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.
BBC report:
“Al-Qaeda’s ‘mild’ message to Obama”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7717257.stm
But ‘Telegraph’ has:
“Report indentifies UK terrorist enclaves”
[Extract]:
“Secret enclaves of al-Qaeda extremists based in London, Birmingham and Luton are planning mass-casualty attacks in Britain, according to a leaked Government intelligence report.
“The document, which was drawn up by the intelligence branch of the Ministry of Defence, MI5 and Special Branch, states that ‘some thousands’ of extremists are active in the UK. They are predominantly UK-born and aged between 18 and 30, and many are believed to have been trained in overseas terrorist camps.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3406107/Report-identifies-UK-terrorist-enclaves.html
Mild? What kind of adjective is that attached to a terrorist organisation?
“We will plant car bombs with much less explosive in them than previously, in recognition of our growing new relationship with the great Satan” BBC security expert Frank Gardener is bending himself double to see if his head will fit up his own arse. And thats my mild reaction.
It seems that the BBC cannot bring itself to use the word terrorist in even the most extreme situations.
Referring to the three convicted terrorists who murdered 202 innocent people in Bali as Islamic “militants” is a moral outrage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7717819.stm
On the following page (paragraph 3), the BBC also uses the word “killed” by firing squad, instead of the word “executed”, implying that the Beeb has issues with the legitimacy of the punishment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7718246.stm
Well – the increased 13% Tory lead, putting an end to the mythical “Brown Bounce” is political headlines in all the Sundays and Sky this morning…..
Let’s see what the Beeb politics page has to say………….
Errrr ….leading political analysis piece fron Nick R still headlined…
…..Glenrothes result confirms that Brown bounce is real
Your BBC – “Not Just Any Old Polls…”
On the following page (paragraph 3), the BBC also uses the word “killed” by firing squad, instead of the word “executed”, implying that the Beeb has issues with the legitimacy of the punishment.
BROWNED_OFF | 09.11.08 – 8:54 am
The original BBC headline:
Indonesia ‘executes’ Bali bombers
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/171605/diff/0/1
(the quote marks were removed on the fifth revision of the article)
BBC News did a bit of vox pop near the Bali memorial in Australia, and all three passers-by just happened to be against the execution. Is this representative of Australian opinion? I don’t think so:
SIX long years on from the Bali bombings, Australians still grieving for those who died have expressed a mix of joy and trepidation over the this morning’s executions of the men responsible.
There were tears of relief from Sydney woman Maria Kotronakis after she learned the three Islamic militants who helped kill her two sisters and two cousins had been put to death by firing squad.
“We’re very happy … we’ve waited a very long time for this and this is our justice,” Ms Kotronakis told CNN, struggling at times to speak.
She said she felt nothing for Mukhlas, Amrozi and Imam Samudra, saying they “lost their rights to anything that’s human” when they bombed two Bali nightclubs in October 2002, killing 202 people including 88 Australians. “We lost four beautiful girls that did nothing wrong,” she said. “There was nothing they ever did wrong to have been executed the way they were.” Her sense of relief was echoed by others who lost relatives and mates in the carnage six years ago.
Meanwhile R5L’s morning headlines have been claiming that relatives of the British victims were opposed to the executions. This is true in that it reflects the opinions of some relatives, but there are others, ignored in the news bulletins, who don’t feel this way:
Sue Cooper, 56, whose 46-year-old brother Paul Hussey died in the bombing, said: “I feel they should have been executed at the moment they were caught, and I’m sick of people who say that they don’t want them executed because they’ll become martyrs.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5114539.ece
On a related note, has anybody else noticed the increasing tendency of BBC journalists to adopt the pronunciation of “Islam” favoured by Islamists. In British English the traditional pronunciation is IZ-LAM with equal emphasis on both syllables. The BBC’s cultural ringers, such as Lucy Williamson (reporting on the execution of the Bali bombers) have adopted the Iss-LAARM pronunciation, with the ‘s’ sound and drawn-out emphasis of the second syllable.
That should be “cultural cringers”, but I quite like “cultural ringers” – it gives the impression of imposters.
The BBC absolutely adore Shirley Williams. She is now doing the newspaper review on the Marr show with Simpson. She is also one of the guests on Question Time this week (she seems to be on this virtually every other week).
Where’s Vince Cable though?
On radio 4 this morning, the three men executed for the Bali bombing were called “militants”!
militant downturn | 09.11.08 – 9:45 am | #
The petulant pensioners were quite right to rail against ongoing cynical exploitation by unaccountable bankers, but…. who is to blame for this and how is it addressed properly? More ‘unacceptable’ ‘looking at’ in the pipeline, no doubt. All very smug with no substance.
And while much of the conduct of the US election is to be lauded, I remain intrigued that, in a system that embodies the effectiveness of advertising as a tool to influence behaviour, more has not been made of the per vote cast expenditure by the winning campaign was somewhat in excess of that of the loser.
So while it may be true the era of big business influence may be over, especially when enhanced by ‘sympathetic’ free PR in support, it is still the best contest money can buy.
Further to my comment above – only the views of British relatives opposed to the executions are represented in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7718313.stm
BBC report uses word ‘Muslim’ once, in conjunction with word ‘convert’ in long article:
“Terrorism threat in UK ‘growing’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7718240.stm
‘Jihadwatch’ comment on the UK government report:
“Tiny Minority of Extremists™ Update: where are all these thousands of jihadists? In what circles do they move? How many of their fellow Muslims among the Vast Majority of Peaceful Moderates™ know about their activities and have reported them to British police? If they haven’t, why not?
Is anyone in the British government even asking these questions?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023439.php
Two from the Times…
Cameron’s BBC protest is too late
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5114566.ece
I have to agree. If this was the best he could manage, whilst falling between every stool trying to be ‘popular’, I am uncertain of his value.
The BBC will never understand until the licence fee stops
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article5114506.ece
Not gunning for his old gig back, I’d gather.
Classic Gabby Logan on Radio 5 this morning
“When I was overseas recently, I watched a lot of Fox News, they kept making up polls to show McCain still in it…”
Oh really Gabby. Funny because Fox use the same Pollster (Frank Luntz) as the BBC uses.
Thanks for telling us the BBC use a dodgy pollster as well.
Two Tory hating jocks on with her this morning (one beeboid type and Kay Adama – a vile woman)
Its going to be very interesting to see how the BBC reacts when ‘The One’ announces a policy or idea that they dislike. I think they will either just play it down or not report it at all. Maybe they will blindly follow any policy he comes up with because he is ‘The Chosen One’, even if it involved invading Iran or whatever. The world can become very dangerous when people blindly follow a leader, whether he’s liberal or not.
Ah! the Bali bombings. Were they not in relatioation fo the infidels invading Iraq?
Oh hang on the bombings took place in 2002 and the invasion of Iraq was 2003.
“Queen Mother was ‘ghastly bigot’, says BBC presenter”
“Edward Stourton, the urbane presenter of the BBC’s flagship radio programme Today, has admitted thinking that the late Queen Mother was ‘a ghastly old bigot’.
“In a book on political correctness, he reveals the content of a private conversation with her in the early 1990s…
“Stourton, whose son Ivo was a close friend of Prince William at Eton, is no stranger to royal controversy. After the Queen Mother died in 2002, he said in a heated debate on the Today programme that a tabloid newspaper was ‘quite comfortable in the gutter’ because it had published intimate details of her last moments before death.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5114788.ece
Barack Obama fans now find their lives empty and meaningless
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_singleton/blog/2008/11/08/barack_obama_fans_now_find_their_lives_empty_and_meaningless
I’s very noticeable that, having conspired to get him elected, a lot of the worldwide MSM are beginning to row back from the big O now.
I couldn’t believe my ears when Granny Simpson on Marr’s show appeared to refer to Peter Hitchen’s excellent ant-Obama diatribe in the Mail today as a legitimate “balance” to all the Obama euphoria.
Also, did anyone notice they played the full clip of that Irish folk/rock group doing “There’s no-one as Irish as Barack O’bama” to lefty chuckles all round.
Of course, that clip was all over the internet a year ago, when it was fresh and topical satire about Obama “discovering” his Irish roots – if it’s so funny now, why didn’t the Beeb use it then?
Could have it been sitting on a beeboid’s desk, on a spike marked “for use after the election”?
Stand by for future MSM fearless investigations soon:- “Was the birth certicate released by Obama to the Daily Kos a fake after all?”….”Chicago Politics – is it still a cesspool of corruption?”…….”Where did the money to buy the election come from?”
As the MSM and BBC hacks dig up all the stuff they spiked during the campaign to make a bob or two.
Lurker in a Burqua:
Barack Obama fans now find their lives empty and meaningless
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ ale…and_meaningless
Lurker in a Burqua | 09.11.08 – 11:22 am | #
That’s the first thing I’ve laughed out loud at since Thursday night!
The following document was on a website in 2003. I cannot remember the name of the website owner but it was something like Brokowsky, and he had a petition for people to sign
The following was added on the original website
Noticed some additional comments and “facts” on the latest intimidating letter from the TVLA ? – here they are:
“… To help us update our records please write to us at TV Licensing … stating that you do not use a television. We will contact you in due course, just to confirm the situation.”
Helping out the TVLA keeping their records up to date is the very last thing you should do. If, for whatever reason, you do not need a TV Licence then … well … you are not breaking the law so why should you provide the TVLA with a statement ?
You are not at all obliged to contact the TVLA. There is no law that says you have to make statements – just ignore these people.
Keep in mind that these statements are only useful to be used against you.
Using sophisticated equipment on unlicensed household, we can identify if a TV is being watched within 20 seconds.
Whether the TVLA does or does not have electronic gadgetry to play “big brother”, fact is that no-one has never been convicted based upon “evidence” gathered by means of this type of electronic spying, which is in fact a breach of privacy.
If we suspect that an offence is taking place, we are authorised to request a search warrant if we cannot gain access.
Getting a search warrant involves spending money so they are used much less frequently than people think. If the TVLA has the evidence to get a warrant and they also have your name, then they will usually go straight to issuing you with a summons to bring you to court. This is administratively far more cost-effective.
Never ever let a TVLA Enquiry Officer, without search warrant, in your home. Do not speak to him/her – do not make a statement and do not sign.
We may caution you in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and use your statement as evidence in your prosecution.
Now this is what it’s all about. As a profit making company the TVLA [Capita] depends heavily on people admitting that they do not have a TV Licence. The statement, signed by those who admit, is then used against you. This is a very cost effective way of operations for the TVLA.
Again… never ever let a TVLA Enquiry Officer, without search warrant, in your home. Do not speak to him/her – do not make a statement and do not sign.
cont…see above
WHAT SHOULD I DO WHEN THE TV LICENCE MAN CALLS?
———————————–
IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO OFFER GENERAL ADVICE IN THIS DOCUMENT. IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO CONTACT A SOLICITOR IMEDIATELY.
The purpose of a visit from a Television Enquiry Officer is to gather information that you have a television, but that you do not have a licence. You can always ask him to come back when you have had a chance to get some legal advice, before you answer his questions.
REMEMBER Television Enquiry Officers must interview you under caution, if they are to use their visit as evidence against you in court. The caution says:
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?
So, if you answer questions, those answers can be read out in court, but:
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING
This means “anything”.
You do not have to tell the enquiry officer your name, you do not have to tell him whether or not you have a television, or if you live at the address, or if you have a licence.
WHAT WILL THEY ASK ME?
No surprises here. Television Licensing officers are not paid to think for themselves, they have a list of questions to ask in every case. They are:
Day/date:
Name:
Address:
Post Code:
Are you the occupier?
Do you have a television licence on the premises?
Do you have a licence?
If no administer caution:
“You do not have to say anything. It may harm your defence if you do not mention when
questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?”
Time of caution:
TELEVISION SET
May I inspect the set?
Inspection details: Black and white/colour
Use?
Channels tested?
Was there a video recorder?
When was the set installed?
When did you first use the set without an appropriate licence?
When did you last use the set?
Do you have satellite or cable?
If yes which channels do you watch?
PERSONAL DETAILS
What is your date of birth?
What is your occupation or status?
I have to tell you that you may be prosecuted for an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Is there anything you want to say? You will than be asked to buy a television licence, “without prejudice”, or in other words pay for a licence and still run the risk of being prosecuted. They will then ask you to sign the interview record as accurate, but you
don’t have to do so.
cont…
THEY SAID IT MIGHT HARM MY DEFENCE IF I DON’T ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
You are being asked questions because they know you don’t have a licence, but they don’t know who you are, or if you are using a television. If you tell them who you are and you say you are using a television, they will usually take you to court.
If you don’t tell them you stand a better chance of not being taken to court as they don’t know who you are, or if you have a television. If they knew that in the first place there would be no need for them to call.
CAN THEY COME INTO MY HOME?
They can only come into your home if you let them in (Can I inspect the set?), or if a magistrate grants them a search warrant. They will only get a search warrant if they can satisfy the magistrate there are reasonable grounds to suspect you have a television for use on the premises.
———————-
SO I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AND NOW I’VE GOT A SUMMONS. WHAT CAN I DO?
———————–
CAN I GET LEGAL AID?
Every one is entitled to receive a public funding certificate to cover magistrates’ court proceedings free of charge, even if they are a millionaire. If you want advice, you need to see a solicitor who deals in criminal law. Details of solicitors offering legal help can be found from the Legal Services Commission. Alternatively look in yellow pages for any solicitor displaying the Criminal Defence Service logo. If you are on income support, income based job seekers allowance, or working families’ tax credit, you will qualify for free legal help before you go to court. You may also qualify for this help of you are on a low income. Many solicitors will offer you a free first interview anyway. Ask a solicitor for details.
CHECK WHEN THE SUMMONS WAS ISSUED.
The Magistrates’ Courts’ Act 1980 allows the TV Licence authority 6 months to tell the magistrates’ clerk they want a summons issuing. If they are too late its just too bad; they cannot prosecute you.
I WANT TO PLEAD “GUILTY” WHAT CAN I EXPECT?
There are two ways of pleading guilty. You will have received a form with your summons that you can return to the court, saying that you want to plead guilty, or you can attend the hearing.
DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF I TURN UP?
Television licensing courts expect get through 60 • 70 cases in a court session. They do not expect many people to turn up and they expect most of those who do not come to plead guilty by letter. If they don’t do that, and don’t attend, the TV Licensing officers will ask to have the case “proved in absence”. This means that the statement that the TV Enquiry officer made when he visited you and his “interview” will be read out. The magistrates will then find you guilty, and you will normally be fined £150 to £200 and ordered to pay the TV Licensing officers costs (currently £45.00). If you turn up and plead guilty, the magistrates must listen to what you have to say. They will probably fine you about the same amount and order you to pay the costs, but it will take them longer and they will have to consider your case in greater depth.
CAN I PLEAD NOT GUILTY?
Yes; you can either use the form to tell the court you are “not guilty”, in which case the magistrates will adjourn the case to a trial date, when you must attend, and the trial will take place. You should plead “not guilty” if you do not have television receiving equipment installed, or if you had a licence when the enquiry officer called. If you were promised you wouldn’t be prosecuted, or if you have any doubts what to do, you should see a solicitor.
I HAVE HEARD YOU PAY LESS IF YOU PLEAD GUILTY. IS THIS TRUE?
You are supposed to be given a discount if you plead guilty, but the magistrates will still fine you, and they will fine you more for not having a television licence than they would have fined you if you had stolen something or hit someone in most cases.
I HAVE HEARD THAT IT IS AGAINST EUROPEAN LAW TO BE FINED
FOR NOT HAVING A TELEVISION LICENCE. IS THIS TRUE?
The power of the TV Licence agency to prosecute people is being challenged in a number of test cases, which are based on European law. The result will not be known for some time. A solicitor can advise you how you can have your case challenged in the same way.
DB 9.21:
Actually I pronounce it the Is-larm way in conversation with Islam lovers, but I do it in a particularly exaggerated intonation and prolonged second syllable. First time, they think I’m being very respectful, second time they’re a bit uneasy, and after half a dozen times, they’re outraged and ask you why you’re pronouncing it that way. I say “Because that’s how it’s supposed to be pronounced – Isssss – laaaaaam.” They hate it. Try it. It’s a great way to wind them up.
Trofim:
I wouldn’t even talk to Islam lovers. The urge to smack them would be too overwhelming.
Mind you, every cab firm I use in this area seems to to come with it’s very own Islamic driver. I’m thinking of getting a big dog and bad eyesight just to annoy them.
martin.11.05 what a classic made my day and week thanks,
Here’s the BBC on the Bali bombings executions.
Here’s what I posted on the comments page.
‘after the state execution of three Islamic militants for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people.’
They weren’t MILITANTS BBC: they were TERRORISTS. They weren’t militants who refused to allow calmer members of their movement to negotiate peacefully with the authorities, and who lobbied for their cause instead with intense dedication and lack of compromise, using tactics such as trespassing, sit-ins, strikes, or marches, to the frustration of more moderate co-religionists.
They were TERRORISTS;’They were found guilty of planning twin attacks on nightclubs at the resort of Kuta…’ and’ bombings that killed 202 people.’
I was affected by the Bali bombings – I learned that 200 of my fellow human beings murdered by islamists, and I feel sorry for the victims.
And what does the BBC add to this story?
Three pages concentrating on;
1)those who deplore the death penalty and Australia’s left-wing government seeking a moratorium on the death penalty.
2) relatives of victims who deplore the death penalty, and
C) fears that the executions might create martyrs.
The BBC’s not exactly full of praise for the security forces and justice system that brought these terrorists to trial, is it?
The BEEB’s comments bit: What is your reaction to the executions? Were you affected by the Bali bombings? Send us your comments and experiences using the form below.
In most cases a selection of your comments will be published, displaying your name and location unless you state otherwise in the box below.
What chances my comments will get through moderation?
Here are the links, too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7718229.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7718209.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7718313.stm
Poland in the front line again
US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says.
He was speaking after Polish President Lech Kaczynski’s office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men.
The BBC report considering the US’s planned deployment & the Russian response of moving missiles to Poland’s border says
On Friday, EU leaders said the decision would not contribute to creating a climate of confidence or to the improvement of security.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7717669.stm
Now were EU leaders bashing Bush & supporting Obama or were they criticising Russia? Actually the latter but one can’t tell from the BBC report.
Jason – This may interest you re your problem with the moderators on HYS…There was a comment yesterday from a poster to the effect that Trevor Phillips was a ‘racist pig’, it got 36 votes before they noticed.
Lurker in a Burqua | 09.11.08 – 11:22 am
I posted a link to that on Justin Webb’s blog. One humourless idiot of an Obama supporter thought it was a genuine news item and was outraged.
Liddle, for an ex-beeboid, usually presents a well argued case, but in his Sunday Times column (link in a comment above) he trots out one of the oft used illogical defences of the amount of the TV tax
I am happy with the notion of paying a licence fee of £139.50; not because it compares favourably with what I might get from Sky for the price (although it does)
Yes Rod, but how much would it cost you to fund the BBC if the fee was only paid by willing customers?
Ah! I see the BBC lefties don’t want to move “up north”. What a shock.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084191/New-shock-Radio-2-fans-After-Russell-Brand-furore-Ken-Bruce-faces-chop.html
“Don’t let the momentum die!”
From Radio Times pg 66:
BBC4 Sunday 9th Nov 21.00, ‘Walter’s War’ –
“An extraordinary man…Walter Tull made history twice over…he was one of the first Black men to play professional football…and also the first Black officer to lead troops in WW1.
Kwame Kwei-Armah’s drama IMAGINES the tough time Tull had in officer training, where stiff upper-lipped racism combined with flashbacks from the trenches to extremely discouraging effect.”
Notice the blurb in this BBC-owned mag manages to drop any conditional tense here eg “where…racism MIGHT have combined…”. The verbal equivalent of photoshop manipulation?
One to the set the video for, all you guilt-tripping hand-wringing liberals.
R
will | 09.11.08 – 12:57 pm
It’s you who is being illogical, not Liddle.
Yes Rod, but how much would it cost you to fund the BBC if the fee was only paid by willing customers?
Obviously a great deal more than is the case with the licence fee.
So, it makes sense for anyone who likes enough of the BBC’s output to feel they’re getting their moneysworth (and more) to support the continuation of the licence fee.
Now we have to start asking real questions of the BBC:
Radio Poland reports: “American president-elect Barack Obama assured Polish president Lech Kaczynski that the project of building the anti-missile shield in eastern Europe will go ahead.
http://www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/news/artykul95478_Obama_vows_to_continue_the_missile_shield_project_accepts_invitation_to_Poland.html
Pretty straightforward, don’t you think?
But wait the BBC says, “US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says. He was speaking AFTER* Polish President Lech Kaczynski’s office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm
(*my caps)
So has he or hasn’t he?
“Barack Obama, says AFP, “is keeping people guessing about whether he will pursue a Bush administration plan to set up a missile shield in central Europe but analysts say Russia has shot itself in the foot with threats to deploy missiles in retaliation.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5lSvB7RF_g9WSmMehm_1Z4NWbyA
And Chinese sources say: “Russia is not satisfied with new U.S. proposals aimed at easing Russia’s concern over U.S. missile defense plans, a local newspaper reported Saturday, citing a Foreign Ministry source.”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/09/content_10328833.htm
So what do we actually know? Was Obama probed at his “impressive” press conference? Does any BBC reporter have the balls to ask Obama what happens if the US decides not to build the missile shield but Russia still deploys missiles?
And here, folks, is the consequence of the Beeb playing footsie with a politician instead of REPORTING on him. For months, they’ve turned a blind eye to anything “Obama” apart from his saintliness. The BBC has to stop playing political games and start doing the job the license payers want it to do. INFORM!
But I fear (like Chris Matthews of MSNBC) Beeboids will see it as their job to help the Obama presidency succeed. His failure or success has become a verdict on their judgment.
BBC rewriting history again. This time it’s Scotland.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-hit-by-row-over-history-of-scotland-1003951.html
I’m shocked Al Beeb didn’t take the opportunity to credit muslims with creating Scotland. Are they losing their touch?
HEY!!! Vince Cable is on BBC news 24 giving the BBC his ‘expert advice’ again.
Can we start a thread of Cable on the BBC alerts?
Wrangler writes: “So, it makes sense for anyone who likes enough of the BBC’s output to feel they’re getting their moneysworth (and more) to support the continuation of the licence fee.”
That doesn’t follow at all.
I happen to think I get my money’s worth from the BBC (mostly R3, R4 and BBC 4) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think the system is immoral, deeply dangerous to British society and should be closed down.
right now some beeboid is snorting the last of his or her glucose bashed cocaine thinking of ways to promote moonbat ideology when they go t work tomorow
watch out watch out theres a beeboid druggy about
BBC 2’s one-eyed jacks meet Saudi Arabia’s one-eyed jacks:
Last night BBC 2 TV screened an hour long documentary on Saudi Arabia, ‘Inside the Saudi Kingdom’ made possible through a member of the Saud family, limited access on BBC i-Player, here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fh52m/Inside_the_Saudi_Kingdom/
BBC’s own desciption of the programme:
“Lionel Mill’s film has unique access to Prince Saud bin Abdul Mohsen, one of the rulers of the rich, powerful and secretive Saudi royal family. This is a fascinating insight into the conflicts between tradition and modernity in one of the world’s most conservative and autocratic countries.”
-Just one massive myopic problem about the material put out by these two groups of ONE-EYED JACKS: no discussion of Saudi role in world-wide JIHAD against we infidels, such as provided here:
“A Second Look at the Saudis”
(70 pages, in PDF format)
Click to access asecondlookatthesaudisjumpingthetracks.pdf
Just as a point of interest, and it’s probably not relevant, but there are over 5,000 princes in Saudi Arabia.
John Bosworth
And the BBC fails to tell us that the USsystem is designed to shoot down incoming missiles ? – not to launch attacks. Whereas the Russian system is designed to attack.
Or rather – the BBC does not draw a clear enough distinction between the US system being purely defensive, and the Russian system which could rain down destruction on Europe. Including Britain.
The BBC may report this soon:
“UK jihadist Abu Qatada held over bail breach”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023443.php
Jim Muir has long ago proven himself to be one of the BBC’s most subversive, terror-friendly reporters.
And nothing’s changed. Here’s how he describes the reprehensible Ahmedinejad:
That excitement led the country’s quixotic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to break with precedent and send a congratulatory message to the American president-elect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7718603.stm
Quixotic: Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.
No doubt Muir regards the destruction of Israel as a noble ideal. The BBC is beyond belief.
Perhaps they mean ‘quixotic’ in it’s literary eponymous term:-
Demented, deluded and probably suffering from Alzheimer’s.
“That excitement led the country’s quixotic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”
Yes hanging little girls from cranes is so quixotic.
Yes, I’m having difficulty trying to picture the psychotic Madmood I’monajihad as a dashing romantic.
We don’t hear any outrage from the BBC about teenage girls being lifted into the air by monstrous machines and slowly strangled to death. The BBC gets more worked up over a Jewish settler adding a third room to his house in the territories.