You have to hand it to the BBC, they are relentless in their opposition of our armed forces participating anywhere in the world where they might make a difference. And so this morning, the State Broadcaster is flogging a poll that IT has commissioned which suggest that the majority of people here agree with the BBC contention that we should withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan. This is a trailer for a BBC debate this evening hosted by Eddie Mair “Should troops leave Afghanistan?”. First it was troops out of Iraq, Now it is troops out of Afghanistan. I recall the BBC cheer-leading for the troops out of Northern Ireland movement some years ago. Whatever the military question, the BBC answer is always the same; troops out.
I also am interested in the idea of the BBC determining news by commissioning loaded polls. Here are a few suggestions for some more BBC polls.
1. Should Jonathan Ross be sacked forthwith?
2. Should people have the choice whether they pay the license fee?
3. Should the Burqa be banned?
4. Should all illegal immigrants be deported?
5. Would it not be best if the UK left the EU?
Got any more to add? It would be nice to have a list of questions we can be sure the BBC will never commission a poll on!
“Should Britain declare war to support Poland?”
“Should Britain declare war to support France?”
“Should Britain surrender to Germany?”
“BBC HYS 1941 Adolf Hitler was formally made president of Britain – what are your memories of this great event?”
The bBC plays its pro Islamic terrorist cards by promoting a Mullah light version of the Taliban.
Taleban vow to win Afghan fight
The Taleban’s senior spokesman has used a rare radio interview to call for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan. Speaking by telephone from a secret location in the region, Zabihullah Mujahid also derided US President-elect Barack Obama. Fielding questions from BBC World Service listeners, he said Mr Obama’s plans to deploy more troops would not defeat the Afghan insurgency…
Speaking on the BBC’s World Have Your Say programme, Mr Mujahid answered listeners for almost an hour, and received a blow job from the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner.
He said the Taleban now controlled more than half of Afghanistan, and were running those areas in a more tolerant fashion than in previous years. However, Mr Mujahid told the BBC that the Taleban had now stopped beheadings and were educating girls in areas under their control. He denied they were behind this week’s acid attack on schoolgirls in Kandahar.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7728345.stm
For Christs sake is this News or is it propaganda for terrorism.
The bBC plays its pro Islamic terrorist cards by promoting a Mullah light version of the Taliban.
gerald b – hardly QED chap! I was asking how the thesis that the bbc is anti the iraq and afghanistan wars can be reconciled with the thesis that it is doggedly and cravenly pro labour when the former is the cornerstone of the latter’s foreign
policy. i ‘m afraid kill the beeb’s answer helps me only recognise the level of his inanity; and jeffd’s that of his paranoia. This site needs a more nuanced theory of bbc bias to be taken seriously.
pounce – mullah lite is very funny.
“I was asking how the “thesis” that the bbc is anti the iraq and afghanistan wars..”
Thesis? are you joking – its not a thesis its a fact.
“Senior BBC news presenters such as Huw Edwards and Fiona Bruce and journalists including Andrew Marr have been ordered by bosses to stay away from Saturday’s anti-war march in London.
The BBC deputy director of news, Mark Damazer, yesterday sent an email to newsroom staff listing which categories of journalist should not attend the march and rally in Hyde Park.
These include all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and “anyone who can be considered a ‘gatekeeper’ of our output”.
Mr Damazer said he was allowing more junior staff to attend the march but only in a “private capacity with no suggestion that he or she speaks for the BBC”.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/feb/11/broadcasting.antiwar
To WhatWasThatAgain I agree with what you say.
* 80% of the population wanted capital puinishment last time there was a vote in parliament
* V.small % of Labour & Liberal (1 liberal: Cyril Smith from Rochdale)
* At a guess, maybe 80% or something like it of Conservative MPs
* 0% of the BBC panels on Question Time and Any Questions on Radio 4
So if there were no Labour or Liberal MPs parliament at all, the views of the remaining Conservatives would have roughly matched the views of the population. The same applies to other subjects. Norman Tebbit used to say why do people vote Labour when they don’t share Labour’s views?
As several commentators have pointed out above, the BBC only opposes a Labour government from the left. This includes Iraq and Afghanistan; many Labour Party members also oppose the government on this issue, as do leftist newspapers such as the Guardian and the Independent.
A more fundamental question would be: what business is it of the BBC to have its own foreign policy? Or its own domestic agenda? Who elected them?
The BBC doesn’t even earn its own living, unlike other media. It is merely parasitic.
“taleban vow to win afgan fight”
lets play fantasy lawyers for a moment and look at the terrorism act 2000, s.12:
“12 Support (1) A person commits an offence if—
….
(2) A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—
(a) to support a proscribed organisation,
(b) to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or
(c) to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.”
is a telephone phone in on the world service a “meeting”?
if “yes” then lock the al beeboids up!
i know i know it will never happen…
How about interdicting the supply of weed, cocaine, butternut squash drizzled with balsamic vinegar, rent boys and wheelbarrows full of public money to Beeboid central ?
We could form a Dad’s Army to do it, so the Para’s and Marines aren’t taken away from their current mission of fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.
I bagsy being Sgt Wilson, because he’s erudite and cultured, like what I am not.
Heh, Muller Light. I thought, Where have I heard that before? Now I get it. Nice one Mike.
Sadly, it’s not funny enough to paper over the horrendous – and by the looks of it illegal according to the Terrorism Act 2000 – behaviour of the shit-eating BBC. Interviewing a senior Taliban terrorist? My God. If I were CIA or SIS or whoever, I’d have the worthless BBC prick (but I repeat myself) who produced that show by the ponytail and shoot kneecaps until they gave me the intelligence I wanted.
fao uk land forces
2 weeks leave for the first squaddie to have an ND and zap at least 1 beeboid. One months leave if u get 2 with 1 round
Does anyone know what is the name of the program on Sky about a month or two ago, which was actually supporting our troops? A reporter was living amongst them for a while. Jon Gaunt used to mention it for a while on Talksport but now he has gone.
To Mr Caveman:
The other day, I was re-reading the book “Animal Farm” by George
Orwell, who, as you know is THE poacher turned gamekeeper of
socialism. I came across this gem:
“For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to
her what was written on the wall. There
was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
ALL BBC EMPLOYEES AND GUARDIANISTAS ARE EQUALLY STUPID
BUT SOME BBC EMPLOYEES AND GUARDIANISTAS ARE MORE
EQUALLY STUPID THAN OTHERS.
After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were
supervising the work of the farm all had their snouts in the trough.”
There you are: straight from the horse’s mouth.
To David: Re Animal Farm above.
Excellent quote.
I wonder what the Guardian-readers think when they read the book. Do they identify with the pig called Napoleon and think he was very reasonable? I bet when they watched the last Batman film, they thought the Joker was the goodie.
To Mr Caveman:
As far as I can tell, they probably regard Animal Farm as a good children’s yarn; not to be taken too seriously. On BBC
Radio 4’s “Today” programme, about a year or so ago, they were discussing George Orwell’s “1984”. As far as I recall,
John Humphrys thought of this novel as “strange and disturbing”. (I can’t remember exactly what he said, but those
words represent roughly the general tenor of his remarks.) That the novel describes the certain descent into anarchy
and totalitarianism when hard-won freedoms are not defended vigorously didn’t seem to register. (Maybe I’m doing him
a disservice. If so, I apologise.) It seems to me that the BBC’s mindset and group-think (both of them good NewSpeak
words, by the way!) allows them to blunder about in a socialist fog, and conjures up in my mind the chaos and carnage
caused by Mr Magoo crossing a busy motorway. They say that the road to hell is paved by good intentions. Suppose one
were to alter this “truth” and to say that the road to hell is paved by good intentions and the bodies of the results of
well-meaning people. I think that that would sum up my position admirably. Incidentally, I read recently that one
meaning of (or possibly the original meaning of) the word “satan” was/is “malevolent human mind”. Just a thought.
mikewineliberal / whitewineliberal
WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?????
MIKEwineliberal- reputedly a beeboid, says BBC not impartial on Iraq and Afghanistan at 4.11 on the 13th then WHITEwineliberal responds to my thanks to mwl for proving BBC not impartial at 10.16 saying I had misunderstood HIS point.
Did wwl forget he was supposed to be mwl? Are wwl and mwl one and the same beeboid? Is there a split personality involved? Will one or the other, or both mysteriously disappear? Listen to next week’s exciting episode to find out.
MWL/WWL DO TELL.
Here’s how the BBC justifies to the public the UK sending 2,000 more troops to Afghanistan:
‘Extra UK troops’ for Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7728478.stm
“Up to 2,000 extra British troops are likely to be sent to Afghanistan next year, the BBC has learned.
The UK already has 8,100 troops in Helmand province and British ministers have publicly argued any extras should come from elsewhere in Europe in order to share the burden more fairly.
But the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said that privately ministers and officials conceded the new president would still ask for a greater British fighting effort.
The UK is already making a substantial contribution to the mission
He said they also made it clear that no government would want to say no to President Obama early in his term of office, particularly given his huge following.”
Er, so that’s ok then? Obama says “jump”, we say “How high?”.
What ‘huge following’? where – in the States? In the UK – left wing liberals & beeboids?
Sarko knows how to say ‘non’ as do many other NATO countries who have decided to make a minimal risk free contribution to the war, but nevertheless reap the benefits. About time we said ‘no’ too.
Why aren’t the Tories complaining that the BBC is openly attempting to direct foreign policy? The BBC may set the agenda on what’s news and what isn’t, but why are they allowed to try to influence government policy, especially foreign policy?
Because of the regime change in the US, the BBC sees an opportunity to drum up public support for surrender in Afghanistan, and rewrite history so that everyone thinks Iraq has been lost.
Regardless of whether anyone thinks the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are right or wrong, somebody should be telling the BBC they aren’t allowed to dictate public policy. That’s what they’re trying to do. If Call Me Dave doesn’t say anything about this, he’s even more useless than I thought.
This political activism from the BBC actually affects the US, because we rely on UK military support. BBC bias affects us all.
Re the discussion about the depiction of the military in the media, the extract below is From http://foxacrossamerica.blogspot.com/
See his podcast for 11.11.08
Spencer Hughes, Fox News interview with Andrew Klavan who wrote ‘True Crimes’ turned into the Clint Eastwood film
S: Were talking about the anti-American sentiment coming out of most of Hollywood
A: It cost millions of dollars to make a movie, then you need distributors and promoters to pick it up. I am not calling for liberals to stop making their bad propaganda, what I’m calling for is another thing, I’m calling for conservatives to take the risk of making films, and putting the money into the films. I’m talking about conservatives doing business. I believe there is a huge audience out there for pro-American films. Back in the 70s when they were making all the radical 60s-based films, they were bombing, one after another, and it was movies like Rocky and Rambo that brought them back, patriotic films, with good American values, that brought the movie industry back from the destruction that the 70s and the radicals wreaked on it. That could happen now. Hollywood is really suffering. These pictures that I’m talking about, are pictures like Lions for Lambs and Red Action and Rendition, and these Anti-American films, every single one of them just tanked, and they kept making them.
To David; interesting comments about the John Humphries interview. I heard that the main pig called Napoleon is meant to be Stalin.
The horse represents the workers in the Soviet Union who were too dim to see what their leaders were like and remained loyal to the system.
The donkey represents another group of workers who knew exactly what was going on but kept quiet about it.
The noisy pig – I cannot remember his name – represents the
Bolsheviks who were originally in charge until Stalin turned on them and replaced the original bunch of idealistic communists with the next cohort of more nasty communists.
(It is like the BBC lot being replaced by proper commies – so this pig represents the BBC)
The farmer represents the Csars and in the end the Communists become like the Csar, only much worse.
I think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be handled by the private sector, as in both cases the public sector has proven to be wasteful.
Privatise and sell of the MoD and Pentagon and you get rid of alot of incompetent morons.
martin:
You really think bin laden was in tora bora ? Because it was rummy who told you so ? Remember all the concrete bunkers and underground sleeping quarters (air conditioned!) he also mentioned, with water sanitation plants?
Flash back now to our commandos shooting there weapons into….. Caves …… With absolutely nothing in them whatsoever. Don’t believe everything the right says. Even they lie 🙂