...and any other matters that take our fancy
Andrew Marr to Kier Starmer: How will you stop Brexit? Do you think you can stop Brexit? The hope is that Starmer believes it's possible to defeat the Government if May doesn't get a partnership with the EU, whatever that means.An abrupt seque into asking if there really is a movement from Momentum and the far-Left to take over the Labour party. Hasn't that already happened? Tom Watson is just unhappy that his chance at the brass ring of leadership is slipping through his fingers, so we get this cry to close the barn doors after the horse has bolted.
Marr's interview with Amber Rudd was just more evidence of how wrong politicians and the media are on the issue of encryption, privacy, and the law. The answer isn't to give governments a back door into systems to get what they need. The solution is a proper legal framework - which I'm pretty sure already exists in the US as well as in the UK - to subpoena the relevant information. It's weird how it seems to take less political courage to demand that the CIA and FBI and MI5 be given the tools to spy into whatever they please, whenever they please - especially given the current public mood on spying - than it is to use the laws already on the books to get the necessary information.Rudd's other solution was something like getting WhatsApp and Twitter to start blocking jihadi hashtags. Yeah, that'll work.Yet another few minutes wasted on Parliamentary security and airline security, when the real question to the Home Secretary ought to be, why are career criminals running around free on the streets after the authorities know they've been radicalized and have visited Saudi Arabia.Marr's and his producer's bias on evidence throughout.
I am a climate change precautionist (not believer) but I think I just heard a fake news report on WATO about Miami being flooded out of existence within a few years because of climate change and more particularly Trump's refusal to accept all the claims of climate change activists. The item included a gratuitous reference from a speaker to "so called" President Trump which should have been edited out as it was irrelevant to the item. This article makes clear this is an area with some particular geological/human geography features that may exacrebate flood risk. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/10/miami-is-sinking-but-that-doesnt-mean-sea-levels-are-rising/We did not hear a real sceptical voice from a scientist on the WATO programme, only from a "Trump supporter" (again an irrelevance really). I think this was the worst sort of Fake News item that the BBC puts out on a regular basis. WATO also had a rather poor plug piece for Panorama from Jane Corbin (who's normally v. good) who could couldn't for the life of her think of a possible motive for the Westminster attack, although she did dwell on Masood being uncomfortable about his mixed race background/skin colour. Unbelievable and insult to all people of mixed race background I would say. Still, it is clear the BBC are not immune to public opinion. You know they would love to call him Adrian Elms but they have had to go with the flow and refer to him as Khalid Masoood, not wishing to try the public's patience too much in these populist times.
Latest BBC meme, repeated ad nauseam...there is no way all the trade negotaitions can be wrapped up within 2 years. This is in line with the general pro-Remain defeatism promoted by the BBC. The BBC don't seem able to find a single commentator who thinks it possible. But given there already exist the templates of the EEA agreement with EFTA, the Swiss treaties, CETA (trade ageement with Canada)and the trade agreement with South Korea, I am don't see any reason for pessimism. I can however understand why the EU and Remaniacs generally would want to drag out things. But in reality many of the texts from those treaties could be stitched together to create the UK-EU treaty. Another part of the BBC meme is that the BBC has "learnt" that government insiders don't think the walk away option is realistic. So there you go, the BBC lining up with the EU as per usual. As for the other "incredibly difficult" issues identified by BBC propagandists, well they are easily resolved. The row over our liabilities can easily be resolved by transfers from the international aid budget as has already been suggested, guaranteed for say 10-20 years. Let's say with assets and closer scrtuiny of the claim it's whittled down to £25 billion. That could be paid off over 20 years at say £1.5 billion pa (from the international aid budget) with interest. Other issues such as EU migrant status,mobile phone roaming, health services access, benefits access, migrant quotas and so on could easily be resolved through reciprocity agreements, similar to the agreement with EFTA.
The BBC's dishonesty on the AGW issue continues, as we knew it would, now that Trump has announced the beginning of his plans to scrap Obama's Warmist regulations.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39415631President Trump takes a very different approach to the environment from Mr Obama. The former president argued that climate change was "real and cannot be ignored".This is explicitly Warmist language, not honest. Nobody denies that the climate changes. In fact, a regularly changing climate is a fundamental part of the skeptical, anti-Warmist position. Trump doesn't deny the climate changes, either. He denies the faked science and the political agenda which underlies the AGW ideology. I know the argument from so-called journalists will be that everyone says 'climate change' now, so it's not bias when the BBC does it. This is wrong. It's the Orwellian language specifically of one side of a political issue. The reason they shifted from Anthropogenic (or human-driven) Global Warming to the unmodified term 'Global Warming' to the deliberately anodyne 'Climate Change' is because all the AGW threats turned out not to be true. Snow is not a thing of the past, real temperatures have not skyrocketed and instead plateaued over the last two decades, etc. So they had to change the terminology to stifle the debate.The BBC is complicit in this agenda, and no mistake.
Newsnight have a new reporter. Good, you say. We're tired of the old crew. Who is it? Some new thrusting newshound more in tune with these populist times? Er no - it's Nick Clegg, amazingly. Still an MP. Still a leading light in the Lib Dems. Still a leading Remaniac. And still not declaring an interest via his wife's EU earnings. And of course this report was all about obese, undereducated, racist South Walian Brexiters.
So much for the vaunted BBC editorial independence from political influence.
Just a brief (but important) observation....how often have we been told by UK media (including the BBC) that the EU-UK deal is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve because under Article 50 ALL 27 EU countries have to approve the terms of the withdrawal agreement (so we will back to being held ransom by the Walloons goes the story)...I've pointed out this is nonsense and the BBC have finally, some paltry credit to them, told the truth:"It says any exit deal must be approved by a "qualified majority" (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population) but must also get the backing of MEPs."However, like most EU projects, Article 50 seems a poorly constructed thing and may yet be subject to legal challenges. On the face of it, it appears to potentially ties a country to changes with constitutional implications, even if they oppose the withdrawl agreement. I would not be at all surprised if we see Gina Miller or her EU equivalent at the ECJ seeking emergency injunctions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NickBryantNYNick Bryant doesn't even bother to maintain a pretence of impartiality anymore.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512Just the latest poltiically motivated so called "Reality Check" from the BBC. What is the point of this "check". May was clearly making a political point. She never claimed it was irrevocable in law. Also, the Reality Check article makes the fake claim that the article was drafted with deliberate lack of clarity on the question of revokability. Where is the evidence for that? Lord Kerr was closely involved in its drafting and makes no such claim. Sounds like the BBC made that up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08k5d50/bbc-news-at-six-29032017The Remaniacs have asked all anti-Brexiters to wear balck on this sad day when Article 50 is invoked...So what do we see LK wearing? Black nail varnish as well.
Good spot. Pure bias. Screenshot captured.
Spotted originally by a poster on Biased BBC! Should have credited the author, but didn't take details.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.