222 Responses to OPEN THREAD

  1. George R says:

    For INBBC : intolerant Islam in BIRMINGHAM –

    “UK: 25,000 Muslims rally to demand criminalization of criticism of Islam.”

    -Is this already INBBC journalistic practice anyway?



  2. George R says:

    Boston, New York.

    INBBC hasn’t an Islamic clue why Islamic jihadist brothers in Boston wanted to murder ‘infidels’; but the Muslim brothers wanted to do the same in New York.




  3. George R says:

    INBBC makes no criticism of Muslim mother of jihadists and her inane comments of denial about ‘red paint’ not blood.

    Instead, INBBC has this pitiful propaganda for her:
    “The mother of the Boston suspects bitterly denounces the US.”


    Whose side is INBBC on? No answer needed.


  4. Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

    Well that’s it then, fatty Lardell is convinced that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
    So to illustrate it? Yes, some ” unverified” propaganda film.

    Now Abu ben Bowen is on.
    His take on it? Well, sectarian violence now happening in Iraq, is the fault of what’s happening in Syria.
    Yeah? Bullshit!
    What a crock of unconnected shit this bunch of morons peddle every day.


    • noggin says:

      and old Quaradawi is calling all muslims for “jihad” in Syria?
      is that the “romping through the daisies” non existent spiritual jihad, we keep hearing about.
      the bbc s fave militant/rebel/oppressed/freedom fighters
      choice of mass murder, subversion, and as we hear all the time thanks to al bbc …. propaganda


  5. Teddy Bear says:

    Just heard Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Mid-East ‘expert’, on News at 10 being interviewed about Syria (@22.10). His ‘incisive and educated’ conclusion was
    ‘When you’re there, there seems to be more movement, one can start seeing things really moving now, starting to flow, but I can’t say in which direction. So if you look at it, this coming summer is really going to be critical, things are moving now, and moving fast, we don’t know in which direction, but I don’t think stalemate is a word that’s going to be used after this year’.

    Really world class 🙄


    • Anthem says:

      The mind boggles. So things are moving, and moving fast. This much is observable fact.

      But the direction of the movement is… oh, I don’t know… perhaps not in the direction the BBC wanted it to be moving and so cannot be determined by the same naked eye that observed the movement until some further event becomes apparent which justifies the wrong direction of the movement?

      Sorry if I confused anyone with that, I am currently doing 360s on my chair.


  6. George R says:

    After not liking the role of the West in the Iraq war, INBBC appears now to be pushing for Western troops to put their lives at risk in Islamic Syria, on the Sunni Islamic jihadists’ side! And what sort of repressive sharia-enforced rule will ensue?


  7. David Preiser (USA) says:

    It’s been quite some time since the BBC has been trumpeting any polls about how the President is doing. So here’s a pair for you:


    How Bush did as President: 47% approve

    ABC/WaPo again on the Community Organizer-in-Chief

    47% approve

    Oh, dear. Can somebody please tell me if this is a racist result or not?

    It could be something as silly as the 47% who now approve of Bush don’t approve of the current President, while the 47% who approve of Him registered disapproval of Bush. So who’s divisive?


    • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

      Didn’t Mitt Romney have something to say about the 47% who don’t pay income tax and would always support a Democrat?


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Yes, he did. The mainstream media and the BBC made several meals out of that one, eventually forcing a kind of apology out of him. Amusingly, there was also a poll right before the final debate that had Romney and the President tied at….wait for it...47%.


  8. noggin says:

    the gangs all here!
    25000 paedostanis gather and call on the British government to introduce legislation that bars erm “Islamophobes” 😀 from insulting Islam by using freedom of speech.
    maybe the bbc should get panorama/sharia courts on the case, because that is sharia




  9. Anthem says:

    I’m new here so I don’t understand how this open thread thing works so I’m just going to make it up as I go along.

    “TV licence”. Let’s just dwell on that for a moment.

    You need a licence in order to watch a TV.

    TVs are considered such a danger to society that only responsible adults with the appropriate documentation can yield one.

    They are up there with guns, dogs with big teeth and the right to drive an object weighing around a ton at 30mph through the streets.

    The TV licence was introduced in 1946 when about three people actually owned a TV. At the time there was just one channel, The BBC (the “One” was superfluous at this point).

    Back in those days, no one really knew how to monetise this weird little box that sat in the corner of the room (except the socialists… fair play to them).

    But, as time went by, another channel came along… ITV… but, for reasons known only to socialists, these weren’t eligible for a share of the licence fee… they had to make their own way in the world.

    And so they did.

    And how it did annoy the socialists as they created a programme that many millions did watch which was called Coronation Street. A programme about normal, run-of-the-mill Northerners. The sort that socialists should have been turning into modern-day heroes.

    It took a fair few years before the BBC countered with their own version which was, bizarrely, set in London and they did call it Eastenders.

    At this point, the lines had been drawn but there was really very little to choose between the two channels.

    At this point, the TV licence should have been abolished. We had a bit of healthy competition going on here.

    For all the BBC’s lofty programming goals, it was a dreary, depressing programme about caricature Londoners which won them the most viewers.

    But hey… unless you’re willing to stick to your guns and provide superior programming, let the people decide the direction.


    So how about a referendum on this TV Licence thing? Some of us really don’t believe that the BBC is worth £145 a year, let alone £5billion a year.

    If the BBC truly is worth £5 billion per year then it will have no trouble attracting this kind of money in a free market.

    Who knows? The BBC might even surprise me and generate more than this but do they have the confidence to put their money where their mouth is as opposed to other people’s money to pay for their mouth?


    • Teddy Bear says:

      You can sign this petition, and get all your family and friends to do the same, and spread the word around. Many more signatures needed before June.


      • Anthem says:

        OK. Have signed it. So far there are 3.870 signatures and it runs out on 7th June 2013.

        Surely the BBC should be displaying this information at the foot of every programme so that all of their customers are aware of it?

        If it were a Private Sector business, it would be required to say, “Terms and conditions apply. Your house may be at risk. You might get cancer. Your first born might be eaten. The value your investment may go down as well as up (haha). You will never again be popular with the opposite sex. We reserve the right to go bust thus invalidating any guarantees you may feel protected by.”


        • Teddy Bear says:

          I agree it would be nice for the BBC to advertise this petition but it wasn’t them who set it up, so unlikely.

          The Catch 22 is if the BBC were an organisation that freely made people aware of this petition, we probably wouldn’t worry about one.


  10. AsISeeIt says:

    Rachel Burden on BBC 5 Live gives Tory PM David Cameron a feisty old time this morning over the question of the level of council tax in Tory led councils and boroughs.

    Burden comes up with some *average* figures that seem to show the Tories charge just as much or more than Labour.

    Cameron points that she has forgotten that in the South where the Tories have their councils more houses are in the higher tax bands. He insists that if she compares like for like Burden is wrong.

    She won’t let it go. She follows up ignoring his argument and pushes her own statistic again.

    Quite reasonably the PM says ‘Don’t take my word for it – get in an expert…’.

    Odd that our Rachel should have forgotten the fact that house prices are higher in the south and therfore liable to higher rates of council tax…..


    Rachel on the great BBC migration to Salford…

    ‘We won’t sell our house,’ says Rachel, 35, referring to her four-bedroom Edwardian home in Ealing, valued at £650,000.’

    ‘London prices are likely to rise faster than other parts of the country so we want to hold on to it and let it out.’

    Oh and another thing – although a regular member of Nicky Campbell’s Lefty panto troope – our Rachel appears not to be on the BBC payroll for PAYE…

    ‘As a freelance, Rachel will not benefit from the generous BBC staff relocation packages’

    Rachel Burden : tax expert except when in an interview with the Tory PM


  11. Roland Deschain says:

    I just heard what must rank as one of James Naughtie’s worst interviews on Today. He was interviewing Margaret Hodge (who else?) and some hapless sod from one of the big 4 accountancy firms. Now, before anyone who knows I’m an accountant accuses me of standing up for another accountant, I would point out that I work in a small practice where the big boys are held in contempt for their bending of the rules which, when the government tries to block the loophole just screws up things for the ordinary guy. So I hold no brief for him.


    Margaret Hodge, being in the BBC’s eyes an expert and saint on all things tax, was allowed to waffle on virtually uninterrupted. The man from KPMG was hassled and harried through every answer. Asked to give an example of what the accountancy firms were doing wrong, La Hodge referred to a relief called The Patent Box which someone from Deloittes had helped the government draw up to encourage investment by business in new ideas. Then, shock, horror: Deloittes produced a pamphlet “The Patent Box: What’s In It For You”. Apparently pointing out what is in it for the business is just dreadful, despite the fact that’s the whole rationale in giving a tax relief, because La Hodge seemed to think that was game, set and match and Mr Naughtie was not about to challenge her on that. I’d have thought Mr KPMG might have done so, but perhaps he hadn’t realised yet the environment he’d found himself in.

    He soon did. The subject came round to Starbucks and their tax arrangements. Hodgey would feel on safe ground here; it was after all the BBC she was in, so no challenge was likely. Mr KPMG made the possibly unwise remark that Vince Cable had examined Starbucks and agreed they had made no profit in the UK in the last 15 years. Ms Hodge started to interject but Mr Naughtie, possibly for the first time, interrupted her. Good, I thought, he’s going to tell her to shut up while he probes that point. No. He told her to shut up so he could go on a full attack on Mr KPMG for daring to suggest it. Mr KPMG appeared to realise the environment he was in and got a bit more forceful, but all you could hear in the background was Hodge and Naughtie spluttering and guffawing.

    Whatever one thinks of the point regarding Starbucks, it was not Naughtie’s place to go on such an attack. He had Margaret Hodge in to do that, although I reckon if you put a stopwatch on their speaking time, she’d have already used up her allotment. It was a discussion between two sides and he should have been acting as impartial chairman between the two, not displaying to the nation his personal views.


    • Albaman says:

      “………………… Vince Cable had examined Starbucks and agreed they had made no profit in the UK in the last 15 years.”
      What a stunning business model.
      If this is really the case I am surprised that Starbuck’s shareholders are not calling for the UK operation to be closed down. Be interesting to know of any other commercial businesses that have made no profit in 15 years but continue to invest in their franchise.


      • Roland Deschain says:

        Quite so. But Starbuck’s business model isn’t the point. BBC impartiality is. It was not Naughtie’s job to attack the man in such a personal manner, especially when Margaret Hodge was there so he didn’t need to act as Devil’s advocate.


        • Mat says:

          Once again albatoss jumps into defend a multi millionaire and her war on other rich people she doesn’t like!


          • Albaman says:

            Where in my comment did I defend anyone?
            I see typing my name properly is still a challenge for you.


        • Albaman says:

          The point is that large multi-national businesses aided and abetted by large accountancy firms are aggressively avoiding their tax liabilities. Where is the bias in the BBC challenging this behaviour?
          Do you really believe any organisation making “no profit” for 15 years would still be in business?


          • Roland Deschain says:

            You think it’s in order for a supposedly impartial interviewer to bring his personal views to a discussion between opposing parties, to harangue one party whilst allowing the other to talk unchallenged. I don’t. We’re not going to change each other’s minds. So I’ll leave it there.


          • Guest Who says:

            ‘Do you really believe any organisation making “no profit” for 15 years would still be in business?’
            The BBC seems to have managed quite well for several decades.
            As one engaged in a few social enterprise areas in competition with so-called ‘non-profits’, one way I have noticed said businesses avoid making any is to pay rafts of senior management eye-watering amounts.
            Not a unique business model, but one that seems to work with those who like to latch onto juicy, simple symbols.
            Which is why I suspect BBC fave Polly T sold her Tuscan villa, with not much more on where the proceeds of said sale ended up.
            So holding to account, yes, but not on a totally selective, hypocritical, unprofessional basis.
            Oh, and wot Roland D sed.


            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              The BBC makes a profit, make no mistake. At least from their commercial arm, Worldwide.


    • Dave s says:

      I heard this and I agree. It was a very poor show .It did highlight the complete lack of any business understanding by Hodge and Naughtie.
      I doubt they would grasp the economics of a market stall let alone a large corporation.


  12. George R says:

    Harrabin, BBC-NUJ and anti-Shale Gas, continued.

    Harrabin’s distorted report throws in his obligatory political plug for his chums at ‘Friends ‘of the Earth, and ‘WWF-UK’.

    Of course, Harrabin allows the gas exploration company, Cuadrilla no word.

    It’s what Harrabin habitually does, and will be able to do unchecked by Hacked Off, until he retires.


    An alternative view, not provided by Harrabin:-



  13. Chris says:

    Anyone see Question Time last night? I was fully expecting Farage to get the full smear campaign from Dimbleby and a hysterical audience. What happened?! Dimbleby was on his best behaviour and the crowd seemed fairly reasonable. I don’t understand what’s going on!


    • Roland Deschain says:

      I didn’t, but it would follow the positive treatment he got on the news which I mentioned on the previous page of this thread. Some have suggested that UKIP are being bigged up to harm the Tory vote, but that’s a dangerous game: as UKIP views become more mainstream it becomes more acceptable to talk about things the BBC would rather people didn’t.

      However, Farage is no angel: it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re bigging him up to take him down when they feel the time is right.


      • stewart says:

        “Some have suggested that UKIP are being bigged up to harm the Tory vote”
        Probably but perhaps,after the ‘rutter the nutter’ debacle, their laying off the audience rigging until the dust settles.Especially when dealing with Farage.
        After all they wouldnt want to be caught ‘double dipping’


    • noggin says:

      i was simply shocked at the mind numbing questions/replies from supposed intellectual university hotshots … did they get a lobotomy on the way in?
      farage was a light bulb in a dark room, goodness whenever you hear that slimy s hughes, forked tongue drivel eh! …


      • noggin says:

        how about the calamitous appointment of the tory oic plant warsi etc

        think before you vote …
        wise words


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It seems like a few Beeboids have been trying to behave since Thatcher died, knowing full well how important it is to dial down the attitude. For a while, anyway. See how long it lasts.


  14. Mice Height says:

    I thought the new, loud mouthed leader of the Watermelon Party gave a very poor show on QT last night, but when she was speaking on behalf of mass-immigration, still no one picked up on the fact that a Party that wants to minimise and control everyone’s consumption, is in favour of moving millions of people from low-cosumption countries, to high-consumption Britain, in a move that would require even more green (in the real sense of the word, unlike their Party) space to be concreted over.


  15. George R says:

    For BBC-EU:

    “Support for the EU plunges to all-time low across Europe.”



  16. Guest Who says:

    OTish, but given recent discussions on polls, petitions, social media ‘likes’, ‘dislikes’, twitter-campaigns and rigging editorial by making lazy journos think ‘the public’ they speak for is the public who has the time to speak to them during working hours, I thought this was interesting:
    Not proof, but a compelling insight into what some will do to ‘push’ opinion by covert means.
    One can only imagine what any entity with a massive budget, time on its hands, and warped sense of what ‘opinion’ needs to be and, say, 147 PR staff* may get up to if hands are idle.
    *Or more, who can get all semantic on their allegiances if tasked about who they are serving as they do their daily duty.
    ‘the BBC press office “enlisted the help” of PR firm Brunswick


  17. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    I see that another eleven “men” have been sentenced. No mention of the “I” or “M” words in their motives for mass-murder, but the bBBC does let slip that they posed as Muslim Aid charity street collectors. How long before that is censored from the bBBC ‘news’?


  18. Maturecheese says:

    When are the BBC going to report these kind of atrocities that are happening to Christians in Muslim lands.


    And this from FB


    I haven’t uploaded the before and after picture because it is gruesome.

    I must say that I have no way of proving the authenticity of the rape and murder.


  19. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Mother of Boston suspects regrets bringing sons to US

    And the link to this from the main page and the latest news brief about her surviving offspring says she “bitterly denounces America”.

    I bet she does. After all, we put her on the terrorist watch list, too.

    BBC: ZZZZzzzzzzz


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Mother of Boston suspects regrets bringing sons to US

      So, I suspect, does most of the US.


  20. George R says:

    Where’s INBBC’s report on these latest Islamic jihad, al-Qaeda murders in FRANCE (near Marseille)?:-

    “France: Man claiming to be al-Qaeda member murders three, Interior Minister blames ‘gun crime problem'”



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      No Tea Partiers to blame, and they already used up the white supremacist Narrative quota for this month. If only France had stricter gun laws like the BBC wants for the US…..


  21. George R says:


    1.) BBC-NUJ finds space for this item:

    “Emperor Franz Joseph hair lock sold at Vienna auction”


    But BBC-NUJ does NOT provide space for this item on Austria:-

    “Vienna: Muslims demonstrate outside U.S. Embassy in favor of the Boston jihad bomber”



    • Mark says:

      I pity the Viennese, who had to face sieges from the Muslims twice before, in 1529 and 1683. At least those sieges were from without, and not within.


  22. George R says:


    If BBC-NUJ-Hacked Off reported Australia, would it report this?:-

    “Melbourne’s hypocrisy on gender naive”

    BY JENNIFER ORIEL From: ‘The Australian’ April 26, 2013



  23. George R says:

    In BIRMINGHAM, again.

    a.) ‘Daily Mail’

    “Ringleader of ‘boom, boom, everywhere… kill’ plot who wanted to murder 2,000 Britons and cause more devastation than 7/7 attacks is jailed for life.
    “Irfan Naseer, 31, sent four young men to Pakistan for terrorism training.
    “Judge describes him as ‘skilled bomb maker’ and ‘driving force’ of plan.
    “Mr Justice Henriques said: ‘Your plot had the blessing of Al Qaeda.’
    “Gang of 11 wanted to kill up to 2,000 Britons with eight rucksack bombs.
    “Other leaders Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali sentenced to 20 and 23 years.
    “Rahin Ahmed sentenced to 12 years for his role as chief financier.
    “Four ‘travellers’ who went to Pakistan are jailed for 40 months each.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315149/Ringleader-boom-boom–kill-plot-Irfan-Naseer-jailed-life.html#ixzz2Ra37qfTw

    b.) INBBC:-

    “Terror plot: Eleven jailed for Birmingham bomb plan”



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      From the BBC report:

      Forty Muslim community groups in Birmingham distanced themselves from the action of the group.

      They issued a statement which said: “We have consistently opposed and openly challenged individuals and organizations preaching messages of hate and division.”

      In the light of recent “unconnected” events, why isn’t the BBC making a big feature of people like this? And I don’t mean Nicky Campbell hosting one of those pseudo-town hall deals, which pit the likes of Anjem Choudary against Tommy Robinson, with various others chiming in on either side. They should have the poppy-burning types and hate preachers up against the groups who supposedly want to distance themselves from these people. Again and again.

      This would do a lot more for social cohesion than yet another BBC drama episode with an agenda. Just have an honest discussion about what’s going on already, and be damned.


  24. Guest Who says:

    Just read this, with some numbers I was not until now aware of…
    So I went here to check…
    And there it is, under ‘Politics’.
    One is sure the vast majority of the protestors investing vast sums to boo about the £10M cost to them (6-20p) got that number from their haunting such pages, and not from pretty moving pictures on the telly such as this:
    I wonder who the ‘reporter’ will find to form most of her piece?
    Now, it is possible the BBC has not stated that £10M figure anywhere itself, with any ‘analysis’, but that one degree of separation they have in finding folk to do the job for them seems to work as well as ever.
    Anyone would think they had an agenda, and watertight oversight is only for when guys they like do stuff the public doesn’t.


  25. Guest Who says:

    Friday funny, as tweets from any quarter can be the gift that keep on giving.
    Just imagining the heads exploding from White City to Salford on how to spin or ignore this one, but it turns out it was (probably) a typo and she’s just another Labour Shadow of her former self like Mary Creagh, who hits the gas before engaging brain.
    So they can safely ‘move on’, saving any joshing mockery to the guys at HIGNFY. Right, Ian, Paul? Too soon?


    • Guest Who says:

      Of course, the enterprising (if career suicidal) young BBC reporters out there may feel the urge to scratch beneath the surface of the Clintonian semantics deployed, no doubt as advised by the BBC Contracts and Deals Dept. for one of their favoured off-books daughters.
      I very much doubt her travel is all Oyster Card or Pogo stick, so it might be worth having a wee gander under, say, ‘Flatbed truck hire’?


  26. Ian Rushlow says:

    Back by unpopular demand… yes, it’s those MEN again!
    Notice how the BBC refers to them as “London men” and “men from East London”. Yet oddly enough, it later mentions that 2 of them could face deportation to “Somalia, their home country”. Presumably that’s a new district in East London then, maybe within earshot of the Bow bells.


    • Teddy Bear says:

      Uddin was convicted of two counts of rape and supplying a class B drug to the victim.
      Mitigating for Uddin, Scott Ivill said his client was married with two children and any custodial sentence would cause his family to suffer.

      After what he’s done, a custodial sentence and then deportation would be the best thing for his family.


    • noggin says:

      why? would the bbc want to have this as a block in their piece, with this pointed header?
      ‘Engaging with strangers’
      Maria Denine, mitigating for Sheikh, said the defendants had not been aware of her background or how vulnerable she was ????
      Mitigating for Uddin, Scott Ivill said his client was married with two children and any custodial sentence would cause his family to suffer.?????
      Lindsay Cox, for Ali, said his client was also a married man.?????
      He added: “This girl looked appreciably older than her age and she had a history of engaging with strangers.”

      In bbcspeak is this some kind of infered rebuttal?
      In the unicorn like rarity of, hypothetically for instance
      “white” english gangs of child gang rapists, specifically targeting young muslim girls, 1000s of times, causing many dozens of criminal cases,

      would the bbc print a paragraph like that, about those children? …. printing nonsensical pap, about the perpetrators, you know, family guys, could possibly harm their families etc … infering muslim therefore a degree of “victim”hood
      ……… beneath contempt


  27. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The Republican-controlled House of Representatives just passed a bill to move some money around so the FAA has no excuse but to end the staff furloughs which have been causing some serious travel delays around the country. The bill was passed 361-41. Looks rather bi-partisan to me.

    The Senate passed their own version last night, after a few days of bickering and getting nowhere. In fact, so many Senators apparently thought it was doomed to fail that quite a few of them left for vacation, so whoever was left passed it without even doing a roll-call vote.

    Maybe all these politicians just weren’t looking forward to having their own vacation plans messed up by this, but they still got it done in the end. Now it’s off to the President’s desk for Him to sign.

    So where’s all that gridlock and Republican intransigence and polarization we keep hearing about? Sometimes, when it’s something that needs to be done for real practical reasons, when it’s something that will quickly and tangibly help people, Congress can do it. The difference here is that it’s not a sexy, hot-button, grandstanding issue.

    In fact, this isn’t even anything new. Congress kicked this particular can down the road a couple of years ago. Now if only they could work together to end the nonsense which keeps creating cans in need of kicking (apologies for beating a dead metaphor). But then, that actually would be a sexy, hot-button, grandstanding issue, so probably not likely.

    The President will sign the bill, meaning His political machinations to put the hurt on ordinary citizens in order to stir up anger against the people whom Mark Mardell refers to as His “enemies”, have been temporarily defeated here. In bi-partisan fashion.

    For laughs, here’s the BBC’s copy & paste job of the AP report I’ve linked to above.