1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A Rather Scathing Review of the BBC's Impartiality

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Coot, Dec 26, 2002.

  1. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I have been surprised at how easily England has given up freedoms and beliefs to join the EU. The EU as an economic union made sense. When I began hearing about their stance on crime and other issues I became worried. Nothing liberal in this country goes as far as their regulations.
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Figures it took a Sovie to get some attention on this manner. As Shiny pointed out, the biggest asset of joining is the economic reasons, for some countries and people it's also the movement within.
  4. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    I lived and worked in England many years ago. At the time I was really impressed by and thoroughly enjoyed the BBC. They were the best of the best.

    After I left I lost touch with them for many years. Than several years ago I started being a regular contributor to their online programing. Unfortunately, during my contact with them is became appalling obvious that they had become extremely biased and in many cases deliberately inaccurate in just reporting non-political facts.

    I finally called some of the editors on it. Their response was a watered down version of who cares? Bugger off!

    Eventually, I just stopped contributing.

    Then when 911 happened, I like most other Americans was glued to the television. I watched MSNBC, CNN, Fox, CSPAN and the BBC. It was the American networks finest hours--without a doubt! I could only take one day of BBC. The pompous, ignorant, propaganda, irrelevant topics and lets bash American slant they took were appalling. They were terrible.
  5. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,
    Lest we miss the deepest level of the problem, there was, and ought to remain an inherent rift between English common law countries and the Europeans.
    Jus Romanum is not common law. It is based upon the right of the government to govern inherently, and the government morphosis exists as a natural phenomenon, independent of volitionality of contract. Common law, developed since the time of the magna carta, exists as a body of knowledge gained by exploring the relationships among individuals in a society governed by contracts freely entered into by those individuals.
    There is no possibility of England both joining the EU, rather than what was the EEC, and remaining England. The legal systems are so wildly disparate that no one understanding the rights of an Englishman and Staatsgewalt could possibly suggest a melding of the cultures. The BBC, as many other left-wing British lunatic organisations, populated by pseudo-intellectuals whose smattering of superficial debating knowledge passes for education today, needs, in order to justify its own megalithic autonomy, a euro-socialist government. Since that is sui generis incompatible with common law, where property and contracts form the basis for ethical action, thus giving absolute freedom to the moral and spiritual side of the individual, the absorption of England into the continent serves the purpose of the builders of monoliths.
    In short, the possession of the megalith, given the leaning toward egomania inherent in humans, will result, often, in the building of a monolith.
    Today, facts are more widely dispersed than meanings well digested; the facts of law, its enumerations, so to speak, and its vitality, are not the same.
    The BBC will, in all likelihood, create sufficient public support for economic wealth being more important than legal spirit, that England, as a real country, will cease to exist, leaving the US alone as the inheritor of the doctrine of rights of the individual.
    To those who only fear, el qaeda is an imminent and terrifying danger; to those who think and feel, Europe is an eternal and insidious one. To argue that the BBC is not a terrorist organisation shows pitiful lack of imagination.

    All good wishes,
  6. halldor

    halldor Registered User

    I think this is all something of an over-reaction, and I suppose it takes an ex-Soviet dissident to start drawing parallels with the Soviet Union.

    Most people here are healthily sceptical of the EU, to the extent that any referendum on the euro would at present yield a strongly negative result. Also, in discussion programmes on BBC domestic Radio 4 and 5 I've heard both sides of the EU-euro argument - many, many times. I don't think Britain - not "England" in that irritating and ill-informed US parlance - is likely to give up its sovereignty - particularly with regard to matters concerning the economy and defence - any time soon, whatever the impression the BBC World Service may give to the outside world.
  7. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Well Britain yes, but England's the only one that ever counted, except for a few longbowmen and a couple of picts. ;)
  8. halldor

    halldor Registered User

    Ignorance - read the history of the British Empire some time.
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I am surprised the British are not more protective of their laws than their currency. And please don't take this as bashing. I am genuinely worried about an old friend losing their idenity. Hell, all we get is Euro appliances and I am tired of it.
  10. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Spoken like a true Scotsman or Welshman, I was just picking on you halldor.:thumbsup:
  11. halldor

    halldor Registered User

    To take one recent example, what about the Archer case? Did you follow that, and all its implications for the protection of UK law? Have you read Archer's book, recently published over here? If that case is anything to go by, the British are so protective of their laws that some people are wondering if it might not all have gone too far.
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    No, can you suggest site to read up on it?
  13. halldor

    halldor Registered User

    That's ok - I'm Scottish, as it turns out. :)
  14. halldor

    halldor Registered User

  15. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Hall and friends,

    ST's point is nonetheless valid.

    There have been, and will continue to be many cases at both Justiciary and Sessions where the results would be different than either QB or the European Court.

    An in depth examination of Scots, European, and Common Law is a bit out of the scope of the forum, but, what is feared among the Americans, and English, and I remind all readers, I use English for English, and British for British, is the change from contract law and individual rights to community law.

    I wrote, supra, about England, and I did, emphatically, not mean the UK. Substituting Britain for England would make the post nonsense. Either I write nonsense, or have learnt to use English well, ne'er ha'en pict scots, as well.

    The development in common law in England between the early courts, and say, 1600 - 1700 is not, in fact, parallel to our courts at all. Indeed, the 1790's came and went, and many conservative advocates refused, as well was our right, to argue outside the jus romanum in both sheriff's courts and "crown" courts.

    My grandmother, were she alive, would most assuredly consider herself by clan, country, and continent, England never entering the line.

    That in the nineteenth century, the forced assimilation of the Scots Sheriffdoms created new and interesting law, and, that the most predominant jurists of that century as well as ours are scots, notwithstanding, the great judges since the eighteenth century at home, Monboddo foremost, were classicists of the first rank, considering the development of English Common Law a mere side event to the expansion and edification of the law of rome. It was, indeed, the use of the new, to us, concepts of the rights of Englishmen added to, and not replacing, the republican principles of tort and family that gives, to this day, our law its tang.

    May I remind you, Halldor, that Monboddo was extolling the light of reason, even from the well, and Braxfeld, queer a figure as he may have been, and intemperate as his nature was, was elucidting law with blunt precision whilst Jeffries, the ingnorant tool, the Englishman, let blood for no reason other than his own lust for power.

    If an honest man write English, he must be taken to mean English, and naught else, else the language have no meaning whatsoever.

    To this day, I often quote Braxfeld's short, unflattering, yet absolutely truthful and clear, asides to a witness/defendant at the sedition trials, a man named Gerrald. The latter argued for reform, stating many great men to have been reformers, "including Our Saviour, himself." Braxfeld, though on the record, retorted, "Muckle he made o'that; he was hangit."

    In spite of all that,I assure you all, it is not for the politics of Great Britain I care a foul shit, nor,deeply as I love it, the reasoned classicism of Scots law, but as I said, and meant, the dissolving of English Common Law, wherein the Crown itself derives its power from contract, and the rights of the individual supercede the rights of the land, which would be a stain upon mankind itself. For the Europeans, law proceeds from power; for the English, Mr Halldor, power is given from the law.

    That has naught to do with Britain.

  16. Basilio

    Basilio Banned

    Frankly, I do like BBC, though some said it is pseudo-intellectual, there seems to more critical discourse, and I do not think it should be compared to Soviet-like propaganda newspapers like the pravda etc.... It is like comparing every violent group to the Nazis. Let us not go overboard. In America, I like C-Span. In Canada, I think CBC is pretty good. I do not really get BBC on my TV, briefly on my sattelite, but no one gets that on cable as far as I know.
    As far as the EU, I cannot pass judgement yet as it is still not a mature organization, but I do expect that there will have to be compromising for the union to be successful, and the compromises are not one-sided. I won't pass judgement until I see how the expansion plays out, but I am worried that it is going too fast and create instability and wouldn't produce a very cohesive union.
  17. halldor

    halldor Registered User

    Um, er - come again?

    I agree - but I can't follow your arguments at all. All I had in mind was that a) it's a little unreasonable to equate BBC World Service coverage of the news with the BBC's approach to current affairs issues in general, and that b) the Jeffrey Archer case does illustrate the importance attached in some quarters here in the U.K. to the supremacy of the rule of law.

    That's all I was trying to say. I really can't follow the drift of what you are saying in your post, or see how it counts as a response to the points I raised.

  18. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Here some background -

    I think Yaz was saying that Monboddo saw reason as a tool of sentencing, Braxfield just applied the maximum allowed by the law, but the Jefferies just wanted to see death of his foes and enforce power over them. I hope this helps :thumbsup:
  19. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,
    I responded to the posts, after my first one, perhaps relying too heavily upon people reading and re-reading the thread, to any number of points at once.
    Shiny Tops observation that Britain may be ready to give up some traditional rights of Englishman was subject to my note that, in fact, English common law and Roman law are inherently incompatible.
    Rather than say, Even though many of Britains greatest judges were Scots, and even though common law has been ignored in practice, I wrote my elegiac six paragraphs referring to our colourful legal history.
    Halldor said, I don't think Britain - not "England" in that irritating and ill-informed US parlance -,
    to which, logically, I pointed out, that in my original post, substituting Britain for England would have destroyed any meaning, since there is no British common law.

    The point needs to be made, furthermore, that, English common law is the basis of few countries legal systems. Leaving, since rhapsodic language is apparently out of style, the question of the unification of Scotland and England, the underlying difference between the US, England, and the rest of the world is not even the wealth and superficial political freedom. Rather, the basis on law of the supremacy of the individual over the state.
    In practice, of course, America and England have moved closer to Euro-socialism, and European countries insure personal freedoms, but the difference is so deep that no one may overlook it. Germany, the country, the government grants its citizens constitutional freedoms in the Urgesetz , Englishmen contract with even their sovereign to rule. The queen rules at the pleasure of the people, the people of Europe change governments at the elections allowed by the state. Is there a practical difference? None, really.
    If, however, England(not Britain, Halldor) were to join the EU part and parcel, the entire judicial system upon which EU law functions would replace common law. Would that make a difference? Immense, as any Southerner will tell you. Was it the Civil War, the War between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression?
    Likewise, en famille, a Scotsmans reference to Mr Blair as either the English Prime Minister, or the British, tells his intimates where he stands on the issue of the United Kingdom.
    So I could have written:

    <SMALL>In spite of my personal love of Scots law and judges, and in spite of the many aberrations of English common law in practice, the deep differences between England herself, not the United Kingdom, and Europe are so profound as to warrant as wide a political separation from the European Union as possible given the economic realities. The Labour government pursues economic well-being as the only imperative, forgetting that the rights of Englishman are ultimately worth, in my opinion, defending against the anathema of the state machine of Euro-socialism. This is the most telling difference between Anglo-American and Roman law, that European governments rule as of right, ours by contract of a people sovereign over their own government. A matter, in the real world, of pure semantics, perhaps, but at the level of the Law Lords, or United States Supreme Court, that which would ultimately determine the freedoms of the people, and the delicate balance between those freedoms and the security of both the people and state.
    By the way, Halldor, many people do, in fact, differentiate between England and Britain. </SMALL>

    Such a post is clearer, I suppose, but sounds like a BBC commentary, or a paper submitted to the sociology department at the Open University. The last line is so rude that even Haywire would blanche at its inclusion in a civilised forum. That it is the current style shocks me. A simple reminder to re-read my original post, making the substitution showing that the change would trash its meaning, suffices to clarify, whilst remaining witty, and not losing charm.

    Of course, there are those who call a lawyer a lawyer, but, as the wife of the English Prime Minister so delightfully reminds us, there is a chasm between being admitted to the bar, and having digested the spirit of the law.

    I am merely pointing out that, irrespective of any other issue, it is sovereignty of the individual that ultimately puts the United States, and one would hope, England, at odds with the rest of the world.

    Thank you, Jim, for the references.

    Halldor, there is no ill will meant, but it is necessary for the American audience to understand that a allowing as much interference from the European High Court as we already have is a danger not only to English rights, but, ultimately to the US, as our system of government is absolutely, without any question, totally contrary to that of most countries, whose political existence derives from nationality rather than legal contract. One need not think too hard to feel that the unification of England, under the Magna Carta, was itself not based upon nation or race, but upon contract among three or four widely disparate cultures. France is France by nature, England became England, a millennium ago, by reasoned treaty.

    I still prefer my original post, scented, as it were, with the salty, smokey whisky of Islay.

    Alas, my point is proven in that the sober style of modern news media is needed merely to communicate.

    It appears that the ultimate demise of the concept of the individual as the centre of all things and more important than the state is assured.

    At that point, arguing that the BBC lean toward European unity is gratuitous.


Share This Page