...and any other matters that take our fancy
Not BBC but MSM related.Boris has got the entire liberal MSM in such a quandary that they are collectively having something of a breakdown. Sam Coates of Sky said this afternoon, “I also asked Boris Johnson whether his attack on pessimists wasn’t actually an attack on free speech. He appeared startled and said no.”In the topsy-turvy world of metro-liberals, free speech means the left can launch vicious attacks at will but when the right do so, it’s an attack on free speech.
Very true!I've noticed the collective nervous breakdown - the twitter accounts seem to have fallen strangely silent...or at least are no longer so buoyantly convinced Brexit can be stopped. I expect they are all looking to the Guardian to tell them how to destroy the Boris Ogre with his armour of optimism, his money lance and his trusty steed - 17.4 million leave voters (the dead Leavers are being replaced ,don't worry).
Gosh! Why wouldn't he appear startled? It wouldn't occur to Mr Smug to ask himself whether his own question was not an attempted attack on free speech.
BBC Two this evening, "A Fresh Guide to Florence with..Fab 5 Freddy.Not quite sure if it is comedy or not.
Bungling, bumbling, blather-mouthed bullshitter Boris (as the BBC's Mash Report might put it) has increased the Conservative vote in opinion polls by between 6% and 10%...in three days and is 21% ahead of Corbyn as "best PM". Yep, that's why the BBC and their MSM chums have been so desperate to keep him away from the top job.
Taking a relative to the airport today (sorry Greta) so heard a bit of early morning Radios 4 and 5. Actually Sunday was so achingly PC that I couldn't take more than a couple of minutes at a time. Anyway there was a good deal of bias about this morning including referencing the ERG as "extreme Brexiters"...hmmm...have we ever heard the phrase "extreme Remainers" applied to people like Jo Swinson, who wants a second referendum but will only accept the result if we decide to Remain, otherwise she will still vote against Brexit - that's pretty extreme isn't it?
Oh yeah, another one I heard was a reference to Boris Johnson "infamous article" about Burkas and letterboxes. Infamous? To whom? Most British people would support it as they think Burkas are comical or sinister but they don't wish to ban people's choice of clothing. So it's just a subjective viewpoint smuggled in as fact. May I suggest a new word for the BBC to use if they really want to be impartial in such matters (they don't of course)..."contested"...,much better than controversial or infamous. It recognises that there isn't agreement over how to interpret something.
Reasons for Boris's popularity remain a conundrum to the BBC groupthink editors. Long may that continue, because despite their unrelenting assault upon his character (along very similar lines to their assaults upon Donald Trump), Boris prevails.
G on Biased BBC has an interesting post:"By chance, I listened to Moral Maze on R4 yesterday evening. Subject? – Anti Semitism. Panel included Mona Sadiqi from some Scottish Uni and a woman whose name I forget. I think she is some sort of editor in the UK MSM. Having lived and worked in the Middle East, I thought this would be a very interesting debate as, certainly, my knowledge and personal experience affirms the reality of islamic utter revulsion of Israel and it’s people. They have their own expression, simply, “Death to Israel”. Tells you all you want to know.Very quickly any objective listener to the programme had to realise that any involvement or reference to islam in this debate had been categorised as banned. Only one interviewee, a UK Bishop, made any reference to islam – and that was tangentially in support but his references were not in the context of the subject matter!Needless to say, the, “Panel” stayed on que with zero meaningful references to islam – the main underlying motivation Worldwide in anti-semitism.How on earth the BBC can promote this style of pseudo, ‘cultural’ debate anymore without any reference to the, RoP beats me. That’s the depth of fiction they now stoop to to support their favoured cult."Sounds reminiscent of that hour long Newsnight special on the housing crisis during which there wasn't a single mention of mass immigration as a potential cause of the crisis.
I listened to it. They had Melanie Phillips on, along with Matthew Taylor and the man from The Telegraph, I think he's called Tim Stanley.
How does the BBC see its task after the "deluge" of Boris...? I think they are taking stock...still a little shaken but they know what they have to do...they look up at the great new edifice of Borisopolis and they are examining it for cracks...places where they can get a chisel in and start tapping away, until they can get a pneumatic drill in and, eventually, a few sticks of dynamite...So they are starting with "Brexit break-up of the UK"...it has lots of potential, not least for setting Scottish Conservatives against English one, England against Scotland, exacerbating tensions in Northern Ireland, destroying the Conservative-DUP majority and providing cues for legal actions to stop Brexit. Expect them to keep working away on this crack.
Yes. The Union is a good one.I think other cracks to be opened wider- Boris’s relationship with POTUS- further downsides with no-deal - Islamophobia- rich vs poor- identity politics- populism- ‘far right’ label- immigration- honesty and trust- policy delivery vs promises- the free speech defence- diminished world influence
I agree, they will be working on all these.However, Project Fear has been done to death though...they may realise they have entered the area of the law of diminishing returns. A real no deal exit is so close now, they have to deal more with the reality...which will be that there will be no shortage of drugs, food etc. Islamophobia has definitely been pencilled in by the wider MSM. Sophie Ridge was going at it hard in her interview with the impressively unflappable Rishi Sunak. They will looking for any POTUS tweets that can place strain on the Trump-Boris love-in. I think Johnson has armour plated himself on immigration (in relation to PC ideology) for the moment.
Watching the main news tonight you can already see the one of the tactics.First, a straightforward unbiased report saying the government is full steam ahead with no deal planning and mentioning Gove's Times article. Second, Nicola Sturgeon given a free rein to attack no-deal as a government policy.Third, a report saying Ruth Davidson won't support no-dealFinally, an opinion piece by a reporter questioning the wisdom of no deal.Score 3-1 to WA/remainers. That's how the BBC think they can construct 'both sides' reporting to their advantage.Some fall for it, I suspect the majority of viewers see straight through it.
Yep - standing operating procedure!! Another day at the media coalface, hauling coal for the PC globalist alliance. If you take a step back, you see the oddities. We have, on a regular basis, Mark Easton and the BBC in general lecturing us about the dangers of nationalism...and yet, when it comes to the SNP, the "dangers of nationalism" are completely set to one side. It's all narrative, narrative, narrative: no analysis, no consistency, no philosophy, no understanding.
Emma Barnett was chip-chip-chipping away at the "Brexit Break-up of the Union" crack with relentless diligence. This extended to the old trick of reading out texts and emails designed to deepen concern: anti-Brexit messages painted a depressing picture of our future as society collapses in on itself in an Armageddon-style scenario, "neutral" messages help to feed anxiety "I am worried that..." and the pro-Brexit messages chosen are offensive about the Scots or absurdly patriotic in an out-of-date way. It's ostensibly "balanced" but the overall effect is negative and anxiety-inducing about Brexit.Brexiters need to keep in mind several things that Emma B won't highlight:1. There is zero chance of Scotland leaving the Union before 31 October. So if Boris is true to his word, we will Brexit BEFORE there is any chance of Scotland exiting the UK. 2. If Scotland is then to pursue independence from the UK and also revived membership of the EU, it will face a number of hurdles. The EU stated clearly last time that there is no guarantee of readmission. Spain might certainly wish to slow down the process because of Catalonia. It would have to join the Euro, Schengen, possibly the European Defence Union and also return its fisheries. I is likely that Scotland would face, at a minimum, a period as a small independent nation outside the EU. Something the SNP implicitly accepts as a disastrous option (given its anti-Brexit propaganda). Put it altogether and I don't think the disdain of many Scots for the English would be enough to swing it for a second independence vote. 3. Boris has already taken a lead in Wales in the polls. Wales is really a pro-Brexit nation. 4. There are mechanisms under the Good Friday Agreement for future referenda on NI border IIRC. The GFA is sacrosanct, as we keep being told, so the idea of accelerating a move to all Ireland re-union is of course ruled out. That said if Northern Ireland ever did peacably reunite with the South, then the rest of the UK would probably heave a sigh of relief. It certainly would improve our financial balance.
BBC has learnt a lot from David Lammy and is now race-baiting to a Lammy-like standard around the clock from the Food Programme to regional news to CBeebies. Take this little statement:"Joycelyn Mate says she struggled to raise funding for her afro haircare company Afrocenchix, despite female-led businesses contributing more than £70bn to the UK economy."I could equally say:"Mr Brains says he has struggled to raise funding for his toenail trimming company Toes R Us, despite male-led businesses contributing more than £1700bn to the UK economy."Makes as much sense. Are the BBC really expecting us to believe banks and other financial institutions directly discriminate against people with dark skins purely on the basis of pigmentation even though, if they were less prejudiced, they could make huge amounts lending money to successful companies? Because that is what this narrative implies. I for one don't believe it. This is just Fake "Race-Bait" News.
BBC and MSM trying to talk down the Boris Bounce in the polls...May got a bigger bounce it is said (true? comparable figures??). This Boris Bounce was achieved within two days and it is a bounce achieved in what are very difficult circumstances - no majority, hostile media, years of mockery from news and "comedy" shows...Of course none of us know the future but my gut instinct is that there is a lot of potential for Boris to grow the Conservative vote as long as he is not tempted to re-sell May's Abject Surrender as his new deal. I doubt he will because the strongly principled ERG members (somewhere between 20 and 40) have made clear they will vote against it.
By "strongly principled" I take it you mean "far right" or "extreme eurosceptic"?
A little while back, we heard a lot about the "cliff edge" of Brexit. We're hearing less now because we are so close to Brexit and the cliff edge nonsense is no longer credible. But I wanted to say we are far, far closer to a real cliff edge...the PC Cliff Edge.If we follow the path the BBC wants us to take, it's going to be a huge and most likely fatal drop as far as our culture, our British culture is concerned. Essentially the BBC want us to abandon our birthright, our cultural inheritance, and follow them into some delusional diversity future where we are going to achieve complete "equality of outcome" (of what? all individuals? or categories of people? class? races? religions? gender? sexual preference?). Going over the PC cliff edge will end very, very badly but the BBC is urging is on and on, faster and faster - don't look, just leap...And how many of our elected Members of Parliament are opposing this lemming rush to the cliff edge? Er - can't think of one actually. Can't think of a single MP who has come out and said: "Equality of outcome is a dangerous and delusion political objective." (May put it at the heart of her government.) Can't think of one who has said: "Free speech is the very fundamental building block of democracy. If people become afraid to say what they think, then you are paving the way to a totalitarian society." Can't think of single one who has said: "Antifa-Far Left is a dangerous political movement that aims to stop people voicing legitimate grievances by use or threat of violence."
A lovely moment on Radio 4's Today. The interviewer (Mishal Husain?) was interviewing Amol Rajan and a young man whose name I didn't catch. Amol was doing his schtick, arguing that the elite are preventing working class people (from ethnic minorities especially it would seem) succeeding in their strongholds like the City. The young man (who sounded more like a boy really despite the fact he was now working to acquire a Masters degree after having got a first in economics but having failed to develop a career in the City) sounded very pleasant. Much was made of him having been a kick boxing champion a while back...He admitted he had personal failings which had made it difficult for him to move on to a bright City career. The interviewer asks the lad the money shot question: "Do you think you have to change or does the City have to change?" He answers that he has to learn to be less anxious, or something like that, but Amol is straight in with "No, the City has to change!" Then he intervenes to ask the young lad if he feels more confident now knowing there is an Asian Chancellor of the Exchequer/..I switched off at that point, but it rather undermined the Amol wanted us to "take home" since clearly nothing had stopped that Pakistani bus driver's son from succeeding in the City. This really does sum up two things:1. BBC presenters and reporters are pushing the "equality of outcome" narrative as though inequalities of outcome prove there is an unjust system. The idea that there might be other factors at play (cultural, family structure, drugs influence within communities and so on) is verboten. The idea that inequalities of outcome will always arise but they might have multifactorial causes is also ignored. 2. Despite everything Fran Unsworth says about impartiality it is clear that Amol Rajan is a political player (hardly surprising for an ex national newspaper editor, albeit one who ran his paper into the ground) and one who is committed to the controversial sub-Marxist "equality of outcome" ideology ie the unsupported belief that equality of outcome between individuals or groups must and can be achieved through education, state funding, expropriation and cultural policing. Why is Amol Rajan, a BBC news reporter, allowed to parade his personal political views and, moreover, present them to the public as objectively true or morally superior? The "equality of outcome" ideology has led to great misery in places like Russia, Cambodia and China when people have made serious efforts to implement it as policy.
I heard that interview too. What struck me (again) is that both the BBC and The Guardian have decided that there is a problem with class in the U.K, and that the new working class is represented by the black and the brown. These people must be lifted aloft, doncha know. They have so much to offer. The middle class chatterati are really grinding my gears at the moment.
And yet they don't address the fact that people from Indian and Chinese backgrounds do better than white Britons...So this is a very odd racism that seems to actually promote some non-white communities. I think the "equality of outcome" dogma is one of the most dangerous things the BBC is promoting at the moment - it creates envy and resentment, it is corrosive of society.
Tragic story emerging from the USA that a gunman has killed several people at a garlic festival in California.Four paragraphs in, the BBC include an eye-witness report that the gunman was a "white man in his early to mid-30s".Bit surprising, given their usual reticence to keep the racial identity of the perpetrator out of the breaking story, in the interests of social cohesion of course. But we can all breathe a sigh of relief that this latest madman was white.
We haven't had much "mass shooting" hysteria from the BBC recently, could be time for a revival (note to BBC: why not let Americans sort it out themselves - do you tell South Africa how to deal with their gun crime?). But they are a bit busy with their anti-Brexit propaganda.
Perhaps he was a vampire feeling a bit cheesed off.
Look at that last sentence...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49130447Amazing how incurious BBC journalists are...when it comes to some issues. In this case the issue is how the Republic of Ireland will respond to a no deal scenario. The BBC notes that they have said movements across the border will require extra checks, but that's all. It's obvious from discussions in the Dail and statements from the EU, that there will be no hard border infrastructure. The Irish government are just trying to avoid putting it in an official document. But the £5 billion BBC cannot be bothered to investigate and discover the truth.
MB It's interesting,too, to learn that, whatever the Dáil may be saying, Irish voices are being raised against the sacred backstop! See today's Guido - 'Varadkar's Brexit Bluster Losing Support.' (Down 17%) It seems they're afraid that our no-deal exit would trash their economy - should have thought of that before, shouldn't they?
Yes Sis, I read that too this evening...that is very interesting. I've no doubt that the EU have overplayed their hand. Varadkar has gone along with it because he is a creature of the EU. I am sure true Irish nationalists would have pushed for a more reasonable settlement instead of encouraging May to sign an Abject Surredner deal...even old de Valera made an accommodation with the UK, despite our occupation of Irish soil, as he saw it. I look at the Irish Times occasionally and I am struck at how constrained the "debate" is about the deal. I get the impression that the Irish media, even more than the UK media, is dominated by the pro-EU mindset and open debate is suppressed.
Laura Kuenssberg today:"And there is an absolute awareness in Number 10 that the chances of [a no-deal Brexit] are not to be, as he claimed, "a million to one", but pretty small - they might, perhaps, be more accurately described as one in a million."Thanks, Laura, that was a difference worth pointing out.
Is she having a nervous breakdown? Some of her tweets are quite odd these days. In any case since when has the phrase "a million to one" been subjected to such forensic demands for exactitude. I take it to mean "extremely unlikely" or "a vanishingly small chance" - I don't take the figure literally as virtually every MSM journo has.
MB -Nervous breakdown? - could be that sustaining three years' worth of Remainiac hysteria has blown a few fuses! I think the Maitlis's wiring is similarly imperilled - reckon she had a nasty carpeting after her Boris interview, which was so blatantly biased that even his detractors were taken aback. Beeb Bigwig: "For heaven's sake woman what did you think you were playing at? You're supposed to destroy the Leavers by a steady drip-feed of subtle propaganda, not let fly with both barrels loaded for bear!etc
Do the PC Globalist MSM journos all get an e mail from Soros-Blair central telling them what to say each day? I've noticed today several of them are now parroting that a "no deal" exit will still mean a deal is necessary...we will still have to go to the EU to negotiate a free trade deal and that will mean we are back to square one. So the Remainiacs have abandoned the "cliff edge" metaphor - suddenly. No, it's not a cliff edge, it's just another hard hill to climb! Well yes, sensible Leavers know there will be negotiations in the future. But of course we will be negotiating from a much strong position.
Quite right. Get out first, and any "deal" (i.e. trade deal, not surrender treaty) can come later. Why doesn't everybody see this?
Horrific call for mass murder by Hamas:Very good piece from Sky News Australia which doesn't seem to be anything like our Sky News:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPkR9mWGre4A Hamas leader calls for mass murder, a second worldwide Holocaust. Hamas stands for Islamic Resistance Organisation. So it is an Islamic organisation. I know of no Islamic cleric in Gaza who has accused it of misrepresenting Islam. Certainly hundreds of Islamic clerics do support it.Odd that, isn't it? One for Sajid Javid to work out since according to him Islam cannot be extremist. I hope Boris and co. will ask Corbyn if he still supports Hamas as a "friend".
Leading Anti-Democrat, Jess Phillips - "Rigged Rerun of Referendum" proponent - interviewed on Sky News. Some good questions but she should have been asked the Swinson Question...will she still vote for Brexit in Parliament if people vote for Brexit in a second referendum. Phillips says she will accept the result of the second referendum...but what does that mean? She "accepted" the result of the first referendum. In fact she stood on a manifesto in 2017 that committed her to implementing the result.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I removed it because I spelt Phillips as Phillops. Here it is again:I see Jess Phillips, by what mental contortions I cannot imagine, blames far right islamophobes for the anti-gay demonstrations outside schools in Birmingham and Nottingham.
The BBC tells us in their "simple guide to Brexit" - just updated - that:QUOTE: "No deal" means the UK will have failed to agree a withdrawal agreement. UNQUOTEhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46318565Er no, "No deal" means the EU and the UK will have failed to agree a withdrawal agreement." A Withdrawal Agreement is between the leaving Member State and the EU. It is not something that the UK has to agree.
Or more impartially "the EU and UK will not have agreed a withdrawal agreement"
According to Jon Sopel evil Trumpians "seize on" stupid things that Marxo-Democrats say (e.g. the insane, Merkel-like idea of decriminalising illegal border crossings). You see what he did there? They don't "highlight" or "focus on" - no, they do that nasty thing, "seizing". Sopel, you're biased up to your eyeballs!
Sorry - here's the link:https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1156367068054339589
And while we are talking of loaded words...did you know that the DUP don't "support" the Conservative Government through the confidence and supply arrangement. No siree...they "prop them up" as Emma Barnett, the impartial, free and fair BBC presenter likes to put it. But of course as far as Emma is concerned, the unions don't "prop up" Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party - heaven forfend such an idea!!!
MB, it's not just Emma! I'm sure I commented a year ago the the BBC's full official name for the DUP is "theDUPwhopropupthettorygovernment"
That rings a bell Ozfan - maybe it's in their official "style guide".
Nick Robinson drapes himself in the blue and gold and sings a bogus lament (Ten Things That Stopped Brexit):https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49008826Still up there, embarrassingly for him after 13 days. I would dispute virtually every line and note a hundred deliberate omissions and elisions. But here are a few comments:1. Cameron lied to the British people saying he would stay on to deliver Brexit if that was what people wanted. This lie - very relevant to Robinson's ostensible subject - was not mentioned by Robinson. 2. It is wrong to take "concern" about the Irish border "issue" as being the motivation to create the backstop. It wasn't an issue. The UK government has always made absolutely clear it has no intention to impose a hard border. It was a negotiating ploy - a very successful one because the EU were up against a negotiator on the other side - May - who didn't really want what she claimed she did. Please note Robinson includes this fantastical nonsense:"The argument went that a post-Brexit Britain might do a trade deal with Donald Trump's US and could agree to allow the import of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated meat. Without a border, those banned goods could move from north to south and into the EU, undercutting European food standards and representing cheap and unfair competition to their farmers." I mean - how hard would it be for the EU to trace back chlorinated chicken to a particular supplier and then fine the arse off them? 3. Robinson perpetuates the myth that you can leave the EU and stay in the Single Market. You cannot. Norway is not in the Single Market. It is a member of the EEA through its EFTA membership. An entirely different matter. 4. "Negotiations would take place not with representatives of every country but with a team led by one man - a suave silver-haired Frenchman called Michel Barnier." That was obvious from Article 50 - there was never any doubt about that. In any case, we all know it is the Franco-German alliance that sets policy. Robinson doesn't like to admit that. 5. Robinson overlooks May's duplicity: letting the country believe Davis was negotiating when it was her, going behind his back. 6. Virtually everyone he quotes was either a Remainer or an EU official/politician. Biased? Moi? Quelle horreur. 7. No mention of the media's relentless promotion of Project Fear Mark II and Second Referendum Propaganda.
'Chlorinated chicken' - Hmm: How about "Salmonella & Campylobacter-free chicken"? Or life-endangering infected chicken for the stuff we produce in the UK?
Makes me laugh - many an early morning 10- lengths-of-the-pool vegan swimmer will get more chlorine in one session than in a lifetime of eating chlorinated chicken. Maybe I should see if I could get Greta Thurnberg to support dechlorinated swimming pools. I guess she'll have to run it past her "team".
H/T Guest Who on Biased BBC:https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1156610141103579136Emily gives proof positive that she is not the impartial journalist she pretends to be and that rather than adoptiong a neutral and objective approach to Brexit she believes Brexit will imperil meeting our basic needs: food, water, medicines and so on, so there will be mass starvation, no water in our taps and people dying from lack of medicines. Very impartial. So yes, she is fully signed up to Project Fear II. And, in any case, if she is so concerned about "risk" - doesn't she think there are any risks associated with the EU? For instance being trapped in a dysfunctional superstate with its own army? I have never heard her once mention any risk associated with being in the EU. Had enough of Emily? Not yet! Here she is getting the big leg up from the BBC. 9 Things You Didn't About Emily.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4j1WbtCtC0ZB2R2lF161JqD/9-things-we-learned-from-a-one-to-one-with-emily-maitlis?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=radio_and_music&ns_campaign=bbc_radio_4&ns_mchannel=socialI certainly didn't know no. 6: "She won't take the moral high ground." - bloody 'ell, could have fooled me!
Newsnight tonight had a focus on the Pro LGBT lobby v Islamofascist Antigay Alliance. Well what a surprise, on this occasion, Newsnight's bias was in favour of LGBT. I have no particular dog in this fight, and I think I can say impartially that the BBC were not being impartial. They were using all the usual techniques to promote the LGBT proponents as victims deserving of sympathy and respect, while painting their opponents as sinister, shadowy and regressive. The fact I have more sympathy with the LGBT activists than the Islamic activists does not blind me to the bias techniques being used to favour one side...it was the classic:- People you don't like get interviewed in the streets. - People you do like get interviewed in a cosy, authoritative studio with nice lighting. - Protestors you like are portrayed as friendly, open and welcoming. - Protestors you don't like are presented as aggressive, sinister or otherwise unlikeable. Then of course there was the "thin end of the wedge" thing. Clearly the Islamic protestors are frightened that however relatively innocuous (from their point of view) this educational input is, it will just be the beginning of a much thicker wedge (and indeed, there will be compulsory, non-optional, sex-education for all 16 + pupils coming in shortly under new legislation). So Newsnight completely ignore that aspect and focus purely on the "thin" end of the wedge - the nice "relationship" education. But even there the Headteacher showed herself to be anti-Islamic, talking about "all sorts of families"..."one mum, two mums or two dads"...But not the Sharia-approved "one dad and two, three or four mums". Anyway, if it wasn't for the fact we are actually living here and through this, this would be a marvellously entertaining case study in sociology. I still maintain as I did at the outset that this will end in a big riot and victory for the Islamic contingent. Once the thing about compulsory gay sex education for 16+ comes in that will probably prove the catalyst. I also predict that as soon as the Islamic community riot the government will back down.
We had another very disgusting spectacle on Newsnight tonight. A suave spokesman for terrorism was trying to influence the public to support his political position, even though it went against democracy...he threatened if we didn't do what he and his shadowy group wanted there would be a horrendous violence in Northern Ireland and on the mainland...It was quite frightening I must admit. :(I refer of course to Jonathan "Provo" Powell a leading member of the extremist "Blairite EU Liberation Front".
The BBC and the rest of the MSM have been pushing the (not very extensive) floods in the Yorkshire Dales as evidence of recent climate change. I'm not disputing the climate is changing - it always is and maybe it is warming up significantly. But floods? Here's a list in Wikipedia of natural disasters in the UK and you'll see that we have had many floods down the years, including the "Great Flood" of 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_the_British_Isles
Always has, still is, and always will. If any of the climate rebellion kiddies read this, they might like to chew on this one: the glaciers of Greenland are, indeed, receding and, as they do, they are revealing the foundations of Viking settlements. Yes, children, it's happened before and the Vikings didn't go and settle it because it was a freezing sterile wasteland, they went there because it was green and fertile. This is why they called it 'Greenland! Had it been white, they would presumably have called it 'Whiteland'!
Had the Advertising Standards Authority been around they might have had something to say about describing an island that was 99% white as green, but I take your point!
Dishonest Reality Check from the Liars at the BBC:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49165836This started off because Mishal Husain on Radio 4 sceptically queried whether Remain campaigners had addressed "No Deal" Brexit during the campaign. Raab said they had. The BBC researches the matter and finds they did - both Raab and Gove. BUT - because they are dishonest liars, they don't admit that Husain's scepticism was misplaced and they present the facts as though Raab was in the wrong. The issue of a No Deal exit was constantly raised by the Remain debaters so it was wrong to imply, as Husain was trying to do, that voters would be unaware of this issue during the Referendum campaign. In this report (link below) it can be see that Ruth Davidson says the EU will impose tariffs and taxes if we leave. Johnson retorted that Germany would be "insane" to agree to that - he didn't say it was impossible, just that they would be insane to do that. It appears they might be that insane...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36582567Clearly the Leave campaign were not focussing on the possibility of a No Deal exit - that wasn't how they were going to win votes, anymore than Remain were owning up to the European Defence Union plans - but the issue was fully aired during the campaign and people voted on that basis. The BBC is trying to rewrite the historical record.
I wonder how many times ‘no-deal Brexit’ gets mentioned by the BBC in a single day. I lost count very quickly as it dominates every bulletin at present.
On all channels and outlets? Must be about 10,000 times per day or 3.5 million per annum! lolYes the misleading "No Deal" label. At least the Remainers have had to drop the cliff edge analogy because it can easily be proven it isn't a cliff edge. Firstly we can trade on WTO terms. Secondly the EU had already put in place, as has the UK, plenty of measures including allowing short stay visa free travel and arrangements to ensure air travel is not affected (although the "air scare" was one of the aspects of Project Fear touted by Remainiacs a few months ago).https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8547Thirdly, we have stated we will not put a hard border in place in N Ireland and all indications are (though they are trying to avoid saying it) that the Republic and EU won't install a hard border either. So that issue will evaoporate. Fourthly, any disruption at Dover and Calais will be shortlived. If disruption were to continue then in a free market operators will seek other routes into and out of the UK. We have plenty of ports that can be expanded.
There have been at least three explosions today in central Bangkok. As far as I can tell, this story has not been covered by the BBC, although the Telegraph, Mirror and Express have it. Could it be that the Beeb is hoping to 'lose' the story, in case it turns out that the usual culprits are involved?
Probably. Even if they report it, the perpetrators now are described as attackers. Religion and motive is never discussed if the usual culprits are involved.
Sky News have covered the story...
BBC were doing their usual annoying thing this morning on Radio 5 Live of presenting pro-EU, EU-funded bodies as objective academic institutions. Nicky Campbell was interviewing Simon Usherwood of "UK in a Changing Europe". As can be seen from this page, it's a highly politicised organisation publishing thought pieces that are subjective, very similar to the sort of thing a broadsheet newspaper would produce:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/analysis-2/They have received funding from the EU. The person speaking to Nicky Campbell today, Simon Usherwood on behalf of UKinaCW, is also Treasurer of UACES (an association of academics involved in European Studies) which receives EU funding.He produces a podcast, "The Brexit Club"...presumably on the time we pay him for (through our subsidising of his University and his pay). https://www.surrey.ac.uk/centre-research-european-matrixAgain, this is highly politicised. Apparently it's the poor old EU waiting on a "sign" from the UK about whether they are going to come up with any constructive suggestions...So it seems we have to do the signing in this impasse - the EU of course are not required to give any ground at all...they have the usual BBC-style free pass. Usherwood's twitter timeline is very politicised. In this thread he is banging the drum for an early General Election. Well we can all have a view on that. My view is it could be a trap. Maybe that's how Usherwood really sees it. Much better to wait to establish EU intransigence. BTW, one of the "experts" in the "UK in a Changing Europe" is Jonathan Portes, one of the key propagandists for mass immigration over the last couple of decades - he was one of the advisors involved in the disastrous decision to allow early free migration from Eastern Europe.
Climate Alarmism Fake News is becoming a serious problem. We can no longer trust our main broadcasters. I heard ITV News leading on this and referencing unprecedented glacier melt in Greenland. It sounded really serious and frightening, with billions of tonnes of water being lost to the oceans, producing a huge sea level rise. But is that all true? Here's a corrective (H/T Biased BBC):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7wrRmJ8n5wWhat happens though when this guy gets banned by You Tube for "climate denialism"? We are seeing the death of rational debate.
Seems like Thomas the Tank Engine is a Far Right fascist climate denier...Get him off our screens!!!https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1157580867210027008
A media giant in a foreign country is seeking to interfere in our Parliamentary process, using a pro-terrorist political movement as its tool...I am sure the BBC will be outraged:https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-can-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Ffintan-o-toole-ireland-can-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121Remember, this is the Republic - articles like this don't appear unless approved by Dublin.
Isn't Amol full of sh*t? I think we can see how he climbed the greasy pole...by being greasier than the pole. The lurv-in with Julie is quite sick-making. Julie won't have done her chances of clinging on to her well paid job as a now anomalously pigmented person by genuflecting to Amol either. Amol tells us Julie went to a "state school" and then somehow, against all odds, managed to make it to Cambridge and then on to her current "giddy heights" as Amol puts it (translation: looking well groomed, reading an autocue and nodding vigorously when ITN reporters do their "explainers"). Amol seems to be trying to make out Julie was from the wrong side of the tracks...The truth? Both her parents were teachers...I think we can assume she got some help with her homework! lol Bright* pupils going from state schools to Oxbridge and then into TV work is nothing new (especially for women)...I know of another example. She too was, like Julie, attractive...being pig-ugly would be a far greater barrier than skin colour, class or education. https://twitter.com/amolrajan/status/1157567379070758912* BTW is "bright" now a non-PC word? I suspect it probably is.
Excellent article by Douglas Murray in today's Telegraph: "Grief-stricken Remainers have poisoned our politics with their Brexit despair."
Sounds bang on the nail! The worrying thing is that even if we do Brexit they will continue to poison our national life with a co-ordinated attempt to sabotage the economy (e.g. induced panic-buying, disinvestment, and opposition to future trade deals), continued anti-Brexit propaganda and the beginnings of a campaign to rejoin the EU. Blair, Soros, Macron and all the rest are powerful players in the world. It certainly won't stop with a No Deal Brexit on 31st October.I believe before we get there we still have a legal challenge from Gina Miller to her Remainer mates in the Supreme Court. That could stop things in their tracks. Looking like it will be everything to play for in early September. The country is looking to Frank Field and Kate Hoey to stand by the people and vote against any No Confidence motion. Imagine if it was a tie - Bercow would no doubt overturn centuries of precedence and vote with the Remainer rabble.
OK, is the BBC Reality Check department an unbiased and impartial service that covers disputed statement across the political spectrum? https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5EauthorLet's look at the last ten tweets on their twitter feed referencing various "Reality Checks": 1. Analysing James Cleverly's statement about Free Ports. CONSERVATIVE TARGET2. Did Dominic Raab discuss No Deal Brexit during the Referendum campaign as he claims. CONSERVATIVE TARGET. 3. Welsh Secretary says in the event of No Deal Brexit farmers can sell lamb in Japan. CONSERVATIVE TARGET4. Joe Biden related. INDETERMINATE TARGET (but could seen as favouring more radical targets since it queries the success of previous front-runners)5. Irish preparations for Brexit. (RELATIVELY UNBIASED though a very incomplete analysis)6. Boris Johnson's claim about electric vehicle usage in the future. CONSERVATIVE TARGET7. Flagging of ships. RELATIVELY UNBIASED8. Looking at Boris Johnson's statement about hanging on to the money we "owe" the EU under the withdrawal agreement. CONSERVATIVE TARGET9. Boris Johnson's description of the Backstop as "anti-democratic". CONSERVATIVE TARGET10. Boris's statement about 99 days to achieve Brexit - analysing the obstacles ahead. CONSERVATIVE TARGETSo, from those 10 tweets it appears we have the following scores for Reality Check targets:70% Conservative30% Miscellaneous0% Labour0% Lib Dem0% Greens0% SNP or Plaid Cymru0% Northern Ireland partiesIs it only Conservative politicians who make disputed, controversial, ambiguous or evidence-free statements. What about Jo Swinson's statement that she would oppose Brexit even if people voted for it in a second referendum (she is arguing FOR a second referendum). What about David Lammy's crazy race-baiting statements? What about John McDonnell's support for political violence? What about Corbyn's opposition to fracking, which just coincidentally helps his long-time allies, the Iranian mullahs? The Greens want us to decarbonise within 6 years. What would that mean? Would the NHS collapse as a result? Would there be mass starvation? What about the SNP's contradictory statements on referenda, nationalism, and independence? Will they campaign to join the Eurozone and the Schengen agreement if reapplying to join the EU? What do thety really think about the links with the monarchy? Has Sinn Fein really cut links with political violence. Has the IRA disbanded or does it still exist? For some reason I can't quite fathom, the BBC has no interest in all these questions...I think we can safely conclude that BBC Reality Check's bias level is off the scale.
"All seems infected that the infected spy,As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye."Alexander Pope (1688-1744).
That Pope was real dope as Will.I.Am might say...:)
Gather The BBC will be running 10 programmes on The Peterlee Massacre including a commerative service. No doubt Ken Loach will be interviewed about this far right vile horror!
They must be in two minds though. Do they really want to remind the plebs about how the elite treat them if they think they can get away with it...? The Chartist demands were simply democratic - it was the Far Left who hijacked the Chartist cause 100 years later for their own purposes, to promote their bogus political theories. The six Chartist demands were:- votes for all men;- equal electoral districts;- abolition of the requirement that Members of Parliament be property owners;- payment for MPs;- the secret ballot; and - annual general elections.The first five have basically been met and/or extended. Only the last - annual general elections - has never been met. I think it is a very wise demand. It would prevent the phenomenon of electoral dictatorship and make manifesto lying pointless.
Be surprised if BBC Reality Check isn't straight on this one come Monday! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/03/dominic-cummings-tells-mps-missed-chance-stop-no-deal-brexit/Dominic Cummings claims game is up and MPs can't stop No Deal Brexit...even with a vote of no confidence in the government. Can't follow all his logic as he is behind a paywall but still...this will take the Boris Hate to new levels I predict. Dominic has chosen his moment well - all the Remainiac media are either out partying on cocaine or tucked up in bed after an organic whatnot. It's a Saturday!Great timing...will take the Forces of Remain some time to get their counter-attack together...I am thinking Gina Miller is the most dangerous weapon in the Remain locker...can just see her casting smokey looks in the direction of the Supreme Court judges (be they male or female)...This is fascinating stuff!
Yes, I hope he's right! Might have been better to keep it as a pleasant surprise though!
PS re: Telegraph pay wall, if you have a Kindle the Amazon edition costs £9.99 per month.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20190806In the sign in options you don't have to create a new account but rather you should be able to select Library login and sign in with your council library card
I buy the Sunday Telegraph so have read the article in full. Basically it's the Lib Dems hoist by their own petard - the rubbish 2011 Fixed Parliaments Act which they were so keen on. I think the basic elements are:1. Boris has to be adamantine in refusing to request an extension of A50 from the EU. I think we can simply take that for granted. 2. The Government refuses to co-operate with any A50 revocation Bill put forward by Remainiac MPs. Again, I think we can take that as given. 3. If there is a Vote of No Confidence, and the Government cannot overturn it within 14 days, the Government falls but that then leads into the statutory process resulting in a General Election and Boris will have a fair degree of latitude as to when that takes place...meanwhile we have left the EU. Parliament won't be sitting during the run up to the election...Apparently the Remainiac Speaker, Bercow, is in urgent talks with leading Remainiac MPs to see if there is some way they can circumvent these procedural realities. There is definitely a chance I would say of the EU accepting a resolution of Parliament asking for an A50 extension as a acceptable under A50...they will bend and bend the law. Nothing new there. But they might not wish to set that precedent as it could work the other way at some future date.
Listening to TWTW and as all too predictable they’ve immediately found someone “to draw a straight line” From the El Paso shooter to Trump. Also the BBC been very keen to stress s possible link to white nationalism , how unlike the Sri Lanka shootings When the aim in the aftermath was to muddy the waters with ridiculous talk about extreme Buddhism
Yep. Horrific shootings. But as you indicate dealt with very differently from other incidents. Thanks for the reminder of what lengths the BBC go to to cover up for their mates. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times written by Peter Conradi about the horrific series of crimes including murder (e.g. the pushing of the toddler in to the path of a train) committed by Merkel's migrants in Germany. The crimes have been so grisly that it is affecting political discussion of migration. Conradi specifically linked migrants to higher than average crime levels. I thought the article was unusually direct and honest. We never hear about that sort of thing from Jenny Hill or Katya Adler.
I'm also dismayed at the cynical political propaganda used by the BBC, wherein an horrific incident is used, straightaway, to attack their political opponent. I was also reminded that after the Christchurch shootings, Justin Webb on the next edition of Today connected the incident to Pres. Trump.This is political propaganda from our impartial State Broadcaster.
Sheer opportunism by the propagandists at the BBC, always swivelling the narrative towards their preferred targets. Time was when Toady presenters might think of making a link but would never present it as news. Now that they can quote the leftist cesspit that is The Guardian and reference social media, they have unlimited scope to construct the slanted "some people say..." arguments that are so prevalent nowadays.
Judging from the Guardian Opinions page, I think Boris and his pal Cummings are doing well in sowing confusion, panic and dejection among the lib-left ranks. The bien pensants are split between "Labour Alone", "Coalitionists" and "Anti-Corbyn Pro Lib Demmers", between those who minimise the threat from Boris and those who see it as real and potentially deadly. They are panicking about the possibility that there is no longer any constitutional means of stopping Brexit. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfreeThe BBC equivalents seem a bit down in the dumps as well. All good! I am still of the view that the greatest danger is likely to come from our old "friend" Gina Miller. Can she persuade the Supreme Court to prove that we live under a non-democratic judicial dictatorship? The damage to our constitution would be immense.
The BBC is barely containing their collective delight at the shooter being a far right white supremacist. I wonder how they'll cover the trail and probable execution of the shooter if found guilty.
Listening to Feedback:"Roger also asks Radio 4 PM presenter Evan Davis if he is becoming disillusioned by the way politicians seem to be embracing a post-truth world and avoiding directly answering his questions."I don't suppose that the way Davis and others behave in trying to trip up politicians has anything to do with the way they respond to questions has it? The BBC, never responsible for anything!Davis makes up a number of 85% of 'experts' believing that the Irish 'backstop' is essential. He does go on to say he made it up but the damage has been done. Has he ever asked why no-one brought up the need for a 'backstop' during the referendum? How about challenging his 'experts' about that? The fact is there are no experts on leaving the EU.My experience as an engineer is that whenever a problem crops up a lot more than 85% of 'experts' will tell you why the problem can't be solved.
Or, in the case of Farage, we have the example of Davis asking him repeated questions about the Paddington Bear movie and its relevance to our attitude to illegal migration - a deliberate strategy to (a) belittle and mock him (b) prompt him to anger or (c) produce some quotes that can they be used to mock him further on BBC news comedy programmes. How could anyone have any respect for that sort of behaviour by Davis, who claims to be a serious interviewer? If you listen to Davis's "Bottom Line" on radio (no smirks at the back there), you can hear that he is perfectly capable of reasoned debate that produces some degree of enlightenment. So it is quite clear what he's up to when he abandons reasoned discussion in interviewing politicians he disapproves of. The "backstop" was a negotiating ploy, cooked up between the EU and the Republic, pure and simple. It's a problem designed not to have a solution (unless the EU decides so).Fortunately, the EU overplayed its hand there which is why we are where we are - within sight of achieving a real Brexit. That will then show the lies and deceit of the EU and the BBC because no hard border infrastructure will be put on either side of the border.
BBC is at its most woke when it says Disney is the cause of our problems. It’s just another convenient and easy target for the BBC. Unbelievable. Here are just a few of the gems..“Disney films almost always present a battle between Good and Evil,” he says. “One can’t help but wonder if this Disnified understanding of the world as a struggle between the good guys and bad guys is a piece of today’s problems of political polarisation and social exclusion.”“..engagement with Disney princesses in young girls around two years old was associated with greater female gender-stereotype behaviour and lower body self-esteem a year later.““85% of Disney’s 34 animated features released before 2004 contained references to mental illness, often in ways that aimed to denigrate or set apart characters“https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190724-did-disney-shape-how-you-see-the-world
I dream of a day, sometime in the future when we look back on this era of wokeness as a kind of collective insanity.
Well Terry, we do look back on the Puritan age - banning Maypoles, Christmas and hot cross buns as a kind of madness. We look at the extreme suppression of the sexual instinct duing the Victorian era as a kind of madness. We think of the insane fratricidal wars in Europe during the 20th century as madness now. So, yes, there is hope I would say!
Re that Evan Davis Feedback piece. I heard it, and he made the comment along the lines of "did we (referring to the BBC) explain all the ramifications of Brexit properly? I think we failed"..............I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to how they think they failed.
That IS the BBC group-thinking. John Simpson said exactly the same thing soon after the 2016 vote.
What's certain is that the BBC has failed for 40 years to explain the "ramifications" of remaining in the EEC/EC/EU.
They really don’t get it. To collectively think that their lack of explanation meant that people voted the wrong way shows how far out of touch they are in their metro-liberal bubble.
Well they certainly failed to explain that the Eurocrats were working towards a European Defence Union to replace NATO, with its own armed forces and defence policy. They certainly failed to expose the lies from the Stronger In Europe official Remain campaign, with all that talk of an immediate recession and an emergency austerity budget if we voted Leave. They didn't nail down Cameron about his pledge that he would stay on to deliver Brexit if we voted Leave. There was never any suggestion during the campaign that the vote to Leave could be frustrated by Lords and Remainer MPs, the Civil Service or legal action through the Supreme Court - imagine what the outrage if that had been made clear. The Lib Dems pretended they were going to respect the result of the Referendum. Why didn't the BBC expose that lie? Is that what Davis is getting at?
The BBC News website is plastered with stories about the mass shooting in El Paso. But I can't find anything about the mass shooting in Dayton Ohio. Could that be because the mass shooter in that case described himself as left wing, a Democrat and a supporter of Elizabeth Warren as well as posting the following?: "I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”Peter Hitchens might point also to the relevance of a photo of the guy drawing on a large joint...will drugs (illegal or prescription) be shown to have played a role in the El Paso shooting perhaps?
Here's a link re what is known about the Dayton shooter:https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/connor-betts-twitter-politics-social-media/
I've watched all our main TV channels tonight and it is quite remarkable how they have disappeared the Dayton shooting and censored all mention of that shooters political sympathies.
It has to be understood that hardline Remainers are very extreme and dangerous people.Just been watching Jonathan Haslam on Sky News - he was threatening widespread civil disobedience (like the poll tax riots) if Boris seeks to engineer a general election while allowing the default position agreed by Parliament (a no deal exit) to proceed. "Jonathan Haslam was formerly Chief Communications Secretary to then Prime Minister John Major and worked in No 10 for over six years. "So that's the sort of "moderate" approach you get from the Major circle.
In other news, my wife and I decided to watch a recent episode of Celebrity Mastermind ( a repeat, original air date 21/12/2018). Our virtuous friend and BBC Media Editor, Amol Rajan, was a contender for the title with only the general knowledge round to come.Our favourite Media Editor battled through the general knowledge questions but in a effort to win the title Rajan offered the answer 'tiddlywinks' instead 'pass', hoping that in the event of a tie he would win having had fewer passes!At the end of the general knowledge round, John Humphrys stopped short of calling him a cheat, saying 'tiddlywinks, you were just trying to avoid passing. I spotted your(cheating) tactic!' Raman responded, 'John, you are very good at seeing through people.'Such blatant cheating in full view of the BBC audience in the studio and watching at home spoke volumes of the man; this is clearly his way of 'how to break into the elite'.You will be delighted to note, he was pipped to the title by the Rev. Richard Coles.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bw9fck
Yes, I saw this a little while ago. Amol Rajan's body language, full of BBC smugness, indicated that the exercise was below him. Richard Coles beat him easily, showing an impressive range of general knowledge. It's a sad reflection of BBC's nod to Christianity that they wheel out Coles and Bottley - both of whom use a jovial style.
What the BBC don't tell you:Turkey on a collision course with the EU and threatening to once again open the floodgates to illegal migration to Europe from Turkey. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-31/turkey-threatens-reignite-european-migrant-crisisEither way this could tip the EU into a renewed and major crisis. But the BBC don't feature this as a lead story.
yes @MB that is the problem with the toxic labels used to dismiss people. You shouldn't dismiss 100% of a persons output even if they really wrong about something else.- We know groom/rape gangs were going on before 2000- So many people knew, eg the perps community, children's home staff etc.- Other people spoke up inc BNP but their views were repressed by press and establishment.Then in 2004 TR etc. speak up about Islam and later about gangs , (on video in 2009)and Norfolk was investigating at around the same time and published later.
I see the BBC is widely reporting the critical comments about Pres. Trump blaming the recent US shootings on mental health. It’s a bit rich given the BBC themselves are keen to use that line for Islamic terrorist murders on our streets. It exposes the whole BBC narrative about those shootings which is to criticise Trump rather than to explain or report what happened.They say he needs to take care about his language, stop stoking hatred towards Hispanics, stop his racist and hateful words & actions and confront white supremacy.It’s all done using others’ comments but you can’t miss the overall tone of the reports and articles. Another trick nowadays is not to attribute the report, it’s just an anonymous BBC copywriter who can’t be held to account.
As I pointed out above, the MSM have been censoring the fact that the Dayton mass shooter was a leftist Democrat who supported Elizabeth Warren and espoused socialism. Rohit Kachroo reporting for ITN, spent a lot of time speaking about white supremacism in relation to El Paso, reasonably enough, but then referred vaguely to "another case of a violent ideology being behind a mass shooting", with reference to Dayton...this time though, no specifics, so most viewers will assume it was another Far Right race-hater. The BBC's views on all issues is nearly always quite clear. We've had the same with Kashmir: India is wrong, Pakistan is right and the Muslims are the wronged party. No mention of how the Hindu and Christian populations in Pakistan have been ground down, abused, discriminated against and reduced to a shadowy much less numerous existence.
Quite. Communists have done a lot of good over the years in highlighting various scandals regarding poverty, social provision and state abuses of power. To say that doesn't mean you accept the Communist doctrine. It's just the unvarnished truth that the initial exposure of the "grooming gangs" (to use the polite term) as a nationwide phenomenon came from the Far Right and no one else because Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and SNP viewed being seen as anti-racist as more important than anything else. Denial of that fact is of a piece with the initial denial across the board that there was here an issue of extreme concern.
This is a rather good article on where we are re the constitution and a no deal Brexit scenario...https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/08/osborne-brexits-saviour.htmlSince we are all constitutional experts now, I'd like to ask what's to stop Boris tabling a motion immediately after a VONC seeking a vote of confidence, which would meet the terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act - if he then lost there would be an election, if he won he continues.
The implication of all these BBC 'reports' is that it is British trucks and retailers that are going to have a problem. How is a Dutch grower of salad vegetables going to cope with cash flow problems when he hasn't been paid because his trucks never arrived in the UK 'just-in-time'? How will he manage when half his transport fleet is stacked up on the M2 and out of fuel? How will Calais cope with no ships leaving and trucks backed up all the way to Belgium? It's never going to happen is it?Equally it is never pointed out that that the familiar 'British' Ryanair is Irish, their scaremongering is not a UK problem it is an EU problem. Ditto Irish exports, how are they going to cope without a UK market or 'land bridge'? (The Irish haven't got the seaport capacity or the ships and can't afford the extra transit time either. [What about the extra budget contribution that Ireland will have to pay? But Brexit is only a British problem isn't it BBC?]).
Quite, Anonymous. The "air scare" has already been laid to rest - the EU has put in place arrangements to allow flights to continue as now (on a reciprocal basis, and of course we are reciprocating). Never really mentioned on the BBC, despite all the time they spent puffing up the scare. They never mention the money thing - it must be a source of concern for EU governments. It really annoys me that the BBC constantly have representatives from the Institute for Government on their news programmes. The IFG was set up by arch Remainer Lord Sainsbury and he is its financial backer. All its Board Members are extreme Remainers and all its staff are Remainers. But the BBC pretend it is a neutral, objective, academic body. It's just a pro-EU lobby group.
Roger Harrabin is at it again telling us to stop eating as much meat and reminding us how important this is for vegans. His very long report uses a scattergun approach to climate change touching on most of his favourite hobby horses.This elephant in the room missing from his report is that population growth is driving the need for more crops and meat. He conveniently forgets to tell us that. I don’t suppose Roger is giving up his steak and chips any time soon, nor his frequent air travel and taxi rides on BBC expenses. Here is a little taster from the article. “But food production also contributes to global warming. Agriculture - together with forestry - accounts for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock rearing contributes to global warming through the methane gas the animals produce, but also via deforestation to expand pastures, for example.“
Even the BBC doesn't believe BBC reports any more! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49274874Elizabeth Glinka's absurd Project Fear item for Newsnight on culling 45k cows in Northern Ireland as direct result of a no deal Brexit is debunked by...the BBC engaging in some rare honest reporting.
The BBC's twitter threads are about the only place the public can challenge their bias, lies and distortions...https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1159506188658253832Many people not too happy about the BBC's continuing campaign to return Shamima Begum to the UK!
The BBC photo editors have been hard at work again to convey their chosen message subliminally:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49285670... 'Brexit: Corbyn seeks clarity on 'unconstitutional' election-time no-deal'. ...There are a paired set of images of Boris and Jeremy both set against a black background. On closer inspection, JC's image is on the left. His head position photographed from below eye level appears heroic, statesmanlike and authoritative, whereas Boris is made to look sheepish, head bowed, defensive and subservient.The article is written in a similar tone showing Boris 'in the dock' over purdah rules. As far as I can see, he doesn't intend to make any new announcements or policy changes - just let the course of events play out. It's a far cry from:... 'The idea is to stop what is, effectively, a caretaker government from implementing decisions that the next government might disagree with.' ...This appears to be speculation by the BBC - biased towards derailing Brexit.
What’s unconstitutional is the clamour to overturn the referendum result by Labour, the LibDems, Remoaners and the BBC.
It's interesting to note the way Corbyn is portrayed by the BBC. He is now only useful to them as a means to stop Brexit. I think they realise he is unelectable as a Labour PM. Hence the usual red background with the Labour slogan has been shelved.
Guido has covered this story - with a distinctly different emphasis:https://order-order.com/2019/08/09/corbyns-begging-letter-sedwill/#disqus_thread
The end of the world is nigh. Our economy as shrunk by 0.2% in the last quarter.It is the BBCs type of story - it is bad news and they can blame Brexit.The headlines on the BBC website are shouting at us.- Reaction to UK shrinking economy, - Economy contracts for the first tine since 2012. Faisal Islam tweets (did he get his job on merit or because he ticked so many boxes?)“... on that number technical recession possible though not most likely. Probably now in the middle of weakest 2 quarters for growth since the financial crisis, weakest Q1-Q3 since financial crisis...If consensus expectations correct, it will be weakest showing in G7.“Are they trying to say this is what happens when the racists and uneducated voted for Brexit?News like this will not make a jot of difference to voting intentions but sadly the BBC are too focused on their mission to re-educate those who voted the wrong way.
I'd make a couple of points:1. We are in the EU, not out of it. So this is, or will be if it happens, an EU recession. 2. GDP is no longer a reliable measure of how well the citizens of a country are doing. Two factors stand our - nearly 10% of our resident population comprises non-UK citizens and in an age of huge financial transfers many "earnings" in the UK hardly "touch the sides"...ie the money is registered here as being earned but is soon extracted to other jurisdictions. You can see that even more so in Ireland which has lots of head offices thanks to its low corporation tax. That in turn produces and inflated GDP that bears little relation to reality.
Nothing about this release of documents on the BBC US page...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnaYf9niTnIThey prove there was a plot to "get Trump" and the DoJ and FBI were working hand in glove with the Democrats and a foreigner (Christopher Steele), to spread fake info.