New Open Thread
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Up2snuff Dec 21, 18:10
Weekend 21st December 2024
harry, on R4 lunchtime news JustRemainIn Webb contributed that the man driving the car into Magdeburg Christmas Market was anti-Islam!… - wwfc Dec 21, 18:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
Very Very good watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaU8akdpUqY&ab_channel=Rodaportal - Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:38
Weekend 21st December 2024
I think one of the reasons the msm is top toeing around the German slaughter is because of the CCTV… - Sluff Dec 21, 17:36
Weekend 21st December 2024
Sometimes it is the choice of story that gives away the BBC bias. Here’s one from the front page of… - Lefty Wright Dec 21, 17:24
Weekend 21st December 2024
moggiemoo I have found that if you make a close study of his facial features they resemble Cheetah the chimp… - Sluff Dec 21, 17:20
Weekend 21st December 2024
….so says the person who let us remember was employed by the BBC as the ‘impartial’ economics editor on Newshite,… - Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
510 bbc tv news – guess what re Germany – Islam mentioned ? No – Muslims mentioned ? No -… - pugnazious Dec 21, 17:16
Weekend 21st December 2024
What BBC Verfiy ain’t telling us…a very good reason why our Islamophobic Islamist didn’t want to be returned to Saudi… - pugnazious Dec 21, 17:11
Weekend 21st December 2024
Well yeah…not as if there isn’t something to ‘exploit’ is there? The real problem is those who wish to cover…
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
Surely the BBC are unaware of the authority and dignity of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks-for they would surely have banished him from their “Thought for the Day” slot.
Todays was a classic-he stated that “houses of worship” were the very embodiment of agents for social mobility that the liberal elite posed and postured over in word alone. No need for Cleggs and Harmans-the houses of faith actually lived it out in practice. Where else do people of all classes and ages still get to meet as equals these days?…brilliant!…all the more for being deeply subversive in that the Naughties and Davis` don`t have a clue what he is actually on about!
THis was just after a classic Beeb smear at religion. The Templeton Foundation had awarded Sir Martin Rees a million for something or other. Cue the Beeb getting the Dawkins chimps queuing up on speed dial to denounce their treacherous fellow scientist who had “undermined rationality” in taking the spiritually tainted dosh…what though could be more rational than taking a million for your research without cost…end of rational debate!
Davis had one Lewis Wolpert in the studio to denounce this traitor to the Dawkins cause-but he did not! Indeed he was quite rational and reasonable for an atheist, so one Peter Atkin was put on the old dog and bone to say what the BBC was rather hoping Wolpert might say for the 8.00 soundbite.
Compare and contrast Sacks call to social mobility in practice with a load of tired scientists in the media squabbling over a milliojn pounds to fund their beloved climate change/eugenics or what have you…yet guess which side will be allowed to drone on about cuts to the ivory towers of atheistic scientism leading to a lack of social mobility and …er… fairness. Once the Beeb get Sacks point then they will be …er ..disappointed. They`re a bit thick up top though so it maynot be for some time yet
Just got Naughties wondrous little stool in the jacuzzi over those striking teachers up in Darwen Lancashire. Did not get to hear him agonise live because I was in a classsroom myself at the time!
Funny how the Beeb elects to use the word “children” as opposed to “students and young people” as they usually do…clearly these little scamps are filching the orchard apples and not threatening “vulnerable young teachers” at all! Indeed the SMT are-you guessed it-“disappointed” that these cry baby teachers get all hissy when Major Minor from the Upper Dorm shouts “sneak” at a apssing member of the “teachinig community”.
Would like to know a little more about what these “children” have been up to that made a staff walk out…or is that too much to ask because of Childrens Rights and their right to terrorise teachers at will?
Hoping Cherie and Alistair continue to show us all how it should be done…any chance of Jamie rolling up in his burger van and a well funded tweam of cameramen who presumably do not need to comply with the law in regard of disclosure of the actions of the nations “disadvantaged and challenging young people and students” like the poor saps who face these kids every day are made to do!
Promo for the next edition of Newsnight:
“Is the Germany economy too strong for the Eurozone?”
Next edition:
Is this fish too big for the pond that you’ve drained?
Quite amusing David..
Have you spotted that the current update on Stephanie “floundering” Flanders blog comments seem to have been disabled? Surely it can’t be because people have been uncomplimentary by developing the habit of pointing out her many mistakes….
‘So will this put strains on the relationship between NATO and the rebels?’.
It sounds rather like the BBCC are relishing todays (possible) blue on blue out in the Levant. Impossible to prove of course without a vial of truth serum and an available vein.
But truly the BBCC are a form horse in these stakes.
If we could take the droids and transplant them back 69 years I suppose we would have got, ‘General Montgomery, are you disappointed with how long it took you to capture Tripoli’.
What’s missing in this story?
Brazil school shooting: 12 dead after gunman opens fire
The gunman reportedly left a letter, stating he wanted to commit suicide after the shooting.
It’s extraordinary that we have to go to al Arabiya to learn the Islamic connection:
Brazilian “influenced by Islam,” kills 11 children
surprise surprise
and in other news……Titanic Sinks,Pope declared catholic,and bears shit in the woods
al beeb are airbrush experts
Ah! I saw that as breaking news yesterday and was surprised that it sank without a trace later on. It all makes sense now.
The Arabiya story you link to, yesterday mentioned an “alleged influence by Islam”. But for some reason you chose to edit that word out.
These allegations seem to have based on something supposedly said by his half-sister and speculation on what was in Menezes de Oliveira’s suicide note.
However, the linked-to Arabiya page has been rewritten and now says (via google translate):
“In the face of these obvious facts continued Newspapers Brazilian TV in linking the crime committed by the young man his inclination to Islam, said that the newspapers that the letter left by the included refers to its association with Islam and he embraced the belief that true religion and that he praised terrorism and suicide attacks, but it turned out later that the message completely free of the claim which was not based on any reliable source.”
And that’s because the content of the suicide note has now been made public:
“…I need a visit from a faithful follower of the Lord to my grave at least once, I need him to pray in front of my grave asking for God’s forgiveness for what I have done imploring that Jesus on his return wake me from the sleep of death for eternal life…”
So, no, it had nothing to do with Islam.
Worth noting though that there was no reference in the Daily Mail report about an Islamic motive.
And as Dez/Scott seems to rightly point out the Islam connection was false, though I’m sure he can understand, enlightened individual that he is, whey deegee would think from the information he had available at the time that it was another example of BBC bias. Sorry, forgot, with Dez/Scott BBC bias is like Italian gangster with the mafia: “There’s no such thing”.
“David Cameron has suggested that Britain and the legacy of its empire was responsible for many of the world’s historic problems.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540
This is what is known as apeasment of the worst kind. Belittle the achievemnts of your own country to try and ingratiatie himself to foreign leaders. What a coward and a traitor.
I wonder what Churchill would make of this little whimp?
“Prof Murphy said the comments contrasted with those by Gordon Brown, who said in 2005 Britain “should celebrate much of our past rather than apologise for it”. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8432332/David-Cameron-criticised-for-being-simplistic-and-trendy-and-more-PC-than-PM-over-empire-apology.html
Cameron is not a staesman but a PR man. Why the conservatives ever made him leader is beyond me. I predict that this will be his only term as Prime Minister and the sooner he goes the better.
<Rant over>
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/04/fool-rushes-in.html
In (English) Upper Class speak Cameron was saying we (the British) do more good in the world than bad i.e. asserting that we did not get everything right is another way of saying that we mostly did. In my opinion he was behaving like a statesman. Not sure however if this is the place to discuss it.
Well if that’s what he intended it’s certainly not the message he got across, so 0/10.
It was not his intention to go to Pakistan and say how great the British Empire was, it was his intention to communicate (amongst other things) that he accepts that the British are not blameless. This is not at all the same thing as saying that all the problems of Pakistan are the fault of the British. It is called the language of diplomacy.
“It is called the language of diplomacy.” No it is called appeasment and it is not statesmanlike to misinterpret history to ingratiate yourself.
Statesman speak up for their countries, diplomats highlight the common values. Cameron is neither.
Cameron was not misinterpreting history. If you think that everything the British did in (for example) the Indian sub-continent is beyond criticism you are an idiot. Have a look at the chapter written by Andrew Roberts about the last Viceroy of India in his book “Eminent Churchillians” for example.
As you know Cameron in a widely reported speech during a visit to India last year attacked those elements in Pakistan (including members of the political establishment) that seek to “promote the export of terror” and his intention on this visit (however misguided) was to strengthen the hand of those who reject Islamic extremism.
I appreciate that Cameron did not say what you would say if you were our Prime Minister on a diplomatic visit to Pakistan, but given your knowledge of colonial history I think that this is perhaps for the best.
Cameron certainly was misinterpreting history, our record may not have been perfect, but are you trying to say that India and Pakistan without our intervention would be better places. Rubbish.
@JHT
If memory serves Cameron had a huge fact failure about D-Day that greatly diminished Great Britain’s role?
@ Wild
Was it Cameron’s intention when he got elected to endorse a de facto ban of Christian fosterers and adopters because they dont regard homosexuality as normal?
Cameron will adopt any position to appease extremists in a position to do him harm and/or ingratiate himself. That’s why he slags off Britain to a Muslim Pakistani audience, that’s why he made his anti-Pakistan comments to and Indian audience, that’s why he embraces cultural Marxism to appease the BBC.
His recent speech against multi-culturalism left me cold. I’ve no confidence in the guy. Better to have him than a moral monstrosity like Gordon Brown, but at best the collapse of British identity and moral fibre will only slightly decrease in speed under him.
If Chameleon Dave had said that Islam is behind most of today’s problems in the world he may well have been a one-term PM.
>>Why the conservatives ever made him leader is beyond me.<<
He was electable. Power without purpose.
Enjoy this blog, more on feminist issues please though.
i think this article is worth of a biased bbc post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13001777
Not only is it well hidden away on teh BBC site, they’ve also spun the issue incredibly. The BBC aren’t focusing on telling us the actual story as per all other outlets. Instead the headline and aim of the article is to highlight reaction the the issue at hand hihglighting improvement and mostly ignoring the scandal itself.
Sorry – meant to reply but posted instead; below.
From the BBC link:-
>>Andy Rhodes, Lancashire Constabulary’ s Assistant Chief Constable, said … in the past six months police had protected 500 children at risk across the county, arrested 116 individuals, issued 90 abduction warning notices and had 17 Sexual Offence Prevention Orders granted.<<
That doesn’t sound to me that ‘children are safer than they’ve ever been’, especially, by the story’s own account, there’s a child killer/s still on the loose.
It’s hard to place this BBC piece in its true context. I’ve searched for reports in the national media and can’t find anything. There’s plenty on BNP and EDL sites, but the views of racist neantherdals don’t interest me.
The BBC Online decision to only place the story in regional news seems to be justified as the only mainstream media source that I can find has covered the story is the Blackpool Gazette. It does however have an entirely different take on the story.
In my opinion the Blackpool Gazette report shows the BBC report is as bent as houses. It’s like its been written by a nonce who wants to encourage complacency about child sex abuse.
And here’s a link to what purports to be the story in the Times, which in my opinion hightlights just how obscene the BBC treatment of the story is.
Feminist and child protection issues have got no chance against Islam; in the hierarchy of PC causes, Islam trumps all others, and the BBC would rather obfuscate the sexual exploitation and murder of young children (thus increasing its likelihood) than be deemed remotely critical of muslims.
In my past complaints to the BBC on their handling of gangs of muslim men targeting white girls, I have been told that race and religion is a “moot point”. Of course, if Jewish men targeted black girls because they viewed them as inferior, the Beeboids’ would wet themselves, and it would be the lead item on the website and first up in every broadcast, complete with senior reporting teams reporting live from the area (as long as it wasn’t too far from London in that awful North place).
Shame on the Lancashire Police for their disgusting cowardliness, as well.
I’m not sure you can target race and religion per se. To me, it’s a problem of culture, although you could argue until the cows come home the extent to which religion has affected the culture.
What riles me about articles such as the one to which Not Bugme refers is the blatant airbrushing as to which culture is responsible. It states “more than 60 girls in the resort had been groomed for sex by a group of men connected with a cluster of town centre takeway restaurants“.
Those fish & chip shops, they cause so much trouble.
Now you’re behaving like the BBBC – I think you meant kebab shops. If they had been fish and chip shops the beeboids would have told us with relish, er, salt an vinegar…
The race/religion/culture distinction is indeed tricky, and I for one take great care to make sure I use the correct term for accuracy and clarity (perhaps I get it wrong sometimes); but the BBC takes care to either not use the terms at all, or indeed use deliberately vague terms, to create confusion and doubt, and thus deliberately mis-represent the truth. An example of this is the use of the word ‘asian’, which refers to over two-thirds of humankind, even though this disgusting behaviour (in the UK at least) is predominantly amongst one very specific sub-set of such.
The BBC reporting of this phenomenon shows their twisted thinking at its absolute worst: imagine gangs of paedophiles were prone to using blue vans. The BBC would not hesitate to add this detail to their reporting because the information would be deemed important for parents and children to avoid said paedophiles – even though this risks discriminating against non-paedophile blue van owners, the public interest and child protection concerns would take precedence. But the logic they apply in these real cases shows that the BBC’s priority lies with the metaphorical blue van owners, even if this means that more children end up getting abused.
It’s really quite simple:
Negative activity = culture
Positive activity = religion (unless Christian)
“What riles me about articles such as the one to which Not Bugme refers is the blatant airbrushing as to which culture is responsible.”
From the Lancashire Police web site (emphasis mine):
“Offenders come from many different social and ethnic backgrounds but they all have one thing in common. They are abusing young people and are using their status or position to exploit vulnerable victims. We recognise that in some areas the number of Asian offenders is disproportionate to the population and far from ignoring this, have been tackling the issue head on by working with the local communities, giving presentations to community forums and visiting mosques to raise awareness.”
“We know that in Lancashire in the past six months 80 per cent of CSE offenders were white, and 16 per cent Asian.”
http://www.lancashire.police.uk/response-to-the-times-report
This story from the Daily Mail which highlights “Asian gangs, schoolgirls and a sinister taboo” (linked to in another thread):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.html
closes with this statement:
“It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns showed that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage.
And yet buried somewhere in the middle of the report was this little factoid:
“in the last six months 50 of 54 grooming suspects were white.”
You’ve heard about the Asian suspects. You haven’t heard about the White suspects. So who exactly is getting airbrushed out of the picture?
That’s because the police supposedly busted the non-white gangs and cleared the place out. All that’s left is the usual lone white men. It doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a problem before, news of which was supressed for PC reasons.
Sorry to repeat what I said before; but “Asian gangs, schoolgirls and a sinister taboo” has been a narrative repeated in the media for almost all of the last decade. Where as “in the last six months 50 of 54 grooming suspects were white.” passes by with hardly a mention.
So which story is being suppressed?
Link please. You’ll find the fact is the reverse. 52 out of 54 were Asian Muslims, and the two white guys were involved in the BNP.
Dez – unintentionally or otherwise you have missed the point, which is that the BBC are denying that there is a specific problem with gangs of pakistani-heritage men who deliberately target white under-age girls because they believe them to be racially and/or culturally (due to Islam) inferior; this is evidenced by the fact that they don’t ever seem to abduct, pimp and gang-rape local ‘Asian’ girls.
I could write a whole essay on this, placing the phenomenon in the wider socio-political context (the Lancashire police, for example, seem to have conceded that they must pander to the ‘community’ by visiting mosques; do you reckon they do the same for the white guys by going to churches?) I will just note, however, that neither of your ‘evidence’ links are from the BBC.
I think I’ve covered this before, but here’s a story from the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333537/Nine-men-Derby-jailed-grooming-100-sex.html
“the vast majority of the victims – 22 of the 27 mentioned in court – were white girls.”
Or in other words – they weren’t all white girls.
The population of Derby is 85% white. If someone was to pick young girl victims purely at random 85% of them would be white. In the above case 81% of the victims were white.
Or in other words – they weren’t deliberately targeting white girls.
“because they believe them to be racially and/or culturally (due to Islam) inferior”
Yeah, they eat babies too, haven’t you heard?
“this is evidenced by the fact that they don’t ever seem to abduct, pimp and gang-rape local ‘Asian’ girls.”
What “seems to be” isn’t evidence; it just you jumping to conclusions based on nothing more than you own prejudice.
<!–StartFragment–>
Oh dear, Dez. I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier: ‘they weren’t all white girls’, you say. That doesn’t mean that the other girls were Pakistani muslim, does it? Do you know they weren’t black? Or mixed race? It is clear from the most basic research that these offenders do not find girls “purely at random”, but target victims outside of their immediate community; this in itself goes against the grain for sex crimes against children in the UK, which in most cases is committed by a man already known to the family/victim. The fact that these guys go out selecting their victims, the vast majority of whom are white, makes it logical to conclude that the girls they target are white.
Jack Straw and Ann Cryer (amongst others) are both on record attributing this targeting to the ‘easiness’ of white girls vice the ‘purity’ of Muslim girls. This concept of western corruption vs. Muslim purity has enough written on it without me adding here; same goes for the wider belief held by many Muslims that they are inherently superior to the kuffir.
I’ve never known of Muslims eating babies, Dez. But I know of a lot of socially destructive things that only happen when Muslims are involved; perhaps you would like me to list some of them?
My use of “seem to” was because I cannot categorically state that it ‘never’ happens. I can only go off the reports and my own personal experience; that does not prevent such from being evidence. This relates back to my earlier point that we are not told what race the non-white girls were.
As for ‘my own conclusions’, I’ve had 35 years of living in the North of England to ‘jump’ to them.
But most of all, Dez, this blog is called Biased BBC. It’s about BBC Bias. So repeatedly sourcing ‘rebuttals’ from the Daily Mail kind of misses the point; if you can find similar, robust discussion to that in the DM article you cite in/on the BBC then that would be relevant. The issue here is that the BBC affords Muslims/Islam ‘privileged status’, and coverage of these cases is just one example of such.
<!–EndFragment–>
Erm, Scott/Dez, what proportion of the child victims were Muslim?
Dez/Scott highlights from the Police website:-
>>”We know that in Lancashire in the past six months 80 per cent of CSE offenders were white, and 16 per cent Asian.”<<
Dez, can you please tell me if the Police report states the percentage of white sex offenders who almost exclusively targetted children of a particular race or religion?
Did the Police report state what religion/s these ‘Asians’ belong too?
No, didn’t think so.
I’ve linked above to a story from the Blackpool Gazette that gives the whole story, not the BBC Muslim, nonce enabling spin. Here’s another one from the Gazette. Former Det Supt Mick Bradwell says this:-
“He added: “I think Jack Straw’s right. His reference to white girls being ‘easy meat’ is distasteful, but an element see them that way. The time is right to air the debate because publicity may well prevent a third teenager going missing in Blackpool or anywhere else.”
The BBC dont seem terribly interested to avoid a third missing teenager in Blackpool. In fact, in its report, they only mention one.
Yes; further comment from ex-Lancashire detective superinitendent, Mick Gradwell, in ‘The Times’ (paywall) of 7 April (page 8, column 5) says about the ethnicity of sex crimes’ perpetrators:
“Those questions can only be answered through further research but this is being inhibited by political correctness and concerns about upsetting community cohesion.”
And I would add that INBBC is expert in inhibiting research for those reasons.
You are 100% correct but I also meant more on the BBC’s feminist bias please (i.e. where Islam isn’t involved)
Collective responsibility and collective punishment?
The BBC toady show highlights the legal action by Kenyan internees who claim they were mistreated during the Mau Mau rebellion in internment camps.
As usual we get ONE side only from the BBC. The guest who desperately tried to downplay the horrendous nature of the Mau Mau knows it all and no counter opinion is required, here is the finishing statement that highlights the BBC mental illness perfectly:
“We are guilty, there is no doubt about it we are guilty as charged”
“we” just who these “we” I am not guilty for what some Kenyan colonial government officials may have done or condoned during a nasty uprising are any of you out there guilty or responsible for what happened half a century ago?
The kenya before independence had a government structure and as with all empire governance it was responsible for its own legal codes and internal security. To claim that the British government ran Kenyan government structures all the way from Whitehall is to mistunderstand the colonial governmental systems of the time.
White British administrators on the ground in Kenya were no more than a few dozen strong at any one time, the vast majority of Kenyan governmental personnel were Kenyans white and black and Asian.
What the BBC and the eager appologists fail to comprehend is that only a few people were guilty of abuses and hardly any were actually British, we are not guilty or responsible for what a handfull of rogues did are we?
Of course the real motivation here is clear, the people who want us to stump up millions of pounds and the ambulance chasing lawyer filth who are eager for their share of ‘where theres blame theres a claim’ are looking for a victim with deep pockets. There is no point in going after those Kenyan officials(the few who still live) who actually carried the supposed crimes because they do not have the money do they? The shakedown merchants are not simply after justice they are after money money money.
I am not resposible for what some violent thug Kenyan officials did or didnt do before Kenyan independence, the British nation is not responsible for what Kenyan police or Kenyan security officials did all those years ago. If some old Kenyan has a beef or gripe with what happended during a civil war half a century ago why dont they take it up with the Kenyan government who took over post independence? Why do the BBC feel the need to pimp the prejudice of some British hating bigot that we are all of us somehow guilty of what some colonial Kenyans did during one of the most cruel and nasty civil wars imaginable?
BTW I wonder why the BBC feel the need to hide certain facts about Kenya before independence from us? Native blacks and Asians and whites made up the overwhelming majority of kenyan security/government/military, the nature of British colonial administration governance at that time dictated that native peoples were employed to run Kenyan affairs.
As soon as abuses came to light the authorities back in the UK had to go through the proper imperial and colonial governmental channels to protest and find out the facts and as Kenya at the time enjoyed huge autonomy and the interference in the internal affairs of the Kenyan government by British civil servants was fiercely objected to.
The BBC are wilfully misrepresenting the facts, they are in effect lying to us about the true nature of pre independence Kenya, now why would the BBC do this? Well the BBC hold that the British empire was evil incarnate, their narrative demands that the British were thuggish flint eyed racist killers who enjoyed nothing more than the regular mass murder and torture festival the BBC believe that “we” are guilty of.
Where theres blame theres a claim but its no good going after someone who is dead or poor is there? Spiv ambulance chasers require deep pokets to fleece, British hating scum need to blame the evil cruel British dont they? And the BBC are in like Flint because it aligns perfectly with their anti British prejudice.
The true nature of colonial governance is hidden by the BBC, the BBC are desperate to hide the facts from the British people. You see the real nature of the BBC clearly, the agents of ambulance chasing lawyer spivs who are forever on the hunt for supposed victims but only if the lawyer spivs can find someone with deep pockets who can be scammed into accepting the blame
Wasn’t there a shakedown attempt several years ago accusing the British army of widespread rape in Kenya? The usual suspects got very excited but I seem to recall that no evidence was found and the whole thing fizzled out.
On Kenya, Mau Mau and Obama’s father:
“Glenn Beck: Dreams of Barack Obama’s Father”
(11 min video, Aug, 2010)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44000/#
Yeah, the Mau Mau btw were a bunch of real killers, they tortured and raped and killed their way through tens of thousnads of innocent victims, their favoured weapon was the machete, a long sword like knife.
Victims of the Mau Mau did not enjoy camps or trials, what they did enjoy was unbearble pain and humiliation and lots of it. The Mau Mau were specialists in chopping off limbs and sexual organs and eating body parts. The Mau Mau were not human, they were pitiless savages who got perverted joy from human suffering.
Calling the Mau Mau freedom fighters would be like calling Jack the ripper a womens champion. The perverted world of the BBC, the one sided prejudice prevents the from exploring the historical crimes of the Mau Mau, the victims tortured and raped and despatched in the cruelest of ways have nobody to speak for them do they? Their voices will never be heard will it?
Evidence was found alright; evidence that it was the sort of ‘rape’ where both parties consent and the bloke gives money to the woman.
You’re right. And here’s more on it here from the BBC, then serious questions are raised here, by the BBC as it happens, although it took 3 years of investigation to knock it on the head completely due to widespread tampered evidence.
You’ll see that the lawyer representing the alleged rape victims was Martyn Day. His firm Leigh Day & Co is also representing the litigants in this case (The BBC helpfully links to the firm here, which personally, I find highly unusual).
Without doubt Britain abused Mau Mau prisoners in Kenya. I remember Barbara Castle being interviewed once on the best speeches she’d heard in her long Commons career. One of the them was an MP who got up in the Commons and forensically denounced the maltreatment of Mau Mau prisoners. It stopped it. That MP was Enoch Powell.
The invoking of ‘we’ in near all aspects of narrative-enhancing is rather getting silly.
As is the times where, all of a sudden, a clearly defined ‘they’ gets conjured in the edit suite.
I try to catch Material World on Radio 4 (430pm Thursday) if I can. Provided that the topic isn’t Climate Change related it is usually interesting. For the second time in recent weeks, yesterday they were interviewing an expert in radiation/nuclear physics concerning the goings-on in Japan. Once again they asked the expert if the scare stories surrounding the leaks etc were over-hyped, and once again the reply was ‘Yes’. The lady concerned went on to explain how she thought that the Japanese were handling the situation in a professional and safe manner. So why oh why doesn’t this message get through to the headline writers and doom-mongers elsewhere in the BBC and other media? Don’t want to fall out of bed with the Greenies presumably.
Note – I’m still waiting for the recent damning report on the usefulness of wind turbines to be splashed across every news bulletin but I guess I’ll have to wait a bit longer!
Never BBC ignoring Blackpool takeaways – when are the BBC or any other MSM going to investigate drug money laundering and illegal immigration rackets that allegedly (ha) go on within these fronts.
. . and again Today selects 2 interviewees to discuss the Portugal bail-out. The (I assume on the basis of years of evidence) academic favouring the BBC take on this (no real worries, the Eurozone is safe, it’s not going to cost the UK taxpayer more than just a few £billion and anyway it’s worth it etc) is in the studio: the opposing (non-BBC view) is given by the IEA prof in the radio car or on a very fuzzy phone. This can’t be yet another coincidence.
While I’m on – the BBC has gone bananas over the latest health scare (drinking alcohol causes cancer!!!!!!). Today arranged a discussion between Gilmore: chairman of fake charity UK Alcohol Health Alliance and panicker in chief to the UK government (whoever it comprises) and Sikora (the distinguished cancer specialist and useful medical idiot and enabler who assisted in the release of the Lockerbie bomber). Guess what, they agreed, said that “nudging” hasn’t worked and called for more government action.
The Beeb-and especially the numbed nut fiasco that is now the Toady Show-just LOVE to get two cheeks of the same arse in a mockery of a “balanced debate” on a topic that the Beeb has decided may yet cow the lower orders in their flophouses. Clear these tubs of talent a nice sofa Quentin!
So we get Gilmore and Sikora- presumably because Nutt and Winston were in some other Beeb green room at the time-to pipe on about the risks of booze. Unless of course it is served by a waiter and costs a lot-and comes from the medias wine cellars or a conference junket;where it is ( of course) a responsible social lubricant!
Returned to my radio after a lie down and a rant-oh good…it`s Jenni Murray asking some Danish actress about her jumpers( would a bloke not be sexist for that?)-and then the masterpiece!
Our Jenni was scheduled to enquire ever so naicely about why Saudi doesn`t give women the vote. She had a lady with a suitably Arab name from the hotbed of protest that Is Kings College Social Anthroplogy Department to tell her just why this is so!
Turns out that Islam really is not to blame-no sirree. Had we waited around for the hookah pipe we may have blamed Israel or the USA before we dared cite the religion of peace as any major factor in the downtreading of the vulnerable and oh so clever poppets of Womans Sours Sisterhood droolings,currently unable to vote for Ed by post on May5th.
Even I would bring back the useless “last of the Summer Wine” if we could find a wide berth for our Jenni to do her Nora Batty impression somewhere else on the all employing BBC.
Matron -Screens for Womans Hour please. Oh -no matrons yet is there in our beloved NHS?-bleedin` Tory coots innit bruv/mate!
The crisis of mass immigration from North Africa to EU and Britain.
As most British people should know, but BBC-EU doesn’t report, this mass immigration, from North African Islamic states, directly and negatively affects Britain as a key target destination – economically, financially and culturally.
Libya to unleash wave of migrants on Europe “Libya is unleashing a wave of migrants against Europe as retaliation for the coalition’s military strikes against the country. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8435884/Libya-to-unleash-wave-of-migrants-on-Europe.html
Will INBBC report this? After all, there is a connection with INBBC:
“UK: Islamic supremacist preaches hate of Britain, lives on $2,000-a-month benefits”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/04/uk-islamic-supremacist-preaches-hate-of-britain-lives-on-2000-a-month-benefits.html
New York is doomed according to Richard Black.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13011073
This bit of scaremongering is making the rounds this week. It’s all over the place because it’s a new set of computer scare-modeling, so there’s plenty to scream about, kids. I’m amused by it because my local ecofascist state organization says parts of Long Island will see the sea rise as much as four feet in some places. So who’s right? That’s a massive discrepancy between official organizations whom I’m supposed to respect. That margin of error would be thrown out of my high school chemistry class. I respect none of it at this point. I live in Manhattan, and very near the water, and I’m not worried.
Yet, just like this report and all others I’ve looked at this morning, there isn’t a single bit of evidence provided. It’s just the “warning”, and plans by mandarins about how to deal with it.
Even my taxpayer-funded NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation’s “Sea Level Rise Task Force” website is uninfested with actual figures and instead full of warnings and “plans”. The most factual page merely allows how there’s less snow in the winter (not this year, that’s for sure) and spring comes “on average, about a week earlier than it did a few decades ago” (again, not this year).
What’s that I hear from a defender of the indefensible? This year’s extra snow storms were caused by sun activity? Yes, that’s true. And the rising temperatures will likewise increase when sunspot activity increases again. And spring will alter slightly again as the earth’s wobble on its axis shifts again.
None of this is discussed anywhere by Black, as he is merely a propaganda monkey who reports what he’s told to, and not a journalist.
This is Playstation modelling it is not science, but “what if” scenarios. Black does not report real science.
Its is also interesting to note that until recently (c. 1993) sea level rise was determined from a few tidal guages around the world. The accurecy of these data is questionable. The average yearly sea level rise was estimated to be 1.7mm plus or minus 0.5mm. Since 1993 satellites have been able to measure sea levels with more accuracy. Even if sea levels are rising “more than predicted by the IPCC” they are in fact looking at about 17 years of data and comparing it to much less accurate data from the last 100 years. Black again does not know or does not tell us these important facts.
Here’s another example of bBC devotion to the ex dear leader and INGSOC. (The rewritting of history to protect the guilty left).
In this 12:09pm report about the schools project:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13012596
is not mentioned the Billions already wasted and much more would have been if Balls and co were still in power.
Here is another entry but from the Labourgraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8437956/Billions-wasted-on-bureaucratic-school-building-scheme.html
Ed Balls AGAIN on the News Channel to talk about the Portugal bailout. He’s not in government, he’s not involved in Brussels. He’s there only to promote his own and Labour’s economic plans. Which is what he’s doing now. “Piling austerity on top of austerity is not going to work.” Blah, blah, we need “a strategy for growth and jobs”, blah, blah.
He’s being allowed a huge amount of uninterrupted air time to spout Labour policy, but I think there’s a BBC News producer who is sick of him. I say this because yesterday Sopel gave him a really hard time, and just now clearly somebody put a bug in today’s newsreader’s (forgot his name) ear and made him say this:
“Let’s talk about your economic illiteracy here.” Balls was actually called out for saying the exact opposite of what the IMF and nearly everybody else with a brain has been saying. “Your voice is not being backed up by significant” international organizations. Balls spat out another couple of platitudes, and it was all over shortly after that.
This makes two days in a row that a Beeboid has smacked Ed Balls in the face over his BS. I’ve never seen this before, so something must be up. Either the BBC is making a (temporary?) effort not to be a Labour platform, or somebody in charge is really sick of Even Redder Ed.
DP
Since it’s (more or less) the Easter break, a senior editor is on holiday with the family abroad somewhere. Don’t worry, as soon as s/he returns (or as soon as an uber-senior editor notices) things will get back to normal.
“Moderate” cleric killed by “unknown” in Kashmir
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13009558
Except he wan’t killed by radical christians was he, or devout buddhists, or fundamentalist hindus or extremeist atheists.
And he wasn’t exactly “moderate” either.
He was a leader of the Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadith religious party, which represents the Wahabi sect of Muslims.
In case you doubt the moderation of Wahabis…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
He was a close ally of the pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.
The same KLF that are a terrorist organisation or a different one?
Well they split into two factions between extremist hardline fanatics on one side and the much more extreme hardline fanatics on the other. The first of these at least apparently disavowed violence. but then re-linked up, then split again. Despite the bBC ‘not knowing’ who was behind the murder I think we can work it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_Kashmir_Liberation_Front
I see Stephanie Flanders’s Narrative about the Portugal bailout is set in stone on the News Channel. Matthew Price was reporting about from Brussels (repeated just now), and said that because of the way the EU finances worked, “it was almost certain” that Britain wouldn’t lose any money over it. That’s exactly what Flanders has been saying, and the same thing she said about the Ireland bailout.
Except Price followed this Narrative by saying that many people were concerned that this bailout probably won’t be enough, and who knows where it will end. But he mentioned no contradiction between that and the Narrative he started with. The people in Finland and Germany, for example, are just naysayers, apparently.
So the Flanders Narrative that it will cost the UK nothing, really, so keep doing it, is going to remain in place at the BBC, regardless of how much it will actually cost in the end. Borrow to spend, borrow to lend, I guess. Every time another Euro country goes south, the Narrative will remain the same. It’s not sustainable, and not realistic, but they keep saying it anyway.
Actually on the morning of the bail out I was listening to the Today programme and heard Stephanie Flanders say that the Portuguese bail out would cost us “virtually nothing”.
Whereas Robert Peston tells us on his blog that it is likely to be £4.2 billion!
So Stephanie Flanders should come back on the Today programme and apologise for not knowing what she was talking about.
Flanders’s whole deal is that it costs “next to nothing” to borrow those billions to give to Portugal, which they will of course easily pay back in no time, with sugar and a cherry on top as interest. It’s a joke.
Looking around I found a proper economics blog that seems to understand these matters and get them right. Here is what Notayesmanseconomics says on this.
”
How much will the UK contribute?
There is a European Commission mechanism for this called the European Financial Stability Mechanism and we are liable for 13.5% of it. Our share of the IMF is 4.53% and we are liable therefore for that percentage of any lending it may make.”
So when the amount is settled and when we know which parts are lending to Portugal we can calculate how much “virtually nothing” means to Stephanie Flanders.
An interesting debate guys thanks.You inspired me to look it up and here is Stephanie Flanders explanation of her use of the phrase “virtually nothing” regarding the cost of the Portuguese bailout on her twitter feed.
BBCStephanie Stephanie Flanders Is it “real” money we are putting behind Portugese? Yes, if they default. But will this change the UK deficit or our debt stock? Answer no.And some interesting repliesy.@BBCstephanie so we’re lending without borrowing from anywhere or using existing money – just making money out of thin air?@BBCStephanie How do we lend money when we haven’t got any? You can tell I’m not an economist!
One million Egyptians led by the kindly Muslim Brotherhood of Man in their beloved peacenik selves so beloved of the bBC.
So why was it not reported at all?
Could it be because they were chanting death to Israel, death to America, death to the infidels?
Perhaps it was because of their desecrations of Israeli and U.S. flags (we know the bBC hate such things, they think the murders of many innocent people are entirely justified bu such things, see Afghanistan for proof).
Perhaps it was their attempt to storm the US and Israeli embassies and raise the Palestinian flage instead in support of the Hamas firends.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, then run off and hide and pretend nothing has happened eh bBC. What a errm surprise.
Watch for similar coming soon to Libya, Ivory Coast, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain…
Not for BBC-NUJ-Labour:
” I Love Glenn Beck ”
(by James Delingpole)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9195/pub_detail.asp
One of the reasons why BBC-NUJ-Labour doesn’t love Glenn Beck:
“In Defense of Israel”
Fox News, TONIGHT, Sky channel 509, 10 pm UK time.
(USA: 5 pm EST)
One day the way unique funding ‘works’ will be explained to me…
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/business-of-it/2011/04/07/mps-criticise-bbc-siemens-38m-contract-failure-40092428/
I’ve been surprised that all day the BBC has been leading with the old news of the phone hacking, Surely no newshound would think this is more interesting than the fatal shooting on board a nuclear sub?
On the loaded question:
‘Is Britain to blame for many of the world’s problems?’,
the Anti-Brtitish BBC decides, in its partial way, that it’s 50-50, as only two views are presented by ‘BBC Magazine’, one of which supports Islamic Republic of Iran against British navy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540
Daniel Hannan has a different view:
‘In all the coverage of the atrocities in Kenya, two words are missing’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100083096/in-all-the-coverage-of-the-atrocities-in-kenya-two-words-are-missing/#
Throughout BBC News outlets there has been a sudden new outbreak of their obsession with the ‘News of the World’ ‘phone-hacking’ ‘scandal’.
Mind you, in contrast to when they tackle spending cuts stories there are no street vox pops, no appeals to the puplic such as “how have the cuts affected you?”.
No, this one is only of interest to a few self-important celebrities, some Labour ex-ministers, and those who have a grudge against Rupet Murdoch.
Wait a minute I think I see the light.
And do we hear any incling of a counter argument in favour of investigative jounalism? Any expression of the idea that the public may actually appreciate the exposure of the wrong doings of the powerful rich and famous – perhaps a word from somewhere within the ranks of the battalions of journalists on the BBC payroll?
Throughout BBC News outlets there has been a sudden new outbreak of their obsession with the ‘News of the World’ ‘phone-hacking’ ‘scandal’.
Mind you, in contrast to when they tackle spending cuts stories there are no street vox pops, no appeals to the puplic such as “how have the cuts affected you?”.
No, this one is only of interest to a few self-important celebrities, some Labour ex-ministers, and those who have a grudge against Rupet Murdoch.
Wait a minute I think I see the light.
And do we hear any incling of a counter argument in favour of investigative jounalism? Any expression of the idea that the public may actually appreciate the exposure of the wrong doings of the powerful rich and famous – perhaps a word from somewhere within the ranks of the battalions of journalists on the BBC payroll?
Can’t access Honest Reporting. Hope they haven’t been hacked.
Neither can I. So do I.
I keep waiting for the BBC to have someone on to explain to the Beeboids why this allegedly new generation of “dissidents” in Northern Ireland are trying to commit mass murder. They’ve seen the evidence that a campaign of violence and murder is a successful method of achieving a political goal in the region, so why wouldn’t they do it themselves? Mewling about “the will of the people” isn’t going to convince them that the Sinn Fein leaders didn’t achieve power the exact same way, and are quite proud of it.
Legendary Director Sidney Lumet Dead at 86
A short video clip from his film, ‘Network’ (1976);
note: the scene shown is not BBC-NUJ television:
“BBC attacked for ‘covering up’ Grand National deaths”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8440520/BBC-attacked-for-covering-up-Grand-National-deaths.html
The Royal Wedding and the BBC’s blessing.
If, as is reported in some quarters, up to 1,000 of the BBC’s “finest” are to cover the event, then I ask myself : why ?
Clearly other Broadcasters will not have a clue as to what day, let alone where, the nuptials will take place and therefore will be out of the loop.
Yet, as the BBC hate the UK and the monarchy in particular, what are they up to ?
Poker faced, the BBC will not show it’s hatred of the profligate House of Windsor, instead, as I suspect, it will bank its new found wealth from a very grateful group of millions of women who like nothing more than a nice wedding.
And when Chris Balloon Head is asked to look into BBC bias over, say, Anti-Israel coverage, Climate horror stories, hug an Islamic suicide bomber fundraiser, etc : The BBC will point the Gov. in the direction of the vault and ask him to inspect Shelf number 2 Marvellous Royal and Loyal coverage. Should there be time, on Shelf number 1, for greater understanding : “look at what the coalition made us do to the World Service”.
BBC-NUJ has it both ways on royal wedding and republicanism (which we extravagantly finance):
1.)
“ROYAL WEDDING: AND THE BBC SENDS… 550 STAFF ”
Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/239862/Royal-Wedding-And-the-BBC-sends-550-staffRoyal-Wedding-And-the-BBC-sends-550-staff#ixzz1J74e1mrY
2.)
“BBC bows to republican pressure ahead of Royal wedding”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8440029/BBC-bows-to-republican-pressure-ahead-of-Royal-wedding.html#
The daily evidence suggests that that BBC-NUJ favours an ISLAMIC republic for Britain, rather than a secular one.
BBC yet again promoting Palestinian art.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13013314
What do you makeof poster #4 ?
Even after seeing the
I’m not sure what to make of it. It looks like kids playing cowboys and indians. Someone has to be the Indian.
BIAS ALERT BBC 5LIVE BREAKFAST … BIAS ALERT …
Shelagh Fogarty with help from Nicky Campbell interviewed a representative of the ‘Gay and Lesbian Foundation’ about HMG’s decision to allow homosexuals to donate blood.
His point of view was that there should never have been ban in the first place.
Not one challenge to his point of view from M/s Fogarty and Mr Campbell, just supportive prompts for him to promote his viewpoint.
The gentleman may well have had a valid viewpoint, but at the BBC, even from otherwise exemplary broadcasters as Shelagh Fogarty and Nicky Campbell, when it comes to homosexual rights activists objective inquiry is the professional standard that dare not speak its name. Nothing to do with the homosexual mafia at the BBC that is so tightly interwoven with the Gramscian mafia, I’m sure.
Oh, and earlier they had Robert Peston on about Gordon Brown’s admission that he got banking policy seriously wrong. Peston tried to laugh it off as being due to him having been ‘in love’ with Alan Greenspan, the upshot being Mr Brown wasn’t really to blame, Greenspan was. Here in Barcelona I have seen and heard very little of Mr Peston, although I’m aware of the take many here have on him. Having heard this though (with Mr Campbell buttressing his analysis giving Gordon Brown his ‘get out of jail free’ card) Mr Peston is certainly an object of suspicion.
Later on, after the reports that Gordon Brown has finally admitted the colossal blunder he made on bank regulation – a blunder that in effect brought Britain to its knees – James Naughtie somehow failed to mention this when grilling Coalition people about the new draft proposals for reform of bank regulation.
Context, schmontext.