FURIOUS Tory chiefs have accused the BBC of trying to sabotage their election campaign by sending hecklers equipped with microphones to a meeting addressed by Michael Howard.
The Conservatives have made an official complaint to the corporation after the hecklers - who were 'miked-up' by corporation technicians - were caught at a party event last week.
The Tories accuse the BBC of a "premeditated" attempt to disrupt the meeting and say the corporation should not be involved in creating news.
The BBC last night insisted the filming formed part of a programme on the history of heckling, but the revelation threatened to plunge the organisation into its biggest crisis since the David Kelly affair in 2003.
The admission that hecklers were equipped with microphones for a programme that will be viewed before polling day on May 5 leaves the BBC open to allegations that staff showed political bias, in breach of corporation regulations.
The row is over a local Tory party rally in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, at which Howard was the main speaker. Party officials became suspicious when they saw BBC cameras focused on hecklers rather than Howard. Checks on the hecklers - two men and a woman - revealed they were carrying hidden microphones.
In a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, Guy Black, the Conservatives' director of communications, said that the "placed" hecklers shouted slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party".
The slogans included "Michael Howard is a liar", "you can't trust the Tories", and "you can only trust Tony Blair".
Black's letter accuses the BBC of organising an event in order to "generate a false news story and dramatise coverage... intended to embarrass or ridicule the Conservative Party". The letter also claimed that people working for the BBC were guilty of "serious misconduct".
His letter added: "It is entirely clear to me that the success of their presence required an element of performance on their behalf, and that this was a pre-meditated event intended to disrupt the course of Mr Howard's speech."
A BBC insider said: "I can't believe they allowed someone to pull this kind of a stunt. When you think about all the other hoops the rest of us have to jump through in the name of fairness, this is a disgrace. There is going to be hell to pay over this."
The BBC has claimed that the exercise was carried out as part of "a completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling".
The BBC added that it had "observed" meetings carried out by other political parties, but refused to say whether it had miked-up hecklers for meetings carried out by other parties. It has been claimed that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in the same way.
The BBC's use of surreptitious recording devices is strictly limited by the corporation's rulebook, the Producer Guidelines.
They lay down that plans to use hidden microphones must be approved by senior management within the BBC, and that it should only be used "as an investigative tool to explore matters which raise issues of serious anti-social or criminal behaviour".
#1
Multiple executives at CBS News are kicking themselves, asking "why didn't WE think of this!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/24/2005 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This kind of thing no longer shocks me. They're Leftists. Leftists are inherently dishonest. They lie. They cheat. That's not only what they do, it's who they are.
The only part that still burns my cork is knowing that they've been doing it all along, and for the first forty years of my life I was too damn ignorant to realize it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/24/2005 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
While I understand the sentiment, that's a bit overly broad to be fair, I think. Not everyone on the left buys into ends-justifies-means - Joe Lieberman comes to mind as a counterexample.
And of course there's Karl Rove on the right, who did just enough in the way of shady campaign practices earlier on to have provoked outright paranoia in many today.
#4
"Not everyone on the left buys into ends-justifies-means - Joe Lieberman comes to mind as a counterexample."
But people like Lieberman are in awfully short supply these days, far too short for him to serve very well as a counterexample.
I used to be a Democrat; until I switched parties a couple years ago, I'd been one for over thirty years. But after seeing the dishonesty, stupidity, insanity, sneakiness and sheer malevolence coming out of that crowd in the last few years, I will never vote for another one of those bastards so long as I live.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/24/2005 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
As a child of the 1960's I can tell you from first hand observation that the people who drive and lead the left are devoid of morality. Their only worry is about getting caught. If they don't believe they will be caught or, they can deny and obfuscate, they will do anything to further their ends. The communist/socialist world they desire drives every act. This isn't an exception, it's their everyday behavior. It's no surprise that the media here or in the UK is totally infiltrated by this movement or, that it acts the way is does. Think about it, the BBC is where most of the UK and some parts of the world get their news. It's the perfect target of the communist/socialist movement. The ranks of âjournalistsâ and law offices are full of these false fronted underminers of democracy.
It's too bad the people of the UK are to timid and spineless to do anything about this. They hardly have the the will to even piss and moan any more, let alone act. What is a laugh is the image of the UK that I get in a strong way from the BBC and other UK publications. That image is that the average citizen of the UK is a passive moonbat or totally detached from reality. The average citizen of the UK finds this kind of activity OK as long as it's the evil Torries who are on the receiving end.
#6
Agreed. Sad thing is, though, they're not really a whole lot worse over there than we are here. Sometimes I feel we're teetering precariously on the edge which they've just gone over; and I'm not looking forward to hearing that *SPLAT* when they hit bottom.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/24/2005 15:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Dave - Just imagine how much louder that sound would be, if we tip over. The 1.5% margin, last time, is a tiny thing when you realize that we're the last bastion against Joe's OWG, which I prefer to call TFI - Total Fucking Insanity. One thing I was never trained in is How To Be Helpless - And Enjoy It - the proper Dhimmi attitude and inaction I guess the Moonbats are teaching our children these days - so this waiting around for the other shoe to drop is uncomfortable as hell.
[rant]
I know who they are, where they are, and what to do. I'd hate to wait till it's too late. A joke that floated around was that Oscar Wilde's last words were, "Either this wallpaper goes, or I do." Not true, of course, but it illustrates an aspect of my current mindset. I want hardcore action to end the insanity - while it can still be ended. Sorta like the vultures sitting on the branch of a dead tree. One looks over at the other and sez something like, "Fuck this waiting. I want to go out and kill something." I'm at the stage where I want the waiting to end to find out if the insidious internal moonbattery will succeed in undermining our Republic and turning it into a Socialist enclave for the likes of Soros, the BBC, and Nancy Pelosi. I am ready to force the issue, though I am not threatening violence, just action to stem the tide, such as the Senate Nuclear option. Sigh. If I'm lucky, I'll die before we tip -- or get to participate in a second civil war that the moonbats start. Those seem to be my only "positive" options.
[/rant]
On the lighter side of it, check out this and this at Curmudgeonly & Skeptical, heh, Terpsboy is on a roll. Hell, the entire content today is classic Terpsboy - NSFW, but it's Sunday, so not many are working.
#8
SPoD - where are you getting your information from regarding the UK? The BBC? You believe *them*? The tabloids? Mirror? left-wing, low circulation, The Grauniad? ultra-leftist, feel they should run the country and looow circulation, The Independant - it's not. Then we've got The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express - all royalty, stuff Europe, totally support the troops, send back all asylum seekers and what tattoo has Beckham got this week (ok, that's the Sun). Blogs are a pretty good place to get good info. on the UK though - Samizdata.net for instance.
Opinion polls show the Tories as having something like 33% of the vote, and a lot of people are very pissed off at the BBC over this. It looks like the Socialists will win, but it will be a phyrric victory - Blair will be fatally weakened, unable to push through the reforms in the NHS and elsewhere that are sorely needed because the backbenchers in his own party won't let him. The Tories will lick their wounds and come back in 2009-10 with some policies that will mean more to the populace than a few billion in tax cuts (things like a flat-tax for instance). Will I still be here then? Dunno, but there's only so much erosion of civil liberties, EU subversion and Socialist bollox a person can stand.
We're a complex country, same as the States, looking at one aspect will show you the moonbat tendency sure, but defining the average citizen of the UK is as elusive as the average American or Frenchman.
One thing I've learnt over the last three (four?) years of coming to Rantburg is that there are a lot of people, regardless of what country they come from, who I feel a resonance with. People such as TGA, Fred, .com, OP, JFM, Seafarious, Bulldog and many more. I don't agree with everyone of course - AK and Murat for example...That tells me that the fundamentals are not restricted to the residents of one country, but are found in many different people (I knew that, but it's good to have confirmation).
Leftism is found everywhere (unfortunately) - the way to defeat it is with reasoned arguments, not to diss whole countries.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
04/24/2005 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Dave - Just imagine how much louder that sound would be, if we tip over."
Exactly, which is why I'm not having a good time watching their antics: we're probably next.
One metric I sometimes use to gauge how bad I actually "feel" things are, is to imagine what my reaction would be if I were to wake up tomorrow morning to find some Army captain reading the news on CNN and explaining that prominent Leftists in the media, Hollywood, the universities, etc. were being rounded up and put in camps, that everyone should stay calm and go about their normal business, and that the military government would restore civilian control as soon as it was deemed safe to do so, and so forth.
What would your reaction be?
For most of my life, my own reaction to such a thing would have been sheer, utter horror. Even now, I'd be "alarmed" and "concerned". But I tell ya, things won't have to get a whole lot worse than they are, before my reaction would become, "About fucking time! Where can I volunteer?"
"If I'm lucky, I'll die before we tip -- or get to participate in a second civil war that the moonbats start."
They've started it. More precisely, they've resumed it: it actually started back in the 60's, but had the gas temporarily let out of it when Nixon resigned and we bugged out of Vietnam.
But I'm starting to suspect that it's about to resume.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/24/2005 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Hard decisions tend to get made in bad times. We are heading into a period of (unprecedented) economic turbulence. I anticipate the world will look significantly different in 12 months time.
#11
One thing is perfectly clear: we, the West, are on the precipice. There are sane people who are currently out of power / authority in several Western countries - the UK and Germany being prominent examples. The US was so damned close to doing the same in 2000 and, again, in 2004 that it's breathtaking.
Clinton was so self-absorbed in his own libido that he didn't concentrate on the Tranzi job as well as he might have. His 3 major fuckups, there were many others, were to waste the Peace Dividend, damned-near decimate the US Military, and completely drop the ball on terrorism - setting us up for 9/11. All of which are treasonable offenses to my mind.
Gore? Kerry? Holy shit! On first blush it's hard to believe it could get worse than Clinton here, but the Moonbats have no bottom - as evidenced by these two cretins and the current congressional leadership of the Dhimmis. As with WW II where we were saved by radar, sonar, Bletchley Park, Enigma, Magic, the 8th AF, the Manhatten Project, and a very few other successes in the uber-critical class, this is now and will remain a close-run thing for a long long time, IMHO.
I believe the US is divided in roughly 3 parts: approx 40%-45% solid "I get it" supporters of freedom, 30%-35% utter Looney Leftists, and the swing voters - the 20%-30% who vote their "gut feeling" and require the outting of the wanker LLL candidates.
We owe the Swift Boat Vets who exposed Skeery for the fake hero / traitor that he really is a huge debt for their bravery to stand up in the face of the MSM tirades and lies. John O'Neill and his fellow highly-decorated comrades are bona-fide American heroes who stood up, twice, to defend America, IMHO.
Ironically, they come from the Vitenam era, an unmitigated failure of US Foreign Policy and a blinding success of the subversion of American youth and a newly suborned and, now, thoroughly discredited media.
Crunch time is here - and it seems it will be a continuous state for long after I'm gone. Islamists, Socialists, Tranzis, Scams, ChiComs. Interesting times. Perilous times. Treacherous times.
#12
Couldn't agree more, .com, both about the precipice and about the Swifties.
And Phil_b, yeah - this is (gulp) a more critical year than most people outside of places like RB realize.
Posted by: too true ||
04/24/2005 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Tony
It appears the left is the UK from where I sit. Not one person tries to stop the BBC other than bitch very little about it by appearances. They point out their bad acts, say don't do it again, and move on. Nothing has changed. The whole affair that led to Dr. Kelly's suicide was swept under the rug, made to appear as the government had done something wrong, not the actual fact that the BBC had. The BBC still is holding to this story. The lie is still being repeated to this day, Blair and the intelligence agency are held responsible for the acts of a BBC reporter, who gave up his source, who was apparently a fragile personality (and quite frankly wrong as hell), who killed himself. Most of the UK believes that lie. Millions pour out in the street to protest a just war and do nothing about the lies of the BBC. They agree with them. They are happy to fund the world wide reach of this anti-US propaganda machine. That is my vision of a typical resident of the UK.
It could be I am just fed with the constant, daily attacks on my country from the UK media and some UK politicians too. The Labor back benches are against the war on terror and against the USA. The Liberal Democrats are against the WoT and USA. The Tories are very loud against the WoT and the USA right now. The UK justice system will not extradite to the US at all it appears, even when we are dealing with mass murders, because they might get death sentence. If you want to see what I see as the typical view given of the average person in the UK. Please read the US specific comments from the UK. That is my view of the majority of typical UK citizens. Tell me I as a US citizen have no reason to feel as I do? It appears that people in the UK are on a different planet no matter where you turn for news.
Here is a quote and it and it's plenty long "Its annual budget is approximately $10 billion (x{20AC}7.5 billion, £5 billion) [1](http://www.circom-regional.org/crdocs/report-regpubTV-2003.pdf), and it rivals that of NASA. It is greater than the gross domestic product of more than half the world's nations and ranks behind the budgets of only the twelve governments of the wealthiest nations on the planet." It's from here. It has to be deduced that the typical UK citizen supports and approves of BBC anti-US stories and ehat is quite franklly a propaganda operation. It's getting good value for it's money as the BBC is relied on world wide for "unbiased news." When was the last time anyone was heard publicly in the UK being taken serious issue with the BBC when they question the classing of murders and cold blooded terrorists as "insurgents and militants." Who in the UK questions the propaganda that is international in reach that is against the war on terror, and against the US?
I have had no exposure to any UK web logs to my knowledge. Only the very few folks I see posting here are whom I have seen on the web that actually support the WoT. All the folks I have seen posting otherwise are very negative on my country and the WoT. As far as UK publications I can only visit those that are open to free access. There are not many I have found. I don't even visit the tabloids they are usually factually challenged.
Reasoned arguments don't work with the left. This is the typical cycle.
Reasonable person gives un-refuted facts.
Leftist brings up bullshit, outright lies, obfuscation, partial facts. Assumes superior attitude about their person, ideas and morality.
Reasonable person again brings up facts.
Leftist brings up bullshit, outright lies, obfuscation, partial facts and starts personal attacks. Attacks all persons who hold Reasonable Persons point of view as sick, criminal and less than human. Expresses superior nature about their person and ideas and morality.
Reasonable person brings up facts
Leftist brings up bullshit, outright lies, obfuscation, partial facts and starts vicious personal attacks. Expresses superior nature about their person and ideas and morality. Attacks all persons who hold Reasonable Persons point of view as sick, criminal and less than human. Question Reasonable persons mental fitness. Leftist brings in arguments not related to question at hand. Assumes superior attitude about their person, ideas and morality.
Reasonable person brings up facts.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
We may be running out of time for arguments. There is a socio-religious movement out there that wants to wipe out our collective western civilization.
Sorry for going on so long and the disjointed nature of my argument but this is a rant and, it is Rantburg.
#15
Especially considering the British propensity to apologize about everything and nothing in particular.
The Tories are not the party of Margaret Thatcher anymore. She saved the UK from socialism, for a while, and joined Reagan to save Europe from the Soviet Union. But she had no worthy heirs.
#16
In the mid-eightys I did a lot of work in London. On one trip all the Operating Room People (Drs etc..) walked out on strike. One kid was getting an open heart operation and they just let him bleed to death on the table. The Father understood the unions greivences just wished they could have saved his son first.
I was stunned!
If it had been my son I would have blown the lot of them to hell! If I wasn't able to I would have sold everything to buy hits to do the same.
I could not believe what sheep they were. I never heard the BBC mention any murder charges!
#17
3dc - Are you serious? They left him there to die? Barbaric. These people dare to look up from the sewers at the US and claim they are looking down.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/24/2005 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Oh 3dc, they would have wished I had killed them.
There are things much worse than death.
#20
RKB:
I think there's a distinction. Many intelligent and decent people can be liberals and/or Democrat loyalists. They are only "leftists" to the extent that they are left of dead-center.
However, real Leftists are all scum. Anyone who thinks Marx as anything of value to say, anyone uses phrases like "corporate media" or "false conscious" is probably of no value to the human race.
Just when you thought they couldn't get any worse:
(EFL)
Tory fury as BBC sends hecklers to bait Howard
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
(Filed: 24/04/2005)
The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.
The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party's head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party".
These included "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair". Sounds like the nuanced approach to logical argumentation we have come to expect from the Beeb, alright.
Mr Black's strongly-worded letter accused the BBC of staging the event "to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage. . . intended to embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party". The letter said that BBC staff were guilty of "serious misconduct". At least one of the hecklers was seen again at a Tory event in the North East, Mr Black added.
Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". This excuse must set a world record for transparent lameness. Media apologists will buy it though.
However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.
The Conservatives have called for an apology and an assurance that no such incident will occur again. It has also demanded that the BBC promises never to broadcast the footage. The corporation said it would investigate "very fully". It and other broadcasters have a statutory duty to remain impartial during election campaigns. The corporation's guidelines for producers state: "Our audiences rightly expect the highest editorial and ethical standards from the BBC."
"but they haven't been getting them since about 1948," he continued.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy ||
04/24/2005 12:18:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Melanie Phillips calls it the "Bent Broadcasting Corporation"
A certain nuclear-mad prophet at LGF (not myself, however) called it "Belsen Broadcasting Corporation" which I think is rather harsh since the Beeb only incites and facilitates mass murder rather than actually committing it.
"....according to Secretary of Defense Atomic Conspiracy, 'Our action at the BBC headquarters last night was part of a completely legitimate armed forces video production dramatizing the effects of a miniaturized neutron warhead on a defined point target.'
Dr. Conspiracy added that other parties are being "observed" but there were no reports of nuclear explosions at the CBC or CNN. Rantburg TV has been unable to contact The Independent and Al Jazeerah is reportedly off the air, however."
#7
The BBC is just getting ready for privatization and acquisition by George Soros. Then George can compete with Rupert Murdock without having to hire new administrators or establish new policy, cutting down the disruption often experienced with new ownership. George should have enough money to pick up the previous government funding, well, at least for a while.
#8
Grising Shereling2932 - You being sarcastic or not? Because, that makes a lot of sense to me. They are auditioning for their new Soros-MoveOn editorial board. :-/
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/24/2005 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Bizarre as this may sound, the french are actually doing us a favor. Hold the flames, I know I know. But see, they DID convict Soros on insider trading and so far that conviction has stuck. I'm not sure what sort of forgiviness it'd buy for France, but sticking George Soros into the cell next to Carlos has some appeal to it. Or how about, in the cell with Carlos.
#10
Silentbrick - as wonderful as that mental image is, the Phrogs first have to get their hands on Georgie-Porgie.
He's got enough money to be able to live only in countries that won't extradite him to Phrogistan. (I'm not sure, but I don't think that includes here. :-D)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/24/2005 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#11
When asked for commentary, Republic of Rantburg's Assistant Director for Intelligence, COunterintelligence operations simply smiled and refused comment other than "The BBC is really showing what fools they are to inject themselves falsely onto one side of the political debate". As he was walking way the words "agents provocateur", "successful initial misson" and "privitized defunded and thrown away" were overheard.
Ousted President Lucio Gutierrez remained holed up in the Brazilian ambassador's residence for a fourth day Saturday while Brazil reportedly threatened to withdraw its ambassador after his car was mobbed by nearly 200 protesters who prevented him from leaving the walled compound. The incident Friday night added to growing tensions between the two countries since Brazil granted asylum to Gutierrez, who was awaiting Ecuador's permission to leave the country. Ecuador's new government has been dragging its feet on granting the permission, apparently fearing the reaction of Ecuadoreans outraged that Gutierrez will not be tried for alleged abuse of power, corruption and repression of peaceful protests.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/24/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Kazakhstan's main opposition Asar Party has vowed to seek the repeal of a recent amendment to country's election law that would, it says, clamp down on voters' rights.
The newly elected parliament, dominated by President Nursultan Nazarbayev's Otan Party, had April 8 passed a bill apparently aimed at improving the election system but which imposes significant restrictions on the right to the freedom of assembly, the party says.
Nazarbayev signed the amendment law Sunday, a move opposed by the Asar Party, which is led by Dariga Nazarbayeva, the president's oldest daughter who is widely seen as his heir apparent.
"We are wanting to be a democratic country and the amendment is not the best development," she told United Press International in an interview... The amended law prohibits rallies, demonstrations and public gatherings that are either organized by candidates or in which candidates participate in the period between the end of the electoral campaign and the official publication of the election results...
Posted by: Fred ||
04/24/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Moreover, since Chinese students hurled bottles at the Japanese Embassy while Chinese police stood by chatting and eating, international reaction has not gone China's way.
A subtle yet distinct blend of arrogance and incompetence, with a pinch of inexperience.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/24/2005 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
a loy? Jeebus....*starts coffeemaker*
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/24/2005 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
To the US Democratic Party and the Chicom Party - It's not your IMAGE that is the problem. It's what you really stand for [POWER!] and all that's corrupt that goes with it.
#5
a possible need for a form of containment of China, until its social, political, and military direction became clearer.
The west has gotten far to chummy with the Chinese.
I hope there's still a cadre of intellegent people out there who still remember what China's all about. and it aint peaches and cream.
Posted by: bk ||
04/24/2005 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
P: A subtle yet distinct blend of arrogance and incompetence, with a pinch of inexperience.
The security men in the capital are actually pretty competent. The demonstrations, however, were orchestrated by the government. This is not to say that there isn't widespread hatred of Japan in China. (Heck - there's also widespread hatred of Uncle Sam*, but you don't see Chinese students demonstrating against the US). But the demonstrations may have been a device to wrest territorial concessions from Japan at a time when Japan has pushed back - for the first time in recent decades - against Chinese claims. The demonstrations themselves are not the story - they are merely a ploy.
* Everywhere I've been during my trips to China, there's been a uniform consensus that Uncle Sam had 9/11 coming - they were quite happy to see large numbers of dead Americans.
1. A way to make it more difficult for Japan to build alliances in a regional security leadership role by bringing up Japan's ill treatment of its neighbors in the first half of the twentieth century,
2. A way to focus and let off internal steam resulting from all the change that has occurred over the last two decades,
3. Genuine resentment of the way they were treated by the Japanese in WWII.
Teritorial concessions are just a negotiating ploy, unless you think there's oil there.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
04/24/2005 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
ZF, my comment wasn't directed at the security appartus. It was referring to the government.
Though getting caught on camera chowing down during a demonstration is a wee bit stupid. At least they weren't sitting down, playing mah-jong...
#9
In Asia, pretty much everyone resents everyone else. Its just a matter of degree. Otherwise, I agree with ZF, China is using anti-Japanese sentiment as a negotiating ploy. It may yet backfire by encouraging internal dissent and causing Japan to push back.
#10
MD: Teritorial concessions are just a negotiating ploy, unless you think there's oil there.
In this particular case, they are contesting an area that hasn't been drilled for oil. The area is on a continental shelf, which is to say that it is at a depth where drilling is feasible. If oil is found, whomever owns the territory will get the rights to it.
However, countries will fight over territory for reasons that have nothing to do with oil. Any islands or outcroppings can form the basis of an unsinkable aircraft carrier, using reclaimed land. Currently, China's major cities are right next to the sea. Getting control of the islands off its coast will help China to fight any potential opponents at a greater distance from its coastal cities. Why did the US invade Iwo Jima? To get closer to Okinawa. Why did the US invade Okinawa? To get closer to Tokyo.
Why does Japan want to hold on to the islands? One answer is that they belong to Japan. Another answer would be because Japan is tiny. Unlike China, it doesn't have the luxury of retreating deep into a vast hinterland in the face of an enemy offensive. Strategically, its only natural defense is the barrier presented by the sea. The closer Chinese bases are to Japan, the less secure Japan is.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/24/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
First, the US had to 'lick boots' for the Chi-coms, to get our people back during the EP3 intercept fiasco, a few years ago; now the Japanese are 'licking boots' in this contrived excuse for riotous behavior fermented by the Chi-coms again! Just how much longer will it be before those same 'boots' start stomping on the west's imperialistic behavior, as seen by China?
#2
See here for the upside for Japan's part -- apparently the ball now is supposed to be in China's court, and the continued protests have become politically unviable for the gov't, yet they can't stop it, so they look weak (unable to control the protesters) and not fanatically xenophobic enough for the protesters ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
04/24/2005 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
EY: apparently the ball now is supposed to be in China's court
I beg to differ. The Chinese will now seek concrete expressions of Japan's remorse, such as territorial concessions or additional monetary compensation (on top of the tens of billions in aid the Japan has handed out to China alone).
IS Nazi flag has caused mass offence but Darren Mackay does not understand why, because he didn't learn about Adolf Hitler in school history lessons. The Mannering Park resident was widely condemned by his neighbours, the RSL, Jewish groups, federal politicians and radio talkback listeners after The Daily Telegraph revealed the controversial backyard flag yesterday. Mr Mackay remained unrepentant, saying he was considering keeping the flag flying.
The flag was removed briefly yesterday in a farcical moment, as a result of a squabble by television stations following up on The Daily Telegraph's story. While neighbours thought the criticism had forced them to remove the flag yesterday, Mr Mackay, 30, and his fiancee Jenni Duncombe, 27, only took it down so it could be filmed by Channel 9's A Current Affair at a secret location. The father of one then told The Daily Telegraph that he was thinking about putting the flag back up because he would not be bullied. He claimed that he and his family were actually the victims in the whole affair after a neighbour allegedly threatened and abused his fiancee and baby. The scaffolder said they had legally bought the flag at the Morisset Mega Markets for $10.
Mr Mackay said he didn't think the Nazis had done anything wrong by any Australians. "I only did history in school in Year 7 and 8 and I knew bugger all about it," Mr Mackay said of Nazi Germany. "If I knew it was offensive to somebody I would have taken it down straight away. "But I was offended by the way this bloke came around and threatened and abused my family so that is why I left it up." But the couple said they would not fly the Nazi flag on Anzac Day - instead they planned to fly an Australian flag at half-mast.
Neighbours of Ms Duncombe and Mr Mackay were seething with anger. A Yugoslavian neighbour, who did not want to be identified, said he saw the Nazis gun down up to 50 people in 1944 when he was just nine years old. "These people should be penalised for this," he said of the couple.
EU member states should press ahead with efforts to ratify the Constitution even if France says "no" in its 29 May referendum, the European Commission has urged.
Recent speculation by EU leaders that a French no could derail the Constitution project as a whole, sparked the European Commission's statement.
Brussels pointed out that an appendix to the draft treaty already contains a mechanism for dealing with ratification problems.
"The commission, like everybody else, is worried about the trend we see in France and we hope that the figures will change before the referendum", Francoise Le Bail, the Commission's spokeswoman told journalists on Friday (22 April).
She said the EU executive "may discuss the issue in an informal way," but added that it is not the Commission's job to decide what should happen next should France vote 'no'.
She said the appendix to the draft treaty should be the main "yardstick" and "reference point" for member states' reactions. Rules should a referendum fail
The appendix includes a declaration that states "if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council."
"The declaration is our main reference, so the Member States should conclude ratification so that the European Council can make its calculations", said Ms Le Bail.
Czech MEP Jan Zahradil (EPP-ED) takes a different view, however.
"Member states cannot abide by the rules attached to a Treaty, which has not yet been ratified, that would be nonsense", he indicated.
Mr Zahradil recently formally asked the Commission to give him a legal opinion on the failed ratification scenario, but the deadline for the response expired with no answer.
The EU is widely expected to revert to the Nice Treaty if the Constitution flops.
Made for Britain, used for France?
"The declaration is not legally binding, but it leaves the door open for this Constitution to be approved even if some of the countries reject it", EU legal expert, Klaus Heeger, commented.
In practise, this would lead to a multi-speed EU, with the new treaty having a legally binding force in some states but not in others.
Pundits and politicians alike agree that a rejection of the text by France, a powerful founding member of the EU, would be a special case though.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair remarked this week that the UK referendum would only be held if there is a Constitution to vote on at all, referring to its potential slaughter at the French ballot boxes. I envision one of two scenarios. First, they just declare the constitution to be in effect, no matter what the voters said; or second, to keep submitting it for votes, over and over again, only needing to pass it once to win.
The European Commission says it is worried by opinion polls that suggest French voters will reject the EU's constitution in a referendum on 29 May. The latest poll suggests that more than 60% of French adults would vote against the text - the highest level of opposition in an opinion poll yet.
And we've weeks to go. Bwha-ha-ha-ha.
"The European Commission is worried by the turn of the statistics," said spokeswoman Francoise Le Bail. Rejection by France would scupper the constitution.
Though the catering industry would soar.
The results of the poll for the Metro newspaper, conducted by MarketTools on 20 April, suggest an increase in the No vote, up from 58% in a poll for L'Express released on Thursday. No margin of error was given. "Of course, there are a number of weeks to go before the referendum. But we very much hope that the figures will change," Ms Le Bail said.
A poll released on Wednesday had suggested the No vote was wavering, placing it at 52%. However, the campaign against the constitution has steadily won votes amid growing discontent with high and rising unemployment in France.
Trade union are threatening strike action on 16 May in the run-up to the referendum over government plans to scrap a public holiday. A survey by pollsters CSA for Le Parisien suggested 66% of people opposed cancelling the Pentecost holiday. The government says it needs French people to work on 16 May in order to generate more tax revenues.
Excellent: economy's tanking, unemployment is a disaster, tax revenues are falling, let's fix this the good-old fashioned Euro way -- let's strike!
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/24/2005 12:02:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would be unsurprised if Washington State King County election officials were not riding Air France over there to "advise" on how to handle the absentee ballots. The EUSSR folks may pull this out of a dark hidden counting room yet.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/24/2005 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"The government says it needs French people to work on 16 May in order to generate more tax revenues."
How about letting people work whenever they want? Or is that mental leap beyond them?
Posted by: Mark E. ||
04/24/2005 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I am going to make a jello like prediction that the Yes side will magicly win the Euro Constutition vote. With the criminal stuff Chirac and his party have pulled off in the past, this is a walk in the park.
#6
I think SPoD and LotR are reading from the same page. One minor correction: I think the King County election officials learned from the French.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/24/2005 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You guys stole my thunder. That is the problem with living in a later time zone, heh. Sock is probably right. Chiraq and Co will probably rig the elections results to YES for the EU. There is too much riding on this election for Chiraq.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/24/2005 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Oops!!!! AP - we both owe apologies to LotR, he made the call as well, just more subtly. Not enough caffeine, LotR, sorry! Good call guys but, of course, I hope you're wrong, lol!
#9
Doubt that even Chirac could fake this one. A large portion of the political class is against it, including the Socialists, who could gain hugely if Jacques the Thief is seen to steal elections as well as cash from the till. I predict it will be close but still No, and that France will become more in favor of a looser, more federal Europe with France and Germany forming a separate bloc.
This is the end of the grand vision of Europe as both large and determined to stand up to the US. Impossible to have it both ways.
#10
The Govt needs workers to work so that the Govt can raise revenues, which BTW also raises Govt.-specific/payable liabilities. National/Public Welfare is all but officially shot to pieces, Govt-paid or subsidized Vacations and Leave Days are also as PAYLESS PAYDAYS AND PAYLESS WORKDAYS AND GASP, FRENCHIES ANDS FRENCH INDUSTRIES ACTUALLY HAVING TO WORK AND BECOME COST-EFFECTIVE/EFFICIENT LIKE AMERICANS, LOOM LARGER AS FRENCH SOCIALISM MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN EVEN DEEPER DEFICIT SPENDING AND KEEPING THE MASSES MIRED IN PROPANGANDA AND PC, WHILE THE POLICRATS MUST DECIDE BETWEEN MILITARIZED EXPANSION - READ. CONQUEST - TO SAVE FRENCH- AND EURO- SOCIALISM, OR TO IMPLODE LIKE THE USSR!? And now you know, AGAIN, why the Commie SPETZNATZ, aka Radical Islam, attacked America on 9-11 - ALL THE SOCIALIST-BELOVED REGULATION AND HYPER-REGULATION, BIG BOVT AND BIGGER GOVT.,...ETC. IN THE UNIVERSE CAN'T SAVE LEFTISM-SOCIALISM FROM ITSELF!? The Lefties won't care because they are both for and against everyone and anyone, and no one.
Silvio Berlusconi was sworn in as premier of the nation's 60th government in as many years Saturday, after naming a team of ministers that closely resembles the one he led until stepping down days earlier in a power struggle with coalition allies. By reconstituting his government, Berlusconi aimed to improve his sagging popularity and avoid early elections as polls suggest his rivals have the edge. He received the mandate to form a new government during a Friday meeting with President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, two days after quitting. The new ministers must be confirmed in both houses of parliament next week. Conservative Berlusconi is keeping most of his ministers in their old jobs.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/24/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jettisoning the flotsam. So who went over the side?
Canada's minority Liberal government, facing defeat over a cash-for-favors scandal, has approached a small left-leaning opposition party about creating an informal coalition, officials said on Saturday. An Ipsos-Reid opinion poll on Friday showed the Liberals had 30 percent public support compared to 35 percent for the opposition Conservatives. The figures suggest that if an election were held now, the Conservatives would take power and end 12 years of Liberal rule.
Somehow, I can't see that happening yet...
PM Paul Martin, who made a rare national televised address on Thursday to plead for more time in office, is now looking at the idea of working more closely with the left-leaning New Democratic Party of Jack Layton. "The offices of the NDP leader and the prime minister held a brief exploratory conversation. It is possible the prime minister and the NDP leader could meet in person in the future," said New Democrat spokesman Karl Belanger. "The NDP is serious about making parliament work and a meeting would be a good preliminary step," said Belanger, making clear that Martin's office had made the first step. A spokesman for Martin said the offices of the two men had been in contact but declined to give more details.
Growing anger about revelations from a public inquiry into the scandal has effectively paralyzed Parliament and the two main opposition parties look set to try to bring Martin down next month and force a June 27 election. Even if Martin did strike a deal with the New Democrats -- who recorded 18 percent public support in the Ipsos-Reid poll -- it might not be enough to stave off defeat if Parliament were to debate a non-confidence motion. The Liberals and NDP hold 151 seats in the 308-seat Parliament while the Conservatives and the separatist Bloc Quebecois have 153. There are three independent legislators -- at least one of whom is dropping strong hints he would vote against the Liberals -- and one vacancy. Layton said this week he would consider working more closely with the Liberals if the government canceled corporate tax cuts unveiled in this year's budget and put more money into social programs.
Martin's fortunes have been in free fall since an inquiry into the scandal heard two weeks ago that Liberals in French-speaking Quebec had demanded big kickbacks from advertising firms in return for government contracts. Martin went on television on Thursday to promise he would call an election as soon as the inquiry finished its work this December. The Conservatives responded by saying it would be impossible for the government to stay in power until then.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/24/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here's a little analysis by Canadian blogger "Angry in the Great White North". If you have time, look around his site. It's quite good!
#5
Martin is playing for time. Jack Layton is selling his soul to the devil because their internal polling shows that if an election is held, both the socialist Liberals and communist NDP would be wiped out. The public polling is starting to show a significant swing in Ontario to the Conservatives. People are ready to punish the Liberals and wont take to kindly to NDP trying to prolong the inveitable just to save same sex marriage.
Posted by: john ||
04/24/2005 19:28 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Canada's minority Liberal government, facing defeat over a cash-for-favors scandal, has approached a small left-leaning opposition party about creating an informal coalition, officials said on Saturday. An Ipsos-Reid opinion poll on Friday showed the Liberals had 30 percent public support compared to 35 percent for the opposition Conservatives. The figures suggest that if an election were held now, the Conservatives would take power and end 12 years of Liberal rule.
