Ahead of time and all set to go, a new OPEN THREAD.
WEDNESDAY OPEN THREAD……
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Lefty Wright April 25, 2024 at 8:25 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024In Old Speak climate change used to be referred to as Global Warming. Or a little later Global Boiling. The...
- Rob in Cheshire April 25, 2024 at 8:21 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Keynsianism just doesn't work any more. It is meant to stimulate the economy, but since we produce very little these...
- Rob in Cheshire April 25, 2024 at 8:15 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024I haven't seen so much brown since the 1970s.
- harry142857 April 25, 2024 at 8:09 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Nice win, you can get one month's worth of unbiased, neutral, impartial news with that kind of money.
- Fedup2 April 25, 2024 at 7:53 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Non - congratulations - I hope the bet was substantial - seeing Liverpool fail to win the prem was beyond...
- Non Snowflake April 25, 2024 at 7:49 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024The police this morning said that they were aware of videos on social media, but they requested that they be...
- Thoughtful April 25, 2024 at 7:44 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Some economic news from across the pond, none of it good. Why is it relevant to this site? Because the...
- Guest Who April 25, 2024 at 7:40 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024https://x.com/justinonweb/status/1783459814846197917?s=61 So @BowenBBC and I had a small gathering to celebrate our 40 years in The BBC and ...
- Non Snowflake April 25, 2024 at 7:40 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024I had a bet on Everton to win 2-0 last night at 50/1 So I've been very smug today :>)...
- moggiemoo April 25, 2024 at 7:05 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Of course it's climate change, think of all the farts from those 80,000 visitors and the amount of methane they...
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
Argh. 10pm news and the Islamist terrorists are “suspected Islamists” and “attackers”.
I think we can be sure they are Islamists and intending to cause terror.
When the IRA was murdering people the BBC was happy to call them terrorists, and no-one ever assumed that all Irish Nationalists were terrorist supporters. No one worried about a ‘backlash’ apart from after the Birmingham pub bombings, and that was negligible. So what’s the big deal about not calling Muslim terrorists what they are? And where is this lumpen mass threatening a ‘backlash’ against Muslims? When did a Pakistani Christian suicide bomber attack Muslims? When did four Yorkshire suicide bombers attack Muslims? When did gunmen select out Muslims to murder and let non-Muslims live? When did a Jewish suicide bomber attack a Muslim party? Muslims kill Muslims.
“No one worried about a ‘backlash’ apart from after the Birmingham pub bombings, and that was negligible. ”
I don’t think that’s true. The Irish Centre was attacked. There was a wave of fire bombings, bomb threats and assaults on Irish people. Even talk of English builders dropping bricks on the heads of Irish co-workers. Things got so bad for the Irish community on the mainland that Birmingham was basically put off limits by the IRA.
Assuming all those reports are true, I still think that’s ‘negligible’. Dozens murdered by a bomb, against no-one killed or seriously injured. I think the alleged IRA block on further bombings in Birmingham was self-serving to try and limit the publicity damage. It was not for fear of retaliatory attacks on Birmingham people who had an Irish connection.
Add in all the later murderous IRA attacks in England, Northern Ireland and Europe, but still no ‘backlash’. My point is based on that, where is the evidence to suggest that being honest now about Muslim terrorism would lead to any sort of backlash?
And yet the BBC even make dramas about ‘Christian terrorists’ beheading innocent Muslims… http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/9952497/BBC_Trust_backs_drama_in_which_Christian_terrorist_beheads_Muslim/
Fiction presented as possibility is OK in science fiction, but this is dangerous propaganda.
Yes but sadly this is not the first time -the BBC is good at this – just one example from the past seehttp://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/fiction-as-fact.html
The Daily Fail seems to have finally cottoned on to this…
Why can’t the BBC use the word terrorist?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430714/Kenya-mall-attack-Why-BBC-use-word-terrorist.html
white english middle class girl from the surburbs girl converts to islam and joins the band of somlian ali shaabby dozy band of child murderers in kenya,the rest is history in this world of sell out converts to the religion of pieces.
So what do you do when your favorite religion goes on a killing spree? You come up with a 65 year old story about a massacre of Muslims.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159594
But don’t aspect the BBC doing a story of the holocaust when the Israelis retaliate against the palistanians.
I’ve just noticed that, add the article last night where bBC Kenya found a Muslim women who professed that these idiots hold up inside that shopping centre could to be Muslims as Islam forbids killing, then today they found a man called khan from the UK who knew the white widow and stated that she was incapable;le of murder.
It seems the bBC is on full damage limitation for the religion of peace , expect a story concerning the EDL soon.
How about the 66 year old, much bigger massacre, of Hindus and Sikhs by moslems – to say nothing of the Moghul killing spree.
I heard that piece, too, Mike, but only tuned in part way through. I let it pass because I thought maybe they’d covered all the atrocities committed by both sides in that era.
Seemingly not. So a BBC attempt to level the playing field in the light of the Kenya terrorist carnage (not to mention scores of others not covered by the BBC), however contrived it may seem.
10pm news
Wallace millibore to bring back socialist price controls and freeze energy costs whilst totally decarbonising UK energy supplies by 2030.
Glaciers melting in advance of IPCC meeting due to cowshit burning stoves in India and our scary old enemy “global warming” rather than “climate change”
Pandas no longer to be seen in China’s national parks, apparently because the human race is too large.
All of this banal garbage from our world class broadcaster !
I am off to bed now and never getting up again..goodbye !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-24234950
No description of the “Man”…how long before it is revealed that the “Man” is “Asian”?
In fact he was white according to the police.
Yeah, you can’t just assume a criminal is Asian, that’s genuine racism. If, on the other hand, a news outlet reported that he was Asian/Muslim and the BBC tried to bury that fact, then there’d be reason for concern – and of course a long-held precedent.
Bill, there have been 2 rapes in Oxford over the past 2 days…go to Thames Valley Police, the one you mention was indeed a white bloke, because they reported that it was a white bloke, the other one has no description of the perpetrator (so why the police appeal for help finding the “Man” is beyond me)
A “Man” has been arrested in connection with the other rape that my link relates too, but still, no detailed description …just “Man”…and seeing that the police and BBC have form when it comes down to hiding the identities of ROP’ers, one can assume that facts are being hidden from us.
Not so long ago the beeb were shouting from the rooftops about how one of the peruvian drug smugglers was oirish and that the oirish embassy,aided by well known republican laywer , was involved with the drug smugglers family in trying to get the drug smuggler home again .
Well now that the drug smuggler has pleaded guilty and wishes to serve her sentence for drug smuggling at home ,the beeb are proclaiming her as a UK citizen.
Do the R.O.I. have a similar scheme with peru that allows convicted prisoners to serve there sentences in a jail closer to home or is it just that the closest jail to this drug smugglers hometown is in Northern Ireland so it is more convenient for her to be British just this once.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24228723
No-one is guilty – ever!
No, no if your hard, working honest and white, then your guilty of everything
White heterosexual taxpayer – the lowest of the low
I see Liebour’s infantile utopia and downright incompetence is shot down in flames… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24204742
BLOOD PRESSURE WARNING
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24204742
More than a quarter of 18- to 24-year-olds in Britain do not trust Muslims, a BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat poll suggests.
Of the 1,000 young people questioned, 28% said Britain would be better off with fewer Muslims, while 44% said Muslims did not share the same values as the rest of the population.
Some 60% thought the British public had a negative image of Muslims.
An adviser on anti-Muslim hatred said the findings suggested young people needed to mix more.
Akeela Ahmed, from a cross-government working group on anti-Muslim hatred, said: “These findings indicate that we need to ensure young people are mixing at local levels and that they’re working on projects together so that people can get to know Muslims and vice versa.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is so much wrong with this article I do not know what to say
And in the same article a Muslim woman saying she is harassed for wearing a veil says “it’s only a piece of cloth..” Er, yes, so why put everyone’s back up by insisting on wearing it?
Yes, and a Nazi flag is, also, only a piece of cloth. I can guess that the BBC would be able to understand that the point is its symbolism – plenty of people are willing to kill and die for symbols.
I seem to recall a lot, a lot, of BBC angst about the Cross of St George being used by the ‘far right’. Clearly, some symbolic statements are more valid than others in BBC land.
The swastika is a Hindu symbol, so it must be hated by Muslims.
Sorry, just saw this after commenting elsewhere.
Just how many of these kindergarten propagandists are the BBC throwing at every single part of their media estate to try and re-direct what is to what they want it to be?
Endless moppets earnestly asking their BFF’s on FaceBook just how living in fear they are now their heroes have offed another bunch of innocents is getting, frankly, a bit tired.
And here is Ms Ahmed in full integration uniform – see http://about.me/akeelaahmed
The other person quoted in the report is Matthew Goodwin, a well known nutjob obsessed with ‘right wing extremists’ and author of tedious tracts such as “How the BNP are responsible for global warming etc”
I may be wrong, but the name of the writer of the article would suggest she is also Muslim, so the article maybe somewhat skewed.
The INBBC are broadcasting a lot of crap at our youngsters through both Radio 1 and 1xtra, the ethnicity and sexual persuasion of many of the presenters and news reporters is worth checking out.
BBC radio early this morning – a female spokesperson for this quango (seems there are so very many female Islamic spokes people arn’t there – eh?)
: I spoke with a female Muslim this weekend and she said “this Nairobi attack.. its really bad PR for Islam”‘
Well you could have knocked me down with a feather. Come on Ally Old Kebab, employ a spin docter (female?), your latest PR stunt is a bit rubbish.
Using women as a 1st line of defense…not unusual in the Muslim world, Muslim snipers tend to use women and kids as human shields, knowing that anyone shooting back will pause for thought, and wont wanna hit the “innocent”
I find it rather reassuring that, despite the indoctrination levelled at them throughout their childhood, a sizeable portion of youth can think for themselves.
It’s what they do with their thinking for themselves that is important – if they keep quiet than the indocrination by the BBC has worked.
Typical neoliberal response – if people aren’t biting on their agenda, they just need to be ‘educated’ better. Then again, these are the same tits who think the BBC and the Guardian are either ‘impartial’ or in the former’s case may actually lean to the right.
Interesting results, not least because this age group has gone through a multiculturalist education system.
Shelagh Fogerty bemoaning the lack of a UK based Somali prepared to come on to be interviewed about Nairobi. She’s now suggesting this is due to fear of Al Shabab, although it might be that it’s only ten to one, so they haven’t got up yet,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24173194
3 September 2013 Last updated at 10:52
Is 25 the new cut-off point for adulthood?
By Lucy Wallis
“The idea that suddenly at 18 you’re an adult just doesn’t quite ring true,” says child psychologist Laverne Antrobus’
“A number of children and young people I encounter between the age of 16 and 18, the flurry of hormonal activity in them is so great that to imagine that’s going to settle down by the time they get to 18 really is a misconception,” says Antrobus.’
I tend to agree with this BBC report.
Votes for 16- and 17-year-olds?
I don’t agree with Ed
Ed wants younger voters because they’re more inclined to be susceptible to Marxist curriculum and are too young to have actually tried to earn a living and seen how difficult it is.
Just saw a bit of bbc News channel- a Shalina Litt in full veil in Birmingham studio being earnestly interviewed by a bbc apparatchick about how she feels about the poll (?newsbeat) showing that ?x % British people are prejudiced about Muslims – I only knew what she was saying because I rely on subtitles ( I am very deaf rely on lip reading in daily interactions along with my hearing aids!) It was so ridiculous my jaw dropped….
In a different time, it would have qualified as a Monty Python sketch.
so carries on the spin this morning like a broken bbc record …. 5Live now starts the bleating drone
people in Britain have negative views of muslims, and they are ahem … suffering, (LAWD SAVE US!) because of negative media?!?!?*!? …
but, NOT! at the bloody bbc
yep! after mass murder of christians in the Pak, and mass murder of non muslims in Kenya,
“who da victim” according to the bbc?
Could this have something to do with
Russian train bombing – Bali bombing – Mumbai bombing – Boston bombing – Twin Towers – 7/7 etc, now Nairobi presently up to a number in excess of 21,670 just since 9/11!.
Mass murders by instigated by Islam of other minorities in for example Egypt, or Pakistan, or Nigeria or Somalia etc.
The penchant for aggressive association by any Islamic community no matter where they might be
anywhere in the world, to any neighbouring community.
Abhorrent attitudes, to other communities, sexual, ethnic, political or religious,
The cause of over 95% of all so called “honour violence”
or murders is in Islamic communities.
The epidemic of child gang rape against non Islamic children, perpetrators Islamic.
need a BIG sticking plaster? to cover up facts like that
mind you Scameron/Clegg and co and the BBC will do their very best, to lie and deceive the british public into believing it.
that bloomin EDL eh! wanting to ban sharia, and more mosques … shocking
This site is becoming obsessed with Islam.
Whilst I do not disagree with some of the sentiments expressed here, and even hit the thumbs-up sometimes, I feel that a significant number of comments target Islam rather than the BBC’s coverage of Islam.
We ought to scale back on this.
Bob, I beg to differ with you on this.
The BBC is obsessed with Islam, this site merely reflects the obsessive wall to wall coverage the BBC donates to promoting Islam.
Considering Muslims are only supposed to be 2% of the population, the way the BBC promotes it, you would be led to assume that the population was 90% Muslim.
Just switch to the news channel for 5 minutes and you’ll see what I mean. Only an hour ago, when I last looked, they were interviewing a curtain faced follower about anti Muslim survey.
Nearly every feature seems to cram some pro Muslim message in whether subliminally, or in-your-face.
when islam scales back on terrorism, we’ll scale back the criticism of these mass murdering religious nut jobs
No David Kay – this is a site about BBC bias. There is a large ‘story’ in the news at the moment in which the BBC is attempting to downplay the role of Islam and that is why there are many comments at the moment re that religion. Yes, commentators should be careful that their comments relate to BBC bias – and I agree with Bob Nelson on that – when there is a big Islam story in the news and on the bBBC, expect lots of comments on this site that relate to it.
This would be “Bob Nelson” the prominent and frequent commenter on this site, would it?
GCooper.
Not sure what your point is. I comment probably 2/3 times each week. I have no wish to be ‘prominent’.
Debbie, so long as the bbc portray muslims as victims and islam as the religion of peace, ppl here rightly have to point out to the “metropolitan elite” at the beeb, that muslims aint so friendly, in fact theres a hell of a lot of them that want to chop your head off and rape your kids all because of their religious book
and the bbc’s solution. we need to spend more time with muslims. errrr yeah right. sorry i cant make it, im washing my hair tonight
All I want to see from the BBC is balance but part of the bias in the BBC reporting of Islam is what it chooses to ignore: segregation of women is high on the list but the Islamisation of London boroughs like Newham and Tower Hamlets is, to me, like the thin end of the wedge and a real worry. The BBC, however, choose not to go anywhere near it.
Bob, the reason Islam takes up a lot of space on this blog is because it’s in the news, EVERY day, for all the wrong reasons. The BBC are the worst culprits for appeasing Muslims and avoiding at all costs any mention of Islam in relation to atrocities such as the Westgate affair. It’s the BBC’s mission to distance Islam from any negativity in the world and ensure that people of all ages who view/listen to their biased output is indoctrinated with self-loathing and hatred of anything remotely British. The slating of Islam is well founded and generally has a link to the BBC’s overt bias. However, I grant you that at times the blog does seem a little ‘Islamaphobic’ (if that’s what you were getting it), but in all honesty, when the religion is shoved down your throat on a daily basis and you’re told to like it, there comes a point when begrudging the culprits is damn well plausible.
“It’s the BBC’s mission to distance Islam from any negativity in the world and ensure that people of all ages who view/listen to their biased output is indoctrinated with self-loathing and hatred of anything remotely British.”
I watched the BBC Six ‘o’ Clock news this evening and there was not a single mention of any Islamic dimension of the massacre in Nairobi.
If some Christian evangelicals in Indonesia had gone to a shopping centre in Jataka and massacred all the Muslims they could find, do you think the BBC would give their religion a mention?
The BBC has long ago given up on supplying us with news, what they offer instead is information management in accordance with a [Leftist] agenda.
Any puzzlement over the cause of the massacre was helpfully addressed with the following explanation – it is because of “International Events”. How informative.
“It’s the BBC’s mission to distance Islam from any negativity…and ensure that people…indoctrinated with self-loathing and hatred of anything remotely British.”
I watched the BBC Six ‘o’ Clock news this evening and there was not a single mention of the Islamic dimension of the massacre in Nairobi.
If some Christian evangelicals in Indonesia had sought to promote Christianity by massacring any Muslims they could find in a shopping centre in Jataka would the BBC would give their religion a mention? Does anybody doubt that they would?
The BBC has long ago given up on news, what they offer instead is information management in accordance with a Leftist agenda.
Any puzzlement over the cause of the massacre was helpfully addressed with the following explanation – the cause was “International Events”. How informative. How predictable. How typical of the Leftist disinformation factory that is the contemporary BBC.
Bob I’d love to go back to arguing about ‘slut gate’or the BBC’s popular drama out put as we were only a few days ago but unfortunately event or more accurately the BBC’s miss reporting of them have got in the way
If the BBC would stop continually obfuscating on behalf of Islam. I would happily go back to mocking them for there deification of St Obama .
I would truly much prefer that
“We ought to scale back on this.”
Always intrigued by the all-inclusive call. I too must have missed your regular contributions, but no doubt they are sincere and as valuable as this one.
This ‘scaling back’; how do you see that happening? By power of persuasion such as you have managed here, or by the imposition of some form of limit. If so, assessed and policed by whom?
As pointed out, the topic has rather been dictated by the actions of a few, reported then (oddly) by a few more, and then commented upon here.
That seems legitimate. The BBC’s efforts have at best seemed less dedicated to explanation and light, but more obfuscation and re-education. Often blatant damage control. Crisis management for insular groups is not a news medium’s remit.
Endless ‘community in fear’ jobs by Tulip and the girls really don’t make sense any more as clearly few if any have or are holding peaceful, law-abiding Muslims to account, even as the victims of others using this faith as a banner for atrocity are still being carried from the latest carnage wreaked.
It does not seem unreasonable to expect a period of mute reflection, or shared condemnation at such a time, but weighing straight in with demands of thought control or further concession may now meet resistance. Best not to. Or let the BBC drive such efforts for whatever reason.
It’s really just an online version of banning people speaking in this country as those who may not like what they have to say will kick off if not placated by getting their way in word or deed.
That… Is terrorism.
And it appears to be getting rewarded a lot.
May one ask if you have ever taken the BBC to task for focussing on areas you feel is not theirs to look at? As a licence fee payer and presumably British subject it would be more legitimate of a funded national representative than, say, any little, free, independent, lite-modded forums.
So I am sure you have, as the BBC does have obsessions it pursues relentlessly.
What has been the outcome of you tasking them in this way?
My original comment was simply to express my honestly-felt thoughts. This site means a lot to me, and I really would not want Biased-BBC to be labelled a ‘hate’ site.
Please understand: I despise the BBC. It is a bloated and corrupt organisation. Islam just scares me rigid and I fear for the future of our country. The BBC’s coverage, or non-coverage, of Islamic issues is warped and sinister.
Guest Who: I haven’t exactly taken the BBC to task. Just a couple of complaints about their distorted coverage of AGW. Results as you would expect.
“……………… I really would not want Biased-BBC to be labelled a ‘hate’ site.”
A cursory glance at the postings over the last 6 months, many by the “favoured few”, serves to confirm that your warning has come too late.
I do recall that even David Vance made the very same point a few months ago (his plea seems to have fallen on “deaf ears”) when he introduced the “report comment” button.
Oh hello Albaman again?
In your absence the likes of Patten and Lucy Adams have been and gone…Savile is still mouldering in the BCs laundry hamper…they`ve fawned over the LibDems, are sucking up to New Labour as per and are ready to fillet the nasty Tories next week…there`s been some unpleasantness in the colonies as well as assorted Muslim cradles of niceness…and….well, all`s OK really!
Tell me more about the favoured few?…none of them seem too popular on CiF, BBC comment boards as far as I can tell.
Looking forward to your next constructive comments…
well I never … 😀
talkin of Albaman, his new “chosen few” catchphrase, Jimmy Sovile?
put em together … we know a song about that.
Allbum are you the one on the right?
For other evidence of this definitely not being a hate site, check out Robert Brown’s charming post on the Religion of Peace thread, which was posted three days ago and is still visible:
As i explained earlier, we have an atrocity just around the corner, if it happens, god forbid, the police and army must take the muslim areas apart, if they resist………too bad. Destroy them.
And now CTC.
Someone drops a poo in the pool and the flies swarm. Must have been getting close all together in that bunker.
Mr. Brown’s post, if as described by you, does not make sense or speak for me.
I don’t know him and have no idea of his motivations. It is extreme and serves no purpose. As he is anonymous, I hence have no idea if he is serious, misguided, or a false flag. Or what inspired any likes if garnered.
Don’t really care as I exercised my right to ignore and/or dismiss it, as you have embraced yours to use it to get on a high horse, nicely provided by Bob to mount.
Did you use the facility Albaman highlights? If you did and the site owners decided on free speech over selective offence concessions, that’s their call.
Giving you a few more ticks in whatever censorship boxes you seek to control seems retrograde to me.
If not, that would be interesting. Only the owners will know, but one may wonder if some don’t use the report button as it serves to leave things up.
But if the Flokk sees the ‘hate site’ numbers game as a means to close BBBC, using such as this, then there can be no excuse for many BBC outsourced views pages remaining online either.
Be careful what you wish for.
The law of unintended consequences is already coming in with a vengeance to haunt Leveson champions like the Graun.
“Must have been getting close all together in that bunker.”
Why do you continue to assert that those who dare dissent with the common view of the “chosen few” are working in concert with each other? What evidence do you base this assertion on?
Again with no answers but yet another raft of questions.
One might almost think you were here to clog things up rather than contribute anything.
Anyhoo, you look to have the answer to your own confusion.
Think of assertion as being like BBC ‘analysis’, if perhaps with better foundation.
You demand I prove an anonymous troll who has vanished during a dark period of BBC ineptitude, and only appears with another when some magic words get uttered by a concerned citizen, is not coordinated?Tough, you are fresh out of concessions.
And if that winds you up… bonus!
Timing.
Funny how you choose to ignore a regular who expresses murderous intent towards Muslims yet can find the time to engage with those of us you regard as pests.
Interesting that you affect to be ignorant of Mr Brown’s activities, yet are active here pretty much incessantly, and respond instantly to any of my posts.
It’s intriguing, too, that you choose to describe his post with the mealy mouthed ‘extreme’, thus avoiding passing judgment on his reprehensible sentiment. It’s almost as if you were reluctant to condemn him.
Funny, interesting and intriguing?
Almost like you were trying to flatter.
Sadly though, not.
“Funny how you choose to ignore a regular”
Regular Robert? If you say so. Like Bountiful Bob I don’t recall an output of note. Bar calling an actual, regular, moderate poster a fool. A turn of phrase more familiar from certain groups more keen on brewing heat than shining light.
“who expresses murderous intent towards Muslims yet can find the time to engage with those of us you regard as pests.”
Yet you can find the time to keep rehashing this drivel but fail to respond on the matter of BBC Newsnight hosting calls for tribal genocide on its FaceBook page despite being advised.
“Interesting that you affect to be ignorant of Mr Brown’s activities,”
His are not posts that have often registered in value and hence attracted me, true. And if on matters of personal ‘isms, they are nothing to do with BBC bias, or your pet, selective personal obsessions, so hardly compulsory to address here anyway.
“.. yet are active here pretty much incessantly, and respond instantly to any of my posts.”
It’s a site I like, and would see prevail. It is a site you profess to hate, and would see destroyed by every devious little means you can dredge up. Wild guess why I may take an interest.
“It’s intriguing, too, that you choose to describe his post with the mealy mouthed ‘extreme’, thus avoiding passing judgment on his reprehensible sentiment.”
Labelling a post ‘extreme’ is avoiding passing judgement? Right. You left out a few bits more, too, you tinker.
My fault for dancing a bit to the tune you demanded in the first place, but get a grip.
“It’s almost as if you were reluctant to condemn him.”
And it’s almost exactly clear you are no more than a contrarian troll that you are demanding all around express outrage at a post, and condemn others for not doing so, when you didn’t either.
“Robert Brown” has posted a small number of comments on this site that I would consider extreme, but I note that many regulars disagree with the tone of his posts and take issue with him. I have done so myself, even though I have a sneaking suspicion that we are being played by a leftie troll pretending to have the views and sentiments of what,in their twisted minds, a member of the EDL or BNP would have.
Brown has, in the past, said he is not a troll and he posts his genuine views. But then a false flagger would say that wouldn’t they? It’s also interesting that other trolls like Albaman would specifically refer to Brown’s posts as proof that David Vance runs a hate site.
Are Brown’s posts designed to be a “smoking gun” for the likes of Albaman to use against this site? The cause and effect are too convenient to think otherwise.
Why did you not take issue then?
Any one might think you were conspiring to make a case
“Why did you not take issue then?”
—
Bravo Stewart.
Thanks to CTC’s precision I did manage to relocate the thread and post in archive, and guess what?: Not a dicky bird from him (or any other Flokker).
Frequent regular commenter Bob utters Candyman and they appear armed with the single post of frequent commenter Robert like a talisman spayed by the (claimed) EDL at a Polish customs post (to mix a few historical metaphors).
It will be the basis of a Newsnight special report by one of their specialist reporters before you can say ‘from Amsterdam’.
Albaman. Sorely missed.
That you choose this moment of introspection initiated by Bob (who I owe a reply to later) is actually a surprise.
Usually you pick your moments better to reappear, and can even marshal the semblance of an argument.
This smacks of desperation.
You have made zero point of substance, supported by nothing than your own corrupted belief delusions.
Have you even looked at some BBC Facebook forums, much less taken the BBC to task for them?
BBC Newsnight had some recently actively advocating tribal murder. Flagged and complained about but left for weeks.
That the mere words ‘hate site’ here see you roused from the depths in righteous indignation with so little point shows the narrowness of your remit and hollowness of your argument to try and push it.
“You have made zero point of substance, supported by nothing than your own corrupted belief delusions.”
Are you disputing that earlier this year David Vance commented on the amount of anti-Islam postings on this site?
Are you disputing that the “report comment” option was introduced because of the number of anti-Islam posts?
No.
Now, make a point.
You’re close to one.
My turn,
Do you dispute the BBC Facebook sites are equally prone to actual or false flag posts?
Do you dispute their systems of response are slow to zero for a paid, supposedly responsible broadcaster?
Hence, do you feel they should be as if not more subject to the censure you would advocate here?
Don’t expect Albaman to answer direct questions about Beeboid droids bias. He just do a disappearing act or make some fatuous comment totally unconnected with the question. I’ve tried asking him pointed questions on a number of occasions with the result that his verbosity deserts him.
He doesn’t “do” straight answers – he just deflects with ad hominems or answers questions with other questions.
In fact it’s a waste of time engaging with him.
Staff meetings over albi ole chap?
Have you appeared with a scripted defence of said hate-site targets?
How anyone could ignore the pathetic coverage of those murderous bastard terrorists in Nairobi escapes me.
What would you rather we discussed me ole china?
Take your fellow trolls and sling yer ‘ook.
‘“……………… I really would not want Biased-BBC to be labelled a ‘hate’ site.”
A cursory glance at the postings over the last 6 months, many by the “favoured few”, serves to confirm that your warning has come too late.
Please explain what you have found in the comments on here, Albaman, that is hateful of Islam as opposed to critical or disapproving of actions, customs and attitudes directly associated with the religion and its followers.
See Robert Brown quote above.
So one contributor makes it hate site?
A sense of proportion required, CSC.
So one contributor makes it a hate site?
A sense of proportion required, CSC.
You are right – there is too much focus on Islam on this site. My earlier post was specifically about the awful BBC article aimed at children that was very biased and one sided. It happened to be about islamic dress and behaviour and the “wrong” attitude young people have towards it.
My beef is not about islam per se but about the BBC pre supposition, so evident in that article, that there is something fundamentally erronious in the way people react to face covering, how they have responded to terrorist attacks, islamic supremacisits and the airbrushing of the horrific “Woolwich Incident” as the murder of Drummer Rigby is now called by the BBC.
The BBC has failed to say why people are unhappy and dislike overt islamic behaviour – this is because of BBC bias and an inability to see that religious fanatics murdering people on the streets specifically in the name of an extreme interpretation of a religion tends to be bad for the image of co religionists.
I would feel exactly the same about a sect of 17th Century style puritans imposing their dress code and behaviour on the general public especially if there were a few outright murderous loonies in their midst willing to blow up buses in the name of John Knox. Ditto extreme socialists or in fact anybody arrogant enough to want the world to change for their benefit. It is the duty of the BBC to be impartial. They fail at this time after time
Exactly right.
Even if people were wrong (and that’s a big ‘if’) to be wary or frightened of ordinary Muslims in traditional garb, you’d think any honest broadcaster would highlight why people are frightened or whatever in the first place. But, no. All they do is call such people names and retreat to their bunker.
Albaman, the BBC hates.
(1) The truth about Islam.
(2) The truth about Atmospheric Physics.
(3) The truth about Socialism and its democratic need to increase poverty through mass immigration, to preserve a future for the Labour party.
(4) The truth about the European Unions hatred of democratic and financial scrutiny.
(5) The truth about the Balen report.
(6) The truth about EnviroMENTAL journalists at the BBC.
(7) The truth about paedophilia at the BBC.
(8) The truth about the Pollard report.
(9) The truth about Helen Boaden and the 28.
(10) The truth that the BBC has become a “cess pit of morons” especially the so called journalists, who censor the truth because they cannot agree with the facts, because the truth always conflicts with the BBC left-wing fantasy world.
The BBC has a truth “HATE” site which should be closed down, and the staff should be RE-EDUCATED in menial jobs or other jobs more suited for their intellectual level.
“I haven’t exactly taken the BBC to task…. Results as you would expect.”
Indeed.
“My original comment was simply to express my honestly-felt thoughts.”
And it would be a sad day were you unable to do so. Some of course would deny you the opportunity, or the existence of a place to do so. Hence, I imagine, your concern.
“This site means a lot to me, and I really would not want Biased-BBC to be labelled a ‘hate’ site.”
Sadly, you invoked the Candymen in doing so, and they will seize any opportunity to foment mischief, as evidenced subsequently.
That term seems to be a trigger, and there are those of little brain and excessive bile who appear to feel it can be exploited using rather skewed official responses to matters of parity.
bob … the bbc are shamelessly trying to portray islam as the victim yet again, because of Kenya and the Pak massacre, that is appalling bias and should be taken to task.
All that I remark on in my post are sadly facts
just the facts, that those with the ability to read
can peruse from many valid sources.
and … if they do so, they are likely to distrust Islam and its adherrents.
Its called paying attention. to the truth and because of it being cautious, it has NOTHING to do with erm
“waaycism” or that other orchestrated crock “islamo-FAUX-bia” and everything to do with common sense.
Anyone unable to see what the impact of this huge Nairobi story is, needs to get to Specsavers rather quickly.
( editor’s note: other branches of optician are available)
News24: The bBC has just announced a poll that it initiated that 1 in four 18-25 year old brits did not trust muslims. That 60% had a negative image of muslims. It also said that the media was responsible for the image. My conclusion about the bBC poll was that the bBC propaganda has not worked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688
Another Miliband love-in. Most interesting is that they have the statistic on the profits of the ‘big four’ energy companies, but they appear to have missed the data showing Britain has lower energy prices than any other European nation other than France. Not that this in any way endorses or vindicates the greed and spite energy providers often show to their customers with ridiculous bonuses etc, but that doesn’t make it right to withhold pretty vital information to promote a politician that even his own party is growing tired of, a party that the public at large would only ever vote for to block the coalition and not because of any of Milibland’s barely-existent policies.
http://www.energy.eu/ for the energy pricing stats.
Also I meant ‘big six,’ not ‘big four.’
Most TV news reporters conveniently fail to explain to the public that Miliband’s introduction of his Climate Change Levy when last in government added around 30% to domestic energy bills, which is a damn site more than the goofy looking idiot plans to save householders with his 70’s style price controls.
If the Tories had any nous they would use Red Ed’s latest slogan “Britain Deserves Better Than This” against him.
Turned on Radio 5 at 11.50am, guess what they were wittering on about ?
a. The german elections.
B. ISLAM.
c. The panda at edinburgh zoo
Groan.
According to Nick Robinson on the Toady program, Wallace Millionaireband’s coming out of the closet as a Marxist means he will be targeted by something called the ‘Tory Press’.
Archivists are still working trying to locate any cases of Robinson referring to the ‘Liberal media’.
The World At One lead their 45 minutes of tropes and tripe with the news that Miliband will now be writing to the energy companies with a follow through to his musings in Brighton yesterday.
And yet-no mention of his eco taxes…and no mention of what the EU have got to say about this.
The shares fell in price today-I`d be suing the Milipede if I was Big Oil/Gas!
Then came up the notion of Christians being killed all over the Muslim world…Syria, Egypt, Pakistan (and Kenya if it all goes to plan).
The Archbishop and Martha manage to avoid using such loaded words as Christian as much as possible…troubled minorities, rather than butchered Christians seems to be the liefmotif.
Oh and Justin hopes we`ll pray for the gunmen…the BBC rather like this, given that prayer is worth f***all to them.
Ah but was the selection of victims to mutilate and murder actually a hate crime against Christians…or merely misguided reading of Sura 5.32 by vulnerable troubled young men?
Let`s ask Ma Duggan for a hankie and a compensation claim form eh?…
Reprise from B-BBC, ‘A Race Apart’ thread:-
INBBC: still politically protecting Islam.
On Radio 4 ‘World at One,’ presenter Ms Kearney, seems to express surprise, saying, in interview with Archbishop Welby, that she had just been reading about the global extent of the victimisation of Christians in Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Kenya.
In the course of the section of the interview on the massacre of Christians at a church in Peshawar, Pakistan, no mention was made of ‘Islamic jihadists’ nor of ‘Muslims’.
So Islam-compliant is INBBC in its global output that it employs no-one of the stature of Christian, Raymond Ibrahim to analyse the nature of the threat to Christians of Islamic jihad and Sharia law.
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/
“The shares fell in price today-I`d be suing the Milipede if I was Big Oil/Gas!”
Yes – and all those pension funds investing in them have taken a pasting too
Still, millionaire Milliband doesn’t need to worry – or his £2000 suit
Good news everyone. Eco-Terrorist Caroline Lucas MP charged over an anti-fracking protest at Balcombe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24271396
what with the eco-terrorist pirates being arrested by the Russians and the dodgy IPCC report due out soon, Harrabin has his work cut out for him
This should her street cred with all the freaks she represents as MP.
Somebody tell Richard Bacon.
robin Day must be turning in his grave that this is his replacement.
He will think of some thing though
Last night it was smoke from cow shit burning stoves in india melting the glaciers.
Tonight….. Ed milliband gives 18 billion pound green energy subsidy to candle industry and woolly mammoth resurrection society.
Headline on BBC website front page:
Duggan “should not have been shot”.
Shock! Horror!! Dramatic new evidence in the inquest? Plod crumbles under incisive cross-examination from learned counsel for the family??!! Who has uttered this damning admission???????
………….er, Duggan’s mother. So not an admission or even news, is it?
“Duggan ‘was one of Britain’s most violent gangsters’:
Inquest hears he was linked to ten shootings and two murders”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430081/Mark-Duggan-Britains-violent-gangsters-Inquest-hears-linked-shootings.html
Still-The World At One said that his mum told the court that her Mark “was no angel”.
So that`ll be sentence enough…for the BBC rather thought he was!
Are you sure about that Mrs Duggan?
Yet she held a hankie, and seemed a nice lady-unlike that beastly copper who didn`t show remorse and even said that the case taught none of us anything we didn`t know about gangsta druggies and their license to do as they liked around London.
Finally-if Duggans case is -just for once-not always followed with the tagline about “national riots that followed his shooting”…by the BBC of course…do let me know.
He was nothing of the sort-just an excuse for the kids of Blakelocks killers…and the BBC ensured that Salford etc saw how crap the police now were.
Duggan therefore was NOY Jerzy Popieluscko then…got that ,Beeboid scum?
Sorry O/T but curious.
Why does the hideously left wing More 4 channel keep showing “The Hurt Locker”. Almost all their movies & documentaries follow their agenda, but I don’t recall that movie being sufficiently beastly about the US military. Am I wrong?
If I recall, there is a scene where what I presume is the SAS, are portrayed as a bunch of incompetents who get bailed out by the Septics. A tad implausible imho.
Would that be the same SAS who introduced the whole concept of special forces to the Yanks, and then trained them?
Navy Seals my arse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24237856
Proof were any needed that ‘racism’ (what ever that is) is a one way street, because an incident as trivial as this would never make the local press let alone the nationals if the victim were white.
Police are treating it as a hate crime.
Doubtless this is very unsettling for the victim, but how does one get the police to treat one incident of “things through the window” as a hate crime, but not others. Does anything going through a window in Belfast count? Must it be a hatchet? Is it on the victim’s say-so and, if it is, does the shade of skin count? Or could one be on a particular side of some religious divide?
Love to have known, but the only clue we get is that the victim was upset. Perhaps every crime in Belfast is deemed a hate crime. That way, everybody is special.
It’s a hate crime because the victim believes it to be so, and because she has the correct colour of skin to qualify.
Regarding that BBC poll:
No doubt the BBC will look at the results and question why their representation of peaceful, loveable Muslims hasn’t permeated through into the consciousness of the British public. So expect fewer criticisms of Islam, on the BBC, in the future.
On PM tonight the BBC reaction of bafflement and concern continued.Apparently this distrust of Muslims is due to media ( obviously not the PC BBC ) negative reporting on Islam. Indeed many Muslim women are afraid to leave their homes because of the hostile stares they get from the public when they are wearing their veils.
It is particularly worrying to the BBC et al that this age group , 18 -25 year olds, who were thought to be the most liberal, have such a negative view of Islam. I suspect that if people of all age groups were able to express their views anonymously the % concerned about so many Muslims being present in our country ( without our consent of course) would be much higher.
The Liberal left , true to form , think this is largely due to misrepresentation of Islam by the press and so we can expect to see even more draconian suppression of the truth and suspension of a free press.
They just can’t understand that the majority of indigenous British people don’t want to have millions and millions of aliens in our country and no matter how much the BBC lies to us , distorts and suppresses the truth , demonises Britsh views, we will not accept their presence as legitimate. We were never consulted and no amount of propaganda will change that fact. We were betrayed by the liberal left and they should be made to pay. After all its their fault not the fault of those they invited here under false pretences.
If Muslim women are so religious they need to wear the veil then they shouldn’t leave their homes, according to the Qu’ran, which is as optional as Woolworths pick & mix.
If they do leave the home then they must be escorted by a chaperone, and may not drive.
Of course these other issues are a little more difficult to live with, so hey why bother?
In a religion where you can pick & choose which parts you wish to follow & then bully all & sundry with your hypocritical choices.
It is regrettable that a council has fined two men for spitting. This is surely an infringement of their human rights to spit where and when they want to. Additionally, having a good spit is a cultural norm for many of our new immigrant friends, who enrich our society to such a great extent in so many diverse ways. Fears about passing on TB and a host of other diseases, are much exaggerated and certainly don’t justify this white racist over reaction. After all watch any football match on telly and the players spit pints of phlegm all over the pitch.
But according to Gameshow Nicky on 5 Live this morning “But this is a cultural norm in other countries”. To bloody late mate its becoming a disgusting cultural in our own country along with female genital mutilation, underage sex grooming and other joys brought to us by our “enrichers”.
“Kenya: British Muslim arrested in Nairobi after jihad mass murder at mall”
[Opening excerpt from Robert Spencer, who is, of course, banned by Cameron-Clegg-May-Warsi from U.K]-
“Good thing Britain bans foes of jihad from entering the country, eh?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/kenya-british-muslim-arrested-in-nairobi-after-jihad-mass-murder-at-mall.html
Will INBBC investigate further on British Islamic jihadist, or relegate it?
According to my MP Robert Spencer is an extremist.
Just hoping the MP’s slender majority is destroyed by a move to UKIP in the coming GE!
Strange that INBBC has an hour-long radio programme put out by ‘INBBC URDU’ on World Service entitled:-
“Is There a Link Between Terror Attacks in Kenya and Pakistan?”
(audio here)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01gv5p1
One might hope that such a titled programme would be even more relevant for INBBC to put out for its British licencepayers.
But the format of such a U.K INBBC programme would be arranged so that the answer to the programme’s question would be ‘no’ -with lots of Muslims in the audience to be given priority, and politically weighted representation, and the likes of R. Spencer and R. Ibrahim excluded.
“BLOODY WEEKEND CONTINUES TREND OF MUSLIM RAGE AGAINST ‘INFIDELS’”
By RAYMOND IBRAHIM.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/bloody-weekend-continues-trend-of-muslim-rage-against-infidels/
ok everyone attention
check it out on 27 mins …
on the BBC but not on R4 or
5Live or BBC news.24
.. yep!but on BBC World Service – Urdu
the group responsible for the massacre in the
church in Peshawar “they are the ENEMIES OF ISLAM –
that is why we targeted them”
not of Al Quaida
not of Pakistan
not of the West
not of the US or UK
enemies of Islam. read they re not Islamic.
and that’s it … thats all it is
where is that nicky Campbell when you need him?
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/in-the-name-of-islam/
“the group responsible for the massacre”
—
Maybe one of their less active, but still supportive members, could drop a note that they are in danger of being seen as a hate group, what with the shooting & hacking & exploding ‘n all.
That kind of activity could get other communities living in fear, which would never do.
May even score a mention on a BBC main channel, you never know.
OT – I caught a few minutes of Ch4 News tonight, thought Kenya must have been invaded, lots of talk of militants, and insurgents, some anal libtard advertising his new book which shows Westgate is how “war”??!?? is going to fought now?
just a “cotton pickin” minute wasn t Westgate a Islamic terrorist massacre? … have I missed something?
“have I missed something?”
Ch4 News and SkyNews seem to have taken on some of the BBC’s Pravda-like agenda, perhaps due to taking on BBC staff or possibly Lefty pressure from the LibLabCon or NUJ.
SkyNews seemed to be relying on people being thick when showing a pie-chart on UK energy costs, because the voice-over completely skipped the pie-slice for the massive amount of our cash grabbed by Ed Militant’s ‘Climate Canute Act’, whoops sorry, ‘Climate Change Act’.
Please, would someone recommend a more informative and less manipulative news portal if they know of one?
I’ve tried RT and al-Jazeera which have been quite useful, but they are more international and not UK-specific enough for me.
Sky reported the huge slice of the Pie Chart representing Milliband’s Climate Change Levy or Carbon Tax as “Other Costs”. They said it so quickly that if one wasn’t paying full attention that “Other Costs” could easily have been missed.
Sky are becoming as bad as the BBC at skimming over unpalatable (to lefties) facts.
For thirteen years all journalists were of the left, they are all in place, I can’t imagine a “right wing journalist” being able to get a job in most news outlets. Sky, ITV, BBC, Al Jazeerah, they all draw water from the same well. There is no diversity of political opinion – only left and further left.
Always good value:
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/flying-tonight.html
Seems others have noted the BBC’s market rate predilection for any excuse to get the LFP to uniquely fund a jolly & top up the air miles.
Still , obscene abuses of money… didn’t happen when it was another time…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/twas-ever-thus.html
Oh.
For Hampstead Harrabin:-
“GLOBAL WARMING AND THE CHILLING OF POLITICS.
“The aim of the IPCC is to freeze political debate.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global_warming_and_the_chilling_of_politics/14067
The penny has just dropped. I can now understand why the BBC (and the media in general) are treating Muslims with kid gloves and not to get on the wrong side of Islam. Yesterday a shopping mall in Kenya, tomorrow a broadcasting house in Salford?
I can’t see Islam attacking their useful idiots until they don’t need them anymore.
i could imagine muslim terrorists attacking the BBC news studio during a live broadcast, ppl would see “asians” in their PJ’s with a tea towel round their head screaming allahu akbar, hearing machine gun fire, and the BBC presenter hiding under a desk still broadcasting saying ” yes, we think they are white right wing extremists, possibly a joint EDL BNP UKIP operation”
Hitler observed that if a lie is told often enough people will begin to believe it. the media by refusing to tell the truth about the ideology behind the carnage we have just seen is aiding the spread of a lie the violent and the stealth jihadists alike know that to refuse to tell the truth as the media does is to ultimately aid them
That was Lenin actually.
You’re probably thinking about the Big Lie (Große Lüge) that Hitler described in Mein Kampf.
However your point stands. We are living in the era of the Big Lie.
SYRIA: contrasting reports on MAALOULA:-
1.) ‘Independent’
And in Syria, even the ‘liberal’ Fisk cannot conceal the Muslim hatred for Christians in a town there:-
“Syria crisis: In sacred Maaloula, where they speak the language of Christ, war leads neighbours into betrayal”
[Excerpt]:-
“The Diab family can never return to Maaloula. Not since the Christians of this beautiful and sacred town saw their Muslim neighbours leading the armed Nusrah Islamists to their homes. Georgios remembers how he peered over his balcony and saw Mohamed Diab and Ossama Diab and Yasser Diab and Hossam Diab and Khaled Turkik Qutaiman – all from Maaloula – walking in the street with men whom he said were dressed in Afghan-Pakistani clothes. ‘One of them had a Kalashnikov rifle in one hand and a sword in the other,’ he says, shaking his head in disbelief.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-in-sacred-maaloula-where-they-speak-the-language-of-christ-war-leads-neighbours-into-betrayal-8839610.html
2.) INBBC:-
“Christian villagers cast doubt on Syria jihadist ‘threat’”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24148322
(It seems that INBBC’s Ms Sinjab filed her report on Maaloula while she was in London.)
Asda ‘mental patient’ costume withdrawn from sale online – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24278768
From the number of horrified people quoted, the BBC clearly disapproves.
No doubt they feel that this bit of harmless fun mocks, denigrates and belittles people with mental health issues.
Is there any group left in Britain that it is OK to make jokes about, apart from men?
Jeff
Yes, Conservatives or if you like Tories, when you work for the BBC.
Standard black propaganda job from the BBC website. Entitled ‘Climate sceptics claim warming pause backs their view’ (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24233643). However, the title does not correspond to the content of the article, which merely designed to promote the findings of the IPCC fantasy report due to be released shortly (er, the one whose findings were first announced in 2009, years before it was written). The usual techniques are deployed, such as a couple of photographs showing water (flooding?) but without any contextual description so could be anywhere, anytime, any cause. Plus a helpful sidebar explaining that “Although there are only a small number of mainstream scientists who reject the established view on global warming, they are supported by a larger group of well resourced bloggers and citizen scientists”. The first part of that sentence is factually incorrect; the reference to ‘bloggers’ is intended to be dismissive i.e. they are not real scientists, unlike the people that attended the BBC’s secret Climate Gate 28 meeting (sic). Also note the phrase “well resourced bloggers”, implying some sort of conspiracy behind it (are they being resourced by Big Oil money, comrade?). Goebbels would have been proud…
“… Goebbels would have been proud…”
And he would probably recognise most of the tactics currently employed by those who wish to demean climate sceptics – the BBC is a past-master at such ploys. It seeks to belittle, insult and undermine critics of CAGW by painting them, time and again, as being at the margins of the scientific ‘debate’ (hah – what ‘debate’?). This is how you break down your opponents – yes, Goebbels would have recognised the method well; it was, after all, employed so very effectively by his own despicable regime decades ago, as it has been by every bully in a powerful position since.
“Bart Verheggen is an atmospheric scientist and blogger who supports the mainstream view of global warming. He said that sceptics have discouraged an open scientific debate.
😯
Classic technique of trying to deflect your own faults on to your opponents. And typical of the BBC to give it a free pass.
If people discourage debate by disagreeing
then there wasn’t a debate in the first place.
Only the affirmation of a received truth.
AGW is not the only article of faith that BBC defend in this way. Which Is why I believe the BBC is becoming ever more hysterical in its defence of this particular sacred tenent.
They believe that if this unalterable truth falls , other dominoes will follow, bringing their constructed faith down around their ears.
They may be right
No doubt the BBC will rectify this lack of debate pretty quickly, by inviting the likes of Christopher Booker or Richard Lindzen on with a Warmist of their choice.
No?
Didn’t think so.
Meanwhile the lack of strength in depth at the IPCC when it comes to scientists should be pretty alarming to the likes of the BBC who hang on their every word. If they paid a bit more attention to the exposes of the likes of Donna Laframboise which show who actually staffs up the IPCC and influences their reports then they might end up with real story. But then, that would upset their 28gate mates, wouldn’t it?
And so the shameless bias and torrent of lies and misinformation continues unchecked and out of control. Sometimes this country feels more like North Korea than Northern Europe.
‘PAUSE.’
Beeboid high-cost greenies’ new definition of the word,
‘PAUSE’: ‘ a very temporary lull in the presumed inexorable rise in future global temperatures which zealots can blame on humans’.
They wheeled someone on this morning, talking about clams, and how these clams were telling us that the oceans have been warming over the last century, merely confirming what they’d been saying all along. They said that it “fits in” with their proxy spies over the last few hundred years, like the tree rings apparently have (I suppose they mean the infamous Yamal pine, but didn’t dare go into that.
It’s amazing how on all these BBC reports, it all “fits in” with their preconceived belief that the planet is warming.
When it stops warming, then instead of recognising that, they call it a “pause”, with no clear idea when (or if) that pause will come to an end. It does not seem to occur to everyone that, all things considered, we are probably on the cusp of a prolonged cooling, such that has happened before.
The global temperature MUST go up, because they say it will, and when it doesn’t, they merely extend their predictions to infinity. That should cover it. Will the possibility that we will eventually all have to move to warmer climbs, or succumb to the cold ever occur to them, even if it means loss of face?
The IPCC, like the BBC, are unfit for purpose, and should be scrapped.
I did love the line though about ‘what are the clams telling you’?
OTOH, if you were waiting for anyone to ask how the proxies compare to the actual temperatures as recorded by thermometers over the last century, you were out of luck.
It must have slipped their minds.
Not that it matters much – because all weather events are attributed to global warming at a whim – but the photograph is
of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. The caption reads
Come hell or… An increased likelihood of extreme weather events is one predicted outcome of global warming, but some dispute the scale of expected effects
I’d like to introduce alarmist BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath, who is responsible for the above caption, to ‘climate denier’ BBC Science Editor David Shukman.
The question is one of risk, not of certainty – the risk that the continuing rise in greenhouse gases from human activities may exacerbate extreme weather.
To go further, as many environmental campaigners would like to – to suggest that the violence of Hurricane Sandy is the result of global warming – is to strain what scientists themselves are able to conclude.
[…]
To say that more warming means more storms is to oversimplify a highly complex situation – and attract a barrage of criticism for unjustified green “alarmism”.
The perspective of the UK Met Office – which prides itself on tropical storm forecasts – is instructive for the degree of its caution.
For a start, the view is that the most accurate record of hurricanes – essential for any comparison – only stretches back to the start of the satellite era in the late 1970s.
Before then, there is no way of knowing whether storms which developed at sea then stayed out at sea and grew or died unseen and unrecorded. So the exact frequency and power of ALL tropical storms is only known for 30 years or so – too short a period, say Met Office scientists, to form a proper judgment.
What matters they say are the strength, frequency and duration of storms, which they measure with an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index. And so far no trends are discernible, apparently.
You may call in black propaganda. I call it downright lies.
Just had the misfortune to hear John Humphrys trolling the Israeli spokesman on the Today programme, who was starting his country’s severe misgivings about Iran’s sudden charm offensive to the West vis-a-vis its nuclear programme. Humphrys was boorish; continually heckling the spokesman, accusing Israel of being uninterested in seeking a negotiated solution to the threat of Iran developing a nuclear bomb, etc.
BBC bias in full flow – the Israeli spokesman continually attempting to underline his not unreasonable suspicions that, given Iran’s history of prevarication and misdirection, this latest charm offensive by the despicable Iranian regime might easily be nothing more than an attempt to buy more time to engineer a nuclear WMD. Humphrys was reminded several times that Iran continues to obstruct proper inspection of its nuclear facilities, but of course Humphrys was having none of it, even when reminded that Iran has only recently re-stated its intent to destroy Israel.
I feel very sorry for the Israeli spokesman – shabbily mistreated, practically insulted, hectored and patronised by the supercilious Humphrys. How on earth he remained quite so calm and dignified in the face of such wilful bullying is a wonder. I suppose he’s had decades of such idiocy from the BBC in which to learn to expect nothing less.
“I suppose he’s had decades of such idiocy from the BBC in which to learn to expect nothing less.”
Yes, but the BBC are effectively smearing the rest of Britain with their boorish partiality, which is totally inappropriate in a news service (though practically mandatory for a propaganda agency).
Also, broadcasting such unprofessional conduct and lack of good manners out into the world must reflect to some degree on the rest of Britain’s institutions and businesses.
Yet Humph comes alive at the end of the show as he muses about music as a motivation in sporting prowess.
What a load of balls…as if drugs and money, gambling and worship of the Great God Nike isn`t the real intention.
Next up-Leonard Cohen tells us how that shuffle down to the shop gives him his creative peaks( a reversal of the priorities re music and sport show how fatuous this item was).
And still on a sporting theme?
Sarah Mont E Phew got a pasting by somebody who scorned the notion of sailing being elitist( as opposed to being a BBC presenter on her salary).
That somebody had a double barrelled name( Knox-Johnson) , so the Beeb must have been creaming themselves at this bunfight against the beaks there at Cowes and Antibes. A toff.double barrelled name, sailing and yachting FFS…cheers Piers!
Oh dear-didn`t go to plan at all-Robin had his facts, called i the equivalent of going to the football(icy silence) and said it can hardly be elitist if nearly 3 million people own a boat with even more sailing the things.
Oh dear-it`s that FACTs thing again…the BBC just don`t know, don`t check and just want to Vogue and Shapeshift like a lazy Mr(or Ms) Motivator without the threat of sweat or informing their reflex poses towards Moscow or Mecca…Brussels or Baghdad.
Monty seemed a bit queasy and even seasick after getting those factual booms across her bonce…and him a toff too?
These wannebe wevolutionawies are getting a pasting…and it`s going to get better , more frequent soon I`d say.
Check the wind direction Mr Wilders!
The BBC probably thought they’d get a second rate spokesperson on the Today programme today as it is a Jewish holiday. Instead Humprey’s ideas were challenged by one of the best spokeperson who has had a few years of experiance in putting Israel’s case to a hostile audiance. See any youtube of Mark Regev interviewed by Jon Snow C4
Thought for the day talks about the suicide bombing of churches in Pakistan.
There’s a studious & complete avoidance of the religion which motivated the attacks and a complete willingness to accept that ‘not all Muslims are like that’.
Well not every Pit Bull will bite you, but I don’t go round stroking them, because I know that there are some which will. As a consequence I still have all my fingers. I expect the speaker is minus several of his !
Yes, this is the vague line put out by the ineffectual Archbishop Welby on what is an Islamic massacre of Christians at their church in Peshawar, Pakistan.
He’ll end up minus a head!
Wiill Beeboids squirm as they read this?:-
“His sins make McBride look saintly.
So why is Alastair Campbell now treated with such reverence?”
By STEPHEN GLOVER.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2432692/His-sins-make-McBride-look-saintly-So-Alastair-Campbell-treated-reverence.html
Campbell is on Jeremy Vine right now as an ‘expert’ on mental health, giving his view on the Adsa and Tesco ban on certain Halloween costumes. Were no other experts available?
It turns out he obnoxious bar steward has a book to plug….
And he was on Steve Wright a few weeks ago too.
He complained of watching the football, only to find adverts for gambling, for payday loans and for booze.
Now remind me who got elected saying that youngsters needn`t give a XXXX for pub opening hours if they got in again.
Who got elected and offered us super casinos with Tessa Jowell in Blackpool?
And who was intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, and wanted to free up credit arrangements , alongside selling off our gold reserves and liberating the Bank of England from any political and moral restraint?
And the charlatan wasn`t even asked about the world he and his Labour chums have left us with?
All be Maggies fault won`t it?
I don`t blame Steve Wright-but isn`t there a Radio 4/Vine/Bacon aspect to holding people to account?
Not if its`s Labour 1997-2010 it`s not!
Remember, only Certified Climate Scientists can talk about how the figures for Gerbil Worming are calculated, but having been mudslinger in chief for princess tony is just as good as a medical degree when it comes to talking about health.
Bad timing! The World Service has a programme reporting the empty supermarket shelves in oil rich Venezuela caused by the imposition of price caps by the socialist government
yes, the socialist system in the USSR had the price of basics controlled.
Look how clever we are, they said, bread at affordable prices. Affordable yes, available? Nahh……sweet FA in their ” shops” of course, it wasnt worth anyone bothering to bake it at that price. So the poor sods starved, well, not quite all of them of course. The Party high-ups had all they wanted in their ‘special’ shops.
Great system, can the INBBC convince the British public that is the system we want?
BBC reports, large numbers of slaves oops workers widespread and imported to work in Qatar to build for the “homofrei” World Cup, are dying through lack of food and water in extreme heat, in their “labour camps!”
so sorry to enquire … would that be…
widespread “muslim” slavery by any chance? by an ideology that still classes slavery as legal?
Well worth listening to the first few minutes of “In Our Time” before it gets edited.(26.9.13)
Some Muslim academic(sounded a shill to me, wonder who`s paying for her tenure?) referred to “elite slaves” recruited-RECRUITED-by Muslim overlords to man their empire and fight for Islam…and they somehow were converted to Islam in the process.
Elite slaves?…that`d be the likes of her, slaving away to talk crap and use weasel words.
Melvyn shafted her…”recruited?…don`t you mean bought?” he says…oh dear, there`ll be an inquest at the top of Regents Pak Mosque when the Beeboids pay their jizya(using our money) tomorrow at prayers for that.
Thank you Melvyn…when so-called academics are this “bought” themselves, you can see why history is bunk unless the likes of Scruton and Roberts are writing it.
“Elite slaves”….nice one!…”recruited” as opposed to trades, enslaved and sold?…Orwell gets proved right ,by the minute at the BBC
hmm Amira … a reader in history and culture?
It is literally astounding what passes as Cambridge education these days, must be from the Islamic propaganda department.
yep! a very “different” kind of slave? you see because, of course … it is against the sharia to use muslims as slaves? so these erm …”recruited” – “elites” were highly educated … read converted to Islam, taught to speak Arabic.
The biased bullsh-t commission is on overtime today … look, the word itself Mamluk means one or more self explanatory “an item” that is possessed
“we need to get our minds away, from slavery
like (boo hiss!) in America”
intelligence insulting pap!
Did she mean the Mamiluks ,south Slavic and Balkan children ripped from the bodies of their slaughtered parents and brutalised into a relentless killing machine ?
Or deep she mean the Dhimmi population of the occupied Christian middle east that ran the indolent Arab’s empire for them under threat of death?
Why would the BBC choose, as its first and main subject for the flagship Radio 4 news at 8:00 am this morning, an item on BT apparently being awarded a monopoly on the “roll-out” of high-speed broadband in the provinces? Sure, this is fairly important (if true) but, you know, it’s not that important. Could it have anything to do with the report on which the item is based being issued by the Public Accounts Committee (chairman – Lady Hodge – Labour)? More to the point, could it be a reminder (after Ed’s “back to the 70s” announcement of price controls) of “big corporate” gouging the plebs and that only Labour can protect us all?
I think it reasonable to suspect that Labour asked its friends in the news department at the BBC to highlight this knowing that the PAC’s report would be coming out on the heels of Ed’s price-controls announcement. Actually it’s just as likely that Labour didn’t even have to ask: the BBC editors just leapt on this example of “big corporate” greed to help their socialist friends
The BBC, of course, know all about “big corporate” greed: journalism in this case is as easy as looking in a mirror! They are good at ‘helping themselves’ as well as their socialist friends, too.
And what a complete waste of time the debate between Margaret Hodge and Ed Davey was.
“You promised this and haven’t delivered.”
“We’ve delivered exactly what we promised.”
“BT promised this and haven’t delivered.”
“Yes they have.”
And so on. Presumably the interviewer had done no research to establish who had promised and delivered what because neither was challenged on their assertations and we left the slot none the wiser. Now, in a toss up between Hodge and Davey, you hope the coin lands on its edge, but if push comes to shove it is worth considering which of them has developed a particular talent for shameless, hypocritical political posturing.
And, as usual, a few commenters on Tim Worstall’s site shed more light on this than the whole £850m taxpayer-financed “news” organisation and the know-nothing politicians mentioned.
What are you rebelling against, Johnny? Whaddaya got?
Typical ‘caller’ to BBC 5 Live phone in: ‘….I’m sorry about the background noises, but I was out of doors when I got the call from your producers…’
Yes, I know that so-called ‘phone-in’ debates use the system of selecting participants by already knowing their views and using this phone back method of contact – the bias lies in the sort of people and the particular views they persue to present on air for us as being somehow typical or representative.
The lady in this case went on to give another sidelight on this BBC selection process (and the actual subject matter of the debate is irrelevent).
‘Well I was outraged by this [the issue in question] I woke up this morning and turned On Twitter – as I always do….’
One wonders what BBC so-called journalists would do were the Guardian and Twitter no longer there for them.
On the Jeremy Vine show it can be noted that the same group of texter’s are often used to summarise at the end of an item, just as the same ‘experts’ are often used to peddle their lefty drivel.
Its seems a common practice for producers to contact those of a certain profile to suit their aim. It was reported that producers contacted the agents of ex-popstars to get them to ‘blind audition’ for The Voice. The one I read about was an ex Buck Fizzer who wasn’t allowed to sing the song she wanted and failed miserably when judged by the non-entity panel, thus humiliating the ‘contestant’ and adding false drama.
Fooling the viewer and listener? You bet it is the BBC ….!
An old complaint but it is getting worse. I have spent days travelling around and listened to much more radio than normal.
The BBC presenters and many of those they interview are verging on the illiterate. Classic FM is a haven of clear concise English. Spoken well and with no patronising cod accents.
But the BBC. What can I say. There are exceptions. The traffic lady on R2. The main PM and morning presenters and the newscasters. I suppose they have to be.
But the rest. Dropped consonants and the use of yere endlessly and gonna and the rest of the sloppy cod fasionable drivelspeech by people who know better but refuse to express themselves clearly.
This is not about regional accents,. It is abour a generation of mindless would be household names who cannot bring themselves to speak their own tongue clearly.
It is offensive and patronising but it tells me that the BBC is now largely in the hands of people like this and that, as with their inability to express themselve, so we can assume their identikit views will be as badly thought out and articulated.
They are the media and political class. God help us.
Just seen this on Guido:
CCHQ draft conference speech (leaked) says:
September 26, 2013 at 12:15 pm
With effect from midnight:
1. Borders closed. All those on the way will be told to return whence they came. Illegals and over-stayers etc to be rounded up and shipped off out.
2. All Green taxes and subsidies abolished. Mrs Cam’s dad might not like that; tough. Airline ‘green’ uplift charges to be abolished. Dept of Climate change to be dissolved.
3. Total benefits not to exceed 19,500 pounds a year per family. Work or starve – your choice.
4. Fuel escalator abolished along with iniquitous taxation level. Petrol and diesel priced nationwide at 70 a litre, more than enough for oilcos to make handsome profits and enable people to get to work without skinting themselves in the process. Transport companies/organisations also get immediate benefit from new rate.
5. Personal income tax to start at 20,000; all child benefits scrapped. You want kids, you pay for them.
6. Taxation system simplified, doing away with tax credit refund nonsense, and employers NI contributions making it cheaper to employ people.
7. BBC broadcasting licence withdrawn and stations closed. Telly tax abolished. Licence holders can go to nearest post office to receive cashback of 12 quid for each uncompleted full month on the licence. BBC to organise sell off in readiness for privatisation. New service to be by voluntary subscription only. You want it – you pay for it (without threat of prison for not wanting to watch it).
8. Serious efforts at depoliticising the police and CPS. Party placemen to be removed asap.
9. Inform Barosso and co they can whistle for their daily contribution.
10. Aid budget cancelled and ODA dissolved.
That will do for now. Time for lunch.
http://order-order.com/2013/09/26/blair-suddenly-silent-on-energy/
“I just felt a disturbance in the Farce, as millions of pointless, privileged, pensioned public sector parasites cried out as one”.
Brilliant
The shameless BBC is at it again with its Islamic jihad collaboration.
Just reported now on BBC news 24 was the Interpol arrest warrant for Samantha Lewthwaite in connection with the Kenya “militant” fluffy-rabbit-knitting and fruit-scone-baking “incident”.
They flashed up a photo of the woman. You’ve probably seen it before, but not like this. It’s the one with her wearing a muslim headscarf arrangement, looking slightly up and doe-eyed into the camera. Except………………………… the BBC did not simply show the photo. They tightly cropped the original photo so that it was basically a zoom shot of her eyes. The headscarf could not be seen.
Now why do such a thing? Why tamper with the original? Presumably, some Goebbel-esque tw*t at the BBC decided that the fact that she had converted to Islam, and was openly displaying this, was not “relevant”, and that people should not see it. Except that, of course the fact that she converted to Islam is PRECISELY WHY SHE IS INVOLVED IN THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Whatever Cameron pretends to think, this attack was carried out partly or more likely mostly ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.
And yet the BBC, with its effective news monopoly, does not want people to know that she is a muslim convert. It is actively covering for Islam. Deliberately hiding things from its audience.
There is currently no photograph on the website report but, tellingly, on the older Samantha Lewthwaite “profile” page for her here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24204517
none of them shows her wearing her post-conversion attire.
….and now they’re showing a full-face picture of her, but – – Oh!, what’s this? – they’ve found one of her sans-headscarf.
We all need to understand that fear motivates the media and the political class.
These two classes collaborated in bringing about a situation which can only deteriorate. It cannot improve. The why is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
These two classes are also fearful of the native Europeans.
They are not stupid and know that very rapid change is the way history seems to act out.
So caught between their twin fears they deceive themselves first and then try to deceive us.
One victim is language itself and the BBC’s use of ‘militants’ is in this category.
It is self defeating as many of us stop listening to the media class and their political masters.
This worst generation in our history is ageing and afraid. They are also dangerous for they must know what they have done to an ancient and fine nation.
A wise man should fear them out of caution but despise them from conviction.
Just got the oddly selected ‘special’ BBC email, with image embedded in the link story.
Frankly I thought it was promoting a rerun of that ‘What are we going to do about Maria’ reality show.
“BBC’s Stephanie Flanders to join J P Morgan”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/26/bbc-economics-correspondent-jp-morgan-stephanie-flanders?
So much for Beeboids’ apparent criticism of bankers.
“JP MORGAN FINANCIAL TERRORIST –
Opinion of Max Keiser. ”
(June, 2013.)
(1 min video.)
More from Max Keiser on JP MORGAN & its CEO, Jamie DIMON
(Parts 1 & 2 of Episode 496, 11 Sept, 2013):-
http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-496-max-keiser-700/
Also:
‘The Guardian’:-
“London Whale: how Jamie Dimon dodged the splashback.
“The buck for this trading scandal should stop at the top when the control systems have been shown to be full of holes.”
http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2013/sep/19/london-whale-jamie-dimon-escape
A
How would Guardianistas-Beeboids react politically if a News International journalist went to work for JP MORGAN?
You beat me to it – I was going to say “Finally some good news from the BBC”.
What will Ed and Ed do now that they don’t have an ex-girlfriend at the beeb?
So no doubt she will be working with Tony Blair – clearly these socialists are intensely relaxed about becoming filthy rich.
At least there she can no longer inflict the damage her market rate abilities have when give a public sector platform of trust.
Or can she?
Hmm interesting.. the Guardian says in the first para that she’s going to the Investment Bank and then in the second says she’s going to JPM Asset Management. I think I’m correct in saying that these are different organisations but under the same roof. Could be wrong though.
Nevertheless, she says she’s going to grow a business. Good for her, but JP Morgan seem to be under regulatory siege at the moment, so it could be a bigger job than she imagines.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/us-jpmorgan-probes-holder-idUSBRE98P0NW20130926
So even the new job for Stephanie Flounders starts with a fantasy “she’s going to grow a business.”! By getting everything wrong!?
Also why has the BBC closed the comments section, do they fear what people might say?
‘why has the BBC closed the comments section’
—
Precaution-wise, one of the smarter plays they’ve made of late.
Not very honest. Not very transparent. Not very trustworthy.
But smart.
Even when the reason is not apparent, it is always easy to spot when the BBC is for or against a particular agenda, by how they report on it. How many articles are there pushing a certain theme, and are there any opposing it?
So regarding giving 16 year olds the vote, if we look over the last year we can easily find several BBC articles pushing the idea.
MPs back calls for lower voting age 24 JANUARY 2013, POLITICS
Voting ‘should be allowed at 16’ 10 JULY 2012, POLITICS
More recently, in August we have Force young people to vote at first opportunity, says think tank
Any surprise that the think tank quoted in the article is the IPPR which Wikipedia tells us has a ‘… centre-left viewpoint. It was founded in 1988. It produces research and policy ideas committed to upholding values of social justice, democratic reform and environmental sustainability.
The founding director was James Cornford.[1] ] The current director is Nick Pearce [1], a former Head of the No. 10 Policy Unit and special advisor to David Blunkett MP. Former members of staff include the current pensions minister Liberal Democrat MP Steve Webb and former Labour cabinet ministers Patricia Hewitt and David Miliband.’
The BBC avoids giving us their particular leaning in the article and presents them as an independent group.
So it’s hardly surprising that this week we get this article:
Labour conference: Ed Miliband calls for votes at 16
Other than a rare small quote from a Conservative MP opposing this idea, usually at the end of the article, in none of these articles do the BBC offer any alternative or opinion by an independent source with other wisdom.
It’s fairly obvious why Labour want to have 16 year olds with the ability to vote as they have no experience of the world, and they are gullible. Miliband has made a load of promises about how he’s going to do this and that to enrich the lives of people in the country, but hasn’t shown just how he plans to pay for it all. We know the damage to the economy the previous Labour governments did to promote their agenda, but the young weren’t personally hit by it.
There’s only one hiccup that I can see in the way the BBC have so far pursued the propaganda related to this, and they probably haven’t realised it yet themselves.
It has to do with a recent report by child psychologists, and relayed by the BBC, who reckon adolescence continues to the age of 25. So anybody who puts 2 and 2 together themselves would have a further very good reason to show why 16 year olds should not be given the vote, and possibly any teenagers.
The Daily Mail has more on the salient points of this story.
An adult at 18? Not any more: Adolescence now ends at 25 to prevent young people getting an inferiority complex
‘It’s fairly obvious why Labour want to have 16 year olds with the ability to vote as they have no experience of the world, and they are gullible’.
But the major attraction for Labour and the Lib Dems is they will have completed their course of Room 101 treatment at the hands of our leftist education system.
You are indeed a young person until you are 25, I should know, wifey is a yoot worker. Personally I would raise the age you can vote to at least 25 and then you would also have to be in full employment and paying tax.
For the record I am 23 and personally think the voting age should be at least 21. Voting requires wisdom, wisdom is acquired through learning and life experience.
Now there are a few young people who have been unlucky in their lot and have to grow up fast, but the vast majority have frankly experienced little of life at that age (myself included).
Likewise they have ‘learned’ very little, at school and college all they learn is how to pass exams. If they go to University they may learn for themselves, but these days a lot of uni courses are essentially ‘advanced school’.
What I have realized, is that as you pass through life you learn about things and acquire knowledge that is truly your own. This helps you develop your own intellectual independence, although this is something that is lacking amongst people of all ages these days, something that the BBC is partly responsible for.
That’s just the way I see it.
I think there is good case for putting age of majority back up to 21
How can labour square lowering voting age to 16 having advocating raising school leaving age to 18 ( and raising age allowable to buy cigarettes) if your not responsible enough to leave school (or smoke) how are you responsible enough to vote?
More importantly why are BC not asking the question?
Looking at it from another perspective – it’s Labour’s way of showing that they need ignorant and uninformed people to vote for them – because there the only ones likely to – besides those who share the gravy train they offer.
So the mental health mob have been all over the BBC today, telling us that Hallowe`en costumes that make fun of the condition are offensive and are right to be banned.
Yet another triumph for people needing money, victimhood and clearly have plenty time to spend time at the BBC getting free therapy.
This is not to belittle the genuine hurt that could be caused, but when I hear the likes of Marjorie Wallace or AlistairCampbell emoting at my expense, I do smell the flatulence from the old Watchdog studio, with a self-righteous whiff of Esther Rantzen at her worst.
Savile…Islam both given succour for years by the BBC, yet turn out to be more frightening than any of their Godawful programmes(except for Schamas decent series)
Wonder if the BBC still have a few Savile shellsuits for us to borrow instead…otherwise I`d hope that Asda etc see sense, dye the white coats black, and include a rubber Koran and meat cleaver…that would show that Islam can laugh at itself…and save all the CO2 resulting from burning those costumes…which ought to please Harrabin and the rest of `em at the BBC.
So the BBC really know what’s offensive do they?
So just what do they consider this?
Chris Evans courts controversy after impersonating Jimmy Savile by saying ‘Now then, now then’ to nearly 10 million Radio 2 listeners
In 1996, Radio 1 was forced to apologise after Evans made tasteless jokes about Anne Frank and the Holocaust.
But he’s still working there, obviously it’s okay so long as it’s not Muslims he’s offending.
And about the Savile impersonation?
BBC Radio 2 has refused to comment.
“BBC Radio 2 has refused to comment.”
—
Must be nice to be in the unique position of being able to pull this one.
Maybe it was ‘for the purposes of… What now?”
Evans walked out on the BBC in 1997, as they refused his request to have Fridays off.
Amazingly Lesley Douglas re-employed the jerk and he ends up on the stations flagship show. replacing Wogan as well as appearing on Fridays on One Show.
It must also be remembered that Douglas employed Russell Brand and walked over the controversy.
She was also a trustee of BBC Children in Need and sat on the Radio Times Advisory Panel
Why would they wish to ban the costume? After all, it is only a piece of cloth.
Nice 😉
And in other news, Stephanie Flanders is off to make her fortune at JP Morgan Asset Management, where she’ll be afforded “more time for research and developing a deeper understanding of the markets”.
You couldn’t make it up.
Ah, would that be the same Alastair Campbell who was so familiar with the mental anguish suffered by David Kelly?
Oops hit report by accident.
The BBC really ‘does faux outrage when it suites them…..Remember their response to the Ross/Brand abuse of an elderly man…..Dismissed as a Daily Mail storm in a teacup.
If this sort of thing is so awful why is the film “Psycho” lauded as an all time calssic? Ditto just about every horror film….
I find the whole haloween farrago fundamentally offensive and to be honest I also dislike – intensely – ghoulish crap like CSI or Silent Witness where the murdered person is completely stripped of any identity as a human and referred to as a “vic” – not even victim. The BBC (and every other broadcaster it has to be said) normalises the most brutal of murders and serves up patronising ‘professionals’ drooling over decomposing bodies as light entertainment.
If we can have comprehensive outrage at the (admittedly offensive and stupid) loonie outfits for sale can we have consideration for victims of violent crime as well?
No because nobody is really offended are they.
“BBC staff seen yawning, eating and playing in open-plan newsroom”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-staff-seen-yawning-eating-and-playing-in-openplan-newsroom-8842105.html
“Fights with umbrellas, stretching their arms and picking their noses: Viewers’ outrage as BBC News staff are spotted behind presenters during broadcasts from new multi-million-pound studio”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433055/BBC-News-workers-fighting-umbrellas-picking-nose-presenters-causes-viewers-outrage.html
INBBC seems determined to relegate the role of British Islamic jihadist, Samantha Lewthwaite, who is now wanted by Interpol.
1.) ‘Daily Mail’:
“Interpol issues global arrest warrant for the White Widow as Kenya activates ‘tripwire’ for mall massacre suspect”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433291/Samantha-Lewthwaite-Interpol-issues-arrest-warrant-White-Widow-Kenya-activates-tripwire-mall-massacre-suspect.html
2.)INBBC:-
“Kenya seeks UK woman Samantha Lewthwaite’s arrest”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24288236
INBBC, in its post-Nairobi Islamic jihad massacre pontificating, seems to attempt to politically manage its reporting to minimise the horror of the jihadists’ murders.
In contrast:-
“FIRST PHOTOS OF KENYAN JIHAD, SHATTERED MASSACRE MALL: VIDEO SHOWS GAPING CHASM AS WITNESSES SAY TERRORISTS SLIT VICTIMS’ THROATS AND THREW SCREAMING HOSTAGES FROM BALCONIES”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/09/first-photos-of-kenyan-jihad-shattered-massacre-mall-video-shows-gaping-chasm-as-witnesses-say-terro.html
Pakistan: INBBC soon relegated the Islamic jihad massacre of Christians at Peshawar church.
“PHOTOS: MUSLIMS ATTACK PACKED ALL SAINTS CHURCH, SCORES OF CHRISTIANS SLAUGHTERED”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/09/photos-muslims-attack-packed-all-saints-church-scores-of-christians-slaughtered.html