Prophets Of Rage

 

 

 

Sound familiar?  Not a description of a musical version of the EDL but the rap group ‘Public Enemy’:

‘In the late 1980s Public Enemy were the biggest rap group on the planet. Their mission: to raise the consciousness of a generation. With a rebellious attitude to match their militant image they sold millions of records preaching pro-black politics to fans of all races, all done through a groundbreaking wall of noise that changed the sound of hip hop. White, middle Americans were outraged, but their kids loved it.

Not surprisingly, this confrontational approach attracted controversy. Critics claimed the group themselves were racist, exposing racial divides rather than promoting equality. They were banned from some TV and radio stations and when one member reportedly made anti-Semitic remarks in a newspaper interview the resulting media-storm threatened to end their career. Tensions were running high and arguments within the band ended in violence. Could they keep it together long enough to get their message across?’

 

‘Public Enemy’ are playing at Glastonbury (Note the Black Power salutes) and getting documentaries on the BBC…wonder where the EDL will be in 20 years…will they have raised the consciousness of a generation and kept it together long enough to get their message across?

Funny what catches the imagination of the Tristrams and what doesn’t.  Black identity politics is OK….white or non-Muslim identity politics is taboo.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Vive La France

 

Marine Le Pen is spoiling for a fight. The leader of France's Front National vows to smash the existing order of Europe and force the break-up of monetary union, if she wins the next election. It is no longer an implausible prospect.

 

The BBC flooded the airwaves and its web pages with ‘warnings from history’ about the rise of the Far Right in Europe.

 It seems to have gone a bit quiet as Marine Le Pen’s Front National gains credible support in the polls in France…..much of it coming from ‘the Left’.

 

Before the French by-elections the BBC was willing to talk about the ‘fringe’ parties…what it dismissed as the ‘anti-establishment’ vote…but since a sweeping triumph by the Front National in a Socialist bastion all seems to have gone very quiet.

The BBC make a grudging mention of that success but only as a small add-on to another report:

Mr Montebourg attacked Mr Barroso after the far-right National Front made gains in a by-election on Sunday in the southern town of Villeneuve-sur-Lot.

Blink and you’d miss it.

Why such reticence?  Possibly the BBC don’t want to ‘encourager les autres’.  They see UKIP gaining ground in the UK and think that highlighting further successes of ‘the Right’ would add to the momentum leading to more voters looking on these parties as serious contenders.

But just how far ‘right’ is Le Pen?

The BBC may also be embarrassed by this description of the Front National from the Telegraph which paints it as a socialist party with echoes of 1930’s national socialism and Occupy today…

Only a minority of voters still thinks the Front is a “threat to democracy”. Mrs Le Pen is winning over white working class women in droves. The feminized Front is no longer the party of the angry white male. The softer image is why finance minister Pierre Moscovici describes her as “more dangerous than her father”.

It is her defence of the French welfare model and her critique of capitalism that gives her a Leftist hue — some call it 1930s national socialism — so far in outlook from Britain’s UKIP. She sounds like Occupy activists in her attacks on high finance and the way corporations profit from labour arbitrage, playing off wages in the West against cheap labour in Asia. “It is the law of the jungle,” she said.

 

It is curious how in light of that by-election success the BBC can’t find the time or space to analyse what is going on in France….it’s not as if France is just some insignificant country on the fringe of Europe, it is right at the heart of the European project.

What Marine Le Pen is saying must be terrifying for the good Europeans of the BBC as she gathers more and more support:

France’s triumphant ‘Joan of Arc’ vows to bring back franc and destroy euro

Marine Le Pen is spoiling for a fight. The leader of France’s Front National vows to smash the existing order of Europe and force the break-up of monetary union, if she wins the next election.

 

 

No one should get too carried away of course….success can come and go…but it looks like the BBC are burying their heads in the sand and are hoping it will all go away…soon….and they will be doing their best not to give anyone any ideas about jumping on this particular bandwagon.

 

An irony that the EU Empire’s policy of ‘EU Über Alles’ has led to a growth in the very nationalism that it was supposed to prevent.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Bowen and the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood – a reminder

Reading about the demonstrations in Egypt reminded me of BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen’s attempts to sell the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate organisation prior to the overthrow of Mubarak.

Here was his original take in January 2011:
mbmod1
This was the first update:
mbmod2
And what you’ll see now:
mbmod3

Journalism is sometimes called the first rough draft of history. More like the first attempt at spin, with later updates where required.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Banging The Drum For Welfare

 

 

This couple of interviews illustrates the problem with the BBC and the Left’s worldview…that the solution to poverty is not creating a sound economy, a good education, hard work, innovation, entrepreneurship, adapting, improvising and overcoming …the Left’s answer is an ever increasing government spending spree….it is sitting in your state sponsored home waiting for government handouts that keep the recipients in a thought free comfort zone where they no longer have to strive or think for themselves.

The Daily Mail‘s Stephen Glover sums up what is wrong with the BBC and its reporting of the economy and government policies:

Let me say it again. State spending is not being cut. And it’s iniquitous of the BBC to claim otherwise.

 

But now the BBC is in a bit of a panic…the Government is taking a big stick to the welfare system and it looks like Labour has caved in and joined it. Who is going to oppose these vicious cuts to the most vulnerable in society? I guess it will have to be the BBC which sees itself as the ’Official Opposition’ on occasions like these when ‘consensus’ politics breaks out…funny how, in the BBC’s eyes, political clashes in the US are a failure of democracy that block progress whilst in the UK an outbreak of agreement is to be regretted…if it doesn’t reflect BBC opinion.

 

In these two interviews Webb and Davis decide that no one should vote for either party if you care about the poorest in society…Labour because it is not sticking to its core values…the Tories because they are sticking to their core values…which tells you where the BBC sees its own core values:

 

Justin Webb interviews Ed Balls.

Webb opens with:  Labour’s supporters say bang the drum for welfare…..You [Balls] say government reforms might be sensible despite what the charities say…’

Balls says the welfare bill has been rising and the government measures to control it are ineffective. He says that we’ve had a whole series of announcements from government that claim to save money and they’ve ended up not working and being ineffective and welfare and social security bill has been rising.

[So Balls wants to actually make more cuts, and more effective cuts, to welfare?] 

Webb: ‘The Unions say that it is an attack on the most vulnerable in society. It’s really striking this morning that you are not willing to join the General Secretary of the TUC and other people in the charity sector who are saying this is damaging…the whole point they make is that it isn’t fair, and it’s obviously unfair, [tone of voice is all there..sounds more like Webb’s own opinion] is what they say, and if you are labour you will know that in your core.’

Balls: ‘The reality is that for all the government’s nasty, divisive rhetoric on welfare and social security they’ve actually been very bad at controlling the bills. I think we’d have a tougher approach but also a fairer approach.’

[Yet again Balls says he will make more cuts]

Webb: ‘You’re saying you’re tougher than the coalition…that’s your boast this morning?…..What is Labour for, what is the point of voting Labour if , what looks very tough on the most vulnerable, if Labour doesn’t say stop, we’re not going to do that?’ 

 

 

 

Evan Davis and George Osborne

Davis opens with the comment that Osborne is cutting by £11.5 bn but needs to cut a further £23 bn to get deficit where the government wants it.

He says: What is it that you plan for the public services in the long term? But before we get to the really big picture let’s look at welfare.  [Welfare seemingly the real concern of the BBC this morning]

Osborne tells us that he is introducing a welfare package to help people into work and to make sure work always pays….Davis disagrees and thinks it is all an evil plot to impoverish the already poorest in society.

ED: ‘One might interpret it all if you are concerned about the incomes of people at the very bottom and you are not someone who is worried about undeserving and deserving poor and you don’t believe there are lots of scroungers out there, you are just going to be concerned about the incomes of people at the bottom…you should probably vote Labour shouldn’t youthat would be your advise…vote Labour if you want to help the poorest people and vote Conservative if you’re concerned with hard working families and those not on benefits.

You would conclude if you want to help the poorest and you want to put money in their pockets you would vote Labour…otherwise don’t vote Tory.’

Osborne: I don’t accept that.

ED: ‘Why not? That seems to be the point of everything you’ve been saying.’

[Really…Osborne has been saying vote Labour?]

Osborne explains: We want to put more money in the pockets of those with lowest incomes, improve their education, better career opportunities, help dysfunctional families and create a sound economic base.

Davis jumps in..…‘Well other parties would say they want to do that too.’

Davis goes onto question Osborne about the £23 bn shortfall, or ‘Blackhole’ in the public finances that will turn up after the election…for all parties….but Balls didn’t get asked to spell out how he will deal with that.

Davis sums up, as usual deciding he doesn’t really want or need an answer from Osborne…..Davis’ questions so often being rhetorical:

You put the taxes up in the first week of parliament and I’m assuming you would repeat that trick…..you will need to take away from the poorest or the middle income.’

Davis just making up policy and telling the listener this is what the Tories will do…the use of the word ‘trick’ is pejorative, designed to make Osborne appear underhand and deceitful.

 

Then we get onto the important stuff and Davis turns into Ali G asking:

Can you confirm this was a posh burger?’

Clearly Osborne,  a man who won’t eat a McDonald’s burger,  isn’t a man of the people and can’t be trusted to do what is in the ‘People’s’ interest…preferring instead to line the pockets of his Banker friends with the ill gotten gains torn from the grubby outstretched hands of the most vulnerable in society.

 

I just wonder how many McDonald’s Davis has eaten?  No  jokes.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

A Day In The Life Of The BBC Archipelago

 

 

 

 

Some comments from the BBC that perfectly illustrate the BBC world view:

 

“This is called progress….”

Justin Webb tells us that blackouts are threatened (0810)because we ‘carelessly’ decommissioned power stations with nothing much to replace them.

‘Carelessly’?   Really?  Wasn’t it a deliberate plan set in place by Labour, in fact by the present Labour leader, to cripple the UK with CO2 reduction plans that no other country in the world would consider sane or sensible?

Webb goes onto ask Lord Oxburgh: ‘Do you think Ofgen are over the top [in their warnings of blackouts]?’

Lord Oxburgh replied there is a danger, though we’re spoilt in this country with the reliability of our supply [so OK to let it fail occasionally?]….but…..Oxburgh’s solution is supply management…. manufacturers must agree to reduce demand when needed, i.e. shut down…and the tax payer will pay them to do so…there will be no damage to industry [ha ha]…..there are long term and short term power supply problems….but what about all those billions we have ploughed into wind turbines etc?  Has that not solved the problem?

I wonder if there is any link to the Tyndall Centre’s (which funded Harrabin‘s own BBC campaign on AGW) campaign to reduce energy use…even if it means closing down business and a reduced quality of life.

And remember Oxburgh ran one of the inquiries that whitewashed the UEA’s CRU….as well as having close ties to green energy companies (see Bishop Hill again).

 

The BBC do have the grace to mention that Lord Oxburgh is a director of green energy company 2OC, is an advisor to a green investment fund, and is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association….but fail to mention this [via Bishop Hill]:

Lord Oxburgh has moved an amendment to the Energy Bill that would require the country to adopt a 2030 decarbonisation target.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is as good a summary of the corrupt state of the nation as you could possibly want.

 

And no mention of why power station’s are closing…the real reason…Miliband’s CO2 reduction Climate Change Act which is ruinously expensive and damaging to industry….and related to that is that we are continually told by the BBC that people’s cost of living is rocketing…no acknowledgement that it is the price of fuel driven by Miliband’s climate change act that is pushing up those costs so much.

 

 

More from the BBC Archipelago:

Steve Richards from the Independent on  ‘Week in Westminster’…wants to talk about the government‘s ‘Populist focus on welfare’……a phrase the BBC can embrace…it doesn’t like welfare reforms and it doesn’t like anything that smacks of ‘populism’ …such as immigration controls, EU referendums and climate change scepticism.

The BBC would like to think only it has the monopoly on approved thought…and the dismissal of welfare reform as ‘populist’ is fairly typical of the BBC mindset of superiority.

 Richards is a welcome voice on the BBC having been political editor of the New Statesman…and a BBC political journo…and In 2012, The Daily Telegraph ranked Richards as the 34th most influential person of the British left.

 

 And more:

Frank Gardner in From Our Own Correspondent , trying to add interest and colour to his report, gives away military secrets blurting out the location, use and importance of a US military communications hub in Qatar…..an excellent ‘security correspondent’.

 

Yet More:

The BBC’s Caspar Leighton, also on FOOC, reveals that the Senegalese know that wealth trickling down to the poor is a myth.

That’ll be why the richest 1% in the UK pays 30% of the income tax take…never mind the jobs they create and the luxury goods markets that they support…all filtering down.

In some third world countries run by essentially criminal gangs the trickle down effect may be somewhat limited…but the broad brush BBC statement is patently untrue in most cases.

 

Even more:

The BBC has also been keen to push the thoughts of  Lt General Nick Carter who says that we should have negotiated with the Taliban in 2002…Afghanistan is essentially a political problem.  The BBC doesn’t trouble us with what it is exactly we would have talked to the Taliban about…and just how much notice they would take once back in the saddle in Afghanistan….the Taliban solve the political problem of those who disagree by shooting them.

 

More More Moor:

The BBC was headlining this story on its news all day yesterday: The sexual grooming of children has been condemned by Muslim leaders across the UK in a sermon read to thousands of worshippers.

What was missing was any real thoughts on why that message was going out…..the reluctance to break the taboo illustrated by the BBC’s usual reluctance to reveal the single relevant fact about these men…..

Two of the men were of east African origin and five of Pakistani origin.

 

We were told by one Muslim on the radio that the Muslim community opposes the distorted views of women, the widespread disrespectful views of women…but that attitude is due to the lack of male role models and a crisis of masculinity.

Nothing to do with teaching Muslim boys that ‘Women Are No More Than a Lollipop Dropped to the Ground’. and that the Koran says men are worth more than women and can beat their wives.

However, how many times in one article can the BBC repeat the “Koran obligates the safeguarding and protection of women and children.”

The BBC is also quick to point out….It’s clear that most abuse is carried out by white men….which avoids the issue…the choice of victim, how and why that choice is made.

 

And to cap it all off:

Finally we have Paul Mason and, for a BBC economics editor, one of his most desperately political statements:

A whole generation of young people has seen economic promises cancelled: they will work probably until their late sixties, come out of university with lifetime-crippling debts.

Funny how we have learnt that this year more people from low income families than ever have applied to go to university….

The application rate for 18-year olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds has risen to 19.5 per cent, the highest on record – up from 10.7 per cent in 2004.

…because they, even if paul Mason doesn’t, realise the value of their degree and that the student loans are in fact enabling them rather than crippling them…and the fact is that some of them may not have to pay off the loan anyway should they not make vast incomes…say for instance they don’t get a job at the BBC.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

NOT ON THE BBC

After the fanfare given to the start of the George Zimmerman trial the BBC has gone a bit quiet on the topic. And I don’t just mean a lack of updated reports, I mean no tweets from its journalists or anything. The testimony of the prosecution’s surprise “star witness” Rachel Jeantel has been very poor to say the least. She told the court Trayvon Martin had referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker” and “nigger”, she used the word “retarded” (another big no-no in PC America), admitted she didn’t know who threw the first punch, and was unable to read a letter she had supposedly written to Martin’s mother. One black blogger said Jeantel’s performance was “cringe-inducing, embarrassing, and mortifying to watch.” The testimony, especially the “cracker” comment, has been so damaging, it seems, that the Martin family attorney suddenly declared last night that the trial was not about race after all, even though that is the line the prosecution has been pushing.

No doubt the BBC will pick up the tale again when things start going better for the prosecution.

In a similar vein, here are a couple of other stories about violent attacks with a strong racial element that have been in the news in the US this past week. Neither has been covered by the BBC.

Ex-Camp Pendleton Marines who killed husband-wife should get death penalty, jury finds

Two ex-Camp Pendleton Marines should be executed for the brutal torture-slaying of Brooklyn-raised Marine Sgt. Jan Pietrzak and his young bride, a California jury has decided.

Convicted shooter Emrys John, 23, and fellow ex-Marine Tyrone Miller, 25, were part of a robbery gang that stormed the victims’ southern California house in October 2008, beat and hog-tied Pietrzak and forced him to watch as Quiana Jenkins-Pietrzak was sexually assaulted with a pink vibrator and then shot the newlyweds in their heads, using couch cushions as silencers.

A third ex-Marine, Kevin Cox, 25, should get life in prison without parole for his role in the shocking crime… A fourth man charged with the murders, Kesaun Sykes, is being tried separately…

Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Daniel DeLimon apologized to jurors for showing the graphic crime scene photos during his opening statement in April.

“I did it because you need to know,” he said, describing the double slaying as a “sadistic” game played by four cold-blooded killers.

Some photos showed racial slurs spray-painted inside the mixed race couple’s house.

It has all the elements of a perfect BBC US story, but it wasn’t covered. Why? Perhaps the pictures of the victims and the convicted thugs hold the answer:

pietrzak

pietrzak2

And here’s video of a young mother being savagely attacked in her home by an intruder as her young child watched on. Again, I can’t help thinking that if the colours of the attacker and victims were reversed we’d have seen an edited version of this video on the BBC website by now (I say edited because the attack is so brutal – not an easy watch):

Some stories fit the preferred narrative. Others do not.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you shall follow me afterwards

 

 The final image of Dr Jacob Bronowski, in his “Ascent of Man”, standing in the mud at Auschwitz is implanted in my brain. He wept and said that Auschwitz and, by implication, all the other hell-holes constructed by Man, is the unavoidable destination reached by the denial and silencing of truth.

‘It’s said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That’s false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods….so it is religion that turns men into numbers.’

 

 

The BBC tells us that Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are banned from the UK:

The letters [from the Home Secretary], both dated Tuesday, claim that both activists have fallen within the scope of a list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements which may “foster hatred” and lead to “inter-community violence” in the UK.

Both letters gave examples of anti-Muslim views stated by both and went on to say that should they be allowed to enter the UK the home secretary believes they would “continue to espouse such views”.

 

This is the quote that got Robert Spencer banned from the UK:

‘It is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. But unfortunately because of political correctness and because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.’

 

None of the usual comparisons of remarks made by other people that the BBC so often drag out  when it suits them on occasions like this so that we can judge the comparative seriousness of the comments.

 

Perhaps I can help out with a few.

 

I wonder, based on that, how many of these people will be welcome in the UK:

 

 

Asked by presenter Matthew Parris whether there were any circumstances in which terrorism was justified, David Miliband said:

‘Yes, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective.’

 

How about our ex- Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: Woolwich attack shows there is a ‘problem within Islam’

The former Prime Minister said the ideology that inspired the act of terror that shocked Britain last month is ‘profound and dangerous’

“It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies,” he said.

 

How about the Mayor of London?

After the July 7 London bombings, Johnson called Islam “the most vicious sectarian of all religions,” and posed the question: “When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?”  “Islam”, he wrote, “is the problem.”

 

 

What about George Galloway MP…or should that be HMP?

To Iraqi terrorists: ‘These poor Iraqis — ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable by the people who occupy it.’

To Saddam Hussein:  “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability and I want you to know that we are with you, until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem!”

 

What of Prince Charles and all those who hob nob with Middle Eastern Royalty? 

Charles was thrilled to be strengthening “relations which are underpinned by the close personal friendship that exists between their royal highnesses and the Saudi royal family”. Unaffected by regular reports about torture, intolerance and oppression and, in 2011, the country’s participation in Bahrain’s violent crushing of dissent, the prince’s affection for Saudi Arabia’s innumerable royals has blossomed over his eight official visits and intervening meetings in Britain, to the point that Highgrove is irrevocably – even if no floral roundabouts and municipal visits are involved – twinned with Jeddah.

When he endorses the oppression of Saudi women, Charles will also, with his retinue of arms salesmen, be giving a British blessing to the country’s religious and political intolerance, its torture, absolutism, imprisonment without trial, capital punishment for minors, pardons for rapist fathers, deals with al-Qaida, opposition to nearby democratic movements and executions for apostasy, homosexuality and adultery. Any of them – but perhaps, particularly, the last – might strike this enlightened royal and his wife as a good reason to remember an urgent appointment with a plant.

 

 

And what about Tony Lloyd…PCC for Greater Manchester? :

“Geller and Spencer are dangerous, they only want to come to stir up hatred and incite violence. Let’s make a stand together and say – you are not welcome in our proud land,” Tony added.

Tony has signed a Hope Not Hate open letter calling on the Home Secretary to deny Geller and Spencer a visa.

 

 

I wonder what drove Lloyd’s decision?

Tony Lloyd, MP for Manchester Central, said he had a longstanding relationship with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at. He said that under the leadership of Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmadaba, Ahmadi Muslims constantly displayed values of love and peace.

 

or could it be this show of support from the ‘devout’ Muslims of ‘Engage’:

The PCC Elections: Obama who? Vote for that Tony Lloyd geezer.

Because hardly anyone knows about these elections, and even less will bother voting, this will be an election that can basically be framed as one for the freaks i.e. only those who are completely going to be affected are going to even bother promoting this and encouraging their people to vote, because in the absence of other block voters, your vote will be many times more powerful. Get it?

And then you’ve got the other vested parties, the “good” ones i.e. the Muslims. See, we also need to really get out there and not only block nutters like Carroll, but also ensure that we pressurise our local candidates in committing to bringing forth changes that will be fairer and safer to the most oppressed people in this country at the moment. Us.

 

 

or could it be Lloyd’s friendly relations with the terrorists of Hamas?

 

 I wonder if that is the same Tony Lloyd who posted a comment condemning an Islamic state on this blog?:

 

pakistan1

 

Inayat’s Corner

At the very least, Pakistan has buried the idea that an ‘Islamic State’ can be a workable solution in today’s world. The truth is that Muslims in power are every bit as prone to abusing that power as non-Muslims. Only, most ‘Islamic states’ or ‘Islamic republics’ do not have anywhere near the same legal safeguards and restrictions on power that most modern secular states do.

Tony Lloyd says:

January 9, 2011 at 1:10 pm

Good post, I entirely agree about the dangerous nature of an “Islamic state”. Of course much the same problems can arise with a “Christian”, “Hindu”, or “Atheist” state.

The “state” should be a mechanism for living together, not for securing an ideology.

This murder re-enforces the argument for secularism.

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Slaying The Prophets

To open a discussion in the world about something which deeply concerns everyone, and of which it was previously ignorant, to prove to it that it is mistaken on some vital point of temporal or spiritual interest, is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow-creatures. That the messengers of these ideas should be martyred, that their reward should be to be dealt with as the vilest of criminals is a deplorable error and misfortune.

It will be said that we do not now put to death the introducers of new opinions: we are not like our fathers who slew the prophets. It is true we no longer put heretics to death: and the amount of penal infliction which modern feeling would probably tolerate, even against the most obnoxious opinions, is not sufficient to extirpate them. But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free from the stain even of legal persecution.’

 

 

 

 The BBC’s Nihal from the Asian Network was once asked this:

What do you think about Morrissey’s row with the NME over his comments on immigration?

And replied thus:

Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a toss what Morrissey says about race. No one really cares what he says about immigration because he has no influence on the political debate. Let him say what he wants to say because he has every right to say it. We live in a democracy.

 

 

The BBC has entered into the zone from which it has so long recoiled…that of discussing ‘Islam’ as a religion, what it proclaims and the values it demands of its followers. However they seem to be playing it ’safe’ by choosing Nihal, an Asian, to present the show demonstrating their nervousness about the subject…a white Christian obviously not having the ‘cultural capital’ or the right ’privilege’ to allow him to talk about such a subject…in the BBC’s mind.

Two American ‘counter Jihadists’ , Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, were planning to come to the UK to lay some wreaths for Drummer Lee Rigby at an EDL organised event. This has been vociferously opposed by various groups and the BBC produced this programme asking if they should be banned from the UK.

 

Events have somewhat overtaken this post as Spencer and Geller have now both been banned from coming to the UK but that is a side issue here.

Spencer claims that he is drawing attention to the texts and teachings in Islam used by the Jihadis to justify their violence and says his work says nothing about all Muslims, just Jihadis, and he wants the Koran reformed….as do many Muslims.

To answer the question the BBC has to examine what ‘counter Jihadists’ say about Islam and then get a response from some ‘authority’ on Islam to try and counter their narrative by giving their own explanation and interpretation of the Koran for the listener.

Interestingly Nihal admits later that he has been repeatedly asked by Muslims to bring on an Imam to his show to talk about the claims that people such as Spencer make about the Koran.

This is exactly what this site has been asking the BBC to do…just as it has done for all other religions…..challenging and explaining their beliefs, values and the historical basis for their scriptures.

Nihal has a pretty good interview in many respects…skewering both the ‘Hope Not Hate’ spokesman and the Imam that came on to counter Spencer…..but you get the impression that Nihal was scrabbling around desperately for something to pin on Spencer who gave perfectly sound and reasonable answers and explanations.

Nihal in the end resorted to asking why, when we have so many people in this country already saying what Spencer says, do we need more people coming here to add to those voices? A pretty weak question if ever there was one.

Here is another such question that is hugely ironic when you consider what the BBC has done to Christianity….

Nihal states if you write a book called ‘Did Muhammed Exist?’, as Spencer has, you are provoking the wrath of many people who believe Muhammed to be dearer to them than their own family members….and asks…‘Is Spencer here to create racial hatred and communal disharmony or to put across a valid point?’

Why would pointing out the ‘medieval’ parts of the Koran or asking if Muhammed existed lead to racial hatred and communal disharmony?

 

Nihal brings on Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate and asks him: ‘Can you quote something Robert Spencer has said that is islamophobic?’ [The interview is paraphrased for brevity]

NL: ‘No….but he wrote a book ‘Did Muhammed Exist? And he’s a leading member of the Counter-Jihad movement.’

N: ‘Are you not counter Jihad?’

NL: ‘I am…I’m against all extremism but I think you’ll find that Spencer is not just against Jihadists but against all Muslims.’

N: ‘But can you quote something he’s said that is islamophobic?’

NL: ‘His organisation has produced adverts that call Muslims savages.’

N: ‘The advert says support Israel and defeat Jihad…the savage is the Jihadi surely?’

NL: ‘You have to look at the wider context…another poster from Spencer in 2010 said Islam equals 1400 years of aggression and murder.’

N: [Hasn’t heard of that poster]…’You can’t give me a single quote that says he’s islamophobic.’

[irony….Lowles wants to ban Spencer for his writing….claiming Spencer is an extremist because he wants to ban or change the Koran…difference of course that the koran advoctaes killing….Spencer does not.]

Nick Lowles goes onto attack Pamela Geller for a post she wrote examining why Breivik wanted to attack the Labour Party in Norway and her statement that Muslims have ‘Holocaust envy.’

Spencer than comes on.

He says that the advert Lowles mentioned was referring to the ‘savages’ who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam….and those like the Palestinian Authority who handed out candy to celebrate the slaughter of the Jewish Fogel family, and that Geller is misquoted.

Nihal says that Muslims are under ever increasing attack in the UK…day on day they are suffering attacks in fact. And asks ‘What help is it for you to come here to the UK…are you bringing peace, unity and harmony by demonising British Muslims?’

Sp: ‘No one is demonising British Muslims.’

N: ‘Well… they are.’

Spencer goes on to say that the quote attributed to him by Lowles about 1400 years of Muslim aggression and murder was never said by him and he has never put out an advert saying that.

 

Nihal  asks why would a non-Muslim write a book asking ‘Did Muhammed Exist’ if it wasn’t purely to provoke Muslims.

Surely the BBC would never consider doing anything so provocative?

This programme for instance: ‘Did Jesus die on the cross?’

Nothing ‘provocative’ about that?    Nothing wrong with questioning ‘the most famous event in history…the Crucifixion.’

The Crucifixion and resurrection….the cornerstone of the Christian faith…to doubt it is to undermine the whole basis of Christianity, the primary part, the heart of Christianity.

Here the BBC is ‘challenging the truth of biblical stories…that Jesus didn’t die is an explosive idea for Christians.’

 

Still…it’d be rude to ask if Muhammed really existed wouldn’t it?  You know…just to see if there was any evidence….where’s the harm?

 

Nihal then brings on an Imam…Yusuf Dohadwala [?] who says that quotes from the Koran are easily taken out of context.

Nihal here states that he has had many requests from Muslims to bring on an Imam to counter the arguments of the counter jihadists.

He asks the Imam ‘As an Imam who has studied the Koran and knows it inside out and back to front, please explain the context for these quotes…..the EDL and their like will make up their own minds what the Koran says if no one interprets it for them.’

Yusuf replies that ‘There are 3 million Muslims in the UK, they follow the Koran…am I ordered by the Koran, which I follow fully, from the time of 1400 years ago during the time of Jihad and fighting to kill Jews and Christians? No I am not.’

He continues: ‘If it says that Jews and Christians are inferior it is all about context….if it says they are unclean it means spiritually unclean.’

Nihal asks where in the Koran does it say everybody is equal?

Yusuf quotes a verse that he claims says this which shows how Muslims value all human lives:

“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”

But in fact what the verse says in the Koran is this:

5:32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.

Following that verse is this which clearly indicates Allah is unconcerned by killing or torture:

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

Most merciful indeed.

Nihal doesn’t accept the Imam’s answer and asks again where the Koran says everyone is equal.

The Imam hilariously says he wasn’t asked on to talk about that and he isn’t able to quote anything off the top of his head.

Nihal exclaims: ‘But You’re an Imam!’

Yusuf says yes but this is more Robert Spencer’s field…knowing what the Koran says!

The Imam adds that wife beating is not sanctioned in the Koran….Spencer reads out the relevant passage from the Koran:

4.34 Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.

 

 

I think it is more than apparent that Spencer’s opponents were both struggling to come up with any real counter to his comments….and to deny the truth about what he says the Koran really says and means.

Lowles lied about the content of one advert and then went on to lie about another claiming Spencer said something which he hadn’t in fact said.

The Imam deliberately misquoted the verse from the Koran which had nothing to do with ‘Muslims’ but was in fact ‘reporting’ an historical event concerning the Jews….this verse is regularly so misquoted by Muslims and apologists for Islam using it as the basis for their usual claim that Islam is the ‘religion of peace’.

This shows the limitations of BBC presenters….Nihal didn’t pick up that misquote…but it is  widely quoted and well known…..perhaps he should have been ready with the real quote?

Nihal was game to tackle both sides of the argument but he lacked the ammunition to do battle properly…especially when some speakers were less than honest.

 

 

Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate also had a try at painting Pamela Geller as some sort of Nazi extremist and tried to connect her to Breivik.

In 2011 Geller published an article examining the reasons for Breivik’s crimes…this naturally, as it suits their agenda (as we’ve seen they are not beyond making things up), was reinterpreted by the likes of Hope Not Hate as support for Breivik.

Geller examined the state of politics in Norway, in particular the anti-Semitism of the governing Labour Party and what the young people were doing on the island.

It is apparent that Norway does not like Israel…and supports Hamas and the Palestinians and is prepared to excuse Palestinian terrorism as it’s ‘in a good cause’.

The events on the island were described as a ‘summer camp’ but were in fact a highly political event designed to indoctrinate the young Labour members…..and not only about Labour politics but about the rights and wrongs of the Palestine/Israel conflict.

This post was used as ‘evidence’ that Geller is an extremist herself and an apologist for Breivik.

Here is an example of what may be a bit of black propaganda from her opponents….Geller included a photograph from the camp on her post….this is what her opponents claim is a screen shot of that photo…note the caption:

Pam Geller Justifies Breivik’s Terror: Youth Camp Had More ‘Middle Eastern or Mixed’ Races Than ‘Pure Norwegian’

Under the picture, Geller writes: “Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.”

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gellerscreenshot.png

 

 

This is the picture and caption that they posted on their own article…note the difference in the way the caption is placed.

 

 

 

That article was dated Aug 1.….but I can find no cache of what they claim is Geller’s original caption…..which should have been posted on July 31.

 

What we do find is her ‘present’ post still dated 31 July…and from the ‘Wayback Machine’ the very same post cached on Aug 1.

 

The caption on Geller’s post reads:

The camp was run by the Youth Movement of the Labour Party and used to indoctrinate teens and young adults.’

The caption claimed to be hers on the screen shot does not make sense…it is claimed to say:

‘Note the faces which are more Middle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.’

Look at the photo…where are these Middle Eastern students or the mixed race ones? There is one patently Asian man and one equally obviously African girl…the rest are nearly all white and blond….and no obvious ‘mixed race’ at all.

Is it possible that those attacking Geller are not above changing the caption…..how do we get two different versions of the same screen shot with the caption placed differently?

 

Nick Lowles also claimed that her statement that Muslims suffer from ‘Holocaust envy’ is utterly wrong…is it? Don’t Muslims frequently claim they are the ‘new Jews of Europe’?

Here’s what Labour’s Muslim MP, Shahid Malik had to say:

‘Britain’s first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe”.

Shahid Malik, who was appointed as a minister in the Department for International Development (Dfid) by Gordon Brown last summer, said it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority

“I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.’

 

How about this:

 

 

THE GRANDCHILDREN OF HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS FROM WORLD WAR II ARE DOING TO THE PALESTINIANS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE TO THEM BY NAZI GERMANY…

There they are quoting the Norwegian, no surprise there maybe, 1st Secretary of the Norwegian embassy in Saudi Arabia:

Trine Lilleng is the first secretary of the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia.  Few know her but for the fact that she recently made this claim: “The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany.”‘

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

That “Conservative” Supreme Court

In the Monday open thread, I called attention to the BBC’s misrepresentation of the US Supreme Court’s vote to overrule an Appeals Court ruling upholding racial preferences in university admissions. The BBC claimed that the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative since 2003, when the Court originally voted to uphold racial preferences, and on which the present case was based. This was a BBC suggestion as to the cause of the ruling.

I called that assessment into question, not only because the vote was 7-1 (with the very Left-wing Kagan recusing herself, as she supported the case in a previous job), with two liberal Justices joining the majority, but because the Court had in 2003 and still has now a liberal majority, 5-4.

The Justices in 2003:

Chief Justice Rehnquist – conservative
Stevens – liberal
O’Connor – conservative
Scalia – conservative
Kennedy – liberal
Souter – liberal
Thomas – conservative
Ginsburg – liberal
Breyer – liberal

5 liberal – 4 conservative

Today’s Court:

Chief Justice Roberts – conservative
Alito – conservative
Kennedy – liberal
Thomas – conservative
Sotomayor – liberal
Ginsburg – liberal
Scalia – conservative
Breyer – liberal
Kagan – liberal

5 liberal – 4 conservative

Today, the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred homosexual couples from having certain benefits and rights that heterosexual couples have. Spot the missing President who originally signed the bill into law. Can you guess which political party he was? Can you guess which leading Presidential candidate for 2016 with a close personal connection to him? Blatant bias by omission there. I do hope they add this relevant bit of information as the story “evolves” (i.e. an editor tells them to stop hiding what they already know). (UPDATE: The story has evolved. The BBC now mentions Clinton, although not his party. But they get points for admitting that it had bi-partisan support in Congress. Mark Mardell would have been pleased with their determination to reach across the aisle to get things done.)

This uncomfortable fact was also censored from the BBC’s Q&A on the issue of homosexual marriage. All you’re told is that the law was “passed by Congress” in 1996. Of course, when The Obamessiah signs a bill into law, it’s all about Him doing it. When it’s a law they don’t like, particularly when it’s one signed by a darling Democrat, there’s no President to be seen.

Also, check out how the Justices voted. Exactly along the labels I gave them above. More conservative still?

What’s funny is that this is now the third major ruling in the last year in which the Supreme Court ruled on the liberal side of an issue. They upheld the key portions of ObamaCare, and struck down the key part of Arizona’s “controversial” law about dealing with illegal immigration. Now with this decision, the Left-wing/Progressive faction has victories in the three biggest issues. Yet the BBC describes the Court as becoming more conservative when it returns a decision to the lower court. Note that no law was struck down or upheld specifically by the racial preferences ruling, but rather rejected a lower court’s decision. The law is still in place, yet the BBC decided to plant the notion that the Court had become more conservative, in spite of the evidence.

Now that there’s yet another Left-wing victory, the BBC is not pointing out the liberal majority on the Court, or even daring to remind you of the political party which originally signed the DoMA into law. Is the Court still trending conservative, BBC?

The BBC should simply shut down the entire US division and replace them all with a shaved orangutan managing a news aggregator. You’d be more and better informed, and tens of millions of pounds would be saved.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Open Thread Wednesday

 

Victoria Derbyshire can’t stop and won’t stop talking.

She was rabbiting on about Ian Brady much to the annoyance of listeners who texted in to say ‘no more….it’s just giving him the publicity he craves.’

She read out some of the texts and said ‘Their point is that we shouldn’t be reporting on this ….’

To which she added….‘…which is another debate.’      

Made me laugh anyway.

Another open thread….carry on…tell us what it is about the BBC that makes you laugh……

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

TV LICENSING GETS ANTI-LICENSING VID REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE

Over the past 24 hours the BBC has, quite rightly, made a big deal about the intimidation of its journalists in Turkey.

Bear that in mind.

Also in the past 24 hours – an unassuming little animated film promoting opposition to the TV license (the source of the BBC’s wealth) was posted on YouTube. It mocked the current TV Licensing “Excuses” campaign [See original TV Licensing ad here – comments disabled, you’ll notice]. I watched it on YouTube myself this morning. It’s not there any more. Here’s what you’ll find in its place:

tvlic

The video is now available on LiveLeak, although for how long is anybody’s guess. This is what TV Licensing doesn’t want YouTube to show, claiming copyright infringement:

Does anybody really think that a “copyright claim” was the real reason they wanted that video pulled from YouTube? Nasty authoritarian bastards.

Don’t pay the license fee. (H/t http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Cold Comfort Harm

 

 

As Boris Johnson might say….‘it sounds like a trivial thing to get worked up about, but one trivial thing leads to another.’

 

The BBC presented us with another exotic adventure chasing wild animals in out of the way places…this time Tigers in Siberia in ‘Operation Snow Tiger.’

Awesome landscape with some majestic beasties, the programme itself promised to be somewhat formulaic but was rescued by an unexpected turn of events….watch it and see for yourself.

 

However one tiny little thing jarred….the naivety of the presenter or the compete lack of awareness of history and context.

The programme was trying to investigate the likely survival of Tigers in Siberia in the face of various threats…from land use, poaching, disease and the like.

At 26 mins in the presenter gave us a history lesson telling us:

‘Poaching here hasn’t always been a problem.  Back in the days of the Soviet Union stricter management of the landscape and its wildlife saw tiger numbers rise…but when Communism collapsed so did the economy.  People turned to the forests for food and as capitalism took hold and the  borders opened an illegal trade in animal parts for Chinese medicine took off…tiger numbers declined dramatically.’

 

 

Let’s hear it for the Communists from a BBC presenter stood in the snows of Siberia…the same snows that helped kill off nearly 2 million of the 30 million or so prisoners in the Gulags or the forced labour camps who were worked to death and many of whose bones lie under the very roads they built and over which the self same presenter probably travelled to get to her picturesque film location.

 

As I said a small and almost trivial point…but not really…not if it gives people watching a romantic, nostlagic view of Communism that it very definitely doesn’t deserve….and maybe somewhere down the line makes them think well what if..maybe we could just try it and see….

 

Boris Johnson has a similarly dim view of some of the BBC’s PC world views which are small but damaging nonetheless…here changing the dating system from BC/AD to BCE/CE:

 

This decision by the BBC is not only puerile and absurd. It is also deeply anti-democratic, and I urge all those who are fed up with the advance of pointless political correctness to fight back.

The BBC is almost alone in Western democracies in being a state-funded broadcaster. Even though I get most of my news from papers or the internet, I pay through the nose for the privilege of having a TV. I think the last bill was about £148. We all pay through the nose. And therefore I think we deserve to be consulted before the corporation makes a decision of immense cultural importance, a decision that affects the way we will ask our children to think about the history of our civilisation.

If the BBC is going to continue to put MMXI at the end of its programmes – as I think it does – then it should have the intellectual honesty to admit that this figure was not plucked from nowhere. We don’t call it 2011 because it is 2011 years since the Chinese emperor Ai was succeeded by the Chinese emperor Ping (though it is); nor because it is 2011 years since Ovid wrote the Ars Amatoria. It is 2011 years since the (presumed) birth of Christ. I object to this change because it reflects a pathetic, hand-wringing, Lefty embarrassment about thousands of years of cultural dominance by the West.

There was Christ, and if the BBC doesn’t want to date events from the birth of Christ then it should abandon the Western dating system. Perhaps it should use the Buddhist calendar, which says that it is the 2,555th year since the nirvana of Lord Buddha. Perhaps it should have a version of the old Roman calendar, and declare that this is the fourth year of the fourth consulship of Silvio Berlusconi.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Florence Nightingale or A Labour Cuckoo In The Nest?

 

 

It is always apparent that any programme that uses audience participation either in a phone in or like Question Time, actually imports an audience, is vulnerable to those people who under cover of being someone unaffiliated with any agenda are in fact political, big business, religious or other activists or lobbyists peddling their own interests.

 

With that in mind it should be encumbent on the likes of the BBC to weed out such people if possible….and failing that, they  ensure that any guests they have onto any show are there to provide informed comment unadulterated by their politics, comment which informs and educates the listener without them being sandbagged by partisan voices masquerading as the honest truth.

 

This Friday Nicky Campbell was discussing Jeremy Hunt’s comments that he could not guarantee that all NHS hospitals were completely safe.

Who did Campbell have on as his prime speaker?

Dr John Ashton….the same Dr John Ashton who says  it is a basic human right to belong to a political party but insists his concerns about the bill are based on professional, not personal or political opinion.

He said: “I have always been open about the fact that I have been a member of the Labour party since I was 17. For me it is my values and in my blood.” ‘

 

The same Dr John Ashton who strongly opposes the Government’s health service reforms:

A LIVERPOOL doctor said it was “outrageous” he had been summoned to a disciplinary hearing for criticising the Health Bill.

 

Campbell didn’t bother to reveal that link to Labour or his views on the health reforms.

 

But such links might explain the views he did express on  the show:

Private sector values corrode and corrupt public service ethics that were part of the NHS since its inception…the solidarity of the NHS has been torn apart and the workforce alienated.

 

He believes that Jeremy Hunt is trying to privatise the NHS by the backdoor and that when a caller suggested that Hunt’s comment about not guaranteeing the safety of NHS hospitals  was a deliberate policy to undermine the NHS and give him an excuse to privatise it, Ashton said he ‘absolutely agreed with that’.

 

Funny old world…when Labour were getting a lot of flak for Stafford they were keen to claim that the ‘vicitms’ of that regime were being ‘forgotten’…now all they want to talk about is the politics and the blame that can be piled onto the Tories if possible.

 

Shame the BBC gives a platform to someone who is so obviously completely opposed to this government in every way when they present him as a impartial commenter…..all the worse on a ‘phone-in’ when we know that many callers are not the disinterested parties that they claim to be and so we need a credible, informed and balanced voice…something that the BBC in this case so obviously failed to provide.

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Details Details

 

Just how much work does the BBC put into researching any subject in preparation for an interview?  When interviewing someone about a report that criticises the interviewee severely it might be well to read that report and test what the interviewee claims against what that report actually says.

 

On the Today programme today Jill Finney, former deputy chief executive of the Care Quality Commission claimed that:

‘As soon as Grant Thornton were appointed to this inquiry the first thing I did was to advise them of the existence of this report and I made it available to them and urgerd them to read it.’

 

Grant Thornton says different, it says the fact that there had been an internal report and that it had been ‘hidden’ was unknown to them for a long time:

During the course of our enquiries it was brought to our attention by an internal CQC source that in the latter part of 2011, during the period of “Gold Command” and other activity that culminated in CQC launching its Investigation into UHMB, an internal review of regulatory decision making and activity had been conducted by Mr J, a senior CQC individual. The source commented that a report had been produced (the “Mr J report”) but that it had not been disseminated or circulated within CQC, despite the fact that it was understood by the source that one of the main purposes of the review was to identify lessons to be learnt from the regulation of UHMB.

6.2 Hitherto we had not been advised of an internal review having been conducted along the lines described to us, which we considered unusual given there appeared to be a clear parallel with the work we had been instructed to do.

We raised the issue with Mr G who indicated some recollection of a report prepared by Mr J. He advised that he did not have a copy of the report but would make enquires and suggested Mr F, another senior CQC individual, might have a copy.

6.4 On 18 September 2012, Mr G emailed us a copy of a report entitled: “Summary of the internal review of the regulatory decisions and activity at UHMB” and advised that this was the Mr J report418

.

Finney claimed that the CQC did not address the report’s concerns because it actually praised the CQC and the CQC could see that that conclusion was obviously wrong….they were not trying to hide anything.

 

Again Grant Thornton seems to differ on that  conclusion:

Having considered the report’s findings and explicit criticisms, we recognised the potential parallel with the Whistleblower’s concerns and therefore sought to determine why its existence had not been drawn to our attention earlier. We were not convinced by the explanation that the report was poorly written and unfit for disclosure and, in any event, its substance was, in our view, of key relevance to our investigation.

 

 

When I read the report by Grant Thornton those passages stood out immediately….shame the world’s finest news broadcaster doesn’t have the time to research it’s interview subjects and dig out the relevant material that might actually make an interview worthwhile and enlightening if it actually can challenge what an interviewee claims.

Finney claimed that the CQC was going to rewrite the internal report….did the BBC ask her where then is the rewritten report?  No. 

What was the point of the interview other than an opportunity for Finney to deny any fault on her part?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone