Open Thread Monday By Alan | June 23, 2013 - 11:14 pm |June 26, 2013 BBC bias Time for a new one…. Bookmark the permalink.
Renewable HARRABIN’s political lobbying assignment for the week?:-
“Wind Farm Plan In Bristol Channel ‘Catastrophic.’
Plans to build 240 turbines in the Bristol Channel will ruin some of Britain’s most scenic holiday hotspots, campaigners say”
Perhaps Weston has a point.The term ‘racist’ has become so fluid in its definition and arbitrary in its application that it has become meaningless.
Maybe someone should ‘re-claim’ it
“Racist” is good as a hate term partly for what I think are reasons of phonetics. The sound /s/ appears twice, in each of the two syllables of “raCiSt”, one being a ‘soft’ letter c and the second a true /s/. “Racialist”, the use of which has declined over the decades, is less hissy as the two /s/ sounds are separated by an ‘l’, but it works in the same way. Think of a hiss from a pantomime audience when a baddy appears!
As I have stated previously, I regard the supposed ‘racism’ by some White British against Pakistani British Muslims as a contradiction in terms, since both are of the same race and the differences of skin and hair colour are at a lower sub-racial level. Harriet Harman’s silly comment about the Lib-Dem’s “ginger rodent” Danny Alexander was, from her of all people, hypocritical in the extreme but not racist, as red-haired people are hardly a separate race. True ‘White racism’ would have to be against a Chinese or Sub-Saharan African or Amerindian, for example.
Islamophobia is not even racially based, though it could be, in theory, if Black Africans or even Chinese were by some chance the main Muslim groups in largely White Europe. If a White Briton converts to Islam and starts to call for imposition of Sharia, my objection to him/her is the religious/political program and not the race.
I for one am thoroughly sick of the misuse of the words ‘race’ and ‘racist’. ‘Race’ is not always easy to define, e.g. the children of mixed marriages, but I know what it is not. Silencing debate on militant Islam in the UK by playing the ‘race’ card is inaccurate and unhelpful.
Well done Andrew. Articulate and accurate
According to the UAF – supported by the interfaith movements which include elements from the East London Synogogue, Catholic Church, Muslims, trades unions, socialists, anarchists – the EDL, UKIP and those who speak against Islamic doctrines are not only racists; they are fascists and Nazis. There is an urgent need to reclaim political language.
Good comment but I saw this “I am a racist” video a few days ago and it prompted me to investigate Paul Weston and his Liberty UK party further.
I went to their website and listened to his speech.
He comes across as racist to me, I’m afraid (and I hate the slur as much as the next guy).
He does make reference to the “white English” at points in his speech as though this automatically qualifies them as a model citizen.
Must admit, I was disappointed with him. I thought he might have something to say that was worth listening to but I left feeling a bit short-changed.
If only we had leaders in parliament who would confront disturbing truths like this man does, then we may just have the slightest chance of a half decent future. Don’t bank on it though. The BBC who go out of their way to target the right of politics and slander anything that doesn’t fit in with their left-wing narrative are yet to be vilified and investigated by David Cameron. It really beggars-belief how a man who claims to be conservative and on the right side of politics openly supports the UAF…who are ironically supported wholeheartedly by the BBC. Hmm, i smell a rat.
I see the BBC have failed to report this story on their ‘world news’ page. :
Far more concerning matters such as the Obamessiah’s witch hunt against Snowden.
Now Obama supplicant HARRABIN, right on cue, lauding whatever Obamessiah says on climate.
(Is Harrabin taking over from Mardell?)
“Obama lays out climate action plan”
“Obama Announces Plan to Save the Earth from a Problem That Doesn’t Exist”
By Daniel Greenfield.
“Now – if you’re a moronic whinger and you would like to make a fool of yourself in the Question Time audience with a witless, lame remark…”
On the old thread Chris wrote
” Examples please. Calling someone a racist is not the same as trying to suppress their voice. How is talking about a nation of immigrants the same thing as saying that their ethnicity does not matter? In what way does ending race solely mean the extinction of white people? Where has whiteness been characterised as a disease? And even if you find one example, that does not mean that every liberal agrees. ”
You ask for examples, how about Greg Dyke ” The BBC is hideously white.” That sounds pretty anti white racist to me. Can you imagine if he said ” Nigerian television is hideously black.” There would have been a media storm, but if it’s anti white, who cares ?
Dyke did not mean that white people are hideous. Merely that, at the time, the workforce of the BBC did not reflect the ethnic make up of the population of Britain, which it should.
This is not an example of anti-white racism.
Chris, president of the flat Earth Society
”Dyke did not mean that white people are hideous.”
Yes, and 2 + 2 = 5
I have explained why I do not think that was what he meant. Can you tell me why my explanation is wrong?
If you don’t know, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Then we shall have to agree to disagree.
The BEEB has been enthusiastic in supporting diversity; especially amongst it’s own staff. Try finding out just what the ethnic makeup of the BBC is right now. Certainly not “hideously white”, but not very Polish or Chinese or…..you name it. Almost certainly the Beeb fulfils it’s diversity quota in that it is not now “hideously” white, but how that quota has been achieved is maybe open to question>
Dyke was, and probably still is ,incapable of using language precisely.
His use of “hideously” shows this. In the context in which it was said it is meaningless. The man was, like all liberals, using language to alter reality. It is what they do. I refuse to engage them in argument. It is like wallowing in mud.
“The man was, like all liberals, using language to alter reality. It is what they do”
As in, calling themselves ‘liberals’ when they are anything but!
Incapable of using language precisely? Clearly appropriate qualifications for General Director of the world’s largest news gathering organisation. Let’s hope the FA is forgiving.
BTW What’s with the eye rub gesture? I’m not one for body language but –
The Eye Rub – ‘See no evil’ says the wise monkey, and this gesture is the brain’s attempt to block out the deceit, doubt or lie that it sees or to avoid having to look at the face of the person to whom he is telling the lie. Men usually rub their eyes vigorously and if the lie is a big one they will often look away, normally towards the floor. Women use a small, gentle rubbing motion just below the eye, either because they have been brought up to avoid making robust gestures, or to avoid smudging make-up. They also avoid a listener’s gaze by looking at the ceiling.
“The BBC is hideously white.”
This is not an example of anti white racism – Chris
“The city of Leicester is hideously Asian.” (sic)
This is not an example of anti Asian racism. – Chris
Now can you see where you might be wrong Chris?
Thank you for explaining why you think I’m wrong, which David Brims did not do.
In my opinion, Dyke did not mean that white people themselves are hideous. In the same way, if someone were to say that ‘the city of Leicester is hideously Asian’, that would not imply that that person thought Asian people were hideous, just that the large population of Asian origin in the city gave it an Asian feel, which would understandably make some people uneasy given that this is Britain. I would not consider that racist.
That is my interpretation; I understand if yours is different. I will say it again though – if you want to prove that the whole of the BBC is anti-white, then you are going to need a lot of evidence. In my opinion, one badly-worded comment from Greg Dyke is not evidence of that. We may have to agree to disagree.
Here’s an example of anti-white racism for you; this time from the ‘drama’ department. ‘White Girl’, 2008, a drama on BBC, by Abi Morgan. The theme? A young white woman takes refuge in a mosque to escape from her brutal husband. All muslim characters are depicted as sweetness & light. White men are depicted as vile bigots.
The REALITY was that muslim grooming gangs were systematically debauching young white girls all over Britain before, during & after the transmission of this revolting piece of BBC bias. A complete inversion of the truth.
Now how about a realistic BBC drama? How about something called ‘WHITE MEAT’?
Well pointed out Graphene Fedora
Some white men are vile bigots.
Some white men are sweetness and light.
Some muslims are vile bigots.
Some muslims are sweetness and light.
One drama does not represent the views of the whole BBC. It depicted 2 of these things. I do not think we are meant to infer from this that all white men are vile and all muslims are sweetness and light just because one drama portrayed them as such.
Not evidence of anti-white racism.
Of course it is because they would never , not in a million years run a drama which portrayed a black or a Muslim or evena Polish family in such a negative light, especially showing while also showing ethnic British people as the *victims* saviours.
Secondly that is far from the only drama showing foreign ethnics in a positive light while showing ethnic British in a very negative light.
Racism against Jews is easily reinforced in drama and this method is effective. The radio 4 drama House of fire recent episode 3 called “kosher ” was clearly in this category. Making fun of Jewish dietry laws is one thing but giving a Rabbi a sterotypical Jewish accent and have him suggest that Jews circumcise adults with a rusty knife is something else!
Ah, but it balances out all that stuff about female circumcision, Lynette.
Chris this is just one in a long line of documentaries, news items and dramas depicting the badness of British wites and goodness of muslims.
Remember that this web site is taking isssue with the BBC message about the polarity of good muslims and bad whites.
I agree with you that there are good and bad in all etnicities, but the BBC dont agree with you and me.
The predominatly white BBC are racist agaisnt whites. Their colour does not prevent them from being racist against whites.
They are not racist against *whites*; they are racist against ethnic British alone. All foreigners Eastern Europeans, other *whites*, EU citizens, Brazilians, Iranians etc are *protected groups*.
Especially ethnic English.
And even more so working class ethnic English, Cockneys, Northerners, Brummies, West Country *yokels* all the target of mockery on a regular basis.
I thought the BBC was supposed to be representative of wider society? Your earlier argument.
OK. Fair point, but how about a drama om “White Meat” to ensure there is a balanced view.
Abi Morgan also received a multitude of awards for that disgusting “drama”, most from outlets like the Guardian (where else), but the irony of “white girl” was it wasn’t even an original idea….
Morgans “concept” came from a YouTube video, (Possibly from Channel 4) that showed the only English girl in Bradford at a particular inner City school, wishing to copy her Islamic classmates in an attempt to gain acceptance from them..
Ex KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov discussing anti white propaganda in the media.
David, thank you for the clip. It contains the blueprint for subversion, made especially credible because its from the horses mouth. What the USSR did yesterday, Islamists are doing today. And I love the way Bezmenov shows his bosses were so disdainful of the “useful idiots” of the left. Do they know how despised the champagne socialists are by their masters?
The Anti White Media Blog
”Exposing the Subtle and Blatant Ways in Which the Media Seeks to Denigrate, Humiliate, and Ultimately Exterminate People of European or Caucasian Descent, One Image at a Time.”
(With regard to the Cheerios ad on that page)
Do you really think they are promoting white genocide? One advert, one mixed family, is the same as trying to wipe out the white population is it?
Do you have a problem with mixed-race families?
Death by a thousand cuts.
”Creeping normalcy refers to the way a major change can be accepted as the normal situation if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or short period.”
So you *do* have a problem with mixed race families.
Scott, here’s a man who appears to have problems with mixed race families: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10504564.Man_breaks_toddler_s_collarbone_in_racist_attack_at_Highams_Park_Station_after_hurling_abuse_at_mother_on_Walthamstow_to_Chingford_train/
I haven’t been able to find it yet on BBC London News, but then again, he happens to be black.
Black people who have problems with mixed-race families are just as contemptible as white people who have problems with mixed-race families.
The BBC should report this story.
people who attack woman and children are despicable (in my opinion only so no evidence required)
People who don’t share your deconstructionist faith are contemptible?
No they don’t agree with you -get used to it
(A reply to Stewart)
Yes, it is just my opinion that people (of all races) who have a problem with mixed-race families are contemptible. To me, they seem to be suggesting that white people should only marry white people, and black people should only marry black people, e.t.c. Can I ask: if your son or daughter wanted to marry someone from a different race, would you object, even if they were completely in love with each other?
Reply to Chris
would I object no-would I be sadden (by your leave) yes
Are all that demure from your received truth witches ?
Can we mourn the passing into oblivion those faces looking expectantly from are past or is even that now heresy
Destruction of collective ethnic identity
If ,as you concede it has some value,
then why should it be so strange to mourn it .Unless, and I think this is the truth you conceal with your dissembling you believe that the world would be a better place without white people.
I don’t see it as destruction of ethnic identity. Some white people will marry black people; other white people will marry white people. If, thousands of years down the line, there are fewer white (and black) people as a result of mixed marriages, then that will have been a completely natural process. This would lead to fewer black people as well as fewer white people, remember. Would it be any sadder to lose white people than to lose black people?
Earlier you said I should read what you write rather than what I think you mean. You should do the same. Where have I written that I think the world would be a better place without white people?
(A reply to Stewart again)
Sad because your grandchildren would not be white? That implies you believe that white is good, and not-white is bad (apologies if I have mis-interpreted). You can of course mourn if you like.
Mixed-race couples are not social engineering. They are the result of two people of different races falling in love, a perfectly natural thing. No-one would marry someone just because they are of a different race.
Apologies neither required or desired
I understand that relativists cannot distinguish between loving your own and hating the other
Is not the desire to preserve he familiar not also natural
So you do think that white people are good, and non-white people are bad?
IMO it would not be natural to value preserving the familiar above what your son/daughter would want (if they had fallen in love with someone from a different race).
In any case, why is the colour of the skin important? Surely what matters is the kind of person your grandchild turns out to be, not the colour of his/her skin.
direct answer to Chris.
No (are those the finding tongs I hear heating in the back ground)
Do you think that ethnic identity is worthless
(Another reply to Stewart)
No, ethnic identity is not worthless. However, I do not think that any one ethnic identity is inherently better than any other. Therefore, people should not be judged on their race.
“However, I do not think that any one ethnic identity is inherently better than any other”
Who has said differently?
Or that or that the individual should be judged by anything other than their own actions?
In that case, it seems odd that you should be sad about your grandchildren being mixed-race.
Then perhaps you should try reading what I said and not what you think I mean
You would be sad because some whiteness had been lost (Please correct me if I’m wrong).
If no one race is better than another (as you say) then I do not understand why you would be sad at this.
Change happens. Get used to it.
Change does not equal death. Surely, of you object to mixed race families like this one because they are ‘ant-white’ then they are surely ‘anti-black’ as well?
“Change happens. Get used to it”
At last we close on the truth
And remind me Barack Obama and Lewis Hamilton are famous for being ?
“get used to it”
For some odd reason this phrase is only ever uttered by the liberals. The post modern ones that is.
It is actually meaningless. it implies that change is by definition a liberal process and therefore a good thing. Change can be good and it can be bad.” Getting used to it” is just a cop out.
Now if I were to advocate change on my terms – say the restoration of the Grammar Schools there would be no “getting used to it’ by the liberal left. That would be deemed counter revolutionary.
Wrong side of history blah blah blah.
I agree with you on grammar schools. I went to one myself, and would support their reintroduction.
Change happens slowly. In the case of mixed families, a white person does not fall in love with a black person because they are black and vice versa. There are many mixed race families, so what is wrong with this advert depicting one of them?
Barack Obama is famous for being President of the USA. Lewis Hamilton is famous for being F1 world champion. What’s your point?
And you haven’t answered my question about this advert being both anti-white and anti-black.
I do not know if you are addressing me but I was only commenting on the use of that phrase “get used to it’. I was making no comment on anything else. The grammar school example was by way of an example .
But Chris, this “change” has been enforced upon all citizens of whatever colour or race in the UK.
The electorate has never been given the opportunity to vote on whether such huge numbers of immigrants should come to Britain in such a relatively short time.
We shall only know what all citizens of fthis country think if and when there is a referendum on this issue.
In the meantime, the suppression of people’s views, is feeding racism, fuelling community tensions and causing the races, cultures and religions to seperate, as the 2011 Census reveals.
Referendums are rare. Perhaps we should have more, but then we may end up having them about every piece of legislation the government wants to pass. Why should the issue of immigration be given a special status to be the only issue upon which referendums are held? However, I do agree that, if one were held, and the people voted in favour of restricting/stopping immigration, then the government should legislate to do so.
You say we did not get a chance to vote on this. The 2005 Conservative Party manifesto contained plans for controlled immigration, yet the people did not vote for the Conservatives. Of course there were other issues involved in that election, and I doubt that the reason the Conservative lost was because of the immigration issue. But that goes back to my point about not treating immigration as a special issue.
Do you have a problem with mixed-race families?
No, not if the white person is a left-wing Guardianista who votes Labour.
Guardianistas should all become racially diverse, just to prove they aren’t hypocrites.
“No, not if…”
Or, in other words, “yes”.
Scott M Instead of entering unto a discussion you have simply made an ultimatum. Correct me if I am wrong but you feel very strongly about this so strongly in fact that you are not interested in a discussion on it or to hear someone else’s views. Rather you would damn and label someone for apparently having a different view from your own.
Personally I am n favour of mixed marriages per say because more people would more likely retain a feeling of being British than be slaves to their anti British religion.
I don’t think you understand the world “ultimatum”. If you did, you wouldn’t misuse it as you have done.
Ugh. Word, not world. Damn autocorrect.
Fair enough Scott but aren’t you dodging the point I was making?
The last paragraph should read “Personally I am in favour of mixed marriages.”
Don’t waste your time Mo. Scott only comes on here to vent his pent-up frustration at the fact that there are people who hold different views to his own. As soon as he can round them up and put them in gas chambers he’ll follow the precedent if his left-wing socialist predecessors.
Until then he’ll thrash around the thread picking apart semantics and wilfully misinterpreting until someone holds him to account. At which point he’ll suddenly become unavailable for a few days until he thinks we’ve all forgotten what a disingenuous hypocrite he is.
In sum, he’s not worth the effort.
Here we go….The “white girl” that Abi Morgans sickly Beeboid drama was based upon….
And look how she’s grown…
she needs to be reintroduced to traditional British Values, like the .303in round and a firing squad at dawn
screaming abuse at a ceremony to remember victims of the murderous muslim terrorist attack in london is a little bit more disgraceful. once upon a time it would have been seen as treason as she wold have been executed. bring back the death penalty
Screaming abuse is terrible, agreed. Saying someone should be executed for it smacks of Socialism to me. I stick by my earlier comment.
Ahh part of the “White” series this is where I started complaining to the BBc I didn’t watch that program because I knew exactly what was going to happen. I did complain bitterley about “The day the migrants went home” which was I thought a shocking rigged and fixed assassination of British work ethics, this was my first ever complaint to the BBc. Of course I was wrong and and continue to be wrong on all my following complaints.
The initial concept of the BBCs “White” season asked “Are the white working classes in Britain being ignored”….
And then the BBC proceeded to do just that….Ignore them, and paint a multicultural picture from their Guardianista beliefs…
‘the workforce of the BBC did not reflect the ethnic make up of the population of Britain, which it should.’
Why should it?
“‘the workforce of the BBC did not reflect the ethnic make up of the population of Britain, which it should.”
So half female, a tenth homosexual, a fifth over 65, 80% not university educated and about two hundred different nationalities?!?!
Having an over representation of Asian Muslims and Oxbridge educated Jewish/British people does NOT make the BBC *representative* at all!!!!
Why shouldn’t it?
BME people are part of Britain now, and the British Broadcasting Corporation should reflect that.
Or do you think the BBC is just for white British people?
‘Why shouldn’t it?’
Is that Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?
But I’ll play ball.
The reason I think your assertion is bollocks is that it flies in the face of merit.
For example, if the BBC were to have a proportion of black, Asian or other minority ethnic employees that was higher than that of the UK, by your rationale the BBC should only then recruit white people until it ‘reflect(s) the ethnic make up of the population of Britain.’
I think that would be wrong because the BBC should employ the best possible candidate for each position irrespective of their race, gender or sexuality.
“the BBC should employ the best possible candidate for each position”
Seems to work well for athletics teams.
(In dangerous territory now. Expecting a knock on the door at 4am.)
I agree with your final paragraph.
BME people make up just over 10% of the population, and according the the BBC diversity targets they aimed for 12.5% of all staff being BME by September 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/workforce.html
So at the moment we could say that the BBC has it about right in terms of ethnic representation.
…or, if you simply worked with your own numbers, the BBC is targetting to employ 25% more BME staff than it needs to to retain an appropriate ethnic balance, potentially at the expense of perfectly good, and possibly better candidates ?
Aren’t statistics fun ?
I would say there is scarcely any difference between just over 10% (I don’t know the exact figure) and 12.5%.
Isn’t interpreting statistics fun?
I think 25% is a statistically significant percentage difference. And I think that every mathematician would agree with that.
If we were to give the same leeway to drivers, then you would be claiming that driving at over 87 mph is insignificantly different to driving at the speed limit 0f 70mph. So, I’m pretty sure that the policec would probaby agree with me too.
If you were landing on an aircraft with a need for a 25% longer runway…..etc., etc.
A 25% gap is not ‘scarcely any different from….’ as you might like to claim.
Yes, although statistics is clearly not one of your strong suits, it is fun.
Fair point. Although until we know what the actual % of BMEs is in this country (I can’t find the 2011 census results) then this debate is moot.
Going back to the bigger point of whether or not the BBC is anti-white, even if a few more BMEs are hired than accurately reflects the population, which I agree is wrong, I still struggle to see how that equates to anti-white racism. In fact, you could argue that it is so patronising to BME people (‘you only got the job because it fitted with a diversity target’) that it becomes racist to BME people too.
This is actually a reply to Chris via a reply to my own post (the cascade of posts failed to allow me to respond directly).
No problem, Chris – I don’t know the absolute numbers either, that’s why I prefaced my posts with ..’taking your own numbers’ of…… ‘just over’ 10% and 12.5%. And the numbers were all I was dealing with. And please disregard the end of my last post, it was unnecessary.
I do, however, wholheartedly agree with your last point, positive discrimination basically does no-one any favours. And I don’t think statistics even enter the equation on that.
Quotas and merit (and cronyism – see Labour Party candidate selection) are mutually exclusive. If you have one it is at the expense of the other.
This is what is known as ‘a fact’.
Quite and judging people by their skin colour as a way of ensuring ‘diversity’ is racist stereotyping anyway!
Does the rich privileged daughter of a former African dictator in any way *represent* the poor uneducated Muslim Pakistani peasant in Bradford, any better than does a *white* Cockney, or a middle class Oxbridge educated London centric British Jewish presenter?
Its nonsense, and simply an excuse to squeeze ethnic British people out of positions of authority and power.
“Its nonsense, and simply an excuse to squeeze ethnic British people out of positions of authority and power.”
How can you know that? Is there any evidence for that? Are you arguing that the BBC wants ALL of its top people to be BMEs, as you imply by ‘squeeze out’?
No I am arguing that choosing people by skin colour does NOT in any wya ensure they are *representative * of the population. All it ensures is that deserving ethnic British people who are passed over i.e. discriminated against, are squeezed out and prevented from working there.
And to add to that, no I am not arguing that the BBC actively wants ALL its top ethnic British people squeezed out, but since ethnic British people are declining in numbers they certainly want us to be robbed of majority control, and are not even willing to wait for that to happen naturally, but wish to accelerate the process.
And how Chris, to you respond to my point that its racist to choose people in any way by skin colour?
I agree that it is racist to choose people by skin colour. Both to white people for being passed over in favour of someone else, and to BME people for patronising them (as I have explained in one of my other comments).
“they certainly want us to be robbed of majority control”
Again, a statement with emotive language without evidence to back it up. The targets (which I agree are misguided) are for BMEs to form 12.5% of BBC staff. Meaning that white people are in a big majority of 87.5%.
Thanks for the support on Scott M,
RCE. At the time of writing no one had stood up to his comment and I thought someone should.
RCE accused Scott of wanting to round up the people whose views he disagrees with and put them in gas chambers. Where is there any evidence he wants to do that?
Chris, nice one, you didn’t answer the question. If I said that Nigerian TV is ‘hideously black’, what would your response be?
Dyke could have said “there are too many white people on British TV”, but he chose not to.
The situations are different in terms of history of immigration. I would say you had chosen your words a little unwisely (as I think Dyke did), but that does not mean you are anti-black.
George you waste your time in his opening remarks , having demanded evidence, he tells you that even if you produce it, it will not be enough.
” if you find one example, that does not mean that every liberal agrees.”
If you found 7 seven times seven examples the he would deem acceptable still it would not be enough
Later we get to the truth
“change happens get used to it” -like it or lump it
Pretty soon it will be like it or else or are we there already?
Watch again this clip of a BBC favoured comedian ,on a BBC show in front of an audience of BBC faithful
Listen carefully to what she says and think on the implications
You argued the BBC – the WHOLE BBC – is anti-white. I asked you to provide evidence for that. Yes, it would mean a lot of examples, but that is because it is a very big claim to make.
Generalisations about liberals are not valid unless they can be substantiated.
It’s certainly anti-working class white when it comes to choosing its hacks. Private or public school fine, oik comprehensive not so fine.
The percentage numbers of BBC broadcasters of particular origins should not be socially/culturally engineered, but should be based on merit.
The bBBC ‘news’ editors are in heaven. Their ‘news’ this evening:
1. the blessed terrorist Nelson Mandela isn’t dead yet
2. the Police tried to smear black-power-racist Stephen Lawrence’s family
3. the anti-American Edward Snowden is trying to copy the anti-American Julian Assange
4. a hate-crime ‘bomb’ has been found outside a mosque
5. the Tories have finalised their next lot of cuts.
“the Police tried to smear black-power-racist Stephen Lawrence’s family”
A couple of things:
1. According to the DT: “Francis’ disclosures have been revealed in a book about undercover policing published this week”. Surprise surprise.
2. It wasn’t just about the Lawrence family, it also included Duwayne Brooks, who the Lawrence family themselves didn’t approve of.
Yes, and other people were investigated too. But you will never hear that on the Biased BBC. To be fair, the cops probably wondered if SL was a mate of a jailbird like Duwayne Brooks, he may have been up to no good, that could have a bearing on the circumstances of his death.
Would that be the same Duwayne Brooks who kept on changing his story to the police, who the police suspected of killing Lawrence for threatening to blow the whistle on his drug-dealing activities – and who ended up with a shedload of compo for police “racism”?
There was a very right-wing denier piece on Climate Change presented by two BBC ladies about proof from sun spots, that we are entering a mini ice age.
No mention of carbon dioxide induced Climate Change, so is the BBC trying to undermine attacks from Government committees and Mensa members?
This must be the first time something like this has appeared on British television since Channel 4’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary, six years ago.
What’s going on?
I’d like to see that; do you have a link/reference?
it was called The Secret Life Of The Sun and should be on iPlayer – there’s a fabulously sneery review of it in the Guardian here
Presumably because it dared to suggest that climate variability is natural and not a result of sinful human behaviour
Very right wing? Did it contain a piece about free market economics ? Capitalist anarchy, privatising all state organisations, and reducing the role of the state to just law making?
Having an opinion on climate change does not indicate political belief. Racism is not indicative of political belief either – in fact most racists were & remain firmly left wing.
The reality is that the left uses the term right to define anyone who doesn’t share their lunatic beliefs. So the working class pensioner sat in the pub moaning about various ethnic minorities is a ‘fascist’ it matters not a jot that he’s voted Labour all his life and is in reality as left as they come – he hasn’t ‘become part of the program’ fully accepted insanity and therefore he has to be insulted & bullied, which is what being left wing is all about!
In the ITV Seventies sitcom, “Love Thy Neighbour”, Jack Smethurst played Eddie Booth, a white working-class, Labour-voting, racist oaf. Nothing changes even after 40 years !
Whilst on the BBC Alf garnet was a white working-class, Tory-voting, racist oaf. Nothing changes even after 40 years !
Johnny Speight, who wrote Till Death Us Do Part (on BBC) , was a socialist, who wanted to make Alf Garnett into a kind of anti-hero, to be laughed AT, not WITH. Also, Alf ended up coming out worse, to the mirth of leftist son-in-law Mike.
On the other hand, in Love Thy Neighbour (on ITV), the smarter West Indian (and Tory) Bill Reynolds ended up on the winning side against the socialist Eddie Booth.
The public’s reaction to Alf Garnett, however, somewhat backfired on Speight, because many viewers felt sympathy for Alf the lovable rogue instead of loathing for Alf the racist
Like Harry Enfield’s ‘Loadsamoney’
Today’s Beeboid thought police remind me more of another Harry Enfield character – the dreaded Mr You-Don’t-Want-To-Do-It-Like-That.
LTN was ITV trying to copy TDUDP but with a less sophisticated, cruder and more obvious take on race relations. Consequently it was much more effective with its target audience.
TDUDP was a direct attempt by the BBC to change attitudes and a dismal failure in that respect. If anything it was counter-productive.
So nothing much has changed. ITV copies BBC and does it more honestly and better. The BBC leads the way and gets it hopelessly wrong.
Richard, are you on commission from Mensa?
I just watched Question Time with Russel Brand and Boris Johnson where Boris was asked about how Israel is not held up to the scrutiny of Syria and Iran. Boris answered (about Iran not being proven guilty of anything) and then the Host moved on about not having enough time (with 12-15 minutes of the show left). Next was a pre-prepared question on housing. Screw QT
Detail and accuracy – surplus to requirement, BBC/NUJ style…
“A man aged in his 50s was arrested nearby and is in custody at a south London police station.”
“Daha Mohammed, 51, also of Abbotts Close, was charged with the murder of Mr Greenaway and was due to appear at Bexley Magistrates’ Court today. “
The BBC story is dated 16 June, the London24 story 17 June. If you look at the London 24 story on 16 June they had the same story and did not name the suspect — presumably because at that point Daha Mohammed had only been arrested and not charged.
Watched a feature about the OU on Breakfast the other day. No mention that the fees have recently tripled because Labour MPs voted to remove the government subsidy from it.
I believe the annual fee for a degree course at the OU is now £7500. Which is ridiculous and takes away most of the attraction.
If you are going to study by correspondence, there is no difference whether the uni is one mile away or 5000 miles away. So for far less money you could study in the Harvard University Distance Learning programme. Why would you choose the OU?
As the beeb has been involved with the middle-aged rote-learner’s “university” from the beginning, surely it must be worth it, and besides all must win prizes – not that the beeb would ever employ a retard with an OU “degree” unless it was to prove that ethnics can be geniuses too.
Spot the missing word…
That word is present, albeit in “accurate” fashion:
Some communities from parts of Africa and the Middle East, from both Muslim and Christian traditions, believe it is a necessary part of becoming a woman, that it reduces female sex drive and therefore the chances of sex outside marriage.
The “wall of silence”, though, is the police and local authorities as much as the “Muslim and Christian” communities doing it, something the BBC pretends isn’t part of the problem.
Blatant bias of this article and slipshod research exposed here:
Salford have sent their finest to SW19 – well its a good opportunity for the 5 Live crew to check on their rented out London properties (cf Rachel Burden tells the Daily Mail she predicts London house prices will outstrip those in the North West).
Our Rachel however makes a cardinal error this morning – so conditioned is she to gushing about the Olympics she lets slip that Wimbledon is a perfect looking sports venue.
Queue the celtic Twitter storm!
Quick, PC distraction! Nicky leaves off spinning his wheel of fortune for a moment to come to the rescue of the back end of his panto donkey. He raises the burning issue on all our minds : the feminst angle on Ecuador’s asylum policy.
Oh I didn’t mean Wimbledon was better than Scotand/Ireland/Wales* [*delete appropriate progressive non-London utopia] I meant Wimbledon was prefect in nasty clipped hedges manicured lawn English way!
You see these are the contorsions you get when you mix sport and Leftist campaign politics. BBC 5 Live take note.
It’s the start of BBC junket season – first Wimbledon, then…Glastonbury!!!!! (or ‘Glasto’ if you’re in the know, OK).
They’ve really gone to town – there’s even a countdown to tax-payer funded, muso-fest heaven for all those BBC ‘presenters’, who seem to have outnumber the acts in recent years.
Get there early, or find your view obscured by the moons of Jupitus.
Ah, the elite social season. The annual whirl of fashionable parties, exclusive invite only events and charity junkets where our social elite show off their privileged status. And pretent to have an egalitarian outlook.
those BBC ‘presenters’, who seem to have outnumber the acts in recent years.
Be grateful for small mercies. At least they don’t outnumber the audience.
Though I suppose it’s only a matter of time.
“At least they don’t outnumber the audience.”
…that’s what BBC3 is for. 🙂
Anyone see the interview by Andrew Neil of Mrs Blower Secretary General of the National Union of Teachers, even as a schoolboy I thought that the acronym was appropriate, and the interview conformed this old thought.
Once again Neil did his job well in exposing the how much the NUT cares for the rights and remuneration of its members and how little it cares about educating the nation’s children. Still this is typical of the public sector who look after themselves rather than the public. The NHS being a good example.
If only all the BBC’s interviewers were as unbiased and good at their jobs as Neil is, many of my concerns about the corporation would fall away. However, I would still feel it unhealthy for a democracy to have a single broadcaster with a near monopoly of news and comment . The fact that this is funded by a poll tax makes the situation worse.
As with my previous comment on Melanie Phillips, we need more of this. Arguing with these people on their own terms works perfectly for them as they’ve dominated the language through a deliberate effort to do so. They will never be beaten on such terms.
It’s about the like the Wizard of Oz. Don’t argue with the big face surrounded by flames and puffs of smoke. Instead go behind the curtain and expose the scared little man pulling the levers to the wider world.
What most people don’t understand about unions are that many of their elected leaders are effectively on paid secondments (and healthy paid secondments too). They promise jam today and jam tomorrow and make all kinds of spurious promises because it keeps the votes coming which in turn keeps them in the money trough. Like all humans they get used to it and don’t really want to go back to the ho hum life they had before that.
Make people understand that and the power dynamic begins to shift. The politics of envy is power and it’s politically neutral too in that it doesn’t care who deploys it.
Still this is typical of the public sector who look after themselves rather than the public. The NHS being a good example.
… and the BBC another.
The world prepares itself for the imminent death of Nelson Mandela and just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse there is yet another angle on the Stephen Lawrence debacle.
BBC and Guardian in meltdown…
And, guess what, a book is coming out.
Now Cameron has jumped on the bandwagon:
David Cameron orders police to investigate allegations they spied on Stephen Lawrence family
Just wondering, how is the investigation into the murder of PC Keith Blakelock progressing?
Cameron is further to the left than Milliband is!
Just when I think that the BBC bias is pro Labour we discover that Cameron is in there with them. Maybe the BBC is an organ of the state after all.
More urgently when is the funeral of drummer Lee Rigby going to be arranged?
“They wanted the campaign to stop,” said Francis. “It was felt it was going to turn into an elephant.”
More evidence that the last generation of policemen were far wiser than they get credit for.
A piece early this morning on Toady, where the mother of the “alleged” Boston bombing-type terrorists was interviewed.
She was just their mum – they were good boys – never did no ‘arm to nobody, and we’re going to the States to bring my boy home. He was always good to his mother.
Vicky Drearyshire has just played the clip. For what reason? I don’t know.
Also, giving large on the Snowden case, she carefully went through the timeline, telling listeners that Equador had also given Assange asylum against the US.
What she could have said was that Assange could have sought asylum at any time if he thought that his life might be in danger, but he didn’t. He claimed asylum once the last of his legal attempts to avoid extradition to Sweden failed. At that point he jumped bail and ran for cover to avoid a rape investigation.
Feminist handwringer Derbyshire is usually outspoken when it comes to sex crimes against women…except when it comes to allegations against Assange when rape is seemingly OK.
1.) ‘Daily Mail’:-
“So will M’lud Leveson now investigate phone-hacking lawyers? Don’t hold your breath”
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
“Phone-hacking investigations cost Met £19.5m so far”
How much is £19.5 million minus all those Guardian bribes to find out which Murdoch hack will be fingered next?
As usual, the bBBC uses its doctored photo of Stephen Lawrence, censoring his aggressive black-power fist and making him look like a sweet young boy.
For the real image see e.g. http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=1403
Mandela & Stephen Lawrence, Am I trapped in some kind of time loop? I turned on the news this morning and here we go again.
Hey didn’t some poor squaddie just get hacked to death recently?
Media and Charlene Downes.
(video clips not available.)
BBC-NUJ’s political endorsement of Labour’s VAZ continues.
BBC-NUJ does not criticise Islam-promoting VAZ over his campaigning to ban e.g. Salman Rushdie, and Robert Spencer.
On the contrary, VAZ is inclined to be the first person BBC-NUJ turns to so as to ban free speech.
“UK MP Who Called for Rushdie Book Ban, Trying to Ban Robert Spencer”
By Daniel Greenfield.
A case study in the kind of double dealing, mealy mouthed, mediocrity that personnifies race hustling, rial grabbing, rupee grasping-and is lauded by the BBC, sheltered and fed(amply) by us all via Labour.
Sorry-I`m wrong…this is racist, and so I`ve reported myself to Polly Toynbee Hall for corrective surgery.
Presumably all of us in Vaz shadow are VaZeleenies!
“Presumably all of us in Vaz shadow are VaZeleenies! ”
This is highly defamatory and we demand that all greasy references be removed immediately.
The open thread fills up so quickly just proving that few are actually interested in the site or correcting the enormities of the national broadcaster. It seems that your ineffectual activity continues to be a waste of time because contributors just want to spout off. Be mindful the NSA has your number!
Ineffectual spouting off? You mean, like your comment?
you need to re-read the thread. it consists mostly of the anti white racism of al beeb
Be mindful the NSA has your number!
Yawn – couldn’t give a toss.
Aww bless another one of the multi billion £ media corporation defenders has dropped in to fidget with his small change in the corner ! well lad nay fret we won’t bite stay and debate your devotion to the BBC empire 40%+and rising jump in and tell us about your ideas over the thousands of poor criminalised and imprisoned by your BBC and their pet thugs !
Or just be like the rest of the pro BBC showgirls on here I.e a sad waste of the NHS’s and funds time on the day you were born and pretty much every other penny/breath spent on you from there onwards !
Here’s one for you:
Journalists trapped on flight to Cuba as Snowden follies continue
Where in the world is Edward Snowden? That seems to be the question that enticed reporters to board a Moscow-to-Havana Aeroflot flight, after word leaked — sorry! — that Snowden had registered as a passenger, perhaps as part of a multi-flight itinerary to Ecuador or Venezuela. Reporters quickly bought tickets for the suddenly popular 12-hour Aeroflot route and dutifully took their seats … only to discover after the doors closed and the plane headed for the runway that Snowden wasn’t on board at all…
There’s a photo of the empty seat.
According to the New York Times’ Jim Roberts, dozens of reporters are now en route to Fidel Castro’s paradise on the off chance that they might interview the former intelligence contractor.
According to the anchor of BBC World News America and the highest-profile BBC journalist in the US, though:
Nice priorities, Katty. How about, “Concerned that Russia gave false information to journalists. How ironic that Snowden’s saga is about government secrecy….”? Nah, too obvious.
Hilarious, if what I read earlier today is true, but only a month or two ago, it appears that Aeroflot imposed an alcohol ban on its flights from Moscow to Cuba.
Flightful of gagging reporters – 12 hours without booze – wonder how many of them were sponsored by the BBC ?
Rachel Kennedy was on it:
Apparently they cleaned out the vodka shelves in duty free beforehand and partied on the plane.
Snakes on a Plane.
No, no: “traditional reporting”. Although smoking and drinking does smack of the old days of journalism. Too bad their ethics aren’t harkening back as well.
At least one Beeboid gets it. Although there’s no reason for Jonathan Marcus to be shy and continue to phrase it as a question.
Edward Snowden: Diplomatic fall-out over flight from US
A whistle-blower protecting individual privacy and un-masking governmental hypocrisy, or traitor to his country?
Like I keep saying, he’s both.
Whatever the verdict on Edward Snowden’s activities, his leaking of details of a vast US operation to access and monitor communications inevitably has serious diplomatic repercussions.
And his flight from US jurisdiction – reportedly from Hong Kong to Moscow en route, possibly, to Ecuador – is throwing up problems for the Americans, and indeed his hosts, at virtually every stop.
The timing of his disclosures – just as the US president was meeting his Chinese counterpart with Chinese computer-hacking high on the agenda – was a gift-horse for Beijing.
At a stroke, the US was no longer able to portray China as a cyber-villain.
Washington, Mr Snowden has revealed, was up to a good deal of computerised skull-duggery of its own, with China very much the target.
There’s no question that St. Edward’s revelations damaged US foreign policy activities and goals. It’s not biased or pro-US or anti-free speech to say this is what happened, so why is Marcus still acting coy? He knows what’s happened. And St. Edward went on to Russia, a country with which the US is in the middle of some serious geopolitical negotiations. Now Putin gets a chance to give the two-fingered salute, and there’s nothing the US can do about it.
Finally, Marcus notices something which I also pointed out yesterday:
He may be transiting through Cuba, another ideological opponent of Washington.
Some might say there is something paradoxical about the reported map of Mr Snowden’s flight.
Having sought to expose what he regards as hypocrisy and malpractice in the behaviour of US intelligence services, he is now engaged in a tour of a series of countries whose records, human rights organisations say, leave a lot to be desired.
Indeed. Why, it’s almost as if St. Edward and his supporters aren’t really interested in human rights at all, and have another agenda entirely.
Egypt and Islam.
“Egypt: Muslim mob of 3,000 led by clerics torches Shia homes, murders four Shias.”
“This comes ‘after weeks of incitement by Salafist preachers,’ who accused the Shi’ites of being infidels. But remember, it only becomes ‘hatred’ when non-Muslims report on that clerical incitement.
“What is most interesting about this is that supposedly learned commentators are ascribing it to the rising Sunni-Shi’ite tensions over Syria, and characterizing it as a purely political matter. While it is certainly true that this probably wouldn’t have happened if Sunnis and Shias weren’t confronting each other in Syria, note that Syria is mentioned only in passing in this report. Instead, the conflict was framed in wholly religious terms. But the influence of the Islamic religion in conflicts such as this one is the one thing that Western analysts are forbidden (on pain of charges of ‘Islamophobia’) to study.”
“Egypt mob attack kills four Shia Muslims near Cairo”
I blame Shia foreign policy, racism and inequality in Egypt.
The bBBC is giving plenty of publicity to the racists, feminists and class-warriors who want a woman depicted on the £5 note instead of Winston Churchill.
“It’s about white upper class men from limited backgrounds having a limited number of heroes. What is this except a public school boy’s list?”
So, if the whingers want a famous woman who came from a working-class background, how about Margaret Thatcher?
We already had an £5 note with Maggie on it, as featured in an episode of The Goodies – “2001 and a Bit”!
How about a picture of hugs boaden on the fiver.
This one should do.
The BBC report today Israel hits back after Gaza rockets
At least the headline makes it clear that it was in retaliation for rockets being fired first from Gaza.
Curiously though, the article tells us:
The rocket fire followed a rise in tensions in Gaza after a militant died in a shoot-out with Palestinian police.
The Islamic Jihad faction says Raed Qassim Jundeyeih, a commander of its military wing, was killed on Saturday by police from Gaza’s governing Hamas movement, while Hamas says Jundeyeih was killed by a bullet fired from his own weapon.
Islamic Jihad are believed to have been behind Sunday night’s rocket attack on Israel, which came after a period of relative calm.
Did anybody else find it strange that Gaza militants should fire rockets at Israel after Palestinian police kill one of their own leaders?
Well whoever wrote the article clearly doesn’t, it even goes on to tell us that the rockets fired follows ‘a period of relative calm’.
‘Calm’, as far as the BBC is concerned, is not affected by the 3 other rockets fired last Wednesday from Gaza towards Ashkelon in Israel, before any militant was killed by Palestinian police on Saturday. Since the BBC is so used to ignoring incidents of Palestinian aggression until Israel responds, it is understandable that they didn’t calculate this into their story today.
I knew last Wednesday that this was coming since BBC Watch reported this incident and noted the absence of any mention of it by the BBC. It was clear from previous incidents of this kind that it would only be when Israel responds that we would hear about it from the BBC.
Shows how their own IGNOREance gets them to find even more stupid reasons to explain events there.
The whole message seems to be so strangely put together. There was this internal killing in Gaza, which apparently had nothing to do with Israel, but the BBC article seems to have been written to indicate that there was a connection between the events – perhaps to cover the fact that, once again, there really was no excuse for the continued firing of rockets at innocent people by Palestinians, and such a story is unlikely to emanate, unqualified, from the BBC.
That, and, of course, the Israeli retaliation helps with the BBC narrative of Israel constantly attacking Palestine.
The two factions are fighting because of Israel, of course. So it’s always Israel’s fault.
Personally, I blame Hamas’s foreign policy and inequality in Gaza for this one.
The BBC will never quote opinions from Arabs themselves if they go against the BBC’s agenda.
A comment from a prominent Palestinian Leader published in a PLO official publication explains the history that no-one at the BBC would want to acknowledge as the truth.
“Arab armies ……forced them ( the Palestinian Arabs) to leave their homeland imposed on them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to ghettos in which the Jews lived in Europe”
And who was this leader ? None other than Abu Mazen himself in 1976.
A little biased misinformation from the BBC about today’s US Supreme Court decision about using race as a university admission factor.
The justices voted 7-1 on the case, saying that an appeals court had failed to scrutinise the university’s admissions policy thoroughly enough when considering whether it guaranteed equal protection to all applicants.
Monday’s ruling said: “The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”
In other words, the lower court didn’t use the standards required by the 2003 Supreme Court ruling on this same issue.
However, the BBC says this about that 2003 case:
In a 2003 case involving the University of Michigan, the US Supreme Court upheld the use of race in admissions.
Which leaves out half the story, particularly the bit relevant to today’s ruling. All you’re left with is that the Court rejected Affirmative Action. Then the key closing line to make sure you take away the desired thought:
However, the court has become more conservative since then.
Has it, now? Today’s ruling was 7-1 (Justice Kagan recused herself because she had a conflict of interest). Justice Kennedy, widely considered to reliably to vote on the liberal side, wrote the majority opinion.
In 2003, Kennedy joined the dissent, so he’s consistent.
The Justices in 2003:
Chief Justice Rehnquist – conservative
Stevens – liberal
O’Connor – conservative
Scalia – conservative
Kennedy – liberal
Souter – liberal
Thomas – conservative
Ginsburg – liberal
Breyer – liberal
5 liberal – 4 conservative
Chief Justice Roberts – conservative
Alito – conservative
Kennedy – liberal
Thomas – conservative
Sotomayor – liberal
Ginsburg – liberal
Scalia – conservative
Breyer – liberal
Kagan – liberal
5 liberal – 4 conservative
Kagan would have joined Ginsburg in the dissent, so the ruling would be 7-2. Yet three other liberal judges voted the way the BBC suggests is the result of the Court getting more conservative.
Bush put in two conservative Justices, and The Obamessiah put in two liberals. Even somebody with the math skills of a BBC journalist ought to be able to tell that’s a wash.
Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.
dont trust the BBC on any issues!
The BBC’s report on the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action policies has “evolved”. They added some stuff supportive of affirmative action (in case anyone wasn’t interested in the ruling but was just worried if they should still support affirmative action in general), wrapped around one of those “conservatives say” sentences, for balance. Now they mention that Kagan recused herself, which they should have done in the first place, since it was already known. But they still say that the Court has become “more conservative” since 2003.
How, since the 5/4 liberal majority is still there? Are the liberal Justices getting more conservative as they grow older or what? Good thing they weren’t so conservative about ObamaCare and Arizona’s immigration law, eh, BBC? Give me a break.
Weird how George Zimmerman’s trial started this morning and the BBC has yet to mention it online. Has anyone heard about it on the radio or seen a mention on the News Channel yet? I wonder why they haven’t reported this or the fact that the jury is an all-female, mostly white group? Florida law allows juries of six people (no idea why), so it’s five white, middle-aged women plus one Hispanic.
Maybe since the Stand Your Ground law is irrelevant, as Zimmerman and Martin were involved in a physical altercation at the time of shooting – something the BBC has still censored from all reports – a conviction isn’t a slam dunk, so it’s no longer an important story. Considering just how much the BBC hyped this up originally, one would have thought the start of the trial was worth at least a wink and a nod.
all the BBC reporters are probably inconsolable with grief with the impending death of good ole nelson, either that or theyre all stuck on a flight to cuba
But Daniel Nasaw and his crew in the US don’t have to deal with that. Their job is to handle US issues. Instead of this, it’s apparently more important that some Hollywood celebutard is boycotting his own movie due to gun violence (in memory of Sandy Hook), one of the BBC’s fetishized topics.
Jebus they fall for any studio PR put job going as long as it’s got lollywood glitter and helps the democretin party!
Update: the one non-white juror is apparently a black woman of Hispanic descent. Zimmerman, of course, has been labeled a “white Hispanic”, as that would make him more easily portrayed as racist. Race is such a BS artificial construct, most obviously in this area, but as Alinsky said, hold them to their own rules.
Update Update: The BBC has at last published a news brief about the trial’s opening statements. The piece still doesn’t mention the make-up of the jury, and frames the physical altercation between the two – a proven fact due to Zimmerman’s injuries, which the US MSM originally tried to deny – as merely Zimmerman’s claim.
They still can’t just report the facts without trying to spin it.
Although I do very much enjoy David Preiser, Alan and DB’s posts, can I ask where David Vance is these days? I really miss his posts. Site not the same without him.
Maybe because he doesn’t want to be associated with comments such as:
There’s no reason why BBC-NUJ should report this, is there?:
“Two French marines held in anti-Semitic bomb attack; one is brother of jihadist in Syria.”
“The glories of diversity in the French marine corps.”
An excellent article in the Spectator by Douglas Murray about Sadiq Khan and his attack on Charles Moore for defending the decision to cut funding to ‘Tell Mama’, the project that was intended to report about anti-Muslim attacks in the UK.
For those who don’t know, Tell Mama reported a vast exaggeration in attacks following the murder of Lee Rigby which led to this decision. It’s over 2 weeks now since it was made, but the BBC has still to make the public aware of this. As far as the BBC are concerned, the figures given by Tell Mama following the murder of Lee Rigby are accurate.
Just a few days ago BBC News interviewed Robert Spencer,, the founder of Jihad Watch, who together with Pamela Geller, had been invited by the EDL to attend and speak at a planned gathering on Armed Forces Day in Woolwich at the site of Lee Rigby’s death.
As we’ve come to expect, the stance of Islamists and their left wing appeasers led by the BBC were trying to get them both prevented from entering the country. So one of the figures used by the News broadcast to tell the public how wrong it was to allow the American Islamic experts to come to the country was Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of Tell Mama.
He even had the temerity and hypocrisy to state that Robert and Pamela’s presence was bad for Britain, especially using the site of Lee Rigby’s death.
You can see in the broadcast that the BBC made no attempt to let the viewer know just who this ‘speaker for freedom’ is, nor challenge the hypocrisy for the way he had used the death of Lee Rigby.
The BBC are a MAJOR part of the problem that gives the likes of Sadiq Khan any credibility, even among the BBC ignorant public.
heres the full segment
I’m looking forward to seeing the Andrew Neil interview on al beeb.
Robert Spencer V @afneil would make an interesting session.
But there again, not likely that it’s one @afneil would win IMHO.
So he’s bragging on twitter how he’d love to reinterview Andy Choudrey, and has said he’d happily tackle an Islamist ( whatever that may be? ), so lets see if he’s good enough to tackle Robert Spencer
I suspect he wont do it.
Sorry – Here’s the link to the Spectator article
S nelsoons on his way out,what a shame,at least ill know when to start the party. If people dont like my comments maybee ill give them a mandela rubber necklace.cheers bbbc
False flag, remove please mods.
made me laugh.. even if the BBC see him as the great white dope (sorry hope)
What a photograph – it’s like Wallace and Gromit, only without the intelligent dog.
One for the This Is The Shite That Three Billion Quid A Year Gets You slot.
Phil ‘New University’ Williams hosted a debate on whether Royal Bank of Scotland should hive off its toxic assets into a separate organisation. When his guests had finished their contribution you might have expected Williams, a news anchor for some years now, to sum up the opposing arguments adding his own cogent reasoning.
Instead you got,
‘Hey guys (chuckles) try saying ‘good bank bad bank’ five times really quickly (corpses)’.
Still, it’s what you get from someone who spent his poly years sitting in a lecture theatre chewing pieces of paper into pulp pellets and then flicking them about the hall.
a “certain” paragon of honesty, high morals, and integrity
everyday is … groundhog day? … deja vu day? so glad he s deciding who is a fit and proper person, (shakes head)
to …….ensure i ………..get ………….maximum camera time?
seems aggressive hugging is the order of the day?
particulary to the young grieving daughter.
(i seem to recall a picture or something of cherie blair stroking vaz s face …. shudder!)
More on BBC-NUJ’s Labour chum, VAZ, here.
“Who does Keith Vaz think he is, Tony Soprano?”
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN. (Dec, 2012.)
Has BBC-NUJ reported on this ‘British-Libyan’ arms dealer in Syria: Abdul Basit Haroun?
Or is he on the same side as Obama?
“Libyan weapons dealer in Syria”
‘… unarmed black teenager’. Not sure why the BBC had to mention the victim’s race. If the perpetrator was black and the victim white or the killer was a Muslim we’d have to look elsewhere to get this ‘vital’ information. So biased it’s untrue!
H/T to Guido
‘The Beeb man’s planned candidacy was well known in Welsh media circles since mid last week and other hacks were tweeting about it. The less-subtle hints have subsequently been deleted, but what is clear is the BBC claim today that Rhun ap Iorwerth was taken off the air immediately is nonsense. For example, on Saturday their Welsh Affairs Editor Vaughan Roderick was in the know: “Sibrydion diddorol o Ynys Môn. Interesting rumours from Anglesey. Expect something tomorrow.”’
If you want a vision of the future imagine the BBC ramming a leek into an English face – forever
BBC supports the Welsh Nationalists – inoccent face
BBC sport-agit-prop department (5 Live) are chatting about S-Dubs N-N-N-Ner-Nineteen (SW19 Wimbledon)
And the critical tennis questions would appear to be :
‘What would Billie Jean King have thought?’
‘We need some more sisterhood between the top female players’
BBC : Right on. Go sister go!
And meanwhile…. it seems all that naff The Voice was just kidding… what we are really into is Glasto yeh!
The BBC : Means all things to all….. perpetual adolescent would be trendies.
Twitter is a Lefty-leaning echo chamber and the Beeboids know it.
See this exchange where BBC 5 Liver Rachel Burder appears to receive a little Twitter criticism for moaning about some of her daily travails or what a trendy lefty might term a ‘First World Problem’. However after complaining that The Daily Mail is lying about BBC pay and conditions our Rachel is reassured that her Twitter contact was simply being sarky about the Mail. Rachel then clears things up with the conclusion that the two ‘are on the same page’.
Rachel Burden @rachelburden 23 Jun
Limited budget, conflicting opinions on what we need and 3 bored children. Should be a joy. Happy Sunday everyone.
Iain Hibbert Iain Hibbert @IainHibbert 23 Jun
@rachelburden Assumed a BBC radio star like you would be “minted”, the Mail are always telling us how you’re all massively over-paid!
Rachel Burden Rachel Burden @rachelburden 23 Jun
@IainHibbert well it must be true then. I’ll just go and look for those missing 1000s…
2:14 AM – 23 Jun 13 · Details
Iain Hibbert Iain Hibbert @IainHibbert 23 Jun
@rachelburden (just to be clear, my comment about the Mail was heavily laced with sarcasm)
Rachel Burden Rachel Burden @rachelburden 23 Jun
@IainHibbert oh I know! I think we’re on the same page..
The BBC/Left : I think they are all on the same page!
Yesterday I joked that the Salford re-exodus to SW19 would give the Beeboids a free all-expenses-paid chance to check on their London investment properties.
I cited this gem from about the time of the great BBC London to Salford fun run….
‘We won’t sell our house,’ says Rachel, 35, referring to her four-bedroom Edwardian home in Ealing, valued at £650,000.
‘London prices are likely to rise faster than other parts of the country so we want to hold on to it and let it out.’
There’s many a true word is said in jest – that’s an old English adage as old as Chaucer.
So now just try to guess what Rachel’s Twitter buddy Iain Hibbert does for a living?
Iain is a solicitor working within our commercial property team. Acting for an investment trust on the management of its properties in London.
I expect he just follows our Rachel because he has a crush on her.
As my teenage kids might say – “I ship it”
Shockingly biased piece of BBC bigotry here:
It is headlined in the sidebar ‘Florida killer’s motive debated’
A headline which implies that he intended to kill the deceased, a very prejudicial headline.
The article is illustrated with a photograph of the deceased aged 12 or 13, a smiling fresh-faced child, despite the fact that he was 17, and numerous more recent pictures are available more accurately representing the deceased. The photo is captioned ‘[he] was unarmed and carrying a can of tea and a pack of sweets’.
The article also heavily favours the prosecution’s case in its presentation of the contrasting arguments, leading with ‘Prosecutor: Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon Martin’
They also include the quote:
‘On Monday, the jury heard profanity-laced quotes from a phone call to police by Mr Zimmerman after he spotted the teenager walking in the gated community, in which the defendant tells an emergency dispatcher: “They always get away.”‘
The latter quote being carefully chosen by the bigoted BBC journalist for its possible racial overtones.
Having previously stated ‘The case drew national attention and has fuelled debate about race and the proliferation of guns in America.’
The fact that the deceased himself was found with text messages on his phone about purchasing a gun, and had photographs of a 9mm pistol, isn’t mentioned of course, nor that the largest category of gun homicides in the US is black-on-black (if you exclude these, the gun crime rates in the US are no higher than many countries with strict gun control laws), and that had Zimmerman been black rather than Hispanic, this death wouldn’t even have made the front page of the local newspaper.
Yes, and compare with routine BBC-NUJ line on the very many Islamic jihad murders globally, where the Islamic motives of the Muslim perpetrators is not discussed.
90% of gun crime in the USA is committed by gangs. 90% of the victims of gun crime are gang members. Without these figures the US has the same gun crime as Canada.
The BBC has been deceitful and biased on this story from the very beginning. They’ve already decided on Zimmerman’s guilt, as well as his motivation.
The BBC still hasn’t admitted that they’ve pushed a lie about that police dispatcher call, a lie created by NBC.
BBC on US politics
Republicans – gaff
Democrats – misspeak
How much of the world’s workforce will come from Africa?
By Ruth Alexander BBC News
“What I see in Africa – what I see around the world – are explosive numbers of young people, and over the next 35 years Africa will become 40% of the entire world’s workforce.”
‘Will 40% of the world’s workforce…. be based in Africa by about 2050? Fact-checking this claim – made by US Secretary of State John Kerry – reveals a fascinating, shifting future for the world’s population.’
So a claim that would have been laughed at right across the BBC from Newsnight to The Now Show under the George W Bush administration now under Obama simply raises a Mr Spock-like eyebrow ‘fascinating’ ‘It’s a gaff Jim… but not as we know it!’
‘It looks like he just mis-spoke. And he has got form – in his first speech as Secretary of State, Kerry invented a whole new country, “Kyrzakhstan”.’
The BBC : The Left ‘just mis-spoke’
Oh, FFS. An entire article dedicated to defending an idiotic statement? This combined with the clever new language in a BBC report explaining how the President has to keep issuing these executive orders because the evil Republicans are blocking progress tells me that the Beeboids see their beloved Obamessiah is in trouble and needs their help to get the good message out to the masses.
Before anybody tells me I’m dreaming, read this from the executive producer of BBC World News America:
The Obama administration has made significant – and largely unheralded – progress on the economic front, as well as in important areas of foreign and domestic policy. The Obama administration has a secret life.
The White House’s public life as represented by the Washington press corps is all about the Benghazi “scandal”, IRS-gate, snooping on leakers and reporters and duelling with the wily Republican Congress for the sole purpose of 2014 and 2016 electioneering.
But in its private life, the administration of President Barack Obama is presiding over an economic recovery that is among the strongest in the recession-wracked world.
All these “scandals” (proof he believes it’s all nothing) are distracting the press from reporting His accomplishments. He re-emphasizes this concept at the end, after championing a couple of things he sees as the President doing good work.
On the other hand, Mr Obama’s recent speech on this phase of our national security posture last week barely interrupted the coverage and conversation about the “perfect storm” scandals.
They know, and believe it’s their duty to help.
So perhaps this important debate will also unfold behind the curtain, in the private presidency where the real governing seems to happen.
Behind the curtain, indeed. That’s what executive orders are all about.
The really scary thing about the above article for me (I’m pretty inured to BBC exaggeration and bias in favour of certain communities in the world) is the anticipated growth in the population of Nigeria, almost overtaking China in population by the end of this century.
I wonder why nobody at the BBC actually questions these numbers in a reasonably scientific way…for instance :
Will this population growth in Nigeria be sustainable – or are we likely to see internecine warfare break out on a massive scale in that part of the world ?
Can Nigeria even begin to produce the food to simply keep this level of population alive ?
If we aim to develop a low-carbon world economy – what will that do to Nigeria’s wealth-creating assets and industries ?
Can such a population growth potential be sustained without an incredible amount of external aid – and will this be available ? Or are we likely to see a mortality rate in Africa such as has never been seen before ?
Which countries, if any, will be willing to give up jobs held by their own nationals to satisfy the needs of Nigeria for income for its people – or are we looking at the potential for a massive global trade war ?
But hey – let’s just go with the headline – it’s so much easier.
FRANCE: latest Islamic jihad threat.
Robert Spencer, ‘JihadWatch’ notes the final sentence of the BBC-NUJ report:
“French police arrest six ‘radical Islamists’ near Paris”
BBC-NUJ’s final sentence:-
“France increased its domestic terror threat level after French forces went into action in Mali on 11 January to push back militants who had captured Timbuktu and other parts of northern Mali.”
Robert Spencer’s comment on the above:-
“‘France raised its domestic terror alert level after its intervention in Mali.’
“The implication is that if the French hadn’t moved against the Islamic supremacists in Mali, this kind of thing wouldn’t be happening. But actually it would just be proceeding under a different pretext.”
Also, Germany –
(Islamic jihad knows no boundaries):-
1.) ‘JihadWatch’ –
“German police foil Muslim jihad plot to use remote controlled aircraft filled with explosives as guided missiles”
“German police reported to have raided Islamist network”
What Polly Did Next (No, not her – a different Polly)
I’m sure everyone here is aware of of Jim Naughtie’s infamous “If we win the election…” gaffe, but how many know of a similar gaffe by Polly Billington, or even who she is. First, a little of her BBC CV:
Political Reporter: Radio 1 Newsbeat,
Reporter: Today programme,
Political Reporter: News Channel
Reporter: On the Record
Producer: One, Six and 10 o’clock news
Reporter: Local radio and Regional TV
In 2006, when interviewing a Labour conference delegate for the Today programme, Polly let slip “Are you comfortable with where we are on the leadership? Do you think there is a smooth transition about to happen?”
It’s that ‘we’ again. In the comments in the link, you can find Ian Dale suggesting that the blogger is becoming a bit paranoid, and the sentence can have an entirely different meaning to the one attributed by the blogger. Subsequent events help us determine the correct interpretation.
2007 – Polly leaves the BBC and becomes Special Adviser to Ed Milliband
2010 – Polly is part of Ed’s bid for leadership team.
2011 – Polly leaves team Ed and becomes Labour’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Thurrock.
It is the Labour ‘we’. No doubt about it, is there Mr Naughtie?
The BBC in-house magazine has a feature called Overheard at the BBC.
Licence payers tend to think of it as Overpaid at the BBC – but I digress.
Now I don’t suppose we hear even a tiny fraction of the water cooler talk. Any BBC whistleblowers out there? I hear it’s the in thing to be.
Based on the increasing tendency to bring agit-prop to their sports coverage I can imagine this though…
Beeboid to Beeboid at Glasto:
‘Heh Monkeys, Stones or Mumford?’
These questions and more we put to our team of Glasto presenters
‘Stones, man. Why do you ask?’
‘Monkeys (Artic not a la Micky Dolenz) is Radio 6, Mumford is so Radio 2….’
‘Stones is svery Sports Department’
‘Ah but haven’t you seen our new cool wristbands we’ve had made up… What would Billie Jean King Think’
Kabul- latest bombing:
-INBBC sees no ‘Islamic jihadists’, only ‘militants’.
1.) ‘Atlas Shrugs’-
“OBAMA’S ‘PEACE’ PARTNERS BOMB PRESIDENTIAL PALACE”
“The sheer buffoonery of the Obama presidency would be comical if it didn’t leave so much death and destruction in its wake. In spite of a vicious campaign of murder and the brutal imposition of Islamic law (sharia law), Obama rewards these devout barbarians with ‘peace talks.’ He has handed over the country to savages.
“The Taliban continue to orchestrate insider attacks, killing our soldiers. They continue to poison girls’ schools across Afghanistan, kidnap Red Cross workers, enforce the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth (the Sharia), and call for the defeat of American and coalition forces. These jihadists behead Afghan children, slaughter Afghans who dare to attend a party where dancing takes place, and mean to run Mullah Omar for President, despite the fact that there is still a $10-million-dollar reward on his head. Omar sheltered Osama bin Laden prior to the 9/11 attacks; he had a hand in the 9/11 attacks; and he has directed the Taliban’s ongoing war against U.S.-led NATO forces. On what basis could a peace conference move forward? It is, in fact, a surrender.”
“Afghan Taliban assault in Kabul secure zone”
Those meetings with Taliban leadership at their Qatar HQ must be going well.
So here’s a little Quiz. An MP breaks his foot in Soho. Which proper noun does the article begin with? Hint: it’s a political party and not Labour.
Will INBBC report this?:-
“Muslim group backed by hate preacher Anjem Choudary called IED ‘mocks Britain’s war dead’ with its name.”
‘The Day Sport Changed Forever’
Sorry, this had to be done
She wasn’t exactly a beauty queen, from a movie scene
But the BBC say we don’t mind, now what do they mean she was the ONE?
Who used to fight, all the time for equal rights, all around
They said she was the ONE, who used to fight for equal rights, all around
They tell me her name was Billie Jean, and she caused a scene
Then every head turned with eyes that dream of seeing the ONE
Who will fight, all the time for equal rights, all around
People always warn the BBC be careful of what you do
And don’t go around breaking young girls’ hearts
And Auntie used to tell us to be careful of who you love
And be careful of what you say ’cause the LIE Becomes the TRUTH
Billie Jean is not my lover
She’s just a girl the BBC now claims is the ONE
But self-interest is not egalitarian
They say she is the ONE, but sectional interest is just divisive
Nowadays the country has turned PC
The law is on their side
But why the licence fee when there’s On Demand?
Their schemes and plans
‘Cause they dance, down at Glasto, on expenses
So take my strong advice, just remember to always think twice
Do think twice
Billie Jean is not my lover
She’s just a girl the BBC now claims is the ONE
Then there’s this dude called OBAMA
The BBC says that He is the ONE
Who will fight, all the time, for Peace and Love
The BBC says that He is the ONE
He promised to close, that camp, down in Cuba
The BBC says that He is the ONE
He bombs the Taliban, from the air, on the ground
The BBC says that He is the ONE
But he spies on the internet all around
The BBC says that He is the ONE
Then there’s this dude called OBAMA
Here’s another one of those racist, far-Right, unmarried cranks moaning about BBC coverage of Nelson Mandela again just because they hate black people….oh, hang on, it’s former Today editor Rod Liddle…..
Prepare to be bored
There will be think pieces, stuff by his friends, stuff by his enemies, stuff by people he patted on the head while visiting Brixton. The BBC will have lined up a week’s worth of programming, on his life and times, his country, what black people thought about him, what white people thought about him, what nDubz and Kanye West and Bono thought about him. The funeral will be live for an entire day, and previewed and previewed and previewed.
Just as they will for the Queen, just as they did for Mrs Thatcher (although on the BBC, the programme for Nels will probably have fewer critics).
I fully expect one of our defenders of the indefensible to head straight over to Liddle’s blog and tell him the bias is all in his head.