Time for a new on-time Open Thread. Seen bias? Report it here please!
WEDNESDAY OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- taffman May 5, 2024 at 4:38 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024Another Growing "Jungle" for the European Union............... https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland
- Eddy Booth May 5, 2024 at 4:29 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024The pretend sick and disabled aren't the weakest in society, they're not even the weakest people on benefits- that's the...
- G.W.F. May 5, 2024 at 4:27 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024A thought about Gaza as an election issue. Yes, the Moslems have stressed support for the Pallies during this election,...
- taffman May 5, 2024 at 3:55 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024A growing problem for the Republic of Ireland ? https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0504/1447384-asylum-seekers-migration
- taffman May 5, 2024 at 3:42 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024"Man nailed to fence in 'sinister attack" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68961875 No reason given ?
- Fedup2 May 5, 2024 at 3:30 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024Braverman has gone on the BBC and told her colleagues they may all be gone soon . Let’s hope she...
- Peter Grimes May 5, 2024 at 2:42 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024The Liar Blair’s Home Office advisor in 2004 on likely EU Economic Immigrants if we did (as most other EU...
- Thoughtful May 5, 2024 at 1:58 pm on Weekend 4th May 2024Sunak is so delusional that he thinks the best course is to attack the sick and disabled, unfortunately there are...
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
The BBC may still worship Obama but the nasty anti Americanism remains.
US military commanders often see conflicts as opportunities to use recently developed technology. EVIDENCE?
Does the BBC have any evidence that American generals more than anyone else (say the British, the French or the Russians) love war as an excuse to play with their toys?
There’s a certain poetic, apt irony to clicking on that link…
‘BBC Future (international version)
We’re sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK
And what a future.
However, from what you cite, it seems that current conflation of opinion with substantiated reporting is already the norm.
One may wonder if there’s an ‘international version’ of BBC Complaints that can expedite folk globally for asking questions about the UK’s most trusted broadcaster making accusations about their country which may be hard to support?
if you want to read it go to hidemyass.com and copy and paste the link into the browser there
but why shouldnt we be able to view it from the UK just because we dont pay for it. the rest of the world can look at the BBC web site that they dont pay for. sounds like censorship to me. why do they want to hide this from us?
Wow, that easy? Tx.
I must try it out.
Wonder if it will work on the Telegraph too, as I seem to have outstayed my monthly welcome there too.
Sadly: ‘The requested resource could not be loaded.’
Telegraph worked though.
it works for me, try again?
Bingo! Tx.
Darn clever.
Shame the formatting is lost but great to see the text.
An easy way to view pages from the Telegraph, without loss of formatting, and without limit, is to first delete all your cookies with Telegraph in the name.
Restart your browser, then when you want to open a Telegraph webpage, right click and select ‘View in incognito window’ or ‘view in private window’ depending on your browser.
Same instructions for any website with a limit on views before payment, just find and delete their cookies first.
Forgive me for cutting and pasting one of my previous posts but:
Nothing to do with bias at the BBC, but I just thought we could all reflect on the following, today:
[It has been 12 years since your passing. I think about you often and I miss you. You did not deserve the fate you were given. You were, like many others, just simply showing up for work that day; trying to make an honest living & to provide for your family. Rest in peace my friend.]
Bias aplenty on the Panto Nicky show this morning reflecting the horrific events of 9/11. “What it ment to be a Muslim on the day” usual old bull from a whining Doris about not being able to buy her shopping cos she was Muslim…..please! Imagine for a moment in WW2 would you have faced similar if you had been Japanese or German?
The discrimination against motorcycle riders continues.
Not only here in blighty
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/dc-grants-911-permit-to-anti-american-muslims-denies-it-to-patriotic-bikers/
In this report over 800,000 bikers are on the road, with an expected two million in total. Permission not granted, permission taken.
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/09/11/2-million-bikers-invade-d-c-and-remind-us-that-911-still-means-something-to-real-americans/?fb_source=pubv1
Love these signs ! as I now wear an black balaclava under me lid and they always get pissy when I point out there’s no sign telling me that’s wrong !
Bloody disgusting bbc
Lashawn Marten
Does the name mean anything to you? Not if you get your news from the BBC that’s for sure.
Lashawn is a New Yorker who witnesses say stated ” The next white person who walks by I’m going to ****”. He was as good as his word and after an unprovoked attack 62 year-old Jeffrey Babbit was declared dead.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/09/09/Reports-White-man-allegedly-punched-by-black-man-in-NYC-dies/UPI-71711378772584/
Never mind, at least there’s still plenty of room on the BBC World site to cover the latest domestic dispute between the Zimmermans.
There’s this to ignore as well:
http://nypost.com/2013/09/09/bus-riders-face-smashed-in-during-hate-attack/Bus rider’s face smashed in during ‘hate attack’
An attacker pummeled a bus passenger so hard he smashed the bones in his face after calling the victim a “cracker” in Manhattan – marking the second time in two days that people appeared to be randomly targeted in racial tirades against white people, authorities said.
In the latest incident, the suspect passed a 31-year-old rider on the M60 bus riding through Harlem, on West 127th Street, between Amsterdam Avenue and Morningside Drive, around 2:45 p.m., Friday, when he shouted the racial slur and punched the victim in the face, breaking his nose and eye socket, cops said.
Lots of Beeboids live in NYC. They know about this. But the ones who run the US part of the website have decided that you don’t need to know about it. I’m sure there’s something in the arcane rules of the art of journalism that escapes me here.
08:37 Today program, just listen to the interviewer lead the guest to say that the bedroom tax is an infringement of human rights.
At the beginning of the interview she just can’t wait for her to get stuck into the juicy facts she want to hear, and stops her in order to get to them.
I don’t know why the BBC bothered inviting her on, they might as well have just had a rant themselves.
…but Grant Schapps immediately slapped all her nonsense down – and was not taking any nonsense from the BBC presenter either!
Sorry, I hadn’t seen this when I made my later post. Apologies.
Any sensible reporter would have quizzed the UN woman along the lines of “So you think every sponger has a human right for us to pay for them to have spare rooms? Which planet are you from?”
But the bBBC’s loony Sarah Montague kept asking her to say that the government was infringing people’s human rights. More disgraceful leftie propaganda.
An issue that has likely passed, but someone on this thread has raised a point worth pondering:
http://bbcwatch.org/2013/09/10/new-bbc-newsnight-editors-twitter-fiasco-raises-concerns-on-impartiality/
‘The fact that is disturbing is how the Labour Party gets direct access to an editor of a BBC programme and succeeds in eliciting an immediate public apology .. Whereas the general public that funds the BBC have to dance through the hoops of the BBC complaints system, more often than not to get fobbed off, mostly on the basis that the BBC is not a public body under the Freedom of Information Act!
Now, why is there such a dual track in BBC response?
It is 12 months since the attack on the US Benghazi consulate.
Even the Guardian carries a report saying that there are a host of unanswered questions.
But the BBC line is that it is all done and dusted except for those nasty Republicans.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge
Newsnight and Ian Katz slavishly picked up the self-serving article by Chris Huhne. Will Katz now have Benghazi on the Newsnight agenda ?
Will Katz now have Benghazi on the Newsnight agenda ?
You can ask, and if not why.
But any need to reply will be FOI-exempted.
Got to love all those ‘uniques’.
“One Year Since Benghazi”
By Matthew Vadum
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/benghazi-a-year-later/
Now this crucial matter* is over…
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight 22h
Arctic Monkeys’ Alex talks to @StephenSmithBBC about his latest release, the most-watched gig of his life and laundry http://bbc.in/15QIzRZ
…they have turned to Syria. Even the beard has been deployed on account of his amazing ME grasp of local facial hair. Though this may be causing a huddle..
Mark Urban @MarkUrban01 17h
Overheard by @bbcnewsight on Hill, senior democrat senator, supports #Syria strike, “the only reason I’m for it is for the president”
Them’s the kind of off-reservation tweet that gets access denied and BBC top floors actually agitated.
*It lead to this intriguing post, mind:
Stephen Smith @StephenSmithBBC 15h
@lazyflo @bbcnewsnight I know what you mean, Flo. In my case, it makes a nice change from an abrupt ending to something off-right. Stephen
In a world of pulling the mic from any the BBC doesn’t like, what could he mean?
Mark Mardell has already explained why the BBC mostly ignored the Benghazi scandal, and why they won’t report anything about it now unless reality forces them to admit something. He said the facts were “simple”, but no reasonable person would have bother checking it out because at the time the questions were being asked by the wrong sort of people”. While he admitted that it turned out that there are in fact some questions worth asking, that was the beginning and end of it. He and the BBC are simply not interested.
All his usual tropes were there: the US is “polarized”, an “increasingly dis-United States”, all opposition to the President has other ulterior motives so critics can usually be dismissed out of hand anyway, and so on. There’s groupthink at the BBC on the President and His enemies, no question, so they all pretty much feel the same way. There will be no BBC investigation into the Benghazi scandal. They won’t bother reporting anything unless all hell breaks loose and they have no choice.
Perhaps Mark Mardell would be interested in this presentation about Benghazi made 2 days ago by ALLEN WEST. He is more than an informed observer. I’d back him as VP or Secretary of Defence any day. Many of the details in this talk are fascinating: facts Mardell may have missed…
Go on, then, Mark, pick the bones out of this – and you can’t claim West is attacking the administration because he is a racist, can you?
(watch from 4’00” for 30 minutes)
How politically embedded with Syria’s Islamic jihadists are INBBC’s Islamic reporters?
“Hidden struggle among Syria’s rebels”
By Muhammad Ali,
BBC Arabic, documentary producer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23231763
One doesn’t get, from INBBC, the sort of warning (below) about how Muslim jihadists are using their position in Britain to go on killing jihad in, e.g., Syria.
And, of course, such activities are not linked by INBBC to the consequences of mass immigration into U.K from Islamic countries.
“Dewsbury to Damascus: The danger of young British Muslims learning to wage Jihad in Syria”
By MICHAEL BURLEIGH (Aug, 2012).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2189192/How-British-jihadists-causing-mayhem-Syria.html
But they’re only boys *sob* !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22310419
I blame Syrian foreign policy and inequality.
Miss Shouty Montague has just been shot down on the Toady programme by Grant Shapps. Some nonentity no-mark ostensibly from the UN has spouted off about the spare room subsidy degrading human rights in the UK. She spoke to no one from the Government but took hundreds of testimonies from those claiming hardship and gave an interview with a Scottish paper which has consistently campaigned against the spare room subsidy.
Shouty Montague kept trying to push Al JaBeeBa’s ZaNuLab agenda, but failed again!
It was hilarious listening! Shapps, to his considerable credit, came on with an aggressive response and announced not only that the ‘report’ itself (not officially due out until early next year, and one which the Today programme had been pimping all morning) was a ‘disgrace’, but that he will be writing to the UN to formally lodge a complaint against the process which has led to the report’s author (who has not spoken to any official UK government body, according to Shapps) demanding that current UK policy be suspended.
The BBC are left looking like the rank amateurs they so often are. Shamelessly championing an unofficial report, failing to do even the most basic of background checks, too enthusiastic (as usual) to rush to air with a story they consider fits their agenda, if not the facts.
A rare moment of delight in an ocean of unchallenged bias on the BBC.
And James Naughtie on the Today programme ‘reporting’ from Washington this morning? Can the supercilious, puffed-up twit possibly sound any more comical..?
And Al JaBeeBa’s 9 am news is pushing the same bullshit. Shapps is holding the line.
ZaNuLab’s broadcasting mouthpiece is an absolute disgrace!
Bit early for the Met or his annual Christmas shopping isn`t it?
FFS USA…why do you give these windy puffed up popinjays visas to get out to the Hamptons and bring back polls from Clintons charities? These BBC stiffies HATE your country, unless it`s Cape Cod with a Kennedy or a Harry Evans.
Obama needs them-but Al Queda need them more…and you fools just let the likes of Naughtie and Webb piss all over your Arlingtons and your Fort Hoods.
Wake up USA!
Defenders of the indefensible keep telling me I shouldn’t care about the BBC, and question my character for daring to address it. Are they wrong?
er yes 100% a questioning attitude to power cannot be a bad thing or are they that compliant hmm??
Looking at the latest Guido, there’s a slim chance running with this one makes the wall-to-wall Huhnicide by the BBC t’other day look the epitome of objective rationality.
If this lady turns up on Newsnight it will be awesome.
As will the Editor’s tweets, no doubt.
The interview is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039q5dl
at 2h 36m 21s
Montaskew trying so hard to push the left’s agenda and running out of time. Hilarious.
Why does Al beeb get away with this shameless bias? Surely they could have a field day with a Conservative who allegedly has been a naughty boy! Oh dear, I forgot we must not go there.
Would it be this UN no-mark?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/bedroom-tax-should-be-axed-says-un-investigator
Al Beeb still acting as broadcast arm of Guardian I see
But then I read at Guido’s blog
http://order-order.com/2013/09/11/loony-un-inspector-apologises-for-bedroom-tax-lie/
No irony on being lectured by a Brazilian town planner on ‘social exclusion’ for the liberal inquisition
It’s all about faith
9:00 radio 4 Midweek There’s an interview with a leftie whose family suffered under General Pinochet in Chile.
There are references to Margaret Thatcher being in favour of a murderous dictator, yet there is no reference to the disgraceful duplicitous Tony BLiar and the Liebour government who gave guarantees of free passage for Pinochet to attend a private UK hospital, and then had him arrested as soon as he was well enough to leave.
Yet again the Biased broadcaster reports 10% of a story. Thatcher did campaign for his release on the basis of the disgraceful betrayal of the Liebour party breaking their word.
There was no mention either of the help Pinochet gave to the UK during the Falklands conflict.
And, as ever with Al Beebia, there’s no context supplied. General Pinochet got up one day and decided to become a dictator. That’s it.
Meanwhile, in the real world, he was acting on the orders of Parliament and with the support of the supreme court to remove an impeached President.
As for the violence, it’s true that on paper Allende was less brutal but only in so far as opponents of his government tended to be randomly killed by random people randomly striking people who failed to support the great leader… which is way better than having the secret police do it, apparently.
All of which raises the question: wasn’t it Al-Beebia which used the violence in post-war to all but push thye message that at least Iraqis were safe under Saddam? What’s the diff between Iraqi ‘insurgents’ and Marxist ‘community activist’ lynch mobs anyway?
Having family in Chile I can confirm your statements about Allende. Although the beeboids treat him as some sort of folk hero.
At the Donaupark in Vienna this year I saw, to my disgust, a statue and flower memorial to the evil Allende. Unfortunately, left-wing fascism still reigns in Austria it seems.
Fascism is a left wing construct, always has been and continues to be so.
Here is a quote from Hitler, does it sound left or right wing?
“We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Or this one from Goebbels:
“As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.”
No doubt there as to which political wing they came from.
IIRC the Allende regime only killed less than Pinochet’s because it was in power for much less time. Given a couple of more years I’m sure they would have exceeded Pinochet’s total.
Either way, when you consider the number of people alleged to have been killed by Chavez in Venezuela, Pinochet looks like a rank amateur. Yet strangely we hear nothing about this on the BBC.
I don’t know what BBC-NUJ is putting out today in remembrance of 9/11 2001, but here’s an excellent article:-
“9/11: Twelve Years Later”
By Bruce Bawer.
[Excerpt]:-
“9/11 was a day of heroes and of villains, of stark contrasts between good and evil. Yet how quickly the politicians, journalists, and others in positions of power managed to make a muddle of it all. Instead of witnessing a democratization of the Middle East, we experienced a steady Islamization of the West. Instead of seeing freedom bloom in the Islamic world, we saw a rise in Western censorship and self-censorship on the subject of Islam. Some high-profile figures in the West have been put on trial for speaking the truth about Islam, while others have made sophisticated arguments for limiting freedom of expression and for introducing sharia law into Western courts.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/911-twelve-years-later/
The elites sold their souls for guaranteed oil and because they are afraid. The type of person who becomes a present day Western leader seems to possess these things in common- fear ,greed and a distaste for his or her’s own civilisation.
The reasons for this must be left to future historians.
This disconnection from reality by the elites and the disconnection from the majority population it leads to must have consequences.
That these will be unexpected is axiomatic. It is a question of what and when. I have no crystal ball but if we can learn anything from history it is that there always are consequences and always they are unexpected.
At least PM Cameron referred to the memory of victims of 9/11, including the 67 British citizens who were killed then, in his first words at PMQs today.
Perhaps BBC-NUJ itself will present something more substantial on 9/11 next year.
Just noticed this little tidbit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416586/Gangs-Asian-men-grooming-MUSLIM-girls-plying-drink-drugs.html
How certain communities, authorities and of course media react will be interesting.
Some may see this as the inevitable consequence of a policy of denial and self-censorship, and accept due blame.
Others may pounce on it as clear evidence of ‘balance’, as they have in other areas, on the odd basis that screwing up all around works out at not screwing up at all.
Or they’ll simply use it as an excuse to excuse past excuses.
Wonder who will choose what?
Huffington Post has decided that it shows that the EDL are racist by suggesting Muslims groom only white girls.
We should all celebrate the diversity and inclusiveness shown by Muslim, (sorry Asian), men in targetting ALL girls obviously.
Mehdi Hasan will no doubt pop across to the BBC to tell us all this soon.
This was my concern. Let’s see who else operates on the lowest common denominator principle.
Obviously recent reports indeed a blog on this site highlighted the ‘hidden’ problem in the Sikkh community (disgusting Headline rich in obsfucation misleading the casual observer completely – broadens the perceived guilty pool and starts to make ‘Asian men’ seem more inclusive than the reality) – of Sikkh Girls being targeted by Muslim men – but the reality of the situation being suppressed by the Sikkh community.
As well as “Asians” grooming moslems, it looks as though Sikhs groom Sikhs and then terrorise the victims into keeping quiet about it, as al-Beeb seems to imply –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23921570
Of course no white Christians groom children and all paedo’s are coloured.
All crime is carried out by blacks.
there was no crime or rape in the UK before immigration.
Immigration started in 10000bc…
And no blood sacrifice ,of other peoples children, to great to achieve you multicultural utopia ?
A preponderance of such criminals is non-white Christian, but you prefer to hear no evil, see no evil, and blame the natives. Coward.
William, dear boy,
Non-muslims are not actively encouraged to indulge in pedophilia via the bible, or, those not practicing Christianity…Darwin’s theory of evolution, unlike those scamps who live their lives by the Qur’an…Mohammad said it’s all good to kiddy fiddle, and Mo’ was only following the word of Allah, and, as we all know, ,the word of god is final, the Qur’an cannot be changed because of that…Mo’ wasn’t like the Jesus figure, who allowed the old testament to have a re-vamp, with new commands from god…mostly good ones, that most decent folk, even non practicing like myself follow, because the message is good and decent…nothing in the Qur’an is good or decent.
Obama Handshake Snubbed – https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qsr4rG2fWAY
Funny how I haven’t seen anything about this on the BBC. You can bet they would have covered it had David Cameron’s handshake offer been snubbed…
Jeff
Where’s all the anti war Liberals, like George Clooney, Jane Fonda, Matt Damon, Sean Penn protesting against warmongering Obama ?
Uber Liberal Ed Asner said ” We don’t want to criticise Obama out of fear of being called racist.”
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/ed-asner-says-hollywood-celebs-wont-criticize-the-president-fear-of-being-called-a-racist-26668/
The whole chemical attack is very suspect, false flag operation perhaps by the muslims to get America involved in the overthrow of Assad ? Pat Buchanan thinks so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeeKUNrutnw
It’s nice to see the warmongering Cameron, Obama and BBC on the side of the cannibal eating muslims who rip out the hearts of their enemy and then proceeds to eat it. Warning, graphic content.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4wcuvhLDXo&list=FLViYhX_d8-TseKzd1gAO7mQ
The bBBC’s lies about Zimmerman and Saint Trayvon Martin.
I have finally, after 17 days, had a reply to my complaint about the bBBC’s 24 August ‘news’ item stating that Zimmerman claimed to have acted in self-defence.
Thanks for your contact regarding BBC News on 24 August.
I understand you had concerns with regards to the content of the report on the Zimmerman trial and I note you were unhappy the report stated that George Zimmerman claimed to have shot Trayvon Martin in self-defence.
What was said in the report was, “Zimmerman claimed “he’d pulled the trigger to protect his life”, the report then goes on to say that campaigners were trying to get the laws on self defence changed.
I do hope this allays your concerns, however, we appreciate your feedback. Your complaint has been registered on our audience log which is made available to all members of the BBC, including the News teams and senior BBC management.
This ensures your comments and others we receive are considered across the BBC.
In other words, keep on paying your TV tax whilst we make up more stories to fit our racist agenda.
It’s all about the semantics.
I can only go on what was/is written.
‘you were unhappy the report stated that George Zimmerman claimed to have shot Trayvon Martin in self-defence.’
I presume that was what was stated. Was it?
‘What was said in the report was, “Zimmerman claimed “he’d pulled the trigger to protect his life”, the report then goes on to say that campaigners were trying to get the laws on self defence changed.’
Not the same given the legal detail. They appear to be conflating two things to say what they reported vs. what was the actual account & circumstances amount to the same? Are they?
And then of course closing a file no one, including themselves ever read and does not see any negative logging anywhere.
What we want from the BBC is NEWS. Not a sniffy “Zimmerman claimed”……….but then twaddle about campaigners against self-defence. Even on that, the BBC was wrong, the misplaced campaigning was not against the concept of self-defence, it was against the Stand-Your-Ground concept which did not apply in this case, and also against private gun ownership.
The whole tenor of BBC reporting was that Zimmerman had set out to attack Saint Trayvon. NOT that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
And when the trial evidence clearly showed that Zimmerman was in acute danger, on the ground underneath Trayvon and having his head pummelled and bashed against concrete – as confirmed by the ONLY eyewitness from a few yards away – the BBC failed to give all this clear detail. Why ? Because it flatly contradicted the BBC mantra that Zimmeman was a racist premeditated killer of a poor innocent kid who had gone out to buy some sweeties.
The BBC’s record on the Zimmerman case is one of the worst-ever examples of BBC bias, sustained over more than a year and still continued after the jury verdict which hinged entirely on self-defence. In the BBC’s eyes Zimmerman was and still is a hate figure. Trayvon the druggie wanna-be gangsta remains a Saint.
I’m more interested in seeing a response to the complaint that David Willis lied on air about certain aspects of the case. Yes, lied. Or about how the BBC willingly published a falsified audio recording of Zimmerman’s call to the police. Yes, willingly published a falsehood.
Lurking journalists and lawyers and defenders of the indefensible are welcome to come scold me now.
Zimmerman is already suing NBC for broadcasting this tape . . .
Is he really suing ? If not – he should be. Has his trial lawyer Mark O.Mara said anything ?
perhaps we should make his legal team aware of the duplicitous broadcast in the UK?
Regarding the ‘Risen Christ’ Trayvon ‘skittles’ Martin
”David Horowitz shows that in fact the most insidious bias in our culture today is black skin privilege. Black skin privilege means the press will fail to report an epidemic of race riots targeting whites for beatings, shooting and other violence in major American cities over the last several years.
Black sin privilege has created an optical illusion in the liberal culture that white on black attack are commonplace events when in fact there are five times as many black attacks on whites as the reverse. As Horowitz note, in 2010, blacks committed more than 25 times the number of acts of interracvial violence than whites did.
This pamphlet gives the statistics and hard numbers the mainstream media conceal. It also probes the double standards and double talk that has come to dominate the way America talks when it talks about race. ”
https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=KD25VC00LEHE
St. Trayvon Martin is a canonized martyr. It’s the President who is the Savior. Get your pantheon straight, man.
Listened to Michael Savage, he said the muslims had surrounded a village populated by Christians, they were told to convert to islam or be killed. Now why isn’t that on the BBC news ?
10 % of Syria is Christian, protected by Assad, and they can’t believe the West with their Christian heritage is betraying them to the muslim cannibals.
news.sky.com/story/1139930/syria-tension-and-fury-at-christian-funerals
Syrian muslim cannibal tries to justify his behaviour
”Rebel commander Abu Sakkar, who was filmed cutting out and eating the organs of a pro-regime fighter, warns that if the bloodshed continues “all Syrian people” will be like him. ” Obama must love this guy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10066988/Syrian-cannibal-rebel-explains-his-actions.html
Eat your heart out indeed, Barak!…imagine if George W had reduced his country to murdered ambassadors, to needing Putin to give him a moral compass…or generally turned the USA into a pitiful joke that may yet take a long time to reset?
But Barak is a Democrat-black-and therefore able to keep that Peace Prize, no matter what he does-if anything at all.
Hope the Americans know that weep for that great nation, and wonder how the hell they voted for this cringing community activist who is now way out of his depth.
I suppose Scott will now come on and try and excuse the muslim cannibalism by saying ” Well, everyones got to have a hobby ! ”
I think Scott prefers eating other male organs, not hearts n lungs.
(Waits to be scolded for being a nasty, meanie homphobe by the other bedwetters.)
Hmm you maybe waiting a while think they are all at the T.U.C all expenses paid shindig ? whoever knew cheese bites were so popular ?
Give me cheddars any day…T.U.C’s S.U.K.
Tx to David Kay I can see the Telegraph article now.
Seems they are basing their story on the actual news surrounding the YouTube upload.
If I recall, with the BBC things were a bit more… and nuanced.
Seems the sweethearts there put a direct line call to their mates at BBC Cannibal PR, who rushed next door to have a heart-to-heart as it were, and understand his motivations.
Well, 12 years ago today, westerners lives were changed forever. Or so you would think, right? No, not over at 5 live, where Gameshow Nicky denounced the victimization of Muslims and had 30 minutes of uninterrupted drivel. Just what is this parasites agenda? I understand it’s a founded principle at the BBC to defend Islam at all costs, but for me, gameshow seems to have gone far beyond this twisted mantra and unapologetically promotes Islam at every available opportunity. Just why is there a whole show dedicated for muslims, where they can drown in their own self-pity and advocate the 7th century ideology as nothing but pure and honest. Within the 30 minutes, several debates emerge between the muslims on how to properly act in the the name of Islam. A real journalists/host (whatever Nicky professes himself to be) should seize on opportunity’s like this to scrutinize a religion for all its bad aspects. You can bet your life savings that he wouldn’t think twice about denouncing Christianity given the chance.
To the BBC, Islam is alluring in it’s exoticism, a novelty, what colourful clothes they wear. Christianity on the other hand is practiced by boring old white people who are probably all ‘waaycist’ and UKIP voters.
It’s oikophobia.
“what colourful clothes they wear” ??? Down my way they wander around in scruffy and dirty nightshirts and old sandals as if they were in a peasant village in “Asia”.
”scruffy and dirty nightshirts and old sandals.”
Nah, that’s shabby chic and bohemian !
Same here in Watford….they look like they need a bloody good wash, and to pop down the laundrette.
A beautiful one, no doubt?
Or, all things considered, these days, maybe not.
If Cameron and Obama wants a war, someone give them some guns and a plane ticket to Damascus, and they can rush off and fight with the muslim terrorists. And leave the rest of us in peace.
Hmm well yes but remember the humanitarian angle !
I.e humanity can do perfectly well without these 2 so also send a crack detachment of UK/U.S troop to make sure they ain’t coming back !
Reminds me of the old WW2 story – probably apocryphal,but appropriate for Obama’s way of thinking – where the yanks had bombarded a German occupied French village, reducing it to rubble and killing most of its occupants. A G.I. looking at the smouldering ruins said ” We sure liberated the hell out of this place!”
I see BBC seem to have changed slightly – they no longer call Spare Room subsidy the bedroom tax instead they keep that meme alive by refering to ‘What Labour call the bedroom tax’ – i’m sure many tories call Ed M a cretinous fool so look forward to all future references to him prefaced with ‘who Tories call a cretinous fool’
‘they keep that meme alive by refering to ‘What Labour call the bedroom tax’’
Where there’s a weasel there’s a way.
Pretty sure that oddly flexible twitter & mobile headline limit can be streeeeeeetched to include it too.
This, is the BBC. And now, here is what Labour call the news
Ministers have previously made strong and specific criticism of the BBC using the false term “bedroom tax”.
Do Ministers care that the BBC is still using it on every occasion, albeit now nuanced or weaselly?
If they can use the Labour tag – why can’t they also use the official tag and say it is what the Coalition calls it ? Use BOTH and let the punters make up their minds as to what it really is.
But what is really needed is for a bunch of Cabinet Ministers to round on Cameron and Maria Miller as the Culture Secretary and also the Party Chairman and say – this is bloody ridiculous, on issue after issue the BBC is biased, either attacking Tory-linked policies and results or trying to drive a wedge between us and the LibDems.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Maggie had still been PM and Norman Tebbit the Party Chairman ? Patten would be out on his ear, Tony Hall would be hauled over the coals – he ain’t the new boy any more. A fish rots from the head – and they preside over the rot of the BBC.
And yet the fact still remains that the removal spare room subsidy was a Labour policy expanded on by the Tories. It is Labour’s policy, yet the Tories get the approbation.
Why is that I wonder?
I noted on Monday that the BBC had made no mention that I heard/saw of the result of the Australian election and I put it down to the BBC habit of – where it can – ignoring news which doesn’t go with its perception of what should occur rather than what does occur. Similarly to the memory-wipe of the election results in Australia, BBC reports of the centre-right victory in the Norwegian election has also been – in my admittedly limited hearing/viewing of the BBC “news” offering – restricted to its webpages.
What is important here, from a UK electoral perspective, is that the Norwegian election appeared to be more a reaction to the previous Norwegian government’s immigration policies than, as Lars Bevanger (the BBC correspondent/commentator) would have it, that “many here put this result down to voter fatigue with the current government”. OTOH from the comments of the new Norwegian PM, it appears that rather than a Thatcher, the Norwegians have elected a Cameron and, already, the new PM is beginning to resile from her hard line on immigration (citing the softer line insisted on by members of her coalition). Manifestly, Norway is plagued by the same biens pensants noodles as we are.
Uh oh, Gordon ‘Cyclops’ Brown ( I thought he was dead ) like a bad penny has turned up, the man who did more damage to the British economy than the Luftwaffe, is now U.N Special Envoy for Education throughout the Galaxy, love those grandiose titles, want’s to screw up Syria. Has the Middle East not suffered enough ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24034422
Can’t wait for Brown’s imposition of the post-Assad Syrian National Curriculum, complete with historical references to anti-fracking lesbian imams storming Damascus in the 7th Century.
It’s the 11th of September and the BBC commemorate the overthrow of elected President Allende.
And how do they tackle this important anniversary? Do they ask whether the revolution had just reasons behind it? Was the incumbent President assuming too many powers?
No, instead they question how to pronounce certain names from that period:
“English-speakers are often uncertain how to pronounce the names Pinochet and Allende. In fact, there is not always consensus among Chileans.”
“The BBC Pronunciation Unit recommends the established Anglicisation, ow-GOO-stoh PIN-uh-shay. British pronouncing dictionaries also list the following pronunciations as possible variants: PEE-nuh-shay and PEE-nuh-chay (-ee as in street, -ch as in church), or PEE-noh-shay and PEE-noh-chay (-oh as in no).”
Well at least we’ve cleared that up.
Yes, this seem to be a deliberate BBC-NUJ political statement, to its virtual exclusion of the Islamic jihad mass murder of 9/11.
plenty of time to stick terrorist enabler Mozzam Begg on breakfast tv though … along with that waste of oxygen, going on celebrity hunger strike wearing his orange jim jams for the “save shaker” campaign
I’ll tread gently here, knowing that some here are not supporters of HS2…
But I do sense that Labour (Darling, Balls and Lady Dodge) are shifting their ground on HS2, having spotted an electoral opportunity. This seems to be confirmed by the BBC seemingly taking (synchronising?) a position against.
Locally they seem to be giving more coverage to the ‘Anti’s’ and twice this week, under the guise of debate, Five Live have shown little balance.
Gameshow’s phone in the other day lacked anyone from HS2, or experts to argue the case for, and today, the BBC presented the positive results of the promised KMPG review of the cost / benefits as a cynical afterthought, an attempt at shoring up of the case for the line. Five Live, again, failed to provide a balanced discussion using the tactic of playing a pre-recorded segment from a government Minister, followed by a live response from an objector (in today’s case, two opponents), with no-one invited to challenge their misinformation.
This is a tactic that the BBC have also used increasingly, in recent weeks on both the economy and fracking.
The BBC probably sense that opinion against is hardening.
I have always opposed it as a vanity project dreamed up by incompetent politicians.
The pro arguments have shifted from speed to capacity. Those with good knowledge of the existing network can see the flaws in this at once( the proposed route misses out important population centres) It is very doubtful it will be built as the same money should be used to improve the entire infrastructure.
One small example . There is no direct South Coast to the west M4 corridor decent road. This is from the very busy Poole/Bournemouth area ( a very fast growing commercial centre )
Rail has it’s place but it is not the whole story by any means.
Listen up Licence Payers!
The BBC is here to define what it is that’s ‘on your mind’.
However, it may not always be ‘possible or practical’ to ‘cover every topic that our listeners would like us to’.
And in case you notice a bit of bias broadcast somewhere – not to worry – the BBC were a bit more balanced elsewhere.
eg.
Complaint Summary: interview omited relevant and important fact
Full Complaint: Interview between Anna Foster and the step son of Ian Tomlinson dwelt at some length on an apology issued by the Met Police concerning his step father’s death. Anna emphasized the delay in justice involved in the case. At no point was the BBC listener informed that the Tomlinson family has now been awarded an out of court settlement in compensation. This fact can not have been left out for legal reasons since it was being reported elsewhere eg: http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/05/ian-tomlinson-death-met-police-apologise-and-pay-compensation-to-family-3911681/ Why has the BBC supressed this information? It may be that the amount of the compensation has not been released to the public but we should be told this fact. Is there an unspoken agreement made with the interviewee that the part of the story concerning compensation will be a no go area? I have noiced that whenever BBC 5 Live cover police complaints stories – which is rather often – there seems to be a reluctance to mention the pursuit of compensation as part of the objective of the legal battle. Are the BBC operating a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy? The effect is to constantly highlight the ‘victims’ as virtuous innocents simply seeking ‘justice’ whilst the Police are characterised as unfeeling anti-civil liberty transgressors. Public money is at stake here. We should be told. To supress mention of compensation payments in such cases is bias against the tax payer.
To which questions – the reply 20 days later….
Thank you for contacting us about Radio 5 Live’s ‘5 Live Drive’ on 5 August.
We understand you were unhappy with the interview with Ian Tomlinson’s step-son Paul King, as you felt the issue of compensation should have been raised during the interview.
Whilst we appreciate your concerns, our interviewers’ job is to ask the questions likely to be in the minds of our listeners and to look for the answers. However, it’s not always possible or practical to ask every question or cover every topic that our listeners would like us to.
We have mentioned the compensation throughout our coverage on radio (such as earlier in the programme at 16:20, when the compensation was discussed in more detail), on television throughout that day on the BBC News Channel and on our BBC News website. For your convenience, we have provided some articles from our website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23534663
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23573327
We hope this helps to allay your concerns.
We’d also like to assure you we’ve registered your comments on our daily audience log. This is a summary of audience feedback, made available to Radio 5 Live controllers, BBC News and senior editorial staff, as well as senior management throughout the BBC. It is used to help inform future decisions about ways to improve our content and services.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Second complaints share today where they have not answered the question and put you on notice the whole issue is now down the memory hole.
Pursuit of answers will of course get you expedited.
‘our interviewers’ job is to ask the questions likely to be in the minds of our listeners and to look for the answers’
And they identify these, vs. others not so pressing… how?
FOI exempted. Unique.
The Beware of the Leopard cupboard must fill half of Salford by now.
BBC 5live anoon chimp, R Bacon, has Ray Mears as a guest
I recall the last time he was on, Bacon had to be constantly
corrected, much to Mr Mears irritation.
This time, trying to pressure Mears to relay his deeply personal facts about his beloved wifes death to cancer, despite being told he didn t want to.
Cheap shots, over Raoul Moat ex
didn t you find it all exciting, tracking Moat….
no Richard it was dangerous.
excrutiating and embarrassing
Well this one slipped under the radar – or should that just be under the massive paunch – of Lardell. In Colorado this week in a recall election concerning gun control, two Democratic state senators (gun control enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment “activists”) were voted out of office. I don’t expect every item of domestic US politics to be reported by the BBC but this news speaks to both the political atmosphere outside Washington and the East Coast and – in at least one of these cases – blue-collar scepticism about Obama (on gun control anyway).
Is this news? Whatever it is, its message is unwelcome at the BBC: best to ignore and maybe it will go away.
Umbongo, remember that Daniel Nasaw, the editor for the BBC’s US News page, has, shall we say, a different opinion about gun stories. A sample of his tweets:
Of course, he does apparently take requests:
As long as they’re approved thoughts, of course. As DB can attest, Mr. Nasaw gets a little testy when the masses question the priest caste:
Every time somebody tells me one can’t get any sense of a Beeboid’s personal opinions from their tweets, I just laugh.
‘Anyone got any news? I have the con here @BBCNewsUS tonight and it’s sloooow. Hit me up with suggestions and links.’
If that’s how the BBC runs its ‘news’ in rooms now, I’m glad I no longer fund it, even uniquely.
And on the subject of American newsgathering and sharing, I just checked the Newsnight FaceBook page and it appears they are deleting stuff left, left and left of centre. Shame about the page grabs.
It’s the botched cover-ups that get them every time.
“Dear trolls: Pls don’t mistake editorial judgement for self-censorship or political bias, esp if you’re unsure how a newsroom works. Thanks.”
Smug wanker.
Presumably, on his eventual return to the mothership at Broadcasting House, Daniel will apply for his EDL membership to be reinstated.
Nasaw is a United Statesian, born and raised here, went to Stuyvesant HS in NYC. He did work for the Guardian before being hired to bring his impartial judgment to the BBC News website, and I think he lived in London for that. I’d be surprised if he didn’t hold all the approved thoughts about the EDL.
” . . and I think he lived in London for that”
The procedure – and not by accident – is just like the Soviet treatment of many of its useful idiots in the West: bring them to Moscow, show them a good time and send them back to the free world with the left-fascist infection embedded for life. Mind you it helps the BBC (and Soviet Russia) if the candidate was a useful idiot before he was recruited.
What a filthy little shit.
Absent from this BBC report about how the EU is working on economic recovery by seeking to form a “banking union” is a mention of the following obstacle to economic recovery:
Brussels fears European ‘industrial massacre’ sparked by energy costs
Europe’s industry is being ravaged by exorbitant energy costs and an over-valued euro, blighting efforts to reverse years of global manufacturing decline.
Who could have known that was going to happen, eh? Certainly not those who trust the BBC for their news on these issues, as last time Mervyn King mentioned the problem, they censored it.
“exorbitant energy costs”
caused by what?
Caused by disastrous Warmist regulations. It’s right there in the opening section of the article. Farage actually cited this in his delightful tirade against Barroso the other day.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/911-vigilance.html
have a feeling this won t turn up on BBC news, but it should
considering Obama will probably be assisting Al Quaida
yep! … plenty of space for this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24052030
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/911-twelve-years-later/
Not on INBBC yet:-
“Explosion rocks Libya’s Foreign Ministry building in Benghazi on 9/11 attack anniversary”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/explosion-rocks-libyas-foreign-ministry-site-bengh/?
BBC: Wrong sort of people reporting it…..unable to wade through and find facts….it’s more important to report that an explosion near a mosque in George Bush’s Iraq killed 35 people……ZZZZzzzzzzzz
An alternative to BBC sycophancy:
Historians Give Barack Obama a B-
HNN recently asked 203 American historians to grade Barack Obama’s presidency on an A-F scale.
The results are in: President Barack Obama gets a B-.
Historians graded the president on sixteen different metrics selected by HNN staff. Overall, historians were remarkably consistent in their judgment: Barack Obama was a promising presidential candidate and possesses sterling personal leadership qualities, but his administration has merely been adequate in delivering results. The most highly-praised achievement of President Obama’s first term, the Affordable Care Act, was acknowledged in comments by many participants, but nevertheless many expressed disappointment that it did not go far enough.
Participants were also increasingly concerned about the administration’s lack of transparency and its prosecution of Bradley Manning (most of the data was assembled before the Edward Snowden story broke).
Racists. They asked 697 historians, and only the Republicans and white supremacists answered, right?
But anyone who wants to try and dismiss these because HNN might have asked only Right-wing professors or something should read further:
Many historians were also disillusioned by the partisan gridlock in Washington, although they tend to place the blame largely on congressional Republicans.
Just about the only aspect of Barack Obama’s presidency which has received universal praise from historians has been the president’s Supreme Court appointments. Both Elena Kagan and especially Sonia Sotomayor are highly respected by academics.
Ah, that’s better. What this means, though, is that even people who think Left-wing ideologues and legal activists are perfect Supreme Court material, and don’t blame any partisan gridlock on bad faith or policy from the President and Democrats, are questioning His greatness.
The print version of the BBC, the Guardian, is today attacking Murdoch to try to divert attention from Monday’s pathetic performance before the PAC when seven overpaid bBBC staff couldn’t agree who had authorised throwing our money at their departing colleagues.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2013/sep/11/bbc-payoff-row-times-charter-renewal?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
I shouldn’t be, considering the ‘special relationship’ between Graun and BBC, but this does surprise.
On the day, the more vicious boots being put in were from their readership which, given the time of day I had presumed to be mainly BBC peon graders.
Maybe it is sinking in now that when Mummy & Daddy argue in public about blowing the family budget on themselves, joining in may not be smart when said budget is uniquely funded by the rest of the neighbourhood. So a period of quiet introspection ensues.
Noting the Graun has wisely kept this a ‘broadcast only’ contribution.
I see that the “Right” have turfed out that Norwegian windy warrior who told the world to answer Anders Breiviks hate with …er …”love”…which as we all know is all that you need(Gospel of Yoko,6.66).
The ingrates!-a spineless inept windy warrior talks the talk, whilst letting loads of his people die due to being incompetent, thick and complacent.
Ah, but the world loves him…he`s “cool” and “classy”-so how dare the Nordic numbskulls turf him out?
Oh goody…this`ll be be Obama soon!
And with Tony Abbott blasting the likes of Gillard and Rudd into the nearest landfill-these are good times for any Tory with some principles and a love of their own country.
Bad news for us here, mind then isn`t it?…
Has the BBC mentioned the new woman Prime Minister in Norway or did I miss this?
They did, but their main concern was that her party would have to form a coalition with Anders Breivik (I exaggerate slightly, but only just).
You can almost feel the lefty tears wash over you whilst reading that.
The BBC News Channel is concerned that the new obstacle to EU success is that UKIP might win an election. They just showed a clip of Barroso bitching about UKIP, and now Beeboid Ian Watson is explaining the concern that the Conservatives need to shape up or UKIP will beat them in the next EU elections.
Okay, hands up all those who see this as a problem.
Thanks to signing up to a BBC FaceBook feed, it seems Newsnight sees this as the core message of the week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24027470
Lord Grade: Mark Byford was a ‘great asset’ to BBC
Tell it often enough, BBC… tell it often enough.
Just had a gander around that page.
Always find BBC links serve well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24024101
Not the BBC maybe…
Respect to #2MillionBikerstoDC but don’t expect to see or hear much about it or it’s context on AlBeebee.
Some Muzlims decided to protest in Washington on 911. Then the bikers showed up.
Perhaps Mr Preiser could tell us how ,or if, this is being reported on American television
Not much, sadly. Of the MSM and Left-wing media, only Time and US News & World Report have noticed as far as I can tell. The Washington Post had a photo of Billy Joel all decked out in biker gear, ready to ride downtown with the NYPD, though. Maybe tomorrow they’ll find room for a photo or two, if one of them gets arrested.
Unfortunately for the bikers, they don’t fit the approved righteous mold. They’re mostly just a bunch of middle and lower-middle class white people from flyover country. Not newsworthy for the NY Times or MSNBC or CNN, so the BBC doesn’t have to report it, either. Maybe somebody can tweet Daniel Nasaw if he gets bored later.
Before any defenders of the indefensible chime in, yes Fox News did cover it, even if it’s no longer on the home page.
A couple of other news outlets did find time to report that the bikers are doing this despite not getting the required permit, so there’s that.
The wrong sort of news for the BBC. Nasty rednecks and good old boys on motorcycles just aint their thing.
They probably listen to country music and drive those old trucks as well. I expect they stand for the national anthem and have the stars and stripes outside their houses.
Really not the BBC’s favourite people.
I think they are great.
I think they also exhibit some quaint old fashioned and politically incorrect respect for military veterans and the sacrifices made by solders. Not BBC material, although they might draw attention to the carbon footprint left by the bikers.
if they do mention it, the numbers will be around 5000, no doubt. A good job we don’t get our news from the bBC, we should get compensation for monitoring it.
The bBBC ‘news’ can’t find any room to report the success of Labour’s Nationalised Death Service, with NHS hospitals in 2004 killing more people than any other country in the international study, whilst the USA provided the best healthcare.
Meanwhile, the bBBC puts its fingers in its ears, sings la-la-la and ramps up its coverage of the ‘spare bedroom is a human right’ story by the Brazilian loony lefty.
Nothing at all Sir Arthur.
I wondered why the BBC weren’t going for Hunt’s throat on this, then noticed the date 2004. It explains everything
Meanwhile in other news, still nothing from the BBC about:
+ Chukka Umunna’s description of Londoners at trash
+ The export of toxic chemicals to Syria between 2002 and 2010 (having originally gone big on the story when they thought the Tories were responsible)
+ Labour’s and Unite’s tax arrangements
Michael Le Vell cleared: Should rape suspects get anonymity? – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24037910
I see the BBC hasn’t yet published any reader comments.
Perhaps the resident lefties aren’t right-on enough on this issue for the BBC’s liking…
BTW, I don’t like the way the BBC chooses to allow comments on some articles, but not others. It should be ‘all or nothing’, as otherwise there is the scope for the BBC to think ‘if we allow comments on this article, the government will get slated and/or Labour will get praised’…
Jeff
PS Just noticed something – This morning, reader comments were being invited. Now, they aren’t (even though no comments have been published).
How odd…
Jeff
La Toynbee might have objected…
‘there is the scope for the BBC to think’
Hope springs eternal. Page grabs are all. They are rather good now at making things go away that might not serve.
On the not so small matter of what the BBC chooses to cover all guns blazing, and then often suddenly goes coy about..
http://order-order.com/2013/09/11/loony-un-inspector-apologises-for-bedroom-tax-lie/
I wonder if her likely Newsnight outing is still on?
you inhale more cancer inducing shitt and crap everyday from fumes coming from cars,lorrys,buses,motorbikes when you walk down the road or high street than you do from having the odd fag in the pub or by the bus stop,the hypocrisy of this smoking ban in pubs and by bus stops where i live just sickens me to the teeth.
It was, possibly, not such a different time…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/tough-life-on-earth.html
Still, Richard’s boy dun good at the family firm anyways, though he may have managed to get even a loyalist a smidge offside…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100235363/evolution-its-not-over-yet/
Question: Is Victoria Derbyshire on holiday again? Not complaining if she is but she does seem to have a lot of time off.
I have no idea why this timeslot is not just called “Standing In For Victoria Derbyshire…”
two points
that hep c doc in wales must be a `Lincolnshire man`
try to work out why form the bbc’s report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24049512
also, I’ve just watched an interview on al Jazeera with that un woman on the `bedroom tax` – and you can see why the bbc isn’t running the same thing – it’s crystal clear that she’s absolutely bonkers
Nice ‘work’…
Good work if you can get it.
I wonder what the difference is in terms of HR expertise and qualifications between Lucy Adams and the HR manager of a widget manufacturer who earns £32,000.
Naff all, I reckon…
Jeff
The one on £320K probably had to swallow more jizz to get the position than the one on £32K
5,140 licence fees to pay for those bungling shysters!
Clarification from the News Channel on Barroso’s warning to the Conservatives: Stop being so Euro-Skeptic or else people will turn to UKIP.
And here’s me thinking people were turning to UKIP because the Tories weren’t skeptical enough. Has the BBC been misinforming me the whole time?
Barroso’s warning –
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aylLhPHI1TI?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D
Yes Wavy Davy has done a fantastic job at building a political party.
Sadly not his own party though..
An official BBC comedian “Old Bill Bailey” was on the “One Show”. The lefty had a dig at UKIP, about them not being left-wing enough. The two BBC goons nodded in agreement. Apparently he has discovered that UKIP’s bitter founder Mr Sked who left the party in the last century has also this verdict amongst his many criticisms of UKIP. He did so, even when UKIP only had one policy.
Good point. Sked’s recent alliance with the left is merely the latest episode in a story of bitterness at being sacked by UKIP, for using party funds to finance a private legal dispute.
Like Bill Bailey, he comes across as unintentionally amusing, although not, I suspect, to the party treasurer.
Rejoice the Christian city of Maaloula in Syria has been liberated, Al Quaida forces have been repelled. Rejoice? Steady boys steady…..according to the BBC- as the governments mouthpiece, who like Haugue are actually supporting the “Syrian rebels” we should probably really be very sad about this. Damn that means the Syrian Free Army can’t destroy anymore Christian monuments. Damn that means Assad is winning. Truth in war hurts, which side do you take? Can you remain objective? Pro Christian-secular or Muslim? Such questions, clearly incredibly difficult for the B[ritish]BC.
I recommend watching RT’s (Russia Today) latest report:“War of God: mapping Syria’s Jihad & the flow of religious mercenaries
‘Pilgrimage to atrocity’, very snappy title, why is it that I don’t think the BBC will ever have the balls to name a report thus.
I have watched a number of the reports on Russia Today (RT). They are much more balanced on this conflict than the BBC. They do not laud the rebels as freedom fighters as the BBC does, they recognise that Christians are being terrorised and murdered by the Islamists, the BBC tries very hard to play this down.
The BBC is unfit as a news broadcaster. Its reporters such as Jeremy Bowen are unfit because of their bias.
‘I’m going to sit down with Lord Patten and we’re really going to work together to drone … bore … woffle… zzzz… platitude… bullshit… drivel… cliche… buzzword… and zzzzz again’
Lord Call Me Tony
Yerr, Tony and we’re really going to notice the difference eh.
Tommy Robinson’s invitation to speak at the Oxford Union debating society has been withdrawn, reports the BBC, who see no problem in the fact that it has been withdrawn because of threats of violence. Can someone explain why the BBC find it necessary to give Robinson’s original name in every article that mentions him. In this short piece, his original name is mentioned twice. Do any BBC reporters have former names? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24037103
Who threatened the violence, pray tell? Are representatives from those groups equally denied a platform?
I am surprised Mr Robinson bothered. Oxford, in common with most universities, is predictably liberal elitest in it’s attitudes.
It is the same with pro Israeli speakers. Why on earth bother?
I have yet to meet a liberal who really accepts free speech if it goes against their convictions. This is the crux of the liberal problem. So entrenched is their world view in unreality and fantasy that any opposition is regarded as mad or bad and certainly misguided.
Hence my belief that the time for debate is past . It is pointless. Look to your friends and families and nurture those who think as you do.
There is a culture war on and no time left for trivialities.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
Attributed- William F. Buckley, Jr.
You should read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.
Liberal Socialism has adopted the economic ideas of fascism with the totalitarian ideas of Aldous Huxley.
The paradox is that Communist China has adopted the economic ideas of the free market radicals because they where impressed by the remarkable example of Cowperthwaite’s economic policy in Hong Kong.
All Socialist ideologies do not like Free Speech because of criticism, which incites Socialists to be violent. But Huxley’s ideology means that you ban Free Speech because Socialists care about the people who they think are inferior, or as they say “Vulnerable”, not realising that that must be true of all Socialists, otherwise they would not be Socialists.
Socialists also insist that the “Vulnerable” should not be criticised, because you may incite them to be violent. Which is why you do not get much peaceful free democratic debate in the third world, an idea now being adopted by those who have an enthusiasm for a Multicultural Britain.
”Socialists also insist that the “Vulnerable” should not be criticised, because you may incite them to be violent.”
Yes, our ethnic minorities are so fragile, any criticism, they might riot, set London ablaze or behead soldiers, thankfully that hasn’t happened !!
This liberal view treats the vulnerable like dangerous dogs who will react violently if they are teased. Obviously, the vulnerable have no capacity for rational response.
”In this short piece, his original name is mentioned twice.”
They never call Tony Blair, real name Mr Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
Or Yvette Balls, Tessa Mills, and Harriet Dromey, now you mention it.
Or former Prime Minister James Brown
I feel good!
Or “(Not so) Golden Brown” by The Stranglers (of the economy) ?
This GB sold off lots of the real GB’s Au reserves so he clearly didn’t like the stuff. Or “Goldflinger” perhaps?
“Goldflinger”
Ace!!
Shouldn’t the last one be Jack Harman to sum up the relationship accurately?
This ‘report’ fails on just about every journalistic measure.
In sequence, we are informed…
‘…has been cancelled amid security concerns…’
Cancelled by whom?
‘..The institution, which …said it could not afford the security to welcome him.’
Rather clearly then, by said institution.
‘Mr Robinson said the union had bowed to “threats of violence” but provided no specific details.’
Seems to be a fair estimation given the vague allusions later on. So worth sorting out. But why should he have to give further details? Seems these would be more properly solicited from those who made an invitation and then withdrew it, surely?
‘The president of the Oxford Union, Parit Wacharasindhu, wrote an email to Mr Robinson on Monday informing him of the decision to cancel his appearance at the debating society.
As it stands, it seems a threat of violence (or?) by party or parties unknown has succeeded in terrorising an institution into operating a policy of discrimination on who gets to speak and who not. I recall Imperial College had similar issues on audience composition and seating.
I’d have thought the BBC’s investigative sensibilities would have been a bit more interested in such assaults on free speech and the parties inspiring them, especially when selective in nature.
As to the name change clarification, it does seem gratuitous in intent and repetition. It may once have been relevant, but it is how he is known now so why harp on?
Be interesting to look back how often any other converts to new handles do get the same treatment. Reg Dwight? El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz? Though Richard Dart did get double billing as Salahuddin al-Britani. Be interesting if this is maintained as he will doubtless appear again and proper honourifics do seem important to some, especially those who will threaten to get their way secure in the knowledge that this precedent is established and successful.
I just wonder if I wanted to see a meeting cancelled, making such a threat would see the same result. Or calibre of report?
ps. On a semantic basis, I wonder if the police are content with the association created in this caption: ‘EDL demos have seen violent clashes with police and anti-fascists in the past’
Given the realties of the forces (services?) that seem to face off, and who seems to side with whom, possibly yes.
For the source of the predicted violence look no further than the UAF Facebook page, which advocates a no platform policy for Robinson at Oxford, and elsewhere. Objectors who express the view that he should be allowed to speak and argued with, are immediately removed by the unquestioned leaders. The same crowd attempted to disrupt the meeting when Marine Le Pen spoke at Cambridge. They are supported by Cameron, financially supported by the Unions, have access to TUC premises, and opnenly advocate physical disruption of meetings. But – and this is without corroboration – a little bird told me that financial backing for a university project from a wholly democratic and peace loving Middle Eastern country was to be witheld if Robinson was invited.
Oxford University, one of the grand old tarts of academia, & a beeboid springboard, isn’t too picky about where funds come from. Dark blue knickers will be swiftly dropped if the price is right. They already have this beauty, erected on Saudi dosh:
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8913973.Islamic_centre_set_to_open_next_year/
And here’s to you, Mr Robinson…
‘For the source of the predicted violence look no further’
Doubtless FOI-exempted, but it might be asked why the BBC’s ‘reporter’ was not able, or willing to do so.
BBC has had annus horribilis, says culture secretary
Unfortunately, she also said ‘it will bounce back’.
Like a dud cheque, it will bounce all right!
Even a dead cat bounces
Yes it’ll bounce back and cost her her job at the 2015 election.
Maybe as she stands in the dole queue then she might wonder whether she could have done something about Droidland when she had the chance.
Just over 3 years ago, Selina Scott seemed keen to chastise the BBC for ageism and sexism, writing an article for The Telegraph.
Why this type of ‘revelation’ doesn’t interest me very much is because she decided to work within this corporation for many years, and would have been aware of this facet from how she saw the BBC treated others.
Perhaps she thought she was such a ‘star’ that she wouldn’t be subjected to the same treatment. Personally I think there are many other more serious issues to take the BBC to task for, the issue she raises smacks of self interest and promotion.
Then again a few days ago she wrote another article ‘knocking it to them’, clearly seeing the opportunity while the battle between Thompson and Patten was raging over the pay-off scandal.
At the sexually corrupt BBC, when your age exceeds your bra size you’re finished: SELINA SCOTT exposes the moral bankruptcy at the heart of the Beeb
TV Veteran lays bare the sexism and corruption at the broadcaster
She says older women are sidelined in favour of attractive younger staff
Today it comes out that the root of her present anger, particularly towards Mark Thompson, whom she had previously regarded as a friend, was being passed over to interview Prince Phillip, despite having set it up, in favour of Fiona Bruce. This happened 2 years ago.
Quite possibly her original article prompted the BBC to get their own back when the chance arose.
Shows the prevalent low level mindset of those within.
How ex-BBC boss knifed Selina Scott: Corporation gave interview she has secured with Duke of Edinburgh to Fiona Bruce
It does surprise me the blind loyalty inspired up to quite senior level when rather clearly such loyalty or duration is rewarded in such a manner. Equally any still defending the system of governance after Monday’s performance by the entire top tier. Or the Rose revelations.
Now the money aspect in perpetuity is less a given, going into work looking over one’s shoulder, or avoiding bars of scented soap amongst the empty bubbly bottles on whispering corridor floors, must be quite stressful. Of course that represents a whole extra new drain on income supposedly for programming.
It shows the real mindset of those within the corporation. Exposing the hypocrisy of their left wing thinking that pretends to be ‘above it all with care and concern’.
They have no problem sticking it to each other when they believe it serves their purpose, and I wouldn’t trust any of them with the time of day.
P.S. Guest – Did you see my post above on how to access Telegraph et al webpages in your own browser without limit?
I did, and have applied tx.
Actually, the IT Crowd principle worked and I can see formatting now even on hidemyass, though Disqus comments do not show.
For those the full cookie monstering doubtless required, which I will reserve only if it looks like the time spent will be worth it.
Actually there are only 3 cookies you need to delete, and they are all located together in the T’s. Then you access the webpages normally until your limit is up, and you can then delete cookies again.
telegraph.co.uk
blogs.telegraph.co.uk
webtrends.telegraph.co.uk
‘Japan used poison gas against the Chinese in the 1930s, Mussolini used it in Ethiopia during World War II, and the Egyptian air force used it in Yemen in the 1960s.
But nothing compared with what happened at Halabja.’
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24058529
Hang on a minute! What about the use of Agent Orange under Democrat presidents JFK and LBJ?
Let’s not airbrush their chemical weapons use out of history!
Jeff
White Phosphorous!!!, Depleted Uranium munitions,.
And let’s not forget napalm….
or, to mention the blindingly obvious- tear gas! Should toxic chemical weapons be employed against crowds of people?
Click to access doc8080-contenido.pdf
Napalm, depleted uranium, Agent Orange and white phosphorous aren’t on the list of weapons systems banned under the various international chemical weapons treaties.
It’s something to do with the definition of weapons intended to kill on a massive scale, hence “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
It seems it’s OK in international law to die by being shredded by shrapnel, incinerated with napalm, peppered with 7.65mm bullets, bayoneted through the guts, beheading, blown to bits by heavy calibre shells, dismemberment by I.E.D. etc., but it’s beyond the pale to cause someone to die by drowning after having their lungs liquidised by poisonous gas.
Can’t see much difference myself. Dead is dead, but it seems to matter to a lot of bleeding heart politicians.
Notionally civilians are kept out of the conflict (OK we’ll forget about ‘human shields’ etc) and hide in cellars, bomb shelters and stay indoors. The problem with chemical and nuclear weapons is that they do tend to be rather unselective of the people they kill.
Does that help?
If the civilians were in bomb shelters, chemical weapons wouldn’t be much of a threat, either, would they?
Bowen said that the people in Maaloula “still speak Aramaic, the language they believe was spoken by Christ.”
Come on Bowen and BBC prudes, it’s not just their opinion, and you simply cannot be afraid that stating it really was a language Jesus spoke would bring charges of bias or anything like that. I can’t think of any other reason Bowen would play that game, other than sheer ignorance.
Of course Jesus spoke a dialect of Aramaic. He would also have spoken Hebrew and Greek, and maybe have had some Latin at a Brian-like level. Both John and Paul make a few references to Aramaic being the local tongue (what language does Bowen think Gologotha came from, for example?), that Paul spoke and preached in it, and that Mary Magdalene spoke it to Jesus, which implies exactly what Bowen presents as only a local belief. Why else would Pilate have written that ‘King of the Jews’ sign in Aramaic as well as Greek and Latin? The Jews spoke Aramaic. It’s the language of the Talmud as well, for the same reason. One can talk about the fairy-tale elements of religion and propaganda purposes of religious texts, but this is basic, straightforward stuff and not part of the religious elements.
Don’t believe me? Listen to actual archaeologists, then:
By Jesus’ time numerous local dialects of Aramaic had emerged. Jesus, like other Palestinian Jews, would have spoken a local form of Middle Aramaic1 called Palestinian Aramaic. Palestinian Aramaic developed along with Nabatean Aramaic (in the area around Petra in modern Jordan), Palmyrene Aramaic (in central Syria), Hatran Aramaic (in the eastern part of Syria and Iraq) and early Syriac (in northern Syria and southern Turkey). Together, these five dialects make up Middle Aramaic.
Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (beginning in 1947), Palestinian Aramaic was attested in only a few paltry inscriptions, on tombstones and on ossuaries (bone boxes). But with the discovery of those scrolls, more than a score of fragmentary texts written in Palestinian Aramaic came to light, giving us for the first time a corpus of literary texts from which we can learn something about the form of Aramaic spoken by Palestinian Jews in the centuries prior to Jesus and contemporaneously with him.
It’s absurd that a media leviathan such as the BBC, with all its resources and journalists and experience in the region could be so blatantly ignorant. Or simply dismissing what they know to be factual out of some disgusting timidity.
My guess is that this is plain ignorance out of contempt (why else would neither Bowen nor his editor or producer know better and not bother to look it up?), and is really not professional behavior.
Having said that, it’s nice to hear at least one Beeboid snort at the focus on unapproved weapons while tens of thousands have been killed by conventional weapons. Impartial journalists shouldn’t show their opinion like that, but that’s his job as a BBC titled editor.
They`d never say that Mohammad was “beileved” to have spoken Arabic now would they?
Even though there is far more evidence than Jesus spoke Aramaic(Marks gospel especially), than Mohammad actually spoke at all…indeed whether he actually existed at all( there is precious little corroborating proof of this-but as Tom Holland knows only too well, non-Muslims and their pesky science, history etc aren`t allowed to say so…not if they want to stay alive).
I well remember some recent history of Christianity by a big name(and with lots of footage and pompous dialogue) telling us that Paul wrote his letter to the Galicians( as opposed to the Galatians!)…and THAT one was broadcast as fact.
THAT is how low the BBC have gone-their theology is as shit as their science.
But their ability to dig deep into the pockets of the poor would impress any tunnelling miner or engineer…they`re very good at that!
“Ouanquers”…my metric spelling!
The MSM, having the attention span of a toddler gnat off their Ritalin, appears to have moved on, but via the i of all papers an interesting series of thoughtful pieces can yet be found about how the events of Monday are set, at the very least, to get memory holed until…2017, despite each of the 3 years seeing £4B of public money and editorial competence ‘overseen’ by an entity clearly lacking any integrity.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/bbc-bosses-are-all-at-sea-in-an-ocean-of-selfregard-8805419.html
‘What emerged most clearly from this motley collective was how unused they are – still – individually and collectively, to any form of public scrutiny’
Trust and transparency. Say it loud; say it often.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/media/roy-greenslade-squabble-highlights-failings-the-bbc-trust-was-meant-to-fix-8809022.html
‘there was, and is, a disconnect between the Director-General of the BBC and his staff on one side, and the body that the licence fee-paying public believes is acting on its behalf to control the executive’
That’s also the Graun’s most senior media commentator.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/deficit-of-trust-the-bbcs-system-of-governance-must-change-8809457.html
‘the Trust – give or take some adjustments – seems set to sail serenely on.
This is not, to put it mildly, a satisfactory situation’
Especially one destined to persist.
Otherwise there can only be more of the same.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10302278/The-BBC-exists-to-serve-the-public-good-not-for-the-feathering-of-private-nests.html
It’s as good a distraction from the endemic bias problem as any.