...and any other matters that take our fancy
Was catching up with last week's Spectator. There was a remarkable piece by Matthew Parris in which he confesses that insanity has pierced his interior life and he has become a "Remainiac", one who actually finds it difficult to sleep at night, being so worked up about Brexit. I kid you not, this is what he writes. The remarkable thing is I pointed out some weeks ago that Parris and some other leadings opponents of Brexit were indeed in the grip of that sort of mania. So glad he at least concurs! Of course one of the aspects of this mental affliction is they claim the other side are also in its grip. But nothing could be further from the truth. There were absolutely no signs that any Brexiteer was going to campaign to overturn the result of the EU Referendum had it gone Remain's way (Farage's comments on continuing the fight, were simply that - obviously many people who opposed the UK's membership of the EU would continue to work to extract us after the Referendum result had been implemented, were it to go Leave's way). There was no suggestion any would seek legal recourse through the courts to block the decision, or use the House of Lords to attempt to block it, or raise resolutions in Parliament to block it or appeal to other countries to block it or organise street demos against a pro-Leave Referendum result. And the idea that the likes of Nigel Lawson, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove are kept awake at night gnawing at the sheets because of the opposition to Brexit is fanciful. Nope, the extreme manic response to the Referendum result is purely a Remainiac affair. If psychologists and psychiatrists were themselves nearly all Remainiacs no doubt they would be eager to study the phenomenon.
MB, I recommend going to Guido & searching for: 'Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Brexit driving me to the edge of madness.' From Guido's clip from the Daily Politics, one could be forgiven for thinking that the good lady has fallen over said edge. Note the rising hysteria in her voice - a cross between an electronic whine and a wail. What have these people got against democracy?
I was listening to Steve Wright this afternoon in my car.He was interviewing Angela Griffin, an actress who was promoting a play where Trump gets killed for saying he wanted to put up a wall.A play for those with TDS by the sound of it and offensive too but I’m sure it will get the full red carpet treatment by the BBC.Anyway Angela Griffin was saying what a challenging role she had in the play and her character was trying to really understand the mindset those who voted for Trump rather than just dismiss them all as idiots, which they weren’t.She then reiterated that the play was making an important point to understand why people voted for Trump and Farage so that it could never happen again.So there we have it. A little known actress gets a prime time slot to promote her play and left wing political views to 7m listeners. With all those undesirables who voted for Trump and Farage cast as villains of the piece. Of course, her views are acceptable and mainstream on the BBC but can you imagine the reverse being broadcast?No I can’t either - and that’s bias at work.
For Radio I’ve got a new job 30 minute commute at most and I only listen to radio 2 now, I can’t handle 4 anymore so my exposure to the bias is limited.For TV our aerial broke last year and we only watch Netflix etc rarely BBC so my exposure to the bias is limited.I heartily recommend the above, cut it out your life and get your news from the interweb. Obviously multiple different sites of all political spectrums and Male up your own mind.I still have to pay the license fee though which is ridiculous!
Radio 4 is like some PC wet dream lol! - even down to the Archers village cricket team being saved by superior women players. It's pretty much 24/7 anti-Brexit, pro-EU, pro state spending, Uberfeminist, pro migration tendentiousness. I heard a trailer for a new Clare Balding's "Ramblings" (Yawnathon) - she's gonna go walking with a group of refugees in Suffolk or somewhere...now there's a surprise. I occasionally listen to Radio 3 on the principle that there are just fewer opportunities for PC presentation, especially when the music is 18th century opera. I can also recommend the rap music channels on satellite TV as well if you want to hear some robust pre-PC assertions of gender differentation, the importance of belonging to your home area, and the need to defend yourself from those who would harm you. :)
I presume you miss 'Essential Classics' when the sort of person that probably goes to BBC presenters' dinner parties gets to push 'the agenda'.And then there are all those International Women's Day, Women's Week, Women's year etc. when all those unheard, (for a reason?) women composers get and outing, (like just now as I type!).
We'll be seeing much more when gender equality in sports becomes top of the pile of subjects to be forced down our throats. Tennis has been more or less dealt with, but now with so much BBC reporting of women's cricket, rugby and football (some might say that's because the BBC are unwilling to compete for broadcasting rights on the men's sports), the next step will be to push for equality in pay.
Now that we're being bombarded by the media with news of this Royal Wedding farce. Did anyone notice that there wasn't a single mention about it on last night's BBC1 Question Time.I've often felt the the weekly visiting audience are sometimes fed the show's questions.But last night they were clearly told not to bring the subject up as this whole event is going pear shaped.John... N.London.
Think you're right about questions being spoonfed, but I'm not at all convinced that the Beeb is trying to prevent the wedding from going pear-shaped - surely that would suit their left-wing agenda - unless, of course Ms Markle ticks a diversity box & so is, for the time being, considered 'a good thing'.
I notice from BBC News that Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal has been discharged from hospital today.It's not bias I spot, but a lack of investigation and questioning by the BBC other MSM on this farcical story. The worlds most deadly nerve agent and they both recover (as did the PC). Russian scientists in the early days saying if they have come into contact then they are gone, finished.May and Johnson being very direct and critical of Russia with their choice of language and no challenges from the BBC.Some of the images and actions have been strange to say the least.Police were covered with the full protective outfits and 10 yards away people are watching in normal clothes. The cemetery scene with flowers passed to non protected hands. The random hazmat suits and watching passers by. The sawing off of the park bench after three weeks. The burning of the restaurant table on about day 2. A tiny amount can kill but the official government advice a month later to Salisbury residents was to wash your clothes on a hot wash.Something is not right yet nothing much from the BBC & MSM who would normally be full of questions e.g. Windrush & Grenfell.
Joe Lynam reporting opinion as fact on BBC News tonight. When reporting on US/China tariffs he said it was extraordinary that the US needs to coerce major trading partners into buying their goods.This personal opinion masquerading as reporting is happening more and more by BBC reporters and correspondents. And when it happens, it always supports their worldview.
Transcript time (with personal opinion posted in block capitals)!MISHAL HUSAIN: The United States and China have put a potential trade war on hold, with officials agreeing to suspend plans to impose tariffs on each others goods. President Trump had said in March that he wanted to tax Chinese steel and aluminium. Beijing had threatened to retaliate. Well our Business Correspondent Joe Lynam is here. How is this averted Joe? JOE LYNAM: Well, It is a case of two economic superpowers stepping back from the brink. Donald Trump may have said trade wars are easy to win BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THEY'RE NOT. America had wanted to impose a 25% tariff on Chinese steel - and all steel around the world - and the Chinese would have retaliated in some form and that would have spiralled out of control. The reason it didn't is because a delegation from China went to Washington last week and they've agreed today to buy a whole lot more American produce - agricultural produce, be that pork, orange juice, or whatever, and oil and gas products from the US - without any firm commitments though. It does appear to have done the job. The Americans have pulled back from the brink. They've put these sanctions on hold with the threat that they'll reimpose them if China doesn't meet its end to the bargain. I THINK IT'S EXTRAORDINARY THAT AMERICA WOULD FEEL IT NEEDS TO COERCE AND FORCE MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS INTO BUYING ITS GOODS, but......[Craig - classic example of a BBC reporter expressing an opinion and then deciding to say it's something 'a lot of people say']......that's what this looks like for a lot of people. As for us here in Britain and in Europe, there are still potential trade tariffs that could be applied to steel products from Britain. If President Trump goes ahead with it on June 1st Europe has said it will retaliate and then a trade war could be back on. MISHAL HUSAIN: Joe Lynam, thank you.
Doing their best to obfuscate: China has been dumping steel on US market and, once again, Trump's approach has been vindicated - he's won & very quickly too! He's not going to win any 'Personality of the year' contests, but it has to be admitted he's a shrewd operator. Perhaps he could give Theresa May some advice on negotiating!
The BBC like creating news about their own presenters or 'stars', hardly a day goes by without a main story involving one of them.Pride of place on the BBC website today is a story about one of the BBCs ex Radio 1 Presenters, Jameela Jamil.in the article it says, the 32-year-old said she moved to Los Angeles without a job or even a plan."I was literally starting again and I was actively discouraged by everyone in England," she told BBC Radio 5 live's Anna Foster."Everyone said I was being mad, throwing away an eight-year career, and that I was too old - I was only 29 - too ethnic, and too fat to come over to Los Angeles."So whats the headline they created? Yes, it had to be...Jameela Jamil was told she was 'too ethnic' to make it in the US.Obfuscation and cherry picking of the highest order and a bit disingenuous if you read the full article.
What? The LA music scene is absolutely dominated by "ethnics". In any case ethnic is a racist term since we are pretty much all "ethnic".
Manna from heaven today for the BBC from Mark Carney. Earlier this morning he said the economy is 2% lower than it would have been if we had voted to remain in the EU. He also said household income was £900pa lower because of the referendum result. Needless to say the BBC are all over this on their news reports.
I suppose being Canadian he has no loyalty to this country, only to the Globalist Creed. But even if you believed that economic outcome to be true you wouldn't say it as Governor of the Bank of England, knowing what tremendous economic damage that statement will do to the UK. The only reasonable conclusion is that Carney wants to harm the UK economy. I might add that Carney would never tell you the truth about the real effects of mass immigration on this country's economy, for example the huge increase in housing and welfare costs, or the dead weight on our productivity level. Has Carney pointed out that one of the effects of the Brexit vote has been to puncture the housing market, so that housing is now cheaper in many regions. If that means you don't have borrowing another £100,000 that will save you a lot more than £900 pa. My contempt for the BBC is marginally exceeded by my contempt for Carney and my contempt for the fact that May let's him carry on, talking down the economy.
Agreed MB, Carney is a left wing political agitator when he should be impartial, the BoE like most UK institutions are happy to break impartiality on Brexit. Today, the BBC have tried to bury the item below, if it was the other way around it would be lead item, no doubt.Government finances have continued to improve, potentially giving more scope for the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, to raise spending in the Budget.The government borrowed £7.8bn in April - the lowest figure for April since 2008, according to official figures.The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also revised the borrowing figure for last year to £40.5bn, down from its previous estimate of £42.6bn.The deficit was 2% of GDP last year, the lowest rate since 2002.
Absolutely contemptible line of attack by the BBC on Mogg...https://order-order.com/2018/05/22/joco-quizzes-mogg-catholic-beliefs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29Would they ever question Warsi or Javid about their religious beliefs in this aggressive way? Of course not. Coburn advancing the BBC ideological line: the BBC policy is to turn the Tories sea green and pink. They made a lot of progress with Cameron, but they really want someone like Ruth Davidson (what has she ever actually done? what original idea has she ever had? do we really think she's as saintly as depicted by the BBC?) to further the social revolution that will turn the Tories into the Lib Dems Mark II.
Shame we don't hear more of this sort of debate on our MSM, and in particular the BBC - which really ought to be encouraging such debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv8QvnrUyUsInteresting Stephen Fry contribution: 1. Despite being a BBC presenter he is quite happy to identify his politics - he is a man of the left. Shame other BBC presenters aren't more honest. 2. But Fry has a problem with political correctness. Interesting...as someone who values academia, I think he can probably see what it's doing to free debate within universities and how it is now poisoning politics. I've only dipped into.
I watched the beginning of this over the weekend. Whilst Peterson was content to discuss the subject of the debate Dyson and Goldberg went straight into attacking Peterson personally. Familiar story? At times Dyson’s verbosity was obscuring whatever point he was actually making. I understand it all became rather heated.But yes, it would be good to have this kind of debate on the MSM. Alas programs like Question Time are no longer forums for serious debate but just platforms for easy soundbites and political electioneering. I fear also that the collective ego of the BBC is so inflated that it would never allow any outside voice to have this amount of time and space. I imagine this is why people are now turning to Youtube as an alternative .
Yes, Question Time long ago stopped being a serious debate programme and become an exercise in competitive virtue signalling, tendentious and biased inquistions from the chair, and organised mobbery. I really think that the BBC has deliberately killed off coherent debate programmes. It's the last thing they want. If they allow such programmes, people like Stephen Fry will raise questions about the ideology of political correctness. If they don't allow such programmes, the questions won't get asked, and the BBC prefers it that way.
I don't hold out much hope that we will ever see this piece of news reported by the BBC. It is ironic that he regularly appears on the BBC as a champion for 'love not hate'?Sir Alan Parker also revealed that Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered MP Jo Cox, would have been suspended by the charity if he had not resigned.Mr Cox admitted earlier this year that he made 'mistakes' and behaved in a way that caused some women hurt and offence when he was working at the charity.Sir Alan said: 'Of course Mr Cox at the time of his resignation, was still fully denying everything, and in his resignation letter was saying very clearly he felt this was unfair, he would not get proper justice, he was very very robust on this, and literally just left.'But from the moment we received the report on Brendan Cox - he was away at the time - we then moved to suspend him. He never returned to the building once during that process.'
(Mistakenly put this on another thread, but meant it to go here)...And here's the BBC's great Anthony Zurcher on Twitter:QUOTEThe great thing is this construction can be used for pretty much any allegation. Is the government controlled by the Illuminati? Did the US fake the moon landing? Is Soylent Green made of people? "I think it would be very troubling to millions of Americans if that took place."QUOTEZurcher is quoting Pence on reports of FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign. His intent is clearly to rubbish Pence's comment.However, the evidence of surveillance of the Trump campaign by moles in the Trump campaign working for the FBI or other agencies has been growing by the day and has been taken seriously by that august publication much beloved by the BBC, the New York Times.Is Zurcher really impartial and non-partisan as required by the BBC's formal rules? Or is he really a fake news merchant just spinning Democrat talking points
The BBC will have no problem whatsoever with those tweets. Zurcher conforms to the BBC worldview. His tweets are fine so long as he attack the things the BBC attacks and supports the things the BBC support.
Sir Topham, Yes, by definition, BBC-approved bias is not bias because the BBC is not biased (as Robinson, Sopel et al would have you believe). So Zurcher's post as one of umpteen overpaid US-based Beeboids is safe.
Kirsty Wark Fake News alert:Tonight on Newsnight she claimed people in the South voted Remain. In fact the South East and South West regions voted Leave. Reality Check: The majority of the three southern regions voted Leave. No doubt Ms Wark will be issuing a formal apology in due course, saying sorry for this typically lazy bit of fake news reporting by the BBC, which actually reflects their ideological narrative.
MB, the "reality check" which is never mentioned on the EUBBC is that all UK regions bar 3 voted majority leave. The 3 that voted majority Remain being the odd grouping of N.I. (influenced by sectarian politics), Scotland (influenced by nationalist politics) and London (home of the EUBBC bubble).
You are absolutely right. The BBC narrative is that we are a nation divided, it was a small majority with 52/48. Young and educated voted remain, old and thick voted leave.What they don’t mention is that England regions all voted leave at nearer 60/40 which is a very decisive vote, with London alone at 40/60 remain
Yes, according to the BBC's warped logic, when it comes to the London, Scotland and Northern Ireland regions only the popular vote majority in each case that matters. But when it comes to the national poll, the UK as a whole, it is not the popular vote majority that matters. Also the BBC loves to promote the idea that "people didn't know what they were voting for" when they voted to Leave. But that works both ways. The BBC/Soggy Left/Lib Dems keep telling us we can Leave the EU but stay in the single market and the customs union. Well, that's not what the Remain campaign told people in the run up to the poll. They said quite the opposite.So it seems Remain voters were voting on a false basis, according to BBC logic - had they been told it would be possible to leave the EU but stay in the single market and the customs union, well millions would have voted Leave then. But the BBC don't do logic do they?
The 'remainers' certainly didn't know what they were voting for in the sense that 'Brussels' very much has a blank cheque when it comes to new legislation and the trend to extend 'qualified majority voting' means that our 'veto' (promised when we joined the EEC) has virtually gone.Perhaps that is why the 'remain' case was all about what we would 'lose' as they certainly had no idea what we might 'gain' in future.
Yes, that's a good point. Turkey was a good example. We were told by the Remainers that Turkey joining the EU was a fantasy even while the EU Commission was publishing detailed analyses of their progress towards membership. Who to believe? Not much mention was made of other countries joining like Albania. And Cameron and co. were less than honest shall we say about what "ever closer union" means to the EU bodies that control policy. It doesn't mean an ever closer union of sovereign states.
John Thomspon, the chief executive of HM Revenue and Customs has waded into the Customs Union debate, saying Max Fac would cost businesses £20b a year an that a customers partnership would cost £3.4b.Firstly I’m not convinced it is wise for the head of the department administering the solution to make pronouncements on the options when the figures he quotes are someone else’s research (KPMG and University of Nottingham).And more importantly the BBC used their customary word play to favour one option and rubbish doubters when writing about the customs partnership.The words used in the article are;In contrast, he said the customs partnership option - which has been described as "crazy" by Boris Johnson and "flawed" by Michael Gove - would cost business an estimated £3.4bn a year.It’s all quite cleverly done which is why BBC propogdnda is so dangerous.
BBC Two's programme about The Chelsea Flower Show tonight has this:There is a distinctly contemporary twist to this programme as Monty Don and Joe Swift look at how some of the gardens and plants at Chelsea embrace modern living. Jeremy Bowen joins the team to give a unique perspective on how gardens serve communities. ...Would that be the BBC's Middle East reporter, now a flower expert too?And just in case we haven't enough BBC people on, there the Rev Richard Coles on the other Flower Show programme tonight. He's apparently a newly discovered expert in garden design. Or should that be 'expert'?
You have to laugh, the BBC trot out their ‘talent’ at every opportunity, they always have. Amol Rajan is the latest fad - a dj, food critic and media editor.Rev Richard Coles and Kate Bottley always display their dog collars like a badge of honour whether cooking, dj’ing, Camino de Santiago’ing or painting.We are Christians but different and modern, we tick all the right boxes - it doesn’t matter if you are gay, short, fat, musical, religious or have a northern accent, we have no obvious talent but we are proud to be symbols of BBC diversity and inclusiveness.
I agree with you Sir T. Ex Gogglebox participant and Anglican vicar Kate Bottley is a presenter of Good Morning Sunday on Radio 2 - with Jason Mohammad, a practising Muslim. Both say 'God Bless You' - which indicates inclusivity of the very highest order.
I know Jason, nice chap, he's practicing as he's not very good...
It's so blatant how they promote these BBC presenter 'names'. In the programme notes it was like this: ...and the Reverend Richard Coles is on site to reveal his own passion for garden design. ...But I watched the programme and blimey it wasn't that. The BBC's Rev turned up with a fellow Rev referred to as his partner, both Revs being captioned with the name Coles. Curiouser and curiouser. The partner Rev, we were told, was a garden designer with some training in the subject. And plainly the Rev Coles of BBC, was not. So there we had it, two Rev partner Coles. Is the BBC's Rev some kind of rebel in the C of E or a trailblazer in the BBC's eyes? I don't know what the current status of Rev + Rev Coles is in the eyes of the church but I can see now a BBC agenda.
It seems Rev Coles has a partner David with whom he lives,and is in a celibate relationship. So that's OK with the church apparently. And definitely OK with the BBC.
Truly frightening from Not a Sheep:WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2018Paris today, London tomorrow?https://youtu.be/5tSYGfEg1IY.... Sexist apartheid on the streets of Paris, not that the BBC have any interest.... I imagine there are areas within London where, if not already, no-go areas for women will be the established norm.
Yes. I've seen that before. That's the reality. The sort of reality that the BBC never does a Reality Check on.
Well for once Newsnight was interesting. Emily Maitless interviewing Steve Bannon, who was basically knocking the balls around the park. I was impressed by the way he refused to be interpreted and took every opportunity to accuse the BBC of being in the service of the globalist elite. Maitlis is no doubt a nice person, but she really wasn't up to the task of unsettling Bannon. She just rehearsed the often inaccurate Democrat talking points of the last 2 years. The one part that made my jaw drop was where Maitlis took it upon herself to say that "in our viewers' minds" Trump had enabled racism, divisiveness, fascism and all the rest. In our viewers minds! That's a new one for the BBC!! They now declare brazenly that not only are they guardians of truth and justice, but they can read our minds!!! There's only response possible, but it would be crude, vulgar and short.
Interpreted = interrupted of course and I wasn't being funny when I miswrote "Maitlis" as "Maitless".
We don't have any accurate measure of the opinion of the UK electorate towards Donald trump. The "in our viewers' minds" phrase is a badly misjudged projection of Maitlis' own perception - merely confirming the BBC's hatred of DP, and their fervent wish to have contributed towards his downfall (something that looks increasingly unlikely).
I have no idea how nice Emily is or not. However her competence and professionalism and impartiality are in no doubt.Looks like she has had her Cathy Newman moment too.
The BBC is biased.
On the BBC News page is an article entitled 'New Zealand is happy to forget UK's betrayal' - read it quickly, before the Beeb takes it down - it's a ringing endorsement of ending old trading partnerships and creating new free-trade agreements worldwide...you know, like Brexit, for instance!
On other matters Brexit - alleged news programme, WATO, has the Mark Mardell pro-EU segment ("Brexit - A Love Story?"), where opinion goes disguised as historical survey. Underhand Mardell used this occasion (supposedly devoted to the print media's treatment of the EU) to spend the lion's share of his allotted 15 mins in an attempted destruction of Boris Johnson's character. He was free to make the usual claims that he was frivolous, a liar, unable to control his utterances and not suited to real politics. I liked Sarah Montague's intro which was a little BBC insider's joke, where she declared "Mark loves Brexit..." (before clarifying she meant the ongoing suspensful narrative). Geddit? As for the substance of Mardell's airing of his opinions, he managed to give the impression that for most of the years of our membership of the EU the press was horrendously and lyingly anti-EU, abetted by the helpful jokey (no doubt edited) comments of Kelvin McKenzie. He did this by careful avoidance of mention of the pro-EU Times, Financial Times, Mail on Sunday, Independent, Mirror, People, Sunday Mirror and so on, leaving aside the fact that Sun and Telegraph were for much of the period pro-EU as well. Only the Express has been consistenly anti-EU or Eurosceptic. Its reward to be bought up by the Mirror group, who will no doubt turn it into an anti-EU rag.
Anthony Zurcher writes an astonishing piece of opinion masquerading as analysis about Trump's letter to Kim Jong-un.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44233641It is sad and disappointing to see how BBC news reporting has lost its authority, integrity and objectivity with vitriolic opinion pieces like this.
Zurcher is one of the "shameless" squad along with John Simpson and Nick Robinson.
Yes, that's a shocker. It features a classic 'Some people say...'"There will certainly be some critics who question whether this is an appropriate place to turn on the charm".Yes, there certainly will be - including you just there Anthony!
6pm News - 'Armenian PM' - hoax phone call to Boris: Jane Hill asked Diplomatic Correspondent, James Roberts, "How Embarrassing is this for the Foreign Secretary?" Roberts' reply, that Boris had played it very well and that, "his foot had not come anywhere near his mouth," was clearly a great disappointment to Ms Hill. Interestingly, James Roberts places the blame on the Civil Servants for letting the call through. I wonder, by accident or design?
The 'intra-studio' staff set-up exchanges on embarrassment, damage, etc are as frequent as they are blatant. That's why it is always fun when they risk going outside with a ringer, and they also don't follow the BBC prompt.
Yes. If only it happened more often!
On BBC new bulletins this morning, the BBC are advertising and promoting 'The Biggest Weekend'.They say that it is a one-off music festival which promises to bring the nation together.Thats a big claim - Just how will it bring the nation together?Or maybe it won't, but the BBC can use it in evidence to say they are doing their bit to bring a divided nation together.
Another 'diversity fest'?
Yes, the BBC will be bringing the nation together by dividing it up into ever more tiny segments until it resembles nothing more than a huge vat of insipid minestrone soup. At least, that's their idea, I think. Doubt though we will see any Mormon choirs or Morris dancers, though...for some reason, they are Verboten - even male voice choirs are probably forbidden now! But we'll likely get drill and grime music with their violent, race-conscious and mysoginistic lyrics...apparently that's OK for some reason.
Bob Shennan, Director BBC Radio and Music says: “BBC Music has a strong history of bringing the nation together for some special moments, and this is the biggest single music event ever attempted by the BBC. We will be celebrating the diversity of music from four different corners of the country, bringing the best UK music to the world and the best global music to the UK.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/the-biggest-weekend
I have a suspicion that the BBC continue to overreact on Weinstein (and Cliff Richard) because of guilt. The stench of hypocrisy is in the air given the Savile and Rolf Harris scandals. The righteous and energetic reporting tone is hardly appropriate with their less than exemplary record.
If they cover up arm-biting of staff by their CEO (now heading up the New York Times I believe), then why would they tell the truth about such matters as you reference? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-day-i-was-bitten-by-bbc-boss-7086208.html
"Their bosses were so determined to hush up the affair, however, that Massey was promptly sent to Rwanda on a perilous assignment. And Thompson, then a rising star, was allowed to continue his soaring career unhindered."
You have to hand it to Massey for the way he tells it: 'He saw me across the room and went white. I don't know why. I don't bite.' Clearly the enforced exile spent reporting from the sticks wasn't wasted.
So much anti-free speech activity taking place currently by the authorities...it's worrying, concerning...we know how this ends - in dictatorship of one sort or another. I think sites like this need to be more militant in defence of free speech, to make free speech a central part of their message. Because I think otherwise within a year or two they will be closed down.
There were at least three shocking stories just yesterday of free-speech arrests/imprisonment, including one blogger. It is seriously worrying.
Going back to the Weinstein coverage, I find it disturbing that the BBC has completely ignored the notion that someone is innocent until proven guilty.On Sir Topham's point, perhaps the BBC's over-eagerness is also an attempt to re-establish their pro-feminist credentials in the wake of the revelations about unequal pay at the BBC.
We can see everywhere the tension between multiculturalism and feminism played out on the BBC. The two are diametrically opposed but for tactical reasons, both sides pretend (most of the time) there is no contradiction. Populism it not opposed to rational feminism but is opposed to multiculturalism as being a poisonous ideology that destroys societies. Morgan Freeman is a better test of the BBC's commitment to feminism... Their article could have been written by the man himself, so unconcerned are they about the effects on the female victims...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44247166When push comes to shove, the BBC always sacrifices women, the poor and gays to the "higher" ideology of PC multiculturalism.
One line from that 'report': Morgan is also said to have stared at women's breasts and asked women to twirl for him."Morgan"?
Aha! You are onto something.Jeremy vs MayBarack vs TrumpMorgan vs WeinsteinIt’s a man thing. Generally speaking, the BBC don’t spit out surnames for women they hate, the exception being Thatcher.
MB & Craig: Casual, institutional racism BBC-style.
Sir Topham: And they reinforce their bias by careful camera-work, so unflattering hyper-close-up for their enemies with dark, depressing backgrounds, but flattering shots for those of whom they approve,
On the mobile version of the website tonight, the first nine stories are about Ireland’s abortion vote.I understand it is news and worthy of a main story , but the first nine?Why this over-reporting and celebration? Is it because abortion rights are one of the basic freedoms championed by the liberal left?The BBC have been spreading propaganda on this topic for years. Reeta Chakrabarti did an infamous hatchet job on anti abortion campaigners on the main news a couple of years ago.
They've been running a Live stream on it as well - waste of licence fee money. At the end of the day Ireland is simply aligning its laws with most of the rest of Europe. We can wait for the formal result. Also, try a thought experiment: had Leave won the Referendum by 66% would the BBC have described it as "overwhelming". I very much doubt it!
'Aligning its laws with the rest of Europe...' Could that be part of the reason for over-hyping the Irish referendum? Northern Ireland, of course, is not aligned, it has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe - a splendid opportunity for the Beeb to stir things up for the DUP which, as Martine Croxall has just pointed out (News Channel, the Papers) is propping up the Government.
Yes, they are hoping to break the DUP-Conservative agreement...hope springs eternal for the BBC.
However, the proposed post-Brexit frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland will allow freedom of movement for people seeking an abortion to travel there - all within the island of Ireland.
Woman's Hour on Radio 4 was rabbiting on about Ireland's referendum every single time I happened to tune in in the last couple of weeks. Five times out of five. Why? Jenni Murray fretting and fussing that it was 'confusing' voting for or against changing the 8th amendment because it involved Article 36. Oh dear me, however are the Irish meant to cope? Everyone knew what they were being asked in the referendum. It really isn't difficult or unusual to have an amending Article in a constitution. My thoughts on the BBC wittering were the short but to the point Away and bile yer heid.
Anthony Zurcher excels at impartiality...https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1000421059089354752He's now accusing the US President of lying. He didn't need to, he didn't need to personalise it, but he did. Zurcher, senior BBC journalist, clearly determined to bring down the President, not even making a pretence of balance.
Says Zurcher: ‘or he (Trump) didn’t care enough to check to see if it was true.’Pot and kettle comes to mind. That’s a favourite BBC fake news tactic.
Yes, you're quite right Sir T he does add that - in fact the use of the alternative to provide CYA deniability - is such a well worn ploy of the BBC, I didn't give it the courtesy of a mention, since Zurcher's intent was as obvious as a 40 tonne truck speeding the wrong way down a motorway with its lights flashing. He want his audience to understand that Trump had lied. The BBC might as well dispense with Zurcher's services and simply copy Democratic Party press releases in his place: the effect will be near enough the same.
His two latest tweets simply add sarcastic comments to Donald Trump tweets:1. Donald Trump: "Who’s going to give back the young and beautiful lives (and others) that have been devastated and destroyed by the phony Russia Collusion Witch Hunt? They journeyed down to Washington, D.C., with stars in their eyes and wanting to help our nation...They went back home in tatters!"Anthony Zurcher: "New Trump rhetorical tactic: “Won’t someone think of the children?”"2. Donald Trump: "When will the 13 Angry Democrats (& those who worked for President O), reveal their disqualifying Conflicts of Interest? It’s been a long time now! Will they be indelibly written into the Report along with the fact that the only Collusion is with the Dems, Justice, FBI & Russia?"Anthony Zurcher: "“Indelibly”? Yeah, the president didn’t write this."
So tommy robinson has been silenced,using false arrest and imprisionment, well done May/Corbyn because they all work for the same common purpose. The Marxists (remoaners Antifa islamophiles) and all the rest of these left wing constructs have bought this country to a point of no return.The police and judiacry no longer have the consent of a lot people, and are not trusted by large swathes of the populace. Hypocrytes and Liars infest the HoC, HoL MSM all across the board the communists are infiltrating the Establishment working towards a totalitarian and autocratic agenda(think China, May/Corbyns wet deream for England) to silence people,who they consider hideously deplorable.They sneer at and smear the common man from they ivory towers shouting down to them Bigot Racist Nazi and all the other Left wing demon words designed solely to shut down debate, these are a tactic to divide(a well known communist ploy). These cnuts are laughing their heads off at the powerless little man in the street they all are.
The UK elite chastise Erdogan and Turkey for gross abuse of power and subverting democracy.Are we any different?We have done it in a more British way with the long march through our institutions.Erdogan sacked tens of thousands of teachers and academics. We did it by allowing a left wing, Marxist, PC doctrine infiltrate our education system.Erdogan sacked the judiciary who weren’t loyal to his party and Islamic values. Through legislation and appointments we have made sure that that our judicial confirms to liberal left ideals.Erdogan closed down TV Stations and newspapers who broadcast and published anti government views. We have the BBC and MSM who conform to the left liberal worldview without right wing balance. Right wing Newspapers are under legislative attach and are mocked by the BBC and MSM.Erdogan has stopped political demonstrations and closed down free speech. We are closing down free speech by stealth through the courts and political demonstrations are ok if the are left wing. Everything else is deemed as ‘far right’ and stopped or not reported. This has been going on for years but was accelerated by Blair when he came to power.His agenda was as radical as Erdogan and he transformed our institutions by only appointing leaders who had the same politics and allowing mass immigration. His legacy on this front is still intact and has changed our society.
On the theme of How We Got Here, with reference to Blair and Labour, saw an interesting article in The Evening Standard by Matthew D'Ancona about the choice facing Labour in the '90s, Blair's and the “other kind of New Labour”, Livingstone's, led to Momentum and where we are today, with Corbyn: "Blair’s “modernisation” programme, a bid for the centre-ground and middle-class, aspirational voters vs.Livingstone’s “rainbow coalition” of urban intellectuals, public sector workers, young voters, the dispossessed and minority groups." https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/antiisrael-and-antius-red-ken-has-paved-the-way-for-corbynism-a3846571.html#comments
edit: add 'how', to read as 'how Blair's and the other kind of New Labour...'
Sir T, a very good analysis...as you say a very British way of doing things...quietly, not boasting about it, particularly. Never trusted D'Ancona, and don't trust his analysis. The Blair option was also the one that gave us a wide range of restrictions on free speech, that promoted fantasy-feminism, that politicised the civil service, that adopted the finance sector-and-welfare dependency economic model, that supported moves to EU statehood and that promoted mass immigration on an unprecedented scale.
D’Ancona’s piece has 10 comments below it. Four can be classed as anti-Semitic. A self selecting 40%, but worrying, none the less and symptomatic of a trend in this country at the moment.
The event horizon for the elitist patriarchy is the rise of the new order from the ashes of what ever they have constructed, the construction process is well underway, we see it all around us. And as we see from this, it is an orchestrated event (much like Salisbury)in which Tommy Robinson is being used and set up, and is merely canon fodder,and is all part of that construct. Corbyn the great defender of radicals(real structural Marxist), and May the greatest appeaser(bliarite), I truly believe wish real harm upon this young man.
Re the Blair/Livingstone debate...I read a book last year on Clem Atlee and Labour in the first half of the 20th century. Atlee was a v. interesting figure. I would actually describe him as a populist. He saw what the mass of people wanted - a safety net, full employment and greater equality and he delivered on those, despite often very difficult economic circumstances. He remained a patriot, an anti-republican, and a genuine internationalist (not a globalist and not a European integrationlist), as well as being a man of great integrity and modesty. What happened to that trend in Labour? Callaghan was probably the last, rather pathetic representative of his sort of politics. In my view there is still room for left of centre, patriotic populism of the Atlee variety.
Agreed, but at the moment the choice is between Labour’s Marxism and Conservative’s Blair lite but with no discernible policies. Both are led by people with huge flaws who will never unite the country. A sorry state of affairs for our country and democracy. And to get back on topic, the evidence tends to indicate that the BBC have chosen to back Labour as their best bet to deliver the BBCs social justice and liberal agenda.
As I wrote on another thread, my strong view is the BBC always has a policy. It's nearly always "a" (singular) policy. However, sometimes, you do see tensions (e.g. when feminist reporting cuts across pro-Islamic lines) but generally speaking it's v. strong consensus, group-think. The BBC pursues its policies relentlessly ...sometimes it uses Labour, sometimes Lib Dems, sometimes even "reforming" Tories when they get hold of their party (they quite liked Cameron and Osborne, don't forget).Currently Brexit is a red line for the BBC, so yes they won't support May. I think they are now focussed on breaking the DUP-Tory agreement (hence all the focus on abortion and N. Ireland). I would agree that the BBC see Labour as their "natural party of government" (as Wilson used to describe it). But they aren't really Corbynistas. For one thing the key policy makers at the BBC earn far too much money to be comfortable with genuine Marxists. So, I think their real aim remains putting at the head of our government people like Stella Creasy, Chukka Umuna, David Lammy or Yvette Cooper.
MB - David Milliband is their wet dream!
Many politicians feel passionately that NI women should have the same choices....There is a majority in the commons who would support that...Theresa May under enormous pressure ....Northern Ireland is drastically out of step...Just some of the quotes from tonight’s main News.The BBC is in attack mode and has put its full weight behind the abortion debate by using language to influence and stir up NI politics.They will claim balance by giving soundbites to pro life campaigners and the DUP.But the report by Emma Vardy was full of emotive language and one of those news items where you can see who the BBC has put in the dock with a very clear case for the prosecution.
To be fair, UKIP are supporting the "Man None of Us Are Ever Allowed To Refer to Again Under the May Regime." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWYeO20vG4
I think the establishment have a bit of a prob with their current persecution of the person who can never be named ever again. It's backfired. Just go on You Tube and enter the name of the person whose name cannot be mentioned. Clue: TR.
Here is an interesting twist from the BBC News website on the Arts and Entertainment pageshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44216361.... 'Figures reveal art auction gender imbalance' ....The news story is concerned with the low proportion (just 13%) of women artists in the 2017 list of art auctions outcome in terms of sales value. As a statistical exercise, it beggars belief. .... The 13 women in the top 100 accounted for sales of $263m (£175m) - 7.4% of the overall total of $3.5bn (£2.6bn).... .... Leonardo da Vinci was top of the 2017 auction rankings, thanks to the $450m (£337m) sale of the Salvator Mundi painting last November...The article concludes thus:.... The imbalance between men and women stems from a "systemic gender bias" in the factors that go into deciding an artist's value - which has existed for many years - according to MutualArt data analyst Kate Todd.For decades, key museums and galleries have focused on exhibiting and collecting work by male artists, and have normally been run by men. Dealers and private collectors have also been predominantly male.Anna Brady, who is The Art Newspaper's deputy art market editor, says: "You've had centuries of male collectors, male art historians and male critics, generally."I'm not saying they're incapable of appreciating female artists, but I think it brings with it a certain bias. Female artists have often gone under the radar."Things like having children has affected female artists over the years - and they just haven't been appreciated or have been taken less seriously over the centuries and the decades of the 20th Century." ....It is impossible to make a case that 'The 13 women in the top 100 accounted for sales of $263m (£175m) - 7.4% of the overall total of $3.5bn (£2.6bn)' amounts to any form of discrimination. No amount of present-day massaging of facts can make up for the hundreds of years during which artists - as well as engineers, architects, doctors, philosophers politicians etc were predominantly male.
This is an extreme example of what I called on another thread "The quota question". Virtually all Radio 4 programmes consist of quota questions...referencing the BBC's idea of what the minority or female quota should be for any particular profession, or activity or whatever. It is now clear that there is a serious deficiency in meeting the female quota of dead artists. Remember as well it won't be just 50% - the BBC's idea of equality is more like 60% female. And when there is gross over-representation of women e.g. among party leaders in the UK (something like 5 out of 7 of the significant parties) or regular Newsnight presenters (2 out of 3) there is no sense of grievance on behalf of men. The joys of diversity!
OP on reddit1. There is a temporary UK ban on reporting. It lasts until an existing trial is over.2. The purpose of a temporary ban like this is to protect an existing trial from being compromised. 3. The 2017 judgement was a suspended sentence of 3 months. Therefore if it is correct that ? is jailed for 13 months now (this appears to be leaked information and currently unverifiable) then we can presume ? received an additional 10 month sentence for further law breaking (whatever it was).4. When the existing trial is over the temorary ban on reporting will be lifted and you will be able to read about what happened.
There have been two quite large demos in London over the past two days. The BBC has covered neither. But it did choose to spend several minutes on a smaller demo in Northern Ireland about abortion, lingering lovingly over the partisan posters to get their message across and virtually ignoring those who oppose abortion in the province.
Re point 1., what is meant by "existing trial"? It's number 2 of 3, if the ban is until end of the 3rd ... well ...
EU Feel good monday on the BBC.Story about an economic migrant hero being granted EU/French citizenship by the King of France.And the heroic president of Italy standing firm against the far-right anti EU parties and telling the people of Italy "think again and keep on thinking until you elect a pro-EU party"
Yes I thought that too. The propaganda is relentless, Any pro EU story is catapulted to the top of the news and promoted in positive terms by the BBC. They always use populist as a derogatory word throwing it in as something dirty and nasty.
For me "populist" is a badge of honour...it means at least you are guided more by the people than by elite interests or ideology. We need to rediscover populism and put a populist government in power in the UK, a government that will abolish the Lords, abolish the BBC Fake News operation, protect our free speech rights and start pursuing policies that serve the people, not oligarchs and elites.
I’ve been trying to resist this post but couldn’t help myself.Has anyone spottted the BBC social engineering exercise on the current EastEnders storyline where a group of black youths are attacked and one of them is stabbed to death by a white working class cockney teenager.
Don't watch Eastenders but I did notice the recent Coronation Street story line that had a grooming gang preying on a young blonde teenager...and the gang were all white Police officers! :) Yes, they do assume their audience are dupes with the combined intellectual perspicacity of a gnat. And when it comes to those "stock images" the BBC always uses models from the pigment-deficient majority for bad things (e.g. domestic violence, harrassment and so on).
Ah, yes, but in the case of real-life situations: terrorist attacks, knife crime etc. they're always quick to tell us the ethnicity &/or religion of the perpetrators. It's because they are 'reporting the truth' that BBC News is trusted news - I know this because it says so on their website!
Seems we can now discuss the "disappearing" of Tommy Robinson if we wish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640That's good but I wish to make a general point, to say that the judiciary, leaving aside their propensity for releasing knife and gun weilding maniacs on to our streets to harm innocent people (which is bad enough), are a major threat to our liberty. This is something you will never hear on the BBC. Lawyers and judges are nearly always represented as well meaning defenders of freedom and justice. The fashion for applying reporting restrictions is absurd but also sinister. Add reporting restrictions to major sentencing of an individual, drum court martial style for contempt, and you have a deprivation of liberty, free speech and democratic norms. It's virtually overturning of habeas corpus if none of us are to know who has been arrested, or that they have been tried, or have been sentenced. Putting that important liberty against the absurd claim that reporting will "collapse" a trial and deciding the latter is more important shows how far our judges have strayed from the correct judicial path. Parliament needs to enact legislation to absolutely minimise use of reporting restrictions, to clarify what reporters, or members of the public, can and cannot do in court precincts. There needs to be a thorough review of sub judice rules...I've noted that when a case is looking on favourably by the MSM, BBC included, defendants are often allowed to set out their defence in great detail - which in itself could be held to prejudice the trial. It is also needs to sort out what is going on in our prisoners so individuals are not persecuted and assaulted for their political beliefs.
That BBC report:Headline Ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson jailed at Leeds courtFirst line of report Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson has been jailed..At the end of the report Robinson founded the far-right EDL in 2009.Maybe the BBC has an agenda with TR?
As far as the BBC are concerned he will forever be a "founder of the former EDL" just as Ricky Tomlinson will NEVER be "a former member of the National Front", John Bercow will never be "a former member of the Monday Club" and Andrew Marr will never be a "former member of a far left Maoist party".
It's the same tactic whenever the BBC mentions National Action: .... 'A British neo-Nazi movement is ... the first far-right group to be banned under terrorism laws in the UK....Both securely pigeon-holed, lest we forget.
... 'Both securely pigeon-holed, lest we forget' ... or should I say publicly, mercilessly branded to suit the BBC narrative.There is a comparison to be made with another of today's stories;...' England footballer Raheem Sterling has been forced to defend a new tattoo of an M16 assault rifle, after anti-gun campaigners called it "disgusting"....Here the BBC immediately diffuse any response by switching to a generalisation (a common tactic, routinely used):... 'Footballers and the meaning behind their tattoos' ...What would have been the BBC's vitriolic outpouring if TR had been photographed with a tattoo of a gun on his arm or leg? I shudder to think.
R4 PM now blaming racism for the attention on Sterling ...
As if by magic, the BBC News website has gone into damage limitation mode over the Raheem Sterling tattoo story:... 'Raheem Sterling: FA shows support after gun tattoo row' ... The BBC are now one step removed from the story - by a handy quote from the FA.The BBC story adds: ..... Sterling said on Instagram it reflected a vow to "never touch a gun" after his father was shot dead when he was a boy..... An FA spokesperson said: "We all support Sterling and acknowledge the honest and heartfelt account he gave."....
The explanation from Raheem Sterling doesn't ring true. An earlier explanation was that the gun represented a shot on goal.
It certainly doesn't sound remotely true. I'd have thought the last thing anyone would want on their person as ornamentation or devotion to a parent's memory would be the lethal object that took their father's life. Very dodgy. But will the BBC, so fond of spraying its speculative opinions around, question or interrogate this sinister symbolism? If not, why not?
If not why not?...you ask...Because he is onboard the juggernaut project and so must be protected. It's the same logic that means their Dr Who/Torchwood star John Barrymore also had to be protected. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1090801/Another-day-gutter-BBC-Doctor-Who-star-exposes-air.htmlAnd numerous others of course. John Peel (now St. John Peel) was another one they protected despite his predatory behaviour.
Cliff Richard wasn’t protected?
TV licence payer Tommy Robinson arrested...Explainer: The TV licence fee is used to fund the far-left British Broadcasting Corporation.As Sir Bruce used to say, "Good game!"
A sensible report on TR contempt by The BBC, no bias that I can detect . No emotive words or phrases, just factual reporting. Well done Clive Coleman... whatever next!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44307037
The bias is structural. By giving a sober account of contempt law and giving genuine examples of contempt cases (which I would adduce were not heard and sentenced in a matter of hours), this makes the TR look normal and par for the course which in my view it isn't. How many people claiming to be journalists have received same-day sentencing for 13 months? I'd be surprised if you can find one.
BBC often say they are later than others in reporting news because they like to check facts. I suspect on this occasion they were happy to report quickly about a journalist because he was one of their own kind.But..Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko, widely reported to have been assassinated in Kiev on Tuesday, is alive and well.If other sources are reporting it, It’s easily done I suppose
Experts from Boris Johnson (something in Government) to John Sweeney were (operative word) tweeting and RTing like good 'uns.Now their thoughts are... different. Funny old world.The number of not dead ex-Russians will soon be disturbing Mishal Husain.
The Wrath of The Awakened Saxon: Rudyard KiplingFreedom and Justice for Tommy Robinson the very first English political prisoner (H Blocks for his supporters soon eh Rudd) the persecution of this young man AND his family has been relentless, speaking Truth to power, all driven by reptilian politicians, the cold bloodedness of the assault on this mans life is breath taking, regardless. Free speech can not live under these Blasphemy Laws (Hate hub, hate speech and islamophobia, are they for serious) This government is out of control, with the police in full support of an authoritarian cabal with May and Corbyn as figure heads. The Italians are completely trapped in a total nightmare not of their making, with rebellion an option, that would have seemed unthinkable even 10 years ago. An open rebellion is what we are all afraid of, but at the end of the day we have nothing fear but fear it self, the intolerable can only be tolerated for so long and as time goes on the pressure continues. Freedom and desist your politicaly motivated persecution of #Tommyfreedom.
Two incidents todayAxe-wielding man shrieking ‘Allahu Akbar’ attacks armed officers who shoot him to the ground in Dutch city of SchiedamKnifeman is shot dead after stabbing and seriously injuring two people including a female police officer on an intercity train in GermanyNothing on the BBC yet so far as I can tell. Maybe because they have followed yesterdays Liege ‘terrorist’ murders the BBC have suppressed in the interests of social cohesion.
I can confirm that both incidents have been reported by the French press today, eg France Soir.
The BBC, suppressing the truth...
I checked the BBC Europe page just now - nothing there on the two further incidents. Maybe the BBC is in "Save Our EU" mode, as the news has been relentlessly bad over the last few weeks.
BBC reports that the Conservative Party has been accused of Islamophobia by the Muslim Brotherhood's MCB...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44311092Why doesn't the BBC seek comments from people like Douglas Murray who describe Islamophobia as a "mythical beast"? Why? Because the BBC actively supports the nonsense-concept of Islamophobia as a way to drive forward its PC agenda.
Yes, if Labour are accused of anti-semitism, then it stands to reason that the Conservatives need to be accused of Islamophobia. This is how the strange world of the BBC's 'complaints from both sides' defence of their bias works. In their world 100, or 1000 to 1 = parity.
Yesterday, Wednesday 29th May, the BBC led the TV, Radio 4 News with a report from a little known charity, Muslim Aid, that LB Kensington & Chelsea failed in responding to the post GrenfellTower emergency.Today, the Daily Mail website is leading with a new report on the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5788627/Expose-blames-London-Fire-Brigade-series-blunders-response-Grenfell-Tower-fire.htmlThe report places the blame for the deaths firmly at the door of the Fire Brigade, a view that I have held since the day of the fire. The report, written by the esteemed author and journalist, Andrew O'Hagan, claims that no matter the reason for the fire, the Fire Brigade lost two valuable hours before it evacuated Grenfell and most of the lives would have been saved had the Fire Brigade acted earlier to clear the building. The are many similarities with the failure of the Fire Brigade post the Manchester bombing.Few, if any mainstream news organisations, Panorama, Newsnight, ITV investigates, have followed this line because it does not meet the narrative that a reckless Tory government was to blame for the Fire and the many deaths.
So,the muslim council of britain (whats that when its at home) who do they council, what do they promote to which philosophy do they answer to ( don't ask the bbc) but it has to be the koran what else could it possibly be. Maybe a Christian Brotherhood could answer the question to "islamophobia", another made up attachment to the useful tool "MCB"(lump hammer) the classic oppressed(a tenet of Marxism) even by the budhists so bbc would have you believe. The oppressor, which the bbc regular informs that,no matter what amount of reckoning, the decisions in, its whiteness(especially male) that offends and oppresses ie "white privilege" a setting on the supremacy attachment to the Nazi gavel the bbc like to use to end debate. What of the final destination of Islamism' utter silence The bBBC began its character assasination and smear campaign against Jordan Peterson with Coburn (the hostility from this women plain to see) I'm sure she would have loved to have called him an "angry mean white man". He has said that he has no political allegiance, but they need a label, because his message speaks to the person, the individual,( that everybody be judged by the "content of their character") which could never resonate in a group think bubble world environment at the bbc. He is a remarkable man. But "some say" eh Sopel! that he's Hitler. Murrays days were numbered on the bbc when they were made to apologise through gritted teeth to him.The bbc is another! rats nest of communists, An echo chamber of monstrous proportions, spewing propaganda in support of Stalinism which has got to be the the final destination of their ideaology, with its array of tools with lots of attachments and settings(Identity politics, Speech Laws, and many more) all found in the dogma of Marxism. Because the final destination on the Right must be Nazism, Hitlerism . Trump,according to the Telebox (a supreme tool for brainwashing much to the bbbc delight), who the bbc has already been very busy smearing and labelling apparently is a white supremacist, it must be true the MCB( no supremacy in their dogma) are positive he is. The MCB is just a tool with a Nazi attachment which can be set at supremacy or racist, take your pick of ad hominems, to be wielded by an ever eager bbc. Neo Marxism 24/7 live coverage from the bbc. #Freetommy
Andrew O 'Hagan's outstanding piece of journalism The Tower in the London Review of Books;https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-towerNot covered anywhere on the BBC as it does not conform to their narrative on the deaths at Grenfell.I encourage you to read this and see a very different perspective on Grenfell.
I mentioned several months ago how the clear failings of the fire service, leaving people to die or find their own way down the stairs were being covered up. It is only now thanks to the residents telling their own horrific stories and O'Hagan's piece that the truth is emerging. We can see all the various BBC obsessions at work here: a public sector service, police, Tory cost cutters, migrants, ethnic minorities, green policies...until now, their grievance machine has not touched the fire service. It's interesting to see how the BBC Mind works.
To describe Soros as a "philanthropist" is to prejudge the matter and shows incredible bias. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44301342Even on the BBC's own account, his "philanthropy" is highly politicised - it isn't something like Bill Gates battling AIDS. A balanced account might say he has poured billions into realising his personal vision of democracy. His supporters say XXX but his critics say XXX. But no, this article asserts he is a philantropist, skirts over how he has made a personal fortune from crashing currencies, and does not query Soros's own description of his efforts. His critics are described as nationalists and populists as though they are somehow opposed to democracy.
Yes, that calls for a post.
Just checking Zurcher's twitter feed...https://twitter.com/awzurcher?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5EauthorBy now Zurcher is at the most florid stage of Trump Derangement Syndrome. He cannot let even the smallest stick float by - he has to pick it out of the water and try desperately to beat Trump to death with it! Must be quite frustrating for him. I am imagining Zurcher straitjacketed and frothing at the mouth, only able to tweet by use of voice recognition technology.
You're quite right. Mr All-caps grabs at EVERYTHING.https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1002050066968965120