Thursday, 15 October 2009

Why BBC Reporters Don't Get Raped.

One of Biased BBC's biggest blowhards most dignified contributors is Biodegradable, scourge of all Middle Eastern coverage on the BBC. He is a fan of Israeli policy.

Today he's been offering his considered opinions on Katya Adler's recent film about school life in Gaza:

I don't think she's scared at all,

Glad you were concerned about her, Mr Degradable.

because I'm sure along with the release of Alan Johnson a deal was struck with Hamas to protect Beeboid reporters in exchange for them toeing the Hamas line.

Kind of thing the BBC does - sell its independence to buy protection.

How else do you explain a nice Jewish girl being allowed to work in Gaza

Possibly respect for the BBC as a leading news organisation?

without being raped,

Y-e-e-e-s. Are you troubled by your fantasies?

raped, killed or kidnapped?

Would you prefer all three? Or just one of these options?

She'd have reason to be scared if she reported the truth,

Do you think?

but as long as she does as she's told she'll be an honoured guest in Hamastan.

What's scary is that you actually seem to believe that Hamas does dictate BBC news policy….


  1. Biodegradable has long held that the BBC hates jews (which explains their biased coverage of the Israel/Palestine issue), that Palestinians are barbaric and that jews aren't in control of the media.

    So now we learn that the BBC puts a jewish woman in charge of its Palestinian coverage, where the barbaric Palestinians fail to rape or kill her, which means... that the Palestinians control the media.

    The mind doth boggle.

    My poo is biodegradable too. I just thought I'd mention that. I don't know why.

  2. I've Just endured the biased BBC question time live farce, for the first, last and only time, but there's something that puzzled me about it. Are David Vance and Martin joined at the hip, because they do like to reply to each others comments on a sickeningly regular basis, and to the virtual exclusion of everyone else. Are they in fact related?

  3. The above poster went to the live blog and then came here to criticise? What does he criticise, two people responding to each other. Were you ignored anonymous 00.34? Did they make you feel left out. Don't worry you have come to the right place. A blog set up for the sole purpose of giving personal abuse under the guise of decency is a soft place for you to land, after being ignored so badly.

    Why don't you tell us which commentator you were on the live blog and let us read your comments for our selves? All those comments looked fairly abusive toward people on the QT programme.

    Go on own up, or haven't you the balls?

  4. "Don't worry you have come to the right place. A blog set up for the sole purpose of giving personal abuse under the guise of decency is a soft place for you to land"

    Fair point - why bother with even a guise of decency when its far more fun to fantasise about destroying Bradford.

    Talk of destroying "muzzies" with nuclear weapons is one thing - but personal abuse, that really is beyond the pale.

    Problem is - if Mr Vance sets himself up as head of what he hopes to be a high profile organisation with, presumably, a serious issue to discuss - and manages to turn the whole thing into a ludicrous farce of frothing hatred - then personal abuse is pretty much inevitable.

    Using your own name whilst calling for "muzzies" to be slaughtered may show "balls" - either that or it shows him to be a hapless clown.