Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« India cracks down on greens | Main | Interesting »
Tuesday
Jan132015

Those lovely BBC journalists

Most of the presenters on the BBC News Channel are a bit of an unknown quantity to me - anonymous, featureless, characterless. The exception was one particular guy, whose casual use of the d-word at the time of the Fifth Assessment Report marked him out as a campaigner rather than a journalist. I noted his behaviour and I have recalled it when he has appeared on my screen but that was the extent of my interest. The BBC is full of people who are campaigners rather than journalists.

That was until this morning when I learned that his name is Tim Willcox and he facing calls for his resignation, after some outrageous behaviour during the march for free speech in France.

A BBC reporter has faced calls to resign after he told the daughter of Holocaust survivors in Paris: 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'. 

Journalist Tim Willcox sparked anger during his coverage of yesterday's rally in Paris, held in memory of the 17 victims of last week's terror attacks, including four Jewish people in a siege at a Kosher supermarket.

Potty mouthed, bigoted, biased. He's probably due for promotion.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (171)

TBYJ "the rule of thumb is you should never say something in public you have heard unless that source is also verifiable"

So by your measure Hitchens shouldn't be defending David Irving and since certain people think we are deniers then calling us that is ok.

If individuals can say what they like then I assume you defend those who send death and rape threats through twitter? Or is is ok if they mean it?

Basically free speech is complicated. It's not all or nothing. You can always argue that what you want to say should be covered under free speech but you can't expect others to agree. If you join with others to shout down another, you are denying free speech, even if you are in the right. There is more than one way of silencing people than making PC rules and we all, I repeat WE ALL do it from time to time. So there's the conundrum - is it right to use your free speech to deny someone else free speech?

Jan 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

So if someone tells the truth about a political issue, they are torn apart and fed to the jackals. Wait, it was the jackals that have torn him apart. If you can look at what has been happening in the Gaza and have no compassion, YOU are the bigots. What happened in Paris is an ugly example of bigotry, true, and perhaps it is an inappropriate time to have discussed Gaza, but the death and destruction being dealt to people in the outdoor prison we call Gaza can only be ignored and alibied for by true bigots. Congratulations. you may not be climate deniers, but you sure as hell are sub human in your compassion. If you can look at a 6 year old child - any child - that has been shot, beaten and bleeding and get mad at the person that shows it to you instead of the person that did it, you sure aren't Christian.

Jan 13, 2015 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom O

Tom O
Nobody here has defended the killing of innocents. Quite the contrary!

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Re: James

Tom O believes that if you think Israel has the right to exist then you must also believe it is okay to kill Palastinion children.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

mailman, nobody I can see in the media is seeking to justify the murders in France on any level.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:23 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

I have never been particularly impressed with the BBC's (or CBC's for that matter) coverage of anything pertaining to Israel. Nor have I ever counted myself among those who believe that Israel is perfect and can do no wrong. No country is perfect!

FWIW, From what I know of Canada's treatment of the Native Canadian population and Israel's treatment of the Arab-Palestinians (and other minorities), I'd say that Israel's record is the better of the two.

Nonetheless, Mike Hasseler and Simon Hopkinson (and anyone else who might share their views of Israel) ... I wonder if you are familiar with Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine. Unfortunately Peters died today, but her book, published in 1984, is well worth a read.

Another book I would strongly recommend is Stephanie Gutmann's 2005 The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy.

Both are still in print and available on Amazon (but unfortunately not in Kindle)

But, if you're not into books ... for a quick overview, I came across an article today that you might want to take a look at The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian “Loss”.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:27 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

That Willcox, is an unconscionable little twerp, and worse a white middle class liberal bleeding heart, is clearly apparent. Willcox, however unfortunate his crimson tinted bespectacled views are - no matter what, he is entitled to his opinion.

What I object to, Willcox subjects us all to his bias and we have to fork out for it - so that he can project his world view into my living room [well - if you watch the bbc that is] - that's wrong, the BBC is wrong headed, a propagandizing organ and full of clones droning just like: Tim Willcox - he is among friends and he knows it.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

If you want to make cherry pie, you have to pick cherries.

If you want to rewrite history, you have to pick your dates.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Hilary, I'm familiar with the last piece you link but I disagree with it. I've discussed the same arguments (as presented by KenRG) but found the points I made were censored out, just as if I were posting at SkS.

I'm not anti-semitic, I'm not anti-islamic, nor pro-zionism nor pro-islamic state. I am, however, anti-apartheid and I'm afraid my views of Israel are biased by this principle - a principle I grew up with, and into, and which I am sure by now I cannot be dissuaded from. I appreciate that you and I have wildly different perspectives on this matter, and I both respect and celebrate that.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:44 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Ahh, the irony of it all. A stupid BBC reporter says something that is actually true because Palestinian children do suffer thanks to policies of the government of Israel, which claims the mantle of acting on behalf of Jews, many of whom actually oppose some of the Gaza actions taken by their government. And for this he is supposed to be sacked? But wasn't one of the issues that the march was about the issue of freedom of speech?

Why is it that both sides tend to put up with illogical behaviour when it suits their narrative while pretending that the other side is totally different?

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterVangel

Hilary Ostrov

You seem to think that the Israeli confiscation and ejection of Palestinians from their land is somehow justified by the Canadian expropriation of native people there in the previous century!

So might is right?

Well in a nuclear armed world such a policy is madness.

Much of the present resentment of Muslims must arise from righteous indignation of how the Palestinian people have been treated.

Until this festering sore is addressed the world will witness more of the mindless violence of the ISIS lunatics and the more sophisticated vicious violence of Benjamin Netanyahu and his military machine.

Jan 13, 2015 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

Tiny

So by your measure Hitchens shouldn't be defending David Irving and since certain people think we are deniers then calling us that is ok.

I don't follow your logic. David Irving has some sort of theory he thinks is true. He is perfectly at liberty to say what he thinks. What he thinks is almost undoubtedly wrong, but is it actually libel or slander? Should he be imprisoned for saying something that is not actionable? Are there any Jewish businesses or individuals who can prove a financial hurt by his words? Has he actually hurt anyone, or just offended them.

My logic still stands. He should be allowed to say objectionable things as long as they don't hurt someone else (and by hurt I don't mean hurt feelings). And by extension, Hitchens should defend his right to say it in a free world.

Your use of 'denier' actually alludes to this very point. Many many people find our views (that we should not act hastily on climate change because it's not proven) as very, very objectionable and offensive. By your logic, because we offend a lot of people, it should be fine to lock us up, in the same way as it's fine to lock up Irving or whoever else says something that offends many people.

You are arguing the side of our oppressors - those who LOVE to shut up their critics.

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

As for rape threats, those are crimes. It is not free speech to threaten violence on someone. Your definition of free speech is becoming in increasingly larger strawman.

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I was at the gathering in our Provincial town in France on Sunday along with about 2000 other people and I don't suppose more than 100 or so had even read Charlie Hebdo ( Most of us rebels read the Canard) However that was not the point of the assembly. The words "Je suis Charlie" are symbolic, not factual. We were there to emphasize the right of French citizens not to be shot dead by extremist thugs at their place of work irrespective of whom they might have offended by written or spoken words. Those who disagree can take all the usual remedies, letters to the editor, placards, sit ins, strikes, boycotts etc etc but we do draw the line at shooting people dead. People do seem to have lost sight of the fact that the workers and customers in the Jewish Supermarket were nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo. The Policewoman on traffic duty had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo and was not even Jewish. The other policeman (A cycle cop...our equivalent to a bobby on the beat) was a muselman and was shot whilst lying wounded and unarmed in the Street by a murderous thug. So quite how Mr Willcox equates any of those events, and the death of 16 French citizens to the actions of a foreign government in the middle east I cannot imagine. He must have been right at the front of the queue when stupid was handed out and right at the back when common decency ran out.

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

Some very interesting debating points and counters.

If nothing else the tragedy of Charlie Hebdo and equally innocent collateral, whilst sadly not as unique a watershed as a now exercised media seems to now feel, has forced a few inconvenient matters into the spotlight, not least the odd concept of 'slightly pregnant', along with all associated caveats, parameters, exemptions and ever-growing queues of who arbitrates and, ironically, who does not get to.

On the matter of state broadcaster staff, the notion of free speech is undoubtedly a tricky one, but surely the simple professional distinction between what is relevant and what gets added by way of opinion (it appears a fair bit) does have a bearing?

The BBC, and staff, do have some form here, especially with control of the guests, the questions posed & modding, the replies allowed and, if necessary, the post-production. Unlike a QT, Sunday Morning, Vine Show, Today or Newsnight, the first was a bit of a wild card, and so it was things went in unexpected directions. But surely you don't seek to 'correct' a person answering a personal question by pulling in a policy stance in counter that simply has no bearing?

There is also the matter of inconsistency, though the BBC and most staff seem very consistent in which way they will fall if pushed.

It is not hard to recall some staff who have perhaps marched to the beat of a different drum, relatively-speaking, who have suffered swiftly for comments made in private where others have seen great forgiveness for very public 'slips'.

The trouble with multiples of standards is it soon becomes hard to keep track of which apply and which do not.

And currently the very well paid senior management seem very silent on a lot of things those under them may feel needs guidance from on high that they can work with.

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJunkkMale

This is way out of line....The guy said..."'Many would claim Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'. He did not say "'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'. This not anti-semitic and it is not incorrect. Its a statement of fact. To call for this guys resignation only goes to prove that the so called freedom of speech we apparently enjoy in this country is highly modified by very powerful lobby groups etc. He simply has no case to answer.

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterkevin king

@TBYJ

Irvine has never been taken to court for libel regarding his views on the holocaust (although he did try to bring an unsuccessful case against Penguin Books - the court found him to be an antisemite and racist). However he was sued for libel by Captain Jack Broome for his 1968 book about the destruction of Allied Convoy PQ17. He was found guilty, and the settlement was the largest ever awarded by a British court until the 1980's.

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Bryan,

The Arab/Persian world couldn't give a rat's arse about Palestinians. If it did it would be doing everything it could to ensure Palestinians would live peacefully with Israel.

No, to the Arab world the Palestinians are just a convenience to be used to justify murdering Jews for the crime of being Jews.

The only land the Arab world is interested in is ALL of Israel simply because it is Israel's mere existence that gets them all worked up!

The ONLY way to appease them is for Israel to no longer exist and for all Jews to be dead.

Secondly, it is the Palestinians themselves who have no true desire for their own state. Had they truly wanted a functional state they could have had that years ago. Instead tying their demands to things they know Israel will never cede (right of return and half of Jerusalem) that they will never have to make meaningful concessions to Israel..


Given their complete lack of interest in a functional state we should instead be investing our time and money in a people who actually want to control their future, the Kurds!

Regards

Mailman

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

Its worth remembering that infamous 28 meeting at the BBC was closer to preaching to already converted then it was to a game changer for the why the BBC covered 'everything '

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Kevin,

Given the fact that Jews had just been murdered for the crime of being Jews the guys comments we're hugely inappropriate. There is a time and place for everything BUT this wasn't the time and place for playing the moral equivalence card.

What makes this particularly galling is that the type of question asked by the reporter is never asked when it's something sensitive to Muslims being discussed...and hence lies the problem with the BBC. It protects causes it believes in and shields them from criticism (Islam, the EU, Mann Made Global Warming (tm) for example) while showing no respect to those issues, causes, beliefs that it disagrees with.

It's also the ease of such comments, the almost casual anti-Semitism that's equally disgusting. As I said earlier swap Jew with Blacks, gays, Muslims and the guy would be out on his ear without a second thought.

Will anything happen to this man? Of course not but he won't be protected because the BBC believes in free speech. He will be protected because in the eyes of the leftist BBC some faiths, races, beliefs ARE considered second class and Jews are one of those the BBC considers unworthy.

Mailman

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

The notion of adding 'Many would claim' to [anything I fancy taking a punt with] is understandably attractive, but does lead to dubious precedent, albeit one already well appreciated by too many who should know better, and keen to conflate two totally different things with specious interjection citing anonymous source sets in hope it acts as sufficient degree of separation.

In the spirit of free debate, this supposedly objective professional broadcaster does still have a case to answer as the apology was lacking and there now appears a trend... in my opinion.

I hope this is still how debate in line works.

FWIW, I think he should remain in place. He seems to be where he serves best.

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterJunkkMale

TBYJ “As for rape threats, those are crimes.” Exactly, as is denying the Holocaust in Germany and Austria.

David Irving's theory gives energy to a group who think the Germans were unfairly punished for a Holocaust that he says didn't happen. This builds a desire for revenge against the Jews. It helps resurect the Nazis. As we've seen with Muslin extremists, say enough words and somebody will decide to act upon them. Words are not harmless. Since denying the Holocaust in many places is not illegal he was free to do as he wanted. He went to somewhere where he wasn't free to spout those views (and was already the subject of an arrest warrant) and landed himself in prison. Tough.

Calling us deniers is an attempt to generate hatred too and no, I don't support it. I'm the one saying free speech should have limits remember? If their hostility led to physical harm, I'd be calling for the warmist community to be warned that they were inciting violence and should stop. If they decided to change the law and make scepticism illegal, they'd have to prove in court that a) CAGW is real, not just might be and b) sceptic debate has led to a significant change in policy, thus threatening the future. That's assuming that they could get the law changed in the first place. At the moment it's perfectly legal to say what you like about AGW and much though they grumble, the warmists know it. Since at least 50% of our population is sceptic it would be very hard to get MPs to pass such a law, even if one of them felt bold enough to try.

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TBYJ @ 2.09: You misunderstand - I was not referring to legal consequences. As you acknowledge- the legal system has only tangential relationship with truth (or lies). I was referring to the reaction of your audience. If you know how they will react then this must surely be what you intend. You are manipulating and more fool them for being manipulated - even if they want to be. Of course, if you are just sounding off with no thought about it then, as I discovered generations ago, a punch in the gob is a learning experience. So is being on the output end of a Kalashnikov. Ivor Ward @ 4.18 keeps the perspective. Murder is Murder and that's all there is to it, and if you find yourself engaged in it, even as a matter of necessity or duty, the question is - do you hate it or love it.

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenese2

Jan 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterkevin king
".The guy said..."'Many would claim Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'. He did not say "'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'.This not anti-semitic and it is not incorrect. "

ISRAELI hands is not anti semitic. JEWISH hands most certainly is. Judaism is a religion and a race it is not a Government.

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

Clips released so far seem not to show the beginning of the interview, and I want to know what she previously said to him. If, as I could well imagine, she brought Israel into it,that would put the matter in a rather different light.

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Neal

If the BBC wanted to be unbiased wouldn't it simply fire such an appalling reporter?

Here is a short (45 seconds) interesting example of the BBC using the same video with different audio tracks - though both sequences pretend to be live action. Hence one or both of these broadcast segments is a fraud. (And this footage is currently used in a self-congratulatory advert by the BBC! The BBC are brazen about their propaganda).

http://youtu.be/RFPJYtvtHaQ

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

I wouldn't call his statement necessarily anti-Semitic, but it's odious suggesting to someone who has just helped bury victims of terrorism that her fears are unfounded because other people have a different perspective.

Jan 13, 2015 at 5:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterrabbit

wy do we have a taxpaidfor bbc?

is it to get higher quality reporting??

=> FAIL

Jan 13, 2015 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered Commentervenusnotwarmerduetoco2

Dear Andrew

Sorry to trouble you. It appears that my email address and password are operational however I cannot log in because I am supposed to activate my account. The activation email was probably sent to me many months ago if not longer. I would like to complete the registration but if its a problem then please don't worry.
Regards

Stuart

Jan 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterStacey

Tiny CO2 says at 5.05pm "Words are not harmless", and that may be the key phrase in all the above thoughtful contributions.

I'll say at once: Je ne suis pas Charlie. I was shocked when I heard Cameron say he was going to France to show his support for the 'standards' of Charlie Hebdo. It is a shocking, puerile, vicious, blasphemous little rag, with few redeeming features. Showing solidarity with the murdered, the bereaved, the injured, and condemning the hateful resort to murder I can support wholeheartedly.

The arguments above show how nearly impossible it is to legislate "freedom". You always come up against the problem of conflicting 'freedoms'. A million people marched in Paris last year to protest the redefinition of marriage. I don't recall the BBC giving that march blanket coverage. Should Brandon Eich have lost his job because he supported traditional marriage? How does freedom work there? Why is the BBC journalist not free to ask what he percives to be a relevant question?

We seem to be determined to adopt a continental legal approach allowing one to do only that which is allowed, where the historical approach in Britain has been to allow anything that is not expressly forbidden. The latter approach gives much more 'freedom' but you still have the issue of individual 'rights' conflicting.

You cannot legislate this. It comes down to each individual recognising that they are not just individuals, but have an effect on others, and a responsibility to and for others. Should Charlie H be allowed to publish their lavatorial diatribes? Of course. Should they publish it? I don't think so. Not because it would offend me, or others, but because they should not want to offend me, or others.

Words are not harmless. So we should use them carefully. A really free society is one where people exercise their right to not say things.

The three French republican exclamations Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, provide a guide. It defines Liberty as the freedom to do anything that does not harm others - rights have no bounds other than to guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. It is the last, brotherhood, that is the mark of a truly free society. When we can all disagree, but respect each other as brothers, then you have freedom.

Jan 13, 2015 at 6:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Mailman says....."The Arab/Persian world couldn't give a rat's arse about Palestinians."

I agree and add that all Governments (East and West) are in the same boat.

Any time the the United Nations propose some resolution criticizing Israel the USA veto is used to squash it and all this without consequences.
The problem is brushed under the carpet until the next massacre happens

Young people increasingly equate Israel with Apartheid South Africa.
Its not hard to see Gaza as some kind of grotesque prison where the inmates are prodded periodically to add to their misery.
Perhaps the young will pull us out of this apparent unconcern for the new victims of ethnic cleansing.
Zionism is not popular with students in the UK

As a lapsed communist I hope that all humanity will share equally the outrage at ALL discrimination against those of a different religion,race or nationality.

If all religions and none condemn injustice then we can isolate the lunatic gunmen.

Climate realists know that freedom of expression is healthy and is not often practiced at the BBC

It should be noted that unit responsible for the Paris massacre learned their trade in Turkey and Syria with the active connivance of the Western Powers.
Its barely a year ago that Cameron wanted to bomb Syria.

This after Libya Iraq and Afghanistan?

Wake up before its too late!

Jan 13, 2015 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

Ah, the old "many would claim" or "some say" species of journalistic laziness. There is a great clip somewhere on youtube of Margaret Thatcher being faced with one of these hypotheticals. She replies "But who said this?" and of course the journalist cannot answer, because he was just using it as a way of asking a "gotcha" question. She persists, asking again - yes, but who are you actually quoting, and so on, until the fool is in complete disarray.

On the broader question, there is no equivalence whatsoever between a bunch of people in Paris being murdered in cold blood because of alleged insults, plus others with no involvement whatsoever, and the long-running war on Israel's border. That is precisely the kind of cowardice and foolishness which has encouraged terrorists all over the world to commit unspeakably evil acts of violence.

So, this taxpayer funded idiot is not only a lazy and sloppy journalist, he is putting up strawman arguments straight from the terrorists' script. But as many politicians have been doing the same, it's hardly surprising.

Jan 13, 2015 at 6:51 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

"Potty mouthed, bigoted, biased"
Classic Broadcasting Bloody Communism (BBC) material.

Language (Spanish) degree from Durham, so knows a lot about science and politics.

Typical BBC airhead.

Jan 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Johanna +1 on your comment on "many say".
it was my German nationality teacher who taught me French in grade 9 who devoted a whole lesson to "freedom". his take "Freedom is not that you can do what you like. Freedom is that you can do what you like, but you don't hurt people."
His English was a bit lumpy.
Too many clubs in the world, too much over sensitivity, and too much unnecessary offensiveness.

Jan 13, 2015 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Cruickshank

"Its not hard to see Gaza as some kind of grotesque prison where the inmates are prodded periodically to add to their misery."

A prison where the inmates fire rockets into the adjacent town? That doesn't even happen here, and we have some pretty rough prisons.

Jan 13, 2015 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterBloke in Central Illinois

Last week "I'll ride with you" was all the rage, this week it's "je suis Charlie".
where do I buy the shirt that says "je suis Charlie, I'll ride with you" ?

Jan 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Cruickshank

All the marches and high sounding words after the Charlie Hebdo killings have been so much posturing and that's about as far as it will go.

Free speech is a complex matter; the bit of Socratic discussion here has been thought provoking, but probably won't make much difference either.

But I have thought of one thing that I'd like to see implemented at ABC, BBC, CBC and any other supposedly impartial, publicly funded BCs out there: any time a news reporter's words express his own views, a sum equal to (say) twice the commercial advertising rate at that time is deducted from his salary (a higher price so that the BC won't become a commercial channel by the back door). That would seem a reasonable disincentive to the tendentious.

Jan 13, 2015 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Swan

Bryan
Oddly for most people in Gaza life was better when it was actually occupied Israel.
Its was only after, Hamas took over , and decided that the killing of Jews was more important than helping their own people that things really went wrong . Has for all the years whne it was run by Egypt , oddly that was no call for any Palestinian to be set up then , that only came after the Arabs once again failed to drive the Jew into the sea and Israel took over the area.

Jan 13, 2015 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

The BBC, like the British and almost every other European government, holds the position that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam no matter what the terrorists themselves say. However, anything that Israel does that the BBC and Western governments disapprove of, whatever the provocation, is something to do with Jews everywhere unless those Jews explicitly disassociate themselves from those acts.

Such is the utter hypocrisy of the politically correct. Tim Wilcox is a good example but is by no means unique. The problem is not unique to the BBC either. Jon Snow of Channel 4 News is another example and it would be possible to find lots of examples in most of the "quality" newspapers too.

Jan 13, 2015 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

TheBigYinJames (Jan 13, 2015 at 12:04 PM):

Free speech does not mean "free from all consequences"
I will accept, as, in using your right to free speech, you may have to tolerate a response from someone who does not agree; however…
– all it means is free to speak the truth.
is what I disagree with; it is free to speak your mind, freedom to express your opinions, whether right or wrong, irrespective of truth, without the risk of state retribution; something that has existed in this country for longer than perhaps any other, yet many would gladly discard it for the illusion of security.

Anyone who says, “I believe in free speech, but…” is lying.

Jan 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Re: TerryS

Tom O believes that if you think Israel has the right to exist then you must also believe it is okay to kill Palastinion children.

Actually, TerryS, that isn't what was said at all. I said if you can condone shooting and beating of a 6 year old, you have no compassion, and it doesn't matter if it is a Palestinian child or a Ukrainian child or any child. If you can condone it, you have the morals of a rock - no, that is unfair to the rock. And there is no mention of whether Israel has a right to exist. Why is it that if you believe Palestine which was there has a right to what the UN said belonged to it, you are always thought to say that Israel has no right to the land that was given it? Apparently you can't believe that both nations have a right to exist where as I do.

Bloke in Central Illinois says -

"Its not hard to see Gaza as some kind of grotesque prison where the inmates are prodded periodically to add to their misery."

A prison where the inmates fire rockets into the adjacent town? That doesn't even happen here, and we have some pretty rough prisons.

Nor do those pretty rough prisons where you live have the guards periodically bomb hospitals and schools within the prison to incite the inmates who fire toy rockets by comparison, back on occasions. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Hard to figure that one out too. Normally bad begets bad, but hitting some with a rock or a rolled up newspaper shouldn't begat a rifle bullet or rifle butt in the face.

It's time we supposedly "civilized westerners" stopped pretending it is alright to mistreat and degrade those that we consider "beneath us." History has a tendency to let those at the bottom rise to the top. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually stopped pretending all people are equal and started acting that way, before the shoe is on the other foot?

Jan 13, 2015 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom O

Most of the presenters on the BBC News Channel are a bit of an unknown quantity to me - anonymous, featureless, characterless.

You forgot : unprofessional, incompetent, deskbound and lacking integrity.

Jan 13, 2015 at 9:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Tom O - Easy to say from where you sit. No rockets landing in your backyard.

Jan 13, 2015 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBloke in Central Illinois

The Israeli government created Hamas according to Prime Minister Olmert in the Jerusalem Post.

"Netanyahu established Hamas, gave it life , freed Sheikh Yassin and gave him the opportunity to blossom"

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=51303

Wall Street Journal:- How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

How Sharon and the Likud Party nurtured the rise of Hamas and benefit from its terrorism

In 1987, with secret funding from the Village Leagues and even Mossad military training, Yassin established a military arm of the Islamic Association that he called Hamas.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania46.html

Jan 13, 2015 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Tom,

It is a war crime to use hospitals to protect your military infrastructure from attack by the enemy. Hamas has set it's main military HQ up in Al Shaef hospital, which just happens to be the main hospital in Gaza.

It is also a war crime to attack a hospital, as Hamas did during its last war with Israel...oh hang on, that was only accidental as the rockets that hit the hospital and the children's play ground we're in fact supposed to hit Jewish targets so I guess that doesn't count.

It's also a war crime to deliberately place civilians in the line of fire as Hamas did and continues to do in its genocidal war of extermination against all Jews. More over Hamas deliberately places it's civilian population in harm's way for the sole purpose of using their deaths for propoganda, which sadly the western media is only to happy to lap up willingly and blindly.

Bryan, you mentioned apartheidt which I'm happy you brought up. You are right, apartheid does go on BUT its not in the manner you believe it to be.

The fact is Jews are BANNED from praying at their most holy site to protect Muslim sensitivities. Jews cannot move freely within their own religious areas yet there is no restriction on Muslims from visiting the temple mount. Could you imagine the out cry from lefties if Muslims were banned from praying on the temple mount? Also we know what happens to Jews who campaign to have the basic right to pray at their holiest site, yes that's right they get shot by outraged Muslims.

Further more, seeing as you are through the ethnic cleansing libel about. Israel did ethnically cleans one area....that area was Gaza as EVERY SINGLE Jew was removed from Gaza, many forcibly in the search for peace.

This would make Gaza one of the few, if not the only, place on the face of the planet that is completely and utterly Jew free!!!

So given the chance to actually run their own state what did the Palestinians do? They started rocketing Israeli cities and voted in an organisation committed to the extermination of the Jewish state. It was only after Hamas came to power the Israel closed its border and enforced its blockade, as every nation has the right to do. Let's also not forget that Egypt has a border to Gaza which they also blockade BUT in the mind of the rabid Jew hater (and the BBC although to be honest it's hard to tell the two apart at times) this border doesn't exist.

So while your talking points might earn you a few points with the brain dead left the reality is Gaza is as it is because that is exactly the way Hamas wants it to be.

Mailman

Jan 13, 2015 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

mailman

The Mossad created Hamas precisely to create these arguments against the rightful owners of the region. Also to destroy the PLO and divide the Palestinians. Israel is a cancer, not just in Palestine, but the entire middle east with their American bodyguards

Jan 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

Maybe Mr. Tim Willcox should be tasked with doing a special report on Mohammed’s image before he goes - here's a link for him to start with -

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

I post this only for those who will not be offended and enjoy freedom, for all others look away now!

Jan 13, 2015 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered Commentertom0mason

tom0mason

Did Mohammed own slaves, have sex with him and enslave his own children ? Like that great freedom fighter, Thomas Jefferson ?


Samuel Johnson on Americans


"Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging."

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?"

Jan 13, 2015 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

Is that the same Jewish hands that annexed East Jerusalem in the eighties and then claimed all of it as their capitol?

Not the best set of comments I've seen on this site.

Jan 13, 2015 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

"Well on this occasion I must support Mr. Willcox. His words were, 'Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.'" (MikeB)

You have completely missed the point. Even if you condemn Israel's self-defence (which I don't), Willcox didn't criticize Israel specifically. He explicitly attacked Jews: "Jewish hands". Anti-Semitism could hardly get more blatant.

Jan 13, 2015 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>