Here’s a new Open Thread for you, enjoy!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Dec 19, 06:36
Midweek 18th December 2024
Today watch I thought I’d have an early dip into today . It’s funny when you know more background than… - tomo Dec 19, 06:21
Midweek 18th December 2024
Dimwit MP https://x.com/josephpowell/status/1869051927734194241 and… Labour’s new Corruption Minister - JohnC Dec 19, 05:51
Midweek 18th December 2024
Syria not a threat to world, rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa tells BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05p9g2nqmeo Jesus H Christ, this is another absolutely… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 05:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
So they found him a razor to chop his beard off then. - Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself…
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
Anjem Choudary seems to have practically become a resident on News Night now.
When he goes off on one of his rants about 9/11 &7/7 being justified due to the west’s involvement in Islamic countries, why the hell do the BBC never seem to pull him up on the fact that it’s usually the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not western forces, that are slaughtering their fellow Muslims in these countries?
Nice little ditty here. Many a true word spoken in jest!
he doesn’t like westerners in “muslim” countries eh?
well here’s a thing……I object to them living here
GTF out you shower of hypocrites
Are you free Mr Humphrys?
By no means-this old coot is costing us shedloads of money and Patten won`t be telling us how much lest we stoke up inflation…maybe Pesto can tell us exactly how once he`s stopped his Tweeting!
After yesterdays debacle-sorry -” a lively exchange of views in which our boy might have been somewhat clearer” you`d have thought that Humph might have been allocated his “comfort break” when Mr Ed popped in to hold forth on AV. John was way too confused yesterday, so he should have been rested. Give that old noggin time to grasp what little he still can.
Not a bit of it-he was allowed yet again to practice his pitch albeit to a class warrior as venal and nasal as Cameron was “beastly”.
The BBC are utterly shameless. Humphrys pension WILL cost a packet,but to see him reduced to this splenetic gumming of all he encounters is sad as they say in Beebworld.
What happened to Care in the Community?…isn`t that what Evan and Justin are supposed to be doing for their hideously enhanced “carer allowances” that they trouser for this shambolic slop bucket of chattering class vogueing we get “presented” to us daily! We British do need to complain when the service is this shit!
Believe the Euro crisis might affect the global market in Retsina resin one day…now isn`t THAT the cue to send John off for a while? It`s all Greek to Humphrys these days anyway! That it mentions Greece-is warm-and has a hoiday home nearby ought to be enough to get him out for a while! Both he and we need respite care!
Naughtie is an ignoramus too-but he`d not show it like Humphrys because his questions are longer than any answer he`d be ever likely to get! Lucky Jim!
Sarah Montague is a worn out blue stocking,but may be worth more than simply being Humphrys guide dog in anything vaguely ” intellectual” Today was therefore shameless and embarrassing for all concerned. Humph in his twilight world of bewilderment need not be of course…but we at Grace Brothers ought to be!
Give John his pension-whatever it takes-and let one of the Green Team upstairs cancel their flights over the weeping glacier where the camera crew helicopter can`t land(boo hoo)-and call Mr Humphrys a rickshaw to Highgate or as far as his lap blanket allows him to stay warm!
He needs to wrap up warm and stay indoors. Point him at a mirror, bold big print and Sarah to highlight the harder bits of the scripts-and let him practice a while!
cj,
That seems a very fair resume of three of the BBC’s “top” presenters.
Because… they are worth it!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/04/bbc-executive-pay-lord-patten?CMP=twt_fd
Enjoying the comments, especially the inevitable ‘if you disagree with the BBC you are a troll’, supported by… er.. nothing else.
You can see why he gets the big bucks..
BBCr4today BBC Radio 4 Today Lord Patten: “People don’t on the whole admire the #BBC as an institution as much as they admire its programmes”http://bbc.in/khI08t
.. and the perks… and pension…
Actually, so far he is effective in support of the BBC as, well, anything worth a damn, as Messrs Clegg, Miliband & Humphrys have proven on AV.
A typical pompous , prattish comment from Patten. What a prick !
I’m looking forward to the BBC’s coverage over the next few days on the AV results.
Early polls suggest two thirds will vote against change.
The Corporation has gone out of its way to encourage people vote Yes because that is what Red Ed and Eddy Izzard want.
Sod the fact that Nick Clegg is a campaingner for change as well.
Can’t wait for the advocates for change who have been given a disproportionate amount of air time by the BBC to be invited back and explain why the majority of people in the UK are stupid.
AV seems like a MASSIVE waste of money.
FFS, if the political parties REALLY wanted change and REALLY wanted proportional representation then thats exactly what they should have fucken gone for in the first place! This bullshit about baby steps is exatly that, utter bull pucky!
the other thing that gets my tits up is when politicians start talking about doing something because its the fair thing to do. Fair be f8cked, all Im interested in is what something does for me. I couldnt give a rats arse about the feckless who have kids without any means of supporting them (and all while still in their teens) or those to broken arse to get off their fat arses and find work!
Mailman
Mailman,
I have noticed that, in some of my recent posts, I have started using swear words where I never used to. I wonder if this is the “Martin Effect ” ? In the absence of the guru, others jump in to fill the void !
Do you notice that you feel better after a good rant that includes swear words? 🙂
I lol at Eddie Lizard and his backing of dead horses, Into EU, Gordon Brown, AV.
In one aspect, the bBC is really glad over how OBL death has taken over the entire news network.
You see there has been an election in Canada. The bBC has been parroting how the minority conservative Government is disliked by everybody and Polls dictate how the left will storm to power. I quote:
Canada’s 2 May general election may trigger a political earthquake: Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives could be thrown out by a left-wing party that once trailed in the polls, reports the BBC’s Andrew North from Toronto. It is just possible, though, that Canada is on the verge of a political earthquake.With just days to go, opinion polls suggest the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP), previously languishing among voters, has surged into a close second behind the incumbent Conservatives, led by sitting Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Instead of the majority he was hoping for, he is struggling to hold off what looks like a growing rebellion against Canada’s political mainstream.
And here is what really transpired as seen by an impartial reporter:
In an election outcome that surprised both political scientists and the public, Canada’s pro-business Conservative Party has formed a majority government for the first time since 1988. But the dramatic results of the third federal ballot in five years went beyond Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s success in finally winning control of the House of Commons, with 167 of 308 seats, after leading minority governments in 2006 and 2008.The election also saw a historic shift in French-speaking Canada toward a federalist party it had previously ignored, and the near-collapse of two major political parties.The Conservative Party, which marginally increased its share of the popular vote to 39.62 per cent, stood on a platform that promised C$11 billion (£7 billion) in cuts in public spending.
I would have put up the bBC version, but they simply put a spin on things (Like they always do) Seems like the opinionated bBC backed the wrong horse yet again.
Well spotted, Pounce.
Most BBC political “reporting” just seems to be their own wishful thinking rather than trying to report accurately.
John,
I was just about to post the same. Beeboids substitute wishful thinking for reality. They live in a parallel universe to most of us.
Well the BBC actually got it right, the election did trigger a political tidal wave…just not in the direction they had hoped! 🙂
Has immigration been good for us?
Here are two versions:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382578/Eastern-European-migrants-boost-economy-insignificant-says-thinktank.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13251614
The key point is were we lied too, notice how the bBC does not mention GDP per head. The reason being it has shown that immigration on strict GDP grounds has not improved the country.
Several years ago, the Lords to their credit, did a report that said immigration had not done us any good. That did not even take into account, 700,000 jobs lost to uk citizens, 700,000 accomodation taken from the uk market, etc, etc. The lying Labour party told us time and time again that immigration was beneficial to the country. Now there has been a second report done by the NIESR that the Lords were right all along. Read the bBC article, were does it mention GDP per head, the Lords were right, Labour lied.
Slight correction, I meant the bBC does not mention the argument surrounding GDP per head and the distortion that GDP by itself gives, they just report it as part of a small statement from Migration watch.
You and the heroic Andrew Green are correct, Fred. Overall GDP is virtually irrelevant. GDP per capita is the true reflection of standard of living. Total GDP can rise astronomically whilst living standards for many (ie the working class – supposedly those whom the Labour/Guardian/BBC socialist nexus are most concerned about) stay the same or get worse. China and India are classic examples of this.
And, of course, the BBC use eastern-european immigration as a metonym for their favoured immigration of little brown people; but they don’t have the honesty or moral courage to be open about this.
If one is a Graun Editor it’s entirely understandable where one gets one’s inspiration from and cites, but not so sure the phrasing is quite all it might be, selective editorial and impartiality-wise:
charlesarthur Charles Arthur AV doesn’t lead to extremist parties like the BNP doing well – quite the opposite #truthaboutav source: BBC
charlesarthur Charles Arthur Australians don’t want to abandon AV. #truthaboutav source: BBC
In other news… purely by coincidence the BBC seems to be having trouble, locating, talking with, giving a pulpit to or quoting any other pol bar Davi… er Ed Miliband today.
Interesting that Guido has a picture of that weirdo miliband, with his arm round a labour council candidate wearing a T shirt saying trade unionists will dance on Thatchers’ grave. The mighty journalistic machine of the bbc, which lord patten was so enthusiastic about this morning, appears to have missed the oportunity to report this. Or the two subsequent retractions that labour felt obliged to issue, after their initial denial of the story collapsed !
Hardly the ‘Calm down dear, calm down’, treatment !!!
I posted on the OBL thread that Beeboids will be leading the cheering when the second greatest PM in British history sadly pops her clogs.
The BBC presenters will be all smiles, in contrast to their glum faces when talking about the sudden death ( 😉 ) of Bin Laden.
I think that would be the point when “affirmative” action will need to be taken against them.
Has anyone ever seen the ‘no comment’ feature on euronews? For those who maybe haven’t, it is exactly that – just footage without a semi-literate imbecile talking over the top telling you what you are seeing and what you should think.
Just imagine if the BBC did that? All the wages, pensions, business class air tickets and cab fares that could be saved!
And as a viewer YOU COULD MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!!
Obama’s, and INBBC’s, ‘Muslim sensitivities’.
No doubt the Muslim-sensitive INBBC concurs with its Obama on this:
White House to delay release of “gruesome” bin Laden death photos due to Muslim “sensitivities”
[Extract]:
“But bin Laden, Obama said Sunday night, was ‘not a Muslim leader’! He was a ‘mass murderer of Muslims’! So why should Muslim ‘sensitivities’ be in play in this at all? And even if Osama had not been a Muslim leader, would the White House hold back on anything else because of the ‘sensitivities’ of some group or other? If Osama bin Laden had been ‘not a Methodist leader,’ but a ‘mass murderer of Methodists,’ would the White House hold back on releasing his death photo out of deference to Methodist ‘sensitivities’?”
If Osama bin Laden had been ‘not a Methodist leader,’ but a ‘mass murderer of Methodists,’ would the White House hold back on releasing his death photo out of deference to Methodist ‘sensitivities’?”
They would if Methodists tended to murder whoever is close at hand when they get riled.
Hey, you have to watch those ultra violent rage filled methodists, one chance remark and they are suiting up with semtex and nails by the dozen.
Cassie,
Buddhists are even worse !
If Bin Laden had been a Methodist leader, the BBC would want him arrested only if he threatened to burn a Koran.
BBC World Service World Have Your Say just beginning now. Focusing on the legality of OBL’s death and whether it’s a good thing, etc…
So far the WHYS is overwhelmingly questioning the legality of the US action, quite amazing. Lots of moral equivalence, ie: the yanks are just as bad as Al Qaeda. One caller just suggesting that because OBL was living so close to the military academy perhaps he was planning an attack on it!
Unbelievable stupidity fostered by the BBC!
If you can’t catch it live now listen on iPlayer later:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00g9stn/World_Have_Your_Say_04_05_2011/
Yes; this sort of fake poll enables INBBC to recruit all sorts of pro-Islamic jihad comments from many of the one and a half billion Muslims globally; and in the global propaganda world of INBBC, any such global Muslim ‘opinion’ (paid for by British people) counts for more that of British people. It’s the sort of political exercise the Organisation of the Islamic Conference must applaud
According to Jeremy Bowen Israel’s government is “right-wing” and “ideological”; no similra descriptions of Hamas or Fatah of course. http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/05/whos-ideological.html
Yes; INBBC neglects to point out that Hamas and Fatah supported Bin Laden. Will that fact temper INBBC endorsement of Hamas and Fatah against Israel? Nah.
Of course, given INBBC’s deep political opposition to Israel, this report is good news for INBBC:
“Hamas and Fatah due to sign reconciliation agreement”
Surely there is an omission in this INBBC extract from its report, (which I have inserted in bold type)?:
“The two rival Palestinian leaders carry with them the hopes of millions of Arabs” [and of INBBC] “for an end to the infighting that has so weakened the Palestinian cause, says the BBC’s Jonathan Head in Cairo. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13277734
(To repeat, for INBBC: both Hamas and Fatah support Bin Laden.)
how do you know when bowen is lying?
you see his lips moving…….
Now as many of my friends on this site are fully aware I am not the BBCs biggest fan 😀 however it has to be said that the from what I have seen of the rest of the MSM hysterical kneejerk tsunami of unchecked unverified and utter trash, the BBC reporting has by and large been OK.
Note from the first hour the MSM eagerly expanding on non facts, then retracting them and then printing more, wild assertions and taking the wildly contradictory and sparse detail coming from the blackhouse. We are first told Obama bin Laden came out with all guns blazing and then we are told he didnt, then he did and then he didnt, he was actually unarmed. The daily wail coming out with such unbelievable shite and the rest were nearly as bad.
We still do not know for a fact that Obama Bin Laden is dead, the SEALS aint been on Oprah, the pictures are not being shown, too messy they claim, didnt stop them releasing Saddams boys death photos though did it? And why no photo evidence after the autopsy and the corpse cleaned up? The DNA test was 99.9% sure, then it was facial recognition, then DNA again and then we learned that the DNA sample could not possibly have been done when they claimed it was and the MSM were pimping false information, it was only when someone realise the timing problem was the story changed.
Now I am not saying binbag aint at the bottom of the sea right now, all I am sayin is I have yet to see binbags dead mug so I can have a good laugh at it. We do not know the timings and we do not know the routes in and out, we do not know why they dumped the body so quickly in what is now increasingly calld the ‘martrys sea’. For utter retarded cretinous stupidity you have to hand 1st prize to the retarded prick who thought dumping the corpse at sea AND THEN telling the world where it was was a great idea. The idea of an annonymous burial is that no f*cker knows where it is! These chumps secretly dump binbag and then tell his millions of adoring fans where he is.
Any half intelligent jihadi will simply find the time of burial and then ask the dhow captains were the carrier was and bingo hey presto every jihadi knows exactly where to go for the pilgrimage. You really couldnt make this sh*t up could you? Ths is Laurel and Hardy meets Tom and Jerry.
The blackhouse are peddling the new kind of reality, its the new post democratic new world order…here is how it works:
They tell you via a whacked out MSM and YOU BELIEVE geddit? No evidence needed, no facts and figures. They tell you what they want and your job is? YOU BELIEVE everything you are told, you dont need any facts, you dont need any proof OK? And if you do ask for those totally unnecessary details then guess what? Thats riiiight…YOU ARE A DENIER….YOU ARE A TINFOIL HAT WEARING CONSPIRACY THEORIST..geddit?
So this is how it goes, your job in the new order is to believe what you are told when you are told it, your job does not include asking awkward questions, you do not need to know the details, the facts mean nothing and to be honest most could not understand the facts if they were presented on a giant cream cake, facts only confuse the sheeple, all the sheeple need is to believe they masters voice as carried by the MSM.
I think it was cj who posted here that , if Bin Liner is in the sea, at least he will point to Mecca twice a day ! I am still chuckling at that one.
Eddie Izzard on the News Channel just now pushing for AV. No mention whatsoever that he’s a dedicated Labour supporter, even though he kept going on about Cameron being elected party leader by AV, that the system would be fair for the individual and bad for “the old guard”, and would prevent nasty coalitions. How much more obvious can it be?
I am a great believer and supporter of democratic process, so long as properly backed up by public participation, in turn driven by impartial information and education. Which discounts the entire MSM, and especially the BBC, so it’s not off on a great footing really.
On this issue, it is proving extremely hard to weigh the merits of the arguments, and not be influenced by the woeful cases being put by advocates.
Mr. Izzard may have tipped me over. As you say, he is but a three trick pony, topped off by the utter arrogance that because he says it, it must therefore by gospel. With not a shred of an attempt to articulate much by way of substance to this view.
But the clincher was his banging on about how the ‘No’ campaign has said it is difficult to grasp, and this is without foundation.
Evidently, in skipping back from France to share his wisdom, he must have missed one of the BBC’s more experienced political interviewers making a complete horlicks of his own grasp of it all. Which rather undercuts his main premise right there.
So, tx very much Jon.
Ed, Nick & Caroline, etc must be thrilled to have had you fighting for them so… er… ‘passionatetly’.
Meanwhile, this just in…
http://order-order.com/2011/05/04/izzard-the-labour-lizzard/
Gets my vote.
My Site: It’s the same Narrative the BBC had about Lisbon: if the public doesn’t want it, it’s only because they don’t understand it and it just hasn’t been explained properly.
Just look at the ad for BBC election coverage they’ve been showing featuring Laura Kuenssberg acting like she’s a CBBC presenter: It’s perfectly simple, boys and girls. You get to rank your preferences so everyone gets to vote for the winner. And they all lived happily ever after.
Laura Kuenssberg should BE a CBBC presenter…..
no on second thoughts scrub that…….i don’t want any of that shower of tramps having anything to do with children
David P,
Was Cameron elected by AV ? I think Izzard got that wrong, although I satnd to be corrected.
PS In any case , what the hell has this got to do with a
“comedian” ?
Why can’t we have more taxi-drivers on the BBC debationg the
issue ?
debating !
I generally find it a pretty accurate rule of thumb to do the opposite of what the “celebrities” want me to do. If they want to go into politics, fine. If they don’t, the mere fact that they’ve appeared on television does not imbue them with some greater wisdom than the rest of us, so they should just shut the f*** up.
I don’t think celebrities should be allowed to use their unfair influence on the public to advocate for political causes. But if they’re going to, the BBC is obligated to mention that they’re Labour supporters when they come on air to do it, and to ask them fair, challenging questions such as “what is your real motive here?”
Oh dear, oh dear. Reality finally forcing the BBC to hint that perhaps Bin Laden was unarmed when the US boys broke in and shot him. Worse, they just allowed someone to admit that it was a “kill order”, regardless of whether he fought back or not.
No Beeboid will dare say – yet – that it was an illegal targeted assassination without due process of law, but I’m having a good laugh at the smokescreen they’ve found. What an utter waste of time to sit around speculating whether or not this harms the “trust” between Pakistan and the US. What trust? When was that? I guess all those BBC reports about how the Pakistani government and military were fighting the good fight and the US was at fault for Al Qaeda’s presence was a buch of BS, and the Beeboids don’t quite know what to do about it.
This whole incident calls into question nearly all BBC reporting from the region for the last few years.
Anyone would think Obama was some kind of Chicago gangster.
I’ve been watching it on BB World… I have to say I’ve thought the coverage was fairly reasonable. I do now sense, however, that more and more garbage will now be used to milk the story.
As to legality or otherwise, I think Toby Young nails it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100086250/assassinating-osama-bin-laden-was-not-only-legal-it-was-right-–-and-president-obama-should-man-up-and-admit-this-was-a-kill-operation/
A message to all non-Muslims (inc those at INBBC):
Treat the Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN as the enemy of the West it is.
Islamic Pakistan’s protection to Bin Laden and demonstrations in his support, are the last straw.
No Islamic Pakistan infiltration of the West’s security; no more immigration to West from Pakistan.
“Osama bin Laden killed: live coverage”
(inc video of pro-Bin Laden demos in Pakistan)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8487374/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-live.html
“Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists”(S.Dhume)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703866704575223832888768098.html
Buy shares in Pakistani sightseeing boats opperating out of the north Arabian sea.
A new pilgrimage route all worked out where the worlds islamofasicsts will flock in huge numbers.
A secret burial tat everyone knows where it is, thats a success eh?
Osama sleeps with the fishes.
At least the original Godfather could get his story straight.
So the News Channel has now had on two mouthpieces on the AV issue: Eddie Izzard for Yes, and Margaret Beckett for No. What a helpful contrast, eh, BBC?
Ben Beeboid let Izzard go on and on, no challenging, just softballs, while Sopel is attacking Beckett again and again using the same line of attack that Humphrys and Davis used on Cameron yesterday and last week, repsectively: Yes has run and ugly campaign telling lies about babies dying and whatnot, and do you condemn these statements.
Pro-AV bias at the BBC could not be more obvious.
PS: I was amused to see piece on AV by Vicki Beeboid a little while ago in which her explanation proved that Humphrys had it completely wrong about second votes and was telling a lie on air.
Not convinced that Mr. Izzard has, is or would prove a political asset, really, being that he and his advocacy has bombed at every outing so far.
Oddly, for our representative, inclusive national broadcaster, he seems capable of doing no wrong and speaks for all. And often.
Unique.
Larks! Just realised that with Mr. Izzard now well ‘in the fold’ and BBC on Labour PR 24/7, I may at last actually get my Ed, Edd & Eddie line-up!
Meanwhile, had to chortle at this comment on a GF thread:
‘the bbc ? They’d put peter sutcliffe on without mentioning his ‘previous’, as long as his comentary was pro labour or limp dim.’
However, once the laughter palls, the seriousness of that clear fact does rather sober one up on this country’s chances at having a representative democracy even with the lousy system options at their best.
The problem with the thickos at the BBC is that they assume everyone loves every celebrity.
They don’t realise that for everyone who loves one celebrity there is someone else who hates them.
For example, Izzard makes my flesh creep, but some people may love him.
Just another example of beeboids being totally out of touch with the real world of “ordinary ” people.
‘Newsnight’ items tonight include:
1.) 7/7 ‘terror’ (not ‘Islamic jihad terror’);
2.) Meaning of ‘reconciliation’ between Hamas and Fatah ‘factions’ (not ‘Islamic jihad factions’);
3.) Cosy interview with chum Patten, ex-EU bureaucrat, now BBC Trust, and advocate of high salaries for BBC bureaucrats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/05/wednesday_4_may_2011.html
Was it necessary to send the beautiful Mishal Husain to Pakistan just to front the coverage? Surely the BBC’s very own gorgon Orla Guerin (given leave of absence from Libya) plus the endless stream of “see no evil” Pakistani stringers can sing endless praises of the Redeemer of the White House without flying out someone who adds absolutely nothing (except visual pleasure) to the reportage.
BTW why did the most penetrating (and brief) analysis of the effects of Osama’s demise I have seen come not from the £3.5 billion organisation but from a distinguished academic at my alma mater http://goo.gl/lxo9Y ? Also, AFAIAA the BBC has failed to inform us (it probably neither knows nor cares) that Abbottabad was founded by Major James Abbott (one of the great legion of the officially despised at the BBC) in the 19th century.
Although obviously not despised in Pakistan or it wouldn’t still be thus named so. Personally, I got my info on the nomenclature of Abottabad from the DM.
Stop the presses!! The BBC has just reported on the News Channel that Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist! Not only that, but they allowed an Israeli spokesman to say on air that Hamas said Bin Laden was great.
It’s a first. Well done, BBC. Congratulations on joining the fact-based journalism community.
it’s a positive to be sure
but there has to be a big fat negative coming down the tracks to beeboidal station pretty soon to make up for it
anyone care for a bet? 😉
tiny steps for little people…
It’s amazing what a wake up call like whacking a scumbag can do for people!
Robert Peston’s latest blogpost is another gentle attack on business wealth. It seems that he is unhappy that commodities giant Glencore had now gone public and made its four top execs billionaires overnight. As Peston is constitutionally unable to accept the concept of the creation of wealth – even though he knows it can be done, he doesn’t like it and always acts as if it’s not right – he stokes up a little wealth envy and entices the trained seals in the comments to scream about it.
Nice ideological attack, Robert. Your opinion on whether or not someone should be allowed to get rich is irrelevant. Please shut up and do your job instead.
Update: Peston was in the studio on the News Channel earlier (I’m sure it will be repeated for anyone who missed it) to talk about this.
I can sum up his report thus:
Ooh, look at those rich people. My goodness, there are four rich people in one company. Tsk, tsk.
Meanwhile, Peston himself is on the poverty line.
Orla Göering and Pakistan blame The Whole World™ for not finding bin Laden sooner:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13280128
Meanwhile, ‘Good God! What the hell’s that?’ shouts Pakistan
O:-)
Islamization:
-what Islam Not BBC (INBBC) advocates, in effect, for Britain and the West:
What is Islamization?
Did anyone see Dr Muhammad Bari from the East London Mosque on BBC 1 London news on Tuesday 5th May? In an interview with Kurt Barling he described the 7/7 bombings as “a blessing in disguise” as it made the “community” question themselves. How extraordinary, and he went unchallenged for this remark.
INBBC: anti-Merkel, pro-bin Laden in Germany.
INBBC puts its Islamic-leftist political propaganda only, for Bin Laden in Germany.
Thanks to INBBC’s Mr S. EVANS, here (key words added by me below):-
“Angela Merkel chided” [by Muslims and leftists] “in Germany for Bin Laden ‘joy'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13282575
Can somebody from the bBc please explain why they have a very polarised news blackout on Gaza and its ruling power ‘Hamas’
As mentioned by many people while the rest of the world expressed relief at the death of OBL, Hamas was the first to complain about it.
Today the British Foreign Sec has complained about that Hamas stance. But again nothing from the bBC
Also today, a rally was held outside Gaza university in memory of OBL. Hamas police didn’t interfere.
Lastly I’ve just found out that Hamas has executed a man for collaborating with Israel
All of the above stories have received very little or no coverage from the bBC, Instead they regain us all with how the people in Gaza can only be victims.
Is it any wonder why British people only see Israel as a problem when one-sided reporting from the bBC is allowed to poison the minds of those who only get their news from the bBC.
Nothing on the BBC about this:
http://order-order.com/2011/05/03/red-ed-hugs-thatcher-grave-dancer/
But there was a lot of coverage of ‘calm down dear-gate’.
CCO are now involved demanding an apology yet still nothing from the state broadcaster.
Imagine if it was Cameron wearing a John Smith is dead T-shirt?
I’d bet that those people wearing the Thatcher T-shirts are the same ones that are outraged at Americans celebrating OBL’s death…
Silly I know, but amongst all the BBc has rallied at the last gasp to ‘inform’ us on the options on AV, have any, as such, been in favour…?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100086324/the-today-programme-and-av-john-harris-plays-the-annoying-trendy-schoolteacher/
If so, it seems I, and many others, may have missed their contribution. But there do seem to have been many others broadcast:
‘Not a lecture lecture – not an actual command from on high that all decent, liberal BBC listeners should vote Yes to AV tomorrow. No, it was something worse than that’
Actually, the ‘chummy mate’ approach was also attempted, like a bad script, by Mr. Izzard. Maybe that was the guideline (if so, oh dear).
Is it really the remit of the national broadcaster to use public funds to try to rig a vote?
Ah, the BBC and its market rate employees…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100086441/be-warned-if-you-vote-no-to-av-marcus-brigstocke-will-have-another-hissy-fit-on-twitter/
And I am pretty sure Mr. Izzard is rushing about the blogs as a lone voice of AV support, rather forgetting to sparkle rather than sneer, thereby putting people off even more.
Is luvviedom really still convinced that telling the country we’re misguided ‘cos we’re not as smart as they are is the best play?
Izzard’s efforts may prove to be counter-productive. The sight of a middle-aged man trying to save a flagging career, which was pretty mediocre in the first place, is likely to put off younger voters, let alone the rest of us.
Well, well, well, wonders never cease and reality is forcing the BBC to change the Narrative. I just witnessed Huw Edwards on the News Channel holding a discussion about whether or not the killing in cold blood of Bin Laden was illegal. A human rights lawyer said it was illegal because he was unarmed, and there should be an inquest, while some former Bush Administration defense consultant (or something like that) said that whining about such things “held us to too high a standard to prosecute this war.” Not at all helpful, especially as she sounded like a space cadet and offered no substance to her argument whatsoever. A clever choice of guest, BBC.
The thing is, this was preceded by Edwards introducing the words of US Attorney General Eric Holder stating that the killing of Bin Laden was just and necessary and no problem at all due to his being responsible for 9/11. Edwards then told us that this was the “context” in which we needed to “carefully consider” when listening to the disucssion he was about to have with the two talking heads. Don’t want to let the viewers forget they’re still supposed to support whatever The Obamessiah does, right?
The worm is turning, however, and I’m delighted to see the BBC change their position based on reality. Mardell is crestfallen on his blog, and I’m sure there are long faces all around Broadcasting House now that their beloved Obamessiah has turned into a war criminal and orders the cold-blooded killing of whomever he pleases.
I recommend and urge everyone to take a look at the superlative EUREFERENDUM site for Norths take on events.
Almoost nothing coming from the Whitehouse has been true or accurate or thought through. From DNA to whether binbag was armed to the POTUS and his gang watching the execution live, none of it was true.
Now dont get me wrong, I wish nothing but pain for binbag but didnt Obama win a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for resetting and renewing the US moral centre for international relations and international law? The fact he won the prize BEFORE doing any of this set alarm bells ringing is beside the point.
This NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winner came to office promising a break with the war on terror and a return to the highest standards of law and moral purpose. Now we see an unarmed man who may or may not have been Osama executed in cold blood, the SEALS did not know for sure he was their man yet kill him they did FIRST and then took samples!
But none of this matters, what really matters is there is as yet no proof that binbag is sleeping with the fishes, no solid cold hard facts, just the usual democreep evasions and false info and an MSM so keen to promote the POTUS they seem to leave their journalistic skills at the door. But this does bring into sharp relief what the Obama regime is all about, lies and falsehoods and political agitating and positioning.
I would not trust these people iif they told me it gets dark at night.
Exactly right, Cassie. No Beeboid has dared criticize The Obamessiah Himself yet. Also nobody has criticized what is obviously absolutely crap PR planning. They’re only now thinking about whether or not to show a photo? They didn’t have a plan about what to do when the smoke cleared at all? I know Mardell likes to tell us the The Obamessiah likes to think deeply about everything before making a decision (it’s “deliberating”, not “dithering” *DONT_KNOW* ), but this is ridiculous.
No Beeboid – not even Mardell – has dared mention the irony of a Nobel Laureate ordering an assassination in cold blood without due process of law.
Reminds me of another leader who had a “moral compass”.
David and Cassie – I consider you both to be leading stalwarts of B-BBC, but on this occasion I must take you to task!
Do you think you/we are supposed to know the truth of what happened? Why would this help anyone? Don’t you think it is a better strategy to create confusion so as to protect sources and modus operandi? Don’t you think Zawahiri and Mullah Omar et al are a bit more uneasy not knowing what happened? That way they are more likely to make a mistake that leads to them getting taken out too, perhaps?
In a war I can’t see the advantage of telling your enemy how you do things, but there are lots of advantages to confusing him. If that means that we don’t know the truth either I consider that worthwhile to keep me, my family and my community safer.
(Not BBC-related I know – sorry!)
RCE, I don’t see how releasing a photo or video gives away any kind of strategic info we need to hide from enemies. It’s not like we’re calling for the President to release the entire scheme for special ops assaults or schedules for helicopter attacks or anything.
Even if you’re talking about how the White House got it wrong on nearly every aspect of the event and has had to backtrack on several details, there’s nothing there I’d consider top secret or proprietary information. Again, we’re not asking for details about planning or tactics for clearing a room.
This is about the bizarro world of BBC morality and how they waited two full days to allow a discussion about the legality of the operation, and how they are still protecting Him from harsh criticism on a number of factors, especially the infamous Nobel.
You make a good case as usual RCE and I am not sure I can counter it really.
Are you not in the least uncomfortable at how many people are ready and eager and willing to believe the word of a proven liar?
Worse than that, far worse IMHO is that those daring to ask questions and dare to demand a level of certification of events are now being scorned and labelled as deniers and conspireacy kooks.
Trust but verify has been forgotten in the rush to believe, no proof needed, just believe. The world is going mad? Everyone so ready to believe the word of a gang of lying cheating hypocrites who use political strategy in everything they do.
Now you may be right, the POTUS may be right BUT I ask you to consider whether total trust is healthy?
RCE – I entirely take your point about confusing the enemy. Trouble is, they said a DNA test was done when there simply wasn’t time to have done it, and that’s a lie that makes it look like there’s something to hide rather than just not giving the enemy information.
Roland,
I would have thought they could publish the results of the DNA test.
Grant, indeed they could. My point is that, according to Richard North (who is usually right) and others they simply could not have done a DNA test at the time they said they had. There wasn’t the time, or the facilities.
Unless Bin Laden was dead some time before they say he was, which seems to me the most likely explanation. Which hints at extraordinary ineptitude at pulling together a story. Whilst it is good to confuse the enemy, surely the last thing they want to do is give grounds to suspect that Bin Laden is not dead.
Roland,
How long does Richard North say the actual testing takes ? If the operation was properly planned the tests could have been done in Afghanistan or on the ship.
Roland,
Just answered my own question. An old school friend of mine is Head of a Prion Research Institute ( scientist, not management). Just chatted to him.
DNA test 3-4 hours. 6 hours max. So fits in with the timescale.
PS. That is from taking samples to getting results.
This week must have been agony for Beeboids having to decide between Osama and Obama. Unlike most posters on this website, their “opinions” are not guided by any principles.
Beeboids are the whores of the MSM and that is an insult to prostitutes.
Indeed, Grant.
Following the debate above, I think they should give as much factual information as possible without compromising security or future operations.
The problem has been that they give the impression that they haven’t thought this through.
It may be that they are deliberately muddying the waters to confuse the enemy, but I suspect, more likely, it is just a cock-up.
Without being too conspiratorial, I don’t think any of us can really judge what information would be useful as intelligence to the enemy; the smallest snippet may seem inconsequential to us but to someone who knows something that we don’t it could confirm or deny a suspicion, with wider consequences.
I don’t believe publishing a photo or DNA evidence would make a jot of difference; remember, the majority of Muslims believe 9/11 was an inside-job (but incongruously that the US deserved it – cognitive dissonance at its most deliciously ironic). it is simply impossible to placate everybody. Data like this is too easy to fake nowadays.
As for waiting to discuss the legality; well, the whole discussion is moot IMO as the killing of enemy commanders is legal. But of course, if GWB was incumbent, that 2 days would be truncated somewhat!
The issue with total trust is a fair one. A degree of scepticism is of course healthy but also one can be too cynical… Who decides the ‘level of certification’ (semi-rhetorical – I don’t know the answer!); Churchill was a political scallywag, but was it not right to trust him? More currently, the biggest thing about Wikileaks for me is that they show that most of us on this site are more-or-less right about most things: the Israelis are actually alright, the arabs are hypocritical two-faced scumbags etc. I can’t recall anything from Wikileaks that came as a surprise!
Finally – maybe it is a deliberate misinformation campaign, or maybe it is incompetence – I suspect it is a degree of both!
I couldn’t give a flying tinker’s cuss if the video of the kill and/or photo of the deceased is released or not. It’s the call of whose on watch, we’re at war, and we need to be supportive of whoever’s on watch (would be difficult to say Obama was while Bush was on watch).
What I will say though is what an utterly ridiculous lie that President Obama and his team were not watching in real time to cover-up for the fact they saw him killed when he was unarmed.
He was killed in the thick of battle, he’s a fanatical terrorist, the SEAL Team didn’t take chances. That’s all that needs to be said. I fear this extremely clumsy … errr, ‘obfuscation’ is just a good example of how left-liberals believe they’re so much more clever than the rest of us and have to show it by telling different cover stories than anyone else would.
A fanatical, mass murdering terrorist has met an end that the White House deemed appropriate in the counter terrorist war that we’re waging, and that’s fine by me, albeit, we all know what Obama and his MSM cronies would be saying right now if it had happened under Bush.
I have been doing the rounds of the MSM and its a strange place to visit, nothing is real and there is a surreal feeling to it all.
Now if Mokey Hitler was the POTUS and he gave the order for an extra judicial cold blooded murder of an unarmed suspect, they would be hearing the collective wailing of ‘war criminal’ all the way to the space station.
But this is Obama we are talking about, the Huffpo is uneasy. the NYT is wobbling around as if overdosed on opium, on the one hand their hero is rising in the polls on the other he is now guilty of something even Bush never tried. This is Alice through the looking glass, a mad world of melting reality.
A Nobel peace prize winner guilty of ordering the murder of an unarmed suspect, its well worth it just to see the dizzy Obama loving left folding in on themselves.
BTW
Many appologies for the appalling standard of spelling in my recent posts it looks perfect until I hit send, must do better will do better :* .
Cassandra: …must do better will do better.Or even, “fail better”, as Samuel Beckett so memorably wrote:“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.“
Spot on, Cassie !!!!!!
Eddie Mair clearly has been infected by Humphrys Syndrome.
He was unable to focus on anything that Mark Regev was saying on the rush hour stagnant millpond that is the PM programmeearlier.
Our Eddie seemed to think that because Fatahs leader and that nice Mr Blair were willing to give the loveable misunderstood young scamps at Hamas the benefit of the doubt-then why on earth was Mark Regev being so-well negative I`d guess?
Why was Mr Grumpyboots Benjamin back in Jerusalem not rejoicing at the news that Hamas and Fatah were uniting the colours of Benetton…”and the world will ive as one” etc etc
Well Mark tried-he really did. He continued to say that Hamas were still publicly bemoaning the death of Osama Bin Laden. He also seemed to think that Hamas` threat to wipe out every Jew-and drive the whole Israeli nation into the sea was-well self explanatory and didn`t need Eddies “narrative or contextual analysis” for some reason.
Eddie was not having it…Surely Mark and Ben are at no more risk there in Jerusalem that Woody Allen or Avram Grant…lighten up Mark and be more llke Tony eh?
Yet Eddie did give us a way out for next time Mark has to meet someone who knows something about the Middle East.
Midlands Police are pensioning off their deadwood and asking them to work as volunteers for nothing. Humph,Paxo, Dimblebys are wealthy,lazy and-yes,thick enough-to save us the licence fee and let us delight in the sound of their voices gratis-and let the Toricutz be stayed that little longer!
As for Eddie..snooker is missing a commentator. Virgo or any of them will know more about the Israeli conflict than poor Mair.
Who is Eddie Izzard ?
Ed, the well known East End hardman.
INBBC reflects Muslim opinion (as does Al Jazeera).
INBBC, seeing itself as part of the global Organisation of the Islamic Conference, reflects the opinions of one and a half billion Muslims, and so is subject to the criticisms made here of INBBC chums, Al Jazeera:
Media gives bin Laden life after death
[Extract]:
“‘Watching Al Jazeera’s Arabic broadcasts you get the impression that the network is all but openly mourning bin Laden’s death, with presenters displaying only distress and frustration at the news,’ Iraqi anthropologist Hosham Dawod told the French newspaper Le Monde. “‘The channel barely makes any mention of the crimes al Qaeda has committed throughout the world, including in Arabic and Muslim countries. It did not show the bodies of people al Qaeda has killed in Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Central Asia, and even the Gaza Strip, not to mention Europe and the United States […] Instead, commentary on bin Laden’s death focused on his unselfish nature, his detachment from worldly life, his dedication to hard work, struggle, and jihad,’ Dawod continued.
“The second disturbing trend is the fact that there has been no condemnation of this response in the liberal Western media.”
From the DM
BBC shouldn’t treat the licence fee as a cashpoint says Lord Patten but he refuses to publish star’s salaries
Oh dear-anybody out there still holding out hope for the Moral Maze?
Heard it tonight-and to be honest, it`s best that Melanie Phillips abandon ship and let Buerk and Co sail into the sunset!
No surprises what the guilt trip de jour was?…yes, surely Bin Laden should have had his day in court…his tapes and videos inadmissable and not necessarily conclusive…yah di yada!
Claire Fox seemed to think that Bin Ladens crime-if indeed it WAS him-was a few years ago now and much water has passed under the bridge…she quibbled at the number that he has killed over the years,and this aimless controversy may well have got him at least a severe reprimand from the Hague had the nasty gung-ho Yanks not been somewhat quick to judge him.
If I were an Islamist I`d not even bother the fight-if there are people out in Beebland who think it was wrong to kill Heydrich…and it turns out that there are…then I`d just wait until these useless saps just lay at my feet and bared their throats for me!
This is “their BBC” now-and Islam certainly has plans for it! No Moral Maze need distract us from its own disembowelment!
Nearly fell off my chair when I heard the following on the World Service today:
How can Israel be expected to negotiate with an organisation [Hamas] that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and even praises the arch-murderer Osama Bin Laden? Many will see this as Fatah embracing unreconstructed extremism.
And:
My reaction to the WTC attack was unequivocal and loud. In the interests of impartiallity I’ll decline from elaborating further.
[But it was clear from his report that he had great sympathy and empathy for the people of New York in general and the victims of 9/11 in particular].
The first was James Coomerasamy on Newshour, interviewing a Palestinian who sounded like Hanan Ashrawi.
The second was Stephen Evans, BBC Berlin correspondent.
Credit where it it’s due. I couldn’t believe I was listening to the BBC.
Yes, Stephen Evans was in one of the Two Towers when one of the planes struck. I heard him on From Our Own Correspondent, listen here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00g9stb#synopsis
Admittedly I fell asleep so did not watch it all – but I think I have just seen an hour long politcal broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party (it might have been called Panorama) just the very night before local government elections.
It is all Mrs Thatcher’s fault that council house waiting lists are so long. We were shown her celebrating the one millionth one being sold in case there was any doubt. Richard Bilton then informed us that they should have been replaced by 1 million more being built to let. But whether people own their own home or rent from the council the same number are being housed so they shouldn’t need additional houses – well yes you do as a country if the following Labour government allows unlimited immigration (not mentioned whilst I was awake).
And Panorama showed this poor family of 9 in Sheffield where the teenage boys had to sleep on the settee. How had the mother been able to fall pregnant to her boyfriend ‘who sometimes lives there’? (I am still not sure where they had opportunity in such a house full). I lost track of the number of young people who lived in the house who were entitled to go on the priority housing list. Who has to work hard and pay the taxes to provide alll these young people with homes of their own? This family may not have had much but they did have enough money to have several tatoos.
This gets my goat! For the love of allah, if you want a house then get off your arse and work for it! The feckless who suck off the teat of benefits really need to look after themselves!
Not to mention how the construction business lived fat for years off of Gordon Brown’s PFIs to build housing for this, thus not only inflating the construction industry beyond sustainable levels but screwing up employment market once it fell apart and harming the supply industry along with it. PFIs also off the budget, thanks to Chancellor Brown’s accounting tricks, to the tune of billions more borrowed and spent down the drain. All done on the back of the taxpayer who has to pay for it all, over and over again.
I saw this and not once was the phenomenon of mass immigration of the poor from third world countries, real and bogus refugee and asylum claimants, “students”, real and fake marriage imports (including multiple wives), new EU members states’ massive influx and all the rest, with their impact on social housing waiting lists, even hinted at, let alone mentioned or discussed.
(It reminded me of a discussion once on Newsnight where Jeremy Paxman and various worthies sat around with po faces earnestly discussing the sexual grooming, mass rape and exploitation of young girls and women up North, without once hinting at who was doing this, or mentioning words such as Asian, Pakistani.)
Indeed on the programme when a conman who was sub-letting a council flat and buying up other council house tenancies to exploit, said that council housing departments were corrupt and handing out housing to Nigerians, with just a sprinkling of white faces thrown in, the narration immediately inserted a pious statement instructing us that he was merely citing the usual myths about housing and immigrants.
People may question why someone has eight children while living in a three-bedroom house, with the two very large teenaged boys having to make do with the sofas in the one living room for their bedroom, while six other children shared two bedrooms, but some of us are all too aware of the cases we have seen where the large families of “refugees” from Afghanistan or similar have been housed by councils in the utmost luxury of seven-bedroomed mansions with numerous reception rooms and everything most people can only dream of. Nobody who is a refugee actually needs seven bedrooms: they need safety, security, somewhere warm and dry, to be clothed, fed and watered and if it is a little crowded and they have to share bedrooms or endure some crowding, well, so be it. Plenty of people have had to live like that and still have to live like that and they are not even refugees in some foreign country.
There is no doubt that there are hard cases such as those on the programme tonight with no hope of every getting a council house or flat. It is a sorry state of affairs and there will be many of those people and many more like them who will be very angry over the immigration racket and the allocation of houses to immigrants, prioritised on the basis of “need”, over the home-born who have been waiting for maybe fifteen years.
Not specific to the BBC.
Was the killing of OBL legal? Shouldn’t the editor of the Harvard Law Review, professor of constitutional law of the University of Chicago have thought of that?
Was the ‘right’ man killed? How long was this operation in planning? Shouldn’t someone have thought about ID?
Shouldn’t they have thought out in advance what evidence (photo, etc.) they’d release after the event? Or who was going to start informing the press about which details? Amateur hour AGAIN.
What sort of people are running that man’s government? Don’t they have a proper set of administrators and executives (the “civil service”, as we call ours, though I know it is a different system, ours being permanent) to manage, plan, advise, and run things?
Not that I’m saying ours is perfect, either. We have seen some monumental failures and embarrassments, such as the notorious shenanigans at the Foreign Office when they were planning for the Pope’s visit but they are normally a bit better than that particular case.
Unfortunately, Millie, the President’s inner circle is full of ideologues and activists and cronies. Not much competence outside of the Defense and State Depts. But He gets a pass every time, no matter what, blame always shifted. Remember when He was such a genius for running the best election campaign ever? What happened to that brilliance? I wonder how something so obvious escaped that finely tuned brain?
“…the President’s inner circle is full of ideologues and activists and cronies… .
Ah, that figures, David! It must be chaotic and absolutely hellish for anybody working there who likes to get things done and see that they are done properly.
PS: I am sure Mark Mardell will keep us updated about the progress of that subtle intellect and all-round brainbox.
And if he inadvertently leaves anything out, Matty Boy will step in to wax lyrical about the wonders of the shimmering, nuanced, intellectual brilliance.
It is so sad that after such a wonderful, professional, operation by the superb US SEALS, Obama and his amateurs screw up the presentation of the results. Is it because none of them have had real jobs in their lives ? Have any of them done military service ?
Watched a ‘press conference’ (if that’s what the preening bozos who secured a WH press pass can be called) on Jeff Randall’s show last night.
Can’t help but feel that continually using the term ‘execution’ may have been thought through better, all things considered.
Plus denying the MSM it’s chance at splashing a ratings certainty picture will not be easily forgiven. One feels the love may be lost even from the supporter quarter when the Faustian pact gets broken in such a way.
Have to say that the moral equivalence on display and, better yet, now spinning up in certain quarters if proving rather delicious.
Suddenly confronted with their soulmates having to deal with the consequences of reality and consequent tough decisions, when things don’t pan out quite per narrative (often heaps worse than those so easily critiqued in the past) the reaction seems to be to veer from outright censorship to dissembling.
Unique.
I must admit to some puzzlement as to the legal/illegal argument over the killing of Bin Laden.
A real conundrum for the liberal elite this one and no doubt the BBC will play it’s anguished part.
For my part I think the world has changed. Asymetrical warfare directed against the West requires new responses and targeted killing could well be one way to go. The enemy is pitiless and would use any weapon available and we are all targets . The Geneva conventions belong to different times. War in Western terms has always been the sole prerogative of a state , excepting rebellion and civil war and even that is ultimately the business of a state. . When we are faced with war waged by non state participants how on earth can we respond in the old way ? The rules, such as they are, have changed.
The real conundrum for the BBC is how to square their blind worship of The Obamessiah with this cold-blooded killing. Mardell is already blaming idiot United Statesians for forcing Him to do it. Expect several Beeboids to work overtime to shift blame.
Dave S,
A very wise post and I totally agree with you.
“Asymetrical warfare directed against the West requires new responses and targeted killing could well be one way to go”
Yes, up to a point. But this was not an urgent attempt to release hostages or to prevent the detonation of, say, a dirty bomb. An American President decided that a man in another sovereign state should die, and that was that.
It was America that pressed for the Nuremberg trials – standards seem to have slipped since then. IMO, this was a feelgood assassination designed to make the President look tough and to make Americans feel a bit better about 9/11. Nothing wrong with the latter, but a trial would have had the same effect. If capture was out of the question, and there might be good reasons why it was, they have singularly failed to expalin it.
How many hostages do you think would’ve been taken worldwide while Sheikh Osama was awaiting trial? How many people killed in riots and terrorist attacks to demand his release?
The US, in the form of Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld and Obama have played this one right (but Biden is still an idiot).
Well let’s hope that people are not going to be killed in revenge attacks.
Can’t help feeling that we’ve abandoned part of what we stand for. We’ll be hearing a lot of “If Obama can do it ……” from now on. As Cassandra King has pointed out, he must have been killed before his identity had been established. Bad precedent, in my opinion.
But it’s not a precedent at all! Enemy commanders have always been targeted for assassination!
“Enemy commanders have always been targeted for assassination!”
But Heydrich, for example, was assassinated in 1942 because obviously capture and trial was impossible and Lidice was wiped out in revenge. Getting OBL back to the US for trial might at least have been possible.
The best argument against OBL’s capture and trial was certainly the risk of hostage taking. As mentioned above, let’s hope that revenge attacks don’t result in more massacres.
Sorry, but The Obamessiah has done targeted assassinations before and nobody raised an eyebrow. So have previous Presidents and other state leaders. Drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been deliberately targeting various Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders for quite some time now (with The Obamessiah killing three times as many people as Bush did), who were killed along with the various “wedding parties” they were attending. The only difference between shooting Bin Laden in the head from close range and a missile fired at him from a staff seargent in a lounge chair with an X-Box controller is the distance of the shot. The precedent was set ages and ages ago, before The Obamessiah was anything but an angry community organizer in Chicago. This is all true whether one approves of the killings or not.
Only muted moaning before, but now it’s different somehow? It isn’t – again, whether one approves or not. But to protect The Obamessiah from criticism, the BBC has refrained from making too much fuss over it until now, when reality has once again forced their hand. This wouldn’t be such a difficult issue for them if they had been impartial about it before.
I must say I do not understand how killing by missile or bomb is somehow different to a bullet in the head. Were Gaddafi’s grandchildren guilty of something? Their deaths caused even the BBC to barely raise an eyebrow.
I’ve never approved of Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya so I’m not being inconsistent. Obviously the BBC is another matter but my expectations are rock bottom anyway.
So far as 9/11 is concerned, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of outrage caused and the quality of evidence required. This is not a legal concept that I am familiar with.
We have no way of telling whether terrorist attacks will increase as a result of this or not. It is a sterile debate. They may decrease if the puppet masters fear for their lives. What we do know is that there will be future attacks.
We also know that by and large, the terrorists are pretty incompetent compared with, say, the IRA, PKK and Tamil Tigers.
My fear is not the terrorists, it is the cultural erosion of western values aided and abetted by stupid dhimmis like the BBC.
I see the BBC is trying to downplay the assassination of an unarmed suspect.
He was not armed and he was no threat when the order came to slot him, they could not have been sure it was even OBL before the DNA/facial recognition was done.
They went into a compound and killed several unarmed suspects leaving three and taking one away, yet we still do not know any hard facts.
The sheer hypocrisy of the left is quite stunning to witness, they would be screaming for a criminal trial if Bush ordered the cold blooded execution of an unindentified suspect on the grounds he might be OBL.
This is not justice, it is banditry, it is gangsterism. But because the man ordering the execution is a hero of the left its all OK.
And Cassie , what were the SEALS supposed to do ? Walk up up to Bin Laden , introduce themselves, and ask him politely ” are you armed , sir ? ”
Why should one soldier risk his life for a piece of scum like
Bin Liner ?
And, yes, the hypocrisy of the left stinks.
Whats the diference between releasing dozens photos of torture at Abu Ghraib prison and releasing ONE photo of a dead terrorist?
Obama wouldnt try to play politics and endanger the lives of US soldiers would he? Oh no, Mr whiter than white Obama is above party politics isnt he? I am sure that when he pressed had for the release of the Abu Ghraib tortue pics it was not done solely to damage Bush politically and f*ck the danger to US troops. Obama all of a sudden shows his caring side, we dont want to rsik the lives of US troops by releasing a photo do we?
Abu Ghraib was er..uhm..well…ahem…different but this time just one photo would inflame the moderate Arab world into a veritable fiery conflagration of rage filled rage. So there you have it, a selfish self centered petty man playing petty politics, hypocrisy laid out for all to see.
Obama is a pygmy. No insult to pygmies intended.
PS To be fair, Cameron is not much better.
Will Obama be man enough to hand back his Nobel Peace prize ?
Well, he wasn’t man enough not to accept it.
Latest piece from Richard Black: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2011/05/money_in_trees.html
Put aside the usual crap (+ the unsustainable Commmunist Party of Brazil – check it out) Richard explains to us that there remains questions on the EU-Indonesia deal on wood import like corruption, and not-enough-strict environment laws of Indonesia. Then he adds:
“But this is an area where steps forward are incremental, so these are caveats campaigners are prepared to live with for the moment.”
So for Richard there are ‘campaigners’ (I could not find in the article, who exacactly they are), and their viewpoint what counts.
This is sick beyond repair.
Can it be true that in Richard’s mind there is the World which is bad and there are those enviro campaigners who are right, and great and good and moral, etc, so the World must follow what these campaigners tell to do.
In any case it does seam that Richard occupied the exact viewpoint of those ‘campaigners’ he forgets to mention.
This is (Captain) Blacks stock propaganda. He uses terms such as “scientists” or “experts” but only one side of course (Appeal to Authority). The use of the term “campaigners” without any explanation of who these people are, is known as Astroturfing:
“..a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause.”
If Black pointed out that “scientists” = 3 people (all environmental activists lapping up huge grants from the taxpayer) or that “campaigners” = 2 hippies and a llama living in a wigwam in Java, it just would not have the same impact.
Activists like Black choose their words carefully for maximum propaganda effect.
Now here’s a “BBC” I can “warm” to:
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/alls-wells-that-ends-wells/
Not everything called “BBC” is bad. (Only the BIG one)
INBBC’s Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
INBBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan acts as propagandist for supporters of Islamic jihadist murderer, Osama bin Laden. No critical view is presented:
“No release of Bin Laden photos”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13280814
In contrast, ‘Daily Telegraph’ has an analysis from the viewpoint of Western security, in relation to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:
“Pakistan and Osama bin Laden: How the West was conned”
(by Praveen Swami)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8491149/Pakistan-and-Osama-bin-Laden-How-the-West-was-conned.html#disqus_thread
bbc5live BBC Radio 5 Live Here’s the link to the BBC Trust’s online survey about 5 live. They want to hear your views >> http://j.mp/mJ8Ukb
Where all feedback will be treated to the same standard of impartial attention, professional care and considered response you have come to expect from a uniquely-funded, unaccountable, secretive monopoly.
vicderbyshire Victoria Derbyshire by bbc5liveGuess how much @bbc5live costs each licence fee payer per week?
I have often wondered what an AK47 round costs vs. the impact just one can have, much less millions sprayed about with poor or malicious aim.
pressgazette Press Gazette Only three national newspapers back alternative vote: full leader column round-up http://bit.ly/j0nhOP
Based on ABC figures, any wild guesses which 3 will ‘represent’ the public’s views by way of commentary on the BBC?
daily_politics BBC Daily Politics Thursday’s #bbcdp guest of the day is the chairman of the National Trust and the Guardian columnist, Simon Jenkins
I wonder which party he supports and what his views on AV are ?
RaymondSnoddy Raymond Snoddy The Royal Wedding and the killing of Bin Laden share one thing in common – many journalists not asking tough questionshttp://bit.ly/iBoDd4
Yes, for the kindly Uncle of tough questioning on Newswatch, one can see the equivalence, jounalsitically.
Ironically, many probably seem to feel ‘they got it about right’.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/27329/bbc_we_made_an_error.html
Coincidentally, in favour of which narrative, one wonders?
I see Pounce was well ahead of the MSM with his stealth helicopter article. They are just talking about it today. Well done Pounce!
No one seems to be distinguishing warfare from criminal justice. Not the BBC and not (Professor of Law – Harvard Law Review editor) Obama.
I attended a conference where the following question was asked. What is the difference between a police officer and a soldier? The best answer I heard was that a police officer is obliged by law to give preference to non forceful measures to apprehend a suspect and lethal force is a last and heavily restricted option. A soldier is bound by law to use lethal force if ordered and refusing is usually illegal. Thus a police officer who kills a supect must defend the action and in most cases needs to justify the arrest. A soldier who kills an enemy combatant gets a medal.
This also explains the difference of equipment. Soldiers use lethal equipment, artillery, planes, assault rifles, grenades, etc. Police (generally) use less lethal or non-lethal handcuffs, tasers, truncheons, small calibre pistols, etc.
Applying the definition to OBL. If he was a criminal, not going through the correct procedures is illegal. If he was the commander of a force at war with the United States – a definition I think OBL would agree with – the correct legal procedure is to kill him.
Another question is a soldier obliged to take prisoners or give the option of surrender? IMHO the answer is ‘no’. A soldier is not obliged to take a prisoner if by doing so endangers either himself or the mission.
If that is the difference between police and soldier, what is the difference between captured soldier and captured criminal? Generally a soldier is not tried, although his commander might be, for war crimes, and remains a prisoner until end of hostilities, however long that might take, and a prisoner exchange. A criminal is always tried and if convicted of a ‘legal’ crime is sentenced, can appeal the sentence and remains in custody until the period of the sentence has expired or parole. Only the worst criminals and they are very few, receive a never-to-be-released sentence or death.
One of the legal problems that Obama has not even attempted to grapple with is the possibility of an inbetween position. This is why he had to about-face on Guantánamo. He could not decide whether he was dealing with criminals or enemy combatants and wasn’t prepared to use his ‘legal genius’ to consider the possibility that third category with different rights and responsibility might be more appropriate for 21st century conditions. Pity. it would have left him a legacy.
Talking about a process:
Find
Shoot
Wash
Feed Fish
Repeat until complete
The President was also facing fierce opposition from politicians from all parties who didn’t want the circus to come to their home towns. Like so many things, He had a whim and assumed He could just magically do it, without actually understanding the situation or askng or checking first. And nearly everyone believed Him, especially at the BBC. When nobody wanted the terrorists to be housed in local prisons or the trials to take place in their home constituencies, they told Him to get bent. There’s also the legal ramifications of domestic criminal rules screwing things up, something else the finely-tuned brain of the Constitutional Law professer didn’t bother to consider. Incompetence R Us, but don’t expect the BBC to point this out.
So Guantanmo remains open, and the President turns back to the military tribunals.