The BBC approach to Lord Goldsmith seems to vary, doesn’t it? When he was advising Tony Blair that it was OK to assist in the liberation of Iraq, his judgement was questioned. But when he argues that Britain should open it’s arms and embrace some of the Jihadi scum currently detained at Guantanamo, he’s suddenly a good guy! The BBC line on Islamic terrorism is consistent and profoundly dhimmified. The meme is that all those in Gitmo are innocent and it is vital that the UK accepts as many as possible, after all it’s what Obama wants. And so the New Year begins with the UK actually seeking to import terrorists and the BBC sees no wrong in this and provides no space for those who hold that this is reckless beyond words.
Great — go for it Goldsmith, make the Ingrate Leader even MORE unpopular.
“Goldsmith told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the policy of detaining people suspected of links to terrorism without trial at Guantanamo had been “misguided”.”
Of course it didn’t cross the empty mind of the interviewer to ask:
“Are you saying the vast majority of those incarserated in Gitmo, are NOT illegal combatant captured out of uniform, armed to their rottting teeth, FIGHTING and killing allied troops?
But that would be too bleedin’ obvious for the BBC.
I was under the impression that this blog was intended to make arguments that detail the BBC’s bias, not to simply vent your spleen and grandstand political views.
No one knows how many people in Guantanamo are innocent, but we believe in the rule of law, and they ARE innocent UNTIL we prove them guilty. You cannot blame Obama for actually wanting to put these guys to trial to see whether it’s all been worthwhile or some rightwing tactic to arrest and intimidate Muslims.
Previous blogger – what planet are you on?
Care to elaborate?
If there’s anyone venting non-BBC bias spleen here it’s Alex. The BBC has very clear lines on what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Goldsmith was WRONG when he advised us to go to war, but he is RIGHT when he changes tack and decides we need to open our homes to jihadist nutters from Guantanimo. BBC logic.
There’s a good comments thread over at The Times online regarding this.
Alex,
That’s my point that Robert summarises. The BBC held Goldsmith up to great ridicule when his views ran contrary to theirs but now he articulates a view they favour, he’s a great guy with impeccable judgement. The BIAS lies – as ever – with the BBC.
Come on, you think the BBC is biased, look at American news, hopeless propaganda like Fox News. Thats biased nonsense. The BBC is far from perfect, but it doesn’t tell us what to think. And also, many of the criticisms on this site levelled at BBC News could be applied to Sky News too, would you agree?
Alex – first of all apologies for being abrupt, not usually my style, but your comment about being innocent until proved guilty when talking about these terrorists is rather OTT, If there was any doubt they wouldn’t be there now.
Jim T,
I take your point, but why not put them to trial? If we/USA suspect them of something we must have some evidence yes? So why not try them? Thats what I don’t understand. What they do in Guantanamo is to ask us to trust them that these guys are terrorists. They may well be, but we need to see the proof via a trial. If Mugabe locks people up we don’t trust him (correctly) yet we are expected to take Bush’s word for it that these guys are guilty?
Sorry Alex,
I do not agree with you at all. Fox News is in my view, much better balanced than any other US network and the viewing figures it gets rather proves this. By contraast, CNN, NBC, CBS – all biased rubbish, just like NPB.
Some of the criticism here levelled at Al Beeb COULD also be applied to Sky, but there is a profound difference. I am FORCED to fund the BBC, I have free choice re Sky.
Plus, the BBC is a global menace, Sky is more limited.
So as a compromise, rather than leave these people free to swell the ranks of the Enemy Within, why not confine them to say Ascension Island?
Alex Reynolds: Of course the muzzies at Gitmo are innocent. After all I was going to go to Afghanistan or northern Pakistan for a computer course next week myself.
I hear the Taliban run a really good web design course there.
I bet you read the Guardian and think the BBC is ‘good value for money’
Gordon: Better still why not just let the fuckers starve to death? Who really gives a shit?
The problem is not Guantanamo, BBC; the problem is Islamic jihadists, and there are millions of them in the world.
And most British people don’t want them here. And it was not on Labour’s election manifesto to bring in Islamic jihad suspects as immigrants. (Even if they go initially to other EU countries first, there is nothing to prevent them coming to UK later to settle, as many Somalis switched from the Netherlands to Leicester.)
Sorry Martin, although I usually think your heart is in the right place even if your language is a little ripe at times, I can’t go along with killing captives like Mo did.
I’m sure if the Newsnight staffers were revealed to sacrifice children before each show, we’d still get Beeboids on here claiming Fox was worse.
Well, OK Beeboids: let’s assume Fox is totally biased. Where’s the Alan Colmes of the BBC? Here’s nasty old Fox with (up to recently) a screamingly leftists co-presenter on one of its biggest shows. Where’s the rightist BBC presenter?
Gordon: Don’t feel sorry for them. Most of them are happy to go and collect their 72 virgins anyway, I just want to ‘help them on their way’ 🙂
DJ: We get this all the time. Some letie comes on and point to Fox News as being right wing. Usually these loons have never watched Fox.
Fox is THE most balanced TV network I’ve seen for political debate. They always do head to head they have plenty of shows with a leftie and a rightie on (Hannity and Colmes, the Beltway Boys for starters).
No one ever mention the left wing liberal US networks like CNN or MSNBC.
People forget it was Fox that broke the story about Bush and his drinking past.
And anyway, no American is forced to pay for Fox under threat of imprisonment, something the vegetable eating Guardian lovers that post here seem to forget.
Alex Reynolds | 02.01.09 – 4:22 pm
Alex, the detainees in Guantanamo are Terrorist Prisoners of War. There’s no need to Miranda them.
A very good point was made about the different treatment Lord Goldsmith gets when advocating something BBC lefties agree with.
I understood that those whom Goldsmith/Straw et al. are prepared to admit to this country are not UK citizens. Therefore, we can have no obligation whatsoever towards them.
On the legal point about the need to be proved guilty in a regular court of law, well, this is certainly true in peacetime. However, we are at war, and wartime rules should apply. Were any captured Germans, Nazis or otherwise, allowed into this country during or after WW2 to plead their case in a British court?
Alex Reynolds | 02.01.09 – 4:22 pm |
Muslim in disguise by any chance?
DJ — let’s just accept the bogus “argument” made by ignorant lefties that FOX NEWS is actually “biased.”
(Though what that means is tyrannical leftists get incandesdent with rage that conservative viewpoints get ANY airing in public.)
SO WHAT?
FNC is a CABLE channel. It has miniscule footprint compared to just ONE US broadcast Network, who are so left it’s beyond parody.
FNC’s highest rated show (The O’Reilly Factor) pulls a TOTAL of 4 million viewers, including repeats.
It also has competition from two other cable channels: the avowedly extreme left MSNBC, and the leftish CNN.
In case anyone is under any delusion about the political biases in print and TV newsrooms, recent polls have shown that 90% of journalist actually ADMIT to being Democrat supporters.
Dermocrats OWN the news business in the US. Just like “socialists” of various hues OWN the BBC. Which, unlike Fox News, I have to pay for.
The BBC is far from perfect, but it doesn’t tell us what to think
Alex Reynolds | 02.01.09 – 4:33 pm | #.
…………….thank you Alex. Not only does the BBC tell us what to think overtly and often less so but it charges us a packet for the advice.
To the right of your screen you will see archives dating back to 2002………..time well spent.
Libertarian:
The BBC is far from perfect, but it doesn’t tell us what to think
Alex Reynolds | 02.01.09 – 4:33 pm | #.
You gotta laugh. A guy parroting the BBC claims it didn’t tell him what to think!
I miss the relative objectivity of Fox News. Now that I don’t subscribe to Sky any more, all I get are the hyper-biased state propaganda services in the form of BBC New, Press TV, Russia Tofay and Al Jazeera.
If Fox News had a left-wing editorial line, the ‘z0mg teh fox newz is teh byasd!!1!LOL’ internet meme wouldn’t exist. It’s only because its editorialising – real or imagined – is right-of-centre that it becomes a problem amongst the ‘peaceful, tolerant, open-minded’ left.
Assuming Fox News does have a bias, it’s rendered irrelevant by the BBC’s. BBC News these days doesn’t even make an effort at being objective.
Alex R wrote:
“No one knows how many people in Guantanamo are innocent, but we believe in the rule of law, and they ARE innocent UNTIL we prove them guilty.”
Ok, I can live with that. What I can’t live with is how the bBC promotes every chance it can get the right for scum (Yes they are f-ing scum) to come to the UK and klive here. Tell you what mate if you or any of the bBC wankers who defend the right for these so called innocent men to come and live in the UK. Put them up in your house and pay their bills. I don’t have a problem with that at all.
The bias of the BBC news deparment in this report is quite clear, in character, and in keeping with their generally pro-Islam / anti USA position.
What really gives me a problem is motive.
I can understand their dislike of the USA. It is inexcusable, but a common liberal/left failing.
I can even understand their desire to be seen to hold racially neutral views, not wanting to arouse even the slightest suspicion of a politically incorrect thought entrering their collective psyche. (almost excusable even though Islam is not a “race” as such).
However, I have so far failed completely to determine why they consistently come out on the side of a belief system which on any but the most cursory of examinations is quite easily identified as standing squarely in opposition to everything that the bien pensant thinkers at BBC news should hold dear.
Maybe they know something I don’t.
Maybe they believe that the islamisation of Britain is an inevitability and that they are merely protecting their future prospects under the new caliphate by adopting this uncritical stance.
This would be OK to me if I didn’t have to stump up £139.50 plus inflation every year to buy them the privilege to spout their egregious wrong-headed piffle.
Beeboids? Why do some of you guys form a seige mentality? Anyone who wants to discuss something that goes against your firmly held views must be a loonie leftie, a guardian reader etc. Prejudiced crap that nonsense, especially Martin. Martin, I lived in the US for years. I still watch Fox every now and then, and yes its right wing biased nonsense. But thats not the main discussion here, I clearly shouldn’t have brought it up. It just pisses me off y know that I cannot disagree with you without being branded a leftie, commie etc. Grow up
MartinW: wer are at war you say?? come on, its only a war cos our leaders define it as such. There is no great struggle between Islamism and the rest of us. These suicide bombers and the like call themselves Muslim cos it helps them win support in the Middle East, and also cos it fires up people like you to oppose them. which is exactly what they want – they want to look like the victim, you play right into their hands by claiming we are involved in some sort of war.
disillusioned_german:
I assume you are joking, otherwise you’re a low life idiot who should be in the Nazis, moron
I agree with Alex Reynolds about the “innocent until proven guilty”, it does apply to those at Guantanamo Bay until they have been brought to trial, Denmocracies don’t go in for lynch mob mentalities.
BUT I also agree with DVs point on this thread about Goldsmith, the BBC Bias is screaming at you. We love Goldsmith when it fits our narrative but excoriate him when he doesn’t play fair.
It always amuses me when someone like ALEX tells Muslims that they are NOT Muslims. That they are only “pretending” to be “Muslims.”
What a dick.
Jack Bauer:
just be honest here, do you hate muslims full stop?
I pretty much LOATH your type, Alex.
my type?
answer the question arsehole
And I’m not the one lecturing Muslims. You are. You being the “expert” on what makes a real Muslim. Do you have a litmus test.
Which is kinda weird because which one is “real” to you. Shia, Sunni or Suffi.
Ho ho. As I said. What a dick.
Alex Reynolds: Muslims are out to exterminate every non Muslim that lives. That’s what the Koran tells them to do.
Take a look around. Everywhere there is violence Muslims are involved. When they are not beheading each other (which they do for fun) they move into other Countries and try to take over from the inside.
Someone here once did a brilliant post about how violence in a Country increases as the % of Muslims living there increases. Anyone else remember it?
Why is it that Muslims just can’t seem to live in peace with ANY other group on the planet?
David Vance / moderators:
I really think that a sticky or similar is required to point out to newbies that anyone other than the bBC can be as biased as they like because WE ARE NOT FORCED TO PAY FOR THEM UNDER THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT, and nor do any of them have a charter that demands even-handedness.
It has become a nearly daily occurrence now that some breathless apologist for the bBC comes along and strawman’s away with “What about Fox / Daily Mail / The Trumpton Times? They said x about occurrence y – why aren’t you having a go at them for being biased?”
A sticky or FAQ might go some way towards combatting this.
BISMARK — great idea. It gets really tedious to go through this BOGUS Fox trope every so often.
down like the bismarck: It won’t matter. Leftists don’t seem to mind that people are forced to subsidise the BBC and the Guardian. They’d only complain if the BBC and the Guardian were right wing.
Alex Reynolds: Has the nurse been in to give you your pills yet?
Alex Reynolds: You claim that killing Moslims is counter productive because it will simply harden their will to resist. But surely, there must exist a tipping point at which Muslim loss of life becomes more significant than the presumed consequential stiffening of resolve. This is what happened to the Germans in WWII.
Or to put it another way the greater ones weakness the more one is likely to win.
Would it had been so when Baghdad faced the Mongols in 1258!
Martin:
Someone here once did a brilliant post about how violence in a Country increases as the % of Muslims living there increases. Anyone else remember it?
Do you mean this?
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/islam-is-not-religion-nor-is-it-cult-it_16.html
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark 2%, Germany 3.7%, United Kingdom 2.7%, Spain 4%, Thailand 4.6%.
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France 8%, Philippines 5%, Sweden 5%, Switzerland 4.3%, The Netherlands 5.5%, Trinidad & Tobago 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana 10%, India 13.4%, Israel 16%, Kenya 10%, Russia 10-15%.
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia 32.8%,
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia 40%, Chad 53.1%, Lebanon 59.7%.
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania 70%, Malaysia 60.4%, Qatar 77.5%, Sudan 70%.
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh 83%, Egypt 90%, Gaza 98.7%, Indonesia 86.1%, Iran 98%, Iraq 97%, Jordan 92%, Morocco 98.7%, Pakistan 97%, Palestine 99%, Syria 90%, Tajikistan 90%, Turkey 99.8%, United Arab Emirates 96%.
100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” – the Islamic House of Peace – there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan 100%, Saudi Arabia 100%, Somalia 100%, Yemen 99.9%.
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, “The Haj”
kersal flyer: Brilliant thanks. One of the best posts about the threat of Islam ever.
See the overwhelmingly scathing comments on the Sky website:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Annie-Lennox-And-Alexei-Sayle-Lead-Calls-For-An-End-To-Israeli-Strikes-In-Gaza/Article/200901115196670?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15196670_Annie_Lennox_And_Alexei_Sayle_Lead_Calls_For_An_End_To_Israeli_Strikes_In_Gaza
People can see beyond this superficial posturing even though it’s taken so seriously by the meeja. It must be the backlash from “Give us yer money” Geldof and Bonio. They put people off once and for all.
Just imagine all the has-been celebs subverting the usual channels and instantly becoming world leaders, with a mandate for hope and change. No need to bother with standing for parliament and being an M.P. and all that tediousness. Take Obama.
At the summit, a gathering of the most powerful people on the planet; Mr. Alexei Sayle, leader of the free world, Mother Annie Lennox representing orphans and the underprivileged everywhere, President Bonio saviour of the African Continent, Tariq Ali survivor of nine assassination attempts and a suicide attempt, Bianca Jagger of Knicker ag-u-r, and Grand Mufti Galloway of Leotard representing the late Saddam who would have loved to be here.
No, it’s not working.
Which war was it where they put enemy prisoners to trial before the war was over? I forget.
Perhaps someone from BBC News could remind me.
…otherwise you’re a low life idiot who should be in the Nazis, moron…
Alex Reynolds | 02.01.09 – 5:54 pm
Thanks, that’s all I needed to know!
I came on this website hoping to read intelligent conversation about the flaws in the BBC. Instead I see it’s just a load of miserable people moaning about the world changing around them. Get over this mythical past you aspire to that never existed. Stop worrying about jihadists, they are not hiding in every city ready to blow up buses. You guys only see the negatives in life it seems. You see what you want to, and if you choose to be miserable and scared then its your choice, but stop going on about it, and instead engage in discussion about improving things. Look for a genuine discussion, not just insult slanging.
“…otherwise you’re a low life idiot who should be in the Nazis, moron.”
Alex Reynolds | 02.01.09 – 9:33 pm |
This wasn’t exactly thoughtful debate was it?