Thursday 3 December 2009
Some ebay bidders are real idiots
I recently listed and aquarium for sale on ebay.co.uk starting at £19.99. The item is for local collection only The only bidder was a bonehead who lives in Martinique, an island in the Caribbean. Furthermore he keeps asking for bank transfer details when the listing requires that the winner pays using paypal. Frankly, I don't mind if he pays cash if he wants to make a 9,000 mile round trip to collect it.
Tuesday 17 November 2009
Channel 4 Dispatches - Inside Britain's Israel Lobby
A predictably pathetic effort from Peter Osborne. A tabloid Daily Mail shock horror story for the small screen.
Channel 4’s idea of impartiality seems to be to counteract a hate fuelling program about extremism within the Muslim community with a hate fuelling program implying “powerful forces” at work within the Jewish community. With this kind of impartiality, the only winners will be the BNP.
The program peddles ancient lies in an new ambiguous wrapping. The result was to top up the hate filled minds of antisemites with innuendo whilst hoping to ensure that that the producers did not fall foul of the law by concluding that there is indeed no evidence of a conspiracy. But, the producers know full well that the conspiracy theorists will go on believing in one, just as the believer in God won’t give up religious faith despite the overwhelming evidence that he does not exist. The program concludes that there’s no Zionist (why not just say Jewish) conspiracy, in the same that that many a bigot with preface a torrent of racist bile with the words "I've got nothing against blacks but" or "Some of my best friends are Jews, but."
Critical friends of Israel such Rabbi Dr David J Goldberg OBE who appeared on the program may be regretting that their highly edited interviews will have lent an air of respectability to a program that is nothing more than cheap propaganda against the vast majority of British Jews who are passionate in their support for the State of Israel and grateful for the philanthropy of some of the wealthier members of their community, that enables funding of initiatives aimed at counteracting propaganda against the world’s most unfairly vilified country.
Channel 4’s idea of impartiality seems to be to counteract a hate fuelling program about extremism within the Muslim community with a hate fuelling program implying “powerful forces” at work within the Jewish community. With this kind of impartiality, the only winners will be the BNP.
The program peddles ancient lies in an new ambiguous wrapping. The result was to top up the hate filled minds of antisemites with innuendo whilst hoping to ensure that that the producers did not fall foul of the law by concluding that there is indeed no evidence of a conspiracy. But, the producers know full well that the conspiracy theorists will go on believing in one, just as the believer in God won’t give up religious faith despite the overwhelming evidence that he does not exist. The program concludes that there’s no Zionist (why not just say Jewish) conspiracy, in the same that that many a bigot with preface a torrent of racist bile with the words "I've got nothing against blacks but" or "Some of my best friends are Jews, but."
Critical friends of Israel such Rabbi Dr David J Goldberg OBE who appeared on the program may be regretting that their highly edited interviews will have lent an air of respectability to a program that is nothing more than cheap propaganda against the vast majority of British Jews who are passionate in their support for the State of Israel and grateful for the philanthropy of some of the wealthier members of their community, that enables funding of initiatives aimed at counteracting propaganda against the world’s most unfairly vilified country.
Friday 18 September 2009
More BBC bias - The Frankincense Trail – episode 4
First broadcast on 16th September 2009.
Have now received a response from the BBC on my complaint about episode 2, from un unrepentant programme production assistant. Predictably as night follows day, it failed to answer the complaints made merely repeating the background given in my complaint, than adding a load of was full of mealy mouthed pointlessness not worth disclosing.
Therefore I’ve asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage I will however and publish any substantive reply I do get.
Now onto episode 4.
Another lamentable effort from the BBC.
In this episode we see among other things the evermore irritating Kate Humble crossing the border from Jordan into Israel anticipating a brutal beating by border sentries with horns sticking out of their heads, wielding huge tridents , guarding the hell hole she is expecting to enter. Instead, she finds the Israeli border officials are just as pleasant as their Jordanian counterparts.
Now in Israel, the producers use their opportunity to portray it as a country inhabited entirely by bearded religious zealots, filling their week with bizarre rituals, where men and women live segregated lives and who have nothing but contempt for outsiders.
The program does this by focusing on the ultra-orthodox minority, completely ignoring the vast majority of Israelis who live largely secular lives. Joseph Goebells could not have done better.
We see the presenter checking into an Eilat hotel. She appears to have booked a room in a hotel specialising in providing hospitality ultra-orthodox Jews, rather than the usual tourist or business hotel. Sshe has arrived just before the start of Shabbat (Sabbath), about which she appears completely ignorant. We are put through rather embarrassing scenes where a fanatical Rabbi shows her the convoluted way how the lift and coffee machines operate to enable using them on Shabbat, without it constituting “work”. The rabbi, who refused to shake her hands, shows her a synagogue in the hotel where woman are kept separated and screened off from male worshippers.
Eventually, Kate Humble maker her way to “Jerusalem for Jews, the Place where God created the world.” This statement is clearly nonsensical. It is a logical impossibility. I don’t have much Jewish knowledge. I struggled through my Bar-mitzvah 31 years ago and since then have preferred to avoid any place of religious worship, be it synagogue, mosque, ashram or church. However, I do know that the main significance of Jerusalem in Judaism that it was the capital of the first Jewish state under King David in the 10th Century BC. It is also the place where some Jews believe the messiah will appear.
Next we are told that the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 B.C. In fact, they did so in 70 A.D. If they’d done so when then Kate Humble thinks they, did, the usurers wouldn’t have been there to annoy Jesus.
She then goes onto meet another fanatical fundamentalist Rabbi, who wants to built a Third Temple in Jerusalem following where he believes the exact lines of the second temple. Such a construction would entail the destruction of the Dome on the Rock and would therefore be seen as an affront to Muslims.
In the last part of the program she goes to the West Bank and meets a Palestinian Journalist who is give a free opportunity to explain what is wrong with the Israel-West Bank barrier, called in the program, the separation barrier. For Israelis, it is a security barrier. This unfinished wall provokes strong emotions among sympathisers of both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, whilst the Palestinian journalist was given several minutes of airtime, to vent his grievances against the barrier and other matters, no attempt at balance was given. The program failed to give any corresponding airtime to an Israeli (journalist).
The program therefore entirely lacks balance. It portrays Jews in negative religious stereotype and Israelis as the villains in the Arab Israeli conflict.
Have now received a response from the BBC on my complaint about episode 2, from un unrepentant programme production assistant. Predictably as night follows day, it failed to answer the complaints made merely repeating the background given in my complaint, than adding a load of was full of mealy mouthed pointlessness not worth disclosing.
Therefore I’ve asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage I will however and publish any substantive reply I do get.
Now onto episode 4.
Another lamentable effort from the BBC.
In this episode we see among other things the evermore irritating Kate Humble crossing the border from Jordan into Israel anticipating a brutal beating by border sentries with horns sticking out of their heads, wielding huge tridents , guarding the hell hole she is expecting to enter. Instead, she finds the Israeli border officials are just as pleasant as their Jordanian counterparts.
Now in Israel, the producers use their opportunity to portray it as a country inhabited entirely by bearded religious zealots, filling their week with bizarre rituals, where men and women live segregated lives and who have nothing but contempt for outsiders.
The program does this by focusing on the ultra-orthodox minority, completely ignoring the vast majority of Israelis who live largely secular lives. Joseph Goebells could not have done better.
We see the presenter checking into an Eilat hotel. She appears to have booked a room in a hotel specialising in providing hospitality ultra-orthodox Jews, rather than the usual tourist or business hotel. Sshe has arrived just before the start of Shabbat (Sabbath), about which she appears completely ignorant. We are put through rather embarrassing scenes where a fanatical Rabbi shows her the convoluted way how the lift and coffee machines operate to enable using them on Shabbat, without it constituting “work”. The rabbi, who refused to shake her hands, shows her a synagogue in the hotel where woman are kept separated and screened off from male worshippers.
Eventually, Kate Humble maker her way to “Jerusalem for Jews, the Place where God created the world.” This statement is clearly nonsensical. It is a logical impossibility. I don’t have much Jewish knowledge. I struggled through my Bar-mitzvah 31 years ago and since then have preferred to avoid any place of religious worship, be it synagogue, mosque, ashram or church. However, I do know that the main significance of Jerusalem in Judaism that it was the capital of the first Jewish state under King David in the 10th Century BC. It is also the place where some Jews believe the messiah will appear.
Next we are told that the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 B.C. In fact, they did so in 70 A.D. If they’d done so when then Kate Humble thinks they, did, the usurers wouldn’t have been there to annoy Jesus.
She then goes onto meet another fanatical fundamentalist Rabbi, who wants to built a Third Temple in Jerusalem following where he believes the exact lines of the second temple. Such a construction would entail the destruction of the Dome on the Rock and would therefore be seen as an affront to Muslims.
In the last part of the program she goes to the West Bank and meets a Palestinian Journalist who is give a free opportunity to explain what is wrong with the Israel-West Bank barrier, called in the program, the separation barrier. For Israelis, it is a security barrier. This unfinished wall provokes strong emotions among sympathisers of both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, whilst the Palestinian journalist was given several minutes of airtime, to vent his grievances against the barrier and other matters, no attempt at balance was given. The program failed to give any corresponding airtime to an Israeli (journalist).
The program therefore entirely lacks balance. It portrays Jews in negative religious stereotype and Israelis as the villains in the Arab Israeli conflict.
Friday 4 September 2009
Complaint to the BBC about antisemitism in a programme. – The Frankincense Trail episode 2
First broadcast on 3rd September 2009 on BBC at 20:00.
In the program, the presenter, Kate humble stated as historical fact that in 524 ce a Jewish tribe massacred more than 20,000 peaceful Christians in a pit of fire, the entire populace of a city in the Arabian desert. (1)
In the early part of the 6th Century convert called Zar’a Yusuf, known also as Dhu Nuwas (a reference to his curly hair) became a Jewish tribal leader. He prosecuted wars to drive the Aksumite Ethiopians from Arabia. (2). According to some medieval historians he announced he would persecute Christians living in his Kingdom as revenge forthe persecution of Jews in Christian states
His rule lasted until between 525 to 530 ce. There is a contemporary letter by a Christian, Simon bishop of Beth Ashram recounting Dhu Nuwas’ persecution in Najran. Different accounts claim up to 20,000 Christians were killed (2). However some historians believe that the death toll was as low as 340 (3)
The BBC and Kate Humble presented false unproven, misleading, offensive and anti-semitic claims as follows:
1. It is not true that more than 20,000 Christians were killed. The number could have been as few as 340.
2. The narrative implies that a Jewish tribe was responsible for the killing of innocents. If there was a massacre, the responsibility lay with one man, their leader, who was a convert to Judaism and was not ethnically Jewish. The narrative fails even to mention the chief protagonist.
3. The narrative fails to put the massacre into perspective, that perspective being the persecution of Jews by Christians in other parts of the region.
4. The narrative fails to point out that Talmudic Jewish teaching condemns proselytizing by Jews. This is essential for putting the event into context as it shows that the massacre if it took place in name of the Jewish religion was perversion of Judaism.
5. The historical evidence for the event is thin.
6. As a consequence the program is libelous and encourages anti-Semitic beliefs and verbal or physical attacks against Jews.
The BBC should ensure that before the program is re-broadcast anywhere worldwide by itself or other broadcaster. Appropriate edits are made to correct the distortions.
The BBC should apologise publicly to the Jewish community in the UK and throughout the world, for the misleading and damaging narrative.
(1) 19 minutes and 40 seconds into the program the presenter Kate Humble narrates the following:
Beyond the Dunes was a welcome respite from the barren wilderness, a city built on the profits of the frankincense trade, known today as old Najran there are its ruins. This would have been the gates to the old city and 1,500 years ago any of the cameleers who reached this point must have done so with a huge sense of relief because they’d just completed the toughest most unforgiving section of the route and to get here must have felt like arriving at nirvana.
In front to all these buildings here would have been the homes of rich merchants. The streets would have been cool and shady, full of tradesmen and markets all cashing in on those giant camel caravans from the south. The city was built before the advent of Christianity and Islam and ancient pagan symbols adorn many of the buildings. Its strategic position on the frankincense trails made it a target for religious missionaries and for raiders.
For hundreds of years this was a peaceful Christian city but a Jewish Himjarite tribe from Yemen changed its fortunes forever.
There is a legendary city mentioned in the Qur’an called Al-Ukhdud and some Saudi experts believe this may have been it and if it was the Scene in 524 AD of the most horrific massacre.
The city was besieged and the Christian citizens given the most horrendous choice:
Convert to Judaism or die. They chose death and over 20,000 of the perished in a pit of fire.
(2) http://wapedia.mobi/en/Yemenite_Jew, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhu_Nuwas
(3) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=319&letter=D
In the program, the presenter, Kate humble stated as historical fact that in 524 ce a Jewish tribe massacred more than 20,000 peaceful Christians in a pit of fire, the entire populace of a city in the Arabian desert. (1)
In the early part of the 6th Century convert called Zar’a Yusuf, known also as Dhu Nuwas (a reference to his curly hair) became a Jewish tribal leader. He prosecuted wars to drive the Aksumite Ethiopians from Arabia. (2). According to some medieval historians he announced he would persecute Christians living in his Kingdom as revenge forthe persecution of Jews in Christian states
His rule lasted until between 525 to 530 ce. There is a contemporary letter by a Christian, Simon bishop of Beth Ashram recounting Dhu Nuwas’ persecution in Najran. Different accounts claim up to 20,000 Christians were killed (2). However some historians believe that the death toll was as low as 340 (3)
The BBC and Kate Humble presented false unproven, misleading, offensive and anti-semitic claims as follows:
1. It is not true that more than 20,000 Christians were killed. The number could have been as few as 340.
2. The narrative implies that a Jewish tribe was responsible for the killing of innocents. If there was a massacre, the responsibility lay with one man, their leader, who was a convert to Judaism and was not ethnically Jewish. The narrative fails even to mention the chief protagonist.
3. The narrative fails to put the massacre into perspective, that perspective being the persecution of Jews by Christians in other parts of the region.
4. The narrative fails to point out that Talmudic Jewish teaching condemns proselytizing by Jews. This is essential for putting the event into context as it shows that the massacre if it took place in name of the Jewish religion was perversion of Judaism.
5. The historical evidence for the event is thin.
6. As a consequence the program is libelous and encourages anti-Semitic beliefs and verbal or physical attacks against Jews.
The BBC should ensure that before the program is re-broadcast anywhere worldwide by itself or other broadcaster. Appropriate edits are made to correct the distortions.
The BBC should apologise publicly to the Jewish community in the UK and throughout the world, for the misleading and damaging narrative.
(1) 19 minutes and 40 seconds into the program the presenter Kate Humble narrates the following:
Beyond the Dunes was a welcome respite from the barren wilderness, a city built on the profits of the frankincense trade, known today as old Najran there are its ruins. This would have been the gates to the old city and 1,500 years ago any of the cameleers who reached this point must have done so with a huge sense of relief because they’d just completed the toughest most unforgiving section of the route and to get here must have felt like arriving at nirvana.
In front to all these buildings here would have been the homes of rich merchants. The streets would have been cool and shady, full of tradesmen and markets all cashing in on those giant camel caravans from the south. The city was built before the advent of Christianity and Islam and ancient pagan symbols adorn many of the buildings. Its strategic position on the frankincense trails made it a target for religious missionaries and for raiders.
For hundreds of years this was a peaceful Christian city but a Jewish Himjarite tribe from Yemen changed its fortunes forever.
There is a legendary city mentioned in the Qur’an called Al-Ukhdud and some Saudi experts believe this may have been it and if it was the Scene in 524 AD of the most horrific massacre.
The city was besieged and the Christian citizens given the most horrendous choice:
Convert to Judaism or die. They chose death and over 20,000 of the perished in a pit of fire.
(2) http://wapedia.mobi/en/Yemenite_Jew, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhu_Nuwas
(3) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=319&letter=D
Tuesday 4 August 2009
Orange leaves a bitter taste
Below is and email sent to Tom Alexander CEO of Orange regarding my mobile phone (cellphone) saga.
Dear Mr Alexander,
Whilst I enjoy some of the benefits of my orange account , such as Orange Wednesdays, this is far outweighed by the miserable level of in-store, technical & customer service I have received from your company this year.
I realise that you are a busy man, but you really ought to have a look at matters personally when they go on the manner I have been experiencing. Judging by the long delays and disconnections I have suffered when trying to speak to your call centre staff and the inability of those employees to resolve the problems, my experience cannot be an isolated one.
Problems started in April when I began to be billed £10 per month for mobile internet which my local Orange phone shop sold to me for £1 per month (obviously an irrestible bargain). I never used the service as the store didn’t have the dongle I needed in stock at the time and I never returned to collect it. Despiter my consumer rights, It took several months of complaining before Orange agreed to credit my account and cancel the mobile internet which was of no real interest or benefit to me. Initially you feebly denied responsiblity, claiming the store was an Orange franchise so nothing to do with Orange itself. In the meantime I received disconnection threats after I cancelled my direct debit and paid your company only for my phone use.
Then, two weeks ago, I mysteriously received a text message from Orange, stating that if I didn’t login to my account (online soon) I would need to re-register. So latter that day (22nd July) I attempted to do just that, and it wouldn’t let me in. I called and eventually got through to a Paula in Bristol, who told me the acocunt was barred and she didn’t know why. She said the matter would be investigated and I would be called back shortly.
I was never called back. Today I had another go at logging in, but the problem persists.
I dialled 439 after ½ hour of waiting and had the misfortune of speaking to an Alison. She told me the system was down as it had been for the last two days, and that she wouldn’t be able to resolve the problem there and then. I tried to express my dissatisfaction with Orange, but she took it personally and hung up on me. Whilst, rude call centre staff are an unacceptable bane of modern life, it is hard to believe that a supposedly high tech company like yours can be so technically incompenent.
I then dialled customer services to complain about Alison and to ask for a PAC code to enable me to move my account to a more competent mobile phone company, and in view of the problems I have been experiencing, to have any early termination (£380.65) penalty waived. Spoke to a Debbie who said she could not deal with the problem or my request and put me through to a manager, Margo. Margo wouldn’t waive the penalty but said she would transfer be back to the relevant department to have the logging on issue and compant against Alison looked at by a manager in the technical department. After hanging on for a further 39 minutes the call was cut off.
Please will you therefore use your personal time to resolve my complaints expedititiously.
The matter will be referred by me to Ofcom if Orange is unable to resolve thr technical and account issues within a reasonable time scale.
Paul
Dear Mr Alexander,
Whilst I enjoy some of the benefits of my orange account , such as Orange Wednesdays, this is far outweighed by the miserable level of in-store, technical & customer service I have received from your company this year.
I realise that you are a busy man, but you really ought to have a look at matters personally when they go on the manner I have been experiencing. Judging by the long delays and disconnections I have suffered when trying to speak to your call centre staff and the inability of those employees to resolve the problems, my experience cannot be an isolated one.
Problems started in April when I began to be billed £10 per month for mobile internet which my local Orange phone shop sold to me for £1 per month (obviously an irrestible bargain). I never used the service as the store didn’t have the dongle I needed in stock at the time and I never returned to collect it. Despiter my consumer rights, It took several months of complaining before Orange agreed to credit my account and cancel the mobile internet which was of no real interest or benefit to me. Initially you feebly denied responsiblity, claiming the store was an Orange franchise so nothing to do with Orange itself. In the meantime I received disconnection threats after I cancelled my direct debit and paid your company only for my phone use.
Then, two weeks ago, I mysteriously received a text message from Orange, stating that if I didn’t login to my account (online soon) I would need to re-register. So latter that day (22nd July) I attempted to do just that, and it wouldn’t let me in. I called and eventually got through to a Paula in Bristol, who told me the acocunt was barred and she didn’t know why. She said the matter would be investigated and I would be called back shortly.
I was never called back. Today I had another go at logging in, but the problem persists.
I dialled 439 after ½ hour of waiting and had the misfortune of speaking to an Alison. She told me the system was down as it had been for the last two days, and that she wouldn’t be able to resolve the problem there and then. I tried to express my dissatisfaction with Orange, but she took it personally and hung up on me. Whilst, rude call centre staff are an unacceptable bane of modern life, it is hard to believe that a supposedly high tech company like yours can be so technically incompenent.
I then dialled customer services to complain about Alison and to ask for a PAC code to enable me to move my account to a more competent mobile phone company, and in view of the problems I have been experiencing, to have any early termination (£380.65) penalty waived. Spoke to a Debbie who said she could not deal with the problem or my request and put me through to a manager, Margo. Margo wouldn’t waive the penalty but said she would transfer be back to the relevant department to have the logging on issue and compant against Alison looked at by a manager in the technical department. After hanging on for a further 39 minutes the call was cut off.
Please will you therefore use your personal time to resolve my complaints expedititiously.
The matter will be referred by me to Ofcom if Orange is unable to resolve thr technical and account issues within a reasonable time scale.
Paul
Wednesday 6 May 2009
Speed camera hypocrite
Tom Riall, chief executive of Serco the company that has supplied more than 5,000 speed cameras to enforcement authorities in the UK has been handed out a 6 month driving ban after exceeding 100 mph in a 70 mph limit on a road in Suffolk.
As an observer for the Institute of Advanced Motorists who has a clean license, drives within the law and loathes speed cameras; I say it serves the bugger right.
10 good reasons to hate speed cameras:
1. They are part of the surveillance society.
2. Many speed limits they enforce are unrealistically restrictive for the character of the road.
3. Speeding and even non-speeding drivers over-react to the cameras braking hard often to well below the posted speed limit, at best obstructing traffic behind and at worse, causing a pile up (and yes that does happen. I’ve seen it for myself).
4. The hard braking and re-acceleration increases carbon dioxide emissions.
5. The cameras can’t enforce other road traffic law violations; often one’s far more dangerous.
6. Criminals who can’t be traced because their vehicles are untaxed, uninsured or being driven on foreign, false and cloned registration plates are immune from the fines and penalties resulting from being caught by a camera.
7. Speed camera enforcement takes away the common sense judgment of real police officers.
8. Removes the human element of law enforcement
9. They are an eye-sore.
10. Cameras catch the wrong people. Hard core speed limit violators will always be on the lookout for speed cameras – and they are easy enough to spot. It’s often law abiding drivers who inadvertently stray a few mph over the limit who get caught.
In Riall’s case it was a real police patrol, not one of his own scameras that has lead to his demise
As an observer for the Institute of Advanced Motorists who has a clean license, drives within the law and loathes speed cameras; I say it serves the bugger right.
10 good reasons to hate speed cameras:
1. They are part of the surveillance society.
2. Many speed limits they enforce are unrealistically restrictive for the character of the road.
3. Speeding and even non-speeding drivers over-react to the cameras braking hard often to well below the posted speed limit, at best obstructing traffic behind and at worse, causing a pile up (and yes that does happen. I’ve seen it for myself).
4. The hard braking and re-acceleration increases carbon dioxide emissions.
5. The cameras can’t enforce other road traffic law violations; often one’s far more dangerous.
6. Criminals who can’t be traced because their vehicles are untaxed, uninsured or being driven on foreign, false and cloned registration plates are immune from the fines and penalties resulting from being caught by a camera.
7. Speed camera enforcement takes away the common sense judgment of real police officers.
8. Removes the human element of law enforcement
9. They are an eye-sore.
10. Cameras catch the wrong people. Hard core speed limit violators will always be on the lookout for speed cameras – and they are easy enough to spot. It’s often law abiding drivers who inadvertently stray a few mph over the limit who get caught.
In Riall’s case it was a real police patrol, not one of his own scameras that has lead to his demise
Tuesday 28 April 2009
Religious fruitcake of the day award.
Today’s cake (Strictly Kosher) goes to Yaakov Litzman, Israel’s Ultra Orthodox Deputy Health Minister who has said that The outbreak of swine flu should be renamed "Mexican" influenza in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork.
Never mind about offending Mexicans, then.
Never mind about offending Mexicans, then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
