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. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated!
General BBC-related comment thread:
Bookmark the permalink.
I wish people would stop umming and arring about BBC coverage of terrorists, the BBC is full of people who believe that “terorist” is an expressoin of western hegemony designed to demonize glorious oppressed freedom fighters. Beeboids sincerely believe this. Hence, Al-Beeb.
Video on Beeb Bias: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJvWyFeb0s
I’m always minded of the Beslan school seige where I actually rang the arseholes at 5 live up and gave both barrels of every 4 letter word you can think of when the BBC continually referred to the terrorists that massacred the kids there as “hostage takers”
You don’t call wankers that terrorise small children then execute then “hostage takers”
What PC crap.
They WERE MULSIMS and when the dozey cow I spoke to started to answer me back I just couldn’t resist it.
They really are arseholes of the biggest kind at the BBC.
Let’s be fair, it’s not the BBC’s place to be demonising or glorifying anyone.
Wait, are you saying the people who took a whole school hostage somehow aren’t ‘hostage-takers’?
Or are you saying ‘hostage-taker’ is positive praise?
Calling the Beslan terrorists ‘hostage takers’ is like calling a spade an ‘earth inverting implement’
If your IQ was any lower Alex, you would need watering twice a week.
The BBC still referred to them as “Hostage takers” even after they started killing the women and children. I’d call them terrorists or murdering scum, but then again I don’t mince or work for the BBC.
Funny that Mc Dopey cow on Newsnight just referred to the “5 Moozlum men released yesterday”
I now expect the BBC to refer to “Moozlum men” when Muslim men are arrested. Hmm. I think not.
“Let’s be fair, it’s not the BBC’s place to be demonising or glorifying anyone”
Fair enough, now about the BBC’s deification of Al Gore……
It’s like I said elsewhere. The BBC is biased if I think y is a terrorist, X however doesn’t think y is a terrorist, and the BBC calls y something other than a terrorist. In such a circumstance, in my opinion, the BBC is taking the side and view of X, and ignoring my view, that y is a terrorist. That IS bias. Biased against me. And biased against millions of licence fee payers who share my view.
I have to laugh: On Questiomtime just now the pillock Bishop of Hulme was asked about banning the Mosquito anti yob device.
He said it was the thin end of the wedge and what other measures would be used to stop people congregating?
Well, that Archbishop of yours is certainly stopping people congregating in Churches!!!!!!!!
the BBC is taking the side and view of X, and ignoring my view… That IS bias. Biased against me.
Because your opinion is that much greater than anyone else’s? Bless.
More BBC bollocks: On News 24 (although it really should be called Pravda 24) they were doing the usual slagging off of the USA on gun law in light of the shooting today.
Well excuse me BBC, but w’ve BANNED guns in our Country yet gun crime and shootings in the UK is on the rise.
Of course the BBC won’t point this out in case we think it’s all the fault of McLabour and McBean and that old phrase of “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” comes back to haunt the deformed jaw one.
Scott said:
the BBC is taking the side and view of X, and ignoring my view… That IS bias. Biased against me.
Because your opinion is that much greater than anyone else’s? Bless.
———————————-
No Scott. You just don’t get this blog at all do you? My opinion is no more important than X’s opinion. Yet the BBC has a charter to represent everyone and be neutral and non-biased. Therefore the BBC cannot, by the terms of its charter, ignore my opinion and instead only present X’s opinion. That is bias. It must present either BOTH of our opinions, or neither. Then this blog would disappear
Sheesh,what is this Biased BBC or “Educating Retard”,AYA will be Grumpy Old Al by the time he gets the message.
King Henry: But your argument is defeated by the fact that the BBC does not represent the views of millions of people by the fact it refuses to call Muslim terrorists just that.
This goes to the heart of the Liberalism that takes place within the BBC.
Your argument appears to be that because some people might not see Muslim terrorists as just that, the BBC shouldn’t call them that. But what about the millions that do?
Why should the default position of the BBC be not to use the word terrorist?
On News 24 they are doing the round up of Questiontime. One of the guests was introduced from a group called Compass. Needless to say he was not introduced as a “left leaning” commentator. Compass is aligned with the Labour party and is left leaning.
This is of course standard default for Al Beeb in that no left wing group is ever called “left leaning”
Let’s be fair, it’s not the BBC’s place to be demonising or glorifying anyone.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 10:42 pm |
Except for US, UK, Christianity, Israel, and many other acceptable groups under the PC code of conduct.
Except for US, UK, Christianity, Israel, and many other acceptable ( to demonise ) groups under the PC code of conduct.
Martin,
I’m confused by your post. I’m very much in the Biased BBC camp and not a beeboid at all. I think you might have misquoted me. Me argument is that the BBC has to call a terrorist a terrorist, as to do otherwise is to ignore my view in favour of someone elses – which is bias. They must represent both views or neither. Then they meet their charter.
King henry: Sorry, looks like I didn’t follow you. Yes I agree with you.
This is rather like the lie that MP’s say they are elected to represent their voters. But of course as soon as they get to Westminster the “village” mentality and party politics take over and the will of the people is ignored, until that is they need us mugs to vote them back into their gold plated pension, freebies and tax fiddles for another 5 years.
The BBC is the same.
[b]Well excuse me BBC, but w’ve BANNED guns in our Country yet gun crime and shootings in the UK is on the rise. [/b]
It’ll be a cold day in hell before they report the twin facts that violent crime has fallen in those US states where responsible citizens are allowed concealed carry permits for handguns and that the areas of the USA with the worst gun crime statistics are the ones with the strictest gun control laws.
Is ” Never miss a chance to bash the Yanks ” actually written into the BBC charter ?
So that the ‘MULTICULTURAL’ obsessed BBC, R. Williams and the Labour Government do not miss this report:
“OBSESSION WITH MULTICULTURALISM MAKES BRITAIN A SOFT TOUCH FOR TERRORISTS”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514523&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
HSLD: Yes the BBC never draw attention to anything positive about the USA do they?
On Newsnight they took the piss out of the manned space programme, with the old “what has space done for us”
Of course the BBC totally missed the most important thing.
Seeing Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon was inspiring, the Beeboids don’t get that. To them sitting on their arses prattling on about the latest Brian De Palma film is “inspiring”
George R: I can tell you exactly how the BBC will run this story tomorrow.
1. The BBC will continually refer to the RUS as “Right wing” and therefore by default full of racist biggots.
2. The BBC will wheel out and endless list of Moozlum appeasers including members of the Tipton Taliban to tell us white folks it’s all our fault
3. The BBC will now say “Ha told you so” in regards to the mad Archbishop’s comments about Sharia law and that if we all prayed to Mohammed our tube trains wouldn’t explode
4. The 5 live phone in will be charged up with leftie losers with camp sounding voices (I always assume these are either BBC employees as stooges – we know the BBC has a history of faking phone ins or they will be McLabour stooges) telling us that it’s all our fault for not being “inclusive enough”
5. Shami will be wheeled out across the BBC airwaves to slag off the report.
6. At no time during the day will the BBC actually analyse what the report is saying.
7. The “Have your say” section of the BBC will load the question in a pro Moozlum way, such as “Is the Royal United Services report stoking up anti Islamic feelings?” or something along those lines
Have I missed anything?
” anti Islamic feelings”
With bigot zeal
it’s no longer “I believe,”
but “I feel.”
May I make a further attempt to guide my fellow citizens on this blog to what is REALLY going on in this country and far more importantly WHY?
Sorry in advance for the method being a bit long winded as I a bit old in the tooth and my computer skills are limited. But I am sure you we find the journey worthwhile.
Go on to the John Redwood Blog and locate the post concerning James the second, which should still be at the top. Which is in itself reasonably interesting
Then find the second comment posted by a chap named Steven Baker.
Then go to the link he has provided and bingo. The answers to all your questions regarding what game the BBC is playing at, will become apparent.
There you find a book written by a friend of mine named Dr Sean Gabb from the libertarian Alliance.
If he don’t sort you peoples heads out no body will. Because I know you types only really listen to people with letters after their name.
You will understand that the BBC is not just part of the establishment it is effectively the British establishment in all but name.
Sean prefers to call it the mouthpiece of the British ruling class. I prefer to call it the most evil media organization on the planet, now or at anytime in the past.
But you can make up your own minds, on what to call you own bringer of doom and ultimate destruction.
One of these things is not like the other:
From Al Jazeera:
( http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7B35F189-3CF2-4EFE-8281-ED0C49B61B88.htm ):
“Moghniyeh’s blood will lead to the elimation of Israel.”
From Ha’aretz:
( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954278.html ):
“Nasrallah: Mughniyah’s blood will lead to elimination of Israel.”
From the BBC online:
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7245042.stm )
” The blood of Imad Mughniyeh will make them [Israel] withdraw from existence”.
It is amazing (and would be insanely hilarious if it weren’t appearing in the world’s most influential news organization) the contortions to which the BBC goes to protect Hezbollah from what must seem, in its eyes, to be unjustified and excessive demonization. Why, the phrase “will make them withdraw from existence” almost implies, bizarrely, Israel will actively commit suicide, thus absolving Nasrallah altogether of the blood-curdling threat he clearly made, as recounted on Al Jazeera. What a joke the BBC is. What do you think, John Reith?
What I mean by sort your heads out is this.
A large number of contributors to this blog seen to believe that our problem is our Muslim brothers. Which I find deeply offensive and dare I say it RACIST?
They also seen to think the BBC is either a bit stupid or too wet and liberal to understand the world properly.
This is not only a BIG mistake it is also exactly what the BBC want you to think.
Divide and rule in short.
Dont be fooled, love your fellow man its not their fault its ours.
Mainly because we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed beyond redemption by our own ruling class. Very much with the help of the BB fucking C.
The employees of which are so brainwashed at our schools and universities almost none of them have any idea that they have been since they started attending kindergarden.
But remember the BBC is not controlled by its employees.
It is ultimately controlled by our own ruling class. Who could and would stop the BBC doing what it is doing in no more then 5 seconds if it so desired.
BBC Breakfast this morning
Al Beeb giving free air time to the left wing pressure group “The Nature Conservancy”. Apparently, only 4% of the worlds oceans are undamaged by human activites. Now theres a suprise, a tale from from Al Beeb regardig man destroying mother earth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7241428.stm
Atlas Shrugged. You are properly bonkers mate. I hope I never sit next to you on a bus 🙂
“BBC Breakfast this morning
Al Beeb giving free air time to the left wing pressure group “The Nature Conservancy”. Apparently, only 4% of the worlds oceans are undamaged by human activites. Now theres a suprise, a tale from from Al Beeb regardig man destroying mother earth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/t…ech/ 7241428.stm”
Yes, in typical BBC fashion no opposing viewpoints, no contrary data, no other possible explanations, no nothing. Except that it’s all our fault.
“The map is an impetus for action, … a real signal to roll up our sleeves and start managing our coast and oceans.”
but what this “action”, “managing” and “roll up our sleeves” actually entails f*** knows, because they don’t say. If its all down to human activity, then surely the solution is “inaction”.
How do you actually go about ‘damaging’ an ocean anyway?
They provide a ‘fly-over’ video using colours to represent various degrees of “impact”, but again, absolutely no explanation of what this “impact” actually is, just lots of pretty colours…
The cure for this nonsense is for the BBC to at least counter with an alternative view for a change. Last I heard they were supposed to be impartial.
Secondly withhold research grant money until these rascals start proving their silly, unscientific what-if scenarios, using reproducible results.
You must realise, beebooids have a position on US gun ownership, based very much on their own Islingtonista agenda and mirroring whatever their pet Democrat de jour has spouted. Thus, little green men from Mars could land , or palestinians could launch a dozen missiles into Israel, and the beeboids would still find time for a US school shooting story.
I’d persoally be more interested in a US school shooting story than a dozen half arsed missiles landing in a wasteland somewhere.
Of course if the missiles killed someone leading to retaliatory strikes at Gaza killing lots leading to retaliatory missiles/bombings leading to retaliatory strikes/assassinations leading to…. then that would be newsworthy (albeit still tedious).
Atlas Shrugged: Are Muslims a race? Are Christians a race? NO!
Perhaps you might like to tell us what religion the 9/11 bombers, the Madrid bombers, the 7/7 bombers and the 21/7 would be bombers?
What religion were the men who wanted to hack the head off of a British soldier.
Only wet liberals are frightened to amit that Islam is a worldwide problem. Wherever Islam is found so is intolerance.
Deference to multiculturalism undermines those fighting extremism, generals warn
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/15/communities.uksecurity
Britiain is a ‘soft touch’ for terrorism, defence institute says
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3373768.ece
Britain ‘a soft touch for home grown terrorists’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/nterror115.xml
Cuts ‘threaten UK intelligence’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7245917.stm
BBC have missed all mention of immigrants and multiculturism.
I see the BBC is referring to the Royal United Services as a “military think tank”
Why does the BBC insist on putting a caveat when relating to non left wing think tanks? They never use caveat’s for left wing groups like Liberty.
Are your ears burning, Beeboids?:-
“‘Misplaced policies on MULTICULTURALISM” (capitals added) “have failed ‘to lay down the line’ to immigrants, leading to a fragmented society opposed by ‘implacable’ terrorist enemies, the [RUSI] report says.”
‘Britain a soft touch for terrorists.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/nterror115.xml&page=1
This ‘Telegraph’ Speakers’ Corner is a good bit different to a typical BBC HYS:-
‘Is Britain a soft touch in the fight against terrorism?’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/view15.xml
The BBCs piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali is nauseating…
Islam critic asks for protection
a highly controversial film alleging that women were being abused under Islam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7245729.stm
Alleging…..oh. I thought Submission was a film that illustrated the horrendous abuse of women under Islam. Clearly, the BBC is of the opinion that such things as the stoning of women for adultery only possibly take place and at best are only ever alleged. BBC celebrated for factual reporting and defending Islam • where the Jury always appears to be out! Disgraceful.
Cringe and cringe again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2008_07_fri.shtml
Or, we’re all Islamophobic now.
Not a comment about bias but sometimes you have to wonder if God hates the BBC as well:
An article on BBC Website yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7239464.stm
An article on BBC News today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/7246192.stm
BBC ‘Woman’s Hour’ needs to read Ibn Warraq on Islam/Islamophobia:-
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/12238
Cockney,
He isn’t bonkers. Just further down the line than most of us. Pretty much nobody in Britain today is capable of independent thought.
We are brainwashed from playschool age by the BBC and the National Ciriculum. Just listen to the self-riteous opinions of your average student (I was one of them). Not many people can actually see what is going on or why. They believe the BBC propaganda as fact.
I had an argument last weekend with a robot in Birmingham that was incapable of seeing that she’d been brainwashed, but she was repeating word for word the views of the BBC sofa cunts. She might as well not have bothered opening her mouth, because I already knew her position on every single issue – i.e. the BBC/Guardian position.
Britain today is a very depressing place. I’m not sure whether to give up and move to Australia (possibly coming back to fight in the inevitable civil war) or stay and fight for the country I once believed in.
Ashes to Ashes last night. I got irritated as I noticed the first unneccesary reference to ‘Thatcher’ and then counted 6 more -all used in a derogatory sense. I am not sure quite when it is supposed to be set – but the BBC seems to forget there was a time when the majority of the people had voted for her – and I know I am repeating myself but each comment last night was forced into the script and not needed as part of the story.
They never use caveat’s for left wing groups like Liberty.
Martin | 15.02.08 – 10:13 am | #
This is one of those surreptitious examples of institutional bias that the BBC use as a very effective tactic. Essentially they give a clear “nod and wink” to which report is from the ‘good guys’ and which from the ‘bad guys’. And it’s not just that left wing think tanks don’t get labelled as such, they usually get a special ‘good’ moniker – for instance “influential” think tank. “Respected” is another favourite. The point about Liberty is well made – after all it has been the hothouse for ambitious Labour MPs – like Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt (who both worked there in the days it was called the National Council for Civil Liberties).
Martin | 15.02.08 – 10:13 am
The BBC is in no sense biased against RUSI.
In fact, BBC World presenter Nik Gowing sits on RUSI’s governing council.
Has anyone noticed how the vile, extorting, propagandist BBC has relegated the multiculturalism story to virtual irrelevance by making it almost invisible within the website?
Not even visible (when I last looked) on the UK front page! Now imagine if this had been a lefty think tank warning about racists, Americans, or joos?
I encourage people to contribute to the “HYS” sites on the newspaper websites, esp the Mail, the Telegraph the Guardian andf the Sun. There are so many people starting to recognise the vileness of the BBC and we should do all we can to exploit and develop this trend.
Dr R | 15.02.08 – 11:30 am |
by making it almost invisible within the website…
It’s the number 2 featured story (complete with pic and flannel panel) on the politics front page.
…..and it’s linked under ‘other top stories’ on the UK front page.
So why discount everything it has to say about multiculturalism? Is it possibly because the BBC promised the governent that it would promote multiculturalism as part of its Licence (tax) renewal? Just as it promised to ‘educate’ the public about ‘climate change’ (i.e. promote socialism).
Let nobody forget that the BBC is actually obliged to promote these things, if it wants the right to tax us.
In the Woman’s Hour ‘special’ debate from Huddersfield an audience vote on whether they saw themselves primarily as British citizens got the verdict (of course we couldn’t see the show of hands) – “well I think that was a majority”. ie – it looks like nearly 50% of this audience didn’t see themselves as primarily British.
And on the labelling trick – I notice Baroness Warsi (who was on the panel) is always described as “the shadow” minister – the BBC never mention the word “conservative” when describing Warsi. This was particularly noticeable at the time of the Mohammed the Teddy Bear furore. And at first they left out the ‘shadow’ as well. By contrast the fact that Lord Ahmed is a Labour peer was always made clear. So if the BBC wants to warn you off a report they label it ‘right wing’ – but they do their best to bury the information that the Conservatives have appointed a Muslim woman to their front bench. I mean – it just doesn’t fit the ‘racist’ iamge they always try to pin on Tories.
Also note that there isn’t a link the actual report. The BBC clearly doesn’t want you to read the full horrors of this multiculti bashing report.