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.
The Green Party peddles stupid lies about climate change and economics, and wants to push us back to the stone age in its inane, insane support for ‘renewable energy’ at the expense of all else.
Why, then, does the Today programme give its strident, immoderate leader Caroline Lucas abundant and unmoderated airtime to push her moonshine? This morning she was there with a genuine expert on nuclear power, rubbishing everything he said, without a shred of evidence.
Ed Stourton – normally quite a resonable interviewer – let her get away with blue murder, and made no effort to skewer her stupid argument that nuclear waste is so dangerous that nuclear plants should not be built.
Other minority parties like the Greenies – such as UKIP (which has far more seats in the European Parliament) – get virtually no airtime. But Lucas and her lefty- stupid minions are there day in and day out. Appalling.
BBC Breakfast News goes looking for a disgruntled Labour voting family with the potential to vote away from Labour as a protest come the next election.
With the Tories on 52% and the Lib Dems on 12% who do the BBC manage to find to interview?
Why, a couple who will vote for the Lib Dems come the next election of course! Who’d have thought it.
CIVIL WAR – remember when that was the BBC’s daily prediction about Iraq?
Well, making sure you hear about it from them first, “Today” has just mentioned it – to put it into debate, but then downplay it – in connection with Pakistan, with the USA being the cause.
Another swipe at Palin by the BBC’s North America editor Ethan S Webb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/09/should_mccain_have_picked_romn.html
Robin | 23.09.08 – 8:13 am | #
Interesting how a heretic from the standard green party line (in this case the story was about a green campaigner who supports nuclear energy) doesn’t get the interview to himself but has to share it with Caroline Lucas.
Remind me, do proponents of global warming (or whatever it’s called today) always have to share the interview with a “denier”?
The BBC politics website this morning is a totally Tory free zone, this must be a record for this unbiassed corporation, Has Brown finally airbrushed all the opposition?
Richard Littlejohn speaks out, while the BBC still censors, on:
VAZ – MIRESKANDARI – DIZAEI.
“These spivs have brought us the morality of the souk”
[Extract]:
“All you need to know about politicians is that Keith Vaz is described as ‘The Right Honourable’. That he is also chairman of the House of Commons home affairs select committee is a disgrace.
“Vaz is a liar who was suspended from Parliament for a month for giving ‘misleading’ and ‘disingenuous’ evidence to the official inquiry into the Hinduja ‘cash for passports’ affair.
“That alone should have been enough to disqualify him from sitting as an MP and ensure that he never held any kind of high office.” (LITTLEJOHN).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059963/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-These-spivs-brought-morality-souk.html
BBC-W are running the predictable justification for a palestinian mowing down a group of Israelis, the reporter said “the man may well have felt frustration at the way the peace process was going” Oooh so thats all right then, feel a bit frustrated? Yeah, then mow down some people with a car! Simple innit? Perfectly acceptable in the beeboid mind!
I wonder if the BBC would show the same sympathy for a BNP member doing the same?
Perhaps we should do the same when we are frustrated with BBC bias!
At last, 11 days after blogger, ‘RPK’, was arrested in MALAYSIA, the BBC has its first news web report:
“Malaysia ‘dissident’ blogger jailed”
[Extract]
“A prominent anti-government blogger in Malaysia has been detained for two years on charges of insulting Islam.
“Raja Petra Kamarudin [‘RPK’] has been held without trial under controversial internal security laws which could see him detained indefinitely.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7630789.stm
Anyone concerned about the Malaysia’s governmental tyranny in this and related matters, can consult the website: ‘Pedestrian Infidel’, and e.g., the two articles on ‘RPK’ here:
1.) “Malaysia arrest top blogger RPK to ‘defend Islam'”
[Extract]:
“The government of Muslim-ruled Malaysia has arrested and detained Malaysia’s top blogger, writer and political activist Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK), founder of the hugely popular (and until recently blocked) anti-government website Malaysia Today. RPK’s arrest and detainment is under Malaysia’s barbarous ISA law (Internal Security Act), which allows for anyone to be detained indefinitely without appeal and without charge, trial, or legal representation.”
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/09/malaysia-arrests-top-blogger-rpk-to.html
2.) “When bloggers are treated like terrorists”
[Extract]:
“For any country that accepts Muslims in large numbers, this is the sort of government that you will have in store. A government that suppresses dissent, treats peaceful men like criminals and terrorists, and is hostile to freedom, tolerance, and human rights.
And remember, Malaysia is merely among the ‘least worst’ of the Muslim states.”
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-bloggers-are-treated-like.html
Perhaps we should do the same when we are frustrated with BBC bias!
Cassandra | 23.09.08 – 9:37 am |
Perhaps the young man rammed his BMW into the group because of a romantic disappointment?
Jersualaem Post
Perhaps the BBC was jumping to conclusions?
The attack came only hours after Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accepted an invitation from the president to form a new government.
The request followed the resignation on Sunday of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who faces several corruption inquiries.
Is there a connection between the events in the Israel government and the terrorist attack? Was Qassem al-Mughrabi frustrated by corruption and disorder in the Knesset? If not, why is this comment in the report at all?
Given this news:
“BA halts flights after hotel bomb”
[Extract]:
“British Airways has suspended ‘indefinitely’ flights to and from Pakistan in the wake of a bomb attack on a hotel in the capital, Islamabad.
“The airline said it had suspended its six weekly Heathrow services ‘in light of the current security situation”‘. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7630822.stm
– the Labour government, if it wants to take some practical security measure today, should ban all flights between Pakistan and the UK.
Hugh Fitzgerald has an idea, arising from the US context:
“Fitzgerald: Needed – A Muslims-only Airline”
[Extract]:
“..perhaps a ‘Muslims-only’ airline should be established — Muslims-only except for the pilots, lest the plane head you-know-where — and with a locked cabin, and possibly armed guards every few feet. Then Muslims can travel on that airline (oh, it can be a very big airline) and on no other. There would still be a security problem on other airlines for non-Muslims, for there will still be Muslim terrorists acting on the tenets of Islam as they not unreasonably interpret them, to conduct the Jihad by ‘striking terror’ in the hearts of the enemy. But millions if not billions of man-hours in security-checks that are needless, would be saved each year, and in other ways also this would be a good solution. Islam divides the world between Believer and Infidel. As there is nothing that can be done to Islam (the canonical texts are immutable, and the gates of ijtihad slammed shut a thousand years ago, and self-dramatizing Irshad Manji is not about to swing them open), then Infidels, too, should come to regard the world as divided in this way. The world’s main division is now that between Believer (Muslim) and Infidel (non-Muslim). That makes a lot of sense. It helps clear the mental air. It makes a policy of self-defense against the Jihad much more possible. No more worries over what constitutes a ‘moderate’ Muslim or how to keep a ‘moderate’ safely and forever ‘moderate,’ or how to make sure that the ‘moderate’ Muslim’s children do not turn out, for on reason or another, to be ‘immoderate’ (like some of those London bombers). No: Infidel and Muslim.
“That’s what they believe. That’s what they think. That’s what many of them have acted upon in dar al-Islam, over a very long period, and given half a chance, that’s exactly how they would act in what, for now, is still the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels.
“So we should believe, and distinguish, in precisely the same way. It’s the only way to protect ourselves.” (Hugh Fitzgerald).
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/017937.php
DB
I had also posted that ridiculous new piece at Justin Webb’s blog. The latest in a series that try to knwck or demean Palin.
He really can’t get his silly mind round Palin. He is saying she is a liability – on the weekend that she pulled a crowd of 60,000 to a meeting in Florida.
He is a fool anyway, but will look an even bigger fool as Palin’s bamdwagon rolls on – for instance McCain and Palin pulled a crowd in Green Bay that was twice the size of Obama’s crowd a few days earlier. (Forget Biden – people pay him to stay away >)
Obama still has to devote time to fundraising. Palin and McCain have all their time free to campaign – especially in the battlegound states.
robin
It’s instructive that the lies of Greenpeace and the whole “green energy” charade only get a (partial) airing on the BBC when a loony with impeccably green credentials can’t swallow all the green crap. I’m sure you’ll have noticed that Lynas did not contradict the BBC line on MMGW: his only point was that because (according to him) nuclear may be the only way of restricting “2 billion tons” of carbon emission it’s acceptable. The rest of the nonsense spewed by the Church of Man Made Climate Change was completely ignored.
Ed was his usual emollient self, figuratively bowing to the high clerics of the CMMCM. Such was Ed’s deference they might as well have been representatives of the BBC’s other favourite minority religion.
While the large contingent of BBC ‘reporters’ attend the Labour Party Conference, protected by a high security police cordon, perhaps one of them could report this story, which is of more than local significance. Currently, the London ‘Evening Standard’ has it, but the BBC doesn’t:
“Trial for three on terror charges”
[Extract]:
“A 33-year-old man charged with directing terrorism is going on trial.
Raingzieb Ahmed, 33, of Fallowfield, Manchester, is also accused of being a member of al Qaida.
The defendant and two others face a number of terror-related charges in the hearing at Manchester Crown Court.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23558935-details/Trial+for+three+on+terror+charges/article.do
The BBC is doing a Panorama special on David Cameron on Monday to coincide with the opening of the Conservative Party Conference.
1)Could anyone remind me when it last did an investigative programme of any description on Gordon Brown?
2) Would anyone care to take me on for a £5 bet that this will be hagiographic?
Sombre dispatch from Helmand…
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
I was abroad recently & had the dubious pleasure of tuning in to the BBC World Service who referred to the perpetrators of the Marriott Hotel bombing as “militants”. I thought that “militants” attacked “military” targets. Surely “terrorists” were behind this attack on civilians in a hotel?
Robin:
They are also antisemitic.
H Green:
Been discussed on another thread. The BBC have never met a Nazi terrorist they disliked.
Good news – Jane Tranter, responsible for commissioning politically motivated dross such as Burn Up and Bonekickers, is going to America.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/22/janetranter.bbc
Talk about wasting taxpayers’ cash … why is al-beeb sending ‘reporters’ to the US? Surely it would be more cost effective to pay and use Americans who are by definition, shall we say, slightly better informed than the usual beeboid ignoramuses. Oh, just answered my own question — they send them to better slag off America! All I want is facts from my state funded ‘service’. Could anyone tell me why one Justin Webb, whose very voice exudes hatred of his subjects, is there at all? There I go again answering my own question!
If anyone’s interested, Fraser Nelson is live-blogging Mr. Brown’s speech right now over at the Speccie.
It’s been amusing so far and Mr. Brown hasn’t said a word yet. Apparently they showed a film montage that celebrated how successful Labour have been since they’ve been in power. I guess everyone is supposed to ignore the fact that Tony Blair ran the show during that time and pretend that it was all Mr. Brown’s doing. Then his wife introduced him, and he gave her a big kiss.
So it looks like the nefarious influence of US stump speech tricks has intruded even here.
Ctesibius | 23.09.08 – 12:45 pm:
Talking of hagiographies and hagiographers, here’s a revealing admission from 1999, by Paul Routledge in the New Statesman:
New baby notwithstanding, life is not exactly plain sailing in Downing Street. Bill Bush, former head of political research at the BBC, who perhaps unwisely accepted the new Labour shilling (or many thousands of them), is unhappy about his obscure new role as Tony Blair’s adviser. He moans to friends that he is lucky if he gets ten minutes a week with the great helmsman, which is not enough to make the right impact. Careful, Bill.
Perhaps he should observe the fate of Jon Sopel, quondam hagiographer of the Prime Minister who has been disappeared to Paris by the BBC. His affection for No 10 could not be questioned.
When even leftwing journalists are driven to openly mock the Beeb’s news reporters over their Labour sympathies, you can take it as read it’s got pretty bad.
“Why is al-beeb sending ‘reporters’ to the US? Surely it would be more cost effective to pay and use Americans”
There may be some sinister motive but the more banal one is the same as why they don’t use Brummies or residents of the “Garden of England” much. People find the accent really annoying.
Terrifying Brown soundbite repeated: ‘child-care for TWO-YEAR-OLDS’.
There’s nothing on BBC news website to question or criticise the impact of this on the emotional lives of such two-year-olds, but the ‘Evening News’ has this:
“Nursery for two-year-olds ‘will harm toddlers'”
The appropriately named Dr. House, child psychologist of Roehampton University said:
‘”Two-year-old children were very recently babies. There are concerns about very young children like that being separated from their parents.”
‘Dr House said the risk of the Prime Minister’s plan was that children would become “institutionalised” from an early age.
‘”In this first couple of years the parent-child relationships are absolutely vital,” he said. “That is when a parent and child really get to know each other.
‘”If that is disrupted, one of the great concerns is that when the children get to eight, 10 or 12 they are not going to have that foundation. There will be children not getting on with their parents or turning delinquent.”‘
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23558627-details/Nursery+for+two-year-olds+'will+harm+toddlers'/article.do
BBC World is banging on again about the constituent parts of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Last night they had that turd Malloch-Brown on pushing the same theme, that being that Africa should have a permanent member on the Security Council as should the Middle East.
Well I’m certainly with the latter part providing it was Israel.
Seriously though could you have imagined a Security Council with that idiotic little macaque Mbeki on it.
BBC be careful what you wish for.
The bottom line could be that the two major contributors, the US and Japan could well cease funding. Would the demise of the UN be a catastophe. Hardly.
Malloch-Brown always reminds me of the corrupt labour politician Peter Hain.
People find the accent really annoying
American accents from the USA are ‘annoying’? CRAP.
House said the risk of the Prime Minister’s plan was that children would become “institutionalised” from an early age
Quite so. This is not so much a ‘plan’ as the usual demented micromanagement – aka fascism – that is the hallmark of this asshole.
When even leftwing journalists are driven to openly mock the Beeb’s news reporters over their Labour sympathies, you can take it as read it’s got pretty bad.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 23.09.08 – 3:13 pm
As Routledge is/was Brown’s biggest cheerleader, perhaps he was mainly driven by a desire to belittle Blair (to Brown’s advantage)rather than the journalists.
RE: Stephen Nolan’s defense of the BBC against caller complaints about “Breakout”
Nolan just said it doesn’t matter what the programme said or did, as the events happened a long time ago. “There’s been a lot of water under the bridge.” As if that’s a defense against bias.
Worse, he said that the BBC was not biased or refusing to tell the truth about the event, because the caller was allowed to give his view on the radio this morning. That was his defense.
Whether or not the show was biased in favor of the IRA or not, Nolan is really bad.
Brown (whom even Blears decribed over the weekend as not ’emotionally intelligent’,wants state-financed child-care for two-year-olds;
-why not state-financed child-care for one-year olds?
-why not state-financed child-care from birth?
-why not state-financed conception?
(If Cameron has any sense he will offer extra benefits to parents who stay home to look after their two-year-olds.)
A comment on child-care for two-year-olds:
“Not all toddlers belong in the nursery” (Catherine Ostler).
[Extract]:
“Gordon Brown has extended his work ethic to those lazy small people who hang around at home all day wearing nappies and thinking about where the next snack’s coming from. It’s time two-year-olds did something productive with their mornings.
“By offering to pay for 15 hours’ nursery a week for the under-threes, the PM wants to expand their horizons and diminish their sense of entitlement. A billion pounds thrown at tots will, he tells us, transform their performance at school and in society.
“…Two is a notoriously difficult age for children because reason has not yet kicked in. At two, a child is not potty-trained, probably has no ‘why’, or ‘because’; no future tense, and therefore no way of preparing for such a seismic change as spending 15 hours a week among strangers. The more resilient — usually the chattier, more organised little girls — might be fine. But the less confident will flounder. And then, what will teachers say to parents who now think that education for two-year-olds is the optimal solution for all?”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23558926-details/Not+all+toddlers+belong+in+the+nursery/article.do
No doubt Rachel Harvey will see this as further proof that Joe Biden has “hardly put a foot wrong” and “raised his media profile again”.
All your babies belong to the State.
The BBC (‘The Editors’) has plenty on why it reported a ‘Heseltine moment’, and NOTHING on why it doesn’t report on VAZ:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
Meanwhile, on Radio 4’s Law In Action, we have just had to endure some halfwit trying to prove that the British legal system was based on Islamic Law, transmitted to this country either by the Knights Templar (the source of so many crackpot theories) or the Normans, who had learned from it in Sicily (don’t ask).
Having failed to establish anything of the sort, the hapless polemicist was allowed to finish his report with the bizarre statement that having established a connection (in spirit, as it were if not in fact) he could see why Moslems were so upset when Sharia law being incorporated into British law caused so much upset.
After all, they had ‘sophisticated’ Sharia law, while Britian still used trial by ordeal.
Indeed. And they still chop people’s heads and limbs off, stone them to death or bury them alive under this ‘sophisticated’ legal system.
Thus is our licence fee spent by the Gramscians at the BBC, busily cutting the ground from beneath our very feet, in favour of barbaric invaders. In essence, using Islam as a tool with which to destroy our society.
The BBC has finally gotten around to releasing a little more information about the hacker (singular) who broke into Gov. Palin’s personal email. They have even gone so far as to admit that he’s the son of a Democratic politician. They also finally dropped the allusion to an abuse of power investigation against her, which has been basically a dead story for at least a week. So full marks to them for a change.
However, they lose all those points because, for one thing, the rest of the article still portrays this as a group effort, and just the one kid is being investigated. It wasn’t. The lone kid did this on his own, and then posted his info on the hacker forum. It was only then that the group started screwing with the account enough to raise the red flag and get it shut down. That’s when the story started. So long as they portray this as a group effort, that distances the attack from a Democrat (I repeat my belief that the father had nothing to do with this, but he clearly created a nasty political attitude in his household which gave his son ideas). Clearly the kid is a Democrat, and isn’t exactly estranged from his father.
But the real problem is still there: the BBC continues to provide justification for the attack by putting it in the context of “questions were asked” about Gov. Palin’s use of personal email for government business. (I’m pretending for the sake of argument that this is a serious offense.)
These “questions”, about which the BBC feels compelled to remind you, are nothing more than rumors. There is no official investigation. The BBC is creating a situation where in truth there is none.
And if the BBC isn’t attempting to tacitly justify the hacker attack by framing it in the context of these “questions”, why have they been afraid to print the words of the hacker himself:
I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family
I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this shit ever got to the FBI I was fucked, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapidshit all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state
The above from the Wired article I’ve linked to before.
The BBC refuses to report on the hacker’s publicly stated intent: to bring down a political enemy. As long as they hide this, the reader can be forgiven for thinking it’s just regular hacking done for the sake of it. It’s just what hackers do, no political connection. Unfortunately for the BBC, once again it took a huge amount of reality to force them to begin to admit a little bit of the truth.
Stephen Nolan is an ass. He just came back from a news break with a statement that the BBC is not biased. His proof: callers are allowed to express their alternative viewpoints on air.
In other words, regardless of whatever position the BBC takes, so long as people are allowed to voice their complaints the BBC isn’t biased. Nolan spent quite a bit of time in the last 45 minutes basically saying it was okay that Breakout gave the IRA point of view, and allowing that isn’t evidence of bias. They can’t please everyone, he says. The BBC should be allowed to do programmes on all points of view, he says, and they’re not biased because they’re allowing you to phone in your complaint.
WTF?
Which is a lie, anyway. It is perfectly clear that the BBC ruthlessly censors its feedback areas so as to favour the opinions of which it approves, and discriminate against those which it does not.
The BBC’s support for ‘climate change’ alarmism permeates everything they do. I’ve just done some digging on the website, and there is clear proof that this is the case in a series of so-called ‘opinion’ pieces in a section called the ‘Green Room’.
The archive shows that week in , week out, climate change fanatics are allowed to spout their greenie nonsense about the causes of the world’s woes. One nutter this week argues that proof of global warming was the ‘impacts’ of hurricane Katrina. That’s the general level of the contributors’ approach – and all of them want to punish the US (for not accepting Kyoto), introduce savage new taxes, and reverse the industrial revolution so that the world is ‘green’ again.
I looked hard to see if there were any dissenters…and of course, there are none.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7621507.stm
GCooper | 23.09.08 – 5:04 pm |
It is perfectly clear that the BBC ruthlessly censors its feedback areas so as to favour the opinions of which it approves, and discriminate against those which it does not.
Well, Nolan was certainly discriminating against them today. He’s basically saying that someone’s opinion about bias is worthless because the BBC is letting it on the air. If only the HYS mods felt the same way….
David Preiser:
A week ago I asked people to look out for the allegation (repeated over and over by the BBC) about the “investigation” in Alaska about Sarah Palin’s “abuse of power.” I’m glad that’s now off their agenda. Would it be too much to assume that official Beeboids (“YQA” for example) are reading this blog.
If so, they should know that when John McCain wins this election (a miracle considering he’s running against the Democrats, the World and Big Media) the Laurel and Hardy of the BBC America, Webb and Frei will be called to account.
But I guess by then they’ll have taken their condescending little arses back to the UK and the safety of the BBC television newsroom.
PS
In her web piece late last week, Rachel Harvey swooned that Joe Biden “was meant to be the reassuring older hand helping to guide the charismatic presidential challenger safely towards the White House.”
She should read this that Michelle Makin posted a couple of hours ago titled “The Gaffe Twins Strike Again”. So much for the “reassuring older hand”.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/23/the-gaffe-twins-strike-again/
John Bosworth | 23.09.08 – 5:37 pm |
We’ll never know for sure if any lurking Beeboids sent a note to their colleagues about anything posted here, at least nothing constructive. We do know they turn their noses up at the blog because of the odd homophobic remark, as a News Online Beeboid did make that exact comment here a couple of months ago.
Other than that I can’t say who reads what when, or if any of them care (besides Sarah Jane). I don’ t think this blog has really been on their radar at all since last year, when Martin Belam mentioned it in their in-house rag. We do know that complaints to the BBC which were encouraged or inspired by this blog on specific issues have gotten results on a couple of occasions. That’s got to be worth something.
I have no idea if Frei or Webb will still be around in November, or if Matty will have been promoted upstairs to the Mother Ship for his stellar work on BBC World Propaganda America.
But I’m sure they don’t fear any repercussion, because they think they’re reaching out to the smart, suave, citizens-of-the-world New York Times audience, who are all fellow travelers. I’d be surprised if anyone objects to their bias besides myself and any other viewers who comment here about them. Encouraged, yes, but also surprised.
Why not have babies owned by the state from conception?
David Preisser USA
A quick historical note. In “my day” the BBC was plagued by an internal satirical magazine modeled on their in-house “Ariel” and called “Urinal”. It was smart, sharp and funny, the content was in many ways very much like this blog, but it was written by dissenting producers and researches.
It was stopped dead after a few months and action taken against the writers.
Now we know what would happen to B-BBC if Beeboids had their way. “Resistance is futile”. (I always thought John Birt looked a bit like a Borg.)
John Bosworth | 23.09.08 – 5:53 pm
I noted that too ( DB | 23.09.08 – 4:47 pm). I also emailed the Michelle Malkin link to Rachel Harvey with the following explanation:
For your next pro-Biden article – more evidence that he “has hardly put a foot wrong” and “raised his media profile again”.
John Bosworth | 23.09.08 – 6:13 pm |
Now we know what would happen to B-BBC if Beeboids had their way. “Resistance is futile”. (I always thought John Birt looked a bit like a Borg.)
But Stephen Nolan told us earlier today that the BBC isn’t biased because it airs phoned in complaints.
Maybe somebody should start up a little newsletter along the lines of “Urinal”, from the outside, and leave a few stacks around various BBC offices for them to find. Put in an anonymous contact email or something so that actual dissenting Beeboids can send in tips or complaints about their editors and producers. Sort of a Private Eye aimed at the BBC.
If there are any sympathetic insiders, they can contribute anonymously, and with impunity.
And I like the Borg angle.
The bBC, a terrorist can only be a victim and half the story.
Jerusalem crash ‘not deliberate’
Relatives of a Palestinian who was shot dead after his car ploughed into a group of Israelis at a bus stop have denied it was a deliberate attack. Nineteen people, mostly soldiers, were treated for light or moderate wounds in the incident in central Jerusalem. Off duty soldiers shot the 19-year-old driver, in what Israeli police have said was an attack. “My son was murdered, they killed him. He did not carry out a terrorist attack” said the driver’s father.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7631693.stm
Yet again the bBC excuses terrorist attack by blaming the victim. I mean under the main photo for that article the bBC quotes the following in which to send its polarized message.
“The family claim the 19-year-old driver was murdered by Israelis”
They then quote the father;
“”This was a car accident. The car stopped after hitting a wall. Why did they kill him?”
So lets look at that wall which the father (And the BBC use) uses as an excuse.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45470,features,palestinian-killed-in-jerusalem-crash,1
Some wall more like the side of a huge building. A solid building at that.
And here is what the bBC isn’t telling you;
The terrorist who rammed his BMW into a group of soldiers at a central Jerusalem thoroughfare late Monday was a member of Hamas, according to the Palestinian Ma’an news agency. East Jerusalem terrorist shot dead after ramming car into IDF soldiers Qassem Mughrabi, 19, from east Jerusalem’s Jebl Mukaber, the same village that was home to the Mercaz Harav terrorist who killed eight students in March, wounded fifteen people before being shot dead by an off-duty IDF officer. The assailant had no previous security record, police said Tuesday. The 19-year-old had wanted to marry his cousin, and when she refused his offer, he decided to carry out a terror attack, Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1222017359506
Seems the bBC has been caught out lying for Ramadan yet again.
The bBC, a terrorist can only be a victim and half the story.
Dopey bitch Joanna Gosling shoveling more shit on news 24. On the US bank bailout, she speaks ot a ‘Democratic Strategist’ “Clearly the Democtats are on the side of the people” she spouts. Why not speak to a Republican as well?
Oh really? I thought it was John McCain who didn’t want this deal to go ahead?
And isn’t it funny that the BBC are trashing this deal, yet think the fat one eyed jock is a hero for doing the same thing over here?
So how many homes has McFatso stopped being re-possessed by using my taxes to bail out Northern Cock? Didn’t the Directors of Northern Cock walk away with millions?
The BBC really is a pile of shit.
the left hates the family because it is the number one barrier to achieving the mythical equality goal.
They will do anything to achieve their agenda.
Ends justify any means.