OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 1, 8:32*am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 1, 10:25*am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur *wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. *At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. *Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..
Within that I would like to think that there is room for a fact based
unbiassed service like the BBC or PBS. Unfortunately I do not think
human nature can, or has, maintain(ed) that level of detachemnt over
the long term.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On 01/08/2010 18:36, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..
Within that I would like to think that there is room for a fact based
unbiassed service like the BBC or PBS.

I guess you haven't seen a British newspaper for some time!


Unfortunately I do not think
human nature can, or has, maintain(ed) that level of detachemnt over
the long term.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 1, 11:03*am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:36, 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Arthur *wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur * *wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. *At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. *Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..
Within that I would like to think that there is room for a fact based
unbiassed service like the BBC or PBS.

I guess you haven't seen a British newspaper for some time!

Telegraph and Times, January, 2010. Both, present a variation of
conservative thought. Other newspapers take differing editorial
stances.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:03:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On 01/08/2010 18:36, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..
Within that I would like to think that there is room for a fact based
unbiassed service like the BBC or PBS.

I guess you haven't seen a British newspaper for some time!

Wasn't the last revolution that The Graunaid got a spell-checker?


Unfortunately I do not think
human nature can, or has, maintain(ed) that level of detachemnt over
the long term.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur =A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

--
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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On 01/08/2010 19:16, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:03 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:36, 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling ‘politics of envy’ stories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and the
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..
Within that I would like to think that there is room for a fact based
unbiassed service like the BBC or PBS.

I guess you haven't seen a British newspaper for some time!

Telegraph and Times, January, 2010. Both, present a variation of
conservative thought. Other newspapers take differing editorial
stances.

The Telegraph is now just the Daily Mail on bigger paper.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

1506 wrote:

Telegraph and Times, January, 2010. Both, present a variation of
conservative thought.

Trouble is, they are being sold under a misleading name which suggests
they present *news*.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632787.html
(25 198 at Warrington Bank Quay, 5 Jun 1985)

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur =A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

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.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote
in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur =A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

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.

The Beeb may not be perfect, but, unlike some propaganda outlets run by
a former Aussie, they do a good approximation of fair and balanced.

Roger Ailes would kill himself before trying to make his folks actually
try to be fair and balanced.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message

1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

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?

--
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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 1, 11:54*pm, Graeme wrote:
In message

* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

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?

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

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. 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. We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet
Cong atrocities", only the "bad" Americans. Now, no one would argue
that the servicemen of any nation always behave impeccably under
pressure.

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

This is but one example. The editors of Pravda could only wish for
the skills, not to say cajones, of the BBC.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

1506 wrote:

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

"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. We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation"

Er, not exactly recent, is it?

And "American aggression in Vietnam" describes something that certainly
happened. The war certainly took place in Vietnam (more or less, except
when the alleged good guys decided they would visit Laos etc.) and
involved Americans, and they were certainly aggressive, even on occasion
destroying entire villages "to save them". It didn't happen in USA,
which is why the BBC never reported any North Vietnamese aggression in
the USA.

As for "Viet-Cong" well, that was just a name made up by someone in the
USA to make them sound scary, wasn't it. If they had been correctly
described as "Viet-Minh", then I fear too many people in Blighty would
have been put in mind of Neddy Seagoon et al.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309765.html
(37 109 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:54*pm, Graeme wrote:
In message

* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

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?

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

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.


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.

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

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.

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?

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

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


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?

*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?


This is but one example.

But not a credible one.

The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say cajones,
of the BBC.

Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with their
gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

--
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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

[snip]

As for "Viet-Cong" well, that was just a name made up by someone in the
USA to make them sound scary, wasn't it. If they had been correctly
described as "Viet-Minh", then I fear too many people in Blighty would
have been put in mind of Neddy Seagoon et al.

Scuse me while I mop up the coffee from the keyboard...

--
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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 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?


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. No race has a monopoly on genocidal
behavior.

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?

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.

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!

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.



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?

*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.
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.




This is but one example. *

But not a credible one.

It is a major one. I am not the first to have noticed.

The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say cajones,
of the BBC.

Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with their
gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

You mean those of us who actually know Nam Vets?

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 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?




This is but one example. *

But not a credible one.

It is a major one. I am not the first to have noticed.

No, I expect Sarah Palin might have noticed, once someone had explained
where Vietnam was. Whether they'd be able to convince her it wasn't Al
Quaeda is another problem.


The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say
cajones, of the BBC.

Do you mean cojones?


Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with
their gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

You mean those of us who actually know Nam Vets?


I know some 'Nam Vets' as you quaintly term them. I doubt the vast majority
of them have ever watched a BBC News broadcast from that era.

--
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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 2, 11:07*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 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.


..
..
..
..
..
..
../ //
//
/
Plonk.

Welcome to my killfile. Enjoy the company of "Bruce", Fendton, and
Gloidster.

Oh, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:07*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 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.


.
.
.
.
.
.
./ //
//
/
Plonk.

Welcome to my killfile.

Oh not another twerp*with an imaginary killfile.

Enjoy the company of "Bruce", Fendton, and Gloidster.

Oh, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.


Took you long enough to work it out. And I note you don't even understand
Godwin's law.

--
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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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/

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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 ...

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

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

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In message
, Willms
writes
It's true, the BBC should do more to publise the illegal occupation of
Tibet ...
That was already ended centuries ago.
How? Is Tibet not still illegally occupied? Don't you mean, it's
politically incorrect because it does have any oil and China is very
big.
--
Clive

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 5, 7:52*am, wrote:
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.

Thank you Boltar. Got it in one!

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 5, 4:41*pm, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 5, 7:52*am, wrote:

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.

Thank you Boltar. *Got it in one!

Hmm...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Also, check out (a) the World Service, now easily available here in
the UK, and (b) The World Tonight on R4.

Quite why I'm posting this bemuses even me.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On 05/08/2010 15:52, d wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:42:37 +0000 (UTC)
Alistair 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.

Erm, I think the point of the post is that at least one lefty doesn't
get upset about Tibet. Like the Northern Irish and the Falkland
Islanders (etc), the Tibetans might make the Wrong Choice.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Aug 5, 9:38*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 5, 4:41*pm, 1506 wrote:





On Aug 5, 7:52*am, wrote:

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.

Thank you Boltar. *Got it in one!

Hmm...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

Also, check out (a) the World Service, now easily available here in
the UK, and (b) The World Tonight on R4.

Thank you. National Public Radio often carries World Service
Newscasts. Most afternoons I catch the end of "The World Tonight"
just before "Book at Bedtime" on my PC. Keep in mind it is eight
hours earlier here.

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
Also, check out (a) the World Service, now easily available here in
the UK, and (b) The World Tonight on R4.

Thank you. National Public Radio often carries World Service
Newscasts. Most afternoons I catch the end of "The World Tonight"
just before "Book at Bedtime" on my PC. Keep in mind it is eight
hours earlier here.

I was talking about the main TV news - you know, the source that most people
get their news from. Yes on their news web site you can find world news (though
usually very little on the main page) but if you're on the web anyway you might
just as well go to the original source assuming its in english or a language
you can understand.

B2003

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

In uk.railway Arthur Figgis twisted the electrons to say:
Erm, I think the point of the post is that at least one lefty doesn't
get upset about Tibet. Like the Northern Irish and the Falkland
Islanders (etc), the Tibetans might make the Wrong Choice.

Yeah, but if we get any further off-topic we'll end up discussing the
Principality of Sealand! :-)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

OT- Clarkson Joins The Burka Debate
 

On 07/08/2010 08:48, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Arthur Figgis twisted the electrons to say:
Erm, I think the point of the post is that at least one lefty doesn't
get upset about Tibet. Like the Northern Irish and the Falkland
Islanders (etc), the Tibetans might make the Wrong Choice.

Yeah, but if we get any further off-topic we'll end up discussing the
Principality of Sealand! :-)

Or wondering why he doesn't want to return Heligoland...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK