The BBC reports that a British computer expert who admitted supporting terrorism through the internet has been sentenced in a US court to 12-and-a-half years in prison. Babar Ahmad, of Tooting, south London, had admitted conspiracy and providing material to support the Taliban. Yet on the Today programme this morning, again in the 6.30-7am slot, we had a BBC correspondent giving us a VERY sympathetic piece on Ahmad. He was allowed to tell us how distraught he himself felt after the 9/11 attacks (yeah, right) and how he did not believe that Jihad meant killing innocent people. The impression was left that the bad Americans had jailed another “innocent Brit” in the form of jihad crazy Babar from good old London town.

Hamas must be so pleased that they have embedded Jeremy Al Bowen and Lyce Doucet in the BBC. The latter’s venom towards Israel was visceral on the Today programme this morning  – just after 6.30am. She trotted out what Israel said with regard to the accidental killing of the 4 young boys on the beach in Gaza and then immediately cast doubt on the veracity of it herself. I appreciate that Israel gets VERY little sympathy amongst the MSM here in the UK (The Daily Mail being an arch offender at the moment) BUT the BBC pretends it is a trusted and neutral source of news when in fact it could not bend over any further to propagandise FOR Hamas.

Jonathan Freedland, who just a few minutes earlier Mishal Husain told us worked for the Guardian and the Jewish Chronicle but didn’t mention the BBC, pops up, yet again, on the BBC:

The Long View

Jonathan Freedland examines the current anxieties surrounding the teaching of history through the prism of history textbooks from around a century ago with his guests in front of an audience at the Chalke Valley History Festival.

What is the balance to be struck between dry facts and flamboyant descriptions? Should British history imbue children with a sense of patriotism and chronology?

This turned out to be just another excuse to deride Britain, Empire and all that….

Apparently British history is not something to be proud of…such abhorrent behaviour…how do you teach such history when there is so much revulsion towards Britain’s past?….for example Britain looted, oppressed and impoverished India and no Indian can talk positively about Britain because of that legacy.

Or so we are told by William Dalrymple.  William Dalrymple who is pro-Muslim, pro-‘native’, anti-British.

Why would the BBC choose him as their impartial voice of history and reasoned debate?

The other guest speakers were in a similar vein, the whole programme being, as said, a vehicle to rewrite history and to bash Britain.

Janet Daley suggests that such self-loathing by British intellectuals (Orwell too denounced such an attutude) allows others to provide a different narrative…and when the BBC is also promoting an anti-Israel, pro-Hamas terror narrative who can doubt she isn’t right?

British guilt over jihadis is for dummies

In order to persuade young Muslims that their allegiance belongs here, this country will have to question its own casual self-loathing

If we expect law-abiding, loyal Muslims to handle this problem, we are going to have to give them a lot more help. The parents and the mosques and the communities can condemn as much as they like – and to their credit they have done a great deal of that over recent months. But these are displaced people themselves who need support in order to understand the values of British culture. In order to persuade their sons (and some of their daughters too) that their allegiance belongs to this country, Britain will have to question its own casual self-loathing. And the West will need to consider the larger consequences of its cynical isolationism.

Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East editor, is demanding a ceasefire:

H/T  Is the BBC Biased

On the Today programe we had a strange lttle report that came from nowhere, (0835) bearing little relation to anything in the news ( the charity commission story is well out of date) and seemingly inserted at the instigation of the BBC’s climate activist Roger Harrabin in order to continue his personal campaign against Lord Lawson’s Global warming Policy Foundation.

It was purely a series of smears oozing out of Harrabin’s report…the GWPF had  a ‘simple message’…don’t bother stopping greenhouse gas emissions, it is a political organisation (knowing nothing about science) out to destabilise the climate debate and derisively questions climate scientists integrity.

Of course the likes of Harrabin think there is no debate to be had and to allow any scepticism at all is to ‘destabilise the debate’….which is no debate at all as we know from the BBC itself which, under pressure from Harrabin and his mates, has been persuaded and gulled into closing down all debate on the science….as for the scientist’s integrity…..

Harrabin does praise the GWPF….but only as a device to slip in the notion that the ‘science’ is now more robust than ever as scientists improve their work.

Harrabin tries to smear the GWPF and link it to the ‘Climategate’ emails:

Lawson, who launched the foundation in November 2009 to exploit the controversy surrounding the so-called ‘Climategate’ e-mails that were hacked from the University of East Anglia, has made vigorous efforts to dispute the science of climate change.

One reason Harrabin might not like the release of CRU emails…the Tyndall Centre being set up to promote the science of global warming:

Why Tyndall sponsored CMEP

Email 2496 explains why the Tyndall Centre funded the Harrabin/Smith seminars – the Real World seminars of the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme

Mike Hulme:

Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning?  Woeful stuff really.  This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the  Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

The Tyndall Centre seeks to influence the debate and policies surrounding climate change:

Vision

To be an internationally recognised source of high quality and integrated climate-change research, and to exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability of the long-term strategic objectives of national and international climate policy.

Guess handing Harrabin a wodge of money for his own climate propaganda unit, the CMEP, was just part of that operation.

Bob Ward, climate propagandist, claims that the GWPF has no scientific credentials:

This was a complete mismatch. Professor Hoskins is a scientific expert, while Lord Lawson instead heads a campaign group which lobbies against the Government’s climate change policies.

However the GWPF has many scientific advisors and is set up on a similar basis to the Tyndall Centre…just pointing in a different direction.  Curious how Harrabin and Co can’t stomach the climate sceptic GWPF but not only work closely with the Tyndall Centre but took money from it as well.

Curiously the BBC has no problem with one of its journalists being funded by a clearly partisan organisation:

‘The BBC is aware of the funding arrangements for the Real World seminars. They have been considered against our editorial guidelines and raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output.’

Then we get to the real source of this latest story…that same Bob Ward…that non-scientist whom the BBC has decided is allowed to comment on science whilst refusing to allow Lawson in to discuss the issues about climate…based on Ward’s campaign to get the BBC to do exactly that.

Now we learn that he has launched yet another campaign and another complaint against the GWPF…and just by coincidence Bob Ward’s old mate, Roger Harrabin, pops up to do a hatchet job on the GWPF.

Harrabin tells us that:

The Charity Commission investigated the Global Warming Policy Foundation following a complaint by Bob Ward, a science communicator who works with Lord Stern’s climate change team at the LSE.

He also complained that the foundation breaches charity rules by “continually disseminating inaccurate and misleading information”.

What he doesn’t tell us is that the Grantham Institute that Ward works for, is itself a highly politicised organisation that campaigns relentlessly on climate change….funded by money from Big Oil….and that Bob Ward isn’t a ‘science communicator’…that might indicate he knew something about the science…and he’s not a scientist, especially not a climate scientist, he is a propagandist who has also worked closely with the insurance industry in regard to risk and climate.

Just so you get a measure of the ‘man’ that is Bob Ward here’s his objective and intelligent take on the GWPF:   ‘a rather disparate band of mostly old, white and male contrarians.’

It’s a small world…one that hasn’t got any warmer in 17 years….and they still can’t explain that.

The GWPF is an educational organisation:

THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION IS AN EDUCATIONAL CHARITY. ITS MAIN PURPOSE IS TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF GLOBAL WARMING AND OF ITS POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES, AND ALSO OF THE MEASURES TAKEN OR PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO SUCH WARMING.

Harrabin seems pretty keen to let you know his thoughts on the subject with 4 tweets all in a row:

I’m not the only one to find the BBC’s obsession with the GWPF odd:

 BBC ‘Today’ Programme Obsesses Over Climate Sceptic Group

BBC Radio 4’s flagship ‘Today’ programme this morning dedicated a whole feature on the charitable status of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), despite management effectively ‘banning’ its head, Lord Lawson, from the airwaves.

The story focussed on the fact that the GWPF will relaunch in September with separate charitable and campaigning wings, following a ruling by the Charity Commission that it should not use charitable money for campaigning. A report also appeared on the BBC News website.

The decision to report the story has left the GWPF especially mystified as it was first reported in the press over two months ago.

Which senior BBC journalist said this?:

‘We cannot get across the view that Palestinians are a displaced people who are fighting to overthrow, as they see it, a brutal military rule.’

Who are ‘the many’  senior BBC journalists who say that ‘They simply cannot get the Palestinian viewpoint acoss, the perspective they cannot say is that Israel is a brutal apartheid state.’

They cannot say that..because it isn’t true…however interesting to know that they want to say that….even more interesting to know which BBC journalists said such things…not hard to guess though.  Wonder what the Balen Report says.  Cannot be good can it?  BBC News Kills Jews?

There have been protests about BBC coverage being pro-Israeli...the BBC news did not report those protests…however the Today programme, in the shape of Mishal Husain, did. (0839)

Who do they invite in to discuss this?  An ardently pro-Palestinian Greg Philo and the fence sitting Jonathan Freedland who we are told works for the Guardian and the Jewish Chronicle.  We weren’t told he also works for the BBC on a regular basis…which might have coloured and informed your view of his comments as he defends the BBC telling us their coverage is quite fair….which we know to be quite untrue….he is also someone quite critical of Israel’s stance against Hamas….Hardly the ideal balance to the fanatical Philo…but perfect for the BBC.

This was a perfect storm for the BBC…..not only can they have some rabidly  anti-Israeli comments aired and allegations of pro-Palestinian bias countered, but also have someone defend the BBC telling us how good its coverage is.  Win win for the BBC.

Earlier in the programme (07:39) we had Justin Webb ‘advising’ the Israelis that killing and mutilating little children was a pointless exercise and that hadn’t they better talk to Hamas?

Lyse Doucet then came on and blamed Israel for the failure of the ceasefire telling us that of course Hamas won’t stop rocketing Israel until Israel deals with Gaza’s economic and social conditions.

Any coincidence that the new BBC drama, The Honourable Woman, is based upon precisely that premise…that the Israelis should be knocking down their ‘walls’, stopping their violence and instead work hand in hand with Palestinians to develop their economy?

That kind of ignores the root of the problem and flips the blame from Hamas to Israel…but Israel is defending itself against rockets and attacks from Hamas and imposed the closure of its borders because of those attacks…therefore the cause of any economic and social problems in Gaza can be traced directly to Hamas and the Palestinian’s 65 year history of terrorism against Israel and not Israel’s sanctions on Gaza.

Curious how Israeli violence in self-defence is futile and brutal whilst Palestinian terrorism is the result of Israeli aggression, a brutal occupation and a vicious apartheid state.

Doucet has turned history on its head in an attempt to support Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

Stop the terrorism, recognise Israel’s right to exist and tear up the charter that demands the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews and the Palestinians might then see a change in their circumstances.

Perhaps the Palestinians should heed their guru, Muhammed, who said that nothing will change for Muslims unless they change what is within themselves first.

Here you go, a new thread. Off you go…detail the bias.

Hamas bombards Israel and refuses to agree a cease fire

That’s one headline the BBC could have, should have, written…instead they chose this one:

Gaza conflict: Israel restarts air strikes amid rocket fire

Here’s the front page…once again the emphasis is on Israel and Israel is presented as the ‘aggressor’ in the headline:

No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel

The headlines matter because many people don’t read any further and even if they do they can influence how they ‘read’ the report.

In this case the BBC’s headlines will just confirm the opinions of those who think Israel is set on murdering every Palestinian and they won’t read any more…a different headline may encourage them to read further and learn more about the real situation and take a less partisan approach in viewing things… dyed-in-the-wool ‘anti-Zionists’ won’t be persuaded whatever but some less hardcore critics may well think things aren’t quite as black and white as they had previously thought or been led to believe.

Here’s Rod Liddle in the Spectator:

Will the BBC accept that Hamas wants to kill lots of Jews?

A fairly typically partisan report on the Israel and Palestine crisis last night
on the BBC ten O Clock News. The focus was entirely on the killed or injured
Palestinians, referred to exclusively as ‘civilians’; the point was made, at
the top of the report, that Hamas had killed nobody. Yes, but only because
Hamas is utterly useless: it clearly WANTS to kill lots of people, which is
why, on a daily basis, it bungs over the rockets – indiscriminately – in an
attempt to do so. The rockets which precipitated this crisis. We are enjoined
to have sympathy for the Palestinians and treat the Israelis with odium because
the former are murderous and incompetent and the latter murderous and adept. It
is an infantile sensibility.

And more headlines:

The LA Times:

Hamas keeps up rocket attacks after Israel agrees to ceasefire …

From Yahoo:

Hamas rejects Egypt truce offer, fires rockets

From CNN:

Cease-fire collapses, Israel responds to Hamas attacks ..

Interesting, as always, couple of exchanges with Nicky Campbell this morning on ‘Your Call’.

Campbell emphasised this is about ‘your calls’…just a shame that that isn’t necessarily true…step over the BBC imposed line of what is ‘acceptable’ and you’ll find ‘your call’ gets you a self-righteous and sanctimonious telling off from Campbell.

This morning’s effort was about the conflict in Gaza…though I would object to that narrow term of reference…the BBC has been insisting on limiting its reporting of casualties in Gaza starting only from when the Israeli counter-attacks began….which kind of puts the blame on Israel….ignoring the hundreds of rockets that are launched at Israel every year and neglecting the fact that the attacks began in 1948 when the Muslims first tried to wipe out the Jews…something they are still intent on accomplishing.

Campbell though keeps up the chosen narrative asking ‘What do you think of the slaughter of the innocent people in Gaza?’

Nothing prejudiced and emotive about that at all.

However when a caller comes on (23 mins) and says that a sizeable majority of Arabs are not interested in peace with Israel and that a sizeable proportion of Muslims aren’t interested in living in peace with the rest of mankind Campbell objects to the tone of the language used.

Campbell says ‘With every respect that’s an incendiary thing to say, it’s a highly inflammatory thing to say….em..peace loving…em..some would say that’s extremely islamophobic.’

The caller reels off a list of Muslim atrocities and intentions…Campbell tries to ignore the implications by claiming the caller is conflating entirely unrelated issues…except of course they are all related by one issue…and wraps up with the thought that ‘People will draw their own conclusions about what you said and why you said it.’

Really?  Why he said it?   What did Campbell mean?  Isn’t this the usual BBC brush off of open and honest discussion about a serious issue with the shout of ‘racist’…or rather ‘islamophobe!!’?

All so different though when a pro-Palestinian comes on(33 mins)  and tells us that Israel is a terrorist state inflicting terror upon the Palestinians.

Campbell merely asks the next caller what she thinks of that idea.  No outrage from Campbell, no condescending censure.

Shelagh Fogarty carries on the good work later….she has a couple of quick comments from Israelis then a long interview with a Palestinian, a ‘Gaza mother’….Fogarty asks, amongst other things, ‘What do you say to your 6 year when he says to you ‘When is it my turn to die’.

Any proof at all that the 6 year old boy said that?  Or is that the invention of Hamas’ media unit?

How well briefed Fogarty was on the plight of this woman and her family.  The producer or researcher must have had along discussion with this ‘mother’ before the interview and determined which especially affecting bits they wanted to be emphasised. Pure propaganda from Hamas aided by the BBC.

Fogarty finishes with the thought that this ‘mother of 5’ doesn’t want to talk politics and refuses to talk about Hamas, Fogarty emphasises this and says that she only wants to talk as ‘a mother’ and that this makes her words all the more powerful.

OK…except is there any doubt that every word the woman spoke was approved by a Hamas offical stood nearby?  She didn’t want to talk about Hamas because then she couldn’t be drawn into any discussion about the rights and wrongs of Hamas’ behaviour.

Her refusal to talk politics was itself ‘politics’.  Shame the BBC aren’t honest enough to admit that…they must have known the ‘mother’ had a minder as they interviewed her….as do all their journalists in Gaza.

Kill All The Jews

Let’s just remind ourselves what the Palestinians teach their children…from The Commentator:

The anti-Semitic terror group Hamas, which runs the Gaza strip and which has recently moved to reconcile differences with the Palestinian Authority, came under renewed criticism on Monday after revelations reached the West that Hamas TV had just run a broadcast openly telling children to kill all the Jews.
Watchdog organisation Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), reported that, “on the weekly Hamas TV children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers this week. The young Hamas TV host Rawan talks to a young girl in the studio named Tulin, who tells her she wants to be a police officer when she grows up. The child host directs her to the conclusion that as a police officer she would shoot “all the Jews.”

Child host (Rawan): “Tulin, why do you want to be a police officer? Like who?”

Girl (Tulin): “Like my uncle.” …

Child host: “OK, so what does a policeman do?”

Nahul (an adult in a giant bee costume): “He catches thieves, and people who make trouble.”

Child host: “And shoots Jews. Right?”

Girl: “Yes.”

Child host: “You want to be like him?”

[Girl nods]

Child host: “Allah willing, when you grow up.”

Girl: “So that I can shoot Jews.”

[Nahul the bee claps his hands]

Child host: “All the Jews? All of them?”

Girl: “Yes.”

Child host: “Good.”

The ‘Henry Plan’ is working…sort of…the BBC has breached the entrenched racism of some of its programming, challenging the stereotypical presumptions and attitudes that have plagued the BBC and that have resulted in the ‘hideous blackness’ of 1Xtra music station……

Ed Sheeran, the most influential man in black and urban music: BBC faces ridicule after singer tops poll for 1Xtra station

A BBC power list has named white singer Ed Sheeran as the most important act in black and urban music.

The 1XtraPowerList – which has been called the ‘saddest list in history’ by one black artist – put 23-year-old Sheeran in the top spot, while another two white acts were placed in the top four.

The highest-placed black artist in the list – which was billed by the BBC as showcasing ‘the most important UK artists in the black and urban music scene’ – was rapper Tinie Tempah.

Oddly at least one black artist isn’t impressed by this diversity…..

Rapper Wiley, who was placed 16th out of 20 on the list, tweeted afterwards that the list showed black artists in England were getting ‘bumped’.

He said: ‘We have been bumped basically. Not taking anything away from ed… he is sick. But black artist in england we are getting bumped. (sic)’

He added…‘The UK had ‘an issue with racism that we are unwilling to address’.

He said that was reflected in black British culture in general but also in negative attitudes towards black British music.

Hmmm…that’ll be why the BBC has a music station, 1Xtra, the Black music station, based  upon the skin colour of the musicians….never mind the ‘Asian Network’……aren’t people of Asian descent ‘British’ then just because they’ve got brown skin?

The BBC is very confused about race.