Here you go, a new Monday thread to complete.
MONDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- pugnazious Nov 17, 00:10
Weekend 16th November 2024
https://x.com/darrengrimes_/status/1857550474548809985 - StewGreen Nov 17, 00:10
Weekend 16th November 2024
Laurence fox is tweeting barrister records saying Strmer is connected to the Southport killers father. precis “It turns out @Keir_Starmer,… - StewGreen Nov 16, 23:37
Weekend 16th November 2024
Lying is a normal part of pushing socialist revolution eg James O’Brien [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcgbWerWQAAraqw?format=jpg&name=small[/img] - StewGreen Nov 16, 22:38
Weekend 16th November 2024
@pugnazious did you get that the BBC reporter could have opened her report by saying she had had a pervert… - StewGreen Nov 16, 22:35
Weekend 16th November 2024
The Beeboid reporter seems to bury that the pervert has a Muslim name “He had an accent I didn’t recognise,… - Loobyloo Nov 16, 22:27
Weekend 16th November 2024
The Telegraph is odd – almost like it wants to wind up its readers – has done hit job articles… - StewGreen Nov 16, 22:19
Weekend 16th November 2024
Yes I woke up this morning to The Art Of Law channel saying “Oh Guardian screwed up it’s a different…
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
Online Telegraph prominently features Lib Dem Home Office minister Jermey Browne calling for a national debate on the face veil. BBC covers it with some quotes from pro debate but more and indignant and emotive from muslims commentators. The bias is still there. It is almost hidden and in this way it slides into one’s mind unoticed but definitely influential.
78% of people who voted on the Telegraph believed it should be banned but you might be forgiven for thinking this was not the case from the content and tone of BBC report
Scared of the truth also note how the Telegraph no longer allows comments on anything religion of peace related. The Mail also only allows only slightly contentious comments with plenty of gerrymandering with the ratings.
All the papers have headed that way since Leverson, then hot on the heels came the murder of Lee Rigby…no discussion on Islamic matters/crimes allowed.
So much for freedom of speech…freedom of expression…
you aint having none of that proles…
here, watch some tellybox, the BBC have a wonderful documentary* on about the wonders of Islam…(We wont mention the murders, slavery, rapes by Mo and his buddies)
*(Not sure if they do have a documentary about the wonders of Islam tonight, just emphasizing my point that nothing negative about our beardy chums must be discussed or seen.)
I think you mean “the Woolwich incident”, that is the official BBC nomenclature now-a-days
Oh yeah…
you’re right, of course…my bad…one cant call a murder “a murder” these days if ROP worshipers were responsible…
must have been “an unfortunate accident”
Get claims direct on the phone!…don’t think “Injury Lawyers4U” can help at this point.
Misled….always good boys….were going to be scientists…(takes out onion).
Yes, in the course of its report on ‘banning the burqa’, INBBC presents some hostile quotes from not one, but two Muslim organisations which oppose such a ban.
This is the pattern of Beeboid reporting on issues which affect the non-Muslim majority, and the Muslim minority in Britain.
“Boston Bombing Lesson: Ban Niqabs and Burqas”
by Daniel Pipes.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/04/boston-bombing-lesson-ban-niqabs-and-burqas
In a free country the state should not be allowed to tell people what they can or cannot wear. If Muslim women are stupid enough to wear the burqa or niqab not understanding that doing so is cultural not religious then they should be able to if only to show what fools they are.
A court can’t see people blush or twitch if they lie whilst wearing a burkha. Neither can witnesses identify burkha-clad women who splash acid on their faces.
As for schools, a uniform dress code is important for discipline and equal treatment of pupils. Imagine a strict moslem school allowing bare knees.
“Nothing in Islam requires turning females into shapeless, faceless zombies; good sense calls for modesty itself to be modest. The time has come everywhere to ban from public places these hideous, unhealthy, socially divisive, terrorist-enabling, and criminal-friendly garments.”
-Daniel Pipes.
In theory you are right. But in the same way you should be allowed to deface your body as you choose – tattoos and piercings – but FGM is against the law, because it is often involuntary. Likewise people with a veil are often not wearing it voluntarily.
The wearing of the burqa or niqab in public is a security threat to other citizens, and should be banned.
That just doesn’t reflect reality Mo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24104811
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24109631
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24109186
“78% of people who voted on the Telegraph believed it should be banned”
It’s significantly different from that now:
Yes, veils should be banned
16.57% (8,772 votes)
Schools should be able to ban veils if they want to but it should be up to the individual school
4.19% (2,218 votes)
No, everyone should be free to observe their chosen religion
79% (41,963 votes)
Total Votes: 52,953
If an aggressive group can
– instantly get a 9000-odd petition
– mobilise a rapid protest onsite to intimidate a college
– chuck large numbers of votes at an on-line poll (I’m making an assumption here, but it fits with the activist method)
then one might say they are organised to be militant.
I look forward to a BBC expose, informing our political elite so they can do their best for the country… maybe sometime after the whole bunch of them talk openly and honestly about other nationwide proven organised aggression against the unprotected weak and vulnerable.
I’ve noticed that the Telegraph polls on contentious issues never bear any resemblance to the comments below the article. The poll will always reflect a left leaning result.
That is when comments are allowed on such issues…
…there are a number of lefty email/twitter ‘connect’ groups that can do exactly as you say and more, have you never wondered why these silly results happen? Do you really think the DT online would get 110,000 votes in a poll? Most of it’s pages don’t get that many views!
Doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd that the results are almost reversed? As is so often the case the true result is after a number of hours when only genuine readers have voted but after a quick ‘tell your contacts’ campaign the whole thing is skewed.
1st!
Well, BBC Radio Devon is now saying that any flooding is due to Climate Change. Climate Change is now etched in their stone and free to broadcast unchallenged on air, across the county of Devon. It really is relentless isn’t it?
Damn..2nd. 8-(
The BBC will cling on to it’s agreed political narrative concerning CAGW for as long as possible; this is the EU/UN-approved doctrine of Agenda 21 and it must be preserved at whatever cost to truth and scientific fact – the political project it represents is simply far too important to sacrifice on the altar of reason and informed, factual evidence.
So yes – floods in Devon? = Climate change!
Yes, this has been going on for years but the real locals know it’s a load of shit. Houses built in wrong place, on flood meadows/plains etc flooded for centuries.
Stop being so cynical about climate change, yesterday I had to put the heating on, so the climate has clearly changed since last Monday!
BBC’s harvest programme last week (designed for broadcast to 8 year olds) talked about the blackcurrent harvest. There have been problems with the crop because, as said in the programme, ‘apart from last year there has been a series of warmer winters’. Yes last year was cold, but so was the winter before. The BBC just assumes everyone has very short memories. And we may have had a nice summer – giving the BBC the opportunity to talk again lots about the warming climate – but I am jolly cold now and may even have to put the heating on before October.
“Programme was written for children. I still didn’t understand it.”
Nick Clegg having a chin wag with the witty banter merchants and Great North Runners on BBC 5 Live.
What do you reckon they want to ask the shiny orange one as their priority questions?
Plastic bag tax – nah. Climactic taxes – nah.
How about Coalition with Labour in 2015? – YES YES YES say the Beeboids.
Yup, the 2% of the overall votes they will end up getting will work wonders!
The Lib-Dems are a busted flush, as are the Greens…but the BBC love em, and canvas their opinion relentlessly.
UKIP on the other hand?…what was that what just breezed past?….oh, a tumbleweed.
Lets hope Dave grows a pair
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4149/how_long_can_tory_denial_about_ukip_pact_last
One to watch – Mark Duggan shooting inquest to start.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24105858
The family had been told ‘nothing but lies, misinformation, and delay’ & ‘the truth will finally come out’. I think we can see what the BBC’s stance is on this.
I think the best thing to do is brace for impact…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/why-brother-mark-duggan-shot-dead
‘My brother Mark Duggan was shot dead two years ago. But we still don’t know why’
With luck, the UK MSM may not prove as selective with facts (in, or out) as other recent cases have shown.
Interesting the Graun comments so far.
One notes the BBC seems to feel this one kept under editorial control.
• Comments on this article have been turned off and removed for legal reasons
Yes, of course they have. Was it not going the correct way?
Maybe A. Guardian Editor and/or A. Guardian Lawyer or even A. Guardian Comment Is Free Social Media Expert may care to explain what aspects of this case changed between the Guardian offering the opportunity to comment and obliterating everything?
No chance that opinions of actual readers were ‘split’ ((c) BBC 10:10 review) about 100:1 not in the direction said editorial probably fancied.
Such baby and bathwater nuking will not sit well with their loyal readers investing time in boosting ratings with their invited input, or indeed serve the CIF reputation (like ‘BBC Trust’, only without the laughs) well.
ps: Of course this should read: ‘One notes the BBC seems to feel this one better kept under editorial control’.
A call borne out by the experience of the sister publication.
I doubt this one is long for this world, either:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/16/bbc-mailonsunday?
Now, who could possibly think Graun Editors have a soft spot for their… middle class… neighbours?
‘There is nothing wrong with a mixed jobs portfolio per se. And I doubt that there is any proof, in the case of the BBC trio, that their extra jobs impinge on their ability to do their jobs.
In Cecil’s case, her additional income could be seen as reward for performing a public service and I doubt it involves any time away from her desk.’
The bloke’s a comedian.
‘My brother Mark Duggan was shot dead two years ago. But we still don’t know why’
Him being a violent criminal with a history of using firearms not a clue?
He had a pistol hidden in his sock, just like any other law-abiding, was going to be a doctor, etc etc.
I thought he wanted to be live a gangster ? Well he died like one anyway .
“He’d just met with someone and took a loaded gun from them in order to settle a score” – have anything to do with it? What would be nice is an interview with the person the gun was intended for – saying “the cops saved my life” – just for balance, you understand.
Little doubt of Nicky Campbell’s views of “a little bit of benefit fraud” as he described it, in a conversation with a representative of the Taxpayers’ Allliance and a Welfare Party MP.
His parting shot to the TA guy was a sneering “How many people are in the Taxpayers’ Alliance?”, and his disappointment at the answer of 85,000 was palpable. He neglected to ask the Labourite what their membership numbers are.
Surprise, surprise that the Socialist Workers morning conference call at nine will be on this subject. Across the nation the ranting Marxist Picts are already practicing their scales.
Today Program 08:40 a couple of contributors about the Niqab, in a court case.
The Muslim contributor prevaricated became evasive, would not answer the questions asked of her, but overall was well controlled by the interviewer.
My problem though is the lack of religious knowledge of the interviewer and the preparation for the questions.
No questions were asked about the Niqab not actually being a religious requirement, or mentioned in any aspect of Islam. No questions were asked of whether the woman wearing it should be judged according to her Muslim Sharia beliefs. If she cannot be judged according to her religious beliefs then why should the face covering be protected. And of course the belief under Shariah that her witness testimony is not worth as much as a mans.
I was left with the distinct feeling that the usual ignorance of Islam & Sharia had yet again prevailed and value judgements were being made from a ‘white British’ point of view without a possession of the full facts.
I’m sure it is not a case of ignorance. It’s a case of agenda.
“Ban the Burqa? The Argument in Favor”
by Phyllis Chesler.
‘Middle East Quarterly.’
http://www.meforum.org/2777/ban-the-burqa
“Ban the Burqa?”
I’d much rather those who want to wear the burqa or niqab were shipped to countries where such dress is the norm.
Right to family life?
Okey doke – your whole family can go with you.
Not a ‘right to reply’ we’re likely to see on the only-one-valid-viewpoint BBC.
Have you not seen the comparison of Karachi & Dewsbury? All the people in Karachi wandering around in T shirts and jeans, while in Dewsbury there are a bunch of spooks wearing Satan’s postbox
The other month I stopped off in Dewsbury to see how the place has changed in the past 20 years. I even had a sandwich in their Subway (big mistake)
I couldn’t believe how many women were walking around dressed from head to toe like ninjas. The same applied to London the other week in both Kensington and Convent Garden I couldn’t believe how many people walk around protecting themselves from the effects of global warming (Come on you just know the bBC is going to come out with that angle soon) by covering up. In fact the biggest oxymoron going is…White City.
But here’s something of a sleigh of hand from the bBC, while the bBC is more than happy to parrot the line:
“The vast majority of the 1.4 million Muslim women in Britain do not even wear the face veil, as it is not considered a religious obligation. The tiny minority that do are probably happy to remove the veil when required.” they leave out the vast numbers who wear the Burka and that from nothing the number of women who are wearing the face veil is growing.
Personally I have this to say:
“When we go abroad we are told by the likes of the political elite to respect the ways of the locals, if that is correct, then why do the left go out of their way in which to allow immigrants who mostly come here seeking sanctuary from the mores of their culture, to live under the very hardships they came to England in the first place to escape from.”
And anybody who complains is instantly deemed a racist?
Really?
The increase in burqua-clad women I’ve seen in London is very much tied to Oxford Street and Knightsbridge, area and the Edgware Road – families of wealthy arabs, whose numbers swell in August to escape the 40 degree heat back home. Despite the burquas they do love shopping in Primark., but strangely seem to be buying mainly mens and childrens clothes. You have to laugh when you see Saudi men in Tshirt and shorts walking along with wife in a sack. What oppression? It’s a “choice”, no?
I have never ever seen a Muslim woman in the UK wear a Burka. You probably mean the Niqab which is a different garment altogether.
A sack is a sack as far as I’m concerned.
Go To Bradford, turquoise burka’s with a grill type material to cover the eyes abound.
Try Burnley.
Try standing out side St Pancras station for 10 minutes, and watch the crows flap of the Eurostar and head across to Kings Cross
“The terms niqab and burqa are often incorrectly used interchangeably; a niqab covers the face while a burqa covers the whole body from the top of the head to the ground”
And when the niqab is worn in conjunction with a to-the-ground black robe, not to nitpick, how useful is the distinction? It’s still a “satan’s postbox” as someone called it.
And just as offensive to women. If the problem is enforcing women’s modesty, why don’t the arab men just fit themselves with blinkers?
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“Tiptoeing around Islam and a ban on Muslim women wearing the veil.”
By Benedict Brogan.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100236081/tiptoeing-around-islam-and-a-ban-on-muslim-women-wearing-the-veil/
Excerpt (slightly amended):
“Nick-ab Clegg expressed polite sympathy but quashed the idea of a national ban, limiting it to schools.”
…sigh… “polite sympathy”, eh? Well that’s a spit in the face for anyone who has any problem with this. It’s like the constant reinforcement of criminals’ ‘human rights’, while eliminating any rights for the rest of us.
I’m sure Nick-ab Clegg, as I will always address him from now on, has heard about the Islamic intimidation succeeding at the Birmingham college, and is aware that if such a ban is not national but simply school-by-school then any school which feels a ban is necessary will then be a target for similar intimidation.
Islam is explicitly disrupting our education system, which is dependent upon the teachers’ authority, discipline, and face-to-face communication. Students should feel safe at their place of learning, and masked people there can only compromise security and confidence.
I expect the BBC to
challengepraise him vigorously for being such a traitor to British values, British institutions and the British people.Is Nick Clegg happy for someone to be in public places dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan ?
If it would mean move votes then yes probably- ask Simon Hughes
Hmmm – tht will not be allowed, after all the KKK is a pretty peace-loving and reasonable bunch, compared to the average jihaddist.
Government corruption, something you’ll never see or hear on the BBC.
Not the kind of corruption of individuals, but a corporate corruption of the whole body politic. The way the government makes rules for itself which are vastly more favourable than for anyone else, and in some cases downright unfair.
It might run from little things like the law on premium rate phone numbers 0870 & 0845 being banned for private firms, but allowed for government departments all the way up to the concept of crown immunity which allows government departments exemption from the law.
Michael Le Vells revent case cost a staggering £200K for him to defend. An innocent man – surely we would expect that he would be able to recoup those costs from the state, but in 2011 the government changed the law and now it is not possible to recoup even reasonable costs from the crown when it has dragged you to court wrongly! It doesn’t matter, guilty of innocent you’re going to be made to suffer !
You wouldn’t mind so much if this was the same for them, and that they couldn’t claim the costs either, but because of the corruption they can ! Staggeringly unfair and wholly corrupt.
Now the BBC are carrying a story that benefit ‘cheats’ are to face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prision! This would costs the tax payer more than half a million pounds and take a prison place which is actually needed for a real criminal !
If someone breaks into your home and robs £10K from you beats you up and your family members the chances are that they will not go to prison, and they certainly won’t have to pay you any compensation or replace the £10K they took. This of course is corruption.
So why doesn’t the BBC want to report this? Well, they’re also benefitting from the corruption, in the way the licence fee is extracted and enforced. They are part of the problem and they’re just too close to the state and it’s protections.
It’s yet another reason for the BBC to be privatised and the licence fee scrapped.
On BBC Wales regional news this morning a woman professor was being interviewed about the state of scientific reseach in Wales. She was interviewed in a lab. Lo and behold, the only other person in the lab was a woman, obviously, ‘Asian’ wearing some sort of headdress. Coincidence? Or a token muslim?
No coincidence, a common occurrence. Note any school footage will always have the ‘token’s’ pushed to the front and if needing to give a view they will always be the ones asked.
Its pure and utter brainwashing, softheads think its the norm…
Unless, of course, the story is about oversubscribed schools and lack of school places, then the footage the BBC uses to illustrate the report shows only white kids. Strange that!
And yet we never hear from anyone in these schools, hospitals, science labs complaining that the BBC ordered all the white people out so they could only have ‘tokens’ in fron of camera.
Maybe they seem to be ‘tokens’ to you because you don’t see many blacks or Asians in your bunker. Or maybe its just that they skin is a different colour from yours?
One doesn’t need to leave the room, the clever stuff is done in the edit of the broadcast item.
Even in the unlikely case of such complaints they would never see the light of day, immediate shouts of ‘racist’ would ensue.
As far as my bunker goes I can see what is going on around me, and contrary to what the BBC would have us believe, I am still (for now) one of the majority…
Interesting audience reaction on Paul Sinha’s Citizenship Test on Sunday.
The audience were asked to respond by calling out when the newspaper they read was mentioned.
On hearing Daily Mail there was a general ‘hiss’, with one poor soul apparently behind Paul admitting his sin.
By far the biggest response was when the Guardian was mentioned. Paul contrasted the response of the audience with the actual sales of each paper and at the end attempted a joke that 10% of all Guardian readers were in his audience.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this was actually true, and also the case at all BBC recording sessions.
I have a growing respect for Mr Sinha. He has previously made amusing remarks which threaten to puncture the BBC bubble in ways that other Beebot ‘comics’ wouldn’t dare.
Looking back it is amazing how many professional comedians in the Seventies not only came from a working class background but were also non-political or if anything right-wing.
After the New Comedy Policy (a Leftist purge dressed up as “diversity”) BBC comedians these days are pretty uniformly middle class Leftists.
Those who are not Leftists seem to derive most of their income from work outside the BBC. You can say anything you like just so long as you have a Leftist certificate of correct thinking.
The BBC is Stalinist not only in its corruption but also in its intolerance of anything but the Party Line.
I think I see why Paul Sinha might have first got a BBC gig, from Wikipedia ‘His early material drew on his sexuality (Sinha is “openly gay”).
However he’s quite funny, re the Guardian readership figures “Who knew the BBC had that many emplyees”
“Totalitarian nun, all a bit of fun for the BBC
Usually the ideologues at the BBC don’t care much for religion. But a far-Left nun who wants to nationalise the media? Now you’re talking”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4142/totalitarian_nun_all_a_bit_of_fun_for_the_bbc
“Minus the abolition of the military, that’s pretty much what North Korea looks like.”
My Missus’s parents have just had a holiday in North Korea (I know!)
I spoke to her mum last night, her overall impression of the North Korean people she met is that they are TOTALLY brainwashed, and think that they are going to become re-unified with South Korea!
They are in a communist bubble (although, they do not think it is communism, they think it’s the norm worldwide)
6 lane motorways with no cars on them…massive new buildings, with no one but the military in them…all employment dictated by the state, no press freedom, no internet access outside of North Korea, no world view.
Just the way the BBC would love us to be.
VD’s Scots Independence show on Five Live revealed little, except the vicious anger and anti-Englishness that underpins a significant minority of the “yes” vote.
The panto ended with a slight victory by show of hands for the “yes” campaign by 84 to 83, with 50 or so undecided, which is odd really, when you consider the polls indicate somewhere in the region of 60% actually support the “no” campaign.
It’s almost as if the audience was weighted in favour of the “yes” campaign. Surely not?
Other polls show that over half the English want financial independence for Scotland (cue DM/EDL hate protester scene).
Anything that destroys Britishness or a sense of unity or Empirical past…..Scotland must GO!
A little bit tucked away, so to help them let me bring it to wider attention:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2013/news_current_affairs.html
BBC Trustee Richard Ayre said:
“No part of the BBC is more important to its audiences than its journalism. Now the Trust is going to ask in detail what those audiences expect of the BBC, what they appreciate most, and where they think we could give them an even more distinctive service. In a world where people can choose their news when and where they want it, and from a huge range of sources, we want to understand how best the BBC can retain their trust and confidence so that it remains clearly their number one choice.”
Sadly, a still delusionally bubble-dwelling Richard makes no mention of basic realities (‘retain trust and confidence’?… nice one), and indeed the chance of shortfall and hence need for improvement is not mentioned at all.
Leading one to suspect that the parameters of this (doubtless internal, in secret) ‘review’ are already set to only hear what they wish and edit out what they don’t.
A sorry metaphor for the BBC’s news and current affairs output, if apt.
Note to Editors:
Any media that runs this press release as ‘news’ will deserve to be labelled a laughing stock, if not already
Just had a gander at this so-called ‘consultation’.
For a start it’s by the BBC for the BBC, so anything that is submitted will immediately be gatekeepered by mystery folk who make sure the Trust still believes the BBC is without peer.
Frankly a Trust meeting must make the Downfall spoof look like a brainstorming in a hippie commune moderated by David Brent.
They also demand details in support of views, so any poor sucker who does go to the effort will see that all flushed down the pan right away.
About as dishonest a bit of BS as they might be expected to produce, and duly have.
Yes but you can have a good time filling in their questionnaire (in the sure and certain knowledge it will make no difference) just click on ‘public consultation’ and let rip I did
If it could be circulated widely enough it might sour their latte ,so why not?
8a. How well do the following words describe BBC News?
Very well
Quite well
Not well
Not at all well
Don’t know
Trustworthy
Accurate
Impartial
Up-to-date
8b. Please tell us more about your answers, giving examples of programmes. We want to know how BBC News (TV, radio and online) is doing in these areas and welcome your suggestions for improvement.
I can guess that my suggestions for improvement will not be welcome.
Awww….they missed out “Untrustworthy” from the list…little scamps.
Not really tucked away if its on the Trust website under Press Releases.
Those basic realities include it reamaining the most trsuted and number one choice?
‘Not really tucked away if its on the Trust website under Press Releases.’
Quick question: did you learn of it from my share or from the BBC news machine picking up and broadcasting their own PR?
It’s also possible that main other media are not in the habit of going to the BBC’s website to see what’s up.
Be interesting if anyone recalls being sent it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=BBC%20Trust
Looks like the BBC more concerned with what they don’t want to happen, but I see there the Graun has picked up on this 1/2 hour ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/16/bbc-review-news-current-affairs
I wonder if they read this blog?:)
Noting what has been lifted from the PR, they at least have gone a bit further.
Not hidden away I’ve been trying to find it through a general search ,so that I can forward it as a direct link , absolutely zilch.
Just watched Vince Cable on tv. What a slimy two faced little b*****d he is.
I’d like to take a set of tweezers to those little pathetic wisps of hair that squiggle from his baldy bonce.
Don’t forget his nose.
Is it me, or does he look like someone you *cough* wouldn’t want your kids to talk to, when he tries to smile?
He’s a politician, can’t expect any other kind of characteristics I’m afraid old chap.
INBBC bias on the Burqa.
INBBC are very keen to over-represent any Islamic lobbyists, but just as keen to relegate any outright opponent of the wearing of the burqa/niqab in public in Britain.
INBBC seems to believe that it is being impartial if it allows someone to say there should be a debate on the issue!
“No one has a human right to hide from justice behind a veil”
By MELANIE PHILLIPS.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2421455/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-No-human-right-hide-justice-veil.html
A review of Douglas Murray’s book: ‘Islamophilia’-
“Islamophilia Unmasked”
By Bruce Bawer.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/islamophilia-unmasked/
Billy Connolly diagnosed with prostate cancer & Parkinson’s disease. To show similar sympathy as he did to the unfortunate Ken Bigley – Just get on with it & die!
Yes, quite unbelievable. Had it been someone deemed to be right of center making this extremely tasteless and outrageous ‘joke’, he/she would never have ‘worked’ again. It must have been distressing to Ken Bigley’s family. As it was the Lefty Connolly however it hardly provoked much of a stir. What would be the reaction should a ‘comedian’ make a so called joke about Connolly’s situation ?
That aside, would not wish this upon him.
I did remember Bigley’s brother say if only Israel would disappear all would be alright in the world and his brother would be alive to earn his inflated income from the ruins of war torn Middle East. Good luck to Billy. wishing you well.
Yeah, let’s not stoop to their level. He has my sympathies. That’s one hell of a double whammy.
Yep his being politically stupid in my eyes doesn’t mask my empathy for his problems [soz but loved his ‘boon dock saints ‘role ] ! others will disagree hey-ho .
Connolly made a full recovery from prostate cancer. Now all he has to worry about is
the DT’sParkinsonism..http://news.sky.com/story/1142299/billy-connolly-diagnosed-with-parkinsons
INBBC: reporting SYRIA, and not being aware of the elephant in the room-
“Syrian opposition says Christians will live as dhimmis in Sharia state”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/syrian-opposition-says-christians-will-live-as-dhimmis-in-sharia-state.html
jeremy bowen said on the richard i SHOUT alot bacons show today,whatever my political views about assads war against the rebels, i would not like to be on the recieving end of a missile strike against the assad regime(goverement to me) if america decides to launch missiles strikes against his army,i found that a very strange comment from jeremy bowen,what did he mean by whatever my political views are against the assad regime (goverment to me),i thought all bbc jounrnalist are supposed have no opinion and show impartiality when reporting from war zones.
You cant stop human beings having opinons. I imagine its hard not to form opinons when looking at murdered children. He specifically didnt express them.
Go a read a book moron.
“You cant stop human beings having opinions.”
But only morons have those that differ from mine
(Or witches and heretics I assume)
‘I imagine its hard not to form opinons ‘
Like BBC top tier Alzheimers, there seems to be a sudden outbreak of typographical and grammatical inexactitude from another new friend to the commenting fraternity.
However, certain irresistible turns of phrase suggest the relationship in term if not name covers a longer span.
Perhaps I misunderstood him then,
perhaps he meant “go read the book of Mormon”
Bowen specifically didn’t express his opinion, but then played the emotion card. Is that really any better?
Tone of voice often shows opinions . My example is from the past but Bowen has not changed ! In this case tn his harsh and angry tone mirrored the feelings that were behind an extract he read out from the Anti Semitic Lebanese Star newspaper in 2006 for the programme “What the papers say” on Radio 4. It was so clear from his tone of voice that he agreed with and wanted to endorse the statements he was reading out.
The BBC clearly understood very well the power and effect of the emotional way the words were read out on air .When the appeal against this programme was eventually heard we were sent a recording of the programme. The recording they sent back had been re-recorded. His voice now did not reflect any of the emotion and aggression that had previously been displayed in his voice. The reading was now delivered in a bland and soft mannered way. This would have made a huge difference to the way anyone would react to this extract.
See other examples of emotion that makes a difference on my blog entry http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/imortance-of-tone-of-voicerepetiton-of.html
Wonder what Bowen will think about Obama repealing US laws that prevent shipping arms to terrorist organisations so he can supply the Syrian rebels with munitions?
His driver was at the receiving end of an Israeli tank round, pity Bowen wasn’t sat on the back seat.
Countryfile, Sunday night.
Continuing the weekly tradition tonight’s show featured a completely one-sided rose-tinted spectacles look at ‘Romany Gipsy’s” and how delightful and charming they are. The pretty skirtless presenter smiled and chewed a piece of grass while the delightful family of 8 sat around their tiny painted cart and sang a song about ‘gorgers’. Delightful. I wonder if the pretty presenter would be smiling if the same familly showed up in a field near her house, with half a dozen caravans, 10 beat up old trucks and cars, masses of metal waste, bonfires of unknown building materials, wild dogs barking and shotguns being fired in the night, abusive little kids running amok. Yes, I wonder if she’d be smiling if her house was rendered completely unsaleable by a delightful gypsy camp nextdoor.
I’m not just a blonde fluffy thing, says new Wildlife presenter
Ellie Harrison began her broadcasting career six years ago when, while working as a secretary at Channel 5, a producer spotted her looking blonde and fluffy.
That’ll be another one thrown on the scrapheap when it gets too old to screw 🙂
From that Telegraph article:
“She says that part of her role now is to sprinkle “a bit of grit” into her programmes, which means explaining some of the more brutal realities of the countryside.”
Yeah, her lala land piece promoting Pikies really showed the brutal reality, didn’t it?
Just a comment on the way the BBC assumes that we are all ignorant where anything vaguely scientific is concerned. Today’s story about raising the Concordia, an interesting engineering problem, tells us that the ship weighs as much as two Titanics or ten eiffel towers. As far as I know they have never said how much it actually weighs.
It’s the same nonsense when they describe the area of something. They always measure in football fields. I asked them once that since I don’t know how big a football field is, and I expect there are many like me, could they please use a standard postage stamp as a guide instead please? I always keep one handy, for reference, just in case.
They are not alone, they are incredibly stupid.
Don’t forget the BBC unit of power, the “home”.
Probably stops them being confused by kW and kWh and if and when we start to use less energy to heat our homes will allow them to uprate the wind farms as each one can claim to power more homes.
Couple these made up units with the habit of journalists to mix-and-match absolute numbers, percentages and ratios and all the ‘facts’ are effectively hidden. A recent example told us that older women were twice as likely to have blood pressure problems during pregnancy. Is that a problem? Given those ‘facts’ no one would know. Contrast that with “Four percent of older women have blood pressure problems during pregnancy, compared to two percent of younger women”, or, if we want to put out a positive message, “96% of older women will have no problem as against 98% of younger women”. I would suggest that the original statement sounds like disaster and the last version is a ‘so what?’ However the ‘facts’ are the same.
Here’s another “in what context?” for you: older women (presumably defined as over a particular age, but which age?), as a percentage of overall pregnancies. Not to minimise any difficulties encountered by the 4%, to use your figure, but how large in absolute numbers is that compared to the 2% of younger women? I should image the number of younger women far exceeds that of the older, so to what extent do the pregnant older women cost more to treat relative to the younger, and as a percentage, how much is that cost of the whole of all the money spent on treating hypertensive pregnant women?
Crass questions to be sure, but when your health care delivery system is the envy of the world, you’d like to keep it that way by finding out where you’re spending the money, and if it’s achieving what it’s supposed to do.
Are the media falling down on the job when it comes to looking into such questions?
(massive /sarc)
Obviously they should measure everything relative to the elephant in the room. That particular pachyderm being that journalists are not numerically literate.
It’s less that they think we’re idiots, although they do. It’s more that they are themselves idiots and lose their critical faculties when numbers are involved.
I have a personal hobby of listening to the Today program at the very start and then tracking how a couple of hours later the stories involving numbers and statistics have either been quietly dropped or have been changed to be less idiotic. Never fails. It’s spastastic.
You have a point Bob ( or should I call you English?) Its seems that every time there is a feature about falling standards in maths or science on the BBC. The radio/TV presenter leads off with a boast about how bad they were at school in the subject in question.
Radio 5lies is the worst .I remember hearing the now excommunicated Colin Murray who, told that there was a message from a listener who was an atheist but didn’t accept Darwin’s model of evolution (how they managed to get their pathological vicar bashing into a sports quiz I cant remember ,but they did), say , doesn’t he believe in dinosaurs then?
Phil Williams Is another that revels in his own ignorance
BBC is pushing alcohol free bars and the numbers of tee totallers giving the distinct impression that alcohol consumption in any quantity is a bad thing. It’s not the first time I’ve heard this, and although there is a health issue for over consumption the BBC is running completely over the top with it.
Of course we know that there is one favourite group which allegedly eschews all consumption of alcohol, but I wonder if those BBC lefties have overlooked the fact that the government scrapped the 50p minimum alcohol price because of the adverse affect that might have had on small & corner shops – which just happen to be owned by …………….
I’ll never work out the double standards of the religion of peace, often supermarket workers refuse to even handle or sell alcohol, yet if its their own business they’re more than happy to profit from the stuff.
Note the muslim Australian cricketer (Fawad Ahmed) who recently refused to wear any cricket whites bearing the logo of tour sponsor Victoria Bitter, yet more than happy to take their aus dollar.
Obviously not the brightest spark, the free worldwide exposure he has given the brand must be priceless!
There was also the Newcastle (i think) football player who did not like a money lender advertised on his shirt but was happy to play in the Barclays Premier League
he changed his mind and wore the shirt after he got caught gambling in a casino
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374711/Muslim-footballer-Papiss-Cisse-refuses-wear-Newcastle-Wonga-shirt-pictured-GAMBLING-casino.html
The BBC seems a bit conflicted on booze.
To the extent that whether it is good or bad seems to depend a lot on that odd secret hierarchy they have. Or who is penning the report.
One thing is for sure, they are hardly consistent.
Things may get more coherent in this regard once Tulip and the girls gain control of all floors, at which point any Labour victory may see celebratory beverage bottles of a different nature littering the corridors.
A little known fact here is that when Allah gives me one lash for drinking alcohol, he will give the one who sold it to me two lashes.
In other words it is twice as bad to sell alcohol as it is to drink it !!
Sometimes I get the devil in me and ask then what a bottle of wine is like. I often get the inevitable lecture that they are Muslim and don’t drink. They go all sheepish and don’t want to talk when the hypocrisy is revealed.
I caught some of the Sky vs BBC news coverage of the US Navy yard shootings. Sky mentioned that the gunman was black. The BBC didn’t. In fact I’m not sure if they still have.
The BBC don’t need to explicitly mention race or ethnicity in their reports. By not doing so it can be taken as 99% certain that it’s “those men” or “ones that look like I did when I was 15 (c) Obamessiah”.
..or members of the Religion of Peace.
Seriously. I heard the report on R4 and I couldn’t tell if they weren’t mentioning ethnicity or religion. It could have been either or both.
I could tell the perpetrator wasn’t white because they didn’t make any mention of far-right terrorism.
You have to read between the lines these days.
Here’s a little story which begs more explanation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067
“Referring to the woman as “D”, he said he had “no reason to doubt the sincerity of her belief” and his decision would have been the same if she had worn the niqab for years”
So there’s an implication here that she has not been wearing it for very long, but because there’s no elaboration we have no idea if it’s happened just before the court case or after arrest or over a year since.
The implication being that the BBC is trying to play down the fact that this woman has suddenly developed a need to wear this curtain, and attempting to play up that her religious rights are being infringed.
Again there’s no mention of this not being any part of Islam and that it is specifically banned while on the Hajj. More bias in favour of their favourite brown eyed boys.
Let’s see what happens next time a teenage criminal tries to wear a hoodie in court: it’s part of their religion as well.
Or wear a crash helmet in a bank …
I wonder what would happen if the EDL started holding rallies in balaclavas?
There is a HYS going on about proposals to ban what the BBC describe as a veil worn by muslim women. Usual defence of freedom to wear religious dress and counter arguments appealing to security reasons for outlawing concealed faces. Over a long period of time I have compared freely choosing to wear a nicqab and freely choosing to wear the ridiculous white sheets of the KKK. Both can be seen to be offensive – expressions of supremecism – and both rest on a perverted sense of religious identity. But I have yet to see this analogy pass through the BBC moderators. However, I am not alone, there is a complaint from someone who was moderated for suggesting that he should be allowed to wear a coal scuttle on his head. My word, the moderators are touchy on this subject. If you want to see a parallel approach to this debate, look up the UAF Facebook page, where anyone who favours restriction on islamic dress are removed as fascists
I think it was John Humphrys who on Today this morning suggested he wouldn’t be allowed to wear a sack on his head. Obviously coal scuttle was worse.
The interesting thing would be if the jury refused to hear the trial if the defendant wore a face covering.
I think it might be within their rights to do so. I certainly ,if on a jury in a similar case, would object to a face covered defendant on the grounds that it was impossible for me to give the defendant a fair trial.
Common sense should rule but this is liberal ravaged England circa 2013.
Are we still allowed to call it “England”?…it might be offensive to someone out there…best be safe and call it…”Allahland” no one could possibly object, otherwise they would be a Waaaaaaaaaaaaaysist.
BBC-Democrat playing news catch-up on attack on U.S. navy yard.
‘Sky News’:-
“Washington Navy Yard Shooting: Several Dead.
Two gunmen launch an attack on one of America’s biggest naval command bases during the early morning rush hour.”
(video clip).
[Excerpt]:-
“One of the gunmen, has been described as black, wearing dark clothing and around 5ft 10ins. They were said to have been carrying AR-15 rifles.”
http://news.sky.com/story/1142428/washington-navy-yard-shooting-several-dead
For INBBC’s Cairo Bureau, Middle East Editor Mr Bowen, INBBC Arabic TV Service:-
“Watching the Middle East Implode”
By Bruce Thornton.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/watching-the-middle-east-implode/
“Chin Peng: Malaysia communist guerrilla dies in Thailand”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24105976
As someone who had a brother who fought here during his National Service conscription I have more than a passing interest in it and have read a number of books on the subject. I didn’t need to lay a bet on how the BBC would portray it. Here’s a taster:
“It was a campaign of jungle warfare against colonial rule that resulted in accusations of brutality on both sides. ”
Now I’m not sure if the BBC got some spotty oik to pen this drivel or some dyed in the wool marxist given to revisionist history but the fact remains that the CTs (communist terrorists) went round cold bloodedly murdering unarmed plantation managers in remote locations, escalating it to murdering their wives and children. They then set about hacking to death the Tamil and Chinese rubber tappers.
The stupidest comment is, “For 12 years he and his band of predominantly ethnic Chinese fighters tied down a force of more than 100,000 Commonwealth troops despite being outnumbered nearly 20 to one.”
First lets get it clear that when a gang of thugs run around murdering women and children and hacking people to death, they are terrorising the population. They are not “fighters”, they are terrorists.
Second, has the BBC muppet not realised that, at that time large swathes of Malaya was thick jungle so any comparison about being “outnumbered nearly 20 to one” is completely meaningless.
Perhaps the BBC cannot get over the fact that unlike another jungle war, Vietnam, Britain was successful in its effort to stem the tide of communism in South East Asia.
Having lived and worked in Singapore for several years, it’s a region I got to know well.
‘War of the Running Dogs’ was an excellent book to understand the history, too.
Seems the Brits ran a textbook hearts and mind op that gutted the Communists’ ambitions and went a long way to cramping their increasingly dirty deeds to stir up things with locals who wanted no truck with them.
Sounds like Compo 2 – Malaya, after the BBC-PR’d Mau Mau farce.
That they are trying the ‘daring’ ‘audacious’ nonsense (sending a bomb-wrapped kid on a bike to a checkpoint is neither) for this bunch too, shows how beyond help the BBC now is.
‘About 10,000 people are thought to have been killed during The Emergency, as the insurgency came to be known.’
This, BBC, is the legacy of your hero.
Sorry – pressed “report comment” instead of reply.
Love Singapore, used to work in Brunei in the seventies and often flew over for a break. Also got remarried in Penang in 92. We often go back.
Coincidentally a Singapore-Chinese friend of ours who lives near to us here in Canada gave me a copy of “The war of the running dogs” for my birthday.
Perhaps I should suggest that the BBC read it
Golly, what happens, do I lose posting privileges?
🙂
The BBC might have asked a few there who lived through it what it was like and who they trusted.
History used to belong to the victors; now it seems the preserve of ideological minorities and their media monopoly propagandists.
The precedent is poor.
History still belongs to the victors.
In this case the victors are the liberal inquisition
‘Perhaps I should suggest that the BBC read it ‘
What all of them? Who is this BBC?
Here is a BBC report of the Navy Yard shooting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24111481
Here is a missing fact reported by other outlets: the shooter(s) was black.
Here is how CNN reports the Police spokesman Chris Kelly describing the suspect as “an adult male, about 6 feet tall with a bald head and MEDIUM COMPLEXION, dressed in a black top and black jeans.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/dc-navy-yard-gunshots/index.html
And before any facts (how many shooters? who they were? where they are? how many victims etc etc) have been verified is a report claiming it had nothing to do with terrorism:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/dhs-internal-report-navy-yard-shooting-has-no-known-connection-to-terrorism/
This is going to be an interesting one to watch the media spin.
And before any trolls find later reports to contradict the above: I posted this at noon ET (5pm UK time)
How long before Mark Lardell finds a way of implicating the Tea Party?
Supplementary report:-
“Six DEAD and 12 injured after TWO gunmen go on rampage at Washington Navy Yard: Shooters shot dead after 3-hour manhunt”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421980/Six-DEAD-12-injured-TWO-gunmen-rampage-Washington-Navy-Yard-Shooters-shot-dead-3-hour-manhunt.html
Rule #1: Never believe first reports. They even issued the name of a naval officer before withdrawing it…it came from an ID card lying on the floor. Speculation always betrays agendas.
http://ex-muslim.org.uk/
“One of those making the threats was Salah al Bandar (or Salah al Bander) who has until recently been a Liberal Democrat Councillor”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24106142
Another ‘viewpoints’ article that in no way, shape or form comes across as balanced. Of course, the BBC is in favour of Muslims wearing the veil. After all, they don’t have to deal with the negative social repercussions.
hmm “in favour of Muslims wearing the veil?”
oh .. that would be the bbc and … muslims then
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/04/boston-bombing-lesson-ban-niqabs-and-burqas
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100236081/tiptoeing-around-islam-and-a-ban-on-muslim-women-wearing-the-veil/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2421455/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-No-human-right-hide-justice-veil.html
and the spineless one news update
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/506399/20130916/veil-burka-ban-david-cameron-birmingham.htm
Minister calls for Muslim burka ban
LIB Dem minister Jeremy Browne has stoked controversy by calling for a ban on Muslim veils being worn in public.
Highest rated comment refers.
Noting also this is the balance allowing for subtraction of negatives, and there is now a history of certain advocacy groups marshalling human waves to boost or drag down according to taste.
The BBC ratings system is, amongst many other things, doomed by the actions they keep trying to appease.
They’ve made their news studio bombproof though, just in case a bunch of lone-wolf misunderstanders go haywire.
What are the odds?
This offers an insight:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/15/324087/a-lesson-in-bbc-propaganda/
One could (and suspecting in the Trust it is already logged as such, if they log such things, FoI excluded) claim this as an ‘Ah-hah…balance!’ counter, but it is so shocking, not-shockingly barking it probably is only of use in explaining if not excusing a mindset that sees argument purely in terms of how much the other side is meant to defer. The rationales for Galloway’s supposed entrapment (as opposed to what happens when he opens his mouth) are a hoot. The word ‘trolls’ is used a lot, too.
Quite why he’s still invited on to ‘debate’ who knows (well, ratings), but he really does serve the cause well when on screen. Beyond the faithful, the cause served may be a bit different.
But given the exciteable nature of some of Press TV’s audience, that bomb-proof bunker may be a smart move… unless you’re in the rest of the big glass building. The objection to the licence fee seems more than canceling the TVL DD in protest.
It is long; it is rambling, it is a clear attack on the BBC…. but, oddly, I do not see many Flokkers fighting the good fight here. Why? If unaware until now, one looks forward to awards for hypocrisy being conferred or stylistic insights offered (it is quite long) in the next few days.
If not, then one feel this little forum has a near unique attraction to an oddly selective bunch (making the point clear that while the BBC may disappoint across many areas, those more aggressive in seeking their views do hold the BBC, as with most in authority, more in their thrall. Extremism rewarded seldom evolves or ends well).
The conclusion to this mighty piece is also poetic, giving us propaganda, ‘analysis’ and a ‘disclaimer’ :
This has been a lesson in BBC propaganda.
Article by Louis Dowes: Media analyst
DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Press TV News Network.
Now, who else, ironically, does just that?
Stupid Woman runs sack race against elite athletes – Held Up To Ridicule [aprox 40 mins in]
If only.
Instead it is the usual BBC love in, alien Religion, alien athlete, “British” heroine.
Have to give the Guardian full marks for loyalty, but boy, their readers don’t seem to have got the ‘Aunty has got it all about right and nothing needs to change’ memo…
http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/15/bbc-politicised-budgets-editorial-content?
One of the most important ‘news’ items of the day, taking about 5 minutes of Radio 4’s PM programme, is that an Iranian woman took part in this weekend’s London triathlon whilst wearing full Muslim dress.
The PM report deteriorated into a silly girly giggling session between the ‘presenter’ and interviewee.
Get your sick-bag, or preferably a bucket, ready if you listen to it on iPlayer.
File this under ‘they just can’t help themselves’:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2013/09/a-bridge-too-far-for-ian-katz/
Yep, they’ve broken the code: pro-Union Scots are really just wannabe English while Comrade Alex’s loveable thugs represent Scotland.
Salvage – The BBC prides itself in its use of “words”, in the context of the “Costa Concordia” they constantly use the word Salvage, every time they do the Maritime industry falls of its collective chair with amusement. Salvage is where the value of what is saved is greater than the cost of saving it, certainly not the case here. The operation that everyone is watching without a faintest understanding of the heroic effort & skills employed is “Wreck Removal”, ordered by local authorities, costing much more than the value of the item removed, even before it was damaged. BBC editors are fools. ill fitted for the job they do, unable to understand the simplest concepts of the words they use.
Came home from work to the news of the Washington shooting. Couldn’t be arsed with the Beebs view , Sky news not up to much so on to CNN. The news reader outers were being very odd. Clearly they had been given descriptions of the gunman/men but were then saying they weren’t repeating them until they were cleared to do so. At that point it was clear this wasn’t a white lone gunman where they show no such restraint. Later they had a interview with a witness who said they had a good view of a black gunman who had pointed his gun at them. At that point the female news reader outer in the studio cut the interview short to go direct to another reporter at the other side of the navy yard who had nothing to say.
Events seem to be going against the narrative.
‘Fox News’:-
“At least 12 people killed in shooting at Navy building in Washington”
(video clip)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/16/active-shooter-at-washington-navy-yard/
For INBBC: Britain is not yet an Islamic state; it is still nominally Christian.
“Paul Weston: Islam’s Global War on Christianity”
(5 min video clip).
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/50429
watch your insults silverman you leftie moron or else i will refer you to a sharia court for 60 good lashings and a spell on the front line with the al al qaeda rebels in damascus.
I wish the next burqua clad defendant is up for not paying the telly tax .
Wow the bBC, is really going full on in defence of Female oppression in the Uk in the name of Religion. To that end can anybody else see what is wrong with this bBC article where they allow students to speak on covering up for a paedophilic faith:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24113376
Ah, Birmigham jewel at the heart of the Midlands. Home to such talents and open minds as Jasper Carrot, Lenny Henry, Frank Skinner, Shazia Mirza & Meera Syal.
Well, to quote Bob Monkhouse, ‘they’re not laughing now’.
These new breed of young Brummie ladies are serious. Very serious. Is the young man in the background a token male student, or on hand from the union to ensure the words spoken are the words agreed?
Having watched it, it’s also clever to have a opinion video that actually has, built in, a lot of ‘likes’, like.
Shame the reporter did not extend questions to why the health and welfare systems are on a demand-driven point of breakdown not entirely explicable by ‘the cuts’. It seems a mystery to the BBC and these young ladies may have offered a unique insight.
“Jasper Carrot, Lenny Henry, Frank Skinner, Shazia Mirza & Meera Syal”
Carrot and Mirza are Brummies, the other
3 are Yam Yams.
We Brummies are quite sensitive, y’know.
Off-topic – I wasn’t sure what yam yams were, found a couple of lovely definitions :
A person from the Black Country area of the West Midlands of England. Yam-yams use a slight variation of English that is often incompehensible to non-locals (and even to their neighours from Birmingham, with whom they share many similariies in vocal accent) due to both the thick accent of the speaker and the frequent exchange of standard words in place of local terminology (the most obvious example being the substitition of the word “you” for “yam”).
“I wish these yam-yams would bloody learn some English.”
………………….
Really thick people who live on the borders of the great city of Birmingham.
The areas like Walsall ,West Brom and similar shitholes.Most are unemployed or locked up,there is also alot of inbreeding going on.
“We dont want yam yams in Birmingham”
OT – Appreciating that sensitivity is, in these more aware times key, and borders are still a… er… sensitive issue, I stand, in shame, corrected.
In my defence I may have projected from the students of this fine college that some may have been ‘from’ further afield around, as I alluded, the Midlands, taking in such far flung areas even as Wolverhampton.
Like.
You know you’re a Brummie when you know every pub in Weston-Super-Mare, but can’t find Wolverhampton on a map!
Loik!
You know you’re from the West Midlands, or London for that matter, when you know every village in Pakistan and can find the nearest Army barracks without needing a map.
reminiscent of the ‘students’ in Argo
Islam-compliant, ‘Newsnight’:
-so Islamisation-enabling is INBBC, that tonight’s ‘Newsnight’ (with inept Wark) leaves the issue of banning the Burqa to Muslims!
Is there a political hotline from Broadcasting House, via Baroness Warsi, to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, so as to obtain the current Islamic line, e.g. ban Americans Geller and Spencer from UK, but don’t dare ban the security-threatening burqa?
The audience seemed to be entirely composed of lunatic liberals so no contrary views permitted. Just about normal everyday BBC procedure.
In fact so stupid are liberals that they cannot see that allowing face coverings simply makes any integration of that particular minority faith impossible.
Thus satisfying hardliners on both sides who have no intention of allowing integration let alone peaceful coexisitence.
Liberals do not do reality.
Were there any liberal feminists speaking out in horror of their sisters having to walk around dressed as a black pillar box?
….Thought not
Liberals seem to loose their modus operandi when it comes to the religion of peace, see misogyny and animal rights, both otherwise unacceptable…
Leftie top trumps rule No.1 – Islam trumps all!
The burqa and the niqab are the sartorial equivalents of a ball and chain. Their function is to hobble and dehumanise the wearer. I live opposite the mosque in a part of town that has been officially described, with no sense of irony, as ‘a majority ethnic minority area’. And when I see them floating to prayers it brings to mind daleks going to a funeral. But to ban them would provide yet another excuse to claim martydom status. Better just to ridicule them. Who knows, maybe one day we can watch the first burqa clad team on Beeb2’s new ‘Women’s Soccer Show’.
stereotypical al bbc – they have a penchant for doctoring the debate when it comes to islam
and “bloody” … kirsty squawk … Nawaz? 😀 looks like his political ambitions are coming along.
remember this lady 😀
not on al bbc, not on this topic
anytime soon … particulary if its left to “the squawk” 😀
Amazing how quiet the Gun lobby is on the Washington nightmare.
Where are you Vance and David DP?
Only one thing for these utter hypocrites, a JOINT fuckwit award!
Arise Sir FuckWits!
Your hypocrisy never ceases to not amaze anyone.
2 likes already as well.
However, those hall monitors most concerned with any here straying from matters of specific BBC Bias will be down on this instantly, like a ton of bricks.
Guys… guys…?
The Washington Naval Yard is a no gun area, which means that it was illegal for the shooter to bring a weapon into that area. This also means that he not only broke the law, he had no one with a gun to confront him.
It was a gun free zone, but the rest of your post is completely wrong. In fact police and security staff in the area WERE armed, so there were plenty of ‘good guy’ guns in the vicinity. The pro gun lobby will have to abandon this line of argument in this case.
Your “good guy” quotation marks says it all.
Yes an the ‘good guys’ tracked him down cornered him in a building and then a ‘good guy’ assault team neutralised him presumably with guns rather than rolled up copies of the guardian
Had they not all been armed he would have carried on his killing spree unopposed and the death toll much, much higher
Need an example? try Brevic
This is a fairly cretinous comparison. Breivik was on an island populated almost exclusively by school-age children. Maybe insisting they turned up to a summer camp with firearms might have prevented it. It would also appear that you think 12 dead is an acceptable number, because the good guys with guns (eventually) killed the bad guy. I would proffer an alternative scenario, viz, that regulating access to AR-15 rifles might, conceivably, make it more difficult for a crazy guy to buy an assault weapon and kill a dozen people.
No it seems that you think that 12 is not enough and that more should have be sacrificed to your pseudo-religious orthodoxy
The comparison is exemplary
two alienated loners with mental health issues and guns run amok in a closed environments one with armed guards one without
The out comes speak for themselves regardless of the ages of the victims or the weapon used .
CTC, an AR 15 isnt an assault weapon. AR stands for armalite rifle. its not an assault weapon because it does not have to ability to fire fully automatic
It was in quotation marks because it was a quotation, unless you deny that Wayne LaPierre used the phrase. Any other fatuous comments to offer?
“It was in quotation marks because it was a quotation”
Is that the best you can do?
OK, dimwit.
I wrote the following: ‘there were plenty of ‘good guy’ guns in the vicinity.’
You seem to be suggesting that by putting ‘good guy’ in quotation marks, I was in some way being ironic; that I was demeaning the police and security staff who so heroically resisted the murderer.
I was not. I was acknowledging the fact that the phrase ‘good guy’ originated in Wayne LaPierre’s comments after Sandy Hook. And that this case rather torpedoes his argument.
Either you are wilfully misconstruing what I said in a pathetic attempt to smear my character, or you are not very clever. At the moment I lean to the latter interpretation.
I see there’s a new open thread.
Through tears, I make the plea that this gem not be lost before its time…
‘Either you are wilfully misconstruing what I said in a pathetic attempt to smear my character, or you are not very clever’
He’s probably lost track of which name he’s been posting under
that can be the only explanation
See a doctor.
The hypocrisy is to rightly not blame millions of law abiding Muslims for the actions of nuts on 9/11 or 7/7 but to blame those who want to legally own guns for the actions of one nut.
Idiot. The man was mentally ill (just like the Sandy Hook mass murderer and the Colorado movie theater mass murderer), had a security pass to enter the premises armed or unarmed, and stole the weapon he used from a gun safe (just like the Sandy Hook mass murderer) on the base. Your anger is misplaced, and so is your head.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but I suspect you’re proud of your righteous ignorance. Perhaps next you’ll be using foul language and making personal insults against people who play Resident Evil and the like.
Shove your award up your ass.
The only problem is, that link flatly contradicts your version, suggesting instead that the primary weapon was legally bought (in fairness it also contradicts my assertion about an assault rifle, which I therefore withdraw).
Not following your logic, CTC. The fact that the military had a gun on a military base is completely irrelevant to gun laws. The guy took it (I’m stepping back from staying he stole it, since his clearance may have given him access to it somehow). He didn’t acquire it through lax US gun laws, but rather from lax security at the base and lax mental health laws. The debate is about US gun laws, not whether or not the Navy should be allowed to keep a weapon locked in a safe. In fact, this appears to be yet another case where our mental health laws and practices need an overhaul.
If you’re talking about the shotgun, how is that the primary weapon?
I’m still wondering how he got a pass for a secure area…..
He apparently had one for years before the demons set in. He was working there as a subcontractor, despite all the warning signs.
The same system that spies on us, sets the IRS on us if we have certain unapproved political views, militarizes the police, debases us at airports, and tries to legislate our behavior in ways large and small, has failed in their actual alleged purpose and overlooked the Boston Bomber Bros., St. Edward the Muscovite, Ft. Leavenworth’s latest inmate, and now this.
And instead the BBC wants to blame gun owners and suggests that’s the culture which needs changing.
You are the F***wit, D.W.A! Aaron Alexis used a SHOTGUN and two pistols he’d taken from the security guards he shot (verified by the FBI). You could say he was following Vice President Joe Biden’s advice to “use a shotgun instead.”
Do keep up with events, dear boy!
BBC radio presenter Nicky Campbell’s considered opinion on the Liberal Democrat proposed policy of a Masion Tax:
‘Queen’s-gonna-ave-ta-pay-a-lot-tho-aint-she… hahahahaha’
Radio 5 approx 8.20am 7th September
Childish, disrespectful, rabble rousing, wannabe 80s alternative comedian unfunny, bias.
(btw Tony Blair might have to dip into his pockets too)
I head that this morning too. It was pathetic.
Just me or has every BBC TV and radio report on Lib-Dem conference hastily moved to cover the burning question : Coalition with Labour in 2015?
This BBC-wide trend moved to a crescendo last night where that fast moving edgy colourful teen magazine Newsnight brought us Kirsty Wark hosting Vince Cable and a baker’s dozen ‘liberal grass roots activists’.
Labour-love was well to the fore, prompting the question in the mind of this viewer ‘why don’t these people simple vote Labour and become Labour activists?’
Had Kirsty Squark been an unbiased seeker after truth and enlightenment then she might have asked this very question of her select Lib-Lab Dip-Dab mini audience.
Such a question might have elicited some interesting answers that may have shed light on what it means to be a Lib Dem in 2013 going on 2015.
But I get the impression Kirsty wouldn’t have wanted to explore such avenues. She is simply plugging for Labour Liberal overlap issues such as pro-EU pro-BBC.
This is called pandering. Surely the BBC could find some way of enlightening the public over this issue. They might have consulted a muslim scholar who would have told them the children would not go to hell as a result of the vaccine. Moreover, an expression of dislike is not a reasonable counter to the use of the vaccine. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24113970http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24113970
Well, their imams have been known to defer to Robert Spencer’s superior knowledge on aspects of their faith.
So why not ask Robert instead?
Robert Spencer, the guy who my MP refers to as an extremist.
Yes, extremist!
Makes me weep to know these arseholes in parliament are growing ever fatter at my expense.
‘So why not ask Robert instead?’
There may be a slight problem with that, at least in person here, courtesy of Ms. May & the UAF’s Mr. Cameron.
Maybe the BBC could look into it?
Ask them to on their survey- if enough people do that might (I say might) have to
Thoughtful,
I’ve seen just a few burkhas on public streets, and posh shops in London. But yes, they are rare. The niqab is definitely becoming more widespread. There is a school near me where many of the girls wear it along with the gloves.
My local BBC news bulletin this morning had an item on ethnics requiring organ transplants, they make up 25% of demand, but just 5% of donors. They were basically asking for more ethnic donors to come forward.
Strangely they used an amiable culturally British chap of West Indian decent to illustrate the point, but I do wonder who they were really trying to appeal to, as the area in question is ‘home’ to thousands of inbred pirates…
One also has to ask why broadcast this at 7.55 as surely the ones that they are appealing to are still in bed…?
Some of the Islamic sects think that organ donation is mutilation and is therefore strictly haram. This is why there aren’t enough organs of ethnic origin available.
I expect the Beeb forgot to mention that because it might lead listeners to have a negative view of the One True Faith.
bbc shilling for islam, again this morning on 5Dead
V Derbyshire, goes deep into burkha wearing
with so far, 3 women who obviously love this political garment lots of airtime, and monologues … statements from the M C Britain forthcoming lots of spin inciting hatred ya da ya da on one side, just not helpful to talk of a ban in our multi culti utopia on the other …
lots of Drearybyshire, oohs and sighs of agreement.
hmm where is the nations opinion, the objective voice, the counter view? … more later 😀
Yes, INBBC is pro-Islam and pro-burqa at all levels of its global broadcasting empire.
-Expect INBBC to run another expensive poll of Middle East Islamic opinion on this to clinch the argument!
Why is INBBC campaigning for the Islamisation of Britain?
Yep, also listened to VD’s holier than thou crap this morning.
I texted in to request the brave VD seek the views of her guests on female genital mutilation and forced marriages.
Whether such cultural norms were as liberating as the wearing of the veil?
Never got a mention – must have run out of time – damn! Next time maybe…………..?
The piece was all that you would expect from Derbyshire’s hand wringing programme.
Despite all that has been said by leaders and leaders of the equality industry about the wrongs and mistakes of multi-culturalism, the BBC remains on its mission to change Britain (and rub the right’s nose in it?). I can almost hear them saying that the issue of multi-culturalism is settled.
Working with devout Muslims and having Muslim friends and colleagues, I was surprised that the fiercest opposition to the veil came form those. It seems like its fiercest supporters are those ignorant illiberal liberals who speak of our freedom of expression, ignoring that the imposition of the veil denies it. They ignorantly speak of respecting of religious values when the veil is not a religious requirement. Women across the Muslim world have died fighting the oppression of face covering but the left’s useful idiots (Derbyshire and Campbell) seem not to be interested – their hand wring doesn’t stretch that far.
Some taking part in the VD programme spoke of their piety and growing connection to their religion – I was though left wondering who we were hearing? Did one suggest that she was a convert? Many of who throw themselves into more fundamentalist forms of religion (as do some born again Christians that I have met).
What Derbyshire, in her remarkably unchallenging segment, failed to examine was the role that the Niqab plays in the expression of political Islam (for that’s what it really represents for many – it is worn for political rather than religious purposes) and it’s inappropriateness is a modern western free society.
VD carries on this political burkha nonsense, by having a spokesman from
the MCB (on lots of airtime),
two more
burkha politico s (lots of airtime) ,
a long drawn out VD pro islam monologue,(lots of airtime) … there was mention of a rep from The Sun?
at some point, who turns up to be a token for a couple of minutes at the end.
they did ask for views :-D,
like the safety aspect, banks – shops
security aspect, airports train stations
being used as a overtly political statement,
from university, from a growing islamist element
a tool of non integration, a tool preventing honest equal discourse, visual / facial discourse
its non religious aspect? just a tool of oppression and political statement?
where is it in the Quran? this absurd call for “modesty”?
then why be encouraged to draw distinct attention to yourself?, why is it discouraged from the Hajj?
why don t men wear them?
There was an appeal for views, and opinions, so I called in, and succinctly relayed all of the above,
…………….. and ……………..
guess what?
I say, I say, I say, when does a Five Live uber feminist suddenly decide dressing in black from head-to-toe is a good thing?
When it’s a Muslim thing too!
Tomorrow, how honour killings and female genital mutilation are, in fact, a form of free expression.
“The BBC’s structure may no longer be sustainable”
By DAVID ELSTEIN .
[Opening extract]:-
“The fiasco over severence payments at the BBC highlights far more deep-rooted problems at the BBC. Besides this astonishing largesse with public money there are fundamental cracks in governance structure that must surely be addressed.”
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-elstein/bbcs-structure-may-no-longer-be-sustainable?
Regarding the navy shootings yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24120333
“According to media reports, Alexis was a Buddhist convert who had had two previous gun-related brushes with the law”
I see those evil Buddhists are at it again. If they’re not out stirring up trouble and hatred within the Muslim community (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23846632) , then they’re out shooting innocent civilians in the navy. Or so the BBC would have you believe. You can bet your life that if it had been a Muslim convert, there would’ve been no reference made to the perpetrators religion.
This, via Guido
http://www.trendingcentral.com/bbc-bias-muzzles-u-s-congress-over-syria/
It seems the BBC’s bias is not only growing, but being exploited through various media outlets by the day. Long may this continue, and one day, just maybe, the sinister establishment will be brought to its knees.
Yes, this BBC-Democrat political bias towards Obamessiah is epitomised in the daily output of supplicant Mardell and co, as pointed out on this site many times.
Surprised that the BBC’s love of all things muslim haven’t mentioned Obama’s questionable muslim half-brother Malik…
I’d trumpet this from the rooftops as our vindication, but almost the only thing that really damns the BBC in this report is the failure to provide US viewpoints from anyone outside the White House. What a shock, eh? No wonder BBC audiences were surprised to learn that the President wasn’t going to get full support from Democrats in the House. But we all know that defenders of the indefensible and the BBC claim that even a mere mention that Republicans oppose something is proof of balanced reporting.
The rest of it shows the BBC to be reasonably balanced, except for coming second only to the openly Left-wing MSNBC in making Iraq the new Vietnam (just as people here have noticed), which suggests some general anti-war bias. I think the researchers missed a trick there in not tracking mentions of Libya and Presidential authority and all that. I’d also question how the researches decided what was straight reporting and what was opinion. Anything from a titled BBC editor should be considered opinion, no matter how it’s presented, but I bet that’s not what they did.
Aside from all that, it’d be interesting to learn why Al-Jazeera had hardly any people embedded with various groups within Syria, while the BBC and CNN had plenty. Seems counter-intuitive, but there must be some reason for it. Does the Al-Jazeera mothership have that, but it just wasn’t used by Al-J USA?
The BBC likes to portray the US as a Presidential system, and that what the President says will happen should happen, unless it’s blocked. Fortunately the Founding Fathers didn’t want a King and put in place checks and balances. To an objective outsider it always seemed dubious that the President could deliver another war, but you wouldn’t know that from BBC reporting, but more from a basic knowledge of the US system.
The same way the BBC is one of those perpetuating the myth that the President is elected on a popular vote and not by an electoral college, hence the irrelevance in fact of counting the number of popular votes to the nth degree.
The BBC acts as if the President should be able to rule by executive dictat, even when the majority of the public opposes a policy. But it wasn’t like that when Bush was in charge.
Those Asians eh?
“The poll, conducted for the BBC by ComRes, interviewed young Asians living in Britain between the ages of 16 and 34.
To qualify as Asian, interviewees had to identify themselves as being from one of the following communities: Mixed Asian; Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17319136
Maybe not the definition most people would have of ‘Asian’ but handy for describing those Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs as ‘Asian’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18410862
Even in describing criticism of such use of the term http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18092605 the BBC only mentions Sikhs and Hindus. Accurate in as much as the gangs are Muslim, but ignoring the Chinese, Japanese, Thais etc.
Wonder what these ‘men’ will turn out to be http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24130320 . Or the Dartford ‘man’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24001785. Maybe connected with an ‘Asian’ religion?