General BBC-related comment thread:

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would also be appreciated!

E-day fixe.

Dunno if you noticed, but “E-Day” was the day when the great British public was asked to turn off the lights to tackle climate change. Perhaps this was a good proposal, perhaps not – the British public appeared to hold the latter view – but it was certainly a political proposal.

Bishop Hill asks why the man behind the campaign (who was also the guiding spirit for the cancelled Planet Relief) had quite so much support from the BBC.


I couldn’t let last evening’s Question Time Scottish extravaganza go without comment! What a leftist love-in from the caledonian socialist republic with a panel groaning with those on the political left! Did you see it? Naturally George Galloway – that doyen of the communist-loving dhimmified left – was given a rapturous welcome and his every utterance throughout the programme was warmly applauded. His praise of Castro in particular was revolting – but his sentiments were generally echoed by the other panellists to varying degrees. Might Castro become the patron saint of the Scottish Parliament? Every cliche about Cuba’s “World class” health service was repeated with no one offering a dissenting view. The poisonous SNP member Nicola Sturgeon was given free rein to spew forth her strident socialism, meanwhile we had Labour’s Cathy Jamieson and the Lib-Dem’s Nicol Stephen to provide even more …erm…left wing balance.The mild mannered and somewhat wet lettuce conservative Annabel Goldie was there as the token Tory. This edition of the programme was one of the worst I have seen in a while – with the rabble in the audience cheering on that on the panel. Do you think the BBC recruit in their audiences for this programme from the local socialist workers collective – or maybe that would be too mild for them?

Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic Part 328

(follow-up to this post and this post)

At Harry’s Place (and in the BBBC comments – apologies – Ritter was there first !) they’ve been taking a look at the BBC editorial guidelines.

The Terrorism Act 2000

We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:

preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.

securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

It is a criminal offence not to disclose such information, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Any situation where BBC staff may be in potential breach of the Terrorism Act must be referred to Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice.

I’m not sure how that squares with this:

Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.

This prima facie looks very bad for someone – but if Ms Suleaman reported to the “Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice” I’d say she was in the clear as far as following the Beeb guidelines was concerned. Who did she report to ? And did the BBC tell the police ?

(From the HP comments – producer Phil Rees, who now works for Al-Jazeera, gave a C4 news interview claiming that the conviction of “Osama bin London” meant that it was now illegal to criticise British foreign policy. And the video of “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” appears to have vanished from the BBC site)

More on Phil Rees, who doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as a terrorist. You can see why the BBC commission so much stuff from him.

The war on motorists.

I was watching the main BBC1 morning news programme and up came an item about motorists who still hold their mobile phones whilst driving. Obviously this is not a good idea since it can lead to serious accidents. To discuss the topic the BBC had invited in two guest; a lady whose daughter had been tragically killed by a motorist who had been driving recklessly and a journalist from the Motoring press. The conversation followed the line that to even have a mobile phone switched on in the car was dangerous (even hands-free!, that the use of a SatNav was dangerous, and that taking your hands of the wheel whilst driving was verging on the reckless, if not criminal. There was a general consenus around these points with both BBC presenters cooing along with the awful dangers that us drivers present. Where was the voice of someone saying that our cars are private property and what we do in them is our business so long as it is not illegal? Where was the voice to challenge the intrusion of the State into how we drive our cars? You see I believe that the BBC is a primary advocate for the Nanny State and that even on relatively minor issues like this it is careful to put out the view that we need to be legislated for – since you just can’t trust the British public.

Don’t Panic, it’s the BBC.

I’m sure our more discerning readers will have had a wry chuckle at the news that Mohammed Hamid (Great name, eh?) – one of the most senior terrorist recruiters in Britain – a man who called himself “Osama bin London” – was himself the subject of a BBC documentary called “Don’t Panic I’m Islamic” broadcast in June 2005.

Hamid was recruited, by the BBC, from his stall on Oxford Street to represent ..ahem…the acceptable face of modern Islam. He was filmed, along with co-accused Mohammed al-Figari and 14 other men at a paintball centre in Tonbridge, Kent where they were seen ducking behind oil barrels and shooting at cut out figures before lining up to pray at the end of the day. The documentary was shot in February 2005 at the Delta Force centre because it was convenient for the TV crew but Hamid’s group returned four days before the July 7 attacks, this time bringing with them Ramzi Mohammed and Hussain Osman, who went on to launch failed attacks on July 21. The producer returned to talk to Hamid as the July 21 gang were on the run and said he admitted knowing them and was “agitated, concerned, and worried”, but the producer claimed her bosses took the decision not to notify the police.

The BBC – literally terrorist enablers?

General BBC-related comment thread:

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would also be appreciated!

Playgrounds for killers:

The BBC carries a report here on thousands of Palestinians having formed a “human chain” in Gaza in protest at Israel’s blockade of the territory. Gaza schools were closed for the day, and thousands of pupils were taken in buses to participate. Many could be seen with banners stating: “The siege of Gaza will only strengthen us” and “The world has condemned Gaza to death”. I was wondering if these children attend the same schools for suicide bombers in Gaza on which the BBC reported here back in 2001? I also wonder if the many “militants” and “fighters” that infest Gaza in 2008 may be frustrated graduates from these same schools for self-exploders from the class of 2001 – schools for which the people of Gaza have such a pride? BBC Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi appears to believe that this demonstration was a spontaneous display by “ordinary Palestinians” rather than a cynical (and failed) stunt by Hamas! How can we take such bizarre commentary from Abdelhadi seriously?


When considering BBC bias, I am reminded of this old Sherlock Holmes story.

“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention? said Inspector Gregory”To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” said Holmes”The dog did nothing in the night-time.” said Gregory “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Now then, the BBC has been fawning over Barack Hussein Obama as the new messiah, I guess that figures since he is even further to the left than Hillary Clinton. So the question is WHY has the BBC kept mute over the startling revelations that Obama both met with and indeed raised funds at the home of two US terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. These two individuals were part of the “Weathermen” – a terrorist group that bombed U.S. government buildings, and whose leader (a declared Obama supporter) went on record saying he wish he’d targeted more! Apparently this is not news in BBC land? How odd!

In praise of terrorists.

The role of the media in general and the BBC in particular in perpetuating the malignancy of the Northern Ireland “peace process” cannot be sufficiently emphasised. The British Government has relied heavily on the BBC to retail the idea across the world that placing bloodthirsty terrorists in positions of power is a good idea if it helps buy peace! It’s a Chamberlain-scale act of appeasement that has necessitated the full power of the State broadcaster to help convince the gullible and wavering. Today the BBC reports, matter of factly, that Martin McGuinness – the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly – has stated that he would like to have killed every British soldier in Londonderry in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, if he had had the opportunity. Now there are three obvious questions that strike me an intrepid BBC journalist would want to ask Mr McGuinness.

1. Given that he was, by his own admission, an IRA terrorist before and after the events of January 30th 1972, how many soldiers did he in fact kill?
2. Given the many murders of innocent civilians in Londonderry during his tenure as an IRA warlord, how many of those deaths did he oversee?
3. Given this admission of murderous intent, in what way is he suitable to hold ANY office?

You’ll not be surprised to know that none of these questions have been posed by the BBC. Nor will they. You see what has happened in Northern Ireland – the installation of terrorists in the very highest spheres of government – is a victory for the left-wing mindset epitomised by the BBC. Can you imagine the furore the BBC would have created if, in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London, Tony Blair had declared he wanted to kill every Islamist in the United Kingdom? The BBC has shilled for the IRA for decades now, and shows a serial sense of immorality and journalistic bias.

General BBC-related comment thread:

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would also be appreciated!


Well, I poured myself a hot cup of coffee and settled down to watch the Andrew Marr show on the BBC this morning. These are the sacrifices I am prepared to make for Biased BBC – though I recommend that you should not follow my example!

This was the political Left having a Sunday morning love-in. We had the odious anti-Semite Ken Livingstone, we had the wretched Margaret a Beckett, we had the ubiquitous Shami Bakrabarti, and to provide “balance” we had Carol Thatcher and David Davis. But having watched it, I conclude that Andrew Marr himself demonstrates relentless bias.

For example he listened to Shami Bakrabarti droning on in her ever- so-earnest way without interruption and I suggest the reason for this simpering deference is because the agenda that “Liberty” pursues is one that the BBC shares. When Carol Thatcher made comment on the many serious question surrounding the House of Commons Speak “Mad” Mick Martin, and she repeated a claim in one of today’s Sunday papers that he was “the worst speaker in the history of the House” Marr instantly jumped in to claim he knew of others who were much worse. How did he know this and on what basis does he compare this? Why did he not focus on the issues concerning THIS Speaker?

The Ken Livingstone interview was a sickening experience with the Mayor of London being permitted to make the most outrageous claims without any real comeback from Marr. For instance, Red Ken was able to suggest that Castro had achieved many great things during his years (of tyranny) and Marr decided to let it all pass. Livingstone got to propagandise with only the most gentle prodding coming back at the claims he made. In a way this was a perfect alliance – a grotesque Britain-hater like Livingstone showering praise on a monstrous thug like Castro on a platform generously provided by the BBC.

I then watched David Davis – the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary being interviewed on various points and the way I saw it Marr was essentially trying to get him to agree with the government position on 24 hour drinking. There were frequent challenges and interruptions throughout the interview and Davis struggled to make his point without being cut-off by Marr.
Finally, and with best comedic effect, we came to the Margaret Beckett interview. Unbelievably, Beckett is now the head of the “Intelligence and Security” Committee. Marr’s big interest was to get her to “admit” to the UK allowing the US to land its “special rendition” flights on UK soil. Marr, like the rest of his BBC pals, appears ready to believe the very worst about the USA administration – the Bush derangement syndrome runs deep here.

This was a vile programme, all carried out with a simper and a smile. Isn’t it time the BBC gave Shami Chakrabarti her own programme since it clearly can’t get enough of her whingeing? And shouldn’t the BBC now just drop ANY pretence it is interested in the Republican dimension to the US election – since all it does is drool over Obama and Hillary? Marrs programme is marred by a profound sense of left wing bias and he should take note of this. Come on Andrew, if you or your Beeboid acolytes read this, explain yourself.


Out of my sense of respect for those people suffering great loss, I didn’t comment on the Castro situation in Cuba a few days ago . I’m sure you will all noticed how upset the BBC was at the news that one of their (non) American idols had exited stage left. But now that the grieving process has started in full the BBC is now rushing out contrived articles of pure PR such as “Castro relishes chance to rest”

The night before, I slept better than ever,” he writes in Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, three days after announcing his retirement. My conscience was clear and I promised myself a vacation.”

If you force yourself to read the entire article, it smacks of pro-Castro propaganda, finishing with a flourish – an attack on the USA. Losing Fidel has been a mighty blow to the US-hating communist-thug worshipping element at the BBC and I think Castro will continue to get very positive media treatment from his dear fans at the Beeb.