MB - Agreed. A letter from Roger Croston, in Wednesday's Telegraph, says it more eloquently than I could:
"I wonder how much the environmental protesters - especially the truanting school pupils - know about natural climate change."
This encompasses much, including volcanic and sunspot activity; thermohaline ocean circulation; Heinrich events, when icebergs break from glaciers; the Dansgaard-Oeschger rapid climate fluctuations; changes in the concentrations of the greenhouse gases of methane and carbon dioxide in millennial timescales; and bursts of cosmic rays increasing cloud cover.
Then there are the Milankovitch astronomical cycles of the Sarah's orbits around the sun, which have over the past 2.5 million years caused massive temperature oscillations.
Finally, there comes the man-made influence. Back to school, perhaps?"
Oops! Thanks, MB, I was about to ask why it is that we don't spot the things until we've hit the 'publish' button, but in this case I didn't spot it at all!
I tuned into Today, Radio 4 half way through what sounded like an extraordinary interview between I think Justin Webb and Zoe Williams of the Guardian whingeing about Roger Scruton. She was quite gracious in stating that she didn't wish to censor right wing opinions, although she didn't sound too convinced of her own logic there. But what struck me as extraordinary was the cosiness of the interview with Webb just accepting all of Williams' unsupported claims.
Peter Foster tweeted \\ Listen here to @zoesqwilliams at 2.55.36 on @BBCRadio4 calling Hungary a “very, very dark totalitarian state”. This is risible. And Justin Webb should have pulled her up https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004f5j //
Yes he should have but he was too busy making weird foreplay-style noises as Zoe wittered on in her barmy fashion (her main point seemed to be that it is unfair for the victims of sharp practice by the press to complain).
Prince William: "Extremism in all its forms must be defeated."
It's quite extreme to have one person designated the formal ruler of a country or to require by law that they follow a particular religion. Does his stricture cover the very extreme Extinction Rebellion?
A very revealing article by the BBC on the rise of nationalism in Europe.
In the country by country analysis it labels just about every nationalist party as far-right. So it clearly thinks that these are all racist, xenophobic and fascist parties, which is in the dictionary definition of far-right.
It labels them but I'm not so sure it is that it thinks they are all those things; it's more that the labelling is political in nature. It's also handy for lazy journalists who don't have to think.
What an odd analysis...it's like they gave up half way through...or did they realise that if they coloured in the UK they'd have to treat SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein as nationalists? Or be found out for their bias discrimination. Similar problem in Spain (as the Catalan nationalists are quite left wing). So they had to choose countries where the left-nationalists don't figure much if at all.
Arte seems to have some interesting progs openly accessible on their website (with English subtitles) - obviously a lot of EU propaganda as well. But I think I might check it out some more. Nothing against a bit of European culture...just don't like be ruled from mainland Europe.
Listening to the news on Radio 4 (6pm) I was surprised to hear them referring in mocking tones to a farcical turn of events in the Azerbaijan Formula 1 event. They don't normally go out of their way to criticise Islamic republics...they seemed to be going over the top regarding what wasn't exactly the biggest ever sports story. Then the penny dropped - of course Sky has now got back Formula 1, and so (as with cycling when Sky's team was so successful) the BBC are now happy to find negative stories about Sky's sport...
Yet another example of the Beeb's irony bypass: this morning's 'Breakfast' programme featured a lengthy item bemoaning declining numbers of UK songbirds. According to contributors to today's Telegraph letters page, one of the BBC's favourite sons, Chris Packham, has just played a major part in accelerating their loss by causing Natural England to end farmers' general licence to cull crows and magpies: the latter feed their young on songbird nestlings and crows are partial to both nestlings and lambs' eyeballs. As one of the letters puts it, people " who style themselves as conservationists...have proved themselves to be anything but."
More irony...Evan Davis (on "The Evan Davis Show", formerly known as "PM") interviewing Max Hastings (becoming more gaga by the day - he was speaking of legal persecution when he meant prosecution today). They were both hot on the heels of a presumably pro-Brexit Cabinet Minister, given their zeolatry in pursuit. Should have known they were after a pro-Brexiter when Gus O'Donnell crawled out of the woodwork yesterday.
The irony was that as proof of how seriously this was being taken, Max Hastings gave details of a conversation he'd had with a high ranking (current) Civil Servant. Yes...Max was the beneficiary of an unauthorised leak from a very senior civil servant - who was criticising the Cabinet Member for leaking! Of course the Grinning Gargoyle did not pick up on Hastings' confession or ask him what other secrets the Civil Servant had betrayed to him (a leading Remainiac).
I know this has already been raised but dragging in Zoe Williams immediately after the Roger Scruton interview just to make sure that none of his arguments would be taken seriously was appalling. When has the BBC ever done that to anybody from the the left?
I am no fan or Orban, but Hungary is clearly not a totalitarian state. To state that is as infantile as calling everybody you disagree with a “Nazi”or a “Fascist”. Considering the way in which the PC left constantly lectures us on the power of words with regard to shutting down free speech, they seem to have a very cavalier attitude to the meaning of words when it suits them. Or maybe Zoe Williams is just stupid.
The treatment of Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin by Twitter is a disgrace.
The treatment by the BBC of people even a little to the right of Ken Clarke is disgraceful - Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are trashed on a daily basis while BBC "saints" like Yvette Cooper, Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Chukka Umuna are allowed to inhabit criticism-free zones - despite the many lies that have passed their lips (verifiable on video).
Orban I think is a very intelligent and thoughtful man whose policies make sense. What he is criticised for - putting some restraints on a PC leftist judiciary, ensuring Hungary's borders are not swept away and putting some controls on institutions funded from outside (used to destabilise populist government).
I wouldn’t question Orban’s intelligence and I take Scruton’s rather clumsily worded point about the historical memory of Hungarians towards Islam. Something people in Western Europe probably don’t understand. But there is another historical memory and that is anti-Semitism. Orban is very careful with his words, but he divides opinion about this. Many of his supporters are less careful with their words.
What does Sri Lanka tell us about the future of Islamic State? Can we save the planet and still keep our stuff? Lyra McKee: What did she want us to know? Why would your mattress spy on you? What is justice in the age of Trump?
Here we see the BBC core values. Always disguise the message by turning it into a question. Always mix in some trivia.
'Lyra McKee: What did she want us to know?' Here is pretty much a blank canvas onto which any message can be laid. She had elements within her lifestyle, her location and her youth around which, as with Jo Cox, a narrative can be created.
'What is justice in the age of Trump?' defies comment. It sounds as if a twenty-year-old has been told to add something controversial or else he/she won't get their bonus this month. Come on Lad, you can think of something to give the pot a stir!
I see very little hope for the UK when its leading conservative journal, The Spectator, produces such a muddled editorial on the Sri Lanka bombings.
Here's a taster:
1. Apparently the bombings "make little sense". Nope. They make a lot of sense if you want to hurry along the establishment of the global Caliphate, as the attackers did.
2. They are apparently a symptom of something called "the globalisation of terror" as though we are facing a new phenomenon. We've seen Islamic terror across the world for centuries. Its founder stated explicitly he had been made victorious through terror. As for globalisation of extreme ideology, the Muslim Brotherhood has been spreading through the non-Muslim world for nearly 100 years now.
3. The perpetrators are apparently "culprits"...isn't that more the sort of word you use when someone has graffitied a park bench, not when people have slaughtered over 250 innocents?
4. The Bogus Equivalence Narrative is deployed in full as though there is actually a "reverse image" comparison between terrorist attacks on Christian communities and Muslim communities around the world when the actual proportion is probably more like 5000 to 1 in death toll.
5. Some nonsense about George W Bush having "accepted Osama bin Laden's premise" about a clash of civilisations, when that is precisely what he didn't do. He went out of his way to make clear there is no problem with Islamic ideology, maintaining it is fully compatible with the American traditions of free speech and democratic government.
6. Sri Lanka should treat the attacks as examples of "extreme criminality" not an ideologically-motivated attack.
7. "Similar tactics have been used to sow divisions between Muslims and the minority in Coptic Christians in Egypt." As if there wasn't huge (and violent) oppression of the Coptic community prior to IS attacks on them!
8. Apparently, IS had a "pretend state". No - it had a government, laws, judiciary, taxation, army, police force, state broadcaster...probably issued stamps for all I know. Why try to ignore the reality that there was a functioning state that would still be functioning now if Russia and the USA hadn't decided to crush it?
Delusion piled on delusion...if it's Fraser Nelson he's always been weak on this subject. The editorial has not one word about Sharia or what mainstream Islam (not IS) teaches about Jews, Christians, polytheists, using its founder as a model to be followed and Jihad. It's incredible how the global MSM, Spectator editor included, has absolutely no interest in what is taught in the great universities and Madrassas of the mainstream Islamic world that produce nearly all of the religion's clerics who in turn instruct its followers.
Also interesting is the Toby Young piece in this week's Spectator.
Seems like the alarm bells are starting to go off - finally! - about the prospect of a Corbyn Far Left government, which would move swiftly to finish off residual free speech.
About time mainstream conservatives woke up!
Sadly I've seen Toby Young on panels joining in demonisation of Tommy Robinson rather than taking the principled position of defending the man's free speech rights along with his own.
Rebel Media has some interesting additional info on the Notre Dame fire. Apparently a US based fund-raiser associated with the Cathedral restoration says it had two places of origin. Well there's something to think about.
I came across the reference to two seats of the fire a few days ago on a French website, but can't remember what it was.
The architect's mention of the difficulty of setting fire to old oak chimes with something I've been thinking: in 1944, the cathedral city of Coutances was bombarded by the allied air forces and 60% of the town was destroyed. The cathedral was hit by a number of incendiary bombs which melted their way through the lead of the roof and fell into the roof space. Despite the much reduced water pressure - the allies had dropped HE bombs which fractured a number of water mains, and half the town was on fire, - the fire brigade managed to bring the roof fires under control. So, if phosphorous/magnesium incendiary bombs struggle to burn down a mediaeval cathedral, how can an electrical fault do it?...in two places?
There is a question - Even if this fire was started deliberately then how? A lightening strike would have had the energy to ignite the fire. What accelerant might have been used, and how could sufficient volume of it have been carried up onto the roof undetected?
Yes Arthur, by way of reference I looked into the devastating York Minister fire of some decades ago. There were thunderstorms around during the night of the fire. The investigation concluded it was 80% likely it was lightning, 10% arson and 10% alectric installation.
I very much doubt it was a discarded cigarette. That would need a lot of tinder of some description to get going and people would probably have discovered smoke before the fire got hold. These old oak beams are very hard and not easy to set fire to.
Some sort of electrical fire cannot be ruled out entirely - but where? what burned initially? how did it spread so quickly?
There are a lot of very interesting and intriguing questions in which the MSM and the BBC display no interest at all for some reason, except to parrot anything that sounds like it rules out arson.
Surely there must be some CCTV/satellite imagery that will show where and when the fire started?
One could make a long list of the things the MSM, and BBC in particular, are NOT interested in...
1. What started the Notre Dame Fire.
2. Who procured the Steele dossier and whether our own intelligence agencies were involved.
3. George Soros.
4. How was the young Briton who attempted to kill Donald Trump on the campaign trail (Michael Steven Sandford) radicalised? Had he been reading hostile articles in the Guardian or on the BBC website? No one cares about his radicalisation. Here's the Wikipedia link on it:
5. Saudi and Qatari investments in the MSM...obviously.
Despite the incredibly lenient treatment he received (released in under one year) Trump was still abused by his mother! Tells you a lot about Hate Trump culture in the UK.
Arthur & MB - re: causes of Notre Dame fire, I don't buy the lightning idea - a lightning strike & clap of thunder at about 6pm in central Paris are going to be noticed! Re: accelerant, I suppose, if it were an inside job, paraffin could have been smuggled in & stashed a litre at a time & perhaps a bonfire could be built out of pine scaffolding planks. But really, the most puzzling, & sinister, thing is the authorities' eagerness to state it was an accident before the investigators have had time to sift through and test the tons of debris. I think there's a real chance that somebody will be made a scapegoat.
Yes - I didn't make clear I was ruling a lightning strike out re Notre Dame and I don't think anyone has suggested there was any lightning over Paris that day. I was really just making the comparison with the York Minster fire which was on a similar scale, so as to suggest that yes a lightning strike could indeed deliver the sort of energy required to set fire to ancient beams but there isn't much else apart from deliberate arson or a fire beginning somewhere there was a huge amount of tinder (which doesn't seem to be the case here). I am sceptical about the electrical equipment theory which seems to be based on no evidence at all, but it might be an outside possibility.
This was an unusual fire in that it took hold while the building was fully in use. Most of these devastating fires like York Minster and the Glasgow Arts building tend to occur when there's no one around, usually in the middle of the night. Also, this is one of Paris's famous landmark buildings. People are looking at it all the time. It was still daylight when the smoke was first reported. It's the speed with which the fire took hold that makes you think some sort of accelerant was involved.
We seem to have here as well another Grenfell Tower situation where praise is being heaped on the fire service when the reality is, leaving aside individual bravery, they seemed completely unprepared for this eventuality which (like Grenfell Tower) was entirely foreseeable, given - in this case - preceding arson attacks on Churches in many parts of France. Why were they unable to get the fire under control? It looks like organisational incompetence to me.
We await the results of the (real) investigation as opposed to Macron's hope-based intuitive conclusion.
I saw a video which suggested the fire travelled against the wind direction... a "natural" fire would tend to follow the direction of the wind. A fire where accelerant had been distributed by an arsonist would tend to follow the direction in which the accelerant lay.
An inside job is most likely, based purely on what we know.
I think this is yet another episode showing how very dangerous it is to deploy PC censorship to maintain a nebulous "social cohesion". By claiming this was an accidental fire before any evidence had been obtained, Macron has just managed to arouse suspicion as conflicting evidence has emerged and, more damagingly has allowed all sorts of conspiracy theories to get traction on the story.
An honest response from Macron and the MSM of "we don't know yet but as seen as we find anything of significance we will let you know" would have been accepted.
[Incidentally, although it was a while back (35 years)the reconstruction of York Minster cost a mere £3 million...they will only need a billion Euros if they are planning to create some modernist monstrosity.]
Why is there little or no effort being made in order to find the individual seen on the roof just prior to the fire starting? There must be cctv in and around the complex.
One stray bit of information I have picked up: it is reported that the oak beams had been treated for infestation recently. Apparently a fire at Nantes Cathedral was caused when a petroleum based product was used on the timbers which subsequently caught fire.
If this also happened at Notre Dame that could explain the rapid spread of the fire. But it seems incredible that anyone would, in this day and age, create such an obvious fire risk hazard. Just one stray lit cigarette thrown away would be enough to set the whole thing ablaze...
But again, no one has officially spoken of that possibility, so it remains to be seen whether the "timber treatment" story is genuine.
Sorry, MB - for some reason, I assumed you were responding to a suggestion re: lightning that had been made elsewhere!
That's a very interesting snippet, re: insect infestation. Most woodworm killers are based on some kind of volatile fluid - they give better penetration and 'creep' than water-based products, but as you say, being inflammable isn't very helpful! But if, as we suspect, the authorities are desperate to blame anything rather than arson, it's surprising they haven't latched on to the woodworm treatment idea!
A story on the BBC website today is about the reimagining (is that s word?) of classic albums.
What classic albums I thought? - rising to the clickbait title.
First one mentioned was The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band . Ok,fair enough says me.
But the others A Love Supreme by John Coltrane. Kishi Bashi's 151a (No, never heard of it). The Sophtware Slump by Grandaddy (No) A Ghost is Born by Wilco (No)
The story was rubbish as was the art and the albums are hardly classics by any definition with one exception.
Why did they even bother publishing it - am I really paying my licence fee for this trash?
Yes, it's not just the bias, it's the shoddy quality as well - given they have £5 billion to play with.
I think the same sort of service could be provided at probably one fifth the cost of the licence fee...you've got to remember how much cheaper it is now to produce programmes, so much has been automated...you don't need hundreds of technicians as in the old days. That's why there are, for instance, so many radio stations nowadays operating on shoestring budgets and many produce programmes of equal quality to the BBC.
The BBC should discontinue its global news gathering. There are plenty of sources of news for that including Reuters. Focus on the UK.
The local radio stations can be commercialised. Hardly anyone listens to them.
Then cut back hugely on the management structure. The BBC has 382 members of staff earning over £100k. That's well over £50 million I expect and it creates a mounting pension obligation. The BBC is reported to be facing an £18billion shortfall in pensions.
Gavin Esler exchanges his Dateline soapbox for the Change UK one. Like all PC Globalists he wants to stop Leavers using the "B" word - betrayal.
But of course he has no criticisms of his Change UK leader using the B word when she accused the Government of "betraying" Tory values.
The B word has been part and parcel of our political culture for centuries. Only now in this era of 1984 style censorship have the ideologues sought to ban its use - not by themselves of course but by those who refuse to buckle and bend.
I think we know the answer to that. It's an issue in every religion and every branch of religion. When it comes to this issue the BBC prefer to pretend we live in a 1950s style Britain with only a couple of important branches of religion as opposed to 57 varieties.
Reminds me, the BBC used to be very keen on Methodism. Lord Soper (you might have to google him) was hardly ever off the radio or TV. Well, they used to say "the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marxism" - there's a laugh!...no one would claim that now.
Well everything to do with the BBC really as they are full time promoters of George Soros or David Miliband!
I find that incredible. I've seen these stray references to UK signing up to various military co-operation agreements but hadn't bothered to invesigate further. That letter though is rather amazing. Since when have Soros or Miliband been military experts? Presumably this will all be about migrants and using armed forces as a policed free ferry service to Europe...
First time I saw Mercer on TV I did not like the look of him. His subsequent interventions have all been appalling - not least joining the Far Left mob in taking down Scruton. I think Mercer is probably quite thick and German officials no doubt run rings around him.
The idea of Mercer as a future Prime Minister is a joke, beyond a joke - even the globalists wouldn't have such an idiot as PM.
Just researched a bit more about this. Soros and Milliband are on the advisory committee for the Munich Security Council. It’s ‘about us’ page says - The MSC is the world’s leading forum for debating international security policy.
beyond that, it’s difficult the to see what they actually do. It all gets a bit more murky.
Influencing conflict through dialogue, it says. Oh and there’s a big picture of Theresa May on the conference page. I gave up after seeing that.
It's hard to pin down the full story of anything from twitter. In this case I couldn't see who wrote the letter - and kept thinking some illiterate - or to whom. In any case, it's quite worrying to discover that Miliband and Soros are in everything. I've said before Soros has a house but I don't whether he has residency or citizenship or whether he actually lives here. I was already annoyed enough at hearing Miliband lecturing us about democracy recently on the BBC, without this as well. Who does he think he is? We know how patronising he is from his time as a minister and would-be leader here. Got very grand of himself when he became Foreign Secretary, according to Steve Richards, loving the limousines and the elevated status of it all. Mercer is one of those people who've been granted some kind of special attention and esteem that probably wasn't ever merited.
Read elsewhere the transcript of the Webb interview where he badgered Roger Scruton about alleged use of dehumanising language about Muslims and Scruton protested that he was accusing him of racism. How unusual for the BBC!
Caught a snippet of something on Today (between 8 30 and 9 - haven't got the iPlayer) where Webb was saying along the lines that we've concentrated on 'brown people' rather than people like the killer in the synagogue in San Diego. That's him at it again, with an accusation of racism, this time directed at a collective 'we'. Who says that and who the hell has called terrorists 'brown people'? Nobody that I know of but racist Webb looking for skin colour rather than the actual identity involved and projecting his racism onto others. Shouldn't he be 'held to account' and sacked from his prominent position in broadcasting for his dehumanising language and unfounded racism attribution and smearing?
I've never once said or felt that! There have been plenty of nutjob white converts to Islam who have done appalling things. Also Hinduism and Bhuddism are mostly religions of "brown" people or "people of colour" as PC Americans like to say but I've no problem with those religions as they seem to have no big problem with me.
The BBC's appalling racialisation agenda is doing very, very serious damage to the country. The case for abolition of the BBC grows stronger every day. There was a time I felt we could maybe have reform but now I am not so sure - I think it needs to be sawn off at the roots. Abolish the BBC. Abolish the licence fee, take away its charter and ownership of its brand (otherwise the monster might just continue but this time funded by globalist billionaires or be bought by one of the big social media companies).
It’s not just the BBC. Our politicians and institutions are all at it. The liberal globalist agenda is everywhere in the seats of power.
Justin Webb is just saying what they all think. The bigger is is how you turn it all around, the BBC is the big hairy propagandist for the ruling elite but shutting it down won’t change the politics. Blair accelerated the long march through the institutions which is firmly ensconced today.
'For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard...' Peter Hitchens taking George Eaton to task about the Roger Scruton stitch-up and stitching him up in turn https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/04/as-promised-my-e-mail-exchange-with-george-eaton-of-the-new-statesman.html#comments
A new, lengthy article by Ben Chu which to my mind has a clear left wing message and shows the BBC at its most politicised.
It’s an interesting read but hardly balanced and whilst cleverly done it is not impartial. It’s used the ‘politicians from both sides’ trick and the ‘some say’ BBC technique to quick shift into its chosen narrative.
Anyway it left me in no doubt about where it wants the direction of politics and economics to go.
From 1945 to about 2000 what you might call Sensibilism was the ruling doctrine in this country.
Not everything was good or perfect, but steps were taken to improve things. Poorly run private monopolies were nationalised. We had the NHS, then general access to a whole new range of consumer goods and after that a necessary period of social liberation.
For a long time it seemed like everything was getting better: health, wealth and maybe even happiness. Thatcherism even held out the hope that every young family could own a home with a garden if they wanted...
And then it all started to fall apart very rapidly. Sensibilism was replaced by PC Globalism which quickly descended into the madness of officially-approved no borders mass immigration that came to full fruition in 2015 across Europe. But PC Globalism - which was bad enough but which, nevertheless, some might have argued was, at least in theory, about equality and internationalism - itself is being eaten up now, by (BBC-approved) Racialisation, which has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with race grievance, by "Outcomism" (the doctrine that all outcomes have to be the same - the enemy of true egalitarianism), by transgenderism, by enablement of Sharia, by the Bolshevik Revival (who'd have thought one of the most spectacularly unhappy societies ever created on this planet is now being held up again as an exemplar by the likes of Ash Sarkar, Corbyn, O'Donnell and co and being taken seriously when they do so) and by a number of associated evil influences on the body politic.
How are we going to stop this descent into farce, a short lived farce that will be followed by a tragedy of unparalleled proportions?
The only thing that is going to stop this is a populist "Orbanista" revolution at the ballot box.
Clearly, voting for the Lib-Lab-Con coalition parties won't change anything.
So - if you are among the number who are seriously concerned about the direction of travel of the UK (towards abolition of free speech, towards race-based politics, towards unapologetic Communism or the imposition of Sharia) we all have to make our individual decisions.
Not voting would be an act of desertion when the country is in its hour of need. It is time to abandon tribalism and vote for applying the brakes before we accelerate over the cliff. That means a vote for the Brexit Party, UKIP, For Britain, or independents like Tommy Robinson as you see fit. As long as these groups and individuals accept basic democratic principles that's fine.
My own votes will be decided upon tactically.
I have some faint hope that The Brexit Party might metamorphose into a powerful political force in the UK Parliament - can but hope! If it does it might be powerful enough to force the adoption of PR which will completely change the UK political landscape.
I think it was always going to be a gamble having Carl Benjamin as an MEP candidate for UKIP. I've never agreed with everything he said and I didn't like the way he'd said a lot of what he said (unnecessary abuse and swearing).
However, I must say as this campaign is going on he is growing in stature. As someone once said of Margaret Thatcher his metal/mettle has been tested and it's looking pretty good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwTBl6Uh1sw
Very good on identity politics: inversion of fundamental British culture which is based on the individual before the group identity.
I back him 100% on that basis. He understands the fundamental issue we are now facing as a nation.
MSM have successfully tarnished UKIP and the brand. Some of it they did to themselves, the result being that it it is unlikely that they will be credible force again irrespective of any talented candidates and a complete manifesto. The electorate have another preferable Brexit party as the polls show.
We have to remember that, while under Nigel Farage, UKIP was subject to a relentless campaign of vilification - in the run up to the General Election 2015 there were virtually daily negative stories. It helped keep down the UKIP vote then, so avoiding a political earthquake. This time the MSM have decided to boost The Brexit Party to ensure UKIP (and their bogeyman of Tommy Robinson) is marginalised. The MSM could have made much more of the forced resignations of top Brexit Party organisers. But they have chosen not to.
The thing about politics now is that everyone, but everyone, is playing a "dangerous game".
May is risking the country's economy and her party's continued existence on a flawed so called deal.
Corbyn and Co are aiming for a Marxist socialist revolution while pretending to the Labour core vote they are mainstream politicians.
Blairites are "hanging on in there" despite the Hard Left takeover of Labour. Change UK are trying to create a new political movement - not an easy task... all its leading lights may have prematurely terminated their careers.
The Lib Dems are risking everything by pledging to overturn the democratic referendum vote of 2016, regardless of the people's will.
The Greens are backing a disruptive anarchic movement demanding the impossible.
The SNP are risking a lot to keep the dream of "independence" (under the EU) alive - as with the Quebecois, this is probably their last chance.
In the circumstances, I think it is difficult to say whether Gerard Batten has got it right or wrong. He is playing a "dangerous game" but it has already paid dividends in that there is a real prospect a populist party - The Brexit Party - could hold the balance of power after the next general election (presumably renamed by then), because the MSM have felt the need to back it against UKIP. As Batten said, UKIP was facing extinction after the Bolton episode. He has saved the party and given it some real definition. If The Brexit Party can introduce PR then UKIP may yet become a political force.
Rather technical but BBC Reality Check is again spreading mistruths about Brexit. I wouldn't bother, but Reality Check is supposed to be a punctilious setting right of the record (larfs!).
"The closest equivalent would be Norway, which is not part of the EU, but is part of the single market, through its membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)."
UNTRUE. Norway has no involvement in the Single Market, the members of which are exclusively EU members. Norway is part of the EEA (the European Economic Area) through being an EFTA member.
"In order to continue to have access to the single market, the UK would need to formally apply to EFTA to become its fifth member." UNTRUE We can have access to the Single Market by other means e.g. either through a separate deal or through WTO terms. EFTA does NOT have 100% access to the Single Market under the EEA agreement although it does have privileged access (and pays for it).
"The EFTA has its own court, but it still needs to pay heed to European Court of Justice rulings when it comes to disputes involving EU law." TRUE BUT MISLEADING. The point about the EEA agreement is that it is a mirror agreement with complicated dispute resolution procedures in the middle. It's not just a question of "paying heed" - the ECJ is the final arbiter of whether the agreement is being implemented correctly.
"But Norway is not part of the customs union, something which the SNP also wants the UK to retain." TRUE
"Mrs May has resisted any previous attempts to go along with a Norway-style Brexit model, arguing that it "wouldn't deliver on the vote of the British people".
However, it would alleviate the problem of preventing a possible hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic - something for which negotiators on both sides are still trying to find a long-term solution. " UNTRUE There is a hard border between Norway and Sweden, so a "Norway style Brexit deal doesn't resolve that".
Interestingly I discovered when checking the BBC's Fake Facts that there is no hard border between San Marino and Italy. So, the article is wrong to suggest you need to be "part of the Single Market" (whatever that is meant to mean) in order to resolve the NI border issue, since San Marino is not part of the Single Market.
So really this is just the usual cowpat of propaganda from the BBC.
The BBC have finally caught up with the news about Corbyn's foreword praising the anti-semitic JA Hobson's book "Imperialism".
Couple of points:
1. The BBC is normally very emphatic when dealing with racist tropes - condemning them but more often than not refusing to restate them publicly. But this is how they treat the issue on this occasion:
QUOTE:
The book, which has been criticised as anti-Semitic, espouses the theory that finance in Europe was driven "by men of a singular and peculiar race who have behind them many centuries of financial experience".
He also suggested that European countries would not engage in a war "if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it".
UNQUOTE
So they leave it open...it might be racist, it might not. Even the Labour Party is not denying it's racist! They also bring in Tristram Hunt to defend the long dead Hobson, whereas with the very much alive Roger Scruton no one was brought in to defend him:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47880669
2. The BBC is normally at the ready with "Explainers" when it comes to Far Right racism, but is very coy about Far Left racism. The reality, as I've said before, is that anti-semitism has been entwined with socialism and Marxism from Day One.
The great British social democrat Henry Hyndman was notoriously anti-semitic. Hobson was, clearly. Marx, despite his heritage made and endorsed anti-semitic comments. Lenin was greatly influenced by both Marx and Hobson...we can see how Leftist anti-semitism entered the Bolshevik bloodstream along with the long established anti-semitism of the Orthodox Church.
But the BBC always present anti-semitism on the Left as an aberration rather than a rooted phenomenon among those who call themselves socialists.
Rather than an aberration, I think it is condoned and ignored indulgently, like a parent would overlook a child’s behaviour. Not acceptable in others but tolerated in your own.
Today the BBC has been reporting one of those stories when you instantly know who’s side they are on. Caster Semenya ticks every single BBC box so I suppose it’s not surprising. On the radio bulletin, they had a single expert voice who said the judgement wasn’t correct because all the science wasn’t presented to the IAAF.
The main website article is very BBC with explainers on Transgender, Intersex and DSD (a new one on me). Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity reporter wades in too. Thats a new job title I’d not come across before.
It’s another example of the BBC as judge and jury, with any dissenters, the IAAF and CAS in the dock.
BBC titles are becoming more and more bizarre as time goes on. Maybe we will have a "BBC Skin Tone and Consciousness correspondent" or a "BBC Tactile Sensations and Height Issues correspondent" before too long. That's only half in jest...
I am not sure the BBC policy in this area has yet been finalised (when it has you can be sure it will be enforced with the customary Stalinist attention to detail). I think there is still a war going on, behind the scenes, between "BBC Full-on-Feminists" and "BBC Transgenderist Fluid Identitarians". This battle is taking place in no man's land (excuse the analogy)...you can either look at the athlete as (a) A Feminist Cause: a wronged woman (why shouldn't a woman have as much testosterone as she wants to) or (b) A Transgenderist Cause: Identity is fluid...she's neither a man nor a woman or she's whoever she wants to identify as.
There is a story in the Long Reads section of the BBC News website Homepage:
... 'I was given HIV at Eight - and couldn't tell a soul.' ...
I'm sure this story was around with the same photo and headline several months ago. This must be a new move on the website - broadcasting repeats in case we didn't get the message first time around.
I think I've noticed that before now...stuff can be repeated if they really like it. And there is also the phenomenon of leaving stuff up for weeks, months even.
Yes MB. John Pirnaar's last contribution to the Politics page is dated 1st March. I seem to remember that prior to that his piece had a date early in December.
Michael Gove meets Chris Packham as Defra investigation launched into bird shooting ban - runs the Daily Telegraph headline today.
So BBC activism wins again. The message here is that so long as the cause is BBC friendly, their presenters can rely on the BBC to promote, agitate and prominently report personal campaigns.
Packham knows this only too well, he got them to repot on his success in stopping farmers shooting crows. He got them to report dead crows being strung up on his gate, he got them to report death threats. No need for balance. He can rely on the BBC to support and report his side of the story.
Now he has a personal audience with a senior cabinet member. No need for a PR budget for his Wild Justice campaign group.
He works for the BBC ,you see. You get it for free.
Their reporting of this on 10 pm news consisted of laying a smokescreen to protect 'their boy.' Packham had campaigned to prevent 'killing of birds' - no mention of the fact that the birds in question were crows and magpies, or of the fact that they take songbird nestlings. No admission, either, of the well-established FACT that crows peck out the eyes of young lambs - instead, we were told that it is 'alleged' that crows attack lambs. Come on Beeb, how about a quick reality check?
Ken Clarke lying again. Claiming the Customs Union was never mentioned much during the campaign. It was mentioned by both sides nearly every day. Not picked up by the impartial Chair.
For the 'Anonymous' who wanted to learn more about Anthropogenic Global Warming 'Deniers' : if you go to 'The Conservative Woman' site and click on 'Keep calm and carry on ignoring the climate scaremongers' you'll find a link to an article in 'The City Journal' by climatologist Judith Curry - interesting stuff!
Hi, Sisyphus. Thanks for that. I'll definitely have a read of it. I've been thinking about this and to be honest, it's not even about setting it up as opposing sides such as 'deniers' and upholders. Even with the best will in the world, many things can't be definitively determined or settled. Continuing open inquiry and discussion from many sources must be better than closing down and declaring a sort of dogma.
There was an intriguing throw-away comment comment on the Zoe Ball Radio 2 show this morning from Josh Widdicombe the unfunny side-kick heralding the return of The Last Word on Channel 4. He said: "There won't be so much on Brexit now that it has all settled down" - or words to that effect. Doe he know something we don't? - Or worryingly, do the comedians [sic] and their friends within the BBC /Westminster bubble consider Remain to be a done deal?
Well we all saw the huge sigh of relief and the relaxed smiles after a no deal exit was voted for by the Commons, albeit it passed I think only on the vote of one crooked MP. And when Simpleton Josh says "on" I suppose he means "attacking".
A good and powerful video by Paul Joseph Watson about his totally unjustified banning by Facebook and Instagram.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8
As he points out, they didn't stop at Alex Jones and they won't stop at him.
We are seeing a complete media lockdown (and remember Antidem PC Globalist Nick Clegg is overseeing a lot of this). This is the effective end of free speech given that as Watson says, the internet is the new public square.
What we have here is the equivalent of newsprint companies refused to supply paper to publications they don't like. It's an outrage against free speech.
It is very insiduous as Watson points out. It is now extending to banking and credit cards (refusing service if the person or group is felt to have committed a Thoughtcrime). What next will supermarket delivery firms feel justified in refusing to supply Mr Watson's groceries? Starvation might be a novel method for PC Globalists to impose their monoview of the world but it could be quite effective.
I noticed the other day that Professor Exley, a renowned world authority on aluminium toxicity (who has been investigating the effects of the use of aluminium adjuvants in nearly all vaccines) had attempted to crowd fund via GoFundMe some further scientific research having been denied further funding by all the main research funding organisations; but he had been kicked off GoFundMe for the Thoughtcrime of "spreading misinformation". No one with the same scientific background as Professor Exley has challenged the validity of the results of his previous research yet the non-science people at GoFundMe feel they know better than Professor Exley.
We really are in 1984 territory now. As Watson notes, it's not just people like him getting banned - if anyone else on Facebook queries the ban, they too will get banned.
Anyone who voted Lib-Dem as a protest against the main two parties must be careful what they wish for. The Lib-Dems are avowed Brexit reversers. Possibilities of coalitions may yet allow them to weald power sufficient to deny Brexit any any form.
Many people had no alternative candidates - the alternative was not voting or spoiling their ballot paper. I think they will make their views on Brexit known at the EU elections.
The BBC projects that, if results it analysed were replicated across Britain, both the Conservatives and Labour would get 28% of the total vote. The analysis, based on 650 wards in which the BBC has collected detailed voting figures, implies the Lib Dems would get 19% and other parties and independents 25%.
What a completely futile exercise, local council election results are not indicative of a future general election and will not be replicated.
So what’s the point? Are the BBC deliberately sowing confusion and trying to show how close things are. Independents neck and neck with Lab/Con. And no UKIP or Brexit Party.
Sis, no I didn't. I was cooking a prawn curry so missed it. Nothing surprises me anymore on MT. What a stupid question by Mary. I did hear Jeremy Vine at lunchtime saying much the same thing and wondering whether it was local issues driving the voting instead.
They are completely Brexit blind or playing a cleverer deflection game.
Round my way, people are even more pro-Brexit than they were at referendum time because of the betrayal and behaviour of MPs.
Interesting article by Toby Young in The Spectator about charities' political activities. The BBC's favourite The Resolution Foundation is mentioned, and the BBC's involvement in raising money through its Comic Relief. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/charities-are-allowed-to-be-political-if-theyre-left-wing/amp/
Politics has changed. It doesn’t matter very much who or what the BBC support. The Conservatives are sleepwalking to oblivion.
They can’t change because most are Liberal Globalists and don’t like what the electorate are telling them.
Perhaps May and parliament have done us a favour since the referendum because they have shown their true colours thanks to Brexit.
The genie is out of the bottle and I don’t think the two party status quo can survive.
The electorate will have their say about their behaviour and betrayal at the EU elections and general election. A proper Brexit will prevail but it many take a few years to put in place.
I hope you are right Arne, but don't expect that outcome without a real struggle - starting with a sly deal with Labour to avoid the European elections. If they do go ahead, I agree with your appraisal.
Arthur, If they do a BRINO deal with Labour involving a custom union and avoid the EU elections I still think it won’t satisfy the majority of 17.4m who voted out. They will still get their come-uppance, voters will not stand for it come an election. The main parties think just getting on with it will save their bacon, but it won’t if it’s seen as a sham Brexit.
Heard a piece on FOOC today from I presume Rupert Wingfield-Hayes during which he stated, as it seemed to me, that Japanese PM Abe wishes to restore Emperor worship in Japan. I've never seen that suggested anywhere else so it was a surprise. Are we just supposed to accept such claims without evidence. There's nothing about this on Wikipedia. There is some evidence he supports to objectives of a group (Nippon Kaigi or “Japan Conference”) which include restoring something like Emperor worship. But I don't think Abe has ever said he wishes to restore Emperor worship. In the circumstances shouldn't the BBC stick to "some analysts claim that..." or similar.
That's a very annoying pic in so many ways.
ReplyDeleteMB - Agreed. A letter from Roger Croston, in Wednesday's Telegraph, says it more eloquently than I could:
Delete"I wonder how much the environmental protesters - especially the truanting school pupils - know about natural climate change."
This encompasses much, including volcanic and sunspot activity; thermohaline ocean circulation; Heinrich events, when icebergs break from glaciers; the Dansgaard-Oeschger rapid climate fluctuations; changes in the concentrations of the greenhouse gases of methane and carbon dioxide in millennial timescales; and bursts of cosmic rays increasing cloud cover.
Then there are the Milankovitch astronomical cycles of the Sarah's orbits around the sun, which have over the past 2.5 million years caused massive temperature oscillations.
Finally, there comes the man-made influence. Back to school, perhaps?"
Is Ed Milliband wondering if he can flog her a large, expensive, granite slab; only used once, one careless owner?
DeleteNone of the six pledges on the "Edstone" related to climate change. In fact most of them seemed to involve more carbon emissions, not fewer.
DeleteI make so many typos myself I can have an honest laugh at your Planet Sarah! :)
Oops! Thanks, MB, I was about to ask why it is that we don't spot the things until we've hit the 'publish' button, but in this case I didn't spot it at all!
DeleteEdstone by Torsten Bell, wasn't it? He now hangs out with Willetts planning how to get money and free tv licences off old people.
DeleteTorsten was also mastermind behind the "only 16,000 migrants will come from Eastern Europe" analysis - out by a modest 2100% or thereabouts.
DeleteI tuned into Today, Radio 4 half way through what sounded like an extraordinary interview between I think Justin Webb and Zoe Williams of the Guardian whingeing about Roger Scruton. She was quite gracious in stating that she didn't wish to censor right wing opinions, although she didn't sound too convinced of her own logic there. But what struck me as extraordinary was the cosiness of the interview with Webb just accepting all of Williams' unsupported claims.
ReplyDeleteSee The Conservative Woman, "How Roger Scruton was skewered by a disgrace to journalism."
DeleteAlso Conservative Home - "Scruton and the gulf between Conservatives in Parliament and conservatives outside it."
DeleteThanks - led me to this:
Deletehttps://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-scruton-tapes-an-anatomy-of-a-modern-hit-job/
MB- Me too!
DeletePeter Foster tweeted
Delete\\ Listen here to @zoesqwilliams at 2.55.36 on @BBCRadio4 calling Hungary a “very, very dark totalitarian state”.
This is risible.
And Justin Webb should have pulled her up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004f5j //
Yes he should have but he was too busy making weird foreplay-style noises as Zoe wittered on in her barmy fashion (her main point seemed to be that it is unfair for the victims of sharp practice by the press to complain).
DeletePrince William: "Extremism in all its forms must be defeated."
ReplyDeleteIt's quite extreme to have one person designated the formal ruler of a country or to require by law that they follow a particular religion. Does his stricture cover the very extreme Extinction Rebellion?
A very revealing article by the BBC on the rise of nationalism in Europe.
ReplyDeleteIn the country by country analysis it labels just about every nationalist party as far-right. So it clearly thinks that these are all racist, xenophobic and fascist parties, which is in the dictionary definition of far-right.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006
It labels them but I'm not so sure it is that it thinks they are all those things; it's more that the labelling is political in nature. It's also handy for lazy journalists who don't have to think.
DeleteWhat an odd analysis...it's like they gave up half way through...or did they realise that if they coloured in the UK they'd have to treat SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein as nationalists? Or be found out for their bias discrimination. Similar problem in Spain (as the Catalan nationalists are quite left wing).
DeleteSo they had to choose countries where the left-nationalists don't figure much if at all.
Complaint submitted.
ReplyDeleteHas this been shown on BBC yet? Anyway - here it is on Arte.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.arte.tv/en/videos/078746-000-A/brexit-the-clock-is-ticking/
Arte seems to have some interesting progs openly accessible on their website (with English subtitles) - obviously a lot of EU propaganda as well. But I think I might check it out some more. Nothing against a bit of European culture...just don't like be ruled from mainland Europe.
Listening to the news on Radio 4 (6pm) I was surprised to hear them referring in mocking tones to a farcical turn of events in the Azerbaijan Formula 1 event. They don't normally go out of their way to criticise Islamic republics...they seemed to be going over the top regarding what wasn't exactly the biggest ever sports story. Then the penny dropped - of course Sky has now got back Formula 1, and so (as with cycling when Sky's team was so successful) the BBC are now happy to find negative stories about Sky's sport...
ReplyDeleteYet another example of the Beeb's irony bypass: this morning's 'Breakfast' programme featured a lengthy item bemoaning declining numbers of UK songbirds. According to contributors to today's Telegraph letters page, one of the BBC's favourite sons, Chris Packham, has just played a major part in accelerating their loss by causing Natural England to end farmers' general licence to cull crows and magpies: the latter feed their young on songbird nestlings and crows are partial to both nestlings and lambs' eyeballs. As one of the letters puts it, people " who style themselves as conservationists...have proved themselves to be anything but."
ReplyDeleteMore irony...Evan Davis (on "The Evan Davis Show", formerly known as "PM") interviewing Max Hastings (becoming more gaga by the day - he was speaking of legal persecution when he meant prosecution today). They were both hot on the heels of a presumably pro-Brexit Cabinet Minister, given their zeolatry in pursuit. Should have known they were after a pro-Brexiter when Gus O'Donnell crawled out of the woodwork yesterday.
ReplyDeleteThe irony was that as proof of how seriously this was being taken, Max Hastings gave details of a conversation he'd had with a high ranking (current) Civil Servant. Yes...Max was the beneficiary of an unauthorised leak from a very senior civil servant - who was criticising the Cabinet Member for leaking! Of course the Grinning Gargoyle did not pick up on Hastings' confession or ask him what other secrets the Civil Servant had betrayed to him (a leading Remainiac).
One for Sir Humphrey I think!!
I know this has already been raised but dragging in Zoe Williams immediately after the Roger Scruton interview just to make sure that none of his arguments would be taken seriously was appalling. When has the BBC ever done that to anybody from the the left?
ReplyDeleteI am no fan or Orban, but Hungary is clearly not a totalitarian state. To state that is as infantile as calling everybody you disagree with a “Nazi”or a “Fascist”. Considering the way in which the PC left constantly lectures us on the power of words with regard to shutting down free speech, they seem to have a very cavalier attitude to the meaning of words when it suits them. Or maybe Zoe Williams is just stupid.
The treatment of Scruton was a disgrace.
DeleteThe treatment of Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin by Twitter is a disgrace.
The treatment by the BBC of people even a little to the right of Ken Clarke is disgraceful - Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are trashed on a daily basis while BBC "saints" like Yvette Cooper, Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Chukka Umuna are allowed to inhabit criticism-free zones - despite the many lies that have passed their lips (verifiable on video).
Orban I think is a very intelligent and thoughtful man whose policies make sense. What he is criticised for - putting some restraints on a PC leftist judiciary, ensuring Hungary's borders are not swept away and putting some controls on institutions funded from outside (used to destabilise populist government).
I wouldn’t question Orban’s intelligence and I take Scruton’s rather clumsily worded point about the historical memory of Hungarians towards Islam. Something people in Western Europe probably don’t understand. But there is another historical memory and that is anti-Semitism. Orban is very careful with his words, but he divides opinion about this. Many of his supporters are less careful with their words.
DeleteWill the BBC investigate the Far Left extremists who are using violence and intimidation to stop prospective MEP candidate, Carl Benjamin campaigning?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iox6lvi7w4
Wouldn't this be a good job for fearless John Sweeney as he seems to have nothing to do?
This is BBC News Press Team:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1122069145384833024/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1122069145384833024&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2019%2F04%2F26%2Fweekend-open-thread-27-april-2019%2F
It's on the Sounds App:
What does Sri Lanka tell us about the future of Islamic State?
Can we save the planet and still keep our stuff?
Lyra McKee: What did she want us to know?
Why would your mattress spy on you?
What is justice in the age of Trump?
Here we see the BBC core values. Always disguise the message by turning it into a question. Always mix in some trivia.
'Lyra McKee: What did she want us to know?' Here is pretty much a blank canvas onto which any message can be laid. She had elements within her lifestyle, her location and her youth around which, as with Jo Cox, a narrative can be created.
'What is justice in the age of Trump?' defies comment. It sounds as if a twenty-year-old has been told to add something controversial or else he/she won't get their bonus this month. Come on Lad, you can think of something to give the pot a stir!
Please sir! Please sir!! How about "Will Brexit result in modern famine?"
DeleteI should have added H/T Guest Who at BBBC.
DeleteI see very little hope for the UK when its leading conservative journal, The Spectator, produces such a muddled editorial on the Sri Lanka bombings.
ReplyDeleteHere's a taster:
1. Apparently the bombings "make little sense". Nope. They make a lot of sense if you want to hurry along the establishment of the global Caliphate, as the attackers did.
2. They are apparently a symptom of something called "the globalisation of terror" as though we are facing a new phenomenon. We've seen Islamic terror across the world for centuries. Its founder stated explicitly he had been made victorious through terror. As for globalisation of extreme ideology, the Muslim Brotherhood has been spreading through the non-Muslim world for nearly 100 years now.
3. The perpetrators are apparently "culprits"...isn't that more the sort of word you use when someone has graffitied a park bench, not when people have slaughtered over 250 innocents?
4. The Bogus Equivalence Narrative is deployed in full as though there is actually a "reverse image" comparison between terrorist attacks on Christian communities and Muslim communities around the world when the actual proportion is probably more like 5000 to 1 in death toll.
5. Some nonsense about George W Bush having "accepted Osama bin Laden's premise" about a clash of civilisations, when that is precisely what he didn't do. He went out of his way to make clear there is no problem with Islamic ideology, maintaining it is fully compatible with the American traditions of free speech and democratic government.
6. Sri Lanka should treat the attacks as examples of "extreme criminality" not an ideologically-motivated attack.
7. "Similar tactics have been used to sow divisions between Muslims and the minority in Coptic Christians in Egypt." As if there wasn't huge (and violent) oppression of the Coptic community prior to IS attacks on them!
8. Apparently, IS had a "pretend state". No - it had a government, laws, judiciary, taxation, army, police force, state broadcaster...probably issued stamps for all I know. Why try to ignore the reality that there was a functioning state that would still be functioning now if Russia and the USA hadn't decided to crush it?
Delusion piled on delusion...if it's Fraser Nelson he's always been weak on this subject. The editorial has not one word about Sharia or what mainstream Islam (not IS) teaches about Jews, Christians, polytheists, using its founder as a model to be followed and Jihad. It's incredible how the global MSM, Spectator editor included, has absolutely no interest in what is taught in the great universities and Madrassas of the mainstream Islamic world that produce nearly all of the religion's clerics who in turn instruct its followers.
By way of corrective, I can recommend Rod Liddle's piece in the same issue.
DeleteAlso interesting is the Toby Young piece in this week's Spectator.
DeleteSeems like the alarm bells are starting to go off - finally! - about the prospect of a Corbyn Far Left government, which would move swiftly to finish off residual free speech.
About time mainstream conservatives woke up!
Sadly I've seen Toby Young on panels joining in demonisation of Tommy Robinson rather than taking the principled position of defending the man's free speech rights along with his own.
Rebel Media has some interesting additional info on the Notre Dame fire. Apparently a US based fund-raiser associated with the Cathedral restoration says it had two places of origin. Well there's something to think about.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQL8uv--hn0
I came across the reference to two seats of the fire a few days ago on a French website, but can't remember what it was.
DeleteThe architect's mention of the difficulty of setting fire to old oak chimes with something I've been thinking: in 1944, the cathedral city of Coutances was bombarded by the allied air forces and 60% of the town was destroyed. The cathedral was hit by a number of incendiary bombs which melted their way through the lead of the roof and fell into the roof space. Despite the much reduced water pressure - the allies had dropped HE bombs which fractured a number of water mains, and half the town was on fire, - the fire brigade managed to bring the roof fires under control. So, if phosphorous/magnesium incendiary bombs struggle to burn down a mediaeval cathedral, how can an electrical fault do it?...in two places?
There is a question - Even if this fire was started deliberately then how? A lightening strike would have had the energy to ignite the fire. What accelerant might have been used, and how could sufficient volume of it have been carried up onto the roof undetected?
DeleteYes Arthur, by way of reference I looked into the devastating York Minister fire of some decades ago. There were thunderstorms around during the night of the fire. The investigation concluded it was 80% likely it was lightning, 10% arson and 10% alectric installation.
DeleteI very much doubt it was a discarded cigarette. That would need a lot of tinder of some description to get going and people would probably have discovered smoke before the fire got hold. These old oak beams are very hard and not easy to set fire to.
Some sort of electrical fire cannot be ruled out entirely - but where? what burned initially? how did it spread so quickly?
There are a lot of very interesting and intriguing questions in which the MSM and the BBC display no interest at all for some reason, except to parrot anything that sounds like it rules out arson.
Surely there must be some CCTV/satellite imagery that will show where and when the fire started?
One could make a long list of the things the MSM, and BBC in particular, are NOT interested in...
Delete1. What started the Notre Dame Fire.
2. Who procured the Steele dossier and whether our own intelligence agencies were involved.
3. George Soros.
4. How was the young Briton who attempted to kill Donald Trump on the campaign trail (Michael Steven Sandford) radicalised? Had he been reading hostile articles in the Guardian or on the BBC website? No one cares about his radicalisation. Here's the Wikipedia link on it:
5. Saudi and Qatari investments in the MSM...obviously.
That'll do for starters.
Sorry, missed out the Wikipedia link...here it is:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump
Despite the incredibly lenient treatment he received (released in under one year) Trump was still abused by his mother! Tells you a lot about Hate Trump culture in the UK.
Arthur & MB - re: causes of Notre Dame fire, I don't buy the lightning idea - a lightning strike & clap of thunder at about 6pm in central Paris are going to be noticed! Re: accelerant, I suppose, if it were an inside job, paraffin could have been smuggled in & stashed a litre at a time & perhaps a bonfire could be built out of pine scaffolding planks. But really, the most puzzling, & sinister, thing is the authorities' eagerness to state it was an accident before the investigators have had time to sift through and test the tons of debris. I think there's a real chance that somebody will be made a scapegoat.
DeleteYes - I didn't make clear I was ruling a lightning strike out re Notre Dame and I don't think anyone has suggested there was any lightning over Paris that day. I was really just making the comparison with the York Minster fire which was on a similar scale, so as to suggest that yes a lightning strike could indeed deliver the sort of energy required to set fire to ancient beams but there isn't much else apart from deliberate arson or a fire beginning somewhere there was a huge amount of tinder (which doesn't seem to be the case here). I am sceptical about the electrical equipment theory which seems to be based on no evidence at all, but it might be an outside possibility.
DeleteThis was an unusual fire in that it took hold while the building was fully in use. Most of these devastating fires like York Minster and the Glasgow Arts building tend to occur when there's no one around, usually in the middle of the night. Also, this is one of Paris's famous landmark buildings. People are looking at it all the time. It was still daylight when the smoke was first reported. It's the speed with which the fire took hold that makes you think some sort of accelerant was involved.
We seem to have here as well another Grenfell Tower situation where praise is being heaped on the fire service when the reality is, leaving aside individual bravery, they seemed completely unprepared for this eventuality which (like Grenfell Tower) was entirely foreseeable, given - in this case - preceding arson attacks on Churches in many parts of France. Why were they unable to get the fire under control? It looks like organisational incompetence to me.
We await the results of the (real) investigation as opposed to Macron's hope-based intuitive conclusion.
I saw a video which suggested the fire travelled against the wind direction... a "natural" fire would tend to follow the direction of the wind. A fire where accelerant had been distributed by an arsonist would tend to follow the direction in which the accelerant lay.
An inside job is most likely, based purely on what we know.
I think this is yet another episode showing how very dangerous it is to deploy PC censorship to maintain a nebulous "social cohesion". By claiming this was an accidental fire before any evidence had been obtained, Macron has just managed to arouse suspicion as conflicting evidence has emerged and, more damagingly has allowed all sorts of conspiracy theories to get traction on the story.
An honest response from Macron and the MSM of "we don't know yet but as seen as we find anything of significance we will let you know" would have been accepted.
[Incidentally, although it was a while back (35 years)the reconstruction of York Minster cost a mere £3 million...they will only need a billion Euros if they are planning to create some modernist monstrosity.]
Why is there little or no effort being made in order to find the individual seen on the roof just prior to the fire starting? There must be cctv in and around the complex.
DeleteOne stray bit of information I have picked up: it is reported that the oak beams had been treated for infestation recently. Apparently a fire at Nantes Cathedral was caused when a petroleum based product was used on the timbers which subsequently caught fire.
DeleteIf this also happened at Notre Dame that could explain the rapid spread of the fire. But it seems incredible that anyone would, in this day and age, create such an obvious fire risk hazard. Just one stray lit cigarette thrown away would be enough to set the whole thing ablaze...
But again, no one has officially spoken of that possibility, so it remains to be seen whether the "timber treatment" story is genuine.
Sorry, MB - for some reason, I assumed you were responding to a suggestion re: lightning that had been made elsewhere!
DeleteThat's a very interesting snippet, re: insect infestation. Most woodworm killers are based on some kind of volatile fluid - they give better penetration and 'creep' than water-based products, but as you say, being inflammable isn't very helpful! But if, as we suspect, the authorities are desperate to blame anything rather than arson, it's surprising they haven't latched on to the woodworm treatment idea!
A story on the BBC website today is about the reimagining (is that s word?) of classic albums.
ReplyDeleteWhat classic albums I thought? - rising to the clickbait title.
First one mentioned was The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band .
Ok,fair enough says me.
But the others
A Love Supreme by John Coltrane.
Kishi Bashi's 151a (No, never heard of it).
The Sophtware Slump by Grandaddy (No)
A Ghost is Born by Wilco (No)
The story was rubbish as was the art and the albums are hardly classics by any definition with one exception.
Why did they even bother publishing it - am I really paying my licence fee for this trash?
Yes, it's not just the bias, it's the shoddy quality as well - given they have £5 billion to play with.
DeleteI think the same sort of service could be provided at probably one fifth the cost of the licence fee...you've got to remember how much cheaper it is now to produce programmes, so much has been automated...you don't need hundreds of technicians as in the old days. That's why there are, for instance, so many radio stations nowadays operating on shoestring budgets and many produce programmes of equal quality to the BBC.
The BBC should discontinue its global news gathering. There are plenty of sources of news for that including Reuters. Focus on the UK.
The local radio stations can be commercialised. Hardly anyone listens to them.
Then cut back hugely on the management structure. The BBC has 382 members of staff earning over £100k. That's well over £50 million I expect and it creates a mounting pension obligation. The BBC is reported to be facing an £18billion shortfall in pensions.
Gavin Esler exchanges his Dateline soapbox for the Change UK one. Like all PC Globalists he wants to stop Leavers using the "B" word - betrayal.
ReplyDeleteBut of course he has no criticisms of his Change UK leader using the B word when she accused the Government of "betraying" Tory values.
The B word has been part and parcel of our political culture for centuries. Only now in this era of 1984 style censorship have the ideologues sought to ban its use - not by themselves of course but by those who refuse to buckle and bend.
https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1122114423991283712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1122114423991283712&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2019%2F04%2F26%2Fweekend-open-thread-27-april-2019%2Fcomment-page-3%2F%23comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34577535
Anything after the question mark is merely tracking info
Deletetwitter link is just https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1122114423991283712
BBC Panorama tonight - scandal in the Church Of England.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s about child abuse by priests and they deserve everything that is coming to them if found guilty.
Tackling religious abuses of any kind is always going to be a tricky path to tread.
My issue is one of evenhandedness. The BBC are always ready to expose CofE and RC without fear or favour.
But I’m not convinced that they are ready to give the same exposure to transgressions by other religions.
The BBC, MSM and those in positions of power seem much more reluctant to shine a light onto their shortcomings or even investigate.
Is it because the BBC don’t particularly like Christian faiths or is it because they commit all the crimes? Or do they hold them to a higher standard?
I think we know the answer to that. It's an issue in every religion and every branch of religion. When it comes to this issue the BBC prefer to pretend we live in a 1950s style Britain with only a couple of important branches of religion as opposed to 57 varieties.
DeleteReminds me, the BBC used to be very keen on Methodism. Lord Soper (you might have to google him) was hardly ever off the radio or TV. Well, they used to say "the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marxism" - there's a laugh!...no one would claim that now.
Nothing to do with the BBC, but I saw this link on ConWoman comments, h/t PrettyPolly.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a letter from Johnny Mercer MP seeming to reveal that George Soros and David Milliband are advisors to the UK Military Strategy.
If true, I find that very concerning.
https://twitter.com/trevorcoultmc/status/1121431373087158272?s=21
Well everything to do with the BBC really as they are full time promoters of George Soros or David Miliband!
DeleteI find that incredible. I've seen these stray references to UK signing up to various military co-operation agreements but hadn't bothered to invesigate further. That letter though is rather amazing. Since when have Soros or Miliband been military experts? Presumably this will all be about migrants and using armed forces as a policed free ferry service to Europe...
First time I saw Mercer on TV I did not like the look of him. His subsequent interventions have all been appalling - not least joining the Far Left mob in taking down Scruton. I think Mercer is probably quite thick and German officials no doubt run rings around him.
The idea of Mercer as a future Prime Minister is a joke, beyond a joke - even the globalists wouldn't have such an idiot as PM.
Famous last words?
Just researched a bit more about this. Soros and Milliband are on the advisory committee for the Munich Security Council. It’s ‘about us’ page says - The MSC is the world’s leading forum for debating international security policy.
Deletebeyond that, it’s difficult the to see what they actually do. It all gets a bit more murky.
Influencing conflict through dialogue, it says. Oh and there’s a big picture of Theresa May on the conference page. I gave up after seeing that.
https://www.securityconference.de/en/about/advisory-council/
It's hard to pin down the full story of anything from twitter. In this case I couldn't see who wrote the letter - and kept thinking some illiterate - or to whom. In any case, it's quite worrying to discover that Miliband and Soros are in everything. I've said before Soros has a house but I don't whether he has residency or citizenship or whether he actually lives here. I was already annoyed enough at hearing Miliband lecturing us about democracy recently on the BBC, without this as well. Who does he think he is? We know how patronising he is from his time as a minister and would-be leader here. Got very grand of himself when he became Foreign Secretary, according to Steve Richards, loving the limousines and the elevated status of it all. Mercer is one of those people who've been granted some kind of special attention and esteem that probably wasn't ever merited.
DeleteRead elsewhere the transcript of the Webb interview where he badgered Roger Scruton about alleged use of dehumanising language about Muslims and Scruton protested that he was accusing him of racism. How unusual for the BBC!
ReplyDeleteCaught a snippet of something on Today (between 8 30 and 9 - haven't got the iPlayer) where Webb was saying along the lines that we've concentrated on 'brown people' rather than people like the killer in the synagogue in San Diego. That's him at it again, with an accusation of racism, this time directed at a collective 'we'. Who says that and who the hell has called terrorists 'brown people'? Nobody that I know of but racist Webb looking for skin colour rather than the actual identity involved and projecting his racism onto others. Shouldn't he be 'held to account' and sacked from his prominent position in broadcasting for his dehumanising language and unfounded racism attribution and smearing?
I've never once said or felt that! There have been plenty of nutjob white converts to Islam who have done appalling things. Also Hinduism and Bhuddism are mostly religions of "brown" people or "people of colour" as PC Americans like to say but I've no problem with those religions as they seem to have no big problem with me.
DeleteThe BBC's appalling racialisation agenda is doing very, very serious damage to the country. The case for abolition of the BBC grows stronger every day. There was a time I felt we could maybe have reform but now I am not so sure - I think it needs to be sawn off at the roots. Abolish the BBC. Abolish the licence fee, take away its charter and ownership of its brand (otherwise the monster might just continue but this time funded by globalist billionaires or be bought by one of the big social media companies).
It’s not just the BBC. Our politicians and institutions are all at it. The liberal globalist agenda is everywhere in the seats of power.
DeleteJustin Webb is just saying what they all think.
The bigger is is how you turn it all around, the BBC is the big hairy propagandist for the ruling elite but shutting it down won’t change the politics.
Blair accelerated the long march through the institutions which is firmly ensconced today.
'For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard...' Peter Hitchens taking George Eaton to task about the Roger Scruton stitch-up and stitching him up in turn https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/04/as-promised-my-e-mail-exchange-with-george-eaton-of-the-new-statesman.html#comments
ReplyDeleteIs the UK economy at a new moment of sea-change?
ReplyDeleteA new, lengthy article by Ben Chu which to my mind has a clear left wing message and shows the BBC at its most politicised.
It’s an interesting read but hardly balanced and whilst cleverly done it is not impartial. It’s used the ‘politicians from both sides’ trick and the ‘some say’ BBC technique to quick shift into its chosen narrative.
Anyway it left me in no doubt about where it wants the direction of politics and economics to go.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48069016
From 1945 to about 2000 what you might call Sensibilism was the ruling doctrine in this country.
ReplyDeleteNot everything was good or perfect, but steps were taken to improve things. Poorly run private monopolies were nationalised. We had the NHS, then general access to a whole new range of consumer goods and after that a necessary period of social liberation.
For a long time it seemed like everything was getting better: health, wealth and maybe even happiness. Thatcherism even held out the hope that every young family could own a home with a garden if they wanted...
And then it all started to fall apart very rapidly. Sensibilism was replaced by PC Globalism which quickly descended into the madness of officially-approved no borders mass immigration that came to full fruition in 2015 across Europe. But PC Globalism - which was bad enough but which, nevertheless, some might have argued was, at least in theory, about equality and internationalism - itself is being eaten up now, by (BBC-approved) Racialisation, which has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with race grievance, by "Outcomism" (the doctrine that all outcomes have to be the same - the enemy of true egalitarianism), by transgenderism, by enablement of Sharia, by the Bolshevik Revival (who'd have thought one of the most spectacularly unhappy societies ever created on this planet is now being held up again as an exemplar by the likes of Ash Sarkar, Corbyn, O'Donnell and co and being taken seriously when they do so) and by a number of associated evil influences on the body politic.
How are we going to stop this descent into farce, a short lived farce that will be followed by a tragedy of unparalleled proportions?
The only thing that is going to stop this is a populist "Orbanista" revolution at the ballot box.
Clearly, voting for the Lib-Lab-Con coalition parties won't change anything.
So - if you are among the number who are seriously concerned about the direction of travel of the UK (towards abolition of free speech, towards race-based politics, towards unapologetic Communism or the imposition of Sharia) we all have to make our individual decisions.
Not voting would be an act of desertion when the country is in its hour of need. It is time to abandon tribalism and vote for applying the brakes before we accelerate over the cliff. That means a vote for the Brexit Party, UKIP, For Britain, or independents like Tommy Robinson as you see fit. As long as these groups and individuals accept basic democratic principles that's fine.
My own votes will be decided upon tactically.
I have some faint hope that The Brexit Party might metamorphose into a powerful political force in the UK Parliament - can but hope! If it does it might be powerful enough to force the adoption of PR which will completely change the UK political landscape.
I think it was always going to be a gamble having Carl Benjamin as an MEP candidate for UKIP. I've never agreed with everything he said and I didn't like the way he'd said a lot of what he said (unnecessary abuse and swearing).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must say as this campaign is going on he is growing in stature. As someone once said of Margaret Thatcher his metal/mettle has been tested and it's looking pretty good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwTBl6Uh1sw
Very good on identity politics: inversion of fundamental British culture which is based on the individual before the group identity.
I back him 100% on that basis. He understands the fundamental issue we are now facing as a nation.
MSM have successfully tarnished UKIP and the brand. Some of it they did to themselves, the result being that it it is unlikely that they will be credible force again irrespective of any talented candidates and a complete manifesto. The electorate have another preferable Brexit party as the polls show.
Delete"The future's not ours to see..."
DeleteWe have to remember that, while under Nigel Farage, UKIP was subject to a relentless campaign of vilification - in the run up to the General Election 2015 there were virtually daily negative stories. It helped keep down the UKIP vote then, so avoiding a political earthquake. This time the MSM have decided to boost The Brexit Party to ensure UKIP (and their bogeyman of Tommy Robinson) is marginalised. The MSM could have made much more of the forced resignations of top Brexit Party organisers. But they have chosen not to.
The thing about politics now is that everyone, but everyone, is playing a "dangerous game".
May is risking the country's economy and her party's continued existence on a flawed
so called deal.
Corbyn and Co are aiming for a Marxist socialist revolution while pretending to the Labour core vote they are mainstream politicians.
Blairites are "hanging on in there" despite the Hard Left takeover of Labour. Change UK are trying to create a new political movement - not an easy task... all its leading lights may have prematurely terminated their careers.
The Lib Dems are risking everything by pledging to overturn the democratic referendum vote of 2016, regardless of the people's will.
The Greens are backing a disruptive anarchic movement demanding the impossible.
The SNP are risking a lot to keep the dream of "independence" (under the EU) alive - as with the Quebecois, this is probably their last chance.
In the circumstances, I think it is difficult to say whether Gerard Batten has got it right or wrong. He is playing a "dangerous game" but it has already paid dividends in that there is a real prospect a populist party - The Brexit Party - could hold the balance of power after the next general election (presumably renamed by then), because the MSM have felt the need to back it against UKIP. As Batten said, UKIP was facing extinction after the Bolton episode. He has saved the party and given it some real definition. If The Brexit Party can introduce PR then UKIP may yet become a political force.
Rather technical but BBC Reality Check is again spreading mistruths about Brexit. I wouldn't bother, but Reality Check is supposed to be a punctilious setting right of the record (larfs!).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46289739?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vgl2rgt/reality-check&link_location=live-reporting-story
"The closest equivalent would be Norway, which is not part of the EU, but is part of the single market, through its membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)."
UNTRUE. Norway has no involvement in the Single Market, the members of which are exclusively EU members. Norway is part of the EEA (the European Economic Area) through being an EFTA member.
"In order to continue to have access to the single market, the UK would need to formally apply to EFTA to become its fifth member." UNTRUE We can have access to the Single Market by other means e.g. either through a separate deal or through WTO terms. EFTA does NOT have 100% access to the Single Market under the EEA agreement although it does have privileged access (and pays for it).
"The EFTA has its own court, but it still needs to pay heed to European Court of Justice rulings when it comes to disputes involving EU law." TRUE BUT MISLEADING. The point about the EEA agreement is that it is a mirror agreement with complicated dispute resolution procedures in the middle. It's not just a question of "paying heed" - the ECJ is the final arbiter of whether the agreement is being implemented correctly.
"But Norway is not part of the customs union, something which the SNP also wants the UK to retain." TRUE
"Mrs May has resisted any previous attempts to go along with a Norway-style Brexit model, arguing that it "wouldn't deliver on the vote of the British people".
However, it would alleviate the problem of preventing a possible hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic - something for which negotiators on both sides are still trying to find a long-term solution. " UNTRUE There is a hard border between Norway and Sweden, so a "Norway style Brexit deal doesn't resolve that".
Interestingly I discovered when checking the BBC's Fake Facts that there is no hard border between San Marino and Italy. So, the article is wrong to suggest you need to be "part of the Single Market" (whatever that is meant to mean) in order to resolve the NI border issue, since San Marino is not part of the Single Market.
So really this is just the usual cowpat of propaganda from the BBC.
The BBC have finally caught up with the news about Corbyn's foreword praising the anti-semitic JA Hobson's book "Imperialism".
ReplyDeleteCouple of points:
1. The BBC is normally very emphatic when dealing with racist tropes - condemning them but more often than not refusing to restate them publicly. But this is how they treat the issue on this occasion:
QUOTE:
The book, which has been criticised as anti-Semitic, espouses the theory that finance in Europe was driven "by men of a singular and peculiar race who have behind them many centuries of financial experience".
He also suggested that European countries would not engage in a war "if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it".
UNQUOTE
So they leave it open...it might be racist, it might not. Even the Labour Party is not denying it's racist! They also bring in Tristram Hunt to defend the long dead Hobson, whereas with the very much alive Roger Scruton no one was brought in to defend him:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47880669
2. The BBC is normally at the ready with "Explainers" when it comes to Far Right racism, but is very coy about Far Left racism. The reality, as I've said before, is that anti-semitism has been entwined with socialism and Marxism from Day One.
The great British social democrat Henry Hyndman was notoriously anti-semitic. Hobson was, clearly. Marx, despite his heritage made and endorsed anti-semitic comments. Lenin was greatly influenced by both Marx and Hobson...we can see how Leftist anti-semitism entered the Bolshevik bloodstream along with the long established anti-semitism of the Orthodox Church.
But the BBC always present anti-semitism on the Left as an aberration rather than a rooted phenomenon among those who call themselves socialists.
Rather than an aberration, I think it is condoned and ignored indulgently, like a parent would overlook a child’s behaviour. Not acceptable in others but tolerated in your own.
DeleteThat's a good way of putting it!
DeleteAnd on top of the bit saying "the book, which has been criticised as anti-Semitic" there's an earlier bit calling it "a book considered anti-Semitic".
DeleteToday the BBC has been reporting one of those stories when you instantly know who’s side they are on. Caster Semenya ticks every single BBC box so I suppose it’s not surprising. On the radio bulletin, they had a single expert voice who said the judgement wasn’t correct because all the science wasn’t presented to the IAAF.
ReplyDeleteThe main website article is very BBC with explainers on Transgender, Intersex and DSD (a new one on me). Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity reporter wades in too. Thats a new job title I’d not come across before.
It’s another example of the BBC as judge and jury, with any dissenters, the IAAF and CAS in the dock.
BBC titles are becoming more and more bizarre as time goes on. Maybe we will have a "BBC Skin Tone and Consciousness correspondent" or a "BBC Tactile Sensations and Height Issues correspondent" before too long. That's only half in jest...
DeleteI am not sure the BBC policy in this area has yet been finalised (when it has you can be sure it will be enforced with the customary Stalinist attention to detail). I think there is still a war going on, behind the scenes, between "BBC Full-on-Feminists" and "BBC Transgenderist Fluid Identitarians". This battle is taking place in no man's land (excuse the analogy)...you can either look at the athlete as (a) A Feminist Cause: a wronged woman (why shouldn't a woman have as much testosterone as she wants to) or (b) A Transgenderist Cause: Identity is fluid...she's neither a man nor a woman or she's whoever she wants to identify as.
There is a story in the Long Reads section of the BBC News website Homepage:
ReplyDelete... 'I was given HIV at Eight - and couldn't tell a soul.' ...
I'm sure this story was around with the same photo and headline several months ago. This must be a new move on the website - broadcasting repeats in case we didn't get the message first time around.
I think I've noticed that before now...stuff can be repeated if they really like it. And there is also the phenomenon of leaving stuff up for weeks, months even.
DeleteYes, Google shows it was first published on 25 July 2018, and there's a dated BBC Brazil version still up from just a few days later to prove it:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-44964670
Yes MB. John Pirnaar's last contribution to the Politics page is dated 1st March. I seem to remember that prior to that his piece had a date early in December.
DeleteMichael Gove meets Chris Packham as Defra investigation launched into bird shooting ban - runs the Daily Telegraph headline today.
ReplyDeleteSo BBC activism wins again. The message here is that so long as the cause is BBC friendly, their presenters can rely on the BBC to promote, agitate and prominently report personal campaigns.
Packham knows this only too well, he got them to repot on his success in stopping farmers shooting crows. He got them to report dead crows being strung up on his gate, he got them to report death threats. No need for balance. He can rely on the BBC to support and report his side of the story.
Now he has a personal audience with a senior cabinet member. No need for a PR budget for his Wild Justice campaign group.
He works for the BBC ,you see. You get it for free.
Their reporting of this on 10 pm news consisted of laying a smokescreen to protect 'their boy.' Packham had campaigned to prevent 'killing of birds' - no mention of the fact that the birds in question were crows and magpies, or of the fact that they take songbird nestlings. No admission, either, of the well-established FACT that crows peck out the eyes of young lambs - instead, we were told that it is 'alleged' that crows attack lambs. Come on Beeb, how about a quick reality check?
DeleteThe Bank of England raised its growth forecast from 1.2% to 1.5%.
ReplyDeleteHow did the BBC report the good news? By looking for a more obscure point from the quarterly report.
Bank warns of 'more frequent' rate increases than expected - is the headline.
It’s good news, despite Brexit. So the BBC try and avoid the good news headline. What a miserable bunch they are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48119158
Utterly despicable!
DeleteI see tonight's Question Time panel seems to have the usual 4:1, Remainer to Brexiter imbalance; 5:1 if you count the not-very-impartial M&s Bruce.
M&s!
DeleteTwice sounds like carelessness - in fact it's my lunatic spell-checker!
DeleteKen Clarke lying again. Claiming the Customs Union was never mentioned much during the campaign. It was mentioned by both sides nearly every day. Not picked up by the impartial Chair.
DeleteAh, but you see, for the BBC lying only counts if written on the side of a bus! (Even though the 'lie' was to say the money 'could' be spent on...)
DeleteUKIP gain one seat in local elections...cue hysterical
ReplyDeletereaction from LibLeftMediaMob.
Sky News has UKIP shown on their seat counter, along with Greens. The fact that UKIP follows Lib Dems suggests UKIP had more seats than Greens.
ReplyDeleteBBC does not show UKIP (it is on a last "reel", so only shows every now and again).
Bias.
For the 'Anonymous' who wanted to learn more about Anthropogenic Global Warming 'Deniers' : if you go to 'The Conservative Woman' site and click on 'Keep calm and carry on ignoring the climate scaremongers' you'll find a link to an article in 'The City Journal' by climatologist Judith Curry - interesting stuff!
ReplyDeleteHi, Sisyphus. Thanks for that. I'll definitely have a read of it. I've been thinking about this and to be honest, it's not even about setting it up as opposing sides such as 'deniers' and upholders. Even with the best will in the world, many things can't be definitively determined or settled. Continuing open inquiry and discussion from many sources must be better than closing down and declaring a sort of dogma.
DeleteThere was an intriguing throw-away comment comment on the Zoe Ball Radio 2 show this morning from Josh Widdicombe the unfunny side-kick heralding the return of The Last Word on Channel 4. He said: "There won't be so much on Brexit now that it has all settled down" - or words to that effect. Doe he know something we don't? - Or worryingly, do the comedians [sic] and their friends within the BBC /Westminster bubble consider Remain to be a done deal?
ReplyDeleteWell we all saw the huge sigh of relief and the relaxed smiles after a no deal exit was voted for by the Commons, albeit it passed I think only on the vote of one crooked MP. And when Simpleton Josh says "on" I suppose he means "attacking".
DeleteA good and powerful video by Paul Joseph Watson about his totally unjustified banning by Facebook and Instagram.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8
As he points out, they didn't stop at Alex Jones and they won't stop at him.
We are seeing a complete media lockdown (and remember Antidem PC Globalist Nick Clegg is overseeing a lot of this). This is the effective end of free speech given that as Watson says, the internet is the new public square.
What we have here is the equivalent of newsprint companies refused to supply paper to publications they don't like. It's an outrage against free speech.
It is very insiduous as Watson points out. It is now extending to banking and credit cards (refusing service if the person or group is felt to have committed a Thoughtcrime). What next will supermarket delivery firms feel justified in refusing to supply Mr Watson's groceries? Starvation might be a novel method for PC Globalists to impose their monoview of the world but it could be quite effective.
I noticed the other day that Professor Exley, a renowned world authority on aluminium toxicity (who has been investigating the effects of the use of aluminium adjuvants in nearly all vaccines) had attempted to crowd fund via GoFundMe some further scientific research having been denied further funding by all the main research funding organisations; but he had been kicked off GoFundMe for the Thoughtcrime of "spreading misinformation". No one with the same scientific background as Professor Exley has challenged the validity of the results of his previous research yet the non-science people at GoFundMe feel they know better than Professor Exley.
We really are in 1984 territory now. As Watson notes, it's not just people like him getting banned - if anyone else on Facebook queries the ban, they too will get banned.
I wonder who were the people behind this and powerful enough to get GoFundMe to ban him...
DeleteAnyone who voted Lib-Dem as a protest against the main two parties must be careful what they wish for. The Lib-Dems are avowed Brexit reversers. Possibilities of coalitions may yet allow them to weald power sufficient to deny Brexit any any form.
ReplyDeleteMany people had no alternative candidates - the alternative was not voting or spoiling their ballot paper. I think they will make their views on Brexit known at the EU elections.
DeleteMay was in full denial mode today on her own personal rating. In her interviews she thinks it’s all about parliament not getting on with it.
DeleteNothing at all to do with her rotten deal and her personal ineptitude.
The BBC have just done a breaking news on this;
ReplyDeleteThe BBC projects that, if results it analysed were replicated across Britain, both the Conservatives and Labour would get 28% of the total vote.
The analysis, based on 650 wards in which the BBC has collected detailed voting figures, implies the Lib Dems would get 19% and other parties and independents 25%.
What a completely futile exercise, local council election results are not indicative of a future general election and will not be replicated.
So what’s the point? Are the BBC deliberately sowing confusion and trying to show how close things are. Independents neck and neck with Lab/Con. And no UKIP or Brexit Party.
Or are they just stupid?
Arne- Did you watch BBC Midlands News tonight? Mary Rhodes asked if the results were a reaction against Brexit - I presume she meant LACK of Brexit!
DeleteSis, no I didn't. I was cooking a prawn curry so missed it. Nothing surprises me anymore on MT. What a stupid question by Mary. I did hear Jeremy Vine at lunchtime saying much the same thing and wondering whether it was local issues driving the voting instead.
DeleteThey are completely Brexit blind or playing a cleverer deflection game.
Round my way, people are even more pro-Brexit than they were at referendum time because of the betrayal and behaviour of MPs.
Same in my neck of woods - roll on European elections!
DeleteI'm hoping this is a sucker punch...they think the local elections show the power of remain then Brexit Party + UKIP get 45% in the EU elections.
ReplyDeleteYes. But have to brace ourselves for a couple of weeks of a BBC "Get Farage" campaign. Give him a level playing field & he'd run rings round them.
DeleteInteresting article by Toby Young in The Spectator about charities' political activities. The BBC's favourite The Resolution Foundation is mentioned, and the BBC's involvement in raising money through its Comic Relief. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/charities-are-allowed-to-be-political-if-theyre-left-wing/amp/
ReplyDeleteWell the BBC are feeling pretty chipper. :)
ReplyDeleteGreens up thanks to the BBC's month long Extinction Rebellion propaganda campaign! Tick.
Lib Dems up thanks to long term pro Remain BBC propaganda. Tick.
Tories down big time. Tick.
Hard left Corbyn not doing as well as they should. Tick (BBC prefer the Soggy Left Yevette Cooper).
UKIP down.Tick.
Well let's see how they feel after the EU elections. :)
Politics has changed. It doesn’t matter very much who or what the BBC support. The Conservatives are sleepwalking to oblivion.
DeleteThey can’t change because most are Liberal Globalists and don’t like what the electorate are telling them.
Perhaps May and parliament have done us a favour since the referendum because they have shown their true colours thanks to Brexit.
The genie is out of the bottle and I don’t think the two party status quo can survive.
The electorate will have their say about their behaviour and betrayal at the EU elections and general election. A proper Brexit will prevail but it many take a few years to put in place.
I hope you are right Arne, but don't expect that outcome without a real struggle - starting with a sly deal with Labour to avoid the European elections. If they do go ahead, I agree with your appraisal.
DeleteArthur, If they do a BRINO deal with Labour involving a custom union and avoid the EU elections I still think it won’t satisfy the majority of 17.4m who voted out. They will still get their come-uppance, voters will not stand for it come an election. The main parties think just getting on with it will save their bacon, but it won’t if it’s seen as a sham Brexit.
DeleteHeard a piece on FOOC today from I presume Rupert Wingfield-Hayes during which he stated, as it seemed to me, that Japanese PM Abe wishes to restore Emperor worship in Japan. I've never seen that suggested anywhere else so it was a surprise. Are we just supposed to accept such claims without evidence. There's nothing about this on Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteThere is some evidence he supports to objectives of a group (Nippon Kaigi or “Japan Conference”) which include restoring something like Emperor worship. But I don't think Abe has ever said he wishes to restore Emperor worship. In the circumstances shouldn't the BBC stick to "some analysts claim that..." or similar.