...and any other matters that take our fancy
The BBC were so quick to post the breaking TR story this afternoon they completely forgot to mention his real name.The report was uncharacteristically straightforward and relatively unbiased.That was quickly corrected in version 2. Presumably the BBC copywriter had his wrists slapped and was put on immediate garden leave. It will be interesting to see how those versions develop in order to be as unflattering to TR as they can. I’m sure they won’t want to miss such an opportunity to damage and attack especially as he is standing as an MEP candidate. They can circumnavigate election reporting rules with this story because it gives them a degree of separation.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48273780
Rule No. 1 - Choose a photo where the target looks aggressive, stressed and unreasonable, while the interviewer looks calm but sceptical. Tick!
6 pm BBC 1 News- Tonight, the interesting thing is what the BBC is no longer saying, rather than what it is: three hours ago they published a story under this headline, "British Steel seeks government loan for 'Brexit issues' " The issues were, predictably, "a slump in orders from European customers due to uncertainty over the Brexit process;" and the weakness of Sterling, caused by Brexit. Just the sort of anti-Brexit story to put a smirk on the BBC's face, you might think, but no, not a word on tv news! So, since Friday, that's two items pulled/suppressed - the other was, of course, HIGNFY. Sounds as though their legal dept. is keeping them on a tight rein. Pity they didn't take a stopwatch to Pienaar's ludicrous contribution tonight!
The British Steel story was, by the way, not their own scoop, but taken from Sky News.
Weaker Sterling means our steel is more competitive abroad...The EU economy is very sluggish at the moment - perhaps that is a more likely explanation.
Convincing argument! My main point, though, was that a red-hot anti-Brexit story had been dropped, presumably at the insistence of the Beeb's lawyers, because they're worried about the duty of impartiality.Incidentally, I've not seen reported in UK press the fact that British Steel recently acquired a subsidiary in France, presumably in order to avoid Brexit-related problems. Perhaps it's been in the MSM, but hidden away in the business pages.
The Brexit Party clearly has the political-media elite worried. Not so much about the EU elections but the fear is there that there will be a carry over effect to a General Election. I think the Brexit Party should fight the General Election on a narrow range of maybe five populist policies: 1. Brexit (obviously!) or abrogation of May's Abject Surrender Treaty if she has managed to get it through. 2. Abolish the licence fee within 4 years. 3. Royal Commission on migration to report within 2 years. Meanwhile some emergency brakes put on migration.4. Abandon HS2 and replace with an upgraded Trans-Pennine route. 5. Abolish the House of Lords and replace with a small Senate (100 max) elected on national PR with perhaps another 100 non-voting representatives of various professional, academic, trade union, industry bodies. Good to see Christopher Blunt talking sense on Newsnight last night, proposing an electoral pact between Conservatives and the Brexit Party.
Add 3a: Any 'legacy' human rights legislation, which prevents our deportation of known terrorists, sorry, 'militants,' to be repealed.
Yes - we need to repeal the Human Rights Act. Nothing against human rights! In fact I'd like to see some restored. In the USA you can't be held for weeks on end on "suspicion". But Acts like the HRA and the Equalities Act really hand law-making power to judges which is fundamentally wrong. Better to have a written constitution and set out our rights in that. That provides for a clearer separation of powers.
Newsnight Update:I was looking forward to Michelle Dewberry slapping down Will Self. And she did. Was an amusing section because Self normally likes to lord it as the only proper intellectual on a panel discussion but of course he was up against Bernard Henri-Levy, famous French "public intellectual", so Self must have felt like a pygmy entered into the Olympics High Jump competition. Christopher Blunt's suggestion of an electoral pact characterised by Jenni Russell as "unification" - er no, Fake News, an electoral pact is not unification...she says Blunt's intervention is sending a shiver through the Clarkeite Conservatives...good! She bad-mouths Change UK...oh dear, the dining tables of Islington are obviously heavy with disappointment at The Stupids as I like to call Change UK. Clearly we are in v. fluid times. Mike Hookem Deputy Leader of UKIP got a bit of a beating from Emily and also managed to make contact between his glove and his head several times. I shall be voting for The Brexit Party in London as they have a chance of winning seats there. But I remain sceptical about it long term. UKIP has at least dared to address all the right issues - Brexit, democracy, Sharia, and free speech - even if they could be dealt with more professionally in some respects. I see The Brexit Party as the battering ram to break down the two party duopoly on power, bring in PR and make Parliament properly responsive. This might well be our last chance to really stop the destruction of the UK and its culture, which has served us so well for so long, for all its faults.
Just posted my vote for Brexit Party, am in France at moment. It's true that the BP logo is pointing straight at the box. The parties are listed in alphabetical order, so UKIP appears immediately after The Brexit Party.
Well done Sis! There are times when we need to come together under one banner...I think this is it. :) Difficult times can make for difficult decisions...though some may find it easier to coalesce around The Brexit Party flag than others. But if we unite now we will send the necessary shock waves through the body politic.
Good points - although some of us work in in construction and are looking forward to The Gravy Train.
Fair point! Maybe a hyperloop would make more sense? I'm not against spending the billions on infrastructure, just want it spent on infrastructure that makes sense. But frankly I think you'll be busy enough making up the deficit of millions of housing units that mass immigration has caused. Not so exciting perhaps?
Update: The British Steel story was just second item on Fr3 midnight news bulletin, behind coverage of the funeral of the two special forces marines, killed in Burkina Faso.
Further update: The London Bridge Attack inquest got about 5 seconds on the BBC Ten O'Clock News (and 5 seconds which had obviously been cut from a longer report and now made no sense at all - how disrespectful). The "Crazy World of Angus Deaton" equality report for the "independent, non-political and much respected" (Copyright BBC) IFS got about 22 minutes. I referenced Sir Angus on the previous open thread. I really do recommend you look him up - survey his twitter account, look up his articles, consult his Wikipedia entry. It's just like talking to some bloke down the pub after a few pints...he's all over the place...a real case of the Emperor's new clothes...he's supposed to be a Nobel Laureate economist but we ain't talking Keynes here! :) He says stuff like "I don't know what a robot is." He's supposed to be a leading 21st economist and he doesn't have a clear idea of what a robot is...unbelievable!
Just saw the London Bridge attack inquest report on the BBC News website. I can now see why they were so keen to cut the report on the 10pm News because the victim references the assailant shouting "Allahu Akbar". Yep...whatever it takes - mutilate that report!
Hmmm...what's going on with the US-Canada page on the BBC News website?This was long a fiefdom of Jon Sopel, Katty Kay, Nick Bryant and Anthony Zurcher where they were able to peddle their world views and theories...and enhance their book sales, sales of books that they have ample time to write as BBC correspondents in N America! :) But those little bi or tri monthly essays from the motley crew are no more...cue tears and renting of garments...er, no. Nobody noticed. Instead we have just news items...but even more surprising I just discovered a news item that by BBC standards is relatively unbiased...I say relatively because of course it has got a load of anti-Trump stuff in it. But just reading this sweet sentence was joy enough: "John Durham, the US attorney in Connecticut, has reportedly been asked to determine whether the collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign was lawful." :) Obviously they are keeping it off the TV and radio news as far as possible - no urgent reports with the White House as backdrop. :)
Nige really getting the bit between his teeth here...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R8zJ5i9EAwMentions Marr's outrageous, publicly funded £400K per year. Good! He should have mentioned it during the Marr interview!!
Sue, I’m posting this here as your post on Gaza slips down the page. Yes, I felt sure the BBC would not question the origin of the black smoke. Thanks for verifying that. And yes, this most-trusted broadcaster always keeps the Israelis at arms’ length while cuddling up to the Palestinians. It takes me back to September 2010 and a video ‘report’ by Rupert-Wingfield-Hayes titled ‘Tel Aviv is like a new Miami.’ It verged on anti-Semitic stereotypes of wealthy, uncaring Jews, showing Israelis lolling with eyes closed on deck chairs on the beach and manufacturing gold jewellery with no interest in the conflict with the Palestinians. This was unsubtly tied in with the pause in Arab terror attacks and relative peace and the implication, though unspoken, was that the Israelis need more attacks to jolt them out of their complacency.In stark contrast to his portrayal of the Israelis, Wingfield-Hayes found a good-looking young Palestinian to stride purposefully with him through the streets of Ramallah while discussing the ‘occupation.’ The BBC seized on the clip of the women on deck chairs and the still photo is what you first see when you access the page. I know from esteemed colleagues at Biased BBC that the video is still viewable in the UK. It can’t be seen elsewhere. I assume that the BBC will be keen to spread the propaganda in ‘One day in Gaza’ far and wide, will therefore ignore copyright infringement and I’ll probably be able to see it on YouTube at some stage.
True Too,Yes, you’re right, but doesn’t this also highlight the futility of our ten years worth of blogging?Incidentally, some of the other reviews I’ve seen are more favourable than mine. Stephen Pollard seems to think the film was even-handed, but I think his evaluation was kind of derailed by the film's unusual honesty in revealing the true nature of the Hamas-led incitement to violence.Even-handed in that it didn’t stick rigidly to the depiction of the innocent Palestinians pitted against the trigger-happy IDF (on the principle: "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good")
Sue, not futile at all! Your blog and the excellent commentators here have given me a clear insight to how biased the BBC is and the methods it uses. I in turn inform my friends and family. This means that I and others ensure we get a truer picture of the world from non BBC sources. The frustration of course is that the BBC has been getting more and more biased and partisan in it's propaganda. So much so that I can barely stand to listen to it anymore. But when the time comes, as it will one day, for the BBC to request the public's support, well it won't be getting any from me.
Well yes, I can be a misery-guts. But we’ve been at it for a decade, and although the BBC’s lefty bias is almost universally recognised (references to it pop up all over the place) the BBC doesn’t improve - if anything it’s even bolder these days.And their pandering to Islam is getting more and more blatant.
Sue,Well, if the BBC only paid lip service to even handedness that would be enough to disqualify it from entering Gaza again. Every 'journalist' knows that you have to follow Hamas propaganda to the letter to be welcome there. Take Alan Johnston for example. In the days when I was glued to the World Service I don't recall ever hearing a report from the Gaza-embedded Johnston which diverged from the Hamas line of Palestinians good and Je...er, sorry, Israelis bad.Re the futility of blogging, I think perhaps it would be fair to conclude that we have hardly made a dent in the BBC's bias. With his Panodrama, Tommy Robinson shamed and exposed the BBC to an extent I would not have believed possible till I saw it happen. The BBC maintained after their mealy-mouthed ‘apology’ for Sweeney’s tipsy bias that their ‘Tommy Takedown’ was ongoing and would be completed. Right! What kind of Panorama could they possibly produce on him now and what would they call it? ‘Tommy took us down?’ Anything they produce will only serve to remind them and the public of their utter humiliation at the hands of a tough little working-class guy. No, they are just going to slink away from it, lick their wounds and hope that memory of the whole affair fades.Before YouTube succumbed to pressure and put Panodrama under lock and key, it had been viewed about 1 500 000 times, had tens of thousands of likes, and tens of thousands of comments from all over the planet. The BBC would like to pretend it hasn’t been damaged by it. It has, and seriously.
Having said all that, I don’t believe our efforts are futile. We have helped and are helping to raise awareness of the real nature of this most-trusted broadcaster.
Newsnight Watch The BBC can be very puzzling. Most of the time the BBC are trying to brainwash us into thinking there is no culture war between Islam and more general values in our society or even that Islam has always been more culturally advanced than the hate-filled West. But when it comes to something the BBC loves and promotes - sex education - it seems they are happy to concede there is a clash.So tonight on Newsnight, we see a lot of concern about the current Islamic campaign against LGBT themes in school and sex education. They've spent 20 minutes on it so far without once addressing what Islamic jurisprudence, Sharia, says about male and female homosexuality. I predicted that when the government came out with its sex education proposals there will eventually be a riot. It's clear that's what's going to happen. And when it happens, the Government will back down - just wait and see.
BBC Reality Check - “Why the European Elections couldn’t be avoided” haven’t read it, it would make me too angry but the title says it all for me...If there’s anyone brave enough to read it list the bias here!
1. What is the point of the article? No one I know of has disputed that the elections have to take place given the Government's refusal to pursue a no deal exit...so what "reality" is being checked here? We all agree they have to take place, given the circumstances. 2. There is an underlying unstated assumption in the question that some people wanted to avoid the elections despite us still being EU Members, as though that were a legitimate point of view, but this is never addressed in the article. The BBC-Blair-Campbell(s) conspiracists would indeed have liked to avoid the elections but still stymie Brexit at the same time. We can see why - because the new Brexit Party is doing phenomenally well now and threatening to derail the conspiracy to overturn the 2016 vote. 3. The original idea (supposedly) was that the BBC Reality Check team were going to fact-check claims and expose bogus news...at least that's what we were told. This article is an opinion piece, largely an exercise in speculation about motives and future events. Little to do with any ascertainable "reality" but to the extent it is, thoroughly misleading. 4. The BBC Reality Check operation is an expensive one, probably costing the licence fee payer millions of pounds every year. To what purpose? I've read scores of them and they all include in varying proportions false claims (by the writers), mistinterpretations of fact, critically incomplete and therefore misleading analysis, failure to address the initial question or claim, political bias and institutional bias. 5. Apparently, according to the BBC, the Commons voted by a "clear majority" against a no deal Brexit, or so the article claims. What does a "clear majority" make you think of? The majority was actually 7 or, in percentage terms far less than the majority obtained in the EU Referendum by the Leave campaign. Has the BBC ever described the majority in the EU Referendum as a "clear majority". If so, I can't recall having heard it. 5. The reality is that despite the Commons majority, the Government could still have pressed on with a no deal Brexit as that was already enshrined in law (in the Act triggering Article 50). The Government could have said it would not co-operate with the Commons in blocking the will of the people expressed in the EU Referendum. That would have been a perfectly legitimate political position in accord with our constitution (which does not give Parliament the right to determine the Executive's decisions, only to fail to support the Executive). The reality is the Government chose not to do so. That is why the elections were necessary. The article does not even address this point. 6. "Even now, though, thoughts are already turning in some quarters to what might happen after that - and whether an extension to the extension might be the only realistic way forward." I bet they are! And "some quarters" will definitely mean the Remain Mob at the BBC of whom the Reality Check team form an important propaganda element.
One of your sidebar links - students upset by picture of Nazi airship.Hydrogen, Airship, Hindenberg, Cats and Dogs, Coach and Horses, that's how it is snowflakes.
Why would the publisher feel the need to apologise! Crazy, it just reinforces the behaviour. We should send them a set of those small comic books - Commando Libraries.
Airships were mainly used in the 1st world war up to the mid 30’s, ending for the Germans with the 1937 Hindenburg disaster which was 2 years before the 2nd world war, which the article says they were used in.....Hopefully they don’t set history papers.
Airship Update - the only Powers to use Airships in the 2nd World War were the Americans on naval patrols. Amazing what triggers people these days.
I checked it out. It seems there were a couple of airships in the Luftwaffe during WW2. One was used in August 1939 to survey the UK's new radar installations. However it appears they saw no active service thereafter and were retired in 1940.
The BBC have made hay today with the news that Thomas Cook made a loss of £1.5 billion for the first six months of the year. With their typical disregard of the facts and some creative writing to obscure what the company had said they managed to lay the blame mostly on Brexit. How fortunate for them that Thomas Cook mentioned that Brexit had caused customers to delay holiday plans when the real damage was done by a £1.1 billion write down on the MyTravel business.
Laura Kuenssberg said tonight that the Tory leadership election would be like a parade of show ponies.She attributed that turn of phrase to an unnamed senior tory. That sort of anonymous quote can never be attributed or traced, so maybe she made it up. Who knows. What caught my attention was the phrase itself, which is not a compliment and is derogatory to my ears. I simply can’t imagine anyone at the BBC using that phrase when addressing a Labour leadership election even if someone said it.
And if you thought ITV might be better, Robert Peston was referring to Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson as "demagogues". Here's a dictionary definition:"a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob" (Collins)Again, can one imagine him referring to Jeremy Corbyn as a demagogue? No, of course not, even though he has been a political agitator all his life, even if he has appealed to the mob's anti-semitism, economic envy and crude egalitarianism. David Lammy? John McDonnell...nope, he would never dare apply the demagogue tag to them.
I’m not surprised. Peston on twitter shows time and time again he is the archetypal metro liberal and rabid remainer. They are both top of their hit list alongside Trump.
The BBC is amplifying hate speech against women in a story on it website about a local authority in Canada. Speaking of women on the council, one Councillor says:"Some of them can't be bothered to gather and organise their thoughts before speaking...some of the older women go on and on." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-48278772Only joking of course! This is the BBC, in fact it's more than that - it's BBC Trending (aka HuffPost in disguise) - and it's a woman talking about men and their genetic inferiority, so that's OK - I just switched genders in my comment and quote.
Just want to record BBC News's totally fake news on developments in the USA.You know how they have been pushing the Russia collusion line strongly for 3 years. It's all come to nothing of course. Now the Trump administration is going after the conspirators who put together the unconstitutional assault on a presidential candidate, so as to boost Clinton (who was of course facing her own troubles with the unauthorised server scandal - so that is probably the key motive here). But the BBC has reported virtually nothing about this latest development. Now the conspirators are feeling the heat and they are falling out with each other - John Brennan, ex CIA head, is now blaming the FBI's James Comey for being the one who insisted the fake dossier (prepared by the "ex" British spy and deranged anti-Trumpist Christopher Steele) be put before the FISA court. It's also being reported that the FISA application relied in part on Sydney Blumenthal a notorious Clinton operator and Democrat. There's nothing about this on the BBC website. Anthony Zurcher is doing his best to avoid mentioning it on his twitter account. And suddenly Russia collusion has become "the initiation of the Russia counter-intelligence probe" - he characterises Senator Graham as saying he wants an investigation in to how it was initiated. But of course that's not what Senator Graham calling for, he's calling for an investigation into FISA abuse.Zurcher's journalistic practice is appalling. Most responsible Twitter users would give a link when they quote someone. Zurcher does not, so you can't actually see the context of what he said.
Good video from Ezra Levant on Tommy Robinson trial and appalling behaviour of UK media gang:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR9Y97nlcTc
I see the personnal attacks on TBP have commenced on Twitter, despite a broad spectrum of members and candidates, they are now far right racist facists to the Twitterati.
They are pushing a photo of Farage as a young man with Martin Webster...except even Snopes (left wing fake fact checker) accepts it is more likely to be Richard Verrall, an associate of Webster.
One for Sue:Kirsty interviewing "rock parody group" Primal Scream front man Bobby Gillepsie - self defining as not an anti-semite who wants to see the destruction of the Israeli nation. He is the son of a far left Labour man. Probably took it all in with his mother's milk.
If you are on I Player I do suggest you have a look at that interview with the Primal Scream front man on Newsnight...quite incredible that the BBC thinks it's OK (the interviewer was even smiling as he said it) to call for the absolute destruction and elimination of a UN Member State. Isn't that a bit...er...extreme?
This full Carl Benjamin interview really explains why for all his faults you have to say he is brave and ultimately right even if you don't like the stuff he has tweeted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6IGyPUvfz8
Good exposition from BCP about the Fox News interview with Bill Barr...You might want to scroll to 5 mins...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvkdaze41j4The incredible thing is that the BBC US-Canada page on their website has nothing, literally nothing, about this. The interview is a huge, huge story. You are seeing BBC Fake News in operation. Absolutl
This is the well-trodden path of BBC's bias by omission. The story can't be reconciled with the BBC narrative - so the BBC will just ignore it, and fill their web pages with trivia: 'Grumpy Cat dies'. Fake News needs the hint of a storyline. As you say MB .. 'their website has nothing, literally nothing, about this.' ...
Something else that the BBC has 'forgotten' to report is that a whopping 77% of young French adults do not intend to vote in the European elections. Source 'Ouest France,' 9th May; the paper is one of the country's biggest regional daily papers. It seems that disillusionment with the EU is spreading.
There was an unusual interest in the Australian General Election this morning from the BBC, I don't think I've ever seen them report one before the result was known before. There were lots of mentions of how Australian Labor were ahead in the polls and likely to take power from the Conservative coalition.I suspect they will now loose interest quite soon...
I heard the BBC news report on the results. Hywel Griffith - I think it was - sounded positively funereal. :) Couldn't help smiling when another correspondent reported on the troubles of Austria's right wing coalition - in contrast they sounded like it was Christmas and Santa had brought them the X Box they always wanted.
Is Islamofauxbia a "thing" or just a tactical ploy being used by Sharia supporters to disarm resistance and further their objectives of supplanting our legal system by installing their own? Er, if you need to ask the question you obviously haven't read the Koran, Hadith or Life of Mo. Go read them. The BBC have decided that Islamophobia (their preferred spelling)is a "thing". Most definitely. They have seen the Snark. They have hunted it assiduously and found it resides in the Conservative Party, the Brexit Party and the hearts and minds of anyone they disapprove of. What to make of a former Conservative Attorney General, M. Dominic Grieve (Legion d'Honneur), laughing off - yes laughing off - the concerns of a former Police chief of counter-terrorism about how working to such a definition of "Islamophobia" will stymie anti-terrorist operations. Grieve is an appalling appeaser. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1129389924694876165The rise of the Brexit Party gives hope we haven't entirely given up yet...it's only a faint hope because of course Nige has a phobia about Islamophobia. We need an Orbanista populist government to push back on all this mendacious nonsense: repeal the Equalities Act, repeal the Human Rights Act, enshrine real Free Speech rights in legislation and our constitution.
That is the usual spelling, not just by the BBC. What I find puzzling is why the word Islam and its derivatives and compounds - ism, ist, anti- etc doesn't meet the requirements of these advocates of the definition. Could ask the same about Muslim, Anti-Muslim / ism, according to context. What's wrong with that?
In researching my above post, I came across this:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/190508/register-190508.pdfThis smells as rotten as a month-old fish stuck behind a radiator. These All Parliamentary Groups are clearly, in most cases, an appalling racket designed to (a) garner, in corrupt fashion, votes for identity groups (e.g. there is one for the Ahmadiyya Muslim group, specifically designed to "promote" their interests - why? are the followers of that faith supposed to be more important than other citizens...why? and how does that sit with the Nolan Principles of public life?) or (b) attract funding that then just seems to vanish into thin air. For instance the APG on Internet, Communications and Technology has attracted about £150k in funding! The chief donor was Huawei...that's OK then. Most of the donations are at the £6k level, suggesting this was almost a "demanding with menaces" exercise by parliamentarians seeking to extort money from the sector or, alternatively, the Group itself was effectively set up by the sector, with a minimum membership fee, in order to ensure its interests are represented in Parliament. This is completely corrupt. The Group claims to have filed an income and expenditure doc but try and find it! Doesn't seem to be on the Group's website. These groups don't seem to have any legal corporate status. They are not companies, or charities, or trusts or other legal persons...They appear to be operating under Parliamentary privilege which means presumably they don't have to register with the Charity Commission or pay Corporation Tax. What we have here is a complete and utter racket which at the least must provide MPs with much free fine dining, holidays, perks and job opportunities for their family and friends.
The APPG are basically MPs and Peers pursuing whatever takes their fancy. This Muslim group is popular with politicians around here in the southwest of the metropolis. Why? I don't know that. MPs and Council leaders like being photographed with them and promoting them. The Ahmadiyya'd take a stall at town festivals or on the odd occasion in the high street at a weekend. They were always all men which makes one wonder. That APPG is growing. Had five - two Labour, two LibDem, one Conservative (chaired by Siobhain McDonagh). Now it has 10: four of the original five, plus the MPs for Richmond and North Kingston (Zac Goldsmith) and Kingston & Surbiton (Ed Davey); two Labour Co-op (Gapes, Malhotra)and one SNP (Thewliss) and LibDem (Lord Tope). I got curious because our new Conservative MP in 2015 was keen on them and chaired another APPG, on Tamils, which Siobhain McDonagh was also involved in.
Meant to say that APPG had a secretariat provided by 'the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK' whoever they might be. That appears to be no longer the case, going by the entry for the present expanded APPG.
APGs sound like ready-made vehicles for corruption. If we are going to have such groups, they should either be paid for out of MPs' salaries or perhaps each MP could have say a £500 annual grant which they could contribute to APGs. APGs should not be receiving money or benefit in kind. I also think it's wrong for them to "promote" any group based purely on their religious or racial status.
Arne's made me laugh. I wonder whether the BBC thinks the Today listener is interested in motor racing or death.
Horrific Fake News reporting from the BBC:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48323573Read that and weep after you look at the videos showing exactly who initiated the violence - this is just one:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mnHzF70NowAnd note the BBC won't even admit to the existence of a group called the "Muslim Defence League". Just remember that when you hear the 1000th reference to TR being the founder of the EDL. Fake News BBC won't even admit to there being an MDL. And remember - if Baroness Warsi gets her way you will go to prison if you criticise the "Muslimness" on display in the video...intimidatory shouting of "Allahu Akbar" on the streets of a once peaceful Britain. As the video guy says "No one disses our religion"...that's pretty much what the Warsi Definition means.
Rising panic in the UK spy agencies:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/19/theresa-mays-spy-chiefs-briefed-explosive-chistopher-steele/I feel justified in my previous comments. I have always said the UK was involved and, also, the UK MSM were studiously avoiding any enquiries about, or investigations into, this involvement - because to do so would run counter to PC Globalist Pro Clinton-Obama ideology. This story in the Telegraph (I can't view what's behind the paywall) is clearly a damage limitation exercise. It gives the impression that they became aware of the dossier's contents after its submission. No doubt they did. But of course that doesn't address the much more interesting question: did they know that their (ex) man was preparing the dossier before it was finalised? Do you really think they didn't? The rising panic has clearly been triggered by Trump's AG Bill Barr's decision to investigate all aspects of the corrupt anti-Trump spying. So they know they will definitely get namechecked in the investigation. This could be yet another case where May has fatally weakened our country.
Great discussion between Delingpole and Batten:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0-aJCwQ5D0This is so much more revealing than all those absurd "gotcha" interviews.
The presentation of two of the lead stories on BBC radio news last night was a masterclass in the clever methods the BBC use to introduce and apply bias. Goebbels would be proud of their propaganda techniques.I think we all know they do this but it is worth reminding ourselves that many items are now presented through the BBC social liberal PC lens and contain a clear ‘this is good or bad’ message. The careful use of words, the way it is delivered - tone, intonation and talking speed are all used to convey the message. And there is invariably a political or social message in the narrative. Most important are the interview clips or voxpops which are always used to support the main narrative. The order, length and edits are skilfully chosen to confirm the positioning of the story. With all that in place the audience know by the end of the clip whether the BBC approve or disapprove. You know who is in the dock and what the BBC believe is right and what is wrong.The carefully constructed manipulation of the audience is done on virtually every story. It is almost never straightforward factual reporting. The two stories that caught my attention last night were the abortion bans in the US and tighter gun control laws in Switzerland. I don’t need to tell you which one we were told was good and which one was deemed bad.
There's even a structural issue of bias here. At anyone time there are millions of potential news items out there about our planet with its 7 billion plus people...how did the BBC alight upon these two stories - or purely domestic concern in the countries involved - as being important enough to feature in their bulletin? We see the same thing in discussions of gun use - the focus is nearly always on the USA or a European country. The BBC for some reason aren't much concerned about gun use in Brazil, Pakistan or South Africa.
Completely irresponsible and unacceptable reporting of an assault by a thug on a person exercising their rights to campaign for elected office:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-48339711Why unacceptable? 1. The long lingering video showing Farage walking covered in milkshake takes voyeuristic pleasure in the outcome of the assault. But there is no video of the assault itself. 2. The use of dismissive language - "splatted". Not sure it's even a word but it is jokey and diminishes the seriousness of the assault - which is an assault on democracy and free speech. 3. Likewise, there is a supposed humorous element in the detailed description of the milkshake as a banana and salt caramel shake and the caption to the empty carton " It's no use crying over spilt milk (shake), even if it was £5.25 ". They've clearly taken their lead from the Independent in flippant headlining. 4. The report describes the man's action as a "protest". In similar circumstances the BBC describes Corbyn being "attacked" and "assaulted". And it did not accept the perpetrator's claim that it was a protest. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-47697318/jeremy-corbyn-egg-attack-cps-release-footage-of-assaultThe BBC has become an enabler and inciter of violence against all populists.
One for Craig and Newsniffer...The caption that said, jocularly: "It's no use crying over spilt milk (shake), even if it was £5.25 " has been changed to a more innocuous:"The cup that held the £5.25 shake was left on the street" But it's still a "protest" - lending the act legitimacy. Very sad when our state broadcaster thinks it's OK to legitimise assault directed at political candidates.
Spot on MB. As we know the BBC only apply a fair rules policy to certain parties, generally on the left of politics. The further right you go, the more the normal rules are cast aside and anything goes - character assassinations, lies, distortions and personal attacks and now even violence is acceptable Along with making light of serous assault with jokes and humour.
Our mainstream media has sunk so low. Evan Davis in discussion with the Guardian's Zoe Williams and a Change UK rep - Anna Soubry no less (why not a Brexit Party rep? - do the victims not have a voice). Loopy Zoe thinks it's hilarious for "reasons" that only someone on a combination of MDMA and Ketamine could possibly follow. To be fair to Soubry she was clear that the behaviour was unacceptable (just occurred to me, though - this was prejudicial to a forthcoming trial relating to her...). Even Evan sounded a bit p'd off with Inzany Zoe's unsubtle defence of the milkshaking. I think was hoping for something a bit more "nuanced" - to use a word he might deploy himself. I understand the Police arrested the perpetrator...but you have to ask why the Police have not arrested the people who did the exact same to Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin. Their failure to do their duty over previous weeks has encouraged this assault. Tom Peck in the Independent declares that the milkshaking wasn't funny, it was "hilarious".
Arne - Not just character assassination. The Left have been none too subtle in wishing for Trump's assassination. And the MSM's treatment of the young Briton (radicalised by the Guardian and the BBC) who tried to take Trump's life was extremely indulgent, near enough sympathetic. Left actors and celebrities have put out tweets, plays and sketches effectively calling for his assassination. Does any of this concern the BBC? Er - no.
Extraordinary. It's the language of the comic, The Beano.
There was a story over the week-end which for reasons, (that become obvious if you read the link), does not appear on the BBC News website - that I can see.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9100445/gp-faces-axe-muslim-woman-remove-niqab/The Institutions, the Judiciary, Academia etc are of one accord.
'Get Farage!' Many of us have been expecting some sort of 'fix' in the run-up to the European elections, now we know what form it's taking! (Allegations of undeclared foreign funding.) For full details, see today's 'Guido'.Tonight's reporting of this on 6pm news was curiously muted & Myrie even managed to avoid smirking when reporting that Farage had been 'milk-shaked.' I suspect they'll have worked out how to exploit it fully by Newsnight-time!
Farage has alleged that a state organ (the Electoral Commission) is now intervening in the election to sway the vote and I agree with him. This is a load of old nonsense for the following reasons:1. WTF do the Electoral Commission do all day? Surely they check the donate buttons on all the party websites? And surely if they think there is anything amiss they warn the Party...so why do they need Gordon Brown to tell them how to do their job? 2. Does the Electoral Commission always announce such investigation. 3. I looked at the Change UK website. There is nothing there which would prevent a Putin agent posing as a UK elector and donating.
Your 3rd point: Indeed, Guido has just done it to the 'People's Vote' lot, by getting them to accept a donation, in Euros, from some chap called Putin, a resident of the Kremlin!
I think this is where the gloves come off and the MSM en-masse pile in to Farage to do as much damage as possible. They will kick, punch and scratch with no referee to intervene to ensure a fair fight. It will continue through to the next general election. Their aim will be to kill him and his party and I’m not sure they care whether it is a metaphoric or real kill.
True Arne...they are desperate to get the vote down to under 30% so they can claim it was a "disappointing" result! :) They certainly have never shown any concern over previous death threats to Farage (in stark contrast to their concern about such threats to their Labour favourites). So your comment is not unwarranted. Of course, we are fortunate that their PC ideology blinds them to many factors that aid Farage and the Brexit Party. So while they and their Guardian chums think the milkshake assault is funny and a humiliation for Farage, most right thinking electors will be appalled by what is happening to our democracy and will many who perhaps weren't think of voting for him will be encouraged to do so, to register their disapproval.
Shocking Islamophobia on display - from Jess Phillips, no less, dissing the religion of mainstream Muslims...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-48339080
I wonder what %age of her electorate they represent. Fun, anyway, to see both Beeb & the likes of Phillips struggling to decide which PC faction to put their money on!
The councillors in Phillips' constituency give some guide as to the way the wind is blowing.Baber Baz LDNeil Eustace LDZaker Choudry LDRoger Harmer LDPaul Tilsley LDAkhlaq Ahmed LSafia Akhtar LMohammed Azim LMarje Bridle LZafar Iqbal L
Lol - That's Phillips out at the next general election then! The Imams only have to say vote for X and she's toast. She might have realised that was going to happen anyway and perhaps is preparing for a media career based on PC Martyr status...I am sure the BBC would oblige. Wonder what the Lib Dem snakes are up to in her constituency? No doubt being their usual principled selves and posing as pro-Sharia.
I think the Muslims will either take over the Labour party in our 'diverse' towns and cities or they will use it as a work experience/training organisation and then form their own party.The LibDems will will adopt whatever policy might get them elected locally, regardless of any national policy.
Is it really such a stretch to call this behaviour treasonous, traitorous or treacherous? Soros, Blair and the EU were in secret talks at Davos about how to keep the UK in the EU: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/04/25/claim-davos-brexit-talks-between-blair-soros-covered-up-by-european-commission/Anything on the BBC about this?
If the Beeb covers it at all, it won't get as much air-time as the fake-funding-news!To answer your question, treasonous, traitorous & treacherous behaviour is precisely what it is in my book.
Remainiac Dan Snow's fake apology for suggesting the local council put a Brexit Party leaflet in with his postal vote...All together now - "comments could be going better"! (Some of the tweets are very, very funny - well worth a read)https://twitter.com/thehistoryguy/status/1130520751918997504
This guy has form and is one of the most prolific virtue signallers. He is a little more reticent to let you know he is married to the Duke of Westminster’s sister. The Duke is worth £10 billion.David Lloyd George was Dan’s great great grandfather so he comes from a position of extraordinary privilege and continually lectures us plebs on how to conduct ourselves whilst living his life of luxury and entitlement. What a f***ing hypocrite.
Snow is a convincing argument against nepotism.
There's nepotism, and then there's getting Dad to hold your hand and walk you to work...which is effectively what Desperate Dan did when he got his start in TV.
And didn’t he lie to his children telling them female pilots flew Spitfires in the war. TheHistoryGuy deciding to rewrite the bits of history he doesn’t like.Snow(flake).
They did fly them from the factory to the airfield...that was about it I think.
He’s not the first controversial figure to face this sort of protest - said the BBC correspondent with a happy tone on tonight’s news when reporting on the milk shake attack. On BBC Teletext they are reporting the milk shake flavour as a jocular addition. They are blatantly flouting election reporting rules in my opinion.
Newsnight wallowing with delight in the Milkshake phenomenon. Two Remainiacs. Stephen Bush and Rachel Sylvester. All jocular milkshake references...Rachel Sylvester complete hypocrite...she's radicalised Remainers with her absurd pro-Remain anti-democratic rhetoric...now she's calling Carl Benjamin a "horrible man". Would she like to be called a "horrible woman" on national TV? Does she defend Jess Phillips' horrendous trivialising comments on the hundreds of serious attacks on women in Cologne by Arab migrants? No mention of the Muslim Defence League's potentially lethal attack on MEP candidate Tommy Robinson's political meeting in Oldham. How odd! Did they not see the video of that? Of course they did but Maitlis, Sylvester and Bush are all part of the Fake News media and therefore know what to mention and what not to mention.
One thing about the interview between Victoria Derbyshire and Carl Benjamin which I only came across afterwards. Apparently the BBC edited out Carl Benjamin's references to BBC comedians who has made jokes of a similar dubious nature to his own but whom the BBC were happy to employ and promote. It is thought one of the comedians he referenced was Frankie Boyle who stated that the celebrity Jordan had married an MMA fighter in order that he could intervene to stop her disabled son from r**ing her. Frankie Boyle is promoted by the BBC as one of their favourite comedians. Remember that, the next time the BBC pose as occupying the moral high ground!Benjamin has some defence for his extremely unwise comment, that he was satirising Phillips' posturing as a victim and denial of equality for male and female issues. Boyle had no excuse for targetting a severely disabled child.
The BBC employ thousands of people yet they don't employ anyone to patrol their comments threads on Twitter...and yet - they expect Carl Benjamin to do so! Currently on their twitter threads I am seeing an advert for a political party in the current elections (the Brexit Party actually but still - it's the principle), libellous comments about certain people being racists and a call for use of violence against Nigel Farage ("should have been a brick").https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1130595573831262208
I am confused over the BBC News Website's coverage of the British Steel Scunthorpe story:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48347371... 'British Steel on verge of administration.' ...Part-way down the story is:... 'The UK's second-biggest steel maker had been trying to secure £75m in financial support to help it to address "Brexit-related issues".' ...I can't find any reference from any other source about these "Brexit-related issues". The only mention of the EU relates to a bill for CO2 emissions. What are these "Brexit-related issues" BBC? If they are referred to in the article, there should be some link or other explanation. Otherwise, this phrase slipped in amounts to more Project Fear.
Sky are claiming that somehow fears of and uncertainty about a no deal Brexit are affecting their business. Looking on their website I find this:"They added that a slump in orders from European customers amid uncertainty about potential trading arrangements with the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit was among the factors responsible for the company's deteriorating performance."So a slump in European orders...I think that has more to do with the EU economic slowdown rather than Brexit. But of course no MSM reporter will ever lead with: "Because of a slowdown in the EU economy". Kamal and Co. simply don't believe, as a matter of ideology, that the EU can show signs of being a plodding dinosaur. The soothsayers suggest if we leave on no deal the value of sterling will plummet again...that can only help overseas sales one would think. I guess a lot would depend on how much scrap goes into the steel...if we are importing all the iron ore and coal. The longer term problem has a lot to do with the erosion of our industrial base which - no coincidence - accelerated fast once we were in the EU. Also in terms of being in a protective trading bloc, while that is good for all those factories and plants located centrally in the EU, somewhere like Germany, Poland, Czecholsovakia. The UK is adding on transport marginal transport costs in terms of the EU market which can't help. Businesses do not like uncertainty - that I would accept. That is an argument for settling the Brexit issue definitively. No deal will do that. May's deal will only be followed by another two years of wrangling and, of course, further abject surrender.
The Scunthorpe Plant traditionally made hot-rolled sections principally for the construction industry. To try and tie this in the Brexit issue with German-made cars for instance would be erroneous.
Just checked and the number of housing unit new starts was down last year. Presumably also no one is building new shopping centres in the current online-dominated retail sector. That must have an effect. Meanwhile, all the City folk are probably working from home half the time, so the need for office acoommodation is probably contracting as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Waiting for today's news splash: Who will get the milkshake? Who among the bien pensant PC Liberal-Left-Fake Tory contingent will laugh longest and loudest? Ian Dunt? Johnny Mercer? Owen Jones? Ash Sakar? Zoe Williams? Kevin McGuire? They've all been having a good chuckle so far. Then there's the exciting "Police Bingo" question of "will they bother arresting anyone?" (depends on the perpetrator's religion, the victim's politics and what effect failure to act might have on court cases they want to see prosecuted - so quite a difficult equation for police to factor). Eyes down! Last but not least will the BBC attach "humorous" captions to photos of the victims and then wipe them an hour later? Such fun!
I wonder if anyone, anywhere on the BBC has condemned the Farage milk shake attack. I doubt it, unless someone can prove me wrong.
Interesting, perusing the twitter accounts I see a text message must have gone out from Blair-Soros central...they must realise that the milkshakers are actually boosting support for the Brexit Party. Johnny Mercer, Zoe Williams and Kevin McGuire have all been backtracking on their previous merry support for such assaults on political candidates they disapprove of.
The top item on Radio 4's News at 8am was about a racing driver who has died - Niki Lauda, for anyone who somehow missed it. Odd thing to lead with, I thought. Went out of the room briefly and they were still on about it when I came back in. Then again on the sports news and on the news headlines, both at 8 30ish, followed by an interview about him with Jackie Stewart at about 8 40/45 ish. Four times in less than an hour! Who thinks that's the most important news or of overriding interest to the general listener? It's not as if there's nothing else going on. I don't get it.
They often have very strange choices as lead news. Sometimes with sports it’s because they think it is lowbrow entertainment and appeals to the working classes - it’s what the BBC think is of huge interest to people who aren’t like them. A bit like their interest in boxing.
Are they trying to bury some news they don't like? Often the case when their priorities are odd!
Yes, a that’s more likely explanation than mine!
Anonymous21 May 2019 at 16:18Arne's made me laugh. I don't know whether the BBC thinks the Today listener is more interested in motor racing or death.
The boxing thing always makes me laugh. The BBC's instincts must be torn there. Personally I find it rather odd that it's still legal - a sport, the purpose of which is to inflict maximum brain damage on your opponent. Maybe I should promote a new sport "Sledgehammer" where the opponents are given sledgehammers to pummel each other with...would probably be less damaging that some heavyweight boxer's fists.
The BBC cares more about the wrong sort of people saying a 'wrong' word than it does about people beating each other up in a sport which the medical profession has been denouncing for years.
Headline on BBC News site a couple of hours ago: "Holidaymakers hit as pound slides."Read on a couple of paragraphs and you discover that, later in the day, the pound recovered - in other words, this is a complete non-story. But never mind, the important thing is that IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF BREXIT!The Beeb just thought it would mention that in case any of us were thinking of voting for the Brexit Party!
I just revisited the article & it now says, "Cabinet backing for Theresa May's latest Brexit plan led to the rebound." Pretty sure that's a refinement they just came up with. Newsniffer anyone?
Yup! The Brexit plan rebound para. was added in second version - confusingly labelled as 'version 1' (the first version was '0'!)
The BBC economics correspondent was claiming that British Steel's order book from Europe had "dried up" because of Brexit uncertainty. That doesn't sound very credible to me.
Agreed! Another of their strange 'takes' on the economic situation.
So far today, the BBC News has failed to report that a charity's head of policy has been sacked for advocating replacing milkshake attacks on Nigel Farage with acid. (See Guido Fawkes). Imagine how much coverage the BBC would be giving this story if a member, say, of the Brexit Party had suggested making such an attack on a prominent Remainer!
Outrageous! It's being reported in three national newspapers but nothing on the BBC! They thought the issue was serious enough to be the lead item on PM yesterday. Surely in that context this is highly relevant.
Indeed - outrageous and relevant. This is one of those instances of pure unadulterated bias in favour of their political and social preference.
When analysing May’s latest offer, Laura Kuenssberg writes tonight in a way that is very unusual for the BBC - a relatively honest and straightforward interpretation. “The more brutal political interpretation - Theresa May's mishandling of this whole situation has, over many, many months, pulled her deeper and deeper down into a quagmire of her own creation.An attempt at this stage to ask others for understanding to help her escape is just too late - far, far too late. Now some Conservative minds are turning to whether she can stay on to have this vote at all.”
You're right - I think she is changing & her tv news reports don't set my teeth on edge, as they used to.
Certainly doesn't look like her latest psychotic rendition of her deal has any chance if Lisa Nandy and Jeremy Corbyn both oppose it...Thank God! Even Boris has rediscovered his courage and said he won't support it - not a moment too soon. But if Boris tries to push through some version of her deal he too will be eaten up by the Brexit monster. He needs to go back to the drawing board and say to the EU - "You offered us a free trade deal. That's what we want." Give it his best shot within a short timeline - six months or whatever - and if the EU doesn't play ball then allow a no deal. If Parliament refuses it, go to a General Election. On that basis he is likely to win.
Out of the blue on the main BBC news tonight there was a major report on Victor Orban, Hungarian politics and his Fidesz party. It was a hatchet job on his immigration policies and the propaganda on state TV. (An irony lost on the reporter).Now why would the BBC show that report this week and present Europe’s populist leader in such a negative light?
Wonder how many more of these they'll manage to slip in before the vote!
That's interesting Arne...nice timing BBC! Did they mention Hungary's impressive economic growth? I just checked the latest figure - couldn't believe it...it was 5.3%. This at a time when the powerhouse of the European economy, Germany, is down to 0.7%!!!How about the fact that its Jewish people are the least threatened in Europe? Or that it has reduced immigration to a trickle despite being in the middle of Europe with borders on several countries? Orban is basically a complete hero and we should adopt similar policies to his. It's that or PC globalism. The choice is ours.
Interesting interview with Tommy Robinson...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ9D1rhL5Yw&t=358sBrave man. Hope he gets elected MEP and then MP. I agree with his statement that there isn't now actually a single MP who articulates in full the concerns of ordinary working class people. How that situation has come about is interesting in itself, but it is a failure of our democratic culture I think. We can elect people who represent a kind of aristocratic tradition, business people, religions, ethnic minorities, finance billionaires, free marketeers, people in the world of law, Celtic nationalists, people in the Clarkeian mould, Marxists, social justice warriors...so on and so on. But we can't get people into Parliament who understand the experience of Tommy's World - which I would put at something between 10% and 25% of the population. That needs to change along with a lot of other things - it's a cultural problem and I think the election of Tommy as an MEP could mark the beginning of a solution to that problem.
Another interesting video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AayWhuiaF04Arrest at TR political meeting. Has this featured on BBC?
One of the BBC's main aims is to stifle debate on important issues that need to be addressed. So one of the great things about the current EU Parliamentary elections is that they do the precise opposite. They allow us to dream about, debate upon and discuss these vital issues... :) Over on the sister channel BBBC Emmanuel Goldstein has the following comment:"If the Brexit Party, perhaps with the help of UKIP and some proper conservatives manage to win power at the next GE (and it’s a very real possibility) then there are some electoral and parliamentary changes they must make.1. Change from FPTP voting to PR so that everybody’s vote counts instead of having a government decided by a hundred or so marginals with the rest taken for granted.I live in Sunderland where labour get voted in every time no matter how bad they are and that the 3 labour MPs are remainers in a big leave voting City. My UKIP vote counts for nothing.2. Reduce the number of MPs to below 300.3. Reduce the number in the HofL to about 120. (Or, abolish it)4. Because we cannot trust politicians with money as they are greedy and will fiddle whatever they can from the tax payers, give MPs a travel pass from their constituency to Westminster and have a couple of blocks of flats (those at the Grenfell site would do nicely) to put them up in if they need to overnight in London.Any other expenses to be overseen by a body from the tax payers alliance.5. Any pay rise must be the same as that given to nurses, police, firemen, dustbin men etc and not a percentage of their pay (3% of their £70,000 is far more than 3% of a dustbin man’s £20,000 or whatever he gets) They should get a sum, say £600 per year rise whether politician, nurse or civil servant to pay for the inflation we ALL have to face every year.6. Local parties should choose the candidates and a meaningful recall system should be made law in the case of liars and rogue MPs who go against the voters wishes.7. Actually carry out the usual promise of the ‘bonfire of the quango’s’ instead of saying it then forgetting it.That’s just for starters and not mentioning hs2, foreign aid and the like."Here's my take:
(continued...)1. "Change from FPTP voting to PR". Agreed we need to disband FPTP. Actually for the House of Commons I think a mixed system - half elected on (bigger) constituencies and half on regional PR would work best. 2. "Reduce the number of MPs to below 300". The number of MPs does need to be reduced. I think we have one of the smallest ratios of representatives to people represented anywhere in the world! But I think 500 would be nearer the mark. There is clearly a point at which you encourage a "club" mentality e.g. if you reduced it to an absurd 50 then they would all feel really chummy. We don't want that. But the current number is unreasonably large. Something between 400 and 500 would be best. 3. "Reduce the number in the HofL to about 120. (Or, abolish it)" I favour having for the House of Lords 100 elected members (elected on pure national PR) and 100 non-voting advisor members drawn from various elements of society with valuable expertise. The important point is that the non-voting members could take part in debates but not influence the deciding vote. That seems to me a good British compromise. 4. "Because we cannot trust politicians with money as they are greedy and will fiddle whatever they can from the tax payers, give MPs a travel pass from their constituency to Westminster and have a couple of blocks of flats (those at the Grenfell site would do nicely) to put them up in if they need to overnight in London."Something like that could work. I think another approach would be salary + allowance based on distance (travel time) of constituency from London. 5. Re pay rise... I don't agree with EG's suggestion. I think MPs' salary should be set at a percentage of the median UK salary. I actually think it should be set much higher than it is - but that is probably a minority viewpoint here! :)
(continued) 6. "...a meaningful recall system" I think there is an argument for going back to the original demand of the Chartists...I think all their demands have been met but one: annual parliaments. Are we really such a weak people that we can't turn out once a year to vote for our elected representatives? The great aspect of annual parliaments is that, counterfactually, they will make politicians think more longer term and more ethically...rather than thinking "Oh my God if I do that I will lose the seat for 5 years and then maybe lose it again because of something else for another 5 years - I'll be out of power for 10 years...I can't take it wah-wah!!" they (being opportunists by nature) will think "A year? OK, that's worth a gamble...even if I lose this year I'll be able to come back the following year and accuse my opponent of being x,y,z". From the electorate's point of view, if a Soubry or a Grieve or whoever reneges on manifesto commitments, they can wreak their revenge within a twelve-month. 7. "Actually carry out the usual promise of the ‘bonfire of the quango’s. " Well yes indeed! One you could abolish immediately is the Electoral Commision which has shown itself to be a Left-Liberal-PC lobby group prepared to push down on the scales to get the right result. Then as a postscript EG comments:" That’s just for starters and not mentioning hs2, foreign aid and the like."Well yes, I am all in favour of scrapping HS2 and replacing it with real (and quick) improvements to the transport infrastructure in the North of England and elsewhere in the UK. HS2 is a classic Osborne project. International aid is more complex. I am not so much against the total figure as against the bogus nature of the budget much of which is designed to aid our big corporations or please the PC agenda. I would accept using the International Aid Budget to finance whatever the EU demands of us for a reasonable trade deal. We will say "Yes you can have your $40 billion or whatever as long as you accept we are providing it to you to aid the appallingly backward parts of Europe." :)
Regarding parlimentary expenses, why did they need to set up IPSA? I think that costs something like £60M p.a.Large government departments like the MOD deal with thousands of expense claims for travel and accomodation every day, a few hundred MPs could easily have been added to the system at minimal expense. Plus there is an existing set of rules, 'claim as little as £1 that you aren't entitled to and you are out' - Oh, now I see the problem!
Heard the tailend of a mutual admiration session, sorry, discussion, between Stella Creasy and Nick Robinson under the misnomer "Political Thinking" this morning. There seemed to be no political thinking at all.Creasy's determination to end 700 years of free speech tradition in this country, was subject to no scrutiny whatsoever. The idea that this might be what makes people a teeny-weeny bit angry with her - depriving people of their natural free speech rights - was not explored. But we did get informed that she sends people kitten pics if she thinks they are getting too worked up. So that's all right then. A serious politician for sure. The amount of girly-giggling from her was hard to take - it made it sound like it was all a fun game to her: "What can I ban next? - oh I know, Barbie Dolls, they need to go. Also toy guns, the writings of Martin Amis, ladies bicycles, Nigel Farage and...oh well I've got enough on my list for now..." Does Robinson always treat his guests with such mild and supportive questioning? Once again I conclude Creasyism - anti free speech, uber-feminist, pro no borders, pro mass immigration, pro PC multiculturalism - is as much a threat to the UK, possibly more so, than Corbynism, with its quaint old style Hard Left Marxism.
No, he buzzes around them like an angry wasp when he doesn't approve. If you try to listen to that Creasy interview on a podcast, as I've just experienced, you first get 7 30 minutes of Robinson having a go at Farage over the Marr interview; self-justification for the BBC and himself, carrying on from a twitter spat which he references and attacking politicians, inc. PM and Corbyn for the demise of the long political interview - see death of Brian Walden. More of the angry wasp.
This is bias - barely legal bias I would say:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48356295/peterborough-by-election-candidates-debateRather than put candidates on a level playing field, the BBC report gives extra time to Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Their candidates are given plenty of space at the beginning to give their views. The Brexit Party candidate is lumped in with Greens and UKIP. UKIP, Greens and SDP are all put before the Brexit Party (so it was an editorial choice, not an alphabetical one). Then it's back to the three Lib-Lab-Con merchants! Clearly the BBC's intent here is to marginalise The Brexit Party and boost support for the three established parties. Blatant bias.
On Jeremy Vine’s BBC lunchtime show the BBCs political analyst (another new job?) he explained away the 37% Brexit Party poll as purely a protest vote. They simply can’t bring themselves to explore whether a shift in politics is occurring, maybe they really think the two party system will return to normal after the EU election.
Anybody hear the BBC journo visit to The Brexit Party offices this morning at about 7:45? I’m sure it was fake news, other parties collect their money in exactly the same way as per Guido. Happy to be proven wrong? Can we have a post Craig?
On Radio 4
6pm News - Collapse of British Steel: the BBC wheeled on John Pienaar, mainly, as far as I could see, so that he could suddenly raise his voice by about 10 decibels as he barked the word "BREXIT!" Not a total surprise that they've tried to pin the blame on Brexit, but hasn't the weaker pound made British Steel a bargain, compared with steel from the EU mainland?
Sorry, I mean "British steel", not the company!
BBC Midlands News has just announced an item on dogs: "How these dogs take the stress out of Brexit..." The bias really is relentless.
I’m a Brexiteer, I’m very very annoyed at the current situation but not stressed. The remainers and therefore most of the BBC seem very agitated and stressed about Brexit and have lost all sense of proportion, hence the relentless point scoring and bias. And why? Because they lost but think they were robbed and can’t accept the democratic result. Their political world has been turned upside down and they don’t like the course the people of this country have chosen. The elite and London chattering classes have been found out and have brought about their own demise.Deep down I think they know there is still a sizeable majority for Brexit and we will get out of the EU eventually, it may take years but Brexit will happen. They won’t face up to why people voted they way they did or have a sensible debate about it because of their righteous indignation. How could the great British public reject all the social liberal globalism we have been force fed? So they will stamp their feet and scream blue murder for the rest of their lives.
Of course they don't believe they could win a rerun - that's why they aren't calling for a second referendum...they are calling for Rigged Rerun with a dodgy franchise and a ludicrous choice of bads. If they had a real second referendum they would be confronted with all their lies from the first about there being no plans for an EU Army and that the country would be plunged into an immediate recession the day after we voted for Brexit.
I sent an email to my local Tory leave MP at 17:00 last night expressing my dissatisfaction with a 2nd referendum and received a response by post today agreeing with me. There’s a few left.
Suddenly the BBC is all in favour of "compromise" now that the prospect of May being kicked out, Boris as PM and an end to the Abject Surrender hoves into view, threatening the Blair-Soros-EU-BBC conspiracy. So on Newnsight they wheel on former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks to deliver a series of banal homilies on the theme of compromise and conciliation. Well some of us recall his shabby treatment of Rabbi Hugo Gryn - refusing to attend his funeral because he was a Reform Rabbi. Sacks doesn't seem to follow his own advice. Later Maitlis said outright that she ("we" ie she and the rest of the Westminster Bubble) thought of a no deal Brexit as "extremist"! Yep, she fessed up and admitted it, because she's a bit thick. She had a look of amazement on her face when noting that now more and more people seemed to be coming around to the idea that no deal had to be considered. If someone can be bothered to complain to the BBC, it would probably make a nice hook for a complaint.
So if we assume the polls are right and The Brexit Party wins the EU Parliamentary Elections by a large margin how will the BBC play things? Here are my predictions:1. If TBP score below 30% that will be deemed "disappointing" for the party. Lower than expected in the polls. Not as convincing as UKIP's last time round, up against a much more united government...that sort of thing. 2. If over 30%, it will be presented as a disaster for the Conservatives. "Calls into question whether Tories can ever again hope to win a majority and form a government even under a populist leader like Boris Johnson, who seeks to stand on the same grounds as Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson." 3. The EU Parliament is entirely irrelevant to what will happen in a General Election. TBP will be part of a minority in the EU Parliament. Its performance may just be another flash in the pan. 4. Questions are again being raised about TBP's funding methods. Gina Campbell intends to begin an action in the High Court calling into question the legality of TBP's victory. Electoral Commission has launched a fresh investigation this time focussed on "state actors" with heavy Russian accents. 5. Run on the pound shows that TBP's victory is an economic catastrophe for the UK. 6. We have found (Hope Not Hate have sent us) a tweet from 9 years ago from an obscured TBP MEP which spoke in favour of immigration control, thus proving they are racist. 7. TBP MEPs are 65% male, only 5% ethnic minority and more than half are aged over 50. This proves that the TBP is not representative of the nation as a whole. Interview with Jess Phillips calling for monitoring of all candidates for elected office by the Electoral Commission with powers to ban anyone deemed unrepresentative, "Far Right", populist or pro-free speech. 8. It was a dark day for democracy but there was one small glimmer of light - UKIP, scoring only 3%, have been crushed and will, as we have said before, be consigned to history, never again to darken our media door thank God. 9. The First Past the Post system is brilliant and has kept us a happy stable democracy for all these years, and allowed us to advanced the PC No Borders Multiculturalist agenda. At all costs it must be defended against TBP's attempts to change the voting system. Invite on all the Remainer constitutionalists - Vernon Bogdanor etc - to tell us how dangerous PR would be. 10. Distract our attention with a hundred other stories...
How odd. A few days ago I searched to find out who the candidates were for the European Parliament elections in my constituency. I found this useful guide in the DT:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-2019-full-list-mep-candidates/That's good I thought Brexit Party is top of the list - that will help Farage. But on arrival at the Polling Booth, I find that Brexit Party has been given an additional 'The', which takes it to the bottom of the list with UKIP in alphabetical order. There is no equivalent 'The' Conservative Party or 'The' Labour Party. This could be a first step in rigging a second referendum - by a series of sly moves such as this.The Conservative Party website is headed 'The' Conservative Party, as is The Labour Party's. Who had it in their gift to decide that only 'The' Brexit Party should be so named on the ballot paper? Who was top of the list - Change UK - 'The' Independent Group.
Arthur - no less annoying is the fact that the 'The' places the BP immediately before UKIP, which may cause some confusion.
Probably depends how they registered with the Electoral Commission - their website is call The Brexity Party. It might not help them on the ballot paper but it sure helped them push UKIP to one side.
Probably the same people who decided to word the referendum question in the order Remain or Leave rather than Leave or Remain. How did they arrive at that?
I've just voted and it comes after LibDems. There's also a party I'd never heard of - something like The EU Party which at first sight I thought might be confused with UKIP. The candidate for The Brexit Party looks suspiciously like an ethnic minority name. Oh dear, they're not all nasty Anglos then. What's a BBC to do?
Has anybody noticed the panel for tonight's QT? - apart from Damian Green (a Remainer, remembered, perhaps, for the wrong reasons) - none of them rang a bell with me.One of them studied PPE with Cameron, worked for him & departed with a peerage (probably not pro-Brexit, then); one was an actress and replaced Jo Cox as Labour MP for her constituency; one is Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation (she expects Brexit to have a negative knock-on effect) and one seems to be a businessman (to make a change from the unfunny left-wing comedian) - I'm afraid I was so demoralised by this time that I didn't bother to research his views on Brexit! All in all, a triumph of BBC impartiality!
Camilla Cavendish a peerage?
"Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice" - no less! At least that's what it says on Wikipedia (I'm assuming it's correct.)
I didn't know that. Never heard her referred to as anything other than Camilla Cavendish. She used to be head of the policy unit in No 10.
So it's basically 4 committed Remainers on the Panel, one Remainer Chair and one undecided (Simon Jordan seems more interested in football, cars, money and models than politics...will probably be of the "Get it fixed - sort it out!" sort of approach). Pretty amazing they would choose such a pro-Remain panel for the day of the EU Parliamentary elections.
Precisely the blend of crass insensitivity & arrogance that got Theresa May into her present jam!
PS They must be hoping their audience is similarly weighted, otherwise things could become quite raucous!
ITV News appeared to be preparing the nation for bad news...well good news actually...as in a massive victory for The Brexit Party. In stark contrast to the steady drumbeat of pro-Remain propaganda usually to be expected from ITV, the nation's second Remainer TV network (Sky is the third).QT going nicely despite the 80% or is it 100% Remainer panel. Pro-Brexit audience, including principled democratic Remainers who want to see the Referendum result implemented even though they don't agree with it. The nation speaks. :)
Interesting reaction from Bruce when discussion of 'milkshaking' led an audience member to point out that inaction by police when Tommy Robinson was on the receiving end of half-bricks thrown by young 'militants' gave cause for concern: Fiona did a quick frightened rabbit impression, froze & then moved on. It seems that, on some subjects, the Overton window has not moved!
It was amazing they didn't edit that out! :) Remember, the BBC has broacast NOTHING about that vicious, potentially lethal assault on a peaceful political meeting accompanied by Police Officers who then deliberately turned their backs on the stone-throwing thugs! Yep - that is "our wonderful police" for you these days. QT isn't broadcast live - think it's on something like a hour's delay. So plenty of time to edit it out. Maybe it was judged to be a useful "safety valve" and it will provide cover for the BBC if people have been submitting complaints about them not covering the assault on the TR meeting. Also I think FB committed the cardinal sin* of referring to Tommy Robinson as Tommy Robinson with no filligree of "Stephen Yaxley-Lennon". I think her days are numbered. *There actually was a Filipino Roman Catholic cardinal called Cardinal Sin. Not many people know that. :)
Stephen Bush, although a complete lefty, is actual rather a good journalist as this New Statesman article shows (much better than most Guardian nonsense - you actually learn a lot from reading it)...https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/05/european-elections-and-britain-s-political-earthquake
Thinking back to John Major's comments about the "bastards" in his party...I guess the B in The Brexit Party could be interpreted as Bastards: The Bastards Party. We'll all bastards now - out to make life difficult for those who wish to impose harmful "solutions" on us. :)You don't have to be particularly convinced by Farage. But you do have to be disillusioned by a political system that fails to deliver as promised on a simple referendum and produces such pathetic or malevolent "leaders" as May, Hammond, Grayling, Rudd, Green, Corbyn, McDonnell, Watson, Starmer...?Of course we can do better. We can find our Trump or Modi. :)
Outside No.10 right now live on TV, Norman Smith said to Steve Baker “some might say you have been disloyal and treacherous”.Oh the irony! And ‘some might say’ always seems to be lazy code for the BBC reporters’ personal opinion.
The metro-political-media elite are in panic today! I expect Alistair Campbell is chewing the carpet as I type.
Well my faith in a divinity has been restored...I certainly offered up some prayers for my country in the middle of last year when the scale of the treachery became known...things looked very, very bleak. Now they look much brighter. I know we are expected to allow her a dignified exit but that is to some extent playing the Remainer game. I at least think we need to record that she lied and lied again, year after year, about bringing net mass immigration down to under 100,000, that she misled two ministers about their role in negotiations with the EU, that she misled the nation about who was conducting the negotiations, that via her Lancaster House speech she misled the people about the sort of deal she was seeking, that she sold out the UK by agreeing to the two stages to the negotiations (a criticism that can also be levelled at David Davis), that she agreed with Mrs Merkel that the UK would eventually rejoin the EU, that she let the EU negotiators run rings around her, that she has destroyed (possibly permanently) the Conservative Party as an electoral force and that she did nothing to stop the Remainer Cabal in Government from plotting to prevent Brexit - in fact she did everything to facilitate their plotting (e.g. by not planning for a no deal exit). Even now, as she readies herself to depart the office of Prime Minister, she is still talking of "compromise" and implying her successor will have to implement her Abject Surrender. Did anyone talk of "compromise" in the run-up to the Referendum? No. We were told it was a binary decision, in or out. No one suggested that if Remain had won we would try and negotiate a more distant relationship, did they to accommodate the wishes of the Leave losers? Her blubbing at the end of her speech demonstrates how she was unfit for the office. She clearly had deep pyschological issues. I have no huge faith in Johnson or Raab to deliver a real Brexit but the logic of events - the October deadline, the threat from Farage, Macron's wish to get on with the EU Superstate project, and the Conservative Party membership's views - are all point towards a real Brexit. Getting a taster of the anti-Boris campaign from Adam Boulton on Sky...allegations of racism, Old Etonian etc. It will take the Remain conspirators in Parliament, in Blair-Soros land, the EU and the media some time to regroup and develop a new strategy but no doubt it will follow.
Had to laugh when they read out the tweet from Angela Merkel...rough translation: "You have failed in your mission. I have no more need of you."
Matthew Parris, possibly playing a subtle game, is suggesting Boris Johnson will do a de Gaulle and deliver the May deal.
Mad Dog Campbell admits the Referendum gave mandate for no deal and ditto the EU Elections will do so again:https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1131875277880090624He's such an arrogant sod he can't even be bothered to admit his Freudian slip.
Been out all day & came back to the wonderful news! Mind you, until they've driven a stake through where her heart ought to be - or at least removed her power-pack - I'll not really dare to believe it's happening at last!Maybe her successor as Party Leader could be the one who makes the least hypocritical "So long, Treeza" speech. Hunt has already failed there!
We need to work through a list:1. Achieve a real Brexit. 2. Abolish the House of Lords. Replace with a small national PR-elected chamber with non-voting advisors. 3. Replace First Past the Post election system with a mix of constituency and PR. 4. Abolish the licence fee and convert the BBC into a subscription-based service with impartiality oversight. 5. Introduce a written constitution embedding free speech rights (will incorporate element of Magna Carta and Bill of Rights). 6. Abolish the Electoral Commission. Abolish Ofcom. Abolish the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Replace with a Personal Development and Consitutional Commission, dedicated to working towards equality of opportunity for all individuals and respect for constitutional norms. 6. Introduce an internet bill of rights. 7. Royal Commission on Immigration.
Much is being made of May’s resignation speech and the need to compromise. The BBC led with this theme in their analysis immediately at the end of the speech. The inference being that a very soft Brexit is the compromise Tory Brexiters should make. But all the compromises have already been a one way street. The WA is chock full of concessions to the EU and the remainer parliament have weakened our leaving so much that it has been labelled BRINO. Leavers are getting it in the neck again as the culprits of the impasse despite there being a decisive vote to leave and conceding much ground. The other side meanwhile continue to be uncompromising and try to thwart the democratic will. By playing the blame game and painting leavers as the villains, the BBC show their true colours again.
Agreed Arne. Ben Brown was on this tack just as soon as May had finished her speech - blaming the 'rebellious' ERG for causing her fall from power.
Laura K seems to been overcome by an attack of breathlessness causing her to whisper in truncated quick-fire sentences. She and the BBC at large must be mourning the loss of their tame Prime Minister.
I'm claiming the first spot of the "compromise" theme on Newsnight two night ago - see above, where I commented:"Suddenly the BBC is all in favour of "compromise" now that the prospect of May being kicked out, Boris as PM and an end to the Abject Surrender hoves into view, threatening the Blair-Soros-EU-BBC conspiracy."
Conceded MB ; ).The BBC fear a Brexiter PM And cabinet and therefore what they call a no deal. Watch them ramp up a new campaign to stop ultras and extremists. Anyone who supports a proper Brexit will be a target and fair game. The upside is that Hammond is almost certainly out on his ear shortly. The downside is that if Boris wins, he will blink and do a compromise - he is establishment through and through.
Not sure if Boris will (would) with Farage breathing down his neck!
Boris would probably sell his mother and throw in his grandmother to seal the deal if he thought it would make him PM. My hope is that he is a realist and sees that any attempt to repackage the Abject Surrender May Deal will result in disaster for his premiership and the Conservatives as a party. I think also he is instinctively good on the importance of free speech. Is he highly intelligent as some say or a buffoon? I don't know. He seems to have elements of both. Did he really ponder whether to switch to Leave by looking at his Nike shoes and pondering their country of origin as reported by his sister? Could he really be operating at such a moronic level of argumentation? Or is the clockwork whirring away inside? I don't trust Boris to move the centre of gravity away of the economy from the City...he is Londoncentric through and through. I can't imagine him knowing how to develop an industrial strategy. But maybe he will see it is politically important and get someone else to do it.
Good news - apparently Boris is already saying that the UK will leave the EU by the end of October, deal or no deal. That is encouraging, but terms and conditions may apply.
I believe he is highly intelligent but mentally possibly like a butterfly as his mind flits about from one thing to the next. He is better suited to journalism where he can be eloquent, funny, witty, playful than to the job of a minister or prime minister. Writing is fun for him and what he excels at. Someone else would have to run everything if he were prime minister. I don't trust him in many respects - he can be superficial and take a cavalier attitude; he's London of course but he's also typical of the modern Conservative: pro fashionable causes of minorities for this and that and pro immigration. His family seem to be like that too. Underneath the charm and the fun personality he isn't necessarily a nice character; there is ruthlessness and some hard attitudes too. I don't look forward to having him as leader but neither am I enthusiastic about any of the others. He has a popular appeal and likeability which gives him a head start over them. Could he win an election, unless the boundary changes have been implemented? How can we leave the EU without a general election to change the numbers in Parliament? That's the key problem regardless of who's in charge, and it does have to be a Leaver. But what kind of Leaver and I'm not even sure what kind he is when it comes down to it and will he stick to what he says now? We kind of know what sort Gove is: he'd take a deal as a step out the door, with the aim of extricating ourselves further later on. The risk of an election is to let Corbyn in, which is horrible to contemplate. Nothing is resolved just by changing the leader. It is all still there to frustrate and vex us.
Yes - questions, questions..."May you live in times of uncertainty" as the Chinese curse goes...:) In Boris's defence I would say Churchill also was more of a journalist than a politician and more of a gadfly than a serious administrator. I read of a historian who said it was really only Churchill's stylish prose that stopped us from defeat by Germany in 1940 - there was precious little else to stop the Germans except morale. I'm already feeling better just hearing Johnson shove it back in the EU's face. Churchill was of course also an artist - an accomplished painter with an artistic temperament. Johnson's mother was an artist but not sure he has the artistic temperament. In Churchill's case I think it made him more of a romantic which made Churchill's judgement seriously faulty at times over issues like trying to retain India in the Empire, King Edward's desire to marry Mrs Simpson and post war migration. So I would agree - Boris is more ruthless than romantic and perhaps that's what we need now. Go for the jugular Boris would be my advice. I think he is setting it all up for a General Election if necessary. Unlike May he can box Labour into a corner where they become the pro-EU "Remainer/Second Referendum" Party (as stated by Tom Watson) who want to keep the Brexit nightmare going whereas Boris will say "Let's finish this now."
Mardell was in fine Remainiac form on WATO. He gave Mairead McGuinness (Euro-elite) the softest of soft-lob interviews. Didn't challenge any of her assertions. He might have reminded her that the UK, Republic and EU have all indicated that have no intention of erecting a hard border in the circumstances of a no deal Brexit. He did not, allowed her to continue with her lying pretence that the hard border issue is genuine and not a negotiating ploy. Then he listened impassively as Katya Adler read from her EU Press Release. What is the point of Katya Adler? The EU Press Officer would be more informative. He sounded a bit depressed. As well he might. The love affair is truly over. The UK electorate have just left a second and final leaving note. "Dear EU, It's over. Don't try and stop me. I'm going. There's nothing more to say. I've left £10 billion on the kitchen table. Goodbye."
"PS When we've sorted out the EU, we're coming gunning for the BBC, which has a great deal to answer for!"
There is growing support I think for abolishing the licence fee and reducing the BBC down to size. There are loads of Asian radio stations. Absolutely no need for a specific BBC radio station. No need for a "drill music" station or an old fogies music station. All that stuff can be found for free either with or without ads. I think abolish the licence fee, make the BBC TV channels subscription-based (and ad free, though may be sponsored). Put in place strict impartiality rules enforced meaningfully and not just re content but also re hiring. Make the state a minority shareholder in the BBC. Abolishing the licence fee but retaining the BBC will be a popular policy. VERY popular I would suggest.
You won't find anyone in the BBC prepared to say "The EU overplayed its hand."
Don't, somehow, think they're looking forward to the European election results with quite the same enthusiasm as we are!
Nope! Hoping Farage has knocked it out of the park. :) The Conservative leadership debacle which was already evident on the day of the vote might have delivered him another 2-3%. He does also seem to be eating into the Labour vote. Lewis Goodall's special report for Sky suggests so:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvP9C7APG0Would be nice if Tommy Robinson got elected as well, just to induce cardiac arrest in BBC Newsroom. One of the annoying things about EU elections is that all the newsfolk have seen the results of the UK exit polls, whereas we haven't thanks to EU law.
The BBC has done a good job over the last few years of discouraging people from becoming what they call "conspiracists". The reality is, however, that about 98% of politics is conducted conspiratorially whether to achieve an objective or do down an opponent. The public only see the 2% on the surface. But by making people wary of believing in conspiracies the BBC have provided good cover for what has been a giant conspiracy since the 2016 EU Referendum result. Here are just a few examples of where the conspiracy has been visible:1. Lord Hall went round the dinner party circuit bewailing the BBC balance which had "lost us the referendum" (BTW I would dispute that there was any real balance - just a formalistic balance - during the Referendum campaign). Nick Robinson made clear that BBC journalists had no intention of being balanced thereafter. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/05/tackle-bbc-bias-make-plain-see-nick-robinson2. Blair has been co-ordinating with Macron, Merkel and Soros to prevent the UK's exit from the EU. https://euobserver.com/brexit/1447243. Can't find the link at the mo but May and Merkel agreed that the Referendum result was wrong and the UK would eventually rejoin (came from leaked German embassy papers). 4. We know May misled both Davis and Raab about their role in the negotiations, when all the time she was conducting the negotiations. 5. We know people like Hammond in the Cabinet deliberately prevented planning for a no deal exit despite the clear national interest that we should do so, since May had also made clear that "no deal is better than a bad deal".6. We know Bercow met with leading Remainers to plot means of preventing Brexit through parliamentary procedure. 7. We know Grieve (Legion d'honneur), a leading remainer, has strong connections with the Macron government. 8. We know Soros has been pouring millions of pounds into the anti-Brexit campaign. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survivePersonally, though I know it ain't gonna happen, I would favour a judicial board of inquiry into this conspiracy. Let's get Blair, Grieve, Campbell, Bercow and all the rest in under oath to answer questions about what they've been up to. I think the people need to know what's been going on.
Things didn't work out with Davis and the Exit Department, if you remember. Raab took the job but was only there for five minutes, it seemed. He didn't look all that clever taking it in the first place. And he doesn't look at all appealing now for PM. As with the earlier post, he looks almost desperately keen; I can't say I am when I see him putting out photos of him and wife to make him look human and then even worse is the income tax cut ploy. Income tax is the least of it really. We're clobbered in so many worse ways, especially stealth taxes, retaining the high VAT and stamp duty, inheritance tax, energy prices, travel and housing costs, business costs for the high street.
Yep, I am not convinced by Raab. At least Boris will cheer us up.
Newsnight Review:Maitlis sounding a bit off her head tonight...could be the first victim of Boris Derangement Syndrome...also lying. She claimed that Mark Francois said earlier in the programme that Steve Baker was "purer" than other candidates. Francois specifically rejected that term suggested by Uselss Maitlis and simply said "more consistent". So to then say he said "Purer" is to lie about what he said. Jenni Russell deliberately (I am sure - wouldn't trust her an inch but bet her memory is sharp) then echoes the lie repeating that Francois said "purer" when of course the record shows he did not. Re Maitlis - is it no longer important if a BBC presenter (a) knowingly lies about something said about 15 mins earlier or (b) is so incompetent that she forgets what a guest said on a matter of crucial national importance in direct response to her question just 15 mins earlier. Jenni Russell's contribution - change the record luv. Hates Boris. Keeps calling him an ambitious liar. Bet there's been some interaction along the line. It sounds v. personal. John Crace - Doesn't seem to bad for a Guardian journalist! (Yes, I'm amazed I said that). But a bit bland. John Sergeant - Nice guy, trying to play down the intensity of the divisions over Brexit. Well yes, would be nice but the Remainer refusal to accept the result ensures this scar will never heal.
Just a reminder how far we are into 1984...Morissey posters have been banned by Mersey Rail (or similar) because one person objected saying Morissey was far right. The posters had nothing to do with his political beliefs and simply advertised his latest album. All the posters are being taken down. In other news, For Britain, a party registered by the Electoral Commission, has been banned from Twitter for no specific reason. Of course the banning of all non-PC activists is continuing apace on all platforms. And Jess Phillips has called for all candidates for elected office to be vetted by the Electoral Commission and to be banned from the ballot if they do not meet "community standards". End of democracy folks.