Friday evening and as requested, a NEW Open Thread for you all. Enjoy.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- harry142857 April 25, 2024 at 1:22 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Also from Guido. Kia the car company have invented a car that can do a U turn on a voice...
- Up2snuff April 25, 2024 at 1:04 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024pug, re early election: the wisdom of John Curtice, psephologist extraordinaire, is that the Conservatives tend to do better with...
- pugnazious April 25, 2024 at 12:52 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1782013988542243238 From Guido.... 'Daily Sceptic editor Toby Young has just submitted a complaint to...
- pugnazious April 25, 2024 at 12:41 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Curious how the BBC is not reporting on Ofsted but campaigning against it and weaponising Ruth Perry's suicide in a...
- pugnazious April 25, 2024 at 11:58 am on Midweek 24th April 2024'Nadine Dorries criticised for sharing edited image of Sunak wielding knife' 'Ministers have criticised Nadine Dorries for sharing a doctore...
- Fedup2 April 25, 2024 at 11:45 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Not bbc But with the democrat legal mafia in the US - what will happen when president trump is required...
- Fedup2 April 25, 2024 at 11:40 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Do you notice the method the BBC uses to tell taxpayers and others what is going on in Gaza ?...
- Lunchtime Loather April 25, 2024 at 11:31 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I threw my trainers away because I did not want to look like that slob Tim Davie.
- Jeff April 25, 2024 at 11:13 am on Midweek 24th April 2024So, yet again, the pitifully useless Mark Rowley, leader of the once respected Met' police, feels the need to make...
- Thatcherrevolutionary April 25, 2024 at 10:33 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Experienced as we all are with the MSM, certain assumptions will have been made after the ambiguity and lack of...
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
Just heard the so-called News Quiz!
Dianne Abbott…who? Stephen Lawrence…well .hardly…and as for Blackbusters and Miliband…what`s funny-and Justin did`nt get to the edit suite in time before recording I`m sure.
Shame about the Kaiser eh?
i would have thought there would be obviuos satirical material to keep a comedian busy for…….oh wait
satire and comedian
the bbc are bereft of both and have been for many a long day
can someone please do something about the pic of that utter knobhead Billy bragg which keeps appearing on thread titles?
it’s doing my head in……the very utterance of his name makes me violently ill without having his ugly halfwit mug staring out from the screen
I am acutely aware of it, am not sure why it is there, have asked for help. Things not as simple as they seem.
look at the source code of the page, or check the template, within the ‘body’ here will be a little bit of html code added with the image named and with the float characteristic (always at top of home page)…I tried to look just now to point you in the right direction but it was taking 50 to 100% of my CPU usage!
there it is…look for this:
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1341624778/Bragg-i_normal.jpg
The whole code looks like this: you can find it and delete it but best get someone who is confident with html etc!
<img class=”networkAvatar loaded” src=”https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1341624778/Bragg-i_normal.jpg” style=”-webkit-user-select: text !important; background-color: #ededed; border-bottom-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 0px; color: #111111; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; height: 30px; left: 5px; position: absolute; top: 5px; width: 30px; z-index: 1;”>
I found it via Firebug, and I think it’s on the template for the main page. It doesn’t appear on an individual post page, only on the main on. For some reason, what I see is slightly different in what Span found as the img src is at the end and not the beginning.
<img class=”networkAvatar loaded” style=”-webkit-user-select: text !important; background-color: #ededed; border-bottom-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 0px; color: #111111; display: inline-block; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; height: 30px; left: 5px; position: absolute; top: 5px; width: 30px; z-index: 1;” src=”https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1341624778/Bragg-i_normal.jpg“>
It’s just about in the middle of the body code, if that helps. If you can access the html doc, search for “Apple-interchange-newline” and it’s just below that. I think you can delete the whole thing from <br class=”Apple-interchange-newline”> plus the <img class=”…. all the way to the close bracket >. If that shifts something on the page, leave that Apple line, delete only the bit from <img class=”…. to the end.
David P
Could you try and delete it?
David V, sorry, but I don’t have that level of access.
Span
Yes, I see that. I’m not that confident – do you fancy a go or have we an expert here. ASE is out of action at the moment so am a bit stuck
David, if it’s still there on Monday email me and we can sort it: spanows@gmail.com
SpanOws
While you are at it – can you sort out your avatar !
sod off 😀
Looks like we will need to do that as I cannot fix it
BB is watching you.
Probably not!
Away from the land of cream teas in hideously white Dorset, Billy will already be teaching those two fragile and vulnerable chaps who did away with Stephen Lawrence how to beat the life of any song they choose-and in a Jamie Oliver inflection.
We are all Woody Guthrie impressionists now!
It’s the BillyWorm Virus – you need to scan with Norton AntiSocialist.
Guaranteed to remove 100% of MarxWare.
How the bBC rewrites the facts in which to justify Islamic terrorism.
Jet bomb plotter Nezar Hindawi loses parole bid
A terrorist jailed for 45 years for plotting to blow up an Israeli airliner has lost a legal battle to secure his release, the BBC understands.The Parole Board rejected Jordanian Nezar Hindawi’s bid for early release, despite previously recommending it. Hindawi, 57, planted a bomb in his unwitting pregnant fiancee’s hand luggage on a flight from London Heathrow to Tel Aviv in 1986. The device could have killed 375 people had security staff not found it….. Hindawi was jailed for hiding Semtex explosive in the luggage of his pregnant fiancée, Irishwoman Anne-Marie Murphy, then 32, without her knowledge. He was from a wealthy Palestinian family whose village was burned in the Israeli-Arab war of 1967, when he was 12.After his family became refugees in Jordan, he joined the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), became a writer and travelled to London.
So the bBC reports on how a Palestinian was jailed for hiding semtex inside his fiancee’s hand luggage did so because his village had been burnt down during Israeli-Arab war in 1967. Really?
Here is what the bBC doesn’t tell you in their the jews can only be evil article:
Nizar Nawwaf al-Mansur al-Hindawi (his first name is also spelled Nezar) is a Jordanian of Palestinian origins. Born in 1954 in Baqura, a village near the east side of the Jordan River, he worked as a journalist in Amman. Although he is from a prominent establishment family (two uncles had held cabinet posts), Nizar’s extreme anti-Hashemite views and his founding membership in a shadowy organization, the Jordanian Revolutionary Movement for National Salvation, got him in trouble at home.
Hang on, the bBC tell me he is a Palestinian who village got burnt down in 1967. Yet and a big yet, they fail to point out he was born in Jordan in a Jordan village (Now part of the city of Irbid) and that he left Jordan after he took up Islamic terrorism as a hobby. He fled his home country and set up shop in..London where he was recruited by Syrian Intelligence, which is why after he planed the bomb he went and hid in their embassy and which is why the Brits closed down the Syrian embassy and broke diplomatic relations with Syria after the very sophisticated bomb was found to have been constructed inside the Syrian embassy. (It had passed 2 X-rays and was only found during a hand search when El Al security became suspicious of the weight of the calculator. (3Ibs of plastic explosive inside a pocket calculator)
Yet the bBC cannot allow the public to know the full story, instead they weave a sob story about how this poor man’s village was burnt down during the Yom Kippur war and this was his attempt at revenge. Nothing about how his victim when she found out she was pregnant was told to abort, then when his Syrian handlers found out , they got him to use her as a patsy in which to carry a bomb aboard an Israeli aircraft which according to the bBC could have killed 375 people. No you Islamic cock sucking bBC arseholes it would have murdered 375 innocent people. But hey what’s the truth to the propaganda arm of Islamic terrorism.
Good stuff, pounce.
What pounce-uk has highlight is not simply a story in which facts have been left out to achieve the required result. It is a re-writing of the narrative. Disgraceful.
Sorry made a mistake, I wrote Yom Kippur, I should have written Six day war.
Nice one, Pounce. I’m going to try to look into this more over the weekend.
The BBC’s editorial policy is slanted so that their reporting demonizes Israel at every opportunity, although the BBC disputes this.
Spot on. Bit more detail…not that it’s needed after Pounce’s post!
The BBC (and Independent) both have recycled the Hindawi/Hasi family history.
“He was from a wealthy Palestinian family whose village was burned in the Israeli-Arab war of 1967, when he was 12.”
Really?
“Hindawi was raised in Zarqa, a town about 15 miles from Amman, by his mother, who had separated from her husband when he moved to London in 1960. After high school, Hindawi went to university in Beirut, according to a cousin.”
And what did this father (of a wealthy family) do in London?
He worked as a cook in the Jordanian Embassy from 1960.
A full seven years before the 1967 war.
In years from 1948 to 1967, the West Bank was occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom. The Jordanians took over directly from the British Mandate. They issued passports to the inhabitants….Jordanian passports which they held until Jordan made all the residents stateless (against international law).
This village burning on the West Bank in 1967 is tosh. The speed of the Jordanian expulsion and the establishment of order in a very short time, made the imposition of Israeli military control very quick avoiding the chaos and confusions of a more protracted conflict.
The BBC has published a myth. (Again)
Very good pounce_uk!
“Israeli-Arab war of 1967″? I thought it was the other way round. Maybe WW2 was the Jews versus the nazis?
Ian wrote:
“Israeli-Arab war of 1967″? I thought it was the other way round. “
Nope, grammatically you may have a point, but semmmmantically the Israeli got the first punch in. Yes I fully understand how the Arabs were ready to go in (Even to the extent that Nasser almost got to the punch first) But the 6 day war is called the 6 day war for a reason. The IDF wiped out the enemy in 6 days.
Excellent stuff, it urgently needs to go up as a post. The BBC are literally publishing terrorist propaganda.
Please do a post on this example of appaling bias/straight lies. The BBC keep crossing the line and the lives of Jews in the UK are being put at risk as a result.
it’s a fool who searches for middle east truth in the bulletins of al beeb 😉
at least they can claim to be consistent
consistently biased that is
and should they care to effectively refute the allegations,the solution is a simple one
publish Balen……simples!or do they have a skeleton hiding in the cupboard?Shurely not
How the bBC likes to point out the religious affiliation of Christians when they get up to no good.
Kristy Bamu ‘witch torture’ couple ‘had attacked before’
A couple accused of torturing a boy to death because they believed he was a witch had previously accused another teenager of witchcraft, a court heard. The defendants are originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo where witchcraft or sorcery – called kindoki – is practised in some churches.
This is of course the tragic story about how a Black African couple steeped in the ways of ju-ju who while during some sort of exorcism ended up killing 15 year old Kirsty Bamu. Now the bBC is right to mention how this practice is engrained in African culture, but for some reason they only mention Christians as people who hunt down witches and such. I wonder how they would report the same if the followers belonged to a religion of peace, let’s have a look shall we:
Faith healer ‘died under torture’
Well, there’s nothing in that bBC article about what faith the man followed, or even the faith of the people who murder him, lets look at another article on the same subject:
Killer of faith healer jailed at Luton Crown Court
Nope, nothing here either, in fact out of 26 articles on the ritualistic murder of Alfusaine Jabbi only in the very first article do the bBC point to the religion of the Juju killers. I quote:
Det Supt Keith Garwood said he had released the name of the victim to help tease out any information about his business and personal life. “This man clearly led a double life. On one hand he was the much-loved son known as Abdula, with a family living thousands of miles away and on the other, a business man called Mr Wahib, trying to make a living as a faith healer within the Muslim community,” he said.
After that article the bBC never mentioned the religion the man or the killers belonged to. Funny that.
How about another example from the bBC where they leave out the religion of the juju killers:
19 year old Pakistani Sabia Rani was murdered by her husbands family after a holy man told them she was pocessed by evil sprits. I quote from the bBC article:
The family’s defence blamed Ms Rani’s death on “black magic or witchcraft”, initially claiming they knew nothing of the violence she had endured.
Funny enough like Kiirsty she too was murdered in a bath after enduring torture. But the bBC doesn’t tell you what religion they belonged to, but they do when the killers claim to be Christians.
Isn’t it great how the bbC goes well out of its way in which to lambast Juju killers, well christian ones
I wonder what David Gregory, Scott, or the lately absent Dez make of that?
“I wonder what David Gregory, Scott, or the lately absent Dez make of that?”
Is there a spelling mistake? No- well they will not comment.
Jujus or JewJews – it’s all the same to the BBC
Its not Christian…it is an animist cargo cult which totemises Christ as a animist force representing the power of the white man. Technically it is syncretistic drawing elements from a demonstrably powerful cultures religious symbols and recasting them in traditional forms…kindoki etc.
In actuality it is pure barbarism. They also worship aircraft which fly over.
Christian it ain’t.
That’s what my Ghanaian catholic priest tells me.
Bit of fun before the cocoa.
A strange but true illustration that to identify the ‘religion’ as Christian is as valid as attributing this lot to Judaism.
“.To the main type belong most of the organizations which call themselves by some of the words “Zion”, “Apostolic,” “Pentecostal,” “Faith” (this word sometimes misrepresented as “Five”, “Fife”, “Fifth”). I describe these organizations as Zionists, which word of course has nothing to do with any modern Jewish movement. The reason for the use of this term is simply that the leaders and followers of these Churches refer to themselves as “ama-Ziyoni”, Zionists. Historically they have their roots in Zion City, Illinois, United States. Ideologically they claim to emanate from the Mount of Zion in Jerusalem. Theologically the Zionists are a syncretistic Bantu movement with healing, speaking with tongues, purification rites, and taboos as the main expressions of their faith. There are numerous denominational, local and individual variations…”
Would the BBC see them as a variety of Judaism?
The Beeboid ignorance of the applicability of ‘Christian’ suggests that they might!
A nice bit of dishonest reporting from Egypt by the BBC:
Women of Tahrir: Frustration at revolution’s failures
The dishonest part specificially:
Many Egyptian women felt they had few rights or protections under President Hosni Mubarak, but the sense of liberation after he fell raised many women’s hopes.
So it’s Mubarak’s fault again, and the BBC is surprised that women are disappointed now that the Muslim Brotherhood and the military haven’t given them the fruits of freedom after the revolution? Do tell, BBC, do tell.
Many people here will know this is stupid, and we could have told these women not to get their hopes up. Most of us have seen the photos of How the Veil Conquered Cairo University, in which we see how the veil crept in and took over after the Sharaawi feminist movement ended at the end of the ’70s. Yet Beeboids like Yolanda Knell want you to think that Egypt has always been a socially conservative country, where 90% of women wear the headscarf. They don’t want you to know what’s really happened.
Many of the top Egyptian military have been in league with the Muslim Brotherhood for ages, a group which even the BBC describes as “conservative” (after Bowen scrubbed “moderate” from his description of them, that is). The Muslim Brotherhood has always wanted to keep women down as second-class citizens, and curb their rights. Nobody should be surprised that the army is still keeping this goal alive.
Yet the BBC hired an Egyptian woman to play this game anyway. It’s nice that they’re making a fuss about women’s rights in a Muslim country for a change, as they generally demur from criticizing the realities of Shariah Law too much. But to play it as anybody excepted something different after the Tahrir Square Revolution, when everybody said that this is what was going to happen, is an absolute joke.
I hope everyone here remembers how the BBC tried to sanitize the MB during their coverage of the protests in Tahrir Square. Every Beeboid from Frank Gardiner (I saw him on the News Channel saying that the MB is moderate) to the man with a personal grudge against Israel who is still their Middle East editor said the MB was not going to be a problem, and wanted freedom for all, etc. Hell, the BBC was sanitizing the MB even before the protests started.
This new BBC report about how an MB regime in Egypt will curtail women’s rights shows just how wrong the BBC’s previous reporting was. Their Narrative has failed them, and you.
What took them so long (don’t answer, we know why) when the Beirut Star was reporting in lurid detail the plight of women in July last year.
Extract (link if you want to read more at end)
“CAIRO: Feminists dismayed that Egypt’s revolution is failing to advance their cause are trying to rally disparate women’s groups to defend women’s rights from perceived threats from Islamists and other conservatives.
“The revolution [has been] stolen by the military, the government, professionally organized groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and traditional political parties headed by opportunists,” veteran feminist Nawal al-Saadawi told Reuters in an interview.
Campaigners say Egyptian women face some of the harshest treatment in the world: domestic violence, harassment and discrimination in the law.
Female genital mutilation practiced on children is rife. Its advocates assert, wrongly, that it is called for in Islam’s holy texts. Forced marriage of young girls is still common outside big cities.
According to the World Economic Forum’s 2010 Global Gender Gap Index, which evaluates progress toward women’s equality, Egypt ranks 125th out of 134 countries.
Feminists say there is no better time to unite because the main thing that split the women’s movement – its domination by Egypt’s former first lady, Suzanne Mubarak – was removed following the revolution.
But with the once-banned Muslim Brotherhood targeting a big score in a parliamentary election later this year, Saadawi says women must move fast to secure their rights.
Last month, activists published a Women’s Charter signed by half a million Egyptians demanding a new constitution that entrenches gender equality, an end to sexual harassment and a minimum quota for women in parliament and the Cabinet.
For now, only one woman is a fully fledged minister in the interim administration, fewer than under Mubarak.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Jul-22/Egypt-women-work-to-protect-rights-from-Islamist-groups.ashx
INBBC’s ‘Asian Network radio station: –
British licencepayers funding Bangladeshi interests-
Asian Network: Bangladesh at 40
INBBC ‘Asian Network’ doesn’t report this:
“Since 1990, Islamic fundamentalists have silenced my freedom of expression and tried to kill me, forced me to flee my country and leave my family”
The bBC, its mantra that only whites can be racist and half the story.
Group lists 96 ‘racist killings’ since Lawrence
At least 96 people have been killed in attacks with a racial element since the murder of Stephen Lawrence 18 years ago, a group has claimed.The Institute of Race Relations says there has been an average of five killings a year since 1993…. The IRR listed the 96 victims on its website and said few of the victims had made the news. It said nine of the deaths had occurred in Scotland, six in Wales, two in Northern Ireland and the other 79 in England. Four of the victims were white British citizens but the vast majority were from Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) communities or migrant workers.
So the bBC hot on the killers of Steven Laurence jailing , brings out an article which defends the racist rant from Diane (I ate all the pies) Abbot and to continue to paint this view that whites can only be evil. Which they do quite well by pointing out that out of 96 victims only 4 were white. And the rest were coloured.Well the funny thing is I was actually following this thread this morning and came across this Oct 2006 article from the Guardian .
Racial murders: nearly half the victims are white
Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office. The data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 there have been 58 murders where the police consider a racial element played a key part. Out of these, 24 have been where the murder victim was white…. Overall, there have been 10 black victims and 16 Asian victims. Of the 58 race murders, 18 have been where a white attacker has killed a black or Asian individual and another 14 where one member of a minority group has murdered another for racial reasons.
Seems the bBC is playing the white mans game of divide and conquer to me folks.
And that’s only where the police “consider” race to be behind it. I’ve lost track of the black-on-white murders, rapes and muggings where police have ruled out race as a motivating factor. There are many black neighbourhoods where whites fear to tread, but few where it’s the other way round. Not to mention the Pakistani child groomings which the police choose to ignore –
http://britain-today.blogspot.com/2011/12/apartheid-judges.html
http://britain-today.blogspot.com/2011/11/white-slave-trade-cover-up.html
Also, if we are to see the full picture, we need to know what % of the population each ethnic group makes up, compared to how their ethnicity is represented in the crime figures.
Classic, look at the IRR definition:
The IRR considers the identification of racially motivated murders and attacks must depend on an objective evaluation of the whole context in which the murder or attack takes place and not just on the skin colour or ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator(s) or victim.The IRR would regard a murder or attack as racially motivated if the evidence indicates that someone of a different ethnicity, in the same place and similar circumstances, would not have been attacked in the same way.
…then read this from the article: “One of the cases not listed was Christopher Yates, a white man killed in 2004 by three British-born Pakistani men during a “drink-fuelled rampage”.
Ms Athwal said: “I remember that case and we had a lot of discussion about it in the office. Although racist words were used towards him the gang were using fairly indiscriminate violence against a number of people that night.”
How many other clearly racist murders have theyconsidered not racist?
If you check out their website one of their ‘heroes’ is Angela Davis, the Black Panthers terrorist.
Pounce, this is another comment of yours that is gagging to go up as a post.
http://www.irr.org.uk/
The BBC are bastards. I am appalled.
There I was at 8.57, comfortably seated in front of the goggle-box and waiting for the new series of the one BBC drama series worth watching (apart from Sherlock).
Imagine my horror when I was faced with some programme to do with probation officers rather than the sublimely brilliant Hustle. The stupid programme listings were evidently fed bogus information by the bastard propaganda merchants at TV Centre and the new series starts next week. Bastards.
If they can’t get the little things right, how can we trust them on the major issues such as climate change or The Bastard Arab Spring?? Eh? Eh?
Bloody Beeb. Bloody bastards. Bastards, all of them. Especially that bloody bastard Marvin Brigstocke. 🙂
John Humphreys on ‘Celebrity’ Mastermind tonight couldn’t resist asking Jackie Smith what she thought of the coalition Government and delighted at her predictable response…
Just saying…
Farming Today this morning reported on the NFU Oxford Union debate which voted by a narrow margin to leave the EU. Two pro-EU spokespersons were each given a separate interview to respond, with front-loaded questions, while three anti-EU personnel were lumped together in one brief section. BBC reporting at its best!
How the bBC hides how Christians are getting murdered in Nigeria by Muslims.
Deadly Nigeria shooting ‘targets southerners’
At least 14 people have been killed by gunmen who targeted a town hall in Mubi in north-eastern Nigeria, police say. Local residents told the BBC those killed were from the Igbo community from the south of the country…. One Boko Haram faction has warned all southerners – who are mostly Christian and animist – to leave the mainly Muslim north of Nigeria.
So reading the headlines shouldn’t it read:
“Deadly Nigeria shooting ‘targets Christians”
But if the bBC did that, then the world would know that Muslims living in a predominantly Islamic area don’t want non-Muslims living amongst them. You know like you see in each and every Islamic majority area of the world, Be it Saudi Arabia, Kashmir or Bradford. But if the truth came out that Muslims have intolerance ingrained into their DNA, how do you think those who haven’t formed an opinion about Muslims would start to think. You know the very same people who have no problem blaming the jews for everything because years of so called true news articles about them from the bBC has got them all thinking that Muslims can only be victims when it comes to Jews. Which is probably why the bBC dilutes the predicament that Christians are currently in Northern Nigeria by claiming that only one Boko Haram faction has warned ‘Southerners’ (which they dilute again by claiming they are mostly Christian and animist) to leave. Really? Here is how the Nigerian media is reporting that angle:
Both attacks came before the expiration of a three-day ultimatum issued by Boko Haram to southern Christians living in northern Nigeria to pack and leave the region or face dire consequences.
So about that three day get out of town ultimatatum here is more on it from the Nigerian media:
The ultimatum was issued by Boko Haram spokesman, Abul Qaqa, while speaking to BBC Hausa Service on Sunday. The ultimatum expired on Wednesday.
Hang on the bBC claims only one faction of Boko Haram is behind the threat, yet the threat was made on a bBC radio interview by the spokesman for Boko Haram. You know that Abul Qaqa which the bBC wrote about on their website in Dec 2011:
A spokesman for Boko Haram, Abul-Qaqa, told local media it carried out the bomb attacks.
It appears the bBC is playing the divide conquer game as favoured by twit Abbott, funny that..
The BBC is in total disarray on this one. You can just sense the anguish as the Isl*m word presents itself to the copywriter. The sweat breaking out at the thought that something will descend from a great height and permenently affect his career if he/she/it posts the incorrect nuance.
What has also been ignored is the widely reported information that the Bokos are receiving very considerable and skilled support from outside the country….from tactics to bomb-making all of which costs money. Lots of money.
It’s not only the Christians persecuted or killed in Nigeria that the BBC avoids, downplays, or tries to conceal – IF ONLY.
Muslim Persecution of Christians: December, 2011
Oh dear…
http://order-order.com/2012/01/06/wheres-mili-calamity-kenny-gets-the-blame-for-twitter-fail/
Repeat from other thread.
What joy! 😀
Where does our “world class” state broadcaster mention the link below? They seemed to be falling over themselves to report on the Steven Lawrence case.
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=42538
It’s truly shocking, D-a-C, not just in the crimes but the sheer scale. This should be headline news on all TV news broadcasts. The fact that I haven’t heard of this scandal, as I’m sure most haven’t, is an indictment of our main news organisations. Where are the interviews of so-called ‘community leaders’ to tell us of the concerns of the locals. This is yet another sign of the one way street surrounding racial issues in this country. Witness the national news outrage in recent weeks over mere words, however unpleasant, uttered by some footballers – just words and hurt feelings! Yet there’s nothing of this story – too politically awkward? Aren’t these multiple victims as worthy of our concern?
it’s got to the stage where-by British academics are having to go to the crown prosecution service to give them such information, via trial calenders and all.
Has the religion of peace already been victorious in Britain, and sharia law will be along shortly?
That sounds amazing – the NUJ achieving total news block-out of another impending Muslim gang-rape trial.
They were committed – claims the article – early this week, but no mention anywhere in the UK media.
Googling “Liverpool gang rape trial” or “Liverpool gang rape committal” and hitting the News tab gives no lead to this. Likewise “Liverpool grooming”.
If there is a news blackout – is this just the NUJ members, or are the police complicit in this ? Surely the press – at least a PA reporter or Liverpool Echo reporter – would be present for every moment in the Liverpool Crown Court ?
If these figures are to be believed, then 47 Muslim Peadophiles have just appeared in court in Liverpool.
The sad thing is, we’ll probably never know!
here’s another one that got little coverage outside the local press:
They shouted: “You’re the next Kriss Donald! We’re going to murder you!”
Shaun Paul McNally, 14, was playing outside his home when a pack of Asian youths punched, kicked and spat on him and battered him with metal poles.
That ‘massive police security’ must be to protect the defendants from local Muslims who are outraged at the damage done to their honour and betrayal of their faith and community.
If somebody out there in Internet land requested all of the trial calenders and conviction rates form the crown prosecution services, on the subject matter of paedophilia up and down the many court rooms of this land, then I’m sure that with a lot of research, time and hard effort, they could blow the followers of Islam apart, via their blind allegiance in following their prophet on the subject matter of paedophilia….
The BBC et-al, in accordance with the wishes of the NUJ want it kept hidden….
What do you mean, suggesting the Beeb don’t want to report on racially controversial events in Liverpool?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16452241.stm
‘Liverpool and Merseyside Police are investigating an incident of alleged abuse from fans towards Oldham Athletic defender Tom Adeyemi.’
‘The 20-year-old was visibly upset late in his side’s 5-1 FA Cup third round defeat at Anfield on Friday.’
Thank you, Dac for this. I had read some oblique remark in the comments section of the Telegraph blog and was curious about it. Is some sort of legal restriction on reporting be in place? If not then the lack of reporting anywhere is beyond disgraceful it is terrifying. We all know that the BBC is populated by a group of Winston Smiths who routinely censor the news but I cannot believe that the entire media is the same.
But I’m not sure of what argument there could be for a legal restriction. If such a restriction has been placed, it is actually more terrifying.
The hysterical, one sided and grotesque media circus on “race” continues …
purposely instigated, driven and perpetuated by the likes of the bbc …
i posted this yesterday
“if this gets the let off, (on the bbc protection of abbott) and the insipid handwringers get their way … well, don t they realise what an utterly absurd can of worms they ve opened, on race ”
This very morning, pictures emerge, of an oldham footballer dabbing tears from his eyes, over something he thought he heard from the crowd, then spitting the dummy out screeching at the ref, over his hurt feelings,
(one has the vision of 19th century upper class ladies, who would erm suddenly “faint” as a matter of course as a genteel-man caller, would pass).
Sigh! … but,(of course) the police have set up an immediate investigation, the FA advisory panel are taking immediate steps, to blanket ban any supporters, who may have been in the vicinity, whose voices may carry, who maybe possibly etc etc etc … most importantly i would imagine who are white 😀 .
you couldn t make it up.
If you get a chance, have a little listen to the cosy fireside chat between Evan Davis and Shadow Minister for Banker-Bashing, Chuka Umunna, on today’s Today.
Evan professed to being a touch ‘confused’ by David Cameron’s comments yesterday and sought clarification from the PM (i.e. butted in) every five seconds or so. It was a mess of an interview – not so much an interview as much as two men talking over one another.
No such problems today. Indeed, an entirely unconfused Evan even offered us his opinion, namely that “there is such a thing as the deserving rich”. Plenty of agreement between the two men about the obscenity of bankers’ bonuses.
It was a nice little chat. Well done, chaps.
I heard it too, Jeremy – blog post above.
Shamelessly copied & pasted from the comments section of DT blogs. Some very good points:
11 hours ago, what with the BBC’s blanket Lawrence trial coverage (or should that be ‘celebration’) and the trial-by-media of the ‘others involved’, the current blanket coverage of that poor Indian guy shot in Manchester by some chav lowlife, the egging up of the Terry and Suarez ‘cases’, and now the Beeb’s playing down of this hulking retardo trot’s foot-in-mouth and the absolute, complete, 100% news blackout (excuse the pun) of the trial starting in Liverpool too, I feel myself getting more racist by the day. Funny, because I’ve never felt particularly racist before….
And all that’s before the worst of the lot; the outrageous Emma West debacle/scandal – Christ, someone in the UK, someone powerless, someone from society’s bottom rung, someone whose ancestors were far more likely to have been cleaning chimneys than running slave plantations, has been hunted down, locked up, separated from her kids, vilified by the press, is now to be put on trial just for letting rip in a RANT, no violence, no threats, just an angry rant, a moan, an ‘I’ve had enough of this shit’ (and all nicely edited by the secret filmer, so we don’t see what set her off) – rude, yes, but nothing, nothing she said differs to what probably 80% of the UK population think regarding post-’97 mass immigration. And all intended to scare us. My bet is when this pressure cooker blows, boy is it gonna blow.
Thanks for nothing Straw, Harman, Abbott, TB, GB, Mandelscum, Balls, Milli-major, Milli-minor, and all the rest of you Lab fcukwits. Britain, RIP…
If Davey C has two functioning synapses somewhere behind that cabbage-patch face of his he really needs to end this NOW. Call time on it, speak out (and win the next election by doing so) and then deliver that promise to scrap the HRA, and get rid of the Equalities quango too. (Remember that bonfire you promised Dave? So many promises, must be hard to recall them all…)
I am not sure about your forebodings. But you could be right.
It is surely counterproductive for the BBC to forever push the racism line – while mostly hiding the ills that excessive immigration are causing. It stokes resentment, maybe a largely sullen silence so far. But there is anger not far below the surface.
………………………..
I have a small local issue. Nearby is a mosque, with large crowds on Friday. Often wearing peasant dress. I walk past it every afternoon. Not once in November did I see a single poppy being worn there. Never is there a smile. Often there are distinctly unfrendly looks – as if I am trespassing on there scene by walking along the pavement there. Which gives me a strong sense of a growing alien presence in our midst.
Now the BBC idiots would say this is Islamophobia. If there really is any “phobia” – it is not me having the phobia, it is them.
Might have something to do with your Mushrik status…a lot of ritual cleanliness activity happens before the ‘congregation’ meets of a Friday.
The war being the cosmic one between Allah and his kufr enemies. It’s a matter of life and death…and the distinction between the believers and unbelievers is quite high in the awareness of the ‘parishioners’ on Friday around a mosque.
Hence the post friday prayers disorders so traditional in Muslim lands. Fired up.
You ve got goons at el beeb that keep drip dripping, that criticism of muslims(i.e. Islam) is racist??!?! .. ludicrous! 😀 there is quite literally, no helping them.
So Blacks can t be racist????? …. that “thought police” maccy-pher report stating
You only have to think racism and it is, what the hell is that?.
The big beneficiaries of this skewed nonsense, will be (as always) the perpetual victims, of Islam, this myopic ideology doesn t need the opportunity for another conspiracy theory… right! 😀
Believe me, they never NEVER miss the opportunity, to ride coat-tails to get advantage.
With that abhorrent bunch of fascists at the OIC financing it, (they must MUST! be literally rubbing their hands at this) … expect loads more bleating islamo-faux-bia crybabies on el beeb, coming soon to a radio near you
😀
This is literally the living end,
but hey … the EDL memberships gonna get a another boost, and a lot more unrest is coming. the lib-cons can carry on pontificating about
their new OIC rep Warsi & co, but it “don t mean squat” in brum, luton,
bradford, blackburn etc.
is it maybe time to “call a spade a spade”?
Today‘s website lies by signalling that the last item on Today this morning concerned discussion about “legislation against the very rich and those evading tax” http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm [my bold]. It wasn’t: it was a blatant attack (by a CINO and a Labour politician egged on by a BBC “Occupy Broadcasting House” dildo) on those companies and individuals who quite legally pay as little tax as possible.
So again the BBC deliberately elides “avoidance” (legal) with “evasion” (illegal) and goes on to confuse (deliberately?) a coherent view of “crony capitalism”: a portmanteau term like “racism” and “global warming” which is useful to politically inspired parasites since it has no agreed meaning except as a signifier of something the BBC doesn’t like.
Significantly, but predictably, no mention was made of the cosy relation between Labour and its paymasters, the unions or that £2.4 million of LibDem funds were supplied through a fraudster, which funds the LibDems decided to hold on to: surprise, surprise, a decision supported by the Electoral Commission http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8999267/Fugitive-Lib-Dem-donor-Michael-Brown-arrested.html . This whole item is as good an example of biased and misleading BBC “journalism” (abetted by 2 members of the political class in good standing) as any other on this site.
Just listened to “From Our OWn Correspondent”
Is it great?…no!
But at least it lets me form my own opinions and has not caused offence…and, sadly: that`s as good as it gets at the BBC these days.
I am pathetically grateful-I`d imagine than Kate Adie has some nous and won`t let the show go the same way as the rest of Beeb output.
Soft pedals on the usual(Pakistani murders?)-but at least it doesn`t glory in the gore!
Will add Kate to the select few that seems to still have a brain and some independence-on this one show today anyway.
Kate Adie – do you mean the Bleeding Heart for Gaddhafi?
Probably-but todays programme was OK…in relative terms.
As I say-pathetically grateful for small mercies!
NIGERIA: more mass murders by Islamic jihadists.
INBBC now likes to call the victims ‘southerners’ not Christians, in a political attempt to lessen the truth of the Islamic motivation of the murdereous Boko Haram in its jihad.
And INBBC misleadingly translates the Islamic murderers’ victorious shout as: ‘God is great’. This is NOT what they shouted, nor is it an accurate translation. They shouted ‘Allahu akbar’, which translates from the Arabic apparently as ‘Allah is the greater’.
‘Jihadwatch’ reports-
Nigeria: Gunmen chanting “Allahu akbar” open fire in church, kill 20
“Boko Haram appears doing everything it can to spark a civil war in northern Nigeria. The central government’s unwillingness or inability to respond to it leaves a vacuum that will lead to Boko Haram’s targets defending themselves independently from a government that can’t or won’t.
“If the government is trying to keep the peace or keep the situation from escalating by not engaging Boko Haram, it is actually setting up a situation that may see it lose control. ’20 killed as Nigerian gunmen attack Christian mourners, by Mike Pflanz for the Telegraph, January 6:
It was the latest in a series of attacks blamed on radical Islamists who have vowed to wage a religious war on Nigeria’s Christians and drive them from the country’s majority-Muslim north.”
INBBC won’t like this:
“Bomb Blast: Israel to help Nigerian Federal Government tackle Boko Haram”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39874
Well done, Israel.
Nor this:
http://news.yahoo.com/south-sudan-leader-makes-first-visit-israel-085955168.html
Bet they are puzzled about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16454493
Remember BIAFRA.
Israel was one of only two countries globally to support Biafa cause in Nigeria against Islamic jihadist murderers.
“Remeber Biafra!”
(by Hugh Fitzgerald)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-remember-biafra.html
In the mid-1960s economic and political instability and ethnic friction characterized Nigerian public life. In the mostly Muslim Hausa north, resentment against the more prosperous, educated Christian Igbo minority erupted into violence. In September 1966, some 10,000 to 30,000 Igbo people were massacred in the Northern Region, and perhaps 1,000,000 fled as refugees to the Igbo-dominated east. Non-Igbos were then expelled from the Eastern Region.
So here we are, forty years plus later and the same pattern is emerging. A backward modernity resistant grouping with a religiously sanctioned sense of entitlement are renewing the onslaught of their fathers and grandfathers on those who are not permitted, theologically or ideologically, to be more successful.
In microcosm it is the same view that the same religiously defined group has of us, more’s the pity.
The Beeb is totally out of its depth.
Aother item on Today this morning on the Stephen Lawrence meme (FFS when’s it going to end?) was occasioned by information from Mass Observation which – from the examples quoted – evidenced that white British of two or three generations ago were not as racist as the BBC would like us to believe. It’s alright though Professor Tony Kushner, from Southampton University, and Arthur Torrington, from the Windrush Foundation, were brought on to disabuse us of that notion: apparently our fathers and grandfathers were “unreconstructured” in their views (ie they are were accused by the academics of not being welcoming enough).
No-one was on (natch) to put the case that the post-war mass immigrations from the Caribbean, the sub-continent, Africa and from the poorer parts of the EU might have been an unnecessary, self-inflicted and massive disaster for this country. Again – yet again – the BBC restricted the discussion to a three-way competition concerning who could condemn whitey the most. For interest and balance a differing view would have been welcome. Mind you, on the rare occasions a differing (that is to say non right-on) view is allowed on race it’s usually put forward by some neanderthal mental case carefully selected by the BBC rather than an intelligent and fluent commentator: thus does the BBC massage its message.
Not “unreconstructured” but “unreconstructed” of course.
Still-didn`t they quote someone from Newport who was-unlike everybody else who`d just been through the war-actually a NON-racist?
He thought that black people made spiffing partners-unlike all those other Taffs and Tykes in their mufflers whilst watching the footie!
It`s as if Mr Cholmondley-Warner wasn`t actually a made-up comedy character…or that Alan Partridge was a real reporter.
Mass Observation eh?…Mass Massaging , Total Compliance and On-Message since Hugh Carlton Greene cut off their goolies back in the 60s.
“Perhaps that is why some on the left are seeking to suggest that public opinion is not what it seems to be. The IPPR, the Migrants’ Rights Network and others, have latched onto a paper produced by the Migration Observatory entitled “Thinking behind the numbers – understanding public opinion on immigration in Britain”. And guess what… the BBC News website lapped it up too.”
“This was the message that the immigration lobby and the BBC latched onto with such enthusiasm. Unfortunately for them, the survey itself bore no relation to the government’s actual policies. The general approach was not described, nor were respondents asked about any of the policy measures actually proposed.”
From: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2012/01/sir-andrew-green-of-migrationwatch-what-do-the-public-really-think-about-immigration.html
Toby Young (he of the free schools) is NOT impressed with the BBC.
BBC News online publishes grossly misleading, anti-free schools article – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100128060/bbc-news-online-publishes-grossly-misleading-anti-free-schools-article/
The BBC often make the point, perhaps believing themselves to be the champion of the lower classes, that our society – especially when not led by the Labour party, create a social divide with the private school system. That only those attending private schools are likely to succeed, and since these schools are out of reach for most people, the inference that only the rich can assure the success of their young.
That this is a patently false observation, like many others, has never stopped the BBC pursuing the line that they want to present. Whatever the truth might be, they would rather use the topic as a propaganda piece for themselves. I’ve no doubt a study of how many BBC staff send their children to private schools would show just how hypocritical they are. Much like Diane Abbott, embroiled in the recent hypocritical behaviour, had previously scorned those sending their children to private schools, yet did not hesitate to send her own son there.
So when a few academics at Bristol University ran a blog post concerning free schools, and how they could eventually boost performance of children, particularly in lower class areas, one has to wonder why the BBC would purposefully present the ‘findings’ with a totally opposite outcome. The distortion even extended to calling this opinion blog a ‘study by the research department at Bristol University’, which it wasn’t.
The only reason I can think they would have for purposefully presenting it in this way is simply because the proposal for instituting more free schools comes from this government, which as we know the BBC wants to bring down at every opportunity.
The BBC don’t care what they do to this society, so long as they can push the demented and twisted views that they have. How much longer does this have to go on before somebody in government has the guts to put an end to them?
Should one of the cherry vultures be lurking, I’d be keen on their views.
Preferably without first accusing folk here of practices (inaccurately) more often displayed by them and their colleagues.
Just came across this tweet by Norman Smith, the BBC’s chief political correspondant, in which he outlines his views on the French:
@RetiefRees she’s v.French….ie smokes,scrubs up wonderfully well and is generally impossible but surely lacks Lunds moody silences. No ?
—
He also seems to have a dig at Red Ed:
‘Most important Ed M statement in Guardian intv ? He watched 20 hours of the Killing. over Xmas. Wooly jumpers at PMQs ???
Ed M on Sara Lund http://bit.ly/xckmPz ant heorine ? Perhaps. But note she also she has ENERGY, drive and is obsessively uncompromising.’
Jeff
Are the Republicans having an identity crisis? – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16434859
*Puts head in hands and sighs*
Three equal factions, my ass. It’s really two plus Ron Paul supporters, a faction swollen by recent adoptees specifically for this election. There was never a big Paul faction among Republicans. You’ll find more Paul supporters percentage-wise among Occupiers than at Republican Caucuses. He’s not going to take the nomination, and his followers aren’t going to affect the final outcome.
But this is old news. Remember Nov. 2010? When the Tea Party movement transformed the face of the Republican Party in Congress? The BBC listened to the wrong US sources on that as well. Today’s situation is the inevitable outcome of what happened then, combined with the fact that proper Tea Party-style Republican worthies are too busy working on their first terms as Governor and fixing their states to run this time.
The two factions are more or less the same ones we’ve had for ages, except that the fiscal conservative, small-government people have gained a lot in strength and momentum over the last three years. The social conservative, single-issue types are too happy to use the government to control lives, too happy to spend money we don’t have. Santorum is a classic example of that kind of Republican. They may have an affect in some primaries, but they will not win an election. Not this time.
Having said all that, Wheeler unquestioningly publishes a lie by Ornstein:
He says: “Each time you had a Republican conservative emerge – Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich – there was the hope that that candidate could embody their conservative values, but also do well in debates against Obama.
“Their weaknesses brought them down. So there is an unease. The disdain that they have for Obama is also accompanied by respect for some of his abilities.”
Not Herman Cain. While the others may have been brought down by their weaknesses as a candidate, Cain was brought down by unproven sexual allegations. Now, one can play semantic games and say that he was brought down by another kind of weakness, but that’s not what Ornstein meant, and not what Wheeler wants you to think.
Once Cain was hovering around the top of the polls, he had only the one misstep – the foreign policy mind-blank in an interview. He could have easily come back from that given time. But the media leapt on the sex scandal stuff, something about which all Democrat candidates got a pass in the past. But the elite punditry always thought Cain was a joke (Dez called him a muppet, without providing anything to back that up, of course). Mardell dismissed him out of hand from day one, and decided that the fact that Cain was brought down by something entirely other than his policy positions still proves him right.
The BBC wants to play the “Republican Split” game they’re hearing from their fellow travellers in the US Leftoid media. Is the “divide and conquer” meme in the air or what? What you’re seeing here is the media doing the President’s work for Him. And so it begins.
What the BBC isn’t going to tell you is that their beloved Obamessiah loses in polls comparing Him to a generic Republican. And compared to the rest of them, Romney is about as generic as it gets. He doesn’t have to inspire Reagan Democrats to switch and vote Republican. Instead, the President has to inspire them to make the same mistake twice.
Anbyody heard the BBC put it like that? Nope. They’re always coming from the other side.
I read on Daphne Anson’s blog that Ron Paul is no friend of Israel
is that true David?
if so,I hope he gets soundly thrashed in the polls
100% true, ltwf. Paul plays it pretty cool these days when very occasionally questioned about it, in the “I think Isreal should be allowed to do whatever they like, the US shouldn’t get involved” manner of speaking. But he really means that the US has no shared interest with Israel, and that the US should not get involved if Israel is threatened, the Israel Jewish Lobby has too much power, etc. (sounds like the BBC position). Of course, this is easily supported by his ostrich-like general foreign policy that the US should stay out of everything to do with the rest of the world, so criticism can be easily dismissed.
But those newsletters weren’t exactly pandering to euroskeptics, you know? The anti-war crowd loves Paul, and they always seem to be a subset of the anti-Israel crowd. An ex-aide of his has stated that Paul would rather Israel didn’t exist, and disputes its right to.
That pretty much sums up the position of most BBC employees, and Mark Mardell magically left that out when he said that, except for the bit about massive spending cuts, Paul’s platform was pretty much Left-wing. Make of that what you will.
The ex-aide also avers that Paul isn’t an anti-Semite, which I totally understand. I’ve said many times that the BBC’s default anti-Israel position may not be due to an inherent anti-Semitism, but it does encourage anti-Jewish sentiment. This fits in perfectly with Ron Paul’s position. He may not be an anti-Semite, but he wouldn’t bat an eyelash if Israel went down and Jews everywhere suffered violence as a result. The BBC would say what the Mayor of Malmö said when the Jews in his city suffered from persectution and many left: they deserve it for supporting Israel.
Paul’s too smart to be openly critical of Israel’s right to exist these days, because he’s as concerned about the dreaded Israel/Jewish Lobby as the BBC is.
Here’s a typical Ron Paul supporter talking about foreign policy.
Unfortunately David, we too have intellectual heavyweights like her who walk amongst us daily over here.
What I found even more frightening though – She has a car ?
A few years ago I was in the middle of town on route to meet a friend for coffee. I walked past a group of chuggers (charity collectors) and I have to admit that due to my skin colour I am usually left alone. (they usually only target whites) Anyway on this occasion they had in their group a Burka wearing woman and as I walked past she shouted out if I wanted to join Amnesty International. I just ignored the woman and carried on. She incensed that I had ignored her started following me and shouting out that by not signing up I was allowing Israel (yes Israel) to get away with murder. As you may guess this grabbed my attention and I stopped and turned around. She presuming that she had made an impact smiled and called me brother.
Big Mistake.
I asked her how she knew I was a muslim, she said she just knew.
I asked if she had ever been to Israel, she replied she hadn’t but had heard lots of stories.
I then calmly informed her that I had actually been to Israel and experienced no racism , that I wasn’t a Muslim and thus I wasn’t her brother. I then asked her how a Muslim would have reacted in an Islamic country if she had hassled him like she had hassled me, realizing that she may have bit off more than she could chew, I saw doubt followed by fear grow in her eyes. I explained she would get a bloody good kicking and that she shouldn’t presume that somebody is something based simply on their skin colour.
By now her group had noticed that she had walked out of their collective zone and one of lads started to walk over, I simply pointed at him, and uttered “Take another f-ing step and I’ll smash your teeth in” of course when one hears such words the vast majority stop to think what is happening. Which is why I said it and what he did. I then turned to the female chugger who by now had realised that she faced an calm but what she presumed an unstable nutter and said “Think twice, before you stereotype people” and at that I left to have a coffee. Evil I may be, but I am sick to death of idiots trying to publically ram their political agenda down my throat because they feel they are right .
Which brings me to this bBC article about how Islington (would that be a labour ward?) is thinking about banning Chuggers from the streets. But according to the bBC article this is a crime against humanity and too think about the poor people who will miss out. You mean like the ad agencies which hire these chuggers to emotionally mug people in the streets. You think the bBC would know about that fact seeing as it was the bBC which exposed how the first £100 from anybody who signs up in the street goes not to the charity, but rather to the ad agency. Funny that?
“Take another f-ing step and I’ll smash your teeth in”
How heroic
“How heroic”
Really, I thought it was quite rude. Anyay,
What is your opinion of Chuggers? Do you think they should be banned? What about the comment “this is a crime against humanity“? Or any comments about anything other than your cretinous wanker ad hominem comment?
“How heroic” [Sarcasm ON]
:-[ …apologies if I have misunderstood!
Wild wrote:
“How heroic”
And what part of :
of course when one hears such words the vast majority stop to think what is happening. Which is why I said it and what he did.
Didn’t you understand. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, instead of only hearing what you think I wrote , then you wouldn’t be such an pedantic arsehole. The thing is female sex organs like you would have no problem defending my actions if say instead of somebody collecting for AI, the person I stood up to was a member of the EDL. Well Richard Edward unlike twats like you I have no time for bigots from either side of the political divide.
“due to my skin colour I am usually left alone…they usually only target whites”
I can think of a few reasons other than your skin colour why charity collectors (generally) ignore you.
“she shouted out if I wanted to join Amnesty International. I just ignored the woman and carried on.”
If it is an inquiry personally directed at you a simple “no thanks” is generally sufficient.
“I asked her how she knew I was a Muslim, she said she just knew…I then calmly informed her…that I wasn’t a Muslim and thus I wasn’t her brother.”
In the heat of the moment it probably slipped your mind that (as you have previously mentioned) you were once a Muslim.
“I saw doubt followed by fear grow in her eyes. I explained…that she shouldn’t presume that somebody is something based simply on their skin colour. By now her group had noticed…and one of lads started to walk over, I…uttered “Take another f-ing step and I’ll smash your teeth in” of course when one hears such words the vast majority stop to think what is happening.”
Yes, they are wondering “Should we call the police?”
“I then turned to the female chugger who by now had realised that she faced…what she presumed an unstable nutter”
I wonder why she would come to that conclusion?
“I am sick to death of idiots trying to publically ram their political agenda down my throat because they feel they are right.”
You don’t quite get the hang of this free society thing do you.
“Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, instead of only hearing what you think I wrote, then you wouldn’t be such an pedantic arsehole.”
Maybe if you looked up “pedantic” in a dictionary this would help you understand the meaning of the word?
“The thing is female sex organs like you would have no problem defending my actions if say instead of somebody collecting for AI, the person I stood up to was a member of the EDL.”
You presume a great deal. You sound a bit like a “female sex organ” yourself.
Wild I just love debating with arseholes like you. Why? Because folks like you defend the right of the minority to live how they want. But that to you means they have to confirm to your own political POV. So the stupid bitch can be forgiven for thinking I was a Muslim. Gosh listen to you speak, now how would you feel if she had been white and presumed that. yeah right she would be deemed a racist, I mean the colour of my skin should mean nothing but to you it does. See where I am going with this. I am no different from antibody else but to you I am. That dick splash is racism.
As for not understanding how free speech works does that allow burka features follow me down the high st shouting out how bad I am for not subscribing to her political mindset. Now if that had been a white woman doing that and shouting out how I should be supporting the troops in afganistan by buying a poppy she’d be locked up faster than a little old women who refused to pay her tv licence fee.
As for myself being a female sex organ, unlike you I can take it on the chin and even manage to laugh at myself. I mean it’s cu-nts like me that make pricks like you stand to attention and spit out a warm wet welcome in the mistaken belief that I bend over 5 times a day.
Say hi to your wife with my kids.
“See where I am going with this?”
To a psychiatrist?
I dislike these charity people who accost you in the street but relishing putting fear in people and threatening them in the street is not on.
Sorry, but I can see Pounce’s point. Perhaps it’s not the best thing to do to threaten someone, but if he’s coming across to you agressively then it’s quite an understandable reaction. Particularly so if Pounce was feeling both insulted and patronised because of the colour of his skin. To top it off this woman was making accusations against Israel which is clearly something that Pounce knows more about than her. Sometimes agression can only be stopped by threatening agression first.
I just blank them totally
if i want to give money to charity,i’ll pick the charity,how much to give and when to give it
Attacking Israel is an open Amnesty selling point now? Figures.
I wish they would ban chuggers – Go down Northumberland Street in Newcastle any day of the week and you are constently harrased by Friends of the Tiger, Amnesty, etc etc. Once you get through them of course you meet the “Big Issue, pleeeese” which is the only words in English they know.
Britons warned over Nairobi terror threat
Militant, terrorist, militant, terrorist….my head’s spinning. The word Muslim is missing though. That’s a return to BBC normality. I thought I was having one of my turns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16455802
Didn’t anyone hear the item about Twitter on Today today?
It’s the new way of instant reporting direct from courtrooms and the like. Philippa Thomas, the BBC correspondent at the Old Bailey this week, believes that Twitter will become an essential part of courtroom broadcasting.
Evan: “You kept the channel together for what seemed like hours.”
Phillipa: “There was a chain of BBC talent coming from the courtroom out to the road where I was standing” [….]
“We had producers sitting in court and Tweeting.”[…..]
“So you know you’ve got your reliable sources. You know who to look for, and the producer standing next to me as I was on screen was literally scrolling down the screen on her smartphone looking for our reporters’ tweets.
Evan: “And they would sometimes even hand you the phone and you would elegantly read it off the phone!”
Phillipa: “I’m not sure it was elegant, it was very ad hoc at the time.”
Evan: “You were only then looking at tweets from BBC reporters, you weren’t following all the Tweets that were going on.”
Phillipa: “We were looking at a list. you know, on Twitter you can say there are the people I want to follow on this story. I was looking primarily for our people, but also I think I quoted from Sandra Laville, the Guardian crime correspondent, I could see people I knew who had been in court….”
Evan: “But not any old body you didn’t know…..”
Haha. Careful. Keep it in the family 😉 .
Well, it sounds like a lot of self-regarding hype by the Beeboids.
Tweeting direct from the court didn’t start with this trial or the Beeboid Corporation. It has already been used in court.
The judge in the Joanna Yeates murder trial (in October) gave special permission for the trial to be reported by tweet as it happened. That may have been the first, though I am not certain. At any rate, on that occasion Sky’s Harriet Tolputt, closely followed by ITV’s Rupert Evelyn, ran away with the honours. Harriet is the sterling gal who stayed the course, never missing a thing or putting a foot wrong and with a quiet and modest demeanour too. It looks as if she has the right background and credentials, as she is studying for a PhD in criminology.
https://twitter.com/#!/skynewsgatherer
I don’t remember anything about Beeboids tweeting that one, though I do know the Guardian had someone.
Pride in lazy journalism, at your expense. Classic.
One of the most left wing beeboids Vikki Pollard Derbyshire clearly likes the lefty champagne lifestyle of London to that of the dump that is Salford.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2083432/BBCs-Victoria-Derbyshire-finds-grim-North-just-60-cent-shows-broadcast-Salford.html
All that flying up to Manchester doesn’t seem to bother her either, look forward to the next time the dozy left wing cow is prattling on about climate change.
Michelle Obama ‘raged against Rahm Emmanuel and White House advisors’ – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8999311/Michelle-Obama-raged-against-Rahm-Emmanuel-and-White-House-advisors.html
Funny how there’s no mention of this story on the BBC news website…
Jeff
If the BBC censored all news of her lavish Spanish holiday, during the worst of the recession, they’re sure not going to mention this.
I notice that ITV’s Libby Wiener referred to Abbott’s ‘tweet’ as racist in the ITV new, but on the BBC Ross Hawkins just mentions the tweet, so why did Red Ed make her say sorry then Hawkins you tosspot?
Heard all but the last 10 mins of Any Questions earlier today and for once didn’t want to head butt the radio.
My only concern was the Nuremberg Rally-esque applause for everything the lawyer said. I thought this was a classic example of people behaving in a certain way because it was expected of them, rather than out of rational choice.
But of course they could’ve just been agreeing with her. Or both. With every passing day the genius of Orwell is more apparent.
You must have missed the bit where Jonathan Dimbleby was spinning for Diane Abbott, pretending she had said some white people and trotting out the convenient excuse of the 140 characters limit until Lionel Barber picked him up on it, pointing out that she hadn’t even used all of the 140. 😀
If you mean the applause for Constance Bristow on the subject of the Abbott incident, I thought it might be because they perceived her as a black woman playing fair (what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander kind of fair), and not being mealy mouthed, hence the enthusiastic appreciation. No double standard on her part and no special privilege claimed.
Sophie Long on the News Channel used the same “140 character limit” defense when siding with….sorry….handling the debate between Samirah whatsit and Harry Coles.
Narrative? What Narrative?
Millie – yeah, but the Dimbleby stuff was just par for the course so it didn’t really register.
I’m not saying that I personally didn’t agree with some of Bristow’s comments – I did. But it just seemed that the audience were clapping what she said before she said it, in a Pavlovian manner. I can’t prove it, and may be wrong; it’s just an opinion. By all means tell me if you think I imagined it!
Nah, I’m sure you didn’t imagine anything. Although I would have to listen to it again to be sure! And I don’t think I can endure that.
Has anyone else noted this strange (and ambiguous) grammatical construction?
My emphasis.
“Hundreds of people flee violence in north-east Nigeria, after dozens die in a 24-hour wave of violence apparently targeting Christian communities.”
My grammatical understanding (and I am attuned to grammatical meaning as a professional translator) led me to take a closer look.
The word in question is ‘apparently’.
Used before a noun, apparent means “seeming”: For all his apparent wealth, Marx had no money to pay the rent.
Used after a form of the verb be, however, apparent can mean either “seeming” (as in His virtues are only apparent) or “obvious” (as in The effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees the parched fields).
One should take care that the intended meaning is clear from the context.
Now what is the intended meaning as the BBC writer posts?
The ‘apparently’, as I understand it, being located before the participle acting as a verbal noun ‘targeting’, suggests ‘seeming’.
Nowhere in the subsequent text is this ‘seeming’ borne out. The attacks all are clearly directed at Christians with threats to animists to leave Muslim areas.
What is the purpose of ‘apparently’ here.?
Does the BBC writer have another take on the violence in which the attacks on Christians are merely ‘apparent’?
If the meaning is ‘evident’ or ‘obvious’, the use of ‘apparent’ is superfluous in this context.
Make your own mind up, if you have the inclination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16456381
Hmm… Doesn’t ‘sectarian’ usually apply to an internecine conflict? It is surely an incorrect usage in this context?
Catholic vs. Protestant = sectarian
Shia vs. Sunni = sectarian
Muslim vs. Christian = …
The BBC will do whatever it takes to hide the truth.
Yes, it is incorrect.
Sectarian conflictis are conflict within a religious community..Sunni, Shia, Catholic, Protestant etc). A sect is a sub-group within a religion. This is where ‘heresy’ applies.
Muslim fighting Christian (or vice versa) is inter-religious or inter-faith violence or conflict.
Inter-faith conflict is an entirely different order of violence which unites often conflicting sects within a religion against the other.
If Boko Haram was primarily focussed on establishing its paradigm against other Muslims, then it would be sectarian in nature.
I think it looks and feels odd because it is a dangling participle. So it’s as if it is saying that the dozens die targeting Christian communities. (I’ve left out the apparently for the moment to avoid clouding the structure and syntax.)
Jeremy Clarkson slammed for joke about death of 23 Chinese cockle-pickers – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9000150/Jeremy-Clarkson-slammed-for-joke-about-death-of-23-Chinese-cockle-pickers.html
It’s like Clarkson is poking fun at the BBC, saying ‘Sack me if you dare! Top Gear is watched by 200 million people! You need me more than I need you!’
Jeff
Lets see the Flabbot defenders defend Clarkson now.
It is so sad that we have now sadly reached the point, where everyone is so politically correctly up each other’s arses, that every statement and joke and off the cuff remark now smells of s#*te and should be raked over by lefty fingers.
Jeremy Clarkson is what he is and those of us still with a semblance of humour get the joke, the rest of the nutters campaign to get him the sack.
they are without exception knobheads of the highest order. I’ve witnessed tonight John Prescott on Twitter turning a David Cameron comment about PMs QT opposite Ed Balls being akin to jousting with someone with Tourettes and get this, Prescott tries to take the moral high ground on behalf of the disabled and particularly those with Tourettes – he is a fat knobhead philandering bulemic pie eating freeloader of the highest order…
I get the David Cameron joke, Prescott doesn’t. He just picks at scabs #scrotumwatch
And Lord Prescott would never mock someone’s speech impediment, would he? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/10/24/john-prescott-sparks-outrage-by-mocking-mp-s-speech-impediment-on-twitter-115875-23512349/
Jeff
i see that the BBC are running the Cameron apology about Ed Balls as their top story.
Not like they did with Abbott when they hardly mentioned it until they had to once the other media made it the top story.
Yep, they’ve already lined up the “shocked” mouthpieces. One was on just now. They were given so much airtime I was able to go downstairs and make a coffee. Came back upstairs and the same person had turned the comment rant into a dig at the government in general for not doing enough for the various disability groups. The BBC never miss a chance when anger can be aimed at the Tories.
Along with others, such as Jeff, I have decided to continue to play the ‘Complaints’ game, no matter how fruitless.
It can prove interesting, as much for what I get back (and when), as what not.
I attach my latest forward (again, in chunks, thanks to BBC formatting) to my MP, who sadly is rather addicted to the Newsnight and Daily Politics sofas despite his governent’s abuses from these programmes, and has already trotted back the ‘most trusted national treasure line’, apparently copied from BBC PR.
However, nothing ventured…
Please note the reply. Prompt, but as much use and as accurate as such things from authority are.We understand you felt the comments made by Stephanie Flanders regarding David Cameron as you felt they were biased against the actions of the Prime Minister and the Government on recent international issues.
As the cited piece was by Paul Mason, clearly identified by the time code on the iPlayer URL, the complaint was clearly not even read or checked.
I can also testify to the fact that the content of the insincere, inadequate ‘explanation’ is cookie cutter template patronising at its worst.
BBC journalists and presenters are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting.
If they are, they ignore it.
They are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC.
What is expected is nice. What actually happens is not. I sense a Clintonian weasel here. Unacceptable from any corporation, especially a public, and publicly funded one.
They seek to provide the information which will enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.
Seeking is not finding. Especially with no intention to look or, worse, every intention to shape or conceal.
However, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes.
The complaint was about the Editor in question stating his, very partial views. That was no reflection of varied opoinion. It was a misuse of airwaves to pursue political bias.
Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view.
Some Editors should not only be charged, but held properly to account.
Our senior editorial staff, the Executive Committee and the BBC Trust keeps a close watch on programmes to ensure that standards of impartiality are maintained.
Lovely. ‘Watching’ is so reassuring. Doesn’t seem to be doing much on those standards, which are not being maintained, rather eroded still further.
We’d like to assure you that your feedback has been registered on our audience log.
That… means nothing to me. Or anyone pursuing a complaint with substance.
This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.
Available to read, or to ignore and treat with contempt? Another semantic weasel.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Seen… as Nelson ‘saw’ those ships. Yet another semantic weasel. Of scores I have had.
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
I have an ongoing complaint with another complaints officer (over misreporting the Liverpool/Thatcher story), which was initiated by her, and is interactive and personal. She feels she has to explain, if failing to persuade. Possibly by feeling the case is defensible. This one is not. Hence I note it is simply a brush off saying I have no easy way to respond and daring me to invest the effort secure in the knowledge of what will transpire: nothing. This is typical BBC, and unacceptable.
Neither is getting the run-around from officialdom bent on maintaining the status quo and the system as they wish to keep it, especially with vast, and vastly expensive complaint systems designed not to address issues but to conceal and/or cover up.
As a compelled licence fee payer for a broadcasting service that is not accurate, professional or honest, and indeed in cases detrimental to the interests of the Britain whose name the corporation bears, I expect better.
YOUR COMPLAINT:
Complaint Summary: Pure tribal opinion
Full Complaint: I am intrigued by the words of the BBC Economics Editor http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019ch5b/Newsnight_05_01_2012/?t=4m35 We’ll let the extra context of a ‘right wing’ government pass for now, but I would like an explanation of ‘a country that threw its toys out of the pram’. That is a view, certainly, but not one held by all, and an odd one for an impartial British broadcaster to use about the actions of a British Government and PM in handling its interests internationally. Please explain the thinking and ability to so express using the airwaves to 60M fellow Britons, some of whom may not agree with such analysis. Without context, ‘time was short’, ‘no space’ weasels, etc. For once.
———-
Please do not reply to this message. We aim to respond within 10 working days, depending on how long it takes to investigate your complaint.
All feedback we receive is appreciated as it helps to inform decisions in the future.
As time permits, I will also share the latest in my other exchanges with an actual human, determined to get me to concede that ‘they get it about right’, so far using misdirection and inaccuracy, hence less than successful.
I think we should complain to the BBC about the complaints process itself, and then kick the complaints upstairs to the Trust when they’re rejected…
Jeff
Entertaining.. I’ll say!
Educational… apparently not, and not longer has to be.
Informative… as to what drives the Charterbusting mission of our market-rating obsessed BBC ‘talents’… pretty much.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/294258/BBC-s-freak-sex-show-slammed
‘Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley and a member of the Commons Culture Select Committee, said: “If people have a problem with it they can switch their TV off.”’
Yet still have to pay for it, bozo. Luckily, every few years we still get a vote. If your party feels Aunty is immune then reap what you sow.
Gawd! Is that the best he can do? Can he really be that thick?
I have been watching some of the coverage of the Luis Suarez case. If calling a black person a Negro is racist is calling a white person Caucasian also racist?
Ah well you see Ron it’s all about ‘context’…unless you are Jeremy Clarkson and in which case context isn’t important.
TheMediaTweets The Media Blog BBC ‘Big Question’ is debating whether Thatcher was good for Britain, and only marginally less ridiculous, will the world end in 2012
Post Liverpoool ‘edit’, what could possibly go wr… according to narrative?
NIGERIA.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) continues to wrongly propagandise that Islamic Boko Haram’s mass murders of Christians is ‘sectarian’, refusing the correct description of ‘Islamic jihad’.
And INBBC censors out the Islamic imperial violent jihad conquest of northern parts of Nigeria over centuries.
I wonder what the reason for this story is, I mean when was the last time you saw any bBC news story tell you what time the train leaves the station:
Sellafield nuclear workers get six-week train trial
The first trial run of a new train service for nuclear plant workers is due to begin in Carlisle. Direct Rail Services (DRS) will run the service for six weeks, with the train departing daily at 06:15 and arriving at Sellafield at 07:55 GMT. Three carriages will be reserved for Sellafield workers, but there will be room for other travellers.A spokesman for DRS said it was hoped the service, which begins on Monday, would become permanent.
The service will run down the west coast to Barrow. The return journey will depart Sellafield at 16:48 arriving back at Carlisle at 18:32 GMT.
Excellent pounce.
The BBC have already decided that they`d like some trouble there-and will no doubt be booking in with hotels that they came to know and love in the Derek Bird case a couple of years back.
Extremely dangerous when our monoploy supplier of truths decides that it wants to actaully create its news output as opposed to reporting on what is really happening.
I`d put this down as incitement to sabotage, treason in naval dockyards territory-and make an example of them for it.
What possible reason do they have for giving us these details-if not to fan up Greenpeace, CND and the usual suspects?…
I’m amazed that today so many people seem to be unaware that fatty Abbott sent her kid to a private school. Shows how the media like to cover things up for those they like.
Fat Polly and Hattie Hatemen seem to be getting an easy ride on this as well.
Watch a rerun of hignfy on Dave last night. It had rent a cock prickstock on it. At one point he accused Sky Tv of Lieing . He said it bold as brass. With no evidence no proof no reason no nothing. It comes to something when attacks of this sought are unpunished. Why attack sky? Have they been found to be faking documentaries like the beeb has?
I hate him
Scum
But most of all I hate the system that breeds little scrotes like him. The festering pile of leftist shit that is the beeb.
Israel: – Saudis hack credit cards, INBBC censors Saudi glee.
Whereas ‘Jihadwatch’ has this:
“It’s allowed when it concerns Jews”: Saudis thrilled over hacking of over 400,000 Israeli credit card accounts
INBBC has this censored version:
“Israel vows to retaliate after credit cards are hacked”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16456100
Think I might have the idea of this BBC thing.
Just heard an intelligent and thoughtful “More or Less”-when it keeps off “Climate Change”, it`s perfectly good.
Then a decent tribute to Ronald Searle-I avoided the ususl paean to anti racists etc.
And now its the mighty Russell Davies…then World Routes on Radio 3 and then-David Jacobs!
Looks like I`ll learn to love the BBC if I avoid most of its imput and go to the old oddballs and mathematical type things.
Could be a good week now!
On The Road With A Ballet Dancer on News 24…comedy gold
Any chance of a new open thread please?
Jeff