WE’RE

ALL MULTILATERALISTS NOW.

I caught the wretched Lord Patten on Today this morning. He’s a BBC favourite! He was there to make all the usual talking points about the great joy of now having the “President we wanted” but he did not miss the chance to have a good old swipe at Israel, insisting that it would have to deal with Hamas just as “we” had to deal with the IRA. This completely false analogy is consistently pushed by BBC talking heads and it blithely ignores the fact that whilst the IRA were indeed homicidal vermin even they did not seek to wipe every Protestant off the map. The BBC never gives space to those who hold this view although I know that the gospel of appeasement runs deep within the British political Establishment, and is an article of faith for the BBC.

Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to WE’RE

  1. Martin says:

    The BBC has always cheer leaded for terrorists around the world. The BBC delighted in taunting Thatcher when she tried to silence Adams and co on the TV.

    Luckily most people see the BBC as idiots and not having a clue about the real world.

       0 likes

  2. Grant says:

    I suppose the wretched Patten would consider a deal with Hamas , where they agree to exterminate only 90% of Jews, as a good result. What a stupid, worthless man.

       0 likes

  3. Grant says:

    PS although I don’t suppose 90% would satisfy the BBC.

       0 likes

  4. Martin says:

    No no no. 90% would annoy the BBC. 100% extermination of Jews is what the BBC would like to see.

       0 likes

  5. La Cumparsita says:

    Sorry. This isn’t really about Patten. But it does fit the anti-Israel label:

    From the Palestine Solidarity Campaign website:
    Demonstration in London: Saturday 24th January – Israel Out Of Gaza Now: Lift The Blockade

    Assemble 2pm, BBC Broadcasting House
    Portland Place, London, W1A 1AA
    (Nearest Tube Regents Park and Great Portland Place)

    http://www.palestinecampaign.org…& Content_ID=374

    any ideas why they are assembling at the BBC? Is it to get even more BBC publicity. Or maybe to make it easier for beeboids to join them?

    I wonder how many Starbucks they will smash up this time?
    La Cumparsita | 22.01.09 – 10:28 am | #

       0 likes

  6. Cockney says:

    The interesting thing is that if Israel has now genuinely eliminated Hamas’ threat to its citizens and if the US and others can prevent it rearming then Israel would seem to have achieved its aims – the wall seems to have eliminated suicide bombings and no rockets seem to be fired from the West Bank.

    If this is the case surely anyone sensible has to recognise the outright success of pretty much every Israeli policy that’s been whinged about in the last few years. It would also surely mean that Israel now has to move on its commitments under the road map or be exposed as complete charlatans interested in expansionism rather than defence. A truly fascinating geopolitical situation – but the media would rather talk about phosphorus.

       0 likes

  7. Brave Sir Robin says:

    Patten is Blue Labour – truly where the Tories meet NuLab. He is clearly to the left of Tony Blair and you could easily have imagined him in one of Bliar’s cabinets. Major was well rid of him when he lost Bath in 1992.

       0 likes

  8. Cassandra says:

    The hamas terrorist thugs are cracking down on the civilians they hid behind during the conflict, torture,murder,threats and abductions, the hamas cowards soon got back into their uniforms and now rule the streets like the gangsters they are.
    The BBC sees non of this, the BBC ignores it and concentrates on spreading the leftist/hamas lies, there is one bit of good to come out of this though, I truly believe that the BBC has gone too far this time, their one sided hysterical jew baiting,blind obedience to hamas and outrageous slanders have been noted by too many people.
    The EU are sending out more hamas battlefield taxis(ambulances) for hamas to hide in and transport rockets and morters in, who cares about war crimes eh?

       0 likes

  9. Bob, son of Bob says:

    Re the IRA – Whilst fully supporting Mrs Thatcher’s attitude to the IRA, at least the Protestants in N Ireland could go back to England. Where can the Jews go?

       0 likes

  10. Don’t forget David that Patten is a Conservative. Who or which party is the real opposition now?

       0 likes

  11. Osma bum laden says:

    Memo to the BBC reporters in Gaza:

    Just a quick note to finalise the arrangements for the carnage TV footage next Tuesday. I have been discussing security arrangements with my closest advisors, and I think we might have a snake in the grass in Hamas who might betray me if I travel with them into Gaza. Something about one of our religion-police raping someone’s daughter and then having to stab her to death to protect the family honour. The local Mullah tried to appease the father by increasing his virgins in paradise count to nine, but it did not seem to work. We will deal with him later. I will let you know when we get him so you can keep the camera crews away.

    Anyway, all things considered, I think your reporter’s suggestion is the best option after all, and I don’t know why I didn’t think of it before – I will travel with the BBC crew! It’s the perfect cover to get into Gaza. If we get stopped I can just pretend to be a reporter like you. I know it is the best way as I will be amongst trusted friends. I have seen the coverage you have been providing in the last few weeks and it always lifts my heart. Alah be praised for an ally like you. I have even bought a TV license I am so impressed.

    Anyway, enough chit-chat; back to the arrangements for next Tuesday. My men will fire the rockets into Israel from the Hospital Car Park B at 4:30pm. If the Israelis don’t fire back by 4:45 we will set off the bomb which is currently in the hospital cellar in the linen cupboard. At 4:55 the bus-load of orphans will arrive and the freedom fighters will lay them out as your producer tells them. Oh, yes, my colleague has just reminded me to ask you, do you require the orphans pre-dead or killed in situ?

    If all goes to plan we should make the 6 o’clock news like you suggested.
    Look forward to meeting you, but remember, I am very religious and holy, so all the women reporters must cover their hair at all times.

       0 likes

  12. The BBC is too right-wing says:

    You often hear the BBC say that equal numbers object that the news is too left-biased as ojbect that it is right-biased. This is certainly true, and I am one of those who object that it is too right-wing. You have probably heard my letters being read out quite often on Feedback. In fact, I don’t want to boast too much, but I have never had a letter refused yet!

    Anyway, back to my complaint. I watch the daytime news, and whenever you cover the Israeli war in Gaza you give 29 minutes to The Palestinian Freedom Fighters, which is okay so far, but then you go and spoil it at the end by interviewing some person or other from the Israeli military or someone equally undesirable! What are you playing at? In that last minute you could get at least four dead Palestinian grandmas and orphans. Or you could put someone on like Sir Gerald Kaufman who said last week ‘My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza’.

    I calculate on the basis of 1 minute out of 30 that you are only 96.6 recurring in favour of the freedom fighters. And that is the basis of my complaint – you give global warming 100% bias (‘there is no argument’) and you gave anti-Rhodesia 100% bias (‘that Smith, spit; Hello Mr Mugabe’) and you gave anti South Africa 100% bias (‘there is only one side – whites=bad’), you give British Empire 100% (all evil), so why discriminate against our cause and only give us 96.667%? Come on BBC, you can do it, 100%, you are nearly there!

       0 likes

  13. Umbongo says:

    I missed the beginning of the Patten interview so I had no idea who was talking. However, from the answers (and relaxed questioning) I guessed that this was just another lefty/greenie rentagob, particularly as the unknown speaker expressed a concern that Obama might “backslide” on climate change.

    Imagine my lack of surprise when it turned out to be Lord Patten (the Lord’s equivalent of John Bercow): in other words a Conservative In Name Only but technically a member of the opposition. This is a wonderful wheeze by which the BBC can claim to satisfy its “impartiality” obligation while continuing to feed guardianista pap to the masses.

       0 likes

  14. Cheeta says:

    The IRA sought a united Ireland via a bombing and murder campaign. They did not seek to impose the Papacy on the UK. Islamism seeks to impose Sharia on the globe and wants the destruction of one sovereign state entirely. There is little political comparison with the IRA. Islamism’s terms are, by default, non-negotiable.

       0 likes

  15. Martin says:

    Cheeta: ‘We know that’ but the leftie morons at the BBC don’t get it.

    As I’ve pointed out before women and gays who work for the BBC can’t be serious about wanting Sharia law allowed in ANY form in the UK, but they seem to give it a sort ride.

    I’d love to know why.

       0 likes

  16. T says:

    Well lets face it

    If the Islamists want to beat, humiliate or lock up their women, that’s just ethnic … init.

    Most feminists are white, middle-upper class, working for the State.

    Most women abused by Islamism are poor, less educated, non-white.

    Its all about race and class.

    Sisters!

       0 likes

  17. Cheeta says:

    Martin: Maybe that particular genre at the BBC are prepared to overlook these “slight” defects, on the basis that they have otherwise found a(albeit temporary) common cause concerning Israel. Little do they seem to perceive how little in common they actually have.

       0 likes

  18. Martin says:

    T: Yes you don’t really see the feminist movement championing the rights of women in Muslim Countries do you?

       0 likes

  19. Cheeta says:

    NEVER.

       0 likes

  20. Gus Haynes says:

    Cheeta:
    ” Islamism seeks to impose Sharia on the globe and wants the destruction of one sovereign state entirely. There is little political comparison with the IRA. Islamism’s terms are, by default, non-negotiable.”

    If Islamic terrorists truly wished to destroy a state, or impose Islam on all of the planet, there would be a world war, or daily attacks in Britain or America. My point is, we would know about it.

    Why have there been remarkably few terrorist attacks against the west since 9/11? One reason may be that the terrorists motivations are not as you claim. They (Bin Laden and co) speak a lot more about the US supporting Israel ,aand about US troops in Saudia Arabia as motivations, not so much about imposing their religion on the rest of the planet.

    I think that the ‘they hate our freedom/way of life’ argument that Blair and Bush tried to sell us doesn’t wash with most people.

       0 likes

  21. John Bosworth says:

    Gus Haynes:

    The people most disappointed with your myopic view of the world are the very people you are defending. Osama and chums keep telling you what they intend to do and you just won’t listen. Please relay the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist message correctly – do not blunt it. If you continue to misrepresent them, they will be very, very cross and slap your wrists and send you to bed without your dinner – or they just might slit your throat.

       0 likes

  22. Gus Haynes says:

    John Bosworth, that made no sense. If you have a point, you need to be clearer.

    Also, nothing about my view is myopic.

       0 likes

  23. Robert says:

    John Bosworth’s point was crystal clear. You have wilfully misunderstood Bin Laden’s message. And it’s always a give away when your sort claim to speak for “most people”. Speak for yourself, not for “most people”.

       0 likes

  24. Gus Haynes says:

    ‘My sort’ – whats that supposed to mean?

    And I am right, most people don’t buy into the ‘they hate our freedom’ crap.

       0 likes

  25. David Vance says:

    Gus,

    You’re right. They just hate us.

       0 likes

  26. Tom says:

    Gus Haynes | 22.01.09 – 2:34 pm

    Why have there been remarkably few terrorist attacks against the west since 9/11?

    In July 2005 they killed 52 Londoners in one wave of attacks. More than the IRA ever killed on a single day.

    My sister in Madrid, who lives close to Atocha station says folks there ‘know about’ it too.

    A couple of years back the Police/MI5 said there were at that time 200 ‘live’ plots being investigated in the UK alone.

    Since then some of the plotters have been brought to trial and the size and scope of their intended crimes, especially the simultaneous aircraft bombings planned to take place over the Atlantic, which would have exceeded 9/11 in terms of bodycount, is breathtaking.

    But in a sense, you’re right. There have been ‘remarkably few’. Maybe the fact that George W. Bush had the brilliant idea of forcing Al Qaeda into fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of NYC and London has something to do with it?

    In November 2007 Militant Islam Monitor recorded that there had been at that date 10,000 Islamist terror attacks round the world since 9/11, leaving 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.

    How many would it take for you to wake up and smell the slaughter?

    Which part of “Kill the Jews and the Infidels” do have trouble understanding?

       0 likes

  27. NotaSheep says:

    Some of the idiot left do believe that they can ally with the Islamic terrorists to destroy hated western capitalism and deal with the repercussions afterwards. They are that naive, that blinkered, that stupid. The trouble is it our lives and our freedoms that they are putting at risk.

       0 likes

  28. Jake says:

    After watching the BBC the last 2 weeks I would rather get my information from a roll of toilet paper.

    At least I know that its full of Sh*t before I use it

       0 likes

  29. Jake says:

    After watching the BBC the last 2 weeks I would rather get my information from a roll of toilet paper.

    At least I know that its not full of Sh*t before I use it

    CORRECTED

       0 likes

  30. Cheeta says:

    Thanks for your response to my comment. You ask that

    “If Islamic terrorists truly wished to destroy a state, or impose Islam on all of the planet, there would be a world war, or daily attacks in Britain or America.”

    I question why are you appear confident that there is not a world war at present. The victims are relatively global, as are the attacks. It may not fit the traditional picture and pace of a world war, but the result for the victims, and the witnesses, is very similar. The reason there are not daily attacks may be because (i) the security forces, whilst far from being perfect, are ceaselessly monitoring many individuals in this country to gather evidence and also prevent attacks before they happen, and (ii) the resources of those who would launch such attacks are too limited to mount daily assaults. There is also a political angle – they know that Western governments – weak as they are at home – may react too severely if the attacks become too frequent.

    I would welcome your opposing views.

    Regards

       0 likes

  31. John Bosworth says:

    Gus Haynes:

    I don’t mind being corrected. I have conceded points on this blog many times by a better argument. But I will not be patronized.

    Please go away and read some Islamist literature. Digest what you read. Understand what they are saying, and not what you THINK they are saying or what you WOULD LIKE them to say – and then return here for an adult conversation.

    This site is about the BBC and its unwillingness to face up to reality – a bit like you, really.

       0 likes

  32. Gus Haynes says:

    Perhaps I worded it badly, or you misunderstood. It is important who caused this mess (economic, in case any one wondered) of course, but a lot of people, here on this site, as in the country as a whole, seem to be far more bothered about identifying blame than they are about fixing it. Anyone can point a finger, anyone can see where something went wrong. It takes a lot more to work out how to fix it. Yes , in the long run we will need to look back and hold any leaders/businessmen/whoever to account, and yes this is so that we learn from our mistakes.

    My point is that wherever I look, all I hear is ‘its Gordons fault’ or ‘its clinton’s fault’. That does not matter right now; we should be focusing on how we sort out debt, how we avoid nationalising the whole effing country, and how we put things on track. If the people who go on and on about blame devoted that time to helping come up with solutions, we might get somewhere.

    Look at the Tories, they do have some ideas, some are good. But they waste all their time complaining that its Gordon’s fault. It may well be, but 1 – that doesn’t solve the crisis, and 2 – pointing the finger at gordon won’t get the tories elected. Devoting their energy to fixing it will get them elected.

       0 likes

  33. Gus Haynes says:

    Cheeta
    ”I question why are you appear confident that there is not a world war at present.”

    I’m glad you want to discuss things in a civilised way, rare these days. I don’t think we are in a world war. I, here in the UK, don’t live in fear of a bomb dropping through my roof, and neither is it likely to happen.

    ” The victims are relatively global, as are the attacks.”

    True, but these acts of terrorism are not a frequent occurance. It’s not as if we (Britain, US) are under attack every day. Our troops may be, but thats a different matter.

    ”The reason there are not daily attacks may be because (i) the security forces, whilst far from being perfect, are ceaselessly monitoring many individuals in this country to gather evidence and also prevent attacks before they happen, and (ii) the resources of those who would launch such attacks are too limited to mount daily assaults.”

    Yes, i agree the secuirty forces prevent far more attroctities than we will ever know about. But the point about the enemy being too weak/limited to attack us all the time proves to me that we arent in a war. If they were capable of striking us every day, maybe they would. But they can’t, and so the threat isn’t credible nor likely. So it becomes irrelevant (in comparison to world wars previously).

    Remember that it serves governments to make us think the enemy is stronger than it really is – it gives them space to push through anti-terrorism laws, and keeps up afraid enough to allow them greater intrusion into our lives.

       0 likes

  34. David Preiser (USA) says:

    David Vance,

    This completely false analogy is consistently pushed by BBC talking heads and it blithely ignores the fact that whilst the IRA were indeed homicidal vermin even they did not seek to wipe every Protestant off the map.

    That’s your most cogent statement yet about Hamas and the IRA. As we predicted here, the BBC uses the IRA and NI as an analogy nearly every conflict, which shows their bias and willful ignorance of the situation. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan would be a more valid comparison (albeit still wrong) than Hamas.

    Cockney brings up the other key point (above @ 10:35 am) which proves just how wrong the BBC is about this:

    The interesting thing is that if Israel has now genuinely eliminated Hamas’ threat to its citizens and if the US and others can prevent it rearming then Israel would seem to have achieved its aims – the wall seems to have eliminated suicide bombings and no rockets seem to be fired from the West Bank.

    The only rockets being fired at Israel are from Hezbollah and Hamas, neither of which are occupied by Israel, and both of which are supported by Iran. Yet the BBC will admit none of this.

    This IRA thing has become a constant theme, spread across the spectrum of BBC News, and into the World Service.

    There’s an agenda here, BBC and defenders of the indefensible, and you can no longer deny it. Plain and simple.

       0 likes

  35. Jeremy Bowen's Assistant says:

    Osma bum laden | 22.01.09 – 11:56 am |

    Anyway, enough chit-chat; back to the arrangements for next Tuesday. My men will fire the rockets into Israel from the Hospital Car Park B at 4:30pm. If the Israelis don’t fire back by 4:45 we will set off the bomb which is currently in the hospital cellar in the linen cupboard. At 4:55 the bus-load of orphans will arrive and the freedom fighters will lay them out as your producer tells them. Oh, yes, my colleague has just reminded me to ask you, do you require the orphans pre-dead or killed in situ?

    It doesn’t matter, but please make sure they’re small enough so we can fit them all into the shot. Bloodied bandages would help. Dr. Gilbert can supply these for you if need be.

    NB: As per your request, we’ve raised the age limit for our “children” category from 18 to 21 years. Obviously that’s just for the overall casualty figures, and not for the photo ops.

    If all goes to plan we should make the 6 o’clock news like you suggested.
    Look forward to meeting you, but remember, I am very religious and holy, so all the women reporters must cover their hair at all times.

    No worries. Our girls have Barbara Plett’s guidance there.

    Cheers.

       0 likes

  36. George R says:

    For BBC, which supports Islamic jihad Hamas, and opposes Israel:

    ‘Telegraph’ –

    ‘Al-Qaeda leader calls for attacks on Britain in retaliation for Israel’s Gaza offensive’

    [Extract]:

    “A prominent leader of al-Qaeda has called for attacks in Western countries, particularly Britain, in retaliation for Israel’s offensive in Gaza, arguing that London was behind the creation of the Jewish state.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/4315997/Al-Qaeda-leader-calls-for-attacks-on-Britain-in-retaliation-for-Israels-Gaza-offensive.html

       0 likes

  37. Dick the Prick says:

    Britain was behind the creation of the Jewish state…err…I thought Britain was responsible for the creation of the middle, near and far east.

    Anywho, in other news, Geert Wilders has been arrested for dastardly claiming that Muslims don’t want to intergrate and that adherence to the Koran is dangerous. Disgraceful behaviour.

       0 likes

  38. TPO says:

    There are two bias by omission stories today.
    One, George R | 22.01.09 – 6:28 pm, has picked up on, Al-Qaeda issuing threats to Btitain.
    Spiked because it’s ‘anti-islamic’

    The second is here in the Telegraph:
    Islamic cleric advises worshippers to rape and beat wives
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/4314334/Islamic-cleric-advises-worshippers-to-rape-and-beat-wives.html
    And here in the Times:
    Kevin Rudd condemns Muslim cleric for ‘beat your wife’ advice
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5564839.ece
    And here in the Mail (They’ve even got a photo of the bearded nutter):
    Muslim cleric tells Australians: ‘Husbands should be allowed to rape and beat their wives’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1126556/Muslim-cleric-tells-Australians-Husbands-allowed-rape-beat-wives.html

    Can’t seem to find it being reported by the BBC anywhere.
    Is it because it’s ‘anti-islamic’ or that other BBC fallback position that it’s ‘not newsworthy’.

       0 likes

  39. Jeremy Bowen's Assistant says:

    Gus Haynes | 22.01.09 – 5:26 pm |

    Look at the Tories, they do have some ideas, some are good. But they waste all their time complaining that its Gordon’s fault. It may well be, but 1 – that doesn’t solve the crisis, and 2 – pointing the finger at gordon won’t get the tories elected. Devoting their energy to fixing it will get them elected.

    You’ve been reading my comments at the Spectator again, haven’t you?

       0 likes

  40. Dick the Prick says:

    Gus – I think you may find, if you ever watch PMQ’s, that the Prime Mentalist is perhaps the most partisan PM ever – even blaming Baby P on the tories……yee gods.

       0 likes

  41. The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

    Bob, son of Bob | 22.01.09 – 11:05 am |
    Ahem. If the ‘Protestants’ were to ‘go back’ anywhere it would be Scotland, not England. They are, you see all (well mostly) Celts …

    And why should they ‘go back’ anyway? They are as Irish as the Catholics. Ireland, united or not, is their home.

    As to the IRA/Pally similarities there are some points of convergance (their rampant racism for example). They were both also part funded by the Soviets through their client states in the Middle East. So it’s not entirely a load of crap, just mostly.

       0 likes

  42. Gus Haynes says:

    Dick the Prick

    err… why is you comment addressed to me? someone else perhaps?

       0 likes

  43. Hucklebury says:

    John Bosworth is a fool. Islam isn’t to blame, the terrorists are to blame. You don’t understand a fucking word of the Qu’ran, and to accuse the Holy Book of that sort of thing is racist. Scum like you should find a new home. We have freedom of religion in GB.

       0 likes

  44. betyangelo says:

    “You don’t understand a fucking word of the Qu’ran, and to accuse the Holy Book of that sort of thing is racist”

    I’ve read the Koran. Twice through. I studied a lot of books about Islam, mostly pro. I studied for three years guided by muslims, so that they would tell me in their own words who they are.

    What they are, by their own admission, is a religion bent on world domination. Those who won’t convert will pay duty (read extortion) which amount will be raised until it is more profitable to convert.

    Perhaps you, Huckleberry, are the one who did not read it correctly.

       0 likes

  45. Hucklebury does not understand says:
  46. Cheeta says:

    Gus:

    Thanks for your views. I can wholly see your logic but also wholly disagree with it.

    “I don’t think we are in a world war. I, here in the UK, don’t live in fear of a bomb dropping through my roof, and neither is it likely to happen.”

    You’re absolutely right in that the chances of a bomb falling through the roof is nil. But does that equal safety? Methods of attack change with the enemy and the times. A tube train suicide bomb was very unlikely, as was a primed vehicle ramming an airport’s concourse, as was an explosive in a shoe or bottle, and so on. My point is that just because it is not raining bombs does not mean we do not face a ruthless enemy and so can relax and think that war is not really here. The (relatively very few) British victims, were they able to contribute to our discussion, might wonder why the definition of their doom was even being debated. And so too would those who committed the attacks.

    “It’s not as if we (Britain, US) are under attack every day. Our troops may be, but thats a different matter.”

    I think I referred to this previously – not being under attack every day is not much of a yardstick by which to measure peace, I would suggest. The very fact that we possibly might be, possible at any time, anywhere for the purpose of an overseas Jihad, allows me sufficient confidence to conclude that I would be a war victim if the worst were to take place, say, tomorrow morning.

    “…too weak/limited to attack us all the time proves to me that we arent in a war.”

    I must say it proves to me nothing of the kind. As I mentioned previously I think, the fact that frightening levels of activity takes place to stem potential attacks from within our own borders shows that there is definately an armed conflict in this country – and if you doubt this take a look at some of the detailed reports of the numerous raids against suspects and what took place – I’ll happily concede it might not be called a war in the traditional sense, however.

    “If they were capable of striking us every day, maybe they would. But they can’t, and so the threat isn’t credible nor likely. So it becomes irrelevant (in comparison to world wars previously).”

    The measures you are applying seem to be related to quantity rather than effect. I do see your point, i.e. one explosion / 10 deaths every two years, say, is not a war, but maybe one bomb every day could be so classed. What I would suggest is that it is irrelevant to the victims, and it is the cause of those bombs that counts, e.g. global Jihad.

    Based solely on numbers and incidents, we could say road accidents are the biggest threat, but they are just that, fortuitous accidents, not deliberate and for a long term benefit to one group.

    “Remember that it serves governments to make us think the enemy is stronger than it really is – it gives them space to push through anti-terrorism laws, and keeps up afraid enough to allow them greater intrusion into our lives.”

    I’d like to raise two points in relation to your view here, firstly the political aspect. I have trawled papers, reports and available published intelligence over the past years to find evidence (I’m a solicitor, incidentally) of the government misrepresenting the true position on terrorism in the UK. At present I have not found any but would very much like to hear of it – that is undisputable evidence. I am open to persuasion here. Regarding intrusion, in practice there is very little intrusion in public life from the security forces in the UK. I spent a short while in Iran last year and can happily assure you from that experience, that we are a very free country in this regard. It could, of course, be argued with greater strength that terrorism itself has intruded more so than any government law-makers, particularly into those who no longer enjoy the benefits of life because of it.

    Look forward to hearing and/or being corrected.

    Gus Haynes | 22.01.09 – 5:35 pm | #

       0 likes

  47. Grant says:

    Cheeta 11:11

    One of the funniest posts I have read in years !

    I love you painting the picture of “trawling papers” and the , quite close , juxtaposition, of ” I am a solicitor, incidentally, ”

    Are you an incidental solicitor ?

    But, please keep posting. It adds to the gaiety of life !

       0 likes

  48. Cassandra says:

    THE BBC AND ITS QUEER ADDICTION TO THE FAKE CASUALTY LISTS.

    Oooops, it seems evidence is now emerging that the hamas supplied casualty figures were highly inflated!
    It turns out that the total deaths were 500/600 and most of those were young men of fighting age.
    The BBC/UNWRA will of course be issuing statements appologising for shouting out hamas lies and propaganda without first checking the figures?
    I am sure Gunness and Ging will appear on the BBC appologising to Israel for repeating the hamas lies that lead to so much trouble and rioting?
    I wonder if the BBC will take note and check their facts first before blindly following and repeating hamas propaganda?

    THE BBC: WE LIE AND WE CHEAT AND WE NEVER EVER SAY SORRY, ITS WHAT WE DO!

       0 likes

  49. tax-payer-to-the-queen says:
  50. deegee says:

    THE BBC AND ITS QUEER ADDICTION TO THE FAKE CASUALTY LISTS.
    Cassandra | 23.01.09 – 6:01 am | #

    Are you gay bashing again? 🙂

    I wouldn’t mind the BBC quoting Hamas figures if they identified their source (and not some ambiguous medical authorities) and defined them as a claim not confirmed fact.

    It is difficult to accurately quantify war in real time. The thought that some clerks were diligently recording/investigating; distinguishing civilian from military; identifying dead and severely injured; sorting by age, gender, type of wound, cause of death or injury, etc., is hard to accept in peacetime in Gaza.

    When bombs are falling; government offices are attacked; computer networks are falling; electricity cuts out; relatives are hurt and houses are damaged and panic sets in; efficiency drops to nil. Those clerks whose duty it was to record were either hiding (a quite reasonable action under the circumstances) or engaged in other activities.

    The best we can really hope for is an educated guess. The worst is Hamas propaganda. It is the duty of the BBC to acknowledge this publicly.

       0 likes