Yes, it was obvious, bird shit on a dark background.
The BBC couldn’t resist it. They quickly had the video evidence. They even shared it with the kiddies.
(hat-tip to Iain Dale)
I doubt that ever happened to Clinton, now, did it? He stained somewhat otherwise. I don’t suppose it’s ever happened to Gordon either, via the BBC.
Unbelieveable. How far will the BBC sink?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6694245.stm
Mr Chavez has warned his followers that the country is under threat from those opposed to his militant rule.
Such unrelenting bias from the defenders of the capitalist system.
At least we’re safe here – there’s absolutely no need for Chavez to take control of the BBC.
The link to the funny face pictures and dancing bush below the poo story are disgusting, as are the pathetic captions.
Phew, all this dancing seems to have made Mr Bush really tired. What a funny face!
mick in the uk, think you’re being a bit harsh on the Beeb here. It’s well known that bird poop is a reliable and foolproof indicator of, among other things, competence to govern effectively, moral worth, and sporting skill. Unfortunately for the free world, the Beeb have exposed in this bird-poop-scoop (there’s a marketable patent, surely?) that the chimp overlord Bush is even more absurd and corrupt than we initially thought, when the ‘eyes too close together’ evidence was brought to our attention.
Has anyone else noticed, incidentally, how remarkably well Bush has performed as captain of the Australia cricket team?
http://www.mycricketblog.com/index.php/post/37257/
I feel he does not receive the credit he is due for this astonishing achievement.
I well understand the bird poop/International Statesman indicator scales which the Beeb use, but it was the disparaging pictures, or rather the attendant captions which peed me off.
BTW:
I’ve never really looked at the CBBC section for kids, but it’s strange that when you click ‘LATEST NEWS’ in the Middle East section http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/specials/middle_east/default.stm which was updated Feb 2007, the LATEST NEWS includes …
Israeli Lebanon raid worries UN
The head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has said he is worried by an Israeli raid into Lebanon on Saturday.
It is dated August 2006
Also
Israeli army kill 18 in Gaza
At least 18 Palestinian people have been killed and 40 wounded after Israeli tanks fired on a town in Gaza.
A number of houses in the town of Beit Hanoun were hit in the raid, which was meant to target fighters who have been firing rockets into Israel.
Israel has said it is sorry for killing the innocent people, and is apparently looking into what happened.
Palestinian leaders say the United Nations should get together to stop Israel attacking their country.
Oh, hang on a min, it’s dated November 2006.
LATEST NEWS?
Not only has it not been updated since Febuary, but in Febuary, the latest news was from August and November the year before.
Poo? Where’s my rocking horse?????
Jon | Homepage | 26.05.07 – 3:19 pm | #
Someone seems to be using my name. Could you change it to avoid confusion?
Is’nt a bird shitting on you supposed to be good luck? or mean you’re coming into money?
Maybe OBL will pop up dead in a day or two…..lol.
“Maybe OBL will pop up dead in a day or two…..lol.”
That would be nice wouldn’t it?
Knowing Bush’s sense of humor, I doubt that he would be offended by a little good natured ribbing over the incident. Somehow, though, I doubt that there was any “good nature” coming from the BBC. It seems to be very spiteful and childish.
Block 813 | 26.05.07 – 11:26 pm,
Is’nt a bird shitting on you supposed to be good luck?
Yes – for the bird.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6695685.stm
Stop and quiz powers considered
Muslim groups Is this the BBC being PC now and not wanting to say gangs?
‘Mr Chavez has warned his followers that the country is under threat from those opposed to his militant rule’
It’s amazing how many dictators use that excuse to oppress people.
You would think that the BBC would stand up for fellow journos.
Interesting site C-BBC
Bird does poo on US president: What is more offensive: the ridicule of an ally; the concept that this is a world news story or the kindergarten language? :-:
Vote: The next Prime Minister – do you care? 🙁
In pictures: The Blair years
Mr Blair and his wife Cherie have three sons – Euan, 23, Nicky, 21 and Leo, who will be seven on May 20. They also have a daughter, Kathryn, 19 (AKA Afterthought). :o(
It’s interesting that the first picture in the series has the following caption:
Tony Blair became Prime Minister when the Labour Party won the 1997 General Election. For the previous 18 years, the UK had been ruled by the Conservatives.
And here was I thinking it was the Queen that ruled, not the Conservatives.
More shoddiness from Al-Beeb.
Everyone is sooooo right.
And this certainly deserves a thread of its won.
But it’s worse than you thought…
Sneering al-Beeb clones have been posting bird-poo pictures elsewhere…
Oh, hang on. That was from ABC, a major American broadcaster.
Well how about this?
http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=111848
Oh no! That’s from NBC, another big-league American broadcaster.
And this is from the US capital’s major newspaper:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402147.html
God, these American-hating clones are everywhere. Even our fine upstanding Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=457710&in_page_id=1811
Well, those smart Fox-affiliated freedom-loving boys and girls at Sky wouldn’t stoop this low, would they? Oh yes they would…
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1267362,.html
Help a newcomer here, guys.
Do we only have a sense-of-humour failure when it comes to the BBC (or it’s children’s section)? Or should we get all huffy about these other guys, too?
Hillhunt,
After looking through the media links you posted, I was somehow unable to find any links to other material edited specifically to make the leader of a major country look foolish. Where exactly did any of the other, more responsible media outlets link directly to something like the “Crazy Dance? All the reports to which you link seem to be the obligatory reporting of a silly accident that could happen to anyone, yet happened to the President of the US. No editorializing, no links to other “incidents” which make the President look foolish. All the US outlets show clips of our leaders when things like this happen to them. They do not, however, then direct the viewer’s attention to politically skewed footage.
Only rabid Bush-hater Dana Milbank’s childish taunts in the Washington Post sink to a lower level than a supposedly unbiased, national broadcaster. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else on this thread, but I certainly don’t have a problem with the airing of the bird crapping on Bush (see, I can even type it without turning red or hyperventilating or anything), on its own. What I object to is the link to deliberately edited footage immediately following the clip. This editorial decision – for that’s what it is – takes several steps beyond the mere broadcasting of a clip.
And here was I thinking it was the Queen that ruled, not the Conservatives.
What a piss poor attempt at suggesting bias at the BBC. Here’s the dictionary definition of ‘rule’:
rule n. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
Since when has the Queen had ‘governing power’ or ‘authority’??
Are you living in the late seventeenth century, perchance?
DP:
Y-e-e-e-s.
It was a children’s page and it painted George in an amusing, unthreatening light for the benefit of primary-grade kids…
But rest asuured.
None of you come over as po-faced. Or prickly. Or over-sensitive.
Or any of that stuff.
Really, you don’t.
Just don’t mention their families hillhunt. They get really over-sensitive then.
My goodness, hillhunt, of course the lamestream media in the US would have fun reporting this story. There is a very “special relationship” between our media and yours, and the one thing that unites them is their mutual hatred of George Bush and all things Republican/Conservative.
ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN are losing viewers in droves, ask Katie Couric. Their collective audience is aging and not being replaced by younger viewers. Our newspapers are in their final death throes, and much like other dinosaurs they have no clue as to what is killing them. While the BBC survives on the backs of your taxpaying public ours will die a long overdue death without receiving any such help. Bravo!
Hillhunt tells us this about the BBC’s link to a slide show of photos deliberately edited to make their arch enemy look foolish, posted on a BBC Kiddies page with a video of a bird crapping on the leader of another country:
“It was a children’s page and it painted George in an amusing, unthreatening light for the benefit of primary-grade kids…”
As Alice would say, “Stuff and nonsense!”
As any reasonable person would say, “What a load of crap.”
.
What the BBC also omitted to report is Bush’s comment on spotting the offending stain.
Allegedly, he said to an aide
“Oh look, I’ve got some BBC on my suit”
and the aide replied
“never mind Mr. President, its old and crusty and will soon disappear”
.
There is a very “special relationship” between our media and yours, and the one thing that unites them is their mutual hatred of George Bush and all things Republican/Conservative.
Sorry, our media is actually dominated by pro-Republican voices. Our print media includes the following:
The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, The Times (all Right-wing, pro-Republican, pro-war), The Independent, Daily Mirror and The Guardian (left-wing of varying degrees).
So 5 Pro-Republican papers, 3 Pro-Democrat papers. Hardly a dominant hatred of all things Conservative/Republican.
As for the children’s view of those images, as
“never mind Mr. President, its old and crusty and will soon disappear.”
Wasn’t that Wolfowitzboltonrumsfeld?
‘Sorry, our media is actually dominated by pro-Republican voices’
Really?
Out of the five channels TV, three at least (BBC 1 and 2, and C4) have an anti GOP bias in their news coverage, whilst the remaining two are at best neutral.
Of the papers you make the classic schoolboy mistake of equating right wing with supporting all right of centre parties and supporting the war with supporting Bush.
Of the papers you make the classic schoolboy mistake of equating right wing with supporting all right of centre parties and supporting the war with supporting Bush.
Really? So are you telling me that the Mudroch papers, plus the Express, Mail and Telegraph are anti-Bush?? You also make the schoolboy mistake of separating BBC1 and 2. You can hardly count them as two examples of anti-American news coverage. Unless you are desperate of course.
Even taking into account your skewed logic, once you add ITV and Sky (clearly pro-American/pro-bush) the figures now become:
Pro-republican: 6
Pro-Democrat (if you were to include the BBC and C4): 6
Neutral: 1 (ITV)
No sane person would claim that the UK is dominated by a left-wing media. It just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. But then, this is site is devoted to a vast conspiracy theory.
Mind you, you’re the same Ralph who claims that the BBC’s description of Chavez’s rule as ‘militant’ is somehow pro-Chavez. If you look beneath the surface, the BBC’s coverage of the revocation of RCTV’s license has been highly critical of Chavez. They have made no effort to report the station’s role in the 2002 US-backed coup. Never has the term ‘militant’ been applied to Bush’s terms in office. This is an unprecedented attack on a democratic government by an ‘impartial’ news network.
Korava
Tell me, behind your corporate built IKEA driven lifestyle of “New Left” clap trap that pollutes your advert…ooopps blog,when not engaging in neo liberal banter, since when does being “right wing” equate with “pro-war”?
All those poor child solders clutching the “peoples weapon” the AK-47 where all built by those very very very nice socialists in the USSR, or the widespread use of assassinations and torture by the ‘victorious’ VC, or when those ever so nice people POUM in the Spanish Civil War where quite happy to become war loving mobs burning down churches with the congregation in it….
Still keep jabbering away on Corporate Google (provided by Microsoft Windows) and dream on….
‘Anarchy’ and ‘socialism’-kills more people than Spanish Flu.
BTW Korva…
How well did Vivian’s t-shirts sell for Amnesty International?
Also I would suggest that the ‘anarchy’ script that you are using looks rather ‘sixth form’ to me, just might give the game away there..;)
Yeah, 2 tossers to scroll past!
My skills will be honed to perfection in no time.
Many thanks Hilly and Korry.
IiD – I actually never claimed that right-wing = pro-war. The point I was making that they were all pro-Republican and right-wing and pro-War. I never suggested that one lead to the other.
Not quite sure about your point about the USSR, VC and POUM. But then, your reference to POUM and my own views suggest that you have a sixth form knowledge of the Spanish Civil War.
Still, notice you didn’t address the central point. I’ll take you more seriously when you do (I’m also willing to give you a history lesson on the POUM’s relationship with the CNT).
My skills will be honed to perfection in no time.
I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks, Korry. Longer ones required as well.
korova,
Your confused and confusing ‘replies’ would be amusing to fisk as would your blog but I have better things to do today.
But just out of interest where do I ‘claim that the BBC’s description of Chavez’s rule as ‘militant’ is somehow pro-Chavez’?
Ralph:
‘Mr Chavez has warned his followers that the country is under threat from those opposed to his militant rule’
It’s amazing how many dictators use that excuse to oppress people.
You would think that the BBC would stand up for fellow journos.
Ralph | Homepage | 27.05.07 – 1:05 pm | #
Your final sentence suggests the BBC is sympathetic to Chavez. The reference to Chavez as a ‘militant’ suggests otherwise.
As for your blog, try constructing arguments rather than pleasing soundbites. You might get taken more seriously (6 links to your blog, not to mention the lack of comments, is hardly a good indication of your standing).
How does an anarchist reconcile having to pay the BBC TV tax?
Have a peek at this site. Appears this ‘blogger’ and korova are pals
http://thecuntoftheweek.blogspot.com/
Says it all really.
Ah, anonymous. Managed to contain your foul mouthed ranting I see. Well done old chap.
No answer then korova.
So how do you reconcile being an anarchist with having to pay the TV tax?
And why do you associate with people like this?
http://thecuntoftheweek.blogspot.com/
Oh, and I’m not given to foul mouthed ranting.
Ah, must be your doppelganger.
Why do I associate with Filippo Inzaghi? Filippo and I go way back.
What are you talking about?
Filippo Inzaghi. You know, AC Milan centre-forward. Scored the goals that defeated Liverpool in the Champion League.
Ah, must be your doppelganger.
korova | Homepage | 28.05.07 – 8:07 pm |
What are you talking about?
Anonymous | 28.05.07 – 8:10 pm | #
How does an anarchist reconcile having to pay the BBC TV tax?
Anonymous | 28.05.07 – 7:34 pm | #
No response then.
I have learnt that trick of this site!
No response then
Drop me a line you big hunk, you’ll get a response then 😉
How does an anarchist reconcile having to pay the BBC TV tax?