Monthly Archives: November 2010

Give a Dog a Bad name

By | | ,
22 Comments

Most websites have a defined flavour, philosophy or political outlook, but categorising and compartmentalising things too readily leads to dismissing them out of hand, and B-BBC is lumbered with, and perhaps hampered by, a right-wing label or some other hackle-raising tag such as Zionist, which serves only to obstruct communication.
I’m sure many B-BBCers scroll past my contributions. That is a pity, but abstention is preferable to ill-informed anti-Israel sniping.

As it happens, I’m not a pro-Israel web-warrier. What motivates me is the injustice of the BBC’s one-sided presentation of matters related to Israel, and the harm this is doing, not only to Jews, but to society as a whole.

Robin Shepherd draws our attention to a comment made by one of ‘British Jewry’s senior leaders’ who criticises Israel in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same perceived misdemeanors that any run of the mill BBC follower might come up with, but with the additional complaint that Israel is giving ‘him’ a bad name. For this unfortunate, but in some ways understandable situation, I blame such people’s inability to look beyond the BBC and the MSM. After all British Jews are the same as any other Brit – almost indistinguishable from the real thing. (That’s a joke) Why would they not be as gullible as the next man, the one permanently stuck on that wretched Clapham omnibus?
The trouble is, anti-Israel campaigners use Jewish critics of Israel as aces in a pack choc-full of left-wing Israeli and Jewish human rights groups who are willing to hand over all the low-hanging fruit the vultures crave, on a plate, peeled, pitted and sliced.

I’m leading to something else, however. The founder of Human Rights Watch is a person one would hope the BBC would sit up and take notice of. He’s even a strong supporter of Obama, and certainly no right-wing mouth frother. Robert L Bernstein. In 2009 he criticised his own organisation:

“Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective” he said.
“Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighbourhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.”
H/T Elder of Ziyon (again)
On November 10th 2010, 88 year old Robert L Bernstein gave a lengthy and illuminating speech at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He tackled everything, from his own reasons for founding Human Rights Watch, his resignation from the chair of HRW in 1998 at the age of 75, and the enormous subject of HRW and the Middle East.

Of the UN Human Rights Commission: “so critical of Israel that any fair-minded person would disqualify them from participating in attempts to settle issues involving Israel, got the idea that they could get prominent Jews known for their anti-Israel views to head their investigations.”

He covers Richard Goldstone, the flotilla incident, the nature of the enemy Israel is facing, and how the Human Rights Watch board ignores factors that they are well aware of, but which don’t suit their anti-Israel agenda; and all this flying in the face of what HRW is meant to be about.

I was intrigued by the excerpts I read on EOZ blog, so I printed off this speech, seven pages of it, to read properly away from the screen. I recommend it. If only the BBC personnel would have a look at it, and allow it to filter through the communication barrier which precludes pro-Israel sentiment from reaching their hearts and minds.

While researching Robert Bernstein I came across this hate-filled rant from someone who has let his twisted imagination run away with him, named William C Carlotti. So for balance I’m including it in this post.

For your information, if you haven’t scrolled past, I restrict my pro-Israel advocacy to this blog. Because, 1) I hope to catch the eye of the reader who would dismiss a wholly pro-Israel blog out of hand, and, 2) I am interested in the BBC’s role in a creating a climate where anti Israel feeling flourishes, and exists in abundance in an otherwise intelligent public, which includes Mick Davis and his ilk.
If you have been, thanks for listening.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The BBC’s Censoring of News on the Gulf Oil Spill

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
11 Comments

I’m sure everyone remembers the BBC’s tireless, seemingly non-stop coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill a few months ago. It was declared the greatest natural disaster in the history of the US, with unfathomably dire environmental consequences. We all saw the footage of the soiled pelicans and turtles, and worried about shrimp and scallops. The occasional tear was also shed for what this disaster would do to the local economy, specifically the Louisiana coast and New Orleans, which had previously been devastated by George Bush’s failure to…er…by Hurricane Katrina.

As time went on, the various failures of the Obamessiah Administration kept cropping up in the news. The Administration’s inept handling of the clean-up effort, including being even less competent than Bush when it came to getting around the Jones Act and allowing foreign countries to send in ships to help out, started gaining attention. Then there was the fact that He ignored a pre-approved, pre-existing plan to burn off some of it, and then waited too long to react in general. Even we noticed here that He took nine days to even make a real public appearance about it, forcing himself to cut short yet another vacation. The BBC never said a word.

In fact, it got so bad that the people of Louisiana thought the President handling things worse than Bush did with Katrina. Meanwhile, the BBC was telling you about some silly anti-British sentiment because the President kept saying “British Petroleum” and one or two locals said something in anger in front of a BBC camera.

Naturally, once the media started carping about the President’s handling of the problem (even JournoListas were unhappy), Mark Mardell was there to support Him. At first, of course, Mardell declared that the real reason that people were upset was because the President wasn’t acting dramatically enough for the stupid proles. Then, when He gave a more ponderous performance, Mardell eagerly lapped it up:

It was a measured, sober speech of quiet power, the speech of a president projecting absolute command, if not empathy. But the last quotation says much: a strong, very American invocation of the country’s might and optimism, its ability to muster its strength and overcome.

It was intended to rally a people who were rather feeling he’d not gripped this crisis.

A less sycophantic view would be that it was an empty series of platitudes, with more fluff than substance. But not to a believer like Mardell. Soon enough, word got out that the Obamessiah Administration was colluding with BP to block media access to certain areas of the clean-up. Nobody was sure why, although the most obvious reason was to make sure nobody found out just how screwed up the whole situation was. The BBC, of course, censored that news, as they did for just about any problems the Administration was having. The only thing the BBC audience was allowed to know was that the President wasn’t making enough great speeches to please the unwashed masses, but He sure was taking responsibility and would make BP pay.

At one point, the President appointed a commission to study the spill, to find out what went wrong and recommend a course of action. Unsurprisingly, it was full of environmentals and policy wonks, with nearly all of them already having set opinions against the oil industry. Some of the commissioners were expressing their opinions on the matter – all anti-oil – even before the proceedings began. It was rigged from the start, but instead the BBC dutifully reported the White House talking points about it.

In between vacations and photo-op luncheons, the President found time to place a six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling. At the time, this was hailed by Greenpeace and the BBC as a much-needed action, necessary until we learned more about the dangers of off-shore drilling, put more safety measures in place, etc. The message was that off-shore drilling is bad, m’kay, and the President did the right thing for the environment and to save us all.

This ban cost thousands of jobs, and killed plenty of business and tax revenue for the region the President was supposed to be saving and protecting. As it was supposedly based on science and real danger, nobody objected too much, and the Gulf Coast, already devastated by Bush…er…Katrina, would suffer further hardship.

However, it turns out that this ban was done for ideological reasons and not based on science or technical expertise. In fact, we’ve since learned that the spill wasn’t all that bad. Even though it was visually very sexy, it seems that the damage was exaggerated. The media played a large role in this, including the BBC, and one has to wonder if this is in part due to the Obamessiah Administration’s collusion in blocking media access to key areas.

And what a shock: an independent investigation has found that the White House altered part of an Interior Department’s report to make it appear that a group of scientists and engineers approved of the drilling ban:

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

So the ban, which cost thousands of jobs, and harmed the already precarious economy of the Gulf Coast region, was done for purely ideological reasons, and not based on science. Justin Webb told us that this President would bring science back and wouldn’t deny it based on ideology. Turns out this, just like so many of Webb’s other pronouncements on the President back when he was the BBC’s North America editor, simply isn’t true. Utter silence from the BBC, as usual.

The BBC aided and abetted the White House Narrative, in part by censoring key information. This was all done for purely ideological reasons, and not based on science or the facts.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Toppled

By | |
7 Comments

The relationships between Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon are complex, but it would seem that the Lebanese government is in great danger of being toppled by Hezbollah.

A UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is about to issue indictments for four top Hezbolla commanders for the murder in 2005 of the former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri.

“debkafile’s sources say that the tribunal’s special prosecutor, Daniel Bellemare, has obtained proof that on the day of the Hariri assassination, the four Hizballah officials named here had set up a makeshift command center for running the operation – a huge explosion which killed another 22 people.”

Jew-hating Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, has warned that he would “cut off the hand” of anyone who tried to arrest any of its members.
Now, a documentary series made by ORTV, a British-Saudi production company, originally commissioned by al-Arabiyya TV, a Saudi-owned satellite channel, but dropped because Saudi wanted to ‘improve relations with Syria’, has been adapted and re-edited for us, dear reader, we listeners to the BBC. But hey, you know the rest. The film has been expurgated, expunged, pulled.

The producer Christopher Mitchell said “the trigger for the decision by the BBC seemed to have been a front-page article in Al Akhbar, a pro-Hizbollah newspaper, attacking the film for blaming the organisation.”

The BBC has decided, at the twelfth hour, just before the clock strikes
half past yer hands chopped off, that the film was too hot to handle.
The BBC said the film had not yet complied with its editorial guidelines.

The relationships between the BBC, the government, the licence-fee paying public and Islam are complex, but I wonder if the BBC is in great danger of being toppled by Hezbolla?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

FIVE LIVE BIAS

By | |
36 Comments

This is a guest post by Andrew McCann from A Tangled Web..
“There was an interesting discussion on Radio Five Live this morning.  It followed an interview with the leader of the English Defence League (EDL), Tommy Johnson.  That interview came against the background of a statement from a member of the West Midlands counter-terrorism unit – John Larkin – effectively blaming the EDL for the rise in Islamic extremism here.  Personally, I wasn’t aware that the EDL was responsible for 9/11, 7/7 or the protests against our brave soldiers on Homecoming Parades.  I would also like to ask Mr Larkin where the EDL equivalent exists in Australia?  The fact that it doesn’t, and yet you still have incidents like this, proves Larkin’s comments are little more than dhimmified nonsense!!  As was to be expected, the tone of the broadcast was the ‘poor wee Muslims’, punctuated briefly by the inclusion of the UK’s most inarticulate speakers who were supportive of the EDL.  You see folks, not only does the Left-wing media censor much of the criticism about Islam, it also carefully chooses who its allows to speak out against the‘Religion of Peace’.  By permitting the inarticulate but accurate opinions of people like ‘Tommy in Plymouth’ , the BBC can claim to be honouring free speech, whilst simultaneously propagandising the narrative that only unsophisticated members of the public hold anti-Islamic sentiment.  When faced with those of us who can hold our own on the air, yet fall outside that particular narrative, they don’t want to know.
I decided to give the show a call.  For those who are unfamiliar with the procedure for ringing a talk show, your call is first answered by an intermediary who decides whether your comments are relayed to the programme editor for inclusion.  At Five Live there are a number of intermediate ‘researchers’ who carefully vet each and every caller.  Most of them are very pleasant on the phone.  However, one particular guy, who shall hereafter be referred to as ‘Pompous Git’ because of his uncanny vocal resemblance to Brian Sewell sucking a mint imperial, has this uncanny knack of NEVER forwarding my opinions to the Editor.  I knew as soon as he answered the phone this morning that I wouldn’t get on the air.  Still, it was worth a try.  So below is a transcript of the conversation I had with him, coupled with a written version of what I would have said on the radio.  The fact that I had decided to make this the theme of my ATW contribution for today shows my determination not to be silenced by the likes of the metropolitan Leftist elite at the BBC, the controllers at Squarespace, or anyone else when it comes to my opinion on the disastrous impact Islam is having on my country.
‘Good morning.  This is Five Live.  Can I take your name and where you are calling from, please?’
Yes, it’s Andrew calling from Halifax.’
‘What you you like to say, Andrew?’
‘I’d like to say that I cannot fathom how so many of your callers think that Islam is not the principal problem in this equation.  After all, almost every single news story concerning integration into society, protests, religious-inspired violence, women’s rights, public dress code and a parallel law system involves Islam.  If it is a ‘religion of peace’, how come so many incidents here and around the world create a contrary impression?’
‘So it’s purely Islam that’s to blame then?  You don’t think anybody else is at fault?’
‘Not really, no….. (there then comes a derisory cackle at the other end of the line)….You don’t have Christians fighting Hindus, or Jews fighting Buddhists, or Sikhs fighting Jainists.  When you look at the world’s current conflicts and realise that just about every one of them involves Islam in some way, you’ve got to ask yourself who’s really at fault.  And I don’t think it is your job to laugh at my opinion just because it is probably different to yours.’
‘My job is to ask you questions’.
Indeed, but not to laugh at my answers.’
‘Well, Andrew, I’ll put your comments through and if we want to put you on air, we’ll call you back.’
‘I shan’t hold my breath’.
‘That’s the Editor’s call, not mine.’
‘Mmm.’ 
Had I been allowed to make my call on air, written below is what I would have said.  For I repeat, no pompous git at the BBC or anywhere else is going to stop me from opining about Islam:
‘Good morning, Nicky.  I’d like to start by saying how refreshing it was to hear Mr Johnson’s candour in this age of political correctness and censorship of anti-Islamic opinion.  I think that he is entirely right to blame both the Koran and the slavish devotion many Muslims have to every tenet of their creed for the rise in social unrest and Islamic extremism here.  I’m not sure what planet Mr Larkin is living on, but it’s not the same one I, and the vast majority of people in this country, inhabit.  Where was the EDL when the twin towers came down?  Where was the EDL on the Tube at Aldgate station?  Where was the EDL when treacherous fanatics were abusing our boys on parade in Luton last year?  The EDL is a direct response to the failure of the Establishment to deal with one Muslim demand after another; a response to the failure of the Establishment to tackle one manifestation of Islamic extremism after another.  Whether people at the BBC or in government like it or not, the EDL will continue to grow until such time as those demands and manifestations are halted.’
If I’m barred from expressing my view on the BBC, there’s always the power of the Internet to make amends.  That’s something no pompous git or dhimmified radio editor can take away!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

YOUNG AT HEART…

By | |
6 Comments

Well, I was on the BBC this morning to make some points in support of Lord Young. It was the Nolan Show. Unhappily it was a fact free zone other than those I tried to make but with Stephen interrupting and challenging me whilst allowing Maguire a free run it was frustrating. The meme is that Conservatives = heartless and evil. It’s a pity that Cameron has thrown Young to the wolves but one could ask who was it that appointed Young to the job? Young gives them a line of attack into Thatcher so they love that. As I did point out, Public Sector workers have never had it so good. Don’t think that went down well. It’s true though but truth gets in the way of Coalition bashing, the BBC’ s main preoccupation.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

CAP CORRUPTION

By | |
9 Comments

Everything that the EU does is mired in corruption, illogic and waste. Billions are being spent on recycling and CO2 measures, even thought they have zero beneficial effect and are the bureaucratic symbols of a jackboot centralised dictatorship of poilitical elites. The worst part of it all, of course, is the Common Agricultural Policy, a sharp-practice, mafia-like scam dreamed up by de Gaulle to protect French farmers in the 1950s, and virtually unchanged since (despite cosemtic changes). As a result of it, British farming has been put in a strait jacket of anti-competitive regulation and our agrarian lifeblood has been slowly been squeezed dry. Where once we led the world in innovation and ingenuity, we have been relegated into rape-growing, begging-bowl laggards.

The BBC, of course, does not give a damn. CAP is a major corruption scandal, a major thorn in the side of most British farrmers and a central reason why food prices are kept artifically high by market-rigging. And yet all the BBC does about this scandal is to file a desultory report or two approximately once a year or so when the EU overlords deign to hold “talks” about reform. What the BBC should be doing is ripping into the cant, exposing the lies, and explaining why the whole criminal scam is one of the biggest cons against British consumers every perpetrated. Instead, it meekly recycles a Brussels press release to tell us that “big changes” are on the way.

Don’t hold your breath. And do hang on to your wallets; our Brussels masters probably want a new CO2 tax on farm production – and let’s rein in all those dangerous, farting cows.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

PLANE CRASH

By | |
15 Comments

The prescience of BBC reporters knows no bounds. Here Michael Fitzpatrick, the latest “science and technology” guru on the web team, tells us in no uncertain terms that the world’s aviation industry as we know it is doomed. He intones/drones:

Facing a fate shared by other fossil fuel guzzlers, the jet will have to find alternatives to burning kerosene if it is to survive beyond the middle of the next century. Which is when, according to the most optimistic figures, the Earth gives up its final barrel of oil.

So there we have it. The BBC will have its heart’s desire – the likely end of all jets by 2150 unless “alternatives can be found to kerosene”. We are on offical warning, and of course, this will be a cause for massive celebration for the eco crusaders at White City because they can now sense we will be forced back to Shanks’s pony, and to live through subsistence farming in nice eco mud huts with windmills on top.

There’s just one problem that would have taken Mr Fitzpatrick – had he been so inclined – just a few minutes to research. As Matt Ridley eloquently points out in his book The Rational Optimist, Jeremiahs like Mr Fitzpatrick have been predicting such fuel shortages for time immemorial. In 1939, the US Bureau of Mines told the world that oil would run out in ten years. Jimmy Carter said the same thing in 1979. He did so so when known reserves were 550 billion barrels. By 1990, 600bn barrels had been used, and reserves totalling at least a further 900bn barrels had been found; on top of that, 6trillion barrels of reserves are known in the mountains of Venezuela. Of course, they will be costly to extract; but complexity and cost of extraction have not been the real barrier in most of the history of oil drilling. As Mr Ridley so eloquently points out, human ingenuity has consistently led to solutions that would once have been unthinkable.

The real agenda here, I suspect, is that the BBC hates aeroplanes because they allow nasty inferior social classes to go abroad; they fervently want this to stop.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Question Time LiveBlog 18th November 2010

By | | ,
4 Comments


Question Time tonight comes from Swansea. It was granted city status in 1969 to mark Prince Charles’s investiture as the Prince of Wales so the odds on a snippy BBC-friendly republican question are high considering recent wedding news.

The panel tonight are mostly anonymous and need to be introduced. We have the familiar faces of Chris Grayling and Kelvin MacKenzie, who are joined by Carwyn Jones (Welsh First Minister) Kirsty Williams (Leader Welsh LibDems), Nerys Evans (a random Plaid Assembly Member) and Lionel Barber (FT editor).

For those playing the Buzzword Bingo we’ll be using the For You, Paddy, Ze Economic Autonomy Iz Over Rules, meaning that German takeover, bailout,  corporation tax, Eurozone, and national interest are all in play. You’ll notice that your Joker cards this week feature a picture of the German Chancellor dancing through the Berlin streets singing “Springtime for Merkel and Germany!”. Bonus points for any attempt to blame the Irish economic owes on Thatcher or Ashcroft.

The LiveBlog will also cover the awful This Week, with Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo and the next one off the current conveyor belt of balancing socialist windbags.

David Vance, TheEye and David Mosque will be hoping Offa’s Dyke is an earthwork here from 10:30pm.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.