A new open thread …over to YOU!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Guest Who Nov 19, 18:21
Start the Week 18th November 2024
https://realclimate.science/2024/11/19/new-bbc-climate-expert/#gsc.tab=0 Luckily she is fully qualified to be a bbc anything. - Zephir Nov 19, 17:46
Start the Week 18th November 2024
I wonder what Facebook employees do to waste time at work ? - Emmanuel Goldstein Nov 19, 17:43
Start the Week 18th November 2024
TTK has just been on the TV saying next year pensioners will get a £469 rise. (It may be a… - Zephir Nov 19, 17:34
Start the Week 18th November 2024
Do you remember before the internet, when people thought the cause of stupidity was the lack of access to information… - MarkyMark Nov 19, 17:21
Start the Week 18th November 2024
[img]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/f2340c6d19fde089e58656ccdaa140445f796b3a/0_45_4496_2697/master/4496.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none&crop=none[/img] - Fedup2 Nov 19, 16:58
Start the Week 18th November 2024
They’ll be queuing up to do the ‘get trump ‘ show – 7pm every day on BBC 4 – with… - MarkyMark Nov 19, 16:38
Start the Week 18th November 2024
NHS £47,126 to £53,219 a year Per annum https://beta.jobs.nhs.uk/candidate/jobadvert/C9380-22-3052 Diversity and Inclusion forms the foundations of everything we do at… - Guest Who Nov 19, 16:02
Start the Week 18th November 2024
I had a water resistant watch. It leaked. Same value as a BBC headline. - Guest Who Nov 19, 15:59
Start the Week 18th November 2024
He does go back (to sit slumped in a chair spouting TDS with the dynamic duo of Strumpet and Larry…
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
Ah, those mysterious “youths” of no particular religion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8309714.stm
Soldier mocked over loss of legs
A soldier from Somerset who lost both legs and his right arm while serving in Afghanistan has been subjected to cruel taunts over his injuries.
Sapper Matthew Weston, 20, from Taunton, stepped on a bomb while on patrol in Helmand Province on 29 June.
While he was being treated at Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham his mother took him out shopping where they encountered a group of “boisterous” youths.
Rena Weston, 40, said: “They shouted he’s lost something… like his legs”.
Forgive me, I do not know this story – were they christian? jewish? muslim? sikh?
Only two words describe the BBC’s Taliban: ‘audacious’ and ‘militant’.
The following alternative alternative words to describe the Taliban don’t fit the BBC’s dhimmi political agenda: ‘murderous Islamic Jihadists’.
BBC report:
“Audacious militant tactics stun Pakistan”
(by BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8305778.stm
A non-BBC view:
“Pakistan needs to make a clean break with Jihadists”
http://www.progressive.org/ap101509.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8305778.stm
Far-left BBC says that ‘far-right’ Geert Wilders has arrived in London.
“Far-right Dutch MP arrives in UK”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8308982.stm
Far-left ‘Guardian’ chums of BBC also describe Geert Wilders as ‘far right’ -presumably, ‘far right’ now means someone who believes in free speech, and not the incitement of Islamic jihad violence.
A non-‘far left’ , non-BBC, non-‘Guardian’ comment on Geert Wilders:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/23640
Just sloppy reporting. The same sloppiness used in calling the BNP “far right”.
This right and left goes way back to the French Revolution . It is about time it was replaced with more accurate descriptions of a man’s views.
That would be too difficult I suppose given the obsession with snappy sound bites.
You might think given the resources available to the BBC it would attempt to be a little more informative
Wilders is far right, I don’t see the issue…
The BBC, entire media actually, are not suggesting that anyone who believes in free speech is far right, so i’m not sure what you have a problem with – other than the fact that you like Wilders, and you don’t like the fact the BBC have mentioned his controversial views.
BBC is far-left.
Far left would suggest socialist. When does the BBC promote socialism? Far left also suggests intolerance for dissenting views. Does that sound like the BBC to you?
Wilders is far right by most definitions. The BNP are a mixture of far left and far right (proof that extremist politics is a load of crazy nonsense, and also that the far left and right meet round the back, so to speak)
Whose definitions would those be? He is pro-gay, pro-feminist, economically liberal. He is eloquent, well-informed, well-travelled, reasoned and (Islam apart) tolerant.
He majors on an explosive subject, is all.
He is portrayed as ‘far right’ by those who fear the power he has behind him – the power of overwhelming public opinion in Europe and elsewhere – and that’s why Jacqui banned him.
Far left aslo suggests intolerance for dissenting views. Does that sound like the BBC to you?
Yes.
Please explain why Wilders is far right
Maybe not, but they are suggesting – stating as fact, occasionally – that racism is “right” only. No Leftoids can be racist, ever. Defining racisim as left or right seems pretty damn ludicrous. And the BNP and Geert Wilders certainly have precious little else in their positions that can be considered right-wing.
Racisim, or even being anti-Islam, is not a political position. Yet, everybody seems perfectly happy to conflate bigotry with political orientation. It’s nonsense, yet seems to be the conventional wisdom.
David P
You are wasting your time sadly
It is better to let them carry on equating racism with “far right” than trying to explain the actual reality that racism is not a political stance.
The Liberal media does’nt do reality just soundbites and herd opinion.
What nonsense, written by an ignoramus.
Wilders under any sensible definition is a classical liberal, fighting for historic freedoms against a far-right enemy who would take them away.
The real far-right fascists were outside Parliament today, calling for Wilders to be killed for daring to ‘insult’ their warlord.
Good lord for once I agree with you
from the far-left Times:
“A far-right Dutch politician who was turned away from Britain after criticising the Koran as a ‘fascist book’ was today…”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6877865.ece
The Labour government (and its BBC acolytes, among others) STILL favour the ban on Dutch MP, Geert Wilders from visiting Britain.
Such ‘far-left’ political groups want to ban his sensible criticism of Islam.
So instead, they put themselves on the same political side as these Muslims opposing and insulting Geert Wilders in London today.
In the BBC’s own words:
BBC report:
[Extract] –
“His press conference was moved inside amid angry scenes, with demonstrators chanting ‘Wilders go to hell’.
<!– E SF –>
“About 40 Muslim protesters gathered outside the Abbey Gardens buildings, opposite the Houses of Parliament, where the hastily rearranged press conference was held.
“Held back by a police line, and surrounded by camera crews from around the world, they chanted slogans such as ‘Sharia for the UK’ and ‘Freedom go to hell’ and held up placards saying: ‘Sharia for the Netherlands’ and ‘Islam will be superior’.
“One protester, Sayful Islam, said they wanted to see Mr Wilders ‘tried in an Islamic court’ for ‘insulting the Prophet’, adding: ‘We need to put this dog on a leash’.
He described Mr Wilders as ‘the open voice of democracy’ and claimed the Dutch MP’s views were shared by ‘every government in Europe’.
The above people described here are part of the far-left socalist-Islamic alliance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8308982.stm
‘Islam will be superior’? When’s that then? Is that a bit like saying socialism is a great idea, it’s just never been put into practice properly? Maybe it isn’t, but in any case, it was nice of the Mohammedans to come out and prove Mr. Wilders to be the sane, rational, and importantly – correct man that he is.
Hey, wait. We’ve been told time and time again by defenders of the indefensible that these people don’t really want Shariah in the UK or anything. All those concerns are always laughed off as being silly, paranoid, and bigoted.
This disgraceful display of thuggery outside Parliament by Islamofascists, not shown in any depth by the mainstream media, can be viewed here, where one can see the extremists calling for Wilders’ head to be on a stake and for him to be killed.
Where is this so-called ‘world class’ BBC news? They missed the whole story yet again, too unpalatable for the BBC to show and gives too much information for us so that we can make our own minds up. The BBC is becoming more and more irrelevant as a source of news.
Here’s one bit of anti-Israel bias we see all the time from BBC reports:
Palestinians and human rights groups say more than 1,400 Gazans were killed in the 22-day conflict that ended in January, but Israel puts the figure at 1,166
Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed
How many of those Gazans were civilians, BBC? How many were actually Hamas “militants”? Isn’t that important? Or are all Gazans considered to be innocent in the minds of mendacious Beeboids?
They always do this.
Indeed DP…time and time again al beeb draws the difference between the evil zionists and the innocent palestinians, who only want to send their kids to school!
Funnily enough, I dont believe al beeb has once stated that their numbers come from hamas?
Wonder why that is?
al beeb is hamas.
Mailman
More evidence that Communism and Marxism are embraced by the current US President’s Administration:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/15/but-if-you-go-carrying-picture
This is a video of interim White House Communications Diretor Anita Dunn from a speech in June, giving out some sage advice:
“…and the third tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Theresa – not often coupled with each other – but the two people that I turn to most…”
This is stated openly and shamelessly. There’s yet more hard proof that Communism and Marxism are warmly embraced at the White House in The Obamessianic Age.
PS: What moron thinks Mother Theresa is a political philosopher, never mind her favorite one? I bet she doesn’t agree with the Sainted Mother on abortion….
Barry is as red as they come
To repeat what I said in a now-disused open thread:
Professor Robin Alexander was given the freedom of the airwaves on Today to explain the outcome of the Cambridge Primary Review. Since Alexander is, more or less, primus inter pares in the education establishment whose nostrums have brought education in this country to its knees, predictably he argued, in effect, for fewer objective measures of educational attainment and that less attention should be paid to actual learning and more to soft skills like socialisation etc etc. and starting education at 6 rather than 4. Since the obviously sympathetic Naughtie was not interested in posing anything even mildly critical, the question Alexander wasn’t asked was why start at 6? – why not 16 or never? – and finally get rid of the idea that (part) of the reason we school our children is to instil some objective knowledge and practical skills for life in the real world? – you know, reading, doing sums, learning to reason, maybe even identifying bias in an argument – all that kind of reactionary dross.
Because the starting age of six is the most common in the world – in Europe only the Netherlands do it the same as us, and our education system isn’t exactly glowing is it? Perfectly reasonable suggestion – you misrepresent the case by talking about ’16 or never’
Ah, this is more like it for the BBC.
Forget the naughty Mr. Wilders, let’s concentrate on the goody,
BINYAM MOHAMED, the BBC’s loinised, ex-Gitmo, Islamic Ethiopian,
now resident in Britain:
“‘Torture documents’ can be seen”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8311075.stm
Of course, the BBC makes NO reference to Mr. Mohamed’s past
activities, but Richard Littlejohn does:
“Welcome to the Binyam Broadcasting Corporation”
“As predicted in this column, the BBC has broadcast a fawning, softball interview with Binyam Mohamed, the Ethiopian terror suspect released recently from Guantanamo Bay and flown ‘home’ to Britain.
The Binman was given free rein to accuse MI5 of being complicit in torture and his farcical claim of travelling to Afghanistan to sort out his drugs habit was accepted without question.
“I’ve no idea whether he was tortured, but since he claims to have been slashed 30 times on the genitals, it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove or disprove, one way or the other. If he’s telling the truth, he must have the scars to show for it.
“As for MI5 supplying the Americans with questions for Mohamed, why <cite>wouldn’t </cite>they? He had lived in London, where he converted to Islam before moving to Afghanistan in 2001.
“Disgracefully, the BBC agreed to his solicitor preventing him being asked about the terrorists’ training camp he is said to have attended or why, when he was arrested in Pakistan, he was carrying a false passport.
“In which case, the interview should never have been broadcast. If Mohamed is allowed to make all kinds of serious allegations about our security services and our allies, we are entitled to know what the hell he was up to in the Afghan/ Pakistan badlands and why, if he was travelling legitimately, he was using forged documents.
“Sadly, in its enthusiasm to smear both MI5 and the Americans, the BBC abandoned any pretence of impartiality and investigative journalism.
“This wasn’t an interview, it was a party political broadcast on behalf of al Qaeda.” (Richard Littlejohn.)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1162520/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Share-pain-No-woman-doesnt-deserve-penny.html#ixzz0U7QzHjQV
Have some Geert coverage over at the blog if anyone’s interested – including the Sky News piece about him from this afternoon, featuring Anjem’s, peaceful, tolerant knuckleheads.
Today is a great day for free speech in Britain.
The “FREEDOM GO TO HELL” placard says it all really. The BBC hasn’t mentioned the death threats Wilders has received.
So tell me again exactly who is it who’s a threat to public order and accused of inciting violence?
Nice blog Philip. I’ll be visiting again!
I’m listening to BBC World Service right now. They’re reporting on Gert Wilders and say that the press conference originally planned to take place outside Parliament was moved somewhere else – without saying that it was because of security concerns – concerns for the safety of Mr Wilders!
The BBC also reports that the “protesters” were “small in number” and that their shouts of “FREEDOM GO TO HELL” were “intended to provoke Mr Wilders”.
So tell me again, who exactly is inciting violence and hatred against who?
The BBC and its three monkeys – see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil…
BBC political bias in action today:
1. ) Dutch MP Geert Wilders – BAD,
2.) Ex-Gitmo Ethiopian Binyam Mohamed – GOOD.
The latest BBC piece to reveal the BBC’s political prejudices about Geert Wilders appears in the BBC ‘Profile’ of him.
The BBC, in politically far-left form, lines up with the SWP-Respect-Islamic alliance in setting the tone of the BBC piece.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7314636.stm
For example, the very first BBC sentence states, in unexplained terms: “(he) has been accused of Islamophobia”.
What is this ‘Islamophobia’? It is a word used by many Muslims against their critics as a way of closing down debate.
For the anonymous BBC ‘Profile’ to elevate this word suggests that the BBC writer of the piece is a BBC Muslim critic of Mr. Wilders.
And those suspicions remain as the final paragraph in the BBC ‘Profile’ is given to a Mohamed Rabbae, another Muslim critic.
The word ‘racism’ is thrown in, to suggest that criticism of Islam (apparently a religion of sorts) is a criticism of a race – the sort of totally wrong, devious claim used by many Muslim critics of Mr. Wilders.
The far-left dhimmi stance of the BBC is all this is all too clear.
And BBC ‘Newsnight’ TONIGHT continues the same far -left political bias.
The programme features separate items on each of:
a.) Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, and
b.) ex-Gitmo Ethiopian Binyam Mohamed.
About whom, a.) or b.), are these preview words written in the ‘Newsnight’ blog?:
“Should he have been allowed into Britain? Was he war mongering in seeking to come here or demonstrating that the UK is indeed, a country that can tolerate dissenting voices in the name of freedom of speech?”
(No prizes.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/10/friday_16_october_2009.html
Thank you for the kind words, BD.
Saw the video. The woman news reader says “Warning this clip contains..” but the rest was not heard. What was her last words?
Was it “Warning this clip contains free speech”? I expect not.
I think she was about to say ‘flash photography’ – I’m not sure whether it was my video editing software that did that, or something at their end.
Anyone notice the BBC 6 O’clock news item about the dreadful case of the girl who was raped by her step-father and step-brother?
The BBC talked about their “Sikh faith” with a full-screen image of a Sikh symbol. Can you imagine them doing this if the family had been Muslim?
One treatment for the Relgion of Peace, another for everyone else.
THe Watchdog team comment on business yet have no concept of the free market. I have <a href=”http://my-own-doubts.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-are-you-so-greedy.html”>posted about last night’s comments on Centre Parks</a>, where they were criticising a company for normal and fair business practices, rather than for anything dishonest.
What a country we have become – “homophobia” is now a bigger news item than the murder of a police woman or even the dumping of a baby in a wheelie bin. OK it was ITV news and not BBC – but it shows what a mixed up country Britain has become. An opinion by someone on the death of a “gay” popstar is more important than murder.
The BBC appears very concerned for ex-Gitmo Ethiopian Binyam Mohamed (whom the BBC refers to as a ‘British resident’); but how concerned is the BBC for justice for British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher’s Libyan killers?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100013859/forget-the-oil-deals-yvonne-fletchers-killers-must-face-justice/
I couldn’t agree more. I read the so-called offending article and could see nothing particularly offensive. I fear the press is gearing up for mini – Diana moment over a singer – and not a very talented one at that.
Yes with all due respect to Mr Gartley he was hardly a big star was he? I didn’t even know who he was. Yet the media is going all gaga about him. Could it be because he’s gay?
Shame the BBC in particular can’t show as much interest in the funerals of British soldiers (ITV always give them a mention) which the beeboids have a habit of ignoring.
Watch out for the tribute album, souvenir issue of Hello, DVD, tea towel…
If the British government cared about fighting islamist terrorism/bigotry/
racism/evil then they would have arrested the demonstrators, found out how many were foreigners/asylum seekers and kicked them out of the UK on the very first plane leaving the UK.
We are at war with the islamists and our troops are fighting and dying to protect us against the very people who are free to swagger outside our parliament spewing their hate, how many of these islamists have British passports?
If the regime was truly interested in fighting the islamist evil those with British passports should have them taken away and those who are foreigners should be deported the very same day.
Something stinks about the whole affair and shows that the real islamist enemies of the UK are actually here in the UK spreading their poison, our troops are thousands of miles away when the real enemy swaggers around spewing their hatred a few feet from the very centre of our democracy!
The leftists support the islamists, the leftists give help and assistance to the very people who are happy to see our troops butchered, we get leftists on this forum who offer weasel words of condemnation while giving succour to the islamist enemy.
If white British people stood outside parliament with signs saying ‘to hell with islam’ they would have been battered to the ground and arrested in a few seconds and charged under the newlabour racist laws.
White native British Christians now live in apartheid state where we enjoy less freedoms and rights than the foreign islamists who wish to destroy us.
The enemy walks among us right here in the UK, they feed off our social systems, they sponge off our generosity and take advantage of our laws while they plot and scheme against us. The islamist enemy is helped and encouraged by the government while they spread their hatred and poison against us, we live in a truly perverted and warped time!
Brilliant! This should be front page on all the newspapers, well done Cassandra.
Cassie 5:00
Another brilliant post !
Apart from “we live in a truly perverted and warped time” . I am afraid that implies that things might get better, but I see no hope. The UK is finished and I am just glad I have a bolt-hole overseas to escape to. But will give it a few years yet !
Cassandra, I agree totally but I don’t think muslims have realised how ‘infected’ they are becoming by the indigenous Brit. The sheer idleness, indifference, selfishness and gluttony of the British is something that most muslims adopt wholesale, as it is in perfect parallel with their own religion.
When the time finally comes for them all to rise up and vanquish the infidel in the name of Allah, so absorbed will they be by the British attitudes, you will see hundreds of thousands of them throwing mass sickeys, or staying in to watch the finals of Big Brother or just generally making excuses about how they’d love to attend the uprising but they’ve got to get up early in the morning and besides there’s never anywhere to park in these uprisings and it would mean them having to go all the way round the M25 to get there.
The BBC loves ‘asylum seekers’ and illegal immigrants and runs campaigns for them to become British residents in untold numbers.
It is certainly very difficult for Britain to ever get rid of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants:
BBC report: “Iraq sends back UK asylum flight.”
The BBC report seems to let the following statement at the end of the article float by:
“The Home Office said it had no estimate of the current number of failed Iraqi asylum seekers in the UK…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8310572.stm
The ‘Daily Express’ has this:
“Asylum Fiasco”
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/134513
Daily Express Comment:
“Case of Iraqi deportees shows dangers we face”
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/134561
Thanks to Grant & Roger C for your words of encouragement!
Good post Cass.
It’s incredible that the BBC have not covered (at all?) in the minutest detail how terrorists are taking to our streets using threats of death to those who criticise Islam, right outside outside parliament. Had this been the BNP or EDL outside parliament we sure would have heard about it all and it would be top billing.
“we live in a truly perverted and warped time!”
Unfortunately we do and the BBC are part of the problem.
Probably because most of those at the BBC agree with the towel heads
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220830/Far-right-Dutch-MP-Geert-Wilders-arrives-UK-winning-travel-ban-appeal.html
The Mail managed to tell the real story (but it’s a shame they didn’t inclde that one protestor said he wanted two minures with Wilders).
The BBC has finally reported the real reason Zelaya was removed from office in Honduras. However, they’re still reporting from the editorial position that it was a coup, and continue to promote his side.
Honduras coup dialogue suspended
It’s not a coup, no matter how many news organizations call it that. Even if every other media outlet on the planet calls it a coup, the BBC is still wrong to do so.
Interim leader Roberto Micheletti says Mr Zelaya was legally removed from office as he had violated the Honduran constitution.
Notice how even when finally reporting the truth, the BBC still undermines it by presenting it as something Zelaya’s political opponent says, rather than the fact that this is what the Supreme Court and Legislature said. Zelaya was legally removed from office. This was not a coup, no matter how many people repeat that lie. The BBC continues to be dishonest about it, and has reported in scary tones how he was “removed at gunpoint”, etc.
The BBC takes the side of The Obamessiah, who openly embraces their beloved Hugo Chavez and is openly hostile to the non-Socialist and non-Communist leaders of the Latin countries. The BBC even refuses – yes, that’s the correct term – to tell you that Hugo Chavez backed Zelaya’s attempt to circumvent the Honduras Constitution.
You’ve been lied to, misinformed, and had key information hidden from you by your official state broadcaster, all because of deliberate, biased editorial decisions and reporting. Don’t trust the BBC on this story.
Check the BBC’s prmotion of a bogus report on world hunger:
Mixed messages in hunger report
This “report” from ActionAid praises Brazil and China, but puts the US and New Zealand at the bottom of countries who are doing enough – in their opinion – to solve world hunger.
I could go on and on about how the BBC once again just acts as a promotional platform for a far-Left organization with more of a political agenda than a humanitarian one. I mean, naturally Brazil gets the ranking amongst “developing countries” becuase of Lula’s Socialist policies. There’s no mention of how effective they are in actually solving the problem of hunger; the fact that he has these policies in place is enough for them. So an agenda, not an honest report on results.
There’s plenty more, but I’ll just quote these two most fanstastical bits as examples of what a joke this is:
ActionAid’s report, Hunger Free, says hunger is “a choice that we make, not a force of nature”
“Hunger begins with inequality,” it says, and then grows because of “perverse policies that treat food purely as a commodity, not a right”.
“The US owes a huge climate debt to developing countries and it must not delay in agreeing to find the finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change, and in signing up to a just global deal,” said the report. ActionAid said the level of hunger in the world is “perhaps one of the most shameful achievements of recent history” and that there is no reason for anyone to go without food.
That’s right. The US has somehow altered the climate enough to actually cause people who have always lived in areas of famine and starvation to suddenly…er…be suffering from famine and starvation. Nowhere in their discussions of African countries do they mention Mugabe’s destruction of the Breadbasket of Africa, massive tribal warfare, or disease removing a good number of able-bodied adults from the work scene. This is a joke report with a purely political agenda, and the BBC is happy to act as a promotional platform. Uncritically. Don’t trust them.
Biodegradable, hi there,
Wanted to reply to you on the Gaza thread but somehow the system wouldn’t/wont let me make a comment on that particular thread. I remember we debated that reprehensible anti-Semite who went by the name of Ed Iglehart on one of the BBC blogs. I haven’t posted on them for quite a while.
Been on this site a bit:
http://www.theharbour.proboards.com
Requires registration but its a good site. Even the trolls are not too badly behaved.
Hi TT,
Hard to tell what’s going on at theharbour without registering first.
There were some pretty nasty pieces of work on those BBC blogs and I got tired of having so many of my posts referred to the moderators by them and subsequently deleted.
I don’t comment anywhere much these days. I do keep up with the new-ish CiF Watch; The Guardian has a similar World View to the BBC and their blogs are more or less equally infested with Jew haters and moonbats, and both the same policy of deleting comments that don’t toe their line.
CiF Watch
Yes, I know about the Guardian and had a look or two at CIF. The Guardian is a disgusting left wing rag but they are better than the BBC in one regard – they don’t shy away that much from news that doesn’t suit their agenda. The BBC has this disgusting habit of ignoring or downplaying news it doesn’t like.
Maybe I’ll check out CIF Watch
Bio & TT
CifWatch’s strap-line is “Monitoring and exposing antisemitism on the Guardian newspaper’s ‘Comment is Free’ blog.” In that respect it is our sister blog. It arose as an antidote to the overtly antisemitic content in the Guardian’s blog in both above and below-the-line posts.
Usually CiF Watch sticks rigidly to discussing the comments articles and moderation policy of CiF, but an article on 16th Oct. by commenter AKUS strays beyond that remit by examining the implications and fallout from the Goldstone report.
Articles on Cif Watch are of a very high standard, but if that one appeared here it would immediately be called a rant. In other words it doesn’t relate directly to a CiF post. No-one pointed that out, perhaps because they grasp that the indirect link goes without saying. Here, they’d be onto you in a flash.
If we do stray from direct criticism of the BBC, if anything I would say that we are even more entitled to a dissenting rant, because of the broad reach and influence the BBC has over a wider spectrum of society and because it colours the attitude of almost anyone you might meet. The Guardian doesn’t profess to be impartial or universal.
We are accused of hypocrisy by lefties who think we want to replace the current bias with bias of our own. The very thought that everything under the sun might not start from their premise is too difficult a concept, and shows how ingrained the BBC worldview is. I am not right wing. Not at all, but I grew away from leftyness as one does.
I look at several websites, but I only comment on this one. Even that takes up too much time. I am slow.
On Mel, Harry’s Place, Robin Shepherd and Cif Watch, there’s well informed specialised opinion. But they’re either preaching to the converted, squabbling amongst themselves or wrestling with trolls. Mind you we’re doing that here.
This blog is about the BBC, so that’s what we discuss. We blame it for the current upside down scenario, and hope someone hears what we say.
But you knew all that and it wasn’t meant to be a sermon.
Amen.
Amen indeed.
Another site of interest is Reuters Middle East Watch (R-MEW)*
Exposing errors, bias and propaganda in Reuters Miiddle East reporting.
Not a lot of comments, in fact none at all but worthwhile posts.
Of course the BBC relies a lot on the Reuters news feed.
I’ve mentioned before that since B-BBC’s re-design I think the blogroll here could do with the addition of a few more sites directly related to BBC bia,s and media bias in general.
[nudge-nudge, wink-wink]
I don’t know why that post appeared twice!
It was posted as a reply to Sue on the previous page.
Very interesting to see that the couple who said that 5 bellies smiff was never at her sisters house have been commenting.
Meanwhile, the brave couple who exposed Jacqui Smith’s second-home expenses scandal hit back last night after the MP and her BBC journalist sister Sara made an extraordinary attempt to smear them.
<div id=”TixyyLink” style=”border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;”>
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221161/Quit-Jacqui-say-thirds-voters–neighbours-tried-smear-tell-relief-complaint-upheld.html#ixzz0UEVAGGcx</div>
<div style=”border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;”>
</div>
<div style=”border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;”>I remember the BBC making all sort of suggestions about the couple and I’m sure those of us on this blog do as well.</div>
<div style=”border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;”>
</div>
<div style=”border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;”>Why is it that as soon as you see BBC in any story there are lies, corruption and Labour involved?
</div>
Hell, someone’s mutilated your comment Martin.
Checking out ‘Sara Smith’ on the BBC News website, here she is spinning for her sister’s friend, Jack Straw, and the Labour government in general:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8223922.stm
‘BBC South East reporter Sara Smith, who travelled with the family to London on Thursday, said they were very pleased with the meeting with the justice secretary.
She added: “He told them that he supported their charity’s aim and he would even look to see if there was any government funding to help them with that and also that more was being done to involve victims and their families in the criminal justice system in general.
“In the end both parties agreed that it wasn’t just down to the government, it was down to society as a whole to cope with what Jack Straw described as a lack of a ‘lack of moral fibre in some families’ which lead to such dysfunctional behaviour.”‘
Sorry, clicking too hard!
On the subject of abortion, why does the BBC use one side’s preferred moniker – “pro-choice”, but not that of the other – “pro-life”.
Whilst both are somewhat euphemistic the former is clearly an absurd a distortion of reality as it is possible to be, whilst the latter is merely unspecific.
Yes, those that call themselves pro-life whilst marching against abortion are indeed anti-abortion. But by the same criteria, those that support abortion are pro-abortion, not “pro-choice”. But the BBC persists in this shameless bias.
which example are you referring to?
Los Angeles is hundreds of miles from Denver. So why is a beeboid reporting from LA on a story about the boy who wasn’t in the balloon? They’re spending our licence cash on incredible foolishness.
BBC news site: the interest of British licencepayers are irrelevant.
E.g. reporting IRAN.
BBC report:
“Iranian commander assassinated”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8312964.stm
Typical of the BBC, over half-way down its report it throws in this ludicrous and uncontested remark:
“Iranian TV quoted what it called ‘informed sources’ as saying that Britain was directly involved. “
The BBC sees it as part of its role to reflect Ahmadinejad propaganda like this. The BBC does not criticise the remark. And the BBC does not make clear that the dhimmi British Labour government STILL allows the Iranian regime to operate its ‘PRESS TV’ station frrom LONDON on Sky satellite, 24/7.
‘Sunday Times’:
“Alan Yentob ‘nets three incomes’ from BBC”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6879552.ece
Would that this realisation would happen to BBC reporters, Muslim and non-Muslim:
“NY Times reporter, held captive by the Taliban, gets hit with a giant cluebat”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/ny-times-reporter-held-captive-by-the-taliban-gets-hit-with-a-giant-cluebat.html
“Tories consider ways to scrap the BBC Charter.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d7f2e74-bc22-11de-9426-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss
“Tories target BBC Charter”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23758110-tories-target-bbc-charter.do
“Tories would rip up BBC royal charter”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6374416/Tories-would-rip-up-BBC-royal-charter.html
Last week, the BBC dutifully produced a piece about Hillary Clinton’s past involvement with Northern Ireland that could be charitably described as blatant misrepresentation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8302341.stm
They introduce thearticle by allowing that she was criticized for exaggerating her contribution to the peace process. The body of the text pretty much exaggerates her contributions to the peace process. She accompanied her husband a few times to the region, and even went there on her own! Gosh. But the BBC presents it as a serious involvement in negotiations.
In any case, there’s one thing about her trip last week that the BBC doesn’t want you to know:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6880006.ece
“Hillary Clinton suffers ‘mis-speaking’ relapse with Belfast bomb claims”
The US Secretary of State was exposed during her battle with Barack Obama to become the Democratic presidential nominee over her claims to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.
………..
But according to the Sunday Life newspaper, during a speech she made to the Stormont parliament she said that Belfast’s landmark Europa Hotel was devastated by an explosion when she first stayed there in 1995.
The Europa, where most journalists covering the decades-long conflict stayed, was famed as Europe’s most bombed hotel, earning the moniker “the Hardboard Hotel”.
However, the last Provisional IRA bomb to damage the Europa was detonated in 1993, two years before President Clinton and his wife checked in for the night.
Oops. Will the BBC ever report this? If it was a non-Left politician, etc.
Just saw Mark Mardell’s anti-war segment….er….report on the current options and situation in Afghanistan. Democrats want out, troops are dying, etc. He even uses footage of a soldier’s funeral – complete with a bit of emotioanlly manipulative American flag-folding at a military funeral. Oh, and of course the other message is that since Karzai is corrupt, total withdrawal is the intelligent option.
Last year the total withdrawal Narrative was the Northern Ireland analogy: bring the Taliban into the government. Now this recent messed up election has given them a new angle to agitate in favor of surrender. All one-sided, never admitting that the logical outcome is a return of the Al-Qaeda/Taliban scenario.
Yawn.
Anybody catch the small debate about parental leave on BBC Breakfast this morning?
I didn’t catch all of it, but the hapless/hopeless Bill Turnbull showed his true beeboid socialist colours praising Iceland’s “liberal” system to the hilt, with parents active in the labour market getting 6 / (9? I forget) months off, and getting paid for the privilege.
To which the female guest replied “Iceland is bankrupt”. Chortle!
Very disappointed to hear Cameron talking equality in representation and all women shortlists today. I’d have hoped he would be in favour of a meritocracy.
“the hapless/hopeless Bill Turnbull showed his true beeboid socialist colours” & as such I’m sure he is signed up to MMGW. He is also featuring in a trailer for a programme where a gang of celebs go on a round the world jaunt. I don’t suppose that will prevent a future sermon from the sofa about how we little people must cut out air travel.
That’s because leftist scum don’t pollute, they “contribute”
Radio 5 clearly getting ready to spin for Gorgon Brown and Liebour at the next election.
*********************************************************
Running from 12pm to 2pm from Monday to Friday, Logan’s new lunchtime programme will give an “essential guide to the day”, including news, sport and regular updates from journalists around the UK.
She will also host Prime Minister’s Questions every Wednesday, with analysis coming from Radio 5 Live’s chief political correspondent John Pienaar.
The schedule will also see Victoria Derbyshire hosting a new two-hour daytime show from 10am to 12pm, and Richard Bacon presenting a current affairs, entertainment and culture afternoon show running from 2pm to 4pm, Monday to Thursday.
Gabby Logan (a vile woman) Richard Bacon (hard left) and Vicki Pollard all shilling for Liebour. Looks like Radio 5 has finally been flushed down the toilet pan.
BBC’s lies today about Israel include:
1.) BBC report:
“Israel spying devices found by UN”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8314352.stm
2.) ‘Jihadwatch’ corrects BBC report:
“Lebanon: Spyy devices belong to Hizbollah, not Israel”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/lebanon-spy-devices-belonged-to-hizballah-not-israel.html
Don’t expect an apology from BBC anytime soon. Instead: a magical dhimmi disappearing act.
Just caught half an hour of the Beeb. The local news had a story about Black History month (celebrating diversity!), a ‘hate crime’ (fat person beaten up for being fat wanted violence towards fat people to be classed as a hate crime), a female singer complaining that women were marginalised in the music industry then 2 minutes of The One Show had a gay man complaining that the word ‘gay’ had become a pejorative term. Well done auntie! Just a 15 minute piece on disableds and we’re done the whole lot!
A very good piece here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/
Scroll down for some interesting stuff on the BBC and “climate change”
“‘Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders ( a popular soap) to researchers on the CBeebies channel.’ (The latter a Children’s channel)
The BBC appears to have shown reporting bias on the subject for several years and perhaps the genesis for this attutude lies with their being indoctrinated with the ‘right’ message at one of these meetings.”
I think this deserves more investigation.
Has BBC campaign started for them to stay?:
“‘No record’ of 40,000 immigrants”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8317184.stm
Great news about St. Nobo, he is blessing us with his presence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8315693.stm
Check out the BBC’s attempt to make racism one of the pillars of Fascism.
What is a fascist?
Yes, they initially admit that Mussolini’s and Franco’s movements weren’t racist, per se. But they were nationalists, which is key. To the BBC, this opens the door to racism. Since this article was prompted by the current noise about the BNP, it’s no surprise that this would be the impression they want to create.
Even the guy who says that racists aren’t necessarily fascist does so by stating that he and his fellow old Brits were racist. Obviously their descendants are now BNP supporters.
We’ve all seen the BBC and their kind repeatedly define English nationalism as racist. No other nationalism (except Israeli) is ever presented like this.
The choice of words they use in their definition of Mussolini’s Fascists is very revealing:
The first “fascist” movement to gain power was Mussolini’s Blackshirts in Italy in 1922. Their movement could certainly be said to be nationalist and authoritarian, as well as accepting of violence in the struggle for political power, but much of the rest of its characteristics have been subject to academic dispute.
Other than nationalism, this doesn’t resemble the BNP. Unless, that is, one defines “authoritarian” just as policies one doesn’t like. But that’s why the Beeboids are keen to fuze racism with fascism.
Most glaring is the bit about the Italians’ “accepting of violence in the struggle for political power”. Other than nationalism, this does resemble any number of far-Left activist or politicazl group, fom the violent protesters against Capitalism to the violence of Islamo-nutters. But the Beeboids have another intellectual failure there, don’t they?
Replace nationalism with religion, and today’s problem version of Islam would be defined as fascist. The Beeboid witer dishonestly plays that down as being just a Taliban thing. Replace nationalism with AGW-ism or anti-Capitalism, and the rest of that definition does resemble certain movements that the BBC wouldn’t dream of calling fascist. But they are.
For BBC:
“Islam, Middle East and Fascism”
(by Ibn Warraq.)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766
BBC to keep up its campaign for mass immigration, legal and illegal, into Britain, despite this:
“UK population to rise to 71.6m”
[Extract]:
“Just over two-thirds of the increase is likely to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
For BBC: already being imported, via mass immigration, into France, and into E.U.:
“Violent clashes in Algiers slums”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8317667.stm
“BBC ready to film BNP debate at secret site”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23759113-david-dimbleby-free-to-grill-bnps-nick-griffin.do
What about the extra cost to licencepayers of BBC transporting bus loads of UAF supporterts there?
The BBC proudly announces:
<h1><href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8318258.stm”>Iran nuclear fuel deal ‘agreed'</a></h1>
Except it isn’t!
Iran and three world powers have been handed a draft agreement aimed at reducing international concerns over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which proposed the plan after talks in Vienna, wants an answer by Friday.
The BBC; Wishful Thinking™
Argh!
JS-Kit’s link thing ain’t working!
Proof of ACORN voter fraud affecting the outcome of an election:
Ballot fraud flashback: The $5 vote
http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/10/07/news/doc4acbff979ab41569971306.txt
Greg Palast defended ACORN in his Newsnight piece last year and whitewashed their criminal activity. I commented about it here at the time, but all that seems to have vanished into the ether. I also mailed a complaint to his occasional partner and Newsnight producer, Meirion Jones.
Palast stated on air – and Jones gave me this defense as well – that, while ACORN may engage in voter fraud around the country, there’s no evidence it effects the outcome of an election. This is of course a ridiculous contention, and when I asked Jones why they would bother doing it if they weren’t trying to do just that, he had no answer.
Now there is proof.
In upstate New York, the Working Families Party sent in enough fraudulent votes to turn a recent election in favor of their preferred candidate. The Working Families Party was founded by the CEO of ACORN, and is essentially an adjunct.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/acorns-party-likely-stole-ny-election-fraud-investigation-shows-bogus-ballots/
Newsnight has deliberately engaged in propaganda to misinform the British public on behalf of a Presidential candidate in a foreign country, because of an endemic political bias.