|
Post by indikit on Jul 1, 2007 15:19:58 GMT
Just take a look at this BBC link: www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english/writingnonfict/writingtoarguerev2.shtmlThe bastards are actually trying to trick young people into supporting yet another of their leftie obsessions by suggesting it will help them with their GCSEs. Seriously. They are suggesting that these kids write letters to their MPs to lobby them on some animal rights campaign regardless of whether they believe it or not! This quote lifted directly from the page: "It doesn’t matter whether or not you agree with the Vegan Society’s argument. You are simply being asked to present the argument forcefully. " This has to be the sickest example yet of the BBCs indoctrination on young minds.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jun 30, 2007 23:41:55 GMT
What Ross needs to secure his job is a very swift change in religion.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to which way he should go?
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 1, 2007 0:09:18 GMT
I just took the time to read Paul Reynolds jumping in among what he must have considered the Hoi Polloi to defend his employment and ignore all of the probing questions.
He just came off as a snotty, humourless, self-important bully. All the hallmarks of top BBC management.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jun 1, 2007 6:15:21 GMT
By the way, I posted those comments on the Have Your Say section of that article on the BBC web site . Are they still there? Are they f***!
|
|
|
Post by indikit on May 28, 2007 17:48:43 GMT
Well it's a confession of sorts. Alistair Burnetts frustration at other news agencies not towing the BBC line of broadcasting pro-Iraqi propoganda on the 'Editors Comments' Pages of the BBC website, leads to his explanation of how the BBC make sure that all their news reports are sliced and diced for maximum effect on the viewer. It's about 3 pompous editors worth of gobshite down this page: www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/His dissertation of how events are reported in Iraq, proves conclusively that the BBCs agenda is not to present news to inform us, but to present news to AFFECT us. I find it particularly chilling that the BBC manipulate their news programmes in this way. They don't report endless deaths in a war zone in case they de-sensitize the audience? By that logic, then the BBC's aim MUST be to have the maximum emotional impact on the audience when reporting stories. Wasn't the whole debate about using the word terrorism on news reports argued against with the defense that it created 'an emotional response' within it's viewers and therefore went against the BBCs impartiality. Make your mind up. What's truly scary is that the BBC news team are analyzing the way people react to their reports, and allowing it to dictate their future presentations, as the comments from 'a military press officer' prove. So does this mean the BBC will be reporting on less Israeli attacks in future, lest viewers should stop feeling about them the way the BBC intends?
|
|
|
Post by indikit on May 27, 2007 19:52:43 GMT
Could you even begin to imagine how creepy and sinister the agenda of the Children's BBC is. Inflicting their shameless agenda upon adults is one thing, but inflicting it on children is borderline mind control. I saw this on the biased BBC blogspot and it sickened me to my stomach. Not because it's just pathetically unfunny, but because it's so clearly an attempt by the BBC to manipulate young minds into "thinking the BBC way". news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6690000/newsid_6691100/6691193.stmCan you imagine the BBC sending up any Iraqi heads of state in this way? The simple message to children - the BBCs sick attempt at indoctrination is simple - Bush is a fool, mock him - mock him.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on May 19, 2007 22:06:58 GMT
It gets better.
The 3 part attack on the BBC by the Scientologists. How one bigoted, instutionally mind-fucked organisation attacks another. The irony of it all is too much to bear!
The Scientologists list one transgression after another of the BBC against their remit as if it's a new thing. The only good thing about this is to see what happens when the BBC piss off an organization as mighty as them. Unfortunately for the Scientologists they are about to discover that the BBCs bias is buried so deeply within the UK it permeates every agency they think will help them pursue what ever action they are attemtping against the Beeb.
I couldn't care less for the Scientologists equally biased nonsense documentary about the BBC, just as I couldn't care less about the vice versa. They manage to completely crap on their own argument when they actually have a Psychiatrist comment, when Scientology have already made it clear they despise all psychiatrists.
But this a great battle. Reminds me of the old maxim:
My enemy's enemy is my friend.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on May 19, 2007 21:43:03 GMT
Oh Christ, I've just watched the spin machine at work here on Youtube:-
Watch the BBC do what they do best, defend their inappropriate actions to the hilt. What sort of a loaded question is this: "Tell us what sort of pressure he was under when that clip was made."
Well it's obvious. Someone was talking over the top of him with a lot of bigoted, aggressive bias and one sided view of the facts and John Sweeney didn't like the fact that someone else was doing a better job of it than him.
The true mind numbing cultish swill is that of the BBC attempting to forgive their reporter in the usual limp wristed lefty and hypocritical way that we have come to expect:
"It's wrong of us, but it's right under the circumstances."
The circumstances being that if it's the BBC trying to make a point - then anything goes.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on May 19, 2007 21:08:42 GMT
Normally I would watch anything attacking Scientology and regale in the fact. But this time I sat and watched the Panorama programme on their web site and kept thinking "This is the BBC reporting - Doubt Everything they Say." Strange effect it had on me. Again, you can see how manipulative Panorama is. Regardless of whether you are for or against Scientology, this programme set out to smear it and nothing else. Because this is what the BBC does best. Not a hope in hell of showing the other side of Scientology. The funniest comment of all though is to be found on John Sweeney's comments page with regards to both the documentary and his 'losing it'. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6655207.stmHe actually has the gall to say: "you see a portrait of an extraordinary organisation which will not accept any criticism of itself whatsoever." Hello? Does this sound like any place close to home? And does this prove conclusively that the BBC has absolutely no sense of irony whatsoever. Any chance I can have the opportunity of blowing up in the face of the BBC over their bigoted mercenary convictions. I for one have absolutely no time whatsoever for Scientology, but to hear John Sweeney suggest that "The Church of England" wouldn't act that way was absurd. Of course they wouldn't act that way. The BBC wouldn't let them. But we all know what other religion the BBC is quite happy to let act that way over and over. Scientology is a soft target. They're not blowing people up in the name of their religion (cult - who cares). They're not asking people to die in their thousands to protect it. How are we expected to take the BBC going after Scientology seriously when a more brazenly mind-swamped and dangerous religion is given their blessing in news report after news report, documentary after documentary? Did make me laugh though when the scientologist stalker began his summary of the BBCs intentions as being that of a one-sided reporting. Yup. That's the BEEB.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on May 19, 2007 21:19:43 GMT
How many of the BBC upper echelons let their children watch the swill they transmit without moderation?
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Dec 20, 2006 20:23:44 GMT
Can't stand Littlejohn. Poorly informed and a self elected spokesperson of the 'everyman'.
But in this particular instance, I'd forgive him for everything. About as true as the future of the BBC as you will ever get.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Oct 18, 2007 4:46:04 GMT
I think the easy answer to that in short is that nanny's are working class. Therefore riff-raff.
The McCanns wouldn't want to leave their children with the likes of some Johnny-foreign riff-raff. No, no, no. The savings made should afford an extra plate of Quail's eggs come dinner time.
What sickens me is that these two are still practising doctors. They should be struck off for negligence. How have they got the NERVE to dispense advice when they haven't even mastered the basics of common sense. But then again, that is indicitive of their class to a tee. Maximum education, zero responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Oct 17, 2007 11:34:43 GMT
Incidentally don't forget the McCanns will be favoured by the BBC because of their class.
If she was a working class chavster who'd left her kids outside the local newsagent for 5 minutes while she popped in for a packet of fags, the mother concerned would have been roasted alive by the press.
But we all know that middle class mothers are of course SAINTS. Never could they do any wrong. 'We've all done something like this in our lives' the press were using in her defence 'Leaving our children unattended for a moment, where they are out of our sight.'
Newspaper relativism.
Personally, I wouldn't even leave my passport and wallet inside a hotel bedroom for ten minutes let alone my kids, so what's the McCanns defence?
They are nothing more than bad parents and they should shoulder 90% of the blame of the loss of their daughter. The fact that both Kate McCann and her smug husband won't accept the blame is truly representative of the middle class mindest.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Oct 17, 2007 11:27:30 GMT
Here's Kate McCann in todays newspapers complaining that people are stating she's such a bad mother because she's as skinny as a rake.
And I thought it was because she left all her young children unattended in a foreign hotel bedroom.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Aug 8, 2007 12:35:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Aug 2, 2007 23:53:38 GMT
I remember typing in the phrase 'biased bbc' only one year ago and finding all but a handful of links that were on topic. One of which led me to this forum.
How satisfying is it to see 81 pages now appear under the same phrase, all of which (bar a few) are firmly on topic. And even less are from the BBC themselves disputing the bias.
How many will there be this time next year?
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 27, 2007 23:29:25 GMT
Even if the bastards were a proper impartial news agency and output telly and news that was top of it's class, I'd give them no more than 25 years before they lose their license fee.
Unfortunately it won't be for the damage they are doing to this nation, but I think to the fact that all domestic viewing will turn to the internet.
No more schedules, no more TV stations. All shows will be aggregated by internet providers and the consumer will be able to pick his own schedule at will and pay a nominal fee for daily or weekly viewing. The BBCs attempts at moving the legal goal posts to further enforce this fascist tax until everyone who has eyes and ears must pay the license fee, will be absorbed by EU law and/or borderless control of the internet. Less and less people will give their money to the Beeb and it will be carved up and sold off so the evil corporate pigs at the top keep their riches.
The BBC won't go with a bang, it'll just fade away.
So take heart, everyone who contributes to the internet is in someway helping sound the inevitable death knell for the Beeb.
No more than 25 years. Can anyone predict sooner?
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 23, 2007 22:20:15 GMT
Teddy save me, I can't get the link to work as it seems too long for the forum.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 23, 2007 22:19:01 GMT
This from a report in the Derbyshire Evening Telegraph, proving that if the BBC are good at one thing, it's bullying and threatening others with the use of lies, lies and more lies. I'm no lawyer but I don't believe for one second the BBC can trademark 'Strictly' anything. Can anyone find any legal substance in this whatsoever? STRICTLY POLEAXED AFTER BBC THREAT ON FIRM NAMEBY JENNI KINSEY NEWSDESK@DERBYTELEGRAPH.CO.UK
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 19, 2007 16:53:56 GMT
Front page of all tabloids are the BBC phone in scam.
The BBC have come clean purely because they are being investigated and have realised they are not going to get away with it.
I had to laugh when I read that about 6 producers had been suspended. As if the BBC would ever sack any of it's sicophantic accolytes. They've merely been sent home with full pay so they don't accidentally assist the investigation.
As soon as the investigation is over, the BBC will make a half assed apology, pay the fine from the license fee and re-instate every producer involved in the scam.
Yet again, the BBC will prove they can do what they like when they like, even if it means taking from needy children.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 5, 2007 1:19:51 GMT
This one is brilliant:
"Great news. However, as a subscriber to the BBC News website's "breaking news" text message alerts, can I inquire why I was texted when Paris Hilton was released from captivity, but not when Alan Johnston was?"
The clue is in the title "breaking news". The Beeb certainly aren't "fixing" it.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 5, 2007 1:16:55 GMT
Please god help me. Read the "Have Your Say" comments about Alan's release. Have any of these people ever left their homes in the past twenty years? Most of them come off sounding like 'The Railway Children'.
"It brought tears to my eyes!"
Yeah, it brought tears to my eyes too, having just slammed my testicles in the desk drawer out of frustration.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 5, 2007 1:11:42 GMT
Who wants to take bets that Alan Partisan Johnston will now be twice as smug as he was before he was captured, twice of the belief he is indestructible, twice in favour of Palestine?
This from the editors blog:
"Director General Mark Thompson said that the BBC depends on people like Alan - on their courage and integrity and conviction."
A few too many "ands" there, but I doubt Mark Thompson landed top job at the Beeb for his mastery of punctuation. But if walking around the Gaza strip shouting your gob off about how great Palestinians are is a measure of courage, integrity and conviction, I'd say Thompson needs to buy himself a new ruler.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Aug 1, 2007 13:53:31 GMT
Well I've noticed that usernames appear top of the rankings in Google on this forum. I should have joined under the name BBC Bias really.
I think all forums in general suffer from the same rule - the fewer the posting members, the fewer others will post. Some boards can take years to kick off. I'm not sure why so many people use the Biased BBC blogspot to post their points when so many of them up there find excellent examples of bias, and it just gets buried in a mush of examples on the comments pages.
I prefer this forum because it's a more direct way of finding, posting and responding.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 31, 2007 21:14:24 GMT
The general consensus of most middle-class public school educated broadcasters is that "telly" is for the uneducated masses. They regard their audience as simple children and themselves as the all knowing tutors. It's a sub-conscious fact and one they would go at great lengths to deny. Just as much as most of these people that preach muliti-culturalism are latent racists themselves: untrusting of blacks, live in all white communities and will only employ them as a token of patronizing condescension and not because of their skills.
The BBC is one gigantic middle-class guilt trip. A lot of financially and socially privilidged people trying to lance their guilt of having it so easy. They utterly despise white working class people because they regard them as ignorant scum. But their T.E Lawrence or for that fact D.H Lawrence poetic outlook on their beloved black friends - coupled with the guilt of their ancestors taking prime Imperial positions in oppressing them over the years - leads the BBC to their current 'whites wrong - black right' policies.
The problem is, that most licence payers feed these leeches out of pure fear and ignorance. I personally believe that the majority of these people won't look to the internet for any form of re-education and it will only sink in once the Sun newspaper takes a total bleak view of the BBC. That is a sad fact and I'm sorry if I sound disparaging of Brits in general, but I don't believe for one second that the license fee would ever have continued in such a competitive and forceful nation as America.
The only way to turn the tide is to do so one by one by one. Everyone I speak to who pays their licence, I give them a thousand reasons not to and relate my own personal experiences of how to avoid it. The truth is, the British may love their telly, but they love their wages even more. Any excuse to get out paying for this telly tax, they will take.
Only as long as they think they'll get away with it.
And they will. For me, that's the way to destroy the Beeb. Sitting down and explaining to people what lying thieving scumbags the Beeb are - a fact that is plain as the nose on your face to any intelliogent person - won't get you anywhere, because nine times out of ten you'll just hear them say:
"Well I pay my license so I get an easy life."
That's it. Fear. Nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 27, 2007 23:09:42 GMT
I agree that a campaign should be mounted to abolish the license fee, but in my opinion it wouldn't matter if 57 million Brits protested, the select few that run the government would enforce it further anyway. We live in a selective democracy and the BBC are living proof of that.
I personally think a more important campaign would be to educate people on how to NOT pay the license fee. This would kill the BBC in an instant and circumvent any autocratic government enforcements.
The problem is that the BBC preys on peoples FEAR. What will happen to them if they don't pay. They fail to realise that not only do the BBC NOT have the power to detect a TV in your house (TV detector vans are a misnomer and an exaggeration of their true application and ability) they have absolutely no legal powers to enter your house either.
This is what I believe is the achilles heel of the BBC and can bring them crashing down. But unfortunately Brits are by their very nature a fearful and servile breed.
Personally I've never had a licence in my life and never would. I even admitted once to a BBC licensing Gestapo agent that I had a TV and no license. He started cautioning me on my door step. I just laughed at him and shut the door in his face.
They did absolutely NOTHING except send me more and more letters, all of which went into the bin.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 5, 2007 1:05:00 GMT
Unfortunately, at that rate it would mean another 16 years before we even get a majority to see sense. My guess is we'll all be under Sharia law long before then.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 2, 2007 19:46:59 GMT
I've never managed to get my head around how the DIGG site works, but it seems like a perfect place to post some of the more min-boggling examples that ascending lark mentions.
The best thing about this forum so far are the reasoned and intelligent postings that are made, therefore making it difficult for the BBC to just pass it off as 'a nutter site' as they are akin to doing.
No, we are a collective of conspirators instead, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jun 30, 2007 23:54:50 GMT
As an active member I would like to know what can be done to promote this forum more heavily. It's difficult getting people to post I'm sure, but getting them to read isn't quite so tough.
If the moderator has any views on what can be done to promote this forum heavily I'd like to participate and I hope others will join in too.
|
|
|
Post by indikit on Jul 3, 2007 3:21:03 GMT
Prince Charles is just another no thinking elitist, brainwashed by political fashion. I'm sure he's never so much as thought about Muslims up until the media did the thinking for him. That's the problem here. For the most part, the first introduction the masses has to Islam is the propaganda machine of news outlets such as the BBC. Furthermore, like begging dogs, the majority of the public has realised that instantly siding with minority causes earns them the doggy drops of public approval. Daring to oppose those that oppose us, has them cowering with fear of being outcast and labelled 'a racist'. The word 'racist' is the Pavlov's bell the media use to bring EVERYONE to heel.
I have no faith in the British Populace to think for themselves, because they seem so incapable of it. Your average Brit things this rapid Islamification we are undergoing is somebody else's problem. They'd rather sit and vote contestants out of Big Brother then they would ever consider voting politicians out of office. Only a change within the media and political rulers themselves could possibly reverse the inevitable. And as Melanie points out - that just 'aint happening.
Personally, I feel that the end result will be a world war. There is no other way things can change, because the masses are being led to the slaughter like lambs.
|
|