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.
john | 29.05.07 – 9:08 am
BBC News making the stories on immigration so shiny and gleaming for you in the morning!
I seem to remember that in an earlier thread you said something to the effect that Muslim immigration into the UK was part of a wider conspiracy.
Can you point me towards any hard evidence on this?
I have read Oriani Fallaci and Bat Ye’or. But the Eurabia stuff rarely focuses on UK.
Do you have any data on when the conspiracy started? On which immigrant groups (either by date of arrival or point of origin) would be innocent economic migrants, and which are more likely to have been sent here with a view to shifting the demographic pattern?
JR
“That’s why I’m surprised that someone of your evident education – and pursuing your particular vocation – should seek to justify acts that are clearly criminal…”
But why JR-After all weren’t the 7/7 bombers clearly inspired (and justified to a degree) by the invasion of Iraq according to Al Beebs insights?
John
A visit to somewhere like Saxonhousen in East Berlin is a good way to put the fear of god up you.
You walk up pleasent leafy roads past upper middle-class smart houses to a peacefull looking driveway. To the sounds of birds happily singing in the trees. Then the true horror hitts you when you realise how modern and new the place still is.
The ovens and operateing tables look like they could have been built no more then 10 years ago.
bob | 29.05.07 – 8:15 am
I am interested in the institutional leftist bias of the BBC’s news operations.
Try to develop some new interests – ‘cos there isn’t one.
I probably fit into that tiny minority of the British public which doesn’t agree with you that.. John Bolton should be treated in the same category as Abu Izz
Tricky things – categories.
If you’re drawing up categories of where people stand on the invasion of Iraq, for example, John Bolton and Abu Izz certainly wouldn’t belong in the same box.
But if you were considering the set of ‘those who are up for a ruckus’ – then JB, Abu Izz (and let’s not forget George Galloway)would all sit happily side by side.
John Reith:
2nd Point
Deegee maintained that this terrorist action (Bombing of the King David Hotel was “legitimate”.
Maybe instead of playing games with weasel words like militant it’s time for the BBC to define terrorism and stick to their definition.
If they like, they could define every act of violence against Britain as terrorism (the default Israeli position) or they could accept that some acts are terrorism while the same act in another context is legititimate warfare. They could declare that warfare is only legitimate between governments and everything else is terrorism.
IMHO (not representative of Israeli society) the more violence is associated with classical military actions the less it is likely to be terrorism. Thus Muslim Indonesians bombing Australian and British civilian holiday makers on the largely Hindu island of Bali to attempt to influence what the Israelis are doing across the world to Muslim Arabs is clearly terrorism. Armed, uniformed soldiers shooting at each other on the territory of one party is legitimate warfare, e.g. the invasion of Iraq. Where one side is uniformed and the other not, i.e. the current position in Iraq that moves the balance one step towards terrorism. A direct attack against Iraqi civilians swings the pendulum further towards terrorism.
I for one have enjoyed the word ballet that the BBC has been forced to perform when reporting on the events in Northern Lebanon. When the BBC speaks Fateh al-Islam are ‘militants’ but when a Lebanese government representative speaks they are ‘terrorists’. However if reported in indirect speech they return to being ‘militants’.
KDH was much closer to Iraq than Bali. Whatever other ‘terrorist’ acts the IZL committed does not make this particular one terrorism nor do statements from rival politicians with an axe to grind.
If a terrorist sits on a toilet is he a terrorist, a militant, an activist or should we allow him his private space without judgement? It’s time for the BBC and John Reith as its defender on this blog to publicly answer this question and stick to whatever formula they come up with.
“Tricky things – categories.
If you’re drawing up categories of where people stand on the invasion of Iraq, for example, John Bolton and Abu Izz certainly wouldn’t belong in the same box.
But if you were considering the set of ‘those who are up for a ruckus’ – then JB, Abu Izz (and let’s not forget George Galloway)would all sit happily side by side.”
John Reith | 29.05.07 – 10:07 am | #
Great to see JR practicing the art of “journalism by assertion” from an organization that uses stock categories like “Eastern European”,”vaste majority were against the war”,”homeowners”,”Bownites”,”critics” to discribe news stories…..
Previously JR has told us that in any political debate one must learn to take the rough (of Humphries’ famous toolbox) with the smooth (of Naughtie’s turd-polisher). The trouble, of course, is these ‘techniques’ are apportioned solely on the basis of which of the BBC’s friend/enemy camp you belong to. (memo: file Bush-supporters along with pro-suicide bombers).
Now the criteria has suddenly changed. It’s all about whether they’re “up for a ruckus” or not! So hard to keep up.
Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be ‘anonymous’
deegee | 29.05.07 – 10:16 am
it’s time for the BBC to define terrorism and stick to their definition
I rather agree.
Your own notes towards a definition of terrorism, though, strike me as being too relativist.
I prefer a more absolutist definition.
Something along the lines of: the deliberate targeting or killing of civilians – particularly women & children – for political ends.
You might need to add some qualifications on what constitutes a civilian (e.g. is the Minister of Defence a civilian…..what about the head of the secret police? etc).
And you might want to include acts which, though not deliberately aimed at civilians, were so reckless of the risk that – in ordinary criminal law – they’d be treated as ‘murder’.
I have said here before that the BBC doesn’t ban the use of the words terrorism or terrorist.
I use them whenever I judge them to be appropriate – and no-one has ever told me off.
I do agree with the general BBC guidance that using the word as a ‘ya-boo’ term isn’t helpful.
I also agree with the point that – in some circumstances – labeling some group as terrorists can seem tantamount to saying “we’ve examined your political case and deem it unsatisfactory”. The BBC shouldn’t be doing that.
Where the words can be used without implying that kind of political value judgment – and where their use adds something rather than detracts – then fine.
Most of the time though – the sensible alternatives: gunmen, bombers, hi-jackers etc. actually are better descriptions.
‘Militant’ seems to me very unsatisfactory. As you imply – it leads to all sorts of clumsy contortions. And if ‘militant’ has just become another ‘sneer word’ in the way ‘terrorist’ became through over-use, what’s the point?
Yep. Time for a re-think. But don’t hold your breath. People are so fed up with the endless internal debate on this – they’d rather put off thinking about it to some other time.
I doubt if B-BBC would be content even if there was a policy shift.
Many here seem to want the BBC to use loaded language and ya-boo terms – just so long as it’s in accordance with their own prejudices.
bbc radio is leading with a “eastern europeans not meeting british people” story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6699363.stm
“The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report also found that one in four migrants spends no time with British people.”
thats such a loaded (and non-sensical) statement , because
a. london is such a melting pot you would rarely actually bump into somebody who is “british”.
b. depends on what your definition of “british” is
c. working hard = little time for socialising…
d. it means that 75 PER CENT of eastern europeans actually do socialise with britons. i find that a remarkable level of integration, considering that they’ve only come over here recently.
that , in my view, is a success story. but of course the bbc spin it as a dreary failure story – while of course failing to address the far far bigger problems of non-integration with Muslims.
Biased BBC: A mission statement
1. We hate bias.
It sucks, it’s hateful and we know it when we see it.
2. People called Mohammed aren’t just iffy. On, no.
They’re the enemy.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1195663365858000750/#350678
Biased BBC: Reliably Unreliable. In an unpleasant way.
“Yep. Time for a re-think. But don’t hold your breath. People are so fed up with the endless internal debate on this – they’d rather put off thinking about it to some other time.”
Shame JR we don’t get more ‘insights’ into the internal thinking of Al Beeb.I mean all that money in suppressing a report on the culture of biased concerning ME output….
It’s not as though you’re a public body with transparency to uphold now is it.
BTW, thanks for the links on “violence and terrorism” perpetrated by the adherants of “the religion that cannot be named” (or else) – most informative.
A similar one for the “non-events” in Thailand over the last few years would also be of interest if you have it.
.
.
.
DennisTheMenace | 29.05.07 – 1:02 am
I don’t have one specific to Thailand but Thai “incidents” are recorded here along with all those worldwide attributable to the RoPMA:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll…
Anonymous:
Does anyone know the names of the British victims of (muslim) terrorism? The BBC always let us know the perpertrators and their “cause” and their families “concerns” and how the police have acted badly and the “shortcomings” of MI5 – but the victims – well its the palastinians or militants isn’t it?
This must be a terrible disappointment to you, but do try your best to hide it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
hillhunt | 29.05.07 – 1:28 am
Sorry, just like your two attempts to find BBC coverage of the Qassam victims in Sderot that do more than “mention” them as an afterthought, this doesn’t do the trick.
Those poor people were “VICTIMS OF THE BOMBINGS”. Not victims of terrorism, “VICTIMS OF THE BOMBINGS”. It wasn’t the terrorists was it? It was THE BOMBS.
Fifty-two people were killed in the four bombs which exploded in London on 7 July 2005.
Those bombs just exploded, as Tommy Cooper said, “Just like that!”
The BBC also omitted to mention that they were “crude, home made devices…” similar to the ones in Madrid on 3/11
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll…
I am only a very occasional contributor here, but I read this blog with great interest every weekday. Many of the regular contributors amke their cases extremely well, and despite working for “The enemy”, the responses of John Reith, David Gregory, Nick Reynolds et al certainly add to the blog, and put forward well the BBC’s case.
Sad to say, this blog is becoming more and more unreadable, extreme opinion is too often holding sway over hard evidence, and rational discussion is rapidly giving way to a mud-throwing match between some of the trolls and other occasional contributors. I understand that it’s a slippery slope when you start banning people on these sites, but can we just stick to the topic in hand and ignore these idiotic provocations?
At the moment the trolls are setting the agenda here; time to get back to basics and start talking about BBC bias, backed up by hard evidence – of which I am sure there is plenty.
Line 3 – “amke” should of course read “make”.
BioD:
Those poor people were “VICTIMS OF THE BOMBINGS”. Not victims of terrorism, “VICTIMS OF THE BOMBINGS”. It wasn’t the terrorists was it? It was THE BOMBS.
From the Biodegradable English Dictionary:
bomb – noun
1. A happy experience. Like listening to a Crosby, Stills & Nash song with the windows open in summer.
2. Wild, abandoned, guilt-free sex.
3. A meal in Gordon Ramsay’s favourite restaurant.
4. Sign of approval, as in “goes like a bomb”. (cf. Jeremy Clarkson on the Jaguar XKR)
London Attacks – nouns, the first used in an adjectival form
1. As seen on a BBC news page: A joyous bringing together
2. A song by The Clash
3. Collective experience of being tickled.
Heron | 29.05.07 – 11:45 am:
Spot on.
Heron:
At the moment the trolls are setting the agenda here; time to get back to basics and start talking about BBC bias, backed up by hard evidence – of which I am sure there is plenty.
Glad to welcome a sensible voice aboard.
As a quick round-up of the plentiful hard evidence which abounds on these pages, may I modestly commend the following:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1195663365858000750/?dt=1180453955#350479
And for something a little more in-depth, may I suggest this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1195663365858000750/?dt=1180453955#350570
JR
“I also agree with the point that – in some circumstances – labeling some group as terrorists can seem tantamount to saying “we’ve examined your political case and deem it unsatisfactory”. The BBC shouldn’t be doing that.
Where the words can be used without implying that kind of political value judgment – and where their use adds something rather than detracts – then fine.”
This is the BBC equivalence at work. Why the hell can’t you examine the case and deem it unsatisfactory? If someone wants to overthrow a democratically elected regime and introduce a medieval theocracy why not deem this unsatisfactory? This is the British BC, should it not uphold British principles?
Oh, well, we have examined the Nazi case, but we must treat it ‘equally’, gassing Jews, oh well, better not say this is bad as we might cause offence (or loose viewing figures).
Shameful.
Also, why is it that trolls supporting the BBC seem to all work for the Guardian and have partners working for the BBC. I see no bias here lol
^ from me
Heron I totally agree
JR:
I seem to remember that in an earlier thread you said something to the effect that Muslim immigration into the UK was part of a wider conspiracy.
Not me I’m afraid, I think you mught be conflating the old theories of Anti-Semitism with recent Islamophobia, or, the BBCs favourite past-time right now: fomenting Russophobia. Come to think of it don’t the Islamo-fascists see the hand of the Jews and the Great Satan everywhere? Similarly, Neo-Nazis still believe that ZOG is responsible for all our troubles.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I tend to think that the “third generation” thesis, so beloved of historians, may very well apply to politics and the BBC, your namesake being a good example. Look how its gone to the dogs: From Reith to Ross!
Organisations are not intended to live for ever, the BBC has passed its prime, it is in decline, old age. A younger generation comes along think they can play about with it a bit but it won’t last. They lost any claim to genuine objectivity when they threw their hats in with New Labour.
Naughtie this morning was so funny! Just reflect on Rod Liddle’s view of the Middle East, a former BBC editor of the same programme. The BBC have dumbed down
However, when I hear Labour politicians like K. Vaz say on Newsnight recently: “It is wonderful that your country has been transformed” I can understand those Nationalists who remember Enoch Powell’s warnings from the 1960s. In Wembley yesterday it was uncomfortable reminded me of distant lands.
Conspiracy is for dummies… but a misguided belief in the nature of multiculturalism (Proletarians of the world unite!) and a deeply niave approach to immigration (on a European scale)has created this mess. Is it conspiratorial to believe in the old maxim : When in Rome do as the Romans do? I don’t think so.
At the moment the trolls are setting the agenda here; time to get back to basics and start talking about BBC bias, backed up by hard evidence – of which I am sure there is plenty.
Heron | 29.05.07 – 11:45 am
I’m with Heron – let’s get back to the real topic of this site – BBC bias backed up with evidence – and don’t let the trolls set the agenda.
John:
I can understand those Nationalists who remember Enoch Powell’s warnings from the 1960s. In Wembley yesterday it was uncomfortable reminded me of distant lands.
Biased BBC: A mission statement
1. We hate bias.
It sucks, it’s hateful and we know it when we see it.
2. People called Mohammed aren’t just iffy. Oh, no.
They’re the enemy.
3. Wembley stadium full of Midlands-born British people: “I can understand those Nationalists who remember Enoch Powell’s warnings from the 1960s. In Wembley yesterday it was uncomfortable reminded me of distant lands.”
Biased BBC: Welcome to Bleached Britain
Heron | 29.05.07 – 11:45 am:
john | 29.05.07 – 12:39 pm:
Oscar | 29.05.07 – 12:46 pm:
I was going to wait until tomorrow morning but now seems as good a time as any for:
#2 IN A SERIES OF ADMISSIONS OF THE BBC’S INSTITUTIONAL BIAS FROM BBC STAFF:
(COPY AND PASTE INTO NEW DOC AND KEEP HANDY FOR REFERENCE IN FUTURE EXCHANGES WITH BBC BIGOTS.)
BBC bias is so much more powerful and much more pernicious because the BBC is still seen by viewers and listeners, in Britain and around the world, as objective. And when the BBC conveys its slanted views of the world, there is very little means of checking and correcting it. I worked at the BBC for six years. I never saw a BBC journalist actively promote his own political agenda. Almost all were honest, hardworking men and women dedicated to reporting the truth as they saw it. The problem was that it was the truth as they saw it.
Gerard Baker (“The Wreck of the BBC” – The Weekly Standard, 16 February 2004)
The BBC, it’s hatred of America and its silence on Islamic genocide
US to toughen sanctions on Sudan
US President George W Bush is set to announce fresh sanctions on Sudan over the Darfur conflict, US officials said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6699479.stm
And according to the BBC just what is pushing President Bush to punish Sudan for killing its own?
“Darfur is an issue that resonates not just with human rights activists, but with Christian conservative groups who are a key part of President Bush’s constituency, our correspondent says.”
Christian conservative group BBC? If we are going to bring out the President Bush is a religious bigot angle (he who is only one man) why don’t you kind of explain that the vast majority of Muslim countries around the world. (and followers of the faith in western countries) not only remain silent on how Sudan kills for Oil. But actually push the agenda that the US as a Christian country hasn’t a leg to stand on when it comes to Sudan. (Strange how the BBC has no problem referring to the Israeli occupation of Palestine as genocide. (How many have died since 1948?) yet between 200-400000 people have died there and the BBC reports it as “what the Bush administration calls a genocide.” Therefore implying as it’s Bush it’s a lie.
The BBC, it’s hatred of America and its silence on Islamic genocide
John:
However, when I hear Labour politicians like K. Vaz say on Newsnight recently: “It is wonderful that your country has been transformed” I can understand those Nationalists who remember Enoch Powell’s warnings from the 1960s.
Sly and wrong, Enoch:
Vaz actually said: “It is wonderful that this country has been transformed”
And according to the BBC just what is pushing President Bush to punish Sudan for killing its own?
“Darfur is an issue that resonates not just with human rights activists, but with Christian conservative groups who are a key part of President Bush’s constituency, our correspondent says.”
Christian conservative group BBC? If we are going to bring out the President Bush is a religious bigot angle (he who is only one man)….
pounce: so often and so spectacularly wide of the mark, he wouldn’t qualify for a firearm in a kamikaze battallion.
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
.
“A Communism for the 21st Century”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125
.
hillhunt:
What are you on?
Wembley stadium no, it was actually a shopping centre.
re: BBC & politicians, I was going to say that you look in vain for a Burke, Pitt or Gladstone. Excuse me if mentioning a former Professor of Classics and Hebrew, upsets you, but the politician Enoch Powell is associated in British politics with a visionary warning about the effects of immigration on this country.
Burke was far more visionary and apocalyptic is his views, say about the French. I dare say the BBC would classify him as racist, but then again TB’s “f….king Welsh” is no doubt allowed.
“sly” misquoting Vaz, well, no again, thanks for correcting me, my my who is conspiratorial and somewhat hysterical then.
I did lump BBC & politicians into one bag. From Rieth to Ross is about 60 years.
Biodegradable
Thanks for the Tom gross link http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000858.html
I caught on BBC News 24 the other day an interview with somebody in Siderot, a woman (more a girl) talking about the rockets raining in. The BBC journalist said to her
“Why don’t you leave?”
But, my god, the snotty manner in which he said this was so aggressive it was as if what he was saying was the most sensible thing to do and only dummies were remaining. As if her not leaving, meant that he, as a BBC reporter, had to report on this and actually interview her!
She looked puzzled and replied “I live here…Where should I go?”
Or words to that effect. It struck me how biased the BBC was, or rather, how debased it had become as a news reporting organisation. A complete sense of sympathy was absent, a real inability to reflect on the inhumanity of what was happening and understand. Yet this sentiment is so common amongst BBC reporters, especially reporting from the Middle East or Russia , they assume that they have the “sympathies” of their viewers and that this correlates to a Guardian Ideal-type or an Independent Fiskman
The presumption is that some sort of imbalance is at work (David & Goliath), that the Palestinians are much worse off, heavier losses, etc., and that to report in tone of sympathy would be to lose any sense of objectivity in the sitting room of the Guardian ideal-type viewer.
Imagine the same tone to a WWII Londoner:
“Why don’t you leave?”
And you see what has happened to the BBC from Rieth to Ross
As a UKIP supporting libertarian who is a global warming realist and Dubya admirer I was astonished that David Aaronovitch damns Panorama and the BBC’s reporting of the Ipswich murders in the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article1851722.ece
The guy works for the BBC and is ex-communist. The beeboids can’t keep their own kind on message anymore!
Have a look at this for a moment because it shows how ill-educated Hillhunt really is.
Hillhunt wrote:
hillhunt:
Anonanon:
Clearly not the Rod Liddle who was fired from the editor’s job at Today for writing that the Countryside Allaince reminded him why he votes Labour.
hillhunt | 24.05.07 – 11:08 am | #
Note the ‘he’! Then I wrote:
As I recall, the above (from Hillhunt) is incorrect. Liddle did not write that he was reminded of why he voted Labour. Charles Moore from the DT got after Liddle on that one but I think that Moore was a bit off with his aim.
Allan@Aberdeen | 24.05.07 – 12:17 pm | #
Again, note the ‘he’!
Hillhunt replies:
hillhunt:
Allan@Aberdeen:
“As I recall, the above (from Hillhunt) is incorrect. Liddle did not write that he was reminded of why he voted Labour.”
Oh yes, he did:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/ broa…,799772,00.html
And then, Hillhunt wrote:
Here’s another quote from Rod to keep the virtual scrapbook busy – the one that got him sacked from Today for, ahem, bias.
You may have forgotten why you voted Labour in 1997.
But then you catch a glimpse of the forces supporting the Countryside Alliance: the public schools that laid on coaches; the fusty, belch-filled dining rooms of the London clubs that opened their doors, for the first time, to the protesters; the Prince of Wales and, of course, Camilla … and suddenly, rather gloriously, it might be that you remember once again
http://media.guardian.co.uk/ broa…,799772,00.html
hillhunt | 29.05.07 – 8:26 am | #
Note the ‘you’!
The reason why I have put this together is because Hillhunt demonstrates his inability to comprehend the difference between the first person (I, we) and the second (he, she, they) and the third person (you – sing, pl).
Hillhunt should really be called ‘thickc*nt’, or TC for short.
First they came…
With Chavez having gone after a 2nd domestic broadcaster ..
As for Globovisión, Mr Lara said that the Government was suing the channel for “the offence of incitement to assassination” because it aired footage of the attempted murder, in 1981, of the late Pope John Paul II in Rome. Mr Lara said the images, which were played with a slogan “Have faith, this doesn’t end here” constituted an incitement to murder Mr Chávez.
(compare & contrast with the UK’s “Trial of TB” etc & the assassination of GWB)
he now targets CNN
The Information Minister, William Lara, showed a press conference what he said was CNN footage of Mr Chávez juxtaposed with images of Osama bin Laden, saying: “CNN broadcast a lie which linked President Chavez to violence and murder”. He also accused CNN of dishonesty for using footage of a Mexican demonstration in a story about the current Venezuelan disturbances.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1854593.ece
So Chavez is acutely aware of the broadcasters’ tricks of juxtaposition etc. Should he turn on the BBC he is well qualified to comment on this blog!
Hillhunt
Do you think someone can be unbiased when they work for a left wing paper and have a partner working for the BBC.
This is the kind of person who sees no BBC bias…surprise surprise lol
Iraq Palestinians taste bitter exile
By Lina Sinjab
BBC News, Damascus
But Damascus isn’t even in Iraq!
Many Palestinians have escaped the death squads of Iraq only to face an uncertain future on the desert border between Iraq and Syria.
How is it that no Arab country wants the “Palestinians” around? Do they have bad breath or is it something more serious?
When Mustapha Said set off to the condolences tent for his father-in-law in January, he had a feeling his life was in danger.
The wave of attacks against Palestinians had finally reached his family.
As the 27-year-old was returning home in Baghdad’s Zafaraniya neighbourhood, he saw his own house was in flames.
Make a note that he’s 27 years old because further down the page we read this:
“We have been refugees since 1948. And now we are living in the desert. We don’t want the right of return to Palestine [what is now Israel]. All we need is to live as humans,” Mr Said told the BBC by telephone.
So, two lies in one paragraph – nice going!
1) Mr Said cannot have been a refugee since 1948 because he wasn’t even born then.
2) Palestine [what is now Israel] reinforces the BBC’s rewrite of history and the Hamas Charter. ie: all of Israel is “Palestine”.
Can somebody tell me where the capital of this “Palestine” was, that is now Israel?
Who was the ruler of this “Palestinian” state, that is now Israel?
Anyhow, continuing to read this umpteenth sob story of the “Palestinian” people be sure not to miss this little gem:
Samira, Mustapha’s 13-year-old sister-in-law, suffers from a chronic medical condition affecting her mobility.
If I read that correctly Mustapha’s brother is married to a 13 year old girl.
But no BBC report on anything to do with “Palestinians” would be complete without the now obligatory bottom line, it’s all the fault of the Jews!
ie:
Damascus has received more than 1.2 million Iraqi refugees since the war started. It already hosts 400,000 Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced to leave their homes when the state of Israel was created in 1948.
As somebody said recently, how can we expect people to understand the real situation, and be sympathetic to Israel when the BBC is constantly promoting the idea that it’s all Israel’s fault?
Al-Jazeera, Alan Johnston and Anti-Americanism all in one story • Perfect!
Plea from Guantanamo for Johnston
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6700709.stm
(Love the quote as well • “While the United States has kidnapped me and held me for years on end, this is not a lesson that Muslims should copy”
The past has been unwritten, to paraphrase Joe Strummer…
While the BBC reports the arrests of “Palestinians” or “Palestinian legislators” by Israel without hinting at who they really are or why they were arrested, reality can be quite revealing:
Terror leader arrested having car sex near Arafat’s grave
Shining son
Jeremy Bowen looks at the new confidence of the Syrian regime
Pass the sick bag :o(
HillHunt.
For Mr. HillHunt, most days are average days. Unless someone dies or he is promoted, he does what he must and is thankful for it. HillHunt is not stupid enough to think positively of the world, because he knows that most people out there will take his money and hide his body if given a chance. He knows this in part because whenever he can, Mr. HillHunt will “beat the system” — adjusting a price tag, sneaking into a movie theatre, raising prices at his shop, taking extra deductions on his taxes.
He would never, however, assault someone and directly take their money.
HillHunt is reasonably good at what he does. He might be a bank manager, or run an auto parts store, or be a lawyer or doctor or plumber or even journalist. His job roughly matches his vision of his abilities, which is somewhere in the middle between the drones who can do nothing but rote tasks and those he admires as geniuses who make tons of money, invent things, or become Hollywood stars.
In HillHunt’s view, modern society is the only way to live: in the past there was no technology, no medicine, and what existed was a feral society in which people were as likely to assault one another as collaborate. Humankind has raised itself from a primal past toward a better future that is ongoing, because if we spread the wealth opportunities and freedom of modern society, all people worldwide will become civilized and non-violent like Mr. HillHunt.
As a result, HillHunt does not have strong political allegiances. Most commonly, he is conservative when it comes to foreign policy: get those little Hitlers and Stalins and crush them. Domestically, he tends to be liberal, because he wants to spread wealth and freedom to all peoples. He enjoys different cultures and likes to be able to on his days off go downtown and try different foods, entertainment events and boutique art objects from all over the world. Convenient they’re so close by.
HillHunt also tends to be concerned about environmental and civil rights issues. He does not want to destroy the planet, and he believes that granting equal freedoms to all will bring peace; in his view, the violent parts of town will become civilized when it too lives a comfortable middle class existence. The keys to this, as he is fond of saying, are education and opportunity, schools and hospitals. Give them education and give them good jobs, and they’ll stop drinking, taking drugs, raping, shooting each other, and threatening the comfortable middle class existence and property values of Mr. HillHunt.
He favors sexual liberation too. To Mr. HillHunt, life is best when one can have as much sex as comes one way before marriage, but after marriage, the contract is sealed and the partners have purchased one another. This way, he thinks, women have the same opportunities as men and will join them in equality and the tension between the sexes will decrease. They can consensually have sex in whatever ways they want and then go back to jobs and eventually marriages.
Mr. HillHunt tends to be bearish on drugs. These he associates with crime, degradation and low salaries, so he supports a strong crusade against these. Drugs lead to nothing productive, he thinks, and threaten us all with a false spirituality. He does not mind when entertainers mix themselves up in drugs, but he is less inclined to buy their product after that. Mr. HillHunt believes in the counterculture, and its statement that normal life is boring, because by living normal life he knows this is true, but he only supports the parts of that counterculture that can be integrated into normal life.
When we examine Mr. HillHunt’s worldview, it can be summarized as this: civilize the world, and pacify them with wealth and opportunity and education, so that the Mr. HillHunt’s of the world can live without interruption. He after all just wants his simple life — he knows he has no chance of greatness — his goal is that house in the good neighborhood, the family, the comfortable retirement and all the comforts of modern life.
He will compete for the trendiest neighborhoods but if he cannot get them, will comfort himself with a pessimistic philosophy: only the aggressive really win that, and he’s comfortable as he is. He both scorns the more competitive, and praises them, because he wishes he was that way. Yet when success does not come his way, he congratulates himself for not being a manipulator, not living that crazy life, and falls back on his justifications for existence: comfort and morality.
Yes, Mr. HillHunt is a moralist. Not the po-faced reactionary kind that shrieks about premarital sex and loss of cultural standards, mind you, because Mr. HillHunt likes a bit of fun too and detests established, stuffy institutions. He’s not fond of hereditary aristocrats. Mr. HillHunt has a modern morality. He is not concerned with Victorian hangups about sex, or antiquated notions of culture or ethnography, and sees these as part of humanity’s dark morbid past. His morality serves his purpose in life: to live unmolested by those who, lacking comfort and education and opportunity, might get violent and take it from him.
This leads him into endless paradox. He sympathizes with the natives who want to keep their culture, like the Islamic nations, but (mostly) won’t support violent terrorists; he may acknowledge, with a chagrinned smile, that without that terrorism he never would have heard of their struggle.
And what is the root of Mr. HillHunt’s morality? He wants to live uninterrupted by primal chaos, for sure, but he also needs a way to think of himself as something more than a drone: his morality. I’m a good person, he thinks, no matter what happens with my life. I am equally important and I bring that equality to others. I am what civilizes society even if I do almost nothing to that end. Mr. HillHunt is devoutly moral in a secular sense, because it gives him a justification for his existence…for Mr. HillHunt is, in his heart of hearts, afraid of being insignificant.
Yet his job and his membership in a vast crowd of people doing exactly the same thing do mark him as if not unimportant — well, if he dies tomorrow, what changes? What is lost? He needs some reason to feel he has value and cannot base it on traditional means, like membership in a community. After all, he is somewhat anti-communitarian: other than his votes and his donations to non-profit organizations, Mr. Meek does nothing for his community but live the good life in his own house.
Some call this “cognitive dissonance.” Knowing that he is not important, Mr. HillHunt naturally invents a different realm of competition in which he is. This is the justification for his existence, and even more, his justification to himself as to why he should keep living and breathing when his mode of living is in fact quite selfish. Mr. HillHunt needs to invent a reason why he is important even if that importance does not manifest itself in the physical world.
If Mr. HillHunt is in the dead social middle, we can find his cousins on either side: those who justify themselves by being more successful than he, and those who shrug off success in favor of social importance. We call these people Mr. Competition and Mr. Hip.
Mr. Competition is Mr. HillHunt in disguise: he has narrowed his field of vision to see only how to achieve success, and he goes for it aggressively. He wants to be the top dog and watch everyone else work for him. He usually does this to fill a hunger in himself, whether left by poverty or childhood beatings or a woman lost to a richer man, and he’s going to quash that, by God. Mr. Competition (“Compete” to his friends) is not troubled by morals, because he has delegated those to The Rules. If what he is doing is legal, or plausibly legal until he is told otherwise, he’s good with that because The Rules state that ignorance isn’t a crime.
Mister Hip is Mr. HillHunt in social camouflage. He’s smart enough to know that being with the system isn’t a hip idea, but being anti in any form is sure to draw him followers. Being with the system is a big target, but by being anti, you’re showing them you stand out. You’re unique. An iconoclast. Mr. Meek becomes Mr. Hip when Mr. HillHunt decides he cannot compete on a monetary level alone. He may have a decent salary, but there’s someone richer, always. So out comes Mr Hip, for whom money and social prestige are secondary — his goal is social prestige in those who are self-declared black sheep. The herd looks up to that, sorta, because they’re all sick of being the herd. But like Mr Compete, Mr Hip is still Mr Meek.
And so, you might ask, what does this mean? After all we each have a right to live our own lives; after all what do we expect him to do, save the world? — the world is composed of individuals. Together, what they do is civilization. Individuals together create our future. But what if they are like Mr. HillHunt? Secretly underconfident, secretly compensating for their dronelike lives, they are easily manipulated — and unlikely to take the crucial steps toward change, as that change would violate the ability of others to live just like Mr. HillHunt.
When we anticipate our future, we should look toward a change from being like HillHunt. This does not mean that we shoot Mr. HillHunt, or that we degrade him, but that we recognize his leadership ability: zero. Liberal democracy and its fusion with industrial capitalism, modern society, depend on Mr. HillHunts to keep living and voting as selfishly and underconfidently as they do know.
And what has this brought us? Horrible Cities, a planet covered in concrete; boring jobs where we tolerate others more than respect them; a hierarchy that rewards weirdness and greed. A future of constant war with now nuclear-equipped nations. Cities that rot from the inside out. When one reverts into the se
jg:
The Guardian connection is untrue. So put your mind at rest.
Allan@Aberdeen:
Hillhunt demonstrates his inability to comprehend the difference between the first person (I, we) and the second (he, she, they) and the third person (you – sing, pl).
Y-e-e-e-s.
You don’t think that Liddle might possibly have included himself in that collective “you”? The entire narrative of the piece depends on us understanding that the distaste for Countryside Alliance is very much Liddle’s own.
Biodegradable:
Dear oh dear…
“We have been refugees since 1948. And now we are living in the desert….” Mr Said told the BBC by telephone.
Mr Said cannot have been a refugee since 1948 because he wasn’t even born then.
Is it the teensiest possibility that Mr Said is using “we” in the collective sense? You know, as in “We the people….”
Samira, Mustapha’s 13-year-old sister-in-law, suffers from a chronic medical condition affecting her mobility.
If I read that correctly Mustapha’s brother is married to a 13 year old girl.
Give me strength. It’s clear as day in the article that she is his wife’s sister. So call off the Paedos-out mob.
But no BBC report on anything to do with “Palestinians” would be complete without the now obligatory bottom line, it’s all the fault of the Jews!
From the BBC report:
“Palestinians enjoyed generous financial support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who championed the Palestinian cause. This was the cause of resentment, and Palestinians have been targeted because of their association to the former regime.”
Biased BBC: Paranoid whingeing – it’s what we do.
Yes, you have to give them credit though. They have certainly taken paranoid whingeing onto an entirely new level. Some might label them conspiracy theorists, but I like to think it is something more sophisticated than that.
Imagine the same tone to a WWII Londoner:
“Why don’t you leave?”
Imagine the fu*kers saying that to a family living next door to a Hamas terrorist in Gaza (and therefore possibly ending up as collateral damage). Never in a million years.
C*nts.
“We have been refugees since 1948. And now we are living in the desert….” Mr Said told the BBC by telephone.
Gosh, telephones in the desert. Whatever next?
President Saddam Hussein, who championed the Palestinian cause.
Y-e-e-e-s.
He sent large cheques to the families of suicide bombers.
Palestinians get Saddam funds
Perhaps the “Palestinians” that the Iraqis want out of their country are relatives of those suicide bombers? In which case who could blame them. But the BBC still ends on that bottom line, doesn’t it?
And the BBC isn’t exactly first with the news either:
Palestinians in Iraq Pay the Cost of Being ‘Saddam’s People’
Friday, December 30, 2005
For years, Saddam Hussein harbored a small population of Palestinians in Iraq, trotting them out to cheer whenever he went to war — which he routinely justified as essential to Arab nationalism and the Palestinian cause.
Shiites and other Iraqis looked glumly at his wards, jealous of the Palestinians’ privilege and status while others suffered.
Saddam’s Suicide Bomb Funds
(AP) Congressional investigators say Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel.
john, Anonymous:
Imagine the same tone to a WWII Londoner:
“Why don’t you leave?”
And you see what has happened to the BBC from Reith to Ross
Just imagine…
From Wikipedia:
“The official evacuations began on September 1, two days before the declaration of war. From London and the other main cities, the priority class people boarded trains and were dispatched to rural towns and villages in the designated areas…
“In the first three days of official evacuation, almost 1.5 million people were moved — 800,000 children of school-age, 500,000 mothers and young children, 12,000 pregnant women, 7,000 disabled persons, and over 100,000 teachers and other ‘helpers.'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuations_of_civilians_in_Britain_during_World_War_II
Why is it an irrational question to ask a young mother if she’s considered evacuating her family whilst bombs fal?
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
I must not feed the troll
In the link report by Jeremy Bowen:
“When the result came in, it was no surprise. There was only one candidate, and he got more than 97% of the vote. ”
Do Bowen or any of the BBC’s people not think that there’s something sinister about that? Well, not really.
And as for Hillhunt’s “collective you”, what a poorly educated person that is. It’s the collective ‘we’ which would have been used by Liddle to indicate his direct inclusion in that group!
BioD:
Gosh, telephones in the desert. Whatever next?
UNHCR routinely carry satellite phones.
But the BBC still ends on that (anti-Israeli) bottom line, doesn’t it?
Not it doesn’t. It states the historically true – that a large number of Palestinians became refugees at the time of the founding of Israel.
But it pins the cause of the current refugees’ plight on hostile reactions from post-Saddam Iraqis and on the closing of the Syrian border.
Not every article is an attack on Israel, no matter how much you may want to see it.
Biased BBC is a laughing stock because blind prejudices such as yours provide the vast bulk of the “resource” which this site is claimed to be.
Beware The Troll: A Practical Guide
Simple Vandals or a Unique Social Movement?
A Psycho-Sociological Discourse on Internet Trolls