RADICAL VS MODERATE!

Interesting to read that exiled Palestinian terrorist leader George Habash has died. The BBC reports the death of this “radical” – an odd choice of word for a thug with the depraved pedigree Habash carries. In fairness the BBC does make clear that this anti-Semitic thug always advocated violence against Israel, a tradition which Arafat – who the BBC canonised – enthusiastically followed. But here is the stinger; given his murderous track record that is so bad that even the BBC cannot sanitise it – Al Beeb then points out that Mahmoud Abbas – that much vaunted “partner for peace” in the current Middle East political process – has declared three days of national mourning for Habash. Wiping tears from his eyes no doubt, Abbas also described him as a a “historic” leader. I’m sure the next of kin of those many Israelis who lost their lives at the hands of Habash and his terrorist gang may have another word for him

The bit that annoys me is why the BBC continually portrays Abbas as “a moderate” when he is in reality a notorious holocaust denier, a lifetime associate of Arafat the terrorist godfather, and an admirer of the unlamented George Habash, the man who dedicated his wretched life to killing Jews. Words matter and the use of terms like “radical” and “moderate” to describe extremist thugs like Habash and Abbas is inaccurate. It’s like saying Hitler was a “radical” but Goebbels was more of a “moderate”. It’s a matter of degree, and whether it’s Habash, Arafat or Abbas, these guys are terrorist thugs in the first degree.

Additional link posted by Natalie: I was going to post a link to the following story separately, but since it is so closely linked to the topic of David’s post I hope he won’t mind me adding it here: Remember that picture of Yasser Arafat, blood donor? Here is the BBC story mentioned in Scott Johnson’s article.

What Middle East Bias?

Anyone with even a scintilla of intelligence who has endured the BBC report on the Middle East will wonder if it is Hamas that directs editorial policy! Listening to the likes of Jeremy Al-Bowen, for instance, whinge about the plight of those poor oppressed Palestinians even as they kill each other in their desperation to kill innocent Israelis, is to listen to the voice of bias unfettered. I’m just surprised he doesn’t wear a kaffiyeh! And which of us will forget Barbara Plett’s award winning performance as she wept copious tears even as she bravely reported the death of the repulsive thug Arafat?

So anyway, today comes the news that the BBC continues to seek to suppress the results of the internal study it did on alleged Middle Eastern bias. Three Court of Appeal judges rejected a challenge by Steven Sugar, a commercial solicitor from Putney, south-west London, to overturn a High Court ruling which rejected his claim that the contents of the report should be made public under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Sugar may now decide to take his case to the House of Lords. He argues that the 20,000-page report by Malcolm Balen should be published as part of the debate about a perceived anti-Israeli bias at the BBC. But the BBC argues that, under the Freedom of Information Act, it is exempt from disclosing information held for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature”. The broadcaster contends the report was always intended as an internal review to help shape future policy on its Middle East coverage and was never intended for publication. (Why, did someone think it was too generous to the Israeli point of view?)

But why so coy? Where is the transparency? What is it that the BBC seeks to withhold from our view? As the people who pay for the BBC, I believe we have a perfect right to see the report that the BBC seeks to hide away. It is my view that ANY objective report into BBC coverage of Middle Eastern affairs will have revealed a systematic failure to apply the necessary professional impartiality of a news reporting organisation which is precisely why the BBC will continue to use public money to fight the gallant efforts of Steven Sugar.

Mothercare.

The sophistication that lies (and lies) behind the BBC bias is exemplified in this story which highlights the alleged failure of maternity units in England to deliver first class quality care. If you read the story, it appears that Maternity services are being starved of much needed cash and those plucky trusts in the North of England are magically outperforming those in the South.

A rising birthrate is mentioned in dispatches as a reason for the NHS needing much more taxpayers money.

So far, so good. Just one problem. The British birthrate has been falling, and has been doing so for years now. On that basis, we should need fewer maternity units, less public sector investment. The indigenous British birth rate of 1.8 has been below the necessary replacement level of 2.1. But ever since Labour decided that our national borders were un-necessary, the tsunami of immigrantion, has helped boost the birth rate. And a lot of those immigrants make the south of England their prime destination. Wonder if that might put a little pressure on southern trusts to provide all that immigrants require?

The Muslim birth rate has also rocketed and is estimated at circa 3.5. But the BBC sees no reason to explain the precise demographics behind the rising figure since it is concerned to promote the need for more expenditure on the stalinist NHS. I suggest that the BBC oozes sympathy for the NHS because like the NHS it also seeks endless public funding.

CONFESSIONS OF A BBC PUNDIT!


A warm hello to all Biased BBC readers!

My name is David Vance and I am the editor of the right of liberal website A Tangled Web. I am also a regular contributor to the BBC, especially here in Northern Ireland. I’m the token conservative-minded person and have railed against BBC bias for many years now. I am delighted to be able to weigh-in here since I passionately believe that the BBC must be held to account and that balance must be provided. Jeff Randall is absolutely right when he says that the BBC believes itself to be fair and balanced. In a way, it is. It is balanced perfectly between left and extreme left. It is poised perfectly between a mild dislike of our British identity and a complete hatred of it.

Having an on-line site that catalogues BBC bias is a great idea. Everyday, every hour, the BBC pumps out propaganda disguised as news. It postures as a neutral body when in fact it is just one very powerful arm of the leftist consensus which seeks to undermine everything that has made Britain great. Not only is it malignant in that regard but it’s international agenda also promotes the multiculti-mush typified by the UN and its bankrupt values. The bias in nuanced and it is institutionalised.


I hope my offerings here will help to further nail BBC bias and look forward to talking to you shortly.