Never mind Celebrity Big Brother, with the BBC operating 24/7 across the globe, we have a much more dangerous broadcasting big brother to worry about. Please detail your observations here as I declare this thread…OPEN!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
I had the radio on in the background when my telephone rang.
Up until then I heard Gaddafi talking about “rats” and “eliminating” them.
Was he talking about the BBC ?
If so, he’s gone up in my estimation.
Sticky (Labour) backed plastic time from the BBC big Red Peter book of making things from odds and ends….
Have you ever really really wanted to make a nice birthday present for brother Ed? But then remembered how everybody already spent absolutely all their pocket money on the last massive party for uncle Gordon?
Remember how all the little brothers and sisters laughed to see him get proper grown up drunk on Keynesian silly pop? Oh he was sick! Someone nasty said he started throwing toys at the wall and being mean – but we won’t talk about that. Don’t want to spoil the memory of a nice happy party do we?
All the mess; heaps of ice cream and red jelly coming back up on Mum’s carpet! The hundereds and thousands – or were they just uncle Gordon’s funny little tablets?
So let’s see what we can make from just what we find lying around that other people may have paid for – It’ll cost us nothing from our own special pocket money!
I know what would make Ed smile. Something useful made out of these horrible riots we’ve all been having. It’s going to be difficult but let’s just see what we can do.
Instructions:
1. Make a nice big rift between the Police and the Government. Do this quickly, but be careful with the knife. Get someone who looks like a grown up to help. Old Hugh seems sensible and he used to be a PC – now he’s a big CP PC but he’s still got the uniform. I’m sure he’d love to get involved.
2. Need more help talking about the CUTTING? If auntie Polly is away on her long hols why not ask some creative cousins over to play so they can help you with this. I know, Darkus and Camila (she makes all her own dresses with big scissors and curtains)
3. Squeeze down the sentences. Make them as tiny as you possibly can, squish them right down – or it won’t be fair! (Don’t worry if they are so small that they almost dissappear).
4. Whatever you do don’t colour it in. Paint it all as white as you can or it will look all messy.
5. Wrap it up nicely and tell how everyone elses’ ideas are really rubbish.
And there you have it. You’ve made something nice for the party from the riots. Ed will be pleased.
How the bBC rewrites the facts in which to support is political stance.
UK troops in Afghanistan ‘friendly-fire’ 19 times
British troops were accidentally fired upon by Afghan forces in Helmand at least 19 times over three-and-a-half years, military incident logs reveal. Four of the so-called friendly-fire incidents resulted in casualties, although none fatal, it was disclosed after a Freedom of Information request. Between January 2008 and June 2009, Afghan personnel came under friendly-fire by UK troops at least 10 times. Also, 21 Afghan interpreters for UK forces have been killed since 2006. British forces mistakenly firing at Afghan soldiers, police and security service officials, resulted in seven deaths.
The bBC reports on blue on blue incidents (The correct term for so called friendly fire events) and amazingly writes up the article in which to paint the British as the bad guys.
Look again at that headline:
UK troops in Afghanistan ‘friendly-fire’ 19 times
What’s you instant view, that British troops are trigger happy? Only by reading the article do you realise that actually British troops were the targets of those friendly fire incidents. Then there’s how the bBC while stating that those 19 incidents happened over a 3 year period in just 18 months British soldiers committed 10 such incidents. Really bBCm because actually the reporting period for those British blue on Blue was from Jan 2008 to June 2011. The very same time frame for the Afghan incidents. Now have a look again at how they write those incidents up, Afghan soldiers accidently shoot, but British troops commit acts of friendly fire. Very subtle changes of language which exonerate the Afghans of any wrong doing but no so at the British troops.Then note how the bBC inserts into the main story how 21 Afghans interpreters have died since 2006, what message is the bBC sending here, that those 21 men were killed by British troops? When the fact remains each and everyone has been killed by the Taliban.
Now let’s look at the bBC centrepiece of British troops lack of training:The most serious incident, in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand in October 2008, saw three Afghan National Police officers killed and one seriously injured when British troops opened fire on them.
Now here’s how a wee British newspaper reports the same incident:
In the worst incident, in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand in October 2008, three Afghan National Police (ANP) officers were killed and one very seriously injured when UK troops opened fire on them.
The log notes: “Acting on a specific threat warning and in the belief that no Afghan or Isaf (Nato) forces were in the area, UK forces fired at individuals assessed to be preparing an attack. The individuals were subsequently identified as ANP officers preparing an ambush against insurgent forces.”
Gee I wonder why the bBC kind of left that informative fact out of the equation. The wee British newspaper also reported this which the BBC doesn’t:
In another incident a British night patrol in Sangin in northern Helmand in August last year fired on a motorcycle that failed to stop despite warnings. One of the riders was shot in the head and died, and the other was injured. It later turned out they were both ANP officers.
So at a stroke I have explained the reasons behind over 60% of those 7 deaths and when look at in full you realise the soldiers did nothing wrong. Yet the bBC doesn’t do that and instead launches into a party political broadcast about how bad Afghans have it working alongside the Brits.
It’s not the first time they’ve used a crafty headline to distort the story. It seems to be a regular tactic. In all honesty, sometimes I think they don’t even realise they are doing it, it’s just the way they make some stories look ‘correct’ to them.
In the article below they used the same inversion trick to apear to reverse the order of events. So although the attack came from Gaza, with Isreal responding afterwards, the BBC report mentions the Isreali response first, making it appear as though they were the aggressor.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6851040/the-bbc-maintains-its-impeccable-evenhandedness-between-murderer-and-victim.thtml
From the article :
With its customary moral inversion which automatically turns Israeli victimisation into Israeli aggression, the BBC reports today’s Gaza anti-tank missile attack on an Israeli school bus this way:
Israeli forces strike after attack on bus.
Israeli tanks, helicopters and planes have struck Gaza after an anti-tank missile fired from the Palestinian territory hit a bus in southern Israel.
My above posts were originally one. However as per bloody usual when trying to post it, I was denied that action and informed by a box that posts had to be under 5000 characters long. So after fathing around I find that while my first post was the limit, my second (and reminder of the post) past the litmus test of 5000 characters, yet was over twice as long as the first half. Damn technology.
I would like to suggest that pounce be given a contributor spot for all his excellent contributions in this area. At least someone can cross-post stuff from his own blog?
I second that!
Thank you for the comment Dave, but I must refuse. To be honest quite a few bBBC people have tried to make contact with me and on each and every occasion I have remained silent. That’s not because I am lazy, it just that I can’t allow myself to be placed under any spotlight. Not only that but lets be honest for somebody to complain about the bias of the bbC , well they have to be whiter than white. Well not only am I the biggest gobshite I know, but by including me in any line-up leaves you open to attack. If you wish, I am more than happy to email you any news subject which requires further investigation. Just e-mail your Addy to my blog address and I will ensure you get something now and again.
While trying to figure out how it is that the BBC devote so much airtime to anti-Coalition opinions I looked back to the General Election results of last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/
With a little rounding it is Conservatives 10.7m, Labour 8.6m and LibDems 6.8m.
Now I wonder how the LibDem vote might break down? – for or anti the Coalition I mean.
As a third party it is only realistic to accept that a lot of the Liberal vote is a protest. Frustated Conservatives say in safe Labour seats (or vice versa).
Considering that the Lib MPs volutarily and unanimously went into the Coalition it is more than generous to the left to assume a 50-50 split.
That makes 14.1m plays 12.0m
But wait I hear howls of protest, what about the 6.5m ‘others’?
Well most want to opt out of the UK political debate in one way or another by voting nationalist. Lets just grant them their wish. Oh and as for the 0.3m Greens I’ll ignore them if you don’t mind while you can turn a blind eye to the 1.4m vote combined BNP and UKIP.
Now tell me does anyone believe that the BBC are fairly representing the 14:12 proportion in their coverage of current affairs?
I can safely say, with no fear of contradiction, that 4:12 is nearer the mark.
No sign of Coalition understanding the gerrymandering that the Boundaries Commission carried out under labour instruction. Where I live is within a couple hundred yards of the constituency boundary. Around a year ago we were informed we were being moved from a Tory constituency into a solid Labour safe seat, eliminating our votes for ever.
Bastards. Cameron hasn’t undone a single thing of Labours 13 year stitch up. Bonfire of the Quangos turned as predicted into mega merger whitewash plus huge Public Sector pay-offs. This man has absolutely no insight into how things work.
Not bias but I was unaware that the BBC sport website is allowed to directly link to companies selling tickets to sports events?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/american_football/default.stm
The whole elite seem to make it all up as they go along.
WE used to have rules, them guidelines…and now it`s dress down Friday every day…and do as you feel you might get away with.
Hence all the scandals a few years back…the Brand boy being left unsupervised in the cellar…their own decisions on whether they`re biased bigots or not(they never are, but takes lots of consultancy fees to say so).
Blair and his sofa government marinades the whole thing…bright socks, braces and cufflinks as substitute for integrity.
No matter what we tell you…what we believe is true(on that day anyway!)
“BBC gives £200,000 stars free tickets to Glastonbury festival”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028259/BBC-gives-200-000-stars-free-tickets-Glastonbury-festival.html#ixzz1VgkkqMlo
Anyway here I am with a spice rum and coke (actually my second) and I’m watching the 10 O/Clock news and the bBC leads with..Libya.
Anyway Rupert Wingfield-Hayes (I wonder if any Leftwing wankers will be happy if he gets shot dead because of his double barrel name) is advancing with the Rebels and I note that he and his crew are not only wearing dirty body armour but Helmets as well. (Looks like they are wearing them for a good reason instead of just for show) makes you wonder about the many videos were they walk around wearing body armour just for the sake of it.
When at around the 1.35 point on the video they do a runner (Note how the man who has his helmet in his hand has it fixed on his head in the next shot)
At the 2.16 point on the video they decide to bug out, look in the passenger side rear-view mirror for the next few seconds. Notice anything? This from a bBC which claims to refuse to take sides (How many times have they demanded a court order from the police in which to release film of riots ete in order to keep their respectability.)
By carrying armed rebels in the back of the vehicle the bBC have not only sided with one side, but also made themselves into legitimate targets. Remember that the next time the bBC play the victim card for one of their own by playing the impartiality card.
Well spotted pounce!
Could it be that the guy first seen carrying his helmet is the BBC security guy?
I notice there’s also somebody who looks Libyan wearing camouflage fatigues and body armour marked “Press”.
Makes me wonder what really happened when Bowen’s car and driver were hit by that IDF tank shell…
“Could it be that the guy first seen carrying his helmet is the BBC security guy? “
He does have the look of an ex mil guy doesn’t he. Which comes out in the wash when you see him trying to control the situation, but from a postion of no authority.
“I notice there’s also somebody who looks Libyan wearing camouflage fatigues and body armour marked “Press”. “
Proberly the rebel minder (Opens doors and keeps people from shooting the bBC crew)
You can definitely see the BBC security bod here in the latest video from Tripoli:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14612843
Around 00.44 secs in, short but very burly bloke behind the truck as camera swings around.
Well, I’ve just noticed this on the bBC news website under a picture of the conflict in Libya.
“Critics accuse the organisation of overstepping its mandate by helping the rebels. This is the view from bullet-holed window in the field hospital on the outskirts of in Zawiya, a town west of Tripoli.”
The org in question being NATO. Well in light of seeing the bBC ferrying armed rebels in their 4X4 I wonder how those critics would view the bBC?
If Woopert was the son of a toff, then he`d be their kind of toff-slumming it with the oppressed light infantry of the BBCs fearless fact-gathering Corps!
If however he was only double-barrelled because his mum was a feminist who`d not let her name disappear after the divorce-then he`d be the product of a broken home, so would be exactly the type of double barrelled name that they approve of.
Other double-barrelled names they like are sports stars and the victims of polar bears .Ones they hate are independent self-sufficient types from their old schools like those lads in Thailand!
I know it`s complex…but not a minefield.
Lady Di abolished those-and the BBC would never go near one, unless cripples were walking out of it with chopped onions for the crew!
So here I am on my third spice rum and coke and while having a butchers at the bbC arabic site I note that that the second story on their site is all about the ceasefire people are trying to knock up between Gaza and Israel. Ceasefire? well according to the English site the world is still concerned about how Israel is busy killing innocent people in Israel. Now have a look at the time stamp on the bBC Arabic website for this story 16.02 GMT its now 23.23 or 22.23 GMT or 6 hours later. Anybody else wonder why the bBC airs a different story about Israel for the British than it does for its Arabic readers. REaders i should add who most likely get their news from arabic news agencies?