Bounce Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Basically in 2004 the BBC commissioned a report about their middle east coverage. Unsurprisingly (to those of us with knowledge of the Israel-Arab conflict) the report is suspected of showing that the BBC has a heavy anti-Israel bias and peddles pro-'palestinian' propaganda. Indeed even the BBC's lead middle east correspondent Jeremy Bowen has been sanctioned by the BBC trust for his pro-'palestinan' agenda. The BBC panicked and in Mafia-style closed ranks and (metaphorically) 'whacked' anyone trying to have this report released. Although the BBC is paid for by us the tax payer - they are claiming it's not in our interest to see the findings of the report. The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money in the courts trying to stop the British people seeing this damning report which would expose the BBC for what it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2011/02/balen_report_the_case_continue.html http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/63589/court-rejects-bbc-israel-bias-report-appeal The BBC fail to tell the truth about Israeli zionist regime and it's brutal occupation of Palestine. Channels such as press tv which were telling the truth have been taken of the air by the British government. This is the age of the net people don't need the BBC telling them what to believe. More and more people are seeing Israel for what it is and zionist supporting scum like you are shrinking further and further into the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 The BBC fail to tell the truth about Israeli zionist regime and it's brutal occupation of Palestine. Channels such as press tv which were telling the truth have been taken of the air by the British government. Press TV was taken off the air because of their own bad management. They were registered as a British run channel, but in the course of an investigation in to a breech of their licence to broadcast, it was discovered that all editorial and production decisions were being made in Tehran. Press TV were then given two options, move their UK channel operation to the UK, or transfer their licence to Tehran. Neither were particulary difficult to achieve (the latter involving a few bits of paper and signatures), but instead they chose to ignore it, leading to the inevitable licence revocation and the opportunity to repeat their claims that the UK Gov is after them because they upset the royal family. Interesting. I wonder if you would feel the same had the opposite been found? that it was pro-Israel bias? I suspect you and your ilk would be banging on the doors demanding it be released. I have seen people from both camps, pro and anti, claiming this report backs up their opinion of the direction of the BBC's bias, so I imagine if it was the other way around Andy would be saying the same things, because people are already saying it is the other way around. They aren't just 'any' organisation though. They are publicly funded. I guess if we just continue your vision of how things should be, we can say that the NHS should also be a secretive Mafioso organisation. If a member of porter staff at the Northern General decided to refuse to push people around who were suffering from cancer because he was scared he would catch it and was subsequently disciplined for it, would you expect the whole details to be available for you to read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Can I ask again Willie Pete - why are 100% of your threads about israel and/or muslims? And how do you then get the nerve to accuse other people of bias? By the way, anyone else see that Al Jazeera English has been named News Channel of the Year at this year's Royal Television Society Awards? Shouldn't we just let the people who claim the BBC is pro- Palestinians and the people who claim the BBC is pro -Israeli / Zionism battle it out among themsleves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Can I ask again Willie Pete - why are 100% of your threads about israel and/or muslims? And how do you then get the nerve to accuse other people of bias? By the way, anyone else see that Al Jazeera English has been named News Channel of the Year at this year's Royal Television Society Awards? He is on the pay roll to try gain UK public sympathy for the future invasion of Iran that the Israeli's have on the cards. From what I can gather. When he is not on here he is on other forums I imagine. I would love to see where his IP address takes you, I bet its an office in Tel Aviv or somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CXC3000 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 He is on the pay roll to try gain UK public sympathy for the future invasion of Iran that the Israeli's have on the cards. From what I can gather. When he is not on here he is on other forums I imagine. I would love to see where his IP address takes you, I bet its an office in Tel Aviv or somewhere Or maybe his parents' basement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CXC3000 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If Israel was serious about peace with it's neighbours, then things might turn out differently for everyone concerned. Just look at this : West Bank settlement of Shiloh gets initial approval for 600 new homes The Defense Ministry gave preliminary approval on Tuesday to a plan to build 600 new homes in Shiloh, a hardline settlement deep inside the West Bank. The move drew rebukes from the United Nations and Palestinians, and threatened to raise tensions with the United States as the prime minister prepares to head to the White House. The United Nations' Mideast envoy, Robert Serry, called the announcement "deplorable" and said it "moves us further away from the goal of a two-state solution." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/west-bank-settlement-of-shiloh-gets-initial-approval-for-600-new-homes-1.414215 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liamfox88 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 The BBC needs to get its house in order and fast. Otherwise its going to become a joke like Press tv. News Channel of the Year Al Jazeera English “In a year that was dominated by the Arab Spring, this channel established itself as essential viewing for insight and understanding of the evolving story. In an assessment that acknowledged an impressive range of news coverage from around the world, the jury described this year as the `breakthrough moment’ for Al Jazeera English.” Nominees BBC News Channel Sky News Good award well earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Let us just look at the facts, like who started the legal challenge? "Mr Sugar was a respected solicitor and a supporter of the State of Israel; he considered that the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians had been seriously biased against it." Israel bombed a captive civilian population for an extensive amount of time. It was mainly shooting snakes in a barrel, great fun I am told. Ground troops far superior to the totally surrounded, bombed, shelled from land and sea, outgunned Gaza population. They spent more time bombing the Gaza strip "a three-week bombing and invasion" than took place in the 6 days war in 1967, by Israel against the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. But civilians are more fun to destroy, and deserve extra treats. Did the Palestinian population have tanks? Did they have heavy guns? Did they have an air force? What kind of bombs? Did they have a navy? How many gun boats, ships destroyers, aircraft carriers? How many tanks did Gaza have? So what weapons did these terrorists have, to fight the 4th most powerful military machine in the world? So was it a war in the conventional sense against Gaza? Where a trapped, totally surrounded, enclosed population had the full force of the Israeli war machine blasting them to bits for nearly 4 times the length of the six day war. Can anyone here work out the odds of the Israelis loosing at all, or the Palestinians gaining from it at all? What next stamping on babies to show how superior, mighty and just, a superior force can be? I forgot, shelling, bombing, shooting babies is of course now history, a sort of population control maybe? It was out of all proportion to the threat, and strangely the Israelis won. Was it a close fight? Unlike Syria, and Libya we just watched and let the destruction, and massacre happen, made for good TV, watching civilians being killed, hospitals and schools being bombed, and turning the area into a rubble dump. Wikipedia: "An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3. Infantry commanders were given an unprecedented level of access to coordinate with air, naval, artillery, intelligence, and combat engineering units during this second phase. Various new technologies and hardware were also introduced." Ever thought that treating people as sub humans, restricting food, water, electricity and the rest might not make then resent their captors, and want to fight back? Well take a look a Greece, and Spain where they are treated as trash by the banks, but not bombed, starved and deprived of electricity, water and the rest. They appear to not like the treatment either, and maybe its a human condition to be able to live a ordinary life. And of course the BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL....a compalint by Mr Sugar was a supporter of the State of Israel; he considered that the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians had been seriously biased against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liamfox88 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Let us just look at the facts, like who started the legal challenge? "Mr Sugar was a respected solicitor and a supporter of the State of Israel; he considered that the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians had been seriously biased against it." Israel bombed a captive civilian population for an extensive amount of time. It was mainly shooting snakes in a barrel, great fun I am told. Ground troops far superior to the totally surrounded, bombed, shelled from land and sea, outgunned Gaza population. They spent more time bombing the Gaza strip "a three-week bombing and invasion" than took place in the 6 days war in 1967, by Israel against the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. But civilians are more fun to destroy, and deserve extra treats. Did the Palestinian population have tanks? Did they have heavy guns? Did they have an air force? What kind of bombs? Did they have a navy? How many gun boats, ships destroyers, aircraft carriers? How many tanks did Gaza have? So what weapons did these terrorists have, to fight the 4th most powerful military machine in the world? So was it a war in the conventional sense against Gaza? Where a trapped, totally surrounded, enclosed population had the full force of the Israeli war machine blasting them to bits for nearly 4 times the length of the six day war. Can anyone here work out the odds of the Israelis loosing at all, or the Palestinians gaining from it at all? What next stamping on babies to show how superior, mighty and just, a superior force can be? I forgot, shelling, bombing, shooting babies is of course now history, a sort of population control maybe? It was out of all proportion to the threat, and strangely the Israelis won. Was it a close fight? Unlike Syria, and Libya we just watched and let the destruction, and massacre happen, made for good TV, watching civilians being killed, hospitals and schools being bombed, and turning the area into a rubble dump. Wikipedia: "An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3. Infantry commanders were given an unprecedented level of access to coordinate with air, naval, artillery, intelligence, and combat engineering units during this second phase. Various new technologies and hardware were also introduced." Ever thought that treating people as sub humans, restricting food, water, electricity and the rest might not make then resent their captors, and want to fight back? Well take a look a Greece, and Spain where they are treated as trash by the banks, but not bombed, starved and deprived of electricity, water and the rest. They appear to not like the treatment either, and maybe its a human condition to be able to live a ordinary life. And of course the BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL....a compalint by Mr Sugar was a supporter of the State of Israel; he considered that the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians had been seriously biased against it. Yet the complaint was upheld? As im sure your well aware only idots the BBC and jihadists believe Israel should not defend itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal-tec Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Basically in 2004 the BBC commissioned a report about their middle east coverage. Unsurprisingly (to those of us with knowledge of the Israel-Arab conflict) the report is suspected of showing that the BBC has a heavy anti-Israel bias and peddles pro-'palestinian' propaganda. Indeed even the BBC's lead middle east correspondent Jeremy Bowen has been sanctioned by the BBC trust for his pro-'palestinan' agenda. The BBC panicked and in Mafia-style closed ranks and (metaphorically) 'whacked' anyone trying to have this report released. Although the BBC is paid for by us the tax payer - they are claiming it's not in our interest to see the findings of the report. The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money in the courts trying to stop the British people seeing this damning report which would expose the BBC for what it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2011/02/balen_report_the_case_continue.html http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/63589/court-rejects-bbc-israel-bias-report-appeal william you are aware that the BBC is a bias news organisations! ? just like all the other news companies around the world the bbc does exactly the same? i know of dozens of examples! the msot obvious is the Syrian stype of reporting were we hear daily the number of people who have been killed , but at the same time bbc remain quite on how many people have been killed in total in places such as Yemen and Libya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.