(this post in large part thanks to commenter “cheesed off”)
In a short article about a woman called Zoobia Hussein, the BBC get just about everything wrong that could be got wrong. What were they trying to do with this report?
For a start, Zoobia Hussein is described appearing in court in her niqab (or “full veil” as the BBC report it). In fact she finally submitted to showing her face to the judge she was facing, behind a screen to protect her from the rest of the court. The judge in this case was a woman. Point one of misrepresentation.
Point two, Zoobia Hussein and her five children were not “thrown out” of their accommodation, but subject to eviction according to due process. At least one of the local tabloids managed to represent this clearly, unlike the BBC.
Third, in her latest appearance in court Ms Hussein was found guilty as charged of causing £1,500 worth of criminal damage. The BBC say only that “Ms Hussain denies the charge and her case was adjourned until 24 July.”. In fact she will return to court for sentencing.
Fourth… well, enough- how much more can they get wrong? It’s difficult not to suspect that this misreporting was intended to foment wrong impressions and bias in the minds of readers. The focus of the BBC report is the “aggrieved” woman; the person under scrutiny the man who took charge of her original trial. It is not news but selective interpretative trendsetting.
Update: the BBC have corrected their erroneous report on the point of the conviction. Maybe John Reith alerted them.
Nb- John Reith. I do not accept your argument. The PA is a organisation not without its own bias and political persuasion- see here, for example, an analysis. Its report was rambling and in no way adequate to sustain an effective news update on the Z. Hussein case. The BBC reporter found it quite adequate, however, with its ignorance of the actual case in question and its focus on the man who originally handled the trial where the refusal to show her face became a cause of controversy. Still, the distillation would have taken some time. The BBC’s simplification enhanced rather than decreased the bias in the AP report. The local journalists did far better, and were a couple of clicks away at most- really, probably staring at the operative in question from a newsfeed. I never suggested that the BBC sat in some darkened room shaping a biased article, merely that the misreporting was not without reason. I stand by that.
I would add that I know that BBC journalists are not idiots who go out on a limb to lie to the public. Most of the time, anyway.
Another newspaper article which expands a lot more info than the BBC one.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/boltonnews/display.var.1557543.0.judge_asks_woman_to_lift_her_veil_in_court.php
I note you label this report under slectivity and bias. I suspect incompetence. Why try hard to do your job well when your company’s income is guaranteed and never sacks anyone?
Pete, I would accept that if this report wasn’t so limited in scope and relatively easy to get right factually. Besides, where are the misspellings, the grammatical errors etc that would result from really sloppy work? Its very brevity seems calculated. Endless times I’ve accepted the sloppiness argument when passing up items that appeared somehow wrong- you can’t do it every time. It certainly isn’t that the BBC are overwhelmingly incompetent or that they don’t have editors etc.
Now, come on, Ed. You can’t do a post about Beeb inaccuracies, and use the phrase “causing 1500 pounds of criminal damage”. Criminal damage never been measured by weight. I suspect you meant “£1500-worth”.
Thanks Chuffs; sadly I’m using a foreign keyboard and can’t find the “pounds” sign! Suggestions welcome- I know there’s some way but I just can’t remember…
Hi Ed – the easiest way is to get someone with a proper keyboard to do it… so consider it done 🙂
Or, I suppose, if you’re on a Windows machine, click Start, select Run, type charmap and press enter – then find the pound sign – and you should be able to 1) see what the keyboard combination is; 2) copy and paste it as well.
Ed – It’s just ampersand “pound” semicolon. For example: £
That same pattern works for many other symbols, by the way.
(I’ve had to learn some of the more common symbols since I often quote from British newspapers, and sometimes from French newspapers. But I still use “We Design in a Nutshell” for some of the less common symbols.)
This comment has been moved to the current Open Forum.
That’s “Web Design”, not “We Design”, of course.
(I don’t mean to shock anyone, but American newspapers would ordinarily use “pounds” when discussing British currency, rather than the symbol. And even more often translate into dollars, which I find annoying, though I can understand why they do it.)
Jim is right, though his example has been automagically rendered into the finished character. What he meant to reproduce is £ – which should display properly here, but when entered as html will turn into a pound sign.
I now feel guilty for being such a pedant! Mind you, I was doing a subediting course in London when all the bombs went off a couple of years ago – it sort of made the coursework stick a bit more clearly.
Er . . what about using “GBP” ?
Back to the topic:
It’s difficult not to suspect that this misreporting was intended to foment wrong impressions and bias in the minds of readers. The focus of the BBC report is the “aggrieved” woman; the person under scrutiny the man who took charge of her original trial. It is not news but selective interpretative trendsetting.
Ed, once again you attribute all sorts of sinister motivations to the BBC that just aren’t there.
And once again this blog does so on the basis of standard agency copy.
There was no BBC reporter in court to cover this piffling criminal damage case. So – like everyone else except the local paper(s), the BBC took its copy off the PA newswire. Here is the PA story. Compare it with the BBC story in terms of wording and structure . You will find that the BBC story is a shortened version of the PA one.
MUSLIM VEIL ROW WOMAN RETURNS TO COURT
From Press Association National Newswire – 18/07/2007 (496 words)
By Sri Carmichael, PA
A woman wearing a full Muslim veil appeared in court today, three weeks after a magistrate walked out of her previous hearing because her face was covered.
Ian Murray is embroiled in an internal investigation after refusing to deal with Zoobia Hussain, 32, at Manchester Magistrates Court on June 28.
Hussain made a formal complaint to the court about her treatment, which her lawyer, Judith Hawkins, said ‘intimidated and deeply embarrassed” her.
In a statement shortly after the hearing, Ms Hawkins added: ‘She (Hussain) feels that the court’s treatment of her was insensitive, unacceptable and against the tradition of fairness and equality that we have come to expect from our system of justice.”
During the hearing, at which Hussain faced a charge of criminal damage, Mr Murray gave the court no explanation as to why he disqualified himself.
But he later issued a statement through the Judiciary of England and Wales saying his decision was due to ‘questions of identity”.
Hussain’s niqab covered her entire face apart from her eyes.
The judiciary’s guidelines states situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis. But they say there should be a ‘willingness to accommodate different practices and approaches to religious and cultural observance” provided judges and magistrates believe ‘justice can be properly served”.
Shortly after the hearing, a judiciary spokesman said Mr Murray agreed he ‘acted unwisely” by walking out without giving reasons and ‘regrets” that his behaviour could be interpreted as intolerance of other cultures.
He acknowledged ‘he should have sought the advice of his legal adviser in court and discuss the provisions of the national guidelines with his colleagues on the bench before taking action”.
Hussain’s complaint triggered an investigation by the Manchester Magistrates Advisory Committee on July 3.
Mr Murray has until tomorrow to respond officially to the complaint.
The committee will then decide whether the case warrants further investigation by a panel of local magistrates.
While the inquiry takes place, Mr Murray has volunteered not to sit as a magistrate.
Today, the district judge trying Hussain heard she had sprayed graffiti on the walls of a property from which she had been evicted and put holes through doors.
The young mother is accused of re-entering the council house in Longsight after her family was thrown out for rent arrears in January this year and causing more than £3,000 worth of damage.
Housing officers found drawings of eyes on the walls, with the words ‘I am watching you” scrawled next to them, when they arrived to let Hussain back into the property to collect her belongings.
They also discovered her belongings packed away neatly into boxes, which was not the case when she had been evicted.
Hussain denies the charge and her counsel has argued the property was left insecure by the housing officers who evicted the family a week earlier.
(c)2007, The Press Association, All Rights Reserved
Date: 18/07/2007
Publication: Press Association National Newswire
Hi JR (BBC),
It’s so good to have someone to talk to from such an honest broadcaster. Question: I’ve just checked your Middle East section and can’t find any current good news reports such as:
1) Al Qaeda support draining in Doura
2) The unexpected success of the surge in Baghdad
3) The celebrations over Iraq’s football victory over Vietnam
You know, the sort of thing you might find out about in the Times, Telegraph, Fox or even a humble blog.
Strangely, the BBC has lots of negative news stories on Iraq instead.
According to the Beeb, it’s 100% bad in Iraq (almost as plausible as one of Sadaam’s votes). No bias there, then.
ps
And it’s no use you trawling through obscure buried news sections/archives. All of these were top section stories elsewhere.
K | 23.07.07 – 2:51 pm
It seems that Deborah Haynes of the Times finally got her turn for a 72 hour mini-embed with US forces in al Doura.
She writes a nice colour piece about it for the Times.
Fox (prop: R Murdoch) reprints it (free copy – no pesky copyright issues).
The BBC did this same little trip back in May.
Mark Urban turned out a beautifully crafted film for Newsnight on May 14.
Where were Fox and the Times then?
Facility visits……..shmafillity visits……
When I google ‘Iraq surge’ News, I don’t get the rose tinted version you seem to:
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=iraq%20surge%20
As for Iraq vs Vietnam football: well, I suppose I could be less interested. Say, if Leyton Orient were playing Builth Wells.
K | 23.07.07 – 2:51 pm
3) The celebrations over Iraq’s football victory over Vietnam
You’ll find this – not exactly a positive spin though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6910411.stm
Mr. Reith:
Of course! I must be just one of the unwashed; I didn’t recognize this story as a “piffling criminal damage case”. So it’s not really a BBC story then, it’s the Press Association. I’m glad that the BBC gives credit (blame?) where due. Please. Check the “see also” links to that story on the website: “Veil row magistrate investigated” and “Magistrate walks out in veil row”. Follow the links in THOSE stories. I like the highlighted quote “The woman who covers her face is the most harmless individual in society. She … does not cause society any problems”
I’m simply tired of the BBC’s apparent inability to report the news without adding their own social engineering spin.
Perhaps “John Reith” ought to sit down and think carefully about the fact that British people who want to use a television set are required, by law and with threats of imprisonment, to pay for an organisation which, despite its own oft repeated claims of a worldwide reputation for impartiality and reliability and despite having one of the world’s most expensive news gathering operations and despite, when I last looked, having a number of news journalists still employed in Manchester, still manages to print a short story that is factually wrong on rather more things than you would expect could be squeezed into so short a story – and in such a way as to give an entirely wrong impression of what actually happened, in such a way as to reasonably anger a substantial number of observers of the BBC who have detected, and detect in this story, the sort of bias he denies.
What’s the point of paying for the BBC – and Mr R’s salary and inflation linked pension, if all they can do about a story in Manchester (Manchester – not Timbuktoo!) is produce a sloppy, unchecked editing of PA tapes. Don’t they know that there are local papers that might be checked too – or are they too unprofessional to know even that?
Strewth!
“As for Iraq vs Vietnam football: well, I suppose I could be less interested. Say, if Leyton Orient were playing Builth Wells.”
I actually think this is a very important story. I can’t think or any other event (short of an election – which a large number of Sunnis boycotted anyway) which would so unite the Iraqi nation in the current situation. If there genuinely was/is a cross sect mood of celebration this is extremely newsworthy.
JR,
You’re not seriously denying those good news items were true.
The best you can do is sneer at the motives behind reporting them.
How about answering the question of why the BBC only enjoys publishing bad news from Iraq?
I think that sounds like bias to most folks.
ps I particularly liked the way you scorned the much needed ‘normality’ of a football victory celebration in Iraq. Yes, you at the BBC really have a heart.
glj:
Thx for the link. Shows that the BBC are prepared to report good news in Iraq …once they can find a negative angle.
MattLondon | 23.07.07 – 4:30 pm
What’s the point of paying for the BBC ….if all they can do …..{blah blah blah}….
As I never tire of reminding you, the point of the BBC is broadcasting TV and radio programmes.
Re-printing PA newswire stories in shortened form on its website is hardly the corporation’s core activity. It’s just a (sometimes) useful little add-on.
Complaining about it in the terms you do makes as much sense as asking ‘What’s the point of paying for the Daily Telegraph?’ when that paper makes a tiny mistake in its Freeview listing for what’s on ITV 4 at 11.00pm.
unchecked editing of PA tapes
The whole point of PA (especially its court service) is that it’s deemed to be accurate and it’s not necessary to verify it.
Don’t they know that there are local papers that might be checked too
Mostly the day after. Rarely in real-time. In any case – see previous.
The BBC News website employs about 130 journalists.
They produce one of the most successful and highly regarded sites on the net.
They do that by not wasting too much time on trivia.
A more interesting question might be: should the BBC bother with reprinting PA copy about provincial dramas like this, or concentrate resources on the big stories?
I’m open minded.
What do you think?
JR (BBC):
In the midst of so much bloviating I’m surprised you didn’t find time to post a list of positive stories from Iraq.
You know, to rebut the outrageous suggestion that the BBC only reports bad news from Iraq.
It’s kind of weird, given the BBC manages to ignore so many bad news stories when they emanate from the Palestinian thug-state.
John, you say ‘As I never tire of reminding you, the point of the BBC is broadcasting TV and radio programmes.’
As I never tire of telling pro-BBC bores, I don’t want or need the BBC’s output. I pay for the BBC because I want to watch Sky Sports and I don’t want a criminal record, not because I value what the BBC does. BBC news is down-market, which is hardly surprising given that nearly all the BBC’s output is down-market. It is not something I’d pay for voluntarily.
John, if you really valued the BBC you, and others of your persuasion would be preapared to pay the full cost of it yourselves, without subsidy from the likes of me.
The BBC Muslim veil story is a red herring designed to portray Muslims as the victims.
The veil is not an Islamic religious symbol according to some of the top Islamic scholars. In fact, it is even banned in some Muslim countries.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/12/islam-veil-is-not-religious-symbol.html
In addition, Muslim women are already requied in the UK to remove the veil when getting a driving license.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405464&in_page_id=1770
The BBC doesn’t tell the public any of this because it would lose a prominent tool to portray Muslims as victims.
Slightly off topic but it shows how the BBC leave out important details to slant the story their way – anti American and pro Islamist.
“Mr Blair’s mandate does not allow him to talk to Hamas – which the US blacklists as a terrorist group – even though it was elected to government by the Palestinian people last year. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6911205.stm
Just the US Auntie? Aren’t we forgetting a host of other countries, including the EU, that have listed Hamas as a terrorist organization? In fact, the military wing of Hamas is listed by the UK as a terrorist organization.
Further, isnt it worth mentioning Auntie that Hamas charter names Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine and maintains that Israel cannot exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
JR – after characterising my post as “blah, blah, blah”: “As I never tire of reminding you, the point of the BBC is broadcasting TV and radio programmes.
Re-printing PA newswire stories in shortened form on its website is hardly the corporation’s core activity. It’s just a (sometimes) useful little add-on.”
All the more reason for anyone to object to being forced to pay for it, though in fact, as any listener to BBC radio knows, the website seems to loom very large in the BBC’s image of itself. By the way, I can’t see any acknowledgement to PA on the story* – seems a bit mean.
More to the point this story is about an issue of real sensitivity in British inner cities: dangerous hostility can be stoked up by misreporting of this sort. Also as I said, it’s an issue in an area where the BBC’s objectivity and balance is continually being questioned. You seem to think the story trivial. I disagree – as clearly did your professional journalistic colleagues. All the more reason not to put it on the site at all or – if it wa to bes put on the site – to check the facts.
I’ll risk annoying you again and remind you of the BBC’s pretensions to be no 1 broadcaster, news service, universal friend etc (more “blah, blah, blah”?). It behoves you to get it right on things like this – or not risk putting your foot in it.
By the way I’m not sure you have reminded ME (you say “you” in your ill tempered response) often, if at all, about the role of the BBC being to produce good programmes etc – but since you have now, look around, JR, there appear to be lots of pretty good programmes being produced all over the place by organisations I’m not forced to fund.
I’m not actually anti-BBC but until it starts getting its act together in terms of quality, accuracy and balance it remains very difficult to defend it and it becomes increasingly vulnerable in a world where broadcasting’s claim to uniqeuness, and thus to unique funding arrangements, is daily less convincing.
*Also by the way, since today’s Biased BBC attention the story on the website has been amended in one substantial respect – but still claims to have been last updated on 18 July. Now perhaps that IS the sort of trivial point you could ridicule a complaint about – but even repeated minor points like that lead to real doubts about quality control and honesty in BBC news.
MattLondon | 23.07.07 – 8:04 pm
dangerous hostility can be stoked up by misreporting of this sort
Don’t you think that you are being a tad pompous?
Yes, there was a small error in this story: the original version said that the case had been ‘adjourned’. In fact, the woman was convicted and a date set down for sentencing.
This was subsequently corrected.
Hardly a mistake that would cause an inner-city riot, as you suggest. Still, it would have been better for there to have been no mistake at all.
The fact is that Ed Thomas and others here have constructed an overblown bias allegation and set it atop a house of cards.
Mistakenly believing that this story was written by dangerous, Muslim-loving lefties in the BBC, the original allegation was one of agenda-driven journalism:
The focus of the BBC report is the “aggrieved” woman; the person under scrutiny the man who took charge of her original trial. It is not news but selective interpretative trendsetting.
When it was revealed that the BBC story was merely a slightly subbed-down version of the original PA newswire story, Biased-BBC stalwarts begin to diverge.
The full-on, Gadarene-swine variety, represented here by Marc, simply press-on regardless towards the cliff-edge of reason:
The BBC Muslim veil story is a red herring designed to portray Muslims as the victims.
Ed, by contrast, makes use of what he learned on his casuistry course • charging the PA itself with bias, then accusing the BBC of distilling the PA’s natural bias into more concentrated form by subbing the original. In making this charge, he clutches at a straw provided by that fountainead of false and malicious allegations • JBH. A certain desperation here, doubtless occasioned by the utter collapse of said house of cards.
(Inconvenient fact: the Press Association is universally respected in Fleet Street as a news source; while JBH is disrespected in Fleet Street as a mendacious crank.)
John, you are so old-fashioned. You think that if you can demonstrate, to your own satisfaction, that the BBC is a force for good, then we all should be required to pay for it.
Why should I pay for shoddy news, phoney phone-ins and Eastenders just so I can legally watch Sky Sports?
Pete
You do keep banging on about having to pay for the BBC.
I’m intrigued.
Is it the amount or the principle of compulsion that most irks you?
My hunch is the latter.
After all, the licence-fee isn’t exactly huge. Not for someone like you.
I dare say it’s less annually than you’ve spent on lunch on a single day.
Probably accounts for two fill-ups of your Kraut 4 X 4.
Probably less than a third of the wedge you cheerfully hand over to Rupie.
It’s the ‘principle’ isn’t it?
The same principle that occasionally gets my goat when I reflect how I have to shell out for educating the kids of Biased-BBC posters…..or abortions for women I haven’t even met, let alone slept with…..and varicose vein operations for other people’s mums.
Meanwhile, I guess the moonbats are seriously pissed off about having to pay for the war…(tee hee)…
..But then I think: one nation under God….I am my brother’s keeper….spirit of the Blitz…..all in this together…..family, neighbourhood, community, polis, nation…social solidarity and all that.
Makes a certain amount of sense, doesn’t it?
Paying the telly-tax, Pete, – just treat it as a chance to ‘give something back’.
Ha, ha, ha. It would be funny if it weren’t serious. JR says there was
“a small error in this story”
Like, the fundamental point, if you are reporting a court case. There was much of interest in this case, but the BBC were only interested in the hurt felt by Ms Zubia Khan and salivating over the prospect of a judge being indicted for institutional racism. That’s why the report was so bad, that’s why the basic point(s) were allowed to rot. That’s typical, JR, and you don’t yet understand the significance of it, because you are too busy trying to caricature your opponents.
Must say I’m quite flattered to be accused of practising the high art of casuistry. JR, it’s not true though, clever though it might imply that I am. You think I squirmed out of your wonderful take down. Far from it. To bring in the possible sources of the BBC’s journalism is to overcomplicate what was a simple case of a misleading report of great selectivity. Why it happened is not my problem, but yours.
I don’t seek to have anyone hung, drawn and quartered, merely removed from their pedestal. It’s the pedestal to which you’re so attached as well, though, isn’t it?
If you just acknowledged that the report was inadequate and that the explanation was not in a moronic journalist’s incompetence but in their assumptions and biases- that would be the correct step to take.
John, childish, incorrect speculation about me as justification of the reason why I have to pay the BBC before I can watch Sky Sports says a lot about you, including the fact that you can come up with no rational argument for such a bizarre arrangement.
You are so dated John. You seem horrified at the prospect of a world where people can decide things for themselves, including what TV programs to buy. In a way I pity you and your insecurities, so perhaps I can regard my licence fee as a sort of charity payment to you and your kind. Who am I to deprive you of your Eastenders and Flog It?
ed | 24.07.07 – 11:00 am
the BBC were only interested in the hurt felt by Ms Zubia Khan
Really? I think you’ll find the woman’s name is Zoobia Hussain.
Still, we can’t let a little thing like that get in the way of your lecture on the importance of accuracy.
Oh sod it JR, your maturity knows no bounds. Terribly sorry I slipped into commenting using the second most popular surname in the muslim world in a moment of weakness. Ought I to send her an apology in case I’ve hurt her feelings? Deferring to you as always in matters of accuracy,
ED
JR: “Probably accounts for two fill-ups of your Kraut 4 X 4.”
Ah, that BBC attitude rears its ugly head once again.
Pete disapproves of having to pay a licence fee, ergo he must be one of those selfish right-wing gaia-haters with a 4×4.
JR: “The same principle that occasionally gets my goat when I reflect how I have to shell out for educating the kids of Biased-BBC posters…..or abortions for women I haven’t even met, let alone slept with…..and varicose vein operations for other people’s mums.”
All deserving recipients of funding. You lying bunch of sods aren’t.
In the interests of courtesy I should add that the above is not intended to accuse JR of being a liar personally!
As far as the BBC in general is concerned though, well, enough said….
I’d drafted a long – perhaps over long – but wonderfully crafted response to JR’s comments this morning – and either I pressed the wrong key or the the evil spirit that preserves the beeb from getting its just deserts intervened and I lost it. Anyway, others have made the points I had in mind – so it’s only left to me to ask if the adjective “kraut” is common currency chez Rieth? Seems a bit nasty, actually.
No one has made the obvious point that commercial TV and radio is FREEEEEEEEEEE. Even the poorest homeless illegal immigrant can obtain broadcast entertainment and information for ZERO cash.
Please remember B-BBC and John Reith that there is still many people out there that don’t have even low tariff cable TV. And that to many more ordinary people then you have ever spat at in the streets or patronised, which is very many indeed JR, £135 is a very large amount of their disposable income.
If OUR, that is this government put a special tax of £135 per year to pay for all the worlds homosexuals to be castrated for “ungodly acts”. Would John Reith claim that it was “not exactly a huge” amount of cash then?
Why does JR, who claims to be a Conservative voter, may I add, not understand the simple concept of freedom of choice and personal responsibility, and why it results in liberty and not what we have now days in the UK and Europe?
I don’t give a toss what is written in the SWP’s publications because I don’t have to pay for my country and myself to brainwashed by it. So therefore it is non of my business and even more so, non of my moral responsibility.
Whatever type of insanity it ‘throws up’ from it pages, if enough wants to pay enough for it, then it must, in a free country, have a pure and enforceable right to make its destructive points available.
What the BBC does and says IS my business and responsibility as is what my government that taxes me does and says. Just as much as if my cash WAS being spent cutting off other peoples testicles all over the entire unsuspecting disaffected world. Or paying for childporn, so that more children will become abused.
I would have used the “cash going to Fascist Nazi type ‘right-wing’ terrorist organisations argument” instead of the gay castration one.
But as we all KNOW by now, the BBC is simply in love with LEFT WING Islamofascist pan-national theocratic revolutionary dictators and their death obsessed fellow brainwashed homosexual castrating, shocktroopers, more then even highly generous and criminally inclined, British Neo-Fascist governments.
(Put a collection box for Hamas outside Broadcasting House and see how long it takes to fill up with your hard earned cash via BBC employees over-expanded wallets.)
And because even most at the BBC love their testicles and children.
At least I hope they still do love them both or we are all buggered.
Just to expand a point JR. A member of my family works full-time in a refrigerated warehouse. Starts work at 6 in the morning and works for the minimum wage.
After paying his TAXES, extremely low and very basic transport and living costs, he has little more then £35 per week left to save or spend on himself.
Therefore £135 per year represents 7.5% of his entire spare cash. As he is an honest person he has no television in his damp and cold one-room hovel.
So JR he does not have free TV because of the BBC.
Sleep well? I bet you do.
He would as well on your wages.
Jonathan (Cambridge) | Homepage | 24.07.07 – 2:35 pm + Matt
There used to be a bloke posting here called Pete – or it might have been Pete-London, who used to refer in his own posts to his ‘Kraut 4X4’. Maybe I got the wrong one – but my references were simply to that.
As a 4X4 owner myself, I’ve got nothing against them.
JR:
Busted! Fair ’nuff 🙂
J.Reith wrote:
The BBC News website employs about 130 journalists.
They produce one of the most successful and highly regarded sites on the net.
They do that by not wasting too much time on trivia.
Beness writes:
I see the Chris Donald case must have been trivial then with all those reporters and not enough time to report the ongoing investigations of the time. Oh but sorry they were reported!! Out of the way on the scottish pages.