Category Archives: Uncategorized

Further to Scott’s comprehensive post below about the Giuliana Sgrena checkpoint shooting (that resulted in the unfortunate death of Italian agent Nicola Calipari), Little Green Footballs has pictures of the car allegedly involved. LGF also links to better copies of the photos here and here too. As you can see, the car doesn’t look like it has been hit with the 300-400 rounds alleged by Sgrena’s editor on BBC News Online.

Pictures of the same car have been shown on BBC News 24 – as part of their daily broadcast of ABC News Tonight with Peter Jennings between 1.30am-2am. It remains to be seen whether the BBC will cover this development under their own banner, either on TV or on BBC News Online.

B-BBC commenters also highlight this link to an interesting (translated) article in the prominent Italian newspaper Corriere Della Serra.

Update: The pictures are also here in Corriere Della Sera and on RAI TG1 news (Realvideo 300Kbps, about 3’20” in), which shows an animated graphic depicting the car being shot at from the right hand side (i.e. the side not shown in the pictures), with Calipari in the rear right seat, next to Sgrena in the rear left seat, with the driver in the front left seat.

Update 2 (9pm): BBC News Online continues to cover the Sgrena shooting story, posting both Italy disputes US hostage account and, as noted by Susan, Transcript: Giuliana Sgrena interview, in which Sgrena quite clearly says “the tanks started to strike against us” and “our car was destroyed”. Strangely, BBC News Online haven’t illustrated the destruction of Sgrena’s car, even though photographs (see links above) have been available since yesterday. I wonder why.

Asked about whether she knew if there was payment of ransom money (see: Italy criticised over alleged ransom to free hostage in today’s Times), Sgrena replies “No, I don’t know”. Oddly, the obvious follow-up, “What do you think about the payment of ransoms to kidnappers?”, goes unasked by our fearless BBC inquisitor in the quest for truth.

The BBC, like many other MSM outfits, has reported very uncritically Giuliana Sgrena’s version of the shooting by American soldiers of the car she was travelling in, in which an Italian secret service agent lost his life, and her claims that the Americans did (or may have done) this deliberately.

(BBC stories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; claims that the shooting was deliberate here, interview here. Original BBC stories of the kidnapping: 1, 2, 3).

First of all, along with many other media outfits, the BBC virtually never mention the fact that she works for a Communist newspaper Il Manifesto. The BBC merely says in some of its stories that it is left-wing. (The only exception is this story, although it’s otherwise a hagiography).

The BBC has failed to report that in all likelihood her release was paid for by the Italian government – to the tune of £3-4 million, according to The Times, which reports that Giovanni Alemanno, the Italian government’s agriculture minister, saying this was very probable (not that this stopped him saying, according to The Telegraph, that “Italy must defend its honour. We may be trusted allies, but we cannot give the impression of being subordinate”).

This money, of course, will go directly to funding terrorism.

(It hasn’t, of course, been provedthat a payment was made, but then the BBC saw fit to report on Sgrena’s speculations about the motives of the American soldiers without the slightest bit of supporting evidence).

The BBC has never said anything at all about some of suspicions surrounding the kidnapping of various hard-left reporters who were later released. Perhaps there was never anything in these suspicions, but why give Sgrena’s speculations a free run? For example, the BBC says:

Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena has said she cannot accept US troops
accidentally fired on her car after her kidnappers freed her in Baghdad.

Ms Sgrena told the BBC Americans guarding Baghdad airport might not have been
informed about her arrival, but their actions could not be excused.

Earlier, she suggested US troops might have deliberately tried to kill her.

A lot of analysis has appeared on Little Green Footballs (LGF posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). LGF points out that:

She doesn’t have any explanation for the fact that she is still alive — because if the soldiers at that checkpoint had really been trying to kill her and her companions, there would be nothing left of her car. Or her.

The BBC reports on the claim that 300-400 rounds had been fired at the car:

Ms Sgrena’s editor, Gabriele Polo, said he was told by Italian officials that
300 to 400 rounds were fired at the car.

(The Guardianalso reports on this claim, although they have Sgrena as saying it).

So we’re supposed to believe that the US were deliberately trying to kill her, and that they fired 300-400 rounds at the car, yet few bullets entered the car, and only one person was killed (by the same bullet that injured Sgrena)? How can the BBC take this seriously? Either this many rounds were not shot, or that they were, but into the engine block in order to stop the car. (The Telegraph reportsthat the Americans say they did fire into the engine block).

(There have been some claims made since that the “300-400 rounds” claim was a mistranslation).

Sgrena’s own story is a little hazy. She initially claimed that the car was not going particularly fast, a claim that was widely reported. Yet now in an interview with her own newspaper Il Manifesto, translated by CNN, she gives the impression that the car was going fast enough they were almost losing control as they swerved to avoid puddles:

The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell.

As LGF say, this was an area they knew to be swarming with American troops, and which Calipari, the dead SS agent, regarded (says the LA Times) as the most dangerous place in Baghdad. Yet it doesn’t sound like they were going at an average speed to me.

The original claimthat they weren’t going “particularly fast” sounds a little fudgy to me anyway – sounds like it means “We were going fast, but not absolutely flat-out top-speed, but I don’t want to admit to that in so many words”.

In fact, the LA Times has her saying that the car “was not going especially fast for a situation of that type”. (The Australian has her saying: “We weren’t going very fast, given the circumstances”). A situation of that type? What type? Getting away from kidnappers? In other words, “We weren’t driving as fast as you might expect given that we getting away from kidnappers, a situation in which most people would drive like a bat out of hell, but we were still going fast by ordinary standards“.

Elsewhere, though, CNN report her saying that “Our car was driving slowly”, and The Australian saysthe claim was that they were going about 40mph. So which is it? Driving slowly, at 40 mph, or not especially fast for a situation of that type, or going fast enough that when swerving to avoid puddles they were almost losing control?

House of Wheels says there are other things in her story that seem inconsistent. It’s hard to know whether this is due to bad reporting and translating, but there’s been no hint from the BBC of these concerns. For example, The Guardian reports that Sgrena said that her car had been through several checkpoints already. Yet here she is reported as saying:

We hadn’t previously encountered any checkpoint and we didn’t understand where the shots came from.

And in some places she says there was absolutely no warning before the shots, and that no lights had been flashed at them, but in other places she says that they was a light flashed into the car beforehand.

For example, she told the BBC

We had no signal. We were just on the way to the airport. They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing.

And CNN say

in an interview with Italy’s La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said ‘there was no bright light, no signal’.

But in the same CNN report, we get this:

Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather that the shots came from ‘a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight’.

And The Australian reports her as saying:

It wasn’t a checkpoint, but a patrol that opened fire straight after it shone a beacon on us.

Sounds to me like contrary to the impression created originally by Sgrena, and perpetuated by the likes of the BBC (and AP), the Americans did shine a warning beacon. Perhaps they didn’t give enough of a warning, but that’s a different matter to not shining any light at all. (Although given that the area was an incredibly dangerous one where many soldiers have been killed, I wouldn’t blame them for that – in fact, that they left survivors at all is rather extraordinary).

So the communist reporter can’t be said to be a particularly reliable witness. And the BBC has chosen to present a rather one-sided account (just as it did when reporting so credulously on claims that insurgent groups had shot down that Hercules in January, which they’ve admitted todaywas probably not what happened).

Cross-posted at Blithering Bunny.

Update:I thought BBC News 24 had stopped reporting on this story, but they’ve just had another report on the funeral where all the same claims are again made.

Update 2: More from Instapundit, Powerline, Washington Times, The Washington Post (which says this sort of thing is common), Joe Gandleman (who has a lot of links), and The Christian Science Monitor, which reports on the confusion that often surrounds the checkpoints.

Sally Magnusson has been pimping her wares on BBC1 to the UK’s pre-schoolers and the many other children who were off school last week. Britain’s Streets of Vice ran at 9.15am, immediately after the BBC’s lamentable Breakfast programme, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday last week, with programmes entitled: Sex in the City, Smack Alley, Behind Closed Doors and Sex Lives & Videotape.

While the programmes were interesting, Magnusson’s annoying wheedling- whining style notwithstanding, it’s appalling to show such strong adult topics, language and imagery at 9.15 in the morning. We learned first hand from a prostitute and her ‘maid’ how good the money is – the prostitute had earned over £500 from ‘serving’ upwards of twenty-five ‘clients’ (some of whom we saw) that day. We visited ‘Smack Alley’, a named street for buying drugs in Derby. We saw a man injecting heroin into his groin. We met Matty, “one of Britain’s top gay porn stars”. We saw gay porn stars playing Twister. We met the ‘oversized’ 59-year old Dominatrix Francesca, Momma Fran, who “has recently embarked on a new career as a porn idol”. We met the staff and were given a guided tour of the facilities of a Hull brothel. We heard a woman moaning “give it to me”. And on and on.

This was on BBC1 – the first channel that appears on most British television sets – at 9.15am in the morning, over four days, when many pre-schoolers and children missing school due to illness are at home and watching (“Mummy, what does group sex mean?”). Worse, with the bad weather last week, schools across the country were closed, with their children at home when these programmes were shown. In one of the programmes we met Marsha, who “is trying to shield her three-year-old daughter Faye from the realities of living in a red light district”. Would that we could shield all of the nation’s children from the sordid realities of the underworld that the BBC brought into their living rooms last week.

The series was commissioned by Alison Sharman, Controller, Daytime. According to her official BBC biography “her ambitions for Daytime are to continue to bring credit to the whole of the BBC through imaginative and unique programming”. Oh dear. Writing at BBC News Online, Sharman claims that “challenging the perceptions of daytime television has been one of my most important focuses”. In The Independent (where else?) Sharman, writing about Britain’s Streets of Vice, says:

Far from being in any way titillating, these insightful and often painfully sad films take us – via modern lightweight digital video camera technology – not to another familiar chat-show encounter, but directly into the world of the sex industry. The series looks at its workers, the health issues involved, the industry’s connection with drug use and the impact on the police working in the front line.

She goes on:

Regardless of the sensitive and careful manner in which these films have been made, the audience will find them challenging. A series like this is not about ratings, it is about raising public awareness in a responsible and non-exploitative fashion. Given the predominantly market-led broadcasting economy, this is the challenging role that falls, happily, to the BBC and its tradition of excellent factual programming. The BBC remains the market leader throughout the day, with BBC1 daytime reaching an average of 16 million people each week…

Sharman boasts about the huge size of the BBC1 daytime audience, the audience that she took “directly into the world of the sex industry”, yet ignores the many children in that audience, while having the cheek to say that this wouldn’t happen on a ‘market-led’ channel – you bet it wouldn’t – which advertiser or commercially accountable broadcaster would want to be associated with exposing the nation’s youngest children to the sordid details of sex, drugs and porn on the margins of society?

Well Miss Sharman, in spite of what you think, you do have a market. It is us, the BBC’s telly-taxpaying viewers, who are your market – it is us by whom you should be led and to whom you should be accountable. The fact that we are compelled, by the threat of eventual imprisonment, to pay the BBC’s tellytax obviously hasn’t escaped your notice – otherwise you might actually be responsive and responsible to your market, the telly-taxpayers and their families.

This dreadful, dreadful scheduling choice is yet another example of the arrogant, ‘challenging’, BBC in action, doing as it pleases, as it thinks best, subverting the nation’s youngest children, unaccountable as ever to its captive telly-taxpaying customers. Worst of all, Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, has sentenced our nation to another ten years of the BBC’s unaccountable, subversive arrogance. She has missed probably one of the best opportunities most politicians could ever have to make Britain a better, happier and more cohesive society, by making the BBC accountable and responsible to the nation, to the people who pay for it. Another ten years. What a calamity.

To add your voice to the hundreds of decent telly-taxpayers who have already complained to the BBC telephone them on 08700 100 222. Make sure they log your complaint and give you a case or complaint number. You can also use the BBC’s Online Complaints form to log your complaint. BBC Complaints have published a standard fob-off statement about Britain’s Streets of Vice. BBC Newswatch has a similar response. Don’t ignore it. Don’t be fobbed off. Make sure they hear you!

Here’s a full transcript, annotated with my thoughts as it went along:

Darren Jordan, 21’14” into the programme:

The Green Party says it has a real chance of winning its first parliamentary seat at the forthcoming General Election. The Greens have members in the European and Scottish Parliaments, as well as more than sixty local councillors, but they’ve never come close to winning a Westminster constituency. Well, our Political Correspondent, Vicki Young, is at the Party’s spring conference, in Chesterfield, Vicki…

That’s news to me. I wonder which constituency they have in mind?

‘Going Live!’ to Vicki Young:

That’s right Darren, the Greens are feeling very confident. As you say, they’re already represented in councils across the country, in the Scottish Parliament, in the European Parliament and in the London Assembly, but now they feel it’s time to move on, and they really want to have that breakthrough they so desperately need.

Yes Vicki, we heard all that from Darren already, and don’t we all want to have that breakthrough we so desperately need…

Start of Vicki Young’s ‘package’:

The Greens are keen to shake off any impression that they are a one issue party. Of course, debates on climate change still feature heavily at this conference, but there’s more emphasis on the public services, policies for a citizen’s pension and extra community policing. The Party’s predicting its best General Election results ever.

Tell us more Vicki, tell us about the Greens’ firm opposition to Britain joining the Euro! Oh, go on, they’re really not as loopy as everyone thinks – tell us about that!

Clip of Dr. Caroline Lucas, MEP, Green Party:

There is a political party with an intelligent, radical, passionate vision for politics. There is a party that offers a radical and credible alternative to business as usual, and that party, friends, is our party, the Green Party, [snippet inaudible, due to applause]

Yaaaaawn….

Back to Vicki Young, film of construction work:

The Greens say this construction project in Brighton is an example of how they make a difference. The Party has six councillors in the City, they’ve negotiated with developers and the unions to encourage vocational training projects for local people, as well as more energy efficient buildings.

Six Green councillors sitting on a wall council. Fancy that! Brighton & Hove has, er, 54 councillors. Gosh. I wonder if the other councillors were watching football or doing something else when the Greens sorted all that out. Looking on the bright side though, six is double the number of yellow LibDems on the council!

Councillor Keith Taylor, Green Party:

This is living as if we mean to stay, er, not actually throwing buildings up, erm, as quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible and, er, in an energy sense, as frivolously as possible.

Rrrright.

More of Vicki Young’s ‘package’:

Back at their conference delegates are confident that Brighton could produce the Party’s first Westminster MP. Their election campaign will focus on environmental issues and the public services, but they believe their opposition to the war in Iraq will be a vote-winner, especially with disillusioned Labour supporters.

At last! Now we know for sure it’s Brighton where they’re so confident. Let’s see, Brighton has two Westminster constituencies – Brighton Kemptown and Brighton Pavilion. Wonder which one’s the Green target. Let’s have a look at the results from last time: Brighton Kemptown – Lab 47.82%, Con 35.26%, LD 10.37%, Green 3.29%. Not that one then. Brighton Pavilion – Lab 48.73%, Con 25.05%, LD 13.13%, Green 9.35%. Well, not as bad as Kemptown, but still not a snowball’s chance in hell, eh Vicki. But I’m sure you knew that already.

Back to ‘Going Live!’ to Vicki Young:

Now, as one Green Party member put it to me today, he said “it’s no longer an off the wall idea that the Greens could have an MP at Westminster”, but they do know that the electoral system, the first past the post system, isn’t that kind to them, they need proportional representation really, if they are to realistically get an MP. And, privately they do admit that, really, this time around, it’s a bit of a long shot.

Yes, indeedy, just as the much missed Spitting Image lampooned the not-so-much-missed David Steel, “Go back to your constituencies and prepare for… a bit of a disappointment”, it’s not likely that Tony Blair (or anyone else at Westminster who isn’t as two-faced and yellow as Charles Kennedy and his cronies) is gonna change the first-past the post system, is it, after the kludge they’ve ended up with in Scotland with a lousy self-perpetuating Lib-Lab Flib-Flab coalition that’s an embarrassment even to Blair. Oh, and Vicki, you might have mentioned that if the Greens have their way with proportional representation then all sorts of kooks, commies, neo-Nazis and LibDems will be strutting around Westminster with them in no time.

Darren Jordan, 23’40” into the programme:

Vicki, thank you.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to fringe parties, all those with a reasonable electoral base, getting a look-in on the BBC’s news coverage from time to time, but could we please avoid the manufacture of stories like “The Greens are gonna get a seat at Westminster” leading ever so anti-climactically to an utterly predictable conclusion where even the Greens admit “Oh no they’re not!”. Straightforward, realistic facts will do fine, thank you.

Earlier in Friday’s One O’Clock News we were treated to an even more ridiculous than usual ‘Going Live!’ two-way interview when we ‘Went Live!’ to “our media correspondent, Torin Douglas” who, yes, you guessed it, “is outside Television Centre now”! I guess the BBC management wouldn’t let Torin inside to tell Darren personally about the BBC’s massive payout to lifelong criminal Brendon Fearon…

You can view it all in glorious Realplayer 256Kbps format if you wish. Just so they don’t feel left out, BBC News Online got in their own me-too “the Greens are gonna make it big at Westminster“ puff-piece too.

Just a day after the BBC’s telly tax was renewed for another ten years, allegedly in exchange for improvements to their public service programming, we learn that the BBC’s idea of public service includes paying career criminal Brendon Fearon £4,000 (£4,500 according to some reports) for a documentary appearance.

Fearon, who has been in and out of jail many, many times, is the burglar who was shot, along with two accomplices, one of whom who was killed, by Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, whilst attempting to rob Mr. Martin in the middle of the night at his remote farm house.

Given Fearon’s long record of criminal activity and his evident difficulty with telling the truth, it is ridiculous for the BBC to argue that they must pay telly-taxpayers hard-earned cash to this parasite on society ‘for the purpose of balance’.

I have no objection to Fearon appearing on the programme to give, and be robustly challenged on, his version of events, but the idea of this scumbag profiting so handsomely out of his criminal activities, especially from public money, is deeply, deeply offensive.

Perhaps now, with the imposition of a new ten-year sentence of BBC bias, it is finally time for an organised campaign of telly tax civil disobedience for those who conscientiously object to funding the unaccountable BBC. As with fox hunting, there will come a point where it’s just not politically practical to enforce the law, and that will be the end of the left-leaning navel-gazing institutionally biased BBC as we know and loathe it – hopefully to be replaced or transformed into a popularly funded British broadcaster that truly reflects and represents our great nation.

Update: According to The Sun, Fearon has thirty-five convictions, stretched over twenty years, which presumably represent the tip of this particular offending iceberg. The BBC told The Sun “It is important the public hears the fullest account of what happened. We believe Mr Fearon will make a contribution” – as of course will the BBC, to Fearon, with over 35 tellytaxes worth of our cash. Sickening.

One final note: Even though this is a major story that broke late last night, it has, strangely enough, already been relegated from News Online’s home page to a couple of quiet slots on the UK and Entertainment pages. Unlike this story, Labour trio’s ‘vote-rig factory’, which didn’t, as far as I am aware, even make it onto the News Online home page. Funny how all those Lib Dem election bribes promises hang around among News Online’s headlines for so long though, isn’t it…

In a comment to a previous post Rob directed our attention to this link from Melanie Phillips. It may shock you. Yes, even you, longtime Biased BBC reader, who think you have seen it all.

Now scroll on to the BBC’s TV coverage on sunday of the Tel Aviv bombing, in which five people died and 49 were injured. Using a clip entitled ‘A family in mourning’, the family it showed was not one of the Israeli dead but of the human bomb terrorist instead.

BBC panjandrums are embarrassed enough to put their hands up to this one. In what it coyly calls a ‘correction’, the Beeb has posted up the following comment by Roger Mosey, head of TV news:

‘The programme editors and I agree it was inappropriate to begin the report with footage of the suicide bomber’s family in mourning.It was also inappropriate to include this footage without coverage of the suffering of the victims’ families. Using this picture sequence in this way was a mistake. However, the report’s coverage of the political ramifications of the bombing and this week’s London conference was balanced and fair – and we did, of course, report fully the events in Tel Aviv in our bulletins on Friday night and Saturday.’

No, Mr Mosey, it was not ‘inappropriate’. It was grotesque, outrageous and despicable. And a ‘correction’ just won’t do. It does not begin to address the moral deformity of BBC journalists who, when Israelis are murdered, automatically direct their compassion instead at the family of the bomber. For BBC journalists, Jewish victims, Jewish dead and Jewish grief just don’t seem to exist.

See what I mean about being shocked? (Bold type added by me.)

James Naughtie of Radio Four’s Today programme, interviewing Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown’s special adviser Ed Balls yesterday.

James Naughtie –

“If we win the election, does Gordon Brown want to remain Chancellor ?”

Ed Balls –

“Erm … I …”

James Naughtie –

“You win the election”

Spotted by the Observer blog, who also have an mp3 clip of the quote. Full interview here (RealAudio).

Not his first ‘slip of the tongue’. Immediately after the US Presidential elections, in an interview with former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and ex-Tory leader Ian Duncan Smith, the following transcript :

And, Robin Cook, what about those who say – President Bush now, he’s got four years, doesn’t have to worry about opinion in the United States, he’s there, presidents do some – er – can do things in the final four years – without what – having to worry about the next election – is he going to do things that will truly scare us, like maybe – scare some people – like maybe taking on Iran directly ?

RealAudio link here. Full report here.

of huge national, nay, international significance – yes, “The BBC keeps the licence fee for another ten years, but the Board of Governors will be scrapped. The Government’s plans for the BBC also include a sharper focus on public service programming and less emphasis on audience ratings”. Strangely enough, Sky News led, rightly, with the story of Shabina Begum, a story of much greater significance than the government’s disappointingly modest tinkering with the running of the BBC (if they’d brought in voluntary subscription to the BBC, that would have been a lead story).

The BBC’s generous coverage of itself included a filmed package by Gavin Hewitt, including this introduction:

But some programme makers doubt whether it will be that easy to define quality, engaging, programming.

to a clip of one Peter Bazalgette of Endemol Productions:

The BBC has Eastenders and Holby City, ITV has Coronation Street and Emmerdale. These are popular dramas, soaps, er, they are the genres of which television is made up of. It’s quite impossible for the BBC to pretend it’s not going to make any of those programmes, and they are going to be, in a sense, related to programmes on other channels because they’re in the same genre.

Well Peter, perhaps the fearless, incisive, Tessa Jowell has some other programmes in mind* – drivel like, say, Fame Academy (which has to be the all time number one example of the BBC copying a nihilistic ratings grabber from its non feather-bedded commercial rivals) or Changing Rooms or Ground Force or Ready Steady Cook. And who makes tosh like that? Why, Endemol Productions of course, not that The Ten O’Clock News saw fit to mention Endemol’s substantial relationship with the BBC.

* not that Eastenders is worthy of preservation in its current form – it and its ilk have a lot to answer for, teaching generations of young Britons that all social interaction takes the form of violent slanging matches in dreadful Estuary English.

Despite the fact that hundreds of TV channels now exist, and the fact that subscriptions to channels can be easily managed these days, the government decides that the BBC will continue to have the power for another decade to extort money out of people who don’t even watch it, in order to make whatever programs they feel like making.

Tessa Jowell’s statement is here.

While she’s aware that digital TV is going to shake up TV, she shows no awareness that the internet will probably revolutionize broadcasting within a few years, and certainly before 2016.

She also says:

Alongside the NHS, the BBC is one of the two great institutions of British national life.

Not that bad, surely? It doesn’t kill people, after all (well, not directly).

Perhaps surprisingly, the licence fee retains a high degree of public support.

If it has such a high degree of public support, then why is there the need to force people to fund it? If it’s so popular, people will pay for it out of their own pockets. Unless, that is, it turns out that it isn’t really so popular after all.

And although not perfect, we believe it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC.

But why wouldn’t this sort of reasoning (or lack of it) apply to other services? Reading newspapers has a high degree of public support – so would it be ‘fair’ that a state-backed license fee be used to fund The Guardian? Drinking milk is popular, so would it be fair that a state-enforced license fee be used to fund a milk company?

P.S. As for the story about the scrapping of the governers, as Kelvin McKenzie says, it’s merely putting another bunch of “establishment dimwits” in charge. Michael Grade has dismissed McKenzie’s comments with “I’m not sure that Kelvin speaks for the nation. He speaks for Kelvin”. But who says Grade speaks for the nation? Who voted for him? Who would win a vote between Grade and McKenzie? At least I don’t have to watch or listen to anything McKenzie puts out, whereas I am forced (as a TV owner) by law and the subsequent threat of jail to pay over £100 a year towards whatever Grade puts out (even if I don’t watch it).

(Wonder if BBC News will start getting worse now that this decision is over and done with. After all, this might be the last ever charter.)

P.P.S. And check out this vague blather:

A BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society.

A BBC that promotes education and learning.

A BBC dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence

A BBC that celebrates our nations, regions and communities.

A BBC that brings the world to the UK and the UK to the world.

A BBC which is strong, independent and securely at the heart of British broadcasting for ten more years.

Cross-posted at Blithering Bunny.

Both BBC News 24 and BBC News Online have given substantial coverage this morning to the case of Shabina Begum, an orphaned 16-year old Muslim girl who, apparently under the sway of her older brother, in yet another ‘human rights’ judicial travesty, has won the right to drive a coach and horses through the rights of schools to set and maintain a school uniform policy.

With all the BBC’s coverage of this appeal case, including this News Online article, Muslim gown schoolgirl wins case (timestamped 10.56am and updated at 12.16pm), why is it that one has to turn to The Times, Muslim girl wins battle to wear traditional dress in school, to find that:

Ms Begum was represented at the appeal court by Cherie Booth QC, Tony Blair’s wife.

Why has the BBC seen fit to excise this small but noteworthy and newsworthy detail from their version of the news? Didn’t they notice Cherie Booth’s name? Or have they purposefully decided to ignore the involvement of the Prime Minister’s wife in this case?

Update: Channel 4 news this evening covered this story properly. Samira Ahmed’s report mentioned the involvement of Cherie Booth, the influence of Ms. Begum’s older brother (her effective guardian, since the death of her parents) and his links with the extreme Hizb-ut-Tahrir group (according to the Sunday Times HuT’s ‘ultimate aim is a worldwide Muslim state, ruled by sharia, Islamic law, and it urges Muslims not to participate in democratic politics’). Channel 4 News also mentioned that the headteacher of Denbigh High School is a Muslim too – another interesting aspect that escaped the BBC’s notice (or at least their reporting). Finally, prompted by Susan’s comments on this post, it seems that Ms. Begum’s lawyer, Yvonne Spencer, speaking on Channel 4 news last year, suggested that the real reason the girl objects to wearing the shalwar khameez is that Sikhs and Hindus also wear it.