Author Archives: Sue

The Inescapable Shadow of the BBC

By | |
Comments Off on The Inescapable Shadow of the BBC

I listened to Gavin Esler’s programme, radio 4 ‘Esler on Eichmann’, (a title which elevates ‘Esler’ to one-name status alongside Elvis and Eminem.)
It was about BBC’s favourite Jews, holocaust victims. Accordingly, there was little to complain about in the programme itself, as it consisted mainly of interviews with witnesses of Eichmann’s trial, leaving little time for cynical speculation by BBC sages.
The dodgy bits are in the printed material – the article on the website, and the content of the programme information. The latter bears little relation to the programme that I heard. Glad to see that Esler is ‘award-winning’ though. Well done!

“The kidnapping violated Argentina’s sovereignty and was condemned by the UN. Questions were raised about whether it was appropriate to try Eichmann in Israel, and international Jewish leaders feared an anti-Semitic backlash.”

What a nice touch! I always relish seeing the words ‘violated’ and ‘sovereignty’ in a piece about Israel, especially when followed by ‘condemned by the UN.’ An acute attack of pedantry led me to look up ‘lead’ and ‘led’. Petty, I know.

As for the web article, like familyjaffa in the open thread – I wondered what

“This 50th anniversary is, therefore, also a time of debate within Israel about whether the inescapable shadow of the past also makes it difficult to make peace in the present, and thrive in the future.”

is doing there. It seemed to have no relevance to the actual programme.

As for “thrive” – I regularly receive a newsletter entitled “Good News From Israel” (thanks to the Ordmans) It’s choc full of heartening tales of Israeli successes in technology, business, medicine, science and anything else one could think of, so Israel’s *thriving* in the future is more down to whether blindness, political recklessness and stupidity lets international governments sanction the genocidal behaviour of her neighbours than to any ‘inescapable shadows of the past.’ The same goes for the difficulties of making peace, settlement freeze or no settlement freeze.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Keep Taking the Pills

By | |
35 Comments

Now that the consequences of Muslim immigration have become apparent, the question is should we resist or allow ourselves to be soothed?

Resistance sounds nasty and racist, so what to do? Tranquilize the entire UK population of course. Is this as deliberate as the the last government’s open doors policy turned out to be?

The BBC is running a campaign to acclimatise the UK and maybe the world to the bizarre dogma of a cult which differs from fascism only by masquerading as a religion.
Someone at the BBC thinks the way to deal with something antithetical to the UK in every imaginable manner is to sanctify it, bestow upon it special standards which apply to nothing else whatsoever, and introduce it to us at every opportunity, sprinkled with fairy dust.

It seeps into all areas of the BBC’s output, drama, news, documentaries, children’s television, and even to the nitty gritty – religious broadcasting.
Appointing a Muslim as head of BBC religious broadcasting caused a bit of a stir, but the BBC soothed us till we settled back down again. No matter what our lying eyes might observe, Islam will be portrayed as a force for good. When Jihad turned out to be another word for terrorism, the word terrorism itself was censored. The ‘holy war’ is re-branded as ‘militancy’. Ask someone who was blinded, who lost a a limb or a loved one in 9/11, 7/7, or Lockerbie to swallow that bitter pill.

A B-BBC reader was alarmed by this BBC offering, for Lent. What has Lent got to do with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, of the Cordoba Initiative Islamic Cultural Centre, near ground Zero in New York, one might ask. Is he about to appeal for funding for one of those gigantic Mosques? Or is he merely here to tell Christians all about universal human conditions such as temptation, betrayal, abandonment, greed, forgiveness and love?
Hand me the valium.
I am probably the only one who sat through two thirds of My Brother The Islamist because it was on BBC Three, a channel watched by hardly anyone. It was trailed quite a bit, so I switched it on to see if the BBC had conjured up a new way to make radical Islam look cuddly.
Before getting the thumbs up, a filmmaker must pitch his idea to the BBC. What a doddle for Robb Leech. It was obviously the concept that got him the go-ahead, rather than his filmmaking ability.

Poor old Rich the radical, what a sorry state he was in. He was so easily swayed by others that he appeared to be half sponge half man. His step brother Robb the filmmaker wasn’t far behind, because although the film began by conceding that radical Islam was a bit odd, we were quickly reassured that it wasn’t so bad after all. Poor Rich, though. Despite being a Weymouth lad, a few weeks in London had turned him into a multiculti patois-speaking alien in a shalwar kameez wha’evah, and what he had lost, accent-wise, he had gained in facial hair. Anjem Choudary featured prominently, what a nice moderate fellow he actually turns out to be. Who’d have thought?

A group of would-be jihadis were shown watching emotive images of babies, supposedly victims of ‘Israeli chemical weapons,’ propaganda specially designed to whip them up into a frenzy. Where do they get such stuff? Is any of it authentic? Who cares? Not Robb the filmmaker and not Rich the radical.

The BBC ‘s campaign to normalise Islam is becoming clunkingly obvious, but are you anaesthetised yet?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

CAMERA Captures BBC Bias

By | |
14 Comments

This has already been linked to on the Open Thread, – H/T La Cumparsita – but it deserves further attention. I posted here on this programme “A Walk in the Park” at the time. It was so one-sided that I saw it as a recipe, cooked-up and formulaic.

What a contrast with Jane Corbin’s unique Mavi Marmara Panorama, which was more thoroughly researched, not unsympathetic to Israel’s point of view, and, unusually for the BBC, it included some context.
CAMERA’s meticulous debunking of both “A Walk in the Park” and the Editorial Standards Committee’s original response to their complaints disposes of potential accusations of using selective criteria to make that comparison. It also underlines very clearly why we are engaged in a constant battle against endemic anti Israel reporting, which frequently breeches BBC editorial guidelines.

CAMERA demolishes “A Walk in the Park” on so many counts, and highlights so many breeches of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines that we should insist on being treated to the BBC’s and Jane Corbin’s updated responses. Would she, like Judge Goldstone, say hindsight is a wonderful thing, or would the BBC close ranks and defend the programme in their usual way, namely shrugging off individual accusations with a nitpicking approach that avoids all cognisance of the general impression given. It’s as if doing that blinds them from recognising or admitting the overall slanting and bias their programmes exude.

I don’t see how they could possibly get away with that for a second time. What they should do is simply to show this video on a forthcoming Panorama. For balance.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Backtrack Goes Without Saying

By | | ,
30 Comments

I don’t know. You go away for a week, and all sorts of things happen behind your back. Sensational things such as Judge Goldstone’s OpEd in the Washington Post. “Sorry, I was a bit wrong!” he said. “Silly me. Wonderful thing, hindsight. We can’t all be perfect, can we?”

“That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.”

No, it doesn’t go without saying. It shouldn’t. It needs to be said.

“I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence
explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were
targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about
intentionality and war crimes.”

“Oops! Sorry! Oh well, it’s partly Israel’s fault for not co-operating with us.”

“we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants.”

“(So we just believed uncorroborated figures from Hamas.)”

”The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas”

“Oop! Sorry again. Oh well, you live and learn.”

“The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a
foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original
mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel.”

Skewed against Israel, eh? ‘It takes one to know one’ as the saying goes.

“Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”

This judge fellow has remarkably high hopes it seems. He must be a jolly little chap, always looking on the bright side.

“…our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.“

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations.”

“Get me! So naïve! Silly old absurd little me.”

The BBC of course, so keen to absorb the Goldstone report and flourish it at the merest whiff of pro Israel odour, was unmoved. “Old Goldie must be having a senior moment,” they assume.

“Operation Cast Lead was launched in response to repeated rocket attacks on Israeli territory by militants in Gaza. Some 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including hundreds of civilians, as well as 13 Israelis.”

“We’re sticking with that, thanks all the same. That’s the one we know and love, and nothing’s gonna change our world.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Being Had by Has-beens

By | | ,
22 Comments

Hilarious edition of The Reunion radio 4 just now on the Brixton riots.
Discussion between some self-hating policemen, reformed rioters-done-good and Darcus Howe.
Nostalgia for the days when institutionally racist rozzers were outwitted by dem oppressed unemployed rastas, cruelly forced to smoke dope and have loud parties because of hopelessness, uselessness, and being targeted under racist stop’n’search. “Not because street crime was mainly perpetrated by blacks?” asked Sue MacGreg feebly. “We needed to be left alone/provided with jobs ” was the conclusion.
BBC blast-from-the-past Darcus Howe, spokesman for oppressed black communities, kept on and on about his fambley. As if we’ve forgotten all about his notorious spat with Joan Rivers over racism and his abandoned son.

Multiculturalism. Appease it or lookout.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Twitter To Replace BBC?

By | |
24 Comments

As Melanie Phillips says, Louise Bagshawe’s piece in the Telegraph is startling, but for reasons beyond the BBC’s insultingly cursory and misleading coverage of the atrocity in Itamar.

Although Louise Bagshawe’s article was like a breath of fresh air, it’s astonishing that anyone, let alone an MP, had to write it.

It was slightly disturbing that Ms Bagshawe was surprised it wasn’t reported prominently on the BBC and that she had to find out about it on Twitter, which surely implies that MPs normally rely on the BBC. Indeed we should all be able to count on the BBC’s ability to impart news and current affairs impartially and fully, but as it is we must just hope and trust that any MP worth his salt will be aware that if they want to know the whole truth – so help me God – they need to look beyond the Beeb.

It is startling that Tweeting on Twitter is the only way one can get a response from the BBC, and astonishing that the response took the shape of an offhand brush-off.

If MPs are going to involve themselves in foreign affairs, and they all have to vote on such things from time to time, it’s their responsibility to familiarise themselves with both the history and the current situation. Being shown round Gaza by CAABU or watching The Promise on Channel 4 is not enough. MPs should also be smart enough to recognise when and how the BBC’s coverage is slanted against Israel. They should understand that bias has been practised obsessively and continuously for decades and explains the mass ignorance facing us now.

The comments below any article relating to Israel, anywhere, reveal the depth of hatred for Israel and Jews that the BBC has bestowed upon the public.
Commenters frequently set out a string of falsehoods before launching into torrents of abuse.
People believe that Jews somehow manipulated Britain into permitting them, illegally, to drive Arabs out of their homes at gunpoint, and from then on to oppress and murder the indigenous Palestinians willy-nilly.
When the BBC bombards us with one-sided emotive and misleading reporting and omits everything that would let people reach a sensible and balanced conclusion, no wonder nearly everyone including Chris Patten hates Israel.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Comparing More Notes

By | |
8 Comments

Today I’ve been mostly looking at reports of the terrorist bomb in Jerusalem.

Leaving aside the unnecessary inclusion of:
”Jerusalem suffered a spate of bus bombings between 2000 and 2004 but attacks had stopped in recent years.”
and again further down:
”However the attacks have stopped in recent years. Jerusalem last experienced a bus bombing in 2004.”
– duplication possibly intended to imply good behaviour on the part of Hamas – this time the BBC fares better than Reuters, who, according to Elder of Ziyon have a poor track record where matters Israel are concerned. (Contrary to the impression given in my last post)

Until Jon Donnison’s contribution pops up towards the end, when things revert to normal, the BBC’s effort seems reasonably informative. They actually include some quotes from named Israelis rather than the usual ‘Israel says.’

The BBC’s:
“But an Islamic Jihad leader said a Palestinian attack would be a “natural response” to this week’s Israeli strikes in Gaza.”
is at odds with the Jerusalem Post’s:
“Authorities said that there was no connection between the attack and events in the Gaza Strip in recent days. However, they suspected a connection between this attack and one several weeks,(sic) in which an explosive device was left on the side of a main road near Gilo.”
– and the BBC is still eager to mention Wednesday’s airstrikes by Israeli warplanes, dutifully adding:
“after Palestinian militants fired two rockets into southern Israel.”
– though in my book, reversing these two events gives precedence to the wrong one.

It seems strange that the BBC needs to include:
“Islamic Jihad said it carried out the rocket attacks in reprisal for the killing of eight Palestinians near Gaza City on Tuesday. Four of those killed were members of one family and two of them were children”
while the Fogel family ‘weren’t there again today’ (Oh how they wish they’d go away)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Comparing Notes

By | |
14 Comments

The BBC is one of the most respected news organs in the world is it not? But why?
I’ve compared two reports about the recent activity in Israel. (Reuters and the BBC.)

I’ve divided them both roughly into three categories. Facts, Background and Analysis.

Reuters is the longer report. Perhaps the BBC is pushed for space, time or some other constraint, such as ‘dumbing down’ so let’s make allowances for that.
The BBC devotes about one hundred words to the ‘Facts’, but some are more emotive than essential, such as:
“The BBC’s Jon Donnison in Gaza City says warplanes could be heard over the Gaza Strip for more than an hour.”
Never mind. Straight to the casualty toll. The BBC has:
“At least 17 people have been injured… Palestinian medics say” whereas Reuters has
“…wounding at least 19 people….witnesses and militant groups said”
So who is telling us about the casualties? The BBC wants us to know that medics have told them, whereas Reuters call the informants “witnesses and militant groups.”
Mustn’t read too much into that though, I mean medics and militants are not mutually exclusive. Medics are back again in the BBC’s report, to say that seven children were wounded.
Reuters says: “including four militants, seven children and two women.” The BBC is not quite so interested in wounded adults for some reason.

The Background category is completely different. The BBC has 22 words of background (excluding 11 gratuitous words of the off topic Cast Lead body count) The BBC’s ‘background’ extends as far back as Saturday: “On Saturday, Palestinian militants fired dozens of mortars into southern Israel in what was reportedly their heaviest such barrage in two years.” We’ve heard that ‘dozens’ phrase somewhere before.
Reuters has much more, for example:
“About 130 such attacks had been made on Israel this year, 56 of them since Saturday, a military spokesman said.”
That sort of background is deemed too intellectually challenging for the BBC’s audience, probably.

As for Analysis, the BBC’s 30 word contribution is a platitudinous irrelevance, whereas Reuters 73 word effort would at least inspire the curious to find out more.
Anyone feeling manipulated, or is it only me?
I’m putting my ‘categorisations’ into the comments field. See if you agree.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Sue or Bite

By | | ,
15 Comments

Inayat Bunglawala, the Mr. Bean-alike chair of Muslims4UK has instigated a police investigation of Melanie Phillips because she said “The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media.”
If the police really do waste their time on this, while they’re at it they should look at Bungle’s own racist remarks.
Anyone else noticed the culture of blaming the victim that has sprung up this spring?
Jews living in Muslim lands, i.e. Israel, have only themselves to blame. By being there they’re putting themselves in harm’s way. Women, not covered from head to toe, are asking to be molested. Provoking a Muslim by not being a Muslim amounts to bringing it on yourself. Peacefully counter-demonstrating near a pro Palestinian hatefest is putting oneself in harm’s way. Jews cause offence by existing, and it’s their own fault if they’re bitten on the cheek.

Seen this, BBC? I’m blaming you and if I see you I can’t decide whether to report you to the police, or just bite.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.