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.
http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/11858/2002448337492209624_rs.jpg
(from an original first seen at No Pasaran)
When Margaret Thatcher instigated the great privatizations of BT, British Gas, BSC etc, I wonder if she would have gotten round to the BBC given enough time? Though it is not a monopoly provider it does distort the market and has a massive advantage over its rivals with its £3bn annual income guaranteed by UK law. Although I have digital TV I have never watched BBC3, BBC4 or BBC News 24. It angers me that I need to pay for such channels even though I don’t watch them. I am not a big fan of Sky either, though I am not threatened with imprisonment if I do not want to pay for their service.
If Margaret Thatcher had privatised the BBC after her second election victory in 1983, the history of Britain in the past twenty years would have been a whole lot better.
There is still a chance for another Conservative government to accomplish that, but they would have to achieve a clear Parliamentary majority first. And if the BBC even suspects that privatization might be on the agenda, it will use every device to maintain its current privileged existence.
A broad manifesto commitment to “ensuring fairness in broadcasting” would be the best way for the Tories go forward. No other political party is likely to disturb the BBC, which shares a general mindset with the left-of-centre parties, including the Greens.
Talking of Mrs T, I wonder what Al Beeb has in store to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War? Will they ignore it as much as they can? Blame it on Mrs T and her government? Bring up the sinking of the Belgrano and suggest it was a war crime? Question whether it is time to cede the islands to Argentina? all very possible. Celebrate the courage, dedication and sheer professionalism of the armed forces in successfully fighting a numerically superior, well-entrenched enemy halfway around the world in some truly dreadful weather conditions and mourn the brave men who made the ultimate sacrifice in liberating the islands? I’m not holding my breath. BTW does anyone remember what the reporting was like at the time from Al Beeb? Can you imagine the likes of Orla, Barbara, Hugh, Jeremy etc reporting on the Falklands War?
Damn! Newsnight Review is not doing 300 tonight. I was really looking forward to watching the leftie ponces froth over that one.
Go tell the Spartans we shall not balk
Until we’re rid of Kirsty Wark
“every building in London was built on black slavery”.
I hardly think that every victorian house, or public building was built by slaves – not to mention all the 1960s tower block slums that were thrown up.
Just another fallacy championed by the BBC.
You are a sick bunch, seek help. It may not be tto late for some.
“You are a sick bunch, seek help. It may not be tto late for some.”
Very wise words and well argued – what can I say we must be wrong about the BBC.
Simonides’ epitaph for the Spartans, updated for our troops:
Go stranger and to Britain tell
The BBC can go to hell
I remember exactly what the BBC’s coverage was like at the time of the Falklands War. Brian Hanrahan, who sailed with the Task Force, gave well-balanced and factual reporting.
Not so with the rest of the Corporation, safe at home; their output ranged from the hand-wringing to the back-stabbing.
It would have been easy for Mrs Thatcher’s government to have privatised or even abolished the BBC soon afterwards. The fact that she did not says a great deal for her forbearance. However, it seems unlikely that, on the Falklands anniversary, the BBC will manifest much gratitude.
Havent seen anything yet on the BBC about the German judge in Frankfurt who has been “suspended” because of her approving Sharia law in a German court. I guess the BBC approve of such things. In a divorce case Christa Datz-Winter judged against a 26 year old German-Moroccan woman who had filed for divorce, even though the woman had been violently beaten by her man and threatened with death. The Judge cited the Koran above the German constitution. She decided that it was allowed in Germany for Muslim women to be beaten in a marriage.
“When the Koran is put above the German Constitution, I can only say, ‘Good night, Germany,'” Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of the Christian Democratic Union, told the newspaper Bild.
Furor in Germany over court decision on Muslims
Judge cites the Koran in rejecting divorce
“Inshallah(sic) he’s recovering in hospital”
Sick bucket please… the BBC journalist in Iraq, Hugh Sykes quoted on Radio 4 (17.35pm) has gone native!
Biodegradable | 23.03.07 – 5:35 pm,
And Johnston said something stranger still, in relation to kidnapped corporal Gilad Shalit:
The soldier may well be in the company of the most senior Hamas militants.
I wrote at the time that Johnston knows very well that company means voluntary association. In the light of his present predicament, his statement has a chilling irony.
I doubt very much that he now regards himself as in the company of his kidnappers.
Could someone point out to those idiots subeds at the Beeb that ‘carrying weapons’ is spelt ‘armed’, not ‘harmed’ (ditto for ‘unharmed).
Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm before the sneak edit it…
(it’s the story about those nice Iranians capturing British sailors at gun point…)
disillusioned_german | 23.03.07 – 5:20 pm |
Everybody is biased against the ‘Stammers’ – I’d would have thought you’d be used to it by now?
Slavery and Race
Of course the BBC is getting as many black celebs as to bang on about slavery and white cupability. As with the left in general the BBC is only concerned with stirring the pot and driving wedges between communities. That gives it a constant supply of agitprop to feed the general public. The only BBC programme I can remember whether the lead characters included black actors and race was not an issue was ‘Red Dwarf’ – and the BBC only showed that, they didn’t make it.
We will never get harmonious race relations whilst the main themes are difference, blame and guilt.
The Fat Contractor | 23.03.07 – 9:42 pm |
Doh, that’s culpability , although cupability really should be a word …
John writes:
“”Inshallah(sic) he’s recovering in hospital”
Sick bucket please… the BBC journalist in Iraq, Hugh Sykes quoted on Radio 4 (17.35pm) has gone native!”
Yes, indeed. And Sykes went on to wonder, on air, how Western leaders slept in their beds at night, having invaded Iraq.
Either should be a sacking offence (it’s not his job to pontificate) but knowing the BBC, he’ll probably get an award.
melanie phillips
But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.
Which is why Stourton goes on to report — in apparent amazement — that the Arab world was secretly hoping that Israel would indeed crush Hezbollah. Because the Arab world has every interest in Iran being defeated —as does the west, as do Bush and Blair and as do all sane and sentient people. That’s why it was in everyone’s interests for Israel to be allowed to defend itself by destroying its Iranian enemy before that enemy destroyed it. That’s why the US and the Arab world were so put out when Israel failed to destroy it.
But astoundingly, the BBC and the British left and a considerable proportion of the rest of Britain thinks the real problem was not Iranian aggression but that Israel might actually have defeated the army of Iran. They find it simply unconscionable that Israel was not required to surrender. According to Stourton, it is apparently a scandal that the US supported Israel in its self-defence; indeed, he represents this as some kind of sinister conspiracy that he has now unearthed through his amazing journalistic acumen. Democratic allies supporting each other in the great fight against fascism! What an outrage!
This view is not some aberration. Throughout the Lebanon war, the BBC turned itself effectively into a mouthpiece for Hezbollah propaganda. More generally, its venomous hostility and the extreme prejudice and distortion of its coverage in which America and Israel are turned into the well-springs of aggression and evil in the world while American and Israeli victimisation are airbrushed out of the script, have turned the BBC into the principal propaganda weapon of the global jihad.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Still waiting for the BBC article about the young 19 year old female medic (Private Norris) who won the Military Cross. But then the US Marine Corps Major who won the DFC that same day was the one who flew in and rescued the soldier whose life she saved whilst under heavy enemy fire….probably why the Beeb never reported the pair of them being at the Palace the other day yet it was all over CNN ABC and so on.
BBC – if it is good news about our Forces in Iraq we ignore it. (Delete Iraq, insert Falklands, Ulster, Cold War, Gulf War etc etc). And we give OBEs and MBEs to BBC stars who are not fit to lick Private Norris’s boots!
pounce: Welcome back. Good ex?
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=313984#post313984
We see the moderate Muslim friends of the BBC are reacting in a typically moderate way to the Iranian soldier kidnap story…
On the subject of that Israel/England match, here’s an article in which some English-Israelis reveal themselves to have divided loyalties:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6486611.stm
“Euro qualifier divides loyalties” is the headline.
It isn’t made clear, but I assume the reporter is in Tel Aviv, interviewing people who have an English connection. It’s a bit more complicated than an article about British jewish people. I’m in two minds as to whether the tone – essentially trivialising the issue to the level of football players from one country playing in the national team of another country against their country’s national team of their national home country nation country team – is laudible or not, and I will stop writing before I run out of breath.
It’s also interesting for the impressive social diversity of the interviewees. There is a twentysomething man who works in the media; a twentysomething man who works in the media; a twentysomething man who works in marketing; and a twentysomething man who works as a youth leader, presumably for local government. Were they chosen so as to appeal to the BBC’s idea of “normal people”, or were they simply drinking buddies of the journalist?
“I think he’s lovely and cuddly, he’s so adorable,” said Cynthia, 14 (about Knut the bear).
dave t
Dead right.
The US Major flew his Lynx under fire for 5 hours to help rescue our blokes.
First American to get a British medal since WW2 – but clearly not newsworthy enough for any of our broadcasters.
They’d rather winge forever about the other two US pilots who made a tragic mistake – after being told there were no “friendlies” in the area.
Oops – forgot the link for the above:-
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_distinguished_flyingcross_070321/
newsnight is currently on about 50 years of europe.
a short video segment is given over to a chap from the anti-EU “Democracy Movement”. now, a pro-Eu segment is on to counterbalance.
now theres a debate. sign of the changing times – a Eurosceptic getting airtime on Newsnight.
BTW does anyone remember what the reporting was like at the time from Al Beeb?
My memory is that the MoD restricted coverage to a small pool under complete military censureship. The BBC went along with this, essentially without complaint, as did everybody else.
I like Phillip Knightley’s comment in The First Casualty Pan 1975
“despite it’s skills, the MoD could not have achieved what it did without some compliance from the Britsh Media; if it was rape, then it was rape with contributory negligence”.
BTW Rene Cutforth in BBC Kaleidoscope said that this (First Casualty) was a meticulously researched book.
I can’t help if the BBC’s report the enemies’ POV attitude in Iraq and Afghanistan might not be a delayed guilt reaction for their performance in the Falklands.
“A broad manifesto commitment to “ensuring fairness in broadcasting” would be the best way for the Tories go forward. No other political party is likely to disturb the BBC, which shares a general mindset with the left-of-centre parties, including the Greens.
sandown | 23.03.07 – 6:50 pm”
i totally agree. Cameron doing the “green” “hug a hoodie” thing is the only way he’ll get onside with the BBC. its a political strategy – otherwise he’d be hounded and vilified and lose the next election.
if he so much as whispers “flat tax” he’ll be royally screwed by the likes of “Today”. It is the BBC itself that is distorting political debate in this country – for the worse, precisely beause of its unaccountable position (namely, they steal money from me, on pain of being sent to jail)
once he gets in , i hope he privatises them. On his first day at No.10. The sooner he does it the better.
(i also half wonder why Blair didnt do it – what with the iraq war and all that…)
Jim:
You are a sick bunch, seek help. It may not be tto late for some.
Jim | Homepage | 23.03.07 – 8:03 pm
Joe:
You guys are really fucked up!
Joe | Homepage | 23.03.07 – 1:06 am
Jim/Joe:
Is that it?
Jim (or is it really “Joe”?), you asked a question here. Aren’t you interested in the replies and the subsequent debate, or are you only interested in wasting our time and the licence fee payers’ money while you troll here?
didnt they send Soviet dissidents to psychiatric hospitals, because they were obviously a “sick bunch” and “fucked up”.
nice to see the Soviet Union still alive and well at the BBC. thanks for confirming it.
dOES ANY ONE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE FOLLOWING STORY:
A DRUNK who asked a Muslim woman to raise her veil in public has been jailed for nine months for his troubles.
John Gallacher was the worst for drink, but did not touch Kadiza Begum.
Yet she insisted he was charged with religious harassment after the incident at a bus-stop in London’s East End.
“Euro qualifier divides loyalties” is the headline.
It isn’t made clear, but I assume the reporter is in Tel Aviv, interviewing people who have an English connection.
Ashley Pomeroy | 23.03.07 – 11:51 pm
I may be oversensitive but I see the ‘divided loyalties’ theme clearly as an old antisemitic ploy.
Do the BBC ask British born ‘Asians’ about who they want to win when India or Pakistan play test matches in the UK under a similar headline?
Oh, and all of those British/Israelis are supporting Israel.
good point BioD. i never see any “divided loyalties” stories when the Irish rugby team (which is an ALL ireland team, unionist and nationalist) play England.
Happy Birthday Biod and TPO!
And it’s in the News section, not Sport:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6486611.stm
Thanks max! 🙂
Tonight, I did 2 thing I have not done for some time:
1. Stayed in on a Friday night.
2. Watched Newsnight Review.
TAXI!!!
from BioDs link:
“My whole life is based around Israel. I’ve served in the army and made a life for myself here.When England play anyone else in the world I passionately support them.”
but Pakistani taxi drivers were flying the St George cross during the world cup, but of course, they’d support Pakistan during the cricket. why the big story about this? happens to pretty much every nationality that has relocated to England.
and if there was an Ireland v England game i’d support Ireland. but i wished the English lads well during the world cup and followed every match (and downed numerous pints of ale in the local while doing so…)
amazing how the “divided loyalties” thing is turned into a big story when it comes to the ZIONIST JOOO EMPIRE NAZI STATE OF ISRAEL.. thats really the hidden message here, of course.
“momotaro | 24.03.07 – 12:22 am ”
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED15%20Mar%202007%2009%3A33%3A03%3A600
its not as bad as that. he’ll be out in a month:
“Gallacher was jailed for nine months.But he will have the 135 days spent on remand knocked off his sentence meaning he could be released within the month.”
seems fair enough to me – the lesson is, dont be an utter twat if you get drunk. irrespective of what the religion of the woman was, drunken harrassement should be dealt with by the law. and in this case, i see nothing wrong with the chap being sent down for a month. he’ll be a bit more civil in future, rather than being a total idiot.
The last I remember the BBC talking about “divided loyalties” was when they talked about the UK supplying heavy water to Israel at the beginning of its nuclear programme – I seem to remember also that they made a big deal out of the fact that one of the civil servants involved was called “Israel”.
Here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/03_march/09/israel.shtml
Documents obtained by Newsnight show the decision to sell plutonium to Israel in 1966 was blocked by officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office who said “It is HMG’s policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons”.
But it was forced through by a Jewish civil servant in Tony Benn’s Ministry of Technology, Michael Israel Michaels.
Peter Kelly, who was British intelligence’s top expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, knew Michaels.
He told Newsnight he believed Michaels knew Israel was trying to build the bomb but had dual loyalties – to both Britain and Israel.
On seeing the evidence gathered by Newsnight Tony Benn says: “Michaels lied to me, I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4743493.stm
but on the other hand , you get cases like this…
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/_Scum_-attackers-to-walk-free-while-PC-needs-24__hour-care-newsinkent3184.aspx
two scumbags beat an off duty police constable into a coma, and they’ll be out in three years.
The Court of Appeal has slashed Turner’s jail term to seven years and Samuels’ sentence to six years. They could walk free in three years.
The pair were also originally told they would serve four years on licence when they were released, so they would be sent back to jail if they re-offended. That has been overturned.
seems like the law is heavily applied in some areas, and not heavily applied in other areas.
“Biodegradable | 24.03.07 – 12:47 am ”
of course Michaels lied to him – why would he tell the truth to a pro Palestinian communist like Tony Benn?
the divided loyalties lie not with Michaels – the divided loyalties lied with the British government itself – torn between the Soviet Union apologists and the more pro American wing.
in the midst of all that, any pro-Israel supporter was wise to keep their trap shut. i.e. “lie”.
The fact of the matter is if it had all come to light while Benn was minister he would have had to resign, the buck stopping there. Instead, now, with hindsight, he can feign shock and surprise and blame the treacherous Jew.
The big question, which he succeeds in hiding behind a smokescreen, is how come he, as minister, knew nothing about what was going on.
oh by the way. interest in cricket has gone through the roof in Ireland in the wake of the win over Pakistan
http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=sport-qqqm=sport-qqqa=sport-qqqid=28540-qqqx=1.asp
nobody understands the game over there, but its a start. i still cant get my head around it either.
” Biodegradable | 24.03.07 – 1:01 am ”
a more interesting question is WHO decided to keep that information from him. his shock and anger in later life at this, reveals that he was a minister who the security services deemed to be not part of the inner circle of decision making. in other words, somebody decided that he could have been traitorous to the free world. and a decision was made to keep him out of the loop.
thats the real story behind this – not what Michaels did.
archduke | 24.03.07 – 1:07 am
Wasn’t it Harold Wilson’s Government that MI5 spied on because they felt none of them could be trusted?
IRAN ACCUSES BRITAIN OVER SAILORS
Just got in from the pub to see the above as the main headline on news.bbc.co.uk.
Every other news outlet has a headline which says
“Iran seizes British Sailors”.
Iran accusing is NOT a story.
Iran seizing at gunpoint is a very big story.
The headline has been written to put the reader on the side of the Iranians.
Someone Photoshop this:
JEWNAZI LOL!
also bear in mind, that the 60s and 70s , when Benn , and his fellow lunatics were in charge, the CIA made moves towards the IRA. it wasnt full on support, but contact was made, in order to , lets say, keep the British government occupied with something happening on their back door.
( with total Marxists in charge of the British government, then you cant blame the Yanks for playing these games)
i cant say any more as the folks involved are still alive. but a lot of this will come to light in the decades to come. and the likes of Tony Benn (and many others) wont come out of it very well.
“Wasn’t it Harold Wilson’s Government that MI5 spied on because they felt none of them could be trusted?
Biodegradable | 24.03.07 – 1:11 am”
exactly. you got it in one.
my uncle was contacted by the CIA at the time. IRA quartermaster. cant say any more.
he’s now deceased by the way. so thats all i can say.