Great to see that PM Brown is going to unveil the government’s revised strategy for the war in Afghanistan, following his visit to the country. He is expected to say Pakistan – which was also on his tour – must be part of a solution to Afghanistan’s problems. Wow – now who would have figured that? Brown is simply acting as a cipher for Obama here and yet when Blair did the same for Bush, he was castigated for it by the BBC. However the BBC desire to keep HMS Brown afloat at all costs means a blind eye is turned to yet another UTTERLY worthless Brown “initiative”



The Kate Adie presented “From our own correspondent” is a treasure trove for mining BBC bias. I caught Hugh Sykes on this programme today giving us the usual “It’s a quagmire” narrative about Afghanistan. Hugh argued that after all these years and despite all the aid poured into Afghanistan, children are still begging in the streets. (Being the generous soul, he handed over thw equivalant of a US dollar to one such child). In essence the purpose of his report was to suggest that things are little better now with the Taliban gone. Hugh couldn’t find anyone who supported the government. This is the sort of undermining of any political progress associated with what the BBC calls the “so-called” war on terror is what the BBC seems to excel at.


If you had the misfortune to tune into the Today programme this morning at 7.12am, you would have found yourself treated to John Humphrys in full on anti-American military sneering mode.

The news item concerns a US air strike on the Taliban spawn that infest the Herat area of Afghanistan and which killed dozens of the Taliban. Or at least that’s what the US armed force say, but who believes them, right? Straightaway this is disputed by “tribal elders” (Taliban, natch) “locals” (Taliban) and the ubiquitous “Human Rights” activists. (Taliban apologists) Humphyrs line was to immediately weigh-in behind the idea that the US forces had killed many innocent civilians – again. He brought on Grace Ommer from Oxfam (An organisation hardly noted for balance..) and he then made the remarkable assertion that this “war, if war it is..” is going very badly? I wonder what he thinks it is? Is he there to editorialise on this and if so who is there to provide a balance? Humphrys tried to get Ommer to say the war was going badly wrong but in fairness even she figured that Oxfam are hardly in a position to judge. She merely pointed out that US actions against the Taliban made humanitarian work very difficult. She appeared to long for the good old days when the Taliban were in sole control of the country and Oxfam could operate with impunity.

This item fairly simmered with anti-US military hostility and it is an example of how the BBC does all it can to undermine the efforts of the US military everywhere they operate. You should give it a listen, it’s an example of the visceral bias that permeates the BBC.


I see that at a time when we have lost several more of our brave British soldiers to the Taliban scum in Afghanistan Richard Bacon over on Five Live is running a morale-boosting “Is it time to talk to the Taliban” item on his programme. He’s managed to find a Conservative MP in the form of Adam Holloway, who served there with the Grenadier Guards, and who believes the aim of destroying the Taliban is now “beyond Britain’s means”. This Vichy Conservative wants to cut a deal with the murderous Islamics and naturally Bacon latches onto this. I heard David Cameron speak well on the import of our mission in the Commons earlier today but the BBC drum beat is always surrender. The BBC institutionally opposes the idea of fighting terrorism anywhere and so the likes of Holloway is an absolute gift to Bacon. Even as several British military families are in mourning for their loved ones and in need of the support of the nation, the State Broadcaster – care of a cowardly Conservative – seeks to put the boot in and imply that the mission has been futile.

100, NOT OUT?

And so the sad landmark of 100 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan is reached and it provides the BBC with yet another opportunity to undermine the morale of our Armed Forces. Soldiers from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, were on foot patrol in Helmand Province when a scumbag Jihadist detonated himself. The blast killed three of our boys. Instead of examining what sort of deranged mindset encourages these homicide-bombers (Islam) the BBC’s defence correspondent Paul Adams instead questions the veracity of the progress our military is making and complains at the corruption of the Afghan government. I’m sure the next of kin will find this most reassuring – the subtext of course being that their men died in vain. Shame on Adams and the rest of the defeatist anti-military BBC.


I note that an Afghan journalist working for the BBC in the country’s southern Helmand province has been found shot dead. Abdul Samad Rohani had been abducted on Saturday and his body was found on Sunday afternoon in Lashkar Gah. As I mention on another thread, this brutal murder is to be condemned. It is wrong and just because the guy concerned was working for the BBC does not in any way make it right. However when I read this report on Mr Rohani’s murder there are a few missing words. Nowhere does the BBC make clear that Mr Rohani has been killed by fellow Muslims. Nowhere does the BBC make clear that this is Jihad in action – an attempt by Islamists to silence the voice of a free press. The irony is that the US and UK military – whose very presence in Afghanistan is a constant source of BBC carping – risk their lives daily to try and protect the very liberty and freedoms which the the Jihad boys would take away, just as they took away Mr Rohani’s life.


I’m sorry I won’t be able to blog more today but I have other pressures on me however I did want to quickly draw your attention to the way in which John Humphrys introduced an item on Prince William’s flying visit to Afghanistan on the Today programme this morning at around 6.50am. He lined the report up by suggesting that “some people” (ie Beeboids) might say that the reason for this visit to the war-zone is a cynical attempt to get over the bad publicity William has incurred in the past week or so regarding the use of military helicopters for private use. I felt this was totally gratuitous and a crude attempt to undermine the Prince’s efforts. Humphrys must know that such arrangements are not slotted in with but a few days notice but then again “some people” can’t resist the opportunity to put the boot into the Royal family. BBC bias? You bet.


Wonder if you managed to wade through Frank Gardner’s latest paean to the wonders of Arab diplomacy here? Yes, US and UK armed forces risk life and limb in the dangerous parts of Afghanistan fighting the Taliban but like all good leftists Frank believes that “winning hearts and minds” is the name of the game and this is where troops from the United Arab Emirates score, delivering humanitarian aid to their fellow Muslims and, on occasion, even fighting their way out of Taliban ambushes. Frank manages to get us some Afghan comment..

“People are not afraid that Emiratis will harm their religion, or disrespect the mosque or burn the mosque, things of this nature,” Governor Patan says. “People are very friendly with them. Everybody will drag them in for lunch or for dinner.” These are hearts-and-minds operations at their most effective – drinking tea with Afghans, discussing what help can be provided, Frank gushes.

The problem is that drinking tea is not going to do anything to stop the Taliban, much as the BBC might wish otherwise. This is a war. I also reject the implied slur concerning the behaviour of US/UK troops in the quote he provides. This is subtle character assassination of our own military and how they behave. Now I applaued all efforts made to combat Islamic extremism and in that regard the efforts of the UAE soldiers are to be welcomed but the likes of Frank Gardner is VERY selective who he lavishes praise upon – and the US and UK armed forces do not fall into this elite camp. Maybe if we sent in a battalion of aromatherapists and stress councillors Frank might take notice of the gallantry of OUR soldiers?


Yes, if you want to get a good dose of BBC bias in full-on mode, just tune in to the morning Radio 4 flagship “Today” programme. I have to admit I rarely listen to it these days since it only spoils the start to the day for anyone who is not a foaming at the mouth lefty. But in the interests of this blog, I did bite my tongue and tune in this morning from the “Thought for the Day” section at 7.45am all the way through to main post 8am headlines political interview. My worst expectation were immediately exceeded when I realised that the “Thought for the Day” contribution was a sterling defence of the Imam of Canterbury by a Muslim contributor. Amazingly, he claimed that Rowan Williams had been “misunderstood” and that “most people” were now coming around to sharing this view. This was a pure PR piece engineered to offer support to the not so good Dr William. Following straight on from this was another item on Druid Williams, and the fact that he faces a meeting of the General Synod later this week. Again calls from within the Church for him to resign were downplayed and instead the claim was made by the BBC reporter that Williams was a much loved and respected figure who was holding the Anglican Church together and that it was inconceivable that he would resign. Do you think Lambeth Palace writes the scripts for the BBC?

After the News headlines at 8am, the lead story was “Is Afghanistan a failed State?”, a favoured BBC theme. One might more accurately ask “Is the BBC a failed broadcaster?” We had the usual “It’s a quagmire, get us out of there” defeatist mindset in full flow, with the BBC presenter seemingly oblivious of the fact that Al Qqueda have used Afghanistan as a base from which to bring terror to the West. The hapless David Milliband (Aged 13 and 3/4) tried to explain why we need to defend our interests by staying the course here and fighting and killing the “insurgents” in the southern part of Afghanistan but the BBC interviewer seemed much more sympathetic to the French and German view that whilst armed forces could go to Afghanistan, they mustn’t go to where the danger is! A pacifist army that travels the world is probably the BBC’s fantasy – a crack legion of aromatherapists is something they MIGHT just tolerate! And so it ended, and so did my interest in listening to this drivel. You know it’s when you actually reflect on how interviews are constructed, on how interviewees are chosen and allocated time, and on how running orders are established, that the anti-Britishness of the BBC comes through in all its glory. Do you ever listen to the “Today” programme and if so, can you share how you do this for more than 15 minutes without feeling nausea?


Conveying and endlessly repeating the idea that “the west” is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan is central to the anti-war dhimmi leftwing narrative put forward by the BBC. Perhaps this might explain why the BBC leads with the heading “West warned over Afgan failure” before revealing in the very next second sentence that “the west” is in fact not failing! This story revolves around the reluctance of most NATO members to send troops to the southern part of Afghanistan, where the majority of the fighting takes place. The US, the UK and Canada are doing the heavy-lifting here and the likes of the Germans and the French wish to keep their soldiers well out of harms way, thus invalidating the very effectiveness of NATO. The BBC has been enthusiastic in running a series of stories demonstrating that the Taliban are confident, that the winning of the war is questionable and that everything but a military solution must be considered. This all helps shape the general mood of the population, turning it against the idea that the UK is right to be helping lead the fight to the Taliban and assorted Jihadi in this region. In this way it undermines the role of our soldiers out there whilst buoying up the enemy.