SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

Spot the difference between the BBC report of Palestinian grad rocket attacks on Israel and Israel’s response. Beyond belief!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19541416

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/09/09/images-of-netivot-home-carnage-released-photos/

Hat-tip to B-BBC reader Jack!

Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

  1. Pounce says:

    So in a nutshell, after firing 455 Military grade Grad missiles into Israel this year which saw 7 Israeli people injured, Israel struck back hitting tunnels (The bBCs words not mine) and they managed to injure two young children who just happened to be in the strike zone which gives the bBC its headline of;
    Gaza Strip: Children hurt as Israel strikes tunnels
    Strange how any reputable news agency would use the bigger figure of injuries (Several Israelis) as its headline.
    What makes this even more damning is how the bBC tries to exonerate ‘Hamas’ by saying:
    Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rockets attacks from Gaza, even if – as in recent days – those attacks are carried out by other Palestinian militant organisations. Now if that had transpired on the Egyptian, Lebanese,Jordanian or even Syrian border with Israel I might have excepted that excuse. Gaza is 21 miles by 7 miles. in size. It has a population of 1.7 million and the bBC tries to tell me that Hamas doesn’t know who is doing what, yet Israel has no problem in knowing just who the terrorist leaders are and despatching them to that great mosque in the ground. (Aka Hell)

    Sums up the bBC to a tee.
    The bBC, the traitors in our midst

       33 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    As usual with BBC reporting on this scene, it all started when Israel hit back. The number of rockets fired at Israel is not newsworthy until a Palestinian is harmed in retaliation.

    I’m not sure, but it seems as if the BBC editor who put this together is hinting in the following sentence that Israel shouldn’t have done this at all because it wasn’t Hamas:

    Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rockets attacks from Gaza, even if – as in recent days – those attacks are carried out by other Palestinian militant organisations.

    I say that because there’s nothing from Israel or Netanyahu about how this was going after Hamas for the rockets. In fact, there’s even a quote from the Israeli PM that they would go after any “militants” who attacked Israel.

    So is Israel supposed to sit back an take it when it’s not officially Hamas firing rockets or attacking Israel in any way? I know I’m probably reading something that isn’t there, but it’s an odd line nonetheless.

       22 likes

  3. Pounce says:

    While I am on the old soapbox about bBC bias against Israel. (Aka anti-Semitism) has anybody read this attack on the British about the Irish policeman who the Brits brought in.
    Charles Tegart and the forts that tower over Israel
    When the British sought to quell unrest in Palestine in the 1930s, they turned to an uncompromising Irish policeman, who came up with a drastic and expensive solution – a network of fortresses that today stand as monuments to a lost empire….That’s partly because they don’t need to – Sir Charles was a colonial officer whose job was to keep the Union Flag flying over Britain’s far-flung imperial territories.

    Anybody else read this shite. Anybody want to inform the bBC, that the area which now consists of Jordan ,Iraq and Israel (Along with Syria and Lebanon for France) never did belong to the British Empire, but rather they were League of Nation Mandates. which is why Iraq became independent in 1932,Jordan in 1946 and Israel, well the Uk handed back the mandate for Israel to the successor of the League of Nations UN in 1947 . Now I don’t know about your but I’ve yet to see any evidence of the British handing part of its Empire to the UN. To the locals yes (India,Egypt,Kenya,Nigeria,Cyprus, etc…) But to the UN nah. So why does the bBC makes such a huge song and dance about Israel belonging to the British Empire when it never was. Kind of explains why:Israel, Jordan and Iraq are not members of the British Commonwealth.
    But this article isn’t about relating historical facts rather it is a dig at the British as only ethical latte drinking arseholes (who hate being white and British) can. So we have this snippet:
    Tegart was born in Londonderry before Ireland was partitioned, and he devoted much of his life to ensuring that Britain’s other imperial possessions didn’t follow his home country (or at least the southern part of it) out of the Empire.
    and this:
    He made his reputation in India, the metaphorical jewel in the crown of Empire which was so important to Britain that it also provided the real jewel in the actual crown.
    See the British not only had an illegal empire but they stole everything. I have to laugh at this:
    Like other colonising powers of the period, Britain tended to treat its subject peoples like children if they accepted imperial authority and like potential terrorists when they didn’t. That was where Tegart came in.
    Hang on Tegart was Irish as was Arthur Wellesley so how come they weren’t treated as children?

    Then we have another bout of Horrible histories.
    Palestine was the “hinge of empire” – it guarded access to the Suez Canal, which in turn offered the shortest and cheapest route to bring troops and trade to and from India.
    Palestine bBC? don’t you mean Egypt. I mean isn’t that the country that Nazis Germany tried and failed to take. You know El Alamein and all that jazz. But hey if the bBC says otherwise they must be right. which is why they come out with this crap:
    The historian Dr Gad Kroizer, of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, has published a book chronicling of the whole project and says simply: “The British saw Palestine as strategic, because it controlled the way to the Suez Canal and to India via Transjordan and Iraq. They spent £2,200,000 on these buildings… it’s unbelievable how they used that money for the fortresses and not for their armies in Europe.”
    Just think people if the British hadn’t spent money on Israel before the war, they might not have been a failure of the British to fight the Nazis in 1940 and WW2 may have been over in weeks. Yup damn those fucking jews.
    What is really rich is how the bBC ends that flamboyant spending spree statement in a time of austerity bit with this:
    If you’re a British taxpayer, look away now.
    Hang on, one of the biggest recipients of British taxpayers money and the bBC feels it has the right to lecture us all about how money was spent 76 years ago. Money which to be told was actually well spent and the fruits of which are still in use today. Unlike say…any decent programming from the bBC.

    That is why the bBC are the traitors in our midst. They force feed leftish propaganda in the minds of the impressionable , who believe that the British Empire was evil and that the Jews are even worse.

    The bBC,The traitors in our Midst

       30 likes

    • Ian Hills says:

      Shit, if only we hadn’t kicked the moghuls out the Indian sub-continent would be a place of religious harmony and peace. Full of dead Hindus and Sikhs perhaps, but WTF.

         15 likes

    • deegee says:

      It’s a detail but the BBC should have notice. Tegart forts, many still in use as police stations don’t tower. I don’t think any are more than two stories high.

         11 likes

    • Daphne Anson says:

      Yes, I saw this and felt my blood pressure soar …
      Apologies if this has been posted already, btw, but the usual suspects are whining on social media about this response from Al Beeb to their complaint.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaint/watocorrie2808212/
      I see Ms Kearney claimed that house demolitions were taking place at the time Rachel Corrie died, but according to the Israelis the bulldozers were clearing shrubs used as sniper positions, not demolishing houses, so I hope Regev put her right (I missed the programme).

         2 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        Interesting what gets the full complaints rending of shirt treatment and why.
        Given what complaints that are shared here, based on full blown inaccuracy or lack of professional integrity, that this was taken the full course and, one presumes, logged as a a slight blip on the 110% perfection meter, is interesting.
        Not least because it appears to show the BBC as ‘balanced’ in ‘getting it wrong’ in a direction they appear to feel they needed to move quickly, and fully, in atoning for.
        Considering the semantic gymnastics and relativism that have been witnessed from CECUTT, that the deaths of Israeli soldiers on the day or within the week would become so crucial in context is interesting.
        It is good to be so sorry about such a lack of absolute precision, but again why here and not when equally deserved?

           2 likes

  4. Pounce says:

    I forgot to mention this snippet:
    At one point, Britain intercepted a ship called Exodus 1947 filled with Holocaust survivors and sent it back to Germany, of all places, in what we would see in the modern world as a public relations disaster.

    No bBC, it was returned to France, I quote from the bBC’s lexicon of knowledge wiki:
    The British sailed the commandeered ship into Haifa port, where its passengers were transferred to three more seaworthy deportation ships, Runnymede Park, Ocean Vigour and Empire Rival. The event was witnessed by members of UNSCOP. These ships left Haifa harbour on July 19 for Port-de-Bouc. Foreign Secretary Bevin insisted that the French get their ship back as well as its passengers. When the ships arrived at Port-de-Bouc near Marseilles on August 2, the French Government said it would allow disembarkation of the passengers only if it was voluntary on their part. Haganah agents, both on board the ships and using launches with loudspeakers, encouraged the passengers not to disembark]. Thus the emigrants refused to disembark and the French refused to cooperate with British attempts at forced disembarkation. This left the British with the best option of returning the passengers to Germany. Realizing that they were not bound for Cyprus, the emigrants conducted a 24-hour hunger strike and refused to cooperate with the British authorities.

    So actually they didn’t return the ship to Germany but rather the people on 3 other ships to France, whose Government as always played devils advocate (like they do) A totally different story than provided by the bBC

    The bBC, the so called news-agency which only tells half a story

       20 likes

  5. jah says:

    David if you worked in a newsroom you would of course know that you start any story with a headline to catch attention. Hurting kids will always be a headline. Not bias its now every news outlet works.

       4 likes

    • Pounce says:

      Jah wrote:
      David if you worked in a newsroom you would of course know that you start any story with a headline to catch attention. Hurting kids will always be a headline. Not bias its now every news outlet works.</I.
      Good point Jah remember when Hamas fired an anti-tank missile at a school bus across the border critically injuring a 16 year old child. here is the bBC headline:
      Gaza: Israeli forces strike after attack on bus
      Israeli tanks, helicopters and planes have struck Gaza after an anti-tank missile fired from the Palestinian territory hit a bus in southern Israel. A teenaged boy on the bus was critically injured and the driver was also wounded. Four people were killed and some 35 injured in the Israeli strikes, Gaza hospital officials said.

      Nice to see the bBC going against the grain with this story.

         27 likes

      • deegee says:

        The BBC is hardly just a newsroom. Few other broadcasters exist to serve the public interest. That should include a duty of care to fairness.

           9 likes

        • Guest Who says:

          ‘The BBC is hardly just a newsroom.’
          Inasmuch as ‘reporting’ ‘news’ appears more of a loose start point to spin up narrative ‘stories’, no.
          The information and education comes in a raw form (though if you only ask what you want to hear, from who you think it will be best heard from, pre-determination is inevitable. Think any Paul Mason ‘report’ from an anger and protest contact who has texted him over to a barrio on some left bank, and whose version of events is all that features top of the hour), and then the edit suite turns it into a carefully framed entity to suit an agenda set long before during pre-pro. In other words… pre-propaganda.
          Which seems to be what ‘those who work in newsrooms’ (I’d counted two now who have at last failed to resist trying to trumpet their ‘expertise’ or their ‘professional’ backgrounds, if not actual employers. David P possibly others. A significant % of cherry vulture composition. Certainly hardly representative of concerned public, pro or con, on such a forum) appear to conflate with the world which they have apparently opted to inhabit. Such misplaced delusions of grandeur are pointless; who knows who is or what they do? Hence the value of the argument over playing the person or pushing a CV.
          In an ideal world ‘the news’ is the objective facts, unadorned by anything extra to spin ratings. But true, sadly, the world is not ideal.
          However the BBC, uniquely, should not be troubled by such influences as there is not supposed to be a financial imperative guiding how they attract eyeballs. In reality there is, as bonuses and careers are driven by ratings just as much as any other broadcast entity. It’s also why there do not appear to be many females who are not easy on the eye. The sisterhood, and even the women, appear to accept this ‘industry standard’ without irony as they read off screens or ‘interview’ others who would declaim such an ‘ism.
          And the BBC of course adds another little taint to the bitter brew, and that is naked tribal agenda.
          From (A)GW to this, when the shift is to ‘why are you wasting your time?’ or ‘we know better as we are experts’ patronage… on a discussion forum about how information is presented, fairly and accurately or not, then the argument is clearly not going well for those with a vested interest in keeping control of the airwaves as broadcast only and within the bubble. Sadly for them, the internet is free, uncensored and pervasive.
          Though I do note that they are working on that.

             7 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Jah, even though I don’t work in a news room, I know how this works. My remark was not about the headline, but about how the BBC doesn’t report the rocket attacks, and reports only when there’s Israeli retaliation. In other words, the impression is that it all started when Israel hit back.

      Since you’ve now declared your own expertise, that means both you and Nicked Emus are professional journalists or work in the news business somehow. Plus we have Scott who works in publicity or something to do with press releases. Perhaps Jim Dandy is also in the business.

      I find it interesting that three or possibly four news professionals (not including an actual Beeboid, David Gregory) waste their time on a fringe, extremist echo-chamber which nobody reads and represents only the most microscopic fraction of public opinion. Do you, like Nicked and nearly all defenders of the indefensible past and present, think the BBC ought to be held to account, but this site is the worst possible example of how to do it?

         24 likes

  6. Pah says:

    I don’t know why anyone is suprised by this. It’s par for the course on the BBC. Sing the praises of Hamas and damn Israel.

    In fact it has an upside (if only a very little one). If it wasn’t for the lamentable bias of the BBC I, and others like me who have no dog in the fight, would have remained disinterested and not become the staunch supporters of Isreal we now are.

    If the BBC hate Israel then Israel must be in the right.

       21 likes

  7. Of course no one from the press sought seemed to find it strange why a campaign to hit tunnels injured children. That children were injured is bad but one has to ask how children and tunnels come to be in such close proximity.

    Now the obvious answer is that the tunnels come up near houses. The common narrative is that the tunnel network exists out of desperation of the Gazan people to survive the usually quoted narrative of an Israeli blockade and occupation with the inference that these things are an impromptu network managed on an individual basis.

    Unfortunately it is quite far from the truth as quoted in other news sources including pan arabist newspapers:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3308/gaza-millionaires

    The telling quote for me is here:

    Mohammed Dahlan, the former Palestinian Authority security commander of the Gaza Strip, further said last week that Hamas was the only party that was laying siege to the Gaza Strip; that it is Hamas, and not Israel or Egypt, that is strangling and punishing the people there.

    Hamas make a pretty packet out of this network and have a more direct hand in it that we are so often told:

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/egypt-s-holy-war-against-sinai-jihadists-leaves-many-questions-unanswered.premium-1.462551

    So here I have a report sourced from an original arab newspaper and a left leaning Israeli news source roundly fisking the common narrative.

    What does this have to do with this story? Well it’s this. These tunnels aren’t sporadic acts of resistance by the people of Gaza, but a network licenced and controlled by Hamas. Hamas must therefore know where they come to the surface in Gaza and there is a clear inference that they’re happy with this. In other words they care little for the risk to the Gazans and it probably suits them because for them it’s “double bubble”. Untouched, the goods come in and they bank cash. Get smashed by the Israelis and the collateral damage is a PR bonus. What lovely, lovely people to view life so cheaply.

       18 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Of course they know why the children are there. But too many people in the media will see them only as reasons for Israel not to retaliate. Israel mustn’t hit back if there’s the slightest chance a child might be injured or killed. It’s a very useful propaganda tool, and the media plays right along with it.

         16 likes

      • Ian Hills says:

        The Canaanites used to sacrifice their children to Moloch by fire. Now their Palestinian descendants sacrifice them in tunnels and are happy to use them as human shields, but the parental attitude problem remains the same.

           16 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘one has to ask how children and tunnels come to be in such close proximity.’
      Unless ‘one’ is more in the business of propaganda.
      You take what is, pare away what doesn’t serve, and play up what does.
      I actually think the bigger issue is the use of ‘innocents’ as cover, and indeed was a war crime.
      Of course it gets tricky as the definitions of ‘war’ now are so blurred as to be useless, along with who constitutes a combatant. Even then, in jeans and a Man U top, ages also matter, with ‘children’ of 18 opting to enter a fire zone vs. moppets whose caring parents have parked their prams in the bunker creche as Daddy serves the Grad launcher next door.
      The ‘think of the children’ card is a simple and effective one to play… but with any halfway competent and objective media it should play both ways.
      But course it doesn’t because the masters being served are not based around professional integrity.

         6 likes

  8. Neil Turner says:

    Been onto the BBC Complaints site just now. her’s what I posted:

    On 9th September Netviot and Beersheva were subjected to missile attack from Gaza. A house was hit, fortunately nobody was physically in injured. The following day 40,000 Israeli schoolchildren missed school due to the threat. The BBC didn’t report it. Today, the IDF responded to the attack by striking weapons smuggling tunnels and a missile factory. The BBC did report this Can you please advise:

    1. Why did the BBC wait until the IDF’s response before it reported this incident ?

    2. When was the last time that the BBC reported a missile / mortar attack from Gaza upon Israel BEFORE the IDF response ?

    3. Can you advise when the BBC last reported the total number of missiles or mortars launched from Gaza into Israel during 2012

    4. The referenced article states “Two Palestinian children have been injured by Israeli air strikes”. Can you confirm if this is based on information from Hamas, or was this independently substantiated by the BBC ?

    5. Can the BBC verify that the picture used in the online report has been validated, or was it provided by Hamas ?

       26 likes

    • Ian Hills says:

      Well done Neil.

         12 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      Look forward to learning the reply, if any.

      You may have to stay resolute though some CECUTT Turing machine template blow-off attempts first.

      The questions are good. Needing to be asked of such an unaccountable power. Which is what they don’t like at all.

      I just hope they don’t find any small mention on para 92 of a tweet to zoom off with a ‘gotcha!’ on one small section of the complaint whilst ignoring the substantive issues.

      I rather fear that this will get bogged down in what they think is ‘getting it about right’ in matters of near-impossible-to-assess ‘balance’, though if they come back with ‘we rely on the expertise of our editors’ you will know you have won.
      Of course they will count it as another score on the 110% rectitude stats.

         5 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        Looking at the piece which, by the time I read it has already been ‘updated’ (but still is littered with ‘says who’ quotes that can justify such a clever headline – No doubt there were strikes, and very possibly children were hurt, so as nifty a plausible deniable conflation as could be hoped there), the newssniffer chronology may be interesting as they ‘tidy up’ in case of later investigations.
        Bear in mind we now (with Michelle/Letterman) have the precedent of the BBC even ‘vanishing’ entire articles as if they never existed, on top of retroactive watertight oversight in erasing comments histories when it suits.

           6 likes

    • Pah says:

      It never creases to amaze me at the facility of children for getting injured in ‘retaliatory strikes’. In every conflict there is there they are battered and bleeding after every ‘attack’.
      Unless of course the attack is made against someone the BBC likes/supports then we only ever see policemen, soldier or politicians dead in the street – assuming we see any bodies at all. But then they are oppressors, so who cares eh?
      As an example; has anyone seen a news clip on the BBC from Syria where children have been injured by the insurgents? Every time the Syrian Army shells somewhere the moppets are the first to get it in the neck, yet when the Islamofascists fire back never a one is hurt.
      It’s a miracle. Allah be praised.

         8 likes

  9. George R says:

    Will political ‘left’ (inc INBBC) now boycott TURKEY, or still promote Turkey’s Islamic ‘Trojan Horse’ entry into the European Union?

    “Turkey warplanes ‘kill 25 rebels’ in northern Iraq”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19549300

       10 likes

    • deegee says:

      It sounds better to to call them rebels in northern Iraq than Kurdish rebels because that implies they are rebels against Iraq (the good guys) rather than rebels against Turkey (the bad guys).

      I suppose we could dredge up a BBC article explaining why the Kurds oppose the Turks but it is well the the background if it exists. Compare with the obsessive recounting of Palestinian complaints and ‘background’ whenever the BBC reports on Israel.

         2 likes

  10. Teddy Bear says:

    Many here may remember back in April when the BBC reported a Palestinian youth in Gaza had been shot and killed by Israeli forces in clashes there.
    Gaza youth ‘shot dead’ in border incident
    It stated categorically

    Muhammad al-Faramawi, 15, was killed on Tuesday by Israeli fire near Rafah, the Hamas-run health ministry said.

    It went on to add

    An official from the Hamas-run ministry of health said the teenager “was left bleeding for hours” before paramedics were able to get Israeli permission to evacuate him.

    A head doctor there also confirmed this

    Only later in the article did we see

    However, there has been speculation over whether the boy could have died in an intra-Palestinian dispute.

    The Maan news service quoted unnamed Palestinian sources who said the boy’s death “may have been an internal matter”, without giving further details.

    Now I know it was around Easter time, which perhaps accounts for the miracle that a few days later this article appeared
    Gaza boy reported killed returns home alive

    I mention this as the BBC again report the injuries to these children as fact, without putting this claim by Palestinian medics into quotation marks. Whereas later in the article when reporting what Israel stated it does:
    Israel said its air force hit “an arms factory, a site of terrorist activity and a terrorist tunnel in the north of the Gaza Strip, and a smuggling tunnel in the south of the Strip”.

    Pure conscious insidious twisting of facts in its double standard of ‘reporting’ news.

       21 likes

  11. ROBERT BROWN says:

    Slightly off topic, but watch this. Go to The Gates of Vienna site, post yesterday, Dr Bill Warner gives a [44min] talk on the true ‘legacy’ of Islam. It held me for all that time, and i felt angry that our education system, church leaders, academics have kept the lid on the truth. It is entitled,’Why we are afraid: A 1400-year secret.

       7 likes

  12. deegee says:

    Tangental but important. The BBC illustrated the Rachel Corrie court decision with a photograph that not only appears to contradict the facts of the story but also the laws of physics.

    I wrote to BBC complaints:

    The man next to Rachel Corrie has no feet. His picture was cut and pasted into the picture. The woman casts a shadow to her left but the much-larger bulldozer casts no shadow whatsoever in that direction. If you look at the back of the bulldozer blade, the hydraulic piston’s shadow shows that the sun is coming from behind the bulldozer. She and the man in the white T-shirt should also be casting shadows in the same direction but they are not.

    Somewhat miraculously for the BBC they replied promptly:

    Dear Mr Guy

    Thank you for getting in touch.

    The image was supplied by Getty photo agency and is originally from the ISM. Our picture desk has examined the image in high resolution and is not convinced it is fake. If we discover the picture was doctored we will obviously take action but until such a time there are no grounds to remove it from the story.

    Shouldn’t the BBC be convinced the photograph is genuine not unconvinced it is a fake before publishing?
    Shouldn’t the BBC announce that the origin is a highly involved source and let the ready draw conclusions. If they (have they ever?) used a photograph supplied by the IDF we can be sure they would announce it, something on the lines of ‘the IDF claims this is a photograph of the scene’.
    How can professional photographers/editors explain the missing feet and the misdirected and missing shadows, on close inspection.

    Kind regards

    Middle East desk, BBC News website

       4 likes

    • deegee says:

      The picture is available with mistakes labeled at The BBC is not convinced

         3 likes

      • Demon says:

        I got a Malware warning when I clicked that link. Best to avoid it.

           0 likes

        • deegee says:

          Demon. The site is clean and I run it. Which virus protector gave you the malware warning? This isn’t the first time I have heard this and am beginning to think I am being sabotaged in some way.

             0 likes

          • Demon says:

            STOP! Bitdefender blocked this web page.The page you are trying to access contains malware.
            Details:
            Web Page: http://5mfi.com/the-bbc-is-not-convinced-it-is-fake/

            Access from your browser has been blocked. Take me back to safety

            —————————-
            The answer is Bitdefender

               0 likes

            • deegee says:

              Thanks (ironically BitDefender is the virus protection I also use).

              When the problem occurred previously I had correspondence with them and they informed me I had been removed from the Malware list. Guess I’m back 🙁

                 0 likes

        • Pounce says:

          I use Norton, in conjunction with Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete and I scan my computer everyday, so I know I’m pretty well protected. No problems with the site that degree linked .

             0 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Shouldn’t the BBC be convinced the photograph is genuine not unconvinced it is a fake before publishing?
      Shouldn’t the BBC announce that the origin is a highly involved source and let the ready draw conclusions’

      As a matter of professional course, and maybe even more so in such circumstances, one would have thought ‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’.
      But the BBC’s comfort in belief in rectitude seems as pervasive as it varies according to tribal fealty and narrative requirements.
      If this picture originated from a clearly partial protagonist then the provenance should be clearly put in context. At least.
      I see it is credited as ‘Getty Images’.
      The chain from activist group to such aggregators to in-theory watertight oversight media is one that does not inspire here, especially given a few other examples that have come to light, albeit mostly tucked away on the internet when it transpires that those whose minds have long been made up felt that checking should take second place to confirming their prejudices.
      Good luck trying to get that past the first attrition levels to actually be provided answers from those questions, which are warranted.
      It is worth doing so as they really don’t like being pinned down on clear matters of precedent.
      ‘Looks OK because we want it to be’ is not good enough for a global news media brand.

         4 likes

    • Glen Slagg says:

      It looks completely fake to me, simply because I am reasonably familiar with the products of the Caterpillar Company and if she is meant to be standing in front of the blade of a D9 then she is about the size of a pixie. The scale just looks wrong!

         0 likes

  13. Guest Who says:

    The latest from home and abroad based on the antics of followers of the religion of peace has already spawned some posts that have in turned spawned some comments on speed and ‘take’ by various media…
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2012/09/channel-4-cancels-tom-hollands-history-of-islam-but-the-extremists-will-not-win/
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100180571/us-ambassador-to-libya-murdered-on-911-a-wicked-attempt-to-manipulate-american-politics-and-its-working/
    So… one says they won’t win and another says their plan is working.
    Another plays party politics to accuse another of the same…
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100180665/us-ambassadors-murder-mitt-romney-looks-as-if-hes-seized-on-a-human-tragedy-for-his-own-ends/
    I agree with the quaint (in a ‘like that is going to happen’) notion of waiting before rushing to react… or comment to definitively… but by recollection, Gov. Romney’s critiques have been fairly consistent and over a longer period on the matter of appeasement.
    Now, I wonder which way the objective, professional national treasure will go…?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254
    Apparently, it was when ‘unidentified armed men stormed the grounds overnight amid uproar among Muslims over a US-produced film said to insult the Prophet Muhammad’, in a spontaneous, but daringly cobbled-together but audacious (no doubt) expression of their anger and desire to protest. Guess pre-planned slotting of US officials around this time was not an option?
    Tub of Mardell offers his analysis, which given the events, dear boy, events, comes across more as a bit of fervent wishful hoping.
    ‘It is almost inevitable that this attack will put President Obama’s foreign policy centre stage in the election campaign, at least for a while”
    He and the PR team may h ave to do a fair bit of other stuff, or nothing… again.. to ensure that ‘while’ is as short as possible before getting back to hope, change and Michelle’s herb garden asap.
    Or maybe go for why folk should not be doing non-physical stuff that others find ‘offensive’.
    Like that tack has worked sooooo well thus far, since Aethelred figured it may be a wheeze.

       4 likes