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.
Stuck and Reg: Sorry, this tooth really is doing my head in. Maybe I should stop for the day.
I really wasn’t making any profound point. I just think the make-up of posters here is very interesting. You do get more people posting from outside the UK than I (for whay my opinion is worth) would really expect. And I’m certainly not saying if you have a problem with BBC News then hey ho at least Cranford makes up for it!
David Gregory:
Well I’m surprised as you are by how many people are posting from outside the UK, but then again I guess that’s how much we have to thank the World Service for.
It would be nice to know the country of origin of all the people posting, but I see no way of implementing that.
Little flags would be nice. At least then we’d be able to automatically identify the beeboids with that unmistakeable crescent moon.
John Reith | 07.12.07 – 4:39 pm
The timing of the conversation may be moot, after all.
From Harry’s Place:
Ive filled in the first part of the complaint and apparently I will be called by a case officer. Ive named Ms Suleaman and BBC execs on the complaint.
They also did confirm that under the Terroism act it is a crime not to inform the Police if you suspect someone has been, will be or even knows individuals involved in Terrorist activities.
David Gregory
Your attempt to belittle the contributions of the non UK residents here seems bizarre, coming from a representative of an organisation which has always prided itself on encouraging international dialogue.
Have you ever heard of Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation?
For the first half of my life I actually admired the success of the BBC in this role.
Unfortunately, I think the narrow range of views now expressed on the Beeb have shut off dialogue with a large part of its potential audience, with detrimental effects for peace prospects around the world.
Since we’re all “coming out” now – I’ll reveal myself as a boring, white, British, gentile, retired, businessman who was a labour activist (and BBC enthusiast) in the Harold Wilson era – until experiencing the effects of socialism on human happiness, while spending a lot of time in the USSR and its satellites in the ’70’s.
I spend about eight months a year in the UK and pay for two, bitterly resented, TV licences.
“You do get more people posting from outside the UK than I (for whay my opinion is worth) would really expect. ”
A big desperate lie.
I hope this is the end for the BBC.
John Reith spins in his grave:
“I spend about eight months a year in the UK and pay for two, bitterly resented, TV licences.”
I’m surprised at you. Reading your contributions here I would have thought you would have been one of the first to openly refuse to pay Al Beeb’s taxes.
Surely I’m not alone in resisting these pigs?
David Gregory (BBC):
……I also think this answers a wider point about the BBC. It is a huge cultural part of the lives of British people.
Do you mean ALL British people? If you do you’re wrong. It means nothing to me and plays no part in my life. It’s just a Broadcasting Company that I am forced to pay for otherwise I go to prison and get a criminal record.
Reg: How about we have the BBC logo? Or given it’s the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation… the Union Flag? 😉
Meggoman: What nothing? No part? You don’t listen to the Archers? Read the website? Watch Dr Who? Enjoy The Proms? Shout at the football? Text 5Live?
Surely I’m not alone in resisting these pigs?
Reg Hammer | 07.12.07 – 6:45 pm | #
I’ve nearly got to two years of “resisting”
Yah!
thanks to this site and the anti-tvlicencing one for convincing me I that I don’t have to cooperate with crapita’s sales force. Freedom rocks!
David Gregory (BBC):
Meggoman: What nothing? No part? You don’t listen to the Archers? Read the website? Watch Dr Who? Enjoy The Proms? Shout at the football? Text 5Live?
Correct. Correct. No (commercial radio). Sky News website. Dr What?. No. Sky Sports. No (commercial radio).
Meggoman: I’m a Celebrity over Cranford then?
WoAd:
“”You do get more people posting from outside the UK than I (for whay my opinion is worth) would really expect. ”
A big desperate lie.””
How can this be a lie? It’s my opinion.
By ‘lie’ I meant the effect a lie has. Semantic screw up on my part.
But as someone stated above: that people overseas are complaining of BBC bias only strengthens our case. We are not just a small group of malcontents banging away on the internet. And the people of the UK do not exonerate the BBC of bias on the basis of what they feel.
The ‘silent majority’ is not your personal secret army. But you would like it to be, promulgating idea that that is the case is intended to psychologically undermine our trusting of our judgement. It wont work of course, but who needs the facts when you have the notional authority of the people behind you?
WoAD: Honestly I really wasn’t smugly calling up the spirit of some notional “silent majority” (and I do LOVE a silent majority, they’re so talkative!)
You say overseas posters reinforce the case of B-BBC, personally (and it is only personally) I do think they distort things a bit.
Now I’m not saying the reporting Israel or America isn’t important. But the, erm, enthusiasm for those issues (and the obsession with HYS a part of the website I never even knew existed until I came here!) would be explained if many of those here were posting from America and Israel and indeed elsewhere outside the UK. There’s more to the BBC than HYS.
(And once again can I reinforce that’s not to say the reporting of Israel isn’t very important, indeed that’s where B-BBC chalked up an early success imho)
So I’m not trying to win an argument or prove a point. Just putting it out there as a thought really.
Meggoman: Never bought a tv with Nicam stereo? Heard Elgar’s 3rd Symphony? Read “Under Milk Wood”? Listened to radio or tv made using a PPM?
Let’s not forget the other things the BBC has done:
1. Broadcast a film by a Muslim activist which blamed foreign policy for 7/7.
2. The 12 minute radio rant from other muslim activist
3. The Newsnight report which gave a platform for a member of the taliban boast of his dozens of volunteer ready to suicide bomb british forces
4. “Radical Impartiality” (The catch all term for all the above)
5. Consistantly describing the 7/7 terrorist murderers as “extremists” or “militants”. The 7/7 attacks themselves are described as “bombings”.
5a. There are editorial guidelines which state that ‘the word terrorist itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.
6. The episode of Question Time that came out immediately after 9/11.
7. Tony Blair himself has said “The BBC is full of hatred for America”.
8. Double standards on the showing of the Jerry Springer Opera (despite 50,000 complaints). The BBC has yet to display the Mohammed cartoons.
9. The report on Al-Beeb anti Israel bias that remains secret.
10. The TV licence levied on pain of imprisonment.
Mr Gregory, it’s because it is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation that I object to its attitude of neutrality between the British Army and the Taleban or regarding whether it should contact the police or not with information about terrorists who tried to kill British citizens.
David Gregory (BBC):
Meggoman: I’m a Celebrity over Cranford then?
When’s it on? Sounds good
It is really understandable that Ms Suleaman and her superiors did not feel the need to contact the authorities. As senior BBC employees thay would be unfamiliar with any potential victims as the bombs were not intended to be used on limos or taxis and were therefore unlikely to be a danger to them.
Will Jones: I can assure you the BBC is very familiar with bombs, if you’ll recall the IRA bombed the BBC offices in question.
It was big in the British media at the time, not sure how much it was reported abroad. You may have missed it if you are another overseas poster 😉
Meggoman: Cranford? Sunday night. IACGMOOH has finished for this year *SPOILERS* Biggins won it.
David Gregory (BBC), and anyone else interested in why people from outside the UK comment here:
I make comments here for three main reasons. I do enjoy the arts programming, from Radio 3 online to the history documentaries, the period dramas and the Proms, BBC Legends recordings (which nearly didn’t exist thanks to BBC incompetence), and growing up with Dr. Who, Monty Python, and all the sitcoms.
However, I strenuously object to having my British friends misled on so many issues that I have to defend my country against Spectator readers (of all people!) when I should be enjoying a nice lock-in with a session of Harvey’s. (I’m using British terminology here because there is no American equivalent.)
I don’t like it when the BBC misrepresents US news events to fit a particular narrative, thus helping to sway the opinions of my friends in a negative way, never mind the opinions of the population at large of my country’s greatest ally.
I also get really annoyed when a nice concert broadcast of Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky is ruined by a Twenty Minutes segment at half time in which the Archbishop of Canterbury is deliberately forced into discussing the special place collectivism has in the hearts of the Russian people, when he is supposed to be there talking about Russian Christian theology and its significance in Russian culture (a topic on which he is expert). Get somebody with a clue to do these segments, not a misguided Radio 4-type devochka with a political ax to grind.
The other reason I make comments here – and really the most important one these days – is that You-Know-Who’s little dog and pony show is at times little more than a Leftoid opinion soapbox. Not all the time, but often enough, and on certain topics you can set your watch by it. I don’t like a foreign broadcasting company, paid for by the involuntary taxes of the citizens of an allied nation (including friends and one relative), telling me how to vote. I don’t appreciate the BBC attempting (poorly) to intimidate me and my countrymen with mewlings about “what the world wants”.
Of almost equal importance is the fact that the BBC does a similar act of misrepresentation of Israel, to which I am obviously connected by relation and heritage. When Israel has problems, there is a trickle-down effect to Jews worldwide. If Israel goes down, the rest of us are in trouble no matter where we live (I bet I’m safer in New York than London, though). So when the BBC so often misrepresents Israel as the stock villain in the Middle East panto (or sloppy articles saying Jews are the enemies of Islam), it has a negative effect, ultimately, on my family and myself. No, I don’t mean my feelings get hurt when the BBC makes a report criticizing Israel in some way. I mean the BBC’s overly negative portrayal of Israel – and the US, while I’m at it – can have real effects on people’s opinions, and those opinions affect people’s actions.
When the BBC has a tangible negative effect on my life, I have every right to complain.
David Gregory (BBC):
So that’s OK then, the BBC were once bombed at White City. So bombs are ok and you are authority to comment on the subject over us.
David,
I work in all the worlds conflict areas. But I have also done alot of good security work for the BBC down the years (which is why I’m so pissed off – seeing the biased manufactured at first hand)
I’ll get round to telling you how I was the Anthrax post man at White City in the days after 9/11 during various terrorist anthrax compaigns.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 5:59 pm,
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”.
No, I would say the most important thing is the BBC’s cuddling up to Islamic terrorists. The topic of this thread verifies everything we have been saying for ages here about the BBC and its sympathy for radical Islam. The other things you mention, along with the BBC’s contempt for Christianity, come a close second.
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.
Again, you imply that people outside the UK somehow have less right than those who pay the BBC tax to engage in debate on BBC bias, even though they are specifically affected by that bias. I don’t know why you fail to understand that the BBC has no right to use the resources of the British public to spread bias and misinformation far and wide – and then add insult to injury by dismissing complaints it gets as a result of its twisted agenda.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 8:24 pm,
I take your point on Have Your Say. It’s only a small part of the BBC’s ouput and anyway I understand that it is produced mostly by subcontractors for the BBC. But what is interesting about HYS is that it has the potential to drag the BBC kicking and screaming from a state of near-total denial that anyone could possibly object to its output to some understanding of the negative impact it has on many people. In this respect, HYS can punch way beyond its weight.
Increasingly the BBC is calling for public input ito its output – and yes, not only from licence-payers: HYS has an “International” edition, and there is also World Have Your Say on the World Service. The problem is, the BBC has yet to take this inut seriously – as can be seen by those busy little editors on the website plucking opinions on a given topic that fit the BBC’s agenda from HYS comments and putting them on the website, even if they are not representative of popular opinion on that topic.
That tactic is quite revealing of how the BBC operates. It asks for feedback and then ignores it as long as it doesn’t fit the BBC’s agenda – just as it brushes aside valid complaints. This has to change.
Well, here’s a turn up for the book.
Guess who’s co-chairing a discussion session at the “Diverse Britain 2007” conference on Monday with Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida (Brazilian whacks) Dick of the Met – none other than Ms Nasreen Suleaman herself.
http://www.neilstewartassociates.com/re103/agenda.html
The session’s called “a shared sense of belonging” – read it all and weep.
Will Cressida bring her handcuffs?
Don’t bet on it.
Cressida Dick = Common Purpose
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/what-is-common-purpose-and-why-should-you-care/1370/
Nasreen Suleaman ?
I am a British academic living in southern England, just for David Gregory’s record.
The trouble today is that the BBC, especially the news and current affairs division, does see itself as a global institution, which explains why it adopts such an equivocal approach on issues and conflicts involving the nation it is supposed to represent. There is no reason why global readers should not comment on aspects of the corporation’s bias when they are forced to watch or listen to the BBC’s output on state media outlets around the world. Such contracts are usually based on a misplaced sense of the BBC’s reputation, and seems valid for global users to ask just what kind of reputation the corporation ought to have based on its output. It may be a good idea, however, for such global users also to petition their own state broadcasters if they feel that such contracts with the BBC are unwarranted.
The British audience suffers doubly, through being forced to pay for a corporation which is selective and partisan in its views, and having to subsidise an operation which has global pretensions. I think it is false to claim, as David Gregory does, that the corporation is held in high regard in the UK: outside the metropolitan pseudo-liberal elites and various minority communities it is tolerated but far from loved. Most people have no interest in a state subsidised media outlet, but since it exists, and since there is no easy way of breaking into the liberal establishment that controls the corporation, they use its services. The shameful unaccountability of the corporation is demonstrated by this terror training case, which reveals the extent to which acting against the national interest has become part of the ethos of the organisation.
There is nothing the BBC could not do better if it were an independent private company, competing on the open market for terrestrial licences with other companies. (though I suggest that the corporation is forced to change its name). This would free the corporation to pursue its global ambitions unhindered, while allowing the British public to enjoy a wide range of media alternatives beyond the liberal bias of BBC.
David Gregory: I feel just terrible for making a joke about the bombing when you folks were previous victims. Please forgive my insensitivity.
Could you give the actual reason for Ms Suleaman and her superiors decision not to pass on possibly helpful information to the police?
Meggoman: Cranford? Sunday night. IACGMOOH has finished for this year *SPOILERS* Biggins won it.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 10:59 pm | #
Sorry. I’m just a thick northerner from Leeds in Yorkshire (so you know where people who are posting come from). Haven’t got the intellect. What’s ICGMOOH? Biggins? Wasn’t he a fictional flying ace wrtten about by W.E. Johns
Yorkshireman? Hmmm, maybe that’s why I don’t want to pay the licence fee. I was once described as a Scotsman with the generosity taken out.
Bryan | 08.12.07 – 12:12 am
“The problem is, the BBC has yet to take this inut seriously – as can be seen by those busy little editors on the website plucking opinions on a given topic that fit the BBC’s agenda from HYS comments and putting them on the website, even if they are not representative of popular opinion on that topic.”
Bryan,
The SF Chronicle has been caught using the following tactics with regard to comments
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28110_SF_Chronicle_Admits_Sneaky_Comment_Deletion_Trick&only
“Investigate the Media: S.F. Chronicle admits to deceptive comment-deletion policy, offers bizarre excuse, then lies again.”
so I for one would not use what they permit me to see for any analysis but humour of that other than light kind and in the same vein treat their “loaded audience” sessions as misleading if not outright deception and not worth serious consideration.
I rather prefer to get some opinion from the blogs along with the “quid pro quos”
that provide for more honest debate.
40, 50 years ago we thought the BBC the epitome of factual reporting. Maybe we were being duped then as well?
John Reith – you need to respond to stuck record’s pretty damning answer to your prevarications.
You can also have a go at the following: Why did the BBC choose to interview for this propaganda programme i) a mujahadeen fighter (Butt) convicted of terrorism in Yemen, ii) a woman (Yaqoob) who has called for an Islamic republic of Great Britain, iii) a man (Bukhari) who was at the time funding and supporting the Holocaust denier David Irving, iv) a man (Ahmed) censured for hosting anti-semites in the House of Lords and v) a man (Hamid) who was calling himself Osama bin London and meeting for military games with some of the most dangerous Islamists in London? All these issues were either in the public domain at the time or required a modicum of research to uncover.
Will the BBC now apologise i) to British citizens as a whole for broadcasting Islamist propaganda unchallenged, propaganda which could well have contributed to the terror attacks a few days later, and ii) to the Muslim community for using a group of extremists as their representatives?
Here again is the offending broadcast:
http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/1c9dd1bc1c12eb92#1
Tim: So you were the anthrax amn after 9/11 in White City?
So you were working in the post room checking for white powder?
Only joshing! I know what you do Tim and I think it’s a job where you need a lot of bravery and common sense. It may astound posters but I do have friends in forces. One of them are is also *gasp* a member of the BBC. And since I’m trying to set up a trip to Northern Iraq for a story I’d be delighted to pick your brains about what I should do to prepare, Tim.
But the more general point I was making about bombs is the BBC doesn’t exist in isolation from bombs and bombing and terrorism.
Matt: That final para is rubbish. Sorry there are plenty of things the BBC does that the market is failing to provide
Meggoman: If you want to pull the hard done by regional bit I’m posting from Birmingham and we really know how to whine about London here let me tell you!
According to David Gregory we should be careful about allowing non-British views into our thinking about the BBC and the impact on.
Yet bizarrely the BBC allows hours of its time to be devoted to interviews and discussions with people who are entrenched in an anti-British view. People who hate us to the point of wanting to kill Britons are given air-time and a tacit encouragement by Al-Beeb to spout their vile propaganda.
So understand this, good people: you are British and you pay your licence fee (or go to jail if you don’t) so we can ignore your views, but the BBC is anxious you are “informed and educated” by the narrow agendas of murderers and terrorists.
If you are commenting on this policy from abroad your view does not count. If you are commenting on this policy from the UK, er… your view does not count.
Sorry… incomplete sentence above. Should read:”the impact on the service provided.”
Meggoman: If you want to pull the hard done by regional bit I’m posting from Birmingham and we really know how to whine about London here let me tell you!
David Gregory (BBC) | 08.12.07 – 11:05 am | #
No David just trying to lighten things up a bit. Don’t feel hard done by at all except of course being forced to pay for….I won’t go on.
David Gregory (BBC)
you wrote:
“Sorry there are plenty of things the BBC does that the market is failing to provide”
Like what?
And so what? You cannot deduce the desirabilitiy of a thing from the market’s failure to provide it .( Only those working in the public sector would need that pointing out to them). It is far from self-evident, to say the least, that public money needs to be spent on, for example, a left-leaning broadcasting organisation.
You need a bit of perspective.
The prosecution are not alleging Hamid was “linked to 21/7”. You might be, the prosecution aren’t. They have said so in court.
None of the 21/7 guys were on the paintballing trip the BBC paid for.
Do you all believe that Muslims en masse should be banned from paintballing?
To address another comment above as far as I know there are NO WARRANTS out for the arrest of Shahid Butt. He has appeared in documentaries since “Don’t Panic…”
Cynic | 08.12.07 – 8:49 am,
Quite an interesting debate on the San Francisco Chronicle deluding people into thinking their comments had been published when they could only read them on their own computers and nowhere else. I noticed how comprehensively the Chronicle defended itself in the comments section of the blog that exposed it.
The MSM is slowly waking up out of its long sleep and coming to understand that every bit of propaganda it pumps out can be challenged, and often is, within minutes on blogs worldwide. The internet is the worst thing that ever happened to the propagandists – and the best thing for those interested in the truth.
David Gregory (BBC)
I live and work in the UK and I think the BBC is appallingly biased too.
It is also arrogant and patronising and in this case has behave particularly badly. I would like to see heads roll and some kind of enquiry set up to investigate and deal with Islamic infiltration of the State broadcaster.
OK?
Dave Bones:
So you are another apologist for Islamic terrorists.
Shahid Butt is a convicted terrorist Dave Bones, do you feel that his angelic image has been smeared by the less than fluffy comments posted on him? Typical Beeboid attitude.
“The prosecution are not alleging Hamid was “linked to 21/7″. You might be, the prosecution aren’t. They have said so in court.”
No, but he was linked to the the men who did it, and paintballing was one of the ways he got his men prepared for combat.
If you want to defend the guy Dave Bones, kindly piss off to Al Jazeera with the rest of your treacherous turncoat Beeboids. Terrorist sympathizers and apologists like you utterly sicken me.
“paintballing was one of the ways he got his men prepared for combat.”
Huh. It’s still a few years before we catch up with France.
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? Mr Hamid is a “moderate” Muslim yes? And would find the idea of his friends and contacts commiting mass murder very upsetting yes? And so he would do everything he could to make sure they brought to justice yes?
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.
David Gregory (BBC):
Hi Susan. So like Bryan you’re not actually in Britain either?
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.12.07 – 8:09 am | #
Goodness, no! I’m a Yank. How clever of you to sniff me out though! Of course you could have just reviewed the past four or five years’ worth of archives, which is about how long I’ve been commenting on this blog. But that’s probably too much work for you, being a Beeboid and all.
Typical al-Beeb, blame the messenger and ignore the message!
David Gregory would make a perfect liberal in the US. When chided about his organization not reporting possible terrorists to the authorities he deliberately attacks my obvious joke and wraps the BBC in the “victim card”. We can’t be questioned because we were once bomb victims. Next he questions my authority to make a comment since I am not a resident of the UK.
The only thing he failed to do was explain the reasoning for his co-worker not giving police information that could prove helpful.
Now that the BBC is polluting our airwaves with Matt Frei, it’s a little silly to say we Yanks have no right to challenge BBC bias. Unless you can convince BBBC that no foreigners need apply, I would suggest you stop using the foreign origin to ignore righteous questions regarding BBC activities.
Cheers Mr. Hammer.
Hamid has been defending himself. I’m not going to apologise for anyone, or go into details about my opinions about Hamid and the story he has told in court until after the case is over as I neither have contempt for the court, the jury or the judge.
Hello Will,
The Frei-cook is the worst British import to the US since Jerry Springer!
David Gregory wrote:
“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!)”
I was hoping not to have to say this, David, as you seem a decent chap, but since you insist… I pay my licence fee and have endured Midlands Today for over thirty years. Although its presenters are affable, its content is no different in its PC bias from the rest of the BBC’s output.
David,
I would be more than happy to advise you on your trip to Northern Iraq. If you promise to report accurately from there!
If you are going to the Kurdish areas, Irbil or Sulaymaniah? You will be shocked how autonomous, safe, prosperous and beautiful the area is.
There is probably only about one (1) US soldier per province up there. Normally a US Army Engineers Sergeant overseeing reconstruction projects – This often annoys me in reporting, as when the rare atrocity occurs, the Beeb will always come out with a line like ” despite of the surge”
If you are going to Sulaymaniah, I am well placed to assist you, as I was the UN Field Officer up there, for the referendum and elections of 2005. I have excellent contacts in local government and The Peshmurga there. Irbil I don’t know as well. The rest of my patch was Ta’iam (Kirkuk), Salahadin (Tikrit) and Diyala (Baqubah) provinces.
Get back in touch here and if your serious, I am happy to advise you fully and also let you know where to get the best Steak, egg and chips in Northern Iraq.
Back to the Anthrax post man. Yes, a few years back, I was in the bowls of White City, chemically suited up every night for a couple of weeks opening all unrecognised mail.
Other BBC security tasks of mine include:
Belfast Holy Cross school Ardoyne riots
Notting hill Carnival
Dozens of Mayday anti war demos
Football hooligans documentary
Numerous other door stepping tasks.
And many, many more, all a few years back now.
In many of these projects I was exposed to the BBC’s version of events – it often differed from what I was experiencing.
Hence me posting here, I still have many friends who are programme editors etc, at the Beeb. Our politics differ widely, I respect their opinion, but it shouldn’t become propaganda.
|
Do you all believe that Muslims en masse should be banned from paintballing?
bones,
Don’t try to dodge the question yet again about BBC mistakes. The funding of Hamid’s military games was an issue of judgement not policy. A man who on the video calls himself Osama bin London, thinks that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, and who was selling extremist literature at his stall (did the BBC not even think to question what he was selling?), and then proudly claims that he engages in regular military style games for fun should set alarm bells ringing in any sensible person’s mind. Only the most ignorant pseudo-liberal would not put two and two together, and think him unsuitable for a programme ostensibly designed to promote Islam as a religion of peace.
There does also happen to be a question of policy here. Why did the BBC not report to the police this man’s connections with the 21/7 bombers, even after numerous Beeboids were informed of them?