Friday arrives and time for a new Open Thread! The floor is yours – please detail the bias here!
WEEKEND OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Up2snuff May 4, 2024 at 11:00 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Scrobie, Peter and Fed, I still miss the City of my birth and given the right circumstances would face a...
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:54 am on Weekend 4th May 2024https://twitter.com/UpperLipNews/status/1786304647180747087
- JohnC May 4, 2024 at 10:37 am on Weekend 4th May 2024One thing I am certain of is that if Israel do blow up some civilians in Rafah, it will be...
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:33 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Malmo?, Eurovision songs? pfff.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68950907
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:30 am on Weekend 4th May 2024https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1786395357057859795
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:24 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Mendacious ? Nuts? Both? https://youtu.be/R-cUWeuYBb0
- Emmanuel Goldstein May 4, 2024 at 10:15 am on Weekend 4th May 2024We all are sick of the politicians saying things like “Lessons will be learned” and other stuff they keep coming...
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:08 am on Weekend 4th May 2024https://twitter.com/exRAF_Al/status/1786466725451411721
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
Interesting. There was a programme on Radio 4 a few weeks ago with Quentin Letts – I think it was “What’s the use of …” when he said that the Met Office was useless because it was doctoring the data to fit global warming theories. Stephen Fry then had a programme about the weather which seemed to claim the opposite. Is this a sign of infighting at the BBC? Anyway, I doubt if the replacement for the Met Office will be any less obsessed with AGW.
Isn’t/Wasn’t the met office part of the MOD?
Hope no BBC senior managers drive Audis.
https://twitter.com/GuyKawasaki/status/635316922880532480
Anyone else get the impression that Jeremy Bowen, in his report this morning, sounded a bit subdued, if not miffed over the re-opening of the British embassy in Teheran?
Whenever I turn on Radio 4 at the moment they are talking excitedly that there is going to be a new political party. Do they know something we don’t?
It looks very likely that Jeremy Corbyn will win the election, and move the Labour party to the hard left and become unelectable in England.
North of the border Labour might become more electable, but it is highly unlikely they will gain any more seats from the SNP in the short term.
South of the border Labour is a busted flush, which will be made worse by a lurch to the left.
Comparisons are being made with the left time the Labour party moved left, and the gang of four split to form the SDP. Could that really happened again ?
Then there are the BBC reports with unrestrained hope that when Militant did take over Labour, the Tory party began infighting over Europe. The commentators really do go a bundle on that happening again !
It’s unlikely though. Major was a real hard line Europhile who championed the Maastricht treaty which has led to the swarm of migrants from Eastern Europe.
Cameron is a man without any discernible principles save for the acquisition of money and will just go with which ever way the wind seems to be blowing.
Am I not right in thinking that JC has not been a total fan of the EU?
One would not expect a man of principle to move position for party advantage.
Sunday Morn Live BBC 1
BBC after deliberately not reporting it themselves, Sunday Morn Live, will run a free speech segment re the Mohamhead Cartoon event cancellation.
Anne Marie Walters is on, apparently with a Grainard Columnist founder of the …
“Exploring Islam Foundation, which specialises in media campaigns and resources Our vision is of establishing a Foundation that combats damaging stereotypes about Islam through the medium of “creative resources” At EIF, we want to dispel the common stereotypes and myths about Islam and Muslims by using “strategic media campaigns”
“creative resources” eh!
Just what are they, huh?,
LOOK! … threatening to kill, threatening violence, is what it is … choosing to ignore that, and actually subvert the issue, put a layer cake of deflection, obfuscation and denial on those who expose it ?
… means you are the problem too
… Islam s texts say what they say, Islam brainwashes its adherents
inverts their moral compass, Just look at the EIF, and their excuse book
Freedom of speech/expression?… the bottom line … Islam s adherents … they will kill to stop it … Islam is the problem.
Free speech/expression event? … The wider issue.
This government will not address this, the No10 cabal have obviously issued the police not too, they have taken the filthy petrodollar lucre … and so now any insurance will not cover you
… so erm any venue?
The BBC, well most of the MSM actually, are spineless “useful idiots” I drove back the other day Anne Marie Walters was on LBC
about the Moh-toon event, she could hardly get a word in, before she was cut off, and we had to listen to the usual obfuscations at length from the Muslim Debate Init … ie they are all part of the problem.
The traitors and quislings in No10, have the overall power on this issue, they deliberately wilfully, refuse to address it, so violence and intimidation works
Welcome to Londonistan.
ps
BBC Sunday Morning Live
Should Britain should pay compensation for the Empire? An Indian politician has called for Britain to pay reparations to India and other former colonies for its decades of imperial rule.
Has BBC News reported the Islamic Bangkok bomber yet?
additional –
islam means people who submit to Islam, (they have no choice, they are born to it/threatened with death if they leave – whereas … Islamism, means forcing people to submit to Islam –
the thoughts of chairman F Gardiner on Al BBC one.
By the way
The Guardians Remona Aly
“Nine uses for a burqa … that doesn’t involve bashing them ”
“British Muslims shouldn’t feel obliged to speak out against Isis atrocities”
and …” Hijab-wearing women rock!”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207502/Jimmy-Savile-report-tears-BBC-apart-Victims-fury-findings-secretly-handed-Corporation-bosses.html
A key witness is apparently one Alan Yentob, senior BBC executive already renowned for staying on top of things, remembering stuff and facing up to responsibilities.
So no concerns there, then.
Meanwhile the BBC continues with that unique editorial way it has with what is ‘news’ vs. ‘not news’ ((c) A. Newsroom Tealady).
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/08/23/more-than-a-third-of-bbc-report-on-isis-destruction-of-christian-site-is-about-israel/
Fascinating that Mr. Whittingdale, Dave, etc think they should be best funded by compulsion still.
Thought for the day
Keep doing the cool wash
or, thank you nurse
The very concept of a ‘national broadcaster’ is problematic – fraught as it inevitably is with the taint of nationalised propaganda, how can we ever really trust what we are told?
In short there can not be ‘trust’ – whether one reads into its output and messages the heavy hand of the current government, alternatively the influence of some semi-secret freemasonery of a former government’s crony appointees, or perhaps simply the self-interested atitudes of the over-paid luvvie presenters, producers and managers collecting the payroll cheques.
All we can do is to call out the more blatant propaganda when we see it.
For those of us on the right, who instinctively know there is something inherently amiss with the use of centralised social engineering, how do we differentiate reasonable mutually beneficial ‘liberal’ messages from the state sponsored centralised leftism simply designed to bolster the interests of the elite?
(I know that word ‘liberal’ has now become a conundrum in itself and is about as respected as a 15 times repeated edition of 8 out of 10 Cats do Countdown)
We need to get specific
Coughs and sneezes spread diseases.
That was a war time propaganda line of sorts. It was, however, both a true and a beneficial message.
But how about… oh I don’t know…. say, the messaging that went out a few years back about us plebs not needing to set our washing machines at quite such high temperatures?
I recall a good deal of blurb about saving energy and saving the planet.
Sounded reasonable.
Then recently there appeared a somewhat nuanced and targeted but clearly contradictory declaration. NHS nurses must at once revert to washing their uniforms at more than 40 degrees – why? Because they were spreading all sorts of nasties not being eliminated by their cool wash.
This was a real world example of the sort of turnaround satirised by Woody Allen in that scene from Sleeper where he awakes in the future and the doctors insist he smoke a cigarette – science had now proved them beneficial to health.
I assume the science concerning cigarettes and health is settled once and for all – but now the weight of propaganda is falling on passive smoking, plain boxes and even outdoor bans…. well, it seems we’re required to take more and more on trust these days.
Now if our dominent broadcaster were not nationalised – the wonderful Jeremy Corbyns of the world could keep reminding us about the greed and self-interest of the commercial broadcasters and we could happily take all their messaging with a large pinch of salt – although didn’t I hear on the BBC salt was bad for us? Or was that sugar? Or both? What day of the week is it?
Really good comment, thank you.
We can argue the toss all day about who is controlling the BBC (my favourite, a wicked and unaccountable Civil Service ‘channeling’ their EU masters and co-conspirators, informing our democratically elected morons on exactly what they are allowed to do..).
The more fundamental point is, that ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’, and the BBC, as a National Broadcaster (and I definitely take your point about the problems attached to that concept), is going to be controlled by someone, sure as eggs is eggs.
It is plainly and risibly not now controlled by the principles of its charter – there is no longer anyone to hold its collective feet to the fire in an open and public way. We might as well just sell it off to some consortium of the Left (provided they could come up with the money – the amount they ‘owe’ the BBC for renting airtime recently must be an absolute fortune by now), and have them openly controlling it – again, providing they could demonstrate that enough people would pay the subscription, or make the adverts commercially viable if it remained free-to-air a la ITV.
I suppose we could then just ‘hold the ring’ in a market-place which we would have to acknowledge has become thoroughly adversarial, with any ‘national consensus’ seemingly shredded (although in an open commercial marketplace I think we might find there is a consensus, but it’s just a very awkward one for our lords and masters to acknowledge). What a pity, but only, after all, reflecting the state of our nation itself. We would need to license and regulate broadcasters in rather novel ways, to ensure some kind of representation or promotion of other political leanings.. I don’t know if it would really work, but at least we’d all know who was behind the various broadcasters, instead of clowning around with the old ‘impartiality’ twaddle.
Afterthought: I suppose that at least, in a truly open market-place, there would be room for someone to put up a channel that was explicitly dedicated to synoptic news coverage and an impartiality that would be market-testable. It would be interesting to see if they succeeded. It would require real journalism and honest editorial; I don’t know if they exist in Britain today.
I tend to agree, the long standing pretence at fair and balanced is just that – a pretence. Break it up and offer broadcast rights to a wide range of providers without the ‘balanced’ provisos. Let’s just see what we are willing to pay to watch. Take the cachet of ‘trust’ away from the BBC and see what you have – the Guardian with moving pictures. Fair enough, calling all would-be Guardian tv licence payers… step forward and pay your way.
AsISeeIt:
Yep, I’ve been arguing precisely this for a while now. The BBC as it stands is a sham and an insult to the millions of license payers – it is neither ‘balanced’ nor ‘impartial’; it is a liberal-left progressive enterprise with a clear and unambiguous political slant. Pro-EU, pro-immigration’, pro- a ‘borderless Europe’, pro-CAGW, anti-critical of Islam, anti-Britain and Britishness (especially anti-English), wilfully revisionist and intolerably ‘politically correct’ to the point at which it ceases to function as an objective news organisation, let alone a ‘cultural informer’ – or whatever the ‘meeja’ watchword is this week for its particular brand of toxic ‘nudging’.
The license fee needs to abolished immediately and the BBC, if it is to remain at all, should be forced out on to the open digital broadcast market as a paid-for digital subscription service. Let’s see how ‘treasured’ ‘Auntie Beeb’ really is. Those who want its political messaging will presumably be happy enough to pay for it – the rest of us can stop being robbed every year by the Corporation and instead spend our money elsewhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/23/david-cameron-uk-refugees-migration
Ridiculous Guardian article.
Odd thing though. HYS following the editorial completely slams it and thinks it ridiculous too. Is the Guardian (and the liberal left) becoming more and more irrelevant to the practical minded people by the day?
Labour is as good as gone. Good.
Now maybe the Guardian and finally the BBC will soon collapse because they are so irrelevant to a shifting public’s attitude.
‘Ridiculous Guardian article.’
This Guadian piece could stand as a template of floundering leftism
For a start its arguments are all over the place – firing off at will simultaneously at leftist targets
On the one hand the Calais migrants have an ‘indisputable legal right to adequate humanitarian assistance’
But when the French don’t care for the migrants then, apparently, the ‘British press’ (not the Guadian, mind) and politicians go in for a ’bout of France-bashing’ You can’t have it both ways.
The wilful self-separation from reality is staggering.
‘Cameron’s pseudo-Churchillian “fight them on them on the beaches” anti-migrant policy’
Has the Guardian seen our immigration figures?
‘Cameron’s Calais blockade’
Aren’t we allowed to a border now?
Libya : the Guardian says it’s our fault
Syria : our fault
Africa – Global warming , but that’s our fault too.
‘a more enlightened, responsible and less self-interested approach to migration’
Roll up, roll up, come all and sundry!
They all went on holiday, and left the coffee-boy in charge, it seems. Knew the style, thought he’d have a go, but as a 15-year old Syrian refugee engineer with a degree in medical jurisprudence and a willingness to pick strawberries in Herefordshire for 15p an hour, he wasn’t too solid on the actual issues. I’m sure he’ll improve.
It really does look like the coffee boy is in charge at the Guardian. Yesterday the story on the Shoreham airshow crash said that it was a World War Two Hawker Hunter jet. Today, it is a Hawker Hunter T7, but the article also says it is a single seater.
“World War Two Hawker Hunter”? Seriously?
They don’t do their credibility any favours, do they?
There was a time when any self-respecting coffee-boy would have had a grip on every distinct version, including which air forces it had been deployed with across the world. Observer’s Book of Aircraft RIP.
Any ‘coffee boy’ employed by the Guardian would be an Iranian born, one-legged, transsexual.
Caught in possession of an Observer’s Book of Aircraft it would have been promptly handed over to one of the paper’s senior writers, so that the information could be conveyed to what remains of the KGB.
If only for old times sake.
I was on Shoreham airfield, just couple hundred metres away yesterday when this terrible tragedy occurred.
Just had a spat on another blog with couple guys who contend the Police should not be wasting time on Twitter and Facebook warning people not to put Pics or Videos on line and instead the Police should get out and catch some more rapists and burglars.
What these idiotic, heartless bloggers do not realise is the scale of the fantastic and difficult professionalism of the Police. They have worked their butts off non-stop during this ongoing incident. They have the unfortunate, unenviable task, together with the many other agencies attempting to identify burnt lumps of flesh blasted out of recognition all over the local area, in bushes tress etc and the last thing they want is others adding pics online, which may add to the many families trauma. Putting a recognisable item on line, like watch, bag etc, of someone not yet identified would only add to the trauma.
I have the utmost admiration for the way the Police and other agencies involved are so professionally handling this terrible tragedy and send my condolences to all those suffering from this terrible incident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34034430
Without wishing to take anything at all away from the awful job police and the rescue services are faced with, I don’t agree with you – and I’m not sure where the BBC fits in here, in any case.
In the event of a major incident such as this, it is coverage by the mass media that affects relatives of those involved. People are only going to see material on blogs if they go looking for it.
There may be a case to be made for not showing too much on TV, but that worries me as it could so easily slide into censorship, but I’m really not sure it is any of the police’s business to be patrolling the Internet, particularly when there is no question of a criminal offence having been committed.
Agreed.
It is a constant of so-called professional media reporters that something being ‘on the internet’ somehow put it into everyone’s front room when, in fact, it is only there if ‘everyone’ goes looking.
The broadcasting media, (hint: broadcasting) essentially does put its message into ‘every’ front room but somehow has no responsibility for any harm that they do, ‘we are just the messenger’.
The beauty of the internet is that potentially anyone can find out anything, if they want to and equally that they don’t have to see/hear unpleasant messages if they don’t.
Disagree, the younger generation don’t pay much attention to the MSM, this is all about the look at me, how many retweets and views can I get, Twatter and Farcebook generation, all armed and dangerous with a smartphone.
All what were seeing on the MSM was all over Twatter within 2 hours, and much worse, with zero thought given to the deceased and their relatives, as long as they get a few more followers.
Twitter and Facebook have much more to answer for here than the MSM, we wouldn’t be seeing half of what we’re seeing on TV and in our papers today were it not for the above pushing the envelope.
I think you’ll find that the viewing figures suggest otherwise.
But even if they don’t, what of it? The concern, apparently, is that relatives and friends will be upset.
A/ They only will if they go looking for material and B/ In what sense is that any business of the police, if they are? No criminal offence is being committed, there is no question of sub judice it is simply the police acting as an enforcer of what they consider good taste.
That is not what we pay them for.
I haven’t seen / heard any BBC coverage, of the news that the Thai authorities are looking for a Muslim (Mohamad Museyin) and up to ten accomplices; suspected of carrying out the Jihadist attack at the Hindu shrine in Bangkok.
I suppose it’s better for Al Beebus to cover one foiled act of Islamic terrorism in France, than to also report a successful one in Thailand. Otherwise people might begin thinking that there may be some possible, minor, overlooked, inconsequential factor that could, or may, be a connection (somehow) between these two events?
Al, it is not on the BBC Website, yet.
We’re supposed to feel sorry for these people and welcome them with open arms?
Believed to have happened on the streets of the UK, the bBC are happy screen a similar video in absolute disgust, say for example it were to happen on the Paris underground, but we’ll be waiting a long time to see this on the 6 O’Clock News…
The things you see when you don’t have a rifle.
New from the BBC TV Licensing Blog:
– BBC Abandons Met Office for Cheaper Foreign Alternative.
– BBC Secretly Pores Over Damning Savile Report.
BBC News Website-
Reading it, you’d think England had lost the 5 Match Series. They won 3 Matches to 2, and to win as underdogs was very significant. But not to the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/34033051
Now read Sky Sports report. Was it the same game??
http://www.skysports.com/live-scores/cricket/england-v-australia/15937/9962427/article
If England’s Cricket Wimmin had won by the same margin, the tone and content of the BBC’s report would have been far different, I suspect.
..
Methinks we are about to get a ridiculous story from this France train terrorist presented as believable by the BBC.
At the moment, the latest story from the BBC relates the suspicions of the French authorities over this incident.
France train shooting: Police question suspect
However a story has just been released by Reuters wherein this scum tries to convince us that this was not a terrorist attack but he was merely hungry and he wanted to rob passengers so he could buy food.
Here’s their story. My bet is when the BBC covers it they will try to make it sound even more convincing and logical than Reuters, despite the glaring stupidity contained in it.
Train gunman ‘dumbfounded’ by terrorist tag, says was hungry: lawyer
A gunman who attacked passengers on a high-speed train in France two days ago is “dumbfounded” at having been taken for an Islamist militant and says he only intended to rob people on board because he was hungry, his lawyer said on Sunday.
The only good thing about the BBC is they make these idiots think we’re more stupid than they are.
I heard this on the BBC overnight – “he was just trying to rob some passengers”.
But I had already heard – as BBC staff must have heard – that he had 4 magazines. So his sob story sounded so ludicrous it should not have been given any credence whatsoever.
Unless, of course, you appease terrorism.
As Pamela Geller writes:
“A devout Muslim tied to jihad-terror groups steps onto a train with a Kalashnikov and a knife and begins opening fire and that’s a robbery?”
Where was Napoleon. Certainly not on that chuffing train!
What beats me is that these terrorists can afford a high profile, expensive lawyer immediately on their case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207822/Train-gunman-laughs-accusations-planning-terror-attack-says-wanted-rob-passengers.html
An interesting defence line to attempt if seeking any credibility, mind.
Has the BBC called it ‘audacious’ or ‘daring’ yet?
Where’s Tim Willcox or Mishal when clearly needed?
Perhaps we should draw inspiration from the discredited Macpherson Report: “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.” How about: “An Islamist terror incident is any incident which is perceived to be terrorism by the victim or any other person and which is not described as such by the BBC“?
BBC:
“…Sophie David, a lawyer assigned to the case for Mr Khazzani, said the Moroccan was “dumbfounded that his act is being linked to terrorism” and that he had said he found the weapons in a Belgian park and wanted to rob passengers.
Mr Khazzani’s father, Mohamed el-Khazzani, told the Daily Telegraph in Algeciras, Spain, that his son was a “good boy” interested in “football and fishing”.
“I have no idea what he was thinking and I have not spoken to him for over a year,” Mohamed el-Khazzani said. Ayoub el-Khazzani was flagged up to French authorities by Spanish counterparts in February 2014.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34037580
So there it is. The BBC is prepared to start ‘nudging’ the story in its preferred direction. Poor little Mo was just ‘a good boy who liked football and fishing’. That’s going to be the line.
Nothing to see here. Move along. ©BBC
I love this part in the above bBC report:
Under French law, authorities have until Tuesday evening to question the suspect.
Yeah right as if a man caught loaded up for bear on a train (Very rich target environment) is going to be allowed to walk free due to mistaken identity or human rights. But the bBC thinks so.
Fabulous to read that ‘he continued to hit him in the head with the butt of the gun until his friend then put him in a choke hold until he passed out’
Then they trussed him up !
Seeing that filthy piece of shite on video, head covered in blood and trussed like a chicken just made my day.
Have been watching ‘Countryfile’ and the coverage of the proposed potash (polyhalite) mine in North Yorkshire, a project with enormous national potential and job creation. It is in the national park, but only just, about three miles south of Whitby. Yet in just about every shot John Craven was shown on the high moors and near Helmsley, places nowhere near where the mine will be, and with additional wide ranging shots of the open expanses, the intention was clearly to give the impression that all these views would be under threat, which is not so. The BBC on the campaign trail again, their view is clearly that it should not have been given the go ahead and they are seeking views – it is likely that they will use these selectively in future to support their campaigning. It has wide popular support but this was sneered at and words used to cast doubt on the validity of it. They also went to a competitor, Cleveland Potash who were given the opportunity to state that there is virtually no market for polyhalite. No indication that ‘they would say that wouldn’t they?’ Craven also interviewed a Nimby type opponent, or green campaigner who was simply against it, with nothing but bias to back up her objections. She was given a long uninterrupted opportunity to comment and make largely baseless claims.
I haven’t bothered with “Countryfile” since, well, since it was the Farming Programme on Sundays, when it was interesting, and largely non-political. John Craven’s involvement has turned it into a sort of eco-greenie Blue Peter. No thanks.
What’s up Bruce? It is vanity but it isn’t fair.
The BBC are in self-indulgent mood this morning – the way you can be when you have £4 billion a year that you don’t have to account for. They are promoting their new Transgender sitcom. ‘Boy Meets Girl’ (sic). It’s not the story of a well-off middle-aged man with mental health problems that cause him to believe he is a woman, put on a dress, take a few tablets and arrange to have his bits chopped off to thwart nature. No, that would be pandering to reality and stereotypes. Instead, the BBC describes it as “…a fairly conventional story. A couple from different backgrounds fall in love and must navigate the obstacles that the relationship throws up – not least their endearingly eccentric families, who provide most of the laughs.” In the desperate hope of drumming up numbers, they are running it on BBC2. Despite this and a big supporting campaign on other BBC TV and Radio programmes – after all, they don’t have to pay for advertising – it will bomb. The first episode will attract maybe 150,000 viewers, comprising the curious and guillible. Thereafter it will drop to a few tens of thousands. Still, that won’t stop them producing a second series and a Christmas special, will it? Look out Citizen Khan – you have serious competition.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33734931 (if you have to)
They’re heavily promoting Danny and the Human Zoo as well, a fictional account of Lenny Henry’s youth in Dudley.
The sad thing is that were it not for the fact that Henry makes such a big thing of his colour, it might be highly watchable. More interesting maybe would b a similar account of Charlie Williams youth.
I’m sure like most i used to find Lenny Henry funny, that is until he started taking himself and his colour seriously, up to about 1987 no one had noticed.
‘She’s like Superwoman!’
‘His win was like Good over Evil!’
BBC going into childish paroxysms of superlative excitement over the expolits of their favourite athletes this morning.
Whatever happened to fair and balanced?
Oh, and England won the Ashes. But I guess Licence Payers won’t care much about that.
Naga Munchetty on the BBC this morning: ‘Homosexuality is the last taboo in the British Asian community’
Really?
Islamic Radicalism
FGM
Honour Killing
Forced Marriage
Polygamy
Vote Rigging
Rape Gangs
Local Government Cronyism
First Cousin Parental Birth Defects
Sharia Law Divorce
How’s about all them taboos Naga?
and over 95% Islamic too … ow queer! 😀
… and don t forget, French train erm … “robbery” if you listen to the BBC, he was only after a meal … etc etc
… and his family are shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11819297/Terrorists-father-speaks-for-the-first-time.html
… nearly as much as Ayoub El Khazzani, 26-year-old Moroccan the aforementioned devout France train jihadi himself, who trained in Islamic State, who is“dumbfounded” by terror accusations
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/train-attack-gunman-dumbfounded-by-accusations-of-terrorism/story-e6freuy9-1227495781707
Mind you look on the bright side, the BBC tv this morning finally, days later broaches … that the Islamic Bangkok bomber, “might” have a link to Islamism.
You literally couldn t make this sh-t up.
Nice to hear John Kettley on “Today” this morning. I rather get the impression that he hasn’t much time for the Met Office – or the BBC, for that matter. The other bloke was a bit weak, too.
Indeed, yes. John Kettley is one of the good guys, being properly sceptical of the so-called ‘climate change’ agenda of the Met Office. In other words, an honest scientist.
Slightly OT, but I just have to say it:
I’ve just finished reading an excellent history of Nile Exploration by the great Victorian explorers Livingstone, Stanley, Baker, Burton and Speke. One thing which came through, time again, was how widespread (and utterly depraved) the Arab-Swahili slave trade was in Africa at the time (and had been for hundreds of years previously). A massive muslim slave trade, dealing in suffering, rape and brutal death on a daily basis on often staggering scales. So large in scale that it crippled much of Central Africa and held entire populations in terror.
One of the things these great British explorers (all of whom suffered incredible personal hardship and risk) held in common was their determination to eradicate the massive muslim slave trade rife across Africa.
I wonder if the BBC will – any time soon – tell this amazing story of how these incredibly brave British men spoke out against the brutalities of the Arab (muslim)-African slave trade..? Or is that another history that has been airbrushed out of existence as it does not fit the modern narrative..?
I expect that the Muslims will feel a need to express abject apology and contrition for unspeakable deeds in the enslavement of others, and will expect a suitable punishment for their evil doings of old.
Hah! Descend, O flying piggywig.
At the same time there is much hand wringing on Al Beeb of the destruction of the historic sites in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. It wont be long now before it gets to the Acropolis and the Colosseum.
Methinks a whole squadron of aforementioned pink ones just went whooshing by. In response to your comment OG.
ObiWan
Well said sir !
The media continues to blame Great Britain for the slave trade but conveniently avoids the religion that exploited and continues to exploit it.
Britain gets highlighted because it was one of the first to abolish it and to enforce its suppression. We don’t see much of that info on AliBaba telly. Come to think of it, we don’t see much of the positive side of the benefits that the British Empire brought to the present Commonwealth Countries and indeed the rest of the world .
I am of the opinion that Ali Baba telly hates Britain’s Heritage and should have the word ‘British’ taken off its name But then, that’s only my opinion.
“I wonder if the BBC will – any time soon – tell this amazing story of how these incredibly brave British men spoke out against the brutalities of the Arab (muslim)-African slave trade..?”
I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one – you’ll go blue in the face and pass out.
Want to know about the slave trade?, the BBCs Ministry of Truth … can help, just a few clicks away
BBC – INTERACTIVE: Where were they? – Find out how many slave-owners lived in your local area in 1833
BBC – ESRC-funded Legacies of British Slave-ownership project, now complete, and the ESRC and AHRC-funded Structure and significance of British Caribbean slave-ownership 1763-1833, running from 2013-2015
BBC – An uncomfortable truth – David Olusoga – Historian and broadcaster
In 1833, Britain emancipated its enslaved people and raised the equivalent of £17bn in compensation money. But that money wasn’t paid to the enslaved people – it was given to Britain’s slave-owners for ‘loss of human property
BBC – Whitewashing slavery
BBC – Slavery, The price of freedom
Sadly – or perhaps inevitably, I fear you are correct. The BBC won’t want to lay the finger of blame where history dictates it should be pointed: firmly in the faces of the muslim warlords who ravaged across Africa enslaving millions over centuries.
The BBC has a tenuous and slippery grasp of factual history at the best of times, and in this revisionist age I fear the truth (and therefore the accuracy of blame) will never be told by the nation’s state broadcaster. I dunno, perhaps they won’t want to ‘offend’ the Religion of Special Pleading by pointing out the barbarity of its blood-drenched record on slavery in Africa. Just a guess.
I have been waiting for this comment/quote from the BBC on the train terrorist. What? Only football and fishing?
Sophie David, a lawyer assigned to the case for Mr Khazzani, said the Moroccan was “dumbfounded that his act is being linked to terrorism” and that he had said he found the weapons in a Belgian park and wanted to rob passengers.
Mr Khazzani’s father, Mohamed el-Khazzani, told the Daily Telegraph in Algeciras, Spain, that his son was a “good boy” interested in “football and fishing”.
“I have no idea what he was thinking and I have not spoken to him for over a year,” Mohamed el-Khazzani said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34037580
I wish I could post something but every time I try the page crashes, and I cannot reconnect. I get the error message that the browser cannot detect the networks proxy settings.
This happens on a depressingly regular basis.
‘Turning the tables on child abuse
Mark Easton reports on a campaign by former residents of the Shirley Oaks children’s home to investigate the abuse they say went on there.
7 August 2015’
Mark hasn’t been busy of late. Not that he ever was.
It seems the Beeb has lost faith in him and he is demoted to child abuse probes.
Where is he on the migrant crisis?
Any chance of Mark investigating child abuse of white girls by “Asians” ?
BBc Breakfast and beyond go to town and more on the tragic Hawker Hunter T7 crash on the A27. Comments abound like an aircraft not designed to do this on breakfast. Err an ex-RAF front line aircraft not designed to perform aerobatics. On the vd show stand in asks if it’s the end for the Shoreham air show. I suspect the BBc doesn’t look kindly on warbirds being flown or people wanting to see them .
And , of course, the RAF is upper class and hideously white !
Attendees at air shows are 99% white and mostly male. I live near such a venue.
This is contrary to the BBC/Left’s view on the ethnic composition of British society.
..
Credit where it’s due: by being polite, not interrupting and asking questions apposite to the previous answer, Humphrys allowed Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond to confess the UK’s complete diplomatic surrender to the Iranians. Hammond – through his own words – was shown up for the appeasing weasel he (and, by extension, his boss Cameron) is. Among other admissions Hammond agreed that in 10 years time (more like 10 minutes time) he is quite happy to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons in return for . . . . not a lot.
Now, I suspect that had Hammond been a minister in the sadly unrealised Miliband administration, Humphrys would have probably agreed that re-opening the embassy in Tehran (despite no payment by Iran to clear up the destruction caused by Iranian “unofficial” government diktat) was a triumph of diplomacy. But let’s be satisfied with what we got this morning; a technically first-class piece of journalism – you can’t say that very often about anything emanating from the BBC.
When ever there’s something the government does which appears inexplicable, or not in anyone elses interests there has to be the suspicion that money or the promise of it is changing hands.
We know that bribery and corruption is a way of life in the Middle East, and unless we begin to countenance the possibility of it going on in the West, I’m afraid that if it is going on, our leaders will get away with it Scott free.
Apparently the benefit to the UK of recognition is to 1. bring Iran back into the comity of nations which will . . er . . temper the revolutionary/islamic fervour of the mullahs who actually run Iran and, 2. allow us to trade with Iran to our “immense” benefit.
Manifestly both reasons are crapola. As with Obama’s detente with Cuba, the Cuban regime is (and surely will be) as vile as it’s always been. Moreover, the head looney in Iran mouths off at regular intervals against Jews (for internal consumption says Hammond) and encourages the public execution of homosexuals. Apparently, opening our embassy will turn the religion-sanctioned thuggery and worse which is Islamic politics into the civilised behaviour of the Concert of Europe. Also as Humphrys suggested this morning (not denied by Hammond) lowering the trade ban will allow Iran to keep financing the enemies of the UK and our allies in the region.
There’s certainly something going on but I don’t believe that the corruption is down to the passing of soiled notes in brown paper bags. Rather, it’s an intellectual corruption; certainly at the FCO which (like the BBC) will do whatever it can for its Moslem friends but, more to the point, will do anything to strike at Israel (hence sacrificing the Saudis, for now weakened by the fall in the price of oil, who have reached a sort of tacit accommodation with Israel). Another certainty is the influence on Dave of the Head Community Organizer in Washington. Obama’s method of dealing with Dave is simple: give Dave another photo-opportunity and Dave (or one of the team) will promptly sign on the dotted line generally without reading the small – or big – print. Obama wants a “legacy” at any cost: the legacy of detente with Iran will, of course, be tears for the West but this is just a concomitant benefit for Obama: he can work immediate evil and be assured there’ll be even more evil to come as a result.
I suspect that the BBC’s attitude on Iran stems from its backing for the Sunn’a (majority in UK) rather than the Shi’a (Iran). They are so deep in the mire on this, they are calculating marginal advantage within the Muslim world.
I am also indebted to the BBC for revealing, in an aside during some news item or other, that the electoral franchise in Pakistan extends only to Muslims. So moral equivalencing between the two sides involved in the Kashmir issue is misleading to say the least, India being a secular state.
Apparently Sky Arts is to broadcast seven Royal Opera House productions during Autumn 2015.
As this is just the sort of broadcasting which is often used to justify the existence of the wretched BBC, it raises the question yet again: “What is the BBC for?”.
It seems to me that any minority interest, including “elitist” opera and ballet performances, can be covered perfectly well elsewhere. Arguably, for much of the time, the BBC isn’t even very good at the “elitist” stuff anyway.
@ “What is the BBC for”?
Danny Cohen would love nothing more than to sanction politically correct repeats, left wing “comedy”, sanctimonious self righteous “soap” operas, global warming weather reports, and of course a news output that mirrors the Guardian newspaper hook line and bloody sinker, keeping the British people indoctrinated with a left wing viewpoint of the world for around one hundred and fifty a year…..
Oh wait – That’s what he’s doing presently, and he and his top brass cronies are the only beneficiaries of it…
It has been very noticeable lately that the BBC’s arts coverage (especially with regard to music) has been seriously dumbed-down.
I note that B.T. have just won the rights to the next Ashes series…Now fine, many people wont care for cricket, but in a decades time the BBC will be consigned to showing repeats of repeats where sports coverage is concerned, because when the rights to Wimbledon, the World cup the Olympics, Formula 1, et all come up the next time around the BBC wont bid for them….
What will the BBC be reduced to in a decades time?……A whole load of Guardianistas drunk on the power of their own outright incompetence of giving nothing to the (Televisual) state?
It was hard not smile this morning at the news one reason the Met Office was canned was for ‘dumbing down’ the weather.
This was by… the BBC.
Snog, Marry. Avoid. I recommend the last.
Cohen and his gaggle of Guardianistas know whats best for us all, and don’t you forget it…
SKY had two channels devoted to the Arts, they’ve replaced them to just one single channel. During the summer they ran a trailer ” We’ve made SKY Arts even better, ” I don’t know how that works by axing one of the channels.
‘ Sir’ Lenny Henry was in the SKY Arts trailer, there is no escape.
Hmmmm… I think you’ve just undermined my argument.
Thanks 😉
Anne, yes, spot-on. As a Sky subscriber I enjoy music documentaries, concerts, dramas, documentaries, etc, etc.
Is this the kind of thing the BBC seems to think only it can provide..?
I’ll say it again: in this age of multi-channel digital and online broadcasting, there is no creatively justifiable or morally defensible argument for the retention of the licence fee. Everything the BBC does now is already being done elsewhere, often to an equal or even better standard. The BBC doesn’t seem to have noticed this and wants to pretend that it alone ‘owns quality’ on TV.
HBO, AMC, FOX, Discovery, Sky Atlantic, etc, etc all beg to differ.
Can’t believe what I’m hearing on TWATO regarding the Jihadi on the train.
Whose fault is it? Whitey of course ! Here is a man who is completely innocently going about his business of murdering and destroying, and the intelligence services didn’t stop him because they failed to disclose information to each other.
What is apparently needed is MORE EU regulation, and an overarching intelligence body which covers all countries! (anyone trust the EU with running an intrusive spying agency into all countries?).
Utterly unbelievable that yet again they can overlook the religion of Islam and its need to kill and destroy.
‘What is apparently needed is MORE EU regulation’
This is a BBC theme for the day. This morning we are told it would be so very much easier for foreign drivers to pay their parking fines if only the Government would sign us up to some pan-EU licence plate sharing database.
The constant refrain of the EU Daleks….
Integrate! Integrate! You will be integrated!
What’s missing from the BBC report or so far down the page most will not read it?
Spencer Stone is an Airman First Class in the U.S. Air Force, Alek Skarlatos is a specialist in the Oregon National Guard. Although some reports incorrectly claimed both men were U.S. Marines the BBC seems to be bending over backwards to avoid giving credit to military men.
Dateline London is an odd name for a BBC show. (No it’s not an online hook-up site for lovelorn black cabbies with a penchant for Beefeaters)
The idea is to have a panel of London-based foreign press journos give new insights and perspectives on current news. I have to say I much preferred that former (ITV?) show where a grizzled old Fleet Street hack reviewed the overseas press with the catchphrase ‘What are they saying about us?’
Maxine Mawhinney presented Dateline London broadcast this weekend and despite her mumsy appearance and rather floundering continuity (perhaps she was let down by the studio technical bods?) the overall tone of the discussion was better than what we tend to get with Nice Guy Gavin Esler in the chair.
The usual situation is to have our Gavin simpering and purring in the background as four identikit outlook leftists slag off Britain and all her works.
Gavin pitches up the long hops and our foreign friends dismiss Britain to the boundary ropes.
The recipe is to take a couple of Euro journos, throw in an Arab or African for flavour and garnish with a rare Yank you’ve tracked down from somewhere or other way to the left of Obama… let Gav simmer gently and bet your life on it turning out they’ll all agree Britain would be far better off were we to give back Gibraltar to the Argies and scrap God Save the Queen to be replaced with a better Brit Pop tune such as Blur’s ‘In The Country’.
Anyway, a little credit is due to our Maxine. There were some interesting discussions. Although when it came to the subject of J.Ilyich Corbyn I couldn’t help but feel despite the differing opinions on show three of the four journos were clearly desperate for Labour to get back to winning ways. I wonder whether they have a vote in our General Elections? No matter. Hope Gavin doesn’t come back.
Sir
You cannot understand how ANGRY I am about the recent report/study by bike riding,wind surfing, Mark Ashworth into the drinking habits of over 60’s in the UK
He and his ilk are what is turning Great Britain into Rubbish Britain. If people over 60 want to drink or smoke themselves into an early grave, then so be it – they
damn sure earned it. Typical too, that the left wing bBC would pick up this so-called report and run with it in their daily news program.
You people are the WORST of the UK.
If someone in a shite sink estate in Hammersmith wants to ease the pain of being poor and living there by having a tipple, leave them alone- we don’t need mollycoddled
by the bloated NHS.
Sincerely
Leigh
PS – Some of the biggest alkies by profession are GP’s, too much spare cash rolling around I’d wager.
Why do BBC-types cleave to the Left?
Here’s a comment I chanced upon somewhere in the further reaches of the internet – it focuses on the strange appeal of the Scots ‘Yes’ campaign but could easily speak for the present Corbyn mania
What’s the attraction?
‘…a simple human need to be liked. Now I’m personally a skeptical person, and that’s stopped me from, e.g. supporting the Yes movement, or joining happy-clappy evangelical churches, but I can still envy sometimes the fun that these guys are obviously having. That was a big selling point of Yes … lot’s of lovely arty types, folk singers, face paint for the weans, the sense of righteous struggle against oppression, etc. No-one likes to be the big bad red tory. Easier by far to play to the crowd a little, be popular, maybe land a cushy job at McPravda or similar.’
‘Ask an Englishman for their stereotype of a Scot. No longer hard-headed, thrifty and stern Presbyterians. Now much more a nation of maudlin braveheart naifs.’
Is there no tiny niche of Waycism in the US that the revolting BBC won’t attempt to winkle out and attack?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33994947
“The US is in the midst of a barbecue boom. But as television programmes and restaurants celebrate mostly white pitmasters, are the cuisine’s African-American roots being forgotten? ”
So they find an elderly Black guy working in his fast food take away joint and MOAN that he isn’t being lionised by the clearly waycist Americans (death to America!)
When there’s nothing to moan about make something up!
Historical accusations of Waycism include Gershwin’s Porgy & Bess and Longfellow’s Hiawatha yet the BBC have no difficulty in broadcasting either of them, now either these accusations were entirely wrong – in which case we can have no confidence in any of todays calls, or the BBC are total hypocrites only interested in name calling when it suits them, and having no real respect for the tool of oppression ‘racism’ actually is.
Sometimes the BBC inadvertently produces a comedy article in its attempts to produce ‘serious’ left wing propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34002865
This article about ISIS and the Islamist inspired war in that region will have you laughing out loud, so silly is it.
Did you know that we should be thanking the wonderful ISIS for their special contribution to the fight against global warming (amongst many other things)!
Apparantly it’s true!
Although I dare say attempting to return the world to the state of the Middle ages would inevitably cause a slow down in greenhouse gas emissions.
One good thing about that though – no electricity – no BBC !