Author Archives: David Vance

ISLAM – NOT BBC!

By | |
39 Comments

24 hours a day, the BBC keep pumping out their toxic mix of facts and myths, half-truths and lies. Consider;

BBC Radio 4 news briefing, ‘On this Day’ spot – 5:40 (ish) am 24 /09/10

“This spot features brief reminders of historical anniversaries, things that happened ‘on this day’.This morning, together with the creation of the George Cross medal, the removal of ‘the prophet Mohammed’ from Mecca to Medina featured, as a comparable historical fact. Now there are loads of things wrong with this even from a Muslim point of view – but the most egregious is the conflation of a tradition that is disputed with verifiable incidents in recent history. The date of Mohammed’s (if he even existed) alleged flight from Mecca is not known, it may be commemorated on this day (Some years, the islamic calender not being the same) for all I know but that lesser claim was not made. Would the BBC be caught saying ‘on this day 4000(?) years ago Moses parted the Red Sea? 1977 years ago J! esus Christ entered Jerusalem? was crucified?!

Yet another great catch by a B-BBC reader. Wonder do they have prayer mats at BBC HQ?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

OPEN THREAD…

By | |
128 Comments


Orwell had them sussed. So have we. Here’s a new Open Thread to take us into the weekend. Thanks for all your great comments during this week and also for the many mails that come my way full of further instances of bias!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BONFIRE OF THE QUANGOS…

By | |
15 Comments

With the Coalition now moving to axe at least some of the more than 1100 Quangos that infest this country, the BBC was not going to let them away with that so cue Today and cue sycophantic interview with former Quango queen Baroness Deetch. Give it a listen. At the end you can almost hear Humphrys smirking with satisfaction having “proven” what great value quangos really are. 

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

NOT ALL SCANDALS WORTH REPORTING?

By | |
9 Comments

Many people arefollowing Andrew Gilligan’s reports in the Telegraph concerning the mayoralelections in Tower Hamlets….all except the BBC who have overlooked thisscandal completely.

Why might that be? Is it because Lutfur Rahman, Labour’s candidate, is a Muslimclosely connected to extremists and that he was likely to win and take controlof the £1bn budget? Does this not play to the BBC message that the small numberof extremists represent no danger and that there is no realistic chance of themtaking any power? Lutfur Rahman has now been reported to the police for election irregularitiesand Labour have removed him as their candidate.

(By contrast the BBC are quite happy to report on an American Republican 5000 miles away who saysshe used to “dabble” in witchcraft.)


Financial irregularities, vote rigging, police action and removal as a candidate. 


And yet still the BBC do not report this story, on our own doorstep, not evenin the London page of their website.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BIASED VOCABULARY….

By | |
11 Comments

I have to say that I found this a fascinating insight into the language of bias employed by the BBC when discussing …Islam. Here’s Roger Bolton from the BBC College of Journalism..

“Journalists tend to be sceptical of religion and those for whom spirituality is important. That’s understandable to an extent. Journalists work with evidence; they want proof; want to see things with their own eyes. Faith and belief are the antithesis of that mindset. Some journalists take this further and find those who live their lives and make their decisions on the basis of their religious beliefs incomprehensible. Or they’re contemptuous of those of sincere spiritual conviction.’

BBC’s description of Islamic words in its college of journalism…

Kufr: ‘Non-belief in Islam.’ (No ‘best not use’…no description of it as derogatory or emotive?)

Islamophobia…Hatred and fear of Islam and Muslims. (No ‘irrational’ hatred of Islam?)

Islamist…A difficult term which, like ‘fundamentalist’, is best avoided… despite the fact that it has a perfectly respectable meaning. Used now pejoratively to refer to politically radical fundamentalist Muslims seeking to achieve political ends for their faith. (Islam is not political, nor fundamental, nor radical to a secular West?)



Dhimmi…Best not used because it can be emotive. It is sometimes used to refer to non-Muslims living under restrictions in Muslim countries. The use of the word is often intended to criticise Muslims. (ah so don’t use it because it puts Muslims in a bad light)

Fundamentalist…Fundamentalists believe their faith rests on the highest religious authority – scripture or God or a prophet. This is a very difficult word to use and is best avoided. Its association with terrorism has become so strong that its original meaning is almost lost.

Madrassa…A term often used – almost always incorrectly – to imply an institution where anti-Western sentiment is taught.

Wahhabi…The state religion in Saudi Arabia – puritanical and against innovations in Islam. Favours Islamic government. (so ‘Fundamentalists’/’Puritans’…those who follow the ‘real’ religion, not those who ‘pervert’ Islam?)

The wailing/western wall…The only remaining part of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It is an important place of prayer and pilgrimage for Jews. Do not refer to it as the ‘Wailing Wall’. (Why not ‘wailing’?…possibly people may then ask why the Jews ‘wail’…This description stemmed from the Jewish practice of coming to the site to mourn and bemoan the destruction of the Jewish Temple that was on the site before Islam conquered the land.)

Islam. .The word ‘Islam’ means ‘submission to the will of God’. …(not ‘peace’ then?)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

OFF THE RAILS

By | | ,
6 Comments

More insidious historical anti-British revisionism from the rancid BBC, this time from that cesspit of leftwing bias known as “From Our Own Correspondent”.

“The FOOC programmecontinues on its extraordinary way from supporting Maoist terrorists in Indiato now rewriting Angolan history. In a report on the Benguela Railway Justin Rowlatt tells us the ImperialistBritish exploited and robbed Angola of its natural resources using slave labourin essence…how unlike the new Chinese activities who operate in a much morebeneficial way towards Angolans.

What’s wrong with this? Angola was a Portugese colony not British, the Portugese took the enormous wealth generated there. It was the Portugese who started the railway and then contracted a British company to finish building and running the tracks. Rowlatt’s claim that it was Britain robbing the Angolans because we ran the railway is like suggesting Germany is really running this country because it builds and provides us with a transport system in the shape of cars from BMW, VW and Porsche. But not a mention of Portugal in the report. Guess accuracy and accountability aren’t that important to the BBC after all.”

Of course not. Accuracy and accountability are diversions from the main thrust of BBC output which is all about making the UK look  as bad as possible to fit in with BBC narrative.   


Hat-tip to the B-BBC reader who send me this.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE BIAS TONIGHT

By | |
Comments Off on THE BIAS TONIGHT

Couple of great examples of BBC bias on “The World Tonight” last night…

“In the first, an Indian journalist was asked forhis views on the preparations for the Commonwealth Games. Presumably, nobodyhad read out to him the Beeb’s ground-rules, as he trenchantly observed thatthe defects in the preparations typified the corruption, incompetence andcronyism of the Indian public sector. He contrasted the efficiency of theIndian private sector, pointing out that the new airport at New Delhi was putout to private contract and is up and running, in fine working order, incontrast to the sports facilities and the athletes’ village (which might seem,to the casual observer, rather lesser undertakings). In the news headlines at11 P.M., his words were quoted, but with no acknowledgement of the distinctionhe had drawn between the virtuous private sector and the venal,child-labour-exploiting public sector.”

“Later on in the same broadcast of “The World Tonight”, the last itemwas a discussion of the UN’s report on the “Mavi Marmara”.Predictably, the fundamental assumption of the article was that the objectivityof the UN could be taken for granted. The “expert” interviewed wasthe lawyer representing the British “humanitarians for Hamas pyschopaths” who accompanied in the flotilla.No-one was invited to defend Israel, or dispute the findings, or the motives,of the UN “investigation”. Why would they – to the BBC Israel is always in the wrong, that’s the rule.”


Hat-tip to the eagle eared B-BBC reader! 

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WARMING AND COOLING

By | | ,
24 Comments

My Biased BBC colleague Robin Horbury is much better at AGW posts than me but I wanted to bring Richard Black’s latest salvo to your attention. Note how poor Richard feels oppressed by those who dare question AGW. He seems to now saying that “ideological purity” (or what we simply call balance) is impossible because he is under attack from pro-warmers as well as   “deniers”. Please be gentle with your feedback, I fear Richard is feeling hot under the collar!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

MIDWIVES IN THE CLASS ROOM?

By | | ,
10 Comments

Given BBC sympathies, one can hardly be surprised at the easy treatment afforded to Dr Gillian Leng from N.I.C.E. and her suggestion that it might be a good idea in some places to have midwives in schools. Oh, and of course we need more contraception to help bring those unwanted pregnancies.Maybe we should fit out a class-room or two with birthing equipment? I enjoyed the passing reference to the “lack” of antenatal facilities for what was called “non-English” speakers  without ANY exploration, naturally, of what lies beneath this seemingly innocuous comment.  You won’t have the BBC or quangos like N.I.C.E. allowing any debate on why the UK taxpayer should be funding antenatal facilities for immigrants?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.