It really galls me that Gatehouse wins awards. He just pops up once every three months to tie up loose ends in any given narrative like some glorified cleaner.
The BBC's get Priti Patel campaign continues at pace with the Home Secretary the subject of Radio Four's Profile this evening 19.00 - 19.15. Introduced on the Radio 4 site as follows;
The Home Secretary Priti Patel has been accused of bullying civil servants. The Cabinet Office is investigating several allegations about Ms Patel's behaviour, all of which she denies. Sir Philip Rutnam, the Home Office's most senior official, resigned on 29 February, alleging Ms Patel's conduct towards staff included "swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands". Since then, similar allegations have emerged from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for International Development. Mark Coles delves into the life and times of the ambitious daughter of Indian newsagents, who wants to follow in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher.
This shows what a hatchet job it promises and having just caught the programme, it certainly lived up to it's advance billing above. Who at the BBC is driving this agenda? Purnell, Unsworth, Hall?
The BBC are also hypocrites. Here are extracts from a 2013 report.
"It is quite clear that bullying has become an institutionalised problem at the BBC, one that has taken hold over many years," said Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary for the NUJ.
More than 900 people came forward to share their experiences of the BBC.
Of the 500 interviewed, more than two thirds said they had witnessed or encountered bullying in the corporation. "Throughout our conversations we heard a strong undercurrent of fear; fear of speaking out, fear of reprisal, fear of losing your job, being made redundant, fear of becoming a victim, fear of getting a reputation as a troublemaker and not getting promoted if an employee, or further work if a freelancer, supplier or contractor," the report found. 'Untouchable' The 80-page report, by barrister Dinah Rose, found some behaviour appeared to go unchallenged by senior managers, with certain individuals "seen as being 'untouchable' due to their perceived value to the BBC". With this in mind, the BBC has said it will remove derogatory statement restrictions - the "gagging orders" common in many jobs - from future BBC contracts and compromise agreements.
Oops! I won't delete it but, having posted the above comment about playing the race card, I started to have a nagging suspicion that I'd seen it before somewhere. A quick trawl of earlier posts reveals that I had, indeed, & that the original poster was Monkey Brains! - sorry MB for inadvertent plagiarism.
No probs Sis! I also recommended playing of the "misogyny" card. :) Anything will do to stop the PC hate pack trying to run her down.
If she has overstepped the mark, one hopes Boris will take her to one side and tell her she can't afford to eff up again.
However, I do believe she has been the victim of an obstructionist Blairite cabal within the Civil Service which is in almost daily contact with Remainiac ex civil servants like Jonathan Powell, Kerslake and Gus O'Donnell who are never off the airwaves, giving their highly politicised opinions. So much for our "neutral" civil service!
Apparently it was the SECOND programme in the Profile series devoted to Priti - which in my experience is unprecedented but shows how much they wanted to do their bit and give her a right kicking. I'd forgotten about her personal commitment to the death penalty. I'm not a fan of that but I can see how her avowal of that penalty would be enough to give all Home Office civil servants a fit of the vapours. Rather than apply the death penalty, they want to redeem murderers and let them out at the earliest opportunity. But of course murder is a peculiarly irredeemable sort of act...which the death penalty does recognise.
"the ambitious daughter of Indian newsagents, who wants to follow in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher."
All the do whistles for the things the liberal left hate ... ambition, small business owners, Indians (i.e not "Asian immigrants" for Pritti, unlike Saj or Khan) and to cap it all "THATCHER".
Yes Ozfan, if you had to think up a politician who would enrage the Left and the BBC you couldn't do better. Also, strongly pro-Brexit (and effective during the Referendum campaign as well) is another reason they hate her. Oh yeah...I nearly forget - pro-Israel -the icing on the cake! lol
BBC News Channel, 7pm: The Beeb has gone shopping. While the voice-over assures us that supermarkets hold ample supplies, the camera tracks along a row of empty shelves, then zooms out slightly, to show that there is another empty shelf beneath the first; the camera lingers lovingly on the emptiness...So what's the Beeb's game, when they've just assured us there is no need for panic-buying? It seems to me that such buying is precisely what they are trying to provoke - they will then be able to point their grubby finger at Government incompetence.
Agree entirely. What do they expect? They feed the panic by reporting on every radio and tv bulletin that there are shortages of hand gel, paracetamol, toilet rolls etc. Hence we all hunt out supplies , buy extra and stock up on them.
That’s the real power of BBC reporting. They can influence a nation.
I also agree. They know they should be a responsible public broadcaster but they can't stop hearing that inner voice: "Get Boris...get Boris...he shouldn't be PM...get Boris...we'd still be in the EU if it wasn't for him...get Boris...we'd have a Labour government if it wasn't for Boris...get Boris"
Theres certainly more to this than we know about, MB. Here's another take. The Mail is reporting thad Sajid Javid's fingerprints are all over the story. Some of what has been written seems credible to me and there is also the Hindu/Muslim angle to consider.
Sajid Javid: the man who said "there is no religion in my home" and then takes the Parliamentary oath of loyalty on the Koran...Like another bus driver's son, he seems to face both ways. BTW I don't think Boris ever forgave him for that moment when he bounced the other candidates into agreeing an inquiry into (bogus concept) "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party - a totally unnecessary and very underhand move.
Who is this anonymous source? Probably the same anonymous Sainsbury's exec who did his boss's bidding last year by badmouthing Brexit, claiming there were going to be shortages. Why stay anonymous? It's hardly a Tower of London offence to say the Government hasn't contacted your supermarket chain...unless of course you are lying.
And I thought the BBC's rule was they had to have two sources to stand a story up...has that been abandoned in the interests of Boris-bashing?
I find it quite incredible the idea being put about by Jack that the Government have not been in contact with supermarkets in relation to coronavirus. Totally not believable. A lie.
MB: Is this the play you were recalling the other day? From a commenter on Peter Hitchens's blog: 'The BBC's Noughts +Crosses seems to be based on a BBC 1965 Wednesday Play called Fable.This had exactly the same premise of showing an Apartheid Britain with Blacks ruling Whites.I cannot make any judgement on the content of the series as I suspect like many people I no longer watch any BBC drama confining myself to occasional looks at the news and documentaries such as the current one on the V and A which are still amazingly ideology free. ...'
No it was a radio play or series whereas the Wednesday Play was a TV drama slot and as I recall, the role reversal was taking place in Nigeria.
With the help of my friend Mr Google, I think I have just tracked it down: looks like it was "The World in Winter" - a sci-fi (of sorts) novel from 1962:
I think the radio play based on the novel was probably from the late sixties, maybe 1969, since I doubt I was listening to radio plays on Radio 4 before then...
It was pretty engaging and seemed more likely at the time as the scientists were telling us we were heading for a new Ice Age!
Perhaps Stormzy could star in a remake for TV. I can just see him heading the invading Nigerian Hovercraft Squadron up the Thames.
The role reversal storyline has clearly been a recurring theme at the BBC!
MB - The News Channel: On the subject of 'Boris-bashing', above, the 6pm edition of the News referred to Boris's not having 'turned up' during the Bewdley floods - words carefully chosen to suggest that he couldn't be bothered. The Midlands News has spent a fortnight pushing that line. I can quite see that Boris has been a bit busy with HS2, the EU & US trade deals, and the Corona virus, not to mention matrimony past & future, but I'm afraid his absence is going to cost him votes at the next election - at least in Stanley Baldwin's old constituency.
Did anyone watch this edition of the News? I ask because my viewing was interrupted just as they got on to panic-buying, a topic we discussed yesterday. Once again, we were shown a series of empty shelves, more this time, but as the camera zoomed in, we saw that the prices were given in dollars. I just wanted to check whether the scene had, indeed, changed to the US or Australia. Does anybody know? Perhaps the BBC has an archive of stock footage, labelled 'to cause panic buying' & they pressed the wrong country's button.
Hitchens also points out some faults with it: 'I cannot work out whether the Albion of the BBC drama is meant to be a reversal of apartheid South Africa – or of modern Britain. There is legally enforced segregation, which we have never had here. Are the drama’s whites a conquered but proud people under colonial rule? Or are they recent migrants wanted for their cheap labour but not otherwise welcome? Surely these are completely different things which would have different outcomes. ...'
Douglas Murray mentions the BBC's spreading of the idea behind this to a wide audience. Something I read the other day - can't remember where - said that the BBC had suggested to the author making it about Asians because that way they would get a wider audience! Cue outraged author. Anyway I won't be watching it either. We don't live in the cartoon world that the BBC and a few 'race' obsessed people are constantly pushing.
Boris, World King, seems to have been well received by the good folk of Bewdley. Cue much gnashing of teeth in the BBC Newsroom! The BBC report I saw was surprisingly honest in depicting a generally positive reception for the PM.
As for the empty shelves, perhaps they can just use their 1970s Winter of Discontent (caused by Thatcherism and us not being in the EU, dontchaknow?) footage with the added bonus of flickering candles.
Apologies - I've just realised I deposited my reply in the middle of another thread. MB The 'turned up' comment was dropped from the 8pm edition of the news. Surprisingly, the Times, Telegraph & Evening Standard report that Boris was heckled (a cry of 'traitor') - odd that the BBC didn't pounce on that one!
I think the ambiguity is quite deliberate. It's a role reversal appertaining more to the Jim Crow Southern USA or Apartheid South Africa. Also - the point about Asians. I wondered about that. Where are they? I suspect that the BBC did suggest they be included in the interests of diversity (good way of checking some boxes on appearances) and the author refused because she is only interested in people with Black African roots.
So, yes, it's all very, very racist and very dishonest and very BBC.
The BBC is driving through a policy of race division which is truly horrific.
No one is suggesting we ignore the reality of past injustice - slavery, colonialism and racism - but there is simply no reason for the BBC to put it at the centre of everything. When the BBC comes to contributing to Black History Month does it dwell on enslavement of Black Africans by other Black Africans? It would seem not...clearly it makes the choice not to even though such slavery was endemic across the continent and is a huge part of the continent's history, determining relations between numerous peoples and tribes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b8dvf
Nope, the BBC have their narrative and it is one of relentless positivity. But when it comes to the history of the British people we are treated to relentless negativity.
Noughts and Crosses chimes with the truth about the Syrian 'spring' - where did all the weapons come from ? Anybody answering 'Iraq' is an idiot. So who built all those buildings in African London ? And why did they do it as they did ?
He beat a fox to death with a baseball bat, needlessly boasted about it on Twitter and is now crying about the reaction...comparing himself with Caroline Flack, which the Flack family must find distressing.
It seems that Mr Maugham now thinks that we should be kind to people on twitter and pile-ons are not nice.
How does that square with him suggesting that Boris is worse than a narcissist, a bad person who does evil things, and then enoouraging this pile-on on his twitter feed where people call Boris a "psychopath", "a clown", "an empty vessel", "Far Right", "devoid of empathy", and "a psychopathic dictator". Kind words, eh, Jolyon?
All the Remainer Traitors have been given publicity post the election by the BBC. I've seen Soubry, Stewart and Gauke all being being given the soft sell.
The content provides food for thought, but there's an unmistakable 'he's one of us' message. Opposition to Brexit (always now defined as 'opposition to a no - deal Brexit) clearly outweighs a privileged upbringing and education.
Letwin should have used a nom de plume - the subject of his book is enthralling. However, his political record makes it difficult to treat this important subject dispassionately.
All things considered, this book together with enthusiastic support for Letwin from the BBC and Guardian must be seen as a new deluxe version of project fear - the shiny new Vanden Plas model.
The major catastrophe I can see was Letwin's catastrophic error of judgement in trying to frustrate the will of the British people - which led, almost, to a political and constitutional disaster of huge proportions!
Letwin's bright, but probably not half as bright as he thinks he is - there's a lot of privilege there propping up the apparent intellectualism. The idea of our wireless-dependent world collapsing is hardly new - he hasn't thought the idea up himself. Yes, there are real dangers. But I think the greater danger, identified by many people such as Elon Musk is AI which would be beyond our control. Also, it is frightening how our political class have simply accepted the general adoption of facial recognition technology across the country, something which again could have very negative consequences.
"Check your privilege" has got to be one of the most irritating phrases of all time.
Firstly, there is the annoying assumption that with privilege goes great happiness or some such advantage over others in life. It might, perhaps more often it does, but in many cases it does not. With wealth often comes multiple divorces, fractured families, personal misery and dysfunctional relationships. I think many of us would rather not be a senior royal like Prince Harry or the CEO of a big car manufacturer, preferring to remain in our more humble station in life. Secondly, privilege is often assigned to things like a pale skin whereas many people of colour are doing very well in the UK and a lot of white working class people are doing very badly.
Secondly, how are we supposed to define privilege? Can anyone give a meaningful definition in the 21st century - for the most part we are not talking about legal privileges of nobility. A Bangladeshi restaurant worker in the UK may not have privilege (if we mean economic advantage)in relation to the rest of the UK population but they are privileged in relation to Bangladeshi peasants "back home". A person with "protected characteristics" enjoys legal privileges over and above those without such characteristics. Does a doctor enjoy privilege? Hmm..They get a good salary but then they had to work extremely hard to win their qualification, after which they mostly work very hard within their profession, including unsocial hours in many cases, and finally they have to put up with a lot of unpleasant sights, sounds and people. Same goes for being a dentist, which you'd have to pay me a million pounds a week before I took it up as a profession. Meanwhile, is a gifted Premier League footballer who came off a council estate from an impoverished background and now earns £100,000 a week "privileged"? The concept as employed is incoherent.
Finally, it begs the question: what do you do after you have "checked your privilege"? Do you pretend to be less well educated than you are? Do you pretend to prefer cheap lager to a fine Chablis or a Big Mac to lobster? Are you supposed to give your money away? Are you supposed to feign a lack of confidence in your abilities? Or are you supposed to feel a condescending pity for the "less privileged"? Or do you just carry on as before, in which case what was the point of saying it in the first place?
An awful phase , I suspect most at the BBC love it and having checked their own privilege, they have decide they like it and unsurprisingly want to keep the money, status and advantage.
As penance they pretend to be humble and lecture the rest of us on all PC matters that they can conveniently ignore or be insulated from.
What is it for? For letting someone know their place is in the wrong. They are guilty. What are they guilty of? They are guilty of someone else not being the same as they are or in the same position as they are. They are responsible for that, therefore in the wrong. What are they meant to do? Stop existing, preferably.
Exactly Charlie! They check their privilege just before checking their six figure bank balance and checking in for the flight to the Caribbean.
Anonymous - A pretty summation of the PC logic applied in this area. PC logic is not like real logic...it's more like the logic of a dream. Emotion trumps reason. Story-telling is superior to understanding. Making people feel guilty is a kind of evening up of the score. A narrative of cruel oppression explains away so much in life that is difficult and complex to think about or to address.
Good video from Tucker Carlson pointing the finger at China over Coronavirus. The behaviour of the Chinese Government has been appalling - they allowed the virus to get a hold in the first place, remember, because of their lax public health controls and corrupt administration - and now they are threatening to deny medical supplies to the West unless we do as they demand. Totally unacceptable. The West should present a united front and tell them we will disengage entirely if they continue with such threats.
Generally I think the coronavirus has had a salutary and sobering effect on UK journalism. There appears to be a more responsible approach, recognising the difficulties of the situation and of choosing between the unpalatable options open to Government.
That said, many at the BBC are finding it difficult to resist political sniping at the enemy ie Boris and his Government.
Maybe the Beeboids have drawn inspiration from John Grace's political sketch, "Johnson's Coronavirus press conference is anything but reassuring." Guardian, 9.3.2020 (online) - it is a particularly savage attack.
Except it’s not about Coronavirus at all, it’s about Trump. Or more correctly it’s really about Sopel’s TDS where as usual he is just venting his spleen. If hate speech is a crime I think hate writing should be too, which what Sopel does all the time.
I see some fellow Beeb-sceptics on Biased BBC extend their scepticism to the Coronavirus itself. This is foolish in my view.
The Coronavirus is a genuine crisis. There are several aspects to this:
1. It's a new pathogen, so we can't be entirely sure how it will spread or what its effects will be. It would be extremely negligent for government to simply assume it is the equivaent of a bad flu epidemic. Just because it behaves a certain way in China, does not mean it will have the same effect here (the impact of the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 varied across the world, with about 75% of Samoans being wiped out).
2. No one (who has not yet caught it) has immunity to the virus, so its spread in the general population is likely to be broader than normal flu.
3. It is highly infectious.
4. The major problem is that - as we see around the world - it has the capacity to overload health services, in particular Intensive Care Units. Do the sceptics think we should just let victims of the virus die, in extreme discomfort, at home one wonders - which also puts other family members at risk?
BBC in hot pursuit of a religious community that tries to prevent teenagers' having relationships with each other, or indeed with people outside the community, and uses social stigma and family shame to exert control over young people. The BBC won't stand for it I tell you!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51310036
No, not the community with 1.6 billion members, it's the Bruderhof mob that have them worried... several hundred people scattered in a few communes across the planet who represent a threat to everything the BBC holds dear!
The BBC cast the net wide today to find an expert to speak about the emergency interest rate cut.
After calling everyone in their phone book they managed to locate Professor Costas Milas of the renowned and world famous University of Liverpool Management School.
He gave them the sound bite they were looking for; “It hardly leaves any monetary policy ammunition should the economy need one, in case we end up with a no-deal Brexit nine months from now.”
Phew, luckily the narrative has survived the Coronavirus outbreak.
I think it was Evan Davis the other day who claimed on Radio 4 that US hospitals were privately run for the benefit of their shareholders. This is typically lazy BBC chit-chat.
Not being as lazy as the Beeblish Folk I decided to check and wasn't surprised to find that only 21% of US hospitals are run by for profit organisations. 79% are either not-for-profit organisations or government-owned (actually 21% are government-owned, higher than I imagined).
Still, what do the BBC care about Facts as long as something helps deliver and anti-Trump narrative.
Which reminds me...what is the point of BBC Reality Check.
You look at its Twitter account and you can see it's just doing what all the other BBC journos do - having a pop at the USA, having a pop at Trump, having a pop at Mohdi, and reporting on Coronavirus with something less than perfect clarity (Maitlis thought it could rise spontaneously and simultaneously in several countries!). One bit I noted was that, in truly absurdist fashion, they actually "fact checked" Biden's dementia-driven claim that 150 million (!!!) people had been killed by guns in the USA since 2007...and decided (drum roll) it was false! Who in their right minds would ever have believed the claim, apart from, possibly, a BBC Young Reporter (they seem prepared to believe anything)?
I'm with you MB. BBC Reality Check is an embarrassment to real journalism and you and I have blogged about this many times.
I've stopped even mentioning it because it is regularly so amateurish and plain wrong.
However this recent one must have hurt the reality check team.
They fact checked Pres. Trump on seven claims about India - he was right on every one. At least they still published it, I'm surprised they didn't pull it.
Trump India visit: Seven claims about India fact-checked.
I'd kind of forgotten all about it until my fact check on the BBC brought it to mind!
"Reality Check" was only brought in to stop Brexit after Lord Hall's embarrassment at having lost the Referendum. The BBC having failed to stop Brexit, it really has no purpose and is just an expensive job creation scheme. There are plenty of BBC journos who can be biased all on their own without giving themselves a fancy name like "Reality Check".
A new quiz for all the family - Pointless. Names those public bodies you think are completely pointless and add nothing to the public good, or perhaps actively subtract from it:
Who runs them? It's interesting to note that the first two are / were run by a husband and wife: Robert Chote at OBR and Sharon White (until recently) at Ofcom, while the Equality/ Human Rights body is now presided over by someone from Stonewall, the body that's responsible for pushing the trans ideology into every conceivable public place, from schools, local authorities, government departments, our noble police and the NHS, to corporations.
All these bodies aren't pointless. Their purpose has been to relieve ministers in government from being accountable and they have been very sucessful at doing that, good for the minister, bad for the public.
Of course it now means that vast swathes of public policy is now under the control of unelected bodies that are accountable to no-one.
When our children fail Ofsted will commission a report, when the lights fail Ofgem will commission a report, when the BBC fails Ofcom will commission a report, (but no-one will get to read it!).
Yes, it is a kind of informal EU Commission squatting on us, supposedly now an independent nation again, and dictating instead of "ever closer union" an "ever more intense adoption and application of PC values" - despite such an exrteme ideology being strongly opposed by a majority of the population.
John McDonnell was Brillo’s only guest at 7pm. It was exactly the same with even Andrew Neil falling for McDonnell's charms.
The BBC can’t attract any Conservative MPs to their shows so fall back on guests they have on speed dial who they know will appear at the drop of a hat.
They seem to have a very small repertoire of guests who now appear on everything.
We could probably all name that cabal which numbers no more than 20.
Have we moved into the Age of Populism? Would be nice...
I think the Conservatives have missed a strategic trick with their budget. While the desire to level up is laudable and spraying money around is politically necessary I am not sure they have got the mechanisms in place.
The "Northern Powerhouse" approach favoured by Andy Burnham will just funnel money into North London (aka Manchester).
It would be much better to take the "New Towns" model and create Development Corporations at the constituency or sub-regional/district level. This will ensure that money gets focussed on local priorities.
The Development Corporations would have to follow national rules, to ensure we don't see irrational or corrupt investment, but I think this approach would resonate much more with people at a local level.
The Development Corporations might be required to spend their allocations on various tranches according to a percentage formula e.g. economic development, skills training, transport, IT infrastructure, housing, energy and so on.
The great advantage of that approach is that people will see the investment taking place at a local level and will be involved in the debate on the priorities (there could be a duty on the Corporations to undertake meaningful consultation with councils, local people and businesses).
I am sure there would be a big political return for the Conservatives as well.
Development corporations were all the rage in the Wilson/Callaghan era. I tracked them while working in the North-east, and they were pretty ineffectual. Enterprise doesn't work unless its driven by private capital and private risk. A far better step would arguably be the creation of free ports, such as the one that the mayor of Teesside has been advocating since he was elected. The country voted Conservative but has now got a government which is almost socialist in its economic policies.
Then they had Regional Development Agencies and it seems they didn't work either; they lasted for a while and then were abolished, I think. Or maybe they morphed into something else. And around the same time they had a network of Business Links and some local enterprise agencies. Does anything work?
The Today Programme had another appalling interview at 08.20 this morning; Mishal Husain conducted the most fawning interview with Riz Ahmed, actor, rapper,and BAME activist. Michal, our 'muslim' correspondent, constantly put words in Mr Ahmed's mouth, encouraging him to call us racists and rail against Brexit, Boris and Trump. It was a disgusting interview which only served to fan the flames of racial division and hatred The BBC seems intent on making the making any racial divide in our society into a horrible gaping wound. Not once did Mishal challenge him in any way or even ask Mr Ahmed how he reached such a privileged position, leading Hollywood actor, if our society is so racist. Given what we are all facing with the Coronavirus on our doorstep, the BBC is causing great pain with this type of nonsense. Given the challenge Coronavirus poses we all need to pull together now. The BBC could redeem itself somewhat by helping the nation come together in the fight against this horrible virus. Instead it is spending time creating division and hatred.
Yep, the BBC seem determined to divide us. Divisive racialising is dangerous, as we know from history, and unforgiveable in a state-funded public broadcaster. That's why the BBC has to be either abolished or reformed back to sanity.
Whether it's Radio 1 Extra where they favour violent drill music, with its backdrop of racialised thinking, or now Radio Woke 4 with its constant PC ideological propaganda, they want us to see ourselves as having physical identities - skin colour and so on - rather than being conscious beings capable of relating to other people as conscious beings.
As for Mishal Husain, I find it disgusting that while she is happy to badmouth this country you will never hear her utter a word of criticism about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (where her family are from) or extreme Wahaabi Saudi Arabia (where she spent most of her youth).
Overall I would say the Government's performance on coronavirus has been middling.
So I wouldn't criticise the media, including the BBC, for pointing this out.
Compared with South Korea and Singapore we seem to have been a bit lacklustre in getting to grips with the crisis and so our trajectory is not that good.
I know Canada is woke crazy and all that nowadays. Spiked reports about a Canadian women's rape crisis/ refuge being closed down by the city of Vancouver because it discriminates against men identifying as women. 'In its letter justifying the decision, the council stated that: ‘It is [our] view that [VRRWS]’s position does not demonstrate accommodation, welcomeness and openness to people of all gender identities required by the eligibility criteria, because it clearly excludes trans, gender-variant and two-spirit people from provision of at least some of its core services.’
I pride myself on keeping up with the PC lexicon but I didn't recognise "two spirit people" either! lol
Presumably it means you can sue the authorities for not being accepted as a man on a Tuesday and not being accepted as a woman on a Wednesday.
I initially thought two spirit people would be like "speaks with forked tongue"...I think of as people like Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna as being "two spiriters" - claiming they accepted the Referendum result and then doing everything in their power to prevent it being implemented!
"The decision to adopt this new, pan-Indian term was deliberate, with a clear intention to distance themselves from non-Native gays and lesbians."
These 'indians' don't want to be 'included' anyway! Using the Vancouver rules just about everything should be 'shut down' - 'The cricket club excluded Rugby players who didn't want to eat cucumber sandwiches anyway'; 'The music society excluded those who didn't like singing or playing musical instruments' etc.
My God - Guardian "writer" Lucy Mangan no Radio 5 Live with Emma Barnett. Never heard so much hysterical snowflake emoting on live radio...she was having an on-air meltdown simply because she's agreed with her aged parents not to go over to see them for the time being, because of the coronavirus risk. Fair enough, could be sensible, especially if grandkids would be crawling all over them...Sounded to me like her parents, whom she confessed call her a "neurotic freak" (I like the sound of their parenting!) will welcome the break, although she'll probably be Facetiming, Whatsapping, e mailing and phoning every 5 minutes, which will drive them crazy.
The BBC should think twice about giving air time to hysterical nutjobs while we are in the midst of this national crisis. Of course Egregious Emma just egged her on, as she likes nothing better than unrestrained emoting. She certainly didn't ask the obvious question: "You're a grown up with young children, shouldn't you pull yourself together and act like a responsible mother rather than indulging yourself in useless hysteria?"
The BBC News website Home page is keeping their poster-person Leo Varadkar as their headline story. As Merkel has for years, the inability of coalition governments to agree on anything is keeping his position as PM in place as 'caretaker'. The BBC's clever move here is to put this headline news on the Northern Ireland pages. Why else should it be headline news?
In similar vein, Guido is reporting that the result of the Labour leadership election may be disclosed 'behind closed doors' (due to the coronavirus crisis obviously). Could this lead to RLB being sneaked in despite her poor showing in polling, or even JC himself being kept on as 'caretaker'?
I still reckon that RLB will do better than the YouGov poll suggests. The academic who runs that poll has a pool of Labour Party members - not the best way to get an accurate reading...and he is himself a strong anti-Corbyn Blairite - so can't be relied upon not to have unconscious bias.
Deranged Anthony Zurcher clearly wants Trump to die of Coronavirus, as the only credible way of removing from office...he keeps tweeting dark hints that Trump has got the virus.
Just a few minutes ago on the BBC website I was reading an article about Pres. Trump and the coronavirus flight ban and noticed that they had a section about 'the five things Trump got wrong in his speech' when the whole text was removed before my very eyes whilst reading it. Very odd - I wonder why it was removed?
It was another sneering TDS section solely there to denigrate and damage.
The BBC just can't help themselves with Trump, I've never seen a similar attack on Erdogan, Putin or MBS despite obvious inconsistencies with the truth.
Nick Bryant ending his report on the main 10pm news tonight; “The president who promised to make America great again is now struggling to keep it healthy.”
A typical cheap shot from Bryant and a nasty politicising of a pandemic crisis.
Newsnight produced a similar report on the USA stuffed full of professional anti-Trumpers including the author of "Pitchfork Populism" FFS.
In contrast, only words of praise for Communist China - the effers who started off the whole crisis because of their weak public health laws, dangerous food culture, ingrained corruption and political terror system.
The Coronavirus Covid 19 certainly came out of China. But how? Was it a random event at one of China's notorious wet markets? Or is there another explanation? Wuhan has a major centre for disease control. A now censored paper from South China University of Technology suggested a worker may have been infected at the centre and then spread it in the city.
Tucker Carlson video - from 1:05 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI-9v-TdshU
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a valid thesis that is being suppressed by the Communist Chinese Government, for obvious reasons.
It's disgusting that the BBC and the rest of the MSM have been keeping hidden the link between high levels of Chinese migration to Northern Italy (of dubious legality, in relation to the EU as they are being used as sweated labour in leather factories, controlled by Chinese mafia gangs) and the spread of Coronavirus there.
The pro-Globalist, no-borders media will lie, distort and misdirect when it comes to the effects of mass immigration.
The EU has just published its position on trade talks. BBC headline is "New details of future UK-EU partnership emerge" which is nonsense. It's the EU's desired position for the relationship and, given some of its contents, it is highly improbable that it will be accepted by the UK.
It is an interesting development that this mornings BBC News are pushing a story that takes aim at the government for not enacting Coronavirus measure quickly enough. They are quoting Jeremy Hunt who expresses concern about the response.
They have an ongoing narrative that says we should always take the advice of the experts and not politicians. So what’s going on here?
Are they deliberately conflating expert advice with Boris decision making ?
If he was still Health Secretary he would presumably be advised by the same people that are advising Boris. I guess, at the moment, he is only being advised by the BBC.
Hunt was on CH4 news last night too. Has he been given the green light to express his opinion ? The manner in which he was treated by Snow was as an experienced statesman, whereas when he was in post he was an NHS wrecking Tory target. It's a funny old game, the media lark.
Yes, 'Get Boris' has become so important and all-consuming that all previous bets are off. What is proved, however, is the hypocrisy of CH 4 and the BBC.
I watched that earlier today. I really wish SYL would learn to pick out the absolute kernels from his arguments and 'Douglas Murray' them.
The story he tells about the Solicitor's firm is incredibly important, but because of his scatter gun narrative, it gets somewhat lost.
He's also got the habit of going off at tangents and having a rant. I think the essence of who he is and what he represents genuinely makes him of historical importance, but he makes it so easy for history to write him off. I have a feeling the judge won't allow his witnesses to appear, and no-one will be any the wiser. BTW Dominic Casciani was mentioned by Ezra as the BBC court reporter, so they were there.
I prefer his preferred moniker to SYL ie Tommy (calling him SYL sides with the BBC and the rest of the pro-Globalist nexus) and I would say we shouldn't hold Tommy to higher standards than anyone else in public life who has not been prosecuted for their infractions e.g. John Prescott (threw a punch and made contact, no prosecution), Alistair Campbell (alleged bully), Gordon Brown (threw things at his staff), Ann Cryer (MP who spoke out against harmful Islamic practices) or Mark Thompson (BBC arm biter).
Start with the question: why is there this double standard. Once you have answered that, then you can critique his discourse.
The case for Tommy doesn't depend on his eloquence. It depends on whether he has been treated in the same way as every other citizen would be treated. I think the response has to be: "He has not". Whereas people can throw stones, punches and milkshakes at him with (literal) impunity, he can't lift a finger against anyone without the full and biased force of the law being directed on him personally.
As for Dominic Casciani that biased BBC journo took up the anti-Tommy baton from Daniel Sandford after Sandford had to withdraw from Biased Tommy Commentary after he tweeted something that was clearly contempt of court (but unlike Tommy was not prosecuted for it).
If anybody feels he/she is about to sink beneath a sea of gloom, just take a look at the cartoon in today's 'Evening Blend' in the Spectator - cheered me up, anyway!
It would be interesting to see a transcript of Jeremy Vine's interview of David Lammy on Friday's Radio 2 show.
This was a very gentle interview to allow Lammy to push his book. One of the UK's leading race-baiters was allowed to get away as 'Mr Nice Guy' and rail about the nasty things that other 'trolls' do on Twitter; not bad for Mr Pot and kettle! Lammy seemed to be proud of his origins, nearly claiming that his parents had been slaves, yet considered himself to be English rather than British, but confused as to whether he belonged to Peterborough or Tottenham and to have missed English things like tea when he had lived in the USA. The next moment he is damming the other English, (the white ones?), that aren't smart enough to go to Oxbridge who somehow will never find out about the lives of people in the rest of the country, (they awl be yokels they?). His solution was to round them up for a British Peace Corps. These poor ignorant English had all suddenly become 'tribal' (a good thing for him but bad for them), full of hate and had voted for Brexit. Vine did't challenge him on anything, indeed he envied him his DNA roots back to Africa. I expect Vine's DNA only extends back 50 years to North London! ('As a white man' who can easily document roots in this country back 250 years at least, I find that my DNA takes me back to Lammy's Africa too - I bet Vine won't be much different).
Lammy claims to be a Tuareg (slavers) even though he looks nothing like a Tuareg - all because he took a DNA test...shades of Elizabeth Warren and heing a 0.0001% Cherokee...got her throught college free - what's not to like?
Anyway, let's all say together:" SORRY DAVE, YOU ARE NOT A TUAREG. YOU'VE BEEN SCAMMED!!!"
And, anyway, Dave, if you were a Tuareg, shouldn't you be doing something to atone for the suffering of all the poor sub-Saharan black people enslaved by your wicked ancestors? A good way would be to campaign for the release of the slaves held by present-day Tuareg...
::::::CORONAVIRUS UPDATE:::THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED:::(IF YOU RELY ON THE BBC FOR FACTUAL NEWS)
1. The huge outbreak of coronavirus in Northern Italy is due to the presence of about 100,000 Chinese gang workers in that region, employed predominantly in leather factories. Many of these migrants (of questionable legality under EU law, but - hey - that don't matter) are from the Wuhan region. There were numerous flights between Wuhan and Northern Italy after the initial outbreak.
Here's a link to a story about Chinese migrants in Northern Italy:
2. Our infection rate is very low at present. H/T to NISA on the "other channel". UK rate (12 per million) is still a fraction of those in France (56), Germany (44), Spain (112), Netherlands (47), Denmark(139), Switzerland(132), Italy (292).
But I think we can safely say Boris won't get a pat on the back for that from the BBC.
3. South China University of Technology published a paper suggesting the original outbreak could be traced back to a research worker at Wuhan's disease research centre. The paper has been suppressed by the Communist authorities in China.
4. Communist China is very, very interested in all areas of advanced research in the Western democracies. They send PLA operatives to work undercover in the West and smuggle out biological samples:
Initially there did seem some more responsible and less partisan reporting in both the BBC and MSM more generally as the seriousness of the crisis sunk in. But they seem to be drifting back to their default methods: constant sniping based on politically driven speculation and little else.
You just need to look on twitter to see the worst of it, where ‘so called’ serious journalists can give their own opinion. Peston is agitating for a change in strategy. Vine is mocking our strategy. I’m sure there are others.
Not a journalist but I also just saw David Lammy tweeting rubbish and politicising COVID19.
It really galls me that Gatehouse wins awards. He just pops up once every three months to tie up loose ends in any given narrative like some glorified cleaner.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC's get Priti Patel campaign continues at pace with the Home Secretary the subject of Radio Four's Profile this evening 19.00 - 19.15. Introduced on the Radio 4 site as follows;
ReplyDeleteThe Home Secretary Priti Patel has been accused of bullying civil servants. The Cabinet Office is investigating several allegations about Ms Patel's behaviour, all of which she denies. Sir Philip Rutnam, the Home Office's most senior official, resigned on 29 February, alleging Ms Patel's conduct towards staff included "swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands". Since then, similar allegations have emerged from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for International Development. Mark Coles delves into the life and times of the ambitious daughter of Indian newsagents, who wants to follow in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher.
This shows what a hatchet job it promises and having just caught the programme, it certainly lived up to it's advance billing above.
Who at the BBC is driving this agenda? Purnell, Unsworth, Hall?
They don’t want to drop this, do they? If only they were as persistent when the Bercow allegations surfaced.
DeleteI wonder what is different? I just can’t put my finger on it. ; )
The BBC are also hypocrites. Here are extracts from a 2013 report.
Delete"It is quite clear that bullying has become an institutionalised problem at the BBC, one that has taken hold over many years," said Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary for the NUJ.
More than 900 people came forward to share their experiences of the BBC.
Of the 500 interviewed, more than two thirds said they had witnessed or encountered bullying in the corporation.
"Throughout our conversations we heard a strong undercurrent of fear; fear of speaking out, fear of reprisal, fear of losing your job, being made redundant, fear of becoming a victim, fear of getting a reputation as a troublemaker and not getting promoted if an employee, or further work if a freelancer, supplier or contractor," the report found.
'Untouchable'
The 80-page report, by barrister Dinah Rose, found some behaviour appeared to go unchallenged by senior managers, with certain individuals "seen as being 'untouchable' due to their perceived value to the BBC".
With this in mind, the BBC has said it will remove derogatory statement restrictions - the "gagging orders" common in many jobs - from future BBC contracts and compromise agreements.
Time for Priti to play the race card - the Beeb doesn't 'do' irony, does it?
DeleteOops! I won't delete it but, having posted the above comment about playing the race card, I started to have a nagging suspicion that I'd seen it before somewhere. A quick trawl of earlier posts reveals that I had, indeed, & that the original poster was Monkey Brains! - sorry MB for inadvertent plagiarism.
DeleteNo probs Sis! I also recommended playing of the "misogyny" card. :) Anything will do to stop the PC hate pack trying to run her down.
DeleteIf she has overstepped the mark, one hopes Boris will take her to one side and tell her she can't afford to eff up again.
However, I do believe she has been the victim of an obstructionist Blairite cabal within the Civil Service which is in almost daily contact with Remainiac ex civil servants like Jonathan Powell, Kerslake and Gus O'Donnell who are never off the airwaves, giving their highly politicised opinions. So much for our "neutral" civil service!
Apparently it was the SECOND programme in the Profile series devoted to Priti - which in my experience is unprecedented but shows how much they wanted to do their bit and give her a right kicking. I'd forgotten about her personal commitment to the death penalty. I'm not a fan of that but I can see how her avowal of that penalty would be enough to give all Home Office civil servants a fit of the vapours. Rather than apply the death penalty, they want to redeem murderers and let them out at the earliest opportunity. But of course murder is a peculiarly irredeemable sort of act...which the death penalty does recognise.
Delete"the ambitious daughter of Indian newsagents, who wants to follow in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher."
DeleteAll the do whistles for the things the liberal left hate ... ambition, small business owners, Indians (i.e not "Asian immigrants" for Pritti, unlike Saj or Khan) and to cap it all "THATCHER".
BBC has to go in my view.
Yes Ozfan, if you had to think up a politician who would enrage the Left and the BBC you couldn't do better. Also, strongly pro-Brexit (and effective during the Referendum campaign as well) is another reason they hate her. Oh yeah...I nearly forget - pro-Israel -the icing on the cake! lol
DeleteBBC News Channel, 7pm: The Beeb has gone shopping. While the voice-over assures us that supermarkets hold ample supplies, the camera tracks along a row of empty shelves, then zooms out slightly, to show that there is another empty shelf beneath the first; the camera lingers lovingly on the emptiness...So what's the Beeb's game, when they've just assured us there is no need for panic-buying? It seems to me that such buying is precisely what they are trying to provoke - they will then be able to point their grubby finger at Government incompetence.
ReplyDeleteAgree entirely. What do they expect? They feed the panic by reporting on every radio and tv bulletin that there are shortages of hand gel, paracetamol, toilet rolls etc. Hence we all hunt out supplies , buy extra and stock up on them.
DeleteThat’s the real power of BBC reporting. They can influence a nation.
Except, I'm happy to say, at the last election ;-)
DeleteI also agree. They know they should be a responsible public broadcaster but they can't stop hearing that inner voice: "Get Boris...get Boris...he shouldn't be PM...get Boris...we'd still be in the EU if it wasn't for him...get Boris...we'd have a Labour government if it wasn't for Boris...get Boris"
DeleteSeems like Priti was a prime target for the Blairites in the Civil Service.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/07/sir-philip-rutnam-declared-war-priti-patel-says-senior-civil/
Disgraceful if true - an attack on the integrity of our democracy.
Were people like Kerslake masterminding this from the outside?
Theres certainly more to this than we know about, MB. Here's another take. The Mail is reporting thad Sajid Javid's fingerprints are all over the story. Some of what has been written seems credible to me and there is also the Hindu/Muslim angle to consider.
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8086837/Sajid-Javid-accused-stoking-bullying-storm-engulfing-Priti-Patel.html
Sajid Javid: the man who said "there is no religion in my home" and then takes the Parliamentary oath of loyalty on the Koran...Like another bus driver's son, he seems to face both ways. BTW I don't think Boris ever forgave him for that moment when he bounced the other candidates into agreeing an inquiry into (bogus concept) "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party - a totally unnecessary and very underhand move.
DeleteOne of the BBC's worst and most biased (not necessarily the same thing) "journos" (opinionators) now peddling lies about the government.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1235841346541211649
Who is this anonymous source? Probably the same anonymous Sainsbury's exec who did his boss's bidding last year by badmouthing Brexit, claiming there were going to be shortages. Why stay anonymous? It's hardly a Tower of London offence to say the Government hasn't contacted your supermarket chain...unless of course you are lying.
And I thought the BBC's rule was they had to have two sources to stand a story up...has that been abandoned in the interests of Boris-bashing?
I find it quite incredible the idea being put about by Jack that the Government have not been in contact with supermarkets in relation to coronavirus. Totally not believable. A lie.
H/T to pugnazious on the other channel.
MB: Is this the play you were recalling the other day?
ReplyDeleteFrom a commenter on Peter Hitchens's blog:
'The BBC's Noughts +Crosses seems to be based on a BBC 1965 Wednesday Play called Fable.This had exactly the same premise of showing an Apartheid Britain with Blacks ruling Whites.I cannot make any judgement on the content of the series as I suspect like many people I no longer watch any BBC drama confining myself to occasional looks at the news and documentaries such as the current one on the V and A which are still amazingly ideology free. ...'
No it was a radio play or series whereas the Wednesday Play was a TV drama slot and as I recall, the role reversal was taking place in Nigeria.
DeleteWith the help of my friend Mr Google, I think I have just tracked it down: looks like it was "The World in Winter" - a sci-fi (of sorts) novel from 1962:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29776927-the-world-in-winter
I think the radio play based on the novel was probably from the late sixties, maybe 1969, since I doubt I was listening to radio plays on Radio 4 before then...
It was pretty engaging and seemed more likely at the time as the scientists were telling us we were heading for a new Ice Age!
Perhaps Stormzy could star in a remake for TV. I can just see him heading the invading Nigerian Hovercraft Squadron up the Thames.
The role reversal storyline has clearly been a recurring theme at the BBC!
The play you mentioned - or series - has been reviewed here by Douglas Murray. I won't be watching it.
DeleteMB - The News Channel: On the subject of 'Boris-bashing', above, the 6pm edition of the News referred to Boris's not having 'turned up' during the Bewdley floods - words carefully chosen to suggest that he couldn't be bothered. The Midlands News has spent a fortnight pushing that line. I can quite see that Boris has been a bit busy with HS2, the EU & US trade deals, and the Corona virus, not to mention matrimony past & future, but I'm afraid his absence is going to cost him votes at the next election - at least in Stanley Baldwin's old constituency.
DeleteDid anyone watch this edition of the News? I ask because my viewing was interrupted just as they got on to panic-buying, a topic we discussed yesterday. Once again, we were shown a series of empty shelves, more this time, but as the camera zoomed in, we saw that the prices were given in dollars. I just wanted to check whether the scene had, indeed, changed to the US or Australia. Does anybody know? Perhaps the BBC has an archive of stock footage, labelled 'to cause panic buying' & they pressed the wrong country's button.
Hitchens also points out some faults with it: 'I cannot work out whether the Albion of the BBC drama is meant to be a reversal of apartheid South Africa – or of modern Britain.
DeleteThere is legally enforced segregation, which we have never had here. Are the drama’s whites a conquered but proud people under colonial rule?
Or are they recent migrants wanted for their cheap labour but not otherwise welcome?
Surely these are completely different things which would have different outcomes. ...'
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/03/peter-hitchens-legalise-cannabis-lets-ask-the-five-victims-of-a-crazed-london-knifeman-first/comments/page/1/#comments
Douglas Murray mentions the BBC's spreading of the idea behind this to a wide audience. Something I read the other day - can't remember where - said that the BBC had suggested to the author making it about Asians because that way they would get a wider audience! Cue outraged author. Anyway I won't be watching it either. We don't live in the cartoon world that the BBC and a few 'race' obsessed people are constantly pushing.
Boris, World King, seems to have been well received by the good folk of Bewdley. Cue much gnashing of teeth in the BBC Newsroom! The BBC report I saw was surprisingly honest in depicting a generally positive reception for the PM.
DeleteAs for the empty shelves, perhaps they can just use their 1970s Winter of Discontent (caused by Thatcherism and us not being in the EU, dontchaknow?) footage with the added bonus of flickering candles.
Apologies - I've just realised I deposited my reply in the middle of another thread. MB The 'turned up' comment was dropped from the 8pm edition of the news. Surprisingly, the Times, Telegraph & Evening Standard report that Boris was heckled (a cry of 'traitor') - odd that the BBC didn't pounce on that one!
DeleteI think it was mentioned Sis, possibly in their headline but the report itself seemed unusually balanced.
DeleteAnonymous, You raise some important points there.
ReplyDeleteI think the ambiguity is quite deliberate. It's a role reversal appertaining more to the Jim Crow Southern USA or Apartheid South Africa. Also - the point about Asians. I wondered about that. Where are they? I suspect that the BBC did suggest they be included in the interests of diversity (good way of checking some boxes on appearances) and the author refused because she is only interested in people with Black African roots.
So, yes, it's all very, very racist and very dishonest and very BBC.
The BBC is driving through a policy of race division which is truly horrific.
No one is suggesting we ignore the reality of past injustice - slavery, colonialism and racism - but there is simply no reason for the BBC to put it at the centre of everything. When the BBC comes to contributing to Black History Month does it dwell on enslavement of Black Africans by other Black Africans? It would seem not...clearly it makes the choice not to even though such slavery was endemic across the continent and is a huge part of the continent's history, determining relations between numerous peoples and tribes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b8dvf
Nope, the BBC have their narrative and it is one of relentless positivity. But when it comes to the history of the British people we are treated to relentless negativity.
Noughts and Crosses chimes with the truth about the Syrian 'spring' - where did all the weapons come from ?
ReplyDeleteAnybody answering 'Iraq' is an idiot.
So who built all those buildings in African London ? And why did they do it as they did ?
Remainiac litigant Jolyon Maugham is given a sympathetic hearing on the Today programme, with his mate Nick Robinson in attendance:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1236944824340791296
He beat a fox to death with a baseball bat, needlessly boasted about it on Twitter and is now crying about the reaction...comparing himself with Caroline Flack, which the Flack family must find distressing.
It seems that Mr Maugham now thinks that we should be kind to people on twitter and pile-ons are not nice.
How does that square with him suggesting that Boris is worse than a narcissist, a bad person who does evil things, and then enoouraging this pile-on on his twitter feed where people call Boris a "psychopath", "a clown", "an empty vessel", "Far Right", "devoid of empathy", and "a psychopathic dictator". Kind words, eh, Jolyon?
Politics Live today had Oliver Letwin as a guest. Why? Of course he was there to promote his book. One good turn deserves another BBC?
ReplyDeleteI didn't see Politics Live today but I saw him on yesterday, I forget which programme. Don't think it was Marr. Maybe the Nicky Campbell one?
DeleteAll the Remainer Traitors have been given publicity post the election by the BBC. I've seen Soubry, Stewart and Gauke all being being given the soft sell.
DeleteThere is a good article in the Guardian about Letwin and his book:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/23/oliver-letwin-internet-of-things-tipping-point-apocalypse-how-interview
The content provides food for thought, but there's an unmistakable 'he's one of us' message. Opposition to Brexit (always now defined as 'opposition to a no - deal Brexit) clearly outweighs a privileged upbringing and education.
Letwin should have used a nom de plume - the subject of his book is enthralling. However, his political record makes it difficult to treat this important subject dispassionately.
All things considered, this book together with enthusiastic support for Letwin from the BBC and Guardian must be seen as a new deluxe version of project fear - the shiny new Vanden Plas model.
DeleteThe major catastrophe I can see was Letwin's catastrophic error of judgement in trying to frustrate the will of the British people - which led, almost, to a political and constitutional disaster of huge proportions!
DeleteLetwin's bright, but probably not half as bright as he thinks he is - there's a lot of privilege there propping up the apparent intellectualism. The idea of our wireless-dependent world collapsing is hardly new - he hasn't thought the idea up himself. Yes, there are real dangers. But I think the greater danger, identified by many people such as Elon Musk is AI which would be beyond our control. Also, it is frightening how our political class have simply accepted the general adoption of facial recognition technology across the country, something which again could have very negative consequences.
“Have you learned to check your privilege?” asks the Guardian to an Old Etonian and ex-Government minister.
Delete“I bless my luck all the time” he says.
It’s odd how often the left suck up to these types and feel the need to ingratiate themselves and thereby validate that privilege.
"Check your privilege" has got to be one of the most irritating phrases of all time.
DeleteFirstly, there is the annoying assumption that with privilege goes great happiness or some such advantage over others in life. It might, perhaps more often it does, but in many cases it does not. With wealth often comes multiple divorces, fractured families, personal misery and dysfunctional relationships. I think many of us would rather not be a senior royal like Prince Harry or the CEO of a big car manufacturer, preferring to remain in our more humble station in life. Secondly, privilege is often assigned to things like a pale skin whereas many people of colour are doing very well in the UK and a lot of white working class people are doing very badly.
Secondly, how are we supposed to define privilege? Can anyone give a meaningful definition in the 21st century - for the most part we are not talking about legal privileges of nobility. A Bangladeshi restaurant worker in the UK may not have privilege (if we mean economic advantage)in relation to the rest of the UK population but they are privileged in relation to Bangladeshi peasants "back home". A person with "protected characteristics" enjoys legal privileges over and above those without such characteristics. Does a doctor enjoy privilege? Hmm..They get a good salary but then they had to work extremely hard to win their qualification, after which they mostly work very hard within their profession, including unsocial hours in many cases, and finally they have to put up with a lot of unpleasant sights, sounds and people. Same goes for being a dentist, which you'd have to pay me a million pounds a week before I took it up as a profession. Meanwhile, is a gifted Premier League footballer who came off a council estate from an impoverished background and now earns £100,000 a week "privileged"? The concept as employed is incoherent.
Finally, it begs the question: what do you do after you have "checked your privilege"? Do you pretend to be less well educated than you are? Do you pretend to prefer cheap lager to a fine Chablis or a Big Mac to lobster? Are you supposed to give your money away? Are you supposed to feign a lack of confidence in your abilities? Or are you supposed to feel a condescending pity for the "less privileged"? Or do you just carry on as before, in which case what was the point of saying it in the first place?
Indeed, MB!
DeleteAn awful phase , I suspect most at the BBC love it and having checked their own privilege, they have decide they like it and unsurprisingly want to keep the money, status and advantage.
As penance they pretend to be humble and lecture the rest of us on all PC matters that they can conveniently ignore or be insulated from.
What is it for? For letting someone know their place is in the wrong. They are guilty.
DeleteWhat are they guilty of? They are guilty of someone else not being the same as they are or in the same position as they are. They are responsible for that, therefore in the wrong. What are they meant to do? Stop existing, preferably.
Exactly Charlie! They check their privilege just before checking their six figure bank balance and checking in for the flight to the Caribbean.
DeleteAnonymous - A pretty summation of the PC logic applied in this area. PC logic is not like real logic...it's more like the logic of a dream. Emotion trumps reason. Story-telling is superior to understanding. Making people feel guilty is a kind of evening up of the score. A narrative of cruel oppression explains away so much in life that is difficult and complex to think about or to address.
Good video from Tucker Carlson pointing the finger at China over Coronavirus. The behaviour of the Chinese Government has been appalling - they allowed the virus to get a hold in the first place, remember, because of their lax public health controls and corrupt administration - and now they are threatening to deny medical supplies to the West unless we do as they demand. Totally unacceptable. The West should present a united front and tell them we will disengage entirely if they continue with such threats.
ReplyDeleteHere's the link:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbyPW8lJX2E
This is a relatively minor point but illustrates how the BBC use words to change meaning.
ReplyDeleteOn the website is a headline ;
UK virus tactics defended as cases expected to rise
Defended implies that there has been an attack. But there hasn’t been and nowhere in the article is any criticism of our response.
I can only surmise that the attack is occurring in the authors head or in the BBC canteen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51812326
Yes, good spot there!
DeleteGenerally I think the coronavirus has had a salutary and sobering effect on UK journalism. There appears to be a more responsible approach, recognising the difficulties of the situation and of choosing between the unpalatable options open to Government.
That said, many at the BBC are finding it difficult to resist political sniping at the enemy ie Boris and his Government.
Maybe the Beeboids have drawn inspiration from John Grace's political sketch, "Johnson's Coronavirus press conference is anything but reassuring." Guardian, 9.3.2020 (online) - it is a particularly savage attack.
DeleteA very long article on Coronavirus by Jon Sopel.
ReplyDeleteExcept it’s not about Coronavirus at all, it’s about Trump. Or more correctly it’s really about Sopel’s TDS where as usual he is just venting his spleen. If hate speech is a crime I think hate writing should be too, which what Sopel does all the time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51803890
If Virtue Signalling is an art then, Labour MP Helen Hayes is a bleedin' Rembrandt.
ReplyDeleteIf it were an Olympic Sport she'd be the equivalent of Usain Bolt.
And if they gave out medals for Virtue Signalling, she'd be the holder of the VC and the Iron Cross.
Incredible Virtue Signalling - or should it be called Virtue Screeching, such are the decibels!
https://twitter.com/helenhayes_?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1236969594843209734
Did you manage to force yourself to read down as far as what she intends to do to the History curriculum?
DeleteYes I did...don't think David Starkey would be pleased. But Dawn Butler and the BBC would be and that's all that matters.
DeleteI see some fellow Beeb-sceptics on Biased BBC extend their scepticism to the Coronavirus itself. This is foolish in my view.
ReplyDeleteThe Coronavirus is a genuine crisis. There are several aspects to this:
1. It's a new pathogen, so we can't be entirely sure how it will spread or what its effects will be. It would be extremely negligent for government to simply assume it is the equivaent of a bad flu epidemic. Just because it behaves a certain way in China, does not mean it will have the same effect here (the impact of the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 varied across the world, with about 75% of Samoans being wiped out).
2. No one (who has not yet caught it) has immunity to the virus, so its spread in the general population is likely to be broader than normal flu.
3. It is highly infectious.
4. The major problem is that - as we see around the world - it has the capacity to overload health services, in particular Intensive Care Units. Do the sceptics think we should just let victims of the virus die, in extreme discomfort, at home one wonders - which also puts other family members at risk?
BBC in hot pursuit of a religious community that tries to prevent teenagers' having relationships with each other, or indeed with people outside the community, and uses social stigma and family shame to exert control over young people. The BBC won't stand for it I tell you!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51310036
No, not the community with 1.6 billion members, it's the Bruderhof mob that have them worried... several hundred people scattered in a few communes across the planet who represent a threat to everything the BBC holds dear!
Apart from not doing the stonings and the killing of leavers and non-believers this cult has a lot in common with that 'other community'.
DeleteNothing like a good bit of 'punching down' is there? Certainly a lot safer!
The BBC cast the net wide today to find an expert to speak about the emergency interest rate cut.
ReplyDeleteAfter calling everyone in their phone book they managed to locate Professor Costas Milas of the renowned and world famous University of Liverpool Management School.
He gave them the sound bite they were looking for;
“It hardly leaves any monetary policy ammunition should the economy need one, in case we end up with a no-deal Brexit nine months from now.”
Phew, luckily the narrative has survived the Coronavirus outbreak.
I think it was Evan Davis the other day who claimed on Radio 4 that US hospitals were privately run for the benefit of their shareholders. This is typically lazy BBC chit-chat.
ReplyDeleteNot being as lazy as the Beeblish Folk I decided to check and wasn't surprised to find that only 21% of US hospitals are run by for profit organisations. 79% are either not-for-profit organisations or government-owned (actually 21% are government-owned, higher than I imagined).
Still, what do the BBC care about Facts as long as something helps deliver and anti-Trump narrative.
Which reminds me...what is the point of BBC Reality Check.
https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
You look at its Twitter account and you can see it's just doing what all the other BBC journos do - having a pop at the USA, having a pop at Trump, having a pop at Mohdi, and reporting on Coronavirus with something less than perfect clarity (Maitlis thought it could rise spontaneously and simultaneously in several countries!). One bit I noted was that, in truly absurdist fashion, they actually "fact checked" Biden's dementia-driven claim that 150 million (!!!) people had been killed by guns in the USA since 2007...and decided (drum roll) it was false! Who in their right minds would ever have believed the claim, apart from, possibly, a BBC Young Reporter (they seem prepared to believe anything)?
I'm with you MB. BBC Reality Check is an embarrassment to real journalism and you and I have blogged about this many times.
DeleteI've stopped even mentioning it because it is regularly so amateurish and plain wrong.
However this recent one must have hurt the reality check team.
They fact checked Pres. Trump on seven claims about India - he was right on every one. At least they still published it, I'm surprised they didn't pull it.
Trump India visit: Seven claims about India fact-checked.
I'd kind of forgotten all about it until my fact check on the BBC brought it to mind!
Delete"Reality Check" was only brought in to stop Brexit after Lord Hall's embarrassment at having lost the Referendum. The BBC having failed to stop Brexit, it really has no purpose and is just an expensive job creation scheme. There are plenty of BBC journos who can be biased all on their own without giving themselves a fancy name like "Reality Check".
A new quiz for all the family - Pointless. Names those public bodies you think are completely pointless and add nothing to the public good, or perhaps actively subtract from it:
ReplyDelete1. The Office for Budget Responsibility.
2. Ofcom.
3. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
4. IPSO
5. The Advertising Standards Authority
4. The Electoral Commission.
The Environment Agency - as the Somerset Levels have shown.
DeleteWho runs them? It's interesting to note that the first two are / were run by a husband and wife: Robert Chote at OBR and Sharon White (until recently) at Ofcom, while the Equality/ Human Rights body is now presided over by someone from Stonewall, the body that's responsible for pushing the trans ideology into every conceivable public place, from schools, local authorities, government departments, our noble police and the NHS, to corporations.
DeleteAll these bodies aren't pointless. Their purpose has been to relieve ministers in government from being accountable and they have been very sucessful at doing that, good for the minister, bad for the public.
ReplyDeleteOf course it now means that vast swathes of public policy is now under the control of unelected bodies that are accountable to no-one.
When our children fail Ofsted will commission a report, when the lights fail Ofgem will commission a report, when the BBC fails Ofcom will commission a report, (but no-one will get to read it!).
It's like having our own internal EU Commission!
Yes, it is a kind of informal EU Commission squatting on us, supposedly now an independent nation again, and dictating instead of "ever closer union" an "ever more intense adoption and application of PC values" - despite such an exrteme ideology being strongly opposed by a majority of the population.
Delete:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::
ReplyDeleteEmily Maitlis interviews John McDonnell.
Extremely respectful, listening earnestly, no interruptions and no pulling apart of the nonsense he is spouting.
BBC Bias at its best.
Echoing Corbyn - "You did win the argument..." (at the election that is).
John McDonnell was Brillo’s only guest at 7pm.
DeleteIt was exactly the same with even Andrew Neil falling for McDonnell's charms.
The BBC can’t attract any Conservative MPs to their shows so fall back on guests they have on speed dial who they know will appear at the drop of a hat.
They seem to have a very small repertoire of guests who now appear on everything.
We could probably all name that cabal which numbers no more than 20.
Have we moved into the Age of Populism? Would be nice...
ReplyDeleteI think the Conservatives have missed a strategic trick with their budget. While the desire to level up is laudable and spraying money around is politically necessary I am not sure they have got the mechanisms in place.
The "Northern Powerhouse" approach favoured by Andy Burnham will just funnel money into North London (aka Manchester).
It would be much better to take the "New Towns" model and create Development Corporations at the constituency or sub-regional/district level. This will ensure that money gets focussed on local priorities.
The Development Corporations would have to follow national rules, to ensure we don't see irrational or corrupt investment, but I think this approach would resonate much more with people at a local level.
The Development Corporations might be required to spend their allocations on various tranches according to a percentage formula e.g. economic development, skills training, transport, IT infrastructure, housing, energy and so on.
The great advantage of that approach is that people will see the investment taking place at a local level and will be involved in the debate on the priorities (there could be a duty on the Corporations to undertake meaningful consultation with councils, local people and businesses).
I am sure there would be a big political return for the Conservatives as well.
Development corporations were all the rage in the Wilson/Callaghan era. I tracked them while working in the North-east, and they were pretty ineffectual. Enterprise doesn't work unless its driven by private capital and private risk. A far better step would arguably be the creation of free ports, such as the one that the mayor of Teesside has been advocating since he was elected. The country voted Conservative but has now got a government which is almost socialist in its economic policies.
DeleteThen they had Regional Development Agencies and it seems they didn't work either; they lasted for a while and then were abolished, I think. Or maybe they morphed into something else. And around the same time they had a network of Business Links and some local enterprise agencies. Does anything work?
DeleteThe Today Programme had another appalling interview at 08.20 this morning; Mishal Husain conducted the most fawning interview with Riz Ahmed, actor, rapper,and BAME activist. Michal, our 'muslim' correspondent, constantly put words in Mr Ahmed's mouth, encouraging him to call us racists and rail against Brexit, Boris and Trump. It was a disgusting interview which only served to fan the flames of racial division and hatred
ReplyDeleteThe BBC seems intent on making the making any racial divide in our society into a horrible gaping wound. Not once did Mishal challenge him in any way or even ask Mr Ahmed how he reached such a privileged position, leading Hollywood actor, if our society is so racist.
Given what we are all facing with the Coronavirus on our doorstep, the BBC is causing great pain with this type of nonsense. Given the challenge Coronavirus poses we all need to pull together now. The BBC could redeem itself somewhat by helping the nation come together in the fight against this horrible virus. Instead it is spending time creating division and hatred.
Yep, the BBC seem determined to divide us.
DeleteDivisive racialising is dangerous, as we know from history, and unforgiveable in a state-funded public broadcaster. That's why the BBC has to be either abolished or reformed back to sanity.
Whether it's Radio 1 Extra where they favour violent drill music, with its backdrop of racialised thinking, or now Radio Woke 4 with its constant PC ideological propaganda, they want us to see ourselves as having physical identities - skin colour and so on - rather than being conscious beings capable of relating to other people as conscious beings.
As for Mishal Husain, I find it disgusting that while she is happy to badmouth this country you will never hear her utter a word of criticism about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (where her family are from) or extreme Wahaabi Saudi Arabia (where she spent most of her youth).
Overall I would say the Government's performance on coronavirus has been middling.
ReplyDeleteSo I wouldn't criticise the media, including the BBC, for pointing this out.
Compared with South Korea and Singapore we seem to have been a bit lacklustre in getting to grips with the crisis and so our trajectory is not that good.
I know Canada is woke crazy and all that nowadays. Spiked reports about a Canadian women's rape crisis/ refuge being closed down by the city of Vancouver because it discriminates against men identifying as women.
ReplyDelete'In its letter justifying the decision, the council stated that: ‘It is [our] view that [VRRWS]’s position does not demonstrate accommodation, welcomeness and openness to people of all gender identities required by the eligibility criteria, because it clearly excludes trans, gender-variant and two-spirit people from provision of at least some of its core services.’
Two-spirit people! I don't think I want to know.
I pride myself on keeping up with the PC lexicon but I didn't recognise "two spirit people" either! lol
DeletePresumably it means you can sue the authorities for not being accepted as a man on a Tuesday and not being accepted as a woman on a Wednesday.
I initially thought two spirit people would be like "speaks with forked tongue"...I think of as people like Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna as being "two spiriters" - claiming they accepted the Referendum result and then doing everything in their power to prevent it being implemented!
Well according to Wikipdia:
Delete"The decision to adopt this new, pan-Indian term was deliberate, with a clear intention to distance themselves from non-Native gays and lesbians."
These 'indians' don't want to be 'included' anyway! Using the Vancouver rules just about everything should be 'shut down' - 'The cricket club excluded Rugby players who didn't want to eat cucumber sandwiches anyway'; 'The music society excluded those who didn't like singing or playing musical instruments' etc.
PC World is a weird place! Made me wonder - can Natives be nativist? Or is that reserved (excuse the verb) for white people only?
DeleteYes, between the Coronavirus and PC ideology, nothing will be left open in a few months!
Interesting video about how Taiwan has been dealing (very successfully) with Coronavirus...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxmiV2_OHs
My God - Guardian "writer" Lucy Mangan no Radio 5 Live with Emma Barnett. Never heard so much hysterical snowflake emoting on live radio...she was having an on-air meltdown simply because she's agreed with her aged parents not to go over to see them for the time being, because of the coronavirus risk. Fair enough, could be sensible, especially if grandkids would be crawling all over them...Sounded to me like her parents, whom she confessed call her a "neurotic freak" (I like the sound of their parenting!) will welcome the break, although she'll probably be Facetiming, Whatsapping, e mailing and phoning every 5 minutes, which will drive them crazy.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC should think twice about giving air time to hysterical nutjobs while we are in the midst of this national crisis. Of course Egregious Emma just egged her on, as she likes nothing better than unrestrained emoting. She certainly didn't ask the obvious question: "You're a grown up with young children, shouldn't you pull yourself together and act like a responsible mother rather than indulging yourself in useless hysteria?"
My neighbour's eight year-old greeted me with the news that the first person to catch the disease had now died.
DeleteHe seemed more fascinated than fearful, which I think would be typical of most children before they get trained to be snowflakes.
The BBC News website Home page is keeping their poster-person Leo Varadkar as their headline story. As Merkel has for years, the inability of coalition governments to agree on anything is keeping his position as PM in place as 'caretaker'. The BBC's clever move here is to put this headline news on the Northern Ireland pages. Why else should it be headline news?
ReplyDeleteIn similar vein, Guido is reporting that the result of the Labour leadership election may be disclosed 'behind closed doors' (due to the coronavirus crisis obviously). Could this lead to RLB being sneaked in despite her poor showing in polling, or even JC himself being kept on as 'caretaker'?
Never let a crisis go to waste.
The job of informing Guido naturally fell to John McDonnell.
DeleteI still reckon that RLB will do better than the YouGov poll suggests. The academic who runs that poll has a pool of Labour Party members - not the best way to get an accurate reading...and he is himself a strong anti-Corbyn Blairite - so can't be relied upon not to have unconscious bias.
DeleteDeranged Anthony Zurcher clearly wants Trump to die of Coronavirus, as the only credible way of removing from office...he keeps tweeting dark hints that Trump has got the virus.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/awzurcher/status/1238175080766746625
Just a few minutes ago on the BBC website I was reading an article about Pres. Trump and the coronavirus flight ban and noticed that they had a section about 'the five things Trump got wrong in his speech' when the whole text was removed before my very eyes whilst reading it. Very odd - I wonder why it was removed?
ReplyDeleteIt was another sneering TDS section solely there to denigrate and damage.
The BBC just can't help themselves with Trump, I've never seen a similar attack on Erdogan, Putin or MBS despite obvious inconsistencies with the truth.
Nick Bryant ending his report on the main 10pm news tonight;
ReplyDelete“The president who promised to make America great again is now struggling to keep it healthy.”
A typical cheap shot from Bryant and a nasty politicising of a pandemic crisis.
Newsnight produced a similar report on the USA stuffed full of professional anti-Trumpers including the author of "Pitchfork Populism" FFS.
DeleteIn contrast, only words of praise for Communist China - the effers who started off the whole crisis because of their weak public health laws, dangerous food culture, ingrained corruption and political terror system.
Some people want to pay migrants money to "go home"...one presumes they will have a very negative report on this racist policy...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51859007
Er,no - it's the EU offering the money so that's OK.
The BBC produce a very sympathetic and understanding report.
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::
ReplyDeleteKirsty Wark was in full "Get Boris" mode. St Varadkar of Holy Ireland has got it right, Boris has got it wrong.
For the BBC, holding the government to account means
DeleteA. Challenging any decision they have made
or
B. Telling them what they have missed, got wrong or could have done better.
Supporting the government on anything doesn’t come easy for the BBC especially if it’s a Conservative one.
The Coronavirus Covid 19 certainly came out of China. But how? Was it a random event at one of
ReplyDeleteChina's notorious wet markets? Or is there another explanation? Wuhan has a major centre for disease control. A now censored paper from South China University of Technology suggested a worker may have been infected at the centre and then spread it in the city.
Tucker Carlson video - from 1:05 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI-9v-TdshU
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a valid thesis that is being suppressed by the Communist Chinese Government, for obvious reasons.
..actually from 00:50 is better...
DeleteIt's disgusting that the BBC and the rest of the MSM have been keeping hidden the link between high levels of Chinese migration to Northern Italy (of dubious legality, in relation to the EU as they are being used as sweated labour in leather factories, controlled by Chinese mafia gangs) and the spread of Coronavirus there.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-Globalist, no-borders media will lie, distort and misdirect when it comes to the effects of mass immigration.
https://www.altnewsmedia.net/news/corona-virus-exclusive-why-italy/
Well done to AltNewsMedia for highlighting this.
Charlie: "A typical cheap shot from Bryant and a nasty politicising of a pandemic crisis."
ReplyDeleteThe whole BBC NA-nee-nah team have always had TDS, but their latest efforts are off the charts.
The EU has just published its position on trade talks. BBC headline is "New details of future UK-EU partnership emerge" which is nonsense. It's the EU's desired position for the relationship and, given some of its contents, it is highly improbable that it will be accepted by the UK.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t see that. Of course they are just playing to type, the BBCs preferred position is always on the side of the EU rather than the UK.
DeleteIt so unpatriotic. But as we know patriotism is a dirty word at the BBC.
It is an interesting development that this mornings BBC News are pushing a story that takes aim at the government for not enacting Coronavirus measure quickly enough. They are quoting Jeremy Hunt who expresses concern about the response.
ReplyDeleteThey have an ongoing narrative that says we should always take the advice of the experts and not politicians. So what’s going on here?
Are they deliberately conflating expert advice with Boris decision making ?
If he was still Health Secretary he would presumably be advised by the same people that are advising Boris.
DeleteI guess, at the moment, he is only being advised by the BBC.
Hunt was on CH4 news last night too. Has he been given the green light to express his opinion ?
DeleteThe manner in which he was treated by Snow was as an experienced statesman, whereas when he was in post he was an NHS wrecking Tory target. It's a funny old game, the media lark.
Yes, 'Get Boris' has become so important and all-consuming that all previous bets are off. What is proved, however, is the hypocrisy of CH 4 and the BBC.
DeleteFriend or foe. It always depends if the interviewee is ‘for or against‘ the particular narrative being spun.
DeleteInteresting video from Ezra Levant on latest lawfare action against Tommy Robinson:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5dzmKvJods
I watched that earlier today. I really wish SYL would learn to pick out the absolute kernels from his arguments and 'Douglas Murray' them.
DeleteThe story he tells about the Solicitor's firm is incredibly important, but because of his scatter gun narrative, it gets somewhat lost.
He's also got the habit of going off at tangents and having a rant. I think the essence of who he is and what he represents genuinely makes him of historical importance, but he makes it so easy for history to write him off. I have a feeling the judge won't allow his witnesses to appear, and no-one will be any the wiser.
BTW Dominic Casciani was mentioned by Ezra as the BBC court reporter, so they were there.
I prefer his preferred moniker to SYL ie Tommy (calling him SYL sides with the BBC and the rest of the pro-Globalist nexus) and I would say we shouldn't hold Tommy to higher standards than anyone else in public life who has not been prosecuted for their infractions e.g. John Prescott (threw a punch and made contact, no prosecution), Alistair Campbell (alleged bully), Gordon Brown (threw things at his staff), Ann Cryer (MP who spoke out against harmful Islamic practices) or Mark Thompson (BBC arm biter).
DeleteStart with the question: why is there this double standard. Once you have answered that, then you can critique his discourse.
The case for Tommy doesn't depend on his eloquence. It depends on whether he has been treated in the same way as every other citizen would be treated. I think the response has to be: "He has not". Whereas people can throw stones, punches and milkshakes at him with (literal) impunity, he can't lift a finger against anyone without the full and biased force of the law being directed on him personally.
As for Dominic Casciani that biased BBC journo took up the anti-Tommy baton from Daniel Sandford after Sandford had to withdraw from Biased Tommy Commentary after he tweeted something that was clearly contempt of court (but unlike Tommy was not prosecuted for it).
If anybody feels he/she is about to sink beneath a sea of gloom, just take a look at the cartoon in today's 'Evening Blend' in the Spectator - cheered me up, anyway!
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see a transcript of Jeremy Vine's interview of David Lammy on Friday's Radio 2 show.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very gentle interview to allow Lammy to push his book. One of the UK's leading race-baiters was allowed to get away as 'Mr Nice Guy' and rail about the nasty things that other 'trolls' do on Twitter; not bad for Mr Pot and kettle!
Lammy seemed to be proud of his origins, nearly claiming that his parents had been slaves, yet considered himself to be English rather than British, but confused as to whether he belonged to Peterborough or Tottenham and to have missed English things like tea when he had lived in the USA.
The next moment he is damming the other English, (the white ones?), that aren't smart enough to go to Oxbridge who somehow will never find out about the lives of people in the rest of the country, (they awl be yokels they?). His solution was to round them up for a British Peace Corps. These poor ignorant English had all suddenly become 'tribal' (a good thing for him but bad for them), full of hate and had voted for Brexit.
Vine did't challenge him on anything, indeed he envied him his DNA roots back to Africa. I expect Vine's DNA only extends back 50 years to North London! ('As a white man' who can easily document roots in this country back 250 years at least, I find that my DNA takes me back to Lammy's Africa too - I bet Vine won't be much different).
Lammy claims to be a Tuareg (slavers) even though he looks nothing like a Tuareg - all because he took a DNA test...shades of Elizabeth Warren and heing a 0.0001% Cherokee...got her throught college free - what's not to like?
DeleteAnyway, let's all say together:" SORRY DAVE, YOU ARE NOT A TUAREG. YOU'VE BEEN SCAMMED!!!"
And, anyway, Dave, if you were a Tuareg, shouldn't you be doing something to atone for the suffering of all the poor sub-Saharan black people enslaved by your wicked ancestors? A good way would be to campaign for the release of the slaves held by present-day Tuareg...
DeleteHe should, he should pay reparations to Niger, Mali and Mauritania. He can afford it with all his BBC appearance money.
Delete::::::CORONAVIRUS UPDATE:::THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED:::(IF YOU RELY ON THE BBC FOR FACTUAL NEWS)
ReplyDelete1. The huge outbreak of coronavirus in Northern Italy is due to the presence of about 100,000 Chinese gang workers in that region, employed predominantly in leather factories. Many of these migrants (of questionable legality under EU law, but - hey - that don't matter) are from the Wuhan region. There were numerous flights between Wuhan and Northern Italy after the initial outbreak.
Here's a link to a story about Chinese migrants in Northern Italy:
https://www.dw.com/en/chinese-migration-brings-social-change-to-italys-alps/a-42456247
2. Our infection rate is very low at present. H/T to NISA on the "other channel". UK rate (12 per million) is still a fraction of those in France (56), Germany (44), Spain (112), Netherlands (47), Denmark(139), Switzerland(132), Italy (292).
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
But I think we can safely say Boris won't get a pat on the back for that from the BBC.
3. South China University of Technology published a paper suggesting the original outbreak could be traced back to a research worker at Wuhan's disease research centre. The paper has been suppressed by the Communist authorities in China.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8009669/Did-coronavirus-originate-Chinese-government-laboratory.html
4. Communist China is very, very interested in all areas of advanced research in the Western democracies. They send PLA operatives to work undercover in the West and smuggle out biological samples:
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2020/01/29/chinese-national-accused-of-stealing-biological.html
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related
There is also this worrying storyline:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/coronavirus-wasnt-sent-by-spy-from-canada/
(Although the above link starts off as a debunker it contains some very worrying info I would say.)
There's no way of knowing what goes on at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory.
*****
All these newsworthy and relevant items are being suppressed by BBC using their usual bias techniques.
Am I alone in thinking that MSM reporting of COVID19 has been grossly irresponsible?
DeleteIt seems to me that the Beeb's priority is to use the virus as a stick to beat Boris.
DeleteInitially there did seem some more responsible and less partisan reporting in both the BBC and MSM more generally as the seriousness of the crisis sunk in. But they seem to be drifting back to their default methods: constant sniping based on politically driven speculation and little else.
DeleteYou just need to look on twitter to see the worst of it, where ‘so called’ serious journalists can give their own opinion. Peston is agitating for a change in strategy. Vine is mocking our strategy. I’m sure there are others.
DeleteNot a journalist but I also just saw David Lammy tweeting rubbish and politicising COVID19.
:-) Every time Lammy opens his beak...
Delete