Category Archives: Uncategorized

. The BBC’s Burma coverage since the cyclone always speaks of ‘generals’ or ‘the military’ when discussing the regime. After more than a week with no clue to the ideology of the regime in any of the reports I caught, I had to go to reference works and Wikipedia to discover that (quoting the latter):

Democratic rule ended in 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup d’état. He ruled for nearly 26 years and pursued policies under the rubric of the Burmese Way to Socialism. Between 1962 and 1974, Burma was ruled by a Revolutionary Council headed by the general, and almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control (including the Boy Scouts) …. Between 1974 and 1988, Burma was effectively ruled by General Ne Win through the Burma Socialist Programme Party …

(For the whole wikipedia entry on the involved history of military rule in the country, go here.)

This socialist origin and orientation of military rule in Burma seems to have been airbrushed out of routine BBC coverage. The mention of ‘generals’ and ‘military’ with no hint of their ideology has an obvious tendency to suggest a right-wing regime rather than the left-wing regime it more appears to be. Is this actual deceptive intent, unconscious prejudice, mere carelessness, mere brevity of reporting, mere ignorance, …? Take your pick.

[Added a few hours later] To be fair, I can believe the Burmese junta does not shout about ‘socialism’ as loudly now as in the days before the collapse of the Soviet Union (when it was more fashionable), and with frequent coups of one general against another it may be hard to say just what their current ideology is – beyond holding onto power, of course. I conjecture a situation similar to China: an unrepudiated socialist past but with little ideological rigour today. My reason for posting is that I found myself wondering whether, if the regime had a similarly-explicit right-wing origin, I would have found it equally easy not to hear of it during a week of coverage.

[highlighting of text in wikipedia quote added by me]

a.k.a. John Hawkins of Right Wing News writes:

What’s not OK is that the BBC’s World Have Your Say radio program does something that is very annoying and also, in my opinion, a little dishonest. They have guests on and then they have what sound like callers, who are actually ALSO unidentified guests booked on the show.

They have done this to me (and for that matter, other bloggers) before — asked me to be a guest on their show and then announced me as “John from North Carolina,” as if I had just called in to the show.

(Via House of Dumb.)

That’s just not on, whether it’s done for invited blogger callers from the Right, as in this case, or from the Left, as I suspect is more common. (We have several instances recorded on this blog of Joe Activist being passed off as Joe Public.) A few years ago the BBC might have had the excuse that no one knew what a “blog” was, but those days are gone.

I thought the caption to the top picture of this piece from Rod Liddle about the sanguinary characters that have occupied both the dock and the bench during the long history of the Old Bailey was rather a laugh. I doubt the caption was written by Liddle; he has his faults but prissiness isn’t one of them. [CORRECTION: “Newshour” points out that it is Rob, not Rod Liddle who wrote this.]

UPDATE: The caption now reads, “Before newspapers, the Proceedings were widely read by the public”. Bo-ring. And not, I think, really true – newspapers really got going at about the same time as the Old Bailey’s Proceedings did. Still, that’s by the by. Back to that changeable caption. The google cache gives the orginal version, namely:

Judges were exclusively male and drawn from the public school system

Hat tips: PaulS and Moonbat Nibbler.

Is it just me, or is the BBC’s current ‘It’s all in the database‘ money-with-menaces ad wonderfully Orwellian ? The background siren, the dog barking, the knock on the door ?

This site has an interesting video of a licensing official stepping perhaps beyond his remit.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely!

Have to love the BBC’s latest advocacy on behalf of the global warming alarmists Here’s the catchy entirely non-biased and accurate headline summary ” The idea that the Earth’s climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun’s activity is discredited by UK scientists.” Really? I don’t think so! What would have been honest and accurate would have been for the BBC to report that a small group of Lancaster University scientists have released research which leads them to believe that solar rays do not have a significant impact of Earth’s climate. The headline implies something definitive, so echoing the Al Gore “The debate is over” mantra. The BBC seems oddly reluctant to report other research which concludes that solar activity IS a primary driver of climate change but then again that does not fit in with the narrative which the BBC seeks to impose upon the general public. The way I see it there is much to debate on this hop topic which is why this kind of one-sided reporting is so repellent.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely!

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely!

As a child, I can remember watching the “Basil Brush” show on the BBC. Basil Brush was a roguish fox puppet whose punch-line was “Boom Boom” when he cracked a one-liner. He disappeared for a number of years from our UK TV screens but has made a welcome return in recent times. But now he’s in trouble – with accusations of anti-gipsy racism thrown his way.

The craven BBC have backed away from supporting their fox. Bosses admitted that an episode which caused offence was “inappropriate” and have told police it will not be shown again. Officers have now decided no further action will be taken. The bizarre complaint was made by a gipsy living on a travellers’ site in Northamptonshire. He alleged a scene showing a gipsy woman trying to sell the puppet fox wooden pegs and heather was offensive and insulting. (To foxes?) The gipsy made an official complaint to Northamptonshire Police, which referred the matter to its Hate Crimes Unit. Last week, after speaking to police officers, the BBC reviewed the tapes and offered not to show the episode again.

Isn’t this so PATHETIC? Why are the Police wasting any resource pursuing this stupid allegation? Why is the BBC behaving so cowardly? This may seem a small event of little significance but in fact it is the failure of the BBC, and also the Police, to categorically dismiss the complaint concerned, that aids the daily advance of the toxic politically correct agenda which is in turn paralysing our free speech. How long before the BBC bans Cher’s “Gypsies, tramps and thieves”? I mean just think of all the offence THAT one gives to minority groups!