A fresh open thread as old one is going to become unwieldy soon.
Open Thread Overflow
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- pugnazious May 1, 2024 at 10:52 am on Midweek 1st May 2024Not an analysis you will ever find on the BBC...you know it already but 'Humza Useless'[as named by his own...
- Thoughtful May 1, 2024 at 10:50 am on Midweek 1st May 2024It's a disgusting example of cowardice and expediency on the party of the government when they should be returning them...
- Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi May 1, 2024 at 10:48 am on Midweek 1st May 2024£52k per annum for this non-entity is obscene!
- Thoughtful May 1, 2024 at 10:48 am on Midweek 1st May 2024Yeah because what we really need is either stunningly wealthy individuals in parliament or ones prepared to take money from...
- Fedup2 May 1, 2024 at 10:47 am on Midweek 1st May 2024From the DT - a bit of enriching news- STARTS a police officer has been charged under the Terrorism Act...
- JohnC May 1, 2024 at 10:42 am on Midweek 1st May 2024Those in charge have moved the illegal immigrants where they never have to meet them and other people who are...
- Fedup2 May 1, 2024 at 10:42 am on Midweek 1st May 2024Double - I’ve no evidence of monitoring - but I reckon ‘community tension ‘ is monitored via sites like this...
- Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi May 1, 2024 at 10:21 am on Midweek 1st May 2024The Today Programme from 8 a.m. confirmed why I'm right not to listen to it any more than very occasionally....
- pugnazious May 1, 2024 at 10:20 am on Midweek 1st May 2024Free homes for all.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4dMn-pLrKE Astonishing that the likes of the BBC thinks this is in any way sustainab...
- JohnC May 1, 2024 at 10:14 am on Midweek 1st May 2024What I find beyond belief is that Sunak seems to think it is the answer to the illegal immigration problem....
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
He concluded with these words, referring to the Race Relations Bill then coming before Parliament:
Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided.
As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.
and
we as a nation are busy building our own funeral pyre.
Does anybody still think E Powell was wrong? Ahead of his time perhaps but not wrong. Its all so sad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22639538
I guess he would feel the following were true if his son/daughter/wife/partner was decapitated in the street.
I am at an absolute loss at this offensive pap. Just for good measure I am certain that the feelings in large parts of the country are rage disgust and humiliation.
Were some of the mythical neo nazi skinheads (as rare as rockinghorse shit) were to decapitate a peaceful Nigerian imam on his way to a mosque do you think the BBC would be feeding us the purile liquid shit below – or would they be screaming about a deep rooted intolerance and racism in britain? Oh and BTW what reports of mosque attacks – I have heard/seen nothing, can anybody provide links as I think that this is a direct lie.
“The focus of attention will be upon the risk to something broader – the cohesion of our society. One of the men with a cleaver in his bloodied hand is reported as telling a passer-by: “We are going to start a war in London tonight.”
Those far-right groups who seek to translate public disgust at the killing into general anti-Muslim feeling are reacting just as the murderers had hoped they would.
Reports of mosque attacks are similar to incidents that occurred after the Tube and bus bombings of 7 July 2005 – pitiful acts of racism quite at odds with the general public mood then and now.
What is interesting has been the swift reaction of organisations from within Britain’s Muslim communities. My inbox has been filled with statements from groups utterly condemning the murder, voicing support for British soldiers and calling for unity and peace.
There will be a few voices from the margins attempting to exploit the events in South London for various political ends, but our natural response to attack is to rally round, to support each other, to reach out. It is about respect and calm.
Those are the principles that our police, security services and military seek to protect.”
Looks like Lois Lerner, head of the IRS tax-exempt division at the center of the scandal, is going to be thrown under the bus after all. The other day, top Left-wing bloggers, JournoListas all (including the founder) were seen going into the White House for….something.
Yesterday, they rolled out the talking points in synch, calling for Lerner’s termination. Unexpectedly in unison. Eventually, the BBC will get around to reporting on the IRS scandal again, once they run out of lower-middle brow distractions, and we’ll see whose talking points they follow on how to cover the story.
Well done to all the champions of political correctness:
Won’t give their views to any media, or just to the BBC?
Pretty sure it means any media in today’s PC climate of fear.
Nicky Campbell tweeted this during his phone-in this morning.
It’s why I far prefer US radio and podcasts . I’ve heard some great debates between people of different races and religions where all concerned air their views and prejudices. They get angry, they mock each other, but most importantly of all they have the space to be honest without the sneering condemnation of a publicly-funded referee.
Nicky ‘the ego has landed ‘ Campbell, what I find fascinating is his complete lack of self awareness, he doesn’t realise everyone thinks he’s an arse.
“two callers saying i m not racist but?”
…
come come panto – you knew exactly what they were going to say, didn t you
they (like me) called the show and
they were given the third degree, by the researchers vetting each and every point.
once again you are disingenuous,
Mr Campbell
Woolwich: stop-and-search Islamic jihad suspects.
Will INBBC favour an increase of stop-and search of Islamic jihad suspects in this area for the protection of non-Muslim British citizens, or will it depend on ‘Muslim community’ approval?
Could INBBC discuss why British troops are confined to barracks now at Woolwich, when it is clear that Islamic jihadists must not be allowed to make murder threats to non-Muslims on the streets?
Is it so as not to offend ‘the Muslim community’?
the bbc today, is as bad as i ve ever known it
from puerile pap on “R4 Today”, a literally shameful
“Thought for the day” …
R5Live … just drivel, Campbell this morning and his “doctored” phone in, how doctored? well I actually called in, and was given the third degree, about what i wanted to say?, how was i going to say it?, who too
ya da ya da. … literally a waste of time.
oh, the questions i wanted to raise?
Muslim groups have tried to distance themselves from this,
why don t they distance themselves permanently, from the multitude of instructions, that would be islamic mass murderers both use and quote as justification from their own book. as that is undeniably the root, of the issue? …
i added if they wanted me to quote chapter and verse i could, and i was willing to debate that cogent issue with any muslim group on air,( as i have with the mpac/mcb before).
also added, that if muslim groups are not serious about this issue, then they are not serious about preventing
the consequences of ignoring that fact.
i caught a little of Bacon as i drove back … and turned off
ps i knew the whole of this governments cabinet
are ideological dead in the water lame ducks …
but i didn t realise how so …
scameron you spineless, inept, out of touch, incorrect, buffoon. your rank cowardice over this, will make our country a much more dangerous place to live, for decent people …. just f-ck off, and take your deadhead bunch of grasping shills with you – and if the opposition is the same, that goes for millibland too
robert spencer –
Here we go AGAIN.
Despite the fact that the Muslim killer invoked the Qur’an and made specific reference to the Islamic doctrine that one must fight against those who fight against Islam, the media and government elites in Britain are working in overdrive to exonerate Islam
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/cameron-on-london-jihad-murder-there-is-nothing-in-islam-that-justifies-this-truly-dreadful-act.html
Aww, the guy was doing so well until he said it’s the Government’s fault in the end. Who says it’s not about the foreign policy? He says the violence is a wrong response but then justifies it all anyway. Bzzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing. We have a lovely parting gift for you. This guy contradicted himself at least three times. I couldn’t hear him after a while because I was laughing out loud and can’t be bothered to rewind.
Clive Myrie wasn’t too bad, but missed a couple of good openings.
So, the BBC now has a HYS discussing the fact that a poll conduct by the World Service( why?) found Germany is the highest rated country (out of 25 -the other 165 odd countries apparently were not worth considering. An utterly useless, biased waste of time and money.
Exactly.
E.g. Polls about what Arabs/Muslims think about Israel, etc. We know the hate, hostility there is against Israel.
But BBC-NUJ does think of itself as part of the U.N: the Arab bloc specifically.
The BBC and the political elite are truly despicable aren`t they?
Apparently the bloke with the bloody hands started out in a Christian family( as if the BBC would know what that means!).
Ah well-see Christians are as bad as Muslims you see.
And Cameron tells us all that this murder was a “betrayal of Islam”…spoken like a bloke who would know eh?
He started out in a Christian home didn`t he too?
As for the editing out of the “British mans” quotations of the Koran?…not a peep, and beyond the pay grade at the BBC(30 pieces of silver and multiples thereof!).
BBC+ the political elite=Ministry of Reassurance.
Fuck `em…this is war, as far as I can tell. Hope to God it isn`t…but I fear that it is.
I see the leftie Islam apologists have been all over the BBC today laying into the far Right for spreading hatred. Good God, this country could be under all out nuclear attack from Jihadis and the lefty BBC would somehow blame BNP/EDL!
INBBC’s Asad Ahmad goes back to Woolwich, but does not use the words:- ‘Muslim’, ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic jihad’:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22641131
Didn’t take long for the BBC to move focus onto reprisals from the far Right. Sickening!
after two yesterday, two more “lone wolves”? get arrested today
5live drive – latest bbc “in fear/muslim victim” narrative
beebot visits Luton, to visit the poor loves, at the council of mosques – to get their “thoughts” and “concerns” …
to their shame, the bbc has forgotten who the real victims are already …
Seeing as Luton is extremist central, i think they were hoping for a bit of EDL bashing to boot
and then 5live pulls in resident laughing stock Mayor Boris, to spin the narrative even longer … (shakes head)
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/23/boris-johnson-neither-islam-nor-uk-foreign-policy-to-blame-for-woolwich-attack-3805761/
Interesting piece in the Specci. I wonder where the BBC advertise all of these jobs?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8915901/next-up-on-newsnight/
BTW I see that Anjem Choudary has got himself a gig on the aforementioned ultra left wing Newsnight prog this evening. The BBC just can’t help themselves.
The problem the BBC has along with the metropolitan elite and the political class, is that they are liberal secularists.
I am a Bible believing Christian and do my best to live according to Christ’s teachings. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant immutable Word of God himself.
When a Muslim reads his Qu’ran he feels exactly the same.
He does his best to live according to what he sees as the very word of God dictated to the propeht M.
Contrary to what so many of our movers and shakers and institutions like the BBC believe, every Jihadist has irrefutable scriptural warrant for waging war on unbelievers.
What’s more the Qu’ran tells him that he can lie to an unbeliever in order to advance Jihad. That doctrine is called taqiyah.
Liberal secularists simply cannot understand why anyone would actually believe their holy scriptures and try and live their lives according to them.
The Prime Minister David Cameron is not a muslim, why then is making pronouncements about what true Islam is. Why aren’t the BBC journalists doing some proper research and challenging those who make such incorrect statements about Islam, instead of showing us statements by “moderate” Muslims.
If you have a Muslim friend, go and ask them whether they believe it is their duty to kill a fellow Muslim who has renounced Islam and adopted another religion or none.
This is what the Qu’ran states unequivocally.
For “moderate” muslims living in the West, their only hope is for scholars to do what Christianity did and reform. Unfortunately, they have not been given another messenger to explain what Allah really wants, as Christians were, (Jesus the Messiah) so this is very problematical.
Islam is not a religion of peace, as a cursury reading of the Qu’ran and the hadiths will reveal.
For some reason, the BBC will not bring Western critical analysis to the texts of the Qu’ran, instead, they choose to perpetrate a monstrous lie upon the BBC tax payers.
I’m an optimist, I have assurance about my future on earth and in the eternity to come, but unless Islam reforms, there will be increasing violence in the West.
Excellent posting! And nice to hear from a Christian – an endangered species in this country!
Excellent. A very clear explanation. All I can add is that the Quran is the literal and unchanging word of Allah. Whereas the New Testament and the Gospels in particular is the record of a man’s life, teachings and death and from four different viewpoints.
This , and I am not a theologian, is the crucial difference between Christianity and Islam.
If one wants a direct and clear example then the story of the woman taken in adultery could not be clearer. Christ challenges the old tablets of stone religions and literally changes our view of the world. In the Quran such an episode would be impossible. The tablets of stone have returned.
There is an absolute gulf bewtween Christianity and Islam. Our ancestors knew this to be true. So do the present day so called jihadists. Liberals in the West , cocooned in an unreal view of the world, cannot grasp this.
They are trapped. It is the tragedy of all of us that we have such fools as leaders.
You left out the Enlightenment bit.
“If you have a Muslim friend, go and ask them whether they believe it is their duty to kill a fellow Muslim who has renounced Islam and adopted another religion or none.
This is what the Qu’ran states unequivocally.”
Deuteronomy 17:3-5 instructs readers of the Bible to do the same.
But James, that’s a false equivalence. There are no Christian or Jewish countries which have any of that enshrined into law. There are no Christian or Jewish groups doing it. There are no rabbis or priests or pastors or trendy vicars preaching it, or encouraging their congregations to do it. Unlike in BBC dramas, there are no Christian groups running around trying to behead sinners. It’s a very silly argument, especially since it’s meant for Jews and nobody else.
This is the same intellectually dishonest argument the BBC pushes. Both Montague and Sackur tried it on Wilders, and I’ve heard it in other instances as well. It simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and even Wilders was able to easily rebut their efforts.
I fully accept that no one does it, but two comments on that: firstly that doesn’t alter the fact that the bible instructs followers to do so.
Secondly, if you subscribe to the view that holy books are a source of moral imperatives (which I don’t) then those who follow the bible are wrong not to do as it exhorts. If you accept that they are, then surely you have to follow them all, you don’t get to pick and chose which ones you like and which you don’t?
Now realistically that is a facile argument — there is the element of free will for example — but it does highlight the danger in quoting scriptures out of context. The bible is littered with some pretty nasty stuff (which mercifully no one follows), although I completely grant you nothing like as much as the Koran, which to the uninformed reader (like myself) is a pretty shocking read. (However I have to accept that I am not a Koranic scholar, and my reading of the text is at best superficial.)
We can all pull stuff out of holy books that will appear to show one thing or another. And are we not in this position because one extreme sector of Islam is doing exactly that? Finding Koranic texts to justify their actions?
There are any number of Koranic scholars who will say that Islamic terrorists are utterly wrong in what they do and there is no Koranic justification in what they do because other texts and works show the spirit (and not just the letter) of the Koran.
I suspect that neither you nor I are in a position to weigh up those arguments. I certainly am not.
But, James, that fact is altered Nobody believes the Bible instructs them to do such things. Of course, Jews haven’t had to deal with the particular bit you’ve cited since the Romans took over Judea, but we’re really talking about Christians here, aren’t we? So it’s like saying that all Christians are sinners because they don’t keep kosher or wear fringes on the corners of their garments or have mezuzot on their doorposts. You’re talking apples and oranges here.
Paul was very clear that followers of his Church who didn’t “have the law” needn’t keep those Jewish laws. Circumcision was a non-starter for the gentiles he was trying to bring in, and adjustments needed to be made. So he came up with the whole “circumcision of the heart” notion, i.e. a gentile who had faith in Jesus was still righteous. The idea is that the laws were inscribed on one’s heart, so no need to physically do it any more. See Romans 2, if you’re interested.
There is no Mohammedan equivalent, really.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not equating Christianity/Judaism with Islam. Christianity in particular has a very different creed.
But the fact is that quoting bits of scripture out of context to support an argument is a side all can play, and indeed do. And you illustrate it very well here proving that to have the necessary understanding of Deuteronomy you have to set in context.
What I fear, and see far too often, is people reading a line or two in some scripture and saying that justifies whatever it is you want justifying. These Islamic terrorists do it with utterly horrific consequences; people looking to condemn all of Islam do it.
You excellently illustrated why superficial reading of texts leads one to false conclusions.
(PS cutting off bits of newborn boys always seemed a curious thing to do at the best of times — maybe that was a smart move)
Perhaps, James, if you went to the trouble of quoting the relevant Surahs or bits of the Hadith, you might have some basis for claiming people take the Koran out of context.
However, I didn’t quote those bits of Deuteronomy in any fuller context at all. What I did was explain why they were irrelevant entirely. I also explained – or thought I did – why those bits of the Koran others cited aren’t really being taken out of the kind of context you believed there was.
There’s a difference, and failing to grasp it causes people like Sarah Montague and Stephen Sackur to completely lose the plot and betray their own prejudices.
James, you have misread my post, and I think your understanding of Christian theology, doctrine and and practice could be improved.
“If you have a Christian friend, go and ask them thern whether they believe Jesus wants them to carry out the instructions in Deuteronomy 17: v3-5. That’s the difference.
A Christian is to read the Old Testament in the light the New Testament brings.
Why not read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John in a modern English version and see what Jesus actually says? Mark will only take a couple of hours. You may be very surprised.
The BBC likes to promote the idea that all religions are morally equivalent, but they are not in teachings or in practice.
If you are a genuine seek after truth, any Bible beleiving church will be pleased to explain to you the differences between Islam and Christianity.
I am an Oxford educated theologian and have studied all the world’s major religions and the various cults.
As this site is about BBC bias, it is not appropriate to write a long discourse, my apologies for this.
I am the first to admit that my understanding of Christian doctrine is extremely superficial. I am not religious at all.
But I suspect that most — although by no means all — commentators on here have an equally superficial understanding of Islam.
My point I made above — about the danger of taking one part of a holy text out of context. In highlighting my lack of familiarity with the Bible I think you have excellently proved the point with regard to the Koran.
As I said above, I am not equating the two. I have read both the Koran and the Bible and while parts of the OT are pretty blood thirsty, teh NT is not. I found the Koran a troubling read but I do have to accept that I did not read it in context.
Has anybody read this article where the bBC express concern that Hezb-allah is losing its vaulted status in Europe. Don’t worry the bBC fights a rear-guard action in which to ensure that you know that Hezb-allah are righteous and it is in fact Europe who are wrong in their assessment.
Europe’s stance on Hezbollah hardens
The attitude towards Hezbollah in Europe is changing markedly.
In part, this is a response to the growing body of evidence from investigations in Bulgaria and Cyprus that indicate Hezbollah’s role in carrying out or planning attacks. But equally it reflects a growing frustration with the Lebanese Shia grouping following its decision to intervene in Syria’s civil war on the side of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. There are growing concerns in Western European diplomatic circles that Hezbollah is playing with fire and that Syria’s bloodshed could easily spill over into Lebanon. Indeed, there are early signs that this is already happening.
Oh dear poor Islamic terrorists are getting a bum deal for being exposed for the terrorists they are, but you can always bet on the bBC to bend over backwards for the party of Allah. and they do that by blaming..the British:
The British government is pushing its European partners to designate the military wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist entity. This comes in the wake of the organisation’s role in an attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria and the recent conviction of a Hezbollah operative in Cyprus.
And how do the bBC follow that, why they quote the following:
Hezbollah denies involvement in the Burgas bombing.
The rest of the article is all about how the British are the ones giving Hezb-allah a bad name. Which is why the terrorist friendly bBC finish with:
Hezbollah, for one, risks sacrificing the reputation it has built up in Lebanon to help prop up the failing Alawite regime in Syria.
See what I mean about how at the bBC terrorist is good, victim is bad.
The bBC, the propaganda arm for Islamic terrorism and the traitors within our midst
The British move to list Hezbollah’s military wing comes as the image of the Lebanese organisation – long hailed in the region as one of the principal resistance forces against Israel – is coming under strain.
I knew this had to be in there somewhere. Heroic Hezbollah. When was the last time Israel invaded Lebanon or was a threat to it of any kind, BBC? The “July War” of 2006 was against Hezbollah, not the country of Lebanon. It’s time for the BBC to stop pretending they’re only an heroic defense force. And can you Beeboids remember why that happened in 1982? I do. “One of the principal resistance forces…”. LOL. How many other resistance forces are there in Lebanon? Is there a People’s Popular Front or something?
I didn’t read concern in the article so much as Jonathan Marcus being surprised that it’s come to this. Who could have seen this coming, eh?
Hardtalk @ 0430hrs Friday 24 May, has UKIP Treasurer Stuart Wheeler.
I only caught the last few minutes of the earlier showing, so I don’t know what the whole programme was like, and thought the final answer Mr Wheeler gave was great.
I’m not a member of UKIP, but I will be going over the UKIP manifesto in a couple of months with a view to considering my first membership of a political party.
Trailer for question time on Radio 4 lots of left wing interest questions, but almost amazingly no mention of the murder of the soldier at all. It’s almost as if it never happened.
Eric Pickles on Today this morning talking about ‘political statements’ the murder made, and that it was a blasphemy & distortion of Islam. I suppose it’s better than the Liebour cockroach who announced that Muslims had nothing to apologise for or condemn as the two murderers weren’t Muslim!
You really couldn’t make it up, politicians burying their heads in the sand as far it’s possible to bury them.
trying to bury them, if those “men/alleged terrorists” get their way they ll be losing them
for the third time now, 5live breakfast reports Sweden riots, caused by police shooting? a 60 odd year old… WHAT? ….
terrorising the neighbourhood muslim – threatening mass murder -threatening to kill the police with a MEAT CLEAVER … no relevance, at all?
How would Mr Pickles know what was a blasphemy and distortion of Islam? As far as I know he isn’t Muslim. He, like most other politicians, must be going on what he’s been advised.
Instead of opening his eyes to see that there are a fair few with more intimate knowledge of that religion who apparently do not consider it either blasphemy or a distortion.
bbc this morning pushes their fix over “political” woolwich
panto campbell twice reports the new perpetrator footage shows the man DROPPING his knife before he was shot ..
no relevance whatsoever …
Pickles (if i hear another slimeball f-cking cabinet shill), about “political” acts, “al qaida” terrorism – OIC plant Warsi spouts her crap not even worth writing about
The same 5live show reports Sweden riots, caused by police shooting? a 60 odd year old… WHAT? ….
terrorising the neighbourhood muslim – threatening mass murder -threatening to kill the police with a MEAT CLEAVER … no relevance?
like him or not …
straight to the point
matter of fact,
common sense
Don’t like him.
I can do straight to the point, matter of fact, and common sense all by myself.
I don’t need a halfwit Paki-basher to do it for me.
Dear Uncle,
you don’t live in Luton do you?
There’s some wonderful multicultural activities taking place there. Why not take an Express coach and spend a night or two at the Travel Lodge? Then you can report back on the wonderful models of community cohesion you have discovered. Looking forward to your report, because as sure as nuts are nuts we aren’t ever going to get a documentary from the BBC on the life enriching changes that have taken place in Luton over the last 25 years.
Can’t think why Tommy, who lives in Luton makes such a fuss. He’s lots of things, but a half wit he is not.
Couldn’t believe my ears this morning on Toady – Humphrys telling us that the reason for the Islamist attack wasn’t really known, and then whoever-was-Thought-for-the-Day-person, (other than telling us all about himself, and what he would or would not have done as a bystander, under the circumstances), quoting a line from Kipling’s “If”, where he mentions “keeping one’s head, when all around are losing theirs” – did he really think about that one first, or was the connection truly lost on him? I had an ironic chuckle over that one…
Open Thread Overflow – Biased BBC
Nick Robinson. Popular in the USA (not)…
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/dimwitted-bbc-editor-apologizes-for-offending-muslims
The tame, limp-wristed, lily-livered surrender of our country to the combined forces of the EU policy of uncontrolled immigration and imported terrorism continues with no end in sight. You only had to watch David Cameron’s vomit inducing speech the other day to confirm that the political class have finally sold us out.
At the point where our heroic servicemen are as likely to be killed on the battlefields of some foreign part, as they are walking the streets in their own country, the BBC and their print edition The Guardian chooses this moment to question if we can really classify this as ‘terrorism’. Sickening apologists for murderous terrorism.
It is surely only in Great Britain that when a police officer is faced with the dual threat of murderous thugs and the fear of their own life – that it is the police officer who must account for their actions. You’ll be comforted I’m sure to know this has been ‘automatically’ referred to the IPCC. So ridiculous, you couldn’t make it up.
BBC also spinning the line on what the security services knew and how they could have prevented this terrorist atrocity. Sorry. Did I say terrorist? I meant radical protester.
What’s this now? Here come Theresa and Sharmi to protect the human rights of the (alleged) protesters! Public money to be spent to ensure, ‘due process’, ‘establishing all the facts’, ‘justice must be seen to be done’, ‘rule of law’, ‘time to move on’, ‘lessons to be learnt’…….
“The Digital Media Initiative project has wasted a huge amount of licence fee payers’ money,” BBC director general Tony Hall said.
There’s another £100million of our money that the bBBC has p**ed up the wall. Will the incompetent perpetrators get a mega-payoff, like all the others?
For this the BBC actually suspended their chief technology officer. Yet with real scandals, they do nothing until there’s a public outcry. Good thing Lord Hall is revamping the management structure.
The thing is, the DMI wasn’t such a bad idea. The problem probably lay with the organizational culture at the BBC. Free money doesn’t really care much for deadlines or results.
If there’s one small mercy (very small mercy) at least Call Me Tony refers to License Payers’ money.
When they pissed £80 million up against the wall by trading in and out of Lonely Planet the spin was that this was okay because it was BBC Worldwide and thus ‘the BBC’s own money’.
Their money in the same way that if we bought the droids an oil well and drilling kit and paid them to drill, I suppose any oil they found would be *their* oil.
Halfwits,
To paraphrase T.S. Elliot: ‘This is the way Western Civilization ends, not with a bang but with and apology for its existence’. From Anglican priest and bishops walking, from somewhere to nowhere in the UK, to apologise for slavery and not to celebrate the civilisation that ended it, the apologising goes on. We must continue to apologise to Islamist (note that I do not say Islam). As I write this I am listening to Peter Thatchell on QT who made this distinction in his reasoned and intelligent comment on the on the barbaric murder of a young soldier in Woolwich). We must continue to apologise and curtail the best aspects of our culture and civilisation such as; equality for women, freedom of speech (particularly the right to offend), the right to debate and question any ‘ism’, ideology, faith, equal right for homosexuals, the right to religious freedom , including the right to change your religion. We must now opoplogise for our foreign policy as it is offensive to Islamist. It does not offend them when fellow Muslims murder other Muslims or Christians in Muslim countries. Saddam and Assad come to mind. They see themselves as victims whilst Christians are brutalised and murdered everyday in Muslim ruled lands. See The Gatestone Institutes
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3641/muslim-persecution-of-christians-january-2013 and The Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9762745/Christianity-close-to-extinction-in-Middle-East.html
May I paraphrase a favourite saying of my late father, he often said “I was born a son of a bitch and I will die an unrepentant son of a bitch”. I am the product of Judeo -Christian civilisation and I will die a un-apologetic Judeo- Christian.
Another love song to the President from Mark Mardell calling his terror speech yesterday “intellectually powerful”. What is so intellectually powerful about shutting your eyes in a childlike way and saying to Jidahists “I can’t see you – so you’re not there”. The magical thinking so familiar in academics.
Mardell purrs: “The ban on sending prisoners back to Yemen would be lifted and there would be a new effort to send prisoners to trial.” Really? That should do it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22649506
All that arse licking and still no interview with the Messiah, Mark.
Obama’s speech yesterday was appalling – giving in to terrorism. The worst aspect was that he said that there will be no drone strikes unless it is virtually certain there will be no collateral civilian casualties – which simply means that Taliban and Al Q will always keep civilians close by – just like the Palestinians. The new policy is dangerous – and it is even more dangerous to tell the enemy that policy has changed.
The President’s first duty is to defend America. He is failing in that duty.
Yes, Mardell’s report is sycophantic to a degree. Par for the course. There has been a lot of criticism of Obama’s speech – should that not be reflected in any BBC article ?
200925427995
The President wasn’t giving in to terrorism. He was giving in to his extreme Left support base who’ve been very concerned about the IRS and DoJ scandals. So He had to change the topic. Whose ban was it, Mark? Can’t blame Congress for that. And now the President says He’s considering military tribunals in some cases, and that the Administration will start considering the cases. So He caved. And whose Administration has released less prisoners than Bush, BBC? Whose idea was it to stop the military tribunals and let them rot in Gitmo, BBC?
What the astute, experienced, expert political analyst Mardell doesn’t get is that the President is talking out of His well-polished backside. The drone war expansion was His idea, done under His approval. The whole “we’re better than that” excuse is a load of baloney. He’s only saying it now because He needs to shore up the support base for His political activist group, and get the JournoListas back on side so they’ll go back to covering for Him on the scandals.
No curiousity about the timing of this speech from the BBC’s US President editor, usually a keen observer of political gamesmanship.
The drone policy isn’t going to change substantially. This is all smoke and mirrors, political speech intended for His support base in the media. Judging from Mardell’s analysis, it seems to have worked.
And another outright lie from Mardell about Congress blocking Him. The Senate is still controlled by the Democrats, so it’s dishonest for Mardell to point the finger at the Republicans on this one. The President can’t point to any reason why He will be able to close Gitmo now? That’s because the only option is to release nearly all of them and rush to trial for a handful. Not gonna happen. It’s not because the evil intransigent Republicans will stop Him. Typical Mardell. It’s not His fault, you see. That’s why I call him the BBC’s US President editor. He never fails in his duty.
another apology from the BBC, one for Mr Vance to mull
The BBC has apologised after a floor plan for the BBC Question Time programme referred to John O’Dowd as ‘Sinn Fein/IRA’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22652433
A shinner spokesman described as ‘vindictive’ the recent charging of John Downey for his alleged part in the Hyde Park bombing.
So Sinn Fein/ Ira – I think the BBC got this correct, least up to their grovelling apology.
That’s very funny. Somebody at the BBC is awake, for sure. There was an exclamation mark after IRA. That just adds to the significance of it.
I like the BBC’s statement that the person responsible has been told it was “insensitive” and “naive”. Insensitive or Sinn Fein sensibilities, sure. But naive? Only in the sense that the person who wrote it should have known that he’d get in trouble for it, not that there’s no connection between SF and the IRA.
‘And what a shock that not a single astute Beeboid dared mention that this might be useful distraction from those scandals. Where’s your political analysis now, BBC?’
That doesn’t sound like analysis, its sounds like making stuff up. And doing so because of your own political bias. Is anyone else making that suggestion? Is there any evidence to back it up? Genuine question.
How is it making stuff up, Dominic? What evidence would you require? Has there ever been evidence that proved any speech by any politician was a distraction from something? Why isn’t it a reasonable suggestion, seeing as how that’s what all politicians do?
Here are a bunch of people expressing a similar sentiment. Of course, you’ll dismiss them all for making stuff up due to their own political biases as well. But you’ll never dismiss anything Mardell or any BBC journalist says for the same reason, will you?
For anyone who is interested, there is an amusing/interesting HYS over here :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22651126?postid=116260286#comment_116260286
I’m surprised the beeboids have allowed any discussion on this subject, unless they are slyly “taking one for the team” to distract from other “business”.
If the mood takes you on this beautiful Friday afternoon, why not drop in & contribute….
Why on earth is the BBC making rapid and grovelling apologies for Nick Robinson quoting the phrase “Muslim appearance”?
Any other matter would take months if not years to get a Beeb apology and even then it would be half-hearted.
The murderers appeared to everyone watching to be Muslims because they were shouting Islamic remarks.
Why is it wrong to say so?
Because words aren’t appearance. The video and pictures make it very clear that the barbarian was not wearing any specifically Mohammedan garb. He was shouting obviously Mohammedan statements, so there’s no question about his motivation or religious intent, and Robinson wasn’t denying that by any means, but that’s not the same thing as his physical appearance.
I actually think Robinson should have just said the killer was chanting the usual mantra or something about the obvious clues. Or maybe the police misspoke and he quoted it rather than restating so it didn’t sound so silly. He should admit the error in this case, because he could have done it better, and because, from what I’ve seen of the images, there’s nothing specifically Mohammedan about anything the guy was wearing. No beard, no kaffiyeh, no zabibah on his forehead. He doesn’t look any different from people I know from his country of origin who are not Mohammedan. It was a silly mistake. I don’t really see Robinson’s correction as appeasing anyone.
The fact that he goes on to spout the usual disclaimers – most Muslims condemn it, yada yada – and moan about the EDL does make him appear rather meally-mouthed and cowardly, though. Everything after his explanation of why he said what he said is gratuitous, and really is there only to appease his PC bosses.
David P.
Six dictionary definitions of ‘appearance’ below – 4, 5 and most particularly 6 could be used of our murdering Muslim friends:
1. The act or an instance of coming into sight.
2. The act or an instance of coming into public view: ‘The author made a rare personal appearance’.
3. Outward aspect: ‘an untidy appearance’.
4. Something that appears; a phenomenon.
5. A superficial aspect; a semblance: ‘keeping up an appearance of wealth’.
6. appearances Outward indications; circumstances: ‘a cheerful person, to all appearances’.
Okay, Framer, maybe #6, in a Bizarro sense. But Robinson’s quote was not in that or any other context. If he’d added the context of what the barbarian was shouting, like we’ve all been complaining about, there would be no problem. Well, he’d probably be forced to apologize anyway, but I’d be agreeing with everyone here that he shouldn’t.
BBC corporation tax horror story! (H/T Guido)
“Tax is paid on profit and not turnover. The BBC and most Guardian stories about Amazon get the tax base wrong by a factor of 100.
…
The BBC paid corporation tax of £22m (0.4% of its turnover) last year. Even if you express tax as a proportion only of commercial turnover (which is debatable – after all a pound of turnover is a pound of turnover), the BBC paid tax of about 1.2% of turnover. In other words Google pays more tax on its turnover than the BBC by a factor of nearly two.“
If this is accurate, why did Eric Schmidt not say this in the first place instead of talking about how the UK needs to fix the tax laws? I’m not doubting it, I’m just asking what seems like an obvious question.
Bit naughty that since the bit the BBC pays corporation tax on is restricted to its commercial operations which are a small part of the whole. It would be manifestly ridiculous for what is, effectively, a “spending department” of government to be taxed on its funding which comes from the taxpayer: I don’t think even the IEA would ask the Ministry of Defence to pay tax on the funding for its expenditure on arms.
That said, the IEA’s main point – which is hard to disagree with – is the sheer mendacious cluelessness of BBC coverage of company taxation which matches its execrable coverage of economic and financial affairs generally. Although from time to time – on Today – I’ve heard the odd genuine tax expert (generally Bill Dodwell from Deloittes) attempt to inject some reality into a discussion involving Humphrys and some dildo from the Tax “Justice” Network or arch-hypocrite, Lady Hodge, the forces of wilful ignorance are always given their head.
I don’t think it’s naughty as I read the article merely as pointing out what nonsense it is to express Corporation Tax as a percentage of turnover rather than saying the BBC should pay more.
Which is why, to answer David, Eric Schmidt didn’t use that excuse. The author’s attack is on media coverage which uses meaningless comparisons (led by the BBC), not whether Google should or should not pay more.
I see what you mean.
Point taken although my comment was only to imply that using the BBC example might not have been the best way to make the valid point that using CT paid as a percentage of turnover as a measure of corporate “good citizenship” is quite ridiculous. On reflection though, I suppose it’s as good an example of this type of nonsense as any other.
Woolwich Islamic jihad beheading.
While INBBC gives broadcasting time to every Muslim imam on this, INBBC refuses to allow BNP a word when its leader Nick Griffin went to lay flowers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22640614
Viewpoint: What do radical Islamists actually believe in?
Only it’s one of the worst pieces of propaganda & lies I’ve seen the bbC put out. Nowhere does it really discuss the true issues, nor the verses which support the Jihad. There is no mention that some Surahs are more important than others and those Ayas which are quoted are distorted into something which they do not say.
Take this one for example:
49:12, “O humanity! We have created you from male and female and made you nations and tribes so that you may know each other: the most honoured of you with God are those most God-conscious: truly, God is Knowing, Wise”) promote full human equality and leave no place for slavery, misogyny, xenophobia or racism.
My goodness me Mohammed must have been the first right on trendy loony leftist Politically correct arsehole to walk the planet!
Xenophobia? Racism? Terms which hadn’t even been invented in Mohammed’s day! Here’s what it really says (give or take a translation or two):
O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.
In other words the Muslims are superior & more noble to all other races because they are more ‘deeply conscious’ of Allah.
This is nothing like the PC mess quoted by the bBC
So could the next Ayat contain evidence that Mohammed was in reality the first PC diversity officer?
THE BEDOUIN say, “We have attained to faith.” Say [unto them, O Muhammad]: “You have not [yet] attained to faith; you should [rather] say, ‘We have [outwardly] surrendered’ – for [true] faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you [truly] pay heed unto God and His Apostle, He will not let the least of your deeds go to waste: for, behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.”
No not really! In fact it bears no resemblance to the lies on the Biased Broadcasters site.
Now I know what will happen if I complain about this, they will say that it was written by a contributor and is not their responsibility, but you can bet your bottom dollar if it said something they didn’t like it wouldn’t make the web.
Dominic Casciani home affairs correspondent Radio5 dead 1640hrs. (slight paraphrase) “Michael Adebowale was a Manchester United supporter, as was Drummer Rigby”
WTF?
that makes it ok then…
who is in charge of these fkn bBC clowns?
“The BBC’s chief technology officer John Linwood, who joined the BBC from Yahoo! in 2009 and earns a salary of £280,000, has been suspended while the probe takes place.”
WTF#2!
suspended on full pay – get the twat in making the tea or putting stamps on envelopes.
bBC=money no object.
Suspended – til everyone has ‘moved on’.
At which stage he’ll be quietly ‘respended’.
I believe Linwood was brought in after the DMI project was already underway, no? I’m pretty sure Siemans was doing it – possibly exploiting some naive public sector darlings and their free money, as often happens – and then the BBC took it over themselves in 2010. I guess that would be Linwood.
It’s not the first BBC digital media project that went awry, either. The iPlayer was over budget by £30 million, and it, too, was fraught with development problems and had nothing to show after four years’ work. I don’t think anyone was punished for that, although at least they got it right in the end, and it is good value.
the bBC pushed DAB radio in the uk and frankly, its shite too.
How on earth did they manage to spend 1 million on iPlayer never mind overspending by 30 million?
The iPlayer was a big undertaking for a variety of reasons. One obstacle was that they decided to build their own Flash-based player from scratch, rather than build on the RealPlayer-based tool already in use. There were other issues as well, some their fault, some not so much, like DRM, poor GUI decisions, and somehow forgetting to include Mac users in the first version, which forced a rethink.
If anyone cares to read more, Martin Belam had lots of posts about it at the time. He’s ex-BBC and a staunch defender against accusations of bias, but generally has no problem pointing out faults and errors.
They won’t stop using the word, it’s the ultimate shorthand expression for their multi-culti fetish – a politically correct form of segregation, identity politics writ large. To reconsider their outlook would be to admit to the failure of the combination of multi-culturalism and mass immigration.
————————————
Time to ban the word community
Tune into any BBC London programme at the moment and one word dominates. That word is community. Even on a normal day on the capital’s airwaves you will hear it a great deal, but in the aftermath of the Woolwich terror attack its use has gone into overdrive. On the BBC London news last night it – or the frequently used variant communities – was averaging 11 mentions per minute.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100218674/time-to-ban-the-word-community/
I think the white British community would agree.
Not sure if anyone else has commented on this yet. The Telegraph has had no comments on any of the Woolwich articles since the first few hours after the event. The Mail ditto, but under an associated article, it says ‘comments are closed for legal reasons.’
Is this to avoid prejudicing a future trial, or is it simply the authorities trying to keep a lid on public anger ?
Interesting to note plod has arrested two men in Bristol for trying to organise a protest via a social media site. Serious Big Brother stuff.
Meanwhile the bbc name two blokes arrested for allegedly attacking mosques in every news bulletin !
And Nick Robinson mentioned the attacks on mosques in his apology. Is the BBC taking care to point out that these are the acts of a Tiny Minority™?
I first came to this site thinking that I was alone in thinking that the BBC were biased in their reporting of news and in their content in plays, radio and other matters. I found this site by googling BBC Bias. I was somewhat surprised then, to find that indeed I was not alone in my thinking and I’ve been visiting this site on a regular basis (and making the occasional post) ever since. This site has given me a chance to view the BBC in a different way…I listen to the BBC not to hear about the news etc but to listen out for the deliberate bias. A bit like a friend I had who was into music but listened to the rumble on his turntable rather than what was being played on it! Tonight I once again listened to the Now Show. Satire has and always be a comedians tool, but the Now Show has gone much further than satire, it is nothing more than a Left Wing propaganda broadcast. Anyone with any intelligence would see it for what it is. Now, forgive me if I’m wrong, but the BBC’s licence to broadcast forbids the very content of the Now Show and this evenings attempt at comedy failed miserably and just highlights the reason why this site exists and is growing in numbers viewing it. What I would like to know is, who commissioned the Now Show? Because who ever it was has simply failed in their statutory duty to see impartial broadcasting within the remit of their broadcasting licence.
BBC News 10 O’Clock
There are thousands of individuals with similar views and hundreds under investigation.
(As the Muslim murderers)
And yet the government & propaganda machine still insist that there is no basis in Islam. They have drawn their motivation from thin air! the Qur’an contains no such texts which support their violence.
Look whitey just keep quiet and quietly won’t you !
One of the ways a UK government could circumvent the ‘radicalisation’ of Moslems is the same as happened to Christianity shortly after the conversion to Protestantism.
Now all services and bible teachings have to be in the vernacular, just imagine the harm which could be done by a mischevious cleric if the bible were only available in Latin and hardly anyone could understand them.
So it is with Islam – taught in ancient arabic a language which is no longer spoken and cannot be understood by those hearing it. Surely teaching it in the vernacular would mean that at least they could understand it and make their own mind up.
Of course that assumes that it is a reasonable religion without overtones of violence!