Ever since the election was announced I have been avoiding bias-watching and blogging about political programmes. It’s not that I’m not interested, I certainly am. It’s just that I’m incapable of separating my subjective political views from the business of critically objective bias-watching.
I find it hard to leave my views at the door, so to speak, and as you’ll have noticed, the stop-watch department is in the hands of my co-blogger.
However, there are certain things that I might as well get off my chest. The only credible party at the moment is of course the Conservative Party. That goes without saying. But there are certain things that Theresa May has said that have me deeply worried. Policy issues.
One is her bizarre insistence that it’s only when violence is incited or is being plotted, or after it has taken place that we need to be concerned about Islamic extremism, let alone take action against the perpetrator. It’s plain stupid. As politicians are wont to say - “What kind of country do we want to live in?”
The other matter is the ring-fencing of international aid. I don’t even think it’s a vote-winner.
I watched Charlie Webster talking about her near-death experience from a malaria-related complication, and her heartfelt appeal for aid towards malaria prevention, worldwide. She said eradicating malaria is not only do-able, but in the long-term, completely cost-effective. I understand she spoke about this on Capitol Hill recently.
I’m sure there are other worthy causes we might support, and I have no problem with the government aiding genuinely humanitarian causes.
However, the waste associated with present arrangements concerning the distribution of our foreign is shameful. On The Conservative Woman Karen Harradine has written a powerful two-part study of how the DFID money is really spent, which you must read. That topic would make a terrific BBC investigation. You’d think they’d snap it up before Channel 4 gets its hands on it.
Not only the £800 that is being paid (from your money) by the PA as a monthly salary to the murderer of British student Hannah Bladon who happened to be travelling on the Jerusalem light railway when she was stabbed to death by a disgraced and certifiably insane Palestinian man who believed the act would give him “a way out of his problems”. Which it did - so, not quite so insane after all. That’s Mahmoud Abbas’s peacemaking strategy for you; his preparation for Statehood.
If Islamic terrorists were some sort of nihilist band it wouldn't much matter if we lost tens or even hundreds of people to their terror outrages. They would be pinpricks on the body politic.ReplyDelete
But they aren't nihilists...they have a political ideology that though loathsome has proved its efficacy over 1400 years and has even revived itself in modern times, when people's material lives are so much better.
It is the way that Islamic terrorism works in tandem with the wider pro-Sharia movement (both its "moderate" and more extreme wings) that is the danger. It gives the non-terroristic Sharia propagandists and organisers incredible leverage.
Part of the Sharia strategy has always been to deploy deception, and whether it's orchestrated or not, we see that working in many differents parts of our society...we see political parties of all kinds infiltrated by pro-Sharia operatives. To Conservatives they will present as pro-family tradionalists (despite being believers in polygamy), to Scots Nats they present as believers in national independence (when they believe in a global order), to Lib Dems they will present as being believers in freedom to worship and civil liberties(despite believing that apostates and those who satirise the Prophet should be condemned) and to Labour they pose as a persecuted ethnic minority (despite not being an ethnically defined group and despite being the persecutor wherever they gain the ascendancy).
Within the dominant liberal and professional elites, we see Sharia being promoted by its followers as compatible with freedom of speech, UK law, artistic freedom, parliamentary democracy, gender equality, gay rights and all our cultural traditions like sport, art and leisure, when clearly it is not.
Of course the BBC is a key organisation in enabling this deception. However it is not the only one. Virtually all professional elites, government agencies and media outlets are doing their bit for Sharia as well.
All we see is deliberate deception and desperate delusion on the grandest of scales.
The connection between these two concerns is Theresa May's foolishness and her fixation on rehabilitating the 'Nasty Party' image. The irony of her being the one who tarred her own party with that epithet goes without saying.ReplyDelete
Fixing an arbitrary percentage of GDP on foreign aid is virtue-signaling and nothing more. It is preening on the international stage, something done not for the suffering allegedly being helped by it but for the intended audience of comfortable Western nomenklatura and loud activist voices. The BBC is a major part of that. The fact that Theresa May (and Tory leaders before her) feel the constant need to appease them speaks volumes about how much influence they really do have.
"The only credible party at the moment is of course the Conservative Party. That goes without saying."ReplyDelete
Does it? A list of their significant achievements that can't be torn to pieces wouldn't be a very long list. In the sense that the opposition is weak, divided and ideologically adrift of the times, you might have a point but the notion that the Conservatives are "credible" needs some justification. Foreign aid is far from being the Conservatives only ill-judged use of public money, that would make a long list. A very long list.
As for the money that's going to the "murderer of...Hannah Bladon", a quick bit of research suggests that this is based on a claim from "Itamar Marcus, spokesman for the Israeli monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch" and that it actually means his family qualify for aid during his trial. A fact - or is it - opportunistically pounced upon by Israeli politicians. Now I don't know what the truth of this is, but neither do you and neither does Karen Harradine.
On foreign aid, I'd have to disagree with David (and Karen Harradine for that matter) this is "virtue-signalling". That's how it's sold perhaps, but it is far from the reality. Besides, since when have the Conservative Party gone out of their way to please "loud activist voices" (I'm assuming this means the "liberal left" that allegedly rule the World)?
"The only credible party at the moment is of course the Conservative Party. That goes without saying."Delete
Oddly enough, I almost had you in mind when I decided to write that.
Of course I did mean it as you guessed, i.e., in the sense of lack of credible alternative.
The more we see of Jeremy Corbyn’s murky past the less credibility he has - (I’m aware that a considerable number of politically illiterate adolescents see him as some kind of benign grampa - he ain’t) and even with the mini-revival of the Lib Dems, I don’t think Tim Farron is ready to rule the country. Do you?
As I said, those are the principles make me distrust Theresa May.
Islam is incompatible with ‘British Values’. It’s easy to say that if individuals want to practice any religion they should be free to do so in Britain, but sadly Islam is uniquely and inherently hostile and restrictive. Creeping “Islamisation” should be recognised for what it is and should not pandered to or sanitised by the government or by the BBC.
“France will have to learn to live with terrorism” says Macron, i.e., “resign yourself to it”. By the time Islamic-fuelled violence becomes the norm, it’s a bit late.
You may not like Itamar Marcus or PMW, but your argument against them contains little more than that. I take it that is why you doubt their word. However, the PA itself boasts of rewarding terrorism.
I used Hannah Bladon, and I assume Karen Harradine did too, mainly to bring home the absurdity of rewarding the killer of one of our own citizens. However the fact that foreign aid goes to the PA (who are proud of rewarding terrorism) is not disputed by Abbas or anyone else. It has been going on long before we were able to ‘opportunistically’ use the example of Hannah Bladon.
AnonAnon is coming over all innocent again...like he doesn't realise that most Palestinian Muslims think in terms of the family unit before they think of themselves as individuals. The money paid to families is a HUGE incentive to commit terrorist offences.Delete
Presumably you wouldn't mind if state funded charities in the UK paid the families of terrorists huge amounts of money.
"The more we see of Jeremy Corbyn’s murky past the less credibility he has - (I’m aware that a considerable number of politically illiterate adolescents see him as some kind of benign grampa - he ain’t) and even with the mini-revival of the Lib Dems, I don’t think Tim Farron is ready to rule the country. Do you?"ReplyDelete
I've got to be honest, you're rather complimentary to Theresa May and the Conservative Party. Jeremy's bad because he's pro-Palestine - and also you know, red flag, hammer and sickle. Tim's a bit of drip, bad hair, weak voice and all that gay stuff. Which just leaves saintly Theresa, formerly a bumbling incompetent stern but weak-voiced harridan with bad hair. Now guilty only of a harmless move to a fantasy world where she is reborn as a 50s matinee siren in "Brexit means Brexit".
As stated, I'd love to know just what's so "credible" about Theresa and the Conservatives. I'd agree the other two are idiots, but the notion that Theresa doesn't join them in that regard is nonsensical. None of them deserve the thumbs-up.
"You may not like Itamar Marcus or PMW, but your argument against them contains little more than that. I take it that is why you doubt their word. "
I don't know Itamar Marcus or PMW, do you? The point was the apparent ease with which you accept the every utterance of pro-Israel (and mostly funded by Israel) outlets. There's a definite bias and weighting of stories in regard to Israel, ever-growing on this blog, which just strikes me as a little odd on a site complaining of bias.
"Presumably you wouldn't mind if state funded charities in the UK paid the families of terrorists huge amounts of money."
You can presume whatever you like, however twisted and divorced from reality that may be. Point out to me where my support for terrorism in any guise is evident.
I used to think it was possible to debate with you, but sorry AnonAnon, it seems I was mistaken.Delete
The BBC’s anti-Israel bias is arguably the most egregious and long-standing bias of all. It’s the Mother of all biases. Or the Daddy, if you’re not a feminist. So how can pro-Israel utterances “funded by Israel” (!) that appear on a blog about BBC bias be - in any way, shape or form - “odd”??
By the way, if it looks to you as if pro-Israel pieces are ‘ever growing’ on this site it’s down to the erratic blogging patterns of the authors. Sometimes it’s all Craig; at other times it’s all me. Suck it up :-)
"So how can pro-Israel utterances “funded by Israel” (!) that appear on a blog about BBC bias be - in any way, shape or form - “odd”??"Delete
Because they may indeed be biased sources in their own right. How do you go about validating them? Are you suggesting that Israel does not fund propaganda? As an additional point, I'm just wondering why the fixation on Israel here on this site - I'm British, I assume you are too and we already have BBCWatch "monitoring BBC Coverage of Israel". How impartially that is, seems not to be a concern.
It's a question you answer with the "BBC’s anti-Israel bias is arguably the most egregious and long-standing bias of all". Arguably. Don't we have domestic problems the BBC are failing to deal with adequately?
1.) All sources are biased one way or another. The BBC, The Daily Mail, The Palestine Telegraph and the Times of Israel. Where do you get your news? (and how do you go about validating it?)Delete
2.) Who funds any propaganda? (I don’t get any funding, obvs.)
3.) How many outlets, in your view, should be entitled to monitor the BBC’s coverage of Israel? If something needs monitoring, the more the merrier, I say.
4.) Your reminder about our domestic problems is whataboutery. With luck Craig will redress the (im)balance over the weekend. Meanwhile, another minority interest post above.
Personally I’m rather glad that istheBBCbiased draws attention to what is practically an institutional anti-Israeli bias at the BBC. I hope that Sue and Craig continue to do so. If you choose to interpret this as a fixation I doubt whether anyone can persuade you otherwise. However, blogs are created by individuals, they are not official bodies. If Sue and Craig choose to highlight a particular area of bias that is their choice, but that is not as you seem to suggest another form of bias. I am not a prolific frequenter of blogs, so I have no idea about the content of BBCwatch, but whatever it is I really fail to see how it is relevant to your argument. In fact all I can say about that is: so what? I too am British, but once again how is that relevant? The BBC despite its name is an international organisation, why wouldn’t this blog reflect that?
As to your previous post, you don’t seem to like the present crop of politicians much. Well, many people might agree with you, but all you have presented to us here is a couple of paragraphs of name-calling. Okay so don’t like Theresa May, but at least present a coherent argument.
"Okay so don’t like Theresa May, but at least present a coherent argument."Delete
Well I asked the question why is Theresa May the only "credible" choice as stated - where was the coherent argument in that case? Absent. I actually made the effort to make it clear that JC and TF don't impress me either, but I'm baffled at how TM and her Conservatives could have impressed anyone. I'm intrigued to know.
"I have no idea about the content of BBCwatch, but whatever it is I really fail to see how it is relevant to your argument."
BBCWatch is part of a bigger group of sites funded by a pro-Israeli lobby group. It is frequently quoted on here to prove BBC bias.
"All sources are biased one way or another. The BBC, The Daily Mail, The Palestine Telegraph and the Times of Israel. Where do you get your news? (and how do you go about validating it?)"
It wasn't the point. The point was you choose to use biased sources, accepting them at face value, to illustrate the bias you allege of another institution. That's obviously problematic. Or is it not?
No, it’s not problematic, and it *was* the point. We’ve had this discussion before.Delete
All human sources are necessarily “biased”. All news-gathering is based on hearsay, rumour, lobbying, selected testimony from witnesses, and it’s all filtered through the lenses of reporters with pre-conceived ideas and editors with agendas before it reaches your screen.
Matti Friedman gives examples of the ‘attitude’ that determines what is and isn’t covered by Associated Press, the source of much of the reporting we receive.
Those of us (you) with a pre-conceived antipathy to the likes of Matti Friedman would view his words with suspicion, whereas I believe everything he says. When you look at the reporting you can see the evidence; the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
On the other hand, I know many Arabists who will laugh off the quirks, idiosyncrasies and unreliability of their religious Arab friends and acquaintances, yet still choose to believe their word against Matti Friedman’s.
I contend that there is no such thing as true impartiality, nor should there be.
I certainly do use trustworthy (pro Israel) “biased” sources, and a certain amount of first-hand experience before comparing my findings with material from other sources.
You’ve got it into your head that the ‘Israel Lobby’ is some sort of commercialised mechanism for falsifying the truth. That’s not how it works. The opposite is nearer to the truth. Arab money and influence has far more sway over the news we get than any real or imaginary Israel Lobby. As a result reporting on the Middle East is riddled with distortion and falsification.
There are dozens of anti-Israel websites and news outlets for every pro-Israel one. Yes, BBCWatch is affiliated with Camera and UK Media Watch. This site, Biased-BBC, News-Watch and The Conservative Woman overlap in many ways.
There are numerous left-wing websites and blogs that equally overlap and echo one another. Hundreds and thousands of them.
Press TV is funded by Iran, Qatar funds al-Jazeera, Russia is behind RT and Channel 4, the BBC and the Guardian are virtually run by members and ex-members of the (pre-Corbyn) Labour Party. Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Daily Mail is OMG, the Telegraph has recently turned sharp left and the Times has gone soft.