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.
On “Thinking Allowed” on Radio 4 this afternoon the presenter was heard sniggering, there is no other word for it, about the beliefs of some Christians in the USA. Then he talked to two people who also attacked and mocked these beliefs. Finally an author of a book attacking the French ban on religious dress, including Moslem headscarfs, in schools was interviewed.Can you imagine anyone on the BBC sniggering about Moslem beliefs or interviewing anyone about a book attacking restrictions on Christians?
Martin 8:10 pm.
Re-what next for al Beeb’s pro-Islamic propaganda; how about Islamic humour?
It’s no joke: Radio 4, Friday, 25 January, 11 am – “The Funny Thing About Muslims”. The programme is scheduled to run for 30 minutes….
I’m especially looking forward to what will be a hilarious section on the Islamic appreciation of cartoons.
John Reith | 23.01.08 – 11:33 am |
John Reith,
Regarding those hikers–you’ve got to be kidding.
You say: “Besides, I think it’s a bit much of you to have a go at the BBC for being ‘biased’ on the grounds it left out of a story written almost a month ago certain details that only surfaced in the Israeli media yesterday!”
Unless by “yesterday” you mean December 28th, I can’t see how what are saying holds up. The following article appeared on December 28th:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3487782,00.html
I sent you this link in a previous email, as well as a detailed report that appeared on Debka.com, that describes clearly how the hikers were stalked and murdered in pre-meditated fashion. So yes, I expect the BBC to report impartially on this by depicting, in the headline, the Palestinian gunmen as the attackers and the Israeli hikers as the victims, based on reports that appeared in the Israeli press describing what happened nearly a month ago. In case you’ve forgotten, I’m enclosing my prior email. Get a load of what you said at the time—it’s my favorite example of you lying!
“This was not a Palestinian attack on Israel, nor on civilians.
It was an exchange of fire between Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers from an occupying army in the West Bank.”
One might even guess that that was the case if you not only skimmed the BBC headline from the link you provided (“West Bank clash leaves three dead”) but read the first paragraph in that BBC report: “Two off-duty soldiers and a Palestinian have died in a shootout near the West Bank town of Hebron, Israeli officials have said.”
Now here’s the email I sent to refresh your memory:
“John Reith, you are dead wrong in this case:
“John Reith:
Abandon Ship! | 15.01.08 – 10:43 am
This was not a Palestinian attack on Israel, nor on civilians.
It was an exchange of fire between Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers from an occupying army in the West Bank.”
An outright lie. These men were NOT in the line of duty, but rather HIKING as CIVILIANS. The only reason they were carrying weapons, which incidentally probably saved the life of the third hiker, was because it is dangerous territory. These were in no way soldiers of an occupying army on duty, neither were they in the midst of any type of military operation.
Furthermore, numerous Israeli news sources reported that the Palestinians were lying in wait and attacked the hikers without warning, with the intent of murdering them. Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs’ brigades both took responsibility for the attack.
Yediot Acharonot reported the following (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3487782,00.html):
Cpl. Ahikam Amihai (20) and Sgt. David Ruben (21), both residents of the neighboring settlement of Kiryat Arba, were hiking through the Telem Creek area with an unnamed female companion when a group of four Palestinians drove up towards them and opened fire…
Eli Rosenberg, a volunteer with the regional MDA rescue services told Ynet that the third hiker was crying hysterically when the search party reached the scene after a 1.5 mile walk from the central path.
“She said they had been walking near the creek and noticed a car driving back and forth near them several times. At some point the car left the path and began driving towards them, as its occupants pulled out their weapons,” said Rosenberg.”
Got that Reith? A crying, hysterical female hiker said they were hiking and a vehicle drove back and forth near them several times, then pulled up and started firing at them. Does this sound like a military operation which resulted in a “clash” with opposing forces, or the victim of deliberate, attempted murder? Murder for political purposes, perhaps, but nonetheless, murder of civilians—the very definition of terrorism. The headline “West Bank Clash Leaves Three Dead”, which implies perhaps that an Israeli military operation was underway, was discovered by Palestinian forces and led to an ensuing clash, is utterly misleading. Here’s the Debka.com report: “Three hikers, Pvt Ahikam Amihai, 20 and Sgt. David Rubin, 21, from Kiryat Arba and an Israeli girl, were stalked by a group of armed Palestinians who attacked them in a wadi northwest of Hebron Friday afternoon, Dec. 8. The girl ran away and raised the alarm. The two hikers, who were armed, fired back, killing one of the Palestinians and seriously wounding a second, after they themselves were injured. The surviving Palestinian gunmen shot their victims dead as they lay wounded and stole their weapons. Palestinian Jihad Islami and two factions of Fatah-al Aqsa Aqsa Brigades Brigades claimed their men were responsible. ”
The Palestinian attackers shot their victims dead as they lay wounded. They stalked the hikers. Two groups took responsibility for the deliberate, pre-medidated attack on civilians. And here, the Jerusalem Post described the frenzied attempt of various Palestinian militant factions to take credit for the killings.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1198517247197&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
But that’s okay, when someone left a crude, home-made bomb in a car that was defused in Picadilly Circus several months ago the BBC liberally referred to the “terrorist” threat. But when Jewish civilians in Israel or the West Bank are targeted for murder, it’s a “clash” of forces, with no assignment of blame. “
George R: The Funny thing about Muslims? You gotta be kidding? Will I explode with laughter?
Sue | 23.01.08 – 8:25 pm,
Well, thanks for that. Strangely enough I was just about to copy and paste Sarah-Jane’s question and my reply from the other thread (provided mine is still there because the last few comments have been disappearing and reappearing for some reason.)
The idea of people who don’t pay the licence fee being somehow unqualified to comment on BBC bias was introduced here by John Reith a few years ago and picked up by others from the BBC, the latest being Sarah-Jane. It’s an insular attitude which is quite strange coming from people in the communication business. But I guess the BBC is more like a private club than a public broadcaster.
Grimly Squeamish: Re dopey bitch on jeremy Vine.
I often wonder if these emails are fo rreal or if they are sent in by BBC employees?
There are plenty of banks that one might consider “ethical” and are available.
This whole Sharia thnig is a joke.
I just wonder if this dopey cow would happily dress up in a Burkha or accept a good beating off her husband or male relative as part of the joy of Islamic living?
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=71
Martin: 10:40pm
Yes, the details of programme are correct.
It’s all part of al Beeb’s mission to continue to propagandise with its unexplained ‘multiculturalist’ dogma until we really are conditioned to believe that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ not war, and that its practitioners are, by and large, a bundle of laughs.
And the BBC’s climate change propaganda, about the E.U.’s renewable energy directives, continues into the night.
The political line which the BBC has honed, is more or less this, as illustrated by the somnolent R. Lustig on Radio 4’s ‘The World Tonight’:
1.)the E.U.s enforceable targets of increases in provision of renewal energy are OK, so far as they go, but if anything (Harrabin and Greenpeace types) –
2.)the E.U. targets should be tougher, given the ‘proven’, madly urgent crisis, which we should all feel very guilty about.
NOWHERE is there any real discussion of the case AGAINST 1.) and 2.). The BBC has presumed it away. It’s one of the specialties of the Broadcasting House.
more unbelievable nonsense from the bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7204745.stm
“Council tax bills in England are set to rise by about 4% on average this year, the BBC has learned.”
All their correspondent has done is copied and pasted an LGA press release (which had been running on PA under embargo for about 4 hours before the story was published)… breaking the embargo that everyone else has to abide by.
great piece of “bbc learning” that is. bbc breaching of the rules of reporting, would be closer
Dagobert:
On “Thinking Allowed” on Radio 4 this afternoon the presenter was heard sniggering, there is no other word for it, about the beliefs of some Christians in the USA. Then he talked to two people who also attacked and mocked these beliefs. Finally an author of a book attacking the French ban on religious dress, including Moslem headscarfs, in schools was interviewed.Can you imagine anyone on the BBC sniggering about Moslem beliefs or interviewing anyone about a book attacking restrictions on Christians?
Dagobert | 23.01.08 – 10:06 pm | #
Is Lawrie taylor still presenting this programme? If so, say no more.
Funny how the Left’s infatuation with ‘The Other’ extends even to reverence for a domain (religion) they sneer at mercilessly in their own ethnic group.
Sarah-Jane | 23.01.08 – 4:42 pm |
You are not forced to pay for it, if you pay for it as part of a bundle, then you dont have to pay for it or be threatened with gaol, if you don’t pay for it – why not just turn it off?
I can see why license-fee payers who have issues with our output have a case that needs answering, although they seem to be getting fewer and fewer in numbers here today (perhaps they are all at bbc-biased.blogspot.com hur hur) but others’ motivation intrigues me.
I know I have played this record many times before, so apologies in advance to anyone who has heard this ten times already. But Sarah-Jane missed the last rerun, so everyone else can feel free to scroll down to the next comment.
Sarah-Jane, I do live outside of the UK and do not pay the license fee, but I do pay for BBC America as part of my cable subscription, and my tax dollars go to support PBS, which pays for BBC World News broadcasts, among other things. Money from both of these goes to the commercial arm of the BBC, which in turn supports the mother ship. PBS gets corporate grants, but they also get government tax money. If I don’t watch BBC World News on PBS, my money still goes to the BBC whether I like it or not. If I want to watch the other channels that come with the Discovery Communications bundle which includes BBC America, I have to either pay money which goes to the BBC, or risk heavy fines. And a possible time in the stripey hole if I don’t pay the fines. Sound familiar?
My only totally free options (aside from getting a satellite dish and some “special” equipment) are either to wait for someone to put something on YouTube or BitTorrent, or an obscure internet satellite feed. The last one is technically legal, and at least a couple pennies of that fee goes to BBC World somewhere along the line.
I think the license fee is idiotic, but even without it the British government still supports the BBC out of taxes. So unless something drastic happens, the BBC would still be the official national broadcaster of the UK, paid for, at least in part, by the government.
But all of that is beside the point. Even if I never watched Matt Frei or looked at your website or listened to BBC Radio, the bias that we are complaining about would still affect me personally. That’s the problem.
Regardless of your own political views or those of John Reith, the people who do the news reports we complain about have certain opinions that are revealed by their work. There is a difference between criticizing Israel and demonizing the country to the point of inciting anti-Jewish sentiment. The BBC treads dangerously close to that line at times. There is a difference between reporting on the US elections from a foreign perspective, and reporting from a pro-Left perspective, which is what goes on at the BBC. There is a difference between dumbing down news for children and getting the fact so totally wrong that you tell British kids that Israeli Jews are the enemies of Islam. I know you remember that one. That wasn’t sloppiness, that was a display of ignorance and prejudice on the part of the people responsible for the piece. Demonizing Israel often extends to influencing US policy, which always makes people blame Jews, full stop. The anger is no longer limited to Israeli policy. You end up leading your own citizens into anti-Jewish sentiment. This could possibly put me or my cousin, or my friends, in physical danger.
The BBC’s misrepresentation of certain US-related issues, and the demonization of the Bush Administration (it’s more than criticism when your presenters keep telling me that the world needs relief after the last eight years), has caused my own friends to believe things that just aren’t true. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to clear up misunderstandings because a friend was misinformed – or left in the dark altogether – by the BBC about some national issue or other.
Further, if the BBC continues to “educate” the British Public in the way certain number of your talking heads seem to want, you could end up turning my country’s most important ally against us. That also affects me personally.
That’s why I complain. The bias – individual as it may be – coming from the BBC on certain issues has affected my life personally, and continues to do so. I’m sure you think this is all very hysterical. Too bad.
Is it just me or are these bastards trying to exonerate a traitor? At one point the motive for the belated outing of the spy Anthony Blunt is proffered as his being Gay, intellectual, and posh. No challenge is made to this assertion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7205603.stm
Simon | 23.01.08 – 10:39 pm,
Reith is obviously comfortable with the idea of a Jew-free Palestine, banging at the gates of a shrinking Israel with a burgeoning Israeli Arab population. That’s why he adopts the language of the Palestinians in his arguments. Reith is typical BBC. (Sorry, Sarah-Jane, but you lot definitely are guilty of groupthink, especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Now people who support Israel here have been accused of wanting the BBC to adopt a pro-Israel agenda, as if that could ever happen. I don’t. I just want it to be even-handed. That means telling the truth about this conflict and not trying to omit and distort facts to fit the BBC’s agenda.
But it does seem as if the BBC has recently been making some strenuous efforts at what it sees as impartiality, as others on this thread have noted. Tonight on World Have Your Say it actually set up a sort of fair-play debate with three Gazans pitted against three Sderotians and each person only allowed a strict few minutes at a time to speak. One of the Gazans said that the Sderotians must “move back to Tel Aviv.” I kid you not. This point was taken up by a guy from Sderot as a fine example of the Arab agenda to rid Israel of Jews. And it certainly is. Especially when one considers that Sderot is not in disputed territory.
Well, I suppose the best that we can expect from the BBC is for it to see the conflict as between people who basically want the same things and play by the same rules. It isn’t, of course. It’s between the side that has virtually zero tolerance of the other and wants to drive it from the land by any means possible, and the side that accepts the inevitability of the other, wants to live in peace with the other and has made extraordinary sacrifices to achieve that peace.
Is there really nobody at the BBC who understands this?
Bryan | 23.01.08 – 10:44 pm
Now that John Reith ( 23.01.08 – 8:48 pm) has found out about our relationship, shall we tell him about our children, Abandon Ship! Amimissingsomething and little Pounce?
Sshh, don’t tell anyone else though
Sue | 23.01.08 – 11:58 pm,
Thanks for the chuckle.
Reith will do anything he can to avoid facing the fact that there is no conspiracy here, just a bunch of individuals who strongly object to the BBC’s bias and would really like to see it ended.
Anyone else see the “sainted” Polly Toynbee on Newsnight belching her usual bollocks about education? (this time about Faith schools)
Why is it that the BBC never ask here where she got HER children educated? The local crap run down comprehensive where 120 languages are spoken (but not English)
The school where political correctness is the norm?
The school where competative sports is seen as undesirable?
Nope, just like most of her Champagne Socialist friends (the BBC being full of them) they went to private school.
Why is it that Socialists always want to spend other peoples money but seem to like to hand on to their own?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/polly-toynbee-reborn-as-a-lady-of-the-right-425833.html
I quote from the dopey cow
“…Genuine comprehensives are one of Labour’s historic successes, raising standards for the many. Areas still divided between grammars and secondaries prove it: they have far worse overall results. These days failed “bog standard” comps are effectively sink secondary moderns. Academies may prove that, by attracting a better mix in poorer areas, they can do better for poor children too…”
But not so good that YOU sent YOUR kids there then Polly?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1671227,00.html
Martin,
Don’t be unkind to the frumpy old Stalinist,socialism is for the little people.Polly wants to raise you up,but not into the ruling elite.If everybody were to be up there,who would do all those little jobs whilst the Pollys of the world are doing the thinking?
Bryan | 23.01.08 – 10:44 pm |
reith’s attempt to disqualify non-licence payers from criticizing the bbc, or of belittling or exluding their criticisms, is, of course, among other things, totally illogical and irrelevant (at best)
it is, obviously, attacking the messenger to discredit the message – always the refuge of scoundrels
and at the risk of repeating others, if the bbc is to revel in its claim to being a world-respected broadcaster, why is it that when others in that same world criticize it, their possible status as non-licence fee payers invalidates their criticism?
i’ve never heard reith or anyone else from the beeb reject the praise of non-licence fee payers
as often, the beeb trying to have it both ways
this is, IMHO, of the same cloth as the beeb valuing HYS asvalued input, but the minute the input is critical, the beeb contemptuously dismisses it as just so much plebeian noise
t is undoubtedly clear that the honest exposure that started on this site several years back, has now permeated to hundreds of other blog sites throughout the world. So you should all take pride!
So JR is going to have his hands full in containing the breach .
All this is impacting SEVERELY on the BBC’s credibility not only in the UK.
Most of my friends now look at the BBC web sites not for News but for mistruths, lies and omissions in the News Commentary which btw, is always presented as News.
it seems the BBC is not capable of presenting straight news without added commentary.
And thanks to the posters on this site, we are now capable of speedily recognising the subtle propaganda that the BBC churns out.
“…if you don’t pay for it – why not just turn it off?”
Expats can still often vote, because it’s generally assumed they retain an interest in their country’s affairs. A lot of them also pay tax in the UK. As such, it’s not so intriguing that some get upset at a £3 billion a year subsidy to an organisation they believe distorts political debate there.
Could I suggest we start a feature here called “Climate Change Story of the Day”?
It takes me 30 minutes to drive to work and sometimes I listen to Today on the way in. I shouldn’t, it just contributes to road rage. I counted two references to climate change between 7:00 and 7:30. First, the National Trust is changing the way it restores buildings to take into account climate change. Next, climate change was shoe-horned into an article about the RSPB asking us to count birds this weekend. The reporter could not stop himself asking if climate change was affecting the type of birds we see in this country.
However as the RSPB article only mentioned climate change as an aside, I hereby award the National Trust article the inaugural Climate Change Story of the Day.
Unless commenters here have heard different?
Yep, no climate change agenda at the BBC.
Roland Deschain comments: Could I suggest we start a feature here called “Climate Change Story of the Day”? … First, the National Trust is changing the way it restores buildings to take into account climate change.
Most likely because even the sainted National Trust is finding the very strict rules on restoring listed buildings to be restrictive and expensive, and is using ‘climate change’ as an excuse to press for loosening them up.
Latest from Gaza in Tim Franks report – Palestinians rush over the Egyptian border to alleviate their dreadful sufferings – price of cigarettes halves. Reminds me of that Beano character, Mustafa Fag. Down at planet BBC ciggies are bad for the rest of the world, but are clearly life saving aid for the Pals.
The solid bedrock of true trot believers at Today were doing their best to rehabilitate Red Ken this morning with a long deferent interview from Comrade Naughtie.
Why oh why are the Beeb using our money to fly David Shukman to Tuvalu for a spring tide?
They could have used archive material from the other times they have covered it. :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/648373.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1581457.stm
It is just more propaganda. The Quindao Institute in China said
“The Coastal geological events in Tuvalu islands do not accord with the features resulted from sea level rise but do accord with the features resulted from coastal erosion, particularly from human-induced erosion. The land loss in Tuvalu is mainly caused by inappropriate human activities including coastal engineering and aggregate mining, and partly caused by cyclones. Moreover, all recent measurements (satellite altimetry, thermosteric sea level data and tide observations) so far have not been able to verify any sea level rise around Tuvalu islands.”
So the Beeb are perpetuating the myth at our expense, also if they really believe it is true why add to the problem by flying there.
…if the bbc is to revel in its claim to being a world-respected broadcaster, why is it that when others in that same world criticize it, their possible status as non-licence fee payers invalidates their criticism?
amimissingsomething | 24.01.08 – 4:58 am
Precisely. The stance of Reith and others here on this issue is hypocritical, to say the least.
And thanks to the posters on this site, we are now capable of speedily recognising the subtle propaganda that the BBC churns out.
chevalier de st george | 24.01.08 – 6:56 am
Thanks for that. I like to think we have made and continue to make an impact in restricting the free flow of the BBC’s bias. Who knows, the BBC might even (gasp) moderate its bias in time.
Here we go again, when it’s not bloody Polly Toynbee it’s the awful Chami from Liberty who is all over the BBC.
This whole thing over holding terror suspects gets the liberal spin from the BBC.
Note what bit they put in small print!!!!
In France you can only be held for 6 days scream the BBC. Except if you read the small print you can be held for 4 YEARS after being charged!!!!!
That would mena the Police have 4 years to build their case as opposed to 42 days.
The idea that people could be charged with a more minor offence first (as Liberty suggest) is nonsense. Do you really think the Human Rights lawyers and the BBC would tolerate that for our Islmaic brothers?
I’m no fan of the 42 days, not because I care about some barking mad Muslim who wants to blow us up, for him I don’t give a stuff and I suspect most non BBC or Guardian readers types do either.
However, I just don’t trust our Police anymore.I can see the Police arrresting speeding motorsts for driving cars in a “terrorist” way and getting banged up.
You laugh I hear you say. Well we’ve already had someone arrested and locked up for revving his car in a racist way. I kid you not.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013263.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7090105.stm
Climate change story of the day????? with Al BBC should it not be Climate Change story of the hour?
They keep recycling old stories as well. How many times has the BBC spouted all that bolocks from the EU about cutting CO2?
Dagobert | 23.01.08 – 10:06 pm and
Reimer | 23.01.08 – 11:50 pm
The automatic sneering at Christianity is one of the more severe viruses the BBC suffers from. The main sufferers seem to be atheist, far-left types and Muslims and their sympathisers, all of whom seem to be delighted at the freedom the British Broadcasting Corporation gives them to spread the virus by trashing Christianity without fear of repercussions or even an edit or two to moderate their gross bias.
This is journalism?
The other day John Reith revealed that he is a Christian. Yet he not only tolerates the anti-Christian bile spewed out by the BBC, but defends it. Incredible.
Yep, I often listen to R4 6pm News on way home from work (and often have to change channel during prog due to bias). ‘Climate campaigners’ have been mentioned every day this week. Strange how other ‘campaign groups’, for example ‘low-tax campaigners’ or the like, seldom get a mention. Left wing campaigners opinions only at the BBC News.
Here’s an example of the BBC equating the BNP (legal UK political party) with muslims promoting terrorism (err. that would be illegal) in the context of what groups should be allowed to speak at Universities:
Extreme dilemmas facing students
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7202556.stm
“University staff have been urged by the government to challenge groups which promote terrorism on campuses.
OK, now, what could that have to do with the BNP? You know, that well, known terrorist group, always blowing people up and the like.
“But when it comes to dealing with the issue, where does legitimate free speech end and dangerous extremism begin?
Mr Nawaz argues this strategy protects freedom of speech, particularly around foreign policy issues regularly debated by many Muslim students.
“Lecturers should not be informing and I have sympathy now with what the government is trying to do by encouraging education [in religious ideas] and civil society, rather than informing or banning,” he said.
“On university, you should not allow [extremists] to hire rooms, just like you would not allow a platform to the British National Party.”
But with groups such as the BNP also active in universities, Ruqayyah Collector of the National Union of Students believes the guidelines focus disproportionately on Islamic groups at the expense of other extremists.
“This risks encouraging universities to treat Muslims with suspicion, creating a climate of fear around one particular group of students,” she says.
It appears the line between extremism and free expression is still being drawn.”
Not really, I think ‘the line’ is quite well drawn in laws regarding incitement to violence and the like. It’s legal to hold the opinion and state freely a belief that the Koran is a load of waffle. It’s illegal to encourage others to kill someone who says that.
Simple? I think so. But not if you are a beeboid. BNP is equal to a inciting terrorism in their book.
Reading this BBC story I’m quite surprised by the quote that Gordon Brown wants to be seen as tough on terror as Tony Blair. Oh really. That soft?
Which government allowed the cities of Europe to open their prisons like sewers and flush all their extremists into Londonistan?
Which Government allows preachers of hate to come and go as they like?
Which Government allowed vile scum like Abu Hamza to preach on our streets under the protection of Police for nearly a decade?
Which Government has failed to crack down on the selling of extremist literature in Mosque book shops and the like?
Which Government bleats like a 10 year old who’se had their sweets taken away when the Yanks lock a few mad Muslims up?
Tough on terror? My arse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7095183.stm
For a real view of how this bunch of fat liberal chancers has actually shafted us.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
Oscar | 24.01.08 – 9:18 am
ciggies are bad for the rest of the world, but are clearly life saving aid for the Pals.
I have seen no figures but my personal observation is most Palestinian adult males are chain smokers. Given the correlation between heavy smoking and health problems we should expect rising lung disease problems. Israel’s fault.:(
Overflowing sewerage is also a health problem. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205568.stm
as is lack of clean water. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7203458.stm
No one, certainly not at the BBC, seems to wonder why some of the billions sent as aid wasn’t used to deal with long-standing health issues.
Worth a read, even just for the irony of these two non scientist bozos preaching to us all to change of lifestyles before it’s too late…. whilst at the same time telling us they won’t be changing theirs.
Bono and Gore have an answer, not a solution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davos08/2008/01/bono_and_gore_have_an_answer_n.html
“But was that the promised “unified earth theory”?
It wasn’t, but it certainly was a first move to broaden our approach both to poverty and climate change.
And it would not be easy, said Bono.
“If you have blue suede shoes with a large carbon footprint like a rock band, then it’s difficult,” said Bono, examining his own use of carbon.
“I had [Al Gore] around my home, and it’s like meeting an Irish priest in the supermarket and starting to confess your sins.”
“Father, I’m not just a noise polluter, but a diesel sucking, methane producing, Gulfstream flying sinner.”
“And Father Al asks me: ‘Will you try to kick the habit, my son?’”
“And I say: oil has been good to me… articulated trailers when we are on tour, using oil products like hair gel…”
Then Bono got serious. “Going cold turkey on carbon emissions is actually a bit dangerous.”
“I do remember the unemployment in Ireland in the 1970s. Throwing away the prosperity that we are enjoying is more dangerous than we think.”
What poster said earlier that it takes liberals 20 years of failed policies to ‘get it’? Do you think Bono is turning or is he just a hypocrite who thinks it’s all the little people who should cancel their holidays overseas, walk to work and grown their own veg?
Ritter | 24.01.08 – 11:07 am
The conviction of Robert Cottage for possession of explosives has once again highlighted the link between BNP members and …terrorism….
…he joins a growing list of BNP members who have engaged in some form of terrorist or murderous behaviour:
* DAVID COPELAND • London nail bomber David Copeland brought havoc to London when he set off three nail bombs in 1999. He was a BNP member and activist in East London. He told police when questioned that he wanted to ignite a race war in Britain so that the white population would vote for a BNP government.
* TONY LECOMBER • Nick Griffin’s chief lieutenant Tony Lecomber was convicted and imprisoned for three years for five offences under the Explosives Act after he tried to blow up the offices of a political party. Police found hand grenades and detonators at his home. Despite this the BNP kept him on its payroll for over ten years. He was eventually forced out of his job after he approached Joe Owens to kill a leading politician.
* ALLEN BOYCE and TERRY COLLINS In July 2006 Allen Boyce, a BNP supporter, received a two-year suspended sentence for providing Terry Collins, a BNP activist, with bomb making instructions. Collins himself was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in 2005 for conducting a racist terror campaign against the Asian community in Eastbourne.
* MARK BULLMAN • arsonist Mark Bulman, a BNP activist, was jailed for five years in January after trying to set fire to Swindon’s Broad Street mosque. He used a BNP leaflet as a fuse for his petrol bomb.
* JOE OWENS • gangland hitman For three years until summer 2004 Joe Owens acted as the personal bodyguard to Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, as well as being the Merseyside organiser of the BNP. However, Owens was also known locally as a gangland hitman, whom police had linked to several underworld murders.
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/BNP_terrorist_links
Oscar | 24.01.08 – 9:34 am
The solid bedrock of true trot believers at Today were doing their best to rehabilitate Red Ken this morning with a long deferent interview from Comrade Naughtie.
Hilarious.
You forgot a few things: the damning continuing investigation into fiddled grants etc. – remember the little feature on the place in Hackney which got 150 large ones, but whose office has been mysteriously empty since? Or the interview with Kate Hoey?
“Hilarious.”
The difference being that whenever McNaughtie interviews a conservative MP/supporter you can hear the contempt dripping off his tongue.
Yet with Livingstone his tone was reasonable and accepting.
Intonation is more discernible on Radio and the Telephone.
That’s why I complain. The bias – individual as it may be – coming from the BBC on certain issues has affected my life personally, and continues to do so. I’m sure you think this is all very hysterical. Too bad.
David Preiser (USA) | 23.01.08 – 11:50 pm | #
Not hysterical at all, David IMHO.
An impressively reasoned and articulate post – as usual.
‘Climate change story of the day’
What about the stories detailing the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, and the lack of any warming over the last decade.
Well, perhaps not, not on the BBC.
The BBC, we report all the news that fits our agenda, it’s what we do.
BBC Worldwide (Domination) News:
Growing Online, BBC Is to Join With MySpace
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/business/media/24myspace.html?ref=business
“The commercial arm of the British Broadcasting Corporation is expected to announce a partnership with MySpace on Thursday to make some of its content available on MySpace, the popular social networking Web site.
MySpace, part of the News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, said Wednesday that the relationship was its first global agreement with a major broadcaster. The companies will share advertising revenue.”
First BBC jump into bed will Bill Gates (iPlayer/Microsoft) now with the devil himself Murdoch (MySpace).
Anyway it’s good to see the BBC getting used to living on advertising revenues. Certainly weakens their case for a compulsory licence fee.
What will Polly say……?!
Take a bow Guido.
Peter Hain resigns from Cabinet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7206812.stm
Strike threat at BBC is averted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7205637.stm
“A threatened strike at the BBC has been averted after it reached an agreement with unions over cost-cutting plans.
The corporation is also planning to sell off its flagship Television Centre in west London as it attempts to make up a £2bn budget shortfall.
Err. Why is the BBC allowed to sell off valuable public buildings, instead of restructuring/slimming down itself??
By BBC Radio 4 standards,I thought that ‘Today’ and Naughtie was quite critical of Livingstone, post-‘Dispatches’; and the ebullient Andrew Neil dealt well (live) with news of Hain’s resignation from Labour Cabinet. Now, BBC, let’s see some broader debate on: 1.)EU; 2.) climate change; 3.) Islam; 4.) Israel.
Just to pick up this point about overseas contributors. Clearly they see a small fraction of the BBC’s output and so that means those in America tend to have concerns about our coverage of American politics and those in Israel concerns about covering stories there.
It’s always interesting to hear their contributions but in the end this is just a small part of what the BBC does. As I’ve said before perhaps the reason B-BBC isn’t part of some great rebellion against the Corporation is that many viewers and listerners are very happy with the service.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2246178,00.html
“As I’ve said before perhaps the reason B-BBC isn’t part of some great rebellion against the Corporation is that many viewers and listerners are very happy with the service.”
Either that or they haven’t heard about the website. I’ve only been coming here for a few months, and I was referred here by a friend when I complained about the telly tax.
I think that the bias of the BBC news is pretty bad but to be completely honest, I wouldn’t give a rat’s arse if I wasn’t forced to pay for it.
I think that something EXACTLY like this website is the best argument against the TV licence. You can attack TV programmes and radio output as much as you like, but they are a personal opinion. If you look at some of the examples of BBC bias on this website you can clearly see some of the hidden agendas of the BBC.
Surely Osboune should resign too if HAIN THE HEOR HAS RESINGED,.
Impartial reporting, BBC style.
Peter Hain resigns from Cabinet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7206812.stm
The BBC get reaction to Hain’s resignation – just one quote mind, oh and one saying Hain is great:
“I personally regard him as an excellent colleague and a good friend”
Harriet Harman
Labour’s deputy leader.
Yes indeed, what a wonderful man Hain is!
Hain the hero resgins:
Surely Osboune should resign too if HAIN THE HEOR HAS RESINGED,.
Hain the hero resgins | 24.01.08 – 1:11 pm | #
I don’t normally quibble about the odd typo – but your post has got to be the most illiterate ever seen here.
Do you work for Nulab HQ?
Ritter | 24.01.08 – 1:14 pm | #
Impartial reporting, BBC style.
Just like this one really…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7206511.stm
Crime’s down. Labour says so. No one else can even question the figures and the only quote is of course from Labour.
The leader is under attack, quick defend the leader!
A Labour politician
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2008/01/davey-you-plonker.html
The BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7204455.stm