New week and a new open thread…off you go!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 18, 06:43
Start the Week 18th November 2024
Starmer to meet Chinese President Xi at G20 summit https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dp6wgk72ro Barry Gardiner “suggested the MI5 spy alert was ploy to… - JohnC Nov 18, 06:29
Start the Week 18th November 2024
Trump, Musk and new cabinet nominees celebrate at UFC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgd1p8w4xlo The BBC refer to Trump 10 times. They call him… - JohnC Nov 18, 06:12
Start the Week 18th November 2024
I think one of the main reasons for this is that the Ukrainian ‘invasion’ of Russia at Kursk is on… - MarkyMark Nov 18, 05:52
Start the Week 18th November 2024
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrM_68AOc0vif-gYi4NqmPnfgFmK45nVX-MA&s[/img] The Jihadis Next Door review: Channel 4 was absolutely right to make this film This article is more than… - MarkyMark Nov 18, 05:49
Start the Week 18th November 2024
100+ days monitoring Trump on BBC. Net Zero days monitoring Biden on BBC. HA HA HA HAH AHA HH A!… - vlad Nov 18, 05:46
Start the Week 18th November 2024
It seems Biden wants to go out with a bang, as he gives the green light for Ukraine to use… - JohnC Nov 18, 05:45
Start the Week 18th November 2024
I had to share this because it is the most pathetic contrived headline I think I have ever seen. It’s… - MarkyMark Nov 18, 05:45
Weekend 16th November 2024
Remember the protests by thew moderate muslims to stop “Iraq to lower the ‘age of consent’ for girls to nine”???… - JohnC Nov 18, 04:49
Start the Week 18th November 2024
Police seek husband of murdered Harshita Brella https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dln20ql4eo The husband is called Pankaj Lamba. A very short article considering how… - JohnC Nov 18, 04:47
Start the Week 18th November 2024
Marianna pants-on-fire as I like to call her. ‘Spring apologized for the “awful misjudgement,”’. Misjudgement ???. Meaning what ? -…
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
This BBC report takes some finding; and when you’ve found the headlines, you have to add the words ‘Islam’, ‘Muslims’ and ‘honour killings’
BBC report headline:
“Fatal fire in Blackburn ‘was started at wrong address'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/10441763.stm
I notice that in the BBC report the words ‘honour killing’ did not appear in parentheses or preceded by ‘so-called’.
It may be that this is more of the increasingly common BBC bad journalism. If it was deliberate, I would be quite happy to see the writer and editor’s testicles kebabbed and roasting over an open fire. I would far rather the term ‘honour killing’ disappeared from our language.
The media will undoubtedly find a more ‘suitable’ euphemism for ‘honour killing’ itself an unintended euphemism for the murder of a (female) family or clan member by one or more fellow (mostly male) family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community. As terrorists have become militants honour killings will become customary punishment.
One thing missing from the report which suggests a manslaughter verdict is an alternative Sadek Miah has pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of manslaughter, which his co-defendants all deny, is any mention of the felony murder rule. That rule states that if a death occurs during the commission of a felony (in this case attempted murder, arson and conspiracy to commit murder and arson are possibilities) then the charge is murder.
Here’s a lovely bit of non-judgemental Gaza reporting for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/10143791.stm
“Observers suspect [the raid] is the work of Islamic extremists opposed to such camps for boys and girls.”
Why do I suspect that if this had even a tenuous link to the Joooz then there’d be no “suspecting” about it ?
Incidentally, the Ceefax ticker (which is where I first saw this, and which (Quelle surprise !) made a rapid journey down the page and is now gone) had a delightful bit of grovelling by the UN to the effect that “No, of course we don’t let boys and girls mix in our camps,” i.e. we understand your justification for setting fire to everything but really there wasn’t any need.
“Please sir, may I have another ?”
“Islamic extremists”? Thank goodness. I thought it was going to be Hamas or something.
BBC Business Page turns into ‘Hello’ magazine to gush over British woman who does deals with oil-rich Arabs, and who has an Arab boyfriend.
“The golden girl behind the biggest deals in the Gulf”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10434981.stm
I wonder which part of its eulogy the BBC likes best? This? -Which it doesn’t query?:
[Extract]:
“She has a strong regard for Middle Eastern culture and admits that she is drawn to Islam.
“With her current boyfriend being a Muslim she doesn’t rule out the idea of bringing up any future children as Muslims.
“But what’s it like being a woman in the Arab world?
“After all, in Saudi Arabia women must wear a veil and are not allowed to drive a car on their own.
“Ms Staveley says: ‘I think women are treated in the Gulf with a huge amount of respect.’
“She makes clear that her gender has never been a barrier to doing business there and she is happy to wear a veil when appropriate.”
One day the BBC will do a similar feature about a British woman who does deals with Israel, and who loves that country. (Kidding.)
The world is full of uncle Toms/collaborators/snitches/traitors and the female race is no exception. I am sure many black people in the south prefered comfortable slavery to uncertain freedom but hey thats the wrong kind uncle Tom for the BBC, there are good uncle Toms and there are bad uncle Toms and we all know which the BBC prefer.
Qatari Sheiks have bought up huge swathes of the UK, and nobody bats an eyelid. They’re all delighted.
Wonder what Prince Andrew thinks about it. No wonder Fergie wanted a bit of the action, poor thing. 😉
“Qatari Sheiks have bought up huge swathes of the UK” – but God help any “Yank” who buys a football team.
Have you noticed the BBC only refers to the police as The Police SERVICE. never the Police Force as that is what it is. Must not use the word force must we. pathatic.
Did the last government not re-name it “service” ? Mind you that is the same thing as the BBC.
It was Sir Ians Blairs predessesor at the “Metropliton Police Service”.
Anyone notice how radio 4 news just doesn’t like to use the term “Prime Minister” any more? It’s all “David Cameron met President Obama” and “David Cameron said to Chanceller Merkel…” I wonder why it might be that they dont’ like to say “Prime Minister David Cameron”?
Oh, and anyone hear the “coconut” story on Toady? BBC denouncing the prosecution and conviction of a black councillor for calling her asian opponent a coconut – a term of racial abuse meaning “brown on the outside, white on the inside” – because she opposed cus tosome mickey mouse BME project. I wonder if the BBC would take the side of a councillor prosecuted for calling a black opponent a gollywog? Oh, no, they wouldn’t, would they?
If we have to have this PC thought police madness, can we at least have it applied equally?
Yes, the case should have been dropped as there are white people who need prosecuting for “real” hate crimes. As the kid on the street said, the term isn’t “necessarily insulting”, only “slightly derogatory”!
BBC fretting at political correctness gone mad? Whatever next?
Entertaining thread on this on Harry’s Place.
The BBC’s article gives Shirley B. a generous platform to state her case.
And see Pounce’s post below. (12:19) Didn’t see that before.
I’ve just seen that video and was going to comment.
Quite extraordinary how the BBC defend the black racist and give her plenty of time to defend herself.
Shameful doesn’t even begin to describe the lack of balance, let alone the lack of moral backbone.
Indeed a report designed for her. To begin with, the stupid Beeboid sets the context by declaring fatuously that she has been at the heart of (I have to close my eyes and hold my nose to type this next garbage word) “multicultural” life in Bristol for fifteen years. This is followed by film of her visiting black people – it appears to be only black people.
Does that fool of a Beeboid even know what the multcult word means? Does he think it is a synonym for black? Is that word too stark for him? Or is he just using it to try to obscure what she really does and what she is really like?
Is he thick or devious?
FrankFisher: If we have to have this PC thought police madness, can we at least have it applied equally?
===========================
No, certainly not. That is the last thing we shall have.
We all know the BBC hates racists, don’t we? Mustn’t say a wrong word on the BBC. Not if you are Carole Thatcher for example. But they had the racist Diane Abbott on Newsnight last nigt spouting that our immigration policy is false and they (the government) are only doing it because they don’t want to see foreign-looking people on the streets of Britain.
She wasn’t checked for this rant because it is what the BBC itself had been suggesting in interviews to politicians for several years until very recently when Labour Party politicians somehow suddenly discovered that it is not racist after all to control immigration. So where was Abbott when Labour politicians were electioneering on immigration control? Was she spouting then? No.
Diane abbott has made a number of racist comments over the years whether it be about Finnish nurses being unsuitable for the UK, amazingly because of their skin colour, or mothers’ care for their children (West Indian mothers are better). Yet the BBC has her on a political show every week, sitting up as smug and bold as brass as you like.
BBC and Mass Immigration.
Of course, the predominant BBC political line on this, like that of Labour, is for an open-door ‘policy’, giving putative immigrants to Britain preferential consideration over indigenous British people.
Such advocates of mass immigration are not interested in, and are disinclined to even mention the conseqences of the rapidly changing ethnic and cultural changes to British society, such as the Islamisation of the United Kingdom.
BBC’s Mark Easton still pursues Labour’s politics of mass immigration; Leo McKinstry doesnt:
Leo McKinstry:
“Opposing controls on Immigration is absolute madness”
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/183517
BBC’s Mark Easton:
Does the immigration cap fit?
I don’t usually waste time posting on the BBC website , but have a special loathing of Michael Crick. On his recent blog post he asks if Boris Johnson’s aides are paid too much ?
I posted ” Is Michael Crick paid too much ? ”
Status ” Referred to moderators for further consideration “.
The BBC , utterly pathetic !!!
House Rules now include “Thou shalt not criticise the BBC”.
OT! OT! OT! is Aunty’s ‘TOra, TOra, TOra’!
Or file under ‘Beware of the Leopard’.
Whichever way, it makes the inconvenient things go away, at least for them, and hence ‘they do not exist’.
It’s like trying to have a sensible discussion with an Ostrich’s cloaca.
Guest,
I have never had a discussion of any kind with an ” Ostrich’s cloaca” but would be interested in your experiences. On the other hand , maybe not !
Eh? Has Guest Who flipped? Driven to it by Biased Beeboids, 😀
Always reassuring when others show concern at one’s ability to cope, but rest assured a certain state of stability still prevails.
Bearing in mind that BBC ‘we’re listening’ complaints organs are actually located at an orifice the opposite end of where they might be expected, plus their overall attitude to any critiques existing at all if they pretend they don’t, it still seems a valid comparison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10443981.stm
Not sure the pot has been helped by the BP contribution (their investment vs. the glee with which they have slagged off any aspect of the situation. Stiff letter to Graun about Tate to follow).
But at least the BBC can continue to assist its holdings in renewables with no hint of conflict of interest.
The unparalled BBC news service gave us, on the 8:00 Radio 4 News this morning – probably the flagship radio bulletin of the BBC news system – information that 1. the Russians spy on the Americans and had at least a dozen agents in the US masquerading as (Mark Mardell can disclose) Americans; 2. Forbes Magazine has published a list of the world’s most “powerful” celebrities; and 3. TV Centre is 50 years old today. This is news? This is the best £800 million spent on news services can provide? This isn’t even bias: it’s simply crap and an in-yer-face waste of taxpayers’ money.
The bBC stoops to an even newer low in how it portrays Bristol Councillor Liberal Shirley Brown who was found guilty yesterday of using racist language against an Asian Councillor (who just happens to be Not a Muslim)
Watch this video of how Shirley Brown is allowed to strut her stuff in which to play the victim card. When was the last time you saw a white racist getting the same treatment after been found guilty/
What I did like is how the bBC reports how racist Brown reports she has lived amongst the people of Bristol for 15 years. Really bBC?
I think the peoples of Bristol if asked would inform you that Brown lives not in Bristol, nor even in England, she lives in Florida and commutes to the UK.
Oh I do love the editing when allows the bBC and Brown make the victim of the cocumet slur the guilty party.
As i said the bBC and a new low.
silly me forgot to link in how the folks of Bristol see this racist bitch
The BBC giving uncritical airtime to a convicted racist so she can portray herself as the victim?
The BBC trust is silent as usual, I mean handing a convicted racist free airtime and a sympathetic shoulder to cry on could breach guidlines but what would happen if the convicted racist was white?
How does the BBC race supremacy layer cake work nowadays?
Black trumps white and Asian trumps white but black trumps Asian, Jews are at the bottom under the subhuman category closely followed by white right wingers and succesful Asians who are not muslims and are integrated into British culture are considered traitors to thier race, women trump all unless they are muslim inwhich case they are above all Christian females unless they are westernised in which case they become as valid as Jews and fully deserve to be honour terminated in an honourable and completely understandable way of course.
CONFUSED YET?
So white British people and those black and Asian non muslims who integrate and love our way of life become subhuman and always to blame for everything. It all gets rather confusing doesnt it? Foreigners who are muslim get all the get out of jail free cards they need, black racists who hate white people and those they consider collaborators and traitors to their races are never wrong and never guilty.
I give up! its all giving me a headache >:o
It’s official, folks, the “age of speech crime” is here!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8771721.stm
Mark, you beat me to it. I have just seen this. It is a blatant attempt by the BBC to act as an apologist for Cllr. Shirley Brown – as vile and nasty a racist we’ve seen in public life since the late Bernie Grant.
Despicable.
One comment which will not get past the BBC moderators:
One non-white person accuses another non-white person of having allegiances to white people, because white people are apparently the only ones who’d cut race-based funding to explicitly ethnic minority programmes, and the former is prosecuted for insulting the latter.
Let’s reverse the scenario:
One white person accuses another white person of having allegiances to non-white people, because non-white people are apparently the only ones who’d cut race-based funding to explicity ethnic majority programmes, and the former is prosecuted for insulting the latter.
Whoops, there is no race-based funding for whites. Imagine if there was. In a competition for resources, I wonder what this ethnocentric black councillor would suggest in relation to funding white programmes? Would her ilk accept the funding of white programmes or would they scream “racism” before a penny was spent – whilst defending their own race-based share of the coffers? What do you think?
Furthermore, never mind the whites implicitly accused of making funding decisions on the basis of racial-antipathy to non-whites. No, incredibly, the “speech crime” that this BBC article attempts to normalise is not speech which implies the allegedly self-evident evil of white people but speech which accuses non-white people of being allied to them!
Who would’ve expected anything else from the BBC? The BBC has spent the best part of 20 years telling us the habeas corpus-defying “fact” that a certain black teenager was murdered by white thugs. Still, in the absence of any convictions they might as well stir a bit of anti-white race hate – just to even the balance of black perceptions.
I will never pay the BBC propaganda tax whilst I’m still in control of my faculties.
In the BBC report, they go out of their way to point out that Carol Thatcher was not prosecuted for using the word ” golliwog ” .
The BBC, beyond belief !
Historic Aston in Birmingham.
Eight sites of historic interest highlighted by the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/birmingham/hi/things_to_do/newsid_8759000/8759965.stm
Well, seven sites (OK one of those, Villa Park, has been redeveloped a lot over the years) of 100 and more years interest.
And one site that’s much much much more recent that seems to be totally out of place with the others, can you guess which one that is…
Look at this blind bit of nonsense from Mark Mardell about Toronto’s security expenses for the G8/20 summit. He talks about how quite a few Canadians are unhappy with the $1.1bn bill for all the infrastructure and security. He opens with this:
Toronto doesn’t quite know what hit it over the weekend. This city prides itself on its diversity and laid-back charm. Tear gas, baton rounds and burning police cars are always upsetting if they happen in your city, but Toronto’s natives were particularly hurt and angry that it happened here. It followed hard on the heels of an earthquake, another freakishly alien event for locals. Was Toronto’s pain worth it for the world?
Yes, the destruction and chaos caused by those violent protesters was pretty unpleasant. But what does Mardell mean by asking if it was “worth it?”
The seismic activity can’t be blamed on the twin peaks of this summit, the G8 and G20, but the attempt at riot was a direct reaction to the presence of all these world leaders.
Good grief. Mardell can’t really be blaming the politicians for the violence and not the rioters, can he?
He goes on to discuss the costs of putting it all together, laying out the details as if describing Versailles-level profligacy. Mardell describes the “vast” convention center, “spacious wooden chairs”, a “cinema-sized screen”, “huge speakers”, and other decadent trappings. Which is a red herring, because the huge bill isn’t really for the convention center, but for the security to fight the violent protesters. Then he sarcastically remarks that this is all meant to reduce the stress of attendees. It’s clear that Mardell and the BBC want to shift blame away from the protesters as much as possible.
Then Mardell asks again:
But is the bill worth it for the world? It is easy to see this meeting as an attempt to paper over the cracks.
The rest of the piece is just Mardell trying to discredit summits like this in general. Which is fine, as they generally are a waste of time. Except for one key point:
If there was no violent protest, there would be no BBC discussion of the concerns about costs. But Beeboids like Mardell understand and condone violent protest from the Left. In this case, Mardell doesn’t blame the protesters at all. Instead, he blames the politicians for gathering in large groups.
Mark Mardell is a joke. Where is the BBC report discussing the senseless violence and vandalism of the Left?
Good post David – The question I would put is “Would summits be cheaper if marxists and anarchists were locked up , before they made peoples lives a misery?”
I can’t remember the BBC complaining about the costs of summits in the past.
But you are right, David, Mardell is a prat. Not nostalgic for justin Webb are you ? 😉
Grant, I admit that I’ve been sorely tempted lately to cry, “Come back Justin Webb, all is forgiven.” But then I remember ol’ Justin’s bigotry, his own undying worship of The Obamessiah, and use of the BBC as a platform to advocate for his personal needs.
The BBC once again gives defenders of homeopathy – a completely discredited bit of fake medicine – more space than they give opponents of AGW/ACC. The science is “settled” for the BBC on one issue, when it most certainly isn’t, but the door is still wide open for another issue, when it most certainly isn’t.
The BBC stifles the following type of comment when it comes to AGW/ACC, but not when it comes to homeopathy:
And Dr David Shipstone, a urologist from the East Midlands, said it would be unfair to pick on homeopathy as there were plenty of other treatments which were used by doctors despite a lack of categorical evidence they worked.
“What is valid scientific evidence? Academics can argue about it all day.”
Can you believe that last bit? The BBC gives nearly equal time to this kind of mindset as it does to statements that homeopathy is junk science. They even let the Society for Homeopathy get a word in:
The Society of Homeopaths said there was evidence the remedies worked.
Well, they would do, wouldn’t they? The BBC gives these frauds more credence than the Israeli government.
And a spokeswoman also pointed out that the amount of public money spent on it was very low.
She said: “The cost of homeopathy on the NHS is low – just 0.001% of the £11 billion drugs budget.”
Oh, so never mind, it’s only a drop in the bucket, not worth worrying about, right, BBC? The BBC’s editorial decisions about junk science are exactly backwards.
Homoeopathy is an emotive topic. Because it cannot be scientifically proven does not mean that it doesn’t work. It works for me and thousands of other people who have chosen to opt for this alternative (and pay for it privately). The BMA is currently tring to have homoeopathic treatment removed from the NHS, which was originally enshrined in the NHS from the beginning.I’m sure, of course, that this has nothing to do with the drugs industry, whose products are far more expensive than their homoeopathic counterparts. No, surely not. For myself and others homoepopathy DOES work. The argument is that we are victims of the placebo effect. No one has yet (to me) satisfactorily explained why homoeopathic veterinary treatment of animals has worked, if it is all down to the placebo effect. So, for me this is one RARE case of the BBC actually not being biased and presenting the other side of the case. No one should dismiss homoeopathy out of hand. There are many cases of succesful treatment by homoeopathy where conventional alopathy has been unsuccessful.
I will continue to dismiss homeopathy out of hand because it has been scientifically proven time and time again to be a fraud. It’s not a metaphysical issue like trying to prove God’s existence. Very basic scientific principles like this can be proven over and over again in the lab.
Bringing in the canard of “the drug industry is suppressing it because they make more money on their own drugs” won’t move me, either. There are laws in the US and other countries which require drugs to actually work as advertized (or up to some minimum effectiveness), or the drug companies can’t make all that money your’e so concerned about. In short, if they sold homeopathic concoctions instead of real drugs, they’d go out of business very quickly due to massive lawsuits and fines for fraud. There’s a reason why – in the US, at least – homeopathic concoctions are sold as “dietary supplements” and other dodges: they don’t have to actually work if they label them as such.
Do you know why they can put on the label of homeopathic concoctions that it won’t react with other drugs? Because there’s nothing in it to react. If water had the “memory” to affect your body that homeopathic believers claim it does, don’t you think it would affect other drugs coursing through your bloodstream? If not, how do you explain it?
Are there really many cases of successful treatment by homeopathy where real medicine has failed? That wouldn’t have anything to do with the homeopathic industry, whose products make loads of money, would it? No, of course you wouldn’t accept your canard turned the other way, would you?
There aren’t any cases, really, other than unsolvable spontaneous remission, or something like that. It’s bogus, and every single scientific trial ever done has shown that. Never mind that common sense and basic science knowledge would tell you the same thing.
FrankFisher at 08:02 – yes I have noticed that either the BBC says the Prime Minister or David Cameron but never The Prime Minister, David Cameron …… like they used to with both Tony and Gordon. they just cannot bring themselves to do it.
Any why the change to informing family of servicemen that have died? We now know they are told – it is obviously a directive from somewhere although occasionaly newsreaders forget. I really think ‘told’ is too casual but I suppose those at the BBC cannot even bring themselves to support the families of dead soldiers.
The ‘informed’ / ‘told’ change is an odd one and something that has bothered me for a while, in fact I blogged about it recently – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/06/informed-or-told.html
The method of describing David Cameron is something that I have not noticed but will look after.
Interesting. The female Beeboid in Bradford (Sagheeta something? Clearly of sub-Continent descent) talking to a café owner of Pakistani descent made sure to point out something about the “multicultural community”. By this she meant “Pakistani”, because the guy was introduced as a member of the Pakistani community here and in an earlier segment in which he was featured in his caf wearing a jacket and better clothes instead of the Damned T-shirt he was wearing for the camera just now. No other ethnicities (except for a couple of white individuals who don’t qualify) were interviewed, or even mentioned.
The main topic of discussion had been the PM’s visit to Bradford and his plans for drastic cuts. Her point was that the “multicultural community” seemed to be thriving in Bradford despite the recession and will do well in spite of the cuts. This meant, she said – and the Pakistani caf owner agreed – that the “multicultural community” was therefore a positive asset to Bradford.
This was just one culture, not many, and certainly not mixed enough to be called “multicultural”. Small businesses catering exclusively to the Pakistani community (like this guy’s café which I saw feature in an earlier report) don’t count as “multicultural”, yet the BBC seized on anything with dark skin to promote a positive image of a mythological “multicultural community”.
Why not just say the Pakistanis seem to be doing well and ask how and why, BBC? Why twist this into another Narrative?
All together now, AH! poor diddums BBC, looks like they won’t be getting their fat gold plated pensions.
What is an old pervy male beeboid to do now for a rent boy in old age? How can he afford a good long like of coke on a Friday night?
WE should feel really sorry for the BBC today, but somehow I can’t stop laughing.
‘Telegraph’:
“BBC pension: Q & A”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7861738/BBC-pension-QandA.html
“BBC will cut gold-plated pension plans”
http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/bbc-will-cut-gold-plated-pension-plans
BBC World News right now giving free, nearly unchallenged air time to Colin Robinson promote an upcoming e-book about what Robinson called the Israeli “attack” on the “aid flotilla”. Robinson was on a satellite feed, so in the studio with the Beeboid presenter was Ken O’Keefe, he of the prison tattoos who admitted on the BBC yesterday his part in violence against Israeli soldiers on the boat. One of their stated purposes was to change American Jews’ attitudes towards Israel. Gotta love the obligatory Jooooish Lobby noise.
There is no reason to give these two criminals air time, unless the BBC agrees with their agenda and thinks it’s valid and worthy of coverage. If it was an Israeli book (never mind one co-written by one who was part of the violence), can anyone honestly say that the BBC would give Israeli writers air time?
The websites that have uploaded Ken O’Keefe’s HardTalk episode are bursting with rabidly antisemitic rants accusing Sarah Montague of being a BBC Zionist whore. The morons who accuse the BBC of being pro Israel think balance entails banning all mention of Israel, bar condemnation, and only giving air time to Palestinian victimhood and deprivation. So when we complain that the BBC is biased against Israel, we’re up against that lot.
They tip the balance right off the scale so the BBC tells itself they’ve got it about right.
How often have you heard them declare ‘we get complaints from both sides, so we must be doing something right.’
O’Keefe has a couple of very obvious prison tattoos. Five’ll get you ten that, in addition to the tear drop under his eye and the chain link tattoo around his neck, he’s got an iron cross or webbing underneath that shirt. It would be hilarious if this guy turned out to be associated with some Aryan group or other, and the BBC has let it slide.
At least Montague got it right – for once – and stuck with the truth about who started the violence.
BBC’s LYSE ‘the humanity of the Taliban’ DOUCET, manages to describes aspects of the harsh treatment of women in Afghanistan without mentioning ISLAM!:
“The Afghan women jailed for ‘bad character'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8771605.stm
BBC ‘Newsnight’ tonight.
BBC World News America did a feature on how the oil spill is harming sea turtles. They sent a camera to Alabama to follow around a sea turtle activist who is counting nesting females. He expressed his alarm that the numbers are down this year, and said that all the work done to save sea turtles could be destroyed by this one oil spill.
Except, as this is the BBC reporting on a US issue (plus the environmental angle), there’s something they don’t want you to know:
U.S. sued over sea turtles caught in fishing nets
The groups claim the service is ignoring its own 2005 opinion that the turtles would likely not be in jeopardy from long-line fishing if the number of turtles that were accidentally caught in the process was less than 114 over a three-year period. They have not yet determined the exact measures needed to cut down on the accidental catches.
However, the plaintiffs claim, fishing boats in the Gulf caught nearly 1,000 sea turtles between July 2006 and December 2008, in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
This alone would account for the lower numbers cited by the guy in Alabama, even without an oil spill. And it’s not like this is new information, either.
Millions of sea turtles dying in fishing gear, report warns
Millions of sea turtles have been inadvertently trapped and killed by commercial fishing fleets over the last 20 years, a global survey has found.
Look, I’m not denying that the oil spill is having any effect on turtles or sea life in general. Of course it is. But surely the BBC could have picked an example to play up that had a little more substance to it. It’s as if they do all their reporting based on emotions, with little regard for researching the facts.
I trust the BBC so little when it comes to these issues that even with something that sounds like it’s obviously true – sea turtles dying due to an oil spill – my first instinct is to doubt it and check the facts for myself. Quite sad, really. It’s no wonder I sometimes call it BBC World Propaganda America.
The economy seems in such a mess, one suspects rather aided by the efforts of the government of the previous 13 years, that it is hard to imagine what might ‘work’, or not.
But the notion of one broadcast medium building an outrage mob of ex-Labour Ministers based on the writings of a minute circulation newspaper, especially one whose interests rather conflate with its dependence on the public service advertising to which they are bound, is… unique.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6111733/about-those-job-losses.thtml
One commenter notes:
‘Funny how the BBC has only reported the job loss figure, no mention of the 2.5 million jobs created’
Funny ha-ha… or peculiar? Anyway, on Aunty’s Farm, some figures are more equal than others, narrative-wise… uniquely.
BBCLauraK Treasury confirms Guardian leak was genuine but was a draft made before the elex and the figs on private sector job losses were wrong
So, basically, anything made of it, politically or journalistically, was a bunch of pants based on zero professional integrity?
Where’s Richard Black’s watertight oversight when more appropriate to apply?
Senior CPS lawyer admits taking £20,000 bribe
A senior lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service has admitted taking a £20,000 bribe to drop a criminal trial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7861092/Senior-CPS-lawyer-admits-taking-20000-bribe.html
The bBC, championing its new champion and half the story;
Turkey inches forward in EU bid
Turkey is due to open a new chapter in its negotiations to join the EU, but a long-running dispute over Cyprus means other chapters are blocked…………………The northern part of the island is still governed by an unrecognised administration.
……………………………………..
For a news agcency which has no problem referring to Gaza,the West Bank as occupied I wonder why the bBC doesn’t mention that Northern Cyprus is under Turkish occupation and that is the main sticking point why its attempts to join the EU are stalled
Andy Burnham is on the News Channel right now, sporting his new leadership haircut. His attempts to attack the Tory boodget coots which will cause job losses are so pathetic that the Beeboid in the studio can undermine him just by repeating the same sentence over an over again: this would have been essentially the same under a Labour Government, who had a similar amount of coots planned. That’s how weak Burnham’s argument is. Yet he is allowed to keep doing it.
Too bad the Beeboid isn’t giving Burnham much of a hard time otherwise, and is letting him run on and on about doom and gloom, complete with the evocation of the ’80s. How about asking him if he would stop the coots and print more money and make the debt far worse instead? No, BBC not really interested in presenting real challenges to these Labour figures.
There must be a better way for the BBC to give the various leadership candidates fair air time for them to lay out their wares without it being just a series of half-assed monologues over single issues.
Andy Burnham was on 5Live yesterday morning opining on the 2018 World Cup bid. The amount of time goven by the BBC to ex-Labour ministers is in stark contrast with the time goven by them to ex-Conservative ministers in 1997.
How the propaganda arm of the Taliban The bBC spins a story in which to make their ideological masters appear unbeatable.
Taliban attack Nato base in Afghanistan
Insurgents have attacked Nato forces in eastern Afghanistan.
Several attackers were killed in the Taliban attack on a base at an airfield outside Jalalabad, near the border with Pakistan.Gunmen set off a car bomb and fired rocket-propelled grenades, wounding two soldiers…………The attack is yet another example of the increasingly sophisticated assaults favoured by the Taliban, says the BBC’s Quentin Sommerville in Kabul.
So let me get this right 8 armed men died in their failed attempt to enter an Forward base. Even with a number of carbombs set off, only 2 people were hurt
Yet the bBC correspondent trys to pass it off as a successful attack. Err Quentin there was nothing sophisticated about that attack they failed to impress anybody other than your fawning arse.
Maybe, because it was so ‘audacious’, it was only ‘repelled’ as the headline (a new one?) suggests, as opposed to being, well, repelled with, it would appear, our daring freedom fighters scoring a success in some eyes.
Maybe this review was only meant for internal use?
But may they maintain such ‘sophistication’ again, soon.
Oh dear, BBC not happy about some of Lord Goldsmith’s documents being released. It was only a few months ago when the Beeboids were screaming that Goldsmith changed his mind about the legality of invading Iraq, suggesting that he caved under pressure. (See here and here.)
In fact, Goldsmith always maintained that he was never certain one way or the other until the end, at which point he made the decision that it was legal.
Now these documents are showing that this was actually the case, and the BBC just now was trying to find a way to twist it back to Goldsmith changing his mind, dredging up the old baseless accusations for no reason other than to reassert them. In fact, one letter read out just now actually proves my comment from January that Goldsmith was talking about needing a second UN resolution and not about the legality of the whole thing. But then the Beeboid in the studio just spun it the other way – again!
No wonder the Beeboid reporter keeps saying things like “I’m not sure these will add much to what we already know.” Spin it away, BBC.
Now that we have a government full of nasty Tories toffs it’s nice to see the BBC trumpeting the return of political satire.
Where has it been for the last 13 years?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8773938.stm
Did I just hear a Beeboid reporting from Wimbledon about a “Chinse Taipei” player? Even the Taipei Times calls it Taiwain.
Indeed you did. I’ve had to explain what ‘the deal’ is with this chosing of country names by the BBC. Typical BBC.
Agree with the main point – that the world and his brother and the BBC have to suck up to the Chinese and pretend Taiwan doesn’t exist. But of course the Taipei Times – a Taiwanese paper – is going to call it Taiwan.
journalismnews Unions warn of strikes as BBC pay and pensions talks collapse http://idek.net/2hkO #journalism
As one already, without second thought, discounting BA as a holiday flight option, with no concern at all for how this may ultimately effect its union ‘members’, such an attitude projected to useless or hostile, non-essential public ‘service’ is one the unions might wish to ponder.
BBC now spinning their own interview with Micheal Howard: Howard ‘Dismayed’ at Ken Clarke speech.
He merely stated in the interview that he was not in total agreement with all of it, but thought it was necessary to take a pragmatic approach and that he did not take any comments personally.
Only 10 minutes after the interview all context was gone.
Then, the Jamie Oliver story, where Andrew Landsbury dared to suggest that his approach hadn’t worked out quite as well when rolled out across the country – a very selective barb used from Oliver’s statement to rebut but again a skewed context.
Have a listen to tonight’s Radio 4 Jeremy Hardy Speaks to the Nation programme and wonder if a comedian would ever be allowed to be so insulting about Labour politicians as Jeremy Hardy is when describing Dvid Cameron & George Osborne, as well as Conservative voters. An unpleasant programme from a seemingly rather unpleasant man, broadcast by an organisation never happier than when attacking Conservatives.
Mock the week was little different. I wonder if now that we have a Conservative PM, the rebirth of satire is on the cards?
I have posted before that the Universal Hardy ( how much money does he he make from the BBC and is it funnelled through a company to avoid tax ? ) is the vilest of the vile.
I just cannot stand the sound of his voice.
‘Telegraph’:
“BBC told it must reveal salaries of biggest names”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7864700/BBC-told-it-must-reveal-salaries-of-biggest-names.html
BBC learns something about Islam?
‘Evening Standard’:-
“Muslim pupils taken out of music lessons ‘because Islam forbids playing an instrument’”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23851512-muslim-pupils-taken-out-of-music-lessons-because-islam-forbids-playing-an-instrument.do
Thanks for bringing this up. I’ll be watching for sure. This article gives me the impression that somebody is going to blame the schools for depriving the children, and not the religious oppression.
But a spokesman for Ofsted said: “Music is an important part of any child or young person’s education. Any examples of pupils being treated unequally would be a matter of significant concern.”
How is the BBC going to handle it? Will they suggest that all children should be removed from music lessons during Ramadan so that the Muslim children aren’t unfairly disadvantaged? Ban all music from schools for the same reason?
R4 “You and Yours” today. Female Beeboid interviewing the Health Chief of the first hospital in England to abolish car parking charges. Trafford, I think.
Beeboid, very aggressive and against the abolition of charges. Funny, because I would have thought these charges hit the poorest hardest ? Big contrast with the BBC view of VAT rises.
So why would the Beeboid be in favour of car parking charges at hospitals ?
Any ideas ?
Beeboids hate the poor owning cars. They clutter up the roads for the rich beeboids to drive their vile offspring to their public school in their 4X4.
Martin,
Yes and the foul Beeboids can charge their taxi fares to us !
The BBC has now had on two people to defend the Labour Government’s £1.2 billion expense on last year’s swine flu epidemic which didn’t actually happen. Andy Burnham said he was proud of it, total success, and just now some health official saying the same thing. Any opposing voice? Not today, sir, no.
Notice how the BBC keep digging up old Tory policies from nearly 20 years ago and and try to make out that it’s a U turn.
Funny but we don’t seem to see the BBC doing the same to Liebour scum who have done more U turns than a boy racer in a Tesco car park.
With all the BBC’s coverage of the oil spill in the Gulf, and with the legion of Beeboids sent to the area to report on the disaster, here’s one thing they definitely don’t want you to know:
In Reporting on Oil Spill, Limits Persist on Media Access in the Gulf
It has been virtually impossible to get any information about the federal mobile medical unit in the fishing town of Venice, La. The glorified double-wide trailer sits on a spit of newly graveled land known to some as the “BP compound.” Ringed with barbed wire-topped chain link fencing, it’s tightly restricted by police and private security guards.
This is the very liberal PBS complaining now. And it isn’t anything new. I’ve posted other examples of this here before, such as:
BP, Government Still Thwarting Press Access
Efforts to Limit the Flow of Spill News
Sure, both of these talk about this being done by both BP and the Government. But has anyone heard a single peep out of a Beeboid that they’ve been given the runaround or are having their access restricted in any way? Mardell? Donnison? Hoang Nguyen? Robyn Bresnahan? Shukman? Matty or Katty?
The question I have for all these intrepid BBC journalists covering the story is this: Why aren’t you at least reporting that BP is blocking some media access?
I can think of three reasons why not. Either the BBC is getting privileged access that US media isn’t and so Mardell and Co. are keeping shtum about the rest of it to maintain that access, or they’re keeping quiet because they’d also have to admit that The Obamessiah Administration might be doing something even a tiny bit wrong. The third possibility is that they simply have no idea. But I doubt that very much. My bet is with the second option, because we already know that the BBC has been censoring any news that The Obamessiah Administration has had some difficulties with the clean-up effort.
No matter which explanation it really is, this calls into question the trustworthiness of BBC reporting on US issues, and the trustworthiness of BBC News in general.
Obama and Immigration.
‘A View from the Right’:
“Obama’s nothing speech on Immigration”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016892.html
BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10478829.stm
BBC report:
Just saw this. The President said absolutely nothing here, gave no policy indications or directions or even one single suggestion. All He gave were platitudes. “We have to work together”, “Everyone knows we need to do something”, “We’re a country of immigrants”, “Don’t blame the children”, “We haven’t fixed this because of political posturing”, “we can find a practical solution once we get past the bickering”.
All the BBC’s representative in the White House Press Kennel can notice is that his beloved Obamessiah didn’t give a deadline for action. Well, Paul, it’s kind of hard to set a deadline for action when you haven’t actually put forth any ideas about what actions to take, regardless of any upcoming elections.
What Adams got really wrong is the “controversial” Arizona law.
Arizona recently enacted a law which makes it a crime to be in the state without immigration papers.
I’m not sure if he’s actually lying, or just really ignorant. Of course, as we all know by now, it’s already illegal to be in Arizona without immigration papers because it’s already against the @#$%ing law to be in the US…er…illagally. If you don’t have them on you when you’re busted for something else, you’re busted for that, too. That’s called reality.
The AZ law, as we also know, is the same as the US law, only saying that now the AZ cops can enforce it if they’ve already stopped or arrested someone for doing something else. The Feds won’t enforce it (in fact, they just put up big signs and went home!), so the state has a legal right to pick up the pieces.
For those who want facts and not BBC twisted garbage, here’s the actual bill. (NB: pdf file)
Actually, I don’t expect that Paul Adams or any BBC employee has actually looked at it, or even has any idea as to its contents. After all, neither the Attorney General, the head of the Dept. of Homeland Security, nor the President Himself had read it even when He was publicly condemning it and having the Justice Dept. look into suing AZ over it. Oh, right, Adams forgot to mention that part, didn’t he? In fact, the BBC has never reported that at all.
And I’m supposed to be impressed that Mexico is unhappy and is threatening some kind of legal challenge because it might be unfair to Mexican citizens? It was the Mexican government that made those brochures and DVDs instructing Mexican citizens how to cross the border illegaly! Not to mention the times when Mexican police or military make incursions into US territory to abet smugglers. Yes, the government of a foreign country directly encouraged and abetted its citizens to break US law. BBC not intereste. But the BBC will tell you that country is now offended when we tell them the game is up.
UPDATE: The BBC has done another article now, specifically about Mexico’s hilarious legal challenge to Arizona. Notice the BBC gives pride of place to the photo with the swastika. Audience: Boo!
Miraculously, they’ve added one word which makes this one more accurate than the one George R linked to above:
The law – which comes into force on 29 July – makes it a state crime to be in Arizona without immigration papers.
Ah, it’s a “state” crime now, in addition to the pre-existing federal crime. 1 point to the BBC.
As for the rest of it, everything else I said in my previous comment still stands. Also notice how much space they give to the Mexican Government’s whining as opposed to one line from Gov. Brewer. “Mexico has a duty to protect its citizens”? Some of you may hear my howls of derisive laughter all the way across the pond.
If Mexico wasn’t a failed state and didn’t actively encourage and instruct their citizens to come to the US illegaly, they wouldn’t have to worry about “protecting” them now. I notice they’re not protecting too many of their citizens near the border these days. How many have been killed lately? Oh, that’s right: the BBC isn’t interested in that, either.
It seems its not just homosexual priests who are at the root of paedophilia in the Church but liberal doctrine as well. It seems the two go hand in hand. I wonder if the BBC will examine this contention?
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/
When it comes to defending victims of child sex abuse or correctnick nostrums, we all know what comes first at the odious BBC.
I don’t understand what part is supposed to demonstrate how “liberal doctrine” is responsible for this horror show. It looks like sexual deviants were in charge of the Catholic schools, and installed that unbelievable catechism book. I’ve seen recruiting pamphlets for 1970s religious sex cults that were more demure. The government pays priests’ salaries, and I think subsidizes the schools as well.
Having said that, I wonder what the connection is between these clerical kiddie-fiddlers and what seems to be – still – an active culture of paedophilia in Belgium and that region in general. I mean, there have been some infamous cases of heterosexual child abuse (internet child porn raids, for example) in Belgium in the recent past. How many of those police and prosecuters who let that bishop off were involved in kiddie-fiddling as well?
It’s the Flemish people I feel sorry for. There’s a severe shortage of useful clergy in the region because of all this. I’ve met a couple of parish priests (one the curate of a small abbey as well) in Flanders, and it’s been a mess for years. Many, many people’s lives have been damaged by this crap, and the Church has basically left them hung out to dry.
I’ve met two parish priests in Flanders (one is also the curate of a small abbey). Both of them have to be the priest for several parishes at once, running around to do mass and whatnot all day long. One of them was already in charge of three or four parishes before he was called to take over another four after an ancient priest died on the job. That gave him a total of seven parishes to deal with. The other guy had five.
It’s no different in New York, either. The monsignor for a few parishes in Harlem was sent away for kiddie-fiddling a couple years ago, and he was basically also the priest for two of them, doing masses and all that. They had to import someone from Africa, as the whole area is short on clergy.
Like I said, it’s a mess.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was quite correct when he said that the number one problem in the Church was “the filth”.
Al beebeezeera flagellating themselves because one of their commentators mentioned * gasp * Laura Tennis-Player’s puppy fat and another described some other Brit lass as ‘chunky’.
Ticks two boxes –
Box 1 – BBC never happier than when BBC is The Story and
Box 2 – Allows the BBC to parade its soft-Liberal politically=correct weeping conscience.
Expect profuse apologies to be followed by Soviet style Re-education for all staff (at our expense), and that to be followed by two Panorama ‘specials’ – one to be entitled ‘Are Our Kids Too Thin?’ and the other one ‘Kids Today – Are They Too Fat’.
And so it goes on.
Spare a thought for the BBC and its highly politicised and racialist world cup coverage.
The BBC has a problem, Holland is not the BBCs favourite nation right now is it? The Dutch have given a huge boost to the anti islamistaion party of of Geert Wilders and they are also the nation from which the South African white population are descended from and still have close ties to(not that the BBC promotes any such news).
How will the BBC report a Dutch victory at the world cup? If the black African majority have to absorb the fact that the white South Africans will celebrate a Dutch win as a triumph for their race….ooops I forgot how the race thing works…only the black race can celebrate the achievements of the black race, the whites are not allowed to celebrate the achievements of their race.
Notice how much effort the BBC has put on showcasing the black race, its all about African victory rather than national victories, no effort has been spared to show us black fooballers as a racial group succeeding at their national game, the national game of the South African black race BTW and now it looks like the marginalized white South African race airbrushed out of existence by the BBC might just be celebrating a world cup win and worse still they are the direct racial relatives of the hated white Boers/Afrikaaners.
The BBC has been quite coy about which team the majority of white South Africans are supporting and the coverage of the Dutch fans has been selective to say the least.
I am hoping for a Dutch win because it will upset the BBC racists no end, it will force them to cover a team and its supporters that they would dearly wish to airbrush out of existence, they are the wrong race for the BBC.
We see the ugly side of the BBC on few occasions, this is one of those times that its ugly racist bigotry will shine through.
Come on folks get yer orange colours on and support the team that will crush the BBC spirits completely.
Come on Holland! 😀
Ooops sorry for the extra post but the BBC knows full well that white areas of SA are flying the Dutch flag openly and cheering for a Dutch victory yet they choose not to report on it, certainly that beeboid reporter chosen soley for his colour and who has to read a sheet of paper to describe matches would never be allowed to report such uncomfortable news.
The BBC choosing a sub standard fooball reporter simply because of the colour of his skin you say? If that aint racist I dont know what is!
May we have a new open thread, please? This one’s about to disappear off the page.
David – Your wish is granted. I’ve been away so just catching up!