Tue 20 Feb 2018
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!


The BBC Roll In

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.
Mar 17 2004 18:26

The BBC turned up today preparing for tomorrow's filming of “Question Time”

Click Here for the Full Article

1. simon   
Mar 18 2004 14:15

This is all very well, but ICU Choir has been chucked out from the Great Hall, the day before their concert. Previous attempts to get into the MDH have also been thwarted, as BBC have complained that we might make too much noise whilst they are filming (we finish at 2200 however).

Therefore, the full choir, extra members from the medics' choir and Roehampton university, together with a 55 piece orchestra (altogether about 200 people) have been forced into the Tanaka reception area - not perfect to rehearse in, especially the day before the concert in the most important rehearsal of the year (it will be the first time the orchestra comes together, and first time with the choir to sing with them). What's more is we did not have this confirmed till 1400 today - thus requiring a lot of logistics in making sure all 200 people head to the right place for the right time.

All together, we see IC has well and truely messed around Choir this time around - to get extra cash from an external event.

2. n/a   
Mar 18 2004 14:20

So. Who cares about a minor inconvencience to the choir?

Mar 18 2004 14:27

they record this one in advance. so that would be slap bang during your rehersal.

obviously this is probably the worst possible timing for the choir, but then even student societies cannot work togetehr to make there own lives easier so the chance of the level of cooperation required in this case....

Mar 18 2004 15:55

Makes a change for Choir (and other regular users of the Great Hall) to be messed around. Normally they are so unhelpful to other societies, even when the other society have the one huge event of the year, that the fact that they've been banned from the Great Hall makes me quite happy.

Have some of your own medicine?

Mar 18 2004 15:58

Surely the prestige of having such an 'intellectual' show filmed on campus will raise the Universities profile and benefit the College and the students?

Not everything in life is driven by money.

Mar 18 2004 16:04

"not everything is driven by money"

well, maybe.

"benefit the College and the students"

yes. even choir may benefit in the long run.... use of the Great Hall for things like these does mean that college has an interest in the venue, and improving it.

7. simon   
Mar 18 2004 16:33

We're not banned, as our concert is tomorrow.

What I meant was that they could have told us in advance, given us due notice and generally been nice.

And yes, this term everyone has been messed up from using the GH - not just choir. Badminton got half a week of bookings cancelled, and choir haven't been in the hall for three weeks running this term (or maybe even this year)

Mar 18 2004 18:13

ho humm,

I can only speak for the orchestra as one of the "regular users of the Great Hall" but we'd always bend over backwards to help other societies that needed the hall.

It isn't, however, always possible to change a long standing booking at short notice, especially given the numbers of people involved and the space required. There simply aren't other suitable venues in college for a symphony orchestra of 90 players (or the 200 musicians that the choir are talking about) and sometimes the only alternative would be to cancel a rehearsal, which isn't going to happen in the run up to a concert.

ho humm, I think your comment that "Normally they are so unhelpful" is more than a little harsh.

Mar 18 2004 19:20

Who do they think they are, coming along with their big white campervan thinking they own the place.

'Intellectual' show? They have JEREMY CLARKSON ffs! How it be an intellectual show if that moron is jabbering on about how much he hates communism and...actually, Clarkson is quite funny. Could somebody interview him - Felix or live...?

10. Eoghan   
Mar 18 2004 23:59

It was a cracking show, if only for Harriet Harman's Freudian slip "Since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister..."

I got an email from College inviting me to the recording. Unfortunately they only sent it midafternoon today, and by the time I read it the recoding had already started. A modicum of organisation would be an idea, kicking the choir out at hours' notice just isn't good enough. You make a booking for one person, you expect that to be honoured, but when there are several hundred people involved, kicking them out for the sake of showbiz is just rude.

11. Seb   
Mar 19 2004 00:32

Yes, it was a great show. Pity they wouldn't let us speak, but at least the explained why (They carefully balance the audience on background and politics to get a proper debate).

Actually, I thought Clarkson was rather good. He may not be an intelectual but he seemed much higher on common sense than some of the others.

Harriet Harmon was nausieating though. A string of realy bad "politicians answers" full of cliches and weasel words. And if I hear someone in Government say "shoulder to shoulder" one more time... I thought they had focus groups to tell them when something was that bad.

12. Sunil   
Mar 19 2004 00:39

Clarkson still had the funniest comment of the evening, when he said it was not really necessary to have a statue of a disabled woman on the Trafalgar Square plinth for reasons of political correctness because "there's already one there of a man with one eye and one arm". Fantastic!

13. Eoghan   
Mar 19 2004 02:03

I thought Rifkind was quite disappointing...he huffed and puffed without getting very far. Harman was bullc**pping all the way, from the Lords to the statue. Truly dire. The Lib Dem guy didn't have much to say much for himself; Clarkson stood out as the "compassionate Tory" that I'm sure Michael Howard would love to propogate the image of. I didn't hear that he'd had a fight with Piers Morgan though?!

14. short   
Mar 19 2004 09:03

Marcus, ho humms' comment is probably quite justified. I know that it is annoying when bookings are moved around or you can't get your usual time, but if you have a booking it is only polite to vacate the room by the time your booking is finished not practise right up to the end and then start packing away during someone elses time which i have witnessed from many groups in the past. It would also only be polite if more people asked before trapsing through other groups bookings to access the cupboard under stage.

15. short   
Mar 19 2004 09:04

Actually on topic though, i really enjoyed last night, Clarksons facial expressions during other panelists comments were worth it alone at times.

Mar 19 2004 09:53

on the subject of pre-emptive kicking out; archery lost their range 3 weeks earlier than planned due to the sports centre 'redevelopment' so now, they have to shoot as guests at another club

17. Marcus   
Mar 19 2004 10:42

short, that's an entirely fair comment. I was just a bit miffed about the implication that all groups with regular bookings in the hall are un-cooperative when that simply isn't the case.

The orchestra's regular booking is until 11pm, but they are normally out by 10pm or very soon after.

18. Rorkie   
Mar 19 2004 10:47

ho humm, as Choir Chairman, I deeply resent your inaccurate comments. In Choir's defence, I would like to cite two instances when we have relinquished our bookings to the benefit of two such "huge event[s] of the year": City & Guilds Freshers' Ball, and International Night's final rehearsal. The reason why I have tried to be as reasonable as possible is because I have spent hours of my life trying to find a suitable place to rehearse, or negotiating with other societies, most of whom have also been very helpful.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think you'll find that if people get their act together and start communicating, things do run smoothly.

I don't feel that College communicated well with us on this issue, as we were asked to find alternative accomodation the day before the most important rehearsal of the term.

Simon - factual correction, College didn't get a penny for last night's broadcast. They did it solely for publicity, and I think "Imperial College" was mentioned on the air once.

19. amram   
Mar 19 2004 22:03

I found Clarkson to be a real buffoon especially whne he said he'd rather let the Iraqis suffer than put himself at risk of terrorism- as if Iraq has anything to do with Al Qaeda's desire to destroy the West...

On another note I hear from a friend of mine that went there that not only are the principal questioners picked from the audience beforehand but so are the people who make comments ie when you watch the show and get the impression that audience members are allowed to make spontaneous comments based on the panel's reply it is a deception. Is this what you were hinting at Seb?

This sheds at bit more light on how the audience seems to be overwhelming Leftwing,anti-war, pro-BBC (yes most people are agianst the licence fee and its use to fund anti-western propaganda and BBC drivel) and again blasts one of the few remaining myhts of bbc impartiality!!


for mideast distortions for example and join the anti-licence tax on

20. chris   
Mar 19 2004 23:47


As you admit, you weren't there. I was and here is the picture I got:

The people asking questions were announced before the recording. They had already submitted questions and I guess the reason was so there is a wide spread of Q&A in the very short time available.

The people making comments were definately not chosen beforehand. It was genuine spontaneous reaction to the comments. They put their hands up, they get asked.

21. chris   
Mar 19 2004 23:49

What Seb was refering to is that us students at the back, quite rightly couldn't comment.

For one thing we were behind the control desk thingy

Secondly, we were all students so the program would appear extremely biased

Mar 20 2004 11:25

Amraam, you do speak a load of rubbish most of the time. Are most people against the license fee, or did you just make that up?

Also, I'd like to see an impartial, unbiased news source. It is an impossibility. What is good for one group of people is often bad for another, and there is nothing you can do about that. The BBC report primarily for a British audience, and it isn't their fault that there are so many foreigners in this country to whinge about their reporting style.

Mar 20 2004 12:30

The BBC has got one of the most superb websites in the world. I could not imagine a world without the BBC.

The beeb rules!

24. amram   
Mar 20 2004 13:38

yeah yeah the BBC rules, britannia rules the waves etc etc.

It is unfortunate that there are such smallminded fools who like Cyberbaaboon or whatever his name is above, that think that any attack on the tired far-left drivel that comes out of the dying BBC is an attack on Britain. In fact it is the BBC that is attacking Britain everyday. It is a pity people have such a short memory and have already forgotten the Hutton report that revealed the widespread bias and corruption at the BBC that inevitably led to the resignation of the directors , albeit in a rather dishonourabkle way (Greg Dyke resigned but didn't think he had done anythonmg wrong- so why did he resign). Cyber baboon , survey after survey, has shown that the vast majority of people are against the licence fee which is just a poll tax to fund the terror apologist (whether IRA, PLO or AL Qaeda), anti- British, anti-American, media empire. As to fair and balanced- I prefer Sky any day. As to Chris' "us students at the back, quite rightly couldn't comment." what twaddle. This just proves my argument that the programme is biased. on tv it appears that ANYONE in the audience can comment, and not the people sitting at the front who have gone through some sort of BBC vetting process- however imperfect as you very occasionally (like ionce evry 3 programmes) hear a voice sounding somewhat representative of the public and not just that of CND freaks or MAB fascists...

25. ant   
Mar 20 2004 14:34

Amran, the proper audience could all comment, the slection process is necessary to ensure a balanced audience. I think anyone who observed the recording from the back of the hall would agree that the actual audience was from the whole spectrum. I say those who 'observed' because thats what the colleges students and staff were, we were not part of the studio audience and often would not have been able to be there, except i belive we were due to an agreement between college and the producers on the condition we didn't take part. If they didn't balance the audience the program wouldn't work, if the studio audience were all socialist workers for example it would hardly be a fair and balanced debate.

Mar 20 2004 14:54

No way - the BBC is the most unbiased news resource out there. Their coverage of what is happening in Iraq has been superb - they are not as left-wing as Amram falsely suggests. But then everything is extreme left as far from where Amram is standing.. ;-)

Greg Dyke made a mistake to resign - he shouldn't have. He had put to much faith into that dinosaur Huttonoaurus. I think anyone with a modicum of common sense could see that Hutton's report was extremely unfair. Alistair Campbell was nothing short of embarassed by Hutton's verdict. Nowadays people just try to avoid talking about it and pretend that it never happened.

The BBC is the envy of the world and I am a proud licence fee payer. Could you imagine a media-world run by Rupert Murdoch? It would be a living hell.

27. amram   
Mar 20 2004 22:12

ant the name is amram not amran. BBC supporter, did you check the above 2 sites which give lots of analysis and evidence that PROVES that the BBC is biased see especially

and look at the section dealing on the Iraq war. Actually I believe in plurality of information sources- so while Murdoch seems to be politically sensible to me I would also not want entire media domination by him or anyone else. But this doesn't justify the BBC's domination paid for by the licence fee that everybody HAS to pay, while many don't even watch the BBC let alone agree with them. If they are so fair why did a Royal Navy ship ask for the BBC World briadcasts to be cut off during their mission in Gukf War 2 as they found the reporting to be so nauseatingly pro Saddam?

I still think it was very unfair that the IC students didn't get a say - indeed IC students represent a cross-section of opinion as this forum shows. Also why did Dimblebey only mention IC once at the very end and very hastilly and kept referring to the venue as "South Kensington"?

I bet if he was at some poncy Oxbridge college (as they have been in the past) he would have not stopped giving the College publicity. Frankly we should have told the BBC- sorry the choir have pre-booked, go and film in UCL...

28. Ameet   
Mar 21 2004 15:11

Again another example of how the college doesn't give a s**t about students, only money and prestige. Explains the hall increases as well.

Mar 21 2004 17:39

Yes i did check the websites Amram posted. The first one was obviously agenda-driven hype. THe second one BBCwatch was hardly worth the time I spent reading it - during which I found it to be a completely irrelevent, skewed, and pointless website written by a couple of under-worked lawyers. Think about it. The BBC is accountable to its audience and produces quality exportable programmes like A Question of Sport.

Mar 21 2004 19:58

I'd be grateful if someone from Choir could let me know exactly what happened with the Great Hall booking so that when I shout at the Conference Office (and I do feel like shouting at them) I do so with the facts.

Incidentally, getting messed around over your rehearsal didn't seem to detract from your end performance. I quite enjoyed Friday's concert - the first I'd been to.

31. amram   
Mar 21 2004 21:10

The first you'd been to eh Mustafa? What about the commitment to encouraging student activities?

Anyway BBC supporter, you really lack much credibility when you say that A question of Sport is a "quality" programme!!

Even the hostest with the mostest is a very tired wrinkled old third rate former tennis player who makes the fat woman who wom pop idol look pretty...

As to "tired lawyers" what you should say is professional solicitors and barristers- who better to judge? But anyway there evidence, particulalry Trevor Asserson's report is highly detailed and professional.

Mar 21 2004 21:15

Ameet - College *should* be worrying about money and prestige.

Prestige - gets the name about, makes the degrees worth more. This is VERY important.

Money - means we actually get a decent education and are well resourced.

Students? Yes, very important as well, but pointless if there's no money or prestige. Without those things you may as well go to [insert "New University" here].

Mar 21 2004 21:36

Choir only do one concert a term.

Last term's concert clashed with my hall's christmas dinner and a couple of other events. I chose to go to the hall dinner.

This term's concert clashed with my hall's annual dinner, a live dinner, a party at Wye I was thinking of going to and a couple of other things.

Mar 21 2004 22:14

joking about a Question of Sport - that series has getting worse and worse ever since Sure Barker took over.

Here is a pro-Palestinian website which criticises the BBC for anti-Palestinian coverage

When both sides are so adamently criticising the BBC over bias and claiming to be objective you cannot fail to congratulate the BBC for their balanced coverage. The BBC's unique funding structure ensures that it is more independent and more unbiased than any other international news source. It's not perfect by any means but it's important.

35. Sam   
Mar 21 2004 22:29

Rorkie Baby: Factual Correction...

"Simon - factual correction, College didn't get a penny for last night's broadcast."

No, they didn't... They got 200,000 pennies (?2,000) my friends in both Dramsoc and Conference Ops inform me. Although they spent ?1,800 of this installing some technical features in the Great Hall, meaning they probably made a loss overall - the features (points I believe they are called) can be used for all future events...

36. amram   
Mar 21 2004 22:33

No. The simple fact is that the BBc is pro-PLO- it refuses to call suicide murderors terrorists instead calling them "militants" as if they were some sort of political activist. As to the above website, the mendacious nature of the Arab propagandists never fails to amaze me but just because the site- which is frankly vile, inflammatory, racist and apoliogetic for terrorist crimes, exists sdoe not have any bearing on the serious research done by honestreporting .com or the more "neutral" so to speak reporting of trevor Asserson's report or the very fact that Hutton shoed the BBC's absolute disregard for the truth that led to the resignation of their directors. Nor does this negate the fact that the BBC themselves acknowledged their pro-PLO bias and appointed a commisioner to deal with this (although he seems to have done sod all)..

Mustafa-you have a busy schedule, granted.

Mar 22 2004 01:08

Amram, I'm calling your bluff on that one: the BBC never admitted being pro-PLO. When did they admit being pro-PLO?

38. amram   
Mar 22 2004 01:46

they admitted that their mideast coverage appeared one-sided and thus decided to appoint a special commisioner to evaluate whether their coverage was anti-israeli or not. but as i said he seems to have done sod all as he was appointed over 6 months ago and has yet to make any reports/findings public..

but yes technically you are right, they didn't actually admit anything, but the appointment of the commisioner was an admission of guilt...

39. amram   
Mar 22 2004 01:53

These two articles from the times and the telegraph show just how awful the BBC has been. No womder so many people in the UK have such a distorted pro=palestinan attitude,,251-728360,00.html

40. Chris   
Mar 22 2004 08:50

Don't forget the Times is owned by Mr Murdoch who is anti BBC anyway (he owns Sky - the BBC's main competitor)

Mar 22 2004 10:42

No, they don't show how awful the BBC have been. The BBC have been accused of being pro-Israel AND anti-Israel in the past. They have responded by appointing a commissionner to overlook middle-east coverage. This shows that the BBC are open to criticism and willing to act upon it. The commissioner has probably done 'sod all' because the BBC is simply not pro-PLO.

Mar 22 2004 11:02

Yes, Murdoch absolutely hates the BBC because it's the one institution stopping him from getting a stranglehold on the British media. It's the one thing stopping a complete commercial saturation of our broadcast media. The BBC is independent and is accountable to the people and parliament. The Times and the Sun are accountable only to Murdoch's greed. Anyway Murdoch is an individual who has contributed nothing to the human race - he should be stopped.

43. Rorkie   
Mar 22 2004 13:31

Mustafa - thanks for coming on Friday. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I have started an investigation into what happened with the bookings and I will let you know what I find, so that you have your facts straight if and when you shout at people.

Sam - thanks for your correction, I'm sure you're right. I thought I heard from someone in Conferences or Int Bookings (I forget now) that College wasn't paid for the booking, but perhaps the overall loss was what they were alluding to.

44. Arwa   
Mar 22 2004 15:49

Anyone who thinks the BBC is not pro PLO and anti Israel needs to ask her/himself why they continue to employ Tom Paulin who said American Jews should be shot, whilst they effectively sacked Kilroy-Silk for an article which was supposedly deemed to be anti-Arab even though they had not complained after its first publication some months ago. It should be noted that the BBC is not only anti-Israel and pro-terrorist, it is also anti-British and pro terrorist (IRA), anti-French and pro-terrorist (Algerians), anti-Spanish and pro-terrorist (ETA), anti-monarchy, anti-church (both Anglican and Catholic) and against everything not supported by a small coterie of Guardian-reading, champagne swilling, Islingtonite 'socialists' who wish to support these 'persecuted' groups of 'freedom fighters' and oppose all established government and religion in order to cleanse themselves of the guilt they feel for their hypocritical bourgeois lives.

Mar 22 2004 15:52

Mr Rorke, I assume that you didn't have a booking in the Great Hall that night as they must have known about this for ages. I also assume that you were kicked out of the MDH/ante room or where ever you had at the last minute. Is this correct?

I'd just like to know as it may be that the Beeb complained that you might cause a noise rather than college chaning their minds at the last moment.

46. Rorkie   
Mar 22 2004 16:25

Mr. C, I don't particularly like responding to anonymous posts (not like you risk offending anyone, is it?!), but as you were so polite... I'm still trying to find out!

At this stage, I believe that it was the conference office's decision, rather than the Beeb's.

Internal Bookings have been as helpful as they could have been over this particular issue, but on a more general note, if anyone could come up with a booking system for College and Union rooms that was administered by a single organisation (i.e. the Union) and could be seen by all who needed to (i.e. every club/soc who books rooms), then this would save a lot of grief.

47. simon   
Mar 22 2004 17:30

Perhaps some sort of facilities management system could be made available on the web so as to view current bookings etc, and to place bookings? then the staff could actually confirm the bookings. IB for IC, and union staff for union rooms.

I think there are free PHP applications our there that do'd be REALLY useful!

Mar 22 2004 17:58

union used to run a booking system for the blyth center practise rooms. one little server failiure (that christmas a few years back) and college got cold feet. so as far as i know its still done by paper...

obviously college's IT is perfect....

If you watched union IT projects this last few years. well... so your best option would be to volunter and prooduce a tested system for them...... ;-)

Mar 22 2004 18:02

I think that it is fantastic that the BBC is annoying extremists.

Since extremists (especially religious zealots) are by their very nature unable to be objective they will always feel hard done by the BBC. The BBC has been accused of being pro-Israel and anti-Israel in equal measure - usually by the religious fanatics who are causing all these problems in the first place.

Mar 22 2004 18:23

Well, fair enough, thanks for the answer Sam.

I'd debate the anonomous post thing though. Sometimes I would like to try to contribute to a discussion without someone dismissing my views by saying, 'oh well you would say that' or whatever.

I don't have a problem being held accountable for my comments but having a debate with someone for whom you have no pre-defined view s is quite nice.

What would be nice is a system where you are required to log-on and use a real email address for your account but then all communication between people on live is via live and the email address is never displayed. Each person could have a set of Aliases (say 3 to stop people posting under too many) This would also solve the problem of people spoofing other peoples aliases.

Of course the problem with this (and the IT booking system) is that someone has to care enough to spend a long time writing and testing a system. Whilst I'm not saying people don't care what I am saying is I suspect they have better things to do.

Oh and the ability to preview and edit your own posts would be nice.

51. Sam   
Mar 22 2004 19:38

"union used to run a booking system for the blyth center practise rooms. one little server failiure (that christmas a few years back) and college got cold feet. so as far as i know its still done by paper..."

Yeah, it ran on Oracle and AOLServer and was one of the outcomes of a huge and ill fated project to update the Union website. (for those who don't know what AOLserver is - don't ask...)

Server failure had nothing to do with the abandoment of the system - we killed it because running Oracle, AOLServer, Apache and MySQL on the same machine was impractical (plus the whole Union website project failed spectacularly then) Two sites ran on the Oracle db/AOLServer combo - the OSC webpages and the room booking system. F**king up the whole server just to run those two sites was a waste of time.

There was an attempt to provide an alternate system, just for room bookings, done in PHP - but to be honest no-one then involved in the Union website could give a s**t (well at least I didn't)

52. simon   
Mar 23 2004 12:20

A quick search on Sourceforge reveals the following (of which i quite like the 1st one!!)

and also

I think it's certainly worth looking into. Perhaps trialling with the union would then lead to it being lobbied to the college?

Mar 23 2004 13:00

Open booking looks cool, except the version number (0.61).

I seem to remeber the union's online Lecturer Evaluation Questionaire being dumped because the union didn't have confidence in them. (correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem being it has to be stable, well tested and secure. Imagine the problems with a society hacking in to change bookings (oh the fun we could all have).

On the upside however I suspect Kristine at Union Reception would rejoice at the idea of being able to give club chairs a log in and let them sort out room bookings themselves.

54. simon   
Mar 23 2004 13:27

Yeap, I'm sure it would go down a treat :-)

Pity about the version number, but if you dont like it, then perhaps we should do our own...but then why reinvent the wheel.

Mar 23 2004 13:55

Given time I think it will turn into a good package, however I don't think it's mature enough yet, even the developers don't

Mar 30 2004 20:43
Mar 30 2004 21:01

eh? do what? what was the point of that link? I thought we had already covered that the times has good reason (and its not called "public interest" to bash the BBC, as often as possible.

Did you see their coverage of the hutton enquiry?

Mar 30 2004 21:05

Sorry but the Times is not anti-BBC. where is your evidence of that?

Why not read the article first and then comment.

Mar 30 2004 23:49

The BBC is democratic since it is accountable to Parliament (Royal Charter review coming up in 2006) and more importantly to the public. So I disagree with the article's premise that the BBC is not 'democratic'.

As for the Times: your parents still read it out of respect for the newspaper it used to be. Nowadays Murdoch's influence is too evident in the narrow-minded attitudes it conveys. Although Murdoch is not meant to effect the editorial direction the paper takes it is very evident on its pages.

Here's a quote on Murdoch:

"He's a good businessman and a lousy journalist, a lousy journalist in the sense that he doesn't believe in public interest journalism, and he doesn't keep his promises, he's a liar, he's incontinent in breach of promises, and also he's a very treacherous person, it has to be said" - Harold Evans, who resigned as editor of Times one year after Murdoch took over.

The BBC is 'public interest journalism' at work and produces excellent programming.

Mar 31 2004 00:20

all due respect BBC supporter but you say that the times is biased (still totally unproven) and yet use the testimony of a man with a personal grudge to bear against murdoch as your proof of the newspaper's supposed bias!

Hardly objective?

OK- forget the times- what about this

are you telling me that Anatoly Sharansky- a prisoner of Zion who spent 8 years in a Soviet prison fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a world renowned and well respected campaigner for freedom is also - sooooo biased. Perhaps it is time to accept that the BBC of your parents is not the BBC of today.

Mar 31 2004 02:10

Sharanski is not biased - his accusations are just incorrect. Also it was only last year that he went onto BBC's 'Hardtalk' to be interviewed. So he is a hypocrite too.

As for the Times: it is anti-BBC because it is owned by Murdoch THE person who hates what the BBC stands for the most.

I'm wasting my time here.

63. Nimrod   
Aug 05 2004 17:02

Why should Scharansky's imprisonment by the Soviet Union make him any more objective about the BBC or about the Middle East conflict? All sorts of people were imprisoned by the Soviets, including neo-Nazis.

Scharansky's a minister in the Israeli government! He's not very likely to say "yes, we made every effort to use that Palestinian kid to get good publicity". Is he?

Closed This discussion is closed.

Please contact the Live! Editor if you would like this discussion topic re-opened.