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.
“I may not agree with much of what Laban writes, but he seems like a bright chap (like most of the people here) so I was guesstimating 150 then using your own factor” –
No grasp of irony at all … how surprising.
When someone rants about stupid voters who only read the tabloids, and bearing in mind the class of non-tabloid-reading people who voted the current collection of clowns, illiterates, lunatics, incomptents, thieves and thugs into government, my assessment of that someone’s IQ is not in 3 figures.
I have been posting pro-Israel on any number of websites and other types of usenet service for many years, sometimes under my full name and/or with my email address showing, and nobody has ever tried to recruit me to anything, never mind a ‘battalion’. But I suppose that in the great scheme of things, some people simply have to be paranoid about those of us who are pro-Israel. After all, we helped the Mossad blow up the WTC, right?
Sue:
“To some of us the Middle East topic is close to home and echoes the atmosphere of the 1930s” –
quite so. And the fact is that the BBC website is full of lies and distortions, all of them with an anti-Israel slant.
Nearly Oxfordian:
No grasp of irony at all … how surprising.
I think you’ll find Laban was being ironic.
JRSIHG the name is an homage to one of the few things at the beeb that is undeniably good and not an indication of gender.
The reason I mention MediaLens is because if I suggest that their e-lackeys use the internet to attempt to steer the beeb’s coverage, then it surprises noone. Nor 9/11 Troofers. So why not other groups?
That link is very funny.
btw I am interested what kind of village you live in where the issue of bias in the ME would be the topic that springs to people’s mind when the beeb comes up. In mine it would be bias against Countryside Alliance, lack of understanding of rural affairs, dumbing down of weather forecasts (except Countryfile), why does Sky have a Country channel and not the beeb etc etc
If I was called to task on these, then I would be on a sticky wicket. But if Chuffer or backwoodsman aren’t about, then they never come up.
Maybe the board just has the same metropolitan perspective as it’s target. It would be a very easy and obvious explanantion.
“In mine it would be bias against Countryside Alliance”
LOL. Run from Vauxhall by that frightful loser.
Most people in my village regard the CA as a bunch of thugs and bullies.
, my assessment of that someone’s IQ is not in 3 figures.
Nearly Oxfordian | 31.01.08 – 12:52 pm | #
I thought I did a pretty good job of being smug and insufferable and up my own arse (and I think that is something we will be able to agree on), but it is always nice to have someone to learn from 🙂
Sarah Jane:
You are just promulgating the BBC mantra that whenever MANY people oppose one of their viewpoints
it’s always “an organised group with an agenda.”
So everyone here suggesting that the BBC is “an organised group with an agenda” of it’s own, must be scoffed at – because YOU have a massive I.Q and know far better than all of us about…well…about EVERYTHING. You can see the greater picture that us ignorant peons fail to grasp with our limited un-Beeboid imaginations.
You are remarkably condescending Sarah Jane, even when you are trying your very hardest to be humble. And your boastful declaration of your massive IQ is the sort of shameless, self-aggrandized attitude I would expect from a BBC employee; part time or not.
Some of the stupidest people I have ever met are the braying hoorah Henry and Henrietta types, spat out of public school, their heads swimming with intellectual ideals, yet not a tuppence worth of common sense or imagination between the lot of them.
Those individuals that can think for themselves without having to rely on the gratification of herd-think, are the true intellectuals in this world. You, sadly, are not one of them. As with John Reith, Ben and David Gregory – all cut from the same cloth.
To make such a ridiculous sentiment as to suggest that the major output of this blog is possibly a conspiracy of pro-Israel Johnny foreigners doing their utmost to tarnish the BBC’s virgin reputation, makes you look beyond stupid. It makes you look like you’ve never had a thought that originated from your own personal experience in your life.
Who’s the tin-foil hat wearing paranoid now?
I’ve lived in the UK all my life. White, British and male (straight I might add, so unqualified for employment at the BBC) – the lowest thing on the caste system to Beeboids such as yourself, and quite frankly hearing yet more outrageous omniscient opinions from holier than thou Beeboids such as yourself is starting to make me feel sick.
Beeboid thinking is a concrete straight-jacket. A poisonous mix of arrogance, bigotry and self-preservation, that would make even the most die-hard muslim fanatic look broad minded.
People’s Front of Judea – read my posts – I was taking the piss out Nearly Oxfordian’s assessment of their own IQ. Apparently they were being ironic.
While you are at it, you will also notice that I acknowledge that many here are clearly people writing from their own agenda who are pissed off about bias and/or the license fee. Which you already know I am not the greatest supporter of.
But reading our posts isn’t really a concern of some here – there is an agenda, a certainty about who we are and they way we think and vote – and in anything that casts doubt on that must be ignored.
Sound familiar?
George R | 30.01.08 – 11:08 pm | # “How are you “economically associated with the BBC”? You don’t specify.” – Why should I?
“You admit “there is obviously going to be a closeness between the World Service and the larger BBC”. In what repects, exactly? I sasy it’s symbiotic. How close is the relationship between the BBC and the BBC World Service in Broadcasting House, for example? Do you know something I don’t know?”
It’s hardly an admission, there are going to be people who have worked both for the BBC and BBC World Service, but the main difference is funding. The licence fee isn’t there to fund content for people outside the UK (and this was last checked by KPMG in 2007).
“Re- the BBC Arabic TV station, you avoid agreeing that it should have an explicit anti-Jihadist mission statement. (Do you think it shouldn’t have such a mission statement?)”
Why does it need it? The World Service has been around for 75 years and witnessed many changes in the world. It is there to inform impartially and has as a consequence promoted Britain abroad fantastically well. I’m sure you’ll now say that this is the same as condoning Jihad though. Should every bureau pick out a special issue that is pertinent to their region to include in a mission statement? Ridiculous.
“David Preiser (USA) 7.08 pm has presented his thoughts on what sort of message the AL BEEB TV station is likely to send out, if it is not staffed predominantly by non-Muslims and apostates. As he says, it will be biased in a particular predictable direction.”
Well that’s his opinion and one with which I don’t agree – should we all base our views on generalisations and stereotypes?
“You are remarkably condescending Sarah Jane”
PFOJ – you do spend an awful lot of time telling other posters – with no small dollop of condescension – why they are morally, politically and intellectually inferior to you.
Contrast & Compare, then tell me that the BBC is living in the same world as you and I.
Iran to limit execution in public
Iran hangs five convicts in one day, state media says
Do you think we’ll get an update from the BBC?
BG wrote;
“Contrast & Compare, then tell me that the BBC is living in the same world as you and I.”
While I find the reporting from Iran a little too cosy for my liking. The BBC article merely repeats what Iran’s top judge said.
That the taking of pictures of people with rope around their neck is no longer acceptable. He didn’t say they were going to stop hanging people. (usually little girls)
Not long ago I seem to remember John Reith saying something along the lines of the following:
During the days when Great Britain was deciding whether to accept or reject Germany’s surrender terms, Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the World Zionist Organization, proposed to the British War Cabinet that in consideration of the promise of Palestine to “the Jews of the world” by Great Britain, they would bring the USA into the war as Great Britain’s ally.
The British War Cabinet accepted the arrangement. The Balfour declaration, stating that Britain supported a Jewish claim to Palestine, was the result.
Where did I just copy that from?
Here
While I find the reporting from Iran a little too cosy for my liking. The BBC article merely repeats what Iran’s top judge said.
That the taking of pictures of people with rope around their neck is no longer acceptable. He didn’t say they were going to stop hanging people. (usually little girls)
pounce | 31.01.08 – 1:50 pm
Yes, but my point is that while the BBC jump at the chance to tell us that apparently something in Iran is changing for the better, the chances are they won’t bother to tell us that executions continue. Just like they love to tell us that Israel has killed a “Palestinian” without bothering to tell us that said “Palestinian” was armed and on his way to kill a Jew.
It’s what we call bias by omission, isn’t it?
“I thought I did a pretty good job of being smug and insufferable and up my own arse (and I think that is something we will be able to agree on), but it is always nice to have someone to learn from”
– a conclusion based on exactly nil evidence. Pretty much what we expect from a beeboid.
BG wrote;
“Just like they love to tell us that Israel has killed a “Palestinian” without bothering to tell us that said “Palestinian” was armed and on his way to kill a Jew.
It’s what we call bias by omission, isn’t it?”
Well here is what I read on tha latter;
“Israeli troops have killed an armed Palestinian in the southern Gaza Strip, near the border fence east of Rafah.
The militant group al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party, said one of its members had died.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7219352.stm#map
I have no problem slating the BBC for its pro terrorist slant. However in the above example they do mention the dead man was armed.
Now please excuse me as I have to waddle off to the gym and try to pretend I know what I’m doing.
I suppose given the rather argumentative nature of everyone on here I should not be really surprised that my request for less discussion on Middle East topics has led to another great long arguement about them.
For the record, I do think the BBC has been unfair to Isreal for years. They bend over backwards to avoid offending Muslims at all times whilst not offering the same benefit of the doubt to other faith groups – especially Christians.
But it is also true that I am just as interested in the domestic political and social bias of the BBC. All I was suggesting was for these topics to be given equal discussion time.
SJ – I appreciate your response but when you quoted me you forgot to include my referance to the Balen report. Surely some mistake? You can’t have taken a leaf out of JR’s book and started cherrypicking can you?
Rockall I have posted many times on here (but not in response to you so you may not have seen those posts) that I think the Balen Report being secret probably does more harm than good. Of course I haven’t seen it myself, like most of the BBC.
pounce, I gave the example of the armed “Palestinian” before seeing that report today. Had I seen it earlier I wouldn’t have used it as an example. Perhaps a better analogy is the BBC not reporting the hundreds of rocket attacks on Sderot but reporting the Israeli incursions to stop them in a vacuum.
There’s no doubt that the Jerusalem Post’s report is more neutral and factual; it reports the executions and also the judge’s order against making them public. I’ll be very surprised if the BBC report on the recent executions at all.
Rockall:
All I was suggesting was for these topics to be given equal discussion time.
There’s nothing stopping you discussing whatever you fancy, at least until The Moderator™ returns. “Equal time” sounds a lot like “equal opportunities” to me. What is discussed here depends on everybody who takes the trouble to post a comment.
Like Sue and others I have more of an interest in the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East that British party politics, for example, because it affects me and my family directly. As a member of the overseas branch of the 2nd Hasbara Battalion it is also my duty as ordained by the World Zionist Conspiracy/Zionist Lobby.
Now please excuse me as I’m late for a briefing session, then I have to attend my lodge and the local Rotary Club. 8)
pounce, I gave the example of the armed “Palestinian” before seeing that report today. Had I seen it earlier I wouldn’t have used it as an example. Perhaps a better analogy is the BBC not reporting the hundreds of rocket attacks on Sderot but reporting the Israeli incursions to stop them in a vacuum.
There’s no doubt that the Jerusalem Post’s report is more neutral and factual; it reports the executions and also the judge’s order against making them public. I’ll be very surprised if the BBC report on the recent executions at all.
Rockall:
All I was suggesting was for these topics to be given equal discussion time.
There’s nothing stopping you discussing whatever you fancy, at least until The Moderator™ returns. “Equal time” sounds a lot like “equal opportunities” to me. What is discussed here depends on everybody who takes the trouble to post a comment.
Like Sue and others I have more of an interest in the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East that British party politics, for example, because it affects me and my family directly. As a member of the overseas branch of the 2nd Hasbara Battalion it is also my duty as ordained by the World Zionist Conspiracy/Zionist Lobby.
Now please excuse me as I’m late for a briefing session, then I have to attend my lodge and the local Rotary Club. 8)
apologies for the duplicate post!
apologies for the duplicate post!
BBC misrepresenting the profits of a successful British-listed company:
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=10904024&sort=whole
West ’embraces sham democracies’
The US, EU and other democracies are accepting flawed and unfair elections out of political expediency, Human Rights Watch says in its annual report.
Allowing autocrats to pose as democrats without demanding they uphold civil and political rights risked undermining human rights worldwide, it warned.
It seems to me there’s one place (hint; it isn’t a country or a state) that’s conspicuous by its absence. Its a place that Guardian readers and the like insist is governed by a group that was democratically elected (hint; the group’s name begins with “H” and ends in “s”)
Biodegradable, you should know by now that all you are permitted to disclose is your rank and serial number. The name of your unit, never mind its operations, are marked Secret and Top Secret respectively. You are now on a charge.
Rockall, do post on any matter you wish. You may generate interest and discussion, or you may not. That will tell you which topics interest the majority. It is a fact that Al Beeb’s despicable undeclared war on Israel is one that does interest many.
Woad doesn’t seem to have learned the lesson of Weimar, namely that tolerance of Fascism is a grave mistake. Instead of screaming ‘Neocon, Neocon’, perhaps you could spend some time reading up on the 1930s.
JRSIHG the name is an homage to one of the few things at the beeb that is undeniably good and not an indication of gender……..
btw I am interested what kind of village you live in where the issue of bias in the ME would be the topic that springs to people’s mind when the beeb comes up. In mine it would be bias against Countryside Alliance, lack of understanding of rural affairs, dumbing down of weather forecasts (except Countryfile), why does Sky have a Country channel and not the beeb etc etc……….
Sarah-Jane | 31.01.08 – 1:02 pm | #
Ah – so you are JR in drag, what a shame.
Are you sure you live in a real village? It seems more like the stereotype dreamed up by your “Archers” colleagues.
In my local we’ve got a couple of bankers, the odd software engineer, a medic and a few company directors – with just a couple of working farmers left.
We’re only 50% pro hunting and not terribly interested in learning how to make corn dollies.
Your mythical pub blew your credibility for me I’m afraid.
I think you’re an urban marxist beeboid with a goatee beard, a black polo neck and a leather jacket – pretending to be a simple apolitical country girl just to wind us up.
Ben.
You provide, predictably unwaivering, slavish support for both the BBC and the BBC World Service; it’s as though you might have a vested interest in doing so, but you refuse to say what your economic association is with either organisation.
You admit the closeness of the two organisations; I just wonder how close that relationship is. I suspect – very close, in places. For example, who trains who in Broadcasting House when it comes to BBC/BBC World Service/BBC Arabic TV?(I don’t expect to have to rely on your comments on this.)
You seem very opposed to the new BBC Arabic TV station having an anti-Jihad Mission Statement. I wonder, as a consequence, whether you are opposed to Islamic Jihad. I wouldn’t expect a straight answer.
As for your final comment about ‘generalisations and stereotypes’, you make them in the manner of a Beeboid about the BBC World Service, and you throw in a ‘non-sequitur’ as well:- (The World Service “is there to inform impartially and has as a conseqence” (non-sequitur)”promoted Britain abroad fantastically well.”
I think I’ve got your number.
BioD’s G and Nearly Oxfordian
Fair enough. Maybe I was a little dissappointed by the general lack of interest in my taxation scoop above. 🙂
——————————————————————————–
Rockall:
The BBC on inheritance tax
– clearly in favour of wealth redistribution.
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO REDISTRIBUTE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz…ine/ 7217398.stm
Rockall | 30.01.08 – 4:48 pm | #
Are you sure you live in a real village? It seems more like the stereotype dreamed up by your “Archers” colleagues.
Yes I’m pretty sure – well I just pinched myself and it didnt go away. But I could just be totally deluded. After all, a marxist all these years and I never knew, fancy that.
(Do you think if you keep saying it long enough I will actually become one?)
I am reasonably certain that attempting a discussion of eg the ins and outs at Millbank and the BBC might not be that interesting to anyone in my local. Even me.
Rockall – that may be because your link doesn’t work, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Yet more “wild weather” as the Beeb puts it. Extremely cold, wet and windy weather is how most of us would describe it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7219588.stm
No mention of global warming of any kind. Not even the slight hint that perhaps the theory might conceivably be wrong, just perhaps?
Ryan: Weather isn’t climate.
BBC just promoting the governments socialist agenda
Click to access Red%20Green%20Pamphlet.pdf
The BBC is reluctant to refer to any real criticism of the Labour Government’s proposed Education Bill which excludes independent state inspection of Muslim schools:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7219634.stm
In contrast, Melanie Phillips gets to the heart of the matter:
” Slouching towards dhimmocracy (ctd)”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/478991/slouching-towards-dhimmocracy-ctd.thtml
david gregory you keep saying climate isnt weather, but obviously, if the climate changes so does the weather
climate and weather are linked PER SE
any 1st year science student could tell you that
Anonymous
F’ing hell I have just read that pamphlet
“regulate to protect citizens from carbon exploitation”
Looks like I will be paying for my bin contents four or five times over then, and I can forget private ownership of – well – anything really. Nice to see that the powers that be accept that “climate change” is a wizzo tool to advance the cause of social(ist) justice – and that usually ends up with a lot of distress for all concerned. At least the BBC will be there to broadcast pictures of carefully selected climate criminals at the show trials…….
BG wrote;
“pounce, I gave the example of the armed “Palestinian” before seeing that report today. Had I seen it earlier I wouldn’t have used it as an example. Perhaps a better analogy is the BBC not reporting the hundreds of rocket attacks on Sderot but reporting the Israeli incursions to stop them in a vacuum.”
Hey no problem, I fully understand where you are coming from. However you may have noticed that the clones are replicating (like immigrant mothers) and are trying to make their presence felt by trying to discredit this MB. In otherwords somebody at Bush House is pissed off about how this blog is exposing the Anti western tendencies of the BBC and they have sent in their storm troopers in which to silence us. Reith does his best, however he has been caught out that many times he may as well be a Labour councillor on Hampstead Heath. My point if we are expose the degenerates at the BBC who prefer Shariah Law to British Common Law. We need to stick to the facts. Lastley my mum, always taught me to treat others as I expected to be treated myself. Just because somebody works at the BBC doesn’t mean he/she is a forming at the mouth latte drinking tree hugger.
Anonymous: Yes indeed. But climate (and climate change) is all about long term trends. Weather (and weather forcasting) is all about if you need an umbrella when walking the dog
Straw: Brown’s got skip in stride
Jack Straw caused widespread disbelief and guffaws yesterday when he waxed lyrical about an imaginary ‘Brown bounce’ on the Today programme. So I read the BBC article on this piece of blatant spin expecting that even the beeb would have some fun with it. But no. The BBC explain how “Brown has a skip in his stride” as this is all gospel truth. No Ifs no Buts. Good old Gordon, he can always rely on the BBC to spin for him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7217090.stm
Mr Gregory, im grateful you have acknowledged your mistake
carry on 😉
@David Gregory: “Ryan: Weather isn’t climate.”
Absolutely right David. Shame you are not quite so vociferous in pointing that out to your lords and masters at the Beeb. Or perhaps we would have less “floods caused by global warming”, “hot summer caused by global warming” nonsense.
Stop wasting your time here David and start being more evangelistic at the BEEB! Then none of us will have a problem right?
Weather isn’t climate. Your right David. Now go tell the BBC. If I see one more instance of weather = climate then you know who I will be blaming don’t you David?
For evil (ideas) to prevail it only takes good men to remain silent.
George R | 30.01.08 – 11:08 pm |
David Preiser (USA) 7.08 pm has presented his thoughts on what sort of message the AL BEEB TV station is likely to send out, if it is not staffed predominantly by non-Muslims and apostates. As he says, it will be biased in a particular predictable direction.
Ben | 31.01.08 – 1:29 pm |
Well that’s his opinion and one with which I don’t agree – should we all base our views on generalisations and stereotypes?
Excuse me, but this is a slight mis-characterization of what I said. I do take the position that the BBC will have to staff the station in a very Muslim way. That’s not bias – that’s common sense. I certainly would not say categorically that just because the staff are visibly Arabs and devout Muslims then there will be a predictable bias. I was saying that Al-Jazeera is popular, and, while often honest in its reporting, also has obvious sympathies in a certain direction, and that the BBC’s venture would have to compete with that.
And I am not exactly basing my opinion on mere generalizations and stereotypes either. The regular conspiracy rumors and magical beliefs of nearly every culture in the world are a reality that one cannot deny. When I say that Muslim Arabs living in Muslim Arab countries will be very suspicious of a channel aimed at them but presented by “the other”, one cannot seriously deny that reality. We’re not talking about the educated elite here. The average uneducated, unworldly Muslim Arab in the street – the real hearts and minds – has a different world view than the men in nice suits who get to appear on TV. There is no way around it. And please, lets not get into accusations of stereotypes or racism. One will find a similar level of fantastical beliefs in Africa, South America, Asia, and even the good ol’ US of A. To dismiss this as mere generalization and stereotype is either naive or dishonest.
And while we’re on the topic of mistrusting “the other”, how many Anglo-Saxon Britons living in council estates or in working class neighborhoods, or even your average middle class people, would welcome with open arms a new channel broadcast at them which came from Dubai was staffed by beards and burqas and took an anti-Western aggression stance? Everyone is like this. We’re all only human.
I am guilty of this myself as regards Matt Frei’s low-budget dog and pony show on BBC America. Justin Webb says that they merely bring a “foreign perspective” to the news, especially the elections, as if that automatically gives it value. We all know how that worked out for them. Although, I must say that even had they staffed BBC World News America with Americans, the editorial slant would still be the same because the executive producer is the same guy who let Dan Rather broadcast those phony documents about Bush’s National Guard records. This is someone who believes his truth is there somewhere even if the facts go against it.
That said, the BBC clearly must take into account the permeability (for lack of a better word) of the hearts and minds of their audience. It would be foolish for them to start out with anti-jihadist guns blazing. That has already been conflated with being anti-Muslim, full stop, so it won’t help. I do believe that a BBC Arabic TV could, at the very least, take care to feature “moderates” who criticize Muslim-on-Muslim violence as anti-Islamic. This would do a great to deal to fight terrorist activity and propaganda, in my opinion.
Obviously nobody can say what bias will or will not be evident in this new venture. Not even any of the BBC employees who visit here would have any idea what the plans are for the channel. The only given is that they ought to staff it with Arab Muslims who look and act the part, which they seem to have done.
Speaking for myself, I am not optimistic that the BBC will do the inverse of “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” geared toward this audience. I think the possibility is there, but I don’t really expect too many of the senior staff at the BBC to think along those lines. I’m not exactly sure what the Foreign Office intends to do with it either. But one can hope.
Fair enough David, thanks for expanding – though I wouldn’t really agree on the extent to which you seem to think it will have to undergo changes (compared to established services). Otherwise, what is the point of setting it up? They have the opportunity to present a different perspective.
My view is that the BBC and the BBC World Service have proved themselves to be anti-Israeli (and there is no new tv service to be staffed by Jews, broadcasting material sympathetic to Israel apparently); by and large, the BBC adopts a timorous ‘multicultural’ position towards Jihadism, treating it as not problematic, but as being integral to Islam, which is simply another viewpoint.
David Gregory (BBC):
Ryan: Weather isn’t climate.
David Gregory (BBC) | 31.01.08 – 5:59 pm | #
You’re a serious scientist David.
Would you say hurricane Katrina was a weather or climate event?
The BBC jumping to the tune of its Labour masters
How No 10 spun into action to take credit
…The Sun led its first edition on an interview with Mr Cameron in which he said that the Tories would scrap restrictions on the police to carry out search operations. The Daily Mirror carried nothing on the story in its early editions but it and several other papers soon caught up. Only for them it was the Government, and not the Conservatives, who were planning action. That was also the line taken by the BBC and other broadcasters. How could this have happened?
…
Government sources decided that Mr Cameron should not get the credit for something the Government was going to do anyway. Plans to brief about Monday’s announcement were instantly brought forward, to give the Mirror, the BBC and others a swift rundown on what the Government was about to do, and not what the Conservatives would do if they won office.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3279545.ece
John Reith spins in his grave: Weather. Single event. But of course as a science correspondent you’ll always be asked that question. Is this climate change when anything like that happens? I have to say I don’t make a habit of studying the North American Hurricane season, but I thought making a link between climate change and any increase in intensity of the hurricane season was contraversial. Wasn’t it peaceful this year? Like i say, a bit out of the patch.
Just for the record: some people may regard me as a tree-hugger, so that’s one dumb generalisation you can put out to grass.
And a few days of cold and wet weather in Jan/Feb do absolutely nil to disprove the climate change theory.
“Would you say hurricane Katrina was a weather or climate event?”
A single event can never be a ‘climate event’, even allowing for the fact that the distinction between weather and climate – whilst not spurious – is not 100% clearcut. A single event is weather by definition (i.e. that’s how we define the word ‘weather’). Climate is a convenient linguistic label for long-term trends in weather events. Being trends, they cannot be deduced from single events (again, by virtue of what the word ‘trend’ means). Therefore, linking Katrina to climate change is not controversial but meaningless. It is only the statistical distribution of hurricane incidence and magnitude that can be linked to climate change, whether or not that link is genuine or nor (as decided long after the event, pun intended).
George.
I’ve never ‘admitted’ the two are close, of course they are, this makes perfect sense. The difference is you were accusing the BBC of using licence fee money to create an arabic station (and a muslim prayer room), which was completely untrue. As I stated, KPMG confirmed only last year that there is no cross subsidising. You’ve noticed this basic flaw in your original accusation (or rather I did) and changed course – what I do is neither here nor there – the figures are facts.
As I predicted, you seem to think that because I don’t agree the new service should be created with an ‘anti-Jihad Mission Statement’, my views on Jihad are automatically questionable. What a load of rubbish, I’ve already laid out why this shouldn’t be an explicit, singular aim.
I don’t really expect people on a ‘Biased BBC’ board to take the idea that the BBC is impartial as a given, but quite frankly I can’t be bothered to write a disclaimer every time, just because it’s what I believe and a great many other people do. Additionally, why else would the FO give the WS so much funding if they thought they could do better themselves to promote Britain? 183 million listen to its radio a week – who are under no obligation to do so.
“The Beeb is a powerful symbol of British culture at home, where unifying institutions grow ever thinner on the ground, and abroad. The government particularly enjoys the broadcaster’s reputation in other countries. “It is probably more important for winning hearts and minds abroad than everything the Foreign Office does,” says a minister.” – http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8495029