I see that the BBC are busy churning out Labour talking points as news this morning…if Labour say it is true it must be true.
“The number of elderly people in England getting council-funded care has fallen by 11% in the last two years, figures obtained by Labour suggest. Freedom of Information responses from 121 councils showed they provided free care to 59,056 over 65s in 2011-12, down from 66,342 in 2009-10. The drop comes despite the rise in over-65s due to the ageing population.”
Have to laugh at the way in which the BBC are playing along with the content of the left play book that somehow “growth” is this years model! Francois Hollande’s vacuous suggestions about “growth” are treated by BBC correspodents as if they were a serious economic proposal rather than just another EU-phemism for further spending. There is no consideration of what this “growth” is, how it is going to be funded, where the cash will come from and, most obviously, why everyone has missed this notion up until this Socialist charlatan has entered the Elysee Palace. I reckon the BBC see Hollande as the John the Baptist figure for Miliband in 2015.
Did you see that the BBC are gleefully providing the Police Trade Union with a platform to attack Theresa May? It seems she is “destroying” a police service admired throughout the world. I wonder if this is the same police service (sic) that the BBC never misses the opportunity to put the boot into? From the shooting of Jean Paul de Menezes, through the summer riots, to that institutionalised racism imagined by Macpherson – the BBC has been a constant force in undermining the police force we once had, turning into a pale shadow of what it once was. However given the chance to provide the Coalition with more bad publicity, the BBC temporarily suspends it own onslaught on British policing and plays along with the Police Federation.
Middle of the Week and so time for a new Open Thread. Here’s your chance to detail the bias….off you go….
The BBC seem exultant that Rebekah Brooks has been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. In fact this is the lead story on their UK news portal, the single biggest story for the UK population apparently. This is media village indulgence and I have to say that I feel sorry for Brooks and contempt for the self indulgence of the BBC.
I know we tackled this yesterday and it got quite a response but I think this post by B-BBC contributor Alan adds to the debate…
“Listened to Any Questions in astonishment…..they nearly all refused to engage with the real issue…not that girls were raped but how they were selected…..which is why the attacks went on for so long originally.
Raping girls in short skirts….“So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?”
Listened to Any Questions with mounting distaste and disgust….the issue of culture and religion in relation to Rochdale was not just ducked but actively swept aside and covered up. This was the problem originally which allowed these crimes to continue unchecked for so long and for so many victims to be attacked.
‘Professional Black’ Henry Bonsu excuses the rapes……the girls were easy …they were ‘pre groomed by society’ which is ….‘why girls give themselves away so cheaply.’
No Henry, they didn’t give themselves away, they were taken and raped, sometimes up to 20 times a day by gangs of men.
Henry was sacked by the BBC for being ‘too intellectual’ and he claims that : ‘I won’t go gently into that good night – the desire for a talk radio station specialising in black issues is very strong. Since my show was axed, I’ve had e-mails from doctors and lawyers, all asking what they can do to help.’ So he not only wants to discuss ‘Black issues’ but wants a radio network on the BBC just for that.
And yet he doesn’t want to talk about Asian, or rather, Muslim issues which might affect the wider community.
If you have a teenage daughter might you not be interested to know the norms and standards of behaviour and beliefs that drive another community that you live nearby? Wouldn’t you want to know what they think about your daughter and how they can behaviour towards her and treat her?
And what does Islam tell us about other cultures? What might that Muslim community be thinking in its heart of hearts?
‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.’
So said Muslim Imam Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali in Australia who alluded to gang rapes in Sydney suggesting the attackers (Muslim) were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the attacks on four women, for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy and he gives you 65 years… but the problem all began with who?”
The BBC were quick to go to the ‘moderate’ Muslim Council of Britain to reassure us about Rochdale and of course they did….no need to be scared of Muslims…because if you’re raped it’s possibly your own fault…you are to blame….which is essentially what the representative suggested.
Which is not too different to a more candid approach taken by the MCB about the Australian Imam:
Abduljalil Sajid, (Times £) a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”. Referring to the thrust of the Sheikh’s argument, he said: “So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?”
After meeting him yesterday, Dr Sajid said: “As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.”
Funny how much these ‘extremist’ scholars are held in such high esteem by the ‘moderate’ community.
Qaradawi is a case in point…..supporter of executing gay people (and Iran has apparently done so to 4000 gays …’according to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979.’) , beating women and suicide bombers. A much respected scholar!
But don’t mention any of that…it might stoke or inflame racial/community tensions!
Here’s one where I would appreciate your help. Did you know that Biased BBC, a site specifically and uniquely set up to challenge the BBC’s lack of impartiality, has been classified as a “hate site”? I am advised that “it was blocked on O2 and T-Mobile on 5th March. It is classified as a ‘hate site’ by O2’s URL checker” This is an outrage. Can I ask you to contact these companies and advise them we are a respectable and professional website that focus on the journalistic output of the BBC? Is it a crime to hold the BBC to account? I wonder if someone has reported Biased BBC to these mobile providers as it seems most unlikely they would ban us on this basis?
PS Yesterday Biased BBC recorder it’s biggest ever days visitor number with 11,300 people choosing to pay a call.
Monday morning arrives and so it is time for a shiny new Francois Hollande approved Open Thread. Let’s focus on the “growth” of bias…shall we? The floor is yours…
A Biased BBC who tuned in to “Any Answers” writes to me with this comment..
“There was a disgraceful intervention by Jonathan Dimbleby in todays Any Answers. Only minutes after saying that the cultural/racial issues of the Rochdale paedophile trials are properly discussed on the programme and there was no attempt not to discuss the real issues he interrupted one contributor who wanted to discuss how the teachings of islam and the example of Mohamed was unhelpful as a role model. Mr Dimbleby told the contributor that he could not say that as someone might be offended. Is this allowing open and honest discussion?”
I have to say that I very rarely endure Any Questions or Any Answers but for those courageous souls who do tune in, wonder if you have comment to make on the above?
May I commend this most excellent article concerning how the BBC deals with Jewish people;
“American Presidents have long been criticized for being too in thrall to the Jewish lobby. The American Jews influence US foreign policy and that explains Washington’s unwavering support for Israel.”
Who made this statement this past week?
(a) A disgruntled fringe neo-Nazi
(b) Some poor soul ranting on their Facebook page
(c) The BBC
Sadly, as you can see in the clip above, the answer is C. This ugly assertion is the host’s opening line in an episode of this past week’s BBC HARDtalk program. This vicious garbage isn’t “sort of” or “almost” anti-Semitic; it is the real thing: vivid, unapologetic, odious and wrong.
