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.
Given its hegemonic position, it is the BBC that both could and should be pursuing these scandals.
Not much chance of that, though, while Iraq remains virtually the only issue anyone at White City cares about.
GCooper | 31.05.07 – 11:42 am |
It would appear that those who have forked out the £3000 + to become HIP surveyors are now considering suing the government, ergo the taxpayer.
This is the last item from the BBC webpage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/6692427.stm
No mention of incompetence there then.
Is there a gender issue here? I mean the BBC is stuffed with socialist wimmin. Is it just possible that it’s a solidarity issue with the ‘Sisterhood’ of Blair’s babes.
jr, now that the troll nonsense is showing signs of abaiting I’m genuinely interested in your take on this.
GCooper | 31.05.07 – 11:32 am:
Thank you for that. It’s nice to be appreciated. (I’ll have to remember that name “Tim Luckhurst”. It seems to have the same gob-smacking effect on the Trolls as the dreaded words “Neil Hamilton”.)
& again the main aim seems to be to isolate and then berate the USA
Irwin Stelzer notes that growing numbers of Americans (including Democrats) are wondering about the value of supporting the apples of the BBC’s eye, the Tranzi organasations.
Re the World Bank – Americans notice that they are squandering billions on armies of bureaucrats who think it a good idea to wreak vengeance on a man who shaped official US foreign policy, and a man who had as his central goal the elimination of corruption at the bank and among its client states.
Re the World Trade Organisation – The Democratic Congress has decided that the costs of ever-freer trade are too high to make the game worth the candle
Re the UN – an organisation that recently decided that Zimbabwe is just the country to put in the chair of its sustainable economic development committee.
Americans were offended when the UN provided the platform for Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez to rant at Mr Bush, as “the devil” trailing a smell of sulphur. There is a mounting feeling that money spent to support the UN – its reputation already seriously dented by the oil-for-food scandal, its members devoted to embarrassing America and Israel while forgiving Arab nations all their sins – might not be in America’s long-term interests
Re NATO – As America takes mounting casualties in Afghanistan, EU countries, with Britain the notable and honourable exception, refuse to provide significant support for an effort in which they agreed to participate. The handful of German troops are not allowed out of their barracks after dark, and soldiers from other nations patrol the most peaceful regions of that violent country.
Besides, Americans are increasingly aware that Europe is funding its generous welfare states by stinting on military spending, something they can do because they rely on American-funded Nato “assets” such as transport planes. That makes America, stung by its experience in Iraq, more rather than less likely to cut back on its role as world policeman.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/30/do3001.xml
via EUReferendum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/6706851.stm
“More than 900 people died in the 74-day war, including 255 British servicemen, 655 Argentines and three islanders.”
Is this another example of the BBC ‘forgetting’ to point out that the 655 Argentines were also servicemen/ invaders/belligerent militants/ fraternal socialist brothers whatever they call them nowadays? Why did they not have “255 British and 655 Argentine servicemen” Hmm? perhaps they are trying to imply the Argies were all civilians like Hezbollah!
And ‘forgetting to add ‘three islanders “killed by the Argentines”‘…..
TPO + GCooper
Re: HIPS
I can’t honestly say I’ve been following this one • but then I’m not selling-up and moving to Alberta.
I think you’ll find that the BBC has been covering the angles that you identify.
It would appear that those who have forked out the £3000 + to become HIP surveyors are now considering suing the government, ergo the taxpayer.
This bloke forked out 14 grand!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6681779.stm
And this one twenty grand!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6688307.stm
No mention of incompetence there
How about this:
CML chief Michael Coogan told the BBC that the government’s approach had been wrong.
“It was not managed well,” he said. “There was a failure to recognise that those bodies in favour of Hips also had a vested interest.
“There was a bunker mentality… The compelling reasons we gave for delay were ignored.
“Instead the government ploughed on and chose divide and rule, seeing all the bodies that had real concerns separately.”
He hoped housing ministers would “learn from their mistakes”, he said.
…. At Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time, Tory leader David Cameron called for Housing Minister Yvette Cooper to be sacked.
He said Ms Cooper had led MPs to believe that there were 1,100 registered home inspectors ready to go.
“Yesterday, it was admitted that there were less than half of that. Never mind what the next prime minister’s going to do. What on earth is she still doing in her job?”
He added: “I know the walls of the bunker are pretty thick but haven’t you noticed this policy has completely collapsed?
“You said you have so much to do in your dying weeks – yet Hips are in chaos.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6683937.stm
Newsnight also seems to have followed the incompetence angle:
With less than two weeks to go until they were due to be made compulsory for anyone selling a home, the government has announced that Home Information Packs will be delayed until August, and then only phased in.
Why has the government been so slow to react to the problems?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/05/tuesday_22_may_2007.html
Now you really must stop talking to Dave Hill’s arsehole it will only fart noxious gases back at you.
TPO | 31.05.07 – 11:20 am
Actually I get more sense out of his amazing talking haemorrhoid than I do from his keyboard/mouth 😆
And ‘forgetting to add ‘three islanders “killed by the Argentines”‘…..
dave t | 31.05.07 – 1:11 pm
It’s a variation on the Israelis die/Palestinians killed theme.
True balance would require something akin to “More than 900 people died in the 74-day war, including 255 British and 655 Argentine servicemen, and three islanders killed by the invading forces.”
John Reith writes:
“I can’t honestly say I’ve been following this one • but then I’m not selling-up and moving to Alberta.”
That’s understandable. Then again, I don’t live in Baghdad and I’m not in the least interested in St Tony’s missionary work in Africa, yet I seem besieged on all sides with stories about both.
The question here is one of proportion and, as before, the fact that you are able to dredge-up a handful of mentions doesn’t get us very far.
The suggestion is not that the BBC hasn’t covered this issue – it’s that it has not covered it enough.
This is a major story on two counts: it directly affects many people in the country and it is the latest in a string of serious and costly government failures.
The BBC has the power to drive the news agenda in the UK when it chooses to and, for whatever reasons, it seems to have decided not to with this one.
TPO, GCooper, John Reith
Very little mention from the BBC of the fact that HIPs were largely a result of a EU directive in 2002 which requires homes to have an Energy Performance Certificate.
This could go some way to explaining why there was such a rush to implement them despite the frequent predictions that assessors would not be trained up in time. This may also explain why HIPs provided major details about energy but ignored the most common problem with buying property in England – buyers and sellers changing their minds without having to pay a penny for doing so. Many buyers, sellers and estate agents would favour a move towards the Scottish system, where buyers have to have a complete and verified chain before placing an offer, and such an offer would be, up to a point, legally binding for both sides, stopping (a) the buyer from changing his/her mind and pulling out and (b) the vendor from continuing to market and accept higher offers on the property. Yet the HIP dealt with none of this, concentrating on Energy instead. Ask any estate agent how many properties he/she has seen fall through because of energy supplies or local searches and the answer is likely to be “None” (yes, Beeboids, even in Islington and Hackney). Originally the HIPs would contain a Home Condition report, a kind of survey. Many properties fall through, or get reduced dramatically in price, at survey, so this was considered a useful step in some quarters (although the fact that all banks required their own surveys to be carried out for mortgage purposes meant it was a bit inefficient). Yet this was dropped by the Government, but the Energy Reports remained.
Sorry to be long winded, but this raises huge questions of the Government, and of its subservience to Brussels.
1. Why do HIPs not deal with the biggest problems in the English (and Welsh) property market?
2. Why was the useful section of the original HIP dropped but the almost useless section kept?
3. Seeing as virtually no properties fall through because of energy supplies or local searches (which are done anyway), why are HIPs going ahead at all when they are clearly doing nothing to improve the house-buying/selling process, and in fact, by adding an extra layer of bureaucracy and an extra cost to the vendor, probably making it worse?
To be fair, I think the BBC has covered this better than much of the media, but still the main questions, especially the EU connection, are left uninvestigated. It would make for an excellent Panorama programme, or a web-based investigation.
So while the BBC has done better than the moronic bleatings of the Mail and Express (compare and contrast their front page headlines today by the way!), I would have hoped for more from the BBC. There is manifest evidence of Government incompetence, a complete disregard by the Government for the views of the public and professionals with regard to the property market, and evidence of Brussels law trumping UK law.
John Reith, do you know whether the BBC plan to do any broadcasting on this in the future?
“And ‘forgetting to add ‘three islanders “killed by the Argentines”‘…..
dave t | 31.05.07 – 1:11 pm
It’s a variation on the Israelis die/Palestinians killed theme.
True balance would require something akin to “More than 900 people died in the 74-day war, including 255 British and 655 Argentine servicemen, and three islanders killed by the invading forces.”
Yes, dave and Bio, except the islanders died during the British naval bombardment.
But apart from that, you’re both correct. Clearly killed/died shows, er, bias.
GCooper | 31.05.07 – 1:36 pm
The suggestion is not that the BBC hasn’t covered this issue – it’s that it has not covered it enough.
Enough for whom?
The BBC has pretty rich data on what the audiences to its main TV bulletins at 6 pm and 10 O’clock want.
There is a panel of 1500 viewers, selected by a market research company to be a representative sample of the nation, who are asked …..inter alia……to identify stories they want to know more about.
Meanwhile, the ‘most popular’ feature on the website tells the interactive team what stories are popular there.
The TV and online audiences do not always agree.
And their views are sometimes surprising.
Among the things TV news viewers are most interested in are: climate change (sorry, but it’s true), pensions, council tax.
Among the things the TV news audience is not interested in: celebrities (For example when Tom Cruise was dumped by his Hollywood studio, 80% of respondents claimed that it did not interest them. Similarly when the England squad visited the new Wembley stadium, 78% said they weren’t interested).
By contrast, online audiences tend to go for the celeb stuff.
These data do not determine the news agenda. But they do inform it.
It is no accident that the BBC is far and away the nation’s most popular and successful news provider. The staff of BBC News tend to know what they’re doing.
You may think you know better. I doubt it.
“Then again, I don’t live in Baghdad and I’m not in the least interested in St Tony’s missionary work in Africa, yet I seem besieged on all sides with stories about both.”
true but your taxes are paying through the nose for our activities in both areas so it’s nice to see reporting on the result of that investment in Africa and slightly less nice but still of interest in Baghdad surely?
John Reith
Interesting, then, that stories relating to Israel/Palestine, Muslims in Switzerland, Wolfowitz and (to quote Razorlight) Trouble in America did not make it on to the top of the charts either. Yet the Beeb seems to have no trouble covering these stories ad bloody infinitum, despite the public apparently not being overly eager for a bit of good old-fashioned Yank- and Jew-bashing.
Sounds like you could listen more to your audience.
You may think you know better. I doubt it.
jr
I’m with GCooper on this one.
Yes I am selling up and moving to Alberta (thank God having just seen what the denizens of academe are coming out with at their Bournemouth jamboree; Cease teaching family values as it’s unfair to homosexuals; Lets boycott Israel; yada yada yada) so it does affect me, the HIPs that is.
But not only me. It’s everyone buying or selling a house. Clearly worth more coverage than the prancing and dancing going on in the non-event of the decade, the Labour deputy leadership contest.
Dancing in mind I see you’ve not lost your ability to adroitly sidestep my poser !!
Is there a gender issue here? I mean the BBC is stuffed with socialist wimmin. Is it just possible that it’s a solidarity issue with the ‘Sisterhood’ of Blair’s babes.
O/T While typing this have just listened to George Butterworth’s Banks of Green Willow. I didn’t know that he was postumously awarded the Military Cross for his actions during the Battle of the Somme. Sad really when you look at all of the vermin around today. What’s his legacy; A world of Patricia Hewitts and Harriet Harmans. Ugh!
Sorry, I meant to ask jr, are you now on a retainer from the BBC or receiving any sort of renumeration for monitoring our subversive activities on this humble blog.
Don’t worry, I won’t mind if you foxtrot past that one. Give the game away wouldn’t it.
Actually I get more sense out of his amazing talking haemorrhoid than I do from his keyboard/mouth
Biodegradable | 31.05.07 – 1:21 pm |
Mine talk to me most of the time now. I refer to them as my ‘grapes of wrath’
TPO
No gender issue.
No retainer.
No ‘grapes of wrath’ thank heavens.
Butterworth excellent. Eton & Trinity man – so unlikely to go down a storm with the yahoos in these parts.
Yes, dave and Bio, except the islanders died during the British naval bombardment.
But apart from that, you’re both correct. Clearly killed/died shows, er, bias.
Anon | 31.05.07 – 2:29 pm
OK oh brave anonymous one, I’d be happy with “More than 900 people died in the 74-day war, including 255 British and 655 Argentine servicemen, and three islanders killed by aerial bombardments.”
Or even “More than 900 people were killed in the 74-day war, including 255 British and 655 Argentine servicemen, and three islanders wo died in an aerial bombardment.”
I’ll leave dave t to tell us whether they were victims of British or Argie bombs. I’d be happy for the report to state it was British bombs if that were indeed the case.
What we want is impartiality and reporting of facts undistorted by nuance and innuendo.
“There is a panel of 1500 viewers, selected by a market research company to be a representative sample of the nation, who are asked …..inter alia……to identify stories they want to know more about.”
John Reith | 31.05.07 – 2:30 pm | #
Why don`t you just broadcast “THE NEWS” ie. what`s happening in The World.
Then you wouldn`t be accused of either bias or pandering to a minority.
Could it be that the BBC’s panel of viewers want to know more about climate change because the BBC is endlessly scaring them about it?
Very little mention from the BBC of the fact that HIPs were largely a result of a EU directive in 2002 which requires homes to have an Energy Performance Certificate.
Heron | 31.05.07 – 2:23 pm
If this is as I suspect a European-wide directive then, as is often the case (as in fishing quotas), the UK is the only EU state that actually applies the directive.
I live in Spain and have bought and sold a few properties and had close working relationships with builders and property developers, not once have I heard of such a certificate, nor in all the dealings done involving solicitors and notaries have I seen one.
John Reith writes:
“It is no accident that the BBC is far and away the nation’s most popular and successful news provider.”
The former, more or less inevitable given its funding. The latter, a matter of opinion.
My opinion (and it’s one that I know is quite widely shared in media circles) is that the BBC performs poorly at investigative news – particularly bearing in mind its huge resources.
As for your fascinating audience research, perhaps you could tell us where the BBC believes stories about ministerial cock-ups rank?
It might explain why it currently appears so uninterested in them.
John Reith writes:
“Butterworth excellent. Eton & Trinity man – so unlikely to go down a storm with the yahoos in these parts.”
Isn’t there anything in the BBC’s charter that mandates a ‘towering snob alert’ before you post things like that?
Heron
The BBC is moving in next door.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6708383.stm
jr
You missed out renumeration of any sort.
Butterworth excellent. Eton & Trinity man – so unlikely to go down a storm with the yahoos in these parts
You must remember that I squandered my grammar school education (how topical for ‘call me dave’s tories) so I finished up like Kerry’s thickos – joining the armed forces, so I consider myself a yahoo.
As for no gender issues, well I’m amazed that the BBC is immune to it. I saw it first hand in government bodies and ministries.
Part of the paralysis in the health service was Hewitt’s insistance on parachuting less able women in over the heads of more able men, a practice that is gaining ground in Whitehall to bridge the ‘gender gap’. One of Hewitt’s more assinine directives stated that instead of referring to ‘men & women’, when the term arose it should be ‘women & men’.
Funny that. I saw it manifest itself on Ceefax when referring to the ‘women & men’ serving in Bosnia and Kosovo.
So you’re not seriously suggesting that the most PC organisation in Britain today is above such machinations are you?
Heron | 31.05.07 – 2:23 pm |
Heron – thanks, your contributions are always worthwhile reading.
^ was me
must off with little one now.
HYS
Should the church intervene in politics?
The leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has told Catholic politicians who back abortion they should consider their stance on receiving Communion.
What are your views on the speech given by the Cardinal? Should politics and religion be kept separate?
So a churchman raising the MORAL question of abortion produces a suggestion from the BBC that he is meddling in politics.
The BBC fails to spot such interference when a churchman holds forth on POLITICAL matters such as foreign policy.
“As Britain’s Tony Blair wrote in The Sunday Times: “Extremism will be defeated only by recognising that we have not created it … pandering to its sense of grievance will only encourage it.”
Blair confronted the argument that Muslims hate the West because it has taken military action in Afghanistan and Iraq: “Tell me what exactly they feel angry about? We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a UN-supervised democratic process. And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims. Why aren’t they angry about the people doing the killing?”
More
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/extremists_winning_war_of_words_too/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6708383.stm
“Five Live and BBC Sport are among those being relocated to the mediacity”.
Hmm, I read that initially as “mendacity” – wonder why?
‘Roland Deschain:
Could it be that the BBC’s panel of viewers want to know more about climate change because the BBC is endlessly scaring them about it?
Roland Deschain | 31.05.07 – 3:29 pm | # ‘
For me, this really hits the nail on the head. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle: the media decide what the public will be interested in, then publish it, so that the public then develop an interest in it, causing more of the same to be published.
This works because, fundamentally, human beings are lazy thinkers, and would sooner be told what to think by someone else than have to put in mental effort themselves.
God, that’s a depressing thought…
Biased BBC: Bile by the boatload
TPO:
Sad really when you look at all of the vermin around today. What’s his legacy; A world of Patricia Hewitts and Harriet Harmans. Ugh!
Vermin? Classy.
.
Rachel Miller | 31.05.07 – 4:39 pm
Quite a long wrong with your argument here.
First, on climate change – the audience were ahead of the media and the politicians on this.
It’s a self-perpetuating cycle: the media decide what the public will be interested in, then publish it, so that the public then develop an interest in it
Well, no. The panel look at some stories and say they want more on that subject. They look at others and say ‘no thank you’.
The fact that they have differering reactions to different stories proves your theory doesn’t work.
The media at large have been pumping out celebrity stuff for years…..yet the panel don’t like them.
How is the BBC reporting on HUgo Chavez’s latest tactics…
Shutting down TV Stations, and beating protestors in the street…
Oh, how the luvvies at the BBC laughed when Hugo took the piss out of Bush……now look what their friend is really like….just another brutal dictator, that the BBC loves……
The BBC is warped, and dying on its arse….as for the “Most popular and successful”??/…
Compared to what? It’s not a company, so you can’t base it’s seccuss by comparing it to Sky or ITV…..
As for popular, hell, even MPs admit they tune into Sky, as News 24 is a slow old joke…….and BARB figures show the BBC losing 1 million viewers a year….and with top shows only getting 7-8 million, one can see the BBCs years are numbered…in single digits in fact….
Me thinks that Reith has been sucked in by his own hype, and lives only in “BBC World”…..if he ever steps out of the darkness, maybe he can explain why an ITN poll said that 95% of the UK Population want the TV Licence ABOLISHED…..now why would the vast majority of people want to do this to the most “popular” Broadcaster on Earth?
Eh Reith?…..lolol…. 🙂
Block 813 | 31.05.07 – 4:57 pm
You really need a lesson in how to read ratings.
No time for that now.
The news that Rupert Murdoch has come out for Hillary Clinton • and is even hosting a fundraiser for her • is setting all sorts of hares running.
Or should that be Foxes?
“As the Battle for Stanley intensified, Superintendent of Education John Fowler and his teacher wife Veronica welcomed into their home in the west end of Stanley Laurie Goodwin and his elderly mother Mary, Harry and Doreen Bonner and their daughter Cheryl, and the Government veterinary surgeon Steve Whitley and wife Susan. The house received a direct hit from an explosive shell fired by the frigate HMS Avenger. It has been suggested the ship’s targeting computer developed a fault, but others believe that the British were aiming for nearby Sulivan House where several senior Argentines were sheltering.
Susan Whitley and Doreen Bonner were killed outright in the explosion. Mary Goodwin died hours later in hospital from her wounds.”
OK I put my hand up and acknowledge that 3 civilians were killed by the RN not the Argie Marine. Still doesn’t change the original point – why did the BBC not put Argies as ‘servicemen’?
The only Argie civvy when I went down there in 1982 was a Secret Service guy complete with raincoat and a hat he’d pinched from the Governor’s Residence, found hiding in a sheep shearing shed!
John Reith | 31.05.07 – 5:11 pm
was not the John Reith you know but don’t love.
Same IP address, but not me. Mischievous friend. Have read riot act. Won’t happen again.
Original:
“More than 900 people died in the 74-day war, including 255 British servicemen, 655 Argentines and three islanders.”
Now it reads:
“The Argentinians surrendered after 74 days, but more than 900 lives were lost during that time.”
Thank you for changing it BBC! Pity you changed it the wrong way and now don’t show how many BRITISH servicemen died during the war and have just lumped them in with the Argies.
“I’ll leave dave t to tell us whether they were victims of British or Argie bombs.”
That makes sense. He was factually incorrect last time. Perhaps the facts from 1982 will have changed the next time he posts.
And then you go on to declare all you want is impartiality and reporting of facts undistorted by nuance and innuendo.
John Reith | 31.05.07 – 5:11 pm
was not the John Reith you know but don’t love.
Same IP address, but not me. Mischievous friend. Have read riot act. Won’t happen again.
John Reith | 31.05.07 – 5:19 pm
ROTFL!
So it’s true!
There is a whole office at the BBC dedicated to watching and trolling this site!
(PS: my bet is it was the Bullshitting Detective)
That makes sense. He was factually incorrect last time. Perhaps the facts from 1982 will have changed the next time he posts.
And then you go on to declare all you want is impartiality and reporting of facts undistorted by nuance and innuendo.
Anon | 31.05.07 – 5:24 pm
He’s done it now – he was there (The Falklands).
Happy now?
The panel look at some stories and say they want more on that subject. They look at others and say ‘no thank you’.
John Reith | 31.05.07 – 4:53 pm
But why do they say ‘no thank you’? It surely depends on the angle the story is taking. Stories about celebrities bore people, so they don’t want more. Stories about global warming are framed in a way that scares people so they want to hear more. Actually, I want to hear more on this subject too but not just one side of the argument.
I would be interested in the figures for public interest in climate change prior to the media’s (particularly the BBC’s) interest. I’ve never seen them and have no idea what they are. The impression I have is that there was certainly rising interest but not the 100% belief in man-made global warming which is the current BBC line. Do you think the ‘non-believers’ are fairly reflected by current BBC output?
“That makes sense. He was factually incorrect last time. Perhaps the facts from 1982 will have changed the next time he posts.”
One fact was wrong – yet the BBC DID change their storyline and the paragraph I complained about…and lumped my fellow soldiers etc in with the Argies rather than admit that we were fighting Argie Marines/Soldiers?
Ah well at least we got 50p a day for “work of an objectionable nature” from our beloved MoD.
Reburying the poor buggers.
I’d like to ask the “John Reith” consortium a question:
Considering the BBC has no reluctance to report rape charges laid at the door of foreigners and unknown locals accused of rape in the UK and beyond…
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.news.bbc.co.uk+charged+rape&btnG=Search&meta=
…Why has the BBC not yet reported the Nigel Wrench affair yet?
Roland Deschain | 31.05.07 – 5:39 pm
There has been a lot of discussion inside the BBC in recent months on what the correct level of representation of climate change sceptics should be.
Not my subject – so anything I say may be out of date. I’ll look into it.
The BBC its love for Islamic terrorism and half a story.
Doubt cast on US Iraq ‘surge’ strategy
May has been one of the deadliest months on record in Iraq – 10 American soldiers were killed on Memorial Day alone bringing US deaths to a total of 120, the highest since November 2004.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6706481.stm
Reading the above would the reader presume that the violence which besets Iraq is simply getting worse. I mean the BBC does start off with;
“May has been one of the deadliest months on record in Iraq”
The question is for whom?
So lets look at the facts;
The death toll for civilians and Iraqi security forces on a monthly basis for this year are as follows;
Jan 1802
Feb 3014
Mar 2977
Apr 1821
May 1904
And for American soldiers;
Jan 83
Feb 80
Mar 81
Apr 104
May 123
(Figures taken from;
http://icasualties.org/oif/ )
I’ll admit that even one death is one too many. Yet the BBC mis-information department paints the picture that the death toll is getting worse. Wrong since the Americans stated clamping down on the BBCs Islamic masters the other month the death toll has almost halved in the Beirut area. Yes more American Soldiers have died. But as collective figure the number of people who have been murdered by the BBCs Muslim friends “Allah ackba” and all that the number have died. So the question I have to ask the BBC is why do you lie?
The BBC its love for Islamic terrorism and half a story.
Doubt cast on US Iraq ‘surge’ strategy
May has been one of the deadliest months on record in Iraq – 10 American soldiers were killed on Memorial Day alone bringing US deaths to a total of 120, the highest since November 2004.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6706481.stm
Reading the above would the reader presume that the violence which besets Iraq is simply getting worse. I mean the BBC does start off with;
“May has been one of the deadliest months on record in Iraq”
The question is for whom?
So lets look at the facts;
The death toll for civilians and Iraqi security forces on a monthly basis for this year are as follows;
Jan 1802
Feb 3014
Mar 2977
Apr 1821
May 1904
And for American soldiers;
Jan 83
Feb 80
Mar 81
Apr 104
May 123
(Figures taken from;
http://icasualties.org/oif/ )
I’ll admit that even one death is one too many. Yet the BBC mis-information department paints the picture that the death toll is getting worse. Wrong since the Americans stated clamping down on the BBCs Islamic masters the other month the death toll has almost halved in the Baghdad area. Yes more American Soldiers have died. But lets be honest here while the BBC is more than happy to expose the hand of Washington it remains very silent on how the hand of Tehran has led to an increase in the death toll. A death toll the Americans have been reducing these past few months.So the question I have to ask the BBC is why do you lie?
‘Same IP address, but not me. Mischievous friend. Have read riot act. Won’t happen again.’
John Reith | 31.05.07 – 5:19 pm
Had to laugh at that one jr. On a more serious note, in my last outfit if anyone had been caught using someone else’s login then it was almost certain disciplinary proceedings.
Different rules apply at the Beeb?
See you waltzed past the ‘remuneration of any sort’ so I can take that as a Yes then.
Same on the gender issues methinks.
The BBC and half a story.
Blair role in SA arms contract
Tony Blair may have some explaining to do over a major arms deal with South Africa on the last leg of his week-long Africa tour.
……………………
The former ANC chief whip, Tony Yengeni, was one of the first in the spotlight after he started driving around Cape Town in his state-of-the-art dark green Mercedes Benz ML320 4×4 with its tinted windows and plush beige upholstery.
In 2004, Yengeni was convicted of defrauding parliament by accepted a discount on the car. He was jailed in August 2006 but was released on parole after completing just five months of the four-year sentence.
Then Schabir Shaik, financial adviser to the South African deputy president, Jacob Zuma, was jailed for 15 years for soliciting a bribe for Mr Zuma from Thales.
And in June 2005 Mr Zuma was sacked from his position as deputy president, while further charges against him continue to be investigated by the South African authorities. Mr Zuma has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6707369.stm
So the BBC inserts the last 4 paragraphs in which to colour the story about back-handers ref Blair and the UK arms industry. The fact remains none of the above have anything to do with the UK arms industry. Yes the BBC does mention that but after the thread is closed and under a new subheading;
Payments alleged
None of these convictions or allegations involved BAE.
Now if the story concerns BAE by all means post the evidence. But those snippets of information don’t (Thales is French) and so I wonder just why the BBC included them. I mean they never publish little snippets about what fellow terrorists did when they write about misguided criminals.
The BBC and half a story.
Not a mention on the BBC that the Iraqis are still digging them up
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
..Why has the BBC not yet reported the Nigel Wrench affair yet?
[deleted]
Edited By Siteowner