Wednesday 24 July 2019

Open Thread

Plastic-free mid-July Open Thread. Recycled and new comments welcome here.


  1. The BBC, Sky and ITV seem reluctant to inform the Great British Public about what Ilhan Omar has actually said that has so attracted the ire of President Trump...maybe I can help:

    1. "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

    2. "It's all about the Benjamins' baby." (Meaning that Israel is the Jews' "baby" and the Jews ensure that Israel is fully supported.)

    3. "I am told every day that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself to attacks."

  2. Sad that This Week had to end on a Two Minute Hate-Trump note...

  3. Gotta say it's becoming increasingly difficult to analyse BBC Bollocks because it's so appallingly smelly.

    Take this tweet from Jon Sopel. He's quoting Ronald Reagan...yes Ronald Reagan...yes the same Ronald who was despised by every left-thinking BBC journo back in the 80s. He was simply the American Thatcher - the one they loved to hate...

    But now, for Sopel and Bryant, Reagan has become a useful tool. So they quote him and here is the quote:

    "We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people - our strength - from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.” has Trump closed the borders under his administration? Has he stopped people coming from every corner of the world to the USA?

    Er - no.

    "A total of 544,000 aliens were naturalized in the first three quarters of FY 2018" (Official stats) So about 725K people from abroad were probably naturalised in 2018.

    The average figure for immigration in the 1980s - the Reagan Decade - was lower than that... 644,000 per annum on average.

    The BBC is just one big LIE-MACHINE! :)

  4. A speech yet to be delivered by Sajid Javid is being trailed and commented upon by the BBC this morning - so not news just opinion:

    ... 'Leaders must 'moderate language' to fight extremism - Javid' ...

    This report on the BBC News website highlights the BBC's policy of bias whereby it is only 'far right' extremism that counts in their world. Nowhere in this article is there any mention of terrorism - as having as its motivation extremism.

    From Lead commissioner Sara Khan:

    ... ' "range of drivers" contribute to extremism and extremist ideology.

    She said the forms of extremism varied from far-right extremism to less talked about types such as animal rights activism.' ...

    We might be led to believe that terrorists are not extremists in the weird esoteric BBC world.

    1. On reflection I believe this article is of great importance:

      1. The timing. We have a Muslim Home secretary and the Lead Commissioner we might guess is also a Muslim. There might be a change to Home Secretary when and if Boris becomes PM.

      2. Breakage of the link between Islamic terrorism and extremism. With the BBC's opinion piece derived from this speech, provided in full apparently in advance to the BBC, the self-evident link between Islamic extremist ideology and terrorism has been broken.

      3. Only the far right and other minor groups are now termed as extremists. It will be interesting to see whether the link between far-right terrorism (such as the van attack at Finsbury Mosque which was gleefully termed a terror attack by the BBC) and far-right extremism is maintained in the future - my guess is that yes, it will be.

    2. H/t Guido a worrying snippet from Sajid Javid's speech:

      ... 'Interesting intervention from Sajid Javid this morning who went out of his way to defend the Brexit Party against spurious charges of extremism and even “applaud Nigel Farage” for leaving UKIP and denouncing it as “thugs and extremists” after it was hijacked by Batten and Tommy Robinson.' ...

      This exercise is a reinforcement par excellence of the BBC's agenda, and that of the MSM and apparently, sections of the cabinet. It's an important moment. As one who respects Gerard Batten's straight talking I might from now on find myself grouped with far-right "thugs and extremists".

    3. Incredible that an article on "extremism" (albeit not defined) can fail to mention either Islamic terrorism or Sharia activism in the UK or Far Left Irish Republican terrorism. It those two areas of extremism that have causes so much death, damage and heartache over the decades.

      We seem to be living in a pretend world. Savid, Sadiq, Sara and Mishal are all happy playing in the Wendy House.

      Nowhere is Extinction Rebellion mentioned as an extremist organisation - despite the fact it wants to close down air and road transport, reduce GDP by 90%, abolish property rights and prevent people going about their normal everyday business.

    4. I believe the link between Islamic terrorism and extremism has already been broken.

      I’m pretty sure that throughout the recent London Bridge/Borough Market reports, the BBC only referred to them as attackers. They were very careful to avoid the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorist’ and even ‘extremists’.

      Behind the scenes, the establishment and deep state are hard at work to remove any reference of Islam as a threat or bad in any way.

    5. You are right Arne. I think I watched a five minute piece on the BBC in its main news and it failed to mention Muslim, Islam, Jihad, the Koran or the "Allahu Akbar" cry in connection with the terrorism. There might have been one oblique reference to a Mosque or Muslim family. Other than that you might have been mightily puzzled as to what was going on. "Some people did something." as Ilhan Omar likes to put it.

  5. Why is Tommy Robinson being held in Belmarsh - a high security prison? What possible reason can there be hold him there, given the nature of his offence, a purely administrative offence? This is persecution by the state.

    1. Well. in view of the above, and if Sajid Javid had anything to do with the decision, then it is to 'crush far-right extremism', by the show-trial persecution of TR. It's possibly an attempt to win over the Muslim vote in a/the forthcoming General Election.

    2. Well, yes, I am sure you are right.

      We have moved away from free speech so much. Even a few years ago TR would interviewed on BBC, ITV or Sky and able to give his views, despite hostile He has been unpersoned.

  6. The BBC have been holding meetings with the extremist death cult "Extinction Rebellion". This is absolutely horrifying. Why are they promoting this death cult?

    h/t to Guest Who

  7. Here's a link to Sajid Javid's appalling speech today.

    There's an interesting point about this speech. Although, he was delivering it from a lectern with the Home Office crest, the Home Office admit it contained "political content" because it is removed from the text of the speech (despite them claiming this was a verbatim record).

    The political content included praising Nigel Farage for walking away from UKIP, stating The Brexit Party is not extremist,and having a go at SYL and Batten.

    There are rules about this sort of thing, I believe and one is you can't use Government property (e.g. Home Office crest and lectern) for making party political speeches.

    Leaving that aside I find two aspects of his speech truly appalling.

    Firstly he communicates that the way to respond to speech you find offensive is to launch a violent attack on the person speaking the words you find offensive (by quoting his personal experience). I can see that it might be morally defensible in certain situations but it is not what you expect a Home Secretary to say. This is the logic of violent Antifa, of Rushdie's persecutors, of the Charlie Hebdo murderers and, indeed, of the violent Far Right. It is quite simply the language of extremism.

    Secondly, I object most strongly to his linkage of opposition to mass immigration (immigration, not migrants) to extremism. This is quite sickening. Why do we have to rejoice in mass immigration? Why do we have to accept that it has all been a wonderful contribution to our country? These are claims that require supporting evidence - and I think the balance of evidence is all the other way.

    Javid mentions the World Cup in Cricket as evidence that mass immigration is good for the UK because there were so many people from migrant communities. On that logic, it would be even better if we had no British players and like Oman or Bahrain just bought in the best sportspeople from around the planet. And perhaps someone should remind him that England managed to win the World Cup in football in 1966 without any significant migrant input...What does that prove? This is such a babyish form of argument, that it is amazing to hear it coming from the lips of a middle aged, presumably educated Home Secretary.

    More importantly though, our bone headed Home Secretary not only wants us to rejoiced in mass immigration to date but thinks we need more and more of its - many millions more!

    You get the impression that the Conservative Party secretly wants to die. It has no vision, it can no longer grasp issues and deal with them, it is devoid of purpose. Dr Boris may revive the patient but it seems a faint hope with people like Javid, Hammond and May around.

    1. Javid is a Remainer - one of May's appointments. He changed to Leave temporarily for his failed Conservative Party leadership bid, but at heart I'm sure he remains a Remainer. I can only guess that he is promising to bring some of the Muslim vote to the Conservatives in order to endear himself to Boris.

    2. The man is so full of BS. His speech was stitched through with the wonders of mass immigration...and he claimed that the UK was "the most successful multi-racial democracy" on the planet.

      Then in questions from the media, he agreed with a questioner that there was a huge problem with "segregation" in schools. He gave the game away when he said for "both communities" - before correcting himself to suggest it was "many" communities (as with so much, Islam wasn't mentioned but it was clearly on everybody's mind). Anyway he suggested the differing communities wished to send their children to schools they felt comfortable with.

      So - there you go, segregation by ethnic origin in schools...another brilliant boon of mass immigration. Put that up as a tick eh, Sajid, along with Jihadi terrorism, FGM and forced marriages?

  8. Poor old James Goddard gets found guilty of calling St Anna of Soubry a Nazi. Doesn't lay a finger on her. Probably be jailed for 10 years.

    A Class War mob descends on Boris Johnson's home, displays obscene banners, terrifies a whole community, incites violence, assaults Police Officers and members of the public, blocks the public highway, illegally sets off flares on the highway and calls Boris Johnson a fascist.

    Arrests? Charges? Prosecutions? None!

    Soubry was smiling throughout her supposedly terrifying experience. A Police Officer was nearby but failed to warn James that he was likely to be committing an offence. That was a dereliction of duty.

    Compare and contrast!

    We have two legal systems operating in the UK. One for Brexiteers, populists and those who oppose Islam and the other for Remainers, the Far Left, and followers of Islam.

  9. Did Jon Sopel not read Fran Unsworth's warning not to engage in political tweeting that compromises the BBC's claimed "impartiality"...

    Here Our Jon moans that our Iran policy is heading in the wrong direction. Couldn't be more partial...but then he was a Labour Party organiser in a previous life.

  10. It is quite amazing when you look around you on the political scene. A few years ago we had the Conservatives at least recognising that mass immigration was a matter of real concern to the public. There was the pledge - never even remotely honoured - to bring mass immigration down to the tens of thousands (another Big Lie from our worst ever PM).

    So, yes, they lied and failed to deliver but there was at least a recognition of public concern. And as a matter of self-preservation, the Conservatives could see that mass immigration was having destabilising effects across governance, across society and across public services.

    Now? The Conservatives appear to want to double down on the damage.

    According to Sajid Javid, our Home Secretary (the very person responsible for our border security) unless you celebrate mass immigration (running at about 200k-300k net pa for decades now) and want to see it increased even further you are an "extremist", "intolerant" and a "racist".

    Unless I see clear evidence to the contrary I can only imagine that Javid and his sort in the Conservative Party (Hammond to the fore) simply don't care about either their party or their country.

    If one thing is absolutely clear about the UK today it is that we cannot support a rise in population of 400-500K per annum (a result of net immigration of around 300K), let alone anything more. Remember that's equivalent to about 0.8% of GDP. So if you see growth of 1.6% that means the reality is 0.8%. We have limited land and limited resources. Because we are at the centre of the money-laundering globalist economy a large proportion of our new housing goes straight to non UK citizens from abroad. Expanding public transport in a huge mettropolis like London is vastly expensive. About 50% of immigrants are low skilled or no skilled and soon become welfare dependent once they start families in the UK.

    Javid and co. will break their party and the country if they go on like this.

    Of course I am not saying Javid is without priniciples. There was one point on which he was extremely firm in the leadership debates - his absolute determination that there should be an independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative Party...make of that what you will.

    1. The inexorable increase in population is simply overwhelming. Not only does it impose unmeetable demands on all the existing public services, but also, it renders useless any initiatives such as infrastructure or housebuilding projects as they too become overwhelmed. Promises or commitments from politicians of any hue are simply undeliverable in the face of uncontrolled population increase.

    2. I should add that the end game will be a mounting number of dysfunctional cities (with London leading the way) complete with their own no-go areas established on self-supportive community grounds filled with overcrowded and unfit dwellings, which ultimately will be followed by alienation and a breakdown of law and order as imported languages, cultures, disputes and rivalries are played out - a third world dystopia trans-shipped to our shores.

      Are our politicians unable to prevent this doomsday scenario?

    3. If you mean by worst PM, Theresa May, was that target even introduced by her or was it Cameron? As PM, she was actually being called a racist by MPs of her own party and even members of her own Cabinet for wanting to restrict immigration. How do you explain that and how does a PM or a Home Secretary operate with a Cabinet like that? Look at who got the job of Home Secretary and more than that, why he got it. A posting forced upon the PM. Now what is he doing?

    4. Arthur,

      Your analysis is spot on as far as I can see. We are already seeing gross overcrowding - the sort of thing that went out in the Victorian era, we had thought - in housing in London. There are tens of thousands of families condemned to raising children in cramped bedsit accommodation. There are probably hundreds of thousands of migrants living in illegal accommodation.

      For Javid, Soubry, Cooper, Starmer, Corbyn. Abbott, Lammy, Swinson, Sturgeon and all the rest to paint a picture of this "golden age" of migration that has brought such joy and prosperity to a once benighted land is beyond parody.

      Not a single MP seems capable of articulating the crisis we face. We don't have a Salvini or an Orban or indeed a Trump.

      These fools, garbed in the robes of parliamentary authority, don't just want to stand still - they want even more mass immigration into the UK. 600,000 migrants per annum is just not enough for them!

    5. At a macro economic level, mass immigration fuels growth and ultimately tax revenues.

      More people means more production and consumption. Deep down this is what governments want more than anything.

      They know about the negative impacts articulated by MB and Arthur but will accept these trade-offs in exchange for more revenue to squander on manifesto promises.

      It’s an uncomfortable truth seldom spoken about.

    6. It's certainly what Osborne wanted - and Clegg and Davey (now candidate to be the new leader) - all the PPE class. And it is a major reason why they and Cameron were at loggerheads with May.

      Now we are about to get another mass immigration PM and for good measure an amnesty for illegal immigrants PM.

    7. Anon -

      May was Home Secretary I think when the "pledge" (later downgraded to an "aspiration" I believe) was introduced to reduce immigration to the "tens of thousands". I think I am right in saying the figure was still there in the Conservative Manifesto for 2017.

      I think after Warsi resigned from Cabinet because of Government policy on Israel and Gaza (what a surprise she has an obsession about that), there was felt to be a strong necessity to promote another person of Muslim heritage - enter Javid.

    8. May wanted to reduce it yes but the origin of that target I'm not sure. What propelled Javid - who was already Sec for Local Government and Communities or whatever it's called now - into the Home Office was a more immediate need which was to quell the storm known as Windrush or the Windrush Scandal. Only an 'ethnic minority' could do it.
      And May turned to her openly insubordinate Minister. What a trap.

    9. Some background from the BBC on the "pledge"...

      Sounds credible - unusually for a BBC report.

  11. Arne -

    I have some quibbles!

    "At a macro economic level, mass immigration fuels growth and ultimately tax revenues."

    No, not necessarily. All the studies (most of them strongly biased towards mass immigration) show there is very little gain in terms of tax revenue v benefits. These studies only look at "migrants". They never look at the long term effects as "migrants" become "citizens" of the UK. Often the studies don't in any case include non-income benefits like housing benefit, subsidised housing, health care and so on.

    Our migration is very lopsided. About 40% of migrants have little or no skills. They are working as pizza deliverers, cleaners, fast food workers, security personnel, crop pickers, cab drivers, low grade hospital and airport staff and so on. They pay little or no tax. When they start families they are dependent on the state for housing, income subsidy (tax credits), health and education, while also qualifying for lots of other state benefits.

    It costs about £7000 pa to educate a child in London - more if they don't have English as a first language. A family with 3 children will be requiring £21,000 per annum to educate their children over at least 13 years: that's £273,000 to educate three children! At the basic rate of 20%, someone has to earn £1.4 million to pay for the education of those children of a migrant family. That's just education - we haven't got on to housing, health or income subsidy.

    So, I do not accept that mass immigration is positive in terms of tax revenue.

    There are of course the migrants at the other end of the scale, the high earners working in the City and elsewhere. Of course they do contribute large sums to the tax revenue. But in somewhere like London, they also inflate house prices. They can pay more for desirable property and that effect spreads out across the whole housing market so that ordinary people end up paying extremely high rents and cannot afford to buy a family home in London. As rents rise so more and more people become dependent on housing benefit (ie a call on tax revenue). That sort of effect is NEVER include in studies looking at the impact of migration, just as the cost of FGM clinics is also never included. In 2018-19 a total of £23.4 billion is being forked out in housing benefit, with 4.6 million recipients paid an average of £5,035 each.

    Also every high paid City workers require a small army of low paid, low skilled migrant workers to support their lifestyle (restaurant staff, shirt ironers, flat and office cleaners, airport staff to support their frequent flying etc etc). So these positive tax contributors are also migrant-magnets - attracting workers who are ultimately negative on tax. A lot of the highly paid migrants ultimately return to their own countries, but the migrants they attract to the UK remain.


  12. ...

    "More people means more production and consumption. Deep down this is what governments want more than anything."

    Well, yes, there will be more production and consumption as the population increases, but not necessarily more production and consumption on a per capita basis - GDP per capita (and remember our GDP per capita is also inflated by the huge numbers of business visitors and tourists present in the country at any one time - the share that UK citizens get from the economy is substantially lower than GDP per capita). One of the key economic factors since the huge migration waves of around 2000 onwards has been our flatlining productivity which in turn is reflected in stagnant real wages. Shorthand: despite all the huge technological advances we see all around us, our economy isn't working to deliver increased prosperity for our citizens.

    "They know about the negative impacts articulated by MB and Arthur but will accept these trade-offs in exchange for more revenue to squander on manifesto promises."

    It is not entirely impossible that they are so deluded that they think mass immigration at 600,000 per annum is benefitting the country, but I doubt it. What they see is the huge political difficulties of stopping and then turning round the migration supertanker. The politicians have so committed themselves to PC ideology that they really cannot see a way out...I believe they are continuing to support mass immigration, because they simply can't see how it could be stopped, even they know it is doing huge damage and is unsustainable. They are pursuing that policy favourite of "hoping something will turn up".

    Javid is unusual in deciding to simply ignore all the evidence (including his own evidence e.g. about segregation in schools) and promote further mass immigration as an unalloyed blessing and boon. This at least has the merit of being consistent with PC ideology and he has probably calculated that, whatever the reailities, he can get the backing of the PC media.

    I am conscious that addressing mass immigration honestly can make one sound negative about migrants. So I'd like to say I recognise migrants are more often than not very hard working and they are part of my friendship group and family. This is nothing really about how hard working people are. If you want to see people who really work hard, go to the most impoverished countries on Earth like Burkina Faso. It's nothing to do with the personal merits of most migrants.

    It is everything to do with the long term economic, social, cultural and political effects. We've ended up with stagnant wages, segregated schools, FGM clinics and electoral fraud as part of our everyday reality.

    1. MB, yes great points. If migrants are contributing so much, why is UK tax take% at all time highs? I'd like to see Javid put some meat on his virtue-signalling and propose that tax take% be inversely linked to immigration.

      IMHO, mass immigration to the UK is a fraud wherein the elite benefit from low wages while the many pick-up the tab for the social costs of housing crises, crime, overcrowding, terrorism and so on.

      TBH it was a similar model for the banking crisis. It shows how elitist our political parties have become, all the while cheered on by a state broadcaster that itself lives on a model of taxation of all for the benefit of the few.

    2. Sunday Times has interesting article today on all the dodgy oligarchs given "golden visa" residency in the UK thus bypassing the immigration system. Add to those all the "business visitors" who are effectively resident or semi-resident here. These people are putting huge pressure on the housing market in London.

      As well as putting in place emergency controls on immigration and naturalisation I think a populist government needs to have a Royal Commission into migration and population, led by a migration sceptic.

      We need a realistic infrastructure levy on migrants, an Australian style removal and detention system for asylum seekers, ensuring all migrants wish to share our culture and values, breaking the link between migration and naturalisation, candidate citizenship for 5 years, an end to importation of low skilled labour and support for agriculture and industry to move to automation in place on reliance on imported labour.

      I'm not expecting Johnson and co. to deliver on any of that but we desperately need our Salvini, Orban or Trump who will. Someone must tackle the insanity of continuing mass immigration at such unprecedently high numbers.

  13. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is one of the four member "Squad" in the Democratic Party who have attracted Trump's ire.

    The BBC are deliberately covering up for her and censoring any mention of very worrisome aspects of her behaviour since she has been an adult citizen of the USA.

    It seems she is not who she claims to be. She is not an "Omar" but rather an "Elmi". The key accusation is that she married her brother to effect a migration fraud.

    The UK is involved in all this because we gave asylum to members of her family. Any interest from the UK MSM? Er - no. Big fat zero there just as you might expect.

    It's a very complicated story! But if you want to find out the details that the BBC is hiding from you (just like they hid - and continue to hide - all the details of Obama's personal history)take a look at this:

    1. This is possibly an easier entry point into the Omar Scandal:

  14. Looks like more work for Fran. BBC presenters moonlighting with dodgy companies for tens of thousands a go, including some 'star' presenters - Fiona who reads the News and Simon Jack is Business Editor.

    The Mail on Sunday holding the BBC to account over these breaches of impartiality and official guidelines. Well someone has to and it's certainly not Sir Clementi.

  15. Is the BBC giving us the facts about drug-related deaths in its News or is it the opinion or promotion of the 'British Bureau for Cannabis'?

    'The obvious response to the Scottish deaths is to ensure fewer people start taking drugs in the first place, through deterrent punishment of users.
    If you believe, as one BBC reporter declared as if it were a fact on the Radio 4 news, that these abusers cannot stop, then the only policy that makes sense is to ensure they never start.' P Hitchens.

    Right on cue, as I scrolled past BBC1 Sunday Morning Live at the end of the unintentionally hilarious 'Dateline', the screen text obligingly highlighted the question Should we treat drug users as criminals?
    Having no wish to indulge the British Bureau by watching their grinning puppet, I kept scrolling.

  16. Rochdale Councillor is let off after voting twice in local election. Welcome to Modern Britain.

    1. Meant to say - can't see it on the BBC website.

  17. See Emily Play - she loves the Project Fear Wendy House with all its make-believe stories inside...

    If Boris was "visibly shaken" it was probably a result of his sudden realisation at just how biased against Brexit the senior civil service, led by the appalling Sir Mark Sedwill, is.

    What is being talked about here is "prioritisation" not "closure of all sea ports". We have to be on our guard because there is every likelihood the French (with the aid of their fishing folk, farmers, government and officials) may try and punish us for leaving on No Deal. There may well be temporary blockage of Dover. But we have more than one port. Dover is just one and we can rely on our steadfast ally President Trump to help if there are any real emergencies. Longer term, there will of course be no disruption to supplies.

    The fact that our useless government and civil service have allowed a situation to arise where we are reliant on water-treatment chemicals coming across the channel (transport across which can be disrupted for all sorts of reasons) speaks volumes about the poor quality of our governance.

    We shouldn't be reliant on the rest of world for such essentials, or at least not reliant on one small part of the world.

    1. A Harry Hill fight is probably needed to work out which is the most biased - Em's tweets or Em's work on 'Newsnight'?

    2. I can see that - huge Twitter bird v. an Emily Maitlis caricature blimp held on a string by Mark Urban.

  18. I2 years ago this was a parody . Today?

  19. Jon Sopel not just biased but clairvoyant as well...

    He is very interested in the question of whether Steve Edgington is lyving...but has no interest at all in establishing whether Representative Ilhan Omar is lying her ass off as they say in the good ol' USofA.

  20. Radio 4

    1. Nice to hear a politician allowed to answer questions uninterrupted and at length, so giving them room to set out their thoughts cogently. Well done John Humphrys! The interviewee? Oh yeah, Tony Blair...right, so that explains it.

    2. Some nutjob Marxist interviewed about her plans to abolish Eton and all private schools. Justin Webb treats this as simply a pragmatic matter...not one of principle. How you gonna do it?

    We have an NHS but we haven't made private health care illegal. Equally, food is a necessity but the Labour Party hasn't yet proposed nationalising all restaurants and supermarkets. The ability to make choices is a fundamental aspect of human freedom.

    If Webb were looking for real pragmatic objections, then it's safe to assume that under such a scenario as set out by the Mad Marxist, Eton would in effect be re-established overseas, somewhere like the Caribbean,USA or Ireland, while less well off parents would re-create private schools by relocating their families away from inner urban areas and donating generously to their local schools' provision. No more than Diane Abbott would they allow their children to go to schools with wannabe gangsters in places like Hackney and Peckham.

    The nutjob Marxist showed she had absolutely no concern for children's welfare and only for her own warped "equality of outcome" ideology. Still, at least she had the support of the outgoing Prime Minister in holding "equality of outcome" to be the measure of all things.

    3. Webb is the master of the non sequitir...his intro to an item went something like this:"And in a week when people's use of language with respect to Brexit has come under increased scrutiny we look at a new art installation focussing on the Windrush generation..."

    I expect even the "Windrush generation" is fed up with stories about the Windrush generation on BBC Radio.

    BTW "increased scrutiny" is one of those phrases that the BBC only ever applies to things and people they don't like. Stella Creasy for instance never comes under "increased scrutiny". David Lammy's claims never come under "increased scrutiny". Electoral malpractice in Peterborough will never come under "increased scrutiny" from the BBC. :)

  21. Stop HS2
    Drop Heathrow extension
    End the TV licence fee within 5 years.
    Abolish the monolithic BBC.
    Brexit by 31 Oct
    Written constitution
    Free speech enshrined in the constitution
    Abolish the House of Lords
    Introduce PR for elections to House of Commons.
    Stop operation of Sharia courts in UK
    End the money laundering in the City.

    I'll settle for (real, not May's Abject Surrender) Brexit by 31 Oct, Boris.

    1. Stop HS2. Have a heart MB, why do you think Channel 4 are moving to Leeds, well 200 of the 800 employees - excluding all their management company staff? In simple terms it's an extension to the London hub. It's a pity about those pesky native Yorkshire Leavers, both Conservative and Labour. Leeds will become a satellite just as Salford has for the BBC. Similarly, the Beeb are also eagerly anticipating HS2.

      You left off your list the relocation of Parliament outside London. OK keep the Palace of Westminster for ceremonial occasions, but parliament urgently needs to reconnect with the people.

  22. In their open support for Blair's, Hammond's and now Duncan's hostility to the UK's new PM, the BBC are complicit in a coordinated effort to make Boris's (if it is to be his) tenure the shortest in history. It is to be hoped that Boris has found enough trusted MPs to form a strong and united Cabinet. With that as his power base, he must fulfil the Brexit referendum result, and return the country to its core values.

    If he does so, he will receive support from the majority of the electorate - despite the machinations of large groups of MPs and MSM including the BBC to derail Brexit and damage the Conservative Party beyond repair. He must reengage with the ordinary everyday people of this country and allow them to trust him. Does he have the courage to turn his back on so many of his erstwhile Conservative MPs who now are caught in an undemocratic act of betrayal?

    1. I agree Arthur - with one proviso...he does need to make an electoral pact with the Brexit Party. It might be quite limited in scope...maybe focussed on just 50 or so seats.

      One thing I would say is that I believe something like 10-20% of Remain voters are now quite strongly in favour of Brexit as a principled decision - respecting the democratic vote and also registering their disgust with the antics of the EU and the Hammond.

      All the Traitor Tories - Grieve, Duncan, Hammond, Gauke etc - should of course be dismissed from the Party and given life bans.

      If Boris goes into an election without a Brexit Party pact it could be touch and go.

  23. The "fish wife on acid" is cackling at her own "jokes" again...think she needs help.

  24. I thought it was Monday. But on the BBC it's been Blairday...on the hour every hour and sometimes it's felt like the 59 minutes in between as well.

    Of course War Criminal Blair is allowed to speak at length uninterrupted. Brexiters are lucky to get a whole sentence out before the likes of Maitlis and Mardell stamp on their answer with their own thoughts.

  25. Darren Grimes has the right stuff...not taking any of the soft soap and mentioning the hate speech directed at him by Remainiacs. Well done!

  26. Good point by Guest Who over on the Biased BBC website. The BBC and rest of the media are covering for Jo Swinson by not highlighting her role as a Minister in the Cameron government and her pro-austerity Commons voting record...

    You have to ask: "Why?".

    Well pretty obviously because they hope the Lib Dems can deprive the Conservatives of seats in the forthcoming General Election and maybe put pressure on Labour to get rid of Corbyn (faint hope there, Beebies).

    It's the same logic that means no one in the BBC or MSM ever mentions Dominic Grieve's Legion d'Honneur award from the French State.

    Adam Boulton displaying off the scale bias on Sky News by the way, but the law does require me to pay for his bias. I guess Mr Grumpy has a special reason to be grumpy today when against all odds from a year ago, he's seeing the leading light of the Leave campaign taking up the Premiership.

  27. BBC News Reporter James Cook when he was posted in LA joined in the outcry of antifa opposition to Donald Trump's 2018 visit to the UK. Much was made of the crowdfunded inflatable - which was personally insulting to DT:

    ... 'Trump in UK: Pomp and protest as visit stokes culture war.' ...

    Since that time, James Cook has received promotion, becoming anchor at the newly formed BBC Scotland Channel News Desk:

    ... 'James Cook returning to Scotland as chief news correspondent for nightly 9pm bulletin on new BBC Scotland channel.' ...

    On the Scotland pages of the BBC News website is a contribution from James Cook:

    ... 'Will Brexit break Britain, and would England care?' ...

    It's worth reading to see James Cook launch a hit piece, an outright attack aimed towards the people of Boston Lincs as being substantially pro Leave. The angle he pushes is that to have voted Leave correlates with the abandonment of Scotland as a part of the UK. This I don't understand. James wants us to believe that the good people of Scotland are being pushed towards IR2 by English people similar to those he interviews in Boston. He makes much of English nationalism being dangerous to Scotland.

    1. James Cook is playing to the gallery of Scottish nationalism - by attacking English nationalism - how very BBC!

    2. James Cook's family ties might help inform you of his obvious political persuasion; several years ago he married into the family of Labour peer, Baroness Helena Kennedy!

  28. As you would expect from the organisation who frequently remind us that the science is settled, the BBC are ending each news item today on the hot weather with a global warming warning. They are reporting that these extremes will happen more and more and we shouldn’t be surprised.

    Their Extinction Rebellion credentials continue to be signalled vigorously.

    1. The highest ever temperature in the UK was recorded a full 16 years ago.

      Prior to the 2003 episode, the hottest heatwave (according to Wikipedia) was 1757 which was the hottest for 500 years.

      Weather is pretty variable. I am not denying the climate has got warmer over the last couple of hundred years but then we are still coming out of the ice age, so it's not surprising.

    2. Between 1600 and 1800 there was ‘a little ice age’ with the Thames frozen over in winter and frequent fairs held on the ice.

      If that spike had been 200 years later, I wonder how the BBC would have reported it?

      The science settled it, global cooling due to Britain empire building around the world.

  29. BBC 2 tonight 9pm
    How the middle class ruined Britain.

    Only the BBC could come up with a programme like this. I’m sure we can expect a typical hatchet job with a sneery look at brits going about their daily business.

    There is so much hate, spite and bitterness at the BBC. They have forgotten how to do feel good TV or maybe they just have no interest in it with their rampant Marxist agenda.

    1. If by the middle class they mean the group of people who read The Guardian, vote Labour and form part of Radio Four live audiences, where they can wallow in an orgy of virtue signalling they might be onto something. But somehow I don’t think that’s what they mean.

    2. It's supposed to be by the "right wing" "comedian" Geoff Northcott (I've never heard him saying anything funny about anything) of those tame right wingers like Peter Hitchens and Suzanne Evans that the BBC allows on QT and Newsnight.

      I imagine it will be tired old stuff about muesli and gentrification.

    3. Wasn't sure what he was getting at in some of it, but seemed mostly genuine. The end when he had to give a five minute comedy routine to three humorless left wing students (all with ishooos) was priceless !

  30. Been in the car a lot today...sorry Greta...can I buy a penance from your website?...

    Anyway meant I was exposed to quite a bit of BBC radio-borne bias-virus. Nasty if you catch it.

    Among the things I noted:

    1. Emma Barnett stupidly kept asserting that Boris was now PM, when he wasn't. Maybe it wasn't stupidity - maybe she was trying to take the shine off him becoming PM tomorrow following the humiliating failure of the Remaniacs to prevent that.

    2. The bias level was turned to 11 - cue contextless references to Tartan dwarves, watermelon smiles and something b*mboys...being shoehorned into their non-impartial coverage. Do they ever shoehorn in McDonnell's statements about the IRA and Thatcher or Corbyn's about Hamas when engaged in general coverage? Nope, no more than they refer to Jo Swinson's career as an austerity-supporting minister in Cameron's Tory-led coalition government.

    3. Well this was the day of the vox pop. Many of us here have noted that the biased vox pop is one of the most useful bias tools in the BBC box of tricks.

    So it proved today.

    They were able to select strongly anti-Boris voice - making strong assertions about his personal failings and shadiness. There were a few weak voices of support "I suppose he might do a good job..." - that sort of thing. The BBC always leads with a strong negative vox pop for full impact. Even when talking to Conservative Party Members they seemed to have found people who were (a) Supporters of other candidates who reluctantly switched to Boris. (b) Anti-Boris voices. (c) Not at all keen to identify media bias against Brexit, particularly from the BBC, as a key factor.

    4. When it came to phone calls from the public, the BBC seemed to have gone out of its way to find Conservative Party members who would never vote Tory again. How lucky was that.?

    5. Both Egregious Emma and Nihal the Idiot were putting on full display their anti-Boris bias by peremptory interruption of Boris supporters and trying to find 1001 ways why Boris will fail.

    My prediction is that despite the BBC's desperate attempt to raise the bias level against Boris, the opinion polls will show an immediate "Boris dividend" for the Conservatives. Far from being a liability for the Conservatives as claimed repeatedly by Emma and Nihal, he will prove an asset.

    That said, of course much depends now how he conducts himself. The BBC and the rest of the MSM want him to show due obeisance to the EU as the only way of avoiding a "No Deal Catastrophe" where we slide into the sea to disappear for all eternity.

    If Boris shows utter contempt for the EU's ploys and strategems and maintains a steadfast gaze on a No Deal Brexit, then the country will get behind him. If the EU crack, all well and good. If the EU remain stubborn all well and good equally in time.

    Of course the Remainiacs at the BBC realise they are facing a very real "Reputational Catastrophe" if Boris succeeds either in getting the EU to change the withdrawal agreement or in getting us out on No Deal. This explains I think their panic and inability to hide their bias beneath a more seemly facade.

    They know if Boris succeeds, then they will be exposed as frauds, liars, cheats and crooks.

    1. One other point I meant to mention...

      Although the BBC gets very sanctimonious about the alleged threat to Soubry and other Remaniac MPs, on Radio 5 Live they were happy to broadcast a vox pop from a member of the public who said she wanted to "smack him in the mouth". Egregious Emma then repeated that comment - chuckling and noting lots of people had strong opinions. I supposed it would have been worse if she had said "Come on guys, let's go down to Camberwell and smack Boris about a bit..." but it came across to me as indulgent approval for a comment condoning violence against a prominent Brexit MP.

    2. Laura Kuenssberg just tweeted this. Is the intention to let people know what Trump is saying or is it done to mock them both?

      Trump says - 'he's a really good man, who's going to be the PM of the UK.. he's tough and he's smart. They're saying Britain Trump. They call him Britain Trump. That's a good thing. They like me over there'.

    3. The BBC take sides with just about everything. So it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that if you are on their side they will actively defend you but if you are not, then be prepared for personal attacks, smears and even violence,

      It’s a left-wing characteristic and the BBC use their reach and influence to incite.

    4. Yes Arne, it's my view also that the BBC has a view on just about everything, whether it's how to cut your toenails or nuclear weapons.

      If you clearly disavow the PC mindset e.g. if you are argue in favour of free speech, consider "equality of outcome" a dangerous mirage or aren't fully signed up to the transgender cause you will be targeted, non-personned or set up.

  31. Tommy in solitary but safe. Thanks to Ezra Levant for a good, thorough, honest report.

  32. The BBC are all to happy to assist the establishment in promoting the recent development of equivalence of terrorist threats. One is a major threat to our country and the other much less but this decision muddies the waters and helps deflect.

    The BBC website report says;
    Risks posed by right-wing extremists in the UK are to be included in the terror threat level system from now on.
    Previously the system only assessed the threat from "international terrorism".
    Home Secretary Sajid Javid said the assessment will now cover all forms of terrorism "irrespective of the ideology that inspires them" - including right-wing, Northern Ireland, and Islamist.

    1. That should add a milli-threat or so.

      What about 'global warming'? Damn, the pointer just went round the scale twice!

  33. I just watched the 10pm main BBC News where they presented a hatchet job on Boris. It was carefully constructed with the majority of voxpops rubbishing him. They rolled out a gaggle of their top reporters up and down the country to ratchet up the negativity. Even Katya got stuck in to remind us all that the EU are united. None of them had anything nice to say. He is divisive, he cares about nothing except himself they keep saying.

    It was made crystal clear that they aren’t fans and we can expect more of the same whilst he is PM.

    1. Yes. Boris's first step should be to send for Lord Hall, sit him down in front of a recording of tonight's news & demand to know what has happened to the Beeb's duty of impartiality. His second step should be to set up an inqiry into the BBC's persistent failure to honour its duties under the Charter.

    2. As we have observed here before, the BBC moved from bias to blatant bias about a year or two ago - really as a response to the wave of populism coursing through the Western world. It's now gone up a notch of two so we have relentlessly blatant bias.

      The good thing though is that public opinion is adamantine. We want Brexit done and done properly. All the tsunami of propaganda from the BBC avails them nought.

      Look at the opinion polls in a couple of weeks' time. Watch the Boris Wave rise.

    3. MB - I'm sure you're right - and that's precisely what the BBC is afraid of.

      The biggest chuckle of the day for me was Jo Coburn at lunchtime, asking some pundit whether he thought Boris's majority was smaller than expected. I mean, near enough double the number of votes isn't much of a majority, is it?

    4. Yes Sis, a lot of the BBC and MSM commentators obviously had that question on their idiot boards...sadly for them a 66% vote gave them no scope for advancing that narrative. But you can see why Hunt was far more aggressive in debates than people expected: his masters clearly were trying to reduce the Boris vote to a number that would advance the "weak majority" narrative.

  34. Watching BBC Midlands news tonight. The main story was that the Birmingham police are the first in the UK to carry Heroin antidote because there are so many heroin overdoses and deaths in the city centre.

    The report was supportive, positive and full of praise. The BBC reporter didn’t think to ask what the police are doing to remove heroin or target the dealers who are flooding the city centre streets.

    All we got was a PR job for this police initiative. We might conclude that the BBC are sympathetic to drug use and more interested in treating symptoms rather than causes.

    1. Arne - Yes, BBC Mids can usually be counted on to be on the wrong side - they were at it in Worcester yesterday, clearly frowning on the idea of a cull of the seagulls which are rapidly making the city centre an unpleasant place to be.

    2. If you told them the seagulls had a genetic predisposition to lean into their right wing, they would be all too happy to see them culled.

  35. Rather enjoyed the Newsnight end of prog discussion for a change, especially after the relentless Daytime BBC Bias.

    Yes, I had to listen to Jonathan Freedland but on the other hand the general mood seemed to be that Remain is dead and the choice is between a tweaked May deal and No Deal. The Remain project promoted by Blair, Swinson, Soubry, Grieve, Clarke and all the rest is dead. Camilla Adams-Apple was particularly good on how difficult the Hammond Gang will find it to defy their party.

    So - reasons for limited optimism.

    Come on Boris - make us crown you World King! :)

  36. Can you imagine any UK broadsheet newspaper coming out with "Leo Varadkar: Ireland's New Nadir"? No, neither can I but the racist Irish Times seems to think they can get away with using that formula for Boris.

    I think if I was Boris I would first say to the EU - we are monitoring all your twitter accounts, we are monitoring all the stories you plant in the Press. If we get even a whisper that you are showing us disrespect, we are off without a deal. End of.

    Remember the humiliation May put us through where she made no complaint about all those sarky tweets about our elected leader, while May treated EU leaders with utmost respect.

  37. The BBC seems to think that it is laudable for some racial groups to band together to promote their interests over other racial groups...bit like Apartheid really...

  38. Can you imagine the BBC reaction of UK Parliamentarians dissed Greta like French Parliamentarians!

    Actually reminded me that no one is any longer talking about the useless Gretaphile Michael Gove.

    Does that mean he's out of the Cabinet? Hope so.

    1. Boris is part of metropolitan elite, no doubt about that. He may deliver Brexit but his privileged liberal upbringing will determine many of his other policies.

      He will give Gove a great office of state.

    2. Revenge is a dish best served cold - maybe Boris will let the little rat sweat for a bit, and then not give him anything at all!

  39. There has got to be something seriously wrong with BBC political reporting when you hear more words from Laura Kuenssberg than you do from Theresa May and Boris Johnson. His scene setting acceptance speech was of national importance but it was drowned out by Laura on BBC One 6pm news..

    We were dished up much more of Kuenssberg’s opinions and analysis which the BBC clearly consider more important than the words of politicians themselves.

    1. Beth Rigby let the cat of the bag a couple of days ago...Responding to Adam Boulton she agreed Boris would try to distract people from Brexit with various eye-catching policies...she said something like "We mustn't allow him to do that..." In other words she sees the media's job to insert itself between out political leaders and the people and only allow through information that they (the media) think is appropriate.

      You're quite right this has reached absurd a couple of years we might just get clips of politicians with no sound, with BBC journalists doing a voice over with their interpretation of what was said and what lies behind it. Come to think of it, I guess that happens already!

  40. Agreed - I had to find the actual speech online. I thought it was very good Tbf Boris is right people are fed up of the negativity.

    1. Was it about two years ago, when we started saying things like, "the BBC is now completely out of control?" Well look at them now!

    2. You are right. There are no rules enforced and no one willing to exercise authority to maintain order at the BBC . As a result they are just like an out of control child who refuses to listen, continually breaks the rules, and couldn't care less about consequences.

      Until someone grabs hold and enforces discipline without fear or favour things will get worse.

    3. Lord Hall virtually gave permission for ratcheting up the bias by going around apologising for the BBC's failure to deliver a Remain vote in the Referendum (ignore his denials - it was clearly a well founded story). Then Nick Robinson gave a further green light by asserting on the (basis of nothing) that the BBC could abandon balance and engage in negative critiquing of Leave over Remain.

      Robinson at it again on Twitter claiming Brexit broke the country, just like the invasion of Iraq broke that country.

  41. Not to forget what's happening in the States.
    This video pretty much sums up the last 2 years, and I wonder how much of this summing up will be broadcast in the UK. Not much I suspect.

    1. This is good - Rep Matt Gaetz takes apart Mueller...

    2. What's amusing me is that CNN and MSNBC have been banging on about this Mueller appearance for 3 weeks.

      "The American people will get to see this play out on television and they'll see the true state of affairs concerning Trump's collusion."

      Well yes, indeed !

    3. The problem is that, as with the Beeb and Boris, what the public gets to see is a very biased selection...I doubt CNN, MSNBC or all the other "very bad media" will be showing much of Gaetz's interrogation in their summaries of proceedings.

  42. A good start by Boris.

    Now we can see why the BBC and the MSM put such energy into blackening his name, doing him down, kicking him in the shins, libelling him, slandering him and generally trying to finish off his political career...because they knew he was dangerous to the Remain cause and the "Rigged Re-run Second Referendum".

    It's great to see their discomfiture at this turn of events.

    1. Agreed. I do worry though about what the constant drip feed of negativity via, for example, carefully selected vox pops (Easton tonight!) may be doing to impressionable minds. The Beeb's ability to decide how much of Boris's speeches we are allowed to see is also a worry.

    2. The heavy reliance on Vox Pops tells its own story...But when the opinion polls start to come out, the truth will emerge. I know opinion polls can be slanted but only so much...

  43. That well known wit Gary Lineker tweets "The Remainers are leaving and the Leavers are remaining."

    But the Lefty Beebers never leave do they? An unelected, self-selecting tax-funded branch of government that no one can tinker with, let alone replace.

  44. "Lib Dems - whining here." Should be the new slogan since they put Swinson in as leader. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when she said she wouldn't accept the verdict of a Second Referendum if it was pro Brexit again and that she would continue to vote Remain in Parliament!!

    Then we had McDonnell on saying that in a General Election they would campaign to Remain if Boris pursued a no deal Brexit. But that makes no sense...When you're in a general election you're campaigning to win and then implement your own policies. Up until now Labour has said it will negotiate a Brexit deal that meets its six (bogus) tests. When did they abandon that policy? As far as I know it is still their policy. But McDonnell seems to be waving it away.

    I think Boris will wipe the floor with Labour and the Lib Dems, if they both admit to being Remainiac parties...especially with Cummings bringing out all their contradictions during a campaign.

  45. Martha on Today, Radio 4, giving Loiseau (the French something or other from the EU) the easiest of rides...bit like a toddler's slow ride on a seasoned seaside donkey. Why not interrupt her and harangue her in the way you do Brexiters?

    Here are few things she might have asked/interrupted with:

    1. So you're saying the EU won't be damaged by no deal but the UK will - that's not credible is it?

    2. The EU has overplayed its hand here hasn't it by requiring an abject surrender from the UK government? What have you got at the end of the negotiations? Nothing!

    3. So clearly it is Merkel and Macron who will decide on the EU's response, not the Prime Minister of Latvia. Have they told you yet what the EU's response will be?

    4. How are you going to make up the £39 billions that won't be coming your way?

  46. So what's the narrative today, Jim?

    BBC narrative seems to have the following elements:

    1. The Nick Boles line - this is now a hard right, Far Right, cryptofascist undemocratic regime.

    2. It's an unconstitutional Vote Leave Government. We are waiting on Gina Miller launching an action in the Supreme Court to have it declared illegal.

    3. Scotland will leave the Union in event of No Deal.

    4. Jo Swinson is a marvellously astute and credible alternative leader and the Lib Dems are a sensible, credible party.

    5. Farage is running the Government.

    6. The EU remains all-wise, all-seeing and above criticism by mere mortals like BBC reporters. Yes they might be on holiday for 4 weeks but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously as the new global superpower.

    7. OK we weren't expecting Boris to be so well organised, so in command of the detail, so impressive in his fact we had a script ready about "Bungling, bumbing Boris gets off to a shaky start...his government shows early signs of being confused and dysfunctional." But we are just going to ignore that...and claim he doesn't want to listen to contradictory opinions.

  47. BBC News hyping Greta and the extremist death cult Extinction Rebellion with a PR press release style report in their main news bulletin about her speech forming part of an album by pop rock band "The 1975".

  48. Nick Robinson now calling the change in government: "A coup".

  49. As a follow up to Sisyphus's earlier post.

    Mark Easton last night asked a member of public about Boris and exclaimed in an incredulous shrill response. "Really! you like him".

    That tells you everything you want to know about Easton and the BBC.

    1. Easton: Chief Ideologue of the BBC. A 1950s Stalinist put in a Gucci suit.

    2. I'm sure that Boris's popularity will remain a complete mystery to the BBC. They think the likes of Jon Culshaw is popular. I heard him on Radio 5Live yesterday with Emma Barnett. He was dreadful - his impersonations were awful, and his main idea seemed to be that as a 'comedy' angle we should treat Donald Trump and Boris as to quote: "Dumb Blondes, Dumb and Dumber'. How sickening!

    3. Culshaw's got very lazy I think. There was a time when he was far more amusing.

      So referenced "dumb blondes" while sitting there with "blonde" Emma Barnett?

    4. Yes, she should have struck a blow for the blondes of the world - whichever their gender.

  50. Emma Barnett running with the Godfather narrative - Boris as Mafia Boss. Alistair Campbell maybe...Tom Watson maybe...But Boris? The Remainiac Media are getting desperate, flailing around trying to find a way to tackle Boris, but he moves quickly!

  51. Boris knocked it out of the park in the Commons...

    Really gratifying seeing and hearing the likes of Beth Rigby, Adam Boulton and Laura Kuennesberg have to grudgingly admit that he put in a fine performance. :) :) :)

    1. Yes, agreed. I wonder if the far-left BBC will admit it. I doubt it.

  52. Hmmm on the main page on the BBC news app I can’t find anything about the worsening German PMI figures, which always seem to happen....

    1. Nothing, what a surprise.

      Still, you’ll find plenty of more interesting and important stories on the front page today:

      Another Syrian baby sob story
      Four charged for homophonic bus attack
      Libyan refugee sympathy
      Bashing Boris analysis
      Barnier attacking Johnson
      Fawning over Facebook and Clegg
      Trump TDS stories

  53. The reality check team are up to their tricks again tonight and once again they are being the official mouthpiece for the EU by explaining why we definitely owe them £39m (or now £33m according to them).

    No room for grey areas or sticking up for Britain. The BBC are out to prove Boris is wrong, hasn’t got a bargaining chip and is a liar to boot. They love the EU almost as much as the despite Boris and hate Britain.

    1. Coincidentally I was just reading the same...

      I have never seen a UK government claim for a share of assets like EU buildings we have contributed to and will no longer have joint use of going forward...

      It was a gross dereliction of duty by Abject Surrender May to fail to put in such a claim.

      More to the point, we should have challenged the legality of any financial claim on us. We joined a club...we paid in for things like pensions for retired staff whose work had never benefitted us because we weren't members of the club when they were working. There is nothing in Article 50 about financial compensation being paid to the EU - it is purely about "arrangements" for withdrawal. In international treaties where commitments to pay money are being entered into that is normally made crystal clear by appropriate references.

      May truly was our worst ever PM.

  54. Boris has been tearing across the political landscape like a tornado, laying waste to Remainer hopes and destroying the comfortable homes of the Lefty Media community...

    Many seem unable to fathom what is happening...Maitlis seems completely bemused. Some like Peston seem cross their predictions aren't coming true.

    But the bright boy in BBC class at least seems to have got it:

    "Is this @BorisJohnson’s new strategy? Prep for No Deal & hope EU blinks. If not, go for No Deal & hope parliament blinks. If not, go for an election"

    Er yeah, that might just be the strategy, Nick!

    1. Indeed. Whereas Mark Easton is just going for the old fashioned mud slinging tactic every night this week on the news in the hope some of it will stick. Too late Mark, Boris is now PM.

    2. The BBC seem to have gone into a bit of a meltdown today and are just throwing everything they can at preventing a no-deal Brexit.

      Every project fear story was brought back to life on tonight’s main news. The NI border, the Pound collapsing, business damage, planning not ready, immigration points system, reciprocal rights, the WA can’t be renegotiated and so on.

      How on with earth did they fit it all in to just 30 minutes.

      The sad thing is that they still think these tactics will work but it’s just an echo chamber for BBC journo’s in shock that Boris is PM.

      The viewers no longer fall for this, see straight through it and the BBC antics just harden opinions against them.

    3. - EU and Republic have no intention of erecting hard border, and neither do we, so - Project Fear Lie.

      - Pound was up again. But if it's down then that cancels out the effect of possibly higher tarrifs. Yes imports may be more expensive but if we can search the whole world for imports we can probably find them cheaper elsewhere e.g. cheaper and better (at the price) wine from California instead of the poor stuff they send us from France at the cheaper end. Another Project Fear Lie.

      - Business damage...Sutherland Nissan plant unaffected by another Project Fear Lie (the Remainers hate our country so much they would love to see the Sunderland plant close).

      - The WA is not cast in stone. If the EU decide to engage in act of "self harm" (to use a favourite Remainiac phrase), losing £30 billion and tarrif free access to our markets, then that's their affair not ours. The BBC also like to claim it's a decision for all 27 remaining Member States, when in fact we all know the real decision will be taken by Merkel and Macron in consultation. So, more Project Fear Lies.

      - There is a disgusting racist undertone to BBC and MSM criticism re the immigration points system: "There you go Leavers - you're going to be out of the EU and flooded with black-brown migrants from the rest of the world." Most Leavers have no problem with migration from around the globe as long as the numbers are much more limited than now, the people coming in can be trusted to adapt to our culture and support our democracy and they bring much needed skills. The EU is a racist construct as can be seen from the fact that its leadership is almost entirely white. More Project Fear Lies.

      It is amazing how Leave support has held up so steadily after nearly 4 years of relentless pro-EU, anti-Brexit propaganda of the crudest kind across nearly the whole of the media.

      So yes, I think you are right, the BBC and the rest are at a loss as to how to influence public opinion.

  55. Lazy BBC:

    Brexit is THE issue of the day.

    BBC has a special page devoted to Brexit on its website.

    And what are the dates on the main stories?

    9 July (Corbyn for Remain)
    12 July (Jeremy Hunt promotion)
    14 July (Gina Miller)
    14 July (Hammond doesn't like no deal)
    17 July (No deal Brexit threat to research)
    18 July (Barnier trying to frighten Britain)

    So nothing has happened since 18 July re Brexit that might possibly be of importance, BBC? Like the leader of the Vote Leave campaign becoming Prime Minister and clearly staking his credibility on Brexit by 31 October.

    And note even allowing for failing to update the page, they have 6 out of 7 stories being clearly anti-Brexit.

    Biased, useless, not fit for purpose.

    1. Here's the link as of now:

  56. Heard the end of a Jenny Hill report on Today, today. She seemed to promoting a Fake News conspiracy theory - a German academic I think it was, suggesting that Boris Johnson is secretly working to keep the UK in the EU...not just implement May's deal note, but keep the UK in the EU.

    Would any other European correspondent for a major (trusted!) news organisation waste time on such a bonkers conspiracy theory?

    Jenny ("Wilkommen to Germany" Hill is one of the worst correspondents the BBC has and that is saying something.

    1. The BBC thought it would be enough to undermine Boris Johnson by showing lots of black and white photos of his time at Eton - assuming the electorate would call out privilege, silver spoon etc. This backfired when it was revealed that he had been awarded a Kings Scholarship on merit. He won his place there and yes, it's a good training ground for politicians - suck it up BBC. Boris's team's clever move was to allow Stanley to tell the story of Eton and of Boris's childhood deafness on the One Show. He (SJ) came across as personable, reasonable, articulate and good humoured. He had already established a rapport with the wider public from his time in the jungle and appearances on quiz shows etc. The positive 'like father like son' angle was missed by the destructive BBC editors - but they won't get that particular genie back in the bottle.

    2. Yes, the people are much more intelligent that the BBC think.They understand a lot of thick people get undeserved help in life through private education and connections, but that equally the private education system does pump out some very able people like JRM, Boris and others. BBC presenters and reporters never admit to their private education - they keep that well hidden, but probably something like 40% are products of private education...

      The BBC pursues the mad policy of "equality of outcome" driven by sub-Marxist ideology, PC globalism and minority groups on the make. The people at large know "life isn't fair" and that you are in any case never going to achieve strict equality of outcome...not least because some people are absolutely lazy bs who won't put themselves out for anything or who will fritter away their money uselessly on drugs, gambling, drink, partying and racking up debt.

      The people look primarily for competence, vision and fairness in the politicians they elect to lead them. I think Boris may display all three qualities beyond minimum competence.

  57. On the BBC News channel on the Business News, I saw the exchange rate between £ and Euro as:

    1 Euro equals 0.89 £.

    When did this change - so that the Euro became the standard to which our currency is measured? Anyone in this country whether in business or planning a holiday would wish to know how valuable their £ is against the Euro, not vice versa.

  58. Nick Bryant tonight on the main news describing Trump and Boris. It was an outrageous report.

    The billionaire populist and the Eton populist.

    1. As opposed to the Aussie Poseur.

    2. Smear & dismiss labels
      ..isn't "oh Jeremy Corbyn" a popularists ?
      (declared assets £4,5m)
      ..and all the race-baiters popularists to their demographics
      ..and Greta a popularist ?

    3. Diane Abbott sent her child to a private school because he didn't like (probably quite rightly, mate) the state school. That must make her a Privileged Populist.

      David Dimbleby liked to pose as a populist but he was a member of the Bullingdon Club and sent his sons, if not his daughters, to Eton.

      Then there is Adrian Chiles...he's a "Pretend Populist" albeit with a real drink problem as he admitted.

      Greta would be a populist but populists have to be real people and she is just a twitter account managed by a large team of Marxo-pseudo-Greens. Saying "Is that OK?" doesn't make it Greta's account.

  59. Listening to Any Questions on Radio 4 - which has turned into a day out at the zoo with the crazy hooting and stamping of feet, a cross between the gibbons and the gorilla enclosure (I like apes by the way - apologies to them for comparing them to Remainers) - I started wondering...

    Would it be best if the Conservatives just put in place a total ban on appearances on BBC programmes, citing the BBC's outlandish bias?

    It would be embarrassing for the BBC. It would cause an almighty row. Labour would criticise the Conservatives accusing them of trying to control BBC output...that would keep it in the public eye.

    I wonder what the effect would be? If the effect was neutral well all well and good, likewise if possible. A negative effect would still be embarrassing for the BBC.

    Alternatively, Ministers could collectively agree to call out BBC bias, citing a small selection of proven cases of bias...and just make repeated references to these.

    There was an example on AQ when the Chairman - Sean Ley - literally told Geoffery Cox "You can't say that..." Cox was making a political point that he had made previously...It was outrageous of the Chairman to intervene. When has the Chairman of AQ ever intervened to stop a Labour politician making the same point repeatedly e.g. the Tory threat to the NHS?

    I think however that Boris is doing a good job with the non-stop pace...something he's learned from Trump.

    It's a great strategy: every day come out with a new policy proposal, or do something, or criticise something, make some provocative statement...the lib-left mob find it difficult to keep up. They get sucked in and they get riled with the President/PM and that shows in their reporting, making them appear even more biased to the general public.

  60. A confused report from the BBC:

    But not in line with the idea that the migrants are all potential doctors, engineers and star footballers...

  61. For those interested in US affairs...

    Seems like Bob Mueller has dementia! And he didn't write the "Mueller" report...


    Been helping my Great Nephew look for a flat in London...

    I can report it's an eye-opener. The London housing crisis is far worse than anyone is many families living with children in extremely cramped accommodation designed for singles or couples.

    Many of the once neat little housing developments from the 1980s - high density housing with tiny gardens that allowed people to get a little starter family home - once neat little estates now looking like near slums as they are all rented out and the landlords have no interest in their external appearance.

    It's so sad how the post war dreams of a happy

    No one is documenting the decline of these little "home ownership" estates (often one or several cul de sacs). Why? Because the decline is a direct result of continuing, unprecedented mass immigration.

  63. Meant to complete that sentence:

    "It's so sad how the post war dreams of a happy...future where people could bring up families in decent accommodation have come to nothing."

    1. ... 'the post war dreams' ... of adequate housing in London and elsewhere have been subject to a rude awakening when the demand overwhelmingly exceeds the available supply. The European Modern Movement imported to the UK in the inter war period had its origins in socialist ideas of equality, where 'nothing was too good for the ordinary people'. I never understood why these socialist tenets brought to this country by the likes of Gropius, Chermayeff, Breuer and the like were so easily abandoned as they moved en-masse on to the USA.

      And now, architects after a brief flirtation with socialist principles in the 1960s, have become central to the elitism that has brought us to the state we're in. London architects, mercenary to the point that they will not take on anything but high profile, high value work, have let down the everyman as the housing sector has been thrown open to ruthless landlords, buy-to-let, and self-serving home owners with sufficient wealth to operate in this skewed system.

      John Betjeman summed up he Englishness of London housing in his Metroland film. What a distant memory that has become. These are the reasons that Sajid Kahn's efforts to build substantial numbers of affordable housing in London are doomed to failure. The market is controlled by landlord-developers, agents and financiers. Land availability is crucial to success, and yet in an overcrowded city, every pocket of land however small has a high value, which would increase with the prospect of planning permission. Compulsory purchase would meet with stubborn resistance from land owners - leading to legal proceedings - pushing even more money into the pockets of the elite.

    2. ... pushing even more money into the pockets of the elite ...

      Public money of course!

    3. The Modernists - the champagne socialists - have now become the elite, vociferously keeping their principles of equality in the face of privilege etc, whilst living the lie.

  64. Thinking about this last week - well really only a few days - how the mood has changed!

    Boris is reconnecting people to politics. Not sure how the BBC covered it but ITV (despite being just as Remainiac as BBC) were fair in describing Boris's electoral appeal. They were interviewing people who had NEVER voted but said they would vote for Boris. It may still be a struggle to get them to the polling booths on the day but that is a pretty dramatic effect.

    The UK's problems are of course much, much bigger than how to do Brexit and it is still open to question how far Boris may be capable of addressing those issues but as far as Brexit goes, this week he has hardly put a foot wrong and at the same time he has sent out all sorts of chaff to confuse the hostile media - brilliant! I am loving it!!

    And I think re the issue of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, as I have stated that is part and parcel of a power struggle. The only way forward is to defeat Corbynism. The soggy left in the Labour Party - the pathetic Starmer-Creasy-Cooper gang - can't stop it. But Boris can - by inflicting an all time record defeat on Labour.

    We need to think about the Brexit Party. Will Farage be prepared to stand aside and give Boris a clean run? It's looking less and less like Boris needs Farage but we will see.

    The left-lib-PC-media-mob have been winded, and are sitting on the ropes after the last few days but eventually they will get their act together and find ways to weaken Boris...

    It's going to be a fascinating few weeks!!!

    The guy is doing great. He just needs to keep on course. If the EU buckle, great, if not then plough on and deliver Brexit on No Deal.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.