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.
Ha! After the rationalisations from the John Reiths of this world, attempting to justify the BBC’s extravagant salaries:
“BBC is ready to slash salaries of top celebrities”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490997&in_page_id=1770
George R | 01.11.07 – 9:29 am
After the rationalisations from the John Reiths of this world…
What rationalizations? I don’t think I’ve ever commented on celeb salaries. And if I did, it wouldn’t be to defend them.
Imagining things again are we, Georgy Porgy? One minute ‘bias’, the next ‘rationalizations’. When you get to the pink elephants crawling up the walls, seek help.
More interestingly George:
“In the speech he will seemingly acknowledge claims that the corporation is institutionally liberal, metropolitan and secular by calling on creative staff to do more to ensure they meet the needs of all parts of their audience”
Could he be referring to the impartial state broadcaster we know and love?
Andrew | Homepage | 01.11.07 – 10:17 am
and more interestingly yet:
He has a steadfast belief that the BBC is more than a media company – it is part of being British.
Sir Michael Lyons: soulbrother.
“it is part of being British”.
Really? The BBC’s only been running for 85 years (since 1922), and has been a mass-listening/viewing option for a few decades less than that. Britain’s been around for far longer, but I don’t think we regard British people from before then as being any the less British for not being acquainted with the BBC. In the long run the license-fee years will seem like a mere blip in Britain’s history, along with the welfare state.
Classic BBC reporting of criticism of favoured BBC groups (e.g. Muslims, the Labour party, ethnic minorities).
The story:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6MGufYU4oNCuPR2Sc_J1nns29NgD8SJJE1G0
“Agencies linked to the Saudi government have distributed extremist literature to mosques and Islamic centers in Britain, an independent think tank said Tuesday.”
“Policy Exchange said the survey found radical material in about 25 percent of the institutions. They included some of the best-funded and most dynamic Muslim institutions in Britain — some of which are held up as mainstream bodies, the study said.”
“There were demands for gays to be killed and women to be subjugated, along with comments such as: “The Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslim,” the report said.”
The BBC line:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7068809.stm
“Worshippers at an Edinburgh mosque have refuted suggestions it is promoting extremism after a study claimed to have found “hate literature” there. ”
“The section of the booklet cited in the report was the only example of so-called “hate literature” said to have been found in Scotland”
“One worshiper told BBC Scotland he was shocked at the claims.
He said: “I would be very surprised to hear that any kind of extremism or terrorist-related activities were held in this mosque, it’s not possible, it’s a very open mosque.” ”
It’s the classic BBC way of reporting – a story attacking someone they like invariably leads with ‘XXX has denied’, ‘XXX has reacted angrily to claims’, ‘XXX has apologised for’. The problem with this means of reporting is that it never actually reports the original story, but starts from the point of view of the criticised person. This is not balanced reporting.
There is no “there was extremist material found in 1 in 4 mosques”, just the much less scary ‘was found in a minority of institutions’, without specifying the size of that minority (and when it comes to material that incites terrorism and hate, you can bet there would be much BBC outrage if it was a story on the BNP, but strangely only a damage-control story when it comes to extremist Islam), there is just a Scotland-only story basically saying that there is no extremism in Scotland, just one booklet.
It is fundamentally biased and shockingly unbalanced, even the headline ‘Shock over claim’, implies that the claim is outrageous and wrong, and that Policy Exchange must just be beastly Tories stirring up trial. As far as most people would be concerned, ONE mosque that has extremist material in it is a worry, yet the BBC don’t want people to know, they don’t want to report it, and if they have to, they will spin it as far as possible to make extremists seem like reasonable people, and those investigating them like bigots.
I am honestly appalled.
The BBC has so far attempted to justify the extravagant salaries it pays by appealing to market economic explanations; the BBC has chosen, so far, to not only be in the market for certain performers, but is also a market-maker for high salaries, at the licence-payers’ expense. There seems to be a connection between the high salaries which the BBC pays, and the present financial cuts.
Another (unwitting) admission of the BBC’s inherent anti-conservative, anti-Conservative bias.
Time to resist the licence fee.
Matthew | 01.11.07 – 11:11 am
Perhaps you would be less shocked and appalled if you didn’t censor out of your own reading of this story the significant fact: i.e. that the one extremist text found by the researchers in this mosque had, it’s claimed, (a) been sent unsolicited through the post; and (b) had never been subsequently opened.
btw, re the BBC story, it was nobbled over time, starting life as:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/75544/diff/0/1
‘Hate leaflets’ found at mosque
Literature which claims that it is permissible to kill Muslims if they turn away from their faith has been found in a mosque in Edinburgh.
becoming, 5 hours later,
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/75544/diff/2/3
Shock over mosque ‘hate leaflets’
Local worshipers have expressed shock and surprise at the suggestion that any kind of extremism is being promoted at an Edinburgh mosque.
Incidentally, it’s interesting how they simultaneously imply that the story might not be true, saying “Researchers claimed to have found a booklet”, and “The material was said to be found”, but then in their very next sentence acknowledge that actually it is true: “A mosque source told the BBC the booklet had been sent to the mosque 10 years ago “
John Reith, I think you rather miss my point.
There has been a report saying that a large number of mosques contain extremist material, and, topically, a large amount of it comes from Saudi Arabia.
That seems newsworthy. Here’s how some other news organisations reported it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2766984.ece
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=agVObVMgaXFc&refer=uk
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/309911/britain-the-dhimmocracy-champion-of-the-free-world.thtml
“Report says many mosques contain extremist material” is news.
“Mosque denies that it is extremist” is not news, at least not without that original reporting.
JR: “‘He has a steadfast belief that the BBC is more than a media company – it is part of being British.’
Sir Michael Lyons: soulbrother.”
Funnily enough JR, I don’t see that quote in the Mail article originally linked to – care to share your source with the rest of us please?
While we’re at it, I don’t doubt that, for the timebeing at least, the BBC is “part of being British” – what I object to is that the BBC, run and staffed in the main by lefty liberal types, clinging to supposed impartiality, should have such undue and dominant influence on British public life, thought and debate – i.e that the BBC shapes Britain and the British in the BBC mould, rather than the other way round, reflecting Britain and the British.
That is the crux of this whole debate and my reason for spending time and effort on Biased BBC.
Andrew | Homepage | 01.11.07 – 11:43 am
Funnily enough JR, I don’t see that quote in the Mail article originally linked to – care to share your source with the rest of us please?
It is from the same Mail article, honest.
Comes straight after the bit about Lyons being more Reithian than Grade.
How surprising: on “Today” Humphrys yells “racist, racist” when Cameron seeks to explain that 1. nothing can be done about EU immigration – it’s EU law, and 2. immigration controls thus can only effectively control non-EU immigration. Mind you Cameron was excessively limp and less than frank when seeking to convince us (or rather himself) that immigration is an economic benefit to the rest of us. Cameron – to his discredit – also attempted to fudge the obvious and uncontentious point (outside the political class and the BBC, that is) that non-EU immigrants are, by and large, not white Europeans. Cameron did say, though, that getting “Benefit Britain” off its collective backside might be a useful start.
Predictably, Humphrys aggressively interviewed Cameron from the liberal/left, attacking Cameron’s stance that non-EU immigration should be discouraged: for instance, what about all those wonderful doctors from the third world? No mention (from Humphrys or Cameron) of the 4,000 UK junior doctors who are unemployed. An interesting question a decent journalist would pose to Cameron would have taken up the point that it’s EU law which keeps our doors wide open to the major reservoirs of immigants ie the present government and any possible future government (ie Cameron’s) have little say in the matter. Unfortunately that would stray from the BBC preference not to mention – if at all possible – any ill effects that might result from our membership of the EU.
Sir Michael Lyons: soulbrother.
John Reith | 01.11.07 – 10:36 am | #
Shouldn’t that read “Sir Michael Lyons: ex Labour Councillor and Brown apparatchik”?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/06/nlyons06.xml
The Mail piece says:
“Michael Grade was a charismatic, gregarious figure waving a big cigar.
By contrast, you might sit opposite Michael Lyons every day on the train and still fail to recognise him. Yet he is probably instinctively closer to the Reithian principle of public service than his predecessor.
He has a steadfast belief that the BBC is more than a media company – it is part of being British. He just lacks the rhetoric to express this. ”
Well, never mind about the rhetorically-challenged Mr Lyons – abolish the BBC.
Shouldn’t that read “Sir Michael Lyons: ex Labour Councillor and Brown apparatchik”?
And there you have Reith’s “soulbrother”.
JR: “It is from the same Mail article, honest. Comes straight after the bit about Lyons being more Reithian than Grade.”
I’ve just reloaded it – and it’s now a much expanded article from the version I got when I clicked on George’s link originally. The version I saw had a picture of Woss standing up, looking particularly gowmless, in an awful red suit.
All of the bit beginning “The Sarah Sands Interview” has been added, with some tweaks to what came before too. At least they’ve had the decency to update the timestamp accordingly though!
I’ll get on with reading it now.
Last night my dear mother-in-law, stalwart member of the WI and parish church and lifelong fan of “Aunty” mentioned to me that she thought the BBC had lost its way and become worse than irrelevant and totally boring. She said it was no longer worth the money.
Of course I agreed with her and asked her to spread the word (and of course, the debate) among her friends and congregants. Oh, and I bookmarked the url of BBBC on her laptop.
We are winning. Time to abolish the licence fee (and the BBC as the “national broadcaster”).
Dr R
A lot of the the most ardent BBC ‘preferers’ – who always watched, listened and trusted the BBC before anything else – older female practising anglicans, such as my mother and several other members of her congregation massively turned against the BBC after the Jerry Springer Opera debacle.
Much of all of the bias and error shown by the BBC since have only served to reinforce their now strong anti BBC sentiments.
I can’t see that changing any time soon.
With its natural support base being so eroded the BBC goes from last legs to last legs.
Bloke (name escapes me) on R4 yesterday with Laurie Taylor (argh), a Prof but one of the brains behind C4 back in the 80s, ‘public service broadcaster’ ethic running through him like Brighton rock, said: “With hundreds of new channels all able to offer what the BBC was set up to do — documentaries, news, blah — why do we need a licence-fee funded BBC at all? The question has to be asked.’
Yup.
I notice in this website story from 30/10 that the BBC feel it necessary to point out the ethnic background of the attacker….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7070687.stm
Says it all:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/bbc-gives-up-20071031503/
Yes. And anyone else notice that theBBC have been oozing with pride that the infection rates for hospital infections are falling. Well done Gordon Brown spouts the BBC.
Except NONE of the BBC reports mention this tiny paragraph in the report.
“…However these figures should be interpreted with care: as there have been recent refinements to the surveillance system that may have impacted on the figures such as the extension of the mandatory surveillance to patients aged two years and over; previously it was limited to those aged 65 and over…”
I look forward to the BBC 6PM news where I’m sure that this paragraph will be well highlighted by the BBC. Won’t it?
Or will it be WELL DONE GORDON. 100 days in power and look what you’ve already achieved. Who needs god, when we have Gordon?
Private Eye has an interesting article on ‘Spooks’ this week pointing out many of the plot switches that have been noted here i.e animal rights terrorists replacing muslim ones as the bad guys, the bad guys really being someone else etc.
Their take on this is that the BBC has PC guidelines that prevent dramas from portraying certain groups in a bad light.
Nice to have ones suspicions seconded by such a magazine isn’t it?
Most interesting part of this site is the Beeboids responding. Always very predictable and reek of knowing this site is atleast partially getting it right on some issues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7073330.stm
This article is pretty much pointless – it mostly talks about the weather and sport. But the last sentence of:
“But otherwise Britain is much as it was at the beginning of October.”
Is just about as inaccurate as a sentence can be. We’ve seen opinion polls shift from the Conservatives being 8 points behind to being 8 points ahead. Shouldn’t an article talking about an election that wasn’t to be talk about the likely result?
Shouldn’t an article talking about an election that wasn’t to be talk about the likely result?
Of course, but this is the lying, distorting BBC we’re talking about here. Any suggestion that the Tories might have done well had the country gone to the polls today must be unacknowledged.
“But otherwise Britain is much as it was at the beginning of October.”
NOT in the opinion polls, but certainly it remains the same in Beeboidland – they continue to leech off telly-tax payers while distorting the news agenda. Sack ’em all.
The BBC its hatred of America and half a story.
Court challenge gives death row reprieve
Heliberto Chi is a rotund, quietly spoken man in his twenties. He has a shaved head, glasses, and a prison pallor. His English is halting, spoken with the accent of his native Honduras. Chi is incarcerated on death row in Livingston, Texas. In white prison garb, he sat in a tiny steel cage and talked for an hour from behind a thick glass screen. He was convicted of murdering the owner of a clothing store during a robbery in 2001, and sentenced to death by lethal injection
……….
The states will say: ‘You know what? This is costing an obscene amount of money and we can spend this money in a way which is better for society’
David Dow
Lawyer for Chi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072223.stm
The BBC promulgates this vision that Mr Chi is a victim. This is reinforced by painting him as fat, quietly spoken person with an inability to speak ‘English’ thus promoting this wide held ( in the UK anyway) image that he didn’t understand the laws of the country so must be given the benefit of the doubt.
Here is a few things that BBC article doesn’t inform you about Mr Chi.:
Heliberto Chi was convicted and sentenced to die in Texas state court for the aggravated robbery and murder of Armand Paliotta, the manager of K&G Men’s Store in Arlington, Texas. The evidence presented at trial is as follows.
Around 8 p.m. on March 24, 2001, Heliberto Chi knocked on the door of the K&G Men’s store in Arlington and a employee unlocked the door and allowed Chi, a former employee, to enter, after he explained that he had left his wallet in the store after a visit to the store earlier in the day. The store had closed at 7 p.m., with manager Armand Paliotta and two other employees remaining to attend to closing duties, including preparing the day’s receipts for deposit.After going to search for his wallet, Chi returned to the front door and pulled out a gun and told the employees who were at the entrance to get back inside.As they were walking, Paliotta pushed Chi and began running to the front of the store. Chi ran after him and then stopped and fired at him. When Chi turned around, store employees Adrian Riojas and Gloria Mendoza began running. Riojas ran into the warehouse, pursued by Chi. Riojas quickly found himself trapped by various locked doors. When he saw Chi approaching with his gun drawn, he began to run in a different direction. Chi shot Riojas in the back as Riojas was running from him Paliotta died from a gunshot wound to the back. Riojas survived.
………………..
On March 2, 2001, Chi was involved in the robbery of a convenience store. Chi and an accomplice robbed the clerk at gunpoint, tied and gagged her, and stole approximately eight thousand dollars in cash and checks.
………………………………
In June of 1998, Chi stole a laptop computer from Nations Bank in downtown Dallas. He was able to steal the laptop because he worked for a courier service at the time and was given an access card to the bank work area. Chi confessed to the offence.
……………………………
While employed as a sheetrock worker, Chi altered the amount of the checks from his employer. He changed one check amount from $100 to $700 and another from $130 to $930. Chi told the employer his name was “Jose Garcia” and simply laughed when his employer fired him.
…………………………………
Chi was previously arrested and is wanted for grand theft auto in Florida.
…………………………..
On September 20, 1997, Chi was scaling the fence of an apartment complex when Melvin Williams, a security officer armed with a shotgun, told him to stop and identify himself. Chi did not stop and began cursing at the officer. When Chi got to a certain apartment, he stopped in the doorway, spit in Williams’ face, and slammed the door.
…………………………….
Chi stated that he would pay anyone to kill Gloria Mendoza because she had seen him shoot Paliotta and Riojas. Additionally, Chi once described an incident where he fired a pistol at a man because he did not like the way the man was staring at him. Sierra also did not think Chi was sad about murdering Paliotta.
……………………………..
On September 21, 2002, Chi approached a detention officer and gave him a sealed envelope. The officer told Chi that the envelope had to be unsealed, and Chi responded by threatening Weldegebrill with violence.
……………..
On August 21, 2001, another jailer, was supervising Chi when he saw Chi striking an inmate in the face with a closed fist. The inmate tried to cover up his face and did not hit back. When Carrigan commanded Chi to stop, Chi cursed, disregarded Carrigan’s command, and continued to throw punches. Carrigan commanded Chi to stop a second time, but Chi did not obey his order.
………………
A criminal district court bailiff, testified that he has worked with thousands of inmates. In his opinion, Chi is a dangerous individual. In fact, he got into a scuffle with Chi trying to put restraints on him. The baliff said that he has never had to lay his hands upon any inmate other than this one time.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=2205
And the BBC tries to inform me this man is a victim.
The BBC its hatred of America and half a story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7073543.stm
BBC continuing with their terrific habit of giving Gordon Brown priority when commenting on anything. The story of ‘Countdown is 25 Years Old’ is now ‘Gordon Brown Likes Countdown Like a Lot of You Do – Vote For Him’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7071660.stm
‘Serious flaws’ in UK health care
People in the UK face longer waits for non-emergency surgery and struggle to see GPs out-of-hours compared with other western countries, a survey says.
But where is the link to this survey?
Unbelievable. Newsnight is now saying “Finally we can have an immigration debate”, and suggesting that they’ve been prevented all these years from having one. In fact, they could at any time have raised this issue, and were one of the major forces in shutting down debate on it.
(But good on them for finally doing it, and having Andrew Green on).
Ronald: “…and were one of the major forces in shutting down debate on it.”
How so?
By persistently creating the impression that anyone concerned with immigration was racist. By refusing to have any serious debates on the issue, even though people were talking about it, and some newspapers were going on about it. And even when the Conservatives made it an election issue, the BBC refused to debate it seriously, and instead just gave room for their critics to mock them.
Mearsheimer and Franks
Did anyone hear the closing sentence by arch-Beeboid Tim Franks on Today (7.21am) this morning? He was referring to Israel’s hardening attitude towards Iran with regard to their possible nuclear capability.
He said (referring to Israel’s alleged desire to attack Iran, or to get their puppet, the USA, to do so):
“No longer gently pushing, now leading”
It wasn’t just the words, it was the tone they were delivered in. Definitely Protocolish.
Oh dear Tim. It’s so obvious where your heart really lies.
Arithmetic.
I wonder if anyone has made a comparison of the hours spent by the BBC on coverage of the St Jean case, with that of the 7/7 bombings (the latter divided by the number of victims, killed and wounded, not counting the suicide scum).
My guess is that 1 hour of St Jean time is equivalent to about 1 minute of 7/7 victim time.
Not just the BBC, but the MSM in general seems to be in thrall to the Menezes case. I fancy the general public is much less outraged about this dreadful accidental death than Naughtie and co.
South Africa
What is it about the BBC and South Africa? Every time SA is discussed, whether it be Kate Adie’s Correspondent programme, BBC radio coverage of the rugby World Cup, the Today programme or this morning’s Desert Island Discs, there is a background of soulful African voices crooning. Why? Is it to underline the evils of apartheid and the romantic view of the ANC? Or is it to cover up the failings of the SA Govt with regard to HIV, crime, economic development, and it’s relationship with Magabe? I think we should be told (fade out with background of Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika).
Ex-mayor guilty of benefit fraud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7073440.stm
Something missing??
John Walker, 57, the former Labour mayor of Sefton, Merseyside, and his wife Catie, 49, face two counts of conspiring to falsify applications for state benefits.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/10/24/benefit-fraud-trial-mayor-victim-of-grudge-64375-20002643/
Paul Tibbets died. The BBC does its best to rubbish him. Shame on them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7073441.stm
Ex-mayor guilty of benefit fraud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7073440.stm
Something missing??
Time and again we see this type of omission when it is Labour. However, when a Conservative misbehaves the BBC make sure that the party affiliation is clearly noted…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7058771.stm
This happens too often to be a fluke or an oversight. No one can convince me that this is a coincidence: Beeboids feel it IS necessary to note the party of misbehaving Tories/GOP, but with Labour/Democrats all too often they don’t.
They’re biased – sack ’em all.
I must be getting pro-beeb. Two points strike me this morning:
Paul Tibbets died. The BBC does its best to rubbish him. Shame on them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…cas/ 7073441.stm
Abandon Ship! | 02.11.07 – 11:26 am
I don’t know what he saw in this article but it seems pretty straight to me as I read it now. What is being complained about?
The other one:
Not just the BBC, but the MSM in general seems to be in thrall to the Menezes case. I fancy the general public is much less outraged about this dreadful accidental death than Naughtie and co.
Abandon Ship! | 02.11.07 – 10:15 am |
Maybe we’re particularly sensitive lot in SW London, walking past Stockwell tube station regularly, but I’ve heard no-one of any political persuasion round here who wasn’t appalled at what the police did and isn’t amazed that no-one has carried the can. The coverage – BBC or elsewhere – seems reasonably appropriate to what appear to have been tragic incompetence by the Met.
‘Paul Tibbets – one of the greatest heroes of World War II.’
I’m not sure that Tibbets himself would be happy with this description, in fact. He saw himself as a fighting man, pure and simple, who was carrying out an order from his senior officer.
The senior officer in this instance being President Trueman who was the real hero for making what must have been an agonising decision which he knew would cause thousands of deaths but prevent many more.
MattLondon
The BBC:
“In 1995, Gen Tibbets denounced as a “damn big insult” a planned 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution that put the bombing in context of the suffering it caused.”
But here is Oliver Kamm referring to the BBC obituary article on Tibbets:
“The salient feature of the Smithsonian’s exhibit, which provoked Gen Tibbets’s entirely reasonable remark, was not that it referred to the immense suffering that the A-bombs caused. Rather, it was that the exhibit’s treatment of President Truman’s decision to drop the A-bomb was scandalously ahistorical. That was the cause of the controversy, which caused the exhibit’s cancellation.”
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/paul-tibbets-an.html
Subtle eh?
The BBC, telling us what it thinks we should here.
MattLondon
How many victims of 7/7 can you name? Most people would be able to have a stab at the suicide bombers, but not the dead.
The Menezes case is very important, but it would be nice to hear on the BBC that the suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers might share some of the blame for the death of this innocent man.
Abandon Ship!:
The BBC:
“In 1995, Gen Tibbets denounced as a “damn big insult” a planned 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution that put the bombing in context of the suffering it caused.”
But here is Oliver Kamm referring to the BBC obituary article on Tibbets:
“The salient feature of the Smithsonian’s exhibit, which provoked Gen Tibbets’s entirely reasonable remark, was not that it referred to the immense suffering that the A-bombs caused. Rather, it was that the exhibit’s treatment of President Truman’s decision to drop the A-bomb was scandalously ahistorical. That was the cause of the controversy, which caused the exhibit’s cancellation.”
Subtle eh?
Well, certainly too subtle for me, Mr Ship. Again, though, if you think the BBC news article article you originally cited:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…cas/7073441.stm
was the BBC doing “its best to rubbish” Tibbets then I can only say it was a massive failure on the Beeb’s part. Again, it looked like a straight news report to me. For myself I rate Tibbetts as an air force officer who led a demanding and risky operation which left him and those who ordered it surrounded by controversy which he did not deserve. The story of his death would be misleading if it did not reflect the controversy.
How many victims of 7/7 can you name? Most people would be able to have a stab at the suicide bombers, but not the dead.
The Menezes case is very important, but it would be nice to hear on the BBC that the suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers might share some of the blame for the death of this innocent man.
Abandon Ship! | 02.11.07 – 2:04 pm |
(i) I can’t name any of them – or any of the thousands that died at the WTC but that doesn’t reduce the significance of their deaths – or have much relevance to the catalogue of incompetence that led to the death at Stockwell Tube station. More to the point, if only one person had died on “7/7” we probably would remember the name – just as if the police had shot half a dozen at Stockwell we wouldn’t remember theirs. I guess it’s how memory works.
(ii) I think most people understand why the police were carrying out the sort of operations that were on that day in SW London and would wonder why we were being reminded every time Menendez’s death was mentioned. The fact that the police were attempting to arrest terrorists or protect innocent people from further terrorist attacks is no reason for their operations to be carried out incompetently and without due regard for public safety.
Media bias in the US:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124
Why should this country be any different?
Rob Clark | 02.11.07 – 1:47 pm
The senior officer in this instance being President Trueman who was the real hero for making what must have been an agonising decision which he knew would cause thousands of deaths but prevent many more.
If the BBC had said that, there would (understandably) be outrage on this site that Truman had been accused of adopting a utilitarian morality ….a ‘do harm that good may follow – ends justify the means’ outlook that legally would brand him a war criminal.
Care to re-phrase?
Abandon Ship! | 02.11.07 – 2:04 pm
How many victims of 7/7 can you name? Most people would be able to have a stab at the suicide bombers, but not the dead.
Well, at least the much maligned BBC has done its duty:
Fifty-two people were killed in the four bombs which exploded in London on 7 July 2005. Click on the names below to read an obituary of each victim. They are grouped by the location of the blasts which claimed their lives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
This one made me laugh:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2204046,00.html
bloody lefties!