224 Responses to MONDAY OPEN THREAD…

←Older Comments
  1. Dave666 says:
    April 23, 2014 at 8:40 am

    Just for a change on BBc Breakfast we are back to alcohhol. Despite them banging on and on for years about the evils of drink all of a sudden violence is down. This is linked to a decrease in binge drinking. Not the impression I’ve been force fed for the last few years. Apparently a lack of disposable income is the root cause. Problem solved just keep the proletariat poor and there you are. Happy St. George’s day to my fellow Englishmen. Breakfast mention it and then went straight to a story about Scottish independence.

       10 likes

    • AsISeeIt says:
      April 23, 2014 at 9:25 am

      ‘Problem solved just keep the proletariat poor and there you are. Happy St. George’s day…’

      The News Channel cover this story and just happen to work in the familiar BBC hobby horse ‘minimum alcohol pricing’. Expect this one to crop up again and again. You see that’s what the BBC does : churn out arguments for the Left with which to reinforce their side of the debates.

      ‘Young males’ are carefully singled out for opprobrium.

      Our BBC round off the item with the charming observation that ‘a recovery in the economy is expected to bring increased violence’

         11 likes

    • Phil Ford says:
      April 23, 2014 at 9:38 am

      “…Happy St. George’s day to my fellow Englishmen…”

      And Happy St George’s Day to you – and to everyone here. Everyday I’m grateful and proud to be English; I just wish the BBC didn’t seem to want to make me feel ashamed of the fact. What was it Orwell wrote about a ‘boot to the face, forever’..?

         15 likes

      • pah says:
        April 23, 2014 at 1:52 pm

        The BBC may want me to be ashamed of being English but it will never happen.

        We aren’t perfect but we are the best!

           4 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 23, 2014 at 10:26 am

      Given their corridors seem awash with the stuff, I am often intrigued at the sanctimony deployed, especially when the only unique difference between them and those they deride seems to be who pays.
      Pretty sure Andrew Marr’s tired and emotional colleague-rummaging post post production stresses were fueled on licence-fee covered expenses.
      Maybe it’s ok if it’s bubbly vs. Buckfast?

         5 likes

  2. Thoughtful says:
    April 23, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Having lied & lied & lied until he no longer knows what the truth is, the once BBC favourite Tony BLiar is warning ‘Western leaders they need to tackle radical Islam’. (I wonder whose paying him to say this?)

    Yet again he is totally ignorant of the fact & reality – wilfully or ignorantly and says we should ‘back “open-minded” groups’.

    Does he not know (or care) that approach has been tried on countless occasions and failed every time?
    That most groups he talks of are inherently corrupt, and have proven that over the years.

    He’s still spouting the lie that radical views “distorts and warps Islam’s true message” when the reality is the other way around.

    The article is unusual for the BBC in that it is almost all quotation based without comment. As such it’s impossible to know if bias is at play because they’ve selectively chosen which quotes to use, but it’s worth a read, if only to gain insight to the deluded picture world leaders have of the world of Islam.

    That it’s a peaceful religion being distorted, and if only they ‘tackled’ those distorting it everything would be lovely. Unfortunately he doesn’t say how to tackle it other then throwing money around, and there’s the proof that he has got it wrong!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27122008

       6 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 23, 2014 at 10:34 am

      ‘it’s impossible to know if bias is at play because they’ve selectively chosen which quotes to use’
      At risk of incurring the wrath of the Albacrite, given history and precedent, what are the odds of there not being some narrative enhancing at play from those who control the edit and can stonewall any questions on such processes?
      Can’t recall if it was FaceBook or twitter, but this morning this interview was headlined in a way that horrified me, pretty much opting to invite retribution for perceived Western slights. Having my own national media act as such a demoralising force is truly depressing.

         1 likes

    • Charlatans says:
      April 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm

      We should thank our wonderful democracy for one thing and that is Blair is one politician, who heinously shafted the UK with devastating worldwide effects, that looks like he will definitely not have totally got away with, (it if Gorgeous George pulls this one off):

      Not only has Blair and his many left accomplices like Campbell, Straw etc got that to contend with but the Chilcot Report is now on the horizon:

      http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/14/publish-chilcot-report-iraq-war-nick-clegg

      Blair and his Labour apparatchiks have a lot more remorseful sleepless nights to look forward to in 2014?

      Although I am an atheist there must be a God after all!

         2 likes

      • Thoughtful says:
        April 23, 2014 at 1:49 pm

        As it says Chilcott has not even begun to write the conclusions, so the report has a long way to go yet.
        Criticism is not sufficient if criminality has been enacted, so maybe Clegg knows that the enquiry set out with its teeth muzzled.

        Worse though is the news that it is in fact David Cameron who is refusing access to these papers and once again the suspicion is raised that there are ulterior and sinister motives to Camerons actions.

        Here are the links to articles which confirm Camerons complicity in tying the hands of the enquiry stymying it coming to a meaningful conclusion.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10086837/The-whiff-of-suspicion-over-the-Chilcot-Inquiry-grows-stronger.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

        “In 2012, the government vetoed the release of the documents to the Inquiry detailing minutes of Cabinet meetings in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concurrently, the British Foreign Office successfully appealed against a judge’s ruling which had ordered disclosure of extracting a conversation between George W. Bush and Tony Blair days before the invasion. “

           1 likes

        • Charlatans says:
          April 23, 2014 at 3:43 pm

          Thoughtful – that is a great Blair BBC link you share – since they have, (surprisingly unusually), allowed comments and to the BBCs credit allowed quite a free flow. Well worth a read what a lot of people are saying about Islam:

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27122008

             2 likes

          • Guest Who says:
            April 23, 2014 at 3:49 pm

            ” quite a free flow. Well worth a read what a lot of people are saying”
            —
            It is to be hoped nothing borderline libellous or likely to inspire accusations of inspiring hate, which would place the BBC in a bit of a free speech/censorship pickle, along with those who need to go elsewhere to defend them where things are less confining.

               2 likes

  3. noggin says:
    April 23, 2014 at 9:38 am

    R Spencer :-
    “Britain is finished; it is a nation of the walking dead, unless it affects a drastic change in its leadership, and the prevailing political culture, and soon.
    (Of course, the same could be said of the U.S.)
    Here Jack Straw, of all people, asserts that there is a British culture that Muslims must accept, and dares to criticize the imposition of Sharia into British public schools that were the focus of the now-notorious Muslim “Trojan Horse” plot. Straw even ventures to say,( no doubt with trembling, timid voice, that some of those values were “Christian based).” But when David Cameron says that Britain is a “Christian country,” non-Muslims (not Muslims) complain; those non-Muslims will make sure that nothing effective is ever done to stop the assertion of Sharia in British schools and elsewhere”

    Oh and “Birmingham MP admits there IS a ‘Trojan Horse’ plot by extremists … will the BBC now stop obfuscating?
    stop highlighting/quoting absurd denials, from the bastards who are part of the problem, the plot itself.?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/uk-jack-straw-says-muslim-schools-should-adhere-to-christian-based-values-but-cameron-under-fire-for-saying-uk-a-christian-country

    J Straw eh! … that would be … “Blackburn”! J Straw,
    (Shakes Head) ..that bastion of Christianity?
    and D Camerimam, W Vague, Warsi, Pickles, that fuckwit B Johnson and co
    sheesh! even worse
    … well! … Mr R Spencer, its hard to disagree

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609332/Islamic-school-hardliners-confiscated-Easter-eggs-pupils-head-Ofsted-takes-charge-inquiry-Muslim-Trojan-Horse-plot.html

       6 likes

    • AsISeeIt says:
      April 23, 2014 at 11:17 am

      Banana-man Jack Straw?

      http://order-order.com/2014/04/22/clutching-straw-denies-banana-drama/

      Please please don’t tell Salford Local Radio presenter Victoria Derbyshire about this story. I thought she had gone into on-air voluntary apoplexy when some footballer mentioned having once seen a ripe example of said fruit left resting on a black player’s seat in a changing room. Lord only knows what would have happened to her had some news event just been related to her.

         3 likes

    • noggin says:
      April 23, 2014 at 11:33 am

      As an update
      BBC 5live reports, from Bham actually on the “godawful” VD show
      that some of the “Islamic Trojan Horse” reports have been leaked … usual Islamobbc fare, lots of “witchunt”
      “discriminatory”, “community fear”, baseless innuendo,
      to push a victim narrative.
      Lets “cut the crap” …
      the PROBLEM here is Islamic Extremism, not baseless piffle about offence.
      do these reports often change very much when released? … NO!

      shame on the BBC

         6 likes

  4. Rueful Red says:
    April 23, 2014 at 9:53 am

    “The Scotsman” has this story this morning. I can’t somehow find it on the BBC Scotland website.

    THE trial of seven men accused of shooting dead a 25-year-old man following a car chase in the Duddingston area of Edinburgh last year began at the High Court in Glasgow today.

    Mohamud Mohamud, 30, Ahmed Ahmed, 28, Cadil Huseen, 23, Hussein Ali, 26, Liban Ahmed (also known as Jama), 30, Said Fadal, 32 and Said Tarabi, 27, deny murdering 25-year-old Mohamed Abdi in the city suburb on 26 May 2013

    It is alleged they repeatedly fired a sub-machine pistol and a revolver after a car chase along Duddingston Road West, Willowbrae Road and Abercorn Avenue.

    The seven are accused of forcing the car occupied by Mr Abdi, Mohamed Farah and Abdulrakim Abdulrahman to stop by colliding with it and repeatedly shooting at the occupants, murdering Mr Adbi and attempting to murder the other two men.

    Mohamud and the others are also accused of assault, of being concerned in the supply of cocaine, and firearms charges.

    At the High Court in Glasgow defence counsel for the seven entered not guilty pleas to all charges.

    Ali lodged a special defence of incrimination blaming another man, Jamal Saeed, whose whereabouts are unknown. Liban Ahmed, Fadal and Tabari lodged special defences of alibi.

    The trial, before judge Lord Turnbull, continues.

       9 likes

  5. orwellian says:
    April 23, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Today’s cartoon by Peter Brooke in The Times with caption of Anna Soubry’s ‘joke’ is , in my opinion, horrid. What has Nigel done to Peter Brooke to offend him so much?

       2 likes

  6. Peter Grimes says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Behind the paywall but it’s worth broadcasting this crap from none other than Obamamessiah ass-worshipper Justin Webb, under a banner of “Whisper it but Obamacare might be working”

    “The health policy has been a disaster so far, but it could turn into an historic achievement
    ‘In the poorest state in the nation, where supper is fried, bars allow smoking, chronic disease is rampant and doctors are hard to come by, Obamacare rolls into town in a lime green bus.” It’s enough to make a Mississippi redneck turn to homeopathy.
    That paragraph introduced a lengthy piece last month in Politico, the influential online news site, and reflected a change in the tone of the news coverage of the healthcare revolution introduced by Barack Obama, in which all Americans were to be offered affordable healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions. It was seen six months ago as little short of a disaster, genuinely facing collapse. But now? Well, whisper it, but it might be working. And if it works, America is changed for ever, just as the president promised. Even — kicking and screaming as usual — dear old Mississippi.
    A Rand Corporation poll released this month suggested that the proportion of American adults of working age without any healthcare coverage has been reduced from more than 20 per cent in 2013 to just under 16 per cent in March this year. And some of those newly enrolled have desperately needed help. A striking fact uncovered by Express Scripts, a company that manages insurance claims for pharmacies: in the early stages of Obamacare six in every thousand prescriptions in the new insurance plans were for drugs that treat HIV. What did these people do in the past? Some will have been helped by charities but most will have had no help, no treatment and little hope. It feels like success. Is it?
    There are virtually no undisputed facts about Obamacare. But let us have a go at establishing three basic truths. First off, and most importantly, in spite of the utterly useless website on which people who want coverage were asked to sign up, as many as eight million have now managed it. Some of them already had other coverage and some may not yet have paid, but this is still a big figure. It allowed Mr Obama to claim this month, “This thing is working,” and to tell the Republicans to help to finesse the new rules rather than trying to abolish them.
    Second, it is better to be poor and ill in California than in Mississippi. This is important to supporters of Obamacare; the system is run locally with each state allowed to give as little or as much encouragement to people to sign up as it sees fit. Supporters hope that torpid swampy disease-ridden Mississippi, shamed by the appearance of that lime-green bus advertising Obamacare, will now follow the lead of those smiley sunkissed Californians. Nearly a fifth of the total numbers signing on have been in the Sunshine State. I had my heart attack in San Francisco, as Tony Bennett (almost) sang.
    Third, Obamacare might still fail. This is difficult territory but it seems fair to say that one very big question has still to be answered clearly: are healthy young people signing up in sufficient numbers for the insurance plans on offer to be kept affordable in the future? If the findings of the Express Scripts survey about increasing coverage for HIV drugs sounds like success to you, that might be because you are not an accountant.
    The accountancy worry is Express Scripts revealing that demand for these drugs and other expensive medicines was much higher in the newly insured population. If insurers are suddenly having to pay for a San Franciscan living with HIV, they desperately need the extra income of his or her healthy neighbour. It is compulsory for the neighbour to sign up for insurance of some kind — but this is America, where optimism is hardwired and many people simplydo not see the point of healthcare coverage, preferring to pay a little extra tax. You can see the death spiral if that happens: premiums go up, forcing the poor to leave the schemes and the whole edifice collapses.
    Will it happen? Obamacare has been a short-term political disaster for the president and his party. It is still opposed by most Americans and will probably cost seats in the congressional mid-term elections this autumn. But the most recent polls suggest that the numbers opposing it are coming down. The president says a corner has been turned and he could be right. The patient, once given the last rites, is rallying; Obamacare might be allowed out of intensive care, even allowed to go home.
    That would be an historic achievement. It looks highly unlikely that Barack Obama will leave office with high approval ratings. But in ten years? In fifty? American presidents are judged in bite-sized epitaphs — Kennedy conquered space, Reagan won the Cold War, Carter crashed the economy etc. And Obama brought healthcare to all Americans, even those who didn’t want it? He would settle for that.”

    Talk about shilling for Obama!

       6 likes

  7. Steve Jones says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:30 am

    Happy St George’s Day everybody.

    Get over to the BBC website, they are celebrating it big time…oh no, they aren’t are they?

       9 likes

  8. Thoughtful says:
    April 23, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    AMAZING !

    The BBC apologise for any racial offence caused by the Top Gear Program in Burma where they appeared to refer to a local person as a ‘slope’.

    NO they didn’t ! Only in the fascist madness could that conclusion be drawn. There was a slope on the bridge, and that is what it referred to.

    Suggesting that the crew did not know that the word had another meaning should have led to the BBC absolutely denying that there was any racism instead of apologising.

    Only in the mad fascist left world could this happen!

       8 likes

    • LostOverThere says:
      April 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm

      I had no idea Slope was an insult, like most UK viewers and no doubt, the Top Gear team

      Of course, had Clarkson said the bridge was slanted, there would have been a sh*tstorm. Perhaps he deliberately chose a term he felt was not offensive. I know which of the two I would have used

         7 likes

    • Thoughtful says:
      April 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27123434

      More complaints from the Fascist left, but not from anyone who might have been directly affected.

         4 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 23, 2014 at 1:04 pm

      The one I read looked like it was straight out an episode of W1A, with a bunch of market rates passing the buck until the music stopped and a bozo from the production company was gifted the task of muttering a form ‘we’re sawwwwy’ like the blazered editors wheeled out on Newswatch. Of course they were and are not really, and in this case had no reason to be. So basically a vast exercise in overpaid non-jobbers rushing about placating grievance industry professionals with a quota to meet.
      I wonder if the resting actor who inspired all this has been mollified with a role packing out a quiz show to Danny Cohen’s exacting mathematical standards of symmetry?

         4 likes

  9. Dave666 says:
    April 23, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Reference CAS-2657691-FV7QR0

    Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC News on 13 April.

    I understand that you felt an item on the UN report on climate change was one-sided and that you considered this indicative of balance.

    However, it’s not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Instead editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.

    In dealing with any controversial matter the BBC is required to give a fair and balanced report. However, balance can’t simply be judged on the basis of the time allocated to the representatives of different sides of an argument; account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time and it’s not an obligation of impartiality that every report contain every viewpoint. Perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion but overall it is a more achievable goal.

    Nevertheless, we’ve registered your comments on our audience log for the benefit of programme makers and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape future decisions and they ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available to BBC staff across the Corporation.

    Thanks again for contacting us.

    Kind Regards

    Stuart Webb

    So what part of this: Full Complaint: I really must complain about the breathtakingly biased piece I have just witnessed on BBC news about the UN report on “climate change” A couple of weeks ago I complained about one sided reporting and received this reply “We can assure you of our commitment to impartial reporting. We seek to provide the information which will enable viewers to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.” So where was the well established counter view? All I saw was Ed Davey on a self publicity exercise telling everyone what he has done. Can you please explain to me why only one side of this story was reported on, without using the previous reply as obviously all views on climate change were not represented.

    Did they not take on board?

       7 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      The answer to your question is in a locked filing cabinet in an unlit room at the bottom of the stairs, behind a door bearing the sign ‘Beware of the Leopard’.
      Nethertheless, you can be assured of a cut & paste ignoring of your actual question to tick a box that features on no listing, that merely shows the BBC to have created the perfect internal system to ensure zero actual accountability.
      Sadly, as with our prodigious Flokker fraternity here, on matters opinion the BBC’s count and yours do not, while awkward things like facts and direct questions are simply ignored or side-stepped.
      Unique, isn’t it?

         5 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:
      April 23, 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Sheesh! You’ve been registered on the audience log. Is that not enough for you?

      I’d love to see that fabled audience log. Presumably FOI-exempt.

         6 likes

      • Dave666 says:
        April 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm

        I do believe I once requested to see the audience log apparently it is for internal use only and I expect any FOI request I made would be declined as an exemption. Unlike the FOI requests I have made in the past to Goverment departments where they have always provided the information that I requested. As per Wickerpedia : It is important to note that for some public authorities listed under Schedule 1 the act has limited effect. For example, the BBC is subject to the act only for information which is not held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, to prevent its journalistic activities from possible compromise. The scope of this provision was considered in the recent High Court decision of BBC v Sugar an internal BBC document examining the BBC coverage of the Middle East for potential bias. The appellants in that case argued that the document had been produced for both operational and journalistic reasons, and so should not be covered by the partial exemption provided in the act. the High Court rejected this argument, Mr Justice Irwin considered that the meaning of journalism within the act meant that any information held for such purposes was covered by the exemption:

           3 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        April 23, 2014 at 3:02 pm

        At risk of conjuring up the ghost of boxers past whose apparent sole function is to demand to know how one knows (even when admitting to educated guesses as they make North Korea seem like Miley Cirus) such things about the BBC, it’s possible the audience log is up there with Nessie, Big Foot and the fabled BBC TV detection kit, which is so secretly awesome they didn’t patent it to protect its commercial value.
        Given it is the core foundation of their trust and transparency claims, if not the public maybe an elected official not in thrall of a knighthood could be offered a sneaky peak under the hood to see what it is, where it is and if anyone actually does take the opportunity to see how they can improve their service?

           1 likes

    • Thoughtful says:
      April 23, 2014 at 1:28 pm

      “Instead editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.

      In dealing with any controversial matter the BBC is required to give a fair and balanced report. However, balance can’t simply be judged on the basis of the time allocated to the representatives of different sides of an argument; account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time and it’s not an obligation of impartiality that every report contain every viewpoint. Perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion but overall it is a more achievable goal.”

      Now go back to them and ask who is in charge of monitoring the ‘overall’ output, what their findings are and how it is all measured.

      The reality is of course that although the BBC admits to bias in a single item, it then obfuscates by saying it’s allowed to as long as it balances it later. Ask for a link to the program which they feel provided that balance.

      Of course they won’t be able to provide one which leads to a complaint you can reasonably take to the BBC trust. Not about your original complaint, but the fact that they constantly talk about ‘overall impartiality’ whilst never even attempting to measure that or to check that they are being as balanced as their charter forces them to be

         6 likes

      • Dave666 says:
        April 23, 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Thoughtful. I will do. I however have asked for them to give examples in the past in relation to a different complaint as to where they have “balanced” the story. Of course they can’t because they don’t. All I’ll get is some more waffle. However if no one complains that’s just a green light for this bias. Roll on the day BBc is a pay to view so I can opt out without constant harassment. I’ve just been down to the empty family property and surprise there is yet another BBc license enforcement threat letter there. Whilst I have to pay for this shoddy crap I’ll continue to complain where justified.

           5 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        April 23, 2014 at 3:08 pm

        “The reality is of course that although the BBC admits to bias in a single item, it then obfuscates by saying it’s allowed to as long as it balances it later. Ask for a link to the program which they feel provided that balance”
        —-
        Better than nothing which, as you suggest, will be their favoured option, but still deeply unsatisfactory.
        I am not persuaded by a notion of balance in information or education, predicated on the audience being expected to go elsewhere, at another time, to acquire a complete picture.
        That is, frankly, barking. And totally open to abuse, which is why the BBC will adore it.

           3 likes

  10. Guest Who says:
    April 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Update on the Jamaica Inn sound issue, which the BBC is lauding itself for talking about.
    https://audioboo.fm/boos/2097404-bbc-one-s-jamaica-inn-is-incomprehensible
    Not sure it was meant to be a comedy, but it is sure becoming one.
    What I find interesting is, amongst all the tears of luvvie laughter, and ‘the BBC says about the BBC’ mutual navel gazing and buck passing, no one has yet got past the point of saying ‘no one knows why’.
    Is it over-realistic acting, poor editing or a transmission problem? Simple enough.
    They seem to be trying to keep all plates spinning like a Generation Game challenge in hope that it will all blow over without being needed to answer.
    Given the cost, and apparent waste of great talent, I’d have to say it does need an answer, and pronto.
    Otherwise it comes across more as a BBC thinks the BBC should be left to its own devices smoke & mirrors deal.

       6 likes

  11. Geoff says:
    April 23, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    It is farcical, they show episode one which was inaudible, then follow it with the 2nd episode which was better’ish’ but the reason for watching it was lost, like reading a book with the first few chapters missing.

    They should have pulled it, sorted it and re-broadcast at a later date. Typical of the bBC and the disdain they have for us the telly tax payers…

       7 likes

    • Thoughtful says:
      April 23, 2014 at 2:20 pm

      have they sorted the sound on the iPlayer version?

         1 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        April 23, 2014 at 2:49 pm

        I read on FaceBook from a poster that iPlayer doesn’t have subtitling as an option. If so, it sounds like they’ll need to.

           0 likes

  12. noggin says:
    April 23, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Time to drop kick the radio!
    … BBC 5Live – R,(wanka!) Bacon, continually derides
    and sneers at St Georges Day …
    … then is going to pretend he knows investigative science?
    (that prick couldn t investigate his own piss)
    … and then
    …. wait for it
    … is going to pander to Islamic apologists, give lots of airtime to some useful idiot, because … Ta Ra!
    there is no such thing as radical islam? … yep! its all our fault, its foreign policy, its Afghanistan ya da, ya da!

    He is the recipient of “the most ignorant, arrogant, snide, patronising twat award”, on BBC today

       6 likes

  13. noggin says:
    April 23, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    R Spencer :-
    “Britain is finished; it is a nation of the walking dead, unless it affects a drastic change in its leadership, and the prevailing political culture, and soon.
    (Of course, the same could be said of the U.S.)
    Here Jack Straw, of all people, asserts that there is a British culture that Muslims must accept, and dares to criticize the imposition of Sharia into British public schools that were the focus of the now-notorious Muslim “Trojan Horse” plot. Straw even ventures to say,( no doubt with trembling, timid voice, that some of those values were “Christian based).” But when David Cameron says that Britain is a “Christian country,” non-Muslims (not Muslims) complain; those non-Muslims will make sure that nothing effective is ever done to stop the assertion of Sharia in British schools and elsewhere”

    Oh and “Birmingham MP admits there IS a ‘Trojan Horse’ plot by extremists … will the BBC now stop obfuscating?
    stop highlighting/quoting absurd denials, from the bastards who are part of the problem, the plot itself.?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/uk-jack-straw-says-muslim-schools-should-adhere-to-christian-based-values-but-cameron-under-fire-for-saying-uk-a-christian-country

    J Straw eh! … that would be … “Blackburn”! J Straw,
    (Shakes Head) ..that bastion of Christianity?
    and D Camerimam, W Vague, Warsi, Pickles, that fuckwit B Johnson and co
    sheesh! even worse
    … well! … Mr R Spencer, its hard to disagree

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609332/Islamic-school-hardliners-confiscated-Easter-eggs-pupils-head-Ofsted-takes-charge-inquiry-Muslim-Trojan-Horse-plot.html

    With that in mind that, there IS an Islamic extremist plot.

    BBC 5live reports, from Bham actually on the “godawful” VD show this morning, that some of the “Islamic Trojan Horse” reports have been leaked
    … usual Islamobbc fare, of “witchunt”, “discriminatory”, “community fear”, baseless innuendo, to push a victim narrative.
    Lets “cut the crap” …
    the PROBLEM here is Islamic Extremism, not baseless piffle about offence.
    do these reports often change very much when released? … NO! they bloody don t!.

    shame on the BBC … today especially R Bacon

       3 likes

  14. Thatcher Revolutionary says:
    April 23, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Drove home at lunchtime – Radio 2 Vine show – some negatively veiled crap about Shakespeare’s birthday followed by the invitation to call in if ‘you didn’t like Shakespeare or found it quite dull’
    Got home and put on BBC news to see them interview their own BBC head of drama on some ‘crisis’ about mumbling actors in the Jamaica Inn series. They then went on to some bollocks about a ‘new’ Led Zeppelin album and although quoting Robert Plant actually conducted the interview with one of their own arseholes from BBC radio 5.
    They now appear so lazy and employ so many staff that all interviews can be done in-house and on track.

       3 likes

←Older Comments