Was listening to the BBC this morning as they breathlessly intoned the latest news about “right wing” mass killer Anders Breivik. They know what they are doing when they wilfully attach that term to such a lunatic. Can’t wait for them to talk about left wing killers. They have no shame at all. I’ve been waiting to see if the site is stable before posting again but all looks well. Time to sort the BBC out.
THAT RIGHT WING KILLER BREIVIK…
Bookmark the permalink.
I heard them even talking about right-wing killers (plural). I can’t think of any other mudering lunatic that calls themselves right-wing.
Of course the killer that attempted to kill Gifford was supposedly that until they found he was much more left-wing than anything. And that murderer in the South of France was right-wing until they discovered he was one of Allah’s Little Helpers. They fling the mud and some will stick even when they are proved to be completely wrong.
Yep, they even had that white Muslim convert woman (the one who’s always on Sunday Morning Live) to pontificate about the ‘threat of the far right’. The next day it emerged he was one of her own.
‘Sunday morning live’? You must mean ‘Islam on Sunday’.
demon … too true, you never hear anything about the nature of the ahem! “youth camp”, that was on that island, the indoctrination going on, pally sympathy ie hamas, type of thing for example … their position on Israel? … because to talk of far right is a bit rich in that case.
There is NO excuse for the murders, however interesting point.
5pm and still the same old tosh on the bbc – re Norway – big benefits of immigration, multiculturalism, far right far right ya da ya da …..
don t they know
multiculturalism has failed – Cameron –
multiculturalism has failed – Merkel
multiculturalism has failed – Sarcozy
multiculturalism has failed even Putin!
and Holland. and Sweden even Australia! …
but hey lets just all listen to the al bbc narrative?
Speaking of ‘getting it about left..’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9494961/Orwell-should-have-his-statue-at-the-BBC.html
The BBC is not alone in its wing, ist and zi obsessions, but my heavens, it does seem to like to add labels.
Though oddly, mainly when it suits.
Several threads and comments of late have highlighted cases where descriptive context is fairly clear cut and of value to allow the reader/viewer to get a sense of where the commenter/vox pop/think tank/research commissioner is positioned themselves. And the BBC has become all coy. Maybe a case of ‘certain truths are less able to fit than others’? ‘Right wing’ does, after all, add 10 more characters maybe better committed to other news values?
Frankly I find the wing/ist/zi appellations so hard to define properly and so overused at the drop of the hat… be they right or left… and by people who should really know better… they are more distractions than of any descriptive value.
However, where they get used… and more crucially, where not… confirms that there is a potency that can be inspired in the public mind by their use/abuse, so it is interesting where the BBC seems happy to deploy such terminology freely, and where it suddenly gets much more concerned about reporting without value judgements attached.
I am watching SKY and he appears to be correctly labelled as a killer. What is interesting is the agonised debate still over his sanity. Premediated murder of young people and indiscriminate bombing do not seem to suggest a person who has a full set of marbles.
No matter who they are or where they commit their crimes.
Lone loon. Sadly not intercepted. Danger to society. Lock up and throw away key.
Now, about those who seem a wee bit more coordinated in their hatreds…
His attack was meticulously planned and carried out though. I guess we should be thankful that Islamic terrorists tend to be lazy thick inbred morons.
Of course a few terrorists have proven ‘smart’ enough to be accorded ‘daring’ or ‘audacious’ status by some commentators.
Though I have found its application to be selective, even in cases where the only result has been killed or maimed innocents by brute and/or indiscriminate force by stealth without warning.
Mr. Breivik has, correctly, not enjoyed such terminology to my knowledge, though some equally undeserving individuals or groups have.
I remain unclear as what governs the distinctions made.
Another essay, as this does seem to be a bone some fell worth the knaw still..
‘http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100177627/george-orwell-the-prophet-of-political-correctness-does-not-belong-to-the-left/
This was worth being reminded of, as I recall semantics around ‘truthiness’ or ‘versions of truth’ when it comes to what is, and what the BBC seems to feel either needs enhancing, interpreting or, more often than not, suppressing if not deemed helpful to the narrative.
‘ “designed to make lies sound truthful”
On Breivik, the sane but guilty judgement seems unfortunate, giving him a legitimacy he craves.
I was hoping for the ‘aberrant and now to be consigned to oblivion’ option, though it did present the horror of a Catch 22 circus as he demanded to be deemed sane enough to be treated more harshly in physical terms.
The wonderfully trivial-minded BBC 5 Live B Team (send us a postcard, Nicky) think the Breivik trial is, above all, a Twitter event.
They promise they will be closely monitering the Tweets for us.
The paradox that springs to my mind is that were I interested in the lefty flash mob that is Twitter then I would be perfectly capable of monitering it myself.
So on whose behalf are the Beeb Twitter watchers acting here?
I admit that I am quite old, don’t use social media and am completely incapable of relating to those that do but…….surely this recent obsession, by the media, with Twitter is just wrong? The comments being made by people on a big bulletin board is not news. The comments being made are probably about stories put out by the media (who are then reporting on what has been said onTwitter), thus the whole thing is, in engineering terms, one big positive feedback loop.
The BBC uses Twitter as a communications, newsgathering, and marketing tool. They use it to get more attention for their programming, and more attention for their on-air talent. They believe it also brings that talent closer to the public, enabling that key engagement marketing types love so much.
They also use things like Facebook to communicate with leads and seek out new stories, as well as to push their own work.
For example, remember what their resident expert on the use of social media as a news tool, World News producer Stuart Hughes, got up to recently. See here also.
And here’s the man himself giving a lecture on it to the BBC College of Journalism. What he says makes a lot of practical sense, up to a point. I can certainly appreciate the newsgathering uses, for example. But then we have to sit back and realize that these unchecked egos with a sense of entitlement and superiority and unaccountability don’t always lend themselves to best practices.
‘The BBC uses Twitter as a communications, newsgathering, and marketing tool. “
They are using it, and such as Facebook, as a free, inadequate substitute for what they are paid (via compulsion) £4Bpa to provide.
And while that might seem a pretty good deal (for them), more often than not it bites them on the behind.
Look at what has become of Newsnight since it has ‘improved’ its interactive offering to these platforms:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/03/this_blog_is_now_closed_-_foll.html
(ironically the latest batch of comments seems to be using their love of social media back at them, with some rather interesting links that will either get ignored or removed).
As to twitter, the knots CECUTT can tie itself into over what is basically a ‘truth won’t fit’ policy on headlines has proven and still proves a rich seam.
The current discussions on the introduction of ‘right wing’ when it suits being one to run by them as an apparent mandatory even when space is tight.
Of course the Hughes affaire was educational too, and I still await an explanation for why they think his producer having a quiet word was all that was needed to sort it all out, and no need to go any further and risk a black mark to spoil the 110% record in rejecting valid complaints.
Have they ever referred to Mao and Stalin in those terms?
The political wing of the IRA is Sinn Fein. They are very left wing in their political views. When they they murdered, they were not labelled as ‘left wing killers’; just IRA murderers, who are have separatist views. I am not aware of Breivik’s plan of setting up a right wing political party.
Just because you target a left wing organisation, does not alone make you right wing. Breivik has an extreme dislike of the Norway’s Labour party for what he see’s as betrayal. Seeing what the British labour party has done to this country, I can see what the possible triggers that set him starting on that path.
The BBC even stopped calling the IRA “murderers” as they became very sympathetic to the IRA cause. They were effectively, for the BBC, “Freedom Fighters” particularly as they were killing policemen and soldiers. They tended to only condemn the IRA (in the weakest of terms) when clearly targetting civilians, e.g. Warrington.
Well the verdict is in, sane and gets 21 years. So in Norway they are so civilised, that no matter what you do, they worst is 21 years. I would not want to vote for a political system that was that stupid.
Maybe but unlike ourselves, their Justice system has the final word…
Yes, whenever I hear anything about the Breivik story, I think to myself – ‘It’s just such a shame . . . . . that he didn’t attend the 1996 New Labour conference’
I can’t agree. That comes dangerously close to condoning what he did.
Imagine if such a thing had happened here. It would have been totally counterproductive, as it has been in Norway. You think it’s difficult to oppose immigration here now? Just try doing it after such an atrocity.
Quite. If four Muslims killing 52 people didn’t knock the wheels off the immigration juggernaut, then one whitey bumping off a few NuLab traitors won’t do it either.
This lunatic will be used as a bogey man by the left for years to come. Even the calmest and most reasoned argument against endless immigration will lead to the name “Breivik” being thrown at you.
It was a tongue in cheek comment.
In 1996 I was a huge Labour supporter. Now I believe that the whole New Labour project was/is thoroughly evil and Tony Blair is a vile human being that the world would be better off without.
There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth . .
Congratulations on your enlightenment!
Ha ha! Well, at the time I wasn’t a whole lot older than the kids who were killed by Breivik. I imagine that a good many of them would have outgrown their Marxist fad by their mid twenties anyway.
The trouble is the ones who don’t outgrow Marxism. They become the new foot soldiers for the Frankfurt School.
On the BBC News this morning he was described not just as ‘right-wing’, but as a ‘right-wing extremist’.
If it was a Muslim who committed this vile mass murder, the BBC would have called him ‘radical’.
On one of the web articles (can’t find it now, I was reading it on my phone this morning, he was described as giving a ‘right-wing clenched fist salute’. Funny, I always thought the clenched fist salute was a specifically leftie gesture, as used by, oh I don’t know, this chap.
I made that comment at the time and upset the trolls big time. I had likened it to Citizen Smith and other leftie extremists, and I can tell you Jim Dandy and co. did not like it up ’em. You could tell the fury they felt as they typed ridiculous rebuttals. 🙂
I don’t recall that. Link or retraction?
I’m afraid Breivik is undoubtedly an extreme right wing nutjob. Doesn’t detract from the legitimacy of right wing types who post on bbcc who take the democratic route of course. But Breivik was without dispute of the extreme right.
OK it might not have been you, then it was Dezzie or Scotty. As you all share the same narrow view of the world I might have remembered which of you it was.
might not have remembered.
Although I still feel it was you, and no I’m not going to look for all posts relating to Breivik to find out for sure.
It’s a salute used by people who believe they are a minority in a righteous struggle.
ITV were at it too. Introducing the Early Evening News newsreader Alastair Stewart described it as a ‘Nazi salute’. Emma Murphy, the reporter on the scene, more accurately described it as ‘Brevik’s trademark clenched fist salute.’ Could you see a beeboid reporter making a impartial observation like that when there’s such a golden opportunity to rub the right’s nose in it?
Mandela’s ANC killed a lot more people than Breivik.
The BBC likes its “right wing”labels. Strange, though, I can’t recall them reporting on the shooting last week in the U.S. of a security guard at a building used by an evangelical Christian group opposed to gay marriages. I suppose it’s because the shooter turned out to be a militant leftist homosexual “angry” at their views.
Perhaps Dave Preiser could provide the details of this incident?
The BBC did report it briefly. But they of course censored the shooter’s affiliation. The story barely got any play at all because nobody died. Zero body count = zero news interest, regardless of bias.
Good think Breivik wasn’t given the death penalty in Texas, right? Otherwise the Beeboids would have had to run a Twitter campaign to save him.
Jesus Christ how many years is Breivik going to get for mass murder? Is this a joke?
Getting only 21 years and definitely having to serve at least 10 of them does indeed sound barking mad and just pathetic beyond words for murdering so many people. However as is also getting reported, it’s actually highly unlikely he’ll ever be released and have freedom again.
Is there some psych loophole where they can keep him behind bars forever, even after his sentence is over, for being a potential danger or whatever? I thought the judge declared him sane.
She did. But yes, they can actually keep him imprisoned for as long as they think he’s any danger to the public.
I’d say it would be either a very brave or stupid judge that would ever set him free.
At the end of his 21-year sentence he gets evaluated and if it is found that he is not fit to return to society (as will in all likelihood happen) then he stays infor another stretch.
Anders Breivik gets 21 years for killing 77 people. No wonder society is going down the toilet.
Bring back the death penalty, I say.
And sane: ergo, he wins.
Human lives not worth very much in Norway, then.
They are a tolerant, forgiving people apparently, who somehow know their example will be followed by all intolerant, murderous savages on the planet who in the not too distant future will come to live happily ever after, side by side with everyone else in multicultural harmony.
Dead right – murders and rapes have shot up in Oslo since the moslems arrived.
The Brotherhood Broadcasting Corporation are going overboard with the ‘right wing extremist’ theme but are silent about the ‘left wing extremists’ who were on the island.
The IBC never mentions that spokesanimals from illegal terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah were on the island and the left wing multicultists were demanding that the Norwegian government bomb Israel off the map and called for the genocide of the Jewish people.
But these are just trivial matters to our MSM.
Yes, at bteh risk of sounding callous I heard teh introduction to some programme on the TV here, (must be world news as I’m in Chile!) and the guy was walking on the boat and arriving on Utoeya, speaking in hushed tones as if a baby was asleep (trying to be sincere but sounding stupid) and said here was where evil had taken place…I felt like saying “evil, yes, every year until Breivik pissed on their fireworks. “
And they appear to think it’s quite normal to send your children away to an island for a week’s socialist brainwashing.
I find quite suprising that socialists would have children. Don’t they realise the damage they are doing to the planet by having children?
too true why didn t they just import them from somewhere nice like…
somalia.
And they’re releasing even more greenhouse gasses now.
It will be interesting to see what Norway’s enforced multicultural landscape looks like in 21 years’ time.
Funny how those who foisted multiculturalism on us (‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity’, remember) and other countries, such as Norway, are never described as ‘left wing’, let alone ‘from the Far Left’.
Norway 21 years time? Go watch Mad Max films and see the future for us all in this multicultural society.
More like HG Wells’ The Time Machine where the peaceful, naive Eloi (us) are brutally exploited by the vicious Morlocks (them).
I put this on the @Open’ thread before I noticed this section;
The BBC have repeatedly been using the verdict today to try to increase hate against nationalists in general (or the ‘far right’ as the BBC always calls ANYone opposed to uncontrolled immigration).
I have particulalry noticed the frequent references to his ‘smirking’ in court. Breivik is undoubtedly a horrible man, to deliberately target youngsters, but so are many criminals, Muslim terrorists and just common criminals, and ‘smirking’ in court and even being disrespectful to the judge is not at all uncommon as an act of defiance, when the accused know they have no hope of getting off. I recall the two black thugs who murdered the innocent lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce were similarly defiant in court, however when ethnic minorities are the criminals, the BBC never chooses to dwell on such behaviour and refer to it repeatedly. They are rather more inclined to look at the background and find reasons to excuse their vile behaviour. Why aren’t they looking at the underlying tensions in Norwegian society that led to Breivik’s crazed act? Why isn’t there a programme analysing the changes that have taken place in Norway in recent years that have triggered such anger that led him to this?
Very well said. Debate is not allowed. The religion of multiculturalism cannot be challenged, for it is righteous.
Aerfen, you know the stream of pathetic leftie slants Al-Beeb would put on everything if it made such a programme about Norwegian society. It’d just be a bloody comedy!
“Why aren’t they looking at the underlying tensions in Norwegian society that led to Breivik’s crazed act? Why isn’t there a programme analysing the changes that have taken place in Norway in recent years that have triggered such anger that led him to this?”
Hell Yeah! Like when discussing Auschwitz; why can’t we have a programme about “The Jewish Problem”?
Is that what you mean Aerfen?
Dez, Dez, Dez, I can only imagine the pain your noggin goes through when you twist it through the logical helter-skelter that deposits its miasmatic charges onto this site.
Historians have been looking at the reasons for the Holocaust pretty much since we found out it happened. Usually the conclusion is a sense amongst Germans that they never actually lost the First World War and so must have been betrayed somehow by the new leaders of the Weimar Republic, and this, combined with a general anti-Semitic atmosphere throughout the world at the time, led to them blaming the Jews for their problems, letting Hitler capitalise on this and pass the Nuremberg Laws etc. which grew into the (secret) Holocaust.
What Aerfen is referring to is certain elements of society’s demands to know what the deeper reasons for killers are only when they do not fit THEIR preferred mental image of a ‘baddie’ rather than accepting that murderous lunatics are murderous lunatics no matter what political beliefs they use to justify their violence.
After 9/11 happened, we were told by our betters that we needed to understand the mass murderers’ grievances. We were told to ask ourselves what we did to cause this.
What’s changed, I wonder?
‘What’s changed, I wonder?’
The magic professional integrity dial in the BBC’s newsrooms got kicked from ‘unique’?
TomR,
“Why isn’t there a programme analysing the changes that have taken place in Norway in recent years that have triggered such anger…”
Aerfen is clearly stating that Breivik’s killing spree was triggered not by his own paranoid fantasies, but by the “changes that have taken place in Norway” i.e. immigration.
That is completely analogous with saying that Auschwitz was triggered by “The Jewish Problem”.
The (hugely exaggerated) “underlying tensions” in Norway aren’t caused by immigration. They are caused by a tiny minority of extremists and their ridiculous conspiracy theories.
And so dez reveals his mindest. It’s impossible for the unfettered immigration of third-world behavior without any attempt at integration, to be even remotely responsible for any “tensions”, right?
Any proof of that, dez, or is it just your opinion based on……? This is an important topic for many countries, not just Norway, and is worthy of serious debate, not casual dismissal out of hand as if it doesn’t exist.
What a stupid comment, Dezzie Boy! I always understood Breivik’s complaint was about the growing Islamisation of Norway that “multiculturalism” was bringing about. Your comparison with Auschwitz and “the Jewish Problem” is not only sick but erroneous. The vast majority of those murdered by Breivik were white Norwegians.
For your diversionary argument to work, Breivik should have targeted Muslims. Big fail on your part.
Now go back to sleep,it’s late.
All those moslem rapes and murders don’t matter to you, dez. You just blame whitey for everything. When the fightback starts in earnest, be careful.
Very rarely does Dez return to expand whatever counter-argument he posts after being challenged by other readers.
Dez is a “drive-by” troll, scatter-shooting his ad hominems and cherry pickings before disappearing into cyberspace. He doesn’t add anything to the debate and we waste out time replying to him,which is his intention.
And you, Andy S, are the worst culprit for replying to him-and other dissenting voices (usually to slag them off). Do you see the irony in criticising others for doing what you yourself do?
So where does that leave you?
‘anger that led him to this?’
You utter prick.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/08/anders-behring-breivik-is-officially.html#more
Good blog entry about all this.
Good article there, says it all really.
Good link. This extract from the Observer article is especially apt, and something Orwell might well have penned had he still been with us:
‘It’s hard to come up with an appropriate response to such absolute nonsense, but then again if people are that far gone ideologically, common sense and logic will never be able to permeate their indoctrinated leftists’ brains. They will never be able to see the irrationality of their arguments’.
Reminds me of someone, can’t quite think who it is…..
They seem to have given a lot more coverage to this story than ones closer to home. For instance the Muslim pedo gang court cases. Or maybe that’s just my perception.
The Cowardly BBC hopes the Muslims will get them their socialist state. They must not of remembered or don’t want to remember what happened to left in Iran during the 1978 revolution.
Why for instance was there a Crimewatch special on the Norway massacre? They’ve done specials on notorious crimes in this country but this must be the first they’ve done on a foreign crime. I wonder why.
My BBC audio feed today has been bizarre in its refusal to define exactly why the killer said that he killed … the multi cult word was whispered once after minutes of avoidance but nothing with any clarity … why censor it BBC ? Its our discourse not yours …
I read somewhere Breivig said he wanted a full trial so that he could explain his motives and the link to Norway’s Labour Party immigration policies, including the sinister “Family Reunification Policy” – which I take to be a typical Socialist euphemism for “one Muslim arrives, his extended family are all welcome too.”
Norway is hell-bent on cultural suicide, and the BBC does not want any of Breivig’s opinion on anything broadcast to anyone – he is to be designated a “right wing extremist” to suit the bBC’s left wing extremist agenda.
Breivig’s analysis of Norwegian Labour Party policies may be analytically excellent and we should hear it. His mistake was to decide that those policies entitled him to kill lots of people’s children. That puts him in the same class as Al Queda, who think exactly the same way. Disagreeing with American policies did not entitle them to kill 3,500 people in the Twin Towers.
“Breivig’s analysis of Norwegian Labour Party policies may be analytically excellent and we should hear it. His mistake was to decide that those policies entitled him to kill lots of people’s children. That puts him in the same class as Al Queda, who think exactly the same way. Disagreeing with American policies did not entitle them to kill 3,500 people in the Twin Towers.”
Quite correct. And without in any way diminishing the wickedness of what Breivik did, it is nevertheless dishonets of the BBC to persistently refer to the murdered young people as children. It was in fact only about five of all those killed who were actually minors. The remainder were all young adults in their late teens and twenties, though still no less tragic or missed by their parents for all that.
‘breivig’s [sic] analysis of Norwegian Labour Party policies may be analytically excellent and we should hear it.’
Anyone else appalled by this comment?
Not at all. The BBC doesn’t want us to hear it but it would be interesting to know about his analysis.
It would also be interesting to hear the Norwegian Labour Party’s own justification for sending their youngsters on annual brainwashing holidays, including their choice of foreign extremists that they invited to indoctrinate their children.
No. Breivik’s analysis of the problem (Norwegian Labour, etc.) could very well be excellent, but that’s got nothing to do with how he decided to solve it. One can be right about diagnosing a problem and still be entirely wrong about how to fix it.
In no way can you dismiss any opinion of any kind on any subject simply because a madman may hold it as well. To take Spencer’s analogy further, one might as well be appalled by you liking the Beatles simply because Charles Manson was a fan.
Do you think it’s excellent? I think it’s deranged.
I don’t know if it is or not, as I haven’t read it. All I know is what’s been elided and suggested and paraphrased by the media. If you’re appalled because of your opinion of the analysis, then fine, fair enough. But if you’re appalled by the analysis simply because of the mass murder and not because of anything of substance from the analysis, then it’s not so fine.
Errrr…..no actually!
It’s a debate we need to have.
I haven’t heard anyone justifying WHAT he did, it’s abhorrent .
Jonathan Dimbleby just said that Brevik was “sentenced to life, 21 years….”
Oi, Wild, are you slaggin’ off Slagg?
One thing WordPress needs badly and doesn’t offer is posters facility to amend or delete their own posts, if only to corect bad speling and gramar. Sigh, never though I would miss Blogspot.
I was in the car this afternoon and just caught the end of some moron called ‘Paddy’ on the Jeremy Vine Show. He was finishing off a section on that cunt Breivig with some chap talking about grief and how he’d never encountered such grief as he did in Norway. Obviously only the left can feel real grief …
But the silly twats then followed the item with a song. ‘Sweet Child of Mine’ by Guns and Roses! Slinky linking or what? Sick fucks.
So not Psycho Killer by Talking Heads then.
I feel a bit bad saying this but I reckon the best comment on the blogs during the Breivik trial was something along these lines :
” Obviously a nutter. But his heart was in the right place”
‘the best comment… ‘
So you think Breivik’s heart was in the right place?
Again, I must ask you to demonstrate that any opinion of any kind on any subject is invalidated simply because a lunatic has that same opinion.
Whatever else, something precious has been lost when pieces like this go out pre-loaded with ‘comments are closed’:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100177862/anders-breiviks-sordid-victory-is-complete/
you never hear the bbc lefty journalists describe muslim extremists killers as far right which in fact is exactly what they are if you think about it,the bbc give these far right muslim nutters a more politacaly correct term called militants.yes militants.as for breivik,something is not right about this fella,how can somebody like him who openly admitted he admired al qaeda have anything to with right wing politics,as for the far left bbc,,what more can i say about that lot.