Author Archives: Sue

Delingpole Gets It

By | | , ,
13 Comments

Hacking into voicemails is not so different from scrabbling around in dustbins searching for something to whip up into a scandal; well, perhaps one step further. The press may well be reflecting our appetite for tittle-tattle, but they created it in the first place and exploited it cynically and self-servingly ever since. Hacking into Milly Dowler’s voicemail when they knew she had probably been murdered, or interfering with serious police investigations was undoubtedly a step too far, but don’t let them pretend that the steps leading up to the extreme, grotesque intrusion we have now weren’t leading in exactly the same direction all along.

I’m sure this whole business is getting on everyone’s nerves. We’re all fed up with watching hacks, celebrities and broadcasters precariously balancing on their moral high horses. They’re blinded by the sanctimonious superiority they’ve suddenly adopted, so they don’t understand that their self-appointed mandate to moralise on behalf of the ‘victims’ makes you want to punch them in the face.
As soon as the media filters the news through its intrinsic limitations, in terms of education and attitude, there’s a danger of distortion, be it deliberate or not. So we need choice. If the BBC is campaigning for its own monopoly, that’s very wrong.

James Delingpole (H/T George R, thread on similar topic, below) sums it all up really well.

The BBC is at Least a Thousand Times More Evil and Dangerous than Rupert Murdoch

“And of course, the house leftists at the BBC (most of them recruited through the pages of the left-wing Guardian newspaper, which BBC employees tend to believe is also the ONLY newspaper) want to keep it that way. That’s why they have been pushing the “scandalous” Murdoch revelations so hard; that’s why Labour leader Ed Miliband and Tony Blair’s ex-enforcer Alastair Campbell and socialist ex-Prime-Minister Gordon Brown and the pathologically left-wing Twittersphere and, yes, the Guardian newspaper have been so eager to join in the fray. Sure they hate Murdoch, that’s a given. But what they hate far, far more – because they fear it – is the possibility that British audiences should be exposed as US audiences are to dangerously conservative concepts like freedom and small government.”

Please do read it all.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Myths and Facts Part 4

By | |
21 Comments

The BBC favours stories that show Israel in a poor light, and holds back on the rest in a decidedly disproportionate manner. Because of events in Syria, Turkey now seems willing to resume normal relations with Israel. A UN report about the 2010 flotilla, which deemed the blockade of Gaza legal, and was generally favourable to Israel, passes by the BBC unnoticed, as do the somewhat bizarre attempts by both Israel and Turkey to modify the contents of the report, pre-release.
The BBC does mention another UN report, critical of Israel’s conduct during the war with Lebanon. UN special rapporteur Richard Falk blogs an antisemitic cartoon, which is ignored, yet Israel’s arrests of flytillistas at Ben Gurion airport are duly noted.
Which brings me to my final point. This fascinating interview with the irreplaceable Abba Eban shows that things have changed, yet somehow stayed the same. In 1958, nine years prior to the six day war, people in the media were already putting the case for Israel’s enemies, implanting and embedding the myths that remain to the present day, and showing that it is Israel’s very existence that her enemies object to and are resisting, aided and abetted by the Carolines, Rachels, Keiras and other BBC tweeters who display their half-baked 140 character ideas with such confidence and bravado. They have probably never even heard of Abba Eban, don’t know the first thing about the history of the Middle East, and are of a mind to overlook the peculiarities of the Islamic mindset and its inherent pathological hatred for Jews.
I hope these posts, which admittedly will swamp the site for a few minutes, will illustrate the ignorance, superficiality and agenda-driven half truths, which will be dished up for public consumption if ever the BBC monopoly comes to pass.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Myths and Facts Part 3

By | | ,
5 Comments

A favourite talking head, panellist and guest of the BBC is Green MP for Brighton, Caroline Lucas. She’s the only Green MP, so you’d think she’d be busying herself doing the job she was elected to do. (Saving the planet.) Instead, as Richard Millett shows, she and some other intellectually challenged activists for peace or whatever they call themselves are creating unnecessary carbon footprints with a mock flotilla on the Thames. Why? Activists for peace are not ‘pacifists’ – a term which implies apathy, inactivity and capitulation. These people shriek “Free, free Palestine” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free” discordantly and shrilly through loudhailers, with little or no knowledge or understanding of what their chant means. The word ‘activist’ resonates with righteousness. Pent-up hatred animates such people into flatulent, gaseous, hyperactivity, till they enact vacuous gestures of pointlessness. Oh! the smug looks on their faces. Do they know what ‘From the River to the Sea” means? The Greens have links with undesirable organisations, antisemitic tendencies, and are popular with the BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Myths and Facts part 2

By | |
1 Comment

The Rachel Corrie topic led to DB’s reminder of a couple of B-BBC articles we prepared earlier, concerning a journalist called Keira Feldman who had devised a kind of agenda-driven honey trap in order to coax a sensational story from Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch. She gave him the impression that she was “a freelancer working without a specific assignment”, when she was in fact working for the BBC. She now writes for US based radio stations and online publications, so her relationship with the BBC may have been but a brief fling. Her utterances on Twitter reminded me of why not to join. Keira’s photo with jaunty hat exudes the cockiness and overconfidence of a gel convinced of her own righteousness, despite having acquired dangerously little knowledge. Her anti Jewish articles indicate a deep-seated self-hatred or similar internal psychological conflict which would be best addressed medically. Hers, and thousands of others’ reflexive support for the fly/flo tilla illustrates how myths bed-in, however illogical they may be, and become part of the landscape.
By now, everyone but flotillistas accept that Gaza is not under siege. The famine in Africa throws Gaza’s humanitarian non-crisis into perspective. The BBC lets the failed flotilla story slink away with its tail between its legs, willing it to fade hurriedly into obscurity. But we do hear about the flytilla, another publicity stunt dreamed up by Israel-haters, primarily to make Israel look cruel, but also intended, in some transcendental way, to ‘help’ Palestinians.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Myths and Facts part 1

By | |
1 Comment

The initial lurid sensationalism is the part of a story that will always stick, never mind what emerges thereafter. Cindy Corrie’s piece in the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ (H/T Too True) reminded me how unfortunate that can be, especially if the story appears to confirm any of the commonly-held negative preconceptions about Israel.
Just as people still repeat the Al Dura lies unchallenged on the BBC, the myth of Rachel Corrie’s noble martyrdom remains untarnished despite the facts that have come to light following the regrettable incident in 2003.
The notorious legend of Rachel Corrie’s adventures in Gaza concerns her passage from youthful but misguided idealist, through useful idiocy, to her final, inevitable destination – being bulldozed to death.

Posthumously exalted, deified and immortalised by Israel-hating dramatists and propagandists, and further elevated by having the good ship Rachel Corrie named in her honour, (and seized by the Israelis during last year’s propaganda-stunt-flotilla) her media-fuelled journey from zero to hero bears out the adage that a little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing.
It is understandable that Corrie’s family should take up her cause and exploit the unassailable position their bereavement affords them. To face the stark truth about her death would be to accept the futility of it and to rub salt into a painful wound.

However, overwhelming evidence indicates that she sacrificed herself on behalf of the ISM, a cynical and exploitative group who used her mercilessly. The martyr myth endures, regardless. People won’t let an inconvenient truth get in the way of a cherished fairytale. The Corrie fable is firmly embedded in the stubborn imaginations of people determined to cling to their preconceptions. To make matters worse, Israel had initially performed its customary suicidal ruse of taking the blame itself, even before the blamers had a chance to get their own accusations out of their mouths. They’re now beginning to see that was hasty.

“We’re nuts. We overlook the fact that Corrie’s death took place in the midst of the “intifada” terrorist onslaught against Israel and that she was working for a Palestinian-led organization as the first line of defense against Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield to stop terrorist suicide bombers. Just ten days before Corrie’s death, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a bus in Haifa, a few miles from the courthouse where the Corrie parents are suing.”
“Corrie and her band of ISM internationals had been disrupting IDF activity in Rafah just yards from the infamous “Philadelphi route” along the Gaza-Egypt border. This was an area of intense terrorist activity and was — and still is — the location of Hamas tunnels.”
“On the day of Corrie’s death, the new ISM aggressive actions involved placing themselves in severe danger. Eyewitness reports recorded immediately after Corrie’s death prove that the ISMers had knowingly decided to put themselves in harm’s way.

“Reported here — for the first time — is the fact that prior to Corrie’s death at least two “internationals” had been pulled out from under the bulldozers at the last second.”

Eight years on, Corrie’s parents have again taken Israel to court, being dissatisfied with the initial investigation. The first phase of this is over and a press conference took place in Jerusalem on this very day. Whether the BBC will report this I wouldn’t like to guess, but if Israel can be blamed unequivocally, I’d hazard a yes.
The Guardian, needless to say, is already on the case. But it’s not over yet. Even when the courts have finally finished with it, the legend will live on. I’m telling this story merely because you won’t hear it, at least not impartially, on the BBC; and because it’s a prequel to more things I’m going to mention, which I hope will illustrate the ignorance, superficiality and agenda-driven half truths which will be dished up for public consumption if ever the BBC monopoly comes to pass.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

PC Puzzle

By | |
17 Comments

A B-BBC reader says “There’s much puzzlement in Hampshire about what section of the community feels it is acceptable to put an old pony in a trap and force it into a lake in order to drown it.”

Pony ‘beaten’ into Hampshire lake dies. (Or should that be ‘dies’?)

When the BBC finally has the monopoly of newsgathering and reporting how will anyone ever know what’s behind the politically correct obfuscation of such stories?
Will such incidents always be carried out by ‘People’ and never by ‘Travellers’ or indeed ‘Gypsies’?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Miscellany for a Hot Day

By | | , , ,
19 Comments

There was a nice piece by Damian Thompson in the Telegraph yesterday about the Johann Hari dilemma. Is the means okay – even cheating – if it justifies the end? Hari’s views are unpalatable and immature. They would be; it seems he’s only thirty two years old, if a tad chunky for a young fella. But the principle is not unlike the line postulated by defenders of Charles Enderlin’s decision to air the unverified Al Dura story on France 2, which subsequently ‘went viral’ with dire consequences. These defenders said, “What does it matter whether it’s true or not? – we know it’s the sort of thing that happens all the time.” I’ve heard similar views expressed on the BBC, not to mention speakers who still give credibility to the incident.

The spat between Cameron and Bercow was announced on the radio this morning. I can’t remember if it was presented as a direct report from the pages of the Guardian, but in any case, that’s what it was. Funny, because the Telegraph seems to side with Bercow, and the Mail with Cameron. The Guardian seems to be facing a dilemma. To go with their ‘class’ or their ‘Semitic’ prejudice. They seem to have come down in favour of the first. After all, Bercow is hated for his pomposity, his stature, his traitorous politics, and most of all, for his wife. His Jewishness almost pales into insignificance. Whereas Tory Toffs Sam’n’Dave trump all that because they represent Eton, privilege and puppy dogs’ tails. The Guardian’s theory is that the feud stems from their differing backgrounds. When I heard that, I wondered whether ‘differing backgrounds’ was a euphemism for something sinister, but it’s class again.
Quite a few Jews are short. Let’s call it petite, which is what people call me. Occasionally, someone will ask me “Aren’t you tiny?” which I assume they feel free to do, probably not considering it to be rude, at least not as rude as it would be to greet a new acquaintance with “How d’you do? Aren’t you podgy?” or aren’t you bucktoothed, bald, strange-looking or bandy-legged?
If you’re a man, though, they’d never say ‘aren’t you tiny’, unless they were saying it as an insult. David Cameron seems to think it’s perfectly okay to get a laugh out of calling Bercow a dwarf, which is not big and it’s not clever. So much as I’d normally say a plague on both their houses, I’m with the Jew. I guess that also means I’m with the BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

How Many Wars Is A Nobel Peace Prize Winner Allowed To Have Before The BBC Will Raise An Eyebrow?

By | | , , , , , , ,
11 Comments

The winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace is currently involved in military attacks on six different countries. Where is the BBC on this? Now the US President has even sent troops to invade yet another Muslim country: Somalia. Where are the BBC’s war correspondents? Where is the BBC North America editor to give expert analysis on why The Obamessiah isn’t a cowboy warmonger? Fortunately, Matt Frei is no longer around to tell you that He is a “reluctant warrior”.

In case anyone here relies solely on the BBC for their information, I’ll list the countries in which the US is currently militarily involved:

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia.

Back when the President was dithering deliberating over whether to join in the war on Libya, Mardell sneered at those who wanted to see “an unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead, out front, leading those who have the guts to follow”. He also said that the President “didn’t want to be seen leading the posse to lynch the bad guy.” So what about now? Why is there no BBC discussion of how the US is blowing people up and targeting them for assassination without UN resolutions and without joining an international, NATO-led effort?

As Mardell himself said before hostilities against Ghaddafi commenced:

Many in Britain and the rest of Europe cheered when Obama was elected. They were fed up with the guy in the cowboy boots who shot from the hip. They seemed pleased with a US President who had no aspirations to be the world’s sheriff. Now, some are shaking their heads, looking for a leader.

So he is perfectly capable of criticizing people who wanted the President to go to war. Why, then, is he incapable of criticizing – publicly, anyway – the President Himself for not only going to a war that Mardell didn’t like, but taking war into even more countries than Bush could ever have dreamt of?

Just before the US joined in with Cowboy Dave and Sancho Sarkozy, Mardell explained that the White House’s reticence was due to the fact that nobody wanted to make the US look like it was doing more of that nasty old imperialist aggression. So why does the bombing of Yemen and invasion of Somalia not look like it? If it walks like imperialist aggression and quacks like imperialist aggression……

Mardell at one point tried to convince you that The Obamessiah made the UN more relevant by forcing them to make the moral decision to attack Ghaddafi. He said it was a big deal because now nobody would think the US was “dictating what happens in the Muslim world”. How about now, BBC? Why is invading Somalia or bombing Yemen without a wink at the UN different?

There’s no dithering deliberation when it comes to wantonly bombing the crap out of Muslims in other countries. And not a single raised eyebrow at the BBC. Mardell can be critical of people who urge the President into war, but he cannot be critical of the President Himself for invading countries without any prompting from an uncouth public.

It was a big deal when everyone agreed that there would be no troops on the ground in Libya, as if that somehow certified the humanitarian bona fides of the “mission”. So why is the BBC completely silent when the US sends troops in to invade another country altogether? I assume Mardell is on yet another vacation, but there are several other Beeboids assigned to the US, some of whom are allowed to give their own expert analyses on US issues. Where are they?

The BBC has no trouble running articles telling you about criticism of the French supplying weapons to the rebels in Libya, but cannot find a single person to criticize the President for ordering drone bombing runs in Yemen or Somalia, never mind Libya. The criticisms of His ramping up the war in Pakistan have been kept extremely low key as well. What a difference between now and when Bush was in charge.

As has been pointed out on this blog by so many people, there is also a marked absence of anti-war protesters. This isn’t the BBC’s fault (much), but surely there must be one curious Beeboid on staff who wonders why the anti-war crowd simply doesn’t care about how many innocents The Obamessiah kills or may kill with His warmongering. I think they simply view the bombings and killings differently because it’s Him. Somehow, He knows what’s best, and wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t good for all of us. He works in mysterious ways, ours is not to reason why, etc.

The BBC’s integrity when it comes to reporting on war has been severely compromised by their deep, unwavering bias in favor of the leader of a foreign country. Your license fee hard at work.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Is the BBC Incapable of Impartiality?

By | | ,
60 Comments

We’re not the only ones to have noticed the BBC’s problem with impartiality. Andrew Griffiths MP has written a piece about it in The Commentator. “Is the BBC incapable of impartiality?”
He is particularly concerned with the politically unbalanced panels on Question Time.
Andrew, where have you been all this time? Maybe you should start reading this blog.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

How They Spend Our Money

By | | ,
30 Comments

This is a guest post by Chuffer.

Now, if you found Life of Brian funny, particularly the scene about ‘Weleasing Woderick’, you’ll love the new newsreader at BBC Radio Solent. Not only is she unable to read aloud (words like ‘legislature’ prove awkward, and ‘sister ship’ somehow becomes ‘ship sister’) but she has a speech impediment that means ‘Cameron’ becomes ”Camewon’, and ‘aggressive’ becomes agwessive’. And, of course, ‘radio’ becomes ‘wadio’.

Listen 1hr 29mins in, here
How does someone who can’t read aloud become a BBC newsreader? Is there no stage of the application process at which someone points out gently that a news reader has to convert the written word into clear, easily understood, spoken word? Do they employ window cleaners who can’t reach the windows? Or drivers who can’t drive?
No matter, with all that telly tax coming in, who cares how the money is spent?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.