The BBC carries a report here on thousands of Palestinians having formed a “human chain” in Gaza in protest at Israel’s blockade of the territory. Gaza schools were closed for the day, and thousands of pupils were taken in buses to participate. Many could be seen with banners stating: “The siege of Gaza will only strengthen us” and “The world has condemned Gaza to death”. I was wondering if these children attend the same schools for suicide bombers in Gaza on which the BBC reported here back in 2001? I also wonder if the many “militants” and “fighters” that infest Gaza in 2008 may be frustrated graduates from these same schools for self-exploders from the class of 2001 – schools for which the people of Gaza have such a pride? BBC Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi appears to believe that this demonstration was a spontaneous display by “ordinary Palestinians” rather than a cynical (and failed) stunt by Hamas! How can we take such bizarre commentary from Abdelhadi seriously?
When considering BBC bias, I am reminded of this old Sherlock Holmes story.
“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention? said Inspector Gregory”To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” said Holmes”The dog did nothing in the night-time.” said Gregory “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Now then, the BBC has been fawning over Barack Hussein Obama as the new messiah, I guess that figures since he is even further to the left than Hillary Clinton. So the question is WHY has the BBC kept mute over the startling revelations that Obama both met with and indeed raised funds at the home of two US terrorists – William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. These two individuals were part of the “Weathermen” – a terrorist group that bombed U.S. government buildings, and whose leader (a declared Obama supporter) went on record saying he wish he’d targeted more! Apparently this is not news in BBC land? How odd!
The role of the media in general and the BBC in particular in perpetuating the malignancy of the Northern Ireland “peace process” cannot be sufficiently emphasised. The British Government has relied heavily on the BBC to retail the idea across the world that placing bloodthirsty terrorists in positions of power is a good idea if it helps buy peace! It’s a Chamberlain-scale act of appeasement that has necessitated the full power of the State broadcaster to help convince the gullible and wavering. Today the BBC reports, matter of factly, that Martin McGuinness – the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly – has stated that he would like to have killed every British soldier in Londonderry in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, if he had had the opportunity. Now there are three obvious questions that strike me an intrepid BBC journalist would want to ask Mr McGuinness.
1. Given that he was, by his own admission, an IRA terrorist before and after the events of January 30th 1972, how many soldiers did he in fact kill?
2. Given the many murders of innocent civilians in Londonderry during his tenure as an IRA warlord, how many of those deaths did he oversee?
3. Given this admission of murderous intent, in what way is he suitable to hold ANY office?
You’ll not be surprised to know that none of these questions have been posed by the BBC. Nor will they. You see what has happened in Northern Ireland – the installation of terrorists in the very highest spheres of government – is a victory for the left-wing mindset epitomised by the BBC. Can you imagine the furore the BBC would have created if, in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London, Tony Blair had declared he wanted to kill every Islamist in the United Kingdom? The BBC has shilled for the IRA for decades now, and shows a serial sense of immorality and journalistic bias.
Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would also be appreciated!
Well, I poured myself a hot cup of coffee and settled down to watch the Andrew Marr show on the BBC this morning. These are the sacrifices I am prepared to make for Biased BBC – though I recommend that you should not follow my example!
This was the political Left having a Sunday morning love-in. We had the odious anti-Semite Ken Livingstone, we had the wretched Margaret a Beckett, we had the ubiquitous Shami Bakrabarti, and to provide “balance” we had Carol Thatcher and David Davis. But having watched it, I conclude that Andrew Marr himself demonstrates relentless bias.
For example he listened to Shami Bakrabarti droning on in her ever- so-earnest way without interruption and I suggest the reason for this simpering deference is because the agenda that “Liberty” pursues is one that the BBC shares. When Carol Thatcher made comment on the many serious question surrounding the House of Commons Speak “Mad” Mick Martin, and she repeated a claim in one of today’s Sunday papers that he was “the worst speaker in the history of the House” Marr instantly jumped in to claim he knew of others who were much worse. How did he know this and on what basis does he compare this? Why did he not focus on the issues concerning THIS Speaker?
The Ken Livingstone interview was a sickening experience with the Mayor of London being permitted to make the most outrageous claims without any real comeback from Marr. For instance, Red Ken was able to suggest that Castro had achieved many great things during his years (of tyranny) and Marr decided to let it all pass. Livingstone got to propagandise with only the most gentle prodding coming back at the claims he made. In a way this was a perfect alliance – a grotesque Britain-hater like Livingstone showering praise on a monstrous thug like Castro on a platform generously provided by the BBC.
I then watched David Davis – the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary being interviewed on various points and the way I saw it Marr was essentially trying to get him to agree with the government position on 24 hour drinking. There were frequent challenges and interruptions throughout the interview and Davis struggled to make his point without being cut-off by Marr.
Finally, and with best comedic effect, we came to the Margaret Beckett interview. Unbelievably, Beckett is now the head of the “Intelligence and Security” Committee. Marr’s big interest was to get her to “admit” to the UK allowing the US to land its “special rendition” flights on UK soil. Marr, like the rest of his BBC pals, appears ready to believe the very worst about the USA administration – the Bush derangement syndrome runs deep here.
This was a vile programme, all carried out with a simper and a smile. Isn’t it time the BBC gave Shami Chakrabarti her own programme since it clearly can’t get enough of her whingeing? And shouldn’t the BBC now just drop ANY pretence it is interested in the Republican dimension to the US election – since all it does is drool over Obama and Hillary? Marrs programme is marred by a profound sense of left wing bias and he should take note of this. Come on Andrew, if you or your Beeboid acolytes read this, explain yourself.
Out of my sense of respect for those people suffering great loss, I didn’t comment on the Castro situation in Cuba a few days ago . I’m sure you will all noticed how upset the BBC was at the news that one of their (non) American idols had exited stage left. But now that the grieving process has started in full the BBC is now rushing out contrived articles of pure PR such as “Castro relishes chance to rest”
The night before, I slept better than ever,” he writes in Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma, three days after announcing his retirement. My conscience was clear and I promised myself a vacation.”
If you force yourself to read the entire article, it smacks of pro-Castro propaganda, finishing with a flourish – an attack on the USA. Losing Fidel has been a mighty blow to the US-hating communist-thug worshipping element at the BBC and I think Castro will continue to get very positive media treatment from his dear fans at the Beeb.
Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated!
Right then, we can all argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when discussing the degree of BBC bias but one area that really angers me is when the State Broadcaster uses its unique position of influence to recklessly undermine the brave men and women who serve in our British armed forces in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. My colleague Pete Moore over on A Tangled Web has made me aware of the forthcoming Panorama programme which claims that British troops murdered six Iraqi civilians (including a 14 year old boy), that they tortured others and mutilated the bodies of terrorists killed after ambushing Our Boys. According to a senior officer, the accusations amount to “the most serious and provocative made against the British Army in modern times.”
The allegations will be set out in detail at a Press conference tomorrow by the British solicitor Phil Shiner, representing the Iraqis involved and who collaborated with Panorama in the making of this complete propoganda. The programme will then be broadcast despite investigations by the Royal Military Police and International Red Cross both of which declared the allegations to be unfounded. Phil Shiner appears to make a living out of investigating Our Boys and was was made “Human Rights Lawyer of the Year” by the Joint Liberty and Justice Awards in 2004. That tells you all you need to know about this particular character. But what he does is for him and his concience, if he has one.
The BBC, however, will try – yet again – to blacken the reputation of our troops on the back of the contents of our bank accounts and under pain of imprisonment. It will do this knowing that these allegations have been investigated and discredited and it will do this knowing that its own programme will be used throughout the muslim world to rally more terrorist dupes. It’s quite possible that British troops will be attacked – killed maybe – because of the lies the BBC will broadcast on Monday. Why does the BBC have such visceral hatred of our military? Is it because they are revolted at the patriotism and bravery that runs through our armed forces? Might it be that the idea of people actually being prepared to risk their lives in defence of this United Kingdom appals the left wing rabble that made this programme? Throughout the period of the war on terror, the BBC has consistently shown itself prepared to believe the worst of our soldiers. In this regard, it is more dangerous than even the likes of Aal Qu’eda’s broadcaster of choice Al Jazeera – it is the enemy within and shows its true colours with this Panorama programme. Right beeboids, let’s hear you justify the unjustifiable when it comes to this calculated betrayal of the British Army.
We have already covered the story concerning how MP Sadiq Khan was “bugged” when he went to visit a senior Islamist terrorist suspect in prison. So you will know that the media, including the BBC, pathetically misrepresented what actually happened. It was Babar Ahmad, the alleged terrorist financier, whose conversations were being bugged, and rightly so in my view. But the BBC peddles the line that it was poor Mr Khan who was under surveillance, even when the facts are to the contrary. One presumes that if even Ronald McDonald had dropped in for chinwag with Babar then he too would have had his conversation recorded. So, even after all of this, now come the BBC headline alleging that Khan was bugged twice, even though he hasn’t been bugged once! This headline is very misleading as the article itself makes it very clear that it was Ahmad who the security forces were monitoring. Is this just sloppy writing by whoever wrote the headline, or else is it a desire to use this headline to convey an impression, with the detail contradicting it buried deeper in the article?
Is taking illegal drugs mandatory for top BBC Radio presenters? The reason that I ask is the news that BBC Radio One’s drum and bass DJ Raymond Bingham, AKA ”Grooverider”, has been handed a four year stretch in a Dubai jail for possession of cannabis. His BBC bosses said he had paid a “very high price” while his lawyers insisted he had simply forgotten he was carrying a tiny amount of the drug for personal use.
The conviction comes after BBC Radio 4 presenter Nigel Wrench spent time in the dock the other week answering a charge of drug fuelled homosexual rape. Wrench, who is HIV+ has previously used a Guardian interview to encourage gay men not to use condoms, was a presenter on the Beeb’s prestigious PM news programme. He was cleared of the rape charge but admitted cocaine snorting during what he called “boisterous horseplay.” (Animals were not involved on this occasion)
To have one presenter on drugs related charges is unfortunate; two might be a coincidence but a third will look like a corporate culture. Surely not?
So anyway, I bit my tongue and tuned in to the “Today” programme on Radio 4 for just around 15 minutes this morning. What a rich mine of institutionalised bias it is. First up, we had a report on yesterday in the Commons and the debate on the Nationalisation of Northern Rock. Thanks to the way in which the excerpts were spliced, every effort was made to make the pathetic Alistair Darling look in control. Naturally the always-in-favour of Statism of the GLib-Dem’s was given a soft ride, whereas apparently the venom in George Osbourne’s contribution “rallied” the Labour backbenches to their beleaguered masters. One Labour MP even referred to the Northern Rock as “the people’s bank”. And to hammer this home, we had Mark Simpson sent to Newcastle, interviewing “local” people on how they felt about the Rock. One man burst into tears claiming that the Rock had been very well run indeed (Wonder was he a local branch manager) A local Labour MP was brought on to tell us that it would be “unthinkable” had the government not stepped in. (Yeah, unthinkable for his re-election propects) The BBC is shilling to make us feel that this “temporary” change of ownership is the most natural thing imaginable and of course for one organ of the State to claim this about a new organ of the State is understandable, but still repugnant from an organisation that claims to be neutral. Following on from this, we had an item which suggested that a manager’s organisation backed the TUC campaign to cut back on the hours we work. Apparently we all work too far too many hours and the comrades in the Trades Unions have now found an ally amongst the managerial classes, to the BBC’s evident delight. Employers just need more regulation, right? Then to finish off, we had an item concerning the planned arrest of an Israeli General, stopping off at Heathrow, and wanted by the loony left as a “war criminal.” The BBC revealed that police feared a possible shoot-out if they dared boarding the El-Al aircraft to arrest the general. Hope so. It’s funny how the BBC did not question how it came about that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of this Israeli General – it merely repeated the far-left claim that he was a wanted “war-criminal” – well, all Jews are, right? There you go – just 15 minutes looking at the world through the prism of leftworld. Couldn’t take any more!
I see that the BBC is in full battle cry against… bottled water. You may wonder how relevant this is at a time when our very civilisation is under attack by Islamofascists, and when our national sovereignty is being diluted on a daily basis by Europhiles, but hey, in leftworld there’s always going to be some utter irrelevance to distract attention from that what counts. So it is that tonight’s Panorama is given over to an all out attack on those of us who prefer to drink bottled water. Consumer choice is apparently a bad thing and so the BBC gives all possible aid to the ramblings of Environment Minister Phil Woolas and the rest of the crew who would deny us water -when it’s not the right sort of water.
The BBC series “Life on Mars” was set in the 1970’s and it seems we are all going back to the 70’s with the news that the government has decided to nationalise the Northern Rock bank. In this report the BBC dutifully reports the goverment line that there was no other option but for the State to step in and take over the running of this institution. It also reports the warm welcomethis step has been given by the uberleftist Lib-Dem’s Vince Cable and the Chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee Labour’s John McFall. Everyone seems happy at this catastrophic waste of billions of tax-payers money – apart from George Osbourne and Richard Branson. Naturally the share-holders get shafted but who cares about that when there all those Northern Rock jobs in Labour constituencies to preserve? Could you imagine if this was a bank called “Southern Rock” with thousands of jobs in the home counties that there would be the same enthusiasm from NuLabour? I look forward to the BBC providing a platform for those many capable economic analysts who can take apart this Brown/Darling shambles.
I see that the BBC carry a report that the Liverpool teacher who was jailed in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, is preparing to start a new job at a school in China. Our loss, ahem, China’s gain? Gillian Gibbons was spared flogging but was sentenced to 15 days in custody after being convicted of insulting Islam. She was graciously pardoned after eight days by President Omar al-Bashir last December. Mrs Gibbons also said she had not ruled out working in a Muslim country again at some point. (Proving she never learns) The BBC report goes on to say that the divorced mother of two was freed after two British Muslim peers flew to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to champion her cause. Further, it states that her treatment caused international outrage, with British Muslim groups describing it as “excessive”. (Wonder what punishment they felt was “appropriate” for such a “crime”? )
The problem is that this report completely misleads as to precisely what Baroness Warsi and Lord Ahmed actually did when they met with the Islamic thugs who runs Sudan. It paints a picture of heroic British Muslim establishment figures, backed by well meaning “British Muslim groups” bravely securing the release of this foolish woman from Liverpool. Problem is, this is far removed from reality.
Let’s just remind ourselves that the publicity-craving Ahmed and Warsi grovelled to the Sudanese government, they apologised for so-called “misunderstandings” concerning the heinous crime of calling a Teddy bear “Mohammad,£ and their visit merely conveyed spurious credibility on the genocidal monsters that run Sudan. They also were curiously mute about the fact that this wicked regime has murdered hundreds of Christians, for example. One presumes murder is even worse than being up on a charge of offending Mighty Mo? But not a cheep from the intrepid pair on that. Nor did they go to into the fact that it was the same Shari’a law which 40% of British Muslims (plus the Archdhimmi of Canterbury) want to see introduced in the UK that created the circumstances that led to Gibbons being arrested in the first place! President Al-Bashir scored a propaganda coup through the lamentable actions of those such as Ahmed and Warsi and this BBC rewrite of history shall not pass.
Did you see the prominence the BBC has given to the Competition Commision’s imminent report into the alleged monopoly of the “Big Four” supermarkets here in the UK? With a 74% market share between them, it seems that tough questions must be asked but at least free competition exists to regulate what they do. Can you imagine if there was a State supermarket chain? Do you think the Competition Commission would be interested in its behavior? Can you imagine shoppers outrage if that State Supermarket could insist that money be spent in its stores, even if poor value and shoody goods were all that was on offer? Even worse, imagine if because of the State supermarket’s power, it’s rivals struggled to sustain their own operations. Might it be that some monopolies are OK?