Extraordinary item on WATO today...a complete rubbishing of their own BBC Executive Complaints Unit's criticism of Naga Munchetty for biased commentary on Trump - alleging he is a racist.
There was no open discussion, just a one-sided defence of La Naga. Presumably this was the BBC Sisterhood coming together to protect one of their own...It was so very one-sided it was like a football match with only one team on the pitch knocking the goals in.
It got very surreal when they brought in an authoritative commentator to give his views. This was Marcus Ryder. Who does he work for? Chinese Global Television Network...the international propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist dictatorship.
Who do Chinese Communists hate the most? Er - Trump of course.
So, we have an item that confirms what the orginal judgement against Munchetty confirmed:
1. The BBC is rabidly anti-Trump.
2. The BBC hates democratically elected Trump more than the genocidal Chinese Communist dictatorship.
3. The BBC will always protect "women of colour" as long as they spout PC nonsense.
4. BBC staff have no respect for their own complaints procedures.
5. Gross bias is no longer punished at the BBC, but is commended and supported.
The only question is: why has the Executive Complaints Unit gone rogue? I had a theory that the most senior managers at the BBC are concerned that more and more BBC presenters can't be arsed anymore to hide their bias behind the normal, elaborate circumlocutions. This puts BBC bias in plain view and it cannot be denied. Long term, that could have serious implications for the licence fee gravy train system...so you can see why they might be worried.
So maybe the ECU is being used to whip BBC presenters in line, to get them using again the old camouflage...but I don't think it's working. Maitlis was back to full bias mode yesterday after her ECU mauling seemed to have dampened her down a smidgeon. And now we have this nose-thumbing from WATO.
What a liar that Bercow is (if we are still allowed to use such scandalous language that may result in untold carnage)!
He tells the PM to sit down. Quite rightly, after 3 plus hours of answering stupid and or insulting questions, the PM gives him the Royal Goodbye. Bercow then lies to Parliament, claiming he "asked" the PM to remain for the points of order.
Peaky Blinders In recent days the libmob, the Guardianlalaland, the BBC have been chanting that we must not have a national atmosphere that is angry or inciting and that words like “surrender” and “humbug” should be banned
Yet this same BBC has created and promoted this drama series where downright nasty violent characters are glorified.
BTW did anyone listen to Wednesday's R4 Media Show which was entirely about Peaky Blinders ? Instead of having the BBC's Amol Rajan talking about how great this BBC show is , they had the non-BBC presenter So that was impartial Yeh right, the guy they used is a Guardian Editor .. Their Media Editor jimWaterson .... facepalm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008nzr
Not for the first time is it? Thinking back to Shameless. And of course more seriously BBC 3 and BBC Radio 1 Xtra have been assiduous in promoting murderous, Class A drug-dealing, gang-promoting drill and grime music.
The Guardian-BBC is effectively one organisation.
Did you see that Alan Rusbridger, ex Guardian editor, in his Oxford College has appointed Lady Hale along with Gary Lineker as visiting fellows...maybe it was you who mentioned it Stew! Maybe the Guardian-BBC have opened up a branch office in the Supreme Court.
Actually I think Radio 4 gave that Jim Waterson his own programme to witter on about chance connections - how a fight in a Commons bar led to Brexit (kind of). He must be due a transfer between departments!
Totally biased intro. Any visting extraterrestrial would assume Labour MPs never ever used intemperate language. Look at their faces contorted with hate!
Labour are either aggressive or passive-aggressive or both.
John Major - they love him now. Political chicanery. Order of Council - suspend the Act...sounds good to me. But I don't think it will happen.
EU stitch up - they are desperate to keep us in.
All anti-Boris, anti-Conservative talking points. No pro-Brexit talking points.
Andrew Mitchell - a bit of a twat - playing to the BBC line that we are "an incredibly divided country". I don't believe that. I would say only 20% of the country want to overturn the Referendum result. But they include the vast majority of rich and influential people and some of the most poisonous political elements determined to get their minority way.
Mitchell not defending Boris with any vigour. Presumably that's why Newsnight have got him on.
Dominic Grieve on - still no reference to his Legion d'honneur...Anne Widdicombe missed a trick there. Why is it considered something that has to be kept secret - like his French home, his French mother, his friendship with Macron and his busy media presence in France? Surely it's all highly relevant to his Brexit stance.
BREXICAST WATCH
Not too bad...much better than Newsnight for sure. More insight I would say. But it's still all led by Remain, Labour and EU talking points. When pro-Brexit talking points are given some rare consideration, they switch from objective language ("the EU sees that..." "there is concern about how language is being used...") to the language of subjectivity ("Brexiters feel that..." "the hope is..." "the strategic idea here is...").
All the participants come across as essentially Remainy Folk. But as I suggested, still not as bad as a Maitlis, Barnett or Wark session.
I'm just watching an item on Sky News about Brexit. It's a real surprise because it is actually a more or less balanced report! Not the sort of thing you would ever see on the BBC and rarely now on Sky News.
For one thing it points out Hull, not Dover, is our biggest port for trade with the EU. Who knew? And that some RORO outfits previously using Dover and are now shifting to containerised transfer via Hull. And that containerised transport can handle perishable goods like flowers and food.
The Hull port management say that are fully prepared for Brexit on whatever terms on 31 Oct.
The general tenor of the report was that there is not going to be some sort of national catastrophe on day 1 of a No Deal Brexit. Something all sensible people understand including all the leading Remainers. The Remainers are lying about catastrophe.
The moral of this is that if they wanted to be, the MSM could be balanced.
The people of Hull voted strongly in favour of Leave. For that reason, opinions emanating from there will carry little weight with the BBC. They will be dismissed as far-right dinosaurs.
The people of Hull can expect to be socially engineered by the BBC to think differently - to accept that they stay in the EU, that they subscribe to the BBC worldview that immigration is good, that multicultural influences will improve the life of the people of Hull, and that the BBC distorted image of a vibrant multicultural London will apply to Hull and eventually to all of the UK.
John Humphrys, when he said: ... ‘The BBC finds it "hard to resist" the temptation to engage in social engineering. It sometimes tries "to create society in its own image”.’ …
No balance on Radio 4's Today of course. Nick Robinson in full Kenclarkean mode. Only the PM and Dominic Cummings have used intemperate language. Only the Johnson government, not the EU or the Starmer quasi-government, keep their Brexit plans under wraps.
A balanced presentation about use of language would at least recognise that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party has spoken up in support of IRA terrorists, saying they should be honoured, and "joked" about going back in time to assassinate Mrs Thatcher. It would also recognise that Jeremy Corbyn has referred to the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends and supported strikers convicted of violent offences, including homicide. It would further recognise that Paula Sherriff has used intemperate language about the present government and that on social media most of the offensive verbiage is from Remainers directed at Leavers whom they refer to as senile, racist, stupid, uneducated, unemployable and so on. Furthermore to ramp up language about No Deal Brexit is also intemperate. To call it "catastrophic" or "taking us off a cliff edge" or "crashing out" is simply irresponsible. We enter WTO terms with the EU. Planes continue to fly. Food continues to be traded. Goods continue to flow. Yes, there will be some issues, but certainly no more than when French fisher folk blockade Dover, or there's an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or an Icelandic volcano spews out ash. The amount of disruption will be minimal.
Will our economy be held back? We'll see. That's democracy for you...or are these extremists saying a Corbyn government will be illegitimate because we know its economic policies will be truly damaging to the UK?
I've just seen a clip of Karl Turner, a Remain MP from the Leave-voting City of Hull laying into Dominic Cummings "wishing him dead in a ditch" (Guido suggests). He's another who daren't vote for a general election for fear of the voting intentions of his electorate.
Sorry Arthur - hadn't seen your post when I posted similar below....
He definitely says that Cummings "should be in a ditch, dead". These sensitive Labour types eh?
The worst thing is that the BBC deliberately avoided subtitling those words but subtitled all the virtue signalling guff from the aggressive Karl Turner.
The scene reminded me of being back in school where the big thicko bully deliberately seeks out the weak intelligent kid who said something about him behind his back,pinning him against the wall and giving him a punch sa a goodbye present. Turner was however not so thick as to throw the punch...contenting himself with wishing Cummings dead in a ditch.
If the Conservatives had any nous about them, they will make a huge thing of this in the Commons, urgent debate, points of order, asking for Speaker's ruling...MP threatening govenrment official etc
Dominic Cummings has been added to the BBC hit list. Here is an extract from:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49847304
'Dominic Cummings: Anger at MPs 'not surprising', PM's adviser says'
.... '"This is a walk in the park compared to the referendum. We are enjoying this. We are going to leave and we are going to win," he said.
But, when questioned as he left his home in London on Friday morning, Mr Cummings said: "Who said it would be a walk in the park?"
Told that he had made the remark, he replied: "No." ' ...
In order to believe the BBC it would be necessary to give a date, time and location for DC's words if not a clip - otherwise it can be mistaken as fake news. I would have thought the BBC would work hard to avoid the fake news slur.
He is the main story on the BBC website right now. This is a political move by the BBC disguised as news. By making him the story and a target I suspect they are trying to build a narrative about his disruptive and unhelpful influence.
It’s success depends if this push can get the rest of the MSM, social media and MPs, commentators and influencers to get behind them sufficiently.
A clip has emerged, gleefully shown by the BBC News channel during which DC did say what was reported about 'walk in the park'. DC has played into the BBC hands there.
A bit silly perhaps but the BBC is also twisting the truth (see below) to benefit Labour (by not subtitling Karl Turner's death threat to Dominic).
I recall hearing that Cummings is leaving Government service on 1st October. He may just be playing games with our Fake News Media and drawing fire away from Boris. Or he may have forgot he said it!
Arthur T.- Note the question was missing so that the context was not clear. I thought he seemed to be answering a question about the pressure he was under. The answer was then conflated with an answer to a question whether he thought Brexit would be a walk in the park in the doorstepping clip.
Looks to me like disgraceful manipulation by the BBC. This is fake news until they show us the question as well. If they were not given the question they should not have shown the clip on the National News on BBC1 at 1 pm as they did.
Yes Anon you're right. The 'he replied: "No." ' could relate to anything. These questions shouted from a distance are hardly incisive journalism "Will you resign Prime Minister?"
Interesting anon if they didn't show the question. That does make me suspicious. He could have been thinking about two different concepts: "the task of securing Brexit compared with task of winning the Referendum" and "how difficult my job at No. 10 is now compared with how difficult my job was at Vote Leave." They are two different things. One might be a walk in the park and the other might not be. We'd need the full text of both sets of Q and As. It is safest to assume that the BBC are distorting and censoring e.g. broadcasting Jess Phillips comments as though they accurately reflected what Johnson was referring to with his "humbug" and ensuring no one is reminded on national news about Jess Phillips' various aggressive comments including the notorious "knife him in the front" comment.
Aggressive Labour MP Karl Turner can clearly be heard telling Dominic Cummings he should be "in a ditch, dead" but the BBC chose not to subtitle that!!! How very convenient.
Rory Cellan-Jones desperately trying to keep up with the PC virtue signalling crowd despite being a bald white middle aged man and therefore disqualified from having a bona fide view according to Krishna Guru-Murthy.As President Obama might say: "You're going to be at the back of the queue, Rory."
Still, it will do him good to be seen to be defending Naga Munchetty's officially biased anti-Trump rant (along with being married to an ex BBC Trust member!).
It was interesting to see how desperate KGM was to find out who is in the Executive Complaints Unit at the BBC. Presumably he wanted to put the Channel 4 Rottweilers (so you're saying puppy dogs?) on to them.
Clear that the whole of the corrupt BBC crowd are having a complete meltdown at being held to account even just a tincey-wince and being reminded about the rules of impartiality.
And of course, the PC crowd are, as they always do, trying to racialise it.
Looks like the BBC is suppressing Trump's claim that Adam Schiff misquoted the recorded conversation between him and the Ukraine President. Why on earth isn't that news? The BBC is a censoring Fake News Service.
The hypocrisy of the Labour virtue signallers is on a sickening scale.
Earlier this year he tweeted a photo of Carl Benjamin covered in milk shake following an assault while campaigning. Turner commented: "Another truly vile @UKIP candidate gets a milkshake for lunch. " and accompanied that incitement to further violence with a "thumbs-up" emoji.
Have we reached peak PC, peak virtue signalling hypocrisy, peak Greta, peak BBC bias and peak Sorosization of the UK all at the same time? Let's hope so.
You can only trust in the people...as Brecht might have said, you can't elect a new people.
The people have been lied to by the BBC, ITV and Sky. They have been subject to brainwashing at school and at work. They have been threatened with the law, with economic catastrophe. They have been told they are racist, swivel eyed loons, uneducated, ignorant and left-behind.
Remarkably the people have remained steady...stirring stuff.
If the people stay steady and take their revenge at the next election, we may yet survive.
If not, it is probably GAME OVER for our nation, our once proud, maybe too proud nation.
I actually saw BBC News transmit his Westminster speech in full. Even the "tell us what he meant" afterwards wasn't terrible.
Maybe the BBC has realised that publicising Johnson and Cummings every single day has made no dent in the polls, and so is now giving some airtime to Farage and Co as a means of reducing the BoJo vote (?)
So, just 34 days left for the Conservative Party to avoid extinction...
If they fail to deliver Brexit by 31 October, I am not sure they can recover. They are held back by their weak, wet, Remainer core.
If the Brexit Party comes forward prepared to deliver a quick exit from the EU, tackle immigration, push back on PC and neuter the BBC then they might well supplant the Conservatives at the next election.
I'm glad I manage to avoid Today most days! For today on Today the Bias Level had definitely been turned up to 11. Actually, I guess it always is these days! Certainly, as always, the focus was on Boris and Trump, les bete noires de BBC except they wouldn't use the noir word.
Who best to get on to discuss the impeachment of Trump and enlighten the listener? - why a Democrat who had served under Democrat Presidents of course! Surely that's the best way for Justin to get objective information about what's going on and Justin obliges his soft, helpful, open-ended questions...I wonder how he would have treated a Republican pundit?
Together, Justin and his pal, were even able to clear up the little matter, the potential hiccup, of what exactly Biden's son Hunter was doing in Ukraine with his "controversial" energy company while Biden was VP and interfering in Ukraine's affairs. No details of course, just an assertion that all was above board! No mention that Hunter's company was linked to the previous pro-Russia regime...no siree.
No suggestion that the so called CIA "whistleblower" might be part of a co-ordinated attempt to dislodge Trump from power. Remember, it was John Brennan, CIA Director who was really at the centre of the previous attempt to dislodge Trump over alleged links with and blackmail by the Russians (what ended up as the Muller investigation). BTW, Justin now calls it the "Muller business" or some such rather than "Trump's links with Russia", such allegations having lost all credibility. According to Justin the whole Muller thing was "just too complicated". Really? That's the excuse?! Lol. Clearly for the BBC "complicated" is now a euphemism for "did not achieve the results we were hoping for". Justin did not mention that Muller cleared Trump of inappropriate links with Russia. It was clearly just "too complicated" for Muller to get to the bottom of.
There was no examination of the motives for the impeachment process. I would suggest that it may be an indication that the right and centre of the Democrats have lost power to the Far Left. The BBC might agree - but that is a cause for quiet celebration rather than broadcasting in Broadcasting (As We See Fit) House.
The BBC is out of control. The Munchetty affair demonstrates that BBC activists (no point calling them reporters and presenters) refuse to accept even minimal restraint with regard to impartiality. Moreover they will use their programmes to report in a biased way on a proven allegation of bias!!!
Last night on Newsnight, there was a cosy chat between Nish Kumar of the Mash Report (the guy who tried to take down Melanie Philips on QT and was instead himself humiliated and made to look very stupid in front of a few million viewers) and Mark Urban. It's very sad how Urban who once seemed slightly attached to the real world now appears to have agreed to "come quietly" and offer no resistance to his PC captors, performing such obeisances as they require.
Kumar was happy to admit that he got more freedom on his programme because it was listed as comedy, so he got to call Boris a liar and a racist with no comeback - huge self-satisfied smile from Kumar, suggesting he knew he had a licence to be biased that Newsnight presenters could only dream of. Mark Urban appreciated the rich irony, and laughed along. Well at least you were honest there, Kumar.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07pkbdh
What to do?
The licence fee has to go.
The BBC has to be broken up.
But the BBC cannot be allowed to become a British CNN funded by globalist billionaires. Any programme of reform based purely on privatisation would be a mistake.
The BBC have lost control. Their News operation cannot stop their own journalists from using twitter as their ladder to personal career development. The BBC presenters now feel free to ignore their own complaints procedure. The BBC support for the Rebel Alliance and their anti Brexit position is clear to see - easier to see day by day as parliament makes a fool of itself cheered on by the BBC.
Output of original Drama designed to appeal to any audience other than the youth (through BBC III) has withered away to a formulaic rehashing of tried and tested subjects and on-message narratives. Inclusivity has replaced creativity. The so-called comedy Scarborough is a good example of how far the BBC has sunk. Every PC box is ticked - effectively making fun of Englishness and the values it stands for.
You had me with you all the way till you got to Scarborough!Its creator probably knew what he had to do to get it commissioned. Being gay himself I think he's overestimated the gay population of Scarborough by a factor of 10 but even so, I enjoy it and find it laugh out funny, plus the acting is generally to a high standard.
Oh well, no accounting for taste as they say.
The guy, whose name escapes me, also created Benidorm which I also enjoyed and about which the PC critics were v sniffy.
I agree with you about the dearth of decent drama. So many subjects can't be tackled honestly now. The last time the BBC did tackle something in not a very PC way (Take Two Girls - grooming gangs)ie realistically they ended up provoking a guy who watched it to launch a homicidal attack on worhsippers leaving a Mosque. That kind of underlines the problem for the BBC - so committed to PC ideology they can no longer produce anything that isn't fully on side with the ideology.
Meanwhile, I learn from the BBC "news" that "Countryfile" (once an innocent programme celebtrating the countryside) has undertaken an "investigation" into a sinister Far Right organisation British Revival or some such and managed to get the organisation and its leader blocked on Facebook (ie managed to close down someone else's free speech).
What next?
"Countryfile investigates a sinister network of organisations operating in rural areas that produce a "white only" product, they claim is giving health and life to the next generation? The network, often referred to as the MMB by its inner circle, has even recruited celebrities to make the cult more attractive to the population at large. In the past Bob Geldof was involved in promoting it to the public, though he claims he was unaware of its more sinister connotations.
The Milk Marketing Board have refused to comment but the Home Secretary confirms he is aware of the allegations which he finds alarming and underlines his personal commitment to eliminating extremism in all its forms, but especially in the countryside."
QUOTE: This is really onto something: "I am absolutely outraged to hear that my opponents are using the kind of language I have just used to describe their own position." UNQUOTE
Really? Really?? Just got on to this "something"???
People on ITBB and Biased BBC, people on the Guido Fawkes and Breitbart sites, have been pointing this out for years!!!
More than that, many of us have been pointing out that it is not just the usual political hypocrisy, it is part of a deliberate policy (orchestrated by people like Blair, Mandelson, Campbell, Macron and others, echoed and encouraged by the BBC) designed to delegitimise the democrat vote of 17.4 million people in 2016 by linking Leave with tags such as "Fascist", "Bigoted", "Far Right", "Anti-immigrant" and "Racist".
Either our intelligentsia aren't very intelligent or they choose to see what they see when they want to see it. I think I know which it is.
Impartial Nick Robinson thinks it's time to create a Government of National Stupidity - sorry - Unity.
So who does Left Wing Tory (ex head of University Conservative Club) Nick Robinson think should lead this Government of National Obloquy - sorry - Unity?
Yes, for a position in the fictional yet erroneously named "Government of National Unity" - only Remainers need apply. Who, in this wonderful flight of fancy, Nick, would represent the interests of 17.4 million Leave voters?
If you read the comments to his tweet, it's clear that he lacks support.
Great news to see the Government are investigating the role of Remainer MPs in negotiating with foreign states in relation to domestic law making...there are laws against such things...maybe even treason laws...
To date they have thought they can get away with anything they like. If the Government is determined to disabuse them of that, well that is brilliant! :)
It was actually Mail on Sunday but I won't link as it makes my computer go bats!
Rachel Shabi was trying to excuse the Remainer MPs "foreign collusion" by suggesting it was consultation with the EU, of which we are a part but actually, although I haven't read the Mail article yet, I suspect it's collusion specifically with the French government which IS most definitely a foreign government.
I have mentioned many times here there is strong evidence of a Macron-Blair-Soros plot to keep us in the EU. Grieve as a virtual Frenchman (Legion d'honneur no less) is a key part of the plot I would suggest. They co-ordinate actions between Macron within the EU and the Remainer rabble in Parliament, in direct contravention of our government's perception of our interests, and I think if you look at the treason laws that is defined as treason. I am NOT suggesting anyone is going to be charged with treason. But there may be other legal offences committed.
Yes, true to form it's there on the BBC News website Papers Review - but it runs third to the two headlines selected by the BBC. As usual, they feature:
The Sunday Times: Arcuri 'told friends of affair with Boris'
and, The Observer: PM 'whipping up riot fears to avoid Exit extension'.
But "Corbyn backs ex lover for key Shadow Cabinet post even though she can't do numbers" and "Labour whipping up apocalypse "no deal" fears to avoid Brexit delivery" are never banner headlines...and even if they were would be ignored by the Brexit-Bashing Colluders.
So what is the Munchetty Thesis? I would suggest it must be something like this:
"If you are a member of a group which has suffered discrimination, abuse or oppression by another group you are allowed as a BBC presenter (in contravention of what would otherwise be the rules) to offer your personal views on a person belonging to the latter group if they appear to you to be expressing attitudes associated with said discrimination, abuse or oppression. Such personal views can include speculation about their motivation and intent, beyond what their words express, even if the intent referred to is one that is criminal."
Is that thesis acceptable? Janet Street-Porter has indicated no, as it would for instance give all women presenters the right to be biased in reporting on men, given the history and continuing reality in some parts of the world of male oppression of women, and the general view among feminists that nearly all men without exception engage in oppression of women.
White British and Asian presenters would have the right to be biased against most Japanese people, on the basis of Japanese treatment of allied POWs and their failure to openly acknowledge their guilt.
African presenters could have a go at virtually any Arab on the basis of their historic involvement in the slave trade and their continuing discrimination against black people.
So, no I don't think it's a reasonable "thesis".
Of course we know that there is no rational thesis in any case. Trump is the target. Trudeau can dress up in blackface and Munchetty won't have anything to say. Africans can kick out Asians from their countries and Munchetty won't be raising the matter with African leaders. Han Chinese politicians are treated with the utmost respect despite their genocidal treatment of Tibetans and Uigurs.
"The General" on BBBC states that 9 of the 11 Supreme Court judges serve on the ECJ. I knew some did, but not so many...
Does anyone have a link to support this claim?
If true, it would mean presumably that the vast majority of these old codgers had a direct and very substantial financial interest in remaining in the EU.
On the basis of the following link (describing the MEP salaries being set at 38.5% of ECJ judge salaries), it appears the serving on the ECJ brings in over 270,000 Euros per annum for each judge - about £250,000 I would guess.
So, if Brexit happens, it would appear that the 9 Supreme Court judges who also serve on the ECJ would lose quarter of a million quid each every year (and their pension would reduced accordingly)!!!
How can they be said to have no interest in this matter?
This is really an absolute scandal.
The UK Government should appeal the matter to the ECJ on the basis that a fair hearing has not been held.
I think if true this invalidates the decision.
Remember also that to draw their EU pension they have to agree, I believe, to uphold the aims and principles of the EU - I've certainly read that elsewhere. That creates another conflict of interest.
... 'That the Supreme Court’s Judgment reversed the earlier verdict of the High Court – whose panel included the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, both of whom rank above Supreme Court Judges in the judicial pecking order' ...
If what Michael St George says is true, a set of ECJ/SC judges, have superior authority over our Monarch. Add this to the above, and it appears that we are being governed by EU laws and courts already.
It certainly underlines the point that the EU-troughing Supreme Court judges indulged in hugely novel law-making - overturning more than 200 years of precedence.
Thanks anonymous - it does appear from that link that none of the Supreme Court are ECJ justices. I should have held back on my high dudgeon until the facts were ascertained!
I am fairly sure that some of the senior judges have been involved in Pan-European professional bodies that receive EU money. One heard a case from a Brexiteer (threw it out - there's a surprise). However, it would seem that the claim of direct financial interest via ECJ membership is not true.
Been listening to JRM's speech to the Conservative Party Conference.
OK sorry but he's not really cutting through I feel. He sounded nervous at several points (as well he might given the challenges the Government actually faces).
It's all v. well talking about re-focussing on Conservative Party members but the party doesn't have democratic structures. That needs to be remedied immediately.
In his speech JRM said Corbyn was not "a bad man". Sorry, I think he is. Consorting with various murderous terrorists from the IRA to Hamas comes under the heading of "bad" for me (think of all the limbs blown off to begin with as a matter of direct policy on their part), or supporting the Communist regimes when they were persecuting millions or supporting violent protest against democratically elected governments? Not bad?
Tommy Robinson, who has never consorted with terrorists, is held up as a figure of hate by the PC establishment including the Conservative leadership. But now Mogg is telling us Corbyn is "not a bad man"! Really - he's lost the plot there.
Mogg went on to laud Bercow! This is not the moment to be praising Bercow however faint the praise...
Mogg's effective in Parliament and often in interviews but not in this conference setting. When it came to Bercow, he was speaking as if he was in Parliament, where you have to respect the conventions. He was in conference - he should have been laying into Bercow big time.
I had hoped the Conservative Party could survive but I am doubting it more every day. Unless Boris can pull some constitutional rabbit out of the hat(in which case he will become a national hero) I fear they are done for and, however long it takes, democrats and patriots will have to change their vote to the truly populist parties like TBP or UKIP.
Of course if Boris fails to deliver Brexit, it is v. likely the Conservatives will disintegrate. In that case, there is every chance that 20-30 MPs from the ERG in the Conservative Party will split from the Conservatives to join TBP, perhaps in forming a new party or maybe creating a kind of CDU-CSU coalition on the German model.
I guess it all depends on Boris. If he is prepared to become a Brexit martyr and go to prison, no one from the ERG will split away. But if it all ends up as a damp squib with Boris looking pathetic, then the split will probably happen.
Of course before the ERG Spartans split, the Traitor Remainers may split from the Tories to form their own faction with Grieve and co, in which case the Continuity Conservatives will be dominated by the ERG and there will be no need for the ERG to split.
As I keep mentioning, modern-day moderate Labourites are as dangerous or sometimes more so that Far Left Marxists. The Blair gang want to criminalise and silence non-violent groups whose politics they find reprehensible. Let's remember that non-violent groups who have suffered such oppression in the past include Quakers, Methodists, Salvation Army, and the National Secular Society. They were all considered extreme and subversive in their day.
I find this very disturbing, very troubling. Why is the BBC promoting this evil ideology of racism?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008wv1
From the BBC Blurb:
"For many white people their race is not part of their identity. Race, racial inequality and racism are things that people of colour are expected to talk about and organise around. Not anymore.
Anti-racist activists and academics are now urging white people to recognise that they are just as racialised as minorities. The way to successfully tackle structural racism, they say, is to get white people to start taking responsibility for the racially unjust status quo.
Bristol-based journalist Neil Maggs, who is white, takes a deep dive into the canon of books, Instagram challenges and workshops that seek to educate people like him on their white privilege and internalised white supremacy. He gets advice from anti-racism trainer Robin DiAngelo, learns about the growing field of whiteness studies in the UK, and visits the white working class estate of Hartcliffe to see how these ideas play out there.
He also talks to Eric Kaufmann about the inevitable decline of white majorities by the end of the century and how to prevent white people falling for far-right conspiracy theories about being wiped out."
I don't wish to think of myself as white thanks very much, BBC, because as far as I know "whiteness" is a made-up thing and has nothing to do with me or anyone else. It has no real basis in genetics. It is a construct - an oppressive one.
So why is the BBC telling me I must adopt "whiteness"?
Why would anyone willingly don this mental straitjacket.
As far I am concerned I am a son of the culture into which I was born with its language(s), history, customs, art, science and achievements and the land where I was brought up - a landscape to which I feel great attachment.
I refuse to be bound by some nutjob academic theories - dangerous, deluded, even deranged ideas.
This Professor, supported by our taxes, seems to have plenty of time on his hands to propagandise on behalf of this racist theory:
https://twitter.com/eichhornlab
BTW I definitely do not think as the BBC claims that "Race, racial inequality and racism are things that people of colour are expected to talk about and organise around." Only people who read the Guardian think like that. Millions of black, brown and mixed race people just get on with their lives without feeling any such obligation.
I also dispute that the people referred to in the blurb are "anti-racist activists". They are pro-racist activists. Racism is the doctrine that our moral and cultural worth are based on our race not our actions. This is exactly the nasty idea being propagated in this programme.
"Analysis" has clearly become the cutting edge of Race-Baiting Corbynism on the BBC. Expect more!!!
Tony Hall has made it his life's work to overturn the democratic majority decision of 17.4 million people, so overturning the decision of the BBC's own Executive Complaints Unit is no trouble at all.
It was obviously coming, given the twitter activity and the outrage of 'people of colour'. I've looked at the conversation between Walker and Munchetti and believe that the woke aspiring brownie point gatherer Walker should have had his collar felt as well, given the way he was most definitely encouraging her to give an opinion. Quite obviously, neither had considered the context of the comments by Trump and the whole tone was subjective; do they actually train people at BBBC any more? As for Hall, given the way in which he has set out to undermine the democratic decision of the British people and for us to continue, in effect, to bow the knee to the German, it seems to me we ought to refer to him as Lord Haw Hall for his treachery.
Why is PC (politically correct) ideology so powerful?
Why is it taking over our society with such terrifying speed, destroying our democracy, our institutions, our borders, our culture?
Looking for a historical parallel, I think there is one: the rise of extreme Protestantism taht came to be known as Puritanism. England went from being a fun-loving Catholic nation under King Henry VIII to a grey serious Protestant nation under his son King Edward. It happened in a few years. Suddenly the court which was once a riot of colour, gaudy garments, music and jollity, became a bleak place.Incredibly aristocrats dressed in black or the most subdued hues. Everyone wanted to show their commitment to the new iteration of Christianity.
What became known as Puritanism shares something with PC ideology - virtue signalling. I believe this is what helps it spread at such an alarming rate.
Nearly all of us like to think we are good and even if we are not good we don't really like others thinking we are bad or, at least, social rejects. We want our place in society. But both Puritanism and PC ideology threaten the ordinary person's place in society.
All a Catholic had to do was "not be a heretic". But a Puritan had to actively demonstrate their virtue by various signs (their clothing, their attendance at church, their reading the bible and their membership of pious congregations for instance). Signs of virtue stood for the soul which was what Puritanism is after, just as PC ideology...both really, really want to change you even if you don't want to be changed.
So PC ideology like Puritanism requires demonstrations of virtue. People have to repeat PC dogma in their speech. They have to show their commitment to PC values, for instance by whom they hire, whom they give awards to and whom they praise in public.
A lot of this is driven by social guilt, much like Puritanism was driven by sexual guilt. Many of those who fall victim to the PC virus have no immunity because of this guilt. They know inside they are guilty. Many in the managerial classes have had wealth in their families for a long time. They know their families have over the decades or centuries benefitted from land and property ownership, from slavery, from colonialism, from shareholdings, from tax avoidance, from private health care and from private education.
The only way out is to identify with PC ideology to commit wholeheartedly to "diversity", to "equality", and to "multiculturalism" - especially as such avowals seem so simple to begin with. What does it cost you to say some insincere words, to pretend you really do want an extremely devout Muslim as an employee praying in your offices several times a day, or you really don't give any thought as to whether the 29 year old female employee is going to go on maternity leave for the next six year or you think women really are being underpaid or you believe the country will be better off if it allows in undocumented migrants? Words and pretence are easy and cost little compared with actually giving up your status in society.
It's only after a while that people begin to realise that this PC ideology is way more threatening than they realised. It co-opts other movements - radical Islam, Marxism, extreme feminism, transgenderism (just as Puritanism co-opted Parliamentary supremacy, the interests of the gentry and active colonialism)...it begins to dominate the whole of academia (absolutely no dissent being allowed) and also the whole of the media. Ultimately, although PC ideology claims to love diversity, it cannot tolerate dissent any more than Puritans could tolerate Christmas festivities or Hot Cross Buns.
Ultimately there was a reaction to Puritanism and English culture became highly suspicious of what was called euphemistically "enthusiasm" in religion. But PC ideology is more like a 1984 nightmare vision, now that it has access to advanced 21st century technology. Facebook can ban you in a flash. You Tube can demonetise you. Google can make a person's name mud in a few seconds as some out-of-context quote becomes the latest witch burning episode. Once the PCs are PC you are in real trouble. People are becoming unpersons. Books are being removed from online bookshops and libraries(e.g. Amazon) and from real world libraries and bookshops. They may not be physically burned but they are being burned out of existence.
Good post MB. I see the roots of PC ideology as being in the interwar period when modernism emerged as a quasi-religion. 'Make it new', take a fresh look and reengineer everything. This started as a paternal form of socialism whereby the leading figures knew what was best for the plebs. 'Nothing is too good for the ordinary people'.
The particularity of the movement was that many of the leading figures were well-to-do - tilted 'socialists'. This arrogance survived WWII, and through government local and national, the new establishment knew what was best.
This ideology pervaded every walk of life, and as you say MB, all manner of ideologies joined forces into what we now see.
Posts such as this are sometimes lost in the fast-moving open thread - Craig and Sue might like to promote this and other well thought out pieces to guest posts.
The 2016 referendum has come to represent a challenge to the Remain PC ideology. Never before have people from across the political spectrum come together before to indicate that they won't put up with "the establishment knows what's best'. They've never had the chance to do so before. This is why it is becoming a fight to the finish. There is no longer any middle ground.
PC Ideologists have no concept of loss. As they 'make it new', nobody is able to say whether the outcome is a success or not. There are never any consequences, thus budgetary or time constraint and now the 2016 referendum result are immaterial.
The history of non-accountability especially in London, and especially in the public sector, are there for all to see: Cross-rail, IT systems, HS2 etc.
Tony Benn, the principled socialist left £5 million in his will - and left it all to his family, including Hillary the Hypocrite of course. Not a penny went on a socialist cause.
I’m not a philosopher, but I don’t think the problem was Modernism. Modernism was rooted in the principals and culture of Western civilisation. I also believe that post war we might have been heading towards a healthy egalitarianism. But what might have been was highjacked by liberal progressives who were neither liberal nor progressive - Cultural Marxism. There are many parts of Jordan Peterson’s philosophy I profoundly disagree with, but I think he is absolutely right about the terrible damage inflicted by post-modernism and subsequent relative morality.
There was a time when Marxism was regarded as a science that could be proved mathematically. History has revealed that to be a nonsense. Marx was wrong about almost everything. Yet today’s left is even more dangerous. Our beautiful, but fragile liberal democracies are under threat as never before.
It was the post WWII period when the rule books were torn up as modernists looked for new ways to interpret art, education, science etc. This was an experimental phase where predicted outcomes weren't realised - but without accountability, it just didn't matter. The elite classes were the beyond reproach.
I believe that the unshakeable confidence of the liberal left elite that they know what is best for the people of the UK was established in this post war period, and over successive decades has amplified itself to drown out any dissenting voices or non-PC opinion.
Every generation of artists has torn up the rule books of how to interpret art. When “The Marriage of Figaro” was first performed it was considered scandalous and when “The Magic Flute” was performed in German to make it accessible to ordinary people it was revolutionary. In both cases a move towards egalitarianism.
Personally, I think that 20th century Modernism was a golden age, particularly in the visual arts. Admittedly it was on a trajectory that eventually consumed itself, but you could say that about almost all movements in art. While it lasted it was a very bright star indeed. The real problems started with the vacuousness of post-modernism. You could use Duchamp as an example, but I think he is misunderstood. For me the turning point was Warhol onwards.
But my real point was that there was a chance of genuine egalitarianism post war - a chance for all culture high and low to be available to everybody. But it was trampled on by a so-called “liberal” establishment. What we have now is the opposite of egalitarianism. Although I don’t like the word, a kind of “progressive” authoritarianism.
I agree with with you Terry up to a point. There was indeed the chance to create a fairer society in the mid 20th C, and yes it was a golden age stylistically for art. Failure to achieve equality could be put down to the two party system, where with successive governments pushed their own policies effectively cancelling each other out.
The golden age in art has been replaced by functions of funding and inclusivity. Religious art has become a no no. Architecture has become a mixture of American real estate coupled with eco warriors' musings (with a nod to modernism). Buildings are not designed with people in mind - just 'infrastructure'.
The link between house-building and community-building has been lost. It was at its strongest in the 1960s and 1970s, when local authority commissioned projects were more plentiful. House-builders now, are profit driven - 'one size fits all' estates can be seen at the edges of towns and villages throughout the UK creating overcrowded units with inadequate provision for cars and parking, incongruously in locations dependent upon car travel.
During the golden age of modernism, artists, musicians, architects, town planers, ceramicists, photographers etc all worked to common goals and ideals. They worked successfully in their own 'ivory towers' communities - but, these were well-to-do groups who had little regard for the general public. It is this attitude which I believe has led to the current elitist superclass who dictate to the rest of us because they 'know best what's good for us'.
The Brexit debate goes so much deeper than just the EU. It represents a struggle for national identity. Perhaps most of us hanker for the days of old when values of fairness and equality were achievable aims, we know that remaining in the EU will be to abandon such hopes entirely. Immigration plays a large part in this. How can fairness and equality be maintained in an ever-increasing population?
Just when you might think the BBC had rediscovered a smidgeon of common sense in how to navigate this complex world...they slam on the brakes and start reversing at speed.
So we have now ended up with a formal position where the BBC's top management (not just some sofa slouch) have openly expressed the view that the President of the USA is a racist. I can draw no other conclusion from their formal statement that the President's comments were "racist". A sophist might be able to distinguish between being a racist and making racist statements but the general public will just think "Trump's a racist".
So, far from dialling down on its left-leaning subjective content, the BBC has now formally adopted a subjective judgement on the President, one which - no surprise - echoes the pages of the Guardian.
Will they exonerate Emily next?
Will they disband the ECU?
Will they tell us who sits on it?
And how much they get paid?
I think it's quite amusing that they have to keep the ECU names under wraps because they know their Far Left hate mob mates would make their lives hell if they could.
"China celebrates 70 years of Communist Party rule."
Really? 1.2 billion people are celebrating a system that cause the unnecessary deaths of maybe 50 million people and made second citizens of hundreds of millions? I doubt it.
But then these days you might almost say the BBC is "literally Communist" so perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised.
7.45 am Today... another anti-Boris hatchet job from "impartial" BBC Nick Robinson. No other prime minister got this treatment... all negatives, all how hopelessly useless Boris is and what a failure he has been so far as PM.
Could you imagine Nick making a punch-bag of Prime Minister Clarke, or Prime Minister Starmer or Prime Minister Cooper? No, neither can I. He would be deference personified.
The Brexit Bashing Corporation is deliberately referring to the non-border customs facilities proposed as "customs posts" even though that phrase is not used in UK documentation. It is how the Republic are describing them, in a desperate effort to scupper any deal and keep us in the EU.
The BBC will do anything to stop Brexit including lying, distorting, engaging in strategic amnesia and trying to make Blair look credible again.
Outrageous - Maitlis letting Jonathan Powell threaten terrorist violence in support of the Remain position. Powell is the lowest of the low. A true Blairite.
Now he's lying that the Irish will put in place a hard border if there is a No Deal exit for the UK. They never will! Any government that tried to wouldn't last 10 minutes.
The last thing that 'the men of violence' want in Ireland is an alignment between the two countries. The current differences in taxation and currency make for a nice little earner.
The BBC would be very concerned about that reference to "men of violence"...not the violence, it's the idea that only men are going to be violent they would find offensive.
However his Premiership ends, whether in glory or ignominy, it will have been worth it just hear that one line about Bercow being forced to eat a kangaroo's testicle. :)
Chris Morris has published a reality check about the Boris Border solution. It rubbishes his proposal and it is as biased as we have come to expect from the BBCs alternative reality.
"From the beginning the EU has struggled to see how Ireland and Northern Ireland can exist in different customs territories while keeping the border as open as it is now under all circumstances."
Really? Even though the Republic of Ireland state they have no plans to immediately put in border infrastructure in the event of a No Deal exit by the UK...? Suspicious eh? Seems like the EU can live without the hard border but have customs checks elsewhere to me. Chris always takes anything the EU say as gospel.
"They will argue that - in the absence of a future free trade deal - this proposal means the UK is breaking commitments it has made about the border. The UK counters that the backstop has already been rejected in Parliament three times, and something needs to change. "
Nice and vague Chris! How about some specifics...what commitments have we made?
"If adopted, a border solution relying on technology and remote checks would be a first. The EU does not currently share a single border with a non-EU country where checks have been completely eliminated."
This is disingenuous. The Norway-Sweden border has something like 30 crossings but only 2 are supposed to be used for EU-EEA trade and have border infrastructure. So there are 28 crossings that are presumably being checked in some other way that with hard infrastructure.
There is also a motorway crossing into Leichenstein where the customs infrastructure is not located on the border but where the motorway terminates.
San Marino has a completely open border with the EU, and there are only "random police checks". San Marino is not even a member of the EEA.
The moral is clearly - "Where there's a will there's a way."
If the EU really wanted to resolve the N Ireland border issues, it could quite easily. It decided not to, because it was a very useful negotiating ploy for them. I do blame May for not pushing back immediately and with equal strength.
Emma Barnett sounding very thick on Newsnight interviewing Steve Baker who is having to tutor her on ever detail. She's suffering from a serious case of Gotchaitis.
This is so much more interesting (esp after about 5:00 min) than all those times we've seen or heard Steve Baker interviewed by Maitlis, Peston, Robinson and all the rest.
For one thing, he is given the chance to express his opinions. We learn something. I don't mean I agree with everything Steve Baker says, just that it's interesting to hear him have some space to explain his views.
The interruptive "Gotcha" journalism of pathetic specimens like Emma Barnett and Nick Robinson really does have to end. I think we are all heartily sick of it.
South Yorkshire Police encourages people to report 'non-crime incidents,' including 'offensive or insulting comments.' Alan Billings, our Police and Crime Commissioner fully supports the policy. South Yorkshire Police warns that 'hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire.' Calling someone a 'blundering buffoon' won't be tolerated in South Yorkshire either. This is what happened to me after I used those forbidden words.
A policewoman came to my door and after she came inside gave me a document. A quote from the document, a 'Harrassment Warning:'
' ... if the kind of behaviour described here were to continue, then you would be liable to arrest and prosecution.'
Crime Ref: K/116966/15
This was why I was risking arrest and prosecution, according to South Yorkshire Police - capital letters and wording as in the original document, except that I don't give here the names of the two people who took their complaint to South Yorkshire Police - and found South Yorkshire Police completely willing to take their complaint seriously and to act, instead of telling them to get over it or to forget it or find ways of coping with their dreadful trauma or to put it into perspective and to try thinking of it as a minor matter.
YOU CALLED AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL MESSAGE ON MR & MRS C. LANDLINE CALLING THEM BLUNDERING BUFFOONS.'
YOU HAVE ALSO EMAILED MR C. AT WORK STATING THE SAME INSULT.
I used the words 'blundering buffoon' only in connection with AC. The claim that I described his wife CC as a 'blundering buffoon' is completely false.
Yorkshire people are often supposed to be blunt, plain-speaking folk, but South Yorkshire Police seem to have a very different view - of South Yorkshire people as fragile, timid people with no capacity for common sense or good sense, incapable of standing up for themselves.
The policewoman was at my house for over an hour. This time, like the time which obviously must have been spent taking statements from CC and AC and the administrative time needed to issue the document, was time which wasn't devoted to combatting crime in South Yorkshire. This was surely a ridiculous, disastrously misguided misuse of police resources.
I asked the policewoman what would happen if I declined to accept the document. She told me it would make no difference. It would remain in force no matter what I did. The document had been issued with no attempt to find out my side of the story. The background is very, very extensive. I've given South Yorkshire Police a full and detailed account of the background, including previous actions of AC and CC which I find very disturbing.
In an email I sent to Chief Inspector Ian Proffitt on 28 August, 2019, I asked for the Harassment Warning to be revoked. Almost five weeks later, I've still to receive a reply.
I don't like the choice of Chief Inspector Proffitt as the person responsible for dealing with my complaint in the least, given the fact that he's someone with a particular responsibility for dealing with 'hate crime' in South Yorkshire.
This is still a loaded headline BBC. 'Who's got it worse - Johnson or Trump?'. Who's got what worse? The premise from the BBC is that both are bad and the only debate is who is worse. Polling actually shows that both are popular in their respective countries. The BBC predisposition that both are bad is entirely false. Best bury the story altogether BBC - it doesn't hold up, but it does demonstrate a bias against Johnson and Trump.
The problem with BBC narratives like this is that it poisons and stifles debate. Metro-liberals won’t allow other views and use these opinionated articles as fact to reinforce their political worldview.
I suspect there will still be some who are influenced by such articles. This is exactly the target audience the BBC aim to reach and the real purpose for publication.
I heard a little bit of Boris's address to the Commons. Has Bercow got a kangaroo's testicle caught in his throat or has Dominic Cummings arranged for a voodoo priest to cast a spell on him? He sounded like was about to croak - literally.
Bercow has lost his voice. He said that the ailment had nothing to do with having eaten a kangaroo's testicle - but, he was subdued as the fact dawned upon him that Boris is in the ascendency and there appeared to be a majority of MPs prepared to back him in his endeavours.
If now, his efforts are dismissed out of hand by the EU and ROI, then parliaments efforts to make him ask for an extension to Article 50 will look lamentable.
It would be nice to think so, but Corbyn put in quite a strong performance in response I think and this is where the Remainer Media are so important. A lot of people sadly still believe what they hear on TV and radio. If Egregious Emma, the Idiot Nihal, Nasty Nick, Emily the Laughing Hyena, Woke Wark, Sneaky Libby, Battlin' Beth, Tom Thumb, the Pestonator, Jon Snow-go, John "Heath Impersonator" Simpson, Krish Delish and all their many imitators pump out pro-Remain propaganda 24/7 unrelentingly, giving Remainers easy rides and interviewing Leavers like they were one down from mass murderers (or sometimes one up), then a large proportion of the public will sincerely believe we are facing Armageddon if we don't get a deal...
That's one of the reasons they are desperate to avoid No Deal because they know of course it won't be Armageddon. It won't even be majorly disruptive to the UK.
Yes, I must have been watching something else for two hours this morning. To hear the same old same old from the news channels, Sky ITN and BBC is dispiriting. The Remain camp cannot move on. They can't accept that the country is shifting to a position in support of Boris. It will be a fight to the finish. I definitely saw a different body language from Bercow. If he bends the rules again to facilitate the Rebel Alliance's anti democratic agenda, I suspect that he will be required to fall on his sword (figuratively of course).
Brilliant vid from Ezra Levant re Sweeney's departure from the BBC. The most damning point is that papers like the Telegraph - indeed ALL the MSM - refused to run any stories on the exposure of John Sweeney.
BBC News' No. 1 concern: protect the Religion of Peace at all times.
Police worker converts to Islam, knifes to death 4 Police officers in Paris: Two facts "Not being connected" according to the BBC.
Exploitation of girls in Iraq by "some" Shia Muslim clerics. Can't recall the BBC using the "some" word with Roman Catholic clergy in abuse cases. And the "report" builds in a lot of defence of "genuine" Sharia as condemning the practice (but anyone who knows anything about Sharia and Shia Islam, will now it is the standard interpretation).
Sad case of young girl with incurable illness. "Committed Muslim" parents wish to undertake further treatment. Fair enough. Not commenting on their decision or the rights and wrongs...but the BBC, deliberately I think, do not mention that the parents sought a Fatwa on whether their actions were legal under Sharia law.
So sickening the way Newsnight report on the EU and Irish leaders.
Never once when it comes to those leaders (Tusk, Varadkar, Guy V and all the rest) do the Newsnight crew suggest they might be lying, might have ulterior motives, might be frightened in ways they don't admit.
Nope, when it comes to them, in stark contrast to our own PM and Government, they are simply allowed to state their views with no interruption or contradiction or querying and all their flimsy ratiocination is accepted as fully justified.
Pathetic but not surprising given all Newsnight staff are firm Remainers, and in many cases ex Guardian.
Now, another disgraceful ex Civil Servant Philip Rycroft, coming on and simply giving his support to the EU position.
Jon Sopel takes heart from the recent Munchetty reversal by Tony Hall, and just goes ahead and tells us on twitter that he really hates Trump...(but that doesn't mean he's not an impartial journalist - how dare you!):
"It's as though everyone else in Washington is playing by a rule-book, handed down by the Founding Fathers - and @realDonaldTrump is playing by his. So he now doubles down and calls for the Chinese to join the Ukrainians in investigating his political rival @JoeBiden #impeachment" "
Really? The President clearly has a crime prevention role. Is Sopel's argument that the President's political rivals lie outside the purview of the law? Is Sopel saying that the facts of whether or not Biden and his family were engaged in corruption are irrelvant? Really?
The only real argument (if the Democrats' impeachment proceedings are to taken seriously as being motivated by serious concern for the constitution) is whether Trump's actions amount to an abuse of office and if so a serious enough abuse of office as to justify impeachment and trial leading to a guilty verdict.
I very much doubt that the (slave-owning) Founding Fathers Sopel has suddenly developed a fondness for, ever really envisaged Impeachment being used for such a minor issue. I imagine they were thinking of Presidents who might seek to make themselves hereditary monarchs, or engaged in huge financial corruption or commit serious crimes like murder, assault, or grand theft while in office. That's why the word "high" is used as in "high crimes and misdemeanours".
Just heard Martha Carney give the Green Party spokesman a soft respectful ride - she let him finish his sentences, didn't challenge him on anything .... what a difference between this and interviewing a Tory
"How many people will die to the nearest hundred thousand if the Green Party implement Extinction Rebellion's zero carbon emissions within 4 years policy?"
We should compile a list of absences from the BBC Glossary of Terms. Here are two suggestions:
1. Vandalism - the unmistakeable term which should have been used for 'Extinction Rebellion 'lose control of fake blood hose'.
2. Diehard Remainers - the term which applies to and should be used for the likes of Grieve, Hammond, Benn, Bercow et al as they are faced down by the PM, as he delivers Brexit.
3. Far Left. There are so many examples of Far Right this and that. But no one and nothing seems to be Far Left these days.
4. Positive discrimination. This no longer exists. It used to exist and was generally considered a bad, not to say patronising, thing. I believe it's technically still illegal. But when was the last time you heard it? Positive discrimination is actually all around us.
5. Free speech. Not completely gone...but an endangered species. The BBC increasingly realise they sound absurd if they try to claim they support free speech, given the mountain range of evidence that they don't.
6. Islamic terrorist. There is no such thing according to the BBC.
7. Criminal. You'll still hear it as an adjective but rarely as a noun I would suggest. The BBC prefers to refer to "people from troubled backgrounds", "people who have been through the criminal justice system", and "people who are trying to turn their lives around".
Your list reminds me it will soon be time to update my Festive Fifty 50 BBC Bias Techniques! I think I spotted a new one yesterday. It's the "Hybrid Opinion". We are used to "some say" and "many say" but yesterday I heard Emma Barnett on the Radio say a couple of times something like "In my opinion, and it's something I hear a lot from people around the country..." kind of joining her personal opinion with the mass backing of unidentified people all around the country. I think after a while she realised what she was doing (giving her personal opinion on Brexit matters) wasn't actually v. "impartial" and she started back-tracking about it, trying to make out she was simply reflecting the views of others. But it's one to watch out for: the "hybrid opinion".
Perhaps "Bias by limited vocabulary" should be a category!
Hale, the biased chair of the Supreme Court (aka the judicial branch of the Remainer Rabble) openly flaunting her hatred of Boris Johnson. She should be summarily dismissed for politicising her role.
1. Boris has not surrendered to the Scottish Courts. He's simply said he will observe the legal requirements of the Mr Benn Act.
2. The Government is not bluffing when it says it has a way of proceeding to No Deal. The securest route in my view is of course a Hungarian veto - which Tousi is suggesting is possible. Would they do it? Not impossible I would say. But it's a big ask for a smallish country.
3. Hale has completely trashed the reputation of the Supreme Court. That's true and it helps the Brexit cause.
Basically we are in for the most exciting fortnight in British politics since probably May 1940.
Been thinking it over, I can't really see any escape route except a Hungarian veto. We have a Remainer Rabble Supreme Court, not a serious panel of judges deciding these matters. They will do everything to impede and prevent Brexit.
Quite frankly, Batty Hale would be prepared to rule we were still in the EU even if the Hungarian government vetoed our continued membership. :) The only question would be whether any of the other Supreme Court "judges" (aka "Blairites") would be prepared to join her in this self-certification of insanity!
Maybe there might be something in a joint threat of Hungarian veto and Boris telling the EU he will make their life hell - block our EU payment, withdraw our Commissioners, call for corruption investigations, refuse to pay any fines, demand payment for various items, consider withdrawing from defence co-operation etc etc.
If Dominic can do better, he's a better man than me...
One thing Boris does need to do is make clear he will not accept any further extension or the result of any (rigged rerun) second referendum. He will fight the next election on a platform of either the EU accepting the deal he has outlined this week or a No Deal exit. But the No Deal exit will be simply on the basis of a UK Act of Parliament and will ignore all EU law (having withdrawn the supremacy of EU law). The Act will also state explicitly that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this particular Act either directly or via other Acts of Parliament. It will only be justiciable before the House of Commons acting as the supreme court.
In other words a Giant V Sign to the Remainer establishment.
Yes, a ' Giant V Sign' to the Diehard Remainers. When the chips are down I expect Boris to escape the ties, parliamentary and from the SC, that the Rebel Alliance have created specifically for the purpose of defying the will of the majority of the UK electorate. He will not be condemned by the British people for doing what he promised - on the contrary he will be respected for it.
You won't hear any of this on the BBC...Sopel and Bryant don't want you to know.
The Attorney General is going after John Brennan and his co-conspirators and this is really what explains the current Democrat Trump Impeachment gambit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIXg93vRQIY
Prager says: "the left is not used to being investigated" How very true. Sadly the Useless Tories have not yet cottoned on to this over here. Only Trump has the nous to go after them.
Extraordinary item on WATO today...a complete rubbishing of their own BBC Executive Complaints Unit's criticism of Naga Munchetty for biased commentary on Trump - alleging he is a racist.
ReplyDeleteThere was no open discussion, just a one-sided defence of La Naga. Presumably this was the BBC Sisterhood coming together to protect one of their own...It was so very one-sided it was like a football match with only one team on the pitch knocking the goals in.
It got very surreal when they brought in an authoritative commentator to give his views. This was Marcus Ryder. Who does he work for? Chinese Global Television Network...the international propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist dictatorship.
Who do Chinese Communists hate the most? Er - Trump of course.
So, we have an item that confirms what the orginal judgement against Munchetty confirmed:
1. The BBC is rabidly anti-Trump.
2. The BBC hates democratically elected Trump more than the genocidal Chinese Communist dictatorship.
3. The BBC will always protect "women of colour" as long as they spout PC nonsense.
4. BBC staff have no respect for their own complaints procedures.
5. Gross bias is no longer punished at the BBC, but is commended and supported.
The only question is: why has the Executive Complaints Unit gone rogue? I had a theory that the most senior managers at the BBC are concerned that more and more BBC presenters can't be arsed anymore to hide their bias behind the normal, elaborate circumlocutions. This puts BBC bias in plain view and it cannot be denied. Long term, that could have serious implications for the licence fee gravy train system...so you can see why they might be worried.
So maybe the ECU is being used to whip BBC presenters in line, to get them using again the old camouflage...but I don't think it's working. Maitlis was back to full bias mode yesterday after her ECU mauling seemed to have dampened her down a smidgeon. And now we have this nose-thumbing from WATO.
What a liar that Bercow is (if we are still allowed to use such scandalous language that may result in untold carnage)!
ReplyDeleteHe tells the PM to sit down. Quite rightly, after 3 plus hours of answering stupid and or insulting questions, the PM gives him the Royal Goodbye. Bercow then lies to Parliament, claiming he "asked" the PM to remain for the points of order.
Peaky Blinders
ReplyDeleteIn recent days the libmob, the Guardianlalaland, the BBC have been chanting that we must not have a national atmosphere that is angry or inciting and that words like “surrender” and “humbug” should be banned
Yet this same BBC has created and promoted this drama series where downright nasty violent characters are glorified.
BTW did anyone listen to Wednesday's R4 Media Show
which was entirely about Peaky Blinders ?
Instead of having the BBC's Amol Rajan talking about how great this BBC show is , they had the non-BBC presenter
So that was impartial
Yeh right, the guy they used is a Guardian Editor ..
Their Media Editor jimWaterson
.... facepalm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008nzr
Not for the first time is it? Thinking back to Shameless. And of course more seriously BBC 3 and BBC Radio 1 Xtra have been assiduous in promoting murderous, Class A drug-dealing, gang-promoting drill and grime music.
DeleteThe Guardian-BBC is effectively one organisation.
Did you see that Alan Rusbridger, ex Guardian editor, in his Oxford College has appointed Lady Hale along with Gary Lineker as visiting fellows...maybe it was you who mentioned it Stew! Maybe the Guardian-BBC have opened up a branch office in the Supreme Court.
Actually I think Radio 4 gave that Jim Waterson his own programme to witter on about chance connections - how a fight in a Commons bar led to Brexit (kind of). He must be due a transfer between departments!
NEWSNIGHT WATCH
ReplyDeleteTotally biased intro. Any visting extraterrestrial would assume Labour MPs never ever used intemperate language. Look at their faces contorted with hate!
Labour are either aggressive or passive-aggressive or both.
John Major - they love him now. Political chicanery. Order of Council - suspend the Act...sounds good to me. But I don't think it will happen.
EU stitch up - they are desperate to keep us in.
All anti-Boris, anti-Conservative talking points. No pro-Brexit talking points.
Andrew Mitchell - a bit of a twat - playing to the BBC line that we are "an incredibly divided country". I don't believe that. I would say only 20% of the country want to overturn the Referendum result. But they include the vast majority of rich and influential people and some of the most poisonous political elements determined to get their minority way.
Mitchell not defending Boris with any vigour. Presumably that's why Newsnight have got him on.
Dominic Grieve on - still no reference to his Legion d'honneur...Anne Widdicombe missed a trick there. Why is it considered something that has to be kept secret - like his French home, his French mother, his friendship with Macron and his busy media presence in France? Surely it's all highly relevant to his Brexit stance.
BREXICAST WATCH
Not too bad...much better than Newsnight for sure. More insight I would say. But it's still all led by Remain, Labour and EU talking points. When pro-Brexit talking points are given some rare consideration, they switch from objective language ("the EU sees that..." "there is concern about how language is being used...") to the language of subjectivity ("Brexiters feel that..." "the hope is..." "the strategic idea here is...").
All the participants come across as essentially Remainy Folk. But as I suggested, still not as bad as a Maitlis, Barnett or Wark session.
"Bonne chance Dominic.."
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0wNl66tT3Q
I'm just watching an item on Sky News about Brexit. It's a real surprise because it is actually a more or less balanced report! Not the sort of thing you would ever see on the BBC and rarely now on Sky News.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing it points out Hull, not Dover, is our biggest port for trade with the EU. Who knew? And that some RORO outfits previously using Dover and are now shifting to containerised transfer via Hull.
And that containerised transport can handle perishable goods like flowers and food.
The Hull port management say that are fully prepared for Brexit on whatever terms on 31 Oct.
The general tenor of the report was that there is not going to be some sort of national catastrophe on day 1 of a No Deal Brexit. Something all sensible people understand including all the leading Remainers. The Remainers are lying about catastrophe.
The moral of this is that if they wanted to be, the MSM could be balanced.
The people of Hull voted strongly in favour of Leave. For that reason, opinions emanating from there will carry little weight with the BBC. They will be dismissed as far-right dinosaurs.
DeleteThe people of Hull can expect to be socially engineered by the BBC to think differently - to accept that they stay in the EU, that they subscribe to the BBC worldview that immigration is good, that multicultural influences will improve the life of the people of Hull, and that the BBC distorted image of a vibrant multicultural London will apply to Hull and eventually to all of the UK.
John Humphrys, when he said: ... ‘The BBC finds it "hard to resist" the temptation to engage in social engineering. It sometimes tries "to create society in its own image”.’ …
let the cat out of the bag somewhat.
No balance on Radio 4's Today of course. Nick Robinson in full Kenclarkean mode. Only the PM and Dominic Cummings have used intemperate language. Only the Johnson government, not the EU or the Starmer quasi-government, keep their Brexit plans under wraps.
DeleteA balanced presentation about use of language would at least recognise that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party has spoken up in support of IRA terrorists, saying they should be honoured, and "joked" about going back in time to assassinate Mrs Thatcher. It would also recognise that Jeremy Corbyn has referred to the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends and supported strikers convicted of violent offences, including homicide.
It would further recognise that Paula Sherriff has used intemperate language about the present government and that on social media most of the offensive verbiage is from Remainers directed at Leavers whom they refer to as senile, racist, stupid, uneducated, unemployable and so on. Furthermore to ramp up language about No Deal Brexit is also intemperate. To call it "catastrophic" or "taking us off a cliff edge" or "crashing out" is simply irresponsible. We enter WTO terms with the EU. Planes continue to fly. Food continues to be traded. Goods continue to flow. Yes, there will be some issues, but certainly no more than when French fisher folk blockade Dover, or there's an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or an Icelandic volcano spews out ash. The amount of disruption will be minimal.
Will our economy be held back? We'll see. That's democracy for you...or are these extremists saying a Corbyn government will be illegitimate because we know its economic policies will be truly damaging to the UK?
I've just seen a clip of Karl Turner, a Remain MP from the Leave-voting City of Hull laying into Dominic Cummings "wishing him dead in a ditch" (Guido suggests). He's another who daren't vote for a general election for fear of the voting intentions of his electorate.
ReplyDeleteSorry Arthur - hadn't seen your post when I posted similar below....
DeleteHe definitely says that Cummings "should be in a ditch, dead". These sensitive Labour types eh?
The worst thing is that the BBC deliberately avoided subtitling those words but subtitled all the virtue signalling guff from the aggressive Karl Turner.
The scene reminded me of being back in school where the big thicko bully deliberately seeks out the weak intelligent kid who said something about him behind his back,pinning him against the wall and giving him a punch sa a goodbye present. Turner was however not so thick as to throw the punch...contenting himself with wishing Cummings dead in a ditch.
If the Conservatives had any nous about them, they will make a huge thing of this in the Commons, urgent debate, points of order, asking for Speaker's ruling...MP threatening govenrment official etc
But I doubt they will...
Dominic Cummings has been added to the BBC hit list. Here is an extract from:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49847304
'Dominic Cummings: Anger at MPs 'not surprising', PM's adviser says'
.... '"This is a walk in the park compared to the referendum. We are enjoying this. We are going to leave and we are going to win," he said.
But, when questioned as he left his home in London on Friday morning, Mr Cummings said: "Who said it would be a walk in the park?"
Told that he had made the remark, he replied: "No." ' ...
In order to believe the BBC it would be necessary to give a date, time and location for DC's words if not a clip - otherwise it can be mistaken as fake news. I would have thought the BBC would work hard to avoid the fake news slur.
He is the main story on the BBC website right now. This is a political move by the BBC disguised as news. By making him the story and a target I suspect they are trying to build a narrative about his disruptive and unhelpful influence.
DeleteIt’s success depends if this push can get the rest of the MSM, social media and MPs, commentators and influencers to get behind them sufficiently.
Their aim is to get him out, no doubt about that.
A clip has emerged, gleefully shown by the BBC News channel during which DC did say what was reported about 'walk in the park'. DC has played into the BBC hands there.
DeleteA bit silly perhaps but the BBC is also twisting the truth (see below) to benefit Labour (by not subtitling Karl Turner's death threat to Dominic).
DeleteI recall hearing that Cummings is leaving Government service on 1st October. He may just be playing games with our Fake News Media and drawing fire away from Boris. Or he may have forgot he said it!
Arthur T.- Note the question was missing so that the context was not clear. I thought he seemed to be answering a question about the pressure he was under. The answer was then conflated with an answer to a question whether he thought Brexit would be a walk in the park in the doorstepping clip.
DeleteLooks to me like disgraceful manipulation by the BBC. This is fake news until they show us the question as well. If they were not given the question they should not have shown the clip on the National News on BBC1 at 1 pm as they did.
Yes Anon you're right. The 'he replied: "No." ' could relate to anything. These questions shouted from a distance are hardly incisive journalism "Will you resign Prime Minister?"
DeleteInteresting anon if they didn't show the question. That does make me suspicious. He could have been thinking about two different concepts: "the task of securing Brexit compared with task of winning the Referendum" and "how difficult my job at No. 10 is now compared with how difficult my job was at Vote Leave." They are two different things. One might be a walk in the park and the other might not be. We'd need the full text of both sets of Q and As. It is safest to assume that the BBC are distorting and censoring e.g. broadcasting Jess Phillips comments as though they accurately reflected what Johnson was referring to with his "humbug" and ensuring no one is reminded on national news about Jess Phillips' various aggressive comments including the notorious "knife him in the front" comment.
DeleteAggressive Labour MP Karl Turner can clearly be heard telling Dominic Cummings he should be "in a ditch, dead" but the BBC chose not to subtitle that!!! How very convenient.
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2019/09/27/karl-turner-threaten-cummings/
Rory Cellan-Jones desperately trying to keep up with the PC virtue signalling crowd despite being a bald white middle aged man and therefore disqualified from having a bona fide view according to Krishna Guru-Murthy.As President Obama might say: "You're going to be at the back of the queue, Rory."
ReplyDeleteStill, it will do him good to be seen to be defending Naga Munchetty's officially biased anti-Trump rant (along with being married to an ex BBC Trust member!).
https://twitter.com/ruskin147/status/1177143361930743808
It was interesting to see how desperate KGM was to find out who is in the Executive Complaints Unit at the BBC. Presumably he wanted to put the Channel 4 Rottweilers (so you're saying puppy dogs?) on to them.
Clear that the whole of the corrupt BBC crowd are having a complete meltdown at being held to account even just a tincey-wince and being reminded about the rules of impartiality.
DeleteAnd of course, the PC crowd are, as they always do, trying to racialise it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49850738
Looks like the BBC is suppressing Trump's claim that Adam Schiff misquoted the recorded conversation between him and the Ukraine President. Why on earth isn't that news? The BBC is a censoring Fake News Service.
ReplyDeleteYou won't get the truth from the BBC...Schiff making up pretend dialogue:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRh3-1TlUwg
H/T to Stewgreen:
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrisy of the Labour virtue signallers is on a sickening scale.
Earlier this year he tweeted a photo of Carl Benjamin covered in milk shake following an assault while campaigning. Turner commented: "Another truly vile @UKIP candidate gets a milkshake for lunch. " and accompanied that incitement to further violence with a "thumbs-up" emoji.
Disgusting - beyond disgusting.
Have we reached peak PC, peak virtue signalling hypocrisy, peak Greta, peak BBC bias and peak Sorosization of the UK all at the same time? Let's hope so.
ReplyDeleteYou can only trust in the people...as Brecht might have said, you can't elect a new people.
The people have been lied to by the BBC, ITV and Sky. They have been subject to brainwashing at school and at work. They have been threatened with the law, with economic catastrophe. They have been told they are racist, swivel eyed loons, uneducated, ignorant and left-behind.
Remarkably the people have remained steady...stirring stuff.
If the people stay steady and take their revenge at the next election, we may yet survive.
If not, it is probably GAME OVER for our nation, our once proud, maybe too proud nation.
Good speech from Farage...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0xZTOckceA
Presumably as not featured by the BBC (despite The Brexit Party winning the EU Parliamentary elections).
I actually saw BBC News transmit his Westminster speech in full. Even the "tell us what he meant" afterwards wasn't terrible.
DeleteMaybe the BBC has realised that publicising Johnson and Cummings every single day has made no dent in the polls, and so is now giving some airtime to Farage and Co as a means of reducing the BoJo vote (?)
So, just 34 days left for the Conservative Party to avoid extinction...
ReplyDeleteIf they fail to deliver Brexit by 31 October, I am not sure they can recover. They are held back by their weak, wet, Remainer core.
If the Brexit Party comes forward prepared to deliver a quick exit from the EU, tackle immigration, push back on PC and neuter the BBC then they might well supplant the Conservatives at the next election.
I'm glad I manage to avoid Today most days! For today on Today the Bias Level had definitely been turned up to 11. Actually, I guess it always is these days! Certainly, as always, the focus was on Boris and Trump, les bete noires de BBC except they wouldn't use the noir word.
ReplyDeleteWho best to get on to discuss the impeachment of Trump and enlighten the listener? - why a Democrat who had served under Democrat Presidents of course! Surely that's the best way for Justin to get objective information about what's going on and Justin obliges his soft, helpful, open-ended questions...I wonder how he would have treated a Republican pundit?
Together, Justin and his pal, were even able to clear up the little matter, the potential hiccup, of what exactly Biden's son Hunter was doing in Ukraine with his "controversial" energy company while Biden was VP and interfering in Ukraine's affairs. No details of course, just an assertion that all was above board! No mention that Hunter's company was linked to the previous pro-Russia regime...no siree.
No suggestion that the so called CIA "whistleblower" might be part of a co-ordinated attempt to dislodge Trump from power. Remember, it was John Brennan, CIA Director who was really at the centre of the previous attempt to dislodge Trump over alleged links with and blackmail by the Russians (what ended up as the Muller investigation). BTW, Justin now calls it the "Muller business" or some such rather than "Trump's links with Russia", such allegations having lost all credibility. According to Justin the whole Muller thing was "just too complicated". Really? That's the excuse?! Lol. Clearly for the BBC "complicated" is now a euphemism for "did not achieve the results we were hoping for". Justin did not mention that Muller cleared Trump of inappropriate links with Russia. It was clearly just "too complicated" for Muller to get to the bottom of.
There was no examination of the motives for the impeachment process. I would suggest that it may be an indication that the right and centre of the Democrats have lost power to the Far Left. The BBC might agree - but that is a cause for quiet celebration rather than broadcasting in Broadcasting (As We See Fit) House.
The BBC is out of control. The Munchetty affair demonstrates that BBC activists (no point calling them reporters and presenters) refuse to accept even minimal restraint with regard to impartiality. Moreover they will use their programmes to report in a biased way on a proven allegation of bias!!!
ReplyDeleteLast night on Newsnight, there was a cosy chat between Nish Kumar of the Mash Report (the guy who tried to take down Melanie Philips on QT and was instead himself humiliated and made to look very stupid in front of a few million viewers) and Mark Urban. It's very sad how Urban who once seemed slightly attached to the real world now appears to have agreed to "come quietly" and offer no resistance to his PC captors, performing such obeisances as they require.
Kumar was happy to admit that he got more freedom on his programme because it was listed as comedy, so he got to call Boris a liar and a racist with no comeback - huge self-satisfied smile from Kumar, suggesting he knew he had a licence to be biased that Newsnight presenters could only dream of. Mark Urban appreciated the rich irony, and laughed along. Well at least you were honest there, Kumar.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07pkbdh
What to do?
The licence fee has to go.
The BBC has to be broken up.
But the BBC cannot be allowed to become a British CNN funded by globalist billionaires. Any programme of reform based purely on privatisation would be a mistake.
The BBC have lost control. Their News operation cannot stop their own journalists from using twitter as their ladder to personal career development. The BBC presenters now feel free to ignore their own complaints procedure. The BBC support for the Rebel Alliance and their anti Brexit position is clear to see - easier to see day by day as parliament makes a fool of itself cheered on by the BBC.
DeleteOutput of original Drama designed to appeal to any audience other than the youth (through BBC III) has withered away to a formulaic rehashing of tried and tested subjects and on-message narratives. Inclusivity has replaced creativity. The so-called comedy Scarborough is a good example of how far the BBC has sunk. Every PC box is ticked - effectively making fun of Englishness and the values it stands for.
You had me with you all the way till you got to Scarborough!Its creator probably knew what he had to do to get it commissioned. Being gay himself I think he's overestimated the gay population of Scarborough by a factor of 10 but even so, I enjoy it and find it laugh out funny, plus the acting is generally to a high standard.
DeleteOh well, no accounting for taste as they say.
The guy, whose name escapes me, also created Benidorm which I also enjoyed and about which the PC critics were v sniffy.
I agree with you about the dearth of decent drama. So many subjects can't be tackled honestly now. The last time the BBC did tackle something in not a very PC way (Take Two Girls - grooming gangs)ie realistically they ended up provoking a guy who watched it to launch a homicidal attack on worhsippers leaving a Mosque. That kind of underlines the problem for the BBC - so committed to PC ideology they can no longer produce anything that isn't fully on side with the ideology.
Meanwhile, I learn from the BBC "news" that "Countryfile" (once an innocent programme celebtrating the countryside) has undertaken an "investigation" into a sinister Far Right organisation British Revival or some such and managed to get the organisation and its leader blocked on Facebook (ie managed to close down someone else's free speech).
What next?
"Countryfile investigates a sinister network of organisations operating in rural areas that produce a "white only" product, they claim is giving health and life to the next generation? The network, often referred to as the MMB by its inner circle, has even recruited celebrities to make the cult more attractive to the population at large. In the past Bob Geldof was involved in promoting it to the public, though he claims he was unaware of its more sinister connotations.
The Milk Marketing Board have refused to comment but the Home Secretary confirms he is aware of the allegations which he finds alarming and underlines his personal commitment to eliminating extremism in all its forms, but especially in the countryside."
QUOTE: This is really onto something: "I am absolutely outraged to hear that my opponents are using the kind of language I have just used to describe their own position." UNQUOTE
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/annemcelvoy/status/1177663350127419392
Really? Really?? Just got on to this "something"???
People on ITBB and Biased BBC, people on the Guido Fawkes and Breitbart sites, have been pointing this out for years!!!
More than that, many of us have been pointing out that it is not just the usual political hypocrisy, it is part of a deliberate policy (orchestrated by people like Blair, Mandelson, Campbell, Macron and others, echoed and encouraged by the BBC) designed to delegitimise the democrat vote of 17.4 million people in 2016 by linking Leave with tags such as "Fascist", "Bigoted", "Far Right", "Anti-immigrant" and "Racist".
Either our intelligentsia aren't very intelligent or they choose to see what they see when they want to see it. I think I know which it is.
Impartial Nick Robinson thinks it's time to create a Government of National Stupidity - sorry - Unity.
ReplyDeleteSo who does Left Wing Tory (ex head of University Conservative Club) Nick Robinson think should lead this Government of National Obloquy - sorry - Unity?
Why - "THE MASTER" of course - Ken Clarke!!!!
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1177905131968434179
Luvvin' the impartiality Nick!
As Patrick O'Flynn notes, "Government of National Unity" is not an objective term.
Government of National Surrender would be more objective.
Or just the National Union of Traitors. They could apply to join the TUC.
Yes, for a position in the fictional yet erroneously named "Government of National Unity" - only Remainers need apply. Who, in this wonderful flight of fancy, Nick, would represent the interests of 17.4 million Leave voters?
DeleteIf you read the comments to his tweet, it's clear that he lacks support.
I am sure Michael Gove would be open to persuasion given his record to date... keep an eye on that backstabber.
DeleteHas the fightback begun?
ReplyDeleteGreat news to see the Government are investigating the role of Remainer MPs in negotiating with foreign states in relation to domestic law making...there are laws against such things...maybe even treason laws...
To date they have thought they can get away with anything they like. If the Government is determined to disabuse them of that, well that is brilliant! :)
Do you have any links we can look at MB?
DeleteJust saw it on Sky News Press Preview...but didn't catch which paper. Think it might be Sunday Times. Will check it out...
DeleteIt was actually Mail on Sunday but I won't link as it makes my computer go bats!
DeleteRachel Shabi was trying to excuse the Remainer MPs "foreign collusion" by suggesting it was consultation with the EU, of which we are a part but actually, although I haven't read the Mail article yet, I suspect it's collusion specifically with the French government which IS most definitely a foreign government.
I have mentioned many times here there is strong evidence of a Macron-Blair-Soros plot to keep us in the EU. Grieve as a virtual Frenchman (Legion d'honneur no less) is a key part of the plot I would suggest. They co-ordinate actions between Macron within the EU and the Remainer rabble in Parliament, in direct contravention of our government's perception of our interests, and I think if you look at the treason laws that is defined as treason. I am NOT suggesting anyone is going to be charged with treason. But there may be other legal offences committed.
Yes, true to form it's there on the BBC News website Papers Review - but it runs third to the two headlines selected by the BBC. As usual, they feature:
DeleteThe Sunday Times: Arcuri 'told friends of affair with Boris'
and, The Observer: PM 'whipping up riot fears to avoid Exit extension'.
Both are personal slurs upon Boris Johnson.
But "Corbyn backs ex lover for key Shadow Cabinet post even though she can't do numbers" and "Labour whipping up apocalypse "no deal" fears to avoid Brexit delivery" are never banner headlines...and even if they were would be ignored by the Brexit-Bashing Colluders.
DeleteSo what is the Munchetty Thesis? I would suggest it must be something like this:
ReplyDelete"If you are a member of a group which has suffered discrimination, abuse or oppression by another group you are allowed as a BBC presenter (in contravention of what would otherwise be the rules) to offer your personal views on a person belonging to the latter group if they appear to you to be expressing attitudes associated with said discrimination, abuse or oppression. Such personal views can include speculation about their motivation and intent, beyond what their words express, even if the intent referred to is one that is criminal."
Is that thesis acceptable? Janet Street-Porter has indicated no, as it would for instance give all women presenters the right to be biased in reporting on men, given the history and continuing reality in some parts of the world of male oppression of women, and the general view among feminists that nearly all men without exception engage in oppression of women.
White British and Asian presenters would have the right to be biased against most Japanese people, on the basis of Japanese treatment of allied POWs and their failure to openly acknowledge their guilt.
African presenters could have a go at virtually any Arab on the basis of their historic involvement in the slave trade and their continuing discrimination against black people.
So, no I don't think it's a reasonable "thesis".
Of course we know that there is no rational thesis in any case. Trump is the target. Trudeau can dress up in blackface and Munchetty won't have anything to say. Africans can kick out Asians from their countries and Munchetty won't be raising the matter with African leaders. Han Chinese politicians are treated with the utmost respect despite their genocidal treatment of Tibetans and Uigurs.
"The General" on BBBC states that 9 of the 11 Supreme Court judges serve on the ECJ. I knew some did, but not so many...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have a link to support this claim?
If true, it would mean presumably that the vast majority of these old codgers had a direct and very substantial financial interest in remaining in the EU.
On the basis of the following link (describing the MEP salaries being set at 38.5% of ECJ judge salaries), it appears the serving on the ECJ brings in over 270,000 Euros per annum for each judge - about £250,000 I would guess.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/13/salaries-and-pensions
So, if Brexit happens, it would appear that the 9 Supreme Court judges who also serve on the ECJ would lose quarter of a million quid each every year (and their pension would reduced accordingly)!!!
How can they be said to have no interest in this matter?
This is really an absolute scandal.
The UK Government should appeal the matter to the ECJ on the basis that a fair hearing has not been held.
I think if true this invalidates the decision.
Remember also that to draw their EU pension they have to agree, I believe, to uphold the aims and principles of the EU - I've certainly read that elsewhere. That creates another conflict of interest.
It's worth reading Michael St George's piece in TCW:
Deletehttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/was-this-the-week-british-democracy-died/
The opening paragraph:
... 'That the Supreme Court’s Judgment reversed the earlier verdict of the High Court – whose panel included the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, both of whom rank above Supreme Court Judges in the judicial pecking order' ...
If what Michael St George says is true, a set of ECJ/SC judges, have superior authority over our Monarch. Add this to the above, and it appears that we are being governed by EU laws and courts already.
It certainly underlines the point that the EU-troughing Supreme Court judges indulged in hugely novel law-making - overturning more than 200 years of precedence.
DeleteSee
Deletehttps://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7026/en/
The claim appears to be incorrect
Thanks anonymous - it does appear from that link that none of the Supreme Court are ECJ justices. I should have held back on my high dudgeon until the facts were ascertained!
DeleteI am fairly sure that some of the senior judges have been involved in Pan-European professional bodies that receive EU money. One heard a case from a Brexiteer (threw it out - there's a surprise). However, it would seem that the claim of direct financial interest via ECJ membership is not true.
Been listening to JRM's speech to the Conservative Party Conference.
ReplyDeleteOK sorry but he's not really cutting through I feel. He sounded nervous at several points (as well he might given the challenges the Government actually faces).
It's all v. well talking about re-focussing on Conservative Party members but the party doesn't have democratic structures. That needs to be remedied immediately.
In his speech JRM said Corbyn was not "a bad man". Sorry, I think he is. Consorting with various murderous terrorists from the IRA to Hamas comes under the heading of "bad" for me (think of all the limbs blown off to begin with as a matter of direct policy on their part), or supporting the Communist regimes when they were persecuting millions or supporting violent protest against democratically elected governments? Not bad?
Tommy Robinson, who has never consorted with terrorists, is held up as a figure of hate by the PC establishment including the Conservative leadership. But now Mogg is telling us Corbyn is "not a bad man"! Really - he's lost the plot there.
Mogg went on to laud Bercow! This is not the moment to be praising Bercow however faint the praise...
Mogg's effective in Parliament and often in interviews but not in this conference setting. When it came to Bercow, he was speaking as if he was in Parliament, where you have to respect the conventions. He was in conference - he should have been laying into Bercow big time.
I had hoped the Conservative Party could survive but I am doubting it more every day. Unless Boris can pull some constitutional rabbit out of the hat(in which case he will become a national hero) I fear they are done for and, however long it takes, democrats and patriots will have to change their vote to the truly populist parties like TBP or UKIP.
Of course if Boris fails to deliver Brexit, it is v. likely the Conservatives will disintegrate. In that case, there is every chance that 20-30 MPs from the ERG in the Conservative Party will split from the Conservatives to join TBP, perhaps in forming a new party or maybe creating a kind of CDU-CSU coalition on the German model.
I guess it all depends on Boris. If he is prepared to become a Brexit martyr and go to prison, no one from the ERG will split away. But if it all ends up as a damp squib with Boris looking pathetic, then the split will probably happen.
Of course before the ERG Spartans split, the Traitor Remainers may split from the Tories to form their own faction with Grieve and co, in which case the Continuity Conservatives will be dominated by the ERG and there will be no need for the ERG to split.
As I keep mentioning, modern-day moderate Labourites are as dangerous or sometimes more so that Far Left Marxists. The Blair gang want to criminalise and silence non-violent groups whose politics they find reprehensible. Let's remember that non-violent groups who have suffered such oppression in the past include Quakers, Methodists, Salvation Army, and the National Secular Society. They were all considered extreme and subversive in their day.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/30/now-they-want-to-outlaw-non-violent-political-groups/
H/T to Stew Green...
ReplyDeleteI find this very disturbing, very troubling. Why is the BBC promoting this evil ideology of racism?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008wv1
From the BBC Blurb:
"For many white people their race is not part of their identity. Race, racial inequality and racism are things that people of colour are expected to talk about and organise around. Not anymore.
Anti-racist activists and academics are now urging white people to recognise that they are just as racialised as minorities. The way to successfully tackle structural racism, they say, is to get white people to start taking responsibility for the racially unjust status quo.
Bristol-based journalist Neil Maggs, who is white, takes a deep dive into the canon of books, Instagram challenges and workshops that seek to educate people like him on their white privilege and internalised white supremacy. He gets advice from anti-racism trainer Robin DiAngelo, learns about the growing field of whiteness studies in the UK, and visits the white working class estate of Hartcliffe to see how these ideas play out there.
He also talks to Eric Kaufmann about the inevitable decline of white majorities by the end of the century and how to prevent white people falling for far-right conspiracy theories about being wiped out."
I don't wish to think of myself as white thanks very much, BBC, because as far as I know "whiteness" is a made-up thing and has nothing to do with me or anyone else. It has no real basis in genetics. It is a construct - an oppressive one.
So why is the BBC telling me I must adopt "whiteness"?
Why would anyone willingly don this mental straitjacket.
As far I am concerned I am a son of the culture into which I was born with its language(s), history, customs, art, science and achievements and the land where I was brought up - a landscape to which I feel great attachment.
I refuse to be bound by some nutjob academic theories - dangerous, deluded, even deranged ideas.
This Professor, supported by our taxes, seems to have plenty of time on his hands to propagandise on behalf of this racist theory:
https://twitter.com/eichhornlab
BTW I definitely do not think as the BBC claims that "Race, racial inequality and racism are things that people of colour are expected to talk about and organise around." Only people who read the Guardian think like that. Millions of black, brown and mixed race people just get on with their lives without feeling any such obligation.
I also dispute that the people referred to in the blurb are "anti-racist activists". They are pro-racist activists. Racism is the doctrine that our moral and cultural worth are based on our race not our actions. This is exactly the nasty idea being propagated in this programme.
"Analysis" has clearly become the cutting edge of Race-Baiting Corbynism on the BBC. Expect more!!!
Tony Hall has made it his life's work to overturn the democratic majority decision of 17.4 million people, so overturning the decision of the BBC's own Executive Complaints Unit is no trouble at all.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1178734601507872769
It was obviously coming, given the twitter activity and the outrage of 'people of colour'. I've looked at the conversation between Walker and Munchetti and believe that the woke aspiring brownie point gatherer Walker should have had his collar felt as well, given the way he was most definitely encouraging her to give an opinion. Quite obviously, neither had considered the context of the comments by Trump and the whole tone was subjective; do they actually train people at BBBC any more? As for Hall, given the way in which he has set out to undermine the democratic decision of the British people and for us to continue, in effect, to bow the knee to the German, it seems to me we ought to refer to him as Lord Haw Hall for his treachery.
ReplyDeleteTony - a creature of the other Tony.
DeleteWho continues to darken our outlook with his presence!
DeleteWhy is PC (politically correct) ideology so powerful?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it taking over our society with such terrifying speed, destroying our democracy, our institutions, our borders, our culture?
Looking for a historical parallel, I think there is one: the rise of extreme Protestantism taht came to be known as Puritanism. England went from being a fun-loving Catholic nation under King Henry VIII to a grey serious Protestant nation under his son King Edward. It happened in a few years. Suddenly the court which was once a riot of colour, gaudy garments, music and jollity, became a bleak place.Incredibly aristocrats dressed in black or the most subdued hues. Everyone wanted to show their commitment to the new iteration of Christianity.
What became known as Puritanism shares something with PC ideology - virtue signalling. I believe this is what helps it spread at such an alarming rate.
Nearly all of us like to think we are good and even if we are not good we don't really like others thinking we are bad or, at least, social rejects. We want our place in society. But both Puritanism and PC ideology threaten the ordinary person's place in society.
All a Catholic had to do was "not be a heretic". But a Puritan had to actively demonstrate their virtue by various signs (their clothing, their attendance at church, their reading the bible and their membership of pious congregations for instance). Signs of virtue stood for the soul which was what Puritanism is after, just as PC ideology...both really, really want to change you even if you don't want to be changed.
So PC ideology like Puritanism requires demonstrations of virtue. People have to repeat PC dogma in their speech. They have to show their commitment to PC values, for instance by whom they hire, whom they give awards to and whom they praise in public.
A lot of this is driven by social guilt, much like Puritanism was driven by sexual guilt. Many of those who fall victim to the PC virus have no immunity because of this guilt. They know inside they are guilty. Many in the managerial classes have had wealth in their families for a long time. They know their families have over the decades or centuries benefitted from land and property ownership, from slavery, from colonialism, from shareholdings, from tax avoidance, from private health care and from private education.
The only way out is to identify with PC ideology to commit wholeheartedly to "diversity", to "equality", and to "multiculturalism" - especially as such avowals seem so simple to begin with. What does it cost you to say some insincere words, to pretend you really do want an extremely devout Muslim as an employee praying in your offices several times a day, or you really don't give any thought as to whether the 29 year old female employee is going to go on maternity leave for the next six year or you think women really are being underpaid or you believe the country will be better off if it allows in undocumented migrants? Words and pretence are easy and cost little compared with actually giving up your status in society.
...continued...
ReplyDeleteIt's only after a while that people begin to realise that this PC ideology is way more threatening than they realised. It co-opts other movements - radical Islam, Marxism, extreme feminism, transgenderism (just as Puritanism co-opted Parliamentary supremacy, the interests of the gentry and active colonialism)...it begins to dominate the whole of academia (absolutely no dissent being allowed) and also the whole of the media. Ultimately, although PC ideology claims to love diversity, it cannot tolerate dissent any more than Puritans could tolerate Christmas festivities or Hot Cross Buns.
Ultimately there was a reaction to Puritanism and English culture became highly suspicious of what was called euphemistically "enthusiasm" in religion. But PC ideology is more like a 1984 nightmare vision, now that it has access to advanced 21st century technology. Facebook can ban you in a flash. You Tube can demonetise you. Google can make a person's name mud in a few seconds as some out-of-context quote becomes the latest witch burning episode. Once the PCs are PC you are in real trouble. People are becoming unpersons. Books are being removed from online bookshops and libraries(e.g. Amazon) and from real world libraries and bookshops. They may not be physically burned but they are being burned out of existence.
Good post MB. I see the roots of PC ideology as being in the interwar period when modernism emerged as a quasi-religion. 'Make it new', take a fresh look and reengineer everything. This started as a paternal form of socialism whereby the leading figures knew what was best for the plebs. 'Nothing is too good for the ordinary people'.
DeleteThe particularity of the movement was that many of the leading figures were well-to-do - tilted 'socialists'. This arrogance survived WWII, and through government local and national, the new establishment knew what was best.
This ideology pervaded every walk of life, and as you say MB, all manner of ideologies joined forces into what we now see.
Posts such as this are sometimes lost in the fast-moving open thread - Craig and Sue might like to promote this and other well thought out pieces to guest posts.
The 2016 referendum has come to represent a challenge to the Remain PC ideology. Never before have people from across the political spectrum come together before to indicate that they won't put up with "the establishment knows what's best'. They've never had the chance to do so before. This is why it is becoming a fight to the finish. There is no longer any middle ground.
DeletePC Ideologists have no concept of loss. As they 'make it new', nobody is able to say whether the outcome is a success or not. There are never any consequences, thus budgetary or time constraint and now the 2016 referendum result are immaterial.
DeleteThe history of non-accountability especially in London, and especially in the public sector, are there for all to see: Cross-rail, IT systems, HS2 etc.
... Titled Socialists ...
DeleteI suppose Tony Benn was the last of these 'Principled'.
Tony Benn, the principled socialist left £5 million in his will - and left it all to his family, including Hillary the Hypocrite of course. Not a penny went on a socialist cause.
DeleteI’m not a philosopher, but I don’t think the problem was Modernism. Modernism was rooted in the principals and culture of Western civilisation. I also believe that post war we might have been heading towards a healthy egalitarianism. But what might have been was highjacked by liberal progressives who were neither liberal nor progressive - Cultural Marxism. There are many parts of Jordan Peterson’s philosophy I profoundly disagree with, but I think he is absolutely right about the terrible damage inflicted by post-modernism and subsequent relative morality.
DeleteThere was a time when Marxism was regarded as a science that could be proved mathematically. History has revealed that to be a nonsense. Marx was wrong about almost everything. Yet today’s left is even more dangerous. Our beautiful, but fragile liberal democracies are under threat as never before.
It was the post WWII period when the rule books were torn up as modernists looked for new ways to interpret art, education, science etc. This was an experimental phase where predicted outcomes weren't realised - but without accountability, it just didn't matter. The elite classes were the beyond reproach.
DeleteI believe that the unshakeable confidence of the liberal left elite that they know what is best for the people of the UK was established in this post war period, and over successive decades has amplified itself to drown out any dissenting voices or non-PC opinion.
Every generation of artists has torn up the rule books of how to interpret art. When “The Marriage of Figaro” was first performed it was considered scandalous and when “The Magic Flute” was performed in German to make it accessible to ordinary people it was revolutionary. In both cases a move towards egalitarianism.
DeletePersonally, I think that 20th century Modernism was a golden age, particularly in the visual arts. Admittedly it was on a trajectory that eventually consumed itself, but you could say that about almost all movements in art. While it lasted it was a very bright star indeed. The real problems started with the vacuousness of post-modernism. You could use Duchamp as an example, but I think he is misunderstood. For me the turning point was Warhol onwards.
But my real point was that there was a chance of genuine egalitarianism post war - a chance for all culture high and low to be available to everybody. But it was trampled on by a so-called “liberal” establishment. What we have now is the opposite of egalitarianism. Although I don’t like the word, a kind of “progressive” authoritarianism.
I agree with with you Terry up to a point. There was indeed the chance to create a fairer society in the mid 20th C, and yes it was a golden age stylistically for art. Failure to achieve equality could be put down to the two party system, where with successive governments pushed their own policies effectively cancelling each other out.
DeleteThe golden age in art has been replaced by functions of funding and inclusivity. Religious art has become a no no. Architecture has become a mixture of American real estate coupled with eco warriors' musings (with a nod to modernism). Buildings are not designed with people in mind - just 'infrastructure'.
The link between house-building and community-building has been lost. It was at its strongest in the 1960s and 1970s, when local authority commissioned projects were more plentiful. House-builders now, are profit driven - 'one size fits all' estates can be seen at the edges of towns and villages throughout the UK creating overcrowded units with inadequate provision for cars and parking, incongruously in locations dependent upon car travel.
DeleteDuring the golden age of modernism, artists, musicians, architects, town planers, ceramicists, photographers etc all worked to common goals and ideals. They worked successfully in their own 'ivory towers' communities - but, these were well-to-do groups who had little regard for the general public. It is this attitude which I believe has led to the current elitist superclass who dictate to the rest of us because they 'know best what's good for us'.
The Brexit debate goes so much deeper than just the EU. It represents a struggle for national identity. Perhaps most of us hanker for the days of old when values of fairness and equality were achievable aims, we know that remaining in the EU will be to abandon such hopes entirely. Immigration plays a large part in this. How can fairness and equality be maintained in an ever-increasing population?
Re the Munchetty Retreat...
ReplyDeleteJust when you might think the BBC had rediscovered a smidgeon of common sense in how to navigate this complex world...they slam on the brakes and start reversing at speed.
So we have now ended up with a formal position where the BBC's top management (not just some sofa slouch) have openly expressed the view that the President of the USA is a racist. I can draw no other conclusion from their formal statement that the President's comments were "racist". A sophist might be able to distinguish between being a racist and making racist statements but the general public will just think "Trump's a racist".
So, far from dialling down on its left-leaning subjective content, the BBC has now formally adopted a subjective judgement on the President, one which - no surprise - echoes the pages of the Guardian.
Will they exonerate Emily next?
Will they disband the ECU?
Will they tell us who sits on it?
And how much they get paid?
I think it's quite amusing that they have to keep the ECU names under wraps because they know their Far Left hate mob mates would make their lives hell if they could.
Lord Haw-Hall has said that what was once considered to be so is no longer so.
DeleteThere can be no further discusion.
BBC "stealth" headline on its website:
ReplyDelete"China celebrates 70 years of Communist Party rule."
Really? 1.2 billion people are celebrating a system that cause the unnecessary deaths of maybe 50 million people and made second citizens of hundreds of millions? I doubt it.
But then these days you might almost say the BBC is "literally Communist" so perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised.
7.45 am Today... another anti-Boris hatchet job from "impartial" BBC Nick Robinson. No other prime minister got this treatment... all negatives, all how hopelessly useless Boris is and what a failure he has been so far as PM.
ReplyDeleteCould you imagine Nick making a punch-bag of Prime Minister Clarke, or Prime Minister Starmer or Prime Minister Cooper? No, neither can I. He would be deference personified.
DeleteThe Brexit Bashing Corporation is deliberately referring to the non-border customs facilities proposed as "customs posts" even though that phrase is not used in UK documentation. It is how the Republic are describing them, in a desperate effort to scupper any deal and keep us in the EU.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC will do anything to stop Brexit including lying, distorting, engaging in strategic amnesia and trying to make Blair look credible again.
More 'emotive language', such as the PM is urged not to use?
DeleteYep, all designed to encourage the "men of violence" to go dig up the Armalites from the secret caches.
DeleteOutrageous - Maitlis letting Jonathan Powell threaten terrorist violence in support of the Remain position. Powell is the lowest of the low. A true Blairite.
ReplyDeleteNow he's lying that the Irish will put in place a hard border if there is a No Deal exit for the UK. They never will! Any government that tried to wouldn't last 10 minutes.
DeleteThe last thing that 'the men of violence' want in Ireland is an alignment between the two countries. The current differences in taxation and currency make for a nice little earner.
DeleteThe BBC would be very concerned about that reference to "men of violence"...not the violence, it's the idea that only men are going to be violent they would find offensive.
DeleteNo, the BBC would be more concerned that the term has only been applied to a few men in Northern Ireland.
DeleteAs we now know all men are 'of violence', 'toxic masculinity' is congenital!
However his Premiership ends, whether in glory or ignominy, it will have been worth it just hear that one line about Bercow being forced to eat a kangaroo's testicle. :)
ReplyDeleteChris Morris has published a reality check about the Boris Border solution. It rubbishes his proposal and it is as biased as we have come to expect from the BBCs alternative reality.
ReplyDeleteSo what does our Chris have to say?
Delete"From the beginning the EU has struggled to see how Ireland and Northern Ireland can exist in different customs territories while keeping the border as open as it is now under all circumstances."
Really? Even though the Republic of Ireland state they have no plans to immediately put in border infrastructure in the event of a No Deal exit by the UK...? Suspicious eh? Seems like the EU can live without the hard border but have customs checks elsewhere to me. Chris always takes anything the EU say as gospel.
"They will argue that - in the absence of a future free trade deal - this proposal means the UK is breaking commitments it has made about the border. The UK counters that the backstop has already been rejected in Parliament three times, and something needs to change. "
Nice and vague Chris! How about some specifics...what commitments have we made?
"If adopted, a border solution relying on technology and remote checks would be a first. The EU does not currently share a single border with a non-EU country where checks have been completely eliminated."
This is disingenuous. The Norway-Sweden border has something like 30 crossings but only 2 are
supposed to be used for EU-EEA trade and have border infrastructure. So there are 28 crossings that are presumably being checked in some other way that with hard infrastructure.
There is also a motorway crossing into Leichenstein where the customs infrastructure is not located on the border but where the motorway terminates.
San Marino has a completely open border with the EU, and there are only "random police checks". San Marino is not even a member of the EEA.
The moral is clearly - "Where there's a will there's a way."
If the EU really wanted to resolve the N Ireland border issues, it could quite easily. It decided not to, because it was a very useful negotiating ploy for them. I do blame May for not pushing back immediately and with equal strength.
Emma Barnett sounding very thick on Newsnight interviewing Steve Baker who is having to tutor her on ever detail. She's suffering from a serious case of Gotchaitis.
ReplyDeleteSteve Baker interviewed by Mahyar Tousi...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckpwBp240bo
This is so much more interesting (esp after about 5:00 min) than all those times we've seen or heard Steve Baker interviewed by Maitlis, Peston, Robinson and all the rest.
For one thing, he is given the chance to express his opinions. We learn something. I don't mean I agree with everything Steve Baker says, just that it's interesting to hear him have some space to explain his views.
The interruptive "Gotcha" journalism of pathetic specimens like Emma Barnett and Nick Robinson really does have to end. I think we are all heartily sick of it.
South Yorkshire Police encourages people to report 'non-crime incidents,' including 'offensive or insulting comments.' Alan Billings, our Police and Crime Commissioner fully supports the policy. South Yorkshire Police warns that 'hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire.' Calling someone a 'blundering buffoon' won't be tolerated in South Yorkshire either. This is what happened to me after I used those forbidden words.
ReplyDeleteA policewoman came to my door and after she came inside gave me a document. A quote from the document, a 'Harrassment Warning:'
' ... if the kind of behaviour described here were to continue, then you would be liable to arrest and prosecution.'
Crime Ref: K/116966/15
This was why I was risking arrest and prosecution, according to South Yorkshire Police - capital letters and wording as in the original document, except that I don't give here the names of the two people who took their complaint to South Yorkshire Police - and found South Yorkshire Police completely willing to take their complaint seriously and to act, instead of telling them to get over it or to forget it or find ways of coping with their dreadful trauma or to put it into perspective and to try thinking of it as a minor matter.
YOU CALLED AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL MESSAGE ON MR & MRS C. LANDLINE CALLING THEM BLUNDERING BUFFOONS.'
YOU HAVE ALSO EMAILED MR C. AT WORK STATING THE SAME INSULT.
I used the words 'blundering buffoon' only in connection with AC. The claim that I described his wife CC as a 'blundering buffoon' is completely false.
Yorkshire people are often supposed to be blunt, plain-speaking folk, but South Yorkshire Police seem to have a very different view - of South Yorkshire people as fragile, timid people with no capacity for common sense or good sense, incapable of standing up for themselves.
The policewoman was at my house for over an hour. This time, like the time which obviously must have been spent taking statements from CC and AC and the administrative time needed to issue the document, was time which wasn't devoted to combatting crime in South Yorkshire. This was surely a ridiculous, disastrously misguided misuse of police resources.
I asked the policewoman what would happen if I declined to accept the document. She told me it would make no difference. It would remain in force no matter what I did. The document had been issued with no attempt to find out my side of the story. The background is very, very extensive. I've given South Yorkshire Police a full and detailed account of the background, including previous actions of AC and CC which I find very disturbing.
In an email I sent to Chief Inspector Ian Proffitt on 28 August, 2019, I asked for the Harassment Warning to be revoked. Almost five weeks later, I've still to receive a reply.
I don't like the choice of Chief Inspector Proffitt as the person responsible for dealing with my complaint in the least, given the fact that he's someone with a particular responsibility for dealing with 'hate crime' in South Yorkshire.
From the BBC News website, a classic 'when did you stop...' question:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-49884838/boris-johnson-or-donald-trump-who-is-in-more-trouble
'Boris Johnson or Donald Trump: Who is in more trouble?'..
Our friend Zurcher puts forward the 'case' for POTUS. Disgraceful.
Instant response from the BBC News website. The headline has shifted to:
Delete'Who's got it worse - Johnson or Trump?'...
The rest of the story remains the same.
This is still a loaded headline BBC. 'Who's got it worse - Johnson or Trump?'. Who's got what worse? The premise from the BBC is that both are bad and the only debate is who is worse. Polling actually shows that both are popular in their respective countries. The BBC predisposition that both are bad is entirely false. Best bury the story altogether BBC - it doesn't hold up, but it does demonstrate a bias against Johnson and Trump.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with BBC narratives like this is that it poisons and stifles debate. Metro-liberals won’t allow other views and use these opinionated articles as fact to reinforce their political worldview.
DeleteI suspect there will still be some who are influenced by such articles. This is exactly the target audience the BBC aim to reach and the real purpose for publication.
The headline could equally be "Why won't the globalist elite accept the outcome of how people vote in elections and referenda?"
DeleteAstonishing and disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAre 'Buffoons' an ethnic group now?
I heard a little bit of Boris's address to the Commons. Has Bercow got a kangaroo's testicle caught in his throat or has Dominic Cummings arranged for a voodoo priest to cast a spell on him? He sounded like was about to croak - literally.
ReplyDeleteBercow has lost his voice. He said that the ailment had nothing to do with having eaten a kangaroo's testicle - but, he was subdued as the fact dawned upon him that Boris is in the ascendency and there appeared to be a majority of MPs prepared to back him in his endeavours.
DeleteIf now, his efforts are dismissed out of hand by the EU and ROI, then parliaments efforts to make him ask for an extension to Article 50 will look lamentable.
It would be nice to think so, but Corbyn put in quite a strong performance in response I think and this is where the Remainer Media are so important. A lot of people sadly still believe what they hear on TV and radio. If Egregious Emma, the Idiot Nihal, Nasty Nick, Emily the Laughing Hyena, Woke Wark, Sneaky Libby, Battlin' Beth, Tom Thumb, the Pestonator, Jon Snow-go, John "Heath Impersonator" Simpson, Krish Delish and all their many imitators pump out pro-Remain propaganda 24/7 unrelentingly, giving Remainers easy rides and interviewing Leavers like they were one down from mass murderers (or sometimes one up), then a large proportion of the public will sincerely believe we are facing Armageddon if we don't get a deal...
DeleteThat's one of the reasons they are desperate to avoid No Deal because they know of course it won't be Armageddon. It won't even be majorly disruptive to the UK.
Yes, I must have been watching something else for two hours this morning. To hear the same old same old from the news channels, Sky ITN and BBC is dispiriting. The Remain camp cannot move on. They can't accept that the country is shifting to a position in support of Boris. It will be a fight to the finish. I definitely saw a different body language from Bercow. If he bends the rules again to facilitate the Rebel Alliance's anti democratic agenda, I suspect that he will be required to fall on his sword (figuratively of course).
DeleteBrilliant vid from Ezra Levant re Sweeney's departure from the BBC. The most damning point is that papers like the Telegraph - indeed ALL the MSM - refused to run any stories on the exposure of John Sweeney.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xow3n0sQMi8
BBC News' No. 1 concern: protect the Religion of Peace at all times.
ReplyDeletePolice worker converts to Islam, knifes to death 4 Police officers in Paris: Two facts "Not being connected" according to the BBC.
Exploitation of girls in Iraq by "some" Shia Muslim clerics. Can't recall the BBC using the "some" word with Roman Catholic clergy in abuse cases. And the "report" builds in a lot of defence of "genuine" Sharia as condemning the practice (but anyone who knows anything about Sharia and Shia Islam, will now it is the standard interpretation).
Sad case of young girl with incurable illness. "Committed Muslim" parents wish to undertake further treatment. Fair enough. Not commenting on their decision or the rights and wrongs...but the BBC, deliberately I think, do not mention that the parents sought a Fatwa on whether their actions were legal under Sharia law.
Here's the BBC website version of that second story.
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/iuKTEGjKgS/teenage_iraq_brides
The headline and introduction refer to "teenagers" being exploited by "clerics" and reference is made to "religious figures" and "religious practice".
So, BBC are we talking Methodists or Roman Catholics? Come on, don't be shy...tell us.
NEWSNIGHT WATCH
ReplyDeleteSo sickening the way Newsnight report on the EU and Irish leaders.
Never once when it comes to those leaders (Tusk, Varadkar, Guy V and all the rest) do the Newsnight crew suggest they might be lying, might have ulterior motives, might be frightened in ways they don't admit.
Nope, when it comes to them, in stark contrast to our own PM and Government, they are simply allowed to state their views with no interruption or contradiction or querying and all their flimsy ratiocination is accepted as fully justified.
Pathetic but not surprising given all Newsnight staff are firm Remainers, and in many cases ex Guardian.
Now, another disgraceful ex Civil Servant Philip Rycroft, coming on and simply giving his support to the EU position.
Jon Sopel takes heart from the recent Munchetty reversal by Tony Hall, and just goes ahead and tells us on twitter that he really hates Trump...(but that doesn't mean he's not an impartial journalist - how dare you!):
ReplyDelete"It's as though everyone else in Washington is playing by a rule-book, handed down by the Founding Fathers - and @realDonaldTrump is playing by his. So he now doubles down and calls for the Chinese to join the Ukrainians in investigating his political rival @JoeBiden #impeachment" "
Really? The President clearly has a crime prevention role. Is Sopel's argument that the President's political rivals lie outside the purview of the law?
Is Sopel saying that the facts of whether or not Biden and his family were engaged in corruption are irrelvant? Really?
The only real argument (if the Democrats' impeachment proceedings are to taken seriously as being motivated by serious concern for the constitution) is whether Trump's actions amount to an abuse of office and if so a serious enough abuse of office as to justify impeachment and trial leading to a guilty verdict.
I very much doubt that the (slave-owning) Founding Fathers Sopel has suddenly developed a fondness for, ever really envisaged Impeachment being used for such a minor issue. I imagine they were thinking of Presidents who might seek to make themselves hereditary monarchs, or engaged in huge financial corruption or commit serious crimes like murder, assault, or grand theft while in office. That's why the word "high" is used as in "high crimes and misdemeanours".
Just heard Martha Carney give the Green Party spokesman a soft respectful ride - she let him finish his sentences, didn't challenge him on anything .... what a difference between this and interviewing a Tory
ReplyDeleteWish I could have conducted the interview.
DeleteFirst question.
"How many people will die to the nearest hundred thousand if the Green Party implement Extinction Rebellion's zero carbon emissions within 4 years policy?"
"How did you get to the studio?"
"When was the last time you flew in a plane?"
We should compile a list of absences from the BBC Glossary of Terms. Here are two suggestions:
ReplyDelete1. Vandalism - the unmistakeable term which should have been used for 'Extinction Rebellion 'lose control of fake blood hose'.
2. Diehard Remainers - the term which applies to and should be used for the likes of Grieve, Hammond, Benn, Bercow et al as they are faced down by the PM, as he delivers Brexit.
3. Far Left. There are so many examples of Far Right this and that. But no one and nothing seems to be Far Left these days.
Delete4. Positive discrimination. This no longer exists. It used to exist and was generally considered a bad, not to say patronising, thing. I believe it's technically still illegal. But when was the last time you heard it? Positive discrimination is actually all around us.
5. Free speech. Not completely gone...but an endangered species. The BBC increasingly realise they sound absurd if they try to claim they support free speech, given the mountain range of evidence that they don't.
6. Islamic terrorist. There is no such thing according to the BBC.
7. Criminal. You'll still hear it as an adjective but rarely as a noun I would suggest. The BBC prefers to refer to "people from troubled backgrounds", "people who have been through the criminal justice system", and "people who are trying to turn their lives around".
Your list reminds me it will soon be time to update my Festive Fifty 50 BBC Bias Techniques! I think I spotted a new one yesterday. It's the "Hybrid Opinion". We are used to "some say" and "many say" but yesterday I heard Emma Barnett on the Radio say a couple of times something like "In my opinion, and it's something I hear a lot from people around the country..." kind of joining her personal opinion with the mass backing of unidentified people all around the country. I think after a while she realised what she was doing (giving her personal opinion on Brexit matters) wasn't actually v. "impartial" and she started back-tracking about it, trying to make out she was simply reflecting the views of others. But it's one to watch out for: the "hybrid opinion".
DeletePerhaps "Bias by limited vocabulary" should be a category!
'Immigrant'replaced by 'migrant'.
DeleteMigrant: British citizen not yet domiciled in the UK.
I forgot another one: John Sweeney!
DeleteAnd "Panodrama" - there's a word you will never hear on the BBC!!!
No 6. According to the BBC the latest 'attack' was by an 'employee'. It's a new one: 'man' 'van' 'bomb' 'knife' and 'shooter' are the normal culprits.
DeleteWe should compile a list of omissions from the BBC Glossary of Terms.
ReplyDelete'omissions' is a better word than 'absences'.
We need a BBC thesaurus to show alternatives to the omitted words they won't use.
DeleteHere another one: "Soros-fund pro-Remain group".
DeleteIn the Thesaurus:
DeleteThe victim suffered neck injuries as the result of a knife attack.
The victim suffered severe neck injuries as the result of a machete/sword attack.
Hale, the biased chair of the Supreme Court (aka the judicial branch of the Remainer Rabble) openly flaunting her hatred of Boris Johnson. She should be summarily dismissed for politicising her role.
ReplyDeletehttps://order-order.com/2019/10/04/baroness-hale-takes-digs-boris-new-speech/
Another good video from Mahyar Tousi:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CMpE_oTxjo
To summarise:
1. Boris has not surrendered to the Scottish Courts. He's simply said he will observe the legal requirements of the Mr Benn Act.
2. The Government is not bluffing when it says it has a way of proceeding to No Deal. The securest route in my view is of course a Hungarian veto - which Tousi is suggesting is possible. Would they do it? Not impossible I would say. But it's a big ask for a smallish country.
3. Hale has completely trashed the reputation of the Supreme Court. That's true and it helps the Brexit cause.
Basically we are in for the most exciting fortnight in British politics since probably May 1940.
Been thinking it over, I can't really see any escape route except a Hungarian veto. We have a Remainer Rabble Supreme Court, not a serious panel of judges deciding these matters. They will do everything to impede and prevent Brexit.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, Batty Hale would be prepared to rule we were still in the EU even if the Hungarian government vetoed our continued membership. :) The only question would be whether any of the other Supreme Court "judges" (aka "Blairites") would be prepared to join her in this self-certification of insanity!
Maybe there might be something in a joint threat of Hungarian veto and Boris telling the EU he will make their life hell - block our EU payment, withdraw our Commissioners, call for corruption investigations, refuse to pay any fines, demand payment for various items, consider withdrawing from defence co-operation etc etc.
If Dominic can do better, he's a better man than me...
One thing Boris does need to do is make clear he will not accept any further extension or the result of any (rigged rerun) second referendum. He will fight the next election on a platform of either the EU accepting the deal he has outlined this week or a No Deal exit. But the No Deal exit will be simply on the basis of a UK Act of Parliament and will ignore all EU law (having withdrawn the supremacy of EU law). The Act will also state explicitly that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this particular Act either directly or via other Acts of Parliament. It will only be justiciable before the House of Commons acting as the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteIn other words a Giant V Sign to the Remainer establishment.
Yes, a ' Giant V Sign' to the Diehard Remainers. When the chips are down I expect Boris to escape the ties, parliamentary and from the SC, that the Rebel Alliance have created specifically for the purpose of defying the will of the majority of the UK electorate. He will not be condemned by the British people for doing what he promised - on the contrary he will be respected for it.
DeleteYou won't hear any of this on the BBC...Sopel and Bryant don't want you to know.
ReplyDeleteThe Attorney General is going after John Brennan and his co-conspirators and this is really what explains the current Democrat Trump Impeachment gambit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIXg93vRQIY
Prager says: "the left is not used to being investigated" How very true. Sadly the Useless Tories have not yet cottoned on to this over here. Only Trump has the nous to go after them.