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.
Correction bis:
The anti-Jihadist is Russel Joffe’s sister-in-law!
http://www.jerusalemposts.com/
Nearly Oxfordian,
Can you not hear the excuses coming from Broadcasting house?, listen to the idiotic excuses coming from the BBC and it’s paymaster!!.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Labour will claim is that it is mid-term blues and that Labour need to listen to the public!!!!!.
Hang on, I have just switched to BBC News 24 and guess what we get……..?, 10 minutes of Stephen McKane with no interruption of MP McKane of the LABOUR PARTY!.
Labour have lost and can the BBC manage to interview a Conservative MP?, not in the last two hours, c’est la vie…..that means Labour have lost.
Labour have lost, the Conservatives have won, what do we get on the BBC?, two pro-Labour supporters (one a labour MP), and Liam Fox.
Guess what I am listening to on Dutch radio?….David Cameroon wins the bye-election by 15 points, according to NLD which is the Netherlands answer to the BBC.
Could I also point out that France2 have been found guilty of faking it’s report.
“Dunwoody was born in Totnes, Devon[1], the daughter of the late Labour MPs, Gwyneth Dunwoody, and Dr John Dunwoody. Through her mother she is the granddaughter of former Labour Party General Secretary, Morgan Phillips and Norah Phillips, Baroness Phillips. She was educated at the Grey Coat Hospital Church of England girls’ school in Westminster and the University of Kent.”
It appears that the heredetory Dunwoody is herself a toff.
Biodegradable | 22.05.08 – 11:56 pm |
Could the BBC have done a news brief that was any more gentle to France 2? The featured quote is the dry-as-toast court legalese, not a statement from Karsenty, and they failed to quote Enderlin admitting that his footage didn’t capture the exact moment of the boy’s death (something they managed to amidst his own defensive statements in their last article in November).
Still, at least they mentioned that there was evidence of boys faking being shot on the film, albeit with the caveat it was only “some observers” who said they saw it. But this is hardly a report worthy of the importance of the issue. Considering how much coverage the initial court case got, surely such a turn of events is at least as newsworthy.
The BBC is absolutely terrified of this court ruling. Of course, this is only a “news brief”, and not intended to be anything like full coverage. No room for details, or balance, or anything like that. The BBC will naturally provide more details and balance over several reports on the subject, and all my concerns will be for naught.
Right?
According to the BBC its Tories “snatch” Crewe from Labour.
Still it’s better than Tories scrape home having used subterfuge in stealing seat. I mean a 7,000 scumbag socialist majority converted into an almost 8,000 Tory majority. It couldn’t be better.
Amazing, given such a large swing to the Conservatives amongst the voters of England, that the BBC thinks it can still get away with rigging the QT audiences and then say that they are representative.
Two years to go and then it’s the day of reckoning.
How the news is being reported.
Telegraph: Rampant Tories crush Labour in by-election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
Times: Disaster for Brown after Tory landslide
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
Sky: Sweeping by-election victory win for Tories.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/home?&lid=GLOBALNAV_SKY_NEWS&lpos=GLOBAL_NAV
And last and least because they’ve ceased to report the news and are just engaged in damage limitation for their paymasters, here’s the BBC’s offering:
Tories snatch Crewe from Labour
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7415362.stm
Says it all really about the BBC. I suppose they got Kevin Maguire from the Mirror to write that headline
What’s going on with the BBC’s by-election logo? It’s got a huge massive green blob right at the top, almost as if to suggest that the Green Party are some kind of massive formidable political force, but the Green Party got less votes than UKIP. The blue for the Conservatives has been relegated to a slither of blue on the edge, and of course masses of red for Labour. This by-election logo is a blatant example of BBC bias, the logo doesn’t reflect public opinion, it reflects how the BBC wants people to vote.
Re Karsenty,
As David Preiser notes, the BBC have finally reported the issue. I think they have now done a reasonably job, even though some important details are omitted.
E.g., this is fair enough:
“But the appeals court said examination of the tape – which was shown at a court hearing in February – did not dispel questions over its authenticity.
Some observers who had been allowed to see the full recording had said it contained various scenes of boys pretending to be injured.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7415858.stm
.
The best headline the BBC can come up with for Gordon Brown’s goodbye election is that the conservatives have “snatched” Crewe from Labour making it sound like they just won by the slimmest of majorities. And they blazon the absurd Dunwoody claim that the Labour vote held up. No it didn’t. BBC – when are you going to come out of your bunkers? If you can’t get over your Labour bias you could at least try to face reality.
BBC’s Breakfast show seems to play down the by-election news a bit. The story seems to concentrate on how the voters deserted Labour and what can Labour do to turn things around and the fact that a Tory won seems to be an inconvenient by-product of the result.
Plus they keep announcing that they getting in Harriet Harman for an interview later on. No Tory mind, let’s just hear Labour’s side of the story like nothing else matters. It really hurts them.
Woke up this am, ran downstairs to catch the news and sat in anticipation, when would the Beeb admit Labour had lost and by how much?.
The fact that were not crowing about a Labour win confirmed a Tory win.
But when would they have to spit out those words between clenched teeth?
Eventually, after Mary Whitehouse, weather, beaches, oil, profits – anything to delay announcing one of the most significant political upsets in recent times.
Several people, local to the South-West of England, have expressed surprise that a possible suicide bomber /Islamic jihadist was operating in that relatively quiet part of England.
Yes, but such attacks do fit with global Islamic jihad intentions, and no infidel lands are immune.
Of course, in the history of Cornwall and Devon, a part of that history probably now censored from being taught in English schools, Muslim slavers raided those coasts of England and took Christian slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries.
It so happens that the BBC has a very good 6 page webpiece on that here:
“British Slaves on the Barbary Coast”
(by Prof. Rees Davies)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
And ‘Jihadwatch’ refers to Giles Milton’s book “White Gold: the extraordinary story of Thomas Pellow and North Africa’s One Million European Slaves”:
“Britain’s 200-year Jihad”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008320.php
Al Dura: that reference in the BBC report to ‘some observers’ looks and smells like crude propaganda, the use of weasel words to spread doubt about the evidence behind a clear court verdict. It implies that other observers didn’t see convincing evidence of fake footage, so the decision is degraded and smeared as implicity subjective and unreliably French. Well, who were these acute folks, and how do their views justify the smear on the opinion of the French appeal court?
The BBC is loftily above such earthly vulgarity, of course, so we all look forward to clarification.
This is happening so fast, I saw the ‘snatch’ headline at the BBC site, went to read halo scan above and in the meantime the headline was rewritten and reads different. A lot of people have noticed this for sometime that using the same URL to edit and rewrite the news happens a lot at the BBC. The ‘snatch’ presentation was unrepresentative of the facts in the first place. In my opinion it can be described as a 15000 turn around. In maths terms to get an 8000 figure from -7000, you actually need to add 15000 to it. A little ‘snatch’ wouldnt do it.
The word “snatch” is probably meant to asociate the victors with petty, childish grabbing at stuff that not rightfully theirs, which would be about how Al-BBC feels about parliamentary seats oop north.
Jeff, you and me both. If it had gone the other way the Toady program would have been crowing about it for the whole broadcast.
I hope the next Conservative government takes major action to inject some political ‘diversity’ into the BBC staffing.
Here’s one gem from ZaNu’s propaganda mouthpiece:
The campaign has taken place during a dire few weeks for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has followed a POOR SET OF LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS
You couldn’t make it up.
I’s say the correct term is ‘landslide’.
And I can’r resist this, from the saddos at the funny party, aka LibDems:
she said she had not met anyone on the campaign trail who said they wanted a Conservative government.
The Radio 2 9.00am news just lead with “Conservative defeat of labour” they just can’t help themselves. How they must have laughed at so cleverly putting the words defeat and conservative next to each other.
Radio 5 lite has a phone-in titled. “Do you want the Tories back in power?”
Wouldn’t “is it time for McBean to pack his bag and take his tartan army back to Scotland to think again?”
Of course we got the usual Labour supporting email about 15% interest rates … blah blah blah.
They seem quick to forget the dead lying unburied and the streets full of rubbish.
I think the BBC are cacking themselves. They know a Tory Government just might look at the TV tax.
Oh dear, the BBC are in a panic.
I do predict though that there were no discared Champagne bottles lying around the BBC TV centre last night.
I posted yesterday before we saw the BBC’s coverage of the Al Dura case “If the BBC does its duty and reports the case, they will just treat the verdict as merely a judgment over Karsenty’s sincerity.”
i.e. if the sincerity was real, he was free to express it. Expanding on Knacker’s post:
knacker | 23.05.08 – 8:15 am
Looking at the BBC report, anyone reading this would certainly get the impression that the ‘not guilty’ verdict was over a sort of technicality, the implication being that the film was still possibly authentic, while rather grudgingly admitting that Karsenty’s doubts were sincerely held, therefore his allegations of fakery were sincere so should not be considered libelous.
Of course freedom of speech doesn’t mean you are free to make any wild allegation you like with impunity. The court did recognise that Karsenty had sufficient grounds for his genuinely held suspicion that the film was faked. So it was not libelous of him to say so. Hovering over this was the undeniable implication that Karsenty was deluded but well meaning.
“But the appeals court said examination of the tape – which was shown at a court hearing in February – did not dispel questions over its authenticity.”
This confusing sentence needs disentangling. Was the tape genuine? Whose questions were dispelled. Or not? Too many double negatives to be sure.
Of course, no mention of the saga over the withheld footage, or the absence of Enderlin’s ‘irrelevant’ minutes of the film that he eventually allowed the court to watch. All there was in the BBC’s report was a rather disparagingly worded phrase:
’Some observers who had been allowed to see the full recording had said it contained various scenes of boys pretending to be injured.’
Imagine what would happen if Panorama applied their treatment to the story.
Last night I waited until my wife was asleep before tip-toeing to the drawer to fetch my portable readio.
Slipping the ear-piece in, I tuned to Radio 4 for coverage of the Crew and Nantwich by-election.
I expected heavyweight commentary from Liam Fox and Alan Johnson, with Ming Campbell perhaps thrown in.
At the very least some journalists like Anthony Howard or Dominic Lawson.
Nothing.
Just the usual shipping forecast plus handover to World Service.
I retuned to Five Live.
And so it was that the most momentous by-election for years, an upset with profound implications for the future of the prime minister, was interpreted and analysed by………Dotun Adebayo.
This is taking the pi**.
On BBC News 24 the thicko BBC droid in Exeter was having a go at the local Council bloke over the bomb being able to go off in a shopping centre and how the whole thing was badly handled blah blah blah.
Beeboid was quite aggressive. Shame the Beeboids can’t be as aggressive with those that follow the religion that carries out these acts in the first place.
interpreted and analysed by………Dotun Adebayo
His judgement would presumably have been, “Is it ‘cos I’m black?”
amimissingsomething | 23.05.08 – 1:01 am |
indeed. just saw a survey which puts Conservatives at 41%, Labour at 27, Lib Dems at 22, others at 9
which surely means that in a representative audience Labour should be booed or at least meet with some degree of antipathy 78% of the time!
Well no. Lib Dems will boo Tories and politely clap Labour. The other 9 will be split between UKIP, BNP, Communits, Greens blah blah.
The Tories will always be outnumbered as long as they poll less than half the vote.
Doesn’t make the audience make up correct but explains some of the booing!
But the QT audience loudly cheers and applauds almost everything said by a McLiebour politician on QT.
Why would a Lib Dem cheer Hazel Blears? In fact why would anyone cheer Hazel Blears?
This Labour Government’s worst, and most lasting legacy, to the British indigenoius people from the past 11 years is: MASS IMMIGRATION. This ‘policy’ was in no Labour Manifesto, but has been enthusiastically supported by the political liberal/Left groups, (who continue to support the Islamisation of Europe and the UK, through e.g. the entry of 75 million Turks in a few years). There is no dissent on all this from BBC reports.
And such is the incompetence of the Labour government that it doesn’t know the size of the UK population, nor the scale of UK mass immigration:
“MPS attack migrant count methods”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7415261.stm
In the BBC report on this, it does not emphasise that the figures on immigration are a gross underestimate.
And the rate of mass immigration into the UK will increase because of the Labour government’s stealth ‘policies’, again complied with by the ‘left’, uncriticised by BBC:-
“England will have to absorb another 17 million migrants over next 50 years”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021344/England-need-TWO-new-London-sized-cities-cope-immigrants-2056.html?ITO=1490
Headline from the BBC website: “US dealer says buy a car, get a gun for free”
Is this really sufficiently newsworthy to grace the front page of the British edition of a British ‘news’ website?
Or is it simply yet another miserable example of the BBC’s desperate determination to portray America as a nation of imbeciles?
George R | 23.05.08 – 11:59 am |
It would be better if 100 people a year were kidnapped by the government and subjected to live vivisection on a reality TV show then Turkey joining the EU. Live vivisection is obviously evil and can be opposed. Turkish membership of the EU is an insidious evil the contingent atrocities of which can be covered up by the media.
It’s not just mass immigration. It was allowing europe to flush out their Islamic sewers and send all the waste over here on the “promise” that these arseholes could still carry on their terrorist activities so long as they didn’t do it on our shores.
When Bliar said after 7/7 the “rules of the game have changed” that was saying you broke your promise.
Since when did any of us get a chance to say we didn’t want this Islamic human waste washed up on our shores? The BBC is very pro Muslim terrorism, so is McLiebour (gets them Muslim votes) and Bliar thought it would keep us safe from being attacked.
A bit like keeping a Tiger as a pet to stop being attached by a Lion. Sooner or later the Tiger will bite instead.
Just how thick are Labour politicians?
Very. A quick look at Hazel tells you she couldn’t run a school tombola.
Another day in Brown’s Britain, and apparently another Jihad threat; and another opaque BBC description of the accused, headlined as ‘man’, (name: Saeed Ghafoor) who apparently doesn’t know his Kent from his Exeter-
“Man admits Bluewater bomb threat”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7416706.stm
The ‘man’ in George R’s link, who is described by the BBC as “a former English teacher”: is he……… a muslim?
Surely it can no longer be disputed by the Beeboids who visit this site that the BBC is engaged on a cover-up for islam.
The Beeboids regularly dispute that white is white. They call it black on a regular basis. Why should they change now?
The purpose of mass immigration is to keep the working class and the low-paid on crappy wages, and to create a new voting demographic which Labour can pander to. For the Liberal Left and the City, its all good.
I would be very surprised if the Tories do anything about immigration, as the CBI and the business community all think its a wonderful thing.
Armed police hold two after blast
What the BBC doesn’t say:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1316897,00.html
Eyewitnesses said two dark-skinned men were arrested during the operation in Plymouth.
The BBC version sounds like it was written by gunnar:
Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said police believed Mr Reilly had adopted the Islamic faith and had been “preyed upon” and “radicalised”.
However, Devon and Cornwall Police have not yet explained what they mean by “radicalised”, nor to what extent Mr Reilly was “preyed upon”.
Some people need everything explained to them ;-/
The lead item on the BBC Americas board at the moment is a story headlined “US Car Dealer in Free Gun Offer”. It’s got just about every element essential to a feature story about life in the US: rednecks, guns (including an advertising logo showing a cowboy packing heat), and the requisite stock character spouting off colorfully (sample quote: “We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns.”)
By the BBC’s standards, a perfect American representation in all respects.
George R has already linked to this and commented on the story yesterday @ 5:37pm, but it bears repeating in a new context:
Mark Steyn versus. the Sock Puppets
I missed this earlier, but here is the BBC’s say on the entire subject of the attempted suppression of any criticism of Islamists in Canada, including Steyn, Maclean’s, and Ezra Levant:
Speech row rocks multi-ethnic Canada
I won’t waste time laughing at the headline, and its overwrought, hyberbolic implication, but there is a key bit well down the page, where Beeboid Henri Astier (and we know how the Quebecois feel about living together in multi-ethnic harmony, don’t we boys and girls?) tells us how the BBC really views this whole thing:
But by focusing on the legal process, Mr Levant and others added an important new dimension to the dispute. It no longer centred on the familiar “Islam v West” question.
Canada’s Human Rights Act is not an Islamic creation; Jewish and other groups have supported complaints under its speech provisions.
And the complainants against both Maclean’s and Mr Levant, in BBC interviews, professed their attachment to free speech and abhorrence of radical Islam.
The core of the dispute is best understood not as a clash of civilisations, but as a conflict within the West itself.
It pits old liberal values that sanctify individuals against a new emphasis on the rights of groups.
I find this very revealing. The main error here is that is in fact the ridiculous Human Rights Commission and all its associated laws which emphasizes special protections for certain groups. Protecting these groups from any form of discrimination or harassment is the reason why this was created in the first place. The BBC reporter even gives the dry facts of the origins of the commissions, but fails to realize what he’s even talking about. It was only a matter of time before this devolved into protecting their right not to be offended. It’s now Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn who are the individuals with actual rights in need of protection.
Secondly, the BBC wants us all to forget about the clash of civilizations which is behind both Steyn’s and Levant’s statements. Of course, this is still very much a clash of civilizations – one between Islamo-fascism and Western Civilization. The Islamo-fascists are the ones who want special rules for themselves, and want everyone to accept the eventual superiority of Islam.
Now for the actual lie in the piece. Beeboid Astier writes as if the students asked merely for a chance to have their side of the story heard, and the horrible editor refused to allow these agni innocenti to have their voices heard, and point out the errors in Steyn’s remarks. Astier admits that the students were supported by the CIC, but what he doesn’t want you to know what the demands actually were:
The truth can be found here.
The Islamic group has asked a government body to step in to guarantee it the right to an equal-length rebuttal to the article, which was an excerpt from Steyn’s September 2006 book “America Alone.”
“This article completely misrepresents Canadian Muslims’ values, their community, and their religion,” said Canadian Islamic Congress lawyer Faisal Joseph.
Maclean’s says it has already run 27 letters from readers, many opposed to Steyn’s piece, and is ready to consider a further response. But it said the CIC wanted to direct the art work for the rebuttal and to run it on the cover.
Publisher Kenneth Whyte said he would rather go bankrupt than have the CIC set the terms for what the magazine publishes.
So the BBC decided to lie and make you think that the nasty, unfortunately-named Kenneth Whyte wanted to stifle some poor Muslims students’ free speech, and give the Muslim point of view, when in fact the CIC wanted his magazine to submit to their propaganda.
With this in mind, it is pretty clear why the BBC is terrified of the Karsenty ruling.
FREE THE MARK STEYN 1.
Anyone interested in that rapidly disappearing English concept of Free Speech can read all about it at…
http://www.steynonline.com
A couple of quick points:
1. ITV and Channel 4 news both run news stories this evening in following order:
1 – Conservative victory in Crewe
2 – Exeter bomb arrests
3 – Nimrod verdict
The BBC in contrast has the Nimrod verdict as the number 1 story on its website as of 19:34 today. Clearly bias on evidence – down playing bad news for Labour, and down playing Muslim terrorists relative to other news agencies.
2. The Times online notes that the arrests in Plymouth in connection with the Exeter bombplot today were Asian men. The BBC merely mention the fact they are men, no race mentioned. More bias from the BBC, when other news reporters are happy to report the race of the men.
Biodegradable | 23.05.08 – 6:03 pm |
From what I’ve been able to glean from sources other than the BBC, the young man in Exeter has severe learning difficulties with a very low IQ and is suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome.
As you already know this fits in with the pattern that the Islamic extremists employ, getting the gullible, the vunerable, those afflicted with Downs Syndrome and extremely young and immature school children to do their dirty work.
But hey BBC lets cheer for Hamas, lets sweep these inconvenient truths under the carpet
We have one here cheering for Hamas, and insisting that Hamas was “established” by Mossad, no less.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#399869
Oy vey! 😉
Biodegradable | 23.05.08 – 8:39 pm |
Isn’t that the same Mossad who flew the planes into the twin towers?
Bio – I’m afraid the bloke or whatever is a basket case.
The last time it was here it left with its tail between its legs.
it’s not for me to say, but perhaps the site owners should consider a ban.
TPO:he even doubted the Exeter case had anything to do with (brace yourselves) terrorism… and blithely passed over the even more repugnant aspects of the muslims having groomed an autistic victim to carry out their sickening work
It’s all a lie, invented by the Joos who own the media. There is no such place as Exeter.
There is no such place as Exeter.
Yes there is.
It’s in Mozambique along with Reigate.
More bias from the BBC, when other news reporters are happy to report the race of the men.
Anonymous | 23.05.08 – 7:42 pm
Indeed, instead, much like our current trolls, they want the police to explain exactly what they mean by “radicalised” and “preyed upon”.
How dare the police say things like that about those nice Muslims who took a poor mentally ill lad under their wing!?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6808614891879332154/#399927
The BBC demands an explanation (and so does gunnar!)
Isn’t that the same Mossad who flew the planes into the twin towers?
Yep, the same one that poisoned Arafart and made Barbara Plett cry. It’s hard to have any sympathy for people that make little girls cry… (sigh).
There is no such place as Exeter.
It’s in Area 51. David Icke told me.