#bbctbq Sun BBC1 at 10: Tommy Robinson, Dr Matthew Goodwin, Mo Ansar, Jamie Bartlett on; Is Britain complacent about the far right?
Sounds like fun and please read DB’s post below to understand the significance of Mo’s presence.
“Is Britain complacent about the far right” should read “Is the establishment complacent about angry oiks”. Surely some mistake.
I’ve not seen the programme yet, but this sort of ‘far right threat’ BS usually gets some air time when the fake charity, ‘Hate Not Hope/Searchlight’, which is run by Communist criminal thugs, have their state funding threatened.
I’ve never watched The Big Questions before but I may tune in tomorrow to see the BAFTA-winning potential of the Campbell/Ansar interaction.
It’s always 1958 at the BBC, isn’t it?
An arrow to the heart of the matter.
So it’s really four against one here. No balance at all, never mind the obvious bias of the title.
BBC2 tonight and here is Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch acting as warm up man for BBC discussions about the British ‘far right’ as he cuts the ground from under their feet. MacCulloch is a self-confessed ‘candid friend of Christianity’. He is also a BBC most favoured Christian (a gay one).
Naturally this is BBC agenda driven history of the most obvious kind. You know this from all the modern sloganeering cliches he works in: Wealth of New Cultures; Facade of Englishness; Embracing Difference; Rich Diversity; etc, etc.
We have an odd diversion into DNA analysis going back to the Ice Age to tell us there was no Englishness 10,000 years ago. Well I’ll be……
But forgive him a little sillyness, MacCulloch is on a mission to point out that there is no Anglo-Saxon basis to Englishness. ‘To be English is to be Diverse!’
Next week, BBC4 Fracesco da Mosto on No such thing as Italy, Top to Toe.
Same channel and Andrew Graham-Dixon on how there really is no particular Art of Russia or Art of Germany.
Come on BBC the possiblities are endless. Broaden the scope a little and you can solve problems everywhere…..are the Australian Aboriginals sure they have a prior claim? Surely there is no ethnic basis to the Palestinians? No singular Tamil identity?
According to the BBC and their lefty friends, England is the only country on planet Earth that doesn’t have it’s own culture !
Incredible, but somehow we have managed it where no other country has.
Of course it’s total crap, but the thinking probably goes that if a people has no culture, it will not fight to save it. If you tell them often enough they don’t have one, they will eventually believe it.
No, that’s just what the deluded BBC hopes. I know all my relatives and friends a lot better than the BBC and like me they see right through all the BBC’s shady antics.
I saw about two-thirds of it before getting hopelessly bored. It was interesting at first, and did put forth some reasonable assertions based on historical fact. Although it was a bit contradictory to say that the host’s X chromosme came to the British Isles from the Basque Country 10,000 years ago, but his mother’s family were Huguenots from France. Er….did his mother’s maternal line come from Cheddar, and then move down south a hundred years ago? Scattershot tossing around of facts, really.
But if it’s intent was to prove that the English are neither white nor Christian, it failed miserably. If anything, I was convinced that those who consider themselves “English” are even more indigenous to the island than I was led to believe. And there was no evidence provided that Englishness isn’t Christian, either.
Showing that St. George wasn’t English and had brown skin, and mewling about the misapprehensions of Victorian Anglicans proved nothing to me about the English not being Christian. So I got bored and watched an episode of “Walking Dead” instead.
We have seen the gene-pool malarkey before. All you need is the trace of one Jewish ancestor somewhere in the 13th Century and you are a mongrel, how hypocritical of you object to 100,000 Somalis colonising swathes of North London., or Pakistanis Bradfordistan. Smug intellectual conceit of the chattering classes.
Is it an Irish thing to bother about “English” = “Caucasian”, as I remember that prize arse Tom Paulin getting het up on the self-same thing more than once. What the heck has it really got to do with our sometime friends over to the west (stop just before you hit the Atlantic) ?
Incidentally, what’s happened to Tom P. ? He used to be an inescapable droning bag of maudlin cheer if you watched Newsnight, The Culture Show etc but seems to have dropped off Auntie’s teat for some reason. What can he have done to offend our treasured national broadcaster so ?
(Please note: The above should in no way, shape or form be read as a plea for the return of Mr Paulin).
The are setting up Tommy Robinson for baiting, that is all
Pay attention to the audience. It will be stacked worse than the panel.
Princess Nikki and all the typical Al-Beeb studio bias won’t bother Tommy Robinson mate. He’ll be there for the television viewing audience.
Personally, I don’t like the far right but even I can tolerate them as they have their own views. I may not agree with it but it is called democracy. Personally I have had enough of the BBC altogether hence why I started a petition. For those who agree with me and want the BBC scapped, go on http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/13176
Re: all this nonsense about the Far Right- people should come right out and say it.
What they mean is, they don’t like Nazis. Forget about the fact that the Far Right doesn’t exist. The real issue is racialism, racial identity, anglo-saxon culture and the way “western civilisation” claims what anglo-saxon culture alone provided- including the rule of law. And most contentious and least mentioned of all is the covert but deadly white genocide being waged against anglo-saxons and anglo-celts everywhere on the planet.
Some sort of tipping point will be reached, and then genryakuju will naturally occur. Not every “minority” slides off the plate into the bin. Some fight back.
Seems to me that the far right in this country are ironically, the UAF and their like. with them there is to be no debate and no discussion whatsoever.
Let’s see if I have this right: A French-born Mohammedan kills three French soldiers for imaginary crimes against Mohammedans, and four Jews for being related to Israel; George Galloway is elevated to Parliament on the strength of his appeal to jihad and Left-wing working class whites; Ken Livingstone is doing well running for Mayor of Britain’s capitol city on a Left-wing, anti-Jewish platform; there’s a rash of “Asian” gangs sexually abusing/exploiting young white girls; Mohammedans looking to Shariah Law over British Law is on the rise, and the BBC is worried about the next Oswald Mosley messing things up for everyone? WTF?
The islamists have been very busy just lately doing exactly the opposite of that which a “religion of peace” is supposed to do. The BBC need to distract attention away from this by pointing at the “far-right”( anyone brave enough to oppose the islamisation of Britain) and shouting “Eeeeeeeeevil!”
What is worse….it works !
That doesn’t sound like the country I live in. There are extremists of all stripes in England. But a determination that they don’t pull us apart is what unites most if us; certainly in my city of London.
Which part of London do you live in Jim? Some parts are more diverse than others. Do tell.
South east. Diverse bit. Not idyllic, but you don’t live in London for it’s mill pond qualities.
Sorry, ‘its’ It’s my autocorrect!
You still haven’t had to move to Salford then?
Again, I have no association with the BBC
“South East London”? That includes Blackheath,West Dulwich and Greenwich. You will have to do better than that to establish your street cred. I am prepared to be impressed.
All stripes, eh? Please inform BBC editors and producers.
What do you think will “pull us apart” faster…..blowing up the tube trains and buses, or organising a march against people who blow up tube trains and buses ?
Down my local pub I have never in over thirty years heard anyone voice their concerns about the “far right” in Britain, never. But can you guess the religion that none of us belong to but crops up much to often in our conversations amidst the beer and dry roasteds ?
The question the BBC should be asking tomorrow is ” Are we taking the threat of islam seriously enough ?”
Which is why the BBC is asking the exact opposite question. It’s pure mis-direction.
“Which is why the BBC is asking the exact opposite question. It’s pure mis-direction.”
Your own David Vance was full of praise for Campbell over a year ago: he wrote:
NICKY CAMPBELL SEES THE LIGHT?
This was posted a few days ago by B-BBC commentator Too True. “What do I think of the BBC today? I detect a speck of light in the darkness of that foul, propagandist, news-laundering organisation: Just after 54 minutes into a 5 Live programme on anti-Semitism, we have this exchange:
Nicky Campbell: Are you a Muslim Abdul?
Abdul: Yes. Nicky Campbell: You are properly horrified when there are Islamophobics attacks because of the atrocities committed by Muslims and Islamists, so why aren’t you similarly horrified when there are anti-Semitic attacks? Abdul: If there are anti-Semitic attacks…. Yardina, Jewish Brit: There are! Abdul: …first of all we do not condone, we do not accept from anybody… Nicky Campbell: You seem to be looking for a justification by saying if Israel committed… Abdul: …that’s not what I’m saying; there is suspicion obviously because the funding is coming from here, the funding is coming from America… Nicky Campbell: Do you understand why there is suspicion from some people of Muslims in this country? Abdul: …I appreciate that obviously… what the media portrays… that Al Qaeda is responsible… Nicky Campbell: Why are you saying, “What the media portrays as Al Qaeda” if it’s not true? You don’t think Al Qaeda is responsible for atrocities?
Fair play to Campbell on this occasion however I have to say that I think the only light I see is that of another left-wing train coming. One welcomes forensic examination of the Islamic mindset and I would like to see much more. But the overwhelming BBC meme is that ISLAM is a force for good, but perhaps with a few nutters within it (Just like Christianity, natch) and in that context I think this is a false dawn.
And ofcom upheld a complaint against him and thhe BBC on the issue of Islamic extremism:
Seems like he doesn’t shirk from this subject after all.
Jim, what you term ‘full of praise’ others, would term ‘qualified praise’, “false dawns” et al, donchaknow.
I for one think that within the bounds in which Nicky Campbell works, he does a good a job as he can in holding up a light to Islamism, but here, having just watched the programme as well, he presents to the British public a Moslem who recently strongly implied that President Sarkozy set up an innocent Muslim for a Nazi’s crimes as some sort of impeccable Muslim voice of reason. He truly disgraced himself today.
Perhaps people who blow up pubs in soho too? I was half a mile away when that went off.
And how far away was you when the tube was being blown up. A bit of a bigger bang affecting far more people was it not?
It was. About three miles from kings cross. Closest I ever got was when the IRA (catholic largely) blew up the Sussex pub in Covent Garden. My dad was in Birmingham when the pub bombs went off.
Does this sound like the city you live in?
Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims
Amusingly, this report was done from the perspective that Shariah Law is not fair to women. So was that Ansar character telling a lie today, and Nicky let him?
It’s largely Christian where I live. One small mosque. Lots of Pentecostalist churches.
Who are the ‘us’ to whom you refer, Jim?
Good luck with that.
With all due acknowledgment of Godwin, like the BBC (who also claim to speak for ‘us’) held so dear…
It’s highly detailed list of terror attacks will update every month for you.
I’ve just had a thought! Now that the BBC has historically and scientifically convinced us all that there is – and never was – any such thing as England (Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch’s series concluded last night BBC2)….
Now what are we supposed to think of – as we lie back and let the Islamists shaft us?
The Big Questions = Utter Left Wing Disgrace! BBC have totally stonewalled the Islamic debate YET again! Bias in front of your eyes people – just look at the extended platform that the Muslim speakers received whereas Tommy Robinson was constantly heckled. The audience was shipped in from Chelsea with the usual drones and cued applause. The pressure heaped on the EDL leader made it impossible to debate the real issues.
Sorry, just a test.
Did anyone else notice that the protestors outside who could be clearly heard shouting ant-EDL chants went completely silent after the Islamic ‘debate’ had finished? Makes you wonder whether the BBC purposefully allowed the protestors to be heard.
Purposely allowed the anti-democracy and free speech “spitting” scumbags close enough to the Manchester (outside sound proofed?) studio to be clearly heard, Merlin? – Of course the BBC purposely allowed it, in an absolutely laughably pathetic sham effort to portray those demonstrating outside (Unite AGAINST Fascism??! LOL!!) as generally representative of the television viewing public. No need for anyone to “wonder” at all and I doubt the majority of viewers were fooled at all by the hilariously EDL belittling broadcaster.
The barrister, Abha Pandya, was absolutely fantastic though BUT does it takes someone from a different ethnic background to be heard in this multicultural debate?
I thought it was a relatively respectful and calm debate, given Robinson’s presence. And Ansar while tediously pious is no extremist.
Nonsense as usual Jim! I’m not sure what program you were watching but you certainly weren’t watching the ‘Big’ Questions. It was the most biased left wing rabble rousing populist interrogation I have yet seen on the BBC. I think you had your mind made up as usual.
“And Ansar while tediously pious is no extremist. ”
If you’re willing to take what he says on face value. You’re perfectly well aware of how extreme his views are from the evidence presented here and the post below, but for reasons best known to yourself you’re willing to do PR for him. Well, you do work for the BBC …
I neither take what Tommy Robinson says on face value or Mohammad Ansar. They are both extremists, but Nicky Campbell was making common cause with on against the other.
The biased BBC that you know and love, eh Jim?
‘well you do work for the bbc’
I promise you I don’t.
Maybe you don’t get paod by the BBC, but you work hard on their behalf on this site trying to defend the indefensible.
I’m sure he has some sort of connection with the BBC.
No I don’t.
You may not get paid by the BBC, but you work very hard on their behalf on this site defending the indefensible.
Thank you. It’s an important issue.
I’ll agree with you here, it certainly is an important issue. One that is so important we, the people, should be given the right to choose whether we want to hand over our money to this hate filled, bigoted marxist/islamist propaganda organisation. It’s so important that if we don’t agree with its prejudices and biases we shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Respectful? Hardly. It was four against one, not even remotely balanced. At one point, Campbell dismissed Robinson’s generalizations about Muslims by saying that it was like saying that all white people were like Robinson. Which means Campbell made a value judgment about Robinson.
What was most offensive, really, was that the Mohammedans were allowed to tell lie after lie about Islam promoting equal rights for women, and Dr. Goodwin making claims about the “vast majority of Muslims”. His work is all about right-wing extremism, and he provided no facts to back up his assertions. We’re just supposed to take his generalizations about Muslims as gospel.
This was a setup, a false debate. Aside from one statement from the Demos guy, there was zero attempt to understand Robinson’s grievances. And then he went and dismissed them by saying that nobody turned up for his rally. When Goodwin said that people don’t pay attention to the far-right grievances, he gets no credit from me because he had already said that those grievances are wrong.
Bonus BBC bias: the woman sitting next to Robinson echoed something the Demos guy said about people feeling disenfranchised, and asked why people like Robinson felt that way and that they couldn’t turn to their Labour or Liberal Democrat councilors. Classic.
Great comment Mr Preiser; we don’t always agree mate but you are spot on with this comment.
To: The Dandy Man
“Tediously pious”: boring because of being long, monotonous, or repetitive, talking or acting in a falsely, hypocritically, or affectedly moralizing way. You got that bit right Jim boy.
As for “no extremist”: being an apologist for extremists is the same thing to most people.
“A calm debate, given Robinson’s presence” That was a very snide remark Mr Dandy. Did you see how nervous he was? Yet he did his best against an overwhelmingly hostile audience of people and an arrogant dismissive host.
If the aim of the program was to discredit Tommy it backfired. I was ambivalent before the show but not now. The more the BBC pull these tricks the more we can all see that they have an agenda and it is not a patriotic one. Tommy for all his working class origins and admitted faults is at least patriotic, are you Jim?
BBC done the same thing but much worse a few years ago with Griffin on QuestionableTime. The format had clearly been secretly changed to Get Griffin!, the bloke was more than understandably clearly nervous as hell and yet bravely somehow managed to cope well and survive what quickly became a bear pit for him. Dimbleby was an absolute disgrace as chairman and basically just acted like he was one of the invited panel members against Griffin.
How this morning’s TBQ show kept repeatedly trying to link Tommy Robinson and the EDL to mass murdering Anders Breivik was just ridiculous. Robinson had never met him or had anything to do with him (as he said our intelligence services could back up) and yet just because Breivik might’ve merely uttered something about the EDL some time then Robinson’s practically a mass murderer as well! Crazy! Too ludicrousing fecking bonkers for words! Fans of the liberty taking BBC who take their beloved broadcaster seriously these days really do need to seek medical advice!
The whole premise of the show was ridiculous. If the EDL deny being far right then the ‘Big Question’ should be ‘Is the EDL far right’.
In a programme like this taking the premise as a given (one I agree with), it should have been a couple of guests saying ‘yes, we are complacent’, a couple saying ‘no we’re not’, and in the interests of fairness Tommy Robinson amongst the audience to have the right to refute the EDL is far right.
The format of the programme showed how committed the BBC is to left wing propaganda, not democratic debate.
It was very noticeable that noone repudiated anything Robinson said to say he and the EDL are not far right. The information is there, but as it was a left-wing production a little thing such as ‘provide evidence’ didn’t factor into the equation. For the left wing BBC being concerned about Britain’s massive Jihadi cuckoo in the nest is all the evidence you need that someon is far right. Very, very dangerous. At least noone here is complacent about the far left BBC.
He’s not an extremist, but has stated confidence in Islam demographically overtaking your civilization. He’s not an extremist but tells lies openly about Islam being treating women with equality. He’s not an extremist, but referred to the Toulouse murderer as a “poor soul” set up by Sarkozy.
So on Friday we had the gruesome spectacle of the vile George Galloway, a far left member of Respect, being chaired through the streets of Bradfordistan by a horde of bearded Islamofascists. The BBC spring into action immediately and two days later we have this “debate”
Is Britain too complacent about the far right?
Well, I suppose it is April Fool’s day…
After 9/11, 7/7, Islamic grooming, the long history of Muslim anti-semitism, the Toulouse massacre, the poppy burning, the amount of British-born Muslims caught fighting for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the amount of Muslim men arrested for potential terrorism, after undercover operations in Madrasa schools where hatred is preached against gays and women and Western culture, after all of this, the BBC hold a debate focusing on the “far right’????? UTTER JOKE AND DISGRACE!
Lefty Dr Matthew Goodwin, on today’s programme at the request of Tommy Robbinson defined in part the Far Right as those who oppose to the views of a liberal society.
The EDL oppose extremist Islam for it’s opposition of liberal society so doesn’t that make them just ‘normal’?
The BBC on the other hand clearly oppose the EDL, a group who in a liberal society have the right to hold their view of opposing a group who opposes the views held in a liberal society, so does that actually make the BBC far right ? I have to lie down and think about this.
All I know is, is that despite accusations of being a Nazi, Tommy Robbinson publically ejected any members of a Nazi organisation that tried to attach itself to the EDL, nutted one of the members and in not as many words told them to piss off. And yet the EDL will continue to be described as Far Right and Nazis by all the guests the (Far Right) BBC invite on their programmes to discuss them.
While we are at it, isn’t the way we are forced to pay a licence fee kind of Nazi-ish? The way that their storm-troopers come round to your house and demand entry in order to check out your property for means of illegally receiving public broadcasts regardless of whether they are BBC broadcasts has a touch of The Nazi about it.
Get enough people to describe a group in certain terms in the media and the viewing and reading public will oblige in thinking of them in those terms – eh Hippiepooter ? (how’s the Mail on Sunday today?)
Couldn’t agree more! A typical BBC showing in my opinion; these lefties will only wake up when it’s too late, when their little social experiment has failed. And guess who they’ll come running to? The army and those who are willing to stand up for our country. Despicable!
The ‘get’ Tommy Robinson show was on this morning and it made for a deeply depressing and nauseating experince. The strategy seems to be:
Belittle Tommy Robinson by constantly referring to him as Stephen.
Get a fake academic to spout fake statistics.
Refer to 14th century Muslim ‘achievements’.
Link the EDL to Brevik as often as possible.
Link the EDL to violence and thuggery.
Load the audience with lefties and Muslims.
It’s a tried and tested al beeb policy. Oddly, I thought that Tommy Robinson handled Jeremy Paxman much better, although on that occasion he didn’t have a hostile audience breathing down his neck. At least he mentioned Muslim grooming in Oxford and elsewhere and reiterated that the EDL are not a far-right organisation. It says something about this country that anyone who opposes honour killings, forced marriage, sharia law and Muslim paedophile rings is automatically a member of the ‘far right.’ This should be the policy of the centre because it affects our democracy, our culture and our very beliefs but mainstream politicians are too cowardly and unwilling to address the problem. Ultimately the programme was designed to show just how reasonable muslims are and just how unreasonable the EDL is. At least Nicky Campbell can say he’s done this subject, so he (and the beeb) won’t need to touch it for another year.
Ah, the 14th Century ‘Muslim’ achievement canard again.
In the 13th Century the Muslim achievement, as exemplified by the brilliant but religiously dominated mind of Al Ghazzali, effectively turned the final lights out on progress within the Islamic cultural area.
The lights that were turned out were not ‘Islamic’ but those of peoples who had been conquered by the desert barbarians with their divine obession that they knew better than jews and christians…or anybodyelse what makes the world tick…and showed no hesitation in enforcing their religious ideology.
The death of any hope of progress was called ‘occasionalism’.
Briefly put, occasionalism says that nothing, absolutely nothing, happens….from planets moving to dogs barking without Allah’s direct command. Everything. Fire does not burn because of the nature of fire, but because Allah makes it happen…this time.
The 14th Century Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, and the Christian, Thomas Aquinas both criticised this position, seeing God outside his creation and binding himself to non-intererence.
The Jews have the covenant……..God grants freedom and will keep his side.
The Christians accept this concept of a God who expresses solidarity.
Islam has a despot…who makes things up as he goes along….Imshallah.
Allah is a monist construct but is actually polytheistic….the ancient east (and Arabia) was pagan and had a committee of gods struggling…Allah is the unification of these primitive ideas.
Sacrifice for Jews is the bris.
For Christians, the sharing of bread or communion.
For Islam. the ultimate sacrifice is Jihad.
That is why it is infinitely dangerous.
I’m very pleased that my annual TV license ran out (and was not renewed) at midnight.
mine expired a long time ago
and they can whistle for it
I am Singapore at the moment so I didn’t have the delight of seeing what sounds like a Soviet Style shows trial.
However I am interested in poppy burning Mohammad Ansar enlightened the public with his views on who caused 9/11 or his “nuanced” views on secular feminism?
Nicky Campbell did nothing to challenge the credibility of Mo Ansar, despite the wealth of easily available info to do so that he is at least as much of an extremist as Tommy Robinson.
For those in the know on just what Mo believes, and NC’s cosy relationship with him, it was one of Nicky Campbell’s worst hours.
Hippie, I know you probably think this is a one-off and “normal” service will soon be resumed with Campbell, but I just hope that this morning has opened at least one of your eyes permanently to the extreme bias of said Mr. Campbell.
Nicky Campbell is normally excellent. Let’s hope this doesn’t herald a slide into the gutter wherein may be found Naughtie, Humphrys, Paxman et al …
I want to know when the BBC will be airing the counter-question.
“Is Britain complacent about the Far Left”
With the audience full of ‘Far Right’ extremists and white supremecists in the audience.
That indeed would be an exact ‘balance’ for that disgraceful left wing propaganda hosted by the lefty Dame Nicky.
Oh, I forgot, can the counter-question be hosted by a right wing presenter to balance it exactly?
Yes, remember those ‘far-right’ activists smashing up central London, desecrating war memorials, attacking Charles and Camilla, setting fire to bus shelters, storming Tory HQ, etc. etc. etc. Oh . . . . hang on . . . . .
I remember the far right bombing a pub in soho
So do I.
And unlike Mr Anser, I also remember 3000 odd people being killed by Islamist boarding passenger planes.
Yes, carried out by a lone freak, not like the large terrorist organisations of the Islamists, Irish Republicans and far-left.
18665 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11, as I post.
It’s always fascinating to watch the BBC, if only to get a glimpse into the inner struggle going on in the Labour Party.
The BNP actually is a Third Positional Party, but has become more “moderate” in order to become more electable. It is a revolutionary nationalist political ideology that emphasizes its opposition to both communism and capitalism.
Again there is always a sub-text to the debate. This is a problem for the Labour Party and probably the reason for the sudden interest by the BBC in the EDL.
The BNP manifesto is not just based on immigration and race, but they have a distinctly socialist feel to its policy, more akin to pre-Clause 4 Labour. They seek to nationalize industry, believe in workers participation and works councils, the redistribution of wealth through taxation, the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation, practice protectionism and economic nationalism, the creation of a national network of autonomous credit unions. an immediate withdrawal from the European Union. An isolationist foreign policy commitment to the values of traditional “Western Christianity”, capital punishment, animal welfare (such as the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming and the maintenance of family values and supports the nuclear family of Western tradition, as well as favouring traditional roles for women and men.
You can see why it’s a problem for Labour, when you are seeping working class white votes, you need to do something. Which is why Ed Milliband commission Lord Glasman to look at the “Blue Labour” project, to counter some of the BNP’s political positioning.
Blue Labour advocates the belief that working class and ‘squeezed middle’ voters will be won back to Labour through more conservative policies on certain social and international issues, such as immigration and crime, a rejection of neoliberal economics in favour of ideas from guild socialism and continental work councils, and a switch to local and democratic community management and provision of services, rather than relying on a traditional welfare state that is seen as excessively ‘bureaucratic’.
The Blue Labour project was in turn rejected by the NEC in 2011, under pressure from the Left Wing of the Labour Party. The Unions rejected it as it saw a threat to its status, with the introduction of workers councils conducting collective bargaining, with the National Unions being reduce to advisory status, as they are in Holland and Germany, as well as a downsizing of Government to a community level
Multiculturalists and those invested in “diversity” obviously see this as a threat to their position. Blue Labour received a lot of criticism from many within the party such as Diane Abbott, Helen Goodman, Roy Hattersley and Billy Bragg. It has also been attacked by feminists within the party and the deputy leader, Harriet Harman has also been concerned about Maurice Glasman and Blue Labour’s influence within the party’s direction.
More interesting is that Chuka Umunna and David Lammy are alleged supporters of the Blue Labour project, as they face the prospect of a shrinking white vote support.
Labour activists (whom I’ve spoken too) are worried that the EDL, which has no cohesive political outlook bar nationalism and immigration, could expose working class voters the more “Old Labour” doctrine of the BNP.
So in this context you can start to see why patterns of behaviour are occurring. We live in interesting times…..
My apologies for my lengthy posts, but I think its always useful to get the wider picture.
I agree that a careful observation of the BBC can tell us more than we might care to know about the internal agonising that goes on in the left. New Labour ditched the socialist outlook and as a fall back for the lack of ideology did much to move us into the uncharted waters of identity politics. They now seem to hope to build a majority from angry self-interested minorities. Risky.
To be honest, I view the BNP as the Labour I used to vote for, or rather, the Labour party I imagined existed when I first voted for them. Whether it really did exist is another question.
I haven’t voted Labour since 2000 as that was when I noticed they couldn’t give a toss about me or the other drones.
If the EDL ever got someone with a better accent and sharper debating style to make their case, it would be different story altogether.
Absolutely agree and was thinking this as I watched Tommy being treated as a pariah this morning. He is an ordinary guy from a working class background that is trying to get the nation to see we have a problem. It is the problem that the elite of this country and many others across the western world will just not see, despite of hundreds of people being blown up and thousands killed by planes flown into skyscrapers.
It is a very sad day when the only man that has the courage to stand up for our way of life is an uneducated man who likes a drink or two and is prone to nut opponents, but you know what, I admire the man, he is a man of the people. He is not an academic, for what good they do, he is fighting for Britain and that’s more than the BBC or precious Campbell ever do.
Good luck to him.
Spot on mate; I totally agree. The Soviet BBC and especially that fawning little slimy toad Campbell are complete wastes of space. Could you believe how slimy and ingratiated he was with the Muslims in the audience? He really is an odious little nugget.
I actually think Robinson did well for himself, for the most part. He had good quotes from the MCB literature, and was as usual well-prepared with talking points he wanted to get across.
I just know that due to accent and class bigotry he won’t come across as convincing to many people. He also missed a couple of good opportunities to nail Ansar on BS. He should get a lot of credit for his calm demeanor and willingness to dialogue. Something that never seems to come from Islamists unless their on the TV with full support.
I agree David. I know my blood pressure would have exploded in that lefty saturated environment so full respect for the calmness of Tommy Robinson.
Damn my typing is filled with errors today. Their should have been they’re, and I did an it’s for its earlier. Must try not to blog sober.
To be honest David I don’t think us lot are going to give you detention after school any time school lol. Now, let’s revise those three Rs again…
Mr. Robinson was less ‘polished’ this time (being in the middle of what was essentially a seething mob I’m none too surprised), but frankly the rough-edged style can engage, as Mr. Paxman found to his cost.
Not so sure about some of the young man’s logic, consistency or indeed arguments, but then that applies to the entire cast of any BBC Newsnight producer’s iPhone.
The difference here was he had essentially been set up to be pilloried rather than debated with, and the spectacle was so grotesque it was hard not to see him as alone against a very nasty bunch, like Mr. Griffin during that infamous QT.
Considering the composition of that mob, I am unsure if the BBC’s aims were best served as a consequence.
Certainly Mr. Campbell no longer has any of my respect by any measure. He’s a petty, nasty, abuser of misplaced power who somehow seems to think he ‘speaks for me’. He doesn’t. And thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded, I am stuck with him like something picked up from a swimming pool floor.
The thought is frightening, but then if it did would the EDL be the EDL?
I dont buy any of his claims to be anti-racist ya, de, da, bla, bla, bla and I do regard him as a thug. Nevertheless, it takes an enormous amount of courage for someone not best equipped to enter the arenas that he enters and I do admire his willingness to do so.
If what he said is true that Dr Matthew Goodwin describes his politics on his Facebook page as ‘left, far left and further left’ then its absolutely outrageous that the BBC makes common cause with left wing and Moslem extremists to mount a kangaroo court against another extremist. I’m looking for Dr Goodwin’s Facebook page and I can’t find it,.
Oh, and I thought it hilarious when Robinson asked Goodwin to define far right, which negated Robinson being far right on the basis of what he’d just been saying and showed how far right Islam is. Basically Goodwin’s ‘defining’ just descended into verbal diarreah.
Yes, verbal diarrhoea sums it up.
Goodwin’s ‘definition’ was, “There are two key things that far-right groups share, ok. Firstly, they reject or they undermine what representative or liberal democracy is all about. Now liberal democracy accepts that a plurality of views is legitimate, we should support those views, we should allow those views…but secondly what far-right groups share…ultimately is a rejection of human equality.”
So there are a LOT of far-right islamists then.
And that also means the SWP, the UAF, the left-wing of the Labour Party, the BBC, the TUC, the Occupy Movement etc. etc. are all right-wing…
To be honest I thought his description fitted the left-wing more snugly, which proves that the Nazis and Fascists were left-wing as they share those traits with the left-wing organisations I listed above.
My take on this is that Nicky Campbell blatantly took sides. In no way was he impartial during this debate. He relentlessly interrupted and challenged the leader of the EDL right from the start, ambushing him from the word go . In contrast, Campbell’s challenges to the enemies of the EDL were (to put it mildly) half-hearted or (as with Mo Ansar and the “expert” – as Campbell put it – Matthew Goodwin) often helpful.
Tommy R. found himself on the end of an inquisition, especially from Nicky Campbell. No one else faced such a barrage of tough questions.
Even those cast as being on his side felt the need to distance themselves from him and his organisation before making their comments. He was essentially alone.
The audience was, as expected, almost entirely purged of people who might clap or come to the aid of Robinson.
Ansar was given the easy ride DB’s post led us to expect.
It is striking, as many people on here have noted before, how Nicky Campbell’s tone changes when talking to a Muslim member of the audience. He was forced to say “hello” to Tommy Robinson by Robinson saying “hello” to him as he was beginning his first attack. When he later asked a young chap with a beard to speak, Nicky gave him a warm “hello” even before he even spoke.
This episode of ‘The Big Loaded Questions’ was all most of us expect from the BBC. Whatever we may think of Tommy Robinson and the EDL, this programme (and presenter) behaved towards him in a way that can only be described as ‘biased’.
Entirely agree with you, It was as I feared.
It was quite bold of the BBC to give the EDL and Tommy Robinson a platform and they have come in for criticism for this. Robinson (or Stephen Yaxley Lennon) is a football hooligan turned leader of a fringe organisation of skinheads and football hooligans, a lot of whom are drawn from the ranks of the bnp and similar extremist political organisations.
Given all this, I think he got as good a hearing as reasonable people might expect. The edl forum certainly seems to think he did well for them.
Jim D. ” I think he got as good a hearing as reasonable people might expect.”
I’m not sure what your definition of “reasonable people” is. He certainly got the hearing most people on this site expected he would. It’s not the sort of “hearing” he should have been subjected to however as it was borderline bullying. Any time he tried to speak he was interrupted and spoken over, the “impartial” presenter was more like his prosecutor. Even when he tried to reply about things like his invitation to dinner by the extremist, he was shouted over so his reply could not be heard – later Campbell accused him of turning the dinner invitation down which was a clear lie. It was a hatchet job by the BBC, no more and no less. The fact that he did as well as he could under that onslaught is obviously the reason why the EDL site said he did ok.
Jim, did you know it is official BNP policy to ban it’s members from having any contact at all with the EDL ?
You probably do, but it doesn’t really help your attempt to spread cobblers, does it ?
It’s considered bold to provide a group attack on him? Even if he’s a football hooligan, he’s right that third-world Islam needs to evolve. Yet even that suggestion was met with derision and accusations of hatred.
He was given ample space to air his views and wasn’t shouted down. Most politicians would deal easily with the situation he found himself in.
You do know the edl was born of Luton Town football hooligans don’t you. A look at who turns up at their demos shows what we’re dealing with here. Skins, hoolies and extremist goons.
And what is your opinion of the violent and extremist thugs from the UAF and SWP?
I don’t like them. The swp is a pernicious and illiberal cult. And the uaf is a stain on the proud history of anti- facist direct action in this country.
Play the ball and not the man, Jim. I’m well aware of who and what their origins are. It’s irrelevant. I could say the same thing about Ansar and his false proclamations about Islam. Yet the BBC is concerned about Robinson and his boys tearing apart the fabric of multicultural society, and not people who gather to shout venom when the bodies of dead soldiers are brought home, and not people who vandalize Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, and not people who treat women as second-class citizens in defiance of modern rights laws, and not people who preach jihad at local mosques, and not people who start anti-West groups at universities.
Robinson could be a lobotmoized mollusk and he’d still be correct that there’s a problem with an overwhelming influx of third-world Islam refusing to join civilization causing friction. Tarring him by association with football hooligans changes nothing.
Bold? It was a set-up. My huge fear is that such a BBC left wing bear baiting exercise will actually win the far right sympathy.
If you’re commie chums keep pulling such propaganda stunts to cover up for how far right Islam is and the danger poses, you’re going to cause things to blow up in Britain’s faces from white fascism and Islamofacism.
Because you lefties are such mind-blowingly arrogant arseholes, you never even consider the possibility of you doing something really, really stupid.
Why do you think Robinson is willing to take part in such blatant set-ups?
Simmer down Hippiepooter. Let’s keep personal insults out of the debate.
I do get quite exercised when I see the ‘clever classes’ playing into the hands of the far right to allow themselves the joys of moral masturbation.
Oh don’t we all.
Craig, I’ve got no problem with the BBC being biased against people on the far right like Tommy Robinson as long as it’s a democratic bias.
It isn’t. It’s a left wing bias. That’s why we had Nicky Campbell presenting a patent Jihadi looney tunes as a voice of moderation and reason and Comrade Goodwin, if Robinson’s claim is true, an independent arbiter of what is and isn’t right wing extremism.
It cannot be stressed enough how in the wake of the Toulouse murders and a far left Jihad ally being elected by Muslims in West Bradford, the subject was ‘Our we complacent about the far right?’, not ‘Our we complacent about the far left’.
It’s as if when speculation first arose about the Toulouse killer being neo-Nazi the BG production staff (and NC??) hatched the programme idea, then when it turned out (amazing!) that the murderer was a Jihadist, it became even more imperative to get the whole squalid debacle to air.
Is Ansar a jihadi? He has some loopy conspiracist views, but I’ve seen no evidence for that.
The timing of this discussion was clearly to coincide with the Aarhus demo, from which the BBC flew Robinson in for this programme.
Jim, did you read the tweets DB put up on the thread below? Ansar is not the most savory character.
Maybe. But I couldn’t find anything that suggests he is a jihadist.
I suppose it depends on how one defines “jihad”. I’d suggest that Ansar’s sanguine expression that Islam will overwhelm you demographically is one definition.
Erm, Jim, please refer to what I have written above about the capacity for self-regarding lefties for stupidity.
One thing I can guarantee you Jihadists will never do, is bomb a ‘gay bar’ in Soho. They wouldn’t want to risk losing BBC support and that of blind, left wing fools like you.
I think gay people all over the world are one of the groups most at risk from jihadists. And it seems any truce with tge BBC has passed
But you dont believe homosexuals are at risk from Mohammed Ansar?
What does this article have to do with a truce with the BBC? Did the BBC even report this? Have they done a special feature on it?
“Whose BBC”?…….”Our BBC”………For once, I don’t disagree with the good Comrades of the UAF/SWP in the slightest…
BBC presenters adopt a special tone when conversing with anyone considered by the left as “far right.”
We saw it today with Campbell and Mr Robinson and again in the hideous QT lynching of Nick Griffin. Dimbleby looked as though he wanted to vomit every time he had to address the leader of the BNP.
The subliminal message is that this is how all decent people should behave with these Nazis.
You will notice a distinct change of attitude whenever Obama, Nelson Mandella or the sainted Mrs Lawrence are spoken about. These demi gods are beyond reproach. I can’t think why…
‘ looked as though he wanted to vomit every time he had to address the leader of the BNP.’
A natural response.
Which he wouldn’t do with the leaders of the nazi-UAF or fascist-SWP.
Yes, my vomit would spew over the both extremes. As long as an extreme doesn’t bomb a ‘gay bar’ in Soho, Jim D doesn’t seem to care.
yet they never look as though they want to vomit when they are sat next to paedophile worshipping, wife-beating, gay hating, terrorist supporting, Jew hating muslim.
They usually look like they want to go down on them and suck for all they are worth.
For once JD, we agree.
If I was ever invited to give my opinion on a BBC witch hunt, I would use this tactic…
The first time the host interrupted me I would warn him that if he did it again I would walk.
“As you have been so kind to seek my opinion, I will give it. When I have finished giving that opinion, then you may question me. Interrupt me again and I will see this as outrageous bias and an attempt by the BBC to take sides in this debate.”
It’s about time someone tried this approach rather than sit inside the shitstorm unleashed by the biased BBC. What is there to lose ?
George Galloway did that on C4 the other day.
And yet when he’s the interviewer, he blusters and shouts over his guests as soon as they start telling a truth that he doesn’t like. He stops them from speaking completely by his hectoring, bullying and abuse.
Yes, i agree, this should happen more on QT in particular, the BBC can hardly make capital out of it if given polite and firm warning. Love to see Dimb’s face if it happens, he is getting pretty inept as chairman anyway.
Doing a little Googling around Nicky Campbell and TBQ, it seems he has a reputation among some Islamic groups as an Islamophobe. I don’t think he is. He strikes me as someonE who is willing to take on extremists of all types. I found a transcript of a TBQ programme in May last year
which provides a bit of context for today’s programme:
Osama bin Laden may be dead but his followers live on. On Friday the Pakistan Taliban killed 80 people in revenge for his death. Now Britain is a centre for the spread of Islamist ideology too, which not only poses a security risk but also inflames tensions between our communities. So our one big question this morning is: does Britain have a problem with Muslims?”
JD, Nicky Campbell does indeed deserve credit for posing this question, but when a Jihadi front site like ‘islamophobia-watch’ finds lots of pluses to take out of it, then clearly the whole format bore no relation to what Tommy Robinson was subjected to.
If anyone wants to see just how different the treatment was:-
Nicky Campbell seemed a bit nervous a bit like Tommy Robinson was on the ambush he set up for him.
Gosh, that was a really ‘balanced’ panel I must say. lol
Without a link to the transcript, we don’t know if it was four against one. In general, whenever the BBC asks if Britain has a problem with Muslims, the answer is always “No,” or at most it’s an extremely tiny fringe minority. Which is exactly what we were told yesterday. Wake me up when they have a four-on-one gangbang on Anjem Choudary or similar like they did with the EDL guy.
Oh, wait: here’s one from Choudary’s own website. The Big Question: Is Islam Intolerant?
Answer: Only when people like Choudary do it wrong. Otherwise, Islam is fine (actually, the Quilliam Foundation guy kind of agrees with Geert Wilders, but don’t tell that to the Beeboids). So not the same as the Tommy Robinson treatment at all, as the goal here was to support Islam, which is the opposite of how The Big Question handled the EDL.
Yes Maajid Nawaz is a very brave man, like Ayaan Hirsi Al he too faces death threats from Islamists. He has already seen his marriage go down the drain after he spoke out against Hizb ut-Tahrir, and is seen as a traitor.
But as is typical of the Left, the disgraceful Anti-Semite and Stalinist Seumas Milne of the Guardian says that people like Maajid Nawaz, Ed hussain “are straight out of the cold war defectors’ mould trading heavily on their former associations and travelling rapidly in a conservative direction”.
Milne has been on the wrong side of every historical argument all his life, he has said in the past:
“A racist portrayal of Muslims and Islam in general, a tendency to hype all bogus terror plots into something utterly beyond the pale… A process which is verged on incitement, and has played a central role I think in isolating and intimidating the community, and as we seen in places like Luton and elsewhere, effectively fueling violence on the streets and attacks on Muslim institutions and mosques in particular.”
So its all the fault of Tommy Robinson and his “bogus” beating at the hands of the RoP
Michael Coren with Tommy Robinson
“For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment… Its existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to western global domination.”
Mass slaughter in China and Cambodia brought many “great benefits”, as long as its non-Islamist and anti-Communist is fine. Yet he is the leading light in the left wing media, which many in the BBC take his lead from.
I saw the first 20 mins before Mrs RCE put her foot down.
The ‘academic’ completely folded when asked to define ‘far right’, as hp says above. He just waffled shite because as a political movement the far right does not actually exist. It’s a catch all for people the left don ‘t like, from Palin, the Daily Mail and Thatcher to Brevik and the BNP; it’s meaningless.
Tommy landed some good punches and the Muslims talked bollocks as always because their ideology is based – literally – on ‘submission’.
The football hooligan fons et origo of the EDL is very interesting. I nurse a theory that the deliberate efforts of the political class to extinguish English nationalism can be traced back to the 70′s and 80′s and this phenomena; the political assertion of the white working class manifested itself as soccer violence and needed to be destroyed. I see the Neather narrative in this context.
After all, the English are quite good at fighting, and our leaders don’t want that (anymore).
Interesting theory. It does connect certain dots.
Connecting dots is a good analogy and if that is the case what next? There is a stirring of discontentment now amongst not only the worker drones, as my friend above calls himself, but across the whole of society about free speech, about immigration and Muslim/Islamic terrorists. Why do the media not tell us the truth or want a debate about religious extremists and why we are not fully informed about who the paedophiles gangs are and why no debate by the BBC about that?
Another good point made earlier was that the Patriot organisations need good articulate leaders,, Tommy is a fine lad but he will never inspire people with education or breeding, the old class system still counts in this country. You know the sketch “I know place”, it is so well-remembered, because it’s true, even now.
Another point about ‘The Far Right’; it means nothing, it is just an insult. There is not a straight line running from left to right, it goes in a circle and they meet on the backside side (pun intended). The far left is the same as the far right. The whole left v. right thing is rubbish. The only difference I can see is that the far left are scruffy and don’t wash and the far right wear cheap suits and after shave. This is why the term Patriot seems to me to be a better description of the EDL and their co-conspirators, even if they do come from council houses and fight amongst themselves, they support Britain and its Christian way of life. You don’t have to believe in god to believe in the Good Samaritan.
However, there is of course a difference between socialism and capitalism, and I would be grateful if someone (not the Dandy bloke please) can point out a successful socialist country as if there is one, I have missed it.
Anyway back to connecting the dots……..
Will the articulate gentleman or lady that can lead us patriots out of the wilderness please stand up now, your time is long overdue.
So Margaret Thatcher was prominent in this process?
She was prominent in the BBC process of demonizing honest people who care for their country and heritage, and who were prepared to stand up for what is right (in all senses of the word) and fight against the left-wing who have been trying to destroy this country for at least as long as I can remember (and that’s a long time).
Another day, another Marxist show trial? The far left love their show trials dont they? It is an addiction peculiar to the Marxist socialist far left. As though they feel they have to show the masses how much their ideological enemies are hated and despised.
The facts are clear, islam is not a race it is a religion and yet the BBC are utterly determined to present the issue as a race issue, they peddle the so called ‘anti racist’ line with dogged determination, but why?
Most people find racism disgusting and rightly so and most people find religious fascism/extremism equally disgusting. And that is the key to the BBCs corporate narrative isnt it? Present the EDL as ‘racist’ and most people would not support them however if they were to present the EDL as anti islamofascist then most people would agree or at least be sympathetic to that stance.
I repeat, islam is not a race, it is a religion. We can now see just why the BBC and its allied street thugs of the UAF have to present the EDL as ‘racist’. Just another example of how the BBC deliberately perverts and distorts the real issue in order to attack its ideological enemies.
“Most people find racism disgusting and rightly so and most people find religious fascism/extremism equally disgusting.”
This is where you get confused and where all the muddled thinking comes from.
All people bleed red, feel happy, sad etc…..
But there is more to race than colour. Race and culture in the majority of cases combine.
The great civilization of the Western World has been brought about through its Christian principles. Those principles are the basis of our society, law and political structure. So it’s culture and not colour but right now its foundation is white because they are the only people that follow and understand the traditions of the culture.
What we are faced with are the carpet-baggers that want to share our wealth and live the life we live. However they fail to grasp that it requires them to give up their culture and adopt our culture to succeed.
The continual gripe is integration. Integration will not happen. These interlopers wish to retain their own cultures and beliefs but attain the same things as us. Muslims want we have but continue practising Islam. Islam’s base principles are incompatible with our civilization and customs which are Christian. Most people from the 3rd World believe in ancestral worship and witchcraft which are incompatible.
So you say racism is evil but you cannot separate race from culture and therefore racism is inevitable.
I dont agree about culture being the preserve of one race alone. The British empire spread its culture and values around the world and in places that seed found fertile ground and in other places baron wasteland. There are plenty of places around the world that embraced British or should I say Western cultural values cultural values and they thrived.
Race and culture are not the same thing, there are cultures that can attain enlightenment and those that cannot, those that can modernise and advance and those that cannot, race has almost nothing to do with it IMHO. My race has had simply more time to struggle and perfect and adapt and advance than others.
Nice to see you back, Cassandra.
Cassandra, You’re dragging red herrings here as we are talking Britain not the colonies.
The British may have taken territories (referred to as colonisation) and taken their culture there but it was a culture only observed by British people and not by the indigenous people.
Take former British colonies in Africa as an example; with the exception of Botswana, which was a Protectorate and not a colony, they’re all in a mess. Nothing has happened there since Europeans gave up running the countries. They’re all racked by corruption, dependent on foreign aid and food handouts.
Please give examples of countries that have thrived apart from those like Australia, New Zealand and Canada whose majority is made up of people transplanted from Europe.
An simple example of what I talking about is; take the English Rugby team to the USA and get them to play a American grid iron football side. They both play with an oval ball on a field. The American spectators would be rolling in the isles. The English players would be screaming foul that they are being discriminated against and want to play the game by rugby union rules. For rules of the game read culture.
There are a few cultures that can co-exist with European cultures and I know of 3; Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. There religions are all based on peaceful non-confrontational basics. However there are not large numbers living in Europe because they have been successful within their own countries.
This country, which is what we are talking about, is being invaded by carpet-baggers who come from 3rd World sh*tholes. The reason their countries are sh*tholes is because their cultures makes them that way.
Can any help me-I have a video to embed that I think is worth seeing…………………….
Embed code should work. If not just paste the link.
Is there any way to get replies to show on iPhone? It’s just a chronological list of comments…