Death faker journalist Arkady Babchenko is given a prime time, supportive interview tonight by The BBC. Why? Is the because he is a journalist? Or is it that he is a dissident Russian and the BBC is supportive of the government stance against the Russian state.
Sometimes I don’t understand the motivation that makes someone a hero or villain in The BBCs eyes. Or why this is major news vs. stories that have been buried.
What is disgraceful about Babchenko and the Ukrainian Secret Service’s stunt is the insult to the brave journalists who have been murdered by the agents of the Russian Government. Frankly I couldn’t care less what the Government’s stance is on Russia, nor for that matter the BBC. But by giving this story so much prominence the BBC is playing into the hands of Putin.
BBC Fake News at its best...No quotations marks, either single or double, in this BBC headline:
- Top 10 worst excuses for not appointing women executives -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44310225
So we know this is the view of the BBC.
First sentence in the article includes the statement that one of the "excuses" is that "Women...struggle with "complex issues"." Hmmm...the report on which this pathetic article is based does NOT say that.
In fact as we read on we see that according to the BBC the "excuse" cited (I am assuming the organisations involved thought of them as explanations not excuses) included: ""There aren't that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board - the issues covered are extremely complex". Well yes, it depends on what sort of activity we are talking about...we know women are very under-represented in some areas like engineering, physics, and IT. In those circumstances the pool of women who can be advanced to a chief officer level is very restricted. You will either have to sacrifice your quality criteria if you can't attract the right sort of candidate or not appoint women.
But of course, the BBC is not engaging in a rational examination of the issue. It is propagating an ideology.
What is that ideology? It is uberfeminism, the view that women can equal or more likely out-perform men in ALL activities without exception. In some areas of work - like sport, fire service, police, hod carrying, brick laying, armed forces - this ideological approach verges on "magical thinking" having absolutely no relation to objective performance at all. In other areas it is simply a case of "not proven".
As Jordan Peterson points out, to become CEO of a top company is a v. unpleasant dehumanising sort of experience. Essentially you have to sacrifice your whole being to the company. There may well be reasons based in gender biology why women choose not engage in the ruthless competition at the topmost level of companies to win a rather hollow prize.
The advocates of 'equality' never tell us what women will not be doing in other areas to make up the 'balance', i.e. should we be getting rid of 40% of nurses or primary school teachers.
The nearest they get is suggesting that more men should be at home looking after the non-existent children that these alpha women CEOs might have produced!
Of course the whole idea is stupid, men and women don't live in separate camps with one tribe doing better than the other, rather they are all individuals making their own choices. What will be the next 'equality' field of battle, eye colour? Indeed there are probably many men, who, although capable, never reached 'the top' because they lacked 'big hair' and inches of height. (All the small men who got the top job were tyrants, a bit like the way that 'it is the quiet ones that you have to watch' as the extrovert has his 'wicked way').
Quite...in fact it's not just as "individuals" we make significant lifestyle choices but as family units, particularly adult couples. Where the couples involve a man and a woman there will normally be discussions about whether t have children and how many, about childcare, home location and so on before decisions are made. In my experience, women are probably the leading influence in the making of such decisions.
As the old joke goes "In my home, my husband makes all the important decisions, such as whether we should go to war, impose trade tariffs or subsidise public transport - I only decide such matters as where we live, what we eat and where the kids go to school."
And yes, it's not clear to me why heightism, weightism and lookism aren't also considered important equality issues. Why shouldn't short fat ugly men get cast as Hamlet or Superman if equality is your only concern? Why shouldn't short fat ugly women take romantic leads in Hollywood films if equality is your only concern?
Of course there were in the past legal barriers to equality of opportunity. Their removal has been positive. No one wants a return to the era of capable work-orientated women being forced into mother and wife roles that they find boring and frustrating.
But that is not what uberfeminism is about - it's about browbeating all women into feeling guilty if they are not interested in trying to succeed in a competitive work environment and it's about ignoring the fact that, as an average, men and women might be interested in different lifestyles and different activities.
Two lead items on he BBC News tonight. The real stories were about the US/North Korea summit and US trade tariffs. But as usual the BBC made them about Donald Trump. Chris Butler mocked the President throughout his report ending with ‘the comings and goings of diplomacy can be hard to understand at this White House’. Nick Bryant reported from the Bethlehem steel works in the US and used it as a thinly veiled personal attack on Trump ending with ‘low unemployment figures have emboldened the President’.
Their contempt and distain for Trump comes across loud and clear. Why do they do it? They are virtue signalling to their colleagues and left liberals everywhere. But it is not impartial journalism or objective reporting. We learn nothing other than their hatred for Trump.
The bias against Trump is now mainstream and a badge of honour for BBC correspondents and presenters.
Meanwhile Zurcher has done an analysis on the North Korea talks on the website titled ‘Trump the diplomat basks in the spotlight’.
"Hello, I'm Cat Nipp. Here is the six o'clock news from the BBC, Better Believe Cats. Our lead story: the Moggy Council of Britain has accused the government of widespread ailurophobia. A spokesperson for No 10 has promised to investigate and root out any discrimination against cats but denied it was soft on "cat kickers". In other news, a cat has learnt how to bark and experts have declared its bark to be better than that of champion dog breeds. The clever cat, Ms Furball, declared that cats have for far too long been on the receiving end of cultural appropriation and it was time for cats to show they could compete with dogs on all levels. More news...The Cat Lovers Party has decided to campaign for the banning of Crufts on the grounds that cats and cat lovers find it hurtful and offensive. A spokesperson for party leader Jeremy Catman said: "Britain is a tolerant nation and we can no longer tolerate the sight of vicious far right dogs like Dobermanns and Rottweilers parading in public. " No. 10 has responded by saying it is undertaking a thorough review of all dog-centred events and is cracking down on sites on the internet designed to show dogs in a loveable light. Government minister Tom Catt declared that they would be particular tough on videos showing huskies staring into the camera saying "I love you" as that sent the wrong message to the community at large. And that is all the cat news. "
Mr Tiddles, you sound like just the sort of person we need to do our press review on the BBC. The sort of person who will stand up against stereotyping of cats as hissing malevolent, house-damaging creatures and give our viewers a fresh perspective on the full range of cat matters. Besides your fur is very glossy and you will look good on TV. That's just a professional observation of course.
There might also be an opening for you on "Paws Play" our light hearted satirical look at all things cat in the news.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Katz, Commissioning Chief, News and Current Affairs and Head of Feline Equality
Might you also consider acting as my co-host on 'Beyond 100 Days' whenever my colleague Christian Fraser is away?
I feel that you would be a great asset to the programme, especially if you deploy all 18 of your magnificent claws each time we talk about Donald Trump.
Whilst both offers have a certain attraction to the cat about the garden and whilst I fully identify as a “cat” I fear that my appearance on the television might trigger a very strong reaction from awful alt-canines and dog supremacists. Sleeping dogs lie and all that. Besides I don't think I'd be able to compete with the likes of Kirsty Bark and Nicky Cattbell. [oh dear, oh dear, what a way to spend a Sunday evening!!! ]
BBC News tonight...pushing the brain-dead PC Robo-Commemoration line as always, now re London Bridge anniversary. No description of how several brave Londoners resisted (yes resisted) the Jihadis and so probably saved numerous lives by slowing their advance.
About ten minutes of PC reporting with no mention of the I or M words. But there were lots of shots of posters with the hashtag #turntolove - "London more united than ever" on them.
When you go do some research you find this claims to be a community cross-faith group. Prominent among what appear to be member organisations is Smile Aid, clearly an Islamic charity. They claim support from the House of Commons, Pakistani Government and High Commissioner, Police Commissioner for Manchester, Manchester School of Economics and the European Parliament. However I am not sure all of them would be happy with the way their logos are used.
In addition to Smile Aid, the hashtag seems supported by an organisation called British Muslim Voice (apparently Manchester-based).
http://www.britishmuslimvoice.org/about-us/
Unusually for an "about us" section, they don't reveal where their funding comes from.
#turnetolove appears to be an Islamic initiative.
One of the prominent people involved in the campaign appears to have been a previous director of GREATER MANCHESTER MUSLIM COMMUNITY LIMITED (a private limited company not a charity, note).
So what's going on here? The cross-faith initiative appears to be driven by one religious community. We've no idea where they get the money for posters and T shirts so they can dominate broadcast coverage. But don't the BBC have a duty to do a bit of digging rather than colluding in presenting their publicity material as though it is a genuine community initiative.
It seems to me that grief and remembrance is being micro-managed by unelected groups of dubious provenance who have no right to hijack such ceremonies. The fact that Mayors and others are happy to facilitate their actions is no excuse.
Mark Easton indulging his obsession about English "identity" (he don't like it) and wasting millions of pounds of licence fee money on his vanity project:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44306737
His stunning conclusion after all this scientific and very expensive research:
"...the interlaced English and British identities remain an important part of how the people of England see themselves. For many it seems the two are almost interchangeable, reflecting an enduring loyalty and love for the nation, its story and its values.
Being English is more than a factual statement about place of birth or citizenship. It is an attitude and a state of mind."
Easton's face - an approving smirk- as he reported that consideraby fewer young Londoners were proud to be English said it all. Perhaps the fact that so few of them have ancestral roots in the country has something to do with their attitude.
1. Zurcher goes beserker...serving up a history lesson for Trump as though Trump were a history don and Zurcher was one his brighter students prepared to take him on:
Odd that because they splashed out big time on similar allegations against the Leave campaigners.
3. John Humphreys has a love-in with fellow Welshman Owen Smith on Radio 4's Today. Humphreys threw in a few forumulaic "balance" questions. For instance he noted that the dire predictions of economic recession after a Brexit vote had not come to pass...but allowed Owen Smith to get away with merely saying well the economy's not doing great. But still, Owen Smith got his many minutes of free publicity to push the case for a second referendum designed to keep us in the EU. Not bad for a nonenity backbencher who has virtually no influence over his party.
4. Whatever you think of Northern Rail, the timetable debacle is clearly a matter of public controversy. It's the job of BBC presenters to be seen to be impartial. Does this sound like impartiality? Nick Robinson couldn't care less what you think, by the way:
5. Radio 4's Today programme is literally a BBC flagship. It has a prominent photo of the double Union and EU flags on a single pole (beloved of Remainiac pro-EU demonstrators) featuring in the banner on its website page.
I've noticed a new BBC technique for burying good economic news. The services sector is growing faster than expected rebounding after a difficult first quarter. So that is buried in their live feed. The item they choose to feature as a headline for the feed is FTSE 100 down (it was up more the previous day - is this really "news"?).
You'd think the Easton article raising issues of English identity would be the perfect topic for a Have Your Say discussion involving the BBC website users, who no doubt would be keen to join in the debate...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44321409
However, that would be a naive reaction which underestimates the depths of the BBC's cynicism and depravity. :)
Spotted in the news undergrowth on Today - the Bowen bird trilling out a familiar tune. Apparently, whereas other countries' Prime Ministers might make statements, or argue or express concern, the obdurate Netanahyu is "sticking to the line" that Hamas is a terrorist threat to his nation. Nice choice of words there Jeremy, suggesting that there is an absence of sincerity, and much artifice in its place.
Grenfell Inquiry: BBC 1 o'clock news showed a virtuoso piece of demagoguery from one of the tenants' barristers: The tragedy was the result of racial & social apartheid etc. etc.- this might not have been out of place on the hustings (although it could perhaps have been construed as incitement to racial hatred) but it certainly had no place in the inquiry - a view that the chairman appeared to share. If this character is allowed to continue in this vein, there will be riots this summer. I wonder why the Beeb pulled it from the 6pm news; perhaps they thought it was so OTT that it would harm the cause.
he BBC may well have dropped this particular item, but it is basically the same version of events they have been spinning from the beginning. Somehow the rich are to blame. If socialism is resentment masquerading as kindness, the masquerade has now been dispensed with. Grenfell is just an excuse.
Vastly overpaid BBC presenters are apparently unaware of the irony when they preach about inequality. Yet whether it is uber-feminism or perceived racial and class inequality the predominate message across the whole range of BBC output is equality of outcome. The simple fact that only a cursory glance at history would demonstrate that this is a road to disaster seem irrelevant to those whose only aim is destruction.
I was struck by the phrase used by the barrister representing the tenant in whose flat the fire started that his client was literally "quaking" about having to give oral evidence at the inquiry. Hmmm...methinks and all that...
Whilst I wouldn't set aside all the criticisms of the loathsome super-rich K&C set who run things in that borough, I am also struck that no one is mentioning the prime purpose of the cladding, which is to save energy and carbon emissions and so fulfil the sorts of green policies favoured by the Green Party, and indeed all the mainstream parties. Had those policies NOT been pursued all those poor people who died would still be alive.
Why is that not relevant if we're looking at causality?
Unless I blinked and missed it, BBC TV news seems to have managed to get through this 6th of June without mentioning that it's the 74th anniversary of D -Day. Perhaps Commissar Easton was afraid it might give us something to be proud of and imposed radio, or ,rather, tv silence.
Only a couple of years ago the Mail Online offered a very free forum for expression beneath their stories. Gradually though, as the Mail has come increasingly under the influence of globalism (with its Sunday edition now openly pro-Remain and pro-PC multiculturalism), the freedom has been draining away.
We now have a situation where a character assassination piece by the "fascist Mail" , criticising Morrissey for supporting Tommy Robinson, doesn't allow ANY comments beneath. Most of their "controversial" stories these days have comments "moderated" which means they allow through a couple hundred of approved comments and that's it.
The only glimmer of sunshine in all this is that all the lefty BBC comedians are going to have to stop making jokes about the "fascist Mail".
Do you think so? They are still making jokes about 'Thatcher' and the Mail's support for Hitler in the 1930s. The 'Mail' is one of their 'dog whistles', none of their audiences actually read it but they all know they should hate it. Paul Sinha asked one of his audiences which newspapers they read and to a person they all claimed to be Guardian junkies, (well who would dare be different?).
Much like the original “Have Your Say” on the BBC website. It must have been very clear to the BBC that the say that most of the contributors were having was not in line with the corporate groupthink. So they neutered it.
Jon Sopel thinks that if you have tarrifs on goods you dishonour the dead of the Allied forces in WW2...shame he hasn't directed that comment at the EU which places high tarrifs on US goods:
Re: The above comments on Grenfell, how long will it be before the tenants' legal team uses the, very convenient, Knightsbridge hotel fire to support the 'social apartheid' argument? - 'It didn't take them long to put THAT one out, did it?'etc. And what will the BBC's line be?
The Grenfell Inquiry might avoid MB's question over the 'Green' credentials of the refurbishment and policies which were adopted. The Daily Mail comes in for criticism in this Carbonbrief article from June 2017:
A point that emerges from this article is the tendency of the refurbished building to become too hot in summer. Windows had been restricted to 100mm opening. It seems likely that in order to make the flats more comfortable, restrictors were compromised and entrance doors were propped open throughout the height of the building to promote a form of stack ventilation.
If this was the case, then the fire protection for the block in terms of both safety within each flat and protected escape routes would fail. Reports from the Inquiry suggest that most of the fire doors were rendered useless.
There is already a difference in narrative between the Inquiry and the O'Hagan report - particularly in two crucial areas: What was the exact time at which the fire started, and was the call to the emergency services delayed? It has not been denied that the door to flat 16 was open.
Another baffling piece of information: The owner of Flat 16 is said by his own barrister to have alerted his flatmates as well as neighbours on the 4th Floor of Grenfell Tower. This suggests that at least three people were staying at Flat 16 that night. Where are the first-hand accounts of what happened from these flatmates?
Extremely concerning development in terms of free political debate in this country. Mail on Sunday (= Remainiac Rag) editor Geordie Greig is now taking over running of Daily Mail. So the Globalists will now turn both Mail papers into pro-Remain, pro-globalist, pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalist propaganda sheets. Put that together with the take over of the staunchly pro-Brexit Express by the Mirror, and you have the prospect of not a single national newspaper supporting Brexit, despite 52% of voters having opted for leaving the EU.
Does that really reflect well on our democracy or does it suggest we live in a society where free speech is dying before our eyes?
Just in case we thought the BBC were changing their ways and addressing their own excesses, we find today in The Times:
'BBC secretly used private firms to pay top stars millions'
... Last year the BBC paid 66 of its 96 highest-earning presenters £20.8 million via personal service companies .... .... in a move that experts said could have enabled tax avoidance of up to £20 million...
Is the BBC itself the home of corporate greed - and one of the trailblazers in the art of tax avoidance?
Is the BBC in "protect the Great Khan! mode? According to them Michael McIntyre has "laughed off" his mugging.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44408414
Laughed off? Well that's one way of putting it. He is a comedian, so it's not exactly strange that he would make jokes about it, but making jokes does not equate with "laughs off".
I suppose from the BBC's point of view it helps if you ignore him saying "f*** London", just don't mention it:
Yes - could it be that the recent spate of brutal attacks on old people has something to do with the fact that they have so often been vilified by the BBC as the selfish generation responsible for Brexit, the housing shortage etc?
Very good point Sisphyus. We know the BBC radicalised one person at least to go and commit a terrorist offence after seeing their docudrama on the so called grooming gangs. Maybe they have radicalised a number of marginalised (as they like to say) young people to terrorise the old.
I was writing half in jest but then I recall that traveller burglar who was killed, he was on social media going on about awful old people in a way similar to Frankie Boyle. So this isn't so far-fetched, that the BBC are fuelling persecution of old and vulnerable people by conscienceless able-bodied young people.
Bedfordshire police seem to record age-related hate incidents but age-hate (for some odd reason, such are the ways of our PC World) is not one of the legally recognised categories that can result in additional sentencing. However, disability is and since disability often goes with old age, mentioning someone (or indeed a group of people) is "useless" or "serving no purpose" or "bed-blocking" might well constitute a hate crime under current legislation in relation to disability, with age being merely an incidental factor.
In what sense does the following tweet demonstrate Nick Robinson's impartiality (something he is contractually bound to demonstrate)?
"I never promised Brexit would be a huge success @Nigel_Farage has said & it might cost the country in the short term. But when I asked him why he’d said it he seemed keen to blame someone else - it is, he says, Theresa May’s fault @BBCr4today"
As someone else commented on Biased BBC, they only had him on Radio 4 Today because the pathetic anti-Brexit Beeboids thought they had another "gotcha" moment (to add to their one other - the £350million ad on the bus).
I think people need to understand our free speech in the UK is under unprecedented attack. The Mail is going the way of the Mail on Sunday. It is becoming a pro-EU Soros mouthpiece with no comments allowed. How that's come about I've no idea but no doubt money is involved.
Tommy Robinson, a father of young children, is banged up for 13 months in a same day trial for an offence that had it been committed by a pro-globalist lefty would have merited a slap on the wrist...
And now visiting sites like this which might be described as Islamophobic could merit a prison sentence.
Antoinette Sandbach MP reported her constituent to the police for "abuse" in an e-mail accusing her of treachery in not supporting the PM, her party and constituents over a Labour amendment re Brexit.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5822955/Pensioner-left-living-fear-MP-reported-police-criticising-email.html
This kind of angry letter of those in power is the stuff and tradition of politics. Governments have always received postbags full of letters accusing ministers of being crooks, charlatans and worse. In the finest civil service manner, they would receive a polite reply thanking them for their letter of the 4th inst., an explanation of government policy and an assurance of the earnest attention of their obedient servant. To write fearlessly to those in power, giving name, address and details is the very definition of freedom. MPs ought to be able to recognise that and respond on the substance of the complaint.
The elderly lady in question was forceful but no more forceful (from what I saw of what she wrote) than Peter Oborne might be in a Daily Mail article. It wasn't threatening or abusive. If a pro-Brexit MP had reported an angry constituent to the police on such weak grounds I suspect the BBC might have thought of making something of it - unlike here.
If it had been Boris, imagine the BBC's excitable reporting. It was strong, certainly but that woman clearly feels no need to fear speaking her mind about a mere politician and her MP's action, which is as it should be. Even plod didn't think it merited action.
I hadn't heard about that disturbing case. Add to that the attempt by a northern Police Officer from a particular background to get a university offer to Jonaya English withdrawn. Jonaya is an excellent video blogger with bags of character who makes many pithy points on You Tube. She is I think mixed race. Can you imagine the fuss that the BBC would have made about such a case involving a mixed race young woman with conventional left wing opinions being treated like that - depriving people of their education is a classic pressure tactic of authoritarian regimes. There really is plenty to be worried about.
It once seemed like we lived on a rock of liberty and now wherever you look, you can witness whole sections of freedom sliding into the sea.
Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday takes a swipe at the BBC, among others:
"The EU has spent nearly 50 years burrowing into this country, and sucking power and wealth from us through a million tiny channels. Its tentacles are deep into Parliament, the Civil Service, the diplomatic service, industry and commerce, universities and schools and, of course, the media, especially the BBC."
Huge numbers the Free Tommy protest...and what does the BBC report? - virtually nothing! Only reporting on a side protest involving some demonstrators blocking roads and a PC being injured. Imagine if this had been an anti-Brexit protest...there would have been live coverage and extensive reporting.
I see Wendling's book about the Alt Right is published by the Pluto Press, which began as the publishing arm of the extremist left wing Socialist Workers Party and still isn't quite the publishing house for someone contractually bound to appear "impartial".
That's a fascinating nugget about Pluto Press! According to Wikipedia Pluto Press themselves says they publish "progressive critical thinking". It still sounds doggedly far-left, and yet is publishing Mike Wendling of the BBC - a man whose Twitter feed more and more reads like a hardcore activist account. I'm sure it breaches BBC editorial guidelines on an almost daily basis.
The Grenfell Tower fire was featured on BBC One in today's Songs of Praise, in which Aled Jones met with 'the community' to hear recollections of the tragic event of June 14th last year. One of the residents from the 13th floor recalled her experiences. She said that at 12.30 am she and her husband entered the building and saw and smelt 'thin' smoke in a lobby area of the tower. The resident in question went downstairs to fetch a phone, whilst her husband went and alerted his neighbours on their floor prompting them all to vacate the building.
This report from the BBC programme is at odds with the BBC reporting of the Official Inquiry in which they say the fire started 'just before' the call to the emergency services at at 00.54. To quote from the BBC report: ..... Just before 01:00 on 14 June, fire broke out in the kitchen of a fourth floor flat at the 23 storey tower block in North Kensington, West London....
Andrew O'Hagan has told us that the fire started it start 'Near to 12.15 a.m’. That the resident featured on Songs of Praise could see and smell smoke at 12.30, might indicate that O'Hagan's time for the start of the fire was accurate.
How can it be that the BBC through two different outlets allow such inaccurate reporting? It is all to do with narrative. To get the maximum tear-jerking effect for Songs of Praise, they are prepared to use one set of facts, but when the narrative requires blame (via the Public Inquiry) to be apportioned to the ruling classes and greedy capitalist corporations, they are prepared to use another conflicting set of facts.
It's one thing to report negative comments about Trump and Guiliani. But to side with their attackers?
Here's how she finishes off the article:
"As Ms Daniels own lawyer, Michael Avenatti, was quick to point out, "Mr Giuliani is an absolute pig for making those comments," he told an interviewer."
Leaving aside the clumsy construction (C minus for an experienced journalist in terms of style I would say), use of the phrase "As x pointed out..." means that as a writer you identify with the quotation...she is clearly nailing her partisan colours to the mast. No harm in that if she was not employed by the BBC and moreover was not using a BBC platform to present her views as "news analysis".
If the BBC allows this sort of comment through, then its journalists will just be free to insult Trump and his allies with not even a pretence of objectivity.
Worse, 'As x pointed out' implies that what follows is a fact, rather than a value judgement. Where Trump is concerned, the BBC has abandoned all pretence of objective reporting, eg Sopel last night on Trump's arrival at the Singapore talks.
Nick Bryant,the BBC's New York correspondent who never, well hardly ever, files anything about New York, is getting all ethical on us re the Trump-Kim conference:
"Is there a special place in hell for a dictator whose regime has jailed up to 130,000 political prisoners and, according to the International Bar Association, is guilty of “systematic murder (including infanticide), torture, forced abortions and starvation”?"
Well let's hope so. But when has Bryant ever said the same about the Chinese Communist regime, which is guilty of exactly the same (only on a bigger scale) crimes?
Answer: never. Nope,this isn't about morality, it's about kicking Trump, poking him in the eye and calling him names.
The US based BBC correspondents have indeed abandoned all pretence of impartiality.
The BBC's live feed on the Trump-Kim conference is more like editions of The Mash Report, Have I Got News For You, the News Quiz and Mock the News all rolled into one, rather than a serious commentary on averting the very credible threat of nuclear war that could wipe out whole cities and kill tens of millions. But that's the "world class" BBC for you.
In an effort to prove Trump wrong in referring to de Niro being in boxing movies (plural) Zurcher asks sarcastically: "How many boxing movies has De Niro been in? Raging Bull and ... ?"
Well the answer appears to be three in total from what I can find (took me about 2 mins of internet research - there's a tip for you Zurcher, try googling before indulging in Trump-bashing). Apart from Raging Bull there is Grudge Match and Hands of Stone.
Just when you think Radio 4 couldn't possibly get any worse...
Along comes "SLICE: Politics and Personality" presented by a BBC journalist Jolyon Jenkins.
The "money shot" as they say in an equivalent industry was where he aired the theory that the Black Death had caused people in East Anglia to be less "open" and therefore more inclined to vote Brexit. Why this nutjob thesis was not also applied to the densely populated well heeled South region which also voted Brexit he did not say.
Here's a link to the prog.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b5ts24
And here is this contractually "impartial" journalist's twitter account below. You can see he is very proud of the Black Death thesis since he retweets a mention of it.
https://twitter.com/jolyonjenkins?lang=en
Here, in one particular tweet, intellectually-challenged Jolyon forgets the standard BBC "re-tweet defence" and actually tweeted a clear anti-Brexit (and anti-aged) tweet, showing he is not demonstrating that he is impartial, as required by the BBC.
So where are the BBC management? Why are they allowed staff with clear anti-Brexit opinions which they have voiced, to present programmes relating to the Brexit vote?
I am guessing from the tweets that Mr Jenkins is a Vegan and would like to offer the alternative thesis that regions with the greatest number of Vegans e.g. London were more likely to vote Remain, having suffered from shrinkage of the brain that goes with a Vegan diet.
Tommy Robinson, imprisoned for a non-violent offence, is being held in a high security Category B prison full of just the sort of people who might try and kill him.
Last night 21:30 Sky led with Seven Labour front benchers have resigned. 10:00 BBC1 News didn't mention it in their headlines (might have been later on, but I switched off and went to bed).
It seems Dominic Grieve addressed a secretive meeting in the EU’s London HQ of those plotting to reverse Brexit. Yes, he was there along with Alistair Campbell and sundry other Extreme Remainiacs. Imagine if Jacob Rees-Mogg had been spotted popping into the Russian Embassy to discuss with Aaron Banks ways of ensuring a full-on complete Leave solution for Brexit...I have a feeling that might have found its way to the first or second headline story on all channels and the website on BBC.
Grenfell: How much longer will the BBC carry on milking this? It's a pity May got rid of Boris's water cannon because I have a horrible feeling we'll be needing them this summer. How does the coverage compare with commemorations of the victims of the various terrorist attacks over the last few years?
You could not be more accurate; I counted 20 Grenfell stories on the BBC website in the last three days. I am certain I might have missed one or two. The coverage is totally over the top.
I do like watching AC Grayling on This Week, we should here more from him, this pompous old remainer needs more air time to increase support for Brexit.
V sad about AC Grayling because he wasn't a bad philosopher. But what to make of his lies, exaggerations, appeals to emotion etc? It's so sad.
I have observed before that imperial guilt is often at the root of a lot of bien pensant, well heeled "absurdo-liberalism". Grayling is from a white colonialist family with roots in Rhodesia and South Africa that did well out of Africa. You can see how someone suffering from white colonial guilt might latch on to some other big idea (the EU) in contradisction to the White British Empire. You can understand how someone of Grayling's age might have seen it as a much less conflicted idea to adhere to...
Grayling is clearly suffering from Brexit Derangement Syndrome; not as severe a case as that of Lord Adonis, but a bad attack nonetheless. It's sad to reflect that, but for Andrew Neil, his views would have gone unchallenged by the Beeb.
I look at him, and so pinched, clenched and bitter looking is he, that my first thought is What Happened to him? Something must have. Angry, disappointed man? Did the referendum result really shake the foundations of some people's minds so much that they are unhinged? I don't understand that at all. I expect I was probably favourably disposed to the idea of the Common Market / EEC when young but it would never occur to me to think I am a citizen of Europe or the EU or that the latter institution is a foundation of my life and being. The very idea seems odd. I also take it for granted that I can go to Europe whenever I want, regardless of whether we are in or out. Why not? People did before there was an EEC. I can go to America, say, or Australia or Mexico, abiding by their rules of course.
Parris, Adonis, Grayling and, of course, Jasmin Alibhai-Brown: re: YA-B, go to Guido & search for her name + 'Brexit Driving Me to The Edge of Madness.' One might be forgiven for thinking she was pretty close to the edge BEFORE the referendum!
Grenfell? Don't comment! (I'm only commenting here to make a general recommendation to not comment!!). We all know what's going on. Every thinking, feeling human being understands grief, anger, and a search for justice and feels empathy with those who died or who lost loved ones. But we all know what has been going on in the media is way beyond that scope of human feeling and is taking us into highly politicised, ideological territory. Nuff said. Don't be drawn into it is my view.
I'm listening out for any dissenting voice in the wall to wall coverage of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It appears that the Official Inquiry is effectively starting the timeline at the point when the first call was received by the emergency services - why? Prior to this call there was a period of time during which effective fire-fighting action could have been taken, either by the fire services had they received the call promptly, or by the residents themselves.
The exact cause of the fire has not been established, other than to say that it started around the fridge freezer. Apparently there wasn't an explosion.
The apparent failure of the Official Inquiry to establish these two basic tenets plays into the hands of the BBC and other MSM as they look to attach blame under the guise of corporate greed and heartlessness of the authorities. By apparently omitting this crucial information from the Inquiry, the way remains open to speculate.
1. By applying insulation to the outside of the tower, heating bills might have been reduced during winter months, but in the summer, the building overheated making the flats unbearably hot.
2. In order to cool the flats at night, windows were left open and fire doors were propped open to promote stack ventilation and introduce cooler air.
3. Fridges within the flats were running flat out. Overload and overheating of the compressor motor might have caused an electrical fault which might have caused smoking and then ignition.
4. On seeing and smelling smoke, the flat owner and his flatmates failed to switch off the electrical supply to the property. They also failed to close the fire door to the flat and from the landing saw the fire take hold - according to some reports. The kitchen window was left open as well.
The reason for the speculation is that, in my opinion, the whole tragic episode is being used cynically by certain political factions to strengthen the perception of inequality and division within London, and by extrapolation the rest of the UK.
Is the green imagery surrounding the events actually representative of the green party with their wish for better insulation etc, or is it actually the green of religious belief used by a certain group within our multicultural society?
Normally the cause of a fire would be investigated and established. If that hasn't happened here, what is the reason for that? Was it too unsafe to enter the building? Or had people objections to it being done? I know there's been a great deal of noise and uproar around the whole scene and the handling of everything to do with it.
Keep listening for us Loondon. I can't bear the politicised over emoting. But any fire investigation that doesn't address how it started (including the failures of fire prevention), how it initially spread, how and when alarms were raised, how it was fought before the fire brigade arrived, etc., etc., just isn't a fire investigation.
I'm going to break my own rule and say that when I was counselling silence I was thinking more in terms criticism of the relentless and excessive media coverage (which can't be helping the mental health of young children caught up in the event), not the technical inquiry into what caused the fire. I think you raise some v. important issues Loondon from a technical point of view. It sounds plausible to me that the block was, in midsummer, overheating due to the exterior panelling and that could have led to the refrigerator fire (and let's not forget central London is several degrees hotter than the rest of the country and - given it was Ramadan - there would be a lot of cookers in operation in the block in the hours leading up to the fire, also adding to the heat). Clearly the inquiry needs to hear from the occupier of the flat where the fire started, otherwise the inquiry will have absolutely no credibility. I am concerned that his legal rep stated to the inquiry at the outset that the guy was traumatised by negative and false media coverage and was (IIRC what his legal rep said) "literally quaking" about giving oral evidence...All very, very odd in my view.
.... 'Dr Barbara Lane’s report, one of five adduced to the inquiry today, said there were more than 100 non-compliant fire doors'...
It sounds to me as if approximately two thirds of the fire doors within the Grenfell Tower were found to be 'non-compliant'. The choice of words is interesting: not broken, faulty, defective, badly maintained - or seals were ineffective, or doors closers were absent or not working. This leaves open the possibility to speculate that in two thirds of cases, fire doors might have been propped open to improve ventilation - thus rendering them useless.
I believe that the BBC along with most of the MSM are promoting the message that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was brought about by corporate greed and heartlessness from the 'ruling classes' - thus polarising focus onto the' haves and have-nots'.
This portrayal is disingenuous. Inspection of the Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project 2012 planning application will show that it was a community based regeneration intended to improve the amenities in the area for the benefit of the residents there:
Scrutiny of this document reveals that great attention was paid to ventilation and the appropriate form of 'zinc' cladding. That the scheme underwent cost-saving changes is not in itself uncommon. That those changes were somehow deliberately taken in order to further disadvantage the 'have-nots' within the Kensington and Chelsea Borough is to unfairly malign well-meaning people within the commissioning and contracting groups. The regulation of these groups is another matter entirely.
Populists who say there is a globalist elite undermining our societies are often accused of being "conspiracy theorists". Well here is a rather interesting article in the Mail which got a reporter into the Bilderberg Conference area:
An excellent article! Maybe Paul Dacre's swansong?
And who do we find attending this shadowy conference?
"...Remainers, including former Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and former Chancellor George Osborne, all took time out of their busy schedules to attend."
Death faker journalist Arkady Babchenko is given a prime time, supportive interview tonight by The BBC. Why? Is the because he is a journalist? Or is it that he is a dissident Russian and the BBC is supportive of the government stance against the Russian state.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I don’t understand the motivation that makes someone a hero or villain in The BBCs eyes. Or why this is major news vs. stories that have been buried.
Often the "major news" is expressly to bury something else. E.g. TR jailing and islamic terrorist attacks in Belguim have been sidelined.
DeleteWhat is disgraceful about Babchenko and the Ukrainian Secret Service’s stunt is the insult to the brave journalists who have been murdered by the agents of the Russian Government. Frankly I couldn’t care less what the Government’s stance is on Russia, nor for that matter the BBC. But by giving this story so much prominence the BBC is playing into the hands of Putin.
DeletePeople can be a hero one minute and a villain the next, depending on how the wind blows. Things got chilly for Macron after he invited Trump over.
ReplyDeleteBBC Fake News at its best...No quotations marks, either single or double, in this BBC headline:
ReplyDelete- Top 10 worst excuses for not appointing women executives -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44310225
So we know this is the view of the BBC.
First sentence in the article includes the statement that one of the "excuses" is that "Women...struggle with "complex issues"." Hmmm...the report on which this pathetic article is based does NOT say that.
In fact as we read on we see that according to the BBC the "excuse" cited (I am assuming the organisations involved thought of them as explanations not excuses) included: ""There aren't that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board - the issues covered are extremely complex". Well yes, it depends on what sort of activity we are talking about...we know women are very under-represented in some areas like engineering, physics, and IT. In those circumstances the pool of women who can be advanced to a chief officer level is very restricted. You will either have to sacrifice your quality criteria if you can't attract the right sort of candidate or not appoint women.
But of course, the BBC is not engaging in a rational examination of the issue. It is propagating an ideology.
What is that ideology? It is uberfeminism, the view that women can equal or more likely out-perform men in ALL activities without exception. In some areas of work - like sport, fire service, police, hod carrying, brick laying, armed forces - this ideological approach verges on "magical thinking" having absolutely no relation to objective performance at all. In other areas it is simply a case of "not proven".
As Jordan Peterson points out, to become CEO of a top company is a v. unpleasant dehumanising sort of experience. Essentially you have to sacrifice your whole being to the company. There may well be reasons based in gender biology why women choose not engage in the ruthless competition at the topmost level of companies to win a rather hollow prize.
The advocates of 'equality' never tell us what women will not be doing in other areas to make up the 'balance', i.e. should we be getting rid of 40% of nurses or primary school teachers.
DeleteThe nearest they get is suggesting that more men should be at home looking after the non-existent children that these alpha women CEOs might have produced!
Of course the whole idea is stupid, men and women don't live in separate camps with one tribe doing better than the other, rather they are all individuals making their own choices. What will be the next 'equality' field of battle, eye colour? Indeed there are probably many men, who, although capable, never reached 'the top' because they lacked 'big hair' and inches of height. (All the small men who got the top job were tyrants, a bit like the way that 'it is the quiet ones that you have to watch' as the extrovert has his 'wicked way').
Quite...in fact it's not just as "individuals" we make significant lifestyle choices but as family units, particularly adult couples. Where the couples involve a man and a woman there will normally be discussions about whether t have children and how many, about childcare, home location and so on before decisions are made. In my experience, women are probably the leading influence in the making of such decisions.
DeleteAs the old joke goes "In my home, my husband makes all the important decisions, such as whether we should go to war, impose trade tariffs or subsidise public transport - I only decide such matters as where we live, what we eat and where the kids go to school."
And yes, it's not clear to me why heightism, weightism and lookism aren't also considered important equality issues. Why shouldn't short fat ugly men get cast as Hamlet or Superman if equality is your only concern? Why shouldn't short fat ugly women take romantic leads in Hollywood films if equality is your only concern?
Of course there were in the past legal barriers to equality of opportunity. Their removal has been positive. No one wants a return to the era of capable work-orientated women being forced into mother and wife roles that they find boring and frustrating.
But that is not what uberfeminism is about - it's about browbeating all women into feeling guilty if they are not interested in trying to succeed in a competitive work environment and it's about ignoring the fact that, as an average, men and women might be interested in different lifestyles and different activities.
It appears that TR wasn't the only one reporting on the trial...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0B6FWyiQWI
The Sikh reporter appears to have been doing much the same as TR but appears not to have been arrested and sentenced to over a year in prison.
Two lead items on he BBC News tonight. The real stories were about the US/North Korea summit and US trade tariffs. But as usual the BBC made them about Donald Trump. Chris Butler mocked the President throughout his report ending with ‘the comings and goings of diplomacy can be hard to understand at this White House’. Nick Bryant reported from the Bethlehem steel works in the US and used it as a thinly veiled personal attack on Trump ending with ‘low unemployment figures have emboldened the President’.
ReplyDeleteTheir contempt and distain for Trump comes across loud and clear. Why do they do it? They are virtue signalling to their colleagues and left liberals everywhere. But it is not impartial journalism or objective reporting. We learn nothing other than their hatred for Trump.
The bias against Trump is now mainstream and a badge of honour for BBC correspondents and presenters.
Meanwhile Zurcher has done an analysis on the North Korea talks on the website titled ‘Trump the diplomat basks in the spotlight’.
"Hello, I'm Cat Nipp. Here is the six o'clock news from the BBC, Better Believe Cats. Our lead story: the Moggy Council of Britain has accused the government of widespread ailurophobia. A spokesperson for No 10 has promised to investigate and root out any discrimination against cats but denied it was soft on "cat kickers". In other news, a cat has learnt how to bark and experts have declared its bark to be better than that of champion dog breeds. The clever cat, Ms Furball, declared that cats have for far too long been on the receiving end of cultural appropriation and it was time for cats to show they could compete with dogs on all levels. More news...The Cat Lovers Party has decided to campaign for the banning of Crufts on the grounds that cats and cat lovers find it hurtful and offensive. A spokesperson for party leader Jeremy Catman said: "Britain is a tolerant nation and we can no longer tolerate the sight of vicious far right dogs like Dobermanns and Rottweilers parading in public. " No. 10 has responded by saying it is undertaking a thorough review of all dog-centred events and is cracking down on sites on the internet designed to show dogs in a loveable light. Government minister Tom Catt declared that they would be particular tough on videos showing huskies staring into the camera saying "I love you" as that sent the wrong message to the community at large. And that is all the cat news. "
ReplyDeleteDamned right and if you say otherwise I'll scratch all your furniture and vomit in the aspidistra !!
ReplyDeleteMr Tiddles, you sound like just the sort of person we need to do our press review on the BBC. The sort of person who will stand up against stereotyping of cats as hissing malevolent, house-damaging creatures and give our viewers a fresh perspective on the full range of cat matters. Besides your fur is very glossy and you will look good on TV. That's just a professional observation of course.
DeleteThere might also be an opening for you on "Paws Play" our light hearted satirical look at all things cat in the news.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Katz,
Commissioning Chief, News and Current Affairs
and Head of Feline Equality
Dear Mr Tiddles,
DeleteMight you also consider acting as my co-host on 'Beyond 100 Days' whenever my colleague Christian Fraser is away?
I feel that you would be a great asset to the programme, especially if you deploy all 18 of your magnificent claws each time we talk about Donald Trump.
Yours sincerely,
Katty Kay,
Co-Presenter, Beyond 100 Fleas
Whilst both offers have a certain attraction to the cat about the garden and whilst I fully identify as a “cat” I fear that my appearance on the television might trigger a very strong reaction from awful alt-canines and dog supremacists. Sleeping dogs lie and all that. Besides I don't think I'd be able to compete with the likes of Kirsty Bark and Nicky Cattbell. [oh dear, oh dear, what a way to spend a Sunday evening!!! ]
DeleteBBC News tonight...pushing the brain-dead PC Robo-Commemoration line as always, now re London Bridge anniversary. No description of how several brave Londoners resisted (yes resisted) the Jihadis and so probably saved numerous lives by slowing their advance.
ReplyDeleteAbout ten minutes of PC reporting with no mention of the I or M words. But there were lots of shots of posters with the hashtag #turntolove - "London more united than ever" on them.
When you go do some research you find this claims to be a community cross-faith group. Prominent among what appear to be member organisations is Smile Aid, clearly an Islamic charity. They claim support from the House of Commons, Pakistani Government and High Commissioner, Police Commissioner for Manchester, Manchester School of Economics and the European Parliament. However I am not sure all of them would be happy with the way their logos are used.
In addition to Smile Aid, the hashtag seems supported
by an organisation called British Muslim Voice (apparently Manchester-based).
http://www.britishmuslimvoice.org/about-us/
Unusually for an "about us" section, they don't reveal where their funding comes from.
#turnetolove appears to be an Islamic initiative.
One of the prominent people involved in the campaign appears to have been a previous director of GREATER MANCHESTER MUSLIM COMMUNITY LIMITED (a private limited company not a charity, note).
So what's going on here? The cross-faith initiative appears to be driven by one religious community. We've no idea where they get the money for posters and T shirts so they can dominate broadcast coverage. But don't the BBC have a duty to do a bit of digging rather than colluding in presenting their publicity material as though it is a genuine community initiative.
It seems to me that grief and remembrance is being micro-managed by unelected groups of dubious provenance who have no right to hijack such ceremonies. The fact that Mayors and others are happy to facilitate their actions is no excuse.
Well spotted MB!
ReplyDeleteMark Easton indulging his obsession about English "identity" (he don't like it) and wasting millions of pounds of licence fee money on his vanity project:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44306737
His stunning conclusion after all this scientific and very expensive research:
"...the interlaced English and British identities remain an important part of how the people of England see themselves. For many it seems the two are almost interchangeable, reflecting an enduring loyalty and love for the nation, its story and its values.
Being English is more than a factual statement about place of birth or citizenship. It is an attitude and a state of mind."
Wow! As Katty Kay might say.
Easton's face - an approving smirk- as he reported that consideraby fewer young Londoners were proud to be English said it all. Perhaps the fact that so few of them have ancestral roots in the country has something to do with their attitude.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the BBC's Chief Ideologue and Factfinder General gave due attention to that possibility...before he swiftly set it to one side. :)
DeleteAnd here is the BBC news:
ReplyDelete1. Zurcher goes beserker...serving up a history lesson for Trump as though Trump were a history don and Zurcher was one his brighter students prepared to take him on:
https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1003739269507186688
2. Apparently nothing on the BBC website about Remain funding collusion during the Referendum campaign. Covered by Guido:
https://order-order.com/2018/06/03/priti-hands-dossier-remain-collusion-evidence-electoral-commission/
Odd that because they splashed out big time on similar allegations against the Leave campaigners.
3. John Humphreys has a love-in with fellow Welshman Owen Smith on Radio 4's Today. Humphreys threw in a few forumulaic "balance" questions. For instance he noted that the dire predictions of economic recession after a Brexit vote had not come to pass...but allowed Owen Smith to get away with merely saying well the economy's not doing great. But still, Owen Smith got his many minutes of free publicity to push the case for a second referendum designed to keep us in the EU. Not bad for a nonenity backbencher who has virtually no influence over his party.
4. Whatever you think of Northern Rail, the timetable debacle is clearly a matter of public controversy. It's the job of BBC presenters to be seen to be impartial. Does this sound like impartiality? Nick Robinson couldn't care less what you think, by the way:
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1003523458645549056
5. Radio 4's Today programme is literally a BBC flagship. It has a prominent photo of the double Union and EU flags on a single pole (beloved of Remainiac pro-EU demonstrators) featuring in the banner on its website page.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/BBCr4today
They couldn't make their feelings more obvious.
The BBC News Facebook page masthead is instructive, too.
DeleteI've noticed a new BBC technique for burying good economic news. The services sector is growing faster than expected rebounding after a difficult first quarter. So that is buried in their live feed. The item they choose to feature as a headline for the feed is FTSE 100 down (it was up more the previous day - is this really "news"?).
ReplyDeleteYou'd think the Easton article raising issues of English identity would be the perfect topic for a Have Your Say discussion involving the BBC website users, who no doubt would be keen to join in the debate...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44321409
However, that would be a naive reaction which underestimates the depths of the BBC's cynicism and depravity. :)
Spotted in the news undergrowth on Today - the Bowen bird trilling out a familiar tune. Apparently, whereas other countries' Prime Ministers might make statements, or argue or express concern, the obdurate Netanahyu is "sticking to the line" that Hamas is a terrorist threat to his nation. Nice choice of words there Jeremy, suggesting that there is an absence of sincerity, and much artifice in its place.
ReplyDeleteBowen runs on rails so he should know.
DeleteYes, that's a typical turn of phrase. "He (Benjamin Netanyahu) will stick to his line that Israel is using legitimate force against terrorists".
DeleteGrenfell Inquiry: BBC 1 o'clock news showed a virtuoso piece of demagoguery from one of the tenants' barristers: The tragedy was the result of racial & social apartheid etc. etc.- this might not have been out of place on the hustings (although it could perhaps have been construed as incitement to racial hatred) but it certainly had no place in the inquiry - a view that the chairman appeared to share. If this character is allowed to continue in this vein, there will be riots this summer. I wonder why the Beeb pulled it from the 6pm news; perhaps they thought it was so OTT that it would harm the cause.
ReplyDeletehe BBC may well have dropped this particular item, but it is basically the same version of events they have been spinning from the beginning. Somehow the rich are to blame. If socialism is resentment masquerading as kindness, the masquerade has now been dispensed with. Grenfell is just an excuse.
DeleteVastly overpaid BBC presenters are apparently unaware of the irony when they preach about inequality. Yet whether it is uber-feminism or perceived racial and class inequality the predominate message across the whole range of BBC output is equality of outcome. The simple fact that only a cursory glance at history would demonstrate that this is a road to disaster seem irrelevant to those whose only aim is destruction.
I was struck by the phrase used by the barrister representing the tenant in whose flat the fire started that his client was literally "quaking" about having to give oral evidence at the inquiry. Hmmm...methinks and all that...
DeleteWhilst I wouldn't set aside all the criticisms of the loathsome super-rich K&C set who run things in that borough, I am also struck that no one is mentioning the prime purpose of the cladding, which is to save energy and carbon emissions and so fulfil the sorts of green policies favoured by the Green Party, and indeed all the mainstream parties. Had those policies NOT been pursued all those poor people who died would still be alive.
Why is that not relevant if we're looking at causality?
Unless I blinked and missed it, BBC TV news seems to have managed to get through this 6th of June without mentioning that it's the 74th anniversary of D -Day. Perhaps Commissar Easton was afraid it might give us something to be proud of and imposed radio, or ,rather, tv silence.
ReplyDeleteHad they covered it, they would have given the impression no one fired a rifle and it was a kind of protest march in favour of European Union.
DeleteYou utter cynic!:)
DeleteITV News showed some freshly coloured (former black and white) images of the landings - predominantly of American troops and landing craft.
DeleteFree speech is definitely dying in the UK.
ReplyDeleteOnly a couple of years ago the Mail Online offered a very free forum for expression beneath their stories. Gradually though, as the Mail has come increasingly under the influence of globalism (with its Sunday edition now openly pro-Remain and pro-PC multiculturalism), the freedom has been draining away.
We now have a situation where a character assassination piece by the "fascist Mail" , criticising Morrissey for supporting Tommy Robinson, doesn't allow ANY comments beneath. Most of their "controversial" stories these days have comments "moderated" which means they allow through a couple hundred of approved comments and that's it.
The only glimmer of sunshine in all this is that all the lefty BBC comedians are going to have to stop making jokes about the "fascist Mail".
Do you think so? They are still making jokes about 'Thatcher' and the Mail's support for Hitler in the 1930s.
DeleteThe 'Mail' is one of their 'dog whistles', none of their audiences actually read it but they all know they should hate it. Paul Sinha asked one of his audiences which newspapers they read and to a person they all claimed to be Guardian junkies, (well who would dare be different?).
Much like the original “Have Your Say” on the BBC website. It must have been very clear to the BBC that the say that most of the contributors were having was not in line with the corporate groupthink. So they neutered it.
DeleteJon Sopel thinks that if you have tarrifs on goods you dishonour the dead of the Allied forces in WW2...shame he hasn't directed that comment at the EU which places high tarrifs on US goods:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1004463912878792704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2F06%2F05%2Fmidweek-open-thread-6-june-2018%2Fcomment-page-2%2F%23comments
As they say, comments could be going better.
Jon Sopel thinks..
DeleteTHINKS?
New headline of the day. Sadly though, likely to be fake news.
The BBC doesn`t do "think" any more that it does God.
Re: The above comments on Grenfell, how long will it be before the tenants' legal team uses the, very convenient, Knightsbridge hotel fire to support the 'social apartheid' argument? - 'It didn't take them long to put THAT one out, did it?'etc. And what will the BBC's line be?
ReplyDeleteThe Grenfell Inquiry might avoid MB's question over the 'Green' credentials of the refurbishment and policies which were adopted. The Daily Mail comes in for criticism in this Carbonbrief article from June 2017:
Deletehttps://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-grenfell-tower-fire-and-the-daily-mails-green-targets-claim
A point that emerges from this article is the tendency of the refurbished building to become too hot in summer. Windows had been restricted to 100mm opening. It seems likely that in order to make the flats more comfortable, restrictors were compromised and entrance doors were propped open throughout the height of the building to promote a form of stack ventilation.
If this was the case, then the fire protection for the block in terms of both safety within each flat and protected escape routes would fail. Reports from the Inquiry suggest that most of the fire doors were rendered useless.
There is already a difference in narrative between the Inquiry and the O'Hagan report - particularly in two crucial areas: What was the exact time at which the fire started, and was the call to the emergency services delayed? It has not been denied that the door to flat 16 was open.
Another baffling piece of information: The owner of Flat 16 is said by his own barrister to have alerted his flatmates as well as neighbours on the 4th Floor of Grenfell Tower. This suggests that at least three people were staying at Flat 16 that night. Where are the first-hand accounts of what happened from these flatmates?
DeleteExtremely concerning development in terms of free political debate in this country. Mail on Sunday (= Remainiac Rag) editor Geordie Greig is now taking over running of Daily Mail. So the Globalists will now turn both Mail papers into pro-Remain, pro-globalist, pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalist propaganda sheets. Put that together with the take over of the staunchly pro-Brexit Express by the Mirror, and you have the prospect of not a single national newspaper supporting Brexit, despite 52% of voters having opted for leaving the EU.
ReplyDeleteDoes that really reflect well on our democracy or does it suggest we live in a society where free speech is dying before our eyes?
The City State of London is tightening its grip around the neck of the majority of the UK electorate forcing dissenting voices into silence.
DeleteJust in case we thought the BBC were changing their ways and addressing their own excesses, we find today in The Times:
ReplyDelete'BBC secretly used private firms to pay top stars millions'
... Last year the BBC paid 66 of its 96 highest-earning presenters £20.8 million via personal service companies .... .... in a move that experts said could have enabled tax avoidance of up to £20 million...
Is the BBC itself the home of corporate greed - and one of the trailblazers in the art of tax avoidance?
Is the BBC in "protect the Great Khan! mode? According to them Michael McIntyre has "laughed off" his mugging.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44408414
Laughed off? Well that's one way of putting it. He is a comedian, so it's not exactly strange that he would make jokes about it, but making jokes does not equate with "laughs off".
I suppose from the BBC's point of view it helps if you ignore him saying "f*** London", just don't mention it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5818663/Michael-McIntrye-jokes-Dublin-stage-show.html
Zurcher the Beserker getting exercised again in one of his "analysis" (aka grievance) pieces.
ReplyDeleteIn this analysis he accuses Trump of "spitballing". Impartial, free and fair? Would he ever dare to use such a word of the Clintons or the Obamas?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44412422
The "impartial" BBC is having an anti-Trump five minute hate session on the Frankie Boyle New World Order show. How cutting edge Frankie...
ReplyDeleteNow they're talking about euthanasia for old people.
Frankie seems to have dropped the cripple and cancer jokes but old folk are still game. :)
Now he's confirming he believes that climate change will lead to large swathes of England being flooded within 30 years.
He's got in the Brexit job.
Guest now equating left wing with kindness to much approval. Has he ever seen an Antifa mob?
Can we say that if ever Frankie Boyle was a disruptive voice he is now fully paid up to the Globalist PC agenda?
Yes - could it be that the recent spate of brutal attacks on old people has something to do with the fact that they have so often been vilified by the BBC as the selfish generation responsible for Brexit, the housing shortage etc?
ReplyDeleteVery good point Sisphyus. We know the BBC radicalised one person at least to go and commit a terrorist offence after seeing their docudrama on the so called grooming gangs. Maybe they have radicalised a number of marginalised (as they like to say) young people to terrorise the old.
DeleteI was writing half in jest but then I recall that traveller burglar who was killed, he was on social media going on about awful old people in a way similar to Frankie Boyle. So this isn't so far-fetched, that the BBC are fuelling persecution of old and vulnerable people by conscienceless able-bodied young people.
DeleteMaybe we could have that classified as a hate-crime (probably lacking in left-appeal though).
DeleteBedfordshire police seem to record age-related hate incidents but age-hate (for some odd reason, such are the ways of our PC World) is not one of the legally recognised categories that can result in additional sentencing. However, disability is and since disability often goes with old age, mentioning someone (or indeed a group of people) is "useless" or "serving no purpose" or "bed-blocking" might well constitute a hate crime under current legislation in relation to disability, with age being merely an incidental factor.
DeleteIn what sense does the following tweet demonstrate Nick Robinson's impartiality (something he is contractually bound to demonstrate)?
ReplyDelete"I never promised Brexit would be a huge success @Nigel_Farage has said & it might cost the country in the short term. But when I asked him why he’d said it he seemed keen to blame someone else - it is, he says, Theresa May’s fault @BBCr4today"
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1005379798666022912
As someone else commented on Biased BBC, they only had him on Radio 4 Today because the pathetic anti-Brexit Beeboids thought they had another "gotcha" moment (to add to their one other - the £350million ad on the bus).
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
I think people need to understand our free speech in the UK is under unprecedented attack. The Mail is going the way of the Mail on Sunday. It is becoming a pro-EU Soros mouthpiece with no comments allowed. How that's come about I've no idea but no doubt money is involved.
ReplyDeleteTommy Robinson, a father of young children, is banged up for 13 months in a same day trial for an offence that had it been committed by a pro-globalist lefty would have merited a slap on the wrist...
And now visiting sites like this which might be described as Islamophobic could merit a prison sentence.
WTF is going on? We the people need to stop this.
Antoinette Sandbach MP reported her constituent to the police for "abuse" in an e-mail accusing her of treachery in not supporting the PM, her party and constituents over a Labour amendment re Brexit.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5822955/Pensioner-left-living-fear-MP-reported-police-criticising-email.html
DeleteThis kind of angry letter of those in power is the stuff and tradition of politics. Governments have always received postbags full of letters accusing ministers of being crooks, charlatans and worse. In the finest civil service manner, they would receive a polite reply thanking them for their letter of the 4th inst., an explanation of government policy and an assurance of the earnest attention of their obedient servant. To write fearlessly to those in power, giving name, address and details is the very definition of freedom. MPs ought to be able to recognise that and respond on the substance of the complaint.
The elderly lady in question was forceful but no more forceful (from what I saw of what she wrote) than Peter Oborne might be in a Daily Mail article. It wasn't threatening or abusive. If a pro-Brexit MP had reported an angry constituent to the police on such weak grounds I suspect the BBC might have thought of making something of it - unlike here.
DeleteIf it had been Boris, imagine the BBC's excitable reporting. It was strong, certainly but that woman clearly feels no need to fear speaking her mind about a mere politician and her MP's action, which is as it should be. Even plod didn't think it merited action.
DeleteI hadn't heard about that disturbing case. Add to that the attempt by a northern Police Officer from a particular background to get a university offer to Jonaya English withdrawn. Jonaya is an excellent video blogger with bags of character who makes many pithy points on You Tube. She is I think mixed race. Can you imagine the fuss that the BBC would have made about such a case involving a mixed race young woman with conventional left wing opinions being treated like that - depriving people of their education is a classic pressure tactic of authoritarian regimes. There really is plenty to be worried about.
DeleteIt once seemed like we lived on a rock of liberty and now wherever you look, you can witness whole sections of freedom sliding into the sea.
Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday takes a swipe at the BBC, among others:
ReplyDelete"The EU has spent nearly 50 years burrowing into this country, and sucking power and wealth from us through a million tiny channels.
Its tentacles are deep into Parliament, the Civil Service, the diplomatic service, industry and commerce, universities and schools and, of course, the media, especially the BBC."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Take a look at this video:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC7En3GfVI
Huge numbers the Free Tommy protest...and what does the BBC report? - virtually nothing! Only reporting on a side protest involving some demonstrators blocking roads and a PC being injured. Imagine if this had been an anti-Brexit protest...there would have been live coverage and extensive reporting.
Senior BBC Trending reporter Mike Wendling's Twitter feed is, er, a bit one-sided over this.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/mwendling
I see Wendling's book about the Alt Right is published by the Pluto Press, which began as the publishing arm of the extremist left wing Socialist Workers Party and still isn't quite the publishing house for someone contractually bound to appear "impartial".
DeleteThat's a fascinating nugget about Pluto Press! According to Wikipedia Pluto Press themselves says they publish "progressive critical thinking". It still sounds doggedly far-left, and yet is publishing Mike Wendling of the BBC - a man whose Twitter feed more and more reads like a hardcore activist account. I'm sure it breaches BBC editorial guidelines on an almost daily basis.
DeleteLove the cat! A test card for this site!
ReplyDeleteThe Grenfell Tower fire was featured on BBC One in today's Songs of Praise, in which Aled Jones met with 'the community' to hear recollections of the tragic event of June 14th last year. One of the residents from the 13th floor recalled her experiences. She said that at 12.30 am she and her husband entered the building and saw and smelt 'thin' smoke in a lobby area of the tower. The resident in question went downstairs to fetch a phone, whilst her husband went and alerted his neighbours on their floor prompting them all to vacate the building.
ReplyDeleteThis report from the BBC programme is at odds with the BBC reporting of the Official Inquiry in which they say the fire started 'just before' the call to the emergency services at at 00.54. To quote from the BBC report: ..... Just before 01:00 on 14 June, fire broke out in the kitchen of a fourth floor flat at the 23 storey tower block in North Kensington, West London....
Andrew O'Hagan has told us that the fire started it start 'Near to 12.15 a.m’. That the resident featured on Songs of Praise could see and smell smoke at 12.30, might indicate that O'Hagan's time for the start of the fire was accurate.
How can it be that the BBC through two different outlets allow such inaccurate reporting? It is all to do with narrative. To get the maximum tear-jerking effect for Songs of Praise, they are prepared to use one set of facts, but when the narrative requires blame (via the Public Inquiry) to be apportioned to the ruling classes and greedy capitalist corporations, they are prepared to use another conflicting set of facts.
Well spotted!
DeleteBut the BBC 'reports the truth.' Yeah, right!
Katty Kay has an odd idea of what it means to maintain impartiality as a senior news presenter for BBC America.
ReplyDeleteShe goes out of her way to voice her support for Stormy Daniels and excoriate Trump/Giuliani.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44418519
It's one thing to report negative comments about Trump and Guiliani. But to side with their attackers?
Here's how she finishes off the article:
"As Ms Daniels own lawyer, Michael Avenatti, was quick to point out, "Mr Giuliani is an absolute pig for making those comments," he told an interviewer."
Leaving aside the clumsy construction (C minus for an experienced journalist in terms of style I would say), use of the phrase "As x pointed out..." means that as a writer you identify with the quotation...she is clearly nailing her partisan colours to the mast. No harm in that if she was not employed by the BBC and moreover was not using a BBC platform to present her views as "news analysis".
If the BBC allows this sort of comment through, then its journalists will just be free to insult Trump and his allies with not even a pretence of objectivity.
Worse, 'As x pointed out' implies that what follows is a fact, rather than a value judgement. Where Trump is concerned, the BBC has abandoned all pretence of objective reporting, eg Sopel last night on Trump's arrival at the Singapore talks.
ReplyDeleteNick Bryant,the BBC's New York correspondent who never, well hardly ever, files anything about New York, is getting all ethical on us re the Trump-Kim conference:
ReplyDelete"Is there a special place in hell for a dictator whose regime has jailed up to 130,000 political prisoners and, according to the International Bar Association, is guilty of “systematic murder (including infanticide), torture, forced abortions and starvation”?"
Well let's hope so. But when has Bryant ever said the same about the Chinese Communist regime, which is guilty of exactly the same (only on a bigger scale) crimes?
Answer: never. Nope,this isn't about morality, it's about kicking Trump, poking him in the eye and calling him names.
The US based BBC correspondents have indeed abandoned all pretence of impartiality.
That was on his twitter account:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1006377515378790404
The BBC's live feed on the Trump-Kim conference is more like editions of The Mash Report, Have I Got News For You, the News Quiz and Mock the News all rolled into one, rather than a serious commentary on averting the very credible threat of nuclear war that could wipe out whole cities and kill tens of millions. But that's the "world class" BBC for you.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Zurcher making a fool of himself...again...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1006642323940356096
In an effort to prove Trump wrong in referring to de Niro being in boxing movies (plural) Zurcher asks sarcastically: "How many boxing movies has De Niro been in? Raging Bull and ... ?"
Well the answer appears to be three in total from what I can find (took me about 2 mins of internet research - there's a tip for you Zurcher, try googling before indulging in Trump-bashing). Apart from Raging Bull there is Grudge Match and Hands of Stone.
Just when you think Radio 4 couldn't possibly get any worse...
ReplyDeleteAlong comes "SLICE: Politics and Personality" presented by a BBC journalist Jolyon Jenkins.
The "money shot" as they say in an equivalent industry was where he aired the theory that the Black Death had caused people in East Anglia to be less "open" and therefore more inclined to vote Brexit. Why this nutjob thesis was not also applied to the densely populated well heeled South region which also voted Brexit he did not say.
Here's a link to the prog.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b5ts24
And here is this contractually "impartial" journalist's twitter account below. You can see he is very proud of the Black Death thesis since he retweets a mention of it.
https://twitter.com/jolyonjenkins?lang=en
Here, in one particular tweet, intellectually-challenged Jolyon forgets the standard BBC "re-tweet defence" and actually tweeted a clear anti-Brexit (and anti-aged) tweet, showing he is not demonstrating that he is impartial, as required by the BBC.
https://twitter.com/jolyonjenkins/status/820694944402837504
So where are the BBC management? Why are they allowed staff with clear anti-Brexit opinions which they have voiced, to present programmes relating to the Brexit vote?
I am guessing from the tweets that Mr Jenkins is a Vegan and would like to offer the alternative thesis that regions with the greatest number of Vegans e.g. London were more likely to vote Remain, having suffered from shrinkage of the brain that goes with a Vegan diet.
Very concerning if true:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf7vHTa21QY
Tommy Robinson, imprisoned for a non-violent offence, is being held in a high security Category B prison full of just the sort of people who might try and kill him.
As not featured on the BBC...
Last night 21:30 Sky led with Seven Labour front benchers have resigned.
ReplyDelete10:00 BBC1 News didn't mention it in their headlines (might have been later on, but I switched off and went to bed).
We know the BBC is obsessed about Brexit this and Brexit that and especially Tory Rebels trying to stop Brexit...
ReplyDeleteSo why can't they find any space for this story...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5841359/Dominic-Grieve-pictured-addressing-secretive-meeting-EUs-London-HQ.html
It seems Dominic Grieve addressed a secretive meeting in the EU’s London HQ of those plotting to reverse Brexit. Yes, he was there along with Alistair Campbell and sundry other Extreme Remainiacs. Imagine if Jacob Rees-Mogg had been spotted popping into the Russian Embassy to discuss with Aaron Banks ways of ensuring a full-on complete Leave solution for Brexit...I have a feeling that might have found its way to the first or second headline story on all channels and the website on BBC.
Grenfell: How much longer will the BBC carry on milking this? It's a pity May got rid of Boris's water cannon because I have a horrible feeling we'll be needing them this summer. How does the coverage compare with commemorations of the victims of the various terrorist attacks over the last few years?
ReplyDeleteYou could not be more accurate; I counted 20 Grenfell stories on the BBC website in the last three days. I am certain I might have missed one or two. The coverage is totally over the top.
ReplyDeleteI do like watching AC Grayling on This Week, we should here more from him, this pompous old remainer needs more air time to increase support for Brexit.
ReplyDeleteV sad about AC Grayling because he wasn't a bad philosopher. But what to make of his lies, exaggerations, appeals to emotion etc? It's so sad.
DeleteI have observed before that imperial guilt is often at the root of a lot of bien pensant, well heeled "absurdo-liberalism". Grayling is from a white colonialist family with roots in Rhodesia and South Africa that did well out of Africa. You can see how someone suffering from white colonial guilt might latch on to some other big idea (the EU) in contradisction to the White British Empire. You can understand how someone of Grayling's age might have seen it as a much less conflicted idea to adhere to...
Grayling is clearly suffering from Brexit Derangement Syndrome; not as severe a case as that of Lord Adonis, but a bad attack nonetheless. It's sad to reflect that, but for Andrew Neil, his views would have gone unchallenged by the Beeb.
DeleteYes, it's a terrible affliction. Matthew Parris has admitted that it has sent him mad, lying awake at night fretting, with feelings of paranoia.
DeleteI look at him, and so pinched, clenched and bitter looking is he, that my first thought is What Happened to him? Something must have. Angry, disappointed man?
DeleteDid the referendum result really shake the foundations of some people's minds so much that they are unhinged? I don't understand that at all. I expect I was probably favourably disposed to the idea of the Common Market / EEC when young but it would never occur to me to think I am a citizen of Europe or the EU or that the latter institution is a foundation of my life and being. The very idea seems odd. I also take it for granted that I can go to Europe whenever I want, regardless of whether we are in or out. Why not? People did before there was an EEC. I can go to America, say, or Australia or Mexico, abiding by their rules of course.
Parris, Adonis, Grayling and, of course, Jasmin Alibhai-Brown: re: YA-B, go to Guido & search for her name + 'Brexit Driving Me to The Edge of Madness.' One might be forgiven for thinking she was pretty close to the edge BEFORE the referendum!
DeleteGrenfell? Don't comment! (I'm only commenting here to make a general recommendation to not comment!!). We all know what's going on. Every thinking, feeling human being understands grief, anger, and a search for justice and feels empathy with those who died or who lost loved ones. But we all know what has been going on in the media is way beyond that scope of human feeling and is taking us into highly politicised, ideological territory. Nuff said. Don't be drawn into it is my view.
ReplyDeleteI'm listening out for any dissenting voice in the wall to wall coverage of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It appears that the Official Inquiry is effectively starting the timeline at the point when the first call was received by the emergency services - why? Prior to this call there was a period of time during which effective fire-fighting action could have been taken, either by the fire services had they received the call promptly, or by the residents themselves.
DeleteThe exact cause of the fire has not been established, other than to say that it started around the fridge freezer. Apparently there wasn't an explosion.
The apparent failure of the Official Inquiry to establish these two basic tenets plays into the hands of the BBC and other MSM as they look to attach blame under the guise of corporate greed and heartlessness of the authorities. By apparently omitting this crucial information from the Inquiry, the way remains open to speculate.
See below...
The speculation:
Delete1. By applying insulation to the outside of the tower, heating bills might have been reduced during winter months, but in the summer, the building overheated making the flats unbearably hot.
2. In order to cool the flats at night, windows were left open and fire doors were propped open to promote stack ventilation and introduce cooler air.
3. Fridges within the flats were running flat out. Overload and overheating of the compressor motor might have caused an electrical fault which might have caused smoking and then ignition.
4. On seeing and smelling smoke, the flat owner and his flatmates failed to switch off the electrical supply to the property. They also failed to close the fire door to the flat and from the landing saw the fire take hold - according to some reports. The kitchen window was left open as well.
The reason for the speculation is that, in my opinion, the whole tragic episode is being used cynically by certain political factions to strengthen the perception of inequality and division within London, and by extrapolation the rest of the UK.
Is the green imagery surrounding the events actually representative of the green party with their wish for better insulation etc, or is it actually the green of religious belief used by a certain group within our multicultural society?
Normally the cause of a fire would be investigated and established. If that hasn't happened here, what is the reason for that? Was it too unsafe to enter the building? Or had people objections to it being done? I know there's been a great deal of noise and uproar around the whole scene and the handling of everything to do with it.
DeleteKeep listening for us Loondon. I can't bear the politicised over emoting. But any fire investigation that doesn't address how it started (including the failures of fire prevention), how it initially spread, how and when alarms were raised, how it was fought before the fire brigade arrived, etc., etc., just isn't a fire investigation.
DeleteI'm going to break my own rule and say that when I was counselling silence I was thinking more in terms criticism of the relentless and excessive media coverage (which can't be helping the mental health of young children caught up in the event), not the technical inquiry into what caused the fire. I think you raise some v. important issues Loondon from a technical point of view. It sounds plausible to me that the block was, in midsummer, overheating due to the exterior panelling and that could have led to the refrigerator fire (and let's not forget central London is several degrees hotter than the rest of the country and - given it was Ramadan - there would be a lot of cookers in operation in the block in the hours leading up to the fire, also adding to the heat). Clearly the inquiry needs to hear from the occupier of the flat where the fire started, otherwise the inquiry will have absolutely no credibility. I am concerned that his legal rep stated to the inquiry at the outset that the guy was traumatised by negative and false media coverage and was (IIRC what his legal rep said) "literally quaking" about giving oral evidence...All very, very odd in my view.
Delete.... 'Dr Barbara Lane’s report, one of five adduced to the inquiry today, said there were more than 100 non-compliant fire doors'...
DeleteIt sounds to me as if approximately two thirds of the fire doors within the Grenfell Tower were found to be 'non-compliant'. The choice of words is interesting: not broken, faulty, defective, badly maintained - or seals were ineffective, or doors closers were absent or not working. This leaves open the possibility to speculate that in two thirds of cases, fire doors might have been propped open to improve ventilation - thus rendering them useless.
I believe that the BBC along with most of the MSM are promoting the message that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was brought about by corporate greed and heartlessness from the 'ruling classes' - thus polarising focus onto the' haves and have-nots'.
DeleteThis portrayal is disingenuous. Inspection of the Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project 2012 planning application will show that it was a community based regeneration intended to improve the amenities in the area for the benefit of the residents there:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-960664.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=960664&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1
Scrutiny of this document reveals that great attention was paid to ventilation and the appropriate form of 'zinc' cladding. That the scheme underwent cost-saving changes is not in itself uncommon. That those changes were somehow deliberately taken in order to further disadvantage the 'have-nots' within the Kensington and Chelsea Borough is to unfairly malign well-meaning people within the commissioning and contracting groups. The regulation of these groups is another matter entirely.
Isn't it odd how sentencing (and often verdicts) in terror trials are announced late on a Friday.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1007662022337712129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2F06%2F13%2Fmidweek-open-thread-13th-june-2018%2Fcomment-page-5%2F%23comments
Populists who say there is a globalist elite undermining our societies are often accused of being "conspiracy theorists". Well here is a rather interesting article in the Mail which got a reporter into the Bilderberg Conference area:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5850053/Undercover-worlds-elitist-secret-society.html
An excellent article! Maybe Paul Dacre's swansong?
And who do we find attending this shadowy conference?
"...Remainers, including former Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and former Chancellor George Osborne, all took time out of their busy schedules to attend."
I bet they did!
I wonder if this is all reported on the BBC...?
Apart from the fact that some of our prominent Remain supporters were there, the article doesn't actually tell us much!
ReplyDeleteZurcher's Berserker condition, a result of Trump Derangement Syndrome, is getting worse.
ReplyDeleteHe's now quoting a white slave owner as a moral authority and the quotation is big on God...not Zurcher's usual MO. Sign of increasing imbalance.
https://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1007818567134441472