IGX

The Telegraph

You had a mighty civilization. What has happened where you can not defend your life and property in your own home...even with a cricket bat...without the power of gov't landing on you? What is the mindset of your prosecutors who can do this to people?

Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot was 'plagued by break-ins'
A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies.... The man is believed to have grabbed a legally owned gun after they were disturbed by the break-in early yesterday.
He is understood to have fired at the intruders who then fled the isolated house at Melton Mowbray, Leics, before calling the police.
Minutes later, an ambulance was called to treat a man with gunshot injuries nearby. It is understood that call was made by one of the suspected burglars.
The arrested man's mother said: "This is not the first time they have been broken into.
"They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty.

In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.

Because milk and cookies wouldn't be proper.

No argument from me on this. If someone breaks into your home, you should be entitled to use as much force as you think you need to, to defend yourself. There will be cases round the edges of people wandering onto land innocently or someone looking for directions but by and large, the law should allow for defence in a hugely strong way. Stop that short of gratuitously shooting a subdued captive or torture, this should not give rise to difficulties of interpretation. Where things have gone wrong is hard to say but a lot of it seems to be down to a judicial class insulated from this sort of crime, who see themselves as a sort of intelligentsia, protecting us from our worst excesses - like shooting burglars who are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Load of bollox.

Gorbachev wrote:No argument from me on this. If someone breaks into your home, you should be entitled to use as much force as you think you need to, to defend yourself. There will be cases round the edges of people wandering onto land innocently or someone looking for directions but by and large, the law should allow for defence in a hugely strong way. Stop that short of gratuitously shooting a subdued captive or torture, this should not give rise to difficulties of interpretation. Where things have gone wrong is hard to say but a lot of it seems to be down to a judicial class insulated from this sort of crime, who see themselves as a sort of intelligentsia, protecting us from our worst excesses - like shooting burglars who are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Load of bollox.

I agree with Gorby......logging off for the rest of the day to recover.

Gorbachev wrote:No argument from me on this. If someone breaks into your home, you should be entitled to use as much force as you think you need to, to defend yourself.

Encouraging to read this from Gorby.

I know a number of guys in Britain whom have been or are still in violent trades. The disgust they express at this trend is clear, yet, like Gorby said, it's the result of the judiciary being out of touch. Contrast this with the disgusting abuse the 'stand your ground' laws see in the US

Perhaps it's those wigs they wear in court.

Gene wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:No argument from me on this. If someone breaks into your home, you should be entitled to use as much force as you think you need to, to defend yourself.

Encouraging to read this from Gorby.

Just fucking die already ~@~, you useless fucking cunt!! How dare you be condescending to anyone you idiotic shit sack.

cleaner464 wrote:

Gene wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:No argument from me on this. If someone breaks into your home, you should be entitled to use as much force as you think you need to, to defend yourself.

Encouraging to read this from Gorby.

Just fucking die already ~@~, you useless fucking cunt!! How dare you be condescending to anyone you idiotic shit sack.

That might just become my new sig.

Didn't we have a Brit IGx'er who was going off to do time for sticking up for his son a couple of years back? Nick, I believe???

I have fuzzy recollections of the story but I seem to recall his conviction was along the lines of some heavy bullshit, so perhaps another old timer can chime-in.

I believe you're right, Nappy. I don't remember the details.

I agree you should be entitled to use force to repel an intruder, and you are. The Telegraph is a right wing rag which is generally best ignored. It is desperate for us to believe we are being run by out of touch liberal intellectuals so we are distracted from the fact that it is an old etonian style, independently wealthy public school boy network that pulls the strings here.

I have mates who are coppers, bouncers and nay'er-do-wells, and they all agree that you generally get done for what you say as much as what you do in violent encounters. So if you fuck someone over good-style but express that you were fearful for your life, then you may well get off. If you gloat that you handed out divine justice to the little toerag and are only sorry you never killed him, then you may not.

For info, Munir Hussein or whoever the fella was, was freed on appeal. Also, his defence included chasing the intruder down and stamping on his head with 4 of his mates prompting onlookers to plead for them to spare the intruders life. So while the little cunt may well have got what he deserved, it was pretty brutal and at least deserved further enquiry in a civilised society. All in all, I think this case ended up fairly.

Recently there have been two seperate cases in Manchester where people have been cleared of wrong doing after killing intruders in their own homes. So the law aint as bad as it is portrayed.

I f I remember rightly Nick's son got done over by someone. Nick then went and 'had a word' with the young gentleman. He didn't end up going down either IIRC.

Gorbachev wrote:

cleaner464 wrote:

Gene wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:No argument from me on this. If someone breaks into your home, you should be entitled to use as much force as you think you need to, to defend yourself.

Encouraging to read this from Gorby.

Just fucking die already ~@~, you useless fucking cunt!! How dare you be condescending to anyone you idiotic shit sack.

That might just become my new sig.

Don't-- it gets too much attention as it is.

Front page of another right wing rag (Daily Mail) today was informing us it's no longer a crime to hurt a burglar in your own. So there. The original story is just the kind of broken-britain nonsense people like to spew over a few pints of fizzy daan the pub while avoiding any investigation of actual events.

Odin, I think the old boys network has been under attack for decades and university educate left wing intellectuals are far more influential than you appear to believe. The rise of Parkinson, for example. Seriously. Working class to his boots. A rugby league supporter. Didn't have to moderate his accent and was a huge television star as far back as th 70s as the northern boy with a university degree.

Look at the City. Pure meritocracy now with people of all backgrounds. Politics? I'd say there are more left wingers in the younger generation - to start with anyway. Media? Same. Sure, the Torygraph is a rag in many ways, but the BBC is hardly run by Old Etonians?

The judiciary are changing more slowly as the Bar is only attempted by those with connections which perpetuates a hegemony. But even that now has its working class heroes and is changing.

There are 2 competing narratives - one that there is a monied elite with old school ties running everything. The other is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and political correctness, quotas and nanny state bullshit is taking the "Great" out of Great Britain. Neither is 100% true. But the media and political classes - those with real influence - are more left-leaning than right.

Where right-leaning philosophy still rules is in business, which is increasingly isolated from Westminster and just gets on with making money, lobbying to stave off interference when necessary but generally staying out of Government.

Gorbachev wrote:There are 2 competing narratives - one that there is a monied elite with old school ties running everything. The other is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and political correctness, quotas and nanny state bullshit is taking the "Great" out of Great Britain. Neither is 100% true. But the media and political classes - those with real influence - are more left-leaning than right.

If the media are 'left-leaning', can you name me the only national newspaper to back Labour in the last election? And to give you a clue, it wasn't even that bastion of left-wing propaganda, The Guardian.

And as for The Guardian, far from drawing from the ranks of the multicultural society whose virtues and benefits they push down the throats of all who read their paper or blog, they carefully select their own staff from a privileged elite. See this link - ON THE GUARDIAN, THE BBC AND OXBRIDGE: "DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DID…" - for more.

Will The Guardian and the BBC ever be able to live down the fact that their stentorious demands for equality, liberty, and a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ are emanating in large part from a carefully selected in-group whose members share in common, more than anything else, that they cracked their way into the Oxbridge crowd and gained a virtually guaranteed ticket to influence and power in this old boys club??

Firstly, ownership and consequential influence on the editorial is one thing. Legions of opinion writers and formers in those same papers is another. Many people, myself included, don't bother readin editorials. It's bland shit. The action is elsewhere.

The "Oxbridge network" isn't anything like an old school network. The vast majority of Oxbridge colleges operate very open entrance criteria and whilst there is an understandable tendency for the children of better off parents to crack it, the colleges also deliberately target disadvantaged youth to a much greater extent than I is recognised.

Further, many I the Oxbridge graduates I've met have been decidedly working class. They are bright, they apply, they get in. There is no hidden filter.

So yes, hiring from Oxbridge, disproportionately, narrows the spectrum, but not crazily so. Arguably, the most articulate, thoughtful working class heroes and left-leaning thinkers necessarily end up there.

The reality is that Britain is simply awash with "politically correct" thinking. In a good way. attitudes to the disabled, minorities, women and immigrants are light years ahead of where they were an where they remain in much of the rest of the world.

Look back at the coverage of the War on Terror and Britain's involvement in it. The media were against it from the start. The BBC played its role of State Broadcaster with impartiality on the surface but the very clear subtext was that the Yanks were too gung-ho and Britain had no business tearing after them. This wasn't an anti-Blair / left sentiment. It was a leftist media outraged at a Labour Government working hand-in-glove with a Republican President on foreign offensives.

There's a cold harsh reality to life in Britain alright. You're in or you're out. But the two groups are not hermetically sealed. They're as porous as they've ever been. Talent, hard work and a good attitude count for more than your old school tie. That's a new and well-established reality in all spheres bar royalty.

And BTW, the article you linked was written by a working class Cambridge graduate keen to assert that his College was diverse, un-priveledged and people need to be more critical of sweeping generalizations about privilege.

Gorbachev wrote:Firstly, ownership and consequential influence on the editorial is one thing. Legions of opinion writers and formers in those same papers is another. Many people, myself included, don't bother readin editorials. It's bland shit. The action is elsewhere.

The "Oxbridge network" isn't anything like an old school network. The vast majority of Oxbridge colleges operate very open entrance criteria and whilst there is an understandable tendency for the children of better off parents to crack it, the colleges also deliberately target disadvantaged youth to a much greater extent than I is recognised.

Further, many I the Oxbridge graduates I've met have been decidedly working class. They are bright, they apply, they get in. There is no hidden filter.

So yes, hiring from Oxbridge, disproportionately, narrows the spectrum, but not crazily so. Arguably, the most articulate, thoughtful working class heroes and left-leaning thinkers necessarily end up there.

The reality is that Britain is simply awash with "politically correct" thinking. In a good way. attitudes to the disabled, minorities, women and immigrants are light years ahead of where they were an where they remain in much of the rest of the world.

Look back at the coverage of the War on Terror and Britain's involvement in it. The media were against it from the start. The BBC played its role of State Broadcaster with impartiality on the surface but the very clear subtext was that the Yanks were too gung-ho and Britain had no business tearing after them. This wasn't an anti-Blair / left sentiment. It was a leftist media outraged at a Labour Government working hand-in-glove with a Republican President on foreign offensives.

There's a cold harsh reality to life in Britain alright. You're in or you're out. But the two groups are not hermetically sealed. They're as porous as they've ever been. Talent, hard work and a good attitude count for more than your old school tie. That's a new and well-established reality in all spheres bar royalty.

That's complete bullshit. Oxbridge simply satisfies its state-mandated quota for the admittance of a few 'proles', and does no more. The figures showing this are so well known that I almost can't believe I'm having to rehash this stuff, but see the following for a taste of what's going on (and for our American friends, the term 'public school' in the UK denotes the elite, fee-paying type, contrary to what it might seem to suggest):

Public schools still dominate Oxbridge

Five schools 'send more to Oxbridge than 2,000 others'

That a few working-class types go to Oxford isn't something anyone can deny. But it isn't a representation of the whole, and certainly not of the reality, and to base a whole argument on individual cases and not, instead, on the actual statistics won't wash. No doubt you'll be aware of the 'I've nothing against blacks, in fact my best friend is a nigger, BUT.....' fallacy.

And if you believe, again against all the available facts and data, that the political establishment is a rosy reflection of our 'disabled, minorities, women and immigrants' friendly country, perhaps you could name our current Government's cabinet and point out all those members who are disabled, from a minority, immigrants, or even just in possession of a cunt!

You're living in a fairytale world fed to you by those who themselves have no desire whatsoever to participate in or be subject to the same rules as they want you to be, and furthermore, they've brainwashed YOU to propagandize for them so they don't even have to do that themselves. Read Orwell's 1984, see the video on 'cultural marxism' I posted on the other thread, and open your eyes to the truth, my friend.

And what's the Iraq war got to do with anything? That was simply a business investment on the parts of our Governments to stave off the world financial meltdown for 5 years. And it worked. So I say 'well done Mr Bush, well done Mr Blair'. You got to give credit where credit's due.

So you need to be black or a woman or disabled to be in favour of rights for them? Sounds to me like you're in thrall to the quota system of fairness instead of being open to the idea that good people are getting through to top positions in business, politics and the media based on merit.

Oxbridge is a centre of academic excellence. Putting people in there based on quotas would be a retrograde step. What is happening is a commitment on the part of the colleges to give places to those from disadvantaged areas where they show the requisite academic promise. Asking for more than that is living a fairy tale. I don't want to have 2 types of Oxbridge graduate to interview - one "good" one "quota / meh".

Here's what Wikipedia says about bias in the BBC BTW. All slanted to the left. Slam dunk. And that's the State Broadcaster. You can be an Oxbridge graduate an still be a hard leftie. You know this.

"Political bias

BBC News forms a major department of the Corporation, and regularly receives complaints of bias. Some people have criticised the BBC for being part of the establishment. The Centre for Policy Studies- a right-wing think tank - has stated that, "Since at least the mid-1980s, the Corporation has often been criticised for a perceived bias against those on the centre-right of politics."[6] Similar allegations have been made by past and present employees such as Antony Jay,[7] North American editor Justin Webb,[8] former editor of the Today Programme Rod Liddle,[9] former correspondent Robin Aitken[10] and Peter Sissons, a veteran news anchor.[11] Former political editor Andrew Marr argues that the liberal bias of the BBC is the product of the types of people the Corporation employs, and is thus cultural not political.[8] In 2011 Mark Thompson, the current BBC Director General, wrote, "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left."[12] In 2011, Peter Oborne wrote, "Rather than representing the nation as a whole, it [the BBC] ]has become a vital resource – and sometimes attack weapon – for a narrow, arrogant Left-Liberal elite".[13]

Accusations of a left-wing bias were often made against the Corporation by members of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s Conservative government. Norman Tebbit called the BBC the "Stateless Person's Broadcasting Corporation" because of what he regarded as its unpatriotic and neutral coverage of the Falklands War, and Conservative MP Peter Bruinvels called it the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation".[citation needed] Steve Barnett noted in The Observer that "back in 1980, George Howard, the hunting, shooting and fishing aristocratic pal of Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw, was appointed [BBC chairman] because Margaret Thatcher couldn't abide the thought of distinguished Liberal Mark Bonham-Carter being promoted from vice-chairman. "Then there was Stuart Young, accountant and brother of one of Thatcher's staunchest cabinet allies, who succeeded Howard in 1983. He was followed in 1986 by Marmaduke Hussey, brother-in-law of another Cabinet Minister who was plucked from the obscurity of a directorship at Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers. According to Norman Tebbit, then Tory party chairman, Hussey was appointed 'to get in there and sort the place out, and in days not months.'"[14] But controversies continued with the likes of the Nationwide general election special with Thatcher in 1983, a Panorama documentary called Maggie's Militant Tendency, the Real Lives interview with Martin McGuinness, the BBC's coverage of the United States' 1986 Bombing of Libya and the Zircon affair. In 1987 Director-General of the BBC Alasdair Milne was forced to resign. Thatcher later said: "I have fought three elections against the BBC and don't want to fight another against it."[15] In 2006 Tebbit said: "The BBC was always against Lady Thatcher."[16]

Speaking to journalists at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch in 2009, Jeremy Hunt, the Shadow Cabinet Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, claimed that BBC News needed more Conservatives: "I wish they would go and actively look for some Conservatives to be part of their news-gathering team, because they have acknowledged that one of their problems is that people who want to work at the Corporation tend to be from the centre-left. That's why they have this issue with what Andrew Marr called an innate liberal bias."[17]

In contrast, writer and journalist John Pilger has frequently accused the BBC of a right-wing bias, a view shared by the left-wing Media Lens website. The editors' of Media Lens claim that the BBC acts to narrow the range of thought and like most commercial broadcasters it inherently portrays the opinions of the powerful.[18] Former Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, has criticised the BBC as part of a "Westminster conspiracy" to maintain the British political system.[19]Respect MP George Galloway has referred to it as the "Bush and Blair Corporation".[20]

Political correctness

On Friday 22 September 2006 the BBC's Board of Governors held an impartiality seminar which was streamed live on the internet. The previous day the then Chairman of the Governors, Michael Grade, explained the thinking behind the seminar in an article in The Guardian newspaper.[21] He also announced in the same article a live stream of the seminar would be available on the BBC Governors' website. The stream was only available live and was not publicised on the main BBC or BBC News websites, causing some media reports, including in The Mail on Sunday, to mistakenly claim that it was "secret". The full transcript of the seminar was released in June 2007.

In the seminar there was a hypothetical discussion including senior BBC executives about what they would allow controversial Jewish comedian Sacha Baron Cohen to throw into a dustbin on the satirical television show Room 101. It was imagined that Baron Cohen would wish to throw into Room 101 kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Qur'an, and the Bible. Most at the summit agreed that all would be permissible - except for the Qu'ran. There was also a hypothetical discussion about whether a Muslim BBC newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf.[22]

In the seminar former BBC business editor Jeff Randall claimed he was told by a senior news executive in the organisation that "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it." The Daily Mail claimed in 2006 that Andrew Marr stated, "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias".[23] These comments were reported in the UK national press a couple of weeks later. At the seminar Helen Boaden (Director of BBC News) said that the BBC must be impartial on the issue of multiculturalism. Boaden responded to press criticism of the seminar in a post on the BBC's Editors' Blog. Mark Thompson responded to press criticism in an article in the Daily Mail,[24] as did Mark Byford in an interview in The Sunday Telegraph.[25]

Racism

The BBC has also been accused of racism. In a speech to the Royal Television Society in 2008, Lenny Henry said that ethnic minorities were "pitifully underserved" in television comedy and that little had changed at senior levels in terms of ethnic representation during his 32 years in television.[26]Jimmy McGovern in a 2007 interview called the BBC "one of the most racist institutions in England".[27]

Others argue that the BBC is biased against the white population in its output, for example being reluctant to report racist murders perpetrated by ethnic minorities such as the murder of Ross Parker, and the murder of Kriss Donald. The BBC later acknowledged it was "a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively" noting it was worthy of coverage" "by any standards".[28] Similarly, the organisation agreed it "got it wrong" in relation to its coverage of the Donald case.[29][30]

The BBC is striving for 12.5% of its staff to be from a black and minority ethnic background (12% at 31 January 2009).[31] This is over 4% higher than the current percentage of ethnic minorities in the UK as a whole, though the BBC is largely based in urban areas with a more diverse demographic. However, it has been argued that much of its ethnic minority staff are cleaners and security guards and not presenters and programme makers.[32]

"Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century"

A report commissioned by the BBC Trust, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century,[33] published in June 2007, stressed that the BBC needed to take more care in being impartial. It said the BBC broke its own guidelines by screening an episode of The Vicar of Dibley that promoted the Make Poverty History campaign.[34] The bias was explained as the result of the BBC's liberal culture.[35] A transcript of the impartiality seminar is included as a separately published appendix to the report available via the BBC Trust.[36]

After press reports emerged that BBC employees had edited the Wikipedia article's coverage of the report, the BBC issued new guidelines banning BBC staff from "sanitising" Wikipedia articles about the BBC.[37]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage from supporters of both Israel and Palestine led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist Malcolm Balen, referred to as the Balen Report and completed in 2004. The BBC's refusal to release the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 resulted in a long-running and ongoing legal case.[38][39] This led to speculation that the report was damning, as well as to accusations of hypocrisy, as the BBC frequently made use itself of Freedom of Information Act requests when researching news stories.[40]

After the Balen report, the BBC appointed a committee chosen by the Governors and referred to by the BBC as an "independent panel report" to write a report for publication which was completed in 2006. The committee said that "apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" in the BBC's reporting of the middle east. However, their coverage had been "inconsistent," "not always providing a complete picture" and "misleading".[40] Reflecting concerns from all sides of the conflict, the committee highlighted certain identifiable shortcomings and made four recommendations.

According to an article in The Independent, the report suggested that BBC coverage in fact favoured the Israeli side.[41]Martin Walker, then the editor of United Press International, agreed that the report implied favouritism towards Israel, but said this suggestion "produced mocking guffaws in my newsroom" and went on to list a number of episodes of (in his view) clear pro-Palestinian bias on the part of the BBC.[42]

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn wrote in 2004 that the BBC's coverage allowed an Israeli view of the conflict to dominate, as demonstrated by research conducted by the Glasgow Media Group.[43]

In the course of their "Documentary Campaign 2000-2004," Trevor Asserson, Cassie Williams and Lee Kern of BBCWatch published a series of reports The BBC And The Middle East stating in their opinion that "the BBC consistently fails to adhere to its legal obligations to produce impartial and accurate reporting."[44]

Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post, has accused the BBC of being anti-Israel. He wrote that the BBC's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a "portrayal of Israel as a demonic, criminal state and Israelis as brutal oppressors" and resembled a "campaign of vilification" that had de-legitimised the State of Israel.[45] "Anglicans for Israel", the pro-Israel pressure group,[46] have berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias.[47]

The Daily Telegraph has criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Middle East. In 2007, the newspaper wrote, "In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt."[48]

In April 2004, Natan Sharansky who was then Israel's minister for diaspora affairs wrote to the BBC accusing its Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, as having a "deep-seated bias against Israel" following her description of the Israeli army's handling of the arrest of Hussam Abdu, who was captured with explosives strapped to his chest, as "cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes."[49]

In March 2006 a report about the Arab-Israeli conflict on the BBC's online service was criticised in a BBC Governors Report as unbalanced and creating a biased impression. The article's account of a 1967 United Nations resolution about the six-day war between Israel and a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria suggested the UN called for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war, when in fact, it called for a negotiated "land for peace" settlement between Israel and "every state in the area". The committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the article had breached editorial standards on both accuracy and impartiality".[50]

On 7 March 2008, news anchor Geeta Guru-Murthy clarified significant errors in the BBC's coverage of the Mercaz HaRav massacre that had been exposed by media monitor Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Correspondent Nick Miles had informed viewers that "hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his [the perpetrator's] family home." This was not the case and other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home to be intact and the family commemorating their son's actions.[51]

On 14 March 2008, the BBC accepted that in an article on their website of an IDF operation that stated "The Israeli air force said it was targeting a rocket firing team... UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Israel's attacks on Palestinian civilians, calling them inappropriate and disproportionate", they should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the excessive use of force by Israel. The article was additionally amended to remove the reference of Israeli 'attacks on civilians' as Ban Ki-Moon's attributed comments were made weeks earlier to the UN Security Council, and not in reference to that particular attack, and in fact, he had never used such terminology.[51]

The BBC received intense criticism in January 2009 for its decision not to broadcast a television appeal by aid agencies on behalf of the people of Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, on the grounds that it could compromise the BBC's journalistic impartiality. A number of protesters asserted that this showed pro-Israeli bias, while some analysts suggested that the BBC's decision in this matter derived from its concern to avoid anti-Israeli bias as analysed in the Balen report.[52] Parties criticising the decision, included Church of England archbishops, British government ministers and even some BBC employees. More than 11,000 complaints were filed in a three-day span. The BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, explained that the corporation had a duty to cover the Gaza dispute in a “balanced, objective way,“ and was concerned about endorsing something that could "suggest the backing one side” [53]Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, protested the BBC's decision by cancelling interviews scheduled with the company; ElBaradei claimed the refusal to air the aid appeal "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people irrespective of who is right or wrong."[54] The BBC's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, affirmed the need to broadcast "without affecting and impinging on the audience's perception of our impartiality" and that in this case, it was a "real issue."[55]

In response to perceived falsehoods and distortions in a BBC One’s Panorama documentary entitled ‘A Walk in the Park', transmitted in January 2010, British journalist Melanie Phillips penned an open letter in news magazine The Spectator to the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt, accusing the BBC of "flagrantly biased reporting of Israel" and urged the BBC to confront the "prejudice and inertia which are combining to turn its reporting on Israel into crude pro-Arab propaganda, and thus risk destroying the integrity of an institution." [56]

In March 2011, Member of Parliament Louise Bagshawe criticised the inaccuracies and omissions in BBC's coverage of the Itamar massacre and questioned the BBC's decision not to broadcast this incident on television and barely on radio, and its apparent bias against Israel.[57] In his July 2012 testimony to the Parliament, the outgoing Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson admitted that BBC "got it wrong.”[58][59]

A BBC Editorial Standards Findings issued in July 2011 found that a broadcast on Today on 27 September 2010 that stated "“At midnight last night, the moratorium on Israelis building new settlements in the West Bank came to an end. It had lasted for ten months", had breached the Accuracy guideline in respect of the requirement to present output “in clear, precise language”, as in fact the moratorium on building new settlements had been in existence since the early 1990s and remained in place.[60]

In December 2011, the BBC caused further controversy after censoring the word 'Palestine' from a song played on BBC Radio 1Xtra.[61][62]

More controversy was caused in April 2012 when the BBC broadcast news of 2,500 Palestinian prisoners who were on hunger strike, with very little overall coverage.[63][64] This resulted in two protests outside the BBC buildings in Glasgow[65] and in London.[66]

During the 2012 Olympics, on their country profiles pages, the BBC listed "East Jerusalem" as the capital of Palestine, and did not list a capital at all for Israel. After public outrage and a letter from Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev, the BBC listed a “Seat of Government” for Israel in Jerusalem, while adding that most foreign embassies “are in Tel Aviv.” It made a parallel change to the listing for “Palestine”, listing “East Jerusalem” as the “Intended seat of government.” [67] In a response to a reader's criticism on the issue, the BBC replied that the complaints that prompted the changes were “generated by online lobby activity."[68] The BBC was also noted for having no coverage whatsoever about the campaign[69] for the IOC to commemorate the 11 slain Israeli athletes from the Munich massacre in the 1972 Summer Olympics, which was met with repeated refusal by IOC President Jacques Rogge, despite the issue receiving much press by other major news networks[70][71].

2006 Lebanon War

During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israeli diplomatic officials boycotted BBC news programmes, refused interviews, and excluded BBC reporters from briefings because Israeli officials believed the BBC's reporting was biased, stating "the reports we see give the impression that the BBC is working on behalf of Hizbullah instead of doing fair journalism."[72]Francesca Unsworth, head of BBC News gathering, defended the coverage in an article for Jewish News.com.[73]

The Balen Report

Main article: The Balen Report
The BBC is seeking to overturn a ruling by the Information Tribunal rejecting the BBC's refusal to release the Balen report to a member of the public under the Freedom of Information Act on the grounds that it was held for the purposes of journalism. The report examines BBC radio and television broadcasts covering the Arab-Israeli conflict and was compiled in 2004 by Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser.

Critics of the BBC claimed that the Balen Report includes evidence of bias against Israel in news programming.[74][75] For examples, on 10 October 2006, The Daily Telegraph[76] claimed that "The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage. The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism. The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming."

It has been alleged that the corporation paid £200,000 for this legal action. The Daily Mail called the BBC's blocking a Freedom of Information Act request "shameful hypocrisy", in light of the corporation's previous extensive use of Freedom of Information Act requests in its journalism.[77]

On 27 April 2007 the High Court rejected Mr Steven Sugar's challenge to the Information Commissioner's decision. However, on 11 February 2009 the House of Lords (the UK's highest court) reinstated the Information Tribunal's decision to allow Sugar's appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision.

The BBC's press release following the High Court judgment included the following statement:

"The BBC's action in this case had nothing to do with the fact that the Balen report was about the Middle East - the same approach would have been taken whatever area of news output was covered."[78]

Sugar was reported after his success in the House of Lords as saying:

"It is sad that the BBC felt it necessary to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money fighting for three years to try to load the system against those requesting information from it. I am very pleased that the House of Lords has ruled that such obvious unfairness is not the result of the Act."[79]

Barbara Plett's tears for Yasser Arafat

During the BBC programme From Our Own Correspondent broadcast on 30 October 2004, Plett described herself crying when she saw a frail Yasser Arafat being evacuated to France for medical treatment.[80] This led to "hundreds of complaints" to the BBC, and suggestions that the BBC was biased. Andrew Dismore, the MP for Hendon, accused Ms Plett of "sloppy journalism", and commented that "this shows the inherent bias of the BBC against Israel." In response to Ms Plett's report, Lord Janner, the Labour peer, lamented, "We should shed tears for those who suffer... because of Arafat's intifada... this sort of coverage is exactly what we have come to expect from the BBC."[81][82][83]BBC News defended Plett in a statement saying that her reporting had met the high standards of "fairness, accuracy and balance" expected of a BBC correspondent.[84] Initially, a complaint of bias against Plett was rejected by the BBC's head of editorial complaints. However, almost a year later, on 25 November 2005, the programme complaints committee of the BBC governors[82] partially upheld the complaints, ruling that Plett’s comments “breached the requirements of due impartiality”.[83][84] Despite initially issuing a statement in support of Plett, the BBC director of news Helen Boaden later apologised for what she described as "an editorial misjudgment". The governors praised Boaden's speedy response and reviewed the BBC's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[82]



Jeremy Bowen

In April 2009, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust published a report on three complaints brought against two news items involving Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East Editor for BBC News.[85] The complaints included 24 allegations of inaccuracy or impartiality of which three were fully or partially upheld.[85][86][87] The BBC Trust's editorial standards committee found that Bowen's radio piece "had stated his professional view without qualification or explanation, and that the lack of precision in his language had rendered the statement inaccurate". They opined that the online article should have explained that the existence of alternate views and breached the rules of impartiality. However, the report did not accuse Bowen of bias. The website article was amended and Bowen did not face any disciplinary measures.[88]

Pro-Muslim bias

Hindu and Sikh leaders in the United Kingdom have accused the BBC of pandering to Britain's Muslim community by making a disproportionate number of programmes on Islam at the expense of covering other Asian religions.[89]

In a letter sent in July to the Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO), the head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics, Michael Wakelin, denied any biases on their part.[citation needed] A spokesman for the BBC said the broadcaster was committed to representing all of Britain's faiths and communities.[citation needed]

However, a number of MPs, including Rob Marris and Keith Vaz, called on the BBC to do more to represent Britain's minority faiths. "I am disappointed," said Mr Vaz. "It is only right that as licence fee payers all faiths are represented in a way that mirrors their make-up in society. I hope that the BBC addresses the problem in its next year of programming."[89]

Anti-Muslim bias

Muslim employees of the BBC in the United Kingdom have accused the BBC of operating an anti-Muslim policy by sidelining or sacking a disproportionate number of Muslims at its digital radio station Asian Network. They also asked that the station play more music from Pakistan and Bangladesh in addition to the Bollywood and bhangra music that is more popular with the Hindu and Sikh communities.[90]

A survey by Consumer PI found British Muslims perceive BBC TV news (as well as TV news from Sky and ITV) to be biased against their religion. Shakir Ahmed, director of Passion Islam Media said this perception may well fuel radicalism.[91]

Arab Spring

The overly positive coverage by BBC of the Arab Spring was criticized both from within and outside of the corporation. In June 2012, the head of news Helen Boaden admitted that the coverage was "over-excited". She attributed this to reporters embedded with the rebels, who produced reports which are "too emotive" and "veering into opinion".[92]

Unrest in Bahrain

In June 2012, the BBC admitted making "major errors" in its coverage of the unrest.[93] In an 89-page report, 9 pages were devoted to the BBC's coverage of Bahrain and included admissions that the BBC had "underplayed the sectarian aspect of the conflict" and "not adequately convey the viewpoint of supporters of the monarchy" by "[failing] to mention attempts by Crown Prince His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa to establish dialogue with the opposition". The report added that "the government appears to have made a good-faith effort to de-escalate the crisis" in particular during a period when the BBC's coverage of the unrest dropped substantially and that many people had complained that their coverage was "utterly one-sided".[94]

Indophobia

In 2008, the BBC was criticised by some for referring to the men who carried out the November 2008 Mumbai attacks as "gunmen" rather than "terrorists".[95][96][97] This follows a steady stream of complaints from India that the BBC has an Indophobic bias that stems from a culturally ingrained racism against Indians arising from the British Raj.[citation needed]Rediff reporter Arindam Banerji has chronicled what he argues are numerous cases of Indophobic bias from the BBC regarding reportage, selection bias, misrepresentation, and fabrications.[citation needed]Hindu groups in the United Kingdom have accused the BBC of anti-Hindu bigotry and whitewashing Islamist hate groups that demonise the British Indian minority[98]

In protest against the use of the word "gunmen" by the BBC, journalist Mobashar Jawed "M.J." Akbar refused to take part in an interview following the Mumbai terror attacks,[99] and criticized the BBC's reportage of the incident.[100] British parliamentarian Stephen Pound has supported these claims, referring to the BBC's whitewashing of the terror attacks as "the worst sort of mealy mouthed posturing. It is desperation to avoid causing offence which ultimately causes more offence to everyone."[101]

In March 2012, the BBC referred to the Hindu festival of Holi as "filthy festival". The Webster new world dictionary defines "filthy" as "full of filth, disgustingly foul; grossly obscene; morally vicious or corrupt". The BBC has since apologized for the offense caused.[102]

Writing for The Hindu Business Line, reporter Premen Addy criticises the BBC's reportage on South Asia as consistently anti-India and pro-Islamist,[103] and that they underreport India's economic and social achievements, as well as political and diplomatic efforts, and disproportionately highlight and exaggerate problems in the country. In addition, Addy alludes to discrimination against Indian anchors and reporters in favour of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ones who are hostile to India.

Writing for the 2008 edition of the peer-reviewed Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Alasdair Pinkerton analyzes the coverage of India by the BBC since India's independence from British rule in 1947 until 2008. Pinkerton observes a tumultuous history involving allegations of anti-India bias in the BBC's reportage, particularly during the cold war, and concludes that the BBC's coverage of South Asian geopolitics and economics shows a pervasive and hostile anti-India bias due to the BBC's alleged imperialist and neo-colonialist stance.[104]

Anti-American bias

In October 2006, Chief Radio Correspondent for BBC News since 2001[105] and Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to "correct" it in his reports, and that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it "no moral weight".[106][107][108]

In April 2007, Webb presented a three part series for BBC Radio 4 called Death To America: Anti Americanism Examined in which he challenged a common perception of the United States as an international bully and a modern day imperial power.[109]

American news commentator Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly sought to draw attention to what he calls the BBCs "inherent liberal culture."[110]

John Redwood's deregulation proposals

The BBC has been criticised for the way it covered Conservative MP John Redwood's policy group's deregulation proposals. Prominent political blogger Iain Dale criticised the organisation for leading news reports with the Labour Party's response to the proposals, rather than the proposals themselves, and claimed the BBC was "doing Labour's dirty work".[111] The BBC denied the charge.

British newspaper The Sun also alleged the BBC reports showed bias, criticising the organisation for including embarrassing footage of John Redwood badly singing the Welsh national anthem from the early 1990s. The paper argued that the coverage "was a mockery of impartial journalism" and "could have been scripted by Labour ministers".[112] The BBC later apologised, but denied showing bias.[113]

The Secret Agent Documentary

On Thursday 15 July 2004 the BBC broadcast a documentary on the far right British National Party where undercover reporter Jason Gwynne infiltrated the BNP by posing as a football hooligan.[114][115] The programme resulted in Mark Collett and Nick Griffin, the leader of the party, being charged for inciting racial hatred in April 2005, for statements which included Griffin describing Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith," Collett describing asylum seekers as "a little bit like cockroaches" and saying "let's show these ethnics the door in 2004." Griffin and Collett were found not guilty on some charges at the first trial in January 2006, but the jury failed to reach a verdict on the others, so a retrial was ordered.[116] At the retrial held in November 2006 all of the defendants were found not guilty on the basis that the law at the time did not consider those who follow Islam or Christianity to be a protected group with respect to racial defamation laws.[117] Shortly after this case, British law was amended to outlaw incitement to hatred against a religious group (see Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006).

The BNP believe this was an attempt to "Discredit the British National Party as a party of opposition to the Labour government."[118]

After the second trial, Nick Griffin described the BBC as a "Politically correct, politically biased organisation which has wasted licence-fee payers' money to bring two people in a legal, democratic, peaceful party to court over speaking nothing more than the truth."[117]

Jerry Springer: The Opera

In January 2005, the BBC aired Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against the Christian religion. In advance of the broadcast, which the BBC had warned "contains language and content which won't be to some tastes" mediawatch-uk's director John Beyer wrote to the Director General urging the BBC to drop the programme, saying "Licence fee payers do not expect the BBC to be pushing back boundaries of taste and decency in this way." The BBC issued a statement saying: "As a public service broadcaster, it is the BBC's role to broadcast a range of programmes that will appeal to all audiences - with very differing tastes and interests - present in the UK today."[119] Before the broadcast, some 150 people bearing placards protested outside the BBC Television Centre in Shepherd's Bush.[120] On the Monday following the broadcast, which was watched by some two million viewers, The Times announced that BBC executives had received death threats after their addresses and telephone numbers were posted on the Christian Voice website. The Corporation had received some 35,000 complaints before the broadcast, but reported only 350 calls following the broadcast, which were split between those praising the production and those complaining about it.[121]

One Christian group attempted to bring private criminal prosecutions for blasphemy against the BBC,[122] and another demanded a judicial review of the decision.[123]

In March 2005, the BBC's Board of Governors convened and considered the complaints, which they rejected by a majority of 4 to 1.[124] The subsequent refusal of the BBC to reproduce the actual Muhammad cartoons in its coverage of the controversy concerning them convinced many that the BBC follows an unstated policy of freely broadcasting defamation of Christianity which it would not allow in the case of any other religion.[125][126][127]

Climate change

The BBC has been criticised for hypocrisy over its high carbon footprint, in view of the amount of coverage it gives to the topic of climate change. Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman argues that the Corporation's correspondents "travel the globe to tell the audience of the dangers of climate change while leaving a vapour trail which will make the problem even worse".[128] Paxman further argues that the 'BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago'.[129]

At the 2007 Edinburgh International Television Festival, Peter Horrocks (Head of TV News) and Peter Barron (Editor, Newsnight), said that the BBC should not campaign on the issue of climate change. They criticised proposed plans for a BBC Comic Relief style day of programmes around climate change. Horrocks was quoted as saying: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it."

Peter Barron was quoted as adding: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."[130]

Peter Horrocks later outlined the BBC's position on the BBC Editors Blog ("No Line").[131]

The plans for a day of programmes about environmental issues were abandoned in September 2007. A BBC spokesperson said this was "absolutely not" because of concerns about impartiality.[132]

In January 2011, broadcast journalist Peter Sissons told the Daily Mail that "the BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots...and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent".[133]

In July 2011 a BBC Trust review cited findings of an assessment by Professor Steve Jones of University College London. Jones found there was an at times “over-rigid” application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which failed to take into account what he regarded as the “non-contentious” nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving “undue attention to marginal opinion”. Professor Jones gave reporting of the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of GM crops and the existence of man made climate change as examples of his point.[134]"

Man, Britain is fucked up. I'm glad we don't have those problems here in the states.

The BBC is a snake pit of cultural Marxism, feeding you nonsense about 'gay rights' and 'quotas'.

Here, read this from a review of Tomas Schuman's (aka Yuri Bezemenov) Love Letter to America:

All in all, Schuman's thesis is simple. First, the Soviet Union demoralizes the United States (or its target). This is done by encouraging the disintegration of institutions and functions that have kept it together, encouraging class and race struggle, encouraging more and more functions of society to be assumed by the government, stressing the importance of relatively unimportant issues (global cooling, gay rights, equal pay for women-- in general, stressing special 'rights' for special 'interest groups') over important issues (national defense, economic stability and sustainability), and undermining the government and its agencies through the creation of anti-war and anti-proliferation groups, publishing secret information, and pouring the fuel on the fire of any scandal (like Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Pinochet, whatever).

Once a country is demoralized, it is ready for destabilization. This happens by weakening national defense and the economy. In the former, decreasing spending, limiting research, disarming and drawing down through a perception of peace and understanding. In the latter, creation of a socialist welfare state. The third stage is crisis, when the country is in turmoil and reacts irrationally, resulting in civil war, foreign invasion, or some kind of power shift. The final phase is normalization, when a pro-Communist or pro-Soviet government comes to power.

And a visual aid:



Now, for instance, go and look through a selection of recent IGX threads, and notice that the things described in the poster above are being parroted by all sorts of different people, unaware of how and why they came to think such things. You're a case study yourself, Gorby, that you can't deny.

"Subversion Process" snerk.

This is egregiously stupid as when we look back at Reagan's "crushing defeat" of the soviets in the cold war...they were teeetering from the get go. It's like taking credit for an earthquake.