Having given Prince Harry the full treatment over what he said three years ago, elevating it to a position way above the pro-Israel demos for example, I see that the BBC are now having a go at Prince Charles, over his alleged use of the name “Sooty.” Looks like it is open season on the Royals, still it helps take our minds of the economy and Mr Brown’s stewardship thereof! Who is next – Prince Philip?
SOOTY AND SWEEP
Bookmark the permalink.
I just wanted to point out that there are Jews…
“In fact I’d go so far as to suggest that while there’s no proof that a Jew will not be hired by the BBC because he’s Jewish I’m quite sure that an anti-Israeli Jew would be more likely to get a job.”
That’s an opinion that you cannot really back-up and I cannot easily disprove.
Except that if someone with a Jewish sounding name or of Mediteranean appearance with a big nose (joke!) was suddenly asked loads of questions about Israel and Zionism when being interviewed as Producer of Strictly Come Dancing they might have a fair case in an industrial tribunal 🙂
There are both Jews and people ‘of Jewish origin’.
Are we OT yet?
Davo, I saw that video which has now, in effect, been blocked to casual viewers. It showed the violent tendencies of the pro-Hamas demo and there were attacks on police and verbal threats and insults shouted against whites (kufr). Who is doing the blocking?
Are we OT yet?
Sarah Jane | 14.01.09 – 4:22 pm
I don’t know, but David V’s less strict than the BBC 😉
Pathetic David, pathetic.
Millie Tant wrote;
pounce: Your point seems to me obscure. Why would mention of Goebbels complaining about Jews be wrong?
I don’t have anything against the bBC reporting the past. But a lot of their stories are mired with events transpiring today.
So the bBC promotes this thing about the jewish press in which to highlight the current situation over press freedoms in Gaza.
The subsequent story on a what a thieving Jewish bastard fagin was only promotes this bBC held view that Jews are crook nosed thieving bastards.
Before anybody finds the time to try and correct me. Would the bBC have promoted the same view on either story if it Muslims on the headlines.
Yeah right.
While I’m on the side of those who think the article about Prince Charles is a non-story, and not biased, I wouldn’t say the same thing about Prince Harry.
As others have pointed out, the BBC is guilty of a real double standard there. One of the people they quoted in their little collection of outrage is Aki Nawaz, who glorifies Jihad on his albums.
I wonder how many Beeboid iPods carry his tracks?
What is said or done between two grown-ups has nothing to with the BBC (or the race industry).
pounce: Thanks for clarifying.
I actually posted the question after reading your first comment but before reading your second one which made clear it was about the press. Of course I understood the point about Fagin.
WMD has not changed with this excrement called Labour. It still means Words of Mass Distraction!
“I don’t know, but David V’s less strict than the BBC”
Vance is also more biased. And more inaccurate: after all, in this post, he not only lied* about the content of Mock the Week (as proved by someone who committed the cardinal act of actually checking the programme), but lied about who was on the panel at the time.
Of course, Vance may not have deliberately lied when he thought June Sarpong was on that show, when in fact she was on a Channel 4 show the same week: he may just have been so extremely stupid that he couldn’t tell when he was watching two completely separate programmes. Either way, the only way anybody could regard him as being as a reliable commentator about BBC programming is if they were defective in some capacity.
* Of course, this isn’t the only time he’s lied about the content of BBC programmes; but of course, as he’s pointed out numerous times, we don’t pay him, so we can’t expect him to be fair, accurate, or honest. We get the bleatings of a lying, pathetic egotist for free.
Iain: “If you feel that way, what are you even doing here?”
Because this site is supposed to be about deficiencies in the BBC’s journalism (something of which I have personal and documented experience) and not a personal fansite of a belligerent, ignorant idiot.
… not a personal fansite of a belligerent, ignorant idiot.
Scott | Homepage | 15.01.09 – 12:55 am
You wouldn’t be allowed to say that on a BBC run blog!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_defamation.html
Scott | Homepage | 15.01.09 – 12:42 am |
but it begs the question,do you really have to be so rude when critizing someone.
Sarah Jane
Just got round to your comments. I agree with Bio, that the only Jews likely to be employed by the BBC would be anti-Israeli Jews, but to be fair, I can’t prove it. However, if the BBC would provide a list of Jews in senior manangement positions, I would be happy to research their backgrounds and apologise if I turn out to be wrong.
Leaving aside, the Jewish question. let me re-phrase my original point.
The BBC is institutionally anti-Israeli and pro-Hamas.
No reasonable person could disagree with that, surley ?
Surely !
Grant | 15.01.09 – 11:00 am
Try:
Alan Yentob
Mark Damazer
Richard Klein
Daniel Pearl
Jon Sopel
Hugh Levinson
Danny Cohen
Robin Lustig
Jonathan Marcus
Anon 12:00
Spot on and what do they all have in common ???
Grant, anon’s list is only a subset, but rather than discuss colleagues’ personal details…
… it is my personal opinion (for what it’s worth, which is somewhat less than a hill of beans) that a tougher line should be taken on/with Hamas.
Even if someone just suggested to that maybe if Hamas recognised Israel and renounced violence you could have peace would be a start.
We all know where that line of questioning would lead, but it would at least be good to see someone give it a try.
That 3rd para is a disaster. How about:
Even if someone just suggested to whoever it is representing the Palestinian POV that maybe if Hamas recognised Israel and renounced violence there could be peace would be a start.