On time and all ready for you to complete..a new OPEN THREAD to detail the bias from the State Broadcaster.
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Scroblene April 26, 2024 at 7:30 am on Midweek 24th April 2024https://youtube.com/shorts/KJVfMhwR0Pw?si=T4rF80qlaVYqlGwW I'm off for a cold shower now...
- Fedup2 April 26, 2024 at 7:18 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I mentioned yesterday - about how the BBC using ‘data ‘ supplied by the ‘Palestinian authorities ‘( aka Islamic Hamas...
- Fedup2 April 26, 2024 at 7:14 am on Midweek 24th April 2024The saddest thing is that Biden ‘gaffes ‘ don’t matter -he won’t get the Reagan treatment …. But I notice...
- Flotsam April 26, 2024 at 7:05 am on Midweek 24th April 2024In a follow up mini poll on GBNews this morning on the breakfast program, Sunak comes ahead of Starmer thereby...
- Flotsam April 26, 2024 at 6:58 am on Midweek 24th April 2024GBNews viewers have been polled and the results are truly strange. The poll puts Labour 11% ahead of the Conservatives,...
- Zephir April 26, 2024 at 6:38 am on Midweek 24th April 2024We might see a measurable imrovement in the bbc output if news was written and broadcast during muslim prayer times....
- Zephir April 26, 2024 at 6:33 am on Midweek 24th April 2024https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1iUhcx9enM
- Zephir April 26, 2024 at 6:33 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Some short videos need little or no context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbQXYCDgbe4
- JohnC April 26, 2024 at 6:29 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Extremist Ahmed Alid guilty of Hartlepool knife murder https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-68899601 Just in case you are wondering, he ...
- Zephir April 26, 2024 at 6:29 am on Midweek 24th April 2024As I said before, they are also completely linear when logged against time. make of that what you will, as...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Well, Its Friday morning and instead of the 06.30 news, Radio 2 just ran an infomercial on how well barry obama dealt with the recent bad weather. I thought the interviews where those asked all confirmed why they would vote for ‘the one’, were particularly poignant !
I did enjoy Davis saying we couldn’t build a new airport because some birds might die. Lefty, Environmentalist Taliban claptrap…but what’s new?
oops! not meant to be there. how did that happen?
Yet OK to build wind farms which do slice birds up, despite the BBC scientific reports that the birds are learning to avoid them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nqn86/Question_Time_01_11_2012/
There are conflicting views. Shall we agree that the science is not settled?
Sorry – wrong link in above comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19208400
This is what was intended
Last year, a wind turbine blew over on the Dorset coastline, and crushed a car!
Imagine how useless the bloody things were, when we had that bit of snow around Christmas 2009…no wind you see, and those rare earth metallic blades buckled under a few centimetres of snow.
Still, we`re paying!
Comedy Gold-yet Monbiot, Porritt, Juniper didn`t seem to find any of this ironic…let alone funny!
The “science is settled”…let` s hope the snow doesn`t!
Someone under one of Delingpole’s blogs commented that wind turbines “are the minarets of the environmentalist Taliban’s jihad”
superb…
just had to switch off R4. Evan Davis talking over Boris after letting the lib dem woman and some other bloke speak at length. I wanted to hear what Boris had to say regarding airport expansion.
Boris did rather well – made Evan look shrill & foolish. Dont think Evan will have been pleased with his performance
Boris had lots of opportunity to get his points across. Evan Davis is a good interviewer and pushed him. But good informative stuff.
He may have but I had already switched off in frustration by that point.
Then you’re in no position to comment. You bias smellers must be more resilient and endure the great satan that is the BBC if you’re to know thine enemy.
Does he get a refund, though?
Endure? No, just ignore, It’s having to pay for it that I object to. If the soi-disant “greatest broadcaster in the world” can’t stand on its own two feet by now it really ought to be shut down. The State is no longer in the coal, steel or car-making business, why is it still in the broadcasting business?
‘Ows about that then, Beeboid guys and gals?
I did listen to the whole interview. Evan didn’t push Boris. He talked all over him. There’s a difference. I couldn’t actually hear the points Boris was trying to make.
Precisely, and I am not the most patient person in the morning, why should I have to suck this biased crap up?!
Oi Jim!
We VOTED for Boris, so it`s not the BBCs job to talk over our elected Mayor.
If the likes of Evan Davis don`t want to know what our elected representatives think….well, let`s get a bit of democracy into the BBC.
I voted for Boris-not for Evan Davis.
Any chance of my voting out the Savile suckers and Carr cabbages that stuff the BBC from Entwhistel down to Bacon/Campbell via the preening fops like Webb/Woods and Davis?
And why not Jim?
woot woot one nestle too many alert woot woot
A nestle too far? Oh no they’ve only sent berets …
‘you’re in no position to comment.’
One from the Chris Patten rulebook is it?
In one of your outings to mingle with the people, grab a soapbox at Hyde Park corner and inform anyone who leaves they cannot pass judgement on what you have had to offer to that point.
The results may be interesting.
Of course, when paid by compulsion no matter what, the notion of consequences in case of delivery failure are, currently, zero.
I must say I find the setting of rules by entities who keeps coming to a blog thread to say how pointless it all is and no one pays any attention.. rather sweet.
How much did he ‘push’ the others, do you think? The usual, was it?
Sorry, slipped nesting there. It was meant for the frontman of Black Oak Arkansas – he of the long, blond floppy hair.
OTish, but I think I may get away with it as the cherry squad appear to be off on manoovers for a while.
Just watched a SKY interview with a now celebrity deputy head (being rude to Minsters in public is a route to such things) claiming not one teacher, ever, would rig the exam system to benefit themselves based on rewards for results.
That is… quite a claim. Sadly he was being ‘interviewed’ by one of those mumsy anchors beloved of Breakfast brain-dead slots, so that passed easily.
The word ‘integrity’ was also used… a lot.
But it has now been abused so much it ceases to have much meaning, especially as a word that stands up poorly against actual evidence.
So from a teacher down to a DG, I fear presuming all can be dismissed based on invoking ‘integrity’, and little else, rather undermines its value further.
I’ll also be interested in how the BBC covers the restart of US campaigning.
According to SKY is has ‘started badly’ for Mr. Romney, because he got heckled.
I rather thought that this could happen was a triumph of democratic free speech. Maybe Mr. Obama’s ‘people’ simply are better at ‘managing’ counter views at rallies… like Labour here?
The heckler also has claimed the tropical storm was caused by climate. I would be interested in what else could have been responsible.
And now an another opportunistic endorser is behind President Obama based on his environmental leadership… which seems hard to locate on coherence and effect at best.
I realise this is about the BBC, but I fear Sky is going the same way. Kay Burley (Ms) got very excited yesterday as Obamalove was jogging over the tarmac after he skipped down the aircraft stairs. Crumbs, I hope the next user of her chair wiped it down first.
“But it has now been abused so much it ceases to have much meaning, especially as a word that stands up poorly against actual evidence.”
A bit like the word “sustainability”.
Ditto ‘austerity’ – what austerity?
‘Investment’ – we know they mean spending – not the same, fibsters.
Amazing, no, when exam results get cooked for a decade and a half the howling, weeping, shrieking, and wailing that greets anyone who suggests we put an end to the corruption.
That’s yer lefties for you.
That’s yer BBC for you.
“The word ‘integrity’ was also used… a lot.
But it has now been abused so much it ceases to have much meaning, especially as a word that stands up poorly against actual evidence.”
The BBC and the LibLabCon have a plan to sort this and restore integrity – use lawyers and bureaucracy to hide the ‘actual evidence’.
Problem solved, eh!
You`re right about these mumsy types.
Let`s hope they`re not conveniently car sharing as they take their kids to prep schools , Montessoris or nannies in BBC funded cars eh?
That said , I did hear some head cogently demolish OFQUAL under Justin Webbs palpable ignorance and floundering(Today 8.30 ish or so).
I imagine Webb knew as little about the exam system as that teenager in the Savile caravan-sorry radio car_who felt …well, I didnt stick around to listen.
Still-the head knew stuff, but Webb wasn`t going to stop himself blathering and spluttering all over this…at least his dad went all quiet when he knew nothing or got depressed.
Give it a go Webb, you wet lettuce!
Viewed the Question Time Obama show last night. First thing that struck me was how pro – Obama the audience was. I not one for conspiracy theories, so do not hold that the bBBC generally packs its audiences. What strikes me is that QT must be attracting the type of audience that gels with the bBBC’s political leanings. This is a form of self selection. People who like football tend to mix with others who do. This is a phenomenon that I am acquainted with from my own work with people with learning disability. If you want to integrate people then their is a finite number of people with LD that you can place in a group before it is perceived as a specialist LD group and the others migrate out.
There was a pub near where live that had a golfing enthusiast as its landlord and it was a ‘golfers’ pub. A gay landlord took it over and within six moths it was a ‘gay’ pub. Unfortunately we appear to be a tribal species.
Conclusion = the bBBC will attract those who agree with its ethos and politics.
Bye the bye I thought that Kwasi Kwarteng was most impressive. First time he has appeared on my radar. Hope to see more of him.
Coleen Graffy was also impressive.
As for the rest it was the usual bull.
David M sounded like whimpering and annoying child.
Shame on her Shami. What is there to say?
Jerry Springer – past his sell by date.
But then I am not free of my own prejudices.
Around 90% of uk citizens support Obama, including 86% of Tories according to a you gob poll yesterday.
You Gob. Your Gob.
Where it matters;
The YouGov poll in the US shows a 2% lead for Obama with 48%, against 46% for Romney.
Do not count chickens yet Dandy boy
I don’t give a stuff. President Romney would suit me fine.
Romney will win.
Perhaps the reason for these statistics (if true) is that most people get the majority of their information on Obama from the BBC which judging by its output is infatuated with the guy. If UK people were told more about his anti-British attitude – ‘British Petroleum’, cynical attacks on UK banking industry etc they might not be so keen on him
That must be why the BBC like him so much. If he doesn’t like Britain, at least the old Britain not this post New Labour mess, he is just like the BBC. In fact, if the unthinkable happens and Romney wins Obahma could be the next DG when the present one resigns or perhaps in more BBC like parlance ‘steps aside’.
Let’s not forget one of the first things he did when he got into the White House was to get rid of the bust of Churchill.
Absolute rubbish ! You just confirm the blinkered bias and adherence to your left wing agenda.
Facts and the truth ? just ignore them, they have no place in BBC (and your) narrative.
Thankfully, only US citizens will be voting.
I not one for conspiracy theories, so do not hold that the bBBC generally packs its audiences.
———————————————————-
Hardly a conspiracy theory. You’ve only got to listen to what gets applauded and the questions that get asked to see that the deck is stacked somewhat.
Of course the BBC is impartial – how could anyone think otherwise [/sarc]
Dimbleby-Harman – ‘there, there, just wait 15 seconds and I’ll take care of the nasty Tory’:
Classic example of Labour/BBC collusion.
Bias, what bias?
NICE ONE! Well spotted.
Presenter on R5 yesterday (rightly for once) pointed out that would be very hard to get EU budget cut agreed since 16 of 27 countries were net receivers. Why could he not follow the logic that its very hard to elect economically competent government since huge number of electorate are net receivers from the state and therefore have no interest in cutting the taxes of those of us who are net contributors?
Listening to Radio 4 about 7-45 this morning in the car. Report from USA correspondent on the election.
As the report progressed, it seemed to be all about Obama. I can’t recall the BBC correspondent mentioning Romney once. Maybe I missed something.
To be fair, Chicago is a Democrat fiefdom. I lived there in the late 60s and worked there from time to time thereafter. Although you wouldn’t know this from this item (or any BBC broadcast that I have heard) that Chicago is a by-word for political corruption and Barry was right in there serving his apprenticeship (as a “community organiser” or, more accurately ward heeler) in the Hyde Park area visited.
Hyde Park is simultaneously a middle class bubble in which the (private) University of Chicago is situated, a grindingly poor area inhabited by black Chicagoans and Barry’s consituency when he was an Illinois state senator. He did very well out of his association with the Chicago Democratic machine: his constituents remain grindingly poor and still (similarly to Glaswegians vis-a-vis Labour) vote Democrat.
Don’t know if you have seen this but to my mind it proves bias.
Click to access RFI20120883%20final%20response.pdf
We did that one yesterday. And no, it doesn’t. Read the detail.
…yes we did it yesterday and it does show MARKED bias. Read the detail and the replies YOU got yesterday.
None of them material.
Sez you!
The BBC minset in one sentence.
Sez you!
The BBC mindset in one sentence.
Well now you’ve just gone and spoiled it by implying Beeboids have got minds.
I thought you were engaging in Orwellian Newspeak for the unquestioningly surreal reassurances of the BBC:
Ministry of Settled.
‘We did that one yesterday’
Is that a royal ‘we’, a ‘no one listens to you lot’ ‘we’, a what’s the point ‘we’ or a Daily Mail ‘we’?
Or you now part of the BBBC ‘we’?
In which case the fellow flockers may have to rejig their blanket terms too when back from manoovers.
Expect strong words at the debrief.
ps: I think ‘we’ have covered the value of t’is..t’isn’t one line exchanges as well. Saying ‘no it doesn’t’ may work if you are senior BBC management, but in the real world a smidge more may be required.
Coleen Graffy was also impressive
She was. Fine biased work by the director in cutting to shots of Springer face palming, grimacing and eye rolling when Graffy was speaking. .
She also spoke of the bias of the audience and got the bum’s rush from Dimbleby, as always happens if the BBC or the family’s ancestral programmes becomes the issue.
Dimbleby disproves the hereditary principle.
“Danny Baker has labelled BBC executives “pinheaded weasels” after they axed his daytime show”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/danny-baker-bbc-london-radio-1411819
“I hope their abacus comes undone and they choke on the beads”.
“BBC asked me not to say anything just yet about axing best show on British radio. Why? Because it’s embarrassing? Because they’ll look bad?”
“And he criticised the way his co-presenters Amy Lame and Baylen Leonard had been treated.
“By the way, and I hope you’ll forgive me but Baylen and Amy get £50 for doing this programme. Fifty quid.
“I think it’s fair to say that Jimmy Savile was paid more by the BBC in six months than Baylen and Amy have earned in the 10 years they have been together.
“A bit too much financial information? Well, you know what, we’re cutting this down to size for you with abacuses because that’s what it’s about.”
“Baker, who also revealed he was paid £300 per show by the BBC, said he thought the cancellation was more to do with “control”.
Baker going all Alan Partridge over a cancelled show. Big piece of cheese on the end of a fork, shove it in their face and demand that they smell it , Danny.
Q: What do you call the cancellation of the Danny Baker show?
A: A start. Hope he loses the Saturday morning 5 Barely Alive gig too.
I think Danny Baker is one of the best things on BBC – intelligent & funny and not overly political
Yes, I agree. He has no political agenda, just gets on with the business of entertaining people.
I used to like the bloke a lot.
Until he joined the HIGNFY pack of hyenas popping at Louise Mensch and her Occupy jibes re Starbucks/Foxconn hypocrisies.
Baker was as duped as the others-so I`v not bothered with him since.
Mensch may be crap-but she stood up for the Fogels in Israel last year…so she`s a friend for life!
Danny Baker. Probably to be replaced by a phone in to debate issues – aimed at the community – à la (or perhaps that will be Alah) Nicky Campbell.
‘“pinheaded weasels”
Uh-oh… if they’ve regained their reputations to such a level already, the recovery is well on its way.
No wonder Drs. Scezandymanus from Oslo are emerging from their bunkers again, if only to reissue ‘it’s right because I say so’ edicts.
Will there be any jokes about Obama on Have I Got News For You? Or will it be just jokes about Romney again.
A joke about Obama on the BBC? As far as I know, there has never ever been such a thing. DOTIs, can you help?
A black man, an illegal alien, a Muslim, and a communist walk into a pub.
The barman asks, “What can I get you…Mr. President?”
There u go….
Nice one, Centurion!
By way of standing in front of that open goal… the opening sequence change?
The only joke at His expense on the BBC ever is at the end of the opening animated sequence of HIGNFY. Originally, they had His haloed self make the basket, but after a while they changed it so He misses it.
That’s it. That’s the only joke ever made about the President on the BBC. Possibly one of the bravest things ever done by a BBC employee.
(Before anyone tries it, the halo is a swipe at people who worship a politician too much, and not actually about the President.)
ever done by a BBC employee
HIGNFY is made by Hat Trick for the BBC not by the BBC itself so no ‘brave’ Beeboids are required …
Obama visits the region hit by Hurrican Sandy
Has anyone seen this ….. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/jimmy-savile-let-me-milk-cow-blindfolded-prank-text-bbc-radio-ulster-reporter-redfaced-ricky-gervais-in-stitches-16231035.html
On reflection, I should have posted the comment below on this thread :
Slightly off topic but I find it unsurprising that the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, on the US East Coast hasn’t produced an appeal on the bbc for money and other assistance. It seems that poor people in the West are less deserving of charity than those in the godforsaken parts of the world that regularly show up on our screens.
Also, compare the stoicism of the US citizens in response to this calamity with that of the usual third world panic, chaos and incompetence. And socialists think all societies are equally valid.
Poor people in the West have rich compatriots (and a wealthy State) to help them. Third world countries don’t.
Your second paragraph expresses a loathsome sentiment, of which you should be ashamed. Maybe not all societies are valid, but all humans in distress are equally deserving of pity. Any Christian knows that.
On Thought for the Day this morning, Bishop Tom Butler (well-known cleric and drunkard) listed one or two celebrated religious figures of the past and included ” . . Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed . . .” I don’t recall (I wasn’t hanging on every word of this lefty drone) a mention of Moses whose inclusion admittedly might have offended some child abusers in Yorkshire. Nor did Butler (a Christian bishop I am led to believe) feel the need to qualify Jesus with the addition of “the Christ” or “the Messiah”.
There was little doubt, in the context of this sermonette, which Mohammed he was referring to. Unfortunately, the combination of the dhimmitude of Butler (not to mention his colleagues in the CoE hierarchy) and the religion of the BBC apparatchik ultimately in charge of TFTD that the word “prophet” now leaks into the aether with the same monotonous regularity that the word “Mrs” or “Baroness” is omitted (by the same mob) whenever Margaret Thatcher is mentioned.
I shouldn’t get too excited about this. Jesus was a messiah but Moses and Mo were only prophets – people who had too many magic mushrooms in a cave.
Every one knows who Jesus was, even muslims, so his title doesn’t need mentioning you see. Mo on the other hand is obviously a little insecure and needs to be constantly ‘bigged up.’ It’ll be the mushrooms again – never a good idea even if they do allow you to talk to God, or in my case the Great Spaghetti Monster. Now that was a bad trip :p
PS if you need to know the Revelations given to me by the GSM please send £50 to ….
Jesus (in Arabic ‘Isa) and Moses (Musa) are Muslim prophets along with twenty-two other Old and New Testament figures and Mohammed in Islamic theology is not the inventor of Islam but its final and greatest prophet. The evil Jews and Christians are quite aware of this but have altered the story to deny the truth.
This is also the basis of Muslim hostility to the Bahais because although 19th century the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh acknowledge Mohammed they can’t be prophets if they come chronologically after him. There is a simularity here to the relations between conventional Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (Mormons).
It doesn’t take much to rouse some followers of Mohammed into a violent rage but at least in theology the mention of Moses shouldn’t be a problem. That said, I wouldn’t put it past Butler to have censured himself out of ignorance about Islam or antisemitism.
I listened to Butler’s dull sermon again: he noted the “founders of the great religions, Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed, the Buddha and others . . “. In my experience of religious references in this country, the “great religions” have always included Judaism and the “great religious figures” have always included Moses.
Moses, as you write, is respected as a prophet by Islam and also – the last time I looked – by Christianity. I fear though, as you imply, that Butler in his irredeemable ignorance, overweening self-regard and willing dhimmitude has abandoned Jews and their religion to the secondary status afforded them by Islam and Moses to the equivalent of Zoroaster: hardly worth notice, let alone a mention.
Good theology sir!
I reckon that , because Islam managed to boil itself up into a new revelation, it is just a pot pourri of patchworked bits of Judaism and Christianity as happened upon , on a camel trail somewhere.
But because it followed on 600 years or so after Christianity…and 2,500 years after Judaism…it is seen as “new”, “fresh” “edgy” and “passionate” by the BBC and its dolts that spout off from the CofE., Iona Community etc, etc.
How edgy is it?…well, lets go to our correspondent in Chop Chop square in downtown Riyadh and find out now ,this Friday afternoon.
Is there a difference between a “dhimmi” and a “dhummi”….Arabic and Hebrew interpretations about missing vowels welcomed!
The BBC long ago clarified their reason for encouraging staff to always say “The Prophet Mohammed”. Apparently it’s to make sure there’s no confusion as to which Mohammed they’re talking about.
No, seriously:
The head of BBC Radio News, Stephen Mitchell, was asked whether a double standard was operating when he appeared on Feedback on Radio 4.
“No, it’s not the case. I think the reason for the use of the term “the prophet” is simply for reasons of clarity. There are a lot of Muhammads we could be referring to in news stories and we’re being quite specific about which one we are talking about”, he said.
Yes, they really do think you’re that stupid.
If the BBC used Muslim prophet Muhammed to distinguish him few would have a problem with it. How the Islamic apologists would react is unknown.
bBC “…I think the reason for the use of the term “the prophet” is simply for reasons of clarity . There are a lot of Muhammads we could be referring to in news stories…”
Yes, I have seen such news (properly covered by other sources than bBC) and can understand how people could see how similar these characters are.
Revealing indeed, to have it clearly explained that for bBC ‘the Muslim prophet’ is actually ‘the prophet’, and they expect all religions listening to go along with that.
I see Newsnight is planning to out a major political figure as a kiddy fiddler tonight. I’m willing to bet he is a Tory with links to Fatcher.
Of course none of this is aimed at distracting from the ongoing Saville business. Who could think such a thing.
I’m sure the BBC will place the revelation in the all-important context of other politicians’ association with the murky world of underage child sex…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/
I’m sure it won’t be a previous leader of the Labour Party and well-known bogey-muncher, because all those allegations about going-on north of the border are clearly malicious falsehoods.
No.
If it’s Newsnight it got to be a Tory…probably the result of research by their special correspondent, Tom Watson
They have spiked the story.
Holly Grieg; Savile; L*** B******? Covering up Paedophilia is becoming a habit with the BBC!
The BBC really are the sickest broadcasters in Britain.
They messed this up – of that there can be little doubt – by letting the story leak in the morning. But they didn’t ‘spike’ it. If you’ve got a problem with what happened, campaign for libel reform. That’s what killed the story.
PS wrong politician.
So why do it if you cannot say anything because of libel then you don’t have a strong enough case end of ! they are willing to spend hundreds of thousands protecting a guest list but not outing a sex offender?!
But then just saying it will cause the hoped for damage to the Tory party so why have evidence the smear is the what they want to get out !
…or they could sit on new allegations of child abuse. Again. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
IF they have the evidence and have ANY pretence of being real jounalists, and not advocates of the labour party, then they should “PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED!”
Any other idiots who don’t understand libel law are hereby notified that they will be ignored.
‘Any other idiots who don’t understand libel law are hereby notified that they will be ignored.’
Is this notification of ignoring in the style of BBC Complaints, or Lord Patten?
Also, is the ignoring itself a ‘no one pays any attention to this site’ version, or more a ‘point of order I now run it and police the rules that don’t exist’ version?
Just asking on behalf of Nicked, Jim, etc.
Plus as precedents go, may one presume if all of ‘us’ (blanket Daily Mail reading Little England apparently uniquely acceptable ad-hom ‘idiots’) say we don’t understand ‘we’ don’t understand libel law, will you promise to leave us alone?
If so, I am Spartacus.
No, I’m simply pointing out that the ‘publish and be damned’ crowd have no grasp of the obstacles caused by libel law (and should probably buy this week’s Spectator for more). I’m not bothering to argue with the ill-informed.
‘I’m not bothering to argue”
Any comment (‘argue’ sounds like the intention is to create more heat vs. illumination) on the libel-avoiding mechanisms that appear in place and keenly adopted by some in-theory impartial mainstream media to get most of their intended smears across anyway?
It’s just… interesting… that the BBC Newsnight investigative partners appear to have managed to use social media (in turn picked up by the rest of the BBC) to broadcast nearly every, as yet apparently unverified allusion and gossip around, based on ‘wot a bloke told a bloke’ (who cannot now be located), in publicising something that, for some reason, has not yet gone out.
If there is a senior pol who has broken the law I’d like to know about it.
Hiding behind what is legally tricky to get in some muck spreading anyway on the party they may or may not have belonged to… seems ‘unique’ still.
From the BBC’s pro Obama campaign. Romney’s dwindling supporters are old, white, and overweight, unlike Obama’s young educated Hispanics, Afro Americans and perfect beings. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20177380
‘Romney’s dwindling supporters are old, white, and overweight’
Probably Daily Telegraph readers too.
But it may depend on who educates and informs you.
‘Romney’s dwindling supporters are old, white, and overweight’
Nah – I think they got confused with Mardell’s twitter profile.
Will INBBC now break with Syrian Muslim Brotherhood?
“Obama Breaks with Syrian Muslim Brotherhood”
By Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/obama-breaks-with-syrian-muslim-brotherhood/
For Islamic propaganda get your news at compare the beebrat
Nigerian ‘youths executed’ in Boko Haram stronghold
Dozens of young men have been shot dead in Nigeria by the military in Maiduguri, residents in the north-eastern city have told the BBC.An imam told the BBC about 11 youths from his street alone were killed, including four of his own sons.
So according to a Mullah in Nigeria 48 young men have been executed by the army hunting down Islamic terrorists. A search on the net finds only one news agency with this story. Yup the bBC, not one other news agency is running with this story not even inside Nigeria. But hang on what story are everybody else running with why this one
Boko Haram ready for peace talks with Nigeria, says alleged sect member
The radical Islamist group Boko Haram is willing to enter peace talks with Nigeria’s government if they are held in Saudi Arabia and spearheaded by a former military ruler, an alleged member of the sect has said.
The above is a story which the Guardian aired last night. Its a story that nearly every news agency around the world is reporting all except for one. (want to guess which one?) instead that so called news agency reports how a mullah is reporting how 48 men were murdered in cold blood by the state. The funny thing the bBC while happy to promote the Islamic terrorist agenda of what victims these relgious bigots are, never report as such when the people doing the killings are…Muslims.
The bBc, the traitors in our Midst
But here’s where I find the bBC guilty of promulgating radical Islamic ideology.
With just the slightest hint of deaths at the hands of the people fighting Islamic terrorism (Uk,France,Israel,Sweden,US,India, etc) The bBC will air the latest jihadist recruiting rallying call. Yet when that story has been exposed as false, the BBC never ever issues an update. Remember that story about those two Muslim women thrown off a bus in london for wearing burkas, the full story was they were thrown off for being rude. But to this day the bBC still reports that those bitches were..victims. the same applies to islamic (terrorist) victim stories around the world.
The bBC, the propganda arm for radical Islam
Note how people killed by muslims in Nigeria are victims of sectarian violence.
Oh where are Abdul-al Paisley and Moussa -al-Guinessi when you need them?
Anybody seen that hand of history upon the Blessed Blair(Pee Be Upon Him!), so he can lead us all into one of his many mansions?
F666 the f***in BBC!
This INBBC report largely comes from the Islamic ‘BBC Hausa’ propaganda outfit of Nigeria, paid for by British taxpayers.
So the standard line for the lumpenprole droids is.
‘we all heard the rumours’ (though of course none of them seems to have started the rumours)
And the standard line for the Director-Generals is,
‘I never heard any rumours’.
The latest to insult us with that tripe is Greg Dyke.
So (they expect us to believe that) from 2000 to date not a single rumour about Savile reached a DG: not at ‘busy dinners’, staff-meetings, internet browsing, nights in the pub, nothing de nada zippo.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
Oh, and George, mate, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
According to the headline on the BBC story: “US economy ADDED 171,000 jobs.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20178000
Yet tucked below is this: “the unemployment rate still rose to 7.9%, having fallen to 7.8% in September, as more workers resumed the search for jobs.”
Hmm. And then this:
The BBC adds: “Despite the new jobs, Barack Obama will still go to the polls with the highest rate of unemployment of any president seeking re-election since Franklin D Roosevelt.”
So did the headline writer read the article that followed? Any amateur magician knows the power of distraction.
Here is a simple fact: US unemployment is 7.9%. That is terrible.
Is it lower than the level he inherited?
Sky’s coverage focuses on the jobs created too. See their twitter feed. No bias here. The FDR factoid would be a very odd inclusion if the BBC were spinning for Obama.
Jobs created? Really? Shovel ready projects? Where? “Roads and bridges” promised in 2008 and still part of Obama’s stump speech. Jobs created? Give me a break. Short term government jobs paid for by the tax payer do not grow an economy. Jobs “saved” by handouts to failing businesses that go bankrupt like Solendra or (the lastest example) a solar panel company who got hundreds of millions and din’t produce a producet that worked! (That’s under criminal investigation). Employing workers who like Greece who’ll be back for more bailouts in a few months?.
A couple of years ago when the president talked about borrowing money from the bank to meet payroll, anyone with half a brain could see he didn’t UNDERSTAND the first rule of running a business. You don’t borrow to meet payroll. That’s a sign your business is failing.
Obama being a socialist would never think of growing the wealth pie, just carving out a slice for his constituency. Greedy, envious, short-sighted and malevolent – see his comment from a few hours ago: “voting is the best REVENGE”. Revenge? What the hell for. He’s the president! Romney is the challenger.
The problem it seems that while the racial blackmail (forgive the pun) has been paid off in the USA, the UK – informed by the mighty BBC – is still in a post Empire state of mind. Frightened of their identity. Cowered by political correctness. Mind dead by a recent history of brain dead politics.
But I fear more than that. This guy’s foreign policy will get us all killed.
Deep breath. 4 days more!
No it isn’t, Jim. It’s about the same. Of course, that doesn’t take into account the huge number of people who are not counted at all because they’ve given up looking entirely, or just haven’t found work since ending their unemployment benefits period. And then we can play the Part-time/Underemployed game, with the “Do government jobs count as part of the economic engine?” bonus round.
Also, median household income is much worse.
John in Cheshire, the appeals on the BBC you’re talking about are DEC appeals:
http://www.dec.org.uk/about-dec/how-we-work
They’re broadcast on all the major broadcasters, but they don’t run them unless the disaster ‘cannot be dealt with by the usual coping mechanisms within affected countries’ ie developed nations like the US.
Compare and contrast these two reports of same court case:-
1.) ‘Daily Mail’-
“Mother ‘beat son, 7, to death then set fire to his body’
because he struggled to learn the Koran off by heart.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226408/Mother-beat-son-7-death-set-body-struggled-learn-Koran-heart.html
2.) BBC-NUJ:-
(‘S.E. Wales News’)
“Yaseen Ali Ege death: Father Yousuf Ege ‘unusally calm'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20172339
She was only passionate for learning….education , education and all that.
And aspiring towards higher standards of learning, a la Gove.
Her methods may seem to be regrettable, even(gasp) “inappropriate and injudicious in some aspects”, but we are where we are-lessons are being learned…not least about our cultural responsibilities not to mention the vulnerable ladys religion…it`s peaceful anyway…I know that much.
Djinn…gin…who`s to say…bloody Thatcher eh?
Wow-just read both accounts.
Any chance of a “compare and contrast” comprehension study here from Jim , Nicked and fellow worshippers at the feet of Ariel?
Astonishing, the lengths that the BBC go to to avoid the “possible motivations” for this atrocity/accident.
Who`d have know that the BBC were so keen to find high-viz vests to quote, by way of avoiding the central charges against these “parents”?
Would be funny if not so evil in intention-and the BBCs efforts to play twister over the lives of kids killed in Islams name ensures the fires of hell for all involved “insh`Allah”.
The BBC?…an agenda?…NAH!
FFS!!! …. No mention of `motive` on the BBC report, I even hit the related link to a previous report on this barbaric and sickening story…. Are the BBC going to intentionally disguise the facts, the parents brutally killed this poor child with a f**king hammer??? For what?? Becouse he wasn`t memorising word for word entire sections of the Koran??? WTF??!! So according to the BBC, it`s okay to report the horrific details of his demise and also catalogue the array of weapons with which he was blugeoned to death…. And also report on the farrowing description that poor fireman gave in Court…. But although it`s PC to report all the most horrific details, it is not PC to mention that they did it becouse of Islamic beliefs and valued what they might say at the Mosque rather than a childs` life… I hate the BBC so much….
It’s all our fault, you see – with our culturally imperialist attitudes. A mother can’t even beat her child to death for his religious betterment without some white, western bigot shouting ‘hate crime’.
It’s an absolutely heartbreaking story. Poor little chap.
The BBC editor is so keen to avoid making a headline that will mean anything to anybody scanning through, they don’t even notice their spelling mistake:
UNUSALLY
Considering the foul implications of this story, the BBC cover-up of the issues involved shows exactly why they should be excremented.
Also, contrast this story from the BBC on a similar kind of incident, but where Muslims and the Koran is not an issue.
Rio Smedley murder: Daniel Rigby jailed for killing toddler
The other articles linked to this story have these headlines:
*Boy ‘suffered extreme violence’
*Toddler ‘was not injured’ by dogs
*Boy ‘murdered by mum’s boyfriend’
So pretty clear about what the gist of the story is about.
But with the Muslim related story we get:
Yaseen Ali Ege death: Father Yousuf Ege ‘unusally calm’
and
Yaseen Ali Ege death: Parents Sara and Yousuf accused
You’d think they had just been negligent instead of sick, twisted, psychopathic barbarians.
This is what the BBC wants to ‘cover up’. Wonder how much this type of sickness would have to occur for them to address it properly.
It`s the fact that they actually used a hammer that I find most upsetting…. I mean… c`mon… To be honest, what kind of human being could do such a thing??? It`s not only the religion that`s to blame.. I think that the husband and wife were quite possibly the end result of inbreeding… Perhaps our laws regarding marriage should perhaps be amended so that to obtain a marraige license both people should have to undergo a DNA test to ensure that they are not cousins… I saw a Documentary a while back that showed how birth deformity has become a major problem within the Muslim communities. Over the past fifty years most of the migrant communities used marriage visas to enable them to bring close relatives to the UK, it was also a way of ensuring thier wealth stayed within thier families… I am sure there is a simple DNA test that could check that both parties are not too closely related before issuing a visa and also at the Registrars office… Afterall it is against the law in the UK to marry a cousin, so why should they be treated differently??
As an aside to your comment – itis legal for first cousins to marry in the UK. See weddingguideuk dot com/articles/legal/prohibited.asp
I am dismayed, angry and ashamed that the reporters of the BBC – who so proudly proclaim themselves as the great defenders of the TRUTH – are ignoring the Bengazi story which is growing more and more important with each new revelation.
However the US election turns out, the months that follow will be painful for Americans to stomach as the role of the government in the affairs of the “Arab Spring” becomes clear. Forget the iran-Contra scandal. Forget Fast and furious (what that’s asks the BBC?) I will so enjoy watching the BBC trying to justify their actions on this one!
However, just for the record, I decided to look up the interviews conducted by the BBC with Cindy Sheehan – a mother who lost her son in the Iraq War. After a simple Google search I found these links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6699781.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4143976.stm
Woman’s Hour (No longer available)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tg88p
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/924_interview_archiv/page30.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4160032.stm
Has there even been a single mention of Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, the former Navy SEAL who died while trying to save the U.S. Ambassador to Libya on 9/11.
I accuse the BBC of disgraceful bias, willful blindness, criminal negligence, cowardice and a betrayal of basic journalistic practices.
Not only this but also the fighting in Bani Walid and the use of chemical weapons there. The MSM are ignoring it.
Nice work, Louis.
David, from you that is INDEED a compliment.
The BBC’s Radio Times has views on a programme tonight that come as no surprise
Unreported World
Channel 4 19:30-19.55
American talk-radio hosts can come as a shock to delicate British ears used to careful impartiality and balance. Here scrupulous Channel 4 reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy is given a right going-over by some of these influential broadcasters, who dismiss his values and careful neutrality as forms of bias and censorship.
“British ears used to careful impartiality and balance.”
I heard (not the words but the tone) the former BBC reporter now Channel Four reporter Matt Frei joyfully reporting something on the Channel Four news, and guessed that it was not the Second Coming but that Obama had got a poll boast or something.
I walked into the room to listen to his report and sure enough the television was showing Obama hugging a woman, and Frei was saying that due to the hurricane people are seeing what a kind man President Obama is and that this is great for his campaign.
Although he was standing in front of a scene of suffering and devastation, Frei was so full of joy I can only describe it as obscene. It was borderline mentally ill.
As I understand it Frei reported for the BBC when hurricane Katrina hit the United States. Does any of the BBC apologists believe for a moment (for a single moment) that Frei praised President Bush in this same excited and gushing way?
“British ears used to careful impartiality and balance.”
A television monoculture of Leftist derangement more like. Does Channel Four news also get any public funding? Is there a television news channel in the UK that is not tailored to deliver Party thinking?
What happened to our free society?
Channel 4 is indeed state-owned.
poll boost
Did anyone hear on the Radio4 lunchtime news an interview with a supporter of Dennis McShane the disgraced Labour MP. His friend repeatedly stated that Dennis McShane had been a devout anti-fascist all his life and that he had been subject to a right wing stitch up.
At no time did the interviewer ask him what this had to do with the findings of the Parliamentary Standards Committee who suspended the MP for 12 months and commented on the severity of the offences.
Oh well he was a leftwing luvvy so everything was alright.
This is wonderful news. I hate to gloat at someone’s misfortune but I have grown heartily sick of this smug, sanctimonious, holier than thou, pain in the arse.
Dennis, old mate I wish you well. Goodbye, good luck and good riddance!
Any chance of him doing time?
Not according to the BBC.
“Parliamentary Privilege” doncha know?….him being a Labour pro-European toady/greaseball in the Vaz mode=no case to answer you see…nothing any of us can do eh?
Now if he had been a Tory…say an Andrew Mitchell….the hounds of hell would be round McShanes shed.
Doubtless Dennis is in Dieppe as we speak, doing an Oscar Wilde until the fuss dies down.
We`ll have paid of course-and the oaf isn`t even original to make up his own European Company to fiddle us with….he`s just dug up a previous company he “worked for” back in the 60s.
He may be shameless, grasping and nasty….but he`s considerably richer that us, so not so thick after all!
Yes, which is worse I wonder, to steal thousands & thousands from the state or to call an obstructive copper a ‘pleb’?
Actually the evidence against him WAS (past tense) held under Parliamentary privilege, but now it has been published, it has been handed to the police with a fresh complaint and they are investigating this. So YES, he could be charged with fraud yet.
While I agree with your sentiments regarding McShanes socialist ideologies I had a lot of time for him regarding his stance on ousting anti semitism in this country.
McShane was an ardent supporter of Israel hence his resignation bringing delight to Al Beeb mosque, Labour or not, and them wheeling in arseholes like George Galloway to rant about how evil he was.
I agree re his long-standing support of Israel and the Jews as far as I can make out.
All that European Socialist nastiness and greed-and underneath is/or was…a Friend of Israel.
Same as Maxwell or Savile I guess…just as well I`m, not being asked to judge, apart from the fact that MacShane was a Vaz type scammer who deserves all he`s getting.
Still-he`s not all bad clearly!
Spot the usual huge assumptions on Today this morning from Peter (Good morning ‘Evan’) Fox of the Environment Agency from 1 h.17 m.24 s at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
He will soon have a column in the Evening Standard!!
Caught his advocacy of the Floodline, too.
Though living in a 400yo house on the lower parts of the Wye Valley, it has never been flooded, or recorded as being. I would not have bought otherwise (note all who want compo for setting up on a floodplain).
However, it has come close, so a few years ago I did.
First shower we got a text and email telling us to head for the hills with our goods & chattels, which we obeyed. The footy pitch along the riverbank got soggy. By the 3rd time I called and asked what good was a system that only served to cause unnecessary panic. They said to switch it off then.
How much money down the drain on a useless system we don’t trust, I don’t know.
Meanwhile in this area, flooding appears to be a result of sticking affordable homes on the surrounding farmland soakaway fields, not cleaning existing watercourses (cuts to ensure pensions which cannot go down as well as up are secured) and knee-jerk ‘defending’ upriver to send more than usual downstream.
I presume this fellow is on a nice wedge to airily blame ‘climate change’ rather than sensible planning and contingency measures?
And I presume if it snows again it will be unprecedented, like it was the last two times?
Just caught the SKY version.
At the tail end they did at least concede that building over soil does produce run-off, but made great play that a ‘once in 50 year event’ was repeated… a week later. So, what, the extreme weather simply lurked around and compounded the mess it made before? Or failed to operate in neat cycles that statistics make people expect?
Now these stats are as daft as anything anyway, but the way the media spin them they become downright idiotic.
And now the US politico-media estate has rediscovered climate change, I suspect the whole thing will soon be farce.
One the dust settles, or water subsides, I simply hope there may be a few smart folk left around to figure where funds might be better deployed in sensible coping rather than pie-in-the-sky trillion dollar attempts at changing nature.
From the “Sick and Twisted Beeboid Morals” Dept.:
Some people here may remember Matt Danzico tweeting a call to support the Occupy Wall Street “library” after The Man finally kicked them out of Zuccotti Park.
Danzico lives in Brooklyn. Judging from his Twitter feed, his neighborhood had some flooding, but he’s safe and warm at his girlfriend’s place farther in. So he knows what the problems are. Staten Island is currently a New Orleans disaster on the make. It’s taken three days for any kind of useful aid to arrive, and the place is quickly going to hell in a handbasket. The two people I know who live there are fortunate enough to live uphill, and intelligent enough to have a generator. Most of the population is in real trouble, though.
Here’s just a hint of what all the Beeboids in NYC don’t care about, while they did make an effort to report about where they live:
Staten Island Borough President: Don’t Give Money to the Red Cross
This Depressing NBC Segment On Staten Island Could Change The Way The World Sees Hurricane Sandy
Here’s all you get from the BBC: one Before & After pair of photos, and a quick mention that 19 people are dead and that a few people are angry that Nanny Bloomberg is going ahead and shifting resources to the Marathon on Sunday.
So where is caring Matt’s tweet asking for support for the suffering people of Staten Island? He cares so much for free books for his darling Occupiers, but nothing for his fellow New Yorkers in a real crisis?
Well, this is the same Danzico who says he’ll let Lance Armstrong “slide” for cheating all those years because the man raised a lot of money for charity. Kind of like how the BBC turned a blind eye to Savile’s activity for similar reasons. So he really does care. Sometimes.
David, by coincidence I saw that SI footage on Russia Today this morning. Certainly not happy residents: I think you are right and we won’t be seeing that any-time soon on the BBC: maybe an impossible to find link will appear in a day or two.
David
10 o clock news on BBC last night had a lengthy piece on the Sandy aftermath. It focused on Staten Island and interviewed locals bemoaning the lack of help they’d received.
Sorry to miss it.
This morning (see if it stays when folk get up) SKY had ‘a piece’ on the marathon being pulled, and it didn’t make comfortable viewing for any trying to separate facts on governance from hype.
Luckily it was lost in 95% Obamalove the rest of the ‘news’.
While there may be some justification in having a proportion of coverage on the US election by this stage, the 24/7 obsession by UK media is actually getting beyond coherence as, like you, I could care less between either of them.
However, the naked policy influence of media I am compelled to pay for still vexes.
Fair point, Jim, but I take it you’ve read down this thread and this is the only piece of perceived bias you are able to contradict.
Well, Jim, it’s about time, especially with Katty Kay tweeting in praise of Bloomberg for doing such a swell job. Now, how about addressing Matt Danzico’s odd sense of priorities?
Judging by the way McShane’s fraudulent claims on taxpayer’s hard-earned cash has slipped down the BBC news (barely a mention at 10 o’ clock), it won’t be long before he’s opining at length once again courtesy of fanclub chairman, Jeremy Vine.
Ex home sec and arch fiddler Smith gets plenty of work ( our tv tax ) on many a press preview,
More anti Israel crap from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20179980
Of particular note is Kevin Connelly’s sidebar comments including:
Israel’s original boundaries were established after it fought a war of independence with its Arab neighbours in 1948-9. Israel ended the war with much more territory than the UN resolution of 1947, which endorsed the creation of a Jewish state, originally intended. The amount of land under Israeli control increased again after further fighting in 1967 in which Israel occupied – among other territories – the eastern part of the city of Jerusalem, the West Bank of the River Jordan, and the Gaza Strip. For many Palestinians the right to return to lost lands is a deeply cherished dream – many have been living in refugee camps in neighbouring Arab states since the 1940s.
Given how the BBC like to run on a narrative of “Israel started it…” the writing style here is curious in that there is a distinct omission. Each time he mentions the land gains, he fails to mention that the battles were started by neigbouring arab states who refused to even countenance 1 square foot of Jewish states in what we now call Israel.
Funny how he also omitted mentioning the whole of Sinai being captured too.
But then he’d have to include why it was returned, and is now generating a huge tourist income for the Egyptians after Israel first developed it.
But if he included that it would highlight the fact that for the others to get land back, they would have to sign a peace treaty.
if ANY nation gets not just attacked, but the aim of obliteration … and repels said attacking states … how to secure and use any land gains is up to them.
that is it … period.
just because said attacking states …
still hold a genocidal world view, because of their ideology, is of no consequence in the matter…
Actually Israel didn’t develop it. The decision to develop the Red Sea coast as a tourist destination was made in the late 1980s. I was in Sharm in 1989 and the was one hotel there, but the infrastructure was being built.
In fact when Israel returned Sinai after the Camp David accords, it ripped up a lot of the infrastructure it had installed; the most controversial being the town of Yamit in N Sinai and the irrigation system that had been built.
Israel’s justification for razing the town was to prevent its re-occupation by Israeli settlers, which certainly would have made the peace process considerably more complicated. The Egyptians claim it was an act of wilful destruction. Personally I am more inclined to the Israeli argument. Israel had no historic claim to Sinai and no wish to expand its territory. It did want to secure its w border, which Camp David did.
But for the record Israel did not develop the Sinai, that was done by the Egyptians
As ever, Nicked, you’ve totally ignored the main bias of the piece.
Do you understand why some on here refer to you as a ‘cherry vulture’?
Have the good grace to admit the bias when it’s so obvious (and they don’t come much more obvious than Connelly’s comments), otherwise you end up as a defender of the indefensible.
Because like so many examples on this site it is total nonsense. However the facts have been corrected.
As for all the rest — why spoil your fun? You lot get so much pleasure out of it and it is harmless.
No, Nicked, you corrected only two facts about the Sinai. I was there in ’81 and it was pretty bleak except for a coastal stretch with some tourist areas.
However, you haven’t disputed the point that Kevin “Teabagger” Connolly omitted the Sinai entirely, or the charge against his deliberately misleading description of 1967.
I can provide one excuse for you regarding the omission of the Sinai: it’s really not part of the millenia-old Palestinian “homeland”.
No you are right — I haven’t disputed it, and I wasn’t trying to. Funnily enough I have no idea what was going on in the reporter’s head, but you lot certainly get a lot of fun pretending that you do, so why spoil your fun?
You have spent the last ten years doing just that, I am sure you can waste the next decade doing more of the same.
You don’t know what you’re talking about – even when you’re trying to pick the smallest holes in an argument.
Prior to Israel capturing Sinai, there was no tourist industry there whatsoever. It had NEVER occurred to the Egyptians to use it as such, and was only inhabited by Bedouins. After Israel developed Nuweiba and Sharm, and to a lesser extent Dahab in the 1970’s, it began to draw international tourist interest.
After it was returned to Egypt they realised they had a gold mine there and further developed it, but it wasn’t them that FIRST thought of it.
So Israel returned something to the Egyptians that would otherwise have generated $MILLIONS for them, and that’s without considering the oil and gas fields there.
It had NEVER occurred to the Egyptians to use it as such
You know this how? You have some inside knowledge of Egyptian policy decisions? If so then care to share it?
I lived in Sinai in 1989. Sharm was one hotel. Ras nasrani was nothing, Nuweiba was a crappy ferry port.
Because idiot – I was there in the 70’s. Israel built the roads, and began all of the infrastructure for the tourist industry there. How many 1000’s of years did the Egyptians have to do something about it?
What was in the mind of the Egyptian Pharaohs I have no idea – and neither do you, but I guess they were to busy to have done anything about tourism, even though Moses showed them how to part the Red Sea.
I was also there in 1990 and the Egyptians had already developed it with many hotels and hostels, diving centres, all along the coast.
Now you know! But don’t let facts get in the way of your thinking – like a true Beeboid.
No mention of the Arab states voting against the UN resolution for an independent Jewish state because they believed they could quickly wipe it off the map, which they duly attempted, resulting in bloody nose #1.
This is hideously biased reporting implicating Israel as the aggressors which they were not in any of the 3 Arab-Israeli wars.
Anybody out there want to defend Connelly’s biased and misleading view?
“Tory” mentioned several times. “Thatcher” mentioned within moments. Then after all that: “We can’t name names”. No, you don’t have to, damage done, who’s interested in McShane now? Wankers.
How about an investigation into Thatcher-era politicians Harman and Tatchell – or do you have to be a Leftist to be an investigative journalist ?
Total rubbish. The audience of NN last night will have been vast thanks to the rumours of what it contained. The following report about McShane was excoriating and will have been seen by hundreds of thousands more than usually tune in.
I’d rather hear classical music than skewed politics so listen to Radio 3 a lot. With Diane Abbott on their half hour morning ‘desert island disc’ type spot last week, enthusiastic feminist, as well as novelist, Kate Moss featuring this week and next week the distinguished English physicist, Dame Athene Margaret Donald. What with Hanna Rosin being interviewed about her book, ‘The End of Men’ on Night Waves last week, I’m beginning to wonder if he station isn’t trying to tell me something.
Friday night kicks off their freethinking weekend with a talk from Mary Robinson about how the world would be a much better place (e.g. do much more about climate change) if many more women were involved in leadership and decision making. She mentioned child marriage, the disadvantages of women in inheritance laws and their effective exclusion from positions of power politics and the workplace as major problems. Since the woman failed to attack seriously the Cairo declaration of human rights and seems amenable to calls for criminalising criticism of Islam internationally it was fairly predictable that there would be an elephant sitting in room throughout the lecture, and sure enough there was ne’er a mention.
She got a laugh from the audience, at one point, by mentioning that only one woman had refused to join her UN panel of moral elders (it includes Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu) – was Margaret Thatcher.
Even funnier, when she was asked if religion was a barrier to women’s progress after her talk she gave the example of Jimmy Carter leaving his Baptist Church because of its attitude towards women and changing to a more progressive one. She, of course, had had trouble with the Catholic church – but the problem wasn’t just Christianity. There’s Judaism and err ….. she recently had exchanges with the Delai Lama. Just now, sotto voce, she mentioned the Muslim world while talking of moves for progress everywhere, but failed to do so when singling out FGM and child marriage as problems.
If only Classic FM didn’t have all those damned ads and their accursed hall of fame and believed that if a piece is worth playing, it’s worth playing all of it .
Let’s assume that Margaret Thatcher refused to join because she’d actually achieved something of substance, and didn’t want to be associated with that particular band of gaseous losers and has-beens.
BBC ‘freethinking’ = usual Leftist dogma, comical hypocrisy and Thatcher-bashing.
The Climate Change Truth File
Just thought I’d drop a link here for any interested B-BBC regulars to the handy new downloadable PDF available from our climate skeptic friends over at CFACT. Absolutely essential and easy-to-read point-by-point rebuttal of junk CAGW ‘science’ commonly pimped by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation amongst so many others.
Pick it up here and arm yourself against eco-idiots:
http://www.cfact.org/issues/climate-change/climate-change-truth-file/
Thanks for this, Phil.
Jonny Dymond – BBC Washington correspondent and first class bore.
His latest offering referred to elsewhere is beyond parody. It epitomises all that is condescending in the liberal world view.
Referring to what he would doubtless really like to call “white trash” in a diner in Virginia he says
“A colleague sneered that they were all small businessmen- not true jeans outnumber chinos”
Note the use of the word “sneered” .That is what liberals do . They sneer at us. The small people who work , run their own lives and take little or nothing from the state. Oh and are unfortunate enough to be white, male and unfashionable. In the US they don’t come from Boston or LA. In this country they just don’t fit into the London of a liberal’s dreams. They don’t wear chinos- for Christs sake is he for real?
Jonny who pays for you. ? The taxpayer that’s who.
The liberal world view is the same here as in the US. It despises the culture that nurtures it and the people that keep it going. When they have done nothing will be left of our civilisation but old memories in old men.
The future will belong to the far East and as the lights go out over the West and the call to prayer sounds out across the decaying cities they might just regret it.
Small businessmen wear jeans, too. Is Dymond that isolated from reality? And who says “chinos” anymore? The 80s called and they want their idioms back.
And who says “chinos” anymore?
Cotton Traders? and other purveyors of tat to the masses?
Clothes are sold but nobody uses ‘chinos’ in normal speech, I think that is DP is saying.
Twelve hours is a long time in Beebland….let alone the “week” that Harold Wilson said.
Heard Martin Jacques earlier on this evening telling me that China`s “one child policy” commanded “widespread popular support” over there.
Yet only 12 hours earlier, Evan Davis was extracting the answer from a Chinese demographer that this policy was NOT popular at all…and Evan did ask how this policy made the Chinese feel.
He tried the old emoting strategy, but forgot that there are a few Chinese people over there who presumably have not been sampled by YouGov or the IPPR just yet.
Ah…facts…who needs `em.
A gay bloke emoting about China stopping its parents from having more than one kid eh?…give the man a Grammy!
Martin Jacques also gave a free pass(well, paid for by Shanghai CP leaders I`d expect) to the Chinese High Speed railway system…you know, infrastructure investment and all that by the State,,Plan B etc?
That`ll be the one that will end up surpassing the Burma railway at its current rate of fatalities…no that we get to hear too much about them.
Frere Jacques eh of the CP International Brigade clearly never listened, either, to the Book of the Week that highlighted Maos systemic murder of his people through famine, borne of his monstrous collective farming policy(1958-1961). This was on 11 hours earlier.
A two headed Janus of a nonce organisation is the BBC…hell, remove the “J” from Janus and you`re there already!
I see the headlines from lastnight have carried over onto today:
Victim seeks abuse investigation
A victim of child sex abuse in north Wales tells BBC Newsnight that his abusers included a leading Thatcher-era Conservative politician, and calls for a new investigation.
Shock horror, the bBC just happens to find a story about a sex fiend who not only is a Tory Toff (Shades of flashman) But he worked under the remit of Margaret Thatcher. (Well it is Halloween)
But hang on
The allegations levied against the story are from a man who says he knows somebody who mentioned he had been Rodgered silly by Maggies henchmen. But the after 2 inquiries (yes 2) the bBC do not reveal who the Tory Toff is.
But hang on, the bbC mentions this:
An investigation by BBC reporter Angus Stickler at the time of the report’s publication revealed allegations of a much wider circle of abuse than that uncovered by the inquiry.
So the bBC have been sitting on this for over 15 years and it is only now they have decided to bring this story to the table.
Gee I wonder why?
lets see, bBC facing worse crisis in its history. This in on top of being so leftwing they make Stalin,Mao and Pol pot look rightwing. So they bring out a tanterlising story, but which they don’t reveal the name so as to allow the story to develop in which push another story off the front page.
The bBC, traitors to the British taxpayer
‘don’t reveal the name so as to allow the story to develop’
I wonder if any of the cherry vulture flock not on a bonding weekend or off on manoovers could explain the concept of ‘watertight oversight’ again?
Newsnight, apparently, has collaborated with yet another of its favoured one-degree of separation ‘investigative teams’ (shades of Jonnie Marbles?) to produce what the latter trailed as an explosive new expose, to be screened last night.
Yet what do I find on their up to the minute twitter feed?… last post was Thursday.
So I am guessing pulled… again?
However, as a result of a lot of ‘notus.gov’ ‘sources saying’, somehow the dirt has been rather well spread, albeit in one very focussed direction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20182106
‘Anyone with information into these allegations’
I presume any who may go via CECUTT instead to ask just what kind of blatant stitch-up smokescreen is being attempted will be required to go through the usual channels which, currently, due to increased workload (caused by the BBC being in ethical meltdown), will not offer even an acknowledgment for a year.
If there is a story… print it, broadcast it and stand by it. With details. Not allusions.
‘the man – who wanted to remain anonymous – said’
One of the less bright trolls has already bandied the notion of libel about, on a blog thread. This is the uniquely funded national broadcast monopoly of the UK now engaged in cute ‘allegations’ that so far have zero substance bar being potentially damaging to one party.
‘Newsnight/the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has been unable to track him down for this latest report.’
The BBC – news by ‘hey presto’?
Yes, curious How it suddenly becomes newsworthy now. Also noted is a relish with which the BBC repeatedly described the suspect as conservative. Contrast with the scandal over the corrupt Denis MacShane, “labour” was hardly ever mentioned.
Not really.
The Labour Party has a ‘Rapid Rebuttal Unit’ which collates dirt on opponents. The info is stored until useful.
I would not be suprised to find out that there is a lot of cross pollenation between the BBC and the RRU.
The BBC thinks it’s 1994 all over again. With a GE less than three years away, their agenda is simple – keep spinning for Labour in a manner that would do Campbell and Mandelson proud – whilst at the same time ensuring that the word ‘Conservative’ is alvays linked to words like ’embarrassment’, ‘fiasco’ and above all ‘sleaze’.
Radio 5 live 7.45 and through gritted teeth female beeboid has to interview Nick Griffin (BNP swivel eyes, tut) and guess what “oh sorry very bad line, have to get back to you” In other words put him off his stride with a twiddle or two of a buton no doubt. When Nick is finally given a slot. The bile that the female presenter had for him ooozed out if the radio. I even had the impression that it was the BNP’s fault that poor Denis McShane was caught banged to rights. I hate the BBC.
Jonny Dymond @JonnyDymond
Are there any African-Americans in Virginia? I only ask bc this #Romney rally is, again, almost completely white @BBCNewsUS
…at least he didn’t say ‘hideously white’, but still…bore. This diversity fetish really is like an OCD affliction with these people.
75% white, if he could be bothered to google…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Virginia#Ethnicity
Note to BBC – white people ARE part of the electorate.
Not that it matters to the idiocy of the comment, but is he there, or just viewing what the BBC serves up to suit from his Washington perch?
Opinions expressed here are personal.
Helen, George, Chris… about that impartial trust thing… it’s in tatters.
Since well over 90% of African-Americans will vote for Obama, why would they be out in force to listen to his opponent.
Here’s the start of the “USA reverts to racism” meme in case the unthinkable happens on Tuesday and the champers has to go back to Oddbins: Max Hastings (another one in the tank) was at it in the Mail yesterday with an unattributed racial slur on the President from a mystery GOP-er.
It’s lucky for poor, dear, oh-so-sensitive Jonny that the likes of Maine and Vermont aren’t swing-states…….
Exactly. Dymond’s slander rings hollow.
Here’s Dymond’s full article. He actually has a moment of clarity and wonders if it’s idiotic to ask why all the blacks are voting for the black candidate. But then he says the Republicans should still be concerned about all those white people.
BBC top management is and has always been all white, as is the Labour Party, and the unions which fund it. Can Dymond similarly condemn them now, please?
Obviously Dymond foresees a massive all-Democrat Hispanic block sending the Republicans out to the wilderness forever. What’s curious to me, though, is the failure to offer a suggestion. He’s doing “analysis”, saying the he sees that the Republican Party needs to change. But how?
In any case, Dymond clearly missed the news of Herman Cain leading the polls until he got torpedoed by accusations of having an affair. I’d like to hear Dymond or any of his disgusting colleagues to explain how a racist Party tolerated a black man and then a black woman as the second-most powerful person in the country for eight years, and then started supporting a black candidate for President.
From http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk:
‘There h:as been various polling on the BBC and the Jimmy Savile affair, most of it generally damning. Of particular note though is this poll from ComRes, who rather than asking whether the scandal had changed respondents’ opinions managed to dig out some questions from a poll they did for Newsnight back in 2009 to repeat. 62% of people agreed that the BBC was an institution we should be proud of, down from 76% in 2009. 45% of people thought the BBC was trustworthy, down from 62% in 2009. Obviously with a three year space we cannot assume that the drop is linked in anyway to the Savile affair, there could be many causes over the last three years, but either way it is a sharp drop in public regard of the BBC.’
http://www.freywillesale.co.uk Frey Wille
http://www.pandoraoutletonline.co.uk Pandora uk