Here you go – it’s Friday and time for a new one of these!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Emmanuel Goldstein Nov 15, 18:13
Midweek 13th November 2024
Just think. Every boat stopped from arriving here means about 70 more houses available for the indigenous population. or Each… - tomo Nov 15, 18:08
Midweek 13th November 2024
Now that he’s “officially” off the BBC payroll – he can’t (won’t ) hide what an absolute crank / loon… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 17:29
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘No-one deserves to be shot’ (c) Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson “Mason Rist, 15, and Max Dixon, 16, were stabbed… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 17:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘No-one deserves to be shot’ – [img]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/23/1369313591037/This-suspect-in-the-killi-010.jpg?width=300&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=640495598e891cd33c541a473ff801c6[/img] - pugnazious Nov 15, 17:15
Midweek 13th November 2024
I thought the BBC had finally caught up with the news and noted the furore around Allison Pearson and NCHIs… - moggiemoo Nov 15, 17:12
Midweek 13th November 2024
I suspect no thcweaming is required, they’re thick enough already. - Zephir Nov 15, 17:04
Midweek 13th November 2024
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “Run away, run away” Cue the Benny Hill music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuVjhRT3ybs - Zephir Nov 15, 17:03
Midweek 13th November 2024
“Or I’ll thcweam and thwceam until I’m thick” Courtesy of Richmal Crompton.
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
Credit where due: closed at… 8
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16622109
Nearly there, comrades; nearly there.
Putting the broadcast (only) back in the BBC.
You have to laugh at the incompetence of the Tories, they continually fail to remind people via the BBC that Stephen Hester’s bonus is down to the contract HE got when appointed by Gordon Brown.
The fact only one Tory MSP is bothering to remind anyone of this is beyond me.
The BBC and Nu Liebore must be laughing their nuts off, why isn’t someone in the Tory party going back through all Brown’ memo’s to see what ‘safeguards’ were put in place regarding pay and bonus for Hester?
How can Ed Miliband point out that WE own 80% of RBS because of the failure of the last Governments policies and the FSA?
Because the Tories and Labour are the same party. There is nothing that differentiates the main political parties today. Pro-EU. Yes both are. Pro-unions. Yes both are. Pro-BBC. Yes both are.
Lovely little cosy-in between Steve Howlett and the Today monkey just before the 8am news.
Patten and Thompson are Oxbridge types so would rather be left alone to arrange the transition between Thompson and the “new man”-whoever he may be.
No mention of the stitch-up, the lack of redbrick talent, the appallling salaries on offer(but worth every penny according to Howlett)…it`s just about to go on the nod, and the fearless Montague and Howlett are happy enough(must be due to the fact that they are both BBC hacks for hire).
Terrible about Stephen Hester though-not worth it, unaccountable and …well, everything that the BBC clearly is not…ermmm..
Yes, I was going to make a very similar point. At one point Hewlett casually remarked that Thompson had not wanted to disclose what BBC executives were paid “for understandable reasons”. And the next half-hour of the programe was then spent asking why Hester was paid so much. Not so “understandable” apparently.
“The BBC’s next director-general should be a Tory”
By Toby Young
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100133027/the-bbcs-next-director-general-should-be-a-tory/
Lord Starkey of Hampton Court?
No, the next director-general should be an asset stripper.
I’ll do it. For free.
I’d point that out to the Beeb, but they accused me of discourtesy the last time I gave them a link to a Toby Young article and basically said ‘I agree with everything in this article’!
Jeff
Toby Young…
‘The Labour Party will always want to renew the BBC’s charter and ensure it retains its dominance across all media because it believes that the BBC will always be more pro-Labour than pro-Conservative (albeit unconsciously). The BBC doesn’t have to persuade the Labour Party to be nice to it – that’s a given. The work to be done is in buttering up the Tories.’
‘So I urge the BBC to make sure its next director-general is right-of-centre, albeit in a reserved, under-stated sort of way. Someone that Conservative Cabinet ministers trust not to leg them over during the next general election campaign. Someone much like Chris Patten, in fact. Because if the Beeb replaces Thompson with a Leftie, I’m not sure it will survive in its present form.’
So, for those reasons, I say make the next DG a leftie!
Since when was Pattten not a lefty? I’m afraid Toby is seriously deluded here. AFAIAC having a CINO running the BBC is just as useless – in the pursuit of impartiality – as having a traditional Guardianista. The solution to the BBC is not adjusting the political bias of the BBC from Islington left to Notting Hill left: it’s to stop the compulsory taxpayer funding of the BBC. Once that’s done the BBC can appoint who it likes.
The role of the BBC journalists’ favourite newspaper in bringing Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice.
Oh, my. I can only imagine the angst that this story must have caused its writer and several thousand BBC hacks.
#HateDailyMail indeed. đŸ™‚
And Beeboids won’t have liked writing this:
“Mail Online overtakes NY Times as top online newspaper”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16743645
“Mail Online overtakes NY Times as top online newspaper”
Oh my word. It’s the end of civilisation as we know it.
I have a confession to make: I read the Mail’s showbiz stories which can be found in the sidebar on most of its pages. I don’t have any interest in (or, for the most part, knowledge of) the people they feature but for some reason I derive a sort of appalled pleasure from seeing the levels to which wannabe slebs will stoop in order to get tabloid attention.
“TOWIE star Angie Smeg and Jordan’s ex-lover Kevin Spunk in boozie nightclub clinch shocker! Has Angie finally dumped Ashley and is Simon Cowell finished????????”
Actually you get this stuff on Radio 5, Richard Bacon covers this crap every day and it also gets covered on Radio 5 the evenings, weekends etc.
I have a feeling the BBC are trying to model Radio 5 on the DM’s website, even though the politics are poles apart.
Hmm… I noticed that on Toady this AM at every mention of the weather forecast there were smug sideswipes at the printed press being alarmist over the impending/not impending cold snap.
A cynic may think that the Beeb are getting rattled…
“Mail Online overtakes NY Times as top online newspaper”
This really doesn’t surprise me. As I go through my regular trawl of favoured blogs, I can’t help noticing the number of blog posts that feature links to Daily Mail stories, and many more that are inspired by the stories themselves. OK – so almost all of the blogs I visit are right-of-centre (lefty blogs are so humourless and po-faced), but even the Canadian/US blogs seem to refer regularly to The Mail. With such a wide influence, it’s no wonder that lefties display their frustration and hate of it so often.
A rare moment of sanity on the News Channel right now, with Tim Willcox not allowing some Occupier to claim that it’s unjustified for the RBS boss to get paid a high salary. Willcox point out that the board and the Government agreed that the RBS boss should get paid the big sum if he guided the bank to meet specific targets, which he has done. So he legally earned his salary. The Occupier wouldn’t have it, because he really believs that nobody should earn a high salary, full stop, the end. So the whole argument about whether or not it’s justified to pay the boss of a bank owned by the taxpayer is a charade.
Every other News Channel Beeboid when confronted with this argument just sits there nodding their head and Mmming in agreement.
“The Occupier wouldn’t have it, because he really believs that nobody should earn a high salary…”
Fine. So why doesn’t he go and “occupy” a nice spot outside a premiere league football club, pop venue, or the BBC?
I wonder how many occupy scum by drugs from well paid dealers?
Barry, those people are the nomenklatura. They’re allowed to have privileged lifestyles.
Sorry, forgot that.
Damn.
The people who manage the money for the Occupists (in the US as well as in London) have gone walkabout. Typical corrupt lefties, increasing the gulf between rich and poor, just like Labour. And unaccountable too – as at the BBC, these oligarchs live high on ther hog whilst the oiks suffer drastic cuts. End this bonus culture now.
Difficult to tell whats what with bBC interviewers. It is normal practice in counselling to nod along – “neutral affirmation”, as in I hear what you are saying (not I agree with what you are saying”) Keeps the punter delivering. Then you turn the conversation round. However with the bBC you would be forgiven for getting the impression they do actually agree with what the utopian communists from Occupy are saying. Yah, its sooo unfair, these bankers bonuses, instead of “WTF’s it got to do with you what anyone earns?
The problem isn’t with the top of the BBC it’s infested all the way through with lefties.
I suspect that lefties tend to gravitate towards certain industries, the media, the arts but you don’t get many lefties wanting to fight for their country ( a lot like to betray it mind) or work in private business.
Toby Young is wrong and he is the problem, the BBC needs to be sold off and the TV tax abolished. If the BBC were forced to face up to the reality of the world of competition it might become less of a kack filled dump hole for Guardian readers, rent boy molters and Cocaine addicts.
From Watts Up With That:
Legal exemplars cited in Michael Mann’s UVA email case
On Tuesday the American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center sent the University of Virginia and Michael Mann copies of 40 emails selected as examples of the 27 categories identified as benefitting from the Court’s review of UVA and Mann’s claims that emails in the taxpayer-funded school’s possession are properly subject to the specific exemptions under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA). These categories range from discussions of professional retaliation against other scientists who challenged Mann’s work, to those sent to or from Mann from or copying an email account covered by other FOI laws, such as the federal Freedom of Information Act.
It seems that Richard Black’s friend has been a very naughty boy.
For example, in the fifteenth Petitioners’ Exemplar (PE-15), Mann encourages a boycott of one climate journal and a direct appeal to his friends on the editorial board to have one of the journal’s editors fired for accepting papers that were carefully peer-reviewed and recommended for publication on the basis that the papers dispute Mann’s own work.
And then there’s this:
PE-18, 20 & 27 illustrate the typical fashion with which Mann used a UVa email account to accuse co-authors and other respected scientists of incompetence, berating them in emails copied to colleagues living throughout the world. UVA claims this is somehow exempt from VFOIA as scientific research.
Remember, the BBC position is that there’s nothing to see here, move along. Worst of all:
In PE-22, Mann alludes to his “dirty laundry” which cannot come out, requesting his correspondent to not pass the email or the data attached to it to anyone else (UVa has claimed no attachments to any emails were preserved on their system). In this email, Mann admits he has failed to follow the most basic tenet of science, to keep a record of exactly what he did in his research, and thus himself could not reproduce his own results.
This is the “science” on which the BBC bases its official position, and which inspires Black to demand government restrictions on the personal behavior of citizens.
HAITI.
A FOREIGN AID story which BBC-NUJ would want to censor:
“Haiti and the shaming of the aid zealots: How donated billions have INCREASED poverty and corruption”
(by Ian Birrell).
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092425/Haiti-earthquake-How-donated-billions-INCREASED-poverty-corruption.html#ixzz1kfukhu6x
US President editor Mark Mardell lays out the full defense for the President’s plan to reduce military spending. It’s not a report, not anlaysis: it’s a list of talking points explaining not only how the President is right, but how opponents of His plan are wrong. It’s an editorial piece, nothing to do with journalism.
I do appreciate, though, how Mardell refrains from complaining about how the President has done way more targeted assassinations with drones than His predecessor.
I love this bit in turd eater Mardell’s piece.
“…Drone attacks on America’s enemies have shot up since Mr Obama has been in the White House…”
So no wedding parties or innocent children then Mardell? Must have just been that evil bastard ‘Boosh’ who did all that then.
To me THAT one sentence proves Mardell’s bias.
Does Mrs Mardell realise that her husband is in love with a dusky handsome man from Hawaii? Probably not: Mark’s been so very discreet about his infatuation, so far.
I thought he was Indonesian…
I thought he was Lewis Hamilton in between race circuits.
Waterboarding is evil torture and deserving of scorn, but blowing people up outside the battlefield, anywhere, any time, is a doddle.
The BBC really need to get their news agenda sorted in relation to defence. When there are defence cuts in the USA they are entirely justified, but here in the UK any cuts to defence are a cue to criticise the current government as wreckless.
…oh..wait…the US President is one of the good guys – the UK coalition is headed by a ‘nasty Tory’. They do have it straight after all.
The BBC continues its dishonest reporting about Romney’s tax payments. In this summary of the President’s State of the Union speech, the anonymous sub-editor sticks this line in while reporting about the President’s class war attack sparked by Warren Buffett’s secretary BS:
The forms revealed the private equity tycoon earned nearly $22m in 2010 and paid an effective tax rate of about 14%, a lower rate than most other Americans pay.
Once again the BBC fails to inform you that this is due to the laws about capital gains taxes and is not the same thing as paying low taxes on $22million in salary/wage income. Most other Americans don’t have vastly more capital gains income than regular wage income, so can’t possibly pay this average rate. It’s a dishonest statement, and the BBC pushes it every single time.
Which, by the way, is exactly what Warren Buffett does, and is the same lie the President pushed in His speech. And the BBC laps it up and misinforms you so you believe it as well. This is what happens when we have a President who wants to spread that wealth around.
‘Once again the BBC fails to inform you’
I just note them now.
Yet another Green boondoggle goes bankrupt, throwing another $118 million down the toilet. News of this is censored by the BBC. You don’t need to know anything that makes Him look bad.
The President said in His SoU speech that He won’t bail the banks out again, and the BBC lapped it up. Yet the banks paid it all back, with interest (which the BBC never tells you), while we’ll never see a dime back from the $6 billion or so He’s thrown down the Green energy toilet. Of course, the BBC censors most news about that as well. Wealth redistribution and using Government to force an industry into existence without checking reality first is tricky business.
‘News of this is censored by the BBC. ‘
And,,, repetez.
I bet they haven’t reported about the absolute waste that has resulted from the last Green Scheme.
Outrage at RBS boss’s bonus dealWhy is this the main headline on the BBC news website?
Couple of points:
A. Why is some people’s outrage a major news story? People are outraged about all sorts of things every day! We are outraged by BBC bias, but that doesn’t make their lead headline!
B. Stephen Hester did not, in any way, contribute to the financial crisis. When he became RBS’s chief executive, he was offered a performance-related bonus. What’s the big deal about someone being paid the money that’s contractually due to them?!? If the government thinks Mr Hester is overpaid, they can sack him and replace him with someone less expensive (ie someone who the other banks don’t want to pay big bucks to because they don’t think he’s worth it). It’s like in football – you gets what you pays for, and you’re not going to get a Lionel Messi for Championship wages…
Jeff
The problem with Hesters bonus is that it was originally tied to the share prince reaching 50p a share. That was the criteria for the bonus to be triggered. However, if it was me writing up his contract, I would have made it conditional on the share price STAYING above 50p a share for an entire year!
Secondly, hester was asked to take the role on and is paid rather handsomly a million pounds a year to do the job. I never heard back about my application đŸ™‚
The real problem is the people who write these contracts in the first place. They should have just upped his base pay and made it public the role woudltn receive a bonus. That would cut off any criticism at the pass!
Third, he should have set an example for his staff and said that he wouldnt take a bonus on principle.
Seems to me that Hester is no better than the previous clown who created this mess in the first place (Shred not Gordo! đŸ™‚ ).
Regards
Mailman
Elser started his shift at the News Channel desk by saying that Osborne “blamed the previous Labour Government” for Hester’s bonus. It’s fact, yet, the BBC presents it as Tory opinion.
Maliman –
I don’t think you can blame Mr Hester for taking his bonus. He’s contractually entitled to it, and had he not taken the RBS job, he might well have earned even more than that elsewhere. And let’s face it – how many of us would turn down a million quid in his position? đŸ™‚
RBS might be owned mainly by the taxpayer, but it’s still a commercial organisation, and needs to attract and retain quality talent to be competitive. And I hope it continues to be run like a business, with bonuses for people who bring in profit, and not operated like the nationalised companies that Mrs Thatcher had to privatise…
Jeff
‘It’s fact, yet, the BBC presents it as Tory opinion.’
Kind of noting a trend here.
When he became RBS’s chief executive, he was offered a performance-related bonus. What’s the big deal about someone being paid the money that’s contractually due to them?!?
Yeah you’d think the BBC of all people would understand that one. This from 10 days ago:-
BBC executives handed £275,000 bonuses despite ban
Outrage at RBS boss’s bonus dealWhy is this the main headline on the BBC news website?
Couple of points:
A. Why is some people’s outrage a major news story? People are outraged about all sorts of things every day! We are outraged by BBC bias, but that doesn’t make their lead headline!
B. Stephen Hester did not, in any way, contribute to the financial crisis. When he became RBS’s chief executive, he was offered a performance-related bonus. What’s the big deal about someone being paid the money that’s contractually due to them?!? If the government thinks Mr Hester is overpaid, they can sack him and replace him with someone less expensive (ie someone who the other banks don’t want to pay big bucks to because they don’t think he’s worth it). It’s like in football – you gets what you pays for, and you’re not going to get a Lionel Messi for Championship wages…
Jeff
Guess what…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/01/friday_27_january_2012.html
‘Tonight, our Economics editor Paul Mason investigates how the bonus was approved, and why.’
Guess whose BFF was on Newsnight yesterday, and Daily Politics today (about this very subject)? Clue: in the red corner, we have…
Must be nice to have chums in high, nepotistic, shared-value places.
‘Outrage at RBS boss’s bonus deal‘
If the BBC manaufactures one thing, ad nauseum, it is outrages di jur, if down a rather narrow spread of topics, and folk on various sides of same.
Ian Fraser, (co-producer or something of a BBC 2 show about RBS) just mentioned that Hester’s contract was approved by Gordon Brown as compensation for taking over the “poisoned chalice”. He also said that the contract was negotiated again and is totally legal.
Willcox said that Hester is a very wealthy man, and asked Fraser if Hester thought he deserved the cash bonus. Fraser says it seems fair compensation for doing a good job with a bad hand, very different from all the other talking heads the BBC has had on.
Will the BBC now be regularly pointing out that Gordon Brown set this contract up?
See my post below David.
The BBC are having to back down, on the 6PM news High Pym had to admit that the Tories are RIGHT and that Hester’s terms and conditions were set by Labour.
“but the board have to approve it” says Pym. Yes and Cameron told the board to cut his bonus, personally they should have cut it more, but at the end of the day we want this failing Scottish bank off our hands.
So after hearing retard Miliband spouting on about it being the fault of the Tories the BBC admit actually it’s Liebore’s fault.
Yet another turn dropped by Gordon Brown and co the Tories are clearing up.
The BBC tried to sweep that under the rug as long as they could, until reality forced their hand.
‘The BBC are having to back down, … had to admit that the Tories are RIGHT ‘
I feel just awful raising this, but isn’t a £4Bpa most trusted best news in the world evva outfit kinda, like, meant to find out the facts before rushing to act as a single tribal ideological traveller’s PR agency?
With our money.
PM on R4 just ran an item about Loverboys in the Netherlands. You have to listen to it; it’s a masterclass in obfuscation and denial.
These Loverboys are not all Muslims, people; got it?
And it’s not proper grooming anyway, because the vulnerable young girls are consenting (Incredible, but this was actually asserted).
And there is defintely no connection whatsoever with Muslim men gang-raping schoolgirls in the UK under exactly the same circumstances. If there was it would have been mentioned, surely?
Truly beyond belief.
My dad always watches the BBC 10o’clock news, despite always voting Conservative and having been told by me the BBC has an incredible left wing bias, and having been reminded that he could instead watch itv News at Ten.
Anyways, whilst over at my parents house last night my dad decided to put the BBC 6o’clock news on, cue protest from me. This was followed my dad saying ‘funny you should say that…’ The story that followed was that the other night he accidently watched itv News at Ten without at the time realising it wasn’t BBC news. He said the main news story was the commons vote (I assume he meant the benefits vote) and he was shocked at how much common sense they were talking and even more shocked by the fact that they weren’t continually ridiculing the government. He says he thought it was totally out of character. It was not until the end of the programme that he realised it was actually itv news he was watching and not bbc.
When the BBC bring you drama from dark & dank Denmark they are bringing culture to the licence fee payer, but when ITV go to the same source….? “ITV3 is attempting to cash in with the acquisition of Those Who Kill” according to the BBC’s Radio Times
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-01-27/is-it-the-killing–is-it-borgen-no,-it%27s-those-who-kill
Just caught a bit on Fox regarding the Muslim accused of murdering 4 women in Canada. Brings back the old Honour killings bollocks the BBC likes to hide. And sure enough if you Google this twats name Mohammad Shafia on the BBC website you get no hits, although as the journalist interviewed b Megan Kelly pointed out everyone is happy to talk about the ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’ which of course gets lots of hits on the BBC news website.
I wonder if the BBC will report it when he goes down? I think we know the answer to that.
By the way Megan Kelly is 1000 time better at her job that is Emily Titless or rat face Wark on the BBC.
I bet they won’t report this either. Amazing that you find these things out on a Canadian blog! There are also some updates about the Shafia case you mention, Martin.
AN alarming number of under-age girls – some as young as nine – are being forced into marriage in Islington, according to a leading campaign group.
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-hell-9-year-olds-being-married-in.html
On The World Today on the World Service this morning a guy pretended to be interested in what Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak had to say about Iran. He asked him if he thought Israel had the right to attack Iran.
It’s generally an interesting exercise to ponder the probable subtext to a question from a “journalist” keen to push his agenda rather than actually find out what the interviewee thinks. Here, apparently, the subtext goes something like this:
What excuse do you warmongering Israelis have for attacking Iran?
Barak pointed out that the threat from Iran goes far beyond Israel. He also said he would be delighted if the Arab Spring spread to Iran and caused a green revolution there. But, as defence minister, he has to be realistic and assume that Iran is not intent on producing Barbie Dolls and Persian carpets but nuclear weapons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00n1j3d
Starts from 32 minutes in.
Which country is always threatening to wipe the other off the map again? I forget. Would the BBC ask Iran what right it has?
Proof of Ron Paul’s association with anti-Semites. Paul started the Campaign for Liberty after the 2008 Presidential election as a way of continuing and organizing his grassroots support. Here’s one of the charming fellows selling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the C4L website:
Free American Interviews an Avowed Zionist
Apparently C4L tried to send this down the memory hole after they were called out for it by a Jewish member of PJ Media. But, as we know, the internet doesn’t easily forget, and the above link has the screenshot.
While Mark Mardell waxes enthusiastically about the generally Left-wing elements of Paul’s anti-war and anti-corporate stances, and especially about the youth support, he will never, ever tell you about this kind of thing.
Scratch a Ron Paul supporter, and you will often find underneath somebody very, very concerned about the influence of the Jews on world affairs. But Paul will continue to get a pass in the mainstream media because of his anti-war and anti-corporate stance.
BBC Newsnight doing a cover up for the one eyed twat from Fife. So far Paul Mason has ignored the fact it was Brown who brought in Hester, then a piece was just done from some expert’ who tried to imply it was the current governments fault for not nationalising the whole RBS thing in one go and then sell it off in bits. Well just who was in power in 2008?
I did notice that when I posted about Hugh Pym admitting on the 6PM news that Liebore were responsible for Hester’s contract that it wasn’t Toenails, Peston, Two Ed’s or Mason admitting it.
I don’t know much about Pym but he’s certainly not one of the inner Liebore circle we saw during the Brown years.
Newsnight trying to say the current government is at fault for the mess over RBS ,but just who nationalised it? It’s like blaming the Carpathia for the mess over the Titanic.
‘like blaming the Carpathia for the mess over the Titanic.’
Well, she probably set off from America, so there’s a potential metaphor there too.
Did Mrs. Mason-Penny ever get around the the actual facts in his defence of the last PM and government?
…inform, educate and entertain….
Not sure that the BBC has informed me or educated me correctly about the Middle East.
Have to admit that the BBC news reports from Jeremy Bowen in his flak jacket having to report from the streets of downtown Damascus as Syria implodes are entertaining me.
And not an Israeli in sight.
Newsnight was an UTTER disgrace, old deformed jaw Essler allowed the fat Liebore bitch to spout all sorts of crap.
He never pinned her on the obvious question, if she objects to the bonus why did the one eyed queen allow it to be put in Hester’s contract in the first place?
They could have said that any bonus was at the discretion of the Government not the board, it wasn’t the Tories fault for that it was LIEBORE, you just knew Newsnight would come out swinging for their beloved son from Fife.
‘you just knew Newsnight would come out swinging for’
Certainly an interesting slant to adopt, and complement in interviewing. The other day Louise Mensch the other day said something that did not meet Jeremy Paxman’s demands for full context and total accuracy in all interview statements. So things screeched to a halt as she was corrected and reframed.
Oddly this level of interviewer oversight is not always present, especially when acoss the table from the sole representative of a viewpoint invited on to ‘comment’.
Is the consensus about Global Warming crumbling when the Wall Street Journal prints an OP Ed by 16 scientists with impressive sounding titles.
No Need to Panic About Global WarmingThere’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
I have some issues with Stephanie Hegarty’s What goes on in the mind of a sniper but greater issues with the BBC subeditor who came up with this link (printscreened below should it be removed or edited) Devil or Hero? The US sniper who killed 255 insurgents in Iraq
The job of a soldier in war, directly or indirectly, is to kill. Unless he is intentionally targeting protected persons, in which case he is a war criminal, the sniper is only very efficient at his job. The Devil question is simply uncalled for.
‘greater issues with the BBC subeditor’
The only requirement is that whatever is written ‘will fit’ (space and narrative).
Accurate reflection of the story, or reality… not so much.
I thought the Beeboid Corporation had contempt for religious people who believe in devils. So why the religious language here? What was wrong with the more common usage of hero or villain?
How low can the BBC go. Apparently it was a mistake.
BBC News gaffe as paedophile picture is used during report on RBS boss Stephen Hester
Now I don’t remember the BBC using a picture of Sidney Cook, Jonathon King or Chris Dennings when they gave their managers bonuses.
BBC flouts its bonus ban with payouts of £275,000 to four top managers
But wait they never covered this story at all.
Well to address the BBC’s mistake:
BBC Managers Get Massive Bonus
‘don’t remember the BBC using a picture of Sidney Cook, Jonathon King or Chris Dennings when they gave their managers bonuses.’
You have to wanna be in the Beeb gang, Beeb gang, Beeb gang.. oh yeah.
Now another Bias of the BBC is those wicked American fundamentalist Christians. However they failed to report this fundamentalist who took some shots at the Pentagon?
They would never show this on the BBC either….it would wreck the narrative.
The unelected political left media (Guardian led) decides on BBC Director General Mark THOMPSON’s legacy, and lobby for a clone as his successor.
‘Guardian’:
“Mark Thompson: a mixed BBC legacy?
Fellow executives and union foes run the rule over the DG’s tenure, from the licence fee deal to rows over executive pay.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/27/mark-thompson-bbc-legacy
The politically cloned Thompson successor will continue the advocacy of mass immigration, special favourable treatment for Islam, E.U, Labour, greenies and Obama, while continuing special condemnation of Israel, and of Tories.
The UK government is witless, and will do nothing to stop BBC political bias.
Not sure he has so far garnered much support for his legacy from the CiF crowd.
This resonated…
‘“If you’re really that unhappy… then leave – no-one is forcing you to stay.”
Not applicable to those compelled to fund he and his colleagues’ salaries, of course. But that is what makes the BBC so unique.
Ref my post of yesterday; “This isn’t grooming in the traditional sense, these girls choose to enter the relationships.”
Here from 40:55:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01b1nkp/PM_27_01_2012/
Reminds me of all those stupid OAPs who agree to be conned by inviting confidence tricksters into their homes.
“This isn’t grooming in the traditional sense, these girls choose to enter the relationships.”
As precedents go in terms of outrage du jour ‘news’ ‘reporting’, that is an interesting spin. One guesses it is rather determined by whether the abuse is BBC acceptable or not, or the perpertrators BBC supported, or not.
The BBC – not journalism in the traditional sense
I listened to the first few minutes of News Quiz on R4 last night before turning off in disgust.
How does the BBC get away with broadcasting this crap without making clear warnings that the programme is a mouthpiece for halfwit left wing so-called comedians headed by the seriously unfunny Jeremy Hardy.
I know they are now required to include a “right-wing” panel member, but Toskvig coupled with Hardy dominate so much that no-on else can seem to get a word in.
I was literally speechless. It is a total disgrace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01b1nkr
Uh huh. I find The News Quiz a little trying, to say the least.
By contrast, I am very fond of The Now Show (sans the absurd Brigstocke) because it is very well-observed, smartly-written satire rather than five people laughing at one another’s jokes.
And, of course, TNS has the added benefit of not having Sandi Toksvig on it.
How does the BBC get away with broadcasting this crap
I believe it is all explained by a unique interpretation, in mnay quarters, of the word ‘unique’. That, plus a £4Bpa guaranteed budget and the ability to divert what is required, when required, without accountability, to defending all that transpires, up to and including exemption form such as the FoI act when it suits.
And the best part is, using the public’s money to prevent them from finding out what is done with it.
Though the lure of a possible scmooze on Newsnight may also seduce politicians of lesser brain to still trot out the ‘national treasure’ line, even as free speech, democracy and their careers are shredded by the guys that invite them on and edit them out.
Concur completely Barry!
Am listening to it now…and whether its Jeremy Kyle or Jeremies Hardy, Paxman or Vine…they`re all the same!
Highly paid media whores who have every required opinion for the likes of Dez…and so we mugs can keep a-coughing up!
That we pay for this end of the pier-perpetual Rag Week/Gang Show for ageing undergraduates on their eternal gap year is disgraceful…beyond parody…and -as is essential-just not funny!
Steel, Hardy?…history won`t be kind to us, paying for these kindertransport flautists!
By Jove, its the left-wing Pod-people all over again, the entire organisation is being taken over by Jeremeys.
Katty Kay is displaying her usual complete disregard for impartiality again:
KattyKayBBC Katty Kay Heading to Brussels and euro summit #455…a quick break from GOP politics to see what’s really happening in the world. 26 Jan
KattyKayBBC Katty Kay Note to GOP candidates, evidence from Europe right now suggests radical austerity (see UK) doesn’t work in this economy. 26 Jan
So, the GOP candidates don’t live in the real world and the UK government’s economic policy doesn’t work. Partisan opinions about both US and UK politics! That’s some going, even for Katty Kay.
Note to St Barack of Obama, evidence from Europe right now proves beyond doubt that profligate governmental spending doesn’t work in any economy.
I’m sorry to re-visit this, Craig, but I’ve just read those tweets. They are nakedly partisan. That woman is an absolute disgrace.
and why is she being paid by the BC to go from the US to Brussels ? Is the BBC short of reporters covering the EU ?
Why doesn’t she just get some input from leftie-buddy Mason ?
Note to Katty Kay: Nobody’s doing “radical austerity”. Unless by “radical” you mean a policy to the right of Gramsci. What hasn’t been working in this economy is your ideology.
That particular tweet is one of the most vacuous statements I’ve ever read.
AKA, complete and utter bollocks.
This is an admission of ignorance, but I didn’t know that the BBC actually broadcast in the USA. Prepare to feel ill, folks (although I do sense an element of irony in the byline):
Katty Kay: The BBC’s Glamorous Voice of Impartiality
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9041970/US-Election-2012-The-Brits-dominating-US-politics.html
I know we are watched in the White House because I had a conversation with the press secretary there the other day who said he has us on all day.”
Yeah, no sh!t, Katty, because that press secretary is only your personal friend and husband of your business partner.
She also didn’t mention that BBC World News America was launched as a full hour program with much fanfare, but did so poorly that it was cut down to half an hour and dumped from BBC America entirely. It’s now shown on local PBS stations only, which is partly why their audience is mostly Left Coast and NYC and DC, and not “the middle”.
Matt Frei was unhappy with the way things were going and jumped ship last year. Katty is highly biased, and is openly partisan when she’s on the Left-wing MSNBC, and especially when she guest hosts on a Left-wing NPR show.
Is this the same Katty Kay whose ex-BBC hack husband, Tom Carver, helps run “Comtrol Risks”- a company which protects rich western carpetbaggers by shooting Arabs?
He played up Saddam’s treatment of the Kurds very nicely when he was with the beeb. Not only did this help justify the Iraq invasion, but Control Risks profitted enormously from the subsequent occupation – and from the BBC-backed Islamic Spring, too.
Fancy Katty Kay benefitting financially through her husband’s mercenary activities!
‘She also didn’t mention’
For BBC ‘reporting’, this is fast becoming SOP.
The German Plan: Extraordinary proposal for EU to take control of the Greek budget in return for more bail-out cash
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093028/Extraordinary-demand-EU-control-Greece-Germany-says-Athens-surrender-financial-freedom-receive-new-bail-out.html#ixzz1klSFANuA
Why is the BBC not covering the violation of Greek democracy by the EU?!?
Jeff
The BBC posted up an extract from Question Time.
They chose it, I suppose, because they believe it to be worth highlighting over the Internet for the World to see.
You decide what the byline for this was.
Either,
A. ‘A nuclear Iran would mean the threat of terror in our cities’ says Melanie Philips.
or,
B. Let ‘Iraq lessons’ inform UK on Iran – Mark Steel
Go on, guess!.
Answer at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/9687968.stm
‘The BBC posted up an extract from Question Time’
Control the edit, control the message.
Control the message, control the perception.
Control the perception, control the public view.
Control public view, control policy.
Control policy and you are in control.
Not bad for a few folk in a windowless room, who no one knows, voted for or have the remotest chance of holding to account, much less denying revenue.
Not much incentive to do anything different, then.
Truly wicked in the true sense of that word!
When I saw that bit on the show, it summed up all that is wrong-evil even-in this country.
To have a leftie popinjay like Surbitons Stalin DARE to tell the writer of “The World Turned upside Down” that she really knew nothing about any of this Middle east stuff was as bad as that idiot kid asking Peter Hitchens if he had ever travelled to the places he spoke about like Somalia and the USSR(he had!).
Creatures of the Entitlement like Steel are just the useful ciphers of cliche and cobblers that the BBC have long dreamed of-and are now mushrooming all over the media with Rag Week T-shirts from one of “Blairs Uni`s”.
Tomorrow does belong to Steel and the likes-that he knows nothing except what he tried to read through a PLO banner on his SWP marches way back-is indeed a virtue in Beebland.
True intellectual canaries like Phillips and Hitchens are feared and hated, having grown up with the likes that run the BBC…and can see where we`re all heading if Steel somehow gets parity.
They`ll not need to fight for it….because they`re worth it!
I note that Mark Steel was born in 1960.
He saw the Khomeini Revolution of 1978/79 at the age of nearly 20. He his entire adult life matches the twists and turns of the Green Revolution, and yet…..
He is now 51 years of age.
What did Shakespeare have the jester say of Lear’s unreal (and dangerous) opinions.?
‘Grey hairs ill become the fool’
I think, Steel, at his age, should think on those words..and reflect.
RGH,
“He saw the Khomeini Revolution of 1978/79…”
Hmm, and what happened in Iran before 1978 I wonder? Here, let me help you out:
http://bit.ly/Au3FPi
So Dez, because of the Treaty of Versailles which “humiliated” the Germans after WW1 and imposed reparations, the rise of Hitler was the consequence of British/French/US and Italian insistence on War Guilt Clauses and giving most of Pomerania to Poland and the Sudeten to the new Czech state.
As Noel Coward ironicallyput it, ‘Don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans’.
So the victors of the ghastly WW! were the reason the Germans turned to Hitler with 44% democratically voting for his National Socialists in late 1932.
That was the revisionist argument; however ‘nice’ the revisionists thought themselves to be, Hitler both ‘agreed’ and exploited this revisionism.
Perhaps Hitler had a point.
Foreigners and Wall Street conspiring to keep a people in a state of subservience.
That’s why the Iranians in WW2 sympathised with Hitler…Iranian/Aryan.
Whatever the legality of the Mossadegh incidents, history is not judgemental..unless it is being used for polemic and then is no longer a tool to understanding the present perils.
cjhartnet,
“To have a leftie popinjay like Surbitons Stalin DARE to tell the writer of ‘The World Turned upside Down’ that she really knew nothing about any of this Middle east stuff..”
Okay, ignore the fact that Mel said; “bombing Iran is the most appalling prospect because it will possibly unleash terror…”; without even a cursory mention of the fact that hundreds if not thousands of Iranians would be killed.
She also said that Iran was; ‘boasting’ about developing nuclear weapons.
That is a lie.
She also said that; “The IAEA and virtually every western government believes that Iran is racing to develop a nuclear weapon.”
That is also a lie. The IAEA have said no such thing.
But how DARE anyone be given airtime on the BBC to say anything she doesn’t agree with! She’s written a book! She used to write for “The Spectator” before being sacked for telling lies!
Mark Steel said out load that the WMD’s we were told about in Iraq didn’t actually exist! Truly wicked! What a bastard!
wonder where Dezdemona is getting her info?
oh yes…..maybe it was from one of those nazi websites she posted the links to on a thread here last year
Mark Steel
What a bastard!
she gets something right at last
“Okay, ignore the fact that Mel said; “bombing Iran is the most appalling prospect because it will possibly unleash terror…”; without even a cursory mention of the fact that hundreds if not thousands of Iranians would be killed”
Sounds like your one of these, “don t war with islam/war you could never win” oddbods …
idiots like armi & co, are sailing too close to the wind, scez
his martyr poems, armaggedon mahdi wish woukd cause 1000s
of Iranians to die, and HE wouldn t even bat an eyelid.
Anyway, Israel will act (alone if neccessary), they truly realise the threat … sometimes i wonder where, your sops gonna leave you,
maybe you should write him a letter eh.
You know that Melanie Phillips is likely to know just a little bit more about Israel, Iran (and the Middle East in general) than a brilliantine Trot who would need viagra to raise a laugh, let alone anything else.
I did not mention the WMD bit, because-true thought it was-to equate Iraq last time with the IAEAs recent report on what Iran are currently up to; is truly stupid…but exactly what a sneering spineless Guardian-lite poseur like Steel WOULS say….isn`t it?
I don`t know if she told lies in the past or not…my clock is set in 2012 and not 2003, or even 1979.
Come and join us Dez…and at least, you`re not accusing me of only listenting to a bit of the show this time..so well done Sir!
IAEA report to the Security Council 18th November 2011
38. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible
military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.33 Since
2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed
nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the
development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new
information.
__________________________________________________________________________________
31 This was taken from Iran’s stockpile of imported UOC (GOV/2003/75, Annex I, para. 8).
32 GOV/2010/46, para. 26.
33 GOV/2011/29, para. 35; GOV/2011/7, Attachment; GOV/2010/10, paras 40–45; GOV/2009/55, paras 18–25; GOV/2008/38,
paras 14–21; GOV/2008/15, paras 14–25 and Annex; GOV/2008/4, paras 35–42.
GOV/2011/65
Page 8
39. The Board of Governors has called on Iran on a number of occasions to engage with the Agency on
the resolution of all outstanding issues in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to
Iran’s nuclear programme.34 In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations
to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82,
and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to
concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including by providing
access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency.35 Since
August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter.
Click to access gov2011-65.pdf
rent-a-cretin dez crashes and burns yet again
bit of a masochistic streak there…….
Perhaps, we are all wrong and should learn ‘lessons’ about WMD and Iraq, perhaps Mr. Steel would write a letter to this Saudi MP who is clearly delusional and suggests that the Arab states should go for nuclear weaponry the ‘deter’ Iran’s historical ‘dream’.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/108/0/3264.htm
Or perhaps, Mr Steel thinks this gentleman is just having a bit of a laugh…and we should take all that talk about thousands of Katyushas…which a few years ago were launched at Israel in the Cast Lead War.
That is a recent event….more recent that Gulf War ii.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/108/0/3218.htm
Then, perhaps, he will tell us what he thinks is going on.
Whythe BBC pulls him out of what they define as “comedy” and allows to patronise the nation with his nonsense says much about the BBC.
I took Mark Steel’s sarcastic little contribution to mean he thinks we should learn our lesson after ‘going to war on a lie’. He thinks that the deaths and the questionable outcome of the Iraq war should stop us making the same mistake with Iran. Perhaps he doubts that Iran is working on nuclear weapons solely because we were mistaken about the WMDs in Iraq, or maybe he thinks that Iran should get on with developing nuclear weapons ‘because Israel has them’, or because the Middle East is none of our business.
Perhaps he he believes Saddam should have been left to get on with being a tyrant, or perhaps he doesn’t regard Saddam as a tyrant. He points out that we propped up Mubarak and Gaddafi before encouraging the rebels in the Arab World to depose them. So which is it? Deposing despots at all costs, even if the alternative is worse, as seems to be our position at the moment? Is the prospect of fragmented Islamist parties and tribal rivals warring chaotically amongst themselves who murder people on the slightest whim preferable to Tyrants and Despots who murder people on the slightest whim?
Many Iraqis say the relative stability of Saddam’s regime was preferable. Now they’re on their own, who’s to say if the Iraq war was a mistake or a success? If the insurgents and the Islamists prevail over the fragile democracy we’re supposed to have established, what then?
If Mubarak’s peace treaty with Israel, his pragmatic relationship with the US and his iron-rod despotic regime kept a lid on Islamism in Egypt, who’s to say that the relative stability his regime presided over wasn’t the best of a bad deal. These rock and a hard place choices are difficult to call. Syria is a case in point. Jeremy Bowen gave a relatively balanced report this morning. He explained about the tribal and factional loyalties that support Assad. He thinks worse is to come. Shashank Joshi from RUSI, an expert on clans and factions, who knows how things work in Syria asked how can a fractured dispersed rebellion triumph? Shashank is pessimistic, but not about the general situation in Syria so much as the prospect of the rebels failing. “We” need to figure out a way to help them without international Jihadists taking advantage.
I can’t say I’m persuaded by our automatic support of the rebels. Each side is as bad as the other, and however racist that sounds they can’t be judged by Western standards. If one believes this life is but a prelude to the afterlife, one puts a different value on life and death. The one thing that stands out is people’s ignorance about this, and in particular the situation re Iran. They think the Iranian regime is rational. I read this fascinating article. Long but worth it. It sets out this terrible dilemma starkly.
Saddam may not have had a viable WMD arsenal as we now all know but he operated on the basis that he did. His possession of ‘terror’ weapons, or the belief that he had them, was used by Saddam to maintain his power within Iraq but also against his foreign enemies…Iran, of course but also the Gulf Monarchies.
He played poker and lost.
He could have used all the ‘channels’ to demonstate that he didn’t but chose not to.
Saddam needed people to believe he had WMD to maintain his power after 1991 and Desert Storm.
He always bluffed it up. And got ‘blown up by his own petard’.
That was his undoing.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is the eschatological expression of the Hidden Iman.
Why is this of more than passing interest?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/ahmadinejad_awaits_the_hidden.html
Which is exactly why Iran must not get nuclear weapons.
Judging Iranian words and actions by Western standards either from the right or the left will prove a fatal error.
Iran is as much a menace to Sunni regimes as to anyone else and an Iran with nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to a nuclear middle east and then to the inevitable war.
Took me ages to get the article, but worth it!
How come our MSM don`t give us this degree of analysis and cold clear logic?
Mossad would obviously trust a journalist who writes like this…so no wonder that the best of British analysis is left to Gramscian trusties like Bowen and Fisk-hence the appalling ignorance of the issues in this country!
Thank God for the Internet…but what the hell have we been reduced to when we get Mark Steel as a “commentator” on a so-called current affairs flagship like QT?
A fish rots from the head down…reckon the BBC has finrot by now.
Thanks for this post Sue
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) portrays Islamic jihad BOKO HARAM as victims!
In a long uncritical piece, the Nigerian murderous Islamic organisation is treated most empathetically. And the word ‘CHRISTIANS’ does not appear!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16761670
What INBBC censors about Boko Haram and its Islamic jihad murderous motivation to get Sharia law imposed on all Nigerians:
Boko Haram vows to fight until Nigeria establishes Sharia law: “You don’t put down your arms in Islam, you only put them aside”
[Excerpt]:
“The fundamental aim of jihad in all its forms is to impose Sharia, and that is why jihadists in supposedly ‘regional’ conflicts find common cause with others far removed from them, as the spokesman here claims support in Saudi Arabia. “
I only got a bit of this.
I certainly heard the words Al Shabab and Boko Haram, but then I was told that over 160 ” civilians” had been killed.
I`d certainly not be getting told that they just might be Christians…and if I didn`t know any background, I`d certainly not know that Islam was doing what it seems to do best…
In a radio report I heard this morning – the BBC idiot was effectively saying that as Nigeria has endemic corruption, Boko Harem are justified in their murderous actions. They were described as “Islamist militants”.
I don’t recall Derek Hatton and the Militant Tendency, for all their faults, going around killing their opponents in the Tory or Labour parties.
BK are Islamist terrorists, pure and simple. But as ever, the BBC runs scared from the T word.
Would they call someone who went round chopping BBC employees’ heads off “militants”? My guess is that they would – but only if the headchopper was wearing a burkha, after which they would commission an investigation into BBC islamophobia. If, on the other hand, the headchopper wasn’t wearing a burkha, terrorist/BNP supportet/Tory would be the epithet used, and the corporation would ask the police why they weren’t stop-and-searching more white working class scum, especially since the Norway killings, blah blah blah..
Unlike most Beeboids, Christopher Booker (‘Sunday Telegraph’) is not a supplicant to Obamessiah:
“How I woke up to the untruths of Barack Obama.The President’s State of the Union address was as weaselly as any politician’s could be.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9045657/How-I-woke-up-to-the-untruths-of-Barack-Obama.html
EGYPT.
Why does INBBC continue to censor Islamic persecution of Christians?
Is INBBC interested in the human rights of Christians?
Egypt: Over 3000 Muslims attack Copts over a rumor about a cell phone photo
Coptic Christianity was of course the main religion of Egypt for several hundred years from late Roman times – until the Muslim invasion
Indeed much of the Eastern coast of the Med was mainly Christian
Interesting point.
It’s amazing that the Coptic churches still survive and number 10%..the Muslim method of dhimmification, divide and rule has been at work there for nigh on 1400 years and is on-going.
To really understand how a desert warrior cult broke into an economically collapsed Roman/Greek world and how it established itself as an alien presence and a new ruling aristocracy cemented its rule is fascinating. Ethnically the Egyptians en masse are not ‘Arab’ but were ruled by Arab conquering dynasties comprising a few thousand swith a monopoly of armed power…which they used mercilessly if needed to make their point.
It is human nature to seek the quiet life and the incentives offered by conversion were great. The same happened in the Balkans. Some Slavs converted to Islam and gained advantage from the Turkish overlord…the stubborn population who refused the ‘blessings’ were left in a status limbo…kidnapped children (janissaries) etc.
The orthodox slavs see their moslem neighbours as ‘turncoats’ and ‘collaborators’ hence the virulent nature of the Jugoslav Civil War in Bosnia.
It is a fascinating story which shows how history is far from dusty chronicles.
Khat.
Heard of it but not really to impressed by all this stimulant drug stuff as it has never been a part of my life.
BBC hackette has written a breezy account..bit lonely planet…on the Khat phenomenon in the Horn of Africa region.
It bounces along nicely to a fascinating conclusion….why can’t aid be as efficiently delivered on time in sufficient quantities as the locals manage the ‘khat industry’.
Then it struck me.
The woman has seriously mixed up cause and effect.
She assumes that food shortages and drought encourage khat..and that aid (from the West, natch) should always be there.
Read this:
It is here that I see shades of what psychiatrists and others describe as the destructive side of khat, which they say can lead to serious mental health and other problems.
The next time I visited Awaday, it was daytime.
In this upside-down town, where people work through the night, there was hardly anyone on the streets.
All the doors were closed. Everybody was asleep.
There were a few goats trotting about, and a few dried khat leaves in the dust, the only reminder of the frenzied night-time activity.
I could not help thinking that khat is being grown in an area affected by drought and shortages of food.
It is being delivered fresh, with tremendous efficiency, to parts of Somalia affected by famine.
I suppose it is a matter of priorities, or, should I say, of money.
At the very least, perhaps the local authorities and the international aid agencies could learn something from the people of Awaday about how to deliver fresh supplies, perhaps of food and other essential items, to difficult and dangerous areas.”
Has it not crossed the Beeboids mind that the ‘khat at night, sleep all day’ is not a symptom of food shortages but a potent causative factor for the men to fry their brains of a night and sleep it of during the day when they could be digging irrigation ditches, storage ponds and farming sustainably to deal with the one constant of that region……that droughts, long droughta have been part and parcel of that region for centuries.
Or are they (and we) condemned to ‘Aid’ for ever and ever.
These people are human beings. They have a moral responsibility to their families. They can choose.
They are moral actors.
Or is khat and aid just too morally sapping for them to prove their worth.?
O:-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16756159
‘The Khat phenomenon’ is thriving in my little part of Greater Somalia, formerly a ward of a north London borough, but now beginning its descent into the Second World, & then, inexorably, into the Third. Such is the efficiency of the KDS, Khat Delivery System, to the local Somali ‘cafes’, that Queen’s Awards for Industry can only be weeks away. One Sunday morning last summer, on my way to a convenience store, I was privileged to witness a fist fight of staggering ferocity between 2 gangs of Somali ‘yoots’, all participants high as kites. It was 6.30am. After the dust had settled, I peered into the ‘cafe’ into which the victors had entered. Men of all ages were sprawled on gimcrack furniture, some on the floor, the smell of stale beer hung in the air. There didn’t seem much point in going in, & asking for a ‘Full English Breakfast’.
I walked away, safe in the knowledge that our political overlords were importing just the kind of ‘skilled immigrants’ that the old country so desperately requires.
Auntie’s at it again: pushing the gay agenda.
Throughout the day the BBC have been asserting that Archbishop Sentamu has said that David Cameron does not have the authority to allow gays to “marry”.
This is both a lie and a piece of propaganda.
It is a lie, because Sentamu merely stated that it is not within the gift of the state to redefine words in the English language.
It is a piece of propaganda, because it presupposes the redefinition of marriage in such a perverse way.
Amazing.
‘This is both a lie and a piece of propaganda.’
Maybe the ‘dleivering better value’ thing in action?
A real classic on Sky News, some dozy cow from the Guardian was on with Andrew Gilligan and they were talking about the BBC and Quentin Lett’s wanting to stand as a right wing DG.
Cow from the Guaridan claimed the BBC was RIGHT WING and that the Today programme was full of old right wingers. On what planet is the Guardian living?
There’s no one on the Today show who is a right winger, it’s pathetic it really is.
‘claimed the BBC was RIGHT WING’
Ah, but like all isms, ists, zis etc, becuase one person has that perception, in our new wordl order that means it must be the case.
Being from/about the BBC/Graun axis that trumps any other views that may counter this one.
So here we have a report that the BBC will never allow on air, our so called impartial BBC withholding news because it contradicts their corporate narrative? The consequences of their lies and deceptions may well cost lives, the degenerate BBC in action.
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) <img src=”http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/29/article-2093264-117F2046000005DC-486_87x84.jpg” alt=”A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age”/>
Gigures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
But Cassandra, you don’t realise that Global Cooling is caused by Global Warming. That’s why as a part of the government’s “Green Agenda” we must ensure everyone properly insulates their house against the cold so by warming everything up we are fighting against things getting “warmer”.
Yes, I don’t think they have thought their logic through.
‘BBC withholding news because it contradicts their corporate narrative?’
Myabe one needs to look more carefully at how the ‘getting’ bit of ‘getting it about right’ is actually arrived at?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/298669/Backlash-as-BBC-s-500m-media-city-fails-to-help-North
‘The BBC has also hired just 26 local people after it created 1,846 jobs at its new headquarters in Salford, it has emerged.’
Questions won’t be asked. Unique.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.com/2012/01/form-book-5.html
‘Helen’s candidacy is endorsed by former BBC2 Controller Jane Root in The Guardian‘
Guessing the issue of closed shop, reward for failure, old girl’s network shenanigans will not be a factor in this fight to earn hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds to write market rate stuff such as this, create a dead end complaints e-mail address, make no reply to legitimate questions, and get the kapos to close before the negative comments hit the double century:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/12/the_challenge_of_reporting.html
Helen, luv, you are perfect for the job.
So much for an open process then.
If it`s OUR BBC…how do we get the likes of Caroline Thomson, Mark Byford and Chris Patten, Sir Michael Lyons foisted upon us all.
I remember Patten speaking about his assumption up to the fifth floor-he called it a “confirmation” hearing.
How is the church allowing this to describe the shoo-in/stitch-up that shoehorned Fatty Tango ex MP of Bath into a role such as his?
A bunch of Dandy Highwaymen…and Coronation Chickens that either squauk atop the dunghill or preen in stately gardens in the hope that fellow trustees and quislings will insist that they become Michael Martins…what a landfill of the spirit we`ve created!
got this forwarded to my inbox the other day
can’t see lardarse Mardell “reporting” this!!
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOWBy Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
not only do I find this stuff about Obama interesting (and relevant to the next election of POTUS) but why the hell do I have to get knowledge of an inportant court case from a blog site rather than the publicly funded BBC?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/jan/26/1
‘This doesn’t just lead to boring programmes; it’s also poor journalism.’
Coincidentally, I cam across this ‘story’ just now..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-16754531
The default seems to be ‘mystery’, erring on UFOs.
Uh-huh. Maybe before rushing to broadcast/print the investigative activities of Mr. Hornby, maybe first get a person who might have a clue beyond ‘might’ or ‘could’ to advise?
Or… slap out this BS, and then move on, probably forgetting about it.
Spot on about science on the BBC.
Yes, there are some good points in that Guardian article:
“Newsnight Review is free to discuss weighty issues like “gender and children’s literature” or the merits of the Turner prize shortlist, while Professor Brian Cox is left telling us how far away the Sun is.”
“Witness Cox’s recent Night with the stars, in which Cox was allowed to explain aspects of quantum theory on condition that various comedians and celebrities were brought on to act dumb and reassure the audience that nobody really understands this stuff.”
And on John Humphrys interviewing a particle physicist on ‘Today’:
“Humphrys seemed almost proud of his own ignorance of the subject; it’s hard to imagine a presenter treating economics or the arts in a similar manner.”
Or Islam or gay marriage