LEFT, LEFT, LEFT.
Caught the beginning of Any Questions this evening and had a chuckel at the make up of the panel. There was Geoff Hoon (Left), Caroline Lucas (Left), Vince Cable (New to the BBC I think, ahem, but also Left) and David Willets (Soft-centre). So hint of bias there, right? First up was a question on whether “extremism”as evidenced in events on Bombay could be defeated. Caroline Lucas immediately launched into an attack on American foreign policy and then got stuck into Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine as a probable cause of the Islamic terrorist scum attack in Bombay yesterday. Her rant was greeted by generous applause. Vince Cable also helpfully explained that “extremism” needed a political solution. Willets waffled about winning hearts and minds (Not the best advise when a deranged Muslim with an AK47 is hunting you down because you might have a British passport but still..) and amazingly only Hoon sounded even slightly gung ho, which is saying something! I look forward to the day when Any Questions will find the guts to allow an unapologetic spokesman for the war on Islamic terror onto its lousy show – but I’m sure it will never happen since a plurality of views is forbidden in easy consensus BBC land.
You forgot to mention the host. Dimbleby (left).
I recently gave up on listening to Any Questions, having given up on Question Time some years ago, as a result of the inbuilt bias in almost every edition. The BBC’s bias is so blatant that it may now be the time for the Conservative party to start pointing out bias when appearing on such programmes and even to consider withdrawing from programmes.
So much guilt. So little honesty
Caroline Lucas never misses a chance to demonise Israel – sick, especially on the day when 5 Israelis were murdered in Mumbai, deliberately sought out in a residential neighbourhood by the Islamists. Ms Lucas would rather blame the victims than the perpetrators.
Adam,
Sick indeed – yet the audience loved her.
Somewhere, deep down, there is an explanation why Israel is the cause of Islamic terrorists murdering people in Bombay. Very, very deep down.
How can people be so stupid and gullible? Don’t people think anymore?
These morons truly think that by being nice to people who want to destroy us our way of life and our beliefs, that we will all eventually get on in harmony. There is no harmonious status quo with lunatics. They will be blowing us up for any reason they can think of for ever. The Green party share some of the same lunatic tendencies
David,
One of my trials in life is that I travel home at 8.00 on a Friday eve. This was painful – esp the blaming of Bush for the trouble….. What are they going to do when he goes.
Btw – apologies for the lack of comments here and on atw – mostly I can only read these days – current job means its safer not to contribute when at work 😉
Morning David,
You did not get my point last night. So I spell it out for you. You were stating that Frank Skinner is excrement following up on Diane is peddling hate. If there was ever a call for “Pot Kettle Black”, than it was that.
BTW, you claim here:
“… but I’m sure it will never happen since a plurality of views is forbidden in easy consensus BBC land.”
You come here posturing that you are invited to speak at the BBC. How do you square your assertion?
Sweet dreams dear David. I hope your Caliphate will never come to exist!
The Green party share some of the same lunatic tendencies
frankos | 28.11.08 – 11:46 pm | #
Quite so.
…….and whats more, who do these Green policies remind you of?
anti American
anti Capitalist
anti Israel
extreme enviromentalist
extreme non smoker
extreme Socialist
Vegetarian
Yep, Its Him.
gunnar | 29.11.08 – 12:09 am |
We’ll make sure to destroy your caliphate. The Bombay attacks once again show that people like you and your friends at Al Beeb must be stopped at all costs.
“I look forward to the day when Any Questions will find the guts to allow an unapologetic spokesman for the war on Islamic terror onto its lousy show.”
You know what, I think that’s not the best thing we could hope for. The public are not willing to listen to the case for the war against islamic terrorism anymore.
What might be even more productive?
I look forward to the day when they have the naivety to invite onto their shows an unapologetic and honest spokesman for and participant in Islamic terrorism and jihad.
The only thing that is going to shift the impacted BBC sh*t from the ears of the BBC audience sheep, is if they actually hear clearly and loudly, from the mouths of the jihadis, exactly what they are fighting for, and what their justifications are.
I am appalled at the way our liberal elite are so fearful, they cannot allow the message of the jihadists to be heard except through the filter of their own distortions, and absurd guilt-complexes, and hatreds. Thus we seldom hear what the jihad terrorist kills for, we hear instead what some white western liberal thinks they fight and kill for, which just happens to reflect exactly the concerns and resentments of white western liberals. Go figure.
They are terrified that the jihad is not, after all, something that their superior reasonableness could disarm if only the western powers would act as the liberals want them to; terrified that the jihad may not after all be appeased by concession after concession; horrified at the notion that even their dream of handing over Israel on a plate may not be enough.
And so, after many years of this war, we find ourselves in the unforgivable and unbelievable situation where the vast majority have no idea what jihad is, why we are hated, and why they are attacking us.
Why? Because we’re hamstrung, actually paralysed, by a pathological and utterly misguided fear that naming our enemy for what he is would be an act of racism or intolerance. And by the fear that war might be the only solution against these people, which terrifies us because deep down we know we’ve talked all the fight out of our culture.
I look forward to the day when they have the naivety to invite onto their shows an unapologetic and honest spokesman for and participant in Islamic terrorism and jihad.
Me also. When Abu Izzadeen and Anjem Choudary get airplay it must be eye-opening for some of these Grauniad twats.
Gunnar,
“You did not get my point last night. So I spell it out for you. You were stating that Frank Skinner is excrement following up on Diane is peddling hate. If there was ever a call for “Pot Kettle Black”, than it was that.”
Oh dear, Gunnar; you’ve misunderstood the word “hateful” I fear. You seem to think it means that the subject “peddles hate”, but in fact its more usual and commonly-used meaning is simply that the subject is loathesome or dislikable.
What a pity for you that you were so convinced of the unanswerable brilliance of your point, you felt compelled to repeat it, not having received the response you felt it deserved the first time round.
Skinner is a shoddy comedian, I agree with Mr Vance. Skinner is smug, snide, condescending, artificially matey, and right-on. He’s one of our generation of comics who simply aren’t funny because they have fallen lazily into the habit of trotting out insipid barbs that simply reinforce every majority viewpoint going. Guaranteed work, guaranteed popularity, guaranteed money. It sure beats concerns like… challenging people to rethink their assumptions using comedy… smug little jerk.
Anyway Gunnar, hope I’ve explained your misunderstanding in time to prevent you relaunching your important and indignant argument a third time.
henryflower wins!
Exactly right! The BBC is full of professor from redbrick unis telling us what Islamofascists would say, if only the BBC allowed them on air, but actual Islamofascists? File them under “hen’s teeth”.
From all the talk about “Palestine”, you wouldn’t think that Bin Laden’s first post-Sep 11 communique was obsessed with the liberation of Spain in 1492. Noteing that Binnie Boy was still hacked about something that happened 500 years ago might make him appear a trifle nutso. So it has been all through the war.
Never mind a stay in Club Gitmo, what really terrifies Beeboids is letting an actual Islamofascist on air to discuss what really motivates him (free clue: it ain’t Kyoto).
This is the crux of BBC bias. It ain’t just about approach or angle, it’s about whole bus loads of ‘inconvenient truths’ which disappear down the memory hole ASAP. Meanwhile, Professor Rod Stroker is on Newsnight telling us that Jihadis are really motivated by rage against hedge fund managers.
DJ – the last time anything made me laugh that much from sheer pleasure at 2.31am on a Friday night, I was arrested and prosecuted. So thanks 🙂
henryflower (12.43 am) exactly right (and 1.38 am for that matter).
I stopped watching/listening to Question Time and Any Questions back in Thatcher’s time; the panels were just too biaised. Nothing has changed.
The BBC is dangerous. It undermines our democracy.
henryflower | 29.11.08 – 12:43 am | #
I would tend to agree, and could not put it better.
However, one does immediately end up with the dilemma that is diversity of opinion with, I suspect, the extremes of view prevailing.
And at each end the argument will be ‘how dare anyone give voice to such hateful speech’, if for slightly different reasons.
Of course, what is ‘allowed through’ already, where, and what, and in what subtle forms, goes to much this site is about.
i shouted fuck off at the radio when Caroline Lucas said the climate crisis was a lot worse than the credit crisis and we need to act now to….im sure you all know the rest
bit frosty here this morning, must be down to climate change
Isolating a whole people and blaming them for all the world’s problems used to be called racism. The Left indulge in antisemitic “chic” and it’s the one “ism” that is still right on. It’s never challenged. As a non Jew I’m amazed how it goes unremarked by the media. How absurd to think that if Israel disappeared today all Islamic hatred of – well, everyone – will stop. Lauren Booth, like Lucas also luxuriates in such unjoined up thinking regularly. The Protocols of Zion must be regular reading for BBC staff and their acolytes. The BBC can only portray Jews as victims (weaklings who suffered in the Holocaust at the hands of the fascists) or villains (modern Jews who do not want Israelis exterminated). The BBC is institutionally antisemitic and subtly villifies Jews at every turn.
Not for nothing did the former BBC staffer Eric Blair – a.k.a. George Orwell – model his language-perverting, fact-distorting “Ministry of Truth” on the BBC.
Over the last few days the world has seen what the world universally accepts as being an organised TERRORIST attack on Bombay/Mumbai, perpetrated by TERRORISTS.
Only indoctrinated leftist fools would avoid describing those who carried out the attacks as terrorists. But somehow the world’s biggest, most trusted, most famously impartial broadcaster does.
In anticipation of the BBC reporting the attacks through its Orwellian prism, last night I recorded the 6.00 BBC1 6.00 News and ITV’s 6.30 news. The two organisations’ use of language is telling indeed.
ITV/ITN described those responsible thus:
TERRORISTS—–17 times
GUNMEN———-13 times
ATTACKERS——02 times
MILITANTS——-02 times
The BBC described those responsible thus:
TERRORISTS—–00 times
GUNMEN———-18 times
ATTACKERS——07 times
CULPRITS——–03 times
MILITANTS——-02 times
It seems that the BBC must have received some complaints over this, its most absurd example of its absurd PC policy of non-use of ‘judgemental’ language, for this morning’s 8.00am report on BBC 1 Breakfast opened with repeated references to the attacks by “terrorists.”
The BBC is bloody dangerous. The sooner this suffocating, corrupting organisation is broken up and sold off the better for British society and the world’s understanding of events.
Indian intelligence points to the fact that 7 of the 10 terrorists at the Mumbai massacre were Pakistanis of British descent. From Bradford, Hartlepool (Mandelson country) and Leeds. Two similar thugs blew up Maxis Bar in Tel Aviv four years ago.
If true, another triumph for NudeLabour! We are now officially a Rogue State – a plus exporter of international terrorism. The Blair-Brown axis of evil?
God, the BBC really hate Jews , don’t they ?
Jonathan Hunt 8:43
Yesterday on Radio 4 News at one, my word count was :-
Gunmen 7
Militants 2
Attackers 2
Terrorists 1
That was in the first 10, minutes before I had to switch off.
Yes they do.
Jews, Americans, Jews, Capitalists, Jews, Businessmen, Jews, Bankers, Jews, Corporations, Jews, conservatives, Jews, Jews, Jews.
I think I see a pattern here.
If Hitler set up a Broadcasting Corporation, there wouldn’t be much he’d disagree with, to the above set of enemies.
This is a fight between freedom and totalitarianism.
>Two similar thugs blew up Maxis Bar in Tel Aviv four years ago
Thugs?
How are you going to win hearts and minds?
Surely these are freedom fighters battling the evil forces of Jewish/Western imperialism.
I thank the BBC for pointing this out.
Great comments guys – you nail the BBC much better than me and your eye for detail is excellent!
TT 10:13
You forgot to mention Jews !
They the BBC had 2 guests on this morning both from the left to discuss the end of new labour (one was Derek Simpson)and all they talked about was
they tories going back to the 80’s nd other labour policies hardly balanced. Also they have been advertising asian stnd up programme for weeks, is this not racist? I wonder if they will tell any jokes about the bombay massacre?
And Marcus Brigstock was on last night defending the BBC saying paying our licence fee was like a buying a bus ticket – you cant tell the bus driver where to go! Yes but the bus only goes one way (to Islington)!
from the times of india
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Arrested_terrorist_says_gang_hoped_to_get_away/articleshow/msid-3771598,curpg-1.cms
“A trained sailor, Ismail used the GPS to reach Mumbai coast on November 26. The group, however, slowed down its advance as they had reached during the day time while the landing was planned after dusk. The group shifted to inflatable boats, before disembarking at Badhwar Park in Cuffe Parade.
From there, they mandated to kill indiscriminately, particularly white foreign tourists, and spare Muslims split up into five batches.”
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 29.11.08 – 8:43 am | #
JBH your post was very revealing! My problem is, if the BBC refrains from using the “t” word how can it go about reporting news like the Israeli US ambassadors statement on Friday:
“Israel strongly condemns the terrorist attacks which have taken place in Mumbai,…”
“We are of course shocked and saddened by the intentional and brutal terrorist attack on the Chabad Center at Mumbai.”
Even Obama spoke of terrorism! By definition the BBC thus ceases to be a credible news organisation if it cannot utter the words being used. It becomes a deeply sinister and Orwellian machine of obfuscation.
BBC News editors, in my opinion, are really no better than the ethically repugnant duo of Ross and Brand. At the level of language what they are doing is adopting a similarly depraved role. The disgusting activity that Ross recently suggested on BBC radio, he would do and perform for Mr. Sachs (something that the BBC considers trivial and still continues to employ him)- is really the same sort of thing that BBC News editors are doing for Islamic terrorists everywhere!
And Marcus Brigstock was on last night defending the BBC saying paying our licence fee was like a buying a bus ticket – you cant tell the bus driver where to go! Yes but the bus only goes one way (to Islington)!
on the one hand he is an enormous self loathing cock, but on the other in these difficult times you should support your employer!!
What is ‘Any Questions’? Is it unreasonable to assume that – as in the case of Question Time – it’s got an engineered audience of shipped-in party stooges, student union pricks, and other assorted lefty arseholes? Or is the country fucked beyond repair to such an extent that the notion that – on the day we learn that 5 Israelis have been violently murdered (and by the looks of it, a young child orphaned) – the victims of Islamic Literalism are to blame garners ‘generous applause’?
and lets be brutally clear about this – Chabad House was specifically targetted because it is a JEWISH centre.
these terrorists are nothing more than the successors to the Waffen S.S.
unfortunately, all of the hostages were killed before the Indian commando raid. israeli foreign ministry has confirmed that a total of eight israelis have been murdered.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702336066&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Ever since I interviewed a BBC employee as a volunteer for The Samaritans and his answer to the question “What sort of behaviour, or people, anger you?” was “Tories”, I’ve stopped believing in the fascistic machine of the state (aka the BBC).
I watched the news yesterday morning with increasing disbelief. If you watched Sky you saw non-stop coverage of the Indian terror attacks: if you switched over to the Beeb you got a feature on a hitherto undisturbed garden in Falmouth …. I mean, WTF!!!
One can only hope the Indian govt show a robust attitude to the Islamic terrorists that have wreaked terror upon its citizens.The beeb will have a much harder task condemning Indias actions due to its love of non western nations when the response is forthcoming….my preference being the end of Pakistan.
Any questions – just one!
When will the BBC have an honest debate?
new york times – and thats quite a left wing liberal newspaper –
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30mumbai.html?_r=1&hp
first sentence:
“The full scope of the horror and desperation of the terrorist attack on Mumbai began to come into focus on Saturday “
Grant | 29.11.08 – 10:11 am:
Nice one. Snap!
johnj | 29.11.08 – 11:16 am:
Thanks for the nod, but don’t let me mislead you into thinking that the BBC never utters the “t” word – the BBC is quite content to broadcast the statements of others refering to terrorists. In the abovementioned 6.00 News bulletin the BBC even captioned a studio interview with a security expert thus:
NAFEEZ MOSADDEO AHMED
Terrorism expert
– which, when you think about it, renders even more absurd the avoidance of the word “terrorist” by the five BBC journalists in their related reports.
(It seems that captioning Mr. Ahmed as a “gunman expert;” “attacker expert;” or “militant expert” would have been too absurd, even for the BBC.)
frankos:
And Marcus Brigstock was on last night defending the BBC saying paying our licence fee was like a buying a bus ticket
I hope I’m riding that No 73 bus when it runs over the odious little Marcus Prickstock.
On CNN International the other day (yesterday, I think) the newsreader uttered the line, ‘The Indian Anti-Terrorist chief was killed by the militants’ without a hint of irony.
Again, I’m not a BBC apologist, but all of the sources I’ve seen have had their fair share of shaking-your-head-in-disbelief moments. Sky News yesterday, during the Skynews.com segment had John ‘The Moustache’ Bolton on and the basic jist of the interview was ‘How’s the Obama administration going to do things differently?’ and ‘Do you think the extremism situation would be helped if America wasn’t randomly (this is the exact word he used) killing people with unarmed drones in Pakistan?’
Bit can’t you see it is the Israeli’s fault. They trained these guys, supplied them with weapons and boats, gave them detailed plans of the hotels, indoctrinated them to kill Brits, Yanks & Israelis and promised to give them some chocolate chip ice cream on their return – bleedin’ obvious innit?
Nurse, nurse – quick!
Why does it matter whether they call them ‘gunmen’ or ‘terrorists’?
‘Gunmen’ is hardly a term of approval, is it? At least not where I live.
The problem for me is not about language, but about logic.
What’s brought me here this week (first time) is the amazing way all discussion of the Mumbai attacks on the BBC is trivial nitpicking about whether there is any Pakistani involvement, whether the motive is a loca grudge etc. etc.
Antone would think the BBC had never heard of the global jihad.
sorry about atrocious spelling, that was supposed to be:
anyone would think the BBC had never heard of the global jihad.
Jane, Al Beeb has used the word “rocketeers” to describe the T word and of course theyve heard of global jihad, its just Al Beeb isnt on our side, aunty backs the religion on peace
sorry forgot to add Beeboid scumbags
:+:
just listening to any questions.
caroline lucas is one hell of an idiotic fuckwit.
shocking…
She is amongst the worst I have ever heard, a dhimmified eco-loon.
Jane, I think it’s really quite simple: “gunmen” is morally neutral; it describes men armed with guns. “terrorists” is as technically accurate, but communicates in addition the fact the subjects are using violence, intimidation, and indiscriminate murder to achieve their aims.
The word “terrorist” is universally understood as being morally condemnatory. “Gunmen” is not.
The problem is that within the BBC it has clearly been decided that such moral judgements are best avoided if possible. Apologists for this avoidance argue typically that the term is loaded with baggage and is emotional. In fact it is, for that is merely another way of saying that is technically precise (ie, loaded with the baggage of a clearly-understood, verifiable meaning), and morally clear, (ie, it makes the moral judgement that the terrorising and deliberate indiscriminate murder of non-combatant civilians is to be condemned, whatever the cause, whoever the perpetrators, and however many the victims).
If the BBC simply wanted to report the facts and leave the moral judgements to others, one could argue that this was acceptable, though I personally would not agree with that position. However, when they go to such lengths to amputate any hint of moral accuracy from their language when describing Islamic mass-murder, but on the other hand are only too happy to actively seek out and condemn in strictly moral and emotional terms any single instance they can find of perceived Israeli or American misbehaviour, we are entitled to infer from their moral inconsistencies an actual bias, a moral decision in itself: at best, it can be seen as saying that white Western society has moral agency and needs to be held acountable for the slightest wrongdoing, while we must – for unexplained reasons – be careful not to make moral judgements when people belonging to any minority group commit mass-murder.
At worst, it implies something even more repuganant than that racist double-standard.
Personally, I find it supremely patrician and arrogant of this institution to take £3.2bn of our money every year, and decide that it is too sophisticated to use a technical term that is well understood by all those who pay its way. And that’s giving it the benefit of the doubt. My actual belief? It’s worse than arrogance: as the BBC reporter told a Palestinian rally, the media stand shoulder by shoulder with the Palestinian cause. The BBC cannot be trusted to report accurately on any aspect of Islam’s embryonic jihad against the non-believing world, because it mistakenly believes that the jihad shares some of its own liberal concerns, and because it has become transfixed in an infantile worldview in which the white man is morally guilty, and anything a minority group does is simply a response to western acts, as though they are simple puppets on strings, incapable of forming beliefs or worldviews of their own, unconnected with the white man’s actions.
I have to stop myself now. I’m only writing this much to avoid going shopping with the other half. I dread weekends…
Having said that, Jane – I do agree that the problem is not the language, the language is the symptom and expression of the problem. The problem lies deeper, and counting word-use is the least of our problems. In that, we agree absolutely.