This is where you can discuss any BBC-related issue that concerns you.
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- atlas_shrugged May 2, 2024 at 11:43 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024Zeph it was the middle of winter and I was driving home on the A14 in the dark. Right in...
- atlas_shrugged May 2, 2024 at 11:19 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024When can we expect the wet police to pay this man a 5am visit, arrest and handcuff him in front...
- atlas_shrugged May 2, 2024 at 11:05 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024I have just listened to this so you didn't have to. It is unbearable, so only listen if you have...
- Jeff May 2, 2024 at 11:04 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024Another day, another humiliating migrant fiasco. If it's not the House of Lords or the devious civil servants putting a...
- Guest Who May 2, 2024 at 10:33 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024Sopes, Mason, Simpo… all of Labour… what has Trump got to do with anything? https://x.com/nickdixoncomic/status/1786112272047198459?s=6 ‘It’...
- G.W.F. May 2, 2024 at 9:52 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024I intended to vote and read the handful of election leaflets. They consisted of community this and community that and...
- StewGreen May 2, 2024 at 9:49 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024Campaign Against Antisemitism tweetHis caveated apology was a feeble attempt to mask his bigotry. Mr. Baptiste, known for Comedy Central...
- StewGreen May 2, 2024 at 9:43 pm on Midweek 1st May 2024GBnews topic now ..lefty comic not condemned, despite making a clear death threat https://twitter.com/joshxhowie/status/1785730810206679341
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
Makes you wish we had fox news over here. At least there is some force for balancing the left wing narrative in the US
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22419959/blatant-bias.htm#q=media+bias
Barry's big speach is today. Expect coverage coming out of their ring peice by Al Beeb.
In the mean time, read something by one of the few journalists who dares to question Barry.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/stephanie_gutmann/blog/2009/06/04/barack_obamas_folly_believing_he_can_address_a_unified_muslim_world
Mailman
Yes, that is a good piece. The whole basis for Obama's speech is fatuous – there is no unified "Muslim world" – and Obama should be focussing on the sharp divide between peaceful Muslims and the violent Islamists. But he is too chicken to do that, as well as too ignorant.
So I've the bBC news on and Frank (don't shoot I'm a Muslim) Gardner on and he comments on this snippet of Obamas speech;
"It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."
According to Frank, the shooting rockets is a dig at how Jews attack Non Jews. Really Frank, lets have a look at the full paragraph that snippet can be found in;
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
It appears that Obama was talking about Palestinians and not jews. But Hey the Abu Bowen show must go on.
JohnA 10:57
Quite right. Obama's naivity and ignorance of Islam is very dangerous. He has never even lived in a muslim country.
I think that he is also too stupid to realise that if he ditches Israel, it will make the world more dangerous, not safer, especially with Turkey moving towards an Islamic dictatorship.
pounce 7:11
Yes, only the scum at the BBC would criticise the Allies on the anniversary of D-day.
To think that my late father and some of his generation gave and risked their lives for the freedom of the BBC to publish such trash is nauseating.
Obama's Kumbaya speech is a crock – it will not achieve anything positive. The supreme leader of Iran had already stated that mere speeches don't matter.
The so-called "Muslim world" will be laughing their heads off today at this poor fool of a dhimmie President. His clear weakness of will – his abnegation of freedom and democracy and other key Western values, his kowtowing to Arab leaders – all this will merely encourage the Islamists, just like weakness by Carter and then Clinton egged them on.
http://tinyurl.com/p6dpqd
More grovelling from President Barack Hussein Obama this will send the BBC pacifist Lefty's into raptures on the BBC World Service
Barack Obama wants 'new beginning' for Islam and America Will the new beginning include Muslim extremists murdering fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The bBC reporting the news from Iran and sucking up to Am-a-nut-job.
Iranian poll rivals clash on live TV
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been accused of undermining Iran's dignity, in a live TV debate with his main rival 10 days ahead of elections….. Mr Ahmadinejad countered by criticising Mr Mousavi's wife for campaigning on his behalf, and he accused her of not having the right qualifications for her post as a university professor. Our correspondent says it is hard to say which candidate won the debate, but it has brought the election alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8080999.stm
So the bBC informs the great unwashed that Am-a-nut-job criticised Mr Mousavi wife of not having the right credentials , really here is what he actually said on live TV;
“The attacks came in a heated televised debate during which the president went so far as to accuse his rival’s wife, who has played a prominent role in the campaign, of having won her doctorate without passing an entrance examination.”
Now after one of Am-a-nut-jobs henchmen Ali Kordan (the ex Interior minister) had to resign after getting caught lying about his degrees . the slur dished out by am-a-nut-job is a serious one in Iran..
As for the so called bBC correspondent not knowing which candidate won that debate, well in the polls Am-a-nut-job is trailing his opposite number by 10 points.
But hey we all know who the bBC backs in this political race, which may be why they left out these snippets from his rival in that biased bBC report;
He took Ahmadinejad to task for harassing students, shuttering newspapers and banning books and accused him of cronyism for appointing an interior minister who had a fake university degree, the gambit that probably prompted Ahmadinejad to raise the issue of Mousavi's wife…… Mousavi, struggling with his words during the beginning of the debate, hammered hard at Ahmadinejad's foreign policy, accusing him of needlessly alienating other countries. He mocked what he described as Ahmadinejad's erratic behavior during several crises and trips abroad and repeatedly criticized Ahmadinejad for questioning the existence of the Holocaust, which he said hurt Iran's national interests and unified the world behind Israel, Tehran's rival.
The bBC reporting the news from Iran and sucking up to Am-a-nut-job.
Pounce,
Im surprised Barry actually demanded Paletstinians do something other than self detonate. I might have to wait for the full transcript, just to check thats what he actually said.
Mailman
Mailman wrote;
"I might have to wait for the full transcript, just to check thats what he actually said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-keynote-speech-egypt
Is it an accident that the speech has been made on the anniversary of the day BEFORE the 1967 war ?
Obama looks like the first president who might want Israel to give up every last inch of land that resulted from that war against all the surrounding Arab states.
On home security, a lot of his stuff harks back to pre-9/11.
It is ironic that Obama praises Islam as a religion of peace just after a US soldier and a British tourist are murdered in Islam's name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/map/html/map.stm
BBC not only do blatent bias, but what disturbs me more is the subtle psycholigical ones (e.g. the whole site being clad in 'Labour Red').
Check out this map, which gives BNP a similar colour to Conservatives. Coupled with their emphasis this is a far-right party (when it is far-left) and scaremongering voters, they seem to want people to associate Conservatives with BNP in the publics' minds.
DB (9.30)
Abd Al-Bari Atwan is a regular on the BBC News 24 'Dateline: London' programme, where Gavin Esler always treats him with friendly respect.
Craig
Atwan is a nutter of the first degree. Just watch his face, his eyes goggling.
So fits happily into the BBC setup. He should be debarred from ever appearing, on grounds of his past statements. And Esler is a creep for welcoming him.
If Obama wants to make a big speech today – should it not be to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Tianenmen Square ?
Or is this a case of Kumbaya in Cairo to bury the bad news ?
Speeches are meaningless. The BBC's most-hated world leader of all time said a lot of these same things at one time or another. He also focuses a lot more on creating freedom and democracy in autocratic Muslims kingdoms when he did. Not that the BBC ever gave him any credit for any of it.
But never mind. The real work behind closed doors is what counts. I'm sure the Beeboids don't care because they are always captivated by the superficiality of speeches and not the substantial work that comes after. They really do believe that there's some sort of monolithic, groupthinking Muslim world. Funny how that's what the Islamo-fascist extremists think and want as well. That's probably the most ridiculous part of all this.
At least the President understands that the Shia and Sunnis are happy to slaughter each other and are not united under Mohammed's big tent. The shallow Beeboids can't see it, though. It's just "the Muslim World" to them, who will be just as elated as they are by this speech.
The first subject on the Have Your Say page at the moment is Can Obama improve ties with Muslims? The highlighted comments read "As a person, Obama will achieve a lot. He'll do much for the American image" and "We need to give Obama a chance before we can finally judge him"
These do not represent the general tone of comments which is far more dismissive.
I thought you might like to know the following exchange at business questions today and how MPs are demanding the BBC declare its salaries:
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): Given the recent media interest in how public money is spent on the pay and allowances of those in public life, may we have a debate on the pay and other remuneration of BBC superstars and on the irony of the corporation’s use of the familiar pretext of the Data Protection Act to seek to prevent openness and transparency in public life? In such a debate, may we have the chance to say to the BBC, on the basis of some recent experience, that resisting the public’s legitimate right to know how their money is being used to remunerate all those in public life is likely to end in tears?
Ms Harman: When public money is spent, the public are entitled to know about it, and salaries for presenters at the BBC are paid for out of public money. Now I have heard it argued that it would be invidious to publish those salaries because it would prompt competition from commercial organisations that might try to head-hunt those presenters. However, that risk applies to everyone in public service—the salaries of permanent secretaries, for example, are published and they, too, could be head-hunted by the private sector. However, many people work in the public sector because they believe in public service broadcasting or the important work of the public sector more widely. I do not buy the argument that salaries cannot be published because of commercial confidentiality because it seems to me that the issue goes further than the Data Protection Act. I believe that gagging clauses are drawn up to prevent BBC presenters from disclosing the salaries that they have negotiated, but the Equality Bill contains a clause to ban such gagging clauses because we do not think it appropriate for employers and employees to be bound not to reveal information about pay—not least because that might provide an opportunity for pay discrimination between men and women.
I just caught a bit of Obama's "speech" on the BBC. The funniest bit was where he inserted " Salaam Alekum" in the body of the speech, totally ignorant of when and where to use that phrase.
Does he not have people to advise him ?
Roland Deschain @ 3:23 PM
Cult of Personality on display. With the BBC as willing propagandists.
If anyone should know you'd have thought that Barack Hussein Obama would…
"'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick"
Wow, either BBC headline writers have unknowingly abandoned their ultra-anal PC approach, or someone in the asylum has a sense of humour.
Not bias I know, but f**king funny nonetheless…
"Grant said…
I just caught a bit of Obama's "speech" on the BBC. The funniest bit was where he inserted " Salaam Alekum" in the body of the speech, totally ignorant of when and where to use that phrase.
Does he not have people to advise him ?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5443448/Barack-Obama-speech-the-full-transcript.html
Seems pretty reasonable to me, all things considered. Hilarious. Bit desperate?
Pounce,
You got a condensed readers digest version of that speach? 😉
Mailman
I see Guido has dumped a bucketful on the BBC again.
As for Obama. What a pile of shit. HE might not have declared war on the Muslims, but they have on him, America and every other western Country.
Compare and contrast, on Obama speech:
1.)'JIHADWATCH's crtical commentary* (*This is quite lengthy, so it is necessary, but very worthwhile, to scroll down the 'Jihadwatch' brilliant critique by Robert Spencer):
"Platitudes and naivete: Obama's Cairo speech"
{Extract]:
"NOTE: This speech is pivotal, and the importance attached to it makes it even more so, so we are going to keep it up top here for awhile. However, the site is still being updated — please scroll down for updates.
"Here is the text as prepared for delivery, provided by the White House, via USA Today, June 4 — with my [ROBERT SPENCER] comments interspersed:
2.) the BBC's obsequiousness towards their Obama:
BBC report:
"Obama reaches out to the Muslim world".
In case there's any doubt about the BBC's hatred for Conservative politicians, here's their latest Golden Boy Boris the Buffoon clip. Note the dishonesty in the headline to make him look even more foolish.
Boris Johnson stumbles into river
Before clicking on the video itself, check out the text for the two other featured clips. First there's a Bush gaffe in which he walked into an uncooperative door. President Obamessiah did the same thing almost immediately after taking office, yet the BBC never showed it, and never will. Yet when it's Booooosh, they have it ready to wheel out when given the slightest opportunity. Surely there are other, perhaps more recent clips of other, more local politicians looking foolish. What about the recent scene of Gordon Brown forgetting that he had to speak at the lectern at PMQs and walking off to the riotous laughter of the Commons? Or did that get lost in the vaunted (Jupiter?) database system?
Then there's the giveaway in the other Boris clip: "Whether you like him or not…" Do they ever say that about Ken Livingstone? Do they say that about any Labour pol?
Aside from that, the headline is dishonest because, as anyone can plainly see, Johnson was already wading in the river (stream, really) and accidentally stepped into a deeper part. But the Beeboids are ever vigilant to find even the slightest non-positive thing about people they hate. One gets the feeling that there are young media studies grads assigned to watch for things like this. They breathlessly rush to show their editors, who say, "Oh, god, what's the arsehole done now? Fell into a river? Brilliant!"
"No," the youngster replies, "he was wading in the river and stepped into a deeper part. Went in up to his waist."
"Well, bung it in there and we'll come up with a suitable headline. We'll say the clown fell in. He's and idiot, and it will be false but accurate."
The drip, drip, drip of the Narrative continues. Isolate and discredit the enemy through ridicule and misrepresentation, just as Saul Alinsky instructed.
Because the BBC thinks the public can't get enough of the comedy stylings of Boris Johnson, here's that clip again, but in a different place with a more humorous, somewhat less dishonest headline, currently on the UK News front page:
Boris Johnson's untimely dip
Unfortunately, they still say he fell in, when any fool looking at the video can plainly see he's already in it.
The BBC's political empire is inclined to represent e.g. the political interests of Muslims of the Middle East, not the political interests of the British people.
For example, on Obama's dhimmi speech, what matters politically to the BBC is not the opinion of British people to Islam, etc, but the political opinions of mainly Muslims in the Middle East.
One specific example of this is on the following webpage. The money of British licencepayers is being used by the Islamizing BBC to give global representation to Muslim opinion.The British people do not pay the BBC poll tax to have e.g. Saudi Arabia opinions forced on us. The BBC's role is NOT to represent Islam and Arab states, but to represent the interests of BRITISH people.
BBC ('Middle East' page):
"Middle East views: Obama's speech"
Sharia law 'same' as Krays' rule, says Lord Tebbit
Tory ex-Cabinet minister Lord Tebbit today compared Sharia law to the system of arbitration run by the Kray brothers in London's East End.
Justice Minster Lord Bach had told peers at question time that individuals have 'the option to use religious councils or any other system of alternative dispute resolution.'
But he stressed that English law would prevail if there was any conflict.
Lord Tebbit told him: 'A few years ago in the East End of London there was a system of arbitration of disputes that was run by the Kray brothers
'Are you not not aware that there is extreme pressure put upon vulnerable women to go through a form of arbitration that results in them being virtually precluded from access to British law? Daily Mail
what the hell is this supposed to mean?
"obama reaches out to muslim world"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8082676.stm
but america has already done that – by liberating 30 million iraqis from the yoke of a murderous tyrant..
and then on TOP of that , hunting down and killing the Al Qaeda in Iraq nutjobs.
then obama says that there has been "years of distrust" – well , thats a new one to the Egyptians and Turks – both governments being resolutely pro-American. Egypt receives aid from the USA yearly to the tune of several billion. The Turkish military is renowned for being pro-U.S. and anti-communist.
And look at Saudi + Kuwait – America came to their rescue when Saddam invaded Kuwait in Gulf War 1.
i could go on and on with more examples.
Obama really is talking out of his friggin arse..
and what country has given safe harbour to hundreds of thousands of Iranian dissidents?
yup.. that would be America.
And what country has special forces in place, and in combat – assisting the military of Algeria in combatting Islamists there…
yup.. America again.
"reaching out" my arse – America is DEEPLY involved in the Middle East and has been for decades.
The only folks that America doesnt reach out to are the Islamist nutjobs.
But then, Obama thinks you can smoke a peace pipe with them and everything will be all hunky dory.
I'm getting a distinct feeling that Obama will end up being even worse than Jimmy Carter…
More BBC hypocrisy:
'MAIL':
"John Humphrys refuses to reveal salary in on-air clash with Tory MP over BBC salary scandal"
[Extract]:
"BBC Radio 4 presenter John Humphrys today refused to reveal how much he is paid when put on the spot during a live interview with a Tory MP.
"The Today Programme host, renowned for his abrasive questioning-style, was left stuttering when Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough and Market Rasen, demanded to know how much of the licence fee he takes home every year.
"The on-air row came in the wake of a committee of MPs branding the BBC 'disgraceful' today for refusing to reveal details of the bumper salaries of some of its top radio presenters."
George R:
It is important if the BBC finally yields to public pressure to reveal the salaries of the "stars" that they tell ALL. Most of these "celebrities" are on golden handcuff retainers, aimed at keeping them exclusive to the BBC. They are paid additional fees for each programme they do. Also check expenses claims are not duplicated. Remember the case of a presenter (Parkinson I think- but I am open to correction) some years ago who claimed an airline ticket three times from three separate entities?
This payment business is slippery stuff born of bloated egos and an old boy network of agents and executives. Personally, I don't think we'll ever know Humphry's cash deal…but he does have a nice farm I'm told.
George R,
A priceless moment. Let's hope for more of the same.
On the Obama speech, I watched ITN's 6.30 News and heard Julian Manyon mention that "He recalled the history of Jewish suffering".
That fact was conspicuously absent from Jeremy al-Bowen's report on the BBC 6.00 News.
Al-Bowen just can't get over George W. Bush.
His BBC 6.00 News piece editorialised that one of Obama's tasks was "to repair the damage done by George Bush" (which begs several questions), that "the fact that he's not George Bush" is one of Obama's "best political assets" as regards the 'Muslim World' & that "THIS president is good with words" (in contrast to whom Jeremy?).
Al-Bowen loved the Obama speech: "This president is good with words and the ones he used were powerful and effective". (Were they really Jeremy?) "His stock would have risen with with Arabs especially" (oh goodie) "and the Israeli governemnt will feel apprehensive" (oh you'll like that, won't you Jeremy?).
As the 'Times' is reporting – and the BBC, typically, isn't – Hamas, Hezbollah & Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood have all rubbished the Obama speech. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6432006.ece)
So much for the "good feeling" Bowen says is felt by the 'Muslim World' tonight.
Did anyone hear Nick Robinson tell Humphrys that he wasn't going tell him who sent out that letter to MPs asking for signatures calling for Mr. Brown to resign?
Humphrys asked him if he knew who sent it out, and the BBC's political editor said yes but he's not telling. Instead he danced around and allowed that it was probably people who didn't like Gordon Brown and not the whips. Gosh, really, Nick, do you think? Perhaps somebody else can listen to his babbling and make some sense out of it.
For this Nick Robinson is paid a handsome six-figure salary (I admit I have no information, but don't tell me he's paid less than Carrie Gracie, who admitted on air that she makes £92K pa) of your hard-earned money. He's too close to the politicians he covers, too sympathetic, and too compromised, even if he's obviously critical of Mr. Brown on his blog.
Surprisiong but credit where it's due. It's a short quote so I've copied it in full. You can find it next to the BBC report on Obama's speech.
Tim Franks, BBC Middle East correspondent
President Obama's language towards Israel is strong but also, maybe deliberately, imprecise.
Take these two sentences: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" and "It is time for these settlements to stop". It is the same language that Hillary Clinton has recently used. But what does it actually mean?
Does it mean that settlement expansion should stop? Or, in fact, for existing settlements to be disbanded? Could the first sentence even mean that the US is beginning to revisit its studied ambiguity, for the past 30 years, over whether it views all Israeli settlements on occupied territory as illegal?
Given the amount of time and effort that goes into working and re-working the text of a presidential speech, the apparent veiling of these two sentences is fascinating.
I have heard no mention of this story on the BBC (nor can I see it on their website):
"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls Holocaust a "great deception"
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the Holocaust as a "great deception" on Wednesday, reiterating a view that has been denounced by moderate rivals in this month's election."
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5438847/Irans-President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-calls-Holocaust-a-great-deception.html)
It's extraordinary just how unconcerned they are about this. Imagine if a European politician had said such a thing. The BBC would hang, draw and quarter him (and rightly so). Yet Ahmadinejad gets away scot free.
deegee,
That's just a Beeboid going through contortions to find some way that his beloved Obamessiah is really condemning all settlements and not just the expansion of them. The word "continued" is unambiguous, despite Franks' twisted attempts at interpreting it otherwise.
Yes, he's a Jew. That doesn't mean he thinks any settlements should be allowed to stay.
Now the positive spin is almost funny
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8083284.stm
John Bosworth,
Is it just me, or was there no actual evidence of a any new helpful action by Mr. Brown's supporters in the article? This is just the BBC repeating a few supportive statements everyone's heard already. It's more like an offensive is being launched by the BBC.
David Preiser (USA) said… 7:57 PM, June 04, 2009
Yes, he's a Jew.
I keep hearing that. What I haven't heard is either him or the BBC saying it.
What does it mean? Does he identify himself as a Jew; attend Synagogue the minimal 3 days a year? None of the biographies mention whether he is married to a Jewish woman or has children to send to Jewish Sunday School but do mention he studied Chinese at university.
Makes him the ideal Middle East correspondent, doesn't it?
deegee,
It makes no difference whether or not Tim Franks has ever set foot in a synagogue (other than while doing a report for the BBC), or what kind of personal connection he has to his heritage. As long as he is of Jewish descent, that's enough for anti-Israel types or plain old conspiracy theorists to say he's an evil Zionist and part of the Jewish Lobby, etc. The BBC can use those complaints to deny that he might possibly report in a manner biased against Israel, or in a pro-Palestinian manner. It's also enough for the BBC to use him as a buffer against criticism of any anti-Israel reporting from Jews or non-Jewish Israel supporters.
They get criticisms from both sides (never mind the validity or sanity of either), ergo the BBC isn't biased against Israel. Works perfectly for them.
The thing is, I think they accidentally stumbled on this arrangement, rather than creating it deliberately. I think they figured they ought to have a couple of Jews in Israel because somewhere along the line they got the idea that not to do so would be considered anti-Semitic or something. Or maybe all those Israel-lovin' Jews at the BBC made them do it. The fact that they can then turn around and say, "He's a Jew so you can't say the BBC is anti-Israel," is just a happy accident, which they take advantage of now.
"British navy stop pirates at sea"
The BBC really are beneath contempt. Everyone on the planet who can read English knows that the "British Navy" is referred to as the Royal Navy – except of course the BBC.
The rest of this story is truly sickening. A boat full of heavily armed pirates was stopped, their arms confiscated and they were sent on their way. Perhaps the powers that be thought that there were some particularly nasty sardines out in the gulf of Aden requiring RPGs and machine guns to subdue them.
The real culprit isn't the Navy – I am sure they would like to string the 'simple fishermen' up from the yard arm, hut they have to 'respect' their 'uman rights (to murder and extort) and know that if one of the vermin sets a single toe on a RN warship (Sovereign territory in international waters) they will be demanding asylum for themselves, their nine wives and entire family – oh and and their giro check as soon as you can say Jihadist
Archduke
You are right. Obama's ignorance is breathtaking. He really is a a sick joke.
Craig 7:57
Well said. Imagine how the BBC would report a "right-wing" European politician denying the Holocaust. The BBC really are the pits.