Sai Baba

Thousands flock to funeral of India guru Satya Sai Baba (BBC News, 27 April 2011)

Once more it is clear for all to see that BBC News is a bastion of religious apologetics and a haven for irrationalists of all hues. The lengthly article is full of praise for this con artist, charlatan, and quack.

There is one short passage with critical notes: "They say that he was a persuasive fraudster [...]". But this is immediately followed by "These charges were always strenuously denied by the guru and his followers, and were never proved."

For a more informative account of the life of Sai Baba, see:

India would have been a better place without Sathya Sai Baba by Sanal Edamaruku (New Humanist)

Bill of No Rights

Statement on sex offenders' register (Home Office, Wed Feb 16 12:14:14 GMT 2011)

The sex offenders' register has existed since 1997. Since that time it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes.

Where is the evidence that the sex offenders' register protects anyone against anything?

Does anyone realise that 'sex offences' include such things as brothel keeping (read 'two prostitutes sharing a flat so that they can protect one another if a client becomes violent')? (Sex workers put in danger by British policing, Melon Farmers, 13th February 2011.) How about people convicted of having sex with inanimate objects? (Bike sex case sparks legal debate, BBC News, Friday, 16 November 2007.) A wide range of other victimless crimes could be listed such as the truly moronic Dangerous Pictures Act. (UK prosecutors drop 'tiger' sex video case, Register, 6th January 2010.) So Theresa May considers these to be the 'most horrific of crimes'? And in the case of sex with bicycles and cartoon tigers, where exactly does protecting the public come into it?

This is Britain all right. Any mention of sex and all fuses blow, and Home Secretaries with puny brains start reciting well rehearsed, but meaningless phrases such as "most horrific" and "protecting the public".

the right of the public to be protected from the risk of re-offending

The risk of re-offending is never zero. The risk of someone not convicted of any crime so far committing a crime, any crime, is never zero either. In the case of certain 'sex crimes', the risk of re-offending is smaller than the risk of someone not convicted of any crime so far committing a crime some time in the future.

The risk of crypto-fascist Home Secretaries in sheep's clothes tomorrow turning into chain-saw murderers is never zero. So we'd better lock her up, shouldn't we?

The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police

And we know how concerned the police is with our rights, don't we, boys and girls? Letting the British police decide matters involving individual freedom is the best guarantee that citizens' rights will be trampled upon until it is an unrecognisable goo mashed through the cracks in the floor.

Finally, I can tell the House today that the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights.

For those who have been hoping for the creation of a British Bill of Rights to safeguard human rights in the UK, let it be a sobering thought that if this crowd of right-wing loonies gets its way, that Bill of Rights will codify the status quo with the public (a euphemism for the state as an abstract entity) having all the rights and the criminal (meaning any individual who steps out of line) having none.

It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts;

And a populist mob law it will be.

that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals;

Let's not forget that by definition anyone is a criminal who has been convicted of a crime, and crimes are defined by law makers. Once homosexuality and sodomy were crimes. Women resorting to civil disobedience in the late-19th and early-20th century, in order to demand the right to vote, were breaking the laws of that time. The brave people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fighting against tyrany and oppression today are committing acts labelled by various repressive regimes as crimes.

and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.

If moving against insanity were the objective, our first step should be locking people like Theresa May away for good.

There is the usual blatant government propaganda from the BBC, dressed up as scientific fact:

Who, what, why: When is a sex offender not a risk? (BBC News, 16 February 2011)

"Often these offenders are incredibly furtive," Prof Wilson says.
"They may have committed many, many offences before being caught - their conviction is only the tip of the iceberg."

"furtive"? Does he want to say that the crimes are so hidden that no one notices. Are we, by any chance, talking about victimless crimes again?

Sex offender registration appeals to go ahead (BBC News, 16 February 2011)

"Adults who sexually abuse children should stay on the offenders register for life as we can never be sure their behaviour will change."

If sex offences were distinguished into different categories, such as sex with inanimate objects, indecent exposure, possession of videos with cartoon tiger sex, brothel keeping, and child abuse, then we, the poor readership, would find ourselves intellectually challenged beyond our limited capacities. Therefore the BBC simplifies the discussion by equating sex offence to child abuse. How thoughtful of them. And utterly misleading.

Dinner-table test

Viewpoints: Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe (BBC News, 20 January 2011)

Viewpoints? Points (plural)?! The BBC's idea of fair and balanced is to balance a religious apologetic point of view against more of the same. For goodness's sake, don't let anything remotely controversial be said.

To be fair, it seems that also The Telegraph has after reconsideration found the topic too hot to handle. I recall that hundreds of comments were posted yesterday while now none remain. This is confirmed by Richard Dawkins.

Warsi's claim that criticism on an ideology equals prejudice, hatred and bigotry is untenable. In a healthy debate, had any been allowed in the mainstream media today, it would have been possible to challenge such a claim.

rape

Background information least likely to be found on BBC News:

When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along (Crikey, Thursday, 2 December 2010)

The obsession with prosecuting sex crimes has come to a point where, just like in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the victims of rape are put in jail:

I accused my husband of rape. I was locked up – and he was set free (Guardian, Friday 26 November 2010)

heroic pun

Shoe attack on Bush shoe thrower (BBC News, Tuesday, 1 December 2009)

Muntadar al-Zaidi is widely considered to be a hero, and in my opinion justly so, for reminding the world of the plight of the Iraqi people caused by the insanity of Bush and Blair. He payed for his symbolic gesture with nine months in jail, not to mention torture. The little shit from BBC News who commented on the footage, Andy Mar, expressed solidarity with his Iraqi colleague using such phrases as "taste of his own medicine" and "you reap what your throw".

With such "defenders of democracy" as the BBC, it is no wonder why Britain today is anything but.

the new lepers

One in 10 inmates is sex offender (BBC News, Monday, 26 October 2009)

Most repressive regimes invent a term to refer to people who stand in the way of whatever the regime wants to achieve. The term is given a strong negative connotation, and subsequently the populace tends to treat those branded with the term as less deserving of life and happiness.

Examples of such terms are "infidel", "unbeliever", "sodomite", "social deviant", "subversive", "Untermensch", "asbo", and lately "sex offender", which is another concoction of New Labour's mass criminalisation programme, making clever use of Britons' innate pathological fear of sex. The term includes those who have been convicted of rape or child molestation. But it also includes a policewoman who moonlighted as a prostitute, a man who gave a woman a lift from the train station to a nearby brothel (so called domesting trafficking; yes, people have been sent to jail for that), a father owning a holiday photo of his 17 year old daughter in a bikini, people who read explicit Japanese comic books or watched videos with "extreme pornography", as well as many dozens of innocent people (innocent in every respect except that of British law) whose credit card information was stolen by paedophiles.

Responsible journalists would not use a crude term like "sex offender" for such a wide spectrum of individuals, many of whom don't deserve to be treated as criminals in the first place. But of course, we are not talking about responsible journalism here, we are talking about BBC News.

Teacher jailed for sex with pupil

Teacher jailed for sex with pupil (BBC News, Monday, 21 September 2009)

It is highly unethical for a teacher to continue teaching someone or to be in any way involved in their grading, after they have started a relationship. The teacher ought to have been disciplined for this, and possibly dismissed.

There is no mention however of paedophilia in the clinical sense being a factor here, nor that the relationship was very different from a normal romance between two young people, one somewhat younger than the other. The state then has no business interfering in one of the few things that make life worth living, and the long jail sentence cannot reasonably be seen as anything other than a perverse application of a crude law.

An impact statement from the girl's parents said the teacher went "out of her way" to befriend them and their "vulnerable" daughter.

Note that "impact statement" includes considerations about the parents. Often in such cases, parents choose to see themselves as victims. Their hurt pride means more to them than the best interests of their children.

"It is, of course, against the law to engage in sexual activity with a person under 16, even with her consent."

As a rule, statements of judges are full of self-righteous moralising bullshit, suggesting they have the private phone number of God™, whom they consult to distinguish right and wrong. In this case however, there is no mention of "wrong", but just of "against the law". This country has sunk so low that we don't even pretend any more that the law is a reflection of any kind of natural justice.

If the law is out of synch with reality, then reality will have to adapt to the law. This harsh sentencing will miraculously alter the genes of Britons, and from now on, no one will fall in love with anyone on the opposite side of the 16th birthday.

The judge added: "The relationship involved a fair degree of deception not only in respect of the school but also to the girl's parents."

How strange that lovers would try to keep such a relationship secret, when bringing it in the open would only get one of the two in jail for a long time.

The school was made aware of the affair through an anonymous e-mail tip-off, the court heard.

Nice to have such friends and colleagues. I wonder how they can bear the guilt for the rest of their lives.

The judge, who was told the girl and the teacher were genuinely in love, did not uphold the prosecution's request for a sexual offences prevention order as it would be "draconian and unnecessarily cruel" to the girl as well.

How kind of the judge to consider the girl's interests. No doubt she will be delighted that she can see her lover in jail for the next 15 months.

The original BBC News article also included the following (which has since been edited out, but it is still found in the Guardian article, which seems to have been derived from it):

Officers raided the teacher's maisonette in Greenwich, south-east London, and arrested the 26-year-old. They seized sex toys from the house.

What do these "sex toys" prove, other than that BBC News journalists are pathetic little weasels who are all too eager to harm people's privacy far beyond the call of duty?

See also:

Blurred boundaries for teachers (Guardian, Wednesday 23 September 2009)

Some of the comments are noteworthy. Whereas Guardian readers tend to be open-minded and critical of the nanny state, as soon as sex is involved even they turn into hysterical bigotted monsters, calling for even harsher penalties for "pervs".

What is it with Britons and sex?

Tackling the film piracy problem

Tackling the film piracy problem (BBC News, Tuesday, 28 July 2009)

"They'll clamp the camera to a seat or use a tripod obscured by a coat. They'll often use microphones, placing them three of them four seats either side to get a stereo effect."

The movie industry is trying to shove the cursed Blu-ray format down our throats, with the justification that the public is demanding higher quality video and audio. That same industry also claims that 90% of "pirated" films are obtained by crummy recording devices hidden in coats of cinema-goers.

As always, BBC News is willing to help industry spread such propaganda, unhindered by any form of critical thinking. The objective is political correctness, not accuracy.

Two more recent cases of BBC News twisting the facts, presumably with ideological intentions:

Windfarm Britain means (very) expensive electricity (Register, 22nd July 2009)

BBC erroneously reports first charges under Extreme Porn Act (Melonfarmers, 25th July 2009)

Facebook criticised by Archbishop

Facebook criticised by Archbishop (BBC News, Sunday, 2 August 2009)

There are many bad things one can say about Facebook. The many bugs and browser-specific features reveal it was built by incompetent dimwits. The privacy policies, or their absence, one should be extremely wary of as well.

Nevertheless, after taking precautions, I signed up and I now find Facebook useful to keep informed about social events, where I meet people face-to-face. I concede however that other people may interact with their friend online in place of face-to-face meetings.

So does Facebook on the average lead to more face-to-face meetings, or to fewer? Well, there is this revolutionary new idea to find out things about the world. It is called scientific inquiry. One study on Facebook is for example:

Are Facebook Friends Like Face-to-Face Friends: Investigating Relations Between the Use of Social Networking Websites and Social Capital (Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, 2008)

One major disadvantage of science is that it requires effort. It is much easier to become the leader of some fruity club that worships pink unicorns, celestial teapots or whatever other garbled hogwash. And then you can say whatever you want, without obligation to offer any empirical support whatsoever. Your words will be jotted down by open-mouthed BBC News churnalists desperate to reach their quotas, and published on the front page of their website.

secret agents

BBC 'news':

Rare 007 car to go under the hammer (BBC News, Wednesday, 8 July 2009)

Real news:

The truth about torture (Guardian, Wednesday 8 July 2009)

I'm so confused! Isn't being a secret agent all about driving fast cars, seducing beautiful women with foreign accents, and sipping martinis (shaken not stirred)? Or is it about ripping out fingernails having Pakistani officers rip out fingernails and cutting up penises having Moroccan officers cut up penises?

New Labour has long since managed to pervert each and every section of the state, even more than the Tories ever did. For the secret services, they being secret and all that, it has merely taken a little longer for the veil to be lifted. Is the populace in shock now? Certainly. At the death of Wacko Jacko. Once we're over that, we'll be looking forward to the next James Bond film, and we'll feel as proud to be British as always.

Family see Jesus image in Marmite

Family see Jesus image in Marmite (BBC News, Thursday, 28 May 2009)

Just when I thought BBC News churnalism couldn't get any sillier, this comes along.

national victory

Susan Boyle mentioned in Simpsons (BBC News, Wednesday, 20 May 2009)

How blessed are we, for our cultural achievements are acknowledged even in the US. So the Americans remembered their aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe.

The function of crappy TV shows is to detract attention from true horrors. Did you think Susan Boyle looked out of place on the stage of a television show? If you seek a truly toe-curling experience, watch the interview with Hazel Blears (Guardian, Tuesday 5 May), pretending to have a clue and to be qualified to be cabinet minister.

But stupid me, we shouldn't criticise our overlords, as this might drive them to suicide or erode confidence in democracy. So let's collectively stick our heads in the sand and when we look up, Britain will have magically transformed into a modern democracy with responsible leaders.

Siberian child 'raised by dogs'

Siberian child 'raised by dogs' (BBC News, Wednesday, 27 May 2009)

Romulus and Remus in Siberia? Or the gullibility of BBC churnalists knows no bounds? I know which is my preferred conjecture.

a question of statistics

Ian Tomlinson: three-year wait for G20 death verdict (The Observer, Sunday 12 April 2009)

Proposed exercise for statistics class:

If we suppose that police have to violently assault 500 unworthy civilians, of different ages and in different states of health, before one yokel finally has the decency to roll over and die, then what is the expected number of such assaults that we never hear about, either because no cameras were present, or because the inflicted harm was not fatal? There are some unknowns left in the equation, but you get the idea.

In what seems a concerted effort by government, police and judiciary, demonstrations are being pushed to the margins of the political arena. Techniques such as kettling, excessive violence by police, and their routinely taking pictures and personal details of people entering and leaving demonstrations, these are discouraging all but the most determined citizens to take part in future political events. Among the group that remains, there will be a relatively high percentage of trouble makers, whose vandalism will undoubtedly be used as an argument to crack down on demonstrations even more.

Kudos to the Labour government for finding a smart way to prevent major demonstrations without formally banning them, which would surely have led to a rebuke from the European Court of Human Rights (not that this government would care). Unless one suffers from the delusion that democracy equates to putting a pencil mark on a ballot paper every few years, the recent developments are added cause for concern, next to all the other recent assaults on civil liberties.

A good illustration of such warped views towards democracy is offered in a toe-curling CiF article by Jack Straw (Our record isn't perfect. But talk of a police state is daft; The Guardian, Friday 27 February 2009), which abounds in hollow rhetoric and escapism. Among its tenets are that we shouldn't complain because the situation in Britain is not yet as bad as it is in some dictatorships in the Middle East or South Asia, and if we don't like the present government, we should just keep our traps shut until we finally get a chance to not re-elect them, which might not be until June 2010. That is supposed to make us feel better?!

Update:

Police 'kettle' tactic feels the heat (BBC News, Thursday, 16 April 2009)

Despite the two instances of alleged police assault, [...]

Excuse me?! Two? Again we see why BBC News has very little to do with serious journalism. There are two incidents that reached the front pages because either someone died or cameras managed to catch a police officer in flagrante. Far more incidents of gratuitous police violence were reported, and it is likely many more took place. See:

G20 police officers may face multiple claims over brutality allegations (The Guardian, Saturday 11 April 2009)

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it had received 120 complaints relating to police actions at the demonstrations.

Clarkson apologises for PM remark

Clarkson apologises for PM remark (BBC News, Saturday, 7 February 2009)

Of the 625 words this article devotes to utterances by two-eyed English idiot Jeremy Clarkson, only 22 are related to his claim that our PM is lying. Apparently, there is so much consensus on this matter that further discussion is futile. In an alleged democracy, it is a very sad state of affairs indeed if one can take for granted that statements coming from the highest political office are less than truthful.

As in the case of the Golliwog affair, while we are arguing about semantics and double entendre, we are not talking about the issues. We are not talking about the economy and whether we can trust our glorious leader to steer us through difficult times. Neither are we talking about dormant and not so dormant racist and xenophobic tendencies in our society that go well beyond choice of words.

star of wonder

My Christmas message? There's probably no God (Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2008)

Polly Toynbee's article doesn't contain much that we didn't know before, but we need more of this as long as media such as the BBC continue to feed us theist crap like this, disguised as science reporting:

Star of wonder (BBC News, Tuesday, 23 December 2008)

Basically the same 'story' the BBC have been recycling year after year, e.g. December 24, 1998; February 23, 1999; November 28, 2003; December 22, 2005; May 8, 2006.

Most 'do not believe in nativity'

Most 'do not believe in nativity' (BBC News, Saturday, 20 December 2008)

I know the BBC see it as their task to cater for a wide audience, which includes those who suffer from organised delusion. That is no reason however to quote an 'expert' whose comments are very unlike those of a scholar and very much like those of a propagandist.

Simon Gathercole, a new testament scholar at Cambridge University, said people were sceptical because they were not aware the origins of Christianity were anchored in real history.

Looking at biblical writings from a sound historical perspective is the realm of biblical criticism, which, unlike theology, is a serious discipline. Its study of the origins of among other things the New Testament is often reported by believers (and former believers) to be a powerful antidote to literalism, as it lays bare the fatal weaknesses of any suggestions that events must have taken place exactly as reported in the four gospels from the New Testament.

"Jesus was born while Augustus was emperor of Rome just before Herod died... we're talking about events that are anchored in real history not in ancient Greek myths."

There is solid evidence that Mohammed actually existed, and did at least some of the things the Quran reports he did (which includes some quite nasty stuff, as everyone knows or should know), whereas very little is certain about the life of Jesus, except maybe that he must have been a much nicer bloke. Should we therefore take the Quran as the Word of God™, just because it is more archored in history than the New Testament is?

"There's something in us that misses that connection with God that we sometimes feel our historical forebears had," he said.

We? Speak for yourself. The great lie of our time is that atheism would have existed only since Charles Darwin. Although On the Origin of Species delivered the death blow to theism, at least among those in possession of full mental faculties, there is solid evidence that the 'connection with God' has been tenuous throughout the ages, and religious beliefs had to be hammered into the flock, by force, by threats of force, or merely by lies and trickery. The many crackpot 'proofs' for God's existence by Thomas Aquinas and hordes of other 'thinkers' from the middle ages only show just how familiar the concept of not believing in a god was to many people. And those who genuinely believed may not have had the same 'connection with God' as some sufferers of schizophrenia quoted by BBC News.

Merry Christmas by the way.

Out of body or all in the mind?

Out of body or all in the mind? (BBC News, Friday, 24 October 2008)

There we go again. The last article on this topic didn't include enough woo-woo yet.

He explained: "We know that in the sub-atomic world, smaller than atoms - things behave in really bizarre ways we don't understand, they call it quantum physics.

For any responsible journalist with a little knowledge of science and non-science, alarm bells should start ringing at the first mention of quantum physics in a context where it has no business. But no, phrases such as:

but dealing with these patients when he worked in an intensive care unit, has forced him to challenge his own scepticism.

are used to try to pull down any natural defences that BBC News readers might have against supernatural claptrap.

To the BBC's credit, they do cite Susan Blackmore, world-renowned skeptic and expert on near-death experiences. But woo-woo must prevail, so the final words are:

"When I die I'm going to go somewhere else. I'm 110% what I saw is what I saw."

redneck

Redneck support for Obama (BBC News, Sunday, 2 November 2008)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, via dictionary.com:

red·neck

n. Offensive Slang

1. Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States
2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
   

I can see the interviewee has tattoos, but why does he deserve to be called a redneck? Several royalty, such as Harold II of England, Edward VII, and George V all had tattoos. Were they rednecks? And why is it 'news' if one person with ink in his dermis hands out bumper stickers in favour of Obama?

As so often, it appears the BBC have recruited too many 'journalists' who will produce any rubbish to reach their quotas.

Airliner had near miss with UFO

Airliner had near miss with UFO (BBC News, Monday, 20 October 2008)

As so often in these kinds of BBC News stories, it is difficult to find falsehoods, and the cited expert is an 'open-minded sceptic', whose past work on UFOs and UFOlogy has been sound and helpful. Nevertheless, the weak of mind may well take the title and some paragraphs as support of the claim that extraterrestrials are fucking with us.

The phrase "it is career suicide to have your name associated with UFOs" suggests existence of self-censorship keeping the truth from being discovered, and it may be all too tempting for believers to take the phrase "and make your mind up" and the comments form at the end of the article as supportive of a relativistic stance.