Time for another open thread (Bumped)
(Possible discussion for Remembrance Sunday – Media Lens wants the wearing of red poppies banned on the BBC.)
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Nov 15, 15:15
Midweek 13th November 2024
The venue had not even sold out this morning, thus the pantomime I suspect… - vlad Nov 15, 13:52
Midweek 13th November 2024
Salty doesn’t mince his words about those American wimmin making themselves ugly as some sort of deranged protest against Trump.… - atlas_shrugged Nov 15, 12:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
Village Christmas Fair axed because of looney irrational council elf an safety conditions about terrorist attacks. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14085105/Small-village-Christmas-fair-Canned-terror-attack.html Wonder if my… - Lefty Wright Nov 15, 12:57
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9kcQBVo5Kk Is this the copper who knocked on Allison Pearson’s Door on Sunday morning? - Solomon Grundy Nov 15, 12:50
Midweek 13th November 2024
George Osborne suggested this as chancellor in 2015. Since then, a number of LGPS’s have merged and it looks to… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 12:17
Midweek 13th November 2024
“You really couldn’t make this up. Just days before the 1,000 day anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have… - JohnC Nov 15, 12:09
Midweek 13th November 2024
I agree because the UN is too valuable as a ‘meeting place for all Nations’ which otherwise would not exist.… - JohnC Nov 15, 12:07
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have you EVER heard of a ‘hate crime’ from a woman or a BAME against a white male ?. Me…
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
Now old news, but the treatment of Cameron about the referndum, it showed the level of bias of a campaign throughout the BBC. The conditional statement that Cameron made about a referendum before ratification was NEVER mentioned. At literally every opprtunity from main stream news right down to the news quiz, it was the same, Cameron U turn, Cameron in trouble. It was a consistent across the board slur. The Beeb again not interested in truth and fairness, they deserve to be made extinct.
Labour’s mass immigration.
If the BBC gets around to this ‘Sunday Times’ report, the BBC will probably spin it as ‘the wonderful effects of mass immigration on British society’.
“Home Office covered up immigration risk”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6907991.ece
A non-BBC report:
“Huge cost of amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Quantified”
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressReleases/04-November-2009
Vibrant™.
Yes the very Taliban that we have soldiers being killed every day fighting are all living here on benefits and no doubt voting Liebour as well. I wonder if they get a free TV licence?
I found this to be a bit sympathetic to Mandelson’s (and IDS’) plans on university admissions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8347700.stm
I bet the BBC would happily ban red poppies if it could for all the reasons media lens suggested. :-[
Yeah and I bet some would happily wear a red star if it could.
Red poppy made in the UK by disabled people with all monies going to worthwhile British causes.
White poppy made commercially in China with any profits left over going to the Anti war cause.
Media lens is probably near to how the average beeboid thinks.
Bitter twisted leftie cack.
The beeb had their own article on whae they called poppy etiquette.
It mentioned the white poppy but didnt mention the sad sctivist protesting scum that the money raised would go to.
If the money from the white ones went to civilians hurt or famlies of the dead then I would see a place for raising money that way but not around rememberance sunday. Why do they ponce of the soldiers?
Antyone wearing the white poppy should be questioned and challenged ( not in an agressive way), I honestly believe some fools dont know what they are paying for.
.
White poppy = Marxist, west hating, surrender monkey. Spit in their collection box.
Is it just me – or is it sickening that the whole tone of the BBC today, Remembrance Sunday, is that weare defeated in Afghanistan.
Not that we were wrong to go in. But that we – the whole “Nato” effort have lost, the Taliban have won.
And very little about the endless vacillation by Obama over troop reinforcemnets that his lead General asked for months ago.
All very reminiscent of the “quagmire” and “another grim milestone” crap the BBC was dishing up when the US surge in Iraq was plainly showing good results.
Sorry but the war in Afghanistan has suffered from all the usual problems that seem to affect western armies.
1. Made to fight with both hands tied behind their backs by camp useless cowardly politicians
2. Mission creep, from going in to simply kill and exterminate bushy bearded Muslim arseholes we are now nation building and ‘bovvered’ about building schools for Muslim girls. why?
3. Media bias, happens in every war it was bad enough in ‘my war’ the Falklands but it’s gotten worse with 24 hour rolling news.
4. The domination of the left in politics, even the Tories allow their wet liberal element to drive everything.
5. Lack of focus. Every soldier should have a picture of Bin Liner issued to him with the word KILL written across it, that is all they need and should be looking to do. If they need to go into Pakistan to find him, then do it, otherwise get out now. We had the same problem with the IRA running across the border into southern Ireland and British forces unable to pursue, they should have and killed ANYONE who got in their way.
I’m fed up of the whole sodding thing, our soldiers are driving around in shit made vehicles being picked off on a daily basis.
Some wankstain was waffling on about how it takes time to produce military equipment. Utter shit, it’s about willpower and money.
In WW2 the RAF was badly equipped with aircraft, in particular bombers, yet by 1942 the RAF had some excellent aircraft available, all developed and produced in huge numbers within a couple of years, yet we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for nearly 8 years and we’re still using shit equipment used for Northern Ireland.
That left wing twat Ainsworth and the one eyed jock mong should bother be shot.
‘Media bias, happens in every war it was bad enough in ‘my war’ the Falklands’
You remember it well – being born in 1990?
In fairness to the BBC, I encountered some of their people yesterday (off-duty) and they had their poppies in. We should not tar them all the same.
I imagine that the average BBC worker is no different to the rest of us – goes in, does their best, expects to be paid fairly.
It’s those that dictate policy that need to feel some cold piano wire in my opinion for the slant that is forced upon us, their paymasters.
Not seen much on the BBBC about the link between Ian Kennedy and Ali Cambell, there is the briefest of nods to it today. It was all over Sky yesterday but perhaps I just didn’t see it elsewhere.
There’s a bigger story regarding contracts to rebuild chunks of Libya going to a company owned partly by (I think) our socialist elite but that would need some investigative journalism wouldn’t it.
Ho hum.
Jeremy Clarkson provides his views, not in this case, on BBC’s ‘Top Gear’, but in ‘ The Sunday Times’:
“Get me a rope before Mandelson wipes us all out”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6907747.ece
Can’t add much to that apart from brilliant.
I’d vote for him – it can’t get any worse. Unfortuantely, he probably isn’t allowed to mention the BBBC.
Thanks for the link – I haven’t laughed so much in years
We often have conversations here about the BBC’s aversion to the word “terrorist”.
Has anyone heard an BBC piece on the Murdering Major where the dreaded T word is used ? Or the J-word – jihad ?
………………
Over in the US, the most senior US army officer, Gen Casey, has now said on TV that terrorism cannot be ruled out.
Joe Lieverman is more blunt. He seems to be saying that the odds are that it WAS terrorism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125769764441836773.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories
Will the BBC report either of them ? I bet not – and solely because the T word is verboten.
……………….
(While on the German – Kennedy said “Ich bin ein Berliner”……Reagan said “Tear down this wall”.
Obama has refused the German Chancellor’s invitation to Berlin for the 20-year celebrations.
“Ich bin beschaftigt” “I am busy”
Bloody disgrace, Obama is getting lots of stick over it – but nary a mention on the BBC ?
Meanwhile Obama has announced that he will be meeting the head of the evil Burma/Myanmar junta.
Again – much critici8sm, quite rightly, it showa a warped sense of values and prioroties. But I bet the BBC never reports on the criticism.
I see the one eyed jock mong is in the shit for now bowing at the Cenotaph today. Don’t bother looking for any criticism on the BBC though.
If Cameron had screwed up you just know the beeboids would have been all over it.
“BBC accused of ‘bribing’ staff over London to Manchester move ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6525478/BBC-accused-of-bribing-staff-over-London-to-Manchester-move.html
Radio 5 in FULL Gorgon defence mode.
1. Beeboid reporter defending Brown’s scribbled note that looks like it was written by a total retard.
2. Beeboid then defended Brown’s refusal to bow his head at the Cenotaph, beeboid was clearly simply reading out a pre prepared Downing street statement, beeboid then attacked the Sun saying they were sticking up for Cameron and putting the boot into brown.
Why has the BBC simply not gone back and reviewed the footage? Why is the BBC reading out a Downing street politicla statement as beeboid “facts”?
This really sticks in my throat, but I’m going to defend Gordon Brown re the scribbled note. It would have been the simple course of action to ask his secretary to run off Condolence Letter #32 and he possibly felt there was a more personal touch in writing it himself.
Caveat: I haven’t seen the letter, only heard about it on radio. It may be open to deep interpretation by handwriting experts!
I’ve seen the letter (front page of the mail) – it looks like a blind monkey wrote it, but let’s be honest – it was a blind idiot, I think they’re being a bit harsh on picking on the guy’s spelling when you can’t really tell if it was correct, and the papers know the guy is so blind he uses massive marker pens to write, and of course if he’d typed it…
I agree, surely we have been round this course before. Brown can hardly see, that is why his hamdwriting is atrocious and why he cn make misspellings.
And if this has been discussed before ??? – why is the BBC making it their top headline every hour on Radio 4 ?
Brown is a total disaster – but this I think is unfair to him.
I rather fear this falls under ‘If you can’t do it right, do it anyway.. and then when it goes the shape of a pear, again, try and make a lame excuse’.
A metaphor for the age, and highlighting a situation where the PM of this country would appear to have no one around to ‘help’ him with his various, manifest, extensive… ‘problems’.
BBC: reporting for ISLAM.
A nice, Islam-friendly BBC report for the meeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Turkey’s PM Erdogan (on BBC ‘Europe’ page, to remind us licencepayers that Turkey should be in the E.U., to further speed up the Islamization of Europe).
What is the BBC giving so much uncritical support to?
-An ‘ISLAMIC summit’.
The BBC does Islam’s bidding in the content of its report here:
BBC report:
“Ahmadinejad in Turkey for” (missing word) I—— “”summit”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8350262.stm
George, time for you to visit Specsavers.
The “missing” word Islamic appears in the first para. And the second.
OMTE
Thanks for the insult.
The word ‘ISLAMIC’ should be in the BBC headline; and the BBC should have the guts the criticise Ahmadinejad and Erdogan.
George
If the word Islamic appears in the first 2 paras, what benefit do we get if it’s also in the headline? Does anyone have any doubt that the leaders of Iran and Turkey are well-known Muslims?Why do you think anyone else would care about adding the I-word to the headline?
It’s not a case of The BBC failing to criticise Ahmadinejad and Erdogan – it’s a news report, not a newspaper opinion column.
OMTE
Under the guise of ‘news reporting’, the BBC and its acolytes steadfastly criticise Israel, and support Islam!
The dhimmi BBC reports, without challenge, all the criticisms which Erdogan and Ahmadinejad make of the West. The BBC is happy to be the mouthpiece of Islam.
The conference in Istanbul is under ausices of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC is running a campaign to ban any criticism of Islam, and so terminate free speech.
The BBC never criticises the OIC. The BBC is not interested in defending free speech. The BBC is a propagandist for Islam.
George
The BBC News reports what’s going on. It does not deal in condemnatory commentary. If one side in a dispute criticises the other, it carries that and seeks a response where it can.
Would the average reader have gained any greater knowledge of the Iran-Turkey summit if the BBC had used condemnatory language? Why do you imagine that all BBC viewers share your opinion of the summit? Many will not… larding the coverage with abuse about Ahmedinejad would not help anyone. Except, perhaps, you. How is the bolood pressure?
OMTE
Thanks for your insult about my ‘bolood’ pressure, following your insult about my eyesight. What excellent arguments about the BBC’s apologetics for Islam.
You merely avoid talking about the BBC routine propaganda for Islam, and its routine criticism of Israel.
You have nothing to say about OIC and its campaign against free speech which the BBC condones. Perhaps you are unaware ot it, depending on the BBC.
Some might remmeber this famous incident below.
On June 14, 1987 Reagan stood in West Berlin facing the famous Brandenburg Gate of the Berlin Wall—a concrete and wire symbol of the greater Iron Curtain wall between the free and the communist worlds.
Reagan intended to put pressure on the evil empire: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
However, some snearing female beeboid dismissed Regan’s speech as not relevant to the wall finally falling.
A rather different take to that of the BBC on Marxism after the Berlin Wall:
“From Iron Curtain to knuckle-duster”
(Melanie Phillips, ‘Daily Mail’ today)
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=692
I see the BBCs 6 o’clock news was “Tory” free again. Ed Milliband introduces a bill to “fast track” the planning laws – the reporter paraphrases the “Tory” position about this being undemocratic. Then on key they have a spokesperson from some planning commititee who defends the government No “Tory” allowed to speak. Then on the question of Nuclear – Labour want to push them through quickly, reporter tells us that the “Tories” are for Nuclear, now Nick Clegg has a chance to tell us all that he is against all nuclear power and why. Again no “Tory”.
It seems the BBC now tell us what “Tory” policy is without asking a “Tory” – and then try and take apart this policy by getting people on to disagree with it.
I don’t call this balance or impartial. I want to hear what a “Tory” spokesman thinks about it not what the BBC beleive a “Tory” thinks of it.
Why? The BBC doesn’t care what the Tories think of anything after all they won’t form the next Government will they?
Unbelievable!!!! Toenails on the 10PM news sticking up for Brown. Apparently McSnot had a 13 minute call with the mother of the dead soldier that was on the news toady and it is understood Brown NEVER apologised to her (why should she expect an apology, it’s only your son that is dead woman get a grip and VOTE LIEBOUR) Toenails was clearly angry, Gordon is a man with bad eyes and bad handwriting. So what has that got to do with anything?
Brown just shows up the total incompetence of the Government.
Toenails is upset that the Sun is going after McSnot, funny Toenails doesn’t give a shit when the BBC, The Guardian or Independent goes after Tories, nor does the BBC mind going after Sarah Palin.
Toenails really is a leftie toady little turd sniffer.
Compare and contrast how the BBC reports on Cindy Sheehan giving George W Bush a hard time after HER son was killed in Iraq to how the BBC plays down Jacqui Janes comments about Brown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4141602.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349757.stm
Oh and the BBC reproted on an opinion poll tonight, want to guess why? One poll doesn’t make a summer as they say but the BBC were talking about it being “good news”
I can’t believe that story – its the Suns fault? So therefore the words from the mother are lies. This is appauling reporting. Its the lefts favourite weapon as happened in the Paddington rail crash.
“Senior figures at the Department of Transport sent a secret e-mail to uncover information on the Paddington rail crash survivor Pam Warren in what has been seen as an attempt to discredit her.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dots-secret-email-to-dig-dirt-on-victim-of-paddington-644574.html
And to take the heat off Brown, Robinson gives us his explanation
“The reason this is a story is because of the widespread sense of doubt about the continued value of British forces fighting and dying in Afghanistan”
Martin is right – the contrast of this story and the Sheehan woman is astounding.
This woman needs a full apology not onle from Brown but from the BBC who have turned it into a political party broadcast on behalf of Brown.
Can anyone imagine how this will affect the poor mother?
Richard Bacon is literally having an on air orgasm reminising about Barry O’s anniversary today, a BBC love fest.
Funny the BBC haven’t bothered to report THIS poll, I wonder why?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-government-even-more-unpopular-than-majors-1817667.html
Check out Mark Mardell’s latest contortionist act regarding the US Army Islamo-nutter:
Spotting a red flag
Spotting a biased Beeboid, more like.
The FBI is defending itself against accusations that it should have spotted that the man accused of the Fort Hood shootings had contacts with an advocate of terrorism
How about Mark Mardell defending himself against accusations that his über-PC Social Cohesion facsism kept him from reporting that the man accused of the Fort Hood shootings was known for pro-terrorist statements and shouted Allahu Akbar when he was murderering his co-workers in cold blood?
The senate committee on homeland security will hold an investigation into whether this was a terrorist attack. This is bound to depend on philosophical, political and legal definitions of “terrorism” and well as medical ones of sanity. Some will feel that is hardly the point.
This is bound to depend on philosophical, political and legal definitions of “bias” and “knowlingly misleading the public in order to both protect an editorial bias and imply that you’re all racists”, as well as medical ones of pathological spinning. Some will feel that this is exactly the point.
Sarcasm ends. Notice that even here Mardell attempts to divert all blame from the reality that there exists a large contingent of nihilist Mohammedans. “Medical ones,” he says. Either he’s admitting that this form or religious ferver is a form of mental illness, or he’s spinning again in the fact of facts. Everyone can make their own decision which it is.
But don’t you lot realise that they know it’s not a terror plot now? *DONT_KNOW*
The BBC are still angry that someone (the Sun) would dare use the death of a soldier for political purposes.
What the BBC are upset about is the fact that thieir leader (Brown) has been shown up to be an incompetent idiot.
I’m really surprised this whole dead soldiers mother isn’t being picked up on this blog. Radio 5 phone in now is just Brown propaganda by the BBC, we’ve winnit Whelan on spouting “evil Tories” every 30 seconds and we’ve got Nicki Campbell calling Gorgon a “man of stature”
So we can see where the BBC is trying to go next, sympathy for Brown, Brown deserves no sympathy, it’s the families of dead soldiers and the injured ones who deserve sympathy not a political idiot.
We can see the where the BBC is going here. It’s all the fault of the Sun and Rupert Murdoch. Whelan went into a 5 minute rant about how Murdoch wants to scrap the BBC, what has that got to do with dead soldiers?
From listening to Whelan it sounds as if this entire story has been concocted by Murdoch to attack the BBC and especially the BBC website…How is this relevant to the letter/phone call ?
It wasn’t it was Whelan spouting bollocks and trying to turn the story into a story about the Sun attacking the BBC. The man is a turd and a liar oh and of course Whelan is an ex beeboid.
“BBC run by ‘Kafkaesque committees’ ruining television, says Stephen Poliakoff”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6530822/BBC-run-by-Kafkaesque-committees-ruining-television-says-Stephen-Poliakoff.html
George
Does it matter to you that Poliakoff is demanding an end to the BBC’s attempts to impose standards of taste, decency and truthfulness in the wake of the Ross-Brand hoo-hah and other minor scandals?
I must have misunderstood all those impassioned pleas on these pages for an end to BBC offensiveness. Perhaps you were really appealing for greater freedom for radical writers who made a name for themselves upsetting Mrs Whitehouse with a play about incest?
Or will any headline that appears to bash the BBC do?
The article seems more like a rant about PC frowning gone mad. But I suppose you would interpret that as trying to uphold standards of decency at the BBC or something.
Unlikely, David. If his calling card was outraging Mrs Whitehouse, then he’s with the edgy school, rather than the Jim Davidson school, I’d guess.
Oh, edgy. Are you sure the complaint about a training course on portraying “goodies and baddies” wasn’t dictated by the PC police? There are plenty of “edgy” things on the BBC these days, but certain things are magically absent from being on the receving end of that “edgy” programming, don’t you think? The question is: how much has PC fascism contributed to the situation he’s complaining about versus a desire at the BBC to tone down the sex and language?
OMTE
Are you criticising me, or Poliakoff or the ‘Telegraph’? Or all three? You appear to have no criticism of The BBC and its self censorship.
Depends whether you actually want the BBC to be more sweary, alternative and, erm, “challenging”… the kind of stuff you all like to harrumph about whenever Jonathan Ross’s name is in the news.
The Safeguarding Trust initiative which Poliakoff is pouring scorn upon is the BBC’s attempt to assert control over its producers, writers and performers on matters like taste, decency and fairness, something which Biased BBC appears to want.
If you’re signing up for Poliakoff’s campaign, I’ll join you. I think the BBC has become a bit afraid of its own shadow thanks to the Ross-Brand affair and a few other tabloid campaigns.
But I suspect that you were touting the headline simply because it appeared to be the Telegraph knocking the BBC, which is something you like, rather than because you had the faintest idea what the great playwright was saying.
Of course you think, on no evidence, that I haven’t “the faintest idea” what Poliakoff is saying. Just as you haven’t the faintest idea of the Organisation of Islamic Conference’s campaign against free speech, which the BBC ignores.
BBC: very softly softly on Labour’s mass immigration, and Labour’s links to Islam in Election year.
In the following article the BBC fails to mention:
1.) Labour’s ‘policy’ of mass immigration to Britain from Islamic countries;
2.)the threat of Islamic jihad in Britain as a consequence.
Of course, the BBC neglects to mention that Labour, in Election year, is very, very solicitous of the Muslim vote, regardless of how sympathetic that vote might be towards the Taliban.
So, Labour and BBC concentrate instead on the ‘far-right’:
“Councils warned of far-right risk”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8351659.stm
The BBC was quick to talk of risks to Muslims in the US after the massacre at Fort Hood.
Not a glimmer of a chance that the BBC would present some facts – that in spite of DOZENS of events on US soil where Islamist nutters killed Americans, from 9/11 downwards in severity, there is only ONE case of lethal retaliation against a Muslim.
That is – the Americans have proved themselves to be amazingly tolerant. Just like the Brits – in the face of dozens of actual killing and many many plots to murder.
Why are we forced to pay a licence fee to a network much like A Jazeera in its overt bias ?
Here’s a list of all the Islamist murders of Americans :
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2009/11/chart-of-islamist-terrorist-attacks-on.html
Nation of Islam doesn’t count, in my opinion. That’s more about black militant stuff wrapped in the mantle of Islam.
I can not recall once the BBC showing the same sort of concern for Jews during and after cast lead.
Mailman
Radio 5 really playing up this brown thing. Caller after caller stating “I’m not a Gordon Brown supporter but…” one of the callers was clearly a liar as I’ve heard him on before bigging up Labour. Not only that but all the callers have been going on about the Tories planning to get rid of the BBC and it’s all a plot by Murdoch (sounds to me like Labour HQ are out in forces, I notice on Guido’s blog at lot of people are stating that Labour are going around on the comments pages of paper running this poor woman down and bigging up the one eyed idiot.
Also, I texted the BBC with an anti Brown comment this morning but no beeboid bothered to ring me back asking if I’d like to go on air, but they seem to find plenty of pro Brown callers.
Fortunately, I don’t have the opportunity (or inclination) to listen to Radio 5, so I can’t comment on exactly what is being said. But I have to say I am uneasy at the way a grieving mother is being exploited by the Sun in order to embarrass Gordon Brown.
And I’m not a Gordon Brown supporter… 🙂
Again, I agree with Roland Deschin. It all looks like a put-up job, very distastteful.
Fine, but Cindy Sheehan was also put up to it by the left wing hate mobs, but the BBC never bothered to inform us of that and what she got up to was far worse than Mrs Janes has done.
My point is double standards by the BBC, Sheehan was portrayed as a hero by the BBC and Mrs Janes as a shit stirrer put up to it by the Murdoch press.
The betrayal is by Gordon Broan and Nu Liebour who have underfunded the military for nearly 13 years. We’ve been fighting for 8 years in Afghanistan, yet we spend no more on defence now than we did before, and much of what we do spend it pissed away on poinltess projects (like the aircraft carriers and the JSF, the Euro Fighter and so on)
My complaint that the BBC are portraying Brown as a victim of bullying by the media when in fact he’s one of the nastiest people to ever go into politics, for years his goons (like McBride) terrorised anyone in th eLabour party that opposed him, but the BBC remained silent.
Some of the lowest gutter behaviour in politics in recent years have come from the McTwat administraion.
Part 1
Anybody else read this bBC article on a Toxic US Naval ship being denied entry into India because of environmental and pollution concerns. I quote from the bBC headline;
“India has blocked entry to a former US naval ship heading for break-up at a scrap yard on its west coast, citing environmental and pollution concerns.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8351957.stm
So being sad old me. I had a rummage around the Internet and guess what the Platinum-II/SS Oceanic/SS Independence has never been a US Naval ship. In fact since it was launched in 1950 the ship has been employed as a Passenger Liner. (Which may explain why it looks like one)
http://www.maritimematters.com/independence.html
But hey if I can find out all this information within minutes I wonder why the impartial bBC couldn’t. Instead it regales us all with a false story about how the US Navy is dumping toxic ships around the world with a story which transpired on the 15th Oct
India withhold’s toxic ship’s entry into Alang shipyard
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/india-withholds-toxic-ships-entry-into-alang-shipyard_100260965.html
But was given the all clear a day later on the 16th Oct 2009
No toxic materials on board Platinum II: Gujarat Govt
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/no-toxic-materials-on-board-platinum-ii-gujarat-govt_100261638.html
But yesterday Jairam Ramesh Monday wrote to the Gujarat government and other agencies advising that the controversial ship not be allowed to berth at Alang. The memorandum also asked the Gujarat Maritime Board to look into the case of falsified ownership of the vessel as brought to the notice of the central ministry.
http://www.topnews.in/gujarat-maritime-board-probe-toxic-us-ships-ownership-2234676
So, after an inspection which cleared the ship, a letter was written which targeted not the ship but the company . Here is what I found on that story;
November 9: DNA of India reports that PLATINUM II (ex INDPENDENCE, SEA LUCK I, OCEANIC INDEPENDENCE, OCEANIC) arrived off Alang with forged registry papers from the Republic of Kiribati following her recent departure from lay up off Dubai. The ship, which has been involved in controversy over its inherent asbestos and PCB content since its illegal tow from the U.S. last year, has yet to be beached for scrapping in Gujarat. Kiribati authorities have confirmed the papers are not valid and a case against dismantling the historic liner was set to be filed with the Indian Supreme Court today.
http://www.maritimematters.com/shipnews.html
There’s lots more the bBC could illuminate on this story. But instead it just shoute;
“Toxic US Naval ship”
Err…..actually its not.
Pounce,
Great bit of research, congrats. Those nasty US polluters, trying to dump on “green” India.
I suspect the requisite bribes had not been paid. An error with the “paperwork”.
I’m afraid that what The Sun did was both predictable and despicable. Whatever most of us think about the Primeminister (and I for one believe he’s absolutely useless) he deserves better than to be mugged by this vile red top rag.
Not really Jeff, scum like the Guardian and Mirror continually attacks Cameron AND Brown is personally responsible for many of the dead and injured soldiers by refusing to fund the wars correctly.
With all due respect we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for longer than we fought WW2, yet the technological change we went though in WW2 in terms of equipment was tremendous, yet in Afghanistan we’re still flying 30 year old Chinooks, Landrovers designed for Northern Ireland and a plastic rifle that is about as reliable as Toenails Robinson.
Look at the kit the US army has at its disposal. Even in terms of things like drone aircraft which can spot road bombs being planted the Government simply won’t buy enough of them and we still dont’ have enough helicopeter support in Afghanistan.
That turd sniffer Ainsworth prattles on about uplift hours (in that thick sounding brummie shop steward voice) but what he fails to point out is that we can’t deploy large numbers of soldiers by helicopter in one go without the support of the yanks.
Try having a read on some of the miliarty blog sites, the truth is THERE not with twats like Toenails and the BBC.
It is obvious that the Sun has used this story in order to get at Brown – but surely this is what papers do – does anyone ever read the Mirror? The point to this is that the BBC are also making it a political rallying call for Brown – we don’t have to like or buy the Sun but we do have to fund the BBC.
Anyway, the Sun does not have to do anything to discredit Brown – no matter how the BBC fawn over him. Brown is his own worst enemy.
For instance the lack of respect at the Cenotaph has not gone unoticed.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=137423.html
Funny the BBC forgot about the one eyed mong trying to rob injured soldiers of their compensation as well.
BBC1 News felt it had to emphasise Cameron’s toffy background & thereby seek to undermine his policy to combat poverty. As if any nice, comfortable middle class BBC folk have a better understanding of the poor than an old Etonian
Yes they never attack Hattie Hatemenperson for her toff background do they?
Isn’t it interesting that there is a lack of leftie anti war lot on the BBC backing Mrs Janes?
When Cindy Sheehan was continually harassing George W Bush you couldn’t move for Lindsey German, Tony Benn, Yasmin Alabi Brown or Tariq Ali being allowed to give support to Ms Sheehan. Yet funnily not a single anti war voice has been heard across the BBC in support of Mrs Janes who has been attacked by the BBC vermin all day.
not a single anti war voice has been heard across the BBC in support of Mrs Janes
Is there any particular reason why anti-war voices should be in support of someone who supports the war in Afghanistan? Or does anti-war now mean pro-war but anti-Brown?
My point was that when the BBc discussed Cindy Sheehan the BBc hsappily wheeled out the anti war lot, yet today on the BBC not a single voice attacking Brown, in fact since Barry became President and Brown PM the anti war lot seem to have almost vanished off the BBC.
I wonder why? The Americans still have 100,000 soldiers in Iraq and the killing in Afghanistan is getting worse, I speak as someone who opposed both wars.
Martin – that is a very good point. Have all the anti-war demonstrators gone away? Maybe they will come back next year if the Conservatives win.
I was amused by the cleric on Newsnight who, when interviewed, expressed his concern for the ” undocumented migrant workers”.
I wonder what he means? Surely not illegal immigrants.
Is anybody who watches the TV without a licence an ” undocumented viewer” ? Sounds as if they could be.
Martin 22:52
Spot on !
Our military deserve much better than scum like Brown and Ainsworth.
Are all these points intended to be Mandelson’s statement, or just the quotes?
The Tory-supporting paper’s criticism of the PM over an alleged spelling mistake in a note to a bereaved mother was “crude politicking”, he said.
as everyone has seen the letter (except fat Brown noser Tom Watson MP who denied sight of it on R5 yesterday am) we know the spelling mistakes are plural & not alleged.
Mandelson goes on about the Sun
“I mean, where do you see the reporting of our enemy, the Taliban, in Afghanistan? Where do you see the reporting in the Sun of our forces’ achievement and their bravery on the ground?
& where do we see such reporting from the BBC – our troops have only ever killed civilians at weddings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8354131.stm
Hugh Pym reassures us blandly under the headline “Where the recession has hit hardest” that among all the bad news “Public sector employment has held up”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8320631.stm
He neglects to tell us (from page 4 of the ONS statistics) how well “public sector employment has held up” here
Click to access lmsuk1109.pdf
In the second quarter of this year, public sector employmwent increased by 13,000: private sector employment decreased by 212,000
In other words, the private sector – you know, the one that creates the wealth – takes the lumps, while the spending classes relax. Since the BBC is part of the latter, no wonder Hugh is . .er . . reticent: after all, his job is safe!
There is a panic setting in in the local councils aroud Britain. The word is “You think its bad now wait till the Tories get in”. Local Government employees are all that is left of Browns support base.
( May I add I don’t include them all – me for one).
if, according to al-Beeb, ‘Ceremonies of commemoration are being held around the world to mark the 91st anniversary of the end of World War I’, why are they only showing pictures of Obama?
Philip 17:12
Is this the same Obama who was “too busy” to attend the celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall ?
No this is the Obama who had a beach named after him by Brown. 🙂
John 20:22
Ha ! Nice one ! Beaches is one thing Brown and Obama have in common !