Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:

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.

Bookmark the permalink.

1,055 Responses to Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:

  1. Josh says:

    BBC is now an Islamic propaganda site

    Check this:

    Religious Converts
    Have you converted from or to Islam? Tell us your story

    Picture of a mosque beisde the text

    On clicking the link, it navigates to this page

    Religious Converts

    BBC News is interested in hearing from people who have converted from or to Islam.
    Have you changed your faith?

    Were you brought up a Muslim but now follow a different religion? Or maybe you have converted to Islam?

    We are interested in hearing about your experiences. What was the reaction from your friends and family? How difficult was the decision to convert?

    Photo: A Muslim father and sons pray

    This is entertainment news (for BBC) and we will see many muslims with pseduo names and their ‘conversion’ stories


  2. Abandon ship! says:


    So where do the females pray?


  3. Alan says:

    The Islamic Republic of Iran’s criminal regime may be beyond a joke, but, from ‘The Spoof’:

    “Iran reality TV shows seized UK navy crew: BBC”

    (scroll down).


  4. Abandon ship! says:


    St James of Smug takes on the evil pharmaceutical industry.

    Glaxo Smith Kline developing and making cheap vaccines for Africa? Clearly a cynical ploy to project an “altruistic” image.

    Glaxo Smith Kline marketing a drug to help weight loss? Clearly a cynical ploy to make billions by exploiting the huge dieting market.


  5. phoebe says:

    From the 910 Group Forum: Assuming the Marines are still captive, we are organizing a protest for Saturday, March 31 at 3pm outside the Iranian Embassy. It will be in Kensington Rd (S side) 200 yard east of the junction with Prince’s Gate – that’s as near the Embassy as you are allowed to go to protest. Nearest tube is South Kensington – it’s about 10 minutes walk from there.


  6. UK Daily Pundit says:

    The BBC is about to move even more to the left. The two contenders to be the new BBC chairman are Gordon Brown’s Mr Fixit, Sir Michael Lyons, and Chris Powell, chairman of the Left-wing think-tank the Institute of Public Policy Research (and brother of Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff). God help us!


  7. archduke says:

    “phoebe | 30.03.07 – 9:36 am”

    910 group? who are they?

    on a lighter note, Jib-Jab (the creators of that “this land is my land” U.S. election cartoon) have a new one out – “this is what we call the news”

    (ok its american, but it could, more or less equally apply here)

    “The BBC is about to move even more to the left.”

    oh dear god. more Pravda.


  8. JimBob says:

    Anybody see “Mummy’s War” last night?
    As much as I hate Ch4 sometimes they do seem to churn out documentaries that are consistently better than anything the BBC produces. Maybe it’s better the BBC didn’t do this documentary as it would have been the usual pile of biased trash that they normally churn out.
    Finally got around to seeing “The Great Global Warming Swindle” also. Again, not a programme the BBC with all it’s 3 billion quid of stolen money would ever have commissioned.


  9. max says:
    The BBC Director General Mark Thompson describes kidnapped BBC cinematographer as:
    “one of those amazing BBC people who make extraordinary sacrifices and take considerable risks because they believe a story needs to be told”.

    Not to report the facts but to tell a story. Heh.

    From the same article, note also that “His is widely believed to have been kidnapped but no demands have been made public.”
    Which kind of insinuates that demands were made privately, no?

    In either case the BBC now has the apparent support of Saudi Arabia who financially supports Hamas. Think about it. What’s next, Iran calling for AJ release because kidnapping is bad?


  10. archduke says:

    “JimBob | 30.03.07 – 10:09 am ”

    C4 certainly seem to be pumping out controversial documentaries recently – Prince Charles, Hitchens on Cameron, the pro-GM “Animal Farm”, Undercover Mosque…

    they dont appear to be pushing a single “agenda”. they seem to be more interested in producing interesting TV.


  11. archduke says:

    as pointed out above by max

    Mark Thompson described Alan Johnston as “one of those amazing BBC people who make extraordinary sacrifices and take considerable risks because they believe a story needs to be told

    so, there you have it. right from the horses mouth. they’re not interested in reporting the news – now they report “stories”.


  12. Abandon ship! says:

    “a story needs to be told”

    Once upon a time the Palestinian people lived happily in democratic Palestine, as they had done for thousands of years, with the holy AlQuds as their capital. Then, a combination of British colonialists and Zionist infiltrators invaded the land. With massacres and pillage the Zionists ethnically cleansed the land, stealing land and property from poor Palestinians. With a series of aggressive wars, the Zionists, now aided by cabals in Washington, further expanded the illegal statelet. In this context, how can one deny the pain felt by Palestinians, and their need to reply in the only way they know how? They speak truth to power, blow up evil Zionist settlers and produce martyrs by the million! Who can be found to right this terrible wrong? Thankyou BBC, for giving voice to this truth.


  13. Ingsoc is doublethink says:

    I think today our direct action starts. I’ve now cancelled my subscription to the BBC.

    I propose a “communiqué” on behalf of Biased BBC:

    -To the Director General of the BBC

    As a “stakeholder” in the BBC, it is with deepest regret that I am now cancelling my £131.50 Licence Fee as I no longer believe that the BBC truly represents my views as a British Citizen.

    On the week that the BBC fights to suppress still further the Balen Report regarding the , latest disgraceful news coverage regarding our servicemen I believe brings shame on the United Kingdom and damages our image abroad.

    I will no longer support such a public body.

    I would further like a response on three important issues:

    -The condition and safety of your employee Alan Johnson and clarification on who took him?

    -There where about of your correspondent Frances Harrison and why we have to have Iranian State News reporting to us, after all we pay YOU to report.

    -Why the current editorial line reinforces Iranian propaganda and why do the BBC keep ignoring “the customer” when complaints are made.

    Until that time, I will be switching to an alternative provider.

    Have no doubt; this is a grave and serious situation in which the British people deserve strait reporting and reassurance. No matter which political viewpoint I hold, this is the very minimum I expect

    I await your response accordingly either via or through a public statement.


    A loyal citizen of the United Kingdom.


    We can agree the wording.

    We get hold of an e-mail address’s (Broaden springs to mind) within the BBC and we attach that with the letter copy and pasted in.

    You send out and e-mail headed with something like “The BBC-Not in My Name” AND the telephone number 0870 241 6468 so people can cancel their and then.

    We then e-mail every Tom, Dick and Harry-our allies on other blogging sites, newspapers you name it we should send it, and we get them to “spread the word”.

    The time will shortly be coming to have the showdown with them.

    What do other people think?


  14. phoebe says:


    910 Group:


  15. rightofcentre says:

    Not that I am a particular fan of The Iron Lady, (being a Miner at the time).


  16. Josh says:

    Abandon ship!:

    Why should women pray and what’s the need? I guess they have no choice but to please their husbands here on earth and in islmaic heaven as virgins


  17. archduke says:

    ” Ingsoc is doublethink | 30.03.07 – 10:42 am ”

    damn good idea. there was more Iranian propaganda broadcast as “news” on the 11 o clock bulletin on radio2.

    apparently one of the male marines has “apologised” to the Iranians. yeah, right.


  18. Oscar says:

    Abandon ship!:
    “a story needs to be told”

    Brilliant. I wonder if this version of events was presented to a sample of the British public how many would say they believed this was an accurate history of Palestine. An awful lot I fear. And when you present facts (I’m talking incontravertible facts here), to producers at the BBC, they write back saying – I don’t know where you get your version of history from. I know, because I’ve been at the receiving end of exactly this reaction. They not only make up ‘stories’ they also think they’re true.


  19. Biodegradable says:

    After complaining twice and reminding the BBC of their undertaking to respond to complaints within 10 days, I finally have a result.

    Note the begrudging tone, the “however”. Still every small victory counts.

    I shall now be complaining about the entire article about Israelis allegedly killing Egyptian POWs, given that a pair of former UN peacekeepers who witnessed the 1967 Six Day War have cast doubt on these claims.

    Time to open a bottle of pop and celebrate my small victory 🙂

    Subject: RE: Complaint Reply Required
    Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:41:39 +0100
    From: “NewsOnline”
    To: Biodegradable

    Dear Mr Biodegradable,

    Sorry for the delay in answering your email concerning the use of the word “counterattack” in the story in question.
    Given the timescale, we agree that there could have been better ways of characterising the 1973 Egyptian assault in the Sinai. However, we are not sure whether Israel’s justifications for its 1967 assault completely negate the use of the term. The fact is Egyptian forces were attempting to recapture Egyptian sovereign territory occupied by Israeli forces six years earlier.

    To remove the ambiguity, however, we are removing the phrase, which we do not feel is an essential element of the article.

    Thank you for contacting us.

    BBC News website

    —–Original Message—–


    The report at the above URL states the following:

    “Israel captured the arid Sinai peninsula from Egypt in the Six Day war of 1967, with Egypt counterattacking in the 1973 war. The two sides signed a peace treaty in 1979 and Sinai was returned to Egypt.”

    I feel that the use of the word ‘counterattack’ misleads the reader into thinking that the Six Day War was started by Israel in order to ‘capture’ land, and that Egypt merely responded to this in 1973.

    While it is true that Israel made a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian air force, it was clear that an attack by several Arab states was inevitable, as the relevant BBC’s own “On This Day” entry makes plain:

    ‘The attack follows a build-up of Arab military forces along the Israeli border.

    The Arab states had been preparing to go to war against Israel with Egypt, Jordan and Syria being aided by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria.

    On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”

    Egypt signed a pact with Jordan at the end of May declaring an attack on one was an attack on both. This was seen by Israel as a clear sign of preparation for all-out war.’

    A “counterattack” is generally understood to be an immediate response to an attack. After the 1967 war there were several years of relative peace before, once again, in 1973, Egypt and other Arab states decided to once again try to destroy Israel.

    After six years of relative peace the Yom Kippur war can hardly be called an Egyptian “counterattack”. Again, as the BBC’s own “On This day” reports:

    Thank you for your attention, I look forward to your response and an appropriate correction.


  20. JimBob says:

    rightofcentre | 30.03.07 – 10:59 am

    I was never keen on her either, my dad being a miner at the time.

    But how I wish she was in power now.

    She certainly wouldn’t allow the BBC to forget the Falklands. The BBC said the other day it would cost too much to do live coverage of the 25th anniversary from the Falklands. Yet Channel4 can produce a fascinating documentary by putting several people on an RAF flight and for next to no money.

    I think the BBC said it would cost around 250K for their coverage. Every HOUR of every day the BBC takes £340,000 off the public.


  21. max says:

    Well done Mr Biodegradable.


  22. Biodegradable says:

    Re: the result of my complaint.

    Note how they still don’t accept that the 1973 attack on Israel was not really aimed at destroying the Jewish State, merely to “recapture Egyptian sovereign territory”.

    The fact is Egyptian forces were attempting to recapture Egyptian sovereign territory occupied by Israeli forces six years earlier.

    No mention of Syria attacking from the north…


  23. Anonymous says:

    Just a question. Has there EVER been a “Palestinian” Embassy anywhere? Ambassador? A Palestinian seat at the United Nations…or League of Nations???.

    What is this “Palestine” they talk of?… one seems to have EVER regaurded it as a country…..


  24. gordon-bennett says:

    rightofcentre | 30.03.07 – 10:59 am
    JimBob | 30.03.07 – 11:27 am

    The miners started it – Thatcher finished it.

    scargill was the villain of the piece – he thought he could be a working class hero by dislodging Thatcher. Whatever happened to him? Even his wife told him to fuck off.


  25. Oscar says:


    Congrats – that is a result even if it’s a mealy mouthed one.


    Enjoyed the Jib Jab spoof – George Bush can’t open a door story reminded me of the great Cameron hair parting debate – pretty vital to the national interest.

    Phoebe – 910 – is this a ‘day before’ ref. 9/11? (sorry if I seem slow). The group looks impressive by the way.


  26. Biodegradable says:

    Well done Mr Biodegradable.
    max | 30.03.07 – 11:29 am

    Thank you max 😉

    BTW, note that the corrected story is a “stealth edit” – it’s still dated 9th March.

    What is this “Palestine” they talk of?… one seems to have EVER regaurded it as a country…..
    Anonymous | 30.03.07 – 11:35 am

    “Palestine” has observer status at the UN, however in this clip somebody calling himself the “Palestinian ambassador” is seen making a speech.

    The best answer to your question is this anonymous post from another blog which I copied some time ago:

    You are fundamentally wrong about the mythical people you call Palestinians. If you think you are right, and those people (who are actually Arabs) answer the following questions about the make-believe land of Palestine:

    When was it founded and by whom?
    What were its borders?
    What was its capital?
    What were its major cities?
    What constituted the basis of its economy?
    What was its form of government?
    Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
    Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
    What was the language of the country of Palestine?
    What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
    What was the name of its currency?
    Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
    And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

    If you are lamenting the low sinking of a once proud nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that nation proud and what was it so proud of?

    And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

    I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.

    The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy.

    For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it the Palestinian people and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the West Bank and Gaza, respectively?

    The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut and California with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called Palestinians have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

    In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel’s ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again, was its beginning?

    You’ll also find answers here:

    Myths, Hypotheses and Facts
    Concerning the Origin of Peoples

    The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians


  27. JimBob says:

    gordon-bennett | 30.03.07 – 11:42 am

    Even his wife told him to f off.

    He was no oil painting though was he.

    I have nothing but the utmost admiration for Maggie. I also think sending Carol to the Flaklands for a programme on the Falklands was a marvellous idea.
    I somehow think the idea of paying a ‘Thatcher’ to do the type of journalism they seem incapable of would not have gone down well at the BBC.


  28. phoebe says:


    I honestly don’t know – but thanks for the compliment!


  29. rightofcentre says:

    To clarify my point.
    I agreed with Mrs Thatcher over the Falklands War.
    I didn`t agree with the destruction of the Mining industry and the loss of nearly 200,000 jobs.
    Yes, she probably would be doing something to stop BBC bias (which I believe the Daily Mail article was showing), but I`m also old enough to remember politicians on Newsnight constantly telling the interviewer “you`re asking the wrong question!!”, the Tories at the time were almost as arrogant as todays politicians.
    Times have changed, my view has gone from pretty left wing (I was 19 at the time), to my present, pretty right wing views.
    Happens to most of us.
    Also, I was one of those on strike for a year, with no financial support from anyone except relatives, so don`t think I was too chuffed with Arthur Scargill either.
    I did get one £2 Co-op voucher from the NUM.


  30. gordon-bennett says:

    JimBob | 30.03.07 – 11:55 am
    I have nothing but the utmost admiration for Maggie. I also think sending Carol to the Flaklands for a programme on the Falklands was a marvellous idea. I somehow think the idea of paying a ‘Thatcher’ to do the type of journalism they seem incapable of would not have gone down well at the BBC.

    Yes, that was a good programme and Carol speaks her mind plainly and without affectation. I think it was editorialised to the extent that they ended with the Argentinian harridans in order to leave something of a sour taste in the mouth.

    That sort of undermining is second nature to the unprincipled cretins who retain editorial control throughout the msm.


  31. the_camp_commandant says:

    This may well already have been covered, but in links from its coverage of the Iranian / RN Marines kidnapping story, al-BBC is still trying to bring up the US capture of 5 Iranians in Iraq (And Iran has repeatedly voiced its anger at the arrest in January of five members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard on suspicion of fuelling unrest. They are still being held by the Americans.

    Iran itself denies there is any connection (“Although the seizure has been widely linked to the taking of five Iranians by US forces in Iraq, Iranian diplomats have ruled this out. They say that there is no relation between the Britons’ seizure and any other bilateral, regional or international issue.” –

    When the Times says “widely linked”, presumably it refers to the likes of al-BBC, who obviously want there to be a linkage because if there were it would be America’s fault.


  32. Anonanon says:

    Has anyone seen or heard anything from the BBC’s World Affairs or Middle East editors while the hostage crisis has been going on? Bowen did a general Middle East piece for From Our Own Correspondent last Saturday but apart from that I haven’t noticed either of them. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not complaining. It just seems a bit odd that they both appear to have gone to ground. Perhaps they’ve been told to keep their views to themselves for once. Here’s hoping.


  33. IngSoc is Doublethink-Supporti says:

    Another sicking piece of black propaganda from the Iranian Broadcasting Service.

    “A second member of the Royal Navy crew captured in the Gulf has apologised for trespassing in Iranian waters, in a broadcast on Iranian television.”

    Another kick in the bollocks to the British people and to the 4.200 odd servicemen in theater.



  34. archduke says:

    saw that Carol Thatcher/falklands docu as well. very impressive.

    C4 are really on a roll with these documentaries.

    its a disgrace that al-beeb wont broadcast live from there on the 25th anniversary.


  35. archduke says:

    ” IngSoc is Doublethink-Supporti | 30.03.07 – 12:22 pm ”

    its getting beyond the joke. there should be a news blackout. period.

    notice how the BBC refused to show the Mohammed Cartoons, and yet they see nothing wrong with broadcasting Iranian propaganda.

    their excuse was that the Mo cartoons would cause “offense”.

    what about the offense caused to millions of Brits who find the parading of their soldiers utterly offensive?


  36. BaggieJonathan says:

    Its only sneaked in at the end but even IBC mention the fact that Ehud Olmert has just about the worst support for a leader of a democratic state possible.

    A support rate that makes the worst of the poll ratings for the likes of Bush, Blair and Chirac seem like paradise by comparrison.

    “Mr Olmert is struggling with very low approval ratings among Israeli voters, with just two percent saying they trusted their prime minister in a recent opinion poll, and more than two-thirds saying they want him to resign.”

    IBC wants us to believe that this man will lead Israel to a shabby, climb down to the Arabs over almost everything, ‘peace’.

    They are wrong.

    He will be gone soon.


  37. BaggieJonathan says:

    IBC are still calling Johnston’s absence an “apparent kidnapping”.

    Exactly what else are we to call it?

    Perhaps they would like to see Al Qaeda dictate a letter to Johnston to write in which he describes them as thoroughly nice blokes who have not harmed him and he is enjoying their hospitality as he clearly had strayed into terrorist owned waters.


  38. archduke says:

    from the “lets demonise British soldiers when the Iranians have 15 of them kidnapped” department…

    i really hope Channel 4 show better judgement and just postpone this until the current crisis is over.,,2001320029-2007140520,00.html

    A NEW TV drama will controversially show British soldiers abusing Iraqis – both physically and sexually.

    Channel 4’s shocking new film is described as fictional, but “inspired by real life events”.


  39. IiD-Supporting our Troops!! says:

    Why don’t we exchange the fifteen for these enemies of the state:

    1.Mark Thompson
    2.Kevin Bakehurst
    3.Kevin Marsh
    4.John Simpson
    5.Kirsty Wark
    6.Jeremy Bowen
    7.Helen Broden
    8.Micheal Crick
    9.Nick Robinson
    10.John Humphries
    11.Frank Gardner
    12.Nat Kaplinsky
    13.Sophie Rainworth
    14.Matt Frei
    15.Sadeq Saba


  40. Biodegradable says:

    16. Barbara Plett
    17. Orla Guerin


  41. Lee Moore says:

    The BBC’s reply to biodegradeable was splendid. The German invasion of France in 1940 was a counter-attack by the same logic, the French having in 1918 occupied bits of what had been Germany.


  42. Rueful Red says:

    18. Feargal Keane
    19. James Naughtie
    20. The MontaQinn
    21. The QuinnTague

    and, as a bonus, though he’s not technically al-Beeb,
    22. Andrew “Lugsy” Marr


  43. Oscar says:

    “Hizbollah didn’t expect to start a war when they snatched two soldiers” – this is Edward Stourton’s ‘reduced’ version of Hizbollah’s cross border raid into Israel’s sovereign territory (over an internationally agreed blue line) backed by katyusha rocket fire and including the murder of four Israeli soldiers. Why on earth would that start a war?


  44. IiD-Supporting our Troops!! says:

    The “voice” of the nation speaks:

    “THE lumbering United Nations was last night taking its first timid steps towards asking Iran to release 15 British hostages.

    All gestures of support are welcome. But this slow-motion response is having to be prised out of the Security Council by the UK and its allies.

    Yet the sailors and marines — including terrified mum Faye Turney — were operating as UN personnel, implementing a UN mandate.

    They were unlawfully grabbed by Iranian pirates in Iraqi waters a week ago. Their hijacking is an outrageous breach of international law.

    Yet in the seven days that have passed, the Security Council response has barely risen above a whisper.

    Now the mullahs have forced Leading Seaman Turney to write a second despicable propaganda letter — and are even threatening to break a promise to set her free.

    They deserve the strongest possible condemnation from the body that claims to be the authoritative voice of world opinion.

    The hijacking is an intolerable poke in the eye to its 192 member states who imposed the sanctions policed by the Royal Navy in the first place.

    Nobody is under any illusion that Britain can or will retaliate by itself against this blatant act of aggression.

    There is no question of military action on our part.

    But it is the duty of the United Nations to bellow disapproval.

    Not to display weakness by muttering unconvincingly behind its hands.,,31-2007140793,00.html

    For all the ‘low-brow’ idea’s of the Sun at least it has the courage to say:

    Iranian pirates
    breach of international law

    BTW-I think it’s about time that Reidy unleashed the ‘filers and smashers’ to round up every Iranian network operating here.

    that should cut down Iranian Broadcasting Corperations news output.

    BBC-Not In My Name.


  45. Biodegradable says:

    Lee Moore | 30.03.07 – 12:56 pm

    Indeed. I shall be thanking the BBC for their reply later, and I shall tell them that they have raised even more questions than they have answered.

    They continue to excuse anything the Arabs do, and consistently accuse Israel of being the aggressor.

    History is clear that the Arabs have time and time again tried to annihilate Israel, yet the BBC is convinced that whatever the Arabs do is a mere response to Israeli aggression – truly surreal!


  46. JimBob says:

    archduke | 30.03.07 – 12:32 pm

    what about the offense caused to millions of Brits who find the parading of their soldiers utterly offensive?

    Exactly. But the more civilised people like you and I don’t descend on the streets of London, burn flags and call for jihad when we’re offended.

    Maybe the BBC are being intimidated?
    Or maybe they’re just a bunch of …


  47. zboy says:


    If the BBC is not covering the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War then that is disgusting and an insult to the brave members of the armed forces who fought on our behalf, 250 of whom paid the ultimate price. I really cannot find words to describe how angry I am.

    As a contrast, just how many hours of programmes have been dedicated by the BBC to the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade act. Dramas, documentaries, phone-ins, you name it, we’ve had it. The BBC don’t bleat about spending our telly tax on that, do they?


  48. BaggieJonathan says:

    22 IBC hacks for our 15 – its a win win deal.

    Though we could probaly get away with just the worst culprits on the list – say Abu Bowen, Yahia Simpson, Malik Thompson and Farooq Gardner, and keep the rest as future bargaining chips!


  49. Fran says:


    Well done sir!

    You’ve achieved the not-so-easily achievable.

    Any sign of John Reith to join in the congrats? Or does he still think you and Bryan are peddling libels?