MilitaryForums.co.uk

Fair enough May18. I'll accept that. That seems like a reasonable, level headed assessment. I think our different opinions can at least meet a compromise on that one.

PM it's interesting to watch the BBC news agenda change over the space of 12 hours. Prior to the war some items were broadcast about the Firemens strike, which was ongoing at the time, as the day progressed the whole tone of the information was subtly changed and editied, until by the end of the day it was not recognisable as the same piece of journalism provided at 0700. Bias exists within the BBC, scorn and mockery of our armed forces and police structures are endemic; it is only when confronted that htey back down and state we do this in an effort to provide balanced reporting.
At least with Murdoch you know what you are getting, with a 'neutral' BBC it all depends on the luvvie behind the producers desk.
Come the revolution they will be the first in line.

El Pres,

You’re absolutely right. You do know what you get… unreliable crap! I’m sorry; I don’t get your argument. One may not appreciate any rhetoric on BBC, if any, but it’s not that intense in comparison. Is any news medium entirely neutral? Fox is 10% reporting, 90% spin, Fox coverage (prior to war) is 2% international, 98% domestic and as far as relevance goes, 65% is relevant news, 45% is irrelevant. (i.e. – Pledge of Allegiance issue, should women play in the Masters, or bash someone in Hollywood for 20 minutes. Boring!) At least with the BBC one has access to excellent world wide coverage and this coverage involves prevalent issues that have significance and bearing.

Remember, the Labour party in Britain holds 62.5% of the house in a parliament of 10 different parties! (A government majority of 166 seats and twice the seats of the second party.) Even Republicans in the US with essentially 2 parties don’t have that kind of majority. My point is; the BBC is state subsidized and so it’s no surprise to me that it reflects the affiliation and opinion of the majority of British people. Don’t forget, most people in Britain showed little support for the war. If you switch the news on in Kuwait, one will likely, and understandably, get news with a positive perspective toward Coalition efforts.

Besides, the BBC thing is a side issue. The point at hand is why 19 British soldiers have been killed, in almost as many days, as the result of friendly fire? In answering this question, I think it is fair to suggest that the US soldier's approach: ‘First to fire… last to think,’ carries great culpability. Now tackle this argument.

P.S. El Pres. Revolution? Please explain.

@Prime minister

I respect your opinion abe, but the bbc is anti british imho. A good example would be the question time i watched recently.
The panel comprised all major members of the parties, and the @non political@ member was a leading member of the socialist workers union.
Hrdly a neutral voice in a debate.
The @representative@ audience were all anti-war (fine) and anti british forces. When one panel member said @i thnk we can all be proud of the proffesionalism of our forces and the restraint they have shown@, he was jeered by some, clapped by none. NOT typical of a representative audience at all.

The bbc reports of basra that ive seen were startling in contrast to other media outlets. I have seen very little coverage of the people there celebrating on the bbc, or our soldiers being given flowers etc. Despite the fact this happened. I have however been fed lots of footage purporting the @inability of british troops to maintain order@.

I think the bbc is a reflection of how our society has changed over the last twenty years. I remember the falklands conflict. Every second house flew the flag, people were glued to the tv, frantically worried about the lives of the men out there. And there was immense pride in their bravery and sacrifice.

Today its a different story, if you fly the flag now, you are rascist. I have a flag flying now at home and im expecting at any time to be told to take it down. Suggestions that we should be @backing the troops@ are derided. The first time i saw someone on the bbc saying our soldiers are @murderers@ it made my blood boil.

So, i think we will have to agree to disagree.

prime minister, the whole "el prez" and "revolution" thing was started in a discussion about how much of a bad job the president and prime minister of both USA and UK were doing, if I remember correctly, and we held a kind of election for a new president.

at the same time, the was a discussion on going about a competition for Rob Parry's user name to be changed. it seemed fitting that the two things should join, so Rob Parry is now known as El Prez. (el presidente, viva el presidente!)

and the revolution was a thwarted attempt by me to seize power from this tyrant, but then it all backfired and I went and hid in the welsh hills. since then, it has been generally acknowledged that El Prez in on medication.

answer everything?

Not quite, just exaclty how medication is he actually on?

Thank you for your response May18. I don’t think I can swallow the notion that the BBC is blatantly biased, however, I’m still open to persuasion. Maybe, as was suggested to me before once, there is a difference between BBC World Service coverage and local British BBC coverage. I haven’t lived in Britain since ’95, although I visit every year. I listen to BBC WS religiously and it strikes me as being so neutral and fair in its broadcasting, one gets a real feeling that they make a concerted effort to make their news as balanced as possible. It is also incredibly informative. I honestly feel the quality and wide range of World Service coverage is unparalleled. I do find your perspective very interesting/surprising though.

As far as the Flag thing goes I find that very disturbing and unsettling. I remember patriotism in Britain being very low in ’95 and I was often singled out for expressing British pride in anyway. I did feel though after the huge VE day celebrations things improved and I was also enthused by the outpour of support during the Jubilee celebrations. Ironically I am able to express British pride more now here in the US than when I was in Britain. I wish the government (UK) would do something to encourage national pride, not as a way to make others feel ostracized, but as a common identity to establish a shared unity between all British peoples. (Black, White, Indian or Pakistani). Supporting the troops is almost completely detached from supporting the war. The politicians decide whether to engage in war and the military simply carries out their decision. (Whether it is stay at home or go to Iraq.) It infuriates me that people mix these two positions up. I say good for you, flying your flag May18. You support your troops. Whether support the war or don’t support the war is immaterial, you support you troops.

Thank you also Peds. That clears up a lot of confusion.

PM, the World service is being hacked back by the degenerates at BBC HQ, slowly but surely, they do not like it's broad based attitude to world news. I agree the WS is excellent, I've used it all the time I worked overseas. My point in my earlier post relates purely to domestic production, which I consider biased and outside the remit or charter of the BBC. Lord Reith will be doing flick flacks in his tomb.

My Imperialistic role applies only within Cornwall at present. The Emmits have started to arrive after their winter sojourn and cars with roof racks are now endemic. Caravans, (spit), are hastening along the A30 as I write. Embedded BBC traffic reporters are in tears as they stream past the service station at Exeter. Our world changes again after our peaceful winter, roll on November!

Don't knock the Emmits and Grockles.
I'm one, but do not have either a caravan or roofrack.
I try to blend in, (The Grey Man)(no, not John Major!)
I spent a week in Kernow (!) last year. Did you spot me? NO!

I love Cornwall.
I would not complain if you wanted to holiday in Leicestershire?
Would Cornwall survive without the revenue? Errr, well, yes it probably would, but you see what I mean. (If you do, explain it to me please!)

Mark.

Leicesterwhere? Kind but no thanks. Yes we can survive; it's lovely in the quiet of a winters day, horizontal seaweed never hurt anyone.

Owdun,

Actually, I got the statistics from the official United Kingdom Parliament website: http://www.parliament.uk/works/co2001.cfm

(412/659) x 100 = 62.518%

The Labour party is the party in power isn’t it? Well then, my argument remains firm.

Quote: “The BBC is run by Labour luvvies,and has lost all credibility with most people,and it's reporting of the war reflects the attitudes of the Left.”

The war is run by Labour too!
Nice try mate.

P.S. Using my Political Science major as my authority for my next comment, typically low turn out in an election is a sign of impassiveness and hence satisfaction in the attitude of the people. Think about it. If there were mass dissatisfaction amongst the people they would go to the polls and change who was in control, which is just what John Major found out in ’97. If mass dissatisfaction reached a boiling point, let’s say the government was throwing everyone in jail, there would be a revolution. Huge election turn outs only come when people are very dissatisfied; like the aforementioned election in ’97 or the South African election in ’94.

:splat:

Using my Political Science major

PM try this one on your major. There were 1,000,000 roaming the streets of London against the war. Out of a population of 62-63M. Blair has lost the support of various cabinet ministers, his party faithfull and approx 1/3rd of his MPs. The low turn out at the last election had more to do with the lack of an alternative electable opposition, far from being satisfied, the population is bubbling past simmering point.
Come back here and propose your argument in the waiting room of an NHS out-patients department. Then discuss it with the parents who want their children to enjoy the education you had, and have to pay vast sums for it. When your ears have stopped ringing, try TUC House, the 'homeground' of a Labour Government; not anymore.

It's nice in the Staes, innit!

Although labour are in power, its simply because the opposition seems intent on making itself unelectable. The labour party has a smooth talking leader who many people are fooled by. The extreme leftists in his party such as galloway make most people shudder in horror.
As to the future as someone who has lived through both the old tories and the old labour, i think we are gradually returning to the policies of the old labour which so effectively destroyed the country. People are starting to get angry as well. They notice they have no pension, that they are being taxed an awful lot more. All it needs is for a strong, viable opposition to appear and labour is history.

Of course im biased, i was very impressed with what thatcher did in her time, you knew she was looking out for british interests.

May