New Open Thread..
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 23, 00:37
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
bbc’s bloody outrageous fixations with muslims, black people, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, for a publicly funded and impartial organisation.… - StewGreen Dec 23, 00:32
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC “Elon Musk’s curious fixation with Britain ” by Mike Wendling is rightly double ratioed and CCBGB’d When someone has… - Guest Who Dec 22, 23:11
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
There might be a smidge of irony here. https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1870495794236977278?s=61 You people are deeply, dangerously unwell and evil. The majority of… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:54
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I always go to the user reviews then sorth them by date so you get the ones after the initial… - BRISSLES Dec 22, 22:49
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Also a non white detective in new season of Death in Paradise. The diversity directive that has infected the drama… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:44
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Children among dozens killed in Israeli strikes, Gaza officials say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9g4yl8j17o Here’s a new low: The BBC went from telling… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:22
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I used to be a Covid numbers junky, from watching Valance asking for the next slide please to still regularly… - StewGreen Dec 22, 22:14
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC presenters “we are IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL” BBC presenter Paul Lewis Money tweets An interesting list of broadly good things… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:12
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I am reading John C’s first post, and I am watching Wolf Hall at the same time. Cromwell’s daughter has…
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
And it begins from the bBC
Libya air raid ‘killed civilians’
Seven civilians died and 25 were hurt in a coalition air strike on a pro-Gaddafi convoy in eastern Libya, a doctor there has told the BBC. Dr Suleiman Refardi said Wednesday’s raid happened in the village of Zawia el Argobe, 15km (9 miles) from Brega. The strike hit a truck carrying ammunition, and the resulting explosion destroyed two nearby homes.
The bBC as per usual opens up a second front for Gadiffi by reporting how only they know about a bomb strike which hit an ammo tuck travelling up the road with advancing Gadiffi forces which were intent on killing anybody they could, blew up taking out a house. Without any evidence the bBC yet again takes the moral highground. If successful the bBC will get NATO to halt their attacks on Gadiffis armed forces giving him the upper hand. You know like they did in Iraq, like they do in Afghanistan. All we need now is a certain cold faced bitch with a penchant for theatre to make one of her customary “They died in their thousands” speeches. While wearing her body armour of course.
Degree posted this on the last board and I feel it should get a little more air:
deegee
Too late!
BBC backs down on its Fogel coverage
In a nutshell the bBC replied 5 days after an MP complained to its news department over its very weak coverage of the fogel murders. Its reply was, well it was a busy weekend and we didn’t have the time or space to fully cover it.
And here’s my take on it.
I see the bBC is really pushing the religion of peace angle on its coverage of the murders of around 10 UN staff in Afghanistan (2 were beheaded) by a mob of over 700 men protesting the buring of their holy book in America last month???
UN staff killed during protest in northern Afghanistan
At least eight foreign UN workers have been killed in Afghanistan during an attack on a UN compound in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif, officials say.The violence occurred during a protest over the burning of the Koran in a US church last month. Several hundred people had been protesting peacefully in Mazar-e Sharif when the scene suddenly turned violent…The BBC’s Paul Wood in Kabul says Mazar-e Sharif is known to be a relatively peaceful part of the country,..Our correspondent says that in a deeply religiously conservative country such as Afghanistan, that act has the power to inflame passions in otherwise peaceful areas.
Of course they were bBC, of course they were. As always the blame is pointed elsewhere when the religion of peace is involved.
Listening to BBC radio 4 PM tonight I arrived at the distinct impression that the slaughter in Afghanistan with the beheading of a few people, was caused by some bloke in America who burnt a Koran.
So because they are passionate Muslims its OK to behead some strangers to vent your anger if you are upset .
Why don’t the BBC admit these people are completely mad and still living in the 15 century.
That’s the impression given on the News Channel as well. Sophie Long spoke to the Pastor on the phone, and pressed him on it. She asked how he felt that those people had been killed because of what he did. His reply: “Awful.” He expressed how terrible the loss of human life was. Sophie then asked if he felt responsible for it the deaths “caused by something you encouraged”. Of course the man said no, and blamed “radicals”. He said they were using it as an excuse to promote violence, and if he hadn’t burned a Koran, they’d have found some other excuse eventually anyway. Sophie did not like that and really tried to get across the idea that the man should feel guilty.
The message I got from BBC coverage today was that it wasn’t the Afghani imams who used Sabbath prayers to call for murder but the man in Florida who burned a Koran who was directly responsible for the beheading of innocent people. It’s perfectly understandable that people who are deeply religious will want to kill anyone who insults them, especially right after praying, so we should not have certain freedoms of speech.
Religion of Peace, Justice, and Fairness, indeed.
Some bulging-eyed lunatic Radio4 Wendy managed to get one of these pastors on their early evening news show, virtually accusing him of the vicious murder of UN personnel. His response was surprisingly dignified, although in all honesty the Muslim “protesters” had rather eloquently made his point for him several hours earlier. The moral relativism of these abysmal BBC drones is astounding. I don’t suppose they’ll actually begin to understand the difference between someone who burns a few bits of paper and someone who bloodily detaches heads from bodies until somebody starts doing it at Television Centre. Roll on the day
Thats the BBC inversion of reality for you though isnt it?
Get enraged enough and its OK and acceptable to hack some heads off people you have never met and are only there to deliver aid. Its all right to murder innocents if you are enraged enough about some perceived insult to your religion.
Hey folks lets all get enraged about some stuff and then go out and pick some muslim family at random and hack them to death, the BBC will surely be sooooo very understanding wont they? I mean we only went out and hacked a family of innocents coz we enraged about…rage filled…about some whacko islamists insulting our nation.
The BBC is in full throttle blame the random grotesque murders of UN workers on a US pastor, why does the BBC have to fly like the wind into immediate islamist style justification for murder whenever the religion of piece(s) bloodlust requires them to murder innocents?
If only the West didnt do this or that all would be well and the followers of the death cult would not be forced to go out and murder innocent people. The BBC are so quick to justify murder and so eager to portray the savages as justified because of the actions of others.
There is NO justification for that kind of savagery at all, no book burned is worth innocent lives lost and should never ever be portrayed in that light, to hand these evil butchers an excuse the BBC is helping and assisting evil, there is no excuse.
What a grotesque state of affairs the BBC scum have led us to where some favoured savages are eagerly offered justification for their blood lust, I say some favoured groups because if a gang of white men had gone out and butchered a family of muslims you can bet your life that the BBC wouldnt be rushing to offer the killers an excuse would they?
So how should the BBC report killings like this? Well first of all and most importantly they should never ever hand the killers any justification and excuse for their crimes because there can be and is no excuse for such brutal murders. I mean WTF is wrong with simply reporting the fact that UN workers were killed by a mob? And how come the BBC knows the real reasons for the attack so quickly? No caution and no hesitation from the BBC just eager assistance of the islamist cause.
Those UN victims had nothing to do with a pastor of a tiny church in the US, they were not there at the book burning were they? The victims were not responsible in any shape or form yet the BBC eagerly hands the killers exactly the justification and validation they so desperately need, its OK to murder innocents because if you do the BBC will excuse it in the eyes of the world.
The BBC world service? They should be called the BBC islamist world service, now the islamists have all the justification they need to go out and slake their evl blood lust.
15th century BC, I’d have thought.
Is INBBC’s Mr WOOD implying that someone in Florida who burnt a Koran, 12 days ago is somehow to blame for Afghan Muslims in Afghanistan murdering eight or more people?
‘Jihadwatch’ to put him right:
[Extract] –
“What is most likely to get lost in this discussion is that Muslims have the free will to restrain themselves when offended, if they so choose. Had they done that, Jones and Sapp would already be a forgotten sideshow.
“The willingness to riot and to murder was already in place here; two Florida pastors did not create that. And the utter and obvious lack of connection between the UN office and one Florida congregation ultimately shows the Qur’an desecration was a pretext, as it so often is, even in fabricated local cases that lead to rampaging mobs’ abusing non-Muslims. That, too, will likely get lost in the discussion, which has tended to take the automatic, violent reaction of Muslims for granted, thereby tacitly excusing them from responsibility after being ‘provoked.’
That should not be the case. More on this story, which sets the death toll at 10.”
Afghanistan: Protestors stormed UN compound, beheaded at least 2 in protest of Florida Qur’an burning
Exactly George, spot on!
Handing maniac killers an excuse is to enable and assist more killings by more blood crazed killers.
Wha the BBC is doing is effectively handing a death sentence to innocents yet to be killed at the hands of a rage filled blood thirsty mob by handing that gang the excuses they need.
Further to my last about how the bBC is trying to tell me that the people who murdered 12 people belonged to a religion of peace and thus cannot be blamed for the above murderes. They have found the time (and space) to insert the peaceful bit a couple of more times:
Mazar-e Sharif is one of Afghanistan’s largest cities – as well as one of its safest. Just last week, thousands peacefully celebrated the Persian new year.
And
The protest began peacefully after people left Friday prayers at the Blue Mosque.
If i didn’t fully trust the impatial reporting from the bBC. I’d say they had an agenda here.
Wake up folks…….your PM “Dave” Cameron thinks it’s a good idea to allow Turkey into the EU, so we have another 70 million moslems with unfetterd access across our borders. He is betraying you, and the country, wake up now and get something done, get out of the EU and get rid of Dave!
Pounce this is the message that appeared when i clicked on My Take ??Avertissement sur le contenu
Certains lecteurs de ce blog ont contacté Google car ils pensent que le contenu de ce blog est inacceptable. En règle générale, Google n’examine pas ni ne cautionne le contenu d’un blog. Pour plus d’informations sur notre règlement en matière de contenu, consultez les Conditions d’utilisation de Blogger.
J’ai pris connaissance de l’avertissement et je souhaite continuerJe ne souhaite pas continuer
That becasue you are linking into the net via a french server and thus instead of english the pop up is in french. What it says is:
Content Warning
Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog’s content is unacceptable. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of a blog. For more information about our policies regarding content, please visit the Blogger Terms of Service.
Just click the orange button (Which reads: I understand and wish to continue) to go onto the blog.
What an honour that so many Islamists and terrorist enablers have complained about your blog to Google.
“Glenn Beck takes on Google”
(9 min video clip, of 6 weeks ago)
Your link worked fine for me and I take the liberty of repeating a comment I have posted on your blog. (BTW, why the “offensive blog” warning when your page first opens?)
As has been said elsewhere it is in the DNA of the BBC to be one sided in their “reporting” of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and anything to do with it. I wonder how much time and space Helen Boaden’s anti-Israeli news team would have found during that “remarkably busy weekend” if an Israeli had broken into a Palestinian home and salughtered the entire family?
It would have pushed the Japan disaster, Libyan events *and* the Lib Dems spring meetings right off the map. Not only would Jeremy Bowen et al have hogged every bulletin and news programme over the entire weekend, they would have had teams interviewing the great and the good in every world capital in order to damn the vicious Jews. We would still be hearing of it today.
That is fact – just as facts today on the BBC news site report on an “abducted” Palestinian engineer and speak of a “captured” Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, in the same report. Shalit was kidnapped from Israeli soil by Hamas terrorist infiltrators in 2006. Not even the Red Cross has been allowed to visit him, yet the bleeding hearts of the BBC are now mounting their chorus for the poor “abducted” Palestinian who today appeared in court in Israel.
When will Shalit have his day in court in Gaza?
Henry Wood wrote:
“(BTW, why the “offensive blog” warning when your page first opens?) ”
Don’t know, we have had a large number of people writing in claiming that what we report is biased,Islamophobic and that we are in fact ‘racist’ for finding and airing stories the general media doesn’t bother its arse in reporting. All I can think is a few of them have clicked the report button at the top of the page.
We’ve noted that our redership has fallen since then, (by a huge number) and so are looking at leaving blogger in which to continue shining a light into the dark passages the left,Muslims and the stupid don’t like us poking around in. (pun intended)
Charlie Booker R4 – So wrong it’s right: made a joke about Clegg being the worst politian, a disaster or something similar. So I thought the worst, surely destroying the economy and getting the national debt to increase by £Trillion must be worst. Obviously not, even lying to Parliament to sanction an illegal war is not a contender.
With all what is going on in the world the BBCs economics editor should be in the news…After all the banking disaster in Ireland needs explaining surely?
For example Stephanie Flanders could explain how she called Brian Lenihan, the Irish Finance Minister when the fateful decision to guarantee Ireland’s banks was made, “A Good Man”.
While she is at it she could explain her thinking when she told us that Ireland and Greece would not only not default but that they would get nowhere near it.
MESSAGE FROM THE BBC TO ALL EVIL BLOODTHIRSTY SAVAGES:
GO OUT AND KILL FREELY, MURDER AND BUTCHER INNOCENTS EVERYWHERE YOU FIND THEM, SLAKE YOUR BLOOD LUST FREELY AND WITHOUT REMORSE FOR WE THE BBC WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH ALL THE JUSTIFICATION YOU COULD EVER DESIRE, HACK OFF THE HEADS OFF INFANTS AND CHILDREN FOR WE AT THE BBC FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR RAGE FILLED BLOOD LUST AND WILL JUSTIFY IT TO THE WORLD! AND REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU ARE DOING YOUR BLOOD LETTING, GO FORTH AND KILL KILL KILL.
Froom the BBCs own mouth, go to page 23 for a laugh…..
Click to access report.pdf
but it’s also interesting to note that the document also states:
“Impartiality for the BBC is not in question. It is a given – a legal requirement, just as it is for other broadcasters in Britain.”
so with the obvious examples quoted so frequently in this excellent blog, why hasn’t anyone taken this to its logical conclusion?
81 pages????!
To point out to market rate talents you should be objective and professional when you broadcast using the public purse?
Sheesh, you’ll be telling me next that the solution to qualified nurses and NHS administrators letting elder patients dehydrate or lie in their own soil for 24hrs is a gold star rating and possible retraining.
Unique.
I think Simon Mayo is onto something.
@simonmayo – Anti-science [or other perceived bias] tilt of [medium in question] the reason I stopped buying it.
If that option exists, of course.
Interesting article about a conscientious objector in the Royal Navy.
Plymouth navy ‘objector’ medic before court martial
A Royal Navy medic from Plymouth has appeared before a court martial on a charge of wilful disobedience for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. Leading Medical Assistant Michael Lyons refused to carry out rifle training ahead of deployment, stating he was a conscientious objector.
While the bBC has no problem allowing Mr Lyons to state his case (even going to the lengths of describing him as the great-grandson of a decorated World War II hero) They leave out one salient fact. Somebody who voluntary joined the armed forces cannot be a conscientious objector. That title is applied to those who have no choice in the matter of serving in the armed forces. Also here’s another snippet, Medics only carry weapons to defend themselves and their patients which is why behind their cap badge they wear a red flash which indicates non-combative status. That is something that is recognised by the Geneva Convention which states:
Chapter IV, Article 22 of the Geneva Convention states that:
Article 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
(2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort.
(3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment.
(4) That personnel and material of the veterinary service are found in the unit or establishment, without forming an integral part thereof.
(5) That the humanitarian activities of medical units and establishments or of their personnel extend to the care of civilian wounded or sick.
Ironically drafted soldiers/airmen/sailors who became conscientious objectors in the past were sidelined into the medical branches Something the bBC had no problem airing in the very popular comedy series dads army with Pte Godfrey.
So how, the bBC can promote somebody who willingly joined the armed forces during a time of hostilities. (Lyons is 24, the Uk has been at war of sorts for over 10 years) as a conscientious objectors, who is serving as a medic. (A non combatant) tells me that actually whoever wrote the article knows sweet FA on the subject at hand.
“Left-wing, shallow and oh-so politically correct… my verdict on the BBC, by Michael Buerk”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372559/Left-wing-shallow-oh-politically-correct–verdict-BBC-Michael-Buerk.html#ixzz1IJtJijBW
Out of the horses mouth.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3815
Having given up on SKY, persisting in the facile ‘show’ of an interviewer in Libya hector a pol in another country via a time delayed set of feeds, such that questions and answers simply morphed together, I made the mistake of going back to the BBC.
Shouldn’t have bothered.
Because I landed in the middle of ‘We think we got it about right’ Newswatch quoting Helen Boaden’s latest ‘The Editors’ outing to tell all is well because… ‘she thinks they got it about right’.
I think they really do only live and communicate within a very limited, incestuous bubble.
The BBC needs an independent observer in their editorial and programming meetings. It’s the only way to be sure. I think the public would benefit greatly from being told what really goes on and how the Beeboids think about the news.
In light of the BBC appearing to view the first tweet from the twitter feed of their mates as a de facto news resource to base any old thing on, I found this of interest:
http://storify.com/acarvin/how-to-debunk-a-geopolitical-rumor-with-your-twitt2
Twitter can be a great tool.
But like so many things, it rather depends on who is using it, what for, how and why.
Interesting session on the Parliament channel today. Showing the speech by Peter Bone MP with his BROADCASTING ( PUBLIC SERVICE CONTENT ) BILL. he wants to stop funding the bBC because it is biassed. I take it is a bill designed to fire a shot across the bows of gov. During the speech he highlights many areas of bias by the bBC but specifically mentioned the Danial Hannan speech in the EU harranging the EU and Brown. He said the reason this was not shown on the bBC was that the bBC man has been told about the speech was going to be made but HE DELIBERATELY WALKED OUT OF THE SESSION.
I see the bBC continues with its onesided coverage of the Israeli/Gaza situation
Gaza: Hamas militants killed in Israeli air strike
According to the bBC these innocent men just happened to be going for a ride when they were killed in cold blood by hook nosed jewsish racists who live next door.
Now i wonder why the bBC didn’t mention that all week,Israel has had to endure rockets attacks from Gaza. If they had they would have given more context to the story, but they didn’t . Hell even Ma’an the Pal news agency is more honest in reporting the news than the bBC i quote:
The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights released a statement of concern Tuesday, in the wake of the fall of several projectiles on a house and soft-drinks factory in the northern Strip, in which six civilians were injured. A report from the organization said it was the third home-made projectile to land on civilian property in Gaza in the past week, and called on government officials to investigate. The group noted that “members of the Palestinian resistance continue to store explosives or to treat such explosives in locations close to populated areas,” commenting that the practice “poses a major threat to the lives of the Palestinian civilians and constitutes a violation of both International Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.”
According to testimony, PCHR said that a projectile exploded in a house belonging to Ahmed Kheir al-Batsh, 62, in the As-Salam neighborhood in Jabaliya in the northern Gaza Strip, injuring a mother and son, who were both hospitalized for shrapnel wounds.
Strange how the bBC fails to report on a story of a mother and her child been injured in an atatck on Gaza. I wonder why?
Strange how the bBC fails to report on a story of a mother and her child been injured in an atatck on Gaza. I wonder why?
To quote Just Journalism
Logistics as much as infantile leftism produced the ideology of Middle Eastern commentary.
Jon Donnison relies on others for leads, sees what Hamas is willing to let him see, writes with one eye on Hamas so as to avoid danger and filters through translators. He probably hadn’t even heard of the mother/child incident.
“Strange how the bBC fails to report on a story of a mother and her child been injured in an atatck on Gaza. I wonder why?”
Because they cannot pin the blame on the Jews?
CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) exposes BBC failure to uphold its own editorial guidelines.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=2019
BBC’s Ms Connolly decided to go into bat in America for: unlimited numbers of mass immigrants, but comes up against reality.
Her headline, which reads:
“Is immigration policy killing the American Dream?”
Should read:
“Is immigration policy reviving the American dream for Americans?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12925299
The bBC (biased Broadcasting Corporation) and yet another subtle example of how it twists the facts in which to denigrate Israel.
Israel urges UN to nullify Goldstone Report on Gaza war
Israel has called on the UN to cancel a report that said it possibly committed war crimes during its 2008-2009 military offensive in Gaza. The report’s author, South African judge Richard Goldstone, said on Friday that new accounts indicated Israel had not deliberately targeted civilians. He said that if he had known what he knew now, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document”………….
So yet again faced with the facts on the ground the bBC surreptitiously paints a negative picture of Israel even though Israel has been cleared of committing war crimes. So how does the bBC do so, let’s look at what they write:
“The report’s author, South African judge Richard Goldstone, said on Friday that new accounts indicated Israel had not deliberately targeted civilians.”
And here is what Goldstone actually wrote in the Washinton Post;
The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.
While both seem similar, the bBC version gives the impression that, the IDF may have targeted civilians. Subtle but the hint is there. (So much for the bBCs code of ethics and not using inflammatory language)
Then there’s the caption under the main picture:
“Israel’s 22-day Gaza offensive ended in January 2009, with 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead”
And here is what Goldstone says about those figures:
Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas
So what figures did Hamas furnish?
“Hamas admitted last week that between 600 and 700 of its militants were killed during Operation Cast Lead”
Then there’s this right at the end from the bBC:
Mr Goldstone also noted that Hamas had “done nothing” to examine its rocket attacks, which were “purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets”.
Where Goldstone actually wrote this:
That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets….. Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.
Part 2
Then there’s the very subtle way the bBC changes what BenjaminNetanyahu had to say:
“Everything we said has been proven to be true. Israel does not purposely target civilians and its investigative institutions are competent, while Hamas intentionally fires at innocent civilians and does not investigate anything.
Where he actually said this:
“Everything we said has proven to be true,Israel did not intentionally harm civilians. Its institutions and investigative bodies are worthy, while Hamas intentionally fired upon innocent civilians and did not examine anything.”
By changing ‘did not’ which is a stated historical fact into ‘does not.’Which is just a statement .The bBC leaves open the door that Netanyahu could be lying. Something the Israeli haters out there already believe.
Finally I leave you with this from Goldstone, something the bBC doesn’t even mention:
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed againstIsrael. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gazaconflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
Quite right, Pounce.
The use of the past tense isolates the Goldstone comments to a point in history and does not carry the on-going policy on behalf of Israel that she does not target civilians while Hamas still does as a modus operandi to this day.
I bet there was some incredulity in the BBC at the Goldstone comments………the charge of war crimes against Israel was backed by the readily accepted authority of the Goldstone report.
Of course, Hamas remains in the dock and even Fatah realises what a blow this is to the Palestinian narrative of Israel’ ‘crimes’ in the propaganda war.
Fatah comes out with this nonsense:
“Riyad al-Malki, Palestinian foreign minister, said Goldstone’s comments did not change a thing.
“The report was as clear as the crimes that Israel committed during the war,” he said.§
Given the high profile of Goldstone in the narrative, no wonder they are miffed. Still damage done as the conclusions of the original report have coloured the ‘Viva Palestina’ chants for two years now.
The BBC, however, failed to pick up on Hamas unrepentent stand, preferring to conclude (for balance, naturally)
“Mr Goldstone also noted that Hamas had “done nothing” to examine its rocket attacks, which were “purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets”.
There was no immediate response from Hamas.”
But there was……
“Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesperson, dismissed Goldstone’s remarks saying that “his retreat does not change the fact war crimes had been committed against 1.5 million people in Gaza.”
Shame the only evidence no longer supports this view.
Why did the BBC not report the response from a named Hamas source?
I would have preferred the BBC to report on Goldstone’s comments, rather than the Israeli response. Dream on.
I can find no mention of this on the BBC.
“Goldstone also slammed the United Nations Human Rights Council, which commissioned the report, saying that the original mandate given to him was “skewed against Israel.”
Saying that he changed the original mandate handed to him in order to investigate Hamas as well as Israel, he noted, …..UNHRC, whose bias against Israel “cannot be doubted.”
In a new condemnation of Hamas and its continued “heinous acts,” Goldstone regrets that Hamas did not investigate or curtail attacks by its members, who his inquiry found “were committing serious war crimes.”
He also called on the UN body to condemn the “cold-blooded” Itamar attack, in which five members of one family, including three children, were slaughtered “in their beds.”
I do wonder, though, why Goldstone gave his comments to a newspaper, and not to the UN itself.
Drip…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8422216/Gaddafi-benefits-from-Coalition-reluctance-to-state-its-real-aims.html
..drip, drip….
On our BBC television local news programme, the business correspondent was asked why Arts Council cuts were happening. “The most obvious single reason,” he said, “is bailing out the bankers.”
This shows that the Government is still not getting its message across.
While others, more uniquely funded and protected from regular performance reviews at the ballot box, persist.
I am pleased to say that the BBC has found its ‘angle’ for Prince William’s marriage to Catherine (I am sure even the bBBC reported that was her preference). Well the evidence from Broadcasting House this morning shows that the wedding can be used as a focus by republicans to garner support. There was a long boring report from a sittingroom with a few European republicans in Sweden. When will there be a similar discussion from only Royalists aired? I better not sit and wait as I expect I would get old and grey in the mean time.
IVORY COAST massacre.
In INBBC reports, Muslims not mentioned; but ‘Catholic Mission’ is.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Apparently, much of the ‘political left’ internationally is supporting Muslim Ouattara, and opposing Catholic Gbagbo.
Now remind me about Biafra….
“Remember Biafra!”
(by Hugh Fitzgerald, 2005)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-remember-biafra.html
As INBBC must be aware:”The West Will Protect Muslims, But Not Christians”http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/33614
For INBBC:”Muslims Massacre 800 Christians In Ivory Coast — West Will Not Lift A FingerIvory Coast Massacre Leaves 800 Dead, Red Cross Reports”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/33613
Shaun Ley on Radio 4’s World This Weekend has just stated as a matter of fact, not a question, that Ivory Coast is like Libya, with a president who causes bloodshed by refusing to step down.
No no no!
President Gbagbo is defending his (Christian) people against largely foreign Muslims who are rampaging through the non-Muslim south, burning churches full of cowering civilians stupid enough to think Muslims wiil respect churches. Thousands are dead; hundreds of thousands are fleeing the country.
This was always a Muslim North versus Christian/Animist South struggle. Like Sudan.
What appears to be happening is sadly not unexpected given similar tensions in Nigeria and even Ghana.
I noticed on the BBC website dealing with the events in the Ivory Coast that the BBC indulged its ‘Have your say’ rolling comments. I noticed that every third or fourth item was from an Ivorian supporting ‘elected’ Outtara. Just coincidentally the local contributors had one thing in common. They all had Muslim names.
Those less optimistic about events, did not.
MOUSSA KOUSSA and Libya.
Ben Wallace, Tory MP, has this comment:
“We’ve always dealt with rats – but we shouldn’t do a deal with a rat the size of Moussa Koussa”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1372813/Libya-We-shouldnt-deal-rat-size-Moussa-Koussa.html#ixzz1ITRNXFzP
INBBC has this ‘insight’ provided by its John ‘Taking the Flak’ Simpson, re-Moussa Koussa –
[Extract]:
“The BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson says that Mr Koussa has changed over the years, and when he met him during his tenure as intelligence chief, he mistook him for a junior minister, because he was ‘pleasant’ and ‘inclined to come over and press the flesh at meetings’.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12915987
Is PM Zapatero the Gordon Brown of Spanish politics?:
“The BBC’s Sarah Rainsford, in Madrid, says Mr Zapatero’s party will be hoping his announcement” [that he won’t stand] “gives them a boost at the local elections.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12946340
A cautionary tale :
Please do not make the same mistake I made this afternoon.
I had been watching C-Span’s Washington Journal Live on the BBC’s Parliament Channel this lunch time, after it ended I turned the TV off and went out.
When I came back I turned the TV on for the news but was met with a mad woman shouting and interupting people, shocked I thought “Jesus Christ what the hell is this ?”
It transpired to be the BBC’s The Record Europe and it was Shirin Wheeler screeming like a banshee at what appeared to be her “guests”.
So for those of you with a nervous disposition like myself, do remember to leave your TV on a “safe” channel when turning off.
If memory serves Craig has covered woman’s bias on numerous occasions on his old blog.
The BBC tells us that the Ivory Coast was “Once haven of peace and prosperity in West Africa”.
So what changed?
The clues are there and it is not just about a disputed election.
Back in 2003 all the signs were there.
Christians in Ivory Coast fear an Islamic insurrection could succeed in creating a Muslim state in the African nation after the signing of a French-brokered peace accord that gives important positions of power to rebels. The majority Christian population in the south views the deal as capitulation to political and military leaders in the Muslim north who last September abandoned the democratic process and resorted to violent means in order to achieve power, according to the British charity Barnabas Fund.
Ivory Coast is one of several countries in northern Africa where Muslims are seeking to expand their power and impose Islamic law among Christians, including Sudan and Nigeria. Many Christians in southern Ivory Coast believe neighboring Muslim-majority Burkina Faso is supporting the rebels.
Christian districts have been targeted for attack in the rebel stronghold of Boukae, where homes have been looted and burned. Muslim northerners also reportedly have been targeted in southern areas loyal to the government.
The fighting began on Sept. 19 when a failed military coup sparked clashes between rebel military units and troops loyal to President Laurent Gbagbo’s government. Early on, it became clear that Muslims backed the rebels while the ethnic Ivorian Christians supported the government.
Traditionally C?te d’Ivoire has had a reputation as a haven of peace and stability in West Africa where different religious and ethnic groups have been able to live together in harmony.
Though Ivory Coast has had a reputation for stability, tensions between Muslims and Christians have increased in recent years with the influx of Muslim immigrants in the north, mainly from Burkina Faso. The newcomers now comprise about one-third of the north’s population.
The tensions have grown as the Muslim community has sought to increase its political power.
Don’t expect the BBC to examine what is going on.
The narrative would go awry.
But now that the Red Cross, the Papal Nuncio and even the UN is beginning to spot a potential Rwanda, one wonders how the reporting will proceed,
So far it is about ‘fighters’. (the former rebels who never disarmed) but the missing descriptor is ‘Muslim’.
That’s why the southern population is fleeing and seeking refuge in churches.
Director General Mark THOMPSON’s late (tongue in cheek?) message to all Beeboids (including himself?):
“BBC boss to tell staff ‘no more gravy train'”
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=529315&in_page_id=2#ixzz1IUW4FU6u
‘TODAY’ radio 4 programme seems to specialise in features about:
(a) visual art, which, of course, we can’t see; and in (b) Pakistan, and problems with religion there, without mentioning Islam.
So why not combine (a) and (b) and have interview by INBBC’s Ms Malik with Pakistan visual artist about why he self-censors his work in Pakistan because of a religious threat, without naming Islam?
And this is what ‘TODAY’ did this morning at 7:22 am, especially for the delectation of BBC licencepayers:
“Zubeida Malik spoke to Rashid Rana, the artist who put it together, about why many artists working in Pakistan have been forced to exercise a degree of self-censorship.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm
The line, and stepping over it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8425353/Pity-the-man-whose-job-is-to-spread-gloom-in-the-sunshine.html
I think ‘we’ are in a bit of a pickle. But all things can be resolved with the right will and sensible ways. Sadly I think this may be beyond the country now. And I lay the blame at the door of of not just our venal and inept poliictal classes, but perhaps even more our rotten media.
One gets used to the inevitability of this.. ‘As soon as the LINE had been imparted to this dynamic gofer at Labour HQ, it would be disseminated around the world. Within hours, perhaps even minutes, it would pop up on the BBC website.’
But while the notion of all having to fund the extreme activities and beliefs of an extreme minority under an anachroonistic and ‘unique’ system globally is risible, beyond rampant agenda the BBC is merely part of a ratings-obsessed system that will doing anything to fill the demands of a 24/7 news cycle maw. Hence seeing demands for action one day being, without compunction, turned into mockery for less than total success the next.
But the calibre of pols we ‘enjoy’ certainly does not help. They seem obsessed with pleasing all, all of the time, and usually manage neither.
On SKY David Willetts comes out with utter idiocy claiming ‘we’ all mostly want to serve the state by working until we drop, paying taxes to keep the legions of non-income generating parasite classes in index-linked.
Rightly this was lampooned. But then we get the multi-hundred K Irish bloke arguing pro what he was con last week just for the hell of it ‘backed’ by the equally overpaid peroxide sink offsider reading out carefully selected ‘views’ designed merely to stir up a storm.
For sure the bozo was out of order. But where was the context from a responsible broadcaster on the realities. Chortling away at folk not wanting to work past 5pm (evidently a civil servant on OT), just what, exactly, do these ’empathisers with the masses’ think is going to happen to our kids’ futures if we sink further into debt, nothing changes… and everyone drops out of work and onto a 30-yr retirement expecting to be paid for each cosy day off?
The political classes have the media they deserve.
But the people deserve neither, especially the one we are required to fund in its massively self interest-conflicted efforts.
The bBC judging the actions of yesteryear with the morals of today and half the story.
MI5 ‘said Bronowski was a risk’
Files released today show that MI5 labelled the scientist and broadcaster Jacob Bronowski a “security risk” for nearly 20 years, writes Sanchia Berg.”It reminds me of the Stasi in East Germany…it would be comical if it wasn’t so serious for a man’s life.” That is the way Professor Lisa Jardine describes the file MI5 assembled on her father, Dr Jacob Bronowski…. But MI5’s fat file on him suggests to his daughter that there could be another reason. The MI5 file was opened in late 1939 because of a tip-off from a schoolmaster whose son had met Bronowski in Hull, where he was a lecturer in Maths at the new University College. The correspondent wrote to the Home Office that Bronowski was “reviling this country” and “extremely left”….Then, in 1940, MI5 received another tip, this time from a Professor WE Collinson. He knew personally one of the MI5 officers, a Mr Pilcher, and contacted him directly. He quoted anonymous colleagues of Dr Bronowski who considered him “an agitator of the Communist type” who was “disseminating seditious doctrines”. Again, MI5 asked Hull police to help. They sent PC Alfred Foster to observe Dr Bronowski at public events. At one meeting of the Left Book Club in October 1940, the main speaker was a Commander Young, of the Royal Navy. He was very critical of the government, suggesting that they didn’t really want to win the war.
So the bBC plays the victim card for a leftwing political agitator who in late 1939 was a communist in all but name. So why would MI5 be so worried about somebody being a communist it’s not as if Communists were on the side of the Axis nations during WW2. Well actually in 1939 until May 1941, the Russians were on the side of the Axis Nations. Funny thing you see when Germany invaded Poland in Sept 1939, a fortnight later Russia invaded from the East and once they met in the middle they carved up Poland between themselves.
Russia. This was due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in Aug 1939 which carved up Eastern Europe between the two. Which is why after Poland, Russia annexed the Baltic states and invaded Finland.
Ok we had France between us and the Nazis in 1939, however by Oct 1940 when Dr Bronowski chaired that left book meeting, France had been overrun and the only country in Europe which stood against Nazis Europe was..the UK.
You’d think that if the bBC was going to judge the actions of yesteryear with the morals of today about how a leftwing Professor was preaching that he was a commie and that he could “collaborate” with communists on points with which he had sympathy, when at the time the Russians appeared to be in league with the Nazis. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out why MI5 were watching him.
If only MI5 would open files now on people at the BBC. For instance Adam Curtis and whoever commissioned ‘The Power of Nightmares’, with Jihadist Azzam Tammimi as programme adviser. Enemy propaganda that won a BAFTA!
INBBC apparently wants Britain (and European Union) to be taken over by continuous mass immigration (preferably, like now, from Islamic countries).
I have NEVER seen a Beeboid advocate that there should a limit to the numbers of immigrants who should be allowed into the EU, and therefore into Britain. But there are many Beeboid articles taking the viewpoint of putative immigrants. (BBC’s favourite euphemism: ‘migrants’, implying, wrongly, that such people are ‘temporary’ stayers.)
In contrast:
‘Daily Mail’ –
“Special dispatch: Gaddafi’s diaspora and the Libyans overwhelming an Italian island who are threatening to come here”
(by Sue Reid)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373002/Gaddafis-diaspora-Libyans-overwhelming-Lampedusa.html#ixzz1IY3CZyl4
INBBC avoids talking about the obvious European (and British) bigger picture to Lampadusa mass immigration:
“Italy moves African migrants to mainland from Lampedusa”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12932904
Richard Littlejohn has come up with an excellent nic for Polly Toynbee. Scroll down.
Umm, OK then, but I don’t really think that “Scroll Down” is a very funny nickname personally.
O:-)
Possibly not funny, but actually it is not too shabby a handle for those who rather selectively drag the whole country into the gutter to suit niche, minority social-engineering views… that pay handsomely.
Sort of a troll/scribe combo in Ms. Toynbee’s case.
Just reading tonight’s local (for me) evening paper and thought you may be interested in this. BBC profligacy carries on apace. http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/04/04/gardeners-world-site-fury-at-bbc/
Sit back and enjoy the distruction they are about to bring about and deliver on “Ambridge” with GQT.
If ever there was an excuse for the BBC to broadcast how terrible cuts are : This is it.
Interesting the comments in support thus far.
May be nothing to do with anything, but i found the picture of the great wall between a bubble and the outside world more an interesting potential metaphor.
In terms of the dabbling and moving on, it also minded me of Ethical Man, who was for a year, and the… presumably.. stopped being ethical when the cameras no longer ran.
All rather falls under the ‘don’t do as we do’ category a tad.
What’s the betting that Labour will be labelling this slow-up/review of the NHS reforms as the “Liberal Democrats review on nhs changes” and not as the “Tory-led coalition review on nhs changes” and more to the point of this place, how quickly will the talking heads on the BBC be repeating it and injecting it into every news bulletin between now and the end of the month?
Nicky Campbell call-in on Moslem allegations of ‘Islamophobia’ coming up. He and his co-presenter Shelagh Fogarty have just asked some good questions to a Moselm ‘anti-islamophobia’ campaigner.
As always, fascinated to know why so many people here think Nick Campbell is emblematic of BBC bias. I confidently predict his call-in will be impeccably well conducted and would be interested in anyone’s views if you get a chance to catch it (still quiet at work, should catch most of it 🙂 )
r4today BBC Radio 4 Today Polster Frank Luntz says #US elections almost always “come down to likeability… and #Obama still has it”: http://bbc.in/hm5FXu#R4Today
Banging the drum early
IVORY COAST reporting.
Apparently INBBC has decided to censor reference to religion in this violent conflict,
“Large mainstream news organizations such as BBC and CNN refer to the victims as ‘civilians’ while smaller media and Catholic news outlets are reporting that ‘Catholics’ or ‘Christians’ were killed.”
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/268065#ixzz1Ie6P2iY0
I suppose the problem for INBBC would be that if it started identifying many of the victims as ‘Christian’, it might have to describe many of the perpetrators as ‘Muslim’, and we can’t have tha , can we, INBBC?:
“Exactly what happened also remains unclear. However, the Herald Scotland is reporting that more than 800 people were killed in a single day around a Salesian Missions compound in Duékoué (300 miles west of Abidjan towards the Liberian border), calling it a ‘massacre.’ The newspaper reports that ‘the attackers seem to have been largely soldiers descended from Burkina Faso immigrant Muslim families loyal to Ouattara.'”
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/268065#ixzz1Ie7vPCZZ
But apparently INBBC has no problem in not questioning the military attacks by UN, French, and Ouattara forces on Abidjan.