For Wednesday’s bias.
Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam
This must be what award-winning BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen meant when he said that the Muslim Brotherhood was “moderate”.
Defenders of the indefensible will remain silent, and still insist that the BBC is unbiased and trustworthy.
It is moderate in that at least they won’t be executed, which is the recommended punishment for apostasy under Islam.
As they say in private eye: so that’s all right then!
Thanks, David. I really don’t know where to begin. I’m wondering if anyone else believes that this week has seen some of the most appalling Leftist bias for a long time from the fair-trade coffee-sipping, Muesli-munching Cultural Marxists? Firstly, as David has indicated on the previous thread, the Obama worship has been breathtaking in all areas; note the tone of voice when a BBC reporter mentions Obama, and compare to the tone when reporting Republicans – it’s like comparing major and minor chords! Additionally, you’ll have all noticed, the BBC have (yet again) completely ignored the Muslim connection in another (how many more cases will it take for it to become headline BBC news/analysis?) atrocious sex gang outbreak, this time in Oxford; simply disgusting. Thirdly, did anyone have the misfortune to catch Newsnight, last night, wherein Paul ‘I’m an overgrown sociology student’ Mason was trying act hip in an HMV store, dressed in casual clothes with his iPod on? It was simply pathetic but was exacerbated by the trendy metro debate which followed – a debate that orbited around the demise of the high street music store. This ‘debate’ encapsulated everything that I find repugnant about the BBC: a snooty, urban wannabe cool elite which has no connection with any community outside London and trendy city enclaves.
The ‘Big’ Questions (or as I prefer to call it, the ‘Big’) was a terribly biased pro-Muslim mound of steaming moonshine wherein Guardian-reading ‘intellectuals’ ripped Christian guests to shreds whilst genuflecting to everything Islam in the most revoltingly toadyish manner… And on BBC News 24, today, we had some self-important Liebour MP blaming the failing high street chains on the Coalition (seemingly oblivious to the massive technological advances in internet shopping which might explain these closures)… this preposterous balloon-head was given free reign to spout his anti-Tory agenda but as soon as a Coalition spokesperson came on, he was heckled like nobody’s business. The bias has become out of control….
What chance is there of middle-aged victims coming forward to make allegations of acts of Muslim sex abuse dating back to the 1960s and 1970s, when those victims were younger. Come to think of it, did the mosques cover up ?
After all, the MSM have been fanatically obsessed with allegations of abuse and cover-up dating back to the 1960s involving a certain other faith, so why don’t they apply the same blanket coverage when it comes to Islam ?
Why has no-one said it yet. Perhaps it is not “misguided bias” at all. Perhaps it is a campaign. After the fall of the Soviet Union it was found that nearly 35,000 people were in the pay of the East German Stasi, for economic and political reasons. They came from (no surprise) academia, the unions and the media. No wonder the media were “biased” to the left. Replace the MB for the USSR and we may be clear about what is going on.
Muslims in Algeria seize Westerners on BP site. Since I try to avoid bbc news, have their impartial and world-class journalists acknowledged there are Americans amongst them? And has there been any conjecture about whether Mr Obama will do anything to rescue them? Because if he cannot be bothered to save one of his Ambassadors I’d be fearful for my life if IT was one of them.
Looking forward to Mock the Week, starting at 10 tonight?
Hard hitting satirical comedy that knows no bounds.
Can’t wait for the jokes at Marr’s expense [had a `stroke`, geddit?], the Pakistani child rapes scandal, or the NHS `angels` who don’t give a fcuk?
Don’t hold your breath!
Beeboids’ unprincipled political line on Islamic jihad.
It seemed that Beeboids were going along with narrative of French ‘socialist’ Hollande that French intervention was necessary in Mali to stop Islamic jihadists violently taking over that country.
But when Islamic jihadists kill and capture scores of people in Algeria, much of Western media (inc Beeboids) seem to get cold feet.
BBC ‘boosts UK economy by £8bn’
According to the BBC website. Each pound taken in licence fee revenue becomes two pounds in the rest of the economy! In their dreams and in a report by…..you guessed it, the BBC finance and economy folk. To pretend that when the BBC spends a pound somewhere it doubles in value has as little credence in Ed Balls belief that more borrowing to hand out benefits will somehow salvage this train crash economy.
Damn it, the BBC should have been running Comet, HMV, Blockbuster, Jessops and others.
If they had to compete on a level playing field in the real commercial world with the bloat in their structure and the excessive spending the BBC would have gone under decades ago. But they have a rather haughty disdain for “trade” and only promote their own interests and never the efforts of British enterprise.
There is something in the air that we are not aware of and it may just be the “other” investigation that has prompted this report.
The head of finance is reflective of BBC inclusive culture. Pity she is so lacking in her field of expertise but then her origin makes up for it. The Culture and Media Committee tore her to pieces when she appeared with dear George recently.
This report was abjectly pitiful;
Lets examine her prime example of a camera bought by the BBC in Manchester. The dealer makes a profit and everyone else in the food chain downward gets rewarded.
Wow, the education required to come this conclusion is truly breath taking – not. The camera was definitely not made here. So the dealer makes a profit but the benefit after that all goes East to China or Japan. So this wonderful example only benefits one person in the UK economy and that person did not benefit much because you can guarantee that he was squeezed unmercifully on the basis of “We are the BBC” and you know its good for you to give us the best price.
This is a total smokescreen of shite. Every public body has a duty to Add Value for the benefit of the people that supply the funds. This means that the BBC employs local people and businesses that do work on that project.
My hunch is that there are moves brought about by the inquiries that the BBC is too big just like the rest of our civil service and the axe is about to start falling on these parasites. A previous article on the site yesterday looked at whether a National Broadcaster is relevant now and how in other countries better product is produced at a lower price by the private sector.
The comparison should be ‘what would be the effect on the economy if TV-taxpayers were allowed to keep their £145.50 and spend it themselves?’
The economic multiplier is likely to be much more than the factor of 2 claimed for the bBBC, which, as their article notes – However, spending in London was three times the rest of the UK combined – is just another way of taking money from the whole of the UK and spending it in London.
Yes the camera example is an utter embarrassment.
Out of the same economics text book that gives us ‘millions of green jobs’.
Yes the droids can buy a camera on our dollar.
Yes a jerry can put up a windmill on our dollar.
So what – we don’t want the windmill and we don’t want the camera. Neither are any effin good to us.
If you are going to confiscate our money (and we’d rather you didn’t) try, you know, spending it on something useful. The multiplier works with useful stuff as well.
Utter utter idiots – commissioning the report, writing the report, publishing the report, and worse much worse, thinking it’ll fool anyone.
Newsnight on gun control in the US….of course, non of the Democrat voting Hollywood luvvies own guns
Their bodyguards do.
Irrespective of what you think of Cameron’s stance on Europe, I can’t help but notice that the BBC are piling in ahead of his speech on Friday – teeing him up for a good kicking.
Watching Toenails analysis of this and Cameron’s difficulties on DP, but more so watching Wee Dougie Alexander nodding along with Toenails’ misinterpretation, it was obvious how infuriatingly one-sided things are.
Perhaps the requirement for balance would have seen Toenails ask Alexander to explain Labour’s split on Europe. Why was Miliband proffering a referendum a few months back, but not now?
Why was Miliband now denying the people of the UK a say in the changing relationship with Europe that EVERYONE, all across Europe, say is on the way?
Why is Miliband saying, ‘no referendum’ when his policy people are saying that this needs to be considered properly in a policy review?
Did Toenails press him on this? Did he even ask him? Has the BBC even bothered to challenge Labour on their EU stance?
Some chance, no chance.
If he doesn’t announce an IN/OUT referendum before the next GE he deserves more than a good kicking ( metaphorically of course)!
The Question Time line up – for those of you that can still bear to watch this abomination…
Grant Shapps – whatever
Caroline Flint – window dressing
Nigel Farage – Hurrah!!!! Go Nige!!!
Roland Rudd – *Labour donor? , Friend of Errol the hamster.
Mary Beard – oh gawd
*Wonder if anyone will mention this…
no fkn doubt this will be a chance for the rest of the panel and the planted audience members to harangue Farage over the comments/shut down of the UKIP message board.
No chance, they will use him (aided and abetted by Flint) to pound Cameron, and he will.
Can’t bear to watch. I’ll read others’ reviews before deciding if it’s worth a quick scan through on iplayer.
BBC want as much airtime for UKIP as possible. More votes for UKIP = greater split in Tory Vote = ensure Labour elected (aided and abetted by the Statist bBC)
Interestingly at lunchtime today BBC News 24 were happy to leave another Ed Miliband PMQs car crash for more coverage of the London helicopter crash.
BBC2 soldiered on with Nick Robinson trying to put one over on Cameron on Europe.
Something to gladen the heart – Just listen to BBC commentators and hear their obvious sticks-in-the-throat regretful acknowledgement that most of the British public are Eurosceptic.
(Most of us are ‘Climatesceptic’ too, but the Beeb can’t acknowledge that one yet)
BBC Trust chairman clocks up £1,725 cab bill
BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten made much of the fact that he would shun the perk of a chauffeur-driven car when he took up his £110,000 post in May 2011, telling friends he preferred to use his OAP Freedom Pass on public transport.
Yet figures published by the BBC yesterday show the former Hong Kong governor clocked up a cab bill of £1,725 between April and September last year.
On one trip he spent £218 travelling by hire car from his home in Barnes, South West London, to another address in the capital and back again. Did he keep the meter running?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263112/RICHARD-KAY-Euan-Blairs-girl-sports-sparkler-Eldest-son-PM-gets-engaged.html#ixzz2IBsuXqNY
‘Did he keep the meter running?’
Seems common practice across the board.
I posted this on David Preiser’s post about Obama’s gun control announcement but thought it may be best here after all.
I was driving home at about 18:40ish last night and they had what they described as a “conservative” radio host on from America to talk about dear leader and his gun control announcement.
But first we had someone to support and present to us the pro Obama line, then before we went to the radio host we had to have a tearful and distressing moment listening to the mother of the British boy that was killed at Sandy Hook, this to me was clearly designed to get people thinking emotionally and poison any points the radio host had to make.
Once we got to the host he made some good points even though he had to put up with the normal BBC tactic of interrupting the interviewee which he handed well be saying “ma’am you have asked me a question please let me answer you” and the normal belligerent attitude of the BBC presenter determined to have their point of view enforced and accepted as the gospel according to St’ Obama.
But the bit that got me was at the end after the interview had finished she repeated the “conservative” radio host part to witch Peter Allan gave a self satisfied laugh of some one that has just dealt with someone they feel superior to or that of an adult dismissing a small child before repeating the same “conservative” radio host and that really got my blood pressure spiking
The segment is available on the BBC iPlayer here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pw4rx/5_live_Drive_16_01_2013/ if you want to give it a listen go to 2hr 40min’s in to get the right part
You could just feel the contempt, couldn’t you.
I confess I found the guest’s argument quite tenuous, but he was polite and willing to engage in conversation, which was presumably the reason he was invited on to discuss the topic. To snort with such superior disdain at your guest caller the moment he has been signed off is not only indicative of the knee-jerk condescension that many at the BBC possess towards those that don’t share the corporation’s worldview, it’s also just plain bad manners. What about some respect for those that are good enough to take the time to participate in your phone-ins, BBC!
What a snotty jackass.
Yes, you make a good point.
I mean we Brits are meant to be world renowned for out good manners and politeness, but those two tonight i found to be a disgusting and sad indictment of what the left want this land to turn into
Oh and another thing was the way they used the word “Conservative” as if it was some sort of coded labile for a child molesting murderer or other foul specimen
It was the kind of knowing derision between the two that said ‘yikes, what was THAT – definitely not one of us’.
Just unprofessional. We ought to expect better, but I’m long past that. This is now EXACTLY what I expect from the BBC.
Sometimes it just comes out; the pressure of attempting to maintain even the merest pretence of balance is too much and must have a release somewhere, like steam or electricity.
That is an absolute disgrace.
BBC Breakfast curently “celebrating” its 30 year anniversary. Only been watching 45 minutes and it’s had two segments already.
Obsessed with itself.
So, Janet and John, what did you do in school today?
Oh it was really really cool. We had that trendy supply teacher again for citizenship class. His name is Mr Campbell but he lets us call him Nicky! We had class debate and it was great fun : Do crabs and prawns feel pain?
We were supposed to have to talk about : Mr Miliband, does he have a policy on Europe? That sucks!
But Nicky let us off.
A few in the BBC seem to have gone a bit off reservation when confronted with Ed’s less than coherent outing having been asked to open his mouth but not put his feet straight in it.
At least Norman Smith seems to have loyally only found the diamond in the puff…
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Ed Miliband says he would like to see his brother, David, back in the cabinet – “he’s a great talent” @bbcr4today
One can only imagine the orifice-plumbing nickname Citizen Smith will warrant.
I wonder if the BBC was too busy to report this – Muslims ‘patrolling’ in Whitechapel and threatening people for breaking sharia law –
Naughtie’s interview of Ed on Today this morning was the (predictable) bore-fest. Not biased, just tedious. As even Robinson was forced to admit in his comment after this less than world-shattering event, Ed said little and, in essence, committed to nothing.
AFAIAC the only interesting point (not taken up by Naughtie natch) was Ed’s example of one of the major benefits that membership of the EU has brought us. Ed specifically endorsed the European Arrest Warrant which, funnily enough, has nothing to do with free trade or a common market (the subject of the 1975 referendum) and has little perceptible connection with our economic well-being.
As it happens the EAW is part of the wet dream of socialist world government: hence Miliband’s enthusiasm (an enthusiasm inherited from his marxist father). According to Ed the EAW has saved the EU in general and the UK in particular from murder and terrorism.
OK he didn’t put it in exactly those terms but he implied that before the advent of the EAW we were more or less powerless to extradite terrorists and murderers residing with our EU “partners”. There was no mention (since, in effect, only the “little people” are affected, not senior politicians or well-known BBC journalists) that the EAW ensures that, for instance, any neanderthal magistrate in Romania or Greece or Portugal or Italy (you know, those countries renowned in history for their devotion to the rule of law and incorruptability) can in effect get anyone he likes arrested here and transported to Bucharest with the active encouragement of the UK’s justice and police “services”.
BTW, whatever Cameron says (and, whatever he says, he’ll do less) the EAW regime at least is set to continue.
I thought Miliband was blustering and evasive on the referendum issue and Naughtie was the usual half-hearted version we get whenever he interviews a Labour politician. His feigned attempt at interruptions – ‘Bu….bu…’ which did nothing to halt Miliband’s flow were standard fare too, in contrast to the continual aggressve questioning he manages when interviewing Cameron and co.
As for the possibility of any challenge to Miliband’s tired and laughable economic mantras – sorry, ‘policies’ – he never even started.
I’m no big fan of Cameron, but the prospect of this economically illiterate Marxist dweeb leading the country scares me shitless.
Naughtie was desperately trying to help him out. He was attempting to lead Miliband to the right policy expressions, and his guest was too thick to get it.
“Generations apart” (yesterday morning, 9:00) gave a viewpoint on differences between employment prospects between young people growing up in 1962, and those doing so now.
Unsurprisingly the message being rammed home was of how much easier it was to find work in those days. This is comparing 1962 to 2012/3, so this is not surprising. There was some analysis of the types of jobs available (previously manufacturing, now more public sector/service etc). But can we base sound conclusions on a discussion with one sociologist* and selected snippets from interviews with 5 or 6 people…really?
One of the interviewees was an ex-Guardian journalist, which I’m sure will surprise many readers here
Then it was time for some BBC gender bias. For about 12/13 minutes the programme we had something of a sermon on gender politics, interviews with 3 women. That and the odd misreported fact about the gender “pay-gap”, that should have been challenged, but wasn’t.
That’s sort of ok, although it made for 25% or more of the show focusing on interviewees whose experience was asked for solely because they were women. It was also 20 minutes before “women’s hour”… We know that we will be very unlikely to see a similar focus on men on a similar programme – surely their lives have changed too?
In actual fact I think this is one major aspect of BBC bias that doesn’t get enough coverage, and that needs to be documented. The same pattern shows itself practically every time I look at BBC output – men, especially white men, do seem to be edited out of the picture for dubious reasons.
As always, the BBC’s clumsy attempts to tackle discrimination merely serve to double it.
* I’m sure sociologists are renowned for their political impartiality!
‘Then it was time for some BBC gender bias. ‘
Maybe they should get this lady… she seems to ‘fit’..
Any mention of what immigration levels had been for the 15 years leading up to 1962? Rhetorical question, of course.
As for the BBC giving us ‘bokes’ our very own Men’s Hour, your wish is their command (have the sick bag ready):
Looking at the site page, guessing that descriptive title is more of a guideline?
Yes, but sooo inclusive! Now where did I put that little black number….
I don’t want a men’s hour really. Nobody does. I was just making the case for the sheer amount of discrimination on the BBC. Of course it’s not the “right sort” of discrimination for the Beeb to be concerned about.
If you look at suicide rates, numbers of homeless, numbers in prisons, stats on parents not seeing enough of their children, you could get the impression that there was quite a lot of discrimination going the other way. I think the BBC rather brazenly add to it. As usual they are awfully confident about their rightness.
Of course it’s correct to say that if you look at a different, carefully selected set of comparisons, and you’d conclude that women get the worst of everything. Which is why we need a balanced overview, along with an awareness of the question of just how important is it to compare everything by gender and immediately conclude discrimination from any lack of parity.
This misses the point behind the motivation for shows like Women’s Hour. In the minds of the people who create and produce these things, we’ve already had centuries, millenia, even, of Men’s Hour. Everything in human history has been all about men, men, men (except when it’s time to point out prominent women in history), and continues to be to this day. So things like Women’s Hour are merely humble attempts to correct the balance. Everything else is essentially Men’s Hour, so please allow the delicate flowers an hour of their own. It’s the least the patriarchy can do, no?
I can’t say I care for the over-aggressive style of argument that says “you’ve completely missed the point” the whole time. I’d prefer to debate with someone who doesn’t reflexively use that well-worn phrase.
In actual fact it’s rather difficult to gague the arguments behind the existence of ‘women’s hour’ – they seem to change as necessary*. That is certainly one you hear, but it fails if the imbalance is happily pursued the opposite way by the BBC on several other shows, as my original post suggested. I could have given far more evidence, and maybe elsewhere I will.
I think it is actually quite striking how far a policy of parity has been pushed. It damages news and drama output. The political forces behind it are apt to keep calling for more and more measures – looking for grievances wherever they can find them. I wish it were not so.
* look at magazines for women vs those men read for one thing – they show massive differences. Perhaps W’s H reflects this..
Reflexively? What percentage of my comments have begun with that statement? If you want to know the reason behind the existence of Women’s Hour, look no further than what it says on the tin.
I don’t disagree at all with your points about the damage caused by this kind of thing.
Apparently, men have a ‘fear of fiction’.
No – we just get angry when we see it passed off as news, BBC.
In 1962 we had enjoyed a Conservative government for 11 years, which had allowed enough time to recover from Attlee’s devastation of the British economy. Better prospects for workers clearly then than now after suffering a particularly bad bout of 13 years of hard Labour.
all seems a little quiet ala bbc on mali ….
after watching malians treating french as heroes … thankful for being saved from … ahem!
“the horrors of islamism and strict sharia”
one stating he wished they were colonised by the french all over again
of course …. this was NOT on the al bbc though,
(bet it hasn t gone down well in the offices of the colonial guilt department … or the crackpot head of religious programming) … mon shariamour (no more) non!
the bbc reports ive heard … tripping islamist quickly off the tongue as if has nothing to do with islam , why is that?
note this on the recent algerian issue too.
There must be some verbal contortions in the inoffensive wording dept. at al bbc, forthcoming, wouldn t it just be so much easier to bluntly factually tell the truth.
Still described as ‘the religion of peace’ on the BBC’s own website, I’ll wager.
The bbc’s lexicon trickery has failed them somewhat by using the root of islamism, islam! So there’s the link word, islam.
Expect more use of the word militant soon and less of islamist.
I thought I would watch Polar Bear Family on me. On Monday evening I thought something had gone wrong – although I missed the beginning there was no mention of climate change in the time I watched.
So I sat down Tuesday evening fully expecting to enjoy polar bears playing in the snow. Well from the moment it started Gordon Buchanan explained that all the difficulties the animals had were down to climate change. The family that was starving – was due to climate change causing a lack of seals – but he didn’t explain how the huge male polar bear that he suddenly came across in the area was managing to feed. There were lots of birds around – but he explained that for a polar bear a bird’s egg was ‘like a peanut’. But surely the bears could have eaten some of the bird carcasses and lots and lots of eggs. The bearlet that was missing – must be due to climate change as it couldn’t find any ice to rest on (he had already explained that 50% of bears do not make it to adulthood – perhaps it was just one of those things). Often the voice over told another story to the pictures – we were told the bears were thin – except they were no smaller than before etc etc. And Gordon Buchanan was working from a largish ship – which he kept moving from one group of bears to another – surely burning lots of fuel – not the actions of someone who really wanted to keep his carbon footprint down.
I chewed out a Greenpeace chugger in the street yesterday. I can truly recommend it, set me up for the rest of the day. He really hadn’t been keeping up with the Met Office developments, but he’d got the condescension and sanctimony off pat.
I also gave both barrels to a Greenpeace chugger, outside Highbury and Islington station. I think he was a bit taken aback, as I suspect a lot of his stops are largely on his side. He lacked the tenacity I usually experience when the Jehovas Witnesses call.
Don’t expect the BBC to change their story on the cuddly polar bears when they are in so much denial over the Met Office’s admission of the lack of warming. Here are a couple of alternative viewpoints on this particular scare story:
Excerpt: ‘If, as the authors assert, that interglacial warm periods were warm enough to reduce the polar bear population down to only a few bears in climate refugia thus setting the stage for enhanced vulnerability to climate change as a result of low genetic diversity, then any of the past 3-4 interglacial warm periods could have pushed them to extinction. Clearly they did not. And, further, it seems rather than extinction, what a warmer climate leads to is an increase in interbreeding with brown bears—something which apparently took place with some regularity over the bears’ history, even more so in warmer times. So perhaps in extended warm periods, the polar bear becomes a bit browner—and takes on characteristics which are better suited for a warmer climate, only to re-emerge as the great white bear of the north when glacial conditions return.’
I too watched Tuesday’s episode with some trepidation, fully expecting the customary references to climate change and that practiced judgmental BBC tone which always accompanies them. I was not disappointed for long. In fact the most disappointing part of the whole programme was the sad fact of the marauding bear’s inability to reach Mr Buchanan through the ship’s porthole in order to avail himself of possibly his first decent meal in months.
A. I watched it all, with my BBM (Beeb Bull**** Monitor) bleeping regularly, particularly in the last two episodes. At the start of the first one he did mention climate change, but with the caveat of “it might not be….” in other words, like Basil Fawlty, he mentioned climate change once but he tought he had got away with it.
By starting like that he thought he was keeping the climate change alarmists on side as well as the sceptics. By episode 2 he had a captive audience so he was able to throw climate change claims around like confetti at a clown’s wedding.
One interesting point is that the claim that the ice has melted more than ever since records began, apparently the records only began in the 1970s.
‘….ever since records began….’
Amazing how the records began date slips easily back and forth through time according to which point the Met Office/BBC want to try to prove.
There was me thinking historical records began at the end of the dark ages. Surely British weather watchers have been busy scientifically since Victorian times?
Not if the data doesn’t fit the agenda they haven’t.
Exactly why I mentioned it. The amount of times Buchanan mentioned the worst summer ever in the Arctic, and then he dropped it in that the records only began in the 1970s, proved to me that it a wild and extravagant claim about the worst summer ever.
Yep, the satellite records began in 1979, a full 33 year segment in the history of planet earth…..no wonder everything that happens is “unprecedented”.
I’d dearly love to discover what goes through a Beeboid’s brain if and and when presented by No. 34…
Moving on quickly….
No problem there at all. He didn’t work for the BBC, so he’ll be punished for rape. The Beeboids’ soft racism of lowered expectations would lead them to shrug their shoulders at this. It’s merely, as Huw Edwards would put it, a “less-nuanced” reaction than we would see in the West.
BBC News 24 and an ever more cadaverous-looking Emily Maitless (Gok Wan have a word please) and Clive Myrie* (Trevor Mc-Mini-Doughnut) are beginning to get the BBC ducks in a line re: Mali-related-kidnappings.
BBC defence expert (forget the name, oh Buddha there are so many of them!) says the gang can’t have put this one together in the few days since the French intervention. Visions of the gang working deep into the night moving dinky toy technicals around the table on a sketch map of the Algerian landscape (a length of sand paper from B&Q will do).
On the other hand, says our well paid Beeb military expert, if they did knock this paln together in five days they are better organised than we thought.
My conclusion: You are an overpaid know-nothing overly keen to show admiration for these thugs.
So the BBC editorial line begins to form. These kind of attacks are a natural and inevitable reaction to Western interventions. Implication: The West shouldn’t ever intervene. (From our defence correspondent, John Lennon).
*This lad will go far. He made a joke about The Primeminister and Mayor Boris being in agreement. His bosses will be impressed that he is one of them.
Thought for the Day this morning – Bishop of Norwich, I think it was – mealy-mouthing about ‘revenge’ for ‘perceived injustices’ like it was some on-going tit-for-tat between the put-upon Muslims and the aggressive, over-reacting governments (whose countries they are trying to take over and whose Christian populations they are bent on exterminating).
So yet more sitting-on-the-fence lefty hand-wringing a la Williams by one of our top bishops, no doubt conscious of his former leader’s line that some form of Sharia law in the UK is inevitable which, if left to him and his ilk, it surely will be.
An absolute joy to hear Steve Wright interview Quentin Tarantino ( Radio2, , 3.40p.m today, 17.1.13).
He was informed, perceptive-and clearly Tarantino enjoyed the questions, giving witty and thought out answers.
Compare and contrast with Guru Murthys hatchet job on the same film maker, where the smug little cipher dribbled his liberal effete concerns all over his Two Cents-and so riling Quentin ,and therefore we learned nothing.
Except that the Guardian, BBC and Jon Snow would be pleased with Krishnans furballs put up for display.
One interview was that of a fan who had done some research-the other was a vox pox by an affirmative action nomark, who wanted his pals to like his anti-violence vogueing.
Steve Wright knows more, cares more about the biggest things that 1000 rent a fops of the correct shade, and flaccid sentiments as blagged from Toynbees trough of brilliant things.
Steve Wright for the Today job!
E. Miliband, doyen of the public sector, emulates BBC top brass
on choice of his transport:-
“Miliband accused of ‘total hypocrisy’ after attacking government car use while being driven around in £135,000 taxpayer-funded limo”
By Matt Chorley.
No-someones going to have to tell me what the point of Eddie Miliband is. Let alone the point of the E.U which Today tried to talk to him about.
Even on Saviles old beanbag…or Naughtie as we call him…wee Eddie showed himself to be empty, vacuous and about as potent as Heseltines urine sample after a homeopathic remedy has passed through him.
Miliband really was clueless, only playing “Mother may I” in the slipstream of Shirley Williams….for him to repeatedly stumble in answering ANY questions that Jim lobbed him was painful. Hell-he even flopped over even the questions that he had written for himself to answer (or presumably written for him on a shopping list by his significant other!).
If Miliband is the answer-Lord help us with the question.
Even Naughtie would be a better leader of the nation that Edward Woodhead Moribund.
Now why do I say that?..well David…it`s because my wife wrote it on my cuffs, and I have not an original thought in my head.
The vacant Mister Ed!…let`s hope he stays Labours ” Fuhrer” for a while longer….I`ll be counting his self-induced questions for a while longer.
There’s a nice party political broadcast on behalf of the Al-Nusra Front in Syria on Today. A charming five minutes or so of a cleverly produced segment, with the Beeboid narration dubbed over the sexy sounds of explosions, informing you that the Al-Nusra lads are not as bad as the Syrian Free Army or Assad, and might just in fact be the people’s choice.
Something quite newsworthy occurred , just the other day; so I believe.
Apparently Gordon Brown attended the House of Commons to talk about Remploy closures or what have you.
It`s only a rumour, because the BBC/Guardian types didn`t think his trip to Parliament to be “newsworthy”…but he`s only visited two or three times this last year or so.
Even if it`s just to put his expenses claim in..THAT ought to make the news….his frequency of visit would be on a par with Eurozone crises or elections in Greece or Italy…which ARE newsworthy there at the BBC.
Yet …not a peep…why so Beeb?
I wonder why this hasn’t been picked up by the MSM, entitled: Muslims Enforcing Sharia Law on the streets of London.
Some pink and fluffy propaganda for you to watch on BBC2 at 9.30:
Very peculiar behaviour or not by the BBC over Morsi’s speech ( Memri Tv ) which was less than complimentary to the Jews and that is somewhat of an understatement.
It seems the BBC was forced to report it when Obama criticised it. After all it would not do to be seen to be ignoring His words even if they conflicted with the party line on Israel .
AS far as I can make out the BBC on the 16th Jan on their ME page suggested that Morsi was only referring to the “setttlers” .So that’s all right then -the party line again.
Now if you look today right at the bottom of the report is a correction.
“this report was amended to take out the reference to settlers from the comments made by the Egyptian president”
Very strange indeed.
Could our BBC actually have been putting a different spin on Morsi’s words to make them appear less offensive by suggesting he was only talking about the “settlers” ?
After all nobody , I mean nobody reallly nice who would go to a NW3 dinner party, likes those settlers do they?
“This report was amended to take out the part which made Morsi look less than moderate, in response to complaints from Jeremy Bowen and others who believe that reporting it plays into the hands of the Zionist propaganda machine.”
There, fixed it for them. They get complaints from both sides, you know.
Was he including the Gaza settlers who were forcefully evicted by the Israeli state, I wonder?
Isn’t it odd how that (admittedly futile) act in the name of peace is airbrushed from history.
Big mistake. Switched on Question Time to hear that rancid hag dismiss Nigel Farage as a ‘Little Englander’.
Don’t these people have anything else? These trite, repetitious sneers are so boring. Give us something new – like a few facts maybe, if you have any. The pro side keep telling us we need an ‘informed debate’, then they reduce the discussion to cheap labels. I think they have little else, these ‘Big Eurocrats’.
Question Time is now pointless. Glad you switched off. The only real question is why would anybody switch on?
I’ve been susceptible (until recently) to an irresistible urge to tune in, just in case there’s that rare occasion where an audience refuses to behave in the expected fashion, and turns to the dark side.
There was one episode in Wales last year where one woman in the audience voiced her anger at all the wind turbines going up in her part of the country. The rest of them erupted in applause! I couldn’t believe it – bet someone got a bollocking after that.
There was another in King’s Lynn (I think) where the audience also displayed some distinctly unfashionable, non-metropolitan responses, but the examples are so few and far between that I can remember them quite clearly.
Not going back, though.
Definitely…well…maybe if…no…stop it.
there is no need for a debate, we have had 40 years to think about where we stand on Europe, now give us our democratic vote.
Exactly. But for those that know better, it’s not the right time. It’s never the right time.
Democracy as an inconvenience – the general attitude of the professional political class. I’m headed towards UKIP more than ever.
The Commentator’s take on last night’s Question Time…
Those BBC types continue their anti-Conservative Party, pro-statist agenda wherever in the public sector they end up after leaving the corporation – and where else would you expect an ex-BBC teat-sucker to end up but a bloated, publicly funded quango – bitching about those ‘Torycutz’…
So – a lavish tax-payer funded leaving party is actually a ‘thought leadership piece’. What a wonderfully indulgent example of management-speak BS that is!
…and a whopping 2.6% cut in funding! How will the self-regarding ̶l̶e̶e̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ luvvies cope. Oh, the humanity.
Where did that bonfire of the quangos go, to burn away the deadwood and purge the infestation of Labour stooges from the public sector.
From her Wiki page…
She was editor of The Guardian’s women’s pages from 1978 to 1982, a Guardian columnist during 1997 and 1998, becoming a non-executive director of the Guardian Media Group from 1998.
In February 2009 Forgan became Chair of Arts Council England, the first woman to head the British arts funding organisation. Appointed in the last year of a Labour Government…
Ah – the triple – BBC, Guardian and Labour appointee.
You can always spot these liebour types by the smug, sanctimonious smirk they wear on their faces. Vomit inducing
I enjoyed question time tonight. Several questions on Europe all of which Farage hit out of the park. Most gratifying to see that awful ‘beard’ hippy woman made to look a complete fool – when after patronizingly telling the audience she had read a report about how well Boston social services were coping with mass immigration, a young lady in the audience with actual local experience of immigrants squating on her land and sleeping drunk on benches and overwhelming the local health services completely rubbished beard’s drivel and received a big round of applause. No wonder the BBC have been studiously avoiding discussing Europe and immigration. When they do discuss it, even their hand-picked audience can’t be relied on to tow the lefty line.
The subject of Question Time bought me back to Jenny Tonge’s reverential treatment on that programme desite the fact that the Liberal Democrats had expelled her from the party for her support of Arab suicide bombers. She had said “If was a Palestinian I would be a suicide bomber” What was far worse was BBC sponsership of Jenny Tonge’s trip to Israel. Thanks to the BBC she was able to further validate such views from Israel in March 2004 on the Today programme on Radio 4…
The response .from the BBC was that ” It was to look at this historic problem in a new and original way” they said..
And they said “We did not pay for her trip, we did however cover the costs of her flights, accommodation and the expenses she incurred while travelling with us , all of which came from the the programmes production budget” This was the kind of gobbledygook we would get from the BBC!
Correspondence with Malcom Balen 16th March 2004 (the BBC man commissioned into writing a report into the coverage of the Middle East by the BBC )( his report has still not been published ) ” He wrote to me “Surely you agree that in a democracy, views should be tested?- “To this end” he said “The Head of BBC news explained that the purpose of the reports was to test the views of Jenny Tonge and not to provide her with a platform”
Jenny Tonge’s views were far from anything that anyone would call democratic and for Malcolm Balen or any person who believed in democracy to argue this was quite mad. This was a “new and original way ” at looking at this problem . It was the view from a person who openly supported the indiscriminate cold blooded murder of civilians! .
It is quite beyond me that any rational being could say that such a person had any thing valid to add to any debate. How could “you test the views” of someone who had openly expressed that murder was a valid way of solving issues. Not only did the BBC think that the listeners would gain from hearing such a person’s views , they actually spent BBC license payers money ( paid by the public) on paying for her in an all expenses trip to Israel . Unbelievable!
Contrast with the BBC’s vilification of Nick Griffin on Question Time. Making an objective comparison of his and Tonge’s views, which are the more extreme?
Adam ant on the sofa beeb brekkie!
Louise didn’t ask him: is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?
The Today programme this morning reporting on the problems in Algeria was definitely pushing the agenda that the Islamists were not to blame. They were only taking hostages to raise a bit of cash and didn’t expect to have to kill anybody. If only the wicked oil companies paid up none of this would have happened.
In addition it was the view of the Today presenters that it was marvellous that the Obamessiah has told David Cameron that the UK must stay in the EU. I thought that in diplomatic circles (and the BBC when it suits them) it is frowned upon to interfere in another country’s internal politics.
‘only taking hostages to raise a bit of cash and didn’t expect to have to kill anybody.’
What, like all the previous times folk tie explosives around folks’ necks (except in Australia).
If the BBC is pushing the Danegeld approach to avoiding further problems with such folk, they might wish to bone up on history.
If Obama is so effing keen on the EU he can put it to the American people that they join it too, and see how well that goes down.
‘….he can put it to the American people that they join it too…’
Had the very same thought.
I could never understand the logic behind the idea of Britain going into political union with continental Europe. It must be a lefty thing. I once challenged a left leaning friend ‘So should Japan go into political union with China?’ The answer was ‘Well if the Japanese ever vote for it’. The separation of the concept from the reality takes my breath away – I suppose that is the mark of the leftist.
The BBC are rather obsessed with immigration. Naturally they are firmly positioned on one side of the debate.
But when Ed Miliband spews a load of waffle to the Fabian Society the BBC focuses heavily on the immigration section of his mumblings.
‘Ed Miliband has admitted the last Labour government did not do enough for ordinary people, becoming distant on issues such as immigration.’
‘Distant’…..well, I suppose that’s one way of putting it.
But Ed spoke an awful lot of tosh on other subjets.
Housing for instance.
Here’s a disection of Ed’s waffle on private landlords.
A taster here….
‘….Mumbling on with ‘We cannot have two nations divided between those who own their own homes and those who rent,’ ( I’m not quite sure why – surely this is how it’s always been – you can’t expect everyone to own – can you?’…’
The BBC reporting tends to support and endorse Miliband’s arguments.
‘BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said Labour was hoping the speech would help it move on from its time in office. ‘
‘During the speech, Mr Miliband also set out plans to tackle issues around housing, adding that Britain was in danger of having two nations – homeowners and tenants.
He proposed a national register of landlords and more powers for councils to tackle rogue landlords.
A “national register” of landlords – which already exists in Scotland – was proposed under the last Labour government.
But this was abandoned by the coalition which said it did not want to impose “burdensome red tape and bureaucracy”. ‘
So as far as Ross Hawkins is concerned ‘the danger of having two nations’ is a commonplace and realistic statement of fact whilst ‘burdensome red tape and bureaucracy’ is an unusual idea requiring some alarming highligthing with scare quotes.
The BBC report ends with a standard cut and paste quote from the Tories about deficit reduction. There is no relevent counter quote to the speech. No forensic analysis of Miliband’s whitterings. Read the BBC and the reader is left with the impression that Ed was talking good sense.
Beeboids continue to label the Islamic enemy which is at war with we ‘infidels’/’kafirs’, as mere ‘militants’.
Beeboids refuse to make the ideological connection which the global Islamic jihadists themselves make between their Islamic religion and their violent actions for global conquest.
So, Beeboids lack the understanding of e.g. the current Islamic jihad murderous violence in Mali-Algeria.
“Up to 20 Britons now feared killed or injured in oil plant hostage crisis: David Cameron blasts Algeria for acting alone in Al Qaeda helicopter attack”
Alternative to BBC on Islam:
By Efraim Karsh.
‘Look Inside’ -introduction pp 1-5:-
“BBC Trust backs anti-Zionist calls for more bias against Israel.
The BBC Trust has now effectively sent a signal to reporters and editors that they have a duty to distort the historical record to suit the pro-Palestinian narrative.”
By Robin Shepherd.
Meanwhile, Islam Not BBC INBBC) talks of mere ‘militants,’ not Islamic jihadists, murdering many civilians, including many British people in Algeria.
For INBBC’s information, Israel supports the West in its battle against the global Islamic jihad enemy.
INBBC’s international political priorities are blatant and nasty.
Is he British or not? The bBBC news is running interviews with Irish Foreign Minister about Briton Stephen McFaul, freed after being taken hostage by the Muslim terrorists in Algeria. Just because he’s from west Belfast, does that mean that the bBBC automatically turns to a foreign country to speak about him?
Odd when it’s an Irish citizen living in Belfast, he’s Irish and we should treat him as irish but when it’s a Pakistani living in Britain, he’s a British resident and we should teat him as such.
“he’s a British resident and we should teat him as such”
Yep – immigrants know all about the British teat, and how to attach themselves.
NHS funding cutbacks, isn’t it, boyo?
‘NHS changes: Welsh government plans PR campaign for ‘difficult’ proposals’
1 May 2012 and the BBC reported ‘The Welsh government is preparing a publicity offensive about changes to the NHS, BBC Wales understands.’
That’s the Labour-led Welsh Government that is, bach.
Well the PR offensive seems to be working fairly well.
18 January 2013
‘NHS Wales: Betsi Cadwaladr confirms plans to close three hospitals’
No mension at all of the words Welsh Government or Labour anywhere in sight in this BBC report on NHS cutbacks in Wales. Nice one.
Can you imagine for one moment an equivalent BBC report on English NHS reorganisation without the words Tory-led Coalition.
Nor me. Bias.
‘That’s the Labour-led Welsh Government that is, bach.’
The BBC does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the NHS and Governments… when it suits.
Still, they promised faithfully to make a note, learn a lesson, not do it again and… uniquely re-interpret things as soon as they felt they could get away with it again.
So if prevented from inaccurately dropping political enemies in it by those darn kids and their facts, the next best thing is a bit of nifty omission on behalf of friends.
There’s not nice, isn’t it?
If confirmed accurate, I wonder if the famous BBC ‘analysis’ might feel disposed to chew on this…
Gareth Baines @GABaines
NHS Wales under Labour: cuts fall disproportionately on Conservative North Wales as opposed to Labour dominated South.
One of them BBC got it about balanced right ‘splits’ again?
Islam’s long jihad against the West in Algeria.
A history lesson for INBBC.
“American Hostages to Jihad in Algeria: 1640 to Present”
By Andrew Bostom.
Perhaps now the logic of separating the West from the Islamic world will gain a little more respectability.
Sooner or later reality will dictate this happens.
That it will involve economic dislocation and much hardship is inevitable but the alternative is worse.
By separation I mean economic, financial,cultural and personal . The problems will be immense but if we had realists in charge then it could be done
Stephanie Flanders has found time after instructing the BBC travel department to book her trip to Davos “not next to any of those licence paying plebs please” to write her latest BBC blog update. Having noticed that some intelligent blogs were writing about the pound she thought that whats a day or two late? Anyway knowing what day it is has been a weakness before for her.
But her readers dont seem to be grateful.
“Steph – you are supposed to be economics editor yet you don’t comment on the most momentous news in recent times:”
“Frankly when we had longer comments many were better than Steph’s posts!”
“There have been two articles by both Steph and Robert now suggesting that a Eurozone and US recovery may not be good for UK.
They spent the whole of 2011 and 2012 telling us the opposite.”
Speak in hushed tones and with reverence on North West Tosh**te Yes the great grey squirrell masacre. Well it was only one. Pensioner charged with causing unecessary cruelty to a Grey squirrell he shot with his air rifle. RSPCA rep is on hand to fluff her lines. The reality is from my experience (others will have a different experience) is that RSPCA are normally useless unless there is an opportunity to get on tv. My brother in law reported an injured squrrell – yep they weren’t interested and our friend reported an injured cat – yep they were’nt interested. More to the point and what I wanted to know is how it got reported to them anyway?
In some parts of the North West, the grey squirrel is vermin that must be culled. The Lake District and Formby are two of the last remaining stronghold of the red squirrel.
leave the greys alone, they are cheeky, charming little acrobats, on the other hand, most people will never see a red squirrel in their lifetime unless they are chris packham scrabbling about in some isolated scottish woodland – culling wont work, let nature take its course.
Have INBBC’s political chums, HAMAS, come out in support of the West’s victims of Islamic jihad murder?
History we are not taught, and which INBBC does not refer to, except when presented by Muslims such as Rageh Omaar:- Islamic Imperialism –
“Muslim conquest of the Maghreb”
One word – yuck…
BBC praises the Lord for Obama
Employees of the BBC tend to be atheists or agnostics, but the re-election of Barack Obama has persuaded them that there is a God after all. At 10 past eight tomorrow morning you can hear a Radio 4 Sunday Worship service “anticipating the second inauguration of President Obama”.
We’re used to Auntie’s schoolgirl crush on Obama, but this is bizarre. If Romney had won, would there have been a service for his swearing-in? Of course not. The venue, incidentally, is St Martin-in-the-Fields. Quite what form the Obama-worship will take I can’t say, but may I suggest that, for added authenticity, the sermon should be given by the Prez’s former pastor, the delighful Rev Jeremiah Wright?
Is this a put-on? Or the most embarrassing display of fealty to the leader of a foreign country ever put on by your national broadcaster? What comes after “beyond parody”?
I sometimes get tired of, and feel silly using, the capital H when using the third person pronoun in reference to the President, and saying things like “his beloved Obamessiah”, and citing Biblical passages which seem to reflect what I see as worshipful behavior from various Beeboids. But this is ridiculous.
I’m now convinced more than ever that there’s a real problem at the BBC regarding an obsession and yes, even worship, of the leader of a foreign country. It’s become pathological, I think.
If I was in a more cynical mood, I’d even suggest that the BBC was somehow trying to use the official State Religion as a means of instilling worship of The Obamessiah in the minds of the public. Even if it’s an entirely innocent display of enthusiasm, this obviously shows just how high up the love for Him goes in the BBC hierarchy. This kind of thing has to get approved by the Controller of R4, and maybe even higher up than that, no?
If I worked for the BBC, I’d be ashamed.
Apparently some of the racists think Obama let them down in his first term (not enough handouts?) so he is planning to try to link himself more closely to the black-power movement with some symbolic appearances in Monday’s inauguration. Stand by for another sickening bBBC panegyric.
I have relatives in Sacramento (yes, I know). Last year I foolishly said I thought that Obama was overrated. If I’d said that I was on the sex offenders register, it couldn’t have been worse.
I don’t know what it is about this man – is it just about colour or something else? Whatever it is, I hope it passes soon because reasonable discourse seems impossible at the moment.
Sooner or later we might end up with a (half) black PM, then we’ll have to go through it all again. Oh joy!
Cult of personality – like the early Blair years. He could do no wrong. If you thought otherwise, you just needed to catch up and get with the programme – you’ll see his greatness in time.
This three line summation fits to a tee…
“A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and, at times god-like public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Sociologist Max Weber developed a tripartite classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as “charismatic authority”. A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is established by mass media and propaganda.”
What worries me is what all these worshipers are going to do when He’s no longer President. Religious believers don’t tend to do very well when the object of their faith is removed. I know the going odds are that He’ll take over the UN next, so where does that lead the faithful? It’s not a comforting thought.
Not BBC related (except the top-rated comment – have a look), but a thoughtful article by Daniel Hannan. (excluding the last sentence. Dave’s not giving us an in/out referendum, Dan)…
Martha Kearney leads a monstrous battalion of Beeboid wimmin on the Review Show.
An exhibition about the Vikings at the National Museum of Scotland ticks a lot of BBC approved arts boxes.
The show sets out to ‘de-horn’ the Viking helmets. Watch out lads!
The ruthless raiders and pillagers were really peacefiul settlers and friendly traders. Women played prominent roles in Viking society.
Oh the irony. Will the BBC now approve positive reassessments of Victorian British colonialism?
Genghis Khan will be the next monster to get the apologetic treatment – just you wait and see, especially considering he was of the RoP !
Genghis was some sort of animist – the Mongols didn’t convert until the end of the 13thC. I get the impression he disliked Muslims. The Mongols themselves were very tolerant originally – after the notorious sack of Baghdad, the population of Baghdad included a Buddhist community.The Mongols performed a great service for Europe by providing a direct travel route to China for about a century. Muslims brag about Europe acquiring all its knowledge from them, but this short window of access may well have been responsible for our acquisition of the compass, clock escapement, perhaps gunpowder, the idea of moveable type and pasta
Kubla Khan (ruled 1258-1294) was the exception to the rule when it came to Mongol leaders, since he banned indiscriminate massacres and treated captives humanely. History however remembers Genghis Khan and his lieutenant Subatai, who conquered Russia and Eastern Europe with amazing ferocity and cunning.
I have read that the mongols invited
both christian and muslim theologians
to ‘sell’ their respective beliefs to them
Liked christianity but found ‘Kill the non believer’ suited their purposes better than ‘turn the other cheek’
Invaders of Britain = what these people did for us.
Britain colonising other countries = look how we exploited and dehumanised them.
The BBC view. No wonder they call it ‘Auntie’, because it’s full title is Auntie British Broadcasting Corporation.
“Britain colonising other countries = look how we exploited and dehumanised them.”
Yes, we exploited and dehumanised them so badly that they chose to join the British Commonwealth (as it used to be known).
Hmm? Sounds like someone is trying to make parallels doesn’t it?
A bit of a mistake really as the Vikings started off as raiders, became invaders and ended up as assimilating settlers. But the Danelaw was not fully integrated into England and is the basis of the ‘North-South Divide’.
So 1200 years later there is still a shadow of a conflict lurking in the backgound. And thats with people of a similar race and culture to the Anglo-Saxons who were all later oppressed by further immigration by the conquering Normans – also of a similar race and culture. They are still in power today.
In 3213 will we be so lucky?
Beeboids have a strange view of the past. To them it is genuinely another country where the normal ie the liberal outlook on life ,is not necessarily applied or expected. It is only today that matters to them and the bright tomorrow of their dreams.To the realists amongst us it is not like that. The past is part of what goes to make us who we are and is always with us in one way or another. It is a continuing reality
The liberal, suspecting this may well be true, needs to control our past by ensuring the historical narrative suits the present not the reality.
Hence the battle over history in schools. The liberal would rather it vanished alltogether from the curriculum but failing this ensures that a selective and distorted view is fed to the children.
At all costs the children must not be allowed to get a sense of nationhood or how they fit into the continuing story of a people.
The BBC is guilty , along with the liberal tendency, of working to deny us, the English, of our past and denigrating us , by implication, whenever it can.
it will not work and it is the duty of all of us with children and grandchildren to counter this brainwashing, for that is what it is.
Agreed: The BBC never miss an opportunity in any Field,political ,cultural or scientific to declare the concept of Englishness as mythological.to make,in fact,the English non-people. To what end one can only imagine.
Considering how many white people in the British Isles are descended from Vikings, I’m surprised the BBC hasn’t kept to the ‘Reavers and Rapists’ view of them.
However, it is true that the Vikings were accomplished traders and their woman did possess greater freedom than many of those in comparable societies.
This service, live from St Martin-in-the-Fields, explores the connections between Lincoln’s 1865 speech, delivered during the civil war, and the situation facing the world today. It includes lively American music and an anthem specially written for this service.
Wasn`t it grand?
One or two mentions of Jesus-but he`s hardly the re-elected Prez is he?
So we got insipid gospel spirituals( can the BBC call the negro anymore…not that they would either way!)…and a sermon that was sheer Giles Fraser.
Before this, I heard the tail end of the Radio 4 religious repository for the likes of Giles and Reverend Blue Jeans everywhere…apparently this “Sunday ” show wasn`t happy that Christian law firms were acting “pro bono” in such cases as the recent E,U ones about the wearing of the cross…and one of the lawyers said he “believed” things-like in God, faith and Christ…to a judge in open court as well!
Well I`ll be…hardly the Christian place to do suchlike is it?…and no mention of Sharia needed, because the BBC would rather like that!
With friends and religious programmes like these?….I suggest that the true Christians of this country begin to talk to Al Jazeera, who won`t be as slyly hostile as the f***ing BBC!
“BBC praises the Lord for Obama”
By Damian Thompson.
“Employees of the BBC tend to be atheists or agnostics, but the re-election of Barack Obama has persuaded them that there is a God after all. At 10 past eight tomorrow morning you can hear a Radio 4 Sunday Worship service ‘anticipating the second inauguration of President Obama’.
“We’re used to Auntie’s schoolgirl crush on Obama, but this is bizarre. If Romney had won, would there have been a service for his swearing-in? Of course not. The venue, incidentally, is St Martin-in-the-Fields. Quite what form the Obama-worship will take I can’t say, but may I suggest that, for added authenticity, the sermon should be given by the Prez’s former pastor, the delighful Rev Jeremiah Wright?”
[Scroll down to final item.]
I’m sure I read recently that the BBC is moving its Sunday Worship service to 6.30 a.m., i.e. to a graveyard slot, but no Google results show it up.
If true, what does it tell us about the Beeb’s normal priorities for its coverage of Christianity, as compared to its Obama-related priorities?