Just because he always does it…
doesn’t mean it’s not worth pointing out how far Justin Webb’s blog goes in ignoring the BBC’s obligations on impartiality. If the rules really do permit the Beeb’s North American Editor to suggest that Palin would be the number one choice (after McCain) to lead America for those that hate the country, what’s the point of them?
Webb was on Radio 5 earlier spouting his poison abou Palin again and her “statement” on Troopergate.
Well, she did outright lie about what the report said – although it was in a brief shoutout whilst on her way to the plane, so it might have just been a slip. The report said that she abused her power, but did so in a way that was proper and lawful, ie: it wasn’t the right thing to do, but she had the power to do it and broke no laws. She claimed that the report concluded that she did the right thing and broke no laws – a subtle difference.
Surely, Justine Wankstain has got it the wrong way round ?
The enemies of the US will want Obama to win. Iran has already confirmed this.
Putin must be rubbing his hands in anticipation and planning his next move.
As for Al- Qaeda and the Taliban ) sounds like a rock group ), it must feel like party time !
Amazing that they posted the following comment. The moderators must be half-asleep:
82. At 10:47pm on 23 Oct 2008, 60022Mallard wrote:
Justin.
Do tell us if you still think Mrs Palin is a creationist, as you have said many times, or has the Editorial Complaints Unit message now got through to you, and I quote…”AND WE HAVE FOUND NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY MRS PALIN WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY CALLING HER A CREATIONIST. To the extent that Mr Webb’s description went beyond Mrs Palin’s publicly stated position, I believe it was not consistent with the guidelines on on Accuracy… (in particular the requirement that BBC output be “well sourced (and) based on sound evidence”), and I am therefore upholding your complaint. (Ref CT0800225)
To me that just about sums up your reporting. A broadcast apology? I will not hold my breath!
Dunno if 60022Mallard and Gerald Brown are the same person. From the Oct 22 Open Thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1962291575335132882/#426608
I haven’t ploughed through all the comments, but comment no. 60 is also scathingly anti-Webb.
As is this one:
103. At 01:50am on 24 Oct 2008, gtfc2007 wrote:
Justin Webb is a light-weight commentator. BBC need to find someone else to do the America columns.
ipreferred,
Which is it, she either had the power to sack the guy (which btw she didnt sack him) or she doesnt.
The report made it quite clear she had the right and statutory power to fire the guy…BUT…she didnt fire him (the report got it wrong).
The REAL story here is one of democratic abuse of power.
Just to put this in to context, if this was a real court, the trial would have been declared a mistrial as soon as the Judge promised to deliver an October surprise on the 29th.
The report itself is a red hearing. It says she did what was within her powers, then says she was wrong to use those powers? Hang on, you cant have it both ways…she was either within her rights or she wasnt. It really is as simple as that.
You see, this is the story you will never see being reported by the MSM, simply because these guys have invested so much in Obama winning.
Anything that negates that narrative is not aired.
Mailman
Has Justin Webb yet acknowledged the fact that his editorial masters have ruled against him and in favour of Gerald B on the ‘Palin is creationist’ slur?
If he is at all the ‘gentleman’ he affects to be, surely he should issue a public apology and retraction?
…and on the enemies point, he is demonstrably WRONG:
The Guardian is reporting that Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament and a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, has declared Barack Obama the favoured candidate of the Iranian regime
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/10/barack-obama-th.html
Hmmm, the Webb thread is quite interesting in terms of the relaxed moderation style. Here’s the tail end of no. 126:
Justin may have lived on our shores for several years, but he has demonstrated once again that he does not know this country.
And, it appears he has no intention of learning about it further.
More fun to stand on the sideline and sneer, in that particularly charming and poisonous English fashion.
And you, my UK cousins, are forced to pay for him!
No. 187 is also interesting.
mailman:
Whilst one might have the power to fire someone, or to take some other action, it is not necessarily morally or ethically right for you to exercise that power. This is what the report concluded, that she had the power to fire him / get him fired, but the way she went about it was not correct, not in the spirit of her authority. So she did nothing legally wrong, but she still did something wrong.
As an example, as CEO of a company you have the right to fire an employee for not turning up to work. If they didn’t turn up because they rushed to their dying grandma’s side and couldn’t phone in, and you later fired them anyway, you wouldn’t be in the right, you would be a bastard. You’d be within your legal rights to do so however, as the employee also erred by making no attempt to follow the ‘phone in if you’re going to be away’ protocol.
The result of either of these situations is that no law was broken and so no criminal charges can be brought. However, there was other wrong-doing, and a civil case could be brought to court (to sue for damages, for instance).
So Justin Webb doesn’t believe that Obama would do what he promises:
“Obama seems keen to bomb the caves on the Pakistan Afghan border but does anyone really believe he’d do it…?”
Does he think that Obama will say anything to get elected? Has he ever written about the Obama agenda? Is he so blinded by his own truth that he cannot report other people’s? If so, he’s in the wrong job!
To be fair to Justin, I really don’t put any weight behind anything Obama says either. He changes his mind so often it makes you dizzy. So no – I don’t believe he’ll bomb Pakistan. Rather, he’ll probably sit down with Al Qaeda, forgive them for what they’ve been doing since the early nineties and then apologise profusely for provoking them.
Ipreferred,
THe problem for you and the report is that she did NOT fire him.
This is where your problem lies.
Also, who determines what is ethically or morally right? Kinda hard to do when you yourself (the democratic hit team) are both morally and ethically corrupt themselves.
If you have the power to carry out a certain function, one which is enshrined in the law, then it is not morally or ethically wrong to exercise that power.
BTW, why dont we look at what, or who was actually the cause of this “misreport”.
Yes thats right, a guy who threatened to kill someone, was drunk while driving his police car and tazered a child.
Im really not sure what planet you come from BUT what is both morally and ethically wrong is that this guy still has a job as a law enforcement officer!
That, to me, is reason enough to fire the other guy in the first place (for deriliction of duty).
Of course, in reality, the guy was not fired by Palin.
Mailman
Mailman: I’d give up if I were you, we just have another beeboid troll on the loose.
Mailman.
Thank you. You have just answered the question about what the sacked man did to be thought worthy of dismissal.
Strange that I do not ever recall such a succint explanation of the background to the case on the BBC. Have I missed such a report anyone?
Re: Mailman
>The problem for you and the report >is that she did NOT fire him.
No, she doesn’t have the direct power to do so, so she asked someone >ho she had power over, who had the power to fire him, to fire him. The CEO asked HR to file the papers to so speak.
>Also, who determines what is >ethically or morally right? Kinda >hard to do when you yourself (the >democratic hit team) are both >morally and ethically corrupt >themselves.
>If you have the power to carry out a >certain function, one which is >enshrined in the law, then it is not >morally or ethically wrong to >exercise that power.
I believe a team of people (the hit team?) were appointed to decide whether she had broken the law, and whether she was ‘morally or ethically’ right. Now, if they were a Dem hit team, why not say she broke the law? The law is not absolute, it is interpretary, they could have found a way to make a legal case against her if there was one.
As for something being ‘enshrined in law’ making it ethically right, um, are you crazy? It’s the law that you have to pay your TV license if you have a TV or you go to jail. Is that morally or ethically correct? No, it’s a construct of the legal and governmental system we are in.
>That, to me, is reason enough to >fire the other guy in the first >place (for deriliction of duty).
>Of course, in reality, the guy was >not fired by Palin.
I’m not sure which of the allegations were shown to be true about the trooper. Let’s say they all were – he deserved to be fired. However, the way in which he was fired was not the right way. His direct superior should have fired him by his own volition. The allegations against him should have been fully investigated before a decision made. This was not the case.
Ipreffer,
The Public Safety Commissioner is a POLITICAL appointee, appointed (and dismissed) solely at the discretion of the Governer.
Her “right” to fire him is enshrined in the law. Therefore, if she had fired him it CANNOT be morally or ethically wrong for her to exercise her lawful duty.
Wooten, the law enforcement officer, still has his job, even after his public threats to kill members of his ex-wifes family, driving a patrol car while drunk and tazering his nephew.
Even after all of that he only got a 5 day “suspension”. Even then, his union fought for him to be reinstated sooner! Now that sir, is morally and ethically wrong!
Now, show me somewhere in all of the BBC’s reporting that they reported the above in any great detail?
Mailman
The best gathering of information about “troopergate” I have seen can be found at http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/palins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortions-to-the-truth/
And dont even get me started on the circus that was the democratically controlled investigation team (who funnily enough had met several times at Obama’s HQ).
Now, you can cling to the report like a fat chick clinging to a cholocate covered wrapper BUT the fact is, the report wreaks of democratic dirty politics.
As I said earlier, had this been a “real” trial it would have instantly been dismissed as a miss trial as soon as the democratic handler made it known he was going to provide a very damaging report against Palin.
So one really has to ask Ipreffer, why exactly are you holding this report up as something other than what it really is?
Mailman
Mailman:
The allegations you make against the state trooper – I am not sure of the outcomes of those investigations. If they are as bad as you say, then why did he only get a short suspension? If his direct superior was being lenient on him for some reason, then why did Palin not fire the superior? Why did she not fire the trooper directly? Does she have the power to do it directly? I don’t know.
The fact is that if this man is so very bad, then how could he have stayed in his job? There must have been an in-house decision made about his worth, and the conclusion was that keeping him was worth it. Palin then stepped in and forced the decision to be changed.
I am not clinging to the report – it DOES state that she was legally right, but ethically wrong. She went about getting the man fired inappropriately and that was the only point I made in my very first post – she spun the outcome to claim that she was *absolutely* right in an interview, when she was only legally right, with no remorse or afterthought about the ethical implication.
If indeed the ethical accusation was a Dem party ploy – then why make it so weak? Why not absolutely slam her?
The report also says she fired Monagan, which she most certainly did NOT do.
And do you reckon the reason the report is so weak is simply because there isnt actually ANYTHING for the dems to slam her with?
Naw, that couldnt be it could it 🙂
Mailman
This trooper-firing story is so a non-issue. Let’s remember that this is the only thing anybody has found that’s even remotely questionably about Gov. Palin’s professional behavior while in office. She didn’t outright lie about it, she didn’t break any laws, the guy deserved to be fired.
Yet, one of our newest defenders of the indefensible is spending an enormous amount of energy on this non-story, while probably being completely ignorant of the proven fact that The Obamessiah has lied again and again about his connections to ACORN and Bill Ayers. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN, knowing full well that it engages in criminal activity, and continues to do so. He launched his Illinois State Senate campaign from Bill Ayers’s living room, worked with him for years on their Annenberg Foundation program, and lied over and over again about that.
But, hey, let’s drone on and on about that cheap excuse for a mote in Sarah Palin’s eye.
Don’t forget Obama bought land off a convicted criminal as well.
Are you listening, Justin Webb? I’ve found a new source for your Palin Derangement Syndrome. Have you met Megan Burbank? Who?
Megan Burbank writes in the student newspaper at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. (Smith is a woman’s college where “leadership experience in college provides training and encouragement for leadership positions in your life, your community and your profession”) …umm…except if you’re a conservative woman running for vice-president, that is.
“Sarah Palin gives left-leaning feminists a reason to be afraid, to be very afraid. But maybe fear can become a catalyst for keeping Palin out of the White House. Sure, treat yourself to a freak out of epic proportions, plan your escape route to Canada in case the worst does happen, and wear your “Smithies for Obama” T-shirt with pride, but please, please remember to vote on November 4. Sarah Palin scares me enough to think your life just might depend on it.”
http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2008/10/23/Arts/Pop-Rocks.And.Coke-3502657.shtml
Now, Justin, old chap, all you have to do is give those gals at Smith a phone call. They’ll be happy to reinforce your prejudices. You can describe it in your blog as a “groundswell among young women voters”. I know, I know, there are only 2,800 students at Smith but you can pretend they represent millions, can’t you? Fudge the figures, blurr the truth…you know how to do that stuff.
Meanwhile add Alec Baldwin to the small list of people (Camille Paglia, Geraldine Ferraro, Annette Benning) who have declared Sarah Palin to be a person who, though having opposing political views, is deserving of respect. Hey, Megan Burbank, that’s R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Martin,
< sarcasm >
Sure, but Sarah Palin is white and has some Evangelical Christian beliefs. That’s a much graver sin, and of course disqualifies her from holding public office in the minds of Beeboids and their defenders. Oh, and the VP is far, far more important than the President, so that makes it even worse.
< /sarcasm >
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 24.10.08 – 3:54 pm,
Dunno if you have had any luck commenting on Justin Webb’s blog. It seems that people who are not for Obama have been discouraged from commenting there. Looks like at least 80 percent are pro-Obama.
I’ve tried twice to post the following comment. The first time I had some uncomplimentary things re Webb attached to the comment so I removed that the second time, thinking they would post it but they “referred” it to the “moderators” again, which of course is simply their way of saying they are censoring it. Obviously this comment breaks no rules:
Regarding Obama’s past associations, which people here have dismissed as a non-issue without providing any counter-argument, Google Obama in connection with any of the people named below:
*Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
*Acorn
*Khalid al Masouri and Percy Sutton
*Jeremiah Wright
*Raila Odinga
*Louis Farrakhan
*Bill Ayers, along with his wife Bernardine Dohrn, was a 1960s leader of the homegrown terrorist group, the Weathermen, responsible for attacks on government buildings. They are unrepentant. Dohrn expressed satisfaction at the horrific murders of Sharon Tate and others by the drug-crazed Manson gang. Obama had at least an eight-year association with Ayers while serving on the same committee, and Obama’s political career was launched from the Ayers household.
*Acorn – a radical far left group responsible for fraudulent voter registrations, funded by Obama to the tune of close to a million dollars and defended by him in his capacity as a lawyer.
*Khalid al Masouri – an anti-white and anti-Semitic subversive who calls for Muslims to kill whites. Assisted Obama’s entry into Harvard, according to far left lawyer Percy Sutton, who must be telling the truth, of course, since he is a left winger.
*Jeremiah Wright – Barack and Michelle attended his church for twenty years. Wright is an anti-white, racist preacher.
*Raila Odinga – Obama’s cousin and Islamist sympathiser. Incited, or at least did nothing to stop the horrific violence initiated by his supporters when he lost Kenya’s election. Enthusiastically supported, financially and otherwise, by Obama, who went with him on his campaign trail while a US Senator.
*Louis Farrakhan – Nation of Islam subversive and racist. Endorses Obama. Apparently there are friendly links between the two.
I’m not sure whether all that is enough to make you just a little suspicious of Obama. It is enough for me.
But people on this blog would rather rant on about Sarah Palin’s clothes.
Except perhaps the BBC rule of not publishing uncomfortable facts.
However, there are a few BBC blogs where you have a fair chance of being heard. World Have Your Say, thogh still biased, is one of them, perhaps because the moderators are unpaid and also comment on the blog, so it is more informal.
Bryan,
The BBC has banned me from commenting on any of their blogs, as well as HYS. Either my email or IP is blocked or something. I’ve made several attempts to sign in in different ways, and it gets rejected every time. I can’t even register someone else’s valid email from my IP. I can’t re-register from another location with either of my email accounts, because they’re both in the BBC system already.
When I sent a complaint to Newsnight about Greg Palast’s lies, three attempts to send to the Newsnight email listed on the website bounced back. Only when I sent something directly to Meirion Jones did it get through.
I don’t know what that means, exactly, but I don’t believe that the Newsnight complaints email is a dead account.
David Preiser (USA): For some reason the leftist media attack Palin for her religious views in a way they’d NEVER attack a Muslim for example.
Anyone would think Palin was demanding babies be burnt alive for the hatred the left pump out.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 24.10.08 – 5:30 pm,
Weird. If that wasn’t so serious I’d make a joke of it and say you should complain.
Actually you may get though to the one or two people in the whole rotten place who know what journalistic ethics are.
I meant to add that perhaps you should try WHYS. They are on a separate system to the other BBC blogs and, as I mentioned, they are more informal and not so neurotic about contrary oinions:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/10/
This op-ed pice by Gerald Baker in today’s London Times just about sums up the MSM bias (fully supported by the mendacious BBC) about Governor Palin
“It’s hard to make a reasoned and fair judgment about the Alaska Governor because she has been the victim of one of the nastiest, most sustained and comprehensive slime-jobs ever performed by a hyper-partisan national and global media.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article5003165.ece
Martin | 24.10.08 – 5:36 pm |
For some reason the leftist media attack Palin for her religious views in a way they’d NEVER attack a Muslim for example.
Or The Obamessiah, for that matter, who attended a church for 20 years where the preacher taught that Jesus was not a Jew but a black man. Funny how nobody at the BBC ever brings that up. No, for them, religious hatred only goes in one direction.
Arthur Dent | 24.10.08 – 5:43 pm
This op-ed pice by Gerald Baker in today’s London Times just about sums up the MSM bias (fully supported by the mendacious BBC) about Governor Palin
Would that be former BBC Panorama producer Gerard Baker of the London Times?
David Preiser (USA):
You say:
“The BBC has banned me from commenting on any of their blogs, as well as HYS. Either my email or IP is blocked or something. I’ve made several attempts to sign in in different ways, and it gets rejected every time. I can’t even register someone else’s valid email from my IP. I can’t re-register from another location with either of my email accounts, because they’re both in the BBC system already.”
Me too. I used to comment on one of the BBC debate forums BEFORE 9/11 – then there were some Conservatives/Libertarians who were arguing against the welfare state etc etc.
Post 9/11 it got very nasty and I got banned again and again for trying to put the pro-USA case.
I tried again recently to log on – but – no, they’ve obviously got me down as a persona non grata.
“”Sarah Palin gives left-leaning feminists a reason to be afraid, to be very afraid. But maybe fear can become a catalyst for keeping Palin out of the White House.”
“Palin out of the White House”? Megan Burbank appears to be a very dull girl.
To those dissenters who have been banned by DHYS – have you tried using a free program like Tor, which enables you to route your connection through a chain of IPs so you get a different one every time? I used it with great success some time ago when Craigslist banned my IP for my frequent defense of capitalism on one of its forums.
It’s quite easy to set up and use after you read the instructions and I believe there is a Firefox add-on with which you can turn it off and on with a single click.
Don’t let those Marxist bastards at the BBC prevent you from voicing your opinion on a website you pay for.
Oh yes and it’s also worth signing up for a string of free email accounts at Yahoo too. I have had dozens over my years as a career antagonist.
cassis: Yes the BBC do block your IP address. They also use their cookies to block you. If you look at the cookies they put on your machine you will probably find some mention of it.
For example I was banned from the 5 live messageboards. So I cleaned out everything off my computer and registered a NEW account using a dial up modem (as my broadband connection has a fixed IP address that they could block).
To test it out I posted a few messages using the dial up modem which got on the messageboard. But the first time I posted using my broadband connection my account was taken down.
I’d really love to know how much time and effort the BBC waste on blocking people they don’t like.
Here’s a tip BBC. Scrap the TV tax and I won’t bother you again.
Webb is, once again, spot on. Obama talks the talk about fighting terrorists, but will he really bomb the caves on the border?? Of course he won’t. Thank God that Webb is exposing Obama for the coward he is.
On the question of Palin, I really wish McCain hadn’t put her on the ticket. I have heard talk that she is the new Thatcher….she ain’t fit to lick Thatcher’s boots. She is inferior in every way. I fear that she is the GOP’s Blair who will destroy our great party. Is there a way we can get Bush to run for four more years??
“I fear that she is the GOP’s Blair who will destroy our great party. ”
Odd thing to say,former Mayor and now Governor of Alaska,what had Blair done at a similar point in his career.Other than screw Crash Gordon.
Billybob,
The reality is that Palin is the only thing keeping McCain in this game.
Mailman
Mailman: Agreed. The BBC have tried to make out that McCain is just an older George Bush. Facts are that much of the Republican base hates McCain for being ‘liberal’ in their eyes.
That’s why he chose Palin.
The BBC fails to point out that when Bush is SO unpopular and the economy is going down the pan WHY McCain is still so popular with Americans.
Of course Americans have known McCain for 40 years or more. They know he’s not perfect, but they also know he’s not a bullshitting twat either.
When McCain wins the wankstains at the BBC will try to make out that is’s because of white American trash that didn’t like the idea of a black man being President. Truth is, many Americans will vote for McCain because over 40 years he’s always put nation first, something BBC scum wouldn’t understand.
Mailman,
Fair point, but I have to disagree. I think she has really hurt his campaign. If McCain loses this election it will be because of Palin’s incompetence rather than Obama’s ability. IMHO. Perhaps if he had ditched her, we might have a chance. For me, she’s killed any chance we had of getting a strong, patriotic President. What are the odds that she is a liberal plant?
All the polls suggest Palin is now a liability to the GOP ticket. But let’s see. If she is the GOP.s Blair, then they’ll win the next three elections
Mike wine liberal
Only one poll counts, the one on November 4th.
Never forget the BBC’s poll of polls of four eve-of-election polls in 1992. The poll of polls suggested the following voting patterns:
Conservative: 38%
Labour: 39%
Lib Dems: 19%
The actual outcome?
Conservative: 43%
Labour: 35%
Lib Dems: 18%
Remember, only one poll counts.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 24.10.08 – 5:30 pm
I’m no computer geek, but this worked for me:
Before trying any other methods to change your IP address, try turning off (or unplugging the power of) your Cable/DSL modem for five minutes. In many cases this will change your IP address. However, if that does not change your IP address, repeat the process for 8 hours (overnight works well) instead of 5 minutes. Hopefully this will result in an IP change.
……. If all else fails contact your internet service provider (ISP) and ask them if they are able to change your IP address or how long your connection needs to be off for your IP address to change.
http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/how-do-I-change-my-ip-address
….oh, and don’t forget to use a new username and e-mail address once you’ve changed your IP.
Billybob,
When you get bigger crowds attending palin rallies in the same swing states as Obama and Biden rallies, that tells you she is a REAL draw card for McCain.
Now, dont go believing the drivel that passes for informed opinion on the MSM…these guys are so in the tank for Obama I expect in 9 months time they will all be giving birth to little black babies.
Mailman
And when you talk about incompetence, clearly you are talking about the ability of one of the candidates to fight against their own teams internal corruption arent you?
I mean, please do point out where Obama has fought against the systemic corruption that is Chicago politics?
Then again, I hope you arent referring to the Gibson and Curic interviews are you? The very same interviews that were edited to change the meaning of Palins answers (BTW, why does the MSM insist of removing Obama’s umms and ahhhs from interviews with him so that all you see is the question and then a clear answer, instead of the stuttering you see when off prompter and out of a studio?).
Basically everything you think you know and hate about her has been crafted by the lefty media you love. The times Palin has got to speak, unedited by the media, she has absolutely SUNK her opposition. Heck, Biden was lucky to get out of his debate alive with her 🙂
Mailman
billybob: I don’t agree. The problem was the Republicans have stopped Palin being Palin. They hid her away from the media.
When she did the debate with Biden she did very well. Why? Because it was live and the corrupt MSM couldn’t edit out her words.
Biden is an utter arsehole, but he gets away with it. Having said that he offers nothing to the Democrats does he?
Maybe I expect more from Palin, I don’t know. Frankly, I thought she was rather weak against Biden. I was expecting her to rip him to shreds (God knows he deserves it). Instead I found it a rather tame performance. She is just not good enough.