And another thing…

The BBC is not managed properly at all. It is supposed to be impartial. But we all know for example that it is pro Palastine, EU.,UN,Democrat, Labour, public spending. It has a very clear left/liberal agenda, its for all to see.

So in a bid to prove it is not biased it bans this appeal.

It is just a result of weak management and lack of control in not following its charter.

I gave up on the BBC years ago with its tabloid programms and waste of money.

I hope the Tories do something about it on their return to power.

Sky News announed this morning that they wont be showing the appeal either for the same reason as the BBC.

Personally I have a simple view on the whole issue: a plageue on both the participants.
And giving money to Palestinians is supporting a people whose leaers reject compromise.
Consequently whatever aid we give will end up being wasted,

And no I do not support Israel.

Just fail to see why we should prop up one side in a war they have no chance of winning but which they continue at the expense of their own people.

At Harry’s Place, this is our editorial position too.

However, on the subject of demonstrations, how about this from Tony Benn:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/26/jesus-israel-and-the-intifadas/

“Friends, the BBC would never be allowed to broadcast any message from Jesus. Because Jesus told us to love our neighbours and if the Archbishop of Canterbury read the Ten Commandments it might upset the Israeli government.”

Yeah, brilliant idea to paint this as Israel v Jesus.

What a w****r.

“do we really want to institute a new editorial system at the nation’s most prestigious broadcaster, whereby the loudest, most aggressive and persistent protesters always have their way?”

Glad to hear that you dislike Peter Mandelson’s tactics as much as I do.

http://www.lettersfromatory.com

I do agree with Madasafish, whoever it is.

I do not wish to be a mouthpiece for John Redwood, but i must comend his piece on this. He just puts it over very well.

http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/26/bbc-and-mpc-independence/

“But I agree with Andy Burnham’s comments that broadcasters must be independent and free from political interference”

That’s very funny. The BBC is infested with multi-culti diversity New Labour types, and has been ever since Hutton. Thus you will hear Ministers being allowed what amount to 4 or 5 minute long party political broadcasts (viz. Today programme, again and again), with no reply whatsoever from the oppo parties.

Minister will answer question, and then off into PP broadcast.

Nope. No wonder so many are now boycotting the TV license. We just got rid of the box.

The BBC have portrayed Hamas as a benignant registered charity throughout the conflict. I wonder what’s stopping them now?

“I DON’T understand the BBC’s decision not to broadcast the Disaster Emergency Committee’s (DEC) appeal for Gaza.”

I do. Pro-Israeli bias. Anyone who says it doesn’t exist is in denial. The BBC, despite holding itself up above other broadcasters and claiming not to tailor the news depending on the audience does just that.

Proof? http://i41.tinypic.com/dqsjs7.jpg

Hm, that logic seems to incapsulate inherent cynicism about representative democracy.

Theoretically, you lot are supposed to be our political representatives. You’re supposed to advance our interests, and therefore advocate our views. Surely, then, if the BBC was to bow to pressure from MPs, they would simply be ceding power to the people who fund them.

‘Pro-Israeli bias. Anyone who says it doesn’t exist is in denial’.

Really? Jeremy Bowen didn’t seem to pro-Israeli when reportinmg on the plight of the bombed-out and homeless who got caught between the principals.

So, that’s me in denial again then. I don’t think they’re biased. I do think that they’re a bunch of precious, right-up-themselves hand-wringers who fear that their backsides are made of glass and will break if they sit down firmly. Hat-tip to Flann O’Brien.

They’ve had their day. The licence fee has had its day. The Ross-Brand thing was the last days of Empire. They should be reduced to a PBS and no more. They can keep the World Service, Radio 4, and a TV channell that was BBC2 when it started. Ditch the rest. Make good plays from time to time on the royalties from their old ones. (How come licence payers don’t get a share of those royalities? Oh, but we do. The licence fee would be higher without them. Right. My mistake. Pay-rise for Mr Ross in that case).

Andrew F,

Hello again. MPs are NOT supposed to advocate our views. They are supposed to act for their constituents in matters within their legal remit, such as mediating with government agencies, and to vote in Parliament according to their own views. Otherwise captial punishment would never have been repealed and if it had been it would have been restored very quickly.

That reminds me of the ‘libertarian’ assualt on Tom’s blog last year. I have a lot of time for libertarianism. The trouble with many libertarians though is that they’re such contrary buggers that they can’t get along with anybody else. I was amused at the ‘we are your masters’ line that some of them came out with on here. Masters? Libertarians? Tom commented on the paradox at the time.

Look at some of their ‘personal spaces’ (you might as well, they look at nothing else themselves) and you find that what really gets to some of them, some of them, is that nobody pays them the attention they think they deserve. One or two of them are not libertarians at all. They squeal like stuck pigs about the intrusiveness of the state because they themselves are authoritarians who crave powers and status but who just happen, for good reason as it turns out, to have no authority themselves.

I do not agree with the BBC’s stance given they have supported humanitarian campaigns in the past that could, arguably, be judged as demonstrating some bias. However, I full accept that the BBC is entitled to maintain its editorial independence with our fear or favour.

That said, there was a great deal of suffering in Gaza, we must not forget the victims here. It is easy to make comments about them all being supporters of a ‘terrorist’ government, but I would remind all commentators, that just because our government decided to invade Iraq, does not mean that everyone supported there decision. The answer is in the name, humanitarian, none of us can change the politics in the region, but we can help those that are the victims of it. We must not prop Hamas, instead, we must try and ensure that the victims are giving some food water and shelter through the excellent charities that operate in the region.

Personally I think Israel should pay a substantial amount of cash in reparations given some of the damage to infrastructure appears to have been wanton and unnecessary.

I suppose we should all feel good about ourselves for showing such fair, impartial, and open concern for the suffering people of Palestine… Then, if enough people and politicians had opposed the Israeli onslaught as and before it unfolded, we might not need an humanitarian appeal; there might have been a lot less suffering, and many of the 500 innocent kids who got slaughtered would be alive and playing in the streets of Gaza today, etc, etc. Of course, playing in the streets of Gaza could never be recommended, since Israel has been furiously blasting at it for years (something like 7000 Israeli shells landed on Gaza in the year leading up to this latest attack). Not to mention the general poverty caused by Israel’s blockade, etc. So, why, all of a sudden, do so many people care about the Palestinians now? And if you oppose human suffering on that level, in situations where innocent, defenceless people are subject to the most violent forms of attack, shouldn’t you also publicly oppose those who are responsible? There seems to be something very cowardly about all this.

Quote 1: Hello again. MPs are NOT supposed to advocate our views.

Quote 2: Otherwise captial punishment would never have been repealed and if it had been it would have been restored very quickly.

In fairness I’m pretty drunk. But it seems to me that MP could be “supposed” to represent our views and still have “repealed” (outlawed) capital punishment. My point was that they don’t do what they’re supposed to do.

Tom assumed the failings representaative democracy as a premise of his post and it amused me somewhat.

There’s gotta be a 20% chance that was coherent.

Andrew F

‘There’s gotta be a 20% chance that was coherent’.

Once again you show that statistics is not your strong suit.

MPs do do what they’re supposed to do, nearly all of them. What you may mean is that they don’t do what you think they should do, because you have clearly never taken the trouble to find out what they really should do.

Repealed doesn’t mean outlawed. It means abrogated.

Andrew was probably right when he said there was a 20% chance of his statement being coherent. Regardless of probability, though, it was decidedly incoherent and, looking at the time-stamp, you have to wonder why someone is sitting up at 5.30. am on a Tuesday morning typing nonsense like that…

Jimmy, my vitriolic compadre-

I know that repealed doesn’t mean outlawed: I was vaguely taking issue you with your incorrect diction. The death penalty wasn’t repealed. It was outlawed. They didn’t amend or repeal some prior piece of legislation that permitted capital punishment legal; they prohibited it. (You can read the text here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1182867.)

And that’s not really an argument, is it? My point, essentially, was that the people who represent us in public life really should be able to put pressure on public bodies to act in our interests.

Gordon:

If you must know, I’d just returned home from a drunken night in Brighton to celebrate the end of exams. Was checking what emails had come in, and this irksome gadget of Tom’s had spammed me with news of updates here. (I shant’t be checking that box again. No thank you.)

Anywho. Care to explain what exactly was nonsensical about my comment (minus the dodgy typing)? It does seem the way here to just insult people without any kind of reasoning.

Actually, Andrew, I was really just agreeing with you when you said there was a 20% of your statement being coherent. My emphasis was on the 80% chance of incoherence; to me, it was incoherent.