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.
Oh, if only I could leave the country for a fortnight to get away from the constant Alan Johnston worshipping.
sick-of-it-all | 04.07.07 – 10:59 am |
Sorry to rub it in but I have a week in Greece as of tomorrow, Islamic terrorists permitting. (I see the signs are already there to ban such a phrase as Islamic Terrorist as being unPC)
Can I smuggle myself in your suitcase?
Stick this in your pipe and smoke it…
BBC journalism given thumbs up
The quality of the BBC’s journalism was given a clean bill of health by the BBC Trust today.
In today’s BBC annual report for the 12 months to the end of March, the BBC Trust noted research from pollsters Mori indicating that 76% of the UK public said they trusted the corporation’s news programmes over any others.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2117643,00.html
Just shows you how naive the chav population of Britain is.
BBC reporting of the Gallileo project is covered by EU Referendum.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/07/it-cant-be-accidental.html
Sometimes arguments about BBC bias could be based on sloppy reporting and failure to check facts adequately by the BBC. Sometimes omission of key facts is deliberate.
The EU referendum piece suggests that “the spin from the BBC cannot be accidental”.
Shock! Horror!
Opinion poll commissioned by government appointees says BBC is wonderful.
Well, I never…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6268232.stm
‘………held by members of a much-feared family known for lawless behaviour with a dash of extremist Islam.’
Good grief. It was just a lawless thug family. By the way – How much exactly is a ‘dash’ of extremist Islam? Or should we take that bit with a pinch of salt.
Consider the size of your licence fee when you read this from the BBC:
“Hamas’s priority is to restore law and order to the Gaza Strip, and one the first items on that agenda was to get Alan Johnston freed.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6268232.stm
Are the BBC inhabiting the planet Zog? Or in Beeboid hands is “law” shorthand for “Sharia law”?
Nevertheless, the current HYS quickly pierces the Gallowayesque crap spouted by their journalists:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=6731&edition=1&ttl=20070704125524&#paginator
Top recommended:
“Congratulations Alan! Now you are free do you still consider yourself a ‘friend to the Palastinians?’ Will you continue to report in their favour?”
About fifth:
“Great news – should have happened weeks ago.
But why are the BBC praising Hamas as the great freedom loving promblem solvers? Its a very complicated relationship between Hamas and these violent Gaza gangs. Be a bit more savvy please – its a stage show and they could have forced his release any time earlier. Remember poor Gilad Shalit – how about Hamas showing their peace and freedom loving credentials and hastening his release?”
The BBC and bullshit:
‘He disclosed how he had been held by the only group in Gaza thought to have a Jihadist character, and who were capable of doing the unthinkable to their captive.’
Exactly ‘who’ thinks it is the only group in Gaza with a Jihadist character. The BBC?
Heron. Very thoughtful post and it deserves one back. I’m really busy today but will try and get down something tonight, but it might have to wait till tomorrow. So apologies.
Dave
David: Off to raise a glass in praise of Hamas?
Oh what a surprise! Suddenly on HYS this one has been catapulted into the lead:
“Congratulations Alan! Now you are free do you still consider yourself a ‘friend to the Palastinians?’ Will you continue to report in their favour?
harry portsmouth
This is just one of a number of spiteful partisan messages which, whilst purporting to congratulate Alan are in fact thinly veiled attacks on his integrity. The reason he is considered a friend to the palestinian people is that he reports the truth rather than US/Israel propaganda.
Alan it is fantastic that you are free.”
Abandon Ship 1:19pm
There’s no need for that. David Gregory has been good enough to debate courteously most of the points that contributors here have raised. Discourtesy is not neccessary.
The Royal Society motto-morphosis is relevant here.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3357/
Pity such an (once) esteemed institution should seek to replace reasoned thought with blind faith. The rot runs deep in more than one long established icon of the British establishment.
AL JOHNSTON RELEASED JUST IN TIME FOR BROOUN’S FIRST PMQ! WHAT A COINCIDENCE
But what a hash Brooun made of PMQs – even with the gift of Johnston from Hamas. At one point Brooun even resorted to a lame “I’ve only been in the job five days” (actually it’s seven Gordon) – and most embarrassingly John Reid had to bail him out over the government’s enquiry into Hizb ut Tahrir – taking on Cameron as if he were PM. (as Reid is already a dead man walking politically I suppose he figured he had nothing to lose). Not that you’ll hear any of this from the Brown Broadcasting Corporation who are now pretending that everything went swimmingly – and covering up with yet more Johnston/Hamas worship.
“”I’ve only been in the job five days”
Coverage of PMQs by BBC1 1pm News managed to omit that cringeworthy Brownism. I wonder why, as they were by far his most significant words.
Roland
It was meant to be witty, but I accept it was discourteous. I apologise to David Gregory, who is trying to provide serious discussion.
On the other hand, what has happened to the rest of the BBC? Surely now that Alan Johnson has been released they can stop pretending that Hamas are Medecins sans Frontiers, but the nasty antisemitic killers that we all know that they really are.
It obviously doesn’t matter what Brown’s performance actually is the media is going to make out it’s all fantastic. Leading the pack, the BBC is spinning for him with no prompting from No.10 spin doctors. That probably counts as Brown’s most significant achievement.
Meanwhile Melanie Phillips provides some respite from the relentless Hamas propaganda:
From Munich to Gaza
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1573
On the other hand, what has happened to the rest of the BBC? Surely now that Alan Johnson has been released they can stop pretending that Hamas are Medecins sans Frontiers, but the nasty antisemitic killers that we all know that they really are.
Abandon Ship! | 04.07.07 – 2:01 pm | #
Well said Abandon Ship.
As Melanie writes:
Of course, the release of the BBC’s Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston from his four-month captivity at the hands of the Army of Islam is a great relief. But it comes with a terrible price tag — the strengthening of an organisation committed to the extermination of Israel, the mass murder of Jews and the overthrow and Islamisation of the free world. Only a few weeks ago, Hamas were the people binding the hands and feet of fellow Palestinians and hurling them off the tops of tall buildings. But today, by managing to extricate Johnston from the Army of Islam, they are posing as saviours of kidnap victims, honest brokers against the men of violence — people with whom the world may now think it can therefore do business.
Turning away from Johnston for a minute, the BBC’s assistance in the attack on private equity, unsurprisingly, continues. However, the uselessness of Robert Peston is getting beyond a joke. In demonising the AA for producing ÂŁ224 million in operating profit he stated on BBC1 10:00 News last night that “to avoid tax” the AA was loaded up with sufficient debt to pay ÂŁ223 in interest and thus reduce tax to (more or less) nil – or worse, one way or another, to get a tax rebate. What he avoids – and always avoids – mentioning is that those receiving this interest also pay tax. If we assume – and it’s not an unreasonable assumption – that much of the debt was raised from UK banks then there is very little, if any, tax “lost” by the Treasury, it’s just arrived at the Treasury by a more circuitous route. Such subtleties are lost on Peston. Is this bias or just basic incompetence? Or both?
Oscar (+ will) on Brown’s first PMQs:
Not that you’ll hear any of this from the Brown Broadcasting Corporation who are now pretending that everything went swimmingly
Indeed not, the parasitical rabble that they are…
Ooops. What’s this?
The prime minister’s response – that he had only been in the job for five days – drew some expressions of surprise. Had he gaffed, was he trying to deploy the new boy excuse, was this a sign of unexpected weakness?
Well, maybe. But for those who wanted to hear it, this may have been another suggestion that he was new, that he had not been around for the past decade and was still reading himself into the job.
To be sure, you don’t expect to hear an experienced politician using such an excuse and there will be much debate over whether it was a good tactic or a terrible mistake.
Then, however, ex-home secretary John Reid leapt to his feet to do what he does best – and put the boot in. He was trying to be helpful but, in doing so, appeared to expose his leader’s apparent ignorance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6268466.stm
Biased BBC: The Kingdom of the blind
.
I know an Iranian lady who along with her two girls was snatched from Birmingham by the authorities in the middle of the night a few days ago.
They had converted to Christianity and fled to the UK in genuine fear for their lives.
They were taken to Glasgow and deported to Iran less than 48 hours later.
I understand from sources through sources that they have not been apprehended and have gone into hiding in Iran, nonetheless their situation is neither acceptable or safe.
Compare and contrast with an islamic scumbag Al Qaeda supporter from morocco who was only given indefinite leave to stay in the uk shortly before his arrest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6264150.stm
The end of this BBC article makes the situation clear.
Unfortunately it fails to make clear any condemnation of this abysmal policy that lets al qaeda anti British operatives in but throws genuine assylum seekers out.
Abandon Ship! | 04.07.07 – 2:01 pm
I know from bitter experience that what seems witty in the head may not appear so in print. Your prompt apology is appreciated.
I fear however that in the BBC mindset the Alan Johnston episode will only prove what a force for good Hamas can be when given free rein.
Biased BBC: The Kingdom of the blind
.
hillhunt
“”I’ve only been in the job five days”
Coverage of PMQs by BBC1 1pm News
will
Spot the difference?
will:
In drawing attention to Nick Assinder’s less-than-flattering description of Brown’s first PMQs, I was responding to Oscar’s lament:
Not that you’ll hear any of this from the Brown Broadcasting Corporation
I happily acknowledge that you wish to judge the BBC only by its 1 o’clock bulletin.
A wise choice.
Today declares war on No10
This has not been my perception, because I beleive the BBC IS spinning for Gordon Brown. However, Benedict Brogan in the Daily Mail suggests that the Today programe is trying to force a return to the BBC taking precedence over parliament. Interesting.
Maybe I slept through it, but I think the Today programme completely ignored the Prime Minister’s constitutional reform package. It was mentioned in the paper review, otherwise no sign of a major interview with Gordon Brown or Jack Straw or even the usual rent-a-quote constitutional boffins. You might say they were distracted by the release of Alan Johnston, but they also foudn time for pieces on an archaeological dig, Beachy Head suicides and live music in pubs.
I’m told ministers were available, but Today bosses told Downing Street that it would be “yesterday’s news” by this morning and therefore not worth running. This is the Government version, so we should wait to hear what Today has to say for itself. But if true, it suggests we have a dangerous stand-off between an administration that has decided to announce things in Parliament first, and a programme that demands to be spun before Parliament. Extraordinary. Is this a service to the licence-fee payer I wonder?
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2007/07/today-declares-.html
PS The Daily Mail is of course now onside with Gordon after Brooun’s successful efforts to win over Paul Dacre.
Bizarre censorship of HYS “Doctor Who’s new companion: Is Catherine an inspired choice?”
The BBC have deleted highly recommended comments which did not take the subject with sufficient seriousness.
All that is left of these subversives is the response of others to the now shredded comment, eg
Added: Wednesday, 4 July, 2007, 11:05 GMT 12:05 UK
Don’t worry Britain – we’re not really being ruled by a tinpot dictatorship, or under terrorist attack, nor is the conomy on the brink of collapse. So, there’s plenty of time to talk about inane sci-fi shows! 🙂
Topsy Turvy, England, United Kingdom
Blimey!! Aren’t you a little happy ray of sunshine!! It must be great to work along side you Mr Doom & Gloom. Do you have a sandwich board that declares “The end of the world is nigh”?
Frivolity and humour is required to balance the sad happenings in the world today. If we didn’t have those we’d all be miserable like you. 🙂
Merson Tuffers, Staffs, United Kingdom
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Isaac Newton, Letter to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675.”
indeed it is – you’re quite right science does not work like that – that is why MMGW is not true science. If I can produce evidence to contradict Al Gores claims from a quick search of the internet – then I don’t see why the BBC should take every thing he says as gospel. It may indeed be selective – but isn’t the BBCs”evidence” selective too.?
Al Gore is a politician – all politicians are opportunists, especially nowadays. Why doesn’t the BBc debate “MMGW” with scientists (climatologists) who take opposing views instead – that would be a novelty.
Heard on the news at 4:30 – that this has been the wettest June “since detailed reports were available in 1911”
Isn’t it strange that the BBC seem to move the goleposts when they want to convince us of “MMGW”.
“Some extreme weather events in June in the twentieth century
1900 Some severe thunderstorms with notable hail this month. It reacbed 31C in London on the 11th, but there were some severe thunderstorms across the Midlands in the 11-12th, with damaging hail. Many people were hurt by large hailstones at Gorebridge (Lothian) on the 12th.
1901 Very cold (13.9).
1902 Very cold (13.9). Long wet spell midmonth, with 29mm in London on the 13th, with a maximum of only 12C.
1903 Very cold (13.0C CET). Maximum of only 10 in London on the 19th. The month is the wettest in record for London, but all the rain fell in the middle of the month: 150 mm of rain fell in London beween the the 9th and 19th. Kew recorded 183 mm, and there was more in Surrey, with 227 mm at Carshalton. The rain at Camden Square lasted 58.5 hours from the 13th to the 15th, and this is probably the longest period of continuous rain recorded in England, and one of the longest in Britain (see December 1994). The rain was accompanied by a very cool NE airflow. Obviously the result was severe flooding in the southeast. The wet weather arose from a complex low settled over the south, with a NE airflow. It was in contrast very dry across other parts of the country.
1905 In a wet first week Margate received 77mm on the 5-6th, with a maximum of only 11C.
1906 Mostly fine. 60mm of rain in 10 hours at Kew on the 28-29th.
1907 Very cool (12.4).”
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~taharley/british_weather_in_june.htm
BBC CREATES ITS OWN “HAVE A GO HERO”
A nice case Study in how the BBC reshapes the truth, and invents its own social history.
John Smeaton was the guy that tackled and punched one of the two Glasgow Islamic terrorists, or as the Government and the BBC want you to call them NHS Doctors, to the ground.
Smeaton has been acclaimed as the “Have A Go Hero.” There is even a website dedicated to him
http://www.johnsmeaton.com/
The problem with John is that his language and thinking was a little too close to how ordinary British people feel about Islamic terrorism ….
CNN Interview: Real John Smeaton
…. including his uncensored comments: “Allah, Something, Allah, Something Allah, Every time He Threw a punch [at teh policeman] he was saying Allah” … & … “The way some people feel about people, now you begin to understand”
This kind of honest language doesn’t fit into the BBC or the Government’s Newspeak so at first the BBC tried to wash off Smeaton’s political incorrectness …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6262266.stm
BBC Interview: The Politically Correct John Smeaton
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6250000/newsid_6257700/6257792.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm
but that apparently was not good enough … so now they are looking to airbrush him out by labelling Michael Kerr who also tried to intervene at Glasgow as the “Have A Go Hero”, all day today the BBC has been running a story on him as the “Have A Go Hero”
Michael Kerr – Airport ‘hero’ injured in attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6269970.stm
THE BBC: CREATING AN ALTERNATE TRUTH – ITS WHAT WE DO
bijan daneshmand | 04.07.07 – 8:44 pm
John Smeaton heard too much (allah) very unPC for the BBC.
“The way some people feel about people, now you begin to understand”
Well thats just beyond the pale for the apologists.
Just to be crystal clear ….
Michael Kerr also tried to punch the Islamic terrorist but it was
it was Smeaton who after whacking the Islamic terrorist … (in Smeaton’s immortal words …. He’s a big boy and he is [was] noou f*ckin subdued ….” dragged Michael Kerr away.
And the BBC has the temerity to label Smeaton as “the web Hero.”
THE BBC: NOW WE KNOW WHY PEOPLE TELL US “Och, you’re no hauf full o pish by the wey, ye glaikit wee numpty”
Ok Heron. Here we go.
I know you said you weren’t an expert but actually you make some good points though one or two concepts are a bit mixed up.
You say: “As someone covering climate and science for the BBC, I would imagine you have a fairly developed understanding of meteorology and of the elements that affect the British weather. Notably what are termed the “Icelandic Low” and the “Azores High”. Predictably, these indicate a sort of default position for low pressure areas (Iceland) and high pressure areas (the Azores to the west of Spain). When weather systems follow this pattern Britain will experience fairly “normal” weather conditions, with low pressure troughs feeding their frontal systems west to east across the country, decreasing in intensity as they go (that is why the weather is drier to the east than the west), followed by ridges of high pressure providing fine weather in between.”
Fair enough. This is broadly correct, although ‘decreasing in intensity as they go east’ isn’t. The Azores high ridges into the British isles at times. If it’s further north, we all get fine conditions, if it’s south then wet weather ensues.
You say: “However, when the position of the Azores high and Icelandic low change, the weather over Britain changes dramatically. This I believe is controlled to some extent by the Gulf Stream, a high level airflow, but here my knowledge is a little sketchy. Anyway, the last three months have provided perfect examples of this. In April the weather systems were well to the north of their usual positions – ie the Azores High was almost at the level of the UK. This meant unusually dry and sunny weather in April. However as June arrived, the systems have slipped a lot further south, with the Icelandic Lows now blazing a trail directly over the UK, meaning regularly poor weather and very few gaps in between.”
It’s not the gulf stream, but the ‘high level airflow’ is correct and important. The rest makes sense.
You say: “This has given two extremes of weather, but I would question how extreme it actually is. None of the recent low pressure areas have been unusual in intensity (mostly around 995 mb which is absolutely normal), nor have there been any serious winds that often accompany deep depressions. Of course there have been some nasty pulses of heavy rain, but these are commensurate with the synoptic situation – it is just that this is weather more normally associated with the Shetlands, North Scandinavia and Iceland; not Britain.”
Yep, fair enough. Although you wouldn’t expect ‘deep’ lows at this time of year.
You say: “Anyone with a passing knowledge of this would tell you the same thing. I am sure that you know all this, yet you are still prepared to tell us that it could be global warming. If you can give me any scientific or meteorological evidence of this, I would believe you, but “This weather is not normal” will not do. There is a perfectly logical explanation for it, and it does not trace back to anything Al Gore said.”
Well journalists have been mentioning global warming quite a lot lately, understandably I have to admit as it is such a hot (sorry!) topic. There isn’t actually any hard meteorological evidence that one would point to individually and say “that’s it!”. And as I’ve said when asked the question by presenters I always say we should confuse weather with climate change. However, there is an indisputable warming trend taking place. A majority of scientists say it’s down to us. As science correspondent I report the current scientific view. I would say though one of the weather forecasters at Midlands Today is doing a PhD in this area and he disagrees with me saying the science is at such an early stage that it is just too early to say more than 50% this is human activity.
Simon also has a theory about our recent poor weather. He points out how warm sea temperatures have been for the past few months in the Atlantic Ocean. way above normal around the UK coasts. What warm water does is encourage low pressure systems to develop through convection, so if it’s warmer than normal, the theory is more moisture is available and so it is wetter. This falls down when you think about how dry April was. However, you need cold air aloft to get the low pressure going, and this didn’t happen until a couple of weeks ago. Once the cloud and rain form, the ocean cools slowly, and we have to wait for temperatures to be nearer normal in the oceans before the weather changes. See http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.7.1.2007.gif
I would say, well it’s another event and as always it’s either a single point on the graph that tells us nothing or else its part of a trend. Warmer seas of course would be something you’d expect with a warmer climate… anyway, it’s an interesting theory.
You write: “One further thing that you mention (again forgive me if my memory fails me a bit). Floods have increased over the past few years. Certainly reported floods have been, but anyone who makes regular long distance rail journeys will tell you that flooded plains are (a) commonplace and (b) rarely make the news. Get a few cowboys to build some homes on said plains (as has happened on a huge scale in the last few years), however, and suddenly the flooding is important. Although I agree with you to a point on this one, I am sure that dodgy planning and building has a lot more to do with it than Global Warming.”
It’s a very fair point but on the other hand I’ve got evidence that points the other way. When Bewdey began flooding again in 1998, 2000 and 2003 what was interesting was how knowledge had been lost in the community about flooding. People with riverside houses lowered the existing windows which has been built like that years earlier because the owners knew the Severn could flood. So they got their river views but also a living room full of water.
Plenty of people have also built on flood plains and there’s a lot more concrete out there so rain doesn’t soak into the earth like it used to.
And yet. And yet. I’m reporting on floods which are classed as 1 in 150 year events. So far I’ve reported on 4 of them. Just today the Royal Show was canceled because of freak heavy rain for the first time in it’s 168 year history.
This is all important because, for example, choices about flood defences are based on how much it would cost to defend against certain levels of events. That could mean spending taxes of course, what I report makes me part of the debate. This is part of that debate. I take that role very seriously.
So, to sum up. I hope that makes sense it’s a really small box to try and type long answers! The gist of what you are saying seems to be “show me the weather event that proves global warming” My honest answer is I can’t because it will never just be one event (well unless the gulf stream switches off and we get into a Day After Tomorrow scenario…) We are looking at trends and that’s what I always make clear when reporting on this topic.
Was it you that was critising the West Minster Hour doing Carbon Footprints and general trying to reduce them? Well I do think that’s a fair topic for a programme and the BBC. Right now as I’ve said this is where the science says we are. Reporting the politics of what we do about it is a challenge but surely the BBC should report that debate?
Phew!
Jon. I hope you won’t be offended, but in fact your comments do read like you’ve copied and pasted them from elsewhere on the internets. That’s not to say you don’t understand this debate, but at the moment it reads like the result of a google search rather than a serious argument.
I hope that all makes sense. Dave
newsnight has now turned into a version of newsround.
i despair. i really do.
I’m not offended in the least. I listened to the “facts” sported by Al Gore and tried to find out if they were true. I found that a lot of them have been disputed. Rather than paraphrase I thought it would be useful to go to the source – I am not a climatologist, but when someone says something I like to know more. The sources I used were not from some “commentator” but parts of scientific reports. I always follow the links to the reports and read them to see that they are not being “cherry picked”.
I hope you won’t be offended when I summise that you have never refuted anything that Al Gore has stated because it is not BBC policy to do so, as is evident from all the “interviews” that have been given by the BBC without a word said against his “theories”.
newsnight seems to have no idea about the international cocoa market.
big bad chocolate companies are to blame for child slaves in west africa.
so now they have a lot of (mostly muslim) schoolkids in the studio all in full training for hating capitalism in the future.
i think i’ll grab a bar of chocolate.
If the Goracle is correct and MMGW is now a given can we sack all those bloody scientists (especially the IPCC ones) and climatology journalists and put the billions of research money into solving it then?
David Gregory
So, to summarise your response “there’s evidence both ways but I can neither disprove the contrary evidence nor conclusively prove the MMGW case”.
To summarise the BBC policy “we do not accept – and will not broadcast – any evidence contrary to the MMGW scenario”
Jon
Al Gore is a politician and I’m a Science Correspondent. So far he hasn’t popped up in the West Midlands so reporting on what he says isn’t an issue. My job is to report what science says and then beyond that to put in context questions like “is extreme event X climate change?” “how much should we spend on flood defences?” “what does all this mean for farming/business?” No one has ever told me what I can and cannot say about Al Gore.
The key thing about all this science is to always keep on going. Not to stop when some research just confirms what any of us hold as a personal predujice. As a physicist that’s what I really enjoy about science. You’ve got to keep pushing on, asking questions. I can assure you I don’t sit there saying any area of research has reached a full stop and that’s it.
Umbongo: No.
I do feel when I set out the arguments and processes that go on when I report I just end up repeating myself on here. This is an important argument and I’m trying to engage on a sophisticated level here. I report what scientists are saying. Warming is real. We are responsible. We would expect drier periods and more extreme weather events.
But can I point to one single event and say this is proof? No. Not because the science is flawed or because my reporting is biased. But instead because science doesn’t work like that.
Perhaps I should do an FAQ? I do feel I’m continually replying to the same points about this.
(oh yes, and the reason it took so long to reply to Heron’s first post, I wasn’t toasting Hamas, I was editing a report looking at the way the government is using red tape to shape the English countryside)
I have statrted a new camapign to ban bread – As can be seen from the evidence the dangers of eating bread far outway the benefits. Soon I hope to make a film showing the evils of bread eating and will be activly lobbying politicians and the Royal Society in taking up this case.
Here are the facts:
More than 98 percent of convicted muderers are bread users.
Half of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average GCSEs.
More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average person eats more bread than that in one month!
Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
Bread is often a “gateway” food item, leading the user to “harder” items such as butter, jam, and even corned beef sandwitches.
Newborn babies can choke on bread.
Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
After Jesus broke bread with his disciples the resulting betrayal changed world history forever. (Bread eating deniers blames it on the wine.)
Money is sometimes called “bread”. Money is the root of all evil. Coincidence?
I hope the BBC will not be slow in reporting this to the masses.
Actually the BBC have listened and started taking notice.
“A pair of bird lovers could be banned from buying bread – because they keep feeding loaves to pigeons”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2360017.stm
A small start.
‘Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse.’
LOL!!!!!!!
The last time I had the misfortune to see a ‘science’ program on Al Beeb (admittedly quite a while ago, since I have refused to let any of their broadcasts grace my tv or radio for over two years now) this was exactly the level of discussion I witnessed.
Good post Jon.
“Hull has become the “forgotten city” after suffering some of the worst flooding damage, it has been claimed.
An additional 700 council staff have been taken off normal duties to join local area teams helping the thousands displaced by the flooding.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6270236.stm
Is it really? So nobody is doing anything to help? Are all the people in Hull just sitting around and doing nothing? I honestly don’t believe it. This story is in the same vane as others I have read on how Britons are the worse this and the worse that, they don’t look after their children and the elderly are being systmatically neglected.
Wouldn’t this have been better
“700 hundred council staff help the flood victims”
“Police are prevented by law from taking fingerprints and DNA from terrorist suspects on control orders, John Reid, the outgoing Home Secretary, admitted yesterday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/nreid108.xml
But this is OK
“A Bristol academy is to scan students’ fingerprints to allow them to get their lunch”
“It is such a good system, and there is no infringement of rights, that there was no need for consultation,” a school spokeswoman said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6269464.stm
How I dispair for this sick country
why is it whenever the discussions on these threads overwhelmingly favour one topic, a BBC lacky will come on board and answer at great length a minor point.
That’s it. From now on I’m going to go completely off topic, if that’s the only way you can get these BBC automatons to actually address these topics!
I have absolutely NO interest in global warming whatsoever David Gregory. Can I just specify this for the record. NONE. Until Global Warming can climb into a Jeep Cherokee and crash it into an airport terminal, the only threat it poses to me, is that of total boredom.
Furthermore ANYTHING ANY BBC prophet has to say about ANY topic whatsoever, even if it’s to tell me that night follows day, I would never listen to, lest their pompous, self-important public schoolboy nonsense gets into my head and infects any part of my rational thinking.
However, in direct contrast to this, the more a BBC lacky protests and ‘informs’ us of his point of view, the more likely I am to immediately pay attention to the subject – albeit by taking a directly opposing view.
As we can sum up David Gregory’s scientific hackery with the simple statement “Global Warming is an immediate threat to us all” I have processed the information through my anti-beeboid logic and come to the immediate conclusion that “Global warming is no threat to us whatsoever.”
So the BBC do have SOME useful consistency in their reporting.
David Gregory writes:
“Was it you that was criticising the West Minster Hour doing Carbon Footprints and general trying to reduce them? Well I do think that’s a fair topic for a programme and the BBC. Right now as I’ve said this is where the science says we are. Reporting the politics of what we do about it is a challenge but surely the BBC should report that debate?”
No, I raised that and I entirely disagree with you.
‘Report that debate’ is precisely what the BBC is not doing. It is reporting one side of the debate or, even worse, pretending there is no debate at all.
Did you listen to that Westminster Hour report? If you did, can you honestly claim it accurately represented this debate you say we are having?
And, if not, why defend it?
In passing, I must say I find your criticism of another commenter having ‘cut and pasted’ evidence from elsewhere very troubling. Citing evidence or qualified opinion has rarely, in my experience, been frowned on in academic debate.
Instead of criticising him for having quoted a disputatious authority, why not show us where you believe that authority has erred?
Please, Dr Gregory, do not make the mistake I made when I first landed on the Internet (Usenet in those days). Passing a casual comment about taxonomy, I was soon engaged in a furious debate with a professor from the USSR. He was right (it was his area of expertise) and I was not.
The de haut en bas method doesn’t work so well when your opponent (for all that he might call himself ‘sillydog236’) turns out to be the don who taught your don.
I, for one, would find it a great deal more convincing if someone were to try to prove to me that, say, Prof Reid Bryson (someone who has spent his entire academic career working in the field), is wrong, refuting his evidence, rather than simply reciting the mantra that ‘the majority’ says something else.
I’d find it even better if, in the meantime, the BBC’s political bimbos stopped perpetuating the Left’s party line that ‘the debate is over’.
Indikit.
This thread is for general topics of BBC bias and their reporting of MMGW is certainly neither balanced nor impartial. A number of posters here are prepared to discuss this, in a reasonably civilised manner, with David Gregory and I would imagine that a good few more (myself included) are interested in these discussions. Whilst it might not be your favourite topic please don’t assume that everyone feels the same way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6261816.stm
Mid-East views: UK bomb plots
Readers from the Middle East react to the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.
Out of 5, 3 view ::
” that there is a third party trying to do just this. The third party is the CIA, Israel, America – all people who hate and fight Arabs.
In today’s papers his mother says her son is very sensitive and well-educated and couldn’t do something like that. And I believe her – not the British police. ”
GHADA AL-KHATIB, 40, AMMAN, JORDAN, JOURNALIST
“Whenever any terrorism happens in London, they say it’s al-Qaeda. But it might be some other group.”
MODYY, 28, EGYPTIAN IN JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA, TRANSLATOR
“It makes me think there is a game going on to present Arabs to the world, as terrorists.”
OMAR, JOURNALIST, AMMAN, JORDAN, 22
1. If this is the view of most muslims/arabs, then they are the most stupid people on this earth.
2. If it isn’t and it is just BBC’s Views & Propaganda, then BBC is pure evil
“I am an atheist, a Christian really an atheist.”
SOMAR, 27, DAMASCUS, SYRIA, STUDENT
Atheist, christian, atheist. he forgot to add Muslim…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6261816.stm
lol @BBC
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42739000/jpg/_42739363_hafsa2_afp_300.jpg
what a view : BBC Photographer