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
General BBC-related comment thread:
Bookmark the permalink.
BaggieJonathan | 08.02.08 – 1:22 pm
BaggieJ
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Aussie Bystander’s defiant ‘bring it on…you’ll be laughed out of any Australian court’ was based on the difficulties of pursuing defamation actions relating to the internet.
You could be right.
But it might be that Aussie B feels confident that he could persuade an Australian jury that David Vance is a racist bigot, no trouble.
Who knows, he might be right.
Australia has a Roman Catholic population about twice that of the UK’s.
In July last year David Vance travelled to Southport • quite possibly dressed in a Rangers shirt (his own account is ambiguous on this score) to take part in an Orange parade.
Some of his fellow marchers chanted slogans insulting the Pope, the Virgin Mary etc. with the clear intention of wounding the religious sensibilities of Merseyside’s Catholic population. They behaved abominably, swaggering drunkenly through the town singing anti-Fenian songs.
After the parade, one of these Orange slobs took out his penis on the 18.28 Southport to Wigan Wallgate train and urinated in the train corridor, whilst excoriating all things Catholic.
If David Vance is prepared to associate with religious bigots like this (and be proud of it), then he can hardly complain if a clever Australian QC invites a jury to conclude he’s likely to be a racial or anti-Muslim bigot too. You can imagine the line of argument might run thus: ” If this is how he treats Christians of another denomination, can you honestly doubt that he harbours even more deep seated hatreds for Muslims and those even more ‘other’ or alien creeds”.
No doubt Mr Vance would claim that those of his best friends that aren’t actually Muslims (yes, he actually said it!) are Catholic (even his mother too) and that Orange marches are innocent expressions of loyalty to the Crown with not a whiff of sectarianism about them. But then Abu Hamza and his ilk claim that jihad is just the Islamic word for a kind of New Year’s resolution. That cuts no ice down-under. Nor would Vance’s equally weaselly rhetoric. But if the jury still felt the need to hear more evidence, they could have David Vance’s B-BBC posts read aloud in court to help them decide whether he is a man of moderate, reasonable temper or a prejudiced, blustering old windbag.
All legal actions are a bit of a lottery, but I’d be prepared to bet on a down-to-earth antipodean jury coming to the right conclusion • particularly if 26% of them ‘dig with the left foot’! 🙂
Sarah Jane,
I express myself as I see fit. If the proprietor of this site sees otherwise, I am sure he will tell me.
This site is not called “BBC Bias expressed in a form suitable to leftists” – if it were I wouldn’t be here. I call it as I see it, you are more than welcome to try and counter my opinions -like Fox News I believe in fair and balanced opinion. 😉
Fair enough David, you are right it is Andrew’s blog to ruin as he sees fit.
Just trying to be helpful – as well as taking a few sarcastic cheap shots 😛
LOL – John Reith. I travelled to Southport last year – dressed in possibly a Rangers top.
Cool.
1. I support Grimsby Town fan and would not wear the shirt of another team.
2. I didn’t go to Southport. Have never been to Stockport. Don’t go to Orange Marches either. Check your facts pal – or put your real name to a repeat of this and you can get to see the real David Vance, in court. Sloppy standards may be your fare, not mine. Have a little re-read over what you allege – check who wrote it, then apologise for your stupidity or else prove to the readers of this site that you are as ignorant as you are plain stupid. Here’s a tip – check out the story before you come out with the allegations.
So what your saying is Andrew McCann isn’t your alter-ago!
Does that mean there are TWO of you?
If that’s the case, I apologize unreservedly.
Why Grimsby? – as Voltaire might have asked.
I find it amazing that I check this blog, for the first time in months, and Reith is still here defaming anybody that dares to knock the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation.
How much do the Beeb pay you to sit on here fighting their corner?
The Survivors remake.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the disaster they survive is Global Warming.
Grimer | 08.02.08 – 3:41 pm,
Welcome Grimer. Long time no see. Yes, Reith is still hammering away here but he’s getting more and more desperate and is starting to grasp at straws in his attempts to discredit people on this blog:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4615546174487042879/#383823
And he’s forgetting his grammar:
So what your saying…
If he stops in mid-comment in an hour or so you’ll know he fell off the stool at the BBC bar and broke his laptop.
HI Grimer, good to see you back 🙂
John Reith:
So what your saying is Andrew McCann isn’t your alter-ago!
I’ve seen previous posts under your pseudonym which seemed to be written by a reasonable, if misguided, individual.
These recent posts however have the mark of a deeply vicious and vindictive personality.
To use the cover of a pseudonym to deliver this kind of ad hominem attack on someone who has a revealed identity is a malicious act of cowardice.
You haven’t done the BBC’s reputation any favours at all with these attacks on David Vance.
PS. Keep up the good work David – you’re obviously getting under their skin in a way we never managed!
John Reith = Aussie Bystander
John Reith:
“So what your saying is Andrew McCann isn’t your alter-ago!”
Hmmm. I’d be very surprised if this is ‘our’ John Reith. JR is a little more accurate with his grammar.
John Reith = Aussie Bystander
I doubt it.
I am skeptical if this is the real JR – the post on David’s blog which is the source of that stuff is very clear about who the author is, and it is equally clear that it is not David, but a friend of his.
Basic fact-checking. Tsk tsk.
I am quite happy to apologise* for this, while the manner of David’s posts is a legimate matter for debate and I doubt he is easily offended, we should keep clear of this kind of thing.
*After all – we are a collective 😉
John Reith | 08.02.08 – 3:13 pm
and
John Reith | 07.02.08 – 1:39 pm (see other thread)
He lies about commenters on this list yet he’s not banned, but BioD/others are?
Nice to see his fact-checking is up to usual al-Beeb standards. No wonder the BBC is shit. Did you work on the Panorama about WiFi “dangers” Reith?
The news bulletin before PM tonight began with the words that the Archbish of C had drawn fire from both Anglican wings and many others.
PM itself managed to find at least two contributors who supported the AoC and then Mair had a long interview with Peter Bottomley, the most left-wing tory in captivity. Mair: was he badly advised? Bottomley: he was misquoted, his suggestions are helpful if you read it, no story there, nothing to see here folks, blah blah.
I accept Sarah’s apology but it’s John Reith who needs to learn how to apologise without caveats when proven to be completely wrong. I thought fact-checking was basic – even at the BBC – buy hey, maybe I’m wrong.
Wrench is cleared and it is immediately put on the front page – what a surprise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm
Although the result itself really was a surpise 😉
David: your posts have revitalised this blog, and the sure sign you’re getting under the skin of the group-think leftists at the BBC & their like-minded supporters is the rise in the number of their comments. Keep up the good work.
I thought this was hilarious:
A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC is aware of the verdict.”
(In a BBC News report!)
Totally agree with bob about David revitalising this blog.
And John Reith, if it is really he, does best what most defenders of the BBC do; either change the subject or aim to hit low and hard below the belt.
His defence had urged the jury to ignore any feelings of repugnance.
……….difficult!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7235472.stm
I found the programme deeply troubling, indeed terrifying, since it revealed so much deep denial of the blindingly obvious among otherwise intelligent people who on this subject appear to be impervious to facts and to reason itself
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/490661/lost-in-the-maze.thtml
Maybe Aussie Bystander is David Hicks?
Just saw the headlines of the 6 O’Clock News. Looks like it isn’t just us tiny minority of right-wing, baby-strangling, warmongering fascists that took exception with what Dr. Williams said…
Poor man is shocked. Shocked I say.
Now that Wrench is not going to jail and therefore he won’t be a drain on the taxpayer, let’s have him sacked for his illegal use of cocaine so he won’t be a drain on the telly-tax payer.
Channel 4’s Dispatches has recently produced some excellent documentaries featuring topics that the BBC simply will not touch; e.g. Islamic extremism in mosques, Ken Livingstone shenanigans, children murdering children. All subjects that could embarrass the Labour government, I find it hard to imagine the BBC producing any similar programmes these days.
Tonight on Channel 4, “Unreported World” reports on the Muslim persecution of Egypt’s Christian minority. It’s certainly a topic that is “unreported” on the BBC, but then when it comes to religions the BBC only has eyes for Islam these days.
Counsel for Nigel Wrench
http://www.5kbw.co.uk/profile.php?id=53
so says the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/08/nrape108.xml
I am skeptical if this is the real JR
Sarah-Jane | 08.02.08 – 5:01 pm |
You mean one of the real JRs. He has admitted that HE IS A COLLECTIVE.
John Reith
Your qualified apology (from last thread) is welcome.
But…. you continue to imply that I am deliberately playing fast and loose with the truth.
Now this will be news to you, but you are quite mistaken in accusing me of knowing ‘perfectly well what I was doing’ by commenting on ‘a stub’. I had no idea what a stub is – at least I hadn’t before reading your explanation. What I read seemed to be was a BBC report on an incident widely covered elsewhere on the web but omitting crucial context and information – information which had clearly been available for some time, since the BBC link was timed later (I sorted reports in date order) than several others which were far more complete. Being unfamiliar with this stub system, I assumed that this was the report which the BBC wanted me to read. Apparently it was not. But it was there.
And what difference does the ‘form’ of the report make anyhow? The wording of the ‘stub’ exposed the default position of the BBC on the Middle East conflict to a ‘T’ – report what the IDF does without any reference to what Hamas did. Even if the BBC website personnel hadn’t managed to check that the Hamas men were gunmen by that time, the rocket attack in which the toddlers were injured had happened the previous afternoon, and was clearly relevant context for the IDF action, even for a summary.
It was therefore fair game for comment.
John Reith’s latest attempt at dragging somebody’s character through the mud.
You really are a sad, pathetic little man aren’t you John. No wonder your wife left you.
Incidentally, to put Reith’s hypocrisy into perspective, here he is on another thread excusing himself for accusing another poster of behaving like a member of the East German Stasi.
“It was not because you had uncovered some piece of information, it was because you inferred someone’s political stance from the fact of their attendance at a cultural event.”
F*****ng hypocrite Reith!
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion — some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.
The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other “rules” that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html
This must be what The BBC mean when they helpfully remind us that:
Sharia rulings help Muslims understand how they should lead their lives
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm
What a waste of an Enlightenment!
The Sharia Have Your Say must surely have set a record for the most comments ever received in a day and a half:
Total comments: 17478
Published comments: 8796
Rejected comments: 462
Moderation queue: 8219
And over 1500 people have recommended the top anti-Sharia comment, with very few comments coming in supporting Sharia:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4246&edition=1&ttl=20080208202227&#paginator
In contrast, another very hot topic – the anti-Jihadi one after the murder of Benazir Bhutto – took a week to get up to 16000 comments:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=8066&edition=1&ttl=20080208202227
So, to put it in the mildest possible terms, I think we can conclude from this informal survey that the British public is not too keen on the introduction of Sharia law.
Will this influence the BBC’s future reporting on Sharia?
Bryan: Quite simply, No it won’t.
Oh hell. I mustabeen feeling optimistic.
good point bryan,
my concern is that every time there is a debate the beeb tries to look at both sides. it is not fair to do so in this instance when you have a complete loony idea such as sharia law then there is no middle ground. no one wants it. a of c has ruined his reputation in one afternoon. we don’t need to listen to the tiny handful of activists/ clerics telling us why it is a good idea.
the only sane response is utter rejection of sharia as we have seen on HYS and instead of refelecting public opinion al beeb brings in all kinds of weirdo extremists who represent at best .01% of the population.
just get these looney clerics off the airwaves and the beeb needs to reflect the views of the 99.99% of sane people in this country and start leading the debate on replacing the A of C.
Tonight’s Evening Standard goes into some detail in the Sharia courts which have been operating, apparently, for some time.
Apparently an Islamic council in Leyton has dealt with 7,000 divorces over several years.The people involved are not in the slightest bit hesitant in talking about this.
Which leads me to ask: – where exactly have the fearless investigative organs of the state broadcaster been all this time?
Where has Panorama or BBC London or File on Four or Roger Bolton’s Sunday or Today or PM been? How many thousands of journalists do they employ again? What are they all doing?
this weeks private eye has an article on the Policy exchange vs. newsnight battle over the muslim hate literature in mosques report.
apparently it is nowhere near over. both sides have lawyers instructed. PE is clearly on the side of newsnight.
the newsnight producer is facing a serious complaint or possibly a libel action.
watch this space !
BBC News 24 21.35 reviews the ‘messages’ coming into the website regarding Williams and Sharia law.
The chap is perched on a desk with a sheaf of emails in his hand. He first says there are more negative than positive emails. By how much? – let’s find out. He reads a selection.
One negative.
One positive.
One negative.
One positive.
One negative…
… and so it goes on for about ten. With equal balance of negative and positive, and a couple of neutrals.
I’m really upset by this. I understand that he BBC has to make its mind up where it believes the ‘centre ground’ lies. Mostly I don’t care where (although I do wish the journalists would explain more how they make this choice).
The BBC is proselytizing something that is patently untrue. It’s portraying the centre ground of its viewers’ comments to be broadly neutral on the Sharia question, which anyone who’s seen the comments on HYS (from which I presume the chap was reading) seems to me to be indulging in bias of the most crude and literal kind.
jimbob | 08.02.08 – 10:01 pm,
Unfortunately I just can’t see BBC hacks reflecting the views of the 99.99% of sane people. They would have to be sane themselves to do so.
The comment by Ali P above shows that they aren’t.
They have a really long history of ignoring what the public thinks and distorting HYS to fit their agenda.
Public broadcaster? The BBC is like a private club.
How enlightening to read a column in The Daily Mirror by BBC Radio 2 DJ, and professional Northerner, Stuart Maconie, a man who likes the sound of his own voice almost as much as he seems to enjoy eating doughnuts.
This is what he wrote:
“When I’d last lived here Margaret Thatcher was out to crush us into submission under her true blue stiletto heel. But she didn’t succeed.”
Great to know that your political views are bang in line with the rest of the Beeb, Stu. Oh, and that you’re making a tidy sum out of the Mirror by writing about them. BBC not pay you enough?
http://tinyurl.com/2ceep8
Got bored a tenth of the way down with Aussie someone this John Reith that – any chance the trolls can just be completely ignored.
I sort of promised myself I was going to give up watching BBC World News America for Lent, but I couldn’t help noticing that Katty Kay is currently doing a little panel discussion about the BBC’s coverage of the US elections (Matt Frei must be an Orthodox Jew as he does not work on Friday evenings). Of course BBC America’s news show is paying a huge amount of attention to the elections – they’re doing a news broadcast intended for an American audience. But this seems to be about the BBC’s shoving the elections down the throat of UK residents.
I’m not entirely sure why the BBC America staff felt is was necessary to defend their UK colleagues against the criticism they’ve been receiving in the UK. I don’t know what they expect to accomplish here. In any case, Katty had two representatives from foreign media to ask how interested their own viewers were in the US elections.
The guests were an editor from Die Zeit and a guy from the Al Arabia network. I didn’t get their names or positions as I was too busy laughing at them. Oh, yes, I’m sure Die Zeit’s Bush-hating audience are very excited about the elections. Ditto for Al Arabia. And of course we hear how it’s apparently very important to “us Germans” that an African American might become President. Oh yeah, I bet it is. Al Arabia’s viewers are equally enthralled with Obama, bringing up the already tired ‘Kennedy’ comparison.
In short, a Democrat love fest, with emphasis on Obamamania. Katty did get around to asking if they didn’t cover the Democrats way more than the Republicans. Yes, that’s true, they admit, but they’ll start covering the Republicans soon enough. Especially since all Arabs and Germans are anxious about John McCain’s stance on Iraq.
So there you have it. The BBC is perfectly justified in its current balance and volume of coverage of the US elections, because the guys from Die Zeit and Al Arabia say they do the same thing. It seems that their audience are clearly extremely concerned about the US elections because they either want an African American to win or they want the US out of Iraq.
Why this is directed at an American audience, I have no idea. The only thing I can think of – without going into paranoid mode – is that this was something intended for News 24 consumption as well. It was taped earlier, so that could be the case.
If I’m paranoid (honest), though, I could suggest that the BBC felt it was important to tell me and my fellow countrymen what Bush-hating Germans and Al Arabia’s audience want for us. But that’s pure fantasy on my part, surely.
I just came across this quote:-
“Newspapers have to sell in order to live; so does commercial TV. That leaves the BBC as the only truly public service medium in this country disseminating information, entertainment, and, in the case of race relations, propaganda. We are unashamed to admit it is what we are doing.”
– Gerry Hines, BBC Programme Organiser, writing in Race Today sometime before 2005
If that quote’s authentic it belongs in the sidebar!
Vance: That bloke whose conversation with the MP was bugged has been held without charge for over 3 1/2 years. That’s what the Aussie means.
This is how Liberalism declines into tyranny.
“”no evidence”? Prove that one!
How can anyone prove a negative like that one?
Prove that you have not aided terrorists. Go on. Prove the negative.
That’s why in British and Australian jurisprudence it is for the prosecution to prove someone is guilty by presenting evidence NOT for the defendant to prove a negative.
What sort of fucked-up fascist world do you live in?
“”on the say so of a foreign government”? I presume you mean our closest ally in the war on terror?”
Yes, on the say so of a foreign government. If you’re presenting an argument that the UK is no longer an independent sovereign nation when it’s government allies itself with another nation, then you’re deranged.
“Are you out of your tiny dhimmi mind?”
No. Clearly you’re going to produce some evidence of your claims. Sometime.
“I note that you are very good with the insults and mudslinging(like all good leftists) but when it comes to detailed information you seem come up short?”
Detailed information about what? Has Vance dared answer any question as to why a British subject should be jailed summarily and extradited based on the word (without proof) of a foreign government and how it is that that person gets himself defamed on this blog based on no evidence?
No.
“If you would like to stick up for terrorist vermin over law abiding people then thats your right but why not take your pro Islamist garbage to another blog and leave us in peace?”
Really? The person is terrorist vermin?
Please present evidence that the man is a terrorist.
Any evidence.
At all.
Or just admit that you’re really really screwed up.
DAVID VANCE:
“You appear to think I am interested in the drivel you post. I’m not. I suggest a lie-down in a dark room for you – and watch the language on any thread I post or you’ll be moderated. Debate is fine, vulgarity isn’t. Got it?”
Really? You mean defaming a man for a crime based on no evidence is to me the greatest obscenity.
It is your intemperate language against other people that is vulgar.
Cat got your keyboard?
Answer the questions:
How is it that you advocate a British subject be jailed for years pending extradition based on the say-so of a foreign government without evidence?
How is it that you refer to him as an “alleged terror-enabler” (by the way, if you think that UK defamation law allows you to wrap “alleged” around a serious accusation is any defence? No it isn’t)
How is it that you allow others on this blog to defame an innocent man on the basis of his religion and skin colour?
How is it that you protest long an loud about BBC Bias when you’re the one cheering on summary jail, extradition, bugging of privileged communications based on nothing more than hearsay?
What if it were you and the government was France or Turkey?
How can you rail against the EU making laws over the heads of the British people and yet let the US Government do the same and not be embarassed by your double standard on the meaning of sovereignty?
Answer the questions and stop with the whining.
Aussie Bystander,
Which part of “drivel” do you not understand?
Woad,
My name is David. Use it when you address me please. I’m delighted to know that all potential/actuall terror enablers are under scrutiny, better still behind bars. Liberalism descends into lunacy unless tempered with reality, and the reality IS that a section of Islam is at war with us.
David Vance:
Liberalism descends into lunacy unless tempered with reality, and the reality IS that a section of Islam is at war with us.
Quite right.
You tell me when we need to start buying the sheets and the nooses. The cross is already burning on my front lawn.
.