...and any other matters that take our fancy
From the last thread about Fran Unsworth and her instruction over bias in tweets, it's pretty clear that Lineker, Barnett and others are defying her. That, to me, suggests that the BBC has an undisciplined management structure. Why isn't Fran able to make her instructions stick? It's probably because there are no consequences to a breach of the 'code of practice' and so she is ignored.This raises a whole series of questions:1. Does she have support from her seniors?2. Is there any genuine and robust disciplinary procedure?3. Are certain 'stars' considered beyond reproach?4. Does the 'contract' 'the stars' work under such as their own management companies render management systems useless?Please add your own questions!
You probably have to exclude Lineker as he doesn't come under BBC News, at least I think BBC Sport has a separate management structure. Of course it's v. difficult to find out because the BBC being so Kremlin-like it doesn't issue org charts (it would be embarrassing if it did because it would resemble frozen spaghetti). There is no excuse for the Emma Barnett retweet and comment. It makes clear she is sceptical about no deal as a coherent policy for a departure from the EU. That's is the very opposite of demonstrating impartiality.
Guido Fawkes isn't quite right to say "Emma Barnett manages to keep her personal politics off broadcast. Not off Twitter though". This tweet only repeated a point she made (thinly disguised as a question) on 'Newsnight' back on 25 June while interviewing Andrew Mitchell about Boris Johnson:"This is not a deadline he has said. Unlike Theresa May, he hasn't said 108 times in the Commons, we must leave on the 31st of October, although by the end of this campaign, he might have done. This is just willy waving, isn't it?"
Perhaps Lineker has to 'keep on side', i.e. with the groupthink, there after all 3.5 billion women out there that could replace him!
Fran the gatekeeper.Answers :1. This depends on the slight and the target. 2. Yes. See 13. No. See 1.4. No. See 1.Let's just say Lineker has a very handy set of values. Not saying he doesn't believe them, just saying he's in the right place at the right moment in time to trouser 1.75 mil and not get too much heat.
Katya Adler keeps telling us the EU are briliant negotiators. This suggests otherwise:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48833680The EU have screwed up badly re Switzerland.
Indeed and still the BBC downplay the lack of democracy over the direct appointment of top EU jobs today. In fact they have reported the event of hand picking and horse trading as if it’s the model of democracy.If it had been anyone but the EU we would have heard the howls of foul play and disgust all day long.
Typically for the BBC, the angle it has chosen to report is that Ursula von der Leyen will be the first woman to head the European Commission.
I doubt Jon Snow can be best pleased with the number of white people on the European Commission, for such a progessivist organisation...
Mad Emily laughing at her own jokes on Newsnight...she had a go at both Brexit Party and Lib Dem MEPs but I felt her heart was much more in the former tirade. Still we learned that the Lib Dems don't support a European Army. Hmmm...sure we can bank that one.Mad Emily avoided asking the Lib Dem MEP any really difficult questions like:"You say you want to Stop Brexit - did your Party make clear to voters in 2016 that if they voted for Leave, you would campaign to Stop Brexit?" We all know the answer is no. In fact Liar Clegg said the opposite - he said the decision would be implemented and none of the Lib Dems MPs (including a number who are still MPs) contradicted him.
Ben Chu on Newsnight tonight looked completely shagged out like the strain of having to invent lying Brexit stories about No Deal Chaos and General Apocalypse was beginning to tell. Tonight he was trying to tell us that there was not enough storage for food and medicines in the event of No Deal. The evidence? There was none apart from sector people doing their best to spread some alarm presumably in the hope of screwing more money out of the public. FFS - we've got loads of storage already earmarked. We've still got army, air force and navy facilities that can be used in an emergency. If we are leaving with £39 billion in our pocket we can afford to pay for some air transport to bring in drugs from all around the world. The EU are not going to stop selling us food just because we've left. Chu talks as if we are going on a war footing with the EU mounting a naval blockade against - I know the EU don't like us but even I balk at the idea they are going to try and starve us. Any delays are going to be marginal. If Dover gets clogged up or if French strikers try to take advantage, other ports will be pressed into service. Eventually it will sort itself out. We can start importing fruit and veg from Morocco and the USA in much larger quantities. If we see "chaos" and "shortages" after a No Deal Brexit the cause will be either direct sabotage by Remainiacs, French strikers taking advantage or media-induced panic-buying. But even then the disruption will be short-lived.
Jo Coburn working hard on the anti Boris campaign, desperately seeking to create drama and sensation: 'Matt Hancock slapped him down'. Leave it out for fact's sake! Just tell us what he said. We can work it out, you know.And on she goes with the Anti-Boris, trying and trying, for what must be five minutes, like a dog with a bone.
Jon Sopel virtue-signalling like mad about Women's Football...basically virtue-signalling is the only way stale pale males get to keep their BBC jobs these days - as pioneered by "Our Gary" (now most definitely "Their Gary"), Rory Cellan-Jones and John Simpson to name a few. https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5EauthorDaily debasement of the self - the price of a BBC career these days.
News about Tommy Robinson's retrial tomorrow, 4 July, is being censored on MSM and social media. So please pass this on:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=PN6LoEftnd8Whatever one's views of TR, there are serious concerns about the unprecedented way he has been treated by the criminal justice system...remember he was arrested, tried, denied access to his usual lawyer, and sentenced to 13 months in prison (with no chance to see his family) all within 5 hours! It now seems the prosecutors have changed tack and the case is proceeding on the basis he cause "stress" to the defendants. It seems remarkable the case is still proceeding on that basis. One can only hope that now that TR's attempt to begin a political career has crashed and burned he will now be treated more leniently than before.
Amol Rajan is a useless journalist. My evidence? Exhibit Ahttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48848302He makes reference to "Lord Hall" as though it will be obvious to all 25 million regular readers of the BBC News website who Lord Hall is. He doesn't tell us he heads up BBC management as D-G. Incidentally how have we ended up with a situation where the head of the allegedly impartial and non-political BBC is a member of our Parliament which decides our laws? By the way, the website below reports he voted for "more EU integration"...as if you ever had any doubt on that! :) https://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/24705/lord_hall_of_birkenhead/votes
Clicked on the link and it brings up a load of stuff https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment_and_arts but no discernible reference to Rajan
A note on Women's Football...an object lesson in how the BBC goes about its business. :) 1. I've no problem with women playing football if they want to (though I have a horrible feeling that a lot of girls who would rather be playing netball or rounders are now going to be pressured into playing football by feminista schools). 2. I've no problem with people being enthusiastic about Women's Football or cheering England's women team on in the Women's World Cup. No doubt they have been having fun which is nice. 3. I do have a problem with the BBC's ideological commitment to "parity of esteem" with the men's game before that has been earned. And I do have a problem with the BBC's refusal to allow anyone to compare the real standard of women's football with the men's game. Evidence from the few matches that have been played between women and men suggest that women play at a level equivalent to under 15s or Sunday league football. That is the reality. If any male sports presenter stated that as fact they would lose their job or if not lose any chance of promotion for sure. So this is a BBC culture of fear that is being spread. " (continued...)
continued...The truth is the BBC have used their £4 billion commercial and news power to promote the women's game as a matter of ideology. It's been a form of intense brainwashing that has been going on for several years now.OK, reality check. :) It's true that sports have always been promoted. There's nothing wrong with that but this is something way beyond that. It has been an ideological mission. We've seen something similar with women's boxing, which as far as I can remains of very little interest to the general population but which a lot of people have to pretend they find interesting and non-controversial (personally I hate boxing and wouldn't mind it being made illegal - it's a helluva a lot worse than cock fighting). In contrast with women's boxing, obviously women's football has the potential to be far more appealing to the populace at large. The BBC have decided to home in on women's football and elevate it to a new status. Their commercial rivals like ITV and Sky are only to happy to oblige by echoing BBC coverage - which shows that in the MSM ideology is more important than commercial interest. The issue of the status of women's sporrt is a complex and interesting subject. Most sports require various types of muscle strength to achieve excellence and that in turn largely depends on testosterone and - despite BBC-approved gender-bending, sports are now having to focus on testosterone levels as a dividing line between "men" and "women". But sport is also a social phenomenon, not just a gender phenomenon. Women's tennis has always been popular. This is an example I would suggest of organic growth. Lawn tennis was a pursuit of the upper middle classes and women always played, even in the days of wearing long dresses, just as much as they also always danced. It was natural for the middle classes to be interested in women's tennis...and so we saw over the decades that women were able to draw nearly or sometimes just as large crowds. Compare that with ladies golf - golf was always much more a male preserve and women have been grafted on to the game. I think there is some interest in ladies golf in the USA - presumably for their own social reasons over there - but I have seen virtually zero interest in this in the UK. Women's participation in sports like athletics and gymnastics seems to have developed out of the keep fit movement which was closely allied to 20th century fascism/communism and the eugenics movement. However, undoubtedly there was organic growth in women's sports in those areas so that it has become part of culture. I can certainly remember some fantastic sporting performances in athletics which I really enjoyed. But when it comes to women's football...I think my real objection is to being treated like a lab rat by the BBC...I am not some sort of experimental animal that can be programmed by stimulus-response to become enthusiastic about a sport played by women, simply because it suits the BBC's ideological agenda (and also its commercial agenda since it can no longer afford to bid for the men's football game or many other of the most popular sports). Sometimes you have to be a curmudgeon and say "I am not going to join in this artificial excitement because I refuse to be a lab rat.
Good post MB. I think you are harsh on ladies golf though. This is a sport in which with a shorter course adapted by the use of ladies' tees, women can compete on an equal footing with men. Physical strength in golf matters less than in other sports. In the UK at least the game is still called ladies' golf. I haven't heard the term 'women's' so much at local club level. It is an 'elite' activity in BBC parlance, but very popular nevertheless.I agree with you on women's football. The drive for its global promotion originates in the USA, where, through the well endowed college/university system of funding, in which women's sport must receive the same gross funding as men's, women's 'soccer' is undoubtedly the beneficiary.I agree with you that the BBC expect us to show due reverence to players we have never seen before, that we don't know from Adam, and whose skills do not shine through as they play. Players should earn our respect. It cannot be otherwise, no matter how much airtime the BBC fill trying to convince us.
I am not really an avid sports fan, more an occasional wathcer, so I was busking it a bit there! I didn't mean to suggest that golf isn't played and enjoyed by many women in this country and if you take muscle strength out of the equation, then I am sure it can be just as gripping to watch as the men's game. But I haven't noticed ladies' golf being of much interest whereas the men's game does excite a lot of media attention, gambling and so on.
The BBC 'take' on sport starts with the misguided assumption that London is the UK and the UK is London. Sports facilities in London, apart from participants at the highest pinnacle of achievement are woefully inadequate. Money doesn't filter down to the grassroots. With the ever-expanding population in London, as with housing, this situation will worsen making the old adage of 'Sport for All' outdated.I mentioned earlier the BBC's efforts last summer to have us believe that Street Cricket had brought through a generation of world class Asian cricketers - fake news.I believe this myopic vision the BBC has for women's football and sport in general alienates them even further from the majority of licence payers. The Open Golf and British Grand Prix are two examples of sporting events that should be on the BBC if they are indeed the national broadcaster.With the huge salaries paid to Gary Lineker and Jason Mohammad , it needs to be borne in mind that the BBC do not have primary broadcasting rights for Premier League football. These people are pure opinion-givers not reporters.
And Alan Shearer - he's up there as well.
And, although tennis might be a sport only played in the leafy suburbs by a privileged group of white middle class folk in the London area, in my area there were and still are teams playing in the local league drawn from works social clubs, and public parks. Some of the teams founded by collieries are still going strong. Anyone with skill and potential could be brought through to the top level in this way.
We watch men as the gladiators in combat on behalf of the spectators. We might watch women wrestling in mud or chocolate or playing netball whilst scantily clad; the attraction is different. Long live both of them!
Tommy Robinson trial...Very big news if true (from Ezra Levant):"Three huge admissions by Dunderdale. The Leeds court: �� FAILED to put the publication ban info into the courthouse "CREST" communications system. �� FAILED to put a notice of the publication ban on the courtroom door. �� FAILED to put the publication ban on the TV screen."https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1146730791008964608How could Geoffrey "Booming Lord Sutch" Cox reach such a daft decision as to retry this matter? Also an interesting thought: did the judge who originally banged up TR not have any responsiblity for ensuring that the reporting ban was made known accurately to the public? Strangely, the BBC's Daniel Sandford who has tweeted prodigiously (and very negatively) about Tommy in the past has nothing to say today...Remember it was Sandford who issued a prejudicial tweet about TR's criminal record when commenting on a previous hearing in relation to this case. The fool Sandford had to delete the tweet - his collar was not felt for some reason. I hope Tommy's team threw in that prejudicial tweet as an example of media bias in this case which prevents Tommy having a fair trial. Though I suppose in the absence of a jury, that argument might be considered insulting to the judge!...good job I'm not a lawyer!!
True to form, BBC have a negative non-impartial headline to their Tommy Robinson court case piece:"Tommy Robinson 'reckless' to broadcast outside court" Daniel Sandford normally covers TR cases (and very negatively one might add) but he seems to have been hauled off this one. Is it something to do with that prejudicial contempt-of-court tweet he posted about TR's criminal record, with reference to a previous hearing of this case? The Fool Sandford had to delete the tweet. So I suspect so. But why Sandford was never prosecuted for his clear contempt of court proceedings I do not know.
Why is the BBC's Dominic Casciani retweeting a tweet by a man (Babar Ahmad) who is serving time for a terrorism related offence, for which he pleaded guilty? Is that the sort of behaviour we expect from BBC employees? Babar Ahmad was also strongly supported by Sadiq Khan, who campaigned against his extradition to the USA, despite the overwhelming evidence. Khan sometimes gives the false impression Ahmad was his client. He was not. Khan supported him politically not as a client.
I was just preparing a post about DC when you posted that. That's a very interesting retweet.
Why is the BBC trying so hard to destroy our culture? https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/worrying_about_milk?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=bbcfood&intc_campaign=greenweek&intc_linkname=article_dairymilk_contentcard5They now have an article entitled "Should I worry about drinking milk?" You shouldn't even be raising the question! The UK has for centuries been a dairy-based culture. For hundreds of years the average person relied on cheese to keep them alive - being a source of good all round nutrition, to supplement grain products. We continue to enjoy milk-based products from cheese to yoghurt, to milk chocolate, to butter, to milk itself. They are all very good for you, in moderation of course, as with all things. Milk remains one of the healthiest foods. So the question is this: is the BBC actively trying to kill off our children by discouraging them from drinking milk or enjoying milk based products? Is it trying to turn them all into sad bunch of sickly, listless, depressed and poorly functioning teenagers? Probably not - probably just unintentional stupidity on the BBC's part but the effect is the same either way.
Agreed - they are always asking a question in the headline nowadays. And that’s a clue to how they pitch the article - normally an attack on part of our culture that the BBC now disapprove of. Especially if it’s part of established and traditional white British culture.
I'm surprised that Guido doesn't have any say as to which annoying adverts appear at the margins of his web pages. For several days now there has been 'news' of a poll putting Hunt ahead of Boris by a substantial margin. It can't be good for the credibility of his site. The adverts are clearly targeted to the reader, but this is blatant bias.
I dip into the site occasionally but it's basically a Westminster gossip forum and seems to be getting worse and less relevant as time goes by. I didn't like the way Staines demonised honest, patriotic UKIP supporters who were (and no doubt still are) concerned about the growing influence of Islam in the UK. It would be nice to think he's seen the error of his ways since Warsi's Islamophobia lobby has made such progress in creating de facto Sharia law in the UK but he's an arrogant sod and not that bright so I doubt it. It's a sadness we have nothing to compare with Canada's Rebel Media. Various sites have their merits: Spiked Online, Breitbart, Alt News Media, Conservative Woman...but each one has some rather large gaps.
Every day a new Boris smear article appears on the BBC website. The propaganda department must be working overtime. It’s a full on onslaught to poison him in people’s minds.Or as the BBC would say - holding politicians to account whilst being fair and impartial. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44767848
Boris is going to knock it out of the park. He is a breath of fresh air after the stultifying era of May and Hammond. Of course self-confessed near-alcoholic Adrian Chiles was sniffily underplaying his performance today on the hustings. Boris seems to understand a couple of key things:1. If the Conservatives don't deliver Brexit by 31st October they are finito, toast, kaput...The party will go down the pan and become part of history not our collective future. He sees this. Deluded ideologues like Hammond, Clarke, Grieve and a handful seem not to realise this. It will all come down to the numbers and how many Labour MPs will vote for no deal as a matter of self-preservation. 2. The importance of leadership - especially setting out problems and solutions in clear and engaging language, together with spreading a sense of optimism. All great leaders understand this instinctively. That doesn't mean everything he says is persuasive. Boris talks up London as an example of the success of immigration. Is it really? Since the Big Bang and the huge waves of immigration to the public we've seen: (a) virtually all housing become unaffordable for people doing ordinary jobs (b) whole areas of London taking on the appearance of foreign cities (c) a huge rise in knife crime, gun crime and gang activity (d) a huge rise in overcrowding on public transport (e) two boroughs become among the poorest in the land (f) an explosion in street begging and (g) London become increasingly the fiefdom of Labour - and Far Left Labour at that. Boris seems to want that pattern repeated in all our major cities (Manchester is well on the way of course). Is that really a golden future - importing from abroad millions of Far Left Labour voters into our great cities who have little interest in or respect for our culture, who are often unskilled or low skilled and thus dependent on state welfare to survive?
David Vance asks a question I have asked before:"Why is Tommy Robinson always “ex EDL leader” in every BBC report but Gerry Adams is never “ex IRA Leader”? "Especially relevant since the IRA killed maybe 2000 people...and the EDL killed,er...nobody.Another one is John Bercow. Why is he never "ex Monday Club member"? Or David Aaronovitch "ex communist" or Andrew Marr "ex Maoist"?https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1146844652198400000
I think we know why it’s done but I’m not sure it has the desired effect on the audience except for those who are very impressionable. The BBC have overplayed their hand on that and on the Yaxley-Lennon jibe.
‘Trump’s 1775 airport takeover mocked’ is one of the headline stories on the website. Open it and we can see it is by published by BBC Trending who say the hashtag has had 4000 mentions on Twitter.Now I thought real trending items had hundreds of thousands or even millions of retweets or views. But here we have a BBC employee trawling and hunting for a very small negative story with minimal retweets in the scheme of things, social media wise. But it fits the BBC narrative of being about Trump and more importantly it makes fun of him - hence it gets front page prominence in their website.Fake news and pathetic.
I’ve just noticed that this has been a top story on The Guardian since 6am this morning. So I don’t thing they are trending anything other than the Guardian website. Very lazy journalism and I use that word in the loosest sense.
I noticed the "airports" thing when watching him live. Basically Trump is useless with autocue and fantastic when he speaks off the cuff.
Sean Ley reporting on the chainsawed image of Melania Trump in Slovenia. He smirked. They're all smirking. It's what they do.Now imagine it was a chainsawed image of Michelle Obama in Africa. My, how the narrative would change.
Indeed. The BBC persist with this smirking denigration on Trump and his family as they do with other subjects who don’t fit with their worldview.They must know that it undermines their credibility and damages trust but they continue daily with bias that is obvious and relentless. At what point do they acknowledge the irreversible damage done to their reputation? Soon, way out in the future or never? Maybe they should just admit to being politically left of centre, social liberals and say that those with different politics will just have to lump it.
Agreed, and we can be sure that this smirking at every turn will be directed towards Boris Johnson if he becomes PM. How annoyed the BBC must be that they can't influence the 160,000 Conservative Party members - the precisely defined group that they hate and have already alienated.
Just emerged briefly from rural French Wi-Fi desert. BBC 1 8am news today: a quite outrageous attempt to implant subliminal image of Hunt as PM. First we saw a confident & smiling Hunt striding confidently into No 10 as if he owned the joint, then a dishevelled Boris heaving himself out of a car. I missed yesterday's BBC News, but today's Telegraph says they were pushing the tale that Boris was not trusted with highly secret info. by security services - no. 10 is the suspected source. Apologies if this is covered elsewhere - struggling to read my smartphone!
It's obviously a co-ordinated campaign. We now have ex MI6 Chief Sir John Sawers - you know, the guy who wanted to help the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow Assad - tell us pointedly that our political leaders aren't up to the job. Now he wants us to know we made the wrong choice in deciding to leave the EU. I'd say our intelligence leaders lack intelligence: taken in by the Arab Spring propaganda, supporting the Obama administration's dubious spying on the Trump campaign, failing to protect us from Islamic terror and now getting involved in national politics, at a most sensitive juncture.
By the way, Sawers is a globalist par excellence. Not only does he manage a steering committee for the Bilderberg Conference, he is also a director of BP Global.
Heard John Pienaar "interviewing" Dominic Grieve this morning on Radio 5 Live...strictly speaking this was not really an interview rather a monologue interrupted only by murmurs of encouragement and helpful baby step suggestions. Also can I ask why no one in the media ever refers to Dominic Grieve's Legion d'Honneur award from the French state for services of use, presumably, to that state? Or to his French mother. Or his French residence. Or his close relations with Macron. Or his full participation in French cultural life. It's almost as if they want the Great British Public to believe he is what he sounds like.
MB, with Grieve I think those who want Brexit already see him for what he is, a remainer trying to thwart Brexit by any means and that he does not a have a conservative bone in his body.Those who oppose Brexit see him as a champion of their cause who is valiantly trying to stop a catastrophe. His over exposure on the BBC means that his true colours are already known, people on both sides have made up their minds about him.In my opinion there are no more undecided or wavering voters on the question of Brexit. By continuing to give him unlimited airtime without challenge the BBC are no longer influencing anyone with that sort of interview (but still they persist because it fits their narrative).
I don't agree on that Arne - about people knowing his true colours. I think that the vast majority of people in the UK do not know his has a Legion d'Honneur award from the French state. He never refers to it himself, of that you can be sure, and his helpful interlocutors never refer to it. Even people like Katy Balls from the Spectator never refer to it.
You are right about the award, I’m sure. I was just referring to his antics over stopping Brexit.
"helpful baby step suggestions" - wonderful! Thank you.
Utter,utter scum has risen to the surface over the last few years, how they have hated(true hate for the uppity people who bought this to pass)after years, nay decades sitting in covert anonymity to be forced out of the woodwork, to expose themselves as self serving hypocritical cowards.They defend the indefensible, then lay claim to a ideological moral high ground that serves their own political agendas and narratives in order to control and manipulate the population.Though this has all been highly entertaining and enlightening, since the internet let the flood gates of information open. Now these "people" want to wind back time, to when the scum could reside in safe elitist obscurity and not have to surface.TR is just the tip of the ice berg, the Scum want civil unrest.
There was some mental conspiracy theorist on BBC News tonight going on about one of his nutty deep-state plot narratives...I think his name was Jon Sopel or something like that. He seems to believe that the leaking of the US Ambassador's telegram giving his views of Trump was actually a conspiracy by dark forces plotting to replace him with Nigel Farage! Yep!! What a loony!!! By the way, why do we have a US Ambassador? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just fax a copy of the Guardian editorial and comments page to the Foreign Office. Pointless in a sense since the FO will be lapping it up come what may, but still - certainly cheaper.
Nick Bryant was editorialising tonight on BBC News - stating as fact that Trump is notoriously thin skinned...I think Roland Deschain over on Biased BBC puts it rather well:"“Thin skinned” is one of Sopel’s pet phrases. That’ll be Sopel who tweeted roughly twenty times his thin-skinned indignation about a BBC cameraman getting jostled at a Trump rally. Whilst having eff all to say about Andy Ngo above.Sopel is too dim to differentiate tactics from thin skin. It’s a tactic of Trump that if you attack him you’d better be prepared to get it returned with interest. Thus deterring many attacks in the first place, as Trump has a glorious talent for finding a name that sticks, because it resonates a truth about the person concerned. Such as Crooked Hillary or Little Rocket Man. In fact I think he enjoys it."There's no doubt Trump is vain but that's not a synonym for thin-skinned (as BBC thickos assume). Some vain people are thin-skinned, others are not. Trump is vain and confrontational, rather than vain and thin-skinned. He can dish it out and he can take it, I would say. I'd like to add we've seen this week Dominic Casciani being incredibly thin skinned about people saying nasty things about the MSM. I've heard Nick Robinson being incredibly think skinned about the use of the "traitor" word - a word that has been bandied about the Labour movement for over 100 years but Robinson is only concerned about Brexiters using the word. We seen Kay Burley be incredibly thin-skinned about anyone criticising anything about any of her colleagues. Then we have Emma Barnett's incredible thin-skinnedness about anyone ever using a slavery metaphor or example for anything ever again. Let's face it, the MSM's skin is about 0.1 of a micron in thickness.
WARNING: This video may induce motion sickness, if you try keep track of Ben Chu's rocking back and forth in his chair (he's no TV presenter is he? but he's from the Guardian originally and that's all that counts):Anyway, Ben Chu has been working hard to bring you more Fake News about Brexit. This time we are supposed to be extremely concerned about the huge damage (no evidence for the damage of course) being done by having to shuffle around a few hundred Civil Servants for Brexit prep... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c69Kh9z2ZecNotice how the BBC work in tandem as always with the "Institute for Government" (IFG) on Project Fear. The IFG is a Remainiac organisation launched and led by Remainiac billionaire Lord Sainsbury which is stuffed with Remainiacs on its board and staffed by Remainiacs. It has zero credibility as an objective voice on Brexit. Shoving civil servants hither and thither is what Whitehall do and most civil servants are still "generalists". This is just distilled BS. The impact of the 1945 welfare state, Thatcher privatisation and Blairite reform will have created far more disruption. BTW I love the bit at 1:27 where a desperate Ben thinks Emily has actually fallen asleep while listening to his sedative selection of stats...and has to shout "And here's the thing Emily..." to get her attention! Pure comedy gold.
There's a very interesting use of words by the BBC's own Jon Sopel:@KimDarroch is a lifelong public servant who’s represented governments of all stripes and now finds himself the victim of such low political skullduggery- is this where we are as a country?...Reading this, we are led to believe that the leaking of the US Ambassador's thoughts about Donald Trump is the 'crime', and the whistleblower is the one to be abhorred. ... 'is this where we are as a country?' ... is more often used by the silent majority when referring to the excesses of PC ideology promoted by the BBC and MSM in their mantra over Brexit, open borders, the political classes, diversity, equality in outcome for women in employment, sports participation and coverage, religious tolerance and a whole host of other causes.
Quite. As I indicated above, Jon Sopel was airing on national TV the bonkers conspiracy theory that this was a plot to get Farage appointed Ambassador to the USA. An absurd idea that will never happen. What I find extremely worrying is that our Ambassador to the US has such a hatred of Trump and can see nothing good in what he has done, and just simply regurgitates all the stuff he's read in the Guardian. Is Trump really "inept"? The USA is enjoying very high economic growth which is benefitting in particular poorer sections of the country. He renegotiated the NAFTA free trade agreement replacing it with a fresh treaty. He's got a renewed commitment from NATO nations that they will stump up. He's finished off IS in Iraq and Syria. He's achieved a pause in North Korea's nuclear missile programme. He's united the Republican Party behind his presidency. He won the Presidency from a standing start. He's more populat than Obama at the same time during his presidency. These are all substantial achievements. Is all that evidence of "ineptitude"? I don't think so.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/09/tommy-robinson-encouraged-vigilante-action-judges-sayFrom the Guardian....You'll notice from this 'report' that a fair amount of time is spent on the accusation of contempt of court.He served time for this, didn't he ?The sentence was quashed wasn't it ?He was released, wasn't he ?The rest of this piece could be written about any situation where a journalist accosts or photographs someone entering a court. Yet the judges write :“Harassment of the kind he (SYL) was describing could not be justified … There was plainly a real risk that the defendants awaiting jury verdicts would see themselves as at risk, feel intimidated, and that this would have a significant adverse impact on their ability to participate in the closing stages of the trial.”Aw, bless. Note how they've dropped the "could have affected the trial" argument. Because the trial was over. There are a couple of passages referring to things that SYL is supposed to have said during the stream :“approves and encourages vigilante action. We are sure that what [he] said in this passage will have been understood by a substantial number of viewers as an incitement to engage in harassment of the defendants.”Yet the passage isn't quoted, just in case you might decide to think for yourself. Simply put, if you remove the fact that he has served time for the original contempt of court charge, then I can find no other reason for the guilty verdict other than state sponsored retribution. And that makes them bastards.
I see Chris Morris and Co. of the BBC's Reality Cheat team are spreading more Fake News with their Fake Views. Yet again they make the false claim:"The backstop is the insurance policy, in Theresa May's deal, designed to prevent a "hard" Irish border by keeping the UK in a close trading relationship with the EU." To call it an "insurance policy" is to accept May's claims whereas the reality is this was an EU negotiating ploy agreed between the EU and the Republic of Ireland. This is a false claim because there is no evidence that there is any danger of a hard border. My proof? Only yesterday the Republic announced its plans for the N Ireland border in event of no deal. There will be no hard border on their side. Checks will take place away from the border. The UK has already confirmed it will not put in placed a hard border. Ipso facto, there will be no hard border and the BBC has spent hundreds of hours of broadcasting and millions of pounds of licence fee payers' money on bogus news promoting the EU negotiating strategy based on transparent lies. https://order-order.com/2019/07/09/ireland-plans-checks-away-border-theres-no-deal/Last time I looked, the BBC had failed to report on this important development re the border "issue".
The BBC nails it’s colours to the mast with their lead story on Kim Darroch. “His resignation has prompted widespread support for Sir Kim while some have questioned Tory frontrunner Boris Johnson's stance.”Really...widespread support by the deep state anti-Trump brigade maybe. But everyone else? - I doubt it. And the BBC have used one of its favourite journalistic tricks of unfounded hearsay, rumour and made up indignation by using ‘some have questioned’. Just who are these ‘some’ they quote so often?
I always assume that 'some' is the reporter and a pal back in the office.It only takes two to construct a contra-narrative. It probably takes five to be 'controversial'!
Down the pub more like! Most of the "star" reporters are devils for the drink as we saw with the Sweeney Takedown. The gym and soya milk lot staff the newsroom. I've enjoyed the way this story has gone. It shows up that Boris was wise to reserve judgement and Hunt was stupid to give a wholehearted commitment. The BBC have studiously avoided addressing whether Trump is inept as the Guardian-reading Ambassador claimed. On the economy, employment, NAFTA, the mid term elections, getting NATO to commit to spending more, getting Mexico to take action against migrant flows, destroying ISIS, and getting the Republican Party to back him (to take a few examples), he seems more "ept" than inept.
Agreed - and he is ‘ept’ with his scepticism of the MSM, their motives and their fake news.
Songs of Praise last Sunday was a Glastonbury special. the centrepiece of which was Stormzy performing 'Blinded by your Grace'. At first, I thought that as the footage was already in the can, it was an inexpensive programme to make - just a matter of directing Kate to be there for the narrative.Searching for BBC's motivation for anything like this, it's easiest to go to the Guardian to find out. There is plenty of material in the Guardian's pages:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/02/the-guardian-view-on-grime-music-sound-of-protest... 'The Guardian view on grime music: sound of protest' ... 'An urban artform that resurrects rebellion has gained credibility and popularity through mainstream indifference. It’s time to take notice' ...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/14/stormzy-political-pop-star-grime-theresa-may-grenfell... 'Stormzy is a political pop hero young people can truly believe in' ... 'The grime artist, who called out Theresa May over Grenfell, couldn’t be more different to pious celebrities like Bono and Geldof' ....The latter article by Jeffrey Boakye is revealing as to the position held by Stormzy:... 'There’s an earnest quality to this response that creates warmth, just as Ariana Grande did when she pulled together the One Love tribute concert in the wake of the Manchester terror attack. Like Stormzy, Grande belongs to a new generation of pop stars who can offer ballast to young fans in uncertain times. The difference is that Stormzy retains an underdog edge.For black millennials in urban areas, he might be the definitive spokesperson. His success, and the wider success of grime, represents empowerment and equality in a way that established, mainstream – and yes, white – pop never can. Stormzy seems to know this and, like all good politicians, campaigns along these lines. The video to “Blinded by Your Grace” is a celebration of modern multiculturalism. It puts Stormzy at the centre of a united community, drawing together people of different ages, genders and ethnicities and binning the frequent macho posturing of traditional grime for something closer to a Kumbaya.' ...The puzzle is: How many Stormzy fans watch Songs of Praise? Was his inclusion in the programme an attempt to spread the left wing political message to a very traditional conservative audience - just as they do with Countryfile and other current affairs programmes?
Humpty Dumpty words. Eton, with 90% white kids isn't diverse whereas my old school, with 99% kids of Pakistani heritage, is!
Anthony Zurcher sounds off about the Kim Darroch story by writing another thinly veiled character assassination of President Trump.He signs off with the final line: There's a word for that. "Dysfunctional," perhaps?The word ‘perhaps’ inserted by Zurcher to give his poisonous opinions a degree of separation - but it’s a half hearted attempt. TDS is still very much alive and kicking.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48941095
Ah yes, Zurcher should look in the mirror. I think it's pretty dysfunctional for a TV presenter to have such a sleep-inducing, uninspiring voice and presence. How the hell did he get the job? It's also pretty dysfunctional for the respresentative of a purportedly "impartial, free and fair" broadcaster to be so manifestly partisan, narrow-minded and unfair.
Everyone ought to read this piece from Dominic Casciani about TR. It should carry a health warning for those susceptible to high blood pressure.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48942411... 'Tommy Robinson: The rancour, rhetoric and riches of brand Tommy'...I guess that the Panorama files have been given to DC - all the bile and hatred towards TR is there. With this, the BBC will have alienated another section of the population - they don't seem to care.A new angle can be seen part way down this article:... 'He became obsessed with his belief that Muslims were predisposed to violence because of the Koran. It was his ticket to a new way of making money.' ...Sue noted Casciani's unhealthy interest in TR's footwear. (Yobbo! Know thy place!).
Casciani is beneath contempt...a very low creature, bottom-dwelling ...who should crawl back under his rock. Of course, if he'd like to tell us which part of Sharia law he'd wish to see introduced in this country that might be helpful. If the answer is "Not one single part of it." Then I suggest he shut up about things he knows nothing about. I notice that the BBC's other full time Tommy-hater, Daniel Sandford, has been reduced to retweeting Casciani's tweets. Sandford had to delete his tweet referencing TR's criminal record in relation to a previous hearing of this case...showing he had had very likely committed a contempt of court proceedings himself. I think he has been told, either by his lawyer or the BBC not to tweet about the case again.Someone on Biased BBC noted that in their article the BBC referenced other contempt of court cases of recent decades. None of the journalists concerned was ever jailed - even though their actions did in one case actually derail one trial and were in any event far more serious in their impact than TR's style of reporting.
There are a fair few ommissions in the report.The connection to Darren Osbourne is a straight lie. Osbourne stated in court that he was primarily motivated by the BBC Three Girls drama. Following someone on Twitter is not a connection.The article omits the targetting of SYL by Cambridge police in a city centre pub a couple of years ago. If as a journalist you're looking for reasons why 'someone like Tommy' is supported by lots of people, I would suggest that state sponsored harrasment may be one of them. The article omits the secret recording and live streaming of journalists on a number of occasions so as to pre-empt dodgy editing. One resulted in this :https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-not-investigating-sky-news-interview-with-tommy-robinson-after-despite-more-than-3000-bias-complaints/The third culminated in the John Sweeney Panorama film which hasn't (yet) been completed.Daniel Sandford was also secretly recorded. It was illuminating to see the whole interview. The Canterbury trial was not a 'grooming case'. It was a trial for the gang rape of a 16 year old girl in the back room of a takeaway. There wasn't much time for grooming, Dominic. Furthermore, the suspects were released on bail and allowed to re-open the kebab shop with a different name. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4545564/Men-guilty-gang-raping-girl-kebab-shop-Kent.htmlCasciani writes this about the Leeds case :"Today, thanks to that hearing, we know Robinson nearly derailed the Leeds trial after judges at the Old Bailey revealed what happened next. There were attempts by the grooming gang defendants to have the trial stopped on the basis that a jury could no longer reach a fair verdict. One of the men even managed to get a hearing at the Court of Appeal that could have led to him being freed."Does anybody know if any of that is true ? I haven't read or seen anything that describes this scenario. Frankly, even if it was true, a decent judge would dismiss a protesting lawyer's argument as trying it on. "By late 2018, Robinson had been thrown off the major social media platforms for breaking hate speech rules. He was even banned from Paypal."Not true at all. His social media presence was wiped out based on arbitrary political decisions not moral ones. He wasn't the only one either. Why does Casciani think Trump has recently invited social media commentators to discuss the current state of things ?The Casciani article is a perfect example of how the sausage is made and it aint pretty.
Throughout the BBC's persecution of TR, not once have they refuted the line of narrative that TR seeks to expose. If Casciani's claim ... 'He became obsessed with his belief that Muslims were predisposed to violence because of the Koran. It was his ticket to a new way of making money.' ... is true, then what other reasons are there for 30% of the Pakistani Muslim population of Rotherham (TR's figure) involved in this hideous crime? With all their resources, you would expect the BBC to have reporters swarming over this and other hotspots for the crimes to investigate. Is it a northern thing - Yorkshire and Lancashire seem overly represented in this grim gallery. If the crimes are not associated with the RoP, then what other reasons are there? Come on Casciani, get out from under your comfort blanket and find out!
... 'for 30% of the Pakistani Muslim [male] population of Rotherham' ...
Hey Arthur , I wouldn’t worry about leaving out the “male” adjective. The tapes are on such a scale it’s inconceivable that the female population wasn’t aware.
Casciani is a dissembling fool. Does he think we are completely naive?! We know the government expends huge energy on trying to "prevent" terrorism from within the UK Islamic community. Our secret services are monitoring every mosque in the land because of this threat. We know that are many secret government committees dealing with various aspects of the threat to the UK from global Islam. We know it has spent many billions of pounds over the last 20 years trying to deal with the Islamic terrorist threat. We can read the opinion polls which show (probably understated) significant support for Jihadi attacks within the Islamic community. We can see where most cases of electoral fraud in the UK are coming from. We have seen what happened to Salman Rushdie. We have been Channel 4 abandon a programme about Islam. We can see the current Islam v LGBT struggle going on in primary schools. We know what is taught in the great Islamic schools of learning, their universities, in Cairo and elsewhere. It is pure Sharia, aiming for a world Islamic system of government that will turn women and non-believers into second class citizens, at best. This is not some nebulous goal - it is supposed to be the primary aim of all believers in Islam. We know organisations like MCB grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, and extreme pro-global Sharia organisation. All the above is true and verifiably so. But Casciani is more interested in whether a working class boy is wearing Gucci loafers.
Good video from Katie Hopkins:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll7JtCTMrcsIncidentally - she has become a very polished reporter over the last couple of years. Extremely impressive. Tommy's heart is in the right place, even if his mouth isn't always. What the PC-globalist state have done to him and his family is unconscionable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLAhAWFoHkHere's another video pertaining to SYL and fabrication.
A small victory for free speech and common sense against political correctnees:Facebook have withdrawn their "community guidelines" that allowed threats of violence to be made against "Dangerous Individuals"...Facebook had already designated a number of people, including the abrasive but non-violent conservative commentator Paul J Watson, as a "dangerous individual" and denied him a platform. Our only hope is Trump. He could begin the rollback.
The driverless car bomb terror plot:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-48924715This is the first I've heard about it. Is this yet another trial that has had reporting restrictions imposed upon it? I suspect the answer is yes. Our biased judiciary are bending over backwards to protect one section of our community. And next time you hear someone like Creasy or Soubry or Swinson bleat on about "refugees" remember this article.
Pencille trial...isn't it odd how often such trials end on a Friday afternoon when people are least likely to pay attention to the news. BBC doing the best to cover for him. No details about his previous record. Only one offence mentioned. He actually had 30 - yes 30 convictions. No mention about his habitual cannabis smoking (BBC ideology says cannabis is good for you).
Clive Myrie editorialises after a (rather good, for the BBC) report on women sent to prison under El Salvador's abortion laws. Myrie says "The ongoing fight for abortion rights." Why can't the BBC just accept there are two (at least) legitimate views about abortion. I am quite happy to agree that "woman's right to choose" is one. But I can also see "life begins at conception" is also a legitimate view. But - no, Myrie thinks his view is the only view...so it's "abortion rights".
One thing that's occurred to me: I watched a documentary about 20 years ago on women in India aborting female foetuses on a large scale, due to the financial pressures of having girls instead of boys, along with cultural factors. I wonder if feminists would consider this selective killing of females a woman's 'right to choose'.
Why I admire Gerard Batten:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfN_BrcT4pc
Yes, Gerard Batten speaks the truth in an unequivocal straight-talking fashion. Qualities he displays are the last thing a politician needs - truth and honesty are distractions in the BBC and MSM as they seek to appease.See this Politico piece indicating that the Judges embroidered the guidelines to suit their need to convict TR for contempt of court h/t BBBC:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IYs5GBkdY
Imagine if BBC journos were impartial, free and fair...https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1148562054355267584Of course they aren't as Daniel Sandford demonstrates being such a Trump-hater he can't let it go. Sad. Still why aren't you tweeting about Tommy, Dan? Any particular reason - like legal advice?
Does the hypocrisy of the UK media know no bounds? Two days ago they were all happily slamming the cell door on Tommy Robinson..."He knew the law...he'd been warned...he was reckless...this isn't about free speech...we can trust the authorities..."Now that their favourite (no longer) Neil Basu of the Met Police has warned the media they could be committing an offence if they publish further leaks from confidential FO communications they have changed their tune. Now it's all:"We don't want to be warned...we don't care...this is about free speech...you can't trust the authorities to make the right decision...are we living in a Police state?...This is outrageous!!" The law on official secrets is just as clear (or not) as the law on contempt of court.
I notice the BBC have started to call Sir Kim Darroch’s email ‘a frank assessment’.When reporting events the BBC no longer call it a critical assessment or critical of President Trump.I always first these nuances and changes quite telling. They are not accidental but deliberate decisions that frame the way the story is presented across all their news bulletins. This word change gives the email improved credibility and implies that everything he wrote is the candid unvarnished truth.
Well spotted! You are quite right...and these nuances must reflect discussions behind the scenes.
A simple question asked by a simple man: who among the numerous BBC US resident reporters have been so rushed off their feet and busy reporting on US matters that they have just had no time to complete a book for publication during their time in BBC employ? I'm thinking the answer is "not one of them". It's a racket. Some of them seem to file a report maybe once a month! ITV and Sky reporters may be just as PC as their BBC compadres but they work a damned sight harder than the lazy Beebfolk. Even when they do report they either, like our US Ambassador regurgiate Guardian editorials, or they just repackage CNN/Democrat Party talking points. They don't actually have to do any journalism at all!!
Trump scrapped Iran nuclear deal ‘ to spite Obama’.That is the very misleading and irresponsible headline at the top of the website at the moment.It isn’t substantiated as fact, it is an opinion by our ex-ambassador.Yet the BBC present it in a way that gives it credence. The headline purports to make it crystal clear about Trumps motives ...,.but it is fake news.The BBC should be ashamed of such shoddy sensationalist journalism. We deserve better.
The UK's ex ambassador was an absolute disgrace. All he was doing was regurgitating Guardian editorials and Democrat talking points to relay back to the Foreign Office. No one talks about whether the Iranians actually fulfilled the terms of the "deal". It seems not. Part of the deal was that their huge under-a-mountain nuclear facility would be repurposed...it was not and is now being used for the same purpose as before. Also the Iranians have never ceased their weekly Death to America rallies. How stupid do you have to be to trust a party who weekly calls for the death of your nation? Obama might have been that stupid but, of course, we know Obama wears a Shahada ring (not that the media ever question him about it) so maybe it's not a matter of stupidity.
Darroch is no different to the majority of those in positions of influence and power following the long march through the institutions over the last 25 years. A prerequisite of the job is to be a social liberal with a set of values that you signal regularly to demonstrate your solidarity with fellow left-wing sympathisers. I’m pretty sure that you won’t see a UK ambassador to the US who has any right wing views or will ever give Trump credit for anything. They simply wouldn’t be hired.
Standby for another hatchet job on Trump on tonight’s main BBC news. The trailer on their earlier programme flagged a series of reports on Iran where I presume they will completely overlook the nasty totalitarian and undemocratic aspects of the Iranian Islamic republic and instead concentrate on the damage done by Trump and US sanctions. There is a big story waiting to be told on Iran but I suspect the BBC will completely miss it due to their rabid TDS.
I've noticed the BBC has revived the old meme of there being "Moderates" and "Hardliners" in the Iranian system of government. Moderate sounds so nice doesn't it? Except these "moderates" believe in treating non-Muslims as second class citizens, in child marriage, executing gays and destroying Israel. The BBC should be ashamed of applying this "moderate" label. Would they ever describe Admiral Canaris as "a moderate"...but using their logic they should. And if they are happy to use the word "moderate" to describe proponents of a totalitarian Islamic regime, why are they always implying the democratically elected and constitutional President of the USA is an "extremist".
Early on in tonight’s BBC report an Iranian cleric denounced Trump as Satan. That set the tone nicely.A few shots of modern Iran with virtually every woman and child in full length Niqab was followed by an interview with a ringleader of the US hostage drama from 40 years ago who later became the Iranian foreign minister. No surprise that this old revolutionary didn’t like Trump, the US or his policies. The BBC man interviewed him in a hushed tone and nodded in an admiring fashion, treating his words as the fount of all wisdom. Balanced? No, one sided. Iran good, Trump bad.
BBC News website Home page banner headline:... 'England men win first Cricket World Cup' ...Every other outlet including the BBC's own Sports page (when you click through from the Home page) carry the headline:... 'England win Cricket World Cup' ... or similar. In my opinion the addition of 'men' seems totally unnecessary and somewhat pointed.
... 'England men win first Cricket World Cup' ...Why not ... 'England team win first Cricket World Cup' ...Or, ... 'England Players (which was the term used for professionals) win first Cricket World Cup' ...?.There is also an ambiguity in ... 'England men win first Cricket World Cup' ... To be clear ... 'England men win their first Cricket World Cup' ...
Hey, a new day a new headline on the BBC News website Home page: ... 'England win Cricket World Cup' ... There, BBC, that wasn't too difficult was it?
I noticed on Radio 4 bulletin yesterday that they used England win the Cricket World Cup...I immediately thought, hang on aren't they now supposed to mention "men" somewhere so that we know women winning the World Cup in cricket is just as important. Even if you don't agree with Newspeak you still internalise its structure! I suspect BBC staff are just as confused as the rest of the public about the BBC's confusing gender policies:1. One moment they are all for gender neutrality...a woman can play Hamlet just as well as a man.2. Next, women must separate out from men and have their own safe space...that's why we have Woman's Hour but not Man's Hour, why they must have their own comedy programmes and their own sports organisations. When it comes to sport in particular men shall not be allowed to pose as women. 3. The dual male-female gender split is a cultural creation. There are many genders. TG folk must be treated as a separate gender if they wish or can identify with any gender they wish. As the Kinks sang in Lola: "It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world"...
The WestWyvern h/t BBBC heard this:The Radio5 dead earlier this AM. A female asking another female about the impact of the cricket World Cup win…..Well says the 2nd female, it’s certainly raised the profile and amongst the ladies…. Yes of course gushes the beeboid, let’s not forget the women won their World Cup a while back, and the Men are, well playing catch-up…
Following Zoe Ball and someone other persons gushing appreciation of England's world cup win, the news headlines were "England wins mens cricket world cup by a technicality" BBC gracious in victory ?The result was a little confusing, but I suppose both teams taking part understood the rules before they started to play ?Perhaps the BBC should support a further, second "peoples mens cricket world cup final" in which New Zealand would win to save them the embarrassment of reporting an England victory.
I want an investigation of Far Left Newsnight reporters' targetting of pro-Brexit politicians. Also I wonder whether Marianna Spring deserves the "Order of the Brown Nose" for the frequency with which she retweets her Newsnight superiors' dull and predictable tweets, in themselves often simply retweeting the dull and predictable opinions of their Guardian pals. https://twitter.com/mariannaspring?lang=en
Disgusting interview by Emily Matliss with Rod Liddle and Tom Baldwin tonight on Newsnight. Emily outdid herself, accusing Rod of being a racist and even handing over to Tom Baldwin to continue the interview and call out Rod Liddle for his journalism. Emily writhed in ecstasy as she worked hand in hand with the sleazy Mr Baldwin to attack Rod Liddle.At all times, Ms. Matliss behaved in her trademark self righteous, self important and sardonic persona. Rod was boiling with anger.The entire episode crossed a boundary for me and I will be making a complaint to the BBC about Ms Matliss conduct of this interview.
Yep, it was truly off the scale on the Biasometer and Raceobaitergraph. I'm not sure Rod was boiling with rage though - he's a bit beyond caring I feel. I thought Rod did well, though, borrowing Boris's tactic of just talking over her as she tried to read out her prepared "Rod's 20 Racist Rants" script, no doubt provided by Tom Baldwin, or Hate Not Hope perhaps. He managed to say a variation of "the BBC is outrageously biased against Brexit" a good three times at least. The message is getting through, drip-drip.
Fake News and Lies from the BBC's Panorama team. They claim:"From 2020, the government wants primary schools to teach pupils about same-sex relationships.Mainstream religious leaders support it but some parents and campaigners are protesting against them."So mainstream religious leaders support it? There is no qualifier there, so it is fair to assume in context they mean ALL religious leaders particularly as they contrast the religious leaders with the Well I am sure Anglican, Methodist and Quakers do. I am sure many Jewish leaders do, but not all. I haven't heard a single Roman Catholic bishop say they support the legislation and policies surrounding it. The Catholic Education Service seems to support it but they are not "religious leaders". I haven't heard any African Baptist leader say they support the policy. The MCB has stated that numerous "affiliates" ie Mosques have expressed concern (do not support it). So Panorama are doing the usual BBC thing of "painting a picture". This involves marginalising any religious leader who does not support the policy as non-mainstream. But how do you define mainstream. I'd say the millions contained in Mosque congregations make Mosque leaders "mainstream" whether you like that or not.
Just saw Jeremy Vine, BBC Presenter, commenting on Boris on a Channel 5 programme calling him a "shambles"...How does that fit in with the editorial guidelines Fran?
The BBC have been given exclusive access to Facebook hq. There are some very interesting stories to told about a business that has gone from zero to 1/2 trillion dollars in 15 years.The BBC chose to devote the programme to AI technology built to stop hate speech and fake news - how very BBC!
Ironic as Facebook started off as a "hate speech" site. Zuckerberg and his other spotty geek mates were using it to mark female students out of ten...the sort of thing that would get you drummed out of the BBC immediately now.
4:30pm Radio4 MediaShow will be discussing Tommy Robinsoncos that is the placeholder pic#BiasedBBC have naughty habit of not putting up the topic beforehandhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006tln
This vid just came up on Twitter , "BBC News caught LYING in Tommy Robinson Sentence"I haven't fully checked it https://twitter.com/nathanson57/status/1151412836037537792
It was clear, as Politico also on You Tube has shown that the Judges decided to follow the prosecution in interpreting TR's words in an insane manner as addressing his supporters rather than the media. It is entirely clear from the context and content that TR was addressing the craven media and the harrassment was referencing the sort of harrassment Tommy and other populists have experienced at the hands of the mainstream media for expressing their political views.
Laura Whitmore (who she?) on Radio 5 Live today. Part of the new breed of BBC journo who doesn't seem to think she has to maintain even a pretence of impartiality. She would probably just laugh in Jon Sopel's face when he claimed the BBC were "impartial free and fair" ("What you on about Jon? Course we're biased."). She made the utterly false claims that (a) Trump had told the Congresswomen to "go home" (he didn't) and (b) had done so on the basis of their colour and appearance. She also seemed terribly impressed by the thoughts of multi-billionaire Melinda Gates...who, despite her persistent goading, would not condemn Trump as a racist. Meanwhile on Radio 4 a most absurd drama about the Clintons from the Monica L period...I think this might be a repeat and that the original production was around the time of the 2016 election. If so, its purpose was clear - to exonerate Hillary of any taint of "Lying' Bill" and his presidency. This involved inventing scenes where Hillary was shocked to discover that he had really had an affair with her. What I remember from that time was the utter hypocrisy of the Clintons - Bill always carrying a huge Bible and the two of them forever popping in and out of Church...as if!!
Laura's twitter timeline is a rich source of humour:https://twitter.com/thewhitmore/status/1148241841101398016I particularly like the above tweet...What were the "men in suits" supposed to do? Manhandle the pushchair out of her hands while saying "This is man's work,young lady!" I am sure that would have prompted another Lauratweet complaining about Mansplaining/Mantervetions/ Manhandling/Mandating/ManChestHair City or some such nonsense.
Take a look at her Wiki page. She's a model / TV presenter / journalist !Dig The New Breed.
Why does the BBC refer to the XR actions as "protests"? Bringing normal life to a halt is not a protest, it is a form of destruction. It is targetting people's lives. It is not incidental damage, as occassioned by withdrawal of labour in a strike. It is the result of planned, specific actions e.g. road blocking. If the BBC wishes to be seen as impartial, it should refer to the XR "actions" or something similar. A protest is an expression of opinion. XR are quite clear that they are applying duress to government through disruption of activities involving carbon emissions, in order to effect a change in law and policy. That is not a "protest".
In some bulletins they call them activists which is even worse and doesn’t describe them disrupting the lives of millions. The BBC are supporters and cheerleaders for this group and so are not impartial.
If they start describing them as "militants" I'd be worried. That would mean they are engaging in indiscriminate slaughter, according to BBC-Speak.
Why is Emily Maitlis retweeting the following outrageous Project Fear nonsense from someone called Jenny Chapman who claims to be an MP and Shadow Brexit Minister...against the advice of Fran Unsworth?https://twitter.com/JennyChapman/status/1151435517453619201Chapman claims 9 million sheep will be slaughtered and buried in the event of No Deal exit. This has got to be one of the all time great Project Fear Lies. Up there with "planes won't fly" (don't hear much about that one these days do we?).Actually we already slaughter 14.5 million sheep and lambs in the UK every year so why would suddenly decide to start burying them in the ground is not entirely clear. It seems Chapman has taken an answer from Barclay, the Brexit Minister, that reasonably accepted "if the government did nothing", farmers "might" be forced to slaughter a large proportion of their flocks...But of course the present government and Boris have made clear they will do lots to help farmers transition to the new marketing conditions. So this claim of Chapman's, that Maitlis has helpfully amplified, is absolute nonsense. The sheep farmers in particular will get significant financial help. I don't think it would in any case be legal for farmers to bury sheep in the ground...I think they have to be incinerated don't they? And even on that worst case scenario, surely it would make sense for farmers to sell at a loss or reduced profit rather than slaughter "and bury" their animals (which would mean they lose ALL the value of the animal but also have to pay for slaughter). Maitlis is a vile example of BBC bias at its worst.
She tweeted \\ I understand that Defra has a no-deal contingency plan that would require the slaughter and burial of up to 9 million sheep.//Michael Gove replied 6 hours ago\\ Mutton-headed nonsense //
Defra: “A widespread cull of livestock is absolutely not something that the Government anticipates nor is planning for in the event of no deal... We have contingency plans in place to minimise any disruption, and we have made it clear we will use our power to intervene to provide direct support to the most vulnerable sectors, such as sheep farmers, if required.”
Thanks! So, just as I thought. But Mindless Maitliss will seize on anything, however absurd, to bolster her ill-founded Guardian reader's belief that Brexit will be a catastrophic calamity.
The claim comes from Chinese whispers on what Stephen Barclay said to the Exiting the European Union Committee, Wednesday 17 July 2019He didn't say those wordsBenn said sheep could be slaughteredSB said they had contingency, and went on about money for farmers who couldn't sell sheep.https://twitter.com/eddwilson/status/1151519139795808256
I tried to check what Newsnight stats arebut Barb only gives me the top 15 progs in a weekNewsnight is never there so much get always less than 1 million
That would make sense if the average audience is just over third of a million.
H/T to "Biased BBC" where a poster reference this recent video by Politico - a nice filletting of the use of gagging orders in the case of so called "grooming gang" cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxljjT5JHCkThe gagging orders are an absolute scandal designed simply to minimise the impact on the public imagination of the trials. A populist government would launch an immediate inquiry and require judges to explain their actions in these cases but it seems not in other cases. We need some proper analysis. How many cases involve gagging orders? How many of the cases involve defendants from particular religious backgrounds or ethnic groups? How many trials have had to be called off where gagging orders were not in place due to "unfairness"? Why is bail allowed in such serious cases where there is a well established history of people abscondding to South Asia? The other interesting point in this video is something I have mentioned several times: passport borrowing as a means of illegal entry and absconding. Over 90k UK passports are "lost" each year. I suspect that over 95% of those cases are bogus and that passports have been used by others.
Good vid from Katie. Roy Larner would have been given a Knighthood by any sensible UK government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhtN5_wKpq4Katie's pretty brave herself. She's a target for any passing Antifa nutjob while making her videos.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That Media Show TR itemAmol was reasonablebut the media lawyer and Casciani acted like anti TR activists.They childishly insisted that he must be called SYL etcThey explained they are proper media people who wear BIG BOY PANTS and TR is just a small boy.Yet they made basic errors about the case- Amol said at the time of Leeds and now TR works for Ezra Levant ..and no one contradicted himIn fact TR has been independent since a few months before Leeds(I can see the prog contacted Ezra for first time only 2 hours before the show aired..Ezra refused to do a recorded piece)- Casciani said " TR broke a reporters rule he didn't check with clerk of the court"Untrue, TR didn't need to as he knew there were restrictions & mentioned that in his livestream.. he assumed that things ALREADY published in Guardian/BBC could not be restricted/Amol also misrepresented TRby saying that TR said that contempt law is used to restrict the reporting of Groom/Rape gangs TR's main point is that the metro-media deliberately under report them irrespective of contempt restrictions
Yeah, SYL was a small boy who had one million Facebook followers till Zuckerberg pulled the plug...Ezra Levant was getting over 2 million people following his tweeting of the court case. That shows how much (correct) distrust of the MSM there is about. Ezra is a great guy and he made exactly the right decision not to do a recorded interview. The BBC are deceitful and will edit to reflect their own views, not the views of the interviewee. Yes, reporting restrictions or not, the MSM do v. little follow up to the cases. There'll normally be an hour or two of reporting on a Friday evening and then that's it.
Why did the studio full of media people want to portray TR as a man who has no respect for the law ?...cos they are PROJECTING themselves ..they are the most most hated of professions cos they do behave as if they are above the law : able to do anything they want to further their narratives; phonehack, monster people, break secrecy etc.They are saying "yeh look at the Bad Man over there"When in fact TR is the one most in favour of the spirit of the law.
Yep. They don't want foreign interference in elections unless it's their own foreign proprietors, think tanks, websites and funders doing the interfering. They want all laws strictly applied to Tommy Robinson, but don't want laws on privacy, drugs and contempt of court applied to themselves. They want free speech - for themselves but not for the plebs.
I haven't been at all happy about the "anti-semitism" campaign re the Labour Party. I've predicted it would go nowhere and would in fact just encourage the spread of the bogus Islamophobia concept which is being used to shut down all critical comment on Islam and Sharia. We can now see how this is developing. May goes on "the attack" (or what passes for an attack for her) during Question Time berating Corbyn for his failure to deal with "anti-semitism" in the Labour Party. Corbyn strikes back with "what about Islamophobia in the Conservative Party". Meanwhile the whole to-and-fro allows the BBC to appear "even-handed" by relentlessly pushing the Taqiyya agenda about Islamophobia within the Conservative Party. Does anyone seriously think there won't be an intrusive EHRC inquiry into Islamophobia before too long? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49022803/muslim-conservatives-speak-out-after-criticism-of-the-party-over-islamophobiaUsing the anti-semitism stick to beat Corbyn after all the other attempts to remove him had failed was always going to be a risky enterprise. It's as much likely to legitimise Corbynista opposition to Israel and entrench Corbyn in power as tackle real anti-semitism and remove Corbyn while encouraging people to think there is a "thing" - a bad thing - called Islamophobia. Basically this is a power struggle and Corbyn has (a) the membership and (b) the big Trade Unions on his side. Unless someone can unearth Corbyn saying something truly horrendous and overtly anti-semitic I don't think that's going to change. In any case if you removed Corbyn you would just get McDonnell or another Corbynista take his place. Tbey will be equally intolerant of Israel and tolerant of anti-semitism. Many of the people who have used this stick to beat Corbyn with have in any case been dismantling free speech and free political debate in this country, backing no borders policies, supporting mass immigration and happily tying us into a centralising European Superstate. They don't really get a lot of sympathy from me. We need a populist government like Trump's or Orban's that shows strong principled support for the State of Israel's right to exist and prosper. A party or government that supports Israel will not attract anti-semites.
If Corbyn's supporters see the use of antisemitism as a means to court the Muslim vote - in other words the latter vote is worth much more than the Jewish, then it should be emphasised that there is no counterargument to explain the so-labelled Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Such reservations are shared equally across all parties. The cry of Islamophobia is no more than a mud-slinging defence.
You're right Arthur, but who in the political elite is really going to stand up and say "there are legitimate concerns about Sharia and Islamic ideology"? Have you ever heard any MP actually say that? There is only one Parliamentarian who has ever stood up and said that at Westminster - Lord Pearson...so one Parliamentarian out of about 1500. The good Lord's cogent remarks were then the subject of collective outrage by his fellow Peers many of whom wanted him disbarred from the House. My fear is that the "anti-semitism" narrative is a massive own goal:1. It has not taken down Corbyn. 2. It has encouraged the belief that "You can be critical about Israel without being anti-semitic" (I don't agree with that - or rather it's a matter of degree...obsessive criticism of Israel, while remaining silent on Iran, or Pakistan or China,for instance, is a very typical aspect of anti-semitism). 3. It has increased support among the Muslim community for the Labour Party as their natural base party. That in turn encourages Labour MPs to pander to the Islamic wishlist. 4. It has allowed the likes of Warsi to promote the "Islamphobia" agenda, the true aim of which is to close down all critical comment on or debate about Islam. I suspect the narrower aim has been to help prevent Corbyn becoming PM. That aim might be achieved. But, if so, it will have been achieved at great cost. However, there is no guarantee that it will deliver defeat for Corbyn at the polls. He might still become PM at the head of a Labour-SNP-Lib Dem-Green coalition.
So what you’re saying is - (sorry) - that if antisemitism were downplayed, tolerated or not made such a big fuss of, retaliatory accusations of Islamophobia from the likes of Warsi would have less traction, therefore less chance of closing down debate or silencing legitimate criticism of Islam. I would ask you this: is tolerating antisemitism a fair price to pay for being able to criticise Islam? Perhaps in a completely unemotional sense, there is some logic in your hypothesis. But what if you’re not quite as detached? There are a number of examples of Jewish practices being caught up in the fallout from negative and intrusive aspects of Islam. Dietary conventions for instance, or circumcision. Also, specialist religious education. Personally I hold no brief for traditional cultural or religious practices (but I ‘know a few people who do.’) It seems to me that observant British and European Jews had been getting along fine, minding their own business, until the Muslims came along with their vociferous in-yer-face religious prohibitions, cultural practices and their demands that everyone else likes it or lumps it.We shouldn’t let the rise of Islam force us to sacrifice the right to freely practice any religion, that is unless it impinges on others or harms its own vulnerable, where there’s a good case for intervention. Otherwise live and let live. The nub of the problem is that there is no equivalence between antisemitism and Islamophobia. We need to quash that falsehood somehow. It’s dangerous.
It is an extremely dangerous false equivalence. But it is being encouraged and spread by the "anti-semitism in the Labour Party" row in my humble opinion - and I think there is evidence to back up my opinion. As I've indicated, this is a power struggle. The problem for the soft left (I was going to say non anti-semitic but the soft left whinge obsessively as the hard left about Israel, just minus the consipracy theories) is that they can't detach the unions from the Labour Party. If they could, or at least take some, they would have a viable party. I don't really see a solution to that. The Corbynistas/far left are going to maintain their hold on Labour. Labour as a party of the people is dead as far as I am concerned. I think the only hope is for emergence of a populist party...but that is a very slim chance.
Islamophobia was a term invented during the fallout of 9/11 to shut down any criticism of Islam. Whereas anti-Semitism has a terrible and tragic history that stretches back through the eons of time. But who in politics in the present climate would dare say that?It is not just the Labour Party who make the false equivalence. BBC journalists repeatedly make this claim.
BBC are luvving this story...expect this one to run and run unlike numerous stories from our own shores and mainland Europe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49029865