Time for a new one of these. I’m watching Nicky Campbell on BBC The Big Questions ask “Is God a woman” as I write this. Can’t wait for the disproportionately large number of Muslims that make up the audience answer. Hang on – none in this morning. How odd.
SUNDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Bloody Muslims.
…well they will be if they keep acting up!
Yeah, I noticed that the usual vociferous Muslim faction were conspicuous by their absence as well David- it seems the BBC are afraid to offend the Muslim concept of a masculine God but couldn’t care less with Christian sensibilities on the matter. Anyway, I was sitting watching the ‘Big’ (left wing) Questions whilst having my breakfast and my wife, who’s not interested politics or social commentary usually, came out with this thunderous comment of piercing truth which I think hits the nail on the head: “this country has been bloody ruined by too many bitter women and minority groups who are angry and want back at society for hurting them when they were younger.’ I almost choked on my boiled egg! I think my wife sums up the typical busy-body lefty in their demands that everyone must view life the way they do.
The two most odious of Marxists in the audience this morning consisted of a LGT priest who just couldn’t entertain any view but his(her??) own and a motor mouth young woman who was so vigorous in her defense of the European Court of Human Rights that I could almost see Nicky’s fawning obsequiousness bubbling over into hysteria every time she switched on her megaphone. And to finish off we had a humorous Christian man from an ethnic minority background reciting – at length I must say- verse from the Bible – BUT no one interjected during his extended airtime; I wonder why?
I didn’t even watch the same old recycled crap questions,and when I saw what the topic was going to be,I just knew that the bearded reps of the religion of peace would be highly conspicuous by their absence
what a shock,eh?
Buy your good lady a bunch of flowers, and not one from the petrol sation.
Any Questions on Friday night was chaired by Ed Stourton, came direct from Broadcasting House and featured such luminaries as Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman.
The second question of the evening – about the charity tax – was unusual in that it was asked by Sir Stephen Bubb, a big cheese in the charity world who has been all over the BBC – and other media – this week, attacking the government on this policy. “When will the government see sense . . . “ he began.
I’d always thought that Any Questions existed to give the public a chance to quiz politicians and journalists – and not to allow activists who have already expressed their view on various media outlets a chance to do so again.
Why was Sir Stephen there, if he hadn’t been promised the opportunity to ask a question on his favourite topic? Was he just hanging round the West End on Friday evening and got yanked in off the pavement to make up the numbers or was there some sort of collusion between him and the production team? As it happens, I had tried to get tickets for this show but was told weeks ago that it was sold out. So how come Sir Stephen got in and I didn’t? Who does he know that I don’t?
Well, one answer might be Harriet Harman.
We know that he’s been a political mate of Harriet Harman for more than thirty years in South London Labour Party and Transport and General circles. So does the finger of suspicion point at her?
We’re always told that the panellists have no idea of the questions before they’re read out. Are we really expected to believe that when Harriet Harman saw her old Labour and union mate in the audience, she imagined he was only there to ask the question, “What is your favourite colour?” No, he was there to put the government on the spot.
Did they have a friendly little chat before the programme started – as old friends would? Can the BBC assure us that they didn’t? Or did they even arrive together? It would be interesting to know when Harriet Harman knew that her old mucker would be there – and what part she played in the asking of the question.
No one was surprised that when the panellists had finished their answers, Ed Stourton returned to Sir Stephen to ask what he thought. Well, guess what? He leapt on the open goal opportunity with alacrity, grabbing the opportunity to attack the government, accusing it of “smearing” the voluntary sector.
So, all in all, a result for Sir Stephen and critics of the government – and all enabled by Ed Stourton and his BBC chums.
And speaking of enabling, Harriet Harman was very generously treated by Ed Stourton who allowed her into the debate for a second uninterrupted bite if she wanted to respond to something, say, Ken Clarke had said, without waiting for the others to make their first response.
Further, Ed was determined that, on the question of politicians crying, minimal references to Ken Livingstone should be permitted. “Poor chap, he isn’t here to defend himself ,” he remarked sympathetically at one point while trying to silence criticism of Ken. Similar concern was noticeably absent for other people who weren’t there to defend themselves, like George Osborne and David Cameron, for example.
Harriet ‘controlling the chairman’ Harman surely not!
Yes, Bubbs S. isn’t such the unselfish charity dude he makes himself (and the BBC makes him) out to be.
Nobody has mentioned all the false charities either and perhaps this needs to be more public.
I have been waiting for the BBC to explain this charity tax loophole. As reported it doesn’t make sense. As a multi-millionaire (I wish) I want to give a million pounds to charity. But I am not going to get my tax relief on a million pounds – so (as BBC reports) I am not going to give the charity any money at all. It just doesn’t make sense.
I can see that the charity may not get as much because I might not have as much to give without the tax relief – but not giving at all? As the BBC seem unable to explain multi-millionaires thinking is there anybody here who can explain?
Exactly, the amount the individual gives is unchanged whatever the tax relief. This is point the BBC seem unable to explain.
If you are a higher rate tax payer, you get a kickback of (I think) 20%. I’m not sure what the exact amount is now, but I do know that, a few years ago, when I was a higher tax payer, it was 20%. The simplest plan would be to make everyone just pay the tax to the charity, higher or basic. then no-one would be better off (with the exception of those contributing to fake foreign charities)
harriet Harperson
antichrist witch
Surely that should be Harriet Harperdottir. Bit of a witch all the same.
I see John Sweeney has written an article for the Guardian about his latest Panorama film about mining giant Glencore. Excerpt:
When Glencore floated in London, five of its partners became billionaires, but the biggest winner was Glencore’s chief executive, Ivan Glasenberg, whose stake is worth £4bn. The company was founded in 1974 by Marc Rich, once one of the FBI’s 10 most wanted fugitives, but now pardoned and outside Glencore.
Sweeney goes to the trouble of pointing out that Marc Rich was one of the FBI’s most-wanted fugitives, but for some reason avoids naming the president who granted the pardon, very controversially, on his last day in office. Wikipedia provides the missing details:
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Because Rich’s former wife had made large donations to the U.S. Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton’s time in office, Clinton’s critics alleged that Rich’s pardon had been bought… Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Comey was critical of Clinton’s pardons and Eric Holder’s pardon recommendation.[10] According to Rich’s attorney, Holder advised to circumvent standard procedures and to submit the pardon petition directly to the White House.
If it had been Dubya it’s a nailed-on certainty that Sweeney would’ve mentioned the fact, but because it was Clinton – advised by Obama’s current Attorney General Eric Holder – it doesn’t serve any narrative purpose as far as Sweeney is concerned. It’ll be interesting to see if Clinton and Holder get a name-check in the actual film. If Sweeney’s recent Romney-bashing anti-Mormon “documentary” is anything to go by I think probably not. In that film Sweeney failed to point out that one of the most powerful men in America – Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid – is also a Mormon; again, to have done so would not have served the narrative.
Anywhere you go, nine zeros before the decimal point buys a lot of friends.
Nice catch, DB. I’d forgotten that Holder worked under Clinton. That man has done a lot of damage to my country.
Dave, am I correct in thinking Mitt Romney has connections with Glencore?
When I saw the Panorama programme’s details in my TV guide, I wondered if Sweeney wouldn’t be able to resist linking Romney to the company whilst omitting Clinton and Holder’s connection with Rich.
‘Observer’s Mr Preston on:
1.) Beeboids at breakfast in Salford;
2.) D.G. Thompson’s successor.
“BBC Breakfast: the sofa’s in Salford, but the guests are somewhere else.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/15/bbc-breakfast-guests-sofa-salford
‘Could need hide of rhino, hatred for the Daily Mail’
I wonder if that is satire, or the actual job description?
Interesting post from the Specie blog re beeboids favourite tame muzzie :
April 12th, 2012 4:23pm
I have never been able to understand why the British left formed this informal alliance with the Islamists . Oh we can see that they have common foes–America, capitalism, Israel, Christianity, but the left is being very irresponsible and naive if it thinks it can ride the Islamic tiger; when the numbers exist that make Islam not so reliant on people like, at one extreme, Livingstone and Galloway, and people like the Jones youth at the other, it will simply drop them as having no further use. Personally I believe that only a prohibition on all future Islamic immigration into europe, plus a system of financed repatriation will save us from becoming part of the Umma. That or pan european civil conflict.
…we are not alone !
‘A war of demographics, and ethnic capital is its most potent weapon.’
Sorry to say ‘We’ are alone.
The politicians, the police, the education system, the academics and the most of the media all toe the same line….Islam is good and nothing must be done to either upset Muslims or to allow the impression to build that there may just be something dubious about a ‘religion’ that orders its adherents to kill anyone who is not a believer.
Note the recent reluctance to reveal the identity of certain gangs of men abusing white and non-Muslim girls as sex slaves.
The BBC notably failed to report on Lutfur Rhaman and his takeover of Tower Hamlets….a man thrown out of the Labour Party for election fraud and links to extremist Muslim organisations…as was Ken Livingstone. Not only that but there was evidence that Rahman was set on infiltrating the Labour Party along with other Muslim radicals to further their own Islamic agenda.
And yet given such shocking news and that this man was about to be in control of a London Borough and the £1 billion budget that went with it in Tower Hamlets the BBC decided not to delve in there.
However C4 did….
Tonight on Dispatches, how a fundamentalist Muslim group has secretly infiltrated the Labour party – and the broader political system.
“BRITAIN’S ISLAMIC REPUBLIC”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100060409/britains-islamic-republic-full-transcript-of-channel-4-dispatches-programme-on-lutfur-rahman-the-ife-and-tower-hamlets-the-full-transcript/
‘The state doesn’t seem willing, or able, to tackle this. The IFE and its allies are fond of saying that any attack on them is an attack on Islam. But it is Muslims themselves who are taking the lead, and speaking out.
RASHAD ALI: We need to stop funding institutions that undermine every single civic, civil institution that we have in our society.
HOURIYA AHMED: I think a lot of politicians understand the issue but are too scared to touch it because they are scared of being labelled as Islamophobic, or anti Muslim.
ANDREW GILLIGAN: How can that position be changed, how can you give those politicians the courage to stand up against it?’
The important bit is that last quote from the programme…politicians failing to act because they are afraid of being called racist or Islamophobic.
But who will give credibility to such claims? The media…and especially the BBC which holds a uniquely powerful place in society…it can make or break a story…..it can saturate the airwaves 24 hours a day with its version of events and teaming up with the Guardian and the Independent can sew up most of the influential people’s opinions….look at how Israel is portrayed and how it is now a Pariah.
The politicians won’t move because they know the BBC will support the Muslim side
An ‘Islamic Republic’ in Britain and the BBC refuses to broach the subject.
Why is the BBC’s attitude important? As long as the BBC continues to hide the darker side of this ideology and what is happening in some corners of Britain that are a foreign land the more politicians and those in powerful positions can escape their responsibilities to tackle this ‘colonisation’ by an extremely dangerous theological timebomb.
Ducking the issue means that future generations will be left to suffer the consequences as Britain turns into a land of separate mini nations based on race or religion….and all that entails.
Look, ironically enough, at Karachi where immigration is causing huge bloodshed….
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/08/the_origins_of_karachis_wars
The origins of Karachi’s wars
By Shaheryar Mirza, July 8, 2011
Politics in Karachi is a war of demographics, and ethnic capital is its most potent weapon. The violent nature of politics in Karachi has meant that as land and votes become more valuable, individual lives begins to lose their worth.
Violence is used as a political tool, and no party has made a serious effort to remove it from their repertoire.
Islam has almost finished with the Labour Party. It’s done almost all it can for them now. The next step – when numbers are sufficient – is to install people like Rahman, or use even more naive idiots such as Galloway as tools instead.
I wonder if he really believes that they want him for anything more than his money and notoriety?
Is INBBC reporting this online?:-
“Scotland: Muslim ‘pillar of the community’ tries to mow down his daughter after boyfriend proposed to her.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/scotland-muslim-pillar-of-the-community-tries-to-mow-down-his-daughter-after-boyfriend-proposed-to-h.html
Nope, radio silence. Instead, the BBC reports about an anti-Israel….sorry….Pro-Palestinian group shockingly being refused travel to Israel from Manchester airport, and “Lockerbie” Megrahi has taken his latest quarterly turn for the worse. This time, his son assures the BBC, he’s not going to make it. I actually think I detect a refreshing hint of cynicism from the News Online Beeboid who wrote that one.
“Are BBC Newsnight hacks preparing to embarrass their better-paid star colleagues? ”
By Ephraim Hardcastle.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128547/Are-BBC-Newsnight-hacks-preparing-embarrass-better-paid-star-colleagues.html#ixzz1s7FQ5RfR
‘“Are BBC Newsnight hacks preparing to embarrass their better-paid star colleagues? ”
Well, Newsnight needs to do something to get noticed. Since it canned its blog there have been about a dozen posts on twitter and FaceBook is simply hilarious now between the nutters and the mockers and the wind-up merchants. A rich seam for fun… if not sensible debate.
On matters ‘closed’, has the DM joined the BBC, Graun, Indy & Telegraph: ‘We are no longer accepting comments on this article’ after… 1
As I tried saying earlier but the site was playing up again for some reason. I’m glad I had a late one and missed it as I can do without the stress:)
Worth a look. Ann McElhinney laying into the BBC.
Conservatives have all the best stories
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Have-All-the-Best-Stories
Great link. Thanks.
Wow, she is something, should make the wasters at the BBC,Guardian, ‘charities’ et al sit down and watch this.
BBC-EU and ‘Eurovision Song Contest’,
– from Baku, Azerbaijan, May 2012.
-Don’t mention the M . . . . . threat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070hvg
‘Jihadwatch’:-
“Muslims threaten Eurovision music competition: ‘Blood of the European scum must be shed by the will of Allah'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/muslims-threaten-eurovision-music-competition-blood-of-the-european-scum-must-be-shed-by-the-will-of.html
INBBC political opposition to Israel in action:
INBBC censors out Israel viewpoint.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17720326
‘Jihadwatch’ had this earlier:-
“Israel sends mocking letter to Leftist/Islamic supremacist activists: ‘You chose to protest against Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/israel-sends-mocking-letter-to.html
“Promoting Palestinian Terrorism: A look back at the media coverage of the Palestine Papers.”
by Robert Harris (April 2012)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/111372/sec_id/111372
Why chose Israel when you could chose Syria?
Israel is that perfect combination of high-prestige oppression-fightin’ opportunity combined with functioning airports, clean water, safe food, real roads, and two parties to a conflict neither of whom casually shoot First World tourists in the head or hold them for ransom. It’s like Club Med for ignorant wannabe freedom fighters.
(Not original. Wish i had written that)
Don’t suppose the BBC getting around to inform us that Great Britain can and does legally do the same thing i.e. keep troublemakers out at the borders.
Part 9 – General grounds for the refusal of entry clearance, leave to enter or variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom
Refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom
320. In addition to the grounds of refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter set out in Parts 2-8 of these Rules, and subject to paragraph 321 below, the following grounds for the refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter apply:
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused
(1) the fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules; (I somehow doubt joining a demonstration whose major purpose is disputing the Government’s right to make these rules would be covered).
(6) where the Secretary of State has personally directed that the exclusion of a person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good; (That should cover it. Troublemakers can holiday elsewhere!)
(7A) where false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge), or material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party required in support of the application. (ISM instructs its people to lie about their intentions, at the border. A certain percentage of the ‘travelers’ will have been caught out in their lies before or entered by false representations).
(7B) subject to paragraph 320(7C), where the applicant has previously breached the UK’s immigration laws by:
(a) Overstaying;
(b) breaching a condition attached to his leave;
(c) being an Illegal Entrant (covers anyone who attempted to enter Gaza with one of the ‘flotillas’.);
(d) using Deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain (whether successful or not);
unless the applicant:
(i) Overstayed for 28 days or less and left the UK voluntarily, not at the expense (directly or indirectly) of the Secretary of State (In other words deported once excluded twice);
From The troublemaker option (Five Minutes for Israel)
Supplementary: -from ISRAEL –
http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/IsraelFlytilla.jpg
Where’s Sally Osman gone!?
No idea.
When the BBC does it, it’s often called ‘evolving the story’, and while it happens you usually get a 404 Error. And it happens a lot (you can spend the evening trying to prove me wrong, but ‘I think…’ ‘I’m not sure but…’ ‘It appears that…’ etc, are probably best avoided until you actually know something, if you can wait that long.
It’s possible the error vaguely alluded to (again, best to make sure before demanding apologies. Even if right, you just end up looking petty) by your cherry vulture flock may have been borne out. If so, I’d hope that it was acknowledged and corrected.
And that would be that. But of course, like an expenses claim from a side of the fence the BBC doesn’t feel needs to be moved on from, I am sure we will be treated to days of.. highlighting how a £4Bpa news organisation will never admit error and do all in its power to cover up all those it commits daily.
Until any more more is known (it may just be a glitch on the thread), one can only hope you are not going to be piping up here about it like an impatient toddler in the rear booster seat.
Listened to the snow job of a tribute to Eric Hobsbawm…the BBCs stool pigeon of a historian who is 94(Archive on 4…14/4/12 8pm)
His version of history basically rues the failure of Communism-he resolutely refuses to admit that he was wrong to think the death of millions under Stalin and Mao was anything other than “the price worth paying” for international solidarity and the Great Cause(as he calls it).
Simon Schama is a sympathetic acolyte-just the man to guide Hobsbawn through the “little local difficulties” that were brought up by the fall of the Wall. In Schamas eyes, this is a prophet that we have all yet to love….like Laski, Miliband(R), Toynbee(A)…Gramsci and Marcuse…the well loved lefty version og events that privileges their class, yet exhorts the plebs to civil war…as they wave their flags from gay old Hampstead.
Let`s hope that David Irving is invited to give us the Nazi version of history by way of balance….no doubt, he too is misunderstood-and his approach to the Holocaust will surely get him a pat on the back from Livingstone and Quradawi.
‘Sunday Telegraph report the following, but INBBC doesn’t:-
“Leading British Muslim leader faces war crimes charges in Bangladesh.
“One of Britain’s most important Muslim leaders is to be charged with war crimes, investigators and officials have told The Sunday Telegraph.”
by Andrew Gilligan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/9204831/Leading-British-Muslim-leader-faces-war-crimes-charges-in-Bangladesh.html
More information on this for INBBC to censor:
“Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin Faces Death Penalty In Bangladesh”
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/04/15/chowdhury-mueen-uddin-faces-death-penalty-in-bangladesh/
Here’s how far this PC shit has penetrated all of our public services. From the Telegraph article…
“Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, director of Muslim spiritual care provision in the NHS”
So…our hospitals are filthy, elderly patients’ most basic needs are being neglected, people can’t get the drugs they require, while others are still being left on trolleys in corridors…and they are concerning themselves with minorities’ ‘spiritual’ needs in the NHS. Sack every bastard ‘diversity manager’ in the land, and every other PC appointment. Theses are the leeches that cause this nonsense and cost the nation a fortune. You’re in hospital for medical attention, not a bloody place of worship! Christ.
If the comedy on the box is no longer vintage enough to provoke even a titter, may I commend…
http://www.youtube.com/user/bbccojovideo/videos
The video titled “#Polis12 – Reporting Protest” is astounding. The blurb:
Protestors are getting more media-savvy, how should journalists respond?
The Panel:
Chair: Dr Bart Cammaerts, Lecturer, Department of Media and Communications, LSE
Owen Jones, Author: ‘Chavs’
Padraic O’Brien, Reporter, Channel 4 News
Naomi Colvin, activist, Occupy London
Daniel Garvin, UK Uncut
Summary:
Q: Protestors are getting more media-savvy, how should journalists respond?
A: Yes. They’re here tell you how you’re not reporting on them properly, aren’t they?
With the lone exception of O’Brien, this is like a cliché of what we accuse the BBC of supporting. Although, O’Brien’s opening remarks highlight exactly what we complain about regarding BBC reporting on these protests. His remark about Occupy et al not having identifiable leaders or identifiable goals is a load of crap, and even a nobody like me figured that out after spending a few hours among them. Yet he’s here as a journalism expert.
Come see the bias inherent in the system. If this video didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.
‘If this video didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.’
It is a rich seam, is it not?
Sadly, an awful lot of silt to wade through but the rewards in gold are there.
Anyone see the BBC 4 documentary on Southern Rock? Pretty good, although as my moniker attests I do have a soft spot for that music.
Quite political though. Did you know for instance that the Allman Brothers raised funds for Jimmy Carter and he announced his intention to run for president at Capricorn’s annual shindig.
Anyway worth a watch.
Following the discovery less than a month ago that at least 3000 employees of the BBC were using tax avoidance schemes the Telegraph ran this article in which
A BBC spokesman said:”We have written to Mr Mowat to correct him explaining that these individuals are not permanent members of BBC staff so do not have their tax deducted at source in the way a the vast majority of employees do.
“In the main they are hired to do specific jobs for a fixed period of time such as directing, editing and other craft skills. When a person is contracted in this way it is their responsibility to organise their tax arrangements directly with the HMRC.
“This is entirely in keeping with HMRC regulations and is standard practice across the broadcasting and many other industries.”
Now it’s discovered that at least 2 permanent post senior executives at the BBC are also using this kind of scheme.
Since the BBC demonstrate their corruption on so many levels as evidenced by their output, it’s not surprising that other avenues of their behaviour will also be corrupt.
Two BBC staff earning over £100,000 avoid income tax
‘”We have written to Mr Mowat to correct him..’
It must really ruin a sanctimonious corrector of inaccuracy when this happens..
‘Now it’s discovered that at least 2 permanent post senior executives at the BBC are also using this kind of scheme.’
Just a few mind; not reflective of the whole…. but… a level of uniqueness in the face of resolute denial of error that can only be deemed… ‘unique’.
So here I am reading the news after 11 straight days of pushing out 13 hour days. and I find this very strange sop of an article to how followers of a peaceful religion decided to ‘murder death kill ‘ as many people as they could in anger at how others had knocked up a few pictures of their so called prophet. (Could it have something to do with how he was a paedophile and they were just enforcing the freedom of information act) anyway have a look at how the bBC reports the story
Four deny Denmark Jyllands Posten attack plot
Four men have gone on trial accused of planning an armed attack on a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.Prosecutors said the men had plotted to open fire on the offices of Jyllands-Posten on the day that Crown Prince Frederik was due to visit the building.The four had intended to cause heavy loss of life, they said, but the prince was not thought to be the target.The men have denied terrorism and illegal possession of weapons.
Anybody notice how the bBC concentrates on how innocent these Muslims must be. But what caught my eye is how the bBC signs off the article:
But Prof Peter Seeberg, head of Middle East studies at the University of Southern Denmark, said he did not believe the trial would have the same impact in the Middle East as the cartoons did five years ago. “Thankfully, the cartoon crisis is no longer an inflammatory issue, and when I travel to the Middle East now it is hardly ever mentioned,” he told AP.Danish graduate student Mette Petersen told the news agency: “It’s a pity that this old story about the cartoons will again be highlighted.”I personally think Denmark would like to forget this recent episode in our history.””
Get that, according to the bBC, the Danes are in the wrong and the Islamic world is to be congratulated for the restrain it is showing.
Would INBBC allow this Danish psychologist to freely broadcast the following analysis?
“Robert Spencer interviews Nicolai Sennels: ‘Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant.'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/robert-spencer-interviews-nicolai-sennels-muslims-are-taught-to-be-aggressive-insecure-irresponsible.html
lodged away in the politics section this morning, funnily enough, not really news then according to Al beeb
Will even THIS rid INBBC of its Islam-appeasement?:-
“UK’s Muslim Lord offers 10 million pound reward for capture of Obama and Bush.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/uks-muslim-lord-offers-10-million-pound-reward-for-capture-of-obama-and-bush.html
lodged away in the politics section this morning in the Al beeb website.
“Nothing to see here, move along please”
‘lodged away in the politics section’
Maybe it’s obviously a ‘none story’ (sic)? At least, to those of a unique and selective seeker of truth disposition?
The Big Questions “Is God a woman”
Answer: No
“And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. “
I’ve just listened to the Great Brain – SHOUTY
reviewing Monday’s newspapers on Sky News.
If we can’t destroy the BBC, then my wish is that he replaces Mark Thompson as the DG of the BBC, for he certainly has the credentials to do so !
I watched the poignant documentary on the killings in Norway last year shown on the BBC HD channel tonight. I was very moved by the witness testimony of the survivors and astonished by the incompetence and ineptitude shown by the police in reacting to the massacre – it took them an hour and quarter to reach the island by road as they had no suitable helicopter and they overloaded their boat and had to be rescued by locals – so unlike the Scandinavian detectives currently in vogue.
However in the narrative concerning the murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, certain details were omitted, notably that he was an avid listener to the BBC World Service from whose broadcasts he formed the view that Muslims would take over Europe in 20 years and he also went to Prague to buy guns based on the BBC’s reports that Prague was a lawless city run by criminal gangsters.
Unfortunately when he got there he found the city “nothing like the BBC had described” and found that not only were the Czechs very law-abiding but “Prague was safer than Oslo”. As a result he ended up spending most of the money intended for weapons purchases on the local prostitutes. The weapons and explosives he eventually used were either purchased in Norway or online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
However the BBC – giving a distorted view of the world – so distorted in fact that it encouraged a fanatic to commit terrorist and murderous attacks? Shurely shome mishtake, as the late Lord Deedes might have said. In any event I think we should have been told.
Listening to Radio 4 6pm news noticed how many times they could say Breivik and ‘rightwing’.
I am just watching the painfully politically correct “Silent Witness”. An expert witness for the defendant is pursued down the steps of the courthouse.
From what I understand, “Family Courts” are completely secret, to the benefit of the social workers, the witnesses and the incredibly arrogant judges who run their little fiefdoms (and no, I don’t have any personal interest in this matter).
So my question is: in the real world, how and why would the press be pursuing a barrister in an “in camera” case?
Second question: why is the beebyanka depicting the family courts that way?
Here’s a letter that the BBC News department might like to read before considering their Middle-East coverage…
From the Israeli government…’Dear activists’ :
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5W6ZSjUtGmw/T4rEdFRWr8I/AAAAAAAAGNI/vVbiT6J3ZSs/s1600/flytilla.bmp
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154731#.T4uBcNlOdtD
Hat-tip – http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.co.uk/
In regards to the bBC coverage of the twat of a
British Pakistani Lord. and his bounty on Obama. I hear so many liberal bitch about the Daily Mail. Yet in this case their coverage is far superior to the bBC version. Gee I wonder why?Tweet by Tim Weber, the BBC’s business editor:
‘US government to make profit from bailouts, Treasury says http://bbc.in/HK0sf2 Not that Romney or any other Republican will notice
What Mr Weber and the BBC fail to have noticed is a little thing called ‘opportunity cost’, ie the fact that had hundreds of billions of dollars not been spent on bank bailouts, then it might just have generated more than $2 billion profit. Are the Republicans supposed to be impressed by a less than 1% return on investment over several years?
Jeff
Well spotted, Jeff.
Even I remember the principle of ‘opportunity cost’ from my O-Level Economics days. Seems to be beyond the BBC’s ‘business’ editor though, whose agenda appears to have blinded him to such basic concepts.
Thanks Reed. BTW, I’ve just spotted the following in the BBC’s article:
‘The vast majority of the projected returns – more than $179bn – come from the Federal Reserve’s huge investments and loans to banks.
The Fed and the Treasury together invested $182bn just to save insurance giant AIG.’
‘Investment’ is the wrong word to use to describe emergency bailouts that were made to prevent a financial meltdown, but shows that the BBC is a fan of the bailouts…
Next they’ll be describing the Euro bailouts as investments!
Jeff
They’ve probably learned from one Gordon Brown, who always referred to government spending as ‘investment’, and thought we were all foolish enough to be taken in by his deliberate conflating of the public sector with ‘the economy’.
Good find, Jeff. Using SnapBird to search Tim Weber’s Twitter timeline for either “Obama” or “Republican” shows that he could quite easily be a spin doctor for the Obama administration. As with the rest of the BBC the business section will is pushing a pro-Obama, anti-GOP line ahead of the 2012 election.