Sunday, January 23, 2011

Is the BBC in thrall to Islam because of a Saudi landlord?

We all knew that Auntie swung to the Left.

But with a Roman Catholic director general and a Methodist head of religious broadcasting, you might have thought there would have been a little reverence for the majority religion and respect for the Established Church.

Even at the cost of allegations of Islamophobia.

And then came a Muslim head of religion and ethics, and one might have hoped for a little reverence for the majority religion and respect for the Established Church.

If only to belie allegations of Islamophilia.

But the spiritual rot continues.

Peter Sissons was at the heart of news and current affairs programmes at the BBC for 20 years. He confirms what has already been confirmed: ‘At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.’

And he further observed: ‘…the one thing guaranteed to damage your career prospects at the BBC is letting it be known that you are at odds with the prevailing and deep-rooted BBC attitude towards Life, the Universe, and Everything’.

So, UN good; EU good; Socialism good; Green good; Palestine good; taxing the rich, good; government spending, good; Margaret Thatcher, evil; Al Gore, saint. Obama, messiah.

The logical corollary of this?

National sovereignty, bad; the ‘forces of conservatism’, bad; euroscepticism, ‘swivel-eyed’; Israel, rogue state; climate scepticism, irrational; Tony Blair, good; George W Bush, idiot; Sarah Palin, demented hussy.

But His Grace would like to look not so much at the BBC’s attitude to 'Life', which we observe and establish empirically is pathologically inclined to the Left; but rather what the Corporation makes of ‘the Universe and Everything’, for here the inculcation is far more subtle and the induction far more dangerous.

Mr Sissons says: ‘Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.’
The increasing tendency for the BBC to interview its own reporters on air exacerbates this mindset. Instead of concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents. It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.
He warns:
And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril. In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset — or keep quiet about their true feelings — are going to make progress.
While the number of committed Christians employed by the BBC is likely to be counted on one hand (if they dare ‘come out’) and diminishing, the Corporation’s Muslims are encouraged to be ‘out and proud’, if only to fulfil diversity quotas, and increasing.

But that may not be the reason for Mr Sissons’ observation that ‘Islam must not be offended at any price’.

It appears that a considerable portion of the BBC licence fee is going to a Saudi company.

While Pebble Mill moves to Salford, and thousands of BBC employees (sports, Radio 5 Live, Breakfast TV, CBBC, children’s Learning, Future Media and Technology) relocate ‘up North’ at huge expense and considerable inconvenience, there will be one winner laughing all the way to the bank.

Literally.

John Whittaker is a billionaire property tycoon and the 35th richest man in the country. He is wisely exiled on the Isle of Man and is a friend of former BBC chairman Michael Grade.

Never heard of him?

Few have.

The Daily Express informs us that Mr Whittaker is the boss of Peel Holdings, effectively the BBC's new landlord: ‘The company owns 200 acres of now prime land at Media City in Greater Manchester. Under a deal with Peel Media, the BBC will rent 36 acres of buildings and several TV studios. The terms of the deal are secret but Mr Whittaker’s company can look forward to large BBC cheques for at least 20 years.’

But what is not so well known is that ‘Ocean Gateway’, as the development is called, is only 68% owned by Mr Wittaker.

The other 32% is being generously provided by a Saudi multi-billionaire, one Khaled Olayan, who heads The Olayan Group.

John Wittaker and Khaled Olayan together not only intend to make billions directly from the BBC’s 20-year rental deal, but they will make billions more as many BBC staff will rent or buy from properties from them.

And let us not be so naïve as to think that this arrangement does not affect editorial policy.

There will be no Panorama investigation into the links between Michael Grade, Mark Thompson, John Whittaker, Khaled Olayan and billions of pounds of licence-payers’ money.

One wouldn’t want to cross Peel Holdings (especially if you’re vulnerable to the inconveniences of democratic election).

And neither will there be any objective examination of the BBC’s pathological respect and reverence for Islam.

One wouldn’t wish to annoy the Saudi landlord.

41 Comments:

Blogger David Vance said...

Exactly right. The BBC has become the broadcasting arm for Islam and as such it represents an existential threat to the well being of our Nation, our Christian heritage, and our freedom and liberty. As we detail, so lovingly, on Biased BBC.

23 January 2011 at 11:19  
Anonymous len said...

I could never quite understand the BBC`s hostile attitude towards Christians and their compliant attitude to Islam.
His Grace`s article goes a long way to explaining this!.

The BBC has become(always has been?) a public funded Government Propaganda unit.
As always follow the money to find the puppet master.

23 January 2011 at 11:32  
Anonymous David Waddell said...

In general, nonsense.
The BBC has plenty of religious coverage with a firm lean in favour of Christianity. Grand state occasions and Christian events are covered with great reverence and are well-resourced. TFTD is well defended and programmes such as The Nativity, broadcast in the Christmas period, are an example of the BBC's general investment in providing coverage for its substantial Christian audience.

23 January 2011 at 12:05  
Anonymous len said...

The BBC portrays Christians in its productions as 'nutters, serial killers, bigots, and social outcasts.
Just a 'tad' prejudiced wouldn`t you say?
To take just ONE example, Lucas in Eastenders!
Now if he had been portrayed as a Muslim?

23 January 2011 at 12:46  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Exactly right. The BBC has become the broadcasting arm for Islam...

Which is not exactly incorrect, but does not even start to tell a small fraction of the story.

The BBC runs just like any other very large corporation as Peter Sissons correctly observes. Which means that orders come from the top, reflected in The BBC's promotion policy.

In other words do what the top man wants, and you get more cash and a higher status. Do not do what the man at the top wants, and carry on shuffling paper in the office for the rest of you professional life.

Your Grace correctly observes that the BBC is headed up by a Roman Catholic. Yet the BBC seems to be as anti Christian today as it has been for at least the last 30 years. (It is not of course, it is just anti anything remotely protestant, like for example real bible believing Christians, who are usually only to be found in small town USA)

David Vance seems like a sensible kind of chap, and I have the deepest respect for the hard work he has done over many years at his web site Bias BBC.

However he asks many questions of The BBC, yet seems to have no interests in personally working out, or listening to the answers.

What is the point of stating that the BBC is the broadcasting arm of Islam, without bothering to understand WHY it may appear to be so? This especially when the BBC is supposedly run by a supposed Christian, as well as many who claim to be of the Jewish Faith.

How can we explain what may appear to be a very clear paradox?

EASY

The BBC is not Left or left, Labour, or Conservative, Christian, or Islamic, The BBC is the mouth-piece of the establishment.

What else would any one with half a brain cell expect an organization set up by the establishment to be?

The job of the BBC/MSM in general is to promote DIVISION in as many ways as possible, the most important one being, by promoting, and perpetuating the illusion of democratic choice.

Thus vastly helping the establishment to more secretly, and therefore more easily rule over us.

The BBC's Common Purpose is the creation of a post democratic New World Order.

The BBC's seeming promotion of Islam exists to some degree to deflect Muslim aggression from the doors of the BBC itself, but mainly to promote ever more division and resultant chaos in the UK, and as much as possible the world as a whole.

The BBC's job therefore has NOT changed one single little bit, since the very first day it became a corporation.

Which is to promote the interests of the people who set it up, which are the people who own, control, and therefore vastly profit from The British/now World Empire working in conspiracy with the RCC, and the remaining crown heads, and oligarchies of planet Earth.

The BBC's job only seems to change as the establishments interests change.

What the job of The BBC has NEVER been is to properly educate the plebs, or to tell the whole truth about anything at all, other then the sporting results, under any circumstances imaginable.

If or when the establishment needs or wishes us to start hating our Muslim brothers on mass, then the BBC will be singing a very different tune within at most a week or two.

23 January 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger anchorhold said...

@ len

The BBC portrays Christians in its productions as 'nutters, serial killers, bigots, and social outcasts.

I wouldn't have said that applied to "Rev", for instance (OK, Colin could be described as a nutter, but anyone who's spent any time around a parish knows that churches attract damaged people like Colin, and actually it tends to be a sign that they're doing what the church should do). "Rev" certainly doesn't whitewash the church, but I think Christianity comes out fairly well.

"The Archers" tends to be fairly sympathetic, too (there are some very irritating church-going characters, but also some likable ones, which seems realistic enough to me).

23 January 2011 at 13:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is respect for Christianity associated with the right? I am left-wing and agree with respect for all religions, including Christianity. A true liberal would respect and accept all religions, not discriminating against a particular one.

I'm a Christian, but please don't associate me with Thatcher or, God forbid, Sarah Palin.

23 January 2011 at 13:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anchorhold makes a good point. And I wonder what His Grace thought of the hours of screen time that were cleared for the visit of the Pope last year? Or the dramatisation of the story of the Nativity? Or the daily act of Christian worship broadcast on Radio 4 long wave? Or the weekly church service broadcast on all Radio 4 frequencies at 8.10am each Sunday? Or the not un-sympathetic light in which Christians are cast every week on Songs of Praise?

Perhaps His Grace is unaware that the BBC has an active and thriving Christian Union among its staff? I am unaware of such an organisation of staff belonging to any other faith.

Along with the DG, I attended its annual carol service last year. His Grace would be most welcome next December.

23 January 2011 at 13:45  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Very interesting Your Grace. I have long wondered why there were so few white faces on some news items, particularly when filming in schools. No doubt I shall be regarded as a bigot and a racist for my observation but keep an eye open and you will see what I mean. What is the object of this emphasis?

23 January 2011 at 14:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Expect BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, to continue the BBC's preferential treatment of Islam, and of Saudi Arabia in particular.

23 January 2011 at 14:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above someone commented on the coverage of the visit of the Pope which, while it was actually taking place, was well handled. The pre-visit build up on the news and current affairs programmes was, however, relentlessly negative in both tone and content

23 January 2011 at 14:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (13:45)—As you appear to be a BBC insider, your comments on Mr Sissons’ claim that ‘Islam must not be offended at any price’ would be welcome. It’s certainly the impression I get.

@ AncientBriton (14:03)—Some schools have very few white pupils. Across London, 40 per cent of under-20s are black and minority ethnic.

23 January 2011 at 14:47  
Anonymous David Waddell said...

@ Len - are you suggesting the BBC was promoting Lucas as a typical Christian? I very much doubt it. And the coverage of other Eastenders characters (Muslims, agnostics and other) is harly all sympathetic!

23 January 2011 at 15:13  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

"...Across the first four weeks of 2011, no programmes or series on BBC Radio 4 will have been wholly devoted to any of the other non-Christian religious communities of the U.K. Yes, Hindus, Jews, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists have all gone uncatered for by the allegedly diversity-loving BBC. Only Islam seems to interest the channel's programme makers...." http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/bbc-features-steady-diet-of-pro-islamic-programming-favors-islam-over-other-religions.html

23 January 2011 at 15:51  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

...AND
" BBC favours Muslims, complain Hindus and Sikhs

The BBC has been accused of pandering to Britain's Muslims in its religious programming and ignoring other faiths.

Sikh and Hindu leaders complained the BBC made a disproportionate number of programmes about Islam at the expense of other faiths.

Sikh and Hindu leaders have complained that a disproportionate number of programmes have been made about Islam, at the expense of programmes on their own faiths.

An analysis of programmes from the BBC's Religion and Ethics department claims that since 2001, the BBC has made 41 programmes on Islam, five on Hinduism and one on Sikhism.

The Network of Sikh Organisations media monitoring group, which obtained the numbers, said Sikhs were shocked by the perceived bias.

Ashish Joshi, chairman, told The Independent newspaper: "We are licence fee payers and we want to know why this has happened.

"The bias towards Islam at the expense of Hindus and particularly Sikhs is overwhelming and appears to be a part of BBC policy."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2703863/BBC-favours-Muslims-complain-Hindus-and-Sikhs.html

23 January 2011 at 15:56  
Blogger Raspberry Rabbit said...

Your Grace.

Thank you for asking. The BBC is either struggling with their mandate of providing broadcasting which is in the "public good" and getting the demographic balance right while being onside with the perceived challenge to be an agent of public cohesion and, in juggling all of this, are swinging at various moments too much to one side or the other

or

it's a simple conspiracy based on their part-landlord being a Saudi.

Evidence for the first would be the various documents in the public domain such as

Taking Belief Seriously

http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/taking_belief_seriously_seminar.pdf

Or their impartiality review

http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/religion_impartiality.html

Evidence for the second would be this blog post of yours.

23 January 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Raspberry Rabbit,

If you believe that BBC reviews and archives constitute objective evidence, then we are left awaiting evidence of your own impartiality.

And, in case you failed to notice, the sources upon which this story is based are all linked (and there are quite a few more). By all means, dismiss His Grace. But national newspapers, politicians and others who have had 'dealings' with the BBC's new landlords are not overly complimentary about their ethics.

23 January 2011 at 16:17  
Anonymous JayBee said...

Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.

Islam is hypersensitive to criticism. If a little old lady writing in a church magazine can ignite this response
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/where/tunbridgewells/Police-called-church-mag-article/article-3124930-detail/article.html
just imagine what would happen if the BBC ignored the Islamophobia gagging order.

23 January 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger Raspberry Rabbit said...

They are all linked, your Grace, thank you.

Your reliance on the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and, of course, Yourself have not escaped notice.

As our Lord said to Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane: "it is enough"

23 January 2011 at 16:44  
Anonymous Stephen Gash said...

Chancellor George Osborne has frozen the TV licence for six years. This is nowhere near enough. Like Sky, the BBC should be funded by subscription. There are many unemployed people on benefits who cannot afford the licence fee, preferring to use the money for bus fairs to look for work. However, refusing to pay the BBC's "poll tax" means forfeiting their televisions, thus depriving them of free-to-view services. This is palpably unfair.

Likewise there are many small-business owners feeling the pinch who may prefer putting money into their beleaguered pensions rather than pay for the BBC's self-confessed “massive bias to the Left” and commensurate Islamophilia.

As we are having digital reception foisted on us, making the BBC a subscription-only service would be a small technical task and also fulfil the "fairness" politicians of all persuasions keep banging on about.

23 January 2011 at 16:54  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

The BBC has a long history not only of bias in favour of Islam, but blatant Da'wa and Islamic propaganda. Perhaps the most notorious example was the 'White Girl' drama:

"The BBC Metropolitan elite hate and despise the Northern English working class. Their attitude (like Jack Straw and Harridan Harm-men) is that of the Party Members to the Proles in Orwell’s 1984.

‘White Girl’ illustrated this attitude to the extent that the programme virtually became a parody of itself. It was a crude exercise in Da’wa, Dhimmitude and Taqiyya. It started with the inevitable ‘It’s grim oop north’ opening cliche and then went steadily, tediously and predictably downhill for the next 90 minutes.

The Northern English were portrayed as squalid, drunken, junk-food eating, smoking, gambling, child-abusing, sex-mad, illiterate, intolerant, wife-beating, drug-dealing chavs - whereas the Muslims were simply wonderful.

The examination of the Death-Cult was minimal, with superficial references to Mohammed flying to Jerusalem and the 99 names of Allah.

A particulalrly naff scene was where the white girl ‘exorcised’ her vicious stepdad by repeatedly reciting the shahadah: “Ashadu an la ilaha illa-llah wa ashadu anna muhammadan rasulu-llah” - “I testify that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”… Presumably this is based on the belief that you can get rid on one child-abuser by invoking the name of an even more depraved one.

There was also the totally erroneous statement that a woman can divorce her husband by repeating “I divorce you” three times. In fact it only works when the husband says it.

The take-home message was that the Northern English working class are a bunch of debased, degenerate scumbags and Islam is the only answer to their problems." http://independantbaptist.blogspot.com/2008/12/whitw-girl.html

23 January 2011 at 17:24  
Anonymous Bede said...

The BBC does produce some good programmes on Christianity, but overwhelmingly it shares the prevailing liberal/secular values and beliefs of our ruling elites (here and in Europe), in government, media, education and the arts.

23 January 2011 at 18:29  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Trencherbone .... the portrayal of the Northern English reminds me of Arthur Wellesley's view of his soldiers: ''We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers'' & ''I don't know if they frighten the enemy, but they frighten the hell out of me!''

It will be these self-same ''degenerate scum-bags'' that will eventually kick Islam from these shores.

Damn me if it don't make you proud to be British!

23 January 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

BBC Bias

I remember Rageh Omaar doing a 3 part documentary of The Miracles of Jesus in 2006 for BBC that I thought had revealed a script biased as a Islamic interpretation of what was being presented.

Was it going to be supportive of Christ's miraculous power to heal, feed multitudes, cast out demons, raise the dead, etc, from a christian perspective (Then christian supportive scholar, please) or denial of this by critical scholars (someone of known expertise in the field and having experience). Fair enough.

We had instead a journalist of muslim belief given an interpretation through his own religion's perspective.

Imagine a documentary appraisal of Prophet Mohammed and the influence of the pagan moon god on his writings, presented by a christian journalist or presenter.
Not going to happen, is it.

All we ask is fairness..too much to ask for?
So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

23 January 2011 at 18:32  
Blogger Simon Cooke said...

Normally I think you're spot on with analysis but I think the Peel Holdings bit is stretching it a little. And as for the Cllr Jones story, there's a whole host ofreasons for him getting beaten - few of them in any way connected with what Peel Holdings may or may not have done.

Even without Peel's involvement those close to the colossal idiocy of Manchester's congestion charge did badly - and every single part of Greater Manchester voted against the idea. Jones lost because he backed the wrong horse not because of Peel!

23 January 2011 at 19:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fervent christians in TV drama or entertainment have always been portrayed as either dangerous if they are powerful or eye-rolling bores/slightly batty if they are harmless. This applies to all channels and is no doubt because that's exactly how they have been portrayed in popular culture ever since it has been possible to do so without suffering social death or actual death.
I have no doubt that this is because the British, English especially, have long been dubious about anyone who is fervent about any ideology.
It's only been in recent times that this healthy disrespect has been tempered again by the possibility of death for offending the wrong brand of loon. Of course the other brands are envious of the fear and feigned respect which the threat of violence gains the dangerous loons and are now keen to get in on the act - rather like the sadistic, but feeble, kids who follow round the schoolyard bully, getting in the last few kicks once the victim is safely defenceless.

23 January 2011 at 19:12  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Oh Oswin you inspire me no end!

Got a good mind to stick my balaclava on now and slip into the night :-)

But let us not forget the other side of this coin, for we cannot rid this land of Islam unless we rid it of traitors first.

"Freemasonry is deceptive and fraudulent...Its promise is light its performance is darkness."

-President John Quincy Adams

"Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong essentially wrong a seed of evil, which can never produce any good."

-President John Quincy Adams

23 January 2011 at 19:24  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

anonymous said 23 January 2011 19:12

Utterly true.

Even when the BBC want to interview a member of the CofE on a religious matter, they always manage to pick the loopiest priest they can find, who obviously never went into the CofE for Christ's sake but humanist reasons.
You get scared as they are being interviewed that, if asked, they would probably deny that Christ existed.

Why can they never find a coherent, non tree hugging spokesman or is that the intention.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

23 January 2011 at 19:38  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace

The answer is simple - privatise the Beeb. Principle conditions, the buyer should be majority British owned and existing staff need not apply. Of course, this would not prevent the purchase of enlightened programming from the house of the blessed Rupert Murdoch. However it would enable a purge of the culture.

23 January 2011 at 19:49  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Privatise the Beeb? It'll never happen.

Sigh.

23 January 2011 at 21:50  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

As has been said the BBC devotes far too much coverage to religion in general and Christianity in particular. I, along with others, have campaigned for many years to get a non religious voice on Thought for the Day, a campaign that ended with a lengthy adjudication by the BBC Trust that rejected our claim. The BBC has a department of Religious Affairs in which ethics is a sub-section. Of course they should have a department of Ethics of which religiously motivated ethical beliefs are a subset. Most of the very senior people have strong religious beliefs and they don’t leave them at home when they come to work resulting in an unprofessional bias.

The BBC does God ad nauseum. When I hear news reports of prayers being said or miracle survival, I sometimes wonder in which century I am living. A serious news organisation reporting on the invocation of magic without realising the absurdity of what they are saying.

Religions of all hues should be seen for what they are, throwbacks to our ignorant past. That a news organisation like the BBC should treat them with respect and even reverence shows how entrenched these attitudes are in the BBC

24 January 2011 at 08:51  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The BBC does not support any of my views so why the buggering hell should I be forced, by threat of imprisonment or heavy fine, to pay for a service I despise and who treats my views with utter contempt?

24 January 2011 at 09:48  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

24 January 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous Fran said...

Anonymous 23/1/11 13.37

"I'm a Christian, but please don't associate me with Thatcher or, God forbid, Sarah Palin."

Oh really?

"If one says he loves God, yet hates the brethren, the truth is not in him."

"I tell you, one who says 'You Fool!' to his brother has already murdered him in his heart."

24 January 2011 at 10:35  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

@ KINGOFHIGHCS

"Even when the BBC want to interview a member of the CofE on a religious matter, they always manage to pick the loopiest priest they can find......."

Strange that you should point this out.

I often wonder if this is why the Establishment appointed Rowan Williams as the Archbish of Cant.

An academic, out-of-touch tree-hugger who alienates more of the population than he draws to the Church, thus rendering the church as a bit of a laughing stock.

24 January 2011 at 10:40  
Anonymous Fran said...

David Waddell

True, there is some excellent Religious Broadcasting on the BBC. But Christians have had to fight for it. A few years ago the Beeb wanted to scrap their flagship Christian broadcasting programme 'Songs of Praise' and in 2009 Church leaders protested publicly to the BBC about their attempts to ignore the Easter events in their scheduling, drawing an apology from the newly appointed Muslim head of Religious Broadcasting.

Programmes aired at Christmas and Easter routinely cast doubt on the Christian truths celebrated at those festivals in a way NEVER done with other faiths.

And Christians and their beliefs are regularly ridiculed on what passes for comedy on BBC radio and TV these days. When do you hear other faiths treated so?

Peter Sissons confirms what someone who was regularly consulted by Radio 4 Religious Broadcasting staff told me a few years ago: namely that pieces critical of Islam or Muslims attracted hostile, threatening even, responses and that as a result they were hesitant to offend the Muslim community.

This affected their coverage of community relations between, say Muslims and Jews in British cities and also their Middle East coverage.

Next time you watch BBC24 look at the number of programmes sponsored by Arab airlines? There's a lot of oil money sloshing around on the airwaves these days and the Beeb is no exception.

And my main beef with all this? I HAVE TO FUND THIS TRASH THROUGH THE LICENSE FEE!

24 January 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Graham davis said 24 January 2011 08:51

Thou protesteth too much as usual.

I love the secularist agenda..so insidious, it is actually craftly incorporated into programmes, like the nazi's changed the tone of things through propaganda , then denied they were doing it.

The BBC does God ad nauseum.(I think you will find it does Atheism and its other rotten fruits ad nausem..The amount of time devoted to this and the means to sneak it into all types of programmes is disingenuous..Maybe Peter Sissons should say more?)

When I hear news reports of prayers being said or miracle survival, I sometimes wonder in which century I am living.(When I hear Atheist saying THEY know how to create the perfect society I wonder WHERE or WHEN this has ever occurred through out human history but find NOTHING except massacres, government intimidation, suppression, censorship, prison, persecutions from this 'branch' of HUMANITY. Maybe the problem is ALL flesh is wicked and only needs the slightest of excuses to embark on atrocities..Oh, the ability for mankind to delude him/herself has no parallel.)

A serious news organisation reporting on the invocation of magic without realising the absurdity of what they are saying.( Or the time devoted to unbelievably ridiculous explanations of how the universe started, 'ad infinitum et ad nauseum' that get more ridiculous with the telling. If this RUBBISH was within the Holy Bible, it would be laughed at as fabled, superstitious rubbish.
I cannot enjoy a nature programme without your 'Religious rubbish' being put across continually and spoiling the program. You and your kind are the true FABLE TELLER'S. I am surprised you have the nerve to come on here and accuse christians of delusion..Hold up the mirror and take a good, deep, 35 billion year??? old look, my primal soup worshipping friend)

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

24 January 2011 at 12:05  
Anonymous Scott said...

I recently posted a comment on the BBC POV forum regarding an interview by Fi Glover on Radio 4 with a Muslim convert. It was the most sycophanitc, cringeworthy performance I have ever heard. The point of the interview was to discuss the apparent increase of people converting to Islam. She then preceded to interview someone who had converted 11 years ago. Hardly recent. I should also point out that this is the second time the BBC have done this recently. She tiptoed her way through the interview paranoid about causing offence. When the inevtitable point about the 911 bombers being muslim, she frantically backtracked when the interviewee took offence.

I raised points about the interview and asked why other faiths are not given the same degree of respect, especially when investigating sensitive issues such as the abuse of children.

Needless to say the post was removed.

24 January 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Graham davis said 24 January 2011 08:51

P.S

The Master Chef sends his regards.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

24 January 2011 at 17:02  
Blogger DP111 said...

Anglophobia

According to Warsi, Islamophobia has passed the "dinner table test", that apparently being the test where people dare to express an opinion around their own dinner table without being shipped off to stand trial before the European Court of Justice. But is it really the dinner tables of England that we ought to be concerned with, rather than its army of prayer rugs.

In an environment where 40 percent of UK Muslims want Sharia law, 10 percent support the 7/7 bombers and 13 percent admire Al Qaeda, 40 percent believe that 9/11 was a Jewish/American conspiracy, 62 percent do not believe in protecting free speech, 68 support the arrest and prosecution of writers and cartoonists who insult Islam and 36 percent support the death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam-- -- is it really time for another lecture on Islamophobia?

The British teenager of tomorrow is named Mohammed, and he takes his inspiration not from the Magna Carta, but the Koran. His hero is not Winston Churchill or Oliver Cromwell, but that bloody butcher of men and raper of women and little girls, the Islamic prophet Mohammed. When he plays video games, he imagines that the men he's killing are the soldiers returning home from fighting against teenagers just like him Iraq or Afghanistan. Sooner or later, he dreams of being to do the same thing. He thinks of British girls as whores, of English culture as corrupt and worthless, and feels he owes no obedience to its laws or its government.


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/01/anglophobia-or-islamophobia-whats-real.html

25 January 2011 at 12:44  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DP111 @ 12:44

Again, I applaud your post; please keep telling it the way it is!

26 January 2011 at 15:26  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older