Because the previous one is falling off the page.
For no particular reason, here’s a bit of Hugh “I marched against the war” Sykes getting a bit stroppy.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC Dec 19, 05:51
Midweek 18th December 2024
Syria not a threat to world, rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa tells BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05p9g2nqmeo Jesus H Christ, this is another absolutely… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 05:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
So they found him a razor to chop his beard off then. - Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself… - atlas_shrugged Dec 18, 22:39
Midweek 18th December 2024
A Turkish crime boss said to be one of Britain’s biggest drug dealers has won his human rights battle against… - Fedup2 Dec 18, 22:20
Midweek 18th December 2024
Me . Every year – I used to get flu and it took me out for 2 or 3 weeks…
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
What a complete fool that Sykes is – he is cerainly no professional reporter. Was he employed by the BBC straight from the ranks of the extreme left wing Stop the War Coalition?
I notice that the BBC got their resident ‘cripple’ Frank the plank Gardner to comment on the Koran burning.
Perhaps Mr Gardner might like to remind people of WHO crippled him in the first place and shot dead his mate?
The reporting of that Qu’ran burning has been woeful. Some nut job with 50 max parishoners gets international coverage. this is media whoring par excellence. No where near news.
When seeing one of the BBC wimmin (Orla, Barbara etc) reporting from the Muslim world in culturally sympathetic headscarf, I get the wish for them to be posted to the Amazon where they could fit right in by getting a plate fitted into their lip. Similarly it would be splendid to see the BBC world editor exposed in a report from New Guinea, his ample girth bared and his modesty preserved only be a willy shaped gourd.
Will good idea and when they get sent to Africa perhaps Orla Guerin will look like this?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/68995748_5c3a5b6b02.jpg
Another bloody pierced chav…
Come on, man. I’m trying to eat here.
You won’t hear this often, but in defence of the BBC, I do recall watching an old BBC Anthropology programme with Sir David Attenborough meeting some Papuans whilst he was sporting only a penis gourd. A genuine national treasure. (mind you, Anthropology is now a non-science as the BBC assures me that all cultures are identical….and each as as much to offer as any other. Strange that I have never read of Innuit Kayaking up the Clyde with a view to studying the clture of Glasgow)
As pointed out elsewhere though, cultural ‘sensitivity’ is only appropriate when it advances the BBC narrative. Hence ‘Mumbai’ not Bombay but ‘Moscow’ not Moskva. Horror at koran burning nut, but no comment on the foaming raving mobs who wanted to execute a dim woman who called a teddy bear ‘Muhammud’, or the deaths and chaos that ensued from someone drawing a picture of the prof (pbuh).
As a matter of interest does anyone know what the official koranic view is of international air travel? The book is absolurtely infalliable and relevant to every aspect of human life so it must have a direct reference somewhere
Don’t forget, while a lovely old man etc. Attenborough is a hard core warmist, who would love us to live in grass huts and cover the entire UK in grotesquely expensive, innefficient, environmentally unfriendly wind turbines.
I see that Newsnight tonight (Wednesday) is going to have a segment about the Christian morons who want to burn a few Korans this Saturday. They’re going to ask just how far people should be allowed to go in the name of freedom of speech.
Let’s see if they go as far as they asked useful Jew Michael Goldfarb to do in his fascist diatribe, and call for laws to be enacted so people can be arrested for having unapproved thoughts.
Anybody ever seen the BBC ask this question when it’s imams in Finsbury Park telling people to kill in the name of Islam? Anybody think the Beeboids would want laws to be passed which would lead to, say, Andres Serrano being arrested for Piss Christ? This is an absolute joke.
18 people, including 14 women and children, were murdered yesterday by Muslim extremists in a country struggling to recover from terrible flooding. But let’s not worry about that too much, eh BBC?
The BBC are like Lauren Booth – stirrers. There is no doubt in my mind that the only reason for relating this news to the general populace is to create a reaction from the Religion of Peace. Just as an US paper ran and ran the story of a koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo (which did not happen) for no other reason than to deliberatly put peoples lives at risk.
The BBC “reporters” must be so psychologically flawed they should seek emergency treatment as soon as possible.
Yes should free speech go as far as building a Mosque close to ground zero in New York?
Funny that the BBC think that THAT is free speech, so what’s wrong with burning the Koran? It’s a shit read. No plot, crappy ending and a moronic lead character. Oh and not a bloody picture in sight. Crap.
Please don`t burn the Koran,you rednecks of Florida…the icecaps will melt tears for the polar bears who will slip if you send Holy Smoke into the air. Not too much to take a highlighter pen to it ,is it? -that will incur Allahs wrath just as much no doubt! Isn`t Islam a religion of Peace then BBC?
Did Hillary Clinton go so far as to say that the Twin Towers attack was..er “disgraceful and disrespectful” I wonder at the time? -or simply a “somewhat regrettable and inappropriate isolated incident” which is pretty much what the Beeb and Guardianistas really think…and getting closer to saying with every year that passes since 9/11
This Hugh Sykes piece is great-basicaly in Beeb eyes the tragedy of loads of people being blown up at a recruiting place in Baghdad is nothing as compared to Hugh “getting his thunder stolen” in the reporting of it…now “that`s tragic”(apologies to Paul Daniels!).
In a soundbite-basically all that is wrong with the Beeb!
Let’s hope the cause for optimism holds out:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100052779/even-americas-liberal-elites-concede-that-obamas-presidency-is-crumbling/
Covered on the BBC 10PM news, the beeboids sounded like someone had shot their cat.
O dear, that was me, I’m afraid, :-[
I was aiming at a Polar Bear.
Another aspect of opposition to Ground Zero Mosque which Islam Not BBC (INBBC) abhors:
McCarthy: On the Ground Zero mosque, Americans are rejecting the opinion elites
Andrew C. McCarthy is another significant American conservative the BBC chooses to ignore. A search for him on the BBC website brings up no results. What a surprise!
What a truly awesome piece. Stating obvious truths so simply and so well.
The edifice the Elite Left have built their ideology on is that the right are morally bad and anything goes to defeat them. They can’t be seen to be making common cause with the right in defence of democracy because that would give the right moral credibility as people of goodwill and partners in democracy. The only thing the Left can do to sustain it’s house of cards is to demonise the right, even if that means playing the propaganda game of the greatest evil since Adolf Hitler. It’s high time the right started highlightin the moral degeneracy of the left and the great threat it poses to democracy.
Paxman has no idea what he’s saying – he’s just babbling to continue his Narrative. The oil guy is telling him that there are 2000 or so other deep-water rigs drilling safely under the same current regulations as the BP/Transocean one. His main point is that this is about human error, as the report shows, which no amount of regulation can prevent.
Paxman says that we obviously need more regulation, of course. The oil guy says that the problem isn’t regulation because all the others are fine, but that it was because BP made lots of “egregious human errors”. Paxman then complains that “we don’t know” what other human errors might be made while operating under these same regulations. So he clearly either doesn’t agree with or just didn’t want to hear it when the oil guy said originally that regulation can never prevent 100% of human errors.
Of course, the fact that the opposing view is the head of Greenpeace, who is about as trustworthy on this issue as the Pope is on whether or not Satan actually exists, shows that the BBC is really not interested in finding a better way to do deep-water drilling but wants to make the case that it should never be done again. Which is what the Greenpeace guy says, oddly enough.
Paxman also allowed the Greenpeace guy to tell a little white lie about how he accepts that we still need to drill for oil, albeit in places where we can manage the safety issues. When he’s trying to make this bogus statement, he says that we can also manage safety issues on land, as well as in shallow water, so we should limit ourselves to that. Except this is BS because he and all the other environmentals have pushed the government so far that the reason we’re doing so much deep-water drilling is that they’ve already clamped down on drilling nearer to the shore. And where on land does this Greenpeace tool think we can drill? He’s the first one to scream when we want to open new drilling places in Alaska or something.
It’s all a smokescreen, all BS. And all set up and enabled by the BBC.
What amazes me is that Greenpiece is asked on the BBC at all. Who do they speak for? Where do they get their mandate to destroy anyting they don’t like. In short, who voted for them?
Good point!
Just who does Greenpiss represent? Who elected this political group and what gives them more legitimacy than any other group?
The question is a very good one, this unelected political pressure group that exerts such a huge influence on elected politicians has NO electoral mandate and it only enjoys such a mandate as its sub paying members give it and yet the BBC never introduce Greenpiss for what it is and what they represent.
You will notice that Greenpiss gets more free BBC airtime and influences more BBC output than any other non elected and even elected political pressure group, its scaremongering is pimped on demand, its lies are peddled without question, its spokescomrades are given 100% unchallenged airtime to spout their beliefs.
I can imagine that Greenpiss has an office at the BBC and I can imagine that they have a direct say and influence on BBC environment reporting and editorial meetings.
A normal honest broadcaster would state clearly to any political pressure group, get yourself elected then you get airtime and when you do get airtime then there will always be someone on hand to dispute and challenge any assertions. In fact there is no excuse for not allowing the viewer to decide which opinions are valid or not, the BBC has taken over that role for itself and look where it has led them!
We even got a double-helping of Greenpeace. Before that interview with John Sauven of Greenpeace UK there was another Greenpeacenik (Bob Stewart) featured as a ‘talking head’ in Richard Watson’s report!
That can’t be right in anyone’s books (except the BBC’s it seems).
And make that a doubl-like!
Spot on David.
Also on the issue of burning the Koran the irony is clearly lost on a twat like Paxman that the Muzzie halfwits were burning American flags, something deeply insulting to many Americans.
Twat boy Tatchell says the Koran burning shouldn’t go ahead at it will lead ot violence. So free speech should be glossed over when Muslims threaten violence?
Hang on that sounds familiar, the left like the SWP, Greenpeace etc always use violence when they don’t get their way.
The issue here is Islam is violent even Tatchell says so, so why should Islam be tolerated in the west?
Gotta love Paxman’s intro this evening: “Should a bigot with a moustache be allowed” to say things that might endanger other people’s lives? No bias there, then. That must be some of that there fighting for justice Mark Thompson was talking about.
At least he says that there are some Mohammedan bigots.
Note to BBC: You’re only giving this guy the ability to make his point. If you and your media buddies shut up, the Mohammedans wouldn’t know about it and nobody’s live might theoretically be put in danger.
And there’s Shami Chakrabati who wants to stop things like this if somebody can show that it incites violence. She acts as if she wouldn’t ban this koran burning, but her first statement shows that she would allow it if someone says that this will incite violence somewhere else.
Now the dopey Catholic woman shows where her head really is. “Should the pastor be allowed to burn the Koran” is not a difficult question. Only someone with totalitarian tendencies would have to stop and think about it.
And Peter Tatchell is slowly working his way, with the help of Paxman’s leading questions, into twisting the words of existing law into banning burning the koran or making a cartoon of Mohammed as an act that might cause harm to others. See how easy fascists can switch gears?
And the Catholic woman says “we” look foolish for “running roughshod” over other human rights at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, promoting the lie once again that we just torture people all over the place all day long and not that the handful of ugly acts at that prison in Iraq were perpetrated by idiot thugs and is not standard practice. If it was standard practice there would be a million more photos. So she bought into that fantasy and of course is yet another voice on the BBC to declare that the US has no moral standing in the world and is as bad or worse than Al Qaeda and extremists.
Fucking Paxman: Jedis are from Star Wars, not Star Trek.
The BBC wants to suggest that certain kinds of thoughts must not be allowed to be expressed publicly, or even in a BBC green room. Gen. Petraeus is equally foolish for saying what he did on camera. This is just telling Mohammedans that they’re right to be so offended by this that they may kill for it.
The way the BBC presents the offense elevates it to the level of affirming the most extreme reactions to it.
Moment of cognitive dissonance: The BBC having a discussion on air about how they shouldn’t give the oxygen of publicity to this dope, after a full day of running a news clip on it every half hour.
In the end, of course the Catholic woman allowed that the law should prevent someone from burning the koran because it’s “mindless extremism”. You knew she’d get there eventually. This is followed up by Tatchell saying that we should find a way to stop him anyway, but doesn’t quite say by force, even though you know that’s what he means because he eventually says that about so many other causes he advocates.
What a brilliant segment. Conclusion: The Mohammedans are correct to be so insulted by someone burning the koran that they can kill for it. That’s the new normal. Also, we should find a way to reword the law so that we can stop people from burning the koran or expressing certain other thoughts the elite can arbitrarily label as”mindless extremism”.
Fascists.
Funny that Tatchell should be making a random appearance isn’t it? Is he well-known for his insight into Muslim issues?
Surely it’s nothing to do with promoting his forthcoming Papal hatchet job on another channel ?
Promotion of various things seems to be pretty much the way our schedules are run these days.
It has been PR as news. Now it is PR clients as news commentators.
‘Moment of cognitive dissonance: The BBC having a discussion on air about how they shouldn’t give the oxygen of publicity to this dope, after a full day of running a news clip on it every half hour.’
In one. Though of course we are mentioning it, too. But only to demonstrate the tunnel-visioned thread being pumped out. Any consequent violence in other places through the ‘such an insult will lead to…’ meme is down to one entity.
Though I agree the likes of General PC Ignorance are also part of the problem.
Post of the week? I think so!
See the difference here and the double standards at work?
The rent a rabble rage mobs have every right to call for the murder of infidels and the overthrow of our nation and its way of life, the rent a rage mob can burn our flags and burn effigies of our leaders, the rage mobs can hold up placcards inciting the torture and murder of people on racial and religious grounds HOWEVER the rules of freedom of speech go out the window when Christians and British people dare to protest.
Two different rule books apply for the cringing appeaser political classes, the islamist rage industry gets a free pass to spread its race hatred an worship of death and violence, but we British people are supposed to stay quiet and give in, we are supposed to take all the s*it the islamist hostile colonists throw our way, bend our knees and bow our heads to the rage industry.
As for the Pastor burning the filthy putrid pack of lies, I say here and now that its a good thing! Its about time people were made to see what the rage industry is really like and we need to see the true face of the islamist curse, its going to happen sooner or later and its high bloody time we got up off our knees and started fighting back the ONLY way the islamist rage industry understands and if the appeasers dont like it? let them choose sides right now!
Turning the other cheek and appeasing the bully and giving in for an easy life is the way of the coward, we aint cowards and its time the appeasers and the rage industry was shown our capacity for direct action.
Er… didn’t Tatchell used to rip pages out of Bibles that were anti-gay?
Typical lefty – do as I say, not as I do.
Hi Jim, do you have a link for that please? I can’t find anything about it on Google.
Sorry Craig I don’t have a link. It is something that I remembered hearing years ago that he would remove the offending pages in hotel Bibles.
Can’t find anything about Tatchell actually defacing a Bible, but he has been condemning Christianity for “crimes against queer humanity” for years. His constant attacks on the Pope and the Catholic Church are old news, although he has spent plenty of time speaking out against Islam’s treatment of homosexuals as well. But he does not go after Islam with the same vehemence and high profile attacks he’s made against various Christian organizations. As we saw last night, he’d be the first one to speak out against someone who compared the Koran to Mein Kampf, even though he’s made a living doing just that with the Christian Bible. I won’t call him a hypocrite (it’s close, though), but he’s clearly got a double standard going.
More to the point, he most certainly does not speak out against things Piss Christ or . And you know we’ll never see Tatchell hijack a Mohammedan meeting and roll out a big gay rights poster, like he did at a C of E meeting in front of the Archbeard of Canterbury. So his words on the issue of burning the Koran have no meaning to me.
It’s just too bad that the BBC can’t even look to the wisdom of the Guardian on this issue. Remember when we were allowed to say things like this?
Respect is a two-way street
What Muslims Want, which was broadcast in August, two-thirds of Muslims in Britain oppose free speech if it offends their religious beliefs. They want to make it a crime to cause them offence. People who insult Islam should, they say, be arrested and prosecuted.
In other words, they want privileged legal protection against any criticism of their beliefs that they find offensive. Their aim is to secure a legally binding veto over what other people, including other Muslims, are allowed to say about them and their faith. Put simply: in the name of being spared offence, they want to censor other people’s opinions. Moreover, they are not demanding protection from offence for everyone – only for Islam and other religions. In effect, they are seeking unique protection for believers and their beliefs.
One big danger is that any restriction on freedom of speech in the name of preventing offence is likely to be exploited by orthodox Muslims to close down debate within their own community – to silence dissenting liberal and progressive Muslim voices who raise uncomfortable issues such as domestic violence, forced marriages, child abuse, honour killings, female genital mutilation and queer-bashing.
Sadly, last night both Tatchell and that Catholic mouthpiece were egged on by Paxman into saying that they do think Mohammedans should have that unique protection, and that laws should be written to punish people who might offend them. Just like Michael Goldfarb wanted in that article the BBC hired him to write on the theme.
I understand what you’re saying, Cassandra, but I honestly don’t think burning the koran accomplishes anything. Because of all the noise, I don’t even think the dopey pastor is going to feel better for having done it. He should still be allowed to do it, and if people want to ostracize him for it that’s fine with me, too.
But I totally agree with your point about the “rage industry” and its enablers. I think that’s the key here.
As usual you are the voice of reason, I am the voice of frustration and bloody anger.
I hate bullies and I hate double standards and I hate the violence and sick treatment of women, the islamist bully isnt going away and no amount of appeasement will ever make a bully go away.
Its time for a smack down, its high time the islamist bullies found out just where we draw the line and push us too far and just see what happens.
Its time the appeasers got a wake up call and its time the bullies got a slapping and just for once its not the islamist rage mobs doing protesting, is time for a confrontation my friend and the time is now.
The cringing appeasers want us to believe that if only we cringe and bow and scrape and accomodate and give in all will be well, well all gonna be well until we get off our knees and start hitting back.
They pushed us too far and as usual its a gutsy yank who has the jewels to draw the line.
Bible burning would not provoke violence because Christians aren’t violent.
The BBC seizes on this nutter burning the Koran because for them it’s a good excuse to promote the curbing of free speech that will lead to the one party state they want to see in this country. I think they entertain fantasies of the Fascist Left assuming totalitarian power through the jackboot violence of Muslims.
The truth is that if freedom of expression is limited by what Muslim violence allows, we become Iran. Every BBC totalitarian like Paxman and Humphrys will be able to have their own pictures in their offices of them hugging Amadinejad a la Chavez.
Would anyone like to bet on how many people (Muslim/non Muslim) will be killed as a reaction to the sacrilege’?
I start the bidding at 12.
Seems like Newsnight’s Michael Crick has been sent a bit of PR he likes, namely something not good for those he and his colleagues don’t. Hence rushing to get it out…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/
Bad news pollMichael CrickWed 8 Sep 10, 06:21 PM
Bad news for Andy Coulson, and for Scotland Yard.
Sadly, this has resulted (at the moment) in a 404 Error, either because they are inept or someone is trying to rewrite as we speak so it doesn’t look like a propagandistic hatchet job based on a ‘when did you last stop beating…’ poll (of how many issued daily, commissioned to prove anything anyone fancies?), as opposed to competent, objective actual reporting of news.
if he’s so keen on things being run by public opinion, maybe a quick one on the BBC? Balanced questions pre-set by a fully independent board from, say, here?
1) Do you think our lives and futures should be set by a small cabal of self-appointed, unelected elitists, paid a fortune from a force-funded tax on the public, to push their personal agendas? Yes/No
Not really BBC bias, but a little while ago here I jokingly suggested the Pakistani cricketers accused of cheating would claim asylum in the UK. Well blow me down, Mohammed Asif is in discussions with immigration lawyers about a possible asylum claim. Even the Pakistan cricketers read this website !
The BBC doesn’t have any Pakistani sports presenters. I see a good future in Britain for this young man.
Interesting story on the Toady program this morning just before 9. The writers of several “Mummy blogs” were given a free trip to Bangladesh by Save the Children. These bloggers then blogged about how wonderful save the children is and what great work they are doing, dopey blog followers then donated money to save the children. Hailed by beeboid as a progressive new way of using the blogosphere.
See not all blogs are bad, some can be used for good. Personally I won’t be going this route, I’ll just rely on my regular payoff from big oil.
Apart from cricket, my favourite sport is posting on Michael Prick’s blog. Way back he had a piece about whether Boris Johnson’s aides
“paid too much “.
I posted “Is Michael Crick paid too much ?”. It awaited moderation and then appeared as a comment.
I had forgotten about it until yesterday when I had an email from the BBC to say it had been removed !!!
oops ” aides are paid too much”.
Yes, AIDS charities receive far too much money from the public purse.
It was very amusing last night to see the liberal elite on Newsnight squirming over the Koran burning issue. The very admission that “they” felt the need to stop the book burning as we will suffer violence from the “great religion of peace” was amusing in part and pathetic another.
Presumably the BBC feel we should not have fought Germany on the grounds that they might have attacked us?
Muslims are bullies, pure and simple. If they don’t get their way, they murder people. Not exactly the principles for a ‘liberal democracy’ is it?
8:00pm
Has the Taliban Won in Afghanistan? :
Eddie Mair chairs a debate on the progress of the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
**************************************************
BBC supporting our boys again.
Well done.
So here I am having a cup of tea and reading the news and I come across this story about a British citizen who while under lock and key in the wonderful Islamic paradise of Bahrain the bBC alledges he’s been tortured.
‘Torture’ of British Shia activist in Bahrain
A British citizen is among dozens of Shia activists who have been rounded up by the Bahraini authorities and tortured for their alleged role in campaigning against the ruling family of the Gulf Arab state, his lawyers tell the BBC. Jaffar al-Hasabi, a 38-year-old London mini-cab driver, has been charged under the country’s harsh anti-terrorism laws, along with 22 others, with plotting to overthrow the government of Bahrain.
So according to the bBC this British citizen has been arrested in Bahrian. But then the story becomes rather murky and I’m pretty sure the bBC will edit out the next after I point it out;
Mr Hasabi fled Bahrain in 1995, saying he had been arrested and tortured by Bahraini officials for distributing anti-government leaflets at his local mosque. Mr Hasabi had returned to his native Bahrain on 24 July with his wife and five children for a holiday.
Get that our so called innocent taxis driver fled his native country in 1995 by playing the victimcard, yet once he gets his British passport where the first place he goes on holiday, why the country he claims was trying to kill him. What is it with so called asylum seekers who once they get the right to live in the Uk, return on holiday to the countries they ran away from.
BBC Science – where facts just happen to other people.
Its not just the dumbing down, shocking though this has been in more recent years, it is the dressing up of speculation or early findings as fact in most science stories that are particulary disturbing.
Take this for example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11221459
Conceivably it might prove interesting in more time with something to actually go on, but in this article alone it is: ‘may’, ‘may’, ‘may’, ‘resemble’, ‘might’, ‘although’, ‘removed’, ‘similar’, ‘differences’, ‘interpret’, ‘suggest’, ‘mystery’, ‘cannot work out’, ‘probably not’, ‘did not find this’.
This must be some new definition of science not in the dictionary but only in the BBC lexicon.
Those peaceniks the Taleban in Afghanistan who are outraged that a few Korans will be burnt and swear violence in revengeagainst the whole west fro their bloody crusade against the religion of peace, they have always been pacifist of course but this proves the West are against Islam so now there will be ‘consequences’. NOT!
All bigged up by the BBC with wall to wall coverage.
And say the American cleric is causing trouble for our troops, like they have never publicised anyway knowing something will cause trouble for our fighting forces.
How they hate and despise our troops.
I could swear these Taleban were the self same amongst whose first act was to blow up two giant Buddhas in that very Afghanistan. I will check for the BBC’s same wall to wall coverage of the outraged Buddhists, tumbleweed flutters past, I guess not then…
Nice item on Today today concerning the ending of Child Trust Funds. The introduction set the expected tone for the interviewee to castigate the government for their heartless decision.
Interviewee ignored the invitation and said all that was necessary was for the scheme to continue with/out government input.
Must give Humphrys his due he did manage to adjust the obviously pre-prepared line of questioning on the hoof.
This really is getting too much, interviewees from pressure groups not taking the opportunity provided to shoe the government just isn’t on.
CiFWatch The ‘rape by deception’ charge that they called Israeli racism was actually the result of a plea bargain. APOLOGIES are due!
I DO recall various organs of the MSM getting quite excited and vocal about the initial allegations. I DON’T recall many get as interested in the actual facts that transpire after they have kicked up a baseless sh*tstorm.
Which is why I value the free blogtwitosphere vs. the hugely funded… er.. objective, professional, etc
But this reporting ‘any old allegation that suits’ meme is catching on still.
Why?
At first I thought this was a tweet from one of the Labour types I follow…
bbcpolitics Ed Miliband tops August donationshttp://bbc.in/bNDvz7
Might as well have been. all Aunty needs do is add a link to PayPal
I posted the following on the “old” open thread before realising it has beenn overtaken. I can’t keep up with them!
=====
Speaking of intolerant, see this article by Stephen Glover in the Mail on the “liberals” going for the Pope. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1310358/Those-oppose-Pope-Benedict-XVIs-visit-real-bigots.html
Dishonourable mentions for the BBC at the beginning of the article and specifically for the Today programme towards the end. It’s amusing to see the usual suspects getting into gear and working up a sweat in advance of his arrival. If only he knew it, Dawkins himself is one of the best illustrations of why we should defend the value of religion and morality.
Is Dawkins, described as a “militant atheist” a relative?
😀 😀 😀
If by “usual suspects” you mean taxpayers like me who object to a multi-million income generating organsition not *fully* funding a visit by *their* appointed leader, then count me in as a “usual suspect”! 😉
Dawkins’ (& his fellow New Atheists) understanding of morality, which you disparage (rightfully) is actually *no* different in basis to that of any religion – all are subjectivists at their root. =-O
A morality, to be practical on this earth, needs to be that which provides objectively “good-for-me” life-promoting guidance to the choices we face in our one and only and hopefully long life as a human being (i.e. the morality fits with the nature of humans and promotes survival over a slow death).
To paraphrase that idiotic fantasy scientist, Hawkins, moraity does not need a God for the answers to life, and life’s purpose. Life needs thinking, not following.
Still burning texts of any fantasy novelist is a bad idea.
Technically, the Pope is still a head of state. Barely, I know. Gordon Brown invited him, anyway.
But still, you have to love how the BBC condemns anyone who…er…condemns Islam for 9/11 and 7/7 while at the same time those Beeboids condemn the Pope and the Church as if all those paedo-priests did their nasty business in the name of Catholicism.
Obama and INBBC campaign against Florida Christians, and campaign for Islam.
‘Jihadwatch’, check for updates:
Petraeus on Qur’an burning reinforces lesson that if Islamic supremacists “are sufficiently violent Western governments and elites will fold like a cheap suit”
Totally off topic of bitching at the bBC. I had the TV on Sky News a bit ago and they were interviewing some Muslim (Protesting outside the US consulate) who was parroting the line:
“Islam is a religion of peace, We respect all faiths,and in Islam to take a life is to hurt all mankind”
Is there anybody else who just switches off when Muslims are allowed to parrot such lines in which to play the victim card?
Seen elsewhere…BBC verdict on the new “Google Instant”
“In a move that could severely embarrass Lib Dem members of the Coalition, Google are rolling out the latest development of their search engine. It is feared that new instant search facility will lead to massive job losses, especially in the north.
Dave Prentis, General Secretary of Unison, which represents most Enter button pushers, says that his members will be targeted for savage Tory cuts. ‘There are many areas economically reliant on the Enter button pushing trade. Communities will be devastated by this news especially as they are only now recovering from the bitter strikes and redundancies in the Silver Top hole punching industry during the Thatcher regime.’”
Obama and INBBC’s contribution to victims of 9/11:
campaign for Grond Zero Mosque.
Neither Obama nor INBBC criticise the daily atrocities committed by Muslims against Christians, globally.
This is just one small example form Indonesia, where a young Obama attended an Islamic school:
Indonesian Islamic supremacists persecute Christians: “we are doing this because we want to strike fear in the hearts of Christians”
Both Obama and INBBC appease Islam and oppose Christianity.
Why the people who believe that Obama is a Muslim are not ignorant—and why the people who believe that they are ignorant, are ignorant
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/#017257
INBBC’s propaganda campaign for this Saturday, 9/11, is already mapped out:
1.) no INBBC special programmes of commemoration (unlike Channel 4) for victims of Islamic jihad massacres in America;
2.) instead, propagandise with Islamic leaders and Obama for GZM.
BBC allowing a Union guy to continue the lie that all banks were bailed out by the taxpayers and all evil bankers are subsidized by the taxpayers. Bob Crowe spouts this every time he’s on air, as does every other Union mouthpiece the BBC talks to, not to mention every single student in a Question Time audience. It wasn’t all banks, it was only some, and these same people were wining about putting all the bank secretaries out of work anyway. No, these greedy hypocrites just want more of your money no matter what, and the BBC is happy to give them air time to demand it nearly every day.
But good for Tony Beeboid on the News Channel for asking why the Northeast is still a waste of space even after all that money poured into it over the years. At last someone at the BBC is questioning the wisdom of pouring good money after bad.
Union guy’s answer:….wait for it….It wuz Thatcher’s fault. Damn, case closed, discussion shudders to a halt.
Wow, a first: The BBC is talking to a bearded imam (on the phone – but they showed a photo) from the MCB of all places who says that he doesn’t like seeing Mohammedans “behaving like this in the streets” (meaning rioting violently and trying to kill people) because it’s “un-Islamic”. In fact, even his apologia for the inevitable violence is far more credible even than that given the supposedly peace-loving imam behind the Park51/Cordoba House project.
The MCB guy said that it’s people being overcome by emotions, not that we deserve what we get (which is what the other imam said). This is the kind of discussion we need to have, not the endless stream of grievance merchants and programmes telling you you’re a bigot the BBC likes to put on.
If what the MCB guy says is true, the BBC ought to have him or someone like him on air every day to say so, and constantly. But we never hear this except from white Leftoid apologists who will tell you you’re a bigot first.
The BBC’s relentless incitement to violence over the burning of the Koran continues. Now they’re talking to some Mohammedan MP from oop North who says that the pastor should not have the legal right to offend people.
People who will react violently are justified, someone who says they’re violent is wrong. I give up.
Obama, and Islam Not BBC (INBBC) and their propaganda omissions:
Persecution of Christians in the Muslim World: Report
More:
“The Question Is: Whose Books Are You Burning?”
[Extract]:
“Muslims burning down Catholic churches in Sudan and Nigeria is commonplace according to African priests who visited my parish this past year. One of the priests said the people had just built themselves a new church, and worshipped in it for a few months before it was leveled. Where is the Vatican’s outrage on these horrendous crimes?
“So, the issue has nothing to do with whether someone should be allowed to burn a sacred text, but it has everything to do with the group you are offending. If you’re Christian, you can forget the powerful elites coming to your aid when your church is trashed or your crucifixes are covered up. Apparently, in present day America, all religions are not equal; as a matter of fact, the scales are tipping toward Mecca.”http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_question_is_whose_books_ar.html
Now the BBC is giving air time to the terrorist-supporting CAIR. Yawn. Can we just say that we do not have “mutual tolerance” as all these mouthpieces claim? It’s all one way, all the time. Until these people start demanding that Mohammedans stop being violent and stop demanding that people be arrested for even saying something that offends them, there is no basis for a rational debate on this topic.
Everything else is just one-sided scolding.
So Radio 5 have called the US Pastor a nutter agian, Peter Allen (himself a retard) stated that the Pastor was “close to being locked away”.
Where’s the BBC balance here?
Can ANYONE ever remember shits like Bin Laden, Saddam, Abu Hamza EVER being called nutters by the BBC?
Oh and it’s been left all the way with Radio 5 this week.
We’ve had Chris “I like to pose in my dirty knickers to attract homosexual men” Bryant given an extraordinary amount of airtime for his ‘claims’ that his phone was tapped.
Then we’ve had Chris Addison on, today we had Alexi Sayle AND the cross dressing queen izzy Izard on. We also had the Obama lover (can’t remember his name) on who writes the Simpsons (he’s been on many times spouting hate for Bush).
And that’s only what I personally heard.
Radio 5 biased? Never.
Its a BBC condemnation festival!
Hey comrades everyones against the pastors actions and everone is condemning him….er apart from his supporters that is and the BBC are not interested in hearing from supporters of the pastor are they?
Here is the BBC in perfect harmony with its ideological allies, no understanding what motivates thr pastor and his supporters and what frustrations they have from the BBC like they did and do for terrorists like the taliban and al qaeda. With the PIRA killers who butchered without mercy the BBC is full of kindness and understanding as they bend over backwards to understand their point of view, see how they opperate?
This pastor has not killed anyone, his supporters are not suicide killers and mad torturers, his church has not exploded bombs in market places and yet the BBC treats this person and his supporters as less than the lowest terrorist psychopaths the world has to offer.
Here is the BBC in action and its why I hate them like poison, they are the terrorists friend they are the terrorists allies and helpers yet when someone takes a stand against the evil we see around us he becomes lower than the lowest mass murderer.
Good for the pastor, its time the hawks were let loose and its time the islamists got a cold shower of reality, they have been poking the sleeping bear for too long.
The silent majority support the Pastor, expect to see the donations to that shit hole Pakistan fall even lower.
Now that would really be a great result, if nothing else it will show those people still stupid enough to give money to the Pakistan flood relief charaties just how grateful they are to recieve infidel cash.
If reports are to be believed in sources such as the Daily Mail, this guy uses his congregants as slave labour. On balance, from what I’ve read, this guy is a publicity seeking kook who should be given a wide berth.
The condemnation comes easy to the BBC. Pity they could not bring themselves to condemn the Iranian regime as it continues to threaten that poor woman with the most barbaric of punishments
I heard that Martin – it was so blatently his own opinion.
“The audience should not be able to gauge from programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters on controversial issues.”
BBC Guidelines
So Mark Easton is doing a report from Middlesborough and admits that public sector jobs in the region grew by about 13,000 over the last few years as opposed to a decrease in the private sector. He talks about “going cold turky from its dependence on the state”, and we hear from a couple people in the are who understand that this is where things are right now. The details seem fairly honestly laid out.
However: the whole angle of Easton’s report is that this is an unfortunate situation being forced on these poor people by a mean Government. There is no admission that the bloating of the public sector to unmanageable levels was a Labour mistake, or even that it was a mistake.
Why is it that the BBC talks to Muslims who say it’s wrong to kill in their religion’s name only when somebody else is saying something that might be offensive towards Muslims, but not after terrorist attacks by Muslims?
Lyse Doucet’s tortured vowels on yesterday’s Newshour introduced a segment about the “peace” talks between Israel and the Palestinians by saying that Hamas represented Gaza “where half the population lived”. (Starting at around 17:30 in)
A classic example of BBC bias. Forget Hamas’s stated desire to wipe Israel off the map and push the Jews into the sea. All you need to know is they “represent” half the Palestinians. Hamas is legimitized by the BBC once again.
Now Donnison is letting a Hamas bigwig tell him he and his buddies in control of Hamas have no idea who is doing those attacks on Israelis, and is upset about the Israeli crackdown looking for Hamas members. It’s so unfair because Hamas leaders have no control over the Al Qadam Brigade and all those naugthy boys.
Hamas is INNOCENT!
In the interests of accuracy. O:-)
According to the CIA World Factbook the population of Gaza is 1,551,859 while the population of the West Bank is 2,461,267.
Slightly more than one third of the population live in Gaza. Whether Hamas represents them or not is another question.
At last the BBC is addressing the rampant homosexual abuse of young boys in Afganistan. I’ve only been complaining about this, and asking why they’ve never reported it, for years, so well done, BBC.
BBC World Service – Newshour
(Beginning at 26:30)
Sure, it’s only on the World Service, but that probably reaches more Mohammedans than the Mother Ship. But Doucet said the BBC has done a documentary on it.
Only one correction for the BBC: The practice is not “on the rise”, but making a comeback. The Taliban put a stop to the Pashtun males’ traditional custom of parading their little boy toys around. And it’s a bit disingenuous for the BBC correspondent to act like it’s a well kept secret, and it was difficult for him to find information about this practice. He even contradicts that position at the end of his report when he says that he visited three parties with dancing boys in the last week. It’s only a little-known practice because the mainstream media refuses to report it.
Here’s a little background research to help the BBC in their intrepid reporting:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=pashtun+dancing+boys&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=pashtun+dancing+boys&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b300381c1cbb03f
No word on whether or not Evan Davis will have Iain Dale in the studio for a giggle about how the straights don’t understand.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC), well on the way to full conversion to Islam, here is its da’wa *in Yorkshire today:
1. Ramadan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/religion_and_ethics/newsid_8230000/8230712.stm
2. Eid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/bradford/hi/people_and_places/religion_and_ethics/newsid_8984000/8984198.stm
* Da’wa
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/islam/bldef_dawa.htm
What a lovely way for the BBC to recognize that Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, started last night.
Do you think the Dubai tourist board paid for this advertisement?
Dubai lures tourists with cut price Ramadan deals
What Islam Not BBC (INBBC), inspired by Mecca as it is, has in line for subsidising British infidels:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8368242.stm
What BBC presenters would I prefer to in niqab?
Actually I think the BBC could well adopt the idea as a cost saving measure. They could reduce their favoured talking heads to just one with a talent for mimicry.
Only Mark Mardell could turn a piece praising American bipartisanship in the face of the Koran-burning pastor into yet another partisan attack on Sarah Palin!
Sorry about the echo, Craig. 🙂 Great minds, etc.
David, our jaws were probably dropping at exactly the same moment as we read Mardell’s piece & got to the last paragraph!!
(Mardell has got PDS in a very bad way.)
I’ve put that comment on his blog too. We’ll see if it gets past the moderators!
Mark Mardell has yet another little blog post about the Koran-burning pastor.
This time, he’s pretending that he’s pleasantly surprised to find so much bi-partisan unity on the condemnation of the pastor.
Will voices of ‘better angels’ prevail?
Mardell is quoting the President here. Authoritarian that he is, the BBC North America editor seems a little disappointed that it took so long for Him to step in.
The president hasn’t exactly been in the vanguard of those condemning the burning. From the White House’s point of view it is understandable that they wanted plenty of cover, so the president’s intervention would add pressure on the preacher, rather than adding flames to another fire. They wouldn’t want the president’s serious words used as “evidence” supporting absurd urban myths about his own beliefs and sympathies.
It’s not His fault, obviously. He’s being hampered by having to avoid giving fodder to all those angry racists he keeps finding at Tea Party gatherings. Obviously.
Here’s why I think Mardell is disappointed that the President didn’t say something sooner:
So he waited for cover from those who conservatives would respect. Not only the unimpeachable military view of General Petraeus, but the avatar of the Tea Party right herself, Sarah Palin.
The ‘avatar’? Seriously? This Palin Derangement Syndrome is really unhealthy. We’re not all sitting around waiting for her approval, for heaven’s sake. This really is a biased perception of half the country. Still, I wonder if Mardell realizes that this makes him appear to think that the President is so weak that He has to wait for her to say something before He can?
Now for the fun part:
A random check on some of the most rabidly anti-Islamic internet sites indicates that they don’t want to get involved, either reporting factually or skirting the subject.
Hi, Mark! >:o
As far as I can see no one anywhere near the mainstream has supported the planned burning.
Whew! Of course, hardly anybody actually supports it. But Mardell still doesnt get the difference between supporting and thinking the pastor shouldn’t be arrested and it’s not right to kill over this.
But Sarah Palin’s latest tweet does suggest there should be a balance in condemnation: “Book burning=bad;Cleric running 4 Afghan Parliament calling 4 murder of US children n response 2 scorched Korans=worse. Where’s media focus?”
The moment of bipartisan agreement will be fleeting. Being an angel must be hard work.
See that? Mardell really doesn’t get it. He actually sees condemning someone who wants to kill over a religious slight as the same thing as attacking Islam. This personal view colors all his reporting on this issue. Too bad he isn’t worrying about these angels trying to have a positive effect on Mohammedans as well.
Still waiting for the BBC to report this:
Venezuela introduces Cuba-like food card
Presented by President Hugo Chávez as an instrument to make shopping for groceries easier, the “Good Life Card” is making various segments of the population wary because they see it as a furtive attempt to introduce a rationing card similar to the one in Cuba.
The measure could easily become a mechanism to control the population, according to civil society groups.
“We see that in short-term this could become a rationing card probably similar to the one used in Cuba,” Roberto León Parilli, president of the National Association of Users and Consumers, told El Nuevo Herald. “It would use more advanced technological means [than those used in Cuba], but when they tell you where to buy and what the limits of what you can buy are, they are conditioning your purchases.”
Well, seeing as how the BBC censored the part of Castro’s recent interview/confession where he admits that the Cuban model doesn’t work, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that they won’t tell you that their darling Hugo Chavez is about to flush his own country down that toilet.
Well well! Castro’s toadying ‘mini-me’ Hugo Chavez has suddenly decided to meet with Venezuela’s Jewish community and say “We respect and love the Jewish people” – a couple of days after reading Castro’s sterling condemnation of Ahmadinejad’s anti-semitism in The Atlantic. He doesn’t seem to have condemned Ahmadinejad himself though. Still, it’s a start!
The BBC has the time and space to report on the four left-wing Chilean MPs joining a hunger protest to support indigenous militants, so they should be able to report this too.
Undiscussed by BBC-NUJ:
GLENN BECK, Fox News tonight, argues that the Nixon government’s illegitimate control of media in 1970s is being replicated by Obama administration today.
Okay, I now have a little video camera and will be heading down to the Ground Zero 9/11 gatheirng on Saturday. I don’t know what to expect, but hopefully will be able to just walk around and get a wide view of everything there.
I’m sure there will be extremists on both sides, as well as reasonable people on both sides. I have no particular plan other than to walk around and see what there is too see, and possibly get footage that will offer proof of any BBC dishonesty.
I’m open to suggestions. What does everyone want to see?
Could you see who the news media are pointing their cameras at and interviewing on each side? Are they, like the BBC last time, concentrating on ordinary-looking folks from one crowd but filming only the most outlandish people from the other side?
David P,
Can’t think of anything specific , but look forward to your observations.
Sounds like it should be worth at least a guest post. How about asking any BBC staff you come across about why they demonise people opposed to the building of the Truimphal Mosque as bigots? Why the BBC dont report Imam Rauf’s comments blaming America for 9/11?
They will try to link you all as “Pastor Jones’ Nutters”. Look for evidence of this and, if you get the chance, ask why we expect better of him but not of Muslims who overreact by rioting, burning and killing. Are they suggesting he is more civilised?
The more on the BBC the better. Track them down ! Describe them – do they look and sound experienced, are they trying to provoke – and why not challenge them in front of the crowd on their long long bias towards the Tea Party movement ?
This is whom Islam Not BBC (INBBC) supports on 9/11:
“Islamic supremacist Ground Zero imam says no deal to move mosque”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/islamic-supremacist-ground-zero-imam-says-no-deal-to-move-mosque.html
Here are some articles on the wider implications of the Koran-burning-pastor story that you won’t find on the BBC website or, indeed, anywhere on the BBC:
The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran
Burning Qurans and Bibles
What the Burning Quran Issue Says about Us
The BBC keep claiming that they can find nobody to support the pastors actions, well maybe they choose their words very carefully with an eye to future complaints of bias?
“nobody the BBC has spoken to supports the pastors actions” now that suggests that the BBC have researchers grading possible interviewees to weed out any supporters first.
I could go out and find thousands of people who support the pastor, I have contacted my American friends and at least half of the people I have spoken to support the pastors aims and half while showing sympathy think he is mistaken.
The BBC love their fake consensus, a fabricated and false consensus to support their narrative. I notice the islamist behind the WTC insult is claiming that he will not “back down” and he will not compromise on the issue of the WTC victory mosque and of course the BBC gives the islamist full uncritical airtime while the pastor gets NONE, funny that eh? The very person who should be on air giving us his reasons and motives and aims is being blackballed by the BBC while his enemies are given full and free airtime.
Classic BBC ‘conflation of preselected opinion as consensus’ in a ‘views rigged to be news’ 24/7 agenda-controlled, ratings-obsessed MSM environment.
All serving an Elliot Carver vision of ‘two wrongs make a great lead story’.
I doubt many agree with and/or support the Pastor in such terms as probably offered. I can see nothing good, or smart in what he is doing either.
But what I find creepy, especially in its pervasiveness, is the erasing of any view that the numbskulls getting (or worse being frothed up by the likes of the BBC) into a ‘justified’, ‘righteous’ lather are actually orders of magnitude worse.
That… would not suit the narrative. Evidently.
Foolish, because if you force a cork into a volatile bottle but keep on shaking it, the results can end up spectacular, and dire.
This may not end well. And I lay it firmly at the door not of the Pastor, who is but a catalyst tool, but smug hypocrites such as the ex-journo, now over-indulged Pakistani (I don’t need… er.. want to talk about Cricket) Ambassador, shit-stirring media like the BBC, and spineless pols like Obama. I am sure Hague will soon emerge from the furniture to drag the UK’s standing further into poodle territory.
I’ve just heard the 9am BBC news on Radio 4 following Today, and the pastor about to burn Korans is “on hold” “due to the influence of President Obama”. They managed to present this news item about his reasons for suspending his actions without ever mentioning the link to the WTC victory mosque. It’s all down to Obama! Now that’s bias. Clearly the BBC doesn’t like this linkage.
Sue MacGregor, old school BBC, bless her, is now talking about the controversial Miss World 1970 beauty contest(run by Mecca), that was disrupted by “extremist” feminists. She’s just referred to the South African girl as “coloured”.
Have they found anyone who supports Muslims rioting and killing? I don’t think they’ve actually asked. It just seems to be taken as read that that’s what they do.
Michael Howard being interviewed by the token female presenter on Today this morning politely pointed out that he had been invited on to discuss the Peterborough prison experiment not his differences of opinion with Ken Clarke, which she kept trying to introduce.
Seems like it is becoming a habit of guests to resist the entreaties of the Today programme to play their game of ulterior motives in requesting an interview.
They are beginning to get wise. But much too slowly.