Category Archives: Uncategorized

that “people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution” have provoked one of the BBC’s regular [Don’t] Have Your Say topics.

Curiously, this topic, about which there is such strong public sentiment in favour of removing burglars so-called ‘rights’, has prompted only ten comments printed online. Even more curiously, the first three of these comments that supposedly ‘reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far’ are all against Sir John, for instance – “could spiral out of control”, “potentially very dangerous”, “daft and irresponsible” and so on. The last seven comments support Sir John’s views, and are, I believe, much more representative of typical British opinion.

Even if 30% of the comments received were agin Sir John’s views, are we really to believe that they were the first 30% of commenters? If not, how come the BBC’s list of comments have been ordered that way?

Update: This article refers to the BBC page timestamped 13:29 GMT. A new version, timestamped 16:02 GMT, has just been published. It now leads with eight new comments (two against, six for), somewhat redressing the balance. Perhaps there’s been a staff changeover.

at least if you rely on BBC News you will. The biggest British media/entertainment story of the day (and probably of the week, if not the month) was very briefly mentioned on the Six O’Clock News this evening (no footage, just a very, very brief sentence), and not at all on the Ten O’Clock News.

Bhopal hoax hits BBC is the front page headline on The Times website – along with an accompanying article Yes Men duo score their biggest hit with Bhopal hoax. BBC Is Hoaxed Over ‘Bhopal Aid Fund’ is the front page headline on the normally quite sparse Sky News website.

And what of our old unbiased, impartial, ever professional friends at BBC News Online? Front page? No. Entertainment page? No. Ah, but let no one say it is not there! Well yes, if you know where to look that is.

Scroll aaaaalllllll the waaaaaaaay down to the bottom of News Online’s home page, and there, buried right at the bottom, are inconspicuous links labelled Newswatch and Notes and corrections.

If you happen to scroll all the way down and then click on the discreet Newswatch link you get to see, finally, a link to News Online’s own coverage of this story – BBC caught out in Bhopal hoax.

If you happen to click on the other link, Notes and corrections, though, you don’t even get that – you get an almost identical page, but this time with a story spinning excuses for the BBC’s lamentably timid coverage of Bonking Blunkett’s Express Immigration Service (a story that, incidentally, makes no reference to the BBC’s somewhat different approach to covering the story of Bonking Boris).

And if you do happen to find the link to the BBC’s impartial, unbiased, objective coverage of this story, what do you find? Ah yes, it was an “elaborate deception”, an “elaborate hoax”. “Timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary” – funny that – who’d a thought it – pull a stunt like that on the 20th anniversary! How elaborate!

The BBC then goes on to explain that:

Excerpts from the interview were also carried on news bulletins on Radio 2, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live.

The BBC has apologised to Dow and to viewers who may have been misled.

Have you seen or heard any BBC apologies for this Ra^thergate style cock-up (journalists falling for stories that they want to believe)? I haven’t, and I doubt many of the other compulsory BBC Tellytax customers have heard much of this supposed apology either. As with all the best scandals, the initial ‘crime’ is never quite as bad as the cover up afterwards. The BBC still has a lot to learn about impartiality and objectivity.

As for the BBC’s much vaunted Newswatch, it looks as if, rather than the Tellytax-payers champion it purports to be, that it’s more of, shall we say, a good place to bury bad news.

Update: Powerline’s post on this refers to the Washington Post:

The broadcaster said in a written statement that it had been contacted by a man who “during a series of phone calls, claimed that there would be a significant announcement to be made on behalf of the Dow Chemical company.”

“He gave no further detail until the live interview, broadcast from the BBC’s Paris bureau this morning,” the BBC said.

Oh, how elaborate a deception indeed!

This is classic Paul Reynolds, being all solicitous about the future of Koffi’s family business, the UN. I have read the article reasonably closely. It is dominated by Reynolds’ refrain about a ‘high level panel’ that’s trying to find ways of reforming the UN.

Good show, you may think, except that what Reynolds doesn’t say, which you will only know if you have a suspicious mind and follow the link to a further website, is that the ‘high level panel’ was initiated by, guess who? Annan himself.

What other political organisation would get this sort of free pass from the BBC except the UN (well, excluding perhaps all political parties of the Left in election years)? Reynolds truly is risible in his wordy but slanted journalism. But note also, once again, the close relationship between a Foreign Office supported initiative (you can tell this by the British figures who make up this ‘high level panel’, that Reynolds mentions without critical comment), and a BBC ‘party-line’ position. One aspect of this common approach is the idea that the only good thing about the UK’s support of the Iraq war “adventure” is the moderating influence they can exert on those nasty hawks in Washington. Reynolds describes the ‘great hostility’ of the ‘right wing’.

Huh. As I said before- classic Reynolds.

Harking back to my post last week about the BBC’s ignorant/biased coverage of the foreign nationals detained at Belmarsh (arguably for their own safety, in preference to forcibly deporting them to their home countries) BBC News 24 were at it again today with an interview with Barry Hugill of Liberty* that was shown several times, complete with a small strap line reading “UN panel criticises UK detention policy” and a large flashing strap line reading “Torture report”.

Yet again no mention was made of the right of these individuals to leave the UK whenever they wish for any other country that will take them (or even that some of them have already done so). The interviewer did ask “What are we supposed to do with foreign terrorist suspects?” – a half-hearted question that was all too readily elided by Hugill. The questions should be:

1) Do we have a right to deport people from our country?
a) Yes; b) No.
2) What do we do if we wish to deport someone whose home country has a dodgy human rights record?
a) Look after them; b) Send them home anyway.

– for that is the nub of the issue – it’s got little to do with detention without trial, and everything to do with foreigners who are effectively undeportable because we don’t want to force them to go home even though they’re no longer welcome here.

Why can’t or won’t the BBC cover this story properly?

* a few years ago a relative of mine who worked in a small hospital took a call from the local branch of the National Council for Civil Liberties (as Liberty then was) – the NCCL caller was concerned about a colleague who was unwell but who didn’t want to go to hospital – the question was “how can we force him to go?” 🙂

on a BBC reporter’s Mid-East handiwork:



‘it is so completely wrong that it can only signal an ignorance so profound that its author has no place anywhere near news scripts – or a bias which is equally profound.’

I know from memory that this is not the first time the BBC have misrepresented a certain Mr Barghouti.

Looking at the BBC website I can see the BBC’s attitude is to pretty unrelentingly downplay Barghouti’s crimes. They describe him ‘currently serving five life sentences on terrorism charges in an Israeli prison’. Excuse me Auntie, but wasn’t he convicted of five counts of murder? Isn’t it also normal to describe people convicted as serving sentences for the crimes they were convicted of, rather than the charges originally brought(even assuming one had accurately related them)? Can it be the BBC don’t trust the Israeli legal system- the one which ordered Ariel Sharon to re-route his wall? And anyway, what place does the BBC’s trust or mistrust of the Israeli legal system have in their function as a new provider?

It looks to me that the BBC are trying to help anoint a new Arafat. The king is dead (Arafat), long live the king (Barghouti):

‘But it is believed that he is the most popular Palestinian leader. He is seen by many as a hero and a major figure in the fight against Israeli occupation, our correspondent says.

He has been described as charismatic and determined, and was often thought of as a natural successor to Arafat, our correspondent adds.’

(who, let’s not forget, were out to kill them first). What about French ‘peacekeepers’ who shoot and decapitate Ivorian protesters? As John Rosenthal points out,

It does not require a very elaborate demonstration to be able to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if it were not the French, but rather the American military that was caught on videotape firing into a crowd of civilians, it would be all over the airwaves 24/7.

Is the BBC partially funded by the French government? If not, France owes them big time. (Silly me for thinking BBC coverage should be fair to the public and government funding it!) And while I’m on the subject of France in Ivory Coast, where is any BBC ‘analyst’ critiquing the double-standard at play between France and the UN? This really stinks. Where is the BBC? (My thanks to Instapundit, Transatlantic Intelligencer and Free Will for doing what the MSM is failing to do.)

UPDATE: I did manage to find one mention of this incident in a BBC online article.

When French tanks and armoured vehicles massed at the Hotel Ivoire, a luxury hotel not far from the state television and the presidential residence, state media implored Ivorians to form a human shield around the president.

According to the radio, the French tanks were intending to oust President Gbagbo. Again, thousands of people responded to the call, and again, hundreds of people were injured and at least 10 died. State television showed report after report showing wounded men and women in graphic detail, accompanied by commentaries denouncing France.

This is a BBC story on how the media has been used in Ivory Coast to fan tensions, yet there is no scrutiny of French actions. Their explanations are taken at face value. So, do I hear the BBC alleging that the deaths of at least ten civilians and the wounding of many others by French soldiers is to be blamed on the misuse of radio and TV by the Ivorian government?

there was breaking news of a new Fathers4Justice protest at Buckingham Palace. Sky News covered the protest and the removal of the protestor with a split screen – the left picture and the sound covered Charles Kennedy in the Commons, whilst the right picture showed events at Buckingham Palace. Meanwhile, BBC News 24 stuck rigidly with Charles Kennedy. Was it beyond the ability of News 24 to cover the end of the F4J protest? Couldn’t figure out how to split the screen? Didn’t have enough film crews or satellite trucks? (not likely, given all the lame ‘going live’ reports these days). Or was it an editorial decision? Curious telly-taxpayers would like to know…

– the intro to a packaged piece by Carole Walker on BBC Breakfast News at 8am this morning. Yet again, nowhere in the package is it mentioned that the people who are ‘detained without trail’ are free to leave the UK at any time (for any other country that will take them – not just their home countries with the allegedly dodgy human rights records).

All that is needed to cover this story satisfactorily are seven extra words “foreign terrorist suspects who cannot be deported for legal reasons“.

Why is it so difficult for BBC journalists to grasp (and mention) this essential aspect of this story? Are they ignorant? Don’t they pay attention to such details? Or is this detail just inconvenient?

– unfortunately BBC News Online have managed to forget to mention, even in passing, who was responsible for these IRA atrocities in 1974 – not once does the article mention the IRA, Northern Ireland, terrorism, murder or even how many people were murdered or maimed in Birmingham that day. Shameful – shameful incompetence or shameful bias – either way, this shoddy journalism doesn’t justify a compulsory annual BBC Telly Tax.

BBC News Online have a major story (second story on their UK edition homepage this morning) headlined Police ‘can cope’ with hunt ban, complete with a picture of a ‘toff’ drinking, rather than a more relevant picture, such as a fox or hunting dogs (the use of which is to become illegal). BBC News Online informs us that:

Senior police officers say they have enough resources to deal with the ban on hunting with hounds.

The BBC story is supported with a quote from Suffolk’s Chief Constable, Alastair McWhirter:

Suffolk Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter promised a “proportionate response” to any illegal hunting, adding: “We have been policing hunting for 30 years.”

The Times covers the same story, headlined Hunt ban impossible to enforce, Police say – which informs us that:

THE ban on hunting will be almost impossible to enforce, police chiefs said yesterday, hours after it became law.

Senior lawyers also predicted that the level of proof required for a successful prosecution would be difficult to obtain.

Photographs or a video of riders chasing a fox or deer would be needed to prove that unlawful hunting had taken place.

The Times quotes the same Chief Constable, Alastair McWhirter, but at greater length:

Alastair McWhirter, the Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman on hunting with dogs, said last night that prosecutions would go ahead only if people admitted that they were hunting or if an animal were seen during a chase.

In a statement which will come as blow to supporters of the ban, Mr McWhirter said: “It is not an offence to wear red or pink coats or jackets, it is not an offence to exercise hounds or keep up traditions of using horns or meeting for a ride on horseback on private land.

“Unless someone owns up, you need a wild mammal in the picture to show that someone has committed an offence.”

However, Mr McWhirter later added: “We would enforce it to the best of our ability.”

The Times also quotes some other eminent people, including:

Peter Neyroud, the Chief Constable of Thames Valley, said: “Enforcement is not going to be easy.”

Chief Superintendent Rick Naylor, president of the Superintendents’ Association, said that there would be problems with forces having to deal with mass disobedience.

David Spens, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said that the hardest matter would be proving that people intended to go hunting and to break the law.

Courtenay Griffiths, QC, public affairs spokesman for the Bar Council, said: “If there is no proof that people were chasing a fox or a deer, then that will be difficult for the police.

“Without some sort of independent evidence whether that is an affidavit from a witness, electronic, video or photographic evidence, I don’t see how they could bring a prosecution.”

Meanwhile, The Guardian, usually required reading at the BBC, reports that Police fear hunting ban strain:

Police could be stretched to the limit dealing with widespread public disorder following the hunting ban, the leading representative for rank and file officers warned yesterday.

Jan Berry, who chairs the Police Federation in England and Wales, admitted that vociferous opposition to the new law would put huge strain on the resources of small rural forces and create problems for officers on the ground.

At the same time, Alistair McWhirter, the chief constable of Suffolk, said he expected the new laws would be “tried to distraction” in the courts.

“I foresee it being the most tested piece of legislation since the drink driving laws were introduced in 1967,” he said.

There’s that Alastair McWhirter chap again. The Grauniad then goes on to discuss at some length law enforcement contingency planning for dealing with possible widespread civil disobedience and the government/police priority for dealing with this (presumably compared to things like murder, rape, robbery, theft etc.).

It seems clear that, unless The Times and The Guardian have been foolishly making up quotes from a lot of eminent and well connected people, the BBC version of the story is complete spin, selectively taking one quote from Alastair McWhirter that supports their story, whilst omitting entirely any mention of the anticipated difficulties in enforcing the new Hunting with Dogs Act (also known as the Class War Against Toffs/Troops Out of Iraq Now (Alternative) Act).

If you want the news on this subject then do read the articles in The Times and The Guardian (and doubtless in The Telegraph too). If you’re a leftie looking for solace in the face of a possibly pyrrhic parliamentary victory just stick with the BBC.

BBC News Online’s article concludes with these assertions:

Fox-hunting, the main focus of the debate, has been practiced for about 300 years in Britain.

Hunt enthusiasts say the ban infringes their human rights and that it will be a bitter blow to the rural economy.

Opponents have been campaigning for a ban for decades and say the practice is appallingly cruel and unnecessary.

Just for good measure, in contrast to these BBC assertions, we should note here that, according to The Guardian at least, the Act brings “to an end almost 700 years of foxhunting in England and Wales”, that there is more than a little debate (outside of the BBC at least) about the relative cruelty of hunting with dogs vis-a-vis the alternatives, and furthermore, again according to The Guardian, that the ban in Scotland, enacted in 2002, has almost doubled fox kills from 500 to 900 per year and that hunting dogs have fallen from 1,100 to 550, 400 of which were put down.

It almost goes without saying, of course, that the resources of The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. are available free of charge to UK online readers – in complete contrast to the pathetic and biased BBC News Online coverage that we are dragooned into paying for via the BBC’s Telly Tax.