Blogging at 18 Doughty Street

[Teddy Bear]

This week I had the privilege of being able to blog on the 18 Doughty Street Site. Naturally my theme was BBC bias related, and I am pasting the posts here as well, as it also encapsulates several of the worst examples perpetrated by the BBC.

[Teddy Bear]

Have we Replaced the British Bulldog with Any Kind of Bull?

Is there any institution in Britain that can still be regarded as having proper moral integrity?

Our government, judiciary system, media, health service, transport system, utility services, big business, food industry, defence ministry, royal family, human rights organisations, and others I’ve overlooked, all seem to be ‘trying it on’.

While I know each of them will claim to be ‘whiter than white’, and acting fully in the public interest, which they all profess to know better than anyone else, are they really anything better than self-serving hypocrites that keep pushing the balloon to see how much more they can get away with?

So how does this affect our society?

While on the surface most of the public seem to be blissfully unaware of it, is it really the case, or have they just developed a personal mindset in continuing their lives without getting too involved in these matters? After all what would they do anyway?

In the meantime doesn’t the knock-on effect influence society in general to reject integrity in favour of opportunism,, and see too what they can get away with? So we see steady erosion of values and principles that should be our moral and creative glue, and instead of attaining an ever-increasing social excellence, we witness a steady decline worse than mediocrity.

Most here are aware of these injustices and immoral acts, and seek to raise greater awareness on those who appear ignorant. But it seems that until we have a pro-active agenda, instead of a reactive one, we are not giving our fellow citizens, that silent majority, the answer they need – WHAT’S TO BE DONE ABOUT IT?

There have been numerous stories in the past week, any of which incense, enrage, or even just add to our frustration and hopelessness for future positive prospects of our society. We may consider ourselves the intelligentsia for not being fooled by these events, and seeing through them, but unless we also find the means to deal properly and effectively with the root causes of them, we will be swept away just like any of the other ‘lemmings’ in the growing tide of chaos and disaster. All we’ll have for all our awareness, is that we saw it coming earlier, but in the final analysis –SO WHAT? The reason that the corruption can continue is because those engaged in it can’t see what can be done against them either.

I don’t yet have a clear vision of what can or should be done, though I believe it is the media that has the most power to effect change in any particular direction. I have first the awareness of the limitations of awareness. If we are complacent in thinking that consciousness of the evil going on around us is enough, then we make a grave error. It is only the first step to arrive at a solution, and that is what we must pursue. We can be a nucleus, a think tank, which hopefully will arrive at a clear strategy of pro-action to deal with the overall malaise. Reaction without counterpunch, by its very definition, will always be too little too late.



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)

[Teddy Bear]

What Lies Behind BBC Bias?

Readers here will be familiar now with the name Robin Aitken, who after working for 25 years as a journalist for the BBC finally brought out a book that denounced the ‘institutional left wing bias’ of the Beeb. He doesn’t however accuse them of intentional bias, but attributes it to the fact that that the colleges that breed journalists are themselves leftwing and either attract students of this mindset, or largely convert others to this way of looking at the world.

However, there is strong evidence that the BBC ‘powers that be’ do indeed have an agenda, contrary to their mandate, and are pursuing it consciously. There are many examples to substantiate this, and in the course of this week I’ll be illustrating a few of them. Using leftwing journalists simply makes it easier for the BBC to propagate their desired output.

Bear in mind that intent to distort is enough to show a lack of integrity and a conscious agenda. In the same way that one can achieve a representative balance in staff of gender, skin colour, creed, mentality, age, religious and secular, leftwing can be balanced by rightwing – if there would be a desire to do so. Clearly from Robin’s conclusions there is none.

Perhaps at first consideration you might find my premise absurd. After all the BBC is a non-profit organisation, so what’s to be gained from any particular agenda? But as Saddam realised during his life, and had more money than he could ever spend, that the real mark of success is POWER.

All media companies are aware of their power, and seek to increase it daily. For most, whether it is creating a celebrity from a talentless dullard, or bringing down a government, they have little to do with worthy pursuits or anything we regard as excellence. Their power is greater than that of politicians, who they make or break, as they have no responsibility or accountability to limit their abuses of the principles of freedom of speech. But the BBC has an even greater edge than the rest, with the cloak of being ‘impartial and balanced, fair and independent,’ it serves to conceal their insidious, and at times, treasonous reporting.

So what power does the BBC seek? To be THE GLOBAL media corporation, the BIGGEST big brother of them all. Lest you think “well they represent Britain, so what’s wrong with that? Consider that they will sell us all out to achieve their aims, and we are merely the tools for now that give them their status, and can be sacrificed as necessary.

Think I’m exaggerating? - Wait and see.

[Teddy Bear]

BBC Pro-Militant Muslim Bias

Considering the BBC is mandated to be fair and impartial, then naturally there has to be a reason for any deviation. Since the BBC wants to be the most powerful media organisation in the world, then with 55 Muslim nations for starters it makes appealing to them quite a priority. Not content with World Service radio to these areas they are now opening a new Arabic speaking TV station. Did you know that the BBC broadcasts in Iran? Ever wonder why a fundamentalist regime should allow a state media organisation from a western Democracy to broadcast there?

There are several main areas where we can perceive a continual and serious bias.

Pro-Islamic which by progression makes it anti-Israel, and anti-Iraq war
Anti-American
Pro-EU
Anti Religion (Except Islam)

Since the UK has been attacked by Islamic terrorists, and are also engaged in an open war against them in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the further outreaches as part of the war on terror, clearly any bias from our own state media which assists our enemies is the most serious. While there is a steady drip of bias in nearly every report they make on the war, lets regard a few of the more blatant examples of this.

We got CNN's, but where was the BBC acknowledgement of bias in Iraq?[/b]
Following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan, then the head of CNN news, finally admitted to the NY Times after previous denials, that while Saddam had been in power, they HAD to be biased. They had covered up gruesome atrocities committed by Saddam’s regime because of physical threats and actions to their staff and closure of their offices there, if they did not get approval for each story they ran.

The BBC had also maintained offices there and were surely subject to the same threats and restrictions, but to this day they have not uttered one word about it. Is it because the Saddam line was their chosen coverage anyway, in order to ingratiate themselves with his and the other similar type of regimes in that area, or do they believe their bias and subsequent denials of it would go unnoticed? Or do they feel that they have enough power in swaying the public, that even if it would be noticed what was anyone going to do about it anyway?

Ark Royal Switches Off BBC

Back in 2003, because the crew found the BBC coverage of the war too slanted against our forces efforts they switched to Sky News. Following pressure on the navy high-ups by the Beeb, they were forced to switch back a few days later.

On a separate occasion on Radio 4’s Today programme, the former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Boyce accused the the BBC and other media of demoralising British troops in Iraq by their relentlessly one-sided presentation of the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Presenter John Humphrys was incredulous that such an accusation should be made, asking whether it could possibly be right not to report the bad news from Iraq. To which Admiral Boyce reasonably replied that he was not for a moment suggesting that the bad news should not be reported, merely that the situation was not one of unrelieved disaster, that there were many positive things happening in Iraq and that all he was saying was that in the interests of fairness these should be reported too.

This concept of an even-handed approach to Iraq was too much for Humphrys, whose response was that reporting ‘good news’ would be propaganda. To which Boyce made the reasonable riposte that reporting only disaster was equally propaganda. Indeed, from the moment the Iraq war began, if not before, the BBC — and most particularly, the Today programme — has been arguably the jihad’s most powerful propaganda weapon in the world.

Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC

The BBC declined to make a documentary about one of our most decorated living soldiers, who earned the VC in Iraq for several acts of extreme bravery because “it would alienate their anti-war audience”.

But they had no such fears of alienating anybody running an article telling of the stamina and valour of the Taleban – our enemies in case you’d forgotten. In my book this is a clear case of treason and sedition.

Omar Bakri
You may remember the name Omar Bakri, the militant cleric who eventually fled to Lebanon to avoid treason charges here. The BBC had given several interviews over the last 5 years with this man as well as giving him ample opportunities to state his twisted point of view.
In the first of these articles on 14/10.2000 following Bakri's appearance on Radio 4 the BBC reported
"A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
"They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "

Just over a year later, in another interview on 7/1/2002, and after 9/11,
they quote him as saying
'....But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said ..."We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities."

This is in complete contradiction to his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it. Wouldn’t even the laziest and most inept of journalists have clicked the search button of BBC to see what else they had on him and find the previous quote? If you do run a BBC search on his name and read each of the several articles, you will see that this is not the only time Bakri contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man. In fact the BBC changes his title each time to minimise the negativity of his persona. In the meantime, how many people has Bakri converted to his hate-filled agenda, with the assistance of the BBC, before our security forces took action.

T-Reason = TREASON

BBC warns staff over 'terrorism'

You can probably remember yourselves how for a long time the BBC have been referring to terrorists as militants on the basis that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (just so long as they were Muslims). Even though there is an international consensus on what constitutes the term ‘terrorist’. When they tried to do it here following 7/7 there was such a public outcry that this mealy mouthed organisation had to do an about turn on what was referred to as ‘The ‘T’ Word.


There are hundreds of further examples, but if you haven’t been aware of it beforehand, just adopt a perspective when listening to or reading BBC news to see this bias for yourself. Ask yourself, why an organisation paid for by our society is sacrificing us to our enemies.

[steevo]

admin said:

What Lies Behind BBC Bias?So what power does the BBC seek? To be THE GLOBAL media corporation, the BIGGEST big brother of them all. Lest you think “well they represent Britain, so what’s wrong with that? Consider that they will sell us all out to achieve their aims, and we are merely the tools for now that give them their status, and can be sacrificed as necessary.

Think I’m exaggerating? - Wait and see.

No you're not exaggerating. I'll leave it to your further explanation. But will say the Left is the only direction they can go to achieve such power. And the more deliberate and unencumbered that direction can be pursued, the more forces break down and change, and the Beeb's sphere of influence and power build.

[steevo]

admin said:

I don’t yet have a clear vision of what can or should be done, though I believe it is the media that has the most power to effect change in any particular direction. I have first the awareness of the limitations of awareness. If we are complacent in thinking that consciousness of the evil going on around us is enough, then we make a grave error. It is only the first step to arrive at a solution, and that is what we must pursue. We can be a nucleus, a think tank, which hopefully will arrive at a clear strategy of pro-action to deal with the overall malaise. Reaction without counterpunch, by its very definition, will always be too little too late.

Pardon me for appearing presumptive but its the same problem in the US. I think the only solution is morals. You know, right and wrong based on agreed upon truth. View the implications as you may but what we are facing in Western civilization is uncontrollable limitation from our own devices, bringing our own damnation.

I think it could be argued our problems in all areas of life will increase. But it is the prime reason why we have to fear, hate, and fight fanatical Islam. They don't have this problem.

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo wrote:

Pardon me for appearing presumptive but its the same problem in the US. I think the only solution is morals. You know, right and wrong based on agreed upon truth. View the implications as you may but what we are facing in Western civilization is uncontrollable limitation from our own devices, bringing our own damnation.

I think it could be argued our problems in all areas of life will increase. But it is the prime reason why we have to fear, hate, and fight fanatical Islam. They don't have this problem.

Steevy I'm not entirely clear what you mean by 'the only solution is morals'.

The point I'm trying to convey is that most people don't need convincing that the purpose of militant Islam is evil. The majority of those who act in its name have been brainwashed by power hungry sadists to believe that they are fulfilling their god's will. The very fact that they are unable to question the absurd nature of this god that they worship, that would require them to commit the worst atrocities in its name, shows how total does this mind control dominate them.

On the off-chance that one of them might read this I'll spell it out for them.
God creates all manner of being; those who believe this and those who believe that. They feel the purpose of their creation is to either convert or destroy all of those that have been created. Now what kind of sick god is this? Is this all this being can think to do with its creations? And of those that believe the way they do, the women are property of the men who have total rule over them. It shows the avenue that was used to brainwash these men, and the obeisance of their dog women, which is why their 'heaven' is to each further rule over 72 virgins and serving boys. What kind of sick reality must that be?

These militants believe that they have a duty and obligation to lie, deceive, cheat, maim, torture, terrify, in other words, to lose all human values and qualities to achieve their ends yet somehow think that love waits for them at the end of it. It shows they don't have a clue what love means, and their vision of god will never convey it.

If their idea of god was valid, how is it that whenever a spokesperson for their cause appears on the media, their eyes show their absence of innocence, and the deceit that is in their heart. Wouldn't god have given them the ability to appear honorable and open, instead of seedy and evasive, as part of his plan?

It shows the depth of their brainwashing if they are unable to recognize innocense and truth, and until such time as their eyes can be opened we must view them as tools of sick and insane tyrants who pervert the whole of life to try and fulfil their purpose. Whilst regarding themselves as intelligent for perpetrating this vile dynamics on humanity and the world, and too stupid to see the future, regardless if they win or lose.

Within our own society there are those, whom we call lefties, that either do not, can not, or refuse to see the agenda of these militants. Perhaps they are confused due to the real social problems inherent in our society, which causes them to believe that the Muslims gripes are justified, and seek to appease them by way of 'atonement'.

My point is that it is not enough to see this happening, because we will only be reacting AFTER THE FACT - which is too late. Look what happened in WW2, how the Nazis were allowed to rise to power, which intelligent and moral people should never have permitted. Had they acted earlier, millions of innocent lives would have been saved on both sides. The same 'morality' that did not act in time, was worth very little for so many beings. This is the complacency that I refer to; it is not enough to just be aware, we need also to seek strategies that we can employ to defeat this menace sooner than later. The same as eventually our armies had to use to ultimately defeat the axis of evil. If we learn anything from history it is that.

[steevo]

Steevy? Maybe you misunderstood the approach of my response.

I'm not sure where this discussion can go if you don't understand the implications of my post.

Basically you stated there is no more moral integrity within the very institutions created to help. You question if most citizens are blissfully unaware. We can easily assume most don't know like we do. But if you think most don't need convincing militant Islam is evil, what does that mean? If they were aware would they be a concerned as you and I? I don't think they are so utterly brainwashed and blind as to not see the mass death and destruction by people committing suicide. I do think they have learned to judge it through a different set of values than we do; not to mention being deluded with their own self-centered priorities. That to me, a conservative American defines moral depravity i.e. a lack of moral values.

You also state immoral reasons don't necessarily apply just to those in high places, with the "knock-on effect." You acknowledge moral glue is not there.

I say that's because there really are no more firm morals widely taught and acknowledged in society, period. Leftist humanist relativism has taken over with political correctness suiting those with agenda as its the driving force.

You say we need a pro-active agenda. With what? There is no way to counter the power of persuasion by big media other than doing our best to reveal their misleading agenda from any avenue we can even tho neither of us are very optimistic with such means at present.

Again, the reason why this has come about is because the average person no longer has a values-influenced reality enabling them to understand the threats the Left poses. They are indeed sheep with no direction but from on high like, the BBC.

And since Islam doesn't have this problem they are an extraordirnary threat with a big advantage.

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo, I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes - the ones I was referring to about being brainwashed, were the militant Muslims twisted by their Imams at the behest of the tyrants running these regimes. It's the way they avoid their public turning against them, by having a 'bigger enemy' outside, as well as giving them a strategy to make a bid for extending their power.

I know we're both aware of the 'ignorance' of the masses regarding the true threat of militant Islam. In a way this is another kind of 'brainwashing' of our own public by a largely leftwing media.

The inspirations I'm looking for is a strategy where we can combat both the ignorance in our society, and if possible the mindset of our enemies. I know there isn't an obvious way at present, other than what we're doing at the moment, I'm just asking that we keep our minds open for the creativity and inspiration that might give us another way of affecting things.

What I thought you were saying (and I said I wasn't sure what you meant) is that our morals is enough to combat things. To which I would say our morals are the first step to reach the wisdom necessary to find the path to deal with this unique situation in history. I would rather say we don;t yet have the solution but keep an open mind to find one, than erroneously believe we are doing all that is possible. We don't really know yet what is possible, and perhaps the answer can come.

[steevo]

Well I haven't been at a cross purpose with you. I am referring to your society and to a lesser degree mine. Not Muslim nations. Frankly I don't believe there is any hope we can influence them other than our own supposed enlightened institutions changing from the soul and shaming any moderate elements there to ACT.

I'll go back to my original post. To combat our ignorance our societies have to change values. There has to be a broad influence appealing to the conscience to break the self-serving moral relativism. That in essence is solid values of right and wrong, which have long since faded. That may be impossible to you (of which I can understand) or not the most significant factor, but its the only possibility to me. But, my mind is still open even tho I don't know for what. Its hope against hope. I understand what you're saying, I've understood all along. But you see, I'm an American. The influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic has been much stronger here. It has been pummeled and faded considerably but still lives. This is the extreme antitheses of relativist-humanism which is the methodology for values behind the Left. Our Left I believe is even more extreme than yours. We have both realities of black and white if you will. The only thing I know of to counter that black even tho I'm not a born again guy is that white. Or something similar enough as a basis giving power to good values.

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo I have lived in the States for nearly 6 years, and in regard to the dynamics we are discussing here, I see little difference in the reasons our societies are 'tied up' by the left, trying to appease those who only use it as a strategy to gain further influence and divide our society. Your Fox News and various right wing radio stations do make for more awareness in the US, and provide an outlet for views that here are relegated to the 'underground', which is where we find ourselves.

To the best of my knowledge, our world is faced with a unique situation, a unique kind of conflict that has never been fought before. My contention is that it is for that reason a solution or answer is not readily available, unlike conventional warfare where we are more than skilled.

Therefore new inspirations are required to deal with it effectively. For the time being we are using the known within our present limitations to try and counteract the forces we see as the most insidious. All I'm saying is that we should also open our minds to allow the possibilty of 'inspiration', a way of viewing and acting on the situation differently which might have greater impact. If we become complacent, believing that we are doing all this is possible to do, then we might overlook another avenue that we would never otherwise have considered.

I don't for the life of me have it yet, but I know something more than we have already is needed. There's much more to be understood than we are capable of as yet, when we have that we will better know how to act and effect change.

[steevo]

"I see little difference in the reasons our societies are 'tied up' by the left, trying to appease those who only use it as a strategy to gain further influence and divide our society." Yes agreed. Your 6 years tho has not established the understanding to know what I'm really saying. Mark Steyn, who lives in Maine, would tell you that. I knew early on we would have a significant difference in ultimate presumptions concerning the nature of the problems we've discussed over time and the solution. I've seen this with many other Europeans. You are much more influenced by a secular framework and as a consequence do not fully grasp the significance the role religion has had in this country.

"To the best of my knowledge, our world is faced with a unique situation, a unique kind of conflict that has never been fought before." Again I agree. I have described it. But my description is all we have here and apparently you don't understand where I'm coming from nor do you agree. I'm not being critical of you its just fact, what I'm communicating you don't digest.

"Therefore new inspirations are required to deal with it effectively." Its what I've given with no acknowledgment. We are now looking at different realities for a solution. Yours has yet to be described.

"I'm saying is that we should also open our minds to allow the possibility of 'inspiration.'" My inspiration is what I've postulated: a philosophical starting point. I am from America and you the UK

"I don't for the life of me have it yet, but I know something more than we have already is needed. There's much more to be understood than we are capable of as yet, when we have that we will better know how to act and effect change." I've given a basis to wage a counter war, a basis for hope as slim as it may be. Yours is in positivism with no basis to believe a solution exists.

One more time OK and it will be my last to repeat what I've already said.

You believe the media has the most power to effect change in any direction and I agree. That's because the average individual in society no longer has their own inner compass. This is altogether new for our generation compared to the past. Previous generations built upon traditional Judeo/Christian ethics to one degree or another. Now everything is relative and even worse as evil has become good and good evil. I'm not saying lets all be born again but there has to be a firmly established basis for the individual to grasp right from wrong or he will continue to be diluted and misled while those in position to profit promoting Leftist ideology with relativistic 'values' will increase power of control. You have to fight what has now become a philosophy containing methodology for knkowledge with end-result judgements with another. That's why fanatical Islam has such virulency.

When you say most can know their evil you imply there's strong or inherent understanding for the majority to properly judge. I disagree, its not that cut and dry anymore. There may be some capacity for the majority to properly digest its true meaning at present but it is fading. Militant Islam is increasingly being viewed as having cause or justification and in one form or another is sympathized with or even judged the victim. People are steadily being deluded to believe American power is the greatest threat along with Israel, and of course Islamophobia is viewed as a legitimate concern and something to disdain.

We have been told our government is so evil that a poll recently taken had about 40% of our citizens who vote Democrat believing they had something to do with 9/11. Unbelievable just 3 years ago.