My but wasn’t the Today programme in cracking form this morning? Did you catch the class warrior Martin Narey from poverty-industry giant Barnardos declaring that “investment” in Education has helped mostly the middle-classes whilst the “poor” have seen little benefit. Yes, right-on, Comrade and pass the sick-bucket. This then segued into a report featuring a Gazan doctor and the death of hundreds of babies at the hands of those evil Israelis. The question was asked of the not so good doctor where the greatest risk to babies in Gaza comes from, the answer, Hamas, was never even considered! Next, Prince Harry and that alleged “racist” comment three years ago. The oleaginous Keith Vaz was given time to slime on and give his opinion. The BBC loves nothing better than attacking a Royal and this non-story, spun by the circulation-deprived News of the World, is perfect for the BBC since it allows them to set the attack dogs on the Royal Family but using the veneer of “racism.”

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. NotaSheep says:

    Rather than listen to the Today programme and have my health and mental well-being suffer, I had a long lie-in today and missed the whole programme. As a consequence I am feeling rested and relatively cheerful; maybe I have stumbled upon something…


  2. Tom says:

    Narey is right to say that education chiefly benefits the middle-class.

    That’s because middle-class parents value education and make sure their kids do their homework, keep books at home, prepare for exams etc.

    Despite being given 7 years totally free schooling, the children of the poor tend to leave primary school unable to read and write.

    At secondary school they play truant, take drugs and brandish knives.

    Egged on by the BBC, the patronizing authorities have such low expectations of this victim class that they can’t be arsed to do anything remedial.

    If parents faced having their Sky dishes, Wiis and playstations confiscated, and an Asbo banning them from all pubs and off-licences, if their kids failed their exams – then I guarantee education standards would improve markedly.


  3. hippiepooter says:

    “The oleaginous Keith Vaz was given time to slime on and give his opinion.”

    Some years ago in a documentary Keith Vaz was recorded saying to an Asian Labour colleague concering a local party post “Why should this job go to a white person”.

    Very well qualified to speak about racism.


  4. Tom says:

    David Vance

    I take it you must have switched off in boredom/disgust before the interview with Sir Jeremy Greenstock.

    This was really VERY revealing.

    It was clear that the Greenstock line is the one the BBC itself believes.

    Key points from the int:

    * Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel. Any statements where it seems to do that are just ‘rhetorical symbols of resistance to occupation’.

    * The Hamas charter is irrelevant because it has never been adopted as Hamas’s political programme.

    * Hamas really wants peace and a 2 state solution.

    * Hamas is a model of interfaith dialogue and multicultural sensitivity. How else do you explain the fact that the best school in Gaza is Catholic?

    * The world is being lied to about those missiles. They’re really being fired by Fatah.

    * Israeli military action in Gaza is entirely down to the impending general election.

    None of these points – save the one about the Hamas charter – was so much as queried by the beeboid interviewer.



  5. David Vance says:


    Thanks for that – yes, I had switched off by that stage.


  6. Martin says:

    Nicki Campbell is back doing the 5 lite phone in. First topic, the racist Prince Harry.

    Apart from the fact Campbell is a hopeless presenter and spends most of his time interrupting callers to try to crack some unfunny joke, this morning’s phone in is a classic.

    Reminds me of the one he did after 9/11.


  7. DB says:

    Bloke at yesterday’s pro-Israel rally:
    Pro Israel Protest - London, January 11 2009


  8. RR says:

    Keith Vaz in so unctuous, so very holier-than-thou, that a few decades ago he might have been a bishop.

    Fascinating the way that the discussion of social mobility failed to mention the words “grammar school” even once. As a grammar school-educated first-generation graduate I would have thought the destruction of grammar schools might have been worth at least a mention.


  9. Rob Santiago says:

    Martin: Nicki Campbell is back doing the 5 lite phone in. First topic, the racist Prince Harry.

    The phone-in on Harry/Paki was packed with spokesmen from various muslim pressure groups like the loathsome Mohammad Shafiq from the Ramadan Foundation, and with multi-culti leftists, one of whom had the temerity to tell a black caller from Zimbabwe/Rhodesia that he didn’t understand racism.

    I tried for most of the hour to get on the phone-in by phone and text. I usually succeed when I’m making points on topics other
    than our problems with our muslim communities.

    Campbell was particularly useless, failing to pick up on points about pakistani muslim insults for westerners and non-muslims like ferengi and kafr/kufaar. He even let two different pakistani muslim grievance merchants get away with claiming that the terms “fatty” and “ginger” were racist.

    At one point Campbell stated that the muslim insult “ferengi” came from Star Trek.

    A convention of imbeciles.


  10. Anonymous says:

    At one point Campbell stated that the muslim insult “ferengi” came from Star Trek.

    It does.


  11. Anonymous says:

    “Ferengi” and similar terms are Arabic names for European traders, or for Westerners in general. Both the Arabic word and the name are similarly pronounced [fɛˈrɪŋɡi]. The name is likely derived from the Arabic word faranj or ifranj, “Franks”, or possibly the Persian word farangi, meaning “foreigner”. In Ethiopia, ferenj or ferenji has the same meaning. This, the Chinese like all the other Near Eastern, Asian and African peoples had gotten from the Byzantine Greeks who were the Westerner’s neighbours.[3] Greeks still sometimes use fra[n]gkoi (φράγκοι) as an exonym for Western Europeans. This is associated with the coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, a fact that did not, on the whole, please the Greeks of the time who called themselves (and still do today) Rhomioi or Romans and their state (theEastern Roman Empire) Romania. The term was used as a partially derogatory term in India to denote the British


  12. Cassandra says:

    The BBC is going into overdrive peddling its message that everyone is condemning Israel, Katya Adler was on interviewing Mr Gunnes from UNRWA who only has critisms of Israel, I have never heard him critise hamas of course, no Israelli was given a chance to respond!
    UNRWA has been the tool of hamas/hezbollah/fatah for years allowing those terrorists to raid and steal supplies meant for civilians and use its bases and properties, Gunness will never critise the terrorists as they work hand in hand together, even as far as smuggling in contraband for them!
    Perhaps Gunness would like to condemn hamas for using civilians as human shields,murdering people in Gazan hospitals,stealing aid,lying about civilian deaths,attacking their own people to blame it on the IDF and placing weapon stores in hospitals/ambulances/mosques! Ever wondered why UNWRA staff often carry bags stuffed with cash thru the checkpoints? Its payoff money for hamas of course, everything UNRWA does in Gaza attracts a hamas tax, for every tonne of aid delivered a portion goes to hamas!
    Every convoy of trucks has an extra load for hamas and UNWRA allows this to happen because if they didnt their staff would be targeted for murder or abduction.
    Ever wondered why so many young children are presented at Gaza hospitals with only minor head injuries only? what the parents are doing is slicing the scalps of these ‘innocent vitims’ with knives, smearing the blood around a bit, hows that for propaganda eh?
    Hamas are perhaps the most evil and cruel bunch of gansters and criminals on this planet today and yet the BBC are silent on the hamas crimes, reserving thier corperate hatred for those who are only trying to defend themselves!
    The BBC are working with terrorists, they employ terrorist sympathisers, Katya Adler/Aleem Macbool to name but two and they work to the mantra, never give the Israel an even break.


  13. David Vance says:


    No tough questions ever asked of Mr Gunnes by the BBC. Why not? How is it that no BBC journalist ever ponders the many great points you raise? I’ll tell you why – institutional BBC bias against Israel and groupthink.


  14. Allan@Oslo says:

    The video of Prince Harry is 3 years old yet is released now. A commenter at Guido’s asks why it has been released now, by whom and to cover what. Could it be that the cover-up over making the Bank of England print money without having to account for it is something that Brown et al don’t want us looking at? It’s nice to have the BBC in your pocket!


  15. Cassandra says:


    Thanks for your comments, the injustice of hamas terrorists getting away with murder beggars belief BUT that they are helped and assisted in their murder of helpless people and criminal actions (that make Mugabe look like a saint) by the BBC/UNWRA is heartbreaking!


  16. Tom says:

    David Vance | Homepage | 12.01.09 – 11:06 am

    No tough questions ever asked of Mr Gunnes by the BBC. Why not?

    Here’s why not –

    In 1979, Chris won a choral scholarship to Oxford, where he read Philosophy and Theology.

    Sustaining himself through three years of abstract thought, on early English choral music and port, he scraped a second.

    The BBC seemed a natural spiritual home, and in 1982 he joined the corporation as a trainee studio manager.

    As a child in Trinidad, West Indies, Chris and his family had listened as a matter of daily routine to the BBC World Service.

    So, when his traineeship ended, Christopher first worked as a producer in Bush House.

    As he is half Indian, he then moved to the World Service’s Eastern Service as a reporter, and between 1986 and 1989 he worked in most of the countries in the Asian region.

    Kuwait invasion

    In 1990 Christopher was posted to the United Nations in New York as the BBC correspondent.

    Within weeks of his arrival, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the UN was suddenly reborn.

    Gunness reported for all domestic radio and television outlets on the Iraq crisis, as well as the deployment of UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, which fell to pieces just as the new world order was happening.

    After New York in 1992, he worked as a BBC news correspondent for domestic radio and television and spent six months reporting on Newsnight.

    Christopher then had a break from the corporation between 1994 and 1995, as spokesman for the UN in the former Yugoslavia – a PR brief from hell, given that a quarter of a million people died under UN auspices.

    Since returning from the Balkans, Christopher has presented daily current affairs programmes for the World Service, and several of his documentaries for BBC Radio 4 and the World Service have won awards.


  17. max says:

    I wish I had followed the approach of notasheep, and avoided the Today Programme this morning.

    Others have pointed out the desperate over egging in agonised tones of the Prince Harry story, and the failure to suggest that the meaning of language depends on the intention of the user (see, for example, the use of the “N” word by rap artists.) The “lack of opportunity” piece was entirely one sided, and presented all the common form Hampstead and Islington leftist arguments as gospel.

    As for the Gaza tragedy, James Naughtie excelled himself. His opening line, delivered in a tone of personal distress and dudgeon, and which took a minute or more of air time, justified a response of “was that a speech or a question?” from the IDF spokesman. Sadly, this was not forthcoming.

    Does Naughtie keep his job for any reason other than that he’s a left winger with a Scots accent who the BBC is too frightened to fire?


  18. Trish says:

    At last! I’m relieved to find others who object to the Beeb bias. We have been trying to watch the news since the Gaza conflict began and my blood pressure is suffering! We were forced to watch CNN to try to get a more balanced view, that’s how bad it was. Then a couple of days ago we happened to wake up in the middle of the night, around 4-5am and decided to catch the news. The BBC had arranged a long interview with a Hamas member and it was too much for me to stomach so I switched over to another channel, but I know it was a long interview becuase I kept switching back to check. Was this ever shown again in daytime? Or did they get away with it because “nobody will ever see it”.

    This latest battle has brought all their anti-Israeli views to the fore. I think it was so bad in the beginning that they HAD to tone it down, that’s my guess. When things first began a very snippy Beeb woman asked an Israeli spokesman “are you HAPPY that 300 people have been killed in Gaza??” And things continued in that tone.



  19. DEJ says:

    Welcome Trish. Spread the word among your friends!


  20. mailman says:

    So does anyone know what happened with the story about them stinky jooos bombing a house full of innocent women and children?

    Interestingly enough, when a house with 50 soldiers in it gets hit by a couple artillary shells and only 4 of them get killed we have to suddenly believe that nearly 100 women and children would be killed by a single mortar landing and detonating outside.

    Something doesnt add up here.


    ps. If I hear another moron refering to artillary as “tank fire” Im going to go jihadi!


  21. Martin says:

    mailman: I also get annoyed when beeboids can’t tell an APC from a tank or a mobile artillery unit. I guess beeboids were banned from playing with toy soldiers as kids (dressing Barbi for a male beeboid was probably the delight of the day)

    Why is it that every aircraft is also an F-16?


  22. Cheeta says:

    I am dismayed that the BBC are running the Prince Harry story AGAIN today. Only two days ago they reported a RACIST RIOT in the centre of London as a peace demo, and yet one word uttered in jest gets a drains up investigation to show a shameful example of racism.

    Why do the BBC have such a misaligned view of the world?


  23. Rob Santiago says:

    At one point Campbell stated that the muslim insult “ferengi” came from Star Trek.

    It does.
    Anonymous | 12.01.09 – 10:52 am | #

    I suspect you’ve spent too much time watching Star Trek and not enough time studying.

    I assume the second “anonymous” who provided the proper derivation of the muslim insult “ferengi” wasn’t you.


  24. Nachman says:

    Exchange of emails with the BBC regarding their heading that only Israel snubs Cease fire call. Latest email from me to them appears first:
    I read your response with incredulity. If you follow your logic Great Britain should have ceased attacking Germany in the Second World War to stop German citizens dying in large numbers, since more of them died than did British citizens; ditto the USA and Japan.
    This is actually a war being fought in no small part because like many other media outlets the BBC has consistently played down the effect of the daily bombardment of rockets on Israeli citizens and the on-looking nations of the world, who now appear so concerned, stood by mouthing platitudes but actually did nothing until Israel was forced to take action to remove an immediate threat to the safety of its citizens. Only now does the UN and BBC talk of the humanitarian aspect, why was there no call by the UNSC or even the BBC in any of its editorials to stop Hamas or was there no humanitarian aspect to what they were doing?
    The fact that Gazans are dying in as large numbers as they are (but comparatively small numbers when viewed with other conflicts e.g. Chechnya, Darfur) is not due to Israel’s tactics since they are following and in some cases acting above the rules of war in an attempt to minimise civilian casualties but those of Hamas who are using civilians as human shields. Do you not agree that in those circumstances Hamas bears a greater responsibility to implement a ceasefire and that your report should have covered that aspect?
    —–Original Message—–
    From: NewsOnline Complaints []
    Sent: 12 January 2009 10:21
    To: XX
    Subject: RE: BBC Complaint
    It’s not balanced in terms of military power or casualties. The figures speak for themselves. Hundreds of Palestinians have died, and even if half are “terrorists”, that leaves 400 civilians, many of them children, as opposed to 13 Israelis. I did not suggest, as you incorrectly infer, that Israel is targetting civilians.
    No-one is talking about a higher standard, but about the impact, as I made clear. Israel must declare a ceasefire for people in Gaza to stop dying in large numbers – something that may happen unilaterally or as a result of a Hamas ceasefire. That humanitarian aspect is and has been the immediate concern of onlooking nations.
    I should have mentioned in my original response that we had moved the statement about Hamas higher up our story, but were happy to retain our original heading.
    Best wishes,
    —–Original Message—–
    From: X[mailto:x]
    Sent: 10 January 2009 19:01
    To: NewsOnline Complaints
    Subject: RE: BBC Complaint
    I see so the BBC has decided that Israel must be held to a higher standard than its adversary. In what way is this not an evenly balanced conflict – are you suggesting that being the underdog Hamas deserves more consideration because that view is reflected a heading which does not include its rejection of the cease fire.
    Furthermore why does the BBC think Israel’s rejection has a greater humanitarian effect. By saying this are you thereby suggesting that Israel is targetting civilians? In any event is not the opposite the case since if Hamas accepted the ceasefire call and abided by previous agreements Israel would as it has indicated cease its operations – your reply is therefore also illogical. I would like an answer to that question.
    Furthermore does your answer mean that there is no humanitarian consequence to the firing of over 6000 rockets these past eight years on Sederot which a ceasefire by Hamas would address? Do their need to be more Israeli deaths to provide proportionality? Why have you failed to point out as the UN have indicated that a majority of the “Palestinians”
    killed are actually Hamas terrorists? Is this not bias?
    I await a response and am not satisfied with that given to date.
    —–Original Message—–
    From: NewsOnline Complaints []
    Sent: 09 January 2009 16:33
    To: xx
    Subject: RE: Complaint
    Thank you for your e-mail. The BBC strives for impartiality in its journalism and believes that has been reflected in its coverage of the Gaza offensive. But we have to acknowledge that this is not an evenly balanced conflict. If Israel were to declare a ceasefire it would have a far greater impact in humanitarian terms. Therefore this is reflected in our headline. However we ensure that we make clear the Hamas position in the same story. But within the parameters of this particular conflict, the two positions do not necessarily carry equal weight.
    Best wishes,
    Ian Jolly
    News website
    —–Original Message—–
    From: x[x]
    Sent: 09 January 2009 12:40
    To: NewsOnline Complaints
    Subject: Complaint
    {Date:} 09/01/2009
    {Feedback Type:} Complaint
    You head this report misleadingly “Israel snubs etc” implying that only Israel However buried in the story a number of lines you also state that Hamas also snubs the call for a cease fire. Would it not be more accurate and indeed more truthful to state either that “Both parties snub…” or indeed “Israel and Hamas snub…” I trust you will amend the heading accordingly.
    {Reply:} yes
    {Under13:} no


  25. Peter says:

    So does anyone know what happened with the story about them stinky jooos bombing a house full of innocent women and children?

    mailman | 12.01.09 – 1:35 pm | #

    Not so far, and I have taken an interest since it was first ‘reported’ and returned to a few blogs instigated by ‘reporters’ to see if there has been any follow up.

    So, as it stands, I might be merely aware that some IDF squaddies herded some kids into a building and then immediately went My Lai on them with F-16, Apache, artillery and tanks for no apparent reason…. according to ‘the UN’. A few snippets I have gleaned subsequently suggest this may not be the most accurate version of events.

    Having created this story based on very little, I have been hoping those involved might have taken an interest in finding out more to set the record straight.

    I’m erring on a very horrible cock-up, which if confirmed will doubtless reflect poorly enough on the IDF without going into any ‘fog-of-war’/mixed combatant/kid explanations, as few beyond blogs such as this seem very concerned by what adults in civvies with guns are doing shooting anywhere they can think of to attract fire.

    However, for me greater damage will be done to the already tarnished reputations of the MSM if it turns out that this was nothing like the premeditated murder that was so carefully and immediately crafted out of heresay.

    Because such things only serve to give succour to those who see the best way of winning as through words and images that can be exported to worldwide audiences to shape ‘opinion’.

    Which means they keep on going… to the last kid. At which point, with no more to consume or hide behind, I suspect the ceasefire will be suggested.

    All I have ever asked for is the truth. I suspect most governemnts have a fair idea of the real deal, which explains the reluctance to commit to the criticism of the Israelis that such things would for sure justify if they really took place as billed.

    Most media have a reason, if not excuse, from their ideologies to their thirst to keep the ratings up, to stir up such things and keep things bubbling.

    The BBC should be above such things, but for some reason is almost aching to join the new media methodologies of the gutter.

    I can’t for the life of me think why. Thanks to their ‘unique’ funding they have none of the imperatives the others have to dance to, so why not regain stature as the voice of cool, clam, informed, objective news reporting?

    And in a world where perceptions do matter, get off this addiction to quoting viewers, selecting pundits and cranking out anything just to fill dead air now they have scores of channels employing folk to justify 24/7. And think through the message sent out by those who speak in your name (I consider Jeremy Bowen’s history, though tragic, to make him a very poor choice of guide in such a conflict).

    If you don’t know, say nothing, or explain the limits of knowledge. Then wait and take the time and make the effort until you do.

    If that means fewer ‘scoops’, so be it. Better to be trusted for being right than being first.

    Ain’t gonna happen, but you can always hope.


  26. Martin says:

    Peter: Not forgetting that the IDF attacked a house with their own soldiers in as well. In war shit happens.

    The left just don’t get it do they?


  27. james says:

    agree that the whole prince harry thing is a non story,but now might be the time for that paternity test?


  28. La Cumparsita says:

    Israel took a while to react to the clearly fishy story about the civilians being herded into a building to be shelled 24 hours later. For starters the OCHA woman was speaking from her Jerusalem office & was relying on reports from “eyewitnesses” . Anyone remember the Jenin non-massacre – so-called reliable eyewitnesses reporting thousands dead. The actual figure – confirmed even by the UN at the end of the day- was about 50 the majority of whom were Palestinian terrorists & 23 IDF soldiers in a fierce battle) But the Jenin myth persists.

    To continue – this is the Israeli comment (I can’t even call it a “version” as the shelling story appears to have been a complete fabrication)

    Military officials said in response to the accusation that “from initial examinations in the IDF there is no knowledge of any incident in which IDF forces moved people from one building to another. Furthermore, the claim that the building was attacked on January 4, in 24-hours after the IDF entered the Gaza Strip is unreasonable since the IDF forces had not yet reached the areas in question on this date.”
    “An Israeli television network examination of the matter with hospitals in the area showed the hospitals had no knowledge of such an incident.”,7340,L-3653417,00.html

    Similarly with the UN truck driver incident:
    The IDF was not responsible for the death of a Palestinian aid worker contracted to the UN and the wounding of two others on Thursday, the IDF Spokesman said Saturday.
    “The army further wishes to point out that the Palestinian wounded were evacuated by the Red Cross to the Israeli border, where they were taken by Israeli medical personnel for treatment at Ashkelon’s Barzilai Hospital,” the IDF told The Jerusalem Post.
    The foreign press reports claiming that the IDF had attacked the aid convoy were based on UN sources, who later admitted to the Post that they were not sure in which direction the truck was headed when it was hit, and could also not say with certainty that tank shells were responsible.
    An MDA medic at the scene told the Post that soldiers in the field said Hamas snipers targeted the aid workers. A Post probe revealed that the two wounded Palestinians were being treated at Barzilai for gunshot wounds.

    Hope this helps.


  29. mailman says:


    I couldnt agree more with you, even if you were a blond female with blue eyes and a fantastic personality!

    The BBC has a very real opportunity to become something none of the other MSM outlets can simply because the BBC is not reliant on making a profit to keep operating.

    The BBC could, if it had the will, turn itself in to a real news outlet, one that investigates stories, not one that goes for scoops.

    In fact, the BBC shouldnt even be going after scoops. These guys power should lie in telling the story behind the scoop.

    Alas, that will never happen while the BBC exists in its current form.



  30. Tom ROLLison says:

    I love it how anytime there is a story that reflects badly on Israel at all, there is always someone rushing with a justification/excuse/alternate source that shows its all pro-Arab lies! can no one accept that Israel makes mistakes? also, can no one here accept that the BBC are focusing on the innocent deaths in Gaza so much cos thats exactly what they are – innocent people killed! the media have an absolute right to talk to/about hamas. its called seeing things from all sides.


  31. Martin says:

    Tom ROLLison: How do you know that all the deaths in Gaza are ‘innocent civilians?’

    For starters we’ve got no independent verification as to who has been killed and when. Several of the reports are going from one point of view (like the Norwegian surgeon and the BBC Palestinian Producer) and so are we to believe that the evil Jews haven’t killed any terrorists?

    Israel has no choice but to keep attacking and if Hamas place rocket launchers next to a house full of kids and it gets hit by the IDF, tough shit.

    We bombed and killed plenty of German women and children in WW2. I don’t feel bad about that, its what had to be done.


  32. TPO says:

    Tom ROLLison | 12.01.09 – 3:58 pm |
    You’ll be the ‘nu labour’ rep for today then!

    Martin, harking back to the rupert Harry and his Paki remark which has got the BBC so exited.
    In 1992 I was on honeymoon in Hong Kong with my second wife having a MacDonalds, because we were running out of money, when an elderly Chinese woman mopping the floor looked over at us and spat out guelo (pronounced goo-way-lo). Our reaction was to burst out laughing. Should I have taken offence?


  33. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Tom ROLLison | 12.01.09 – 3:58 pm |

    its called seeing things from all sides.

    No, it’s called advocating for a cause. The BBC certainly doesn’t ask a Hamas spokesman if he’s “happy” when Israelis die. The BBC defends Hamas against criticism, and even lies to the public occasionally about their situation. That’s not their job. The BBC won’t ever say Israel made a mistake, only that they did something wrong.

    There’s a difference between showing footage of war and its victims, and pointing fingers at one side saying, “See how horrible they are?” The former is reporting, the latter is editorializing and advocating.


  34. Robert says:

    TPO. that was a HATE CRIME! You shd have taken her to court, and then attacked the endemic, institutional racism of the Chinese establishment. I’m sure the BBC would have taken up your case vigorously – I mean, it’s not as if they ever play favourites in cases like this, is it?


  35. Joe says:

    Compare this bloggers words:

    Tom ROLLison:
    No David, you’re speculating, or at worst, assuming. The article, like all the others in the papers, does not say that the Beeb paid anyone. There is no proof they have done. Maybe they did, I won’t count out that possibility. But proof is everything. You cannot just assume what you want so that it fits your argument. Proof is everything.
    Tom ROLLison | 12.01.09 – 4:20 pm | #

    and then this…………………………………

    Tom ROLLison:
    I love it how anytime there is a story that reflects badly on Israel at all, there is always someone rushing with a justification/excuse/alternate source that shows its all pro-Arab lies! can no one accept that Israel makes mistakes? also, can no one here accept that the BBC are focusing on the innocent deaths in Gaza so much cos thats exactly what they are – innocent people killed! the media have an absolute right to talk to/about hamas. its called seeing things from all sides.
    Tom ROLLison | 12.01.09 – 3:58 pm | #

    This blogger demands FACTS, he then decides that actually if he is writing something then it must be FACTUAL and does not need any evidence to support his claims.

    What an own goal.


  36. Cassandra says:

    Katya Adler on again and she is going into ‘kill the Jooo’ mode!

    Her guest this time was a ‘political analyst’ making some of the most wierd and wild accusations I have yet heard, Joooos dancing in joy and having picnics on the border, while their sons and daughters are fighting and the BBC are censored, crazy rubbish with Adler very happy to let it air! Of course no Jooo was allowed on to respond, only Adler trying to sound off about what Israel says(you could almost see the venom as she tried to make the Jooos seem ignorant etc.
    Katya Adler bursts into tears when Arafat died so she isnt going to be the most impartial witness is she? Adler must either wish for her words to incite the murder of Jooos OR she is retarded OR both, either way if I were an IDF pilot I would be sorely tempted to loose off an ‘accidental’ hellfire missile at her ugly arse! Adler is as much an enemy of Israel as a dozen hamas murderers so they would be doing themselves and us a big favour.

    BTW the BBC keeps blaring out casualty figures leaving out the fact that these figures are worthless because hamas have always lied about casualties in the past but the BBC act as if those numbers were set in stone!


  37. Trish says:

    Tom, I think I can speak for many here in saying we would gladly accept “seeing things from all sides” in a fair, open, equal and balanced debate, but that is just what we never get. We (Joe Public) are not incapable of educated opinion and discussion and most thinking people will resent being treated like sheep to be herded in one direction only. A PUBLIC body that takes money from my bank account every month in order to present me with information and entertainment has a DUTY to be rigorously unbiased in its reporting. Sadly, nobody at the BBC seems to have recognised this simple fact. If this news reporting is all about, as you imply, “the deaths of innocent people in Gaza”, tell us why the same BBC is NOT reporting and for eight years has not reported the genuinely innocent civilian casualties in Israel due to continual Hamas bombardment, contrary to UN ruling. Presumably if Northern England were rocketed in the same way by IRA terrorists acting from a base in Scotland you would want our Government to react? And if as a final response we sent the army in to take out the IRA activists, would you join everyone else in demanding their immediate withdrawal?


  38. Trish says:

    Oh and, I wanted to share this photo that some of you may not have seen. I assume it’s a member of the Orange Order? He must have been “crushed” when he found out his error.


  39. george whyte says:

    never seen this on the news.


  40. Martin says:

    Classic Nick Robinson on the 6PM News. According to him the Tories and Liebour are not as far apart over how to handle the ‘down turn’ (god won’t it be nice when the BBC finally has to call it a recession?) except of course the Tories don’t think it was a good idea to piss 12 billion away on a pointless VAT cut, that they think the banks should have guarantee’s in place to lend money oh and of course Robinson failed to actually point out that the £2500 per person offer on employers taking on unemployed people was actually stolen from the Tories. According to Robinson it’s ‘similar to an idea the Tories had a few weeks ago’

    You can bet if the Tories stole an idea off McFatty One Eye the BBC wouldn’t be so even handed.


  41. Grimer says:

    Hi Cassandra,

    A couple of things:

    1) Israelis were (don’t know if they still are) sitting on the hills and watching the assault. Why not? They’ve put up with rocket fire for eight years. Now something is being done and they are watching events unfold. I’d have a cool box of cold beer and the BBQ on the go.

    2) It was actually Barbara Plett that cried about Arafat being airlifted to hospital.

    I agree with your sentiments, but we need to keep an eye on the facts, so that the trolls are kept at bay.


  42. Martin says:

    Grimer: Important question. What sort of beer is appropriate for a ‘Stuffing Hamas’ party?

    Any good Jewish beers?


  43. deegee says:

    1) Israelis were (don’t know if they still are) sitting on the hills and watching the assault. Why not? They’ve put up with rocket fire for eight years.
    Grimer | 12.01.09 – 6:42 pm

    I would be very surprised if that was true.
    1)Anything close to Gaza is a closed military area. Without special permission you can’t get in.
    2)What hills? There are no natural boundaries between Gaza and Israel. Cultivated fields go right to the border.
    3)According to my relatives on a border kibbutz, most of the residents have left. Those who stay have about 15 secs to reach shelter (none for mortars). Only ‘suicides’ would stay around as spectators.


  44. Cassandra says:


    Thankyou for your points I have taken them on board.


    Cassie K


  45. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Martin | 12.01.09 – 7:46 pm |

    Any good Jewish beers?

    Try this. Their beers are not too bad.


  46. deegee says:

    Apologies to Grimer | 12.01.09 – 6:42 pm
    Apparently there is a hill near Kibbutz Nir Am that is used as a look-out over Gaza.

    I drink Maccabi beer. Tastes something like Carlsburg. As compensation for being wrong I’ll buy you some if you visit Israel.


  47. Bryan says:

    Trish | 12.01.09 – 12:54 pm,

    The BBC did exactly the same thing during the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006. They treated Hezbollah with great respect and reported on the Israelis with something approaching contempt. And of course they endlessly pushed the civilian deaths.


  48. Andre says:

    Paki, Brit, Aussie, Canuck, Kiwi, Dane… we all are free citizens of the free planet, henceforth we will address to each other as “comrade”.


  49. DEJ says:

    This “Hilly Vantage Point” –