OPEN THREAD
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Up2snuff Dec 21, 15:49
Weekend 21st December 2024
MM, better sex education makes better rapists? The husband’s lawyer would say that, wouldn’t she? - JohnC Dec 21, 15:46
Weekend 21st December 2024
Everybody elses headline: Pair deny IS-inspired plot for gun attack on UK Jewish community BBC Headline: Pair deny alleged plot… - MarkyMark Dec 21, 15:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
“BBC correspondent Damien McGuinness in Magdeburg said the market was surrounded by concrete blocks. However, there was a gap for… - Rob in Cheshire Dec 21, 15:03
Weekend 21st December 2024
Bliar has unnaturally long fingers. I think the alien stories might be true. - Rob in Cheshire Dec 21, 15:01
Weekend 21st December 2024
I might consider breaking the law to rearrange his features with a cricket bat. Or is it only all right… - Rob in Cheshire Dec 21, 14:58
Weekend 21st December 2024
There are none so blind, as they that cannot see. - StewGreen Dec 21, 14:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
“London Welsh was formed in 1885 by and for London’s Welsh community, and has played senior-level rugby since then” WElsh… - StewGreen Dec 21, 13:58
Weekend 21st December 2024
If the man is an anti Islamist, then why would he attack a market full of non-Muslims rather than a… - MarkyMark Dec 21, 13:58
Weekend 21st December 2024
A Coldstream Guardsman who was the first to wear a turban during Trooping the Colour is understood to have tested…
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
Israel approves 942 Jewish homes in Gilo settlementIsrael has approved the construction of 942 homes in the Jewish settlement of Gilo on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
The move comes ahead of talks between Israeli President Shimon Peres and US President Barack Obama in Washington.
The US has repeatedly called on Israel to stop building settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
[…]
Israel built the settlement at Gilo on land it captured in 1967. It later annexed the area to the Jerusalem municipality in a move not recognised by the international community.
Israel says it does not consider areas within the Jerusalem municipality to be settlements.
Gilo lies across a narrow valley from the Palestinian village of Beit Jala. It became a target for militants during the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilo
Archaeology
A site dating to the period of Israelite settlement known as Iron Age I (1200 – 1000 BCE) was identified and excavated at Gilo. The site revealed a small planned settlement with dwellings along the perimeter of the site, together with pottery dating to the twelfth century BCE.[11] The southern part of the Iron Age site at Gilo is believed to be one of the earliest Israelite sites from this period.[11] The site was surrounded by a defensive wall and divided into large yards, possibly sheep pens, with houses at the edges. Buildings at the site are amongst the earliest examples of the pillared four room house characteristic of Iron Age Israelite architecture, featuring a courtyard divided by stone pillars, a rectangular back room and rooms along the courtyard. The foundations of a structure built of large stones were also uncovered, possibly a fortified defense tower.[11] During the construction of Gilo, archaeologists discovered a fortress and agricultural implements from the period of the First Temple period above the shopping center in Rehov Haganenet. Between Givat Canada and Gilo Park, they unearthed the remains of a farm and graves from the Second Temple period. Roman and Byzantine remains have also been found at various sites.[12]
[edit] Biblical Gilo
The biblical town of Gilo is mentioned in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 15:51) and the Book of Samuel (II Sam 15:12).[13] Some scholars believe that biblical Gilo was located in the central Hebron Hills, whereas the name of the modern settlement was chosen because of its proximity to Beit Jala, possibly a corruption of Gilo.[14] A city in the southwest part of the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 15:51), Gilo was the birthplace of Ahithophel “the Gilonite” (Josh. 15:51; 2 Sam. 15:12), and the place where he committed suicide (17:23).
Demography
From its inception, Gilo has provided housing to new Jewish immigrants from around the world. Many of those who spent their first months in the country at the immigrant hostel in Gilo, including those from Iran, Syria, France and South America, chose to remain in the neighborhood. Since the large influx of Soviet Jews in the 1990s, Gilo has absorbed 15% of all immigrants of that wave settling in Jerusalem.[16] The immigrant hostel is now the site of an urban kibbutz, Beit Yisrael.[14]
BioD
You must pay more attention to the BBC’s (or certainly Aquil Ahmed’s) favourite biblical scholar Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou. In the BBC narrative as (more or less) confirmed by Dr S, the Jews have little, if any historical (and no biblical) connection to the Holy Land. Apparently, the myth of Jewish history in the Levant was all got up by Chaim Weitzmann who stole Palestine from the Arabs behind T E Lawrence’s back.
BTW, although she hasn’t publicly opined on this, in her next series (if she and Mr Ahmed can agree on suitable contract terms) Dr S will doubtless confirm that everything in the Koran is historically and theologically accurate and she can personally vouch for the fact that Mohammed rose to heaven from the Temple Mount (thus proving that the Palestinians have the title deeds to Israel).
When the term settlement is used the image is of a handful of zealots on a hill. Gilo, established 38 years ago has a population of 40,000. Even during the 10 months when Netanyahu agreed on a freeze (during which the Palestinians did nothing to further negotiations) it was made quite clear that Jerusalem was not part of the freeze.
Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. So the BBC supports the expulsion of half a million people?
Israel says it does not consider areas within the Jerusalem municipality to be settlements. Once more with the ‘says’. Is this to imply Israel is lying or the fact is not yet confirmed? Israel does not consider areas within the Jerusalem municipality to be settlements is correct and more concise.
It became a target for militants during the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in 2000. Rather milquetoast. I’m curious why the BBC doesn’t say Second Intifada nor date it 2000-2005. For five years snipers operating from residences in Beit Jala, generally without the permission from the occupants, aiming at the civilians in Gilo. Eventually a bullet proof wall was constructed but later demolished.
I’ve mentioned this on the Goldstone thread below, but here it is again. Robin Shepherd has a new online feature, The Commentator; for people like us I think.
Britain pledges continued support for Goldstone report against Israel, even as Goldstone retracts allegations
Also not mentioned by the BBC.
I like this new website:
http://thecommentator.com/article/32/bbc_bias_is_a_national_disgrace_and_a_global_menace
Robin Shepherd
The News Channel just had a humorous human interest story about some lowlife who got stuck in a locked bin while trying to steal clothing donated to the Red Cross. He was arrested and “cautioned” by the police. That’s it. Not going to court, no criminal charge, apparently.
The Beeboids had a laugh at the stupid criminal. It’s too bad they failed to use this as an opportunity to discuss the obviously poor state of policing and criminal law in Britain. Of course, the BBC doesn’t want anyone to go to jail, ever (except in cases of publicly insulting Islam, naturally), so are ideologically unable to see the real issue involved in this bit of comic relief. That’s the visceral bias inherent in the system on display.
Give it another 6 months and the BBC will be blaming all types of increased crime as caused by the Tory led coalition cuts to the police budget. It won’t be long before Panorama starts doing in depth coverage of rises in car crime, muggings, burglary, domestic violence etc, all treated to separate programmes. All crimes will be blamed on the Tories and their cuts, except racial or religious based cimes against white non muslims.
BBC Balance 101:
Step 1: Run a short, balanced package on a hot political subject, eg. Social Mobility, News24 15:40 today, Tuesday.
Step 2: Find an ‘expert’, preferably an academic, who has been involved in populist causes.
Step 3: Run a 5 minute interview with said expert, as a voice of authority to provide an “impartial” view on subject.
Step forward… Lord Robert Winston, introduced simply as Professor of Science & Society at Imperial College London and a participant in Jamie Oliver’s Dream School Project which gave “disadvantaged children a second chance”.
Perfect.
Of course, no need for the BBC to mention that Lord Winston sits on the Labour benches and takes the Labour whip?
Move on, nothing to see here..
Then for five full minutes Lord Winston is then permitted to provided his partisan views, without disclosure of his political allegiance, with no counter balance or context and under the cloak of academic authority.
Job done.
Thanks News 24.
I saw it, too. Then there was a segment in the studio talking with another Socialist Mobility advocate who claimed that if some people’s income increases more than others it harms social mobility. Which makes no sense whatsoever, but Sophie Beeboid nodded in agreement.
Mohamed El Baradei: “if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime.”
BBC: ZZzzzzzz
Perhaps the kind of vibrant voter that El Baradei (or the Brotherhood, or the Salafi) is trying to attract.
Nasty stuff two minutes in and then more.
It doesn’t have to take an overt policy change as drastic as suggested. El Baradei is unlikely to be elected. The next Egyptian Government will almost certainly end the Gaza blockade. There is a logic to this. They will explain this as a humanitarian measure and that the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood has been lifted. They can claim to be allowing only goods and people to cross freely but not arms so as not to endanger the $2.8 billion p.a. America sends.
Large quantities of sophisticated weaponry enter Gaza as the Egyptians look the other way and inevitably will be used until either they cross some undisclosed red line or succeed in hitting a quality target. Operation Cast Lead II ensues (I so hope that won’t be the name chosen).
Calling on the Libya/Ivory Coast precedent the UN calls for a No Fly Zone to protect Gaza’s civilians. Egypt returns its military to Sinai, just in case. WAR.
I sat through a several hours of the Top of the Pops revisited show on Saturday Night on BBC3. Surely, I can watch footage of bands from the 60s/70s/80s/90s without any political bias. Wrong! As soon as we get to the 80s, the commentary becomes sarcastic, the music selected is the worst they could find, no mention of any of the fantastic bands that appeared on the show in that decade, they prefer to feature Black Lace. Up pop leftie-luvvie ex Radio 1 DJs to slag off Thatcher. The BBC somehow conspire to give us the impression that Thatcher was responsible for changing musical tastes. Then we get to the 90s, the music becomes upbeat and they feature New Labour’s theme tune: Dream’s ‘Things Can Only get Better’. Its like a Labour Party political broadcast. Yes, music has been rescued from the dark days of Thatcher. There are no more trash songs in the charts and its all rock and Britpop. Oh, and how wonderful it is to have trashy celebs presenting the TOTPs. The Show is going from strength to strength. Errr..except its ratings are diminishing and then its scrapped.
Well, there WAS a pop music show on BBC3 on Saturday, but it (a) wasn’t exclusively TOTP clips, (b) wasn’t presented chronologicially, and (c) took the proverbial out of most of the dances featured and rarely, if ever, featured politics at all.
So we end up with a completely fictional post designed to provoke the local yokels into brandishing the flaming torches and pitchforks without bothering with that pesky inconvenience known as the truth.
Welcome to Biased BBC, Olivia. You’ll fit in no problem.
Have to agree with Scott here. I watched the show and it spent lots of time on…. ‘Top of the pops.’ The only politics i saw mentioned was the banter between Kid jenson and Tony Blackburn.
Oh now scoot seems to like the truth! well maybe he can point out the truth in some of the more important posts on here like the fact the BBC allowed Lord Robert Winston on as a ‘academic’ and not a Labour puppet or CAMERAs demolition of “A Walk in the Park” maybe the stealth editing of Gerry Adams out of the Omagh bomb report ? the utter bunk that is top of the what ever fall sadly into the doc who politics school I.E class of 97 revisionist garbage dressed up as entertainment !.
Scott,
You might be more convincing if you were telling us about some TV/radio station nobody here watched, but all the people here watch and listen to the BBC at some point during the week, and have seen many thousands of hours of the BBC output over a lifetime, and therefore know the bias against “Tories” to be endemic, which of course you also know to be true. The fact that you have never voted Tory in your life, and you are keen for everybody to think that the BBC have impartiality in their genes, is of course entirely coincidental.
As for the programme in question I did not watch it, but I have seen the editorial stance it describes so many times that I assumed this is yet another example. If this was just a music programme with no political content, fair enough, but stop pretending you have never watched a BBC cultural programme about the Eighties that was not biased against “Thatcher” because if you say you have never seen one then I say you either have not watched or listened to the BBC very much or you are a liar.
So you didn’t see the programme in question, but Olivia’s description matches the sort of programme you don’t like, so therefore it’s okay? That’s the Biased BBC everyone knows and laughs at for being ridiculous…
‘That’s the Biased BBC everyone knows and laughs at for being ridiculous…’
As we are on the topic of a post, by a poster, and ridicule (deserved or not), on a rather minor issue that has caused the latest carrion crower selective swoop out of thousands steered clear of, care to substantiate that ‘everyone’ in the spirit of tackling wild generalisations?
Scott,
Try to keep up old boy. I would not want to accuse you of being wilfully misleading. I was making the general point that hatred of Thatcher is the default position of any BBC output about the Eighties. Anybody who has ever watched or listened to the BBC (you obviously haven’t since I would not want to accuse you of being a liar) will have noticed this, so good luck with your attempt to tell people that what they see with their own eyes, or hear with their own ears, does not really happen.
You exemplify what is being criticised. Just look in the mirror if you are wondering what it is all about. You have so little interest in truth Stalin would be proud of you. What a sad excuse for a human being.
Maybe, it was past your bed time, but it certainly was chronological after 10pm, beginning with the 60s and ending with the 2000s, featuring bands, ex-presenters and producers. Everything I say is absolutely correct and available for all to see. Its quite funny that you deny it all. How’s the move to Salford going?
Okay, now you’re really losing it,, since the music programme that was on BBC3 on Saturday actually finished at 10pm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/programmes/schedules/2011/04/02
Are you sure you didn’t fall asleep and imagine the whole thing?
Could it be this programme on Friday night that Olivia is referring to? Black Lace were certainly on it. Can’t say I noticed any bias, but plenty crap music.
After me now…. “Agadoo, doo, doo, push pineapple…”
Oh dear! It was BBC4, actually. My only mistake was to type BBC3 instead of BBC4. Top of The Pops: The TRUE Story, 23:20 on Saturday Night.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007bs5w
Perhaps you were so blinded by your loyalty to the BBC you just focussed on BBC3. Watch it and don’t choke on that humble pie, Scott!
he’s a twat
give him the rubber ear Olivia
Don’t feed the troll.
Ah, the usual Biased BBC technique – get caught out being incorrect, then try and blame people who took issue with your initial statement.
David Vance tried much the same when it turned out he was too busy typing how angry he was that the BBC had broadcast an anti-Thatcher joke to notice he’d actually been watching a commercial broadcaster. Rather than own up to his mistake and apologise, he went on the offensive. By which I mean even more offensive than usual.
He ended up looking stupid (no change there, then). Bst not follow his poor example, eh.
Low hanging fruit as per usual, care to comment on the BBC’s coverage of the Fogel murders or anything of more importance than a TOTP documentary?
Thought not…
And what? so that’s it ? best you can do is he might [why the hell should I trust you on this one ?] have made a slip !! oh no what just like the hundreds of retractions and finding against the BBC? but you want what ? apology’s grovelling to you and your BBC betters ? that he should suddenly admit all the crap you talk is actually the new way and give up all this truth and uncovering of bias over one of your pathetic posts defending a garbage music programme! pick a more challenging topic you fool like Israeli OR Islam go on expand your brain further than your butt!!
Errr…yes you caught me out. I posted an example of BBC bias in even the most non-political of subjects, when it was in fact not BBC3, it was BBC4. BBC bias was not BBC bias, it was in fact BBC bias. So that’s alright then. What’s it like living on planet socialist? Keep going, its hilarious.
Thatcher gave many bands and comedians their material in the 80s. Without Thatcher, most of them probably wouldn’t have begun let alone thrive and make a living. They should be grateful to her for giving them a leg-up.
The truth is that most of the angry & aggressive bands came out of the late 70’s, if anyone changed music it was the discontent & depression related to Labour amongst other things. Punk music, Industrial Music, Gothic Music, Joy Division, Throbbing Gristle et al where born in the late 70’s riling against the system or just plain angry without knowing exactly why. Not that I’m moaning about the music ’cause it’s da shit.
Caught the bBC on getting its reporters to wear body armour when actually there isn’t any need at all.
Scene of an air-strike near Brega, as fighting intensifies
The bBCs Wyrie Davies reports from the scene of an Allied air strike while wearing body armour.
Now look over his right shoulder at the 33 second point. Oh look there’s a camera man and guess what? He isn’t wearing body armour. In fact in the entire video clip only 2 people are wearing body armour (the other fellow comes in at the 10 second point on the extreme right of the clip) and both are: …Press.
I am not saying the area isn’t dangerous, but even accounting for the fact that your average civy hasn’t got access to body armour, why are the only people wearing bodyarmour the ones in front of the camera. Think I’m kidding lets go back almost a month and a video report from John Simpson where he and his crew come under fire. Have a look at the rest of his gang: When they get fired upon from a Gadiffi check point and during an air attack (1.50 min)nobody is wearing body armour other than John Simpson.
Now you’d think that after Jeremy Bowens driver who got slotted by the Israelis as he drove towards it, and the shooting of its security expert. (Frank Gardner) The bBC would make it mandatory that all its employees wore body armour when in a dangerous zone. Apparently, from what I’ve seen only the man in front of the camera is the one at risk. Funny that.
Oh Lordy Lordy…Thought For The Day again boys and girls!
Heard some airhead Reverend Blue Jeans team vicar or whatever they are called these days on this mornings Toady Show.
She (it`s a she at St James Piccaddilly natch!) compares the suffering stoicism of the mum of the Omagh policeman murdered by…well let`s not be so tasteless as to accuse our new found friends in the North of Ireland…she compares the “sacrifice” with that nasty US pastor who condemned the UN staff to death by his burning the Koran. Both are so called Christians ,yet only one is to blame for the Afghans going on the rampage killing all in a deeply conservative and religious(and no doubt peace loving) country.
This useless woman will soon be stepping into James Jones flip flops as the BBCs cleric of choice…trained at the temple of Lennon,Marley, Mercury as opposed to Christ himself.
Migrant crime increases 50% in just 3 years:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373210/Foreign-arrests-double-just-THREE-years-immigration-soars.html
but I don’t recall any bBBC coverage of such an important issue.
Yes; and a broader picture –
“Islamists on Welfare: Paid to Plot the West’s Demise”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/paid-to-plot-the-wests-demise/?singlepage=true
And only today PM Cameron, with no mandate, decides to give away another £650 million of British taxpers’ money (and, apparently some more military information) to PAKISTAN.
This is unlikely to be criticised by INBBC as recipents are Muslims mainly, and foreign aid is deemed ineligible for cuts.
“David Cameron pledges ‘fresh start’ with Pakistan”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12967819
Dave, George R, why would any of us expect pathological cultural Marxist liars like the BBC to report this? The Voice of The Nation, utterly committed to telling it like it isn’t. Any inconvenient truths are suppressed, or bent, with an alacrity that would make Pravda gasp.
On yet another uneasy, sinister north London night, as a swaggering gang of violent, anarchic, callous, misogynistic thugs barrels past me, exuding criminal intent, not only do I feel as if this country is being colonised, but also robbed blind. The atmosphere is more akin to Mogadishu, or Detroit. Can anybody say these people ‘enrich’ us. And it was all so avoidable. If the UK had had, from 1968, a selective immigration policy that only permitted entry to the best people we wouldn’t be immersed in the seething quagmire that now bubbles around us. And if we had kept out of the EU, we would actually be thriving. Who needs Trojan horses given Nu Labour’s criminally insane open door, open house, help yourself policy? The Nu Labour grandees are a new breed of masochist; they let other people do the suffering, & then float above the ensuing chaos, their neo Liberal credentials enhanced, their ‘white guilt’ assuaged. And the BBC is right up there with them, breathing the same hallucinogenic air.
The indigenous British people, & the settled, law-abiding, productive immigrants that live amongst us, are the poor bloody infantry, doomed to take more & more collateral damage until we are overrun by the lawless. With a population already well over 70 million that won’t be long. This coalition, unfortunately, will do nothing to alter the inevitable outcome, & the awful prospect of Nu Labour returning to power lurks on the horizon. Meanwhile, the BBC, well-schooled by The Frankfurt School, rubs its slippery hands together & gives the nation a warm, cosy reassuring smile; everything is going to plan.
What we were, & what we could have been, will be fleeting, elusive thoughts in an old person’s failing mind, as he, or she, sitting in a spartan care home, watches Prime Minister Chakrabarti’s latest pronouncement on the BBC, & inexplicably, begins to weep.
The bBC, why the third world is known as the third world and pay me £145 quid for half the story.
Ecuador expels US ambassador over Wikileaks cable
Ecuador has announced it is expelling the US ambassador in Quito. The move follows the release on Monday by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks of a US diplomatic cable alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorean police force…Mr Patino(Foreign Minister) said that after the release he had called Ambassador Hodges to ask how the US had “had access to such restricted information”.Asked if he thought that the US had infiltrated the Ecuadorean police force, he answered “it would be nothing new”.
Now while this isn’t an example of bBC bias. There is a lack of substance to the story. For a start unlike a lot of people I have travelled (On a diplomatic passport) throughtout the central American region. There is a reason why the third world is known as the third world and one of them is corruption. For example, once at Tegucigalpa a passport offical demanded I pay him $20 dollars extra to enter the coutnry. I asked to see his boss, another time at the same airport I was asked to pay $10 extra to leave. That time the vice consol who was with me ripped him a new arsehole. I’ve witnessed all around the world examples of where somebody in a postion of power feels he can enrich his wallet by inventing a new tax. Which kind of explains why the country in question here,Ecudor finds itself in 127th postion in the worlds corruption list. For a world worthy news agency you’d think the bBC would have mentioned that last snippet. You know like they do with this current story about corruption in the Far East:
Asia counts the cost of corruption
I wonder, could it be because the US isn’t in the story?.
Another blatent push for AV on Newsnight tonight with no balance and blatent support for Cleggs killing off interns by more red tape.
I dunno why the clowns in power are going with AV? Surely a system like NZ’s is far superior to AV, where you get to vote for a politician AND a political party. So you might cast your vote for Bob Dobalina from Labour BUT give your party vote to that monster raving loony party instead.
This AV system seems highly convoluted where the person who gets the most votes may not actually get in to parliament?
Mailman: I don’t have a horse in this race but as an ex Aussie I can give evidence that the system works well there.
the person who gets the most votes may not actually get in to parliament? Yes, that’s true however the person least disliked always gets through.
Consider the following situation you described with Bob Dobalina (was there a joke I missed?) against the Monster Raving Loony party. In a two party system who gets the most votes is elected. Now consider the situation in an extremely well balance three person race. Bob 33%, Monster 34% Fred 33% (If someone won 50% plus one vote they would be elected, without counting 2nd preferences). Under the current system 66% of the voters do not want Monster but he will be elected. Under AV assuming Bob supporters would prefer Fred and vice versa and Monster voters want either Bob or Fred but more Bob supporters Bob is elected.
One side effect of AV in the Australian experience has been that governments have almost always held both the majority of seats (prerequisite for being in government) AND the majority of votes cast. This is not true of the UK and the current system. I consider the AV system far more representative.
This AV system seems highly convoluted. Not so highly that Australians (never credited in the UK with too much intelligence) haven’t coped with variations of it for more than a century. The complication is in the counting but that isn’t the voters problem.
Of course the answer to ‘which system best represents the wishes of the electorate?’ and ‘which system offers the opportunity for more effective government?’ are not the same.
I happen to be more interested in the latter. And if I never hear the words ‘fair’ and ‘fairness’ for the rest of my life I shall die a happy man.
Get a load of this wonderful lady:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/04/manifesto-of-evil-totalitarian.html#more
What a woman!
Come on Dave, please keep up. That has been posted twice already.
http://biasedbbc.tv/2011/04/keep-taking-pills.html#comments
😉
News like this should be repeated as often as you like! good on yer dave!!
and good on HER…what a gutsy woman. Look and learn Cameron.
I was joking Mr Duck. Lets not lose our sense of humour.
It’s late and i really must get to bed as I’m up in a few hours. Anyway the reason I’m up so late as I was reading this months (May) edition of ‘Combat aircraft‘ Well I did say I was a spotter. So I’ve the news on in the background as I want to glean some info on the unkown aircraft strike in Port Sudan. Instead i’m regailed to a bBC story about how the rebels in libya are saying ‘NATO’ isn’t doing enought and that it is too slow in which to help the poor oppressed people of libya. (So much for that so called Islamic brotherhood where if you harm one muslim you harm them all?) Anway News 24 find some bloke and allow him to rant about how bad NATO is, As i was reading I was only keeping half an ear to the news. When the bloke started ranting about how NATO armed Gadiffi with Tanks,Planes and Missiles and the woman at the bEEB let him get away with stating such a falsehood. But then in the bBCs defence she wasn’t a defnece expert like say,Frank Gardner.
I know its the wrong channel but did anyone else catch Monday nights “Dispatchers” documentary about Higher Education on Channel 4 ? My attention was drawn to it my Mrs 1327 yelling that a 12 year old girl appeared to be presenting it. This turned out to be none other than Laurie Penny of the New Statesman and Guardian with her own grown up TV show.
To call the show rambling and incoherent would do it a disservice. It was all over the place moaning about high management pay , grace and favour homes then went on about foreign students having to pay (yes pay) to come to University in the UK. Next we discovered that in India British Unis have to pay agents a comission to get students but then moaning that senior University staff were comparing comissions on a mailing list. All of this was padded out with shots of Miss Penny wearing her bestest Palestiniain scarf and looking serious while on student demos. I found it hilariously bad but Mrs 1327 yelled a lot about poor standards and being treated as an idiot by what appeared to be a 12 year old.
Whats this to do with B-BBC you ask ? Well given her left wing views and total inability to make a TV show expect to see Miss Penny on the Beeb very very soon.
Clever girl.
Ms. Penny’s abilities and beliefs should, at best, have ensured her a slot as an asst. climate diversity officer in Lambeth Council.
However, by securing a slot at a publication that enjoys about 0.0006% of UK readership, mostly chez Aunty and her sisters, she is on track for a mighty media career.
Because she’s worth it.
I’m neither pro nuclear nor anti,but I would like decisions to be made in a sensible way. Compare a video report on chenobyl 25 years on by the BBBC today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12982685
and this 4 minute excerpt from the Chanel 4 What the Environmentalists got Wrong
The BBC item is emotional, alarmist, inaccurate and would clearly like to scare everyone away from nuclear power.
I would highly recommend this article for anyone who wants a reasoned discussion of risks including the implications for the Fukushima plant.
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/the-dangers-of-nuclear-power-in-light-of-fukushima/
Thorium power generation may well be the source of the future. In theory it is both safe from meltdown, has no storage problems and plentifull. Haven’t heard the BBC pushing for it.
The BBC are only interested in wind and wave power: coz it’s like free, man!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12912527
Gavin Esler on the Eichman trial to be broadcast today,6 April at 11:00. Most of the article seems fairly innocuous till you get to the last bit.
“This 50th anniversary is, therefore, also a time of debate within Israel about whether the inescapable shadow of the past also makes it difficult to make peace in the present, and thrive in the future.”
So the shadow of the Holocaust makes it difficult for Israel to make peace.
Is that a complete non sequitur, or is it just me?
Can anyone explain to me how the two are linked?
P.S
Is it that the victims of the Holocaust need to be blamed for the continuing violence because they find it difficult to make peace? The victims of the greatest industrialised mass murder ever known, are the cause of their own state of war with their neighbours?
Ah. I think I get it.
PPS
And just by the way-
Although Gavin seems to think it’s a debating subject for Israelis.
I don’t know even ONE Israeli who would debate the subject of whether the Holocaust makes it difficult to make peace, or to thrive in the future.
It didn’t prevent Israel thriving in the past 60 odd years, nor did it prevent peace with Egypt/Jordan.
The terms of the peace treaty with Egypt seem not be discussable on the BBC. Israel gave up land equal in size to current Israel, oil fields and resorts in return for peace.
the twisted anti semites at al beeb will twist any story which might portray Israel in a positive light into another jew hating piece of crap
it’s who they are….it’s what they do
now all we have to do is find a way to bring the whole noxoius piece of crap come tumbling down around their lefty ears
Memory of the Holocaust is one of the reasons why Israelis won’t joyously embrace handing enemies who consider killing Jews as a religious and/or national imperiative the means to do so.
However the real debate about the Holocaust isn’t with the Israelis, it is with the Palestinians. Acknowledging that (deserved) guilt about the Holocaust from both those nations who took part and those who did nothing to stop it has benefitted Israel they look for a counter argument.
Did the Holocaust never happen? OR did it happen but the Arabs had nothing to do with it? OR did it happen and the Arabs shouldn’t have to pay for it? OR didn’t it go far enough? OR was it Allah’s punishment of the Jews for what they would do in the future to the Palestinians? (makes sense in Islamic theology) those are the questions.
The Holocaust is often held up – by people on all sides of the argument, really – as the reason for Israel’s existence. The more it gets played down, and pushed further into the dustbin of history, more people will forget all about it or at least think little of it. This makes attacking and delegitimizing Israel much, much easier. That’s the goal of statements like familyjaffa highlights.
The Jews are the only people on the planet who are not to be permitted an historical grievance, large or small. Think about it: how many times have you heard somebody dismiss the issue by saying “The Jews use the Holocaust as an excuse for…..” (a common refrain when discussing the Palestinians) or “I’m tired of hearing about the Holocaust, they need to get over it….”
These are not strawmen, but very real sentiments I hear fairly often. I’m sure there’s evidence of it from BBC talking heads as well.
So it’s vital for the haters to make everyone forget the Holocaust as quickly as possible. They’re concerned that reminding everyone of the Holocaust will serve only to strengthen nasty old Israel’s position. And the BBC is there to help, your license fee hard at work.
The BBC’s editorial policy is biased in such a way as to, etc., etc. It’s entrenched across the spectrum of broadcasting.
BBC News 24. This morning between 8.00 and 8.15am the main news stories were the tax and benefits changes and the health service reforms.
I decided to attempt an exercise in watching as dispassionately as was possible; surpresssing all preconceived ideas and without allowing myself to be informed by any prior knowledge or personal insights.
I imagined myself looking in while orbiting the earth in a spaceship from the planet Zog.
An earnest GP appeared on screen and he was concerned that if he were to control his own budget then an element of commercialisation might intrude between himself and his patients.
A group of thoughtful pregnant women were shown together in what might have been a trendy cafe. One of their number had figured out that with the ending of a tax credit she would be financially worse off than if she had given birth last year.
Although there were quotes from Government spokesmen defending the measures, the overall impression was that coalition Governement reforms were ill-judged and would be detrimental in their consequences – indeed they were rather malicious in their intent.
My onboard mega computer warned me that to legally receive these broadcasts I ought to contribute to the mandatory annual subscription.
Although the experience had been depressing I could at least be optimistic that surely this bad Governement could not last long.
I had heard quotes from the likes of Mr Ed Balls and Mr Ed Milliband that had clearly demonstrated that these chaps were much more in tune with the people and that they would never bring in any such miss-guided reforms but would rather enable everyone to be better off.
I returned to planet Zog.
As ever Stephanie “floundering” Flanders insights on her blog are as politically balanced as ever…….
“Ed Balls says today is Black Wednesday for British families:”
Yes the same ex who is on her twitter list as opposed to the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer who isn’t.
Impartiality it’s in our genes!
Good catch. It would be fun to see a list of whom the worst Beeboids follow.
‘It would be fun to see a list of whom the worst Beeboids follow.’
.. and, as tellingly illustrated in the original post by Jane, the (re)sources our mighty, impartial ‘reporters’ don’t… before taking to the screen to educate and inform, armed evidently with less than the full story?
What they don’t know won’t… trouble the narrative?
I once read a puff piece about the boss of a booze company who claimed he only consumed his own brands.
Berk.
You only compete and win by knowing to the total market, and especially your competitors, better than you know your own.
Why I am forced to pay for a navel-gazing internal PR agency, lord knows.
Interesting article on Child poverty in England from the bBC
Mapping child poverty in England, 2010
Now I know all about poverty, as before I was taken into care, I used to rumage at the local tip in which to find clothes to wear. (I now shop at John Lewis) So I was somewhat suprised how out of the top 20 locations where poverty can be found in the UK, the bBC is unable to find a common demoninator betwen them all (Well other than number 19 that is)
You’d think that if the bBC really wished to combat Child poverty in the Uk, that they would be honest enough to point out that a very large percentage of those children belong to Islamic familes who think nothing of breeding like rabbits in which to claim as much benefits as possible. Could a possible solution be to curtain all future family benefits after a set number of children, say 2?
I had to be revived by Mrs U yesterday evening as BBC1 London News Where You Are (at 10:30 pm) trumpeted good news for a change: the vast majority of children in London got their first or second choice of primary school. The BBC reporter (Donovan?) almost wet himself over this.
Then I thought about it and realised that primary education provision is not a competence of the GLA so the monster Boris is not involved. Accordingly of course, it’s good news that despite the Tory cuts London’s local councils are doing a wonderful job for the kids. I wonder how – actually I already know – BBC London would have reported on a complete failure in the choice-response process.
How the bBC rabble rouses in Afghanistan:
Nato kills Afghan woman in Kabul road accident
British troops have killed an Afghan woman in a road accident in the capital, Kabul, police say. Reports say the vehicle collided with pedestrians in the west of the city. Police say a woman and a child were also injured by the vehicle. Police and Nato say no shots were fired by troops after the accident, contradicting earlier reports quoting police. An investigation is under way.
The issue of civilian casualties is highly sensitive in Afghanistan.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but shouldn’t the title and the crux of the article be, that a woman has died in a traffic accident involving British troops. By claiming that the woman has been killed, the bBC promotes the view that somehow her death was intentional and which kind of contributes to the last line I cut and posted from the bBC article. The thing I cannot understand is, when the bBC reports when the culprits are the Taliban, Hamas, Hezballah you know Allah’s little helpers the bBcs reports the untimely demise of their victims as having died I mean how unfortunate here is what I mean:
1 Taliban
2 Hamas
So according to the bBC if somebody passes away during an RTA involing British soldiers then they have been killed, but if the person has been murdered in cold blood by a memeber of the relgion of peace then they have simply died. And we wonder why the Islamic world never seems to get upset by the millions murdered in their name, yet go bloody ape shiite when a non-muslim steps on the toes of one of the faithful.
One imagines the Monty Python parrot sketch would nowadays be a lot different once such market rate mindsets that seem to prevail chez Aunty get to work on it.
BBC-NUJ-Labour is in here:-
“We may have a Tory PM – but Lefties and luvvies still run Britain”(by Quentin Letts)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373872/We-Tory-PM–Lefties-luvvies-run-Britain.html#ixzz1IkN8fGcK
Very interesting piece. And sad. Look at the US in 2008 to see what happens to a country when Hollywood and media luvvies have too much influence on opinion. It’s a very dangerous game.
I can only presume it is used in mitigation somehow, but I am not even quite sure what a ‘Tory PM’ is, or if that is a good thing.
After Mr. Cameron’s latest stunt, trying to ‘atone’ for far-historical actions no better or worse than any others of the time, and nothing to do with us now, as a representative of our country he seems about as much use as the rest of the Westminster infestation.
However, I do sense that the BBC PR’s clients are even worse, so it’s all relative.
Talking of luvvies, it was a Today programme just before last Christmas, of which Colin Firth was the ‘guest’ editor, that caused me to finally throw in the towel with Radio 4. I know actors are often described as hollow shells, the better to ply their trade, but Mr Firth’s cranium had been totally emptied of common sense & then filled to the brim with cultural Marxist bilge. So out of touch was he, that he made Marie Antoinette seem streetwise. Nauseating.
Thanks for the link – I have been saying this for years. I remember Joanna Lumley taking on the case of the Gurkhas, although I agreed with her, I asked myself who had voted her spokeswoman. If it had been me I would not have got the air time. Is the cause any different because some unelected private person who happens to be a “celebrity” fights the case.
In a democracy it should be your MP who fights the case and you politely inform them that if they do not you will vote for someone who will.
So Ghaddafi has sent a letter of appeal or something to The Obamessiah, has he? The BBC didn’t tell me what it was about, only that the letter had been sent. I thought the US had already backed off and ceded control to NATO. I thought this wasn’t His war, but a happy coalition of European unicorns and Muslim fluffy bunnies from Qatar and the Emirates. So why, BBC, would Ghaddafi be appealing to The Obamessiah? Mark Mardell told me He’s been very conflicted over this whole thing, kind of forced into it by the belligerent US public who equate bloodshed with leadership and glory. Very curious.
Poor Cowboy Dave must feel a bit dejected just now. He and Sancho Sarkozy should have been consulted first, as they led the rush to war….sorry….path to a UN-Approved, NATO-Led Coalition on a Humanitarian Mission.
Reality keeps hitting the Beeboids in the face, and they just keep turning the other cheek.
‘they just keep turning the other cheek.’
I believe there is a graphic for this, involving the Graun.
Certainly the scent constantly emananting tallies.
Laura Kuenssberg and Clive Myrie openly laughing just now at the apparent difficulties the Coalition is having passing their health care reform bill. They went beyond sober analysis of how all signs were pointing to the Prime Minister’s concerns and how Lansley wasn’t getting it all done just the way the Tories wanted, and were simply having a giggle at the Government’s expense. Sarcastic remarks and a joyful cynicism were on display.
It’s one thing to report – if it’s true, as seems apparent here – that the Government is having diffuclty and is not going to get its way 100%, but quite another thing to laugh at it. That’s what they were doing, and it wouldn’t happen if the groupthink at the BBC wasn’t ideologically opposed to the Government’s plans, and both Beeboids didn’t feel free enough from consequences to behave this way on air.
I have always wondered how matters of tonality were factored in, given the influence that can be brought to bear.
In such cases, a mere transcript would not really suffice (do stenographers at trials have such as <sarc>?) but recordings may one day come back to haunt them.
Imagine if the ‘wrong’ people got control of the edit suite, along with £4Bpa access to 240M eyes and ears?
Mind you, Ms. K’s risible tweets – ‘Ed, Edd & my Eddie just walked out the room, and it seemed a darker place’ – are bad enough already.
Actually, I think in this case a transcript would reveal at least some bias. Myrie set up the segment by stating – not asking, but stating – to Laura that a cynical viewpoint would be that things weren’t going well because Cowboy Dave and his head boy were there looking over Lansley’s shoulder. Kuenssberg’s reply also included the word “cynics”, and the giggling started there. I can’t remember the exact words now, but I suspect a transcript would also show how Laura said that the Government was hoping the public would think one way about the issue and then dismissed it with a flippant remark.
‘Myrie set up the segment by stating – not asking, but stating – to Laura that a cynical viewpoint would be that things weren’t going well ‘
Narrative, much?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2011/04/the_bill_with_no_friends.html
Mr. Crick again confusing opinion with reporting, and facts with gossip from unspecified sources.
Who would be “my Eddie”? I never liked that cartoon anyway.
Yet another advocate on the News Channel a few minutes ago to scream bloody murder about boodget coots. This time the Cut of the Week is benefits cuts, and the talking head is from the Poverty Action Group. You can all supply from your own imaginations what she said, as it’s predictable and beside the point. The problem was how Clive Myrie responded.
“Were groups like yours consulted at all (emphasis Clive’s) by the Government before” putting together the current policy.
Since when is the onus on the Government to consult every single BBC-approved activist group on policy? More importantly, how is this woman to know exactly which groups were consulted? She can’t, of course, yet somehow the BBC sets her up as an authority on conversations between the Government and all advocacy groups in the benefits/”poverty” field. Her answer is invalid, but is still presented as respectable fact.
Myrie didn’t ask only about her organization specifically, but if the Government had asked any group like hers “at all”. By asking that question and using those words, he told the audience that the Government failed here, and acted irresponsibly, possibly cruelly so. Bias.
What are “boodget coots”? Is this an attempt to imitate a northern standard accent?
No.
But feel free to choose one of these :
Burdgitt Currts.
Byedgytt Kuwoots.
Sorry I don’t have one for Salford, they don’t seem to know what one is apparently !
Or “Less blaa oots wi less cotterils” for all my friends in the north.
The bBC, promoting ‘Islamophobia’ as a hate crime and…half the story.
Bus advertising campaign tackles Islamophobia
An advertising campaign to tackle Islamophobia has been unveiled on buses across the UK.Vehicles in several cities will carry the message “Muslims for loyalty, peace and freedom” in an attempt to challenge negative stereotypes of the faith.The Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, the group behind the campaign, said it hoped it would educate people about Islam and remove misconceptions.
But some Muslim groups have criticised the campaign as “unrealistic”
Yet another only white non-muslims can be guilty of hate crimes against Islam article yer think? Now look at the last line from the above cut and paste which I have underlined. Seen it. Now lets look at real ‘Islamophobia’ as not reported by the bBC.
Ahmadiyya Muslims are not classed as ‘Islamic’ by the rest if the Islamic world. In Pakistan (Yes that Pakistan which saw the British PM apologise for all the ills done to the country since 1947 by handing over a cheques for £630 million in which to help them move along) It is enshrined in law that Ahmadiyya aren’t Muslims. Which may help explain why 90 odd Ahmadiyya Muslims were blown up last year. Just as they were attacked in 2009,2005,2000 etc…
In Banglerdesh while not banned, all Ahmadiyya publications have been banned and they face deadly attacks on a regular basis.
In Indonesia the other month a mob of angry Muslims murdered a group of Ahmadiyya for the act of ..breathing. In the Uk the Muslim Council of Britain is on record of stating that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslims.
Currently in south London there is an ongoing police investigation on hate crimes against Ahmadiyya Muslims from..main stream Muslims.
Instead of saying it as it is, that actually the Ahmadiyya face more problems (Aka Islamophobia) from their so called religious cohorts. They (as well as the bBC) send out the incorrect message that actually Non Muslims in the Uk are more hateful. Now look again at that line from the bBC article i underlined and wonder just whom do you think the bBC could be pointing at. The thing is as per the bBC white-wash machine they don’t say exactly who?
Just heard the report about “Chernobyl 25 years on” on PM. Near the end the reporter stated that the Chernobyl accident led to “thousands of deaths from cancer” (putting stress on the word “thousands”, and making it sound like a large number of thousands, similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki). This is complete bollocks. The WHO’s 2005 report estimated that the number of deaths could eventually be as many as 4000 (although this was apparently amended later to 9000). However, the report points out, the difference in the number of deaths attributable to Chernobyl and those that would occur through spontaneous incidence of cancer amounts to an increase of 3% and would be very hard to pinpoint. Wikipedia tells us that anti-nuclear advocacy groups produced their own reports and put the figure for Chernobyl-related deaths around ten times higher — but they would say that, wouldn’t they? On the other hand completely, a 2011 report puts the number of deaths directly attributable to Chernobyl at 62. The point is that the BBC reporter made a bold, emphatic statement without giving any background or references and without mentioning that the number concerned is the subject of dispute. The BBC really are in the pockets of the anti-nuclear groups, aren’t they?
Alternative suggestion: The reporter accessed Wikipedia five minutes before the shot as his sole research.
Might be a step in a better direction, actually.
Usually it seems most reporting is more a rehash of a press release from an activist group.
So the move to a dubious directory prone to rigging by those with agenda and no ethics is logical.
What they do with the other £3.999999999B we are compelled to provide, I am unsure.
6pm news with sophie Rayworth. All these tax changes today will “leave some people worse off” – equally she could have said would leave some people “better off” but that would go against the grain.
Then needless to say they managed to find a family with one wage earner earning £25k who would be worse off and compared him to a single man earning the same who would be less than £2 a week better off. Now I don’t know how the figures pan our and how hard they had to search but I could have predicted their findings.
BBC-Democrats: criticise ‘American dream’, and politically campaign, on weekly basis, for open-door mass immgration.
1.) Last week:
“Is immigration policy killing the American Dream?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12925299
2.) Today:
“African migrants abandon the American dream”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12810828
Sorry if this has already been flagged. Robin Shephard has started a new online ‘reader’s digest’ and he leads with an article of his own attacking BBC bias.
It is becoming increasingly evident that while the entertainment divisions of the BBC offer us “Reality”TV, the news divisions offer only “Unreality” TV.
So-called reality TV (in fact anything but) is a highly successful con spun out of finding ways to pump out 24/7 airtime filler for as little money as possible.
That news gathering and presentation is in step comes as no suprise.
Again I wonder what they do with the rest of the money one is required to hand over for their private cause PR efforts.
Meanwhile, SKY does have some uses in sharing this, from within the bubble…
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3513293/Fanatical-Muslim-convert-gets-his-1k-rent-paid-by-taxpayers-in-country-he-hates.html
‘Tower Hamlets Council began picking up the bill for Salahuddin’s rent when he stopped working as a BBC security guard 18 months ago.’
Sounds like security guarding was well paid. Stopped, or canned? If the former, a promising career back at Aunty as security correspondent or ‘cuts, Cuts, CUTSSS!!!!! econom… er… propagandist beckons?
You realise of course that this subsidised fanatic was the subject of ‘My Brother the islamist’.
I knew he was an ex employee of the BBC, security guard no less, 😀 but I didn’t realise he lived so lavishly ‘at my expense’.
(Wouldn’t that be considered degenerate i.e. ‘un-Islamic?’)
I recall that the BBC is a fan..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100082638/britain-doesnt-have-any-brilliant-left-wing-bloggers-as-arianna-huffington-is-about-to-discover/
But as some commenters note, there may be reasons for that.
BBC-EU-Patten: censoring the negative impact on BRITAIN of :
1.) Mass immigration into EU from North Africa:
Compare:
“The ‘Camp of the Saints’ Crisis”
2.) Portugal’s bail-out:
Compare:
“UK faces £6bn bill for Portugal rescue after failed austerity measures cause irreparable damage to economy”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374064/Portugal-bailout-Rejection-austerity-measures-caused-irreparable-damage-economy.html#ixzz1Ip3QteJj
afneil Andrew Neil BBC Trust Chair Michael Lyons: election night Ship of Fools worst event of his tenure. Not £18m J Ross? Or Queengate? Or collapse of trust?
Oops. With an attitude like that, Mr. Neil better resign himself to threads lasting under double digits again.
‘Throw another hundred licence fees on the fire, Smithers, now I’m retired the pension doesn’t cover all it should’
Twitter, the gift that keeps on giving…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100082784/the-rally-against-debt/
”Its like Toby Young thought ‘I dont think enough people think I’m a c**t yet’,” twittered BBC comedienne Josie Long
It’s almost like such tweets are mandatory to get a gig there, and a guarantee one does, regardless of talent.
I tend not to do marches, and live nowhere near London, but good luck to him/them.
One presumes that the impartial media support they can expect will be comparable to all other such peaceful expressions of sentiment?
Or will the likes of Paul Mason be more embedded with those making Molotov cocktails to keep the march more interesting’, having been texted an invite in advance to be there to ‘report’?
The Today programme covered the potential Portuguese bailout ans her appeal for aid. One of the contributors was the BBC’s Economics editor Stephanie Flanders.
She was asked what was happening and said that things were “entirely predictable” as in the past she told us that Ireland and Greece “would get nowhere near default” perhaps someone might explain which predictable actually means!
Also when she was asked about the scale of the UK contribution she waffled and made it plain that she did not know…. What is “virtually nothing” Stephanie? How much is that?
I know.
“While the UK was not involved in the Greek bailout, British taxpayers are liable for one of the two bailout funds agreed in its aftermath: the €60bn European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM), founded on a very dubious reading of the EU treaties, is a lending facility guaranteed by all EU member states, including the UK, using the EU budget as collateral. The other bailout fund, the €440bn European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), was agreed outside the EU treaties, and can also issue loans guaranteed by eurozone governments.”
“According to Downing Street officials, the UK’s share of the €60bn fund is 12%, so British taxpayers are potentially liable for between £6bn and £7bn at current exchange rates.”
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-uk-contribute-to-irish-bailout.html
So as she says “virtually nothing”.
It’s probably already been covered on her, but i’ve only just got onto this story.
You’ve got to love the way that the BBC juxtaposes the “abduction”, “kidnapping”, “forcible removal”, “handcuffed and hooded” of suspected terrorist Dirar Abu Sisi, the with the simple “capture” of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
BBC Arabic website helps incite anger against Israel. Again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/middleeast/2011/04/110407_gaza_rocket_artillery.shtml
Translation (if the link works for you) is here:
Dead and injured in Israeli bombardment of Gaza after rocket attack
I’m not talking about the headline, but about the main point of the report:
In the West Bank, BBC correspondent quoted Iman Erekat quoted witnesses in the village of awarta Southeast of Nablus as Israel launched a large-scale military campaign have been arrested dozens of Palestinians and Palestinian women.
Apparently 100 women were arrested as a result. An AFP report making the rounds this morning gives the same figure, from the same eyewitness. I find it amusing that the BBC says it’s own correspondent spoke to the witness, but the AFP report says the guy talked to them as well. Both media organizations are known for an anti-Israel bias, and both quoted the eyewitness unquestioningly. What’s all this about, then?
It should be noted that since the murder of five Itamar settlers in settlement near Nablus, Israeli troops raided the village several times and launched massive raids of Palestinian homes in the village.
Ah. Although, I have to give BBC Arabic credit for calling it a murder, something their colleagues at the mother ship refused to do. Unfortunately, credit is deducted for the last word:
No Palestinian faction responsible for the operation, while the media sources reported that a Thai is one of the stood behind Itamar.
Unreal. Your Foreign Office and state broadcaster using your money to promote anti-Israel propaganda. Nasty old Israel arresting everyone, even though Palestinians are completely innocent, eh, BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12986779
“A group of former Israeli security chiefs and politicians have presented a proposal to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians.”
A good thing, I should have thought.
Guess which pictures the BBC has dug up from its library.
THE WALL!!!!!!!! Complete with graffiti of those wicked Israelis.
They couldn’t find anything else to illustrate a story where Israelis are trying to promote peace.
Drip, drip,drip
PS
And shouldn’t it be ” a group……..has” not “have”?
Who write this stuff? Someone with a poor grasp of English grammar.
Maybe Harrabin with his degree in English should be checking the grammer and spelling of the BBCs “reports” instead of trying to report science.
Leave it to the BBC to find a new way to sanitize the Muslim Brotherhood. Now they’re saying that some Salafists are on the move in Egypt and are unhappy that the MB isn’t fundamentalist enough.
The Salafists have a strict interpretation of the Koran and believe in creating an Islamic state governed by Sharia law as it was practised by the Prophet Muhammad and enforced by his companions in the 7th Century.
Hey, BBC: the MB also wants Shariah Law in Egypt. Which century do you suppose they’re talking about? Never mind the truth. The BBC Narrative is that the Muslim Brotherhood is conservative yet moderate, but this doesn’t square with reality.
And it’s funny how the Muslim Brotherhood is actually making a fuss against the Salafists as well. I guess we know where the Beeboids look for guidance now.
They argue that the Muslim Brotherhood has become too focused on politics at the expense of religion.
See? The MB can’t be that bad if these guys think they’ve gone soft. The rest of the article is basically scaremongering about how bad the Salafists might be, and how much support they may or may not have. Nobody knows, really, but the BBC is happy to hype up the speculation in order to cast the Muslim Brotherhood in a better light by contrast.
Of course it’s in the MB’s best interests to raise fears about the Salafists, as they are a possible threat to the MB’s potential political power. And the BBC happily plays along.
John Sopel actually giving Ed Balls a seriously hard time about economic schemes and the bailout of Portugal. He even started things off with a direct attack (highly unusual), saying that Portugal is an example of what things would have been like under another Labour Government. Balls hated that, and went on and on with his fantasies about how public spending equals growth and Osborne is destroying the economy with nasty cuts. Sopel eventually got a word in.
Balls said, among other things, that Portugal was doing spending cuts that didn’t work, which is why their economy couldn’t grow (false, as they’ve only just announced real cuts, which haven’t even started yet, but what’s another lie from Even Redder Ed?), and how Labour would do cuts different and better. Sopel actually called him on it and said that Gordon Brown wouldn’t even say the word “cuts” out loud, and that he “had to be dragged” into it. Balls did not like this one little bit.
“How can you, from the BBC, say that?”
Very amusing. Sopel couldn’t stop Balls from lying and spinning fantasies about “a structure for growth and jobs” and slamming Osborne over and over, but it was nice to see a legitimate challenge from a Beeboid rather than the usual devil’s advocate softball questions which only set the Labour voice up for a nice policy statement. I’m remarking on it only because it’s such a rare occurrence.
The thing is, instead of a newsreader doing this kind of thing, the audience would be far better served by having one of the BBC’s economics experts giving Balls such a serious challenge. That will never happen, of course, because the business editor is his mentor Gordon Brown’s biographer and supporter, and the economics editor is his ex-girlfried and open supporter of his policies.
Absolute quality post, David. I think there are three problems.
The first is that Balls could teach an eel to wriggle. His style is to tip a confetti of statistics and ‘facts’ over his interviewers and even if they try and give the lie to one of his stats or ‘facts’ Ed just tips another box of confetti over them.
The second is that, as you identify, the droids don’t even *try* to pin him down, they just try to sound as though they’re trying to pin him down.
The third is the lack of economics/ financial experts at the BBC. I’m struggling to think of any.
I heard a bit of Radio 5 Li(steners)ve this am where the ‘financial expert’ who hasn’t started shaving yet was trying to skewer the man formerly known as St Vince.
The line of attack (such as it was) was, ‘the economy was picking up under Labour, unemployment was falling but now the nasty Condems have come in with their even nastier coots and the economy is shrinking and unemployment rising’.
Now that is absolutely Ed Balls’ line.
So why does it automatically have to become the BBCC’s line? I suppose Balls, in the previous day, pulled the producer to one side and said, ‘I see you’ve got Vince Cable in tomorrow, why don’t you ask him…’
Bup, the BBC does have ‘financial experts’. The trouble is that they’re ideologically and personally linked to Ed Balls and Labour. I don’t expect Sopel (who is not a Labour doormat like certain other Beeboids) to know everything about all topics, nor would I expect superhuman knowledge from any newsreader. But for something as important and complex as this issue, it’s simply not fair to the viewers not to have an actual industry expert do the interview segment.
Then, if the Beeboid doing the interview is clearly biased, their credibility as the financial correspondent or whatever can be called into question. The way they do it now, complaints about these errors can be easily dismissed. Nobody at the BBC – or in any news organization – is going to think news anchors have to get it right all the time, and they can hide behind that so the entire organization is safe from accountability.
Hi David
Thanks for this detailed post. I was just listening to the ten pm fivelive news which was exactly the opposite. The Chancellors views were briefly read out by a newsreader then we got a minute of utter balls as Ed. Balls was allowed to give his own critical fantasies full rein..
Impartiality it’s in our veins…
Here’s more evidence of what Matt Frei says is The Obamessiah’s “finely-tuned brain“:
Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.
“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”
What decade does He think this is? The 70s? Is He that out of touch and ignorant of technology? Or is it that He simply doesn’t care? This doesn’t jibe with the intellectual, deeply caring President Mark Mardell keeps talking about.
How the bBC distracts people’s attention when Hamas have been very very naughty.
Gaza: Israeli forces strike after attack on bus
So, Hamas as per usual target children (As is their SOP) and succeed in hitting a school bus injuring 2 people including a child. Instead of leading with a title which states: Child/School bus , you know like the bbC always does when Children have been hurt in any incident concerning American/British or Israeli troops. They lead with how the Israelis forces have struck Gaza and how the Bus was nearly empty (but it wasn’t was it)
As per usual the bBC tries to promote Hamas as a peaceful entity which was forced to come out of a ceasefire after Israel killed 2 innocent Hamas officials which if the bBC were to talk about them were waiting to be canonised for all the good work they have been doing. The bBC further legitimises the Hamas attack by reporting that 45 mortar rounds were fired into Israel during the exchange. (In other words tit for tat) However if you do a little digging you find that actually after the bus was hit, Hamas fired several rounds around the bus in which to hit and hamper the rescue workers who rushed to the scene. This was followed by another 15 rounds in the hour after the attack.. (So actually it was tat,tat,tat)
As per usual the bBC goes overboard in which to excuse the murderous intent of their fav terrorist org.
Jon Donnison’s accompanying analysis (inset) reveals the BBC’s twisted moral bias:
Militarily Israel is far superior, a fact which is reflected in the casualty figures. Both Hamas and Israel have recently said they wanted a return to calm.
But neither seems capable of sticking to it. Both are under pressure from their constituents to act. Israel, where casualties are rare, is under pressure from its border communities to punish militants in Gaza for any attacks. Hamas is under pressure from its militant wing and other armed groups in Gaza to respond forcefully. Both sides seem unable to see the other’s perspective.
“Respond”? So Hamas is only responding, and not instigating? Very twisted. It’s like a child’s explanation for why he’s fighting with his brother: “It all started when he hit me back….”