This is where you can discuss any BBC-related issue that concerns you.
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark April 19, 2024 at 2:27 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Constable Savage: Racist Police (Not The Nine O'Clock News) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teSPN8sVbFU
- MarkyMark April 19, 2024 at 2:24 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Funny Police Sketches https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PTMO1qIyCY
- MarkyMark April 19, 2024 at 2:22 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024https://twitter.com/Joey7Barton/status/1768593601708089698 https://images.gofundme.com/lTVX1Xj9OWLVqYs2BkssaosOVNw=/720x405/https://d2g8igdw...
- Fedup2 April 19, 2024 at 1:55 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024He ll get the 4am door implosion , cs , dogs , cuffs if he’s not more careful - and...
- Fedup2 April 19, 2024 at 1:52 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024‘You are quite openly Jewish “ I’m arresting you for walking on the cracks in the pavement …. I’m gonna...
- Fedup2 April 19, 2024 at 1:49 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024I’ve been listening to it all morning OMG pop pickers it’s so groovy daddyo…. Profound — classic - timeless -...
- harry142857 April 19, 2024 at 1:45 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024You can trust the Chinese !!! There is a video attached. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cycling/athletics-china-revokes-win-for-he-jie-afte...
- tomo April 19, 2024 at 1:41 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Exhibit A https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1781096430867722447
- tomo April 19, 2024 at 1:39 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024https://twitter.com/clim8resistance/status/1781274099974586475
- tomo April 19, 2024 at 1:32 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024https://twitter.com/banthebbc/status/1781272861010723141
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Tim Blair has picked up my tip about Marcus Brigstocke and his "solar-powered" motor home. Some good comments from his readers, too.
this helpful quote from Nick Robinson is interjected into the BBC article on beloved Jacqui
"Jacqui Smith may, I was told, have claimed for 'a kitchen sink' but, unlike many of her colleagues, she didn't 'claim for the whole kitchen' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8079205.stm
Adam, well spotted. A clear example of Robinson's inability to "get it".
Of course Jacqui Smith claimed for the whole kitchen – she claimed for the whole house.
In Justin Webb’s interview with Obama yesterday I thought they both looked as though they were bluffing. Obama appeared to be pretending to be President of the United States of America, while Justin seemed to be going through the motions and asking some questions he had thought up.
Justin’s awe seemed fake as well. As though, if he didn’t fawn enough, they both knew that the whole pantomime would fall apart.
Obama’s platitudinous vagueness made me wonder whether he was a body double, and not the real president at all. (Justin was probably real.)
He certainly said hoist instead of foist, but he did wake up and suddenly become authoritative when it was suggested that pressure from Israel had prompted recent overtures towards Iran. He smiled enigmatically as he said something like: “Oh no, I must disagree with you there, I did that all by myself..”
“What, Mr. President do you do to relax?" ( read books, study ancient Greek, play the violin?)
“Well, I’ve got two children!”
“ How amazing.”
“And I’m an ordinary guy”
“Yes, Mr. President your royal highness, so it seems.”
Someone at my end says what I've written above is really horrible, and they're probably right. I may have exaggerated.
But we’re in for a lot more like this now he’s off to bluff the Arab world.
Did I dream it or was Eric Hammond described as "controversial" followed by a list of his offences against the Socialist narrative. I don't remember certain Marxist trade union leaders' deaths being reported with anything other than reverence?
BBC report:
"Al Qaeda 'kills British hostage'"
[Extract]:
"Downing Street says there is 'strong reason to believe' that a British citizen has been killed by al-Qaeda militants in north-west Africa.
"Edwin Dyer was kidnapped in Niger in January, but was being held in Mali.
"The group had said it would kill Mr Dyer if the British government refused to release radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada from a UK prison.
"UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemned what he called an 'appalling and barbaric act of terrorism'.
"He later told the Commons: 'I want those who use terror against this country, and against British citizens, to know beyond doubt that they will be hunted down and brought to justice.'
Abu Qatada is awaiting extradition to Jordan, where he was convicted of terrorism offences in his absence and faces life in jail."
This murder is further evidence of the global Islamic jihad being waged against 'infidels' such as Edwin Dyer (and the rest of us).
The BBC (and the rest of the MSM) needs to provide non-dhimmi education about the nature of the Islamic jihad real and present danger in, e.g. West Africa, and in North Africa etc.
The general media report of Biafra was appalling in the 1960s, when there was no understanding of the barbarity of the Islamic jihadist massacre of Christians. Have things changed?:
'Jihadwatch' (Nov 30 2006):
"Jihad in West Africa" (by Hugh Fitzgerald)
[Extract]:
"And everywhere Christians are under assault. They have been under assault, most famously, in Nigeria, where in 1967 the Christian Ibos, far more advanced and industrious than their Muslim overlords, rebelled and declared the independence of the State of Biafra. The proximate cause were the mass murders by Muslims of Christian Ibo all over northern Nigeria. But the Western world did nothing to help the Christian Ibo, while the Muslims — including Egyptian pilots and planes that strafed Ibo villages, killing tens of thousands of helpless villagers — did provide aid. Only two countries in the world recognized Biafra: Israel and Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah, Osagyefo, if he did not always understand economics, did understand Islam). In 1969, in his famous Ahiara Declaration, the leader of Biafra, Colonel Ojukwu, explained that the main reason for the Biafran fight was to defend the Christians against, as he put it, the 'jihad' being conducted against it. That jihad by the Muslims who control the military and have largely stolen the oil wealth of Nigeria (with a little help from some islamochristians willing to collaborate) continues today.
"Elsewhere the Christians are under siege — as in the Cote d'Ivoire, or in Togo, where the more advanced southerners, often of the Ewe tribe that, like most tribes in coastal West Africa, cuts across national borders, are leaving. They are leaving not only because the crooked son of the previous crooked leader is back in business, but because of the Islamic menace.
"Black Africans are enslaved in Mali and Mauritania, but not a syllable of protest has come from the Arab League about this, though both countries are members of that league. For decades black African Christians and animists have been slaughtered or starved to death in southern Sudan, and now black non-Arab Muslims (or nominal Muslims) are being killed, their cattle destroyed, their huts and houses burned, their women raped, their men all killed."(Hugh Fitzgerald).
And this Islamic jihad killing of an innocent British man was carried out in the cause of Islamic jihadist ABU QATADA, WHO GORDON BROWN DOES NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO DEPORT TO JORDAN – a point not made by the BBC.
George R
I agree, a British man kidnapped and executed in Africa by muslims gets less attention on the one o'clock news than the different sounds of garden birds in urban areas.
Even the (black) drug smuggler who escaped execution in Laos warrants more attention.
The BBC are loathsome!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8080447.stm
Contrast the BBC reporting with that of the Prime Minister:
BBC: "Killed by millitants"
PM: "Murdered by Terrorists"
I spotted this on ITN News as a Top Story;
Bin Laden warns US of 'consequences'; Osama bin Laden has reportedly told America to prepare for the consequences of White House policies.
Also, on Sky World News;
Bin Laden Attacks Obama On New Terror Tape,
However, in a side bar on BBC World News;
Al-Qaeda deputy denounces Obama.
Obama denounced by Al-Qaeda ? Not worthy of a major story, must be a mistake made the deputy of al-Queda.
If the 2 other news sites attribute the quote to Bin Laden, why does the BBC say its from his deputy ? Inside information ?
Jonathan Marcus is 100% wrong in his analysis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8073836.stm)
The thugs and despots and their adversaries the terrorists and murderers in the Middle East are learning they can ignore the words of President Obama because they know he gives good speeches and does nothing.
He was elected in the USA by black racism, white guilt and media hype. All three elements irrelevant in the Middle East. His speech ("We'll be hanging on your every word" – Justin Webb) is simply that – a speech. In it he will be playing to his constituency at home but internationally, he's just pissing in the wind. (A little test – take a piece of paper and write down 10 things you can remember Obama has actually said).
In his article Jonathan Marcus says "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a problem." You bet. How does he make this irresponsible young man recognise the real world?
Sickening BBC bias.
Douglas Carswell was big BBC news and was all over the speaker doing his level best to be holier than thou over the other MPs with their snouts deep in the expenses trough.
Now he is exposed as a vile hypocrite in the trough like all the rest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190470/Ex-education-secretary-Estelle-Morris-claimed-thousands-refurbish-flat-months-stepping-down.html
Clear flipping.
And tens of thousands on stuff that shouldn't be on expenses at all.
Where is the BBC, that gave him such coverage before that it was a surpise they didnt give him Martin Bell's white suit? Nowhere to be seen.
Even the BBC know Brown is finished and so they are scurrying to be bias for the conservatives now.
Nauseating isnt it.
Apparently poor Mr Dyer was beheaded (Daily Mail) in the time-honouredf manner of the religion of peace…. but the BBC prefer the more anodyne and quasi-legal "executed".
Dhimmitude in action by the loathesome BBC.
It is well known that the BBC interferes in American politics, and that e.g. the BBC wants to close down Guantanamo, as it makes clear in its many S.Chakrabarti/'Liberty' type propaganda pieces over the years.
'Jihadwatch' today has:
"Poll: Americans overwhelmingly opposed to closing Gitmo"
[Extract]:
"On the heels of another poll revealing that Americans hold an unfavorable view of the Muslim world comes this: 'Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Opposed to Closing Gitmo,' from 'Fox News', June 2:
"Americans are strongly opposed to shutting the doors of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, or moving terrorism suspects to detention centers in the U.S., according to a recent poll.
"A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released Tuesday found that those surveyed oppose the closing of Guantanamo by more than 2-1."
But, of course, the BBC is more concerned with the fate of a Yemeni suspect there:
"Guantanamo Yemeni 'kills himself'"
You have to read though the whole, long BBC piece on this before, in a cryptic, single last sentence, the BBC adds:
"A new opinion poll has also suggested that a majority of Americans now oppose Guantanamo's closure."
(BBC report, 'Americas' page, 3 June.)
Dr Michael Ross – 'executed' absolutely should not be used to describe this murder. It's as clear as day in the guidelines. Only states can execute.
Have you got a link?
Sarah Jane.
(Sorry to the see the place is dying on its arse, but there you go)
Anonymous (2.40pm),
Don't worry. Carswell's not alone. The BBC has also forgotten about Labour minister Bob Ainsworth & ex-Labour minister Estelle Morris, former Labour MP Alice Mahon (who was also big news on the BBC recently), as well as Labour MPs Anne and John Cryer. All these dodgy Labour MPs are in today's 'Telegraph' and 'Mail' too, but each and every one of these Labour MPS is missing-in-action on the BBC. Sick bags galore, eh?
Must be something to do, I suspect, with Hazel Blears's resignation & the collapse of Brown's government. It seems to be distracting the BBC a little today.
So interesting as your theory is, it doesn’t look very convincing to me.
And what really sinks it is that the only exception to the rule is, astonishingly, the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who gets a prominent article on the BBC News website (complete with trademark anti-Tory quotation marks!)
Johnson wreath claim 'a mistake'
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8080739.stm)
And the length of the article is in stark contrast to the short coverage given to a similar claim by Brown favourite Ed Balls, who got 2 short paragraphs in the middle of an article featuring many others!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8066452.stm)
Compare and contrast the two (using the links provided) & you'll see that pro-Labour bias is still very much alive and kicking.
So, no Carswell, no Ainsworth, no Morris, no Mahon, no Cryers, only Conservative Boris Johnson.
As you say, sickening!
The BBC's broadcasting policy on tomorrow's elections seems to include: 'relegate the issues on IMMIGRATION'; but 'BrusselsJournal' doesn't shirk those issues:
"Britain on the Brink"
[Extract]:
"MPs across the board should recognize the gravity of the situation, and should address the issues of concern to the public – immigration, multiculturalism, and Islamism in particular. And they must do so now if the country is to be pulled back from the brink."
I was listening to Radio 5 this morning and noticed there was an end of thick sounding northerners ringing in supporting Labour, BUT were demanding that the voting system be changed before the next election.
I think these thick northerners will try to fix the voting system as much as possible before the next election. What got me was Labour have done NOTHING for the working class, many of their jobs have gone to foreigners and their taxes have risen and their pensions robbed, YET as I pointed out before Labour supporters would vote in a Paedophile if he had a Labour rosette pinned on his suit.
Also, I heard shit head John Pinhead on Radio 5 trying to link the BNP to UKIP YET AGAIN. The BBC is clearly going all guns out to defend McTwat.
Sue,
Don't worry, your post made me smile.
I pointed out on another thread yesterday that Webb's hands at once stage froze in prayer. I froze my digital recorder & saw that this gesture was accompanied by a 'look of love' in Justin's eyes. Was this Webb acting a part, or was it a sign of sincere puppy-love, a 'man-crush'?
Whatever it was, this moment (typical of the interview as a whole) made me cringe. A UK journalist should be respectful of but not sycophantic towards an American president.
Martin,
I suspect one or two of the e-mailers on today's (and other editions of) the 'Daily Politics' to be Labour party members pretending to be ordinary viewers. They use phrases suspiciously close to those used by Labour spokemen (though with sly demotic twists) & sound to me like 'plants'.
Could some of these 5 Live callers
be 'plants' too? I don't listen to 5 Live (and reading your posts doesn't encourage me to!), but these callers sound unrepresentive of the public mood to say the least.
Or am I being paranoid?
Classic BBC. "Gordon Brown had a good PMQ's"
You couldn't make it up!!!!
How to tell if Toenails is simply spouting Labour shite.
On the 6PM News if Toenails plays down the letter going round asking him to resign, we will know Toenails is really taking it up the backside.
Martin (4.45 pm)
James Landale has taken it up there all afternoon on BBC News 24.
Craig @ 3:58 PM
A UK journalist should be respectful of but not sycophantic towards an American president.
Nor should he ask an American president to apologize for his predecessor. Has a BBC reporter ever asked a world leader to apologize for the previous regime? Once again the BBC is acting like it's a liberation from tyranny. It's blatant bias. The BBC doesn't even condemn North Korea like this.
Ol' Justin's obvious worship of his Obamessiah is mostly beside the point. The real problem is the clear biased agenda in his line of questioning.
When Justin Webb slithers back to the UK to take his well-deserved seat on Today, he should apologize to the US for his behavior.
Matt Frei:
In tight economic times one thing that continues to sell well is the Obama family.
The stall outside our office is still flogging Obama tea towels, T-shirts and umbrellas.
So an Obama memorabilia stall continues to do well in its situation outside the BBC office. There's a stall holder who knows his market.
Does this apply to UK Labour MPs?:
BBC report –
"The Australian government has admitted that cash hand-outs aimed at stimulating the economy have been sent to thousands of people who are dead."
BBC ('Asia-Pacific' page):
"Cash for Aussie 'grateful dead'".
BBC and E.U.:
'eureferendum'-
"Well, that's the BBC for you"
[Extract]:
"Once again we doff our caps to Lord Pearson of Rannoch in recognition of his continuing battle with the BBC and his absolute determination to make that organization live up to its Charter and broadcast in a more or less balanced way on the European Union. At least, he maintains, the BBC should learn some facts.
"He has once again written to Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, with copies to all sorts of worthies who work for Auntie (the letter will be on 'Global Britain' website very soon, I am told), in which he professed himself to be in despair over the BBC's coverage of the European election."
DB @ 4:59 PM
Nice one.
Nor should he ask an American president to apologize for his predecessor. Has a BBC reporter ever asked a world leader to apologize for the previous regime? Once again the BBC is acting like it's a liberation from tyranny.
Which is very strange indeed, especially given the following.
If only such a thing was even possible?
It is a reasonably well known fact that even the American electorate sees that there IS indeed a 'theoretical' difference between the Republican and Democrat Parties. However they also know that this difference is in practice, as close to Zero, as makes no material difference whatsoever.
Even so called educated Americans worked out many years ago that both major US political parties, are simply scratching different sides of EXACTLY the same ass-hole.
So how strange is it then that The BBC with its vast resources of money and so called educated manpower, can not see what so many ordinary people can so plainly see, with their eyes closed??????????????
Obama is effectively a younger GEORGE BUSH, with a sun tan.
Obama has as much real control over American Foreign and domestic policy, as the White House chief gardener. Possibly less.
As a general rule.
If you know the guys name, has appeared more then a few times on TV, or ever had their name on a ballot paper, they are not really ultimately in charge of anything seriously important.
Obama is repeatedly said by the BBC, to be 'the most powerful man on the planet.' Surly no one in their right mind actually believes that highly important obviously silly lie, or do they?????
Obama as Bush, Clinton and ALL of the rest including all the way back to George Washington himself. ( who was a general in The BRITISH ARMY ) Have never been even close to being the most powerful people on earth. The most powerful elected politician maybe. But then that is seriously saying just about nothing at all.
There are people in this world that even the Queen of England has to make appointments to meet. One of which is The Pope but there are others.
Likewise American Presidents, who are ALL well below the Queen of England in the pecking order of world corporate power. Even though I guess that very few were fully aware quite how long they were. Those that realized and said so, generally got there heads exploded.
How can this be? I can feel you asking.
This can be, because you lot do not know your own history, thanks to your own dishonest and highly censored education system and of course organizations such as the BBC.
On paper and in reality, but not officially of course, the USA is still the property of the British Crown. The Queen of England is therefore the real US head of state, not Obama or anyone else.
Who runs the Queen, therefore runs America. If the same guy also physically owns or controls the Federal Reserve and therefore most of the bits not still owned by the Crown Estates, which he does. Then this guy is really running America and Britain, and between him and his family, control virtually the entire productive capacity of the entire planet.
Which is why almost all US presidents there has ever been, are far far closer related to The British Royal Family, including Obama, them we will ever be.
Atlas shrugged
Somebody's apron is on too tight again.
At the risk of sounding like Atlas Shrugged, the fact that New Liebour intimates – and BBC favourites – Steve Richards (Independent) and Sir Michael White (Guardian) have come out against Gordon Brown suggests that the Political Class have decided the PM must go.
Nick Robinson seems to be on board too which, given that he's been a willing tool of that Political Class, is not very surprising.
As others have posted, Postie Johnson is being pushed forward as a replacement. Beeboids and sympathetic media types are talking him up.
Can we expect a coup in the next few days?
Or am I wrong?
They really are, as you guys say, taking the piss on The Daily Politics today. Hoon and Spelman? Is that supposed to be ironic?
Anita reads out a bunch of viewer emails, all pretty much negative against both Mr. Brown and Mr. Cameron, except the last one in praise of Gordon. Then Nick Robinson really lets himself down. Yes, he's got his finger on the pulse of Westminster or whatever, but he's too close now. He was revealing his sympathy for what all MPs are going through because of the expenses scandal. They're being vilified for the first times in their professional lives, Nick? Awww. He brings that up time and time again during his various on-air appearances and on his blog. Not only does that distract from the issue at hand, but it distracts him from seeing what's going on under his nose. I mean, yesterday he was going along with Darling's claim that he'd take whatever job Mr. Brown gave him, and today he's saying that "friends" told him Darling wants to stay Chancellor or he's out entirely. Did Darling actually tell him that yesterday and the whole interview was a sham just maintain an appearance of a calm government? Nick Robinson is too close and too sympathetic to his beat (I still say he's no Friend of Gordon). Kind of like Barbara Plett or Orla Guerin.
First he says that no, this isn't like Margaret Thatcher's situation, partially because half of Labour isn't calling for him to go (in your dreams, Nick). But he's contradicting himself. He also says that Hazel Blears has let the door open for a leadership challenge. Of course, this has been going on for ages. Otherwise, why would he have been reassuring everyone on his blog and elsewhere recently that there is no real leadership challenge. Only at the BBC were they telling themselves that Mr. Brown was safe, the right man to lead, etc.
Even worse was Andrew Neil asking Hoon why they don't call an election now if they think the Tories have no policies. It's a good question. Hoon says the reason they haven't called an election is because they're waiting to see if the Tories have any policies because he thinks they don't. Neil is satisfied with that and moves on, almost as if it's perfunctory and the answer isn't as important as the fact that he asked the question, so he can say he did his job.
Fair enough saying that Cameron was weak, though, because he totally was. Robinson feels sympathy for him, too. That's entirely the wrong approach. Robinson needs to be reshuffled along with the rest of them.
Interesting insight into Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC's new head of religion.
Also on Telegraph blogs: BBC Trust backs drama in which Christian terrorist beheads Muslim.
Further to DB 7:48 pm above:
Yes: more on BBC's 'Bonekickers':
'Jihadwatch' (3 June)-
"Christian-beheads-Muslim drama backed by BBC"
[Extract]:
"Not all that surprising, since, as this report indicates, the BBC is also in the habit of apologizing to Muslims, is dominated by political correctness, would burn a Bible on screen, but never a Koran, and insists that Islam must be treated with more sensitivity than Christianity. An update on this story. "'Christian beheads Muslim' drama backed by BBC Trust," from the Christian Institute, June 2:
"'The BBC Trust has rejected complaints against a TV drama that showed a fanatical British Christian beheading a moderate Muslim.
"'The offending episode of “Bonekickers” was aired in July last year and sparked fresh claims of anti-Christian bias at the BBC.
"'The BBC Trust, a group of “independent trustees acting in the public interest”, rejected suggestions that the drama associated fanatical Christianity with evangelicalism and gave an offensive portrayal of evangelical Christians.
"Daily Telegraph writer, Damian Thompson, said: 'We are deep into the realms of BBC bias and ignorance here.
“'Only a BBC drama series would, to quote the complainant, "transfer the practice of terrorist beheadings from Islamist radicals to a fantasised group of fundamentalist Christians".'
"When the show was broadcast a TV reviewer for the 'Observer' said: 'it wasn’t the absurdity of the storyline that buried Bonekickers so much as the BBC’s paint-by-numbers version of political correctness.'
"He added: 'A Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes'.
"The BBC Trust’s decision to support the drama comes in the same week as the BBC caved in to pressure and apologised to the Muslim Council of Britain over accusations that the group supports attacks on British troops." ('Jihadwatch', 3 June.)
This clip seemed very anti-Tory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8080891.stm
Especially towards the end.
Michael Prick on Newsnight spinning for McTwat.
George R: Even more pathetic from the BBC when you see another Brit had his head hacked off by bushy bearded Muslim tosspots.
Wouldn't you know it: in the light of poor Edwin Dyer being murdered by Islamic cavemen, the BBC is now advocating for negotiating with kidnappers.
The British government has – and has had for a long time – a policy of not making political concessions or paying a ransom.
To have freed a prisoner it has declared to be dangerous would have undermined its whole anti-terrorist strategy.
Now that they've spelled it out for you….
Given the positions of each side, this was always likely to have a tragic end.
It was not always so. In 1970, when Leila Khaled of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine tried to hijack an El Al plane and ended up in British custody, the British conservative government released her as part of a prisoner exchange.
So this poor man's life could have been saved? Why the change in policy, then, BBC? In case I couldn't guess…..
It was Mrs Thatcher who fundamentally changed the attitude of the British government and her influence is still felt in current policy.
It was evident during the long years when Terry Waite and other hostages were held in Lebanon.
The British government tried to downplay the issue, arguing that the more it was played up, the more valuable the hostages and the more outrageous the kidnappers' demands would become.
As if that's not reality.
In the event, unseen factors were at work and the hostages were freed as a result of negotiations between the Americans and the Iranians, thereby showing that this is sometimes a very murky business indeed.
Yeah, murky. As in the Iran-Contra affair, in which the CIA illegally gave weapons to Iran's puppets in Lebanon in exchange for the prisoners (I'm summarizing). That's ransom, and not a pretty way to do it, either. It also led to a huge fuss in the US with Congressional hearings and everything, and got really, really ugly. But that would detract from the pro-ransom Narrative (never mind take away an opportunity for a bit of Maggie-bashing), wouldn't it? Now for the set-up:
However, the reaction of governments to hostage-taking is not always so clear-cut. Nor is the position of the kidnappers either, because, despite their declarations, money is often of interest to them.
Edwin Dyer was part of a group of hostages and a number of them have been freed amid reports that ransoms were paid.
In April, the al-Qaeda group released two Canadian diplomats and two European tourists, a German and a Swiss.
It seems one al-Qaeda cell was running out of money. Canada said they paid no ransom, but the hostages weren't freed out of the goodness of cavemen's hearts. Now to continue the set-up:
The al-Qaeda group might have had another interest in getting money. It is reported that it bought the hostages from local tribesmen in the desert.
Last year it freed two Austrian tourists. In their case, the original demand had concerned al-Qaeda prisoners in Algeria and Tunisia, but in the end no reciprocal releases were made, so it has been assumed that a ransom was paid.
You see? It can be done. Just pay them and nobody has to die. And now for the BBC's recommendation….er….summation:
Ransom demands are easier to meet because the relatives of the hostages can take a role in offering the necessary money. In this way, governments can maintain their no-negotiations stance while perhaps guiding the relatives towards those negotiating on behalf of the hostages.
And when serious money is at stake – as in the cases of the ships hijacked by Somali pirates – big companies are very ready to pay up.
It's no surprise to anyone here, I'm sure, that this is the BBC's position on encouraging…sorry…I mean, negotiating with kidnappers and saving lives. But it's rare to see them openly smile upon it like this.
EU Referendum has posted a transcript of a recent interview of David Cameron on Radio 4's Toady program
Over here
Disgraceful: BBC is lashed by MPs for trying to keep the huge pay packets of its radio stars a secret,
Tory MP Edward Leigh,the committee chairman, said: 'Very few will find acceptable any such constraints on the National Audit Office's ability to investigate how a publicly funded national institution spends our money.
'It is disgraceful that the NAO's lack of statutory audit access to the BBC puts the corporation in the position to dictate what the spending watchdog can and cannot see.
More..Daily Mail
Still waiting for the BBC to interview a British Muslim who will condemn the actions of the Muslim extremists who murdered Edwin Dyer?
"Edwin Dyer, a British hostage, has been executed by al-Qaeda in West Africa in an "appalling and barbaric act of terrorism" after the government refused to release the radical preacher Abu Qatada". The Telegraph
Not a Tory in sight on newsnight last night – 5 mins of the Northern Ireland sec telling us that the prime Minister was on "the top of his game" four times. If this is him "at his best" what the f*** is he like when he is not on "the top of his game".
Disgraceful, the official opposition is clearly the lib-dems in BBC eyes
On another note – there is splendid opportunity for a feature film about the "downfall" seen from the bunker (based on the fantastic you-tube clip)
ho ho
fourth on the fourth
The bBC rewriting WW2 and making the allies the bad guys because they Liberated Europe at cost.
June 6, 1944: UK's last day as a superpower
Ironically, because of the casualties, the Normandy campaign ended up as more attritional than the worst battles of the 1914-18 war, something its commanders – haunted by the shadow of the Somme – desperately tried to avoid.The campaign lasted 77 days (as against the 90 days predicted by allied planners), and resulted in the destruction of the German Seventh Army and Fifth Panzer Army in the Falaise Pocket by 21 August.
Some 209,672 allied soldiers were killed, wounded or went missing, 16,714 allied aircrew lost their lives. German losses were estimated at 250,000. Additionally, 2,483 Normans connected with the French Resistance were executed before or during the campaign, while as many as 35,000 civilians died (the lowest estimate is 15,000) and 60,000 were wounded in the liberation. This averages out at 6,600 casualties per day for the entire campaign.
This daily average exceeds the Great War daily casualty rates of Verdun 1916 (2,300 per day over 299 days), the Somme 1916 (6,400/day over 142 days) or Passchendaele 1917 (4,600/day over 113 days).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8079965.stm
Really?
Well for some reason that bBC article equates the total allied figure of who were wounded in Normandy with just the British figure of those who were killed at the Somme
Total number of Allied soldiers killed during the Normandy campaign =36,976.
Total number of Allied soldiers killed at the Somme =146,431
Total number of British Empire soldiers killed at the Somme = 95,675.
The bBC rewriting WW2 and making the allies the bad guys because they Liberated Europe at cost.
more lies on the Toady program right now – interviewing an obamadroid.
apparently "8 years of the Bush adminstration" didnt work with Iran because Bush didnt "engage" with the Iranians.
well, theres a problem with that – Bush most certainly DID engage. Especially Rumsfeld – they left the diplomacy to the European Union and told them explicitly to get on with it, because "engagement" is what the EU were banging on about and wanted to do it.
for example, between 2000 and 2005 , EU trade with Iran tripled.
I'm not daft. I know I can't do anything about the weather, but at least for my licence fee the bbc should be able to tell me what's going to happen.
So instead of millions for over-paid radio announcers, how about a couple of quid for some state-of-the-art forecasting stuff and a bit of dosh for some qulaified people to interpret the readings?
And speaking of which, how come there is never a weather forecast attempt at 6am Sundays?
Madeleine Albright on Toady – Cairo is a "Muslim capital"
I wonder what the Egyptian Coptic Christians think of that?
I note that the Today reporter didn't comment on whether he and other BBC staff are members of a final salary scheme.
Of course they is, why wouldnt he be?
Atlas 6:08
Recently you taught us that Obama is directly related to Queen Elizabeth and now you tell us Queen Elizabeth is the real Head of State of the USA, not Obama.
Why doesn't the BBC report these little known facts ?
Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor of Al- Quds, was one of the final guests on the Today programme. Evan Davis's line of questioning fitted with the programmes's main theme for the day, namely how the saviour Obama can best appease the Muslim world on the West's behalf.
You wouldn't know it from the Today programme (and would never find out from the pathetic softball questions of Evan Davis) but Atwan's real hope is the annihilation of Israel:
"If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight."
And what do we get from Davis? Please, nice Mr Muslim editor, what does President Obama have to do to make things better?
"Not a Tory in sight on newsnight last night"
Think that was intentional on behalf of the tories – staying well out of it.
However, compare and contrast La Maitlis's interviews with Clegg and Farage. Clegg got a relatively easy ride, but Farage (is that Farage, or Faraaahhhge?) was laid into from the start.