Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
It did seem odd to her about the Sky presenter having an accidentally on-air snipe at the EVILLLLLLLLLL TOREEEEES and their immigration policies, until you read that Julie Etchingham was trained by the BBC.
Perhaps that’s why the BBC, normally delighted to crow at their rivals’ misfortunes, are very quiet about it.
You can take the presenter out of the BBC, but……
Dr R writes>
I am asking you if you see a difference between the treatment of gays by Jews and Christians, on the one hand, and Muslims on the other.
Depends on time and place.
Christians (and I’m a seriously Catholic one) have been intolerant throughout most of our history, but are less so now. Not that the Daily Telegraph thinks so •
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/harrydequetteville/
For many years some Islamic countries were much more tolerant than some Western ones. Take Morocco – Gays used to flock to Tangiers. Islamic countries have gone backwards in many cases.
In Britain we de-criminalized homosexual acts in, I think, 1967. I read somewhere the other day that ‘sodomy laws’ were only abolished in a number of US states a couple of years ago. The FBI reports about 1700 hate crimes based on sexual orientation per annum and some crimes not filed under that heading – e.g. Matthew Sheperd • end in death.
Presumably Bible-literalists, like Koranic-literalists buy into the whole ‘death-deserving’ deal.
As for Judaism – Despite what you say, I remember David Landau saying that homosexual acts were punishable by death under the halacha. That was about 15 years ago. Has it changed?
can you understand why some of us do not feel we should be forced to support this vile, propagandist organisation?
Goodness you people resort to some extravagant language!
Vile and propagandist are decidedly unsuitable words to apply to dear old Auntie.
They practicallly fall over themselves trying to be fair and reasonable. If the BBC does have a serious fault it’s too much sweet reason and not enough kick-em-up the backside oomph!
Yes, but all religions are intolerant. However, the BBC sees only fit to attack the Christians and Jews.
Additionally, can someone please tell me where in the west (or the evil USA) homosexuals are hung from crane jibs by the state on a regular basis?
Hi Charlotte,
Many of us on here just want the option of not paying to fund the BBC.
I for one don’t mind if you or anyone else thinks they are good value and worth paying a subscription for.
That decision should be down to each individual to decide.
Rockall | 30.10.07 – 3:58 pm
Hi Rockall – I always love it when you come on the shipping forecast.
that decision should be down to each individual to decide
And it is.
Every four years or so my local MP knocks at the door to ask if he can be sure of my vote once again.
I always make a point of making him promise to keep the BBC and its licence-fee.
Once he’s agreed, I pledge him my vote.
When they’ve been elected, all the MPs meet in the Commons to vote on whether or not to renew the BBC charter.
It’s called democracy.
And we all get an equal say.
Charlotte
Your notion of democracy is amusingly quaint and thoroughly Beeboid. For those of us in the real world, however, the answer seems obvious: you want the BBC, fine, pay for it. I loathe it and everything it represents (though I do like the Shipping Forecast and would be very happy to subscribe to that particular service).
But enough chatter.
I’m afraid your answer was woeful. I ask you whether you perceive a difference between the treatment of gay people in Western and Islamic countries and you come back with the Colemanballsesque response: “depends on time and place”. Mmmm. Are you trying to be droll?
Perhaps you didn’t understand my question? Let me try again: as you know, if America or Israel or the UK hanged gays from cranes the BBC reporting would be vocal and wholly critical, no? Likewise clitoral amputations, honour killings, the servitude of women and a million of other “cultural” things.
I am asking you (now please concentrate!)… why are there two standards? Why do you ignore human rights abuses in darfur or Tehran that drive you to distraction in Florida, Tel Aviv or London?
Go on… have a go at answering the question!
Actually, we’re so respectful of Islam in this country that we subsidise its religious customs. Here’s an exchange from the Scottish Parliament last Thursday:
“Bashir Ahmad: Is the minister aware of the current gap in the service that the national health service provides for parents who wish to circumcise their children for religious reasons? In my constituency, the waiting list for the service can be as long as two years. That often leads Scottish parents either to travel down to England or to pay a higher price for the service to be carried out privately. Clearly, that is a difficult situation for parents to be in. Is she prepared to discuss the issue further with me to examine how the current service can be improved?
Col 2741
Nicola Sturgeon: I am well aware, not least because of my constituency interest, of the importance of the issue to the Muslim community. I absolutely agree that waiting times for the procedure have been excessively long—indeed, they are up to three years in some cases in Glasgow. The main reason for those waiting lists was that availability status codes were applied to the procedure. The fact that the Government is abolishing availability status codes will mean that all patients will now be treated within the maximum waiting time guarantees. We will also work to improve referral patterns, which will help to reduce waiting times further. We are working to raise awareness of the procedures in the Muslim community and to ensure that NHS staff are properly trained so that they can give appropriate advice to parents.
I am very happy indeed to meet Bashir Ahmad, whose interest in the issue is noteworthy, to discuss what further we can do to improve services.”
Dr R | 30.10.07 – 4:31 pm
Well, whoa. If I thought after two years in corporate law and six in investment banking I’d got beyond patronizing males…….
Okay – I’m concentrating. You assert (with no evidence) that the BBC doesn’t report human rights violations in Iran and other Islamic countries.
Since something that’s asserted with no evidence can be rebutted without evidence, I could just say: balls.
But then I do have the evidence of my own eyes and ears that these things are frequently reported. Certainly the picture of the Islamic world I get off the BBC isn’t one of liberal tolerance, happy, smiling gays, women’s rights etc.
Then there’s the fact that I’ve met many of the reporters who go to these countries for the BBC. I know how and what they think. The world I know bears little relation to the world as you imagine it.
The little woman has to do the school run now.
Hey….who winds the clocks in this place? They’re an hour fast.
Don’t you just love it when lefties invoke representative democracy? They do it all the time these days when it suits them, now that so many laws are framed as they prefer. You never heard them talking about representative democracy when they wanted everything changed. You never heard them go on about representative democracy when homosexuality used to be against the law, for example. Then it was all about individual rights — and fair enough, too. Well, individual rights are what we want. Let’s start with the right not to go to jail for not paying for a TV and radio network that you don’t wish to use.
Jihadwatch has Al Beeb’s number here:
” BBC trolls for Muslim grievance stories ” (30 Oct.)
http://www.jihadwatch.org
( scroll down).
Charlotte wrote;
“Christians (and I’m a seriously Catholic one) have been intolerant throughout most of our history, but are less so now.”
Here is a snippet from the preface of that report which the BBC is doings its best in which to keep the British public in the dark about.
“We recognise, of course, that hate and
separatist literature is not the exclusive preserve
of Muslims. On the contrary, offensive
and troubling material is generated
under the banner of most faiths. However,
the hate and separatist literature found in
some mosques and reported in these pages
is of a wholly different order from that
which one would expect to find in mainstream
religious institutions of other faiths
in this country today.
Adultery, apostasy and homosexuality,
for instance, are deprecated by all the
Abrahamic religions, and many others
besides. But mainstream Christianity and
Judaism, at least as practised in western
Europe today, do not respond to these spiritual
challenges with either an implied or
an explicit threat of violence; nor do they
seek to place the blame for developments
such as birth control on dark conspiratorial
forces (such as the notion that contraception
is a plot to keep Muslim populations
low).”
And just to keep the pot boiling;
“Western values- particularly concerning the position
and rights of women and in the realm of
sexuality generally – are rejected as inimical
to Islam.”
>Then there’s the fact that I’ve met many of the reporters who go to these countries for the BBC. I know how and what they think.
Yes, they think rather like you. Which is the root of the problem with the BBC.
Charlotte | 30.10.07 – 3:37 pm
As for Judaism – Despite what you say, I remember David Landau saying that homosexual acts were punishable by death under the halacha. That was about 15 years ago. Has it changed?
I doubt anyone could find even one instance in the last 1,500 years when the death penalty was carried out under the Jewish Halacha for any crime.
The approach seems to have been that Torah proscribed the death penalty for a number of crimes, and then made so restrictions on its application that it was almost never carried out. The effect was educational rather that punishment.
However the Koranic death penalty is being carried out today and in considerable numbers, including in Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International claims that the Saudis have one of the highest rates of executions in the world in both absolute numbers and per capita. Non-violent crimes of apostasy and “witchcraft”, “sexual offences”, acts deemed to amount to “corruption on earth”, and crimes such as drug dealing are subject to execution often after blatantly unfair trials.
I’m waiting for the first Muslim killer to successfully raise the Koran defense in a British court and the BBC to cheer this as an example of toleration for other views.
I’m waiting for the BBC to ask ‘hard questions’ during the visit of King Abdullah.
… I’m still waiting
deegee
“I’m waiting for the BBC to ask ‘hard questions’ during the visit of King Abdullah.”
Was it John Simpson who said on Today this morning that he “almost” declined to interview King Abdullah when a whole raft of questions were deemed inappropriate (assumedly by the Saudis)?
So brave . . . . .
It looks as if the BBC have pulled their page asking for Muslim airport grievance stories. Did anyone get a page capture? A few non-Muslims wrote in to say they were searched at airports, so why the Muslim griping?
Charlotte. you really are a little darling. I loved this quote
“…But then I do have the evidence of my own eyes and ears that these things are frequently reported. Certainly the picture of the Islamic world I get off the BBC isn’t one of liberal tolerance, happy, smiling gays, women’s rights etc…”
Did you not watch the bile pumped out by the BBC on Sharia law the other week? Sharia law is GOOD FOR WOMEN. Forget all that stoning, the brutal beatings etc. Women have a voice with Sharia.
I was really surprised not to see the short dumpy dungaree wearing Greenham Common lot charging off down to the nearest Mosque wanting to become Muslim “sisters”
I can’t think of a single example of where the BBC has done any investigation into the treatment of homosexuals and women in Islam? Perhaps you might be able to enlighten me? Generally it has been Channel 4. The BBC sticks to good old reliable stories like the BNP and the Police (racist lot). Typical of the arts educated liberal elite.
The BBC always dribble on about the death penalty in the USA and in fact have been reporting all week on the case going to the Supreme Court at the moment to outlaw death by lethal injection.
However, two men were beheaded in Saudi Arabia today, nothing inhumane about that then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7069832.stm
“…President of Edinburgh University’s Students Association, Josh McAlister, said he would rather the money was spent on relieving student debt and supporting further education.
…
Not all students at Edinburgh University agreed with his concerns, but his views were echoed by Labour.”
On the face of it, seems okay. Dig deeper and you find that Josh McAlister is in fact a Labour party member and was the Labour party candidate for EUSA president. His flyers even carried a Labour rose.
Clearly Mr McAlister’s strong party affiliation should have been disclosed in the article, instead of making it seem like he’s independent of partisan point-scoring.
Yet more utter c**p on the BBC 6PM news.
These new Government travel advisors. Bacically more jobs for Guardian readers with a degree in Media Studies.
The BBC reporter “claimed” that these schemes were really good and that in Peterborough it had only cost £1 million and had advised 20,000 people and cut road use by 10%.
Er except Peterborough has more than 20,000 people so was that 10% cut un the people advised or an overall cut?
And can we really believe any figures pumped out by this failed Government?
I’ll star to ride my bike when I see fatso Brown and the rest of the Nu Labour idiots doing the same (so don’t hold your breath)
Why does the BBC believe EVERY statistic the Government throws out without any checking?
This is the request the BBC put out with the Shahid Malik non-story:
“Are you a Muslim who has been detained in an American airport? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below”
Now they have inexplicably pulled this and all the comments that appeared initially.
Will somebody from the BBC please explain what has happened?
David Gregory, ‘John Reith ‘ – please tell us what has happened.
Truly delightful, inadvertent John Simpson moment, showing both his profound bias and how easily the poor old boy can be manipulated:
Saudi King sharp-minded as ever
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7069877.stm
The king doesn’t want to answer questions on certain international subjects (guess which) and valiant John is standing his ground because he wants to ask them, by golly. The interview could die before it gets started. And then:
“Something else had become clear to me by now. The king was not refusing to talk about Iran and Iraq because he was not interested in them. [LOL – sorry]
On the contrary, I now realised he felt so strongly about what the US had done in Iraq, and the thought that they might soon bomb Iran, that he felt he might upset his relations with Washington if he spoke openly to me.
So I agreed.”
How kind of John to put Saudi – US relations above doing his job. I’m sure he’d also have agreed to waive his questions and carry on if he’d realised that the Saudi king was delighted over Iraq and couldn’t wait for George to start bombing Iran, thus saving Saudi relations elsewhere.
So there you have it, national leaders. If you wish to avoid having BBC grandees ask questions on touchy subjects, just let them think that your opinions on those match theirs. It’ll be kid gloves from then on.
Of course, the grandee might still be so vain as to ascribe opinions to you that you haven’t expressed, but you can always dismiss that as the typical action of a presumptuous twit.
.
Has anyone figured out the significance of the word ‘migrants’ rather than ‘immigrants’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7069779.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7068291.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7048205.stm
etc
***This is the request the BBC put out with the Shahid Malik non-story:
“Are you a Muslim who has been detained in an American airport? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below”
Now they have inexplicably pulled this and all the comments that appeared initially.
Will somebody from the BBC please explain what has happened?
David Gregory, ‘John Reith ‘ – please tell us what has happened.***
I’m not John Reith, and I don’t work for the BBC, but I can explain exactly what happened.
They dredged for dirt. They got a little – about 5 posts. Then white, non-Muslims, posted that they got the same treatment. People like me tried to contribute, pointing out things like the gentleman from Zimbabwe who was recently not merely inconvenienced for a few hours, but detained for TWO DAYS by British immigration, for being black, apparently (they didn’t publish me, obviously).
It wasn’t going the way they wanted. At all.
In fact, it was so badly off course, they didn’t just close it, they got rid of it.
Ho ho. I pay for these ridiculous lunatics.
matthew – I assume it’s more leftist ‘new speak’. ‘Immigrant’ has negative connotations, hence the use of ‘migrant’ which is deemed more neutral, although it is usually less accurate, eg the headline; ‘Migration causes pressure in UK’ – when it is really caused by immigration.
Sarah – a perfect example of BBC anti-Americanism. If it was about any other nation then the [thought]police would probably consider it racist and launch an investigation.
“Are you a Muslim who has been detained in an American airport? Did you think it was justified? Send us your comments using the form below”
This is a pretty brainless exercise though, isn’t it? Any fool could masquerade as a wronged Muslim – or a wronged Methodist for that matter – and claim to have been the victim of some outrage or other.
Naturally, sensible people like Biased BBC posters wouldn’t do such a thing.
I really am Nelson Mandela. Honest.
Sprogg: Then please accept our commiserations having been married to Winnie! You poor boy!
Sarah wrote;
“Then white, non-Muslims, posted that they got the same treatment. People like me tried to contribute, pointing out things like the gentleman from Zimbabwe who was recently not merely inconvenienced for a few hours, but detained for TWO DAYS by British immigration, for being black, apparently (they didn’t publish me, obviously).
Sarah as much as I feel sorry for the gentleman arrested and nicked in the province.. Please allow me to explain a little something to you.
Southern Ireland is currently a conduit for illegals who wish to relocate to the Mainland as soon as they land. As the border is more than porous between North and South it doesn’t take a lot to end up at either Larne or Belfast city in which to try and sneak into the UK.
The man was let go after 2 days. (In which time his Uk status was verified) for his troubles he was paid £7k not bad going for 48 hours. Yes they (the immigration crowd) could have been a little nicer. However it appears that all the media see (And I include the BBC here) is a racist hate crime. If this man was picked on for being black. Then don’t visit the Aldergrove airport market on a Sunday as most of the sellers are not whiteskinned.
Gerald Brown:News Quiz
It is of interst that only ‘right-wing’ people require to be identified as such
Socialists, lefties, trotskyists, marxists, maoists or plain left wingers are never flagged as such
Much like elections where the candidates are invariably differentiated by whether they are right wing (boo hiss) or not (trebles all round)
Such is impartiality
Sometimes, Bryan, you get quite close to sounding like a crank.
John Reith | 30.10.07 – 10:23 am
You should know better than to say something like that. If you have learned anything from engaging with us on this site it should be that you need to justify the position you take. I can quote you chapter and verse to back up each and every argument I have made here. You can’t. Hell, you even evade debates that you have previously undertaken to engage in.
Now why do you imagine that the default position of numerous BBC journalists (yes, I can name them) is to support the most radical of Islamic terrorist groups against those who oppose them? For example, you didn’t notice the BBC love fest with Hamas, both pre and post-Johnston? Or the BBC’s slavish obedience to propaganda and outright lies pumped out by Hezbollah during the war? I did, as did many others.
So are these journalists simply taking this misguided stance out of miseducated left-wing idealism? Or are they a little more directly involved in radical Islam?
Whatever the case, they are doing tremendous damage here. The prettying up of the hideous face of Al Qaeda for very young children on Newsround is one example among thousands.
You and your friends at the BBC need to do something about this, John Reith, and as a matter of urgency. But before you can do anything about it, you obviously have to acknowledge that there is a problem.
That was my impression too, bodo. It is a very odd word though, we do not have an immigration and emmigration problem, we have an immigration problem.
I suppose it is the same BBC logic that says that you need to target everyone (not just Muslims) when looking for Islamic terrorists.
I did however notice yesterday the lefty instincts reined in a little:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/75407/diff/1/2
1: Foreign workers rise by 300,000
(in fact it was not foreign workers that had just risen, it was the government’s estimate of their number.)
2: Foreign worker numbers revised (again, no indication of any wrongdoing by the government)
3. Hain sorry for ‘wrong’ figures (implies government wrong, BUT reports the Labour contrition rather than the actual criticism, which seems odd, if you didn’t print any other article detailing the criticism; also does not say WHAT figures – deliberately avoids the dreaded word ‘immigration’, what figures???)
5. Hain sorry for migration ‘error’ (now at least uses the mealy-mouthed ‘migration’ so it’s clear what story is about, but still leading on ‘Hain sorry’, rather than ‘Hain wrong’, and strangely putting error in quote marks, even though it is not reported speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7069877.stm
John Simpson on how lovely Saudi Arabia is.
Includes the rather telling turn of phrase:
“I now realised he felt so strongly about what the US had done in Iraq”
I do not think that is a neutral comment.
It implies
(a) that the US have done something bad
(b) that this is fact: ‘the US had done’, rather than merely the King’s opinion, i.e. nobody (in Simpson’s eyes) is disputing that the US was wrong, it is just a question of how you react to them.
I too have noticed that immigrant has now changed to migrant across the BBC output. Obviously some edict has gone out telling the comrades that immigrant, whilst being correct, breaks BBC PC rules.
It’s the little things that add up to the big BBC bias.
One of the various manifestations of BBC News Propaganda shown here in the US just ran another report critical of Israel’s treatment of Gaza. I swear the script is so predictable, it has become a holiday panto.
Naturally Israel is bad, m’kay, because they took military action in response to all those rockets sent at them from Gaza. Don’t ask why they’re still attacking Israel after control of Gaza was handed over to the Palestinians. Fighting a non-existent occupation, apparently.
Yet, shockingly, the rockets continued, so Israel is using economic sanctions. The tried and true BBC line: “Gaza is effectively cut off from the world.” The poor, poor Palestinians are forced to seek assistance from the UN. Don’t ask how many hundreds of millions the US and the UN has already poured down that bloody drain.
Hey BBC: until you start seriously asking the other country which borders Gaza why they won’t do anything to help the economic situation of the poor, poor Palestinians, nobody can take any of your reports on the region seriously. Why don’t you do a proper report on the country that used to occupy – in the true sense of the term – Gaza before the nasty Israelis took over? You might remember way back in the olden days, when the Palestinians didn’t have control of their “homeland” but didn’t seem to mind very much at all.
If you really want to help the poor, poor Palestinians, why not look to their next-door neighbor, an Arab, Muslim country? I’ll even look the other way if you forget to mention all the arms being smuggled into Gaza from there.
In case any very young person making very low wages from the BBC might be reading this, I’m talking about Egypt. You’ll find it quite a bit northwest of Mecca, just a couple hundred miles south of Cyprus.
David
Regarding this kneejerk BBC bias, I also caught a recent report by their pet Jew reporter Tim Franks – the new Orla Guerin – the other day on the plight of Bedouin refugees in the OTs. The usual sob story stuff, with the Jews naturally behaving like rabid Nazis. NOt a word, now or ever, on the persecution of Bedouin in Egyptian Sinai, the rampant torture and the consequent support for Al Qaeda (Bedouin were behind the recent terror outrages in Sinai). Mustn’t complicate matters for our listeners now, must we.
And of course, Muslims are incapable of moral choice like white men and Jews. Which is why the military dictatorship of Mubarak never deserves much attention.
Idiotic organisation.
On the subject of HYS, as I mentioned here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6613272791020815637/#373565
and here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6613272791020815637/#373570
I posted them two comments on the Iran topic:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3735&edition=2&ttl=20071031092741
They didn’t simply not publish them. They rejected them. The BBC claims that HYS comments are only rejected if they break the house rules. Yeah, right. So I sent them an official complaint. (I must be suffering from terminal optimism.) Then a strange thing happened. A comment I’d sent on the Saudi topic
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3747&edition=2&ttl=20071031092948
and which they’d omitted in favour of other comments posted at the same time, was belatedly inserted in the page where it would have originally appeared, and with its original time stamp.
This, of course, is the stealthy BBC in action. I can’t prove that the comment was not originally posted along with others around it. The only bit of evidence I have is that is attracted no recommendations, while those around attracted a few. The reason, of course, is obvious. In a fast moving and popular debate, very few people are going to go back and read thousands of comments and recommend those they agree with. The reason there were no recommendations is that the comment was belatedly published.
The Iran topic, subject of my original complaint, is now closed. So presumably they can’t go back and stealth edit the rejected comments and belatedly publish them. That’s a plus, I guess.
I liked this comment on the Saudi topic:
Added: Wednesday, 31 October, 2007, 06:40 GMT 06:40 UK
Have you noticed the high number of rejected comments.
One wonders if this is because the BBC doesn’t want to “offend” the Saudi King?
It would be difficult to see how
calling this regime a despotic,authoritarian,misogynistic, anachronism could be regarded as anything other than fair comment.
steve thornhill
Recommended by 9 people
“Police in Manchester are hunting a man who repeatedly hit a 17-year-old boy with a hammer to steal his phone.
A white man approached the boy on Wythenshawe Road in Northern Moor and hit him on the head three times.”
A white man? Are the Beeboids admitting that white street crime is now so unusual that whenever it occurs it should be flagged up?
Or is there another reason?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/manchester/7070687.stm
Those HYS moderators really are a funny bunch. They currently have a “moderation queue” of 168 comments on the Saudi topic I mentioned above. Yet in the last few hours they have only managed to grit their teeth and publish two of them, at 09:04 and 09:05. Maybe they couldn’t find any others they liked among the 168. Apparently they didn’t like this one of mine, sent at 08:43:
“we should boycott expansionist Israel.” “Israel has the Lobby.” “for the Zionists and the Brits to have a stranglehold over foreign policy, abuse and war.” “somewhere to put our planes defending middle east (Israeli) interests.”
Strange, I thought this topic was about the Saudi king’s visit to Britain.
If you can bring yourselves to publish an opinion from Israel, Britain should not be entertaining a chief sponsor and financier of terrorism. Send him back to sit on his oil wealth.
The internet is the best thing that has ever happened to freedom of speech. And the worst thing that has ever happened to propagandist outfits like the BBC.
Bryan | 31.10.07 – 12:05 am
You and your friends at the BBC need to do something about this, John Reith, and as a matter of urgency….
About what Bryan?
…a large percentage of BBC hacks with their plummy accents and occasional double-barrelled surnames have not only converted to Islam but have been radicalised.
Crikey! Are you sure?
…the default position of numerous BBC journalists (yes, I can name them) is to support the most radical of Islamic terrorist groups…
Well, if that’s really the case, let’s sink our differences and do something about it. If you can give me the names of, say, a hundred BBC journalists who have converted to Islam, become radicalized (maybe you could detail their affiliation with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut Tahrir and so on), and who are actively supporting terrorist groups • then I’ll see to it the proper authorities are informed.
I think I’ll need at least a hundred names to convince people that ‘a large percentage’ of the staff of BBC News are part of this Islamist cell. Otherwise they might write off the whole claim as a cranky exaggeration.
Oh • and it would help if at least a dozen or so had plummy accents and/or double-barrelled names.
If all this seems to ambitious, then maybe you could provide conclusive evidence of just one instance. That’d be a start.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3034975675535162562/#373740
Curbishly | 31.10.07 – 10:48 am,
Here’s how John Reith would spin it:
The victim is probably not white and therefore automatically reported the race of his attacker which was then mentioned in the police report which the BBC then innocently duplicated.
My own take on it is that both the police and the BBC are so thoroughly pickled in anti-white PeeCee bias that one has to assume that their reports will inevitably favour any race other than white.
Could one of the BBC contributors to this site tell me in what sense an upcoming speech (ie a future event) of Mrs Blair concerning women’s rights constitutes such a major item of news that the Radio 4 flagship news at 8:00 am this morning devoted 10-15 per cent of its 10 minute slot to this advertisement for the opinions of a hard-faced woman who’s done (extremely) well out of the sex/class war. Today then spent a further 15 minutes interviewing Mrs Blair about what she intends to say. “News” would have been if Mrs Blair had said there was no need for any further action on women’s rights and the taxpayer-funded institutions set up in the UK to pursue such rights should be dissolved. Well, surprise surprise, Mrs Blair didn’t say anything of the kind. She gave and is to give a nauseatingly predictable moan about the economic and social disadvantages of being a woman. Her interviewer challenged her not once on the “facts” of discrimination against women and Mrs Blair’s constant implication that “something must be done”.
Umbongo – I could imagine the nation collectively groaning at that pandaring interview to C.Blair this morning. Of course when it comes to the Conservatives making an important speech on immigration no such advance coverage on the Today programme is supplied. No – you just get Nick Robinson doing a hatchet job (disgracefully playing the race card) on the 6 o’clock news.
Bryan | 31.10.07 – 10:40 am |
I’ve had similar experiences with DHYS but I think the problem is less conspiracy and more incompetance.
I rarely get stuff published on DHYS and thought, as seems you do too, that I was on some sort of blacklist. So I started using different computers, names, email addresses and ip addresses all to no avail. Obviously they didn’t like anything I wrote so I wrote a couple that were ‘on message’ and like a miracle there they were on the board all bright and shiny and recommended.
QED? Well not quite. I gave up with DHYS after that and have only recently returned to it and it does seem to have a lot more off message postings. In fact at times the boards seem so overwhelmed with off message venom that the topic shrinks in fright and disappears or prematurely closes (well it happens to everyone and fear can be a primary cause).
Then one day recently there was a topic on how well troops were being treated on returning home wounded. There were a lot of anti-Brown comments and even a few aimed at the anti-war mob so I ventured one of my own. In a nutshell I said Brown was supposed to have upped the money to the NHS and where was it then? Plus I added, why don’t the BBC Journos have a whip round for the troops to show how loyal to Britain they are? Lo’ and behold they published it.
Is it possible that the moderation is improving but the premature removal is not yet sorted? I live in hope, so watch this space …
John Reith | 31.10.07 – 11:01 am
You are guilty of selective quoting, a basic propaganda tool. Here’s what I actually said:
I’m getting the distinct impression that a large percentage of BBC hacks with their plummy accents and occasional double-barrelled surnames have not only converted to Islam but have been radicalised.
Interesting that you didn’t provide the date of that comment so that people can easily check, isn’t it? I’ll help you: it’s from 30.10.07 – 1:05 am.
Stop the dishonesty. Now re the 100 people, I assume you are setting the goalposts a little high since you know there is accuracy in my pereception, and the perception throughout the blogosphere, of the comfy relationship that the BBC has with radical Islam.
So let me give you some advice here, Mr. Reith. Remove the mote from your eye and start to actually look at what your precious BBC is doing and the extent to which the (hopefully sinking) BBC ship is being steered by those sympathetic to radical Islam.
I know what your game is here. You want a list of people so you can plough through their “reporting” and find a few instances from a decade or so back where a few of them might have been mildly critical of radical Islam. I’m not playing it. But if you are really keen on it, go back through this site to find where I and others have named such BBC hacks and then check them out. That should keep you out of mischief and propagandising for quite some time.
And you might like to actually debate the issue rather than sneer at anyone who brings it up.
Umbongo | 31.10.07 – 12:01 pm
Must be a slow news day, Umbongo.
Otherwise, I doubt whether the death of two birds on a shooting estate in Norfolk would have made it either.
Or the link between obesity and cancer (again!)
Not to mention the wall to wall coverage of a tentative suggestion from the Competition Commission that maybe the odd extra supermarket might be a good idea in some places.
Bryan | 31.10.07 – 12:18 pm
Interesting that you didn’t provide the date of that comment so that people can easily check, isn’t it?
But I did.
Indeed, I went one better and provided a link to it.
As usual, Bryan, anything you haven’t simply made up, you get factually wrong.
John Reith | 31.10.07 – 12:18 pm |
A slow news day is it Mr Reith? The Telegraph website seems to think there are a hell of a lot more stories before Mrs Bliars promo tour.
Even the blessed BBC website (PBOI) doesn’t have it on the front page.
So, it does indeed, look like a promo for ‘one of the club’.
John Reith | 31.10.07 – 12:24 pm
OK, I’ll grant you that one. Sorry about that. Now, as I indicated above, stop sneering and start debating.
It’s always a slow news day on BBC TV. It takes them half an hour to tell us what could be easily compressed into about 5 to 10 minutes.
The Fat Contractor | 31.10.07 – 12:31 pm
Second billing on the Telegraph website is ‘Heather Mills McCartney breaks down on GMTV.’
Are you’re telling me this isn’t a slow news day?
John Reith | 31.10.07 – 12:55 pm |
Second billing on the Telegraph website is ‘Heather Mills McCartney breaks down on GMTV.’
Wasn’t when I looked and it isn’t now. How are you judging this anyway up and down or side-to-side? Still no mention the wide mouth bottom feeder tho’ and that’s what we are talking about.
Are you’re telling me this isn’t a slow news day?
Yes.