Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
John Reith, even if the BBC is as wonderful as you say, why do I need to be forced to buy it? It’s not an essential in life. I get the feeling that although you think the BBC is marvellous you wouldn’t like the idea of paying full price for it, and doing without the subsidy that you get from people like me. Like many BBC fans, you aren’t prepared to put your money where your mouth is.
I suspect you huff and puff in the BBC’s defence because you don’t like the prospect of paying more for your beloved Eastenders and celebrity dancing. You enjoy being subsidised. That’s all you are about.
Last night, the following article of the BBC polishing the Cuban turd was on the front News page of the UK edition of the BBC website. It has since vanished from the UK side and is now buried in the “Features and Analysis” sidebar in the Americas section of the International version.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6925085.stm
Why this is news at all is beyond me. As far as I can tell, the only reason for this bit of mindless musing is for the BBC contributor to reassure himself and his editors that Communism can still be successful, and the last, best hope for their dream utopia is still intact.
I especially liked the following bits:
“It was a smooth transition, but so far stability has not led to any improvement to people’s daily lives.
Low wages, food shortages and poor public transport are the complaints that dominate conversations here much more than questions of political freedom.”
Typical. Every time someone tells a Leftoid that Communism inevitably leads to dragging everyone down, the first (and only) line of defense is to point out that people are only concerned with the Party providing for them, and personal freedoms are not important. Nothing to do with why the people might be in such a crap situation, obviously.
Then we learn about Raul Castro, currently in charge while Fidel continues his ‘recovery’.
“He doesn’t have Fidel’s charisma, but Raul is considered the more practical and pragmatic of the two. This has raised expectations that some economic reforms may be on the way.
In an hour-long keynote televised address before a 100,000 strong crowd last week, Raul acknowledged there were problems with the economy and changes were needed.”
Note the obligatory mention of an enormous audience for a speech by a fan favorite. The economic discussion then leads us to:
“Many Cubans and Western observers believe this to be a signal that Chinese-style reforms are finally on the way; an opening up of the economy while maintaining political control.”
No one here needs to be reminded how great things are going in China, seeing as how the BBC have been constantly instructing us. So naturally the only dark cloud on the horizon of Cuban success would be:
“As caretaker president, Raul has also offered to sit down at the negotiating table with the United States. That’s been rejected and under US law, there can be no lifting of the embargo against Cuba as long as either brother is in power.”
Damn that United States!
We are then treated to the usual optimistic reports of Fidel’s recovery. Even better, it seems that:
“In recent months, Fidel has increasingly made his presence felt through regular newspaper editorials, called Reflections of the Commander in Chief.
Many are attacks on his ideological nemesis, US President George W Bush. Only a few have dealt with internal politics. All are read in their entirety on nightly television news and the first collection has been published in book form.”
Gotta love that. So it’s only President Bush who is Castro’s ideological nemesis? Not, you know, any other non-Communist governments in the world? Obviously Castro is an ideological soulmate to the BBC, but one would think that they wouldn’t make it so bleeding obvious.
And yes, they do make it obvious:
“In one of his editorials last month, he suggested that what the economy really needed was a renewed sense of revolutionary dedication.
‘The standard of living can be improved by raising knowledge, self-esteem and dignity of the people. It will enough to reduce waste and the economy will grow.'”
The article ends with the journalistic equivalent of “Stay strong, Fidel, stay strong.”
So, nothing newsworthy here, and there has been no recent incident in Cuba to even warrant such an “analysis” piece (using that term rather loosely). Just a pointless feel-good piece about a country very dear to the BBC heart.
The BBC its hatred of Christianity and half a story.
YouTube rant priest sent on leave
A Roman Catholic priest in Australia, whose foul-mouthed rant at a group of skateboarders was filmed and put on YouTube, has been sent on leave.
………………….
In the video, entitled “Priest Kickout”, Monsignor Baron is seen treating the teenagers to a diatribe peppered with sexually explicit insults and racial slurs. “Get back to where you come from,” he tells some of the teenagers. “You don’t belong in Australia.” The teenagers respond to his rant with taunts and insults of their own, but leave after the priest starts throwing things at them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6925700.stm
How the guardian reports it;
“The Reverend Monsignor Geoff Baron, the dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, was secretly filmed on video swearing at and racially abusing the group of teenagers who had been trespassing on church property and taunting him.The video of the ugly confrontation, in which the teenagers jostle with the priest and accuse him of being a paedophile and he directs a tirade of foul-mouthed and racist comments at them, has spread rapidly around the southern Australian city.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2138832,00.html
and the actual video.
Now contrast that with this Religious man the BBC had no problem putting on a pedestal after a similar outburst.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article647833.ece
The BBC its hatred of Christianity and half a story.
I wonder if the BBC will publish this story seeing as they love Hezbollah and hate Israel.
Hizbullah officer: We would’ve given up
“The cease-fire acted as a life jacket for the organization [at the end of the Second Lebanon War],” a Hizbullah officer said in an interview aired by Channel 10 on Tuesday.
In the interview, the unnamed officer said Hizbullah gunmen would have surrendered if the fighting last summer had continued for another 10 days.
His statement sharply contrasted with those made by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah on several occasions since the monthlong war.
At the end of the war, Nasrallah said his organization had gained a “divine victory.”
The officer shown on Channel 10 said the organization’s gunmen had been running low on food and water and facing rapidly diminishing arms supplies.
The officer also said that many Hizbullah commanders were ordered to hide before the war started, and that the gunmen who remained were forced to fire Katyusha rockets from inside urban populations because of the IDF’s efficiency in destroying launchers minutes after a launch had been detected.
He said that when the gunmen relocated to cities and villages, they knew innocent civilians would be hurt as a consequence.
The quick arrival of IAF jets at rocket-launch sites, sometimes only four to five minutes after a Katyusha was fired, “surprised” Hizbullah, the officer said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185893683874&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
sorry to but in , but i really must point peoples attention to this post on the eu ref blog about the EU Reform Treaty
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/supreme-government-of-europe.html
keep an eye folks on what the BBC are saying about this. or rather , the LACK of what they are saying about it.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/08/issues-rather-than-personalities.html#links
iain says…..
It is interesting that the BBC politics team is obsessed by leadership problems at the moment – whether Conservative or Liberal Democrat. I look forward to them giving due prominence to a hacked off Labour Party wannabe candidate who thinks Gordon Brown is rubbish. There must be one out there somewhere if they look hard enough.
and this from the bbc….something you could certainly never accuse a bbc
employee of…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6922516.stm
Do some Russian journalists take patriotism too far?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6925876.stm
“Scotland and London ‘to lose MEP'”
1 – Oh, we’re going to lose 2 MEPs? Wrong, we’re going to lose 6. Why are Scotland and London special? Answers elsewhere on this site.
2 – why is ‘to lose MEP’ in quotes. Who said this?
3 – why is the headline not “Midlands to ‘lose’ 2 MEPs”
4 – why is the headline not “6 UK regions to lose MEP”
One of the most horrific murder trials has been taking place in Blackpool for 7 weeks. It involves the murder of a 14 year old white girl who had been groomed for sex and eventually murdered and then allegedly her body chopped up and used in a takeaway shop. I’ve seen no mention of this on the BBC (I suppose I could have missed it); it’s not because those on trial are Moslems of Asian origin, is it? No, surely not, it must be just an oversight. Tottenham Lad blog at least gives us facts which Al-BBC wouldn’t want us to know.
Jim T wrote;
“I’ve seen no mention of this on the BBC (I suppose I could have missed it)”
You did, its been reported on the BBC Web site a number of times the last only the otherday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6922368.stm
And yes I am the real pounce
I’ve deleted some comments about the BBC not reporting the Minneapolis bridge collapse.
This is a good place to point out that we will generally delete comments along the lines of “Important event X has just happened, and the BBC aren’t reporting it”, which are invariably followed up ten minutes later by someone pointing out that the BBC has just done a major piece on X.
(This is completely different from complaints about the BBC ignoring important stories for which there has been sufficient time for them to do so, which we encourage).
pounce | 01.08.07 – 9:14 pm,
No evidence of the report here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
Maybe we should be looking in the Entertainment section.
I will be amazed if they do report it since it deviates so radically from the script on the war that Hezbollah handed the BBC with strict instructions not to deviate from it.
David Prieser
Surely you can’t have already forgotten the world shattering news that 8 US students have graduated from medical school in Cuba. This article admits that “the stories of the six [sic] medical students are something of a propaganda coup with Cuba” so no-one is surprised that it comprised 10-15% of Radio 4 8:00 am News last Wednesday morning.
Further to D Burbage’s post I have used the official BBC complaints procedure about this disgraceful article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6925876.stm
I will keep you informed of the response (if any) though I am not holding my breath for the response.
Somehow, when the Beeb propagandises on behalf of the Castro regime, it never refers to these famous quotes from that noted “hero” of the “revolution”, Che Guevara:
“the black is indolent and lazy.”
“Evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail. We manufacture evidence. We execute from revolutionary conviction.”
“I killed 100,000 people.”
“My gulag has tortured 500,000 people.”
Never gets a mention, somehow.
The BBC, polio and half a story.
Conquering polio’s last frontier
Nigeria could be polio free by the end of this year, according to health officials.
Following massive vaccination campaigns, the country that almost caused the global eradication programme to collapse may soon be finally be clear of the deadly virus.
If this is achieved it will be a major achievement in the campaign to eradicate polio, as the country boycotted the vaccine in 2003 – threatening to reinfect the rest of the world with the virus.
……………..
Twenty previously polio-free countries were reinfected – and all because trust in the vaccine was lost. Rumours that the oral polio vaccine contained anti-fertility agents and even HIV began to spread in Nigeria, particularly in the Northern State of Kano.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6919307.stm
So according to the BBC, the whole country boycotted the polio vaccine in 2003. Which is strange as the UN has this to say on the matter.
“Global efforts to eliminate the polio virus through immunisation suffered a severe setback in northern Nigeria last year when some northern states in the mainly Muslim north boycotted the vaccination programme. Polio vaccinations were interrupted for up to 10 months after Muslim clerics alleged that the polio vaccine contained impurities that could cause infertility in women and even infect those immunised with the HIV virus and cancer. They presented the vaccination campaign as a Western Christian plot to try and reduce the Muslim population of Nigeria.”
http://ww.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=59353
The Christian south (And religion is pertinent to the story here) has seen Polio all but eradicated, yet the Northern Muslim states have the highest rates in the world. So why does the BBC gloss over this subject by saying the whole country boycotted the vaccine when in fact it was the 12 northern Islamic states of Nigeria which boycotted the program.But they do say a picture says a thousand words.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/eacea085bacc7974c1256ec40042c62b/3c662a917b4cae8f492571620010987c/Body/48.D8A?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
The BBC, polio and half a story.
The BBC, racism and half a story.
Race crime up after terror attack
Racist crime in the west of Scotland had increased after the suspected terror attack on Glasgow Airport, BBC Scotland has learned. Strathclyde Police have released figures on racist crime and a senior officer confirmed that there had been a noticeable rise. Community and political leaders were quick to call for calm in the aftermath of the attack. The force said the rise may have been down to a greater willingness for minorities to report incidents. Between 1 and 27 July, there were 258 reported racial attacks, 31 of which were airport-related, according to Strathclyde Police.
……….
“Most of it has been low level crime such as name calling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6924745.stm
So the BBC quite rightly reports on the increase of verbal abuse directed at mostly innocent people in the aftermath of the failed attack on Glasgow airport.
But that isn’t what caught my eye. It was this comment;
“After the attack, many websites and discussion forums, including one hosted by a national newspaper, attracted a number of racist and anti-Islamic comments.”
Could one of the BBC clones please explain how the BBC can berate the internet for racism when the BBCs own 5 live is guilty of the very same crime yet chose to ignore it quoting to a complaint made to it;
“We have decided that it does not contravene the House Rules and are going to leave it on site”.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/07/13/racist_lies_on_bbc_noticeboard.php
P.S
Islam isn’t a race it is a religion.
P.P.S
Iron Naz is still posting hate on the BBC web sites. Maybe the BBC likes him around.
About gays
“If i was a muslim hotel owner, i would not allow gay couples in. Sorry, but my hotel would be strictly aimed at families and hetrosexual couples. I dont care if thats discrimination. If its my businesses i’d run it how i chose.”
About gurkhas
“Yes, i think these merceneries should be allowed in”
About the police
“I wonder if Brazil can extradite the police “officer” who murdered De Menezes? That way they can try him for murder of one of their citizens, and if found guilty, punish him according to Brazillian law, which, as far as I know, carries the death penalty.”
The BBCs fav subject
“Over the months, the racism on these boards has deteriorated and got more and more aggressive. The Islamophobia, in particular has been particularly bad. I am delighted the BBC have taken the steps to address this.
Kind regards
IronNaz”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/MP2460282
The BBC, racism and half a story.
Not really about BBC bias – more about quality. I’ve just spent half an hour listening on line to Minnesota Public Radio from Minneapolis/St Paul.
High quality news broadcasting. Complex issues carefully explained, no pressing interviewees for speculative guesses, no jumping to blame-laden conclusions, interviewees not constantly interrupted, expressions of impatience and disbelief by presenters entirely absent. End result: the listener ends with as full as possible a picture of what has happened and no axes have been ground.
The Today and WATO and PM guys just wouldn’t be considered for jobs in such an organisation.
Actually there IS a bias issue: public radio in the USA is, like the BBC, generally associated (its promoters and its listeners) with the liberal left – yet somehow it is so much more professional than the BBC!
[Moved from another thread:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/6927209.stm
A driver died and five police officers were hurt when a van exploded as it was being followed by police in Liverpool….Merseyside Police said a patrol car had been in “slow pursuit” of the van before it stopped just before it exploded.]
re the Liverpool explosion.
Watching BBC News 24, a spokesperson for the police told us “I want to stress its not a terrorist related incident”
And then, most remarkable, given that an investigation is underway: the BBC flashed up for us:
Dead man is white in his 40s
Now , I may be a cynic but is not this description of the ethnicity of the dead man highly unusual? Can anybody remind me when the BBC flahes up for us Dead man is black?
No, I thought not, and this raises the question of bias. Why do they feel they need to inform us of the man’s ethnicity in this case, but in others they are usually silent. Remember an investigation has been promised because of the large number of police involved and the fact that they had been following this van.
Edited By Siteowner
I gave up on the sci-fi series Heroes halfway through the first episode. New Age twaddle, I thought. How right I was, judging by the Heroes-themed publicity the BBC is giving to the pseudoscientific hippy bullshit ramblings of Steve Taylor. Who cares if it’s free advertising – BBC ratings matter more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6926500.stm
(More pseudoscientific hippy bullshit ramblings from Steve Taylor: http://www.steventaylor.talktalk.net/essays.htm)
From Anonanon’s link above: “Einstein showed in his theory of relativity that time is related to other factors. So it’s not just an illusion, they [the sportsmen] are actually slowing down time. It’s the same in accident situations, we shift out of our normal consciousness.”
Oh my god. What a steaming pile of crap that is. Let’s see. Relativity says that time is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer, although the effects are negligible unless you’re talking about travelling at speeds close to the speed of light.
Therefore a golfer has a different perception of time.
As Hillhunt used to say: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees…………
The BBC, polio and half a story.
pounce | 02.08.07 – 12:35 pm |
i read the entire article
reith, please tell me why neither the “m” word nor the “i” word was mentioned a single time in this article, yet at least one of them was a “sine qua non” for this situation?
this very germane fact had to be deliberately suppressed by writer or editor or both. why? why such generic references to ‘religious’ leaders?
talk about (NOT) getting to “root causes”…
“After the attack, many websites and discussion forums, including one hosted by a national newspaper, attracted a number of racist and anti-Islamic comments.”
pounce | 02.08.07 – 1:59 pm |
reith, why was this not reported as “…a number of … anti-religious comments”?
(Do you see, given the facts and context, how truly ridiculous that would sound?)
“Tehran killers hanged in public”
If I read only the headling and the first paragraph (in bold as usual) of this BBC story, I’d be left with the impression that there aren’t that many executions in Iran.
I realize the second paragraph states that there were nine public hangings in other parts of the country the day before but they explain it all in the next paragraph: “
Oh, is that what it is? To me, the BBC in certain ways seems to justify these hangings.
I’m no real fan of Reuters either, but when I read their coverage I’m certainly left with a different impression. Even their first paragraph seems to set a different tone:
“TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran hanged the killers of a judge, who had jailed several reformist dissidents, before a crowd of hundreds of people on Thursday.”
In the Reuters piece one also learns that:
It’s funny. I’m a little angrier after reading the Reuters piece and just can’t figure out why.
Umbongo,
That’s a bit late, don’t you think? If that is the news event which would prompt a special feature on the Brothers Castro and their sacred realm, as you seem to imply, surely the feature would have been published at most a day later. No, the passage of a week’s time severely diminishes any chance causality.
Unless you actually meant that the medical school incident has been on the collective hive-mind of the BBC ever since, and they felt it necessary to come up with something more reassuring to the sheeple. Things can’t be too good then if it took them a whole week to come up with such drivel.
Exploding vans?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2189478.ece
Am I alone in noticing that the BBC originally offered exclusive mobile phone footage of the van and then quickly withdrew this? OK, this really does sound like a suicide bomber, five policemen who were following this van, and then approached the van and only then boom. What are the odds of such a thing going boom spontaneously as the five policemen approached?
Lords rap BBC chairman selection
The way Sir Michael Lyons was appointed BBC chairman has come under attack from an all-party select committee.
The government’s role in appointing the chairman of the BBC Trust should be limited, according to a House of Lords Communications Committee report.
The process used to appoint Sir Michael earlier this year gave ministers “considerable opportunity” to influence the selection, the committee said.
…
Liberal Democrat spokesman Don Foster MP said the report “highlights the failure of the government’s post-Hutton attempts to reform the BBC”.
“There is now real confusion as to who ensures the BBC remains independent from political interference and who is representing the interests of the licence fee payer,” he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6928181.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6928854.stm
Love the way they refer to him so respectfully as ‘Mr’ Ahmed.
amimissingsomething | 02.08.07 – 7:43 pm
reith, please tell me why neither the “m” word nor the “i” word was mentioned a single time in this article
Because when someone is billed as the Secretary General of the Supreme Sharia Council of Nigeria it is as unnecessary to add the adjective ‘Muslim’ as it would be to append the epithet ‘Catholic’ to the head of the Spanish Inquisition.
johnj | 02.08.07 – 3:22 pm
I may be a cynic but is not this description of the ethnicity of the dead man highly unusual?
Fairly unusual.
Why do they feel they need to inform us of the man’s ethnicity in this case, but in others they are usually silent.
Because the Police were anxious to reassure local people that their community was not being targeted by Al Qaeda terrorists and that there was no continuing need for particular caution or alarm.
Responsible, public service broadcasting at its best.
Green activism and anti-capitalist propaganda subsidised by the licence fee – the BBC’s Green Room.
IN ten days time we will remember the partition of the subcontinent into Pakistan and India 60 years ago, followed later by the breakaway of Bangladesh. To mark this there are several programmes on radio and TV. I declare an interest – I was in army intelligence in Bombay in the days leading up to the end of the Raj – I left on the Georgic, the last ship to leave British India. Already the remarks by presenters are slanted to suggest that it was the wicked British who partitioned India. Legally this is true – but the fact is that Mountbatten absolutely did not want partition, and along with Nehru and Gandhi fought hard to preserve that great country as one. Another programme is to dwell on Muhammad Ali Jinnah ‘and his vision’. Jinnah was not originally in favour of partition; he was a completely westernised gentleman in his tailored English suits. He was threatened by the Muslim League, who promised violence if they did not get an Islamic state. In an attempt to keep India whole, Gandhi and Nehru said that Jinnah could be at the top of the new government but Jinnah was trapped by the Islamist militants. The consequence was upwards of 2 millions slaughtered; 300,00O killed later in the nascent Bangladesh by W Pakistan forces, who used widespread rape as a weapon of suppression. And the death a few months later of Jinnah himself – can anyone doubt that he died crushed by the awful consequences of his surrender to the fanatics. And consider what India might have become if it had stayed united – instead there were two wars, continual fighting over Kashmir, the degradation of Bangladesh,the tottering state of Pakistan, and the borders armed like an iron curtain dividing areas, such as the Punjab which for centuries had been one. What a cost to satisfy the greed for power by the Islamists. But will this history be presented in these programmes, or will the British as usual be cast as villains?
johnj
“Why do they feel they need to inform us of the man’s ethnicity in this case, but in others they are usually silent.”
Reith
“Because the Police were anxious to reassure local people that their community was not being targeted by Al Qaeda terrorists and that there was no continuing need for particular caution or alarm.”
So:
All whites are non-Al Qaedaa terrorists
therefore
All Al Qaeda terrorists are non-white
So why are we not racially pofiling?
John Gill
Despite what Reith has to say, good spotting, johnj:
“Why do they feel they need to inform us of the man’s ethnicity in this case, but in others they are usually silent.”
johnj | 02.08.07 – 3:22 pm
Because the Police were anxious to reassure local people that their community was not being targeted by Al Qaeda terrorists and that there was no continuing need for particular caution or alarm.
Responsible, public service broadcasting at its best.
John Reith | 03.08.07 – 10:32 am
Afraid not, Mr. Reith. The BBC was jumping up and down and pointing to this rare white man to prove to us that not all people who blow things up are swarthy Muslims from the east. “See, it’s not just them!” the BBC is triumphantly exclaiming here, as it continues on its despicable course to try to blind us to the fact that 99% or more of terrorists are of eastern origin and born into a certain unmentionable religion beginning with an ‘I’.
If the BBC were really trying to emphasise that it wasn’t a terrorist attack, why highlight the fact that the guy was white? There are no white terrorists? What colour was shoe bomber Richard Reed? And the BBC has the interests of the public at heart? You jest.
No matter how hard you try to fudge the issue, John Reith, you wont pull the wool over anyone’s eyes here.
Irresponsible, public disservice broadcasting at its worst, from the BBC.
On last night’s Newsnight on BBC2 regarding the bridge collapse Kirsty Wark asked her reporter in the field “and what has the reaction been from Washington”. The drone replied along the lines that the White House almost immediatly issued a statement that the bridge is the responsibility of the local government and implied that this was an attempt to “contain” the story in the state and not let it “leak” up to Washington (by the media). At that point he reminded us that Bush was criticised over Katrina (by the media).
Just 3 minutes before he had told us that there were tens of thousands of similar bridges in the country. I am not sure if he thinks the Federal Govenrment should be responsible for maintaining all of them
Never ones to miss the chance to use the deaths of scores of people to stick it to Bush eh?
‘Because when someone is billed as the Secretary General of the Supreme Sharia Council of Nigeria it is as unnecessary to add the adjective ‘Muslim’ as it would be to append the epithet ‘Catholic’ to the head of the Spanish Inquisition.’
While a fair number of people know that the Spanish Inquisition involved Catholics are you really suggesting that most people know about the Supreme Sharia Council of Nigeria?
The Supreme Sharia Council of Nigeria is hardly a water cooler topic?
“The Supreme Sharia Council of Nigeria is hardly a water cooler topic?”
No but sharia implies muslim in the same way that bishop implies christian.
RfS –
Yes, I noticed that odd (attempted) connection of the bridge collapse to Washington. But I had a bit different take on it.
BBC news, both TV and radio, seem to be almost entirely unable to comprehend the American federal government system. In so many news reports, one would get the impression that the US President is a British Prime Minister with knobs on. He isn’t.
The US President is the head of the federal layer of the government only. The US Constitution severely limits both his own powers and those of the federal government. Everything else is expressly reserved to the individual states. In fact, if you consider the range/scope of actions permitted, a British PM is arguably more powerful than a US President. But you would not get that from the BBC.
It may be that Beeb correspondents simply don’t realise this, as indeed so many British people don’t. Or it may be that by ignoring it and assuming the President has the same responsibilities in national life as does a PM, it gives them yet another stick to bash Bush. Ignorance or malice; take your pick.
Bryan | 03.08.07 – 11:55 am |
Afraid not, Mr. Reith. The BBC was jumping up and down and pointing to this rare white man to prove to us that not all people who blow things up are swarthy Muslims from the east. “See, it’s not just them!” the BBC is triumphantly exclaiming here, as it continues on its despicable course to try to blind us to the fact that 99% or more of terrorists are of eastern origin
Nonsense. The BBC News 24 segement included (as johnj himself noted in his original post) an interview with a Police spokesman who said: I want to stress it’s not a terrorist related incident
There are no white terrorists? What colour was shoe bomber Richard Reed?
He had a Jamaican father and an English mother. What would you say?
on HYS:
“What are your experiences of British behaviour abroad? Do Brits behave worse than other nationalities? Have you needed consular help in a foreign country? Send us your comments and experiences. ”
Good. I’m awaiting similar discussions on Arab behviour – are they more likely to blow up buildings than other nationalities?
Because the Police were anxious to reassure local people that their community was not being targeted by Al Qaeda terrorists and that there was no continuing need for particular caution or alarm
JR this is not really an assurance. Litvenienko was white, many of his brothers-in-arms in the Chechen Islamist movement are also white (Caucasian is a more accurate ethnological description). It is a well known fact that Bin Laden has Chechen bodyguards. No, the BBC just got scared, and gave an untypical knee-jerk response and merely confirmed the stereotypical image of the terrorist for us all. Clearly they are very jumpy after Glasgow and London.
Does
David Hicks ring any bells, the so called Australian Taliban
Does John Walker Lindh ring bells?
Does the BBC think that by describing the dead man as “white” they can assuage the fears and doubts of the public that it wasn’t undertaking by adherents and followers of a murdering and fanatical ideology- I really think you underestimate the intelligence of the British public. JR.
But it is fascinating to see the BBC getting so hyper-nervous about it all. Another way of looking at it, and this, I think, is a much more credible reason, is that this was nothing more than an attempt to placate the real fears within the local Muslim community. All of those avidly watching & listening to their avalanche of programmes on Wonderful Pakistan right now, in short “No it wasn’t one of us this time around, thank goodness!”. We all know how even the police, when they make terrorist arrests nowadays in the so called local communities, hire out private unsigned vehicles.
I think it was a message of reassurance and solidarity to all of those who the BBC think is respectable and decent, that is to say an address to the 9/10ths as we read today in our newspapers:
One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide
More than anything, if what you say happened it highlights the real collusion that exists to socially engineer the news. But this wasn’t to “reassure us” JR. I’m amazed how this news has been put on the back-burner so quickly. Presumably the very quick stealth-editing and withdrawal of the images of the van was also responsible broadcasting? I’m more interested in the editorial decision to show us these images on the BBC web site, rather than who it was who decided to take them down again, yet another one of those bizarre Winston Smith moments straight out of 1984. Editing out the truth, in case it creates difficulties.
Don’t get me wrong this is a welcome change, but I’m sceptical that they will also help out Operation Trident in future by telling us the “Dead youth is black and in his teens” The BBC is usually very reluctant to announce that the usual gun/ knife crime has been carried out by black on blacks. They prefer to keep us guessing at the ethnicity- strange that, all we want is objective news reporting. At least yesterday’s newsflash tells us that they can do it. If they try.
Perhaps it’s as James Naughtie remarked this morning on Radio 4s Today progr. chatting with the brother of the “Gentle Giant” boxer recently gunned down in a sleazy night club for asking punters not to smoke, “We are all getting a little immune to this”. Indeed, Mr Naughtie, but think, if the BBC persist in telling us that the victims and perpetrators are black, every time we hear of a gun shooting or knife crime they might very well start to question one of those BBC holy cows such as the value of multiculturalism. One of those BBC Win-lose situations.
David Prieser
I will never attempt irony again.
My only point was that any item which shows Cuba in a good light – and has the concomitant benefit of showing the US in a bad one – appears to be grist for the BBC mill. This remarkably un-newsworthy “news” was considered so vital by the BBC that it was featured – at inordinate length – in its major morning news broadcast.
“The BBC was jumping up and down and pointing to this rare white man to prove to us that not all people who blow things up are swarthy Muslims from the east. “See, it’s not just them!” the BBC is triumphantly exclaiming here, as it continues on its despicable course to try to blind us to the fact that 99% or more of terrorists are of eastern origin and born into a certain unmentionable religion beginning with an ‘I'”
Bryan, you are taking either telepathy or projection to a new level of art form.
Out of interest, what factual evidence relating specifically to this event makes you so sure that your version of events is the correct one?
And on your 99% figure, a couple of pointers seeing as you want to indulge yourself with rhetorical flourishes but hold the media accountable for every comma and full stop.
1) Even some of the muslim terrorists aren’t Eastern. 2) You are airbrushing Irish terrorists, operational on the mainland until 2002 and still active in Ulster. 3) Though less ambitious, animal liberation wackos are still active and responsible for 3 separate terrorist incidents in 2005. 4) Don’t forget the Italian anarchists. 5) Or the Russians.
Van Explosion
johnj
Why do they feel they need to inform us of the man’s ethnicity in this case, but in others they are usually silent.
John Reith
Because the Police were anxious to reassure local people that their community was not being targeted by Al Qaeda terrorists and that there was no continuing need for particular caution or alarm.
JR – I’m confused. Is it right to say that you are suggesting that if the police do not mention the subject’s ethnicity the BBC assume it’s non-white and if the police say it is white then the BBC assume the subject is not a terrorist?
If this is not correct, then how should we interpret your comment? Please elucidate.
http://www.melaniephillips.com
Hamas manipulates the West.
Interesting comments from ‘Spectator’ on the role of the BBC promoting Hamas, after negotiating Alan Johnston’s release.
Terror enigma’s life of obscurity
He went from a life of total obscurity to become one of the suspects in an attack which brought terror to Scotland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6917088.stm
Suspect?
A man who crashes a Jeep into Glasgow airport loaded with gas canistors. Pours petrol over himself, fights with the people who are trying to put him out after he decides to light up and the BBC calls him a suspect?
Pounce: although they did say “terror” this time.
The BBC, PTSD and half a story.
‘The Army ignored my illness’
Members of the armed forces who spend long periods of time on deployments abroad are more likely to suffer from mental health problems, research indicates. Barry Donnan, now aged 36, served for six years in Belize, Northern Ireland and the Gulf War as a soldier in an infantry regiment of the Scottish Division.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6929124.stm
Now when I did my EFP2 I as my project wrote about PTSD in the armed forces and conclude that Armed forces did not treat it as it should. So in that light I stand by Mr Barry Donnan. However I do believe the BBC is somewhat remiss in not declaring the full facts about Mr Barry Donnan in that;
1) His PTSD started (in his own words) from been sent to collect dead bodies from the Lockerbie disaster and not from serving long tours.
2) His 9 month tour of Belize included 3 months of a civil court case (not Military) over the death of a Belizean soldier. (Caught my eye as most people (including myself did 6) He was acquitted.
3) He was medically discharged with a full army medical pension (Which has subsequently been cut due to his improvement of his mental state) which recognised he was suffering from PTSD
4) He is a peace •protester who in his spare time campaigns outside Army recruiting centres against the war in Iraq, Child soldiers and capitalism and their plans for global domination. Emphasis Mr Donnans
5) Lastly he is on record of writing this;
“However, we need support, press coverage, to enable us to take our message to the public”
Whilst I fully support Mr Donnan in his campaign in the treatment of PTSD for military personnel (Which I have to admit the MOD has started to rectify) The BBC should have been a lot clearer in stating this mans history, (he left for Iraq after 8 weeks on returning from Belize BBC and not 3) and how his political leaning does impact on the story.
Information gleaned from this;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020108/halltext/20108h03.htm
http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw48/GIW-imperialism.html
The BBC, PTSD and half a story.
Forgot to mention Mr Barry Donnan is perfectly within his right to protest outside Army recruiting centres and the best of luck to him. That in noway detracts against him as a human being.
Nonsense. The BBC News 24 segement included (as johnj himself noted in his original post) an interview with a Police spokesman who said: I want to stress it’s not a terrorist related incident
John Reith | 03.08.07 – 1:46 pm
Quite. I did notice that. But you are tripping all over yourself because, in response to johnj’s question:
Why do they feel they need to inform us of the man’s ethnicity in this case, but in others they are usually silent.
You said this:
Because the Police were anxious to reassure local people that their community was not being targeted by Al Qaeda terrorists and that there was no continuing need for particular caution or alarm.
John Reith | 03.08.07 – 10:32 am
And the BBC assisted the police in that aim by flashing on the screen that the man was white? It’s far more likely that what appeared on the screen was unconnected to the police reassurance.
Over the years the BBC has taken its anti-white bias to extreme proportions. This has been evident to anyone prepared to take his head out of the sand. Try not to be such an ostrich, John Reith and stop doing a Fran Unsworth on us:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5459254835027768233/#366153
Anon | 03.08.07 – 1:57 pm,
OK, I’ll give you 98%.
Bryan, Bob & johnj
I can’t see why you are all making such a meal of this.
After what happened in Glasgow, it would be perfectly understandable that people in Liverpool, hearing that a van had exploded, would be worried that terrorists had picked their city this time • and that further explosions might take place.
The Police quite rightly acted to reassure the public by briefing the media that they did not regard it as a terrorist incident and that the driver had been a white man in his 40s (not fitting the current terrorist profile). Shortly afterwards they announced that no trace of explosives had been found in what was left of the van.
The BBC • along with everybody else • reported this information.
What’s the big deal?