245 Responses to OPEN THREAD SUNDAY

  1. deegee says:

    Apologies if this is a repeat post but my original post seems to have disappeared. The BBC country profiles are supposed to be brief, factual not opinion, give basic information for the uninitiated – and not incidentally properly written. As we can expect the BBC country profile on the Palestinian territories (who calls them that?) is classic BBC bias, ommission, ambiguity and unintelligent cut-and-paste.

    Who but the BBC could start off with a falsehood, taken directly from Palestinian propaganda? I doubt if every ‘Palestinian’ including those who left in the 19th century would bring the total to ten or eleven million but that certainly is not the total in the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. I somehow doubt the BBC would count every Jew in the world as a resident of Israel. It gets worse.

    A line-by-line fisking:


  2. Mark says:

    Breaking news on Sky – Canadian “Al-Qaeda-backed” plot foiled.


    • Mark says:

      More detailed (pasted from SKY News)
      Canadian police say they have foiled an al Qaeda-supported “terrorist plot” to attack a railway line between New York and Toronto.

      Two people have been arrested and charged for conspiring to carry out the attack on a passenger train, police revealed at a news conference in Toronto.

      The suspects had been under surveillance since August 2012.

      Canadian authorities, the FBI and US Homeland Security police and agents were involved in the year-long investigation that led to the arrests in Toronto and Montreal


  3. jpt says:


    Poor bloody Muslims!!!


    • Mice Height says:

      Hmmmmm, no mention of the Muslim gang-rapes that created the tensions 10 months ago! sound familiar?

      With wall to wall coverage of St.Stephen of Lawrence on the BBC today, I’m sure they’ll be giving the Charlene Downes case hours of air time, won’t they??


  4. thoughtful says:

    It’s like I’m watching a different BBC tonight !

    First there’s a program calling on the government to close down Shariah ‘councils’ (apparantly it’s illegal for them to name themselves courts), on the grounds that they are running a parallel legal system. In addition they are not allowed to interfere with court judgements but it’s pretty clear they are.

    Then Stephanie Flanders steps up and tells up that the economy is not really doing as badly as we thought, it’s all the fault of North Sea Oil production, and if that was removed we wouldn’t even have had a second dip at all. If we find that there is a triple dip recession then most likely the cause is North Sea oil production which has caused all of the countries economic woes for the first half of the coalitions term. Hopefully New fields and more fields comming back on line will lift the economy for the second half of that term !

    Am I missing something or is the BBC making something of a turn back to the centre ground?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Maybe once Thatcher died, the red mist finally lifted and they’ve started to see things more clearly.


  5. Chilli says:

    Daily Politics today with Jo Cobrun (Andrew Neil had the day off) – a ‘debate’ between 3 pro-EU lobbyists (4 if you count Coburn) posing as businesses wanting ‘renegotiation’. Pathetic ‘debate’ – no mention of democratic accountability nor sovereignty, just what was good for big business (more EU red tape, more ECJ rulings putting competitors out of business etc )


  6. 1327 says:

    The motive for the Boston bombing is still a mystery for the Beeb ..


    Now what could it be ??

    Also I see the younger bomber now wanted to be a brain surgeon 🙂

    Incidentally what did the older brother do for a living ? I have yet to see any mention of a job or how he supported himself.


    • Rufus McDufus says:

      I was scratching my head too wondering what the motive could be. Tory cutz? Thatcher stealing milk in the 70s? All good things I hope the BBC have considered.

      And what a waste of a precious potential brain surgeon! We must make him better so he can perform his duty to mankind.

      How lovely the BBC are. I feel light and fluffy almost.


  7. AsISeeIt says:

    Rachel Burden on BBC 5 Live this morning interviews Nick Clegg and asks a question about the Tories.

    Her instinct, however, is use Labour Party approved terminology and talking points.

    She says this: ‘I think immediately of the “Bedroom Tax”…’


  8. RCE says:

    Humphries currently dry-bumming Gideon on Today.

    And the squeaky, pusillanimous, lightweight waste of space is just sitting back and taking it.


    • Andrew says:

      I thought George O did ok, not losing his temper and getting in a joke about “Today” headlines making him cry. Humphrys is an unelected BBC fat cat with no mandate from the people and an obscene salary. His constant interruption of George O actually wasted public time and money.


  9. George R says:

    BBC-NUJ: the broadcaster for mass immigration into Britain.

    “Romanian crime is a problem in Britain admits their own PM as BBC immigration poll shows hundreds of thousands DO plan to come here when restrictions are lifted.
    “BBC Newsnight poll found one in 12 Romanians would consider the UK.
    “Also found 13.6 per cent of Bulgarians may come here this year or next.
    “Many have started looking for work and a place to live, survey says.
    “But UKIP says story is ‘more shocking than BBC’s headline suggest'”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312709/Tory-curbs-benefits-deter-Romanian-migrants-coming-Britain.html#ixzz2RGvtCZnJ


  10. noggin says:

    hmm nice to see the sharia council/court in a run down end of terrace, hilariously a plaque outside has the scales of justice, indicating law? (unbelliieeevable!) plastered on it?.
    hmm and so nice to see our bbc reporter subservient donning a headscarf.
    hmmm totally discriminatory, unethical, endorsing threat and violence, and instilling a “parallel” legal system oooer! backed up by ahem! “the community” … being told, no matter what you can t go against islam? at least 3 times
    don t go to the police, the authorities

    what! … i m shocked i tell you, the bbc s fave doves of peace, wanting a 5th column society … surely not.

    as per usual … some spivvy clean shaven chap, plays “good cop/bad cop” yeah relaaxxx!, most of these are fine, its the tiny minority of extrem oops sorry i mean the odd one etc,
    and our tippytoe beebot nods away
    hmmm well folks … are they sharia? or NOT?.

    the last government had to give up 😀 trying to investigate
    them, as they hit a wall of silence, couldn t get access?(which should have been the loudest wake up call)
    this one is worse, and think the legislation is ok?
    and are doing nothing?.
    its come down to a well meaning, knowledgable but overly PC Baroness … who has
    erm uncharacteristically, “succumbed” to the doublespeak of offence and islamo faux bia.
    well or so it appears on this show


    • noggin says:

      reply from yesterday …
      one expects tonights panorama on dangerous sharia courts … to feature douglas murray or melanie phillips
      baroness cox, as they understand fully the, situation, the danger, its appalling record, the inherrent difference between it and beth din, its supremacist imperative etc etc.
      but! …….. erm ….. don t hold your breath
      this is the bbc after all,
      clean shaven muslim apologists?
      or double talking beardy imams? …
      overjoyed sharia adherrents?
      tiptoeing bbc types?
      vague references, to cleaning up its act?
      etc, etc

      we shall see?

      I ll put my crystal ball away now 😀


      • noggin says:

        did i state the bbc was supporting them?
        and while we are there
        who do you mean … the bbc?, was calling for them to be banned?


    • thoughtful says:

      I’ll be the first to criticise the Biased bunch but only when it’s fair, and you aren’t being!

      The whole program was unremittingly critical of the Sharia ‘councils’ they even went so far as to support the closure and banning of them for running a parallel legal system !

      They showed where they were interfering with court judgements which is illegal, and the dangers they were putting women in.

      It is difficult to envisage how a program could be more critical of the Moslem courts without actually stepping into overt areas where Waycism might be claimed.

      How on earth you could view this program of supporting Sharia councils when they were calling for them to be banned is beyond me !


  11. deegee says:

    A good rule-of-thumb with BBC bias is to check whether they focus on the attack or the defence.
    Consider Iran denies link to Canada train ‘al-Qaeda plot’. The irony is no one ever suggested the Shiite Iranian government was behind planned Al Qaeda attacks in Canada, only that the accused had been in contact with Al Qaeda operating from Iran’s Sunni minority.

    Most of the article has nothing to do with Iran but the BBC makes sure the Iranian defence to charges never actually made is foregrounded.


  12. Louis Robinson says:

    So, the subtle whitewash begins. Here is the last para of the latest from the BBC website:

    “Some reports say the brothers do not appear to have been linked to any Islamist militant groups, and little has emerged to suggest the younger brother was a religious militant.”


    LITTLE HAS EMERGED???? What the hell does that mean? It can be said that “little has emerged” to disprove that thee are Islamist sub-editors at the BBC are massaging the news in favour of their bloody cause. “Little has emerged”.

    “Little has emerged” could mean that little is being actively sought.

    “Little has emerged” is an amazing statement in light of the fact that the younger brother was also armed with murderous intent. It seems the writer of the article is more concerned with cleansing radical Islam than helping the the younger brother. It seems that if he goes down for murder (as a criminal not political act) that’s OK – just don’t link it to any murderous ideology.

    The BBC is doing peaceful, law-abiding, patriotic Muslim citizens no good at all by refusing to acknowledge the evil influence of radical POLITICAL Islam.

    I urge the media to start reporting what is as plain as the noses on their face, not to indulge in cocktail party chatter in order to prove they are less Islamophobic then the next person. If they continue to deliberately disconnect the dots it’s going to get us all (innocent Muslims and the rest) killed.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Little has emerged’ possibly needs to be read in the context of what the BBC likes to notice, and prefers it didn’t have to confront.
      Which it then packages in Beebspeek, hence, ‘Little has emerged, the BBC has learned’. Everything, and nothing.
      Now I am at the front of the queue on watertight oversight at every turn.
      I get a little offside when it appears to apply to an obsessive degree on things the BBC really wished were not as they are panning out, vs. an ideal opportunity to drop a Tory Lord in it without checking.
      I’m actually holding opinion on the Canadian ‘domestic’, as I trust most authorities as much as I do the BBC. So until I have proof on a what, where, when, who, how basis, or at least a pretty solid set of avenues of investigation, I am not going to get too excited.
      But the default extreme the BBC seems to be pushing no matter what serves truth, common sense and the interests of the vast majority of innocents of any faith not at all.
      Keep telling folk where not to look, or be cautious, and that’s where you end up getting slapped from, and the eventual reaction will be a lot worse.
      And those law-abiding, peace-loving members of certain communities rather used to having to explain nothing or rein in their less tolerant elements, may benefit from being confronted with what they really can’t argue is their back yard to deal with more than any other.
      Like the knee-jerk Flokkers here, if you live in a self-propping bubble that entertains no dissent or openness to factually-supported critique, no matter how comfortable the belief sets may make things appear, reality will bring that level down with a bump eventually.


    • lojolondon says:

      Headlines :
      Sky : Boston Bomb Suspects “Had religious motive”
      BBC : Tamerlan Tsarnaev: A lone wolf between two worlds

      ….Yet it is unclear whether Tsarnaev’s interest in extremism is significant in the bombing case.
      “You see signs of radicalisation. He did seem to have some sympathies with Islamic extremist views,” says Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
      “But we have only pieces. It’s hard to say whether he did this because of ideology, or had some other motivation.”


      • Dave s says:

        They -the liberal fantasists- have to deny any religious motivation. The alternative is too shocking for them to contemplate. Nothing less than the end of the liberal fantasy world and that will apply to very many things other than terrorism. I take the young men at face vaue. They found nothing of merit in our culture and made war upon it. Not exactly a new thing in human history.
        The ebb and flow of civilisations and to the strongest the victory.


        • Guest Who says:

          Interesting discussion.
          Watching it, it struck me first how other cultures were included and empathised with.
          Like so many ‘crimes’, the usual suspects select what appeals and dump, or worse dump on anything that doesn’t suit.
          Hence excitable MSM commentators on Boston’s ‘meanings’ like it was the only game around, when there are innocents on the wrong end of certain ideologies falling foul of them all the time.
          Maybe neatly complemented in the domestic setting by the obsession with the Stephen Lawrence murder when there are, sadly, so many others abounding, especially some with less attractive ‘X on Y’ flags attached to get the quango affront or grief sectors revving up a £100k PR Director.
          There’s also the way the perception of ‘wars’ has not moved with the ways they are being fought.
          Few of the most dangerous foes have uniforms. Many don’t even have command structures. But thanks to various new means of communication, some ironically facilitated by MSM ‘news’ sources, at least in effective if non-lethal support such as propaganda, messages can go out to be acted upon.
          Trying to break this down into loners vs. cells vs. brigades vs. armies really seems a bit tunnel-visioned and box-ticking.
          ‘News’ media appears still obsessed with process even as result is exploding around them.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      This is all about figuring out whether or not the bombers acted on their own initiative or were in fact part of a larger cell or associated with an organization of some kind. That’s all very interesting for the FBI and CIA and Interpol, but means FA when it comes to whether or not the attempted mass murder of innocent civilians is a form of Islamic jihad. The bombers themselves knew their motives, and have made no secret of it.

      It’s fine for the BBC to describe them as lone wolves, and report (when enough information is known) that they acted on their own, but not fine to use that aspect as proof that this wasn’t Islamic jihad. They haven’t openly done that yet, but it seems like that’s the direction they’re headed. We’ll see.

      As much as I hate the idea of intent and motive having some bearing on not only what kind of crime to charge someone with, but also how severe the sentence (if convicted) should be, in this kind of case it’s important to know motivation so everyone can understand the larger picture behind the act of violence.

      I really don’t like the concept of thoughtcrime, which we now have in our legal systems (US and UK), when a thought in someone’s head elevates their crime in some way, e.g. making a more severe penalty if one stabs someone after having made a racist rant on Facebook or something than if one just stabbed them quietly. It has no bearing on whether or not stabbing someone is wrong, and the victim isn’t somehow injured even more by the existence of a thought in the perpetrator’s head. Similarly, that little boy isn’t somehow more dead because his murderers were motivated by something specific, and all those who lost limbs or were otherwise severely injured weren’t wounded by the bombers’ private thoughts.

      But there is a larger picture here of people all over the world getting radicalized in this way, and there’s nothing wrong with having that discussion. Unfortunately, there do seem to be some people who worry too much on others’ behalf about some imaginary backlash. They don’t realize they just make things worse, and further push people away by trying to play it down.


      • Guest Who says:

        Fully agree.
        But the fix is in, and he who controls the production pre-pro shapes the narrative, and the narrative is now being re-drawn such that ‘IF’ there was any motivational aspects to this, said aspects will now need to fall under some very narrow parameters to be referred to, and certainly much tighter ones when speculation in the past was more in the spirit of journalistic investigation and public right to know all possible avenues.
        Lone wolf makes it in there too, if with a few other connections that seem more on the Newsnight/McAlpine side of rigour, as some sources may claim.
        Not saying Mr. B deserves much empathy, or his ideas and certainly not his methods, but ‘some may say’ the BBC seems less keen on spreading the love around possible connections this time than it did before.
        Maybe… it was a different time?


  13. lojolondon says:

    No sign of any ‘St Georges day’ mention on any of the BBC news pages, TV, or radio – have I missed it?


    • Guest Who says:

      Maybe it’s tucked away on the Welsh page where they stuck that small matter of a domestic bomber that the Flokking community lost, archived, found, missed had already been found, lost again and then said didn’t matter as others hadn’t mentioned it either.


      • Guest Who says:

        I jest…
        Here guys, save you the trouble:
        And it was aaaaaall over the TV and radio too, one is sure.


        • Justin Casey says:

          I hate the way the BBC keep using the term `Lone Wolf` to describe the two who carried out the Boston atrocities…. to me… a `lone wolf` would have to be intelligent….. Those who support, carry out and ignore the blatantly obvious truth that killing another human being is wrong and that the sole purpose of an afterlife is to provide mass murderers with an endless supply of sexual slaves for them to bang for all enternity…. How can a whole culture adopt the example of a mass murderer, rapist, thief, liar, peopdophile, etc… as the font of all knowledge and the `ideal` of being a man…. It`s so obvious that this man was mentally ill or a complete psychopath I have come to the conclusion that the differences between the core beliefs within Islam make any attempts at understanding and ultimately respecting thier system of beliefs unpalatable and abhorrant….. There is something fundamentally wrong and evil in Islam, the purpose of our existence is not to kill and maim… Whether or not you are a creationist or believe in Darwinian theory… There must more to the meaning of life than an ultimate goal of dying and joining some massive gangbang for the rest of eternity….. How can an entire culture value death more than life and not question the validity of it??? How has adopting Islam benefitted them in the 1400 years??? You don`t need to be a genius to see that none of it weighs up…..
          I don`t know any muslims, i don`t wish to know any muslims either, thier values and morals have nothing in common with my own and tbh I am very glad of that!!!