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.
AndrewSouthLondon:
Whats an ID card for? Well one use might be for entitlement to NHS treatment. I was in my GP surgery yesterday. Unbelievable. Turks, Africans, Russians, Iraquis, general EU East Europeans, the bloody United Nations. I think I was probably the only residentially entitled person in the surgery.
….
My missus does an AIDS clinic – her entire list last week was Africans. Ah the benefits of mass migration.
NHS: the worlds favourite health service.
AndrewSouthLondon | 02.04.09 – 7:09 pm | #
————————————-
That’s nothing: last Friday R4 Woman’s Hour had an item about Acton African Well Woman Centre which is aimed at the large Somali population of West London and deals with female genital mutilation – of which there is thought to be a large number of women in the UK affected and about 500 girls a year being subjected to it, often being taken to Africa to have it carried out. The clinic offers a free, confidential service and has a Somali health advocate. The clinic advertises itself on a Somali satellite TV station.
Old BBC hand Joan Bakewell is still right on message
In 2006 the BBC was reported to have been in talks with Fiona Bruce about her wearing of a cross to read the news.The agreed compromise was that she should not wear one that was large and shiny, as this would be distracting for viewers.
The BBC’s decision is not a compromise but a concession to Bruce’s religious beliefs…But it also says that, in reporting religious turmoil and conflict, the BBC’s news presenter is visibly declaring her loyalty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/joan_bakewell/article6023747.ece
Whereas without the cross, naturally our first thought would be that Bruce was a zoroastrianist, buddhist or, confucianist
Is the BBC interested in upholding the rights of free speech?
It appears that the BBC is more concerned with appeasing Islamic interests, including that of the U.N. Human Rights Council, than it is with upholding the rights of free speech.
As ‘Jihadwatch’ points out here, even the usually dhimmi ‘Economist’ gets the point:
“Why freedom of speech must include the right to ‘defame’ religions”
[Extract]:
“Explained in, of all places, the generally hard-dhimmi ‘Economist’.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025501.php
‘The Economist’
“The Meaning of Freedom”
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13413974
compare and contrast
Even the guardian hardly the most right wing of media
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/taliban-pakistan-justice-women-flogging
and the BBC
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7980899.stm
There is actually a video of it happening, exactly how does the headline justify ‘taleban flogging of girl’ to be in scare qutes.
Why has the BBC reduced and edited the clip.
Why are there no quoted translations of the actual words used, even the guardian manages this, instead there is a very very bried summary of the gist of a part of what is being said, and that is misleading.
Why is it left to the guardian to explain the source of the video.
Why does the BBC insist on ‘explaining’ things are better with sharia than pre sharia taleban rule.
Why is it left to the guardian to point out the reality of the taleban’s acts since the’peace’ deal has been done, while the BBC peddles its lies that it has made things better.
Remember this is the guardian we are comparing it to, not the express or telegraph.
Truly shocking.
Twizzle 1037
Strawman, wilful misinformation, all the nations I quoted are democracies.
So I quoted some of the less vaunted ones too.
I notice you don’t say anything about France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Israel, Spain, etc.
The point was democracy has not ceased due to ID cards.
It might just have stopped some illegal use of services and fraud though.
YOu could say our democracy has not been the most shining example in recent times thanks to nulab tyranny and there has been no ID cards here for that time.
Certainly was not the end of democracy and the commencement of communist tyranny, sorry BBC and Davis but that argument just doesn’t wash.
Martin
Come on behave, you know full well all of the ‘visitors’ would have to have passports, however bearded they were.
If you are going to argue against ID cards it has to be on the grounds of cost-benefit (the most legitimate argument) or their possible misuse (one I worry about with Brown and his bunch of donkeys in control).
Given the BBC example of the licence fee and its enforcement I would say there is a worry over implementation in practice being open to abuse, that would have to be addressed.
But the BBC’s ‘big brother’ arguments are fraudulent, they don’t even follow heir own argument.
If you are going to argue against ID cards it has to be on the grounds of cost-benefit (the most legitimate argument) or their possible misuse (one I worry about with Brown and his bunch of donkeys in control).
that’ll do for me!!
frankos
Both arguments hold.
Any large-scale Gov computer project is bound to be a total disaster. Plus it appears the proposed ID could easily be forged.
Identity theft would thus be easier than ever – that’s enough potential misuse for me.
Pretty well everyone has a driving licence or a passport. If I want to collect a Recorded Delivery parcel at the post office, for example – I know I need to take one of them along as identification. No sweat.
If it was proposed that it could be used to stop foreigners and illegals using eg the NHS, that might be worthwhile. But that is not going to be a requirement.
Also – I don’t hear any big demand from the police for ID cards.
If we have survived this far without them – why introduce them now ?
Frankos/John A
Like I said I can see that, though it is possible a good system could be come up with and if it were I would support it, I would take some convincing however.
If the police did say it would help I would consider that a big plus for the cards.
What is totally bogus is the idea of its inhibiting civil liberties and removing democracy.
A farce invented by the likes of the BBC, backed by David ‘Respect’ Davis, and a view supported by teh particularly gullible.
Same useful idiots who want the 5 million dna database expunged when in fact its 55 million light, what we actually need is everyone on the dna database – cut miscarriages of justice, solve crimes quicker, sort out paternity issues, help with medical problems. Then again even that would have to be safeguarded what with the idiots we have in power and all…
Anon,
The problem I have with everyone being on the database is that I do not believe the Government can be trusted to keep your information safe.
Otherwise, hell yeah, Im all for it!
Mailman
Why don’t the English take care of their teeth?