reporting. What is their motive for removing mentions of Islam from news reports?
Level: whoever published this story, so fairly low. That is, however irrelevant. The fact is that there is constant bias at all levels in the BBC, due to institutional atmosphere, and always one way. I have challenged many peopleto find counter bias, and it never seems to be found.
PA bias: yes. Until someone has actually found evidence for Jamail Hussein’s stories independent of his own, seriously suspect reports, then there is strong evidence they are biased.
I think Reith has a defence insofar as if the PA say it, it can’t be shown to be a BBC contrivance to mention it. But that’s not the point pounce is making.
The real point, Reith, is not that the BBC left it in, it is that they made use of it and didn’t take it out when in other cases (eg ‘American’ not ‘Somali’ as in a recent post) they choose to remove or otherwise ignore contextual information which may show a “favoured” group in an unfavourable light. That’s the bias.
Mr Reith has told us on several occasions that the BBC studiously avoids the use of descriptive adjectives that are not relevant to the storyline. Perhaps Mr Reith would like to confirm that this is indeed the case. This then is some justification for not describing people as ‘old or young’, ‘black or white’, ‘jew or hindu’ unless this is actually relevant.
If this is true then in the present case, the reporter who eliminated 400 words from the original article must have felt that the words ‘church going’ were relevant. I would like to know why. The only reason that I can see is that this indicated that the couple were hypocritical Christians.
Once again this piece shows no sign of having been written by a BBC staffer and every sign of being an agency court report.
I’d put a fiver on the fact that the Oluyemis’ lawyer made an eloquent plea in mitigation before sentencing along these lines:
‘these people have spent years building up a business, they’ve provided a home for their children who are doing well at school and university, they are church-going folk, pillars of the local community…… a custodial sentence will bring all this crashing down……the disgrace of conviction is sufficient punishment…..blah blah…..”
When people get off lightly (as in this case • with a fine) the court reporters generally slip in a taster of the mitigation plea….otherwise readers are left scratching their heads asking ‘If the judge thought them ‘hard nosed’, why just a fine? Why didn’t he give them three years?’
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 3:44 pm
Reith,
We have shown that (a) you would have lost a fiver.
(b) The accused got off lightly not because they went to church, but because “one of the Oluyemis’ three children is disabled and requires constant care.”
(c) You are a pretentious, presumptious twat.
Will you now admit that the BBC, like every other news outlet I’ve quoted, should have edited out the irrelevant fact, only mentioned by the PA and not attributed to anybody other than the same PA, or will you continue to defend the indefensible?
Or give us just one good reason why the defendants’ religious customs and habits were mentioned?
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 4:29 pm |
so what is your point, reith? that since it was a part of the court record or proceedings, the bbc are just passing it on, so move along?
all right: have the bbc never deleted references to religious affiliation? i seem to recall compare and contrast items posted on this blog which would indicate it has done so frequently. so, my question is, why does the bbc actively remove some indicators of religious affiliation, but not others?
on another note, reith, did i miss your response to my question to you as to how you can state with such authority that there is no enemies list at the bbc? who told you?
sorry to all who would have made my prior post superfluous had i read theirs first – don’t like to flog a horse…
the bbc has a warning about not being responsible for the content of external sites to which they link
a certain commenter here seems to be suggesting they should not now be held responsible for the editorial content they publish on their own site
as someone else suggested, clearly the licence fee is too low to enable them to do the job
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 4:59 pm |
JR, do you reject the bbc insider statement that the prevailing attitude at the bbc would bin the bible but not the koran?
Budgetary control at the BBC – Jonathan Ross, £18 million. That’s why the BBC is unable to impose quality control on its output.
BioD
No, I’ve won my fiver.
The information was in a PA court report • and therefore was almost certainly a fact that emerged in proceedings. (I doubt if the PA can afford to follow defendants around on Sundays).
Either the reporter would have taken it down from the defence lawyer’s oral submission, or it was part of the litany of points made in mitigation summarised by the judge before sentence. Probably the latter given its immediate juxtaposition to the judge’s quoted remarks.
I don’t suppose anyone thought it a point of any more importance or salience than the estimated value of the Olyemis’ house. I don’t suppose anyone ‘decided’ to retain it in the BBC report in any normal sense of ‘decide’. The fact that these people were ‘church-going’ is significant in illustrating their pretence of respectability and I see no grounds for making any sort of fuss about it.
As for being ‘anti-Christian’ • no-one specifies that the church they go to is Christian. There are plenty of African churches in South London of ‘traditional’ or syncretist leanings whose claim to be part of the Christian communion is as tenuous as that of the Moonies. (Yep, they claim to be Christian too • but no sensible Christian accepts that nonsense.)
The real story of this particular thread is that – yet again •one of your fruitcake conspiracy theories has ignominiously collapsed.
Well, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to mention church going. The fact that they seem not to have been very caring about their customers sits oddly with the presumed consideration for others that regular Church attendance implies. I don’t really care whether including it makes me, or anybody else, think better or worse of Christians in general. I think it’s interesting background information, and I have no complaints about the BBC (or the Press Association) including it.
My problem is with the suppressing of useful, relevant or merely interesting information from other stories. lest including it makes people feel worse about whatever group of people the BBC wants people to feel better about.
Natalie is quite right to highlight the BBC’s eagerness to suppress some facts and to reveal others, but let’s not arrive at the wrong answer – that they shouldn’t have mentioned the church going. Mentioning the church going was the right answer. Just as mentioning the “Muslim” (or whatever) and not suppressing it in the interests of an anti-racism agenda is also the right answer.
You won’t be getting a fiver out of me Reith!
This is exactly what you bet on:
I’d put a fiver on the fact that the Oluyemis’ lawyer made an eloquent plea in mitigation before sentencing along these lines:
‘these people have spent years building up a business, they’ve provided a home for their children who are doing well at school and university, they are church-going folk, pillars of the local community…… a custodial sentence will bring all this crashing down……the disgrace of conviction is sufficient punishment…..blah blah…..”
You lost, it’s already been shown that the judge’s leniency had nothing to do with going to church, and we still don’t know if the defence even mentioned it – perhaps it was invented by the PA, it’s certainly not attributed.
Please send a fiver to the charity of your choice.
There was a recent report by the BBC on an elderly Christian couple who had been awarded £10,000 compensation because they were denied their right to put up posters in response to gay rights posters near their house – or something like that.
In any case, the BBC’s report dripped with venom against the Christian couple. It may or may not have been the BBC’s intent to associate Christianity with wrong-doing, but it is the BBC’s instinctive reaction to do so when it can, and it does so.
BioD
…
The real story of this particular thread is that – yet again •one of your fruitcake conspiracy theories has ignominiously collapsed.
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 6:42 pm
Nowhere have I suggested a conspiracy.
Lee Moore | 05.01.07 – 6:47 pm,
I agree 100%. The mention of ‘church-going’ is only agenda-driven in the light of the omission, in similar stories, of mosque-going.
If and when the BBC stops being so damn coy about mentioning anything negative about adherents to the Religion of Peace it will have gained the right to report negatively, where appropriate, on the adherents to other faiths.
Allan@Aberdeen | 05.01.07 – 7:03 pm,
Yes, that was a particularly snide little attack on what looked like a perfectly decent, elderly Christian couple who were simply struggling to uphold their right to freedom of religion.
I see that the link from DifferentAnon is not forthcoming.
Not very surprising, as news search for “Oluyemi + church” in both Google and Yahoo gives nothing except the BBC.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=Oluyemi%20church&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?fr=sfp&ei=UTF-8&p=Oluyemi+church
Totally unfair, I know. But I couldn’t resist it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2372519,00.html
Allan@Aberdeen 05.01.07 – 7:03 pm
I think this is the report in question:
‘Christians elated over cash award’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6205897.stm
The couple interviewed in the video does not look ‘elated’ to me.
“I don’t suppose anyone thought it a point of any more importance or salience than the estimated value of the Olyemis’ house. I don’t suppose anyone ‘decided’ to retain it in the BBC report in any normal sense of ‘decide’. The fact that these people were ‘church-going’ is significant in illustrating their pretence of respectability and I see no grounds for making any sort of fuss about it.”
I’m inclined to agree. BUT in many. many other cases related to the BBCs identified victim cultures, ethnic minorities, muslims etc “someone” in the BBC news room deliberately removes such references and does it with almost religious fervour.
Don’t even you. Mr Reith find it surprising that in every other report of this case so far linked to the site only the BBC retains the PA reference to ‘church going’ whereas in many of the other cases demonstrated on this site other media reports refer to muslim or asian/black origins whilst the BBC decides quite arbitrarily to omit the reference.
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 4:59 pm
With commendable front you pose a question rhetorically for which there is no justification:
“Oh and…..is the PA biased too?”
From personal experience I can tell you with absolute authority “Yes, the PA is certainly biased and almost as biased as the BBC.” Not quite, but almost. Of course, like the BBC, its reputation for impartial reporting facilitates the promulgation of agitprop and the suppression of stories that are uncomfortable for its purveyors. And, like the BBC, the PA is staffed at ground level by post-grads wanting to get on in the media and not rock the leftie boat. So the peer pressure thing raises its head again.
Once again, as a defining case study the Hamilton affair – that is, the affair which, according to the BBC “helped bring down the last Conservative government” – comes to the rescue. Check out a word by word examination of a supposedly comprehensive PA chronology about the affair here. Or, if you don’t have the time, check out a summary here.
For B-BBCers who wish to know more about the PA, such as its historical links to The Guardian, or the response of its reporter Katharine Road to my announcement of the publication of our report of our investigation exposing elements of The Guardian’s perversion of the Downey inquiry, select whatever takes your fancy from this index
.
I think this website bends over backwards in its tolerance for the likes of “John Reith”. If only the BBC did the same.
Anat | 05.01.07 – 7:36 pm,
I recall a few months back someone provided a link about the original John Reith’s Nazi sympathies. That’s partly why when his namesake, who posts on this blog, said he had a connection to Jews which was “a family thing” I commented that if John Reith is Jewish, I’m an Eskimo.
I’m not saying John Reith is a Nazi, but he does display an unfortunate tendency to regard himself (and the BBC) as a cut above the rest.
Nom de guerre | 05.01.07 – 7:38 pm,
Yes, that’s the article. The ‘elated’ bit was evidently pure invention by a BBC hack with an anti-Christian agenda.
Biased, untruhful ‘journalism’.
So you lot get totally Fisked by JR once again!
And rather than accept it with good grace you just errupt into a giant wild-eyed frothing mass of paranoia.
Meanwhile the original post remains on the front page, despite being totally discredited.
B-BBC and half a story.
Natalie et al.
I have been visiting your website for what feels like several years now. I think John Reith, whoever he is, only serves to divert the purpose of the site with cul-de-sac arguments. Whilst it would be against free speech to block him, is it not possible to divert his comments to a separate thread avoiding the (deliberate?) distraction he causes?
PS
I await JRs suppporters to come out now and support him. LOL.