Friday arrives and time for one of these to take us all off into the weekend….please feel free to let us know what YOU think of BBC coverage!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Doublethinker Nov 15, 08:02
Midweek 13th November 2024
I agree that he will have his supporters in all key posts and that the Globalists won’t be able to… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 08:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
I saw that Elon musk had a 1 hour meeting with the Iranian ambo to the UN … bet that… - vlad Nov 15, 07:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
The simple fact is Trump was stitched up and hobbled last time by the Swamp, the Deep State, the Blob,… - vlad Nov 15, 07:44
Midweek 13th November 2024
Clearly he’s barking mad. Tulsi a Russian spy? One of very few honest, straight down the line, patriotic politicians in… - JohnC Nov 15, 07:40
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ve noticed the BBC are researching all his appointments for any they can throw mud at – then showing these… - vlad Nov 15, 07:39
Midweek 13th November 2024
Whatever the Stasi are calling it, it sounds like woke thought-police abusing their power to intimidate and harass a conservative… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 07:34
Midweek 13th November 2024
BBC news The narrative is that president trump is selecting ‘bad people ‘ to cabinet posts . They try ‘surprise… - pugnazious Nov 15, 07:21
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘Today’s’ words of advice this morning… ‘The answer to growth lies across the Channel’ …but rest assured Labour has no… - tomo Nov 15, 07:02
Midweek 13th November 2024
Indeed it does… I’ve wondered how much shit for brains got paid off? He was clearly sanctioned and promoted by… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 06:11
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have left the UK for warmer climes for a while … BBC ‘ news propaganda ‘ They seem surprised that…
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
The BBC’s magazine section is usually filled with some rather strange and curious articles. However, this is probably the weirdest one I’ve seen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511
It is claiming that there is a serious debate over the legality of the American Declaration of Indepedence.
It also contains interesting interpretations of what the Declaration of Independence was about.
“Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.
It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.”
I do not believe the Founding Fathers wished to start a new empire, and had complete respect for the Rule of Law, given that they were escaping a country that had lost its respect for that rule. However, it doesn’t stop the article writer putting the caption on the picture in the Pro-Declaration case as “Did the Founding Fathers have any respect for the law?”.
This article is simply stating that a debate exists where none seriously exists, in contrary to the BBC’s take on a vast number of other posts.
Had the colonists lost the War of Independence, the signatories to the declaration would probably have been hanged for treason. To that extent, the declaration was “illegal” since fine words induced treasonable acts. But – as you imply – this debate is part of the small change of “what if?” speculation and, frankly, is a waste of time.
Personally I feel that this is the only way the leftwing wankers at the bBC can object to the Arab Spring. (The removing their so called heroes by the plebs from power) without actually saying so and losing their publically well funded day jobs.
Actually it is not a bad article. It refers to a debate between American and British laywers along the lines of This House Believes…
The Yanks were very crafty
The event, presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray’s Inn, London, pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.
For American lawyers, the answer is simple: “The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified,” they say in their summary.
It’s a simplistic summary of a complicated topic. Of course, the whole thing is a bit silly because the whole thing was legally settled by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and this is really just a teaching excercise for a bunch of lawyers. They left out the part of the argument that government without the consent of the people is illegitmate. Not surprising as it was written by a far-Left, former Obamessiah activist and another Beeboid who thought Troy Davis was innocent and bemoaned the fact that a Twitter campaign couldn’t overturn a court of law.
Emotionally driven mental midgets, the pair of them.
You got there first 🙂 I was just copying and pasting the address ready to write in here.
It was linked to from the site’s front page yesterday with the text “Is the USA based on a lie?” so I think that counts as yet more anti-Americanism
Our current monarchical system is a bit suspect if you really start down the road of illegal or illegal.
As Tom Paine put it( and he had much to do with the Independence of the US) it was a tyrrany founded upon a conquest.
George 1 was hardly the next in line strictly speaking.
It is just the BBC being silly but it does demonstrate the peculiar liberal obssession with legality as opposed to reality and commonsense.
How the bBC surreptitiously infuses its pro Islamist Anti-Semitism stance into the British Public MIndset
Former Palestinian prisoners enjoy first day of freedom
The bBC airs yet another interview with a released murderer (Yes Murderer) and explains that he was jailed not for murder, Not for terrorism but for killing Israelis. Get that killing Israelis. Which due to the bBCs campaign of anti-Semitism instantly distinguishes between a jew and everybody else and tries to justify that actually this murderer had cause because his victims can only be evil.
The bBC, The propaganda arm of Islamic terrorism.
This is part of the the stream of biased sewage delivered by the BBC: interviews with criminals at Dale Farm, interviews with morons camping outside St Pauls, interviews with warmist parasites at every opportunity: the list is endless although the demonisation of Jews is the most sinister.
That ‘killing Israeli’ line is undoubtabally the lowest the BBC has ever sunk and the worst line ever. It was said so casually and as if it wasnt a crime in itself.
Exactly, Evil Tory. To the BBC, every Israeli is a legitimate target of war, no crime involved.
a couple of minutes to show, the utterly vacuous, delusional
obscene, nature of all the el beeb reporting, on Israel & this situation
nothing more is needed as an example, of the evil at hand
http://youtu.be/MOBLHs7uEKY
How utterly obscene.
Just a small point are they “Former Palestinian prisoners” or “Palestinian former prisoners”? The first implies they were prisoners of the Palestinians, doesn’t it?
From an Islamic POV killing the enemies of Islam is not only legal but compulsary. Jews and Christians can accept a ‘protected’ Dhimmi position but if they don’t accept subservience the penalty is death. Israel fails on both counts.
One thing at the end that annoyed me. Towards the end accompanied by dirty kids, slummy buildings, a donkey cart and dirt roads the report concludes. Five years after the Islamist movement came to power the life is still a struggle for most Gazans. Under Hamas the territory remains under Israeli blockade. No, Mr. Donnison. I was in Gaza before the withdrawal in 2005. The poor were as poor then and the rich (perhaps not the same ones) were as rich.
Here is a lesson in how to misreport a story by omission:
First, the BBC version of events: “The US Senate has failed to pass a key piece of President Barack Obama’s jobs bill that would have seen higher taxes on the rich help create jobs for teachers, police and emergency workers.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15398451
The implication is that not only will Obama’s great plan for jobs do what he says it will do, but guess who the bad guys are for failing to allow this to happen. But hang on a moment – what’s this from Fox News?
“But even some Democrats have balked at Obama’s original plan, with Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska among those leaning toward opposing the legislation Tuesday. “
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/10/dems-scramble-for-votes-on-jobs-bill-may-split-legislation-into-pieces/
And this? “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) on Tuesday further distanced his Democratic Conference from President Obama by nixing a major component of the White House’s jobs plan. Reid said he would revise parts of the proposal that some Senate Democrats have found unpalatable.”
http://patdollard.com/2011/10/harry-reid-rejects-obamas-plan-to-pay-for-jobs-bill/
The fact, folks, is that if all the Democrats were on board with this plan, it would have passed. So allow me to rewrite the opening paragraph of the BBC report:
“The US Senate – including some Democrats – has failed to pass a key piece of President Barack Obama’s jobs bill. The President’s claim that the plan – levying higher taxes on the rich and creating jobs for teachers, police and emergency workers – did not convince a majority of US lawmakers.”
And, by the way, “teachers, police and emergency workers”? Shouldn’t that read “government workers?
Failed To
The BBC uses this a lot when legislators do not pass a law that they, the BBC, wish to see imposed . Here , in Northern Ireland , the USA or elsewhere .
This is all part of the BBC mentality that any opposition to Him is wrong. The BBC treats the US as being filled with horrible people who spurned Him, just like how Passion plays of old cursed the Jews for spurning Jesus.
Forgot to add how unbelievable biased and stupid it is that the first section of the article is all about Republican instransigence, including the President’s own partisan drivel. They said the vote was splite 50-50, but censored the fact that some Democrats voted no. How is that a sign of “the antagonism between Republicans and Democrats”? Dishonest to the core.
Note to dopey Beeboids: The effing Democrats run the Senate, and they couldn’t even get their own to vote for His Jobs Plan For Us. Quit being dishonest, and quit blaming the minority.
FFS, even the idiot Mardell’s analysis says that this was just a political ploy by the President because He knew it wouldn’t get past Republicans. How about the Dems who blocked it, Mardell? Any comment about anything other than Republican intransigence?
‘They said the vote was split 50-50, but censored the fact that some Democrats voted no’
Yet another odd ‘split’ interpretation from Aunty.
I recall on the 0:10 vid, when the Graun readers were about 100:1 as appalled as anyone, the BBC decided opinion was ‘split’ without delving into the extent as it didn’t fit the nharrative.
Straight from his comedy tour at INBBC’s apartheid ‘Asian Network’:
“BBC1 orders Citizen Khan sitcom. ”
“Comic performer and broadcaster Adil Ray is to take his Down the Line character Mr Khan to BBC1 for a studio sitcom.”
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/commissioning/bbc/bbc1-orders-citizen-khan-sitcom/5033613.article?referrer=RSS
‘Daily Mail’ (2009):
“BBC race row as Sikh listeners threaten Muslim radio presenter who ‘denigrated holy symbol'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207866/BBC-race-row-Sikh-listeners-threaten-Muslim-radio-presenter-denigrated-religious-symbol.html#ixzz1bQ20Q2uj
BBC-NUJ-Labour continues its narrow, partial politically prejudiced view of next Monday’s E.U Referendum vote as merely part of a ‘Tory split’, not to do with vital issues of national sovereignty.
Now it’s Mark D’ARCY, talking as though UK has a one-party state!
“EU referendum debate prompts first resignation threat”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15389793
Where are the rebellious, principled, democratic, spirited Labour, Lib Dems and (and ‘Green’)?
BBC-NUJ lets them all off the political hook as they are ‘whipped’ into cowardly line.
As with BBC-NUJ, so with UK’s main political parties, the democratic interests of the British people comes last.
The fact is that if Labour MPs reflected the democratic wishes of the British people are voted for an E.U. Referendum, there would be one, and the likely result would be for a UK exit from the E.U.
If you want to hear a Labour M.P. speak out on the iniquities of the E.U. Giselle Stuart (of German extraction I believe) is the one. She does get on the BBC every now and then but suspect she will not be called on over the weekend / on Monday. She knows her stuff
The BBC assume that only “right wing” fanatics want to leave the EU. This is not true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2035117/HARRY-PHIBBS-Labour-MPs-afraid-eurosceptic.html
Lib Dem Nick CLEGG on political message for INBBC ‘Arab Spring’/Islamic Winter and gives away more of British people’s money to Islamic Egypt (persecutors of Christians):
“ANGER AT NICK CLEGG’S £5M TO EGYPT ”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/278740/Anger-at-Nick-Clegg-s-5m-to-Egypt
George R, a couple of points to add to this story:
The vehicle that Clegg is using to donate your taxpayer money through is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Developement (EBRD) this entity was intially created to assist in building up the infrastructure in ex communist countries, since then the EBRD has enlarged its brief to provide aid to over 25 countries, of these countries 13 have a majority Muslim population. From 2015 the EBRD will only fund projects in Asia, which basically means that this is yet another European agency paid for by the Western European countries that is now subsidisng non European countries.
2nd point:
The EBRD is the first multilateral development bank to have an explicit environmental mandate in its charter. The charter states that the Bank is to “promote in the full range of its activities environmentally sound and sustainable development.” It also proclaims commitments to democracy and democratic institutions, rule of law, respect for human rights, and market economies. Which would technically make Cleggs donation illegal as Egypt would fail three of the required standards.
Point 3:
In one of the worst enviromental disasters to impact the Polar region in the Komi Republic Oil Field Development, Russian Federation, in which a a dike containing the main oil pipeline broke, spilling an estimated 270,000 tons of crude oil onto the Arctic tundra. Projects receiving EBRD support accounted for as much as 25% of the spilled oil. The Komi spill was over three times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster, making it one of the largest releases of oil into the environment on record.
The costs of the clean-up totalling into the billions was paid for by you the taxpayer, although this disaster occurred in 1994 the EBRD still has no oversight or due dillagence procedures in place to protect against something like this happening again, indeed the EBRD is the leading EU entity in the grab for your GREEN taxes, they have recently released a document in which they calculate that they could raise 50+ billion euros from western taxpayers, what they will do with this money is unknown!.
Point 4:
The LibDems are on the record of being very supportive of the EBRD, a certain Mr Huhne being the main cheerleader, indeed he has attended many of this organisations conferences.
Point 5:
The EBRD’s approach to information disclosure does not reflect its stated commitment to public participation throughout the project cycle. The Bank refuses to provide any project-specific information to the public, requiring instead that all information come from project sponsors or be released with their permission.
This I believe is illegal under UK law, as any contributions to projects organisations using taxpayers money must be documented and freely available for public viewing.
Point 6 : And the most worrying aspect of the EBRD organisation
The EBRD policies are decided by a 12 person Environmental Advisory Council, this group of ‘experts’ all come from the ‘ALARMIST’ camp, which means that the EBRD is really just a bank in which the alarmist can spend your and my money propogating its alarmist messages, and of course ensure that green technologies are subsidised whilst other proven technologies e.g nuclear are allowed to be driven into the ground.
I bet the BBC enviromental correspondent has never written an article exposing this EU entites undemocratic charter!
Excellent points.
After listening to yet another BBC journalist complain about perceived anti-Islam sentiments by some Dutch politicians I was waiting for him to also highlight the problems that Jewish citizens of the Netherlands have been facing, namely the ever increasing amount of anti-semitic attacks by the large moroccan ‘community’, the worrying trend of physical, property and verbal attacks on the Jewish population is completely ignored by this reporter, who instead focussed on one incident in which a Muslim man was attacked in Amsterdam by a white man, the assailant has since claimed in court that the reason for his assault on the Muslim had nothing to do with religion but everything to do with a drug deal gone wrong!.
As for the anti-semitic attacks on Jews in Belgium, well it seems the BBC has decided to completely ignore the fact that for the last 10 years the amount of anti-semitic attacks has been increasing by over 100% per year, could you imagine the uproar if the Muslim population were experiencing such a crime-rate against them?, and yes the entire increase in attacks is due to Muslim youths.
I tried to point this out on one of the BBC HYS blogs, however I was moderated into oblivion!.
Dutch view
http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2468489.ece/Anti-Semitism_on_the_rise_in_Amsterdam
I have provided the above link to a story from last year as I guess many commentators will not understand Dutch, however if you can read Dutch than I would be happy to provide offical stastistics for anti-semitic attacks for Belgium, the Netherlands etc.
Yes; as far as the Dutch are concerned, for Islam Not BBC (INBBC), Geert Wilders MP, is the enemy.
As a counter to INBBC political propaganda on the Netherlands, here is a brief extract from Daniel Silva’s novel (2007), ‘The Secret Servant’:-
http://www.danielsilvabooks.com/books/secret_servant.asp?id=excerpt
As the news and images of Gaddafi’s bloody death started to circulate on the Internet BBC presenters scrambled to find an angle different from the obvious one, namely that at long last a repulsive dictatorship had been toppled and that this was a good thing.
Easy! “Some people” were finding the images of dead Gaddafi“disturbing”. Was this an act of “vengeance”?
Think about the subliminal insinuations going on here. The very questions posed are leading us to the notion that the moral content of the historic collapse of the Gaddafi regime is defined by the sensibilities of Western middle-class people who don’t like looking at dead bodies.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/558/yesterday_bbc_radio_five_live_disgraced_itself_on_libya_
I didn’t hear it myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Bacon.
Gaddafi had 40 years of almost unchallenged personal power and latterly huge oil revenues. He could have used some of that power to impart to Libyans core principles of fair trials, fairness, moderation and equity. Instead he peddled brutality, vulgarity and stupidity on a colossal scale, at the same time helping all sorts of terrorist groups to murder people elsewhere.
Probably Bacon the story broke when he was on air.
No, the story broke, if I recall correctly, just as Vicky D was coming off air.
I listened through to Drive and found next to nothing to gripe about.
Although I found hilarious what I’ve posted below.
It’s all going predictably wrong in the Occupy movement:
As the protest has grown, some of the occupiers have spontaneously taken charge on projects large and small. But many of the people in Zuccotti Park aren’t taking direction well, leading to a tense Thursday of political disagreements, the occasional shouting match, and at least one fistfight.
And in Oakland:
One Oakland police officer, who asked to remain anonymous for reasons of police protocol, described the scene in tent city as akin to a scene from “Lord of the Flies.” And, indeed, the on-the-fly rule-making can often veer into an oppressive, anarchic mood.
I doubt we’ll be hearing much about any of this from the BBC.
I posted this very late on the previous open thread, regarding the OWS revolutionaries :
This blogpost nails it, especially comment #1
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2011/10/elsewhere-50.html#comments
this isn’t so much a political movement as a form of historical reenactment. That’s why the OWS protesters are so vague about what they want — because what they want is to be camping out at a mass 1968-style protest. There’s little difference between them and Civil War reenactors, except that the Civil War guys understand that it’s not real and the outcome of their mock battles won’t have any effect. The 1968 reenactors down on Wall Street have the quaint belief that what they’re doing is real.
So Amnesty and the UNCHR are “disturbed” by the Libyans lynching the former dictator of their country.
How much did they help the “rebels” when they needed it?…I don`t remember them being too disturbed by too much then…or if they were, it certainly never made the BBCs news agenda in any meaningful way.
These useless handwringers are just hoping to get a soundbite on to show how much thay care…but only about the tyrants because that offends the plebs-it tells us all how much more virtuous they are than the populists like us.
Posthumous pardon for Myra Hindley next?
Hope we get Anastasia Crickley again to put us right…if the travellers aren`t heading for Maynooth to pitch up on her “Oirish poile”, then they`re missing a trick.
Note this grandee went from Swansea Poly…to Bradford Uni…who`d have guessed that her next job would be Geneva/New York/Brussels or Geneva?
The loonies have indeed taken over the asylums…and the UN/EU/BBC and the like are stuffed full of `em!
cj,
I posted elsewhere that the BBC have lost one of their great heroes, Gaddafi. Me, I am jumping for joy. To hear that spineless coward pleading for his life was wonderful. No honour ,no shame. Godd riddance to bad rubbish !!!
“good” !
Yes, I’m also tired of all the Beeboid hand-wringing, and that’s just from watching an hour of the BBC News Channel. What did everyone think was going to happen? You enable cavemen to topple a dictator, and they’re going to kill him the first chance they get.
The NATO and US military action was supposed to be cool so long as we didn’t put boots on the ground (not counting advance forces to do the targeting, right?). So we bomb Ghadaffi from afar, then sit back and let the Libyans handle things for themselves, and this is the inevitable result that we all saw coming. Isn’t self-determination wonderful, BBC? Any Beeboid going to dare suggest that his human rights might have been protected if we had troops on the ground instead of letting the cavemen rebels do it? I won’t hold my breath.
Sadaam was put on trial by his own people, but as that happened thanks to George Bush, the BBC won’t dream of making the comparison.
PS: I love seeing the footage of the vibrant Muslim culture standing over his body taking pictures with their cell phones, as well as the dismayed Beeboid faces every time one of them says that killing Ghaddif in cold blood is fine. It’s hilarious to watch.
David P,
You are spot on as so often !!!!
On the contrary when Ghaddafi was in power the UN elected him to various UN bodies: Human Rights Council last year, to the Security Council in 2008-2009, and as General Assembly president in 2009. That’s the true United Nations and where was the BBC’s outrage as a tyrant was so trated?
In 2008, Nick Clegg was in favour of an EU referendum: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/25/eu.liberaldemocrats
In 2011, he instructs his MPs to vote against such a referendum.
Why has the BBC news website not reported this major u-turn? They should be nailing Mr Clegg to the wall!
Jeff
The BBC did remind us all that Clegg voted for tuition fees even though he said he wouldn’t
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11819799
OT: But interesting that they “could not find a ‘pro-EU tory’ ”
http://gaunty.com/gaunty-on-bbc-daily-politics-show
Tories, Lib Dems, Labour (+ BBC-NUJ) recruiting sergeants for UKIP?
We can only hope George – the political class need to be jo;ted back to reality.
Not strange English, just ill-educated English.
All of a part with their
yeah
helluva
wanna
gorra
burriris,
worrayouthink
gunner
kinov
yer know
etc etc
They like to think they’re still at Poly and able to get down with the kids junota mean
An increasing number of BBC announcers/reporters are using totally incorrect English. How many times do you now hear phrases such as – ” I am sat in the car” or “We are sat in the park”. Is the word “sitting” no longer politically correct ?
No, they are just muddled and don’t realise they are saying the equivalent of I am eaten my dinner. Perhaps they think their dinner has eaten them. 😀
Interesting coverage from the bBC where they bring out British people linked to the victims of Gadiffi
Here they use the father of a Lockerbie victim (Jim Swire) to question the overthrow of Gadiffis Libya and his death at the hands of the people he oppressed for 42 years.
So what illuminating message does the bBC allow Jim to promote:
1)Gadiffi shouldn’t have been killed.
2)Libya wasn’t behind Lockerbie
3)American started the ball rolling with its shooting down of an 4)Iranian Airliner or the bombing of Libya by the US air force in 1984.
5)Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was (is) an innocent man.
6)That while Gadiffi had nothing to do with Lockerbie, he certainly would have known who was.
7)And that Iran which saw its Airbus shot down in July 1988 had more time to extract revenge than Libya over the bombing of Tripoli in 1986 .
Next they bring out the beat mate of PC Yvonne Fletcher in which to relate to everybody that:
“Gaddafi’s death is no cause for celebration. “
Of course the demise of somebody the bBC loved to portray as a man of the people wouldn’t be complete without something from that jackass of a World Affairs Editor, John (Homer , husband of marge is smarter than me Simpson.)
I quote from his eulogy to Dick splash:
“One or two are left, including Bashar al-Assad in Syria, who was sensible and calm and until recently has been pretty moderate”
Assad sensible and moderate, in which universe Simpson ???
Yup, the demise of one of the lefts poster boys hasn’t gone down well at the bBC. Maybe that is why Simpson finishes with this conspiracy seedling:
After Col Gaddafi was found in the concrete pipe, someone shot him. There’ll be no trial, no embarrassing revelations.
And how is Simpson a victim of Gadiffi, why poster boy farted in front of him. So much for respecting other peoples customs yer fat twat.
John Simpson is an asshole, even by BBC standards !
While the BBC goes into full hand-wringing mode over the failure of the Rebels to read Colonel G his rights and provide him with a lawyer, just remember how acts of brutality aimed at Coptic Christians next door in Egypt never seem to tweak the BBC’s sensibilities.
Huw Edwards in Libya, smiling and celebrating the death of Ghaddafi with three ex-pat women who have returned to their homeland. I’ll try to keep from complaining about the BBC openly supporting one side of a political fight.
Edwards asked the first (and youngest) woman what she was going to do now that Libya was “free”. Her response: I’m going to get involved in animal rights, which have been neglected in Libya.
Brilliant.
She must have been living in England. 🙂
BBC news are giving lots of credence to the UN (the 3rd world dictators’ trades union) and Gaddafi family opinions made via Syrian TV.
Are the family after some sort of compensation? No win, no fee, Cherie Blair? Should NATO recompence his wives/surviving offspring in lieu of lost future dictatorial earnings?
Perhaps Beeboids think that the European human rights apparatus should start an investigation to look into the legality of the killing of Mussolini and his mistress?
I think it was Windsor Davies in It Ain’t Half Hot Mum who put it well when he used to say ‘Oh dear, how sad, never mind….’
I’ve not had so much as an acknowledgement or a few words of thanks from Green Party HQ for providing them with some winter campaign material.
Sure, the design may need a tweak or two, but the core message is there:
The BBC News Channel is now describing the Occupiers at St. Paul’s as an “anti-Capitalism protest”. How can this be? Katty Kay and Mark Mardell and all the other Beeboids in the US told me this stuff was about people angry at bank bailouts and too much corporate influence on government, and that they just wanted to fix the system.
Liars.
How would INBBC react to non-Muslim protesters demonstrating outside East London Mosque on 7/7 remembrance?
Sanctuary! Sanctuary!
But the clergy have locked the doors of St Pauls – the first time ever
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051901/St-Pauls-Cathedral-shuts-doors-time-living-memory.html
See you there in 2012?
It’s taken them a week to catch up with ITN’s honest and accurate reporting.
So why doesn’t the BBC ask these anti bankers protesting where they were when Gordon Brown was giving them billions?
Goldilocks Miliband.
Goldilocks ‘politics’ from Ed Miliband:
‘Gordon gave the bankers too much money, and David gave them too little; what I would give would be just right for everybody.’
Turkey Has Invaded Iraq
“Seriously. It really has.
I mention this only because it doesn’t appear to be on the front page of the Guardian, or the BBC, or any other newspaper. So you may well have missed it.
It isn’t a minor border skirmish. It is a major military operation“
It’s only bad when Israel does it.
Turkey should invade Iraq and Iran and Syria and finish with these scummy countries. It would only take 2 days. Then for dessert, finish with the useless Greeks. Racist ? Moi ? Evet !!!!!!
Meanwhile, in other news, The Editors again shows it is on par with twitter for senior Beeboid hole digging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/10/the_challenges_of_reporting_ga.html
She has been nailed in an outright lie by several already (assuming these guys are honest and accurate witnesses).
I give the thread a few days tops.
On the death of Gaddafi?
As long as he was alive he would form the basis of a resistance movement. As he waited for trial he would attract support and the fighting would go on and on and the pain and tragedy would continue.
The simple truth is that he had to die, he had to be shown to be a coward hiing in a sewer begging for mercy, a mercy he forgot to show his victims. He had to die to end the war, without him there is no resistance.
WTF is so hard for the BBC and their amnasty f*cktard friends to understand? One death saves hundreds of lives, one grubby old despot underlines the probable fate of all grubby despots out there all of whom will befinding the pics of Gaddafi very uncomfortable. Obviously it gives heart to those of us who long to see our own despots covered in blood being laughed at and poked and prodded like some dead animal.
Libya can now move on and embrace its fate whatever that may be, the constant handwringng about the fate of one ugly despot by the BBC shows their true colours.
Cassie,
As so often, you are right. It was wonderful to see the death of the dirty rat Gaddafi and the sadness of his verminous supporters at the BBC !
It would have been nice to hear Gaddafii dish the dirt on Tony Blair at his trial.
‘One death saves hundreds of lives’
It’s a no lose for any media. Moan about not enough being done, and then when there are a few fog-of-war dirty consequences ask why it was done and twat about trying to dig up pebbles of dirt to make into mountains of faux outrage.
I was at Uni in the 70s. As part of a Civ Eng final year option I did a unit called ‘War & Science’.
Bliss. From rows of lecture theatre hundreds 9 to 5 it was a one hour circle of a dozen in the arts block.
Inevitably the dropping of the A bomb was covered.
Given the era, my considered support caused a bit of the rift, even with the leather patch elbowed tutor.
Bit like arguments hereabouts still. To my professional assessement that it was a decision that saved millions of lives (inc. that of my Dad, so I had a personal stake, too), Allied and Japanese (who seemed pretty OK with the outcome within a few years), the assembled bleeding hearts decided it was morally wrong and… er… that was about it.
If any of these are in senior tricky decsion making positions now, much is explained.
Will Islamic London School of Economics (and its directors, inc INBBC chum, the unusually quiet-at-the-moment, Ms S. Chakrabarti) be in mourning for the loss of its famous graduate and donor, Saif al-Islam GADDAFI?
“Eldest son Saif critically injured and ‘captured close to Tripoli'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051503/Gaddafi-dead-Dictators-sons-Mutassim-Saif-killed-fled.html#ixzz1bRHPt1oH
And:
“NTC FIGHTERS KILL GADDAFI’S SON, SAIF AL ISLAM, NEAR SIRTE”
http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201110201908-cro-ren1091-ntc_fighters_kill_gaddafi_s_son_saif_al_islam_near_sirte
As long as Howard Davies gets those tuition fees back from the Gadhaffi family(dad surely agreed to guarantee the loan!), then the UK taxpayer will not be liable.
“Mice ‘overrun’ BBC newsroom ”
(Are they sure they’re not rats?)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8842146/Mice-overrun-BBC-newsroom.html
Listening to the appalling “Any Questions” with l`il Dimbleby…the thicker one of the dense duo!
Bernard Jenkin clearly a pretty good Tory as far as they go…so can someone tell the BBC that they have picked the wrong type as far as they`re concerned?
Imagine that Black and Harrabin are already ringing round desperately to get Theresa May cloned for future episodes.
Posted this on the Gaddafi thread below, but thought it worth posting here as well.
Yesterday during Bacon R5L, BBC Correspondent Rob Watson interviewed two evidently highly sophisticated and educated Libyan ladies who’d just come out smiling from the Libyan Embassey (00:17:21):-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016065k/Richard_Bacon_Gaddafi_Latest/
RW: Let me ask you, is this as big a deal as the fall of Tripoli, or bigger?
Libyan Lady 1: This is a bigger deal than the fall of Tripoli because we need our closure and er, to see him in the state, I mean just now on Twitter, an image of his head just being sort of shot, um you know, in the forehead, that’s the closure that we’ve all been looking for, although people I think are going to be pretty kind of angry that they had so many ways, um, of imagining his end and wanted more excruciating I think, more painful, uh, end to him, but I think um .. yeah.
RW: Uh, um, I mean obviously I dont think everything is entirely confirmed, I’m getting the impression that you two would have preferred him to be put on trial in some way, is that right?
Libyan Lady 1: Um, if he was put on trial, then you know, we would have a show for G*d knows how many weeks, months and maybe even years, of someone putting on a narcissistic rant, you know, just horrible person probably talking and talking, all the rhetoric that he’s used against Libya for so many years, it would have been, you know – I dont know – maybe a waste of time.
RW: What about you, would you, I mean if he has indeed come to an end as a result of the conflict in Sirte, is that better for you than him going on trial and maybe having to answer questions from his accusers and the people?
Libyan Lady 2: I think it is better for all the Libyans because I think – everybody knows his guilty, what’s the point of putting him on trial?
Oh dear. I dont think these two Libyan ladies were projecting the image of Arabs that Rob Watson wanted them too.
(My thoughts are from the news today that having Gaddafi’s body lying in a shipping container for all and sundry to come in and take film and photos with him on their mobile cameras signals quite strongly to me that the ever so, ever so ex Al Qa’eda elements in the NTC and its militia hold an enormous amount of sway. No commentary sought on this on the BBC coverage I’ve seen).
Anatomy of an Afghan ‘turncoat’ killer
Apparently it was the music that turned him.
BTW If an Afghan Coat is a sheepskin or goatskin coat made with the fleece on the inside and the soft suede-like leather on the outside, is a turncoat the same with the fleece on the outside? 😉
Richard Black can cut-and-paste press releases from warmist NGOs and bent academics.
But he cannot really walk the walk – he cannot really analyse the complexities of the debate on global warming.
By contrast – here is a piece by ex-BBC David Whitehouse, a quick response to a recent press notice from Berkeley on research not yet peer-reviewed. Real writing, a real critique.
How is it that the BBC, committed to “Delivering Quality”, shoves out endless scaremongering crap from unqualified Richard Black – mostly ignorant propaganda – but no longer employs David Whitehouse – a real scientist ?
BBC – Delivering Bias and Propaganda
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated/
How is it that the BBC, committed to “Delivering Quality”, shoves out endless scaremongering crap from unqualified Richard Black – mostly ignorant propaganda – but no longer employs David Whitehouse – a real scientist ?
It is a mystery. Maybe the principle of setting up experiments to prove the hypothesis is at play in ‘reporting’ too?
Just seen a News24 presenter’s personal twitter account promoted on air together with a graphic strapline. http://twitter.com/#!/Rachael_Hodges — these twitter accounts publicly promoted by the BBC are clearly now prime for review for bias if they are promoted on air as an quasi official channel for communication.
When will they learn their folly.
Just looked at Tim Weber’s Twitter page – http://twitter.com/#!/tim_weber.
He describes himself as ‘Business and technology editor, BBC News interactive’, so people could be forgiven for thinking he is tweeting in an official capacity.
However, there’s nothing there saying something like ‘Any views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of the BBC’. And given that he tweets controversial stuff like this, there should be IMHO: ‘Extra euro crisis summit called. Kicking the can further down the road.’
Jeff
Another controversial tweet from Tim Weber:
‘Murdoch tells News Corp AGM there was ‘no excuse ‘ for hacking (though the profits, while they lasted, where sure nice)’
My views not the Beeb’s.
Rachael_Hodges Rachael Hodges @ @BBCwaste I’d appreciate you removed that tweet please
She has countered with a factual correction. Polite enough. Accuracy a problem with twitter but something which can often be resolved over exchanges. Maybe issue at least a correction (if needed)… like the BBC and its emplyees do (though maybe not)…. all the time… stealthily.. or having moved on. Best to keep the counters on ball and not person. There is no counter.
You can still be blocked, but on a tweet thread promoted by the BBC I wonder how that can be justified. Certianly another nifty way to justify cancelling the licence fee for withdrawal of service.
Or she could get ‘Hugs’ Boaden to write a ‘please don’t’ email? They seem to work.
But as long as the staff ignore her and tweet away under the BBC banner… it’s the gift that keeps on giving.
Don’t know if anyone else has brought this up, but it’s very amusing. At the Spectator’s “Coffee House” yesterday, Fraser Nelson criticized the BBC’s swinging cuts to the World Service, comparing the Corporation unfavorably to Al Jazeera. He gave the BBC’s World News editor, Jon Williams, the right of reply. Williams said that they had to cut some things because they – the BBC – decided to freeze the license fee, but he was very proud of the 250 million-strong interntional audience who loved the BBC, including an aged Libyan who could name all the celebrity presenters. He also crowed about how BBC News Online won an award for its US coverage, beating out other media organizations whose budgets are dwarfed by the BBC’s.
Needless to say the comments for both are interesting.
Ther is now a full rebuttal of the BBC’s defence by A Jazera on the current website
Al Jazeera
Thanks for the update. I just wish this was about blatant bias rather than a horse race.
‘Eurozone finance ministers have approved the next tranche of Greek bailout loans, potentially saving the country from a disastrous default.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15401280
Why would it be disasterous for Greece to default? The BBC are putting forward a controversial opinion as fact.
A default next month might have merely brought forward the inevitable, and allowed Greece to rebuild and spared the Eurozone from endless bailouts that it can’t afford.
And it could have meant the end of the Euro, at least in its current form, which arguably would be no bad thing!
Jeff
The BBC never listen to themselves as they ramble on.
Bail-outs?…defaults?…just words on the scripts they`ve been given from the boys upstairs.
A “name” like Paxman and Humphrys gets these “loaded” words highlighted by a Kinnock nephew with a fetching shade of pen…and you know you`ve arrived at the BBC when you no longer need to think AT ALL about what it is you`re saying.
They themselves just read the stuff, and have no responsibilty for anything piped out throught the brioche chomping and sniffles.
We just cant` pay them enough…but not for the want of trying eh?
I hope Greece does default, and restore the drachma. Screw the stupid banks that invested in cucumbers-turning-into rainbows. Stuff the EU something rotten.
And a devaluation of 40/50% to a true level will let us pay a fair rate for island-hopping, for seeing the glories that were ancient Greece and Crete. Plus – a lot of the tourist trade has been syphoned off by Turkey, and popping the bubble there of an semi-Islamofascist state would be a major side-benefit.
Sorry Grant !
Jeff,
Quite right. Why should anyone bail out the lazy, useless, corrupt Greeks ? Let them rot !
The BBC mean disasterous for the future of ‘ever closer union’ for the EU. An ever more centralised EU means the end of nasty nationalism in UK and an end to Conservative govt.
Triilers for Stephanomics on Today this morning. “Are the bankers to blame or is it economics?”
If anybody has listened to earlier edition(s) has our master economic tactician, you know, the abolisher of boom and bust, come in for any criticism for leaving us in a much worse position than we could have been.
I still await a cartoonist drawing a picture of Nelson at Copenhagen with his telescope saying “I see no signals” with one of GB similarly posed saying the same thing!
I had a post banned on the BBC Web Shite for pointing out this slappers relationship with the two bone ‘Eds. Appears they don’t like it when you point out the connection between their ‘reporters’ and Labour.
Let me guess: “Off topic”?
What about the damn politicians who enabled all of this? Bankers don’t operate in a vacuum.
Good value:
http://occupylsx.org/?p=268
If Mr. Mason crops up the comedic circle will have been squared.
The news at five on R4 yesterday announced that “St.Paul’s Cathedral has been forced to close it’s doors. The last time this happened was due to the Nazis in WW2.
Nazis . . . Commies . . . Just evil twins as far as I’m concerned.
This is not one of the things which the ‘left’ will feel guilty about.
Poor old Humphrys was though this morning!
Where does he start?…an atheist but wants the protesters to have the right to wash their smalls in the baptismal fonts…wouldn`t Jesus have done similar?…not that his like give a tuppenny eurobond for anything that He`d have said the other 365 days of the year.
And the church collared community at St Pauls…fearless champions of the vulnerable and marginalised…like these privileged braid weavers reheasing for”Dale Farm…Belsen or Basildon?”
Well the likes of Giles Fraser WOULD like to point the old carpets to Mecca or Avebury, but -unfortunately-health and safety might not like this…ah, St Paul was a stickler for Health and Safety legalisms wasn`t he?
Luckily it`s all a dogs dinner between effete and useless prelates a prattling…and godless gormless Gumps that discover cathedrals(or churches as Humph calls them!) at the convenient drop of the editors toga!
Church meets State in pointless and irrelevant stand off…but it killls time of a weekend…
Mark Mardell’s spinning for Obama again.
The New York Times has an interesting take on the Iraq withdrawal announcement:
“President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.”
And here to help Obama put “the best face” on it is Mark Mardell, first on his blog:
“The reason that all the troops are coming home is that the Iraqis wouldn’t promise to give any who remained immunity from prosecution.This “deal breaker” may have delighted the White House, allowing Friday’s unequivocal announcement.The Pentagon would have liked about 3,000 to stay, including special forces.”
…then here on ‘Today’:
“This seems to have disappointed the Pentagon but not, I suspect, the White House because it made for a clear-cut announcement, a declaration by the president ‘the tide of war is receding’.”
It seems, from both Mardell’s pieces, that this is evidence of Obama’s political acumen and his “coherent strategy”. White House talking points again from Mark Mardell.
Then there’s this bit of dumb cheerleading for Obama (from his blog):
“But President Obama would move heaven and earth to avoid sending American troops into a foreign country.”
This, just a week after Obama announced that U.S. troops were being sent to Uganda to help fight the LRA rebels. And they have the nerve to call this man a ‘reporter’!
“Greece’s austerity programme is succeeding in impoverishing Greek people with little in the way of discernible benefits to the Greek private sector”
Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15414765
Interesting to see where the BBC stands on austerity, as if we didn’t already know…
Jeff
One for David Preiser, who all along has given us a true feel for what the Tea Party was/is all about. Compare his posts here with the drivel of Obama – and the lying BBC – claiming that OccupyWallStreet has similarities to the Tea Party :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/are-occupiers-like-the-tea-party.php
Saudi Arabia Crown prince Sultan Dies
He oversaw extraordinary expenditure on modernising the armed forces – with multi-billion dollar deals making Saudi Arabia one of the world’s biggest arms spenders.
Perhaps more accurately he bought hugely expensive but incompatible systems – what else can the Kingdom buy sufficiently costly make Europe and America reluctant to see the undemocratic Saudi regime overthrown?
However to forestall a possible coup he kept the armed forces small, officer heavy and ineffective. Consequently Saudi Arabia has one of the most bloated, extravagent and useless armed forces in the world.
For INBBC:
“A Second Look at the Saudis”
(2008); pdf, in 4 parts.
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
INBBC blandly and misleadingly states:
“Prince Sultan’s most likely successor as the next in line to the Saudi throne is Prince Nayef, 78, also a full brother of King Abdullah and one of the Sudairi Seven.
“He has been the interior minister, in charge of the security forces, since 1975. In contrast to King Abdullah, who is seen as a cautious reformer, Prince Nayef is believed to be closer to conservative Wahhabi clerics.”
Oh great, INBBC, the likely successor is ‘closer to conservative Wahhabi clerics’.
Saudi Arabia Crown prince Sultan Dies
And what about this, INBBC, from ‘A Second Look at the Saudis’ (part 4, page 1 -see above)?;-
“For instance, just after the September 11 attacks, the Saudi
Minister of the Interior, Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz, declared that the United States,
‘the great
power that controls the earth, now is an enemy of Arabs and Muslims.”
INBBC censors this on Saudi Arabia –
This piece on likely Saudi successor, NAYEF, is from 2002:
“But the Saudis have chosen their course, a path they presumably see as consistent with the dictates of the Koran. They will continue to play us for fools as long as they can. It is high time we stopped cooperating. We could begin by taking the measure of the man behind the throne” [NAYEF].
That conclusion is from:-
“Who is Prince Nayef?
The most powerful man in Saudi Arabia.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/018fdsio.asp?page=1
Looking forward to the BBC wallahs forming a queue to go out there to observe the coming elections.
Will Prince Nayef get the necessary womens vote in order to form that consensus government so needed to stabilise the region. Is the Deputy Oil Minister going to be Yvette al Harman which would satisfy Jenni Murray!
What of the nail bars?…oh do tell us Auntie.
Until then…let`s hope the BBC interns aren`t made to bring in the booze and drugs as per.
Saudi Arabia…the ladies decide 2012…got to be a Dimbleby niece who`ll do it for us!
The bBC has as always led the charge in which to proclaim the latest Islamic despotic villain (Gadiffi) as only a victim when caught by the people he targeted.
One such standard bearer for how Gadiffi can only be a victim is Jim Swire whose daughter was killed on Pam Am flight 103 over lockabie in 1988.
The bBC have had him relating how:
Gadiffi had nothing to do with Lockabie
How Megrahi is an innocent man.
How American got what it deserved for bombing tripoli in 1986
How the captain of the ship which shot down that iranian Airbus in 1988 received a medal for it. (No he didn’t, he received a campaign medal and a medal on retirement)
You have to admit having the father of a woman who died in a terrorist atatck blamed on Libya saying libya was innocent does make you ask questions. But really the questions we should be asking is just how close is (was) Jim Swire to the Gadiffi family. Here is a photo (Along with UK hating MP Tam Dalyell) of Mr Swire enjoying a party with a friend.
Anyone from the Beeb able to tell us why the USA were so disrespectful to Bin Laden when they tipped him overboard as the sharks faced Mecca-but the Libyans are not allowing Gadhaffi his Muslim burial in accordance with Islamic tradition.
Does no-one at the BBC think to ask anything like this?…or are we just to watch the tumbleweed until they jolt us back to anger over the Tories cuts?
Not who dies but who kills. O:-)
Strange audience: R4 Sat 1.00 ‘Any Questions’ First question about Libya, Bernard Jenkin talks, no appause. Emily Thornberry talks, given a long time audence appause several times. Sarah Teather talks, no applause. Is this the weekend outing for the local labour Party?
Classic BBC multicultural contortions on News 24 just now: a Beeboid questions the Libyan NTC spokesman,
‘From a western point of view….the celebrations around the dead body of Colonel Gadaffi….they looked very un-Islamic.…’
Pretty par for course in my opinion mate! But I guess I’m just a wrong-thinking British licence payer.
Just made one of my infrequent visits to “The News Quiz” today. They had one of the Beeb’s more favoured Tory stooges on, wet gay Matthew Parris. However, he suddenly went rogue, attacking the left concensus on several occaisions, particularly discomfiting arch lefty Jeremy Hardy.
The four lefties were obviously totally thrown by this challenge to the party line, but COULD NOT ATTACK PARRIS FOR FEAR OF SOUNDING HOMOPHOBIC!
I haven’t laughed at the programme so much for years!
It will be interesting to see when he is next invited on again. Perhaps we should run a book. To start the ball rolling I’ll take May 2013.
Sandi Toksvig was so appalled to hear a right wing opinion voiced on the programme that she pretty such stopped the show in order to point out – as you would to a sub-normal six-year old – the superiority of, you know, SOCIALIST countries like they have in Scandinavia.
Matthew strongly disputed her point but was, perhaps, too polite to ask her if they are so superior to the UK, what is she doing living here?
It was rather a shock to hear Matthew Parris sound like a proper Conservative.
‘Dateline London with Abdel B’..sorry ‘with Gavin Esler’ today featured:
Abdel Bari Atwan, left-wing Palestinian loon (the programme’s most regular guest, last on last week, 14 times so far this year)
Marc Roche, left-wing Eurofanatic journalist at the French equivalent of the ‘Guardian’
Jef McAllister, former ‘Time’ reporter, liberal American, likes Obama
Bernard Purcell, Irish journalist and ‘Dateline’ newbie. Freelance, but writes for the Labour-affiliated ‘Tribune’ magazine
That’s a pretty standard ‘Dateline’ guestlist.
I saw some of this nonsense. Whereas Nicky Campbell hosts the 4th form debate, Gavin Esler’s Dateline London is little more than junior common room chat.
It is typical left-liberal in-house debate – beloved of the BBC. The superiority of the EU, all terrorists turn out to freedom fighters, the evil of the US, the wonderfulness of the Arab Spring – these truths we hold to self-evident and unassailable!
Yes, the EU supremacy bit is guaranteed by having a Eurofanatic like Marc Roche on so often. No other guest ever disagrees with him because the programme completely excludes eurosceptics. One of the other guests today, for example, agreed with him that the Eurozone had made its poorest members rich. (Greece?)
The first topic on ‘Dateline’ was Libya and, as ever, Gavin Esler went first to his great sage Atwan, who was absolutely horrified at the “immoral” humiliation and killing of Gadaffi. He got very hot under the collar about it, especially after getting the wrong end of the stick about something someone else said.
As we predicted at B-BBC, Esler has never yet asked Atwan (on air) about the allegations from the man who now runs Libya (no less) that Atwan took money from Gadaffi in the past – which is quite amazing for a so-called journalist like Esler. Does their evident friendship get in the way of him posing such tricky questions? Esler’s opening question was the soul of discretion:
“Bari, you met him, you’ve watched the pictures, saw the ending we all saw this week. Why do you think you would rather have had him stand trial?”
Here’s a fascinating aside (well, I think so!). Wikipedia’s article on Atwan and the Libyan uprising has clearly been ‘updated’ by an Atwan supporter (Atwan himself? Gavin Esler?? (just joking!)):
“On 4th September 2011, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, chair of the NTC, the interim free Libyan government, in an attempt to damage Atwan’s reputation as a commentator, stated that documentary proof had emerged that Atwan was on the Payroll of Gadaffi. Atwan has re-iterated that there is no truth in this baseless allegation and is currently suing Mustafa Abdul Jalil for defamation in the UK courts.”
That’s the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name.
Still…not been too bad a week has it?
1. Dawkins gets a column in the Guardian to justify his refusing to argue his atheistic abuse with a Chritain…William Lane Craig.
He had agreed, but then bottled it…Craig knows too many big words and somehow most atheist bigmouths fear him for some reason.
Dawkins puts it down to God being cruel to the Canaanites back in Deuteronomy…and Craig not willing to hold an enquiry or even wear a wristband to support the holding of one.
2. All the political parties would rather we the people didn`t fuss so over the EU referendum…100,000 signatures doesn`t mean what Lilley, Hague etc want it to mean. Surely we need to steady the EU boat before pulling faces behind the captains back!
Thes two stories show the craven consensus in action-where the blowhards run squauking away if they actually have to defend themselves before real people.
Dawkins and the political class rather like the notion of democracy as D`Estaing or Ahmedinejadh see it…much less mess and need to explain!
No jokes about suchlike with the News Quiz of course…not when the Bullingdon Club can be hauled out for applause…still , as someone said…nice to see Andy Hamilton be braver when Parris puts ballbearings under the useless unfunny lefties like Toksvig and Hardy!
1.he will only “debate” with someone he considers to be his “intellectual inferior”
2.when William Lane Craig is concerned,he will run a mile rather than sit in the same room as him.
William Lane Craig would,to coin a phrase,rip dwakins a new one,intellectually speaking
I have just witnessed point 1 in action……Dawkins guested on Revelation tv where his opponent was well meaning,but inadequate debater Howard Conder,the guy who set up the show.Craig would have been right in his element in the same environment
Dawkins has been dodging him for years,so you know he’s afraid of meeting him
INBBC lacks interest in Iran regime’s ‘PRESS TV’ political propaganda operation inside Britain, against the West.
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s regime finances the entire operation of ‘Press TV’ inside Britain (based in studios in Ealing, London).
Of course, of all the countries of the Middle East, INBBC is by far the most critical of the only non-Islamic state, Israel.
Any INBBC criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran regime comes much lower down INBBC’s political interests, so INBBC show no interest in this, which is strange as both INBBC and ‘Press TV’ are in the same business:
“Iran’s Press TV predicts it will be banned in UK”
Read more: Iran’s Press TV predicts it will be banned in UK | News | Rapid TV News http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/2011101716181/irans-press-tv-predicts-it-will-be-banned-in-uk.html#ixzz1bXUeGVNB
‘Wikipedia’ on Iran regime’s Press TV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_TV
Will ‘Occupy’ people consider moving from St Paul’s to Iran regime’s ‘Press TV’ studios in Ealing, and protesting against ‘Press TV’ anti-British, anti-West, 24/7 political propaganda broadcast on Sky satellite?
Only kidding.
the BBC wants everyone to be left wing and gay
They should know !
‘Those disabled people and carers who would like to be part of the Hardest Hit day but who can’t leave home or turn up due to their circumstances, are considered an important voice.
The Hardest Hit website invites them to do their own protests online by writing to their MP and local press.
Disabled people can also show their support by tweeting, emailing and leaving messages on the dedicated Facebook page.’
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15413935
Why is the BBC providing detailed information on how to campaign against government policy?!?
And if the article were balanced, it would have pointed out that, if austerity saves the UK from Greece’s fate, it might actually provide a net benefit to disabled people.
Jeff
When is the BBC going to do an exposé on benefits fraud, which is the real reason for the cuts?
Oh, dear, the BBC is concerned that now that the public is seeing the Occupiers for what they really are, the “original message” is being lost.
Pray, what was that original message, BBC?
….fuelling concerns by some that the message of the demonstration, which originally focused on economic inequality, may be getting lost.
Economic inequality? Hang on, Katty Kay and Mark Mardell told me that this was about too much corporate influence on government and anger against bank bailouts, just like the Tea Party movement. Chants of “End the Fed” have nothing to do with economic inequality. Ron Paul isn’t a Socialist. So how can this be?
Clearly we were right all along, that this was all about Socialism or even neo-Marxism. Naturally Obamessiah campaigner Matt Danzico forgot to stick with the Narrative of his colleagues and got closer to the truth. So why did Katty and Mardell lie?
Well, if ever there was a clear bit of attempted PR crisis management underway, this is it.
Orgainsing protests… steering strategy… all on the public’s dime.
Just… why is the BBC trying to ‘manage’ the lastest .0001% (99% to the deluded) activist) implosion, though having hitched their cart to this knackered horse from the start, they may feel committed.
Uh-oh… this could get pricey with time…
BBC BLOWS YOUR CASH ON 100 LEAVING PARTIES
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/279112
Guess they miss their own output?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9622000/9622017.stm
Yes; and ‘TaxPayers’ Alliance’ is right to criticise this hypocritical Beeboid extravagance on our licencepayer money.
The Alliance can expect more political opposition from BBC-NUJ at every turn in the future for this.
This Beeboid junketing at the expense of licencepayers cannot stop while the BBC-NUJ exists: it is intrinsic to Beeboid attitute of contempt toward licencepayers,
That is the big headline on the front page of the Express today.
Another nail in the coffin ?