Friday is here and so is this new Open Thread. Ready, aim….fire.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:38
Weekend 21st December 2024
I think one of the reasons the msm is top toeing around the German slaughter is because of the CCTV… - Sluff Dec 21, 17:36
Weekend 21st December 2024
Sometimes it is the choice of story that gives away the BBC bias. Here’s one from the front page of… - Lefty Wright Dec 21, 17:24
Weekend 21st December 2024
moggiemoo I have found that if you make a close study of his facial features they resemble Cheetah the chimp… - Sluff Dec 21, 17:20
Weekend 21st December 2024
….so says the person who let us remember was employed by the BBC as the ‘impartial’ economics editor on Newshite,… - Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
510 bbc tv news – guess what re Germany – Islam mentioned ? No – Muslims mentioned ? No -… - pugnazious Dec 21, 17:16
Weekend 21st December 2024
What BBC Verfiy ain’t telling us…a very good reason why our Islamophobic Islamist didn’t want to be returned to Saudi… - pugnazious Dec 21, 17:11
Weekend 21st December 2024
Well yeah…not as if there isn’t something to ‘exploit’ is there? The real problem is those who wish to cover… - Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:05
Weekend 21st December 2024
Looks like the full disinformation smokescreen is being deployed in Germany – an election in February and – hopefully -… - Lunchtime Loather Dec 21, 17:03
Midweek 18th December 2024
Rest assured, neither do I. I just use the web site as “ammunition”, and there is plenty of it.
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
Here is a heart warming story from the Blaze.
Move Over ‘99%’…Meet the Loveable ‘10%’
It is story about a father who’s photograph of his down syndrome son has gone viral.
This story reminded me of the sniggering Richard Bacon and his friend Doug Stanhope.
Here is the photograph.
Was it Ricky Gervais who thinks Downs Syndrome is funny ?
Yes Grant I think so, along with a few other weirdo’s.
But one fine day, whilst they are waxing lyrical about what they find funny, they well receive a tap on the shoulder from a mother who will give them no end of material they can use during their recovery in an ICU ward.
john,
I wonder how the BBC would report it ???
Reading the reference to the sniggering Bacon reminds me he was on the This Week programme on Thursday night.
From 37min 50 secs to 43mins 35secs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016r0m7/This_Week_27_10_2011/
He was invited on to talk about the topic of giving offence. Well, he’d know! Of course, no shame attaches to anyone at the Beeboid Corporation so he can sit up there grinning broadly without even having to pretend to be contrite for his offence and pronounce on the subject for our enlightenment.
The poor lamb has to censor himself all the time even though he thinks that causing offence can be quite healthy – the only worry for the Beeboid Corporation is whether it gets into the papers. Twitter too can get in your way as a few people can create a storm over a misstep <ahem> and give them a louder voice than they have any right to. Aw, diddums.
Well, it took Alan Johnson to point out that broadcasting is different from being in a pub with your mates. Andrew Neil highlighted the showing of the Gaddafi gore and the contrast with the Libyans’ attitude to offence and their wanting to see a lynching of the dictator. Andrew also noted the fact that in our society now people don’t have to put up any more with racist offence as they used to. Of course at the mention of raaaaace, our Beeboid suddenly awoke on message in time to treat us to a mini homily on the virtues of PC.
Oh, yes. How many somersaults can this man do in five minutes? So much for the moral and intellectual power and cutting edge of the edge-loving Beeboid Corporation and its highly paid £talent£.
Oh hell…Doug Stanhope!
Not a bad dream then….hopefully this little guy will survive Doug in his bourbon-soaked caravan!
I blame Bill Hicks for his ilk.
Thank God indeed for this lad…and thanks James!
My reply to Jeremy Hunt’s bizarre praise for the BBC in a recent correspondence with him:
I’m amazed that you feel the way you do about the BBC, as they clearly despise you and your Party. I see them as a bloated, over-funded, over-staffed, anti-British, anti-Semitic, anti-American, pro-EU, pro-mass immigration, pro-Sinn Fein/IRA, pro Islamist, pro ‘climate change’ – left-wing propaganda machine.You would have a point if they held all politicians and political views to account in the same way, but they don’t.Their views are held by very few people outside of the Islington and Hampstead dinner-party circuit.Other stations do a far better job on a fraction of the budget. Their hysterical reporting of the Murdoch affair proved just how scared they are of right-wing views being aired in Britain. True to left-wing form, if there’s anything they disagree with – then it MUST be banned or outlawed. They can’t accept that people should have a choice, as they have become so used to having such an enormous influence over this country’s politics, which, I presume, is why you aren’t prepared to criticise or stand up to them.As I explained in the original mail, the BBC Trust is useless and, as stated in my original letter, the BBC shouldn’t be allowed to regulate themselves. FOI requests are always met with a wall of silence too.If you believe that a dripping wet EUrophile such as Patten will change anything, then I think you may be in for a nasty surprise. I no longer watch the BBC, so see no reason why I should be forced to fund it.
Did I really hear Fat Pang on the radio saying,
‘If the BBC didn’t exist we’d be scrabbling round trying to invent it’.
No, mate, we wouldn’t.
My site,
Excellent , bet you won’t get a reply !
I agree…there is THE Thesaurus definition of what the BBC actually is contained here!
cj,
Yes, My Site should copyright it.
Thanks guys. The layout seems to have become a bit jumbled after pasting to this page.
I was listening to Adrian Goldberg on BBC WM this morning, who this week is sitting in for the equally irritating Phil Upton.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00kz26d/Phil_Upton__Breakfast_EDL_anticapitalist_protests_and_novelty_songs/
There was an interview with a couple of prats who are “occupying” a square in Birmingham, one of whom claimed to be an ex-seviceman.
The interview starts a about 1.50.00 into the programme but if you can stand it, just listen to how the debate is closed down by Mr Goldberg at 2.52.00 when a caller asks the “ex-sqaddie” an awkward question. It is classic BBC.
Gameshow Nikk on Radio 5 Persistent Vegetative State ran with the FTSE salaries ‘line’ and asked Martin Sorrell, ‘Soworroyoo earn?’.
A rude question which Sorrell, who has built WPP from scratch to $16 billion of revenues, rightly ignored.
Next up on the big show was union boss, Gordon Taylor, who didn’t build up the PFA from scratch and does a job which anyone with moderate administrative skills could do.
Any chance of Gameshow asking The Brother what his salary* was?
Nah.
Any chance of the BBC telling us what its top quote unquote talent earns?
Nah.
(*£984,000 this year, in case you were wondering.)
There was some ad-libbing on Today this AM, when Evan Davis asked Sorrell if he would do his job for half the salary; “No”, said Sorell, which Davis and the beeboids presumedly thought made the point that he was just a greedy, selfish capitalist.
The point it actually made was that the likes of Sorrell can earn big money from a variety of employers who happen to think they are worth it; if they didn’t get paid what they wanted from one company, they could walk and earn it elsewhere.
This is called ‘the market’, and as evidenced on Today (and R5 as you report, Bupendra), is completely alien to the parasite scumbags of the BBC.
I’d be the last person to suggest that the BBC Directorate (or whatever they term themselves) in cooking up Jonathan Ross’ (et al) megasalaries mused among themselves,
‘If we pay Ross £X then we can pay ourselves a goodly percentage of £X without too much fuss being kicked up’.
And they wouldn’t have been wrong.
The only ‘market-place’ that al-Beeb’s ‘top-talent rewarding exercise’ is connected with would be one as might exist in Alice-in-Wonderland.
It works something like this.
Decision 1. What salaries should our ‘top talent’ be paid?
Decision 2. Which individuals should receive these salaries?
Decision 3. What programmes / projects should we throw at them to ‘justify’ these salaries.
Decision 4. What bunch of PR bunnies should we hire to ‘sell’ these salaries to the public?
True story – Joseph Heller was approached to write a novel based on the BBC and threw in the towel because he realised the truth was stranger than any kind of fiction he could dream up.
One detects a whiff of a neo-Marxist valuation of labor here. Jobs which make the right-on types feel bad are of lower value, not worth the money.
Anyone in the BBC raising the topic of value for money in salaries is very courageous, especially when it is of a fully independent, private sector individual who makes no call on the public’s funding.
Did anyone hear Jim Rogers get interviewed on Today at about half seven?
He won’t be on again. You could sense the bilious atmosphere in the studio.
Absolute bliss! 🙂
Notty Jim, thinks the Euro is toast.
Already been declared a non-person by the Politburo
He was blunt, direct. The BBC people actually KNOW he is right – but prefer to keep the myth going.
Also on Today, Martin Sorrell, CEO of the £16 billion company WPP which he founded, insisted on giving a full answer to a question, in spite of ignorant interruptions by Davis – “I’ll astick to my book, just like you stick to the BBC book”, or words to that effect.
Surely the BBC should not have a book to preach from ?
I’d like to know how much the Dame earns. Must be 500K plus. We know Paxo is on a million and a dumb newsreader gets nearly 100K
Thing is the BBC never thinks we need to know, most beeboids are evasive of the question even though WE are all forced to pay their salaries.
Paxo is possibly worth a million. He’s extremely good at his job (not to mention bloody entertaining to watch!), and could quite possibly get similar or better money at a commercial broadcaster.
But most BBC news presenters are either bland or irritating! I question whether ITN would offer Kirsty Wark or Gavin Esler their current salary if the BBC gave them a pay cut…
I also question whether, if you were to give Helen Boaden a 100K pay cut, you’d have many FTSE 100 companies & commercial broadcasters trying to tempt her away with a better package…
Jeff
In fact the public sector has used the huge private sector salaries to jack up their rewards- eg. BBC executives. Town Hall chiefs et al.
So much hypocrisy there.
That said I am at a loss to understand the current reward system for public companies’ chiefs. The huge salaries and pensions will inevitably corrupt and cannot lead to a society that has any chance of surviving in peace the coming real economic downturn.
The gap between them and us is now too great.
It is greed however the apologists for corporate capitalism try to spin it.
Regulation of banks and corporations is not at all inconsistent with traditional conservatism which has always recognised the inherent defects of human nature when allowed free reign.
Obama’s position becomes more and more dire – probably terminal.
It is a dereliction of duty for the BBC to be disguising this.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/experts-begin-to-doubt-obamas-re-electability/
Meanwhile the BBC also studiously ignores Herman Cain. If – if – Perry stumbles, it is highly likely that his support would break to Cain, not to Romney. And Cain is aleady basically level with Mitt Romney.
Nor do I expect the BBC to report that Romney now casts doubt on all the Warmist stuff. Perry has already trashed Warmism. All the Republicans argue for Drill, Baby, Drill – against Obama’s blocking of the ewxploitation of US oil and gas reserves onshore and offshore. There is a deep chasm between the Repub position and Obama – and with Obama trailing so badly, all the IPCC nonsense looks doomed as far as American support is concerned. Will Black report this – NO, because it would show how out-of-step and foolishly exposed the UK position has become.
As a sidebar to ‘drill baby drill’, it is actually a short-sighted policy; the US needs to keep with Middle East oil for as long as possible. When that’s gone or unavailable, THAT will be the time to use domestic resources.
The President’s campaign gurus and not a few Beltway journos figure He’ll be safely re-elected, because the Republican candidates are being made to look bad over and over again in the press. The Beeboids hang out with and trust these people, so as far as they’re concerned, He’s set.
Mardell told the BBC CoJ that he gives the President a 60-40 chance, and that was back in the end of September. He’s probably even more convinced now.
BBC news 24 have done a lot on the Irish election, but no mention of how McGuinnes did. Not even a hint. Or can we take the lack of a mention as a clue.
The Today prog news headlines just mentioned that he came third – but nothing about whether that was a good third or a bad one. Wasn’t it worth those extra few seconds to tell us – he is currently a significant UK politician, after all.
Funny, I would have thought that a former IRA leader is so unpopular in Eire would be big news at the BBC ? Strange !
The 8am newsreader on Radio4 referrred to McGuinness coming “a distant third”.
That must be light years then to be so described.
Bet he wished that he never sanctioned the deaths of so many potential voters now!
BBC Ireland correspondent Mark Simpson wrote this about McGuinness a few days ago (before the presidential election):
“Sinn Fein will be hoping for around 20% of the vote.
That would be double what they achieved in this year’s Irish general election.
Anything over 15% would be a decent result.
Anything over 20% would be a triumph.”
In the event, he got just 14%. So not a ‘triumph’, and not a ‘decent result’ either for McGuinness then, using Mark Simpson’s criteria.The word ‘disappointing’ would perhaps fit instead, though the BBC man doesn’t choose to use it two days later (after the election) when he writes this:
“It was too soon for Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness to be trusted with the highest office in Ireland. His IRA past still lingers in the minds of many Irish voters.
Nonetheless, he increased his party’s share of the vote. His 14% was well above the 10% the party achieved at the recent general election.
Mr McGuinness said he was “over the moon” with the result and did not rule out another run at the presidency in seven years’ time.”
I think that’s what could be described as ‘accentuating the positive’. Both by Martin McGuinness and Mark Simpson.
Hidden: A very expensive well produced and acted lump of bBC propoganda. The plot was simply right wing group trying to take over a legitimate government. The plot was so weak it needed a load of unconnected dross to pad it out.
The bBC needs a cull starting at the top, very soon.
Victoria Debyshire has cropped up here a lot.
Never seen her ‘in action’ before.
If you needed a classic privileged BBC wimmin parody it would hard to beat her contribution to HIGNFY. Makes Good Life’s Margot seem like Jordan, public-empathy-wise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016mtr2/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_42_Episode_3/?t=8m55s
(8m 55s)
She’s paid not to have opinions, apparently. Even the assembled cast couldn’t handle the impartiality claim without corpsing.
Did like the Newsnight review, though:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016mtr2/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_42_Episode_3/?t=7m50s
(7m 55s)
Surprised Paxo didn’t have a sound effect that went Woooooo at the same time, just to hammer things home even more.
Newsnight is turning into the Daily Show.
There was a trailer during the Danny Baker show this a.m. for a forthcoming VD prog examining the August riots (which, to the BBc’s not very well-hidden disappointment didn’t last until Christmas, bring down the Gov’t, destroy capitalism etc etc).
Shall I start a sweepstake on the likely conclusions she and her panel of all the talents are likely to reach ?
Surely ‘Winter Festival’? The word ‘Christmas’ has been erased from the Beeboid dictionary.
Shall I start a sweepstake on the likely conclusions she and her panel of all the talents are likely to reach
Surely “We got it just about right”?
To discuss the theological and philosophical implications of the part-time campers outside St Pauls, Today brought on two ur-liberals: John Reynolds, who chairs the Church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group and Professor Marina Warner, cultural historian at the University of East Anglia. Apparently, in the whole world of intellectual opinion there is nobody willing to appear (or, much more likely, invited) on Today to condemn these children (of all ages) and lay into the inchoate reasoning which underlies their “campaign”. Certainly there’s concern – which even I share – for developments in the City since Big Bang but the constant bleating of “we – or rather the bankers – are all guilty” (for what exactly?) from the BBC and its contributors is yet another gross contravention of the “impartiality” required of the BBC by statute.
Later on this morning’s Today we got Dr Dionyssis Dimitra-Kopoulos, from Birkbeck College, Mark Littlewood, former head of media for the Lib Dems and Ming Campbell, former Lib Dem leader to agree that getting back powers from Europe would be difficult. Littlewood, who is now a big cheese at the IEA (oh yes – how impartial!: as impartial as ex-SWPer Fraser permanently on TFTD masquerading as a theological “neutral”), concentrated his limp fire on the various EU work directives. He was soon slapped down by Dr D and lapsed into silence. Then Campbell (in an orgy of lies about his enthusiasm for the euro 10 years ago – he, like all the euro-fanatics, just cannot admit he was simply wrong) also agreed that the EU is wonderful. So that’s alright then. But you can see the point of a simple “in or out” vote. If “renegotiation” was left to the political class the move to an EU state would actually accelerate.
Thanks for this Umbongo.
I gave the two sides of the Guardian talking book a minute or two about St Pauls, but quickly went over to check on Brian Matthew!
Funny that the story was leading again for a third day or so…the BBC normally hates to mention the Christian Church unless its about their hobby horses…we all know them by now!
AS for this guff about Jesus being a protester were he here today…not a bit of it…he`d not letthat bunch of nomark nomads prevent HIM from going to the Social Justice Committee to weave wristbands for Giles Fraser!
No…to quote St Norman of Tebbitia…he would have got on his donkey and LOOKED for work…not wasted time hoovering up free Special K from the BBCs Green Room like Marina or JR!
Jesus and the people in the Temple – wasn’t his anger that people were blocking access to the Temple, interfering with worship there ?
In my understanding the exaltation of poverty by Jesus is one with that of the Buddha in that possessions and the concerns of the material world prevent the attainment of – in the case of Jesus – oneness with God and spiritual riches and – in the case of the Buddha – nirvana and an end to the misery of existence. As such (and as John Anderson implies) Jesus was angered that first, the Temple was sullied with the concerns of the material world and, secondly, that the manifestation of such concerns were proving a physical obstacle to Temple access.
Even so, I don’t recall Jesus or Buddha ever damning the material world. They just believed that the concerns of that world were a barrier to spiritual happiness. In both cases it was for the individual to decide what mattered to him.
The organisations which were created as a consequence of the preachings of both of them are there to facilitate the spiritual welfare of man. Neither are there – particularly the Church – to damn the creation of wealth but only to remind us that being primarily concerned with the material leads to spiritual poverty and personal unhappiness.
As it happens, the Occupiers have nothing of interest to say on spirituality or materialism. However, it seems to me that whatever anti-capitalistic nonsense is enthusiastically conveyed to a wider public by the BBC, the Occupier apologists in the CoE are not Christians (ie followers of Christ) as I understand the term and speak neither for Christianity or Christ.
Good points. I always understood the command to the rich man to give all away in that light. Not that wealth in itself was evil but that possessions just get in the way and take up our lives and time . So one might as well give it to the poor and attend to one’s real business on earth.
Not at all easy to live by but that is the the point of the teaching.
Yes, John, you’re absolutely correct.
The BBC stiring things up again, eg misrepresenting the facts.
From the Spectator
Executive pay: don’t believe the headlines
Liars and propagandists and Left-wing ideologues. The BBC is directly contributing to the violence here.
Classic ‘Dateline London’ today.
The cast-list was:
– Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph (“the only right-winger in the village” for ‘Dateline’)
– Eunice Goes, far-Left Portuguese writer
– Michael Goldfarb, liberal American writer
– Nesrine Malik, described merely as a “writer on Arab affairs” but actually a regular columnist at the ‘Guardian’ (surprise, surprise!)
When the discussion turned to a UK referendum on Europe, Janet Daley found herself (as so often happens when she breaks into the show’s left-wing consensus-building) being assailed by all the other guests – and by Gavin Esler, who repeatedly intervened on the side of the other three. 4 against 1. No wonder Janet said, “I’m sorry I’m the odd one out here”. (She wants a referendum and said that eurosceptics have won hands down).
Still, as least there was a right-winger on this week. There were none last week or the week before.
It’s always a less annoying program when you don’t have to grit your teeth through the indignant hectoring of Yasmin, Polly or AbdelBariAtwan! Mr. Hari used to be a regular too…One Down…
The only righties they seem to invite are Janet Daley and Anne Leslie.
Marc Roche is an insufferable twit, but an absolute EU fanatic, so he’s on regularly.
What BBC-NUJ is telling us is:
£877 million plus, of licencepayers’ money is well spent on Beeboids’ move:
“The BBC’s outlook for Salford is sunny”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8857155/The-BBCs-outlook-for-Salford-is-sunny.html
His Grace Bishop Hill draws attention to a job advert for Science Editor at the BBC. As mentioned in the comments – there appears to be no requirement for a formal science qualification, not even at GCSE level ! –
Also, there is a lot of reference to BBC “agendas”. How can it have agendas if impartiality is in their genes ?
The “science” job at the BBChttp://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/29/sits-vac.html
No doubt the voodoo merchants at the BBC will be applying.
There’s a BBC employee who occassionally posts in B-BBC who should apply.
The BBC News Channel is showing a full-length documentary report on child abuse in the US. Well, not all of the US, just Texas, really. Why is the BBC spending money on the US? Apparently statistics show that we’re the worst country in the developed world. As she sets up the story, the female reporter says that we take “pride” in our “independence”. What has that got to do with child abuse? Of course it’s just a typical BBC sneer, no relevant point needed, a bit of finger-wagging at what she sees as hubris.
Naturally, rather than looking at national and regional figures, she goes only to Texas. Why? “Because things are bigger there.” BS. She went to Texas because of Rick Perry, and it’s an easy target because it has less Socialist health services than many states.
Why is the BBC spending such an effort on this story? On one level, I get that they always do human interest stories, informing the public about the conditions of the poorest and most vulnerable, etc., regardless of where they find them. And I grant that much of the report is just anecdote after anecdote, talking head after talking head. On another level, though, beneath the sympathy and ominous tones, one can detect scorn at the US for being too independent-minded and wrongly thinking we’re a great country.
Child abuse is on the rise, and apparently frighteningly so, according to the reporter. The abuse investigator she talks to says that he doesn’t see it as being particular to any socio-economic stratum. So with that one statement, we’re meant to understand that there is no group where abuse is higher. No statistics needed here, even though the opening segment of the report used statistics to prove that the US is the worst abusing country of all. The report features statistics elsewhere, when they help raise alarm about numbers.
Why so coy about statistics in this specific case, though? Might it detract from the Narrative?
I’m sure the point is supposed to be that it’s a “national crisis” (a phrase used more than once), and any discussion about who might do it more than others is beside the point. Yet without this information, the overall impression is that the US in general is failing as a society. And that’s the point of the report.
So Texas must be really terrible if places like Palestine, where kids are used as human shields, political pawns, and brainwashed to become terrorists, don’t even get a mention.
Oh of course, that’s not child abuse, it’s ‘fighting for freedom’.
There was an article in the Guardian about this a week back. As usual the Guardian blamed the ‘family’ for these problems, that the State should intervene and become the parent to all children
What the article failed to point out that the rates of abuse was infinitely higher in single parent familes with live in boyfriends or ‘step fathers’ as the Guardian put it.
The left after decades of attacking the nuclear family for being outdated, now turn round and blame society for their creation of the non-family that runs for generations. Talk about having your cake and eating it.
I wonder whether another reason she went to Texas was because the Deep South is associated in the UK with conservative values, and it’s a good opportunity to demonise people they BBC likes to see as backward in their outlook…
Texas is George W Bush territory, let’s not forget, and we all know what the BBC thought of him!
Jeff
Probably went to Texas ‘cos Alaska’s a bit chilly this time of year……..
The BBC would be better off investigating child abuse in Muslim town in the north of England, be it sending 14 year old girls off to Pakistan to be raped and married to goat herders or grooming while girls for rape and prostitution.
Yes, and this:
“What IS going on in Britain’s mosque schools? Beatings, humiliation and lessons in hating Britain”
By Paul Bracchi
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053034/What-going-Britains-mosque-schools-Beatings-humiliation-lessons-hating-Britain.html#ixzz1cDGnS4Oz
Interesting bBC News report from the Levant which promotes the view that in light of the hostage swap, the Jews are back to their war like ways against the innocent pals who subscribe to a religion of peace.
Militants killed in Israeli air strikes on Gaza
Five Palestinian militants have been killed in a number of Israeli air strikes on the south of the Gaza Strip.The violence is the most serious since a major prisoner exchange deal earlier this month between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist militant group that governs in Gaza.The militants were killed at an Islamic Jihad training site in Rafah in the south of the strip.
Doctors say at least 10 other people were injured in the strike.
The Israeli air force has confirmed it carried out the attack. It said the militants were preparing to launch rockets into Israel.
So reading the bBC account 5 people have been killed in Gaza because the jews don’t subscribe to the norms of civilized life. Here is what the bBC left out of the above account.
The IAF struck an Islamic Jihad training camp Saturday in southern Gaza Strip, killing a commander of the Palestinian faction and four of its munitions experts, officials on both sides said. According to IDF sources, the strike was targeted at the same cell who was responsible for launching a Grad rocket which exploded in Ashdod earlier this week. On Friday, Palestinian sources in the Gaza Strip told Haaretz that the Islamic Jihad was behind Wednesday night’s rocket attack, which was an attempt to embarrass Hamas and show its resentment toward the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap deal. The Grad rocket fired from the Gaza on Wednesday exploded near the southern city of Ashdod. There were no reports of injuries, but a number of people were treated for shock.
I wonder why the bBC left out that very important snippet from its news report, In fact I wonder why the bBC never even bothered its arse in mentioning that rocket attack in the first place?
The bBC, the propaganda arm of Islamic terrorism.
Three rocket attacks on Southern Israel today. One hit a school, fortunately empty on the Sabbath.
Strange how the BBC can make it so obvious from the headline what happened when it wants to, at least the view it wants to make sure gets conveyed.
Whereas somehow you would be expected to know that 37 Syrian protesters were killed by government forces from this one
Syria protesters call for no-fly zone
The BBC have left out a lot.
It’s par for the course for them to ignore attacks on Israel but concentrate on Israel defending herself.
Rocket from Gaza lands near home in Ashdod; 1 injured
Extensive damage reported as rocket lands in parking lot between 2 residential buildings; 11 rockets fired at South in total; passer-by in Gan Yavne hit by shrapnel; 1 rocket hits empty school in Ashdod.
[…]
Ashdod mayor Yehiel Lasri told Channel 2, “Ashdod is under attack, without a doubt.”
[…]
Earlier on Saturday, terror cells in Gaza launched four rockets into Israel on following an IAF attack an Islamic Jihad camp in the southern Gaza Strip.
[…]
The rocket fire came after an Islamic Jihad commander and four other terrorists were killed during the IAF attack.
The strike in Rafah followed an unprovoked long-range rocket attack on Israel on Thursday.
Islamic Jihad said an explosion in the training camp killed Ahmed al-Sheikh Khalil, a munitions expert and one of its top commanders, as well as four comrades. An Islamic Jihad source said the dead may include senior figures other than Khalil.
“Those targeted were a group of leaders,” the source said.
5 hours on and the BBC have still failed to show any rocket attack on Israel, with one Israeli killed and 4 more wounded, despite AP reporting it hours ago.
Furthermore, just to make it clear which side of the Palestinian bid for statehood via the UN it supports, the BBC offers 2 links on the main Israel/Palestinian story it is covering at the moment on its Mid-East Webpage. (See picture)
One is this opinion piece by Jeremy Bowen Palestinian statehood bid: Useful points scored at UN in which he pours as much scorn as possible on Israeli PM Netanyahu trying to oppose it, as well as regretting that Obama has stated that he too will veto this bid. He makes the claim that the only reason Obama is doing this is ‘Next year’s US presidential race may be close and Mr Obama and the Democrats need Israel’s many friends in this country to vote for them.’
To further advance the Palestinian bid, and show just how wrong Obama is, the other viewpoint linked is Viewpoint: The end of a new beginning? in which former US Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley tells us When US President Barack Obama stepped to the podium in New York last Wednesday, he welcomed a new governing body to the United Nations.
The fact that it was the National Transitional Council from Libya was in its own right remarkable.
The fact that it was not the Palestinian Authority was regrettable.
That he was forced to threaten to veto the Palestinian application for membership was a policy failure.
This is what the BBC considers BALANCE on the subject.
Melanie Phillips has also picked up on the delay or omission by the BBC on reporting about the rockets fired from Gaza and written an article in the Daily Mail
The BBC airbrushes out Palestinian terror attacks — again
Now we’ve gone directly from the original Militants killed in Gaza Strikes to this one
New Israeli air strike into Gaza after ‘ceasefire’
Even after ‘peace-loving’ Egypt brokered a ceasefire, the aggressive Israel launched another strike on peaceful Gaza.
Only way down in the article to we get to
‘Israel said at 38 rockets and mortars were fired into southern Israel since Saturday, killing one man in the coastal city of Ashkelon. Four other people were wounded by the attacks.’
Then further down we get to ‘The spokesman said that the first attack, about midday local time, specifically targeted a cell responsible for a long-range rocket attack on Wednesday that exploded deep inside Israel. That attack had caused no casualties.’
So ultimately we get to the real sequence of events – but in no way are these headlines intended to convey this at all.
The BBC is often accused of manipulating headlines and the slant of the story so the focus for groups the BBC doesn’t approve of is the accusation Tory MP in expenses probe and is the defence for groups the BBC does approve of is the defence against the allegation .
So, what do we make of Libya: Gaddafi son Saif al-Islam says he is innocent (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15503638)?
Friend from his LSE days edits for BBC, perhaps?
Classic BBC on “From our own correspondent” today. Beeboid visits “work canteens” in Berlin.
The Berlin Ensemble, Berlin Police, Swedish something ( I may have got that wrong ) and others. I was driving so couldn’t take notes.
Anyway, they all seemed to be at the upper end of the market !
Maybe a small thing – but indicative.
The Queen ended her tour of Australia today – the general sense has been happy crowds out in the sun to greet her.
The Sky website news front page has video of her last day, at a barbecue in Perth. Happy people, smiles all round. (and remember that the dreadful Rupert is reckoned to be a Republican)
The BBC website news front page has no video – but it has a few photos of the trip. Sourly, they refer back to the OZ PM not curtseying to The Queen when she arrived 10 days ago – but HM had brushed that aside at the time. Another photo in the BBC set was of loony protestors with placards outside the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting – as if those protests had any real connection with the Queen’s visit.
BBC. Fifth column. Smartalecs, cheapskates.
“Hansen scores £1.5 million a year … even on the bench.
“Fresh questions were being asked last night over the scale of BBC salaries after it emerged that Alan Hansen was paid about £40,000 for every appearance on Match of the Day.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8857621/Hansen-scores-1.5-million-a-year-…-even-on-the-bench.html
That’s way too much!
Hanson is good, but you could bring in different football experts each week for a fraction of the costs (and get a greater diversity of views in the bargain).
And let’s say the BBC were to say to Hanson “We’re going to cut your salary by a million quid.” What would Hanson do? He might go to ITV or Sky, but I doubt they’d be willing to offer him more than £500K (assuming they even had a vacancy for him). So I think that the BBC could cut Hanson’s salary by 2/3rds and retain his services!
The only BBC star who IMHO is worth that kind of money is Paxo. I bet the Newsnight ratings are higher when Paxo is on. But I’d be surprised if significantly fewer people watch MOTD when Lawro or Lee Dixon is on instead of Hanson…
Jeff
Paxman won’t be pleased at this valuation of labor.
I see the bBC is writing up the latest attack on Israel as..Israels fault.
Israeli killed in retaliatory rocket attack from Gaza
An Israeli man has been killed by rockets fired from the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian militants had vowed to retaliate after five militants were killed by an Israeli air strike on the south of the Gaza Strip.
Yup according to the bBC this wouldn’t have happened if Isreal hadn’t bombed Gaza earlier on. Why they go well out of their way in which to blame the jew;
The spokesman said that the first attack, about midday local time, specifically targeted a cell responsible for a long-range rocket attack on Wednesday, that exploded deep inside Israel. That attack had caused no casualties.
First attack bBC? shouldn’t the attack launched on Wed from Gaza into Israel be deemed the first attack which makes the Israeli one….a responce. And people wonder why Antemi-semitism on the rise in the UK, with shoddy and biased reporting from the bBC it isn’t hard to see why.
The bBC the proganda arm of Islamic terrorism.
Even when the targeted group calls itself ‘ISLAMIC JIHAD’ as in this case, INBBC, in its report, politically manipulates that name in the modifying and misleading phrase:
“militants from the Islamic Jihad,” in the INBBC piece you cite above.
pounce_uk,
“First attack bBC? shouldn’t the attack launched on Wed from Gaza into Israel be deemed the first attack which makes the Israeli one….a response.”
Israel strikes Gaza after Palestinian rockets in Ashdod
Several Palestinians have been killed in Israeli air strikes on Gaza launched in response to militant rockets that have struck the Israeli town of Ashdod. The militants fired more than 20 rockets at southern Israel on Friday, wounding several people. Israel has carried out a series of air strikes on Gaza, targeting those it blamed for an attack on Thursday in which eight Israelis died. At least 14 Palestinians are reported to have been killed since Thursday. Meanwhile, Egypt on Friday formally complained to Israel over the deaths of five of its policemen who Cairo says were caught up in shooting a day earlier. Israeli media said rockets had been fired at Ashkelon, Beersheva, Kiryat Gat and Ashdod on Friday morning.
Series of attacks:
Shooting attack on bus near Eilat wounds 14 Israelis, including five soldiers
Other vehicles hit soon after, killing eight Israelis – six civilians and two security personnel
Israeli military patrol vehicle targeted, no immediate reports of injuries
Seven suspected gunmen are killed as Israeli security forces confront them
Israeli air strikes on Gaza kill at least seven people, including a militant leader and a child
Several Israelis injured, one seriously, by rocket attacks on southern Israel
Pounce, this war has been going on for decades; and the best you can come up with is “they started it”!
Grow up.
Grow up ? hmm seems he has served his country and seen more of life and its bad side then you in your BBC filled and polished and fixed mind could ever imagine so you grow some and stop with the childish comments dez!
pounce_uk,
“I see the bBC is writing up the latest attack on Israel as..Israels fault.
Israeli killed in retaliatory rocket attack from Gaza
‘Palestinian militants had vowed to retaliate after five militants were killed by an Israeli air strike on the south of the Gaza Strip.’
…Yup according to the bBC this wouldn’t have happened if Isreal hadn’t bombed Gaza earlier on.”
Or, alternatively:
Israel strikes Gaza after Palestinian rockets in Ashdod
‘Several Palestinians have been killed in Israeli air strikes on Gaza launched in response to militant rockets that have struck the Israeli town of Ashdod.’
…Yup according to the bBC this wouldn’t have happened if Gaza hadn’t bombed Israel earlier on.
_
Of course you could compare the headlines:
Israeli killed in retaliatory rocket attack from Gaza
(An Israeli man has been killed)
Israel strikes Gaza after Palestinian rockets in Ashdod
(Several Palestinians have been killed)
One Israeli death makes it into the headlines; several Palestinian deaths don’t. But never mind, it doesn’t fit your agenda, best just dismiss it as irrelevant…
Dez, you’re quoting an article from 20th August to defend the BBC’s coverage of an Israeli attack yesterday.
Of course the BBC cover attacks on Israel, but usually only after Israel has retaliated for them, and as pounce points out, spinning the story so as to appear that it was the Jews wot started it all.
The point is the BBC’s coverage yesterday started with the Israeli attack which killed terrorists, note not “militants”, and completely ignored the previous rocket attacks from Gaza.
I agree. The BBC angle generally is, “It all started when Israel hit back.”
Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
<img src=”http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E97B9A500000578-709_308x185.jpg” alt=”Poles apart: Professor Richard Muller”/> Professor Richard Muller (pictured) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually. But Prof Judith Curry says that the claim was a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis. Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago…
Ooooh looky here! After the BBC pimped the BEST temperature series so hard it looks like the co author of the papers underlying BEST has one or two criticisms about the way it has been peddled by the CAGW cult.
Of course the BBC is now putting the record straight by giving Judith Curry the same amount of airtime to put he case? Er, nope! Now that the BBC propaganda so shoddily cobbled together has been blown apart the BBC is nowhere to be seen.
BBC bias?
Cassandra
I had commended Prof Judith Curry in a previous post. She is a very eminent climate scientist. Her long-standing argument is that the Warmists are not stating properly the amount of uncertainty about the basic data, let alone their Chicken-Little projections.
Prof Curry would wipe the floor with shallow propagandists like Black and Harrabin.
C, i couldn t agree more, it almost makes you despair
how much longer? before all this hogwash is seen for what it is,
i posted this earlier
seeing as things have gone a bit quiet on the el-beeb “climate change disaster front”
a bit more erm “rain” (if you ll excuse the pun) on el beebs parade
a wonderful & slightly sarcastic expose of climate change science & el beebs “set in stone” bullshine
it even has the polar bears 🙂
http://youtu.be/wIosMViBxe4
contrast that with this dire el beeb diatribe
BBC – Earth News – Polar bears face ‘tipping point’ due to climate
as an adage,
here surgically debating Dr Ben McNeill climate scientist from Univ NS Wales
http://youtu.be/UmFXA_dqQiU
this is the usual el beeb,(narrative, lefty/greenpeace etc) level attempt at debate
http://youtu.be/8UP4DsUNh1E
same result
the truth will out
To the miniscule extent the BBC covers Herman Cain, they treat him as a lightweight, just a Tea Party nonentity, a flash-in-the-pan. And unable to debate.
Howsabout this clip of Cain debating President Clinton 20 years ago, showing that Obamacare-style proposals could not be afforded :
That is a classic ‘real world’ meets ‘leftist ideology’ moment. Clinton can’t hack it.
This is excellent. Thanks for finding it. I’m struck by three things:
The way Clinton so casually says they should just raise prices to cover costs. As if the consumer can easily absorb it when the entire food industry gets more expensive, and the Left wouldn’t then scream about corporate greed..
Cain’s claims of how businesses would be affected turned out to be quite prescient, now that we’re seeing the beginning of ObamaCare and other forced costs affecting small businesses and employment. No wonder Tea Partiers like this guy.
At the end, Clinton basically calls Cain – a mathmetician – dishonest when asking him to send his calculations.
Will Self just delivered another long leftie rant on Radio 4’s Point Of View. Tired old stuff attacking arms suppliers. Yawn. (I would normally turn Self off, his scripts are so predictable)
But no matter – that’s the end of Self’s self-indulgent run of Radio 4 rants.
Next week – we have Prof Mary Read. Big change ? I doubt it. She is renowned as a feminist, and also for her nasty anti-America comments after 9/11 – repeated in 2007.
Balance, impartiality is in our genes ?
Ther BBC despises us by largely ignoring its Charter. Which is maybe why I despise the BBC these days.
It doesn’t look as if there’s ever going to be anyone with broadly right-of-centre views on that programme, does it John?
Besides her notorious 9/11 remarks, checking out her blog finds her writing about the “serious inequities” and “mad fantasies” of our monarchy (she is a self-professed republican); she agrees with Michael Mansfield in “deploring cuts in education funding, and the effect of very high fees on poorer students” (though she dislikes his involvement with al-Fayed); she mocks “BBC bashing”; she doesn’t reckon much to David Starkey; she’s against the death penalty; she “has no confidence” in David Willetts (voting against him at Cambridge); she “thanks God for the EU”; she was “politically absolutely on the side of the students” when they occupied part of her university, protesting against fees and cuts (though she thought they were being impractical); she was against the Iraq War; she would have voted for Diane Abbott in the Labour leadership contest had she not already left the Labour Party; she likes the lack of commercial advertising in Cuba and has “a soft spot for the revolurionary project”; she is opposed to competitive sports in schools; she says “you can tell the BNP and UKIP guys by their stary eyes, well they look mad”, etc.
Just the woman for ‘A Point of View’ then.
Sorry – it is Prof Mary Beard next week.
Another leftie BBC historian.
http://thinkofengland.blogspot.com/2010/01/mary-beard-historians-and-evil.html
Cameron threat to withhold UK aid to anti-gay nations – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15511081
Some nice, uncritical PR for Mr Cameron’s efforts to export political correctness…
The article also tell us that:
‘Earlier this year Ugandan gay rights campaigner David Kato was beaten to death in a suspected hate crime’.
I can’t stand the term ‘hate crime’. When someone gets beaten to death, there’s usually a degree of hatred involved. So why reserve the term for attacks motivated by membership of one of the left’s protected groups?
Jeff
Yes; but, of course, Cameron will continue to give British people’s money to Islamic regimes which are anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.
Did he sent George Osbourne to talk to Fayyad about this? Palestine and Gay Rights Palestininan Gays Flee to Israel (BBC 2003) Gay Palestinian seeks residency in Israel on humanitarian grounds
Surprisingly little and none recent on being Gay in Palestine from the BBC.
I just knew the anti-homosexual stuff was the fault of British Imperialism. No local cultural influences there which would have caused a negative attitude towards homosexuality or anything, yeah.
Peter HITCHENS’ column today, includes (scroll down):-
“Is smashing gravestones funny, Fiona?”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2055076/How-80-patriots-save-57-soppy-liberals.html
I presume this is the clip that Fiona found amusing – watch it yourself and see if it brings a smile to your face.
Shows the different mindset that is the BBC viewpoint.
I just found myself listening to the Food Programme on Radio 4, which is now basically a platform for environmentalist attacks on the food industry, in cooperation with WWF and Greenpiss.
How is it possible to make a 30 minute programme about the environmental impact of palm oil, without mentioning biofuel subsidies even once in the entire programme?
Ask Dan Saladino and the other sanctimonious BBC parasites on the Food Programme.
This morning’s ‘Sunday‘ with Jane Little was as predictable and relentless as ever. Even Jane’s introduction contained an example of ‘framing the debate’ in a biased way:
“Was St. Paul’s right or was its popular canon-chancellor right?”
First up, though, was yet another long segment on the child abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Almost every episode seems to contain at least some reference to the scandal, and many episodes this year alone have dwelt on it at length. Every twist and turn in the story seems to be reported. It’s a major, ongoing story, of course, but ‘Sunday’ is obsessive about it. It’s a wonder Catholics aren’t complaining in droves about this.
After a report from Matthew Wells from Georgia on the possible loosening of the Bible Belt there, there was a Green Movement-pushing piece on the launch of the Green Pilgrimage Network, which plans to help various religions “make their sacred sites more sustainable”. The only interviewee, talking to William Crawley, was Martin Palmer of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), who is one of the leaders of the Network. William Crawley helped him publicise the launch, feeding him only the most helpful questions. This was nothing more than a puff-piece for an environmentalist cause.
Sue’s fine post has already covered the two speed-dial experts – Prof. Paul ‘Peace Studies’ Rogers of Bradford University and Professor Fawaz Gerges from the LSE – brought in to discuss Syria, Tunisia, Libya, etc. They really must be on the programme’s speed-dial, as they have been on edition after edition of ‘Sunday’ this year (though not usually together). Why is the show’s pool of experts so small? Why is the BBC’s pool of experts so small?
The nadir of the programme was its closing section on #OccupySPC. Jane Little began “When the set up camp in the City of London to protest the greed and excess of the bankers…”, which is a pretty loaded way of putting it. Still, that was nothing compared to Trevor Barnes’s latest travesty of a report.
Trevor talked of the protesters’ “euphoria and sense of commitment to the cause” (even the ones going home at night?). We heard from one of the protest “spokespeople” calling for the democratisation of the City, then from another protester talking about “the impoverished” and “the 99%”. Any criticism of the protesters? Well, Trevor’s next sentence began, “In the eyes of critics, the occupation, though good-humoured and peaceful, presented the Cathedral with a missed opportunity to discuss social issues…” The Cathedral’s Precentor, Michael Hampel, “defends their [the Cathedral’s] actions”, and says that though he wants the protesters to move on, he “wants their message to stay here.” He was the only voice defending the Cathedral authorities, and even he was saying he supported the issues the protesters’ were raising. BBC favourite Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia agreed with the protests and advanced the anti-capitalist argument and then Christina Weller of the charity, Cafod, joined in to praise the protests. Two vox pops briefly appeared, one denouncing “capitalism gone mad” and inequality, the other – the only voice sceptical about the protests in the entire report! – said, though they were “well-meaning”, it’s “a fruitless effort” as all systems produce inequality and injustice. Then it was back to Christina Weller of Cafod. The Precentor said that Jesus would “sure be part of the encampment”, but he’d be everywhere else too. Barnes did then concede that the camp is “an eye-sore” and that an ongoing protest in a modern city could be “invasive of other peoples’ rights”, but this was a report that was weighted massively in favour of the protesters.
Who did Jane Little talk to after this report? Guardian writer Stephen Bates. He was strongly critical of the St. Paul’s authorities, accusing them of siding with the bankers, and Jane wasn’t much of a counterbalance – to say the least. She even read out a single email from a listener also attacking the authorities.
Just another biased ‘Sunday’.
It really was an appalling programme.
They kept Edward Stourton over – to present the 1pm news instead, another load of unctious poppycock about the layabouts at St Paul’s.
By contrast, Edward Pierce’s usual Sunday morning programme on LBC was positively scathing about the layabouts, and about the wet Church of England for facilitiating the anarchy. Pierce made the valid point that if these layabouts want to protest the banks, they should go to Finsbury Square to be closer to the banks. Anyone parking a car outside St Paul’s would be clamped and then towed away.
Listener feedback – the BBC’s Sunday prog had just one listener, arguing pro the layabouts, who sounded like a put-up job. LBC’s feedback by phone and email sounded heavily stacked against the layabouts.
…………………..
Has anyone noticed the ominous crowd of anarchists who are calling themselves Anonymous – all wearing masks and using a bunch of black tents ? Creepy, why hasn’t the BBC focussed its cameras on them ? Why haven’t Jane Little and Jane Bradley talked about them ?
Sounds a lot more enjoyable, John – and a lot more honest.
Ed Stourton also popped up during ‘Broadcasting House’ to preview his own programme. He talked to one of the “peaceful”, happy campers, Dan, who banged on about “monetary servitude”. All very chummy. Are you sleepy? What are you going to say to the dean? Do you want a bigger debate too? Are you in for the long haul? Dan called the camp a “workshop” for ideas. Ed didn’t think to ask him what his job was, and why wasn’t he going to “money servitude” – i.e. work – tomorrow.
Incidentally, Jane Little quoted an unnamed journalist to the Guardian guy saying that the St. Paul’s authorities were “overgrown public schoolboys”. A hour or so later, Paddy O’Connell put on a silly posh voice (“Get orff!”) to mock them. (Here, at 0.36.53)
Couldn`t agree more!
Glad you picked out those phrases like “popular” and “euphoria”…all loaded tripe!
As soon as you heard the list of items, you could predict every angle that would be taken by the BBC, using Little…or Stourton as the ciphers. Sewerage pipes if you like!
Catholics, Rednecks, Dave Angels and Swampys…and the cherry red Guardianista to pronounce on religious affairs-a well regarded theological source of expertise!
Looking forward to them getting Daniel Hannan to tell us about the need for less NHS cuts, and more Euro bail outs next week!…
cj, as I listened I kept shaking my head and raising my eyes to heaven, even though I guessed what was coming. It’s predictable, yet you still can’t quite believe they are going to be so obvious. That’s BBC bias for you!
Paddy O’Connell’s paper review began with the Observer and Nick Clegg’s “full-frontal” attack on Tory eurosceptics, then moved to the Independent on Sunday’s attack on the authorities at St. Paul’s. Still, he did then quote the Mail on Sunday attacking the Royal Mail and the Sunday Times on more caesarian section births & the Sunday Express on snow alert. Interestingly, the one front page (of the non-celebrity-based kind) he ignored was the Telegraph’s lead story about Whitehall officials “urgently reviewing all aspects of Britain’s membership” of the EU. Funny that!
How does INBBC treat the political views of Pamela GELLER, compared with those of e.g. Tariq RAMADAN?
Video of Geller:
http://www.youtube.com/user/JihadWatchVideo
R4 News yesterday on the Irish President results. Higgins won and 3rd was Martin McGuinness. No mention of who came second. Purely an oversight , surely ?
Ah…but he`s Labour…and a poet no less!
How Irish…charming and only to be expected from those red haired romantics cutting turf and distilling poteen!
Let`s have the craic and a hooley in the lounge bar Seamus!
Such is the level of BBC patronage when it comes to our chums across the water…now I know how a Cherokee on the Million Man March must feel…
An amusing thread on Digital Spy Politics forum as someone has been watching Question Time this week and now thinks the Beeboid Corporation is biased to the right:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1566643
Alongside the loons, there are some funny and telling comments and someone posted a link to this blog!
I don’t know what infuriates me more about this story, that the vice-chair of the BBC Trust has taken a second job advising the Labour Party, or that she is paid £77,005 to work two-and-a-half days a week.
Both SUCK!
BBC boss in bias row as she takes second job advising Labour
77 grand for 2 and a half days work per week. Nice for her, a rip off for the tax-payer (it’s not a license – don’t indulge them).
Champaign socialism – champaign for them, socialism for the rest of us.
The BBC – they are the 1%.