Monday morning arrives and with it the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. The first 30 minutes have been one sustained leftist howl from the State Broadcaster. First up, the BBC hypes up the alleged tax evasions of HSBC, dating back to Labour’s period in power. On comes Margaret Hodge to remind us how evil the “banisters” are. Then we had an item on WHY British business must be made to double the amount of paternity leave for fathers if Labour gets in. Then we had an item begrudging the VICTORY of Tony Abbott in Australia over those who would unseat him. The BBC have never liked Abbott and their coverage makes this clear. Oh and the ONE item the comrades managed to miss was a mass gathering of Muslims at the Cenotaph in London demanding an end to free speech in the UK. I guess the BBC are no longer #jesuischarlie?
BBC STARTS THE WEEK IN STYLE
Bookmark the permalink.
My top health tip. Don’t watch or listen to any BBC news programmes until after the election. You know how manically pro Labour they will be.
…. and, of course to add balance (?) to Margaret Hodge (Labour), Rachel Reeves (Labour) wobbles on – and when questions were put to her as to Ed Balls’ knowledge of the issues regarding HSBC (since the problems basically arose when Labour was in power) queried whether it was right to bring this up, since we obviously need to move on, and haven’t the Conservatives been found guilty yet again ?
And where the hell was the pertinent question from the BBC regarding Margaret Hodge’s well-known predilections for avoiding tax when she’s busy lambasting others for doing so ?
And finally, we seem to have developed a new opening line for a key segment of the Today programme – it’s called the “And-now-let’s-look-at-what-the-papers-are-saying-the-Guardian-leads-with…..” opening.
I haven’t listened to Today for years, pompous self important biased reporting at its worst, but it is increasingly irritating that Radio 3 in the morning has to tell us what’s in the papers, or rather of course, the Guardian, the Independent, and if it’s an anti government story, any of the other papers.
If it`s not the Guardian-which it usually is-then it`s-by Jove!-the Daily Mirror.
Plenty mentions of it this morning-between them they comprise most of the BBC stories at the moment.
And-seeing it`s a “redtop”-they can claim the old muffler, rattle and dress as the working class chappie that takes a strong teas whilst reading Andy Capp!
Up the workers!…but never enough to ask Mr Balls, the Lady Hodge or Sir Piers what exactly they were doing, allowing or hacking when THEY would have been doing their worst.
We are where we are -time to move on.
But not Rotherham, mid-Staffs or Woolwich if you don`t mind….
WHY NOW?
This is an old story. The BBC has known this since 2007 but splash it a week after Miliband was leading on tax evasion?
The BBC, like they did with the deluge of NHS stories over the past couple of months, get right on message.
The choreography is yet again remarkable. The BBC and Labour working together on the infamous grid, the objective to return Labour to power?
Pincer movements. Supported by heavy weaponising.
Just heard the ‘Today’ 8am interviews and notice that although they had the Tory minister along to grill him, they failed to have Balls along, simply accepting his ‘off air’ word that ‘he knew nothing’.
It’s interesting to note that this story has been produced in cooperation with the International Consortium of International Journalists (ICIJ) of which Duncan Campbell is a founder member.
Campbell’s left wing credentials are impeccable; Guardian, New Statesman…oh and according to Wiki, a former Member of Labour’s National Executive Committee.
Who’d have thought it!
BBC investigative journalism at its best!
Monday morning special again. Publish the story in the early hours before the Government have a chance to rebuke it.
You saved me writing the same story.
“It was Ed Balls that done it guv!”
Ah yes, the car crash of an interview on Radio 4 at 08.05 this morning. The BBC thought they had the conservatives/coalition in their cross hairs but following the interview with our chap from the ministry, it would appear that the BBC were pointing the gun the wrong way! Classic. It was Ed Balls that new about the tax evasion in 2005 to 2007 and beyond. But did the BBC interviewer accept this? No of course not the date stamp would only go back as far as 2010. If ever there was evidence of the BBC now being nothing more than the Labour Party broadcasting arm then this was it, pure and simple. And as Richard D points out, where were the pertinent questions concerning the involvement of the Labour Party and of its members? Nowhere.
The BBC, a laugh a minute but a very expensive joke for the good people of Great Britain.
Over the weekend there was much talk about the pensioners being ‘bribed’ by the government with the extension of pensioner bonds.
I’m quite sure if this had been Labour policy it would have been presented as a caring government looking after the elderly, but seeing as it’s the Tories it’s an evil & cynical plot to use taxpayers money to buy votes.
I have to say that there is no doubt pensioners have not been touched by austerity, and are just about the only group to have seen increases in their standard of living.
Today the BBC went through all the gifts the pensioners have been given by the coalition (presented as evil Tories). I have to admit that it is completely unfair that a younger person has to pay the ‘bedroom tax’ but a pensioner living in a mansion doesn’t, nor are they having to pay their share of council tax following cuts to local government.
Meanwhile the insane anti business policies of Labour, extending paternity leave is presented as a good thing, despite the majority of fathers not taking it.
“…unfair that a younger person has to pay the ‘bedroom tax’ but a pensioner living in a mansion doesn’t”
I pose this as a sincere question, but are apples being compared with apples here?
My understanding was that what the BBC quotes people it likes call a Bedroom Tax was more benefits, and hence proactively funded by public tax revenue.
Pensioner ‘mansions’ are usually the result of personal investment, upon which taxes and rates are paid, surely? Private choice feeding public purse, such as social housing.
In all these debates it also seems some are attracted to ‘things’ others have created, to fund their notions of redistribution.
But seldom are the index-linked pensions of those keen to take from others to give to their voting base raised, along with the complementary living cost deals enjoyed by such as Bob Crow.
Yes apples are being compared with apples here.
Take as an example two neighbours in three bed homes both live alone, one aged 60 the other 68, both in receipt of income support. One has to pay council tax and ‘bedroom tax’ and the older one doesn’t.
It shows the Tories argument that they need the larger homes to freed up to be a lie, and the so called bedroom subsidy also to be untrue.
If pensioners also had to pay the council tax, as the largest group in receipt of benefits, then the cost would be lowered for everyone and the result would be fairer. As pensioners receive more money than most other benefits claimants then it could be an even larger cut.
If you don’t like the Bedroom Tax, don’t pay it. Simple.
(NOTE. This is NOT a recommendation to evade or avoid any taxes which you are required by law to pay.)
You can’t not pay it – it isn’t a tax. It is a benefit that is reduced if there are too many rooms in the house for the people living there.
Thoughtful
You seem to imply that pensioners do not have to pay Council Tax. That is simply untrue – they are not relieved of Council Tax unless they qualify for housing benefit. If they OWN their house they cannot claim housing benefit – so pay Council Tax. If they are in rented accommodation eg social housing and have pension income even marginally above the limit for claiming housing benefit (eg a small private pension plus their state pension, or maybe some savings in the bank – they have to pay their rent and they have to pay Council Tax. Another arbitrary effect of the morass of social welfare benefits. Income £X – you get all the benefits, income a bit more than £X and you get no benefits and pay all the costs.
Perhaps you could show where I imply that ALL pensioners don’t have to pay council tax.
If they own their own home they CAN claim housing benefit, including the interest on a mortgage if there is one outstanding, and council tax relief.
They can only claim if they have a very low income. And a very large proportion of pensioners who own their own homes have no mortgage left anyway.
Your earlier posts clearly imply that pensioners living in “mansions” – another hyperbole of yours – don’t have to pay Council Tax. That is rubbish.
And you have a totally false argument about “bedroom tax”. Why should we support people in PUBLIC housing if their accommodation if greater than they now need ? Making them pay for the excess of bedrooms is not a tax – it is simple equity.
For someone who owns their own home, there is no such equity issue. They PAID for the house – out of taxed income.
Unless they are pensioners?
You could add that Labour brought in the ‘Bedroom Tax’ for people renting from private landords.
Thoughtful’s comment –
If pensioners also had to pay the council tax, as the largest group in receipt of benefits, then the cost would be lowered for everyone and the result would be fairer. could easily be read as inclusive of ALL pensioners even if it was meant to only include those on benefits.
The idea that increasing the number of taxpayers will lead to reduced taxes for all is naive, it is similar to the argument that ‘avoided’ taxes somehow cost us all when the reality is that a) most of us try to avoid taxes b) hopefully Amazon gives us lower prices c) industry and commerce invest the ‘saved’ money better than government does.
Slightly off-track here but Moneybox did a piece about returning Winter Fuel Allowance by the ‘wealthy’ and the brave efforts of Peter Stringfellow to change the system. Turns out that only about 300 people have used it. How MUCH did that COST the civil service/us to ‘save’ peanuts? It’s the same principle minor, divisive quibbles over very little that would cost as much to administer as it saves.
It doesn’t work that way JimS normal taxation would but council tax doesn’t.
The a finite amount of money has to be raised by a council to fund it through the year. Central government makes up the shortfall of those who cannot afford to pay.
Then with the cuts there was a reduction in the amount the government gave to certain councils it didn’t like and that had to be made up by those in receipt of benefits, except the pensioners were exempted from the charge.
So if the amount was £10 million then that was divided between the people of working age in receipt of benefit in the borough.
Lets say for sake of argument it came to £15 a month, had the pensioners been included then it would have fallen to about £5 a month.
Central government makes up the shortfall of those who cannot afford to pay.
My understanding is that it helps those ‘in receipt of benefits’ – that’s not the same as ‘those who cannot afford to pay’. Not at all. Everyone knows people who struggle, and benefits claimants who live in luxury with everything paid by the state.
I would also take issue with your statement that a finite amount of money has to be raised by a council to fund it through the year.
Councils raise more than is justified. A huge percentage of Council Tax goes to paying ex council workers pensions that are jaw-droppingly generous compared to workers in real jobs. Didn’t Aneurin Bevan say that ‘The secret of the National Insurance fund is that there is no fund!’? Government pensions are covered by taxation. While a rising tide was lifting all boats, it was understandable that government workers kept pace. But in the current situation, government workers pay and pensions should be falling in line with the private sector. If they did, council tax could be slashed.
Mr T . One day you will be an OAP ,& maybe you will need those benefits . You may be lucky & not require them, but I think, most OAP`s deserve them.They have payed in all their lives.
Dear Thoughtless, my wife and I are both pensioners and we pay Council Tax in full. What are you on about?
‘I have to say that there is no doubt pensioners have not been touched by austerity, and are just about the only group to have seen increases in their standard of living.’
That’s one helluva sweeping statement.
Dear oh dear Thoughtful, it isn’t a ‘bedroom tax’, its a reduction in the housing benefit. If person A is in a property which has three bedrooms, one of which isn’t being used, then the benefit is reduced slightly. There are plenty of families on the housing list who need three-bedrooms, so Person A could always move to a smaller place. On the other hand if he wants to stay where is that’s OK too, but us taxpayers won’t pay for the extra bedroom. Pensioner B living in a mansion won’t be drawing housing benefit because he either owns it or is paying rent from his own pocket without taxpayer help. Furthermore, cuts to council tax are a good policy surely?
You won’t find pensioners living on a state pension living in mansions. Any person of pension age who can afford to live in a mansion will have paid for the mansion and so not be eligable for housing benefit, so will also not be subject to the housing benefit reduction known as the “bedroom tax”.
The BBC’s concerted onslaught against the evil Tories I have come to expect, but I really can’t stand the slushy “mums’n’dads” phraseology we get full time from Rachael Reeves & other Labour politicians
I also note that Reeves airily dismisses the fears of small employers by saying the government will pay
Here is a message – the government has no money
The only money it has is extorted from tax payers or borrowed on their behalf
Therefore it IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT that is paying it is the TAX PAYER
Aside from the niceties over whether governments are actually the ones paying for anything, it’s still the small employer who has to take the time to administer this through the PAYE system, making sure to pay/not pay as appropriate, and at the correct amount and correct time or face fines for tripping over government-imposed obstacles. Alternatively, pay a professional to administer their PAYE system for them which they’ll probably have to do anyway as the administrative sledgehammer of automatic pension enrolment steamrolls toward smaller and smaller businesses over the coming couple of years. And they’ll also have to arrange cover for the absent employee, either by everyone else chipping in extra time or buying in temporary workers.
Meanwhile, we get Cleggy telling businesses it will make for a happier and more productive workforce to let them have this time off. One would like to think those at the cliff face of running a business are in a better position to work out what makes their business more productive than politicians whose only interest in business is how much money and how many votes can be screwed out of them.
As they have pushed so hard for it, shouldn’t Labour & the BBC be saying “Mum’s & Dad’s”….Oh, and “Mum’s & Mum’s”….oh, and “Dad’s & Dad’s”?
To be all inclusive & cuddly, you understand.
(whack a mole in 3…2…1…)
What category does Grayson Perry fall into?
Bloody confusing….
Sorry , but I pay full council tax on my property which I worked for 40 years to be able to own. Its not a”mansion”by any means. I have a tiny pension which I scrimped to pay into , and am taxed on it.Its well below the benefit cap. Contrary to myth, my tv tax is not paid for by the state.
During my working life I have been in many properties with one person living in 2,3,4 bedrooms and subsidised by taxpayers. This cannot be right given the housing needs .If I cannot afford to live in my property I will have to downsize not get subsidy from the state. Its a pity the BBC dont do a neutral piece of investigative journalism around housing and including the scandal of sub letting council properties which is rife. Its not going to happen because they wont like the answers.
Dont make the mistake of comparing older people today with the young, we did our hard times during the 70s and 80s recessions and the winter of discontent where many people lost their homes.
Of course ,according to BBC that would all be down to Mrs Thatcher. as is everything else that happened prior to 2010……
Deborah
I have just posted similar thoughts above in reply to Thoughtful. He is quite wrong in asserting that ALL pensioners get reliefs from all sorts of things. As you say – if you have an income even just a tad above the housing benefits level – you pay full rent if you are in rented accommodation, you pay Council Tax as well.
I do not assert that ALL pensioners get relief, and you are unable to point to anywhere that I did so. You have merely assumed that because it suits you to do so.
My point stands – it is true and verifiable.
If you are in receipt of housing benefit as a working age adult you will be forced to pay the bedroom tax, if you live next door in same circumstances as a pensioner you will not.
In fact even if you live in a 26 bedroom mansion as a pensioner you will not be required to pay the bedroom tax.
Another assumption you make is gender which you have also got wrong !
Stop making assumption because you’re getting too many of them wrong !
‘..if you live in a 26 bedroom mansion as a pensioner you will not be required to pay the bedroom tax.’
OT, other than media terminology and explanation has clearly failed me, but as folk better informed are sharing, I remain interested in this.
Clearly my confusion remains around something bought with personal funds, and taxed and/or rated at the time plus ongoing, vs. something bestowed as a benefit, and hence funded or subsidised by others from the outset and ongoing.
When dementia struck, we brought our family elders closer, to provide care whilst they enjoyed independence. They/We were most certainly paying council tax, and on a property of size such that the grandkids could stay over, until the bitter end, and then vast care fees thereafter to a worse end, with scores of council, CGC, LGO, PHSO and social staff having endless meetings around the county to see how they could delay or avoid even mandated nursing care obligations when things took the worse turn. Time and staff salaries that could have simply gone to better care.
As a private contractor, my work was cut back considerably during this period to be close, so I busied myself on DIY efforts to build up the value of these homes as capital assets for the future, as I did and do not have a cosy index-linked pension like the public sector, and especially Mark Byford whose millions can only go up as well as up even if it takes eating into programming budgets from the licence fee to maintain them.
As I understand it, these nest eggs will be taxed and rated even as I retire (more so having added value), and if I need care will be the first to be assessed by those whose state benefits are the last to get added to any tally, if at all.
At the very least your comparison of ‘apples’ seems to have conflated a generic bunch as it suits, and then not specific varieties when it is off narrative.
Maybe ‘pensioners’ at the very least is a collective term to use or abuse as nuances dictate?
I understand what you are saying, but not every pensioner ends up in care, and many remain active well into their retirement.
I use the collective term pensioners because that is the point where the line in sand is drawn as far as benefits are concerned.
Disabled pensioners have not been required to attend ATOS assessments and if their results are to be believed (& I’m not sure they are) then there are a lot of pensioners in receipt of benefits they are not entitled to.
Not so very long ago families looked after their elderly, and some still do. The Muslim community seems to care for and value their forebears much more than we do, so why should I have to pay for someone else’s responsibility because they don’t want to look after them?
Inheritance tax has effectively been abolished, so my point here is that the retired have had a pretty cushy time of ‘austerity’.
I am seriously offended by your “cushy pensioners” clap trap.
I have worked all of my life for what I own.
Paid taxed and NI all of my life.
Always paid council taxes/rates with no relief.
Supported myself through periods of unemployment.
Have never received any unemployment or other benefits.
When necessary worked at any manual labour I could find to support my family.
Worked through illness and injuries as best I could.
And now.
I pay income tax on all pensions
I pay council tax in full.
I get a good as no interest on any small savings I have.
I cannot afford a decent holiday in the UK, let alone go abroad for a bit of winter sun .
I cannot afford trips to the theatre or meals out in my retirement.
I pay in full the enforced TV tax or am threatened with prison.
I support a disabled son who’s benefits would not keep some of my unemployed neighbours in fags for a week.
If I go into a home the council will force me to sell my house to pay for my care.
And yet you expect me to subsidise those in council properties that have a place that is too big for their needs and are on every benefit going and have wasted their money all of their lives and tell me I have it cushy?
How bloody dare you?
Well said. I too am sick and tired of hearing how the baby boomers have ‘had it all’ – an accusation that usually comes from generations who consider a daily coffee from Costa (or wherever) as one of life’s absolute necessities and wouldn’t know how to make their own lunchtime butty even if a sliced loaf and a tin of corned beef jumped up and bit them on the arse.
It doesn’t take highly-developed powers of observation to conclude which generations are ‘having it all’.
sick and tired of hearing how the baby boomers have ‘had it all’
You can understand them better if you think of the baby-boomers as ‘having it all’ or, as having a lot, or having some, or having a little bit, that the slavering wolves can gobble up. As you rightly observe, the younger generation spend all they get, so the wolf can get nothing off them. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, the wolf has to target those that saved some.
But be fair, if you were a young person observing how the system works, would you slog your guts out working to put some away, while others lived the lifestyle you described, knowing that what you manage to save will be grabbed and squandered by the state? I wouldn’t.
I concur -how dare you?
No! I don’t expect you to pay for anything! & that’s the point !
What is it with pensioners when they think every comment made with regard to pensioners is directed at them personally?
Maybe that’s why the government has decided to bribe them because it’s decided that they’re too senile to discriminate between each separate group, and assume every action is a personal attack against them?
My point is solely about pensioners in receipt of certain state benefits, and the fact that the checks and the strictures which apply to working age people are not being applied to pensioners.
You are clearly not in receipt of those benefits and none of my comments affect you one iota, and yet you and others have taken issue with my posts because you don’t appear to be able to understand this !
Your final paragraph illustrates it beautifully! I don’t expect you to subsidise anyone for living in a council house which is too big, but why do you find it acceptable to support a pensioner in that situation?
Pensioners can be on every benefit going too! They don’t stop claiming when they pass the magical retirement age you know!
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the mentality of those who lived life feeling a responsibility to ‘do their bit’. Someone can save a few thousand over a lifetime, retire on basic pension, and have no right to benefits. Those with benefit mentality look at the frugal pensioner with envy and think ‘That bastard has thousands in the bank, he/she doesn’t deserve anything’. Point is; the benefit claimant will accept and consume a multiple of the pensioner’s frugal savings every year. Now you can logically say: ‘Well, the pensioner should splash the savings, to be eligible for benefits’. That has a certain logic, and no doubt eventually, when pensioners see the donkey ears when they look in the mirror, that’s what will happen. But the frugal pensioners know the day that happens, all is lost for the country. But I fear all is lost anyway.
All very well but again it’s not something I’ve ever mentioned!
Take a look at this from the well known leftist Daily Mail Money section if you don’t believe me.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2839429/State-pension-boost-worth-500-year-derails-bid-cut-public-spending.html
People who are currently pensioners do not get any increase from £113 or so to £150 per week – that aplies only to future pensioners.
I spent a lifetime working – often paying extra pension subs that somehow are not reflected in the basic state pension that I receive. Namely about £113 per week. I really do not understand your apparent animus against pensioners – we have PAID for our pensions, unlike the many many people who draw all manner of benefits without having contributed much – if anything. If I had only paid for half my due NI stamps over the years – my state pension would be halved.
So please quit suggesting that all pensioners are featherbedded. Oh – and free TV licences do not kick in until age 75. Yes, free travel passes are a benefit – but keeping mobile helps keep people healthy. And yes, you might regard the winter fuel allowance of £200 as a nice freebie – but it really does not add up to much in the scheme of things – after a lifetime of work. And keeping warm is another way of avoiding illness.
Yours from the lap of luxury ……
£150 per week – that applies only to future pensioners
There was a report – blink, and you missed it – before Christmas, that said a lot of people, mostly men, would be shocked to find they don’t qualify for the full £150. This scheme was clearly designed to provide for the first generation of single mothers coming up to retirement and facing a frugal future. Can’t have that, so we’ll share it out. Now it looks like they’ve gone a stage further and those who paid nothing will do the best and those who paid all their lives will lose out because they’re not ‘disadvantaged’. The story passed mainly un-noticed. No doubt Labour will operate the same scheme, or worse, if elected. But one day there’s going to be a lot of angry pensioners!
Thoughtful
Do you – or do you not ? – agree that a state pension is something that a pensioner has contributed to over a working lifetime. Or do you try to label a pension as a “benefit”.
John; I’m lost, but maybe you’ve nailed it here. Maybe Thoughtful believes a 95 year old person with a number of illnesses should have the same expectation to support themselves as a healthy 25 year old?
Or maybe not !
If a person is entitled to receive certain benefits then they should receive them, but the condition should be the same regardless of the age.
If ATOS assessments are right for the working age disabled then they’re right for the retired. If the bedroom tax is applied to someone aged 64 then it should also apply to someone age 65.
It’s both John !
It comes out of the same pot paid for by the same government department.
Funny because people on here deeply begrudge the unemployed who have also contributed when working.
I don’t see people here begrudging the genuine unemployed. What people begrudge are dole blodgers – of which there are very many these days – entire families, generation after generation.
A state pension is meant to come out of a pension fund – to which one has contributed. It is NOT a “benefit” – it is an earned entitlement. Can’t you see the difference ?
Labour/BBC/Guardian have been campaigning against those who use film investments for reducing tax exposure too. They don’t seem to have remembered it was Labour who brought in these film tax investment vehicles 10-15 years ago.
Small point: the BBC can, and hence does not ‘campaign’.
Stuart Hughes’ line manager says so. Which was good enough for CECUTT to ‘deal’ with his little Taxi excitements.
The section of Today I was listening to never referred once to Labour re HSBC. And as for Labour’s great idea of a month off for new dads shows that neither Reeves nor Montague understand small business if they think all skilled labour can be covered at the drop of a hat for a month. If a combine harvester driver takes a month off in August/September finding someone who knows the farm, the crops and the machine would be like looking for hens’ teeth and it is the farm’s entire income for the year that is dependent on him
The BBC is a bit like Ed Miliband – not so much “anti-business” as “a-business” – they have nil knowledge or understanding of the practicalities of business, so they pontificate and preach from a perch of total bloody ignorance of the sordid realities of business and trade.
The coalition brought in an agreement with Switzerland so that Swizz banks have to reveal bank accounts of British citizens to the UK Government. Funny that A) Labour didn’t do it and B) The BBC are carefully omitting it.
And we’re back again to Lynn Homer who has an absolutely dreadful record of wrecking every department she’s been let in charge of and now she’s in charge of HMRC.
Couldn’t have anything to do with common purpose could it?
For INBBC on HSBC:-
‘Money jihad’-
“HSBC closes accounts: 2 Islamic nonprofits and 1 mosque”
(Aug 2014)-
https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/hsbc-closes-accounts-2-islamic-nonprofits-and-1-mosque/
I have noticed in recent weeks a growing number of contributors on BBC programmes expressing their bewilderment as to why young Muslims born in the UK , educated here and who have benefited from our splendid NHS and other state institutions, have joined ISIL. Most of them , like Prince Charles, blame radicalisation on the internet. Of course the real reason is the growth of the world wide aggressive form of radical Islam which brooks no compromise with the West and which many Muslims support. At present the elite can’t admit this openly in the UK as it blows away the whole concept of the Multiculty Utopia they have been selling us for 30 years.
All of their musings are laced with copious quantities of PC sauce, its only a microscopic minority that become Jihadists, its really related to Palestine not the UK, most Muslims want to integrate and live peacefully in the UK, we share many basic beliefs with Islam etc. Prince Charles has even reminded us that Islam does not have a monopoly on terror referring to the 12th century crusades?! How he thinks something that happened a thousand years ago bears any comparison with 21st century Muslim terror is beyond me. What is clear is that the liberal elite stupidly thought that after a generation the immigrants would accept our Western values and integrate fully with us , just like the Jews did in the last century and the Hugenots before them. They are realising that this has not happened and that second generation immigrants are less integrated and much more anti Western than their parents.
We are seeing a slow dawning on the liberal elite that they have made a gigantic error in forcing us to accept millions of Muslims into our midst and allowing these aliens to live as they would in their countries of origin. Every time there is another example of Muslim terror in the UK or Europe, or more Muslim demonstrations to abolish free speech , the seed of doubt will grow.
Of course the BBC et al will still pursue their multiculty agenda and try to assure us that we have nothing to fear, that the real danger is Islamophobia and distorting the truth as usual, but, although they dare not admit it to us , they are beginning to realise that the real danger is radical Islam as practiced by millions of young Muslims across the world.
The really BIG QUESTION is what to do about it! It will take some time before the elite are prepared to address that and of course the first step is to admit that Islam as increasingly practised by the young is the problem. Let us hope that they do address it before it is too late.
“We are seeing a slow dawning on the liberal elite that they have made a gigantic error ”
You think so?
I look at Rotherham & see a group of Fascists in the council who actively conspired with Muslim abusers because they have an insane & unsupportable belief that white people deserve what ever is done to them, based on insane beliefs that we are responsible for the Crusades as you point out.
In addition to that we have Saudi Arabia spending billions to promote Whabist Islam which is exactly as you describe.
On one hand you have a loony left which will do anything for its brown eyed boys, and on the other a grasping right wing which doesn’t care where its money comes from as long as it ends up in their pockets with as few questions asked as possible.
How could it be that Angela Merkel announces that Islam is incompatible with Western society & values, and by the time the Charlie Hebdo murders came round she was condemning Pegida, and denying Islam had anything bad about it at all. All Western leaders singing from the same hymn sheet as if someone wrote the words for them, and they probably did !
‘Prince Charles has even reminded us that Islam does not have a monopoly on terror referring to the 12th century crusades?! How he thinks something that happened a thousand years ago bears any comparison with 21st century Muslim terror is beyond me.’
He shows as much ignorance of history as he does of global warming.
ISIL has much in common with the first Jihad under Mohammed, the one which led to a rapid expansion of Islam out of Arabia, across the Middle East and outwards, sweeping aside Christianity (amongst other religions) as it went and developing into a major threat to the countries of Europe. THEN came the fightback, aka The Crusades – not that you’d know that if you relied on the BBC version of history.
Sounds like our future king is yet another hapless victim of the stinking, all pervasive influence of the UK’s most powerful, agenda-ridden media organisation.
Hmm maybe just me but if you can loose Male staff for a month and female staff for 12 and still according to the PR piece by the BBC for labour grow and thrive as a business as productivity climbs beyond all measure ! then shouldn’t the question be ‘are we employing some useless lazy gits we can well afford to sack ?’
The one month is actually more damaging than the year.
Look at it from a business perspective. If I have a member of staff that I know is going to unavailable for a whole year (and may never return), then I can offer a fixed length contract to a suitable employee for that year – then if the employee chooses not to return I can offer that job to the relief employee. I have time to organise and a long enough gap to make it possible to back fill the position.
In a month, I have no such option.
BBC anti-monarchy prejudice in full colours this morning on the Today programme: John Donnison describing Australia PM’s decision to award Prince Philip a knighthood as “infamous”.
JonDon likely tying his kangaroo down for more than sport now that after all his work the evil emperor has thwarted the rebel twitalliance once more.
The quasi religious arm of the Socialist Workers Party which goes by the title ‘The Church of England’ has moved at it’s usual pace in the case of a Fascist vicar who on social media blamed ‘De Jooz’ for the 9/11 attacks.
Rather than doing what might have been expected and challenging his beliefs they have decided the best thing is to attack freedom of speech and to ban him from using social media for the next 6 months.
This doesn’t just affect the Fascist ‘reverend’ but denies all of us the ability to know what this most dangerous loon is thinking, and whether his beliefs have genuinely changed.
The Bishop of Guildford said his “anti-Zionist agenda has become a liability”.
It’s a little like telling Hitler he couldn’t go on the radio for 6 months! His views would not have changed, probably become more entrenched if anything and the real victims would be the general public not being able to make their own judgements about him.
It seems the church is more interested in covering up an embarrassment rather than dealing with it. Just like they did with the child abuse scandal, not one lesson has been learned from the previous episode.
Worse than that, in a news package about the rise in anti-Semitism in Britain, the only example given was this loony vicar. The impression given was that the C of E is the nexus of modern anti-Semitism. Needless to say, the “I” word and the “M” word were not used once in the report.
Sizer represents a massive segment of C of E and evangelical Christianity.
Their theological basis is called “Replacement Theology”…basically that the coming of Jesus Christ, his “rejection” by the Jews at the time-and the compilation of the New Testament that followed somehow “replaces” any need whatsoever to acknowledge His Jewishness, the Old Testament-or Jews as a religion, a race, an ethnicity..indeed even a people worth a damn to the New Dispensation.
He`s wrong-badly so-but his kind find it easier to stick with Jesus and Paul…and ignoring both when it comes to emphasising the Jewish roots of the new faith of Christianity that emerged.
History too hard-bit harsh on the Jebusites-that kind of cotton wool guff.
Best way to deal with them is to show them the Nazi Bible-the version that Hitlers theologians came up with that cut all references to the Jews out of the text.
Not much left at all!
God Bless Israel-Sizer needs a public stripping of any right to speak his nonsense without having first been to theology school where the Jewish basis of Christianlty is taught to him. He is by no means alone in his complacency and ignorance-and dangerous as a result,
The BAFTA awards:
Leading Actor:
Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything
Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler
Michael Keaton, Birdman
Ralph Fiennes, Grand Budapest Hotel
Benedict Cumberbatch Harrow Public School
Eddie Redmayne Eton Public School
Michael Keaton Montour High School (US Fee Paying)
Ralph Fiennes Newtown School (Ireland Fee Paying)
So when that insufferable twat Cumberbatch comes out with his politically correct nonsense that Lenny Henry told him to say, just remember that white people can’t make in in the UK either, unless they’ve been to the right school of course, because in the ultra left world of the BBC while they’re telling you and me about ‘equality’ it doesn’t apply to them and their offspring in any way!
I still can’t find any mention of the gunmen in Marseille, on the BBC news website.
Sure, we don’t know the motives behind the attacks, but that shouldn’t deter a news broadcaster like the BBC from er…broadcasting the news.
They managed to miss 10,000 Muslims marching down Whitehall yesterday, attacking freedom of speech, so what do you expect?
Having just seen this, it would be more surprising if they hadn’t missed it; absolutely appalling: watch it and marvel at the enrichment.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9d_1423493722
Tax AVOIDANCE is legal.
Tax EVASION is illegal.
Labour via BBC are vowing to stop capitalists ‘avoiding’ tax. It can’t be done. Why? Because ‘avoiding’ is legal!
The evil tax companies that give advice are doing it legally.
Labour/BBC are trying to pull the wool over the electorate’s eyes.
It’s their joint Marxist hate of capitalism that is the driving force here and the lure of cheap votes.
By the way, I shopped around on professional advice today and saved money. Have I committed a crime?
..
Best news of the day is that Vance and his shadow Alan will soon be getting an Asbo for their hate posts!
Roll on!
I detect a Scot, beneath that post. Caught him red handed .
And now you will lead us to those ‘hate posts’.
Away you go……
Significant that the BBC trails it’s 10 o’ Clock News with the message that the Government and HSBC are under pressure over their HSBC scoop (fit up).
Even the left leaning Channel 4 News had the good grace to say that Labour were equally embarrassed by the failures that took place on their watch.
The misleading and politically skewed BBC Panorama programme showed no such balance.
margaret hodge a favorite at the bbc is a weird one,not only has she pulled out of the mayoral race in london because she wants the next mayor of london to have a black or brown skin for her own politacaly correct socalist reasons,but she like most of the labour hierachy is a multi millionare that has done quiet well out of living in a capitalist society like most of fellow her guardianista mates like polly toynbee,owen jones and co ,would it not be be nice is she handed out some of her great wealth to help out the homeless soldiers who have returned from blairs wars who have had the door firmly shut on them by labour councils when looking for accommodation after serving there country .it does make me a bit sick when labour mps who have made great wealth out of capitalism then spend most of there time attacking the capitalist system that made them rich.hypocrisy in its worst form i say.