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.
Just posted this in the thread below Sorry about that::
Beness:
Breaking News on Sky: Deep concern over evidence given to the home affairs select committee by Boris Johnson.
Not sure quite what this entails but expect the BBC to start cranking this up any time soon.
Beness | 11.02.09 – 9:40 am | #
——————————————————————————–
Jackboot Smith, in her colossal appeasement to that convicted killer Lord Ahmed, banned a legally elected Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, from entering this country. She has done what no other creepy Fabian Reichfuehrer has succeeded in doing since 1997.
She has made me feel ashamed to be British.
Looks good for the Balen Report.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090211/sugar-4.htm
Is it really true that Geert Wilders has been banned from entering Britain and the BBC makes no mention of it? Can this be possible?
Preposteroso
Yes, the political aquiescence of the British Labour government (and its ideological underling, the BBC), to Islam is far advanced:
‘National Review’
“Brits ban Wilders”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThjNGM3NjgxMmQ5MTYxZTRjMGViNDZhYWJkNDQxODk=
‘Brussels Journal’
“Will Geert Wilders be arrested at Heathrow?”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3793
‘Brussels Journal’
“The British Authorities surrendering to Extremism”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3795
‘Cranmer’
“Geert Wilders banned from UK”
[Extract]:
“Cranmer is aghast with incredulity to hear that Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been barred from entering the UK, despite having committed no crime, and despite having been invited by members of the House of Lords.
“He is a democratically-elected citizen of the European Union, and thereby entitled • as are all citizens of the EU • to free movement within and across member states. He has broken no law in the Netherlands, in the UK, or even in the EU. He simply made a film which was critical of aspects of Islam Jihadism, and for that, he is deprived of his rights as a citizen of the EU. The United Kingdom government has refused him entry to the UK because his views ‘threaten community harmony and therefore public security’. The Government invoked Article 19 of the 2006 Immigration Regulations, which permit the Home Office to ban a person from the United Kingdom ‘if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’.
“Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said the Dutch government would press Britain to reverse the ban, saying he ‘deeply regretted’ that a Dutch lawmaker had been barred access. He said: “It is disgraceful that a Dutch parliamentarian should be refused entrance to an EU country.”
Indeed it is. It establishes that the Jihadis govern Britian more than either the governments of the UK or the EU.”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/02/geert-wilders-banned-from-uk.html
Looks good for the Balen Report.
Beness | 11.02.09 – 10:02 am | #
The only thing I understood was:
96. Accordingly, for these reasons, I, too, would allow Mr Sugar’s appeal. :o(
Could someone fluent in Legalese give a brief summary in plain English?
What now ❓
I think the appeal went through 3-2.
I am a regular reader of this blog.
Sorry for going off the topic of the BBC, but I thought some bloggers might be interested to read about my experiences in trying to express my opinions in our ‘free press’ Here is an email I sent to the Express:
To Have Your Say, Express Newspapers
Re StephenB • banned from Have Your Say on the Daily Express
Ooooo eeeer! It looks like I have been not just warned, but, judging from the message I received when I tried to log in, completely banned for ever from Have Your Say feedback on the Express Newspaper website. As you do not tell me what for, but have blanked out some comments critical of extreme muslims, I can only assume it is because you do not wish to offend muslims. However, I can see it from your point of view, and in today’s politically correct climate of fear, the extreme muslims in our midst are one group that a newspaper has to be extra careful not to offend (remember those cartoons).
So I am not complaining if you feel forced to make your decision out of fear of those living amongst us who do not like these kinds of remarks. However, as someone who has been regularly buying your paper, I would like to offer some feedback regarding your customer relations, as follows.
When you cheerily invite people to ‘join the growing Have Your Say Community’ you should at the same time warn them that if they write anything offensive to muslims, that you will not only remove the ‘offending’ remarks, but you will also leave up the contributor’s name on your website next to a message that says ‘banned’, implying that the contributor has the extreme views rather than the group they are criticising. Why would you do that? Why not just take down the remarks?
And if you say you do not have time to send a polite email to an ‘offender’ and you really think it is easier just to lurch to the banned stage and write ‘banned’ next to their name on your website, then look at it this way: one Sunday Express per week over the next few years adds up to a few hundred pounds • which you have lost. This is the first Sunday for some time that I will not be buying your paper. Now, weigh that up against the cost of implementing a bit of common sense customer relations, which, in staff time, would cost less than one pound per customer. And I think my views are more representative of your readership than the views of the muslims to whom you are showing so much deference.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/78095/Palestine-a-tragedy-of-lost-opportunities
House of Lords allows Sugar’s appeal on Balen Report.
It is okay to say absolutely whatever you want about the Nazis • and fair enough, because they deserve it and I am one of those saying things against them. In fact, it provides an almost unique opportunity for me to be in agreement with the position the BBC takes on a subject.
But try and say the same things about muslims who have similar aims, ie military conquest and wanting to drive the Jews into the sea • and you will soon find it is not allowed in Britain in the mainstream media. For how long we will be allowed freedom of speech on the Internet, I do not know. I imagine they will develop a system using cookies and computer identities to identify offenders immediately and locate the source of the computer so they can send round the Thought Police (I hope I don’t get an all-muslim contingent dressed like you know who except with a policeman’s helmet on the top). I can even imagine such a system being eagerly implemented in Britain, resulting in the bizarre situation of Russia having more freedom of speech than we do. Obviously they would say it was to prevent credit card fraud or it was for counter-terrorism or something like that.
A major turning point in the UK press freedom was when the extremists living amongst us were able to rally their troops and intimidate our press into being too scared to publish those cartoons of their prohpet.
Voltaire’s principle of “I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it” is not held by our ruling elite.
The government has effectively supported those who threatened Wilders.
The significance of the House of Lords decision to allow the appeal on the Balen report is immense. By doing so, the House (albeit in a 3-2 majority decision) overturned the Court of Appeal decision.
Is the green lobby destroying the planet?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/milo_yiannopoulos/blog/2009/02/09/is_the_green_lobby_destroying_the_planet
What would you do if you had a racist friend?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7879169.stm
LOL. This for the BBC elite should be reframed to ask “What would you do if you had a black friend.”
Answer: Stop hanging out in the BBC toilets or hallways.
Honourable mention to BBC Radio 5 Live this morning for discussion of rise of anti-semitism in UK.
George, did the discussion touch on the fact that Al-Beeb, itself, has a major part to play in the rise of anti-Semitism?
deegee | 11.02.09 – 10:52 am
The Lords voted 3-2 in Sugar’s favour (against the BBC).
BUT they were ruling on fairly narrow jurisdictional/competence issues concerning the powers of the information commissioner and the information tribunal.
Now the issue goes back to the High Court, who will consider the substantive issue – whether the BBC has to disclose.
Last night Radio 4’s Front Row interviewed Benicio del Toro about his role as the blessed Che. The BBC view was summed up in the question to BdT as to how he felt to be playing a heroic character rather than the villains he usually portrays.
There was no mention that Che – a medical doctor after all – was a thug and murderer and that his “career” in politics might be a bit controversial – well, not to BBC/Guardianistas of course, but to, you know, normal people. Had Che murdered in the interests of General Pinochet rather than Fidel, you can bet the T-shirt makers wouldn’t have made a fortune, nor would the BBC campaign to have him canonised (OK – slight exaggeration there – but only slight).
People keep posting about Sugar.
Who he /she?
Millie Tant | 11.02.09 – 2:11 pm
Just a concerned citizen.
Solicitor from SW London, I think.
RE: Jacqui Smith
Sorry to keep going on about this but can someone please explain this to me…? Last year the Parliamentary Standard Commissioner issued the following ruling…
“If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that Member’s main home is in the constituency.”
Yet, Mr Lyon has now cleared our Home Secretary of breaking the rules. WTF?
This view was endorsed by the BBC’s Nick Robinson on today’s Daily Politics; he claimed that from the outset it was abundantly clear that Jacqui had not broken the rules. Indeed, he criticised the Daily Mail and one journalist in particular for perusing the story. Yeah! He clearly needs firing for trying to root out corruption • I mean clearly that’s not the job of a political correspondent – is it? Much better all round for them to be friendly to the GVN; helps smooth the wheels…etc
Now I must be a lot dumper than I thought, because in light of the above ruling, (which has not since been overturned) I’d have thought that Jacqui was banged to rights. So can someone please enlighten me • why or how has she done nothing wrong?
Just picked up on the Balen report decision. I have no doubt that there is consternation at board level in the bbc. Interesting who the two law lords were who were in opposition.
1) Baroness Hale. Academic. Guardian favourite – they described her as “totemic hate figure for the daily mail”. No surprise there then.
2) Lord Hoffmann. Interesting one this. He got in hot water for not declaring his connections with Amnesty International while ruling on the Pinochet case. Bias is obviously an issue close to his heart. He told the daily telegraph: “The fact is I’m not biased. I am a lawyer. I do things as a judge. The fact that my wife works as a secretary for Amnesty International is, as far as I am concerned, neither here nor there,”
James | 11.02.09 – 3:03 pm |
Both part of the socialist disease that infests all walks of life.
Vanessa Redgrave to star in BBC’s The Day of the Triffids
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4592119/Vanessa-Redgrave-to-star-in-BBCs-The-Day-of-the-Triffids.html
As one of the triffids one assumes.
BBC Trust chairman claims £61,293 in expenses
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4592157/BBC-Trust-chairman-claims-61293-in-expenses.html
Snouts in the trough for this labour appointed labour party member.
These are great days my friends.
Following their Lordships decision forcing the beeboid scumbags to release the Balen report, i can just imagine the left wing scum organising damage limitation exercises right now, trying to switch the blame onto george w bush or maggie T
I bet a lot of Beeboid scum are having sleeples nights at the mo
fantastic
I note that the BBC are reporting that “The police will not investigate allegations against two members of the House of Lords accused of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash.
The Lib Dems referred the matter to police after newspaper allegations raised questions about the conduct of four Labour peers earlier this month.
But after consulting with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police has decided against an inquiry.
A Lords Committee is looking into the allegations against the four men. ”
What a huge surprise…
To paraphrase The Strawbs –
“Oh you don’t get me I’m part of the Party
You don’t get me I’m part of the Party
You don’t get me I’m part of the party
Till the day I die, till the day I die.”
Tom:
Millie Tant | 11.02.09 – 2:11 pm
Just a concerned citizen.
Solicitor from SW London, I think.
Tom | 11.02.09 – 2:36 pm |
—————
Thanks for that, Tom.
So the case was taken by an individual member of the public and not by some official watchdog or oversight body or consumer organisation or licence payers’ association or guardian of propriety or the likes of Liberty. Interesting state of affairs. Hm…Who watches the watchdogs, I wonder.
Matt Frei decides to lecture everyone on apologies in his latest Washington Diary.
He goes through a laundry list of all the public apologies in the news lately. His Beeboid bias slips through when he says that Carol Thatcher “barely apologised”, and even that the Pope “sort of ” apologised for rehabilitating the Holocaust denying Bishop. He takes the BBC line on Thatcher, of course.
But it gets worse when he mentions the beloved President Obamessiah:
But the prize for the apologiser-in-chief goes to the man who, so far, actually seems to have rather little to apologise for. Perhaps he has just been totting up his apologies savings account for a rainy day.
From the way he goes on to describe the President’s various apologies, it’s obvious that Frei Boy is bummed that the apple of his eye is stooping to the level of apologizing for, I guess, other people’s mistakes, and flip-flops he pretends didn’t happen.
The worst part is when he explains to everyone just how one should apologize. I know he thinks he’s just kidding around, but it sounds eerily like the Orwellian stuff I was complaining about before regarding Jay Hunt and Thatcher.
As TPO 3.53pm suggests-
Being biased is certainly not cheap.
A glimpse at the newly released expense claims by Sir Michael Lyons and the BBC Trust reveal a level of comfort and indulgence even bankers might enjoy.
Living off the hog during an “economic downturn”/recession/depression and job cuts within the BBC seems to come naturally to this charmed group.
Whoever said “come the revolution” was misguided. Nothing changes.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil Toreeeeees!
See what they’ve been up to, altering Wikipedia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm
Shocking, dreadful, disgraceful, immoral Toreeees….er, hold on…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-staff-rewrote-wikipedia-pages-to-water-down-criticism-765600.html
Classic bollocks from that dope bitch Anita what’s her name on Radio 5 (she that works with Andrew Neil)
Talking about unemployment she suggested to someone that women were being made unemployed at a greater rate than men. That’s not the case she was told. ‘Oh that is good news’ the silly slapper replied.
So men being made unemployed is good but women bad.
Hmm. I’d like to see her and the other slappers at the BBC unemployed please.
Martin,
Just wait until Islam takes over – ten years? Not many jobs for the girls then.
The BBC really has to get commentary out of the news. George Alagiah leads into Nick Robinson by saying “Gordon Brown gave a robust defence… (over Crosby scandal)”. Alagiah’s comment is nothing more than his opinion (which shouldn’t be spoken) or is the official BBC opinion (which contravenes the BBC charter). It is the BBC setting the tone for the audience’s reaction.
NotaSheep:
The police said it would be too difficult to investigate due to parliementary privlages.
Compare with Damien Green
Still not heard the BBC take on Jaqui Smiths expenses.
Compair with Michael Trend.
Can anyone recommend me a country that does not kowtow to islamic radicalism and is NOT overtly religious, as I would like to move there.
Chuffer:
Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil Toreeeeees!
See what they’ve been up to, altering Wikipedia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 7884121.stm
Chuffer | 11.02.09 – 5:43 pm |
———————————-
The BBC’s accuracy and mastery of facts:
It says near the top of the article that a user at Tory HQ moved the birth date forward by four years.
However, several paragraphs later, it says that the Tory HQ user moved the date of death by four years.
BBC coverage of the fires around Melbourne has become increasingly – and predictably – focussed upon arson and looting. The truth is that of 60+ fires, police suspect arson in a handful, and looting has not actually happened at all beyond a latch to a boatshed being (unsuccessfully) forced.
The ABC is the same – you can imagine the glee of these intrepid reporters for truth concentrating not on the unparalleled community spirit, or perhaps the monumental sadness – hell no, far better to demonise a western society and to try to cut it down to size. Suits the leftist code – no room for objective reality.
Millie Tant: The dopey idiots on Radio 5 Drive were going on and on about this story.
Nice little distraction from McFatty One Eye’s screw ups.
So the best that the socialist BBC can come up with is a non-story about someone moving Titian’s date of death forward.
Good grief the vermin really are losing.
Now a real story was Balls’ “So what” remark which never made it on the BBC’s horizon.
Looks like it is not just the government who seem adapt at claiming ‘expenses’
From the Press Gazette:
The BBC Trust has defended a 250 per cent rise in the average monthly expenses claimed by its chairman, Sir Michael Lyons.
Detailed expense accounts for all of the BBC trustees, covering the period between April and September 2008, were released this morning.
They reveal that Lyons claimed expenses of £35,126 in the six-month period – an average of £5,854 a month.
This compares with a £26,167 claim in the 11 months from his appointment in May 2007 to the end of the financial year in March last year – a £2,379 monthly average.
“Compared against the last set of published expenses, the chairman’s costs have increased,” the Trust said in the foreword to its expenses document.
Lyons has part-time access to a BBC car and driver, at a cost of £25,000 a year. He spent £8,157 on hotels and £5,449 on rail travel.
Total expenses paid to the BBC’s 12 trustees rose by 28 per cent – from £12,179 to £15,584 a month.
The Trust also spent £3,836 on hospitality for “opinion formers” during the BBC Proms, and £9,804 on a hospitality event at the Wimbledon tennis championship.
Oops sorry TPO, I just read your comments posted on the same subject, sorry!.
I would be very interested to know how much it costs each license fee payer every time the BBC broadcasts yet another program on Islam, and alongside that figure, the amount it would have cost each actual viewer of the broadcast.
I am willing to bet that if the financial figures were known to the public, the BBC would be in serious trouble with it’s continued insistence on force feeding us all it’s pro-Islam nonsense.
Re the Wikipedia story, the version that is up there now, and has been for a while now (I imagine the media attention has attracted some experts on the subject) suggests that he died aged 86, 88, or 103. One of those ages matches what Cameron says, and none match what Brown says.
This was second story on BBC news earier earlier.
Funnily enough they’ve made no mention of their stealing a photo and then trying to bribe its owner a measly SEVENTY FIVE POUNDS to take down his comments pointing out their theft. http://www.bitterwallet.com/bbc-uses-copyright-image-from-flickr-for-news-24
Do we detect double standards?
Now HERE’S one aspect of the Australian bush fires that will go completely unreported by the BBC:
Angry survivors blame council ‘green’ policy
“ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.
During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne’s northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council’s help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” he said.”
People before trees, or trees before people? I think we all know what the pro-green left wing nutjobs at the Beeb think.
Here’s something the bBC isn’t telling you. Remember that Headteacher who resigned after complaints in Sheffield.
Want to guess how many?
4
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Just-four-complaints-as-head.4967071.jp
The way the bBC writes it up, you’d think she was a dutch MP or something.
Here’s a story the bBC isn’t pushing out;
Jews attacked with Homemade rockets and homemade bombs. Police do nothing.
http://tedekeroth.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/arabs-throws-pipebombs-and-fires-rockets-on-peacful-pro-israeli-demonstration/
Watch the you-tude video. It appears the Police over there are just as hopeless as the British bobby.
Just watched Tony McNulty talk totally crap on Newsnight. He still got an easy time though from Paxo
I see a towel head well placed by the BBC in the Newsnight audience.
Towel head is Salam Yakoob or something. Birmingham member of Respect.
An organisation that has no interest in jobs for whitey but promoting anti Jewish crap.
So why is she in the audience?
Oh hang on she’s a Moozie. Say no more.