according to the Times.
Bear in mind that the trial is still continuing. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. In any case the most damaging aspect of this story to the BBC is not the paintballing. The worst that happened there is that they were fooled. No, the most shocking thing is this:
Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.
“It’s long past the time for posting messages on blogs.”
Perhaps you could write to your MP. HA HA HA H AH HA HA HA!
WoAD, Sorry, I have a Congressman, not an MP. Actually a Congresswoman. But if I were British I’d be picketing al-Beeb for any number of offenses, this treasonous paint-balling episode only the last in a long sorry series of misdeeds.
Hi Susan. So like Bryan you’re not actually in Britain either?
So like Bryan you’re not actually in Britain either
I see this unsubtle attempt at undermining posters is accelerating. Perhaps I could be permitted a comment.
This site is about bias in BBC output and as such it doesn’t matter whether we are talking about the UK output, the World Service output or indeed the internet site. Since the internet site is global it would not be surprising if some of the commentators here are from outside the UK and we should welcome their input. There is nothing inappropriate in this, surely our resident BBC employees are not xenophobic. Nor should it matter in this global village of ours whether posters identify the country that they are posting from. The key issue is one of bias in BBC output not the domicile of the poster.
There is only one major issue where I would consider that the domicile becomes relevant and that is with regards to the license fee. Many of us object to the bias mainly because we are forced by the UK Criminal Law to pay up or go to jail. This is of course only a relevant argument if you are in the UK.
David Gregory (BBC)
I am not in Britain either (French Alps) In or view should my opinion not count?
I am very concerned about biased in BBC reporting.
So what’s your point?
David G
I do live in Britain and I think the BBC sucks. OK?
Reg Hammer | 06.12.07 – 5:16 pm |
What “Supersize Me” did for McDonalds, what “The High Cost of Low Price” did for Wal-mart, needs to be exacted against the BBC.
Both of those films were merely propaganda made by people with a definite agenda and not by the BBC. If you are suggesting that someone should cobble together a load of slightly related ‘facts’ into an easily fiskable story about the BBC and it’s links to muslim terror groups then that would be no better than the Michael Moore types who made those films.
There is so much evidence against the BBC on the subject bias for a straight forward factual programme to be made. We don’t need to lie to prove the point. We are better than that aren’t we?
I think the BBC should reflect British attitudes and values and project these in a positive light around the world so in that respect the nationality of complainants does matter.
Some of the Hatton v Mayweather coverage contrasting Manc humour with US rap culture has been classic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A29874342
The problem is it’s not evenhanded. I haven’t seen any sardonic looks at shambolic Arab corruption or French workshyness recently. And the classic British piss-taking attitude exemplified by the article above is being eroded by the PC offence-averse culture that the BBC exemplifies.
Sorry, I wasn’t being snarky. But seeing as I’ve “come out” as being a BBC employee. Perhaps we could have a little flag denoting country of origin by our names? 😉
The more serious point is that there’s a lot more to the BBC than HYY and the website. If you don’t experience that then you don’t really get the full picture.
(So for example you don’t see reports on Midlands Today where I work about the return of troops from Iraq and the police strongly critisising the Home Secretary. Both issues I’ve seen raised here as not being covered by the BBC)
Perhaps the reason many there isn’t really a popular movement against the BBC is that most BRITISH people really like it?
Anyway, come on Andrew, you used my IP address to “out” me, I’m sure you can produce a B-BBC map of the globe too. I think it would be interesting!
David, apology accepted.
I am a British ex pat and like I stated early, live in the French Alps. My French wife and I have moved here from her birth town near Toulon. As she like 1,000s of others in French have been made to feel strangers in their own country, by a huge influx of north African, arab muslims, who do not wish to adapt to the local culture, indeed the oppisite. Also a big contributing factor in recent riots in France. Please do not view my comments as racist in any way. These are merely observations of my life experiences.
So like many other people around the world, what they see on BBC world news does not reflect there own everday experiences.
I also work worldwide, so my views are not only based from here. This year has been Iraq, South Africa, Nigeria, Botswana, Sweden. So whilst travelling, it’s not just the Beeb’s “anti Bush war axe to grind extreme negative news from Iraq” that pisses me off. It’s places like Jo’burg this summer (their winter) when dozens froze to death, due to record cold temperatures and snow in many places for the first time in living memory – No big report from SA’s Beeb correspondant Orla Gurin on that one – We would not have heard the last if they were heat related fatalities, would we?.
So worldwide I am disgusted by the BBc’s biased on a wide range of issues.
Geography, or whether I have to pay the TV poll tax, bear no relevance.
I was basically ‘outed’ and I’m not even license fee funded. I presume the workplaces of all other posters will be revealed shortly.. 🙂
Ben | 07.12.07 – 11:42 am |
Dream on. My IP address says I’m in Birmingham. I’m not.
And mine says waterloo – I’m not
Ben | 07.12.07 – 11:58 am |
Could you not escape if you wanted to?
David
When the BBC stop broadcasting to the world, and stop allowing people to post on the DHYS part of the website (check out how many posters are not UK residents), I think it’ll be fair to stop non-UK residents complaining on B-BBC.
I appreciate your posts, but if I recall correctly, another BBC apologist (Reith I think) attempted to bring up this ‘red herring’ earlier in the year.
It is a silly ad hominem, and was revealed as such when a great many of us revealed that we are in fact, British.
I know, it’s amazing! British people angry at the BBC who aren’t Nazis, members of the BNP, Jewish, American, racist, homophobic, or any of the other bogey-men that the corporation can use to discredit any opinion other than its cultural relativist group-think.
For the record, I’m a 43-year-old professional artist; English by birth, who lives in London: hardly your archetypal hang-em, flog-em, old buffer from the Home Counties. I voted labour last time (but never again), witness at my friends gay wedding, love most of the the BBC’s art, music and natural history output (the science, I’m afraid to say, is an abysmal shadow of its former self). But the reason I visit this site is because I am completely disgusted by the BBC’s news and current affairs department. It has been paralysed by a multicultural, cultural relativist, anticapitalist, pro globalisation, pro EU, anti-US, anti-Israel mindset for as long as I can remember.
I don’t know if it can be fixed, but if the attitude of those who come here to defend it (yourself excluded) is anything to go by, I doubt it. The only light I can see the end of the tunnel is the fact that sites like this one, and the wonderful fact-checking abilities of the Internet are starting to puncture the shroud that the high priests of news-gathering have thrown over their enterprises, in the past.
When the people begin to see that they have been lied to, they will be very, very angry.
If the BBC understands that, early enough, it can change, and in time be saved .
If, however, it continues in the John Reith-ian mindset we recognise all too well here — my BBC, right or wrong — it is doomed.
If you take a look at B-BBC’s sitemeter page, you will see that the vast majority of hits are from the UK.
In any case, the fact that accusations of bias from outside the UK are not motivated by a personal reaction against the telly tax is reason to take them more seriously, not less.
I presume the workplaces of all other posters will be revealed shortly..
Ben | 07.12.07 – 11:42 am | #
***
I’m more than happy to tell everyone where I live, what I do for work and where I do it if they’re really that interested!
Just not quite of the relevance to any of that to my complaints about bias…?
Sorry, last sentence should have read: “Just not quite sure of the relevance of any of that to my complaints about bias…?’
Rob I was more referring to the fact that it seemed rather unfair to ‘out’ me given that I’m in no way funded by the license fee payer
If I’m automatically deemed biased, then surely it’d be just as appropriate to ‘out’ any people working for rival media organisations
Perhaps this is the biggest ideological problem which the BBC has: it doesn’t take JIHADISM seriously.
There’s a blog on this today at ‘Harry’s Place’:
” Taking Jihadism Seriously ” ( by david.t, Dec 7 ):
“Why does a section of liberal opinion fail to take jihadism seriously?”
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
I just made a formal police complaint under the Terrorism Act 2000 about Ms Suleaman and the BBC execs who did not inform Police once they suspected Mr Hamid know the bomb plotters.
It shall be interesting if anyting come of this and I will all informed.
Since the BBC has done so much damage to my nation, the United States, I think I have every right to comment on its bias, and its errors. Which I do, both here and, from time to time, at my own site, Jim Miller on Politics.
(And I worry greatly about the damage that the BBC has done to Britain because I have relatives and friends in Britain, and because I care about your wonderful country.)
Anyone who reads my site would know where I live, and a bit about me, for example, that I like to describe myself as a cross country skiing conservative and live in the Seattle area. (Incidentally, I will have a post up later today that David Gregory may find interesting. It will be on the Democratic presidential candidates and their attitudes toward science.)
All that said, I reject the implication that criticism of the BBC from outside Britain, or by those who choose to remain anonymous, is somehow suspect. I make it fairly obvious who I am and where I live, but that does not make my arguments more correct than those who do not. (And some of them may have very good reasons for not doing so.)
“All that said, I reject the implication that criticism of the BBC from outside Britain, or by those who choose to remain anonymous, is somehow suspect.
Jim Miller | Homepage | 07.12.07 – 1:29 pm | #
Hi Jim, I think its good to get global opinion. But it works both ways – why can those outside of the BBC gain the right to anonymity but not those within? Unless everyone else is objective?
A solid argument is a solid argument, irrespective of your perceived biases. If people want to come forward with their background info, then fine, but no one should be ‘outed’.
Besides, showing who BBC staff are gives the anti-BBC crew opportunity to wheel out the tedious stereotypes rather than addressing the content, which is in no way constructive.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 11:16 am,
You are incorrect in your assumption that I ‘m not exposed to much BBC output other than the World Service and the website. While I mostly access the former, don’t forget that via the website one can access video or audio clips like Newsnight, Newswatch, Hardtalk or a programme on Today. And of course I read this website and others. I don’t know about your Midlands programme, but from my exposure to BBC UK content, it appears to be just as biased as the international content.
From at least 05:00 GMT today the World Service was leading with the story of the CIA destroying tapes of interrogation of al Qaeda suspects. It was the top news story on the hour and half-hour at least until 10:00 and when I tuned in again at 14:00 it was still on the main news bulletin, though it had been toppled from its leading position. It featured on The World Today and, I think, Newshour as well. They even found it appropriate to read out an e-mail criticising the CIA. Have a look at the main page of the World Service website. I don’t know how to do a screen capture but at the time of this comment, the story couldn’t be more prominently displayed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/
Ditto the main page of the website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
This is not simple bias. It is total overkill. The BBC wouldn’t be trying to distract attention from its paintballing with its terrorists friends, would it? No, surely the BBC would never do anything that underhand? Speaking of which, I think I’ll pop over to the other thread to see how effectively my learned colleagues are exposing the BBC for what it has become.
Frankly, what concerns me, David Gregory, is that you appear to be quite content with the BBC as it is, whereas it is in drastic need of total purging and reform.
Er, oops. I see that this is the other thread.
I appreciate all those comments, but I still think it’s useful to know where posters come from. I also find it interesting how many people from overseas are moved to post about the Beeb. I mean I like Fox News but I wouldn’t bother posting about it on a blog.
I also think this answers a wider point about the BBC. It is a huge cultural part of the lives of British people, do those who contribute from outside the UK really understand that? It might explain why the poor British people have yet to “wake up” to the problems of the BBC.
Maybe they like it?
Na, I don’t like it. Not in the slightest. In fact, I have a powerful dislike of it.
I tried to watch Question Time last night and when I turned it on, Ken Clarke was harping on about civil liberties. He’s the mean, capitalist, baby-killing, warmongering Tory they got on, and he was pissing and moaning about Home Office wanting to extend the period of time of detention of terror suspects without charge. Just the thought of the Guardian-reading, hand-wringer that asked the question (whilst the other Guardian-reading, hand-wringers – who make up 75% of the audience, the rest being ethnic minorities and pensioners – nodded in agreement) tipped the scales for me, and I had to turn it off.
I think my IP puts me somewhere near Bradford. Not bad – only 50 miles or so away (I live in York).
I mean I like Fox News but I wouldn’t bother posting about it on a blog.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 2:42 pm | #
That’s because you are not forced to pay for it under pain of imprisonment!
Can I just out myself as well? I am a professional artist, English by birth, who lives in London. I voted Labour last time. But I am not Stuck Record, I promise. Any similarities are purely coincidental.
Unlike SR, none of my gay friends have married, and I consider the BBC’s Arts coverage to be plummeting towards the gutter at an alarming rate.
The Culture Show, for example, is garbage, absolute garbage. Witness for example the twittery female interviewing over-rated pianist Lang Lang, and gushing over-excitedly “How do you DO that!!?” when he plays a passage at high speed. Is that the type of informed question we pay £3.2bn for? Why do we DO that?
The Culture Show is also politically biased. Look at how many of the Americans the programme chooses to cover are anti-Bush: the authors of a graphic novel blaming the Bush regime for 9-11, irrelevant ageing rock star given a platform to condemn the ‘so-called’ war on terror, anti-Bush fanatic Sean Penn, Robert Redford on his new anti-war-on-terror movie (which flopped), Jake Gyllenhaal talking to Frank Gardner (!) about his anti-war-on-terror movie (which flopped), etc etc.
I watched three episodes – each one was poor in quality and contained anti-Bush comments. Sad but predictable.
“That’s because you are not forced to pay for it under pain of imprisonment!
Allan@Oslo | 07.12.07 – 2:59 pm | #”
Thanks for reminder No34324234, but the main issue here concerned those who do not pay the license fee as they are location outside the UK
“It is a huge cultural part of the lives of British people, do those who contribute from outside the UK really understand that? It might explain why the poor British people have yet to “wake up” to the problems of the BBC.
Maybe they like it?”
All the vanity of Stalin there. I have only heard people say they actively dislike the BBC, I have never heard anyone praise it.
Anyway, the Beeboids have pushed this thread off topic. Let’s get back to business: BBC appeases terrorism. Radical Impartiality. 7/7 blamed on foreign policy. Platform being given to jihadists on BBC radio. And so on.
Here’s a cut and paste job of shocking Daily Mail headlines regarding al-beeb.
WoAD: Actually this is the main issue. Lets face it posters here are bemused at the lack of a popular movement against the BBC. I mean most of the newspapers don’t like the BBC either for ideological or (more likely) business reasons. But (just like B-BBC) the Editor of the Mail remains I believe confused as to why the corporation they so dislike is (dare one say it) LOVED by Mail readers and many many more.
(Sorry if this is sounding bolshie, I’m not trolling although I have just had a tooth out so may be feeling a bit more rumbunctious than usual! There’s lots of adrenilin in the jab apparently)
PS Bryan, I expect better “I don’t know about your Midlands programme, but from my exposure to BBC UK content, it appears to be just as biased as the international content.” Fair enough, but if you don’t know about my programme how can you say that? It sort of proves my point that your exposure to one part of the BBC is simply not enough. (There’s a thought for you, you need more BBC in your life not less… I’m sorry I think this injection is really quite powerful!)
A solid argument is a solid argument, irrespective of your perceived biases. If people want to come forward with their background info, then fine, but no one should be ‘outed’.
++++
Ben: I do basically agree that ‘outing’ is bad manners.
However, it surely is pertinent to these debates if you happen to work for the BBC, either as a staffer or in an occasional capacity as a freelancer, because that is almost bound to colour your view. ie would you accept a commission even if you had no respect for the organisation?
Conversely while most people who post on a website entitled ‘Biased BBC’ are going to be anti the Corporation, as has been pointed out many times previously there is no groupthink in operation here • we are all just individuals who dislike the increasing bias we find so who we work for (or indeed, where we live) is far less relevant.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 2:42 pm
You mean that being lied to and misled for a “measly” couple’a hundred quid doesn’t perturb you that much?
Among your circle of acquaintances would you not discuss a liar and a thief?
Then again you are obviously not on the receiving end of the incitement engendered by the likes of Guerlin, Doucette et al.
Like CNN the BBC loads the auditorium with agenda compliant stooges and questions so what’s left to discuss in this dishonest farce.
gharqad | 07.12.07 – 3:18 pm | #
I was thinking more of ‘Cranford’ and Bleak House’, than the Culture Show (which I agree, is dreadful example of luvvie-dom).
David,
Surely the older generation (the ones who buy newspapers, in the main) are more likely to favour the BBC in the same way they are more likely to favour the NHS.
Younger people are much less likely to show any kind of ‘brand loyalty’ and to flick around the hundreds of stations now available to them to find something they like • they do not have the BBC as their ‘default setting’ in the same way.
IMHO there seem to be a growing number of complaints about the BBC and increasing disillusionment with it, but no doubt the Corporation will continue to consider itself bombproof.
There are a number of things about this story that just don’t add up.
The Times quotes the prosecutor thus:
“Here was a man who told you that he knew those individuals who, as I understand it, were still at large for what on the face of it was the attempted bombings of the transport network a fortnight after it happened, and he was telling you he had some knowledge of them? There was a worldwide manhunt going on, wasn’t there?”
Let’s just examine that a mo.
a fortnight after it happened
If Hamid’s conversation with BBC researcher Suleaman took place a fortnight after 21/7, then all the suspects were already in Police custody. In fact, all were nabbed within eight days. One, Yasin Omar, was arrested at 4.30am on 27th July in Birmingham. Hussain Osman was arrested in Rome on 29th July and the other two • Muktar Said Ibrahim and Ramzi Mohammed, were arrested in Dalgarno Gardens, also on 29th July.
There was a worldwide manhunt going on, wasn’t there?”
In fact, the Police only ever issued the names of two of the men they were hunting: Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yasin Omar were named on 26th July. The names of the others were never released until after their capture.
They picked up Omar within 36 hours or so of DAC Peter Clarke releasing his name to the press.
So, the only person known to be wanted and who was on the run for more than two days after being named as a suspect was Muktar Said Ibrahim, who was the subject of a public manhunt between the afternoon of 26th July and the morning of 29th July.
We know from the Times article that his name came up in the conversation between Hamid and Suleaman. But when?
To be sure whether Suleaman or the BBC did anything wrong, we do really need to know when their conversation took place and on what date the matter was referred to BBC managers.
Oddly, the PA court reports of Suleaman’s evidence on 4th Dec seems to have been taken off the databases. Maybe there’s been a reporting restriction we don’t know about.
“Lets face it posters here are bemused at the lack of a popular movement against the BBC.”
No, I have never noticed anyone here saying that except for you. You introduced that idea. You believe yourself justified in your attitude by some kind of consensus of social agreement.
By the authority of THE PEOPLE the BBC is deemed OKAY!
I mean, why apologise for “radical impartiality” when you have the people on your side? Al-Beeb says: Might makes right!
John Reith | 07.12.07 – 4:39 pm | #
Quote:
“Let’s just examine that a mo.”
Unquote
Do you realise that taking the prophet Mohammed’s name in vain is punishable by jail for life and 40 lashes daily.
On a serious note, I wouldn’t dig yourself, or the beeb any further into the shit on this one, than you are already are!
Fat Contractor:
“If you are suggesting that someone should cobble together a load of slightly related ‘facts’ into an easily fiskable story about the BBC and it’s links to muslim terror groups then that would be no better than the Michael Moore types who made those films.”
Yes Fat Contractor, that was EXACTLY what I was suggesting. (Rolls eyes).
Ben:
“Thanks for reminder No34324234, but the main issue here concerned those who do not pay the license fee as they are location outside the UK”
Ben, I don’t pay the license fee and I live in the UK. I am however affected entirely by BBC ‘output’ when it involves sponsoring terrorist activity am I not? As I’m sure everyone in the world is.
Are you suggesting that only those who actually FUND Al Beeb’s treacherous activities are allowed to complain about it? I don’t fund Al Qaeda either, but I complain about them all the time.
David Gregory:
“It might explain why the poor British people have yet to “wake up” to the problems of the BBC. Maybe they like it?”
So you haven’t been reading any opinion polls lately David about almost 50% of the population believing the BBC to be biased?
I’m sure they don’t like it, but like most, they fear both the onerous nature of it’s McCarthyistic witch-hunting reporting and it’s draconian license fee laws.
Ben – I don’t believe I said anything about BBC employees posting anonymously. But since you asked, here’s my view: I would much rather have them post anonymously than not at all, and can understand why some would prefer not to post under their own names.
That said, I would prefer that anyone with an interest declare that interest when making an argument. And so I would prefer that BBC employees who are defending their employer tell us who they work for.
And, following my own rule, here’s one reason I say that: Some of “John Reith’s” comments have been very useful to me in making arguments on my own web site. They provide useful material, in other words. For example, I enjoyed his admission that the BBC judges the United States and Iran by different standards, and may do a brief post quoting him on that point.
Mr Reith
Interesting points, but the answers seem to be in the original text.
There does seem to be some verbal confusion on the timing of when this conversation took place. The prosecutor’s comment “a fortnight after it happened” is odd considering that Miss Suleiman’s verbatim quote is:
Ms Suleaman said that Mr Hamid was agitated after the July attack. She said: “I think he was worried that perhaps the men might call him because they were on the run at the time. I think he was very, very shocked about the fact that the men he knew were accused of this.”
The straightforward implication here is clear. The conversation took place at a time when they actually were on the run. She says this. She uses the word “on the run”. This whole thing would hardly be an issue otherwise.
The other telling quote, regarding the timing of when this conversation took place is in the following paragraph:
Duncan Penny, for the prosecution, asked Ms Suleaman if she had told Mr Hamid to go to the police or contacted the police herself. Mr Penny asked: “Here was a man who told you that he knew those individuals who, as I understand it, were still at large for what on the face of it was the attempted bombings of the transport network a fortnight after it happened, and he was telling you he had some knowledge of them? There was a worldwide manhunt going on, wasn’t there?”
Why would there be an issue about Mr Hamid going to the police otherwise? If the suspects weren’t ACTUALLY terrorists and ACTUALLY on the run, it would be just a normal case of BBC giving licence payers money to people committed to the destruction of the United Kingdom: i.e. a normal working day (Omar Bakri Mohammed, Inyat Bungawala, MAB, MCB etc.
The corporation is pretty much dammed out of her mouth. All of the following statements imply that she was talking about an ongoing situation:
She replied: “I got the sense that he was already talking to the police. I referred it to my immediate boss at the BBC. I wasn’t told that there was an obligation. In fact it was referred above her as well. It was such a big story.” She added: “I don’t think it’s my obligation to tell another adult that he should go to the police.”
There is an implication that Mr Hamid didn’t just know Mr Mohammed and Mr Osman, but through his wide connections, the very connections that Miss Suleiman valued him for, knew Mr Ibrahim and Mr Omar as well.
The sad fact is that it is only a news story because of the fact that the BBC may have prevented the police from having information that would lead to the arrest of the terrorists responsible for one of the worst atrocities in Europe. What should be a news story, however, is the fact that the BBC gave money and succour to the complete scumbags responsible for making this piece of worthless propaganda in the first place.
They thought, after 9/11 and Bali and all the beheadings and suicide bombs, “hey, you know what? People are starting to think that Moslems are dangerous. We can’t have that. I want you go out there and find a bunch of wacky Muslims to put the other side of the story”.
Who did they find? A bunch of suicide bombers.
You couldn’t make it up.
The fact that this is not even a newsworthy story shows how far the BBC have fallen.
First off all while I welcome Reith’s interpretation of what went on in court I’d once again stress the trial is on going etc etc etc. Lets wait and see.
Back to the issue of people in and outside the UK posting here. If you asked people what the most important thing the BBC was doing at the moment I bet posters on here would say “it’s horrific bias when covering Isreal, the US and global warming”. Everyone else in the UK would say, “Cranford and Strictly Come Dancing”
I just wonder if the issues posters on B-BBC end up focussing on are driven more by the concerns of a self selecting group who are very motivated about certain issues. So motivated that despite NOT recieving the BBC’s full service they still post here.
Just a thought.
Oddly, the PA court reports of Suleaman’s evidence on 4th Dec seems to have been taken off the databases. Maybe there’s been a reporting restriction we don’t know about.
John Reith | 07.12.07 – 4:39 pm | #
Yup – could be.
Maybe the police have asked for restrictions while they investigate the role of the BBC and consider further prosecutions.
We can live in hope.
In a nutshell you show exactly what’s wrong with the BBC self-regarding self-image. If I say I love Cranford (and Strictly Come Dancing), you take the compliment on board, which to you proves how popular the BBC is. If I say I detest the BBC’s biased news service, you dismiss me as one of a self-selecting minority.
Heads you win, tails I lose.
I mean I like Fox News but I wouldn’t bother posting about it on a blog.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 2:42 pm | #
That’s because you are not forced to pay for it under pain of imprisonment!
Allan@Oslo | 07.12.07 – 2:59 pm | #
Ben, I don’t pay the license fee and I live in the UK.
Reg Hammer | 07.12.07 – 5:36 pm | #
So, you obviously aren’t ‘forced’ to pay for it
Additionally, nowhere have I said that those who don’t pay the license fee can’t criticise the bbc – in fact I’ve stated the opposite.
David Gregory:
“I just wonder if the issues posters on B-BBC end up focussing on are driven more by the concerns of a self selecting group who are very motivated about certain issues.”
David, I’m confused. Are you talking about people posting here or the BBC?
I am VERY concerned about a self-selecting group who are very motivated by certain issues – namely those at the BBC who are motivated by Islamic terrorist demands in the UK.
Could you elaborate on your point please, because I might be being a bit slow to catch the gist of it.
Ooops, mixed up two people. Either way bottom half stil stands. have a good weekend!
Ben:
“Ben, I don’t pay the license fee and I live in the UK.”
“So, you obviously aren’t ‘forced’ to pay for it”.
Uhm, yes Ben, I am FORCED to pay it. The constant bombardment of crap from TV Licensing and progressive visits from their licensing Gestapo would suggest a certain ‘forcing’ on their part.
And my refusal to co-operate merely ‘force’s’ them that bit harder.