BS: BBC bias

Subject: BS: BBC bias
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:34 AM

The BBC describe Corbyn as left wing, yet when mentioning Cameron give no description.
if the BBC are to be unbiased they must surely put a description before Cameron when they talk about him [eg old etonian, right wing, centre right or whatever]
my point is that to be unbiased they must either leave out descriptons for both politicians. or describe both, to make a description for one and not the other is adding a bias. if for exanple they described Cameron as Centre or Right, But said nothing about Corbyn that too would be biased.
I wondered what the general opinion of others was, on this one

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:45 AM

That is the point Good Soldier, in UK politics, Cameron is a Liberal.
The centre of gravity has shifted dramatically as the middle class have become more prosperous.

Are the BBC biased? bloody right they are, but more from a social, than political perspective. Do you ever listen to any late night radio. Their mission seems to be the destruction of society.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:07 AM

And Jesus wept.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:13 AM

Anyone who thinks the BBC isn't biased should have talked with Ewan MacColl or Charles Parker while they were still alive, about the way they had to cut anything contentious or remotely left wing out of the radio ballads.

Yes, I know the Travelling People sparked off fires of controversy and quite right too. However, MacColl and Parker both knew this would be the last of the radio ballads. So they decided they'd got nothing to lose by telling it like they saw it.

Peggy Seeger told me once that the three of them were sitting in the BBC canteen when a highly inflated BBC bigwig came up.

"Ahh", he said "the radio ballad team. What interesting topic have next for us?"

MacColl, who must have been relishing this, said "Miners".

"Oh God", said the BBC bigwig, "not another bloody working class epic!"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:52 AM

Steve, what did your comment mean?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,Ian
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:54 AM

I thought this was glaringly obvious in the lead up to the election. When Dimbleby did the question time with the leaders.
With Cameron he constantly moved questions on.

With Milliband he allowed the same people to keep asking more and more questions. I believe the main woman to question him was part of the Tory campaign.

The whole thing was a disgrace!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 09:31 AM

GSS
Why are you concerned about the BBC calling Corbyn ;Left Wing'? Do you see it as an insult or slur? Is it something to be ashamed about. If you see it as a positive thing I would expect you to be pleased.

Anyway it's not just the BBC. I try to catch the papers reviews on BBC News and SKY News around Midnight most days. All the papers and SKY News call him Left Wing. It's the big difference between the old centre left Labour party and the new.

Although descriptions and opinions of Cameron will differ, we all know who and what he is. He hasn't changed. The Labour leadership has. Maybe the media in general thinks that we are all too thick to have noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 09:51 AM

"The BBC describe Corbyn as left wing, yet when mentioning Cameron give no description."

Because if the BBC did describe Cameron it would go something like 'the pompous ego-driven self-aggrandizing piece of shite' and they would no doubt be sued. Clear enough for you, Dick?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:01 AM

Definitely biased on origins, though I suppose they are merely parroting current majority academic belief.             Corbin left wing?....compared to Blair, not arf... But as observed elsewhere it is all relative. To be more precise they would need to say.....more left wing than the main contenders, or his immediate predecessor!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:15 AM

The BBC biased ? just look how many years before a working class accent was heard, you still don't hear any except in dramas and only then if it's ' kitchen sink ' style, the BBC much prefers Downton feckin Abbey anytime.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:20 AM

Stanron, I am concerned because someone over on facebook[ who i know personally and i thought was intelligent, has stated that he thinks the BBC is unbiased].
the BBC calls itself independent, its licence fee is paid by the public, in my opinion if it unbiased it should either have a policy o describing the political centre of each party leader, or it should not make a comment at all, that is called being even handed or unbiased.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:27 AM

As I was saying in that other thread, and as Keith has made abundantly clear, people don't mind being called left-wing but object vehemently to being called right-wing. As for media bias, all media are biased in that they select what news they think we want to read/ that will stop you changing channel/will sell papers, and will put it where they like in their programme/publication and will decide how many column inches/how much airtime each item gets. Or they may just leave it out altogether. Bad offenders, such as tabloid papers, will subtly or not so subtly mix up news with opinion (viz. "Red Ed" every time the Mail reported on him). Political cartoonists add an extra layer of non-news.

Now we have that out of the way, watch tonight's news on the Beeb. You may or may not agree with me that, compared to almost every other media outlet, it's a shining beacon when it comes to trying to get it right. If you want to be intelligent about the news you have to work at it. Look at as many sources as you can. Hone your antennae to spot sneaky titbits of comment in the mix. See whether both sides are being covered. Use your brain. It's far better than moaning about media bias. If we didn't have media bias we wouldn't have media at all. And, as the other thread demonstrates, it's no use expecting the BBC to start labelling Cameron right-wing, as we can't even agree among ourselves what it means. The poor old Beeb, therefore, is on a hiding to nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:08 AM

I've no objection whatsoever to Jeremy Corbyn being called left wing. What I object to is that, instead of scrutinising his beliefs, or even explaining why full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages are somehow bad, the press and politicians relentlessly carry on this incessant character assassination.

In all the years I've been studying party leaders, I can't remember anyone having to endure such a relentless round of malicious tittle tattle.

It's time the naysayers either explained what they consider to be wrong and unworkable about Corbyn's politics, or else shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:47 AM

I agree that BBC is better than fox news or ITV, But they are not as even handed as they would like us to think

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:50 AM

it's a good 35 years since higher education sociological courses called "Communications" / "Media Studies" etc
started filtering down into comprehensive school O + A levels.
The tories have always hated these fields of study,
tories don't want young 'impressionable' kids learning the truth about how media and news works
to maintain a right wing status quo;
and have done their best to marginalise and push these courses off the education curriculum...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:36 PM

As I was saying in that other thread, and as Keith has made abundantly clear, people don't mind being called left-wing but object vehemently to being called right-wing.

People who were not in the least left wing might well object to being so labelled.
Why do you feel this need to label anyone who disagrees with you as right wing?
Although I think your far left views are unrealistic, that does not make me right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:23 PM

Keith has it about right.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:23 PM

i wonder if driving instructors get into arguments about which is left and which is right.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:40 PM

It's because God doesn't like lefties!

Abbott & Corby!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:48 PM

Do the BBC describe him simply as being left wing ? Or is it left wing the context of the Labour Party ? Most of us who follow UK politics would know what that means, and his track record as a 'rebel', especially since the rise of 'New Labour', is a part of that.

Is their a similar widely understood and easy to agree on term for David Cameron's position in his Party ? 'Good Soldier Schweik' in the OP seems to indicate that, for him, there is not. Otherwise why the list of possibilites ?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:49 PM

"It's because God doesn't like lefties!"

Hard to argue with that logic.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:50 PM

I agree with Bonzo......Abbot is a liability.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:45 PM

When using terms like right wing and left wing it's important to appreciate within what context they are used. A right wing Labour supporter and a left wing Tory would have very much the same political philosophy, and it would be reasonable to call that centrist. But of course it would not be centrist Labour or centrist Tory - a centrist Tory would be well to the right of a right wing Labour supporter or left wing Tory.

Keith comes across as a centrist within the wider political spectrum, and a leftish Tory but clearly within a Labour context he would be well on the right.

It's a pretty elementary confusion. I think in the kids book I read there was the shortest giant in the world, and the tallest giant, and they were the same height.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,allan conn
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:54 PM

The study from the UWS which came out during the referendum debate came to the conclusion that all the broadcasters were biased in favour of the union but that the BBC were worse than ITV.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:39 PM

But I suspect that the effect would have been to help the Yes vote.   When the bias is too strong it can backfire. People know the BBC is supposed not to take sides. The same probably applied in the Labour leadership contest.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 02:49 AM

the bbc can't help what they are.

they're for the main part oxbridge types, from the south of the country.

north of watford and they're talking shite.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Pete MacGregor
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:10 AM

It is to be expected that the various overseas based billionaire owners of most of the UK press will have instructed their minions to rubbish Corbyn at every opportunity.
When it comes to the BBC it looks as if many of their staff are looking to the possibility of moving to work for the 'dark side' and don't want to spoil their prospects.

For entertainment check out on YouTube Dennis Skinner putting a BBC spinnerette in her place.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Stu
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:15 AM

One thing's for sure, if Corbyn had been sticking his jake in a dead pigs head at university the BBC would have been all over it. Not an oink from them this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 08:23 AM

"What I object to is that, instead of scrutinising his beliefs, or even explaining why full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages are somehow bad, the press and politicians relentlessly carry on this incessant character assassination."

Fred could you please give us any substantive evidence that ANYONE has stated that having "full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages" would be bad.

Only problem with Corbyn spouting on about those things is that listening to him it becomes perfectly clear that following his policies none of his declared objectives could ever be attained - they would only serve to make things worse than they already are.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 08:28 AM

BBC bias - of course the BBC is biased - if it wasn't then they would have had absolutely no problem in putting the Balen Report into the public domain, instead it spent upwards of £200,000 to ensure that the findings of that report never see the light of day.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 09:00 AM

I wouldn't worry, Teribus. Just about every other media outlet is biased in favour of your lot anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 09:27 AM

You see, Terribilis, left wingers think that "full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages" would be a good thing. Con-servatives and others think that it would be a bad thing, because then the poor would be less terrified of the powers of the rich and organised capital. It's quite remarkable how you can say what you do so soon after a coroner has officially found that the death of a person was due to the effects of government policy over benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Stu
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:02 AM

Bilderberg, Tezza.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:08 AM

left wingers think that "full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages" would be a good thing. Con-servatives and others think that it would be a bad thing,

Such childlike, naive prejudice.
Everyone is in favour of those things silly, only differing in the best way to achieve them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:22 AM

Full employment? The Tories since 1979 have a terrible record. Housing? The Tories sell off all the best public housing stock at massive discounts, leaving the slums for the undeserving poor. World free from famine, etc? The Tories want to limit the numbers fleeing from a crisis that's our fault to 4000 a year, and they're talking about paying for that out of the foreign aid budget. Not trying very hard to achieve them, eh, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:46 AM

To everyone who responded to my posting about full employment, good quality housing etc.

I didn't say that conservatives don't believe in these things. Over the years I have met many compassionate conservative voters who are just as concerned about the state of the world as I am.

The trouble is that they have hitched their wagon to the wrong star. Capitalism is founded on the principles of inequality and dog eat dog. It's called the free market and until it is done away the world will remain full of suffering.

For anyone who hasn't yet apprehended that fact, I wouldn't try wading through Karl Marx's Capital, easily the most impenetrable book I have ever read. Instead, read John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, especially the chapter which begins "The spring is beautiful in California". Although set in the 1930s' of the American depression, its critique of capitalism as a socio/economic system is universal.

It's not that the world is full of greedy people, or that there's something unalterable about the laws of human behaviour which makes for social inequality, and which makes some people better off than others.

It is that the system itself is wrong. It is founded on profit and greed where it should be about satisfying human need.

Do I think that Jeremy Corbyn is the man to cure all the problems of capitalism? He probably isn't, but he could well be the person to give us a good hard nudge in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:48 AM

Steve, I challenge all of your examples.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:54 AM

Er, they're all true. Check 'em out.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 11:04 AM

If the Tories record on employment is worse than Labour's, I would like to see the evidence.
Likewise house building.
The migrant crisis is not our fault, and this government sends more aid to Syrian refugees than the rest of the EU put together.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 11:16 AM

Sigh!

BBC apologizes for 'anti-Semitic' cartoon in music program

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 12:39 PM

You were given the post-1979 unemployment record by Jim last week. The 1979 low was not achieved again until years into new Labour. It is much higher than that today, and a damn sight higher still when you take into account all the cheat statistics that "forget about" bogus apprenticeships, bogus self-employed numbers and almost a million on zero-hours contracts. My comment on housing was nothing to do with house building. I was referring to council house selloffs. The refugee crisis (not just a migrant crisis, your words) is squarely the upshot of decades of terrible foreign policy balls-ups over decades by the west in the Middle East in which we have been thoroughly complicit. The government is only sending money to try to stop them coming here, and not only is it completely inadequate, it is also coming off our foreign aid budget. And I do not appreciate very much your sneaky attempt to shift the ground on two out of three of the points I made, thank you. You still haven't learned the lessons of your Wheatcroft misrepresentations, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:19 PM

For fuck's sake, KtheA. Capital and conservatives DESIRE poverty and deprivation in the lower orders because it makes labour (the workers, not the party) more malleable to the demands of capital. Cease your puerile pretence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Mr Red
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:20 PM

Cammeroon has been around long enough to be assumed as Tory. Corebin hasn't been in such a public eye for long enough. The BBC are, if anything acknowledging that 60% of the electorate are so dis-interested in which politician belongs to which label that they don't even vote.

The BBC are always criticised for their biases. The lefties find some cockamamie reason that can be explained in another way.

The Tories are for ever citing left bias from all those arty-farty lefty lovies.

Lesser parties are always claiming unfair exposure, ie not getting enough.

The BBC for all their faults are damned if they don't and damned if they do. They plough a pretty straight furrow despite the crosswinds.

Ask the plebs in any totalitarian regime - they like the World Service for its better delivery of truths.

What would you prefer? Rupert Merde-Hoc deciding what you should think?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:39 PM

Cease your puerile pretence.
It is simplistic, naive, puerile pretence that anyone "desires" famine, disease and water shortage.

The 1979 low was not achieved again until years into new Labour.

Not Tory then.

It (unemployment) is much higher than that today,

So is employment.The population is much higher.

My comment on housing was nothing to do with house building. I was referring to council house selloffs.

Why?
The problem is a shortage of housing.
The sell off did not reduce the housing stock at all.
All those houses still exist and are still occupied.

The refugee crisis (not just a migrant crisis, your words) is squarely the upshot of decades of terrible foreign policy balls-ups over decades by the west in the Middle East in which we have been thoroughly complicit.

We have not been complicit in any way in the implosion of Syria.
Only about 30% are from Syria anyway.
Most are from Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

The government is only sending money to try to stop them coming here,

Not true.
Most can not afford the thousands that it costs to make the trip.
The humanitarian aid is for schools, shelter, health care.
Look up "humanitarian."

and not only is it completely inadequate, it is also coming off our foreign aid budget.

Our aid to Syrian refugees is second only to USA and more that the rest of the EU combined.
We give proportionally more in foreign aid than anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:23 PM

Let's be clear. The 1979 unemployment figure rocketed under Thatcher. She never got it back to 1979 levels. She pretended to get close by counting hundreds of thousands of industrial workers, thrown out of their jobs in favour of spivs and yuppies in the newly-deregulated City, as on incapacity benefit instead of what they really were, unemployed. John Major failed to get unemployment back to the 1979 level. It was years of New Labour before the figure got down to the 1979 level. In over five years of recent Torydom, the level has got nowhere close to the 1.4 million of 1979. Have you got it yet, Keith? As for current levels of employment, for the THIRD BLOODY TIME, Keith, the "millions of jobs" created by Cameron et al. are overwhelmingly temporary, or part-time, or bogus apprenticeships on half the legal minimum wage, or, almost a MILLION of 'em, zero-hours contracts, almost unknown a decade ago. Welcome to the Tory "flexible labour market", a nice euphemism which means keeping as many employees as possible as insecure as possible with as few rights as possible on as low pay as possible. And do you know what the huge great bloody giveaway clue to it is, Keith? Productivity in this country is flat-lining. Even Osborne is "disappointed". So pray tell me what these wonderful new Tory jobs are actually creating, Keith. You can't spot a deliberately-created Tory illusion if it comes up and bites you on the bum, can you, and even if you did spot it you'd deny it with every twist and turn and misrepresentation you could muster. That's why you're so right-wing, Keith. Easy peasy.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:25 PM

Not forgetting, which I nearly did, all those workers who now have say that they're "self-employed". Bogus yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:49 PM

Aid to Syrian refugees? Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq now shelter almost FIVE MILLION Syrian refugees. One person in five in Lebanon is now a Syrian refugee. We have taken five thousand. We send money to keep people in camps. What we send is peanuts compared to what Turkey has spent. If we've spent more than other EU countries, that's to their shame, not to our glory, as you seem to think. So kindly keep the lecturing about the meaning of "humanitarian" to yourself. Or perhaps you could apply it to those poor people in Gaza, suffering a terrible plight That never seems to concern you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 07:01 PM

Or perhaps you could apply it to those poor people in Gaza, suffering a terrible plight

Agreed, the terrible plight suffered by the people of Gaza is Hamas. I suggest you have a look at where the humanitarian aid given to Gaza ends up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 07:05 PM

Keith is right on the ball with all his answers bar one.

We have been complicit in the destabilisation of the Middle East but it was done largely to serve a "liberal" agenda, support for the so called "Arab Spring" and the "liberation"(nudge, nudge), of the Iraqi people. Our interventions have been largely instigated by or supported by a Labour government. Even the crime in Libya was supported by Labour.
Regarding employment get real, the working class no longer exists the huge manufacturing and natural resource employers were uncompetitive.
The nature of employment has changed and will never return to 70's levels. we are going to have to share out work, find ways to spend more "free time" and get used to being less well off financially.

So by a quick back count........Keith wins and you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 07:18 PM

Jaysus, I'm quaking in my bloody boots, I am.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 04:17 AM

Steve,
"Past Labour governments, elected with good intentions, still all left office with higher unemployment than they inherited.

Whereas in the 1980s and 1990s, Labour politicians saw low unemployment as a measure of economic success, they are now curiously silent on that metric. That is partially because unemployment is falling rapidly when Labour predicted it would rise by more than a million. Gordon Brown's administration was marked by soaring unemployment, and they've nothing new to say about creating jobs and tackling unemployment, beyond repeating the ideas they tried when last in office. Labour has sacrificed the mantle of the party of full employment to the Conservatives."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/01/conservatives-full-employment-million-new-jobs

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 04:32 AM

. What we send is peanuts compared to what Turkey has spent.

Not true.
The neighbouring countries only provide the ground for the camps.
The refugees are supported by international humanitarian aid.

We do not have homes to offer.
We have to house an extra population every year much bigger than that of Greater Manchester.
That increase far outstrips our ability to build.
We have had a shortage since WW2 and every year it gets more hopeless.

Germany's population has been falling!
They need more people.
The inescapable fact is that every newcomer here deprives someone of a home, a school place, a GP etc.
We should give what we can.
We have money. We do not have homes.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 04:55 AM

An estimated 42% of former council homes which were bought under Right to Buy, with massive discounts, are now rented out privately, with rents far higher than those of remaining social housing.

In many cases tenants in such housing receive Housing Benefit, since their income from work is so low. This means the local authorit, which subsidised the sale of the houses, now has to subsidise the tenants living in those same houses.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 04:58 AM

The problem is not enough houses.
Who owns them is not an issue in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 05:32 AM

The problem is that we cannot continue to degrade our environment for ever.
The building process nowadays involves huge energy usage, a large proportion of building materials and components are imported into this country. The houses and their occupants produce waste in huge quantities, degrading land sea and air.

In many West Coast Scottish towns, houses are being bought as investments, and left empty for much of the year.
This destroys communities and adds to the shortage of houses available to local people.

We need a completely new housing policy, one which is not geared to marketing, but to the needs of society.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 05:36 AM

mean while the bbc refused to report Cameron[ in his student days] burning a 50 pound note in front of a homeless person, and interfering with a dead pig.
the B BBCare clearly pro establishment

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 05:48 AM

Keith - of course they desire water shortage - read up on Nestle.

Of course they desire famine - it raises the price of food.

Of course they desire disease - it raises the price of privatised medical treatment.

The present "fall" in unemployment is a fake. The extra "jobs" are not jobs at all, just poor people starving on zero hours contracts and the fake self-employed going bankrupt.

How can you be so wilfully stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 05:51 AM

You invent your own "contexts" for every conversation, Keith, which is why you are seen as an incredibly tiresome person. The point I made was about Thatcher initiating the sale of council houses which had been built with our tax money, sold off at massively discounted prices. No-one ever gave me a discount on the house I was buying at that same time when Maggie's policies whacked my mortgage interest rate up to 15%. Yes, for a time there was mortgage interest tax relief on a proportion of repayments, long since abolished, but the right-to-buyers got that too. Hardly anyone opted to buy the crappy Keith Joseph tower-block flats where I worked in Poplar and Walthamstow, I noticed. The undeserving poor got the grease, as ever. All the nice stuff with gardens on quiet estates sold off, much of it now in the hands of grabbing private landlords who buy with favourable mortgage deals and who are immune from rent controls. As Kevin says, we now have to subsidise those properties all over again with housing benefits, straight into the hands of the landlords, who put up the rents until the pips squeak. A nice clear channel for money to flow from the poor to the rich. Toryism, Keith, right up your right-wing alley, as you are demonstrating in this thread. If you wish to discuss the entirely separate matter of not enough house-building, start another thread.

"The neighbouring countries only provide the ground for the camps"

This statement is indeed a heady mix of ignorance, cluelessness and slander. The refugees in Turkey have cost the country $6 billion so far, rising fast, at least half of that straight out of central government budget. We have spent less than a quarter of that, and what we spend is mostly money diverted from our international aid budget.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 06:01 AM

I was never a supporter of the sale of council houses below the market price, though renting below market rates is accepted.

Had it not happened, we would have the same massive shortage of houses and it would still deepen every year as the population grows much faster than we could ever build.
That is why I say it is irrelevant in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 06:08 AM

If I make a point in a discussion you are welcome to respond to THAT POINT. Changing the subject to not enough house-building and pretending it has to do with Thatcher's purely ideologically-driven determination to turn Britain into a nation of capitalist, property-owning, share-owning stakeholders, at any cost, so that we'd all vote Tory for eternity, is just vexatious. Why am I not surprised that it comes from you? Right-wing, Keith, through and through.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 06:17 AM

Richard Bridge - Date: 21 Sep 15 - 09:27 AM

You see, Terribilis, left wingers think that "full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages" would be a good thing. Con-servatives and others think that it would be a bad thing, because then the poor would be less terrified of the powers of the rich and organised capital. It's quite remarkable how you can say what you do so soon after a coroner has officially found that the death of a person was due to the effects of government policy over benefits."

Only one major political party in the UK has a vested interested in maintaining and expanding those living in poverty in order to guarantee it voter base and that is the Labour Party - In Scotland the Labour Party has never done a thing to improve the lot of the "poor" in decades gone by they'd all vote for a donkey wearing a red rosette and the Party down in London knew that they always would - then along came the SNP and pissed all over that cosy little arrangement. Pity that the Labour voters down in England haven't cottoned on.

Housing? City and Town Councils could not afford to maintain their stock of houses, the tenants themselves had no interest or means in maintaining them and they were all rapidly turning into the self same rundown slums they originally replaced. The trouble with Socialists running things from a base of political dogma - ideology and a poor ideology at that does not meet the needs of real problems - that is why no socialist government has ever worked and it is why Corbyn will remain unelectable as far as the British electorate are concerned.

" GUEST,Fred McCormick - PM
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:46 AM

To everyone who responded to my posting about full employment, good quality housing etc.

I didn't say that conservatives don't believe in these things."

No-one mentioned conservatives Fred, I know I certainly did not - I asked you to prove evidence of ANYONE stating that "full employment, peace, good quality housing and a world free from famine, disease and water shortages are somehow bad - those were your words Fred so please can we try to stick to them in discussing this point. As far as I am aware no-one I know of has ever stated anything even remotely approaching that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 06:50 AM

" "liberal" agenda, support for the so called "Arab Spring"
You continue your attack on "liberals" and 'The Arab Spring' -fair enough with teh first one - you have more than proven you haven't a liberal bone in your body - your arguments are all from the extreme right.
The Arab Spring was a knee-jerk response against despotic feudal democracies probbed up by Western support - it deserved every ounce of support possible, even though it was a first tottering step, the alternative being to leave the despots in charge - apparently the west actually interfering with despotism carried out by the West;'s allies was out of the question.
Your constant sniding against those protests is further support for the despots - which makes sense, in your case.
Jim Carroll

A fair summing up of The Arab Spring, in my opinion.
The term was a reference to the turmoil in Eastern Europe in 1989, when seemingly impregnable Communist regimes began falling down under pressure from mass popular protests in a domino effect. In a short period of time, most countries in the former Communist bloc adopted democratic political systems with a market economy.
But the events in the Middle East went in a less straightforward direction. Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen entered an uncertain transition period, Syria and Libya were drawn into a civil conflict, while the wealthy monarchies in the Persian Gulf remained largely unshaken by the events. The use of the term the "Arab Spring" has since been criticized for being inaccurate and simplistic.
What Was the Aim of Arab Spring Protests?
The protest movement of 2011 was at its core an expression of deep-seated resentment at the ageing Arab dictatorships (some glossed over with rigged elections), anger at the brutality of the security apparatus, unemployment, rising prices, and corruption that followed the privatization of state
But unlike the Communist Eastern Europe in 1989, there was no consensus on the political and economic model that existing systems should be replaced with. Protesters in monarchies like Jordan and Morocco wanted to reform the system under the current rulers, some calling for an immediate transition to constitutional monarchy, others content with gradual reform. People in republican regimes like Egypt and Tunisia wanted to overthrow the president, but other than free elections they had little idea on what to do next.
And, beyond calls for greater social justice there was no magic wand for the economy. Leftist groups and unions wanted higher wages and a reversal of dodgy privatization deals, others wanted liberal reforms to make more room for the private sector. Some hardline Islamists were more concerned with enforcing strict religious norms. All political parties promised more jobs but none came close to developing a program with concrete economic policies
Was Arab Spring a Success or Failure?
Arab Spring was a failure only if one expected that decades of authoritarian regimes could be easily reversed and replaced with stable democratic systems across the region. It has also disappointed those hoping that the removal of corrupt rulers would translate into an instant improvement in living standards. Chronic instability in countries undergoing political transitions have put additional strain on struggling local economies, and deep divisions have emerged between the Islamists and secular Arabs.
But rather than a single event, it's probably more useful to define the 2011 uprisings as a catalyst for long-term change whose final outcome is yet to be seen. The main legacy of the Arab Spring is in smashing the myth of Arabs' political passivity and the perceived invincibility of arrogant ruling elites. Even in countries that avoided mass unrest, the governments take the quiescence of the people at their own peril.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 07:57 AM

"Only one major political party in the UK has a vested interested in maintaining and expanding those living in poverty in order to guarantee it voter base and that is the Labour Party"
The Labour party no longer the support of working people, nor most of the left.
It has chosen to ally itself with right wing Tory policies and has come to fully accept unemployment as a way of life for what they consider 'the lower orders'
Unemployment is not a creation of any party as a policy - it is the inevitable outcome of a system now on the rocks.
Thatcher systematically vandalised "crap" (in your estimation) British industry and in doing do, quadrupled the unemployment figures - not a policy - an outcome.
Labour, having accepted the values of the right, have embraced unemployment as a permanent feature of the system they support.
Unemployment is a creatiuon of the right - no particular party - one is equally as bad as the other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 09:30 AM

Steve,
If I make a point in a discussion you are welcome to respond to THAT POINT.

But THAT POINT was irrelevant to the subject which was refugee settlement.
Our massive housing shortage IS VERY RELEVANT!

Why am I not surprised that it comes from you? Right-wing, Keith, through and through.

It did not come from me.
I actually stated that I did not support that policy!

Once again you resort to name calling because you have no answer to what I actually say.
You can not find one single right wing view ever expressed by me.

You are an embarrassment to the left.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 10:04 AM

At last some realism fro Jim Carroll - yes unemployment is one of life's realities and it is not the deliberate policy of any shade of government to create it.

Another reality of life is that when governments are faced with taking tough decisions it is far, far better for the country as a whole that those decisions are taken there and then as opposed to the adoption of populist policies that just kick the can a bit further down the road in order to merely delay the inevitable.

British industry during the late 1960s and 1970s was "crap" Jim - on Steel I believe you stated it was the best in the world and that it only needed marketing - Sorry old son but if it was the best in the world as you, and others, claim then it would not need to be marketed as being the best in the world customers would be beating a path to the doors of British Steel in order to buy their fantastic products - truth was nobody was beating a path to the doors of British Steel because the steel they were making came at too high a price per ton, of uncertain delivery and inferior to what was on the market from elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 10:15 AM

well all i can say is there is nothing in the shops nowadays of the quality of the Viners cutlery i got as a wedding present in 1971.

you're talking bollocks Terry. i understand you've got right wing ideals, but it shouldn't tempt you to talk complete shit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 10:56 AM

Just after ten in the morning, 21 September, Keith. You said that everyone was in favour of good quality housing. Not lots of lots of housing. That was not mentioned. I do not agree that the Tories were that bothered about good quality housing. They sold off the good quality housing to the council tenants who were in the best ones, cut-price to the people they were wooing in order to turn them into into property-opening, Tory-voting capitalists. Simultaneously, she was selling off, again way below their value, the public utilities and (OK, later) the railways to get millions of people to buy cheap shares for the same reason. That stuff belonged to all of us, but the Tories sold it to the relative few who had enough spare dosh to make a quick buck. The crappy housing, that stayed crappy housing, was left to the poorest people in inner cities who were a lost cause to the Tories in terms of voting support. That's the Toryism that you support and don't want to discuss and that's what makes you right-wing. You helped to initiate the good-quality housing strand by saying everyone wanted it and that's what I responded to. You didn't not mention it, Keith, but then you hurriedly tried to dash off along a different track that you thought was more in your comfort zone. Actually, apropos of the terrible house-building record of all sides, I can't argue with you. But I can argue with your usual disreputable tactics that a lot of people around here find so bloody tiresome and dishonest. It is also very lame to suggest that we shouldn't take more refugees because of a housing shortage. They are not living in houses in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, are they, in their millions, but I suppose that, for you, they're far enough away for them to be of little concern. And you have the cheek to suggest that I should be looking up "humanitarian".

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 11:00 AM

"yes unemployment is one of life's realities!"
Not what I said - I said it is inevitable under the system we live in if you sign up to the values which that system adheres to.
Thatcher set out to make greed and acquisition respectable and in doing so, she split Britain very sharply in half - the haves and the have nots.
The divide she created has widened considerably (you've tried to claim that was not the case but have gone silent on that fact since you have been given the statistics).
Old Labour believed they could compromise with the system to lessen its effects on tho less well of, but since Blair, it has abandoned any pretence of supporting the people who created the party and have settle into holding office in one form or another, as 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition', or, if they can manage it, as part of a coalition.
Mass unemployment has become a permanent feature of British life, whoever is in power, and unless or until it rebuilds an industrial base, that will remain the case.
British industry was no more "crap" than the troops who fought in World War One were the liars you described them as.
Britain had an excellent manufacturing and engineering industry - it was sacrificed because it was cheaper to buy inferior goods and materials abroad, leaving us with nothing to sell and reliant on foreign imports.
We've seen the effects of a fucked-up, profit based economy through the continuing crises, financial balls-ups and political corruption - that's what the right has to offer.
It's the 'Patriotic' Right who claim our industry was crap and our workers parasitic no-marks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 11:10 AM

Steve,
Council houses were sold, but that did not change the quality of our housing stock one iota.
How could it?
Only the names on the deeds changed.
Nothing else.
It is an irrelevance but you keep banging on about it because you do not know what else to say!

It is also very lame to suggest that we shouldn't take more refugees because of a housing shortage.

The people here who would remain or be made homeless would not think it lame Steve.
Try to put yourself in their position, and not your comfortable position that you so love to keep telling us about.

You have yet to tell us what delicacies you returned to your lovely home with on the second day of the food fest., and which of the bountiful crop in your lovely garden will garnish them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 11:20 AM

"Britain had an excellent manufacturing and engineering industry - it was sacrificed because it was cheaper to buy inferior goods and materials abroad, leaving us with nothing to sell and reliant on foreign imports,"

Exactly, and we didn't particularly care about the terrible conditions of the workers who were providing those cheap goods so that Maggie and that bloody idiot Lawson could unleash the City spivs and pave the way to yuppiedom (sadly, his daughter's recipes are bloody superb).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 11:26 AM

So, Terribilis, you are now an expert on the quality of steel as well?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 11:32 AM

It's dead simple really. I worked for Worsley Urban District council building maintenance and then, after 1974, Salford City council. I followed that with a spate in City of Manchester direct works. What did they all have in common? They built and maintained houses for renting to those who could not afford to buy or rent in the private sector. They were massive organisations, run by left wing authorities that Thatcher saw as a direct threat to everything she for.

Then all the houses that they built and maintained for years were sold out under them. They stopped building, stopped repairing and the houses that were left after being sold to the tenants for peanuts were often, quite literally, given away to housing associations. The housing associations are interested in one thing only. Making money. They do not spend to build affordable dwellings, certainly not in the areas I worked in.

No-one can ever say what would have happened for certain but chances are, if the power to build and rent out housing had remained with the local authorities, they would have probably continued building on a scale that is unheard of amongst todays profit lead housing authorities. The housing shortage would have been addressed and the sheer profiteering that occurs in the south east would be nothing like it is today.

Steve is right. Selling off the houses may not have caused a direct shortage but it sowed the seeds for the absence of new social housing today.

Not that I expect you to believe that Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 11:35 AM

Yes it did change the quality of the housing stock, for the worse. Once you've sold off your good stuff, you can let the tatty inner-city stuff run down because the tenants you have left matter a lot less and won't fight back. I know this because I worked in the East End and Walthamstow in two of the toughest bloody schools in London, whose kids came almost exclusively from those shitty, run-down estates. I lived in one of them for three years as it happened, a very formative experience, a four-year-old old tower block, lifts not working and full of piss, whole floors no-go areas, heating system always bust. That's what Tories don't give a flying shite about, Keith. The undeserving poor. You haven't lived, have you, Keith. It takes the PC Blakelocks and the Damilolas to open people's eyes, and how bloody sad is that?

As for your stupid remarks about the food festival, etc., I won't dignify them with a response if you don't mind. You must be feeling desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 12:52 PM

We could have an interesting discussion about social housing, and perhaps we will, but I was talking about the severe lack of housing being an argument against inviting even more people to make the plight and suffering of those desperate for a home even worse.

There is an absence of any housing, never mind social housing.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 01:19 PM

As for your stupid remarks about the food festival, etc., I won't dignify them with a response if you don't mind. You must be feeling desperate.

Not desperate, appalled at your callous contempt for those who really are desperate.
"Lame" to express concern for them.

You haven't lived, have you, Keith.

You have no idea.
As ever you makes assertions based on total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 01:38 PM

But you know all about my lovely house and garden though. Are you God? I do know that you live in leafy, prosperous Hertford, though, a nice country town I know quite well. There, is that childish enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 02:01 PM

But you know all about my lovely house and garden though. Are you God?

No need for divinity.You have posted extensively about your life in a place I know well.

My life is now comfortable too thank you, but you stated, "You haven't lived, have you, Keith."
You have no idea.
As ever you makes assertions based on total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 02:07 PM

There is an absence of any housing, never mind social housing.

I thought we were talking about social housing. Council housing is what Social housing was called until it was taken into private care. It is also highly unlikely that refugees or economic migrants would be buying there own homes so surely it is ONLY social housing we are talking about. Isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 04:26 PM

No Dave.
Councils use private rented accommodation these days.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 04:51 PM

Salford council have nothing to do with housing. It is all handled by profit making organisations. The council do not use anyone as they have no control over them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 07:42 PM

"severe lack of housing being an argument against inviting even more people to make the plight and suffering of those desperate for a home even worse."
Some time ago a senior civil servant produced a report on immigrants which pointed out that there was plenty of room for more in Britain and that immigration has always been a great advantage to the country - the only party `to disagree with him publicly was the neo-fascist Nigel Farrago.
The report said that the only area of Britain that was overcrowded was the Greater London area and Home Counties - it also said that a problem with immigration was caused by ruthless employers using the newcomers to drive down wages.
In practical terms there is no reason those fleeing war zones should be allowed into Britain - The West, by pandering to feudal dictators, the West, Britain included, has played a major part in the crisis in the Middle East and the massive refugee crisis - and it continues to support those despots.
It also has a moral obligation to take in refugees - turning them away is equivalent to turning away Holocaust survivors after WW2..
Just as I have never been able to get my head around someone, claiming to be socialist, sneering when the people from feudalist countries try to remove their dictators, I find it equally impossible to understand "Christians" suggesting there is "no room at the inn" - not as bad Christian analogy.
Maybe we need a few more dead children pulled out of the sea to bring home the consequences of our governments' actions and inactions!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 08:03 PM

Five million refugees now in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, some of whom have been there living like animals for years. A similar number are displaced within Syria and many of them would give an eye tooth to get out. This has been a time bomb for years and we have done next to nothing. We can't expect those countries to look after all those people, who are not allowed to work, forever. The Keith-Cameron brigade think that trickling money to keep them in the camps is the answer. Well I don't. It's payback time for the west. We've screwed up their region and seen at least two countries bombed back to the Stone Age. All those people need houses, schools and hospitals, and there is no-one else going to provide them. And we ain't seen nothing yet. Millions more to come from there, and tens of millions more from places such as Bangladesh when rising sea levels (our fault again) flood half their country. Bad times ahead, and we are not ready.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 08:18 PM

"Bad times ahead, and we are not ready."
It has been calculated that unless evictions are not stopped to make room for Israeli settlers, and unless reparation is not paid for the damage done by last years invasion, Gaza will no longer be viable for occupation by the Palestinians - another mass exodus of refugees fleeing from a terrorist state - to where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 15 - 09:08 PM

And the EU indulges in the sort of tokenism that reminds me of when I were a little lad on Blackpool sands, stopping the tide coming in with a little row of sand castles made with my bucket and spade. I seem to remember having less than partial success. At least that tide went back out again. This one won't. Scary, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 03:01 AM

Should read
"Gaza will no longer be viable for occupation by the Palestinians by the end of the decade - less than five years from now"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 04:24 AM

There are many benefits from large scale immigration, mostly for government, employers and the well off.

There are difficulties too, but mostly born by the poor.
Those people the left used to fight for.
They see wages driven down, rents driven up, and work and any kind of housing much harder or impossible to find.

Perhaps I should be more like you people.
It will cause us no hardships and may make our lives even easier, so why should we care?

I thought that was a right wing attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 04:26 AM

Am I not understanding something you're saying, Jim? The government of Israel evicted all Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005. Are there new Israeli settlements moving into Gaza?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 04:29 AM

No.
Jim made that up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 04:39 AM

BBC on UN GAZA report.

"The Gaza Strip will not be "a liveable place" by 2020 unless action is taken to improve basic services in the territory, according to a UN report.
Basic infrastructure "is struggling to keep pace with a growing population", the UN Country Team (UNCT) in the occupied Palestinian territory said.
It estimates Gaza's population will rise from 1.6m to 2.1m by 2020."

"The UN report, "Gaza in 2020: A liveable place?", estimates the territory will need double the number of schools and 800 more hospital beds by 2020, and says it is already suffering from a housing shortage.
The report also says the coastal aquifer, the territory's only natural source of fresh water, may become unusable by 2016."

No Israeli settlers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19391809

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 04:54 AM

All those people need houses, schools and hospitals, and there is no-one else going to provide them.

The trouble is Steve that the developed countries can only provide them through economic policies that rely on ripping off the less developed countries. Those people (and the millions from Bangladesh) also need feeding and several developed countries (including the UK) only feed their people by buying food from abroad. Some of it from countries with lots of people who would rather be here and so joining us in ripping-off their own countries.

Bad times ahead indeed. I wonder if one way of making it less bad would be development (and overseas aid) polices that might make some would be economic migrants think that, in the long run, it might be better for their children and grandchildren if they struggled on at home.

Refugees is obvously different and a few million more in Europe probably wouldn't make much difference. My cynical view of Cameron's line of taking them from the camps is that those people are more likely to provide us with cheap labour than the better off and better educated ones who have made their way to Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 05:09 AM

"No Israeli settlers."
Israeli settlers have been displacing legal Palestinian ones for decades - of course "Israeli settlers"
Overall survey on Palestinian displacement
Amnesty International's report on displacement prior toi last year's bloodbath

"Record number of Palestinians displaced by demolitions as Quartet continues to talk

13 December 2011, 00:00 UTC

Israeli authorities have stepped up unlawful demolitions in the West Bank including East Jerusalem over the past year, displacing a record number of Palestinian families from their homes, an international coalition of 20 leading aid agencies and human rights groups said today. The statement comes as the Middle East Quartet meets in Jerusalem in its latest effort to revive peace talks. The sharp rise in demolitions in 2011 has been accompanied by accelerated expansion of Israeli settlements and an escalation of violence perpetrated by settlers, the groups said. The humanitarian and human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam International, are calling for the Quartet to hold all parties to the conflict to their international law obligations. The Quartet must, therefore, press the Israeli government to immediately reverse its settlement policies and freeze all demolitions that violate international law. "The increasing rate of settlement expansion and house demolitions is pushing Palestinians to the brink, destroying their livelihoods and prospects for a just and durable peace. There is a growing disconnect between the Quartet talks and the situation on the ground. The Quartet needs to radically revise its approach and show that it can make a real difference to the lives of Palestinians and Israelis." said Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International. The evidence of rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground includes:

Doubling the number of people displaced by demolitions: Since the beginning of the year more than 500 Palestinian homes, wells, rainwater harvesting cisterns, and other essential structures have been destroyed in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians, UN figures show. This is more than double the number of people displaced over the same period in 2010, and the highest figure since at least 2005. More than half of those displaced have been children for whom the loss of their home is particularly devastating.Accelerating settlement expansion: Plans for around 4,000 new settler housing units have been approved in East Jerusalem over the past 12 months - the highest number since at least 2006, according to Peace Now. In November, moreover, Israel announced plans to speed up construction of 2,000 new units in the West Bank including East Jerusalem.Sharp increase in settler violence: violent attacks by settlers against Palestinians have escalated by over 50% in 2011 compared to 2010, and by over 160% compared to 2009, the UN reports. 2011 has seen by far the most settler violence since at least 2005. Settlers have also destroyed or damaged nearly 10,000 Palestinian olive and other trees during this year, undermining the livelihoods of hundreds of families. The perpetrators act with virtual impunity, with over 90% of complaints of settler violence closed by the Israeli police without indictment in 2005-2010.Impending threat of forced displacement of Bedouin: Up to 2,300 Bedouin living in the Jerusalem periphery could be forcibly and unlawfully relocated if Israeli authorities follow through with their reported plans in 2012, which would destroy their livelihoods and threaten their traditional way of life. Rural communities in the Jordan Valley are also facing the prospect of further demolitions as settlements continue to expand.
"The Quartet should call ongoing settlement expansion and house demolitions what they are: violations of international humanitarian law that Israel should stop," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Israel's escalating violations show the fundamental failure of the Quartet's approach. It's time for the Quartet to understand that they cannot contribute to achieving a just and durable solution to the conflict without first ensuring respect for international law," said Phillip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Interim Programme Director, Amnesty International. "
The settlement situation from 2014
"On 30 June 2014, according to the Yesha Council, 382,031 Jewish settlers lived in the 121 officially recognised settlements in the West Bank, over 300,000 Israelis lived in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 lived in settlements in the Golan Heights.[28][29][30] In January 2015 the Israeli Interior Ministry gave figures of 389,250 Israelis living in the West Bank and a further 375,000 Israelis living in East Jerusalem.[31] Settlements range in character from farming communities and frontier villages to urban suburbs and neighborhoods. The four largest settlements, Modi'in Illit, Ma'ale Adumim, Beitar Illit and Ariel, have achieved city status. Ariel has 18,000 residents, while the rest have around 37,000 to 55,500 each."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 05:21 AM

I just don't think we've anywhere near got our heads around the inevitable future mass movements of our fellow human beings. At present we seem to be tinkering indecisively around the edges. One thing's for sure. Tens of millions of displaced people living in squalid tent cities will be completely unsustainable. Cameron's diversion of a little bit of our overseas aid budget to keep refugees at bay, and his piffling four thousand refugees per annum, smacks of nothing more than positioning himself for the coming anti-immigration onslaught from the right that is inevitable. We've already had don't-let-the-nasty-foreigners-in Farage scaremongering about IS terrorists embedded among the refugees. As a matter of fact, we've had one such scaremonger posting to that effect on this forum. It's going to be a very different world in a few years' time and we will fail to embrace that at our peril.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 05:23 AM

"There are difficulties too, but mostly born by the poor."
The only reason the poor are forced to bear the burden is that the powers that be refuse to touch the wealthy section of the population and pass it on to those least able to bear it - that is the society that has been created in Britain today.
In the same way, ruthless employers will use immigration to drive down the wages of the indigenous working population.
None of these facts lessens our moral and actual obligation to those seeking refuge and all the crocodile tears about the poor working man doesn't wash away those facts.
Supporters of the present British set-up are supporting the exploitation of the British workers and ducking the human responsibility by turning them against the refugees - that is what scum like Farrago and his crowd are about
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 05:44 AM

An "expert" on Steel am I Bridge? Can't remember ever making that claim so I doubt it but I'll take your word for it if you say so - after all you do pontificate and decree so much. However during the course of my working life I have probably had a great deal more to do with it than you have and almost all I have worked with has been foreign because it was better, was delivered to specification, on time and to budget.

Big Al - who makes the best cutlery is no metric at all to judge any nation's steel industry - it represents a tiny fraction of the market and is very low tech.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 06:04 AM

"In the same way, ruthless employers will use immigration to drive down the wages of the indigenous working population"

I take it you think "liberalism" or the LabourParty are going to fix that?....Vote for capitalism and you get capitalist policies.

The only advantage of having JC leading the party is that it facilitates the job of educating the public as to the true nature of real socialism.

You people live in fairyland, nothing is going to happen quickly or easily......and will mean sacrifices much more severe than we see at present.
If you are unable to accept that, start voting Conservative, as they run the capitalist system much more efficiently.

Trickle down socialists!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 06:14 AM

Steve, ISIS appear to be well organised and media savvy, it would be a miracle if they had not thought about utilising the evacuation of the Middle East and North Africa to post "sleepers".

I would reckon it is a racing certainty and not "scaremongering"

Mr Farage has been 100% correct so far in his warnings of the effects of unregulated immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 06:33 AM

Well done for outing yourself. Beats me naming names any day. Now tell us what you propose we do about the burgeoning tent cities. Shall we send them electric blankets and some Angel Delight?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 06:38 AM

"I take it you think "liberalism" or the Labour Party are going to fix that?."
No it isn't, but it might improve things as they are, which is the best we can hpe for as things stand
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you support the Scots Nats; a capitalist-supporting nationalist party?
"Mr" (the deference tickles me!) Farrago certainly had not been 100% right (except politically and you can make that ultra-right) on anything.
His alarmist pronouncements are akin to Eunuch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" rants' - maybe you thing he was right too.
" and almost all I have worked with has been foreign because it was better"
Take it that's the pots and pans in the galley?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 07:49 AM

"Take it that's the pots and pans in the galley?" - Jim Carroll

Whoops Troll that's another bad slip, you are giving your identity away. Besides I don't think they make pots and pans out of exotic steels, now the steels required to transport highly corrosive and toxic product is a different matter

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 08:05 AM

scaremongering about IS terrorists embedded among the refugees

PYD: Syrian refugee tripped by Hungarian journalist was member of radical al-Nusra Front

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Stu
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 08:17 AM

"as they run the capitalist system much more efficiently."

No they don't, they simply give it free reign to do what it wants regardless of the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 08:28 AM

"Besides I don't think they make pots and pans out of exotic steels"
A wry comment, nothing more, Mr Okehampton.
Your comment on British steel sums up the situation perfectly - poor administration due to it being run down over twenty years for political reasons gave an excellent, world class product the reputation which you and those who ran the industry down describe as "crap"
British Steel, just like the rest of British manufacturing industry, was sacrificed to Mammon on the altar of profit - greed triumphed over quality and the workers who dedicated their lives carried the (probably shoddily made cheaply bought from abroad) can back.
You and yours seem to revel in denigrating British products
Jim Carroll
I take it you know the story of the man named Woodcock who came up on the football pools and changed his name to Okehampton!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 08:58 AM

As long as he doesn't move to Okehampton. Too bloody close to me for comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 09:04 AM

Very dodgy link there, Guest-coward. Anyway, so what? What are you going to do with all the other 11 million who aren't terrorists, just ordinary human beings like me and (possibly) you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 12:12 PM

""as they run the capitalist system much more efficiently."

No they don't, they simply give it free reign to do what it wants regardless of the consequences."

That is exactly how capitalism runs most efficiently Stu, took me seventeen years to work that out and another sixty trying to convince my comrades that the "efficiency" was of very little benefit to them or society.......the problem was not the Conservatives, they knew and believed in what they did. It was the "trickle down socialists" like Jim and Steve, people who believe that minority "rights" validate a corrupt economic system.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 12:29 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 12:50 PM

Funny, when I worked in another country, making the control valves used in nuclear power stations, the steel for the top quality valves was specified to be British. Hands on stuff, Terribilis, as well as stock and quality control.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 01:05 PM

""trickle down socialists" like Jim and Steve,"
Don't you dare label my socialism as anything when I have at no time mentioned what it is.
I believe a socialist system would very much improve the lot of Britain - but I will never live to see it and when it does happen, it will be a very bloody, much resisted affair.
What we have been discussing is no winning socialism for Britain or anywhere, but improving the lot of British working people under the existing capitalist system - Corbyn might make that happen, on the other hand, he might be bought off with a company directorship or a seart in the Lords, as have many other 'workers' champions'.
It certainly wont happen by attacking the rights of homosexuals, or supporting one-policy racist parties like Ukip, or pro-capitalist Nationalists like the S.N.P., or setting worker against immigrant, or smearing middle-of-the-road moderates as 'liberals' or do-gooders, or cap-doffing to royalty.
Your contempt for Arabs who would attempt to improve their lot by opposing despotic feudalist is a pretty fair debunking of your claim to being a socialist.
All the socialists I have ever known have regarded themselves as Internationalists and identified with revolutionaries all o#ver the globe, no matter what their nationality, religion (if any) or means of winning a better and fairer life for their people.         
I never met one who opposed immigration, or sneered at womens' rights, or equality of status for homosexuals and other minorities - not one.
I asked you what your definition of Socialism was and where you stood on things like public ownership of the means of production and distribution - I received no reply - how exactly do you define your particular brand of socialism - it's certainly totally alien to anything I've either experienced or read?
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that I or Steve believe or have ever suggested that minority "rights validate a corrupt economic system."
The rights of minorities are essential to any society which describes itself as civilised and an absence of and opposition to those rights is a sure indication of that society being neither civilised or democratic - but those rights alone certainly do not make for a fair and equal society.
We make the best of what we can of the existing situation while working for a better one - we don't sit in our armchairs sneering at those who are happy to work for short-term gains - as you do.
I was an active trades unionists for nearly all of my workinhg life - I didn't for one minute expect it to being revolutionary change by working for decent working conditions and a living wage for me and my mates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 01:24 PM

Amen to all that. Let's face it, akenaton. If you're a socialist I'm the Queen of Sheba.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 04:33 PM

All REAL socialists make sure they get their priorities right.
You muppets have it arse for elbow.

Didn't you notice what that nice Mr Blair got up to in the name of Labour?.....The whole Party is rotten, eighty per cent of them would stab Mr Corbyn in the back to save their "liberal" hides.

Didn't you see the elder statesman Straw begging for money, he would sell his fucking Granny......If he's that bad what are the underlings like?....They are not one whit better than the Tories, just less honest.
Just like you pair of frauds.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 06:11 PM

Nurse...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 06:58 PM

Stop annoying the nurse Steve, dry in up yourself you dirty dog.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: GUEST,big al
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 07:45 PM

well its too bleeding hi tech for the present gang of charlies to produce as good knives and forks Terry.

Anyway i'd take Yorkshire Yankee's husbands word for it - he was a metallurgist at Sheffield University.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 15 - 08:19 PM

"All REAL socialists make sure they get their priorities right."
You have yet to say what yours are - which, I think, sums up your socialism.
Ypu have been asked to explain how your bizarre ideas equate with any existing form of socialism and resort to name-calling - your silence speaks volumes.
One more try eh - it's a reasonable request?
How do you define your socialism - and how do you square it with your support for extremist right-wing groups like Ukip, and the non-socialist SNP?
Game, set and match, I think.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
Yesterday, (22 Sep 15 - 08:18 PM ) you posted about Israel evictions in Gaza.

It was not true, and you ignored Joe questioning it.
Was it a deliberate lie, or did you believe it?
If you believed it, was if just ignorance of the situation in the region, or were you duped by all the lies on the anti-semite and anti-Israel sites?

Anyway, you should explain putting a falsehood on the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 05:02 AM

The EU have agreed to send aid to Syrian refugees in the region and to discourage migration to Europe.
That has been Britain's policy all along.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 05:27 AM

"It was not true, and you ignored Joe questioning it."
I did not suggest there were evictions in Gaza - I coupled the ongoing evictions in Israel with the destruction of Gaza by the Isreali regime - if you read the links that I posted (break a lifetime habit), you will see that is exactly what they say.
If the Israelis succeed, they will have ethnically cleansed Arabs from the entire area and not just Israel.
Do not accuse me of falsehoods, read what I submitted in their entirety and not just the bits that suit your support for a terrorist state.
"The EU have agreed to send aid to Syrian refugees in the region and to discourage migration to Europe."
Great - stay in the war zone and die where we can't see you and we'll give you some money
"That has been Britain's policy all along."
Of course it has - don't want those nasty foreigners over here taking our jobs and houses.
At least we won't have pictures of drowned children cluttering up our nice newspapers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 05:40 AM

i think to be honest Jim, there has always been this sort of odd miscegnation between lowly sections of british society with right wing organisations...our version of the white trash phenomenon.

the difference is in england we have quite a few second generation immigrants involved in setups like UKIP.

i guess, but i don't know, the leaders of all our political parties are a bit 'from another planet' socially. the 'bloke-iness' of Farage seems very effective. he has 'the common touch'.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 05:50 AM

That's just it. The EU's pathetic response to this crisis means that millions either have to stay in Syria, though displaced (five million and rocketing) or in the permanent tent cities from hell just across the borders in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and, for Christ's sake, Iraq (another five million and rocketing). The ones we see on the move and who make the uncomfortable news headlines are the tiny tip of a massive iceberg. You really haven't got your head round this, have you, Keith? You think that diverting a bit of our aid budget to make Cameron look tough on immigration is going to solve this, do you? Pigs might fly, Keith (I bet Cameron wishes now that one of his had done).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 05:53 AM

The Pope has the common touch too, Al, but that doesn't stop him from being the head of an organisation with some very nasty policies.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 07:07 AM

Jim,
It has been calculated that unless evictions are not stopped to make room for Israeli settlers, and unless reparation is not paid for the damage done by last years invasion, Gaza will no longer be viable for occupation by the Palestinians....

You did say it, and Joe queried it too.
You chose not to respond.

You now acknowledge that it is not true.
Thank you.

Steve,
You think that diverting a bit of our aid budget to make Cameron look tough on immigration is going to solve this,

I do not think that.
Solving it is beyond our grasp.
Moving the population is not a solution either.

The EU (left and right wing governments) recognise that helping the refugees in the region while working to make the place safe again is the best that can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 07:44 AM

Jim,
Great - stay in the war zone and die where we can't see you and we'll give you some money

Jim, in the camps they are safe from the war.
In making the journey to Europe, unknown hundreds, probably thousands, die where we can't see them.

If all countries sent aid like we do, they would not need to flee the region.

Only about half the migrants are from Syria anyway.
And only 13%women.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 07:58 AM

You're not listening. Around ten million Syrians have been displaced. Around five million are in tent cities living in terrible conditions. The people we see on the move are a tiny part of a massive humanitarian crisis. "In the camps they are safe from war". That's all right then. I suppose they're all sitting round cosy campfires singing boy scout songs.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 08:38 AM

I suppose they're all sitting round cosy campfires singing boy scout songs.
If you suppose that you are deranged!

"In the camps they are safe from war". That's all right then.
No. They are safe from the war, but far from all right.
Why do you make statements like that Steve?

You're not listening. Around ten million Syrians have been displaced. Around five million are in tent cities living in terrible conditions.

I do not need to listen to you. I Know!
I was trying to make an issue of this when just one million has been displaced.
See my attempt to get it discussed on the very first Syria thread, started by me.
It was you who was not listening.

The people we see on the move are a tiny part of a massive humanitarian crisis.
Yes. The ones with thousands to pay for the journey.

Around five million are in tent cities living in terrible conditions.

Yes, but they would not be living in terrible conditions if other countries gave as much as Britain.
Far more than any Eu state, second only to US, and in proportion to our GNP more than any country in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 08:54 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror (Syria, 2012)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 04:56 AM

New milestones.
Death toll now put at 70 000.
Refugees now reached one million.
7 000 fleeing Syria every day.



None of you had anything to say about it then.
I was listening.
You were not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 09:00 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror (Syria, 2012)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 07 May 13 - 03:10 AM

The refugee crisis is a humanitarian catastrophe.
No-one knows what to do.



Again, no reply or response from anyone.
You were not listening.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 09:26 AM

Well, apart from your twisting and wriggling and misrepresentations at 08.38 am, which everyone can see for themselves and requires no comment from me, you started the Homs thread for the specific purpose of having it back at the people you saw as critics of Israel. Your opening post said, gratuitously, "Israel is attacked at every opportunity while worse criminals, even those next door, get a free ride." That was your agenda, not bleeding heart sympathy for the plight of Syrians. So the thread went the usual way. If people don't respond, or respond negatively to you, it is because you are treated here as having extremely suspicious motives. As in the case of that thread.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 09:58 AM

Steve, there was no "wriggling and misrepresentations " in my post.
That is a misrepresentation!
Just actual, copied quotes.

When I started that thread there was not a refugee crisis.
Later (2013) there was and I posted about it, as you have seen.
No one was listening.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 10:03 AM

My full OP that thread, which you also misrepresent.

"I thought it about time the forum responded to this atrocity.
I condemn the action of the Syrian government, and China and Russia for supporting and supplying the heavy weapons being used with such indiscriminate abandon.
Mudcat is like UN General Council and agencies.
Israel is attacked at every opportunity while worse criminals, even those next door, get a free ride."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC bias
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Sep 15 - 10:23 AM

I think it is probably time for a beer...