Biased BBC

Gathering Storm

2009-11-21T11:54:00.002Z

I am well aware that Peter Oborne’s C4 anti-Jew documentary was not a BBC programme. However, years of biased reporting on the Israeli/Palesinian situation well and truly prepared the ground for Peter Oborne to score his illegitimate goal.
Meanwhile, if anyone was acting as referee, they must have steadfastly withstood the pressure from the mighty Jewish lobby and looked the other way.

The inferior quality of the programme was no secret, and many of the supportive comments that popped up in response seem to be of a similar standard. But the obvious flaws in both provide little reassurance that the groundswell of anti Israel feeling can be disregarded as an aberration of the ignorant; like tattoos.

The insinuations littering the programme were designed to implant the idea that everything ever said in support of Israel was sponsored by wealthy Jews with an ulterior motive, while if any denunciation of Israel remained unsaid, that was only because wealthy Jews with an ulterior motive have suppressed it.

Peter Oborne says anti-Semitism is no longer a racist abomination against Jews, but a weapon used by them to quash protests from victims of the sinister Jewish lobby. The suggestion that Jews cynically use accusations of anti-Semitism as a silencing tool is itself a silencing tool of the first order.

What really is sinister is the media’s suspicion and dislike of Jews and the BBC’s affection for Muslims. Is nobody aware of the gathering storms of 30s Germany? How long before they drop their guard and blurt out that Hitler was right.

See Robin Shepherd’s article in the Wall Street Journal, read his blog. Check out CiFWatch.

Open Thread

2009-11-21T09:39:00.000Z

Thread open. (Bumped)

CRU Update

2009-11-21T09:13:00.006Z

Tim Blair:

"BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin wants us to feel sorry for his warmy friends"
My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times.
They ask how many of us would feel completely comfortable if our own inboxes were emptied out for the world to see.
One small issue with that: most peoples’ inboxes don’t concern the multi-billion dollar restructuring of international economies to counter predicted climate change. Harrabin’s contacts at the CRU are quite literally seeking to change our world, yet they whine about us looking through mere email.

Or as the The Devil's Kitchen puts it "Ah, diddums…"

From Richard Black's blog:

Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.

As I pointed out in the previous post, in one of the leaked emails Michael Mann states that Richard Black "does a great job" and indicates his intent to contact the BBC correspondent to find out how an article titled "What happened to global warming?" by Paul Hudson was allowed to appear on the BBC website. Opposing views must be not be heard!

Bishop Hill has more goodies from the emails, or search them youself here.

Thanks to all in the comments for the tips.

Update 12.30. BBC to send 35 staff to cover Copenhagen. Nice quote from Conservative MP Philip Davies:

'On the subject of climate change, the BBC seems to lose all its critical faculties and it will probably be just a fawning exercise over these environmentalists anyway.

'It would be nice if one of these 35 people asked some pertinent and critical questions about climate change. But I suspect they will all be subscribers to the extreme environmental agenda.'

I suspect so too. They wouldn't want to upset their friends on the CRU mailing list.

Hadley CRU Hacked

2009-11-20T09:12:00.022Z

(Update - the Examiner article linked to below stated that this was the UEA Hadley Climate Research Centre. Hadley is not in the title. The leaked documents are from the UEA's Climate Research Unit (CRU). Hadley is a separate Met Office organisation. Thanks to a very agitated Pete Pisspoor in the comments for pointing that out.
Further update - CRU has provided a lot of the "climate simulations data" for Hadley's LINK project. It has also " developed datasets in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office". Search HadCRU and HadCRUT on Google.)

And now, back to our original programming...

This could get very interesting:

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

CRU has confirmed that it has been hacked and it has cancelled all existing passwords. If you see or hear any mention of this on the BBC please point it out in the comments so we can monitor how this story is spun, both by CRU and the BBC.

Update 13.45. Andrew Bolt has been picking through the emails and documents and, if they are all genuine, the information in them is simply astonishing.

There's a document by CRU's Professor Phil Jones which shows that he was so concerned by Freedom Of Information requests for raw data that he was contemplating ways to remove key information and reconstruct the data to make it fit the preferred conclusions.
There's an email from American climate scientist Tom Wigley advising Professor Jones how to manipulate some data to emphasise warming trends.
There's an email from Jones telling his colleagues to delete incriminatory emails.
There's another from Jones in which he tells a colleague that he's used the same "trick" as Michael Mann (Mr Hockey Stick) "to hide the decline", and in yet another he calls the reported death of a climate sceptic "cheering news".
There's an email from Mann himself promising senior CRU staff that they can use the RealClimate website to post articles and he will ensure the censorship of any comments from sceptics challenging what they've written.
There's an email from senior IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth in which he asks, "Where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
There's an email in which CRU staff promise to blackball scientists from the IPCC report whose work doesn't conform to their alarmist predictions: "keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

If the BBC's environment correspondents are too upset to touch the story, perhaps the BBC's Open Secrets blogger Martin Rosenbaum will do something about it. Deleting data and emails demanded by FOI requests is, after all, illegal.

Update 17.00. The BBC has reported it here. Hat tip to 1327 in the comments who points out, as does Mr Eugenides, that the potentially explosive contents of the emails and documents are not mentioned.

Update 17.30. The Guardian's report does mention the email contents. There's also a quote from a very angry sounding Michael Mann: "I'm hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

Update 17.40. Our old friend Jo Abbess responds: "I've read a number of them, and there's nothing untoward in anything. It's all a hoax to make you think that the Science is unravelling or that the Scientists are misbehaving (aka "lying")." She adds: "I await put-downs from the Climate Science community after the weekend." I'm not sure they'll wait that long to start the "put-downs", Jo.

Update 18.30. (With a reminder of the health warning until it's all proved to be kosher) One of the leaked emails from Michael Mann addressing the recent "What happened to global warming? article by the BBC's Paul Hudson which caused such outrage among the econuts (emphasis added) :

From: Michael Mann
To: Stephen H Schneider
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
Cc: Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , trenbert , Michael Oppenheimer

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

mike

Looks like Richard Black is considered a reliable sort by this bunch. I wonder if they're in contact with him now, coordinating their response. (Hat tip to a guest in the comments.)

Update 19.00. The email from the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth (mentioned above @13.45 update - follow link to Andrew Bolt to view) in which he says, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant" comes from the same email exchange relating to Paul Hudson's article. Trenberth seems to be backing Hudson.

Update 19.30. Reminder: "Climate 'hockey stick' is revived" by Richard Black.

Update 20.00. Richard Black has a round-up of Copenhagen-related news on his blog, time stamped 18.16 UK time today. No mention of the CRU documents. (Last update this evening from me.)

CATHY COME HOME..

2009-11-20T08:38:00.003Z

So, after the anointment of Baroness Ashton as the EU's High Representative on Foreign Affairs and Security last evening, the BBC has swung into the "Hail Cathy" mode this morning. We had independent commentator Neil Kinnock on to say what a swell gal she was and how no one could be more suited to carrying out such a function as the unelected Baroness. The BBC also provided us with a sanitised version of her CV with the pro-Communist CND dimension left unstated - never mind that Dalek in her sitting room.

TORIES TO CAUSE CHIEF CONSTABLES TO QUIT?

2009-11-20T08:16:00.004Z

Sir Hugh Orde is the most politicised senior Police Chief that I know of. His period as Chief Constable of the PSNI was distinguished, if that is the correct word, by his playing of the political game to accommodate the requirements of the "Peace Process". For example, he hailed the admission of a convicted IRA bomber onto the controlling Policing Board as progress. Sir Hugh was doing the rounds of the BBC this morning, warning that his fellow Chief Constables might well resign if Conservative plans to bring about more accountable local policing come into being.

On a purely political point of view, I hope some of them carry out this threat since we would be well rid of several Chief Constables. But on the topic specifically of BBC bias, why was there no one invited to defend and explain the Conservative view? Why was Orde's own heavily politicised history not examined? This item could be seen as the BBC allowing an attack on Conservative policy through the back door and one wonders if the uberCop-come-politician Orde is not simply paying back his Labour masters?

Question Time 19th November

2009-11-19T21:00:00.003Z

The traditional Question Time live-chat is here tonight, so please feel encouraged to join our usual Biased-BBC hecklers and jesters in providing a running commentary on the pronouncements of Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, the Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, Sir Menzies Campbell, Clare Short and Nick Ferrari. See you at 10:30pm

Question Time 19th November

Sexy Danish Model Photos

2009-11-19T18:33:00.006Z

Hat tip to Deegee in the comments for drawing attention to the BBC slide show about an "Oxfam exhibition of photographs taken in Peru by model Helena Christensen to document climate change".

Yesterday I noted that the BBC's World Have Your Say blog was expressing despair over its failure to inspire interest in the topic of climate change. The WHYS team might consider that one reason so many people are turned off by the BBC's approach to this subject is its readiness to promote the vacuous bullshit observations of hypocritical flyby celebrity eco-activists.

The Christensen photos highlighted by the BBC are mediocre at best (which is particularly disappointing given the huge potential of the subject matter) and furthermore, as Deegee points out, the captions seem to contradict the pictures. One reads, "These mountains were covered with snow years ago and they're not anymore [sic]", and yet we see snow-covered mountains in shot. Another says, "Obviously, the waterfalls are less frequent and the rivers are drying out because of the disappearing glaciers", but there in front of us is an impressive looking river.

The caption for the final picture quotes Christensen as saying:

"The most important thing is to stop the huge emissions of carbon dioxide into the world."

Well, that's pretty rich to say the least. Last month she told the Times that she "divides her time between Copenhagen and New York, but has a soft spot for Essex" because her agent's charming home is there:

The house is near Stansted airport, which is extremely convenient — you step off the flight and feel you can almost touch the house — but thankfully you can’t hear the planes because the landing strip goes the opposite way.

With those convenient carbon-spewing planes out of earshot it's so much easier to keep the plight of those poor Peruvians out of mind.

(Follow the Times link for Helena's amusing tale about a swimming rodent she once saw. The long winter evenings must just fly by.)

The message is clear - if your charity tin says "climate change" and has a picture of a celebrity on it, the BBC will help with your PR without a second thought.

ON THE ATTACK...

2009-11-19T10:12:00.003Z

Did anyone else catch the Cameron interview on the Today show this morning? John Humphrys seem determined to suggest that there was some form of collusion between David Cameron and Sir Christopher Kelly when it came to highlighting the total failure of Brown to deal with certain aspects of the Kelly report. What did Dave know and when did he know it? - was the line being pursued by the BBC this morning. Nice way of deflecting the issue. John!

UK DEATH PANELS...

2009-11-19T10:00:00.003Z

The BBC covers the decision by N.I.C.E. to deny those suffering with liver cancer the opportunity to be treated with a drug that will alleviate their pain and hopefully extend their lives by some months. Professor Littlejohn from N.I.C.E. was allowed to get away with blue murder in his attempt to shift the blame onto the Pharmaceutical company behind the drug. Socialised health care, as manifest in the NHS, does not work and the not so nice quangocrats in N.I.C.E. merit much more intense scrutiny from the BBC. I shan't hold my breath awaiting this.

SOMETHING ABOUT SARAH..

2009-11-19T09:54:00.002Z

BBC's Kevin Connolly covers the Sarah Palin book tour on Today this morning. (7.24AM) I thought it was a pretty fair although I smiled at Kevin accepting he is seen as part of the liberal elite media. Quite so.

Question Time 19th November

2009-11-19T01:25:00.000Z

In what promises to be a spectacularly lefty panel this week, Question Time features the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, the Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, expenses trougher and LibDem Sir Menzies Campbell, and Clare Short who is now sitting as an Independent. Broadcaster Nick Ferrari will add weight (literally) to the proceedings in the plus an extra panelist seat.

On the BBC website Short is described as being one of "Blair's Babes" which if nothing else shows that someone at the BBC does sarcasm. David Vance will be leading the charge in the Biased-BBC livechat as usual, and TheEye will be humbly assisting with the moderation. See you here later this evening!

THE SCIENCE OF NON-SCIENCE...

2009-11-18T20:41:00.004Z

With media, presentation is everything. So the BBC chooses to present the latest UN report in a way that suggests "poor women" bear climate change heaviest of all. The UN report is pushing the idea that all this dreadful climate change which impacts these "poor women" most savagely COULD be ameliorated if we ...cut population growth by using condoms more. I have covered this ludicrous UN story here but I think the BBC should be made to share the punch-line to this population control suggestion by the UN.

"The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said.

I couldn't find that revelation in the BBC report for some odd reason. Wear a condom, save the planet - just some of the UN inspired drivel promoted by the State Broadcaster!

Unreality T.V.

2009-11-18T16:18:00.003Z

Following the account of procedures attached to the production of The Big Questions, and exposure of the tactics used to ensure car-crash telly (so as not to bore the audience) here’s another example of the tampering that goes into making a programme aimed, above all else, at ratings.

I know the strictest parents series has an agenda. It’s set up to show that delinquents need boot-camp parenting. This theory has as many holes as a sieve, but that’s not my point. It is that most programmes start with a conclusion, whereupon much film is shot, most of it is discarded, and the rest is edited to fit.

I saw an episode that featured strict black Christian parents unconvincingly performing ‘wonders’ on two rebellious British teenagers. We’ve all seen black Americans going crazy in church before, so this lot didn’t seem particularly surprising, but neither ‘parents’ nor teenagers came out of it too well.

The series in question is shown on BBC3 so I don’t expect many people watch it, but the Orthodox Jewish episode was bound to ruffle a few sensitive feathers as it made the strict parents look as bonkers and unreasonable, if not more so, than the naughty teenagers.

A plague on both their houses, one might conclude. I certainly wouldn’t recommend participating in exploitative rubbish like that. But for another inside story see this JC article and the comment from neighbour Chani.

“Over 100 hours of film was shot that week, including many examples of the neighbors delivering dinner, partying around a lag b'omer bonfire, loaning the teens clothing from the "Clothing Gemach", strolling with the teens around the neighborhood, and throwing them a good-by party where they showered the teens with personal blessings. None of these clips made it in. What did make it, unfortunately, was a line that Tzippy was "fed" by the director regarding "the community authorities." Taken out of context, it leaves an incorrect and imbalanced representation of a community that smothers and rejects, but does not embrace and accept”

It’s not this stupid series that worries me. I fear that everything we see on the BBC is, to one degree or another, similarly manipulated. With their access to the media, programme makers and producers are in a uniquely powerful position, and in any other profession exploiting naïve people would be regarded as a form of abuse.

Hard not to laugh again

2009-11-18T13:20:00.008Z

"Are you selfish - or are we bad journalists?" asks the BBC's Mark Sandell on the World Have Your Say blog. "Whatever we do, whatever debate we come up with, we can't seem to interest you in the issue of climate change."

What a shame, eh?

(A related item - last week on the Conan O'Brien show Al Gore stated that "the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees" [via John Derbyshire] . Do you think we might have heard a bit more about such an innumerate pronouncement if it had been made by a certain Republican VP candidate?)

(Update. The WHYS blog has bumped the original post - new link here.)

Hitchens on Today

2009-11-18T10:27:00.003Z

Christopher Hitchens has had two fairly well publicised articles out during the past week. The first, from Newsweek, attacked Sarah Palin; the second more recent piece appeared in Slate and attacked "the host of damage-control commentators" who rushed to claim that religion was not a motivating factor in the Fort Hood killings.

No prizes for guessing which topic Hitchens was invited on the Today programme to discuss just before 7 this morning. Also, no surprise that Hitchens - well-known for his anti-Palin views - was the only person interviewed. I very much doubt that it even crossed the minds of the Today editors to seek the perspective of a commentator with a more sympathetic opinion of Palin. In the highly unlikely event that Hitchens had been asked on to discuss Fort Hood, I thinks it's a near certainty that an opposing voice would've been heard.

Hard not to laugh

2009-11-17T15:55:00.001Z

Heh:

A Russian icebreaker carrying over 100 tourists, scientists and journalists on a cruise around Antarctica was struggling to free itself from sea ice but was not in any danger, a shipping company said Tuesday… Russian news agencies said a BBC camera crew filming a documentary about the Antarctic was also on board.

Solihull Sojourn

2009-11-17T11:25:00.005Z

Bio has already linked to this article by Israelinurse, everyone’s favourite contributor to blogs Harry’s Place and CiFWatch. She describes appearing on The Big Questions, in the third and last topic on the show, antisemitism. The format of this programme is bound to lead to frustration all round, and true to form, this one ended just at the point when they were getting down to some delicate nitty gritty.
Israelinurse’s original post might be a tad too long for the sensitivities of this site, but here are some of the juicy bits.

"[I]in my initial telephone conversation with the programme’s assistant producer I raised the subject of the BBC’s suppression of the publication of the Balen Report at an estimated cost of some £200,000 so far to the license-fee paying British public. Despite this, they decided that they wanted me on the show. Then, a couple of days before the journey to Birmingham, I received a further phone call instructing me that I must not mention The Guardian on air. My protests that this rather Fawlty Towers-style ‘don’t-mention-the-war’ restriction was absurd were met with the explanation that as no representative of The Guardian would be present at the time of broadcast, and therefore that organisation would not have the right of reply, there was a danger of legal action being taken against the BBC which they were keen to avoid.

I decided that there was in fact no need to mention the ‘G’ word, and so decided to go ahead despite the gag-order.

Upon arriving at the broadcast venue early on the Sunday morning, I considered it prudent to check with the assistant producer exactly under which ‘tag’ (the potted description under one’s name when one appears on screen) I would be appearing. Yet another moment worthy of the Fawlty Towers script writers ensued when I was informed that they did not wish to define me as being connected to CiF Watch as “the public will not know what that is”. So much for the media’s duty to inform; apparently if the public doesn’t know, the BBC isn’t going to tell them!

Having already sacrificed my weekend, there was nothing to be done at this point but just get on with it. Imagine then my joy, dear reader, when I discovered that the ‘expert contributors’ on the opposite side of the debate were none other than Haim Bresheeth and our old friend Tony Greenstein – the latter complete with a ‘Boycott Israeli Goods’ lapel badge the size of a jam jar lid, which fortunately did not make it into the studio. Interestingly, at some point during the programme, both of the above had their ‘tag’ written as ‘Vilified by Zionists’. Now that you really could not make up!

One does have to ask oneself if a TV programme such as this can in fact make any worthwhile contribution to highlighting the worrying trend of rising antisemitism in Britain. Personally, I very much doubt it. The claim made by the show’s host Nicky Campbell whilst we were in the ‘Green Room’ before the broadcast that the Balen Report is merely a ‘journalistic’ issue serves only to strengthen my view that the ‘group-think’ within the media industry is so well rooted that business – in all senses of the word – will continue as usual until some brave and pioneering producer will stand up and question the commonly held premises which currently prevent the media from tackling the real truths behind the increase in antisemitism in Britain and many other countries.

As long as broadcasters are afraid of legal actions on the part of other media organisations and more concerned about gaining PC credibility by ‘giving a balanced view’ than doing any real analysis …… I’m not holding my breath."

EU FAIR PLAY?

2009-11-17T08:25:00.007Z

Credit where credit is due. BBC Radio 4's Analysis programme last night examined what would happen if the UK left the EU, and they made a near-decent fist of the territory, giving prominence to both UKIP's Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the Conservative withdrawalist, Daniel Hannan. There were, inevitably, some problems, with balance and some silly, unchallenged contributions from EU fanatics.

But this is normally a taboo subject for the boys and girls at the BBC - during the European elections back in June, for example, there was virtually no discussion at all of the topic, even though at least 55% of the British people do want to leave. So is this a sign of things to come? I wouldn't hold your breath. Just as with climate realist Ian Plimer's appearance on Today last week, one swallow does not make a summer. The programme smacked of fig-leaf tokenism. And most of the BBC's coverage of Europe regards anyone who is less than a full-blooded federalist as a right-wing, xenophobic buffoon.

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE...

2009-11-16T22:49:00.003Z

I wonder is it FEAR that makes the Conservatives seem so mild-mannered about the BBC?

The BBC could be forced by an incoming Conservative Government to accept a cut in the licence fee. The party has already called for the licence fee — currently £142.50 — to be frozen. But Jeremy Hunt, the shadow Culture Secretary, strengthened its stance with a warning that the Tories would expect the BBC to offer further economies in negotiations over the size of the licence fee from 2012.

“I think it would be pretty hard to make a case for an increase in the licence fee now,” he said yesterday. (Not half!!!) “We are not ruling out freezing the licence fee or cutting it, but the BBC has to make its case very strongly because times are very difficult for licence-fee payers.”

The funding is a crunch issue but in a sense ANY funding is too much. I believe the BBC is beyond reform and the bias is endemic so freezing the license tax or even slightly cutting it seems too little, too late. Your views?

Organic Bias

2009-11-16T20:26:00.003Z

Here's a publication we don't hear much from on this blog - Farmers Guardian:

COUNTRYFILE, the BBC's flagship rural programme, has been accused of a bias towards organic farming...
During the show Mr Craven interviewed a representative of the Organic Trade Board, a spokesman for leading organic brand Duchy Originals and the branding expert Marcel Knobil, who was given the task of coming up with a new marketing campaign to promote organic food scales.
However, the programme did not include any interviews with representatives from the non-organic food industry.

The chief exec of the Crop Protection Association has written to Sir Michael Lyons reminding the BBC "of its obligations to licence payers to remain impartial on all controversial issues."

Protocols of the Elders of Oborne

2009-11-16T16:18:00.005Z

I await tonight’s Dispatches programme on C4. with that familiar dread and sinking feeling.
It’s no good saying wait and see before getting upset because there’s plenty there already...

The inevitable baying mob on the C4 website sets the scene. The gist is that the Jewish lobby is a sinister secretive conspiracy influencing political decisions and forcing our trembling government to support the brutal Zionist entity against the interests of the UK. Furthermore, Jews will try silence such accusations with charges of anti-Semitism, so remember to ignore whatever Jews say in their malevolent attempts to shut down this perfectly reasonable and well-intentioned debate.

Peter Oborne has written some explanatory notes, (takes forever to load) which make his position quite clear. He airs his views on Jonathan Dimbleby, Jeremy Bowen and the Balen report, and concludes that the BBC is muzzled by this crippling Zionist stranglehold.

(Take the influential and intimidating words you are reading right now as proof of this. Sense the powerful ominous Jewish threat impliedly lurking behind them and wonder at the unimaginably emasculating effect they are having on the BBC)

So the lobby is uncovered, but wait. There is another disturbing Jewish tactic. People are asking “So what?” “So what if there’s a lobby group? Aren’t there countless other lobby groups?” For example the Muslim, Palestinian, Gay and Lesbian, Hunting/anti hunting lobbies?

Anyone who saw the report Our World by Emily Buchanan on BBC News 24 the other day extolling the benefits of Sharia in the UK, not just for family courts, but for Sharia friendly finance, might have pondered over the government’s keenness to establish London as the World hub of Sharia finance. The film was at pains to point out that the little things we ignorant Islamophobes might fear about this development are mere overreactions to the threatening behaviour of a few unrepresentative radicals and pure racist scaremongering. Surely, if there was anything to worry about, Peter Oborne would be onto it? Fatwa permitting.

A sole dissenting voice came from an Iranian lady whose apostacy had drawn death threats. She explained that, amongst many other unenlightened principles, under Sharia a woman’s word is worth half a man’s .

Now it seems, under the UK’s newly unenlightened principles, a Jew’s word is worth nothing at all.
It’s the lobby, the evil sinister lobby; it’s in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and you’d better believe it.

HOW WE HATE OUR CHILDREN..

2009-11-16T09:29:00.002Z

Bit of a double whammy on how we Brits treat our kids today, care of the State Broadcaster. First we have the Rudd ritual apologies concerning the alleged "institutionalised" abuse that went on in Australia before many of us were even born. With Brown also poised to apologise for a programme that commenced before he was born and which he could have done nothing about, this is a good old liberal tear sandwich to start the day. Then, the BBC also runs an item claiming that Britain is the most punitive nation in Europe and that its child protection services are "not fit for purpose". We're all so bad, aren't we? Nice way to start the week...

Anthony Julius On Desert Island Discs

2009-11-16T02:49:00.002Z

Did anyone catch the recent "Desert Island Discs" featuring Anthony Julius who was Lady Diana`s lawyer?

He had said that he was Jewish and loved English Literature enough to have wanted for some time to teach it.
At the end she presumed to offer him a copy of the Torah - and he protested saying that he wanted the full King James Version of the Bible so he would still have access to the beauties of the New Testament.

The BBC is full of this anti-Christian presumption. I assume that Kirsty and team did not already know that the Torah IS the Old Testament - but are they not commiting (by their lights!) the cardinal sins of stereotyping and patronising a Jewish person to presume that he might automatically take the Torah? Julius deserves credit for being so forbearing of the caricaturing!

Add this to the "Good Rebellion, Sir" stance that they take as a matter of course with this question at the end. A David Walliams and the like are somewhat lionised as and when they refuse the offer of the Bible by the admiring Kirsty and her ilk...seems to be desired even to show how much against "The Man" they all are!

Note: This item was submitted by Chris Hartnett. If you spot anything you think merits inclusion please contact us here.

OBAMAWORSHIP

2009-11-15T21:10:00.001Z

BBC drools that "China visit speaks Obama mania".

Not even a hint of bias there, no sirree.