62 Responses to BBC DOES WIKILEAKS

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    WikiHacks is not a “whistleblowing” website, as the BBC alleges.  A whistleblower in this usage is an insider, and not an independent referee calling foul.  The alleged rapist in charge of WikiHacks is an outside party whose intent was originally to disrupt the foreign policy goals of the United States.  He recruits insiders to hack into classified databases to steal information.  Not the same thing as a whistleblower.

    Yet the BBC has never, ever admitted this, or allowed anyone on to give voice to this perspective.


    • hippiepooter says:

      If the CIA made sure info exposing AGW corruption was leaked to wikileaks, the BBC would soon describe it as theft.

      Oh, and in all fairness, arch-scumbag maybe – well no, definitely – the wikileaks guy, but not alleged rapist.  The charges were dropped.


      • Richard says:

        Charges are again pending, as far as I last heard, and I rather doubt that the US has anything to do with them. This man is a narcicist, so even if he is never convicted of rape I would not expect him to treat women with any respect.


  2. Mailman says:

    Honestly, why is this guy still alive?

    I mean, if the big mean evil US Government really is as big, mean and evil as al beeb constantly makes them out to be then surely this guy would have disappeared already?

    Or are his rape allegations just the first part of a bigger plot to get rid of him?

    Perhaps the geezer should stay clear of groups with tennis rackets? 🙂  



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I heard the President just apologized to him.  *DONT_KNOW*


    • Marky says:

      Honestly, why is this guy still alive”  
      Possibly because the US Government hasn’t managed to crack Assange’s dead man’s 1.6 gb file to know what it contains or knows what it contains and that Wikileaks has many fans.  
      Daily Mail On-line poll:  
      Is Wikileaks is right to publish documents that could threaten national security?

      Yes – the public has a right to know 53%

      No – they are secret for a reason 47%

      Yep, 53% think it’s right to publish documents that could threaten national security. Wikileaks is downright dangerous and is probably a way of destabilising the west rather than helping mankind which Assange would like us believe. Even if people don’t agree with much of what government gets up to, on the face of it, this is stupid and reckless which could have unknown and very serious repercussions.


  3. Martin says:

    Well I look forward to hearing the BBC say that the documents were stolen. After all the BBC kept claiming that over the Anglia Polytechnic emails didn’t they?


    • canon alberic says:

      and that is exactly what Mardell has just dutifully reported in his loveletter from America on Today. Apparently also “nothing startling here” except of course for Cameron as heavily trailed by the creepy Hoggart to a gloating Marr yesterday.

      My guess is that tomorrow they will be in overdrive with whatever prejudiced drivel informs the Obama/Clinton view of us effete brits and our foxhunting leaders – also expect that every evil coalition spokesperson who presents themselves for punishment on the BBC will be asked hilarious questions citing whatever nasty comments have been made eg: eddie “godithinkimfunny” meir “Do you think David Cameron is a ****?”.


  4. john in cheshire says:

    Long live Wikileaks. God damn the bbc and all socialists.


    • Marky says:

      What do you think anarchists/socialists main goal is in western democracies? How do you think Wikileaks will strengthen the west?


  5. Martin says:

    So according to Radio 5 the leaks ’embarrass David Cameron’, so not the one eyed mong then? Or Barry Obama? Or Bliar?


    • Guest Who says:

      Top of the hour on SKY just now is Saudi asking the US to whack a Persian.

      Considering the BBC’s love affair with anyone in a dish-dash… are they embarrassed by this?

      Still one is sure we’d never find out as Jules would never go near the Balen report… professional courtesy.


  6. Daniel Smith says:

    The impression I got earlier was that the BBC was rather disappointed that the leaks were not very damning for America at all. The main item that, contrary to the BBC narrative of an Islamic world united only in their hatred of the US and Israel, that Arab nations were actively calling on the US to bomb their pal Iran is something of an embarrassment for them and a very sheepish looking Al Bowen was brought on to try and put the best spin on it.
    More recently the BBC is trying to change the narrative by running with the non-story of their former favourite Hillary Clinton advocating spying on the UN.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Yes, that was unfortunate, which is why the BBC News agenda switched to wringing their hands over whether or not these revelations about various personal remarks would harm diplomatic relations instead.


  7. George R says:

    I shouldn’t forget the ‘enmity’ between Sunni and Shia Muslims.


  8. Pounce says:

    So its a few hours since the documents were revealed and I see the bBC’s reporting on them is very anti…Western.
    I had the bBC news on at 1100pm and Abu Bowen was on and I’m sorry but from reading the coverage from around the world but mainly from the Guardian I found what Abu had to say titaaly off the mark. For example while he opined about how pissed off the Saudis were at Iran by asking them to bomb Iran, his reasoning wasn’t about the mischief iran has been up to (like how Iran has been using the Iranian red crescent in which to move weapons and such) mischief and such in the region   but rather because the Saudi king has lost face with Sunni muslims over how Shia Iran is now seen as the champion of Islam. Why is the bBCs so called Middle-eastern editor allowed to parrot his warped version of events events i should add which look like they have been written by Tehran. If th is the case could that explain why the likes of Hezb-allah,hamas and Syria all Iranian lackeys all give Abu and his cronies an easy time?
    But it gets worse while Bowen is allowed to rant and rave about how the Sunni locals in the region want America to bomb Iran he inserts “So has Israel” really? now I may be wrong here as even I can’t read through everything but from what I read so far, America is scared of Israel going it alone. Big difference which Bowen should have reported.
    But what suprises me the most is how the bBC while bitching about America in its coverage remains very silent on..Turkey:
    Diplomatic Cables Reveal US Doubts about Turkey’s Government



  9. Pounce says:

    further to my last about how abu Bowen parrotted about Israel wanting the US to bomb Iran;
    Here is what I found (so far) has been reported on the subject of Israel and the neighbors. from feb last year:

     During their trip to Israel, CODEL Cardin 
    discussed Iran, Syria, Israel-Palestinian negotiations, and 
    the Israeli elections with Likud Party leader and candidate 
    for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Netanyahu described a 
    nuclear Iran as the greatest threat facing Israel, and urged 
    strong economic sanctions backed by a viable military option 
    to confront a problem that he said threatened the region and 
    could prove a “tipping point” in world history.  Describing 
    his approach to “economic peace” with the Palestinians, 
    Netanyahu suggested he would cut through bureaucratic 
    obstacles to Palestinian economic development to build a 
    “pyramid” from the “bottom up” that would strengthen the 
    Palestinian Authority, and offer the Palestinians  a viable 
    alternative to radicalism.  Netanyahu expressed support for 
    the concept of land swaps, and emphasized that he did not 
    want to govern the West Bank and Gaza but rather to stop 
    attacks from being launched from there.  Netanyahu suggested 
    Syrian interest in peace negotiations with Israel were really 
    overtures to the United States, and described the Syrians as 
    firmly in the Iranian camp.  


  10. Pounce says:

    How the bBC spreads misdirection with its news reports:
    bBC says:
    It also alleges the documents include claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the royal family.
    Wow, so are the rumors of a gay royal really true?
    and here is how the Guardian reports that story:
    • Inappropriate remarks by Prince Andrew about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country.


  11. 1327 says:

    Due to the way this story is going ..


    I think the Beeb might drop it faster than Climategate.


  12. Paul Pot says:

    It was the top story on the Today Programme this morning, they mentioned all the stuff about Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan, but not once when I was listening did they mention the Hilary Clinton’s spying on the UN angle. Not that I expected them too.


    • Paulo says:

      You should have listened more closely then:
      Skip to about 10mins in.


      • Guest Who says:

        Bearing in mind the substantive aspects being discussed, a noted, worthwhile but trivial correction. Also, bearing in mind the BBC repeated, proven trend to stealth editing, hardly worth revisiting to ‘check’. Though an awesome level of detail and access on display when required.

        Any comment on the vast amount of other bias, selectivity and/or ineptitude on display, or just here to highlight what little there is to stand up for dail… hourly from the uniquely funded national broadcaster?


      • Paul Pot says:

        Paulo, they might have mentioned Hilary Clinton later on, but for the first hour or so she wasn’t mentioned, yet Iran, Iraq, Karzhai, Prince Andrew etc were mentioned repeatedley.


  13. NotaSheep says:

    Nicky Campbell gives a long list of personal relationship details revealed by Wikileaks. Is specific about Sarkozy, Putin and records that David Cameron was thought of as ‘weak’ but as for Gordon Brown we are only told that the Americans were not very complimentary. BBC self-censorship when pro-Labour is strong.


  14. Beeboidal says:

    Any sign of the BBC reporting this?

    Senator Kerry reports on a meeting with President Mubarak

    On the Middle East Peace Process, Mubarak said he sees
    no progress between Syria and Israel and doesn't expect any
    progress between Israel and the PA leadership. He said that
    "Palestinians are quarrelling" and Hamas and other factions
    will reject any agreement made by Abu Mazen.


  15. Millie Tant says:

    It sounds to me like the actions of a reckless and irresponsible egotist. We’ve seen enough evidence in our lifetimes of the harm that uncontrolled egotists can do when they see themselves as the centre and their own will far more important than any other consideration.


  16. Dr A says:

    What amazes me about this is the fact that not one of the 39465095749846 Beeboids employed in the BBC anti-Israel department – oops, I mean Middle East dept –  has ever reported the fact that Sunni Arab despots the world over have been bellowing for war against Shia Iran?

    What exactly do these lazy, stupid bigots do all day, apart from fantasise about future pogroms?

    It proves that they are not only venal, but incredibly inept. Put simply, their hatred of Israel simply blinded them to the bigger picture.


    • deegee says:

      I’m inclined to believe that BBC ignorance of the Arab custom of telling a guest what they think a guest wants to hear is equally to blame.


  17. james1070 says:

    Will somebody WIKILEAK the BBC’s secret files?


  18. kitty shaw says:

    “Oh, and in all fairness, arch-scumbag maybe – well no, definitely – the wikileaks guy, but not alleged rapist.  The charges were dropped.” Hippiepooter

    Sorry, but it looks like you have been taken in by bBC disinformation, the charges were dropped but then the case was re-opened.




    • Millie Tant says:

      And charges can be dropped even when an initial claim isn’t – and even when something actually happened, if it goes to that.


    • hippiepooter says:

      I stand corrected!  The Guardian report was more thorough and researched than the one I found below.  Could that be that The Guardian, being a news source that people have a choice about buying or not, have an incentive to provide quality reporting?

      Also, you may agree, what the fairly brief report in the link below seems weighted to discrediting the allegation against Mr Assange.  I wonder why that might be?  Oh, look!  It’s from the BBC!



    • deegee says:

      In all fairness, regardless of WikiLeaks’ motives or the moral character of its owner, the documents are, it is conceded, genuine.


  19. Will says:

    The BBC is of course very non-critical of Homosexuality, but that can be waived when a possibility arises for a cheap shot at an evil tory.

    This morning on R5 Dame Nicky was informed of the US’s interest in Alan Duncan. “Why is that?” asked Nicky innocently, “Is it because he shared a flat with William Hague?”


  20. Richard says:

    Nothing on the BBC (or any “serious” news source) of the real story. The “leaks” today are obvious, well-known or trivial. The real story is that Wikileaks is no longer a the site it claims to be. It is not a “wiki”, community-derrived to put important leaks on manhy issues from many sources into the public domain. That was perhaps foolish as an aim, but at least could be considered honourable.

    It is now driven by a thouroughly unpleasant individual, using only his sources with the sole aim of embarrassing the USA. It can still do great harm (including potentially helping an evil theocracy gain nuclear weapons) but is no longer capable of doing anything good.

    If the US has framed this revolting creep for rape (I think it rather unlikely) then I for one fully support them.


  21. Phil says:

    I never use BBC news, or any government funded news for that matter.

    However, I predict that BBC TV news will show a little film clip of someone working at a computer keyboard just to help viewers grasp the fact that these leaks have been made via the internet.


    • Sres says:

      The government don’t fund anything, we fund the BBC, we the taxpayer, the government don’t have any of their own money.


      • deegee says:

        Actually I think the government does, or certainly has, funded the BBC World Service via the Commonwealth and Foreign Office.


        • John Anderson says:


          You mean the Government uses OUR money to fund the World Service.  The whole damn thing could be closed down tomorrow,  for all the good it does Britain.


  22. Pounce says:

    I see the bBC while promoting its America is evil agenda hasn’t yet got round to reporting how Iran used the Iranian red cross in which to supply hezb-allah with weapons.


  23. HighTory says:

    This non-story has allowed the BBC to conveniently avoid reporting a momentous election in Europe yesterday when traditionally leftwing Catalonia threw out its government and elected a new conservative regional government.

    You can read about it here, and you will soon see exactly why the BBC haven’t reported it: http://hightory.com/2010/11/29/conservatives-catalonia/


  24. George R says:

    For years, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) and its massive global Islamic political bureau, has tried to relegate the Islamic schisms in ideology and in political power between the Sunni Muslims (e.g. Saudi Arabia)and the Shia Muslims (e.g. Iran).

     INBBC  behaves politically like a spokesperson for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in such matters: always campaigning for the advancement of Islam, always condemning Israel.


  25. john says:

    So transparent is the BBC’s biased coverage of the latest WIKILEAKS revalations (44 minutes behind SKY in bringing it to our attention in the first place – bye the way) leads me to only one conclusion :
    Sky report the news.
    BBC report on the news.


  26. George R says:

    As a respite from what INBBC inflicts on us with our own money:

    ‘Fox News’ (inc video interview) –

    “John Bolton: WikiLeaks Release Will Cause ‘Incalculable Damage to American Diplomatic Efforts'”



  27. David Preiser (USA) says:

    One thing missing from the BBC’s coverage of WikiHacks and their stolen documents:

    This makes the President look massively weak, and not in control of His foreign policy.  It’s even more damaging coming on the heels of a sound defeat in the mid-term elections.

    Funny how when George Bush and his Party did poorly in the mid-terms, Paul Reynolds declared that he was diminished as a world leader.  But when it’s The Obamessiah, the BBC didn’t dare say such a thing, and now Reynolds is saying that these stolen documents are no big deal, won’t harm diplomatic relations at all, He’s tightening security now, nothing to see here, move along.

    The rest of the Beeboids working on this are more concerned about personal remarks of various leaders and are focused on how this will affect US diplomats.  Nobody dares say that this makes the Apologizer-in-Chief look even more like a weak world leader.  Especially when the following pathetic effort is part of the White House’s official statement on the matter:

    President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.

    Hey, maybe since the White House called them “stolen”, the BBC will at last be obliged to follow suit.  After all, they’re usually very dutiful in adhering to White House talking points.  If the BBC suddenly starts referring to these documents as “stolen”, you’ll know they got the memo.


  28. Umbongo says:

    Not exactly the BBC – but pretty close – WUWT flags up the hypocrisy of the New York Times here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/29/hypocrisy-meter-pegged-at-the-new-york-times/ concerning its treatment of the WikiLeaks and ClimateGate revelations.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      We should remember that the BBC actually sat on the ClimateGate emails for a month before someone else went public with them and the BBC was forced to report it.


  29. Andrew says:

    The BBC haven’t really paid this much attention at all.  Given the sheer number of correspondents they typically throw at a major story I anticipated more than the meagre “analysis” they have given this.  What they appear to have done is simply trot out the he said, she said name calling lines that many other sites.  I even looked at their analysis and found this page:


    This contains a nice little glowing endorsement of Obama’s work as shown below

    Here, the case of Iran is important. What the documents show in fact is not that the US secretly wants to go to war with Iran but that it has resisted pressure to do so from Israel and Arab leaders acting out of a coincidental common interest.
    This is very much in line with President Barack Obama’s public diplomacy, which is to engage with Iran and, if necessary, to impose sanctions to try to get it to stop its nuclear activities. This it has done and the documents agree.
     Quote ends

    So stability in the region is down to Obama’s steady approach according to this. 

    Well I’m not sure what part of the site Paul Reynolds is reading but he appears to have missed the elephant in the room.  A significant chunk of the leaks showing this diplomatic approach occur during the presidency of the beebs favourite villain – Bush.  So in reality.

    The other point that runs counter to the Beebs default narrative is the fact that aside from Syria, no other state mentions Israel as being the key threat to the region.  They all cite Iran as the number one threat, especially if they become a nuclear power urging the US to action because they don’t wish to go public with their antipathy towards Iran.

    The final interesting part I thought was that the BBC don’t put a link to the site so you can explore all this for yourself (or not that I could find).  They originally only gave you a direct link to the Guardian.

    Bless ’em


  30. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Haha.  Paxman’s intro to tonight’s Newsnight basically showed that many of the revelations from the WikiHacks releases revealed that reality is mostly the exact opposite of how the BBC has been reporting on certain international issues.

    China wanting to maintain regional stability?  Wrong.  Apparently they’re not so bothered about stability, but wouldn’t mind if L’il Kim goes down.

    Israel driving the desire to nuke Iran?  Wrong.  Looks like every single non-Persian Mohammedan has been practically begging the US to wipe out the mad mullahs.

    The Obamessiah bringing smart diplomacy and restoring relations and respect between allies?  Wrong.  The diplo dopes are just as petty and sweary as ever, and under His watch they insulted every leader under the sun.  No Hope and Change™ there, then.

    I’m trying very hard to find something the BBC geniuses got right.


  31. hippiepooter says:

    Downing Street – which branded the wider disclosures by Wikileaks a threat to ‘national security’ –”




  32. Martin says:

    Can anyone explain WHY Alan Sugar the ex barrow boy is on Radio 5 defending the BBC over Panorama last night?

    Is it that Sugar is having to pay his dues for being a beeboid now?


  33. George R says:


    INBBC’s lack of interest in killing of Christians in Islamic Egypt continues.

    Egyptian security uses live ammo on unarmed Christian protesters, killing four

    All week, INBBC, behaving like a reporter for the Organisation of the islamic Conference on the Egyptian elections, INBBC has concentrated on the fate of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), without telling us that the MB’s ideology and intentions are a direct threat to the people of Europe, where the MB has already infiltrated:

    INBBC report:

    “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood ‘faces heavy poll losses'”


    A non-INBBC critique of the Muslim Brotherhood:
    “Fjordman: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Infiltration of the West”



    • hippiepooter says:

      Unfortunately, the outrage this should generate from Church leaders demanding Government protests is non-existant in our country.  His Grace, The Archbishop of Canterbury is too busy promoting Sharia Law and condemning cartoons of the Muslim Prophet to give tuppence about brothers and sisters suffering such horror abroad.

      I think a major reason why Achbishop Williams doesn’t raise a murmur is in case it offends Muslims that he objects to them killing Christians.  Dont expect a piece on the BBC any time soon on the bizarre and perverse mutability of the English Church concerning the fate of our brethren abroad.


  34. Daniel Smith says:

    After breathlessly anticipating the release of wikileaks and how it would embarrass America (and no doubt show Israel in a bad light), now that wikileaks have flatly contradicted the BBC narrative and actually confirm the conservative worldview, they have dropped it down the batting order like a lead brick. On news24 at 3pm it only made 4th place on the headlines (behind their beloved students, the snow and fifa) and that has ignored the main revelations to dig out a puff piece about Gordon Brown interceding on behalf of a hacker! 


  35. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Amazon.com has dropped Wikihacks from their hosting servers, so now the hacking site which aids and abets treason is struggling to find a way to stay online.

    BBC: ZZzzzzzzzz