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.
Well,
how many of the 22,000, or was it 28,000 beeboids are journalists ?
The reason I ask, is they seem to be strangely incapable of discovering the sort of links between ‘donations’ to mr hain and the companies’ he endorses. Or, the granting of public ‘development’ funds to the same companies, or even when the same people are winning government contracts and also supporting mr hain.
Other journalists are uncovering these facts on a daily basis, but not bbc ones ! Would any defenders of the bbc like to comment on why the public should pay for such ineptitude ?
The BBC, Its hatred of the RUC and half the story.
£5m homes seized from ex-RUC man
A former RUC reservist has had 40 properties, worth an estimated £5m, confiscated by the Assets Recovery Agency.
In an out of court settlement, Colin Armstrong, 40, from Tullynewbank Road, Glenavy, retains four properties, including a house in France. He also keeps a motorbike, cars, including a Porsche, and bank accounts. Mr Armstrong said he settled the action on the basis there had been tax evasion and mortgage fraud by a third party. The properties were confiscated in Lurgan, Portadown and Guildford. Mr Armstrong, a former full-time reservist who left the RUC in the early 1990s, had his entire property portfolio frozen nearly two years ago when the Assets Recovery Agency was granted an interim receiving order.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7194182.stm
So the BBC headlines scream out former RUC man. But hang on the geezer wasn’t only a part-time copper but he left in 1991.
17 years ago. Bloody hell, people not only get less for murder but they get the slate wiped clean afterwards.(well they do in NI)Yet the BBC has no problem sticking the boot into the RUC. Now here’s a question seeing as BBC NEWS is reporting on this story. Why did this geezer have the Assets Recovery Agency after him?
Here is how the Belfast Telegraph reports on this story;
Crime unit in bid to seize £5m from alleged drug trafficker
The Assets Recovery Agency yesterday launched a bid to confiscate more than £5m worth of property in Ulster and abroad in its latest move against an alleged drug trafficker. Former police officer Colin Armstrong, a full-time reservist who quit the force in 1991, and his partner Geraldine Mallon were in the High Court as lawyers revealed that the scale of the case meant it could take four weeks to hear.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3318660.ece
Strange how the BBC makes a political statement out of a drug story.
The BBC, Its hatred of the RUC and half the story.
A new, non-BBC Radio 4?:-
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2008/01/peter-whittle-l.html
I realize that Justin Webb’s (Clueless About) America Blog is supposed to be opinion, and he is not required to uphold the usual standards of impartiality, etc. But surely this drivel reflects poorly on his position as the BBC’s official North America editor.
Is it really appropriate for someone in such a professional position to openly display his hostility towards the sitting government on his patch? Do BBC correspondents in other international posts behave in such a manner? Humor is one thing, but Webb continuously displays contempt towards Bush, Republicans, and quite often, Americans in general.
The BBC, its love for health tourists in the Uk and half the story.
Deported, abandoned and saved in Ghana
Ama Sumani is slowing down. She is only 39 but moves like an elderly grandmother.
Her feet, legs and face are swollen. A week ago Ama was lying in a hospital bed in Cardiff. Her kidneys damaged by cancer, she had just had a session of the dialysis treatment she needs three times a week to stay alive. Then early in the morning, in walked three immigration officers. They removed her from the hospital in a wheelchair, drove her to Gatwick airport and the very same afternoon put her on a plane to Ghana. Ama’s visa was out of date and so she had been in the UK illegally.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7193366.stm
Yet again the BBC tries to sway public opinion in the UK by stating falsehoods about a welfare leech (harsh but true) who has no right to be in the UK. This lady’s visa wasn’t out of date. That visa was for a student enrolment, an agreement she broke by taking a cleaners job when her command of English wasn’t good enough to continue the banking degree. That visa was removed when she returned to the UK in 2005. Now tell me how long is a tourist visa?
It was clear she was totally lost. Her family lives in northern Ghana and Ama had only spent one day in the capital in her life and that had been on her way to the UK, via the embassy to pick up her four-year visa.
Oh please with the falsehoods BBC, you leave out this snippet from your very first article on the lady.
“In 2005 she returned to Ghana to attend a memorial service for her dead husband.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7178416.stm
and here is a map of the capital city of Ghana.
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/images/accra_map.jpg
Tell you what BBC, seeing as you bang on about the treatment this lady needs in which to survive how about you all chip in from your own pockets. Yeah right..
The BBC, its love for health tourists in the Uk and half the story
Yes, funny that the BBC are always linking the Bush family to Saudi Arabia but never the Clintons. Why might that be then?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html
Another cut-and-paste job from the Number Ten site. Here, fluffy Uncle Gordon wants to teach the world English:
“Brown’s web bid to boost English”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7193681.stm
1) This is a British Council (chairman: Neil Kinnock) initiative, not a government programme;
2) The British Council receives a chunk of its funding from the FCO, but the bulk of it comes from other sources.
Don’t believe the hype, BBC. This is not Brown’s “bid” at all.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7191687.stm
Why this story is on the Scotland section? apart from the fact that one member of the scientific team is from Edinburgh University which is pretty tenuous.
Why is this a news story at all?
“may hold life clue”
“could yield clues on climate change and the origins of life.”
“scientists believe”
“could give scientists vital insights”
“the lake could show signs of ancient life”
“so far little is known about them”
“Their potential”
“could yield vital clues to past climate”
“could also help to give insight into the extraterrestrial environment of Europa”
“we don’t know how deep it is”
“If the survey work goes well”
The entire article is one of may be, could be, if, speculation and uncertainty.
Nothing has actually happened at all yet.
Quite how this merits being a news story is baffling even for the BBC.
Perhaps they might come back and do a story after we actually know anything and its not merely a series of educated guesses.
Just as well its on the Scotland page, the science page would be just too much!
“so-called” never dies!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7191150.stm
“As police, social workers and community leaders meet in Preston, Lancashire, to discuss the issue of forced marriages and so-called honour killings, one woman tells the story of her own traumatic experience.”
So what is the excuse for “so-called” this time.
Women are killed to protect the honour of the family. We call them honour killings. Don’t we?
Who exactly is opposing the use to “honour killing” — the killers themselves?
“Who exactly is opposing the use to “honour killing” — the killers themselves?”
Very telling Alan. That’s what we call it “al beeb, abdul islam” after all.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. The “so called” prefix is used to indicate that there is nothing honourable about it – you’ll see the same use in the Telegraph. If you’re a Islamist nutter then you would prefer it was simply stated as an honour killing, lending it some legitimacy. Using “so called” signifies you disapproval – which is why it’s a little telling when the BBC continually use it in reference to the war on terror.
Alan | 17.01.08 – 7:17 pm |
So what is the excuse for “so-called” this time.
Women are killed to protect the honour of the family. We call them honour killings. Don’t we?
Who exactly is opposing the use to “honour killing” — the killers themselves?
Maybe a little something has gotten through the wool at Bush House, or wherever they turn this stuff out these days. I interpret the scare quotes around “so-called” to mean that the BBC is stepping back from validating the term itself. If they just say “honor killings”, that’s just the Islamic caveman point of view, so to speak.
That’s not really an official Islamic tenet, as far as I know, so there is no reason to fear offending the religion itself. When they just call it an honor killing straight out, that kind of implies that that’s what it is, rather than a murderous caveman act.
Good for the BBC for taking one step back and realizing that they don’t want to appear as if they sanction this barbarous facet of the caveman mindset. That’s one moral judgment the BBC is correct to make.
Vintage News 24 coverage of the crash landing today, just after lunch. Long,er, pauses, er, as, um, the, er, presenters, filled,um, in the, er, gaps, until, um, the next, um, witness.
Even the ‘witnesses’ had a curious habit of not having anything worthwhile to contribute in the way of news!
“I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.”
Ok. if I am wrong, then kudos to the BBC for finally using so-called where it belongs.
However, I’m not convinced. In fact I think it is a case of ignorance on BBC’s part. Here is why:
It is not called “honour killing” by the usual perpetrators or communities that condone it.
It is called “honour killings” by the community that condemns it. For example HRW issues reports on honour killings (no quotes).
HRW never quotes it, or prefixes it with “so-called”.
On honour killings: One of the “legal” terms used by communities that condone it is “khoon baha” = blood money.
These are the opening paragraphs to the same report from 2 different websites. Which one do you think is the BBC’s? Any guesses?
‘The Government is to launch a new bid to close down websites which promote violent Muslim extremism, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said.’
‘The home secretary has outlined plans to target websites promoting extremism, as part of efforts to stop people being drawn towards radical groups.’
“Is it really appropriate for someone in such a professional position to openly display his hostility towards the sitting government on his patch? Do BBC correspondents in other international posts behave in such a manner?”
Matt “Sneerboy” Frei has been doing it for years!
More BBC bollocks. Idiot reporting from Heathrow just now managed to get Margaret Thatcher into his report!!!! How I hear you say.
Well the BBC prat just said that there lay the wreck of the BA plane with those “controversial tail markings so hated by Margaret Thatcher”. The thick droid reporter then said that some planes still have the controversial tail markings including the crashed one.
NO IT DOES NOT YOU THICK STUPID BBC PRAT. IT HAS THE BRITISH FLAG ON IT CAN’T YOU FRIGGING SEE!!!!!!
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_03/planecrash11701_800x495.jpg
Oh and the same BBC prat reporter said he’s supposed to be flying from Heathrow tomorrow on holiday.
This is the same reproter that often spouts BBC bollocks about climate change and how flying is damging the environment. But not so much for a BBC employee NOT to take a holiday then?
In my opinion the BBC should avoid the use of the prefix ‘so called’ completely.
This shows the reporters opinion, which in the BBCs case, is precisely what the BBC should not be doing as much as practically possible.
‘Honor killing’ is a specific term that defines itself perfectly. Which is why the BBC likes to mess with it.
I like to think we are all adult enough to draw our own personal conclusions as to how HONORABLE the killing of any human being, could ever be, under any circumstances.
Without being patronized by the BBC.
So the BBC can sleep well tonight knowing us ‘silly little people out here’, will not start murdering our teenage daughters tomorrow, for no good reason and blame it all on then.
Would it not be better to simply say that what “Moozlums” call Honour killings is in fact simply MURDER.
Could a white non believer kill his daughter because she wanted to marry a lay about using the excuse that it would dishonour the family?
Hmm. I think not. It is simply pandering to the followers of a barbaric outdated religion.
Not bias, but basic stupidity. Why on Earth were they interviewing a taxi driver about the BA accident at Heathrow today? They were asking him questions I would have no idea how to answer, and I am a commercial pilot!
And why, as I watch the BBC news, do they have a helicopter in the hover (high power use in the hover) just to take live pictures? The pictures don’t show us anything new. they are not needed for the story, don’t even add anything. Yet the BBC insists that we should reduce fuel use.
We’ll start to consider that the climate might be in danger when those publicising the issue start to act like there is a danger.
It’s a good landing if you can walk away. Well done, Captain.
“barbaric outdated religion”
Look, this is Chronological Messianism. Has there ever been a time when it has been “good”? Or are you a gnostic evolutionist?
A number of folks here are talking about honour crimes and should we call it honour crimes.
Here are a few snippets about how Jordan treats the subject.
Article 340 in Jordan’s penal code allows honor crime to go unpunished. The article was rejected in 1999 for ratification. Jordanian Minister of Justice, Abdul Karim Dughmi, who, at the time, responded to a question about honor killings in the case of rape smiled and gave this statement, “All women killed in cases of honor are prostitutes. I believe prostitutes deserve to die.” In November, 2000, 20 countries signed a UN draft condemning violence against women. Jordan abstained.”
More here
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR4107#_ednref30
and here
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/113099002.htm
Male Muslims in Islamic lands refer to it as a crime of honour as their honour is at stake when they slit the throats of their females.
Hence the term ‘Honour crimes’
Oh just for the info.
Notice how Islamic terrorists refer to those they murder as Apostates.
In other words they have brought shame on Islam and by killing them.The terrorist not only legitmise their actions by using the word of Allah, but they regain honour for the muslim world.
Here is what happens in Europe when the mainstream media, like the BBC, chooses to ignore Islamist threat.
People turn to genuine Fascists and racists:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23070687-12377,00.html
Why does the BBC want to push masses towards vile racists, such as BNP or Vlaams Belang?
What do BBC ideologues think regular people will do when all their fears about radical Islam are totally ignored by their own public broadcaster?
Among the other half truths and lies in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7193559.stm
“In recent months, Hamas has been observing an informal moratorium on attacking Israel, but over the past two days it has launched over 100 rockets into Israel.”
BBC is making it look throughout the article as if there were no rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza before last Thursday.
“Informal moratorium” at the BBC seems to mean 10-15 rockets fired.
Unbelievable! Pure Hamas TV.
That is 10-15 rockets fired per day!
dave t | 17.01.08 – 9:05 pm |
Matt “Sneerboy” Frei has been doing it for years!
Same patch as Webb. And they gave Matty his own show for it, which tells you what the bosses at the News division think of the Bush Administration and the US in general.
Since when is it the BBC’s place to criticize the fashion industry in Brazil for not “reflecting the diversity” of the country’s population?
The report from BBC World exists purely as an editorial statement. There is no news there, unless you have an agenda.
From a BBC Producer:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/01/17/from_a_bbc_producer.php
John Reith:
Currently, in the Middle East section of the BBC website, there is a picture of an Israeli woman whose entire face is bloodied badly from a Qassam attack with the caption “The Israeli town of Sderot, just a few hundred metres from Gaza, was also hit by indirect militant fire, wounding a number of residents.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7189780.stm)
It would be nice to know what precisely was “indirect” about the firing of Qassam rockets at Sderot? Is the BBC trying to imply those firing were aiming somewhere else, or perhaps at a military target, when the rockets went astray? That’s certainly the implication. It’s as though the BBC were unaware that thousands upon thousands of these rockets have been fire directly, not indirectly, and intentionally, at the civilian town of Sderot for the past 2 years, with the intent of killing civilians. This is absurdly distorted reporting.
I see that the BBC are still promoting Labour ministers on the basis of what they “say” whereas David Cameron is reported to have made “claims”.
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-way-bbc-tell-them.html
The BBC with it its endemic Russophobia (note not Islamophobia, that would be politically incorrect) reported a few days ago on the Kinnock family so:
Meanwhile, St Petersburg office director Stephen Kinnock was followed, stopped and released by authorities on Tuesday.
Mr Kinnock – son of former Labour leader Neil – was held by the side of the road on Tuesday night and accused of going up a one-way street the wrong way and of smelling of alcohol. The British Consul in St Petersburg came to pick him up an hour later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7191411.stm
And today we read something else:
In addition to the staff interviews, the British Council’s St Petersburg director Stephen Kinnock was stopped and questioned by Russian police on Tuesday. He was released an hour later.
His father, British Council chairman Lord Kinnock, said the real motivation for the offensive against the council was “deliberate retaliation” for Britain’s efforts to secure justice for a Russian murdered in London.
He told the House of Lords Russian nationals working for the council had endured “systematic bullying” and the view of the international community was that attacks on a widely respected cultural organisation for crude political purposes was “absolutely indefensible”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7193186.stm
One day we read reports of smelling of alcohol, and simply” son of” then it begins to smell of political incest, dare I say, “not worthy of a great country”- but of course such intimate and perfumed stories are of no concern for the BBC, the political wing of the Labour party again and again.
todays helping of global warming propaganda ia actually a pathetic non story, but it keeps Al beebs left wing philosophy in the headlines together with an anti bio fuels rant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7195420.stm
interesting bit tho,
“Experts say the target is challenging because heating and cooling are hard to achieve on a mass scale with renewable fuels, says BBC analyst Roger Harrabin.”
so Roger Harrabin is an analyst now not an exert eh.
Roland Thompson-Gunner (from the previous thread): “the licence fee is peanuts anyway and not worth people working themselves into a frenzy over”
The cost of the Royal family is far, far less, but some people, not unreasonably, get upset funding something they fundamentally disagree with. It’s a point of principle.
“The licence fee is established by law. The poll tax was. People voted in the party putting forward the poll tax. Then they voted it out.”
Actually, the poll tax ended because mass protests and civil disobedience helped bring down Thatcher. People were certainly not prepared to wait for the next election. I think you’ll find posting on this blog is fairly restrained by comparison.
“…it’s a trivial issue for the overwhelming majority of voters.”
As are development and environmental issues, for example, when it comes to voting intentions. Such issues are unlikely to replace the domestic economy, healthcare, taxation and education as those that determine what party gets into power, but that doesn’t mean they are actually trivial issues. Nor is it a coherent argument for people to accept the status quo. And the point still stands that a lot of people think posting on a blog is more likely to bring about change than writing to their MP.
Last night’s telly bulletin had science editor Susan Watts reporting from Heathrow. Science? What science? Does the Beeb no longer have an aviation correspondent (dear old Reg Turnill, who tended to know what he was talking about, is long gone alas)? Or even a transport correspondent?
If the Beeb defines a crash landing as in some way scientific, then that might help explain why it regards the MMGW cultists in the same light.
But science it ain’t.
Hugh, re Thomson-Gunner, the bias isn’t actually a trivial issue at all. When explained, for example, to members of the public who are also members of a political party who are discriminated against by the bbc, quite understandably they want to make reform of the bbc a firm commitment by their MP !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7195459.stm
“fired salvoes of unguided rockets for the first time in months”
I haven’t been able to get my breath since I read this article.
The Hamas freedom fighters fired rockets at the zionist aggressors after their unwarranted attacks upon the peaceloving Palestinians in Gaza.
The correct approach by the zionists would be to do nothing and accept the 10-15 rockets fired every day into Israel at its towns which are of course legitimate targets.
Closing the borders just shows the zionists for the aggressors they are.
Whats more George W Bush is a fool, fancy thinking there can be any possibility of peace.
A fine article from the HBC.
Roland Thompson-Gunner (from the previous thread): “the licence fee is peanuts anyway and not worth people working themselves into a frenzy over”
Tell that to the single mothers in jail because of non payment of the licence fee they could not afford.
Just because you are clearly wealthy and ignorant enough for it to make no odds to you do not think it is the same for others. That sort of thinking is low, even BBC employees acknowledge the licence fee is hardship for the poorer in society who have to make choices like licence fee or necessities.
Today programme
What on earth was this?
0825 Local art organisations are objecting to funding cuts proposed by the Arts Council. One poet was inspired to join the protest by writing a special song for us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
Note the way “Thatcher” is used in that gritty deraogatory fashion – pure Beeboid agitprop.
And where’s the famous BBC balance in all this?
Surely the money saved from the Arts council could be spent on wind turbines? Or medical research? Or deep cleaning in our hospitals? Or a decent education system? Or perhaps the fat cats of the BBC could take a cut to support their favourite leftie outlets like the Arts council? Indeed why not charge people a licence fee so that they can go and see local activists dreesed as clowns painting anti-war murals, or promoting the latest Turner prize?
OT but I have been re-reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World online. I couldn’t help laughing out loud when a character flies over the Television Centre in west London as the shift is changing, and looks down at the
Gamma girls, the black Semi-Morons swarmed round the entrances…Mulberry-coloured Beta-Minuses came and went among the crowd.
Then and now, he’s not wrong!
Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies | Homepage | 18.01.08 – 11:19 am | #
Fantastic book, but did Television Centre even exist in 1932?
Simon | 18.01.08 – 5:20 am |
It would be nice to know what precisely was “indirect” about the firing of Qassam rockets at Sderot?
Direct fire means aiming through a sight directly at the target. Indirect fire means that aiming does not rely on directly viewing the target through sights. The term ‘indirect fire’ is most commonly used in connection with artillery, mortar and rocket fire.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/indirect.htm
I suspect you already know this and are simply scrabbling around for some pretext to hang another false accusation of bias upon.
Andrew
For those of us outside of the UK, the BBC News website has advertising on it. I inadvertantly clicked on one by mistake (because the Beeboids haven’t mastered html yet as rendered by Firefox), and got this link: http://www.loveearth.com/uk/tracking
As you can see, its a lovely website dealing with the cuddliest animals threatened by Human-caused Climate Change and sponsored by BBC Worldwide
So what do we have on the menu bar? “Saving Planet Earth” with the byline:
“The BBC Wildlife Fund supports work protecting wildlife under threat around the world. The remit of the Fund is to support projects that are helping to protect endangered wildlife and biodiversity – animals, plants and the wild places they need. It also helps to protect and improve the natural habitats that wildlife and humans share.”
Which leads me back to the BBC Trust who last year produced a report on the BBC’s news activities especially in regard to its reporting on environmental issues. On the BBC’s reluctance to report on dissenters of the supposed scientific consensus, the BBC Trust said:
“But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit • but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them.”
Well I’m sorry BBC Trust, but it appears still that the BBC News team and BBC Worldwide are not only joining those campaigns but actively soliciting funds for them.
Best regards
John A
“Indirect fire means that aiming does not rely on directly viewing the target through sights.”
Thanks for that insight Reith. So Hamas suicide bombers blow Jews apart “indirectly” also?
Thanks for the background and link John A 🙂
its absolutely disgusting and gives an insight into why Al beeb is bombarding us with so much green propaganda
whats more shocking tho, is the copyright at the bottom of the web page
“©BBC Worldwide Ltd. All rights reserved. The love earth logo is a trademark of the BBC. ”
for gods sake, impartial my @rse !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Presumably we can look forward to all future references to IDF activities that result in accidental Palestianian casualties to also being pre-faced by “indirect” then?
Hugh | 17.01.08 – 7:45 pm
Using “so called” signifies your disapproval –
No, not necessarily . It can signal you are taking care not to endorse the thinking behind or the associations implicit in a phrase or perhaps a mistaken exclusivity suggested by a label.
That’s why it is an appropriate phrase to use in connection with honour killings, the war on terror and the ‘so-called date rape drug, Rohypnol’.
dave | 18.01.08 – 1:02 pm
Presumably we can look forward to all future references to IDF activities that result in accidental Palestianian casualties to also being pre-faced by “indirect” then?
No, quite often they result from direct fire.