BBC STALINISTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
Tariq Atchia
Here is the text file which was attached to the previous message:
>BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
>--------------------------------------
>Over a period of 30 years I have vigerously
>defended the independence of the BBC as a public
>service broadcaster. But even I can no longer
>justify its continuation in its present form.
>
>Encouraged, no doubt, by a Stalinst Prime Minister
>in Downing Street - with an agenda of dissolving our
>Nation into the so-called "European Union" - the
>"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
>news staff threatening them not to use the words
>"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
>might enocurage a sense of national identity.
>
>The BBC is the most deeply infiltrated and subverted
>of all of our national institutions. Those who now
>control it have shown themselves to be;
>
>1) Treacherous and in the service of foreign
> interests - which they clearly regard more highly
> than our own.
>2) Intellectually, culturally, morally and socially
> inferior.
>3) Arrogant and incapable of taking criticism.
>4) Politically biased and incapable of balanced
> comment - even to the extent of "stuffing" studio
> audiences from "sympathetic" groups and BBC senior
> staff friends and family.
>5) Administratively incompetent and self-indulgent.
>
>The only possible exceptions being in BBC Radio.
>
>So far as the future of the BBC is concerned - two
>options now exist.
>
>1) Wholesale "ethnic cleansing" of all senior posts
> (which I have demanded for over 10 years)
> with a view to establishing a balance which more
> closely reflects national ethnic populations and
> cultures. A clear understanding by all staff
> that those who work for the BBC are paid by the
> BRITISH public - who expect them to serve THEIR
> interests - and not those of any other country,
> except in the case of charitable activities. A
> similarly clear understanding that exploiting
> BBC resources for the purpose of political
> propaganda and/or the disemination of misinformation
> or disinformation (especially on behalf of a
> foreign power and not excluding commercial interests)
> is a sackable offence. Covert advertising on
> BBC televison has become blatant.
>
>2) A future British government (of whatever political
> complextion) will have no option but to suspend
> the licence fee and close down what has ceased to
> be the "BBC" in anything other than name.
>
>Bob Sims 3/4/1999
>-----------------------------------------------------
I totally agree. Visit my site below for links to Anti-Licence fee and
Licence Fee reform sites.
Tariq
--
Phone: 07050 688581 - Fax: +1 603 457 7918
xy...@netcomuk.co.uk
http://xycom.cjb.net/
In favour of abolishing the UK TV Licence Fee
Andy Mabbett
>the
>"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
>news staff threatening them not to use the words
>"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
>might enocurage a sense of national identity.
Evidence?
The story I read was that guidance had been issued on the /appropriate/
use of those words ("British" vs "English", for instannce).
[FU reduced]
--
Andy Mabbett
Current monomania count: 5
CASSIDY
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> wrote in article <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
| BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
thank god you're back, bob.
sorry i gave up on that last thread.
it wasnt going anywhere.
this message, however...
its good someone is taking the bastards on over this issue.
for too long the big jews at the bbc have been programming the nation with
their communist propaganda.
did you know the bbc's head office is in vladivostock?
'tis true. time some right thinking person had the guts to stick up to
these pro-european media-toadies.
only yesterday i caught my sister whistling 'ode to joy,' which she
apparently heard on blue peter. of all things. needless to say she went to
bed without supper, and without her right index finger. its the only way to
teach them, you know. little shits, ganging up on me. children, everywhere,
them and old people. they should be done away with, i dont like them. at
all.
blue peter, though. still what do you expect from a programme that has an
ethnic minority member as a presenter. i didn't fight in two world wars to
have black women on my tv telling my children about the minimum wage and
promoting european anti-racism initiatives. i didn't send off my Ł5 to the
sun for my 'two world wars and one world cup' tshirt, so that my children
could write letters to a pen-pal in frankfurt.
blargh blah blah, got to go.
daytime rate, you know.
bt, bastards, and probably overrun with stalinist jews!
thanks.
gerard.
Alan G
wrote:
>BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
>--------------------------------------
>Over a period of 30 years I have vigerously
>defended the independence of the BBC as a public
>service broadcaster. But even I can no longer
>justify its continuation in its present form.
>
>Encouraged, no doubt, by a Stalinst Prime Minister
>in Downing Street - with an agenda of dissolving our
>Nation into the so-called "European Union" - the
>"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
>news staff threatening them not to use the words
>"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
>might enocurage a sense of national identity.
>
Wrong again bob.
The bbc has reminded its staff that "british" and "english"
are not interchangeable. You, being an english southerner
who no doubt believes if it doesn't happen in london it
hasn't happened, may be surprised and gratified to know that
there *is* life in other parts of britain. Said lifeforms
are not english as you would know them. Many of them don't
want to be english and resent being described as such by the
nitwit southerners of the bbc.
I case anyone thinks I'm expressing prejudice against
southerners, I'm reminded of a young woman who while wishing
to be a childrens tv presenter decided she had no chance cos
she couldn't do an essex accent. :-)
I heard a rumour you had some sort of hurricane down there a
couple of years ago.
Sorry Bob. Much as I dislike the bbc with its southern
english bias and my deeply held wish it was sold off, they
seem to be in the right this time.
Alan G
--
Patriotism.
The last refuge of the scoundrel
Tom
Alan G wrote in message <3709fb14...@news.clara.net>...
Forgot to put your flat cap on this morning when you took the whippet for
its walk ?
The cold weather seems to have got to your brain !
Some of us are Scots or Welsh or English or even Irish, but we are all
British.
Bob
CASSIDY wrote:
> Bob <b...@bscserv.com> wrote in article <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
>
> | BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------7/10
for humour content, Gerard. :-)
But a bit too right-wing-silly to clock up a 10/10.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------
Bob
Alan G wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 02:25:44 +0100, Bob <b...@bscserv.com>
> wrote:
>
> >BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Alan G -- The last of the scoundrels :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------Sorry,
Alan ! I just couldn't resist it !
On your point - well, as a fully accredited EU toady and traitor,
you would say that - wouldn't you ?
Are you Scots ?
If you are - you are playing a very silly game which will cost you
very dear in the end. Once you have served your "useful idiot"
purpose for the EU - you will find your "friends" across the
Channel a lot less prepared to put their hands in their pocket for
Scotland than the English have been.
But Scotland's worst enemy at the moment is that bloody fool EU
puppet Haddock, or Salmon, or whatever he calls himself. He is
selling you down the river - big time !
The Stalinists in the BBC, of course, are playing an altogether
different game. They expect to be paid handsomely for
their treason. One way or another. How bitter they will be
when they end up in the gutter clutching their P45's !
Best wishes, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dom
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes:
>BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
>--------------------------------------
>Over a period of 30 years I have vigerously
>defended the independence of the BBC as a public
>service broadcaster. But even I can no longer
>justify its continuation in its present form.
>
>Encouraged, no doubt, by a Stalinst Prime Minister
>in Downing Street - with an agenda of dissolving our
>Nation into the so-called "European Union" - the
>"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
>news staff threatening them not to use the words
>"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
>might enocurage a sense of national identity.
Wahay! You never let us down!
Bob the berk is back again with his spam, spam, egg, chips and spam.
I don't know what's more disturbing: the fact that you waste time typing all
this out, or that you actually believe it.
Dom (waiting for some rude words from Bob, since it's all he's capable of)
** BEAUTIFUL THING / METAL GEAR SOLID / HELLRAISER II / MY BEAU. LAUNDRETTE **
Region 2 DVD & PAL Laserdisc reviews now online
****************** http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/reviews.htm *****************
******* Laserdiscs, DVDs, Videos, Games, CDs, plus the Widescreen Lists ******
********************** Email: mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk ********************
Bob
Tom wrote:
> Alan G wrote in message <3709fb14...@news.clara.net>...
> >On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 02:25:44 +0100, Bob <b...@bscserv.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
> >>--------------------------------------
> >>Over a period of 30 years I have vigerously
> >>defended the independence of the BBC as a public
> >>service broadcaster. But even I can no longer
> >>justify its continuation in its present form.
> >>
> >>Encouraged, no doubt, by a Stalinst Prime Minister
> >>in Downing Street - with an agenda of dissolving our
> >>Nation into the so-called "European Union" - the
> >>"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
> >>news staff threatening them not to use the words
> >>"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
> >>might enocurage a sense of national identity.
> >>
> >Wrong again bob.
> >
> >The bbc has reminded its staff that "british" and "english"
> >are not interchangeable. You, being an english southerner
> >who no doubt believes if it doesn't happen in london it
> >hasn't happened, may be surprised and gratified to know that
> >there *is* life in other parts of britain. Said lifeforms
> >are not english as you would know them. Many of them don't
> >want to be english and resent being described as such by the
> >nitwit southerners of the bbc.
> >
> >I case anyone thinks I'm expressing prejudice against
> >southerners, I'm reminded of a young woman who while wishing
> >to be a childrens tv presenter decided she had no chance cos
> >she couldn't do an essex accent. :-)
> >
> >I heard a rumour you had some sort of hurricane down there a
> >couple of years ago.
> >
> >Sorry Bob. Much as I dislike the bbc with its southern
> >english bias and my deeply held wish it was sold off, they
> >seem to be in the right this time.
> >
> >Alan G
> >--
> >Patriotism.
> >The last refuge of the scoundrel
>
> Forgot to put your flat cap on this morning when you took the whippet for
> its walk ?
>
> The cold weather seems to have got to your brain !
>
> Some of us are Scots or Welsh or English or even Irish, but we are all
> British.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And let's hope is stays that way, Tom ! But it will not if the BBC is
allowed to go on getting away with a continual stream of teachery
designed to undermine - and then destroy - our national identity.
And then our nation.
Best wishes, Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Briscoe
inefficient. I work in a senior post in the organisation (thoughadmittedly
in local broadcasting) and so far I have not seen the offending "ukaze". I
wonder if our correspondents are mistaking what the printed press (generally
owned by businesses which oppose the BBC because they have financial
interests in commercial broadcasting as well) is saying and what the BBC is
actually doing?
Alan G
Don't have a whippet or a flat cap. Got a trilby some where
though.
>
>The cold weather seems to have got to your brain !
Beutifully warm here today. Sun shining birds singing.
Spring in the air
>
>Some of us are Scots or Welsh or English or even Irish, but we are all
>British.
>
That * was* my point evenn though I made it in a long
winded way as I gently took the piss out of bob.
Even when he's wrong he has the right to be wrong :-)
Jim
Bob wrote in message <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
..... who is this madman?
Alan Hardie
Bob wrote:
>
>
> Are you Scots ?
You really don't pay much attention to others on this NG do you Bob?
>
> But Scotland's worst enemy at the moment is that bloody fool EU
> puppet Haddock, or Salmon, or whatever he calls himself.
It's Salmond, you old witty thing you.
--
regards
Alan Hardie
remove *X* to reply
Sod Enfopol98
Apr 1999 20:48:41 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to
know:
>If you are - you are playing a very silly game which will cost you
>very dear in the end. Once you have served your "useful idiot"
>purpose for the EU - you will find your "friends" across the
>Channel a lot less prepared to put their hands in their pocket for
>Scotland than the English have been.
And why exactly would our EU 'friends' be entirely willing to help
carve up the UK??? Most of the areas within Europe where there is a
large feeling for independence believe in the EU as a confederal
structure.
If these areas were to gain their independence, their votes would
seriously compromise those who are pushing for a federal agenda.
Incidentally, it was your heroine - Thatcher - who was responsible for
the Single European Act that acceded so many of the powers the EU
currently holds within in a supra-national context to Brussels etc.
She wrote it, got it passed and then spent the rest of her diktat
period complaining that those nasty foreigners were daring to use the
powers they had been given.
As to whether England subsidises Scotland or vice versa...
It depends on how you interpret the figures - that's the beauty of
statistical data. But as a quick pointer, Corporation Tax is taken as
having been raised where a business has its registered hq.
Consequently, oil wealth generated in Aberdeen is considered to have
been raised in London. Go figure.
>But Scotland's worst enemy at the moment is that bloody fool EU
>puppet Haddock, or Salmon, or whatever he calls himself. He is
>selling you down the river - big time !
>
Oh. Of course. And being Clinton's puppet is a far safer proposition.
And whilst you are in all probability a die-hard tory, it's worth
remembering that Thatcher allied herself with an individual suffering
from Alzheimer's (he once called Diana, Princess of Wales, David
whilst he was in office...) That really strikes me as being a wise
appraoch to geopolitics...
>The Stalinists in the BBC, of course, are playing an altogether
>different game. They expect to be paid handsomely for
>their treason. One way or another. How bitter they will be
>when they end up in the gutter clutching their P45's !
The tories have routinely bitched that the BBC are anti-conservative.
labour have filed the same complaint with regards to themselves.
And the lib-dems would probably come to such a consensus if they could
decide on what would constitute a quorum for the necessary vote on the
motion.
Or could it just be that the BBC is fulfilling one of it's functions
(impartiality) rather than deifying Thatcher? Is that what you don't
like???
But your original complaint was with regards to the new guidelines
issued on the use of 'British', 'English' etc.
They may be the product of an over-PCed culture, but many of its
points are of themselves perfectly valid.
As someone who is a probable xenophobe and would not go near a
foreigner on pain of death, you will not be in a position to have
checked your passport. If you do, you will see that it says:"United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..."
Someone who lives within these isles is british, someone who lives on
the largest of this pile of the coast of europe is a briton. No-one is
a british citizen, as there is no such state as Britain and the
territory under the direct jurisdiction of Westminister (or its
devolved attachments) is the United Kingdom. Yeah, novel concept for
you, i know...
It would also be a little obvious to point out that english and
british are not interchangeable terms. It is merely a case that the
BBC (when they gonna be the UKBC... of course if they boradcast to all
of these isles then they would be inaccurate to change the name) have
finally realised this...
So go away you vile little facist sympathiser.
Geoff Leonard
<flat...@freeuk.com> writes
>The tories have routinely bitched that the BBC are anti-conservative.
>labour have filed the same complaint with regards to themselves.
>And the lib-dems would probably come to such a consensus if they could
>decide on what would constitute a quorum for the necessary vote on the
>motion.
>
>Or could it just be that the BBC is fulfilling one of it's functions
>(impartiality) rather than deifying Thatcher? Is that what you don't
>like???
I've been following this thread with some amusement but without any wish
to join in. Until now. Since when has the BBC *ever* been impartial?
I've never read such nonsense. It employs journalists and editors etc.,
all of whom have political opinions, the same as most of us. Presumably
it is the editors who make the decisions as to what to 'lead with' on
news bulletins, which parts of Prime Minster's questions to show, etc.
How can anybody with a political opinion truly do this impartially?
I've been following political coverage on the BBC for many, many years,
and often their bias has been so obvious. They were against the miners,
for example, during the strike, against Michael Foot during his election
campaign and against John Major during his last years in office. Maybe
they don't mean to do it, but I think they 'back' the party they think
is likely to win the next election.
Some of the presenters don't realise how influential they can be. We
have a local BBC Radio presenter who keeps on saying on air "It doesn't
matter what anybody says, we're going to join the Euro come what may,
sooner or later." Of course, he's just trying to get people to call in
and argue with him, but I suspect the effect is to convince his
listeners, especially the older ones, that it's going to happen whatever
they do or however they vote.
Geoff
Bob
Geoff Leonard wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the thread, Geoff ! Nice to hear a sensible point of view.
Bob
Bob
Sod Enfopol98 wrote:
> Bob <b...@bscserv.com> decided to put finger to keyboard on the Tue, 06
> Apr 1999 20:48:41 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to
> know:
>
> >If you are - you are playing a very silly game which will cost you
> >very dear in the end. Once you have served your "useful idiot"
> >purpose for the EU - you will find your "friends" across the
> >Channel a lot less prepared to put their hands in their pocket for
> >Scotland than the English have been.
>
> And why exactly would our EU 'friends' be entirely willing to help
> carve up the UK??? Most of the areas within Europe where there is a
> large feeling for independence believe in the EU as a confederal
> structure.
> If these areas were to gain their independence, their votes would
> seriously compromise those who are pushing for a federal agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reasoning is faulty - to put it politely !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Incidentally, it was your heroine - Thatcher - who was responsible for
> the Single European Act that acceded so many of the powers the EU
> currently holds within in a supra-national context to Brussels etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again. I was a sustained critic of Thatcher throughout her
period in office. What she said in public was the reverse of what she
did in private. You, correctly, cite the Single European Act as one of
her signal treasons. I was also mortally offended by her imprisonment
of Civil Servants who blew the whistle on the secret and corrupt
practices of politicians in office - and worked for her downfall. Her
fate was sealed when she pursued Peter Wright and attempted to
ban the publication of "Spy Catcher" which lifted the lid on the
treason and corruption amongst senior civil servants - especially in
the DTI.
It is a matter of record that during the height of her public adulation
I was one of her most entrenched critics and sought her removal.
History records the rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> She wrote it, got it passed and then spent the rest of her diktat
> period complaining that those nasty foreigners were daring to use the
> powers they had been given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that, you are not wrong !
> As to whether England subsidises Scotland or vice versa...
>
> It depends on how you interpret the figures - that's the beauty of
> statistical data. But as a quick pointer, Corporation Tax is taken as
> having been raised where a business has its registered hq.
> Consequently, oil wealth generated in Aberdeen is considered to have
> been raised in London. Go figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not put too much faith in oil, if I was you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >But Scotland's worst enemy at the moment is that bloody fool EU
> >puppet Haddock, or Salmon, or whatever he calls himself. He is
> >selling you down the river - big time !
> >
>
> Oh. Of course. And being Clinton's puppet is a far safer proposition.
> And whilst you are in all probability a die-hard tory, it's worth
> remembering that Thatcher allied herself with an individual suffering
> from Alzheimer's (he once called Diana, Princess of Wales, David
> whilst he was in office...) That really strikes me as being a wise
> appraoch to geopolitics...
------------------------------------------------------------------------I
left the Tory party when Ted Heath joined the EEC without seeking the
permission of the electorate. I then joined the Liberal Party. I left
that
six years later when it became clear that they were an even bigger bunch
of two-faced traitors.
I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The Stalinists in the BBC, of course, are playing an altogether
> >different game. They expect to be paid handsomely for
> >their treason. One way or another. How bitter they will be
> >when they end up in the gutter clutching their P45's !
>
> The tories have routinely bitched that the BBC are anti-conservative.
> labour have filed the same complaint with regards to themselves.
> And the lib-dems would probably come to such a consensus if they could
> decide on what would constitute a quorum for the necessary vote on the
> motion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BBC is anti-British in general and anti-English in particular.
It has no business taking any position on politics of any description.
It's
job is to provide both sides of any argument and leave the public to
arrive at its own conclusions. Which it is perfectly capable of doing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Or could it just be that the BBC is fulfilling one of it's functions
> (impartiality) rather than deifying Thatcher? Is that what you don't
> like???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me ! I just fell off my chair laughing ! IMPARTIALITY !?
Not within the memory of anybody under 35 to 40. And certainly
not according to the few real broadcasters remaining within the BBC,
either.
You are not, by any chance, one of the Stalinist "enemy within" under
whose thrall the BBC has now fallen ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But your original complaint was with regards to the new guidelines
> issued on the use of 'British', 'English' etc.
>
> They may be the product of an over-PCed culture, but many of its
> points are of themselves perfectly valid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------Clap
trap !
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> As someone who is a probable xenophobe and would not go near a
> foreigner on pain of death, you will not be in a position to have
> checked your passport. If you do, you will see that it says:"United
> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..."
>
> Someone who lives within these isles is british, someone who lives on
> the largest of this pile of the coast of europe is a briton. No-one is
> a british citizen, as there is no such state as Britain and the
> territory under the direct jurisdiction of Westminister (or its
> devolved attachments) is the United Kingdom. Yeah, novel concept for
> you, i know...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to biggoted drivel, you don't do a bad job yourself.
And as far as "xenophobes" are concerned - the worst I am aware of,
posting in these newsgroups, are the "EU is right - even when it's wrong"
toady xenophobes.
So far as the not-very-bright politically correct Stalinist riff-raff at
the
BBC (most of whom are not English) are concerned - even claiming
to be English would be considered as "xenophobia". But then their
own self-interest dictates that they would - wouldn't they ? A point
of view with which you seem to agree !?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> It would also be a little obvious to point out that english and
> british are not interchangeable terms. It is merely a case that the
> BBC (when they gonna be the UKBC... of course if they boradcast to all
> of these isles then they would be inaccurate to change the name) have
> finally realised this...
>
> So go away you vile little facist sympathiser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid little man ! I regret having spent so much time on replying to
you.
When it comes to insolent, anti-democratic, out of control, dictators of
any
political complextion - the treacherous BBC and EU toadies like
yourself are not to be bettered by anybody that I know.
And so far as "going away" is concerned - if you do not like this country
-
and you clearly do not - even to the point of its name - I suggest you
take yourself to one you like better. THIS ONE IS NOT FOR SALE.
Bob Sims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Dom wrote:
> In article <37096298...@bscserv.com>
> Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes:
> >BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
> >--------------------------------------
> >Over a period of 30 years I have vigerously
> >defended the independence of the BBC as a public
> >service broadcaster. But even I can no longer
> >justify its continuation in its present form.
> >
> >Encouraged, no doubt, by a Stalinst Prime Minister
> >in Downing Street - with an agenda of dissolving our
> >Nation into the so-called "European Union" - the
> >"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
> >news staff threatening them not to use the words
> >"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
> >might enocurage a sense of national identity.
>
> Wahay! You never let us down!
>
> Bob the berk is back again with his spam, spam, egg, chips and spam.
>
> I don't know what's more disturbing: the fact that you waste time typing all
> this out, or that you actually believe it.
>
> Dom (waiting for some rude words from Bob, since it's all he's capable of)
>
> ** BEAUTIFUL THING / METAL GEAR SOLID / HELLRAISER II / MY BEAU. LAUNDRETTE **
> Region 2 DVD & PAL Laserdisc reviews now online
> ****************** http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/reviews.htm *****************
> ******* Laserdiscs, DVDs, Videos, Games, CDs, plus the Widescreen Lists ******
> ********************** Email: mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk ********************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't get any less purile, do you Dom ?
And may I remind you (again) that advertising within the political
newgroups is not permitted.
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Michael Briscoe wrote:
> Bob wrote in message <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Michael,
Within these newgroups (unlike within the BBC) we burn censors - and
those who seek to censor by intimidation or sly procedural obstructions,
at the stake - on a regular basis !
If you work within the BBC - then YOU tell US what the BBC is
"actually doing". You have as much right to put your point of view (or
that of the BBC) as anybody else.
I take your point about the "printed press" and am mindful that some of
them own television stations. But with the exception of the Daily Mirror
and perhaps the Express [although I think they are now on the way to
becoming reformed under new editors ;-) ] I do not think that they are
open to the charge of undermining the British national identity - and
certainly not to the extent of "discouraging" the use of the words
"British" and "nation".
As a matter of information, I have been one of the most strident
critics of any attempt to commercialise or compromise the independence
of the BBC - or to subvert its "public service" status over a period of
30 years.. However, since it clearly is not now independent, but
quite blatantly engaged in the disemination of propaganda on behalf of
a foreign power (the "EU") which seeks the annexation of our state into
its ownership and control - without British electoral comment - let alone
consent - I no longer see the justification for its function and role -
which it has clearly abandoned.
I, and I am sure others in these newsgroups, would be glad to have
your further comments - so far as you are able to make any without
damaging your own position within the BBC.
Regards, Bob Sims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Jim wrote:
> Bob wrote in message <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
>
> ..... who is this madman?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a software engineer who runs a successful business - and has
done for the last 21 years.
The "madmen" who furnished this information are the journalists and
editors at the Telegraph - in which I read this story.
The article also contains quotes from other "madmen" at the BBC
who wrote and issued the booklet containing the offending items.
Do you have any intelligent comment to make - or are you just one
of those here to throw rotten tomatoes because that is the only way
you can express your opinion ?
Bob Sims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Smith
> Bob <b...@bscserv.com> wrote in article <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
>
> | BBC STALINSTS ban "BRITISH" & "NATION"
>
> thank god you're back, bob.
> sorry i gave up on that last thread.
> it wasnt going anywhere.
>
> this message, however...
>
> its good someone is taking the bastards on over this issue.
> for too long the big jews at the bbc have been programming the nation with
> their communist propaganda.
> did you know the bbc's head office is in vladivostock?
> 'tis true. time some right thinking person had the guts to stick up to
> these pro-european media-toadies.
> only yesterday i caught my sister whistling 'ode to joy,' which she
> apparently heard on blue peter. of all things. needless to say she went to
> bed without supper, and without her right index finger. its the only way to
> teach them, you know. little shits, ganging up on me. children, everywhere,
> them and old people. they should be done away with, i dont like them. at
> all.
>
> blue peter, though. still what do you expect from a programme that has an
> ethnic minority member as a presenter. i didn't fight in two world wars
> <snip>
.....too busy fighting the Brits?...lol ;)
JS
Gareth Thomas
>The "madmen" who furnished this information are the journalists and
>editors at the Telegraph - in which I read this story.
If you were to remove the inverted commas from the word "madmen" then
this would become a very accurate and apposite sentence.
--
Gareth Thomas
Paul Hyett
To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
Not even the UKIP?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
David Boothroyd
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
> To keep the thread going, I replied -
> >
> >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
>
> Not even the UKIP?
The UKIP have split! Dr Alan Sked has launched his own group because
the main lot has decided to take up their seats if they win any in the
European Parliament elections.
David Cantrell
<Ge...@lacc.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
> ... Maybe
>they don't mean to do it, but I think they 'back' the party they think
>is likely to win the next election.
There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
I am, obviously, ignoring the fact that BBC output affects the general
population's beliefs, but there will certainly be a strong correlation
between BBC staff views and general population views BEFORE any
particular political piece is broadcast.
--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
Hillary Morgan
bias when you're reading it? Anyway I can't see what's wrong with making
a correct distinction between 'British' and 'English'. And why do you
think of the EU as a 'them' in opposition to a British 'we'? We are
European, after all whether you like it or not.
In article <9iNxTAA8...@shaggaz.demon.co.uk>, Gareth Thomas
<Gar...@shaggaz.demon.co.uk> writes
--
Hillary Morgan
Dom
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes:
>
>
>Dom wrote:
>
>> In article <37096298...@bscserv.com>
>> Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes:
>> >Over a period of 30 years I have vigerously
>> >defended the independence of the BBC as a public
>> >service broadcaster. But even I can no longer
>> >justify its continuation in its present form.
>> >
>> >Encouraged, no doubt, by a Stalinst Prime Minister
>> >in Downing Street - with an agenda of dissolving our
>> >Nation into the so-called "European Union" - the
>> >"enemy within" the BBC have issued a hand book to all
>> >news staff threatening them not to use the words
>> >"British" or "nation" - or any other words which
>> >might enocurage a sense of national identity.
>>
>> Wahay! You never let us down!
>>
>> Bob the berk is back again with his spam, spam, egg, chips and spam.
>>
>> I don't know what's more disturbing: the fact that you waste time typing all
>> this out, or that you actually believe it.
>>
>> Dom (waiting for some rude words from Bob, since it's all he's capable of)
>>
>
>You don't get any less purile, do you Dom ?
Well, it's one step up from you then.
>And may I remind you (again) that advertising within the political
>newgroups is not permitted.
Stop advertising your idiocy and spamming capabilities then.
You added the newsgroups to your follow-up list, so you remove them.
Dom
Bob
Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
> To keep the thread going, I replied -
> >
> >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
>
> Not even the UKIP?
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would I do without you, Paul ? :-)
After I wrote that line (in a bloody temper) I went to bed and suddenly
remembered that I do, in fact, contribute to UKIP and a "Democratic..."
something or another party, amongst the many anti-EU organisations to
which I belong.
Now whether that makes me a member of them, or not, is rather open
to debate. I do not have Banker's Orders payable to them on a regular
basis - and I do not recall signing a membership paper for either of them.
So I don't *think* I am actually a member. I do *know* that I am not
involved in any campaigning on their behalf myself.
Well spotted. that man ! :-D
Best wishes, Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan G
(David Cantrell) wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:12:25 +0100, Geoff Leonard
><Ge...@lacc.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> ... Maybe
>>they don't mean to do it, but I think they 'back' the party they think
>>is likely to win the next election.
>
>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
unless bbc recruiting procedures favour those of a
particular leaning.
bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
services. I would certainly question the impartiality of the
beeb.
>
>I am, obviously, ignoring the fact that BBC output affects the general
>population's beliefs, but there will certainly be a strong correlation
>between BBC staff views and general population views BEFORE any
>particular political piece is broadcast.
>
Nope. The political slant will be decided by editors and
journalists. No way can they be seen as representative of
the general public.
I wouldn't call it a right or left wing bias rather a
commitment to control freaks everywhere.
Bob
David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:12:25 +0100, Geoff Leonard
> <Ge...@lacc.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
> > ... Maybe
> >they don't mean to do it, but I think they 'back' the party they think
> >is likely to win the next election.
>
> There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
> which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
> post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
> the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
> the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>
> I am, obviously, ignoring the fact that BBC output affects the general
> population's beliefs, but there will certainly be a strong correlation
> between BBC staff views and general population views BEFORE any
> particular political piece is broadcast.
>
> --
> David Cantrell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear David,
It is not the business of the BBC - or anybody else who engages in
"news" dissemination - *have* any political opinion during the time they
are engaged in their occupation.
Their job is to report the facts, all of the facts - and nothing but the
facts. They have no right to overlay this with opinion or to select
facts which suite their particular political affiliations or point of view.
That they do so - and that they conciously exploit their priveleged
postion in order to influence public opinion - is my charge against them.
If they are incapable of remaining unbiased and politically neutral
whilst they are engaged in their job - then they lack the intellectual
integrity and self disciplin which that job requires.
Which is my second charge against them.
Given the facts - and all of the facts - the British public is quite
capable of arriving at its own conclusions on any subject under the
sun - and doing a better job of it than most of the self-appointed
media gurus.
Regards, Bob Sims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan G
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
>In article <RbH24kA3...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
>> To keep the thread going, I replied -
>> >
>> >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
>>
>> Not even the UKIP?
>
>The UKIP have split! Dr Alan Sked has launched his own group because
>the main lot has decided to take up their seats if they win any in the
>European Parliament elections.
Get your tickets for the gravy train. ( satire)
They probably realise that the best thing they could do for
the EU is to campaign from within for a loosely knit
federation and as nmuch decentralisation of power as a
federal state can stand without collapsing. ( wishful
thinking)
Bob
David Boothroyd wrote:
> In article <RbH24kA3...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
> > To keep the thread going, I replied -
> > >
> > >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
> >
> > Not even the UKIP?
>
> The UKIP have split! Dr Alan Sked has launched his own group because
> the main lot has decided to take up their seats if they win any in the
> European Parliament elections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not, in my view, a great loss to UKIP. But I wish his, and any other
group involved in saving the British public and nation from the so-called
"EU", the very best of luck.
Bob
Dom wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertising your "idiocy" and "spamming capabilities" are legitimate
activities within newsgroups. Advertising articles for sale, is not.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Gareth Thomas wrote:
> In article <370AB87E...@bscserv.com>, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes
> >The "madmen" who furnished this information are the journalists and
> >editors at the Telegraph - in which I read this story.
>
> If you were to remove the inverted commas from the word "madmen" then
> this would become a very accurate and apposite sentence.
>
> --
> Gareth Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegraph, which I think is now rather better than The Times (both of
which I take) is probably one of the most sensible and sane papers printed
in Britian. Even if you do not agree with the views expressed by either
of them, you can hardly describe them as "mad" when they report hard
realities.
If you think they have misreported - in this case - you have the option of
asking the BBC to deny the story. (Which they have not)
Our gentle readers will, however, be well aware with what distaste the
so-called "EU" and its toadies regard reality. ;-)
And with what horror they regard its reporting. :-D
Bob Sims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sod Enfopol98
keyboard on the Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:12:25 +0100. In doing so, they felt
we would all like to know:
>I've been following this thread with some amusement but without any wish
>to join in. Until now. Since when has the BBC *ever* been impartial?
>I've never read such nonsense. It employs journalists and editors etc.,
>all of whom have political opinions, the same as most of us. Presumably
>it is the editors who make the decisions as to what to 'lead with' on
>news bulletins, which parts of Prime Minster's questions to show, etc.
>How can anybody with a political opinion truly do this impartially?
Yes, people have opinions. The world would be much more boring if they
didn't. But the BBC as an institution is supposed to adhere to a
doctrine of impartiality. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it fails.
I note that, with regard to the Falklands War, the BBC were denounced
for attempting to fulfill this obligation when on Newsnight (i think)
they insisted on talking of British troops instead of refering to them
as our troops, and for attempting to present both perspectives in the
conflict.
They are also caught in the piggy-in-the-middle scenario of being
supposed to reflect public opinion as opposed to shaping it.
Your entire argument is one that academics who specialise in the media
routinely get into extremely bitter firefights about. But let's just
leave it at that.
Sod Enfopol98
Apr 1999 02:17:59 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to
know:
>> And why exactly would our EU 'friends' be entirely willing to help
>> carve up the UK??? Most of the areas within Europe where there is a
>> large feeling for independence believe in the EU as a confederal
>> structure.
>> If these areas were to gain their independence, their votes would
>> seriously compromise those who are pushing for a federal agenda.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Your reasoning is faulty - to put it politely !
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then maybe you could explain why rather than merely stating that it
is. Or is your understanding of logic such that you can not comprehend
the validity of such a methodology?
As i see it, the argument goes as follows:
You and others hold position 'a'. Position 'a' is represented by 'x'
votes.
There are those who hold position 'b'. position 'b' is represented by
'y' votes.
If you create a scenario whereby you subtract 'n' members form 'a',
you lose a<sub>n</sub> votes to 'b'.
This policy becomes detrimental if a situation engenders itself, such
that:
y+a<sub>n</sub> > x-a<sub>n</sub> ,
as given this scenario:
b > a.
Why would they risk creating such a scenario???
>
>> Incidentally, it was your heroine - Thatcher - who was responsible for
>> the Single European Act that acceded so many of the powers the EU
>> currently holds within in a supra-national context to Brussels etc.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Wrong again. I was a sustained critic of Thatcher throughout her
>period in office.
Then i apologise for drawing the wrong inference from your posts on
this matter.
>> She wrote it, got it passed and then spent the rest of her diktat
>> period complaining that those nasty foreigners were daring to use the
>> powers they had been given.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In that, you are not wrong !
>
Again, an explanation would be appreciated.
>> As to whether England subsidises Scotland or vice versa...
>>
>> It depends on how you interpret the figures - that's the beauty of
>> statistical data. But as a quick pointer, Corporation Tax is taken as
>> having been raised where a business has its registered hq.
>> Consequently, oil wealth generated in Aberdeen is considered to have
>> been raised in London. Go figure.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I would not put too much faith in oil, if I was you.
I was not. What i was pointing out, was that the economic question is
an extremely complicated one to analyze as to whether or not England
subsidises Scotland - even the official revenue figures can be
interpreted in multiple ways!
>The BBC is anti-British in general and anti-English in particular.
Again, you should clarify this statement, as at the moment it is
meaningless.
>Excuse me ! I just fell off my chair laughing ! IMPARTIALITY !?
>Not within the memory of anybody under 35 to 40. And certainly
>not according to the few real broadcasters remaining within the BBC,
>either.
See post elsewhere, on this one.
>So far as the not-very-bright politically correct Stalinist riff-raff at
>the
>BBC (most of whom are not English) are concerned - even claiming
>to be English would be considered as "xenophobia". But then their
>own self-interest dictates that they would - wouldn't they ? A point
>of view with which you seem to agree !?
And your evidence that most of those who work for the BBC are not
English, is?
>And so far as "going away" is concerned - if you do not like this country
>-
>and you clearly do not - even to the point of its name - I suggest you
>take yourself to one you like better. THIS ONE IS NOT FOR SALE.
>
And i clearly do not like the country i currently reside in on the
basis of what? The fact that i point out that most people use the name
of the nation-state incorrectly. Very sound reasoning.
The country i am currently resident in is Scotland. The nation-state
is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am
therefore a Scot who is a citizen of the United Kingdom, and a subject
of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
If i do not like certain sections of this, then i voice my dissent.
But owing to various residency legislation around the world going
somewhere else can be extremely difficult. However, as i like my
country (just not the nation-state it is a part of) i am going to stay
where and i am, and if a majority of the populace within my country
come to share my view i shall be very happy. If, however, they do not,
then i shall accept that to be the fact although i shall continue to
voice my position. It is called democracy, that which you would accuse
me of being anti.
Nick Cooper
<xol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Bob wrote in message <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
>
>[snip]
>
>>2) A future British government (of whatever political
>> complextion) will have no option but to suspend
>> the licence fee and close down what has ceased to
>> be the "BBC" in anything other than name.
>>
>I totally agree. Visit my site below for links to Anti-Licence fee and
>Licence Fee reform sites.
All of it, or just - selfishly - the licence fee bit?
--
Nick Cooper
["But it was here, it was all right here. There was a techno dance club...."
["Stan, you need to lay off the cough syrup, alright? Seriously, I'm worried
[about you, man!"
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.cooper/ [625-online - classic UK TV]
Bob
Hillary Morgan wrote:
> But don't you make allowances for the Telegraph's extremely right-wing
> bias when you're reading it? Anyway I can't see what's wrong with making
> a correct distinction between 'British' and 'English'. And why do you
> think of the EU as a 'them' in opposition to a British 'we'? We are
> European, after all whether you like it or not.
> --
> Hillary Morgan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may choose to be "European" if you wish Hillary. I, and most of the
remainder of the British people, reject this linguistic trickery. And it is
arrogant and subversive to tell the British people that we are "...European
...whether you like it or not..."
Who say so ? You ? Jacques Santer ? Tony Blair ? Are you now
able to manipulate geography - or just words ? There is a blessed band
of water between "us" and "them". If you want to be "European", nobody
is stopping you from crossing it !
I am both "English" (in England) and British (in the world). I am *never*
"European" anywhere !
As for the Telegraph's "..extremely right wing bias.." - I, like everybody
else, balance everything I read and judge how much is bias and how much
a fair report of reality. Perhaps you should read it some time and make
your own judgment - instead of parroting the creed of the idiots in the
"New Labour" press corp.
The Times, for example, employs a small "zoo" of "freaks" ( a sop to the
nevau rich and politically correct, who's money they are quite happy to
take) for the entertainment of its "real" readers - who are quite clever
enough to enjoy the "joke" pages - before moving on the serious and
informed comment for which they bought the paper.
I am sorry to be so brutal with a lady - but you did rather ask for it !
Bob Sims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim
>> ..... who is this madman?
>
>done for the last 21 years.
Do you harangue your customers in the same immoderate and ill-informed way
you harangue newsgroups?
>The "madmen" who furnished this information are the journalists and
>editors at the Telegraph - in which I read this story.
... which of course means it *must* be true .........
>The article also contains quotes from other "madmen" at the BBC
>who wrote and issued the booklet containing the offending items.
... which of course you have not actually seen.
>Do you have any intelligent comment to make - or are you just one
>of those here to throw rotten tomatoes because that is the only way
>you can express your opinion ?
Get down off the cross, Bob; someone needs the wood.
If you stop foaming at the mouth for one minute, you'll realise all the BBC
has done is point out to its journalists that some things, people,
institutions etc are British, that is to say, they have to do with Britain.
Some of them are English, and have nothing to do with Scotland, Wales or
Northern Ireland. Some of them are Scottish, and have nothing to do with
etc etc etc etc etc I'm sure by now even you have got the idea.
As the BBC is concerned about accuracy (although Ceefax news couldn't spell
`Ottawa' this morning) it is just reminding journalists to be precise and
correct when referring to nations within the UK. This is because when it
gets it wrong - saying `England' when it should be `Great Britain' or vice
versa being the most common errors - many people are upset and complain; and
rightly so. No-one's suggesting the banning of `Britain' or `British', as
you'd know if you actually understood what's going on here; it's just making
sure the right words are used at the right time.
Funny; I thought you'd be in favour of journalists getting things right.
But then again, you're a `Times' reader, so maybe that's not what you look
for in a media outlet.
Jim
Jim
>>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>
>particular leaning.
>
>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
>services.
Not any more they're not.
>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
>beeb.
The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial third
parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured. And the
number of upheld complaints is very small.
Jim
>I was a sustained critic of Thatcher throughout her
>period in office.
I'm sure that's what brought about her downfall. Bob.
>> >The Stalinists in the BBC, of course, are playing an altogether
>> >different game. They expect to be paid handsomely for
>> >their treason. One way or another. How bitter they will be
>> >when they end up in the gutter clutching their P45's !
Bob, if you seriously believe this, then frankly you're overdue for a
marble-count.
>The BBC is anti-British in general and anti-English in particular.
This too. This is plainly ridiculous. You cannot provide a shred of
evidence to back up this ludicrous claim.
>Excuse me ! I just fell off my chair laughing ! IMPARTIALITY !?
>Not within the memory of anybody under 35 to 40. And certainly
>not according to the few real broadcasters remaining within the BBC,
>either.
Bob, just because a broadcasting organisation dares to publish the opinions
of people who disagree with you as well as those (few in number) who think
you're right doesn't mean it's not impartial.
>So far as the not-very-bright politically correct Stalinist riff-raff at
>the
>BBC (most of whom are not English) are concerned - even claiming
>to be English would be considered as "xenophobia". But then their
>own self-interest dictates that they would - wouldn't they ? A point
>of view with which you seem to agree !?
I think here with have the sine qua non of Bob's style - a paragraph of
ranting, with punctuation scattered at random, that actually makes *no sense
whatsoever*!
Jim
Jim
Bob wrote in message <370BC856...@bscserv.com>...
>Advertising your "idiocy" and "spamming capabilities" are legitimate
>activities within newsgroups. Advertising articles for sale, is not.
Just as well, eh, Bob?
And what a fine job you're making of it, too.
Jim
Pete Mitchell
>On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:12:25 +0100, Geoff Leonard
><Ge...@lacc.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> ... Maybe
>>they don't mean to do it, but I think they 'back' the party they think
>>is likely to win the next election.
>
>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
One reason is that the general population prefers to hear its prejudices
reinforced, rather than being told the facts. A news service that
panders to this is a bad news agency; a good one would report the facts
whether the listeners like them or not.
>
>I am, obviously, ignoring the fact that BBC output affects the general
>population's beliefs,
I don't think this should be ignored. The choice of news to report
influences public opinion very strongly, and there then arises a
positive feedback effect on the news agency.
For example the BBC (and other media) has chosen to focus on the Kosovar
refugee situation rather than on the effects of NATO bombing of Yugoslav
civilian targets. Presumably this was at first done as a result of HMG
influence, but the effect has been to move UK public opinion to a more
anti-Serb position. Now that this has happened, it becomes difficult for
the BBC, or any other media, to adopt even a moderately neutral position
for fear of being regarded as out of step, even if they wanted to.
There was a loathsome performance by Sue McGregor on the Today programme
this morning, in which she interviewed a Serb spokesman. During most of
the interview she spouted NATO propaganda at this bloke in the form of
accusations that he was not permitted to answer - "That's not true Mr
Somethingovic, we know quite definitely that the refugee crisis is
caused by Serb atrocities within Kosovar ... however now let me move
onto something else" while the Serb guy's mike was turned down so he
couldn't contradict her!
Such behaviour is a disgrace to journalism. Sadly at the moment nothing
can be done about it because there is general media agreement not to
publish any informed defence of Yugoslav government policy.
>but there will certainly be a strong correlation
>between BBC staff views and general population views BEFORE any
>particular political piece is broadcast.
>
Not necessarily. In some cases - particularly foreign affairs - the
public has no opinion to start with, and will take their lead from the
tone of BBC reporting.
Pete Mitchell <real address= newsposter(at)dmed.demon.co.uk>
Pete Mitchell
>
>>>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
>>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>>
>>particular leaning.
>>
>>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
>>services.
>
>Not any more they're not.
Since the original vetting was done covertly, it is going to take more
than mere assertion to convince us that it is not still done.
>
>>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
>>beeb.
>
>The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
>anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial third
>parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured.
What happens to the BBC is the third party finds against them? Is anyone
sacked or fined? How long does it take to get a judgement?
> And the
>number of upheld complaints is very small.
>
Or they can ring the BBC, as I did today, and be told that the lines are
all engaged, that no-one knows how long the switchboard queue is, and
that there is no fax or email address to which I can send my complaint.
CASSIDY
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> wrote in article <370BCDE8...@bscserv.com>...
| I am sorry to be so brutal with a lady - but you did rather ask for it !
<best kenneth williams voice>
brutal, eh? asking for it, eh? oooh, matron.
</williams>
how do you know its a "lady" bob?
hillary is a very popular name for men in certain parts of "britain."
| Bob Sims
thanks.
gerard.
Richard Caley
b> And it is
b> arrogant and subversive to tell the British people that we are "...European
b> ...whether you like it or not..."
b> Who say so ? You ? Jacques Santer ? Tony Blair ?
Geography.
b> Are you now able to manipulate geography - or just words ?
No, which is why the British are European, as opposed to African for
example.
b> There is a blessed band of water between "us" and "them".
By this bizzare logic, people from Manhatten are not Amercian and
people from the Isle of White are not British.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>In article <RbH24kA3...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
>> To keep the thread going, I replied -
>> >
>> >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
>>
>> Not even the UKIP?
>
>The UKIP have split! Dr Alan Sked has launched his own group because
>the main lot has decided to take up their seats if they win any in the
>European Parliament elections.
I didn't realise this.
BTW, it's always seemed a bit silly to contest elections if you have no
intention of taking up your seat should you win!
Paul Hyett
To keep the thread going, I replied -
>> > >
>> > >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
>> >
>> > Not even the UKIP?
>>
>> The UKIP have split! Dr Alan Sked has launched his own group because
>> the main lot has decided to take up their seats if they win any in the
>> European Parliament elections.
>
>
>Not, in my view, a great loss to UKIP. But I wish his, and any other
>group involved in saving the British public and nation from the so-called
>"EU", the very best of luck.
How well do you think they'll do?
I suspect they're hoping for something like the Green's performance in
1989.
Richard Caley
db> The UKIP have split!
So that's the IPofUK.
Now, where's the Popular Front?
Chris Pople
> Hillary Morgan wrote:
>
>> But don't you make allowances for the Telegraph's extremely right-wing
>> bias when you're reading it? Anyway I can't see what's wrong with making
>> a correct distinction between 'British' and 'English'. And why do you
>> think of the EU as a 'them' in opposition to a British 'we'? We are
>> European, after all whether you like it or not.
>> --
>> Hillary Morgan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You may choose to be "European" if you wish Hillary. I, and most of the
> remainder of the British people, reject this linguistic trickery. And it is
>
> arrogant and subversive to tell the British people that we are "...European
> ...whether you like it or not..."
>
> Who say so ? You ? Jacques Santer ? Tony Blair ? Are you now
> able to manipulate geography - or just words ? There is a blessed band
> of water between "us" and "them". If you want to be "European", nobody
> is stopping you from crossing it !
>
> I am both "English" (in England) and British (in the world). I am *never*
> "European" anywhere !
What, then, do you think Europe IS? As far as most people are concerned,
Europe does not end at the English channel. It's borders are, admittedly,
not clearly defined outside of political maps (is Turkey in Europe? I've
always wondered), but there is little doubt that to be English is to be
British is to be European, whether (and here's that phrase you hate so much)
you like it or not!
Ask any American who's on a trip to London where he or she's going, and most
likely they will reply 'Europe', just as we often say 'America', when really
we mean 'the USA'. Even the Falkland islands are South American :-)
We are all Europeans, just as Nigerians are Africans, and Chinese are
Asians. It is not a political statement, just a geographical reference. Even
you admit that Europe exists just over the 'blessed band of water' - if you
include France, why not us? Because more French people like being European
than British? That's not a good enough reason to differentiate in my
opinion!
Chris
--
-
Chris Pople
cpo...@nationwideisp.net
Jim
Pete Mitchell wrote in message ...
>According to Jim <r...@clara.net> :
>>
>>>>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
>>>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>>>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>>>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>>>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>>>
>>>unless bbc recruiting procedures favour those of a
>>>particular leaning.
>>>
>>>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
>>>services.
>>
>>Not any more they're not.
>
>Since the original vetting was done covertly, it is going to take more
>than mere assertion to convince us that it is not still done.
... but there's no evidence that it *is* happening, as the original post
claimed .....
>>>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
>>>beeb.
>>
>>The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
>>anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial
third
>>parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured.
>
>What happens to the BBC is the third party finds against them? Is anyone
>sacked or fined? How long does it take to get a judgement?
People get sacked. The recent `Vanessa' debacle is just the latest example.
>> And the
>>number of upheld complaints is very small.
>>
>
>Or they can ring the BBC, as I did today, and be told that the lines are
>all engaged, that no-one knows how long the switchboard queue is, and
>that there is no fax or email address to which I can send my complaint.
Well, that's crap. Were you ringing 08700 100 222? That number should be
answered quickly by the Information Office. Their e-mail address is
in...@bbc.co.uk
Jim
Alan G
wrote:
>
>>>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
>>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>>
>>unless bbc recruiting procedures favour those of a
>>particular leaning.
>>
>>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
>>services.
>
>Not any more they're not.
Did MI5 tell you that personally?
>
>>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
>>beeb.
>
>The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
>anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial third
>parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured. And the
>number of upheld complaints is very small.
>
>
>
Are they impartial? Who appoints them?
You're very trusting.
Bob
Chris Pople wrote:
> Chris Pople
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the whole point is, Chris, that the EU and its toadies play at linguistics in order
to achieve specious propaganda aimed at achieving a political objective.
We see this in Hillary's posting.
There dishonest arguing goes '...We are part of Europe (meaning geographically,
which is, in any case, a matter of opinion. Is Japan part of China ?)
...therefore,
(by implication) we are part of the EU...' A further piece of dishonest trickery
involved is that if you accept this argument - you have by implication accepted
that "Europe = EU = Europe" - which is does not.
Is Russia, unquestionably a part of Europe (it is the same land mass) also a
part of the so-called "EU" ? I don't think so!
It is a very obvious and cheap bit of linguistic trickery - but people who have
neither time nor interest to consider what they are having shoved down their
throats can fall for it.
You will note the characteristic EU slimy trickery involved.
Which is why we slam down on it bloody hard every time we see it.
Regards, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
CASSIDY wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------Humour
marks rising, Gerard. (well, you made me smile) Keep it up
and you will get there one of these days. :-)
I could be wrong, but I don't think the gentlemen are spelt with a
double el.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Richard Caley wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly, Richard !
Try telling the Japanese that they are Chinese. If you run very fast you
might just get away with your life !
What you are talking about is political concepts and presumptions - which
are denied by geography.
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Briscoe
Bob wrote in message <370AB6FE...@bscserv.com>...>> >Can I say that for a Stalinist organisation the BBC seems remarkably
>> inefficient. I work in a senior post in the organisation
(thoughadmittedly
>> in local broadcasting) and so far I have not seen the offending "ukaze".
I
>> wonder if our correspondents are mistaking what the printed press
(generally
>> owned by businesses which oppose the BBC because they have financial
>> interests in commercial broadcasting as well) is saying and what the BBC
is
>> actually doing?
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>Dear Michael,
>
>Within these newgroups (unlike within the BBC) we burn censors - and
>those who seek to censor by intimidation or sly procedural obstructions,
>at the stake - on a regular basis !
>
>If you work within the BBC - then YOU tell US what the BBC is
>"actually doing". You have as much right to put your point of view (or
>that of the BBC) as anybody else.
>
>I take your point about the "printed press" and am mindful that some of
>them own television stations. But with the exception of the Daily Mirror
>and perhaps the Express [although I think they are now on the way to
>becoming reformed under new editors ;-) ] I do not think that they are
>open to the charge of undermining the British national identity - and
>certainly not to the extent of "discouraging" the use of the words
>"British" and "nation".
>
>As a matter of information, I have been one of the most strident
>critics of any attempt to commercialise or compromise the independence
>of the BBC - or to subvert its "public service" status over a period of
>30 years.. However, since it clearly is not now independent, but
>quite blatantly engaged in the disemination of propaganda on behalf of
>a foreign power (the "EU") which seeks the annexation of our state into
>its ownership and control - without British electoral comment - let alone
>consent - I no longer see the justification for its function and role -
>which it has clearly abandoned.
>
>I, and I am sure others in these newsgroups, would be glad to have
>your further comments - so far as you are able to make any without
>damaging your own position within the BBC.
>
>Regards, Bob Sims
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sure - no problem at all: bu all I can say is that the pemise on which this
thread is based (i.e. that allBBC staff have been ordered to use a
particular form of words) is just NOT true. It doesn't mean the discussion
is not interesting. It is. But forget the original mistake on which it was
based. There has been No such BBC diktat.
>
>
Michael Briscoe
Bob
Jim wrote:
> >> ..... who is this madman?
> >
> >I am a software engineer who runs a successful business - and has
> >done for the last 21 years.
>
> Do you harangue your customers in the same immoderate and ill-informed way
> you harangue newsgroups?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly ! But my haranging is neither immoderate nor ill informed. In
either
case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The "madmen" who furnished this information are the journalists and
> >editors at the Telegraph - in which I read this story.
>
> ... which of course means it *must* be true ........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly ! That is not what I said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> .
>
> >The article also contains quotes from other "madmen" at the BBC
> >who wrote and issued the booklet containing the offending items.
>
> ... which of course you have not actually seen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Do you have any intelligent comment to make - or are you just one
> >of those here to throw rotten tomatoes because that is the only way
> >you can express your opinion ?
>
> Get down off the cross, Bob; someone needs the wood.
>
> If you stop foaming at the mouth for one minute, you'll realise all the BBC
> has done is point out to its journalists that some things, people,
> institutions etc are British, that is to say, they have to do with Britain.
> Some of them are English, and have nothing to do with Scotland, Wales or
> Northern Ireland. Some of them are Scottish, and have nothing to do with
> etc etc etc etc etc I'm sure by now even you have got the idea.
>
> As the BBC is concerned about accuracy (although Ceefax news couldn't spell
> `Ottawa' this morning) it is just reminding journalists to be precise and
> correct when referring to nations within the UK. This is because when it
> gets it wrong - saying `England' when it should be `Great Britain' or vice
> versa being the most common errors - many people are upset and complain; and
> rightly so. No-one's suggesting the banning of `Britain' or `British', as
> you'd know if you actually understood what's going on here; it's just making
> sure the right words are used at the right time.
>
> Funny; I thought you'd be in favour of journalists getting things right.
> But then again, you're a `Times' reader, so maybe that's not what you look
> for in a media outlet.
>
> Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you work for the BBC ? Do you know as reality the opinions which you
express on their behalf (above) or is this just supposition ?
The indisputable realities are that the BBC has engaged in subversive pro-EU
propaganda and misinformation (the EU has a budget of £40 million devoted
soley to brain-washing the British electorate into scrapping our GBP) over a
period of years. You will be aware of the scandals of the BBC printing
pro-EU propaganda advertisements in its publications - and of "stuffing"
the audiences of its "debate" style programmes with EU sympathisers and
relative of BBC staff ?
By discouraging the use of the words "British" and, more significantly, "nation"
- whilst pretending that this is a sop to Scottish nationalists - is quite
transparently
in furtherence of the break up of the United Kingdom and the discouragement
of any sense of British national identity.
It is another piece of slimy subversion and utterly transparent - as are your
comments in their defence.
When are you EU toadies going to learn that the British people are not deaf,
dumb, blind or stupid ?!?
We have seen it all before - and killed its exponents in huge numbers.
Bob Sims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Jim wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you anything intelligent to say - or are you a trainee EU "sneerer" ?
Bob
David Cantrell
us thusly:
>It is not the business of the BBC - or anybody else who engages in
>"news" dissemination - *have* any political opinion during the time they
>are engaged in their occupation.
>
>Their job is to report the facts, all of the facts - and nothing but the
>facts. They have no right to overlay this with opinion or to select
>facts which suite their particular political affiliations or point of view.
>
>That they do so - and that they conciously exploit their priveleged
>postion in order to influence public opinion - is my charge against them.
So you charge them with the terrible crime of being human.
>If they are incapable of remaining unbiased and politically neutral
>whilst they are engaged in their job - then they lack the intellectual
>integrity and self disciplin which that job requires.
There is no-one who meets your criteria of complete political
indifference.
--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
David Cantrell
enlightened us thusly:
> The choice of news to report
>influences public opinion very strongly, and there then arises a
>positive feedback effect on the news agency.
Oh well, in that case, they should report EVERYTHING. And I mean
EVERYTHING. Including the opening of a new pub near me. That is, of
course, a political event, as it is the result of a planning
application to a local government body, and is a forum for political
debate.
This is clearly absurd. There HAS to be an editorial team choosing
what to report, what not to report, and how to squeeze it all into
thirty minutes. It simply ain't possible for those people to leave
their political views at the door.
Bob
Jim wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that confirms it !
You are a professional EU "sneerer" who - lacking any remaining argument
which you can win - resort to simply denying any reality which does not suit
your book. We have seen this all before, havn't we ?
"...................
a) There is no foundation in the rumour at all - which is a "Euro-myth"
invented
by troublemakers / xenophobes / little Englanders / bent Tory politicians
(use latest employed by BBC sneerer)
b) It is only a discussion document and will never see the light of day.
c) We have a veto which we will use at the next meeting.
d) It is an "established fact" and there is not a bloody thing you can
do about it - so there !
................"
But isn't is scraping the barrel a bit to resort to attempting to score cheap
points about punctuation ?
And did you know that is considered extremely poor "netiquette" ?
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Jim wrote:
> >>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
> >>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
> >>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
> >>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
> >>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
> >
> >unless bbc recruiting procedures favour those of a
> >particular leaning.
> >
> >bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
> >services.
>
> Not any more they're not.
>
> >I would certainly question the impartiality of the
> >beeb.
>
> The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
> anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial third
> parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured. And the
> number of upheld complaints is very small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You bet they are "very small" !
Excuse me, I think I am going to be sick laughing !
You are talking about the most deeply and blantantly infiltrated and
subverted organisation in the entire kingdom ! In their openly racist anti-
British propaganda, they are second to none. Have you seen their EU
propaganda adverts in their internal publications ? No ? Well I have !
It was the subject of a mass of complaints against them by the various
anti-EU organisations. The result ? Go on ! Guess !!!
Complain ? Have you ever *tried* to complain about the BBC ?
Come on ! You really cannot expect anybody to belive this clap-trap.
Bob
Bob
Alan G wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 23:08:51 GMT, "Jim" <r...@clara.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
> >>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
> >>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
> >>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
> >>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
> >>
> >>unless bbc recruiting procedures favour those of a
> >>particular leaning.
> >>
> >>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
> >>services.
> >
> >Not any more they're not.
>
> Did MI5 tell you that personally?
>
> >
> >>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
> >>beeb.
> >
> >The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
> >anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial third
> >parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured. And the
> >number of upheld complaints is very small.
> >
> >
> >
> Are they impartial? Who appoints them?
>
> You're very trusting.
>
> Alan G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as their "selection" procedures go - you will not find a job advertised
at the BBC - unless you are a Guardian reader.
Because that is the only newspaper in which they advertise their jobs.
Stalinists recruiting Stalinists.
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Jim wrote:
> Pete Mitchell wrote in message ...
> >According to Jim <r...@clara.net> :
> >>
> >>>>There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
> >>>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
> >>>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
> >>>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
> >>>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
> >>>
> >>>unless bbc recruiting procedures favour those of a
> >>>particular leaning.
> >>>
> >>>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
> >>>services.
> >>
> >>Not any more they're not.
> >
> >Since the original vetting was done covertly, it is going to take more
> >than mere assertion to convince us that it is not still done.
>
> ... but there's no evidence that it *is* happening, as the original post
> claimed .....
>
> >>>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
> >>>beeb.
> >>
> >>The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
> >>anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial
> third
> >>parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured.
> >
> >What happens to the BBC is the third party finds against them? Is anyone
> >sacked or fined? How long does it take to get a judgement?
>
> People get sacked. The recent `Vanessa' debacle is just the latest example.
>
> >> And the
> >>number of upheld complaints is very small.
> >>
> >
> >Or they can ring the BBC, as I did today, and be told that the lines are
> >all engaged, that no-one knows how long the switchboard queue is, and
> >that there is no fax or email address to which I can send my complaint.
>
> Well, that's crap. Were you ringing 08700 100 222? That number should be
> answered quickly by the Information Office. Their e-mail address is
> in...@bbc.co.uk
>
> Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. It is an absolute fact ! But when did a little thing like
facts
ever bother an EU toady ?
And if you do get through - all you get is lip from some insolent little bitch
who thinks that criticising the BBC is an impertinence !! I have spoken
to people ready to kill after speaking to this subversive scum. I have not
spoken to them myself in years - because it is a complete waste of time.
One of my friends some time ago phoned to ask for some statistic. I
cannot remember what it was - but he was asked by the little cow on
the other end why he wanted the information. To which he replied
something to the effect that he wanted it becasue he was a licence payer.
To which the little tart replied "... so a I.." and put the phone down. She
did not, of course, give her name. Had she done so - she - and the
person who appointed her would be out of work.
This arrogant, insolent, subversive bloody filth really do live in a world of
their own.
It is a pity that BBC staff are no longer vetted. If they were, perhaps it
would not be riddled with Stalinists going flat out to bring about the end
of Britain.
They will, of course, eventually stand trial for their treason under a
future British government.
Bob
Bob
Pete Mitchell wrote:
> According to David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> :
> >On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:12:25 +0100, Geoff Leonard
> ><Ge...@lacc.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> >> ... Maybe
> >>they don't mean to do it, but I think they 'back' the party they think
> >>is likely to win the next election.
> >
> >There are people - with political opinions - involved in choosing
> >which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
> >post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
> >the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
> >the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>
> One reason is that the general population prefers to hear its prejudices
> reinforced, rather than being told the facts. A news service that
> panders to this is a bad news agency; a good one would report the facts
> whether the listeners like them or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 15 years the BBC - and others - reported none of the facts about
the EU. In fact, virtually nothing at all !
A good many of them had to have it explained very carefully that if they
continued this covert censorship it was going to cost them their jobs.
Confronted with having to report on EU evil doings - they they took the
second option of highly pro-EU "slant reporting" - and have not
hesitated to stoop to crude brain-washing techniques (see my original
post).
The BBC is now so corrupt - that I see no option but to clear out the
controlling cabels - starting at the top and with the most blantant.
Jacobi, who made a blantant attempt to undermine the use of the
English language some years ago, is an obvious candidate for
summary dismissal.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I am, obviously, ignoring the fact that BBC output affects the general
> >population's beliefs,
>
> I don't think this should be ignored. The choice of news to report
> influences public opinion very strongly, and there then arises a
> positive feedback effect on the news agency.
>
> For example the BBC (and other media) has chosen to focus on the Kosovar
> refugee situation rather than on the effects of NATO bombing of Yugoslav
> civilian targets. Presumably this was at first done as a result of HMG
> influence, but the effect has been to move UK public opinion to a more
> anti-Serb position. Now that this has happened, it becomes difficult for
> the BBC, or any other media, to adopt even a moderately neutral position
> for fear of being regarded as out of step, even if they wanted to.
>
> There was a loathsome performance by Sue McGregor on the Today programme
> this morning, in which she interviewed a Serb spokesman. During most of
> the interview she spouted NATO propaganda at this bloke in the form of
> accusations that he was not permitted to answer - "That's not true Mr
> Somethingovic, we know quite definitely that the refugee crisis is
> caused by Serb atrocities within Kosovar ... however now let me move
> onto something else" while the Serb guy's mike was turned down so he
> couldn't contradict her!
>
> Such behaviour is a disgrace to journalism.
>
> Pete Mitchell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly is a disgrace to journalism. I have been subjected to that
slimy
trickery myself - but they don't get away with it with me !
There is far too much of it - and it should be a sackable offence.
Bob Sims
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clive D.W. Feather
<s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> writes
>b> There is a blessed band of water between "us" and "them".
>By this bizzare logic, people from Manhatten are not Amercian and
>people from the Isle of White are not British.
Particularly since it is physically easy to walk from the main part of
Great Britain to most of the main European landmass. And many people
have done so.
Which, curiously, *isn't* possible to residents of Northern Ireland [*],
Shetland, Tresco, or even at some times Lindisfarne.
[*] Except that I suspect many people south of the border consider
themselves to be in Europe.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Software Development | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Bob
Nick Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:42:38 +0100, "Tariq Atchia"
> <xol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Bob wrote in message <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>2) A future British government (of whatever political
> >> complextion) will have no option but to suspend
> >> the licence fee and close down what has ceased to
> >> be the "BBC" in anything other than name.
> >>
> >I totally agree. Visit my site below for links to Anti-Licence fee and
> >Licence Fee reform sites.
>
> All of it, or just - selfishly - the licence fee bit?
> --
> Nick Cooper
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly, Nick !
Without the £2 billion ( is it ?) they get from the licence fee - they simply
do not exist.
If, of course, they stopped paying talantless little tarts 6 and 7 figures
for doing nothing that anybody else could not do - because they slept on
the right casting couch - they could run it for a lot less than they do.
They paid John Cleese and his wife £250 an episode for writing
"Fawlty Towers".
Some of these little inconsequential sluts are on over a million !
And that is because the BBC has fallen into the hands of scum.
Radio, which is far superior to television, is, for the most part,
the exception. Only the really dedicated stalinsts will soil there
hands with radio. There has been a few sightings in World Service.
But for the majority - they are simply not up to radio standards - and
there is not enough money in it to attract the loathsome parasites !
Bob Sims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Alan Hardie
Bob wrote:
>
> Richard Caley wrote:
>
> > In article <370BCDE8...@bscserv.com>, Bob (b) writes:
> >
> > b> And it is
> >
> > b> arrogant and subversive to tell the British people that we are "...European
> > b> ...whether you like it or not..."
> >
> > b> Who say so ? You ? Jacques Santer ? Tony Blair ?
> >
> > Geography.
> >
> > b> Are you now able to manipulate geography - or just words ?
> >
> > No, which is why the British are European, as opposed to African for
> > example.
> >
> > b> There is a blessed band of water between "us" and "them".
> >
> > By this bizzare logic, people from Manhatten are not Amercian and
> > people from the Isle of White are not British.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Don't be silly, Richard !
>
> Try telling the Japanese that they are Chinese. If you run very fast you
> might just get away with your life !
OTOH try telling them that they are Oriental then they wouldn't bat an
eyelid. They may try to miniaturize you, but they wouldn't bat an
eyelid.
>
> What you are talking about is political concepts and presumptions - which
> are denied by geography.
>
Ah Ha! But where do you draw the line geography-wise? After all, Britain
was joined to France until the end of the last ice age about 10-12,000
years ago. Go back far enough and Scotland and England were once joined
to different continents (curse this teutonic plate drift). The truth of
the matter is that our languages (including Welsh and Gaelic) are
Indo-European and English especially is closely related to French,
German, Latin ancient Greek etc. Our religion is/has been a shared
European belief in Christianity, and flowing from that our architectural
heritage relates to French, Italian and German ecclesiastical influences
as do Music, Art, Literature, Politics.... *All* are interwoven with
European influences albeit each nation/region/country each has its own
local flavours.
By all means oppose further European integration if that is a political
belief of yours - but drop this ultra-nationalistic fantasy that being
British is not to be a European. Don't insult our intelligence.
--
regards
Alan Hardie
remove *X* to reply
BobW
monopolise uk.media.bbc-r4?
--
Bob W.
Matthew Malthouse
Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
} Now, where's the Popular Front?
Tooting.
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Bob
David Cantrell wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are *plenty* of people who meet that criteria. The problem is
that those of them who still cling to a job at the BBC are rather
frightened people who keep their heads low.
In all of the (real) sciences, for example, no other type of person
exists.
But then they only occur in the *real* world. Some can be found
at BBC Bristol - now under attack from the scum who infect
Broadcasting House and the Television Centre.
You will recall that David Attenbourgh was offered the job of DG -
but after a very short time in Broadcasting House - just walked
away in disgust. And who can blame him ?
What is needed there at present, is a DG with the instincts of a
homicidal lunatic - a clear understanding of who, exactly, pays
the licence fees - who can remember what the "B" in BBC
stands for - and who is prepared to sack without hesitation
anybody who cannot !
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:30:00 +0100, Pete Mitchell <Pe...@rockall.net>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
> > The choice of news to report
> >influences public opinion very strongly, and there then arises a
> >positive feedback effect on the news agency.
>
> Oh well, in that case, they should report EVERYTHING. And I mean
> EVERYTHING. Including the opening of a new pub near me. That is, of
> course, a political event, as it is the result of a planning
> application to a local government body, and is a forum for political
> debate.
>
> This is clearly absurd. There HAS to be an editorial team choosing
> what to report, what not to report, and how to squeeze it all into
> thirty minutes. It simply ain't possible for those people to leave
> their political views at the door.
>
> --
> David Cantrell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they cannot - then they are not fit to do the job.
Do you, by the same token, expect a judge not to leave his political
views at the door ? Even an ordinary businessman leaves his
politcal views outside his office.
If everybody else can manage this simple act of intellectual honesty
- they why can't they ?
If you are prepared to accept low standards in public life - then
don't complain when that is what you get.
These people are paid VERY handsomly for their trouble. In return
for that reward - we expect high standards.
When I am writing software, I am expected to comply with the code of
conduct laid down by the British Computer Society - and so is every
other professional obliged to comply with the professional standards
laid down by his Guild, Institute, etc.
Why are you making excuses for broadcasters ?
What you are saying is they are incompetent and unprofessional scum,
we know they are scum - and there is nothing we can do about it.
Well we can do a hell of a lot about it ! Like sack the
self-indulgent,
treacherous, propaganda mongering little bastards - wholesale.
But to do that - we have to get rid of the crooks and traitors who
have created this atmosphere of corruption who inhabit the most
senior and well paid posts and orchestrate the whole rotten
business.
And we can can do that too ! And we will.
Bob Sims
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Sod Enfopol98 wrote:
>
>
> They are also caught in the piggy-in-the-middle scenario of being
> supposed to reflect public opinion as opposed to shaping it.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not supposed to "relect" ANY "opinion".
They are supposed to REPORT the NEWS.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------
Gareth Thomas
>Only the really dedicated stalinsts will soil there
>hands with radio.
>
With most people this would be far too petty to pick up on - but I feel
that a man with your exceptional high standards and traditional values
should have learnt the difference between 'there' and 'their' by now.
--
Gareth Thomas
Bob
Alan G wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 19:51:11 +0000,
> da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
>
> >In article <RbH24kA3...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> ><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
> >> To keep the thread going, I replied -
> >> >
> >> >I do not now - and never again will - belong to any political party.
> >>
> >> Not even the UKIP?
> >
> >The UKIP have split! Dr Alan Sked has launched his own group because
> >the main lot has decided to take up their seats if they win any in the
> >European Parliament elections.
>
> Get your tickets for the gravy train. ( satire)
>
> They probably realise that the best thing they could do for
> the EU is to campaign from within for a loosely knit
> federation and as nmuch decentralisation of power as a
> federal state can stand without collapsing. ( wishful
> thinking)
>
> Alan G
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
You are quite right, Alan. It is wishful thinking.
The only way to deal with it, after 25 years of trying - and failing -
to make it work - is to just "walk away".
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Bob
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> In article <eyhr9pv...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Caley
> <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> writes
> >b> There is a blessed band of water between "us" and "them".
> >By this bizzare logic, people from Manhatten are not Amercian and
> >people from the Isle of White are not British.
>
> Particularly since it is physically easy to walk from the main part of
> Great Britain to most of the main European landmass. And many people
> have done so.
>
> Which, curiously, *isn't* possible to residents of Northern Ireland [*],
> Shetland, Tresco, or even at some times Lindisfarne.
>
> [*] Except that I suspect many people south of the border consider
> themselves to be in Europe.
>
> --
> Clive D.W. Feather | Director of | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
> Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Software Development | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
> Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Err... I've had a heavy day writing software, too, Clive !
But I don't think I am as bad as you yet ! :-)
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sod Enfopol98
Apr 1999 23:01:37 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to
know:
>As far as their "selection" procedures go - you will not find a job advertised
>at the BBC - unless you are a Guardian reader.
Then use their website - because all positions that are not closed to
non-BBC employees are advertised there.
>Because that is the only newspaper in which they advertise their jobs.
Ok, suppose if you're only talking about newspapers then that is a
fair enough comment.
>Stalinists recruiting Stalinists.
And, of course, only stalinists have a computer and a modem. So by
applying your own rational that the BBC only advertise positions in
media read exclusively by stalinists, we must conclude that you also
are a stalinist.
But, of course, i am an EU toady as i dare to disagree with you.
Consequently, i must - in actuality - be engaging in a deliberate
propaganda exercise in an attempt to undermine defenders of the
*truth* such as yourself.
Never was a great one for *truth* myself, as it is so dependent on the
prejudices of individual perspective. Different people will witness
the same events, and yet draw totally different conclusions as to
their meaning. I much prefer testable, qualifiable, quantifiable data.
Bob
Alan Hardie wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > Richard Caley wrote:
> >
> > > In article <370BCDE8...@bscserv.com>, Bob (b) writes:
> > >
> > > b> And it is
> > >
> > > b> arrogant and subversive to tell the British people that we are "...European
> > > b> ...whether you like it or not..."
> > >
> > > b> Who say so ? You ? Jacques Santer ? Tony Blair ?
> > >
> > > Geography.
> > >
> > > b> Are you now able to manipulate geography - or just words ?
> > >
> > > No, which is why the British are European, as opposed to African for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > b> There is a blessed band of water between "us" and "them".
> > >
> > > By this bizzare logic, people from Manhatten are not Amercian and
> > > people from the Isle of White are not British.
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Don't be silly, Richard !
> >
> > Try telling the Japanese that they are Chinese. If you run very fast you
> > might just get away with your life !
>
> OTOH try telling them that they are Oriental then they wouldn't bat an
> eyelid. They may try to miniaturize you, but they wouldn't bat an
> eyelid.
>
> >
> > What you are talking about is political concepts and presumptions - which
> > are denied by geography.
> >
>
> Ah Ha! But where do you draw the line geography-wise? After all, Britain
> was joined to France until the end of the last ice age about 10-12,000
> years ago. Go back far enough and Scotland and England were once joined
> to different continents (curse this teutonic plate drift). ----
------------------------------------------------------------------------In that, I
think you are mistaken.
Go back far enough and we were all once part of a single continent
called Gondwana. What is you point ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The truth of
> the matter is that our languages (including Welsh and Gaelic) are
> Indo-European and English especially is closely related to French,
> German, Latin ancient Greek etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish! If you take an English degree - you will be ( or were )
obliged to study ancient Norse - the root of the English language.
It does, of course, contain many words absorbed from other languages
- including even that of the USA.
Where do you think the English professor J.R.R Tolkein got his Hobbit
and LoTR from ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Our religion is/has been a shared European belief in Christianity,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is not the topic under discussion
------------------------------------------
> and flowing from that our architectural heritage relates to French,
> Italian and German ecclesiastical influences as do Music, Art, Literature
> , Politics.... *All* are interwoven with
> European influences albeit each nation/region/country each has its own
> local flavours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our "architectural influences" are drawn almost excuslively from
classical Greece, with the exception of some Gothic, but very little
else.
Britain not only draws cultural influcene from (mainly Europe) - but
also contributes to it - substantially. Turner, for example, invented
"impressionism" long before the French impressionist.
However...I am a great lover of music, and I fully acknowledge the
vast debt which we owe to our European friends - especially Germany
and Italy - in that respect. Not forgetting Russia and the Balkans for
their composers - who are not part of the EU.
Culture is not at issue here and, in any case, composers and artists
are above politics.
But because I love and share the joy of a composer - it does not mean
that I - or any other sane person - will say that, against all geographical
reality, that they are a part of their country. Or, indeed, surrender
their country to them. Nor would anybody of the intellect of these
excellent gentlemen ask it.
As a theatrical gesture (of which I have been known to be guilty) I
might declare them to be "English Gentlemen" - against all reason -
that being the highest form of praise I could accord any living
person. ( Naturally, I should judge whether they would understand
my meaning to avoid offence.....before some clown comes back
with the obvious jibe )
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> By all means oppose further European integration if that is a political
> belief of yours - but drop this ultra-nationalistic fantasy that being
> British is not to be a European. Don't insult our intelligence.
>
> regards
>
> Alan Hardie
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try, Alan ! Nice "loaded" lead in with "...ultra nationalistic
fantasy.."followed by an excellent coup de grace "...Don't insult our intelligence..."
I use that one myself sometimes.
You prepared it well, too. Confusing the issue with cultural considerations
and some tectonic plate drift - and even drawing in religion. Using language
I thought was a mistake. But as "smoke and mirrors" go - it was
pretty good !
It is, of course, all ballocks, as you know perfectly well. But, as a
general rule, you would have got away with it.
"Europe" is a land mass. We are an island which is separated from that
land mass by 20 miles of water, at the nearest point. We are not "part"
of it.
Those who wish to consider themselves "part" of Europe politically or
culturally may do so. But we are not "part" of it geographically - and
we are not part of it politically - or ethnically. And since most of it is
catholic - not religeously either. Linguistically, nobody in Europe (if
by that you mean the artificial political alliance which calls itself the
"EU") speaks English other than as a "second language".
I rest my case.
But it was a *very* nice try !
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Gareth Thomas wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You are quite right, Gareth. It is considered very bad netiqette to
criticise spelling and punctuation.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
Michael Briscoe wrote:
> Bob wrote in message <370AB6FE...@bscserv.com>...
> >
> >
> >Michael Briscoe wrote:
> >
> >> Bob wrote in message <37096298...@bscserv.com>...
> >> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegraph seems to disagree, since they published a rather long
and detailed article in which they described the "handbook" and quotes
from the BBC in reply to their questions.
I take your point that there "..has been no such diktat.." which implies
that the "notes of guidence" have either not been distributed to radio
(in which you say you are involved) or withdrawn in the light of
the Telegraph article - or perhaps it has just not come across your
desk.
I am, of course, only conjecturing. I do not work for the BBC and
I do not know.
Clearly, either the Telegraph "got it wrong" - or they were dealing in
untruths. I would find it hard to believe the latter. At the present
I believe that the offending booklet exists. Are you saying that it
does not - or are you saying that my interpretation of the issue is
exagerated ?
(I don't want to draw you into something which might compromise
you professionally, so if you prefer to simply ignore this reply, I
am sure that all of us - who also have to make a living - will
understand. But if you feel you can do so safely, your answers
would be of interest.)
Regards, Bob sims
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> >
Bob
Michael Briscoe wrote:
Please see my reply under your previous post.
> >
Gareth Thomas
>> With most people this would be far too petty to pick up on - but I feel
>> that a man with your exceptional high standards and traditional values
>> should have learnt the difference between 'there' and 'their' by now.
>>
>> --
>> Gareth Thomas
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You are quite right, Gareth. It is considered very bad netiqette to
>criticise spelling and punctuation.
Indeed, and nor did I!
The correct usage of homonyms on the other hand...
--
Gareth Thomas
Pete Mitchell
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>> The choice of news to report
>>influences public opinion very strongly, and there then arises a
>>positive feedback effect on the news agency.
>
>Oh well, in that case, they should report EVERYTHING. And I mean
>EVERYTHING. Including the opening of a new pub near me. That is, of
>course, a political event, as it is the result of a planning
>application to a local government body, and is a forum for political
>debate.
>
>This is clearly absurd.
Yes, but that it was what you stated not what I said. What I said did
not imply that BBC news should report everything, simply that their
selective reporting was motivated by considerations that are not
entirely news-driven.
> There HAS to be an editorial team choosing
>what to report, what not to report, and how to squeeze it all into
>thirty minutes.
Of course.
>It simply ain't possible for those people to leave
>their political views at the door.
>
Of course not. But it would be nice if they would try. (FWIW, I am not
coming at this from the same political POV as Bob.)
Pete Mitchell <real address= newsposter(at)dmed.demon.co.uk>
Pete Mitchell
>>>>>which stories to cover and how (as you pointed out in the part of your
>>>>>post that I've snipped), so presumably in an organisation as large as
>>>>>the BBC, the overall bias will be the same as the overall bias amongst
>>>>>the population as a whole. What is wrong with this?
>>>>
>>>>particular leaning.
>>>>
>>>>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
>>>>services.
>>>
>>>Not any more they're not.
>>
>>Since the original vetting was done covertly, it is going to take more
>>than mere assertion to convince us that it is not still done.
>
>... but there's no evidence that it *is* happening, as the original post
>claimed .....
>
>>>>I would certainly question the impartiality of the
>>>>beeb.
>>>
>>>The BBC has a stated commitment to impartiality and fair treatment, and
>>>anyone who feels this is not being observed can complain to impartial
>third
>>>parties who decide whether that commitment is being honoured.
>>
>>What happens to the BBC is the third party finds against them? Is anyone
>>sacked or fined? How long does it take to get a judgement?
>
>People get sacked. The recent `Vanessa' debacle is just the latest example.
It is nice to hear that some BBC employees got sacked for deliberate
dishonesty in the Vanessa affair (who were they, BTW?), but that is
nothing to do with the issue of "impartiality and fair treatment" that
we were discussing.
>
>>> And the
>>>number of upheld complaints is very small.
>>>
>>
>>Or they can ring the BBC, as I did today, and be told that the lines are
>>all engaged, that no-one knows how long the switchboard queue is, and
>>that there is no fax or email address to which I can send my complaint.
>
>Well, that's crap.
Yes, I thought so too ... hang on, do you mean that I am lying? I see.
What makes you think so? I assure you what I say is true: I've written a
few more details of my call below, if anyone's interested.
>Were you ringing 08700 100 222? That number should be
>answered quickly by the Information Office.
On a previous occasion I called 0870 010 0123, which was the number
given me by directory enquiries (did you know that the BBC is not in
local phone directories nowadays, even in London?!) That line produced a
recorded message telling me to call back another time.
On this more recent occasion - Thursday at 1.10pm - I called 0171 580
4468 and asked for the radio duty officer's desk. I was put in a queue,
and after several minutes a recorded message told me that all officers
were busy, there was a large but unspecified number of calls ahead of
mine, and that I should consider calling back another time. I called
back a few minutes later and asked for the switchboard supervisor. She
didn't know how many calls were in the queue; she said there was no
email or fax line I could send my comments to; she said I couldn't speak
to the news desk direct. She put me in the duty officer queue again,
which again gave me the "why don't you go away, we are busy" message.
No, I didn't get her name. What a pity.
It may be, of course, that there were a lot of calls at that time. All
the more reason for them to give an email or fax alternative, since the
duty officer only writes down your complaint anyway (if that!).
>Their e-mail address is
>in...@bbc.co.uk
>
Thank you. The switchboard supervisor did not know that. What is the fax
number? Is there a direct email address for BBC news itself, or the
editorial team on any of the news programmes?
Pete Mitchell
>>>>bbc employees are known to be vetted by the security
>>>>services.
>>>
>>>Not any more they're not.
>>
>>Since the original vetting was done covertly, it is going to take more
>>than mere assertion to convince us that it is not still done.
>
>... but there's no evidence that it *is* happening, as the original post
>claimed .....
He simply said they are known to be vetted. For example, that certainly
applies to anybody recruited before about 1984, when the BBC's system
for spot-coding personnel files was disclosed. That covers quite a lot
of senior people in the BBC, where long service is the rule.
As for evidence of vetting today: since it happened secretly before, and
they lied about it then, I prefer to be a little cautious about what
they tell us now.
Chris Pople
order
>
> to achieve specious propaganda aimed at achieving a political objective.
>
> We see this in Hillary's posting.
>
> There dishonest arguing goes '...We are part of Europe (meaning
geographically,
> which is, in any case, a matter of opinion. Is Japan part of China ?)
> ...therefore,
> (by implication) we are part of the EU...' A further piece of dishonest
trickery
> involved is that if you accept this argument - you have by implication
accepted
> that "Europe = EU = Europe" - which is does not.
OK, point taken. But then isn't it equally true to say that we are, in fact,
part of the EU aswell, *whether you like it or not*?
> Is Russia, unquestionably a part of Europe (it is the same land mass) also a
> part of the so-called "EU" ? I don't think so!
Well, no it isn't, obviously. But then Russia didn't sign up to become a
member of the European Union like we did.
> It is a very obvious and cheap bit of linguistic trickery - but people who
have
> neither time nor interest to consider what they are having shoved down their
> throats can fall for it.
It is not dishonest or slimy to tell someone that they are part of the EU.
If they live in Britain, they *do*.
--
-
Chris Pople
cpo...@nationwideisp.net
Chris Pople
<snip>
>> >The BBC is anti-British in general and anti-English in particular.
>>
>> This too. This is plainly ridiculous. You cannot provide a shred of
>> evidence to back up this ludicrous claim.
<snip>
>> I think here with have the sine qua non of Bob's style - a paragraph of
>> ranting, with punctuation scattered at random, that actually makes *no sense
>> whatsoever*!
You're not exactly publishing standard yourself - see your first sentence
above.
Chris Pople
> You are talking about the most deeply and blantantly infiltrated and
> subverted organisation in the entire kingdom ! In their openly racist anti-
> British propaganda, they are second to none. Have you seen their EU
> propaganda adverts in their internal publications ? No ? Well I have !
I'd like to see one, just to see what's got you so het up. But I still don't
see how you could go so far as to call the BBC 'anti-British'. Is it because
you perceive them to be pro-EU? That may be the case, but there's no grounds
for making the claim that they are 'anti-British'. You run the risk of
sounding just like the kind of hysterical little-Englander that you claim
you're not.
Chris
Richard Caley
>> By this bizzare logic, people from Manhatten are not Amercian and
>> people from the Isle of White are not British.
b> Try telling the Japanese that they are Chinese.
China is not a continent. You really should buy an atlas.
b> What you are talking about is political concepts and presumptions
No, I am talking about geography.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
CASSIDY
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> wrote in article <370D1671...@bscserv.com>...
| Humour
| marks rising, Gerard. (well, you made me smile)
i'm glad we've put all that bitterness behind us, bob.
its good we can agree to disagree, on absolutely everything.
| Keep it up
| and you will get there one of these days. :-)
where exactly will i get?
can i come round to your house for cakes and tea?
that sounds like the premise for a weak marks/gran sitcom. aged
anti-european madman and spotty little euro-toady forced (by a court order
or someone's will, or somesuch comedy set-up) to share a house. imagine the
hilarious situations! you could try poisoning my baguettes!
| I could be wrong, but I don't think the gentlemen are spelt with a
| double el.
as far as i know, there are no hard and fast rules regarding name spelling.
you can pretty much spell your name however you want. i had a (male)
teacher called hillary, with two l-s.
| Bob
you'll forgive me for not getting more heavily involved in this thread. to
be perfectly honest, i just cant be bothered. as i see it, there is little
point in arguing with you as you have no intention of considering anyone
else's view's on anything. no doubt you'll infer from this that you have in
some way won the argument, and that is fine. i couldn't care less. i
disagree with you, therefore i am an eu-toady, therefore i cant be
believed, therefore anyone who disagrees with you cannot be believed. i'd
say your grand ideals about democracy are a bit far fetched, what you would
have isnt by any stretch of the imagination a democracy. all my opinion, or
course, which is worthless anyway.
anyhow, you dont need me to take the piss out of you anymore, you're doing
a pretty good job of it by yourself as far as i can see.
good luck bringing down the bbc, the government and whoever else you have
on your blacklist.
gerard.
Sod Enfopol98
Apr 1999 01:45:42 +0100. In doing so, they felt we would all like to
know:
>They are not supposed to "relect" ANY "opinion".
>
>They are supposed to REPORT the NEWS.
The BBC as an institution is supposed to ensure "due impartiality". No
such requirement is placed on its employees as individuals.
This means we must consider what is meant by "due impartiality". This
is generally taken to mean that it should be fair in its treatment of
subjects, but those subjects are dependent on what is considered
'newsworthy' by the public it serves in its role as a public service
broadcaster.
Of course, by also being required to be at the forefront of reportage,
it must inadvertently play a part in defining the public agenda -
regardless of how much it may strive to counter against this.
What you seem to be hoping for is an impossiblity. No news-gathering
and reporting organization can never be responsible for shaping the
public agenda, otherwise it would never be able to provide news prior
to it entering into the public mainstream. It is the degree to which
this occurs that we must seek to decide upon.
Chris Pople
> And if you do get through - all you get is lip from some insolent little bitch
> who thinks that criticising the BBC is an impertinence !! I have spoken
> to people ready to kill after speaking to this subversive scum. I have not
> spoken to them myself in years - because it is a complete waste of time.
>
> One of my friends some time ago phoned to ask for some statistic. I
> cannot remember what it was - but he was asked by the little cow on
> the other end why he wanted the information. To which he replied
> something to the effect that he wanted it becasue he was a licence payer.
> To which the little tart replied "... so a I.." and put the phone down. She
> did not, of course, give her name. Had she done so - she - and the
> person who appointed her would be out of work.
>
> This arrogant, insolent, subversive bloody filth really do live in a world of
> their own.
Whoa, steady there. I might be reading too much into this, but I take it
you're not in the best of moods when you make these little phonecalls, are
you?
Perhaps the 'insolent little bitch' at the BBC would have been more helpful
if you weren't ranting like a loony down the phoneline.
> It is a pity that BBC staff are no longer vetted. If they were, perhaps it
> would not be riddled with Stalinists going flat out to bring about the end
> of Britain.
>
> They will, of course, eventually stand trial for their treason under a
> future British government.
Do you really mean that? You must realise how silly you are making yourself
look. 'Going flat out to bring about the end of Britain'? Please.
Paul Hyett
To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>> was joined to France until the end of the last ice age about 10-12,000
>> years ago. Go back far enough and Scotland and England were once joined
>> to different continents (curse this teutonic plate drift). ----
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------In that,
>I
>think you are mistaken.
>
>Go back far enough and we were all once part of a single continent
>called Gondwana. What is you point ?
He's talking about WAY before Gondwanaland - something in the order of
600m years I believe.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Chris Pople
> Those who wish to consider themselves "part" of Europe politically or
> culturally may do so. But we are not "part" of it geographically - and
> we are not part of it politically - or ethnically. And since most of it is
> catholic - not religeously either. Linguistically, nobody in Europe (if
> by that you mean the artificial political alliance which calls itself the
> "EU") speaks English other than as a "second language".
We. Are. Part. Of. Europe.
Read that last sentence back to yourself a few times. You might eventually
start to understand it's meaning.
Of COURSE we are part of Europe geographically. Where the hell are we if not
in Europe? I thought we'd had this argument already! It's not a politically
loaded statement to say that the UK is a country in Europe, just a plain and
basic fact.
And drawing a linguistic distinction is even more ridiculous. There are
countless languages in Europe that are only spoken in one country (eg. UK)
or even one part of a country (Catalonia, Wales), but they are still
European. Why the hell wouldn't they be?
Dom
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You are quite right, Gareth. It is considered very bad netiqette to
>criticise spelling and punctuation.
>
Bob, you missed the 'u' in netiquette.
Dom
**** A CIVIL ACTION / BEAUTIFUL THING / METAL GEAR SOLID / HELLRAISER II ****
Region 2 DVD & PAL Laserdisc reviews now online
****************** http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/reviews.htm *****************
******* Laserdiscs, DVDs, Videos, Games, CDs, plus the Widescreen Lists ******
********************** Email: mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk ********************
Dom
Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes:
>Jim wrote:
>> Well, that's crap. Were you ringing 08700 100 222? That number should be
>> answered quickly by the Information Office. Their e-mail address is
>> in...@bbc.co.uk
>>
>> Jim
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No it's not. It is an absolute fact ! But when did a little thing like
>facts
>ever bother an EU toady ?
>
>And if you do get through - all you get is lip from some insolent little bitch
>who thinks that criticising the BBC is an impertinence !! I have spoken
>to people ready to kill after speaking to this subversive scum. I have not
>spoken to them myself in years - because it is a complete waste of time.
I bet they're glad you didn't get through if all you can describe the hard
working person answering the phone who has to speak to a bunch of idiots like
yourself as "an insolent little bitch". If you do get lip from her, it's no
wonder since you'll kick off the minute you speak to them.
Anyway, you could always email them instead.
>One of my friends some time ago phoned to ask for some statistic. I
>cannot remember what it was - but he was asked by the little cow on
>the other end why he wanted the information. To which he replied
>something to the effect that he wanted it becasue he was a licence payer.
>To which the little tart replied "... so a I.." and put the phone down. She
>did not, of course, give her name. Had she done so - she - and the
>person who appointed her would be out of work.
If your friend held her in the same high regard that you do I'm not surprised
that she hung up. I'd do the same!
>This arrogant, insolent, subversive bloody filth really do live in a world of
>their own.
Yes, but you have to live somewhere don't you Bob, and it must be on your own
given the attitude your displaying here. Where does all this deep-rooted hatred
come from?
>It is a pity that BBC staff are no longer vetted. If they were, perhaps it
>would not be riddled with Stalinists going flat out to bring about the end
>of Britain.
>
>They will, of course, eventually stand trial for their treason under a
>future British government.
Do you pay your TV licence too? If so, why not just stop paying, and then
spout all your rantings to the TV licence detectors who come round. You'll go
deaf as their laughing rings out throughout the neighbourhood.
Then again, if I was your neighbour I'd move!
On second thoughts, whenever I needed cheering up I'd know where to come for
a good laugh.
Dom
BobW <bo...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>Hasn't this thread veered somewhat off topic for it to continue to
>monopolise uk.media.bbc-r4?
>--
>Bob W.
It's veered off course to appear in any newsgroup, other than the single-member
newsgroup alt.fan.bob-sims
Alan G
wrote:
>
>
>David Cantrell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:52:19 +0100, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> enlightened
>> us thusly:
>>
snip
>> There is no-one who meets your criteria of complete political
>> indifference.
>>
>> --
>> David Cantrell,
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There are *plenty* of people who meet that criteria. The problem is
>that those of them who still cling to a job at the BBC are rather
>frightened people who keep their heads low.
>
>In all of the (real) sciences, for example, no other type of person
>exists.
>
>But then they only occur in the *real* world. Some can be found
>at BBC Bristol - now under attack from the scum who infect
>Broadcasting House and the Television Centre.
>
>You will recall that David Attenbourgh was offered the job of DG -
>but after a very short time in Broadcasting House - just walked
>away in disgust. And who can blame him ?
>
>What is needed there at present, is a DG with the instincts of a
>homicidal lunatic -
When do you start :-)
> a clear understanding of who, exactly, pays
>the licence fees - who can remember what the "B" in BBC
>stands for - and who is prepared to sack without hesitation
>anybody who cannot !
>
>
>Bob
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Alan G
--
Patriotism.
The last refuge of the scoundrel