Open Thread

New Open Thread.

Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to Open Thread

  1. Grant says:

    Let me be first to post on a new thread. Nothing to say, just a nice feeling  !!

       0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I love hearing the BBC trusting White House statements again.  The White House says the oil spill is a doddle, clean-up effort and capping the spill all under control, and the BBC eagerly accepts it. They questioned everything when Bush was in charge, but now that we’re in The Obamessianic Age, White House statements are taken as Gospel.

    So now you’ll never, ever know just how badly the clean-up effort was bungled.

       0 likes

    • TrueToo says:

      100% spot on. I heard a Greenpeace guy interviewed on the World Service. He was obviously concentrating on the extent of the spill and the likelihood of future environmental degradation while the interviewer was leaning towards the more optimistic take on the matter. If Bush had been in charge, the BBC would have been actively promoting the Greenpeace stance, while denigrating Bush at every opportunity.

      Conclusion: For the BBC, Obama even trumps Greenpeace.

         0 likes

  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC is still making a fuss about meat from the offspring of a cloned cow making its way into a supermarket.  Oh, the rules!  The rules!  If there’s a problem, we must be able trace this!  How about, instead of talking to MEPs and whining bureaucrats, having a scientist on to tell you about the dangers – or lack thereof – of milk and meat from cloned animals and their offspring?

    Oh, that’s right.  The experts yesterday told the Beeboids it was a non-story, there’s no danger at all.  So forget about hearing that perspective ever again.  Doesn’t fit the Narrative.

       0 likes

    • Nick Name says:

      Yep – tonight’s BBC:R4:PM has devoted about 15 minutes to it so far. Even though one of the interviewees said (basically) that there was no evidence of any adverse affects from eating cloned meat. And that only two cloned embryos have been identified so far.

      Is devoting ~one quarter of a nightly national news program to whipping up hysteria responsible reporting? Or is it merely the investment in a story that will run and run?

         0 likes

  4. Martin says:

    Funny that only a few weeks ago the totally unqualified Shuckman was spouting on about how badly wrong Tony Hayward had got the oil leak, but now all of a sudden Barry is saying the same thing and Shuckman just sticks his tongue up there and licks Whitehouse poo.

       0 likes

  5. Martin says:

    Peston the twat going on about Lloyds. Funny that Peston doesn’t mention that the Lloyds Hbos merger was of course pushed for the by one eyed mong.

    Funny how the BBC try to re-write history.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I got sick of him doing that earlier today.  The only reason Lloyds got screwed up is because Peston’s biography subject twisted their arms and made them do it just as they got cold feet when they saw how bad HBOS’s books actually were.

      In fact, I got so fed up with him and the non-story about perfectly safe meat and milk that I switched off the news and have been listening to the Bayreuth Festival broadcast of Siegfried for the last hour or so.  Siegfried just killed the dragon.  There’s an allegory in there somewhere.

         0 likes

    • Cassandra King says:

      Am I alone in finding Pestons alternately compacted and elongated and tortured vowls and consonants?

      Its about as soothing to the ear as nails scratching a blackboard. It must be something they do at the common purpose indoctrination camp?

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        You’re not alone, Cassandra.  I can’t…staaaaaand the way Peston spits words out of his mouth.

           0 likes

        • John Horne Tooke says:

          Not just Peston – the one thing that really turns me off the BBC (apart from the over the top bias) is their  voices. On Radio 4 we have the obnoxious tones of Humphreys and his clone Peter Allen on Radio 5  A lot of other effeminate males who seem to have a lisp.  Allen has the anoying habit of saying “mmmmmmm” after someone finishes speaking which conveys his disagreement of what was said. Then we have all the women beeboids who all seem to have the same whining voices.

          Radio 5 news must be one of the most anoying radio shows. The format is chatty women and Allen having a good giggle together News of thousands of people dying in floods  interceded with emails from people replying to trivial anecdotes supplied by Allen and his maids. But this is how their propaganda is put over – “they must be telling the truth as they are just like us laughing and joking.”

             0 likes

        • Millie Tant says:

          There’s a whole school of them: That Pest Peston, Vine the Whine, Justin Rowlatt, Giles Shoutalot, John Humphrys, Gavin Essssssler of the pillarbox letter-slot mouth. They are so full of themselves, they adopt this exaggerated swaggering way of speaking as a means of drawing attention to themselves, asserting their world-dominating importance and revelling in it.

             0 likes

      • Dazed-and-Confused says:

        Put Robert Peston with the Marxist Julia Middleton. Add in a little Media Standards Trust in an attempt to manipulate the British M.S.M. into conforming to BBC ideals. and hey-ho, what are we’re left with but Peston and Middleton as one, under the “Common Purpose” banner…..

        Comrades!!!! Our future has been mapped out for us, we don’t need to think!……Simply obey….

           0 likes

      • TrueToo says:

        Dunno, don’t think I have ever heard Peston. Have you tried Lyse Doucet for tortured vowels? PC, terror-friendly, lefty agenda aside, listening to her is a really unpleasant experience.

        But Alan Johnston trumps them all. He is, or was, “producing” From our own correspondent. With that whispery, drawn out drawl he sounds positively drugged.

           0 likes

  6. Martin says:

    Well well well. Not a single mention of the murder of the Israeli soldier by the BBC scum (although the BBC did find time in the news to talk about a dancer who fiddled his benefits and a new football stadium in a foreign Country).  
      
    The BBC now killing the story.  
      
    Oh and we had the really vile Orla Geering stood next to a load of people that would hack our heads off in 10 seconds appealing for aid. But why not mention the BOMB that went off you dozy bitch?

       0 likes

    • TrueToo says:

      Actually, I nearly fell off my chair listening to the World Service reporting on the Lebanon clash yesterday. One of the first things mentioned was that the UN had stated that the Israelis were within Israelis terrortory and not in Lebanon as the Lebanese had insisted.

      This was the remarkable – both the BBC and the UN telling the truth about the Israeli-Arab conflict in support of the Israeli position?

      Of course the BBC then had to spoil it by saying, “Fighting started,” rather than the truth of the Lebanese firing first. 

         0 likes

  7. john smith says:

    The web story about the Lebanon/Israel border clash got my goat. It was pure one sided drivel. I won’t put a link in. You can go and search for the sh*t yourself. It disgusts me.

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      JS this is how the BBC work. They often take a story, decide on their narrative (anti Jews, pro Muslim, pro Liebour, pro gay or anti Tory) then they use the full force of the BBC to push the story with THAT narrative, be it News 24, Newsnight, the Toady show and of course the Pravda of the airways Radio 5.

      But as soon as the BBC want to kill that story they just take it off every news outlet they have, job done lie out there who cares about the facts?

      The drug taking scum at the BBC have been doing it for years, luckily as fewer and fewer people rely on the BBC for PROPER news the influence of the rent boy molesting scum decreases.

         0 likes

  8. Marky says:

    ‘Are we too critical of Israel’?


    BBC does this all the time, in this case 4 people don’t agree that we are too critical of Israel or are Anti-Israel, 1 person that we are too critical and 1 is mysteriously is cut off. Emails: 2 against Israel 1 for less biased reporting in regards to Hamas/Palestine. Had the question been “Are we too critical of Palestine/Gaza/Islam?” the BBC would have stacked the opinion in favour of Islam/Palestine.  This pattern can be seen across the BBC’s ‘impartial’ services.

       0 likes

  9. Craig says:

    For JournOLister-spotters, I see the BBC’s Katie Connolly (the deeply partisan ex-Newsweek hackette) has posted an article on Obama’s 49th birthday which manages to quote two experts – one a pollster, the other her twitter-buddy Ari Melber of The Nation. Melber is, like so many of the people she quotes in her articles, a JournOLister.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10860775

    That’s the latest in a growing stream of articles by this newly-recruited beeboid (and other BBC reporters) to feature a heavilly disproportionate number of quotes from this secretive, unrepresentative, left-wing clique of journalists, bloggers and academics.
    (For a reminder of which: http://biasedbbc.org/2010/07/bbc-clinton-worship-part-xxxviii.html)

    P.S. She tweeted another ‘happy birthday’ message today:
    @mikemadden happy birthday! about 6 hours ago via Seesmic in reply to mikemadden
    http://twitter.com/katiemconnolly

    Mike Madden of Salon is, of course, another JournOLister.
    (Full list – so far! – here. Will Katie ever appear on it herself??
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2561229/posts)

       0 likes

  10. John Horne Tooke says:

    “800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm”
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    These are the papers that Harrabin does not read.

       0 likes

  11. Umbongo says:

    James Reynolds on BBC1 10:00 News informed us (well, let’s be blunt here – lied to us) how Obama quickly learned the lesson from Bush’s “failure” to react immediately to natural disaster.  Reynolds forbears to mention that Bush could not act on Katrina until the Democratic state and municipal authorities allowed federal assistance to flow.  He also forbore to mention that Obama refused to waive the Jones Act during the oil spill to the certain detriment of Americans in the Gulf.

    Also in the 10:00 News Shukman forbore to inform us that the oil spill – horrible though it was – only doubled the steady annual amount of natural oil leakage into the Gulf.  This natural leakage is naturally absorbed/dissipated so, of course, once the well was plugged nature took its course.  Shukman – of course – didn’t tell us that.  Instead he showed us library pictures of oil drenched wild-life and emphasised that “some observers” dispute the fact that the effects of the oil spillage are fast disappearing.

    Lies, lies, lies:  it’s getting progressively worse and a step-change deterioration at the BBC has occurred since Labour were voted out of office.

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      See my post below, clearly the BBC are going to do one of their usual stunts (I call them lies) where they take their narrative and run it across the whole of the BBC output.  
        
      The narrative is that St Barry has saved the gulf coast that HE did more than Jesus (who allegedly ‘only’ turned water into wine) as Barry turned crude oil into thin air.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        The other thing the BBC never, ever told you was that The Obamessiah Administration colluded with BP to block media access to much of the clean-up effort.

        It got so bad that even the JournoList-infested, BBC go-to source for opinion, HuffingtonPost mentioned it.  It wasn’t an article by an actual JournoLister, so they got a moment of daylight there.

        Note to Beeboids in the US:  The US Coast Guard reports to the President.  He personally appointed Adm. Thad Allen, remember?  So when they say that the Coast Guard threatened some CBS reporter with arrest, that’s the gummint talkin’, not Big Oil.

        All of this is beyond personal opinion or right-wing partisanship or whatever else.  This is basic news, cold facts which needed to be reported.

           0 likes

  12. Martin says:

    F*****g hell, the BBC have NO shame. The old hag Emily Maitlis on Newsnight is ‘claiming’ that the gulf oil spill clean-up success is all down to Barry and their policy!!!

    Yes folks the BBC have no shame on this, yet another lie spouted by the BBC. Barry has been a total failure in all this but you’d have to get your news outside of the BBC.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Like Moses did to the Red Sea, with a wave of His teleprompter, The Obamessiah parted the oil spill with His magical angry speech.

         0 likes

      • Craig says:

        Truly shameless.

        Emily Maitlis to James Reynolds: “Is that a result of President Obama and scientists doing the right thing at the right time?”

        James Reynolds: “The Whitehouse says ‘yes’…” and enthusiastically parrots the Whitehouse line.

        And that was it for that interview.

        Then it was straight on to Louisiana Republican congressman Steve Scalise and the question “I guess you can say Obama is seen to have taken the right measures to get America through this then?”

           0 likes

        • Millie Tant says:

          I just know Obama got stuck in with his bucket and mop because I saw him on the TV saying “we are gonna do this, that and the other”, sounding for all the world like a veteran of the oil fields who does this type of thing every day of the week. The only thing missing from this would-be oilman action man was the boiler suit and oily rag.

             0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          What scientists?  He brought in environmental activists and bloody James Cameron to consult on the clean-up.

             0 likes

      • prpw says:

        This really is marvelous news. If Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis’ rigorous analysis is correct, then in the space of about a week the GOM oil spill has gone from being such a serious disaster that oil industry insider Matt Simmons suggested the only way to solve it may be to detonate a nuclear device on the sea bed, to being a `victory for President Obama and scientists doing the right thing at the right time.’ Well done all round 

           0 likes

  13. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    Oh the shocking conditions of how Palestinians live! Oh those poor neglected souls of Gaza, living in hell, of which only the BBC could imagine….And Imagine they do

    Regularly…….

       0 likes

  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    So as I’ve been saying for quite some time, Mexico is a failed State.  For years and years the police and drug gangs and general corruption have been getting worse and worse, until most of northern Mexico has become a worse war zone than Iraq or Afghanistan.  Every now and again, the BBC finds a sob story to report.  If it weren’t for the allegedly racist Arizona immigration law (which the BBC refuses to tell you has been adopted in some form in 18 other states), you’d have no idea Mexico even existed except for the odd football tournament.

    Now it’s gotten so bad that the President of Mexico says that his government will soon no longer control parts of the country.

    President Felipe Calderon said Wednesday that Mexico’s cartels in many cases have moved beyond drugs as their main money-earner and are even trying to supplant the government in parts of the country.

    Speaking at an anti-crime conference, Calderon said gangs are imposing fees like taxes in towns they dominate, extorting money from both legitimate and unauthorized businesses.

    “This has become an activity that defies the government, and even seeks to replace the government,” he said. “They are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws.”

    If the BBC’s own report is even remotely accurate (and since it’s not Israel or something associated with the climate or George Bush, they’re probably not lying), then in the last four years more people have been killed in northern Mexico than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.  But since the BBC can’t blame George Bush for it, it’s not worth spending too much time informing you.

    The BBC reports that all this insanity has led to a general climate of insecurity throughout Mexico, but somehow the people of Arizona are a bunch of racists for saying they’re a bit nervous about the mayhem on their doorstep.

    When Arizona and Texas starte talking about the dangers that illegal swarming (to coin a phrase) hath wrought, this is what they’re concerned about.  Yet the BBC steadfastly refuses to make the connection in their news reporting, as it would not help that “rapport” they claim they want you to have with the US.  You know the one:  it’s part of Franz Strasser’s serially dishonest propaganda series celebrating immigration into the US.

       0 likes

    • Millie Tant says:

      About a week ago, you posted a BBC article with a headline about how the Arizona immigration policy was stoking fear in a Mexican village. Stoking fear! How much more blaming can you get than “stoking”? Those evil Americans.

      At first it struck me as one of those weird perspective headlines like “Fog in Channel. Continent cut off”. Then I read the article which was highly emotive and imbued with the sense that it is essential that Mexicans be free to enter the US illegally and work to send money home. It is a way of life for people in the village through the generations and without it they won’t be able to eat or create jobs locally.

      To read of the poverty of others is distressing and the emotive piece achieves its emotional end. But the reader having been told about this state of affairs in a poor village and feeling perhaps concerned or maybe even disturbed about it, is then left high and dry, with no idea why this Mexican economic  situation is as it is. The BBC doesn’t inform us of any of that. 

      Is the US responsible for Mexican economy? What does it think the US is supposed to do? Annexe Mexico? Oh, wait…wars and revolutions of independence in the past would suggest maybe not, apart from any other considerations of rightness.  Is America supposed to have open borders? Is the US not an independent country controlling its own affairs? Where is the US point of view in that article? So many questions are raised in the mind of anyone reading that and none of them addressed by the Beeb. 

      The BBC’s mission to inform.

         0 likes

  15. John Anderson says:

    On the World Service last night the top story was NOT the Pakistani floods or anything momentous.  It was the court decision in California overturning Proposition 8 which had banned same-sex marriages. 

    Sounded like the Beeboids were cock-a-hoop about gay marriages being back for Cali.

    What news values makes this the top BBC World Service story – except total obsession with a Beeboid agenda ?

    If they had to lead with a US court story – why not with the court decision to allow one state to challenge the whole basis of ObamaCare – the principle of the mandate which forces individuals to act in a particular way ?  There are similar legal applications being pursued in other states to block the mandate – all this could if it finally succeeded in the Supreme Court – destroy Obama’s main piece of legislation.  With the huge irony that he would have largely destroyed his Presidency by the unpopularity of ObamaCare, only to see ObamaCare itself proving illegal.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      and the Cali decision against Prop. 8 will go straight to appeal, of course.

         0 likes

      • John Anderson says:

        Un-bloody-believable – the gay marriage issue is 2nd headline in the 8am (peak) news on the Today programme !

           0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      All part of that “rapport” they want you to have with the US.  Censor some things, report others, all for a very clear, very specific agenda.

         0 likes

  16. George R says:

    Pakistan is not Britain.

    More from Islam Not BBC (INBBC)  this morning, on ‘Today’, as yesterday,on its apartheid-engendering use  of  phrase ‘Pakistan community’. (See: 07:09 below) -

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8887000/8887274.stm

    Of course, INBBC takes a non-British, and increasingly Islamic viewpoint on political, economic, social and cultural issues in Britain and overseas. It is virtually a surrogate for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

     The OIC and INBBC both:

    -oppose Israel daily;

    -support Turkey’s application to join EU;

    -censor phrase ‘Islamic jihad’;

    -use the recently invented Islamic word ‘Islamophobia’ to censor any criticism of Islam;

    -propagandise the untruth that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’.

    -avoid the recognition of the long, and continuing history of Islamic imperialism.

       0 likes

  17. Beeboidal says:

    Well Beeboids, I guess you might have to amend the Iranian denial of an attack on Ahmedinejad story. But hey, he’s given you a great new lie for you to push.

    During a speech to a conference of expatriate Iranians in Tehran on Monday, Ahmadinejad said he believed he was the target of an assassination plot by Israel.


    ‘The stupid Zionists have hired mercenaries to assassinate me,’ he said.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The BBC included this at the end of this report about the denial.

      Earlier this week, Mr Ahmadinejad said he believed he was the target of an assassination plot by Israel.
      During a speech to a conference of expatriate Iranians in Tehran, he said Zionists had “hired mercenaries to assassinate me”.

      What is the news value of including this bit of lunacy, BBC?

         0 likes

      • Pounce says:

        Strange how the bBC which is devoting so much time and effort in highlighting the floods (isn’t this the monsoons season?) and which can bring you news of a US UAV strike within minutes complete with Taliban condemnation hasn’t reported that the US has 4 CH47 (aka Chinooks) and 2 UH60s (Blackhawks) already  working on relief operations.
        While I haven’t bothered my arse watching any coverage on the telly ref Pakistan. I wouldn’t be suprised if the bBC try to pass this off as CC due to GW. While omitting the elephant in the room of population overgrowth in Pakistan. Which forces people to move to areas that aren’t as safe as elsewhere. 
        My only wish is to hear on the news that BP (she who cries for terrorists) has drowned.

           0 likes

  18. TrueToo says:

    It’s clear that the BBC is still promoting its Labour friends as if there were no change and they are still the government. And the BBC has a peculiar love affair with Alistair Campbell, giving him wagon loads of time to promote his ideas. Aside from Question Time a little while back he was on Outlook last week on the World Service, also using the opportunity to promote his book:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/progra…._campbell.shtml

    For those unfamiliar with Outlook, it’s a programme that purports to reveal Extraordinary personal stories from around the world and quite often succeeds, as in Message in a bottle - which must surely move anyone who doesn’t have a heart of stone:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2010/07/100721_outlook_bottle.shtml

    However, the programme is evidently also used as a slot for the pushing of the BBC’s lefty agenda, as in the latest piece about a man who decides to visit a cop-killer in prison, simply because he has the same name, and befriends him. There is nothing “extraordinary” about this story. In fact, it is not even interesting except that it raises the old question of why people are so keen to forgive and befriend murderers:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2010/08/100804_wes_moore.shtml

    Outlook has between one and three stories in its half-hour slot, but the full programme was devoted to Campbell. Not only that, the following day an excerpt from the programme was repeated, as if the BBC was anxious that it hadn’t promoted him enough.

    Now I’d like to know what is so “extraordinary” about the personal story of Alistair Campbell.

       0 likes

  19. 1327 says:

    Sorry for the delay on this one but I had a busy day. Yesterday (Weds) I caught Radio 4′s Today show at arround 7:15am with an item about the proposed mosque being built close to the WTC site. The item consisted of 2 interviews the first a brief shouted affair with someone who lost a relative on Sept 11th who opposes the mosque. This interview was conducted outside during what sounded like a demonstration and as a result the speaker really didn’t come across that well. The interview with the Muslim spokeswoman was by complete contrast held inside and was twice the length. She was allowed to speak without question and told us that “Islam was peace” and that “Islam was beautiful”. At the end of the interview the reporterette told us that Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich opposed the mosque but that was just with an eye to the coming election !

    Do the Beeb even know what unbiased means ?

       0 likes

  20. TrueToo says:

    Just found this, from years back:

    Paxman: So you also believe there is some kind of liberal hegemony in the mass media, do you?

    Coulter: “…..I won that debate.”

    Paxman: “You appeared on ABC, NBC, now you’re on the BBC. I just don’t see how that argument stacks up.”

    Coulter: “No, you’re right. With that warm introduction you just gave me there’s no liberal hegemony there.”

    I heard Paxman chuckle at that point, or something that sounded like a chuckle. Could be he has a sneaking admiration for Coulter. And yes, the introduction was scathing and insulting:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiHbUplz3k&NR=1&feature=fvwp

       0 likes

    • sue says:

      I bet Ann Coulter never has to go back and wish she’d said this or that. She has a rapier-like reposte at the ready every time.

         0 likes

  21. Umbongo says:

    On the first episode of “The Normans” last night Professor Bartlett strolled around present-day Normandy showing us this and that building built by the Normans together with random shots of present day inhabitants of Normandy doing their shopping in Caen (?) (complete with a typical Norman in her hijab).  In one extended shot – about 2 minutes I guess – he strolled along a highway lined with wind-turbines to a sound-track of the swishing of turbines.  WTF this has to do with the Normandy of the 11th century is beyond me but when it comes to propaganda the BBC just can’t help itself.

    Inserting a reference to AGW (or a response to AGW) into every programme is rapidly becoming a medically clinical condition of the BBC’s production and commissioning teams.  Forgive the psychobabble but this behaviour is a clear manifestation of obsessive-compulsive dosorder which is manifestly rampant at the BBC.  Such a diagnosis can explain the BBC’s constant demonisation of Israel and bankers, the beatification of Obama, the rampant Islamophilia and the suppression of facts (as, for instance, chronicled daily here by David Preiser in respect of the US).  Another explanation could be the one posited in the 20th century by Reich (many of whose opinions I disagree with but he was right on the button with this one).

    Reich described the symptoms of what he called “emotional plague” [one outbreak of which is described here http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/u-s-psychiatrist-contends-that-the-same-emotional-plague-that-led-to-wilhelm-reichs-imprisonment-in-1957-is-behind-official-opposition-to-raw-milk-today/  and a quote from that article is enlightening and recognisable:

    "Those suffering with the plague cannot tolerate actions that don’t conform to their rigid ways of thinking. When people choose to live as they see fit, especially when it is in accord with healthy, natural functioning, those afflicted with the plague experience intense anxiety"].

    The BBC appears to be suffering from a distressing outbreak of this virulent complaint.  Perhaps a complete separation from the taxpayers’ wallets might relieve it.

       0 likes

    • dave s says:

      I noticed this and could hardly credit the absurdity of it. The whole programme was just poor stuff. An ego trip for the camers crew and the director. It would have been helpful if the places shown had been named but that is just too simple and does not earn any praises.
      Sadly the BBC have long forgotten how to make programmes like this. I supose if you recruit staff for ideological and diversity reasons you just will not get the best people.
      Another example of an organisation that has lost it’s way.
      I expect the BBC really approves of the Normans. Invaders and cultural usurpers as they were. The English loathed them for centuries and never displayed that addiction to multiculturalism so beloved of the left elites.

         0 likes

      • john smith says:

        dave s becareful!!!!!!!!!!!! 

        You are falling prey to one of the modern myths used to support immigration.

        The Normans were Vikings who spoke French (a bit simplified that.) We are talking one northern Europe population (or a section of it becayse it wasn’t mass immigration) moving to another part of Northern Europe. And you must remember the structures of Norman society weren’t as different from Saxon society. Think more Peterborough invades Northampton than Islam Middle Eastern invades Christian Europe. (Silly but the best I could come up with on the fly!!!)  One of the big mysteries of Medieval history is where did the Normans go? The two societies quickly merged (a simplification again.) 

        All a bit over simplified that. But the last time we were “invaded” by non-Europeans was when Modern Man started to displace Neatherdal Man.

        Saying that I know the thrust of where you were going. I haven’t seen The Normans yet. I am saving for Saturday night comedy slot after tea.

           0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          The English language is full of Norman footprints.

             0 likes

        • dave s says:

          I see your point. The Normans V the English- who influenced who is an interesting topic. It is curious that modern spoken English as used by ,shall we say the upper classes, is much more likely to use Latin root words rather than Anglo Saxon ones. The spoken English of the great mass of us has always tended to use Anglo Saxon root words.
          The invasion was one of ruling class replacement rather than a colonisation and you are correct in assuming that what we face today is very different.
          The BBC , viscerally anti English, will no doubt try to confuse the two.

             0 likes

    • sue says:

      Umbongo,
      Your link took me to a page error, but I went here to look up Reich on ‘emotional plague’. If you cherry-pick the best bits, skipping the  Freudian element, there are umpteen relevant passages that fit the bill to a T. 

      His (the emotional plague sufferer)  conclusions are always predetermined by his emotional affliction. In the person afflicted with the emotional plague, thinking does not, as in the rational individual, serve to help him arrive at a correct conclusion; on the contrary, it serves to confirm and rationalize a predetermined irrational conclusion. This is generally known as “prejudice.”  It is intolerant, i.e., it does not countenance the rational thinking which could pull the ground out from under it. Hence, plague-afflicted thinking is not accessible to arguments.”

      I’ve selected from a longer section to illustrate. Then, take the following, which rasonates for me.

      “If we go back only a few decades in the history of politics, we find the famous Dreyfus case. High-ranking military men of the French general staff had sold plans to the Germans; to cover themselves, they accused the unsuspecting and respectable Captain Dreyfus of the very crime they were guilty of. They succeeded in having their victim convicted, and he languished in jail for more than five years on a faraway island. Without Zola’s courageous intervention, this specific plague reaction would never have been combatted. That Dreyfus was subsequently honored does not erase in any way the atrocity committed against him. If policies of state were not ruled to such a large extent by the laws of the emotional plague, it would be a self-understood principle that such catastrophes should never happen in the first place. However, since the emotional plague governs the molding of public opinion, it always succeeds in passing off its atrocities as regrettable errors of justice, only to be able to continue its mischief with impunity.”

      (I knew a little bit about Reich in a different context.)

         0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Umbongo, it’s also a sign of deeply held religious beliefs, existing outside of reason, and tied into emotions.  I suppose one could make a case for that being a manifestation of OCD.  Still, the Beeboids sure as hell are compulsive about what they do.

         0 likes

    • Millie Tant says:

      Umbo: Inserting a reference to AGW (or a response to AGW) into every programme is rapidly becoming a medically clinical condition of the BBC’s production and commissioning teams. 

      ===========================
      They also have a policy to insert a reference to slavery in every programme if it can be managed,. even if it is a programme about gardening, say. 

      Of course, the particular slavery involved has to be of black Africans by pale northerners, such as English.

         0 likes

  22. George R says:

    Leave Islamic jihad threat at British universities to ‘Prevent’ quango and to INBBC’s ‘Asian Network’!

    Of course, INBBC avoids the phrase ‘Islamic jihad’, substituting the vague, non-Islam word ‘extremists’.

    INBBC, as usual, censors the Islamic jihad nature of the threat, and leaves the solution to Muslims, to ‘Prevent’ quango, and to ‘Asian Network’.

    INBBC message to vast majority of indigenous British people on this: ‘stay out of this, it’s none of your concern, leave the problem of Islamic jihad (sorry, “extremists”) at British universities to Muslims to solve’!

     A comment at ‘New English Review’:

    http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/28973

       0 likes

    • prpw says:

      Yes they do like to hide behind the word `extremist’ when they need to explain things away/obfuscate, don’t they

         0 likes

  23. Pounce says:

    The bBC writes a feel good story about a known arms dealer.  
     
     
    Canadian accused of buying weapons for al-Qaeda freed  
    A Canadian accused by the US of supplying weapons to al-Qaeda has been freed in Toronto after a judge refused to extradite him to the US.  
     
    Nice story about yet another innocent man freed because the US had accused him of being arms dealer.But hang on, the man is a   
    Khadr you know (well in this case you don’t) a member of

    that Egyptian family living in Canada who left for Afghanistan, All undertook jihad training at AL Q camps, all burnt their Canadian Passports and then shouted out to the world they were victims when refused entry back into Canada.  

    The idiot here isn’t accused he has addmitted selling weapons to AL Q yet the bBC fails to mention any of this in which to paint this odious thug as a victim. 

       0 likes

  24. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I feel sorry for victims of the flood in Pakistan just like everyone else.  But is the BBC News Channel supposed to be a 24-hour charity appeal? 

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      Does the BBC really think people want to give money to people who not only support the Taliban, in many cases ARE the Taliban and would hack your head off in 20 seconds.

      Let the bloody Muslim world sort it out, I don’t see Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iran or anyone else coming to the aid of these people, so why should we?

      Stuff them.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Great point!  I thought charity was really, really important in Islam.  Where are all those Muslim Charities now?  Especially the ones the BBC likes to defend against charges of being connected to terrorists?  Why haven’t we seen a single rep from any of them being interviewed during the BBC’s relentless coverage?

           0 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      DP

      I’m sure we’re all sympathetic to the plight of the flood victims.  However, a nation that can afford a nuclear capability can also afford the money and provide the logistics to help its own countrymen.  I don’t recall Pakistani Air Force planes flying into Manchester Airport chockful of supplies for those affected by the floods in Cockermouth:  I’m sure the BBC would have told us (at length).  Anyway, I believe – on fairly good evidence – that much of what I might give in the way of charity to the victims will be lost on the way to the ultimate intended beneficiaries.  The endemic corruption in Pakistan – rapidly being introduced into the British body politic (one of Pakistan’s few export successes) – makes any assistance to that country (either voluntarily charitable or compulsorily enforced through the UK tax authorities and channelled through the DfID) a waste of money.

      FWIW I recommend giving money instead direct to a local genuine charity (eg http://www.barnet4u.co.uk/Index/Main%20Page%20links/Our%20Community/Barnet%20Community/nlhospice.html ): they need it and use it.

         0 likes

      • Paulo says:

        Umbongo – well done for comparing an event which has lead to the deaths of over 1500 people and left 3.2million homeless with some localised UK flooding which killed 4.
        As for the idea that Pakistan should be left to fend for itself because it can afford a nuclear program, I assume you were equally irritated by the international aid which was sent to the USA (richest country on earth) after Hurricane Katrina.
        As for David and Martin’s claims that no Islamic Charities or countries are helping, you really ought to trying looking a little harder. (hint: using google helps.) 

        Still, if these are the excuses you need to explain your own apathy then go right ahead.

           0 likes

        • Manfred VR says:

          Paulo, I feel I must take issue with you on this.
          Nobody would deny that this is a humanitarian disaster, BUT Pakistan has form regarding corruption, and a cavalier attitude towards the wellbeing of it’s own.
          Also, the fact is that we as a nation are skint; Partly because we  give free money, houses, healthcare, education to Pakistanis should obviate us as individuals and as a country from giving any more to this State.
          As Umbongo pointed out, Pakistan would not recipricate if the boot was on the other foot.

             0 likes

          • Paulo says:

            Manfred,
            I don’t disagree with you about the Pakistani government but the aid effort isn’t about handing over cash to the corrupt government, its about channeling aid through the red cross, action aid and all the other charities directly to the people who desperately need it. The idea that we should punish the flood victims for the inaction of their bad government by refusing to send them aid is pretty disgusting. Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, even the richest, most efficient countries on earth need help in times of crisis.

            As for your point that ‘Pakistan would not recipricate if the boot was on the other foot’. What a load of made up tosh. We haven’t had a massive humanitarian disaster in this country in modern times so you have no way of knowing that for a fact. In fact, Pakistan gave $1million dollars in aid and offered medical teams to the USA during hurricane Katrina (see previous link) so I’d say the evidence is actually the complete opposite. 

               0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Paulo, the Saudi government and one UK Islamic charity are all you could find with your Google skills?  Not very impressive.  Since when are governments considered charity organizations?  But I suppose you’ve decided to combine Martin’s comment and my own, and so have made a broader attack.

          Because we are supposed to accept that all Muslims everywhere are angry at US and UK military actions against Muslims, to the point where the mass murders of 7/7 were supposed to be down to justifiable radicalization due to the war in Iraq, then certainly this concern for Muslim lives should easily translate into great action to help today’s Muslim victims of the flood.

          I have seen scant evidence of this, and the BBC’s reporting has most certainly not shown that Muslim charities are at the forefront of the relief efforts.  Muslim charities should be all over the news right now, and if they were doing the yeoman work they ought to be, there would be plenty of evidence of them on the airwaves.  They aren’t, and the two links you provided are two drops in the ocean.

          I don’t recall saying that Pakistan should be forced to fend for itself, nor do I recall saying anything which could be construed by you as deserving your charge of hypocrisy regarding anything Pakistan may have sent after Katrina.  My agreement with Martin’s comment concerned his suggestion that the Muslim World needed to do their far share for once.  You were only able to provide a link to the Saudis.  The Muslim countries should be leading the effort for a variety of reasons.

          Do you have any answer to my question about the lack of Muslim charity reps in BBC reports?  I know the BBC commonly censors the news to fit a certain agenda, but surely this wouldn’t be one of those instances, considering the circumstances and cast of characters.

             0 likes

          • Umbongo says:

            Paulo

            My points are plain:

            1.  A country which chooses to spend billions on nuclear weapons  obviously has sufficient resources to deal with natural disasters – even one as big as this one.
            2.  Pakistan is endemically corrupt.  The distribution of any money or material aid sent to Pakistan has to be approved by the authorities or the local strong-man.  The rake-off will be substantial whether the aid is private or “official”.
            3.  My only criticism of aid to the US was that aid offered early on by the Dutch – who have the most experienced in dealing with oild spills – was refused by the Obama administration because it would have breached the Jones Act – a piece of legislation purely aimed at bolstering US unions to the detriment of the US generally and, in this case, those suffering from the oil spillage in particular.
            4.  As to your point about islamic generosity: in virtually every major disaster the US is at the top of the donor list (official and private) and the super-wealthy oil states are marked by their relative stinginess.
            5.  David Preiser’s point is a good one.  The BBC failure to trumpet Muslim generosity (considering that it trumpets every other aspect of Islam) is a sure sign that such generosity is limited.

               0 likes

            • NotaSheep says:

              How is Mr 10%’s visit to the UK going?

                 0 likes

              • Grant says:

                You can be pretty sure that if muslim charities or governments were doing much to help it would be plastered all over the BBC  24/7.

                   0 likes

  25. piggy kosher says:

    Beeboid magazine piece for the appallings “Spewsnight” programme.
    “Oldham Merges schools to bridge race divide”

    Asians appear to be the issue. Not once in nearly 2000 words does the fact that they are in fact muslims, appear.

    No attempt to discuss why a major English town now appears to be split along muslim v other religious and cultural lines.

    A scary little intimation of the true reality on the ground is given near the beginning, where a white female student states that she feels physically scared when having to get to her music class.

    Its all down to the “Asians” apparently.

    Asians? You mean hindus? Ohh asians! wink.

       0 likes

    • dave s says:

      The hard question as to why an old Lancashire town has come to this pass will never be asked as you point out.
      It is a real urgent question rooted in the reality of the situation. I really believe the libleft is no longer able to deal with any reality at all. It is not simply denial it is a form of illness bought on by the inevitable conflict between a desire to create a heaven on this world and the reality of it. That such people should have such power is a tragedy for Western civilisation, It will end badly and probably, as is normal in human affairs, in the most unexpected of ways.
      The greatest of harm is always done by the well meaning.

         0 likes

  26. Craig says:

    BBC still going after Michael Gove (one of only two top Tories willing to take on BBC bias) and, as ever, missing out important facts:

    Gove facing schools cuts pressure
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics

    (This story leads the website’s Politics page.)

    “Leaders of a council where a scheme to rebuild nine secondary schools was scrapped by the education secretary have urged him to think again”.

    We hear from Sandwell Council leader Darren Cooper.

    What the article ‘forgets’ to mention is the highly relevant detail that Cllr Cooper is Labour and Sandwell Council is Labour-run. They are hardly ‘independent’ critics.

    (Sandwell are the council that withdrew funding for a St George’s Day parade over concerns it might attract far right elements and proposed a Gypsy Awareness Month in schools. The article didn’t mention that either!)

       0 likes

  27. George R says:

    Islam Not BBC (INBBC) plays the role of  the Islamic Republic of IRAN’s ‘Press TV’ :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10865085

    The reality of the Islamic jihad activities of the Islamic Republic of IRAN, which INBBC relegates:

    “Iran’s Global Terrorist Reach”

    http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/07/irans_global_terrorist_reach.php

       0 likes

  28. Martin says:

    So Orla Geering states that the FIRST aid to reach the people in Pakistan is coming from…. the US military “showing their softer side” spouts the ugly old boot.

    Funny but WHERE is the aid from the Muslim nations? I don’t see lines of Saudi military helicopters dropping aid, Syria? Iran? Nope not a sight.

    They have plenty of money to buy expensive cars, football teams and of course fund terrorists.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Just like it was the US Navy that led the relief efforts in the deeply Islamist province of Aceh, Indonesia after the tsumnami.  With solid backup by the Australian Navy.  And a hopeless effort in the early days by the so-called “aid agencies”.  Which the BBC his from view.

      And just like it was the US Marine Corps that led in Haiti – while the aid agencies who were already there driving around in the Toyota Landcruisers were a bloody waste of space.  Which the BBC hid from view.

      It is nothing to do with the US forces “showing their soft side”.  It is EFFICIENCY.   Western efficiency.   Which the BBC scorns.

         0 likes

  29. john says:

    I agree with the comments here on the open thread about Nuclear Pakistan’s reaction (inaction) to the floods.
    Having just listened to the sycophantic “appeal” on Radio 4 (but where else ?) @ 6.25pm, may I congratulate the BBC on reducing all genuine non-nuclear countries suffering a worse fate in the future to “Peter crying wolf” if they don’t tick the right BBC boxes that is.
    Please don’t agonise too long over how much money I will be donating to Pakistan !

       0 likes

  30. Will says:

    With NuLab losing the power of patronage they decide that the BBC should become a co-operative – obviously they hope their BBC Trust cronies stand a better chance of survival on the votes of an apathetic public rather than having them there Tories in control.
    http://www.progressives.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=6521

       0 likes

  31. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Mark Mardell has been very busy lately traveling around the Arizona border and making a few blog posts about – what else? – illegal immigration.  Like the good propagandist he is, each post addresses a different facet of the issue, and are intended to successively stack up as one argument.  (Apologies once again that this will be spread over two comments.)

    In his first post, Mardell talks to a local county officer.  The theme of this post is that illegal immigration is not really causing an increase in crime.  First, we get a glimpse of the truth:  this isn’t just about Mexicans and is not racially motivated anything, contrary to what Mardell openly admits is his preconceived opinion:

    But he suggests that one way or another it won’t change the way he does his job and it isn’t racial profiling.

    I question this. Isn’t it just common sense that on this border he is going to challenge people who look Mexican, rather than, say, black or white? Not at all, he says. He’s picked up many Chinese along this border and he says, on hearing my accent, he’d want to see my papers too.

    This will come as no surprise to anyone here, but is clearly shocking to the BBC North America editor, who has supposedly been following this for weeks.  While Mardell admits his bias, he obviously feels that he actually holds the correct opinion.

    As for crime, Mardell quotes the cop again:

    He says there has been a slight escalation of violence on the US side, but most of the crime associated with illegal immigration – apart from the act itself – is burglaries of isolated homes for food, water and clothes.

    Mostly, he says, those responsible don’t take valuables and have been known to leave notes of apology. He sympathises with people who are coming to better themselves, but the law is the law and it’s his job to enforce it.

    Hands up, all those who believe that Mardell would accept having his home routinely ransacked like this.  But he’s just trying to sanitize the situation.  It’s only fluffy bunnies coming through, really.  People ought to just leave some food out for them, problem solved, right, Mark?

    For an opposing viewpoint, Mardell uses the standard BBC dodge: one line, along the lines of “others think otherwise”.  No substance at all to the other side of the argument.

    In his second post, Mardell continues to show his personal bias about the racist element of the immigration law.  He begins by telling you he’s just passed through Tombstone, AZ, site of a famous Old West shootout.  Mardell gives a little local atmosphere and color, to bring you into the story:

    The dusty streets and wooden buildings recall a time long past.

    Actually, that’s because it’s a theme park, one I visited several times in my youth.  But back to the local atmosphere Mardell wants to create in your minds:


    But Arizona is gripped with the fear that this beautiful big country is returning to a state of lawlessness, where the bad guys and their guns threaten the law-abiding.

    That’s because several areas have been turned into no-go areas for citizens by the government, but I’ll wait until Mardell gets around to his own version of “the reality behind that fear” before I link back to the evidence I’ve provided in previous comments.

    Now for Mardell’s attempt to show how racist this all is.  While driving towards the border, he and his producer get pulled over by a checkpoint on the highway.  These have existed for decades, of course, as there has been a known problem with illegal immigration into AZ since at least the 1970s.  The cops there tell him the same thing the guy in Santa Cruz told him:  We check everyone with an accent, and you better have your papers.

    Mardell professes his own ignorance that legal resident aliens need to carry papers around, and tries to inflate this into some draconian police state potential.  Of course, he thinks we’re all too stupid to realize that this is happening within 25 miles of a problematic border, and not in, say, Prescott much farther north.  So he’s using hyperbole to make this appear much harsher for poor immigrants than it actually is.  And never mind that the cops keep saying they check everybody with an accent (or if they look suspicious, like 30 people packed into a tiny van), it’s still supposed to be racial profiling of Hispanics.

    (continued in next comment)

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Mardell is a liar – once again.

      There are plenty of statistics showing that border areas are now among the most crime-ridden in the US.

         0 likes

  32. David Preiser (USA) says:

    (Continued from previous comment about Mark Mardell’s blog posts)

    Mardell’s third post  has him in Southern California.  First up is an interview with someone who says her main concern right now is immigration, and is a big Tea Party supporter.  You knew he’d eventually find a way to label the Tea Party as racist, didn’t you?

    As you all know, the Tea Party movement has existed for a year and a half now and has had nothing to do with immigration at all.  Nothing.  Yet, Mardell quickly adds 2 and 2 together to get a big fat racist.

    The woman’s concerns are that too many non-English speaking kids in the schools drag down her own childrens’ education.  Hands up, all those who think Mardell would accept his child’s education being held back or dumbed down to accomodate non-English speaking children.  She also mentions something we learned from Franz Strasser’s series on immigration (why do I sense an agenda here?):  illegal immigrants can overwhelm the local health services.

    We’re supposed to think it’s cruel when she says that illegals should go to the back of the queue.  Mardell, having completely ignored everything he’s been told so far, still thinks that this is about being against immigration, full stop.  The “illegal part” goes away – again.

    But the US needs immigrants who learn the language and are willing to fit in and there should be a much better system to turn them into Americans.

    Yes, we do, Mark.  Legal ones, though, done properly.  If they’re here illegally, they’re not part of any “system” to to turn them into anything.

    Then he says that, while it’s understandable that this woman is against the President’s attack on Arizona, he’s surprised that other people feel similarly.  You’ll love this bit:

    She says in opposing the Arizona law, President Barack Obama has behaved like a dictator, ignoring the will of the majority of people in the state and the country.

    That you’d expect. But the president isn’t popular with his own natural supporters either.

    And who are His natural supporters?  Why, Hispanics, of course.

    Angelica Salas, of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, says she’s disappointed with President Barack Obama. She tells me that she expected it to be an uphill struggle to get the positive advances they wanted, but not to be on the defensive.

    This woman wants total amnesty for all illegals, and is unhappy that the President is going to deport more illegals than Bush did.  Fine, no problem, of course she isn’t pleased.  But why would she be a “natural” supporter of the President, and not the Tea Party woman?

    Racism, plain and simple.  Tea Party and opponents of the President = racist.  Non-whites automatically supporting people with brown skin = natural.

    One more thing:  Nowhere does Mardell mention that 18 other states have similar laws in place, or that Rhode Island has basically been doing this for 2 years already.  Nope, the BBC continues to censor that bit of information so you think this is all about racists in Arizona.

    It all adds up now, doesn’t it?  Mardell and Strasser, two Beeboids, one agenda.

    To counter this slanderous propaganda, here’s a video putting the lie to the idea that the Tea Party movement is about racism:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/08/04/bts.tea.party.racism.cnn

    It’s from CNN, the BBC’s soulmate in political bias.  So the Beeboids ought to trust it.  This is something that should be spread around UK blogs to counteract the propaganda being spread by the BBC.

       0 likes

  33. Will says:

    I realise the hysteria over “blood diamonds” is not peculiar to the BBC, but what is it all about? It seems to me to be yet another patronising Tranzi ploy directed at those child like darkies in Africa who must be prevented from playing with dangerous toys, so the civilised world restricts their pocket money.

     Would it be OK for them to wage whatever war they wished as long as they financed it from tax revenue obtained from an industrious population?

       0 likes

  34. Martin says:

    The BBC feel that the Pakistan disaster is SO important they put some story about a dozy skinny pig faced supermodel and her diamonds at the top story.

    Good diversion BBC, but where is the real story, the total mismanagement in Pakistan and of course the failure of the muzzie world to step up to the plate?

       0 likes

    • Asuka Langley Soryu says:

      Pig-faced? Come off it, man. Naomi Campbell is hot. Batshit insane, sure. But hot nonetheless.

         0 likes

      • Grant says:

        But until that dinner she had never heard of Liberia, despite being black. Hot , maybe, but also thick !
        Now what kind of girl opens her door to two strangers in the middle of the night , I wonder ?

           0 likes

  35. John Anderson says:

    The BBC positively adores the Obamas.  So why aren’t they revelling in Michelle’s holiday in Marbella, with huge entourage ?  It can’t be costing the US taxpayer more than half a million pounds a day,  and she has had only 4 or 5 holidays this year so far :

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010/08/05/welcome-obama-family-thank-you-for-choosing-marbella/

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      My taxes better not be going to pay for her 40 friends.  And what madness was that about “racist prejudices” leading to black tourists being arrested?  Surely that diplomatic row is worth the BBC’s time?

         0 likes

    • Martin says:

      Barry has had more time off and played more golf that Bush ever did in 8 years. Not that the BBC would tell you that.

         0 likes

  36. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    You wont find this information on any BBC outlet, so from Australia, what are we doing? This is pure unadulterated madness!!!

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      It’s in the Daily Mail as well

         0 likes

    • John Horne Tooke says:

      “As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
      United States: Muslim 1.0%
      Australia: Muslim 1.5%
      Canada: Muslim 1.9%
      China: Muslim 1%-2%
      Italy: Muslim 1.5%
      Norway: Muslim 1.8%

      At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

      Denmark: Muslim 2%
      Germany: Muslim 3.7%
      United Kingdom: Muslim 2.7%
      Spain: Muslim 4%
      Thailand: Muslim 4.6%

      From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

      They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves – along with threats for failure to comply.”
      http://williamfaulkner.co.uk/2009/02/the-process-of-islamification-uk-and-global/

      Harrow: “..just under half of the population is Christian, a fifth Hindu, 7 per cent Muslim and 6 per cent Jewish.”
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/school-meals-go-halal-in-london/story-e6frg6so-1225901832047

         0 likes

    • Craig says:

      Late as ever, the BBC is now reporting it:  
      Harrow primary schools offer ‘halal-only’ meat option  
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10884787
       
       
      Being the BBC it is entirely supportive of the move.  
       
      That article (and good spot BTW!) in the Australian features the views of supporters but also mentions “anger from parents who are opposed to the religious slaughter of animals” and says “The decision has drawn praise, but critics say parents were not consulted, and some have complained at the forced adoption of religious practices.” It also quotes criticism from the National Secular Society.  
       
      The BBC article, on the other hand, censors all criticism on the move. It features the views just of supporters : Harrow councillor Brian Gate, Masood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority (HFA), a spokesman from the Muslim Council of Britain and a council spokeswoman.  
       
      The Australian actually bothers to report the news, and tries to be balanced. The BBC presents blatant one-sided propaganda.  
       
      This is a very clear demonstration of BBC bias.

         0 likes

      • John Horne Tooke says:

        People like Cameron and his liberal cabinet will continue to sit in their offices or strut around the “world stage” And when they have done their stint, they will retire to somewhere far away from the hellhole they helped create through inaction and fear and let the poor people suffer their fate. All the while the BBC will spout their one sided rubbish.

           0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        I guess the BBC isn’t interested in asking animal rights activists what they think of forcing children to eat halal meat.  Like the ones who condemned ASDA for stocking it.  Funny how the BBC rushed to seek out the opinion of animal rights activists yesterday when they were covering that non-story about cloned animal meat.

           0 likes

        • Martin says:

          Exactly David, the BBC don’t want to point out that Muslims kill animals the same way they do westerners.

             0 likes

      • George R says:

        ‘Jihadwatch’: spot-on, as usual-

        UK: Halal-only menus in primary schools

        [Opening extract]:

        “More on the UK’s abject cultural collapse. When in Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform to Islamic mores. When in non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform to Islamic mores. Got it?”

        Islam Not BBC  (INBBC) has got it.

           0 likes

      • Dazed-and-Confused says:

        And what happens to the kids of the non Islamic faith, that like ham or pork, or a bacon roll?

        Is this really England anymore?

        Is this what the left (incorporating the BBC) consider “Progress”, now they’ve got their other “equality laws passed”….Slip back into the stone age, as so not to offend Islamic sensibilities.

           0 likes

    • Grant says:

      So all pupils will be forced to eat halal meat.  Wait till the human rights lawyers get their teeth into that ;)

         0 likes

    • Dazed-and-Confused says:

      Miliband and his Socialist cronies use Newsnight, and the far left wing think tank “Progress”, to announce their plans for the BBC in such a way, because they’ve lost contact with reality, and see the BBC as a mere tool of New Labour regeneration, and a swift return to power, sometime anon.

      Is everything funded by the tax payer Socialist property then?

      The truth will out…….Perhaps it just has.

         0 likes

  37. Martin says:

    Newsnight… I’m speechless.

       0 likes

    • George R says:

      ‘Newsnight’ on accommodating the Muslim (Islam NotNBBC: ‘Asian’) school population of Oldham into joint school with indigenous, non-Muslim children who don’t wan’t it. A phoney Islam Not BBC question was put into the ether: ‘is this social engineering?’ You bet your multicultural ideology it’s social enginnering, Islam Not BBC. You know it is: you’re a big political part of it.

         0 likes

      • George R says:

        No doubt when 1000 plus Beeboids pluck up enough courage to tranfer from London to Salford Quays, many of them will be enthusiastic to place their own children in that new school in Oldham…

           0 likes

      • Martin says:

        I just couldn’t bring myself to type!! And there’s more to come according to rat face Wark.

           0 likes

  38. Martin says:

    WE know the BBC and the Guardian are like pimp and prostitute. So will the BBC report THIS Guardian story in the same way?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/05/oil-spill-white-house-accused-spin

       0 likes

  39. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    All you can really do is get others to Highlight these stories, and hope others pick up themselves, and start to ask questions.

    What about the licence payers who disagree with the last thirteen Years of Fabian manipulation into the running of the official State broadcaster?

       0 likes

  40. David Jones says:

    @David Preiser

    David. Have you seen this on Tea Party racism?

    Very impressive and very funny!

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      No, I hadn’t seen that.  Pretty amazing.  Thanks for the link!

         0 likes

  41. George R says:

    BBC coverage of European Union issues goes from bad to worse.

    It is well known that the BBC is pro-EU, but with the dumbing down of the content of, e.g. BBC ‘Europe’ web newspage, vital issues for Britain now go unreported. BBC’s Gavin Hewitt, Europe editor, is an expensive irrelevance.

    The ‘Daily Mail’ is better, and will report issues of e.g. mass immigration, which the BBC merely censors:

    “Passport giveaway opens UK back door: 2m more Hungarians will have right to work here ”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300676/UK-passport-giveaway-hands-2m-Hungarians-right-work-here.html#ixzz0voH89btL

       0 likes