Times A-Changing?

Justin’s interview with Professor Anthony Glees and Shami Chakrabati this morning.
Confusingly, Professor Glees pronounces ‘T’s as ‘D’s in the lefty manner, while Shami speaks standard Engrish.

Disregarding the fact that Shami was allowed both the first and the last word, the argument went like this. Shami wants a balance between the Secret Service’s obvious need for secrecy and their accountability.

Prof Glees says Shami’s lost the plot, forgedding that human rights and liberdy should primarily mean the freedom not to be terrorised by those who want to deprive us of the same, and not just the human rights of people like Binyam and the liberty of people who don’t like long queues at the airport.

I thought Shami was rattled. Somehow the balance, which has listed alarmingly to the left, might be on the move again, and what many people regard as common sense may now be starting the uphill struggle to regain the middle ground. No thanks to the BBC though.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Times A-Changing?

  1. Natsman says:

    Yes, Ms ChakkyJamButty took a bit of a pasting I thought.  You could have knocked me over wiv a fevvah – common sense gaining the upper hand on the BBC?  Unheard of!  I’m sure it won’t last, once they realise it didn’t quite go their usual way.

       0 likes

    • Backwoodsman says:

      Absolutely, the next thing you’ll be questioning by what absurd set of circumstances binyamin is allowed to be represented as having any connection with this country !
      Note to coalition, a very close look at the shyster lawyers coining it in on dodgy asylum appeals is required.

         0 likes

  2. English Pensioner says:

    The Professor has it right. Human rights can’t be absolute, they need to be balanced with the human rights of others who could be affected and this is not being done. Frequently, the human rights of victims count for far less than those who are complaining.
    A simple test is to say to yourself “If XXX were running the country, do you think that he would allow you to have the human right that he is now demanding for himself?” The answer would invariably be “No”

       0 likes

    • Ian E says:

      ‘A simple test is to say to yourself “If XXX were running the country, do you think that he would allow you to have the human right that he is now demanding for himself?” The answer would invariably be “No”‘

      A second test is however worth including to balance things up – namely, if MI5/6/etc thought that I might be a terrorist, how would I want to be treated! 

      Let me rush to say that I am not a leftie, softie, hug-a-hoody type (anyone who has read any of my other posts would know that!), but, let’s face it, our police/security forces are hardly omniscient and, if you ever innocently come into contact with them, you will quickly discover that they are not the loveable, dependable types that they would have you believe!

         0 likes

      • hippiepooter says:

        @ Ian E .. Are you sure you’re not a leftie, hug-a-hoodie type?

        Personally, I think our security services having the powers needed for the defence of the Realm is far more important than the off-chance of some mix-up meaning these powers might be used against me.

        One would need to be the most egocentric idiot of the most nauseous variety to reject ‘test 1′ in favour of ‘test 2′.

           0 likes

        • Dez says:

          “Personally, I think our security services having the powers needed for the defence of the Realm is far more important than the off-chance of some mix-up meaning these powers might be used against me.”

          Try telling that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and see how many legs you have to stand on as you slither out the door.

             0 likes

  3. George R says:

    I can’t see Islam Not BBC (INBBC) allowing Professor Glees to disturb S. Chakrabarti’s Binyam Mohamed party again.

    Professor Glees, unlike BBC-‘Liberty’-Chakrabarti, is concerned about the present Islamic jihad threat to British universities too:
    “British universities: seats of learning – and loathing”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6917777/British-universities-seats-of-learning-and-loathing.html

       0 likes

  4. Will says:

    Justin appeared totally at a loss when trying to form a question to Sharmi that picked up the Prof’s argument. “Does not compute” must have been rattling round his beeboid brain.

       0 likes

  5. Phil says:

    What does Nick Griffin thinks on this matter. Who cares? He only represents a tiny group with about 8,000 members (and 6 million or so people of North West England in the European Paliament).

    Shami Chakrabati represents a tiny group with about 8,000 members and she hasn’t been elected to anything, but the BBC cares what she thinks so we hear from her all the time.

       0 likes

    • hippiepooter says:

      Who cares what Nazi vermin like Nick Griffin think.  People like him are as big a scum as the likes of Al Qa’eda terrorists Mo Begg and Binyam.  They have about 3 million British Muslims, big deal.

      I think you’ll find also Phil that 6,000,000 people in the North West did not vote for Nick Griffin, he is merely one of 8 MEP’s that represent this region and got the lowest share of the vote.

         0 likes

  6. Natsman says:

    Maybe that’s because her sister works for the BBC, know what I mean?

       0 likes

  7. George R says:

    INBBC is still in denial about the centrality of a commitment to ‘offensive Jihad’ in Islam:

     “Offensive Jihad”

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8258/offensive-jihad

       0 likes

  8. Richard Dell says:

    The Moral Maze this week discussed the Wikileaks issue. Of particular interest is the <a href=”http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vhhn4/Moral_Maze_27_10_2010/”>testimony</a> (from about 26 minutes in) of Professor <a href=”http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/g.prins@lse.ac.uk”>Gwyn Prins</a>. He made a point that few bien pensants seem to get, that when you are fighting a war, deception is the most important weapon, information is power and secrecy is a matter of life and death. Quoting Von Clausewitz, he emphasised that war simply cannot be conducted without tight control of information: <i>”the desire to surprise the enemy by our plans and dispositions, especially those concerning the distribution of forces … lies at the root of all operations <b>without exception</b>, though in widely varying degrees depending on the nature and circumstances of the operation.”</i>.

    The codebreakers at Bletchley Park were so convinced of the need not to <i>ever</i> speak of their work, that at a recent reunion, a wife and husband learned for the first time that their partner also worked there. Those who bask in the liberty that centuries of struggle have granted us, would seem to have forgotten what protectes them.

    <i>You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm.</i> – George Orwell.

       0 likes

  9. Dez says:

    Lovely little glimpse into the way your mind works Sue; “…while Shami speaks standard Engrish.

    Despite the fact she was born here and speaks perfectly good English (obvious to anyone listening to your clip), it’s “Engrish” according to you…

       0 likes

    • sue says:

      Even lovelier glimpse into your mind Dez. As you so rightly point out, the clip does show that Shami speaks perfect received pronunciation, unlike the lefty-sounding Prof G. That’s the clue that the link to Engrish.com was an aside, just for fun. I mean.
      Only you could interpret a link to a website that features amusing linguistic mistranslations as a sign that I harbour racist thoughts about Shami C. The link was frivolous I admit, but I don’t  spell out everything for the benefit of tourists, especially sufferers of number nine ;) .

         0 likes

  10. TrueToo says:

    Dez, nothing to say about BBC bias reflected in the choice of BBC ‘journalists’, time and again, of their favourite lefties to force the BBC’s agenda on the public?

    World Have Your Say has its favourite Muslim, a radical Iraqi, who only has to click her fingers to be on the show or have her views broadcast. Haven’t noticed any favoured Christians having the red carpet rolled out for them by WHYS.  

    The programme does, however, have its least favourite contributor, a level-headed and bright, centre-right American, who regularly has his comments to the blog removed by the leftie moderators. From those comments that they do allow, it sems he shines his spotlight a little too brightly on leftie idiocy for their comfort.

    Face it, the BBC is positively riddled with ideologues of the left to far-left, who consciously push their narrow agenda by any means possible. As such, the BBC has no right at all to demand a licence fee from those of a different political persuasion, since it only makes a minimal and generally failed attempt to represent them. 

       0 likes

  11. canon alberic says:

    Delicious.

    Her problem is that her position is intellectually incoherent. You cannot allow the obvious enemies of the state, her outfit has allowed itself almost exclusively to champion, to challenge its most vital methods (in an intelligence driven asymetrical life or death war) in the courts (with their preposterous but inescapable “human rights” agenda) without running the risk that those same innocent wedding guests will use the publicity and disclosure regime precisely to harm national security and to undermine the morale of the very brave people who do the work.

    What was especially noticeable was her shock at having to defend her position (which even she acknowledged was “difficult” ie unjustifiable except pietistically) on the BBC which normally offers her an open mike and always treats her mediocre lawyers self righteous vapourings as if she is as a cross between Dietrich Bonhoffer and Aristotle.

    This was principally because (try as he might) Webb was too stupid to follow the argument and wasnt able to defend her by the classic biased ploy of re-framing difficult questions put to the advocates of favoured causes so they are easier to deal with; whilst simultaneously interrupting unsympathetic interlocutors or suggesting they are in favour of human sacrifice.

    I used to think the infuriating Ms Montague was the dimmest of the Today team but Webb really does take the biscuit. I also used to think Montagues laugh was the most annoying feature of the whole vile programme but alas Evan Davis has stolen that crown with his sixth form simper.

    I wonder if we’ll be hearing from prof Glee again?

       0 likes

  12. TrueToo says:

    Probably not. The good prof earned an indelible black mark there going against conventional BBC wisdom.

    Yes, Webb is incredibly stoopid. I know that from following his blog for some time when he was North America ‘Editor’. When he interviewed Obama, he looked like a rabbit caught in the great man’s headlights. I believe that was the worst interview I have ever seen.

       0 likes