« Daft Daniel MP | Main | Scandal foreplay »

January 24, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I do not believe in political interference in the BBC but just to pass on my absolute disgust at the recent events. I have made my thoughts known to the BBC but I noticed today that "The World this Weekend" didn't even mention the story. Shameful.

Paul Flynn

Thank Huw. The link is working now.

I remain astonished at the BBC's attitude. They are independent of everything except the Israeli propaganda machine.


The true victory comes when you successfully narrow the debate to include
only your point of view, Israel has been very succesful with that in the west.
As it stands at the moment.
Israel is right but not aggressive enough
- pro Israeli
Israel is right but too aggressive - anti Israeli
Anyone who falls outside those boundaries is simply off the charts and likely to be anti-semitic.

It is familiar ground I am sure to you Paul as it is not dissimilar to the debate on narcotics.
Ranging from drugs are bad for people and should be banned, with harsh punishments for those who deal and those who use.
All the way to the furthest acceptable limits of debate where
drugs are bad for people and should be banned with harsh punishments for those who deal, but less harsh punishments for users.
Anyone who suggests legalisation gets dismissed as a loon, despite the mountains of evidence and decades of experience that show that the prevailing approach has been a disaster by any measure.

So with Israel and narcotics legislation what we have is an absolute stifling of debate, leaving possibilities utterly unexplored.
To make up for that, there are the other discussions, medicine and science as examples, where they actually spread the boundaries so wide that any old bullshit gets equal time.
Medicine gets to go against homeopathy (water)
Large Hadron collider gets to go against
the end of the world is nigh
and of course as you mentioned
the MMR vaccine with all the years of research covering enormous numbers of people showing it was safe, placed against personal stories and one scientifically unsound study on a tiny number of people.

Dara O'Briain had a good example of the acceptance of what I'm calling the overly wide boundaries of debate in some areas.
Watchdog last year had an item with the headline "Bogus psychic scam"
About a woman who could see your aura, tell you if it was broken and fix it for £600.
Was this a scam?
Was this bogus?
Or is all of that inferred and implied by the word "psychic"

Graham Marlowe

What worried me about this story (and I agree with you 100% Paul) was the fact that they interviewed the usual "Israeli representitive" on Radio 4 yesterday morning, who - surprise, surprise, fully endorsed the BBC action (or inaction" and he said how "WE" had to be careful not to support terrorism etc etc. On Any Questions in an audience of 300/400 (Jonathan Dimbelby gave both figures) in a show of hands in the audience ONE person agreed with the BBC stance - all the others disagreed. The only person on the companion programme Any Answers who agreed with the BBC was a Mr Alan Levy.

With the carnage carried out by israel resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives, damage to the infrastructure, the decimation of peoples homes, if ever there was a case for humanitarian support surely this is it. By comparison the Israelis had ten casulties, acouple of whom were in the military. There is no comparison. God alone knows what the BBC is thinking of

Baneswell boy

"This decision is a jobsworth knee-jerk."

No. The decision is wholly and completely morally vacuious. The BBC (i.e. everyone that works for them) should hang their collective heads in shame.


I was hoping you'd blog on this Paul.
Fully agree.
Balance is important, but the facts should not be balanced with falsehoods, there is nothing impartial about that particular kind of "balance"

The comments to this entry are closed.