Wonder if you share the outrage of those families whose relatives were killed in the 7/7 Jihad suicide bombings and who have launched a bitter attack on the BBC for paying expenses to a disgraced academic who believes the atrocities may have been an intelligence agency conspiracy. At one point, Nicholas Kollerstrom telephoned the father of one victim to discuss whether his daughter's body had been planted at the site of the Tavistock Square bus bombing. What an utter monster!!! Kollerstrom, who denies the Holocaust, was carrying out research for his role in the BBC's Conpiracy Files, a documentary about the theories surrounding the 2005 bombings on the London transport system that killed 52 innocent victims.His theory is that the Al Qaeda inspired bombers were in fact "non-violent by nature" - "innocent patsies", who had been set up by elements within the Israeli, British and US security agencies.

There are plenty of nutters out there but for the BBC to be paying OUR money to this sort of holocaust denying Al Queda apologising inhuman swine is an outrage.

Why has Burma become known again as ‘Burma’ instead of ‘Myanmar’?

The BBC especially (although it wasn’t alone) seemed to have enthusiastically adopted the practice of referring to the country as Myanmar until the cyclone blew through the country a couple of weeks ago. Since then all news reports - or so it seems - have adopted the rightful name of ‘Burma’.

I suspect Myanmar was used by those politically-correct nitwits who looked on the regime more fondly than they ought to have, because its government is Left Wing. The same reasoning goes for those who use ‘Beijing’ instead of ‘Peking’ (which much of the world still uses). Burma was for a long time a part of the British Empire and that reference was quickly dropped some years ago when the ruling regime changed the name.

But the cyclone has focussed attention on the depravity of the Burmese government in Yangon Rangoon. The BBC refers to it, with a sense of contrived deliberateness, as a ‘military regime/junta’, a term which carries undoubted ‘right wing’ hints which are reinforced with the re-adoption of ‘Burma’. That’s why it’s again called ‘Burma’ instead of ‘Myanmar’.

I see that the BBC faces fresh embarrassment after admitting that it failed to pass on £106,000 to charity from premium-rate telephone votes on more than 20 programmes, including last year's UK Eurovision final.

In the latest scandal to engulf the corporation, a "handful" of staff knowingly held back money from calls that should have gone to charitable organisations, including the BBC's Children in Need.  So, just for clarity, the BBC HELD ON TO CASH DUE TO CHARITY. In the case of Eurovision: Making Your Mind Up 2007, the BBC also admitted that viewers were wrongly encouraged to vote for a winner before phone lines had even opened. Although the error did not affect the result of the contest, with Scooch rightly being named as the group to represent the UK, the BBC has decided to hand over £6,000 to charity, which covers the cost of the ineligible calls. How kind of them.

I think these phone-in programmes are a scam, and I appreciate that the BBC is not the ONLY media organisation which has its fingerprints all over such fraud, but the BBC is the only media organisation which forces us to pay it money and which claims to operate to the highest possible ethical standards. Plainly, this is not so. 

Nice to see the BBC putting all that British taxpayer money to good use. Have a woman leave her kids for a month, bone up excessively around the clock, watch her get fat because (duh!) she had the munchies and act like a blithering idiot because she's consuming excessive amounts of skunk weed.

What, they couldn't just find some other slackers on the dole to do this with?

Real groundbreaking television.

"I felt absolutely terrified," recalls Nicky, a divorced mother-of-three, thinking back to her first experience just over a month ago.

"Paranoia set in, and I felt as if I was having a panic attack. At one point, I was simply too frightened to get out of my chair.

"I had a feeling the drug had unlocked some sort of paranoia in my head that would never go away again - I suddenly felt everyone hated me. Without doubt, that was one of the worst moments of my life."

Well, just so people don't get the wrong idea, this didn't just happen from smoking some joints.

She actually had herself inject with pure THC!

Certainly not advocating excessive marijuana use here, but is it any wonder somebody gets whacked out when they're injected with THC?

How stupid is this woman?

As I do not have access to the regular programming on the BBC and this show Should I Smoke Dope aired on BBC3 Tuesday evening, I'm curious to know whether anyone viewed this and what they thought of it.

I find it a terrible way for someone to go about learning about marijuana use. Even worse, this Nicky Taylor left her children with her mother while in Amsterdam. How about staying home with your children and working on your parenting skills if indeed you want to keep them away from drug use.

Well what do you know? The BBC reports that a priest has been attacked in the grounds of his church, in what police described as a "faith-hate" crime.  Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, was injured by two..ahem... Asian youths at the church, in Tower Hamlets, east London. Canon Ainsworth said a third youth watched as he suffered cuts, bruises and black eyes in the assault at the church of St George-in-the-East. The "youths" also jeered at the priest for being a churchman in the attack on Wednesday night, the Met Police said.

"Two Asian youths"? Oh, I see, that must be the same kind of "youths" who ran riot in the Bannlieus in Paris. I think this is a patronising media euphemism for.... Muslims. When we see the media censoring itself we know something is very rotten in the State, broadcaster.

I wanted to commend this review of review of the BBC's "White Girl" over at Typhoo's Haunt.

"Last night I watched a play, White Girl the first in the series of the BBC's 'white series', looking at the experiences of being white in Britain today. I had hoped for a sympathetic showing of the true feelings of white people within communities on mainland Britain. The series was portrayed as taking a tough look at immigration."

As you will guess, the BBC once again used this as a chance to deride their favourite hate group - white working class British people.

Over on Biased BBC, Laban has an excellent contribution on the same topic.

As I write this, there is a bomb scare at Belfast International Airport. The fruits of peace, I guess. The BBC on their main news portal for Northern Ireland choose to illustrate this with an image of two Irish airlines, one of which does not even fly into Belfast International! Could it be that the BBC think Belfast is in Dublin? The foLlowing arlines also fly from Belfast International; Easyjet, BMIbaby, Jet2g0, Manx airlines, Zoom, Air Transat, Continental, Fly globespan...but apparently only images of Irish carriers are available to the BBC on a Sunday.

I'm sure our more discerning readers will have had a wry chuckle at the news that Mohammed Hamid (Great name, eh?) - one of the most senior terrorist recruiters in Britain - a man who called himself "Osama bin London" - was himself the subject of a BBC documentary called "Don't Panic I'm Islamic" broadcast in June 2005.

Hamid was recruited, by the BBC, from his stall on Oxford Street to represent ..ahem...the acceptable face of modern Islam. He was filmed, along with co-accused Mohammed al-Figari and 14 other men at a paintball centre in Tonbridge, Kent where they were seen ducking behind oil barrels and shooting at cut out figures before lining up to pray at the end of the day. The documentary was shot in February 2005 at the Delta Force centre because it was convenient for the TV crew but Hamid's group returned four days before the July 7 attacks, this time bringing with them Ramzi Mohammed and Hussain Osman, who went on to launch failed attacks on July 21. The producer returned to talk to Hamid as the July 21 gang were on the run and said he admitted knowing them and was "agitated, concerned, and worried", but the producer claimed her bosses took the decision not to notify the police.

The BBC - literally terrorist enablers?

You have to wonder about the type of employee working at the BBC! What prompts this is the news story  that suggests a BBC Radio 4 presenter drugged and raped a man he met at a New Year party after inviting him back to see his art collection, a court heard today. Nigel Wrench snorted cocaine with the man at the party in south London and offered him the chance to sit in on his show, the Old Bailey was told. Back at the PM presenter's flat he poured them both a glass of champagne but when the 26-year-old man took a gulp he realised "not all was well", a jury heard. Mr Wrench denies the allegations.  Now, let's not go into the specific details here since that is a matter for the Court to deal with. But I wonder has the PM show covered this story? It is always quick enough to publicise the alleged misdeeds of others, so I wonder if this story has been given due prominence on PM? 

This one is cross-posted on Biased BBC!

I was struck by this BBC headline "Rare suicide bombing hits Israel" prominently displayed on its Middle-Eastern news page. Consider the details and then ask yourself if "Rare" is the word you would choose to describe what has happened.

"A suicide bomber has killed a woman in the southern Israeli town of Dimona, the first such attack in over a year. Police said a second suicide attacker was shot dead before he was able to detonate his explosives belt. "We heard a large explosion and people started to run. I saw pieces of flesh flying in the air," a witness told army radio.

Several point here. Despite what the BBC alleges, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror group is an integral part of the Fatah organisation, led by Mahmoud Abbas. So why does the BBC try to distance it from their favourite "man of peace", the holocaust denier Abbas, by claiming it is some sort of "violent off-shoot"? Next, this is a SAVAGE terrorist attack. The frequency of it is neither here nor there. By suggesting this is a rare event (which it isn't since Palestinians have carried out many homicide bomber attacks over the years) it is in danger of being seen to try and somehow ameliorate the barbarism and naked hatred that lay behind this outrage. Finally, I note that both Hamas and Fatah get to comment on this, both of them predictably explaining that the bad Jews brought it upon themselves. Curiously, comment from the Israeli government is missing. Fair and balanced????

p.s I also note that the BBC initial report makes no mention of those other people who were injured and traumatised by this vicious act of terrorism. More amelioration?

Here's a copy of a post I made over on Biased BBC today - some interesting comments over there so well worth a visit.

Sadiq Khan, the Muslim Labour MP, dominates the BBC news agenda this morning. Press reports suggest that Khan's conversation with his constituent (and long time friend) Babar Ahmad, were recorded twice in Milton Keynes's Woodhill Prison. The US is seeking to extradite Ahmad on suspicion of raising funds for the Taliban. The BBC fans a palpable sense of outrage that a Member of Parliament could have his conversations bugged. Personally, I would be outraged if Khan's conversations with an alleged Taliban fund-raiser were not bugged! Surely the safety of our fellow citizens is the primary concern here, not the tender sensitivites of Khan or any other MP?

The BBC then turns to... another Muslim MP for a reaction and bang on cue Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, declares that this bugging sends out a difficult message, not just for Muslim people but for British people. (I don't think so, the only "difficulties" remain with those who deny that a section of Muslims in Britain constitute a real and present danger to their fellow citizens) In Beeb world, the decision by anti-terrorist officers to bug Khan or indeed any other MP who seeks the release of this alleged terror-enabler Ahmad is always going to be wrong. Notice how they choose to only seek comment from a person that they know will fail to endorse the decision by our anti-terrorist police. Where's the balance?

Islam is always going to be the offended party through the Beeb prism - as this previous report on Khan's activities demonstrates. One year on from 7/7 Khan was declaring how "disappointed" many Muslims (ie he and his pals) were at the failure of government to engage "more constructively" with them. At the time, one year from that savage Jihad attack on our capital city, I was disappointed that more of those behind the plot had not been arrested. But hey, victimhood is not always reserved for victims, sometimes aggressors can have it bestowed upon them by a craven and gutless media which fails to understand the dangers that face our country from Islam and instead shills for the ROP.

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

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

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

Typical far-left outfit. Preach diversity and tolerance, but don't practice it yourself.

Of course, now they promise to do something about it, but it will just subject them to charges of reverse racism and litigation.

The BBC is more "hideously white" than ever, after it was revealed that the number of black executives has dropped to the lowest in years.

Embarrassing new figures show it has even fewer ethnic minority bosses now than it did four years ago when former director general Greg Dyke used the phrase to describe the corporation.

Now the BBC has controversially said it will "fast-track" young ethnic staff to senior positions, leading to accusations of positive discrimination.

This will see it ring-fence half the places on a course designed to find new senior staff specifically for people from ethnic minority backgrounds.

This has sparked fury from some politicians who have claimed it is further evidence of the BBC's obsession with "political correctness".

They have also claimed the scheme, which the BBC says will give ethnic staff a "leg-up" the ladder, is "positive discrimination" and may be illegal.

Conservative MP Philip Davies has contacted Sir Trevor Phillips at the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to complain about it.

The politician who sits on the culture, media and sport select committee said: "This kind of approach is absolutely typical of the politically correct culture that dominates the BBC. Jobs should be given on merit, irrespective of ethnic background."

He added: "This is just clear cut positive discrimination and this is the type of thing that just makes people's blood boil. They should be colour blind when employing people."

Latest figures show not only has the BBC failed to hit targets, it has actually gone backwards, in the number of non-white senior staff.

Reminds me of our first black president, who didn't appoint nearly as many minorities to cabinet-level positions as his successor did.

Glenn Reynolds links.

Also at JWF.