Thought I would share with you those words that the BBC attack you for daring to use on-air. I’m not talking about vulgarity – that’s the job of Jonathan Ross and so many of the BBC “Comedians” and they are well paid for debasing our language. No, I’m talking about the political vocabulary and the things that must not be aired.

A few years ago, I took part in a BBC debate with Gitmo poster boy Moazzem Beggs. During the interview, and considering this took place not long after 7/7, I made reference to “Islamofascism”. I was instantly stopped and asked not to say this again. Beggs smiled as this took place and when I later asked him to condemn Islamic suicide bombers, he would not. The host had nothing to say about that. But gosh – I had dared profane Islam and that is just not acceptable.

Yesterday, I took part in a BBC debate on “anti-racism” and used the words “race hustlers” to describe specifically Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Anyone with any knowledge of those two will realise how accurate that term is. Again, I was instantly attacked by the host for using these words. You can listen to it here. Go to 34 minutes in to hear bias in action. Note the lack on interruptions on one side! Not sure of time allocation but it felt a got about one third of the time afforded to my debating opponent. Is that fair?????

There are quite a few other terms that the BBC are uncomfortable with; “Welfare parasite” “IRA/Sinn Fein” and of course “Illegal Immigrants.” Then you could try “Killing terrorists” “Workshy scroungers” and “Romanian beggars”. Perhaps you can think of some others

Of course the entire left wing vocabulary is fine, no problems for anyone using it. But the minute you open your mouth and spell out some home truths – BANG – you know what bias feels like. It is VERY frustrating.


I caught a trailer on Today this morning for the Jonathan Dimbleby hosted “Any Questions” programme on Radio 4 tonight and I noted that in it he made a reference to the Thatcher legacy including “golliwog”. Grins all round. But since it was Dimbleby who used this word – in public – I was wondering should he not be suspended forthwith? Or, and this is just a guess, is this what we can expect from the BBC in future – the direct association of the name Thatcher and racist language? If so, it rather confirms the blatant political agenda behind the alleged “outing” of Carol Thatcher’s private comments by unfunny comedienne Jo Brand.

As a further indication of BBC obsession on groupthink, there was a debate on Today between Thought for the Day contributor Anne Atkins (Church of England, mild) and Ben Summerskill (Gay and loud) on the use of language. Anne kept telling us how wonderful the BBC has been whilst the Stonewall Chief Executive got properly stuck into all who refuse to use only pc approved language. The BBC would be scared of a proper debate on langauge lest their innate fascism on the topic be exposed.

I’m looking for something.

Can you guess what?

Israel buries Mumbai attack dead“Six Jews died at the centre, which was one of several places targeted in the attacks that left 188 people dead.”

“She [Sandra Samuel, Moshe Holtzberg’s nanny] hid in a cupboard when the centre was attacked, but emerged to rescue the child after his parents were killed.”

“The Chabad centre was stormed on Wednesday evening by armed militants who seized hostages and fought a gun battle with Indian commandos.

Indian forces eventually regained control of the centre, killing several gunmen, but six of the hostages were found dead.”

Officials quit over India attacks (An earlier headline, preserved in the header, was “Troops battle to end Mumbai seige.) “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka.”

Israel awaits Mumbai attack dead “The organisation confirmed that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka. Their two-year-old son survived.”

Mumbai victims from all walks of life “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his wife Rivkah, 28, were among six Jews killed in the Mumbai attacks. They were found dead at the Jewish cultural centre, known as Nariman House, which was one of the gunmen’s key targets.”

Officials quit over India attacks (Has the header “Police declare Mumbai seige over”, and seems to be a later version of the second story listed.) “The organisation confirmed that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka.”

Tense times for Mumbai’s Jews “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivkah, were among the six people who died in the attack at Nariman House. “

As it happened: Mumbai attacks 27 Nov – contains references to the Holtzbergs being held hostage.

As it happened: Mumbai attacks – 28 Nov “A Brooklyn-based rabbi and his wife were killed in the siege on the Nariman House Jewish centre, the Chabad-Lubavitch movement confirms. Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were “the beloved directors of Chabad-Lubavitch of Mumbai”, it says.”

Jewish centre seized in Mumbai – contains a reference to the status of Rabbi Holtzberg being unknown at that time.

(Emphasis added in all cases.)


I was listening to the BBC “Today” programme early this morning cover the news that the worlds “highest moral authority” – the United Nations – has appointed a law professor in the shape of Richard A. Falk – who has compared Israel to the Nazis – as special investigator on Israeli actions for a six-year term. Nothing odd so far – after all comparing Israel to the Nazis is a favoured rhetorical device for the morally bankrupt. But I then noticed that the BBC interviewer referred to the “Occupied Territories” as the location for these imagined genocidal crimes that the UN will investigate and I wondered WHY it is that the BBC gets away with this routine parroting of Palestinian propaganda? The territories concerned are “disputed”, they are not occupied. In fact last time I checked the only people “occupying” Gaza were the Jew-hating barbarians Hamas. The use of language is of fundamental importance in all news reporting and the BBC should not parrot terms which can clearly be seen to favour one side and not another. The neutral term to use in this situation is to define the given territories as “disputed.” Why won’t the BBC use it?