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.
“But hang on a minute, Hannah…the whole Olympic bid wasn’t run by NuLab. It was run by a Conservative peer.”
What a wonderful example of BBC bias. No mention the whole enterprise being under the auspices of a Labour government and a very left wing Mayor of London.
‘Sky has revenues well in excess of 3 billion, but it produces an inferior TV product and doesn’t do radio or the internet at all.’
In point of fact, Sky has an excellent website, it’s just that it’s largely there to promote its own product. I have no problem with this as it’s a commercial operation • it may be Sky-biased but I am aware of that fact when I visit it so I can bear that in mind. Unlike the BBC it has no brief to be impartial.
A lot of people who subscribe to Sky do so for the sport, but the viewing figures are skewed because a lot of sport viewing goes on in pubs and clubs or with groups of friends and colleagues gathered round a single screen.
As for the ‘popularity’ of the BBC, a lot of that is down to the inertia factor and brand loyalty, with which those of us who work and have to compete in the real world are well aware. If the BBC had to compete in the commercial marketplace without being buttressed by public funds, it is axiomatic that its viewing figures would fall and those of other channels would rise.
Until there is a level playing field, throwing viewing figures about as a justification for retaining the BBC falls into the category of ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’.
pounce | 15.01.08 – 4:31 pm
backwoodsman | 15.01.08 – 4:39 pm
…. suspect you will find Ken Richey’s connection to Britain , is as tenuous as that of the assorted middle eastern gentlemen who the bbc claimed were ‘British’ whilst agitating for their release from Guantanamo.
Kenny Richey was born to a Scottish mother and an American father. He was raised and went to school in Scotland, leaving to join his father in Ohio shortly after his 18th birthday.
In my book, that makes him a Scot • albeit one entitled to a US passport.
…trying to proclaim Kenny Richey is just another so called victim of a carriage of mis-justice.
Yes, on the basis of what I have read he does appear to have been innocent.
Richey was accused of setting fire to his ex-girlfriend’s flat and of responsibility for the consequent death of her little girl.
All of the scientific evidence at the trial has since been proven false and it emerged that prosecutors hid from the defence the rather important fact that the little girl had a history of lighting fires in the flat.
What makes the story one of broader public interest is that US law contains some rather odd provisions. One being that innocence is no barrier to execution. So, even once the courts had finally become convinced that Richey was innocent, that wasn’t enough to free him or even prevent his execution:
During the months preceding 21 March 1997, evidence was presented to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, conclusively establishing the innocence of Kenny Richey. This compelling evidence was submitted to support a bid for a hearing to allow Kenny’s defence team to show that the case was a tragic miscarriage of justice. The state prosecution did not dispute the accuracy of the new evidence. Prosecution Dan Gershutz said, “Even though this new evidence may establish Mr Richey’s innocence, the Ohio and United States constitution nonetheless allow him to be executed because the prosecution did not know that the scientific testimony offered at the trial was false and unreliable”
Any British subject can nowadays be extradited to the US without a UK court hearing the case against him/her.
I suspect many people would be uneasy about that if they realized they could themselves be whisked off to a country where proven innocence is not in itself sufficient grounds for reprieve from execution.
http://www.portia.org/chapter02/richey.html
Reuters UK 13/1: Conservatives double lead over Brown in poll
Channel 4 News 13/1: Tories take lead over Labour – poll
ITN 13/1: Tories double lead over Labour
Guardian Unlimited 12/1: Two polls show rise in Conservative lead
BBC website: *tumbleweed*
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 3:31 pm |
There’s been quite a lot of interest lately sparked by the case of Kenny Richey, a Brit, who’s just been released after 20 years or more on death row for a crime it appears he didn’t commit.
I’m not sure I buy that. Is the interest in just the case, or are the British Public truly interested in the issue of capital punishment itself? If anything, there are indications that they want the death penalty reinstated in the UK. I bet the BBC doesn’t want that, though.
Sure, an innocent man being saved from death row is always a good story, and since this involves an actual Brit (well, Scot, anyway), there is bound to be general public interest in the case itself. I don’t believe the general public want to get into a discussion about differing government policies. Isn’t this an instance of the BBC getting involved in moral judgments of other countries and cultures? It seems like that’s what’s going on here, which is going far beyond the story itself. Talk about things such as Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project or whatever all you (the BBC) like, but don’t engage in selective moralizing.
Mr Reith….On CBBC’s Newsround page there is an index section in alphabetical order.Under ‘I’ there is Islam.Under ‘C’ there is no Christianity.Why?I have emailed the site several times with,(guess what),no reply.You seem to want to clear the air over the bbc’s ‘alledged bias towards Islam,so an answer would be greatly appreciated.
Hugh | 15.01.08 – 5:02 pm
BBC Editorial Guidelines
The following rules for reporting the findings of voting intention polls in the United Kingdom conducted by any polling organisation must be applied:
* we do not lead a news bulletin or programme simply with the results of a voting intention poll.
* we do not headline the results of a voting intention poll unless it has prompted a story which itself deserves a headline and reference to the poll’s findings is necessary to make sense of it.
* we do not rely on the interpretation given to a poll’s results by the organisation or publication which commissioned it. We should look at the questions, the results and the trend.
* we report the findings of voting intention polls in the context of trend. The trend may consist of the results of all major polls over a period or may be limited to the change in a single pollster’s findings. Poll results which defy trends without convincing explanation should be treated with particular care.
* we do not use language which gives greater credibility to the polls than they deserve. We should say polls “suggest” but never “prove” or even “show”.
….more…../
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/politics/reportingopinio.shtml
…. “we do not feature opinion poll numbers which might annoy our NuLab paymasters, we’re got our tellytax increases to think about”
Fair enough, my mistake. Do you know why out of interest?
Jeffd | 15.01.08 – 5:08 pm
Newsround often looks at topics in greater detail if they have been making a lot of headlines in the papers and TV. Newsround editor Ian Prince explains why Newsround is having an Islam Week.
The reason why our latest subject is Islam is because it is a religion which has been in the news spotlight in recent years, ever since the attacks on America on 11 September 2001.
It is also the fastest growing religion in the UK….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4200000/newsid_4203300/4203377.stm
John Reith,
Surely this bit from the guidelines doesn’t forbid the BBC from reporting on the poll:
* we do not headline the results of a voting intention poll unless it has prompted a story which itself deserves a headline and reference to the poll’s findings is necessary to make sense of it.
In fact, wouldn’t that actually be a good reason for a report on the poll Hugh has mentioned?
Nothing like a bit of advertising right JR?
Absolutely shameless. I haven’t looked but I’m sure the critique of the relirion of peace does not contain the words murder or terrorist.
Here’s one for you. Is Islam the “fastest growing religion in the UK”, as CBBC states, or is it the religion whose population is increasing the fastest? Bit of a difference in the implications, no?
Hugh | 15.01.08 – 5:19 pm
Do you know why out of interest?
Because polls can be manipulated (e.g. through question selection); because they are sometimes inaccurate; because parties (or others) might use them to hi-jack the news agenda at critical moments; because they’re sometimes useful tools but seldom the unalloyed truth; because what they tell us generally needs to be set in context.
I’d have said Catholicism overtaking the CofE in terms of numbers might have been worth a mention in that case but ho-hum….
“It is also the fastest growing religion in the UK….”
So the BBC must pander to Islam in the hope that it the BBC is allowed to continue if it becomes a majority religion.The fact that the majority of the BBC tax payers couldn’t care less is irrelevant.
Sounds like any other type of research to be honest.
The CBBC page, dated in 2005, states that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, not just the UK.
“More than one billion people follow Islam and it is the fastest growing religion.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4180000/newsid_4188200/4188287.stm
I blogged about this at the time and cited this as a rebuttal which claims Christianity is the fastest growing religion. It too is dated in 2005.
http://hnn.us/articles/16536.html
Note the BBC provide no proof for their claim about Islam.
Having said that, the commenter who points out, is it really the religion that is growing in the UK or the number of Islamic immigrants flooding into Britain, is spot on. Likewise, how many people around the world are being forced into Islam.
The BBC also fail to point out that the penalty for leaving Islam is death. Some Muslim countries make it almost impossible to change your religion.
Hugh | 15.01.08 – 5:36 pm
That’s true.
John Reith
What an immature and ridiculous answer!The index site has nothing to do with featured items.It has retained its present format for a considerable period!
‘Sky has revenues well in excess of 3 billion, but it produces an inferior TV product and doesn’t do radio or the internet at all.’
But I choose whether I wish to subscribe to sky or not. If its so bad I can just cancel my subscription.
The BBC leaves me with no choice but to subscribe (license fee) onpain of criminal record, fine and imprisonment. I cannot cancel my subscription short of getting rid of my television completely.
Jeffd | 15.01.08 – 5:43 pm
Link please.
John Reith
In my above posts ‘index’ should read ‘guide’.
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 5:10 pm:
As you’re so keen to quote the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, please reconcile:
a) ten years of stubborn refusal by the BBC to examine our research showing that The Guardian and Fayed perverted the 1997 Downey Inquiry,
with
b) the statements below, taken from the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines:
Truth and Accuracy:
We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. … We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth.
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion:
We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. …
Serving the Public Interest:
We seek to report stories of significance. We will be vigorous in driving to the heart of the story and well informed when explaining it. …
I await your response with interest.
John Reith
CBBC Newsround page.Guide section.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 15.01.08 – 5:49 pm
Because you always overstate your case. All your geese are swans. The slightest anomalies are ‘lies’ or adduced as proof of some vast, over-arching conspiracy.
If you come on like those nutters drooling nonsense about the Illuminati and Trilateral Commission, you shouldn’t complain when you’re given the bum’s rush.
Reith writes:
“Kenny Richey was born to a Scottish mother and an American father. He was raised and went to school in Scotland, leaving to join his father in Ohio shortly after his 18th birthday.
In my book, that makes him a Scot • albeit one entitled to a US passport.”
Now those good ol’ ‘Britons’ – or is it ‘Britains’ – who are in Guantanamo after having spent a good deal more than their school years in Morocco, Algeria, and whatever self-created arab hell-hole they come from: what nationalities are they?
John Reith “What makes the story one of broader public interest is that US law contains some rather odd provisions. One being that innocence is no barrier to execution. So, even once the courts had finally become convinced that Richey was innocent, that wasn’t enough to free him or even prevent his execution:”
What utter rubbish and just what you’d expect from the BBC.
Richey’s case is and has been controversial, but the fact remains he was tried, convicted and that conviction was upheld on numerous appeals.
The latest overturn was on a technicallity that his defense attorney was lacking and the state filed a motion to retry. Instead, Richey took a plea deal of “no contest” which means he isn’t saying he did it but that he doesn’t contest the charges.
Remember the UK bankers who were extradicted to the US? There was a big out cry over that case, but in the end they all pled guilty.
On a side note, Richey was born in the Netherlands and was only granted UK citizenship in 2003 after the law was changed.
John Reith wrote;
“Kenny Richey was born to a Scottish mother and an American father. He was raised and went to school in Scotland, leaving to join his father in Ohio shortly after his 18th birthday.”
You left out he was born in Holland, that he picked his father (and America) to stay with when his parents divorced and that when he got over there he married an American. In other words if he wasn’t Dutch because of where he was born, he was American because of the nationality of his father. By marrying an American he would have gained American citizenship. Lastly the point you conveniently omit from your post is that Kenny Richey only gained British Citizenship in 2003 which in my book was 5 years ago.
”All of the scientific evidence at the trial has since been proven false and it emerged that prosecutors hid from the defence the rather important fact that the little girl had a history of lighting fires in the flat.”
Really please bring forward this scientific evidence? Or are you unable to admit you read Wiki in which to bring that up.
“What makes the story one of broader public interest is that US law contains some rather odd provisions. One being that innocence is no barrier to execution. So, even once the courts had finally become convinced that Richey was innocent,”
You leave out the part where witnesses retracted their statements without giving a reason.
”Any British subject can nowadays be extradited to the US without a UK court hearing the case against him/her.”
What the fuck has that got to do with the story? So ingrained is the Americans can only guilty in the BBC mindset you automatically include it in which to try and colour the story.
“I suspect many people would be uneasy about that if they realized they could themselves be whisked off to a country where proven innocence is not in itself sufficient grounds for reprieve from execution.”
The last I looked Richey was arrested while living in the US (funny enough 2 days from leaving to live in the Uk) so once again what the f—K has that got to do with the story. You cheap sleigh of hand technique may work at the blue oyster bar, unfortunately for you Mr Reith the folks on this board don’t swallow what the BBC unveils as the truth.
Wish to carry on?
John Reith “The slightest anomalies are ‘lies’ or adduced as proof of some vast, over-arching conspiracy.”
You mean like when the BBC admitted it was lying in it’s reporting from Iraq?
Or when the BBC fabricated the UK army desertion story?
Or do you mean when the BBC fabricated alleged war crimes by US troops in Fallujah?
Gee, see here for a whole book of BBC “slight anomalies”, or as we call them in the real world – lies.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
Pounce
August 3, 1964: Kenny Richey is born in Holland to an American father and Scottish mother.
His parents moved to Edinburgh when he was a baby.
December, 1982: Following his parents’ divorce, Richey moves to the US to live with his father
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/19/wrichey219.xml
i.e. He was brought up in Scotland from the time he was a few months old until he was 18. That makes him a Scot in my book. Whatever colour his passport was, he had a closer relationship to this country than those Guantanamo ‘’residents’.
Really please bring forward this scientific evidence? Or are you unable to admit you read Wiki in which to bring that up.
Actually I haven’t read wiki… but I did provide a link to details of the evidence and how it came to be discredited.
You leave out the part where witnesses retracted their statements
Yes, I forgot that. Even more persuasive evidence to support Richey’s case.
What the fuck has that got to do with the story?
It explains (for the benefit of David Preiser) what public interest there may be in the UK regarding what might otherwise be seen as internal matters for the US.
150 MPs signed a motion in support of Richey and Tony Blair took up his case.
The last I looked Richey was arrested while living in the US (funny enough 2 days from leaving to live in the Uk)
You make it sound like Richey was planning to slip back to UK to avoid arrest. Actually the move had been planned and the passage booked before the alleged murder took place.
A typical pounce travesty of the facts.
Right Mr Reith here is how Kenny Richey found freedom;
“A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state on Aug. 10 to either retry Richey, a native Scotsman, for an arson murder in 1986 or set him free. A top official from Attorney General Marc Dann’s office muddied the water by saying, apparently prematurely, that the state would not appeal the decision and would instead opt for a new trial.”
Hang on what was that about him been found innocent?
But it gets better all that scientific evidence you banged on about?
In the ruling, the appeals panel faulted Richey’s original trial attorney, Richard Kluge, for failing to present sufficient evidence to support his argument that the June 30, 1986, fire in Columbus Grove, Ohio, was accidental.”
Yup lets blame the lawyer we hired.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/08/29/RETRIAL_or_APPEAL.ART_ART_08-29-07_B5_AU7OB7M.html?sid=101
You might take note I didn’t use Wiki or a polarised website in which to base my stance but a even-handed news report. (Something the BBC could do to emulate)
Reith wrote;
A typical pounce travesty of the facts.
But I do get under your Skin(s)
The BBC, illegal immigrants and half the story.
No U-turn’ in cancer woman row
The UK government has said it will not reconsider its decision to remove a terminally ill African woman, whose visa had expired.
Ama Sumani, 39, who has cancer, was sent back to Ghana from Cardiff last week but cannot afford kidney dialysis treatment to prolong her life.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7189137.stm
Still the BBC keeps this woman in the news in which to garner the liberal Backlash.. And at the end of the day was she a health tourist? Strange how the BBC omits that snippet.
Now before people call me a cold hearted bastard here is a story about kidney cancer in the UK taken from this weeks Economist;
Please, sir, can I have some more?
Patients can understand that some drugs cost too much for the taxpayer to finance. What they cannot understand is being discouraged from paying for those drugs themselves. Yet this is becoming commonplace. The Department of Health has decided that a patient who pays for part of his treatment thereby chooses to become a private patient for all of it. It quotes one of the NHS’s founding principles—that care is “free at the point of use”—to support a ban on patients topping up their treatment, which would mean cash changing hands.Some patients are refusing to take no for an answer. Halliwells, a Manchester law firm, is representing Colette Mills and Debbie Hirst, two cancer patients who are demanding the right to remain NHS patients while buying better medicine than the NHS provides. Both want to take Avastin, an expensive new anti-cancer drug that is not sanctioned by NICE, as well as their NHS chemotherapy. But they have not been allowed to pay the £4,000-a-month marginal cost of doing so. Paying privately for all their treatment would cost each around £10,000 a month.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10499281
Bugger people (down Reith) who have no right to be here, lets look after our own first.
The BBC, illegal immigrants and half the story.
Damn I was going to say it won’t be long before the BBC knock up a HYS on this woman. Not only have they done so, but they have closed it after one day.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=4065&start=15&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20080115184352#paginator
I wonder why???
Whilst I fully understand Lord Wraith,is purportedly of the BBC,and as such entitled to grant British citizenship to whomsoever he/she wishes,what happened to all Richey’s citizenships? Dutch,American and most importantly EU,are they as nothing?
Are we seeing a new Imperialism,The Imperialism of the Victim,anybody who is deemed to have been harmed by America?
John Reith | 15.01.08 – 5:54 pm:
John Reith, you say, with respect to my post of 5:49 pm, asking you why the BBC has refused to examine our research into the Hamilton affair:
Because you always overstate your case. All your geese are swans. The slightest anomalies are ‘lies’ or adduced as proof of some vast, over-arching conspiracy. If you come on like those nutters drooling nonsense about the Illuminati and Trilateral Commission, you shouldn’t complain when you’re given the bum’s rush.
But if our research is invalid, then surely an examination of it will show that it’s invalid. One cannot assess the merits of research without, er, assessing it.
For your information, I attached to my complaint about Marr’s programme a copy of my book Trial by Conspiracy, plus a score or so testimonials. In his letter rejecting my complaint, the BBC’s Head of Editorial Complaints, said this:
“I accept that the sequence of the programme in question, through its juxtaposition of words and images, does in effect affirm that Neil Hamilton had accepted cash for questions. Having read “Trial by Conspiracy”, I can readily see the basis for doubting this.”
Surely, John, if the facts as laid out in my book can lead the BBC’s Head of Editorial complaints, no less, to admit that it would lead people to doubt Hamilton’s guilt, there really is no valid reason for the BBC to continue to steadfastly refuse to appoint a couple of journalists to examine a few documents for half an hour, for starters?
Don’t you agree, John, that Fraser Steel’s concession suggests that our research should be worth at least half an hour? Surely only a bigot among bigots would avert their eyes to evidence clearing an accused man of grave corruption allegations?
White people stopped treating blacks like that decades ago, John, even in Alabama and Mississippi. So when are BBC staffers who share your views going to follow the example of the Deep South, cast aside generations of ingrained bigotry, and finally “seek out the truth”, as the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines pledge so assuredly?
The BBC, 1984 and The Ministry of Truth
The BBC and trust
But let’s begin with the lessons we’ve learned in our own backyard. They are that trust in 21st century Britain is fragile for everyone. Trust in a given institution may be based on a great tradition and great inherited values, but it depends on what you do today. It has to be earned and earned again. And the higher the trust, the higher the public expectation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/institutions416.jpg
This is an Ipsos-MORI poll from this month which asked a thousand UK adults to rank a set of British institutions in terms of trust. On the left, those which members of the sample said they trusted most or next most. On the right, those which respondents said they trusted least or next least. Given the BBC’s public service mission and its privileged status, perhaps it’s not surprising that it gets the highest score for trust and the lowest for distrust – and you can see how in both cases it fares rather better than ‘media in general
……………
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/situation416.jpg
Trust in the BBC is both high and resilient not because nothing ever goes wrong – I think we can safely rule that out – but because when things inevitably do sometimes go wrong, the public still believe that we’re likely to have the determination, the values and the wherewithal to put them right again, and that we’ll be open and honest as we do so.This is not something to take for granted. It is something to build on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/the_trouble_with_trust.html
The BBC, 1984 and The Ministry of Truth
Just how much time do people spend watching the BBC?
If I want good informative TV i have to press the SKY button and check out the channels there.
All I see on the BBC is third rate journalism, chav soaps, old films and endless repeats churned out on BBC 3 & BBC 4.
I say stuff the BBC and the people who “work” there. End the licence fee and make the bastards work for their money.
For what it is worth, I heard Kenny Richey being interviewed this morning on Radio 5 and he certainly sounded Scottish.
I’ve recently received a letter from Bruce Vander, complaints manager of BBC Trust advising me to take a complaint I have to Helen Boaden, Director of News, for stage two response. He did not not supply an address, however.
Does anyone with previous experience of writing to her have an address I could hire?
Thanks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7188807.stm
They’ve not learned a thing about removing their bias at the BBC.
Just read the report, it is astounding.
On the Newsnight site in response to the article entitled ‘text_of_conservative_letter’ a rather disgruntled poster has attacked what he sees as a clear link between the BBC and Labour. His attack has even goaded Peter Barron to respond !!
As suspected the Portillo programme on execution was another piece of left wing liberal bollocks from the BBC. This is a totally pointless programme. Capital punishment is not carried out in any EU Country and is not likely to ever be carried out. It was just a typical leftie way to have a dig at the BBC. Perhaps Portillo should have taken his results to all the Muslim Countries around the world that DO execute thousands of people (oh and China, Cuba etc.)
Why no mention of the real barbaric ways of killing carried out in the name of Islam? Beheading is not exactly quick is it (especially if the sword does not go through all the way)
Oh and the Islamic “freedom fighters” much loved by the BBC don’t even execute their western hostages this way, they simply hack away with a kitchen knife. Funny but Portillo didn’t bother to mention this.
Horizon used to be a really good science programme, but over the years the camp arts mafia at the BBC have politicised it to reflect the left wing liberal values that infest the BBC like HIV.
Go to the BBC Newsnight website and see the commnent that the BBC has put up alongside Galloway, then look at the blog from which the comments were taken.
Not often that arsehole Galloway gets on the BBC, but when it’s to slag off Israel the beeboids wet their knickers in glee to get just about the only pro Galloway comment up there!!!
Classic Beeboids
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
Martin – are you mad??????? How can a programme whose central premise is not that execution is wrong, but the quest to find a humane way of executing citizens. How can a programme that seeks to find a humane method of executing people ever be considered an example of ‘left wing liberal bollocks’?
Still, I am finally starting to understand this site. Your central premise appears to be based around the mis-guided belief that our government is, in some way, left-wing. A laughable notion if ever I heard one. It then follows, of course, that when the BBC defends the government (or acts in its interests), it is defending a ‘left-wing’ government. I’m not really sure how a party that embraces globalisation and is extending the role of the private sector can ever be considered socialist. And that’s where this whole sorry affair collapses around your knees. This government is the natural heir to Thatcher and your obsfucation cannot detract from this very obvious, inescapable truth.
There seem to be a lot of comments here, and not many posts.
Since some of the commenters aren’t dangerous lunatics, why not ask one of the regulars to become a contributor?
(This is not fishing, I’m not a regular commenter and the BBC’s politics coverage bores me to tears – why bother with the BBC when there’s Biased-BBC?).
korova | Homepage | 15.01.08 – 10:16 pm |
Drat & confound you Korova you have found us out! We are nothing but shills for the Zionist protoThatch movement.
The banks and the media are ours, ours I tell you Bwhahahahahaha!
Silly boy.
Sue | 15.01.08 – 1:58 pm |
http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-marks-and-spencer.html
It was interesting to find on the childrens CD rom game …
Tree Hop:
Help the cat retrieve its ball.
Two Bunny Race:
Two player game – which bunny will cross the finish line first?
Building Blocks:
Help build a mosque.
Meow Tiles:
Help the cat uncover the image – what is this cute creature?
THE RESISTANCE:
You are a farmer in South Lebanon who has joined the Islamic Resistance to defend your land and family from the invading zionists.
No, I’m not joking, it’s a ‘shoot em up’ on the disc, along with the simple kids games!