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.
How do you my lovely?
Drop me a line you big hunk, you’ll get a response then
No thanks.
How do you my lovely?
By monthly debit (we’re poor), how about you?
Also note that we’re boring everyone else. Viewer attenadance has dropped by half since we’ve engaged in this intercourse. Much like the BBC’s viewing figures I should imagine.
Bugger me. You’ve gone without answering my question !!!!!
I’ll have to come back again tomorrow. Hopefully your Mum will let you out to play again.
Wayne:
Ok I give in, I’ll buy one of your damned mice, just make your sales assistants stop posting!
How dare you bring my mother into this!! (Biodegradable 2007)
As for your question, allow me to explain. Anarchism is an ideal. It is something that is to be strived for. An anarchist state will never exist given the forces stacked aganinst it. Given that this is the case, we must accept that there is unlikely to be a media outlet based on an anarchist system. In a world where the choice appears to be between a commercial channel, an independent state broadcaster and a subservient state broadcaster, I know which one more closely fits my ideal. It’s not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the best the system will allow. Besides, I will defend any state broadcaster that is attacked by the state in the way in which the BBC has. The events surrounding the Hutton report where unprecedented. Never has a broadcaster been so heavily under threat by the state than during that period.
As to your question, I pay by monthly direct debit too. See, we have in common than you thought,
I wouldn’t bother Mick. Wayne seems to think that the Queen ruled the UK in the 1980s. He is clearly bonkers.
korova:
How dare you bring my mother into this!! (Biodegradable 2007)
Leave me out of this, and if you’re going to quote me do it properly and in context.
Well, you said the same when I mentioned yours. Why is it ok for anonymous to mention mine?
Well, you said the same when I mentioned yours. Why is it ok for anonymous to mention mine?
You are making the same mistake as your new found friend “hillhunt”; commenters at Biased BBC are not one homogeneous mass. We are each responsible for our own comments. I am not “anonymous” and he/she/it is not me.
I have not said that it’s OK for “anonymous” to mention your mother, in fact I have not voiced an opinion on his/her/its comment to you, neither will I.
I merely ask that you do not involve me in your arguments with other posters.
You (and “hillhunt”) seem to have forgotten the warnings the siteowners gave you regarding personal attacks. If you have a beef with somebody take it up with them, leave me out of it.
Cool. As long as the siteowners warn ‘anonymous’ appropriately. I mean, you guys wouldn’t want to be called hypocrites, right?
Don’t be so fsking sanctimonious you nasty little troll!
Just don’t mention their families hillhunt. They get really over-sensitive then.
korova | Homepage | 28.05.07 – 12:04 am
Ooooohh Bush must be a really bad man if even birds shit on him! Bird shit should really be able to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans.
There’s a terrible soiund and a terrible smell on this website: the sound is the screech of a barrell being scraped and the smell is Bullshit!
So Bullshit Detective, can you detect other, supposedly responsible news organizations which linked to a propaganda piece after the video?
I call the “Crazy Dance” thing propaganda because it has been deliberately edited with a specific agenda. If Bush looks foolish when the bird soils his jacket, it is only accidental, and is not propaganda intending to promote an agenda. I will state for the third time that I do not have a problem with the broadcast of this video.
If someone had digitally manipulated the video of a boring old press conference and superimposed CGI bird shit, then that would be a different matter. It would be irresponsible to post such a video on the website of a news organization – one with an impartiality clause in its charter, no less. Same goes for the “Crazy Dance”. It has been manipulated deliberately by a third party. The BBC editor who made the choice to add that link to the video was irresponsible.
I understand that both you and Hillhunt do not acknowledge the difference between showing raw footage and manipulated material. So I ask you, Bullshit Detector, and Hillhunt (who, in an above post about all of our “rantings”, has misrepresented my previous statement): Did any other supposedly responsible, even pretending to be impartial, news organization post the video of a bird crapping on President Bush followed immediately with a link to either the “Crazy Dance”, or any other deliberately edited media piece?
If you can find even one – excluding a news outlet that is open about its pro-Left bias, obviously – I will stand down from the argument.
Korova:
“But then, your reference to POUM and my own views suggest that you have a sixth form knowledge of the Spanish Civil War.”
Really?
I suppose you will point out to me that Barcelona had a wonderful tram service, that the workers co-operatives turned the economy around and that it was nasty old Orlov (re the Soviet advisors) and the CNT that ruined it “for the people”.
Funny by 1937 Barcelona wasn’t being held up as a shining example of hope by people like George Orwell was it now.
But what you will probably omit is that Largo’s political indecision, the squabbling between POUM,CNT and the Basques for weapons and resources, the creation of a state within a state within the Republican camp ,the delaying of centralized control of the war effort (an essential pre-requst for conducting military operations), the alienation of large sections of the rural population through the persecution of the sympathetic young clergy and smallholders who were prepared to back the Republic (they became the fifth column later) coupled with the hand-fisted attempts at ‘economic reform’ though collectivization and the syndicates which devalued what little foreign capital the Republic had while at the same time making domestic goods MORE expensive to make .Of course the anarchist creed is all about ‘freedom’-shame it means nothing when bellies are empty and there are no bullets to defend yourselves with.
Gross incompetence by the Republican Government (which includes POUM) helped turn Spain into the very monster which they were supposedly fighting against.
Then again it was the Republican that thought that Uncle Joe would look after all that gold. Naive stupidity is the word that could encapsulate the ‘vanguard against fascisms’ efforts in Spain. In fact you could some up the whole Republican war effort as do nothing, give away everything, and fight amongst yourselves over what Lenin and Marx said.
It’s a shame that you ‘anarchists’ can’t get there heads around that your ‘utopia’ kills people…
‘Your final sentence suggests the BBC is sympathetic to Chavez. The reference to Chavez as a ‘militant’ suggests otherwise.’
My final sentence is about the BBC ‘stand[ing] up for fellow journos’ that’s all.
Somebody saw what they wanted to see didn’t they?
David Preiser:
I understand that both you and Hillhunt do not acknowledge the difference between showing raw footage and manipulated material
Manipulated material? A sequence of 9 still images to entertain primary kids. The Hitler diaries it is not.
Po-faced. You are.
hillhunt-
Havn’t you got some Jerermy Clarkson exposee to get blogging on your ever popular site to get on with?
Ralph, you know perfectly well that you were using that as bias within the BBC, or else why mention it?
IiD – I’m still confused. Why are you associating the POUM with my own views? Interesting though your potted history is, you haven’t really explained why you associate a Trotskyite party with an anarchist. Or Stalinism or the VC for that matter. I’m beginning to think that you believe that the POUM were anarchist. I hope I am wrong about this.
korava
Having spent too much time with so-called ‘anarchists’ the I assumed that you would struggle to see the irony of what I have written.
My point is that is no difference with ‘anarchists’ and ‘socialists’ apart from the navel gazing interpretations of Marx, Engels, Godwin or Proudhorn. Hence my “confusion” between the CNT and POUM. I’ve always found very difficult to tell the difference between one murderous gang and another.
I mean can you spot the difference between the Stazi and Gestapo?
Under the enlightened “leadership” of the so call Republic, people starved and were left defenceless while these so called ‘humanistic’ ideologies purged each other.The defence committee of Barcelona was quite happy to horde weapons while the Basque Region burned…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism
However I’m sure the less ‘politically educated’ saw no difference between the Red and Black flag and the Red flag when a 9mm Tokarev is placed in the back of the head…
Which comes neatly back to my orginal point-Before you go shouting at the “war-mongering right wing press” just think that your little ideal has blood on it hands.
BTW-Seeing as the “Trotsky” POUM and “anarchist” CNT so closely “co-operated” against the “Popular Front” in reality there was little difference between the two memberships anyway.
Ahh I see you are the voice of the tolerance as well Kovora:
“Er, come again?? I think someone has got their radical left-wing ideologies a little confused. The USSR? The VC? The POUM? Not sure how any of these relate to my views. Particularly the POUM, who were generally mis-trusted by the CNT (the representative of anarchists). In fact, the CNT, reluctantly supported the Communist move to expel the POUM from the Catalan government, despite the reservations of more radical elements within the CNT who trusted the Communists even less than the Trotskyist POUM. Still, I guess it all looks the same to those who do not understand such things. But again, this is typical of the right. They are quick to dismiss any suggestion that the right is broadly similar (as they have done in this case), but will paint anyone of the left as ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’, ignoring the many differences between the different factions. After all, no sane person would suggest socialism, communism and anarchism are the roughly the same.
Luckily, these guys are on the fringes of serious, rational debate. As long as they continue with sweeping generalisations like these, they will remain on the fringes for a very long time. Although maybe that will change when we are ruled by King Charles III.”
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha…..ROTFLMAO!!
Only a navel gazing “crypto-communist” could write that little critique….mommy and daddys University money handout paid for this little piece of education did it?
I bet the free trade coffee must tasted very bitter after reading this thread.
Of course we remain “right wing shitheads” showing your vaste knowledge of politics as well…
F**KING HELL KORVORA-YOU COULD ALMOST PASS OF AS A BEEBOID!!
http://maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/search/label/Biased%20BBC
http://maskofanarchy.blogspot.co…el/Biased% 20BBC
IiD | 29.05.07 – 11:33 am
Thanks for pointing that out. There was I taking him at his word that “anonymous” had upset him by mentioning his mother. He called us “hypocrites” and there he is publishing his exchange with me about my mother claiming to not understand why it was offensive to me. He thought it was “weird”.
All I can say at this point is that I doubt his mother can be certain who his father was.
BTW-Seeing as the “Trotsky” POUM and “anarchist” CNT so closely “co-operated” against the “Popular Front” in reality there was little difference between the two memberships anyway.
Absolute nonsense. Might I suggest you read The Spanish Labyrinth and learn a little bit more about the CNT and POUM during the Civil War? It’s a more reliable source of information than Wikipedia! It’s generally regarded as the foremost work on the period. the CNT membership was bitterly opposed to any working relationship with the POUM.
As for your attacks on the left, I guess you have a point. Some elements on the left have been responsible for many deaths across the world. The war in Iraq is just another example.
‘Ralph, you know perfectly well that you were using that as bias within the BBC, or else why mention it?’
Now you claim to know what I’m thinking, there is no end to your skills.
It’s pretty simple to work out why I wasn’t ‘using that as bias within the BBC’ have a go and try and work it out.
Hillhunt, rather than answering my question/challenge, tells me:
“Manipulated material? A sequence of 9 still images to entertain primary kids. The Hitler diaries it is not.”
Then he *sniff* calls me “po-faced”.
Hillhunt, your judgment is in error. We’re getting a tiny bit closer, but you still won’t address the real issue.
The Hitler Diaries, as you know, were a complete fabrication by a Hitler forger, with no other agenda than to make money off it. They were not created to make Hitler look silly, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. It is illogical to use the Hitler Diaries as an analogy. The “Crazy Dance” is a deliberately manipulated set of photos of an actual event. I’m guessing that you don’t have a problem with that, and see no agenda behind the editing.
Since you accept that the “Crazy Dance” makes Bush look silly, I would like to ask you some questions so we can further clarify your mindset. This is now the second time you have declined to address my actual point, and you have previously misrepresented my statement on this matter.
.. Is it your position that there is no difference between raw, unedited footage and deliberately edited material?
2. Have any responsible, supposedly impartial, news organizations posted the Bush/bird-crap video on a site intended specifically for children, rather than in a “lighter news” spot?
Which leads to….
3. What would be a legitimate news reason for linking to an edited piece designed to make a national leader look foolish? NB: “Trying to make Bush look less scary to the kiddies” is not a real answer. Unless you care to add why the kiddies might find him “scary”, and which other world leaders have received a similar warm fuzzy from the BBC.
4. Has even one single, solitary, responsible media organization that does not openly declare a leftist bias linked to any image/video/other media that makes Bush look foolish – edited, raw, whatever – after the bird-crap video? Even raw, unedited footage – not manipulated in any way – of Bush at the African ceremony which became the “Crazy Dance”?
5. Has the BBC even recently posted footage of another world leader in a similar situation, accompanied by a link to something akin to the “Crazy Dance”?
I realize this appears to be nothing more than right-wing freakery to you, but I am trying to get a sense of why you have the opinion you do. Since you have previously misrepresented my statement on this matter, and have only now barely addressed my argument, I feel it is necessary to spell this all out.
It’s pretty simple to work out why I wasn’t ‘using that as bias within the BBC’ have a go and try and work it out.
Mmm, strange. Why post it on a site called Biased BBC then? Just some innocent remark? You’re a bigger fool than you first appear.
David Preiser,
Hillhunt is not here to debate or learn anything. He is here to impress everyone with his brilliance. I have never had a discussion with anyone on the left who was able to compare like with like, no matter how brilliant they thought they were. He’s more of the same, but with a sneering attitude that I find quite unpleasant.
That’s why I don’t respond to his taunts.
…he said with a sneering attitude.
Childrens TV has been taken over by PC numpties.
Anyone remember Blue Peter in its heyday ? John Noakes doing a parachute jump, Peter Purves making a bird box out of waste material, then Val making some yummy biscuits.
Now its like watching a car crash in slow motion. Hand wringing about Malawi and then some victimhood tosh about bullying at school. HELP !
..and Janet Ellis getting pregnant out of wed-lock, aahh those were the days.
David Preiser – are you an American residing in the UK, or are you in the US?
please do not feed the trolls!
why?
David Preiser:
All images • except raw, live feeds • are edited, or manipulated as you prefer it, to create an effect. Usually news pictures are manipulated to shorten and clarify complex events and render them understandable. Sometimes it’s done just to entertain. Manipulation need not imply deceit. Context is key.
So, yes, the Bush dance images were edited. Someone chose 6 still frames from the President dancing at a malaria awareness event. They added a few other stills of Bush.
I’m not sure that I did “accept that Crazy Dance makes Bush look silly”. It’s certainly funny, but it was also funny when Tony Blair agreed to film a sketch with the comedy actress Catherine Tate and trump her with her own gobby teenager catchline “am I bovvered?” Statesmen these days occasionally concede a controlled loss of dignity to appear approachable to an egalitarian public.
I don’t understand your distinction between a children’s section and a “lighter news spot”. Do you believe that young children’s news should be more serious than the lighter bits of adult news? The bird-crap video is all over the web, as is the dancing stuff. The (London) Times headlines a piece about Bush dancing “Move over, Rove, let Dubya show us some shapes” and links to a video with the line “Watch George W Bush break out some moves.” Light-hearted is the tone.
I think searching for a “a legitimate news reason for linking to an edited piece designed to make a national leader look foolish” is the flaw in your case. The CBBC stills are aimed at a primary-school audience. Kids below 11. Why is he there? What point are they making? Look no further than the “dad dance”, a staple for comedians for some years in the UK. It’s an affectionate notion • that your father’s rare outbreaks of dancing at family parties are a source of both affection and gentle mockery. The most dominant man in your life has the guts to ignore his status (and his physical limitations) but he’s bound to fail because only cool kids can really dance.
CBBC’s captions carry that theme, breaking down Bush’s moves as you might any other middle-aged bloke’s:
“The American president George W Bush is one of the most important men in the world – so click on the next pic to find out why he’s pulling this funny face.”
“He showed his finest moves with the West African Dance Company. In the pic, we think Mr Bush is doing the plane attendant move – the exits are located to the front, rear and sides!”
It works for a young audience because it paints a hugely significant man in familiar social terms they’ll understand. He is a very distant figure to them; you are not going to interest kids of that age in policy discussions. Why did I use the word “scary”? Because this site is full of people who believe the BBC staff equate Bush with Hitler. I was • perhaps unnecessarily • trying to avoid that notion.
The BBC regularly lampoons our own and other peoples’ leaders. Series like Dead Ringers and Have I Got News for You are the latest in a long history of satirical comedy stretching back to David Frost’s early days. A lot of it is available on the web. Having travelled extensively through undemocratic regimes, it feels healthy to have the right to present and view our leaders in a light less flattering than they’d prefer.
Is it biased? Er, no. The Pres comes over as a bit goofy • a bit like your dad losing his inhibitions at a cousin’s wedding. So what? Why complain?
Korova,
Obviously I am an American residing in the US. If it’s a “Gotcha!” moment for you, I don’t think anyone else is surprised. As far as I know, the only word I spell all English-like is “programme”, so I don’t see how there could be any confusion on this. Spelling it the American way just looks wrong when discussing British television.
Although the amount of time I have spent in the UK won’t stand up to a lifelong resident, I have been connected in various ways for much of my life. I remember getting shillings in change in a shop, no garbage cans ’cause of the IRA, attended an exposition for the Queen’s Silver Jubilee, proper double-decker buses, properly proportioned newspapers, pints under a pound (not that I was old enough to drink then), The Spectator before “Golden Boy” Boris Johnson, Southwark back when you could hear yourself think on a Tuesday morning, the real 100 Acre Wood before it got popular, and Finsbury Park before it became the scene that made Christopher Hithcins angry. Which it still kind of isn’t, but I know what he means. Still, it is full of those awful cookie-cutter neighborhood developments. I remember a time long before any of those were there. I also remember Stoke Newington before all the changes (if hillhunt is who others say he is, he’ll know what I mean. If not, maybe someone else will). In a few years, I will be either a partial or permanent resident of the UK. Hopefully a certain area of East Sussex.
I suppose my posts are now officially dismissed out of hand.
Hillhunt,
“All images • except raw, live feeds • are edited, or manipulated as you prefer it, to create an effect.”
Nonsense. I make a portion of my living doing video editing and/or reproduction, and I know that’s a crock. In the real world, there most certainly is such a thing as unedited footage. If you want to split hairs and contend that showing only a portion of a full reel of tape or digitally recorded segment can be defined as “edited footage” and therefore suspect, then you must also admit that this can be done in one of two ways: A short clip can be shown out of context, or the important footage can be shown unchanged in its proper context, just without the beginning and end of the full shot. The former can be done with bias, to make a point that would otherwise not be relevant to the clip. The latter, specifically in the case of this Bush video, cannot automatically be put in the same category. The video as shown is not biased at all.
“Usually news pictures are manipulated to shorten and clarify complex events and render them understandable. Sometimes it’s done just to entertain. Manipulation need not imply deceit.”
Sure. That is what happened with the video. That is not the case with the “Crazy Dance”.
“Context is key.”
There is no other context that would make it look any less silly, so showing the clip without the beginning and end of the press conference cannot be considered to be a biased edit of any kind. Less boring, maybe, but not biased. I will state for the final time – although I think you do realize this, others may not – I don’t have a problem with broadcasting the video, per se. However, choosing specific frames of a video – only those that appear foolish out of context – can be biased. You must admit that freeze frames can often look much more odd than the footage played back at normal speed. Hence my opinion of the “Crazy Dance”. Putting the video in the context of other footage showing Bush in an unflattering light does alter one’s perception of the video.
“So, yes, the Bush dance images were edited. Someone chose 6 still frames from the President dancing at a malaria awareness event. They added a few other stills of Bush.”
No one other than the BBC has linked to this or anything remotely like it after the video. Why do it at all?
“I’m not sure that I did “accept that Crazy Dance makes Bush look silly”.
Sorry, when you replied to me that it was just put there to make him seem less scary to the kiddies, you gave yourself away. Unless it was just to make him seem, what, mostly harmless?
“It’s certainly funny, but it was also funny when Tony Blair agreed to film a sketch with the comedy actress Catherine Tate and trump her with her own gobby teenager catchline “am I bovvered?””
Completely irrelevant. This is an act of consent; the bird crap was not consensual.
“Statesmen these days occasionally concede a controlled loss of dignity to appear approachable to an egalitarian public.”
Agreed, hence my repeated cries that I don’t have a problem, per se with the video being shown.
“I don’t understand your distinction between a children’s section and a “lighter news spot”. Do you believe that young children’s news should be more serious than the lighter bits of adult news?”
Of course not. But how many other clips of this sort featuring other world leaders, with a link to additional unflattering footage, are posted on the children’s site?
“I think searching for a “a legitimate news reason for linking to an edited piece designed to make a national leader look foolish” is the flaw in your case. The CBBC stills are aimed at a primary-school audience. Kids below 11. Why is he there? What point are they making? Look no further than the “dad dance”, a staple for comedians for some years in the UK. It’s an affectionate notion • that your father’s rare outbreaks of dancing at family parties are a source of both affection and gentle mockery. The most dominant man in your life has the guts to ignore his status (and his physical limitations) but he’s bound to fail because only cool kids can really dance.
CBBC’s captions carry that theme, breaking down Bush’s moves as you might any other middle-aged bloke’s:
“The American president George W Bush is one of the most important men in the world – so click on the next pic to find out why he’s pulling this funny face.”
“He showed his finest moves with the West African Dance Company. In the pic, we think Mr Bush is doing the plane attendant move – the exits are located to the front, rear and sides!”
It works for a young audience because it paints a hugely significant man in familiar social terms they’ll understand. He is a very distant figure to them; you are not going to interest kids of that age in policy discussions. Why did I use the word “scary”? Because this site is full of people who believe the BBC staff equate Bush with Hitler. I was • perhaps unnecessarily • trying to avoid that notion.”
So you’re saying the editorial choice made by the BBC in this case was to help promote Bush’s image by making him look vulnerable, and at the same time more approachable? I await similar postings on CBBC of “Brother Leader” Qadaffi, Putin, any Arab leader, or Hugo Chavez.
“The BBC regularly lampoons our own and other peoples’ leaders. Series like Dead Ringers and Have I Got News for You are the latest in a long history of satirical comedy stretching back to David Frost’s early days. A lot of it is available on the web.”
Yes, but that’s not the same thing at all, is it? Those programs are not targeted to the Blue Peter audience. Frost and all his comedy offspring did not write for grammar school kids. But once again, they’re not shown as news programs.
“Having travelled extensively through undemocratic regimes, it feels healthy to have the right to present and view our leaders in a light less flattering than they’d prefer.”
Well, yes, Britain is becoming more of a totalitarian state under NuLab, so I take your point. Still, you have made an illogical statement, seeing as how I am not objecting to the de facto broadcast of something portraying Bush in an unflattering light. Again, I await similar postings on CBBC of “Brother Leader” Qadaffi, Putin, any Arab leader, or Hugo Chavez.
Sorry, I appreciate the response, but it just doesn’t add up.
Hillhunt says.
“I’m not sure that I did “accept that Crazy Dance makes Bush look silly”. It’s certainly funny, but it was also funny when Tony Blair agreed to film a sketch with the comedy actress Catherine Tate and trump her with her own gobby teenager catchline “am I bovvered?” Statesmen these days occasionally concede a controlled loss of dignity to appear approachable to an egalitarian public. ”
Basic error there HH- Blair actively consented to the sketch, acting a part. Bush was as much taking part in an event as anything. Blair controlled the context, Bush did not. Elementary confusions seem to be a feature of your verbiage, don’t they?
Good Morning!!
“Absolute nonsense. Might I suggest you read The Spanish Labyrinth and learn a little bit more about the CNT and POUM during the Civil War? It’s a more reliable source of information than Wikipedia! It’s generally regarded as the foremost work on the period. the CNT membership was bitterly opposed to any working relationship with the POUM.”
I have already read said book Korova, although the book you reference was written by Gerald Brenan (who fought in the war) and is a good read, I question his “impartiality” due to his personal involvement.
That would be like me reading “Commentaries on the Gaul War” by Julius Caesar expecting to find an unbiased account on Roman and Gaullist politics and warfare….
No I would suggest that you start reading HISTORY BOOKS rather than biographies for a kick off. Things that are outside your “comfort zone” and actually intellectually challenge you rather than reinforce your own bias.
You could make a start by reading Anthony Beevor’s Spanish Civil War
Then I suggest you go and actually VISIT and TALK to the people “that were there”, go and visit Gurnica or the battle fields around Casa de Campo or Guadalajara.
I think you will soon find that your “right on slogans” and endless navel gazing on the “Barcelona” commune does not live up to the reality of gross military incompetence (incompetence that makes Bush’s war-planning seem like “Alexanderesque” by comparison).Empty bellies and empty slogans don’t win wars, even more so when the so call “anti-fascists” are too busy fighting there own dirty little war.
I provided the Wakipedia entry for your general edification-as I have said on a number of posts I have spent far to long with “socialist” “anarchists” and other assortment of “moonbats” (all of which are usually disgruntled office workers who have been watching far too much Small Change) to be taken in by tired old arguments about the “right”….
One last point-For somebody who is against “state” how does that sit for your support for state funded television?
David.
As far as I am concerned your comments are always welcome:)
Unlike the sixth-form double duo of Hill Hunt and Reith….
David Preiser:
It was funny. It was on a primary-kids’ site. Get over it.
And more CJD nonsense from korova Corporate sponsored web-page….
“So at long last, David Hicks has returned to Australia. Although this is clearly fantastic news, it doesn’t mean that his fight is over. As long as Hicks is incarcerated in Australia, he remains a potent reminder of Howard’s blatant support for the principles of Guantanamo Bay. The very same principles that he abhors in Zimbabwe, a country who’s dictator he willingly props up. Howard has shown his true colours.”
I’m sorry-wasn’t it ‘do-gooders’ like yourself that have been propping up the “father of Africa” because of those nasty white South Africans?
I mean the “anti-apartheid” movement was quite good in raising money for the “front line states” Mugarbe must have got a good return for all that money and those knock-down priced AK-47 from the former Soviet Union!
Next you will be saying-I know lets send our boys to Darfur to they can die in the Sahara as parrotted by George Clooney……
http://www.maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/
hillhunt-
why don’t you Foxtrot Oscar out of here and go and tend to your ever popular web-site…
I’m sure you can “write” an expose on Clarkson….
“All images • except raw, live feeds • are edited, or manipulated as you prefer it, to create an effect.”
Quite so. Perhaps you missed the furor over manipulated images from Lebanon last summer, or the famous televised death of Muhamed al Durah, who perhaps is not even dead.
See the raw footage:
http://www.seconddraft.org/
All OK as far as you’re concerned?
Manipulating the news to create an effect – it’s what we do!
Don’t forget BioD that when British squaddies “beat up” in “Iraqi” in Preston Barracks in a back of a truck that is illustration of “factual reporting” coming from Iraq…
Also rather like those “chlorine bombs’ that keep going off NOT being chemical weapons…
BioD:
Prepared to face up to ignorantly suggesting that a refugee family are paedophiles yet?
Biased BBC: Wherever the whinge blows
IiD | 30.05.07 – 11:30 am
I see worse examples of “brutality” on Spanish TV here every day; breaking up striking workers demos, evicting squatters, use of unauthorised batons, cattle prods and the like.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=spanish+police+brutality&search=Search
Prepared to face up to ignorantly suggesting that a refugee family are paedophiles yet?
Show me where in that article it says that the 13 year old sister-in-law is not married to the interviewee’s brother.
Child brides are common among Muslims – I didn’t make it up.
PS: How old was Mohamed’s wife Aisha?
Sad to see the Guardia Civil keep up the traditions of Franco BioD….
No doubt the current “progressive socalist Government” will be lending Chavez a hand on “law enforcement” techniques so time soon…
No doubt the current “progressive socalist Government” will be lending Chavez a hand on “law enforcement” techniques so time soon…
IiD | 30.05.07 – 11:54 am
Been there, done that:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/29/news/venez.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/13/news/spain.php
Note the Guardia Civil still use the fascist emblem:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Guardia_Civil_Logo.jpg