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.
Am I alone in feeling slightly queasy at the BBC’s gleeful coverage of the arrest of Radovan Karadzic?
The BBC. It’s really rotten to the core, isn’t it?
GCooper | 23.07.08 – 12:15 am |
Last night BBC World treated North America to a gloatfest on the arrest of Karadzic.
I suspect that, outside of Serbia, you’d be hard pushed to find anyone against his arrest, but the BBC went well over the top.
Praise for the UN – good grief. It now seems that the German intelligence Service was instrumental in bringing about Karadzic’s arrest.
I thought the slug Simpson was about as bad as it could get until the fat BBC slapper trotted out some Carter/Clinton apparatchik to reprise the whole Balkan fiasco. His punch line: “Until the US was shamed into taking action”
Goodness me, I seem to recall that this was a ‘European’ problem.
It was the failure and incompetence of the collective European approach which led to an exasperated US to take action.
The BBC: Double standards and no credibility.
TPO, your last 2 points show your fundamental misunderstanding.
The BBC reports this stuff, provides a platform for different opinions etc. That doesn’t mean that’s the BBC’s opinion.
Come on, haven’t we got past that yet?
Honest Reporting picks up on the BBC’s use of “quotes” (spotted by Jason in the comments here yesterday).
The more the BBC promotes it, the worse it does:
Bonekickers, about a group of feisty West Country archaeologists, pulled in 4.6 million and a 21% share in the 9pm hour for its third instalment, according to unofficial overnight figures.
Last week, it pulled in 5.2 million and a 24% share while it launched a fortnight ago with 6.8 million and a 31% share.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/tvratings.television
Honest Reporting picks up on the BBC’s use of “quotes” (spotted by Jason in the comments here yesterday).
DB | 23.07.08 – 6:02 pm
Not forgetting the excellent analysis by Sue | 23.07.08 – 11:29 am.
Billy wrote;
“Actually Neil, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Much of what happened at Srebrenica was captured on film. I expect the trial will be fair, if long drawn out, but I think we all know with some degree of certainty what the verdict will be.Oh well, they were only ‘Moslems’ after all, right?
Well Neil other than a few nationalistic Serbs I don’t think there is anybody who doesn’t presume that Karadzic is innocent and I certainly hope he takes his life rather than make a mockery of the ICC like Milosevic did. And I don’t think there is anybody other than the usual suspects who would say that they were only Moslems either. But funny enough there is more to the story. A story which if told to the full is quite damning, but not only of the Serbs but of the Croats and Muslims too.
I unlike a lot of posters here was actually in country (Went out with the rapid reaction force) first of all in Ploce and then I moved up to GV. Let me get this straight The Serb did wrong. But so did the Croats and so did the Muslims.
For example ref Srebrenica what isn’t made that public is that while the Serbs at first respected the sanctuary of the town. What was happening was the idiots amongst the Muslims used to conduct hit and run attacks on the Serbs and then run back to the safety of the UN enclave. (Hang on its supposed to be a safe area) I’m not excusing the Serbs but there are two sides to every story.
When the Rapid reaction force landed we landed a load of 432 ambulances and they moved up country. Imagine my shock when a few weeks later as I myself moved up country I saw the very same convoy parked outside GV in a straight line. The Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) or Muslims had set up a check point which consisted of a few young lads with guns , a few land mines and a wooden hut cafe which is where the squaddies used to find something to eat and drink. Only when the Yanks and NATO attacked the Serbs did the Muslims let them in.
In GV we had 2 major camps The British one and across town the UN one. (Sector south west) The town was split in two half Croat (Catholic) and half Muslim) When they weren’t fighting the Serbs the two used to fight amongst themselves. When I saw fight I mean with AK47s and buses of Croat school girls were a legitimate target.
The ARBiH used to steal UN vehicles and paint them green so as to fill their MT pool . This was usually done at gun point. Many an Aid worker had to be sent home as after having a gun stuck in their face they wanted out. When the vehicles needed servicing or had something break (like a flat tire) they would abandon them on the road and steal another.
The UN paid a bunch of locals to remove our rubbish from camp. We followed them one day and watched how they just emptied it all in the river. The Muslim secret police had as their interrogation rooms a building which looked over the river. Their victims were simply thrown out of the window.
On patrol we came across a village in which the Muslim half had forced all their Croat neighbours into their church and set fire to it. Anybody who tried to leave was shot. When we asked them why?
(And I was attached to an RMP patrol at the time) They said “The secret police told us to do so” That isn’t second hand that is what I heard from our interpreters lips.
Oh and we had the Muhajadeen in country . They used to prance around with pink ribbons in their hair and used to piss us off by having really loud call to prayers first thing in the morning and last thing at night. (Not a good thing to do with a camp of knackered squaddies armed with rifles and trying to sleep.)
There are loads more stories like that I can recollect . But before we only castigate the Serbs. (And yes Karadzic is a cock.) lets us not forget that the other two parties are just as bad. Also the rumination by both the UN and the EU helped send many people to their deaths. A stance which is still extant in Sudan.
Joel slightly more complicated. The BBC usually provides a platform for different opinions but it chooses what diferent opinions they will be.
That is the BBC’s big trick.
For example during the Yugoslav bombing they reported both sides equally – should NATO be bombing Yugoslavia or should they do a ground invasion of Kosovo? This was particularly egregious since a ground invasion by inferior numbers over 5,000 foot mountains where there was no roads or infrastrucure was a non-starter.
In the same way we may expect both sides of the court case to be reported – does the evidence prove Karadzic guilty or doesn’t the evidence matter?
The BBC doesn’t report on things they don’t like – such as that our KLA allies (who aren’t war criminals) were deliberately allowed by our government to kidnap & disect, while still alive, hundreds, possibly thousands of teens & sell their body parts to our hospitals.
To report that would suggest our PM more guilty of genocide than Karadzic – which he is.
Here’s an idea for a protest
Print 30 A4 sheets and sellotape them to lamp posts in your area.
Text (Bold) as follows …
The BBC
Bias First
News Second
The BBC is a corrupt and vile organization. Don’t pay them another penny.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
A5 sheets or A4 folded acros the middle. These fit the width of lampposts.
If you are photocoying on to them use a good copier or they will run when it rains.
paste them on the back with relatively dilute wallpaper paste.
Folded back to back you can get a cuple of hundred in a plastic carrier put them up at walking pace in a 2 1/2 hours.
Pounce:
As a non-expert on the Balkans, I can see that there are at least two sides to the Serb-Croat conflict, and that war crimes were probably committed on both sides.
The BBC is inclined to follow the Lord Ashdown political line on it, including enlarging the EU to include the Balkan states; but at least BBC Radio 4 World Tonight, last night had on a Serb, Srdja Trifkovic:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=674
Trifkovic, plays down any war crimes of the Serbs in the article below, but he tries to remind the West of the role of the Croats, the UN and the EU:
“Karadzic’s Arrest: Bosnian Myths Rehashed”
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=673
I am surprised to find no comment on this blog about the blatantly negative BBC coverage of the World Youth gathering in Melbourne. Could it be that anything that depict young people rejoicing in their traditional Catholic beliefs is anthema to the liberal establishment?
I was browsing BBC views on line at lunchtime and came across a story about forced marriage. It was illustrated by a picture of a pair of European hands – the male one applying a wedding ring to the female. (I notice that this has mow been edited out on the current version of the story and replaced with a clip of the Home Secretary).
Can anyone explain to my why the BBC would choose to illustrate something that is a problem exclusively within South Asian populations in Britain with a pair of hands belonging to white Europeans? Is this pure incompetence or is the BBC in denial – again?
Mark Easton is all over the BBC trying to convince us what a wonderful job the government is doing on crime. He quoted the latest set of figures that showed knife crime in London is down 14%.
He compared June this year with June last year, which shows an almost 50 per cent drop — and thus was guilty of what he accuses everyone else on, i.e. selective and misleading use of figures. Lies, damned lies, and the BBC?
More importantly, he makes the mistake of assuming that people are worried about rising crime. They are not, they are worried about the level of crime. A small drop or increase makes little difference, there is simply far too much crime.
Inevitably he lays the blame on the tabloids. If only the BBC was our only source of news eh Mark?
Sick to death of the BBC’s corrosive bias? Want to stop funding the enemies of civilization, but still need your daily fix of visual chewing gum?
Ditch the idiot box and watch TV on your PC with Zattoo.
Zattoo provides all the terrestrial channels and a few very crap cable ones too (eg BBC3 etc).
No ‘licence’ required (yet).
TPO, your last 2 points show your fundamental misunderstanding.
The BBC reports this stuff, provides a platform for different opinions etc. That doesn’t mean that’s the BBC’s opinion.
Come on, haven’t we got past that yet?
Joel | Homepage | 23.07.08 – 5:38 pm |
Some time ago I resolved not to respond to any of your postings. I make an exception here.
The fundamental misunderstanding is yours, not mine.
The opinion by the apparatchik went unchallenged by the BBC slapper.
Had the opinion been supportive of US policy she’d have been down his throat like a shot as well you know. Instead she nodded in agreement after his statement.
Come on, haven’t we got past that yet?
BBC: Double standards and no credibility.
The Western Morning News has:
TV licence fee dodgers in ‘league of shame’
“Westcountry licence dodgers have been named and shamed in a league table of cities and towns……… “No town wants to appear in TV licensing’s league of shame” says Rachael Micallef, a spokesperson for TV licensing South West “Buying a TV licence is simple and can be done in minutes online, so there’s no excuse……”
Blah blah blah……. lists of named and shamed towns……
“more than 209,000 evaders have been caught nationally since the start of 2008 by enquiry officers with access to sophisticated detection equipment. Evaders each received a £1,000 fine.”
Sue:
The Western Morning News has:
TV licence fee dodgers in ‘league of shame’
“more than 209,000 evaders have been caught nationally since the start of 2008 by enquiry officers with access to sophisticated detection equipment. Evaders each received a £1,000 fine.”
Sue | 23.07.08 – 8:19 pm | #
—————————————————————-
Ha! They’re still peddling that “detection equipment” pile of bollocks? Unbelievable in this day and age. How stupid do they think we are?
Hi NotaSheep,
Just have a look back at the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c…h?v=ccImZIos- PY
Do you really think Frankie Boyle was on the show? Couldn’t it be possible that it was, perhaps, Sean Lock?
I thought this would have been pretty clear to anyone looking at the clip, but perhaps it is not that easy.
Let’s just repeat it again. Frankie Boyle did not utter the remarks David Vance is attributing to him.
PS: This is a post I addressed to TPO on the “Mock the Week” comment. Hope this clears this finally up.
The post still has not been updated with a clarification. When will David Vance add an update and apology to it?
bodo: Easton is a twat of the first degree. You are spot on in that he’s as guilty of using selective figures as the tabloids.
But then again he’s a camp left wing liberal, so he must be telling the truth.
It’s all too much:
‘Moozlums’ = good
White scum = BAD!
“No town wants to appear in TV licensing’s league of shame” – Sue | 23.07.08 – 8:19 pm
Legue of shame?!? No way! It’s a Leauge of Heroes! Heroes taking on the BBC! Appearing on this league table is a badge of pride, a rite of passage! It’s a very honourable league table to appear on, I’m sure they are feeling very proud of themselves.
mailman | 23.07.08 – 4:07 pm |
Sigh, article itself was semi-ok UNTIL the last paragraph!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7521592.stm
That has to be one of the worst examples of a biased Beeboid editor I’ve ever seen. Shameless justification of all attacks on Jews, adds nothing whatsoever to the story – unless it’s a justification for it.
The penultimate graph is almost as bad, saying that an attacker was killed “during a rampage in which three people died”? Died, BBC? What about, “during a rampage in which he killed three people?”
No excuses, no defense, BBC. Come see the bias inherent in the hiring standards and editorial practices.
David Vance, this is definitely one for the book.
Given the media’s recent track record of manipulating and mis-reporting of events….think Jenningrad, the 2000 shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah, Rathergate, the Israeli-Lebanon war, how can anyone be sure of the accuracy of events reported in the Balkans conflict before the internet age?
Here for example is a video that does seem to raise some serious questions about the famous Serbian death camp film shot by Penny Marshall for ITN in 1992.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fed_1194544321
Sure it’s from Serbian TV, so should we should be skeptical. But given past experience we should also be skeptical of what we are shown or told by out own media.
Neil Craig: But did Galloway say the USA and UK should do the intervention? From what he’s said these days he opposes the USA and UK intervening in any overseas Countries and I’m certain he opposed the USA and UK specifically in their intervention. You may be correct, but that’s not what he spouts these days.
Easton’s blog. I bet Labour loves him. Lots of selective quoting of already dodgy govt figures that nobody believes in the first place – except Easton of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/
“it is really time to stop this myth that we are in the midst of a knife epidemic.”
A few days ago there was some speculation about whether B-BBC has any influence on the BBC. Someone in the blogosphere said that a B-BBC topic had aroused interest on an internal BBC message board.
Ex-BBC Martin Belam discusses B-BBC on his Blog: “I tend to see what I would expect on an Internet forum, a large mix of very strongly held views shouting each other down as idiots.”
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2008/02/bbc_news_user-generated_content.php
In the absence of BBC spokespersons on B-BBC we gaily savage each other like those unpredictable dogs that suddenly bite their best friend; often unexpectedly, viciously and arbitrarily, irrespective of whether the perceived provocation was unintentional or if it only existed in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, there could just be a dull volley of comments that all begin ‘spot on’
With Beeboid participation the pack is galvanised, focussed, and its savaging is aimed at the one target. I noticed that a ‘new beeboid’ put in a brief appearance the other day, but despite the fact that he was defending the Beeb, as soon as he feared he was identifiable, he withdrew. That was his excuse; no doubt he’ll stick to it.
Martin Belam’s blog, a bit out of date, also had:
“Nick Reynolds says he is still trying to work out who ‘John Reith’ is, and that:
“He’s an ambassador for the BBC, a real champion. Yet he must feel that if he uses his real name he will get into trouble. It’s a terrible indictment of the BBC’s culture that someone supporting the organisation so well can’t use their real name” […………] “And it is all very well [….] the BBC espousing a culture of engagement and dialogue with the audience, but if the message coming from the top, in the shape of the chair of the BBC Trust, is that BBC staff should not discuss the BBC in public, then you can understand that reluctance to be ‘named and shamed’ even more.”
BBC staff should not discuss the BBC in public?
What is the thinking behind this secrecy? Have they signed the official secrets act? Why does a public organisation funded by the public need the protection of secrecy? I thought transparency and accountability were the order of the day and were currently considered the most essential ingredients in the recipe for dishing up respectability.
The BBC uses the freedom of information act when it suits them. Imaginatively, they employ it not only to reveal information, but also to suppress it. Nice to know their creativity is put to more compelling use than just wasting it on devising fabulous programmes.
What precious things, in their policy-making, must they hide?
An individual Beeboid who might secretly have doubts about the BBC’s impartiality might wish to hide his/her identity in case rebelliousness and disloyalty to their employer might earn them a black mark. They might be sent to Coventry, or get the old heave-ho. But that doesn’t sound very liberal or democratic. Sounds a bit totalitarian. A bit ungay. Surely not at all the image the BBC wishes to project.
If it’s really a deliberate attempt to conceal dodgy policy, then even if we never get to see the Balen report, there should be another one commissioned. So much more has happened since then, too.
Come late in the discussion here but was totally disgusted (as per usual) with radio one and its news / propaganda about Karadzic and his actions carried out in a torn region due to what? (multicultral enrichment by chance)
There are three sides to an argument side a side b and the truth! I woould love for the bbc to move and live in the lands of their favorite religion. What made me really upset is not the crap reporting with no historical reference but they had no problem calling him a murderer and terrorist. why not a freedom fighter, militant or activist! The nerve straight afterwards the report on the out of control bulldozer (2nd in a few weeks I think) by a person running amock in a certain middle east area where some people died (oh well)
“The URL contained a malformed video ID.” Proof positive?
Martin I don’t know what Gallowy’s wording was since I was reading it 2nd hand but he was calling, in Parliament, for intervention. I doubt if he was being specific whether it were done under NATO or UN or EU flag & I don’t think it matters much. He was wrong that time & right to denounce the bombing on behalf of the KLA. But the former did make him look a little silly doing the latter. On the other hand what politician hasn’t indulged in such hypocrisy.
Rapture the problem is that the BBC lied, quite deliberately from the start of the Yugoslav wars & are still doing so. For example throughout the Bosnian fighting they said the Molsem leader was a “moderate minded Moslem committed to a multicultural Bosnia”> The dogs in the street knew that he was a former Naz, an auxiliary in the Handzar SS division, not one of the more moderate SS divisions, & that he had publicly called for the genocide of all non-Moslem communities in Bosnia (& probably worldwide). There is no way that the BBC did not know they were lying to assist in genocide.
Equally there really was a moderate multiculturalist fre market Moslem leader, Fikret Abdic, running the Bihac area of Bosnia & trying to prevent our al Quaeda friends press ganging locals. He became, in an entirely Orwellian way, an unperson (the BBC refused even to mention his name. He is currently serving 20 years for the war crime of opposing al Quaeda prematurely.
I submit that if the BBC & the rest of the media, hadn’t deliberately lied & censored for 18 years there is absolutely no way the British people, whio are decent when we know the facts, would have stood for our bombers bombing to help Nazis, drug dealers & child sex slavers (the KLA particularly for the last 2) commit genocide. They have much blood on their hands.
Just recently the BBC have been censoring the fact that the “prosecutor” del Ponte has known for 8 years that the KLA have been kidnapping teenagers, disecting them & selling the body parts to western hospitals. As an obscenity that rivals much of what Hitler did & exceeds Mugabe. The decision not to report this could not possibly have ben done on news values & is therefore unambigous censorship for the purpose of assisting in genocide.
What a classic from Michael Prick on Newsnight. He’s up in Glasgow (any change the pillock could stay there BBC?) and guess what? Yep he finally started to mention the allegations about why David Marshall resigned.
Wow. The night before the by-election that pillock finally mentions it despite these allegations being out there for weeks. Why no Newsnight special on this?
Caroline Spelman gets the full monty from the BBC, yet they give a Nu Labour failure an easy ride.
Neil Craig: Galloway usually objects to the UK and USA getting involved in these foreign interventions.
Funny though that Galloway attacks the USA for being slow to get involved in WW1 and WW2.
The man is a prick of the first degree. No wonder he’s loved by the BBC.
Hi Notasheep,
You are right, the link does not work.
If you go to youtube directly and search for “8 out of 10 cats” you should find it. The broadcast you want is called:
“8 Out Of 10 Cats 6×06 part 2” added July 19 2008.
If you forward to 3:15 minutes you will not have wasted your time.
Alternatively, try to copy the complete link into your browser.
Hi Notasheep,
As it happens, the link above seems to work now.
Hi Martin,
Are you really saying that Galloway is loved by the BBC? If so, what makes you think that?
gus:
Anybody know the Muslim adult population of the U.K.?
Not personally, thank God.
“…Anybody know the Muslim adult population of the U.K.?…”
Well if this spineless bunch of twats called Nu Liebour got their finger out on deporting scumbags, it would be a lot less than it is now.
Galloway is a a regular on Questiontime and any other BBC programme where they need a left wing loon.
In fairness, since Livingstone got the boot, he’s taken over as the BBC’s favourite commie bastard.
BBC headline:
“Swiss protest Libyan ‘reprisals'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522549.stm
‘New English Review’ headline:
“Hannibal has a bit of a temper but, so does his Father”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/16107
Isn’t it funny that mark Easton highlights the PRCS (Police Recorded Crime Statistics) when it s low – but when they do not fit in with his agenda he quotes the BCS. As we know they are both flawed – but no for him.
“Take knife crime for example; based on the PRCS report, around 22,000 incidents were recorded, however based on the BCS survey, the figure is estimated at around 130,000 incidents …a variation of a mere 108,000 between the two results!”
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm#Statistics%20-%20the%20%20numbers
Hi Martin
What is your definition of “regular on Question Time”? When was he last on?
What other programs is Galloway invited to and how often?
Hi Jon,
You quote:
“Take knife crime for example; based on the PRCS report, around 22,000 incidents were recorded, however based on the BCS survey, the figure is estimated at around 130,000 incidents …a variation of a mere 108,000 between the two results!”
Well, seems that your source does not really understand how research works.
One figure is reported crime, the other one comes from a survey, i.e. including all crime reported by respondents in that survey. Naturally, one would expect the BCS number to be higher the PRCS one.
What one could take away from the above comparison is that only 1 in 6 knife crimes get reported to the police.
“Well, seems that your source does not really understand how research works.”
The article goes on to say
“Inevitably, both figures are inaccurate, as it is widely recognised that there are shortcomings with the compilation of both sets of figures,”
The point I was making is that if you pick and choose which statistics to use (as the BBC does) then you can make them say almost anything you like.
Hi Jon,
Not sure why you think that both figures are inaccurate? The PRC one seems to state reported crime and the BCS is based on a survey.
Naturally, the BCS figure is an approximation, since no one knows exactly the real number of crime in the UK. However, the figure is better than having no handle on the extent of crime.
Sure BMRB will report confidence intervalls and sampling errors somewhere, so you could get a better feel for the likely variation around the quoted numbers.
In terms of the BBC misrepresenting the numbers, you may be right. Do you have an example handy?
Well you could look at this
“Department of Health figures for England showed that when deaths from cancer, heart disease and strokes were taken into account the total topped 800,000 last year. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7518843.stm
This was the piece on alcohol – I’m not sure what they are saying – but it sounds like 800,000 people died last year from these diseases but they were also linked to alcohol.
But in 2007 “there were 504,052 deaths registered in England and Wales, ”
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
Even if you take off the 200,000 that may represent hospital admissions from alcohol related illness – the figure added for “deaths from cancer, heart disease and strokes” must be 600,000, which does not include Wales.
It just doesn’t add up.
There is now overwhelming evidence that the claim of man-made global warming is indeed a swindle • not least the fact that, despite the continuing rise in carbon dioxide, the climate has not warmed for the past ten years and indeed has even cooled for the past five. This is an inconvenient truth which was never forseen by those latter-day seers, the computer modellers who gave us Kyoto on the basis that they could predict the climate’s future; and it also suggests that even if the world’s ice is melting year by year at an unprecedented and otherwise inexplicable rate (in itself untrue) a warming climate demonstrably cannot be the cause.
Numerous reputations • of those indeed who still cling to that infamous ‘consensus’ • are now set to go down the pan. No wonder the stakes were so high for them over the Channel Four programme. But it’s all too late. The carbon cat is out of the bag. The economy of the developed world has been distorted with food prices going through the roof, while good people have been vilified, their professional reputations trashed and their careers jeopardised — all in the cause of a quasi-religious inquisition which it becomes ever clearer has as much basis in actual science as the drowning of witches in the Middle Ages. These people should never be trusted on anything ever again. We must not let them get away with it.
Bastard BBC, hang your head in shame.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/850566/an-inconvenient-ruling.thtml
I joined the panel on the BBC Radio programme Any Questions? in Eccles last week, with Jonathan Dimbleby. Chatting afterwards with members of the audience I found myself faced again, as always after broadcasts of Any Questions? (or its television equivalent, Question Time) with the question that people always ask: “How long in advance do you get notice of the questions?”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4386214.ece
what do u do if u see a beeboid drowning?
throw its producer and reseacher in as well or take your foot of its head
Scientists couldn’t even predict the freak wave, never mind globul warming.
New years day 1995 before they got a cloo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave
Then the “scientists” expect us to believe their predictions on the atmosphere, a subject that makes water waves look no more difficult than lottery balls.
@ Sean Preston
Re: coverage of Pope in Aus, World Youth Jamboree.
Yes I agree that the BBC’s coverage of this has been negative at best. Mostly framed thru the prism of the sex abuse scandals coming to light in recent years. If I only relied on the BBC’s output I would think that the sole reason for the Pope’s visit was connected with the sex abuse incidents.
Coverage here in NZ has been much more favourable – even upbeat. Focusing on people travelling from here to join the celebrations.
The current Pope seems less charismatic than the last – but he still seems to energise catholics wherever he goes. It’s hard to picture the Archbishop of Canterbury energising anything at all.
My apologies it was indeed Sean Locke not Frankie Boyle. However as Sean Locke is on BBC “comedy” shows almost as often as Frankie Boyle, my point still holds. Maybe the next time Sean Locke appears as a pannelist on QI Stephen Fry could discuss Sean Locke’s wish for Lady Thatcher to fired from a cannon onto the walls of Buckingham Palace so she just “splats”.
I have drawn two conclusions from this affair: first that Mrs NotaSheep and myself watch too many TV comedy panel shows and second that there are too many left-wing comedians happy to get a cheap laugh with easy “shock” jokes.