New Open Thread
Now with bonus image, courtesy of Loondon Calling:
Arrival of the Floating Pool: After 40 years of crossing the Atlantic, the architects/lifeguards reach their destination. But they hardly notice it: due to the particular form of locomotion of the pool - its reaction to their own displacement in the water - they have to swim toward what they want to get away from and away from where they want to go. Extract from Delirious New York by Rem Koolhaas
Guido has a great story tonight on Corbyn meeting with a loopy far left anti-Israel Jewish group Jewdas...ReplyDelete
Oddly, the world class billion plus BBC News organisation hasn't managed to get this story yet. Odd!
Sky News are managing to report on it...but so far NOTHING on the BBC News website despite it being "world class", "trusted" and most definitely not "Fake News". :)Delete
They were late but it's now the main BBC News website story. It's a lead story on Radio 4 and the BBC News Channel too, and the Corbynistas are already out in force denouncing the BBC for "taking their lead news from Guido Fawkes". ("Your obvious bias and collusion with Tory allies", the BBC is "a functioning arm of the Tory hate machine" etc).Delete
As for Jeremy Corbyn, Stephen Pollard puts it best: "Jewdas are of course entitled to their views and represent a strand within Jewish community. Point is that they have publicly and angrily dismissed concern of vast majority of Jews over Lab antisemitism as based on smears. And Corbyn has made a public show of support".
Yes, but see below how they headline it..."Jeremy Corbyn visits a left wing Jewish event".Delete
The most important point I think is that Jewdas are virulently anti-Israel referring to the legitimate state of Israel as sewage that needs to be disposed of. How could any mainstream UK politician associate themselves with such a group?
On one hand Corbyn wants to keep up the “not an anti-Semitic bone in his body” message for the general public, and at the same time keep his deeply unpleasant anti-Semitic supporters on board. Jewdas must have seemed almost too good to be true to Seamus Milne or whoever organises these stunts.Delete
Another anti-Trump Reality Check but they are now roping in the US correspondents to disprove anything Trump does or says.ReplyDelete
The "reality" is that the US economy (which really includes Canada's economy as well, being so integrated) is a continental economy. It was incredibly self-sufficient and still is in many ways e.g. its food surplus is phenomenal. But successive presidencies have opened up the US economy to predation for a variety of political and short term financial reasons. Trump is reversing that trend, and building up the US economy, understanding just how strong it is potentially.Delete
Talking about BBC US correspondents, I see Katty Kay has changed her Twitter profile image.Delete
Yes, KattyKayBBC is now using her BBC-branded Twitter feed to plug her new book, 'The Confidence Code for Girls. Taking Risks, Messing Up, and Becoming Your Amazingly Imperfect, Totally Powerful Self' - tagline, "Girls can rule the world. All you need is confidence."
One of the most annoying things about virtue signalling BBC presenters is that they are in complete denial on the lookism front. The idea that all an extremely fat ugly girl needs is "confidence" to become a BBC America lead presenter is just absurd.Delete
The second is that they think it's not sexist to work towards the female gender "ruling the world".
Damage limitation by headline:ReplyDelete
Apparently the BBC think it's news that Jeremy Corbyn visits a "left wing Jewish event"...er no, the reason that's news and why it has been treated properly as such by Guido and Sky is that the group Jewdas (a very weird name choice for a Jewish group in any case) is (a) rabidly anti-Israel and (b) thinks claims of anti-semitism within the Labour Party are part of a smear campaign.
BTW, heard most of Nick "Trust Me" Robinson's interview Momentum's John Lansmann. Was one of those "mock tough" affairs that actually dodged the most difficult questions. In the end JL was simply being invited to state clearly that Corbyn was not an anti-semite. Hardly challenging, however mock-confrontational in style Robinson tried to make it sound.
The 'Arrival of the Floating Pool' image above brought to mind a representation of BBC Groupthink - an assembly of on-message eager-beavers swimming determinedly in formation with their heads down under instruction from an unseen power. The unstinting glare of their eyes do not register that their focus has become red on green, and that by swimming towards their point of interest, they are inadvertently distancing themselves from it.ReplyDelete
Occasionally, a thought-provoking piece will appear on the BBC News website. This is one such from last week:ReplyDelete
'Searching for the sublime: The man who paints in the ocean'
This article is about artist Peter Matthews, who paints whilst floating in the sea. Of course his canvas gets wet, but unlike most painters who would be horrified at the thought, the wetness becomes part of his method. I was confused because the artwork illustrated was abstract and I couldn't see why he needed to spend hours actually in the sea - wouldn't his bath at home been just as good? It wasn't as if he was looking at the view.
All in all though, this was a well written piece giving an insight into a creative mind's eye. Because the work had a 'traumatic water birth' and could not possibly become any more damaged by water, it seemed to be a release for the artist. His discomfort also became part of the package. The finished work had been created by PM's trials at the vagaries of the sea.
Contrast this with the return of The Big Painting Challenge, which launched on Sunday. As you will remember, this series follows a group of amateur artists as they undertake a number of painting exercises. I would much rather watch a programme which shows us how a professional accomplished artist might put difficult or stimulating subjects onto canvas by demonstrating their own work. The Big Painting Challenge seems to encourage the waste of perfectly good, and very expensive materials.
BTW, Did anyone hear the veneration of saint winne mandela on the Jeremy Vine abomination today ?ReplyDelete
Expect many tributes and eight hour live coverage of her cremation in Soweto. (Sponsored by Pirelli,Esso and Swan-Vesta)
The BBC is engaged in a full scale Rotheram-style cover up of what's going on in South Africa today. Maintaining the lying fantasy that Winnie Mandela was a "liberator" is part of that bigger lie.Delete
Nelson Mandela I think is another matter, even if John Bercow's FCS gang wanted him hanged as a terrorist. People deprived of the vote have a natural right to rebel against oppression. He was a man of much higher moral standing than his wife, albeit he was a wife-beater in the 50s.
I think Nelson Mandela realized he had returned to a very different world from the one which he was incarcerated in. As such he held South Africa together as President and should be applauded for that. Of course now South Africa will go the way of Zimbabwe, if the Zimbabwe politicians have any sense (and they may well have) they might welcome South African farmers and wealth generators (whites) to build a successful Zimbabwe from the ashes.Delete
From Mail Online - more details about the appalling Jewdas event attended by (and lauded by) Corbyn...not exactly a mainstream Jewish event:ReplyDelete
QUOTE: Last night, extraordinary details emerged of Jewdas's controversial history and Monday night's event, at which attendees shouted 'f*** capitalism' as a plate of beetroot from Mr Corbyn's allotment was raised in the air. The Daily Mail can reveal:
In a programme for the event, Jewdas mocked the dipping of food in salt water, symbolising tears of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt, as 'a weird Jewy thing';
They also boasted that 'everything about it [the event] is heretic, nothing that the rabbis would allow';
During the four-hour ceremony, which Mr Corbyn attended for its full duration, those gathered chanted 'f*** the police', 'f*** the Tories', and said they wanted to 'bring about a revolution';
Last year, Jewdas published an offensive 'prayer' about the Royal Family that ended with the words, 'F*** the Queen and especially f*** Prince Philip' and called for Parliament to be burnt down.
One Jewish group said Mr Corbyn's attendance had 'topped off the worst week on record for awful relations between the Labour Party and the Jewish community'. Community leaders said it was clear his pledge to be 'an ally against anti-Semitism' could not be taken seriously. UNQUOTE
Re Corbyn's probs, it's nice to see a leftie being hoisted by their own petard. :)ReplyDelete
As the BBC folk say about their retweets, this isn't an endorsement...ReplyDelete
...but there is clearly a lot in there that is real news and will never see the light of day on the BBC.
This is an interesting story...ReplyDelete
Not so much the link but the fact the BBC have I think buried a story they had on their website about Trump having a "rant" about the Honduran march based on him watching a TV programme (yes, they were getting in all their tropes). But I can't now find a reference to this article within the BBC search facility or Google.
Can the BBC "disappear" stories by changing their headlines I wonder?
Nice bit of work by the BBC reporter (one of the hundreds working in the USA it would seem) at You Tube reporting last night on the shooting. He said it would be inappropriate to discuss what was being said on social media but gave the strong impression that it was the work of a far right nutter whose videos had been censored. We now find it was the work of an Iranian Muslim vegan...you can see why the BBC might be a bit reluctant to come out with the details.ReplyDelete
Usual BBC output: obsessing about American politics (why?) over which we have no control and which aren't really our concern, promoting racial division and grievance, and failing to properly to define the object of inquiry (it's headlined: "Martin Luther King: Are there too many white politicians?"...a puzzling title).
Reality Check is now a complete parody of a what a Fact Checking service should be...ReplyDelete
They are even treating Diane Abbott's statements very seriously, as though they might have some tenuous connection to reality.
They go out of their way to state: "So it looks like Ms Abbott is right that the old regime was not particularly effective at targeting people who were committing crimes." Well, yes, it might be if that's what she was claiming. But the article makes clear it wasn't effective at stopping gun and knife crime.
I am not personally a fan of stop and search. No one likes being stopped and searched - it p's me off no end at airports. I am a fan of patrolling, preferably on foot, which is what first brought down New York's appalling crime rate.
But I am also a fan of mothers not being encouraged to have babies in the teens, the BBC not popularising gang violence via music on Radio 1 Extra, not pandering to the "victim culture" which the BBC does all the time and not using race to divide society (something the BBC loves to do).
Reality Check went rogue when the instigator and creator left the BBC - James Harding. It is now just another tool for the BBC to peddle their worldview. It’s nothing more than the fake news it was designed to challenge.Delete
What an odd little footnote appearing at the bottom of migrant stories on BBC website. Interesting that they now feel the need to justify their terminolgy.ReplyDelete
A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries such as Syria, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants.
I think that note has been there for at least a year. It does read as if all 'migrants' are expected to be accepted. My understanding is that the 'legal process of claiming asylum is quite simple. The BBC is just covering up the fact that some 'migrant' choose not to claim asylum in the hope that they can reach their country of choice.Delete
Anyone think maybe momentum enforcers have been around to NBH today ?ReplyDelete
After the mention of the Corbyn / Jewdas affair yesterday, the BBC News at Ten went full native this evening, leading on how the government is mishandling the Salisbury affair, and implying that Jeremy Corbyn may have shown wisdom and good counsel after all by suggesting the Russians may not be behind the attack?
Yes, I think there was an element of that. The BBC were keen to get away from the Jewdas story which is really, really toxic the more you look at it. Jewdas is clearly a loony left, Israeliphobic, Judaism-mocking, nationalism-hating and barmily anti-capitalist outfit. I guess its membership is made up of trustafarian-type sons and daughters of well off hard working Jewish families who must be deeply ashamed of their useless offspring.Delete
They're definitely trying to counter all the well-deserved adverse publicity Corbyn has been getting over anti-semitism. Perhaps they're horrified at how objective some of their recent coverage has been. How many people will be taken in by the image of Corbyn as the wise & kindly elder statesman who just loves playing with children (6pm news)? Probably not many, but never mind, the BBC's spin gave another opportunity to bash Boris.ReplyDelete
More so than ever, London has become a battleground wherein politically the winner takes all. Two party politics now has little to do with issues outside the Capital. The vast majority of the UK electorate have become nothing more than spectators - watching a match where every shot is below the belt, and any hope of decency in rational well-reasoned debate has been trashed.ReplyDelete
The BBC are a central contributor to this downward spiral into hopelessness. They are acting as a second-rate ineffective referee - unable to penalise or prevent foul behaviour - seeming to enjoy the cut and thrust regardless of the damage they are facilitating.
A solution would be to work towards moving organisations' headquarters away from London. Charities, Government, the Bank of England, commercial and industrial firms, could all operate quite satisfactorily away from London. If dependence upon the Capital as a location diminished, then this ugly spectacle surrounding two-party politics in Westminster and the London Boroughs might cease - or at least the in-fighting might be for just the scraps not for the banquet. What better start would there be but to move the parliament to a new location closer to the centre of the UK - Cheshire or Lancashire? The BBC already have a huge white elephant there don't they?
I agree with much of what you say, Loondon, but not the second paragraph - even a second-rate referee would make an attempt at balance, the BBC just chooses its preferred side and promotes it.Delete
As someone who values our history, "our island story", I wouldn't want us to abandon the Palace of Westminster as the home for our parliament. But there is no reason why many other institutions couldn't be relocated. London has become a huge bloodsucking toad sitting on the rest of the nation - I say that as a Londoner! :) It would be good to reintroduce the policy followed from 1950 to 1970 of reducing its population. That will obviously reduce pressure on housing.Delete
We should be investigating something like the hyperloop system, currently under development in the USA, which will carry people in a "tube" up to 700 MPH. Somewhere in the Midlands would be only 10-15 minutes away from the capital.
I’m hopeful HS2 will help with that, London’s currently about a 1 hour 30 minute train journey from my bit of the world. HS2 will make it less than an hour, which would make it commutable everyday.ReplyDelete
You make my point for me - 'less than an hour' presupposes that London will be your destination. When HS2 is up and running, I wonder how many commuters will be heading from London to Crewe.Delete
Probably very few of those who've ever seen the place!Delete
Where's that Reality Check thing when needed?ReplyDelete
From The Guardian:
The BBC has admitted that a scene from a television documentary series showing tribal people living high up in treehouses was faked by the makers of the programme.
In a statement the BBC said: “The BBC has been alerted to a breach of editorial standards in an episode of Human Planet from 2011 which concerns the Korowai people of Papua New Guinea.
There was also the case of them using footage of the Dolomites in a bit about Nepali yak herders on 'Earth’s Natural Wonders'.Delete
God, Mary Beard is useless as Front Row presenter. Holding a tutorial. Looking very pleased with herself. She seems to think she's very clever. Overall effect is amateurish and shambolic.ReplyDelete
I kept thinking she was going to 'lose it' every time she giggled and sounded breathless. Nerves? Who knew Brucie's 1970s version of 'The Generation Game' was such a desparate cry of reactionary angst on the part of the BBC? The panel didn't really seem to buy her take on that!Delete
I thought the funniest bit was when she ventured the dangerous thought that the gay play had what would be viewed as a stereotypical ideal of marriage had the characters been straight rather than gay. When she realised she wasn't getting any sympathetic mmms from the stern Ms Bakewell (casting a beady eye over her lack of professional presenting skills I felt), the 8-month pregnant woman (who looked like she wanted to be anywhere else but under hot studio lights), the "unknown poet" and Mark Gattis (is he gay? I don't know but what was he doing there? - researching for material??)...she visibly blushed and tried to laugh off the comment.Delete
Episode 1 of Cunk on Britain was broadcast the other day. It's an amalgam of other successful 'takes' on British history, such as '1066 and all That'. If you're looking for it on i-player, it's to be found under comedy - there's plenty of unnecessary bad language, so that makes it comedy - right?. The northern dialect is provided by Diane Morgan - the programme is produced and in part written by Charlie Brooker.ReplyDelete
There's more than a hint of Monty Python's Life of Brian - What have the Romans ever done for us?, and use is made of the Ali G interviewing technique aimed at making serious-minded people look foolish. My guess is that the guests would not have been made aware that they were to be involved in a comedy show. Clips of the interviews were short anyway, no doubt they were abruptly brought to an end as the penny dropped, and the interviewees walked away. There's a little of the Gervais/Merchant/Pilkington idiot abroad.
'Now we've got our country back' was amongst the opening narrative, said by an actor pretending to be an uneducated northern idiot. Brexit related?
Charlie Brooker says it all. Where does the Cunk come from? I guess they were looking at Cnut and that was the best they could come up with. BTW, why do our PC historians insist we change long established spellings like Boadicea and Canute? Why does the BBC insist it's Mumbai not Bombay but Rome not Roma and Finland not Suomi? Why are PC nutjobs so annoyingly Cunkishly inconsistent?Delete
There was a Cunk on Christmas shown at Christmas 2016 - to the same format, by the same production team. No, I didn't see it at the time either.Delete
I stand corrected, Loondon. :)Delete
'Several dead as van drives into German crowd' per BBC News website. Surely, this should read 'Several dead as van is driven into German crowd'ReplyDelete
Agreed, this is a favourite BBC diversion tactic.Delete
Later on in the article it also states; In December 2016, a lorry ploughed into a crowd at a Christmas market in the German capital, Berlin, killing 12 people.
Strangely though, when it comes to their own property and the lives of their staff they seem happy to accept the idea of human agency...odd that...Delete
But that would imply that an actual person was responsible, which in turn might encourage speculation as to what kind of person, and we really can't have that.Delete
I expect the German authorities will declare that the van was mentally ill.ReplyDelete
They already have - see Guardian reportDelete
Thanks Weasel! The 'van' in my above comment wasn't a typo, by the way!Delete
If the issue is mental health, why can't the BBC just have it as "Lunatic drives van into innocent people - several deaths." Or if that is too much, how about "Nutter drives car into innocent people - several deaths".Delete
I'm not really an Americo-obsessive...I'm just tracking the BBC's US obsession...ReplyDelete
What I am wondering now is when the BBC will decide to mention Q Anon.
This has been going on more than six months but the MSM has maintained a studied silence until the last couple of weeks...now the New York Times has broached the subject, that's like the Guardian giving the lead to the BBC...so will they break their silence soon? My prediction is yes.
The pressure of events in the US over the next few weeks will I predict stress-test the MSM in ways it has never been tested before.
We shall see if I* am a better pundit than Jon Sopel, Katty Kay and the rest who all seem obsessed by Stormy Daniels.
*Obviously not "I" but the stuff I read that the BBC considers verboten.
The MSM can't ignore Roseanne Barr who has had such a huge success with her revived "Roseanne" comedy programme.Delete
She tweeted this.
"President Trump has freed so many children held in bondage to pimps all over this world. Hundreds each month. He has broken up trafficking rings in high places everywhere. notice that. I disagree on some things, but give him benefit of doubt-4 now."
CNN then tried some damage limitation on this.
From Briebart: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/08/housing-minister-admits-migration-pushed-house-prices-20-per-cent/ReplyDelete
'At Last: Tory Housing Minister Admits Mass Migration Has Pushed House Prices Up 20 Per Cent'
Maybe this revelation will be followed by similar statistics on the effects of mass migration on the NHS and schools.
When have you ever heard of an "academic" study of the economic impact of mass immigration ever take into impact house price inflation caused by mass immigration. 20% of the average value of a property in London will mean something like £100,000 or double that if you take out a mortgage. £100,000 over a working life of 40 years is £2,500 per annum. You'd have to earn another £3,500 at 40% tax rate to cover that.Delete
Have Reality Check been reading us? They seem to have reverted to the clear "claim and verdict" format, which at least reduces chances of obfuscation. As a number of us have noticed, in recent months, Reality Check has been drifting into personal view essay territory.ReplyDelete
So, here's the latest I've seen:
"The claim: The Labour MP published a tweet suggesting rising violent crime could be linked to cuts in young people's services.
Verdict: Youth services have seen big cuts in their budgets over the past few years. However, it's impossible to make a clear link between that and a rise in violent crime."
Wow! What an amazing verdict!!! I think anyone could have told them that before they got going and saved them the expense and trouble of producing the "verdict"...any crime issue is going to have highly complex causality. In the case of youth knife crime, there can be a whole raft of potential causes including lax policing, lenient sentencing, lack of discipline in schools, lack of home discipline, poverty, single parent families or chaotic parenting, social media, cultural, group dynamics, environmental health, youth service provision, economic prospects, and musical genre. To try and isolate and quantify the impact of one factor (which in turn will be multifactorial) is literally impossible. You can only apply common sense.
This is the problem with Reality Check. Rather than confining itself to claimed facts that can be properly checked and verified they drift into areas of causality, preference, ideology and futurology. They end up making fools of themselves. When they do deal with matters of fact, they are often minor factual errors which are used to pursue vendettas against people they don't like.
Jenny "No Borders" Hill in full flow on BBC News tonight re Hungarian elections. Hungary at crossroads, polls suggest governing party doing far worse than expected, two insulting and hostile questions put to Orban (who answered with great dignity)...no mention of Mad Merkel Million Migrant gamble and the effect it has had on politics in Eastern Europe. No mention of Islamic terror attacks. Was this an impartial report? Only if you were a Tony Blair, a Lord Adonis, an Alistair Campbell or an Amber Rudd. Otherwise, no.ReplyDelete
So "experts" at the BBC completely misread the Hungarian election results, reports all day of "unusually high turnout) and Orban facing his majority being "slashed".ReplyDelete
And it turns out he is comfortably returned for a third term, oh well.
The reporting of the Hungarian election was no better than wishful thinking by BBC left wing-liberal journalists. They should all be sacked.
You're right Marianne, just wishful thinking.Delete
The BBC are now having to tell the truth about Orban's stunning victory...
If a UK party got two-thirds of the seats in Parliament it would be described as a landslide...but, no, not when it's Orban. Will be interesting to see how Jenny Hill reports on this now.
She clearly is not an impartial reporter but simply a cheerleader for PC multiculturalism, no borders globalism and the death of Europe.
Will probably be black arm bands for the BBC News readers.
Spot-on Marianne & MB! I haven't chuckled so much at the Beeb's expense since the Referendum result! Even this morning they can't bring themselves to admit it WAS a landslide, saying just Orban has 'claimed a landslide.' It'll be interesting to see how they spin this one; my guess is they'll push it right down the batting order, then quietly bury it. Well, it wouldn't do to go giving people ideas, would it?Delete
You were right - it was an indecently hasty burial of the news. Jenny's gone for a long lie down, Mark Easton is writing a piece about the spectre of populism still stalking central Europe and John Humphries is practising his derisive snort for when he next has to mention "Viktor Orban".Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
The spin has already started: Orban 'loses the youth vote,' so he's been elected by the fogey vote, the same sort of people who voted Leave in our Referendum- there must be a hell of a lot of fogies in Hungary to give him a 2/3rds majority though!Delete
Unbelievable: on the 9a.m. News Channel bulletin, they have just totally failed to mention the Hungarian election result! They did manage to cover the Olivier Awards, though. I feel a complaint coming on!Delete
Sisphyus - I noticed that on the 10am bulletin! Bias by memory hole. It was in all ways a stunning victory for Orban's party - but the BBC is studiously avoiding all such "celebratory" descriptors (unlike in the case of Macron who has yet to win a second term).Delete
Another weird part of the BBC's coverage is that they keep saying the alternative right wing party Jobbik have evolved from an extremist Far Right racist party into a "moderate nationalist" party...For all I know that might be true, but call me suspicious - I am wondering whether that was part of the set up so that the BBC could claim Hungarians had chosen "moderates" over Orban's "extremist" party had his party lost a substantial number of seats.
I imagine Jenny Hill is reaching for the valium today. Wasn't so long ago she was jumping up and down at a Berlin railway station shouting "Welcome to Germany" excitedly...careless of whether some of those being "welcomed" were ISIS sympathisers or haters of the West.
BTW Hungary "despite" setting its face against mass immigration (which the BBC constantly tells us is vital to a successful modern eoonomy) is enjoying rapid GDP growth rate at present (4-5%). Not something Jenny Hill mentioned but clearly a factor in Orban's success.
Thanks for confirming the Beeb's omission, MB, I was beginning to wonder if I'd fallen down a memory hole of my own!Delete
The Hungarian election made it on to the 1pm News Channel bulletin at about 1.16pm, presented by none other than...Jenny Hill! She either overdid the valium or didn't lie down for long enough, because she managed to announce that 'Victor Orban has done it again,' as if that was what she'd neen predicting all along, & then to confuse things by saying, 'Seemingly, he has won the election,' as if to suggest there had been skulduggery. The poor girl is clearly in denial.
'Ouest France,' that country's highest circulation daily paper, took a very similar line to the BBC, quoting a commentator who felt that the high turn-out would work against Orban & that he might lose his absolute majority - if he did, that would be 'the beginning of the end' for Orban. How strange that a staunchly pro-EU French newspaper and the BBC should apparently get their political analyses from similar sources!
Sisyphus - There was a typo in your last sentence, I think you must have meant "similar Soroses" .Delete
MB - Like it!Delete
Is the assessment of Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech on Radio 4 going to be "free, fair and impartial" as someone once said. Or we going to find it is bound by PC multiculturalist doctrine, deploys all the usual BBC deception tricks and is soaked through with bias? Judging by the trailer I expect the latter.ReplyDelete
Disclaimer: I am not a Powellite. I think in many ways he sabotaged the prospect for a sensible immigration policy by predicating his comments on race. But the speech deserves to be dealt with in a balanced way.
An example how they dealt with it 10 years ago (one of a series of reports):Delete
(starts at 19:52)
"I think in many ways he sabotaged the prospect for a sensible immigration policy by predicating his comments on race."ReplyDelete
Ah yes, we used to think Powell was wrong, now it is possible he was right, but if he hadn't have scared us we wouldn't have closed our ears and instead followed a sensible policy. Yeah, right.
I must have missed the 'gay' marriage, 'gender' pay gap and anti-abortion frighteners in his 'rivers of blood' speech that closed off debate in those areas too.
We're all entitled to our views.Delete
My point is that his warning could have been couched in different terms. Also, I would say that his refusal to establish a separate party once he was forced from the shadow cabinet meant the Conservative establishment were able to completely suppress public opinion on the subject of mass immigration and also EEC membership.
I think he gave us the worst of all possible worlds: framing the migration debate in terms of race, failing to establish a separate party that could voice concerns and linking it all up with right wing free market economics, which again turned off a lot of Labour voters. As I said, I am not a Powellite.
I am not saying Powell single-handedly could have stopped mass immigration and the move to a European superstate but I am saying that overall he facilitated both, rather putting up a roadblock.
The past is a foreign country as they say. Can you believe this is from a Guardian (yes, Guardian) editorial in 1969 (by which time Powell seems to have moderate his language, perhaps in hope of preserving his prospects of becoming Tory leader):
"Now that Mr Powell has abandoned his reckless language and spurious statistics, it might be hoped that the two central questions raised by him can be debated calmly and sensibly: should not more be done to cut back the number of new immigrants?
Second, could the unfortunate concentration of coloured communities in a few areas of the country be altered more by voluntary repatriation than by a practical policy of dispersal?"
Yes, that was from the Guardian of old and it shows that there was potential consensus over putting in place more effective controls on migration. But it would have taken someone quite different to Powell to bring it to reality I think.
I also think that had Powell reigned back his colossal vanity and expressed himself in less theatrical terms we might have a more measured debate at the time.Delete
Heard Stephen Sackur on "Hardtalk" which should have been renamed PCTalk a long time ago. This time he had the leader of Norway's Progrees Party on and spent a long time berating her party for being (a) populist (b) opposed to mass immigration and (c) opposed to Islamification. He thought he had a slam dunk argument when he said how can Norway be subject to Islamification when only 4% of the population or 1 in 25 are followers of Islam...ReplyDelete
Has he never asked himself how Indians were subject to Imperialism by only 1 in 400 among them? Or how a small number of Europeans subjected huge numbers of Afrians to enslavement in the Caribbean.
And what does Islamification mean? It means changing the culture, changing the look of a place, changing the assumptions and so on. There is a lot of de facto Islamification in place already: Sharia courts operating, Islamic TV channels freely available, blasphemy against Islam treated as public order offences, Halal certification of meat for non-followers of Islam, official acceptance of polygamous relations, acceptance of FGM, exceptions from uniform rules and so on.
And how quickly can 4% become 20%? With natural increase, asylum migration, other migration, polygamy, chain migration, and marriage with members of the indigenous community way more quickly than you might think...as we see in the UK.
I heard that programme. She wasn't in the least put off her stride by any of his lame attempts. It was very refreshing to hear someone giving it clear and crisp with straightforward matter-of-fact answers and no handwringing. It was all delivered in perfect English too. I am full of admiration for that.Delete
I’m not sure the anyone at the BBC can ever ask those questions. They would lose their job. It’s completely against the values and beliefs of the corporation. Culturally impossible. And that’s the problem with so much of the output.ReplyDelete
Yes, but most of their reporters are v. intelligent, often having studied at our top institutions. They must know that they are lying either directly or by omission. So that's pretty shameful for a reporter.Delete
Just to expand on that - take the Newsnight "special" on the housing crisis during which no one mentioned a possible link between mass immigration and a housing shortage! All the BBC people present must have known that there was a possible link, indeed that there was very strong evidence to prove such a link. So it was a case of lying by omission.Delete
It appears there is a campaign amongst Rabid Remainers, now they can see Brexit is inevitable, to create a stab-in-the-back legend, with Lord Adonis (twittermania etc) to the fore in the legend formation.ReplyDelete
And in a gesture of magnificent absurdity, the claim is that the BBC is pro-Brexit and has allowed Brexit to happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As stab-in-the-back legends go, it's even loopier than the right-wing German legend that the German Army was not willingly surrendering in November 1918, but was undermined by the traitors on the home front. The idea that the BBC is anything other than erotically excited by all things Euro is just beyond all human understanding. :) The notion that they are actually facilitating is so off the scale as to be well, just off the scale. One has to ask why the BBC Reality Check aren't checking out this affront to reality! :)Surely the BBC could demonstrate that Adonis and Co's claim has absolutely no validity whatsoever.
Some people come across as positively unhinged by the referendum result - not mentioning any specific individual, you understand.Delete
Stuff that Jon Sopel and Katty Kay will never tell you (Part 23). Instead they will keep you completely in the dark about this:ReplyDelete
The Inspector General under the previous President was extremely concerned about secret material appearing on H. Clinton's private server but was marginalised and targetted for making clear his concerns.
Sopel, Peinaar and Bowen spouting opinion about Syria on tonight’s BBC1 news. Utter bollocks really, not objective reporting.ReplyDelete
Bowen saying Syria is already a mini World War. Sopel more interesting in rubbishing Trump than reporting on the seriousness of the potential conflict. “Bellicose Trump trading threats on twitter like a boxer at a weigh-in.” and “ the missile tweet is an insult to every US soldier fighting for their country.” All said with that lopsided smirk.
Surely you mean that "free, fair and impartial" smirk.Delete
You wouldn't really take seriously anything those three said would you? They've been wrong about so much so often.
My view is that the BBC has a lot of responsibility for the massacre and mayhem in Syria. They were key authors, along with CNN, Sky and others of the "Arab Spring" narrative by which Arab countries were suddenly becoming converts to liberal democracy. Syria was supposed to be at the end of a long list of "successes".
Of course it was all a big lie as these were mostly Sunni Muslim Brotherhood revolts (a particularly incendiary prospect in Syria with its patchwork of religious belief and Shia government).
There is no doubt the BBC were carelessly cheering the revolt against Assad. It was important to their PC Multiculturalist ideology that the Arab Spring "succeed" - more important than avoiding mass casualties. But they were pursuing a dangerous fantasy, one that led to an horrendous civil war and fuelled an opportunistic mass migration to Western Europe, which in turn led to Brexit...an irony of history!
Victoria Derbyshire, this a.m., informed us that May is considering joining the US in reprisals against Syria 'WITHOUT consulting Parliament'. The 'WITHOUT' was delivering in a tone calculated to convey scandalised astonishment, shock & scorn. Such reprisals come under the Royal Prerogative, & May is under no obligation to consult Parliament. Derbyshire went on to invite viewers' comments and made the required response very clear. Impartial BBC strikes again!ReplyDelete
Indeed - as far as I know, no constitutional writer has ever queried the right of the UK PM to launch nuclear weapons in response to an attack on their own initiative, without recourse to Parliament...there could hardly be anything more serious than that! But then again, constitutional theory and practice is probably not her strong suit...she's more a "would you like a tissue?" kind of presenter.Delete
Absolutely, MB. I find her totally unwatchable, but if you want to catch the 9a.m. bulletin of the News Channel, you have to endure a few minutes of V.D first!Delete
Is there any part of the BBC News website that doesn't stick to the BBC narrative instead of simply reporting the facts? See:ReplyDelete
Cliff Richard case 'likely to have massive implications' By Clive Coleman
Legal correspondent, BBC News.
In the headline 'likely to have massive implications' - why are there quote marks? Did someone else other than the BBC say this? If so, the BBC should give credit to whoever it was - it was probably the BBC who engineered the quote.
Reading down the page, there is a heading The Cliff Richard Case comprising of three paragraphs close to 100 words. The following paragraphs are about the background - including a prominently displayed photograph of Max Mosely and reference to ... published pictures and a video of him in a sex session with prostitutes...
There is another short paragraph towards the end of the CR Case of about 50 words.
Then we have another heading - The BBC Case, which starts thus:
... The BBC defence is in two parts...
This section carries on for ten paragraphs with very little background. It runs close to 500 words.
This article should be restricted to objective reporting of a case that starts today. But no, we have a one-sided preemptive plea from the defence dressed up as unbiased reporting. Bias towards their own is endemic within the BBC.
The BBC has no defence. What they did was reprehensible. It was character assassination driven by guilt about Savile.Delete
Guilt came into it, yes but also Cliff Richard (who I class as a sanctimonious prig, not a fan!) was already definitely a target for (a) supporting Mary Whitehouse back in the day, a key BBC hate figure (b) supporting the Conservative Party, also an object of the BBC's hate and (c) being an active believing Christian espousing traditional Christian ideas (not a trendy Anglican or Catholic), which we all know is completely unacceptable to the BBC unless the person is a member of the African-Caribbean communities.Delete
Anyone of those 3 would be enough to make him a target, but all 3 made him irresistible.
I'm not a fan either, but I do question the principles of the BBC when, on the day they are brought to court to defend a case, they choose to run a biased article which promotes their own defence, and takes a sideswipe at Sir Cliff Richard by associating him with the unsavoury goings-on of Max Mosely.Delete
As per MB above, ... being an active believing Christian espousing traditional Christian ideas... will rankle with the BBC, who prefer their rock stars from the past to be former wild out of control bad lads, who with a few platitudes (such as Eric Clapton saying: 'I used to be a racist, but I'm alright now!'), can be interviewed nowadays to come across as wise old relics of a past golden age with a humorous tale to tell.
I find it incomprehensible that the BBC see fit to give their own running report on this case which they are defending. BBC TV News headline tonight says 'Cliff Richard at the High Court' - phrased as if he is in the dock. It's the BBC who are defending their behaviour.Delete
Now, on the BBC News website we have http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43740665
Here, the BBC are giving a commentary on the case, their own case - as if they are in some way upholding the honour of the press citing public interest as their justification. And let's guess - if they are found to have acted improperly, damages and costs will be awarded against them- then, the good old licence-payer will pick up the tab. This case has the makings of a scandal for which heads should roll. I doubt that they will though.
This is also the BBC that has been second guessing the innocent verdict in a trial in Northern Ireland, on the basis of what? - emotion, not additional evidence.Delete
This is also the BBC that finds nothing wrong with banning of anti-Sharia democrats from this country, or people being subject to violent assault on our streets if they engage in non-left wing protests.
This is the BBC that despite being a "world class" news organisation with access to billions of pounds of funding, never realised that thousands of children were being subject to vile assaults by men (nearly exclusively) from a certain community.
This is the BBC that promotes gang violence via grime music on Radio 1 Extra while at the same time virtue signalling about knife crime.
This is the BBC that has promoted PC Multiculturalism at the expense of the truth time and time again.
The BBC has no moral authority whatsoever. Not even a single pea's worth.
I remember commenting here about a month ago on the BBC's posturing as lofty guardians of the public interest at a preliminary hearing about disclosure:Delete
Anonymous10 March 2018 at 18:18
Cliff Richard is suing the BBC over that raid on his flat. A preliminary court argument is about withholding or disclosing private information in evidence: Cliff Richard's QC: "This is the BBC holding itself up as the guardian of the public interest and saying the public is entitled to hear its full evidence." Quickly scrambling for the high ground, the BBC's man "said the passages should be aired in open court, adding that the open justice principle should apply." Ever noble and high minded in the cause of justice is our national broadcaster.
This story has coverage this evening on the BBC News website:Delete
Cliff Richard: BBC raid report 'shocking and upsetting'
When this news item first appeared - under the headline was: by Lucy Manning - but this credit has been removed now.
See an earlier complaint against the BBC for promoting an anarchist terrorist rapper's music on Radio 4 and their correspondence to justify it http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/legitmacy-to-incitement-by-extremist.htmlDelete
I see the BBC's very own Katty Kay is now promoting Fake News conspiracies theories and, of course, Trump is the conspirator-in-chief according to her.ReplyDelete
Here's "Reality Check" latest non-reality check/opinion piece...ReplyDelete
"The US and China have imposed tariffs on each other's goods. But will a skirmish between the world's two biggest economies turn into a full-on trade war?"
Who the F knows? No one can possibly know!! An asteroid could fall on planet Earth tomorrow an cause a tsunami that wipes out most of Chinese populated coast and the West Coast of the USA. In such circumstances, a trade war might be the last thing on the minds of the two nations...
Reality Check has become a monument to credulity, absurdity, assininity, fuzzy futurology and ill-defined nomenclature. It's time it was closed down. Or does the BBC like to show it can defy journalistic gravity in this way by willing it to stay afloat? I'm sick of it and think I will in future simply ignore it as clearly the vast majority of people do anyway.
Did anyone hear WATO yesterday with Mark Mardell?...after decades now of anthropogenic global warming propaganda, some scientist was on talking about the Gulf Stream becoming weaker and causing cooling of the British Isles and indicated this was a process that had been going on for 1000 years! Mardell did his best to save appearances. This was being caused by "global warming"? he inquired...(he didn't indicated if it was human caused or otherwise). The scientist said yes, but was not clear on whether it had anything to do with us adding CO2 into the atmosphere, though that seems unlikely if the weakening had been going on for 1000 years.ReplyDelete
If the Gulf Stream is getting weaker why are our temperatures getting higher - as we are constantly told they are by the BBC and the Met Office? There was no clarity on that point.
Anyway, the confused discussion gave weight to my impression that climate scientists don't have a good understanding of climate the way geologists do of rock formation. It's a highly complex multi-factorial moving target phenomenon.
We really need a BBC PC "top of the pops" chart, don't we? - so we can follow what's in and what's not. What's the top ten looking like at the moment?ReplyDelete
1. Uberfeminism (Double A side with "Female Quotas")
2. Islam aka "The Religion of Peace" (in the Top 40 since 2001 and still going strong).
3. Metooism (Guilty even if proved innocent)
4. Mental Helf (Remember! - if you're not anxious there's something wrong with you!!).
5. Trumpophobia (was No. 1 but has fallen in the charts since he played confuse-a-cat with them over Russia).
6. Russia (have you looked under your bed recently?)
7. Diversity (the ultimate "mash up")
8. Mass Immigration (a perennial favourite at the BBC, the equivalent of "My Way", "Everything I Do", "Love Is All Around" all rolled into one).
9. Transgender Express (No. 1 last week...seems to keep swapping places with Uberfeminism)
10. Grenfell Fire/The Evil Tories Did It(dropped 9 places)
BUBBLING UNDER: Climate change, Clintons We Love You, Powell Was Wrong, Orban Stole the Election
Brilliant bit of free speech activism from Denmark...how do the Left like being denied free speech? They don't!!!ReplyDelete
Someone on Peter Hitchens's blog has done a Craig on Friday's Any Questions, counting and analysing how much time each panel member was allowed to speak for, how much time they each had on each topic, and how often and when they were interrupted.ReplyDelete
Peter Hitchens was on the panel along with Lord Patten and Carolines Flint and Lucas.
It seems Patten had the longest total speaking time and smoothest run. There was a bit of a tussle for time, with Hitchens challenged by Flint at one point for going on too long and Dimbleby got drawn in, issuing a mild rebuke / request for respect. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/04/an-appearance-on-any-questions-plus-some-saturday-afternoon-arithmetic-.html#comments
It's clear from the BBC that from now on, the Commonwealth Games, always known as the friendly games must be called the PC and diversity games. The presentation from Birmingham, set to host the 2022 event made no mention of B'ham's great industrial past - only its PC credentials - by showing drag queens and gay marriage, and plenty of BAME references from poets and rappers. Sport has been politicised. I couldn't help but notice the tendency to prefer female presenters throughout the BBC coverage - but the concert during the closing ceremony on the Gold Coast appeared to be exclusively female.ReplyDelete
The Games are going to be really fun in the future with TG folk winning all the women's events, and medals and records being banned, as we are looking for equality of outcome. Selection for events will be conducted along strict racial lines, with at least 2% of entrants for the high jump event being inuits and at least 10% of marathon runners being Samoans, and Fijians - to make up for the previous lack of diversity.Delete
In order to even up the able-bodied and disabled psrsons events, both will be run simultaneously and the public can try and make sense of the resultant mayhem.
Nothing the BBC touches now is without that PC dusting that takes the joy out of everything. The Grand National is no longer a ruthless, dangerous battle between brave horses and riders, nope it's all about how many women are taking part and whether a woman can win. There was so much hype this year, led by the BBC who could talk of nothing else it seemed at times. In the end two of the three women managed to complete, coming in 5th and 12th (aka last) among the finishers. Good luck to them, you have to have guts to even get round the course in one piece. But why the unnecessary, boring, switch-off hype?
I didn't see any BBC on the Grand National so escaped their hype. I did watch the race on ITV and it was mayhem, with 24 either pulling up, falling, unseating their rider or being brought down. My own pick came in third on a photo finish. Katie Walsh is an established and successful jockey who doesn't think of herself as a woman being a jockey. She finished twelfth this time but has been third before, and has won the Irish Grand National, among other successes. She is daughter of a jockey and trainer, her brother Ruby won the Grand National at first go and she's married to a trainer. Nina Carberry is another racer with uncannily similar career and achievements, is a daughter of a famous jockey (who won the Grand National and trained a winner), her brother's a jockey and she's married to a Walsh brother. Of the other women in the race, one fell and the other Bryony Frost came in fifth.Delete
No woman has yet won the Grand National since a woman first took part, in 1977. So that's over 40 years without a win. Statistically it's quite likely a woman will eventually win, but I think it's also likely to be the case that men will continue to outperform women by a large margin, so I am not sure what the uberfeminists at the BBC are trying to prove. What is their claim? I have never heard a BBC person say female riders are generally not as good as men, but all the evidence points to that being the case. The problem for the BBC is that, unlike most sporting events, women compete with men on an equal basis in horse racing. If athletics were run like this, no woman would ever win Olympic gold again.Delete
From a quick search, it appears that there is one sport in the Commonwealth Games in which women can take part, but men can't - netball.Delete
I see from online research that there are some men's teams, particularly in Australia. Be interesting to see who would win in a men v women competition. Probably a rare sport where women would actually triumph I think. It doesn't rely on speed and strength so much as many sports and of course women have been playing it for 100 years, so I would be surprised if they didn't beat a men's team.Delete
"and of course women have been playing it for 100 years, so I would be surprised if they didn't beat a men's team. "Delete
That is about as logical as saying that West Ham won the FA final 100 years ago, (or even last year). Different players, different abilities, the only characteristic that can be passed on is the team's esprit de corps.
The BBC line is to have us believe that para-athletics and women's sport is equal in every way to men's and that all should receive equal coverage and plaudit.Delete
This strategy takes us away from the gold standard. Just as netball has been traditionally a women's sport, so have many sports such as rugby been a men's tradition. What spectators look for is the apogee of achievement. Within that, race colour, gender etc are secondary to elite performance.
"No woman has yet won the Grand National..."Delete
Would she be allowed to ride a horse?
Debate US,UK & French attack on chemical weapons facilities in Syria: I watched the first 45 minutes of the debate & then the 6pm BBC1 News. I am unable to recognise the account of the debate given in the news bulletin, which took care to show Tory renegade, Ken Clarke complaining that Parliament had not been consulted prior to the attack, but totally failed to mention, or show, the several courageous Labour backbenchers who approved of the action and said so; one of them lambasted those - yes, you Mr Corbyn- who prefer to talk & do nothing while young children are slaughtered. I seriously wonder whether Laura Kuenssberg actually watched the debate - her claim that "Theresa May will not have endeared herself to anyone in this place by failing to consult it," was contradicted by the steady procession of MPs who rose to justify the failure to consult. I think the truth of the matter is that Kuenssberg made the lazy assumption that May was going to be slaughtered & failed to change her script. The fact that the News led with the Windrush immigrants instead of the Syria debate shows how disappointed the Beeb was with the outcome - certainly the Speaker was in no doubt that Syria was the more important issue.ReplyDelete
I'm glad to say I haven't seen the BBC News but I'm watching some of the debate and it seems that the PM has it well under control and is receiving a deal of support as well as some criticism but much of that is muted. I wonder if the BBC showed all of Clarke's comments.Delete
I'm afraid I'm too punch drunk from a surfeit of Parliament to remember!Delete
I've found it. This is the bit I heard where he was supportive of the PM: "I fully support the proportionate, targeted action we have taken against these sites and I hope the Government would consider similar actions again in the future if anyone is so foolish to repeat chemical weapons attacks.Delete
"We can all debate these matters but it takes a real Prime Minister to actually face up to the great responsibility."
"On the question of the parliamentary role, I think the Prime Minister was not relying on the archaic narrow interpretation of the royal prerogative which no Government has invoked in this country for over 50 years.
"They have always come to Parliament for debate and votes, if possible, on any military action.
"She says it was a problem of time but surely when president Trump had announced to the world what he was proposing, a widespread debate was taking place everywhere – including between many MPs in the media – but no debate in Parliament."
Gather round children for tonight's lesson in the glories of the last great Islamic empire, courtesy of your guide and instructor Mr Omar: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03d0d5dReplyDelete
I thought he was ITV's but never mind. So long as you are put right on your European history and the holiest shrines of Islam. That includes Jerusalem, by the way. To think that all I can remember of my European history studies is the teacher's interminable droning on and on about Richelieu and Mazarin.
Repeated from 2014 I believe. Robert Spencer critiqued it:Delete
Probably not as bad as a Karen Armstrong jobby but its purpose is highly debatable. It's basically an apologetic.
Ah, interesting. It was so good they thought it time to wheel it out again lest we slip back into our ignorant ways! I shall read the critique you posted. Thanks for that.Delete
2014 is so long ago! lol Back then I think they might have been softening us up for Turkey's accession to the EU! :) It all went a bit t*ts up for the EU after that, and during the EU referendum campaign liar Cameron was trying to tell us that there were no proposals for Turkey to join the EU even though the Commission published hundreds of pages of assessments of their progress towards joining! :)Delete
Why has it been revived now? Hmmm...my rule is nothing happens by accident at the bureaucratic BBC so there must be a reason...can't really pin it down though...might be to back up the "Civilisations" offensive. Or maybe the BBC in anti-Russia mode think we should look on Turkey as an ally. I don't know but there will be a reason.
It's possibly even longer than that: Robert Spencer cites Kate O'Hare's article in Breitbart News which states that the series was broadcast in the UK in the autumn of 2013.Delete
It's interesting that a standard criticism of Leave (as with the money for the NHS) is allegedly scaremongering about Turkey joining the EU. What they never mention is that well before the referendum it was Cameron's stated policy to support Turkey's application which as we know had been lumbering on for donkeys' years while it got up to standard on democracy and the usual requirements and commitments.
As for reasons for the repetition, I sometimes look to see who the commissioning editors are to get a clue about their personal interests. Another clue is in the programme introductory notes: there it tells us that it is essential to understanding of the present, including the Middle East. But basically a lot of this sort of goes back to what it says in the Charter agreement. All part of the mission to educate the vast compliant audience. What's not to love?!
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
In time-honoured BBC fashion we are given six "takeaway" points from the Comey book:ReplyDelete
Against each point, Anthony Zurcher gives his own "take".
1. "Morally unfit". Has Comey used this phrase about any other President? I am thinking about Bill Clinton - accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous people. Or how about George W Bush, accused of draft dodging, drug addiction and various other failings. Maybe John Kennedy, who won his election with the help of the mob (arranged by his father), had numerous affairs and tried to assassinate a foreign head of state. How about LBJ accused or all sorts of corruption up to and including domestic political assassinations. Or Nixon whose involved in the Watergate affair is well documented...
2. "Obstruction of justice" This seems to misunderstand the role of the President, the head of the Executive, who has the right in any case to pardon anyone. In the UK frequently prosecutions are dropped because they are deemed not to be "in the public interest". If I were batting for Trump that is how I would understand his intervention...he was saying Flynn's prosecution was not in the public interest.
3. "Impeachment". Comey is not calling for impeachment...one smart cookie says I, since he knows that it will never happen on the basis of the silly "obstruction of justice" charge. But what Comey does call for - a vote against Trump in 2020 really just blows apart Comey's claim to be a politically neutral, morally pure public official. Nope, he's a Democrat.
4. "Clinton emails probe". I don't believe Comey and I don't believe Zurcher. There is a lot more we don't yet know about that caused Comey to make his pre-election announcement. One issue that the interview doesn't touch on is why Comey gave away immunities to Clinton staff like confetti, against all the norms of FBI investigations, or why Hillary got away with a micro-interview of 15 mins with about 10 legal and other advisors in attendance.
I think Comey made his announcement because he was under extreme pressure from the NYPD who had seen what was on Huma Abedin's devices...
5. "Moscow Prostitutes". Zurcher's take is pathetic. Trump is well aware that the FBI (at the instigation of the CIA - though this has yet to come out in the MSM) had built a case essentially around this one "salacious" allegation. Whether the allegation is true or not, Trump is clearly going to want to get to the bottom of how the FBI is handling this.
6. "Trump's hair and hands". Zurcher lauds Comey for his PR skills in raising the issue of Trump's hair and hands. To me it sounds creepy in a law and order guy, just in the way that many of Trump's personal comments about people can sound creepy (although some are funny).
Overall, it's just "Zurcher the Democrat" amplifying Democrat Comey's attempted character assasination of Trump. But I note that Comey's attempt is fairly weak...I think Comey has a strong sense of self-preservation which means he isn't going to die in a ditch for the Democrats.
*** BBC Fake News ***ReplyDelete
This report will surely be updated at some point, but for now it states, both inaccurately and incomprehensibly:
"Using the consumer prices index (CPI). average wages went up by 2.8%, still below the 2.9% inflation rate."
Never mind the grammatical and logical nonsense, the claim about inflation is false.
From their own report on March 20th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43468504
"Falling petrol prices and a slower rise in the cost of food contributed to a drop in UK consumer price inflation during February.
The rate fell from 3% to 2.7%, the lowest figure since July 2017."
And they have the gall to lecture our kids about how to spot fake news.
It's easy kids, simply tune into the BBC via the medium of your choosing.
Trading Economics is a useful source of info - I often use that.Delete
The BBC is always promoting fake stuff e.g. that you can be in the Single Market and not be an EU member (not possible, as spelt out on the EU Commission site), that islands have sunk below the ocean because of human-cased global warming, or that there is a significant "pay gap" between men and women, when there is only an income gap (pay being equal bar a few exceptions, ironically including at the BBC!).
Other Fake News promoted strongly by the BBC has been the Arab Spring (as a pro-democracy movement, rather than a Muslim Brotherhood led revolt), Brexit "fears" as "facts", and presenting Hillary Clinton as morally superior to Trump.
And yes, Trading Economics is excellent for 'fact-checking' BBC output.
So, in the particular case I've highlighted above, it seems that the BBC have squirmed like a worm on a hook to find a way to portray CPI as still being below wage growth.
They've portrayed inflation as a 3 month rolling average rather than the annualised figure.
Nobody ever reports these figures in this way, not even themselves, so 'fake news' by selective reporting or omission depending on how you want to look at it.
Even the Grauniad and the Indy are reporting that wage growth is now outstripping inflation.
The BBC stands virtually alone in reporting the data in this way...
...to the surprise of nobody.
In the run up to the Hungarian election I became suspicious that their reporters weren't commenting on how the Hungarian economy was doing, since economic performance is nearly always a major factor in a general election...My suspicions were justified. Looking up Hungary's GDP performance on Trading Economics, I saw the economy had been growing at 4-5% for the last couple of years...Well you can see why the BBC didn't want to highlight that: a nationalist populist government delivering good economic performance and moreover that performance offends against the BBC economic orthodoxy that all European countries require high levels of immigration, particularly of low skilled workers from poor countries, in order to do well.Delete
Excellent research MB. And I noted that the BBC failed to report the absence of Islamic terrorist attacks or rape gangs in Hungary nor its simple flat rate income tax.Delete
This is where the MSM like the BBC is pernicious. It broadcasts its selective views all over the world with far greater range and output that a small country like Hungary can manage (or even try).
In other news, the BBC have suddenly miraculously rediscovered Macron the Messiah.ReplyDelete
Having studiously avoided mentioning him at all costs over the last 5 days to portray the Syria airstrikes as an alliance solely between May and Trump, he's suddenly talking their language again, so he's Top of the Pops again, and a new entrant straight to the top of the main news page:
EU in civil war...blah...liberal democracy...blah...authoritarianism...blah...Brexit...ah yes, there it is!
Astounding how they've managed to keep Macron's involvement so buried over the last few days, when by all (other) accounts, he was the most hawkish of the three, and it was he who first claimed having evidence of the Syrian government's culpability.
Macron has had BBC heads scratching ever since he greeted Trump like a long lost ami. They have a pendulum opinion of him...Delete
Can you imagine the song and dance they would make of Trump if he had an affair with a teacher 20 plus years his senior when he was a teenager, and the teacher had subsequently married him! We'd never hear the end of it. But the Macrons get away with it.
They also keep v. quiet about France's wide ranging military commitment in North Africa - potentially that's one hell of a war zone.
Macron is quoted in that article as saying that: "I want to belong to a generation that will defend European sovereignty because we fought to obtain it..." Remember how during the EU Referendum the BBC and its allies poured scorn on anyone who said the UK was losing its sovereignty to EU sovereignty? We were clearly told by the Remainiacs that the UK remained sovereign...but now we have Macron letting the cat out of the bag. I think he is basically threatening Hungary and Poland, saying if you want to stay in the EU then you have to accept EU sovereignty.
I am sure others here also find the BBC's grand "Note on Terminology" at the end of the article intensely irritating if only on grounds of clarity and grammatical structure. Specious is the word I'm looking for I think...
The terminology disclaimer annoys me too and I’ve mentioned it on here before. Specious is an excellent word to describe it. We know exactly where they stand on migrants of course. Which is why they try to obscure their position with this statement on every article that mentions ‘people on the move’. They conveniently omit the biggest group, economic migrants where asylum doesn’t apply.Delete
Thanks for raising it here...I certainly did first become aware of it here.Delete
Can anyone put a date to the 'confiscation' of the words 'immigrant' & 'emigrant', or know who started it?ReplyDelete
A quick bit of online research suggests this usage was promoted by UN agencies in the mid to late 90s to begin with and then picked up by the media, with agencies like BBC being to the fore. I think migrant has a nicer romantic ring to it ...migrant birds and also immediately associates with the phrase "migrant workers" which is quite positive as well. It was a bit of branding and also tied in nicely with the bogus "net migration" concept.Delete
It seems to me only very recent in the media. By that I mean within the last couple of years. But going back a long way, I know of it in the form "migrant workers" from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). That body started up after the 1914-18 War to deal with conditions of labour and poverty etc. I don't know when it started dealing with migrant workers but it has had policies and programmes for them that I know of for probably around 50 years. Once the UN was formed the ILO became a UN agency.Delete
That aside, I would speculate that the use of "migrants" and the associated "undocumented migrants" in the general media may have spread from the US.
Thanks for that. Migrant is clearly a pillar of the Beeb style book - when Emily Maitlis was in Paris covering one of the islamist terror attacks, an anonymous beeboid was heard to say 'immigrant'; not realising she was on air, Emily bit his head off and barked:'MIGRANT!' My take on it is that they feel 'migrant' is value-free.Delete
Think you're right in that they want to devaluise migrant issues. That's why "bogus asylum seekers" became verboten on all MSM. We have to have a presumption of innocence and justified claim until some court (very unlikely) orders a deportation. This is why the BBC and most of the MSM have ignored the obvious deceit practised by adults pretending to be children.Delete
A big story in the Mail, and rightly so...ReplyDelete
But can find any mention on the BBC Website...maybe it comes under "Hayes and Harlington Local News".
Can = can't of course...it's the BBC!Delete
Not sure how many people are aware of Jonaya English, a very brave warrior for free speech:ReplyDelete
She's received death threats after critiquing Islam. But the Police couldn't be less interested in the death threats.
Did anyone hear last night's The World Tonight or know who the presenter was? I caught a snatch of it where he was interviewing one of the Commonwealth Ministers - it might have been the PM from Grenada. Talk about leading questions! The first one I caught was on the lines: Do you think it had something to do with an ambivalent attitude [to the immigrants]? The PM didn't take his cue to bash Britain but replied mildly along the lines of: Well I hope not...and carried on speaking in a reasonable manner.ReplyDelete
This was not what his interrogator had been hoping for. He had another go in this vein. Can't remember the exact question and haven't access to iPlayer to post a link or fill in. Bias on stilts, I thought and switched off.
I didn't hear it, but it does kind of underline for me how little attention the BBC pays to ex British colonies in the area. Although the various island nations may have their problems, they nearly all function as democracies. I hope that post-Brexit, a UK Government will make a special effort to re-connect with the Caribbean sharing as it does much of our language, religion and culture.Delete
Apparently Morrisey (the well known popular singer m'lord) has come out in favour of the new For Britain Party.ReplyDelete
If true, then this is definitely the end of the BBC's somewhat ambivalent love affair with him - he ticked so many boxes...but supporting a populist, anti-Sharia party will be enough for the BBC to get their knives out.
The knives are already out!...Delete
Morrissey: Is it possible to separate art from artist?
By Tom Gerken
BBC UGC & Social News
3 hours ago
That didn't take long! lolDelete
I like the way they roundly condemn him without mentioning the For Britain Party comment. Clever footwork there! :)
Even as we speak the writers for HIGNFY, News Quiz, Mash Report, Mock the Week, and the Now Show have got their eye shades on and will be working flat out into the wee small hours to produce anti-Morrissey jokes on an industrial scale, safe in the knowledge that he is now persona non grata.
Mark Easton may even be preparing one of his little homilies: "What led a creative artist of huge merit, a seminal voice of the 1980s, to desert his art and flirt with fascism?"
Why, oh why does the BBC have to write opinion and ‘balance’ Into every report. The is always a little nugget of BBC speak in every single item. Why can’t they just report what’s going on without resorting to subjective opinion.ReplyDelete
An example on what starts as a straightforward Conmonwealth story then I come across this...
The Commonwealth represents about 2.4bn people, but critics say the organisation is so disparate that it struggles to know what it is for, says BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond.
It’s those un-named ‘critics say’ again ....
"Critics" normally means "my pal who writes for the Guardian".Delete
The BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond probably can't accept the reality that the Commonwealth with its population of 2.4 billion puts the EU with their just over 5 million into the shadows by a ratio of 5:1. Many of the Commonwealth countries have cultural ties with the UK, and expanding economies, which with competent trade agreements made in due course, bodes well for the UK.Delete
just over 500 million...Delete
The main story tonight on the BBC News website is about the Comnonwealth.Delete
There are then three sub stories bulleted beneath it - all about the Commonwealth.
There are two themes running through them all;
a. Should Prince Charles become the new head?
b. Is The Commonwealth relevant anymore?
If it’s not, whey are the BBC taking up so much space on reporting?
Is it any business of the BBC who they elect as head and why are they in full blown influencing mode?
The BBC only uses this sort of "balance" when either it doesn't like something or is genuinely not sure about something. It never uses this sort of "balance" when it's dealing with say Black Lives Matter, ultrafeminism, social democracy or anthropogenic climate change.Delete
Wikipedia has these figures, from 2017:Delete
GDP of EU is 17.1 tr USD of which GDP of UK is 2.619 tr USD.
GDP of EU excluding the UK is 14.481 tr USD.
GDP of Commonwealth countries as a whole is 14.623 tr USD.
Only the BBC question the relevance of the Commonwealth. As an economic block, it is set to outstrip the economy of the EU in the very near future.
It is only the UK contribution to EU GDP that is keeping the EU ahead of the Commonwealth as an economic block. Come Brexit, then the Commonwealth economies led by the UK and India will forge ahead of the EU. As for developing the economic power of these countries within the Commonwealth with the UK at the hub - that's a different matter.Delete
The BBC clearly think Martin Luther King is some daft old bloke who should be ignored, since they are giving full marks to this guy who wants to be judged not by the content of his character but by the colour of his skin...ReplyDelete
Why would the BBC think this is funny/OK/acceptable/admirable and promote it as such? Would they think the same if a white boy made a plea for votes based on "I' white, it's all right" or if a Chinese boy said "Stay mellow, vote yellow" or if an Indian boy said "Give me the crown because I'm brown"?
Why is the BBC seeking to racialise everything and make our young people think in racial categories? Are they sick or something?
Hmmm...to ask that question is definitely taking us out of our comfort zone.
Heard on Radion 5 Live Adrian Chiles...God, he's awful. He's now abandoned any pretence of impartiality. The bit I listened to was about the "Kris" Maharaj case...Maharaj (serving life in prison in Florida for murder) claims he was innocent. Chiles, was cheerleading for him. We didn't hear any opposing views. We didn't hear from the victims' families or the Florida police.ReplyDelete
During the discussion Boris Johnson was praised for having intervened and Chiles joined in the praise but only after stating quite expliciting that "Boris bashing is a very enjoyable pasttime"...indeed it is if you are an anti-Brexit, virtue signalling BBC employee and follower of the flock.
I really think Chiles with his dishonest bluff working man act is quite nauseating.
I really can't see how the BBC's "North America" correspondent, Anthony Zurcher, can claim to be "impartial" given his pathological anti-Trump tweeting (his own tweets, not the usual re-tweet defence strategy). He seems to be anti-Trump tweeting on average about every 30 minutes!ReplyDelete
I think Zurcher can see this is a crisis point (for the Democrats and their pals) which is why we are seeing this pathological tweeting.Delete
Stuff that Anthony Zurcher should reporting on but refuses to because it contradicts his ideological premises:Delete
He's getting worse. His Twitter feed is a torrent of sneers at President Trump. His latest tweet is pure, undiluted opinion (from an allegedly impartial BBC reporter):Delete
"Perhaps the US could reach some sort of multinational deal with North Korea whereby they agree to abandon their nuclear program, with some verification, in exchange for easing sanctions and unfreezing assets. You know, like the agreement we made with Iran".
BEEB News Channel has just given Corbyn a slot to attack the Government over Empire Windrush affair - no mention of who ordered the destruction of landing cards. Labour & BBC clearly joining forces on this one - how much longer can they spin it out?ReplyDelete
As long as it takes to create a ground swell of opinion within the Westminster bubble and left leaning MSM to create serious trouble for the target. It's the same with every other topic where they have a concerted and coordinated effort to influence a political outcome.Delete
I'm afraid you're right.Delete
Remarkable! On Today I heard John Humphries apologise to an interviewee for interrupting them. That doesn't happen very often does it? Only thing is in this case the interviewee was Laura Kuennesberg, which perhaps explains the high deference on display.ReplyDelete
Then it was on to Ken Clarke...usual soft ball interview. Why didn't they ask him why he had stood in 2017 on a manifesto promising to take us out of the EU single market and customs union if he didn't mean to honour that manifesto pledge? He was also allowed to get away with claiming there had been no discussion of us leaving the Customs Union during the EU Referendum debate without having his veracity challenged. Humphreys did counter the assertion but in a jolly, joshing sort of way - he did not accuse Clarke of telling an untruth (which it clearly was). Would he have been so kind to a Leaver? I doubt it.
But more to the point, why is so much time given over to people like Clarke who represent a very small portion of Conservative opinion?
Would that be the Laura Kuenssberg who failed to report that Jeremy Corbyn had been savaged by his own backbenchers over antisemitism?Delete
I'm afraid the truth is that the BBC is no longer content just to stop Brexit, they want to bring down the Government as well - if that means driving a coach and horses through their stated policy on impartiality and 'reporting the truth', well, so be it!
I listened to John Redwood demolish Justin Webb's feeble "interviewing" (actually his attempts to get Redwood to say May should stand down or that staying in the CU was essential) on Today this morning. It was actually very enjoyable as Webb hurriedly brought the interview to a quick conclusion such was his failure.Delete
I reflected that Redwood is often impressive, but his is one example of a career held back by the BBC's consistently negative portrayal of him across News, Comedy shows etc..
Similar to "the treatment" given to Farage, Leadsom and Johnson and so on.
I can't recall left or liberal politicians being given this treatment.
Why Clarke? Because he is aligned to the political aims of the BBC, most notably to stay in the EU.Delete
BBC reality check - what is a custom union?ReplyDelete
Not content to explain what a custom union is, they have to politicise it with pro EU propaganda.
See extract below. Who says they are vital? Are these proven facts?
The customs union can be seen as one tool to help achieve one of the four freedoms of the EU, namely free trade in goods between member states.
The remaining three freedoms - free movement of services, capital and people - help tackle non-tariff barriers, which is vital in boosting trade, particularly in services.
Trade in services is arguably more important to the UK than trade in goods, as services make up almost 80% of the UK economy.
Countries like China, India, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have all been hugely expanding their economies and export trade over the last few years without forming customs unions, single markets or no borders migration agreements with other countries. Strangely, Chris Morris - who appears to think he is some kind of economics genius - appears to be unaware of this. What can account for this? He simply accepts the EU propaganda that only their mad superstatist approach can deliver prosperity. He's a Remainiac.Delete
Did anyone say they were leaving Europe? Front Row appear to think so as they've come up with someone to answer this fictional proposition:ReplyDelete
"Sean O'Brien is a man of letters, writing essays, plays and novels; as well as his celebrated poetry. He talks about and reads from Europa, his latest collection - and his ninth. The tenet is that Europe is not a place we can choose to leave and the poems explore how our culture, language, history and identity are inextricably entwined with mainland Europe."
That's you told, folks.
Lol...yes, my plans for the period after Brexit don't including stopping listening to Abba or indeed Beethoven, or ceasing occasional perusal of French TV and newspapers or giving up reading Russian novels or not admiring Italian architecture or making no future purchases of IKEA furniture.Delete
This Sean O'Brien is clearly an intellectual giant for having been able to identify this undeniable truth about our Europeness! :)
BBC News pretty much trying to ignore the Toronto story, I guess they are desperately hoping that it's an accident/mentally ill driver/far right white supremacist etc. but to ignore a major story with nine people dead is not what a "major international news organization" should be doing.ReplyDelete
"The US and Europe have seen an increase in driving attacks in recent years. " BBC.Delete
Driving attacks? So Drivingism is a terrible ideology that mandates attacks on non-believers in Drivingism (just being pedestrians walking the pavement is clearly an insult to its Prophet, Jeremy Clarkson).
Emily Maitlis is more than justifying the huge amount of money required to get her to the USA, keep her in nice hotels etc (instead of getting Jon Sopel to do what she's doing). She's giving, on Newsnight, a completely impartial pro-Democrat piece about the thousands of Trumped women now standing for office in the USA. Still, she always looks happier in the US.ReplyDelete
Further proof that the BBC have more money than sense.Delete
As previously discussed here there are about 10 BBC correspondents already based in the US.
I made a rule for myself that whenever the BBC starts on about the USA then I switch directly to a USA outlet like Fox. Why not hear direct from source in these connected days?Delete
Anyway pretty quickly I found I wasn’t listening to the BBC very often such is it’s desire to report on the USA.
Overfunded , over liberal and completely out of date.
A while ago I kept a record:there were over 20 of them as I recall. There's lots of duplication e.g. Jon Sopel and Anthony Zurcher (one US,the other "North America" I believe), a State Department reporter, there's a New York correspondent who hardly ever reports on New York, there are special technology correspondents, loads of additional reporters. I think my count did come to about 20. Astonishing when you think they probably have the one China correspondent and one Russian correspondent. Do they even have an appointed person for India?
If anything the US needs far fewer reporters. Given the BBC only regurgitate MSNBC/CBS/CNN type stuff, they could just use their English language output.
The BBC are continuing to report in detail the Cliff Richard case at the High Court:ReplyDelete
I see this as a demonstration of the BBC's arrogance and lack of governance - in reporting a case in which they are the defendants. It must be up to other unbiased MSM outlets to report the case. There is an obvious conflict of interest in this. How can the BBC claim to be impartial when they are effectively promoting their own defence.
Agreed and their only line of defence seems to be ‘it is an important story and is in the public interest’.Delete
Some repeated biased exchanges of emails by the reporter and management;
‘Celebrity paedo’and ‘guilty in my book’ are just two examples.
Of course the BBC are virtue signalling with their reporting by showing they can and will report legal cases brought against them. Look how fair, free and impartial we are.....
Following on from Craig's excellent BBC's Brexit bias exposé, with anti- Brexit chatter now at every turn, here is more from an unlikely source - no doubt targeted at the heartland of the thick uneducated northern leave-voting male. It's on the Politics page of the BBC News website:ReplyDelete
Jurgen Klopp: Brexit 'makes no sense at all'
He should stick to football. He doesn't reflect the opinions of the Liverpool electorate. Mind you, on the plus side, the famous red Brexit bus is one that the Liverpool 'supporters' probably wouldn't attack.
Here's some more of the BBC's blinkered view that pro EU is good, and everything Brexit is bad. See a business report from some time ago - reported with glee:Delete
'Unilever goes Dutch for HQ as London loses out'
Today, Guido gives us an update, outlining some special sweeteners that enticed the already fiercely anti- Brexit Chairman Paul Polman towards The Netherlands. Per Guido:
... 'A major scandal is brewing in Holland, where the Dutch government has abolished its dividend tax as part of its efforts to lure Unilever over. Polman and Mark Rutte are facing accusations they cooked up a sweetheart tax deal which the Dutch government then attempted to cover up, at huge cost to the Dutch treasury....
So, where is this important story to be seen on the BBC News website Business pages, including the Companies page - nowhere! It just doesn't fit the narrative.
BBC News gets right to the heart of the matter:ReplyDelete
"Toronto van attack: how is the suspect not dead?"
The BBC unerringly asks the questions no one is that bothered about. It's the usual divert-distract-deceive strategy.
And in this case they want to be able to pursue an anti-Trump, anti-American, anti-police and racialised, anti-white BLM narrative: "It contrasts with incidents in the US where police have shot and killed unarmed people."
Again, more Fake News, since a few seconds' research on the internet reveals several incidents of suspects being killed by Canadian Police, like this one:
"North Battleford RCMP responded to a call about a man being chased and shot at, pursuing a white 4-door vehicle resembling the vehicle described, the vehicle rammed a cruiser, the RCMP claim the driver, 22 year old Brydon Whitestone from Onion Lake Cree Nation, reached for something and officers opened fire. The incident is still under investigation, RCMP have turned over the investigation to the Regina Police Service."
Given Canada's population is about one ninth that of the US, the equivalent in 2017 would have been 45 such incidents.
As for the victims of this murderous attack? BBC couldn't a flying eff.
From Guido - for SueReplyDelete
JLC and Board of Deputies Statement on Meeting with Jeremy Corbyn 24.04.18
Our meeting with Jeremy Corbyn today was a disappointing missed opportunity regarding the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party. We welcomed Mr Corbyn’s personal involvement in the discussion and his new comments recognising and apologising for antisemitism in the Labour Party but he failed to agree to any of the concrete actions we asked for in our letter to him of 28th March.
Last month the Jewish community held an unprecedented demonstration outside Parliament to express our hurt and anger about the level of antisemitism in the Labour Party, and Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to take strong action against it. Following that demonstration we wrote to Mr. Corbyn to set out six areas of concrete action he and the party could take to address the antisemitism that has grown under his leadership. These represented the minimum level of action the community expected after more than two years of inactivity. Today we met Mr. Corbyn to convey in no uncertain terms the Jewish community’s feelings to him in person and to discuss his response to our proposals. It was a difficult yet important meeting.
We are disappointed that Mr Corbyn’s proposals fell short of the minimum level of action which our letter suggested. In particular, they did not agree in the meeting with our proposals that there should be a fixed timetable to deal with antisemitism cases; that they should expedite the long—standing cases involving Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker; that no MP should share a platform with somebody expelled or suspended for antisemitism; that they adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism with all its examples and clauses; that there should be transparent oversight of their disciplinary process.
Words in letters and newspaper articles will never be enough. We welcome the fact that Mr Corbyn’s words have changed but it is action by which the Jewish community will judge him and the Labour Party. Our sole objective from this meeting was to build trust with Mr Corbyn, but this will not be possible until and unless he and the party turn their many strong words against antisemitism into equally strong actions in order to bring about a deep cultural change in his supporters’ attitude to Jews.
Thousands of British Jews did not demonstrate outside Parliament just for a few lawyers and another newspaper article; they demanded action and so do we. We will hold the Labour Party to account for any future failures and continue to represent the interests of British Jews with clarity and resolve. We also commit to do our utmost to work with all those within Labour who want to help make it a safe and equal space for all of its members.
Good (hold his feet to the fire), but not good enough. How long are the Jewish community's representatives going to avoid mentioning the influence of Sharia within the Labour Party and its baleful effects both there and more widely within the UK? I think the Jewish community are somewhat trapped by their adherence to PC multiculturalism. You can't really fight anti-semitism/Judaism while adhering to PC multiculturalism which precludes, indeed outlaws, criticism of intolerant religious ideologies.Delete
Evan Davies going for the belly laugh on Newsnight...during a discussion of Fake News and the Ruskies, he offered up the observation: "If people want the truth, they can go to the BBC, the Guardian..." Triple LOL!!!ReplyDelete
Yes, their version of the truth. In the leftie MSM bubble and the social circles they inhabit they hear only like minded views. All validated through group speak whilst they sneer and tut at the masses.ReplyDelete
There is now a very worrying, very dangerous alienation between the political-media elite and the public at large. It's more than them being in a bubble, although that is all true of course...I think it's more about an ideological battle the elite are determined to win and will use almost any method to secure victory.Delete
The current hysteria over the "Windrush scandal" is a good example. A few difficult cases involving people who have not taken the opportunity over the last 40 plus years to resolve their citizenship, for whatever reason, and where a stupid Home Office has (who knows - perhaps intentionally?) created injustice has been blown up into a supposed "scandal" that headlines the news night after night after night. Meanwhile the real scandal of people being admitted into this country as "child" refugees when they are clearly in their 20s or even older has been completely ignored by the BBC and most of the MSM.
The Windrush injustices (no one's denying there have been some)are being used as a wedge to lever in no borders policies, keep us chained to the EU and to continue implementing the racialised and divisive policies of PC multiculturalism.
Thatcher identified the issue: ...'“I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society'...Delete
Through the Blair Brown years this idea that the State can solve the problems of society flourished, and now the Blairites who rose through the BBC and MSM ranks during those years preach the message with the expectation that it will become the truth.
You raise some philosophical issues which are valid but which have always been around. Back in the Middle Ages the "nanny state" used to tell peasants when to practise archery and the "nanny church" told them on which days they were permitted to have conjugal relations.Delete
Also, for most of her time as PM, Mrs Thatcher's public spending as a percentage of GDP was higher than it is now:
She managed to get it down in the last few years, the late 80s, because of one time sales of public assets, a trick you can only perform once.
People can differ about the role of the state, but - to my way of thinking - that debate is not the key issue that we face now.
To take one of your examples: the homeless. How are young people in London and the South supposed to find themselves a home when the UK government - Conservative or Labour or Lib Dem - has been and still is letting in over half a million people every year from abroad as immigrants and an unknown total of semi-permanent "business visitors" as well? And in any case where are they going to find the steady employment that enables one to rent or buy if they are subject to the vagaries of the "gig economy"? What we have seen here is a kind of Marxian pauperisation of masses of people, all flowing from an ideology: globalist PC multiculturalism.
Even people who are highly motivated, creative and talented are going to find tough times ahead if they are the wrong colour or gender. How many good actors have already been denied opportunities in the theatre, in advertising and on film? How many people's careers at the BBC or elsewhere have been held back because of quota checks? Many of them will of course seek opportunities abroad - but encouraging your best and brightest to emigrate is a stupid policy.
George Orwell's belief was in an awareness of social injustice and a commitment to democratic socialism. He wrote of a world where Big Brother watched over us, and where the Thought Police took punitive corrective action against us, and where equality has been hijacked and turned to their own advantage by the elite.Delete
His writing was there, intended to serve as a warning - but what an irony it is that his belief of 'an awareness of social injustice and a commitment to democratic socialism' is being heralded as the Utopian model for society and yet the sinister covert methods warned against in his writing are used as the instrument of change in realising the worst of his nightmarish predictions.
I think that it's instructive how rarely people on either the left or right of conventional mainstream politics reference George Orwell these days. They see him now as a threat to their "projects". The last thing they want is people reading 1984 or Animal Farm.Delete
Homeless Jesus has been mentioned before on ITBBCB? Now, Manchester have taken in the statue.ReplyDelete
Two possible sites in London were announced, one adjacent to St Martin-in-the-Field (NB The Connection at St Martin's helps homeless people in London recover and find housing and work - nevertheless permission was refused), and the other outside Methodist Central Hall, Westminster (here, PP was refused and again on appeal).
You might have thought that a fine sculpture on the subject of homelessness would have been well received in London as it has been in Manchester, but think again - was it that a Christian message was considered inappropriate for multi-ethnic London, or did Islamic aniconism play its part?
I should add that this story appeared on the Manchester page of local news within the BBC News website- adjudged therefore to be of little importance to the UK as a whole.Delete
Mark Easton and Ben Butcher indulge in a nice bit of virtue signalling and fake news:ReplyDelete
The article claims that:
"At the end of last year, there were just over 40,000 asylum seekers located across the UK. Asylum seekers are from around the world..."
This is a complete bare-faced lie.
I couldn't believe the figure, so did some research.
Migration Watch researched the numbers and found that for the period 1997 to 2004 there were 239,000 ayslum seekers whose applications had failed but who had not been removed from the country...
My research shows that over the last decade or so, asylum seeker applications have varied between 11000 and 80000 plus per annum. Cases can drag on for years, so clearly the number of asylum seekers in the country is going to way over the figure given by the BBC (40,000 is simply the most recent ANNUAL figure). The number of current and failed asylum seekers must be close to the half million mark, if not more.
How can the BBC get away with misleading the public like this?
BTW I see the co-author Ben Butcher has on his twitter feed from a few days ago:
"Seen three robberies in space of 10 mins in #FinsburyPark - so be careful!!!"
Can't help feeling there's an irony buried there somewhere.
For those concerned about Anthony Zurcher's state of mind...it appears he is still in crisis, in the full grip of Stage 4 Trump Derangement Syndrome:ReplyDelete
One can only imagine how the projected Trump visit to the UK might further exacerbate his condition.
MORE BBC FAKERY: The Telegraph reveals that the BBC has shelved the Human Planet series because it has discovered that a scene involving a whale hunt was faked. No mention of this on the 6pm news - I expect the Beeb has been too busy helping Labour dictate Home Office procedures and policy on immigration.ReplyDelete
As Evan Davies said on Newsnight the other day, if people want the truth they can go to the BBC, the Guardian... :)Delete
Except about: whale hunts, tree houses, polar bears, antisemitism in the Labour party, sexual assaults/rapes in Cologne, paedophile gangs in Rotherham & Telford, Brexit etc, etc...Delete
Two reports on TV news tonight in the UK. One on Channel 4 News (Matt Frei) and one on Newsnight (Alan Little???). Virtually interchangeable...follow ups to Orban's stunning huge election victory, basically designed to delegitimise Orban's victory.ReplyDelete
Soros mentioned in both reports. Helsinki Hungarian group mentioned in both...
In fact one might think that Soros had written both reports himself! Truly weird.
I don't think it is that weird. Matt Frei is ex-BBC. As organisations, BBC & Channel 4 have very similar mindsets. Their journalists and management are interchangeable and so are their views.Delete
Of course, but it would be interesting to see how both reports were commissioned and if there was a common source...I suspect there probably was and, ironically, it was probably a Soros-funded organisation. They just made a mistake in putting both out on the same day!Delete
The "right wing" comedian on the Question Time panel states clearly he much preferred Barrack Obama to Donald Trump...I now understand how a "right wing" comedian gets invited on the Question Time panel.ReplyDelete
That he needs to say it is in itself a declaration of right-leaning within the BBC. Otherwise the left-leaners would have deemed such a statement as unnecessary - a self-evident truth.Delete