Comments on: BBC takes openly anti-war stance in coverage of Blair testimony on Iraq

By: Gonzalo Cooperstein

Gonzalo Cooperstein — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:37:02 +0000

Thank you for this well written post.

By: David Powell

David Powell — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:14:29 +0000

I stopped referring to the BBC for its news coverage a long time ago. I found that a very substantial proportion of what it reports is opinion only. I now go elsewhere for far better informed opinion and I think it probable that others will do so too over time.

By: Mailman

Mailman — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:50:51 +0000

I caught the BBC’s coverage Friday morning when they had the editor from the Daily Mail and another talking head who were VERY clearly against the war and repeatedly accused Blair of lieing…but what really got me was how repeatedly the BBC reporter time and time again mentioned who impartial the enquiry panel was.

Correct me if Im wrong, but if you only ever got your news on the enquiry from the MSM then I wouldnt blame you if you came to the conclusion that the enquiry panel had already made its mind up that the war was illegal and that all those politicians fronting up were wasting the panels time in getting to its “guilty” decision.

What these lefty’s fail to realise is that it rightly remains the sole right of this country’s government to decide when and where to use its armed forces, NOT the UN. Further more the entire Iraq invasion could have been avoided if the UN had done its job in the first place…I mean after 10 years what the hell had they been doing?

For me, the only person responsible for what happened in Iraq is Saddam. He took a gamble that all those useful fools protesting against the then potential invasion would sway their Governments mind and keep their armed forces out of his country. What Saddam didnt count on was GW having the balls to do the job the UN wouldnt.

Mailman

By: Another Joshua

Another Joshua — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:45:37 +0000

…and your point on the Chilcot enquiry/BBC is J Isaacs?

By: J. Isaacs

J. Isaacs — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:44:25 +0000

Not many classicists on this blog, I notice. Try Catullus 79. “Lesbius est pulcher; quidni, quem Lesbia malit”.

By: Jonathan Karmi

Jonathan Karmi — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:41:25 +0000

Re. “pulchritudinous”. What an ugly word for something so wonderful. If Natasha Kaplinsky were covered in warts, the word would feel right. But she isn’t and I share Robin’s sentiments on the matter.

By: Patrizia Isabelle Duda

Patrizia Isabelle Duda — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:44:23 +0000

I was following the inquiry and thought Blair did a good job on explaining himself and pointing sincerly to the current threats most are turning a bling eye to.

I didn’t believe my ears, however, when I later heart them ‘crucifying’ Blair about not apologizing etc…apologizing for what? For doing something that he until now believes was right? Why should he? I was glad to see he didn’t! (irrespective of whether Iraq was justified or not)

That is not to say that I do or do not sympathize with Blair but I do with everyone who shows some backbone!

It all reminds me of Ayn Rand’s words which seem to have even more relevance today than in her time.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:30:22 +0000

Andrew Gilligan was invited to comment and ranted on without challenge for a good tem minutes.

It’s what we’ve come to expect from the BBC. I never thought this could ever be the case’ but I am starting to believe that the whole bloody BBC edifice should be burnt to the ground.

By: J. Isaacs

J. Isaacs — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:19:42 +0000

“…a propagandist standard bearer for liberal-left prejudices.” This hits the nail on the head, as usual. When will that nail be the final one in the BBC’s coffin? Let there be no holding of breath.

Meanwhile, for more news and less views, look no further than the pulchritudinous* ex-BBC presenter Natasha Kaplinsky, now at Channel 5 news. Moreover, Robin’s excellent blog and the internet now also help to balance against the BBC’s ghastly longstanding cacophony of prejudice.

Robin Shepherd says: You learn something new every day. I admit I had to look this one up. It means: Characterized by or having great physical beauty and appeal. And who could disagree…

By: Jonathan Karmi

Jonathan Karmi — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:27:48 +0000

The BBC coverage has been a disgrace throughout. Many of the reports I’ve seen or heard are founded on the barely-concealed assumption that the war was wrong.

It ignores the fact that the war received democratic backing in the UK. On 18th March 2003 a motion in the Commons was passed with a majority of 263 in support of war following Iraq’s failure to comply with resolution 1441.

Very few people in Britain realised at the time what a brutal, tribal country Iraq is and that the aftermath would invariably be bloody. But I see nothing wrong with the removal of such a murderous dictator, despite question-marks over what remained of his WMD stockpiles and development programmes.

The BBC’s coverage is an abuse of its status as a corporation funded by universal licence fee, which obligates fair and objective journalism. The BBC becomes more biased and dumbed-down with every passing year. When’s it going to end ?