Gotta love the BBC’s endless profound propagandising for Palestinians. Three teenage Israeli boys are taken away and shot to death by Palestinians. Cue PR problem. Then, Palestinian boy is also brutally murdered. We don’t know by whom but the BBC were quick to make it pretty clear that it was by Israelis “in revenge”. Maybe this is true, and NO ONE would see this murder as anything other than obscene BUT the BBC are the guys who were sooooo reluctant to accept that Hamas killed the three Israeli boys. Now, a few days on, with Israel targeting Hamas in Gaza, guess what? Yes…Hamas are holding out a branch of peace….

“Hamas has offered to halt its rocket attacks if Israel stops its air raids on the Gaza Strip, the BBC understands. A source with the Palestinian militant group said Egyptian intelligence officials had brokered a potential ceasefire, after escalating clashes. Israel says sporadic shelling from Gaza has continued. Several rockets and mortars landed without causing harm.”

The Palestinians are ALWAYS the victims. Hamas and the IDF are presented as if they are in any way comparable – which they are not. And most importantly, Israel is always in the wrong.

Here you go, it’s Friday and so time for a new one of these! Detail the bias here please.

From the Guardian:

Murdered Palestinian teenager’s family says new footage shows his abduction

Video appears to bolster family’s claim that murdered teenager Mohamed Abu Khdeir was targeted by Israeli extremists

Despite the Guardian’s claim the video in no way ‘bolsters the families claim that he was targeted by Israeli extremists’…it is  impossible to determine who took him or exactly what went on from the video….like to know how the family know they were asking directions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJH60_bHvO0

The Telegraph reports:

In the hours after his death, rumours appeared on Twitter that Mohammed had been killed by fellow Palestinians as part of a criminal gang feud or by his own relatives in a so-called honour killing amid unsubstantiated suggestions that he was gay. His family have dismissed such assertions out of hand and insist that he had no criminal connections or history of being in trouble.

A group of Muslim Asians attack and nearly kill two black non-Muslims.

The BBC have so far ignored the sentencing of the racist thugs in this country and are more concerned with the death of  a Palestinian in Jerusalem.  Can’t imagine them being so slow to report this if it had been a white right wing thug doing the attacking….only whites can be racist and Islam is the religion of peace.

From the Mail:

Racist thugs jailed for 36 years for battering two men almost to death with baseball bats because they weren’t Muslim

From the Spectator:

The Bradford head teacher who got it right on Islam and education

We should heed Honeyford’s warning, and recognise that what matters to Britain, as a secular nation state, is the extent to which the rising generation of Muslims can become British citizens first, and Muslims second, when it comes to defining their public duties.

The BBC has been repeatedly broadcasting an incendiary audio interview with relatives of the Palestinian teenager killed in Jerusalem as tensions between Israelis and Palestinians are ‘dangerously high’....a soundtrack that is almost certainly already on a Jihadi website added to video and pictures of Israeli or Western ‘atrocities’ against Muslims as a tool to both recruit new Jihadis and to incite more terrorism against Western or Jewish targets.

It must be a serious editorial misjudgement to broadcast what is nothing more than a highly emotive, provocative incitement against Israelis and any who support them.

The interview is one long ‘blood libel’ against all Israelis making provocative and inflammatory claims designed to whip up anti-Jewish sentiment as the Palestinians compare the Jews to Nazis and imply that the murdered Palestinian teen is just the start of a Palestinian ‘Holocaust’, a Jewish ‘Final Solution’ to deal with the Palestinians…. ‘one down, another 5 million Palestinians to go‘,  that the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, plans to kill them all, that the Jews have stolen their land and now are stealing their kids and killing them.

They claim the teenager was just a child, a ‘kid’…but at age 17 he is the same age as the British ISIS member boasting about his Iraq adventure.…’a person claiming to be Nasser’s brother Aseel told BBC Wales he was willing to die for the cause.

The 17-year-old, who is also believed to be in Syria, told the Week in Week Out programme: “Jihad is obligatory.”‘

There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for broadcasting this so called interview which is little more than the usual ugly, racist Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda.  It was first broadcast on ‘Today’ (08:10), then Derbyshire played it on her show but  made no comment…which begs the question played to what purpose, what was the intended reaction that the BBC wanted to get from the listener?  It was clearly intended to provoke some sort of reaction.  Undoubtedly it has been broadcast on other shows throughout the day and is available on the website as a stand-alone.

Perhaps The BBC’s Director General might like to get in touch with his lawyers to check if the BBC is guilty of promoting terrorism:

Terrorism Act 2006

(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another
to publish such a statement;

and (b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he…..(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.

Should the interview be found on a Jihadi website to recruit jihadis and promote terrorism would there be grounds for a prosecution against the BBC who so recklessly broadcast something that directly or indirectly could encourage Muslims to join the Jihad against Israel and the West?

The BBC were slow to report the kidnapping of the three Israelis, but fast off the mark to report the death of the Palestinian and to ascribe his death as the probable result of an Israeli lynch mob.

The BBC is now painting a picture of aggressive, violent Israelis out to attack Palestinians in revenge for the deaths and continually make reference to claims like these:

Scores of Israelis had angrily protested in Jerusalem late on Tuesday, after the funerals of the three Israeli teenagers.

Ghonit Sela, director of the Human Rights in East Jerusalem Project, told the BBC further attacks were feared.

“We saw dozens of people walking in broad daylight in the streets, yelling ‘death to Arabs’, trying to attack Arabs.

or this

“The Israeli police are just here to protect the settlements,” said his friend, Saif. “The settlers come to attack us all the time. They try to push us over the edge. Especially in Jerusalem.”

The BBC’s Kevin Connolly has been reporting that Israelis have been inciting violence against Palestinians but fails to mention anything about Palestinian threats and incitement.

The BBC consistently fails to report the celebrations when an Israeli is killed such as these celebrations of the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers:

PA, Fatah cartoons gloat over teens’ kidnappings

Drawings in official PA newspaper and on Fatah facebook page appear to celebrate abduction of Israelis

This was photographed on the Temple Mount. These ‘Palestinian’ children and their teachers are celebrating the abduction of three Jewish teenagers by holding up their three fingers in what has become the viral sign of joy at the kidnapping.

The BBC fails to report what the Palestinians teach their kids…the first video is interesting as it ends with the thought that once they have finished with Israel they will move on to Iraq and to the creation of a Muslim State without borders…someone has beaten them to it………

Amused to see Robert Peston complaining about Press freedom:

Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

This is coming from a man employed by an organisation that tried to shut down a ‘right wing’ news organisation that was a commercial and political opponent of the BBC.

It also comes on a day when the National Audit Office slams the BBC for its secretive ways:

Imagine that: the BBC is more secretive than anybody

The BBC is more prone to hiding behind commercial secrecy to withhold embarrassing evidence than almost any other organisation, according to public spending watchdogs investigating its costly failures.

The BBC’s willingness to deploy commercial confidentiality and individual privacy as reasons to keep back information put it in a league of its own, the head of the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

An organisation that spends £300,000 hiding a report into its activities in the Middle East perhaps has reasons to be secretive.

One thing to note…I have noticed that searching for BBC reports, even ones from a few days earlier, is becoming harder….BBC articles used to top the search pile but more often than not the Guardian seems to top the list and the BBC often isn’t there leaving you to alter the search terms until you hopefully dig something up….or go back through your history to connect directly to the link if you’ve read the article before.  Is that Google having a different priority for the BBC, or the BBC changing how articles can be linked to, or my own limited ability on the internet?

The BBC also seems to block access to older versions of reports…every time I have tried to use internet archives there is no link to anything but the most current version….meaning all those ‘mistakes’ and inappropriate interpretations of events are ‘vanished’.

Whatever the reasons, a technical glitch or the BBC ‘managing’ its news archives,  it does seem harder to dig up ‘old news’ from the BBC.

You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the BBC….so ready to blame Sykes-Picot and the ‘carving up’ of the Middle East regardless of ethnicity, culture and religion for the current state of affairs there…and yet so ready to encourage us, by hook or by crook,  to accept the oppressive hand of the European Empire erasing our nation states regardless of ethnicity, culture and religion.

How long before an Anglo-Saxon ‘ISIS’ declares its own Jihad against ‘Europe’ and demands its land and culture back?

Wonder if the BBC would be as supportive of those ‘militants’ as they are of the real jihadists?

Radio Four yesterday was cheerleading for Europe with yet another example of its use of a ‘discussion’ as a subterfuge to promote Europe rather than engage in a genuine debate….asking  ‘Would you be better off with Britain out of Europe?’

Remarkably, considering the weight of opinion against the European adventure,  the BBC found difficulty in getting EU sceptics to call in…as it admitted during the programme.

Not only that but some of the ‘callers’ you had to suspect were somewhat more than the average man on the street…’Hazel’ from Aberdeen seemed more likely to have an office in the Scottish parliament building whilst ‘John Butcher from Surrey’ (10 mins 30 sec)  would seem to be conservative councillor John Butcher, once a member of the Conservative Group for Europe…..but the BBC didn’t bother to tell us that and let him go on demanding the full costs of an ‘out of Europe’ vote be quantified whilst telling us that the approach to the referendum was fundamentally dishonest.

The presenter, Shari Vahl, gives the impression of being an enthusiastic EU supporter eagerly listing all the benefits of EU membership, as she sees them.

What isn’t gone into is the fact that the ‘European money’ that the EU so generously sends to us is in fact our own money once the EU has extracted a large wodge  that they take to pay themselves a nice wage, to provide themselves with a generous expense account and to gild their pension pot…what’s left funds Spanish motorways and white elephant airports  as well as some eventually finding its way back across the Channel to us.

We are told all that ‘European money’ will vanish, that businesses won’t invest here, that we won’t be doing any business with Europe, that all that useful legislation passed by the EU wouldn’t have happened if left to a national government, that ex-pats will be deported and should they be allowed to stay in their Spanish villas they won’t get health care anymore.

One of the few sceptical callers to get through took issue with all those points (about 12:36) ….and you could hear the sniggering from the studio….clearly they weren’t actually intending to have a genuine debate.

Another caller slipped through the net and said the majority of people wouldn’t think their lives would be effected in a beneficial way by membership of the EU...Shari Vahl countered with another caller saying he had a different point…clealry thnking he was a pro-EU caller…..the caller was an ex-fisherman who told us of the great fishing industry we used to have…Shari Vahl asked him what happened to that industry when we joined the EU…he said the industry was closed down.

Cue a rapid intervention from Shari Vahl demanding to know what would happen if we left the EU and then went back to the previous caller and said triumphantly ‘There you go, someone whose life has been effected by EU membership!’

Well yes, but not for the good….an industry was destroyed….hardly the beneficial effect the caller was actually talking about.

Shari Vahl was an impressively enthusiastic cheerleader for the EU becoming very animated with pro-EU callers, eagerly listing the apparent benefits of the EU that would either never have happened without the EU’s legisltaion or will be taken from us should we leave.

One of the things not discussed was what happens as the EU draws ever closer to becoming an actual federal state and not just a federation of sovereign nation states….Britain would then have to choose…it wouldn’t be possible to stay a fringe member of a such a state.

That is probably the most important and inevitable question as such a federal state is the intended end result of the European project.

The programme gave the impression of being a ‘debate’ with opposing pro and sceptic ‘experts’ and opposing callers, however the sceptics were few in number and treated with disdain or outright opposition and the whole programme gave the impression of being set up to promote the Dream as much as possible.

All part of the ‘education’ of the ignorant and foolish masses.

A Palestinian teenager has been killed in Jerusalem.

Israeli Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said it was too early to draw conclusions as to the motive.

“We know of a boy who apparently was abducted and we see a link to the discovery of a body. This is still under investigation by the forensic labs and detectives,” he told reporters.

“Everything is being examined. There are many possibilities. There is a criminal possibility as well as a political one,” he added. “I am telling everyone, let us wait patiently.”

The BBC has already decided…..the teenager was killed by Israeli extremists in revenge for the killing of three Israeli teenagers by Palestinians.

Kevin Connolly reports (11:37) that ‘Most people, in the absence of evidence, are making a direct connection between this and the abduction and murder of the Israeli teenagers.’

Connolly goes onto make a spurious connection between what Netanyahu said and the motive for the killing….‘Now we don’t have the evidence to know that this is what happened but if you think about the words of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who described this murder as a despicable act….that implies he sees a political connection.’

Calling the murder a ‘despicable act’ and urging the police to catch the killers does not imply anything about the politics…that is purely Connolly’s spin.

Victoria Derbyshire shows her worth and asks…‘So it’s impossible to say what is behind the killing of this Palestinian boy but who might be behind it?  What do people say?’

More indepth, factual reporting from the BBC.

Connolly tells us that the Palestinians are pretty sure it is Jewish extremists…but, ironically, ‘It would be nice to know more before we make our political judgement.’

But that hasn’t stopped them laying this at the door of the Israelis.

The one o’clock news on R4 (3 mins in )tells us that this was almost certainly the work of Israelis and Connolly tells us that the boy was kidnapped early in the morning on the way to the mosque…his family say they saw it on CCTV from the father’s shop…it showed a car pull up and a group of Israelis get out and abduct the boy.

However that’s not what the BBC reported elsewhere when ‘live’ witnesses saw the whole thing and were close enough to hear the conversation…remember this is in a solidly Palestinian area, right in front of people in the street:

Witnesses said Mohammed Abu Khdair was abducted near his father’s shop in the Arab district of Shufat in East Jerusalem.

A relative said he saw two men approach the boy and ask for directions before bundling him into a car.

“While they were speaking to him, a car approached in which there was a third man,” Saeed Abu Khudair told the Reuters news agency. “Two of them carried him. He was small so he couldn’t resist.”

“Some men who were nearby saw what happened. They chased after the kidnappers’ car, but they couldn’t catch it.”

So two different stories already.  And it would be interesting to know how they knew they were ‘Israelis’ from the CCTV footage.  Good of the BBC to give credence tot hat story.

Almost no doubt in the BBC’s mind that this could be anything other than an Israeli killing…they are happy to keep pushing that ‘suspicion’ anyway regardless of the ‘absence of evidence.’  An equally plausible scenario is that Palestinians staged the abduction themselves.  It wouldn’t be the first time they have ‘sacrificed’ one of their own for propaganda purposes…to ‘blood-libel’ Israel……but no mention of any such possibility from the BBC.

Muhammed Al Dura was most likely killed (if killed at all) by Palestinian’s intent on blaming the Israelis and generating some anti-Israeli black propaganda:

The killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durrah in Gaza became the defining image of the second intifada. Only Israel claims it was all a fake

Here you go, I can see the old open thread one is listing faster than the BBC’s gallery of 1970’s superstars. Over to you..see bias, detail it here!

This could explain an awful lot….and give an insight into not only Mark Easton’s mind but that of many of his colleagues so often reluctant to wave the flag…from 2008:

 About Mark Easton

I recently filled out a form for a visa that asked me my nationality. The choices were English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or Other. I didn’t want to be an “other” but the options were forcing me to pick. So in the end ‘other’ it was.

I was born in a small detached house on what was then a new estate on the edge of Glasgow in 1959, first child of four. At the age of 10 my parents upped sticks and we all moved to a little village near Winchester in Hampshire. At the local primary school, my Scots accent was quickly knocked out of me and I was left dazed and confused.

My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.

Ancient Irish and Welsh ancestry mix with Scots roots and English upbringing. The whole I regard as 100% British.

Being British is not “other”. It is me.

From that you might gather that he thinks there is no such thing as ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ or indeed any notion of nationality……preferring the borderless ‘Britain’ and in preferrence to that, if asked, probably ‘European’, and if asked again, a ‘Citizen of the world’.

Which all fits snugly with the BBC’s determination that we are a nation of immigrants and ‘Englishness’ is a relative, almost meaningless term…..echoing what Muslim ‘conservatives’ like the once head of the MCB, Iqbal Sacranie, said….‘no other language or culture should be treated as the ‘norm’ and that the British should only be treated as one community in a community of communities.’

For ‘Britain’ perhaps the BBC would like to use ‘Caliphate’ instead.

What was Englishness and is it possible now to define it in anything more than the loosest and baggiest terms?

This is the usual BBC mantra:

“Thus from a mixture of all kinds began, that het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman.”

Daniel Defoe’s poem, The True-Born Englishman, reflects how many see England – a “mongrel” nation forged from Celts, Angles, Saxons, Danes and Normans.

Successive waves of immigration in the 20th Century have given rise to the notion that England is unique in its composition, a mixture of all things good from all countries.

However they were disabused of this by Peter Mandler, professor of modern cultural history at the University of Cambridge, who said this view of English roots is simply wrong :

“The English are no more mongrel than any other European country – it’s a story that people tell themselves, but it doesn’t describe the country.”