Here we go, a new OPEN THREAD to detail the bias. Please keep it polite and to the point.
WEEKEND OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 April 24, 2024 at 11:12 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Rob - good to see the broken carrier is in rosyth having the same fix that the other one had...
- Thoughtful April 24, 2024 at 10:53 am on Midweek 24th April 2024We do not have aircraft carriers (plural) because one of them is so badly built it's unseaworthy ! The worst...
- The Mouse April 24, 2024 at 10:41 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I just wanted to add my few words to what has been said about Lord Frank Field. Frank Field "In...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:23 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Fed: Change the record. We now have 617 Squadron and 809 NAS. It has taken too long, I agree, but...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:18 am on Midweek 24th April 2024At the time of St George, the Turks were busy looting and pillaging in Central Asia. They did not invade...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:14 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I must give kudos to Dewbs. Letts just gave the impression of being a complacent tubby little squish. The level...
- Thatcherrevolutionary April 24, 2024 at 10:13 am on Midweek 24th April 2024So cloud seeding resulted in flooding in Dubai. So why not do this in Central Africa and end world hunger?...
- Lunchtime Loather April 24, 2024 at 10:08 am on Midweek 24th April 2024"Print Screen" and pasting it in to Paint also works.
- friend of yogi bear April 24, 2024 at 10:04 am on Midweek 24th April 2024None other than Lady Nugee, aka Emily Thornberry, was on the BBC sounding very concerned about her own branch of...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:03 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Ian: Agreed. For ordinary people, you cannot live in France without papers. For the asylum seekers, however, it's suddenly not...
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
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but unbelievably it seems the BBC have no shame, Jonathan Ross is to return to Radio 2. Yes after telling a octogenarian he’d like to f@£k his grand daughter on air, it seems he’s being welcomed back with open arms.
It proves that the BBC live in a parallel universe, where else in the real world could you be re-employed after commiting gross misconduct? The same goes for gob on a stick Evans.
The BBC have zero respect for the licence payer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11036582/Jonathan-Ross-returns-to-Radio-2.html
Worse still I am sure I heard on a trailer (although I would be delighted if I am wrong) that he is going to be a panelist on Just A Minute. Not least he will be hopeless, trying to be funny and outshine the others will result in him resorting to his toilet humour. The BBC have been keen to rehabilitate Ross ever since the ‘incident’ when he was already well past his sell by date.
I have never understood the appeal of Ross.
He appears to be a wholly manufactured concept.
Insincere and unreal.
Made up of spare parts of other performers.
Well even if he didn’t say the words himself he was complicit in facilitating/encouraging a guest on his show to do it. He wasn’t exactly saying, y’know, Russ, maybe this isn’t such a good idea, was he.
But hey..
OK you nitpicking queen, he actually said “He fucked your granddaughter…”
Confirmed here on the BBC’s very own website, maybe you’ll believe that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7694989.stm
No I don’t have a problem with gay people, just tedious twerps.
Thankfully you’re the exception and somewhat protected because you are gay. Its OK for you to call me a “sad little man” yet the very slightest dig in retort and you immediately play the homophobe card.
Thing is….
He is gay.
He is a nitpicker.
Your original statement is as true as someone calling me a straight, straight talker.
and he fancies muslim terrorists. what type of gay bloke fancies jihadists? oh yeah, an idiotic left wing one
Does someone pay you to appear here regularly, like some kind of evil mould, Scott, or do you come here and spew your boring bile voluntarily? Either way, it’s becoming very tedious.
I quite liked J . Ross as a DJ , he is the same age as me , & I did think ,the Ross , Brand , Andrew Sachs , show WAS funny ,in a Black sense of humour way. I know Andrew Sachs wife was upset , but it was a recorded show, & you cannot broadcast it without the permission of Andrew Sachs , who must of consented to the broadcast at the time.
I think the whole point is that he was not consulted and did not give his consent.
Could we crack a joke about Ross’s mother being a bit of a girl in her teens and doing all 11 players of several football teams ? Or Brand’s mother doing a special trick with a donkey ?
I have a theory. There is no supporting evidence for the theory, but who these days feels the needs to provide evidence (a ‘factual’ basis) for any of their crackpot theory’s/ideas. This is it: Robin Williams took his life because he could not continue to live in a world where Russell Brand is considered a comedian and now a credible social commentator.
“Britain, in sum, by stifling opposition to jihad terror and Jew-hatred, has let both run wild, and thus has sealed its fate: it is in its last days as a free society, and faces a future of violence on the streets and Sharia oppression, courtesy Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, (Sayeeda Warsi?) and the rest.”
R Spencer
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/entertainment/2014/08/15/Petition-to-ban-River-s-tour-after-Palestinians-deserve-to-die-comment.html
BBC view?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/thousands-of-supporters-of-palestinian-jihad-sign-petition-to-ban-joan-rivers-from-uk-for-being-pro-Israel
with full irony
Propaganda war: trusting what we see?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm
Seems the petition was started by this man –
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-city-councillor-refuses-apologise-7622549
He has form for this sort of stuff .
One can wonder where his loyalty lies
BBC apologising for Islam again… Isis have nothing to do with the religion of peace… neither did 9/11, 7/7, Lee Rigby murder, burning British poppies, Boko Harem, Al Sebab, Abu Hamsa, Abu Qatada, the Trojan Horse plot…. etc.
One has to wonder, how many Muslims are employed in the BBC newsroom? Or perhaps it’s an unnatural bonding of Islam and the left. They both see a common enemy – normal people, who aren’t screwed up about following the edicts of a sky fairy, or wracked with guilt over their privileged upbringing
And in other news..
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/rotorheads.html
Seems questions are being raised closer to home, and not just on carbon footprints.
‘Where will the Harding regime deploy its choppers next, in the hunt for “original journalism”, and at what cost ?’
Should any concerned Googlephiles, Wikipedians, Dictionarians Or Outrage Banwagoneers be still hunting the hills, I should explain that ‘choppers’ is also vernacular for helicopters.
And in case they are, here’s a sweet example of how money can make even the uneasiest of foes BFFs.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/intrusive.html
Clearly some Daily Mail eyeballs are acceptable to the most readerphobic BBC media buyers.
not on the BBC … any century soon
excellent expose video
International Conference On Climate Change
… was Roger Harribin there?
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/the-great-climate-debate/3730731690001
Mr Delingpole again
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/15/Mann-v-Steyn-if-this-trial-ever-goes-ahead-global-warming-is-toast
Except that the case will never be reported in any detail by the BBC, unlike Pistorius, and the British public will once again be kept in total ignorance by their on-pain-of-imprisonment compulsory tax fu ded media behemoth.
Is that Geologist and BBC presenter Iain Stewart idiotic enough to still support Michael Mann, Stewart always looks as if he is about to give the camera a Glasgow kiss. And as I remember, his daughter seemed to give the viewer the impression that she regarded herself as more intelligent than her father.
i hope and i pray that the good decent people of belfast turn out in there masses to protest against this most hatefull of human beings called george galloway if he is allowed by belfast city council to spread his hate and bile against israel at this meeting of haters and anti semites in belfast next satarday august the 23rd in belfast ulster hall .we have had a bellyfull of galloway in england with his stirring up of sectarian division on the streets of england,but we are stuck with this man,bear in mind the people of n.ireland,george galloway is under police investigation in england for the disgusting comments he made about england at a meeting of hate in leeds last week.n ireland has had enough of these extremists and i urge you to show him the red card next week if he dares to turn up in belfast to spread his hate and bile and division.
I too hope the good people of Belfast speak their minds on Galloway’s politics. But please, let us avoid the no platform policies advanced by the left. I am not inclined to shut Galloway’s mouth, but argue for an unbiased media which will allow people to criticise him, and the freedom to criticise and speak openly against the people he supports without Cameron’s Twitter Stasi making arrests. It is not the suppression of Galloway that is needed; it is lifting the suppression of those who criticise the politics he, and indeed, many in the BBC, accept without question.
Distorted history: Watched ‘Worlds war: forgotten soldiers of empire’, reasonable until the end when the author and presenter David Olusoga made two statements that I thought went will beyond the pale. 1) He said that in WW1 they armed the locals just for the war. Well from my knowledge Britain had armed the locals as local troops for hundreds of years, nothing new there. 2) Then he said that after the war they were all dismissed just like that. Again that was what happened to virtually all the troops no matter what nationality.
He seemed to me to deliberately try and give a distorted image of history. As a bBC employee his history should be checked for bias, but then there is no bias in a bBC production.
“Then he said that after the war they were all dismissed just like that. Again that was what happened to virtually all the troops no matter what nationality.”
Exactly. Disgusting bit of race hustling, but only to be expected. Makes me sick.
My Grandfather went to Arras in 1917 with his brother and little else. He was “dismissed” after the war, stone deaf and without his brother. Does Olusoga think he received compensation, or what exactly?
For those of you new to this board. We have a big eared troll who while having no problem throwing racist abuse, personal Abuse and just general abuse complains like the bitch he is, when anybody takes him to task. Here are a few of his outbursts, on reading these, you will recognise that the little man is nothing more than an attention seeking troll, who lives out some sort of weird keyboard fantasy where he feels he vanquishes all the enemies of liberal come via the use of his Dr Who sourced Sonic screw driver.
Please do not answer to his vapid posts, as wet wipes such as Scott jerk off to people replying. You’d think that somebody who hates everything about this blog and everybody on it, would bugger off and live a normal life.
Scott says: August 12, 2014 at 7:49 am:
Stupidity and hypocrisy are what Biased BBC runs on. Congrats on making sure you’re such a good source of sustenance.
Scott says: August 12, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Ah, you poor lamb. You know damn well that Philip’s little outburst has no foundation in fact. But you don’t care, because it reinforces your own little bigotry. Thankfully, not all straight men are as small-minded or insecure as you. My sympathies with “Mrs Geoff” on being saddled with such a husband. If she actually exists, of course.
Scott says: August 11, 2014 at 11:49 pm
I’m not jealous of you, Geoff. Very few people would be jealous of a sad little man
Scott says: August 12, 2014 at 11:21 am
Poor Old Goat. Must be horrible being unable to contribute anything other than pretending to be an unpleasant little gatekeeper.
Scott says: August 3, 2014 at 10:48 pm
This is all fabricated outrage designed to push the buttons of anti-BBC, anti-Muslim numpties who prefer knee-jerking to thinking.
Scott says: August 2, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Well, it’s always easier for Guest Who to criticise others. It saves him from having to demonstrate why anyone should take any notice of him – something he’s never quite been able to manage.
Scott says: July 26, 2014 at 9:10 pm
be a pompous arse, fabricate opposing views, act like that doesn’t make you a loser. Bless.
Scott says: July 26, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Look what adolescent troll the cat dragged in.
As you can see, Scott mission isn’t to boldly go where no
manshirt button has gone before. But rather to verbally abuse people with his bigoted racist sexist viewpoints in which to try to wind the other person up in which to facilitate a response. No doubt the lonely little man wanks himself off to the reaction he receives on this blog. Something he has been found to have done to other boards. I know people keep saying don’t reply to him, but don’t, look at the posts above, in all of them (And I only went back a few weeks) he throws abuse like there’s no tomorrow, then he sits back wanking himself silly over how people react.Scott hasn’t contributed one post, instead all he does is flame, spread lies and then plays the victim.
Lets send big ears to Coventry. Ignore the Troll and leave him talking to himself.
If you want to send him to Coventry why the hell do you, and others, keep referring to him?
He hasn’t suggested burning down a mosque though, has he?
Any mosque which fuels hatred and war against the ‘non-believers’, breeding radicalised Islamist psychopaths who then go on to commit murder, rape, beheadings and all the other joyous activities that go with jihad, probably deserves it, no?
No we don’t. We think there is one rule for the BBC – and that should be impartiality.
As for your comment on Pounce being a disgrace to his uniform, do you know him? I don’t have that privilege, but I do know that he at the very least had the balls to put a uniform on in the first place.
Scott – I’m not being funny, but why do you post here?
If I went to Comment Is Free and posted lots of conservative stuff, worded in inflammatory language, and got into loads of petty mud slinging with the Guardianistas, you’d probably think ‘what a fecking idiot! What does he hope to achieve?!?’.
How is what you’re doing here any different?
Jeff
‘Until you stand against the foul language and abuse meted out by the regular culprits on here, your complaints will only ever look like an admission of hypocrisy. ‘
Scott, there is no hypocrisy. I condemn unreservedly anyone who directs below the belt comments at you. Apart from the fact that I loathe bullying, they are playing into the hands of those who would like to pigeonhole critics of the BBC as foul-mouthed EDL types.
I just don’t see how you benefit this forum or it benefits you.
Please ignore the troll. I notice, though, he hasn’t answered your question as to why he continues to visit a site he professes to hate. He’s just a troublemaker who delights in winding people up. For God’s sake don’t reply to him. He all but commandeered this site last weekend because contributors replied to his vapid posts. For some kinky reason he seems to invite reactive replies to his personal abuse and then moans about insults he receives. That odious little creep would make the Archbishop of Canterbury Eff & Blind.
He does stamp his feet a lot.
galloways disgusting comments about israel i meant not england in my previous comment,then again.i not not sure if galloway likes england that much anyway except his caliphate in bradford
Lol so the BBC have been in collusion with the police to set up a as of this time Innocent man for a kangaroo trail by mob !
http://order-order.com/2014/08/15/beebs-cliff-spin-unravels/
And this from the pro leevson anti buying the feds BBC pmsl!!?
If this is true then Cliff Richards has been done a grave injustice. The BBC has questions to answer. So do the police.
Cliff has not been charged and it looks as if the search was carried out before he was contacted.
Quite disgraceful and the media should be ashamed of itself.
I can imagine just how happy many of them are at the thought of dragging Richards’ name through the mud.
It could well rebound on them as he remains a very popular person and well regarded by many.
What did the police possibly think they would find, even assuming some truth in the 30 year old allegation? A souvenir.
My feeling is that Richard struggled with sexual identity and religious belief in his twenties and ‘solved’ the issue by celibacy. Even assuming the worst and he slipped off the waggon there has been no suggestion of a pattern of behaviour.
Following the Savile scandal and the launch of operation Yewtree to investigate other ‘celebrities’ who used their status to abuse children, particularly as so many of them were ex BBC, the BBC now want to present themselves as honest and ethical, keen to uncover all and any who might have been involved in similar abuse.
So when they get a tip off that the police are investigating Cliff Richard and will be searching his flat, instead of thinking well there’s no evidence so far, and rather than publicise this, which would create a negative public opinion of Richard regardless of whether he’s guilty or not, they might have considered holding off unless some evidence proved some sort of guilt, which would be the ethical and moral way to see it.
But since the BBC lost it’s way in that arena long ago, and is more interested in using this story to promote how it protects the public from abuse, which is the real lie, it sends a host of cameramen and reporters to cover the police arrival at his flat, even to the point of having a helicopter flying over the scene for hours.
Notice they weren’t concerned about their carbon footprint, and what did they imagine a helicopter was going to see above a house when the police are inside making a search to justify this gross expense?
Whatever happens with Richard, the BBC abuse the general public on a daily basis, and it’s well past time their licence to do this was terminated.
Didn’t the BBC, not so long back claim they had no helicopter to take aerial footage?
Might have been during the London riots, I forget when exactly.
Perhaps I have been out in the sun too long today though…and it’s playing tricks with my memory, who knows.
Plus of course they know he is a long and deeply committed Christian.
Lol so the BBC have been in collusion with the police to set up a as of this time Innocent man for a kangaroo trial by mob !
http://order-order.com/2014/08/15/beebs-cliff-spin-unravels/
And this from the pro leevson anti buying the feds BBC pmsl!!?
The ‘diversity’ for which D.G. Tony HALL politically campaigns-
“Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry”
[Excerpt]:
“The thoroughly contemptible British government will no doubt welcome this as good news: ‘diversity’ has triumphed! And its greatest benefits are yet to come: civil war, mass murder, slavery. What a bright future Britain has!”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/muhammad-is-britains-most-popular-boys-name
Surely there must be some mistake?
The BBC says ‘Oliver’ is the most popular name given to boys in England and Wales, (the BBC does not even mention the Islamic Prophet who appears to have the highest total in this authoritative ONS names league):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28799538
But how predictable?
Sadly we have come to expect this now.
We could have easily guessed that our Nations tax funded broadcaster, stuffed to the gunnels with hordes of ‘lefty’ highly paid broadcasters mostly deliberately recruited from Labour supporting sources, would try and misinform us?
Just go through the ‘Highest Rated’ comments at the bottom of the BBC article and you soon appreciate the BBC is kidding so few people nowadays.
Another oddly brief outing before closing.
And yes, the highest rated comments may well offer a hint as to why.
Seems the BBC’s modding is at levels that would see some here getting very het up indeed, bless ’em.
At least this year the BBC acknowledge Mohammed and its various spellings would be the most popular, but this is what they have to say about it
In previous years, some people have added up the spellings of Muhammad to put it in first place on the list.
There are eight different spellings, and if you add them up you get to 8,380, which would put the name in first place, ahead of Oliver on 6,949.
But you’re on a slippery slope once you start combining entries on the list
OOOooh, a slippery slope. No why would that be?
Their analysis then tells us:
If you add the number of babies called Harry to the number called Henry, for example, you get to 9,136. Combining Jack and Jacob gives you a whopping 13,649.
So names beginning with H or J has the same kind of significance as being given some derivative of Mohammed.
That’s what the BBC wants the public to believe.
So why do you think the BBC feel a need to avoid stating the obvious?
What do they fear the public would feel if they knew factually – Mohammed (or spelling variation) is really the most popular boys name?
They must be protecting us – aren’t they?
If one living in a beacon of democracy, tolerance and fairness, has a National tax funded broadcaster with a Political left agenda wishing to misinform it’s clients, then this broadcaster is surely doomed.
“So names beginning with H or J has the same kind of significance as being given some derivative of Mohammed.”
I don’t think that’s what the BBC are saying. They are pointing out that Jack and Jacob, and Harry and Henry, are variants of the same name just as all the variants of Mohammed are. So to analyse the names properly and fairly you either give the separate figure for every single variant spelling, or you combine all variants of one name into one figure.
I think there’s a difference between variants of the same name and different spelling of essentially the same pronunciation. For example I’d say Catherine is the same as Kathryn and Calum is the same as Callum and the Beeb is indulging in sophistry.
I don’t think that’s what the BBC are saying. They are pointing out that Jack and Jacob, and Harry and Henry, are variants of the same name just as all the variants of Mohammed are.
I read English – so I know EXACTLY what the BBC are saying – and also I know why.
Now I refer you back to what I wrote, and which you quoted:
“So names beginning with H or J has the same kind of significance as being given some derivative of Mohammed.”
Do you understand that?
As Roland and Johnny pointed out, very few parents, if any, would know that Henry and Harry , or Jack and Jacob might be related. Even parents working for the BBC who might have named their children by one or other of those names. They probably picked the name because of another relation, or they simply liked the sound of it.
BUT MOHAMMED or some such derivative in spelling was picked after a certain so called prophet according to a particular religion.
The only ones on a ‘slippery slope’ are the BBC, and with their slimy ways it gets ever more slippery.
SIGNIFICANCE – get it?
The BBC is not saying the having any name beginning with H or J has the same significance as been given any of the variants of Mohammed. That’s what I thought you were claiming in my post. Is that what you’re saying?
Every boy named Mohammed is indeed called that for a religious reason. But as Albaman said yesterday, that is to a large extent because of the tradition in Muslim families to name their first son Mohammed. If every first son of a non-Muslim family were called, say, Thomas, then that would by some distance be the most popular boys’ name.
There is also this sentence in the article: “The ONS counts similar names with different spellings separately.” So it’s not just the BBC doing this.
Again, this is what the BBC write:
In previous years, some people have added up the spellings of Muhammad to put it in first place on the list.
There are eight different spellings, and if you add them up you get to 8,380, which would put the name in first place, ahead of Oliver on 6,949.
But you’re on a slippery slope once you start combining entries on the list
Now I refer you to a BBC article from 4 years ago where they did indeed report Mohammed having the second most popular name. They also showed a chart with not 8, as they state this year, but 14 variations of the name Mohammed that were used to get the final statistic.
Mohammed – 2,833 occurrences
Muhammad – 1,422
Mohammad – 920
Muhammed – 358
Mohamed – 354
Mohamad – 29
Mahammed – 18
Mohammod – 13
Mahamed – 12
Muhammod – 9
Muhamad – 7
Mohmmed – 6
Mohamud – 5
Mohammud – 5
Point is we can all figure out why Muslims choose to call their son Mohammed or equivalent, so why when the name has actually risen to the top spot do the BBC now try to obscure this reality?
I can also tell you that every year since Mohammed has been on the top spot the BBC have obscured this fact with similar bullshit as this year.
Could it be that the BBC doesn’t want the public to consider just how many more Muslim children their are being born here to create this reality?
Could it be that the BBC don’t want to highlight that Muslims just don’t really want to integrate by calling their sons Henry or Oliver?
Could it be….?
Answers on a post card.
WE’RE certainly NOT on a SLIPPERY SLOPE when we combine those variations of Mohammed to understand reality, and comparing it to Henry or Jack, as the BBC want to imply, shows them to be the slippery ones.
Sheer dissembling by the BBC in an attempt to divert attention from the staggering birthrate and increasing presence of a certain religious ‘minority’ in Britain.
You ask anyone from the last 3 generations if they know what ‘Jack’ is an abbreviation of and they’ll look blankly at you (btw, I always understood it to be a corruption of ‘John’, but there you go – the BBC knows best).
As for ‘Harry’, that has always been a Christian name in its own right as well as an alternative for ‘Henry’.
So……BBC, how many alternative spellings are there for the name ‘Oliver’ – you know, that are actually pronounced ‘Oliver’.
As INBBC knows, but is reluctant to report-
“Hamas: We Deported Foreign Journalists for Filming Hamas Missile Launches”
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/hamas-deported-foreign-journalists-filming-hamas-missile-launches.html/#sthash.AJVY468u.dpuf
http://matthewman.net/… cop a look at scotts website, is a bit of a mess lol
Ignore the troll
Speak of the devil and he’s sure to appear!
Would be a sad day for all satanist if their leader turn out to look like our waldo !
… Waycism?
… British foreign policy?
… Disenfranchisement?
… how about, poverty?
… the Jews?
… the Wests conspiracy – “blowback”
… the old favourite “oppressed minority”
Virtually the Al BBC excuse “rulebook” recounted
over and over again as the reason why?, Muslims want to rush all over the world to mass murder, anyone non Muslim
BBC – “Ahmed” … reveals why Islamic adherents do it
“He details why he wants to fight in Iraq or Syria.
“God has commanded for the Muslims to go and fight jihad”, he says”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28807384
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-muslim-explains-that-he-is-going-to-iraq-or-syria-because-allah-has-commanded-for-the-muslims-to-go-and-fight-jihad
“Wasn’t he disabused of this idea by the legions of British moderates?, and shown how it was wrong on Islamic grounds in his every visit to the innumerable moderate British mosques?
Didn’t his moderate Islamic school headmaster take him aside at tea? and explain to him that such ideas just weren’t that moderate”.
R Spencer
If it was a white person shot, would the BBC even report it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28806313
I suspect given the attendant violence the BBC would have still reported it, but it’ll be clear where the BBC’s sympathies lie in this case.
Interestingly while the victim is described as a ‘teenager’ (be honest doesn’t that make you picture a slim youth) the same report later states ‘The police report identifies the man as Mr Brown, described as being 6ft 4in (193cm) and 292 pounds (132kg).’ He was a teenager but he was powerfully built and in the video was clearly intimidating to the shopkeeper.
From what is being reported stateside, this is much more complex than it at first appears. Brown clearly doesn’t come off as any kind of angel, and the video clearly shows the shopkeeper appearing to have an altercation with him.
But if the reports from many sources is correct, Brown was not a threat to police. He was on his knees with his hands in the air when shot.
If that was true – his death was nothing short of extra judicial execution.
This story is about the creeping militarisation of our police forces, not just in the USA, but here in the UK as well. Government has transformed police from being ‘us’ to being ‘them’. From civilian to in many cases, paramilitary. It’s about how power is being moved from the people to the state.
Reread my post. And please, next time, don’t interpret my words on the basis of your flawed reasoning. I’m not saying that at all, as you well know. Have another go, Scott.
Clearly the US police forces are way way out of control strutting around like Judge Dredd shooting and beating those who make even the most minor infringement of ludicrous laws. Many consider themselves beyond criticism and the thug who gunned down this man needs to be tired for murder and if convicted electrocuted. However, Ironically, Scott two black youths were gunned down (by other black youths) in a New Orleans drive by murder on the same day as the Missouri shooting. Astonishingly, this was reported on by the BBC! However this random and all too frequent ‘event’ perpetrated by fellow youths did not result in days of looting and rioting and general revulsion. Why was that?
Yes, I totally agree CCE that the police officer should be punished severely; but I’m afraid, on the Left, the murder of ethnic minorities seems to arouse more sympathy than when a white person is killed; take, for instance the case of Kris MacDonald. He was burned alive by Muslim thugs in Glasgow and yet this terrible crime hasn’t received anything like the Lawrence case – and for some reason Mrs Lawrence is now in the House of Lords and even on M & S ladies fashion adverts. What about when the two white Britons were gunned down by a black youth in America a couple of years back; yes, the BBC reported it but there were no riots, no mass condemnations by the mass media… they just moved on to the the next news report.
His name was Kriss Donald. As it says in the Wikipedia entry: “The case, which featured the first ever conviction for racially motivated murder in Scotland, is cited as an example of the lack of attention the media and society give to white sufferers of racist attacks compared to that given to ethnic minorities, with organisations such as the BBC later admitting failing to cover the case sufficiently.” But I very much doubt their admission was sincere.
Alex
“…the murder of ethnic minorities seems to arouse more sympathy than when a white person is killed…”
It’s nothing to do with ‘sympathy’ Alex. In the Kriss Donald case the police did their job properly and his killers were rightfully convicted two years later. It took 19 years for Stephen Lawrence’s killers to be convicted because the police did not do their job properly.
It is the reasons why the Metropolitan Police failed so completely (namely that they where prejudiced against black people, along with further revelations of dishonesty and corruption) which has made the Lawrence case so significant; rather than the actual murder itself.
Doreen Lawrence was given a Life Peerage for all the work she’s done since her son was murdered. I don’t understand why you (and others on this blog) find that so difficult to accept?
Dez,
even the bbc admitted it got it wrong on the brutal racist murder of Kris Donald. i dont understand why you (and other left wing trolls on this blog) dont get it
“The case, which featured the first ever conviction for racially motivated murder in Scotland, is cited as an example of the lack of attention the media and society give to white sufferers of racist attacks compared to that given to ethnic minorities, with organisations such as the BBC later admitting failing to cover the case sufficiently.”
And Doreen Lawrence is the President of the violent extreme left wing swp front, the ironically named UAF, which is itself a fascist organisation
BBN ….
now come come, lets have it right.
ahem … Doreen Delceita Lawrence, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, OBE …
President. Union of Arrogant Fascists …
Anti “Waycism” Campaigner
holding the Olympic flag 2012 Olympic opening ceremony BBC
Lifetime Achievement Award – 14th Pride of Britain Awards
named in the number one “game changer” Woman’s Hour”
“the most powerful woman in Britain” Telegraph.
etc etc
(shakes head)
ps – apologies, cannot bring myself to type such a outright and blatant lie as their self styled moniker, re the UAF
Dez wrote:
It’s nothing to do with ‘sympathy’ Alex. In the Kriss Donald case the police did their job properly and his killers were rightfully convicted two years later.
Yes you are right, but Alex wrote this:
but I’m afraid, on the Left, the murder of ethnic minorities seems to arouse more sympathy than when a white person is killed.
Where he was referring to the silence of the left over the horrific Murder of that poor Child. Beaten up, thrown in the boot of a car, driven to Dundee and back (200 miles) then taken to waste ground, stabbed then burnt alive. As evil as the Lawrence case was, he didn’t have to suffer like Kriss Donald did and tell me while all the UK know who Stephan Lawrence was, very few know who Kriss Donald was, just as very few people know who Ross Parker was or even who Charlene Downes was.
At the end of the day very very few Non Whites are murdered by White people in racist crimes in the UK, yet can we say the same when the shoe is on the other foot. Its a subject the bBC doesn’t like to mention instead they bring us stories that only whitey can be bad.
“Protests”?
Just like the re-distribution “Protests” ( (c) Harriet Harm – man,) we experienced in the UK in 2011?
http://matthewman.net/about/…scotts life story.what a clever boy lol
You have to say “Candyman” three times to make the monster appear. Unfortunately, you only have to say a certain troll’s name only once for him to make an unwanted appearance on this site.
For Islam Not BBC (INBBC) to report?
“ISIS ‘massacres’ 80 Yazidis in north Iraq”
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/ISIS-massacres-80-Yazidis-in-north-Iraq-371238?
It’s now considered less important than the Tilbury illegal immigrant death story. At least on the BBC News website.
For INBBC not to report?:
-the latest in racist fascist horror committed by Muslim jihadists of Islamic State-
“‘ISIS want to impregnate Yazidi women and smash our blond bloodline’:
Fears grow for the 300 women kidnapped from Sinjar”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724658/Were-not-leaving-Yazidis-refusing-come-mountain-300-women-stolen-ISIS-impregnated-smash-blond-bloodline.html#ixzz3AatJBwU2
BBC on the case as always … “IS is accused of brutality, spreading terror against those who stand in its way.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28807384
Yep, ‘accused’ but the BBC is unaware of the evidence to make that a definite claim.
BBC sources are however aware that ‘hundreds of imams .. speak out against jihad.’ Yep, ‘hundreds’ and I’m sure that’s accurate and not just a claim.
So there you have it, the world’s greatest news organisation does not know for definite whether IS is brutal or uses terror, but does know for definite that hundreds of imans are preaching against jihad.
A recent complaint i sent the BBC asked the very question about these quote marks .
Reply below
Thank you for contacting us about the BBC News Website.
I understand you feel it was factually inaccurate to use quotations in the following article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28648936
I appreciate your concern and while I’m unable to comment in the link you’ve included. Quote marks in headlines are used to convey something that is not strictly a known fact – an allegation in court, a report, a comment or something that is likely to happen but has not been confirmed. A company may make a particular claim, but it’s not for the BBC to state definitively that it will happen.
For instance, a story headlined Red meat ‘increases health risks’ shows that this is the opinion of a group of researchers and it is presented as such, otherwise readers might presume it’s a given fact.
This is not an issue that is unique to the BBC – the use of quotes is common in print media, especially where the space for headlines is limited.
Thank you again for contacting us, we value your feedback about BBC News Website. All complaints are sent to senior management and news department every morning and I included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.
Kind Regards
Patrick Clyde
BBC Complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
.
So it seems that they must have proof of these ‘hundreds of imams’ . Or is that these quote marks are used when its poster boys or favoured religion is under scrutiny.
“I’m unable to comment in the link you’ve included. “
Doesn’t make much sense, but why not?
“Quote marks in headlines are used to convey something that is not strictly a known fact..
I actually thought they were mainly used to ‘quote’ someone.
But in media there are two forms, the ‘single’ and the “double”, which I had also thought meant different things.
Except… when the BBC gets unique on the things:
Israel: Suspected ‘attack’ on bus with digger in Jerusalem
…in what Israeli police are calling an “attack”…
We are then treated to examples. For instance where ‘it’s not for the BBC to state definitively…”
Leaving the field wide open for the BBC to pluck words they like, or don’t, and in the case of the latter add ‘quotes’ to show they want the reader to read more in than mere words can convey. Usually doubt.
“This is not an issue that is unique to the BBC – the use of quotes is common in print media..
Indeed it is. And in the race to the bottom feeders, the BBC is ki.. queen. Congrats.
“… especially where the space for headlines is limited”
As poetic an admission that their obsession with social media and mobile results in ‘no-space-for-accuracy’ headlines as could be hoped.
Thing is, they have a choice, but the demand to say something… anything too often trumps not saying it until it is correct.
Unique. Still dire.
One can guess whether this report is ‘Sky News’ or INBBC, from the title of the headline:-
“West Needs To End Dithering Over Jihadists”
http://news.sky.com/story/1319173/west-needs-to-end-dithering-over-jihadists
A bit more info on the Hamas spokeswoman who confirmed that journalists in Gaza were intimidated if they tried to report on rocket launches from civilian areas.
The BBC line is that they were not intimidated. And that they did not see any such rocket launches. They must have known about the launches, but maybe they did not need any intimidating because they were happy to project the Hamas narrative for weeks on end.
Not just one biasedBBC reports from Gaza. Dozens of biased reports.
Part of the Hamas narrative is that Gaza is some sort of concentration camp. Millions of people crushed together.
Of course there would not be millions if they did not have so many children even though they claim to be “refugees”. In the Der Spiegel article about the Hamas spokeswoman there is a picture gallery with some panorama views of Gaza – spacious roads, modern buildings. Very much like other cities on the eastern Mediterranean like Tel Aviv or Limassol in Cyprus.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/isra-al-mudallal-is-the-spokesperson-for-hamas-in-gaza-a-976150.html
Gaza has an annual population growth rate of 2.91%, the 13th highest in the world. (Wikipedia, 2014). The left calls this rapid population growth “genocide”.
From the comments section in this article, it appears that the BBC closed down a Have Your Say on Iraq after about half an hour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28799538
The public must have not been sufficiently on message for the BBC.
The link leads to a different story
Indeed – Look at the comments section. 🙂
I think this is the article the comments were alluding to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28806484
Just followed your link. Most disturbed by how the bBC allowed this post to remain:
380. Ling Ting Tong
9 Hours ago
371 Boycotts worked on Apartheid in South Africa If anyone wants to vote intelligently with their money and boycott Israel then more power to them, same with local Jewish UK Businesses.
So the bBC is happy to openly promote anti-Semitism on its website. A moderated one at that.
I would make the argument that their commentary on Gaza has been biassed, if not totally misleading.
However, the comment is valid, even if it borders on the Anti Semitic. There is no call to violence, just an appeal to people as to where they spend their money.
To constantly censor thought is a pointless exercise. Allowing this kind of comment to be out there in the creates a more open debate, and a proper picture of the kind of sentiment that is felt by some.
Just as I hate censorship here, even of the Trolls (if you choose to feed them that’s your lookout) – freedom of speech is paramount in a free society. Withdraw that freedom for any train of thought that we don’t like, then we create the environment in which our own thought may one day also be censored.
INBBC reports, surprisingly, on ‘Islamic jihad,’ but with non-Muslim vast majority of British people unrepresented, as different Islamic factions dispute the nature of ‘jihad’.
“UK Muslim explains that he is going to Iraq or Syria because Allah ‘has commanded for the Muslims to go and fight jihad’”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-muslim-explains-that-he-is-going-to-iraq-or-syria-because-allah-has-commanded-for-the-muslims-to-go-and-fight-jihad/comment-page-1#comment-1103342
Iraq… Syria. Maybe take in a few other places on the way? Is there such a thing as a Jihad crawl, where no one really cares what they are doing there so long as they are with their mates getting slaughtered? Or doing a bit of slaughtering, natch.
It must be about time the new batch of cubicle garden hatchlings get on twitter to ask them to explain their motivations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28807384
So now, the BBC is harbouring and sheltering ‘British’ jihadists?
Is this not illegal?
Also, in the article, the BBC chooses to put the word jihadist in inverted commas. Why? It’s not like he is an alleged jihadist or anything, he has confirmed to them in the interview IN HIS OWN WORDS that he is a jihadist. So why the ‘doubt’?
WTF is going on?
FARAGE: BBC Is Planning Yet Another Hit Job on UKIP – http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/15/BBC-Another-UKIP-hit-job
For INBBC’s ‘business news’ online page?
“Jihadist hackers targeting celebrity and business bank accounts to fund Islamic State terror campaign”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jihadist-hackers-targeting-celebrity-business-4057294#ixzz3AVFNHepl
I think all boys and Teddy Bears should be called Mohammed. Remember the terrorist Mohammed Mohammed so evil they naked him twice.
I see that after that incident where the school teacher gave me my name and the BBC asked viewers to name their new cat and Mohammed won again. They no longer ask people to name things. The death of democracy!
Oh, those Beeboid ‘militants’ are massacring non-Muslims still.
Beeboids in denial about the nature of Islamic jihadists still-
“Militants in northern Iraq have massacred at least 80 men from the Yazidi faith in a village and abducted women and children, reports say.”
Alternative- ‘Vice News’ has 42 min video of Islamic State jihadists-
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/islamic-state-full-length?
Any chance of declaring this a Scott-free zone?
That’s not likely to happen if some twit keeps mentioning his name.
Back to the Scott weekend blog, I see.
Seems that not only all the grown ups away for the 10 weeks of school hols, the work experience kids have brought in their younger siblings to handle the weekend. This was just emailed out:
Man dies after docks container find
One man dies after some 30 people, including children, found in container at Tilbury Docks, in Essex, say police
One can see what was meant, but what a way to try and summarise it. The linked piece is equally clunky as a piece of ‘reporting’. Further comment on the tragic outcome will need to await for further attempts at assembling a coherent story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28817688#%22
The BBC is doomed for many reasons other than waste, mismanagement, bias, misinformation and indoctrination attempts of the nation from a left political correctness perspective.
It is overwhelming clogging up the legal system in its efforts to suborn its clients:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10684639/Dodging-TV-licence-will-not-be-a-crime.html
Quote:
“More than 180,000 people – almost 3,500 a week – appeared before the Magistrates Courts in 2012, accused of watching television without a valid licence in, with 155,000 being convicted and fined”.
The majority of those the broadcaster is criminalising are likely to be single mothers on benefits or immigrants, (quite a lot also on benefits).
The following video is well worth a look and you will appreciate why we need to end the licence fee system as soon as possible.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c31_1406797315
I think I like the new format (and as always thanks to those behind the scenes running this site) but it always takes me days to get used to it).
BBC at it again, Will It be in any of the MSM i think not.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/15/BBC-Another-UKIP-hit-job
What does the BBC hate most about UKIP, its ‘internationalism’ rather than ‘little Europeanism’, or its non-racist immigration policy which is unlike the pro-EU and implicitly racist immigration policy of the other political parties? Or does the BBC hate internationalism and non-racism equally?
“The slow death of free speech.
“How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate — from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage.”
By Mark Steyn.
( April 2014.)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/
following on from this earlier in the thread
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/the-great-climate-debate/3730731690001
Part 2 … really is excellent, particularly P Moore
P Moore co founder of Greenpeace
Lord C Monkton
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/continuing-the-great-climate-debate/3732576489001
… then listen to the BBC, on global warming, oops I mean climate change, oops I mean global cooling,
too hot … no old … no dry …. no wet etc
The last BBC news item I heard was on last nights 10 o’ clock news. It was about the black guy shot dead by police in the States. The tone of the reporter was suitably sombre because like, this is so terrible and inhuman and unfair.
The next news item I heard was on this morning’s ‘Today’, and it was about the execution of 80 Yazidi men and the kidnapping of scores of women and children by the subhuman butchering psychopaths of IS. The reporter’s tone was breezy and matter of fact, a typical neutral newsy style.
Know where you’re coming from, BBC.
A definite case of vile Blairite spin and damage limitation.
Read yesterday on the web that the police leaked to the BBC that they were going to raid Cliff Richard’s house. The BBC then had a film crew outside the house before the police arrived,. Pretty shameful as it was only a search, and the BBC made this their number one story. This sort of behaviour is expected of the Sun or Mirror but never the BBC. The BBC’s actions were totally tabloid.
Listening to Radio 4 to day the Beeb had a piece covering this issue. It stated should the “media” (my inverted commas) be allowed to publicise a searching of a house of a suspect who has not been charged.
The shame faced spin of this, the reality is that the word “media” should have been replaced with the BBC. This giant paedophile ring creates a story on a police leak and then blames everyone else in the “media”.
Pervert Central has the temerity to smear someone who has not been charged, yet will throw poor people into prison because they don’t want to fund the Savile/Harris/Hall Broadcasting Corporation.
Hasn’t Pervert Central learned anything from McAlpine?
‘Hasn’t Pervert Central learned anything from McAlpine?’
Certainly not the bit about the cover up often exceeding the damage of the initial FUBAR.
Has there yet been an explanation for what the BBC top banana involved claimed, that was at odds with the South Yorks police version?
I think questions on this were being asked by, of all things, that notorious right wing rag, the Daily Mirror.
Are answers to these going to go the way of much else when the spotlight again is on the BBC as the story?
The same careful choice of language showed up on Any Questions and Any Answers with references to the ‘media’ not ‘BBC’. The BBC seems coy now about its ‘scoop’. Don’t the police have any interest in speaking to Cliff Richard? Seems odd, but maybe they’re lacking that inconvenient thing called ‘evidence’. Maybe after going through his house they expect to find something, maybe a tub of vaseline or some other ‘proof’ that 30 years ago he sexually assaulted a child. I’m sure the BBC will be first with the breaking news.
The picture from the helicopter in the Telegraph article, supposedly showing police arriving at Richard’s house, demonstrates just what a waste of money and resources that was. What on earth did anybody at the BBC think they were going to get of interest to anybody with it, other than for themselves to make the story as big and public as they could.
It may well be that the BBC notified the police following complaints by those who were abused by Savile and others, and possibly against Richard, which the story below seems to confirm, but that doesn’t explain how the BBC would know that this investigation was going to take place at Richard’s house unless they were tipped off by the police. Who else could be aware of that?
There are other issues that are apparent when reading this Telegraph article, which seems to be excusing the BBC, but shows something rotten going on here.
South Yorkshire Police released a statement suggesting its actions had been vindicated by the fact that “since the search took place a number of people have contacted police to provide information”, adding: “The media played a part in that, for which we are grateful.”
People need to wait till they know an investigation is under way before they lodge a complaint or provide information about a crime? Every wannabee ‘celebrity’ will now more than likely be trying for their ‘5 minutes of fame’. If anything this is going to complicate finding if there is anything real to uncover.
South Yorkshire’s handling of the case was in marked contrast to the police response when Rolf Harris’s home was questioned in 2012. On that occasion no confirmation was provided by the police, and it was six months before the media reported his interview under caution by Scotland Yard.
Yes, the difference is that Rolf Harris worked mostly for the BBC, which as we’ve seen would therefore not want to make public, whereas Cliff Richard is a celebrity in his own right, that the BBC are using to make themselves appear moral and upright. For me they only make themselves more insidious and evil than I know them already to be – if that’s possible.
A BBC producer is understood to have heard that the raid was going to happen, and phoned South Yorkshire Police, who confirmed the information was correct.
And just where and from who did he hear this? The only ones who know if a raid is going to happen is the police and the judge who grants the search warrant. So it’s clear that the police did tip-off the BBC, even if they were prompted to do so.
OUTRAGEOUS!
If and until evidence is found that incriminates Richard in any way, he must now live in public under the cloud that this is ‘out there’. It is completely irresponsible of the BBC to have done what they did, and they, as well as the police, should be facing charges for their actions.
Ali, oh your posts seem to have disappeared?
However Ali, to answer your last question to me personally, (before you were censored).
You are wrong. I do not insult this country regularly on this site, since I am very proud indeed of my Nations enormous decency, tolerance, charity, positive democratic evolution and scientific and social achievements that have over millennium generally benefited and been an example for the world too.
I do accept under a Socialist administration from 1997 to 2010 we have made heinous foreign policy, financial and disastrous governance mistakes in almost every department of State which, unless corrected will take us a generation over to recover from:
But the best way to answer your unhappiness is by this poem:
“THE MUSLIMS ARE NOT HAPPY!
By Gerald’s Spirit.
They’re not happy in Gaza ..
They’re not happy in Egypt ..
They’re not happy in Libya ..
They’re not happy in Morocco ..
They’re not happy in Iran ..
They’re not happy in Iraq ..
They’re not happy in Yemen ..
They’re not happy in Afghanistan ..
They’re not happy in Pakistan ..
They’re not happy in Syria ..
They’re not happy in Lebanon ..
SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?
They’re happy in India
They’re happy in Australia ..
They’re happy in Canada..
They’re happy in England ..
They’re happy in France ..
They’re happy in Italy ..
They’re happy in Germany ..
They’re happy in Sweden ..
They’re happy in the USA ..
They’re happy in Norway ..
They’re happy in Holland ..
They’re happy in Denmark ..
Basically, they’re happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!
AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
And then they want to change those countries to be like the country they came from where they were unhappy”
In a nutshell. Brilliant.
The Muslims I’ve met in Israel are happy too.
Just read that there have been riots in the US, over the death of an 18 year old (Black) youth. Just watched the video released by the Police which shows a very big Michael Brown being most belligerent ,confrontational and threatening towards a much smaller shop keeper. He is wearing a very distinctive hat,t-shirt and shoes/boots/trainers and yet the bBC promotes the view that the man in the video isn’t Michael Brown. Miss Patel the bBC journalist relates the view that Police are unsure if he is the man.
Yet the Leftwing Guardian reports a different story:
Store surveillance footage shows that “an apparent struggle or confrontation seems to take place with Brown”, and then as he made to leave, an unidentified man tried to stop him. Brown pushed the man into a display rack, started to leave the store, appeared to intimidate the person one more time, then left, according to the report.
and here is a picture from the crime scene:
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/a229dce7b6e92a9ccc6515a69b13d54c94e5bf74/c=0-0-1229-924&r=x404&c=534×401/local/-/media/KSDK/KSDK/2014/08/09/1407621541000-Still0809-00005.jpg
Anybody seen that red hat before. It seems that the so called innocent man was actually the right person, who liked to throw his weight around in which to get what he wanted.
So much for assassinating Michael Browns character bBC.
So a load of illegal immigrants hide in a (presumably) refrigerated container and get a dose of hypothermia. It turns out they’re from the ‘Indian sub continent’ but won’t say more than that. India is not a country normally considered for asylum so presumably they are illegals intending to hide.
The BBC makes this the top story on its headlines, despite the fact that at least 80 Yazidi Christians have been massacred by the vicious Muslims of the Islamic State. The reason given is that they refused to convert to Islam.
It’s obvious where the priorities lie, and it isn’t with the Christians !
following on from this earlier
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/the-great-climate-debate/3730731690001
This is part 2 truly excellent, especially from P Moore co founder of Greenpeace, includes lord Monkton
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/continuing-the-great-climate-debate/3732576489001
Then again we could have the BBC s “horrible” Harribin, and global warming oops I mean climate change. oops I mean global cooling erm no … too hot, no cool, no wet no dry
And in other news…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/fishing.html
‘…the BBC will, I think, have to come clean about the negotiations that led to its cameras, reporters, umbrellas and helicopter being in Sunningdale on Thursday morning.’
Yes, because they have such a superb reputation of ‘coming clean’ under that trust & transparency mantra [/sarcoff]
‘For alternative views on the propriety of this police/media deal, read Geoffrey Robertson in The Independent, or sceptical blogger Anna Raccoon. Or most newspaper leaders this morning…’
Guessing this may be an occasion when CECUTT feels the ‘everyone else says..’ line of defence is not the preferred option.
You are flapping in the wind all on your own here, Aunty.
Popcorn is being grabbed.
Don t know, whats ap (sorry), this appeared in the middle of the previous troll fest
following on from this earlier
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/the-great-climate-debate/3730731690001
This is part 2 truly excellent, especially from P Moore co founder of Greenpeace, includes lord Monkton
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/continuing-the-great-climate-debate/3732576489001
Then again we could have the BBC s very own “horrible hockey stick” Harribin, and global warming oops I mean climate change. oops I mean global cooling erm no … too hot, no cool, no wet no dry
How seriously does INBBC take the Islamic State enemy?:-
‘Daily Mirror,’ but not INBBC, has this:-
“Jihadist hackers targeting celebrity and business bank accounts to fund Islamic State terror campaign”
By Russell Myers.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jihadist-hackers-targeting-celebrity-business-4057294#ixzz3Aa1NvBcA
The BBC impartial? You judge. This headline “Scottish independence: Australian PM Tony Abbott’s comments ‘offensive'” hardly seems balanced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28814936
An impartial headline would have been “Scottish independence: Australian PM Tony Abbott speaks against”
Instead we get a headline which could almost have been written by the SNP.
Which is strange, because the BBC is very much against independence – it will break up their assets and reduce the inbuilt leftist majority in England. And they are against English devolution too, so it makes no sense.
No – it’s not really bias, just lazy sensationalist reporting. They are looking for the angle that makes most noise. And they don’t like Tony Abbott. So they have their motives all crossed up and they don’t know which way to bend the story.
The thing about the BBC that is most depressing is the lack of professionalism, the lack of depth. It’s all very 2 tone – black and white – but backed with surprisingly little real expertise.
Twitter comment from Conor Spackman, Panorama journalist on July 23rd of this year – “You know you work in BBC current affairs when about 100 phones simultaneously sound with a Guardian news alert” Words fail me.
Tweets by conorspackman
Brilliant find ! Has DB seen this one ?
Maybe it’s self-deprecatory?
I do however note any views may not be his own (as the usual claim otherwise is not engaged).
A double political whammy for Beeboids:-
their chums Gore and Al Jazeera have problems with each other-
“Al Gore sues Al Jazeera America over TV channel sale”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28812885
Or:-
“Al Gore sues Al Jazeera over cable channel deal”
[Excerpt]:-
“Gore would not even entertain an offer from Glenn Beck, so anxious was he to make a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood channel — Osama Bin Laden’s courier of terror.”
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/al-gore-sues-al-jazeera-cable-channel-deal.html/#sthash.J1gEBOoA.dpuf
PM Cameron is an ignorant,hypocritical opportunist on the nature of Islam, as he shows in his policies to Islamise Britain through mass immigration from Islamic countries. He bans anti-Islamic jihadists, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from Britain, but he does not even ban jihadist-supporting, caliphate-building outfit, Hizb ut -Tahrir.
His unprincipled, vacillating is shown in his failure to recognise unelected Warsi’s Islamic priorities, and now in his lurching about over the permanent threat from our enemy, which is the Islamic State, and all it represents.
Are INBBC’s views significantly different to those of PM Cameron?
Does INBBC support the freedoms of Geller and Spencer?
Even the PM is waking up to the threat to Britain from the jihadists. A bit rich given he was in the crowd slinging claims of Islamophobia against the EDL et al who were saying this years ago, and he was also excusing the Religion of Peace from having any faults in its own house which needed sorting out. Maybe his security briefings now talk of the inevitability of home grown jihadists launching attacks in Britain and he’s woken up. Better late than never.
Where does INBBC stand on this?:-
Has it not woken up to the fact that the Muslims of Islamic State are our sworn deadly enemies?
“Britain’s Islamic State cheerleaders should be jailed before they bring butchery to our streets.”
By Carole Malone.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-islamic-state-cheerleaders-should-4060016#ixzz3Ab611wZp
Do you mean?
……..before they bring butchery to our streets, again”
e.g. Woolwich and the London Underground plus many failed attempts.
It will never happen. See Tesco was raided and items thrown around, staff and customers intimidated. The Police arrested one person only after he/she has attacked them and escorted 2 more off the premises. What about the rest of them? I suspect let off for the sake of community cohesion.