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.
Lurker in a Burqua | 07.01.08 – 3:26 pm
“Shoo-in for Kerry time” suggests that the BBC thought he was going to win (easily, by a mile etc).
I can find no evidence that the BBC believed that.
Indeed, almost every report seemed to suggest the race would be tight and the final reports gave Bush the edge.
It was “wishful thinking” by the BBC that Kerry would win.
Personally, I was supporting Kerry in 2004.
But I was aghast to hear a female 5 Live presenter say, just prior to the election, on the prospect that Bush might be re-elected, that “well, you can never tell what the Americans will do. We British don’t really like that kind of thing.”
“That kind of thing” was Bush, and that sounded like a pretty clear endorsement of Kerry to me.
Anyone else notice that the BBC hasn’t referred to the Joseph Rountree Charitable Trust as a left of centre organisation?
This organisation has its roots in an anti war stance (Quakers) and therefore for the BBC NOT to point this out in their reporting of the comments made by this organisation is poor journalism.
When ANY organisation publishes a report any political bias should be made clear, in particular previous reports or political involvement.
Typical BBC.
The BBC normally mention when an organisation is right wing so why not left?
Wonderful to see the beeboids giving such oportunities for the Great Leader to explain how tractor production in the NHS will again be at record highs.
Letting the nulab press office produce and edit the Toady programme, will definitely be a saving for licence payers.
Might be worth adding that church bells do not ring five times a day.every day of the week.
JR
“I have yet to hear any BBC analysis which treats the scientific criticism of the catastrophist argument with anything but contemptuous dismissal.
Try this.”
Thanks – I haven’t yet listened to “this” yet so I looked at the accompanying article “A Load of Hot Air” which can be reached from the sidebar of your link.
Just to give a flavour of where Simon Cox was coming from, the article finishes thus All of the climate scientists we spoke to fervently believe global warming is being caused by human activity. Many agree there’s also a major problem with alarmism. As one scientist said: “If we cry wolf too loudly or too often, no-one will believe us when the beast actually comes for dinner.”. Forgive my scepticism concerning the programme but all this means to me is that the programme makers (1) didn’t speak to any sceptics, (2) were convinced before they started that ACC is substantial and chose their interviewees accordingly (3) were worried that they were over-selling the impending (non)catastrophe. Hardly an impartial and rigorous “analysis” of the sceptical case.
I also note that “this” was broadcast almost 2 years ago and 6 months before the release of “An Inconvenient Truth”. What’s happened to the BBC’s impartial coverage since? A convenient silence? (Well not from Messrs Harrabin, Black and Shukman). If you went back into the archives and this is all you could find then it’s as clear a demonstration as is required to confirm my claim that the BBC contemptuously dismisses, when it doesn’t ignore, the scientific case against ACC.
Martin | 07.01.08 – 4:14 pm
Anyone else notice that the BBC hasn’t referred to the Joseph Rountree Charitable Trust as a left of centre organisation?
Just because you are a Quaker doesn’t make you left-wing. Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
However, you’re right to suggest the BBC should identify the background of the Trust – which…er….it does:
The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust is a Quaker organisation which is “committed to a culture of peace and the creation of a peaceful world”.
Quakerism holds pacifism as a cornerstone of its religious beliefs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7174431.stm
Oh please, please, please go on strike…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/06/bbc.jobcuts
Can’t wait to see coverage of this…on ITN or Sky.
John Reith,
I won’t make any claims that the BBC overtly campaigned for Kerry last time, but I definitely recall what’s-his-name doing the running commentary on election night that was shown both on BBC World and domestically. The more it looked like Bush might win, the more he sounded and acted like a sports announcer calling a shocking, tragic loss for the home team. Other than that, the Guardianistas letter-writing campaign won the award for worst busybodies trying to tell Americans how to vote.
This time around, though, the agenda is clear. Abandon Ship has noted exactly the same pattern that I’ve been commenting on for at least two months, and Martin @ 3:13 pm also sees the rats abandoning one ship for another.
Various Beeboids have been very clear on air that the world simply must have a Democrat president. No one can discuss the possibilities of the next administration without passing comment on the need “to undo the damage of the last eight years” or some other partisan nonsense. Even when interviewing Republican candidates, the desire for a “pro-gay rights, pro-abortion and anti-gun” president is put out for all to see. Not only that, but any objective look at the sheer volume of coverage of the Dems heavily outweighs air time given to Republicans.
Until very recently, the average Beeboid has also been convinced that the US is too racist to elect a black man. This comes up every time Obama is in the picture (and was spoken of in no uncertain terms during taping sessions with a certain American radio host). The Beeboid will voice the “concern” that we’re too racist, but the meaning is clear, especially when they do it in snow-white Iowa. It’s the white Conservatives/Republicans that are the racists. After all, one the most hallowed of leftoid talking points is that the Republicans are the party of racism, and all blacks must owe allegiance to the Dems.
While it may have been true at one time, this canard has been proven fundamentally false rather recently. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice have been seriously mentioned as Republican presidential candidates. Both of them would have gotten a substantial amount of support from white Republicans because of their perceived accomplishments and political views, nothing to do with the color of their skin whatsoever.
(Of course it’s obligatory that I now state that there are in fact racists in the US, and there always will be. Saying that a black person has every chance of winning based on the qualities that actually do win elections does not deny the existence of racism in the US.)
Aside from that, lots of white conservatives and Republicans have said they would consider either Powell or Rice as president. So any claim that the US is too racist to elect a black person at this point is only so much bigoted garbage. Yet the BBC continued to believe that until they actually went to Iowa and slowly discovered they weren’t so awful after all. It also soon became clear to them that the US media was going to be behind him, and enough white Iowans were supporting him. Since the BBC analysis of the US elections seems to be little more than a summation of what they read in the Washington Post or in The Nation, they followed suit. So much so that the BBC (unintentionally, surely?) loaded their panel of average US Iowans with Obama-maniacs.
The BBC is slowly realizing that Obama is now becoming the favored horse, and they are now repositioning themselves. It is only natural for a news organization to give more attention to the front runner at any given time, but the coverage of Obama is only going to get worse from here on out. Unless he tanks in the next couple of primaries, which I doubt.
In the next couple of weeks, Obama will be presented as the one chance America has for redemption. He is a black man, a Democrat, and anti-this-war, so his election will redeem the US from the nastiness of the last eight years. Not only will he redeem us from our history of racism, but from our nasty warmongering ways, with no further danger to the promotion of abortion or gay marriage. This is the BBC dream. No, JR, it’s not a corporate policy that one can find in a memo or anything. But this is in the minds of nearly all those covering the US elections right now, from the lowliest correspondent to the senior editors and producers. And it comes out in BBC reports.
Quick, check the Great Leader pic:
Browns says ‘Mines is this big’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
John Reith: Rubbish again. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust clearly has left leaning tendencies. Perhaps I should have said “Liberal” instead? I’m not complaining about that, but shouldn’t the BBC mention that in its reporting? The BBC always mentions when an organisation is right wing, always.
Here is a quote from the BBC.
“..The report is published by the Efficiency in Government Unit – a joint effort by right of centre think tanks the Economic Research Council and the Centre for Policy Studies…”
Link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4255709.stm
And another
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4576528.stm
And this classic from Live 8. here’s the quote and link
“…But, can the new Live 8 concerts really make a difference to a continent where things don’t seem to have got any better in the past two decades?
We debated the issues with Steve Tibbett, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Actionaid and Kendra Olonski, from the right wing think tank, the International Policy Network…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4598449.stm
Even if you disagree, shouldn’t the BBC at least mention the sorts of issues this organisation gets invloved with? That must have relevance to why the report was carried out?
There are plenty more by the way.
IPPR never gets tagged as left, nor does the Smith Institute.
On the subject of Jeremy Clarkson. Anyone remember which Government managed to lose several data disks full of bank details?
Here’s a reminder
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7103940.stm
Note the comment spounted by Alistair Darling, I’ve quoted it
“…But Mr Darling said that according to the banking industry, these details on their own would not be enough to lead to a fraud as additional security measures are used by banks…”
Funny, but with Clarkson’s name, sort code and bank details someone was able to set up a direct debit.
That comment from Darling was a load of bollocks at the time and the BBC NEVER gave him or fatso Broon a hard time over it.
Oh and I thought the banks were “meant” to be monitoring suspicious activity on accounts?
And BBC, just whatever happened to those two disks?
Any chance instead of concentrating on jeremy Clarkson’s stupidity, you might concentrate on that of Darling and Broon?
I thought not!
BBC considers banning criticism of Islam….
Value of citizen journalism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/value_of_citizen_journalism.html
“Ten days ago, just hours after the death of Benazir Bhutto, we considered turning off the comment facility on that story on the BBC News website. It was only a fleeting notion but that we could consider, however briefly, freezing this important part of BBC News’ service tells you something about the power and the potential danger of the intensity of the interaction between the contributing public, journalists and audiences. And it raises the question of how much attention and resource news organisations should devote to this rapidly burgeoning aspect of our journalism.
Let me explain more about the Bhutto response. As is usual after major stories, our team quickly put up a Have Your Say forum to get reaction to her death. As you probably know there is a facility for users to recommend comments that previous people have posted. Here are a few of the top half dozen comments, with the number of people who eventually ended up recommending the views.
— “That’s the way politics works with The Religion of Peace.” 828
— “Religion of Peace strikes again.”717
— “Is this another example of the wonderful tolerance for which, or so we are constantly being told, Islam is famous? Its time the rest of the world stopped making excuses for this barbaric, dark ages way of life and completely condemned the casual brutality continually perpetrated by so many of the religion’s supporters.” 565
The vehemence and the unanimity of these opinions against the Muslim religion were striking.
“So why did we consider freezing this forum? A small part of our thinking was that in the context of the death of a significant international figure, who was herself Muslim, we thought that the weight of remarks could be offensive to some users of the BBC News website.”
Horrocks appears surprised that many people link Islamic extremism to abhorrent suicide bombing deaths including Bhuttos. What is striking about that? The only striking thing here is that the Head of BBC Newsroom considered a ban on un-islamic comments during the days following Bhutto’s death.
The al-BBC. We censor news and your comments too.
The BBC is playing it straight again.
JR please correct me if you disagree with this analysis.
Radio 5 Drive. 7th Jan 17:25
Simon Mayo out in the US covering tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary.
The introduction from UK said the primary is for both Republican and Democrats.
What does Simon Mayo talk about?
How he has just attended an Obama event and how he was. Also how good Hillary is but she is trying to be more realistic asking about Obama’s substance , will he achieve all is is saying, and Hilliary is finding that message hard to get across.
Also that Hillary could stay in the race if she lost every primary upto Super Tuesday.
Mayo’s coverage of the Republicans?
Nothing. Not a sausage.
Bias , no bias here.
Nothing to see.
Please move along.
Correction
The BBC is playing it straight again.
JR please correct me if you disagree with this analysis.
Radio 5 Drive. 7th Jan 17:25
Simon Mayo out in the US covering tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary.
The introduction from UK said the primary is for both Republican and Democrats.
What does Simon Mayo talk about?
How he has just attended an Obama event and how GOOD he was. Also how good Hillary is but she is trying to be more realistic asking about Obama’s substance , will he achieve all is is saying, and Hillary is finding that message hard to get across.
Also that Hillary could stay in the race if she lost every primary upto Super Tuesday.
Mayo’s coverage of the Republicans?
Nothing. Not a sausage.
Bias , no bias here.
Nothing to see.
Please move along.
Glad someone else see’s the bias of Simon Mayo and Radio 5.
I posted a long time ago here that the BBC would do all it could to see a Democrat elected.
The BBC thinks it will have a wide influence on Americans that live overseas.
You were quite right to point out the bias of Simon Mayo.
Note my previous comments about him reviewing any book that was anti George Bush at the last US election, but never anything negative about Kerry.
Also a long time ago Mayo did a show from Texas about Capital punishment (why always Texas?). In it Mayo was talking to two mothers who’se sons had been executed.
Mayo said “what did they think of George Bush’s decision to execute them…”
The women were confused as the President of the United States did not have any say in these executions.
Of course it turned out Mayo had it all wrong and had “assumed” that George Bush Jr was Governor of Texas at the time of the executions. He wasn’t, but this is typical of Mayo not checking out his facts and just jumping to conclusions, as usual.
Can I say that in response to John Reith that Daivd Gee the author of that toilet report today is clearly a leftie?
Look him up on Google
Here’s a quote
“…The first part of this project was to gather and assimilate existing information. To this end, we have had representatives at conferences, at demonstrations and in correspondence with the UK Government on these issues and have acquired a significant number of key resources on the issues of concern. At Britain Yearly Meeting in July, we contributed to a special interest group meeting on US Missile Defence Proposals, along with David Gee of Quaker Peace and Social Witness…”
And link
http://nfpb.gn.apc.org/annr2001.htm
Does this sound like someone who doesn’t have an axe to grind with the military? Impartial? I think not.
Oh and here’s the link to his organisation. Again an anti militry group.
http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=89989&int1stParentNodeID=89723&int2ndParentNodeID=89780&int3rdParentNodeID=89989
In the spring, in collaboration with Quaker Green Concern and the Quaker Socialist Society, we produced a short briefing sheet for Friends, focussing on arms trade and conversion, on US missile defence and the need for investment in non-military means of building security, including resource sustain-ability. We were pleased to join with Yorkshire General Meeting’s “Quaker Outreach in Yorkshire”, helping to run with them a day on disarmament and environmental concerns, stimulated by a presentation from Paul Rogers of Bradford University’s department of Peace Studies
All Hail the Great One!!
Brown’s new year blitz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7174525.stm
That picture of Broon looks like a Nazi salute to me!
Also nice to see a SCOTSMAN who has no mandate in England telling me what a great NHS we have.
Actually Broon I’d like the NHS you as a Scot has please.
About the coverage of the Democratic primaries, aren’t Reith and the BBC going to be shocked when America again votes in its own interest and rejects Obama, the savior.
A professor,who wrote his memoirs at the age of 30??, he has no qualifications to run anything must less be president.
He was only elected to Congress because the former democratic senator had to resign due to corruption and he faced no challenger. After serving less than a year, he has been running for President ever since?
The fact of the matter is that if Obama were not an African-American the media would laugh him off the stage as a candidate.
Contrary to the bigots in the Democratic party, most of America will not vote for him just because he has black skin anymore than they reject him for it.
Lurkingblackhat: I just checked the running order for 5Live. You are quite right. According to the script this was a two-way focused on the Democrats… but what you didn’t say is that an hour later there was a second two way focused exclusively on the Republicans. Indeed this should have been trailed as coming up in the earlier Mayo discussion.
So a bite of the cherry for both sides.
Telegraph spots BBC bias on the R4 ‘Today’ sofa
Gordon Brown given easy ride over economy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/01/07/nwinnett107.xml
“With the storm clouds gathering over the British economy, Gordon Brown must have approached this morning’s interview with the BBC Today programme with some trepidation.
Tony Blair famously used to avoid the interviews following a series of tense grillings but within ten minutes of beginning this morning’s interview, Mr Brown was pleading with the interviewer to “please invite me on any time”.
Mr Stourton meekly asked the Prime Minister that he said government borrowing was between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of GDP, whereas the Conservatives say it is 4 per cent.
The BBC presenter then said: “I don’t really feel in a position to adjudicate myself, what is the truth?”
Short of asking Mr Brown what he would like to talk about, the Prime Minister could barely have been asked an easier question in his career.”
It’s a hard life……
BBC chief spends £40,000 on flights and hotels
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nbbc206.xml
“In April it spent just over £3,350 on two flights to Augusta and New York so Mr Thompson could attend the Masters golf tournament and a series of staff meetings.
Just a month later, the corporation spent £4,368 pounds flying its director-general to Seattle, where he attended a Microsoft conference.
In June he flew to Paris and Banff at a cost to the licence-payer of £4,729.
Mr Thompson’s most expensive set of flights took place in September 2006, when he flew to Seattle, San José and San Francisco at a cost of just over £5,100.”
Lurkingblackhat: I just checked the running order for 5Live. You are quite right. According to the script this was a two-way focused on the Democrats… but what you didn’t say is that an hour later there was a second two way focused exclusively on the Republicans. Indeed this should have been trailed as coming up in the earlier Mayo discussion.
So a bite of the cherry for both sides.
David Gregory (BBC) | 07.01.08 – 7:01 pm |
I did not know that.
Unfortuately it was not flagged up that there would be two segements from Mayo.
The introduction from the studio said there were Democrat and Republians primaries and Simon Mayo was in the New Hampshire covering them for Five live.
Off he went on this Democrat only waffle and I gave up and tuned to a different station shortly afterwards in disgust.
A quick lesson their for the BBC about how to lose listeners.
Lurkingblackhat: Ah, well I think you can “listen again” to catch the Republican two-way at around 1812ish.
Ritter | 07.01.08 – 7:15 pm |
Just a month later, the corporation spent £4,368 pounds flying its director-general to
Seattle, where he attended a Microsoft conference.
Interesting that the DG himself had to go to a Microsoft conference on business technology. I guess it’s all hands on at the BBC. Or maybe they just follow the old Star Trek pattern that the captain always leads the way on landing parties. Also, unless Thompson was comped by CES or one of the sponsors, you can add another thousand pounds or two to the taxpayers’ tab. And did he go by himself? Aren’t there other people at the BBC whose jobs directly involve this technology and really ought to be there? Add that same £4,368 plus any registration fee for each BBC senior officer (assuming the Star Trek m.o.). Not to mention accommodations and meals. All on the expense account, unless they’re all staying in Bill’s guest house.
Curious how the BBC didn’t use to be so comfortable with Microsoft at all, yet in the past year Bill Gates has had his paws all over Auntie. The conference in May was mostly about the Microsoft SQL Server and affiliated technologies, but surely the DG didn’t need to go all the way to Seattle to learn about the benefits of using Microsoft for BBC database stuff. And surely it’s not the DG’s job to learn more about the benefits of Microsoft’s Office Suite. Perhaps some other meetings were going on?
Last year’s show “How We Built Britain” used Microsoft’s Photosynth 3D imaging software to create all those virtual buildings.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9726867-7.html
Just a couple months later, howls of protest arise over the BBC’s having given Microsoft complete control of the iPlayer and using their DRM foulness.
http://defectivebydesign.com/blog/iPlayerProtestReport
It turns out that the thing was from the start created with the intention of using Microsoft’s Digital Rights Management exclusively, when the BBC previously didn’t like to do that or encrypt content at all. Odds are that all those problems the BBC had with Mac and Linux users resulted from Microsoft’s guidance on the project.
In September we had Thompson’s “fact-finding tour”, taking him to a meeting with – wait for it – Microsoft. He came away with a “non-exclusive memorandum of understanding”. Which has, in fact, turned out to be pretty exclusive. Ashley Highfield, director of new media and technology went to Seattle with Thompson in September (appropriately), so he most likely went to the May Conference as well.
And now the BBC does a new interview and lets Gates flog his touch-screen “Surface” thingy, something that’s old news, and doesn’t even have some of the new abilities demonstrated by other companies at CES. Instead it’s more or less the same stock fluff speech about more intuitive interfaces that he’s been giving for the past year.
I’m sure with some digging around a few lovely reasons will turn up for Thompson to go to that conference.
The BBC, how it dums down history and its hatred of America.
Timewatch – Bloody Omaha
More than 60 years on, teams of researchers are still arguing about exactly why Omaha Beach was so much harder to capture than the other four D-Day beaches. Presenter Richard Hammond and Dr Simon Trew of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst set out to discover whether new archaological finds cast a fresh light on the bloodiest beach of the ‘Longest Day’?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/timewatch/index.shtml
Did anybody watch the above revision of history from the BBC.
Staring Richard (Watch me use my head as a crash helmet) Hammond.
I know the BBC hates the US but to blatantly rewrite history in which to paint the US as negatively as possible is something I would expect from the Nazis at the time of the landings
I mean come on getting a bloke to say “I believe I isn’t a fact it is a supposition. Then using that supposition as a fact is quoting a falsehood. The whole program was geared around how History which records that 2000 men died on that beach is incorrect and how the real figure was closer to 4000. How history records it as a success but it was actually a disaster, how fucks sake BBC. Churchill had planned for 20000 dead bodies yet in the end we were lucky that the total figure was around 10,000. But why did the BBC omit these salient points.
Hobart’s funnies.(The few that did take part sank)
The German troops dug in were the elite 352nd Infantry Division.
The beach was the most heavily defended out of the 5 beaches assaulted that day.
Compared to Dieppe Omaha was an outstanding success.
the end of the day the Beach was taken.
And here is the BBC forum on the program;
http://open2.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4143
Even they feel that the BBC dums the subject down.
The BBC, how it dums down history and its hatred of America.
The BBC, how it dums down history and its hatred of America.
Timewatch – Bloody Omaha
More than 60 years on, teams of researchers are still arguing about exactly why Omaha Beach was so much harder to capture than the other four D-Day beaches. Presenter Richard Hammond and Dr Simon Trew of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst set out to discover whether new archaological finds cast a fresh light on the bloodiest beach of the ‘Longest Day’?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/timewatch/index.shtml
Did anybody watch the above revision of history from the BBC.
Staring Richard (Watch me use my head as a crash helmet) Hammond.
I know the BBC hates the US but to blatantly rewrite history in which to paint the US as negatively as possible is something I would expect from the Nazis at the time of the landings
I mean come on getting a bloke to say “I believe I isn’t a fact it is a supposition. Then using that supposition as a fact is quoting a falsehood. The whole program was geared around how History which records that 2000 men died on that beach is incorrect and how the real figure was closer to 4000. How history records it as a success but it was actually a disaster, how fucks sake BBC. Churchill had planned for 20000 dead bodies yet in the end we were lucky that the total figure was around 10,000. But why did the BBC omit these salient points.
Hobart’s funnies.(The few that did take part sank)
The German troops dug in were the elite 352nd Infantry Division.
The beach was the most heavily defended out of the 5 beaches assaulted that day.
Compared to Dieppe Omaha was an outstanding success.
the end of the day the Beach was taken.
And here is the BBC forum on the program;
http://open2.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4143
Even they feel that the BBC dums the subject down.
The BBC, how it dums down history and its hatred of America.
We know Jeremy Clarkson was embarrassed. Boy, was his face red! :o(
http://thumbsnap.com/v/IAYO5OZ5.jpg
It seemed too convenient so I checked for other pictures of Mr.C
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Sjyrca4Z.jpg
Nope, hideously white. 🙁
Sod it
Re: Microsoft and the BBC. Contrast the BBC feature on Bill Gates with actual reporting on CES, viz Amazon.com’s report on his keynote address.
John Reith,
Do BBC staff have access to a far better BBC search engine than the clunker the general public is saddled with?
Please advise how you can always locate BBC articles often years back, so quickly.
reposted from uss neverdock –
Iraq Suicide Attack Kills 11
There’s a bigger story in this Time report.
“Two Iraqi soldiers threw themselves on a suicide bomber who slipped into a crowd celebrating Iraq’s Army Day, but the attacker detonated an explosives vest, killing both soldiers and nine other people, the U.S. military and police said. ”
Which is why the BBC left that part out of their report.
Coming back to the BBC report on the leftie (LibDems are the bulk of the Trust members) Rowantree report on the MoD and their ridiculous claims that the MoD glamorises war…..the ex-soldier the BBC used as the only example in their article is one Barry Donnan ex Royal Highland Fusiliers, involved in the clean up after Lockabie, charged (and found not guilty) of murder whilst on a tour of Belize, and who now claims to have PTSD after Gulf War 1 where he saw 100s of dead Iraqis being buried. Whoopee. We got 50 pence a day for work of an objectionable nature in 1982 in the Falklands as we dug up and reburied Argies. (“Anyone got a spare leg for this one?” “Aye” “Chuck it over” “Bloody hell this one’s been buried with six legs and three arms”)
The RHF as a Battalion in Gulf War 1 did not take a direct part in the action – they were out there as a Prisoner of War holding unit (along with a Guards Bn) so were not fighting as such, just collecting prisoners and guarding them. Donnan then claims he went to NI without an intelligence threat analysis certificate and thus was patrolling without knowing what he was doing. Absolute bollocks. He also served time for absence in Colchester.
So hardly a good example of a soldier who suffered due to having a view of war that was glamouous….he seems to have tried to build up all the various things he weas invovled in to ehlp with his claim for PTSD.
BUT obviously another person with an agenda which the BBC failed, as always, to tell us about. Funny that.
Apologies for the spelling in the last paragraph – fingers went wonky. But relax guys – it is not PTSD! Just lack of sleep! We’re back at school and I need another holiday already……….
John Reith and other BBC types: Can you please show me a BBC report of the following?
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/1/ec3b38a0-00af-4743-9943-5d00e920249f.html
John Reith
As you have clearly ignored my last comments and the questions they contained. Lets see if you can also ignore this one. Without losing your credibility completely for being a provider of TRUTH. Always assuming you know the answer to it. Which of cause you don’t, because very few people do.
How many D notices are the BBC currently restricted by. You know, government MI5 and MI6 directives to prevent the BBC broadcasting certain embarrassing information that may compromise the national interests?
I count at least 6 that would blow this country completely apart and this government even more so. However of cause there must be many more, by their very nature.
Alan and others.
Do some research yourselves into information NOT entirely in the public domain. Do not base your entire thinking on what is. It only makes you all seem like fools. Which I am very sure you are not.
It is impossible to make informed therefore correct judgments of your true reality, (In this case fully understand where the BBC is coming from.) if you are not in command of ALL the important FACTS.
It could mean you are actually barking up completely the wrong tree for completely the wrong reasons. Which only makes the BBC even more confident in fulfilling there true mission.
Which is to assist in the creation of a New World Order. By also helping to marginalise if not destroy conservative libertarian individualist thinking in this, and all other nations around the world forever. Apart from I am sure other things I have not quite worked out yet.
Whether JR and all the rest of them know this to be the case or not.
I have no interests in attacking this countries national interests. Firstly because I have a wife and children to consider. But also because I am certainly not qualified to be able to work out what these interests are and how they affect me or this country as a whole.
However I know we are not being told the whole truth and therefore I think until we know what the TRUTH really is calling the BBC not BRITISH is completely ridiculous to say the very least and makes you lot seem crazy not me.
Yes. You don’t own a tinfoil hat by any chance, do you?
blankfrank: I’m afraid I must say research on the usefulness of tinfoil hats reveals nothing but bad news
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
DaveT writes;
“Donnan then claims he went to NI without an intelligence threat analysis certificate and thus was patrolling without knowing what he was doing.”
Thanks for tabbing up a reply about this oxygen thief.
It appears he never knew about BallyKinler. Which is strange as every man and his dog had to spend a week there before you set foot in the province proper. Nevermind how he didn’t get a brief from his own ops cell. Also strange how the BBC leaves out he is political activist
DaveT writes;
“We got 50 pence a day for work of an objectionable nature in 1982 in the Falklands as we dug up and reburied Argies.”
Got more than me. In fact I did my second tour in 1983 and when the Government said they would pay £250 extra for anybody who did a second tour within 2 years I was told my tour started before the start date so didn’t qualify. But hey they couldn’t make me pregnant no matter how much they shafted me.
On the same report The Times says:
“an understanding of the values of the military world are absent,just as you would expect from a Quaker organisation. One might as well ask a vegan to review the charcuteries of Paris”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…142114.ece
Funny how the BBC STILL don’t get it….the lads over at arrse are tearing this apart.
“This report gives me every indication that the conclusions were written first and the evidence subsequently sought.” Bit like a BBC article then!
“Other stuff – why should military recruitment visits be given the “right of reply” from anti-militarists? If an engineering organisation (either a local or national firm, or a professional body) came to explain careers in their profession, should Greenpeace be brought in to explain the fanatically Luddite point of view? ”
Unlike the BBC who won’t let the Tories have a say when it might undermine thier Labour chums!
One huge mistake the author made was to claim that cadets use the AS90 as their personal weapon. Hmm HOW many tons does this self propelled artillery piece weigh? No wonder the poor wee buggers never pass their fitness test carting one of those around!
SO YET AGAIN the BBC are shown to be pushing an agenda and NOT revealing all the facts about people or organisations producing reports that the BBC are sympathetic to, yet at the same time the same so called impartial BBC always make a point of trying to undermine other viewpoints (“which is a right wing org” etc)This report is not impartial, is slanted, often wrong or omits basic facts that might harm the effect the author wants to achieve and the BBC should have provided a heck of a lot more balance than it did.
pounce: Falklands – happy days!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3142114.ece
Corrected link for Times article which really lays into the Rowntree wimps….so are the BBC going to accept that yet again they have pushed an agenda here?
“The Joseph Rowntree Trust has issued a prissy whinge against the Army’s recruitment campaign, claiming it glamorises warfare. The trust’s report is as predictable as it is misjudged. An understanding of the values of the military world are absent, just as we would expect from a Quaker institution. One might as well ask a vegan to review the charcuteries of Paris.
The report is a cocktail of naiveté and arrogance. It assumes that today’s children and teenagers are so dumb that they are utterly unaware that a soldier’s life involves fighting and killing people. We are awash with war films, news footage from Iraq and Afghanistan and documentaries which reveal this truth in terrifying detail. Are the young so isolated that they imagine that “warfare is gamelike and enjoyable”? Is this the message of Saving Private Ryan or Zulu?
Nevertheless, the trust claims that rookies, duped by the recruiting officers’ patter, dream of a cosy life and a sergeant-major who will tuck them in bed and give them a goodnight kiss. When he doesn’t, they depart in droves. The truth is that the wastage rate of new recruits is the same as it was a century ago. “
Bryan | 06.01.08 – 11:06 am
I can’t see there’s much mileage in your scurrilous attempt to smear Jane Corbin as some sort of agenda-driven, Islamo-fascist-loving leftist hack.
John Reith | 07.01.08 – 10:37 am
Mileage? They’ll put you in room 101, Reith. Don’t you know you’re supposed to go decimal? Concentrate Reith, concentrate. Nowhere did I attempt to smear Corbin as Islamo-fascist-loving, though I freely admit to exposing her as an agenda-driven, leftist hack, whether she’s married to a conservative or not.
I just find it reprehensible that someone from the British Broadcasting Corporation would go over to Basra and point the finger of blame for Iraqi on Iraqi atrocities at her British compatriots.
Right at the end she has an Iraqi woman asking why the British stayed on after Saddam had been toppled. I guess it was meant to be a final poignant cry blaming the British for Basra’s woes, as the programme had been leading up to for some time. But that Iraqi woman knows very well what game the BBC wants her to play. So for me it wasn’t poignant at all. Just the manipulative BBC approaching its subject with its sly agenda and then forcing the facts to fit it.
The BBC’s agenda has become totally transparent in pretty much everything it does. It’s about time you realised that, Reith.
Tin foil hat or not.
I made some very interesting points in that last comment.
The most interesting being that YOU people seem to believe that the BBC is somehow not British or is not doing very largely what the government of this country tells them to do. By government I do not entirely mean this current Labour Government.
If you seriously do believe such utter nonsense then it is you lot that should be waring the tin hats not me.
Because there is hardly anybody in the entire world out side this country that believes what you people seem to take as FACT. This is because the rest of the world is not as stupid.
On this I am on JR’s side. Who clearly knows far more about the BBC then you lot do. Whether he tells you everything or not. He cant of cause because it is even more clearly obvious he is not allowed to.
OK, here’s what we’ve got: The Rand Corporation… in conjunction with the saucer people… under the supervision of the reverse vampires… are running the BBC.
We’re through the looking glass, here, people…
Well Dave I’ve had a good butchers at that Report (Informed choice?) into life for soldiers and here are the mistakes I found with it;
Report claim
“The UK is the world’s largest military spender after the United States,”
Well if you use Wikipedia for your facts then that above statement is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_spending#Military_budgets_.282003.29
However if you use
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld
Britain comes in 4th, in fact using other military websites Britain comes in even lower;
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld
Nice bit of disinformation by that report straight at the beginning.
Key messages are tailored to children’s interests and values: military roles are promoted as glamorous and exciting, warfare is portrayed as game-like and enjoyable, and outreach to the young is described as serving their personal growth and education.
Anybody wish to tell what the best selling computer games are? Shoot-em ups? They glamorise killing to a far greater extent than any army pamphlet.
What about the top selling film in the UK?
Only I am legend. And why is he called “legend” because of how many vampires he has killed.
Army cadets learn to strip down and fire standard-issue SA80 rifles
No they don’t they use sub calibre versions which fires a 202 round. Single shot bolt action weapon.
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Cadet_Rifle_L98A1.htm
Male soldiers under 20 years of age face a 50% greater risk of suicide than those of similar profile in the civilian population Based on data for 1984 to 2006, the highest rate of forces suicides is among army males between the ages of 16 and 24 (16-18 deaths per 100,000 per year)
And figures from the Samaritans for the rest of the UK.
In the UK and Republic of Ireland, the rate per 100,000 in 2002 for 15 – 24 year old men, continued on its five-year downward trend (from a five-year high of 18 per 100,000 in 1997) to 14 per 100,000, a level not seen since the late 1980’s.
In the Republic of Ireland, suicide amongst 15 – 24 year old men rose in the 1990s, reaching a peak of 36 per 100,000 in 1998. However in 2002 this rate showed a substantial fall to a rate of 24 per 100,000 (CSO).
The rate amongst 15 – 24 year old men in Scotland, which stood at 36 per 100,000 in 2000, has shown a fall to stand at 30 per 100,000 in 2002 (GROS) .
It appears the suicide rate for young men in the Uk is on a par with England and Wales, but a lot less than Scotland and Eire. Strange how that report contrasts the suicide figures not against Scotland and the rest but against the Navy and Airforce which have lesser figures.
http://www.samaritans.org/your_emotional_health/publications/young_people_and_suicide.aspx
In the army’s case,the study found that the highest rates of bullying were among initial (Phase 1) training establishments and that its most common victims were women and people with minority ethnic backgrounds
Well I for one can put my hand up and say I was never bullied and I come in at 5 foot 8 hardly a giant.
I could go on. But I’ve the telly on and Arnie is glamorising how to kill aliens in the jungle. Looks a lot easier than my Belize trip.
Atlas Shrugged: Of course the BBC does as it’s told, just like the NHS, the armed forces and every other Government owned organisation does.
In the case of the BBC it’s upper managemnt is filled with Nu Labour backside lickers and it has a workforce drawn from the Islington dinner party set.
The BBC is very quick to spout Nu Labour propaganda as fact which is not allowed to be challenged. Examples of this are Victoria Derbyshire who daily shrills at anyone who dares call Government figures lies.
When Andrew Marr slithered out of No 10 3 months ago to tell us there would be no election I’d assumed the BBC had become the official spokesman of the Labour Party.
At least Bliar had the decency to come out himself (mug of coffe in hand)
The BBC, Deepcut barracks and half a story.
MoD to announce Deepcut closure
The closure of Surrey’s Deepcut army barracks is to be announced later by the Ministry of Defence. The training base near Camberley, where four young soldiers died in separate shooting incidents between 1995 and 2002, is to be sold off.
The MoD will make a statement to MPs in the Commons later about the closure, which is not expected for five years. Defence chiefs say the move has nothing to do with the deaths at the base but is part of a review of training.
…………….
However, the base, the main training centre for the Royal Logistics Corps, will not close fully, with family accommodation expected to remain at the site after the training barracks has been demolished.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7176133.stm
So the BBC gives the impression that Deepcut is going because of bad publicity.
Really?
As somebody who has visited Deepcut a number of times. I can say that the program of selling off MOD property in which to houses civvies has been ongoing for at least 10 years. I mean where the old officers mess is. (Still there) It’s now in the middle of a civy estate. Dettingen Crescent anyone?
http://www.houseprices.co.uk/dettingen-crescent-deepcut-camberley-gu16/
Click on the map to see what it looked like. Click on google maps proper to see what it looks like now. (The camp is below it)
As for family accommodation is still expected to remain. That’s strange as all the Pads quarters are at Pirbright. Another camp. Oh you can cut across the old Brunswick road to get there, but its another camp in another locationhttp://www.army.mod.uk/atr/atr_pirbright/index.htm
Funny how the BBC doesn’t point hat out.
The BBC, Deepcut barracks and half a story.