“when it became clear that the presenter was interested only in the opinion of his two Euro-phile guests, and had brought me along as a sort of pantomime Euro-phobe, I saw no purpose in carrying on.”
Indeed the BBC can sap the will to carry on. Daniel Hannan persevered, and got results. Read all about it.
The conclusion he draws is that the BBC is unwittingly biased, and amenable when challenged. I’m not convinced this is more than partly true, but certainly one can get results from standing up and being counted.
(hat tip to Iain Dale)
“MEP asks Scotland Yard to investigate BBC relations with EU
The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England, detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.
He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC’s sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter…”
http://libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html#1549519323856625431
Re Daniel Hannon: “The conclusion he draws is that the BBC is unwittingly biased…”
1. Isn’t it frightening to think that the Beeb’s attitudes aren’t thought out but subconsciously absorbed? Where do they start, these hidden messages we see so clearly demonstrated in this blog? Is it from social contact in the corridors of Television Centre or Broadcasting House? Or at dinner parties of like-minded people? Or do we blame the liberal universities?
2. Isn’t pro-Europe bias simply the flip side of anti-US bias? Perhaps the only reason the pro-Euro bias exists is to snub the USA?
But as no-one actually knows how BBC attitudes evolve we’re all lost in a fog of opinion.
I’m surprised by the lack of transparency in the BBC’s financial reporting. In the US, any public broadcaster wishing to receive funding from the federal government must keep open financial records.
Peter Horrocks, ed. of Newsnight admitted before an audience that the ‘BBC had got it wrong’on Europe (and on immigration) at the open debate with Robin Aitken held at the ICA in February.
Horrocks admitted that the BBC had been slow to catch up with public concerns on these two matters and was trying to redress the balance of coverage on the issues. Hence the far more respectful way in which MigrationWatch’s speakers have been treated recently.
This begs the question of why they thought they had it ‘right’ in the first place – clearly they felt free to treat those with whom they disagreed on immigration with contempt because they thought their public liked it that way.
One of the other speakers in the debate, a Ms Seaton, said that she didn’t want the BBC to be impartial. She wanted it to be ‘right’. Horrocks did not question that assertion.
And this, of course is the nub of the issue. At heart, the BBC thinks it’s on the side of ‘right’ against ‘wrong’.
Daniel Hannan’s interviewer exemplifies that view perfectly.
John Bosworth: no. I, for instance, am very much in favour of a united Europe (without England) but loathe anti-Americanism. The fact is that I am also deeply against the kind of Europe we have now. United Europe was started in the fifties by three devout Catholic politicians, Adenauer, de Gasperi, and Schuman, of whom one, De Gasperi, is being rumoured for canonization (i.e. what is called “being made a Saint”). And unless we are old enough to remember, most of us just don’t have any idea what it meant to be a devout Catholic in the fifties. De Gasperi, who had led his country out of the catastrophe of World War Two and managed to keep Europe’s strongest Communist party out of power, died poor, and had to have his funeral arranged at state expense. Can you conceive of a modern politician dying poor?
The truth is that the EU institutions have been penetrated, in the classic entryist fashion, by a dreadful crew of the very people who had opposed them in the fifties as a reactionary, catholic, capitalist undertaking: doctrinaire socialists, environmentalists, atheists, and above all the ever-present, ever power-hungry feminists. These people have made Europe the exact opposite of what it should be, and, being essentially immoral in their attitudes, have spread immorality downwards. That does not mean that Europe was not worth making (without England, of course). It does mean that the wrong party is in charge, and needs to be forced out.
Fran | 26.03.07 – 6:53 am
This begs the question of why they thought they had it ‘right’ in the first place –
No….getting the appropriate balance on Europe was a very tricky problem.
During the early to mid-90s, when the debates over the Maastricht treaty were going on – the BBC was accused by many supporters of John Major’s Conservative government of giving too much airtime to eurosceptics.
Bill Cash MP and other Tory eurosceptic rebels were seldom off the airwaves. Cash himself became better known than many ministers even though he was a humble back-bencher.
In the end, there turned out to be only 22 Maastricht rebels – significant because Major’s majority was small – but not really such a big deal politically, some argued.
In the parliamentary Labour party there were even fewer eurosceptics. In the Lib Dems, only one.
So what was the BBC to do? Make a big issue out of euroscepticism when it had so little support in Parliament? Or reflect its ‘fringe’ or ‘minority’ status in mainstream politics?
When Horrocks said the BBC got it wrong – he meant that the BBC stuck too closely to reflecting the the relative balance at Westminster in the late 90s.
Among the general public, the number of eurosceptics was much bigger than their parliamentary representation suggested. That probably remains the case.
But in arguing that the BBC should focus on reflecting the relative balance of public opinion rather than Westminster opinion, one is effectively telling the BBC to take its cues from opinion polls rather than democratic elections. Others say that is a perilous route.
So it ain’t easy to get this sort of thing ‘right’.
In the early 90s the BBC probably gave too much time to eurosceptics. In the second half of the decade, too little.
Now, they’ve probably got it about right.
But not everyone will agree.
The BBC may have made good calls and bad calls on this issue – but it’s always been about genuinely trying to be fair. Not about bias.
The BBC may say that it attempts to reflect the parliamentary balance pro- and anti-EU. But the BBC surely knows that the balance of opinion outside the public institutions (of which Parliament and the BBC are two) is much more heavily against the EU. The BBC refuses to take account of this real balance of opinion as is seen from JR’s post above.
JR. I thought it was written into the BBCs charter that it is required to reflect “all significant strands of public opinion”. This is not the same as reflecting the balance of views within the MPs of the main political parties.
In fact on matters relating to the EU it is very different.
One might even argue that in areas where the main parties are failing to cover the range of real public opinion the BBC has a greater rather than lesser duty to facilitate the expression of dissident views.
johnse18,
The point you raise is absolutely crucial. Whenever the BBC is accused of imbalance on any kind of contentious issue – Europe, the war in Iraq, immigration, etc – it responds by saying that it has a balance of party political opinion. Look, they say, we invite Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dems, omitting ot mention that there is very little difference between their opinions.
On the Hannan piece – it is worth reading the comments. Quite extraordinary, some of them. They clearly had not read Hannan’s account and merely accuse him of childish behaviour (surely shouting across others talking and demanding attention would have been even more childish) or attack him for being a europhobe, which he is not. Actually, he is not even a particularly strong eurosceptic, having to moderate his tone as a Tory MEP. But his views are different from the run of the mill BBC ones.
John Reith,
The way you describe the BBC it appears to be close to collective sainthood.
In fact, there is little evidence to show that the BBC is overly concerned with the opinions of its captive audience, or anyone else for that matter.
The BBC stubbornly follows its own narrow agenda, contemptuously brushes aside valid complaints, ignores the recommendations of self-appointed panels and wont publish the findings of reports investigating its bias.
It’s a law unto itself.
I tried to post this comment on the open thread below but can’t for some reason so I hope my learned colleagues will forgive me if I post it as an OT comment here:
Biodegradable | 24.03.07 – 2:17 pm,
Yes, Katya Adler was in fine form as usual, strutting her anti-Israel stuff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6487833.stm
You would think that on the eve of an exciting international match with two Israeli Arabs (not Kaya’s so-called Israeli Arabs) in the team the BBC’s hacks could take a break from Israel-bashing and concentrate instead on the equal rights enjoyed by Arab citizens of the country.
At the end of her alleged bit of journalism, Katya threatens to get all wistful on us:
In this weekend’s Euro qualifier you will see clear teamwork between Jewish and Arab Israelis.
If you want to think positively, you could say it is a start.
(I suppose in her wilful ignorance Katya doesn’t know that these are not the first Arab football players in Israel’s national team. Or that Israel’s parliament has Arab members and a recently-appointed cabinet minister).
But the wistfulness doesn’t materialise:
Off the pitch though, and good intentions aside, people here will tell you mutual suspicion is growing.
Ah, yes. The old, unverifiable some people say line whenever the BBC wants to push a propaganda point.
On what objective evidence, I wonder, does John Reith base his sweeping pronouncements about BBC EU-related coverage? If it exists, I’d love to see it.
My company, Minotaur Media, has extensively tracked BBC EU output over eight years since 1999, and compiled almost 20 reports based on analysis of thousands of hours of programming.
The results, some of which can be found on the Global Britain website or have been published as Centre for Policy Studies papers, establish very clearly that Europhile opinion has consistently had a poor crack of the whip. And those who advocate re-negotiation of the treaties or withdrawal have been treated even more badly.
The overall conclusions indicate broadly that Daniel Hannan is correct – bias seems not to be intentional, but it is deep-set and instinctive.
more EU puffery courtesy of the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6476273.stm
“Celebrating the Environmental Union”
‘The BBC stubbornly follows its own narrow agenda, contemptuously brushes aside valid complaints, ignores the recommendations of self-appointed panels and wont publish the findings of reports investigating its bias.
It’s a law unto itself.’
Bryan | 26.03.07 – 10:26 am |
Very, very well put. Al Beeb really is something the Soviets would have been proud of.
‘2+2=5’.
‘No it doesn’t’
‘It does if we say it does. What are you going to do about it?’
And there right, aren’t they? What are we or any one else going to do about it? They are a law unto them selves, as Bryan rightly states.
Just listen to the likes of ‘JR’. It really is just like hearing from the brain washed masses of a Socialist dictatorship, spouting the saintly virtue of there glorious leader.
I despair. I really do.
John Reith
“The BBC may have made good calls and bad calls on this issue – but it’s always been about genuinely trying to be fair. Not about bias.”
Your response perfectly exemplifies the point.
The BBC, in the person of Horrocks and in other public statements has admitted that the way it presented Europe was too far skewed to the Europhile perspective.
The question, as I say, is why. And I am not convinced by your insistence that Bill Cash being given BBC airtime constitutes fairness.
Presentation of a issue consists of far more than even airtime – even if it HAD been granted, which I doubt.
The question is, from what perspective do you begin your attempt at being fair.
And the BBC’s starting perspective, as Horrocks admitted, was a Europhile perspective.
“But in arguing that the BBC should focus on reflecting the relative balance of public opinion rather than Westminster opinion, one is effectively telling the BBC to take its cues from opinion polls rather than democratic elections. Others say that is a perilous route.”
John Rieth
Hmm…..As somebody who lives in “Europe” I find it very amusing that the you seem to think that Euro-scepticism is something of a “Little England” sickness that only far right lunatics have.
Please explain to me then John, why I live in a country that put the boot in to federalism, where the only people who cling on to that idea are corrupt toadies like Prodi who for to long have been on the gravy train.
Ooops….that is “mainstream” thinking to you.
What Al Beeb has forgotten to tell you dear reader, is that Europe is turning blue, and that the French and Dutch results have made the centre right take notice.
No more centralist, socialist, lunacy from the EU.
Since 2002 we’ve had a centre right Government where the economy is doing well, where we take our share in the burden in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq. We look both inwards AND outwards.
Denmark-the same, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Eastern Europe…..the rising stars in Europe. All taking the centre right way of thinking directly from one the ideas that liberated them-Thatcherism.
Even Germany is starting to shift to the right and of course the coming man of France:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6494789.stm
I think Al Beeb you do yourselves a disservice, because your world view only comes from your buddies in the bubbles like Hilversum or Berlin.
You don’t realise that the “fringe” viewpoint expressed by moderate Euro-sceptics in the UK is shared by millions across Europe.
You fail to report that but instead focus on the “far-right” to represent “right wing” thinking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6393785.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6422837.stm
Getting it “right” or “wrong”….your not even close buddy.
John Reith
“But in arguing that the BBC should focus on reflecting the relative balance of public opinion rather than Westminster opinion, one is effectively telling the BBC to take its cues from opinion polls rather than democratic elections. Others say that is a perilous route.”
That is a very good point. The solution should, however, be very simple. A BBC reporter’s role is to be an impartial journalist who is prepared to examine all sides of the story. The BBC – and journalists in general – seem to have lost sight of this very basic concept. Unlike journalists who write or speak for partisan organisations, however, BBC journalists’ inability to present a balanced argument means that they are necessarily failing to provide impartiality. Quite simply, they are not fulfilling their job description. Almost every news item on the BBC only covers and reports one side of the story, and only sometimes balances this with an opposing point of view.
You imply in your statement that the BBC tends to reflect Westminster opinion – well, it does when it suits them. It reflects Westminster opinion on Climate Change, where politicians are involved in an internal competition to imagine the worst scenario, but does not reflect Westminster majority opinion in favour of the War in Iraq. It may reflect Westminster opinion on the EU, but certainly does not with regard to detention of terror suspects or the role of the Police in combatting terror. Indeed, much of the BBC’s output on these last issues is reflective of a niche minority opinion both at Westminster and in the “community”.
I agree with you that opinion polls are not the way forward. However, there are far better ways than opinion polls (whose questions, after all, are invariably attempting to lead the respondent to their desired response) to gauge public opinion. No one on this site need reminding of the BBC’s own HYS as a way of gathering public viewpoints – yet this is often ignored by the BBC’s reporters. Better than either of these methods is to have a staff representative of the population as a whole – politically, socially, ethnically, from a urban/rural perspective, from an age perspective, male/female perspective – and again the BBC fails here. To quote Andrew Marr: “It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias.”
I appreciate that the BBC can’t suddenly fix it’s demographics, but in the meanwhile surely it’s not too much to ask for it to stick to a very simple formula. Present the facts; if there is an argument, present all sides of the argument equally, and challenge all sides of the argument equally; encourage dissident views but subject these views to the same scrutiny as the mainstream. John Reith, surely we can agree that this is a reasonable blueprint for balanced journalism?
In place of this, too often we get a very different formula. Present only the facts that back up the desired viewpoint (The Middle East), present one side of the argument over the others (Policing terrorism in the UK), challenge one side of the argument whilst failing to challenge the other (the EU in this instance, many party political issues), discourage dissident viewpoints (until recently, climate change). Any report or article that follows the above methods is biased, and is so commonplace on the BBC as to occur almost on a daily basis.
I personally read from both ends of the spectrum to attempt to determine the facts; strangely enough I tend to find that a compromise between, say, the Mail and the Guardian comes closer to the truth than the BBC, Associated Press, Times or any organisation that purports to remain reasonably impartial or on the middle ground. In GCSE history (a good few years back now!) I was taught that all historical documents are biased, however unintentionally. I think that this where the BBC has gone wrong. Rather than try to cover all sides of the story, it has tried to find the elusive middle ground – it is difficult not to be biased here.
Finally I would add that there are some areas where the BBC does deliberately try to promote a view that is neither balanced nor on the middle ground. It’s reflexive Anti-Americanism is an example of this, and is surely an attempt to indoctrinate its viewers against the American people without good cause.
Bryan | 26.03.07 – 10:42 am
You missed the ‘best’ part of Katya Adler’s piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6487833.stm
They hold Israeli passports, unlike the stateless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, but in this self-declared Jewish state theirs is often an uncomfortable existence.
I suppose you could say Israel was ‘self-declared’, but it hardly came out of the blue and had been previously envisioned under UN Resolution 181.
http://www.israel.org/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel
In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.
Also: http://www.mideastweb.org/israeldeclaration.htm
Biodegradable | 26.03.07 – 1:31 pm |
Indeed. Leftists don’t like facts to get in the way of their ignorance and hatred.
John Reith
Like Fran I don’t believe that Cash and other Tory eurosceptics being interviewed was an example of the BBC being fair and balanced.
I seem to remember them all over the airwaves in order to encourage the TORY SPLIT meme.
And if it wasn’t that then we had the TORY SLEAZE one.
nice post Heron
The BBCs power declines every day.
And the final death nail will be their Lick Spittle Poodle relationsip with Gordon Clown…..the nation hates the man, as he has stolen so much from so many….but the BBC is obviously in bed wioth him….so as his popularity plumets even further, so will the BBCs.
The time is coming for the death of the Old Empire and the BBC preaching o the world…..
Just look at Iran, even they now see Britain as weak and feeble…….lol.
Reith 8:12am
Please, JR, do us a favour…
Were you actually around for the eurosceptics coverage in the 90’s? The idea that Bill Cash & the other Tory rebels were prominent in the news because of their euroscepticism is utter nonsense.
The ‘story’ as far as the BBC was concerned was them being ‘rebels’ not what they were rebelling about. Perhaps with your privileged access to BBC archives you can post a recording of an interview with Bill Cash from the time. I can well remember Cash trying to put across what he saw as the dangers of Maastricht and the BBC interviewer cutting right across him to get back to the ‘important’ point about his rebellion.
Following your logic, the highpoint of last week’s BBC viewing should have been a programme on the disastrous effects the abolition of the slave trade had on the Bristol shipping industry.
They hold Israeli passports, unlike the stateless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, but in this self-declared Jewish state theirs is often an uncomfortable existence.
And the point is ❓ ❓ ❓
I don’t hold a Barundian, Thai, Chinese or Mauritanian passport. The reason could be discrimination against short, ‘hideous’ white guys. It could be antisemitism. It could be I wasn’t sufficiently servile to the clerk.
However I suspect the real reason is that I am not a citizen of any of these countries. Does anyone see Palestinians demanding Israeli citizenship?
Katya Adler should answer this question. If things are so bad for Arabs in Israel why is the population flow, legal and illegal, only in one direction i.e. towards Israel?
this self-declared Jewish state
More from the (self) Declaration of the State of Israel:
http://www.mideastweb.org/israeldeclaration.htm
The declaration stated that Israel “will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. “
Now compare and contrast with the declarations embodied in the Charters of the PLO, Fateh and Hamas.
John Reith | 26.03.07 – 8:12 am |
Do you seriously believe that the BBC’s coverage of the Maastrict Treaty was not even slightly infected by a desire to see the back of the Tory government? Are you really sure that the BBC presented a balanced view without prejudice? Are you sure that the Government’s ministers were actually allowed to finish their answers before the subject was highjacked onto ‘sleeze’ or ‘Tory splits’.
Because I remember distinctly shouting at my radio for Humprheys & Co. to STFU and let the guy answer. Why? Because I wanted to hear what he said. Whether to believe him or not is down to me not the BBC.
News reportage isn’t brain surgery. It’s very simple. What the public want from news coverage is the news. The facts. That’s all. The vast majority of us are more than capable of putting our own spin on current affairs. We are more than capable of exhibiting our own biases. The job of the BBC is to present the facts to the public; and that’s all. That’s all the facts BTW, not just those that ‘balance’ the story.
We’ll make our own minds up, thanks very much. We don’t need some La-La Land Lovey telling us what to think!
Biodegradable (quoting Katya Adler):
this self-declared Jewish state
Which Countries Have State Religions?
For 188 independent countries in 2000, 72 had no state religion in the years 2000, 1970, and 1900; 58 had a state religion at all three dates; and 58 had some kind of transition. Among the 58 transitional countries, 12 had two transitions, 4 of which (former Soviet Republics in Asia) involved two forms of state religion.
State religions are not unusual. Just about every Arab state is a self declared Muslim state. However only one state has declared itself Jewish. In Katya Adler’s mind, apparently, one too many.
FYI
Countries which recognize Islam as their official religion
Self-declared. Is there any other kind ❓
Islam without specifying sect
Afghanistan (State religion)
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Egypt (State religion)
Iran (State religion)
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Maldives (State religion)
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan (State religion)
Qatar
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (State religion)
Saudi Arabia (Religion of the Kingdom)
Somalia
Somaliland (religion of the nation)
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates (Religion of the Kingdom)
Yemen
Sunni Islam
Algeria
Malaysia
Pakistan (as National-sanctioned religion)
Saudi Arabia (as state-sanctioned religion)
Somalia
Shi’a Islam
Iran (as state-sanctioned religion)
Thanks for that deegee, another weapon in my armoury for dealing with those nuts who claim Israel has no right to exist because it’s ‘exclusively’ Jewish – I always point to Pakistan as an example, now I have a whole list. I wonder how many of those listed allow the practice of Christianity, let alone Judaism.
OT but another must-read from Melanie:
The UN Human Wrongs Council
JR’s mention of Bill Cash reminded me of a conversation I had with a BBC Radio new producer at a wedding many years ago. I mentioned the lack of right wing figures (as opposed to Conservatives) on the BBC and she replied by saying that they regularly had Nicholas Fairburn on to provide balance.
Wonderful chap that Sir Nicholas was (an odd snipet is that he designed his wife’s clothing) he seemed alone in putting forward views that did not fit with the metropolitan BBC. It seems that their current right wingnut is Frederick Forsyth.
PS The producer noticeably didn’t drink when I proposed the loyal toast.
Fairburn? Designed [and made?] his own clothes too didn’t he? V fond of tartan I recall.
Yes, regularly featured on the Beeb as if was a ‘typical weirdo’ Tory.
JR
You speak of the difficulty of “getting the appropriate balance”.
I think this speaks volumes about the whole current Beeb mindset.
In Robin Aitken’s book, he explains that, in his early days in BBC news and current affairs, young journalists were taught that the biggest sin of all was “editorialising”.
The rules laid down in your namesake’s era insisted on impartial reporting of strict facts without opinion or interpretation.
Aitken goes on to explain that it was only in the relatively recent Birt era that programme makers were encouraged to take a position on issues and “interpret” them for the audience.
I think many people here believe that the old Reithian ideal of “just the facts” is the only ethical basis for a public broadcaster funded on a compulsory basis.
It’s fine for the Mail or Grauniad to pander to their readers’ prejudices – they have the option of buying the paper or not.
As soon as the entire population is forced to “buy” a media outlet the situation changes because it has to accomodate people with widely differing viewpoints.
Editorialising, interpretation, guidance, emphasis or “getting the appropriate balance” are total no-no’s.
The original John Reith understood this perfectly back in 1927 – why do you have such a problem with the concept?
sicktodeathofit | 26.03.07 – 12:04 pm,
Thanks for that. I’m also sicktodeathofit – the BBC, that is.
Biodegradable | 26.03.07 – 1:31 pm,
You missed the ‘best’ part of Katya Adler’s piece
Yes, I saw it. There’s just so much to Fisk and so little time.
There’s just so much to Fisk and so little time.
That would make a good slogan for B-BBC 😉
Yeah, maybe with the first two words omitted.
The comments in Daniel Hannan’s blog demonstrate that not everyone takes the spluttering twisted UKIP view of the world that posters on this board.
Quote from the comments section:
“Wonderful how your inability to argue a point on a programme is transformed into a positive – “not afraid to walk out of a programme…” Hilarious!”
Plus also there is a non too flattering review of Hannan’s performance from what would appear to be a Europhobe.
Perhaps there was no bias and Hannan behaved badly. Or is even suggesting this part of a liberal conspiracy.
If people want to see 10 articles by Daniel Hannan presenting his arguments about the EU, go to:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk
(then go to ‘Archive’ and type in ‘Daniel Hannan’).
Ah, Ad hominem from “A Lurker”. Now there is a surprise. To be fair though he managed to childishly insult both everyone on this forum and Hannan in just a few lines.
Who says the Left has no arguments?
On registering for (Dont) “Have your say” you are invited to state your “Country”.
I was overjoyed to find that the country “Palestine- Occupied Territory” was present.
I was dismayed but not suprised not to find England, Northern Ireland,North britain,wales.
But it could be worse soon there will be only one Country option…EU.
Re Biodegradable’s OT comment 26.03.07 – 7:50 pm.
Little Green Footballs has video of the speech quoted in Melanie Phillips’ article.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24924_Banned_UN_Speech-_Human_Rights_Nightmare&only
“UN Human Rights Council bans criticism of itself” is quite a story. No surprise that the UN cheerleaders at the BBC choose not to cover it.
Related to other OT comments (RTOOTC?) :
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL26651812.html
GENEVA, March 26 (Reuters) – The United Nations top human rights body voted on Monday to end routine scrutiny of Iran and Uzbekistan despite accusations of abuse in both countries.
The 47-state Human Rights Council accepted the recommendation of a five-country working party, whose members included Zimbabwe [pause for James Finlayson-style double-take] that they be removed from the so-called 1503 procedure under which accusations of violations are discussed in closed-door, confidential sessions.
The decision had been widely expected because a majority of states on the Council, launched last year to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, oppose the singling out of individual states for special attention.
Unless the individual state is Israel, of course.
Good Morning;
DEDICATED TO THE 3,523 VICTIMS WHO DIED IN THE TROUBLES
Irelands Call
Come the day and come the hour
Come the power and the glory
We have come to answer
Our Country’s call
From the four proud provinces of Ireland
Ireland, Ireland,
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We’ll answer Ireland’s call
From the mighty Glens of Antrim
From the rugged hills of Galway
From the walls of Limerick
And Dublin Bay
From the four proud provinces of Ireland
Ireland, Ireland,
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We’ll answer Ireland’s call
Hearts of steel
And heads unbowing
Vowing never to be broken
We will fight, until
We can fight no more
From the four proud provinces of Ireland
Ireland, Ireland,
Together standing tall
Shoulder to shoulder
We’ll answer Ireland’s call
From which ever part we come from on these great islands, be it English, Irish, Welsh or Scots, yesterday was a day for ALL of us to be proud, for at last we are so near to finally putting down our swords and uniting together to live in peace and friendship.
‘A Lurker’ – your attempts to justify the canonisation of the BBC are an abysmal failure.
I am not and never have been UKIP.
There are plenty like me.
However, so what if some of them are.
They have the right of free speech and it does not invalidate the blogs whatever political party they support, the question is if the blogs themselves are correct.
You are trying to play the man instead of the ball and failing even at that.
The old failed dawkinsesque BBC tactic of setting up straw men that you can then demolish even though these weren’t the issue in the first place simply will not do.
Looking at the BBC’s so called unbiased programming I can see plenty of cases where contributors were clearly misled about the content and could and indeed should have walked out. It amazes me that doing a John Nott doesn’t happen more often.
Yes Lurker.
You see me and Baggie are fellow travellers on here who are the “disillusioned liberals” on these boards.
Then you have Sarah-she doesn’t think very highly of Mr Bush, nor does she support the Iraq War.
Then there is the irrepressible Archduke, an Irish “nationalist” to boot.
Then TPO, Fabio, pounce and Jon, from the “Conservative” wing of B-BBC.BioD to provide an Israeli viewpoint, and Fran with her active interest in news reporting.
More and more voices are joining us, young and old,who are sick to death of being lied to, of having OUR country rubbished and believe in freedom of speech and the right to be herd.
I want a country called the United Kingdom,not Airstrip One.
You see B-Biased is a “broad-church” of “centre/centre right thinking” not afriad to stand up against the BBC.And look at the sort of topics we cover and the views expressed.
Unlike SHUT YOUR MOUTH and the Winston Smith school of censorship.
http://newssniffer.newworldodour…ds/ mostcensored
But the BBC is afraid, and as more and more people add there voices and opinions, we will get stronger, because UNLIKE the BBC, we are not in the pockets of the political parties and nor are we afraid to speak our minds.
Ladies and Gentlemen-The banner is raised. ONWARD TO VICTORY!!!
Nice to see Paisley finally vindicated for his anti-violence stance all these years.
A pity that known killers like adams and mcguiness should be allowed to be in power.
What will their security clearance level be?
I note that the BBC are getting better – rather than describing Paisley as more extreme and dengerous than Gerry Adams, they at least this morning awarded them equal moral status by describing them both as extremists. I know, but it’s a start….
BioD to provide an Israeli viewpoint
I do comment most on the BBC’s bias against Israel, because it’s what I notice more than anything. I am actually a (second generation) British born Jew living in Spain.
Talking of Spain, archduke and others got it right when they said that the main reason for the Socialist Zapatero’s election victory was Aznar’s insistence, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that ETA was to blame for the Madrid bombings. I was here in Spain and followed events closely on Spanish TV, press and international sources via the internet. I have not spoken to one Spaniard who voted for Zapatero’s government for any reason other than they felt Aznar’s government had lied to them.
Of course the Spanish public was against sending their troops to Iraq but in no way was their decision to boot Aznar from power a surrender to Islamic terror.
The electorate were still angry with Aznar’s government for a series of mishandled disasters, such as the ‘Prestige’ oil spill and others – the Madrid bombs and the government’s handling of the aftermath was the final straw.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=655&id=1411282002
http://www.wetsand.com/article.asp?locationid=5&resourceid=3792&ProdId=0&CatId=852&TabID=0&SubTabID=0
John Reith
Interesting that the only instance you can find of BBC supporting eurosceptics was when they could damage a Conservative government. Why do you suggest that the BBC should have ever been willing to reflect the balance of Westminster or of public opinion? Surely they should reflect the balance of the debate, by having reasoned representation of both views of any controversial topic, and thorough examination of news based on its importance, not on its value to the left-wing viewpoint in the debate.
Heron put it very well.
A Lurker
Your post is hard to address because it is ridiculous on so many levels.
There are very few UKIP supporters posting here. On the other hand anyone whose views are in line with UKIPs still has a relevant argument that the BBC should reflect, which they clearly don’t and you imply they shouldn’t. To sneer at people as having “UKIP views” is a logical fallacy, although I am not sure whether it is ad hominem attack on UKIP or an ad populum appeal to the support of the majority that disagree with UKIP. Either way it proves that you can’t argue your case if you have to resort to fallacy. You bring up someone else’s contention that Hannan couldn’t make his argument, without support and without addressing Hannan’s claim that he was not allowed to present his argument in the same way as the other guests; you thus entirely fail to make any case. Need I go further? I could.
John Reith is losing it, as is the whole BBC.
They know they are being increasingly ignored and ridiculed, and they are now just sen as Gordon Browns lap dogs.
Reith, go be a sribe for Brown, stop talking about journalism, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about….you’re just a secretary mate….hired to read out Government press releases…lol.
“A Lurker”‘s appalling ignorance (which always comes complete with an unintentionally comical dose of arrogance) was so firmly exposed in a recent post on slavery that it really does seem worthless responding to any more of his/her/their tripe…
I find it remarkable that because I used the words the “spluttering twisted UKIP view of the world” so many of you got upset. Some of you deny being UKIP supporters – fair enough I say.
But I’ve seen posters on this board incorrectly use the term socialist, communist etc to describe anyone they don’t agree with and that includes Tony Blair and posters on this board. I’ve regularly commented on the fact that people are misusing the terms and I doubt if many of the “anti B-BBC” posters on this thread are communists.
I’ve also seen posts attacking liberals on these comments boards that are far more “sneering” than the quite mild words that I used. Clearly you must have lost all sense of perspective up there on your high horses. Seems it is ok to be sneering as long as you you have a “spluttering twisted UKIP view of the world.”