Monday 23 October 2017

Reading material

In light of yesterday's post Flying Feathers and Ad HomsNews-watch's latest reports are now out and (as ever) open to public inspection:

General methodologies are provided, and each report lays out its particular variations on that methodology as it proceeds.

Please read them for yourselves and form your own opinions as to whether you find them credible and compelling.

Or, if you can't be bothered doing that, you could just take the ad hominem route instead


  1. Seems a chap has pointed this out already.

  2. Then there's bias by framing...Evan Davies on Newsnight last night frames the question as "what sort of WELCOME should we give" the IS returnees. See what he did there? The possibility of not giving them ANY sort of welcome at all is ruled out at the start of the item.

    Then there's bias by naming. Very few "Brits" or "British" would refer to the IS returnees as "Brits" or "British". But ITV and BBC were doing it last nauseum (and I do mean nauseum) despite there being alternatives (UK passport holders, UK citizens, people legally entitled to live in the UK, Jihadis from this country etc).

    Blind eye bias. Turn a blind eye to the bleedin' obvious. To hear Evan Davies talk it was as though there might be a question mark over whether the returnees could be prosecuted. Travelling abroad to join IS is a serious criminal offence punishable by several years in prison!...numerous people have been prosecuted for attempting to do so, so there is absolutely no doubt that every single one of the returnees (if adults) had committed an offence by doing so and could be prosecuted. So, the REAL question, the one that neither the BBC nor ITV would address is "Why the hell have these extremely dangerous IS recruits not been prosecuted?" It's difficult to think of a more serious offence...far more serious than dodging the licence fee, certainly. So why are they being let off?

    Clearly part of it has to do with the influence of people like the ex Director of Global Terrorism (I think that was his title - odd title!) who are extremely worried about Jihadis propagating their beliefs in the prison system (so why not hold them in solitary?) and who have this naive belief that people who seek to cause terror abroad will not wish to do so at home. To hear him talk was to hear the weakness and vacillation of our elite exposed. They are perfectly happy to risk the health and happiness of concert goers, football supporters, innocent people on a night out, rather than the health and happiness of returning Jihadis. Indeed Evan even offered up one of his musing-style questions (i.e. what he really thinks) suggesting we might "nurture" them (ie give them nice well paid jobs not open to law abiding citizens of this country who didn't go to fight for US).

    Lastly I observe the word "treason" did not get a mention, despite the fact our forces were engaged with IS and the fact that IS are dedicated to the removal of Crown and Parliament in the UK. Why? There could hardly be a more obvious act of treason than going to fight for, or even just support on the ground, IS.

    1. Well argued. "I have not left my country, my country has left me" springs to mind. 'Liberalland' is not a place I want to live in. Still that's democracy; we get the leaders we deserve. It's a shame our tax funded national broadcaster can't seem reflect all sides of a debate without putting their stamp on it.

  3. That was quite a read! What has become clear is that the creation of the fiction that the Labour Party is the party of Remain is deliberate, both on the part of Labour and the BBC. The reasons are obvious as are the reasons why this has been carried out by omissions and implication rather than clearly stated positions. In reality the issue for Corbyn is not Brexit at all but getting into power. I seriously doubt if Corbyn has ever been in favour of the EU. He will continue to this end to try to discredit the governments approach to the negotiations.

    On one hand are the traditional Labour voters who largely voted Leave and on the other hand are the new wave of young Labour supporters who predominately voted Remain. There are also the middle-class Remain voters who have been taken in by the fiction of Labour as Remain. In Corbyn’s mind the latter might be the key and worth losing some of his traditional support to keep on side with calls for a “soft Brexit”. He will probably gamble that traditional Labour supporters are more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative.

    The position of the BBC is both more simple and more complicated. Initially hostile to Corbyn, whilst remaining loyal to Labour they have gradually become more sympathetic to the idea of a Corbyn led government. They also want at the very least a neutered Brexit. I believe they think by maintaining the fiction of a united Labour they can have both.

    1. UKIP's finished. Now led by a Liberal Democrat.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.