It was quite funny hearing the BBC Anti-Brexit Mob trying to decide which scare story to run with. Unlike the terminally moronic Maitlis, at least they now seem to accept that there is no threat of a sandwich melt, so to speak, on us leaving the EU.
Earlier I heard a business rep - not sure who it was - state clearly that the EU has already offered us Canada plus, plus, plus...that sounds like the perfect deal to me...why are we never reminded of this? I can see why - it's not in the interests of the anti-Brexit lobby.
So that’s it then. The BBC main news tonight says if we ‘crash out’ with no-deal Brexit is all bad and everything will be more costly and mired in red tape. Every reporter, business interview and consumer sound bite were united on the downsides. There is no good news nor any upsides with Brexit. Kamal Ahmed did his schoolmaster routine, speaking slowly and explaining as if every viewer is thick and needs educating BBC style.
No balance but they played exactly to type. They don’t agree with Brexit and want everyone who voted out to know what damage they have done.
Even Raab - why, I've no idea - is helping reinforce the idea that we have no pressure points we can apply to the EU.
Take wine - we immediately apply a 0% tarrif (why not?). Currently France and Italy each export about £660 million of wine to us. But an international 0% tarrif will be devastating for them.
And why didn't Raab say that if the EU interfere with expat pension payments we will of course respond in kind re EU citizens living in the UK?
The article contains a video report that was featured on the Victoria Derbyshire programme (which I didn't see so I don't know the full context.)
To those that have been keeping an eye on things over the last 3-4 years, this kind of footage is not uncommon. However, on the BBC and CH4 it is. It leads me to believe, as I said yesterday, that a change of tone is being instigated. This particular film is security friendly in its messaging.
European nationalists are very dangerous to the order of things in the globalist mind. I think a few progressive narratives are going to be thrown to the wolves to facilitate a defeat of populist rhetoric. Just as the media narrative was pre-chewed around the time of Alan Kurdi's drowning, so could this be too.
You're pretty much describing the Macron plan. He's had enough of undocumented migrants - wants them processed (the more slowly the better) off mainland Europe (mimicking the Australian approach, which virtually eliminated all water-borne illegal migration. At the same time he wants to pursue accelerated federalism within the EU, to create fiscal unity.
Anonymous: The BBC footage shown on Breitbart was on Tuesday's 6pm BBC 1 News, but was pulled from the 10pm edition. I presume somebody decided that it made the immigrants look like a gang of violent thugs, which doesn't fit with the 'cuddly' image the BBC would like us to have of them. My wife and I pass through Ouistreham several times a year &, on the return trip, have been in the habit of staying in a hotel next to the ferry terminal, leaving our car there, but eating in a restaurant in the town centre. We would then weave our merry way back to the hotel with our driving licenses intact, but not any more - walking through a group of 100 or so hooded youths, who, the French press says, are not averse to the odd spot of mugging, has taken the pleasure out of it.
I've noticed that the BBC don't like us to be reminded that Bill Clinton WAS impeached. Sometimes the BBC Democrats go to absurd lenghts to maintain the deception. Take this from our Progressive Democrat Anthony Zurcher:
"The conservative effort to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998 is widely viewed as having backfired on the party, leading to an unusually strong mid-term performance by Democrats in a year that, historically, should have favoured the out-of-the-White-House Republicans."
Wow! Nice use of the c word there...but "effort"? It was a successful effort. Look it up and you will find that the effort was fully successful and Bill Clinton was impeached in line with the Constitution and then tried by the Senate. He was not found guilty of the impeachment charges.
Nothing happens by accident at the BBC - they really don't want you to know that Clinton WAS impeached and Nixon WASN'T. :)
Meanwhile Mark Mardell's marathon EU Excuse Factory continues on WATO - "Brexit a Love Story?" I think it's called. Today was remarkable for two aspects:
1. Nick Clegg was allowed to witter on at length about how absurd and dangerous an in-out referendum was bound to be and how wrong Cameron had been to offer one. This is the same Nick Clegg who as recently as 2008 had stood on a promise of an in-out referendum...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today 2. Clegg was also allowed, without comment or challenge, to make the absurd claim that the Brexit vote was an inevitable result of the 2008 crash. Clegg being a bit dim might not realise that the 2008 crash affected the whole of the EU and yet not one other EU country has seen any such serious move to exit the EU.
3. Mardell felt free (by none too subtle use of allegory) to accuse a mainstream part - UKIP - of being aggressive, violent and criminal in intent, so getting something out of his system it seemed. Just UKIP of course...because he thinks he can get away with it.
It also included a clip of David Dimbleby presenting the 2014 local and European elections and saying, "And, of course, the party with most to talk about and the biggest mouth in politics at the moment, Nigel Farage's UKIP". The drawling derision with which he pronounced "...the biggest mouth in politics..." was quite something. Has he even talked about a UK party leader like that before (or after)?
There was a factual error from Mark Mardell too when he said, "Douglas Carswell's defection and by-election victory gave UKIP their first ever MP". That was actually Bob Spink who defected from the Conservatives to UKIP in 2008.
That's a pretty gross error for someone whose job it is to follow all things political and parliamentary, and who no doubt as researchers to hand, free to use as far as he is concerned...and then the producer presumably read the script.
I think opinion on the EU was always finely balanced. Probably what swung it for Brexit was (a) Cameron's lies - particularly trying to present the "deal" he got in Brussels (the one that hardly anyone refers to now) as being in any way significant when it was close to being utterly meaningless (b) the 2015 Merkel's Million Migrant Madness (and particularly the attempts of the BBC to misrepresent the migration wave as made up mostly of refugee families including women and children) (c) President Obama's insulting intervention in the campaign and (d) the absurdity of the unrelenting Project Fear propaganda.
Yes, you're not wrong Peter and - amazingly - we never had any proper explanation of that did we? Why has Nigel Farage or Peter Bone never been invited on to produce a similar Newsnight item, from their own perspective.
Ditto the Evening Standard. He had a prominent regular column courtesy of self-justifying remainer editor Osborne. I've just realised that he no longer writes for it. It might have lasted about a year. I think remainer Matthew D'Ancona now occupies the same spot next to the Editorial.
Re: my post, above, on the subject of the Ouistreham (im)migrants, does anyone know if the BBC has reported how they broke through the fence at Ceuta, by dousing border guards with acid and/or quicklime?
There was an item recently on Newsnight about migration into Spain - the reporter was Nawal al-Maghafi, the daughter of a Yemeni diplomat who somehow acquired UK citizenship...Can't recall now if she mentioned it. I don't think so...must have seen the Ceuta thing mentioned on an alt news site, maybe Breitbart.
...and, checking TV Eyes, the Ceuta invasion was covered by Channel 4 News and Sky News. There are no results though for BBC One or the BBC News Channel.
Doesn't this just sum up the BBC default position of denial:
"A 2013 clip was published online by the Daily Mail as the Labour leader works to tackle anti-Semitism in his party."
We all know what the BBC think about the Daily Mail thanks to their numerous "news comedy" shows and other comedy vehicles plus the numerous Twitter comments of their staff. They hate it and think it prints lies. We all know that's the official BBC line on the Mail.
And then to contrast that something from the (obviously lying as far as the BBC are concerned) Mail, we have the absurd, completely unsupported claim that Jeremy Corbyn (of all people!) is working to tackle anti-semitism in his party!!!
Just when you think the BBC can't excel themselves for bias, they do!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45301548
(And by the way, they just happen to choose, yet again, a Corbyn-friendly pic on the home page showing him relaxed and smiling, if a little puzzled by all the fuss...)
The photos of Corbyn used on the BBC News website tell their own story. Since the local elections in May, the ubiquitous photos of Corbyn with a red background and Labour party slogan have more or less disappeared. Coincidentally, pictures of Theresa May with a black background also disappeared. These changes can be put down to the BBC's belief that a super-soft Brexit might be delivered by May, and for that reason she was depicted more sympathetically. Since Parliament went into recess, her image has been shelved, and Corbyn is back - as you say MB relaxed and smiling without the Labour Party background.
My guess is that the BBC are trying to renew the cult image of Corbyn, which they hope will be maintained in the event of a no-deal outcome. Perhaps, Corbyn's odious past relationships and sympathies will be airbrushed as he is swept to power out of the ashes of Conservative self-destruction. If Boris were to become Leader and or PM, we can predicy an unparalleled onslaught against him on every level - personal and political.
Jeremy Corbyn is being rebranded - in his own right as someone with a vision of societal change rising above the petty day-to-day party politics, and the grubby parliamentary processes. He is developing a non-stick teflon suit of armour, where seemingly nothing he has done or said in the past can dent his credibility - so far as the BBC are concerned anyway. Such is the level of his renewd status that all the ill-judged meetings he atended, and mysterious visits he made can be aired in public in the knowledge that nothing will stick or damage the carefully constructed New Corbyn image.
... 'Jeremy Corbyn is being rebranded - in his own right' ... by this I suggest that he hasn't been photographed in the traditional Labour Party setting with slogans and adoring crowds of supporters, or for that matter, wearing any of his hats - corduroy or otherwise. Increasingly he is photographed heroically in the Soviet style, or promoted by video clips showing a degree or two of detachment.
It would have been interesting if BBC Reality Check had been around in 1937 to look into claims that Germany was pursuing a policy of genocide against Jews...
Would probably have been along the lines of "No, that claim is completely wrong. There are no current plans for genocide although some harsh measures for the future are proposed."
I based that speculation on the BBC's take re Trump's comments on prospects for white farmers in South Africa:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45285827
I think we are being propelled towards the conclusion that Trump is probably the greatest politician of the last 50 years...calling bullshit on so much that is grievously in error, mendacious and misleading. Yes, Reality Check, we know he gets his facts wrong all the time...but truth is dirty not clean and pristine like facts. The BBC likes its facts...but not all facts, just its favourite facts.
Given that most of us here are out of love with the BBC, I was wondering if people might care to swap notes on alternatives.
A good alternative to Radio 3 is Radio Swiss Classic. It's ad-free and its playlist seems to lie somewhere between Radio 3 and Classic FM. The announcements are in German but you can make out who and what they are referring to - it's not chatty stuff.
I did dip into Radio New Zealand which offered a wide range of programming...I haven't listened to it recently but last time I did it seemed relatively sane compared with Radio 4.
Obviously You Tube offers a lot of alternatives and some great programming from the past...It's great for popular music and classical music as well.
Fox News has some good programming: Tucker Carlson, Hannity and The Five (with amusing and insightful Greg Gutfeld) are useful for countering the anti-Trump superbias on the BBC, Sky and ITV.
Any other suggestions...I'd love a sane but interesting alternative to Radio 4.
That's an interesting question. I'd be intrigued to hear any answers too.
Just checking out what's on Radio New Zealand now. it's their nighttime schedule and three of the programmes are BBC ones from the World Service and Radio 4, so even that might not be a complete escape from the BBC!
There must be something interesting and accessible out there somewhere though.
Peter Hitchens posted about his slot on the Today programme during the week to discuss his book The Abolition of Britain with Professor Webb and Anne McElvoy. He was given only six minutes and even in that short span was interrupted a few times by the other two - one commenter on the blog has done a Craig and found that the combined two spoke for more of the time than the book's author. Hitchens is indignant that McElvoy was there as chaperone / opposition but as one commenter pointed out, it might have been because Prof Webb wasn't interested enough to handle the discussion.
Mr H also posted about the BBC in response to a commenter (Henry Temple at 23 August a 10 08 am): "I have many times canvassed such opponents to approach the BBC to create an adversariial programme, or to debate against me. The answer (if it is not total silence) is almost invariably 'no'. ... My complaint about the BBC is not that it is unfair. I know it is, and accept it as fact, just as I know and accept the fact that the sea is wet. It is that sometimes it is unfair even by its own standards." http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/a-caperoned-appearance-on-radio-4s-today-programme-eeyore-5-pollyanna-nil-/comments/page/3/#comments
That's too defeatist for my liking. There is no reason why the BBC should not reflect the broad spread of opinion in the UK, rather than that band stretching from left wing Conservatism to Corbynistas, with a strong emphasis on the soggy left social democratic spectrum.
Sometimes one can almost feel sorry for the BBC (before you remember what damage they are doing to the country). Here is a report on the disturbances in Germany:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45320382
They obviously don't like the way things are going but it's a rather opaque report...despite Germany allegedly being a free country with a free media details about the circumstances of the murder and the aftermath are perhaps surprisingly thin...almost like reports of disturbances in the old DDR...shape of things to come? It certainly sounds like the German state is going to crack down hard on any protests.
The conclusion to the article suggests the BBC have fallen out of love with Merkel...and the BBC certainly seem now to have amnesia about their own fervent support for the migrant influx - represented most memorably by Jenny Hill jumping up and down at a Berlin railway station shouting "Welcome to Germany!!!" as opposed to "Are you going to act peacably, respect all women, contribute to society and integrate with German culture?" which would have been more pertinent. Here's how the article ends:
"Why is the migrant issue so thorny?
In 2015, Angela Merkel decided to let in around 1.3 million undocumented migrants and refugees, mainly from parts of the Middle East like Syria and Iraq.
She and her allies were punished by voters at last year's general election when the anti-immigrant AfD entered parliament for the first time, winning 12.6% of the vote and more than 90 seats."
Always amusing when the left-liberals-Corbynistas have a stand up bar-room fight...
Nick Robinson might have thought he was going for easy points in praising St. John of McCain...but of course, his mates to the left have longer memories recalling Sarah Palin, the running mate he appointed, his support for military adventures in the Middle East and his dropping of Agent Orange on defenceless civilians as a Navy Pilot.
We have the "despite Brexits" and the "'cos o' Brexits". This is one of the latter:
"The dispute over the Chagos Islands - home to the US military base on Diego Garcia - is being portrayed by some as an indication of Britain's waning influence on the world stage following the Brexit vote."
Our waning influence on the world stage might have something to do with us not having any operational aircraft carriers for several years...or any number of factors that have been in place for many years (e.g. increasing GDP wealth of the rest of the world).
But, no, the "Somes" are always whispering in BBC journalists' ears and in this case "Some" say: "It's 'cos o' Brexit innit? Stands to reason!" And the sage BBCer nods in agreement.
It would be interesting to know how often John Simpson has ventured outside London and Broadcasting House lately. As World Affairs Editor, we might expect to hear opinions about from far and wide. At present, his opinions seem to have arrived fully formed - stamped out from the mould of BBC consensus - that nobody within their walls, not even their World Affairs Editor dare contradict.
Aged John Simpson of the increasingly banal opinionising seems to do precious little to justify either his grand title or his (presumably) gargantuan salary...
I found this article enlightening. The BBC pension scheme is investing heavily in its commercial competitors. Nothing wrong with that, I would if I was the investment manager of the fund.
The article also contains some other interesting nuggets of info.
Funding the generous defined benefit pension scheme is a substantial drain on BBC resources. The pension fund received £156m from the BBC during the last year – equivalent to about £6 from every licence fee.
The fund has a £1.8bn shortfall, and a long-term deficit reduction programme is being funded from the BBC’s income at a time when the broadcaster is having to make cuts in other parts of the organisation.
Funded by BBC income - I presume that is code for funded by licence payers.
The Joy Of Winning is a maths science programme on BBC Four tonight where a Donald Trump caricature is used to illustrate selfish people out for short-term gains. TDS for sure and another example where BBC shouldn’t be making political points with relentless anti Trump propaganda across its output. Hardly impartial but they will say it was a lighthearted take on maths and not displaying bias.
Of course they will...but we know Hillary would never be subject to mockery of that type.
I haven't seen the programme but Hannah Fry works with Adam Rutherford on Radio progs and I think I've heard quite a few sly digs at the usual PC targets when they've been on Radio 4.
This is a typically BBC-ish tweet about Jordan Peterson from Rutherford:
I know twitter isn't exactly the platform for discussing complex ideas in detail but this is an ad hominem attack, isn't it? Meaningless. What doesn't he like about what Peterson says? We can guess, but he doesn't want to argue the point.
I've heard Peterson's defence of his lobster reference - which is a frequent point of attack by PCers: that hierarchies have been around for hundred of millions of years and the hormonal structure of such hierarchies is remarkably similar to those obtaining in humans (hope I haven't misrepresented what he said). So Peterson is saying the hierarchical structure of society is not to be blamed on "capitalism" or "militarism" or "patriarchy" - it is really hard wired into us as a species. Peterson makes clear that he is not arguing that people should try their utmost to do down their fellow human beings and get to the top...and points out that trying to get to the top of the hierarchy can exact a terrible toll on an individual.
The BBC keep inserting this into their articles on Corbyn, anti-semitism and so on: "Zionism refers to the movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel, and thus support for the modern state of Israel."
This is Fake History from the BBC. The Zionist movement set out to create a Jewish state,the location of which was not predetermined at the outset. Madagascar, Uganda and other territories were considered as possibles.
Also, it's rather odd to reference "the Middle East" as though they might have been interested in occupying Libya or Iraq or Iran...Is this to allow for the anti-semitic notion that all Israeli Jews want Israel to expand into the much bigger Eretz Israel? Some Zionists might wish to see that happen, but I doubt most Zionists do. Another point is that Zionism in this context is a bit like a synonym for "Jewish nationalism". There is I think a general sense in which most Jews support Zionism (the concept of the need to create a Jewish national territory). Also, if the BBC needs to get historical, then perhaps it should also point out that Zionism was very definitely a reaction to the growth in anti-semitism in Europe(e.g. the Dreyfus affair and growth of anti-Jewish movements in Austria).
‘but because of Brexit the UK is having to look for expanded economic activity outside the EU even though it is by far our biggest market for exports’ - Ben Wright BBC 10 o’clock News
UK trade with Africa is currently £8 billion but look at this, trade with the EU is £164 billion. Kamal Ahmed BBC 10 o’clock News
Fair and impartial fact based reporting or anti Brexit rhetoric disguised as News?
Nope Kamal, all that tells you is that our entry into the EU has hobbled our manufacturing sector in relation to Gerrmany. Who's gobbling up most of that £164 billion - I'll be betting on Germany. That's the Germany that controls the economic policy of the EU.
Nope Ben, if you were an unbiased journalist you would have left out the "even though" and put in "which". But since you work for the BBC it's pretty obvious you aren't an unbiased journalist. Were you unbiased, you would have noted that we don't yet know what deal if any will emerge between the EU and the UK. It could amount to almost total access to the Single Market for all Ben or I know.
I have been intrigued by a Guardian article by John Harris ... 'Without a centrist path, our perfidious politics will lose its bearings totally' ...
See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/27/centrist-path-hardcore-brexiteers-corbynites?CMP=twt_gu
He refers to a new book Perfidious Albion - 'the second book by the 39-year-old Sam Byers, whose keen sense of his time has echoes of Martin Amis and Jonathan Coe. His story is a fusion of Brexit, the Twittersphere and “opinion” websites, and the all-pervading power of a tech company called Green. What burns from its pages is a vivid picture of how much politics has been uncoupled from the nitty-gritty, and floated off into an orbit all its own'...
There are some confusing lines: ... 'In the Albion of the title, the politicians who succeed are the ones who can surf waves of online controversy and market themselves as being “barely a politician at all”...
And ...'One of them finds fame on an “opinion” platform called The Command Line, where his editor instructs him in the art of provocation for provocation’s sake : “You’re nobody until somebody really hates you … And now someone really hates you, I think it’s fair to say you’re finally really somebody, no?” ....
And there are references to the UK political scene: ... 'This is the backdrop to the rise of a character named Hugo Bennington, a rightwing politician who is essentially 70% Nigel Farage and 30% Boris Johnson. His mission is simple: “Brexit was over, but the energy it had accumulated had to be retained. Fears needed to be redirected. Hatreds needed to pivot.” Each time he writes, tweets or appears on TV, his leftwing adversaries combust, which only increases his profile. As with Johnson and Donald Trump – and, in a very different way, Jeremy Corbyn – he seems less interested in the complexities and challenges of actual power than in something else: standing at the head of a movement, somehow embodying his time, and remaining in the company of people who agree with him.' ....
Perhaps the BBC has concluded that Theresa May could never be 'at the head of a movement' but that Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson definitely could be. If the BBC have read this Guardian piece, they are pushing Jeremy Corbyn out to be 'at the head of a movement' irrespective of the Labour Party. That's why all recent images of him have shown him as relaxed, confident and as a cult figure. If the Sam Byers la ine “You’re nobody until somebody really hates you", has been adopted as realistic strategy, then Corbyn's history may be more useful to the BBC than you might think.
... 'Perhaps the BBC has concluded that Theresa May could never be 'at the head of a movement' but that Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson definitely could be.' ... These are the two people in UK politics that the BBC fear the most, and therefore for whom they save their most hostile personal and political venomous attacks.
Your are absolutely right LC...the BBC are not stupid - they are stuffed full of highly intelligent Oxbridge types who can quickly identify threats to their preferred narrative. Nigel and Boris are definitely in the top 5 along with Jacob Rees Mogg.
Isn't it a mark of the stinking hyprocisy of the liberal-left/BBC/Guardian/MSM coalition that although they opposed:
1. The Vietnam War.
2. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
3. Dropping of napalm on civilians.
4. Use of horrific Agent Orange on the environment and civilians.
5. Wars of intervention in the Middle East.
They now indulge in the most obscene obsequies for one Senator John McCain...just because he hated and undermined Trump just as much as they try to do...
Very close to vomit-inducing.
I could have added that they all hated him for appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate when he was aiming for the Presidency.
Anything on the BBC? Nope. The last thing mentioning Christopher Steele was about 8 days ago and nothing to do with this latest development. And remember at any one time the BBC have about 20 plus correspondents so they should know what's going on. This is PURE CENSORSHIP. The BBC are "protecting" your minds.
Perhaps they should rename Jesus as Mary? I am sure many sensitive snowflakes are triggered by seeing a male name plastered across the screen every couple of minutes.
On last night's Great British Menu, which as we know is a cooking programme in which contestants compete to have their dish included in a banquet to celebrate 70 years of the NHS, one of the dishes was given the contrived name 'Diversity Lobster - in celebration of the diversity of the NHS staff and users'.
Do you think the left liberal mindset has infected the chef or do the BBC producers give contestants a gentle nudge to conform to the brief and the BBC agenda?
I was going to mention that. The BBC must be chuffed the way it's going after a couple of hiccups last week - one dish named for the wrong nurse and a chef who named his Jamaican goat dish 'Under the Knife' and stuck a great big kitchen knife upright in the serving board as a final flourish; fortunately the judging chef sternly admonished that this was in bad taste. Chefs aren't always noted for their intelligence but it doesn't say much for the programme makers either in that case.
Things picked up with the Turkish (much was made of her 'heritage' last year) contestant's presentation of her dish highlighting flags of six countries which staff 'our global NHS'.
But the lobster dish reached new heights in feeding back to it the BBC's 20 years of propaganda - absurd and cringeworthy as it sounds, and even to type it, the dish was named 'Multicultural Lobster', 'reflecting the diversity of our NHS'. (Sorry, slight correction LC) Poor lobster had no say in the indignity of being weasel-worded after death.
Maybe the lobster dish was an anti-Peterson dig? They seem obsessed with Jordan Peterson's reference to the hierarchy of lobsters, based on hormonal systems that have survived in the human species.
Where do the BBC get them from? Reviewing the papers on the BBC news channel last night (10.30pm approx.), Lynn Faulds Wood had the audacity to declare that; 1. She was thoroughly 'bored' now with stories of Labour Party anti-semitism. 2. This entire narrative was being driven by the 'right wing wing'news media seeking to discredit that nice Mr Corbyn 3. This anti-semitism story is blown out of all proportion 'as there are only 300,000 Jews in the UK'. The implication was that Jewish people are not a significant minority group in electoral terms (versus others) and that Labour should not allow this issue to sidetrack the party's path to power. 4. Labour should accept the IHRA definition and move on quickly. At best, her contribution can be described as naive in the extreme and at worst a glaring example of the vile anti-semitism at the core of today's Labour Party;Jewsish people are not important, in their own right, or as a voting bloc, so why are we wasting all this time focusing on Labour Party ant-semitism!
Well she's right about one thing: politicians do weigh the votes...300,000 Jews against 3 million Muslims (and rising)... we know which way things are going to go.
... 'Trump warns of 'left-wing violence' if Democrats win mid-term elections' ...
Reading the headline, we might think that violence would be the outcome if Donald Trump and the Republican Party lost the mid-term elections - that is the sore losers, Trump supporters resorting to violence. But no! DT sees the threat from the antifas, who might stir up violence. Here's the gem of bias:
... 'There is violence. When you look at Antifa - these are violent people," he [DT] said. Further down the article the BBC explains:
Antifa - short for anti-fascist - refers to groups of far-left protesters who fight far-right ideology and regularly clash with far-right demonstrators.' ...
As a balanced view, why not offer us the converse of this statement:
... 'Antifa - short for anti-fascist - refers to groups of violent far-left protesters whose far-left ideology leads them to clash regularly with far-right demonstrators.' ...?
They are not just against are they? They are for no borders, free movement of people across the planet,n abolition of free speech including criticism of religions, abolition of nation states, abolition of capitalism, destruction of all statues of historical figures who are deemed to have been non-progressive and introduction of a socialist planned economy.
This is typical of BBC. It's possibly unconscious bias. For years we didn't hear the word 'ideology' from them. A Labour government was in power. Then the Conservatives got in, with Lib Dems, and suddenly it was 'ideology' at the BBC. Labour doesn't have ideology, apparently. For the BBC, it just has what is natural to have, like breathing. You just do it without thinking of it or seeing it as something out there that you need to call out and name.
I don't think it's even necessary to be far right for Antifa to oppose a demonstration or expression of opinion.
A huge story - Clinton's server was hacked by the Chinese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jADWaPmIh08
Apparently the Chinese have ALL her e mails even the ones that she had scrubbed.
Another huge aspect of the story: the pro-Democrat FBI took no interest in this major security break.
So where is it on the BBC Website? Nowhere. Zilch. Nada.
But they did have this on their US/Canada home page, which deals with the vital issue of the moment: ensuring proper modest Hijab clothing for cartoon characters:
A programme repeat on Radio 4 this morning was a follow-up to a previous 'More or Less' about a President Trump comment about crime and immigration into Sweden.
I caught the end which seemed to conclude that Trump needs to put it in perspective because a city in the USA has a great deal more crime (or possibly increase in crime - not sure on that point) than the cities in Sweden. Is that rabbit out of hat finding a QED though? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgc0d0
They think they're so clever don't they? It might be an argument for saying Trump should keep his nose out of Swedish politics but it's hardly of any comfort to Swedes if their formerly very peaceable society has now developed a serious crime problem with hundreds of torched vehicles, no go zones, grenades thrown at police stations, and a huge rise in rapes and other violent crimes.
The programme concluded that Arabs and Africans had failed to 'access' the Swedish life-style of boating and skiing, (they had managed to 'access' the Swedish benefit system though). Perhaps these immigrants don't want to live like Swedes, they want to retain their own culture. Ruth Alexander could have asked why cities like St. Louis have a problem with violent crime (which pre-dates Trump). Might the answer be that the descendants of all those (enforced) African migrants have never 'accessed' the American Dream and that the American experience of historic mass immigration of a people with a different culture should have been a warning that Europe should have heeded?
Zurcher obviously worried about the report that Clinton's server was hacked by the Chinese. Worried enough to tweet about it in dismissive fashion while censoring any mention of it on the BBC News website...
The pictures from Chemnitz - the rage, the sorrow, the violence - suggest a Germany aflame with resistance to migration.
Jenny Hill may no longer be jumping up and down excitedly shouting out "welcome to Berlin" to thousands of undocumented male migrants, but she's still serving up the BS to the BBC's audience:
"The pictures from Chemnitz - the rage, the sorrow, the violence - suggest a Germany aflame with resistance to migration.
There is much evidence to the contrary.
The number of people seeking asylum has fallen steeply and there are integration success stories - one in four new arrivals has a job."
Well given Germany accepted about 1.3 million undocumented asylum seekers in one year, it would be remarkable if the figure didn't fall - but I bet there has been a rise in chain migration. One in four with jobs (mostly government subsidisd, make-work jobs - something she hides) means 75% unemployment among a population composed of about 90% fit young men...a staggeringly high figure that is unlikely to fall much.
We seem to be moving from a liberal democracy to a PC democracy and the BBC is supporting the move all the way.
How do the two differ? A liberal democracy has the following key features: free speech, freedom of assembly, free and fair elections, emphasis on individual rights, a free media reflecting a broad range of opinion, academic freedom... A liberal democracy is based on well administered law, in the context of state authority.
A PC democracy has, by contrast, the following: speech censorship, freedom of assembly only for left wing demonstrators, a mainstream media that is increasingly undifferentiated (supporting all aspects of PC ideology), elections in which the party or parties supporting PC ideology are favoured by the mainstream media in biased coverage and in which dubious practices (e.g. postal voting related corruption) go unpunished, emphasis on group rights and suppression of academic freedom through formal and informal means. A PC democracy also seeks to abolish the integrity of the legal state through no borders, mass immigration, trading blocs, and allowing external agencies to interfere in the politics of the country.
Of course this move can only be accomplished through a kind of mass brainwashing which is why the BBC is vital to the project: doing everything in their power to promote political correctness and oppose populism.
Yes. Your description of a PC democracy as ... 'supporting PC ideology' ... raises the question: Has it become a religion? Certainly the fervour attached to some of the held beliefs are equal to that of many a crusade.
I guess it depends how you define "religion". It's derived from words meaning obligation, bind, reverence. So if you take God out of the picture it certainly is a "religion" in that sense...It's a kind of mental discipline.
The person who commits to PC ideology must maintain a very strict discplinary control over their conscious thoughts, over their speech, and over their actions. It's strange, because many followers of PC ideology like to pose as free spirits when they are clearly not. They may have the clothes, the hair colour, the tattoos or the piercings that suggest a free spirit but in reality they exert huge self control to ensure they do not offend against PC ideology.
The PC follower knows that there are only certain acceptable explanations for certain phenomena. Delingpole had a good article on that in the Spectator last week re science and scientists.
It may be a relatively short step from PC democracy to PC authoritarianism - Erdogan style. The long march through our institutions is almost complete, then add a Marxist government and I can see us sleepwalking into it.
It is a form of mental discipline, but an intellectually lazy one, full of fallacies and poor reasoning. It appeals to the young, because it is represented as revolutionary and anti-establishment. It is anything but. However, it does attack the older generation and everything that has gone before. You don’t have to be psychologist to see that old white males are basically the father figure who has to be usurped. The other aspect, is that it makes its advocates feel like a “good person”. This is obviously delusional, but for young person this is a huge thing. SJW’s are the new Red Guards. Much like Communism there is no happy ending or perfect society at the end of the PC rainbow - just destruction and authoritarianism. What it is really about is power. I fear it may now be unstoppable.
Yes, I am naturally an optimistic person but I do somewhat share your pessimism as regards political correctness, that it may now be unstoppable. If you combine a craven political class (compare and contrast politicians in other countries like Poland, Hungary and Italy), with a first past the post electoral system, with a complicit media (not just BBC, but Sky and ITV too (plus most social media platforms and now nearly all newspapers), with draconian anti-free speech laws and with an academic environment that is Marxist/left wing in orientation, then pessimism is fully justified.
The comparison with the Red Guards is apposite since like them SJWSs enjoy cultural vandalism - the longer something has been around, the riper it is for demolition.
I agree with Sir Topham as well that it would be very easy to slip from PC democracy to PC authoritarianism. Let's not forget that some Clintonites called for military action to prevent Trump's inauguration. Likewise some Remainiacs have come very closely to calling for similar action in the UK to reverse the Brexit vote. So, it isn't hard to imagine some future PC government deciding they had a "moral duty" to put down the opposition. There are always pretexts to lock up opponents as we know from examples all around the world and from our own imperial history. The other danger is simply allowing electoral corruption to grow. We've seen plenty of it in this country in recent years - a PC government keen to appease minorities might well allow the whole system to become corrupted. The Democrats in the USA have gone a long way down that road.
Loondon Calling's point about evangelism is well made - there certainly is an evangelical element to it but I think that applies to a small minority who probably are true believers. Most CEOs of major global companies are not true believers...they are converts of convenience, like tribal kings in the Dark Ages, converting to Christianity. They see how PC can be used to advance their interests - chiefly globalisation, removal of tariff barriers, virtual tax locations and cheap labour.
Every now and again I take a look at Reality Check and then wish I hadn’t.
The latest one is about EU tariffs in Africa vs Theresa Mays desire to grow trade there.
There is no definitive properly researched reality check of course. Just alternative facts from third rate academics offering opinion masquerading as fact.
It’s this sort of fakery that give the BBC a bad name. They use the technique to discredit stuff that doesn’t fit their narrative or left liberal worldview.
The outcome of this latest check is that most of EU goods are tariff free so Theresa May can go and whistle. The coup de grace is that where there are high tariffs on sugar for example, the African nations like them that way.
Yep, even in comparison with other "fact check" services, like Snopes, Fullfact or even the Guardian, the BBC's Reality Check is completely unfit for purpose. They often fail to define with any exactitude what claim they are referencing. Sometimes they just put forward a nebulous question. Then after several detours they often put up a "conclusion" that has nothing to do with the original claim or question. The evidence they cite is often incomplete or does not support the conclusions they derive. When they are investigating a claim by someone they don't like (e.g. Boris or Trump or Mogg), they are very strict in their interpretatios of what has been said, making no allowance for casual communication. When it's someone they like they allow far more latitude.
Fake news by omission on the radio reports of this story. It said Panasonic was moving it’s European HQ out of the UK, it missed the 20 people bit. I’m sure listeners would have thought .. Big corporation + European HQ = 100+ people .
This is probably one area will there be an impact: HQs of companies trading in the EU. But as you observe: why not give us info on the number of jobs involved?
Had the misfortune of listening to Adrian Chiles on Radio 5 Live this morning...
He says words to the effect re charges against Corbyn re anti-semitism: "This will carry on until Boris Johnson says something idiotic again..." In context, it sounded like he would be saying something anti-semitic...he didn't mention the "I" word...just left the biased equivalence hanging there.
Then there was the usual BBC-approved muddle over the German demos...the BBC is clearly v. reluctant to admit that thousands of ordinary Germans have been involved. So they use all sorts of cricumlocutions e.g. Chiles said something like "...and arguably ordinary people"...Arguably? Then the usual going round in circles, pretending they don't want to close down free speech, when you know that is exactly what they are about.
Then some Fake News about McCain. They played his last will and testament...about not building walls. This was what McCain really thought about walls prior to Trump:
I find Chiles one of the worst broadcasters on the BBC, his faux image of a bluff working class fellow is just used as cover to promote the usual BBC PC guff, while all the time undermining real popular working class culture.
At least one of this guests, Dominic said they would have preferred Trump to McCain on the basis that the latter was a neocon who involved the US in lots of wars...that flummoxed Chiles and Helen Lefty from the New Statesman.
I agree MB. Chiles is one of the worst. He hides behind his working class background as a plain talking brummie. But he is just another BBC virtue signaller who used to be married to the very PC Libby Purves. He was the one who heard Carol Thatcher using the word golliwog in the BBC green room. Rather than just having a word if he was offended, he formally shopped her and she hasn’t been employable since. He also traipsed around the West Midlands for a BBC documentary trying to understand why the people voted for Brexit. He didn’t get it - but he never will because he’s metropolitan liberal luvvie now. Like all good liberals, he has been airing a personal issue as a badge of honour. He did not realise drinking 30 units a day meant he had an alcohol dependency condition. Poor Adrian.
I remember that about Carol Thatcher. He was all over it, signalling like mad. That's a different chap married to Libby Purves. I forget his name. Chiles used to be married to Jane Garvey who presents Woman's Hour and some other radio programme.
The only part of the Christian Church with which the BBC is comfortable is that born out of the civil rights movement and its associated history countering white supremacy in the Southern States. Gospel music, Windrush Generation, multiculturalism and diversity etc all play into the narrative.
This polarised view even made it onto Bargain Hunt today when Eric Knowles told us of a story of KKK oppression dating back to 1963 and how a Welsh community led by a stained glass artist reached out in support. It was an interesting story that
I hadn't heard of this before, and the stained glass work was magnificent. But, on Bargain Hunt, do we need to have stories of bigotry and discontent, forced upon us? I can't remember any other stories of atrocities (closer to home perhaps) appearing through this channel.
Helen Gabbler I call her. What is with this racing-speed speech of some broadcasters and public figures? There's a couple of them on Sky News and the BBC's media editor is one of the worst gabblers: with him it's not consistent but weirdly uneven, from breakneck speed to slowing down, then back up again. The MP Stella Creasy is another. Have they a train to catch? I find it unlistenable.
Is this fellow or the NY Times trying to start a war, I wondered, as I read this inflammatory piece; oh, well it's America and they do things differently there; here, wouldn't that be hate speech or incitement or something?
But then when it went on to allege rising hate crime in Britain, and reference to Boris Johnson, I wondered some more. How does he know? Ah. This charmer divides his time between India and London, says Wikipedia, and was a visiting professor at UCL. He's a prize-winning writer and thinker, too. Living here and stirring in America. Nice. I wonder what else he's doing while he's here and why he's here anyway, given such rancour. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/race-politics-whiteness.html
Yes - quite horrific. If there is real, virulent racism and supremacism in the world today it's to be found among the Han Chinese committing slow genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang, or among the Indian elite who oppose any immigration into their country, or in the Islamic Republics of Iran andPakistan or among the Russians keeping the lid on all their non-Russian colonial possessions.
I see from the Radio 4 schedule there's a series 'tracing decisive moments in the life of our National Health Service'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgmxtf Tonight's programme includes the hospice movement and IVF. But then, additionally: 'Unequal: In 1980 the Black Report showed that people in deprived areas had poorer health. But it wasn't until Labour returned to power in the mid-1990s that the issue was taken seriously by government.
Protest: 40 years after the start of the NHS resources weren't keeping up with demand from patients. A baby died after his heart operation had been cancelled five times for lack of nurses.'
In the first quote an explicit shout for Labour. Yeah! They could have put '...but it was not until the mid 1990s...' without the 'Labour returned to power'. Plain bias? In the second, resources, lack of. Yeah! An implicit political point of bias? Could be. Or I have a suspicious mind.
A couple of interesting takes from the main story on the BBC website this afternoon about the plot to kill Theresa May.
1.The BBCs increasing use of the abbreviation IS. It’s quite clever because it can be used to disassociate and distance the article from the ROP, Islam and Moslem. (And reduce the word count of those terms).
2. The long march through the institutions. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave told Rahman he would have "plenty of time" to study the Koran in prison, adding that Islam was "a religion of peace".
Haddon-Cave must be about the 30th judge to assume the mantle of an Imam and declare himself an expert on the Koran. I prefer to listen to what the real Imams teach in the Madrassas (note, what they teach in the Madrassas - not what they say in front of a BBC mic).
Good to see that Anthony is recovering from Trump Derangement Syndrome...sad though, that he's moved on to Corbyn-style Israeli Derangement Syndrome...
Stories on the BBC often develop during the day and change direction in the process. I’ve noticed how often this happens. The Honours system story is a case in point. Early reports just stated the facts. Later there were politicians agreeing with the stance saying it was right and proper. Now the quotes are criticising the blocking.
The BBC would say this demonstrates balance and fairness but in reality it follows a pattern.
The life cycle of a BBC story is no accident, it always ends up on a position which supports the preferred BBC liberal view.
I wonder if self interest is at play on this story because so many of the BBC staffers have been caught in tax avoidance schemes. Either the straightforward Lineker kind or the prentence of being freelance and self employed through private service companies whilst working 100% for the BBC.
I think you're right...the BBC are mostly soggy leftists...they don't really believe in equality, they just believe in virtue signalling. They want to appear egalitarian while keeping the bulk of their very significant wealth. That said, I think we can expect to witness growing influence of hard leftist Corbynites, who will push to gain ascendancy within the BBC. Remember, Corbyn's hardline chief lieutenant was the son of a BBC Director General.
Wake me up in two months' time when the obsequies for Senator John McCain, Marshal of the Liberal Elite and Hero of the Globalist Union, will finally have reached their conclusion with the burning alive of ex President Trump in a Wicker Man style contraption, at which point the Good and Saintly Senator can be safely interred.
When does is a claim not a claim but an accusation"?...when it involves Boris, dummy!
Jeremy only has to deal with "claims" of anti-semitism...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552
But Boris is "accused of Islamophobia" which sounds more authoritative, more legal-like and more justified.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45083275
Remember, nothing at the BBC happens by accident. It's subtle, but helps Jeremy and harms Boris.
If you look at the coverage, you can see the BBC are trying to give a "balanced approach"...the "claim" is stated and then Corbyn or his defenders offer up a defence. But Boris was subject to a much more "scatter gun" approach with the BBC setting out in great detail critical comments about what he said re the anti-female Burka.
The Sunday Times has as their front page headline: 'May and Corbyn Face Double Coup'. Looking at the BBC News website to find out more, I find there is nothing of this story at all. Jeremy Corbyn is shown without the red Labour backcloth again looking pensive with the stale headline 'Labour can end anti-semitism row quickly', and Theresa May is shown as the leading story in a photo looking self-assured and half smiling. I returned to the Home page so that I could relay the headline accompanying this, but within minutes it seems, Theresa's flattering photo has been pulled to be replaced by Messrs Fox and Hammond - both looking grumpy. Evidently, someone at Beeb Central Photo-editing dept has overstepped the mark.
This is weird. The headline that I referred to showing an unusually flattering photo of Theresa May from about an hour ago was: ...'Brexit: May vows no compromise with EU on Brexit plan' ...
Yet, if you search that headline - again from an hour ago, archived, is this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45385421
It has the same story, but with a totally different leading image - one of Theresa May looking unpleasant. I guess that the boss has returned from his lunch break, and had rapped the knuckles of some junior for daring to stray.
Yes, I was thinking that must be the explanation! lol
The other day I heard a wet behind the ears young BBC reporter refer to the Sweden Democrats as a "nationalist" party.
I can just imagine the rocketing she got for that:
"Sturgeon's party is nationalist! Plaid Cymru is nationalist!! Sinn Fein for God's sake is nationalist!!! We like all them...you can't be calling the Sweden Democrats nationlist, it will send the wrong message. Remember it goes like this: nationalist for nationalist parties we like, populist for parties we can't categorise as right or left but think are dangerous, right wing for anything to the right of Yvette Cooper and Far Right for any party that has the temerity to oppose political correctness and mass immigration. Feel free to add in a neo-Nazi reference if you fancy. OK? Got it?? Remember all that, or you'll be back reading the Traffic News on Radio Lincoln before you can say Jack DeManio!!!"
With the Brexit no-deal papers published today I expect a big Project Fear push from the BBC in the coming days.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it’s already started with a long list of warnings in their main website story.
No. 1 Brexit scaremonger Mark Carney again quoted.
It was quite funny hearing the BBC Anti-Brexit Mob trying to decide which scare story to run with. Unlike the terminally moronic Maitlis, at least they now seem to accept that there is no threat of a sandwich melt, so to speak, on us leaving the EU.
DeleteEarlier I heard a business rep - not sure who it was - state clearly that the EU has already offered us Canada plus, plus, plus...that sounds like the perfect deal to me...why are we never reminded of this? I can see why - it's not in the interests of the anti-Brexit lobby.
So that’s it then. The BBC main news tonight says if we ‘crash out’ with no-deal Brexit is all bad and everything will be more costly and mired in red tape. Every reporter, business interview and consumer sound bite were united on the downsides. There is no good news nor any upsides with Brexit. Kamal Ahmed did his schoolmaster routine, speaking slowly and explaining as if every viewer is thick and needs educating BBC style.
DeleteNo balance but they played exactly to type. They don’t agree with Brexit and want everyone who voted out to know what damage they have done.
Yep, it's all a load of tosh.
DeleteEven Raab - why, I've no idea - is helping reinforce the idea that we have no pressure points we can apply to the EU.
Take wine - we immediately apply a 0% tarrif (why not?). Currently France and Italy each export about £660 million of wine to us. But an international 0% tarrif will be devastating for them.
And why didn't Raab say that if the EU interfere with expat pension payments we will of course respond in kind re EU citizens living in the UK?
Breitbart have got this up at the moment :
ReplyDeletehttps://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/22/video-200-uk-bound-illegal-migrants-storm-lorries-in-small-french-town-every-day/
The article contains a video report that was featured on the Victoria Derbyshire programme (which I didn't see so I don't know the full context.)
To those that have been keeping an eye on things over the last 3-4 years, this kind of footage is not uncommon. However, on the BBC and CH4 it is. It leads me to believe, as I said yesterday, that a change of tone is being instigated. This particular film is security friendly in its messaging.
European nationalists are very dangerous to the order of things in the globalist mind.
I think a few progressive narratives are going to be thrown to the wolves to facilitate a defeat of populist rhetoric.
Just as the media narrative was pre-chewed around the time of Alan Kurdi's drowning, so could this be too.
You're pretty much describing the Macron plan. He's had enough of undocumented migrants - wants them processed (the more slowly the better) off mainland Europe (mimicking the Australian approach, which virtually eliminated all water-borne illegal migration. At the same time he wants to pursue accelerated federalism within the EU, to create fiscal unity.
DeleteAnonymous: The BBC footage shown on Breitbart was on Tuesday's 6pm BBC 1 News, but was pulled from the 10pm edition. I presume somebody decided that it made the immigrants look like a gang of violent thugs, which doesn't fit with the 'cuddly' image the BBC would like us to have of them. My wife and I pass through Ouistreham several times a year &, on the return trip, have been in the habit of staying in a hotel next to the ferry terminal, leaving our car there, but eating in a restaurant in the town centre. We would then weave our merry way back to the hotel with our driving licenses intact, but not any more - walking through a group of 100 or so hooded youths, who, the French press says, are not averse to the odd spot of mugging, has taken the pleasure out of it.
Delete"What is a four letter synonym for idiot once used in plural form by Roald Dahl as the title of one of this books?"
ReplyDelete"Barnabas Barn-Owl, Jesus"
"Twoo"
"No, sorry...I'll have offer it to Keble..."
"Natasha Night-Owl, Keble"
"...er..."
"I'll have to hurry you..."
"er - er - twat?"
"No - bad luck...twit"
"Your starter for ten...How many numbers are there in a binary system...? "
I've noticed that the BBC don't like us to be reminded that Bill Clinton WAS impeached. Sometimes the BBC Democrats go to absurd lenghts to maintain the deception. Take this from our Progressive Democrat Anthony Zurcher:
ReplyDelete"The conservative effort to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998 is widely viewed as having backfired on the party, leading to an unusually strong mid-term performance by Democrats in a year that, historically, should have favoured the out-of-the-White-House Republicans."
Wow! Nice use of the c word there...but "effort"? It was a successful effort. Look it up and you will find that the effort was fully successful and Bill Clinton was impeached in line with the Constitution and then tried by the Senate. He was not found guilty of the impeachment charges.
Nothing happens by accident at the BBC - they really don't want you to know that Clinton WAS impeached and Nixon WASN'T. :)
Meanwhile Mark Mardell's marathon EU Excuse Factory continues on WATO - "Brexit a Love Story?" I think it's called. Today was remarkable for two aspects:
ReplyDelete1. Nick Clegg was allowed to witter on at length about how absurd and dangerous an in-out referendum was bound to be and how wrong Cameron had been to offer one. This is the same Nick Clegg who as recently as 2008 had stood on a promise of an in-out referendum...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today
2. Clegg was also allowed, without comment or challenge, to make the absurd claim that the Brexit vote was an inevitable result of the 2008 crash. Clegg being a bit dim might not realise that the 2008 crash affected the whole of the EU and yet not one other EU country has seen any such serious move to exit the EU.
3. Mardell felt free (by none too subtle use of allegory) to accuse a mainstream part - UKIP - of being aggressive, violent and criminal in intent, so getting something out of his system it seemed. Just UKIP of course...because he thinks he can get away with it.
It also included a clip of David Dimbleby presenting the 2014 local and European elections and saying, "And, of course, the party with most to talk about and the biggest mouth in politics at the moment, Nigel Farage's UKIP". The drawling derision with which he pronounced "...the biggest mouth in politics..." was quite something. Has he even talked about a UK party leader like that before (or after)?
DeleteThere was a factual error from Mark Mardell too when he said, "Douglas Carswell's defection and by-election victory gave UKIP their first ever MP". That was actually Bob Spink who defected from the Conservatives to UKIP in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_politicians_who_have_crossed_the_floor
That's a pretty gross error for someone whose job it is to follow all things political and parliamentary, and who no doubt as researchers to hand, free to use as far as he is concerned...and then the producer presumably read the script.
DeleteI think opinion on the EU was always finely balanced. Probably what swung it for Brexit was (a) Cameron's lies - particularly trying to present the "deal" he got in Brussels (the one that hardly anyone refers to now) as being in any way significant when it was close to being utterly meaningless (b) the 2015 Merkel's Million Migrant Madness (and particularly the attempts of the BBC to misrepresent the migration wave as made up mostly of refugee families including women and children) (c) President Obama's insulting intervention in the campaign and (d) the absurdity of the unrelenting Project Fear propaganda.
IIRC Nick Clegg was drafted in as a special reporter for Newsnight to do a story on just how bad a Leave vote would be.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC seem to feel his impartiality is in sync with theirs on this issue.
Surely a Lib Dem couldn't hold such extreme views as the BBC!
DeleteYes, you're not wrong Peter and - amazingly - we never had any proper explanation of that did we? Why has Nigel Farage or Peter Bone never been invited on to produce a similar Newsnight item, from their own perspective.
DeleteDitto the Evening Standard. He had a prominent regular column courtesy of self-justifying remainer editor Osborne. I've just realised that he no longer writes for it. It might have lasted about a year. I think remainer Matthew D'Ancona now occupies the same spot next to the Editorial.
DeleteWe all know the Russian-funded Evening Standard is a Remainer Rag...that's their right. But the BBC should not be Radio Remain or TV-EU.
DeleteNo; what I was thinking was that his remainer labours in the Standard may be what gave the BBC the idea of getting him to do a stint for them.
DeleteRe: my post, above, on the subject of the Ouistreham (im)migrants, does anyone know if the BBC has reported how they broke through the fence at Ceuta, by dousing border guards with acid and/or quicklime?
ReplyDeleteThere was an item recently on Newsnight about migration into Spain - the reporter was Nawal al-Maghafi, the daughter of a Yemeni diplomat who somehow acquired UK citizenship...Can't recall now if she mentioned it. I don't think so...must have seen the Ceuta thing mentioned on an alt news site, maybe Breitbart.
DeleteThanks MB. The Ceuta business was in mainstream press too: Daily Telegraph covered it.
DeleteThe Times and the Daily Mail reported it too. I can't find it anywhere on the BBC website.
Delete...and, checking TV Eyes, the Ceuta invasion was covered by Channel 4 News and Sky News. There are no results though for BBC One or the BBC News Channel.
DeleteDoesn't this just sum up the BBC default position of denial:
ReplyDelete"A 2013 clip was published online by the Daily Mail as the Labour leader works to tackle anti-Semitism in his party."
We all know what the BBC think about the Daily Mail thanks to their numerous "news comedy" shows and other comedy vehicles plus the numerous Twitter comments of their staff. They hate it and think it prints lies. We all know that's the official BBC line on the Mail.
And then to contrast that something from the (obviously lying as far as the BBC are concerned) Mail, we have the absurd, completely unsupported claim that Jeremy Corbyn (of all people!) is working to tackle anti-semitism in his party!!!
Just when you think the BBC can't excel themselves for bias, they do!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45301548
(And by the way, they just happen to choose, yet again, a Corbyn-friendly pic on the home page showing him relaxed and smiling, if a little puzzled by all the fuss...)
The photos of Corbyn used on the BBC News website tell their own story. Since the local elections in May, the ubiquitous photos of Corbyn with a red background and Labour party slogan have more or less disappeared. Coincidentally, pictures of Theresa May with a black background also disappeared. These changes can be put down to the BBC's belief that a super-soft Brexit might be delivered by May, and for that reason she was depicted more sympathetically. Since Parliament went into recess, her image has been shelved, and Corbyn is back - as you say MB relaxed and smiling without the Labour Party background.
DeleteMy guess is that the BBC are trying to renew the cult image of Corbyn, which they hope will be maintained in the event of a no-deal outcome. Perhaps, Corbyn's odious past relationships and sympathies will be airbrushed as he is swept to power out of the ashes of Conservative self-destruction. If Boris were to become Leader and or PM, we can predicy an unparalleled onslaught against him on every level - personal and political.
... we can predict...
DeleteYes. They did exactly the same in the previous report this one replaced.
DeleteJeremy Corbyn is being rebranded - in his own right as someone with a vision of societal change rising above the petty day-to-day party politics, and the grubby parliamentary processes. He is developing a non-stick teflon suit of armour, where seemingly nothing he has done or said in the past can dent his credibility - so far as the BBC are concerned anyway. Such is the level of his renewd status that all the ill-judged meetings he atended, and mysterious visits he made can be aired in public in the knowledge that nothing will stick or damage the carefully constructed New Corbyn image.
Delete... 'Jeremy Corbyn is being rebranded - in his own right' ... by this I suggest that he hasn't been photographed in the traditional Labour Party setting with slogans and adoring crowds of supporters, or for that matter, wearing any of his hats - corduroy or otherwise. Increasingly he is photographed heroically in the Soviet style, or promoted by video clips showing a degree or two of detachment.
DeleteIt would have been interesting if BBC Reality Check had been around in 1937 to look into claims that Germany was pursuing a policy of genocide against Jews...
ReplyDeleteWould probably have been along the lines of "No, that claim is completely wrong. There are no current plans for genocide although some harsh measures for the future are proposed."
I based that speculation on the BBC's take re Trump's comments on prospects for white farmers in South Africa:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45285827
I think we are being propelled towards the conclusion that Trump is probably the greatest politician of the last 50 years...calling bullshit on so much that is grievously in error, mendacious and misleading. Yes, Reality Check, we know he gets his facts wrong all the time...but truth is dirty not clean and pristine like facts. The BBC likes its facts...but not all facts, just its favourite facts.
Given that most of us here are out of love with the BBC, I was wondering if people might care to swap notes on alternatives.
ReplyDeleteA good alternative to Radio 3 is Radio Swiss Classic. It's
ad-free and its playlist seems to lie somewhere between Radio 3 and Classic FM. The announcements are in German but you can make out who and what they are referring to - it's not chatty stuff.
I did dip into Radio New Zealand which offered a wide range of programming...I haven't listened to it recently but last time I did it seemed relatively sane compared with Radio 4.
Obviously You Tube offers a lot of alternatives and some great programming from the past...It's great for popular music and classical music as well.
Fox News has some good programming: Tucker Carlson, Hannity and The Five (with amusing and insightful Greg Gutfeld) are useful for countering the anti-Trump superbias on the BBC, Sky and ITV.
Any other suggestions...I'd love a sane but interesting alternative to Radio 4.
That's an interesting question. I'd be intrigued to hear any answers too.
DeleteJust checking out what's on Radio New Zealand now. it's their nighttime schedule and three of the programmes are BBC ones from the World Service and Radio 4, so even that might not be a complete escape from the BBC!
There must be something interesting and accessible out there somewhere though.
Fox News for me. Also the daily news round up podcasts from Fox and The Spectactor.
DeletePeter Hitchens posted about his slot on the Today programme during the week to discuss his book The Abolition of Britain with Professor Webb and Anne McElvoy. He was given only six minutes and even in that short span was interrupted a few times by the other two - one commenter on the blog has done a Craig and found that the combined two spoke for more of the time than the book's author. Hitchens is indignant that McElvoy was there as chaperone / opposition but as one commenter pointed out, it might have been because Prof Webb wasn't interested enough to handle the discussion.
ReplyDeleteMr H also posted
about the BBC in response to a commenter (Henry Temple at 23 August a 10 08 am):
"I have many times canvassed such opponents to approach the BBC to create an adversariial programme, or to debate against me. The answer (if it is not total silence) is almost invariably 'no'. ...
My complaint about the BBC is not that it is unfair. I know it is, and accept it as fact, just as I know and accept the fact that the sea is wet. It is that sometimes it is unfair even by its own standards."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/a-caperoned-appearance-on-radio-4s-today-programme-eeyore-5-pollyanna-nil-/comments/page/3/#comments
That's too defeatist for my liking. There is no reason why the BBC should not reflect the broad spread of opinion in the UK, rather than that band stretching from left wing Conservatism to Corbynistas, with a strong emphasis on the soggy left social democratic spectrum.
DeletePeter Hitchens: "Is there any other author who has to be brought into BBC studios under escort, like a flask of radioactive material?"
DeleteOh yes, that comment from Ky is very good indeed, so good it's worth quoting in full:
DeleteI hope the following record shows how the BBC is working.
We could listen to Mr Hitchens less than the other two together.
I wish the BBC would give at least three uninterrupted minutes to Mr Hitchens to talk about the topic without *chaperon*…
JW: 0.00 —> 0.27
PH: 0.28 —> 1.19 (intr. 1.04)
AM: 1.21 —> 2.01
PH: 2.02 —> 2.39 (intr. 2.34)
AM: 2.40 —> 2.47
PH: 2.48 —> 2:51
AM: 2.52 —> 3.40 (intr.3.10)
PH: 3.41 —> 4.09 (intr. 4.04)
JW: 4.10 —> 4.25
PH: 4.26 —> 4.42
AM: 4.43 —> 5.11
PH: 5.11 "…."
JW: 5:13 —> 5.15 "Good bye all!"
JW: 27 + 15 + 2 = 44 s
PH: 51 + 37 + 3 + 28 + 16+ 0 = 135 s
AM: 40 + 7 + 48 + 28 = 123 s
Total: 302 s
PH: 44.7%
JW+ AM : 55.3%
Posted by: Ky | 22 August 2018 at 09:49 PM
Sometimes one can almost feel sorry for the BBC (before you remember what damage they are doing to the country). Here is a report on the disturbances in Germany:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45320382
They obviously don't like the way things are going but it's a rather opaque report...despite Germany allegedly being a free country with a free media details about the circumstances of the murder and the aftermath are perhaps surprisingly thin...almost like reports of disturbances in the old DDR...shape of things to come? It certainly sounds like the German state is going to crack down hard on any protests.
The conclusion to the article suggests the BBC have fallen out of love with Merkel...and the BBC certainly seem now to have amnesia about their own fervent support for the migrant influx - represented most memorably by Jenny Hill jumping up and down at a Berlin railway station shouting "Welcome to Germany!!!" as opposed to "Are you going to act peacably, respect all women, contribute to society and integrate with German culture?" which would have been more pertinent. Here's how the article ends:
"Why is the migrant issue so thorny?
In 2015, Angela Merkel decided to let in around 1.3 million undocumented migrants and refugees, mainly from parts of the Middle East like Syria and Iraq.
She and her allies were punished by voters at last year's general election when the anti-immigrant AfD entered parliament for the first time, winning 12.6% of the vote and more than 90 seats."
Always amusing when the left-liberals-Corbynistas have a stand up bar-room fight...
ReplyDeleteNick Robinson might have thought he was going for easy points in praising St. John of McCain...but of course, his mates to the left have longer memories recalling Sarah Palin, the running mate he appointed, his support for military adventures in the Middle East and his dropping of Agent Orange on defenceless civilians as a Navy Pilot.
Link to the tweet I was referencing:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1033835717246558208
Cohen's lawyers has been backpedalling on his claims of Trump's foreknowledge of meeting with Russian rep.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/27/cohen-lawyer-backpedals-on-trump-russia-claims-as-bombshell-reports-called-into-question.html
Nothing about this on the BBC website which has done so much to promote the Russia-Trump collusion narrative.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to dumbfound the MSM, now with his deal with Mexico.
Can't wait for tomorrow's BBC Reality Check when the teenagers get back from their Bank Holiday celebrations.
We have the "despite Brexits" and the "'cos o' Brexits". This is one of the latter:
ReplyDelete"The dispute over the Chagos Islands - home to the US military base on Diego Garcia - is being portrayed by some as an indication of Britain's waning influence on the world stage following the Brexit vote."
Our waning influence on the world stage might have something to do with us not having any operational aircraft carriers for several years...or any number of factors that have been in place for many years (e.g. increasing GDP wealth of the rest of the world).
But, no, the "Somes" are always whispering in BBC journalists' ears and in this case "Some" say: "It's 'cos o' Brexit innit? Stands to reason!" And the sage BBCer nods in agreement.
BBC News is not biased in Brexit reporting, says John Simpson
ReplyDeleteAnd there we have it in a nutshell. I think he probably believes it too. No self awareness and an absolute belief that they are right.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/28/bbc-news-is-not-biased-in-brexit-reporting-says-john-simpson
It would be interesting to know how often John Simpson has ventured outside London and Broadcasting House lately. As World Affairs Editor, we might expect to hear opinions about from far and wide. At present, his opinions seem to have arrived fully formed - stamped out from the mould of BBC consensus - that nobody within their walls, not even their World Affairs Editor dare contradict.
Delete... 'we might expect to hear opinions about Brexit from far and wide'...
DeleteWe do get opinions from self-important John Simpson , they are personal - just not far and wide ones.
Delete‘It doesn’t feel like my country now’.
‘Don’t assume you know my views about Brexit’.
Aged John Simpson of the increasingly banal opinionising seems to do precious little to justify either his grand title or his (presumably) gargantuan salary...
DeleteAgreed MB.
DeleteBut remember even the BBC tried get rid of him (and failed). Unfortunately James Harding left before the deed was done. More’s the pity.
We can console ourselves that he is now on a measly £150k and will be drawing a fat final salary pension having been at the BBC for 48 years.
His real name is John Fidler-Simpson, I wonder why he dropped the double barrel?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5669971/John-Simpson-claims-nearly-forced-BBC-boss-tried-slash-pay.html
I found this article enlightening. The BBC pension scheme is investing heavily in its commercial competitors. Nothing wrong with that, I would if I was the investment manager of the fund.
ReplyDeleteThe article also contains some other interesting nuggets of info.
Funding the generous defined benefit pension scheme is a substantial drain on BBC resources. The pension fund received £156m from the BBC during the last year – equivalent to about £6 from every licence fee.
The fund has a £1.8bn shortfall, and a long-term deficit reduction programme is being funded from the BBC’s income at a time when the broadcaster is having to make cuts in other parts of the organisation.
Funded by BBC income - I presume that is code for funded by licence payers.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/25/bbc-pension-fund-has-stakes-in-amazon-netflix-and-facebook
The Joy Of Winning is a maths science programme on BBC Four tonight where a Donald Trump caricature is used to illustrate selfish people out for short-term gains.
ReplyDeleteTDS for sure and another example where BBC shouldn’t be making political points with relentless anti Trump propaganda across its output. Hardly impartial but they will say it was a lighthearted take on maths and not displaying bias.
Oh dear. That was that nice Hannah Fry, wasn't it? I was thinking of watching that.
DeleteOf course they will...but we know Hillary would never be subject to mockery of that type.
DeleteI haven't seen the programme but Hannah Fry works with Adam Rutherford on Radio progs and I think I've heard quite a few sly digs at the usual PC targets when they've been on Radio 4.
This is a typically BBC-ish tweet about Jordan Peterson from Rutherford:
https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1028666065730121728
I know twitter isn't exactly the platform for discussing complex ideas in detail but this is an ad hominem attack, isn't it? Meaningless. What doesn't he like about what Peterson says? We can guess, but he doesn't want to argue the point.
I've heard Peterson's defence of his lobster reference - which is a frequent point of attack by PCers: that hierarchies have been around for hundred of millions of years and the hormonal structure of such hierarchies is remarkably similar to those obtaining in humans (hope I haven't misrepresented what he said). So Peterson is saying the hierarchical structure of society is not to be blamed on "capitalism" or "militarism" or "patriarchy" - it is really hard wired into us as a species. Peterson makes clear that he is not arguing that people should try their utmost to do down their fellow human beings and get to the top...and points out that trying to get to the top of the hierarchy can exact a terrible toll on an individual.
The BBC keep inserting this into their articles on Corbyn, anti-semitism and so on: "Zionism refers to the movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel, and thus support for the modern state of Israel."
ReplyDeleteThis is Fake History from the BBC. The Zionist movement set out to create a Jewish state,the location of which was not predetermined at the outset. Madagascar, Uganda and other territories were considered as possibles.
Also, it's rather odd to reference "the Middle East" as though they might have been interested in occupying Libya or Iraq or Iran...Is this to allow for the anti-semitic notion that all Israeli Jews want Israel to expand into the much bigger Eretz Israel? Some Zionists might wish to see that happen, but I doubt most Zionists do. Another point is that Zionism in this context is a bit like a synonym for "Jewish nationalism". There is I think a general sense in which most Jews support Zionism (the concept of the need to create a Jewish national territory). Also, if the BBC needs to get historical, then perhaps it should also point out that Zionism was very definitely a reaction to the growth in anti-semitism in Europe(e.g. the Dreyfus affair and growth of anti-Jewish movements in Austria).
‘but because of Brexit the UK is having to look for expanded economic activity outside the EU even though it is by far our biggest market for exports’
ReplyDelete- Ben Wright BBC 10 o’clock News
UK trade with Africa is currently £8 billion but look at this, trade with the EU is £164 billion.
Kamal Ahmed BBC 10 o’clock News
Fair and impartial fact based reporting or anti Brexit rhetoric disguised as News?
Nope Kamal, all that tells you is that our entry into the EU has hobbled our manufacturing sector in relation to Gerrmany. Who's gobbling up most of that £164 billion - I'll be betting on Germany. That's the Germany that controls the economic policy of the EU.
DeleteNope Ben, if you were an unbiased journalist you would have left out the "even though" and put in "which". But since you work for the BBC it's pretty obvious you aren't an unbiased journalist. Were you unbiased, you would have noted that we don't yet know what deal if any will emerge between the EU and the UK. It could amount to almost total access to the Single Market for all Ben or I know.
I have been intrigued by a Guardian article by John Harris ... 'Without a centrist path, our perfidious politics will lose its bearings totally' ...
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/27/centrist-path-hardcore-brexiteers-corbynites?CMP=twt_gu
He refers to a new book Perfidious Albion - 'the second book by the 39-year-old Sam Byers, whose keen sense of his time has echoes of Martin Amis and Jonathan Coe. His story is a fusion of Brexit, the Twittersphere and “opinion” websites, and the all-pervading power of a tech company called Green. What burns from its pages is a vivid picture of how much politics has been uncoupled from the nitty-gritty, and floated off into an orbit all its own'...
There are some confusing lines: ... 'In the Albion of the title, the politicians who succeed are the ones who can surf waves of online controversy and market themselves as being “barely a politician at all”...
And ...'One of them finds fame on an “opinion” platform called The Command Line, where his editor instructs him in the art of provocation for provocation’s sake : “You’re nobody until somebody really hates you … And now someone really hates you, I think it’s fair to say you’re finally really somebody, no?” ....
And there are references to the UK political scene: ... 'This is the backdrop to the rise of a character named Hugo Bennington, a rightwing politician who is essentially 70% Nigel Farage and 30% Boris Johnson. His mission is simple: “Brexit was over, but the energy it had accumulated had to be retained. Fears needed to be redirected. Hatreds needed to pivot.” Each time he writes, tweets or appears on TV, his leftwing adversaries combust, which only increases his profile. As with Johnson and Donald Trump – and, in a very different way, Jeremy Corbyn – he seems less interested in the complexities and challenges of actual power than in something else: standing at the head of a movement, somehow embodying his time, and remaining in the company of people who agree with him.' ....
Perhaps the BBC has concluded that Theresa May could never be 'at the head of a movement' but that Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson definitely could be. If the BBC have read this Guardian piece, they are pushing Jeremy Corbyn out to be 'at the head of a movement' irrespective of the Labour Party. That's why all recent images of him have shown him as relaxed, confident and as a cult figure. If the Sam Byers la ine “You’re nobody until somebody really hates you", has been adopted as realistic strategy, then Corbyn's history may be more useful to the BBC than you might think.
... 'Perhaps the BBC has concluded that Theresa May could never be 'at the head of a movement' but that Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson definitely could be.' ... These are the two people in UK politics that the BBC fear the most, and therefore for whom they save their most hostile
Deletepersonal and political venomous attacks.
Your are absolutely right LC...the BBC are not stupid - they are stuffed full of highly intelligent Oxbridge types who can quickly identify threats to their preferred narrative. Nigel and Boris are definitely in the top 5 along with Jacob Rees Mogg.
DeleteJust been focussing on this...
ReplyDeleteIsn't it a mark of the stinking hyprocisy of the liberal-left/BBC/Guardian/MSM coalition that although they opposed:
1. The Vietnam War.
2. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
3. Dropping of napalm on civilians.
4. Use of horrific Agent Orange on the environment and civilians.
5. Wars of intervention in the Middle East.
They now indulge in the most obscene obsequies for one Senator John McCain...just because he hated and undermined Trump just as much as they try to do...
Very close to vomit-inducing.
I could have added that they all hated him for appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate when he was aiming for the Presidency.
Yes but he was the personification of a liberal in the BBC mould. So canonized as St. John.
DeleteNews you won't see any time soon on the BBC:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVlmbjBsMs8
Basically the anti-Trump conspiracy is gradually being uncovered.
Here we have a really big story regarding a British spy involved in the Trump-Russia thing:
ReplyDeletehttps://saraacarter.com/bruce-ohr-fbi-knew-about-bias-before-getting-a-fisa-on-carter-page/
Anything on the BBC? Nope. The last thing mentioning Christopher Steele was about 8 days ago and nothing to do with this latest development. And remember at any one time the BBC have about 20 plus correspondents so they should know what's going on. This is PURE CENSORSHIP. The BBC are "protecting" your minds.
On the subject of University Challenge:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45329067
See? Some viewer complaints get listened to.
Perhaps they should rename Jesus as Mary? I am sure many sensitive snowflakes are triggered by seeing a male name plastered across the screen every couple of minutes.
DeleteThey've been putting in questions about Islamic names for things for some time now. I wonder if they got complaints before they did that.
DeleteOn last night's Great British Menu, which as we know is a cooking programme in which contestants compete to have their dish included in a banquet to celebrate 70 years of the NHS, one of the dishes was given the contrived name 'Diversity Lobster - in celebration of the diversity of the NHS staff and users'.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the left liberal mindset has infected the chef or do the BBC producers give contestants a gentle nudge to conform to the brief and the BBC agenda?
DeleteI was going to mention that. The BBC must be chuffed the way it's going after a couple of hiccups last week - one dish named for the wrong nurse and a chef who named his Jamaican goat dish 'Under the Knife' and stuck a great big kitchen knife upright in the serving board as a final flourish; fortunately the judging chef sternly admonished that this was in bad taste. Chefs aren't always noted for their intelligence but it doesn't say much for the programme makers either in that case.
DeleteThings picked up with the Turkish (much was made of her 'heritage' last year) contestant's presentation of her dish highlighting flags of six countries which staff 'our global NHS'.
But the lobster dish reached new heights in feeding back to it the BBC's 20 years of propaganda - absurd and cringeworthy as it sounds, and even to type it, the dish was named 'Multicultural Lobster', 'reflecting the diversity of our NHS'. (Sorry, slight correction LC)
Poor lobster had no say in the indignity of being weasel-worded after death.
Thanks for the correction Anon.' Multicultural Lobster' suggests there's a whole world out there that we haven't been told about.
DeleteMaybe the lobster dish was an anti-Peterson dig? They seem obsessed with Jordan Peterson's reference to the hierarchy of lobsters, based on hormonal systems that have survived in the human species.
DeleteWhere do the BBC get them from?
ReplyDeleteReviewing the papers on the BBC news channel last night (10.30pm approx.), Lynn Faulds Wood had the audacity to declare that;
1. She was thoroughly 'bored' now with stories of Labour Party anti-semitism.
2. This entire narrative was being driven by the 'right wing wing'news media seeking to discredit that nice Mr Corbyn
3. This anti-semitism story is blown out of all proportion 'as there are only 300,000 Jews in the UK'. The implication was that Jewish people are not a significant minority group in electoral terms (versus others) and that Labour should not allow this issue to sidetrack the party's path to power.
4. Labour should accept the IHRA definition and move on quickly.
At best, her contribution can be described as naive in the extreme and at worst a glaring example of the vile anti-semitism at the core of today's Labour Party;Jewsish people are not important, in their own right, or as a voting bloc, so why are we wasting all this time focusing on Labour Party ant-semitism!
Well she's right about one thing: politicians do weigh the votes...300,000 Jews against 3 million Muslims (and rising)... we know which way things are going to go.
DeleteThere's a gem of BBC bias in this from the World pages of the BBC News website:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45340275
... 'Trump warns of 'left-wing violence' if Democrats win mid-term elections' ...
Reading the headline, we might think that violence would be the outcome if Donald Trump and the Republican Party lost the mid-term elections - that is the sore losers, Trump supporters resorting to violence. But no! DT sees the threat from the antifas, who might stir up violence. Here's the gem of bias:
... 'There is violence. When you look at Antifa - these are violent people," he [DT] said. Further down the article the BBC explains:
Antifa - short for anti-fascist - refers to groups of far-left protesters who fight far-right ideology and regularly clash with far-right demonstrators.' ...
As a balanced view, why not offer us the converse of this statement:
... 'Antifa - short for anti-fascist - refers to groups of violent far-left protesters whose far-left ideology leads them to clash regularly with far-right demonstrators.' ...?
They are not just against are they? They are for no borders, free movement of people across the planet,n abolition of free speech including criticism of religions, abolition of nation states, abolition of capitalism, destruction of all statues of historical figures who are deemed to have been non-progressive and introduction of a socialist planned economy.
DeleteThis is typical of BBC. It's possibly unconscious bias. For years we didn't hear the word 'ideology' from them. A Labour government was in power. Then the Conservatives got in, with Lib Dems, and suddenly it was 'ideology' at the BBC. Labour doesn't have ideology, apparently. For the BBC, it just has what is natural to have, like breathing. You just do it without thinking of it or seeing it as something out there that you need to call out and name.
DeleteI don't think it's even necessary to be far right for Antifa to oppose a demonstration or expression of opinion.
A huge story - Clinton's server was hacked by the Chinese:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jADWaPmIh08
Apparently the Chinese have ALL her e mails even the ones that she had scrubbed.
Another huge aspect of the story: the pro-Democrat FBI took no interest in this major security break.
So where is it on the BBC Website? Nowhere. Zilch. Nada.
But they did have this on their US/Canada home page, which deals with the vital issue of the moment: ensuring proper modest Hijab clothing for cartoon characters:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45331730
The non-appearance of this vitally important story must be an executive censorship decision because Zurcher is fully aware of it:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1034630498470031360
A programme repeat on Radio 4 this morning was a follow-up to a previous 'More or Less' about a President Trump comment about crime and immigration into Sweden.
ReplyDeleteI caught the end which seemed to conclude that Trump needs to put it in perspective because a city in the USA has a great deal more crime (or possibly increase in crime - not sure on that point) than the cities in Sweden. Is that rabbit out of hat finding a QED though? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgc0d0
They think they're so clever don't they? It might be an argument for saying Trump should keep his nose out of Swedish politics but it's hardly of any comfort to Swedes if their formerly very peaceable society has now developed a serious crime problem with hundreds of torched vehicles, no go zones, grenades thrown at police stations, and a huge rise in rapes and other violent crimes.
DeleteThe BBC seems preoccupied with crime in the USA whilst almost ignoring the rapidly rising crime in the UK and particularly London.
DeleteThe programme concluded that Arabs and Africans had failed to 'access' the Swedish life-style of boating and skiing, (they had managed to 'access' the Swedish benefit system though). Perhaps these immigrants don't want to live like Swedes, they want to retain their own culture.
DeleteRuth Alexander could have asked why cities like St. Louis have a problem with violent crime (which pre-dates Trump). Might the answer be that the descendants of all those (enforced) African migrants have never 'accessed' the American Dream and that the American experience of historic mass immigration of a people with a different culture should have been a warning that Europe should have heeded?
Zurcher obviously worried about the report that Clinton's server was hacked by the Chinese. Worried enough to tweet about it in dismissive fashion while censoring any mention of it on the BBC News website...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1034827037368901640
The pictures from Chemnitz - the rage, the sorrow, the violence - suggest a Germany aflame with resistance to migration.
ReplyDeleteJenny Hill may no longer be jumping up and down excitedly shouting out "welcome to Berlin" to thousands of undocumented male migrants, but she's still serving up the BS to the BBC's audience:
"The pictures from Chemnitz - the rage, the sorrow, the violence - suggest a Germany aflame with resistance to migration.
There is much evidence to the contrary.
The number of people seeking asylum has fallen steeply and there are integration success stories - one in four new arrivals has a job."
Well given Germany accepted about 1.3 million undocumented asylum seekers in one year, it would be remarkable if the figure didn't fall - but I bet there has been a rise in chain migration. One in four with jobs (mostly government subsidisd, make-work jobs - something she hides) means 75% unemployment among a population composed of about 90% fit young men...a staggeringly high figure that is unlikely to fall much.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45328477
We seem to be moving from a liberal democracy to a PC democracy and the BBC is supporting the move all the way.
ReplyDeleteHow do the two differ? A liberal democracy has the following key features: free speech, freedom of assembly, free and fair elections, emphasis on individual rights, a free media reflecting a broad range of opinion, academic freedom... A liberal democracy is based on well administered law, in the context of state authority.
A PC democracy has, by contrast, the following: speech censorship, freedom of assembly only for left wing demonstrators, a mainstream media that is increasingly undifferentiated (supporting all aspects of PC ideology), elections in which the party or parties supporting PC ideology are favoured by the mainstream media in biased coverage and in which dubious practices (e.g. postal voting related corruption) go unpunished, emphasis on group rights and suppression of academic freedom through formal and informal means. A PC democracy also seeks to abolish the integrity of the legal state through no borders, mass immigration, trading blocs, and allowing external agencies to interfere in the politics of the country.
Of course this move can only be accomplished through a kind of mass brainwashing which is why the BBC is vital to the project: doing everything in their power to promote political correctness and oppose populism.
Yes. Your description of a PC democracy as ... 'supporting PC ideology' ... raises the question: Has it become a religion? Certainly the fervour attached to some of the held beliefs are equal to that of many a crusade.
DeleteI guess it depends how you define "religion". It's derived from words meaning obligation, bind, reverence. So if you take God out of the picture it certainly is a "religion" in that sense...It's a kind of mental discipline.
DeleteThe person who commits to PC ideology must maintain a very strict discplinary control over their conscious thoughts, over their speech, and over their actions. It's strange, because many followers of PC ideology like to pose as free spirits when they are clearly not. They may have the clothes, the hair colour, the tattoos or the piercings that suggest a free spirit but in reality they exert huge self control to ensure they do not offend against PC ideology.
The PC follower knows that there are only certain acceptable explanations for certain phenomena. Delingpole had a good article on that in the Spectator last week re science and scientists.
It may be a relatively short step from PC democracy to PC authoritarianism - Erdogan style. The long march through our institutions is almost complete, then add a Marxist government and I can see us sleepwalking into it.
DeleteI was comparing the promotion PC ideology with a new type of evangelism:
Delete'I saw the light - and it was Green'.
'I saw the light - and it was Rainbow-coloured'.
It is a form of mental discipline, but an intellectually lazy one, full of fallacies and poor reasoning. It appeals to the young, because it is represented as revolutionary and anti-establishment. It is anything but. However, it does attack the older generation and everything that has gone before. You don’t have to be psychologist to see that old white males are basically the father figure who has to be usurped. The other aspect, is that it makes its advocates feel like a “good person”. This is obviously delusional, but for young person this is a huge thing. SJW’s are the new Red Guards. Much like Communism there is no happy ending or perfect society at the end of the PC rainbow - just destruction and authoritarianism. What it is really about is power. I fear it may now be unstoppable.
DeleteTerry,
DeleteYes, I am naturally an optimistic person but I do somewhat share your pessimism as regards political correctness, that it may now be unstoppable. If you combine a craven political class (compare and contrast politicians in other countries like Poland, Hungary and Italy), with a first past the post electoral system, with a complicit media (not just BBC, but Sky and ITV too (plus most social media platforms and now nearly all newspapers), with draconian anti-free speech laws and with an academic environment that is Marxist/left wing in orientation, then pessimism is fully justified.
The comparison with the Red Guards is apposite since like them SJWSs enjoy cultural vandalism - the longer something has been around, the riper it is for demolition.
I agree with Sir Topham as well that it would be very easy to slip from PC democracy to PC authoritarianism. Let's not forget that some Clintonites called for military action to prevent Trump's inauguration. Likewise some Remainiacs have come very closely to calling for similar action in the UK to reverse the Brexit vote. So, it isn't hard to imagine some future PC government deciding they had a "moral duty" to put down the opposition. There are always pretexts to lock up opponents as we know from examples all around the world and from our own imperial history. The other danger is simply allowing electoral corruption to grow. We've seen plenty of it in this country in recent years - a PC government keen to appease minorities might well allow the whole system to become corrupted. The Democrats in the USA have gone a long way down that road.
Loondon Calling's point about evangelism is well made - there certainly is an evangelical element to it but I think that applies to a small minority who probably are true believers. Most CEOs of major global companies are not true believers...they are converts of convenience, like tribal kings in the Dark Ages, converting to Christianity. They see how PC can be used to advance their interests - chiefly globalisation, removal of tariff barriers, virtual tax locations and cheap labour.
Greenpeace be with you.
DeleteEvery now and again I take a look at Reality Check and then wish I hadn’t.
ReplyDeleteThe latest one is about EU tariffs in Africa vs Theresa Mays desire to grow trade there.
There is no definitive properly researched reality check of course. Just alternative facts from third rate academics offering opinion masquerading as fact.
It’s this sort of fakery that give the BBC a bad name. They use the technique to discredit stuff that doesn’t fit their narrative or left liberal worldview.
The outcome of this latest check is that most of EU goods are tariff free so Theresa May can go and whistle. The coup de grace is that where there are high tariffs on sugar for example, the African nations like them that way.
Yep, even in comparison with other "fact check" services, like Snopes, Fullfact or even the Guardian, the BBC's Reality Check is completely unfit for purpose. They often fail to define with any exactitude what claim they are referencing. Sometimes they just put forward a nebulous question. Then after several detours they often put up a "conclusion" that has nothing to do with the original claim or question. The evidence they cite is often incomplete or does not support the conclusions they derive. When they are investigating a claim by someone they don't like (e.g. Boris or Trump or Mogg), they are very strict in their interpretatios of what has been said, making no allowance for casual communication. When it's someone they like they allow far more latitude.
DeleteNot sure whether to post it here or on ‘Todays story’ thread.
ReplyDeleteBut here is today’s Brexit fear story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45351288
Fake news by omission on the radio reports of this story. It said Panasonic was moving it’s European HQ out of the UK, it missed the 20 people bit. I’m sure listeners would have thought .. Big corporation + European HQ = 100+ people .
DeleteThis is probably one area will there be an impact: HQs of companies trading in the EU. But as you observe: why not give us info on the number of jobs involved?
DeleteA corrective to the outpouring by the BBC of Fake Grief about John McCain...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWEDMLmjKk
From a fellow Navy guy and POW.
Had the misfortune of listening to Adrian Chiles on Radio 5 Live this morning...
ReplyDeleteHe says words to the effect re charges against Corbyn re anti-semitism: "This will carry on until Boris Johnson says something idiotic again..." In context, it sounded like he would be saying something anti-semitic...he didn't mention the "I" word...just left the biased equivalence hanging there.
Then there was the usual BBC-approved muddle over the German demos...the BBC is clearly v. reluctant to admit that thousands of ordinary Germans have been involved. So they use all sorts of cricumlocutions e.g. Chiles said something like "...and arguably ordinary people"...Arguably? Then the usual going round in circles, pretending they don't want to close down free speech, when you know that is exactly what they are about.
Then some Fake News about McCain. They played his last will and testament...about not building walls. This was what McCain really thought about walls prior to Trump:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5307694&page=1
I find Chiles one of the worst broadcasters on the BBC, his faux image of a bluff working class fellow is just used as cover to promote the usual BBC PC guff, while all the time undermining real popular working class culture.
At least one of this guests, Dominic said they would have preferred Trump to McCain on the basis that the latter was a neocon who involved the US in lots of wars...that flummoxed Chiles and Helen Lefty from the New Statesman.
I agree MB. Chiles is one of the worst. He hides behind his working class background as a plain talking brummie. But he is just another BBC virtue signaller who used to be married to the very PC Libby Purves. He was the one who heard Carol Thatcher using the word golliwog in the BBC green room. Rather than just having a word if he was offended, he formally shopped her and she hasn’t been employable since. He also traipsed around the West Midlands for a BBC documentary trying to understand why the people voted for Brexit. He didn’t get it - but he never will because he’s metropolitan liberal luvvie now. Like all good liberals, he has been airing a personal issue as a badge of honour. He did not realise drinking 30 units a day meant he had an alcohol dependency condition. Poor Adrian.
DeleteI remember that about Carol Thatcher. He was all over it, signalling like mad. That's a different chap married to Libby Purves. I forget his name. Chiles used to be married to Jane Garvey who presents Woman's Hour and some other radio programme.
DeleteOh yes, apologies. Jane Garvey - another beauty!
Delete.....as someone once said.
The only part of the Christian Church with which the BBC is comfortable is that born out of the civil rights movement and its associated history countering white supremacy in the Southern States. Gospel music, Windrush Generation, multiculturalism and diversity etc all play into the narrative.
ReplyDeleteThis polarised view even made it onto Bargain Hunt today when Eric Knowles told us of a story of KKK oppression dating back to 1963 and how a Welsh community led by a stained glass artist reached out in support. It was an interesting story that
I hadn't heard of this before, and the stained glass work was magnificent. But, on Bargain Hunt, do we need to have stories of bigotry and discontent, forced upon us? I can't remember any other stories of atrocities (closer to home perhaps) appearing through this channel.
Helen Gabbler I call her. What is with this racing-speed speech of some broadcasters and public figures? There's a couple of them on Sky News and the BBC's media editor is one of the worst gabblers: with him it's not consistent but weirdly uneven, from breakneck speed to slowing down, then back up again. The MP Stella Creasy is another. Have they a train to catch? I find it unlistenable.
ReplyDeleteIs this fellow or the NY Times trying to start a war, I wondered, as I read this inflammatory piece; oh, well it's America and they do things differently there; here, wouldn't that be hate speech or incitement or something?
ReplyDeleteBut then when it went on to allege rising hate crime in Britain, and reference to Boris Johnson, I wondered some more. How does he know? Ah. This charmer divides his time between India and London, says Wikipedia, and was a visiting professor at UCL. He's a prize-winning writer and thinker, too. Living here and stirring in America. Nice. I wonder what else he's doing while he's here and why he's here anyway, given such rancour.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/race-politics-whiteness.html
Yes - quite horrific. If there is real, virulent racism and supremacism in the world today it's to be found among the Han Chinese committing slow genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang, or among the Indian elite who oppose any immigration into their country, or in the Islamic Republics of Iran andPakistan or among the Russians keeping the lid on all their non-Russian colonial possessions.
DeleteI see from the Radio 4 schedule there's a series 'tracing decisive moments in the life of our National Health Service'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgmxtf
ReplyDeleteTonight's programme includes the hospice movement and IVF. But then, additionally:
'Unequal: In 1980 the Black Report showed that people in deprived areas had poorer health. But it wasn't until Labour returned to power in the mid-1990s that the issue was taken seriously by government.
Protest: 40 years after the start of the NHS resources weren't keeping up with demand from patients. A baby died after his heart operation had been cancelled five times for lack of nurses.'
In the first quote an explicit shout for Labour. Yeah! They could have put '...but it was not until the mid 1990s...' without the 'Labour returned to power'. Plain bias?
In the second, resources, lack of. Yeah! An implicit political point of bias? Could be. Or I have a suspicious mind.
A couple of interesting takes from the main story on the BBC website this afternoon about the plot to kill Theresa May.
ReplyDelete1.The BBCs increasing use of the abbreviation IS. It’s quite clever because it can be used to disassociate and distance the article from the ROP, Islam and Moslem. (And reduce the word count of those terms).
2. The long march through the institutions.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave told Rahman he would have "plenty of time" to study the Koran in prison, adding that Islam was "a religion of peace".
Haddon-Cave must be about the 30th judge to assume the mantle of an Imam and declare himself an expert on the Koran. I prefer to listen to what the real Imams teach in the Madrassas (note, what they teach in the Madrassas - not what they say in front of a BBC mic).
DeleteGood to see that Anthony is recovering from Trump Derangement Syndrome...sad though, that he's moved on to Corbyn-style Israeli Derangement Syndrome...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1035629073152856064
Shocking to see a BBC editor (Richard Vadon) joining in Corbyn style baiting of Israel:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/richardvadon/status/1035646853835042816
Strong defence is only allowable for some countries it seems - Israel not included.
Blimey. Well spotted.
DeleteI've had enough of the BBC McCain Cult...
ReplyDeleteSee what veterans thought of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnlQpKdNjWU
Stories on the BBC often develop during the day and change direction in the process. I’ve noticed how often this happens.
ReplyDeleteThe Honours system story is a case in point. Early reports just stated the facts. Later there were politicians agreeing with the stance saying it was right and proper. Now the quotes are criticising the blocking.
The BBC would say this demonstrates balance and fairness but in reality it follows a pattern.
The life cycle of a BBC story is no accident, it always ends up on a position which supports the preferred BBC liberal view.
I wonder if self interest is at play on this story because so many of the BBC staffers have been caught in tax avoidance schemes. Either the straightforward Lineker kind or the prentence of being freelance and self employed through private service companies whilst working 100% for the BBC.
They obviously still want their gongs.
I think you're right...the BBC are mostly soggy leftists...they don't really believe in equality, they just believe in virtue signalling. They want to appear egalitarian while keeping the bulk of their very significant wealth. That said, I think we can expect to witness growing influence of hard leftist Corbynites, who will push to gain ascendancy within the BBC. Remember, Corbyn's hardline chief lieutenant was the son of a BBC Director General.
DeleteThe hard left are good at infiltration. The BBC is an obvious and easy target. I think we already see it.
DeleteWake me up in two months' time when the obsequies for Senator John McCain, Marshal of the Liberal Elite and Hero of the Globalist Union, will finally have reached their conclusion with the burning alive of ex President Trump in a Wicker Man style contraption, at which point the Good and Saintly Senator can be safely interred.
ReplyDeleteWhen does is a claim not a claim but an accusation"?...when it involves Boris, dummy!
ReplyDeleteJeremy only has to deal with "claims" of anti-semitism...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552
But Boris is "accused of Islamophobia" which sounds more authoritative, more legal-like and more justified.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45083275
Remember, nothing at the BBC happens by accident. It's subtle, but helps Jeremy and harms Boris.
If you look at the coverage, you can see the BBC are trying to give a "balanced approach"...the "claim" is stated and then Corbyn or his defenders offer up a defence. But Boris was subject to a much more "scatter gun" approach with the BBC setting out in great detail critical comments about what he said re the anti-female Burka.
Question mass immigration? You are far right probably a Nazi. Poke fun at the Burka or any aspect of Islam? You are a rascist probably also a Nazi.
DeleteThese are the messages that the BBC is hammering home every day.
The Sunday Times has as their front page headline: 'May and Corbyn Face Double Coup'. Looking at the BBC News website to find out more, I find there is nothing of this story at all. Jeremy Corbyn is shown without the red Labour backcloth again looking pensive with the stale headline 'Labour can end anti-semitism row quickly', and Theresa May is shown as the leading story in a photo looking self-assured and half smiling. I returned to the Home page so that I could relay the headline accompanying this, but within minutes it seems, Theresa's flattering photo has been pulled to be replaced by Messrs Fox and Hammond - both looking grumpy. Evidently, someone at Beeb Central Photo-editing dept has overstepped the mark.
ReplyDeleteThis is weird. The headline that I referred to showing an unusually flattering photo of Theresa May from about an hour ago was: ...'Brexit: May vows no compromise with EU on Brexit plan' ...
DeleteYet, if you search that headline - again from an hour ago, archived, is this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45385421
It has the same story, but with a totally different leading image - one of Theresa May looking unpleasant. I guess that the boss has returned from his lunch break, and had rapped the knuckles of some junior for daring to stray.
Yes, I was thinking that must be the explanation! lol
DeleteThe other day I heard a wet behind the ears young BBC reporter refer to the Sweden Democrats as a "nationalist" party.
I can just imagine the rocketing she got for that:
"Sturgeon's party is nationalist! Plaid Cymru is nationalist!! Sinn Fein for God's sake is nationalist!!! We like all them...you can't be calling the Sweden Democrats nationlist, it will send the wrong message. Remember it goes like this: nationalist for nationalist parties we like, populist for parties we can't categorise as right or left but think are dangerous, right wing for anything to the right of Yvette Cooper and Far Right for any party that has the temerity to oppose political correctness and mass immigration. Feel free to add in a neo-Nazi reference if you fancy. OK? Got it?? Remember all that, or you'll be back reading the Traffic News on Radio Lincoln before you can say Jack DeManio!!!"
Good.
ReplyDelete