Here’s a Bradford West approved Open Thread to see you off into the weekend! Enjoy.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- wwfc Dec 22, 19:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMlEHGHtjQ&ab_channel=LondonNPC - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 19:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Dis is zer German vetter station Alles ist normal und wunderbar. Heute ist vetter. Morgen ist jest vetter. Nexter vochen… - Guest Who Dec 22, 19:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AWBnLoYN_tg/olivia-rudgard Livvy is so sweet. - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 19:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
A nation in grief as the rotating helicopter blade came a bit closer. - tomo Dec 22, 17:53
Weekend 21st December 2024
[img]https://i.ibb.co/DMrTDjx/chrome-y-OIa6k-JNIt.png[/img] - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:26
Weekend 21st December 2024
This guy is actually quite funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaPbUvPOkD8 Apologies if this has been posted before. - Fedup2 Dec 22, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Excellent – the Marxists legislating to ban unapproved donations to other political parties – just a step to banning other… - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:18
Weekend 21st December 2024
The wonders of bBC output. Where would we be without Planet Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2A07ToxkTI This is a 100% genuine episode bBC…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
just think if the guardian did a sunday paper it would be on every BBC news channel for weeks. why hasn’t anyone taken the BBC to court about the way its is funded by the EU and haven’t we got a choice under the human rights not to pay for something we dont want.
The Guardian does do a Sunday paper: the Observer. I assume they included it.
Cardinal O’Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, has spoken out against gay marriage & the BBC’s Robert Piggott was on Ed Stourton’s ‘Sunday’ to discuss the story. He said:
“Cardinal O’Brien has spoken out strongly on other issues before. He’s made some fairly extreme remarks sometimes it has to be said.”
Does it ‘have to be said’, especially by a supposedly impartial reporter?
Cardinal O’Brien has made plenty of strongly-worded remarks on controversial issues (usually stating traditional Catholic positions) over the years and lots of people will either have agreed with them or disagreed with them. I think it can be guessed into which camp Robert Piggott falls from that bit of blatant editorialising.
Other than that ‘Sunday’ was unobjectionable this week. Remarkably, there was even an interview with someone who is challenging the liberal Left’s reluctance to discuss the negative side of Islam and championing the need for free speech on the issue.
“Cardinal O’Brien has spoken out strongly on other issues before. He’s made some fairly extreme remarks sometimes it has to be said.”
Interesting use of the word ‘extreme’, Craig.
But surely Robert Piggott has committed a Value Judgment Crime by making such a claim?
Now, who could Tel be thinking of?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/terrywogan/9120701/New-research-or-the-same-old-story.html
dame Nikki on the “big” questions
Should we champion a british identity?
is iran a real threat?
should we listen to angels?
YES
DUH
and NO!!
another hour saved
thankfully I won’t have to subject myself to an hour of torture this morning then đ
You made the right choice!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9121086/Springwatch-presenter-Bill-Oddie-BBC-investigated-me-after-mystery-incident.html
The public does not have a right to know.
Questions not being answered.
And Springwatch took a nosedive after he left. He may not have the in-depth knowledge of a Packham but was naturally far more amusing. Packham tries too hard and the not-so Humble Kate always appears to be fawning over him.
It can’t be his politics as he is a committed lefty (as is Humble who did a hatchet job on Israel in the guise of a programme on Frankincense.) He also often played to the all-powerful Green lobby, but appeared to remain a really decent bloke despite.
big questions …
lots of Dame (protecting islam my job) Campo.
following up his appalling drivel phone in on integration
where the only, coherent caller disappeared into the ether
after stating uncomfortable facts, about islam and its NON integration.
yawn!, loaded muslim centric audience,(surprise surprise), so everyone can listen to what islam has to say ….
just wait for the israel bashing … starters orders
thank goodness D Murray is on
press tv?, what about the poor palestinians?, israel occupying palestinian land? ….
this was actually worse than even, i thought đ
britains former ambassador to iran, ranting about irael/occupied land … you couldn t make it up
biased unadulterated pap!
I don’t watch the Andrew Marr show because, well, why would anyone?
However the twitter feedback would suggest it was a hoot, with the BBC/Labour/Harperson axis plumbing depths of hypocrisy and self-delusion it would take James Cameron to operate the camera.
eg:
CounterRevolutionary @Eagle_force_555.@ranty_man unlike Murdoch, #BBC media is controlled by faceless, secret appointees. Harperson’s preferred & ‘fairer’ arrangement. #Marr
Aaaaah, Benjamin Zephania and his Poodle, Nikki Campbell, telling us what it means to be British!?
Surely everyone knows that Britain achieved nothing, and the British just sat around wearing Bowler hats and eating Ham prior to the docking of The Windrush . . .
Being British is not getting offended by being called ‘sunshine’ and being British is not showing your rage and hatred when called ‘sunshine’. With his outburst Benjamin highlighted exactly what is wrong these days – intolerance from people who still have immense chips on their shoulders.
I do NOT need Benjamin Zephania to tell me what it means to be British, or to tell me anything for that matter.
Benjamin Zephania is nothing to me.
I find it hard to believe that Benjamin Zephaniah left school at 13.
I’ve never met a 13 year old who’s as ignorant as he is.
I do wonder, would a Brigstocke or Hardy be served up for such a ‘critique’?:
BBC Radio 5 Live @bbc5live Do you find Michael McIntyre funny? Or is he a bit lame for your taste? #DoubleTake debate the rights and wrongs of edgy comedy -on-air now.
Like ABBC ratings on paper reviews, it appears other factors govern who the BBC throws its weight behind. Or not.
Good God, watching the self-congratulatory and narcissistic lefty love-in ‘Big’ Questions and have had to try hard to hold back appaling attacks of involuntary spasms of projectile vomit. Yet again, the BBC are doing their bit to try and legitimize the undermining of British identity Through biased public debate. It’s the same topic almost every week. Why don’t we have an episode that centers on questions such as ‘is Islam having too much influence in this country?’ or ‘do ethnic minorities get too many priveleges in this country?’ or ‘Is there a problem with Muslims and child abuse?’ – yeah I don’t think so!
What an unbearable sausage-fest of deluded lilly livered left wing socialist crap. And yet AGAIN as soon as a Muslim or ethnci minority speaks, the room falls silent as if it were the ‘Messiah’ speaking the Holy truth. Very worrying; the BBC has to be stopped.
Radio 5 was a leftist hoot this morning as well, with Anita the Chin (Billy Bragg is my favourite singer) spouting on about the public sector heroes, sorry strikers. St Billy of Dorset was there wheeling out his old socialist bollocks as usual. Funny thig is why does Billy live in a million pound mansion? shouldnt’ he give his money away to the poor?
I’d love to see his accounts, I’m betting he’s happy to use tax loopholes to save a few quid like any rich socialist would do.
Billy Bragg – He can’t sing, he’s not a very good musician, his words are facile and stupid, he’s an extreme lefty. Wonder what it is that makes Anita “Jimmy Hill” Anand admire him so much?
Perhpas there’s a connection?
There`s an article in todays Independent about the making of a documentary to be shown tomorrow on Channel 4 (Keith Allen meets Nick Griffin type thing).
I`ll be interested to see if it edits out parts which show Griffin to be sympathetic towards female Muslims who he describes as “victims of anti-male religious Islam”)…the MSM are always skewered and screwed when “right-on PC liberal values” crash right into “cultural sensitivities towards the ROP”.
That Allen (a hopeless lefty sleb with no clear purpose usually) describes the Channel 4 executives in a funk over this, means it might be another litmus test of how open and honest the Liberati are ready to be in facing up to their own demons.
Victor Lewis Smith is the producer-like Chris Morris, a genius-if a reflex liberal too.
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2012/02/tv-licensing-postal-costs.html
‘True to form, as with almost half the FOIA requests they receive, the BBC managed to avoid answering most of our query.’
They don’t seem to ‘do’ question answering, do they?
This holding power to account, especially that which is abused, seems awfully skewed.
Uniquely so.
The BBC, BBC regular (too busy for his daily slot, mind) Mehdi Hassan, and ‘facts’.
Mehdi Hasan @ns_mehdihasan “Iran never attacked a country in past 100 years”. Finally lots of facts on the BBC. #relieved
How does one get muesli off a PC screen?
Considering Iran only became Iran in 1935, that’s hardly surprising. The most innocent country in the Middle East, right, BBC?
The Benghazi war graves were desecrated some ten days ago and was reported in the Daily Mail. The BBC with its 7,000 journalists and World Service antennae was unable to report this matter until today.
Aint ‘watertight oversight’ a bitch?
Whose the BBC is being rather evident.
Also reading some fun as a few trying to link this to Koranic literay roasts are now having to backtrack a bit as rigging the timeline to suit may not quite work in the internet age as it has before.
Though a few BBC ‘no, black is, in fact, white, La-la-la can’t see what you have shown me’ Producers may yet still try.
the only reason they DID report it today as to reveal the apology. Had no apology been made then no report would have ensued. As uk_pounce always says: BBC, the traitors in our midst.
Now remember the B-BBC.grundy/Abbooty mantra
‘this is out of context ‘
So do as I do and see this incident of ‘rightful/excusable ‘ out pouring of ‘dispossessed anger ‘ By ‘downtrodden people’ yahdah yahdah , though the right context I should say at about 600yrds with a SVD Draganov !!!
I`m guessing that , by now: they`ve given up trying to photoshop the heads of skinheads and hoods from the KKK onto those rather Libyanish looking gentlemen with their crosses and mitres…oh , hell they`re sledgehammers!
Therefore, once we`ve all had time to reflect…the Beeb gently waft this story in…I mean, the Remembrance day types won`t be too bothered if we don`t call them dearie, and offer them organ harvesting opt-ins will they?
Wondeer if Israel could do me a couple of Stars of David that might be used as rather sharp frisbees for the Balen Boobies who will be blaming Israel intransigence for the grave desecration sometime soon?
Radio 4’s ‘Broadcasting House’ had features on…(yawn)…James Murdoch, and David Cameron riding a horse. There was also this exchange:
Paddy O’Connell: ‘Will we ever see the prime minister on a horse again?’ is the question we’d like to ask you.
Shaun Ley: Well, I suppose if you’d tried to spend the last seven years trying to throw off the ‘Tory toff’ label to broaden your party’s appeal the last thing you’d want is to be photoed doing something that plays to the old image.
Flogging dead horses.
Oh…and Steve Richards and Peter Hennessey reviewing the papers alongside some cybernet space cadet with all the Microsoft buzzwords.
Tha passes for “broad and balanced” does it?
BH is just the Burke and Hare of news…the weeks leavings being exhumed for rag week japery.
I`m with Millie these days…Radio 3 for a satisfied mind!
I also am learning to love Carrington, Ogden, Jacobs, Matthew and the likes on Radio 2…the BBC doesn`t know how much it owes these people for the little goodwill I can find for it!
http://holykaw.alltop.com/argentinas-weapon-of-mass-instruction-video?tu4=1
Interesting to note that this geezer seems not to have been picked up by Aregntinian state media, or other state media either (Cherry vultures, start up your archives!)
I see the BBC are touting yet another Liebore party bakced ‘survey’ about the cuts as FACT.
Also, the BBC news finally mentioned the Libya gravestones story and gave it about 10 seconds and talked about them being ‘vandalised’
Compare that to how the BBC reported the supposed Koran burnings.
Piss off BBC scum.
The BBC and verified, objective facts these days seem to struggle to arrive together in the same time zone, let alone sentence.
For a most trusted national treasure media monoploy that compels £4Bpa funding to survive, from those who do not support it and the beliefs and interests of many of whom it serves to attack, that seems an odd situation.
As to the ‘survey’, I refer you to ex-BBC employee Mr. Wogan’s views on lies, damn lies and ‘research’ to support agenda.
Re Limbaugh and slutgate.
Katty Kay on Friday:
Obama right on this one. “@edhenryTV: Carney said President told Sandra Fluke she suffered “inappropriate personal attacks””
“Obama right on this one.” Ooh what a surpirse, Katty!
My reply:
@KattyKay Faux fem outrage. Maher has said far worse about GOP women (“cunt” “twat”) but WH glad of his $1m, and you appear on his show.
This all about the Obama-supporting MSM vilifying voices on the right, with Rush as the hate figure du jour (again), while allowing voices on their side to say anything and evertything in service of the cause. Maher can call Palin a cunt all he wants – the liberal journalistic sisterhood of which Kay is member doesn’t mind that at all.
(Is anybody still able to log in to post comments via Google Connect? If so, how?)
Have you seen the dire top 10 news tweets of the week as decided by Kate Dailey? Doesn’t look like she follows many non-lefties on Twitter. Apart from the celeb stuff there’s Borowtiz, pourmecoffee, Weigel – all lib-lefties (even the Voice of God is a poltically left-leaning feed). Only Jake Tapper (that rarest of creatures – an impartial White House correspondent) bucks the trend but that’s only because his tweet is a joke at Romney’s expense.
Funny how BBC journalists have time to throw dire partisan shit like this together but there’s no time for any of them to investigate Obama cronyism or get to the bottom of Fast and Furious, for example. It’s all bread and circuses and attacking the right. The BBC Washington bureau is an Obama 2012 campaign office in all but name.
“there’s no time for any of them to investigate Obama cronyism”
That would require a real journalist. Mark Mardell is not a journalist he is a public sector worker.
I think the President is right about that. But it’s really not His job to get involved in fighting against individuals in the media. But that’s how community organizers work, not Presidents, and Katty Kay sees nothing wrong with the President of the US making personal attacks on media figures. Even if I agree with Him.
Limbaugh has now apologized for going over the top, and the media is treating this like some victory for the President. rather than a sign of weakness that He’s getting involved in this.
‘the media is treating this like some victory for the President. rather than a sign of weakness’
Well, like you, on the matter itself, I tend to agree.
However, as one spoken at, or for, too much already by ‘the media’, The President’s oar-insertion has managed to lower an impression in such a matter even further than a not too great level already enjoyed currently. And any ‘medium’ trying to ride such coat-tails is bucking for a fall only for which a person of such (lack of) calibre can be destined.
I weep for the USA at what choices are being presented in leadership across the board, but like Miliband, Balls, etc here (if in opposition), the alternatives are so dire beyond ideology to simple competence, default media support based on pure tribal ideology just ends up looking deranged.
My point concerns the our-shit-smells-of-roses hypocrisy of the left over this matter, not the rightness or otherwise of Limbaugh’s comments.
On a not unrelated matter – get the popcorn. Breitbart.com’s Editor-At-Large Ben Shapiro tweeted an hour ago:
The fun begins today. Are you ready to rumble? đ
I have no trouble with Google Connect. Logs in automatically, didn’t notice an issues.
Must be just me. Having to use blogger, and even that is a bit touchy.
So the BBC call the attacks on the graves of our war dead in that Muslim shit hole ‘vandalism’ (what like graffiti?). Sky call is desecration of graves.
As we know the BBC is a champion of gay marraige. Interesting that it appears that whilst the government is keen to force the church to allow homosexuals to marry in churches it appears to be backing off the same for Mosques.
Will the BBC be campaigning for gay marriage in a Mosque I wonder?
Well I think we know the answer to that one.
“whilst the government is keen to force the church to allow homosexuals to marry in churches”
That is, of course, completely untrue.
sod off
As constructive as ever, I see, ltwf1964.
like I give a shiny shite what a little trolling sodomite beeboid like you thinks about anything
For someone who supposedly doesn’t give a shite, you do get awfully worked up, though, don’t you, little man? Bless.
LOL
twats like yourself would just get a swift kick in the nuts from me and sent on their way-what would a fool like you know about “blessing”?
sodomite imbecile đ
Ah, now we get from the verbal insults to intimations of physical violence.
Thank goodness the vast majority of straight men are more civilised. Otherwise I’d be tempted to think that acting like a Neanderthal moron was a byproduct of heterosexuality.
knobjockeys
gotta love em
do you find huggies help best with the old loose sphincter?Cos you seem to be talking out of your asshole more than usual tonight đ đ đ
Not one, not two, but THREE smiley faces. Yes, that’ll make up for a post that is otherwise grossly stupid and offensive.
Really ltwf1964, what is your problem? Are you somehow upset that you feel gay men are having more fun than you? Because I much suspect straight men (and gay and straight women) are as well…
Really which bit? as government policy is to now to allow gay marriages in places of worship in England and Wales ! so what is a place of worship to you ?
BBC report 25 February 2012
‘The announcement came after a new law allowing civil partnership ceremonies to be conducted in places of worship in England and Wales comes into effect.’
My only query here is the word “allow” which is quite different to “force”. However, that will come later as soon as the thin end of the wedge is in place.
As demon1001 points out, legislation allowing ceremonies to take place in places of worship if the church concerned wants to – as, indeed, the Quakers wanted to do when the Civil Partnerships Bill was first introduced in 2004 – is very different from all churches being “forced” to officiate any and all same-sex partnerships (no surprise that I don’t buy demon1001’s “thin end of the wedge” argument, though).
So can a church refuse to do it? Surely that must contavene some equality law(s)…
Scott. How many years will it be before Christian churches and Synagogues will be facing endless litigation for not allowing gay marriages in their places of worship? It will happen and the churches will ultimately be forced, but not yet. It is very much step by step and that it what I mean by the thin end of the wedge. The same thing happened with forcing female priestesses on churches that didn’t want them. Mosques will not come under the same sort of attack of course.
Even though it is against their teachings, it will be irrelevant in this future Socialist Utopia of Repression that we are heading towards. I’m glad I’m an atheist but I pity those whose genuine beliefs will continue to be undermined.
Come on Scott you can’t wait ot take your boyfriend up the aisle.
As Raymond Chandler would have said, Scott’s the sort of girl that would make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window.
Oh no! Someone with a pseudonym on the Internet has described me as a “girl”! How will I cope?
Still, if that’s what it takes for a sad little man to feel just that little bit more secure about his own (probably theoretical) sexuality, I suppose it’ll be worth itâŚ
Quite an eye opener isn’t it. We always have the saying that Church and state should not mixl athough it is normally around the church not intefering in the state. This story seems to suggest that the state feels it is okay to meddle in the workings of the church though.
Given that the church doesn’t have any place in, or say over civil marriages (save for the anachronism of bishops in the House of Lords), any changes in the laws around civil marriage is hardly interfering in the working of the church.
Civil marriages can be conducted in a Register Office. My guess is the Church of England and the Catholic places of worship will be forced to accept gay wedding services. No doubt Stonewall will be sending “stooges” out like they did with the militant gay couple who knowingly went to the B&B run by that devout Christian couple expecting them to refuse them a double bed. Yes, I know Scott, those two gays SAY they didn’t target that particular B&B, but it didn’t take long for them to involve Stonewall and the press – and the way they conducted themselves with the media told me they were no amateurs when it came to their gay agenda.
Anyone willing to bet the C of E and Catholic Church won’t be taken to court by militant gays if they are refused a church “wedding”?
Ah, the whole “Stonewall helped them with their legal case, they must have been stooges” conspiracy theory. Funny how the hoteliers’ legal fees and media campaign being organised by the Christian Institute, an organisation with decades of stoking anti-gay propaganda, doesn’t generate quite so much suspicion…
Why shouldn’t a Christian organisation help them with their legal case? After all, Stonewall started the ball rolling – or does Scott think only militant leftist groups should bankroll legal costs of professional “offence takers” and axe grinders with chips on each shoulder?
Scottie boy sneers at my allegation that the gay couple were part of a Stonewall inspired sting. The thing is some conspiracy theories turn out to be true.
So it’s okay for the Christian Institute to help the couple with their legal case – but not for the gay couple to seek outside help with theirs.
Good old Biased BBC. It wouldn’t be the same without commenters’ complete inability to see their double standards at work.
And some conspiracy theories may turn out to be true- but most turn out to be fabrications, promoted by sad little men who cope better with fantasy than they do with the real world.
BBC neww more obsessed with ‘charities’ and their funding than war graves in Libya.
No charity should get government funding, that is the point of a charity.
The RNLI gets no government money so if they can offer a fanstastic service I don’t see why I should be forced to fund HIV charities or charities that support asylum seekers via taxes.
The bBC, the intolerence of Islam and how the bBC goes out of tis way to defend it.
Fury over attack on British war graves in Benghazi
Attacks on the graves of British servicemen in Benghazi, Libya, have been described as “appalling” by Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne. The Foreign Office said 200 graves and a Cross of Remembrance were damaged at the Benghazi British Military Cemetery. The Benghazi War Cemetery was also targeted. Both cemeteries commemorate British and Commonwealth nationals who died during or after World War II.
So, the peace loving Islamic world expresses yet again (how many times is this?) how they cannot live in peace with anybody. Which is why in libya bored muslims with nobody else to kill decided to atatck the dead and how does the bBC report such why with glee and a revison of history in which to excuse the normal behavoir of allah’s finest:
“It is worth saying the Libyan authorities themselves are shocked too.
Of course bBC, funny how one of the leaders of the new government in Libya (You know the one who the bBC opines about how he is suing the Uk for emotional distress) is of the mindset of these mindless thugs who utter ‘Allah ackba’ every chance they get. So why would the Muslims in libya be shocked when it is written into their DNA
Our correspondent said the attack was “calm, almost casual”.
And why not you stupid f-ing bitch, to them it is just a way of life as normal as a bBC wanker riding bareback on Hampstead heath.
One theory is that it could have been retaliation for the burning of the Koran by US soldiers at a military base in Afghanistan last month.
OH for f-cks sake, What have British and commonwealth grave stones got to do with America, if it did the followers of Allah would have mentioned it in their home video, they didn’t so less of this pathetic finding of excuses to defend the undefenseable.
The BBC understands that at some point during the attack on the British Military Cemetery a group of older people intervened to stop it, preventing further damage.
And the proof is where????
No-one was injured in the attack, it said.
Thank Allah for that, I mean imagine the bBC having to fly Islamic terrorists over to the UK in which to allow them to sue the British for getting hurt while attacking dead people.
There are 1,214 Commonwealth servicemen of the Second World War buried or commemorated at the Benghazi War Cemetery. Of the 1,051 identified graves, 851 are British.Many were members of the 7th Armoured Division, known as the Desert Rats, who fought for control of Libya and Egypt between 1941 and 1943.
Fought for control of Libya and Eygpt did they bBC, silly me I was taught at school that they were fighting for their lives agaisnt the Nazis during World War Two.
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst.
I heard ONE solitary mention on sky news about jewish graves being desecrated as well
then it suddenly disappeared from subsequent reports
The report (less the you tube upload of 28th February) had been reported around the world days before the BBC took it up. In the UK, the Mail broke the story. The BBC was dragged into reporting. Even the Singapore Straits Times reported the events days ago…as did a the Lebanon Star (which I often glance into to get Mid East news long before the BBC has worked out how to respond).
This is what Al Jazeera reports. Interesting how it deviates from the BBC’s narrative as pointed out by Pounce above..paricularly re ‘Intervention by older people’.
“The footage posted on Facebook showed about two dozen men in a cemetery in daylight. Several carried automatic rifles and were wearing the mismatched camouflage uniforms commonly seen on militia members.
In an unhurried and systematic way, they kicked over neatly-arranged rows of headstones. “We will start with this and then carry on,” says one voice on the recording. At one point, the person filming the footage also took his boot to a headstone.
Another group had placed a ladder against the large stone and metal cross overlooking the cemetery, and was smashing it with hammers. Several onlookers milled around the cemetery but no one was seen on the footage trying to intervene.
At one point, a voice on the recording says: “Come and see the inscription on this … There is Hebrew writing on it.”
Al Jazeera also contradicts the BBC in quoting the foreign office spokesman:
“A spokesperson for the British foreign office told Al Jazeera that officials from the British embassy in Tripoli had immediately visited the site, raised this issue with the Libyan foreign Affairs and the Benghazi police chief.
“It is our understanding that attacks by a similar groups have also desecrated Muslim Shrines. There is no evidence to suggest that this has been done in retaliation for the Quran burning.”
The Muslim ‘shrines’ are targetted by Salafis as un-Islamic (see Taliban’)
The bBC, it’s so called defence experts and half the story.
F-35: BAE Systems faces turbulent times over carriers
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed it is reviewing parts of the programme to build two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, throwing doubt over the planned use of the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter plane. This decision could have a major impact on BAE Systems, which is involved in the aircraft’s development.The cost of the two new Queen Elizabeth class carriers – originally ordered under the last Labour government – have already risen dramatically from £3.5bn to around £7bn. Changes ordered by the coalition government could see those costs rise even further…. The plan was to use the latest electro-magnetic technology to launch the planes, rather than the traditional steam catapult. But the new technology is untried and untested on board a ship. It is due to be fitted to the next generation of US carriers, but already the US Congress has voiced concerns about the programme..
So the bBC’s so called defence expert Jonathan Beale feels qualified to talk about adding untested technology to the 2 new Carriers the UK is going to get. According to his spiel the Uk would be better off sticking to the tired and tested steam catapults that the Royal Navy patented, rather than going with the new electro magnetic one the Yanks are going to fit on their new Gerald Ford Class Carriers.
He states: ‘But the new technology is untried and untested on board a ship.’
Yes, it is Mr Beale, but you know what it works in fact it shifted a F35 into the air last year as it has quite a number of aircraft. That congressional report Mr Beale talks about was published in April 2011 and which is why is states:
However, delays in land-based testing with simulated and live aircraft could lead to late delivery.
Which is why it doesn’t mention the following:
18 December 2010: Successful launch of a F/A-18E Super Hornet at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
June 1-2 2011: Successful launch of a T-45 Goshawk at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
June 9-10 2011: Successful launch of a C-2 Greyhound at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
27 September 2011: Successful launch of a E-2D Advanced Hawkeye at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
18 November 2011: Successful launch of a F-35C Lightning II
Which means that that report was out of date when it was published, never mind a year down the line.
Instead of reporting the facts from a knowledge based mindset, the bBC’s so called defence expert talks out of his arse in which to substantiate the bBCs leftwing anti Conservative mindset.
Oh and the benefits of fitting an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) onto the new British carriers. It reduces stress on airframes because they can be accelerated more gradually to takeoff speed than with steam-powered catapults. Other advantages includes lower system weight, cost, and maintenance; the ability to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than conventional systems; and lower requirements for fresh water, reducing the need for energy-intensive desalination. Compared to steam catapults, EMALS weighs less, occupies less space, requires less maintenance and manpower, is more reliable, and uses less energy. Steam catapults, which use about 614 kilograms of steam per launch, have extensive mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic subsystems
Love to read how the bBC’s so called defence experts opines about using untested equipment, Just think where the Harrier, the Aircraft carrier, the Battle ship, the Tank, why Brimstone the anti-tank missile which did so well in Libya was untested , as was the Sea Skua in 1982. The whole defence industry is based on innovative untested designs which leapfrog the current status quo in which to take a lead on everybodyelse(Cobham armour being a prime example.) And from the looks of thing EMALS is simply the next in a long line of such leaps. But to the bBC defence experts its a bab thing.
But then if Beal was any good at his job he would have reported that due to the savings the MOD has made this past year, it has given them the financial freedom to purchase outright a brand new C17 , which the PM reported in PMQ last month. (So much for buying the Airbus A400m then)
The bBC and its so called defence experts.
And the BBC-NUJ political line is to continually ‘cut’ defence spending anyway, and to always spend on ‘welfare’ instead.
Until, that is, BBC-NUJ demands intervention in some of its pet foreign policy projects, expecting there to be a large, well equipped British army, navy and air force to carry it out!
‘Instead of reporting the facts from a knowledge based mindset, the bBC’s so called [ ] expert talks out of his arse in which to substantiate the bBCs leftwing anti Conservative mindset. ‘
Yep, it works across the board.
I may just have to use that.
ps: “being good at ‘the job’ at the BBC rather depends on how ‘the job’ is defined. See above.
Great stuff as usual, pounce.
Will BBC-NUJ take up this issue of how the owners (who happen to be Labour Party supporting) of a particular English football club have siphoned off £11million to their own account?
Or do such BBC-NUJ criticisms only apply to bankers?
“REVEALED: The Premier League owner who was being paid £11m while his club were being relegated”
By Nick Harris
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109838/Owen-Oyston-paid-11m-Blackpool-relegated-Nick-Harris.html#ixzz1oAAqH3sq
Michael Gove announced today that homework “guidelines” that were in place under Labours Years of terror are to be abolished.
And yet-there is no lobby, charity, Labour toady, union, quango or liberal splitter-to go on and blast this “attack” on standards, manufacturers of worksheets, textbook providers…no-one seems to be tearing into the Coalitions two-tier, regressive, complacent attack on all that Labour had built for equality….two hours crap a night on top of the days slop bucket provision.
It`s a first as far as I can see-so I will set up my think tank on “More Homework 4 the Vulnerable” and tell the Toady Show that I`m available for interview…could be a good living here, should anyone care to join me in a bit of astroturfing!
The BBC tells s little white lie in support of The Obamessiah’s “fix” of His Contraception Plan For Us at the end of this News Online article celebrating (okay, I exaggerate slightly) the President’s victory over Rush Limbaugh.
But the White House changed the scheme to allow health insurers to provide cover if employers objected.
Allow? No, lying Beeboids. The correct word is “require”. At their own cost. Now, I understand that the defense of this is that it makes sense actuarily for an insurer to pay for birth control up front, as pregnancies cost a lot of money. But that’s only assuming an either/or outcome. It’s ridiculous to assume that most women who don’t get birth control covered by insurance will end up pregnant.
In any case, it’s a lie to say the President will merely “allow” insurance companies to cover contraception when He is in fact forcing them to cover it. But the BBC seizes every effort to claim a triumph for the leader of a foreign country.
The BBC will not be telling you about how three loveable scamps from Occupy Oakland have been arrested for robbery and hate crime.
Three Occupy Oakland protesters arrested for robbery and a hate crime, both felonies
Among the evidence against the three, besides the 42-year-old victim identifying them, is a video of the confrontation taken by a fellow Occupy Oakland protester.
So no chance of dismissing this as propaganda fed to idiots by the right-wing press.
The confrontation happened about 6 p.m. Feb. 22 in the 4000 block of Piedmont Avenue. Police said that some Occupy Oakland protesters were demonstrating against a Wells Fargo Bank branch there when a woman across the street expressed her opinion about the Occupy movement and the way it’s being handled, Wingate said.
Wingate said a handful of protesters quickly surrounded her and prevented from leaving the area. Her wallet was taken from her purse…
The Occupiers, darlings of the BBC, and lauded by Katty Kay for their love of humanity and sense of civic duty, reacted violently to critcism. But wait – it gets better. I wonder which of the following offenses ranks higher on the BBC’s list of sins:
…and protesters yanked a Barack Obama pin from her clothing, police said.
Wingate said she was also verbally abused, including making derogatory remarks about her perceived sexuality. A protester punched the woman, and she was bruised and scratched in the altercation.
Over to you, BBC.
“she was bruised and scratched in the altercation. ”
Ow! That’s a painful place to be bruised and scratched in.
LIBYA.
INBBC’s wonderful ‘Arab Spring’ regime in action, desecrating British war graves:
‘Jihadwatch’:
Benghazi: “A year ago they begged for Britain’s help,” and now they desecrate British war graves
[Opening excerpt]:
“That was the Daily Mail‘s observation today. The excuse du jour, once again, is the irrational fit of rage over the Qur’an burnings: “The violence was thought to be retaliation, in part, for the burning of the Koran by US soldiers in Afghanistan last month.”
Never mind that it was not even British forces who were involved in the incident. Once again, this is a rampage finding its excuse, as the attitudes and inclinations to wreak havoc and destruction when offended preceded the excuse seized upon for doing so.”
Strange how they appear to have drawn the conclusion that the reason for the desecration are the events in Afghanistan. That’s a total supposition though isn’t it? There’s no evidence on the video for that is there. There is no statement from a group in which they mention they did it in retaliation for the burning of the Korans. If it is still such a mystery precisely who these people are, no reporter has been able to ask them
In fact all the quoted speech on the video seems to suggest they were wrecked purely because they weren’t islamic. But we can’t have that can we. It has to be our fault. We have to have somehow deserved this insult. There’s always got to be an excuse for it.
Andrew’s words ” It has to be our fault.” sum up the mind set of the Western left.
Nobody on the ground, neither the Benghasi police nor the foreign office made the link between the desecration of the War Graves and the Koran burning canard. Nobody.
Save the BBC.
The issue is one of Salafi (bearded men and boys with prayer bumps) cleansing their landscape of idolatry and symbols of ‘Christians’.
These groups are armed and ferociously intolerant even to ‘fellow’ Muslims….think Taliban and images.
The desecration was likely to happen no matter what and didn’t need to be linked with the Koran burnings.
While INBBC censors the Islamic Libyan desecrations of British war graves, the pro-Islamic INBBC will no doubt support this:
Libya: Muslim Brotherhood forms political party
[Excerpt]:
“For the Muslim Brotherhood, the caliphate is the goal, gradualism is the tactic, and democracy currently happens to be the path of least resistance to power.”
Opportunistic Dhimmiwit twat!
Wait a second: “ruthless attrition being conducted against our own people at home”?
He’s not talking about the subsuming of English cutlure and the Islamification of Britain, is he? >:o
Galloway despises the English as much as he does the Jews.
Unfortunate surname . . . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110078/Boy-13-doused-gasoline-set-alight-racially-motivated-attack-Kansas-City.html
Islam vs Europe is a website I’ve just been made familiar with, and naturally enough, also features articles on the BBC from time to time. No prizes for guessing which side they see them on. They’ve just run an article about history revisionism, especially where Islam is concerned, titled Politically Correct Pro-Islam Propaganda Infecting General History Writing
It gave me some thought and inspired me to do a quick investigation and comment.‘PC’ can more realistically be interpreted as ‘Petrified Cowards’, but they conceal it to themselves by pretending their opinion is based on care and tolerance.
A graphic example would be to run a Google search of ‘Islamic Contributions…’. One of the first sites to appear is Wikipedia who have a webpage devoted to it, despite it having nothing to do with Islam.
Undoubtedly there are many who are Muslims who have contributed in many fields, but it was more in spite of their religion than as a result of it. It was more the rule that the more hard-line religion took hold in any particular regime, the less was ‘contributed’. Wikipedia prefer to ignore this uncomfortable fact however.
Anyone in doubt as to their real motive need only look on their site for ‘Jewish contributions to society’, which by their definition should surely be substantial, yet it seems to have been overlooked.
Likewise with the BBC who ran a piece called
Islam’s ‘forgotten story’ and is about …the “forgotten story” of 1000 years of Muslim science will open at the Science Museum in London today. It will feature triumphs of Islamic science and technology, including a six metre-high 13th century clock, medieval medical instruments and a model of Zheng.
The only contribution made by Jews, according to a similar search of the BBC, appears to be in the field of entertainment. Seems they prefer any other ‘Jewish contributions’ to become a forgotten story.
I try not to get annoyed at these ‘What have the Muslims done for us’ articles the BBC love to produce. Inevitably it turns out that what they did was recycle discoveries lost to the world after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. And whose fault was that I wonder?
Cue BBC tumbleweed.
Still there’s always astronomy and chemistry for the Beeb to bang on about. Oh wait …
Islamic science means science that was conducted within the areas ruled by Islamic rulers. Advanced cultures were conquered by armies led by Islamic warlords. The Vandals (pre-Islam) wandered through to Spain and North Africa and produced a ‘Vandal Golden Age’ in a similar fashion.
It is true that ‘Muslim’ scholars be they Persian, Jews or Assyrian Christians, built upon of knowledge of the predecessor cultures…and adopted many of the false and/or mistaken assumptions of the ancients.
But the lights went out.
I always go to Al Ghazzali, a brilliant mind, who ‘switched off the lights’.
The concept is occasionalism.
Al-Ghazali’s insistence on a radical divine immanence in the natural world has been posited as one of the reasons that the spirit of scientific inquiry later withered in Islamic lands. If “Allah’s hand is not chained”, then there was no point in discovering the alleged laws of nature. For example:
…our opponent claims that the agent of the burning is the fire exclusively;’ this is a natural, not a voluntary agent, and cannot abstain from what is in its nature when it is brought into contact with a receptive substratum. This we deny, saying: The agent of the burning is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnexion of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.”
That is waving goodbye to scientific progress as a culture.
The Islamic Golden Age is about marketing….boosterism….an attempt to amend reality. There is much of interest in the achievements of thinkers and writers in Islamic lands….but this was achieved by individuals not necessarily inherent in the culture. The culture was always in danger of losing the plot despite the intellectual riches it had stumbled upon.
Here endeth the lecture.
Very nice RGH, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Thanks.
For the doubters.
“”The Vandals” is the first book available in the English Language dedicated to exploring the sudden rise and dramatic fall of this complex North African Kingdom. Today, the Vandals are remembered primarily as a metaphor for violent and uncultured destruction, but as the Roman Empire came to an end, the Vandals began to exert considerable influence, occupying Carthage and establishing one of the richest kingdoms of the early medieval world.”
Same with the architecture of the arch.
The horseshoe arch, also called the Moorish arch and the Keyhole arch, is the emblematic arch of Islamic architecture. They were formerly constructed in Visigothic Spain. Horseshoe arches can take rounded, pointed or lobed form.
Horseshoe arches are known from pre-Islamic Syria where the form was used in the fourth century CE in the Baptistery of Mar Ya’qub at Nisibin.[1 However, it was in Spain and North Africa that horseshoe arches developed their characteristic form. Prior to the Muslim invasion of Spain, the Visigoths used them as one of their main architectural features.
Or. to close,
The word “Mosque” comes from the arabic word masyid that means: the place<img src=”http://www.artencordoba.co.uk/MOSQUE-CATHEDRAL/PLANS/PLAN_PARTS_MOSQUEmini.jpg” title=”Parts of a mosque” border=”2″ alt=”Parts of a mosque”/> where we bow, or where we bend, that shows the muslim way of praying.
The building is a symbol, it is not only a temple where the muslim go praying along the history, but also it is of Islam as religion and civilization. So, to know the history of the past of Islam, the Mosque represents one of the most important materials.
The origins of the Islamic Mosques are in the Cathedrals of the Oriental Mediterranean
My intention is to correct an over enthusiastic revisionism….history should not be about positive discrimination….but about an honest engagement with the past. The pendulum has swung so far into an Islamic bias that it has left the complex history of interraction behind and is tending to create an impression…a bias…that the Islamic world was somehow better than it was.
The big question to ask is what went wrong?
Why did Islamic science not produce a steam train, telegraph etc.
Why did it just ‘wither’.
It ‘withered’ long before Europe could be seen as an agency. So the colonialist argument just doesn’t wash.
I just get so fed up about how many programmes on the BBC relate to either Muslims in this country or programmes about the Middle East – even today the ‘Book of the Week’ (Radio 4 9.45 am) is ‘Then They Came For Me’, (Maziar Bahari leaves London, and pregnant fiancee, to cover Iran’s presidential election).
These are just out of proportion with the number of Muslims living in this country (although I understand due to the birth rate it is rapidly rising).
It appears that precisely because of the distinct failure of Islam to enrich human growth, that it is easy to recognise the intent of those in our society who would vaunt it. This appeasement is surely not lost on those Islamic fundamentalist leaders who see their agenda of fear reaping the rewards they crave. The more our society twists itself to accept a creed that rejects nearly every quality that we regard as enlightening and enriching, the more we exalt failure.
I would really like to know ONE positive attribute that Islam has contributed to life and mankind. It seems to have grown out of a inferiority complex, much like we see in many of our youngsters today. The only difference is then it was God, now it is booze, drugs, or mindless celebrities. The great pity is that in our mainstream society there is less and less to inspire striving for improvement, Similarly, any greatness that would have existed in the Muslim world had to be neutralised so not to make the masses feel inferior.
As Abba Eban said of the Palestinians, ‘they’ve never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity’, this can apply to all of the hardline Islamic regimes, driven by the need to make everything different from them to be the enemy, lest their people see who and what is really holding them in the dark ages.
Before the stealth edit (and SOP BBC failure to acknowledge), this is worth a giggle…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17254302
‘This time there may be no pubic frostiness, but that is likely to be at the heart of any heated, private debate.’
‘His argument is that sanctions are working and may well persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.’
‘Reporting’ and ‘analysis’ like that is what makes the BBC such great value at just £4Bpa.
Apropros nothing at all, on the matter of frostiness in an obsessive area of focus, may I repeat my plea for a permanent side thread where trolls and those who like to bait them (who do not represent me if doing so in an unnecessary or abusive way, but can… without justification… end up being used to make broad brush accusations in faux outrage whose hypocrisy often esapes the accusers) can be transferred to trade insults?
I do not advocate BBC style modding, especially using the controversial ‘off topic’ excuse (noting on some BBC threads the mods appear to indulge frankly barking rambling by some, one presumes in hope of driving others away or justifying a closing), but feel the distraction levels are now getting silly and need a place where they can play with themselves without troubling others.
That is not censorship as it can all be referred to if wished, but indeed a positive degree of special consideration surely in keeping with current demands and practice by vocal minorities, which surely can only be welcomed and appreciated.
Watching SKY (BBC Breakfast News beyond hope on any basis) and the lady with the turban getting an airing on the latest meddling by the nanny state and its legions of paid or over-funded finger-waggers.
So far I have seen what appears a child porn video that is supposed to persuade horny chavs and slappers not to take things too far after a few Stellas, and advocacy that the fuzz and ex-NotW investigators get called upon to serve up the full scoop on the possible suitors various wimmin (and females, too) who like to date demand be provided to meet their expectations before putting out.
Uh-huh.
I dread to think how Aunty’s finest is going to spin this one.
Here’s one aspect’s coverage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17254163
And, to be fair, it IS highlighting the meddle vs. results disconnect.
Here’s the other one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17254977
Back to PR as news. Educate & inform? Uh-huh.
Research suggests that research suggests that researchers will say anything… and get willing complcity from dumb broadcasters if the ratings look promising.
As to equating grooming with teenage lack of constraint…. only the BBC could try and spin that one in light of what is going down in areas they feel they need to ‘manage’ as the perps keep messing up their carefully created ideals by doing worse and getting caught.
Here’s another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17230648
As an ex-horny, red-mist-guided teenager, and father of two, I have popped in a complaint on the first asking the BBC quite how they feel it approriate to link two white teens (one geezer and one posh totty, living out some director’s dodgy fantasy) engaged in party excess (male driven, which these days seems a bit ‘ist in its own right given the predatory nature of some delicate blossoms seeking a route to a funded council flat) with race-unspecific grooming activity by older men less on the romantic personal basis than inferred.
They wouldn’t being trying to make out that as all kids are at it, it’s OK if some kids from da hood have turned it into more of a bizniz and really are getting a bad rap from da man… would they?
‘Older boyfriends’… bless you Aunty, you excel yourself.
Received this request from the bBC about Mohammed the French mass murderer.
Did you accept her offer?
Hippiepooter wrote:
” Did you accept her offer”
What! and allow the Islamic cock suckers at the bBC know just who I am. I may be stupid, but I ain’t that bloody stupid.
She seems to have spammed the whole planet, though possibly mainly those who she can then ‘select’ to represent the most ‘appropriate’ views.
The criteria for that… unclear.
Mike Smithson@MikeSmithsonOGH (Twitter)
“Why is the BBC Bradford West coverage so crap? This is the most sensational by-election result for decades and they are ignoring it”
…my tuppenyworth:
http://owsblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/ouch.html
Added my ha’pennyworth to your tuppenyworth.
I notice in Mike Smithson’s second tweet that he is sure there was a high degree of tactical voting by Conservatives to give Galloway a win. Thats’ interesting, as it’s not often that Conservatives vote tactically in this way (except UKIP of course). I’m pretty sure I couldn’t have stomached voting for such a revolting specimen, but I’ll enjoy Labour’s humiliation none the less. The two Eds were quick to be seen in Greggs The Bakers a few days ago – expect to see them in plenty of curry houses in the near future.
yes while the two eds and Rachel ‘yoohoo everyone I’m with the big boys’ Reeves were tweeting about their jolly japes, Egregious George was busy slottering them in PoundlandLand
Reed wrote:
“I notice in Mike Smithsonâs second tweet that he is sure there was a high degree of tactical voting by Conservatives to give Galloway a win. “
I’ve been following the Islamic messge boards for a while now and during the run up to yesterday they went well out of their way in which to inform the faithful that a vote for GG was a vote for Allah. This GG substantiated with his ‘I am a Muslim’ letter.
If anybody voted tactically it was the Muslims. Now look 200 miles south and saw what Ken Livingstone has promised the followers of peace.
(With his promise of turning London Islamic, will that mean more attacks on Jews sanctioned in part by Ken Livingstone)
Interesting our two-faced media getting into a hypocritical froth over this…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9175113/Twitter-users-condemned-over-photos-of-road-crash-victim.html
I am unclear on why they think they are the controllers on good and bad taste…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/10/the_challenges_of_reporting_ga.html
“The images of his dead body were an important part of telling the story”
Now I reckon anyone who grabs a camera instead of helping has an interesting moral compass, but in this case I guess everyone’s was set to ‘unique’.
I just don’t think the MSM is well placed to lecture on sick societies.
Especially the BBC. So it will be interesting to see how they handle this, given posting nasty tweets that may outrage the public are a bit of a non-no for them.
I wonder what their view is on Google partner YouTube posting nasty images is now they are in bed with FaceBook, etc..?
The Empire fights back… feel the force…
—
“David Cameron attack on Welsh NHSâ, BBC News Website
Thank you for your email of 2 March and your comments on my summary of your
complaint. I have now completed my investigation into the points you have raised and I
hope I can address your concerns here.
I have understood you to say that the headline published on a range of BBC platforms was
inaccurate and so I have considered your complaint against the BBCâs Editorial Guidelines
on Accuracy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/). I provided links to a
number of different places where the headline was published in my letter of 2 March,
including the BBC News homepage, Twitter, BBC Red Button and Ceefax.
The question I have considered is whether a single headline saying âDavid Cameron attack
on Welsh NHSâ could be considered materially misleading.
As I am sure you know, the report to which the headline provided a link concerned comments that Mr Cameron made at
Prime Ministerâs Questions in which he criticised the Welsh Assemblyâs handling of the
NHS in Wales.
Yes, I do know. It was in the report I read, and then complained about. What others do, or find out, or don’t, thanks to BBC subbing, was/is the point.
I accept that Mr Cameron was criticising the manner in which the Labourrun
Assembly was running the NHS, rather than the institution itself.
But that was not the headline used. And not what a bunch of your predecessors accepted, trying on occasion bizarre semantics to deny it even took place, before attempting silly justifications to try and terminate this complaint:
“The tweet you read was automatically generated from the headline of the story. So there is no discrepancy. The NHS in Wales is devolved so it is not something that Mr Cameron has responsibility for – it is something that the Labour administration in the Welsh Assembly have responsibility for.”
“The headline on the story* (David Cameron attacks Labour’s handling of NHS Wales) and on Twitter* (BBCPolitics David Cameron attack on Welsh NHS bbc.in/xWGWbK ) are one and the same*, so in that sense there is no discrepancy between them. What you appear to be suggesting is that the headline does not match the story itself, and on that point we disagree.”
*Please explain how these are ‘one in the same’. This was shared, inviting comment, from the outset. So far… ignored.
Is there any comment on this? Or is this simply normal SOP in hope of an interception? Because when it fails, as it has here, it makes bad.. a lot worse.
However, it seems to me that readers would have correctly understood that Mr Cameron was expressing criticism
of an aspect (or aspects) of the Welsh NHS, even if they did not know what it was about the
Welsh NHS he was attacking.
Beyond what ‘seems to you’ being hardly the point, as we are talking facts and how BBC viewers are exposed to them. I think you may need to reread what you have just written, as it is pretty frightening indictment on the future of professional, accurate story reporting on the BBC.
They would have had to click on the link to get further detail but I cannot accept that those who only read the headline would have been left with a
materially misleading impression.
Polar bear footage for dramatic effect, not compromising the story integrity, I can live with. But trying to claim what is written in headline for twitter or mobile consumption can be inaccurate but OK so long as clarified later on elsewhere, no. Especially when bare-faced lied about. You do not accept that if you will. I am sticking firm. Let’s see who is on the side of right, and professional integrity on this one.
I also think it is important to recognise the purpose of a headline.
I am a copywriter, so I do have some experience in this regard. But appreciate your input.
I think it is generally understood that headlines provide a brief summary and any related report will provide
greater detail and information.
Indeed.
In this case, readers who were interested in getting more details of Mr Cameronâs âattackâ could reasonably be expected to click on the link to the full
report.
But not be left with a totally misleading impression if they do not ‘click on’, as you unreasonably presume is inevitable. That… is the point.
And in my profession, misleading in headlines is what gets you in a lot of hot water. Especially when complemented by hole-digging denial.
Maybe out and out red faces are a better tack?:
The headline to this makes no sense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/03/this_blog_is_now_closed_-_foll.html
‘This blog is now closed – follow us Twitter and Facebook’
Were the words removed to make it nonsensical simply because they would not fit the new formats, including mobile, as I have already had ‘explained’ in response to a few complaints about accuracy?
And if so, just how long do you think your ‘most trusted’ ‘news’ reputation will last, if not already blown?
I hold the news, and the BBC, to a higher standard, as no one ever died of a bad ad. But wars have been fought over poorly reported ‘news’.
Finally, I appreciate that you have found the process of making your complaint rather
frustrating (I hope thatâs a reasonable word to use).
Fair enough. If that word is not what I am currently using, or others…
From Newswatch:
“convoluted” “overly complicated”
“it makes me feel if you, the BBC, really have no interest in reading complaints”
“Your complaint submission process is off-putting and complicated. Why?”
“I would like to air my frustration at the total confusion at finding a way to complain to the BBC”
None of which seem very well addressed by the Newswatch programme that aired them.
I also noted these in my reading up on complaints processes:
http://www.mediahell.org/bbccrime.htm
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/how-the-establishment-closes-ranks-around-the-bbc/
Hardly reassuring on process or sincere intent.
Iâm afraid the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit does not extend to investigating the manner in which complaints are
handled or allow me to comment on previous responses you have received. However, if you
wish, I can pass your concerns on to the senior manager responsible for compliance and
accountability in BBC News.
Please do. I wonder though if I may already have an insight as to the nature of a likely response.
In conclusion, I do not feel able to uphold your complaint on this occasion but I hope I have
been able to go at least some way to addressing your concerns.
Again, my lack of surprise is only matched by my sadness in being unable to confirm your hopes.
Nevertheless, if you are not
satisfied with my decision I would be happy to consider any points you might wish to make on
my finding.
Again, provided.
I would be grateful if you could let me have any comments within ten working
days of this letter. You can also ask the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust to
review my finding. Correspondence for the Committee should be addressed to xx,
Complaints Advisor, BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or you
can send an email to trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. The Trust normally expects to receive an
appeal within four weeks of the date of this letter, or of any further substantive
correspondence between us, and expects complainants to limit the details of their appeal to no
more than one thousand words.
Again, deadline and scope restrictions noted, I will take that step when necessary, and will take the receipt of your last communication before moving on as the starting point for the next deadline.
In an interesting further example of inconsistency, I do note that this email did not have the small print T&C screed of others. Just as well as I have not and do not accept most of the terms imposed in what is a very loosely drafted and restrictive few paragraphs.
Forgot to say in my post yesterday – congratulations on the new site – looking good and more user friendly than before. My support donation should be on its way.
Meanwhile I just have to comment on yesterday’s Material World on Radio 4. As said on other occasions if not climate related the items are often interesting. I missed the start but the feature was on saving the world from climate change using geo-engineering. Just when you thought common sense was showing some signs of prevailing we have a guy from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, an initiative of the Oxford Martin School, at the University of Oxford discussing painting buildings white to reflect the sun’s heat, spreading particles in the atmosphere to make it more cloudy. Presenter Quentin commented on the latter – it may well cool the planet but won’t counteract ocean acidification… (hmm certainly not if they spray sulphur into the air and create more acid rain than we ever has in the 1960s and 70s – my opinion not his of course). Aiding and abetting was a Scottish professor who said we must carry on the fight to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (oh those poor plants). The message must not be lost before we reach a ‘tipping point’ in runaway climate change before the tipping point in human acquiescence. We must show that modifying our lifestyles is not all bad. Having missed the start of the prog, I was then speechless when I heard that this Molecular Biologist with a hatred of CO2 is actually Professor Anne Glover, the first chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission. God help us all – these idiots won’t.
I’d get here quick if you fancy chipping in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/03/bbc_news_mobile_site_refresh.html
Having purged any comment that doesn’t suit, the Editor has popped out the bunker to say how great it all is.
That usually is cue for a closing.
“Forced marriage: Girl aged five among 400 minors helped”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17534262
No I word, no M word in fact not mention of ‘religion’ (any religion) either. It lead me to this other article:
“‘Honour code’ supported by young Asians, poll says”
“Two-thirds of young British Asians agree that families should live according to the concept of “honour”, a poll for BBC Panorama suggests.”
I presume this was posted on here but I hadn’t seen it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17319136
Is there a way of demanding a religion break-down of those “500 young Asians questioned”?
There’s only kind of “Asian” that wears the hijab like those girls in the accompanying photo. So they’re not talking about Jainists.
How to spin this? Difficult. Either it’s time to wheel out the old postmodern relativist chestnuts and say that criticizing this is racist, a failure to tolerate their culture, or instead to criticize it, but claim that it’s all the fault of the indigenous, xenophobic English for failing to allow them to assimilate and feel British.
It’s quite the conundrum for the Beeboids.
Let’s see what we’ve got to look forward to, via George Galloway, and his Islamist/Militant Leftist respect alliance..
Can anyone imagine the BBC outrage if this had been a victory for anyone on the perceived “far right”?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rizgq9moQBA&w=640&h=480%5D
Whoops, vid blocked already by channel 4…
I do love democracy…
New Labour, Allah’s pimps, rendered a political irrelevance by their School of Frankfurt policies. Doesn’t Karma do irony nicely? Nutted by reality. Play with Mohammedan matches you’ll get NAZISLAM flames; then Democracy’s ashes. What did Harman, Straw & the beeboids expect? Muslim Pearly Kings? The ivory minarets are smouldering. Here comes the reality check. Wise blood saw it coming, & outside the failed state of Beeboid-Guardianista, the people are preparing.
Muslim pearly kings: yeah right. Sleepwalking into oblivion this lot. Trouble is they are taking us all with them! Tossers!
Currently in process of asking BBC Complaints to explain how Nick Robinson knows that Mr. Galloway’s election success is a one-off.
‘Bradford – an extraordinary one-off’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17559759
Had to laugh that, of all the ‘complaints’ they get, this is the one highlighted:
Is your complaint addressed by the following BBC response?
How can I pitch an idea for a BBC programme? (opens a pop-up window)
It is not even a complaint!
My trusty, impartial, news provider declares: “Israeli security forces have fired stun grenades and tear gas to disperse stone-throwing Palestinian protesters in the West Bank.” That is the beginning of the story. The usual bias to snare the unknowing: “Oh dear, that is *so* wrong! Firing guns at poor little stone-throwers. Something must be done!”
The [Reuters] photo at the top of the article clearly shows a quite violent blaze in front of Israeli security forces. Have stone-throwing Palestinian protesters invented a new sekrit weapon? Stones that spontaneously combust as they land near Israelis? Or is it in fact as ‘Arutz Sheva’ reports: “Land Day turned violent Friday when Arabs began hurling Molotov cocktails and stones at soldiers near the Kalandia checkpoint north of Jerusalem.”
No difference between stones [even though they can be lethal] and petrol bombs in my neutral as ever observer of world events.
I’m off for a Guinness. I may be gone some time.
Apologies to pounce: the bbc traitors in our midst.
Que? Dysgwr_Cymraeg, are you referring to me, you Welsh (or whatever) vunt?
Not you my man, the BBC traitors in our midst, didnt mean to cast any stone or molotov at you…..from a very Welsh “vunt” whatever that may be…….enjoy your day sir!
Click to access 11_05_05_psi_report.pdf
Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one â and neither has anyone on my behalf.
——————————————————–
wow, finally something worth looking at on the BBC website.
Just my imagination, or does BBC reaction to the postal vote election seem to suggest that Labour’s only difficulty is that they are not far enough to the left and not appeasing enough to Muslims.