NO BAN ON THE BURQA

NO BAN ON THE BURQA

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

>> WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2009

I've covered this issue elsewhere BUT the BBC have chosen to run an itemcritical of the speech by French President Sarkozy in which he suggested that it would be a good idea to ban the Burqa in France. He sees it as a symbol of oppression and I entirely agree with him. In fact I see it as much more than that - it is a way in which Islam tries to assert its primitive values on our culture, imprisoning women in walking shrouds. Anyway, cue BBC and up pops a human rights lawyer who spends his time fighting cases of Islamophobia in France, to slap down Sarkozy. Naturally no counter-view was allowed. It's pathetic to see the BBC continually waste our taxes finding new and more exciting ways to excuse the pathology of Islam. Dhimmis to a man.

ONE IN A MILLION

I listened with incredulity to this item on the BBC this morning. It concerns the utterly farcical Home Office scheme to help failed "asylum seekers" (Welfare tourists) return home that has resulted in just one family leaving the country, whilst costing us, the Brits £1m. Listen to Evan Davies blithely dismiss the waste of £1m on "an idea that was good" on this "pilot". It's all about "being nice" to "children", you see.

The BBC brought on some liberal bozo from the Children's Society on to argue that more time should have been given and more should have been spent on this madness. And where was the counter-balance? Oleaginous Labour spiv Keith Vaz was there to to superficially criticise the particular scheme but simultaneously shill for Labour's risible immigration policy. To listen to Vaz one could be forgiven for wondering WHICH government has been in power since 1997? 

Most bizarre of all was Evan Davies constant refrain about the need to be "nice" and not "nasty" when it comes to dealing with welfare tourists, sorry, I mean children. How about having someone on to comment who believes that the bigger issue is how these people get INTO our country in the first place and then how can government recklessly waste £1,000,000 of our money? I guess those dimensions fall outside "the narrative"?

LEADING THE JIHAD

Abu Ghraid is SO 2004. It's 2009 and time for a new onslaught on US forces abroad and so the BBC is heading Today this morning with an item which promises "uncovered allegations of abuse the US-run Bagram military base in Afghanistan. Correspondent Ian Pannell reports on former inmates' claims that they were beaten, deprived of sleep, threatened with dogs and hung from the ceiling." I understand the American military eat their own babies too. As a propagandising arm for the Taliban, you just can't beat the BBC. Every captured Jihadist knows the form by now; Allege the most hideous crimes of torture and humiliation against US armed forces and a BBC reporter wanting to believe such pigswill will appear, microphone in hand, prepared to provide an echo chamber for the enemy.

A Tale of two Censures

>> TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009

The BBC reports that Ofcom has censured George Galloway over five shows broadcast on Talksport during the Gaza conflict. Ofcom says he crossed the line from legitimate and provocative debate to one “calling listeners to action,” but “did not break the rules on offering opposing views.”

Was that the same kind of ‘not breaking the rules’ as in the ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’ kind of ‘not breaking the rules?’

Or in the sense that fading out counter arguments on a radio debate is somehow within the rules of ’offering opposing views’ (Well, Galloway did offerthem, it’s just that he happened to make them inaudible.)

Because that is what happened to Oliver Kamm who appeared on one of his programmes, and he didn’t seem to like it very much.

When Jeremy Bowen was censured for breaching impartiality rules Oliver Kammsupported him, rather bizarrely according to many people.

Kamm said he believed that scrupulous impartiality was not necessary from Bowen, citing other notable journalistic precedents.

Though he disagreed with some of Bowen’s views, he concluded:

“Objective reporting means that, while being aware of your partial information, you describe the world as you see it. This is the responsibility that Bowen has, and it's one that he has discharged.”

Furthermore he doesn’t seem to think Bowen is the sharpest knife in the box.

“I watched the BBC programme this evening, and I have to acknowledge that its presenter, Jeremy Bowen, whose greatest admirers would be hard put to identify in him the sharpest of inquiring minds, didn't do a bad job.”

But he’s the BBC Middle East Editor! Of course he has more of a responsibility than just describing the world as he, the Palestinians and Hamas, see it.

So Bowen is Biased AND thick, but Galloway is beyond the pale. The fact that the BBC lets him get away with so much speaks volumes; it’s time he was faded out altogether.