It’s Friday, we’ve arrived at the end of another week and shortly, the end of another month here on Biased BBC! The blog has been really buzzing in recent times and my thanks to you all for keeping the conversation going. In truth there are not enough hours in the day to capture every instance of bias from the State Broadcaster but we certainly try to do our very best. My thanks to all fellow writers, to all who send me so much material, and of course most of all to our legions of readers who come here and are so loyal, informed and perceptive. It does encourage me so much and gives me the motivation and strength to keep this thing going. OK – the floor is yours…off you go!!!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Can fellow posters help me please? I am under the impression that the Guantanamo Bay prison facility has closed and have all the unlawfully detained civillians have been released and compensated for the evils committed by the idiot monkey-faced Booosh. You see I could set my watch by the BBC reporting on Gitmo every day when the idiot Booosh was president, but noow apart from the odd lizard all I see is tumbleween blowing down the street.
President Barry O’ must have cracked the problem after all he did promise to do so when he was elected. and therefore any remaining tidying up isn’t news worthy*. All advice welcome
*there is quite a lot in that category as far as the BBC is concerned
Let’s see now. During the Presidential election, Candidate Obamessiah pledged to close the facility, and within a week of being anointed He signed an executive order, with a flick of a pen, to close it. He said this about it a few weeks later:
By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it be closed within one year.
Of course, that hasn’t happened. Even worse, in March of this year He actually signed another executive order (no word on how Matt Frei described that one) to restart the much-maligned military tribunals.
There’s no way it’s going to be closed because He basically had no idea that He couldn’t just ride the wave of worship and do whatever the hell He wanted. He had no idea that the President doesn’t have the supreme dictatorial authority so many on the Left wish He had. This Harvard Law genius, who gave lectures on Constitutional Law (FFS!), had no idea what He could and couldn’t do. So He said it was as good as a done deal.
According to the BBC – naturally – it’s not His fault that Gitmo is still open. Congress declined to fund various plans to shift the prisoners to domestic trials or prisons, or send them overseas.
Bipartisan opposition to the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the US has grown. Congress has not authorised funding for transfers and Mr Holder said in April 2010 that Guantanamo could not close without it.
Hey, at least the Beeboids aren’t blaming the Tea Party for this one, right? The geniuses in the Obamessiah Administration simply didn’t understand the legal requirements of what they tried to do, and so passed the buck when it turned out they were wrong.
The issue was not widely debated during the mid-term elections and Mr Obama has largely ceased to push for closure in public.
“In public”, eh, BBC? How about “ceased completely?” It’s not going to happen because nobody wants to set them all free, back to the battlefield, and no Congressman wants an ugly show trial in their own constituency that will – because of the realities of civilian law and various rights like Miranda – most likely set them all free anyway. Not gonna happen. And there are no solid legal grounds to hold them in domestic prisons, without trial, due process, etc. They’re prisoners of war, which is an entirely different deal.
That’s why the BBC is so quiet. Oh, and they also censored news that He has now taken to holding prisoners illegaly on Navy ships at sea. Who needs an illegal prison with all the attention when you can just mess around with the prisoners wherever the hell you want?
Basically, the President has about zero political capital to spend on it now. Because He had no idea what it would take in the first place, and then spent everything He had on ObamaCare and His class war. The BBC is mostly silent about it because they will not criticize Him. Their easy excuse will be that since there are no more “British” prisoners, there’s nothing for them with which to interest the British public, so no reason to pursue it further.
Other than one minor scowl from Justin Rowlatt about some environmental drivel, the only criticism of The Obamessiah you’ll get from the BBC is when the BBC North America editor moans that some speech of the President didn’t inspire him enough. Guantanmo will not only remain open, but the President will continue Bush’s policies, and even dabble in His own illegal warmongering.
Look at it this way: at least The Obamessiah has killed more people with illegal drone attacks than Bush did, but He has at least put less people into the illegal facility at Guantanamo Bay. Win-win. Sort of.
Not in my name! Not in my name! Man, I never get tired of that one. 😀
And you can bet the farm that if Bush had ordered the cold blooded execution of a sick old man that might or might not have been Bin Laden by shooting him in the face then the left and the BBC would be calling for his impeachment and trial.
Don’t forget Cassandra Obama has increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan massively since he came to power, yet the BBC try to make out this is not his fault. I hear the BBC being critical of the policy but not of Obama, can you imagine if Bush had increased the number of attacks?
Yeah that Nobel peace prize is looking pretty ridiculous right now isnt it?
Martin wrote:
“Don’t forget Cassandra Obama has increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan massively since he came to power”
Martin this weeks Economist reveals a few stats about UAV atatcks in Pakistan which may shock some people:
Drones and the man
The frequency of drone strikes on al-Qaeda and other terrorists that lurk in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) has risen under Barack Obama to one every four days, compared with one every 40 during George Bush’s presidency.
Not to say the constant changing stories that surrounded that event – what the BBC call lies when applied to their opponents.
The unreproachable “Obamessiah” (BTW, I have always loved that name, Preiser) got be be king/emperor thanks largely to white guilt and the liberal fantasy that a good socialist politician can walk on water. This is the same water upon which the creeky raft of British liberalism floats.
But a serious test faces Auntie shortly when they will be forced to comment upon the following people, and trash them because they are conservatives: Allen West, Hermain Cain, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley…etc, etc
Perhaps the coverage will be as tight-lipped as when Michael Dteel was in the spotlight as RNC Chair..
Agreed, Louis. And all those people are much more competent than Steele, and – most important of all – got where they are by merit, and are not tokens like Steele. That’s what really hits the Beeboids in the heart, for they know the President didn’t get where He is purely on merit, not by a long shot.
Today, 5:21:15 PM – Like – Reply – Delete
That’s similar to what the Left used to say about Bush. Personally, I find Obama a very urbane, likeable, capable character, and I dont trust him an inch.
He doesn’t come across as very likeable or capable. At least not at the level he’s playing.
George, It would be helpful to know which publication that is from, as the link didn’t work.
Thedre seems to have been a technical hitch; apologies.
The article is in ‘Standpoint Magazine’.
Hope this link works:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-june-11-on-track-the-great-olympic-cover-up-julie-bindel-women-islamic-games-hijab-ioc-dame-kelly-holmes
Thank you!
Not sure if David Preiser (USA) covered this in his blog earlier this week.
No, I missed this. Totally hilarious. Who’s the camp newsreader? Whoever wrote this is only a couple years late to the party. The BBC has been biased in favor of the US President and His foreign policies since He took office at the end of Jan. 2009.
“Is it now a propaganda tool for US and UK foreign policy?”
ROTF&PSML 😀 =-O 😀 =-O 😀 =-O *DONT_KNOW* 😛
Its from “Russia Today” I don’t know who the newsreader is, probaby a “defector from the west” 🙂
Gerard Batten is in the same party as Nigel Farage. (UKIP)
Interesting that idea was dropped after American complaints, however one thing interested me:
“The BBC charity has developed a lucrative relationship with the U.S. government during the Obama administration”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/04/bbc-s-charity-drops-proposal-us-taxpayer-funding#ixzz1TfENtydu
I had no idea about this. Thanks, Span, for bringing it to my attention. I’m glad to learn that enough people were concerned about the BBC’s bias that they stopped this deal in its tracks.
A discussion with someone from RT would be interesting, to say the least. But tread carefully…..
Point of interest. Laura Emmett contacted us through our B-BBC emails to try to set up a B-BBC interview re this item. (I think DV mentioned it on the blog at the time.)
Apparently, the Beeboid Corporation’s Today programme on Radio 4 broadcast some swear words on Friday at 8 10 am, causing shock and outrage to some listeners. These words, which included barstewards (if I may use that term), were deemed by the Beeboids necessary to convey the hatred directed at sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome.
Never mind that the Beeboids could have just told us that people swear at them: we would have got the general idea of hostility to such sufferers. What really gets me is the lazy bland complacency and stupidity of Beeboid excuses. So when people propose that there should be a watershed for radio as well as TV, what does the Beeboid Corporation have to say about this?
According to the article in The Sunday Express about this swearing outbreak:
The BBC’s editorial guidelines were strengthened last year in the wake of the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand scandal on Radio 2 in 2008.
However, the governing BBC Trust declined to introduce a TV-style watershed.
[Hark at this for “reasoning”: ]
The BBC handbook states: “Radio is a different medium with different audiences, so we cannot operate a similar watershed policy.”
It does concede: “We must take extra care when different generations may be listening together. This typically applies during the morning and afternoon school runs or during school holidays.”
LBC radio presenter and Sunday Express columnist Nick Ferrari said the BBC and Radio 4 in particular lived in their own “elite metropolitan bubble”.
He said BBC radio should have a watershed and added: “You would never have this grotesque use of words on commercial radio. There is no justifiable reason for Radio 4’s decision.”
Last night, two Tory MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport select committee backed the call for a radio watershed.
Therese Coffey was not even aware there was no watershed. She said: “It strikes me as being inconsistent.
“There’s no expectation of hearing that kind of language at that time and I’m sure people would have been shocked.”
Her colleague Philip Davies added: “The lack of a watershed is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.”
A spokesman for the Today programme said: “E-mails including abusive language were included in the report to demonstrate the level of intimidation involved in the campaign. We felt this was editorially justified.”
Beeboid barstewards!
Oo er… beware those internet trolls / commenters on Beeboid Bias. Damian Thompson is on the case: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100099107/anders-breivik-and-the-echo-chamber-of-the-trolls/
So now all of a sudden Thompson thinks only trolls believe the BBC is biased? I’ll remember that next time he gets pissed off about their treatment of the Pope or some other Catholic abuse.
It is ironic in that atricle that Mr Thompson has a go at trolls who believe in BBC Bias then he goes on to mention the Liberal BBC Bias in the Today show.
On second though, maybe D Thompson was referring to trolls complaining about the BBC’s pro-Israel or Right-wing bias or something he would see as ridiculous?
It’s the laziness of the critics who deploy this ‘fooling nobody’ ploy in distraction.
At least DT in the DT had to stretch it to an article, but usually on such as the BBC threads or CiF, a few scamper about seeding ‘I see the trolls are out’ and assume they’ve managed to shut down sensible deabte.
Not sure if they don’t actually manage an ironic foot shot mainly.
Trolling is a pain, and tricky to call out as they feed on being engaged.
But to try and delegitimise counter argument like this is, well, silly.
The comments to author has garnered show just how silly he is.
This is what Thompson tells us he feels about the BBC:-
“I don’t trust a word that the BBC tells me about “the religion of peace””.
During the last election he got in touch with B-BBC about ‘incorporating its surveys’ in the Telegraph blog role. He left a mobile number but never picked up when DV rang him or got back.
This caught my eye in his piece:-
“There are simple-minded folk with jokey nicknames who fling insults at each other for hours at a stretch, amusing no one but themselves. My own blog is infested with them. Honestly, I sometimes wish they would crawl away and die.”
I dont think Mr Thompson is entirely happy with life.
Now imagine if a deranged leftist had murdered a bunch of young people at a right wing youth camp, what would the BBCs very first reaction be?
The BBC would immediately investigate what was going on at the camp, what ideas were being spread, what allied groups were involved. Within hours the BBC would be launching attacks on the right wing, exposing what exactly was going on, what political ideas were being discussed.
In fact the majority of coverage would be an attack on the right wing values that led directly to the attack, the idea would be to undermine a sympathetic reaction from ordinary people, in effect the BBC would be pimping the ‘they got what was coming to them’ narrative.
Note that to date the BBC has not mentioned just what was going on the camp, which groups, which extremists were engaging with these young people. And the BBC will never investigate what was going on at the camp because they know it was an idelogical and political indoctrination camp.
hat’s if they even bothered to report it at all. The entire MSM tend to ignore left-wing thuggery, but are happy to quote these vile creatures when attacking the right:
http://www.pentagramz.info/2010/10/uaf-official-is-a-violent-criminal/
In your hypothetical case, Cassandra, some Beeboids would see it as a legitimate act of self-defense.
Oh dear me, the BBC is determined to ensure that the ‘phone hacking’ blah continues to stick to the Conservatives throughout the summer recess by almost literally publishing Labour propaganda. Rarely have I read a piece so obviously tee’d up by one of the parties and regurgitated as news:
Phone hacking row: Cameron ‘must come clean’ over Murdoch
There is not one iota of news in this piece.
And while I’m on it, precious little reporting of Piers Morgans, or indeed any other news company’s, links to phone hacking. Still banging on about News Corp while ignoring the fact they are all at it.
BBC – Questions are being asked…. by folk we have asked to ask questions and told them we will report if they ask them. For anything else, a fully-equipped and staffed edit suite exists to deal with awkward other stuff.
Across the politico-media estate, there seem to be those more addicted to twitter than others….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100099148/barack-obama’s-vulgar-twitter-spamming-campaign-is-a-classless-act-of-desperation-by-the-us-president/
How’s that working out?
What a strange man they have for President.
How’s it working out? Not well. It cost Him at least 36,000 followers. The Republicans apparently gained some along the way.
But this is classic proof of what I said about Him the other day: He’s an instigator, not a leader. This Twitter attack is exactly the kind of thing a local Community Organizer would do to rally people. But it’s not actual leadership, and certainly not leadership in a crisis.
Things not going our way? Let’s get people angry. Forget national debate, forget honest negotiations and compromise. Just get people to harrass our opponents instead.
Rabble rouser.
“I know how to get things moving. The BBC will hate it (apart from my plan for the bankers!) But it will work.”
(by Norman Tebbit)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2020679/NORMAN-TEBBITT-I-know-things-moving-The-BBC-hate-apart-plan-bankers–But-work.html#ixzz1TfXUCeTz
Odds of this happening?
John Redwood: The BBC should scrutinise Obama’s intransigence as well as Tea Party obstinance http://t.co/azfzln9
that was part of my blog earlier:
http://owsblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-optimistic-on-opportunism.html
JW starts with: “Listening to the BBC you could get the impression that the tea party minority in the Congress has the power and the wish to wreck the world’s financial system.”
Looks like John Redwood reads this blog. 😀
Hey, Mr. Redwood: Nobody thinks we can cut spending by 10% in one year (not without killing a couple government agency behemoths, such as the Dept. of Education or ObamaCare, that is). Hell, cutting 10% over the next four years would be an improvement on anything being offered right now by either party.
Time warp again on Andrew Marr show,
Harriet Hareman on to talk about giving more money to Africa and given unchalenged rant about Tories and Health and Tories and NI
She has loads of Africans in her constituency. I expect that’s why she’s doing it.
Narrative, what narrative?
BBCPolitics (they got that bit right) BBC Politics PM ‘must come clean’ over Murdoch http://bbc.in/pUi0RX
Takes a while before you arrive at ‘Labour has said’
The BBC are at it again, fatty Abbott all over the BBC (enough of a thought to make you vomit) spouting that evil Tories are taking money from the poor in the NHS to give to the rich.
Lansley on the BBC doing a piss poor job of replying, he’s prattling on about 2.5% this and 4% that, this makes no difference to the morons who vote Liebore who understand fatty Abbotts simple claim that evil Tories are robbing the poor.
The BBC of course are still running the false claim from Abbott as the top headline, the BBC failing of course to point out that Liebore would have cut the NHS budget.
The Tories deserve this though, whilst Lansley is waffling away like a halfwit trying got explain his policy the BBC and no doubt the Guardian will spin this story all tomorrow (BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 5, then Newsnight) to hammer home this lie as they always do.
The Tory regime is stuffed with clueless limp halfwits like Lansley, no fire, no courage, no determination, no moral centre. A collection of tepid flaccid empty cowards with as much passion and verve as a lump of poo.
In fact the entire cabinet look as though they have had their personality surgically removed on entering government. The look and act as though they believe in nothing and they stand for nothing.
The BBC NHS funding “moved to rich areas” story is an utter travesty of how NHS funding is actually arrived at, and how it grossly favours poor (Labour) authorities.
The weighted capitation formula has hundreds of weightings before it arrives at the final amount per head of resident population. Its all set out in the so-called “Exposition Book.”
Basically the red-in-tooth-and-claw areas score masses of extra dosh as a result of proxies for deprivation, such as number of occupants per habitable room, dreamed up by contracted University Departments (Durham, I believe). As a result, areas like Tower Hamlets get 20% more money per head of population than average, while Tory areas like Guilford in Surrey get 20% less than average. So there is a 40% bias favouring the “poor” (in urban areas, a euphemism for a large immigrant population with many children) Plenty of other weightings like “rough sleeper allowance” (favours Brighton)
Areas with lots of poor lifestyle choices die younger (fact always claimed by Labour as “inequality”) as a result of which they don’t live long enough to need older age ops like hip replacements and cataracts.
The whole thing is a classic piece of Labour gerrymandering of public money away from Tory areas toward Labour-voting areas. Its tribal. Money for the brothers. Going on for decades.
But the BBC are whipped up by the reverse of the truth, as suits their adolescent narrative.
Radio 5 also spinning the lie that the US debt mess is the fault of Bush and Republicans. That great economic genius Richard Schiffe (well OK a third rate lefty actor but according to the BBC he’s an expert as he once played a part in a Whitehouse show) tells Radio 5 that those nasty Republicans want to make Obama look bad.
Funny that not once on the BBC have they ever pointed out Obama once voted against raising the debt ceiling himself… funny that.
The West Wing was a Leftoid wet dream. No wonder the BBC values this guy’s opinion on politics. Shame the BBC’s editorial standards are so low.
Guardian on the radio? Yesterday I heard a female Beeboid trying to persuade Alexei Sayle to give up his stand up retirement and go back on stage ‘because we need you’.
This morning on 5 Live it is all forgive and forget for another big man – Sam Allardyce. That Panorama on ‘bungs’ and his threat to sue the BBC is ignored and Big Sam is suddenly a good judge of fiscal policy – when he is calling for more Goverment spending on sport.
Have we not spent enough on sport? The Olympics should have cost 4.5 billion. Latest estimate 9 billion. Female Beeboid pops up to cast critics of the cost as ‘bah humbug’.
I switch to Radio 4. Paddy in his paper review pitches up a gentle one to a Guardian Hack (who else?) to tell us that the present difficulties across the pond are nothing to do with debt.
Got it! BBC message: money is no big thing.
No it is all about this small minority of tea party nutters. Oh and they are are far worse than the right wingers we have over here. Naturally this goes unchallenged. It is just what we want on the show.
There is so much wrong with this typical BBC output that I am just about overwhelmed.
Which I guess is what has happened to conservative voices here.
BBC. Institutionally leftist.
well here they are, maybe we need the newcons , blue sky thinking, helicopter vision?…no
the complete change of, “ta ra”! the BIG SOCIETY s thinking outside the box version of perculating the ideas agenda?
D.”soundbite” Cams, righthand man, on strategy for the last 18mths Steve Hilton…
on the latest newcons cutting edge idea…
cut out maternity pay & cut this & cut that to save money.
hmmm sounds like the old idea
still
<!– S ILIN –>“blue-sky thinking” <!– E ILIN –>
Just wondering: Is there some reason that recent Prime Ministers seem to lean on individual weirdos like the notorious Thug Campbell and this thuggish, yobbish-looking Hilton? I want a PM who has some substance, with his own ideas and his own sense of what’s what and what should guide policy.
Blair started the thing with scumbag Campbell, and Call Me Dave is doing his “Heir To Blair” thing by grabbing his very own scummer out of the primeval slime.
“I want a PM who has some substance, with his own ideas and his own sense of what’s what and what should guide policy.”
Don’t we all ? Unfortunately, and going back to the point of this site, they’re all vulnerable (or think they are, at least) to the capacity of the Beeb to flood the airwaves for days, and on all its platforms, on policies deemed unacceptable to Auntie. Leading to the possibility of ‘unpopularity’, which is the Achilles’ heel of every elected politician nowadays it seems, and therefore to be avoided at all costs.
Round and round, down and down, into the abyss we go.
And there’s also Brown and McBride. I seem to recall that some Beeboids were in on some of their meetings, and kept shtum.
they are all so manufactured, & incapable of an original thought
whats behind the soundbite….well er
another soundbite, much easier to send some “faux” hardman, to
beef up the spin to the media.
“The Olympics should have cost 4.5 billion. Latest estimate 9 billion”
Believe it or not the first estimate when the winning bid was in (2005) was only 2.4 billion. Brown made a massive booboo re VAT and many other things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6123616.stm
‘frightening incompetence’
They’ll blame Boris for it.
The bBC, how it loves to quote facts and figures about past deaths in the Middle East, but only about..Israel.
How many times have you read an article about Israel when you’ve come across something like this:
Two years ago, a 22-day clash between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants in Gaza left an estimated 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.
This:
Hezbollah fought a 34-day war against Israel in 2006 that left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead. Lebanon and Israel remain officially in a state of war.
And this:
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian victims of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre are buried in a mass grave a short distance to the south of Shatila camp. They died when Israeli forces surrounded Sabra and Shatila and let in their Lebanese militia allies, belonging to the Christian Phalange movement, to root out armed Palestinians they claimed were hiding there.
Lets not forget the Nakba which the bBC trots out time and time again in which to demonise the Jew.So imagine my surprise when I came across this article Headline about the current attack on the town of Hama in Syria this morning where many died. Many? Not dozens, scores or even Civilians but simply..many.Anyway reading the article the bBC relates this story about the history of the city in Hama:
Hama was the scene of the suppression of an uprising against President Assad’s father in 1982.
Wow, the bBC which has no problem telling you how many people died in anything Israel has done doesn’t elaborate any further on the history of Hama. You’d think that the 1982 clampdown by Syria on the town of Hama which saw between 20 to 40,000 people murdered would be part of the story. Well the guardian thinks so:
The city has a history of dissent against the Assad dynasty. In 1982, Assad’s late father, Hafez al-Assad, ordered his brother to quell a rebellion by Syrian members of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood movement. The city was sealed off before air strikes destroyed parts of the city. As many as 25,000 people, human rights groups say.
But not so the bBC, gee I wonder why the bBC doesn’t want you to know that snippet?
Anyone hear…
Mehdi (kaffir/animals) Hasan, pops up on Any Questions, bleating far right….far right extremism….about the far right be concerned, be very concerned, the danger of the far right, we must fight any extremism,( so glad he didn t slip up, & end his rant with…you kaffir animals).
Another contributer tried to be more objective, mentioned the left,(surprise surprise immediate raucous anger from our handpicked BBC audience)…..
“Are you seriously mentioning the left”?? a cry
sheesh!
Yes; INBBC is bound to be a chum of Muslim Hasan, given his views:
A 3-part article on Hasan (2009) from the political ‘left’:
1.)
Mehdi Hasan Exposed. Part I – Atheists and disbelievers are “cattle” and “of no intelligence”
2.)
Mehdi Hasan Part II – Muslims and non Muslims
3.)
Mehdi Hasan Part III: A New Direction for the New Statesman?
Odd, isn’t it that whenever Boris Johnson appears on the BBC, he is always – and I repeat ALWAYS – reminded that he used to be a member of the Bullingdon Club (got up to drunken hijinks as a student) yet when Mehdi Hasan appears, even when discussing the Islamist threat, he is never – and I repeat NEVER – reminded of his more recent activities (telling fellow Muslims how inferior we non-muslims are.)
I wonder why that is so.
Any Any Questions? here is the link (21mins in), yes d murray has strangely really left hasan off the hook, on a couple of occasions..maybe biding his time…
anyway if you listen to this, you almost imagine, a UAF “we make a noise club” waiting their chance. to stifle an objective viewpoint.
this is getting more doctored than question time.
Qyesuestions?
China: Unrest in Kashgar, Xinjiang, leaves 15 dead
Unrest kills. Two men killed a truck driver, then drove his lorry into pedestrians. An explosion killed three people and police shot dead “four suspects”.
The radio interview talks about ethnic tensions. Anger of Uighars against Han and Beijing.
Who killed who?
Supplementary.
‘Jihadwatch’:
China: Jihadists hijack truck, kill driver, plough truck into crowd on sidewalk, and murder six people at random
At least they sort of mention the Chinese policy of ethnic cleansing in the region. They used to be less open about it. But I agree it’s a bit silly not to mention who did what in the truck incident, as they spell out the factions and rationale in the rest of it.
This sums up how future generations are being saddled with the burden of profligacy in US Government spending. (It applies to the UK situation too)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/doorbell.php
Really good John, the acting sounds a bit strained but the “punchline” is worth it!
Powerline has been holding a competition for people to submit videos succinctly explaining the debt crisis. I haven’t seen the winning entry, but a couple have been pretty good. It think it’s all amateur stuff, just ordinary citizens doing it.
I didn’t mean the above as a quality judgment. Just meant that it’s not professionals or activist groups spending money on it.
David
As you say – some of the entries, all by folks in the street, look highly professional. I really love the Doorbell one, short, crisp, cute kid looking worried because he Mom is worried about the financial burden what the adult politicians are foisting on her generation.
I think that says it all – ordinary citizens have gotten really concerned. In essence, what has driven the Tea Party movement, which the BBC keeps characterising as some sort of far-right extremist mob when actually its membership cuts across party boundaries.
I can concur to some extent with David Preisser. I have been deluged with Democratic talking point from friend’s emails. They seem to be amateur, but David, they have very simlar wording.
On a lighter note, one Democratic chum of mine said in his missive: “If you think President Obama is a liberal, you are being misinformed.” Ha! How’s that for keeping your eyes wide shut! (Perhaps Mr Mardell could copy)
Top Syrian Generals Defect – Announce Formation of Free Syrian Army to Fight Assad
A Syrian Major-General has deserted Assad’s army along with a group of other officers and joined the rebels.
In an Arabic video clip posted on Youtube on July 29, 2011, the officer, Major-General Riad El As’ad is seen in the company of other officers, announcing the establishment of the “Free Syrian Army whose main goal will be to fight the army of oppression headed by President Bashar Assad”.
Video at the link. BBC: ZZZZzzzzzzzz
You have been told, Beeboids:
“BBC strike over job cuts starts tonight”
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2188
And the reporting of this second strike will be sympathetic, given that mosty journalists are members of the NUJ.
And we know that BBC-NUJ is a politically biased organisation, but this won’t affect NUJ sel-interest around the UK.
Incidentally, will Evans and Montague (‘Today’) get out at dawn to avoid the picket-line this time again, or have they changed their rotas?
“BBC strikers angry after Today hosts break ranks” (2010)
Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/71161,people,news,bbc-strikers-angry-after-today-hosts-break-ranks#ixzz1ThOlKv5v
Of course, INBBC’s Arabic TV-NUJ ‘service’ is already out on strike – for 6 DAYS (based at East Wing, Mecca-facing wing of Broadcasting House, London):
Spending of licencepayers’ money on new buildings for Beeboids in London and Manchester continues:
http://www.buildington.co.uk/new_projects/london_w1/portland_place/bbc_broadcasting_house/id/2216
And so does INBBC Arabic TV ‘service’ strike:”BBC Arabic service journalists’ strike continues “http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/481950
Here’s one for you:
Was Lumley campaign good for Gurkhas?
No prizes for guessing which way the BBC sees it.
Two years ago actress Joanna Lumley helped Gurkhas who retired before 1997 win the right to settle in the UK. Gurkha welfare groups and the Home office estimate that about 8,000 former soldiers and their families have since moved to Britain. But many have struggled in the UK, as the BBC’s Alastair Lawson reports.
Apparently many of them have had to live on benefits and are unable to find work. Why, something of them even have the temerity not to be fluent in English. The solution?
But the BGWS argues that it would be far more cost-effective if retired Gurkhas were paid better pensions and encouraged to stay in Nepal rather than pursue the more expensive option of emigrating to the UK to take advantage of state pensions, housing benefit and free health care.
I kind of doubt that the reason the Gurkhas are coming to Britain because the cost of living in Nepal is too high. If the EDL or similar said this, they would be accused of racism. But since it’s a cause the BBC didn’t support initially, it’s cool to tell the foreigners they’re better off staying home.
Its astounding isn t it David, these soldiers who are considered probably the most loyal, have worked for Queen & country???
i know some, have even eaten with them, always courteous, very proud
of the British army, it is true some have struggled, but they of all people
would be the last to try and play on it, i recall where we used to eat they still had a picture of the Queen, over the head table.
Compare that, to the,(might as well say it) intolerant abusers of our country, its laws & freedoms, its democracy……….
It’s just odd that the BBC doesn’t seem to find time for voices who think all sorts of other immigrants who don’t speak English and end up on benefits would be better off staying home because of the hardships they face here. In those cases, the only reason for opposing those immigrants is racism.
yep! some old muslim fella from a bloody indian village, bleats racism
every tom dick and harry, gets involved, scumbag councillors, immigration welfare, all to assist in the SCAM, of getting him,(his 6 children probably)
over here, done nothing for the country, never paid any dues, paid nothing in……
all we know, he s determined not to speak english!
give me strength grrrr……..
there is a good chance to listen to Mr R Spencer, give a frank account,
of how anyone mentioned in the Olso shooters paperwork, has had a torrid time of late,& how he has addressed it
18 05pm uk time
http://www.970wfla.com.
compare that with BBC W/S interview,(sorry links gone into the ether somewhere)
A politically difficult one for INBBC to report, so it doesn’t.
(Perhaps chunks of INBBC are on strike already anyway.)
Friend and ally: Pakistan detains US Ambassador at Islamabad airport
Probe into secretive Sharia law courts scrapped Daily Mail july 30
apologies if you ve put it up already george
Probe into secretive Sharia law courts scrapped as Muslim leaders
oops forgot the link
Oh my goodness! I’ve just watched an impartial Mark Mardell report on what’s happening in Washington! He even signed off with a comment favourable to the Tea Party!
The BBC really should issue warnings to people with heart conditions if Mark Mardell is going to be impartial. Sudden shocks like this are bad for the system.
This piece on Jihad Watch on some smarty pants Norwegian journalist asking Robert Spencer to address the accusation by Lars Gule that he is morally responsible for the Breitvic murders led me to think that what accounts for Damian Thompson‘s comments about Jihad Watch today (also addressed on JW) is that he’s lost his bottle. He’s simply wilted before the sheer evil mindedness of the Marxist Left as personified by the anti-Semitic convicted terrorist Lars Gule.
In his piece Robert Spencer expresses his gratitude for readers bringing to his attention Mr Gule’s past. Maybe a better spelling for this jew hating bigot’s surname and blood libeller for the Jihad is Ghoul.
Supplementary:
“Hatred, smears and the liberals hell-bent on bullying millions of us into silence”
(by Melanie Phillips)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2020924/Hatred-smears-liberals-hell-bent-bullying-millions-silence.html#ixzz1TjA9KAcO
Mel make an interesting point about what the Graun allows on its pages… when it suits, if in blatant examples of hypocrisy.
One of the most potent, and damaging threats to free speech in this country is the abuse of the edit suite and/or moderation facility, which this paper, and its broadcast arm, carry out with impunity whilst claiming to ‘speak for the public’.
They do not.
They shout at the public, telling us what to think (often based on highly selective information that is pure propaganda) and when the public demurs, they apply censorship.
One minority readership publication wagging to dog that is the country’s largest media monopoly in such a manner cannot be good for democracy.
Is BBC Brekky (don’t watch so don’t know) all over this slow-news day non-story about the non-tipping of a person who doesn’t do her job?
As part of the ‘cuts. Cuts, CUTSSSS!!!’ agenda, I am sure this young lady will be flown over for a Newsnight special to have Polly T (who will have flown back with her) hold her hand whilst Mile.E demands an answer to his question as to why she was denied her bonus as a working person… er… when not doing any work. The logic for that will compute in certain public sector minds.
Remarkable thing happened on the World Service yesterday, causing me again to nearly fall off my chair. They reported that the Taliban has taken a hammering. Could be a way of hitting back at the Taliban for killing the BBC reporter:
You kill our guys and we’ll tell the truth about you!
BBCNewsnight BBC Newsnight #newsnight “second only to @bbceastenders in the number of daily namechecks on Twitter” (Guardian article) bit.ly/rtvdiD
A lot worth pondering in that little lot, if one thinks about it.
lets start a petition to get rid of the BBC we need 100,000 plus for the government to act.
BBCNewsnight BBC Newsnight #newsnight “second only to @bbceastenders in the number of daily namechecks on Twitter” (Guardian article) bit.ly/rtvdiD
A lot worth pondering in that little lot, if one thinks about it.
@dylsharpe – 95% of the signatories on this list would have told us that AV was in the ‘public interest’. The public didn’t agree. http://bit.ly/oE5uBp
Why do I suspect those he describes will be ‘gracing’ Aunty’s studios more?
This ‘speaking for “us”‘ lark is very hard to rationalise.
The bBC, that Egyptian /Jordanian fuel line and those pesky explosions.
The bBC expresses deep reservations about how Jordan may go nuclear in which to light up the night sky above Amman (No seriously you really do have to look over Amman on a night-time to see how bright it is lit up. Want to guess what the primary colour is?)
Anyway the bBC explains that Jordan imports the vast majority of its energy supply from Eygpt but the middle-eastern upheaval , price functions and explosions on the pipe line mean Jordan isn’t getting the power it needs. However the bBC doesn’t mention why the pipeline explodes. (faulty maintence perhaps) and the reader/watcher is left in the dark (As are the people of Jordan) about why that pipeline explodes. If the nice peaceful people in Eygpt didn’t have a penchant for blowing up the fuel line to Israel (which then goes onto Jordan) Jordan wouldn’t have to think about going Nuclear. But instead of pointing the reader down that road, the bBC instead sends the reader down the Path to Greenpeace and ilk.
When I first heard about that pipeline into Israel getting sabotaged, I kept wondering how that would fit into the BBC’s Narrative. Now I know.
Good find, pounce.
“The unrest in the region has sent oil prices soaring this year. But these images paint a difficult picture too” [images of sabotaged pipeline without explanation]. “Egypt depends on Egyptian gas for 80% of its energy needs. Numerous explosions” [give me a break!] “on the pipeline between the two countries this year will cost the government about one and a half billion dollars. That’s about a third of the government’s budget.
“So the government is stepping up its efforts to find alternatives to gas and oil and nuclear energy is winning out.”
A spokesman for the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission is then interviewed and maintains that most renewable technologies are intermittent and the options are basically nuclear power or no power at all without being challenged by the interviewer. I note the respectful tone from the BBC here. No jumping up and down and pointing fingers at Jordan for considering the dreaded nuclear option for power, despite the Chernobyls of the world and the tragedy in Japan just a few months ago.
Then there’s a brief focus on a spokesman for Friends of the Earth Middle East before the camera moves on. No jumping up and down in enthusiastic support of FEME from the BBC here.
Typical BBC doctoring of the news. Just as “violence erupts” without any apparent cause between Muslim and Copts in Egypt, so an Egyptian pipeline mysteriously explodes numerous times. People who watched that clip could be forgiven for thinking this is how gas pipelines habitually behave and that nothing can be done about it.
It’s also noteworthy that the fact that the pipeline goes through Israel and the primary aim of the sabotage is to deny Israel Egyptian gas is not mentioned at all. I guess the BBC can’t get its mind aroung the fact that in order to damage Israel the saboteurs are quite prepared to damage Jordan far more seriusly. So they avoid that fact like the plague.
Good find, pounce.
“The unrest in the region has sent oil prices soaring this year. But these images paint a difficult picture too” [images of sabotaged pipeline without explanation]. “Egypt depends on Egyptian gas for 80% of its energy needs. Numerous explosions” [give me a break!] “on the pipeline between the two countries this year will cost the government about one and a half billion dollars. That’s about a third of the government’s budget.
“So the government is stepping up its efforts to find alternatives to gas and oil and nuclear energy is winning out.”
A spokesman for the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission is then interviewed and maintains that most renewable technologies are intermittent and the options are basically nuclear power or no power at all without being challenged by the interviewer. I note the respectful tone from the BBC here. No jumping up and down and pointing fingers at Jordan for considering the dreaded nuclear option for power, despite the Chernobyls of the world and the tragedy in Japan just a few months ago.
Then there’s a brief focus on a spokesman for Friends of the Earth Middle East before the camera moves on. No jumping up and down in enthusiastic support of FEME from the BBC here.
Typical BBC doctoring of the news. Just as “violence erupts” without any apparent cause between Muslim and Copts in Egypt, so an Egyptian pipeline mysteriously explodes numerous times. People who watched that clip could be forgiven for thinking this is how gas pipelines habitually behave and that nothing can be done about it.
It’s also noteworthy that the fact that the pipeline goes through Israel and the primary aim of the sabotage is to deny Israel Egyptian gas is not mentioned at all. I guess the BBC can’t get its mind aroung the fact that in order to damage Israel the saboteurs are quite prepared to damage Jordan far more seriusly. So they avoid that fact like the plague.