Just off air! Did you see my fleeting appearance on Sunday Live? I had to laugh at the composition of the panel in the studio – two Muslims and Bruce Anderson. Then up pops Moazzem Begg, Gitmo poster boy par excellence to tell us how AWFUL those evil Americans are in how they treated 15 yr old Omar. (No mention of Sgt Speers murdered by this piece of vermin and his widow and two young girls, natch) Then another guy pops up to tell us how awful those Israelis in! They had the box-set on! I tried to come back on the lies told about Guanatanamo but did not get the chance. Allah be praised!
MOAZZEM BEGG, ME AND THE BBC
Bookmark the permalink.
Hi DV, I look forward to seeing the programme when Marky uploads it on his youtube account.
So Colonel Bob wasn’t there after all then? You’ll see in the previous thread I tried to put a question for the guests but the producer told the receptionist to cut me off!
HP, Colonel Bob was on & played by the rules of BBC interviews. Not that it was much of an interview. He got less time to speak that Begg or the guy from Reprieve (though he did get longer than David!!)
It sounds like a coordinated propaganda effort between the BBC and Al Qa’eda. Let’s see if viewing the show causes me to revise that impression!
Hi Hippy, I’m on it although it takes a while. Hopefully I can get it up on youtube in a few hours. I need to find an easier way of capturing and editing flv files…
Cool, I’m primed to take appropriate action if the ‘debate’ was as treasonous as the byeline they gave for it on their website.
Well done David! Good try!
I see that Begg spoke for nearly two minutes without interruption, whereas you spoke for just over a minute before being interrupted – interrupted at the very moment when you moved on to attack the media:
“We have to be very careful that the media does not parrot the language of our enemies, who wish to..”
BANG!, in she came!
“We’re talking across each other”, she said with a smirk, as you tried to go on. (No, she was talking across you!!!).
She then handed straight over to someone from Reprieve (the one who dragged in Israel), putting your first point to him very awkwardly. He also got to speak for nearly two minutes without interruption!
It was always going to be the way.
I watched this awful BBC pile of plop for the first time. Suzanna Reid, got what a useless tosser she really is, She’s like Kate Silverton and our favourite Lesbian Jane Hill, USELESS.
The whole torture thing was a nonsense, DV got talked over by Reid and Bruce Anderson is a tool anyway.
But of course the Halal meat story was the one that got me, if Halal meat isn’t cruel why do we have to stun animals before killing them?
Oh and as someone who has actually been in a slaughterhouse when working, the pigs I saw being killed went through a hatch one at a time where they were stunned and then killed, they did not see their mates copping it first, I don’t know if that was unique but I suspect not.
Ms Reid has probably never been near a dead animal in her life (unless she’s passed Nikki Campbell in the corridor)
David, I did warn you what you were getting yourself into.
It’s the BBC for God’s sake !
it’s so blatant it’s hilarious
not
I’ve just had a call from the producer of the programme trying to explain away (see previous thread) him telling a call receptionist to cut me off just as she was about to take a question from me. I told him I did not accept his explanation as it bears no relation to the facts of what happened. I wonder if it was because he’d just read what I’d put on B-BBC that he decided to call? He assured me the debate was impartial and naturally I advised him I’d form due judgement on that once I’ve seen it.
John
I know that. I wanted to attack their treatment of Gitmo but evidently there was no time for me to do so. By contrast, those IN Gitmo got to comment without interruption. So it goes. Doesn’t bother me…I expect it. That said, it will add to the gaiety of the book on BBC bias. 😉
Yes, I saw it and fleeting though it may have been, well done for getting in the bit about the media and our enemies.
Talk about the Muslim corporation! Muslim panellists, Muslim topics and video-linked speakers. As if it’s not enough for the Muslim BBC to have Muslim terrorism on the agenda, they have to have halal meat as well. Why?
What gets me whenever this halal discussion comes up is how Muslims like that panellist or people sent by the MCB will sit there quite brazenly arguing that we should be prepared – or even obliged – to eat halal meat as well. (That is what is being done in the schools that don’t offer anything other than halal. Probably hospitals and other institutions as well.)
They feel entitled to proceed airily on an assumption that our longstanding values and laws as a nation about animal cruelty don’t count for anything and that Muslim methods must override them just because it is their tradition and religion. The law does allow an exemption from normal stunning but that doesn’t mean that people like it or that Muslims should strike an attitude about what other people should eat.
I must say that I have never in my life heard even a whisper of a suggestion from Jews that anyone other than themselves should have to eat kosher meat.
Strange they miss the irony after the gitmo ‘torture’ story, the torture the muslims insist is not permissable under ANY circumstance is quite happily applied to the un-stunned animals who’s throats they slit in the name of halal.
Also found it very revealing how all the muslims would accept a whole city being destroyed rather than one person tortured to prevent it, perhaps the situation would be revised if it was Mecca under threat.
David, as you supected beforehand, it was an Islam Not BBC (INBBC) set-up.
The Muzzie on the show said that it wasn’t Muslims demanding Halal meat in schools in Harrow, so just who is? I can’t imagine non Muslims asking for it, so is it Muslim council members?
When the question of WHY it was Halal meat and not Kosher meat that was the issue as pointed out above Jews don’t demand that non Jews eat it and yes let’s be honest many of us are getting pissed off with Muslims, perhaps if they were not trying to kill us every 5 minutes we ‘might’ be a bit more tolerant of them as we are with other religions.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) and its chum: MOAZZAM BEGG –
http://www.spectator.co.uk/martinbright/5757557/amnesty-international-moazzam-begg-and-the-bravery-of-gita-sahgal.thtml
and, ‘Jihadwatch’:
“Amnesty International suspends women’s rights activist who questioned its partnership with Taliban supporter”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/amnesty-international-suspends-womens-rights-activist-who-questioned-its-partnership-with-taliban-su.html
Nevertheless I liked the public vote at the very end of the program, 2/3 against the Muslim proposition.
I didn’t see it, but I would imagine the BBC didn’t dwell on it.
However had it been the other way around I am sure the Corporation would have used it as vital information to be imparted at every opportunity.
Missed your appearance (it seems from the comments, that it was brief)but i will try to catch up on any links posted.
On the Harrow subject, there was a muslim councilor on 5 live a few days ago stating that it was the right way to go. All through the interviev he kept saying something in Arabic like some sort of end of sentence. I found that a bit chilling and he was not challenged on it.
David, I thought you did really well. The the set-up hugely skewed the debate.
I didn’t think Susannah Reid was particularly stupid; her interruption pattern was certainly quite rude. Maybe the director was screaming in her ear telling her who to allow and who to cut. Despite serious Islam-friendly weighting during the discussion, the vote went the other way, didn’t it?
The only argument the other side had to offer was that all torture drags you down to the terrorists’ level, and is undemocratic.
It’s a bit like those banner waving beardies who hate democracy. It’s only democracy that allows them to do the banner waving, and one could argue that it’s only “coercive questioning” that lies between destroying democracy which involves the sort of society that suffers such anguish over whether we should allow torture.
Talking on videolink with the out-of-synch sound and unflattering headphones puts you at a huge disadvantage, and I salute your indefatigability sir. Congratulations.
Presumably if the BBC/Liberal elite had their way in WW2 most Germans and Japanese would have been allowed to walk around freely on the grounds that locking them up would have been against their ‘uman rites’ and that control orders would have also been wrong.
The BBC would have been demanding all sorts of rights for German prisoners and investigations into any allegations of torture made by Nazis in custody.
Jews in particular have lived in the UK for hundreds of years without causing any problems and even Muslims (well non Pakistani ones at least) have also lived here for decades, yet only in the last 20 years or so have they started kicking off, could it be the real trouble makers are the Pakistani rabble?
Everyone who appeared on Skype seemed to have rather bad call quality, funny that when Sky News do Skype calls on their technology show the quality seems very good. I speak to people around the world on Skype and the video quality if far better than the BBC were able to provide.
The broadband lines to the BBC are at capacity downloading gay porn and scat videos,
Oh the mention of democracy reminds me that fellow who came up with the idiotic idea that people should have only one child said at the end of the programme something to the effect that we should look at our use of the word democracy, implying that our democracy is wanting. Has the man no sense of irony?
He said it in response to the ‘unwelcome’ result of the text-poll!
Damn those pesky voters with their independent minds and bothersome opinions!!
Thanks Sue
The irony is this programme was recorded in Belfast, 20mins from where I live. I could easily have been in the studio but then again I have not been in Gitmo so now brag rights!
Thats what I thought, you could have been in the studio easily.
but then the BBC would have had someone they know doesn’t like the BBC and doesn’t think Muslims are all nice cuddly peace lovers.
Yes I noticed that when the presenter mentioned “here” at one point and from the context of that remark I realised they were in N Ireland.
For those who missed it, the programme is now on the BBC i-Player:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj78l
That bloke telling us that population is a problem is obviously a typical BBC style rent-a-‘liberal’.
First there are his population based views. He reveals he is a vegetarian and then he mentions the word Islamophobia, something his type seem very good at spotting even when nobody else does. He’s entitled to his views of course but its very strange that people with these type of views are on the BBC so often given their rarity in the UK’s population. More balance is required so that people with minority opinions of all types appear rarely on the BBC just as Nick Griffin already does.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the corportaion currently gives lots of airtime to those whose opinions are the same as those which are popular with the staff of the BBC.
The rent a veggie made some good points on population control, but missed the obvious ones which are anti wet liberal.
1. Scrap benefits for children, you breed em, you pay for them (use the savings to cut taxes for all)
2. Stop immigration
3. Stop giving aid to 3rd world countries that don’t promote the education of girls (Muslim nations in particular see women as simply breeding machines for producing baby boys)
4. Invest in PROPER clean energy technology, electric cars are shite, Hydrogen powered cars are the way forward. Nuclear power stations are not the answer but nuclear FUSION is. Stop wating money of leftie scrap like wind and wave power.
None of the above ever gets brought up by the veggie lot.
Phil, Did he advocate that compels who have a second child should be compelled to give them to a homosexual couple?
The BBC love their ill-informed lefties. He kept talking about Mao’s one-child policy. It was Deng’s one-child policy.
So as I predicted in the other thread the BBC had its narrative which they pimped and defended, they had an outcome in mind and they played their dirty corporate tricks to win, petty and childish? oh yes!
The BBC think they are so clever, they choose the ground and they chose the enemy and their allies, everthing is set up to favour the BBC and their narrative and guests are forced to play by beeboid rules.
They believe themselves to be clever…too clever by half and it will trip them up before too long, manipulative smug childish little shits too clever for their own good…we win we win they snigger and smirk and pat themselves on the back but pride comes before a fall and I hope and pray their fall is from a f*cking great height onto some jagged rocks.
Cassie, it was very heartening though to see that 66% of viewers – in the programme’s text-poll- didn’t buy the BBC/Muslim Public Affairs Committee line.
That was a two-fingered salute to the BBC, and a bullseye for DV!!
Didn’t see the show DV but I notice you took the “shine off” a BBC radio Shropshire presenter’s morning. So, job done on that score at least. (He’s not a fan of Bruce Anderson either. Is it wrong of me to wonder if Mr Hawkins is a bit of lefty? Surely not.)
And beneath that entry is this charmer from Jim Lad:
Watching @bbcsml. Three guests in quality listening to some blogger on a webcam. They look as bemused as I am. Just realised who blogger is! about 8 hours ago via Seesmic for Android
Aren’t you grateful that your tv poll tax dollars are spent paying hyper-partisan hacks like this shitheel to twat around and air his tiny-minded opinions on social networking sites? Thanks Aunty!
When Moazzam Begg was on the show, did anyone bother to ask him why he was caught in a war zone and trained in al-Qaeda-run Koranic Literalism camps with the express intention of killing and maiming British troops? Oh, I do apologise. That’d probably be Islamophobic.
What a ridiculous programme. Vacuous presenter, the question and intro. on torture clearly framed against the idea that we have every right to defend ourselves against barbaric terrorists, the apologists for terror got far too much airtime and were allowed to get away with outright lies.
But overall – if showing this sort of stuff increases distrust of these Muslim spokesmen and what they are trying to do in their false arguments – fine. Throwing in the barbarism of halal slaughter was a bonus.
People who watch this sort of mushy programme probably have mushy minds. So perhaps it was encouraging that even they could vote in favour of using torture if necessary.
People like that veggie clown accuse the public of “Islamophobia”. What is wrong with spurning the entire Islamic ideology, their widespread community condoning of terrorism, and their barbaric cultural practices ?
And thank you Tim,
VERY MUCH INDEED!!!!!!!!
I also noticed that Ms Reid didn’t appear to mind upsetting Muslim views by continually flashing her legs either, why no Burkha?
I rather enjoyed seeing you on it David, although from the way she immediately dived in to pull the plug when you were getting into your stride about the media I suspect she knew what was coming – they couldn’t have looked on here by any chance could they?
The bit abut Halal and Kosher meat was an unexpected treat too. I liked the Muslim man saying the issue shouldn’t be a “moral crusade” (a clever choice of phrase) but should be dealt with on the basis of an intelligent and reasoned discussion about how society treats animals and what amounts to animal cruelty. Let’s just hope they get this guy back on if they ever discuss fox-hunting.
ap-w
Thanks – wish I could have done better but so very little time and rubbish sound.
I’ve now viewed the debate, and firstly, thanks very much to Marky for taking the trouble to upload it to his youtube site.
http://www.youtube.com/user/WinstonSmith46#p/a/u/1/UHoPhw7KCLA
I have to say, that in my opinion the debate did not live down to the treasonous byline that SML gave it on their website. When I spoke to the Asst Producer about the treasonous terms in which they’d framed the debate on the web a quick smirk flitted across her face. It led me to wonder whether or not they’d just all had a good laugh in an editorial meeting putting a byeline together that they knew would incense us. As it is, I found the show excellent in many ways, although excrutiatingly naive and dangerously ‘twee’ in others. Certainly, from the evidence available against Moazzem Begg, he is patently an Al Qa’eda terrorist now waging Jihad on the propaganda front with the BBC complicit as accessory or galatic gullibility. I dont know the background of the other ex-Gitmo guy they had on, but just listening to him and watching him, through every pore of his being oozed the fact he was playing the same propaganda game as Mo’ to western suckers softened up by the BBC to swallow their post-Gitmo guff. Then the guy from MPAC. Very plausible to the uninitiated, but, a patent terrorist propaganda front if you follow these things. The fact these guys are so keen to persuade us not to use torture against genocidal terrorists like them is the best argument for it.
People have commented about the guy from Reprieve taking ‘digs’ at Israel, but I didn’t see it that way. In the terms of his own viewpoint I thought he’d used Israel’s codification of torture in a legitimate way. He might well be an anti-Semite, and that might well be why he is playing the Jihad propaganda game for Al Qa’eda, but for me, not a trace of it in his comments.
I didn’t get the impression either that Susanna Reid interrupted DV to head of the point he was making about the media. I think she wanted to raise a preceding point DV made with her following guest. I think if synch problems hadn’t arisen on the line due to the vidcall format he may well have been able to finish his point.
I noticed the emphasis given on the show that allegations of torture were just that, allegations only. The Asst Producer I spoke to had given me every indication they’d planned stating as fact they’d been tortured, so maybe between DV and myself B-BBC managed to chalk up a success on that in that they didn’t do so, although Susanne Reid did indicate in her final comment to the B’ham terrorist that she swallowed his cock and bull story (you really need to be sure to use all the words in that phrase!). I wondered if the overall balance of the show might have been due to an even greater success of B-BBC, but having watched on Marky’s site last week’s debate on Israel I found that very commendable so I would say not. Comments have been made on different time given to the guests and more guests against than for, which is definitely true, but in the debate on Israel the anti-semitic guest barely got a word in, it was just half-way house Edwina Currie being a great communicator but talking inane nonsense and Douglas Murray in superb form for Israel.
Viz the previous thread, I can now accept the Producer’s explanation and apology for telling the call receptionist to cut me off. I’m satisfied he wasn’t aware that I just wished to leave a question but mistakenly thought I was some ‘meejah ho’ desperately trying to get on national tv. When he made his call to me though I was judging his words on the basis of the treasonous byline they’d given for the debate and wasn’t prepared to accept the words of a Traitor. However, as stated, the show didn’t live down to that byline.
So, my perceptions at strong variance to everyone elses. Not to say that I dont think the BBC is full of Marxist cuckoos promoting Al Qa’eda propaganda to help undermine democracy, but on the basis of my limited exposure to SML, I dont see the cuckoos nested there, though I may be wrong.
Finally, great points made by DV, I thought he shone. When he was standing as TUV candidate for East Belfast I heard his interview with Stephen Nolan and boy did that seem like one Marxist cuckoo, but obviously different perceptions on this particular BBC appearance.
If nothing else, I still get the impression that the BBC producer decided to dump you so that there would not be too many people on the side of civilization. You would have distracted too much from their agenda, so they came up with excuse after excuse to put you off.
Colonel Bob MP was my replacement? If anything, as indicated elsewhere, I think DV getting a response to his call for volunteers focussed their attention on trying that much harder to find someone besides himself to defend torture to save lives.
Like I said above, what leads me to err on the benefit of the doubt for the programme is the preceding programme on Israel, which I thought was very fair.
You’re ‘talking’ to someone who took a very long time before deciding that John Humphrys was screamingly bent after he came on to the TODAY programme. I dont reach damning judgements lightly, but when I have grounds to, I act on them. I do not hesitate to say that the likes of Humphrys, Naughtie, Paxman and Kirsty Wark are without an ounce of professional integrity.
Another reason why I’d speculate they had the treasonous byline for the programme on their website is hoping to goad an overreaction from DV. Well, if that was the intention (and the prog was – to me – at stark variance to their Treasonous byline) it didn’t work. I thought DV was very measured.
There is of course the issue of having 3 patent representatives of Al Qa’eda on the programme, not to discuss the topic of debate, but just (2 of them) but to recount their well rehearsed tales that Gitmo is a torture centre. I think from my conversations with the Asst Prod and DV’s prior, it seems that the original intention of the debate ‘evolved’ in terms of presentation, if not overall content, and I think DV can take a lot of credit for that if that’s the case.
Marky thanks for directing me to your site on YouTube. Good site.
David Vance, good effort. Typically, all the Muslim members of the panel could do was to insist that even the torture of one terrorist to reveal a nuclear bomb plot that would kill hundreds of thousands meant that we would be exactly like the terrorists. About time Muslims and lefties throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of the mildest torture stopped playing that cracked record.
I found Colonel Bob a bit too apologetic about the West for my liking. Interesting that it was two against one in the studio, with Reid asking the dumb and unoriginal questions so typical of the BBC.
It was funny when she said she’s going to interrupt you, “Because we can’t talk across one another,” when you wouldn’t have been talking across one another if she hadn’t interrupted you in the first place. I don’t think this girl is too bright.
And I noticed this:
Why should a terrorist determined to maim and destroy indiscriminately receive better treatment than he is willing to give out?
I guess she’s equating mass-murdering terror with waterboarding here.
disregard th rent a veggie population control nutcase
he’s ‘armless guv
Didn’t see the show DV but I notice you took the “shine off” a BBC radio Shropshire presenter’s morning.
Cheer up, Shropshire beeboid. You will be heartened to know that the shine can be taken off every one of my mornings by simply switching on the BBC.
As we all knew, the BBC set this up as an abtract discussion of the justification of torture, which is a will o’ the wisp argument designed to lead everyone into a dead end, forgetting entirely about the real issue. This whole thing is based on the false premise that there was widespread torture. Total BS. KSM was waterboarded “an enormous number of times”, eh? And Begg is allowed to spout all kinds of gibberish unchallenged? The BBC is a joke.
Razi Nadim says it’s a “one-instance win”. Yes, and there were no more instances, so this is a debate with a phantasm.
Well done in any case, David, with the little opportunity you were given. Good points about who is civilized and who isn’t. Even Nadim had to nod his head in agreement there. Too bad the silly woman stepped on your final point and then twisted it around as a setup to the terrorist defender.
Just had a quick look at the BBC ipod version and haven’t had time to look at the comments above. But, funny, that with all their resources, the BBC couldn’t arrange clear video links with people in such far flung places as N. Ireland.
Did I catch the name of one of the muslim studio guests as “Ruha/Ruya” ? If so, it means “dream” !
But, two muslims and the one , token, whitey is Bruce Anderson, a buffoon. Could the BBC not find a better antagonist ?