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.
Pakistan behind pro-Taliban tribesmen:
President Pervez Musharraf made a tacit admission yesterday that the Pakistani military has entered into a marriage of convenience with pro-Taliban tribesmen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/13/wpak13.xml
Hamas spokesman’s call for genocide of Jews:
See the video
http://pmw.org.il/Bulletins_apr2007.htm#b120407
Muslims Murdering Muslims:
Video shows the impact of a suicide bomber who blew himself up in the Iraqi parliament cafeteria Thursday.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=731_1176398967&p=1
Shouldn’t al-beeb be looking at the charitable status of OXFAM, a so-called charity that continually takes a political position. Now OXFAM want to resume aid to those nice guys at Hamas who lead the Palestinian people.
Check out the kind of nastiness they are in favour of:
As Hamas seeks international recognition by softening its tone in English, in Arabic it continues the calls for genocide of Jews. In a recent sermon on PA TV, Hamas spokesman Dr. Ismail Radwan made it clear that the classical Hamas ideology had not changed, including its continued incorporation of extremist Islamic beliefs into Hamas ideology and policy. He reiterated:
1. The Hour of the Islamic Resurrection and End of Time is literally dependent on the killing of Jews by Muslims.
2. The remaining Jews will unsuccessfully attempt to hide, as the rocks and trees will expose them, calling out “there is a Jew behind me, kill him!”
3. “Palestine& will be liberated through the rifle,” a euphemism meaning that Israel will be destroyed through violence.
Biodegradable | 13.04.07 – 3:07 am,
No doubt the BBC has written a programme to warn its hacks about politically incorrect language. In the unlikely event of any of them slipping up and using positive adjectives in close proximity to “IDF” or “Israel” the programme wont let them carry on until they’ve done the necessary repair work. They probably call it BBC Word 2007 and make its use mandatory for all BBC writers.
You can always trust the Aussies to show some good, old-fashioned backbone:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6551003.stm
How the BBC must have gritted its collective teeth while publishing that bit of good news. Hell, it was even forced to use the word terrorism.
Bryan – that makes so much sense now that you mention it. Quite obviously typing ‘terrorist’ causes the auto-correct feature to kick in and change it to ‘militant’, and that’s why we don’t get to read it much.
Just think how much easier it is to type in a report like this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6540369.stm
Good Morning.
“For the first time, the BBC, Sky News, CNN and al-Jazeera have joined forces to simulcast a special programme, calling for his release.”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5911&edition=1&ttl=20070413091924&#paginator
Oh yes we got the full Abu Bowen ramblings on CNN yesterday, full of “friend of Palestinian” and “telling the story from the peoples view” (proving that Al Beeb is indeed biased), but what struck me was the fact when FOX journalists get kidnapped it reported some way down the list of ‘important events’ but when a Beebeoid is similarly given the same treatment then Mark Thompson is suddenly transformed into Kissinger…..
I hope, however, they will consult with the general public BEFORE handing over taxpayers cash to ‘unemployed Palestinian journalists’….
BTW-is ‘simulcast’ a word?
The Cuckoo..
Even the headline makes no sence:
‘Bombers’ die in Casablanca raid
They can even bring themselves to say ‘suicide bombers’ or ‘Al Quieda’ any more….
Here’s a sample from a page of the Alan Johnston HYS forum:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=5911&start=0&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20070413085636&#paginator
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:28 GMT 11:28 UK
I hope Alan is released along with the Israeli army concript as the pain of the families involved must be agonising.
However is he missed as a BBC news reporter or as an unofficial spokesman for the Palestinian cause?
People sem to forget that whatever the conditions are in Gaza it is not under Israeli occupation
The so called goverment of Gaza are more intersted in Israels destruction than it’s own people welfare.
Alan should have been reporting Gaza growth not it’s self destruction
Mark Israel, London
Recommended by 65 people
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:25 GMT 11:25 UK
I and my family look forward to Alan Johnston regaining his freedom and I pray that this comes about immediately.
Mr Johnston’s capture advances no-one’s cause instead it only serves to bring needless distress. It is with this distress in mind that Mr Johnstons friends and family are also in our thoguhts.
Findlay Osborn, Bunbury, Australia
Recommended by 2 people
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:25 GMT 11:25 UK
Alan was doing a risky job which benefits Palestinians in Gaza. He has risked everything to report on the experience of a suffering people. I am grateful for his dedication and would ask those holding him to consider what he has done for Palestinians living in Gaza.
Dev Mookherjee, London
Recommended by 0 people
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:21 GMT 11:21 UK
It was encouraging to hear that the BBC has “credible” evidence that Alan Johnston is safe and well one month after this began. Seeing the reports on the support for Johnson from Gaza and the West Bank has been encouraging but its long past time for Alan Johnson to be released.
Barry Kolb, Jackson, New Jersey US
Recommended by 1 person
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:20 GMT 11:20 UK
Mr. Alan johnston kidnap is deplorable and hope he is back and well soon.
BBC was always pro-palestinian, anti israel inspite of its claims to be neutral so its total irony. Hope you are well and back.
J.J, Kuwait
Recommended by 49 people
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:18 GMT 11:18 UK
it is obvious perpetrators of violence will not like news reporters very much.
It is unfortunate the world’s eyes and ears on the ground should be treated this way.
I add my voice to the appeals for his immediate release.
i also want to assure the kidnappers that they might benefit from the alan’s work some day.
Richard Adjani, Accra
Recommended by 0 people
Added: Thursday, 12 April, 2007, 10:16 GMT 11:16 UK
As an Israeli I have often found Alan Johnston’s reporting uncomfortable. However, his kidnapping is outrageous. No journalist should be intimidated. Please let him go.
Sarah, Ringwood, NJ
Recommended by 28 people
Fascinating stuff. The comments pointing out Johnston’s bias are evidently extremely popular and even though they have only been up since yesterday some of them have leapfrogged over other comments to appear on the first Readers Recommended page:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5911&edition=2&ttl=20070413085636&
Hmmm, but overall, the comments expressing some opposition to Johnston and the BBC represent only about 2% of the total posted. So could it be that the BBC is censoring these comments and therefore the only way that the authors can express their point of view is by recommending the few comments that slip through the net?
Can’t be. That would mean the BBC is biased and we’ve been assured that they are not.
“New chairman of BBC quits the Labour Party” (13 Apr.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk
(go to ‘Politics’).
Sir Michael Lyons, the new Chairman of the BBC Trust, said:
“What I have got to establish across the country, for people who don’t know me and won’t ever know me, is my impartiality and I didn’t feel it was easy to do that and remain a member of a political party.”
How reassuring. How convincing.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1637277.ece
“Asked about his relationship with the Chancellor, for whom he recently conducted an inquiry into local government funding, Sir Michael said: “He’s asked me to do three jobs for him and I’ve done them to the best of my ability. That’s where it begins and ends.”
Excellent-I’m sure he will be ensuring that ‘King Brown will be ruling the airwaves in the next 2 years…..
IBC-The Pravda for the Islamic Socialist Republic of Great Britain.
Has anyone else noticed the strange use of the word ‘publicly’ in BBC news reports about Alan Johnson’s kidnapping in Gaza?
They did it again on the Today programme this morning, but I’ve heard it a lot, especially during the last few days. The phrase always goes something along the lines of:
“… and the BBC have had no contact PUBLICLY with Mr Johnson’s kidnappers.”
Now, colour me suspicious, but from a corporation that spends a lot of time, effort and money on the precise use of language (see ‘scare quotes’ etc), this recent use of the word ‘publicly’ sounds very much like the kind of thing a lawyer would advise them to say, so they could say, at a later date, with a clear conscience “well, we didn’t say we weren’t talking to them PRIVATELY.”
I’ve a feeling the licence fee is going to take a big hit.
Here is a piece on the AJ saga as NOT reported by Al Beeb:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/04/the_bbcs_john_s.html
“The BBC’s John Simpson reported this morning on the kidnapping of his colleague Alan Johnston and gave the impression that almost everyone in Gaza deplored the abduction. His desire to emphasise just how much support there is for Mr Johnston was understandable, but also risks obscuring the real story.”
But then there is this interesting angle in JPost as well:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879275043&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“Also on Monday, the BBC denied reports in the Arab media that Johnston may have staged his own abduction. Simon Wilson, the BBC’s Middle East bureau chief, told the Post there was no truth to any suggestion that Johnston might have done so, or that the BBC was considering firing him.”
“Alan is a highly respected journalist. He was due to return to London in April after a three-year position in Gaza, to resume a full-time staff job with the BBC World Service,” Wilson said.
Earlier Monday, the London-based pan-Arabic paper Al-Hayat reported that Palestinian Authority security forces were investigating the possibility that Johnston staged his own abduction. According to Al-Hayat, Johnston waited 15 minutes for his “captors” to pick him up, and has been held willingly in an undisclosed location for more than a month. ”
And Wakipedia sums it all up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Johnston_(journalist)
“On March 12, 2007, Johnston’s car was found abandoned on a street, shortly after he left his office to drive home.[1] He had entered Gaza from Jerusalem earlier in the day,[6] where he had been for a dental appointment.[8] A business card belonging to Johnston was found at the scene, identifying him as having been in the car.[12] The BBC was alerted to his disappearance when he did not make a pre-arranged telephone call.[8]”
“According to Palestinian police, four armed men were spotted near Johnston’s car,[13] and Johnston is believed to have been abducted at gunpoint.[2] A state of emergency was declared with checkpoints set up to find Johnston, who was in the final weeks of his posting to Gaza, where he had been stationed for three years.[13]”
“There were some reports that negotiations had begun to try to secure Johnston’s release, although the BBC strenuously emphasized that it could not independently verify reports that Johnston had been kidnapped.[14] A week after his disappearance, the BBC admitted that it seemed certain now that he had been kidnapped.[15]”
“On March 21, Israeli sources reported that Johnston may have been taken by the same groups that captured Gilad Shalit in June 2006. However, this was strongly denied by both the Popular Resistance Committees and the Palestinian Army of Islam.[16]”
“March 26 marked the fact that his kidnapping was now the longest-ever of a foreigner in Gaza since abductions began happening in the Gaza Strip, which led to renewed calls for his release.[17][18]
In the midst of his third week in captivity, news agencies began reporting on speculation that Johnston had been kidnapped by a powerful Gaza family with criminal connections, and which was willing to switch support to the other faction in the Palestinian Territories should one displease them.[19][20][21] It then emerged that the family might be holding Johnston as a bargaining chip who would be released in return for ten Hamas gunmen who killed members of the family.[22]”
On the day marking the fourth week of his disappearance, a London-based Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, reported that Gaza authorities were looking into the possibility that Johnston might have staged his own disappearance after hearing that he was soon to be fired.[23] At first, the BBC refused to comment on the report,[24] before issuing a statement, calling on press not to run the article in question “given that there is absolutely no truth to it”.[25], adding that “there is no truth in any suggestion that Alan Johnston may have staged his own kidnap, nor that the BBC was about to dismiss him.”[25]”
So AJ might of been getting the red card?!
Not clear cofeee has we say in Holland…..
On the 12th April, the BBC posted this page which includes links to the national parties standing in the local elections on May 3rd http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6549353.stm
To give them their due, the report is fairly balanced.
But I knew there had to be a catch somewhere. Sure enough, as of this moment (10:35am Friday April 13th), out of all the party links listed (Labour, Conservatives, Lib-Dems, Green Party, BNP, UKIP, and Respect), guess which one doesn’t work?
Sorry, no prizes, the answer is going to be pretty obvious isn’t it? Yep, it’s the link to the BNP.
(One doesn’t have to be paranoid although of course it helps.)
As we know they/you read this blog, perhaps someone at the BBC would be kind enough to fix this error?
Bryan | 13.04.07 – 9:45 am
Fascinating stuff. The comments pointing out Johnston’s bias are evidently extremely popular and even though they have only been up since yesterday some of them have leapfrogged over other comments to appear on the first Readers Recommended page:
… Hmmm, but overall, the comments expressing some opposition to Johnston and the BBC represent only about 2% of the total posted. So could it be that the BBC is censoring these comments and therefore the only way that the authors can express their point of view is by recommending the few comments that slip through the net?
No. As usual, the paranoid explanation is the wrong one.
You have to register as a member to recommend. Most people don’t bother. By definition, recommenders are a self-selected minority, who represent only a tiny fraction of visitors to the site. They are more likely to be regulars; more likely to be partisan; more likely to be members of some kind of advocacy group acting in concert with likeminded others; more likely to want to shape public perceptions of the matter under discussion. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that their views are out of synch with those of the general population of passing visitors
Reith
Tell us about the plight of ‘unemployed Palestinian journalists”?
Or Hamas spokesperson knowing where your pal is and who’s got him?
Or that AJ contract was up for negotiation and he was destined to end up in World Service?
Nope I guess it’s back to trolling for you my old fruit…..
JR
Therefore, it is not at all surprising that their views are out of synch with those of the general population of passing visitors
So what is the point of HYS?
more likely to be partisan; more likely to be….blahblahblah
Can you explain how you know this?
And do ‘partisans’ only represent one side of the political spectrum (i.e. the one you don’t agree with).
I think you’ll find your views and the views of the BBC are out of synch. Maybe that’s all you need to accept to be able to progress.
e.g. the EU
How many articles do we get from the BBC telling us what a complete waste of money it is and ask the question ‘why are we in it’?
What percentage of the population wants to be in the EU?
Jimbob…
No they just censor the rest:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored
IiD
BBCs response to the censorship (based on Reith’s response) would probably go along the lines of:-
‘those pesky partisans have hijacked HYS again….quick, delete them‘
or
‘the HYS is not correct, it doesn’t seem to reflect on popular opinion….quick, delete them‘
Just censor anything : last para says there are ‘calls’ for a ‘blog code of conduct’ and those ‘calling’ for it imply that it should be from the ‘Government’.
These monopolies don’t like it up-em, do they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6548653.stm
Why was it left to an Iraqi spokesman in an interview with Naughtie to tell us explicitly that the Iraqi Parliament is not in the Green Zone? In other words “Fortress Parliament” is protected by the Iraqi police not by the US military. Why was this speck of information not given to us specifically by one of the 8,500 “journalists” at the BBC? This is vital information for the understanding of what happened yesterday. You have to read the map on this report very carefully to see where the Iraqi Parliament buliding is relative to the Green Zone: it is not clearly highlighted in the written report.
Bias – probably – the BBC can put all the blame on US military incompetence for this one.
Crap journalism – certainly.
On the way in to work this morning, I listened to a BBC World Service report by (I think) Jim Muir in Baghdad.
He described the Iraqi Governmnet as having been “installed” by the US and its allies.
Oddly enough, I seem to remember this gorernment being the result of two or three free elections. India ink on fingers, and all that. Funny that these should have escaped the notice of the BBC’s Baghdad reporter.
Unless he’s a hack propagandist propagating a big lie, that is.
JimBob | 13.04.07 – 11:09 am & IiD | 13.04.07 – 11:05 am
JimBob
So what is the point of HYS?
Clearly you didn’t understand my last comment. HYS is there to give people a chance to have their say.
My point was that the people who recommend comments are out of synch with those who post comments on HYS.
Bryan’s own analysis proves this. Bryan admits that only 2% of commenters posting on this HYS thread share B-BBC’s view of AJ’s journalism.
However, some of their comments have been catapulted out of the murky margins into the sunny uplands of the ‘most recommended’ section.
How come the views of a 2% minority get proportionately more recommendations than those of the 98% majority?
Because 25-50 dittohead activists have pressed the button to recommend them. That’s how. Point proved.
IiD
I know you fancy yourself as a bit of an armchair spook • so I’m surprised you so readily treat ill-informed gossip as if it were CX.
Alan Johnston is the only Western reporter based in Gaza, so his kidnapping ain’t going to free-up loads of job opportunities for out-of-work locals.
Lots of people claim to know who took Alan. Some may be Hamas. Others Fatah. Others still work for UK papers. Many of them are probably lying or just wrong. Some may be telling the truth. We’ll see.
AJ was not ‘destined to end up in World Service’ in the sense you imply. He belongs to World Service. His 3 year stint in Gaza was almost up when he was kidnapped. He’s due to return to Bush House • his home base. No mystery there.
Pay back time for Labour on May 3 with ballots in more than 300 English councils:
“Tories demand Reid take direct action with France over Sangatte 2”
“Politically correct police force hiring officers ‘who can’t do the job’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766
.
Reith,
We have seen regularly “recommended” numbers going down as well as up. do you not find this at all concerning?
“Because 25-50 dittohead activists have pressed the button to recommend them. That’s how. Point proved.”
And you know this for a fact… how exactly? Funny how when the “right” answer is reached it’s a perfect democratic system, but when the “wrong” answer is reached it was hijacked by activists.
John Reith
While you may be partially right about who recommends comments, I would still say the most recommended comments are more reflective (demonstrably more reflective) of public opinion than the cherry-picked quotes (usually recommended by very few) that reflect the BBC world-view and are regularly seen to the side of related articles. Surely you’re not so arrogant as to deny this?
I e.mailed a complaint to BBC ref the non appearance of the BNP link, and asked for a reply, I am not holding my breath!
TheCuckoo | 13.04.07 – 9:26 am,
The first paragraph from your link:
A police raid on suspected militants in the Moroccan city of Casablanca has set off gunfights and suicide bombings that have left at least five men dead.
The BBC can’t even bring itself to use the term “suspected terrorists”. Next they’ll be calling them “alleged explosives operators”.
I had a wee chuclke to myself while listening to the news on BBC Radio Scotland. It was announced in disapproving tones that John Howard, Australia’s PM, wants to prevent entry into Oz of migrants who are HIV-positive. Those who work within the BBC’s bubble will all consider that a breach of human rights etc. and they believe that those outside the bubble all agree – but I don’t. To me, foreigners do not have the right to consume funds allocated to a nation’s health services.
There’s the BBC: and there’s the real world
… more likely to be members of some kind of advocacy group acting in concert with likeminded others; more likely to want to shape public perceptions of the matter under discussion.
John Reith | 13.04.07 – 10:52 am
You must mean the Global Zionist Hasbara Conspiracy™.
So who exactly is the paranoid one Mr Reith?
You must mean the Global Zionist Hasbara Conspiracy
nah….more likely the B-BBC crowd.
I haven’t noticed, for instance, any particular correlation between Zionism and a belief that global warming isn’t man made, but down to aliens/sunspots or whatever.
Here we have it
down to aliens/sunspots or whatever
Everything outside our atmosphere is science fiction. Sun spots according to Reith should be given as much credence as aliens.
Have you accepted yet that the moon governs the tides or is this to you something from the X files.
I no longer think you’re biased. I now think you’re thick.
John Reith,
The implement you are using to cross swords with us here is getting more and more rusty and blunt.
I know one has to register to recommend comments. I have. And one doesn’t have to speculate to determine how many people have registered out of the contributors to any given thread. Just run your pointer over the names. Those with a link have registered.
In fact, I just conducted a 2-minute experiment on the first four pages of the Johnston thread. 14 people out of 60 are registered. Hardly a representative sample, but I think you’ll find that the minority is not as tiny as you assume.
Now if you’d done your homework you might have noticed that the HYS team has introduced a new system, giving the following breakdown at the top of the page:
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments:1906
Published comments:1234
Rejected comments:0
Moderation queue:672
That’s the breakdown for the Johnston topic. But there’s an error here – there have been at least 2 rejected comments, not 0, as HYS would have it. Trust me.
Until very recently the BBC was positively touting for comments on this topic (which has been going since March 26th) because they weren’t exactly flooding in. There’s been a bit of a flood for the last few days but I don’t believe it was enough to leave 672 comments unattended to. So I think the breakdown should read like this:
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments:1906
Published comments:1234
Rejected comments:672
Moderation queue:0
Just a thought, old chap. Sort of opening up the debate, you know.
Here’s the BBC explanation of the “debate status”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/6499093.stm
You might want to come to the debate better prepared next time.
Ashley Pomeroy : I assume an imaginary left-wing BBC of 1940
Not imaginary at all. Churchill referred to the BBC as being a nest of socialists and communists, and as this article demonstrates, the BBC perfected its role as the leader of bien pensant pacifist orthodoxy quite early in its life :
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/2812/scribb2812.html
“For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behaviour has been tyrannical”
‘so I’m surprised you so readily treat ill-informed gossip as if it were CX.’
John Reith | 13.04.07 – 1:57 pm |
You’ve never read CX then jr!!
Sorry been off for a little while. Little one brought the plague (Black Death I think) home from nursery complete with a side order of conjunctivitis. We’re all still pretty much under the weather and I find it difficult to look at the screen so will limit my contributions for a little while.
Biodegradable:
Bryan | 12.04.07 – 11:19 pm
audacious
daring
spectacular
‘I don’t remember ever seeing those words used, for example, when describing an Israeli counter terrorist operation in Gaza or the West Bank.’
Biodegradable | 13.04.07 – 3:07 am |
Only once, on the 4th July 1976. Was listening to my shortwave radio (pre blackberry days) in North Borneo when the BBC World Service news kicked off with “In a sensational raid…..” and the other adjectives were then used.
Since then they’ve become as rare as rocking-horse shit when describing IDF exploits.
Must off now, starting to get a blink rate as high as Milliband. Archduke will respond later on that ludicrous assertion on the Editor’s blog about Michael White.
Jonathan Charles tells us on BBC 24 at around 16:15 today that Iraqi MPs are commemorating yesterday’s atrocity by “insurgents”. JC further informs us that the perpetrators of this outrage are described by the parliamentarians (but not JC) as “terrorists”. So – according to a BBC reporter – a suicide bomber is specifically in his view not a terrorist. It’s OK though since – according to my understanding of the BBC reporting guidelines anyway – the word “terrorist” is so loaded with value judgements that its use could cause confusion in the minds of those ignorant licence fee payers out there.
Bryan’s highlighting of the debate status statistics is instructive. It is clear from looking at this feature on the DHYS pages that some comments remain in the moderation queue forever. When a debate is closed, they disappear and these comments show up as the difference between the total number of posts and the total of those accepted and rejected. We don’t know which posts remain in this moderation limbo forever, but they are certainly not just the last posts submitted – ie the moderators do not work sequentially through the posts checking them against the rules, and then moving on to the next post. We can tell that most obviously from the interminable climate change debate where the debate has been open since December, and the latest posts appearing are dated 11 April. About 1500 posts have appeared in the last month out of a total of 4991 posted. But there are still 2302 in the moderation queue, and it is obvious that these have not all been submitted since 11 April. So what remains in the moderation queue is determined by something other than when it was submitted. The only other criterion for slow passage through the moderation queue that springs to mind is the content of the post. But not content that breaches the rules, for in that case it would not still be in the moderation queue.
John Reith:
You must mean the Global Zionist Hasbara Conspiracy
nah….more likely the B-BBC crowd.
In case you haven’t noticed we’re so disorganised we couldn’t arrange a piss-up in a brewery. From time to time somebody suggests we do something as a group but it never happens. We are a varied, international, cross-party group of people who who find common ground in our shared awareness of BBC bias.
I haven’t noticed, for instance, any particular correlation between Zionism and a belief that global warming isn’t man made, but down to aliens/sunspots or whatever.
John Reith | 13.04.07 – 3:41 pm
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2006/09/19/bush-officials-blocked-scientist-from-discussing-link-between-global-warming-and-hurricanes/
How much did the Zionist-engineered attacks contribute to global warming?
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Global-warming/Global-warming.html
On 25 February 2007, the mysterious group of people who give Oscar awards decided to promote Al Gore’s documentary on global warming.
The evidence suggests that Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and virtually every other government official who is given publicity and funding are puppets of the Zionist crime network that is often referred to as the New World Order or the Illuminati.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=w3t_news_video&Number=295331264&page=&view=&sb=&o=?=5&vc=1&t=0
the people who lied us into these wars, and likely staged 9/11 to have a pretext for these wars, are the same people who are denying global warming, and they are zionist extemists.
Search google for Zionism “global warming”, it’s a laugh a minute.
Only once, on the 4th July 1976.
TPO | 13.04.07 – 4:25 pm
Yes, Entebbe.
Biodegradable | 13.04.07 – 4:52 pm,
Give the BBC time and its reporting will be indistinguishable from those blogs.
Yes, Entebbe.
Bryan | 13.04.07 – 5:09 pm
Now that really was something you could honestly describe as “audacious, daring, spectacular” and “sensational”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5101412.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_2786000/2786967.stm
While the EU (and its politically correct supporters) continue their self-congratulations on 50 years of existence and increasing Islamification of Europe, there is another view which sees the coming results of this political submission:
” Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025 ” (This long article is in 2 parts.)
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com
The afore-mentioned break in the BBC link to the BNP website has been made good
😉
Insurgents claim Baghdad attack
An alliance of insurgent groups linked to al-Qaeda says it carried out the deadly attack on the Iraqi parliament.
So let’s be clear about this. This week’s suicide bombings in Morocco and Algeria were claimed by groups “linked to al-Qaeda” too.
The groups accused of the Madrid and London bombings both had links to al-Qaeda.
Does that mean they’re all “insurgents”?
Lee Moore | 13.04.07 – 4:52 pm,
Since a “queue” is something you get to the end of, “Moderation Queue” is a bit of a misnomer. If, for example, you send them a comment at 20:00 tonight and then check later and find that they’ve published a few comments with the last one at 20:05 and yours is not among them, then you know that it has been flushed down the loo, simply because the time stamp represents the time you send them the comment, not the time at which they post it on the thread, and the comments on HYS are always in sequence.
Not so, strangely enough, with comments to The Editors blog. Sometimes your comment will pop up when it seems its been discarded since others sent after yours have already appeared on the thread.
Roger Chacksfield | 13.04.07 – 2:50 pm,
If you and Anonymous | 13.04.07 – 5:41 pm are one and the same, congrats.
We are slowly getting through to the lumbering pachyderm we call the BBC.
It seems that even the Asians of the Uk have noticed how biased the BBC is with its coverage of race relations;
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1091
“Must off now, starting to get a blink rate as high as Milliband. Archduke will respond later on that ludicrous assertion on the Editor’s blog about Michael White.
TPO | 13.04.07 – 4:25 pm |”
i’ve been away the last few days.
what was that “ludicrious assertion”?
in depth – “muslims in europe”. its still there…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/default.stm