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.
Prince Harry was just plain wrong to call them “rag-heads”. They don’t wear rags around their heads, but little sheets. The correct term is little sheet head.
Hi, I thought that I might share my view on the Prince Harry saga. I feel that it has been blown out of proportion a little, but perhaps it is still a worthy story regardless. Would I be offended if I was called a ‘Paki’ or a ‘Raghead’? Yes. However it is important to actually watch the clip (I saw it on Sky earlier, I’m not sure if the BBC is even showing it). Harry doesn’t make the comments in an offensive manner; that is to say, it’s not meant to belittle nor insult. But a Prince should still not use terms of the such, and neither should a member of the Armed Forces – who are still strggling in the battle to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Remember though that Harry is a young man, and all young men make mistakes. The media do like to make a show out of calling people racists (makes them feel better about themselves). The real problem perhaps is that Prince Harry, like Prince Phillip, has doubtless grown up being taught that his position is based to some degree on an idea of racial superiority. I do not mean in the Nazi sense, but in the British Empire sense (ie.Britain was correct in it’s colonial days, it was only trying to help the Indians/Africans etc etc). I’m sure the remark will be forgotten about soon.
Qaz M: Sorry but it’s double standards. When Channel 4 did undercover Mosque ‘I’ as a white westerner was referred to in the most disgusting way as were women and Jews.
Funny thing it the twats that run the BBC didn’t bother to attack Muslims for using this type of language (we see it in Saudi school books used in Muslim schools in the UK) but instead attacked the producers of the programme.
British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan on an almost daily basis yet the twats at the BBC seem to take great delight in grinding them into the dirt.
So what if British soldiers call Muslims rag heads? I for one don’t care.
The bastards that blew up the tube trains on 7/7 got called a lot worse by me.
On the 23rd the BBC were slated because Rab C Nesbit called someone a Hun. The BBC’s response? To excuse it as a joke and then to repeat the original programme a week later.
If anyone wanys to start a campaign against the BBC, please count me in.
Martin,
Remember that no-one on the Channel 4 program was a member of the Royal Family, nor a high profile figure. As a society we look up to the famous faces we see on our television sets, and the real problem here is that if young children watching the TV see the future king making racist and careless remarks, then they may consider it ok to do the same. That explains some of the fuss, in my opinion of course. Also, I am sure that the BBC is not grinding the soldiers into the dirt. I have just watched the news and there was no implication that this was a problem eslewhere in the armed forces, nor that it was symptomatic.
But on your first point, I agree entirely. Racist remarks are racist whether they are directed at Muslims, blacks of whites.
Sorry, that should be blacks OR whites.
so maybe Pakistanis should stop using the extremely derogatory sobriquet kuffar, when describing non-Muslim Britons, too then?
I smell hypocrisy.
I stand by what I said in my previous post reagrding the motivations of those whipping this up into something resembling a story.
I am not aware that Harry is ‘the future king’.
I am sorry you have a boil on your knob, Chuffer, especially as it’s where your brain is.
Classic on Radio 5 just now. Some female beeboid was going on about the way the Government is fiddling the GCSE Maths results by allowing children to take easier questions and still get a grade A and avoid having to learn any Algebra.
She was is discussion with some professor and she just couldn’t see why it mattered.
Funny that when it comes to the arts the BBC always thinks it’s important.
Qaz M: Not true. The BBC recently did a programme on BBC called Soldier undercover or something similar (rather like the Police one) where they banged on about racism in the armed forces.
Today the BBC has done nothing but seek the opinion of Muslims about this incident. What’s wrong with asking white people what THEY think?
Forget about Harry being a Royal. He’s a soldier and as you have obviously never been in the forces you won’t understand that as part of your basic training it is drummed into you that the forces don’t give a shit who you are or where you are from. Your loyalty is to the unit and the men you serve with. Harry was just acting like any other soldier. Perhaps that might shock the skinny 8 stone weeds that work at the BBC, but it’s the truth.
Nearly Oxfordian |
are you employed by derek draper come to sow dissent between us all.
Well said Martin – these idiots just don’t understand service life. More years ago ago than I like to remember I was a National Serviceman and we all worked together but at the same time calling each other all sorts of things. Indeed even in those far off days however much we moaned about the corporals and sergeants they made clear they didn’t care where you were from or who you were. Off topic, I know, but at my square bashing we had two lads who were in training for the church and the corporal told them if he swore he wasn’t swearing at them but the ******* mop they were wielding.
Jim T. | 11.01.09 – 9:00 pm |
I left the forces in 1970 and promptly spent two years as a mercenary in the Dhofar region of Oman. Our mess boys were Indian and the dhobi wallahs were Pakis. They were always kicking the shit out of each other. We lumped them all together as wogs.
The Arabs who were trying to kill us were ragheads and also labeled as wogs. Amongst us the ex army were known as brown jobs, ex-navy as fish heads, ex-Fleet Air Arm and ex RAF were fairies, Army Intelligence was green slime. But when the Casevac choppers came in everyone was as one.
I’s something that only those that have been in the forces could understand and would certainly go over the head of any BBC twerp.
Jim T & TPO: That’s just it, the beeboids who probably only go to play with Barbi as kids (and that’s the males) don’t understand that in service life people get called all sorts of things at times.
I won’t even repeat what we used to call officers.
The leftists just don’t understand. Wankers that work at the BBC wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the military.
I often wonder if anyone at the BBC in a senior position has ever served in the military?
Naughty, Naughty BBC!, paying money to gunmen?.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7822092.stm
unbelievable….
Presumably Moslems never use any derogatory terms for non-Moslems.
Martin | 11.01.09 – 10:02 pm |
I forgot the RAF Regiment. They ran the mortar teams at Salalah. And as every serviceman knows they were always referred to as rock apes
Question: On which BBC Radio programme was this inflammatory statement made:
“The President elect cannot say anything about savage Israeli aggression…”
Answer in next post….
Answer: Jeremy Hardy on the News Quiz, about 4.5 minutes in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/fricomedy/
Laughed? I nearly wet them.
BBC employees big day out
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30a_1231680653
I don’t think I have a boil on my knob, Dreary. But then, again, if you say so, I had better check when I go to bed tonight. After all, you knew all about my wife’s hymen when I married her, so I’d be a fool to question you.
Dagobert:
Presumably Moslems never use any derogatory terms for non-Moslems.
Including Sarah Jane who absently minded used the word ‘gheyer’ a month or so ago in a context where it could only have been a rendition of the turkish ‘gaiour’, their equivalent of the arabic ‘khaffir’. I’ve never come across a British person using the word outside of the specific discussion of turkish affairs. He, she or it was so gushingly effusive in her friendliness towards Qaz M the other day it was almost embarrassing.
She could have just been using a new spelling of gayer?
Well, the BBC have achieved something today which I never thought would happen.
Their indigestible self-righteousness has made me join the British National Party.
I had to laugh. On Radio5 this morning some reporter was telling beeboids about how the Muslim loons in Iraq made Goat farmers put pants on the Goats to stop the young Muslim males getting so turned on and wanting to stick their dicks into the Goats.
Now this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1112128/Taliban-murders-traditional-dancing-girl-Pakistan-power-grows-region.html
Well those with forces experience on here apparently don’t speak for everyone. A friend who is an ex-para said to me-
‘As a former soldier, I’d like to see this cunt drummed out. He is clearly incapable of conducting himself in a manner becoming a member of the royal family, let alone taking command of a body of men. His royal status has already compromised his ability to be an effective officer – his half arsed tour of the ‘stan – and he clearly can’t keep his gobby, ginger little twat shut.
How is he supposed to command men who may be of a racial extraction other than white, eton old boy my grandma is the queen ( and my dad is james hewitt)?
Whats worse is the MOD statement which says ‘ racism and bullying are not endemic in the army’ – because they fucking are.’
Richard Lancaster | 11.01.09 – 11:31 pm |
One swallow doesn’t make a Spring and you Lancaster have never had to stick your head above the parapet.
Summer either for that matter.
Richard Lancaster: What utter utter bollocks.
What has his gob got to do with his tour of Afghanistan by the way?
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/190331/diff/7/8
Notice how the BBC added a very relavent perspective on the current row about Prince Harry’s using the term “paki”.
Martin | 12.01.09 – 12:05 am |
Martin, Lancaster just doesn’t get it.
He wouldn’t have the first idea what a rupert is and that they are generally looked down on.
Doesn’t this clueless twit work for the BBC.
I’m sick to death of people who become experts on the services because they once had a pint with someone who was in the TA.
As of 12.15am the BBC website doesn’t appear to feature any reports of Sunday’s pro-Israel rally in London.
Should I hold my breath waiting for a report?
But if there really is a report tucked into some out-of-the-way corner, then of course I apologize unreservedly to all concerned.
Qaz M, you were a muslim in the other thread, now here you are a faerie. Which is it?
It’s red face time!
I just noticed the rally IS reported, and on the front page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822656.stm
It’s late, and I’m tired…what can I say?
“…but argued that Palestinians must accept some responsibility for the conflict..”
I don’t know how to emphasize the word SOME in that paragraph.
The BBC subtley uses qualifiers to sabotage the truth.
Those protestors wanted Palestine to take TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONFLICT! Why must they always modify what is.
The Cuban health service so beloved of the BBC. But wait, what’s this then:
… Chavez recalled the last time he saw Castro in public, a few days before he was admitted to hospital in Cordoba, Argentina.
Cuban hospitals not good enough for fiddling Fidel then?
By the way this dear leader of the workers has salted away some 900 million dollars, like just about every African dictator. Still the vile and odious Margaret Hodge along with her BBC stooge friends can’t wait for their next holiday there among the throng of happy forelock tugging peasants.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/cuba/4219222/Fidel-Castro-unlikely-to-be-seen-in-public-again.html
On the whole I should prefer an army to be racist. Makes them more commited to fighting the enemy.
It is with a sense of weariness I draw your attention to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7809160.stm
What else does one expect from the BBC
The survey • released exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph • also spells out the threat posed to the Tories by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in elections to the European Parliament which take place on 4 June. Ten per cent of those who would vote Tory in a general election will back UKIP in the euro-election, the survey suggests
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4214369/Loosen-Britains-ties-with-European-Union-say-two-thirds-of-voters..html
Here’s an interesting pro-liebour use of the Related Internet Links section of a news article on the BBC web site.
Children services inquiry ordered
The offending link is to the Department for Children, Schools and Families web site. I’d expect it to go to the site’s homepage but instead the link goes to the ministerial profiles page.
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/whoswho/ministersinfo.shtml
It’s like a free advertisement for Balls and his chums.
Marxist, government organ BBC will take every opportunity to denigrate the monarchy. Murdoch is anti-monarchy so Sky stuck all day Sunday on the Harry non-story. No independent broadcasters in UK. No humour allowed anywhere. Watch old WW11 movies, everyone has a personalised nickname- shorty, lofty, four-eyes, ginger. Working overseas the different nationalities ribbed each other all the time • Brits, roast beef; I-ties; frogs; canuks; yanks. Brits need to get their lives back from the po-faced PC media and government.
This Prince Harry thing,all a storm in a teacup,or should i correctly say crockery piece! I bet the bastard beeboids are loving this.
I just came across this quote in: The Editors, Reporting from Gaza, James Stephenson, 6 Jan 09
There is a military censor in Israel and we’ve received text messages reminding us that any material touching on national security is meant to be submitted before broadcast. In practice, we haven’t cleared anything before use. At one point, we had a live position next to Israeli artillery near the border with one cannon in clear view. We were not allowed to show a wide shot revealing the extent and location of the battery – and we said so in the live broadcast.
Now why would the BBC want to reveal the extent and location of artillery. Surely the loyal viewers in Gloucester, Glasgow and Gaza City have a right to know?
I checked the Guidelines to find there is no specific guideline obligation to obey any law outside the UK. Even within the UK it may be doubtful. What do you make of this?
There may be occasions where providing accurate, impartial and fair coverage in the public interest involves possible conflict with the law. Where such cases arise we must consider:
* what effect breaking the law might have on the BBC.
* what the effect might be on people concerned.
* internationally, the effect on the BBC’s future coverage of the region.
Any proposal to break the law must be referred to a senior editorial figure or for Independents to the commissioning editor, who must consult Head of Programme Legal Advice and, if necessary, Controller Editorial Policy.
WTF Any proposal to break the law ❓
Another interesting one comes from Editorial principles & coverage of conflict.
We should normally say if our reports are censored or monitored or if we withhold information, and explain, wherever possible, the rules under which we are operating.
I don’t recall the BBC announcing they are ignoring Hamas censorship rules in making a report or even admitting that these rules are in place. Only reasonable rules of a democratic government at war can be ignored with impunity.
Out of 496 comments to the James Stephenson piece I refer to above, fully 226 have been removed, at time of writing .
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is this some kind of a record?
Is this some kind of a record?
deegee | 12.01.09 – 10:38 am | #
As this blog can often find, moderation is a tricky path, and I can honestly appreciate it’s one anyone, and especially the BBC faces.
Mind you, there is a certain irony in such preventing of access to/transmission of dodgy material (unpleasant, untrue, etc) to protect one’s interests and those you hold dear.
In the case of the BBC I guess it’s mainly to avoid them getting done for broadcasting misinformation and hate material, etc. Fair enough.
Now, on the other hand, their reactions to the IDF not letting their crack squad of objective event interpreters in to Gaza have been….?
Must be another of those amazing numbers of standards that makes them so unique.
deegee | 12.01.09 – 10:38 am
Perhaps they will follow their own guidelines and announce that the editors blog is produced under the constraint of censorship.
deegee | 12.01.09 – 10:38 am
If you look at comment 12, you will see that it refers to comment 10, which has been removed.
The context suggests that what the BBC is worried about is that its viewers may discover the back history of Dr Mads Gilbert, whom the BBC have been presenting as a serious, unbiased source all week.
Dr Mads Gilbert on 9/11 from Wikipedia:
“The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.” When asked if he supported a terrorist attack against the US he answered: “Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.”