Off for the weekend but I leave you with this…..a new open thread for those able to crack our comment system!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- vlad Nov 15, 07:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
The simple fact is Trump was stitched up and hobbled last time by the Swamp, the Deep State, the Blob,… - vlad Nov 15, 07:44
Midweek 13th November 2024
Clearly he’s barking mad. Tulsi a Russian spy? One of very few honest, straight down the line, patriotic politicians in… - JohnC Nov 15, 07:40
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ve noticed the BBC are researching all his appointments for any they can throw mud at – then showing these… - vlad Nov 15, 07:39
Midweek 13th November 2024
Whatever the Stasi are calling it, it sounds like woke thought-police abusing their power to intimidate and harass a conservative… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 07:34
Midweek 13th November 2024
BBC news The narrative is that president trump is selecting ‘bad people ‘ to cabinet posts . They try ‘surprise… - pugnazious Nov 15, 07:21
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘Today’s’ words of advice this morning… ‘The answer to growth lies across the Channel’ …but rest assured Labour has no… - tomo Nov 15, 07:02
Midweek 13th November 2024
Indeed it does… I’ve wondered how much shit for brains got paid off? He was clearly sanctioned and promoted by… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 06:11
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have left the UK for warmer climes for a while … BBC ‘ news propaganda ‘ They seem surprised that… - Zephir Nov 15, 06:04
Midweek 13th November 2024
First comment below this video on Youtube : “I think David lammy should be Arrested for calling Donald Trump nasty…
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
It’s 2220 Friday night. As I write Southern Israel has been pounded by over 40 missiles. I have just been emailed by friends in Ashkelon who have had to rush the baby down to their bomb shelter. I have just watched the BBC 10pm Bews headlins and found no mention of this barrage. I assume it only becomes news when the Israel responds. Absolutely shameful
It’s now 0737 Saturday morning. I’m up early and looking at the BBC News website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17319054
I’m hoping that the BBC have now had time to update their report. Dn’t hold your breath……
It states: “Israeli air strikes on Gaza have killed at least 10 Palestinians including a senior Palestinian militant leader. Zohair al-Qaisi, secretary general of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), was attacked because he was planning an attack, the Israelis said. Another militant was killed with him. The Islamist Hamas movement which runs Gaza said at least eight more died in later Israeli air strikes. The Israeli military said dozens of rockets were fired into Israel. A spokeswoman said the rocket attacks had injured at least four people, one seriously. Some of the rockets had been intercepted by Israel’s “Iron Dome” anti-missile system, she added.”
This is classic BBC. Allow me to comment…….
1. The headline on the main BBC World News page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/ says “Israeli strike kills top militant“. Looks like those nasty Israeli’s are killing militants again (not terrorists, but militants). Our first impression here therefore is that “the Israeli’s started it”. Buried at the foot of the article is some comment about how the PRC leader was involved in attacks in Eqypt
2. And now the final insult. “The Israeli military said dozens of rockets were fired into Israel”. As far as the BBC are concerned, we only have Israel’s word that “dozens of rockets were fired”. ie it is Israel’s word against Hamas. Surely, with the BBC’s vast network of journalists, someone could verify this and give us the facts, but no, they would rather get into the “he said, she said” approach.
As I mentioned in my first post, my friends in Ashkelon had to rush their baby grandson down to their bomb shelter during last night.
How typical that the BBC’s coverage scorns Israel’s word, ignores empiral facts ie over 50 missiles fired, gives Hamas moral equivalence, plays down Zohair al-Qaisi’s track-record, and dresses terrorists up as “Palestinians” yet again.
If the BBC were”asleep at the wheel” they have now been dozing for around 12 hours. Asleep or deliberate mis-reporting ?
Furthermore, the BBC makes it look like tit for tat with Israeli attacks. It’s not. Israel is taking defnsive action to protect over 1,000,000 of its citzens who live within range of these rockets – FACT. These rockets were fired at 2/hour into Israel – FACT. Most Israelis spent the night in shelters – FACT. A study shows that 30% of Sderot’s presidents suffer from post-traumatic stress related to this ongoing conflict – FACT
0922. Israeli media now reporting over 80 rockets since Friday. BBC News page remains unchanged
I think you are rather over-egging this. Let’s look at the two points from a journalistic point of view
1. the headline. A headlline is designed to do three things: attract a reader’s attention, tell the story; lead the reader in. Israeli strike kills top militant is a statement of fact. You chose to interpret that as “Looks like those nasty Israeli’s are killing militants again” but an eqaully valid interpretation is “Look at those fantastic Israelis getting rid of nasty militants again.”
2. “The Israeli military said”. This is simply sourcing. If a fact is mentioned what is the source of the fact? How is a reader supposed to be able to assess what weight to give it. The Israeli military would be deemed to be an authority on missile attacks into Israel. Of course as one side of a two-sided conflict you, the reader, will have to decide how much you trust it.
If the story had said “Hamas militants said” how much would you trust them? More, less, the same? What sourcing would you trust? It seems to me that in this context even though they are a part of the conflict, the Israeli military is a good and reliable source.
If you object to the word “said”, and I think you are over-egging it, what word would you prefer? “According to”? Isn’t that just a longer synonym?
As for the BBC checking it itself, which is more reliable “I counted”, “according to eyewitness reports” or “the Israeli military said”? It seems to me the third is the most trusted and certainly given the time to get a story out, the quickest.
As for the lack of reporting of the initial rocket attack, well alas the fact that there was a rocket attack is not really news anymore. There have been so many of them. A successful counter attack is a story. That you chose to interpret it negatively against Israel is up to you; when I read that story I read it as a positive story for Israel showing Israel in a positive light — look how shit hot their military are.
As for your list of other facts – again you would need to source them to allow readers to make judgements as to the validity of the information, and secondly have those facts changed? If not then they are not, of themselves, news.
The fact that few other UK media outlets have chosen to report this story does show that news value attached to the rocket attack is low. The fact that others report the successful counter-strike shows it is high.
There is a great French expression for measuring how news worthy an event is: the kilometre-mort. The further away an event it, the more people have to die for it to be a story. Trains crash, ferries sink, gas explosions happen on a daily basis that are unreported because very few people die in them and none of them are British. That is news.
Your entitled to your opinion Geoff. You’re saying the BBC’s account is “fair and balanced” ? It’s not just the headline, it’s the whole tone of the article. I won’t go into a line by line argument. I’m sure BBC watchers will draw their own conclusions. This isn’t the first time the BBC have sold Israel short, it won’t be the last
On the bigger picture I’d love to see just one BBC story complementing Israel eg its start-up businesses; democracy; aid programmes. I never have.
The article is sadly typical in condemning Israel for defending itself
I’d love to see just one BBC story complementing Israel eg its start-up businesses”
“How Israel turned itself into a high-tech hub” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15797257
I just re-read the rocket-attack story. I know that there is a consensus on here that the BBC is anti-Israel, but I find it hard to see how that report is against Israel; in fact quite the opposite.
It says this chap was planning an attack against Israel and he was stopped from doing so. Isn’t that painting Israel in a good light? Even down to the fact that some rockets were intercepted — i.e. Israel has shit-hot technology to protect itself.
I read it as an effective miitary using its force in a targeted way against those who would seek to harm the country. In contrast the other side are just tossing any old crap at Israel in the vain hope that one will hit something.
Apologies for the length of my last reply.
Geoff W:
but an eqaully valid interpretation is “Look at those fantastic Israelis getting rid of nasty militants again.”
Baloney. You don’t believe that for a second. It’s baloney especially in the larger context of BBC reporting on the region over time.
You don’t get to tell me what I believe and what I don’t. Simply making statements doesn’t make something true.
You are trying to claim that this report is biased. I have shown that the argument is falacious. I realise that on this site debate isn’t that common, but I am not sure anyone has constructed a counter-argument.
Just checked at 1845 Saturday, and we’re now over 100 rockets fired from Gaza.
The BBC’s headline still reads “Israel launches deadly airstikes on Gaza”
I wonder why the BBC don’t entitle this piece “Gaza launches missile barrage at Israeli civilians” ?
BTW Geoff, how many rockets would the terrorists have to fire before it became newsworthy for the BBC ? 300 ? 500 ? 1000 ?
Geoff W, I don’t believe you if you claim that that headline can be interprested as showing Israel in a positive light, especially considering the larger picture of BBC reporting on the conflict between Israel and Hamas. You have not shown that such a charge is fallacious. You merely stated that it could be interpreted in a different way, which is utterly ridiculous. Unless you’re saying that the BBC is pandering to gung-ho Israelis and their supporters. It’s only an equaly valid interpretation from that perspective, or just in the post-modern sense that all interpretations are equally valid, there is no truth. In which case you can’t claim to have proven that anyone’s argument is fallacious, either.
As for your dismissal of the notion that this was a non-story until Israel retaliated, yet again this is the BBC playing the “It all started when Israel hit back” game. That’s what makes this biased. The first impression the reader gets is of Israeli aggression, not of self-defense, not of people cowering in bomb shelters all night. And I don’t buy your claim that successful Israeli retaliations are so rare that they are newsowrthy. The BBC always reports Israeli retaliation.
Geoff, the use of the word ‘militant’ proffers legitimacy to this terrorists actions. It implies, ‘another brave soul not willing to tolerate the yoke of Israeli tyranny has been killed by the Israelis. His only crime was to defend his homeland’.
.. of course next time a droid (oops ad hominem) reports how a pally katyusha rocket has ‘landed harmlessly in a field’ I must remember that (purely from a journalistic point of view of course) he’s doing his job and not trying to push an agenda, because yes indeed that particular rocket did land harmlessly in a field.
And when he bangs on about droneswhichkillinnocentpeople again no agenda is being pursued. Because yes drones do kill innocent people.
Or when a droidess admits to ‘weeping’ when Yasser Arafat’s rotting corpse gets flown off – again she’s just showing her feminine side.
BBC reporters can hardly turn up at work wearing red rosettes and shouting VOTE LABOUR through a megaphone. They have to be a bit more subtle about their shilling.
But they’re so pig thick (oops ad hominem) that what to them is ‘subtle’ is the glaring obvious to everyone else.
of course BBC could give me the lie by releasing the Balen Report and not throwing my money at lawyers to prevent its release.
Not holding my breath eh.
Anything to say about the non-release of Balen, Geoff? I pay the license fee. I paid for it. Why can’t I see it? If you have nothing to hide, whats the problem?
BTW the day Helen Boaden is announced as Mark Thompsons replacement is the day I stop paying the license fee,. Enough is enough.That vacuous cow and her “impartiality genes” makes me vomit. And I pay her salary?
Not any more.
Geoff – By your words: As for the lack of reporting of the initial rocket attack, well alas the fact that there was a rocket attack is not really news anymore. There have been so many of them. A successful counter attack is a story.
Now whether your ignorance on this conflict is genuine or contrived, I don’t know. But the lack of equity you display by your stance leads me to believe it’s the latter. Otherwise tell us how many rocket, missile and mortar attacks have been fired from Gaza to Israel since it was turned over to the Palestinians. Then tell us how many of these have been reported by the BBC, Then tell us you think the BBC is accurate in the way it reports it.
Fact it, it is usually ONLY when Israel relatalliates, that ANY of these rocket attacks are mentioned, and then the headline puts Israel as the agressor. You state yourself that rocket attacks are not news – that would be so if the BBC reported these when they happened. It would certainly be BREAKING news for the BBC to do this. It is only because we follow events in that part of the world from other sources that we are aware how slanted the BBC output is here.
You say a ‘successful counter attack’ is the news. Then why isn’t the headline on this occasion ‘Israeli counter attack kills 12 militants in Gaza’ instead of
Israel launches deadly air strikes on Gaza
‘Launch’ doesn’t sound to me like any kind of COUNTER – quite the opposite – it makes Israel the aggressor.
GET IT? No worries if you don’t – we do.
Furthermore, regarding taking statements from both sides about what really happened.
Can you imagine if after whoever the Israeli spokesman who told of the rocket attacks, then subsequently denied the claim, that the BBC wouldn’t report this?
Yet 3 days ago the BBC ran this story
Hamas denies it will attack Israel in any war with Iran
Which immediately was denied, Hamas Rejects BBC Claims, Vows to Give Crushing Response to Israeli Aggression against Iran
yet the BBC still haven’t made any correction.
Don’t you think the BBC may want us to believe the Palestinians are truthful and genuine, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
“Israeli strike kills top militant is a statement of fact.” No Geoff, the use of the word ‘militant’ does not report the facts, it is pro-terrorist spin, regardless of what the motivation might be.
militant [ˈmɪlɪtənt]adj1. aggressive or vigorous, esp in the support of a cause a militant protest2. warring; engaged in warfarena militant person[from Latin mīlitāre to be a soldier, from mīles soldier]
All terrorists are militants. That isn’t “pro-terrorist” it is simply using a non-value laden term. There is no doubt at all that this fellow was a militant so the headline is a statement of fact. Was he a terrorist as well? Well that depends on who you ask. Were the BBC to describe him so then it would be making a value judgement. You and I may think of him as such, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else does. Stick to facts as far as possible.
Pity you didn’t take the time to research the meaning of terrorist, and what the differences might be. Here’s one for starters;
Cultural Dictionary
terrorism definition
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. ( See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden,Hezbollah, and Basque region.)
Do you see the bit about typically targetting civilians? There’s the clue for you. Now you’re screwed justifying the BBC stance.
To describe someone as a militant is not a value judgement, to describe someone as a terrorist is. It is certainly not factually incorrect to describe this person as a militant. It is a statement of fact. To describe him as a terrorist is a disputed term — if you were to ask Hamas I am sure they would agree he was a militant, but not agree he was a terrorist.
Interesting that the same source defines terrorist thus:
terrorist
in the modern sense, 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine.
What strange echoes there are in history.
Are you being obtuse?
Do you see the bit about typically targetting civilians? There’s the clue for you.
It’s not a value judgement – are they civilians or military/militant personnel?
For this reason, since the targets of the Irgun in ‘Palestine’ in 1947 were British soldiers, this makes them ‘freedom fighters’ or at worst ‘militants’. Since by that time the British had no business being there, much less turning away Jews that had managed to be liberated from concentration camps, you can decide for yourself what the correct term should be.
By the definition you chose yes — but there are a great many definitions from which to chose. it is that old cliche about one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter — you only have to look through history to see that.
The fact is militant is a non-contentious term; terrorist is contentious.
Stick to facts.
Try using your own brain for a change.
What could you imagine is the difference between militant and terrorist?
What is implied by either term, and in what circumstances has it been used?
Both use weapons, but what is their target, and the objective in hitting that target?
I don’t really expect you to be honest with any answer you give, I have long since recognised that Beeboids like yourself are not interested in uncovering truth or FACTS – just the version of truth the BBC wants to give you – and you’ll lap it up.
You’re out of your depth here and you use an argument that actually neuters the argument that you presented first –a definition of militant – like you think we need it.
If you can’t take the heat – get out of the kitchen.
I have no idea what a beeboid is.
The simple fact is that the term militant is by anyone’s definition correct. It is a literal truth. Over an above that the term terrorist may be true for some people (the vast majority, myself included). However it is a value-laden term.
As for the rest of your reply, you are at least consistent with the general approach taken on this site. If in any doubt, when encountering someone who does not subscribe to the group-think, resort to insults.
You poor sensitive soul…so you think I’ve insulted you, can’t see it myself. If you mean I have absolutely no respect for your agenda here, and the arguments you try to use however, you’d be spot on.
Typically targetting civilians is NOT a value laden judgement, and that’s what distinguishes TERRORISTS FROM MILITANTS – whatever their goal. If you could use your own brain you’d see it – that you can’t, and I highlight this is not me insulting you, it’s just if the shoe fits – wear it.
The very fact that Mark Thompson admits the reason they are so PC about ISlam is they are afraid of it shows the BBC are vicitms of the same TERRORISM used by Islamists, and precisely for that purpose.
Don’t for a moment be so stupid as to think you are going to argue the point for using militant or freedom fighter for TERRORISTS, when we are all too aware of the difference, and the reason for it.
Terror creates being like YOU!
Terror also created the same terrorists that perpetrate it.
I should also mention that there is no mention of this missile barrage on the BBC News website either. Sky haven’t reported it, neither the Daily Telegraph. What is happening with our news media ? The big story is about the Nigerian kidnappers, and Rangers FC.
The BBC have reported the Israeli ‘strikes’, but have yet to report the missile launches from militants in Gaza.
Israeli air strikes on Gaza have killed at least five Palesinians including a senior Palestinian militant leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17319054
Meanwhile…
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-militants-fire-rockets-into-israel-after-idf-kills-palestinian-leader-1.417594
More than 20 rockets fired into southern Israel; eight people wounded, one seriously
I’m guessing this is more a case of the BBC being asleep at the wheel, but time will tell.
I know this blog is concerned with the BBC, but its also worth mentioning that the at 0822 this morning the Daily Telegraph website has no mention whatsoever of these events. Sky does better, but still leads with “Militants killed in Israeli strikes” http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16185875.
I really do wonder what Israel has to do to get fair coverage, and if the bias is now the staus quo for the British Media now. I have high hopes for the Commentator, the online blog http://www.thecommentator.com/. but even this is not primarily a news outlet, more an expert comment forum
Doesn’t surprise me. The DT isn’t up to much these days.
The only way to find out what is really going on, including events in places like Liverpool where NOTHING is happening, is to make full use of the web.
A week ago I expressed skepticism about the “Sandra Fluke story”. Every day a new fact comes out. Bill O’Reilly added another little piece of the puzzle on Thursday.
he said, “We’re having trouble tracking down just who is sending Sandra around to the media. It’s very strange. So far, the 30-year-old activist has appeared on eight national news programs where she was not challenged at all. Last week, we called Sandra on her cell phone and invited her on “The Factor.” She didn’t call back, very unusual. There was no other public contact for the woman, just her cell phone.
A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can’t even get his last name. And Mike doesn’t provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?
Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor… a-ha!
So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly”.
Now “SHEPAC” is fighting back!
But the funniest stuff is, as usual, coming from Mark Stein. He is the master of the absurd!
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/fluke-343935-sex-right.html
Louis Robinson,
“A week ago I expressed skepticism about the ‘Sandra Fluke story'”
Good grief Louis, you really seem to have lost the plot. The whole ‘Sandra Fluke story’is about Limbaugh calling her a slut and a prostitute; and then suggesting she make a video so he can watch her having sex.
What sort of alternative reality are you living in that makes you think that that level of “politcal argument” might be perfectly valid?
Dez, what sort of alternative reality are you living in? you are so far behind the curve on this: it is about relgious freedom, birth control, women’s rights and Obamacare. Fluke S. is a far-left feminist activist she said (in a mock hearing) in all seriousness – that “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school“, Fluke is a [mature] student at the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States (what a coincidence). Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing “shock-jock”. He said “What does it say about . . . Fluke, who… essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.” Interesting a local pharmacy has birth control pills for about USD9 per month; work it out yourself, or – as our western cousins say, do the math – she’s on a three year course…
“Interesting a local pharmacy has birth control pills for about USD9 per month; work it out yourself…”
Yes, this whole “Target sells contraception for $9 a month” has been put about by certain ‘news’ organisations, and has been leapt upon by right-wing blogs desperate to paint Sandra Fluke as somehow deserving of the insults and opprobrium foisted upon her by Limbaugh.
Unfortunately, it transpires that said price is only available to employees of local businesses who have signed up to a special discount prescriptions service – in effect subsidising their employees’ healthcare. Said scheme is not available to students.
That aside, the majority of Fluke’s testimony was concerned with women who wanted to use contraceptive medication for its other benefits – in aiding severe period pain, or to deal with potentially life-threatening ovarian issues. Nowhere in her testimony did she talk about her own sex life.
For this, she was called a slut and a prostitute – admittedly by a man who flings insults around so readily and with such abandon that they really shouldn’t have much currency.
Also, surely the cost of the pills themselves are only part of the cost? Oral contraceptives, IUDs, etc., require medical supervision, which means visits to the doctor – which are chargeable.
One way in which women whose insurance plans don’t cover reproductive health have been trying to keep their costs down has been going to clinics funded by organisations like Planned Parenthood. And guess which clincs have been targeted by right-wing politicians, falsely claiming that the majority of the work they do is abortions?
“For this, she was called a slut and a prostitute – admittedly by a man who flings insults around so readily and with such abandon that they really shouldn’t have much currency.”
But isn’t this the whole point? If one of the GOP candidates had said it the lefty hypocritical shrieks would be a little more understandable.
Also, surely the cost of the pills themselves are only part of the cost? Oral contraceptives, IUDs, etc., require medical supervision, which means visits to the doctor – which are chargeable.
I guess sex toys, gel, whips and other things too, that don’t need prescriptions….let’s go really overboard and say USD30 a month…still only a grand or so for the 3 years.
“I guess sex toys, gel, whips and other things too, that don’t need prescriptions”
You’re equating those things with women’s reproductive health? Really? If you want to contribute to an adult discussion, try being a little more mature.
Reproductive health? ha! You really are a pompous twat…and hopelessly wrong re Fluke (I suspect you know this)
Ah, the usual Biased BBC way: if all else fails, fall back on name-calling.
And what, exactly, is wrong with the term reproductive health?
name calling, yes glad you noticed, as in ad hominem ‘attack’ as I wrote in my other immediate reply to you. What, pray tell, has ‘failed’?
“reprodcutive health” is ‘wrong’ in the context of Fluke saying that women need the school to pay, or the state needs to pay, for their contraception (up to USD1000 per year according to her)
third time lucky!
And the prescription of the pill is part of reproductive health. Especially as the contraceptive pill is taken by some women to protect against a genetic predisposition to polycystic ovary syndrome – as Fluke clearly and explicitly mentioned in her testimony.
Glad you at least acknowledge that you’re just indulging in personal insults, though. If only Biased BBC’s other commenters – hippiepooter and ltwf1964 spring to mind – were as honest.
Actually the original as “for as low as USD9” so nothing wrong in reporting it that way.
“Unfortunately, it transpires that said price is only available to employees of local businesses who have signed up to a special discount prescriptions service – in effect subsidising their employees’ healthcare. Said scheme is not available to students. “
I am sure that someone of Flukes obvious calibre (and history) could get that price: not sure how, maybe sexism, racism, some ism, somehting would stick.
“I am sure that someone of Flukes obvious calibre (and history) could get that price: not sure how”
Well, that last part’s accurate, at least. As for the rest, it’s the usual from Biased BBC commenters: no idea what they’re talking about, but a cast-iron belief that they’re right, even though the weight of evidence is against them.
Evidence? LOL! See the reply I just amde above, it’s ad hominem but hey, you know you love it.
“The whole ‘Sandra Fluke story’is about Limbaugh calling her a slut and a prostitute; and then suggesting she make a video so he can watch her having sex.”
No, its not.
ScottM: “As for the rest, it’s the usual from Biased BBC commenters: no idea what they’re talking about, but a cast-iron belief that they’re right, even though the weight of evidence is against them.”
Yes indeed. Deep in our hearts we all know we are stupid and need to look you you to lead us into the light. If only the world could provide us with a few more individuals of your vast worldly experience and deep cultural insight, all our problems would be over and we could enter a new golden age of intellectual exploration, the likes of which have only been dreamt of.
Or not.
Scott, Dez, Scez (sorry, I get confused) would like it to be so, so it is so. But that’s the logic you get from someone who posts as a split personality.
“(sorry, I get confused)”
That’s one of the few accurate things you’ve posted.
“But that’s the logic you get from someone who posts as a split personality.”
That, however, isn’t. You know that Dez and I are different people, but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead continue making a fool of yourself by saying that we’re the same person.
And just a reminder – you still haven’t justified why you felt it necessary to call me anti-Semitic in a previous post. Either provide evidence, or apologise for being so offensive.
The White House certainly didn’t instigate this – had nothing to do with it. But the President has since inserted Himself into the public discussion, and His supporters and minions are now involved. It’s not really very presidential to call out individual media figures the way He has. But that’s the Community-Organizer-in-Chief.
Excellent article here about double standards and free speech…
When Bill Maher‘s fans (both regular fans and fans who are members of the MSM) talk about him, they like to cite just how influential he is, how wickedly insightful, how capable he is when it comes to “speaking truth to power.” When he gets into a bit of hot water, his fans/defenders dismiss the controversy and say that he’s merely a comedian. He deserves every protection afforded by freedom of speech. Move along, there’s nothing to see here. Just a comedian flapping his gums. Pay him no mind.
When Rush Limbaugh says something that is influential, he’s dismissed as “an entertainer” or “a clown.” He’s no more consequential than Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. Move along, there’s nothing to see here. When he gets into a bit of hot water, his critics say that he’s the de facto leader of the Republican National Committee and that he should resign. And if he doesn’t resign, we’ll circulate a petition to have him removed from the airwaves.
This is a textbook example of a double standard.
“Eric Joyce did what most Labour MPs would quite like to do…hit a Tory MP.”
“Quite, he must be very popular in some quarters.”
1hr 32m into this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01d105y
The BBC – encouraging violence against one’s political opponents. This is what we do.
For the record Joyce was also convicted of punching Phil Wilson, the Labour MP for Sedgefield.
Scots Labour pathological hatred of Tories. Why do we want fifty of them in Westminster Mr Cameron? Without them England has a natural Conservative majority. Whats not to like, leader of the Conservatives? Ah, you might get booted out and replaced by a real Conservative. Methinks you are rumbled Cameron.
NO WARMING FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS.
GLOBAL WARMING NOT HAPPENING.
DO NOT PANIC ALL IS WELL.
Have a look at the graph below, it shows no warming for 17yrs and a steep decline for 8yrs. This is the graph that David Lysenko cannot even look at, this is the graph that the BBC will never show.
THE BBC: NOTHING OF NOT LYING SCUM 😀
BBC News 24 just now have a Guardian journalist doing the newspaper review. Well of course they do, The Guardian is the 10th most popular newspaper in the UK.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48913&c=1
Relate that to the BBC’s own General Election results and it would be like regularly asking the opinion of….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/
Well its difficult to exactly define who came 10th but in terms of seats it seems to be Ulster’s Alliance Party (One seat, 42,000 votes).
You get the point? Anyway latest figures show that Guardian sales are down 17.75% on the year which puts them top of the flops. So all this exposure on the BBC seems to be killing them.
Anyway the Guardian guy gave a reasonable summation of the Eric Joyce story. Factual, fair comments and named his party affiliation. Also thought he might have got a stiffer sentence were he not an MP.
Beeb host obviously felt this thuggish lout deserved his bit of balance. ‘outside the court, he was very apologetic’.
The BBC: The Left talking to itself.
“The BBC: The Left talking to itself”
Brilliant 🙂
I think the BBC and Guardian are more like intellectuals talking to fellow intellectuals.
Of course, most of them spend more time being educated than actualy doing something useful.
Would be nice if some of them actualy sounded Bright rather than brainwashed, oops sorry i meant educated.
I would have said “intellectuals” – in the sense of a group of self appointed experts in arcane subjects, where intelligence is not a requirement.
Intellectuals…those supremely well educated theorists who’ve spent their entire adult lives in pointless academia surrounded by like minded individuals, who have no idea how the real world works in practice as a result. They could have become just as useless and unproductive without all of the expensive education, but they’re too smart to work that one out.
Here’s Mark Steyn‘s take on a similar theme…
“pointless academia”
Yes Reed, education is a bad thing. After all, it’s a lack of education that’s made you into the man you are today ;p (sorry)
“Here’s Mark Steyn…”
Ah yes, he lives in the real world and has never been useless and unproductive because he used to be a DJ.
Dez oh dear so you think that an elitist click in academia/media is the epitome of education ??
Piss poor, Dez. A tired, lacklustre, little comment. You should have stayed in your wanking chariot. Quite possibly because Steyn didn’t do a PPE at Balliol, or Political Science at the LSE, with a leftard tutor’s tongue up his arse, he can now really see what’s happening to Europe & the USA. I don’t know if you went to university, a lot of people don’t, but their views are still as relevant as yours. Patronising cunt.
Oh dear, Dez.
The phrase was ‘pointless academia’ – academic study that is of no worth (gender studies FFS).
That is very different from the claim that all education is pointless.
Comprehension fail. 🙁
In LibLeftLand, some thugs and offenders are more virtuous than others.
So it is that a binge drinker with a schoolgirl as a girlfriend( so we`re told) gets away with sticking in as an MP when he`s got a curfew…will be on crime committees when he has to attend the police station, and will be able to buy all the booze he likes as his party bemoan the thug culute and middle class sherry drinkers-ans see no connections at all.
So it is too that a perp who assaulted maids, leched over junior staff and seems to be involved in prostitution sex rings in France is somehow able to spout off at Cambridge Uni without too much fussing from the BBC and its like.That DSK was a Euro bigwig and IMF head just might have something to do with it.
All Geert Wilders now has to do is join the Labour Party, assault a maid and find a Dutch sex/drugs gang to lead….and he too will be allowed back into the country without any fuss or nonsense.
Some thugs just ensure that the ends are justified by the intentions and the Clinton defence of being a lech with a wristband. The MSM seem to allow that…hope Stephen Lennon gets this message!
Islam Not BBC (INBBC), forever anti-Israel.
In this INBBC report, Israel targets Islamic Jihad which launches rockets into Israel, but INBBC hardly mentions the retaliatory nature of the Israeli response to yesterday’s rocket attack on Israel.
Melanie Phillips:-
“Iran has already been attacking Israel through terror groups for the last three decades”
INBBC:
“Israel launches deadly air strikes on Gaza”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17319054
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2112540/Iran-Britains-dislocation-reality.html#ixzz1oiQsJdjG
I really am sick of this sort of world turned upside down bend over backwards BBC reporting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17319054
‘The Israeli military said dozens of rockets had been fired into Israel’.
So the BBC with their brigades of Middle East reporters can’t tell us for sure! Hey BBC if you think the IDF might be lying get out there on the ground and bloody well find out. If you find it is true then stop with the dubious sounding attribution.
‘Israeli air strikes on Gaza have killed at least 12 Palestinians, including a senior militant leader.’
‘Another militant was killed with him. The Islamic Jihad militant group said 10 members of its military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, were also killed.’
Alright BBC do you think these guys might be lying? Do you want us to think the 12 dead might not be al-Quds but could possibly perhaps really be civilians? No, of course not! So in your headline call them Terrorists…call them brave Palestinian fighters… whatever makes you happy but let go of of the ‘Palestinians’ as you want us to assume they are babes in arms.
Don`t listen to the appalling Any Questions anymore, but did hear something at the end of Any Answers…the place where the autopsy on yesterdays liberal cadavers get dug up again to no-ones edification.
I heard that Billy Bragg will be on again next week….wasn`t he on some TV show last week as well up London way?
What about the planet Billy?…and shame on the BBC for tempting our Will away from his fiefdom in sunny Wessex ,so they can continue their Eliza Doolittle project on the Barking Bloke?
Is he biding time until he gets his House of Lords pitch?
Thought you ought to know…lucky Desmond Carrington yet again then!
Well, surely this is an heaven-sent opportunity for the sturdy yeomen and yeowomen of Dorset to smartly erect a gigantic “Billy Barrier” to stop the sod getting back in.
Then they can flog off his mansion as per the wet dreams of Mr V. Cable aged 68¾ and have a lovely party on the proceeds.
Saturday evening music on Beeboid Radio 3
Opera: 5 00 – 8 30 pm
Jazz Records Requests: 8 30 – 9 30 pm
Mozart’s Don Giovanni
Live from the Met – (Note some parochial interest: Andrew Davis conducting and Bryn Terfel singing).
Indiscriminate and sexually voracious, Don Giovanni is a man who doesn’t take no for an answer, leaving a trail of outrage and wrecked lives in his wake. But in the end, even he comes up against something he can’t dupe, evade, or kill. One of the greatest (and most hummable) operas in the repertoire stars baritone Gerald Finley in the title role and Bryn Terfel as his manservant Leporello.
Presented by Margaret Juntwait with guest commentator Ira Siff
Don Giovanni…..Gerald Finley (baritone)
Leporello…..Bryn Terfel (bass)
Donna Anna…..Marina Rebeka (soprano)
Donna Elvira…..Ellie Dehn (soprano)
Don Ottavio ….Matthew Polenzani (tenor)
Masetto…..Shenyang (bass)
Zerlina…..Isabel Leonard (soprano)
Il Commendatore…..James Morris (bass)
New York Metropolitan Opera Orchestra
Metropolitan Opera Chorus
Conductor…..Andrew Davis.
More details and synopsis of the action: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01d0v9w
Islamic IRAQ.
INBBC censors out Islamic Sharia mass murders:
Iraq: “Morality police” stone to death at least 90 young men for “emo” appearance
Islamic IRAQ.
Spelt out for censoring Islam Not BBC (INBBC):
“Stoned to death for being an emo: NINETY Iraqi students killed for having ‘strange hair and tight clothes’ ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112960/90-students-Iraq-stoned-death-having-Emo-hair-tight-clothes.html#ixzz1ojq5bVz4
Islamic SAUDI ARABIA.
Does Islam Not BBC (INBBC) think that the subservient treatment of women in Saudi Arabia has anything to do with Islam?
It’s just that INBBC doesn’t even mention Islam once in this ‘report’:
“Women ‘injured’ in Saudi university protest”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17304960
This would have been a protest about the cuts….or not enough women breaking through the glass ceiling at Saudi TV…or is it EMA still?
When I mean cuts…I mean female circumcisions and amputations every Friday I think…
Everyone head over to The Spectator – Rod Liddle has a poll going…
I think we should have a short poll. Who is the thickest person ever to appear on the BBC’s Question Time?
Could become a very long thread!
Has Prickstocke ever been on ? Afetr his stellar performance as “ranting lefty über-twatman” on Mr G. Norton’s show last week he’d surely be a shoo-in for any award of this nature.
Prickstocke. Meat suit. Lead boots. Hungry wolves. Just saying.
Interesting one this.
Is it thick as in “just thick, but no more than we`d expect”-Prescott for example?
Or is it “thick” as in “you`d have thought with those privileges and reputation as being educated, s/he might have had something of interest to say that was NOT written by Dave Spart”…in which case, it would be Will Young.
Oh sod it…life`s too short…let`s stick with Bonnie Greer!
INBBC’s politically partial stance on TURKEY.
Why does INBBC publicise Turkish airline flights to Somalia but goes lightly on Turkey’s porous borders with Greece which facilitate mass illegal immigration into the E.U and into UK?
“EU Governments Call for Border Controls Until Flood of Immigrants from Turkey is Stemmed”
http://stopturkey.blogspot.com/2012/03/eu-governments-call-for-border-controls.html
Ah…Beeboid!
Just got the 10pm news on Radio4…seems that Rick Santorum has won one of those mid-west states, where they vote strangely!
Now I don`t know much about Ricks policies…but the BBC tell me that he`s against gay marriage and abortion…whatever policies he has will therefore not need saying…for all the BBC want me to know is these two!
Get the hint?…redneck/mid west and these two shibboleths of the progressive elite are under threat if we let this nutter near the Blessed Barak…
Couldn`t be clearer Beeb!
BBC-NUJ-Labour-Harman’s complete political opposition to equality of access of fathers (as well as mothers) to their children after marital break up is phoney political correctness, blatantly unfair, and causes emotional suffering.
“The law doesn’t give a damn about fathers.”
By Louis De Bernières
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2112905/The-law-doesnt-damn-fathers.html#ixzz1olApGocD
Instead, the Left (inc Beeboids) politically campaign for equal rights ‘marriages’ (!) for homosexuals.
Louis De Bernières was given a sympathetic hearing on BBC Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago:
One to One
Of course, I suppose that would be the BBC campaigning for the rights of fathers…
the BBC a big left wing, ‘liberal?’, interacial, gay club
…a bit like Chariots Streatham
Anti-monarchy: all part of the BBC-NUJ political agenda-
“BBC gives anti-monarchy group Republic free rein on Radio 4’s ‘Today’.
“The BBC allowed the anti-monarchy group Republic an unopposed platform to criticise the Queen on its flagship radio programme, fuelling a growing row over the corporation’s coverage of the Diamond Jubilee. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9136164/BBC-gives-anti-monarchy-group-Republic-free-rein-on-Radio-4s-Today.html
“Anti-monarchy: all part of the BBC-NUJ political agenda”
Not ever any pro-publicity given to the monarchy on the BBC not ever…
http://bbc.in/y1cRU2
Oh dear dez are you saying the B-BBC is biased ??
Somebody keep an eye out for a few Beeboid tweets about the following:
Occupy Wall Street could run out of money by end of month
Since a Beeboid has previously tweeted a call for support for the Occupy library, you can bet one of these dopes will make and effort to help their darlings now.
“Run out of money”? When Governments run out they just print more don’t they? Occupy should take a leaf out of Mervyn King’s book, apply a little “quantitative easing”. Get an Occupy Monetary Policy Committee to say it is necessary, to avoid something vaguely unpleasant, like living within your means.
Is it Comic relief or Red Nose then, that will soon be foisted upon us all-and especially in schools, which no longer bother to “teach”…that`s what the pirvate schools get paid to do.
Anyway…whichever one it is…now I know that OWS are on their uppers, I suggest a national fun run with us all wearing the fanbelts of posh peoples cars instead of wristbands…and all schools to be forced to do it under the guise of PE…money to go directly to Starbucks, so OWS don`t fritter it away on drugs or deoderant…
“Red nose day”? Oh, God, not that again. That’s when the BBC becomes even more imbecilic than it usually is. What with the fuckin’ Olympics, I shan’t be watching much telly from that biased lot this year…
I wonder what the BBC would make of Nelson Mandela sporting a Red-Nose whilst flat out in his open coffin at the world’s biggest sponsored funeral ever.
Have the BBC got the deal with one of Mandelas many lads to get exclusive rights to the funeral then?
All those hotels block booked…but what of the carbon footprint lads?
And just before Peacocks goes belly up…is there any BBC guidelines on what sort of gaudy shirt I`ll need to buy by way of showing respect?
Red Nose for the open coffin?…comedy gold!
The BBC are either at your feet(even if the shoes are too small) or at your throat.
If I were Nelson or Harry I`d get rid of the Beeb sycophants, that only make me hate them.
“BBC spends thousands giving staff lucrative pay-offs… then re-hires them with full range of perks and pensions on top of new salaries.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113300/BBC-spends-thousands-giving-staff-lucrative-pay-offs–hires-range-salaries-perks-pensions.html#ixzz1oo4IsSQ7
TUNISIA.
INBBC censors the wonderful ‘Arab Spring’ there, and doesn’t report this:
Tunisia: Women march to call for caliphate
INBBC’s TALIBAN ‘fighters’.
Note how Taliban’s Islamic jihadists now become, to INBBC, not ‘terrorists’, not even ‘militants’, but ‘fighters’.
“Guantanamo Taliban inmates ‘agree to Qatar transfer'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17327440
And, INBBC has a political soft spot for Emirate of Qatar, supporter of Hamas, and base for Islamic propagandist broadcaster, Al Jazeera, a political chum of INBBC.
“How Qatar bought Britain: They own the Shard. They own the Olympic Village. And they don’t care if their Lamborghinis get clamped when they shop at Harrods (which is theirs, too).”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113159/Qatar-bought-Britain-They-Shard-They-Olympic-Village-And-dont-care-Lamborghinis-clamped-shop-Harrods.html#ixzz1ooAWiXar
“What makes Question Time audiences so Left-wing?”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100142874/what-makes-question-time-audiences-so-left-wing/
What would a Beeboid do without its attachment to raaacism?
This must have had a few Beeboids choking on their Sunday brunch:
Veteran Jewish comedian Jackie Mason has plunged the BBC’s Desert Island Discs into the centre of a race row by claiming that ‘Jewish and black people’ are no longer the victims of racial discrimination.
‘I wouldn’t say the Jews or the blacks today are suffering from racism.
‘I don’t think it’s such a terrible disadvantage to be black or Jewish today.’
He added: ‘But because they once were . . . they are still not comfortable enough with the new situation they’re in.
‘They still can’t accept the fact that they are completely accepted everywhere . . . it’s all in their minds.’
Mason, who is currently playing to packed houses in London’s West End, said he doubted whether Jewish people were even being persecuted when he started out as a comedian in the early Sixties.
He said: ‘Jews weren’t really suffering anywhere, but they were self-conscious because they have suffered in the past.
‘It was like they couldn’t believe the fact they were being accepted now and they were still nervous about something that hasn’t happened in the last 20 years.’
Mason, who was ordained as a rabbi before opting for a life as a comedian, said many other minority groups shared fears that were equally unwarranted.
Mason’s comments shocked Kirsty Young who said it was up to the minority groups themselves to identify incidents of racism
He said: ‘It’s the same with black people today. They still talk about being persecuted when the white people don’t even feel that.’ Mason’s comments shocked Kirsty Young, the show’s host, who said it was up to the minority groups themselves to identify incidents of racism.
But the star said young people today simply did not care about issues of religion and race any more.
He said: ‘The younger the people are the less it matters to them what their identity is in terms of their religion or their colour.
‘Whites and blacks would never marry in those days. Jews and Gentiles would never marry. Today, that type of marriage is very common.’
Mason said the election of President Barack Obama proved times had moved on
He said some people who complained of racism were simply covering up for their inadequacies, and the election of President Barack Obama proved times had moved on.
He said: ‘I see this with all the minorities. You can’t get a job somewhere. He can’t admit to himself that he is inadequate – they’ll claim it’s anti-Semitism.
‘It’s more imagination. Everybody imagined that it’s impossible for a black person to get elected President of the United States. Whether they are Jewish or white or black, they never thought it was possible for a black person to become President.’
Mason said his distinct Jewish sense of humour often alienated members of that community. He said: ‘A lot of Jews are embarrassed by Jewishness because it reminds them of their parents and grandparents who were refugees and poverty stricken. They were always like an alienated minority. People who are raised that way still have a feeling of “I don’t belong if I’m Jewish so I’d rather you don’t mention it”.’
I bet Kirsty Young would argue with me if I said that there was anti-Semitism in the BBC’s treatment of Israel. $5 says that she would magically disagree with my right to identify racism when I see it.
“Veteran Jewish comedian Jackie Mason has plunged the BBC’s Desert Island Discs into the centre of a race row”
What “race row”? The Daily Mail article you quote doesn’t have any evidence of a “race row”.
Typical Mail tactic of saying there is a controversy when there isn’t one – in the hope of causing a controversy.
The equivalent of standing in the playgound yelling; “fight, fight, fight”, and then, when a fight does break out, running to tell teacher.
Oh how the mail exorcises you B-BBC types what ever that paper puts out you go to war ! what is it with you pro telly taxers and a free press ? I have no interest in the mail but I do in the visceral hatred B-BBC staffers and groupies show against it !
“Typical Mail tactic of saying there is a controversy when there isn’t one – in the hope of causing a controversy.”
This is what the BBC do too; so the BBC has stooped so low to use Daily Mail tactics or vice versa?
Legal German immigrant to the US, and digital media Beeboid Franz Strasser tweeted the following, which was retweeted by fromer Obamessiah activist and News Online for the US Beeboid Matt Danzico retweeted:
The BBC, Huffington Post and Guardian are the 3 most viral news sources on Facebook and Twitter
But don’t say Twitter is a Leftoid echo chamber, eh? They’re the three most virulent news sources anyway….
I think this need sto be used against teh BBC excuse that Twitter isn’t their official outlet and so isn’t covered by their guidelines (which they break every day anyway)
“The BBC led the pack on Twitter, publishing 2,621 stories that received more than 100 mentions”
Also, I am sure someone on here has linked to it before but it is worth keeping this document on hand:
Click to access 14_07_11_news_social_media_guidance.pdf
Hello again my friends, its the mad old bag with yet another graph 😀
Have a look at and wonder why the BBC keep peddling the lie that the planet is warming dangerously and quickly and its our fault for producing a harmless trace gas and plant food..
If you are out there David look at the graph not around the graph 😉
Oh and one just for for fun, its about the bird manglers beloved of the beeboids.
I enjoyed that this morning, very good but better off following the link to Matt Ridley’s post on his Rational Optimist blog…all the detail and the image below linked through ‘zero’
So much for the so-called ‘sustainable’ options! :-E
This is why the aggressive greenies are so dangerous, along with those in government who seem to be influenced by them.
Went to mass this morning to hear the Archbishops letter on gay marriage.
Completely uncontroversial to anyone who`s a Catholic…and unsurprising to anyone who has the first clue about faith per se.
Really moderate stuff…and then I found myself thinking of some nutter in the Question Time audience who thought that this reading out of the letter may yet be a “hate crime”…and would have been applauded for this.
I thought too of the SCOTTISH Archbishop who used gave the gay lobby their soundbites of choice…and wondered how come the Scottish bit isn`t filed under Salmond/Devolution…much as I agree with what he said.
In short-when even woolly Catholic stuff about the sanctity of marriage is seen as “inflammatory” by the liberal elite, when Obama wants contraceptives available in Catholic places of work in the USA; when catholic adoption gets scotched, abortions are advertised (and girls being aborted not seen as much to bother with)…euthansia being mooted…I`m beginning to think that the elite hope to stick the Catholics in the same bin as the Cof E..all ready for Islam to take to the tip.
Sorry lads…and will,no doubt be told why I`m wrong by Ed Stourton and his wretched “Sunday” bleatfest, when I hear it on iPlayer later.
Last week when the Scottish bishop spoke out, the Beeboid News told us that he was the leading British Catholic cleric. It was later amended to leading Scottish cleric.
Sorry cj but, yes, Ed Stourton thinks you’re wrong.
‘Sunday’ had on the new dean of St. Paul’s to be drilled about the Church’s refusal to fully embrace those nice Occupiers. After getting through that, the dean said the concept of ‘marriage’ changes over time and “doesn’t belong to the Church” & that gay marriage is OK.
To discuss that Ed invited three people to present an audio package on the issue. The first thought that there is no fixed concept of ‘marriage’, which changes over time. The second thought that there is no fixed concept of ‘marriage’, which changes over time. The third thought that there is no fixed concept of ‘marriage’, which changes over time. Ed introduced these voices as representing “three rather different interpretations of the word ‘marriage'”. And yet they all said the same thing. Quite extraordinary.
After all this, Ed interviewed Archbishop Vincent Nichols. Ed interrupted him left, right and centre as he tried to outline his nuanced position on the issue.
Brace yourself for this one, cj:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01d23w4
I suppose if they were so busy saying that it can change over time, they didn’t have to bother considering the actual concept and what it does mean; what are the implications for wider society of changing it; what is the actual case for changing it and whether that case has any merit from the point of view of society generally, including religious people and churches who regard marriage in a very specific way and as having a very fundamental role and relationship to God, nature, children and the purpose of life.
Thanks Craig!
Am currently laughing at St Augustines “Just war” theory being tickled like an old trout…Ed Stourton is just a pond skater down at the shallow end of the pool….where it`s noisiest.
The BBC paddle in the shallows and refuse to think anything through-any theology graduate of 20 years ago would have laughed him out of the building.
Yet he`ll be back next week won`t he?….and I know the worst is soon to come…St Pauls and gay marriage eh…I can only dream of what the BBCs views on such things.
Where the hell`s that Muslim who`s meant to be in charge of Beeb Godstuff then?
Beeboid in the US Daniel Nasaw tweets a cute bit of class warfare:
Romney pledges to repeal the “death” (estate) tax, which only the wealthiest pay // Who can blame him for looking out for his children??
Naturally, he has the get-out-bias-free disclaimer. But add them all up, and you get evidence that all of them are of the Left.
Has anyone noticed that despite the Twittersphere as well as The “Telegraph” (thanks to Andrew Gilligan) and even the trusty and well-beloved “Guardian” being ablaze with the Red Ken tax-avoidance controversy I have heard no mention of it on BBC Radio London – “The Voice of London” or even on its commercial counterpart LBC – “London’s Biggest Conversation” – on which Livingstone had until recently an apparently very lucrative Saturday morning phone-in programme.
I now transpires, according to Gilligan, that Livingstone was using his earnings, from broadcasting and speaking, that were channelled into his private company, Silveta Ltd, to partly fund his election campaign without registering them as donations with the Electoral
Commission: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100142919/ken-livingstone-on-tax-avoidance-everyone-in-my-position-does-it/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
So should LBC be reported to the broadcasting regulator, OfCom, for effectively making illegal donations to Ken’s election campaign as well as giving him a propaganda podium long after he had been selected as Labour’s prospective candidate last September?
Before readers rush to put pen to paper they might be forewarned that last year I wrote a personal letter to Ed Richards, the Chief Executive of OfCom, suggesting that “Gorgeous” George Galloway was using the fees from his twice-weekly TalkSport radio show to fund his party’s campaign in the Scottish Parliamentary elections and whether this fact had been registered with the Electoral Commission. 11 months later I still await an acknowledgement from Mr Richards (it didn’t get lost in the post, btw, I took it to OfCom’s Southwark HQ personally).
This will come as no surprise to those familiar with Mr Richards’ CV. Not only is he a former adviser to both Messrs Blair & Brown but he is also a former of Controller of Corporate strategy at, you’ve guessed it, the BBC. Despite these high-profile appointments he appears rather uncertain when he was born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Richards_(chief_executive)
Maybe, like Topsy in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” he just “growed”.
The BBC (and LBC too): Telling you none of the news you want to hear. This is what we do.
Allan D. re Tax avoidance. “Telling you none of the news you want to hear”. That’s because people in glass houses don’t throw stones.
NIGERIA.
More INBBC obfuscation.
Your headline should read something like –
‘More Islamic Jihad Murders of Christians’.
It is not a ‘Nigeria attack’.
‘Jihadwatch’:
Nigeria: At least 10 killed in suicide bombing on church
INBBC’s misleading:
“Nigeria attack targets Catholic church in Jos”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17331707
Honest Reporting gives us this information on events in Israel this weekend
More than 130 rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip at major population centers in southern Israel in the last two days.
On Friday, March 9, four people were wounded, one severely. On March 10, a mare was killed and a home near Ashdod was damaged by a direct rocket hit.
In light of the ongoing rocket attacks, schools in many cities and towns in southern Israel are closed on Sunday, March 11.
Areas targeted include Ashdod, Be’ersheba, Yavne, Netivot and Ashkelon, as well as the Eshkol and Shaar Hanegev regional councils.
The Iron Dome system intercepted about 90% of the rockets fired at Be’ersheba, Ashdod and Ashkelon.The terrorist squads are launching their rockets from densely populated areas in the Gaza Strip, including Bet Lahiya, Jabaliya, Rafah, Gaza, and El-Bureij.
Despite the rocket barrage, the Erez Crossing into Gaza is open for passengers and employees of international organizations. Kerem Shalom is open for the delivery of 200 truckloads from Israel into Gaza.
It then asks readers to determine how their media are reporting these facts with these points in mind;
Moral equivalence: Is the media distinguishing between pinpoint Israeli strikes against terrorists as opposed to indiscriminate Palestinian rocket attacks purposely targeting Israeli civilians?
The “Cycle of Violence”: Despite this oft used description in the media, this is not a “cycle of violence”, which apportions equal responsibility and intent to both sides. In this case, as in previous conflict situations, Israel exercised its right to pre-emptive self-defense by targeting a terrorist squad planning a combined terror attack that was to take place via Sinai in the coming days.
Chronological inversion: Where does your media coverage start? With the launching of missiles from Gaza or the Israeli response? If the focus is on Israeli air strikes, does this skew the coverage to present Israel as the aggressor?
A “Disproportionate Response“: Is Israel accused of overreacting or responding to Palestinian terrorist activity in a disproportionate manner? For more on this issue, see our Excessive Force presentation below:
It seems their third point (underlined) has really nailed the BBC, who have reinforced their original article from this
Israel launches deadly air strikes on Gaza
to this
Israel launches fresh air strikes on Gaza
With reference to last week’s Question Time, which was possibly more abysmal than most, Ron Liddle at the Spectator asks this question.
A question about Question Time
I think we should have a short poll. Who is the thickest person ever to appear on the BBC’s Question Time? I ask having watched a woman last night, can’t remember her name, who worked for the Daily Mail, and who could have been outwitted by a bowl of semi-thawed Iceland Atlantic Prawns. Also, she looked remarkably like Austin Powers. Maybe it was Austin Powers.
The singer Will Young was on too, and he was quite staggeringly thick. Are they the worst yet? Let me hear your nominations. Votes for ‘Rod Liddle’ will be discounted on grounds of predictability and taste.
It’s worth reading the comment section on the article itself.
BBC spends thousands giving staff lucrative pay-offs… then re-hires them with full range of perks and pensions on top of new salaries
The BBC has re-hired six members of staff less than two years after they were given lucrative redundancy pay-offs.
The six are among more than 1,000 employees who received severance packages worth up to hundreds of thousands of pounds after being made redundant in the past two years.
But they are now back at the BBC on a full-time basis, enjoying a full range of perks and pension benefits on top of their new salaries.
This article ran a few weeks ago ago that ‘revealed’ the BBC were going to be very (uncharacteristically) PRO monarchy
BBC accused of peddling “propaganda” for the monarchy
The exchanges were contained in two emails leaked to the anti-monarchy group Republic, which accused the BBC of “censorship”.
To which I made the following comment here at the time
Stinks to me. It’s like when the BBC get somebody to accuse them of anti-Labour coverage to make it seem they’ve been pushing the Tory agenda all along.
It especially stuck in my mind since our Beeboid Scott tried as usual to defend the Corruperation.
Seems my prediction came true
BBC gives anti-monarchy group Republic free rein on Radio 4’s Today
If it looks like shit, and smells like shit….
Scott care to comment?
First link to the article above
BBC accused of peddling “propaganda” for the monarchy
should be this one
Problem with the latest post David. The twitter link is wrong and it is causing all sorts of problems loading the page (“waiting for api.twitter.com”) Seems a similar problem to the floating Billy Bragg from Twitter you had a while back! Have to take more care copying links from Twitter.
More on BBC-Labour’s pro-Livingstone political campaign.
Whie ‘Telegraph’ has:
[excerpt] –
“Ken looked distinctly uncomfortable on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show this morning after my revelation in today’s paper that he has channelled a further £238,646 of personal earnings through his tax-avoidance vehicle, Silveta Ltd. The figure, from Silveta’s 2010/11 accounts – published on Friday at Companies House – takes the total amount Ken has channelled through this route to £755,778 in three years. Talk about bringing down the system from the inside, Ken! After I first revealed it two weeks ago, the arrangement has been causing increasing disquiet, public and private, among his supporters, some of whom have urged him to pay back the money he has saved.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100142919/ken-livingstone-on-tax-avoidance-everyone-in-my-position-does-it/
BBC-Labour has:
“Ken Livingstone denies tax avoidance”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17331353
Is Ken the new Haw?
Livingstone in the morning and Prescott in the evening. What more could anyone want? Thug Prescott is on Room 101 in case anyone hasn’t seen or heard enough of him. I notice it’s a repeat. Not sure if that’s from today, yesterday, last week, last year or what. Never mind, it gives the Beeboids another chance to inflict him on the viewers. I suppose that’s another advantage of repeats: the ability to double the exposure of their favoured few Labour has-been politicians and troughers.