Right then, we can all argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when discussing the degree of BBC bias but one area that really angers me is when the State Broadcaster uses its unique position of influence to recklessly undermine the brave men and women who serve in our British armed forces in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. My colleague Pete Moore over on A Tangled Web has made me aware of the forthcoming Panorama programme which claims that British troops murdered six Iraqi civilians (including a 14 year old boy), that they tortured others and mutilated the bodies of terrorists killed after ambushing Our Boys. According to a senior officer, the accusations amount to “the most serious and provocative made against the British Army in modern times.”
The allegations will be set out in detail at a Press conference tomorrow by the British solicitor Phil Shiner, representing the Iraqis involved and who collaborated with Panorama in the making of this complete propoganda. The programme will then be broadcast despite investigations by the Royal Military Police and International Red Cross both of which declared the allegations to be unfounded. Phil Shiner appears to make a living out of investigating Our Boys and was was made “Human Rights Lawyer of the Year” by the Joint Liberty and Justice Awards in 2004. That tells you all you need to know about this particular character. But what he does is for him and his concience, if he has one.
The BBC, however, will try – yet again – to blacken the reputation of our troops on the back of the contents of our bank accounts and under pain of imprisonment. It will do this knowing that these allegations have been investigated and discredited and it will do this knowing that its own programme will be used throughout the muslim world to rally more terrorist dupes. It’s quite possible that British troops will be attacked – killed maybe – because of the lies the BBC will broadcast on Monday. Why does the BBC have such visceral hatred of our military? Is it because they are revolted at the patriotism and bravery that runs through our armed forces? Might it be that the idea of people actually being prepared to risk their lives in defence of this United Kingdom appals the left wing rabble that made this programme? Throughout the period of the war on terror, the BBC has consistently shown itself prepared to believe the worst of our soldiers. In this regard, it is more dangerous than even the likes of Aal Qu’eda’s broadcaster of choice Al Jazeera – it is the enemy within and shows its true colours with this Panorama programme. Right beeboids, let’s hear you justify the unjustifiable when it comes to this calculated betrayal of the British Army.
Typhoo,
How does one expose that which did not happen?
“The Beeb squad is conspicuously absent – do they get Fridays off, or on the other hand are they actually doing some work for once ?”
Friday prayers
“The summary on the Panorama site suggests that they’ve applied journalistic rigour to the task.”
They have outsourced it to someone else then?
“A few rotten apples should not be allowed to tarnish the name of Britains army, and they have done so in the past. It’s time for the army to take action, though it may be best to reserve judgement until the programme is actually broadcast.”
But you simply could not,you have to get your pre-judgement in first don’t you Typhoo?
Are you the Typhoo who put the T in Britan,perhaps also the c*nt in Scunthorpe.
.
Biased BBC: Debate at its rational best
ASL:
Equip White City work experience students up with suicide belts and despatch them to Conservative party wine and cheese functions. Eye-gouge and cut the penises off BNP supporters.
On to it right away, Sarf London…
pants:
what really gets up my nose is when wankers with no knowledge of serving try to tell me that the armed forces sets a bad example to the young of today.
Must have missed the bit where Panorama makes that point. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.
But where?
RoadMap Shrugs:
It is in reality a Neo-Fascist money making machine in cahoots with Neo-Marxist internationalist ideology.
I ask, what other rational explanation can there be for the BBC’s long held behavior?
None indeed, Mr Al Fayed. Tell us, how is the inquest of the century going?
DB:
Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers (contradiction in terms, surely?) and the BBC journalists responsible for the loaded online account of this bollocks aren’t fit to breath the same air as the soldiers involved.
Quite right, BD. Air apartheid. It’s the way forward…
Greencoat:
“Why is it that every miserable looking prissy faced leftoid scumbag has got a pair of those trendy little glasses ?”
Apart from the specs, was there ever a face so constipated with spite and pettifogging nastiness?
Try not to be so hard on yourself, old chap. Self-confidence is the beginning of a happy life.
Biased BBC: Ross Kemp for Life President
phil shiner on newsnight
interviewer : “so where is the evidence”
Shiner : “martyn day and I have been interviewing witnesses for 60 years and we think these insurgents um er farmers are telling the truth”
interviewer ” the mod inquiry had 200 witnesses”
shiner ” can i just have a public inquiry. i’ve got a massive mortgage and three lots of school fees to pay”.
interviewer : “thank you”
apparently panorama are `investigating`
everything`ll be fine then.
Biased BBC: We’re with the Scientologists on this one.
Hillhunt:
1. The lefties have done a press conference BEFORE Panorama so if they are OK to give their side BEFORE the programme has gone out why can’t we?
2. This is an old story and has already been investigated not just by the RMP but the International Red Cross.
3. The BBC’s own reports say the allegations are bollocks.
4. You need to be careful about “Human Rights”. When soldiers are engaged in combat duties, human rights don’t apply. The Geneva Convention might depending on the circumstances.
For example, the Police here in the UK have to challenge someone carrying a gun before they shoot them. When I when served here in the UK in the armed forces we had to apply the UK law which menat that you couldn’t shoot someone even if they’d killed you mate if they were deemed no longer a threat (see the Lee Clegg case for this sort of bollocks)
However, soldiers engaged in combat don’t. They can shoot first. The rules are different. Wankers like Shiner don’t get that.
If camp leftie wimps like you ever had the balls to serve your Country you’d know all about that.
I’d like to remind you of the Ross Kemp in Afghanistan series where British soldiers were being shot at from a Mosque but were not allowed to return fire.
Persoanlly I’d have let them drop a 2000lb bomb on the sodding place. It’s a building thats all.
The main reason Panorama is getting its arse kicked is there is big money in Human Rights.Lawyers have to travel thousands of miles to get a nice earner,they like the BBC are living off the public tit.
The BBC and the evil it causes
How the Iranians are now reporting this story;
“Dozens of Iraqi detainees were tortured, killed and their corpses mutilated by soldiers at a British army camp, according to evidence released from a group of survivors Friday.
Five of nine survivors said they witnessed the torture and executions of many of their countrymen, who were held prisoner after a gun battle at a checkpoint near the town of Majar al Kabir in May 2004.
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=251114&n=33
The BBC and the evil it causes
Biased BBC: Ross Kemp for Life President
Ross Kemp
How can we begin to explain Ross Kemp to the Islington Fairtrade Fusiliers.
Mr Kemp ( aka that fat bald bloke out of Eastenders )is an actor who no-one takes very seriously.
His series on Afghanistan has rehabilitated his reputation somewhat because he doesn’t mind admitting that he cries like a little girl every time a weapon is fired in his vicinity and is somehow capable of asking squaddies normal questions – i.e. something other than ” How does it feel to kill women and children ? ”
I would still rather stick pins in my eyes than watch an episode of ” Ultimate Farce ” , but then that also holds true for ” Spooks ” where the baddy is always Mossad or a thinly disguised version of the BNP. Scooby Doo had less predictable scripts.
The Beebs hatred of the military isn’t exactly a secret, but it’s not one of their cleverest attempts to modify public opinion. Outside the dinner parties and wine bars in fashionable London suburbs we respect and look after our squaddies.
You should pop into my local pub sometime and gob off about the British Army. I guarantee the next thing you would remember is the staff at A and E shining a light in your eyes and asking you how you got there.
I know that isn’t very civilised, and stifles debate, but honestly – fuck you.
Joel/Hillhunt: neither of you addressed the fact that there’s an inquiry ongoing, so why not wait until it’s completed? If it was a court case they’d have to. Nor have you addressed the fact that giving widespread publicity to these allegations (which on the balance of probabilities at the moment are completely false) is likely to incite violence against UK soldiers or possibly other targets. How is that responsible journalism?
Lovely reply,Pounce,9.50pm.22/02/08.
Said it all.
Some of the ‘university warriors’ need to get their knees brown before they start gobbing off.
The Military (Protection From Embarrassment) Act 2008: First Reading
1. The concept of sub judice which in civilian life prevents reporting only when suspects have actually been charged with an offence, will apply as soon as anyone starts digging around into a military incident. (Hugh, 6:27)
2. Iraqi insurgents and Taleban fighters are completely unmotivated, and would not consider harming British soldiers. As it is well known that they sit around all day waiting for the BBC to wind them up, we will henceforth ban all BBC comment on army matters. (Hugh, too + many others)
3. Ditto Iranian news agencies. They’d never notice what’s going on over the border in Iraq until the BBC alerts them to it. For this reason, too, we must ban BBC reporting etc… (pounce, 1:57)
4. Human rights exist only for those we agree with, and not at all for people in countries our army visits. (Too many to mention)
5. Human rights cases risk paying the wages of lawyers, and will therefore be stopped. (you know your names)
6. To the customary forms of address in court (Your Honour, My Learned Friend), we will add another – Arsewipe – to be used when addressing a Human Rights Lawyer. (Martin, SarfLondon)
7. We will bring back as a non-custodial sentence the concept of the ducking school, but updated. Henceforth anyone raising questions about the propriety of a particular military action, will be sent to a pub to raise his question out loud. (HSBC, 2:23)
8. The concept of winning hearts and minds will henceforth include blowing up mosques with 2,000 lb bombs. That’ll get the uncommitted local muslims on our side, and no mistake. (Martin, 12:15)
The committe stage still to go, so let’s have your proposals. The more the merrier!
Biased BBC: Democracy In Action
Can anyone please tell me why they insist on responding to Hillhunt’s threads?
If the mods won’t ban this impotent little troll, then can I suggest more people use the scroll wheel to ignore him/her/ it.
The sooner everyone stops feeding his skinny intellect, the sooner it will starve off and wither away.
1. The concept of sub judice which in civilian life prevents reporting only when suspects have actually been charged with an offence… (Hugh, 6:27)
Which is why you’ll notice I said they would have to hold of reporting IF it was a court case (which tend to take place after charging). Still no real response as to why it would not be better for the current inquiries to be concluded.
2. Iraqi insurgents and Taleban fighters are completely unmotivated, and would not consider harming British soldiers. As it is well known that they sit around all day waiting for the BBC to wind them up, we will henceforth ban all BBC comment on army matters. (Hugh, too + many others)
This is a relief; it doesn’t matter how the BBC report because the extremists are committed to violence anyway. I guess the BBC can run those Mohammed cartoons without fear after all. Nor do they need worry about fueling racist and religious bigotry by careless reporting. You have saved much agonising in the Beeb’s editorial departments.
If the panaroma show is as described by David Vance, then it is nothing short of shameful of the BBC to broadcast it. These claims are nothing more than the word of would be terrorists against our military. Why should the BBC give air time to people who want to kill our troops? Muslim terrorists have already proven to be adept at propoganda – remember the Israel Lebenon war the other year? The use of women as human shields by Hizzbullah was lapped up by the leftoids at the BBC and reported as the evil deeds of Israel’s army. No mention was made that the women were human shields or even suggested. Remind me again who pays for the BBC – is it Iraqi terrorists or British people who support the army? Does the BBC not see why this drives millions of people mad? And why it gets accussed of BIAS? The BBC is rarely ever seen to support British values or British troops. Only to ever question them. I despise the BBC.
The fact that the claims are not substantiated or proven yes and the BBC STILL plan to air the show to swing public opinion is a disgrace and an abuse of the Charter and the licence fee in my opinion.
If I was at the Ministry of Defence I would be seeking legal advice regarding this show and asking some serious questions about the BBC’s charter and whether this show, if seen to be completely biased, is a blatant abuse of it.
The People’s Front of Judea | 23.02.08 – 9:17 am
When Hillhunt first inflicted himself on this blog last year I read his comments for a few days and then started to scroll past his insincere, egoistic, sarcastic sneering. From reactions such as yours, it seems that nothing has changed so I’ll just continue to scroll.
The web is littered with sites that follow Hillhunt’s style of “debate” with everyone trying to prove now “brilliant” they are. I avoid them like the plague.
Hillhunt ,
did u take lessons in being a arse hole or are u a natural born one, cos ur very good at it, well done.
youre a disgrace to my country. you a member of the religion of peace by any chance? certainly sounds like it
KHII:
If I was at the Ministry of Defence I would be seeking legal advice regarding this show and asking some serious questions about the BBC’s charter and whether this show, if seen to be completely biased, is a blatant abuse of it.
Brilliant! Why didn’t the MoD think of that?
Biased BBC: Hang on, lads; I’ve got a great idea. (Part 94)
.
re Hillhunt
re Hillhunt
Isn’t it great how the anonymity of the web turns tossers into real men?
Andy:
Isn’t it great how the anonymity of the web turns tossers into real men?
Isn’t it just?
I was a woman till I started this lark…
How about you?
.
“Brilliant! Why didn’t the MoD think of that?”
Probably because they have infinitely more important things to concern themselves with, such as defending freedom, than some cruddy BBC attempts at ‘journalism’.
Hillhunt,
You still are a bloody big woman. Bugger off and let us whinge about the BBC in piece!
Re: Masai women and Mr Day.
“Mr Day says he is sure that most are sincere, and predicts that over 400 of their cases will be proved, implicating 2,000 British soldiers.”
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001103.html
Does anyone know where this story went, if any real evidence was found?
mark,
http://www.leighday.co.uk/doc.asp?cat=921&doc=998
RMP investigated and found the claims bogus.
Mr Day is, as he says on his website, “considering whether claims can be brought”.
he has been considering for 1 year and 2 months….
“I was a woman till I started this lark…”
.
Hillhunt | 23.02.08 – 7:21 pm | #
You are still the primary sexual chacteristic.
Peter:
You are still the primary sexual chacteristic.
Chac? Teristic?
.
Hill*unt
You don’t have any character,you aren’t worth the rest.
“If the panaroma show is as described by David Vance, then it is nothing short of shameful of the BBC to broadcast it.”
Well this is the thing, isn’t it? David quite clearly hasn’t seen it. But that hasn’t stopped him sticking the boot in.
It’s quite ironic that he can accuse the BBC of systematic bias towards the armed forces in a post that does exactly the same towards the BBC itself.
If you want to hold the BBC’s journalism to account, fine. That’s a laudable aim. To do so effectively, though, one must start from a factual basis and not from, as appears here, an estimate of what a yet to be broadcast programme might contain, based on third-hand reports and huge handfuls of supposition.
And by the time it is broadcast Matt it will be too late, the damage will have been done.
I just hope that when the next bomb goes off, a few of YOUR relatives or any one of those involved with this poison at the BBC, are the first to go.
Because then…just MAYBE you might get the point.
Lefty armchair warriors playing with other people’s lives just to satisfy their own selfish lust for personal politics.
Judean Popular Front:
I just hope that when the next bomb goes off, a few of YOUR relatives or any one of those involved with this poison at the BBC, are the first to go.
Spoken like a true armchair warrior.
.
Hows the blogging going hillhunt?
http://nothingtodowithhunting.blogspot.com/2006/08/rio-ferdinands-punternet-wind-ups.html
I don’t know about you but my doors have handles on the inside of them.
Note the very interesting dichotomy between the BBC’s treatment of the 7/7 atrocity and this alleged incident.7/7 played down to avoid a backlash against Muslims in the name of social cohesion.
The latest piece of BBC outrage is for what reasons? Could any of the Beeboids what this latest brainfart is going to enhance? Apart from Salaries and lawyers fees?
pfj
Don’t you love the massive number of comments that meaningless’ (aka hillhunts) articles on his abysmal blog keep getting – nearly all of them are zero.
Meaningless troll, meaningless by name, meaningless by nature.
what the…:
I think even the BBC luvvies he so desperately sucks up too would give him a wide berth once they have the misfortune of reading his blog.
the link to the original grauniad article which kicked this sorry story off is set out below.-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/21/iraq.iraq
key sentence from the anonymous doctor who didn’t want to be killed by the mahdi army –
“We have no forensic capabilities to speak of”
case solved.
no evidence.
no guilt.
no story.
no more credibility at the bbc.
Well what a lot of crap that Panorama programme was tonight.
For starters, the first half simply went back over old ground (presumably to try to remind us of how nasty the British Army is) that 6 month trial ended up with one minor conviction.
Then we move on to the central allegations of the show. Funny that, that all those Iraqi’s are after a bit of compensation from the British Government, they didn’t look badly treated to me in their smart suits.
Shame the dead Red Caps didn’t get a Panorama crew looking out for them.
No mention that the International Red Cross found any evidence of abuse AND even the BBC admitted there was no evidence to speak of, other than a few testimonies of men who are hardly likely to say anything else considering they are after money.
And why were they captured and tied pu in the first place? Please don’t tell me they were there for a Computer course or were “Aid workers”
They were there to kill our soldiers. They were lucky not to have all been killed out of hand.
Oh and nice to see the BBC showing that clip of a few Iraqi yobs getting a slap out of context YET again. They didn’t bother to show the bit beforehand where the same yobs were throwing grenades at the soldiers.
Shiner is an arsehole. The BBC is full of leftie scum.
If I was a journalist and talking to someone who claimed that they had been taken prisoner at Danny Boy, but were simply a farmer or out walking the dog then I would be inclined to ask them if they normally wander around amongst Mehdi Army ambush positions just before a firefight.
Do ordinary Iraqis find a hail of bullets bracing, like we do the air at Skegness ? and why didn’t the BBC ask ?