Sorry for the delay, been busy, this is for you!
MONDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC Dec 19, 05:51
Midweek 18th December 2024
Syria not a threat to world, rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa tells BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05p9g2nqmeo Jesus H Christ, this is another absolutely… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 05:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
So they found him a razor to chop his beard off then. - Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself… - atlas_shrugged Dec 18, 22:39
Midweek 18th December 2024
A Turkish crime boss said to be one of Britain’s biggest drug dealers has won his human rights battle against… - Fedup2 Dec 18, 22:20
Midweek 18th December 2024
Me . Every year – I used to get flu and it took me out for 2 or 3 weeks…
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 caught the start of Newsnight with the headline story being “Tories and the EU.”
Maitlis opens with the following biased intro: “The Tory leadership is being blown around by its Eurosceptic rebels…
In Washington the President offers sharp words to Tory MPs…”
Er no – he didn’t target “Tory MPs”
I guess to the BBC this is like 1995 all over again but this time with the added bonus of the Messiah making comments that they then misinterpret as: “Do as I say Tory bitches!”
” EU referendum: the genie is out of the bottle ”
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83886
Are there no ‘Eurospectics’ in the Labour Party?
Is independent thought not allowed in that Party?
‘Euro-sceptics’.
(I don’t like the word.)
There’s a small clutch of them in the PLP, including the highly-principled Kate Hoey – a far lower proportion than among grassroots members. Similarly most union members are eurospectics but their leaders aren’t.
Jacques Delors bribed British union leaders into supporting EU with promises of pro-union legislation and access to EU (your) money prior to that they were anti the ‘capitalist club’
I know because I spent some of it on
an EU organised union jolly in Denmark 20 years ago, sorry.
Same union leaders who sit on the EU’s secretive Economic and Social Council at our expense, cooking up filthy deals with big business…?
It is so “secretive” it has a website:
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.home
It’s certainly secretive about its meetings, admitting no members of the public and publishing no minutes. Hardly surprising when, as your link page admits, it is the “institutional representation of organised civil society”. Just like Mussolini’s Chamber of Corporations.
Do you mean these “secret” documents?
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.documents#/boxTab1-2
No reply link for Albaman’s latest, so hope this makes sense –
Those are just published summaries, not minutes.
How’s about Euro DENIERs. Or is that too explosive?
I find it amusing that the BBC still believe that Tories bashing Europe is a problem. The BBC clearly have little idea that the British public are sick of the EU and want out.
This is the crux of the matter. As usual the BBC is way off the mark but no need to worry. The little beeboids will keep on going.
I would like to know how the ordinary Europeans view this. Surely an island full of people who do not wish to be part of your club is a matter of some concern to them. Not heard much from them via our media.
Radio 4 22:00 > “The World Tonight” was predictable: the EU referendum story seen through the prism of Tory splits, rather than that of disillusionment with the EU all over Europe and not just in UK. So we had references to John Major and the “bastards”, Edward Heath’s reliance on Labour votes to win the key vote in the 1970s, and even mention of 1950s divisions.
BBC – ask yourself: why are the Tories, UKIP and others so anti-EU, if it’s such a good idea? Isn’t it worth examining that?
The beeb doesn’t give a damn about the British public, and sees its job as propagandising the masses in favour of EU social democracy, which in this country is best represented by Labour. If it didn’t the grants and cheap loans from Brussels would dry up.
I mean, the grants and cheap loans from the European Commission to the BBC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
I disagree, AISI. I’d day that the Beeboids know all too well that what the majority of people think about the EU. That’s why they think you still don’t understand, are merely reacting to fear-mongering, or are a little-Englander, and need to have the BBC keep informing you in the correct direction.
Spot on, and its vanguard will be the Today programme with 10 million listeners at the mercy of their well-trusted ‘impartiality’.
Ok the BBc have replied to the “EDL in Bomb plat” headline complaint I made. To the BBc employees who look in on this site thanks for nothing-as usual. To the BBc troll who was telling me on this site the headline was down to how search engines work, this would not appear to be the case. not that I believed that to be true for a nano second. So here we are as usual I am wrong:
Thank you for your email of 30 April.
We do not agree that our headline EDL bomb plot is misleading. This court case was about a plot to bomb an EDL rally and as a way of explaining the story in our headlines – which have a restriction on the number of characters we can use – using the phrase EDL bomb plot is perfectly accurate.
The story was linked to from our main story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054 and most readers would have come to the story you highlight from that story so the possibility of any confusion seems to be very remote.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Yours,
BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/
So the headline is down to a “Restriction” in the characters. Seems to be the digital equivalent of we couldn’t report the full story because of time limitations. You will also note it would appear the BBc employee responsible for the “reply” no longer bothers to identify themselves even with a pseudo name. I hope this demonstrates to any new visitors to this site exactly how the BBc treat your complaints.
If a ‘restriction in characters’ means they could only find space for
EDL bomb plot: Did the police miss it?, how about replacing that by
Muslim scum: Did the police miss them?
Internet acting up Plot not plat.
Pithy.
But no more than their usual default ‘accuracy wouldn’t fit’ template dismissal, which to challenge would take vast effort and up to a year, with each stage involving ever more senior folk reiterating their ovine ‘black is white’ argument in belief that it isn’t because the BBC says it isn’t.
I’d have to check back, but if all was well, why are there other, more descriptively correct versions and, if I recall, an evolutionary update?
‘We do not agree…
… a restriction on the number of characters we can use…
The story was linked to from our main story…
…most readers would have come to the story you highlight from that story…
…so the possibility of any confusion seems to be very remote’
‘Seems’? It’s subjective, but as they raised it, I’d be interested in them proving that the totality of an accurate news story requires readers to flit between different parts of the BBC news estate to assemble a proper picture.
Not all can or will.
Hence, surely, by definition, the certainty is that those who do not may be given the wrong impression.
That the BBC seems comfortable with that is a grave concern indeed.
The BBC – they take your money then take the piss.
I think it’s now time to take up BT’s offer of TV over the Internet & cancel my broadcast license.
Technology finally triumphs.
Johnofenfield,
“I think it’s now time to take up BT’s offer of TV over the Internet & cancel my broadcast license.”
You might find that Sky has a better quality and cheaper deal for tv, broadband and phone.
Unless of course you’re unemployed; in which case you’ll be branded on this blog as “scum” for wasting your money on such “luxuries”. ;-p
If you’re unemployed it’s not ‘your money’. It’s someone else’s.
Complete bastards, and if they actually believe this lie below than they are incompetent and iliterate.
“We do not agree that our headline EDL bomb plot is misleading. This court case was about a plot TO bomb an EDL rally and as a way of explaining the story in our headlines – which have a restriction on the number of characters we can use – using the phrase EDL bomb plot is perfectly accurate.”
WTH – it has precisely the opposite meaning – why did they have to insert the two letter word “to” (difficult for space restrictions of course) in their defence above? Was it perhaps because it made it a comprehensibe grammatically correct sentence where the culpability was clear?
As is said to in a comment at the time “Plot to bomb EDL” is perfectly accurate, easy to understand has three extra characters.
Please make a follow up complaint, and ask if the editor who wrote the headline and the drone who replied have an English GSCE between them
Jeremy Vine gave Brian May a free ride to define what he means by being human. Apparently concepts like democracy and freedom of expression don’t figure in Dr. May’s vision. He claims there are evil people, some of them in government, plotting day and night how to kill animals. Badgers are being culled and left on the roadside, (not just run over by passing cars?).
No doubt ‘humane’ people are just plotting in the day time, (never the night time, shades of Michael Howard there), how to do harm to people legally working on farms and in research laboratories.
Why do ‘celebrities’ get free range to push their ideas on how the rest of us should live our lives, (E-numbers, MMR jabs, ‘organic’ food etc), without any sort of challenge? Indeed the whole ‘interview’ experience is usually a complete ‘love in’, ‘Oh Brian you are wonderful!’.
never rated him as an astronomer either……….. 😉
He should have stuck to playing the guitar. That appears to be the one thing he is good at and in which he knows what he is doing.
I once visited farms in the South West which were having great problems with local deer which were eating more of their crops than the farmers could afford. The reason was large numbers of deer were drawn to the area by a reserve created by Paul and Linda McCartney. If they had left well alone farmers in the greater area could afford to each lose a little but their interference was affecting the economy of the whole area. Not BBC bias – just a response to JimS above. (Although bar Adam, Countryfile always seems to be in support of the ‘fluffy bunnies’.
“…Why do ‘celebrities’ get free range to push their ideas on how the rest of us should live our lives…”
I think because wealth (and in multimillionaire May’s case massive personal wealth) so easily impresses and dumbfounds the hypocrites in the BBC. One only has to remember how easily the likes of New Labour were smitten by such millionaire showbiz types. It has always been this way within the BBC.
Despite their faux socialist credentials, most troglodytes toiling away deep within the Politburo secretly dream of possessing that kind of personal wealth, whilst greedily sucking at the license payer teat for their grossly inflated salaries (you know, because they’re ‘worth it’).
Of course, such material hypocrisy never seems to trouble their resolutely socialist ideologies – ideologies they never hesitate to broadcast to the nation. It’s soooo much fun being a leftwing ‘meeja’ and entertainment luvvie…!
Wasn`t he letting deer or badgers be killed on his estate last year somewhere?
Hypocrite!…classic Live Aid Goon!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238203/Badger-welfare-campaigner-Brian-May-accused-hypocrisy-allowing-hunter-kill-23-deer-land.html
“May believes people are deliberately trying to ‘blacken’ his name”
What goes around…
This evening the bBBC ‘news’, in northwest England at least, devoted hour upon nauseating hour to coverage of Sir Alex Ferguson’s last parade through the streets of Manchester. The contrast with their treatment of Mrs Thatcher’s farewell was marked.
For Ferguson, not a word of dissent was allowed. No mention that he encouraged his players to cheat, to intimidate referees, and to play the race card to get rid of opponents. No-one commented that for seven years he refused to speak to the bBBC, breaking the rules of the FA but being allowed to get away with it by his usual bullying. The club only succeeded by being rich, taking money from thousands of poor supporters and giving it to a handful of undeserving players. Ferguson was a true champagne socialist. Most of Manchester hated him, and the vast majority of the rest of the country.
So, who was the real ‘divisive figure’, Margaret Thatcher or Alex Ferguson?
Sir Arthur, sorry to disagree. United players were not encouraged to cheat or intimidate referees. There were times, like with all other clubs, when United players surrounded a referee when he had made a bad decision against them. But, contrary to the BBC hate campaign at the time, United were no more guilty of that than any other top team. As far as encouraging them to cheat, I agree there were some players who took it on themselves to drop easily, but it was clearly discouraged by Ferguson. Unlike players like Gerrard who has been trying to cripple opponents with his two-footed tackles for years and developed a “starfish” jump when not touched and has won many bad decisions.
He refused to speak to the BBC because of their hatchet job on a member of his family, still part of their hate campaign against him. They seem to have mellowed more recently on this one.
And also, contrary to BBC lies, most of Manchester worship him. There are many more United fans than City fans in Manchester.
I do agree that Margaret Thatcher wasn’t divisive – that was her enemies at the BBC and other parts of the left who divided the country with their lies.
Will we initially be able to refuse to allow the meters to be installed in our homes? Surely home owners can dictate what is installed or not in their properties.
Oh Pants! I’ve posted in the wrong place, sorry.
You have to remember that bBC journos are notoriously lazy. Just look how many stories now come from Salford as they’re too lazy to walk the few hundred yards into Manchester! This was the whole reason behind the relocation from London where the bBC had become so idle that it was effectively little more than a regional broadcaster.
So when there’s a parade running past your front door it’s just so easy to get a few cameras down there, rather than driving somewhere else.
Then Fergusson is a staunch Labour supporter – that goes without saying, he’s Scottish!
For seven years he refused to talk to the bBC! He should have been posting on this site!
I don’t agree he was hated in Manchester, or in the rest of the country.
Well said, Sir Arthur.
‘Sir’ Alex was a far more polarising figure than Lady Thatcher, and with far less excuse.
Meanwhile, Beeboids love to bang on about his legacy but without ever telling us exactly what it was. We’re just meant to assume that – as one of the BBC Illuminati – his success equals Britain’s success. His actual legacy was introducing the dark arts of spin into football and hollowing out its institutions – but don’t expect anyone at the BBC to mention it.
Agreed, Sir Arthur.
Ferguson is without doubt the most successful manager in English football history. Combine that with his fame and wealth and you might have expected a person who could take a bit of criticism on the chin, laugh things off a bit more, be magnanimous in defeat and show some generosity of spirit when decisions don’t go his way. In reality he came across as the complete opposite – bitter, twisted, miserable, spiteful and thoroughly unlikeable
Lord Ahmed resigns from Labour Party
The bBBC tiptoes around the reason for his
resignationexpulsion, and doesn’t quite manage to avoid the elephant in the room, but it is the penultimate word in their 660-word item.Is this the same “Lord” Ahmed who is supposedly quoted in The Guardian as saying “If are a Muslim in Britain you can almost do what you want with the good old Labour Governments blessing.”? (24th April 2013).
Do you have a link to that? I can’t find one.
Having finally found the quote, you should be very careful in attributing them!
This quote was said about Ahmed by a UKIP member Caven Vines in Rotherham
BBC promoting friggin insect eating AGAIN today!
It’s a steady drip drip now.
Just what their EU masters ordered –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033606/EU-spends-2-5m-encouraging-people-eat-insects.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Yes, the solution to import unskilled lazy immigrants who parasite the system together with their extended families, driving taxes and home prices, mortgages and business loans to the roof – is of course The Amazing Tesco Cockroach Pie!
Feel depressed and lonely because your MP doesn’t give a flying about your opinion? Does your state broadcaster shame you to tears for your cultural heritage? Didn’t had a job for the past 14 months?
Well you know what to do: The Amazing Tesco Cockroach Pie! will make you feel better. Super-concentrated protein from a species far superior than you’ll ever be. Try The Amazing Tesco Cockroach Pie! and you won’t regret it.
That would be halal, of course. Good employment positions for those out of work halal believers who speak no English and could do with the frantic exercise necessary to catch, kill and pray keeping them lean and mean halal machines. Except on Fridays of course when their brains and bodies will be exploding from all the unaccustomed work necessary to feed the community. The imagination runs riot!
My personal hate is their eternal campaigning for mandatory organ ‘harvesting.
You could end up with Stephanie Flanders’ brain.
Toward the fag end of the previous open thread one of our friend-of-the-BBC pals (it was Albaman) made this comment:
‘Interesting article GeorgeR and one which, apart from Aitken, fails to name any verifiable sources.’
He refers to former BBC man Robin Aitken
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/398916/George-Bush-He-s-mad-Shock-truth-about-BBC-bias?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-uk-news+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+UK+Feed%29
Quite rightly he was soon picked up on his failure to see the irony inherent in his own comment when speaking of a broadcaster that selectively likes to say ‘…the BBC has learned…’
Robin Aitken’s experiences are important because they go to the heart of the bias.
Of course the only dissenting voices will be lonely escapees.
Could we ever expect a large number of Beeboids to come and declare…. ‘yes, hands up, fair cop…. we are all biased to the Left.’
This caught my eye….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22464374
‘A Point Of View: Leaving Gormenghast’
I wonder whether any Beeboids recognise themselves in this?
‘Mervyn Peake’s Gormenghast novels are cult classics of 20th Century English literature. Writer and philosopher John Gray considers what they tell us about the nature of the modern world. (May contain spoilers.)’
‘Governed more by ritual than by the hereditary rulers who have immemorially reigned over it, the castle confines Titus in a life of empty ceremony.’
‘The castle’s inhabitants are people, situated – or trapped – in a version of the human world. Huddled in a small part of the ancient edifice, with the rest of the vast tenements a deserted labyrinth, they include the ruling family, several castes of servant, a school, a doctor and a poet. ‘
‘There is no church or priest, and aside from a pervasive reverence for the castle itself, no religion.’
‘Gormenghast is the scene of cataclysmic upheavals…’
‘Despite these disruptions the life of the castle goes on. Whatever its inhabitants do, however much they may revolt against it, the castle doesn’t change.’
‘Leaving Gormenghast means leaving behind childish dreams – whether of the past or the future. Titus knows he can’t change the modern world any more than he could change life in the castle. But maybe he can find what life in the castle denied him – a home in the present. ‘
‘Whatever its inhabitants do, however much they may revolt against it, the castle doesn’t change’
I often wonder if the signing of a BBC employment contract is carried out to the sound of ‘Hotel California’… ‘You may check out any time you like, but you may never leave’.
For those who haven’t heard, and plenty haven’t the government is intending to roll out the replacement of all 53 million gas & electric meters by 2019 with new smart meters. The cost of all this is estimated to be an breath taking £11 billion. All of this ‘investment’ is comming from the stealth taxes placed upon your utility bills.
‘Why would any of this bother me?’ most of the populace will be saying without bothering to pause for thought, and sure as hell neither the government nor the BBC are going to tell them.
Does the massive figure of £11 billion strike you as a little high? Or indeed the need to have a total meter replacement program within such a sort timescale? It’s even more suspicious when you stop to consider that the only real benefit is an estimated £3 a year saving to the house hold and the fact that the meter can be read remotely.
The real reason is of course much more sinister.
The UKs energy supply is failing, it is likely that soon we will experience rolling power outages as successive governments have utterly failed to ensure adequate generation capacity is maintained. I won’t go into the causes for this here, I suspect most of the reasons are known anyway.
The real reasons for the installation of these meters is to control the peak demands for energy, and the government intends to introduce a system by which it can push the price (probably by taxation) up for the use of energy at peak times preventing people using appliances when they want to. It is unlikely that off peak prices will be any cheaper as a result of this, governments are all about stick without any carrot at all, and a nice new tax into the bargain.
If all the government wanted from this project was what they are being up front about then they could acheive it for a tenth of the cost.
https://www.gov.uk/smart-meters-how-they-work
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-12/21/smart-meters
…and sure as hell neither the government nor the BBC are going to tell them.”
Which? warns of energy smart meter ‘fiasco’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16565100
Q&A: Smart meters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16596175
Smart meter project is delayed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22480068
Smart Meters; What’s the point?: You and Yours
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qmxfh
Smart Meters are privacy risk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18407340
And on and on and on…
You prove my point Avocado, all those articles and nothing about the devices being capable of limiting your peak time usage of power, nor the peak time charging.
There is no mention that these meters are intended to spread the load to minimise the chance of inevitable black outs because the government has failed (deliberately?) to build any new capacity.
It is interesting.
Of course maximising efficiencies and managing usage to be most cost-effective can only be a good thing.
However I do wonder where the self-sufficiency aspects of alternate energy supplies started to be complemented by caveats on deliverables and the need to reduce… and possibly to a drastic extent… based on demand vs. supply.
All while the requirements are to see economies grow along with populations.
This seldom happens with reduced energy demand and consumption.
It’s not a palatable truth, but a truth none the less.
That the most trusted national broadcaster has been at the vanguard of propagandising any old idealistic nonsense or unsustainable claims from bodies it likes at the expense of holding them to account, shows it is as much part of the problems hitting home as they are.
On matters science, eco or energy supply I’d trust the BBC’s professional news integrity as much as I would its abilities to grasp basic physics.
Being served salad may soon be the solution served up, but given their poor substantive value this will bring other problems.
I’ve just heard that the smart meters have the facility to cut the supply to a particular house from a remote location. This will be sold as a cheaper way to cut the supplies to those who don’t pay, however it will also allow them to cut the supply to homes using the most power when the demand is at its peak.
The phrase to listen out for is “demand side management”. The head of SSE Ian Marchant mentioned this concept in a BBC interview over the weekend when asked about future power cuts. He was not asked what he meant but it is clear to me that smart meters will play their part in this.
Oooh, another of my five a day.
“Does the massive figure of £11 billion strike you as a little high?”
Yes it does. Ignoring the privacy issue for the time being, it looks like one of those “nice to have” things, like a bigger TV, that sensible households do without when budgets are stretched.
Will we initially be able to refuse to allow the meters to be installed in our homes? Surely home owners can dictate what is installed or not in their properties.
You are unlikely to be forced into having one in the short term – I have resisted ‘pressure’ to have a water meter installed for some years now – but I have a feeling that ‘demand management’ is a key element of the business case for these meters and therefore you will find yourself on a truely penal tariff if you do not have one. Checkout the walk up fare for a single rail ticket to Manchester from London arriving 9:45 tomorrow(108.50) and compare with a ticket booked three weeks in advance to arrive at 09:45 (34.00) – 320% variation. Now imagine something similar when you put the kettle on in a Corination St ad break in winter.
As far as the BBC is concerned this is all to the good of course.
I forgot to add that the incentive to improve supply will disappear if the supplier can simply charge a higher marginal cost for a KwHr as demand increases and supply availability decreases. In this scenario it is massively in the suppliers interest to restrict supcapacity as much as possible and make a higher margin on each unit sold. No need for nasty capital investment. So you will soon have to get up at 03:30 to cook your breakfast and Sunday Lunch will be at 23:41
Any meter, gas or electric, remains the property of the supplier. If you fail to allow them access (most are outside now anyway) then they have the right to disconnect your supply.
The BBC 5 Live morning gangshow have lots on the ‘Signing Spaceman’
Perhaps no one has texted them this story?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-peer-lord-ahmed-resigns-from-party-over-alleged-antisemitic-comments-8614641.html
Now where’s Nicky Campbell’s Twitter?
We have had the annual event where the BBC’s PR bunnies meet up with Sony’s PR bunnies and decide which stations/ programmes/ droids at the BBC should become entitled to puff themselves as ‘Sony Award winning’. The results then #prasnews end up in BBC news bulletins in the self-licking lollipop section.
I had to laugh though when the news droid described them as
‘…Sony Awards, the radio Oscars’.
Well yes, dream on, treacle. The Oscars and the *snigger* Sony awards are both award ceremonies in the same way that the Bugatti Veyron and the Dacia Sandero are both cars.
SYRIA.
At least INBBC is catching up this morning:-
“Outrage at Syrian rebel shown ‘eating soldier’s heart'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22519770
‘Jihadwatch’ had this yesterday:-
“Syrian jihadist cuts heart out of dead soldier, bites it”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/syrian-jihadist-cuts-heart-out-of-dead-soldier-bites-it.html
Somehow, INBBC turns this gruesome report into a ‘diplomatic’ assessment of the Syrian civil war, with Mardell pontificating.
-There’s no mention of the ISLAMIC JIHAD nature of the perpetrators of this inhumanity, and no mention of how West’s aid supports such perpetrators.
wanna hear a secret ? CO2 did not cross the 400ppm limit ..check the offical figures
– Scripps Keeling’s latest figs are on their Twitter feed – https://twitter.com/Keeling_curvefrom
– NOAA – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
..both figures tend to be about 72 hours late for some reason .. Both are from the La Moana station in Hawaii. Only the NOAA reading was reported as being above 400 on Thursday ..Despite 10,000 news stories the figure has QUIETLY been corrected to 399.89 and for the last 3 days of readings have dropped to 399.41 (around now is always the peak time of the year for CO2)
LA TIMES
Yes, the BBC and their warmist pals got quite excited last week. Sadly, all the T-shirts will have to stay in their wrappers at least until next year.
I cannot find a correcting article yet. I expect it is being drafted ready for broadcast. The Beeb always put things right when they jump the gun, don’t they?
I posted a reply about this on the last open thread
re BBC Radio 4, 5, the BBC Asian network yesterday.
Robert Spencer as always excellent commentary.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/uk-temporary-marriage-on-the-rise.html
another BBC report from yesterday
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22354201
actually, there was no mention of the “serious problems”
with this yesterday? … and i didn t catch the asian network show.
“Traditional ‘temporary marriages’ are now a permanent problem”
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/traditional-temporary-marriages-are-now-a-permanent-problem#ixzz2TG11PLuW
“temporary marriages and growing problems”
“islams sex licences ”
daily beast
“Temporary marriages are a growing problem in India”
Washington Times 16 Apr 2013
Does Islam have a loophole for sex-on-demand called ‘temporary marriage’?
It is called Nikah Mut’ah, a fixed-time arrangement between a man and a woman that dissolves once the duration expires.
religion of peace.
The example of DETROIT.
Three reports:-
1.)”Editorial: Yes, Detroit, it really is this bad”
From ‘The Detroit News’: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130514/OPINION01/305140316#ixzz2TFzLpJMh
2.)”Detroit May File for Bankruptcy”
By Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/detroit-may-file-for-bankruptcy/
3.) “Detroit ‘clearly insolvent’, says emergency manager”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22514588
Spot the missing political party of the ex-mayor convicted of fraud mentioned in the BBC report.
BBC-NUJ, with Labour Party.
BBC-NUJ’s Mr Wheeler, deeply embedded, and soul-searching with the Labour Party here, doesn’t mention Labour policies, such as that of mass immigration:-
“Ed Miliband must get ‘match fit’, says New Labour group”
By Brian Wheeler,
Political reporter, BBC News.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22502982
For BBC-NUJ, Mr Wheeler, and Labour Party:-
“Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come… and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson.
“Former minister admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration.
“Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2million.”
By TIM SHIPMAN
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come–hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html#ixzz2TG2UUCxm
BBC-NUJ (and its Mr Brant) has a go at PM Cameron for favouring an E.U Referendum, but BBC-NUJ does not criticise Miliband for opposing E.U Referendum.
Presumably, this is official NUJ policy on E.U.
“Tories to publish details of draft EU referendum bill”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22518403
But:-
“EU referendum: Now the pressure is on Labour”
By Daniel Hannan.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100216699/tory-splits-what-tory-splits/
No mention of this on the BBC, from the Daily Mail “Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come… and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come–hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html
I wonder why?
This will only serve as fodder to people the BBC views as Little-Englanders and racists, so they will need some time to figure out how to handle it. Unless Mandelson made two different speeches at that conference, the BBC decided this bit wasn’t worth mentioning in their report. I’m sure we’re still not allowed to claim bias even there, though, because the BBC did report Mandelson’s criticisms of Miliband’s policies, including the former’s condemnation of the latter’s conflation of ordinary working-class people with trade union reps.
Defenders of the indefensible will still dismiss anyone here who links to articles like this: if it’s in the Mail, it’s either a lie, an exaggerated claim designed to rouse the rabble, or just drivel not worth their time. How many times have we seen a defender of the indefensible dismiss any links to a Mail article, or a commenter who links to the paper? This will be no different.
Criticising the paper per se rather than fronting up and debating the content is to be expected of The Left.
It’s nothing we haven’t already assumed, but shocking to read nonetheless. The barefaced lies are just jaw-dropping. It’ll get little coverage, but it should be a huge story. The wave of New Labour mass immigration is the biggest change foisted upon our nation in decades – all without our consent – and this revelation, like that of Mr. Neather, will get no media attention whatsoever. The BBC in particular will no doubt see nothing wrong with Mandelson’s admission, and wouldn’t wish to cause trouble for either the issue of immigration or more specifically for Labour.
Shocking all round.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3516/mp_in_mental_health_offence_scandal_media_silent
There’s a challenge in that last line.
One looks forward to a member of the produce section to pop over there to correct them, assuming the BBC has, or will oblige.
Just to advise that the ‘new’ BBC The Editors thread has, after a slow… make that glacial start, kicked into life, and they’d love to hear from folk.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_editors/
Looking a little shy on inspirational stories thus far still, if the responses garnered are anything to go on.
So far, two on one before it of course, closed.
Just 19,999,998 licence fee payers out there left to chip in as they spin up.
Hilarious. Mind you that vomit-inducing trailer the BBC were pimping for the late night TV show, ‘The Editors’, was unintentionally hilarious, too, speaking as it did of self-congratulatory ‘experts’ in the BBC’s higher editorial ranks all ‘coming together to discuss some of the popular issues of the day’.
Yeah…ooookay.
Needless to say, grateful for the forewarning from the BBC themselves, I steered well clear of such doctrinaire drivel. It appears most other sensible also did the same.
INBBC and Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s’s SHARIF:_
1.)
“Pakistan election: Why voters backed Nawaz Sharif”
By INBBC’s Owen Bennett-Jones.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22502733
BUT –
2.)
“Obama Congratulates Pakistan for Electing Islamist Prime Minister Linked to Osama bin Laden”
By Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-congratulates-pakistan-for-electing-islamist-prime-minister-linked-to-osama-bin-laden/
“Lord Ahmed resigns from Labour Party”
One has to read to the penultimate word of this long INBBC piece to learn that Lord Ahmed is a MUSLIM.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22515470
“The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected the British Muslim community” (March, 2013).
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/48164
Simple truth is, the antisemitism is embedded in the Islamic teachings, and is not something that can become infectious like a disease.
It’s right there, as a basic principle.
Did anyone hear the afternoon drama on radio 4 on Monday -JB Priestlys play Angel Pavement . The 1930’s anti semitism was too subtle for a modern day listener. They had to update the anti semitism for today’s audience . They gave the nasty character who took away the people’s jobs a German Jewish accent right at the end, and just before the angel played the trumpet of judgement for this type of person. The promotion of racism inthis way is rather scary!
The justification by the BBC for the move to Salford is:
The BBC made a commitment in 2004 to move much of its activities outside London to serve audiences better and deliver increased public value.
Now just what difference it makes to ANY TV or radio audience, in the UK or anywhere else in the world, just where those broadcasts are made seems immaterial. They could be in Timbuktu as far as that goes. Seeing that London is the capital, where most outsiders that would be likely to be invited to appear on the BBC would be based, then it would make the most sense to maintain their base there.
As far as increased public value goes, it’s been seen already that this couldn’t be the case. The following article shows just how careless the BBC in regard to monitoring payments made to staff in relation to this move. No private company could stay in business with this attitude, so the excuse that the BBC has public value at heart is completely ludicrous.
BBC slammed for ‘inadequate’ checks on paying £23million to persuade staff to move to Salford
*National Audit Office criticises ‘exceptional’ payments to more than 90 staff
*Sport, children’s TV and BBC Breakfast among programmes moved north
*One person offered alllowance to sell a second home, NAO found
*Still not clear if £233million move will give value for money
The BBC Style Guide needs tweaking. This report about the conviction of abortion maven Kermit Gosnell for three murders opens with the following:
A Philadelphia doctor has been convicted of the first-degree murders of three babies delivered and killed with scissors in late-term abortions.
Note to the BBC: If the baby is delivered and alive, it’s not an abortion. That’s why the man was convicted of murder. Please keep your ideology out of it.
Abortion is a just a word. Murder is much more .No wonder the Beeboids shy away from it.
The man is a monster. He deserves the death penalty if anyone ever does.
I am sick of the mealy mouthed misuse of language by our liberal apologists.
BBC slammed by audit office for failing to reveal Salford relocation allowances
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bbc-slammed-audit-office-failing-3812529
I don’t think I dreamed it (and I am sure someone here will tell me if I did) but I am sure this morning I heard a piece on the Today programme about postal voting and a representative from the electoral commission explaining that postal vote rigging was only common in specific urban areas. But having looked on the Today website I can see no mention of the item. If I didn’t dream it I wondered why the Today presenter didn’t ask which areas were the ones with a postal rigging problem. Or can I guess?
No you did not dream it. And yes no further questions were asked about which types of urban areas.
You are right: it was at around 06:50 on “The Today Prog'” not long after I’d switched on but I was wide awake. More giant hairy mammoths in the studio again: listeners will have drawn their own conclusions as to which urban areas (and thus ethnic groups) were most likely involved.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come–hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html
Well anyone who kept their eyes open, could see the huge increase in immigrants, and that it could not have been by accident. So the Labour cabinet policy that Andrew Neather let slip and then denied, turns out to be true, as if we did not know already.
Here’s another myth exploder for QT.
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/tower_hamlets_targeted_in_voter_fraud_clampdown_1_2192288
Again we knew but always denied. This together with yet ANOTHER conviction at the old bailey against muslim nonces and rapists, something else Labour kept quiet.
Hot on the heels of the revelations about the IRS targeting groups based on political ideology the President doesn’t like is this:
EPA waives fee requests for friendly groups, denies conservative groups
Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.
“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI fellow Chris Horner.
Can’t blame Republicans or the Tea Party movement for polarizing things or blocking His every move here, BBC.
Playing fast and loose with rules to either help or hinder depending on fealty?
How very BBC.
What the EPA should have done is simply claim ‘belief’ that they were right, hence did not need to answer at all, much less for money, and then ban any groups who persisted in holding them to account for such presumption.
Be interesting to find out on the same basis which FOI requests the BBC deliver via fibre optic by return, and which they get an arthritic monk to transcribe in illuminated script to be sent over by carrier pigeon…
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/savilles_wage
Also interesting how many ‘refused’.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/bbc/requests?query=bbc&sortby=&bodies=1
OT, but on the topic of FOI and how those in the public sector can react…
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3527/the_worst_freedom_of_information_response_ever
Now that’s the kind of redaction the uniquely transparent BBC can only dream of getting to.
At least they got it electronically.
I bet this doesn’t seem quite so clever in light of recent revelations…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-time-president-obama-made-an-auditing-joke
In the remote chance that there are people who post here who rely solely on the BBC (BBC clowns excepted) for their drip feed of censored news, you need to be aware of the following which the BBC are studiously ignoring.
“Labour ‘sent out search parties for immigrants’, Lord Mandelson admits
The former Cabinet minister confirmed for the first time that New Labour not only welcomed but actively encouraged that mass influx of migrants.”
Yes! That Mandelson, the one that was forever all over the BBC screens like a nasty rash in the hay days of Labour when they were going to cure cancer today, eradicate world poverty tomorrow and the day after everyone would have a money tree planted in their back gardens.
Oh how the BBC loved to hang on every word that the little weasel uttered.
Why the change now, I mean it would be headline news on the Beeb if they could dig up some Tory cadaver and get it to mutter about “leaving Europe would be a disaster”, whilst one of the main concerns of voters is being swept under the carpet by a rotting BBC.
The article goes on: “Lord Mandelson admitted: “In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.” ”
You can read the damning indictment of Labour`s immigration policy here, but you wont see it on the BBC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html
And here:
“Labour betrayed its most loyal working-class supporters. And it doesn’t even care”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelheaver/100216882/labour-betrayed-its-most-loyal-working-class-supporters-and-it-doesnt-even-care/
If you search the BBC site with:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=mandelson%20%2B%20immigration&search_form=in-page-search-form
You find nothing except a a four year old story concocted by the BBC entitled “Row after Tory MEP praises Enoch” where Mandelson launched off at Daniel Hannan.
If you search on Andrew Neather, who originally broke the story back in 2009 you`ll find a very brief mention in the “also ran” piece on Today in Parliament until a couple of days later when the BBC kicks off with “Migration boom claims dismissed” and then gives acres to Phil Woolas, remember him, disgraced liar, cheat and expenses fiddler, who accuses Neather of “political motivation”
I like to think that back in 2004 I coined the phrase `bias by omission`on this blog and if ever there was an example of that here it is.
In fact thinking back to that period I seem to remember the BBC completely ignoring the furore when Ken Livingstone`s right hand criminal and black gangster, Lee Jasper, was caught with his hands in the till.
Eventually the BBC broke cover on it and said that the reason why they didn`t report the story was because “it wasn`t newsworthy”
Apologies for repetition, I see `Despairing of England`raised this at 12:33, but it is worth reinforcing how the BBC fails to report news it does not want you to hear.
The BBC left that bit out of their report on Mandelson’s speech. Deliberate censorship, unless there was a second speech?
‘Deliberate censorship, unless there was a second speech?’
Possibly it wasn’t important enough to include.
Or there was not space.
You know… the usual.
the bbc s “men” strike again? the link
same mosque ? – … er well
all muslim ? – … er well
following an widespread islamic pattern ? – … er well
pakistani muslims at all ? – … er well
bloody hell! make it easy then … asian? – … er well
the only link according to the bbc is that two are brothers?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22438623
Guilty verdicts in sex grooming case – NEW
Members of a sex grooming ring are found guilty of raping and exploiting children
Were they Amish or Hutterite or maybe Mormons.
I think the BBC needs to tell us, oh hang on a minute, if the were Amish, Hutterite or Mormon you`d never hear the end of it from the rotting BBC.
Final sentence of that report:
“The girls were mostly chosen because their unsettled or troubled lives made them easier to manipulate.”
No source provided for this assertion, so one must assume that it is a piece of BBC editorialising. What does that weaselly “mostly” hide, I wonder . . .
‘No source provided for this assertion’
Now, who was only t’other day stamping their foot and going quite blu.. puce that any editorial worth its salt would stoop to such a thing?
One looks forward to the results of an ‘Angry of North of the Border’ complaint via the CECUTT system.
You really should not rely on those who only post the part of an article that suits their agenda. Prior to the sentence quoted the report states::
“The court heard how the men identified vulnerable girls for abuse and then groomed each one of them until they were under the control of the gang.”
From further on in the article:
“The court heard girls, who had been placed in care by Oxfordshire County Council for their own protection, would frequently abscond and were caught with older men by police.”
That… is what tempted you out?
Your really need to get your moral compass degaussed.
If my compass is faulty and it leads to me getting lost then I only need to turn around ask you (as you always seem to be following me) to put me back on the right track.
Well, the overnights are in, and despite stiff competition you again managed to edge it on both volume and quality.
‘If my compass is faulty and it leads to me getting lost then I only need to turn around ask you’
Happy to oblige. No need to ask. Or, as you probably would prefer, allow.
(as you always seem to be following me)
Bit hard not to find oneself around your tracks, as are rather ‘prevalent’.
And a drive-by sniper getting sulky at copping some return fire is always a hoot.
But I can empathise, as one who has already seen spawned a doppleganger and style critic to specifically offer copy advice. Or worse.
Bear in mind that I, as do many, find much on this site of use, and enjoy most posts. You display an oddly masochistic, obsessive level of presence given your clear unhappiness with what is written here, yet haunt it more than most.
Complaining about being ‘followed’ on this basis is erring on the delusional.
“Well, the overnights are in………”. Do you ever give up. I don’t work for the BBC and posting at 6.48pm can hardly be seen as “overnight”.
‘Do you ever give up.’
No. Is that your aim?
‘I don’t work for the BBC’
So you keep saying, and given the effect of your posts in supposed defence of the BBC, in one sense that is fairly clear.
‘posting at 6.48pm can hardly be seen as “overnight”.’
Right, I shall type this s l o w l y, in hope it helps.
You are not the only one addicted to driving by; you have ‘stiff competition’, predominantly from the produce section.
As I retired for the evening, the whole bunch of carrots was still letting fly well into… the night.
Including this chap…
Albaman says:
May 14, 2013 at 10:45 pm
30 Awards; so by my reckoning maximum of £2700 excl. VAT.
Do I get a prize/award?
These are what I saw the next morning. Hence the comment.
Do keep up.
And you do deserve some kind of prize, yes.
Wow – 10.45pm. So Late!!
Sir, I salute your pedantry, your semantics… and your skill in goalpost relocation.
However, despite the attempt to frame the facts in a manner you can grasp it would appear it still has not been enough for you to grasp.
Given we are now at replyless columns, I leave this one to you to spin around in to your heart’s content.
The BBC are once again seeking to downplay the seriousness of the offences by somehow implying that the girls ” deserved it ” and that ordinary people in ordinary families have nothing to fear. This is utter dishonest bollocks from the BBC. In the Rochdale (Rotherham?) case the BBC did exactly the same thing but an article in The Times made it clear that there were children from all sorts of backgrounds, including stable professional families, that had been victims.
It is unlikely that the girls were “chosen because their unsettled or troubled lives made them easier to manipulate”. In these cases they have usually been chosen because they are kaffirs (i.e. non-Muslims), white and underage.
Yes and the BBC points out that one of the mothers tried to get help for ages from the authorities. It fails to point out that this would have been under Labour where no doubt they were more terrified of being called racists than letting these perverts do what they liked…
The abuse began in Oxford but some of the victims would be later taken around the country to be offered to other men who were in contact with the gang.
Now I wonder which segment of society that would have been – just who would be in contact with them?
The BBC do give some details about the background of some of these girls.
A very pertinent study would be to determine just how culpable the BBC are in these vile crimes for a variety of reasons.
1. They don’t readily identify precisely the subject group perpetrating them – MUSLIMS. Preferring instead to maintain the religion of peace masquerade, so no alarm bells will go off to young and impressionable children.
2. Which major British institution leads the way in enabling these scum to live in this country under the banner of multiculturalism? Evoking the most ridiculous PC mindset that ties the hands of those bodies charged with our protection.
3. I wonder if a deeper study was done on the forces most responsible for causing the sad family situation of the victims that led to their ‘enslavement’, how many policies that the BBC support would be seen to have enabled it?
This is the downside of left wing thinking that they never want to countenance. They prefer to believe they are humanitarian and magnanimous forward thinkers, despite the evidence to the contrary.
SCUM = SUCCUMB
When does the BBC begin to praise any who they usually vilify?
Answer: When those they are praising are vilifying those the BBC hates even more.
Clearly the BBC wants the EU more than they hate Tories.
Now we know what it takes for the BBC to side with a Tory prime minister
By Damian Thompson
‘… what it takes for the BBC to side ..’
I had presumed the BBC was not meant to ‘side’ with anyone or thing. To do so would be a clear breach of impartiality.
The top-rated comments are interesting, especially the first:
‘When a “tory” PM has to rely on the BBC, Independent, Guardian, Mirror and “i” for support you know his days are numbered.’
By your friends….
4 o’clock and yet another gang of men with rather un-European sounding names have been found guilty of sex offences against young girls.
Peter Alan on BBC 5 Live is in the hot seat as the verdicts come in. What question do you reckon he thinks to ask the reporter relaying the news to the studio?
Peter Alan, intrepid old school news hound, enquires what occupations these ‘men’ had.
We learn that one was a minicab driver, another was a supermarket assistant, another worked in small shop….. don’t see where that question led us….?
Why on earth ask such an inane question….?
Oh wait…. first rule of radio… don’t leave any dead air!
Now I understand.
The BBC would be proud Peter. Glad to see you have nicely fitted to the house-style.
I don’t know what’s more disgusting… These Scum who’ve committed these revolting, racist acts or the BBC’s denial regarding the clear Muslim links in an ever growing geographical spread, not just here but worldwide. I’m really at blood boiling point with the BBC’s pathetic and loathsome censorship.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22438623
The link is undeniable on two fronts: race – there is a clear racist aspect to these appalling acts, and secondly, there is the not so small issue of the Islamic faith of these walking bags of pus. In Islam, Western women, and especially non-believers are seen as ‘easy meat’ and so held in utter contempt. But, the middle-class, rug-knitting Lefties are much more concerned about keep up the multicultural appearances than they are our children. Scum the lot of them!!!!
Can we keep up with these Muslim sex crimes against mainly English white girls?
And where is the outcry among the ‘political class’?
INBBC censors out the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ perhaps so that we do not see the frequency and pattern of e.g Muslim sex gangs convicted in areas such as Birmingham, Telford, Rochdale, Derby, Oxford, etc.
The immeasurable costs of mass immigration to British people.
Supplementary report.
“Police and social services apologise after paedophile gang of seven are found guilty of sex crimes against six girls in care.
“Fighting broke out in the dock as two other defendants were cleared.
“Seven men found guilty of catalogue of offences involving underage girl.
“Verdicts delivered at Old Bailey at the end of a five month trial.”
By JAMES RUSH
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324386/Oxford-paedophile-ring-guilty-grooming-vulnerable-underage-girls-sexual-exploitation.html#ixzz2THlBQZIA
The Mail seems to have censored the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ as well. Now what?
Perhaps because in British Courts you do not need to state your religion?
No, if there is a clear link between criminal acts and religion and culture, as in this case, then the courts are obliged to categorize and report accordingly.
Point me to the legislation and I will stand corrected.
Wouldn`t you think though that these “Soldiers of Allah” WOULD use the opportunity to state THEIR religion ?…to tell us that the courts have no authority in their jihad?…and that the BBC etc would be quoting these type of excuses at every sitting so we could see what “inspires” them to commit these crimes?
Any thoughts why they don`t Albaman..or if they do…any reason why the BBC /Guardian /yourself etc think it “irrelevant”?
Believe it or not that does happen. There are court cases where allah’s will has been used as a defence.
Just watched the BBC News at Six – the lead story was this one. It was like watching a strangely surreal version of the news; despite the mugshots, despite all the similarities to several previous ‘gangs’ across the UK, not a single mention of their motives. Just one, reluctant mention of their nationalities (Pakistan and ‘North Africa’).
Truly a new, despicable low in the p*sspoor standards of ‘honesty in journalism’ at the BBC. Absolutely no attempt to address the elephant in the room, which loomed so very large over this story, no effort made to explain why – yet again – a group of men clearly linked by…well, by something other than a sexual interest in very young girls are discovered to be at the centre of this kind of crime.
This is what it comes down to. You don’t ever really get ‘the news’ with the BBC. You only ever get ‘a version’ of the news; a disingenuous, fact-free, politically correct version that serves the public very poorly and the cause of truth even less.
How long must we put up with this?
Well said, Phil. Summed up perfectly, mate.
As soon as “men on trial” comes up on the BBC, you need not worry any further.
As for those exotic names?…well, who`s to say?
Surely not the BBC, the Guardian or Labour Social Services up and down the land.
I daresay Oxfords minarets are blaring out the “teddy bears picnic” or ” I kissed a girl” , and the likes of Dawkins tune out their hearing aids.
Just Men…next paedo gang, hopefully will not be Muslims eh Beeb?
Yes, and what does Labour Rotherham Social Services do but get away with banning people who support UKIP from being foster parents!
It’s all gone quiet on that subject.
This is ‘politically correct ‘ Britain, as imposed by the political ‘left’.
Whilst the political “right” are doing what exactly?
Nice bit of partisan defence of the indefensible, there Albaman.
Which institutions do you see as being infiltrated by the right (in some form of reverse-Gramscianism, no doubt) who have then gone on to do nothing?
The police? Social Services? The BBC?
The point being that even if a right-winger was stupid enough to want to join one of those organisations in this day and age, they would be be rooted out in short order, soon left with no alternative but to leave their job, and certainly never promoted to a position of influence.
Absolutely nothing can be allowed to derail the Multicultural Dream; not even reality.
Asserting that every police officer, everyone working in social services and everyone working at the BBC is a “lefty” is a pretty spurious argument. To go on to say that anyone with right wing beliefs would have to “leave their job” and would “certainly never (be) promoted to a position of influence” is a nonsense.
I didn’t say ‘every’. You did, because you are such a thick twat that you can’t distinguish between the points people make and the points you wish they made.
‘To go on to say that anyone with right wing beliefs would have to “leave their job” and would “certainly never (be) promoted to a position of influence” is a nonsense.’
As big a ‘nonsense’ as being prevented from fostering children because you are a member if a political party that pulls in 26% of the vote?
The facts are on my side. You should be embarrassed by your outright imbecility.
“I didn’t say ‘every’” but you did say “The police? Social Services? The BBC?” as opposed to a few, some, a number.
As to calling me a “thick twat ” it is perhaps you that “should be embarrassed by your outright imbecility”.
The term ‘thick twat’ lets you off lightly.
Taking some words from a statement but conveniently lopping off other words from either side in order to change the meaning and hoping that no-one will notice is a case in point.
Nonsense indeed. Have you read the report of the Victoria Cimbie inquiry?
This gives a pretty good picture of the priorities organisational behaviours of British public sector institutions. e.g. para 81
In the ten years since the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the subsequent Macpherson Inquiry, the notion of ‘institutionalised racism’ reflected in organisational policies, practices and procedures has become familiar. The extent to which this may have contributed to a lack of recognition of what was happening to Victoria is disturbing, and is an indication of the scale of change that still needs to take place”
Supporting Freedom
See what Albaman did there? Nice piece of distraction with a throwaway line to derail the point in question.
Next he will be saying that there are plenty of white, British paedophiles in the news recently. So I’ll pre-empt him by saying that is true (in general) but they aren’t targeting young girls of a different ethnicity and they are certainly not sharing these poor girls out among the rest of their community and hiring them out as sexual playthings.
It seems that Albaman is using counter arguments to excuse what these Muslim perverts have done. That to me is typical leftie none-judgementalism at its most puerile. Lefties just can’t help themselves. They can’t allow themselves to be seen as “reactionary” by condemning these criminals.
“It seems that Albaman is using counter arguments to excuse what these Muslim perverts have done.” ……………… where did I say that? No one can deny that a problem exists but to bring it down to a simple political “left” or “right” argument is nonsensical.
Why is it nonsensical. Because you say so? I thought you were too busy with important things to post here.
It is nonsensical because crime would not diminish or disappear overnight if everyone suddenly decided to become a “righty”.
It’s nothing to do with being a “righty”. It’s to do with crimes being committed by “men” who belong to a particular religion, who regard paedophilia as OK and who the BBC will not discuss. Your obscuration and attention to minutia fool no-one.
If you go back to the start of the thread you will see that it was BBBC “regulars” who introduced the “obscuration and attention to minutia”.
The issue is the proportion of crimes committed by self defined groups. If it was found that course fisherman were massively over represented in the commission of bank robberies wouldn’t it be legitimate infer some causal link and to report this?
The majority of crime in the UK is perpetrated by multi-generation indigenous nare-do-wells but there are a disproportionate number of crimes (as a rate per 100,000 of population) committed by foreigne born individuals. This is a fact and it is not racist to ask why it is so. On the face of it there appears to be a disproportionate involvement of muslim men in sexual exploitation (as perpetrators) of white ‘vulnerable’ children. We have no information on the customers of these gangs.
If we had some hard data published we could make our minds up based on facts. However this is unlikely to be published in the UK is it? In the USA the Dept for Justice publishes all data on crime (victim and perp) analused by age gender and ethnicity. It took an FOI request to get data on London street crime.
Perhaps the BBC could use its institutional muscle to get us to base or arguements on facts rather than supposition. My supposition is that this wil never happen as the facts may be too uncomfortable to be ‘politically true’. Sticking your fingers in our ears and saying “you can’t hear anything” loudly will not solve this problem. Preventing people from fostering kids because they are in UKIP is wildly unjust just as it would be to refuse to let muslim parents adopt a child on the basis that there have been a lot of child abuse / rape / abduction / sexual slavery CONVICTIONS in a very very discreet part of the UK demographic
Sorry about my typing I can spell, just not type very well on a lap-top.
The BBC has pretty much ignored the story throughout the trial, an occasional report every few weeks despite the case lasting four months.
A few stories on the case today, but by tomorrow it will have totally disappeared.
I wonder what the actual number of victims and perpetrators was in this case? In Telford there were 6 victims in court,what’s report said that there were probably well over 100 – the others were too afraid to come forward and dozens of abusers have never been charged.
How INBBC empathetically reported a certain Muslim in Oxford:-
“Bin Laden’s Oxford days”
(2001 report)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1595205.stm
Yes, this INBBC report of October, 2001, make Osama Bin Laden sound like a nice chap.
Reminds me of the time Chuckling Nikki, when asked to give an example of someone with charisma, said…
‘Osama Bin Laden’
Osama’s last words: now who the f*** is at the door at this time of night.
So then.
1. Anti-Semite Lord Ahmed leaves Labour.
2. Mandelson sent out “search parties” to get more immigrants into the country.
3. Postal votes rigged in certain “urban areas”, but no further info.
4. Oxford based “men” hanging around childrens homes with taxis and booze from uncles sweet shops…no further information
5. Kermit Gosnells killing of live babies in “Philadelphia” and the implications for the pro-abortion lobbies.
6. Dianne Abbott following up her “whitey divide and rule” crap of last year, with mckery of the dementia aspect of Nadine Dorries and the E.U.
7. Rip off of the taxpayer by the BBC moving up to Salford.
Need I go on?…none of these stories will make the BBC in anything like the way they would had it been Tories or whites that had done these, right to lifers etc.
I think we need a new newspaper that purposefully picks out the stories that the BBC rejects…and reverses the lack of attention given to these equally valid and important stories.
That the liberal elite at the BBC don`t rate them only tells me that WE need to.
Add some double standards stuff re Ferguson/Thatcher priorities, the ludicrous Sony crap…and we1ve got a hell of a monthly digest of the REAL issues facing this country and the deformed, debauched parody of news as doled out to us by the BBC.
Any takers?
Quality post.
Cut it, paste it, and email it to callmetony@bbc.co.uk.
New broom and all that, I’m sure he’ll want to sweep clean.
I can’t speak for domestic UK issues, but I’ve suggested a number of times that the BBC’s US division can be easily replaced and improved upon by a news aggregator. I’d be willing to do an experiment to that end if there was enough interest here.
Almost everybody across the political and jounalistic spectrum is guilty of turning a blind eye to these despicable crimes. White, working class girls aren’t only considered to be worthless by these Muslim paedo gangs, but by the political elite as well. Just for a second try to imagine groups of white blokes treating ethnic children in such a barbaric fashion, my God, we’d never hear the end of it! It would make the hysteria surrounding the Stephen Lawrence tragedy seem positively muted.
If I hear some pathetic white liberal say once more that “Islam is a religion of peace”…
Not quite ‘religion of peace’ but bBBC Radio5Dead news just now (20.30) has managed to find a Muslim community leader to say that these sort of crimes are carried out by men of all races and all religions.
Not a word of dissent from the reporter, of course; no questioning, for instance, of when any group of white men have targeted young girls of a different colour, drugged them and sold them to their friends in another town.
Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling,
“…no questioning, for instance, of when any group of white men have targeted young girls of a different colour…”
Which of these crimes do you find most offensive? Rate them on a scale of 1 to 5 perhaps…
White man rapes White girl.
White man rapes Asian girl.
Asian man rapes White girl.
Asian man rapes Asian girl.
Explain your reasoning. Then try and work out why you are an idiot.
Well, there’s no doubt that the police, BBC and entire political establishment believe that the murder of Stephen Lawrence was worse than that of Charlene Downes.
Dezz and Albaman’s performance on this thread is most revealing.
Or the TORTURE and murder of Kriss Donald.
This was one of the most gruesome murders in recent times but it’s hardly ever discussed.
I compared the amount of coverage the BBC gave the murder of Kriss Donald with that of Stephen Lawrence here.
Searching for Stephen Lawrence on the BBC news website reveals the following articles:
All Results (1,532) News (1,359) TV & Radio Programmes (93) Sport (32) TV & Radio Sites (16) Blogs (14) About the BBC (7) Local (archive) (4) Learning (2) Music (1) Elsewhere on the web (4)
Searching for Kriss Donald reveals this somewhat smaller list:
All Results (121) News (119) Blogs (1) TV & Radio Sites (1)
Stephen Lawrence received over twelve times the coverage as Kriss Donald.
I believe that a study of the prominence given to each report would show an even larger discrepancy, as whilst Stephen Lawrence’s murder and the subsequent trials of those accused of his murder were headline news and Stephen Lawrence’s family have been regular BBC heroic figures, I barely remember the BBC’s coverage of the Kriss Donald murder.
You’ve prompted me to do a couple of Google searches:
“Kriss Donald” 36,700 results
“Charlene Downes” 59,700 results
“Stephen Lawrence” 900,000 results
Not solely the BBC’s fault, of course, just evidence that the problem is much wider.
“Well, there’s no doubt that the police, BBC and entire political establishment believe that the murder of Stephen Lawrence was worse than that of Charlene Downes.”
That’s a particularly bizarre claim to make RCE.
Both cases had ramifications but that was due to the way they were dealt with; not whether one crime was ‘worse’ than the other.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that both of these cases, despite the close similarities (ie plod fucking it up), have received the same attention in column inches, broadcast time, police overtime hours or orchestrated and determined effort to lodge them into the social consciousness of this country?
It’s not even close, as you well know; most people have never even heard the name Charlene Downes, but boy do they know about the Lawrence Industry.
To try and pretend this is not due to those institutions placing the importance of a black man murdered by white men over a white girl murdered by Muslims is of course risible.
All four of these crimes are equally offensive. However, we are not talking about these specific crimes. We are talking about systematic, organised gang rape of children where race, religion, background and culture appear to be specific factors, both in the choice of victims and in the response (or rather, non-response) of the authorities.
“All four of these crimes are equally offensive.”
I think everybody would have agreed with that few decades ago. However, the concept of the “racially aggravated offence”, where the CPS attempts to look inside the mind of the offender, suggests that it is no longer true:
“Where there appears to be racial aggravation, the Police inform the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when passing them details of the offence. The CPS will make sure that the racial or religious element of the offence is taken into account appropriately, for example to bring a racially aggravated charge instead of, or together with, the basic charge.”
Dezz’s question, and insult to me, bears no relation to the biased-BBC, the focus of this website. However, it appears that Dezz gets his news from the BBC if he thinks that the subject is one man raping one girl.
The whole point, which the bBBC is trying to ignore, is that – in almost every town with a large ghetto of Muslims – gangs of Muslims systematically target young white girls. They don’t just rape them, although that would be bad enough, they drug, abuse, rape multiple times and sell the white girls to other Muslim groups.
This has been pointed out over the years by such well-known right-wing fanatics as Anne Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, and Jack Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn.
“girls, who had been placed in care by Oxfordshire County Council for their own protection, would frequently abscond and were caught with older men by police”
hmm … is that bbc speak for slags then? eh! truly shameful
oh … notice the subtle change from “children” to “girls” too,
in their protecter speak – as using the indicator, “children” when intimating questionable moral sexual conduct, well that would really REALLY, show the BBC up for what they are, and what they are up to … wouldn t it
I visit this site daily and have yet to leave a comment but I don’t know if anyone else saw the interview Huw Edwards did with the leader of Oxfordshire Council at around 17.45 where as well as the usual ‘lessons have been learnt’ spiel, Huw Edwards was deliberately trying to infer that ‘stretched council resources’ might make investigating these terrible crimes more difficult in the future. Never miss an opportunity!
Is it your opinion that a reduction in social services budgets will make it easier?
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
It wouldn’t matter how much money the council had if they are constrained by the ‘forces that be’, or their own pathetic mindset, to implement the actions that should prevent the likelihood of such things happening.
USELESS!
The ‘forces that be’ – sounds like the start of some conspiracy theory. What are the “actions that should prevent the likelihood of such things happening”? How should councils implement these actions? What difference would the political persuasion of the individuals employed by councils make in implementing the actions?
I am not blind and I can see that reducing the likelihood of similar events happening is not a simple matter of political persuasion and that any reduction in funding is unlikely to have a positive impact.
I am not blind and I can see that reducing the likelihood of similar events happening is not a simple matter of political persuasion and that any reduction in funding is unlikely to have a positive impact.
What you avoided writing was that YOU DON’T SEE what can be done, but you wrote it another way that says the same thing.
So a council takes children into care, and you can’t think of anything they can do to ensure this kind of abuse can’t happen.
Pathetic!
Children in care are not in prison. They are allowed out to get an education and to socialise. Do you really think that the staff do not do their utmost to ensure the kids in their care are looked after and supported?
Perhaps you should volunteer in one of these establishments for a few weeks and then come back and comment.
Children in care are not in prison. They are allowed out to get an education and to socialise.
And you maintain you’re not blind?
The obvious missing link is SUPERVISION. That’s what CHILDREN need. The fact that they could ‘socialise’ in the settings described about these vile scum, shows there was none.
Have you ever been near a school at lunchtime. Hundreds of kids, some who will no doubt be in care of the local authority, milling about the fast food outlets, chatting in groups, looking in shop windows – all unsupervised. Have you been in a shopping centre, sports centre etc at a weekend or at night – hundreds of kids out socialising – many unsupervised. Do all those kids parents know where they are?
You demonstrate perfectly why those of your mindset will never figure it out. You don’t have a clue.
I guarantee if any of your kids get themselves into a similar situation, you will figure out afterwards what you SHOULD have done.
You betray a fair bit of ignorance here Albie!
1. YOU try to “volunteer” to work either in a care home(the few that remain, which seem to be well known by our Muslim gangs funnily enough)…or to “work with these children” in any way you like…and see what happens to you!
2. Yes, they ARE allowed to get an education…but they choose not to in the main…and any school that finds a kid of theirs in care knows only too well what the inevitable results will be in 90% of the cases.
Get a few facts laddie…if you think that there is no Muslim propensity to commit these type of crimes, then say so if you dare…but DON`T try to smear those who do see that link, unless you know the “context” of children in care homes re their education…OK?
The ignorance is all yours.
A large number of people volunteer to work in care homes and with children who are under the care of the local authority. Dave calls it the “big society”!!
Like any other “employee” they are required to undergo checks. Along with friends I have worked with children in care on a voluntary basis both in the care environment and in offsite excursions.
I know many people who give their time to volunteer in care homes and to provide extra curricular activities such as art classes, music sessions etc. to those resident in these establishments.
The majority of kids in the care of local authorities do attend mainstream school – your evidence for otherwise is what?
I have not defended the criminal actions of anyone from any group and I have not smeared anyone. Where I do disagree is the assertion that every male Asian or Muslim is guilty of these acts and that all the blame lies with those on the left of the political spectrum.
Finally, I am my parents “laddie” not yours or anyone elses.
“The forces that be”? I’m guessing, but perhaps he means the left-wing “religion” of political correctness or the poisonous legacy and mindset of MacPherson that has indoctrinated an entire generation of police and social services to the point where they are reluctant to take any action against any minority community. The sort of mindset that resulted in a distraught parent arrested for racism when he tried to protect his daughter from Muslim abusers when police refused to act, and where social services advised a 13 yr-old girl to learn Urdu so she could better understand those who were raping her.
I knew I was mostly communicating with intelligent beings here. 🙂
Thanks Bodo
Albaman, it’s not lack of funding that’s responsible – it’s lack of political will within the authorities. This type of offence has been going on for at least twenty-five years. I know from experience that individual police officers have tried investigating these gangs, done all the hard work of locating victims, breaking the news to their parents who wholeheartedly backed the police enquiries, and persevered against official indifference and complaints of racism from the suspects. In many cases the investigation came to a full stop when the CPS declined to prosecute using the excuse of “complainants and witnesses being unreliable”. To add insult to injury, the CPS couldn’t be bothered to inform investigating officers, the victims and their parents that the matter had been quietly dropped.
Lack of resources had f**k all to do with it. It was the officialdom running scared of the Race Lobby that’s responsible. There is also some truth in what some other posters have said about the quality of recent graduate recruits and politically motivated “Bramshill Flyer” senior officers more concerned with being seen to be “celebrating diversity” than investigating crime “without fear or favour”.
No, a reduction in social services political correctness and left wing appeasement to crimes committed upon our children
Are you trying a bit of irritating irony? You know spending lots of cash badly isn’t a rational answer. A large reduction in Social Services spend on multi layers of strategy units (duplicated in every SSD across the country) and middle management (e.g. the job I just surfed up on the web Assistant Dir, Children’s Services Lincolnshire County Council #76,579 – #84,229) and a concentration on front line social service practice would make a huge difference and it would be cheaper by far. As I said in a post above go and read the Victoria Climbie inquiry report.
We can spend billions of pounds on crap and have crap as a result. Have you heard of NPFIT – renamed as “connecting for health”. Well you paid #12 billion for it and it and the public accounts committe have criticised every aspect of it particularly its cost. The NHS would be no worse off if that #12 bn had not been squandered.
“Be accountable to Lincolnshire County Council and the four Clinical Commissioning Groups in Lincolnshire to deliver an effective and county wide commissioning service for all Children’s based services across all health, social care, community based services, encompassing child and adolescence mental health services, acute paediatrics, and maternity alongside the wider children’s services, ultimately ensuring the effectiveness of all interventions.”
* Educated to degree level with a relevant professional qualification.
* Substantial senior leadership experience across multi-disciplinary teams including a track record of delivering quality public services.
* Experience of developing and implementing planning, commissioning and performance frameworks in a multi-disciplinary and partnership
environment.
* An ability to translate corporate strategy into service delivery by
generating clarity through exceptional leadership, organisational development and change management expertise.
* Effective management of a substantial budget which includes staffing and
expenditure directly related to service provision.
* Demonstrable experience of the achievement of value for money for
customers with a strong focus on maximising a return from available
resources.
* Experience in payment by results methodologies
Looking at these responsibilities and the skill set required £76,579 seems reasonable. Similar role in private sector would pay a lot more.
I know that I go on too much and this isn’t about BBC bias but here goes…..
What is your point? Am I supposed to be impressed with that list of management gibberish? Crikey it manages a budget and some staff and ‘delivers’ “performance frameworks in multi-disciplinary environments” forsooth. I believe that translates to ‘lots of middle managers sitting in a room talking to each other telling each other how important they are and then signing up a simple protocol outlining the roles and funding responsibilities of public sector organisations. Total effort required say 8 person days + 1 person day per month to monitor. All done by a minion in the contracts dept at 1/3 salary. The questions are what does the job (and it was a random example from the Guardian) actually deliver as a product, could the organisation survive without it and is it cost justified?
Personally I think that the answer is No it isn’t woth that sort of salary and would never command such in the private sector because it isn’t real and delivers ‘make work’ stuff like strategy development that are duplicated across the country. Remove this and you have a staff and budget manager who commands about 30-40K in the private sector. The public sector pays itself way too much and has delusions of grandure. I still say that a severe pruning of the middle management layers would do nothing but good for the delivery of public services but the first things to go are not strategy units but libraries. Why is that?
Welcome Mike. 🙂
Looks like your perceptions are well tuned.
-The usual INBBC attempted political deflections away from the gruesome sex crimes on English girls by Muslim perpetrators, and on to some notion of ‘cuts’ in welfare spending.
Hypocrisy at the BBC.
Oxford child rape trial: Why was it not stopped sooner?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21744674
Is this the same BBC that had Nick Griffin put on trial for warning the public about the “Asian” groomers?
You mean this Nick Griffin?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253092/Rochdale-grooming-BNP-leaders-tweet-almost-caused-trial-to-collapse-amid-fears-far-right-had-a-mole-in-the-jury.html
And this BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18011603
Yes it is the very same Beeb. I’d be fascinated to see that investigative programme again. Somehow I don’t think they’re going to repeat it any time soon…
Disgusting bBBC. ‘Why was it not stopped sooner?’ is all about the abused girls: the easy way to stop it sooner was to get rid of the Muslim perpetrators.
Horrific story on the news about the Oxford grooming. Let’s be honest, there’s a serious and repeated problem of Asian Muslim men grooming white girls in this country.
If you landed here from mars tonight, and saw this story on the tv, you’d be astounded as to why the reporters won’t ask why this is a particular problem with Pakistani Muslim men. The more we deny these problems in our society the more we gut away at our own civilisation.
Ffs, they’re actually now on bbc news talking about how we mustn’t risk stigmatising Asian men! Unbelievable
INBBC concern for the perpetrators outweighs interests of their white English female victims.
Your objective evidence for this assertion is?
Over half of this thread has been devoted to it halfwit.
Stick to comic books or celebrity magazines.
Resorting to name calling – is that not what you castigate “leftys” for doing?
That you have been trying to defend the BBC and the left-wing mindset that enabled these criminals, and made these children easy prey, WITH NO CHANGE LIKELY IN THE FUTURE because you and your kind won’t look at the facts that caused it and learn from them, you are far worse than a halfwit.
In your case it’s not an insult – it’s flattery.
BBC output?
Watching Archaeology: a Secret History on BBC4.
Presenter keeps banging on about ‘Socialist Archaeology’ and about lovingly about Marx.
You just couldn’t make this stuff up.
If I could put up with the hassle I’d stop paying the license fee tonight.
I’m sure it’s been discussed here before but if we could organise a mass mobilisation effort to stop paying the fee they’d be done for.
Obfuscation is the al beeb choice for the day, when dealing with literally dozens of recent cases of child gang rape, involving many hundreds, in probability thousands of vulnerable mainly white children.
By orchestrated muslim paedophile gangs for well over a decade … probably two,
In cities/towns like bradford, rotherham, telford, rochdale leeds, oldham bournemouth, derby, nottingham, hastings etc
Barely a day seems to go by when Britain is not confronted with a new horror involving the sexual exploitation of children.
spouts al beebs mark easton … hmmm
“But there are two common factors. Child victims left exposed and adult perpetrators granted protection.
The activities of the men who preyed on troubled young girls in Oxford over many years, convicted at the Old Bailey on Tuesday, leave a nation shaking a collective head in disbelief once again.”
well no … Three factors actually mark, the most important one, MUSLIM paedophile gangs, and the community that protects them continuously by shamefully playing the absurd “discrimination” card.
that is what held the police up – shut the social services up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22522232
plenty of room to boo hiss the BNP – EDL etc too eh!
you appalling shill … example
“The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, based at King’s College London, recently detailed how the English Defence League (EDL) had been attempting to link child sexual exploitation with Muslims?.”
Attempting! 😀 (shakes head) …
theres one very simple reason for that, genius …
because they are
… you utter utter obfuscating, waste of good air.
Shale fuel: –
how BBC high-cost greenies try to turn good news story into bad news at the end.
“US shale oil supply shock shifts global power balance”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22524597
What’s good for the U.S. in terms of the results of ‘fracking’ is, by tone of latter part of BBC-NUJ report relating to UK and Europe, not good outside the U.S.
‘The Commentator’ had this recently:-
“The coming Arab Winter.
“While the extent of the fracking-induced geopolitical tremors are still to be felt, the shaking up of the Middle East’s tyrannical oil policies is moving the regional tectonic plates as politics never could”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3410/the_coming_arab_winter
Police & Social workers apologise for failing to stop the abuse of Moslem sex gangs.
How many times do we have to hear this before we are allowed to say that a very disturbing pattern has been established. Long has it been rumoured that Liebour pressurised the public sector especially the Police into a moratorium on prosecutions of Moslems for serious crimes.
We have seen Cherie Booth give a lenient sentence on the grounds the defendant was a Moslem, we know the courts have been and probably still are giving lower sentences to Moslems than to other ethnic groups.
At a By election attempting to quiz the Liebour canvassers who really didn’t want to talk I managed to get an answer from a headmistress of a primary school – “Moslems must never be criticised no matter what they do”. I believe that this is the largely unspoken belief of those on the left and it’s been imposed on the entire public sector. Many hoped that the Tories would roll back the horrendous oppression of Political Correctness, but there’s no chance under leftie Dave.
Well, the inbbc have had to make it their lead item on the 10pm news bulletin. Yet another case of men of british pakistani origin. The common thread running through all the recent cases is what? Well, the inbbc response is that it’s wrong to focus on one particular grouping, because if you do, you can miss so much more that is happening elsewhere.
I’ll ask that question one more time, so tell me, just why DO you keep robbing banks? Well, cuz that’s where the money is stupid!
Oh how those beeboids must go to their beds at night just praying, begging, for a case to come along that proves them right after all.
I listened to 5 live at 5pm headlining the two jail sentences – one to the gang of men who operated a paedophile ring and the other who operated a drug ring. Later I listened to the programme at 6.30 with headlines about the gang of men who operated a paedophile ring and again at 10.00pm about a gang of men who operated the paedophile ring.
The word “Asian, Pakistani or Muslim” never appeared.
Just a thought – the Police after the Stephen Lawrence murder were described as instituionally racist because they permitted ‘racist’ officers to be recruited. What would you call an institution who permitted and condoned several suspected paedophiles to operate from their buildings?
Indeed, just look at the headlines on the bBBC News website items to see how it views the two cases:
Liverpool gang jailed for multi-million pound drugs plot
Oxford exploitation trial: Guilty verdicts over child rapes
The former is about the criminals and their crime; the latter about the crime and the victims.
It certainly won’t be praying.
Tweeting Barack Obama, more like.
The campaigning bBC never want to ask an obvious question. If there were these criminal acts going on all over the country, why were the reactions of different police forces the same; i.e do nothing. The answer is obvious, instructions from the depraved labour gov. Are the bBC not wanting to know the answer?
And despite that they still make up a disproportionately high number of prisoners.
Imagine what it would be like if they were treated the same as native whites.
“BBC criticised for paying £24m of licence fee money to persuade staff to move to Salford… including spending £150,000 on ONE PERSON”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324280/BBC-criticised-paying-24m-licence-fee-money-persuade-staff-to-Salford–including-spending-150-000-ONE-PERSON.html#ixzz2TIvIYjJr
The simple truth is that if this were a exclusively white British gang doing this to young Asian Muslim girls, the race/religious angle would be the lead focus of the story on the news. There would be calls for all sorts of inquires, we’d be hearing about the institutional racism against Asian people, institutional racism of the police or social services etc.
In the eyes of the media/ liberal establishment not all crimes are equal.
If these were gangs of white British men targeting, drugging, raping and selling Muslim girls, Muslim men would probably be trying to murder us, under the guise of a ‘fatwa’.
All the loonie lefties would be helping them on the grounds that what isn’t racially motivated now would be if the protagonists were reversed.
You won’t find this reporting on the BBC…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e5_1368165949
Brave or foolhardy lady?
Brave! and certainly shows what a nasty bunch Ramjam Choudary and his lot are?
Kingmaker,
“Paedophile ring members from Cheshire and Wiltshire jailed”
http://bbc.in/VIg1dV
“Paedophile ring members jailed indefinitely”
http://bbc.in/11Cu6Od
Please highlight anything in these reports that mentions the nationality / ethnicity / religion of the perpetrators. Or the nationality / ethnicity / religion of their victims.
Do you even remember any of these convictions (three months ago)?
You’ve just made my point for me! Those cases you’ve linked to were not about people targeting young girls because of their race per se; this one in Oxford, plus Rochdale etc, was Asian men targeting white girls specifically. The truth is uncomfortable.
Kingmaker,
Perhaps you can tell me what evidence you have that those in Oxford were targeting girls ‘because of their race’?
How many of the targetted girls were not white ?
Perhaps you can explain the non-multi-kulti make up of the rapists. So you can show there was no racial motive in the targeting of victims.
That’s right.
Including the hundreds of other rapists that these girls were shipped to but will never be caught.
Nikkys show this morning was awful. It followed the usual pattern of sweeping any suggestion of a religious or racial aspect to these crimes under the carpet. Nothing to see here, move on.
Come on V-dezzle get in there ladette! grab that low hanging fruit by the dangles and show how utter evil this place is to your and your BBC chorus lines chosen victims the poor downtrodden ‘paedophiles'[note not all pedos rate the same on left batter victim hood scale !] no doubt they were all made broken by vicious Tory cuts! though sadly not the one that would stop them forever !
I think the liberal establishment is lost. it really has no idea what to say or do now.
Reality is coming down the road on this as so many other matters.
They have spent years denying reality but that is over.
The grooming cases will be seen, but never openly stated for now for fear of disapproval, by the indigenous majority as race crimes. I doubt religion will really come much into it. Race pure and simple.
It gives me no comfort to write this. I fear for the future in an increasingly fractured land where the social capital of centuries has been wilfully squandered by stupid men and women.
The so called right has been demonised by these dreadful charlatans. All we have tried to do is to say
” Hold on. Think and be careful before you try to change a people and way of life to fit some fantasy view of the world.
Because they would not listen to men like us they risk opening the door to real demagogues . Men and women who for now we know nothing of but seem to appear when crisis occurs. They may well not be the sort I would like very much and the liberals would really not like at all.
Modern liberalism is a mish mash of half thought out dreams of an idealised world that has no relation to the real one. It has been indulged by 60 plus years of peace and prosperity and a generation ( the 68ers ) whose regression to infantalism is matched only by their selfishness.
Nothing lasts. History , if it tells us anything, tells us that and there is change coming.
This explains it.
Radio 5 Live this evening trumpets next Monday’s Panorama edition, “Hillsborough: How They Buried the Truth.” Presumably this will be followed in succeeding weeks by “Balen: How They Buried the Truth,” “Twenty-eightgate: How They Buried the Truth” and “Savile: How They Buried the Truth.”
Couldn’t let that pearl go without tweeting it to my followers. Thank you Ian for putting it so well. Sadly 140 characters is a little limiting, but I will do my best.