Israellycool » BBC Down Under Punditry in the Middle East Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:55:19 +0000 en-US hourly 1 The BBC Shills For Hamas And Melanie Phillips Calls Them On It Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:13:11 +0000 Yesterday on Twitter, Melanie Phillips unleashed a devastating barrage of tweets against a forthcoming BBC program about Gaza. It included this:

Noted Israel hater Ben White (we’ve mentioned him many times) took exception to this:

Ben White about Melanie Phillips

Now Melanie Phillips has written the following on Facebook:

Ben White tweeted today as shown above.

My response:

Venomous rubbish. Your “blockade-busting commercial tunnels” were used by Hamas to smuggle into Gaza not just routine supplies but also arms and ammunition whose sole purpose was to murder as many innocent Israelis as possible, including children.

I cited the JCPA report on the falsification of Gaza casualty figures. (1) This noted:

“An old news item resurfaced during Operation Protective Edge saying that 160 Palestinian children were killed while digging Gaza tunnels. The original story appeared in the Journal of Palestine Studies 39 in an article entitled ‘Gaza’s Tunnel Phenomenon,’ by Nicolas Pelham. In December 2011, Pelham toured the smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Sinai. He found ‘nothing was done to impede the use of children in the tunnels, where, much as in Victorian coal mines, they are prized for their nimble bodies. At least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials.’

“There was no international outrage against Hamas at the time for leading children to their deaths in underground passageways, nor is it clear how many Palestinian children died in the summer of 2014 – and were counted as civilian casualties – as a result of Hamas forcing them to serve as human shields and soldiers in its ongoing war against Israel.”

You appear to be relying upon a “correction” published by the Journal of Palestine Studies (2) no less than two years after it published Pelham’s article, and only after this had resurfaced causing a media frenzy and had been cited by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu. This “correction” ran as follows:

“The Journal of Palestine Studies must, however, admit to an unfortunate editorial error in the article by Pelham it printed: the figure of 160 children killed in commercial tunnels is inaccurate. In the JPS text, Pelham purportedly says: “At least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials.” Rather, the figure 160 reflects the total number of deaths in the tunnels recorded by the Hamas authorities as of 2012. The qualifier “children” was inadvertently added by JPS at a late stage of editing. [My emphasis] In fact, as of January 2013, al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza put the total number of Palestinians killed in the commercial tunnels at 235, only 9 of whom were children.”

You assume the figure of “only nine children” killed in the tunnels to be true, ignoring the fact that Palestinian casualty figures have been shown to be utterly unreliable. Indeed, the al Mezan Centre was previously reported as claiming that 13 children had been killed in the tunnels. How come they suddenly found four of them alive? Moreover, since the majority of tunnel workers were adolescents — the pro-Palestinian group B’tselem claimed in 2009 that “most of the workers in the tunnels are youths under 18” (3) – this proportion of tunnel casualties was clearly unsustainably low.

More pertinently, you do not acknowledge that the Journal of Palestine Studies claims that it added the word “children” itself to the 160 figure, thus maintaining that this was an error for which it was itself unaccountably responsible. No explanation was given for this apparently gratuitous distortion of Pelham’s own words. It also failed to address the fact that the phrase ‘160 children”, attributed to Pelham, directly followed his account of the unchecked use of children in the tunnels which he saw when he accompanied a police patrol in Gaza in December 2011.

Of course, you tell your credulous readers nothing of any of this context.

As you know perfectly well, I did not ever “cheer Israel as it bombed [Palestinian children] to pieces”. I supported Israel in its attempt to stop Hamas and Islamic jihad murdering Israeli civilians en masse, as it was attempting to do. I very much regretted the loss of innocent civilian life in Gaza, and deplored the fact that Hamas was using Gaza’s children as human sacrifices by deliberately siting its missiles around them, thus turning them into military targets which is a war crime. I noted that, despite this inhuman behaviour by Hamas, the IDF made more attempts to avoid the loss of innocent life, even at the cost of its own soldiers’ lives, than any army has ever done in the history of warfare.

Your false accusation against me is therefore nothing less than outright incitement to hatred by the use of incendiary falsehoods, the very tactic used against Israel for which you yourself are infamous and which you so nauseatingly deploy against me here.




]]> 4
Just-In: Beeber Admits To Substituting Word “Israelis” for “Jews” Thu, 09 Jul 2015 06:05:46 +0000 I am sure most of you are already convinced of the BBC’s bias already. If not, you might just have rocks in your head (or as the BBC might call them, harmless stones).

This next revelation deserves to get a lot of traction: A BBC documentary maker has admitted to substituting a crucial word.

bbc stillA BBC documentary has substituted the word “Israelis” for “Jews” in its translation of interviews with Palestinians, its maker has admitted.

Lyse Doucet has stood by the decision to translate “yahud” as “Israeli” in subtitles on her hour-long documentary Children of the Gaza War, which airs on BBC Two tonight.

The correct translation for “yahud” from Arabic to English is “Jew”.

The BBC’s chief international correspondent said that Gazan translators had advised her that Palestinian children interviewed on the programme who refer to “the Jews” actually meant Israelis.

In one instance, a Gazan child says the “yahud” are massacring Palestinians. However the subtitles read: “Israel is massacring us”.

Canada-born Ms Doucet said: “We talked to people in Gaza, we talked to translators. When [the children] say ‘Jews’, they mean ‘Israelis’.

“We felt it was a better translation of it.”

She added: “We checked this again yesterday.

“We are not trying to cover it up – we took advice on it and that was the advice we were given by translators.”

And why is this crucial?

We know palestinian children are fed on a diet of Jew hatred. We know this from the great work of organizations like Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI, clips from whom are regularly posted on here. So when the children speak of the “yahud”, that is exactly who they mean.

By substituting the words, the BBC is tampering with the truth. Those less enlightened than readers of this blog will think the children are directing their anger and hatred at Israelis, because of the so-called “occupation” or some other construct, rather than the very real antisemitism they are taught from a very young age.

Ms Doucet (or perhaps that should be translated Douchet),  you must realize your “translators told us” excuse is bogus. Of course consulting with the “people of Gaza’ about a correct translation will yield these results – they surely do not want the BBC exposing the Jew hatred, in order to garner maximum sympathy. They would rather it remains within the province of their Arab-language media.

Yet another example of the BBC’s lethal journalism.

]]> 8
Reader Post: The Shocking Moral Equivalence of The BBC’s Evan Davis Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:50:02 +0000 Johnny Simson is an Israeli born in Johannesburg, South Africa. His hobbies are Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and annoying anti-Semites.

During an interview with Tzipi Livni on Newsnight, the BBC’s Evan Davis asked “Would you describe your parents as terrorists?”. This is a basic tenet of today’s progressive Left. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s Freedom Fighter”, they say. You can see the full interview below.

Indeed Irgun, Haganah and Lehi engaged the British with asymmetrical warfare. They did not wear uniforms. They did kill civilians and civil servants working for the British government. So why are they any different than Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, the beheader of Lee Rigby and perpetrators of 7/7?

In order to be called freedom fighter one has to genuinely be a fighter for freedom and democracy. Irgun were fighting for human rights of Jewish people who had just survived a Holocaust. The British were blocking Jewish refugees from escaping the Holocaust, barring them entry to Palestine which was against the Mandate given to Great Britain in the San Remo conference of 1920. The British reneged on the Balfour declaration at a time the Jewish people needed a place of refuge more than anything else.

When the British finally were driven out of Israel, Irgun was absorbed into the IDF and Menachem Begin became a member of the Knesset. He respected the democracy of Israel and sat in the opposition until 1977. When he was elected he respected freedom of speech and the opposition. Unlike Hamas who violently took over Gaza when Fatah failed to respect the results of the PA 2006 elections and threw Fatah members of rooftops. Neither Fatah nor Hamas respect freedom of speech. Neither have anything that resembles rule of law in territories under their control. Hence neither Hamas nor Fatah can be called Freedom fighters since it is not Freedom they are fighting for.

I would like to break down the principle differences between Irgun and modern day Islamic terrorists.

I – Ideology and motivation

The ideology of Islamist terror groups is totalitarian. They wish to impose Sharia on their hosts. In the case of Fatah you get a secular dictatorship at best. They are exclusive of any minority or group that does not share their religion, ethnicity and ideology. They are motivated by deep hatred of the West, Infidels and specifically Jews. How do we know this? Here is what a Hamas MP has said about Israel. Ahmad Bahr on Al Aqsa TV in a sermon: “If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty,…in order to annihilate those Jews.”

Note, there is no talk of human rights nor freedom here. Contrast this with Jabotinski who is the founding father of Revisionist Zionism. Mentor to Menachem Begin.

Ze’ev Jabotinski on the Arabs:

“All of us, all Jews and Zionists of all schools of thought, want the best for the Arabs of Eretz Israel[Land of Israel]. We do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled.”

Ze’ev Jabotinski on democracy and freedom of speech:

“Today, the test of democracy is freedom of the press: the most liberal constitution is a lie if the press is muzzled, but where the press is free there is a hope even despite defects of the constitution.”

II – Methodology

The primary targets of the Irgun were soldiers and bases of the British army. Civilians were harmed but they were the exception rather than the rule. Usually civilians casualties were due to operational failures rather then a result of deliberately targeting civilians. Contrast this with Hamas and Fatah. Their primary targets are civilians. The more civilians harmed the higher the success of the operation.

III – Geography

Islamic terror groups do not limit their scope of action to their own territory. Take the Hezbollah bombing of an Israeli bus of tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria and many other failed attempts all over the globe. Anyone naive enough to believe that Hezbollah only were fighting to drive IDF out of S. Lebanon should ask themselves this Question. Why are they still attacking Israelis? Israel left S. Lebanon in 2000. Obviously the occupation of S. Lebanon was not their primal motivation. One should ask oneself, why Muslim immigrants and Muslim born in England see fit to attack British civilians on British soil. If the motivation is the war in Iraq then why are there still terror threats? Isn’t war in Iraq over? Why attack British civilians in England instead of fighting British troops in Iraq? Did Jews in English take up arms against British civilians when Irgun was fighting to end the British Mandate? No! Irgun operations were limited strictly to the area of the British mandate in Palestine.

IV – End Goal

The end goal of the PLO is clear. The destruction of the Jewish state. Arafat was quite clear about this while giving a lecture in 1994 in a mosque in Johannesburg. One year after signing the OSLO peace accords with Israel. Here is what he said:
“This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce.” Arafat was referring to the infamous Treaty of Hudaybiyyah which was merely a temporary truce before Muhammad broke it and massacred the tribe of Koraish.

A few years later Arafat publicly said: “We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem our land!” in his speech “The Impending Total Collapse of Israel” at the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, January 30, 1996

The end goal of Islamist terror groups in Britain is the destruction of Western style democracy and it’s replacement with Sharia. Sharia is an Apartheid system of Law where Muslims are granted more rights by law than non-Muslims.

The declared end goal of Irgun was democracy in the Jewish homeland. When they achieved this goal they disbanded. Irgun was absorbed in the Hagana which became the IDF.

A Western nation that fails to understand the stark differences between Jewish guerilla groups fighting for the survival of the Jewish people, freedom and democracy will eventually lose the very freedom they have no value for.

]]> 5
Mainstream Media Ignores Report Praising IDF Conduct Fri, 08 May 2015 04:16:42 +0000 Earlier this week there was a veritable media feeding frenzy over anonymous and completely unsubstantiated allegations by the Soros- NIF- and EU-funded group Breaking the Silence. The Washington Post, CNN, the Guardian, and the BBC all jumped at the chance to run full length features alleging depravity of Israeli conduct during Operation Protective Edge.

IDF gathering near Gaza border, July 2014

IDF soldiers near the Gaza border, July 2014

This stands in quite stark contrast to the mainstream media blackout over a report titled “A Legal and Operational Assessment of Israel’s Targeting Practices.” Published two weeks ago, the summary of the report states:

Broadly speaking, we concluded that IDF positions on targeting law largely track those of the United States military. Moreover, even when they differ, the Israeli approach remains within the ambit of generally acceptable State practice. The IDF is served by a corps of highly competent and well-trained legal advisors who operate with a remarkable degree of autonomy, and its operations are subject to extensive judicial monitoring. While there are certainly Israeli legal positions that may be contentious, we found that their approach to targeting is consistent with the law and, in many cases, worthy of emulation.

Unlike the anonymous sources in the BTS report, the authors of “A Legal and Operational Assessment of Israel’s Targeting Practices,” Michael Schmitt and John Merriam, have excellent credentials as, respectively, a professor of International Law at the US Naval War College, and a US Army Judge Advocate at the US Naval War College. The short and easy-to-read summary is backed up by one 50-page report in Social Science Research Network and another 15-page report in the same publication.

Outside of the Israeli press, as far as I can tell, this has been covered only by Algemeiner, Commentary, and the Lawfare blog, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institute. Once again, we see that so-called evidence of Israeli misconduct, no matter how flimsy, is highlighted, while evidence that Israel conducts its defense at least to the same standards as the US, is ignored. When it comes to Israel, the mainstream media has a profound and deep-seated sickness, and it does not appear as though any cure is on the horizon.

Update: I’m sure the American and UK media will similarly ignore this report, translated here by Elder of Ziyon, that debunks the BTS report. Here’s an excerpt from the EoZ translation:

A paratroop officer told me that Hamas often used women and children to alert their men of where to fired at IDF forces. He says he personally witnessed such a case: “A woman with a child came very close to our position and really you see how she points to our positions. You see how she talks on the phone and after a moment passed, we started taking sniper fire and mortars.” He noted you are allowed to shoot such observers but not freely, there are procedures that must be adhered to, and in this case by the time they finished the procedures she was gone.

According to him and other respondents, there were dozens of cases in which women and children were sent with phones to locate the positions of the army, which of course caused terrorist organizations to open fire. It cost the lives of soldiers. “So there were cases where we fired in such circumstances, and it is absolutely legal because this is a real threat to life. But there were many cases of doubt where nobody opened fire,” said the lieutentant colonel we spoke with.

]]> 3
Playing The Holocaust Card Sun, 08 Mar 2015 19:17:41 +0000 Did Benyamin Netanyahu play the Holocaust card when he pointed out Elie Wiesel in the audience during his address to Congress? Jeremy Bowen of the BBC thinks so. He as much as said so in this tweet:

And after he was accused of anti-Semitism for tweeting that thought, he defended himself with this tweet:

So here’s what I think. Damn STRAIGHT Bibi played the Holocaust card. And he damned well has a RIGHT to do exactly that, as does every Jew everywhere FOREVER.

It happened, the Holocaust. It happened to US. Europe did it to us, while no one gave a damn.

No one bombed the train tracks to Auschwitz. The Brits didn’t ease Jewish immigration into Palestine, the Jews’ INDIGENOUS HOMELAND; and the New York Times did the best it could to relegate news of the slaughter to the back pages of the paper sandwiched between the flotsam and jetsam of inconsequential news pieces no one ever read or cared about.

And so get used to it, Mr. Bowen: every time a despot threatens to annihilate the Jewish people we are going to play the Holocaust card. We’re going to play it with everything we’ve got and we’re NEVER going to shy away from playing that card.

That card is our BIRTHRIGHT. It’s our heritage. And when once again Europe doesn’t give a fig about the Jews, we are damned well going to remind you what evils you are capable of perpetrating against our people if we sit back and let you.

But this time, NO. We’re NOT going to let you. Not you. Not your country, and not the whole of the entire European Union.Amin al Husseini und Adolf Hitler

Now last time around, Hitler got in real cozy with Mussolini and also with El Husseini. If this time Europe gets in cozy with its Muslim masses and closes its eyes to the particularity of the particular slaughter going on in Paris and the anti-Semitism that is now widespread in Germany, Belgium, France, Denmark, and yes, Britain, we are damned well going to play the Holocaust card.

Yes. We will. Forever.

We have earned that right.

Grave of Mendel Beilis

Grave of Mendel Beilis

But just to offer you some variety, we may decide to alternate that card with various other cards, for instance the blood libel card, the Spanish Inquisition card, or perhaps even the Chmielnicki card, though the latter may be a bit more difficult for you, Jeremy, to pronounce.

V0041643 A torture chamber of the Spanish Inquisition with with suspe

A torture chamber of the Spanish Inquisition with with suspected heretics having their feet burned or being suspended with a rope from a pulley while scribes note down confessions. Engraving by B. Picart, 1722 (Wikimedia Commons)


Pogrom in Kishinev

Pogrom in Kishinev 1903

But the Holocaust card? We OWN that card. Forever.

And we get to use it whenever we wish. Which is whenever we need it. Which is like NOW.

Which is somewhat your fault, Jeremy, being as you are YES, someone who lives in EUROPE.

So I hope we’ve cleared that up for you, Jeremy: the card thing. The Holocaust. Who owns it. Who gets to use it when.

That would be us. Forever.


This blog is dedicated to the memory of my dear friend Ira Kurtz, z”l who never shied away from speaking the truth about those who would annihilate the Jews. Ira would have called Bowen out on his very obvious antisemitism, had he not passed away on the eve of Purim, of a sudden heart attack. Rest in peace, dear Ira.

]]> 39
BBC Bowen Is Playing The Jew Hatred Card Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:14:10 +0000 Dave posted a solid round up of reactions to Netanyahu’s speech yesterday focusing on US politicians. But of course, we have to note that the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen also had his say. Taking one look at Elie Wiesel, who upon hearing Netanyahu would be speaking immediately took out a full page ad declaring he would be there, Bowen tweeted the following:

And here is exactly what Netanyahu said about the Holocaust:

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

Netanyahu was stressing the universality of carnage in the whole of WWII, not just the Holocaust! He could have said 11 million (the approximate numbers of those killed directly by the Nazis) but he went even bigger stressing all those who died including combatants on all sides.

And of course this was popular amongst a loyal band of his followers:

But of course, where there is darkness, let us bring light:

And our own Jono fired back a couple of zingers:


]]> 7
Must Watch: George Galloway Digs A Deeper Hole (Updated) Fri, 06 Feb 2015 07:54:37 +0000 On the BBC’s Question Time, an audience member asks why antisemitism is rising in the UK and whether George Galloway bears a certain responsibility for it.

After Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland gives his (not terrible) answer, Galloway himself gives his.

Make sure you watch the follow-up questions and answers from other panel members, not to mention the expression on Galloway’s face. The final question is also a must-see.

Attacking the questioner? Check

Attacking Jews? Check

Describing the killing of Hamas terrorists as murder? Check

Using biased Gaza Health Ministry (i.e. Hamas) statistics to make a point? Check

Attacking Christians? Check

Claiming Islamophobia is more prevalent than antisemitism? Check

Update: He’s not a happy camper.

galloway tweets 1

galloway tweets 2


]]> 10
BBC Investigating Complaints Against Tim Willcox Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:40:30 +0000 You may recall following the recent terror attacks in France, the BBC’s Tim Willcox tried to blame Jews for the attacks.

Here’s a reminder:

Needless to say, many, like Reader B, complained to the BBC. And I assume, like Reader B, received the following boilerplate response:

Thanks for contacting us.

Tim Willcox has apologised for what he accepts was a poorly phrased question during an in-depth live interview with two friends, one Jewish and of Israeli birth, the other of Algerian Muslim heritage, where they discussed a wide range of issues affecting both the Muslim and Jewish communities in France. He had no intention of causing offence.

Tim sent the following tweet on 12 January: “Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live interview in Paris yesterday – it was entirely unintentional”.

We hope this goes some way in addressing your concerns.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints

Not impressed by the sheer lameness of this response, Reader B wrote back, letting the BBC know that this was inadequate. To her credit, she elicited the following response from them:

Dear Ms B,

Thank you for contacting us to escalate the complaint you made to the BBC about comments made by Tim Willcox on the BBC News Channel during coverage of the events in Paris on 11 January.

As at least part of your complaint falls within the Editorial Complaints Unit’s remit for cases where there may have been a serious breach of the standards expressed in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, we are happy to investigate it.

As you may be aware, however, we have received a very large number of complaints on this issue, and if we were to deal with them in the normal way, investigating each complaint separately, it would be many weeks before some complainants received a finding. In order to reach a speedy determination on the essential issues, as they are reflected in the totality of the complaints we have received, we propose to deal with them in a slightly different way.

In my view, the essential points of complaint, raising particular editorial issues, which emerge from the complaints we have received, can be summarised as follows:

  • That the question put by Tim Willcox to an interviewee was misleading in that it linked the Paris killings in a kosher supermarket with events in the middle east;
  • That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that all Jews were responsible for the actions of Israel;
  • That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that Jews were responsible for the murder of other Jews;
  • That the question was offensive because it trivialised the holocaust;
  • That the question displayed bias against Israel;
  • That Tim Willcox’s comment “But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives” suggested there was a justification for the killings;
  • That the interviewee was not treated with appropriate respect;
  • That the terms of the apology from Tim Willcox were inadequate and failed to address what was inaccurate and offensive about his remarks;
  • That posting an apology on a private Twitter account was inadequate and that it should have been published by the BBC.

I believe that the relevant guidelines against which these should be considered are those concerning Accuracy, Impartiality and Harm and Offence (particularly relating to Portrayal)

The Accuracy guidelines say that:

“All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.”

The Impartiality guidelines say:

“Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services – television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.

The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.”

The guidelines on Portrayal say that:

“We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom’s people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in societies worldwide but we should not perpetuate it. In some instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, faith, race, etc. may be relevant to portrayal. However, we should avoid careless or offensive stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in such terms when editorially justified.”

If you wish to consult them yourself, the relevant Editorial Guidelines can be seen in full at:

In order to expedite consideration of the many complaints we have received we propose to use the summary above as the basis of a streamlined process of investigation. I appreciate that it may not address in detail all of the points you raised in your communication to us, but I believe that it does represent the issues within the ECU’s remit raised by the complaints taken together.

We will aim to let you know the outcome of our investigation by 23 February.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Bell

Complaints Director

Editorial Complaints Unit

Now that’s more like it.

Although I do not pretend to expect any meaningful action to be taken against Willcox for this. The BBC is, after all, the BBC.

]]> 2
Fake BBC Site And Article Warning (Updated) Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:12:27 +0000 There is an absolutely shocking article being passed around at the moment. The article appears to be on the BBC website and dated 22nd January:

Are Jews and ‘Jewish Interests’ overrepresented in government?

BBC Religious Correspondent Caroline Wyatt investigates a question on the mind of a nation too afraid to ask it.

In rational, post-Enlightenment Europe, religion has long since been relegated to a safe space, with Judaism and Christianity the safe targets of satire in secular western societies.

Not so Islam. It is commonly held and agreed that the primary motive behind the Charlie Hebdo attack was to harm the cartoonists of the Paris based publication. 5 of the total number of victims killed were cartoonists. Only one cartoonist was listed as being Jewish.

The political spin given to the whole affair was one of ‘anti semitism’.

The shooting at the French Kosher Market was linked to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity solely on the grounds that the demands made by the hostage takers related to the perpetrators. And suddenly ‘Je Suis Juif’ placards materialise.

The problem is that it rests on a site called NEWS.BBC.UK.TO . The TO at the end stands for Tonga and so this site is utterly fake. Almost every link on the page does legitimately go back to the valid BBC.CO.UK site, but this one page has been created for nefarious means. I’m putting the URL here but I’m not linking to it. I took sensible precautions before visiting this page as I have no idea what malicious stuff may be running there.

The article itself peddles absolutely classic “over powerful Jews” controlling the world type stuff.

Fake BBC site+wm


It looks like this article might be an attempt to twist the following (legitimate) BBC story on its head by replacing Islam with Judaism. As a piece of satire it doesn’t work.

Paris attack highlights Europe’s struggle with Islamism

By Caroline Wyatt Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News

In the heart of Europe in 2015, the killing of cartoonists and journalists for allegedly insulting God still comes as a shock, despite the rising number of such attacks in recent years.

In rational, post-Enlightenment Europe, religion has long since been relegated to a safe space, with Judaism and Christianity the safe targets of satire in secular western societies.

Not so Islam. The battle within Islam itself between Sunni and Shia, so evident in the wars of the Middle East, and the fight between extremist interpretations of Islam such as those of Islamic State and Muslims who wish to practice their religion in peace, is now being played out on the streets of Europe with potentially devastating consequences for social cohesion.

It will be interesting to see where this crops up, if you see it being passed around, leave a comment and let us know and please link people to this post so they can understand what’s going on here. If you have any information about who set this up and what they were planning to achieve, we’d love to hear from you.

Update 29 Jan: The following article in the well respected site World Trademark Review has been brought to my attention and it’s well worth reading if you want more details on this.

A number of news reports appeared last week about a hoax BBC News article, hosted at ‘’, that went viral after claiming that video footage of the Charlie Hebdoattack in Paris was fake (screenshot here). For a time the article was modified to redirect to the Twitter account of Anonymous, the global hacker and activist network, but the hoax BBC site subsequently re-emerged this week, alongside another hoax site mimicking the Reuters UK website (at time of writing, a second fake BBC News site has just gone live at ‘’, illustrating the fast moving nature of these activities).

The first fake BBC News website (‘’) has been posting original content which mocks the BBCas well as content taken from other news sources (eg, this post is taken word-for-word from The Guardian). The bottom of the site has an altered BBC logo reading ‘Bread & Beer Circus’ and there is also an associated Twitter account (@BBCNews_couk) with the same name. The second fake BBC News site (‘’) was registered this week and more closely resembles the authentic site (comparison). Worryingly, it appears to be posting original (and controversial) content and falsely attributing actual BBC correspondents.

The fake Reuters UK website (‘’) was registered this week, and also contains content taken from other sites and fake news stories (this post merges misinformation about cannibals in Greece with word-for-word content from NY Times article). Furthermore, it uses elements from the legitimate Reuters UK website to closely mirror the original (comparison). These three hoax news websites appear to be linked due to a ‘Bread & Beer Circus’ account on content collating platform posting links from the websites within minutes of them going online.

]]> 3
Cartoon: The Misadventures of Tim Willcox Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:22:27 +0000 Click image to enlarge

willcox cartoon

]]> 9