...and any other matters that take our fancy
BBC loving Jay Z and Beyonce turning out for Hillary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37877710Oddly the BBC chooses not to air Trump's complaint that Jay Z dropped the F and N words during the concert.
And this is the Fox News approach: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/05/in-final-weekend-trump-remains-own-best-front-man-says-jay-zs-profanity-rap-at-clinton-rally-double-standard.htmlMakes a rather stronger point than the BBC allowed.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/06/triple-lock-pension-should-scrapped-mps-generational-inequalities#commentsRead the comments it seems that in Guardian world the constant "the young voted Remain the old voted Leave" mantra has now resulted in a whole lefty generation hating the old. It's unbelievable don't these people read anything that contradicts their own world view? The split in most demographics was only 60/40 either way so to then blame the whole demographic is idiotic.
Same with the regional vote. As far as the BBC and Guardian are concerned it was only oop north that voted to Leave. Whereas the reality is that the South, East of England, Midlands and South West also voted to leave.
Always worth repeating (as the BBC never does) that ALL the regions of the UK voted Leave with exceptions of NI, Scotland and London.
Putting it like that only plays into the nationalist agenda. They voted as British citizens only, not based on their ethnicity or locality. Where they live or what accent they have should be irrelevant.
Andrew Marr's first disgraceful moment came a couple minutes into his interview with Nigel Farage. Farage wanted the justice deciding on the EU issue to recuse himself because he was a founding member of an organization dedicated to intertwining UK law with EU law. Farage's point was that jurors have to disqualify themselves if they have a vested interest in a case, so should a judge.Marr first tried a bit of reductio ad absurbum by twisting it into Farage stating that the entire Court shouldn't be trusted. Then he made up his own straw man. "Given that all, you know, all law has involved the Europeaw law, that would virtually rule out all judges."Which has nothing to do with what Farage said about a single judge. Marr twisted it beyond recognition to an indictment of all judges. "I put it to you that these are professionals..." Very dishonest. They can't fight the issue on facts, so journalists just tell lies instead.Speaking of lies, the Hillary minion on the Paper Review sofa told five of them in a row. The Trump supporter barely rebutted one of them. Marr opened the panel with a bit of Remainiac propaganda. He asked Gina Miller what, as a "Remainer to your boots", she thought about the ruling over Parliament getting a say. Apparently it's not about overturning Brexit, but a discussion of how Brexit happens. In other words, staying in the Single Market, continuing to cede national sovereignty on various issues - especially immigration - and keeping undemocratic regulations, can still be considered Brexit your betters say it is.The Hillary minion even played the old, "The vote can't be taken literally because nobody told us what Brexit would look like" canard.Miller was much better in her direct interaction with Farage. They were both good, really. The best part was Marr keeping his mouth shut the entire time. I guess he saw that Miller had actually won the point and saw no need to intervene.Oh, I spoke too soon. Farage went on to suggest this might be the end of the House of Lords if they contribute to overturning the Brexit vote, and Marr brought back his "All judges mustn't be trusted" lie. Gina Miller unfortunately bought into it and continued the attack on Farage over something he didn't say.The elite's riposte to Brexit supporters demanding that the politicians follow the people's wishes seems to be the recent Colombian peace deal with FARC. The public voted against accepting it. So the narrative here is that the public can be wrong, so must let their elected representatives get on with it. Gina Miller said exactly that, in fact, during her exchange with Farage.It's a very tough issue. One the one hand, one's initial instinct is to go against the deal simply because the BBC's default position is that NI/IRA is the non plus ultra of peacemaking. They seem to report every civil conflict through that prism (e.g. "Talk to the Taliban"). Let the mass murderers into the government because look at how many people they've killed. Terrorism wins again.But FARC had become at least in part much more of a wider political movement than the IRA ever could, and this deal might do something to mitigate that. After all, Venezuela and Cuba no longer have the cash to support them.Marr pushed the same "All judges can't be trusted" lie in his opening demand (it wasn't a question) to Jeremy Hunt. His boilerplate response ended up avoiding the fact that this wasn't at all what Farage said, so lent support to the lie.Marr is a biased hack. He really doesn't deserve his own agenda-leading slot. Hopefully Andrew Neil will cheer me up as he usually does.
You're in for a disappointment over the 'Sunday Politics' David!It was interesting that Andrew Marr first introduced Nigel Farage as a "Trump supporter". That was a bit rum. And he kept at that too later:AM: You’ve said this week that you don’t any longer trust the independence of the judges. That seems a very hard line thing to say, a bit Trump if I may say so.NF: Isn’t it. Isn’t it? I mean isn’t it ever? But then you look at Lord Justice Thomas and you see that actually he is the founding member of a body seeking to integrate law at an EU level. Surely, surely with that background - well surely with that background he should have absented himself from this particular case.AM: So do you think that when it comes to the Supreme Court we shouldn’t trust the Supreme Court not to be politically biased in this decision? Is that what you’re saying?NF: I’m afraid that the reach of the European Union into the upper echelons of society in this country that makes it quite difficult for us to trust the judgements. I mean look, if you were on a jury, you know you would have to say I have a vested interest in this case, I can’t sit on this jury, I’d like the same thing to happen.AM: But given that all law has involved European law that would virtually rule out all judges and I just put it to you that these are professionals whose job is to look at our Constitutional Law and take a decision on the basis of the law.NF: That’s fine, that’s fine.AM: It’s quite dangerous to call them -NF: That’s fine, but if they’ve been activists pushing for politically European integration they shouldn’t be making these judgements.
The Jeremy Hunt question (and note the loaded use of 'somehow') was:AM: A very straightforward choice here in a sense: three judges have come under pretty sustained attack for their judgement in the court, and it’s been reiterated again by Nigel Farage on the programme today, that they are somehow not independent butthey’re behaving politically. Nobody really from the government has come out to defend the judges, and therefore defend the judicial system. I wonder if you’d like to take this opportunity to do so?
Exactly. It wasn't a question to Hunt, but a demand.And Farage was agreeing with him(!) that it was outrageous to say all judges are suspect. Farage repeated that the point was about a specific activist judge or judges, not the entire judiciary. Yet Marr still spun it as an extreme remark. So dishonest, an Evan Davis special, really.And yes, I am disappointed that Neil is off for the week, so no watching that.
Why has the BBC decided to focus on this one issue? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37877321People get affected by all sorts of issues in campaigns- anyone who has lost a loved one in the Middle East wars, or to gun crime will also find memories surfacing. Why doesn't the reporter get on to them? Why? Because it doesn't serve the desired purpose.
Ah, that report was by Matt Danzico. There's an extensive archive on him at Biased-BBC:http://biasedbbc.org//?s=danzicoBefore joining the BBC he was an activist who toured the country campaigning for Barack Obama in 2008. His subsequent BBC reporting didn't entirely disguise that fact.
This morning on Start the Week there was an interview with Susie Orbach, described on the BBC schedule as a psychotherapist, psychoanalyst, writer, activist and social commentator, promoting her new series “In Therapy”. Her main point seemed to be that psychoanalysis can help us understand the world we live in, including among other things Brexit. The implication being that Leave voters were not merely stupid but also suffering from a form of neurosis. I’m sure I caught a grunt of approval from Andrew Marr in the background. One could imagine him nodding sagely at this latest piece of BBC arrogance.
Chief Inspector Marr of the Thought Police?
I don't think I can bear watching any election coverage this evening. It's far too depressing knowing that my country has reached the 'Fall of Rome' bit. We may not have elected Caligula, but it looks like we're getting the horse anyway.A pathological liar known to be corrupt and able to act recklessly and outside the law will be elected and too many people will breathe a sigh of relief. Utter madness.
Turn on the BBC today and enjoy - love or loath Trump the BBC isn't taking it well!
The last couple of years have not gone well for the BBC: their preferred candidates & causes have now been defeated in elections on both sides of the Atlantic and one referendum at home. We can now expect them to pour yet more of their energy, and bile, into their continuing anti-democratic Remain campaign.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.