We spotted a couple of Painted Ladies in the garden recently. A 'once-in-a-decade' Painted Lady butterfly phenomenon is taking place in the UK they say.
This is not a once-in-a-decade phenomenon, just a new open thread.
My garden is full of butterflies at the moment. Lots of Red Admirals, Tortoiseshells, Meadow Browns, Small Heaths, the Dark Green Fritillary (which are orange/brown!) and Orange Tips. No Painted Ladies yet but they were here last year.
Apart from the butterflies, I’ve really been enjoying the collective breakdown at the BBC as they try to report objectively on the Boris government’s determination to leave with a no-deal Brexit. With everyone in the cabinet on message and actually exercising collective responsibility, the entire BBC is at a complete loss on how to respond effectively to that strategy.
The BBCs efforts to support the remain strategy is in tatters and at the moment there is nothing it can do to turn things around. They are not even sure how to personally attack Boris because his statements are carefully crafted and thoughtfully presented.
The Glinka Debacle on Newsnight was a new low for the BBC. Seems like internecine war has broken out with the BBC Website thoroughly debunking the Glinka scare story about culling of cows...
These are all signs of stress, I would suggest.
Their best hope is the Remainer Judiciary and Gina Miller's legal action...expect them to give that their full backing.
There is a new series of Mastermind, with the first episode last night. She must be a part of the annals of the BBC now - there was a general knowledge question about Greta Thunberg - which country does she come from? You're right on the money there BBC!
She comes from Loopyland I believe where they drive around in carriages pulled by fairies and eat fresh air for breakfast. In Loopyland the climate never changes...it is the same average temperature every year and they count the raindrops to make sure they have exactly the same number as the previous year. Everyone in Looplyland is ecstatically happy - except for those, the majority, who suffer from mental health issues, caused by their sadness at knowing some people in the Bad World don't like Loopylanders.
“Licence-fee payers have been left to foot a £4,500 bill for damage to a Brussels house rented by BBC foreign correspondent Mark Mardell.
Fixtures and fittings were left broken, and floors and ceilings were damaged along with the architect-designed staircase. There were food and wine stains everywhere. There was also a peculiar smell from animals which were kept by the family, and this has been particularly difficult to get rid of.
We might have guessed that the BBC would jump right on the new stop and search proposals.
It is clear immediately that they think this is a bad idea.
They are using ‘reality check’ to inform us that the present method of targeted but fewer stop and searches is better.
We know already that the reality check strand is just a method to confirm the BBC reality and worldview. The standard modus operandi is to present poorly researched and carefully selected stats to validate the position they want to take.
I just hope only a few are taken in by this travesty masquerading as serious journalism.
Reality Check when it started out had pretensions of being this razor sharp dissection tool that would cut the bad away and reveal the truth.
It was always useless, tendentious and overtly biased in its choices and methodology but now it is just one big sprawling, splodgy mess.
I see on the Reality Check, that they have taken to just plonking down news stories eg on stop and search, even though they have no RC branding.
If the BBC really didn't want to charge over 75s for the privilege of having access to a biased news service, they could start by disbanding and making redundant the staff - there must be a least 20 people involved. When you take in pensions, accommodation and all the rest it must be costing millions.
The BBC are reporting the pulling of The Hunt, a major Hollywood film in which liberals hunt Trump supporters, cal them the deplorables and kill them for sport.
They offer no criticism, call it a satire and end with a number of quotes supporting the film release.
Imagine if the film roles were reversed, I can almost hear the howls of BBC outrage and disgust.
Warm Apple Pie has BBC (and MSM) bias in a nutshell:
...'Only gender you're allowed to be s£xist against- males Only r&ce you're allowed to be r&cist against- whltes Only s£xual orientation you're allowed to mock- stralght Only reIlgion you're allowed to openly hate- Chrlstianity Only natlonality you're allowed to be xen0phobic against- English' ...
Perhaps Number 4 should read Christianity and Judaism .
Because I was in the car for a while this morning I ended up subjecting myself to quite a long period (sorry for the pun) of Emma Barnett engaged in an anti-male hate session. She must have said "Willy-Waving" about 50 times. Imagine if a male BBC presenter talked about "Vag-Virtuing" or "Pussy-Propaganda". That would be the end of their career.
There was an interesting insight to be had when Emma opined that all gender differences are based on social conditioning. This is such a discredited pseudo-scientific notion but clearly, as I am sure Mark Easton would confirm, this is the rigid dogma that the Beebotology cult members live by.
Actually thinking about it, there are some big similarities between these cults...Scientologists want you to sign up for their very expensive programmes that will make you "clear" and Beebologists want you to sign up for their very expensive programmes that will make you "woke".
Only difference is that it's the law that says you have to support the Beebotology cult. That makes it so much easier for them to pedal their pseudo science (Femiscience, Econutology, Equalitology, and Climate Change - the theory that changes as the weather changes), its conspiracy theories (Trump and the Far Right are behind everything, including Far Left terrorism) and its weird theology (there is no God but if you have to have one, try Allah).
I watched a clip of Emma Barnett on YouTube in connection with The Great Irish Cow Cull (BBC fake 'news' - it hasn't happened, it won't happen)- is the red lipstick, cleavage flaunting, high-heeled strutting 'social conditioning' or sexual signalling?
Why does the BBC think it's OK for them to write propaganda pieces on behalf of an extremist political organisation (Extinction Rebellion) that wants to close down our cities, roads, shipping and airports - something that even Al Queda never succeeded in doing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49276909
And when are the Useless Tories going to complain rather than also support them (as Gove did)?
The way the BBC think is often dangerous and corrosive. They always seem to find the negative and extreme aspects in any given topic that would never enter the minds of most people. It says more about the BBC than it does of our nation. As usual, the calls and comments are carefully selected to reinforce their preferred position. Here are some examples introduced by Jeremy Vine today in his show.
The real reason Meghan Markle is being criticised by Nigel Farage is because she is mixed race and he is a racist.
A trade deal with the US will be bad because we will have to follow their foreign policy if we do.
Facebook political ads can target and manipulate the audience and reinforce racist behaviour by political parties. (The Brexit party were given as an example of a party who have racist policies.)
Who is Meghan Markle BBC? Do you mean Mrs Windsor or the Duchess of Sussex? If 'the media' make her a 'celeb' don't be surprised if the plebs don't think she is 'royal'. Has Nigel Farrage now become 'extreme far-right' and has to have his words 'voiced by an actor', like some IRA provo? Or could it be that he didn't say what he was accused of in the way that the BBC wanted? Since when did trade deals involve alignment of foreign policy? Has the BBC got confused with the EU and its political union? Fake news BBC! Now who do we know who wants to tailor content to match the viewer/listener and keep a profile of them? Isn't there something called 'Sounds' or something? I don't know because I don't pay much attention to adverts, particulary as the target audience is now clearly black.
Why did the BBC continuously refer to "the Queen Mother" as though she were still alive?
Anyone not familiar with the lady would have assumed she was still knocking about, rather than having been dead for 17 years! I don't think it was just the BBC's usual incompetence and lack of journalistic clarity...it was helpful to their anti-Farage attack to frame it in that way.
Yes, MB you are right and I forgot to mention Farage was voiced by an actor. Due emphasis on the key words to convey an impression. A bad impression - typical for the BBC. They just can’t help themselves.
Again, the BBC News website pic editors are at work:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49336144
... 'Brexit: Hammond says PM's demands 'wreck' chance of new deal' ...
The photo shows Boris looking somewhat flustered, half-smiling contrasted to Hammond looking self-assured, higher up in the frame as the dominant figure. But:
This is an old photo from The Times (PA Media) from 21st May 2019, before Boris became PM. This is a disgraceful misuse of an image. All photos should carry a date when taken, and a location/event note.
The sub-plot from the BBC is that they promote Hammond's comments over no deal when he is no longer in the cabinet.
Brilliant video on the Change Britain twitter feed showing just what brazen liars the Remainers are when they claim the prospect of no deal/WTO rules was not discussed during the Referendum campaign.
The truth is that issue was raised numerous times during the campaign.
The worrying thing is not just that Remainers lie - we know that, and that is their privilege - but that BBC presenters and reporters also echo them, never challenging them on their lies.
I observed on another thread that the BBC likes to use the word "warn" to boost the status of Remainer claims as it is a very authoritative word. When a Leaver warns about something, the BBC report it otherwise as "reacts angrily", suggesting an emotional spasm or "claims", a much weaker verb. Earlier today I saw "Hammond warns" somewhere on the BBC website. Seems to have gone or been changed now.
Maybe the Cummings Rebuttal Team took action.
Meanwhile we have on the BBC website "10 ways a no deal Brexit could affect you". All 10 are negative. None are positive.
Stealth ? The page is titled in the html and also on the page : Brexit: Philip Hammond *warns* UK will lose control in no-deal scenario - BBC News The hidden link title is Hammond says UK 'can't control no-deal Brexit https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978739
@MB it hasn't disappeared it's still there but remember you never specified where you found it \\ Earlier today I saw "Hammond warns" somewhere on the BBC website //
So I had to search and found the page titled : Brexit: Philip Hammond warns UK will lose control in no-deal scenario ..but note that is a nold page dated July 14
Weasel words from the BBC cannot disguise Hammond’s true intentions. As we suspected, he’s a rabid remainer who blocked money for no deal planning early on. I’m glad he had been flushed out into the open. People are not fooled any more by BBC headlines and stories. Minds have been made up long ago.
We might be about to see how far the BBC are prepared to go to bring down Boris and prevent Brexit. Archives are full of statements from Hammond that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. He is pushing the May line. Move on BBC. Boris has learnt well from Donald Trump by using facebook to speak directly to the electorate. This must infuriate the BBC - the national broadcaster doesn't have the trust of the Prime Minister.
Harry Cole is right; “Not content with ham-stringing one PM, Hammond pops up to have another go. If he wanted to shape the agenda this much, he really should have run. And tested his support.”
BBC News: "Boris Johnson has accused MPs "who think they can block Brexit" of a "terrible collaboration" with the EU."
Good, finally we have someone who is telling the truth about these backstabbers and conspirators. Add in Tony Blair who has been agreeing with Macron and Merkel how to undermine Brexit. These are borderline traitors (if you look up the legislation on treason you will see they are sailing very close to the wind).
I hope Johnson starts to make reference to Dominic Grieve's Legion d'Honneur for services to the French state. Time to start spraying them all the Remainiacs with invective.
The Remainers, typically, are claiming Boris Johnson's claims are a "wicked lie". Really? How about this story from March this year, where Dominic Grieve hosted a French Minister for discussions on Article 50 and a Second Referendum:
Just listened to the 10pm BBC One News. There really is a full on assault to stop no-deal. They are frantic and almost frothing at the mouth when reporting about Hammond and remain centric stories. Jon Sopel was overly excited and highly strung when praising Pelosi for her intervention.
Yep, Newsnight was in Hyperdrive Warp 7...so desperate to stop it!
Egregious Emma reserved her greatest ire and most frequent interruptions for the sadly rather ineffective pro-Brexit MP Andrew Bridgen.
Advice to Leavers...don't take any sh*t from Emma.
Bridgen should have immediately picked up her reference to Tories at the outset and asked that she refer to the party as the Conservatives, noting she doesn't refer to Labour as "the Reds".
Bridgen did right in calling attention to BBC bias. But when she responded with an accusation that he was trying to divert from Conservative splits he should have doubled down and given chapter and verse on the bias.
And why doesn't Bridgen refer to Grieve's Legion d'Honneur or his meeting with Macron's French ministers?
The Remainer MPs need to get stuck in. If Brexit is to be secured they need to organise mass filibustering in Parliament and go on the offensive in the media.
... The Remainer MPs need to get stuck in... Should this read 'The Leaver MPs need to get stuck in'? I agree with you about the need for Boris and his cabinet to drown out the media. His move to use facebook is a smart move.
Thanks Arthur! My old unintentional switcheroo there! Yes, if the Speaker is going to put Erskine May in the wastepaper basket, then the Leave MPs need to mount some serious procedural disruption. The Government must be able to do something.
Still promoting the tired fake Remainer talking points:
1. "Divorce". Article 50 does not require a Member State to enter into any "divorce" arrangement at all. It has an absolute right to secede from the EU. This fake analogy of "divorce" is useful to Remainers. If you want to get out of a marriage you HAVE to divorce. And that's what the Remainers want you to think: that you have to have this "divorce". But you don't.
2. "Overnight, the UK would leave the single market and customs union - arrangements designed to help trade between EU members by eliminating checks and tariffs (taxes on imports)." Misleading again. Any state that leaves the EU leaves the Single Market. They don't have to leave the Customs Union if they reach an agreement to stay in the Customs Union (Turkey is a member effectively as are some other minor states). But throughout the Referendum campaign, the Remain side told us we would be outside the Customs Union. Were they lying? The BBC does not tell us.
3. "And the UK would no longer contribute to the EU budget - currently about £9bn a year." Misleading g on two counts. Firstly, no non Member State contributes to the EU budget (so whether we leave on a no deal or deal is not the key point here)...EFTA countries and Switzerland make contributions to support the deals they have reached with the EU, not the EU budget. If we leave on No Deal whether we decide we have an residual responsibility to contribute to the EU budget is something for us to decide. We might decide we wish to make a payment e.g. in respect of pension contributions.
4. What about this v. weird way of describing the N Ireland Border issue after a no deal Brexit?...
"But EU law says physical border checks would still be needed on some goods, such as food and chemicals.
However, neither the UK or Irish governments have so far said they would be willing to install border posts."
We won't be in the EU, so we have no legal obligation to put in place hard border infrastructure. Moreover our Government has stated explicitly we will not put in place any hard border infrastructure.
So why this weird construction suggesting we have some obligation to put in place hard border infrastructure after leaving on a no deal? Only the Republic might in theory have that requirement placed on it, but anyone with any sense knows it won't happen.
Taking my cue from the TGer in that video of the Democratic Socialists of America, I'd like to say in agitated tones:
"Please!Can we please stop calling it a Second Referendum...it's a Rigged Rerun..."
The Rigged Rerun being plotted by Blair, Grieve, Hammond, Lucas, Swinson, Chukka, Soubry and the rest will have a choice between Remain and May's Abject Surrender Deal.
It will be like going to a restaurant and finding the only two items on the menu are reheated turd and congealed vomit.
If they try that on, Boris should call for a mass boycott, declare it illegitimate and state he will campaign to have the result cancelled, that he will not accept any result from such a Rigged Rerun.
Leaving reheated turds aside, John Bolton put it in plain English the other day:
“The fashion in the European Union: When the people vote the wrong way from the way the elites want to go, it’s to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right,” he said.
I can't see any difference between the MPs who are conspiring to block a no deal - and the MPs who are conspiring to block Brexit altogether. Where are the MPs who intend to vote against a no deal, but intend to vote for us to leave at the end of October?
To put that another way: Who is left to speak for the MPs who maintained 'no deal is better than a bad deal' after May's WA was widely condemned as a bad deal?
What is it with the BBC and their disturbing views on illegal drugs?
The main story on BBC 10pm news was about drugs but the entire narrative was about child exploitation by county line dealers. (The BBC called them criminals rather than drug dealers).
It wasn't about the deaths or the criminal gangs or how they destroy lives. It barely touched on the main elements of the drug crisis. The scene was set early on when a policemen said he no longer arrested people for heroin and cocaine if it was for personal use.
Mark Easton then did a personal opinion piece on government Drugs policy where he suggested safe spaces for taking drugs, free drugs for users and even decriminalising drugs. He finished by saying that The Home Office has said it doesn’t plan to change the legislative framework. He then mused that by ruling it out it prevented the very shift in thinking that critics say is needed.
Once again Easton presented a report that was a blatant political opinion piece.
More from the BBC News website - Lead headline on the Politics page:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612
... 'Jo Swinson: Clarke and Harman prepared to lead emergency government' ...
Sub heading: 'Senior Tory Ken Clarke and former deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman are both prepared to lead an emergency government to avoid a no-deal Brexit, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson has said.'
The BBC are now using the phrase 'to avoid a no-deal Brexit' when really they mean 'stop Brexit'. This article is biased idle speculation. Stick to reporting the news BBC.
Yes full-on, unapologetic propaganda now. On Today, Labour-supporting Sarah Smith was using the propaganda term "Government of National Unity" to describe plans for a government led by Far Left Pro-Hamas Pro-IRA Extremist Jeremy Corbyn and including a variety of people who have refused to submit themselves for re-election after switching party plus Jo Swinson who has declared she will not accept the result of a Second Referendum if it is pro-Brexit...some unity!
And yes, the non-Corbynite version, would be designed to stop Brexit, not just "no deal" as Swinson and Clarke.
And an embedded story within that article is the new reality check ‘ Would a Labour government stop Brexit?’.
Which of course allows the BBC to spread more propaganda on how bad a no-deal is how to everyone other than the horrible Tories want to disrupt and stop it.
Looks like one of the pillars of Remainism has just collapsed.
I heard an Irish Minister being softly interviewed by Mark Mardell - using his "more in sorrow than anger" voice.
During this interview the Irish representative confirmed (as I have predicted all along) that in the event of no deal the Republic would not be putting in place a hard border in N Ireland, despite the fact that every other EU land border has a hard border.
Of course Mardell, did not follow up on the logic of this and ask the obvious question: "Why would you need a backstop in the future then if neither the Republic nor the UK are putting in place a hard border post Brexit?"
It seemed clear from what the Minister said that the Backstop requirement was a negotiating ploy designed (a) to bind the UK to the EU and extract unreasonable concessions from the UK and (b) designed to make life easy for the Irish, so they did not have to bear additional costs or have to suffer the embarrassment of in effect putting a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU (which is clearly, from the Minister's answers, what they are going to do).
You know how the BBC loves to hype up stories off the back of interviews on WATO and other news progs?
They certainly do, but not a whisper of this on the Brexit page on their website despite this being really big news.
Listened to Feedback tonight. I don't think I've heard such a smug, self-congratulatory programme for many a year.
First on, an Archers fangirl talking about the story in which the couple can't afford to buy the house....I heard the term "housing crisis" mentioned two or three times.
Then, the "Out Of Your Comfort Zone" piece where both listeners gave their opinions on R5's Nihal "cuddly grime" broadcast (WTF is it with the BBC and grime? They have a real hard on for it) the general opinion that it wasn't about the music, but "respect", "togetherness", "understanding" blah blah blah. The woman said she would listen to it again because it's on at 1pm and she won't have to hear Jeremy Vine speaking to "Daily Mail callers". Cue smug chortling from Roger and "let's pause it there"...too late the damage is done, this is of course a favorite BBC tactic BTW, let the guest air their "opinion" and then say we'll have to stop it there, you know balance yada yada yada.
Final piece was the lack of opportunities for the "working class" (spit) in the high level jobs....unfortunately the media is classed as one of those high level jobs. Cue some faceless author talking about his book about the lack of opportunity, without giving any solutions other than to mention the problem is possibly due to rich white men's mindset. Unfortunately he didn't go into any details about what that actually was. Not sure what exactly this piece was for as it didn't reference any particular show. Unless it was just so the author could plug his book (a mate of the producer perhaps?)
Anyway I digress.......Roger signed off by saying we'll be back in the autumn by which time we may have left with no deal...."try to enjoy what's left of summer". Gentle chortling. I thought this show was supposed to be some kind of critique of R4 if not totally critical, but tonight saw some major back slapping. I guess the show is up for commissioning again.
Feedback has been almost absent from Feedback this season, more 'feedfoward' as the BBC promotes/explains itself to the listener. One major topic has been promoting 'Sounds' and various podcasts. Where did they get the listener the previous week that thought Feedback was the mechanism for holding the BBC to account? As you say, their contract must be up for renewal.
Feedback has been a joke for a number of years now. Any honest feedback was long ago banished from the programme. It's now like that parody of the old "Points of View" from Not The Nine O'clock News way back: "I strongly disagree with the previous viewer: Nationwide is not just the best news programme on the planet but in the whole universe..."
That's the level of "critique". And, yes most of it is just disguised advertising for Pathetic BBC programmes.
Housing crisis? Fair enough...it's just they never (and never will because "verboten") mention what lies behind the housing crisis: the mass immigration crisis.
BBC and Grime - essentially the BBC has been an enabler of knife crime, systematic abuse of underage girls and a lowering of public discourse. They can try and make homophobic bully Stormzy as cuddly as they like but it won't wash with oldies or youngies. :)
Media jobs for the working class? Is this the BBC eating itself? Of course not. The Justins and Tristrams and Zoes and Indias aren't going to deprive their progeny of media jobs. What they will do is allow pretend working class people in...people who have dark skins and do the glottal stop thing even though they have been to private school.
Feedback is a very good example of why we have to dismantle and destroy the BBC as it currently exists.
BBC are deliberately trying to link the populist Chartists with Far Left Socialist. The Chartists were simply seeking equality before the law for all citizens, including in relation to Parliamentary legislation. They were NOT Marxists seeking equality of outcome in all fields of human activity. Peterloo was hijacked by the Far Left in the late 19th century.
We should respect the Peterloo martyrs and stop this desecration of their memory.
Another thoroughly on-message R4 outing; A Good Read with Harriet Gilbert, with panel consisting of beta male, woke comedienne and ethnic academic. The choice of books usually pan out thusly: beta male, book about boy growing up with abusive father; woke comedienne, book about feminism; ethnic academic, book about the Empire and slavery. Expect to hear the phrases "abusive relationship", "lack of strong female leads", "white imperialism", "celebration of women's relationships with other women", etc etc bandied about. As for the books themselves I doubt anyone other than the panel would want to read them. Dreadful listen.
Think you've got it spot on there! It used to be about books people might enjoy reading...now it's about books that either tick boxes or make the reader feel virtuous (rather than entertained or enlightened).
On the few occasions I've come across it in recent months, there is I feel the faint sound of people walking on egg shells to be heard in every comment they make...they are all so desperate not to offend anyone with "protected characteristics".
Have they taken Mariella Frostrup off the programme?...I can imagine her "ready-for-bedding" voice must be considered v. old fashioned these days. Females are supposed to sound strident, bemused (at the folly of the unwoke) or darkly threatening these days.
Do people remember the phrase "cultural cringe"? - what many Aussies used to display towards British culture, an automatic feeling it must be superior to their own.
One of the worst things now is hearing men do the "gender cringe". Danny Finkelstein, alleged "right winger", did it on Newsnight the other day, expressing Maoist-style self-criticism for his past failure to realise the huge commanding greatness of female figures in the arts and literature. No examples given, but his confession of mysogynistic guilt went down well with the two women.
You just can’t trust the BBC to tell the unvarnished truth anymore. We have seen it so often before with Islamist terrorist incidents.
The tragic death of the PC in Berkshire is another example. They were very slow to report that the suspects were travellers from a local caravan park. It wasn’t until it was widely reported everywhere else that the BBC updated their story. As far as I can tell the BBC have failed to report that the victim was hit by the police dog patrol car after being dragged underneath a van.
Surely we should be getting the full story from our national broadcaster rather than piecing together the missing bits from everyone else.
Presumably once again PC sensitivity is at play by editors to censor uncomfortable truths.
I see Owen Jones has taken a kicking while out drinking. The BBC quick to report this may be homophobic or political attack, Jones thinks its a "far right" targeted attack. Meanwhile two high profile murders are just due to old fashioned lawlessness and thuggery. Nothing so common for our Owen..
There's no doubt that Far Left identity and grievance politics is fuelling the current violent crime spike. But don't expect the BBC to report on that!
There's CCTV all over central London...I can't believe this incident wasn't caught on CCTV. Is there really no CCTV of it?
Also, I note that Owen Jones hasn't said his atackers were "white" - just "Far Right"...so what are we talking about here?
Why no description of the attackers? Even if the attack wasn't recorded, the Police will have no trouble in identifying the attackers on other CCTV cameras in the area...we're talking Islington here.
Is this going to be one of those puzzles that never gets answered?
Owen Jones attackers may be or may not be, as he has claimed, far right activists. But if it transpires that they don’t fit the convenient profile, you can be absolutely sure that it won’t be a front page story on their website.
It's noticeable how the BBC have been quite sympathetic to the views of the Chinese Communist-Military Dictatorship. Compare and contrast with Putin's Regime.
I don't like either version political oppression, but it is incredible how China gets pretty much a free pass, even when it is basically incarcerating one million Muslims and trying to turn them into non-Muslims, destroying Tibetan culture, forcing medical procedures on women, deploying torture, executing people on a grand scale, killing disabled people and using technology to spy on every single citizen of the country...Basically Putin is nowhere near as oppressive but for some reason, the BBC along with the Clintons, the Democrats, George Osborne and Philip Hammond don't think you criticise the Chinese too strongly.
Yes, agreed. Everything is very black and white with the bbc. Some what simplistic but basically true
China good, Russia bad Democrats good, republicans bad Palestine good, Israel bad Left wing good, right wing bad NHS good, private healthcare bad Immigration good, more controls bad Drug laws bad, decriminalisation good Liberalism good, conservatism bad Green fuel good, Carbon fuel bad Socialism good, capitalism bad Equality of outcome good, equality of opportunity bad BBC good, right wing MSM bad Social media good, freedom of speech bad
Yes, the BBC have given up calling the governing part Conservatives. Everything is Tory, Senior Tory etc. They know that it is a loaded name harking back to privilege, ruling classes, and therefore is to be despised. Arne, add to your list:
It's worth reading. The piece at the end suggests that the BBC are ready to produce a whitewash:
... 'It is understood Sweeney is in Italy while he awaits the BBC’s decision over how they deal with the video.
The BBC and Sweeney declined to comment last night but the Corporation insisted he paid for the drinks himself. It refused to confirm whether the Panorama on Robinson would be screened.' ...
I don't suppose Sweeney is worried in the least. He's probably been told to keep his head down (go to Italy with salary and expense account in tact) and the PR dept will do the rest.
Why are the BBC on the side of Jihadi Jack just as they were with Shamima Begum? They are not on the side of British public opinion that's for sure.
Their job is to report the news, I get that and this is reportable news. But they always have to get involved further and take a position to make a political point.
It is clear by the tone of the report, the quotes used and the interview of his father where the BBC stand on this one.
It is our own government who is in the dock for revoking his citizenship. In the click bait headline they also brand Sajid Javid a coward by using their favourite trick of making their point by using quotes of others to give a degree of separation.
The lead story on BBC news tonight was more Brexit project fear with the leaked Yellowhammer document. The analysis that followed was just more personal opinion where the reporter spouted that there is no evidence that the governments no deal strategy is working because the EU are not indicating any movement.
That statement is just plain ridiculous given the negotiating timeline leading up to 31 October.
There was no attempt to explain anything other than the only narrative that matters to the BBC.
1. Apparently we will have a glut of imported petrol, leading to the closure of UK oil refineries and loss of jobs. 2. Because we have no refineries we will have no petrol.
While it is valid to scope the extreme possibilities it isn't valid to assume that all extreme states can exist at the same time!
Here's a new trick on the BBC News website Home page. Under 'Most Read' is a headline: ... 'Tory Divisions' over 'leaked crisis plans for Brexit' ....
Click on the link and it takes you to the Papers page, and the headline is top of the list from The Guardian. Therefore, we should conclude that this is one of the 'Most Read' articles on the BBC News website?
Every day the BBC is leading with a project fear no deal Brexit story. Their objective is very transparent but they obviously don’t care that we know. It’s all prefaced by ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘may’ and ‘at risk’.
Tonight has British oil refineries might close In the last few days we have had Food shortages for schools, care homes and the NHS Nutritional standards dropping USA coming after the NHS Farms hit by £850 million Package holidays cancelled Exchange rate disaster Drugs shortages Border queues at key Ports Project Yellowhammer scares Freedom of movement chaos
Repeating every negative no deal story without fact checking and however daft the source is not impartial reporting.
They have lost their audience with this onslaught. It will have the reverse effect.
BBC Midlands Today leads with a Brexit story tonight.
‘Farmers for a people’s vote’ were having a meeting at a hotel in Market Drayton and the BBC cleared their diary and rushed across to interview those attending. As you might guess, it was totally one sided and anti-Brexit because everyone there wanted to remain.
Water under the bridge...but they do merge stories, change headlines, change the stealth headlines, sometimes create sub headlines out of headlines, sometimes de-merge stories...so it can be difficult to follow what's going on. It's a BBC trait. Most news websites don't adopt the BBC smoke and mirrors approach as far as I can see.
Excellent observation Ozfan! As I have noted before "insurance policy" is how the EU describes it. It is how May described it. It is NOT how the current government describes it. Boris describes it as an anti-democratic proposal. I and most Remainers describe it as a negotiation ploy with no substance.
The BBC have firmly aligned themselves with the EU.
I think I heard about a drugs shortage in the UK on the radio the other day..."despite" us being in the EU!!!
There will also be plots to create a "catastrophe" if we achieve a No Deal Brexit. We can fully expect a blockade of channel ports by French fishermen aided and abetted by Macron. Personally I think that argues for caution re our fisheries - let the French fish there for an indeterminate period, subject to good behaviour, so we get over the initial "wobble" period.
I'm not sure if anyone else has raised this but last Monday, 19 August, while in my car I heard a petty grim example of BBC bias on the PM programme, an item about "neo fscist" violence in the USA - it's at about 39 minutes in.
In the item the BBC "journalist" says that it is "unquestionable" that political violence is the responsibility of white supremasists.
My own reading of the situation from US news and other sources tells me a very different story. This report had centred on events in Portland, Oregon. There's history to this. A left liberal mayor has been at odds with his own police force about how to react to mainly anti-fascist violence. Not long ago a demonstration by the conervative group, the Proud Boys, has been attacked by masked "antifa" members. A conservative journalist present, Andy Ngo, a gay, vietnamese guy of was set on by masked antifa thugs and left with a brain hemorrhage - for being a conservative journalist. There were no police to protect him - the "liberal" mayor had told them to keep their distance from the demonstration. The Proud Boys came back mto assert their free speech rights under the US constitution - they did nothing violent but they were still attacked by antifa (who also, if you look at You Tube, have a tendancy to attack anyone who objects to their brutality, whatever their views. Tim Pool's you Tube and othe channels fill in a lot more detail on this. by the way, the BBC reporters claim that violence, in the form of mass shootings, is principally the responsibility of right wingers is pretty unsound - look at ther statistics - say a search on Mass Shooting Tracker.
"If Brexit happens, the 310-mile Irish border will represent the only land border between the UK and the EU."
Debatable. We have a channel tunnel which is effectively a land border.
"As well as no longer being in the EU, Northern Ireland is likely to end up with different rules and standards to its neighbour, the Republic of Ireland."
It's not really Northern Ireland, it's the UK which will have the different rules and standards. Describing it as a problem between Northern Ireland and the EU is already describing it in terms favourable to the EU's view of the matter.
"That's because the UK intends to leave the customs union and single market - arrangements designed to make trade easier between EU countries."
Or you could say "to make trade between the EU and the rest of the world more difficult.
"Lorries travelling to the EU from Northern Ireland would be required to stop at the border for document checks and some product inspections. This would be to ensure their goods meet EU standards."
Loving the "would be"...this is only in an EU backed scenario. The UK government has made clear it has no intention of imposing border checks, so the border check will take place in the Republic not in the UK... to say they will be stopped "at the border" when travelling from the UK to EU is to suggest they will be stopped on the UK side. They won't.
"Following incidents like foot-and-mouth disease and the horse meat scandal, the EU is very strict about these requirements."
Yes. But the UK is as strict and possibly more so. So, all that is required is for the EU to accept that there is regulatory alignment in this area of animal health. Stop distorting everything BBC!
"In theory, such checks would mean things like cameras and security posts, creating a so-called "hard border"."
In theory, the EU has strict auditing requirements that prevent corruption. It's only in theory though.
"Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end."
So now it's "the return of a hard border". Two things wrong about that. Firstly it never was a "hard border". There never was a "hard border". There are some 275 road crossings, and numerous other paths and so on. Only a small percentage of the road crossings ever had hard border control infrastructure. Moreover, Irish and British citizens had the right to cross freely under the terms of the Common Travel Agreement dating back to the 1920s.
"Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end."
Concerns have been raised by whom? Concerns are never disembodied. The only people who have raised these concerns are the EU, the Republic of Ireland government, Remainiacs or Republican (let us hope) ex terrorists. But the BBC would prefer you to think they are spectral concerns floating around in the ether...
Two things wrong about that... (from above) I forget to mention the second point: "the return of a hard border" is not a "thing" it is a negotiating ploy being used by the EU and Ireland to extort maximum concessions. It has been a successful ploy (prior to Boris beooming PM) because our treachorous Civil Service, Hammondites, Mayites and disloyal interest groups like the CBI have worked diligently and relentlessly to present the threat of a hard border as a real thing...when anyone who knows anything about Ireland or the UK will know it will never happen. The government of the Republic of Ireland would sooner leave the EU than put in place a hard border. And we are not going to put in place a hard border. The EU understand the realities. They will not force Ireland to put in place a hard border. But the EU and Ireland know it works much better for them to pretend there is a real threat of a hard border.
My only criticism of Boris at this stage is that he doesn't come out and make this plain... :)
"However, the EU does not currently share a single border with a non-EU country where checks have been completely eliminated."
The article then references the Norway and Sweden implying that there are border checks all away along the border. This is of course false. From Wikipedia:
----There are around 30 more roads crossing the border, without customs station (most notably E16), but they are not allowed to use if having goods needing declaration. Heavy trucks can be allowed to use them by pre-declaration. They are surveilled by video and temporary checks. ---
So huge sections of the Norway-Sweden border do not have hard border infrastructure. They rely on technology to ensure the border crossings without hard infrastructure are not abused. Pretty much the solution proposed for Northern Ireland.
""We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January."
Sabine is a liar. Leichtenstein has a customs checkpoint with the EU which is not at the border but at the end of the motorway that leads into EU territory. Don't the BBC know that?
"But no one has started building border posts and the UK and Irish governments say they don't want a hard border.
So there is a very real question, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, about who would actually install the border posts if the EU insist they're necessary."
This is where the BBC always stop! lol They never admit firstly that the UK government have stated clearly and unequivocally they will not install hard border infrastructure. So, come on BBC, who does that leave? Ireland and the EU. The Republic will never put in place hard border infrastructure. For one thing that would mean they were breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement! So we are now down to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe the EU will make the Republic put in place a hard border? No way. All they will do is make the Republic beef up checks at their ports.
Best part of all this is it gives Johnson time to spin out things in Parliament, so it will be difficult for the Remainiac-Anti-Democratic Alliance to put together the votes to stop a no deal Brexit.
I think the EU have either decided to back down (come to an agreement on the basis of ditching the backstop in effect, whatever diplomatic niceties might cover the fact) or, more likely, have decided there is no mileage for them in any further A50 extensions as that will just strengthen populism in the UK.
Another possibility is they might agree to completely ditch the WA but agree a 2 year transition with a review to see whether that can be turned into a long term FTA. They will of course require some money for that. So maybe a very large downpayment on the £39 billion - £20 billion perhaps.
That could be enough for BJ to win a General Election if he can say we are out on 31 Oct with no commitment to accept ECJ judgements, the backstop, or Customs Union membership.
BBC News did a full blown very positive Antifa promo tonight. White supremacists were to blame. Trump was wrong to label them terrorists and the real danger.
It was made crystal clear which side the BBC are on.
I was in a pub tonight and just saw the visuals...even without sound you could tell it was an Antifa promo - the Antifa guy (who I have seen on video committing unprovoked assaults) looked totally relaxed as he was massaged - sorry, interviewed - by the Beeboid.
Let's not forget the US Government is seriously looking at declaring Antifa a terrorist organisation - quite rightly in my view. It is an organisation, funded by shadowy billionaires, that seeks to change politics through instilling terror - fear of violence being visited on one's self or one's family simply because you express an opinion they deem unacceptable.
radio 4 piece on travelling with only hand luggage:
1st point made: women compete at the baggage carousel to bring the least luggage 2nd: men are bad at packing so have to take big suitcases 3rd: women are lucky, they can put dresses in hand luggage - however, there is nothing to stop a man doing this either
Men are so scattered-brained...only women can plan ahead...men are so needy about their clothes. I would still expect there is a huge difference between women's expenditure on clothes and men's.
...highlighting the scandal of easy entry to the UK for business visitors who can then make use of free health and education services for all the family and totally milk the system.
Jane Garvey has let the cat out of the bag...admitting to what every single BBC manager, presenter and reporter will lyingly deny on all other occasions - that the BBC has a love affair with the Labour Party. Even if that might have cooled slightly since the heady days of 1997, that doesn't mean of course that they have transferred their affections to the Conservatives" Duh!!...they've simply been playing around with other Left parties and organisations like the Greens, Lib Dems, Change UK, SNP, Plaid, Momentum and Extinction Rebellion. But Labour are still the love of their lives - if Labour were to declare its love for Remain, they would soon be back together under the sheets.
Here's the transcript:
"Ah, well – I had been up for most of the night but I was doing this Five Live breakfast programme with our colleague at the time – it was a bloke called Peter Allen so – I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into – we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London – all very upmarket in those days – and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles – I will always remember that (Allen laughs) – er – not that the BBC were celebrating in any way shape or form (Allen, laughing – ‘no, no, no, not at all’) – and actually – I think it’s fair to say that in the intervening years the BBC, if it was ever in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learned to fall back in, or basically just learned to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be – um – but there was always this suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkoes who couldn’t wait for Labour to get back into power – that may have been the case, who knows ? but as I say I think there’ve been a few problems along the way – wish I hadn’t started this now…"
I've said this before, but the EU referendum really put this in perspective. Before 2016, there may have been some few BBC staff in positions of influence which may have had conservative leanings but in 2016 there would not be a single BBC staffer of influence who even knew a leave voter (unless it was an elderly parent or grandparent). Mow these same influential staffers are determined to revoke Brexit, bring down the government and proceed with full EU integration, they may yet succeed. A note about BBC Wales, it is staffed by mainly welsh nationalist sympathisers.
The determination of undemocratic Remainers to overturn the democratic Referendum vote of 2016 has also led to further polarisation so now a large proportion of Leave supporters and pro-democracy voters realise just how biased the BBC are. That is leading people to wonder what they pay their licence fee for? To have democracy undermined and their vote cancelled? To be lectured at by hypocrites who dodge tax and fly in private jets? To be vilified as racists for wanting to preserve their culture - a human right recognised by the UN?
So in addition to ideology, I think the BBC now see that this is a matter of survival for them. If they don't stop Brexit the prospect of a fast approaching reckoning for them becomes more likely, because Brexit could well lead to a more general populist upsurge as people realise just how much they have been lied to.
It's everything to play for, everything to lose. Last chance for the UK in my opinion.
My garden is full of butterflies at the moment. Lots of Red Admirals, Tortoiseshells, Meadow Browns, Small Heaths, the Dark Green Fritillary (which are orange/brown!) and Orange Tips. No Painted Ladies yet but they were here last year.
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot Peacocks, loads of them on the Buddleia’s.
DeleteApart from the butterflies, I’ve really been enjoying the collective breakdown at the BBC as they try to report objectively on the Boris government’s determination to leave with a no-deal Brexit. With everyone in the cabinet on message and actually exercising collective responsibility, the entire BBC is at a complete loss on how to respond effectively to that strategy.
ReplyDeleteThe BBCs efforts to support the remain strategy is in tatters and at the moment there is nothing it can do to turn things around. They are not even sure how to personally attack Boris because his statements are carefully crafted and thoughtfully presented.
Delightful.
You can see they are under pressure.
DeleteThe Glinka Debacle on Newsnight was a new low for the BBC. Seems like internecine war has broken out with the BBC Website thoroughly debunking the Glinka scare story about culling of cows...
These are all signs of stress, I would suggest.
Their best hope is the Remainer Judiciary and Gina Miller's legal action...expect them to give that their full backing.
There is a new series of Mastermind, with the first episode last night. She must be a part of the annals of the BBC now - there was a general knowledge question about Greta Thunberg - which country does she come from? You're right on the money there BBC!
ReplyDeleteShe comes from Loopyland I believe where they drive around in carriages pulled by fairies and eat fresh air for breakfast. In Loopyland the climate never changes...it is the same average temperature every year and they count the raindrops to make sure they have exactly the same number as the previous year. Everyone in Looplyland is ecstatically happy - except for those, the majority, who suffer from mental health issues, caused by their sadness at knowing some people in the Bad World don't like Loopylanders.
DeleteProof that the scruffy-looking beggars with their unkempt beards you see out on the pavement in London do have homes:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/bbcmarkmardell?lang=en
The slovenly tramp has form.
Delete“Licence-fee payers have been left to foot a £4,500 bill for damage to a Brussels house rented by BBC foreign correspondent Mark Mardell.
Fixtures and fittings were left broken, and floors and ceilings were damaged along with the architect-designed staircase. There were food and wine stains everywhere. There was also a peculiar smell from animals which were kept by the family, and this has been particularly difficult to get rid of.
Lol! Well unless you are a poor pensioner over 75 now having to fund his lifestyle...
DeleteWe might have guessed that the BBC would jump right on the new stop and search proposals.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear immediately that they think this is a bad idea.
They are using ‘reality check’ to inform us that the present method of targeted but fewer stop and searches is better.
We know already that the reality check strand is just a method to confirm the BBC reality and worldview. The standard modus operandi is to present poorly researched and carefully selected stats to validate the position they want to take.
I just hope only a few are taken in by this travesty masquerading as serious journalism.
Reality Check when it started out had pretensions of being this razor sharp dissection tool that would cut the bad away and reveal the truth.
DeleteIt was always useless, tendentious and overtly biased in its choices and methodology but now it is just one big sprawling, splodgy mess.
I see on the Reality Check, that they have taken to just plonking down news stories eg on stop and search, even though they have no RC branding.
If the BBC really didn't want to charge over 75s for the privilege of having access to a biased news service, they could start by disbanding and making redundant the staff - there must be a least 20 people involved. When you take in pensions, accommodation and all the rest it must be costing millions.
The BBC are reporting the pulling of The Hunt, a major Hollywood film in which liberals hunt Trump supporters, cal them the deplorables and kill them for sport.
ReplyDeleteThey offer no criticism, call it a satire and end with a number of quotes supporting the film release.
Imagine if the film roles were reversed, I can almost hear the howls of BBC outrage and disgust.
On the Guido comments:
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2019/08/12/richs-monday-morning-view-307/#disqus_thread
Warm Apple Pie has BBC (and MSM) bias in a nutshell:
...'Only gender you're allowed to be s£xist against- males
Only r&ce you're allowed to be r&cist against- whltes
Only s£xual orientation you're allowed to mock- stralght
Only reIlgion you're allowed to openly hate- Chrlstianity
Only natlonality you're allowed to be xen0phobic against- English' ...
Perhaps Number 4 should read Christianity and Judaism .
Because I was in the car for a while this morning I ended up subjecting myself to quite a long period (sorry for the pun) of Emma Barnett engaged in an anti-male hate session. She must have said "Willy-Waving" about 50 times. Imagine if a male BBC presenter talked about "Vag-Virtuing" or "Pussy-Propaganda". That would be the end of their career.
DeleteThere was an interesting insight to be had when Emma opined that all gender differences are based on social conditioning. This is such a discredited pseudo-scientific notion but clearly, as I am sure Mark Easton would confirm, this is the rigid dogma that the Beebotology cult members live by.
Actually thinking about it, there are some big similarities between these cults...Scientologists want you to sign up for their very expensive programmes that will make you "clear" and Beebologists want you to sign up for their very expensive programmes that will make you "woke".
Only difference is that it's the law that says you have to support the Beebotology cult. That makes it so much easier for them to pedal their pseudo science (Femiscience, Econutology, Equalitology, and Climate Change - the theory that changes as the weather changes), its conspiracy theories (Trump and the Far Right are behind everything, including Far Left terrorism) and its weird theology (there is no God but if you have to have one, try Allah).
No thanks. Eff off. Door slammed in face.
I watched a clip of Emma Barnett on YouTube in connection with The Great Irish Cow Cull (BBC fake 'news' - it hasn't happened, it won't happen)- is the red lipstick, cleavage flaunting, high-heeled strutting 'social conditioning' or sexual signalling?
DeleteWhy does the BBC think it's OK for them to write propaganda pieces on behalf of an extremist political organisation (Extinction Rebellion) that wants to close down our cities, roads, shipping and airports - something that even Al Queda never succeeded in doing?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49276909
And when are the Useless Tories going to complain rather than also support them (as Gove did)?
(Accidentally posted this on another thread...)
ReplyDeleteH/T to Marky Mark over on Biased BBC for this link demonstrating just how far comedy - particularly BBC-approved comedy - has fallen...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1srMmjHF1dDpkbVT1sfgbls/eleven-top-gags-from-edinburgh
The BBC are pushing their climate change obsession with a video that could be added to the Enid Blyton back catalogue - 'Greta goes West':
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-49331885/greta-thunberg-s-zero-carbon-journey-i-might-feel-a-bit-sea-sick
... 'Greta Thunberg's zero carbon journey: 'I might feel a bit sea sick'...
Further down:
... 'She told the BBC that travelling by boat sends a signal that "the climate change crisis is a real thing"....
Has Greta been on Blue Peter yet?
The way the BBC think is often dangerous and corrosive. They always seem to find the negative and extreme aspects in any given topic that would never enter the minds of most people. It says more about the BBC than it does of our nation. As usual, the calls and comments are carefully selected to reinforce their preferred position. Here are some examples introduced by Jeremy Vine today in his show.
ReplyDeleteThe real reason Meghan Markle is being criticised by Nigel Farage is because she is mixed race and he is a racist.
A trade deal with the US will be bad because we will have to follow their foreign policy if we do.
Facebook political ads can target and manipulate the audience and reinforce racist behaviour by political parties. (The Brexit party were given as an example of a party who have racist policies.)
Who is Meghan Markle BBC? Do you mean Mrs Windsor or the Duchess of Sussex? If 'the media' make her a 'celeb' don't be surprised if the plebs don't think she is 'royal'.
DeleteHas Nigel Farrage now become 'extreme far-right' and has to have his words 'voiced by an actor', like some IRA provo? Or could it be that he didn't say what he was accused of in the way that the BBC wanted?
Since when did trade deals involve alignment of foreign policy? Has the BBC got confused with the EU and its political union? Fake news BBC!
Now who do we know who wants to tailor content to match the viewer/listener and keep a profile of them? Isn't there something called 'Sounds' or something? I don't know because I don't pay much attention to adverts, particulary as the target audience is now clearly black.
Why did the BBC continuously refer to "the Queen Mother" as though she were still alive?
DeleteAnyone not familiar with the lady would have assumed she was still knocking about, rather than having been dead for 17 years! I don't think it was just the BBC's usual incompetence and lack of journalistic clarity...it was helpful to their anti-Farage attack to frame it in that way.
Yes, MB you are right and I forgot to mention Farage was voiced by an actor. Due emphasis on the key words to convey an impression. A bad impression - typical for the BBC. They just can’t help themselves.
DeleteAgain, the BBC News website pic editors are at work:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49336144
... 'Brexit: Hammond says PM's demands 'wreck' chance of new deal' ...
The photo shows Boris looking somewhat flustered, half-smiling contrasted to Hammond looking self-assured, higher up in the frame as the dominant figure. But:
This is an old photo from The Times (PA Media) from 21st May 2019, before Boris became PM. This is a disgraceful misuse of an image. All photos should carry a date when taken, and a location/event note.
The sub-plot from the BBC is that they promote Hammond's comments over no deal when he is no longer in the cabinet.
Yes. No doubt there is some deliberation in that choice.
DeleteBrilliant video on the Change Britain twitter feed showing just what brazen liars the Remainers are when they claim the prospect of no deal/WTO rules was not discussed during the Referendum campaign.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1161553730996711424
The truth is that issue was raised numerous times during the campaign.
The worrying thing is not just that Remainers lie - we know that, and that is their privilege - but that BBC presenters and reporters also echo them, never challenging them on their lies.
I observed on another thread that the BBC likes to use the word "warn" to boost the status of Remainer claims as it is a very authoritative word. When a Leaver warns about something, the BBC report it otherwise as "reacts angrily", suggesting an emotional spasm or "claims", a much weaker verb. Earlier today I saw "Hammond warns" somewhere on the BBC website. Seems to have gone or been changed now.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Cummings Rebuttal Team took action.
Meanwhile we have on the BBC website "10 ways a no deal Brexit could affect you". All 10 are negative. None are positive.
No it's still there - it was in the "stealth headline" that is on the Home Page...the part that doesn't get archived.
DeleteStealth ?
DeleteThe page is titled in the html and also on the page
: Brexit: Philip Hammond *warns* UK will lose control in no-deal scenario - BBC News
The hidden link title is Hammond says UK 'can't control no-deal Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978739
The stealth headline has now disappeared. The story is currently headed:
Delete"Brexit: Hammond says PM's demands 'wreck' chance of new deal"
Can't see any mention of "warn".
@MB it hasn't disappeared it's still there
Deletebut remember you never specified where you found it
\\ Earlier today I saw "Hammond warns" somewhere on the BBC website //
So I had to search
and found the page titled
: Brexit: Philip Hammond warns UK will lose control in no-deal scenario
..but note that is a nold page dated July 14
Weasel words from the BBC cannot disguise Hammond’s true intentions. As we suspected, he’s a rabid remainer who blocked money for no deal planning early on. I’m glad he had been flushed out into the open. People are not fooled any more by BBC headlines and stories. Minds have been made up long ago.
ReplyDeleteWe might be about to see how far the BBC are prepared to go to bring down Boris and prevent Brexit. Archives are full of statements from Hammond that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. He is pushing the May line. Move on BBC. Boris has learnt well from Donald Trump by using facebook to speak directly to the electorate. This must infuriate the BBC - the national broadcaster doesn't have the trust of the Prime Minister.
DeleteHarry Cole is right;
Delete“Not content with ham-stringing one PM, Hammond pops up to have another go. If he wanted to shape the agenda this much, he really should have run. And tested his support.”
Hammond is the ultimate unpopulist politician.
DeleteBBC News: "Boris Johnson has accused MPs "who think they can block Brexit" of a "terrible collaboration" with the EU."
ReplyDeleteGood, finally we have someone who is telling the truth about these backstabbers and conspirators. Add in Tony Blair who has been agreeing with Macron and Merkel how to undermine Brexit. These are borderline traitors (if you look up the legislation on treason you will see they are sailing very close to the wind).
I hope Johnson starts to make reference to Dominic Grieve's Legion d'Honneur for services to the French state. Time to start spraying them all the Remainiacs with invective.
The Remainers, typically, are claiming Boris Johnson's claims are a "wicked lie". Really? How about this story from March this year, where Dominic Grieve hosted a French Minister for discussions on Article 50 and a Second Referendum:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/06/exclusive-dominic-grieve-hosts-french-minister-discussions-article/
(Not so much a wicked lie, more a rigid truth.)
Just listened to the 10pm BBC One News. There really is a full on assault to stop no-deal. They are frantic and almost frothing at the mouth when reporting about Hammond and remain centric stories. Jon Sopel was overly excited and highly strung when praising Pelosi for her intervention.
DeleteYep, Newsnight was in Hyperdrive Warp 7...so desperate to stop it!
DeleteEgregious Emma reserved her greatest ire and most frequent interruptions for the sadly rather ineffective pro-Brexit MP Andrew Bridgen.
Advice to Leavers...don't take any sh*t from Emma.
Bridgen should have immediately picked up her reference to Tories at the outset and asked that she refer to the party as the Conservatives, noting she doesn't refer to Labour as "the Reds".
Bridgen did right in calling attention to BBC bias. But when she responded with an accusation that he was trying to divert from Conservative splits he should have doubled down and given chapter and verse on the bias.
And why doesn't Bridgen refer to Grieve's Legion d'Honneur or his meeting with Macron's French ministers?
The Remainer MPs need to get stuck in. If Brexit is to be secured they need to organise mass filibustering in Parliament and go on the offensive in the media.
... The Remainer MPs need to get stuck in... Should this read 'The Leaver MPs need to get stuck in'? I agree with you about the need for Boris and his cabinet to drown out the media. His move to use facebook is a smart move.
DeleteThanks Arthur! My old unintentional switcheroo there! Yes, if the Speaker is going to put Erskine May in the wastepaper basket, then the Leave MPs need to mount some serious procedural disruption. The Government must be able to do something.
DeleteBBC Reality Tweak working over time...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48511379
Still promoting the tired fake Remainer talking points:
1. "Divorce". Article 50 does not require a Member State to enter into any "divorce" arrangement at all. It has an absolute right to secede from the EU. This fake analogy of "divorce" is useful to Remainers. If you want to get out of a marriage you HAVE to divorce. And that's what the Remainers want you to think: that you have to have this "divorce". But you don't.
2. "Overnight, the UK would leave the single market and customs union - arrangements designed to help trade between EU members by eliminating checks and tariffs (taxes on imports)." Misleading again. Any state that leaves the EU leaves the Single Market. They don't have to leave the Customs Union if they reach an agreement to stay in the Customs Union (Turkey is a member effectively as are some other minor states). But throughout the Referendum campaign, the Remain side told us we would be outside the Customs Union. Were they lying? The BBC does not tell us.
3. "And the UK would no longer contribute to the EU budget - currently about £9bn a year." Misleading g on two counts. Firstly, no non Member State contributes to the EU budget (so whether we leave on a no deal or deal is not the key point here)...EFTA countries and Switzerland make contributions to support the deals they have reached with the EU, not the EU budget. If we leave on No Deal whether we decide we have an residual responsibility to contribute to the EU budget is something for us to decide. We might decide we wish to make a payment e.g. in respect of pension contributions.
4. What about this v. weird way of describing the N Ireland Border issue after a no deal Brexit?...
"But EU law says physical border checks would still be needed on some goods, such as food and chemicals.
However, neither the UK or Irish governments have so far said they would be willing to install border posts."
We won't be in the EU, so we have no legal obligation to put in place hard border infrastructure. Moreover our Government has stated explicitly we will not put in place any hard border infrastructure.
So why this weird construction suggesting we have some obligation to put in place hard border infrastructure after leaving on a no deal? Only the Republic might in theory have that requirement placed on it, but anyone with any sense knows it won't happen.
Taking my cue from the TGer in that video of the Democratic Socialists of America, I'd like to say in agitated tones:
ReplyDelete"Please!Can we please stop calling it a Second Referendum...it's a Rigged Rerun..."
The Rigged Rerun being plotted by Blair, Grieve, Hammond, Lucas, Swinson, Chukka, Soubry and the rest will have a choice between Remain and May's Abject Surrender Deal.
It will be like going to a restaurant and finding the only two items on the menu are reheated turd and congealed vomit.
If they try that on, Boris should call for a mass boycott, declare it illegitimate and state he will campaign to have the result cancelled, that he will not accept any result from such a Rigged Rerun.
Leaving reheated turds aside, John Bolton put it in plain English the other day:
Delete“The fashion in the European Union: When the people vote the wrong way from the way the elites want to go, it’s to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right,” he said.
Yes, I definitely smiled when I heard him say that on TV!
DeleteI can't see any difference between the MPs who are conspiring to block a no deal - and the MPs who are conspiring to block Brexit altogether. Where are the MPs who intend to vote against a no deal, but intend to vote for us to leave at the end of October?
DeleteTo put that another way: Who is left to speak for the MPs who maintained 'no deal is better than a bad deal' after May's WA was widely condemned as a bad deal?
DeleteWhat is it with the BBC and their disturbing views on illegal drugs?
ReplyDeleteThe main story on BBC 10pm news was about drugs but the entire narrative was about child exploitation by county line dealers. (The BBC called them criminals rather than drug dealers).
It wasn't about the deaths or the criminal gangs or how they destroy lives. It barely touched on the main elements of the drug crisis. The scene was set early on when a policemen said he no longer arrested people for heroin and cocaine if it was for personal use.
Mark Easton then did a personal opinion piece on government Drugs policy where he suggested safe spaces for taking drugs, free drugs for users and even decriminalising drugs. He finished by saying that The Home Office has said it doesn’t plan to change the legislative framework. He then mused that by ruling it out it prevented the very shift in thinking that critics say is needed.
Once again Easton presented a report that was a blatant political opinion piece.
More from the BBC News website - Lead headline on the Politics page:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612
... 'Jo Swinson: Clarke and Harman prepared to lead emergency government' ...
Sub heading: 'Senior Tory Ken Clarke and former deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman are both prepared to lead an emergency government to avoid a no-deal Brexit, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson has said.'
The BBC are now using the phrase 'to avoid a no-deal Brexit' when really they mean 'stop Brexit'. This article is biased idle speculation. Stick to reporting the news BBC.
Yes full-on, unapologetic propaganda now. On Today, Labour-supporting Sarah Smith was using the propaganda term "Government of National Unity" to describe plans for a government led by Far Left Pro-Hamas Pro-IRA Extremist Jeremy Corbyn and including a variety of people who have refused to submit themselves for re-election after switching party plus Jo Swinson who has declared she will not accept the result of a Second Referendum if it is pro-Brexit...some unity!
DeleteAnd yes, the non-Corbynite version, would be designed to stop Brexit, not just "no deal" as Swinson and Clarke.
And an embedded story within that article is the new reality check ‘ Would a Labour government stop Brexit?’.
DeleteWhich of course allows the BBC to spread more propaganda on how bad a no-deal is how to everyone other than the horrible Tories want to disrupt and stop it.
Looks like one of the pillars of Remainism has just collapsed.
ReplyDeleteI heard an Irish Minister being softly interviewed by Mark Mardell - using his "more in sorrow than anger" voice.
During this interview the Irish representative confirmed (as I have predicted all along) that in the event of no deal the Republic would not be putting in place a hard border in N Ireland, despite the fact that every other EU land border has a hard border.
Of course Mardell, did not follow up on the logic of this and ask the obvious question: "Why would you need a backstop in the future then if neither the Republic nor the UK are putting in place a hard border post Brexit?"
It seemed clear from what the Minister said that the Backstop requirement was a negotiating ploy designed (a) to bind the UK to the EU and extract unreasonable concessions from the UK and (b) designed to make life easy for the Irish, so they did not have to bear additional costs or have to suffer the embarrassment of in effect putting a border between the Republic and the rest of the EU (which is clearly, from the Minister's answers, what they are going to do).
You know how the BBC loves to hype up stories off the back of interviews on WATO and other news progs?
They certainly do, but not a whisper of this on the Brexit page on their website despite this being really big news.
Listened to Feedback tonight. I don't think I've heard such a smug, self-congratulatory programme for many a year.
ReplyDeleteFirst on, an Archers fangirl talking about the story in which the couple can't afford to buy the house....I heard the term "housing crisis" mentioned two or three times.
Then, the "Out Of Your Comfort Zone" piece where both listeners gave their opinions on R5's Nihal "cuddly grime" broadcast (WTF is it with the BBC and grime? They have a real hard on for it) the general opinion that it wasn't about the music, but "respect", "togetherness", "understanding" blah blah blah. The woman said she would listen to it again because it's on at 1pm and she won't have to hear Jeremy Vine speaking to "Daily Mail callers". Cue smug chortling from Roger and "let's pause it there"...too late the damage is done, this is of course a favorite BBC tactic BTW, let the guest air their "opinion" and then say we'll have to stop it there, you know balance yada yada yada.
Final piece was the lack of opportunities for the "working class" (spit) in the high level jobs....unfortunately the media is classed as one of those high level jobs. Cue some faceless author talking about his book about the lack of opportunity, without giving any solutions other than to mention the problem is possibly due to rich white men's mindset. Unfortunately he didn't go into any details about what that actually was. Not sure what exactly this piece was for as it didn't reference any particular show. Unless it was just so the author could plug his book (a mate of the producer perhaps?)
Anyway I digress.......Roger signed off by saying we'll be back in the autumn by which time we may have left with no deal...."try to enjoy what's left of summer". Gentle chortling. I thought this show was supposed to be some kind of critique of R4 if not totally critical, but tonight saw some major back slapping. I guess the show is up for commissioning again.
Feedback has been almost absent from Feedback this season, more 'feedfoward' as the BBC promotes/explains itself to the listener. One major topic has been promoting 'Sounds' and various podcasts.
DeleteWhere did they get the listener the previous week that thought Feedback was the mechanism for holding the BBC to account? As you say, their contract must be up for renewal.
Feedback has been a joke for a number of years now. Any honest feedback was long ago banished from the programme. It's now like that parody of the old "Points of View" from Not The Nine O'clock News way back: "I strongly disagree with the previous viewer: Nationwide is not just the best news programme on the planet but in the whole universe..."
DeleteThat's the level of "critique". And, yes most of it is just disguised advertising for Pathetic BBC programmes.
Housing crisis? Fair enough...it's just they never (and never will because "verboten") mention what lies behind the housing crisis: the mass immigration crisis.
BBC and Grime - essentially the BBC has been an enabler of knife crime, systematic abuse of underage girls and a lowering of public discourse. They can try and make homophobic bully Stormzy as cuddly as they like but it won't wash with oldies or youngies. :)
Media jobs for the working class? Is this the BBC eating itself? Of course not. The Justins and Tristrams and Zoes and Indias aren't going to deprive their progeny of media jobs. What they will do is allow pretend working class people in...people who have dark skins and do the glottal stop thing even though they have been to private school.
Feedback is a very good example of why we have to dismantle and destroy the BBC as it currently exists.
"Feedback" has been the pits since Chris Dunkley was removed from introducing it.
DeletePeterloo Poo...
ReplyDeleteBBC are deliberately trying to link the populist Chartists with Far Left Socialist. The Chartists were simply seeking equality before the law for all citizens, including in relation to Parliamentary legislation. They were NOT Marxists seeking equality of outcome in all fields of human activity. Peterloo was hijacked by the Far Left in the late 19th century.
We should respect the Peterloo martyrs and stop this desecration of their memory.
Another thoroughly on-message R4 outing; A Good Read with Harriet Gilbert, with panel consisting of beta male, woke comedienne and ethnic academic. The choice of books usually pan out thusly: beta male, book about boy growing up with abusive father; woke comedienne, book about feminism; ethnic academic, book about the Empire and slavery. Expect to hear the phrases "abusive relationship", "lack of strong female leads", "white imperialism", "celebration of women's relationships with other women", etc etc bandied about. As for the books themselves I doubt anyone other than the panel would want to read them. Dreadful listen.
ReplyDeleteThink you've got it spot on there! It used to be about books people might enjoy reading...now it's about books that either tick boxes or make the reader feel virtuous (rather than entertained or enlightened).
DeleteOn the few occasions I've come across it in recent months, there is I feel the faint sound of people walking on egg shells to be heard in every comment they make...they are all so desperate not to offend anyone with "protected characteristics".
Have they taken Mariella Frostrup off the programme?...I can imagine her "ready-for-bedding" voice must be considered v. old fashioned these days. Females are supposed to sound strident, bemused (at the folly of the unwoke) or darkly threatening these days.
Do people remember the phrase "cultural cringe"? - what many Aussies used to display towards British culture, an automatic feeling it must be superior to their own.
One of the worst things now is hearing men do the "gender cringe". Danny Finkelstein, alleged "right winger", did it on Newsnight the other day, expressing Maoist-style self-criticism for his past failure to realise the huge commanding greatness of female figures in the arts and literature. No examples given, but his confession of mysogynistic guilt went down well with the two women.
You just can’t trust the BBC to tell the unvarnished truth anymore. We have seen it so often before with Islamist terrorist incidents.
ReplyDeleteThe tragic death of the PC in Berkshire is another example. They were very slow to report that the suspects were travellers from a local caravan park. It wasn’t until it was widely reported everywhere else that the BBC updated their story. As far as I can tell the BBC have failed to report that the victim was hit by the police dog patrol car after being dragged underneath a van.
Surely we should be getting the full story from our national broadcaster rather than piecing together the missing bits from everyone else.
Presumably once again PC sensitivity is at play by editors to censor uncomfortable truths.
I see Owen Jones has taken a kicking while out drinking. The BBC quick to report this may be homophobic or political attack, Jones thinks its a "far right" targeted attack.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile two high profile murders are just due to old fashioned lawlessness and thuggery. Nothing so common for our Owen..
There's no doubt that Far Left identity and grievance politics is fuelling the current violent crime spike. But don't expect the BBC to report on that!
DeleteThere's CCTV all over central London...I can't believe this incident wasn't caught on CCTV. Is there really no CCTV of it?
Also, I note that Owen Jones hasn't said his atackers were "white" - just "Far Right"...so what are we talking about here?
Why no description of the attackers? Even if the attack wasn't recorded, the Police will have no trouble in identifying the attackers on other CCTV cameras in the area...we're talking Islington here.
Is this going to be one of those puzzles that never gets answered?
Owen Jones attackers may be or may not be, as he has claimed, far right activists. But if it transpires that they don’t fit the convenient profile, you can be absolutely sure that it won’t be a front page story on their website.
DeleteAccording to the BBC tonight, Hong Kong is deeply divided and as they keep reminding us so is the UK and the US.
ReplyDeleteThe only things they report as completely united is the EU and the mantras of ‘they will not divide us’ and ‘hope not hate’ after a bombing.
It's noticeable how the BBC have been quite sympathetic to the views of the Chinese Communist-Military Dictatorship. Compare and contrast with Putin's Regime.
DeleteI don't like either version political oppression, but it is incredible how China gets pretty much a free pass, even when it is basically incarcerating one million Muslims and trying to turn them into non-Muslims, destroying Tibetan culture, forcing medical procedures on women, deploying torture, executing people on a grand scale, killing disabled people and using technology to spy on every single citizen of the country...Basically Putin is nowhere near as oppressive but for some reason, the BBC along with the Clintons, the Democrats, George Osborne and Philip Hammond don't think you criticise the Chinese too strongly.
Yes, agreed. Everything is very black and white with the bbc. Some what simplistic but basically true
DeleteChina good, Russia bad
Democrats good, republicans bad
Palestine good, Israel bad
Left wing good, right wing bad
NHS good, private healthcare bad
Immigration good, more controls bad
Drug laws bad, decriminalisation good
Liberalism good, conservatism bad
Green fuel good, Carbon fuel bad
Socialism good, capitalism bad
Equality of outcome good, equality of opportunity bad
BBC good, right wing MSM bad
Social media good, freedom of speech bad
Yes, the BBC have given up calling the governing part Conservatives. Everything is Tory, Senior Tory etc. They know that it is a loaded name harking back to privilege, ruling classes, and therefore is to be despised. Arne, add to your list:
DeleteTory bad, all else good.
... calling the governing party ...
DeleteThe Mail online are running a story that John Sweeney is being investigated by the BBC
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7367755/BBC-probes-Panorama-journalist-secretly-filmed-buying-champagne-gin-flaming-Sambuca.html
It's worth reading. The piece at the end suggests that the BBC are ready to produce a whitewash:
Delete... 'It is understood Sweeney is in Italy while he awaits the BBC’s decision over how they deal with the video.
The BBC and Sweeney declined to comment last night but the Corporation insisted he paid for the drinks himself. It refused to confirm whether the Panorama on Robinson would be screened.' ...
I don't suppose Sweeney is worried in the least. He's probably been told to keep his head down (go to Italy with salary and expense account in tact) and the PR dept will do the rest.
'Don't do anything stupid,' she said. 'Don't make us look bad,' she said. 'Don't make yourself the story', she said. 'I'll show her,' he thought.
ReplyDeleteWhy are the BBC on the side of Jihadi Jack just as they were with Shamima Begum? They are not on the side of British public opinion that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteTheir job is to report the news, I get that and this is reportable news. But they always have to get involved further and take a position to make a political point.
It is clear by the tone of the report, the quotes used and the interview of his father where the BBC stand on this one.
It is our own government who is in the dock for revoking his citizenship. In the click bait headline they also brand Sajid Javid a coward by using their favourite trick of making their point by using quotes of others to give a degree of separation.
The lead story on BBC news tonight was more Brexit project fear with the leaked Yellowhammer document. The analysis that followed was just more personal opinion where the reporter spouted that there is no evidence that the governments no deal strategy is working because the EU are not indicating any movement.
ReplyDeleteThat statement is just plain ridiculous given the negotiating timeline leading up to 31 October.
There was no attempt to explain anything other than the only narrative that matters to the BBC.
1. Apparently we will have a glut of imported petrol, leading to the closure of UK oil refineries and loss of jobs.
Delete2. Because we have no refineries we will have no petrol.
While it is valid to scope the extreme possibilities it isn't valid to assume that all extreme states can exist at the same time!
Here's a new trick on the BBC News website Home page. Under 'Most Read' is a headline: ... 'Tory Divisions' over 'leaked crisis plans for Brexit' ....
ReplyDeleteClick on the link and it takes you to the Papers page, and the headline is top of the list from The Guardian. Therefore, we should conclude that this is one of the 'Most Read' articles on the BBC News website?
They wish it was. The Guardian is essential reading at the BBC. Guardian and BBC staff are interchangeable as are the articles.
DeleteEvery day the BBC is leading with a project fear no deal Brexit story. Their objective is very transparent but they obviously don’t care that we know. It’s all prefaced by ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘may’ and ‘at risk’.
ReplyDeleteTonight has British oil refineries might close
In the last few days we have had
Food shortages for schools, care homes and the NHS
Nutritional standards dropping
USA coming after the NHS
Farms hit by £850 million
Package holidays cancelled
Exchange rate disaster
Drugs shortages
Border queues at key Ports
Project Yellowhammer scares
Freedom of movement chaos
Repeating every negative no deal story without fact checking and however daft the source is not impartial reporting.
They have lost their audience with this onslaught. It will have the reverse effect.
BBC Midlands Today leads with a Brexit story tonight.
ReplyDelete‘Farmers for a people’s vote’ were having a meeting at a hotel in Market Drayton and the BBC cleared their diary and rushed across to interview those attending. As you might guess, it was totally one sided and anti-Brexit because everyone there wanted to remain.
Of course farmers want to remain. The subsidies. Oh, and the cheap EU labour.
Delete...and the tariff wall. :)
Delete@MB note I just added a comment 6 posts above
ReplyDeletere : Brexit: Philip Hammond warns UK will lose control in no-deal scenario
Water under the bridge...but they do merge stories, change headlines, change the stealth headlines, sometimes create sub headlines out of headlines, sometimes de-merge stories...so it can be difficult to follow what's going on. It's a BBC trait. Most news websites don't adopt the BBC smoke and mirrors approach as far as I can see.
DeleteAll BBC R4 "news" reports tonight extending the "backstop" to "the backstop, which is an insurance policy to prevent a hard border in ireland".
ReplyDeleteI've never had an insurance policy which I can't stop until the insurer tells me I can.
Excellent observation Ozfan! As I have noted before "insurance policy" is how the EU describes it. It is how May described it. It is NOT how the current government describes it. Boris describes it as an anti-democratic proposal. I and most Remainers describe it as a negotiation ploy with no substance.
DeleteThe BBC have firmly aligned themselves with the EU.
Be wary of reported drugs shortages in the UK post Brexit as we are suffering certain drug shortages here in France now.
ReplyDeleteI think I heard about a drugs shortage in the UK on the radio the other day..."despite" us being in the EU!!!
DeleteThere will also be plots to create a "catastrophe" if we achieve a No Deal Brexit. We can fully expect a blockade of channel ports by French fishermen aided and abetted by Macron. Personally I think that argues for caution re our fisheries - let the French fish there for an indeterminate period, subject to good behaviour, so we get over the initial "wobble" period.
I'm not sure if anyone else has raised this but last Monday, 19 August, while in my car I heard a petty grim example of BBC bias on the PM programme, an item about "neo fscist" violence in the USA - it's at about 39 minutes in.
ReplyDeleteIn the item the BBC "journalist" says that it is "unquestionable" that political violence is the responsibility of white supremasists.
My own reading of the situation from US news and other sources tells me a very different story. This report had centred on events in Portland, Oregon. There's history to this. A left liberal mayor has been at odds with his own police force about how to react to mainly anti-fascist violence. Not long ago a demonstration by the conervative group, the Proud Boys, has been attacked by masked "antifa" members. A conservative journalist present, Andy Ngo, a gay, vietnamese guy of was set on by masked antifa thugs and left with a brain hemorrhage - for being a conservative journalist. There were no police to protect him - the "liberal" mayor had told them to keep their distance from the demonstration. The Proud Boys came back mto assert their free speech rights under the US constitution - they did nothing violent but they were still attacked by antifa (who also, if you look at You Tube, have a tendancy to attack anyone who objects to their brutality, whatever their views. Tim Pool's you Tube and othe channels fill in a lot more detail on this. by the way, the BBC reporters claim that violence, in the form of mass shootings, is principally the responsibility of right wingers is pretty unsound - look at ther statistics - say a search on Mass Shooting Tracker.
This "Reality Check" from the BBC is absolutely appalling - full of errors, misdirection and false claims. It's simply pro-EU propaganda.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48826360
"Would you notice if you crossed the Irish border?"
DeleteWouldn't the yellow lane markings and speed limit signs in km/h give it away?
"If Brexit happens, the 310-mile Irish border will represent the only land border between the UK and the EU."
DeleteDebatable. We have a channel tunnel which is effectively a land border.
"As well as no longer being in the EU, Northern Ireland is likely to end up with different rules and standards to its neighbour, the Republic of Ireland."
It's not really Northern Ireland, it's the UK which will have the different rules and standards. Describing it as a problem between Northern Ireland and the EU is already describing it in terms favourable to the EU's view of the matter.
"That's because the UK intends to leave the customs union and single market - arrangements designed to make trade easier between EU countries."
Or you could say "to make trade between the EU and the rest of the world more difficult.
"Lorries travelling to the EU from Northern Ireland would be required to stop at the border for document checks and some product inspections. This would be to ensure their goods meet EU standards."
Loving the "would be"...this is only in an EU backed scenario. The UK government has made clear it has no intention of imposing border checks, so the border check will take place in the Republic not in the UK... to say they will be stopped "at the border" when travelling from the UK to EU is to suggest they will be stopped on the UK side. They won't.
"Following incidents like foot-and-mouth disease and the horse meat scandal, the EU is very strict about these requirements."
Yes. But the UK is as strict and possibly more so. So, all that is required is for the EU to accept that there is regulatory alignment in this area of animal health. Stop distorting everything BBC!
"In theory, such checks would mean things like cameras and security posts, creating a so-called "hard border"."
In theory, the EU has strict auditing requirements that prevent corruption. It's only in theory though.
"Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end."
So now it's "the return of a hard border". Two things wrong about that. Firstly it never was a "hard border". There never was a "hard border". There are some 275 road crossings, and numerous other paths and so on. Only a small percentage of the road crossings ever had hard border control infrastructure. Moreover, Irish and British citizens had the right to cross freely under the terms of the Common Travel Agreement dating back to the 1920s.
"Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end."
Concerns have been raised by whom? Concerns are never disembodied. The only people who have raised these concerns are the EU, the Republic of Ireland government, Remainiacs or Republican (let us hope) ex terrorists. But the BBC would prefer you to think they are spectral concerns floating around in the ether...
Two things wrong about that... (from above) I forget to mention the second point: "the return of a hard border" is not a "thing" it is a negotiating ploy being used by the EU and Ireland to extort maximum concessions. It has been a successful ploy (prior to Boris beooming PM) because our treachorous Civil Service, Hammondites, Mayites and disloyal interest groups like the CBI have worked diligently and relentlessly to present the threat of a hard border as a real thing...when anyone who knows anything about Ireland or the UK will know it will never happen. The government of the Republic of Ireland would sooner leave the EU than put in place a hard border. And we are not going to put in place a hard border. The EU understand the realities. They will not force Ireland to put in place a hard border. But the EU and Ireland know it works much better for them to pretend there is a real threat of a hard border.
DeleteMy only criticism of Boris at this stage is that he doesn't come out and make this plain... :)
"However, the EU does not currently share a single border with a non-EU country where checks have been completely eliminated."
DeleteThe article then references the Norway and Sweden implying that there are border checks all away along the border. This is of course false. From Wikipedia:
----There are around 30 more roads crossing the border, without customs station (most notably E16), but they are not allowed to use if having goods needing declaration. Heavy trucks can be allowed to use them by pre-declaration. They are surveilled by video and temporary checks. ---
So huge sections of the Norway-Sweden border do not have hard border infrastructure. They rely on technology to ensure the border crossings without hard infrastructure are not abused. Pretty much the solution proposed for Northern Ireland.
""We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January."
Sabine is a liar. Leichtenstein has a customs checkpoint with the EU which is not at the border but at the end of the motorway that leads into EU territory. Don't the BBC know that?
"But no one has started building border posts and the UK and Irish governments say they don't want a hard border.
So there is a very real question, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, about who would actually install the border posts if the EU insist they're necessary."
This is where the BBC always stop! lol They never admit firstly that the UK government have stated clearly and unequivocally they will not install hard border infrastructure. So, come on BBC, who does that leave? Ireland and the EU. The Republic will never put in place hard border infrastructure. For one thing that would mean they were breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement! So we are now down to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe the EU will make the Republic put in place a hard border? No way. All they will do is make the Republic beef up checks at their ports.
"Concerns have been raised by whom?"
DeleteThat's easy! Some, as in 'some say'.
Ah yes, "the Somes" - a family close to the BBC's heart...always ready with an invented quote.
DeleteBut "some say" the BBC's days are numbered.
Double boost for Boris Johnson as Emmanuel Macron follows Angela Merkel to re-open Brexit backstop - The Sun
ReplyDeleteMacron tells Boris Johnson that Brexit deal can be amended -Telegraph
Despite the tough love, Johnson’s EU sortie has been a relative success - Guardian
Prime Minister appears in triumphant mood after Emmanuel Macron backs Angela Merkel's plan - Mail
Backstop indispensable, Macron tells Johnson -BBC
Headlines on tonight’s online editions - spot the odd one out. Classic case of bias by omission.
Best part of all this is it gives Johnson time to spin out things in Parliament, so it will be difficult for the Remainiac-Anti-Democratic Alliance to put together the votes to stop a no deal Brexit.
DeleteI think the EU have either decided to back down (come to an agreement on the basis of ditching the backstop in effect, whatever diplomatic niceties might cover the fact) or, more likely, have decided there is no mileage for them in any further A50 extensions as that will just strengthen populism in the UK.
Another possibility is they might agree to completely ditch the WA but agree a 2 year transition with a review to see whether that can be turned into a long term FTA. They will of course require some money for that. So maybe a very large downpayment on the £39 billion - £20 billion perhaps.
That could be enough for BJ to win a General Election if he can say we are out on 31 Oct with no commitment to accept ECJ judgements, the backstop, or Customs Union membership.
BBC News did a full blown very positive Antifa promo tonight. White supremacists were to blame. Trump was wrong to label them terrorists and the real danger.
ReplyDeleteIt was made crystal clear which side the BBC are on.
I was in a pub tonight and just saw the visuals...even without sound you could tell it was an Antifa promo - the Antifa guy (who I have seen on video committing unprovoked assaults) looked totally relaxed as he was massaged - sorry, interviewed - by the Beeboid.
DeleteLet's not forget the US Government is seriously looking at declaring Antifa a terrorist organisation - quite rightly in my view. It is an organisation, funded by shadowy billionaires, that seeks to change politics through instilling terror - fear of violence being visited on one's self or one's family simply because you express an opinion they deem unacceptable.
Deleteradio 4 piece on travelling with only hand luggage:
ReplyDelete1st point made: women compete at the baggage carousel to bring the least luggage
2nd: men are bad at packing so have to take big suitcases
3rd: women are lucky, they can put dresses in hand luggage - however, there is nothing to stop a man doing this either
It was fascinating
We seem to have gone full circle!
DeleteMen are so scattered-brained...only women can plan ahead...men are so needy about their clothes. I would still expect there is a huge difference between women's expenditure on clothes and men's.
Katie Hopkins once again keeping us informed in a way the BBC never would do.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1165199806815506432
...highlighting the scandal of easy entry to the UK for business visitors who can then make use of free health and education services for all the family and totally milk the system.
H/T to TrueToo at Biased BBC.
ReplyDeleteJane Garvey has let the cat out of the bag...admitting to what every single BBC manager, presenter and reporter will lyingly deny on all other occasions - that the BBC has a love affair with the Labour Party. Even if that might have cooled slightly since the heady days of 1997, that doesn't mean of course that they have transferred their affections to the Conservatives" Duh!!...they've simply been playing around with other Left parties and organisations like the Greens, Lib Dems, Change UK, SNP, Plaid, Momentum and Extinction Rebellion. But Labour are still the love of their lives - if Labour were to declare its love for Remain, they would soon be back together under the sheets.
Here's the transcript:
"Ah, well – I had been up for most of the night but I was doing this Five Live breakfast programme with our colleague at the time – it was a bloke called Peter Allen so – I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into – we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London – all very upmarket in those days – and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles – I will always remember that (Allen laughs) – er – not that the BBC were celebrating in any way shape or form (Allen, laughing – ‘no, no, no, not at all’) – and actually – I think it’s fair to say that in the intervening years the BBC, if it was ever in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learned to fall back in, or basically just learned to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be – um – but there was always this suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkoes who couldn’t wait for Labour to get back into power – that may have been the case, who knows ? but as I say I think there’ve been a few problems along the way – wish I hadn’t started this now…"
I've said this before, but the EU referendum really put this in perspective. Before 2016, there may have been some few BBC staff in positions of influence which may have had conservative leanings but in 2016 there would not be a single BBC staffer of influence who even knew a leave voter (unless it was an elderly parent or grandparent). Mow these same influential staffers are determined to revoke Brexit, bring down the government and proceed with full EU integration, they may yet succeed.
DeleteA note about BBC Wales, it is staffed by mainly welsh nationalist sympathisers.
The determination of undemocratic Remainers to overturn the democratic Referendum vote of 2016 has also led to further polarisation so now a large proportion of Leave supporters and pro-democracy voters realise just how biased the BBC are. That is leading people to wonder what they pay their licence fee for? To have democracy undermined and their vote cancelled? To be lectured at by hypocrites who dodge tax and fly in private jets? To be vilified as racists for wanting to preserve their culture - a human right recognised by the UN?
DeleteSo in addition to ideology, I think the BBC now see that this is a matter of survival for them. If they don't stop Brexit the prospect of a fast approaching reckoning for them becomes more likely, because Brexit could well lead to a more general populist upsurge as people realise just how much they have been lied to.
It's everything to play for, everything to lose. Last chance for the UK in my opinion.