On 02/08/2010 07:54, Graeme wrote:
In message

wrote:


Which are great. But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or stop
accepting the license fee.

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

Aren't they quite open about some biases? The obvious one is crime,
which, in general, they are against.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 02/08/2010 19:07, Graeme wrote:
In
wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09 am, wrote:
In
wrote:



Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.



Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". These US are always ion the wrong. The UK is
normally in the wrong. Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive.

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.


NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.


This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you
one historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from
the BBC.

Another fantasy.

I was there, I heard it.

I doubt you were or did. Please cite exact instances of the BBC, nobody
else, using the exact expression 'American aggression in Vietnam' in an
editorial context. Quoting someone else, eg US senators, saying it doesn't
count.


Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on
the BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied
States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities",
only the "bad" Americans.

Cite?

Sure, I kept a collection of newsreel!

In which case you will have no problem quoting exact details.


Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...

It was a shameful episode.

Meanwhile the VC and NVA commited minor atrocities every night that
went largely unreportd.

Mai Lai was hardly a minor atrocity.




A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

The union in which I live. We have 50 states. That would be plural.
Refering to these states in the plural is not unknown here. Do you
have a problem with that?

Yes.


from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. Yet I did
not hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied
fight against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid
enough to get involved in. Possibly the only good thing you could say
about Harold Wilson. And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?

No, bad word choice. Thanks for the correction.

You are wrong. Australia had a very real and effective involvement.

I hate to disillusion you but Australia is not, and was not then, part of the
United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom and the RoC had unacknowledged boots on the ground. In
the UK's case SAS troops did serve under US commanders. Expect an official
denial if you ask in Whitehall.


In which case, waht evidence have you, other than unsubstantiated rumour,
that such deployments took place?

I've seen it suggested in various place that British people were there,
just not being British as such (instead being temporarily with the
Australians or whatever). This sort of thing soon gets bogged down in
"depends what you mean by..."



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message
Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 02/08/2010 07:54, Graeme wrote:
In message

wrote:


Which are great. But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or
stop accepting the license fee.

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

Aren't they quite open about some biases? The obvious one is crime,
which, in general, they are against.


Common mistake, the BBC is legally obliged to be unbiased on political (and
quasi-political) matters. It can be as biased as it likes on other issues,
especially sport :-)

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 02/08/2010 19:07, Graeme wrote:
In
wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09 am, wrote:
In
wrote:



Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.



Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". These US are always ion the wrong. The UK is
normally in the wrong. Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive.

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.


NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.


This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you
one historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from
the BBC.

Another fantasy.

I was there, I heard it.

I doubt you were or did. Please cite exact instances of the BBC, nobody
else, using the exact expression 'American aggression in Vietnam' in an
editorial context. Quoting someone else, eg US senators, saying it doesn't
count.


Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on
the BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied
States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities",
only the "bad" Americans.

Cite?

Sure, I kept a collection of newsreel!

In which case you will have no problem quoting exact details.


Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...

It was a shameful episode.

Meanwhile the VC and NVA commited minor atrocities every night that
went largely unreportd.

Mai Lai was hardly a minor atrocity.




A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

The union in which I live. We have 50 states. That would be plural.
Refering to these states in the plural is not unknown here. Do you
have a problem with that?

Yes.


from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. Yet I did
not hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied
fight against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid
enough to get involved in. Possibly the only good thing you could say
about Harold Wilson. And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?

No, bad word choice. Thanks for the correction.

You are wrong. Australia had a very real and effective involvement.

I hate to disillusion you but Australia is not, and was not then, part of
the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom and the RoC had unacknowledged boots on the ground.
In the UK's case SAS troops did serve under US commanders. Expect an
official denial if you ask in Whitehall.


In which case, waht evidence have you, other than unsubstantiated rumour,
that such deployments took place?

I've seen it suggested in various place that British people were there,
just not being British as such (instead being temporarily with the
Australians or whatever). This sort of thing soon gets bogged down in
"depends what you mean by..."


I'd be very surprised if they weren't there, though I'm rather more doubtful
that there were SAS units operating under US control. Rememnber this was
long before the SAS hit the limelight at the Iranian Embassy siege and
doubtless the average US commander would consider his own special forces as
vastly superior to any bunch of foriegners.

I'm a little intrigued that Adrian appears to have bracketed the UK and RoC
troops together, I certainly don't think the latter ever served under US
command.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Aug 2, 2:33*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 02/08/2010 19:07, Graeme wrote:





In
* * * * * *wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09 am, *wrote:
In
* * * * * *wrote:

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.

Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". *These US are always ion the wrong. *The UK is
normally in the wrong. *Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. *Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive.

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. *I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.

NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.

This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you
one historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from
the BBC.

Another fantasy.

I was there, I heard it.

I doubt you were or did. *Please cite exact instances of the BBC, nobody
else, using the exact expression 'American aggression in Vietnam' in an
editorial context. *Quoting someone else, eg US senators, saying it doesn't
count.

Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on
the BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied
States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities",
only the "bad" Americans.

Cite?

Sure, I kept a collection of newsreel!

In which case you will have no problem quoting exact details.

Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...

It was a shameful episode.

Meanwhile the VC and NVA commited minor atrocities every night that
went largely unreportd.

Mai Lai was hardly a minor atrocity.

A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? *that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

The union in which I live. *We have 50 states. *That would be plural.
Refering to these states in *the plural is not unknown here. *Do you
have a problem with that?

Yes.

* from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. *Yet I did
not hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied
fight against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid
enough to get involved in. *Possibly the only good thing you could say
about Harold Wilson. *And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?

No, bad word choice. *Thanks for the correction.

You are wrong. *Australia had a very real and effective involvement.

I hate to disillusion you but Australia is not, and was not then, part of the
United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom and the RoC had unacknowledged boots on the ground. *In
the UK's case SAS troops did serve under US commanders. Expect an official
denial if you ask in Whitehall.

In which case, waht evidence have you, other than unsubstantiated rumour,
that such deployments took place?

I've seen it suggested in various place that British people were there,
just not being British as such (instead being temporarily with the
Australians or whatever). This sort of thing soon gets bogged down in
"depends what you mean by..."


The question was about Allies. Australia is a US ally. You may have
heard of the ANZUS Treaty. Graeme assumed that "ally: means
"British".

My business partner was a commanding office in the Vietnam War. He
had SAS men under his command. But, heaven forbid that any of us
contradict the camera kid from Southampton.

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 2:33*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 02/08/2010 19:07, Graeme wrote:





In
* * * * * *wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09 am, *wrote:
In
* * * * * *wrote:

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.

Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". *These US are always ion the wrong. *The UK is
normally in the wrong. *Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. *Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive.

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. *I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.

NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.

This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you
one historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from
the BBC.

Another fantasy.

I was there, I heard it.

I doubt you were or did. *Please cite exact instances of the BBC, nobody
else, using the exact expression 'American aggression in Vietnam' in an
editorial context. *Quoting someone else, eg US senators, saying it doesn't
count.

Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on
the BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied
States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities",
only the "bad" Americans.

Cite?

Sure, I kept a collection of newsreel!

In which case you will have no problem quoting exact details.

Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...

It was a shameful episode.

Meanwhile the VC and NVA commited minor atrocities every night that
went largely unreportd.

Mai Lai was hardly a minor atrocity.

A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? *that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

The union in which I live. *We have 50 states. *That would be plural.
Refering to these states in *the plural is not unknown here. *Do you
have a problem with that?

Yes.

* from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. *Yet I did
not hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied
fight against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid
enough to get involved in. *Possibly the only good thing you could say
about Harold Wilson. *And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?

No, bad word choice. *Thanks for the correction.

You are wrong. *Australia had a very real and effective involvement.

I hate to disillusion you but Australia is not, and was not then, part of the
United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom and the RoC had unacknowledged boots on the ground. *In
the UK's case SAS troops did serve under US commanders. Expect an official
denial if you ask in Whitehall.

In which case, waht evidence have you, other than unsubstantiated
rumour, that such deployments took place?

I've seen it suggested in various place that British people were there,
just not being British as such (instead being temporarily with the
Australians or whatever). This sort of thing soon gets bogged down in
"depends what you mean by..."


The question was about Allies. Australia is a US ally. You may have
heard of the ANZUS Treaty. Graeme assumed that "ally: means
"British".

No he didn't, you specifically mentioned British troop*involvement.


My business partner was a commanding office in the Vietnam War. He
had SAS men under his command.

Funny you couldn't think that one up before when I asked for what evidence
you had.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:39:05 +0200, "Willms"
wrote:

Am Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:07:43 UTC, schrieb Graeme
auf uk.railway :

Please cite exact instances of the BBC, nobody
else, using the exact expression 'American aggression in Vietnam' in an
editorial context. Quoting someone else, eg US senators, saying it doesn't
count.

I think one would rather find the opposite, namely reports about
protests against the Beeb of siding with the US aggression against
Vietnam, and not reporting the facts correctly, but to distort them to
the benefit of the US war propaganda.

That depends on which part of the media you are watching/reading
listening to. For a number of years the party in power has typically
complained about the BBC bias in favour of the opposition while the
opposition complains about the BBC being government lackeys.

In message
1506 wrote:

[snip]

My business partner was a commanding office in the Vietnam War. He
had SAS men under his command.

I was actually bored enough to look this up, you are wrong on two counts, it
was Australian SAS units that were deployed in Vietnam and Whitehall freely
admits they were there.

--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/

In uk.railway Willms twisted the electrons to say:
They are especially not unbiased in determining what is a crime, and
what an act of liberation. Or what is a crime for A, but a
self-evident right for B.

It's true, the BBC should do more to publise the illegal occupation of
Tibet ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:42:37 +0000 (UTC)
Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Willms twisted the electrons to say:
They are especially not unbiased in determining what is a crime, and
what an act of liberation. Or what is a crime for A, but a
self-evident right for B.

It's true, the BBC should do more to publise the illegal occupation of
Tibet ...

Whats the point? You think a few lefties getting irate is going to make
the country with the worlds largest standing army quite tibet? Get real.

Besides , the only thing the BBC cares about outside britain is the USA and
Isreal+palestine. Anywhere else only gets a mention if theres a natural
disaster or plane crash and even then it'll probably only get 2nd billing
to Obamas dog farting.

B2003