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 also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
Edna: You obviously didn’t watch “child of our time”, so your comments are rather unhelpful.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7403685.stm
Interpol is now worthy only of scare quotes opinion in the headline ‘genuine’.
If this is a precedent just about every BBC headline will now have to contain one or more scare quotes.
Or is it just because Interpol go against the BBC’s beloved Chavez so its a desperate attempt at bias.
You decide…
Click here to read a hugely interesting article about terrorism and its apologists in leftist irrationalist philosophy.
“Many of Moore’s email supporters (and probably Moore himself) belong to, or suffer from, the condition sometimes called postmodernism. To this frame of mind, there is no objective truth: all so-called truth springs from experience, and is relative. There is thus no valid basis for judging others: to each their own. To judge other’s actions is, well, to become an authority figure, and this is forbidden. The parallels with narcisstic thinking should be apparent here.”
“[F]or the last several decades, the various Third World groups, factions, insurrectionists, and even terrorists have actually adopted the postmodernist lingo coming out of American universities in order to justify their actions. [This argues], in its extreme–and most common–forms, that culturally there is no good or bad, no better or worse: there are no universal standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. In short , we cannot say anything about an Other that the Other would not say about itself. Period. . . . .”
And then on “Universal standards” the author poses the question:
“Now formulate a statement as to why the killing of thousands of civilians at the World Trade Center was fundamentally evil.
Not a terribly easy thing to do, is it?”
Which just goes to show, we all rely on revelation. Even scientists rely on numbers which are taken as given with no real material basis, seeing as though every particle can be infinitely sub-divided.
(Except for maybe the “Boson Particle” which is–I tell no lies–hailed as the “God particle”.)
“Hitler shared the common faith in ‘science,’ ‘progress,’ and ‘enlightenment’ (though not, of course, democracy), together with a practical materialism that scorned all theology, metaphysics, and any thought or action concerned with any other world other than “here and now,” –
quite untrue. Hitler believed in a mystical, medieval Teutonic world of superhero virtues. Just one small example: he had an irrational admiration for blonde ‘Aryans’. He had a completely metaphysical fascination with people like Heydrich, not (just) because of his ruthless military qualities but because he was tall and blonde, a ‘real Aryan’.
The BBC, its hatred of the armed forces and that extra half of a story.
Soldiers ‘supply guns to criminals’
Some British army weapons are finding their way into the hands of criminal gangs – and a former Royal Military Police investigator believes they may be ill-equipped to stop it. Mark is in his 30s and he says he now lives a quiet life. But in the 1990s, he had links with criminal gangs in Manchester. He claims to have bought hundreds of guns to hire out to his associates for use in serious crime, and they would often come from an unlikely source – the armed forces. This military equipment came from what Mark considered to be the best source. “In all my deals and associations that I had made, all the hardware that was displayed in those deals were British military issue only,” he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7403383.stm
So the BBC tell a story about how hundreds of guns are being sold by the military to criminal gangs in the Uk and what evidence does the BBC bring to the table other than supposition. Well actually not much. Here is how Phil Kemp the author behind this story substantiates it.
“Similar cases were included in Home Office research published in 2006, which was based on interviews with 80 men recently convicted of firearms offences. Two of the men interviewed, one of whom was a former soldier, described how contacts in the military helped them procure weapons.”
So out of 80 men interviewed for firearm offences one was a former soldier.
“Eighteen army servicemen have been dealt with either summarily or by army courts martial for theft of military equipment in the last three years, four of which involved the theft of firearms.”
Again out of 18 soldiers dealt with for nicking army kit, four have involved the theft of firearms. Not exactly the crime wave the BBC is trying to promote.
Here is what the BBC aren’t telling you. All weapons held by the army are held in very secure armouries. Which themselves are held inside army camps. Without going into fine details all weapons are counted on a daily basis. (I know I’ve done it) and a report is written. People who can sign weapons out are forbidden to sign ammo out.
(A nice little safe guard)
So going to that home office report the BBC quotes above how many weapons were stolen from military establishments between 2006/7 (the reporting timeframe) well from the above would that be hundreds? Eighty ? or even 18?
The actual figure is 3 of which 2 are imitation weapons. Thus leaving a grand total of 1. Don’t believe me here is a screen dump of the actual home office report..
http://img177.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1eu0.jpg
taken from;
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
It appears the BBC would rather slander those they hate (the military) rather than point the finger at the real suppliers of weapons to the British public.
“The police also harbour wider concerns relating to Britain’s vulnerability to gun crime. In particular they warn that tens of thousands of live firearms are being legally imported into the UK through official means and deactivated. They are then sent to registered firearms dealers where the risk of them falling into criminal hands remains.”,/i>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/09/ukcrime.ukguns
Not only that, the ability to smuggle light weapons into the EU from eastern Europe is also omitted by the BBC
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ResRvwPV9NAJ:www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/country/eu_pdf/europe-EU-2001.pdf+influx+of+weapons+into+the+Uk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=opera
I mean the guns used to murder Sharon Beshenivsky , Richard Graywasn’t , Yvonne Fletcher and Ian Broadhurst weren’t British military issue. But hey the BBC just love to slate the British Military.
The BBC, its hatred of the armed forces and that extra half of a story.
“Even scientists rely on numbers which are taken as given with no real material basis, seeing as though every particle can be infinitely sub-divided” –
I am afraid your grasp of physics is no better than your grasp of art history. First of all, it’s not the case that ‘every particle can be infinitely sub-divided’ – that is exactly what physicists are trying to find out, one way or t’other. Secondly, NO number in physics is taken ‘as given’: ALL numbers are regarded as the best approximation that current theory can come up with, and all of them are subjected to testing-to-destruction to see how well they stand up to attempt to disprove them.
The odious Campbell on 5Lite this morning made some comment about having had dozens of e-mails slating Brown but they were too “strong” (I cannot remember his exact term) for broadcasting but in the spirit of fairness he was going to read out a couple of comments from that well known fence sitter Paul Weller regarding how dumb David Cameron and Boris Johnson were.
He then proceeded to read them out, a couple of quotes from the Independent! How is this political balance?
My flabber was ghasted.
Compare and contrast…
Angry Iran sharpens tone with Baghdad’s leaders
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_iran_s_hand
How Iran pulls the strings in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7401438.stm
The Beeb and its pussyfooting around the Iranian regime. Nothing to do with money, of course…
Was it really the commons appealing ?
Or was it Gorbals Mick – Michael Martin – the speaker who (against the will of the house) wasted £100,000, £200,000, or more of our money ?
The final line about a committee of MP’s clearing the Martin’s ongoing abuse of expenses as being within the rules is not relevant to the court case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7404031.stm
Less of the Labour spin –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1965546/MPs-lose-court–battle-to-keep-expenses-secret.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3944381.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=989864
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1316255,00.html?f=rss
The comments are particularly interesting.
Not to be seen anytime soon on the Beeb…
Fascinating: The Jihadists Admit Defeat in Iraq
http://talismangate.blogspot.com/
Steve E. | 16.05.08 – 10:52 am,
The BBC is becoming really accomplished at not giving us the death toll, specially when the BBC’s side appears to be losing. It did the same during the Israel-Hezbollah war two years back, trying once to get statistics on Hezbollah fatalities and then dropping the subject like a hot coal and simply lumping Hezbollah in with civilian deaths.
The BBC has shown us abundant proof that its loyalties lie with the Islamic East in its terror war against the West and Israel. The next question to be decided here is whether the BBC will back Shia or Sunni Islam as they tear each other to bits. Quite a dilemma. The BBC is head over heels in love with Sunni Hamas but has equally amorous feelings for Shia Iran. Hell, I almost feel sorry for it.
Can you blame them? Imagine trolling around London in your leathers,dreaming of romance anup come this tall dark stranger in flowing robes.That would put a tingle through the nipple clamps.
WoAD | 16.05.08 – 12:34 pm |
Very interesting indeed. Some of those points have been touched on by commenters here as well.
Peter | 16.05.08 – 4:40 pm,
True, when the alternative is to stop at Broadcasting House for some compulsory training admonishing staff not to defraud the public by fiddling with phone in competitions.
No contest.
Sounds like BBC reporting has once again overstepped the impartial view to promote a particular politician:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/05/taking_foreign_policy_seriousl.html
“the keynote address was made by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. I was struck at the time by the serious intent of his remarks and how he was attempting to give intellectual coherence to British foreign policy.”
I also note the editor seems pleased with the interview’s impact which:
“led to a lively debate on other websites such as the Guardian.”
I trust, in the interest of balance, opposition politicians will be provided with similarly sycophantic interviews.
The BBC, it’s hatred of America and the defence of the Umma.
‘Islamist funders’ held in Europe
Police in France, the Netherlands and Germany have arrested 10 people suspected of providing funding to Islamic extremists in Uzbekistan.
……….
US-ally Uzbekistan has in the past been accused of serious human rights abuses in clamping down on dissent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7405425.stm
The BBC tries to promote some sort of legitimate behaviour on behalf of these Islamists because they are apparently fight the evil US of A abeit it by proxy.
So on that note is this the action of a country which allies itself with Uzbekistan
US calls for Uzbek killings probe
The US has said Uzbekistan still owes an explanation for the killing of civilians by soldiers in the city of Andijan on 13 May one year ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4767449.stm
Last US plane leaves Uzbek base
The US has flown its last plane out of an air base in Uzbekistan that has been an important staging point for US military operations in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan in July gave the US six months to leave the base, after it joined international condemnation of the suppression of a May uprising.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4457844.stm
US ‘not returning to Uzbek base’
A senior western diplomat in Uzbekistan has told the BBC that the United States is not trying to re-open a military base in the country. The diplomat said that a return by the armed forces to the Central Asian state was not on the agenda. The US withdrew from Uzbekistan following a dispute over human rights in 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7287257.stm
Funny enough it is the EU which allies itself with totalitarian Uzbekistan rather than the US, but the BBC doesn’t seem to mention the German and French airbases on loan. But attacking French or German assets in Uzbekistan wouldn’t go down at the BBC. Better to invent an American angle.
The BBC, it’s hatred of America and the defence of the Umma.
Melanie Phillips points to the need for more professional British political think-tanks (emulating those of the USA), to counter the dominance of the ‘multiculturalist, ‘politically correct’, ‘culutural relativist’ Left.
Here’s an extract from Phillips, which refers to the BBC:-
” Top-slicing the BBC licence-fee so that part of it goes to alternative broadcasters, for example, as the Tories have already suggested, would be an excellent start. The same should be done with the quangocracy — the Arts Council or the British Council spring to mind — and the vast fiefdoms of NGOs and the voluntary sector. Reducing the government grant to Drugscope — the dominant drug advisory body whose ‘harm reduction’ agenda is a Trojan horse for legalisation — and giving the money to campaigners who are committed to eradicating drug use would bring evidence into the public domain which would open people’s eyes to the legalising propaganda which at present they have no way of recognising. Similarly, helping build alternatives to such citadels of the nomenklatura as the NSPCC, Friends of the Earth, Stonewall or Liberty would end the free pass currently afforded to the cultural nihilists, arrested adolescents and sub-Gramscian subversives who currently have their thumbs on the British windpipe.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/709911/the-thumb-on-the-british-windpipe.thtml
From Ambush Predator:
Oooopsie!
The BBC had some truly shocking pictures of the floods in Burma last night. Trouble was:
“Last night the BBC broadcast a still which we said showed dozens of bodies lying in the waterfront of the Irrawaddy delta.
We have since discovered that the picture was actually taken in Aceh, Sumatra following the tsunami of 2004”.
Ah, that world-renowned BBC news service. Paid for by license payers for the good of the nation, don’t you know.
http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/2008/05/oooopsie.html
The BBC, its hatred of the British armed forces and CSE maths.
Soldiers’ flights home ‘delayed’
More than a quarter of RAF transport aircraft bringing troops back from Afghanistan are routinely out of action, the BBC has learned. Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act also showed one in 10 flights home was delayed by more than six hours in the year from April 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7404909.stm
1 in 4 = 1 quarter
1 in 10 = 1 tenth.
So if a ¼ of all flights from Afghanistan are out of action, how can 1/10 of all flights be delayed by more than six hours? Seeing as the former is larger than the latter.
The BBC, its hatred of the British armed forces and CSE maths.
President Bush’s speech to the Knesset:-
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/14837
And here’s a rejoinder, by Hugh Fitzgerald, which, in passing, includes a reference to BBC:-
“That Knesset Speech, And Other Possibilities”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/14838
So if a ¼ of all flights from Afghanistan are out of action, how can 1/10 of all flights be delayed by more than six hours?
I don’t usually leap to the defence of the BBC but you are not comparing like with like. The 25% refers to aircraft unavailable for service. The subsequent 10% is additional information that in essence says that 10% of scheduled flights are delayed.
There is clearly a connection between the two but the data is not itself inconsistent
It seems that “profit” is a dirty word in a BBC world. First it was oil companies profits, now it’s BA. Why it can’t stand when someone has a profit?
The unservicability rate of RAF aircraft is nothing new.
The fact is out of that 25% many of them will be in for long maintenance, some will be awaiting spares and other will have been used as Christmas trees (robbed of parts for other aircraft)
Most of the RAF transport fleet is ancient by civil standards.
When I served a servicability rate of above 80% was seen as good.
That’s not far off the 25% rate they have at the moment.
Trifecta: Sounds about right to me from Campbell.
Victoria Derbyshire is the same.
Sound the bugles, the BBC admits a mistake:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/05/picture_error.html#commentsanchor
Apparently it used an aged picture of the tsunami to illustrate the Burma disaster.
The amazing thing is that nobody is ever to blame for these “mistakes” and there is never any intent on the part of any BBC hack to deceive us.
BBC One Breakfast show this morning, two items to sicken me before I got up:
– Item about record profits at British Airways, doe eyed studio bimbette asks (the very good) Declan Curry……….”…….and what is BAs explaination for these profits? delivered in the tone one would use for telling off an errant child.
– Item about an over eager Tesco employee who refused to sell beer to a grown man because he was with his sixteen year old daughter (the Tesco employee was following Tesco policy).
The BBC manage to find some old codger who thought that it was a teriffic idea to hand over the protection of our civil liberties to Tesco and to have Check-out staff as the final arbiters in these matters.
Doe eyed BBC binnett on no occasion said the words CIVIL, LIBERTY, OUTRAGEOUS, WRONG etc.
The BBC, no Champion of enlightenment.
ps Doe eyed BBC bint (you know who you are), you should hang your head in shame.
What: no political disclaimer from Al Beeb here about its relationship with Al Jazeera TV?:-
“Lerbanese leaders gather in Qatar”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7404034.stm
To go through the links of the political connection in which Al Beeb, and because ot it, the British people, are involved with Hezbollah:-
1.) Qatar’s ruler is SHEIKH HAMAD, bedouin origins; became Emir of Qatar in 1995, when he deposed his father, “who was vacationing in Switzerland at the time” (Wikipedia).
His personal wealth, through oil, is estimated at well over $1 billion (2007 prices).
2.)He owns Al Jazeera TV:-
“In 1996 Al Jazeera in Arabic was launched as one of the most influential and debatable Arabic news network. Further to the initial US$ 150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera had aimed to become self-sufficient through advertising by 2001, but when this failed to occur, the Emir agreed to continue subsidizing it on a year-by-year basis (US$30 million in 2004…. Other major sources of income include advertising, cable subscription fees, broadcasting deals with other companies, and sale of footage. In 2000, advertising accounted for 40% of the station’s revenue.”(See: Wikipedia).
3.)Sheikh Hamad of Qatar represents Hezbollah:-
…” the Arab ministers decided to establish an inter-Arab committee, headed by Qatar’s prime minister and foreign minister, to hold talks with all sides in Lebanon. The fact that Qatar, which is an integral part of the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis, was appointed to head this committee attests to the helplessness of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and points to increased inter-Arab pressure on the Lebanese government and the March 14 Forces.”
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA43708
4.) Al Beeb has technical agreement with Al Jazeera:
“BBC signs news exchange agreement with Al Jazeera” (2003)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/01_january/15/al-jazeera.shtml
small note – and this doesnt just apply to the BBC… anyone else notice how all reference to WHO or WHAT the Rangers supporters ARE was completely airbrushed out of all MSM news reports..
the “hand of ulster” flags would be a hint. no offense meant to law abiding folks – of which the vast majority were…
but lets stand back and imagine if it was 200,000 Pakistani supporters. lets be honest – the word beginning with “i” would have been splashed across the Sun and the Mirror.
i just find it odd – the complete blackout about who Rangers supporters are..
Bryan: I commented on this the other day. The BBC has used Tsunami images when talking about climate change.
They really are thick at the BBC, or perhaps they think “we” are thick?
I also noticed that on 5 lite today they were going on about FOI requests for MPs expenses, then commented that there had been several made against the BBC about expenses. The BBC had refused them all. Why? The BBC is publically funded organisation, I’d love to know for example how much of “my tv tax” Andrew Marr spend buying McLiebour MPs drinks in the House of Commons “Strangers bar” or how many plane flights Roger Harrabin takes each year to lecture us all on “climate change” and whay we need to cut back on flying.
Martin, yes it’s not really bias just poor training and stupidity, I guess. Some hack covering a story hauls a photo out of the same subject as the story and thinks, “Oh good, we can use that,” even if the bloody thing is years old and taken in another country. Accuracy? Who cares?
The BBC is biased to the tories.
Al BEEB: how NOT to report Bin Laden; not if you regard him, Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihadists as the West’s arch enemies. This sort of DHIMMI reporting merely serves his purpose of spreading fear and propaganda. (The ‘JIHAD’ word is edited out, for example.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7404264.stm
AL Beeb, along with much of the MSM edits and complies with all this, as ‘JIHADWATCH’ notes in like-minded, dhimmi reports in the MSM:-
“Bin Laden says ‘Jihad is duty to free Palestine’, mainstream media covers for him”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021045.php
Just thought I’d link to a couple of stories I’ve seen. Apologies if they’ve been covered already.
People might be interested in this article about the latest “Knock on the door” licence ads that are running. His interpretation is that it is an indicator of a sign of weakness from the corporation, something that I agree with:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5153/
Together with all the current bubbling talk of “Top-slicing” the BBCs budget for the use of other broadcasters:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/15/westminster_forum_bbc/
I reckon it will make for an interesting time in the BBCs history. The inevitable changes in technology and media during the next couple of years will either mean the BBC can only justify its off air TV receivers tax by moving into more control over taxing network links, or will end up just catering to the last few people using 20th century technology whilst trying to justify its anachronistic existence with ever more ridiculous claims on our credulity.
“The inevitable changes in technology and media during the next couple of years”
its already happening.. car stereos now come with slots/plugs for ipods and memory cards. you no longer have to listen to the Toady program to get your political fix during the commute – you can now listen to American talk radio. or anything else that you fancy…
the Toady program is increasingly becoming an insular Westminster broadcast, which the general populace has very little empathy or relation to.
brief update on burma : still waiting for the bbc to refer to them as a “left wing junta”…
ever wonder why the UN “condemnation” via the MSM has been less prevalent? oh – that’ll be because the U.S. actually doesnt support this left wing regime.
move along here.. nothing to see now.. which is exactly what the Burmese military want you to do.
i eagerly await the John Pilger or Michael Moore documentary on this utter disgrace to humanity… then again, its left wing… so i wont hold my breath.
In (partial) response to Martin’s comments about FOI requests and the BBC, the ever-excellent Bishop Hill has had his FOI request for information about the Harrabin affair rejected http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/5/13/bbc-says-harrabin-emails-stay-secret.html
It appears the BBC is hiding behind a provision which allows journalists some exemption from scrutiny. This needs to be challenged, of course – not because proper investigative journalism shouldn’t be protected, but because the BBC, I don’t doubt, will hide behind this exclusion to mask all sorts of nefarious activities.
Talking about FOI requests, this is probably a good place to ask 😉 Whatever happened to the Balen report? I followed here and pick up dribs and drabs.
My own cynical view is that it had something to say in the raw, so it was sidelined and mitigated by the BBCs own report that admitted certain flaws about issues such as promoting a climate day with Jonathon Ross et al etc, which allowed them to duck any issues whilst appearing to have a bit of self analysis.
IntersetedParty: I actually wonder if the BBC can see the writing on the wall for the tele tax? With the launch of their satellite system I wonder if it will have the same facility as Sky for pay for view?
Clearly that would be something ITV would want as an option, but the BBC?
The TV tax can’t go on. With so many people now accessing TV content via satellite, cable, the internet, there is no way the £140 a year for the BBC can be justified.
I pay around £250 for Sky and I spend probably about 90% of my TV viewing time watching content carried on Sky (The Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic etc)
The BBC is for the most part total shite, wit the exception of the likes of Top Gear and the Sky at night, it’s TV aimed at fat women.
So why should I pay £140 for that crap?
Staggering economic obfuscation by Paul Mason (of course!) on Newsnight this evening.
While discussing inflation, Mason mentioned that the price of oil had doubled in the past year and that this had had a major effect on inflation.
Well, as they say, kinda sorta.
Had the socialist genius currently squatting in No 10 not greedily welcomed the inflationary pressure of raw material costs to bloat his tax take, that impact would have been greatly mitigated.
According to claims today, he could actually cut fuel tax by 9p per litre and not lose out. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=563149&in_page_id=1770 )
So why not tell the truth, Mr Mason? Yes, fuel costs are driving inflation. But they could be wiped out if we didn’t have at the helm, a dogmatic statist addicted to tax and spend.
I really don’t watch much TV, and even then not the Beeb when I do.
I still like owning a big screen to watch movies, so I have to pay them a licence to carry on annoying me whenever I accidently tune in.
Love Top Gear. I remember Clarksons response to Parkinson when asked how he thinks the BBC regards them. He said something like they regard the Beeb as lovely pure white sheep in a field with Top Gear as the horrible dingle berries hanging off the back… Cracked me up.
Bush makes ‘secret’ speech
President Bush made an important speech to the Israeli Knesset this Thursday.
Full text here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html
The speech was not covered at all by the BBC – in spite of their massive carpet-bombing coverage of every tiny aspect of life in the middle east.
The only reference to the speech is framed by Obama’s dislike of the speech:
Obama attacks Bush over Iran barb
This report does mention the speech in passing, and even quotes from the speech. But the quoted bit skips over the single most important sentence in the speech:
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”
Bush should, perhaps, have emphasised this message and repeated it in different words. Because it strikes at the heart of the guardinista argument that we can solve all the world’s problems by talks – or “talks about talks” – or “talks about what shape the table will be at the talks”.
The BBC, its romantic notions of a Irish terrorist and half the story.
Hunger’s forceful look at Ireland
British movie Hunger has opened at the Cannes Film Festival to positive reviews.
Directed by Turner Prize-winning artist Steve McQueen, it takes an uncompromising look at the last six weeks in the life of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands.
For six weeks in 1981, Sands went without food in an action initiated to demand special status. IRA prisoners wanted to wear their own clothes because they saw themselves as political prisoners, not criminals.
…………..
Fassbender agrees there are modern parallels to Sands’ story in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The idea of using the body as a political weapon, meanwhile, has been used to devastating effect in the Middle East, London and New York.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7405629.stm
So the BBC tells half the f-ing story about an Irish terrorist, sorry irish militant, silly me, Irish political activist, nah innocent victim who died for the want of wearing his own clothes.
Shame the BBC leave out that the IRA was playing the political oppression game for their funders in the US. In fact the duty rumour was that he was allowed to die by the IRA hierarchy because he was more of a symbol to their supporters in the US thus more dollars and more guns. Shame the BBC also leaves out that the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland (Both sides) was basically a get rich scheme for those in charge. It wasn’t them who went to prison no it was the small fry who had no problem committing a crime for £100.
But hey why should the BBC tell the truth, I mean according to them Bobby Sands,Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are crimes against humanity of the highest degree. However 9/11 and the London tube bombings were political adventure.
Were they bollocks they were acts of mass murder with no excuse what so ever.
Misguided criminals indeed.
The BBC, its romantic notions of a Irish terrorist and half the story.
Once again we see the BBC displaying it’s hatred for Margaret Thatcher:
“Baroness Thatcher once tried to seduce Sir Edward Heath during her hunt for a Conservative seat, a new BBC drama is claiming”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/1970986/Baroness-Thatcher-tried-to-seduce-Sir-Edward-Heath-for-Conservative-seat%2C-new-BBC-drama-claims.html
.
Too much for the BBC to recall (or perhaps know) that Sands was in prison for possession of firearms and attempted murder of the police.
Or that his suicide was judged a mortal sin by his Catholic Church.
Seems that within 40 years the average British garden will resemble the Colorado desert because of ……
Apparently there’s some flower show on in Chelsea.
I usually turn the radio off at 9am on Saturday to avoid the awful smugness that falls out of Fi Glover’s wretched face. I decided to give them another chance today, it only took 30 seconds before there was a cheap anti-American smear and I hit the off button. Fi and the half wits and the people they attract have this incredible ability to not see the the suicide bombings and mass executions of the Islamo-facists. Saturday Live – Smug left wing, self satisfied cosmopolitian liberal crap of the very worst kind. How very BBC.
Notice the BBC sticking up for the military dictators of Burma and saying nothing about the pathetic repsonse of the UN.
I expect to see George Galloway shaking hands with the military leaders of Burma soon. “Sirs I salute your…….”
Note the different tone of the BBC with this story. When it’s Labour accused of cover ups the BBC always headlines “Government in the clear” or “MP vows to clear name” etc.
Here it’s a nice smear by the BBC over (if you read it) a non story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7403168.stm
They have rushed with indecent haste to make Cherie Blairs spewings ‘Book of the Week’. I wonder how much of our money they are paying the vile woman?
Lurker, it is still the case that a shop is free to refuse to serve a particular person. I regard that as the trader’s liberty.