Well, he’s had his say. What do you think of the BBC today?
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC Dec 20, 14:59
Midweek 18th December 2024
Been out walking with some ex-colleagues today, one of whome is a Trump hater. I was stunned by the rhetoric… - JohnC Dec 20, 14:48
Midweek 18th December 2024
Brothers charged over airport fight with police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c627e37v21eo ‘Two men are charged after an incident at Manchester Airport, but no… - gb123 Dec 20, 14:35
Midweek 18th December 2024
They would think charging the cells using lamps powered by diesel generators is a good idea. (Don’t let Miliband know… - Lunchtime Loather Dec 20, 13:30
Midweek 18th December 2024
I don’t think calling the Director General “sartorially challenged” is personal offence, is it? It is true, after all. - MarkyMark Dec 20, 13:26
Midweek 18th December 2024
Wow! Thanks – now all I need are a million cult followers! ** or easy to buy tiktokers - MarkyMark Dec 20, 13:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
From ‘open hearts’ to closed borders: behind Sweden’s negative net immigration figures This article is more than 3 months old…
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
Late in the day, Cameron criticises ‘state multiculturalism’ without mentioning a leading proponent of it: the BBC.
In previewing Cameron’s speech on this, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) gives inordinate space to spokesmen for Muslim organisations, reflecting INBBC Islamophilia:
“State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994
Previews of Cameron’s speech which are less guided by INBBC Islamophilia:
1.)
“David Cameron’s Munich speech – an end to multiculturalism and an end to Islamic extremism ”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/david-camerons-munich-speech-end-to.html
2.)
“Muslims must embrace our British values, David Cameron says”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8305346/Muslims-must-embrace-our-British-values-David-Cameron-says.html
Of course, Cameron doesn’t get anywhere near appreciating this critique of ‘multiculturalism’:
http://paulweston101.blogspot.com/2007/04/multiculturalism-merits-debits.html
BTW Craig, love the OT pic and caption!
I see the BBC News website has tucked away the story about Conservative MP Paul Maynard, who suffers from cerebral palsy, being mocked by moronic Labour MPs. (They pulled faces at him while he was making a speech in the Commons). This story – which should be provoking outraged questioning of Labour Party officials by BBC interviewers over the coming days – is buried away near the bottom of its paper review and glosses over the party allegiances of the idiots responsible:
The Times has Tory MP Paul Maynard, who has cerebral palsy, saying he was mocked by MPs during a Commons debate. He says they pulled faces at him, and the paper calls it a “scandal”.
No, not just “MPs”. It was Labour MPs.
The BBC surely won’t downplay this story just because the disabled man who was the target of abuse is a Tory, will they?
(This is surely a much bigger story than Alastair Campbell backs threatened music school. which does make it to their Politics page, complete with a picture of Campbell playing the bagpipes.)
Craig, I listened to TODAY this morning. The impression they gave is that it was MPs from all parties who mocked his affliction.
Do your remember recently how Michael Crick mounted a whole report on Newsnight about how a Tory official had referred to a local disabled Labour leader as ‘the cripple’? Apparantly, we were supposed to draw all sorts of negative inferences about the Tory Party from this.
I know what inferences I draw about the BBC’s impartiality from its reporting.
No, I correct myself, it was something I saw recently posted by B-BBC on youtube from 2007.
Just done a search and Guido covered it. Decide for yourself how consistent the BBC is about the abuse of disabled people in politics ..
http://order-order.com/2007/01/22/newsnight-replies-re-running-order/
Hippiepooter, yes, this is what Evan Davis (from whom I’d have expected better) said at 8.44 during the paper review:
The Times says the Conservative MP Paul Maynard has been mocked by colleagues in the House of Commons because he’s disabled. Mr Maynard has cerebral palsy and he tells the paper MPs appeared to pull faces to mimic him as he spoke in the debate…The Times says politicians of all parties have condemned the general behaviour in the Commons as cruel and despicable, adding that young people MPs are also patronised with constant sneers.”
That would make anyone think it was MPs from all sides mocking his disability, rather than just Labour MPs.
It’s a shame it’s impossible to link to the Times because of the paywall, but there are extracts from the article here.
Just put this up as a blogpost. I see we all heard the same paper review!
A case of “Snap!!” 🙂
Typo alert! That last bit of the quote should have read “adding that young female MPs are also patronised with constant sneers”.
Yeah, notice how Eban Davies tried to distract attention from the grotesque conduct of these ‘colleagues’ towards Mr Maynard’s disability with a claim that young female MPs are sneered at as if that’s something comparable. The only thing I hear being sneered at on Radio 4 are white middle aged male MPs, usually conservatives, and usually by young female politicians.
Except that he wasn’t doing that but simply covering the story as reported here in The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8305550/Tory-MP-claims-he-was-mocked-for-disability-in-House-of-Commons.html
In that DT article it specifically states ‘Labour’ MPs
Come on Craig, you know there is a pecking order at the BBC, which sort of looks like this;
1. Barry The Boy Wonder
2. Muslims
3. Mann Made Global Warming
4. Labour Support
.
.
.
.
.
.
99. Tories
Mailman
Following the Beeboid Corporation’s bizarre “apology” with twistings and turnings on the subject of our national humour and offence, I came across this playful use of the stereotype in a piece of hilarious daftness with humour and goodwill rather than spite and malice:
OUR RIC BURRIES HATCHET
…I headed like Speedy Gonzalez to the nation’s embassy in London to make amends.
I looked the part thanks to a poncho and sombrero…
…And as no apology is complete without a present, I brought burritos from London’s No 1 Mexican restaurant, Chilango.
So with two heaving bags of spicy food and some tequila to wash it all down, I rang the bell outside the imposing building.
A surly-looking woman swung open the door, took one look at me and slammed it in my face. [ 😀 ]
However, a few more rings of the bell later and, eventually, embassy consular Ariel Mountsatsos Morales opened up.
Taking one look at my peace offering, he agreed to hear me out.
As I handed over my gifts I told him: “Ignore those Top Gear big- mouths. Mexico has great food, skilful footballers and stunning women.
“In my book that makes you one of the greatest countries in the world!”
Beaming Ariel replied: “Thank you for your gesture, we accept your apology.
“It is great to know we are welcome in Britain.” <!– 1296857670.25–>
<!– THE STUFF UNDER THE STORY COPY –>
Click on the link for a picture of the intrepid Ric complete with poncho, sombrero and drooping moustache, handing over his peace offerings to an official:
http://dailynewspaper.co.uk/
Sorry if this is taking up too much room on the Open Thread. It has turned out rather longer with more double spacing than I thought.
Don’t worry Millie, one of my comments above came out with triple spacing!
Thanks, Craig. 🙂 It looks as if this Open Thread is going to reach its limit fairly quickly.
I read this week that the production of Question Time is slated to move to Glasgow – the centre of UK Politics (not), and Mr Dimbleby and the team are apparently up in arms.
When will all the beeboids realise that they are in danger of being protrayed as Lenin’s “useful idiots” in their support of the EU Federation and all things AGW (UN Agenda 21 – leading to global governance) amongst other biased viewpoints the BBC holds.
When their time is up, they will be discarded like all those before them, their jobs done.
There will no longer be a need for a national broadcaster in the Europe of Regions, hence the dispersal of the units around the country.
What I simply don’t get is what motivates them to do it.
What do I think of the BBC today? I detect a speck of light in the darkness of that foul, propagandist, news-laundering organisation:
Just after 54 minutes into a 5 Live programme on anti-Semitism, we have this:
Nicky Campbell: Are you a Muslim Abdul?
Abdul: Yes.
Nicky Campbell: You are properly horrified when there are Islamophobics attacks because of the atrocities committed by Muslims and Islamists, so why aren’t you similarly horrified when there are anti-Semitic attacks?
Abdul: If there are anti-Semitic attacks….
Yardina, Jewish Brit: There are!
Abdul: …first of all we do not condone, we do not accept from anybody…
Nicky Campbell: You seem to be looking for a justification by saying if Israel committed…
Abdul: …that’s not what I’m saying; there is suspicion obviously because the funding is coming from here, the funding iis coming from America…
Nicky Campbell: Do you understand why there is suspicion from some people of Muslims in this country?
Abdul: …I appreciate that obviously… what the media portrays… that Al Qaeda is responsible…
Nicky Campbell: Why are you saying, “What the media portrays as Al Qaeda” if it’s not true? You don’t think Al Qaeda is responsible for atrocities?
Abdul: …what I am saying if that is a justification for creating weapons of mass destruction, etc, etc, hundreds of thousands of people losing their lives.
Nicky Campbell: John, do you want to come in…
This is the first time I have ever heard talk of Muslim atrocities on the BBC. This is really the BBC? I’m beginning to like this guy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00….ive_and_kicking
Glad you think so TT. You may or may not have noticed that I have always been saying that Nicky Campbell is a top man.
From what I’ve seen of the questions on his Saturday morning tv show the questions there are very weighted, but I’m guessing he doesn’t have much of a say in that show, on radio I think he’s very much hands on and it shows.
Stephen Nolan, on 5 Barely Alive, covered the Paul Maynard story on his show last night pretty extensively. He and the panel of two came to the conclusion as to how repugnant the whole episode was. Fair enough.
They also covered the story about two jerks that stayed seated at the honouring of a soldier who threw himself on a grenade to save his friend’s lives in Afghanistan because they, and get this, were against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Salma Yaqoob of the ironically named Respect Party was given a good 5 minutes to explain her “position” without questioning, while Councillor John Lines of the Bartley Green ward, who quite rightly thought the action was disgusting and disrespectful, was peppered with questions along the lines of “it’s her choice to demonstrate” and “she has the right to show her dissent” etc etc blah blah.
Lines was excellent. He held his ground and repeated how revolting the whole episode was.
Now, if someone is against the wars then that’s okay by me. Dissent is patriotic, but their choice of venue for the action was ill-advised and rotten to the core.
I was fuming by the end of the show as one of the guests, sorry can’t remember his name, blurted how Britain shouldn’t go down the American route of making the British soldier out to be heroes and protectors. Unreal.
I swear to God, next time I see a British soldier, or an American soldier come to that, I will walk up to them, offer my hand, and say thank you for your service. I hope you guys try to do the same. They deserve the recognition and thanks of all of us and be made to feel that they’re not alone.
The BBC always find ways to reach down lower than even I thought they could possibly reach. Absolutely effing vile. Sorry for the overlong post, but I just thought I’d relay that to you all.
Hi Dino, I dropped Cllr Lines and a couple of his colleagues a line about this Thursday (emails available on B’ham City Council website):-
Dear Cllr Lines, I read your comments in today’s Mail Online. I would suggest that Cllrs Yaqoob and Ishtiaq’s snub was not an ant-war protest but a pro-enemy protest. I wondered if you would consider it a good way to show support for the sacrifice and suffering our servicemen are enduring to defend our freedom if you and your colleagues tabled a motion of censure against these Jihadist cllrs for acting on behalf of the enemy? I contend that if we start to prosecute the war against Jihad with due vigour on the home front it will be the best possible way of showing support to our troops on the front line. It will boost their morale knowing that we’re playing our part at home and that the sacrifices and loss of life of their comrades might not be in vain after all. Yours respectfully,
What was being honoured was one man’s courage. The circumstances were irrelevant. Courage is simply that and to most of us who have never been called upon to display such disregard for one’s own life to save our comrades it is inconceivable that such a pathetic “protest” can be justified. These protestors and their apologists demean us all.
Nice one HP. Cllr was on the case big time last night. He needs to know how many of us are on his side.
Keep in mind that all the ferment in Islamic countries, the unmasking of Muslims in the West,, and the birth of the EDL, is a direct consequience of our noble intentions to bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, its a result of 9/11 and the undermining of Bush’s project to defeat terrorism with democracy by the Marxist Left in media and across the board in the West.
Quite right. They are the wages of 9//11.
However, to Muslims the occupation of Islamic lands is the greatest of abominations. Muslims are allowed to invade and occupy Infidel lands, as that is the decree of allah.
Islam is vehicle for victory in war, as allah ordained. The reality of seeing “Crusaders” nonchalantly brushing aside the forces of Islam, are galling in the extreme. This is the primary reason for the earthquakes taking place in the Muslim world.
I’ve just commented on Sue’s latest post on Louis about Bacon’s interview with him 03.02.11.
The 5Live news reports on Cairo afterwards gave me a great opportunity to contrast and compare with Naughtie’s piece from Cairo this morning.
The report stated that the Muslim Brotherhood had called for the overthrow of President Mubarak and a correspondent afterwards recounted how he had heard gunfire from a rooftop and two victims were carried away through pro-government lines. He stated that the Egyptian Army is keeping the two sides apart.
Naughtie’s take today 05.02 begins @ 1:10:06
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y48nc/Today_05_02_2011/
According to Naughtie all the anti-Mubarak protestors are doctors, businessmen and lawyers etc who only want democracy. The only shooting and violence had come from pro-Government supporters.
It didn’t occur to Naughtie to mention that the army that is keeping the two sides apart and protecting the right to demonstrate of each side is, formally at least, under Mubarak’s command.
The studio interviewee afterwards from Mubarak’s NDP celebrated the freedom being exercised to demonstrate.
Lastly, I wonder if Naughtie would like to address the fact that Mubarak’s repressive Government has allowed him in to set up a studio and side with the anti-Mubarak protesters?
Absolutely nothing from Naughtie on the Moslem Brotherhood.
He’s a politically literate guy. He knows the MB is waiting in the wings. He knows perfectly well that Egypt can go like Iran, yet, for reasons best known to himself, from what I have heard this morning, doesn’t want to explore these issues and how they will effect the West and Israel. I wonder if its because he’d be happy if there is an MB takeover in the wake of a Mubarak overthrow and doesn’t want to reduce the chances of it happening?
One of the key political purposes of INBBC propaganda on Egypt is to sanitise Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and, ironically, to close debate down on MB and democracy.
In contrast, Fox News,’ Glenn Beck has a wide-ranging critique of MB; and Glenn Beck, laudably says something which INBBC never says: ‘Don’t take my word for it: do your own research’.
Go to Glenn Beck video (40 mins) of Feb 4 here:
http://www.watchglennbeck.com/
20 minutes in on the MB’s spritual guide (and Livingstone’s mate) is extremely instructive.
Just while I was still wondering what the Beeboid Corporation’s strange guidelines about “our national humour” have to say about stereotyping and mockery of such disparate groups as women, Jews, black men, the disabled, the elderly, homosexuals etc, I see that some of our elected representatives are leading the way in the House of Commons, jeering at a disabled man and young women. Is that just another example of our national humour at work, Beeboids? I think we should be told.
After 13 years of being the mouthpiece of the Communities Minister, the bBC is in no position to give sensible comment on Cameron speech. A week ago on LBC an asian listener hit the nail on the head. He said that many immigrants suffered from ‘Culteral Schizophrenia’. That is as soon as they close the front door they revert back to their culteral roots, almost irrespective of their lifetime in the U.K. This man’s comment on the radio stuck a chord with me, a level of honesty that the bBC is incapable of providing.
And then I came across this example of Beeboid Radio 4’s “humorous” jibes about the sexuality of Lionel Blair:
“He is less thrilled about some of the jibes that have been directed his way. Especially by the late Humphrey Lyttelton in the radio game show I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue. Lyttelton told the bluest possible gags about the performer. It was not fun for his three children when they were young, says Blair, or for Susan, his wife of over 40 years. But with a cameo part in Ricky Gervais’s sitcom Extras, in which Blair played himself as a fading celebrity, no one could accuse him of taking himself too seriously. ”
http://www.thejc.com/arts/arts-interviews/24698/interview-lionel-blair
Apparently this was a long-running theme on a long-running series. Not clear why they picked on his sexuality. Too bad about him and his family, just so long as it met the approved Beeboid guidelines, eh Beeboids?
Part 1:
Some here might remember that back in September 2010 the story broke about an angry response from a parishioner to Robert Piggot’s dishonest and misleading portrayal of a North London Catholic parish as pro-reform. In November there were some developments on the issue:
“The BBC has admitted that it misrepresented the relationship between a supporter of women’s ordination and parishioners at a church during a television news report.
Members of the congregation of St. John Vianney in Tottenham, North London, were upset after their church was used as a back-drop on a BBC-commissioned poll broadcast on 12 September.
The survey by ComRes showed nearly half of the 500 Catholics questioned thought the Pope should drop his insistence on clerical celibacy whilst two-thirds said women should have more authority and status in the Church.
A number of parishioners complained that Penelope Middleboe, a spokeswoman for Catholic Voices for Reform, was “planted” in their congregation for the filming of the report, which they claimed gave the impression that they were dissenters from church teaching.
In a letter of response to a complaint made by parishioner Barbara O’Driscoll, the BBC’s Head of Accountability Stephanie Harris agreed that the report gave “a misleading impression….about (Ms Middleboe’s) connection with the parish.”
“I think that there is no doubt that audiences would have assumed that Penelope Middleboe was a member of your parish because she was filmed during the service inside the church.”
She said, however, that as a practicing Catholic there was “nothing intrinsically wrong with filming (Ms. Middleboe) taking part in the service” and that the report did not imply parishioners “disputed important teachings on issues like celibacy and the role of women.”
She said it was “regrettable” that BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott’s request to film Ms. Middleboe inside the church had not been passed on to the parish priest Fr. Joe Ryan and that this was due to a “mix-up” caused by a staff changeover. She said that although the report “fell short” in some ways, the BBC did not consider it to be a “materially misleading”.
Ms Middleboe said that Ms O’Driscoll was entitled to be angry but that she was not concerned by the negative response to the report. “What I worry about is why it was such a scary thing to talk about this topic on the premises of her church,” she said. “I think that in the spirit of Vatican II it shouldn’t be such a forbidden topic. If we forbid talking about something, we create a climate of mistrust.”
Scouting the BBC ‘Complaints’ website for a response to the parish coverage (in vain) I came across this gem re a complaint about BBC coverage of the Pope’s visit:
In its News and Current Affairs coverage of any subject the BBC is always committed to impartiality and accuracy, seeking also to reflect the different sides of any debate. The coverage of the current Papal visit was no different, and careful planning went into making sure that we provided the most comprehensive and authoritative coverage for our audiences.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response….omplaints.shtml
Yeah, right!
I remember that case. The Beeboids try to wriggle and weasel out of it. They want to have it both ways so they end up saying that it gave a misleading impression but wasn’t materially misleading. Talk about splitting hairs! If it wasn’t materially misleading and wasn’t intended to be, what was the point of putting her in the church in the first place?
Hands up, Beeboids, when you knowingly and wilfully do wrong by using, duping and misleading people to serve your own purposes. Stop weaselling about trying to deny or justify it. It destroys your credibility.
Part 2:
Here’s the TV report that was the subject of the complaint:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274849
What I want to know is whether Pigott the bigot was even admonished by his employer re his report. Does he even know that there was a complaint, or is he in blissful ignorance thereof?
Here is how the BBC should have responded:
*Acknowledged wrongdoing here with no excuses.
*Published the acknowledgement as widely as possible.
*Fired Piggot or at least severely disciplined him.
But naturally the BBC is content to let the false impression created by his programme stand. Put differently, the BBC has no problem with the falsification of news and with its journalism being driven by the narrowest of narrow agendas.
Meant to give the link to the blog whence the update came:
http://www.fatherbob.com.au/2010/11/04/climate/
Dateline London with Gavin Esler had its usual cast of leftwingers and, as happens every few weeks (for balance!), Janet Daley. As always happens, Janet found herself being attacked from all sides, including by Gavin Esler.
On the danger from the Muslim Brotherhood, the rest of the panel were all agreeing which each other (prompted by Gavin Esler) that “it’s a scare story” and there’s nothing to worry about when Janet begged to differ:
“The same things were said about Hamas. Hamas is a very small minority interest. It will never take over if you have elections in Gaza. And it did…”
She got no further because liberal American Greg Katz leapt in to say “but that was very, very different” and Gavin Esler echoed him “that’s very, very different… you understand?”, and left-wing Gulf writer Mustapha Karkouti joined in the attack, all three of them talking her down (though at least Mr Karkouti had the courtesy to apologise for interrupting her).
Soon Esler got the “it’s just a scare story” meme running again, by getting Greg Katz to agree that “it’s a bit of a scare story.”
The rest of the programme contained lots of the usual anti-American talk (including from the liberal American) – though Obama, as ever, was exempt from criticism. Janet Daley stood alone in both defending the U.S. (for which she was firmly interrupted and contradicted by Gavin Esler) and in criticising Obama.
Watching Italy/Ireland, wondering why Keith woods cannot give the halftime comment by himself or with scabby back in the studio. No, scabby is there on the pitch, supposed we paid for the first class airfare to Rome for the weekend. I call that an expensive jolly. ‘Screw the license payer; it’s what we do!’.
Now if the Royal family had gone to Italy, or David Cameron travelled to Rome after the German security summit, the BBC attack dogs would have been unleashed.
It’s what where used to them doing, so I’d be careful if I were either Brenda or Davie – THE GARDEN AND NO FURTHER ! – OR ELSE !
Also it will give Lightweight Logan the chance to barge on the plane on the way back saying “dont you know who I am?” like she did at the Eurostar terminal.
Has anyone heard from Martin lately?
No, I am missing his good sense & wit too I hope he is back soon!
I have heard that the Beeboids are holding him hostage on Hamstead Heath!
I had a good few laughs reading this discussion of David Cameron’s speech about multcult. Like the one who was concerned about native Brits failing to integrate! And gay marriage. You couldn’t make it up. Well, on second thoughts, maybe you could. Labour did, after all. 😀
Sorry, I forgot the linky:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1433411
18:00–21:15Opera on 3 Live from the Met, Verdi’s Simon Boccanegra James Levine conducts Verdi’s opera Simon Boccanegra, featuring Dmitri Hvorotovsky.
Still waiting for the BBC to report this:
Army Officials Felt Accused WikiLeaker Was Unfit To Serve
“There were people who said he shouldn’t deploy,” the official told Fox on the condition of anonymity. But because of the intense need for intelligence specialists, Manning was brought to Iraq anyway.
So perhaps not the brave hero the BBC wanted you to think.
First reported by McClatchy newspapers, an internal Army probe found Manning had violent outbursts while at Fort Drum in New York that included throwing chairs at colleagues and shouting at superiors.
McClatchy releases are available to all media, including the BBC, just like all wire services. The BBC has decided to censor this information.
Once in Iraq, Manning’s behavior deteriorated. Officials believe his outbursts were made worse by personal relationship problems. At one point he was demoted a rank after he got into a fight with a fellow soldier.
Not a claasy whistle-blower, but more like an emotionaly disturbed employee. But this isn’t even the most important thing the BBC is hiding from you. This is:
Before Manning was arrested in June 2010, he confided in notorious computer hacker Adrian Lamo, telling him about the lax security surrounding those computer systems. E-mails between the two men that were later published by Wired.com show that Manning felt the SCIF security was “weak.”
That’s right! Manning was a hacker. Not a leaker. These documents were stolen by a hacker. WikiHacks.
I know the BBC can’t cover all stories at all times, but when key information on key stories (whixh the BBC hyped up at the time), they ought to be duty-bound to report it. But as it harms the Narrative, they censor news instead, which calls into question the bias the integrity of their newsgathering practices.
The BBC News Channel’s coverage of David Cameron’s mild speech about ‘state multicultarism’ and Islamic extremism has shown the corporation firing on all its familiar cylinders. (Very long post alert!).
Early on (11.19) it featured an interview with Conservative security minister Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus. Here’s a sample question from the interview:
“And you say it’s up to the Muslim communities themselves – the overwhelming majority of moderate people – to actually stand up and speak out rather more loudly perhaps than they have in the past.”
Next up was a London imam, director of Communities in Action and BBC regular Ajmal Masroor (see last week’s The Big Questions) who said that “the prime minister is barking up the wrong tree”, and that “We can conclusively say” that “extremism and radicalisation in the world” is “to do with foreign policy blunders”, i.e. our “rotten foreign policies.” “Multiculturalism is a fantastic model. It’s worked.”
Maxine Mawhinney didn’t challenge any of this. Her following question, reinforcing his points, was “And what about religion? Is it getting confused in this mix as well do you think?” Masroor agreed that it was. “Religion should not be brought into the discussion,” he ordained. He instead attacked the “havoc in our society” created by the “fascist and racist” EDL. Yes, that’s where the problem lies!!
Things didn’t improve after 1 o’clock. We got Gavin Shuker, Labour MP, attacking Cameron for…I kid you not!… making his speech on the same day that the EDL were marching in Luton (“What I don’t think is right is his having this debate on a day which is so challenging for us here in Luton.”) He went on to say it was an error of judgement on the prime minister’s part. “Do you think there is sometimes confusion between multiculturalism and religion?”, asked Maxine again. “I think there is,” said the Labour MP. “For David Cameron to make an intervention such as this today could potentially be incendiary”, he continued. Maxine didn’t challenge this remarkable statement. “Do you think we’re any further on in the debate?” was her question instead.
(continued…)
After 2 o’clock came Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, speaking for “the Muslim community”, who accused the prime minister of “provoking a wrong reaction”. Mixing up the issues of security and integration is “deeply dangerous”, he said. “I’m really disappointed at the prime minister, on today of all days when the fascist EDL are demonstrating and marching through Luton, that the prime minister would come on the airwaves to attack the fascist EDL and BNP.” (He got a bit confused there, mixing up two thoughts!!)
More soft questioning from Maxine: “Well, if we just look at one of the statements ‘that multi-culturalism in Britain has failed.’ Has it?” Shafiq praised multi-culturalism and its “success”, and attacked Cameron for “demonising and attacking the community”. “A propaganda coup for the EDL,” he called the speech.
Maxine’s next question beggars belief, giving what Shafiq had just said (and given his earlier statement of disappointment): “So when you heard what he had said were you disappointed?” “I am,” he said, unsurprisingly.
After 3 o’clock came Dr Yunus Samad of the University of Bradford, who found Cameron’s remarks “peculiar”, and criticised his views on Muslim separatism. Society needs to “accept” Muslims, he said & the problem lies with European governments who have failed to tackle “the socio-economic conditions” of their Muslim minorities. No challenging questions from Maxine Mawhinney again.
(cont…again!)
If Maxine Mawhinney was bad, Chris Rogers (who took over from her) was worse. That said, the channel now invited on a number of Cameron supporters. The tone of the interviewing changed startlingly as a result. What follows describes the rudest interview of the afternoon.
“I think it’s an excellent speech,” said Mohammed Amin, ‘vice-chair’ of the Conservative Muslim Forum. “Do you think people are right in the Muslim community to see this as an ATTACK on the Muslim community?”, asked Chris. “Unfortunately, quite a few Muslims are in denial,” Mr Amin replied. They hadn’t read the full Cameron speech, he argued.
In response Rogers gave this little speech: “The problem for a lot of Muslim communities though they say is that they’re always very much in the spotlight when it comes to talk of extremism. They say that they’re being treated as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution. They feel they’re not getting enough support from the government to attack the problem from within the community.”
Mr Amin reminded him of Muslim extremists.
“But they feel they’re being asked not to be Muslim but to be British!” said Chris in a high-pitched voice of protest.
Mr Amin said “there is a conflict between believing that non-Muslims should be second-class citizens and being British”.
Chris, his voice getting even higher in pitch, said in the sniffiest tone imaginable “What do you mean by that?”
“Pardon?” asked a startled Mr Amin.
“What do you mean by that?” asked Chris, no less graciously.
Mr Amin said that “some Muslims want to bring back the kind of state that existed a thousand years ago where Christians and Jews paid extra special taxes in exchange for the privelege of being exempt from conscription. They want to try and recreate that society today.It’s a small minority but it’s an extreme minority that we cannot actually accept.”
The thankyou from Chris at the end was said in as perfunctory a tone as possible.
You see, BBC interviewers aren’t always nice to their Muslim guests – not if they fiercely attack Islamic extremism and defend Tories.
Very interesting post. What a shower they are – the Beeboids and their parade of Muslim idiots bleating about multcult and not getting enough support from the government. Hah! What more do they want? Used to a special privileged position with access to government and our money being showered on them in the hope that they won’t blow us up. No wonder they want to cling on to multcult and all the benefits it bestowed on them while they carried on with impunity practising and preaching hatred, madness and all the rest of it.
Craig, excellent analysis, worrying that some editor or producer didn’t have a word to tone down the obvious bias (pigs might fly…oh, am I allowed to say pigs?). Is there any way I can hear and see this, especially the Moh Amin bit with Chris rogers?
Thanks Span Ows. Unfortunately there’s no i-player ‘watch again’ function for the News Channel, so far as I can see.
Evan Davis wasn’t much better on TODAY. Basically conducting one of those interviews with a MCB guy when it sounds like he’s playing footsie with him under the table.
After 5 o’clock Chris Rogers talked to the much more sanguine Lord Tariq Ahmad of the Conservative Party. Chris’s opening question: “Presumably you support what David Cameron has had to say today BUT it puts you in a difficult position. The message from much of The Muslim Community today has been astonishment and shock at what the prime minister said.”
The lord said “the most important thing” Cameron said was that “extremism has no link with Islam. Islam is a faith that by definition means peace and submission.” This sort of thing guaranteed him a less aggressive interview. Lord Ahmed said Cameron wasn’t criticising multicultarism either. Being from the West and being Muslim…whereupon Chris interrupted to say “Well you’ve done OK out of multiculturalism!” Other interruptions followed.
“Do you not think that The Muslim Community should be allowed to deal with their problems from within?” asked Rogers. Chris then mentioned how long it has taken the Jewish community to integrate, though it has “contributed, particularly to the business community in Britain.” ‘Particularly to the business community’? Mmm.
To end with Chris mentioned the Muslim Community again and “its views, which today have been very much against what David Cameron had to say.”
After 6 o’clock Chris talked to Shiraz Maher of the Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College, a former member of Hazb-ut-tahrir. “What changed your mind? What made you turn your back on that organisation?” asked Rogers. Mr Maher described how his own reading had freed him from their extremist ideology. That didn’t stop Rogers from ignoring this and pushing the BBC’s multiculturalist agenda: “Do you think living in Britain played a role in that, living in a multicultural society perhaps?”
And on he went: “Do you think there’s perhaps a danger that if we do move away from the ideology of a multicultural society it might make Muslim communities in Britain feel even more isolated, they’re being forced to..or or or or pressured into believing in values that mean very little to them?”
When Mr Maher begin to moot the idea that multiculturalism is being confused with tolerance and that saying multicularalism has failed isn’t racist Chris interrupted to push the line yet again: “But wasn’t the ideology that it’s a united country of many faiths, many beliefs and what the state thinks and wants as well?”
All the way along, BBC interviewers have been following the same script, attacking the Cameron speech on behalf of The Muslim Community and pushing the virtues of Multiculturalism – and woe betide anyone (even Muslims) who disagree with them.
Extraordinary that the liberal media does not see fit to ask us native and immigrant non Muslims what we think of the Cameron speech. One has to wonder why especially as it was made for our benefit.
What with Warsi condemning Islamaphobia and now this speech I sense a rising panic in our governing class and their media fellow travellers.
All the stops will now be pulled out. Cue for the usual talking heads and the useful idiot chuchmen and academics.
The EDL has really spooked them all not because of it’s numbers but because they sense, probably quite correctly, that it has the unspoken and for now silent support of millions.
What are they going to do? Try some harsh repression? Could easily backfire. A propaganda campaign of the usual multicultural variety ? Won’t work any longer.
So Cameron makes a vague speech and the liberal left suffers a collective seizure. That is the measure of their delusion and flight from reality.
Yes; such is Islam Not BBC (INBBC) indoctrination with ‘multiculturalism’ that immediately after the issue of Cameron’s speech, INBBC rushes to get Islamic propagandist views from several self-styled ‘representatives’ of the so-called ‘Muslim community’ -not from the British people. And these ‘Muslim reps’ are not challenged on their opinions by INBBC. And the opinions of the vast majority of the British people are ignored by INBBC. We pay INBBC to sponsor Muslim reps, and to ignore us!
INBBC Director General gives Islam special and preferential political treatment.
INBBC reserves its political hostility for the English Defence League (as this is official policy of INBBC-NUJ branch), while the Muslim Brotherhood gets an easy political ride by INBBC – in Egypt, Gaza, Britain, and globally.
Yes! What’s the betting archbishop Williams has a word today or tomorrow about the wonders of multiculturalism.
I think everyone will just love this one!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354112/BBC-boss-charge-Manchester-commutes-4-000-miles-UK-U-S–avoiding-income-tax.html
I hope the link works – I have never tried before.
Yes, more BBC-NUJ hypocrisy writ large.
“BBC ‘migration’ boss leading move to Manchester travels 4,000 miles to work (and avoids paying any UK income tax)”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354112/BBC-boss-charge-Manchester-commutes-4-000-miles-UK-U-S–avoiding-income-tax.html#ixzz1D85cxIFl
“SHAME THAT £700,000 OF OUR CASH CAN’T TEMPT BBC STAFF NORTH”
Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/227393/Shame-that-700-000-of-our-cash-can-t-tempt-BBC-staff-North/Shame-that-700-000-of-our-cash-can-t-tempt-BBC-staff-North#ixzz1D8SXo1eQ
david hanson
I was just about to post that link – it is the MAIN HEADLINE in the Mail on Sunday.
So we can all be confident that this will be reported in any review of the papers ?
It was reviewed on SKY just now, by some guest blogger called Olly Mann.
Sadly, for my eroding faith in competence on top of objectivity in our media, he happily chirped that the BBC’s output is ‘free’.
don’t worry-he was just being consistent
he’s always a tosser
There was no mention (not even a glimpse) of the story on either of Breakfast‘s paper reviews (7.25 and 8.25). Lots on bankers bonuses, something on non-doms, and a mention of tax cuts…but nothing about the tax-avoiding top beeboid.
Andrew Marr’s paper review completely ignored it too.
The BBC News website’s paper review does mention it:
The Mail on Sunday reports that a BBC executive, who is in charge of moving staff from London to a new base in Manchester, lives in Kentucky in the US.
It says this raises fresh questions about the use of licence fee money. The BBC said he was not employed directly.
As you can see, the BBC take censors the bit about “and avoids paying any UK income tax“.
Will BBC-homo make the correction to this story too?:
“The truth about the ‘lesbian’ asylum seeker”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8306041/The-truth-about-the-lesbian-asylum-seeker.html
More good press for the BBC this weekend :
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/227393/Shame-that-700-000-of-our-cash-can-t-tempt-BBC-staff-North/
http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/854635-stephen-fry-cancels-japan-trip-over-qi-bomb-joke
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3387517/AlanTitchmarsh-signs-11m-deal-with-ITV-that-will-see-him-host-Gardeners-World.html
This programme says: historian Jane Humphries tells the story of the child workers whose exploitation was key to the success of the Industrial Revolution.
Child exploitation key to the success of industry?
Typical BBC narrative
Not everyone was rich back then, some children had to work.
Just like they do in the third world today, whether factories exist or not.
Industry and progress carries on regardless.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t6t3r/The_Children_Who_Built_Victorian_Britain/
Actually, it was the Industrial Revolution which led to machinery whixh eventually replaced child labor. The bottle-making machine and harvesters, for example.
The Violence Comes From the Left, Part 327,482:
Local group cancels Palin visit, citing “personal attacks”
The event, sponsored by the Sharon K. Pacheco Foundation, was announced Friday. But the group said Saturday that the event had been canceled because of “safety concerns resulting from an onslaught of negative feedback received by the organization.”
“Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Gov. Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns,” according to the news release.
I don’t want to hear one more word from any Beeboid about the anger of the Tea Party movement.
Apparently the brilliant Obamessiah screwed up a Bible quote yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast. Mark Mardell was there, but of course had no idea. He’d dutifully keep silent if he did, anyway. Instead, Mardell smiled at the President comparing Himself to Lincoln.
But now word is out about yet another one of His gaffes. And the BBC is, of course, silent, and will remain so.
To highlight the BBC’s sycophancy and hypocrisy, here’s a trip down memory lane back to what Matt Frei has referred to on air as “the grim eight years of the Bush Administration”.
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
I’m sure you’ll all be shocked, hocked to learn that the BBC censored this information from their report. They’re too busy celebrating His gift of peace to us.
As for the President’s betrayal of Great Britain, I apologize on my country’s behalf. Not in my name, that’s for damn sure.
Marr was on Breakfast previewing his show. There’ll be William Hague on Egypt, Race Equality supremo Trevor Phillips on Multiculturalism, and “a very strong, rather angry song” from a folk group about…guess what?…bankers bonuses!
I woke up to hear Broadcasting House reporting the Labour report that there would be 10,000 less policemen on the streets because of the ‘Cuts’. I had a Mandy Rice Davies moment and thought ‘They would say that – wouldn’t they’.
TBF (no… I use it as ‘To Be Fair’), pretty much any of our brain-dead, ratings-addicted media will leap on such a ‘report’ because it can spin-up a sh*t-fight immediately by trotting straight to and/or popping open the first ‘outraged’ press release from the plethora of over-funded think tanks or interest groups that invest these shores.
SKY, however, did have ex-copper John Stalker to point out it was actually merely back to a not so great level but nowhere near as bad as being claimed. Especially as he didn’t recall seeing any bobbies around much at the moment anyway. I wonder if we’ll get such counter views from Aunty?
Probably an irony-free bleat from some copper-domed community spokesperson saying it going to mean fewer around to crush the next EDL rally. I loved SKY fielding a Green party spokeswoman all of a sudden pro vast police numbers.
Can I draw your attention to this story about the nanny state: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12360045.
If you are not too seething by the end of the article to check out the comments, you’ll see they stopped accepting comments after only 4, of which 2 (presumably against the nanny state) were moderated out. 2 in favour of the nanny state were published. This is an outrage… the article makes me feel ill, and the BBC’s moderation even more so.
Page not found Laura, but I’m sure the thumb shot of you in your bikini would have palliated any ire I may have felt! 😛
It’s the pesky full stop that did it! This link should work:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12360045
Thanks Craig. I half skimmed most of that, it was such inconsequential wittering. However, I note the author is Swiss and called Alain de Botton. I think that translates to English as ‘A pain in the bum’.
Or ‘not on the button’?
Classic! Makes Nick R’s, Andrew Neil’s and Richard Black’s sorry efforts seem like bastions of free speech.
To pull after a 50% censorship rate at…. 4, and on a brown-nose, really takes some ability to ignore irony, especially considering the topic.
Listening to Kate Silverton on R5L just now. She was defending Melanie Phillips from charges of ‘homophobia’.
If I get round to it I’ll post the iplayer recording.
On the same theme….
There was a very good performance from Peter Hitchens on this morning’s Big Questions. He took great exception to having his words twisted and firmly set the matter straight. (If only more right-wingers would be so firm.)
He was responding to Muslim socialist and feminist cross-bench peer and academic Baroness Afshar’s use of the word ‘Islamophobia’:
Peter Hitchens: Can I just respond to something the baroness said that went unchallenged?
Nicky Campbell: Yes, ok.
PH: The use of the word ‘Islamophobia’, as if those of us who look at Islam and say ‘We don’t actually want this country to be an Islamic country and be governned by Islamic rules’ are in some way governed by an irrational fear, or a prejudice. On the contrary, its a postjudice. We looked at Islam. We don’t like its precepts. We don’t want them here because we prefer…
NC (interrupting): “WE DON’T WANT THEM HERE??!! What do you…?” Baroness Asfhar (gales of laughter)
PH: We don’t want the precepts of…
Baroness Afshar: Hello!!!!
NC (indecipherable, but it prompts more laughter from the baroness and the audience)
PH: Hang on, no wait a minute. We don’t want the precepts…
NC: The precepts!
PH: I’m not going to be misquoted in that fashion…
NC: Fair enough!
PH: We do not want the precepts…
NC: …precepts..
PH: now that’s absolutely clear. We’ve got that clear now?
NC: We’ve got it clear.
PH: Nothing to do with not wanting Muslims here…
NC: Fair enough
PH: .,,or other twisted rubbish like that. I did not say that. I do not think it.
NC: Peter you’ve made that clear! (Laughter from the baroness and the audience)
PH: Well we do get..people with conservative views do get their views twisted in broadcast arenas and we do need to be be clear when that happens.
NC: Peter has made that absolutely clear.
He eventually finished his point about ‘Islamophobia’ & it’s worth quoting because it’s so sensible:
“What I’m saying here is that we do not want the precepts of Islam here because we do not want to live in an Islamic society. That is a rational position. It is not a phobia and cannot be classified as some kind of mental illness. It is a perfectly reasonable position to take and people who want to take part in a civilised discussion should not classify the opinions of their opponents as phobias. The should take them on with reason, fact and logic – especially academics.
We won himself a well-deserved round of applause after all that.
Hope that gets posted on youtube!
Me too. I would send that to everyone I know. Sounds like a deserved viral moment to me.
The best bit was when Abu, the beardy fellah in the white nightie expressed his disgust at half-dressed footballers and Nicky C said “Why? d’you find them tempting?” I hope you’ve transcribed that bit Craig. (Hippie P will be proud of his top man.) 😀
Anybody who dares oppose multiculturalism will be painted as a racist by the BBC; that’s why so many draw back from doing so.
Yes; ‘Cranmer’ has a thoughtful piece (which has brief reference to INBBC):
“Writing propaganda for the EDL”
[Excerpt]:
“If you wave the Union Flag or the Cross of St George, admire Churchill, oppose further mass immigration, express concerns about multiculturalism, favour withdrawal from the EU, seek to uphold the traditional nuclear family and talk about the primacy of Christianity, you are now indelibly of the ‘extreme right’.”
http://biasedbbc.tv/2011/02/open-thread_05-3.html#comments
“Sky Atlantic cleans up after BBC purge”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/06/sky-atlantic-mad-men-hbo
did anyone see that pub landlady who gets her football via greek subscription on early ysaturday morning?
interesting comment she made…….about tv being the only commodity in the EU which was limited to one poivider and one price
can I add another?
the tv licence/tax
time for Europe to end the monopoly I think!!
The bBC and how it tries to adds Islam in as many articles as possible:
Free schools ‘divisive’ says Manchester anti-extremism tsar
A Manchester head teacher, who is the city’s anti-extremism tsar, has criticised free schools claiming they are “divisive”.Ian Fenn, of Burnage Media Arts College and the city council’s secondary schools adviser on tolerance, said free schools hampered understanding.A free school is state funded but set up by parents or community groups and independently run…..Mr Fenn, who converted to Islam 20 years ago, said: “They are a blot on the landscape…..I thought Muslims aren’t succeeding in Manchester and I thought let’s get them into universities and educate them so they get into positions of power so that society better reflects the population.
So can somebody please explain why the bBC feels the need to insert into the article that this bloke is a muslim and that he wants to get more muslims into postions of power??
When was the last time you saw them mention that w,y,z were converts to christianity and that they felt the need to get more christians into power.?
But the best part is how the bBC allows Muslims to air their racist views without censor. I quote from the latter part of the article:
“If you’ve got free schools, then a particular characteristic, be it white middle-class, Shia Muslim, born-again Christian, then you’re setting up silos of mutually exclusive populations, who won’t be able to
connect with each other,
Get that according to Mr Fenn who the bBC informs me converted to Islam, minority groups shouldn’t be allowed to set up free schools as they keep themselves to themselves and so he quotes:
White middle class,
Shia Islam
Born again christians.
But he doesn’t mention Sunni Islam, which accounts for around 90% of all British muslims. Now if you get only your news from the bBC you won’t know about how Sunni Islam hates Shia Islam which kind of explains the problems of Lebanon,Iran the gulf states and of course peaceful Pakistan. Which is why Fenn feels he can list Shia Islam (as well as the Middle Class/born again christians ) as potental trouble makers who won’t intregrate into british society. Unlike Sunni Muslims who have no problem intregrating themselves into British society you know like the sex pests, the mullahs who get little boys to massage them as a sign of honour, the rapists, British holidaymakers in combat zones and of course this bunch who went for a walk in london yesterday.
Cracks in the facade: The Guardian allowed someone to criticize the BBC for sanitizing Muslim extremists:
There is an old and by no means disreputable leftwing argument that the British establishment retains a colonialist mentality. It wants to be friends with the Islamist right in case its adherents gain control of oil fields, and does not believe that Arabs or Muslims deserve democracy because Johnny Arab cannot handle basic freedoms. You can find echoes of the old prejudice in the BBC’s attempts to portray the Muslim Brothers as moderates, as if they were the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Anglican Communion, or in the willingness of the Home Office and Metropolitan Police as well as the Foreign Office to treat the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami as the sole legitimate voices of Muslim Britain. (If you cannot see what is wrong with that manoeuvre, imagine how you would feel if officialdom treated the BNP as the legitimate voice of white Britain and the BBC praised Nick Griffin’s moderation.)
Indeed.
Unfortunately, this was written by a Jew, and so will be summarily dismissed.
Nick Cohen aint a Jew.
(His excellent article will still be dismissed though.)
Ah, I see, he lacks the requisite mitochondrial DNA. Even if Jewish Law doesn’t recognize him, he’d end up in a cattle car with the rest of us with that name. And most people will still probably dismiss his article like I did, since there’s no disclaimer anywhere.
Interesting snippet here where it is stated that Nick Robinson personally recommended Craig Oliver to David Cameron. I wonder why!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1354107/Multiculturalism-failed-Cameron-takes-Islamist-extremism-AND-Civil-Service.html
I guess this means that Robinson was lying through his teeth when he said on air the other day that he had no idea about Oliver’s political leanings. Nick Robinson disgraces himself yet again.
Did anyone see Marr interviewing that Hague clown this morning? Hague must have been saying something Marr agreed with because he did not once interject during his ranting.
Mailman
On the BBC UK Politics page the Labour “10,000 police to go” story has been up all weekend. Yet Cameron’s speech in Munich gas already been pushed down by…yes you guessed it, Labour’s pathetic story about the timing of Cameron’s speech…he was at a multi nation security conference FFS! Yvette Coopers anme all over the place. BBC pulling all the stops out.
Former Prisoner John Hirst who was jailed for murdering his landlady with an axe (After hse asked him to bring some coal in) is the bBCs poster boy for allowing Prisoners to vote. Which proberly explains why the bBC has no problem trotting him out time and again in which to attack the system in the name of human rights. In fact here is John speaking to the bBC about human rights and equality:
“That his human rights had been violated by not being allowed to take part in elections. …You have to accept that the law applies to everybody and it applies to the government, and David Cameron is not above the law and he’ll find out that very shortly.”
And here is John (I can only be a victim) Hirst writing on his blog about people with a different skin colour and the sister of a knife victim.
“Unlike the foreign import Patel speaking to the xenophobic Daily Express, I am a Brit born and bred.”
So why is the bBC still backing and promoting this murderous ranting racist as a liberal freedom fighter?
Like our towel headed bretheren with the semtex, as far as auntie is concerned the enemy of mine enemy is my friend.
Thus israel is worse than the stoners of rape victims and Cameron is worse than an axe murderer.
Because theres nothing as evil as Jooz (sarc) and theres nothing as abhorrent as the tories ( sarc)
As far as I remember from some time back, the Beeboids sanitised his criminal past by referring to him in bland terms so that we had no idea of the gruesome crime that he had actually committed or of the nature and mentality of a person who would murder someone for the reason you have mentioned. The nature of the beast is amply apparent also from his rantings about various people on his blog.
The Andrew Marr show also had a sly go at backing up Silly Sally Bercow. For international readers she is a nonentity who is married to the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is supposed to be low key in return for excellent rewards in terms of staus and money.
Instead she stands as a local candidate for the Labour party and spends her life garnering all the publicity she can .This includes posing in just a sheet for a magazine.When this attracted a storm of criticism she claimed the photo shoot was a surprise!
Well it got on the papers review on Andrew Marrs show and the Labour supporting Silly Sally was roundly supported by the elderly Sian Phillipps..
Not on BBC Muslims in London call for the establishment of the
Khilapha (Caliphate).
The BBC was silent about the protests ouside the Egyptian Embassy yesterday.
BBC-NUJ has official trade union policy of opposition to the English Defence League.
BBC-NUJ has official trade union policy of support for Unite Against Fascism.
This does lead to repeatedly, and predictably biased ‘reporting’ by BBC-NUJ.
It does mean that BBC-NUJ censors out reference to a speech like this made at the English Defence League rally in Luton yesterday.
(Video and transcript of speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff here)
“Elisabeth Speaks at EDL Rally in Luton“
Transcript of Elisabeth’s speech here:
http://english.savefreespeech.org/?p=318
Marvellous!
She’s a great speaker. Pity she was addressing a crowd of football hooligans.
Just been listening to Nolan on Radio 5 (Dead) and couldn’t believe how bad he was. He was quoting from a survey created by Labour (he mentioned that it was created by Labour, just once, but failed to add the obvious caveat that it is likely to be biased). He then treated the wildest claim in the survey that (I think he said) 20,000 police jobs would have to go in the Government’s cuts as fact.
He was clearly angry (faux?) and harrangued the Police Minister and accused him of all sorts and tried to force him to justify all these cuts (don’t forget it’s a Labour Party claim, not independent) and the minister told him that there is no figure and most of the savings would be achieved through wastage (giving examples). After trying to get him to justify the Labour Party claimed cuts a few times and getting absolutely livid by now when the minister very firmly told him again how the savings were to be made, he accused the minister of not answering the question on the numbers. The minister was now getting rightly angry and didn’t let him get away with it by repeating his position.
But Nolan again repeated his lie about not getting an answer and switched to a new line of attack saying that the Police Federation won’t like these cuts, and the minister said I understand why they are saying this, they’re a trade union and looking after their members. Nolan again tried to get the minister to accuse the PF of lying which he skillfully avoided. He tried to make out the minister said that all IT Staff working for the police should be sacked, which again was rebuffed as the minister told him a few truths.
Next he interviewed a Fereration leader who gave all the attacks on the government that Nolan wanted, in fact he was making suggestions, himself, to allow the PF man to have more attacks. It was an easy ride for the Federation man as he was with the BBC message, not one attack.
The first caller was an ex-policeman and Nolan again tried to lead him into attacking the “cuts” but this one totally took the wind out of Nolan’s sails by agreeing with everything the minister had said. He quickly moved to another one who was making stupid claims as to the efficiency of the force and how the public will be let down when the “cuts” come in.
He then asked for people to ring up if they had been let down recently when they called the police. He totally missed the irony of the fact that these people who have been let down would have suffered prior to any changes made by the new government, and the fantastic staffing levels (as he sees it) set by the Labour Government of which is so clearly a supporter.
The bBC, reporting on the odious EDL and half the story.
Eyewitness: EDL return to Luton
Abdul Salaam is not exactly the kind of person the English Defence League expected to recruit. But there he was, a Muslim willing to stand in the middle of a crowd chanting “Muslim Bombers off our Streets”. We found Glaswegian Abdul in Luton’s St George’s Square – and he explained why he, a follower of Islam, was standing shoulder-to-shoulder with an organisation accused of Islamophobia. “The EDL are supporting England, supporting Britain, and I’m British, so why can’t I support my country?” he said. “Have you seen me getting any racist abuse? They applauded me. Why are other Muslims not here? This demonstration is nothing to do with colour or religion. These are people who have watched their country being bombed and they are angry. These are patriotic Englishmen, red-blooded Englishmen.”
And how the bBC unable to accept him as a Muslim character assassinate him
Mr Salaam said he wasn’t particularly assiduous about praying five times a day – and that he probably didn’t get to a mosque as much as he should. But he insisted he was a true Muslim who thought deeply about his faith – and it was his duty to speak out alongside the EDL.“I believe in the EDL and I don’t want England to go the way of Paris. Do you realise there is a mile down the street where I cannot walk and get out alive?” He was referring to Bury Park, the heart of Luton’s Muslim communities – and this claim of “no go” areas for white people around the country was repeated time and time again by EDL members we interviewed. But when we went to Bury Park, it was fairly clear that it was the local Muslim residents who were scared…. Overall, the Bury Park community had decided, in the words of one local leader, to make a dignified stand together, rather than to puff out their chests and make confrontational noises.
So, the bBC find an Islamic EDL member and then character assassinate him by playing well he isn’t a pious Muslim. (Maybe they should trawl a lot of Northern towns where sex and drugs and rock and roll is the currency of the day for a very large number of so called pious Muslims) Well after rubbishing Abdul they then go about rubbishing the claim that Islamic areas in the Uk are becoming no-go areas and that actually they are very peaceful. Really bBC and in Aug 2009 why did over 200 Muslims attack the police in that very same area. In fact here is a police photo request for members of the public to ID the rioters? rioters i should are all…Asian
Then there’s the incident which started all this off, the abuse of British soldiers in Luton which happened in..Bury Park.
And when the failed MP for Dewsbury went walk about in Luton guess which part of town she was attacked with eggs?..yup Bury park
Guess where in Luton the 7/7 bombers dumped their car ..yup Bury park
Guess where the little girl who Mrs Blair defended to wear the full ninja outfit came from..Bury park.
In the 5 month period between Nov 2008 and March 2009 there were 18 reported attacks on 5 non Muslim homes in the area.
And the yet the bBC when presenting Muslims as only victims fails to mention any of the above.
Here is a checklist of info about the real origins and objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood :
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/06/10-questions-editors-global-muslim-brotherhood-report/
I found the book “Looming Tower” – which traced Islamist extremism from the MB’s early days right through to 9/11 – a thorugh grounding in the many tentacles of these sinister Islamists. Many here know much of the score.
But this past week the BBC seems to have hidden most relevant info about the MB and its affiliates. Was this just poor journalism ? I think not – the likes of Jeremy Bowen know EXACTLY what the MB reall represents, as distict from its carefully-contrived public utterances.
The BBC is a fifth-column.
The word about BBC partiality towards Islam, and hostility towards Christianity, is spreading. This piece at ‘Jihadwatch’ makes reference to the broadcasting experiences of both Peter Sissons and Peter Hitchens:
“We Regret to Inform You.”
Please catch Nicky Campbell’s interview with the founder of MAB this morning. Round about 08:10 when the recording is up.
TOP MAN!