Feeding Lies To Children

 

 

 

The BBC has been caught feeding lies and misinformation to children….

First glance and this is just a story about a mistake, an over eager attempt to improve the image of an historical figure ‘forgotten’ by history but it is far more than that.  It is a perfect example fo the BBC’s world view and how they attempt to manipulate the audience, and quite sinisterly, especially young impressionable children who don’t have the ability to question what is put in front of them.  It is a huge political project of the Left that aims to change history, change how a nation sees itself and ultimately to make people feel less inclined to value that identity…all the more easier then to sell them the idea of handing over their ‘nation’ to the faceless rulers in Brussels.

A conspiracy…but so very real.  And the ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation is playing a big role in that project.

 

CBBC sketch ‘inaccurately’ painted Florence Nightingale as racist, BBC Trust finds

The BBC has been accused of “insulting” the achievements of Florence Nightingale, after inaccurately showing her racially discriminate against fellow nurse Mary Seacole in a Horrible Histories children’s programme.

The show, a comedy aimed at primary school children, showed Nightingale rejecting four applications from Jamaican-born Seacole to join her nursing corps, saying it was only “for British girls”.

Viewers complained the show was “insulting to Nightingale”, debasing the memory of her achievements in order to bolster the reputation of Seacole.

The BBC Trust, which examined the complaint, has now partially upheld the accusations, confirming Horrible Histories portrayed Nightingale’s actions inaccurately.

In fact, it said, there was no sound evidence to suggest she had rejected Seacole’s application, nor that she had acted in a “racially discriminatory manner” towards nurses.

 

 

It’s a very serious finding.

Saying a charge of racism was “very serious”, it added the severity of “any imputation of racism” against Nightingale should have made it “incumbent on the programme makers to ensure that there was sound evidence”.

“In the Committee’s view, the programme makers had provided no such evidence,” it said.

 

The BBC’s actions are more than just a mistaken reading of history.  This was a deliberate, calculated attempt to manipulate what children think, to brainwash them, to make them look at Florence Nightingale as a racist and to downgrade her achievements and character in order to improve the image and standing of Mary Seacole.

It isn’t the first time the BBC have maligned Nightingale’s name and reputation….

BBC accused of slur on Florence Nightingale for labeling her ‘neurotic and sexually repressed’

 

 

It is all par for the course for the BBC…it has long made it its aim to undermine and debase British history in order to disparage ‘Britishness’ and thereby hopefully make the audience feel embarrassed and guilty to be British rather than proud.  The BBC, and the ‘Left’, work hard to try and erase the national identity which is grounded on that history…rewrite the history and you can destroy that national identity and feeling of belonging and unity.

The ‘Nation State’ is the enemy of the BBC.

 

Mary Seacole was ‘Black’…or at least that is what the BBC and her supporters want, need, you to think, and is the reason fo their ever growing desperation to strip Florence Nightingale of her reputation and replace her with Seacole…who was in fact a store keeper with a canteen providing meals…for officers….she did indeed help the wounded and sick but not in any way comparable to the professional care of Nightingale.

And Seacole wasn’t ‘Black’…..she was more Scottish than black, 3/4 white….describing herself as ‘Creole’…

Now celebrated as a “black Briton” and black heroine, Seacole never described herself as black: “I am a Creole, and have good Scotch blood coursing in my veins,” she states on page 1 of her memoir, further describing her father’s status as being “of an old Scotch family,” Her mother was Creole, or of mixed heritage (WA 1), but she was swift to explain that her “energy and activity” came from her “Scotch blood,” characteristics “not always found in the Creole race” (WA 1). The “lazy Creole” description “applied to my country people,” while she did not know what it was to be “indolent” (WA 2). Roughly one quarter African in heritage, Seacole described herself as being “only a little brown–a few shades duskier than the brunettes whom you all admire so much” (WA 4).

Seacole frequently referred to “blacks” in her memoir, always for other people, often her own servants–her maid, her cooks (WA 12, 21, 36, 37, 39, 45, 58, 113, 138, 180). There are references also to “good-for-nothing black cooks” (WA 141), a “grinning black” (WA 38) and “excited nigger cooks” (WA 20). When she described, the roasted monkey which was “natives’ fare” in Central America, Seacole found its “grilled head bore a strong resemblance to a negro baby’s,” while in “a stew made of monkey meat” was a piece that “closely resembled a brown baby’s limb” (WA 69).

 

The pro-Seacole campaign is self-evidently highly political and intended to provide an inspirational role model for the Black community as well as to alter White people’s perceptions of history trying to downgrade ‘British’ achievements while attempting to give the credit to a ‘minority’ figure.

It is racial propaganda that the Nazis would have been proud of….the ‘rubbishing’ of White history in order to create a myth of racial superiority of Black people in Britain.

 

The Nightingale Society has long had to deal with these attempts to defame her name and reputation.

 

And it isn’t only on CBBC that the misinformation is peddled...however…but if you don’t complain within 30 days the BBC refuses to alter the material even if proven misleading…just too much effort apparently:

Re: BBC School Radio. History–The Victorians. 9. The Life of Mary Seacole. BBC 2010. Still available.

‘Clause 2.3 of the BBC’s complaints framework clearly states that complaints about content currently published on a BBC website should be made within 30 working days of the date when it first appeared online.

The notes and activity you refer to have been online continuously since 2010. Therefore we do not feel that it is practicable and cost-effective to investigate this part of your complaint.’

That’s Okay then…4 years of misleading information and ithe BBC will keep pumping it out.

The BBC also dismisses complaints about the veracity of dialogue…it may be fictional but as there was a Crimean war at the time and Seacole was there we can pretty well guess what Seacole might have said if we put ourselves in her boots…..we don’t want to be ‘shackled by the lack of documentary evidence’ do we?….

‘The dialogue and the specifics of events are of course fictional but that is in keeping with the nature of the content which is, as I’ve stated above, clearly presented as a dramatised account of history.’

 

Of course we have heard all this before:

The BBC’s Lisa Jardine gives us her point of view…..

A point of view: When historical fiction is more truthful than historical fact

Fiction has the power to fill in the imaginative gaps left by history, writes Lisa Jardine.

In my search for understanding the motivation of those who joined the race to produce the bomb whose use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalled the world, I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so.

 

 

 

 

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

The Devil’s Greatest trick

 

The BBC is having a crisis.  It hasn’t been able to settle on a position yet on how to report the case for military action against ISIS.

Its natural stance would be to oppose any military action as it did with Afghanistan and Iraq but with ISIS displaying unhelpful signs of being out and out evil and a vast majority of MPs voting in favour the BBC has had to hold its tongue.

That of course will only last until the first civilians get killed by allied bombs or ‘boots’ appear on the ground and ‘mission creep’ sets in.

For now the BBC settles for making sure there is no definitive answer as to whether military action is the correct course to take by continually raising ‘for and against’ questions. keeping the waters muddy.  Good job the same bunch of BBC people weren’t around in WWII…Hitler would have his own show to justify his actions.

 

However the BBC does still like to keep up its own mantras that it nurtures and propagates, mentioning them as often as possible…..

  • The Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France ‘carved up the Middle East’ and caused all the problems we see now.
  • Islam is the religion of peace.
  • Iraq 2003 gave birth to ISIS.
  • And you can’t fight an ideology.

 

All of those claims by the BBC, stated frequently by its journalists, can be disproved with very little effort.  Which might go to show that the BBC’s position is more political than journalism based on integrity.

John Humphrys many years ago scoffed at the idea that we could have a ‘war on terror’ claiming…‘The ‘War on Terror’ is a misnomer isn’t it?  How can you have a war on an idea?’

This was a frequently repeated bit of semantics trotted out by opponents of that ‘War on Terror’.

On Saturday he repeated that claim that you can’t fight an idea with a bullet….and it was the first question on  ‘Any Questions’…..‘Can you bomb away an ideology?’.

The trouble is of course you can…..if you don’t fight the ideology it will only become more established and will grow ever stronger.

And the Jihadists don’t have a problem propagating that ideology with a bullet…after all they are only doing what Bin Laden said they should do….

‘The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates…Platonic ideals…nor Aristotelian diplomacy.  But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun.
…Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils.’

 

We spent 40 years fighting Communism with hundreds of thousands of troops based in Europe facing off the Soviets.  Diplomacy and fine sentiments didn’t keep the Russian hordes at bay….tanks, guns and nuclear weapons did.

An ideology is only an idea when it is in someone’s brain…put a bullet in that brain and that kind of puts a stop to things….at least to the people with intentions to impose that ideology using violence.

So you can fight an ideology. It’s really very simple in concept unless you’re a smart arse journalist with an axe to grind because you’ve been caught lying about what Blair said.

 

Of course you have to remember that the BBC once claimed Al Qaeda didn’t exist, it was a ‘nightmare’ dreamt up by the American government, and therefore it was only an ‘idea’, a figment of the imagination…the ‘war on terror’ was therefore based on a lie fighting an imaginery foe.

The BBC might like to revisit that claim and whilst there they might like to think again about declaring ISIS ‘unIslamic’… even Muslims realise this isn’t true:

The current US strategy negates the cultural and social underlying causes for the rise of terrorism in the Middle East. The US decision-makers should realise that IS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front and similar groups are not just a terrorist group but also an ideology coming from the heart of the Wahhabi-Salafi-Hanbali doctrine.

This school of thought enjoys a deal of support amongst Sunni-Arab countries. From their perspective, the US is practically re-launching the post-9/11 “war against Islam”. The fact is that the US cannot fight an ideology through air strikes.

 

So the religious ideology of Al Qaeda et al is one happily embraced by many Middle Eastern countries….what a surprise.

Shame the BBC doesn’t read its own material.

 

Speaking of which today we had this from the BBC:

Karen Armstrong on War and Religion

Karen Armstrong argues against the notion that religion is the major cause of war.

 

Listening to this programme you hear many facts that you  can agree with but then there comes the interpretation, an interpretation which is often distinctly at odds with the facts the same person has just laid out before us….the problem, as with the BBC, is that they allow their own prejudices and views to colour that intepretation.

Armstrong seems to have a particular dislike of Israel…she claimed the Jews for a thousand years had a taboo against going to the Holyland and setting up a state [Clearly a claim intended to undermine the existence of an Israeli state]…..and that peace for Israel means others being subjugated with merciless violence.

She also blamed the West for all the ills in the Middle East…the humiliation of Muslims subjugated by the colonialists practically overnight leading to their desire to fight the world.

She of course doesn’t even consider that Islam conquered, colonised and subjugated the populations of the Middle East and that that colonisation has been the ultimate cause of all this upheaval….as well as the medieval backwardness of those countries.

We also heard that Iraq 2003 is the cause of the Shia/Sunni rift…according to Armstrong a modern phenomenon….never mind 1400 years of conflict…or indeed the Iran/Iraq war.

Also that Iran is the key to defeating ISIS….so we must join forces with them.

Oh, and suicide attacks were invented and exported by the West.

Only 25% of Muslims really understand the Koran Armstrong suggests…curiously Armstrong tells us that it is only when Muslims go to prison that they have the time to get to know the religion in depth…and whent hey do they realise God is good and wants you to be good…hmmm…does she mean as with fundamentalists Qutb and Maududi, and oh yes , Hitler who wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ in prison…. “the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”?

So that kind of nullifies her point that Jihadis don’t know their scriptures…. so many having come out of prison radicalised even more so.

The programme was in many respects quite surprising in its admissions about religion and violence…..however, as said, they seemed to rush back into the safety of the ‘narrative’ that the BBC also likes….Islam the religion of peace, The West the cause of all the evil in the ME, and  Muslims as the victims of Western oppression, their violence merely a reaction against that oppression and humiliation.

 

Another surprise might be this clip on 5Live Drive [whole report from 2 hr 22 mins] the BBC played of George Bush in 2007 predicting the rise of terrorism if there is a failure to completely deal with the Jihadists in Iraq…as when Obama chose to withdraw the troops……but listen to Anna Foster trying to blame both Bush and Obama for the rise of ISIS whilst the ‘expert’ clearly blamed Obama….Bush pumped in 30,000 troops in a surge that successfully cleared out Al Qaeda….the troop withdrawal by Obama gave the Jihadists room to come back….along with Assad helping them.

Here is the Telegraph’s take on Obama:

Obama is rewriting history on Isil. It won’t wash

Given how completely Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been upended by the rise of Isil in Syria, it is not surprising that the president should try and gloss over the scale of his own miscalculation when it came to the threat posed by the jihadists – but that doesn’t mean he should be allowed to get away with it.

This weekend Mr Obama had the cheek to blame his intelligence agencies for the fact that the White House was “caught by surprise” by the sudden rise of Isil.

Some spooks are already challenging the basic truth of this, but intelligence aside, what Mr Obama conveniently glosses over is that it was his decision to let Syria burn that created the chaos – and that a good many people, from his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton downwards, warned him loud and clear of the risk he was taking by doing that.

 

 

It was Obama’s decision to let Syria burn.…and Ed Miliband’s…who influenced Obama.

 

It is curious how Miliband rarely seems to get a mention in all of this.  Just how much blame can be attached to him for the rise of ISIS?

The BBC doesn’t ask.

Others do…..

French President Blames Ed Miliband For ISIS

 

 

 

 

 

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

Fancy That!

 

The BBC’s Lisa Jardine gives us her point of view…..

A point of view: When historical fiction is more truthful than historical fact

Fiction has the power to fill in the imaginative gaps left by history, writes Lisa Jardine.

In my search for understanding the motivation of those who joined the race to produce the bomb whose use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalled the world, I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so.

 

 

Yes, less shackled by documentary evidence…that is a bit of pain isn’t it having to have evidence for your journalism.

On that basis I imagine the BBC prefers this method of interpreting the Koran....

‘This reading of the spirit of Islam, its true core meaning, transcending any scriptural formalities.’

 

Documentary evidence and actual scriptual formalities such as what the Koran actually says are such a nuisance and an unnecessary curb on our particular understanding of any subject.  So much better to make it up to fit in with your own world view…just say ‘Islam is the religion of peace’…..and all the pain goes away.

 

 

Always interesting who the BBC plucks from off the street to present its programmes…Giles Fraser, Stacey Dooley, Michael Portillo and Lisa Jardine who writes such delightful tomes such as  What’s Left?: Women in Culture and the Labour Movement  and Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory.

No surprise perhaps that in this article Jardine manages to have a go at Mrs Thatcher…managing to quote this:

“Dorothy did not have a very high opinion of Thatcher,” she went on. “As a chemist she thought her average; as a politician she deeply disapproved of her.”

 

 

 

 

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

Double Trouble

double dip

 

One of the most popular reports on the BBC website is that the UK economy is in a double dip recession…a story from 2012.

Even then it wasn’t a true story:

There was no UK double dip recession, ONS data suggests

Britain’s double-dip recession may be erased from the history books after the Office for National Statistics said the construction industry grew more strongly than thought at the start of last year.

 

Even the BBC admitted as much:

UK double-dip recession revised away

 

Could it be union activists trying to distort the news?  Or perhaps it could be all those lefty Daily Mirror reporters doing their research trying to cook up an anti-Tory story such as they did with this: (From the Telegraph)

Brooks Newmark sex scandal: How a tabloid newspaper tried to snare Tory MPs

The Telegraph’s report delves into the Mirror’s entrapment of the Tory MP and its attempts to snare others and looks at the rules in regard to ‘Public interest’ journalism.

 

The BBC isn’t very interested, limiting its exploration of the issues on the Labour supporting Mirror’s actions to this:

Asked whether he thought Mr Newmark had been entrapped, Mr Fallon said he was unable to comment as he “hadn’t seen the details”.

 

Looks like a very dirty election….and think about it…this is a Labour paper setting out to trick a Tory MP into doing something for which he is then forced to resign his position.

If that had been a Murdoch paper the BBC would have been all over this questioning the malign influence of the right wing Press on UK politics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Crying All The Way To The Second Home

 

Evan Davis was so upset about the homeless migrants in Calais living hand to mouth in makeshift shelters that he cried all the way to his second home in France.

He could of course give some of them a room in one of his homes if he cares so much about them.

Next time anyone reading this is passing through Calais I recommend you hand out Evan Davis’ email address, along with his fellow pro-immigration advocate’s and tell the migrants to give them a call.

Don’t suppose Davis and Co would be all that keen on immigrants then…. the ones that take your job, your home, your kids place at the school, your place in the queue for medical treatment, the ones that rob and rape and kill you…they don’t mind so much about.

BBC employees like Davis are well insulated from the downsides of immigration with the money to keep the unpleasantry at a distance…though of course they do their bit for the immigrants by employing them…cheaply…at the expense of the local workers.

And no surprise the BBC often uses Davis to front its programmes and interviews on immigration.

 

 

 

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

Oh Brothers Where Art Thou?

 

 

The BBC’s Dominic Laurie laments the British union’s lack of commitment and fervour when compared to the Frenchies:(50 mins)

What we know is that workers for French companies are willing to go all out in industrial action and to prolong it and do it for a long time…Air France will have to back down if the pilots are this adamant.

As we know in the history of France when you strike for a long time you tend to win…it works!’

Peter Allen interjects….‘It used to in this country…we should remember that’.

Presumably Allen was looking back nostalgically to the era before Thatcher and the days when there was no legislation to control the wildcat strikes that destroyed British industry….good old unions in the 70′s…the interests of the workers at heart not their paymaster’s in the Kremlin….LOL.

 

It did seem that Laurie had just a little bit too much admiration for the French strikers and was more than a little bit rueful that such belligerent attitudes didn’t manifest themselves more here in the UK.

Good for the BBC…standing up for the oppressed and downtrodden worker!

 

 

 

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

Here’s What We Think…..

Oh…Just seen it…beats dancing outside Buck House I guess.

 

The BBC has been making up the news and doing it in a way that paints David Cameron in a bad light….

From the Telegraph:

BBC criticised over coverage of David Cameron’s Queen gaffe

BBC accused of ‘speculation’ after claiming David Cameron said that the Queen cried when told about Scottish Independence

The BBC is facing criticism after suggesting that David Cameron said it was great to hear the Queen ‘tear up’ after he told her Scotland had voted against independence.

Peter Hunt, the BBC’s Royal Correspondent, said on Twitter that the BBC’s “finest ears” believed he had said: “I’ve never heard someone tear up like that. It was great”.

Channel 4 News subsequently claimed the words were “cheer up”, significantly changing the meaning of his comments.

 

The BBC’s interpretation seems more wishful thinking than reality…I doubt the Queen would ‘tear up’, she has after all been around the block a few times, can’t see her blubbering down the phone, and Cameron’s comment after, ‘It was great’, doesn’t really fit the BBC’s interpretation…why would Cameron think it ‘great’ to hear the Queen ‘tear up’?  Great to hear her ‘cheer up’?  I’d have thought so.

Pure speculation from the BBC…..and why don’t they make so much of Salmond’s reaction…when he wishes more stomach ulcers upon David Cameron…..just after having called Cameron ‘pathetic’ for talking about his royal conversation….the BBC cuts short his comments with this ‘final’ one…“That’s absolutely pathetic and he should hang his head in shame.” No embarrasing comment about wanting Cameron to suffer medically then.

 

By coincidence this morning I was thinking the BBC was indulging us with their speculative thoughts a bit too much as I listened to the BBC’s James Shaw (38 mins) reveal his impressions of the probable next, and female, leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon.

First of all we heard the no vote dismissed as merely the women of Scotland being irrational and scatty beings influenced by shallow, inconsequential, trivial things such as Alex Salmond’s Shrek-like appearance and abrasive personality.

Somewhat patronising on the good women of Scotland who voted no.  Perhaps they had rational, well reasoned and sound grounds for voting the way they did and it wasn’t just a case of PMT, girlish immaturity or whatever nonsense the BBC has gallantly decided put the skids under Salmond’s crusade….though of course the BBC’s lack of rigorous challenge and questioning of Salmond and Co might well mean that a lack of genuinely informed debate meant having to make decisions based upon less objective measures.

Pure speculation from the BBC….and are they building a case for the SNP to have  another, ‘real’, ‘representative’, referendum?…the last one obviously being not legitimate due to those irrational women….and the BBC does like to emphasise that 45% voted ‘Yes’…and are telling us that…‘Two Scotlands have emerged’…  and you know what?….. 45% voted “Yes”. I think the three main parties at Westminster should be worried about that.’

It ain’t over and the BBC are happy to keep stirring things up.  So much for maintaining civic society and social cohesion.

 

 

Then we were told the beauteous and charming Sturgeon will have the men of Westminster eating out of her hand in the negotiations for new Scottish powers…Cameron and Osborne will be putty in her hands, purring with delight perhaps,  practically surrendering the keys to the kingdom, and will in fact move themselves and their families, lock, stock and barrel, up to Scotland to live under the enlightened and fair rule of that Nicola Sturgeon lassy.

Once again pure speculation from the BBC.

Still, it fills the schedule up with something I suppose.

 

 

 

 

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

The Stern Gang

 

Lord Stern is an ardent climate change proponent, never happier than when painting the doomiest, blackest, most alarming scenarios when predicting the future due to climate change…all so that we are ‘encouraged’ to jump aboard his band wagon and back the rush to renewables and the end of fossil fuels.

Stern is paid for his troubles by hedge funder Jeremy Grantham, who set up the Grantham Institute and is intent on combating all that sceptical climate misinformation defeating their efforts to save the world……though ironically he tells us that nothing is more important than the oil that funds his climate institute….

Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.

Stern is in a double act with the Institute’s media ‘communicator’ Bob Ward, who isn’t a scientist, and yet gets lots of time on the BBC…and was responsible for the attacks against Lord Lawson after his appearance on the Today programme.

So by no stretch of the imagination could Stern be called a climate sceptic.

Which was why I was somewhat surprised to hear Evan Davis describe him as ‘remaining pessimistic about the science of climate change’ when introducing him this morning on the Today show. (08:51)

 

Several issues with that….there is no way anyone at the BBC could come to that opinion that Stern was a climate sceptic, certainly not one of the BBC’s ‘top’ current affairs journalists on the BBC’s ‘prestige’ news programme.  You might conclude that the labelling of Stern in such a way might be deliberate in order to make the audience think..‘Well if such an eminent man is sceptical about the science and yet he thinks we should deal with it anyway…perhaps I should too.’

Call me cynical.

Another issue is that Stern is not a scientist, he deals with the economics just as Lord Lawson does…which is why Lawson’s think tank is called ‘The Global warming Policy Foundation’.  Therefore why is Lawson persona non grata whilst Stern gets a privileged place at the microphone?

Then there is the issue of Stern’s association with Jeremy Grantham and his institute which went unmentioned by Davis.  Grantham isn’t just supportive of the idea of climate change,  he is yet another fanatic and one who puts his money, millions of it, where his mouth is…funding attacks on climate change sceptics, such as Lawson, with the intent to shut them up…which, courtesy of the BBC, is what has happened and Lawson is in effect banned from the BBC’s airwaves.

And curiously that turns out to have been a probable motivation behind getting Stern onto the programme, his job to counter comments by Bjørn Lomberg, once a green guru but now more sceptical….an ‘old foe’ of Stern’s as described by Davis…whom, he ‘suspects’, Stern doesn’t much respect,  a curiously second hand insult there from Davis.

 

Lomberg said countries with high GDP growth have high emissions of CO2…cutting that CO2 will cut GDP and stop the lifting of millions out of poverty….China’s growth is based on coal.

Davis interprets…‘He’s saying the richer countries pollute more and produce more CO2…’

No, he didn’t say that.  He said those countries with high GDP growth…meaning those countries with developing  economies with high GDP growth, because they are growing…that is not the same as talking about established economies like those in the ‘West’ or Japan, Korea etc….China high GDP but per capita it is very poor….the government is rich, the people still poor.

Stern tells us that, well, Lomberg is not an economist (A good thing I’d suggest), and anyway he’s wrong about China.

Except he’s not.  China’s growth was based on enormous expansion of its coal fired power generation.  It’s famous for that, you don’t need to be an economist to know that….as the BBC told us in 2007…and China isn’t described as ‘rich’ then but growing…..

China is now building about two power stations every week…. Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow

 

It’s not just semantics…the developing nations charge for growth is more polluting than established economies trundling along at a steady pace..having already polluted to get there…but the way Davis phrases things it seems the ‘guilt’ is being firmly placed on those established economies…the ‘rich’ ones….China is of course still ‘developing’ but already the world’s biggest polluter…and now quite rich as a nation but, as said, per capita very poor….and so under Davis’ interpretation it is not rich and therefore not a ‘polluter’.  If you call CO2 pollution that is.

Some double standards from the BBC when it comes to who it lets onto its programmes to discuss climate change and an Orwellian approach to interpretation of many aspects from Davis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Getting The Story Right

 

 

anigif_enhanced-22927-1410968574-1

Alex Salmond inner self after the referendum

 

 

 

I’m still of the opinion that the BBC was leaning more towards Scottish independence than the Nats give them credit for…it would suit the BBC pro-Europe stance….divide and rule…splitting up the UK into small parts that are easy to pick off.

Throughout the run up to the referendum Salmond and Co were given an easy ride without too much rigorous questioning whilst the pro-Union campaign was ripped into.

When Cameron announced the new deal for Scotland before the referendum the BBC roundly panned it…based it seemed on the fact that a few Tory backbenchers opposed it…the same backbenchers who the BBC normally dismisses as a fringe bunch of rightwing backbenchers out to make trouble.

The BBC decided that the legislation for this deal could never be pushed through…however you might have thought that with all three leaders backing the promises and whipping their colleagues in to vote for it, it must stand a good chance of getting through the House….I can’t quite see why the BBC is so pessimistic.

After the referendum the BBC devoted most of its coverage to the impossibility of Cameron fuflilling his promises and the hopelessness of the No campaign.  I didn’t hear anything about the credibility of Salmond’s promises nor of the way he ran his campaign, hearing next to nothing of the bullying, intimidation and lies that the SNP indulged in….could Salmond fulfill those promises, were his figures on North Sea oil, the NHS and the economy credible?  The BBC didn’t seem too excited about exploring such issues.

The BBC did seem intent on stirring up Scottish nationalist’s anger by presenting the referendum as somehow undemocratic…er…because one side lost the vote…by a good 10%.  Apparently we now have to think of the 45% who wanted independence and not the 55% who don’t, and mould our policies to suit that 45%…there is much ‘negative anger’ out there we were told…and the BBC will not miss a trick in trying to whip that up into yet more anger about the result…Alex Salmond is already claiming ‘we was robbed’…the BBC’s asks…‘With all that anger the big question is ‘Can the Yes campaign work together for a united Britain?’….apparently we can no longer be Britain despite the vote to be British….Viewpoint: What now for Britishness?   Curious how democracy doesn’t work for the BBC.

 

Jon Pienaar came out after the vote telling us that Cameron was targeting Labour, he had ‘weaponised’ the politics by announcing he would seek to answer the ‘West Lothian Question’…. he isn’t looking for a consensus according to Pienaar who seemed to be making it up as he went along and  interpreting things in a way that sexed up his reports never mind that their wasn’t as yet any evidence that what Pienaar was saying had any basis in truth…it was mere conjecture presented as fact by Pienaar.

Pienaar cornered a Labour MP (can’t remember who) and tried to get him to say this was Cameron playing politics but the Labour MP steadfastly refused to say that and seemed aggrieved that Pienaar would seek to politicise this himself.

Perhaps the MP had already had a memo with the official Labour line….. that Labour’s then policy was to support the idea of English votes for English laws.

How do we know that?  Because due to a bit of a cock up two Labour MPs repeated exactly the same lines in the same interview with Sheila Fogarty. (3 hrs 53 mins)

Fogarty had Frank Field in to give us some spiel…he stated that we know Scotland can look after itself, the big question is how England can look after itself, Cameron has snatched victory from defeat, Labour must put its Scottish privileges over the English (that Labour Scottish MPs can vote on English laws) on the table and that Ed Miliband must represent the English party in England.  This is the project where Cameron can screw UKIP.  (In other words his gameplan is not to ‘weaponise’ the WLQ and target Labour, in Labour’s opinion…it is to target UKIP)

Then in came Labour’s Siddique Khan who hadn’t heard what Frank Field had said and launched straight into the exact same spiel…in a different way of course…..Cameron snatched victory from defeat, Scotland can look after itself, Labour’s Scottish privileges must be negotiated, Miliband must represent the English Party in England…and he even said Cameron is out to screw UKIP.

Fogarty and Field leapt in to close him down eventually in a bit of a panic as they realised he was reading from the same Labour script.

This was clearly a template message that Labour had concocted and sent out to its MPs to deliver if buttonholed by the Media…in their own words obviously…or not so obviously to some apparently.

The main message?  Labour supports Cameron’s wish to have only English MPs vote on English laws….and that this is about ‘screwing UKIP’ not Labour….not the message Pienaar was trying to claim Labour had.

Of course that seems to have changed now with Miliband opposing such a move.

Fogarty failed her big test there…any reporter worth her salt would have leapt in and demanded to know if this was the official Labour position if we had two MPs parroting the very same lines, almost to the word.  It is after all the major question of huge consequence as Fogarty alluded to in the interview when she kept asking if such a postion was really in Labour’s interest.

Fogarty’s wish to change the subject may just have been panic when she realised the interview was going awry but Pienaar has always been Ed Miliband friendly, Labour friendly.  I can’t say I’ve heard him utter much in the way of criticism of Miliband, in fact he ususally praises him…for price freezes on fuel and his Syria policy (opportunistic cowardice)….it has always been thus…when Labour was in power Pienaar would tell us that any policy announcement by the Tories looked good on initial impressions but if you delved deeper it started to fall apart…however Labour’s policies were a marvel of success and genius….and the fact that 12,000 manufacturing jobs a month were being lost in 2005 at the time of the election never got mentioned.

All in all I can’t say the BBC’s coverage of the referendum and all that has been anything but  somewhat one sided giving the SNP an easy ride, and now looks to be targeting Cameron whilst Miliband once again opportunistically changes his mind, doing a huge u-turn on ‘English votes for English laws’ backpeddling rapidly into the muddy waters of ‘consultation’ (post election naturally), and the BBC doesn’t notice even when the evidence is literally right in front of them.

 

From the Telegraph:

Miliband cornered over home rule

Labour leader refuses to say whether he backs PM’s plan to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws after referendum

Ed Miliband refused 13 times to say whether he would back plans set out by the Prime Minister for “home rule” in England in the wake of the Scottish independence referendum.

 

 

Maybe he missed the memo Frank Field and Siddique Khan received.

 

 

 

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

The BBC’s Virtual Blasphemy Law

 

The BBC have been bombarding us with endless reports that Imams have signed a letter demanding the release of a British hostage by ISIS.

Clear what the message is…British Muslims, decent, moderate Muslims, have no truck with ISIS and its extremist, distorted version of Isam.

It’s an easy win for the Muslims….what can they lose?…they are saying nothing about their religion, making no objectionable criticisms of its tenets…but get the credit for speaking out against extremism…not Islamic extremism…just head-chopping off extremism.

 

The BBC have also been making much of a ‘Home Office insider’ who has revealed concerns that we are not dealing with a major threat…that of the Far Right.

Now just who could that Home Office insider be?  Could he possibly be one of those radical Muslims employed by the Home Office to help them tackle the radicalisation of Muslim youth?  Ahem.   Let me think.  Can we trust a word this guy says?  No.

Or could he actually be a genuine Whitehall voice?  If so why would he be speaking about this?

We have seen a flurry of articles in various publications that dismiss the ‘Islamic’ part of the ‘Islamic State’ and tell us that ISIS has more in common with modern European fascism or European medieval conflicts than Islamic history….an obvious misdirection attempting to ‘enlighten’ us…the message is that these lands were not Islamic and yet they were extreme and vioelnt,  therefore violence in Muslim lands or societies cannot be blamed on Islam, there must be other, underlying, causes common to all societies.   However…. ISIS is in fact a perfect, full colour replay of the establishment of Islam across the Middle East by Muhammed…who also felt no qualms about chopping off heads…some he did himself.  Perhaps Muhammed wasn’t a Muslim?

Is it possible that the government has been whispering in a few ears and is busy establishing a certain narrative across the Media designed to insulate the Muslim community from any fallout over the Islamic State and British recruits chopping off British heads?

Once again, with the supposed threat of the Far Right, we have that false comparative narrative that if it something bad happens in European, non-Muslim society, then that illustrates that ‘similar’ problems apparently linked to Islam have other underlying causes.  Part of that narrative is to create a straw man, to exaggerate the threat from the ‘Far Right’ and make out that white, working class youths are on the march and are just as dangerous as any Muslim terrrorist…hence, we, the British Public, should not criticise or condemn Muslims and Islam, because look….it’s not just Muslims who are radical and dangerous…and after all, the ‘radicalised’ white boys don’t read the Koran…only of course they do…which is why they march ….against it.

One other point is that the BBC links ‘Islamophobia’, or as a more truthful witness might say, justified and reasoned criticism of Islam, only with the ‘Far Right’.

What the BBC’s narrative does is to suggest that if you criticise Islam you must be ‘Far Right’ and your views are completely abhorrent to normal, decent human beings.

The BBC attempts to introduce a virtual blasphemy law…if you speak out against Islam and its practises you are labelled racist and ‘Islamophobic’.  The BBC attempts to close down debate and criticism by turning anyone who speaks out into pariahs.

 

Perhaps that ‘Home Office insider’ should be dragged in for a bit of a bollocking.  Far from reducing the likelihood of inter-communal violence he has increased it by trying to close down real debate and discussion of the real causes of Muslim violence and radicalisation…with a bit of help from the BBC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Bearing Witness

 

Jon Snow  grandly, sententiously, told us he was ‘bearing witness’ to events in Gaza rather than reporting them in  a balanced and impartial manner.  Never mind the facts, the context, the causes of those events that Snow ‘bears witness’ to.

The BBC’s Archive on 4, Media and the Middle East, programme opened with Snow’s words.

And it went downhill from there as it explored how the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been reported….or at least that is how the programme was presented to us.

In fact this was a self serving piece of very, very carefully crafted BBC propaganda designed to tell us the BBC is not pro-Israeli and its seemingly pro-Palestinian stance is merely a just rebalancing of the media narrative which has been too heavily slanted towards ‘plucky’ little Israel.

The programme had two very revealing conclusions.  Firstly they told us that neither Israeli nor Hamas social media operations caught the Public imagination.  What did catch that imagination were the casualties in Gaza.

Now Hamas might consider that their social media offensive failing is hardly a disaster when they had a massive, powerful, respected, world wide broadcasting organisation such as the BBC pumping out their message for them…the exact message that Hamas were trying to generate…that of high civilian casualties.

In other words what caught the public’s attention was the Hamas message, courtesy of the BBC…and this was a deliberate BBC policy, carried out to the nth degree by the likes of Jon Donnison….undoubtedly overseen approvingly by his boss, Jeremy Bowen.

 

The second conclusion was that the narrative about Israel has changed over time…once the plucky little country fighting for survival, now the enormously powerful bully turning its might upon a weak and defenceless People who could barely fight back.

Now again that’s a narratve that is familiar…it is one we have heard repeatedly from BBC journalists, that Israel’s overwhelmingly powerful army is crushing a helpless, defenceless Palestinian opponent.

So once again the BBC has worked to completely alter the narrative of the conflict and has managed to create an image of Israel that bears little relation to the truth, missing out important context and causation…never mind that Israel is surrounded by enemies out to destroy it.

Curiously the BBC is far more sympathetic to Iran whom it explains is only so aggressive because of the enemies (The Great Satan) surrounding it.

 

From those two conclusions we can see just how powerful and effective the BBC’s attempts to manipulate the narrative in favour of the Palestinians and against the Israelis has been.

By coincidence this morning we also heard something about ISIS and what needs to be done to tackle and lessen its appeal to Muslims. The main answer, we were told, was to create functioning, decent states, societies and democracies in the Middle East.

Which, you may recall, is what was attempted in Iraq. What was the main obstacle on the road to a democratic, just State in Iraq?  The radical Islamists…..and who encouraged them to fight in Iraq?  The BBC….the BBC ‘fought’ the Iraq war all the way, declaring it illegal, Blair a liar and the army murderous.

The BBC was one of the obstacles to that fair and just State as it spent a decade pumping out anti-Iraq war messages that ensured Muslims were in a perpetual state of anger and anti-Western funk.

Once again the BBC has interfered in the Middle East with devastatingly dangerous consequences.

 

The programme seemed to concentrate more on Israel than the Palestinians or Arabs…..the clips played were all unfavourable to Israel, or intended that way.

We heard Pathe News was terribly pro-Israel…apparently the soundtracks accompanying the reports of Israeli victories in the various wars were far too triumphant ….personally, having heard many a Pathe News film clip, I’d say they were about standard for the time…nothing that would indicate it was intedned to be pro-Israel.

We heard that the BBC was at the mercy of the ‘Jewish Lobby’….a view later reinforced when Bowen came on to claim he was bombarded by complaints…..mostly as a result of orchestrated Jewish campaigns against him and the BBC….oh, yes the Palestinians also complained…but you know what, it was just that terrible old Arafat……not the lovely Hamas…nor the Palestinian people.

What we didn’t hear from Bowen was how his journalists were controlled by Hamas and the reports they sent out were censored by the terrorists…..something which the BBC of course denies.

Those were the most notable points from the programme which overall was just as you might expect…Israel in the wrong and the defenceless Palestinians doing the best they can in a cruel world.

But essentially as said, this was more about the BBC than about either Israel or the Palestinians.

 

A couple other notable points…one claim was that the UK was very pro-Israel as a bulwark against Arab nationalism….hmmm…well Britain was never enthusiastically pro-Israel and favoured the Arabs far more….not to mention the British long term support for the Muslim Brotherhood….as a bulwark against Arab nationalism….something the BBC fails to mention here for some reason.

One of John Lloyd’s final comments was that social media played no part in the ‘Arab Spring’…which is curious as that was a central theme for much of the BBC reporting at the time….the BBC itself being chastised for its casual use of the social media sources for ‘news’.

Interesting how the Arab Spring is now being quietly downgraded itself….could it be that the BBC prefers to lay the blame for the rise of massive unrest in the Middle East on the doorstep of the Americans and Blair after Iraq 2003?….which is odd really…as the BBC told us this:

“We had a clean revolution [In Tunisia]. The former president turned out to be a coward. He just ran away. Not like the others – like the poor Libyans, or in Syria – but it lit the fuse to all the other revolutions” Wassim Herissi, radio DJ

The downfall of Tunisia’s President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali inspired pro-democracy activists across the Arab world.
Widespread discontent at economic hardship, decades of autocratic rule and corruption erupted into mass demonstrations in December 2010 after a young, unemployed man, Mohamed Bouazizi, set fire to himself after officials stopped him selling vegetables in Sidi Bouzid. Around 300 people were killed during the subsequent unrest, which forced Ben Ali to resign in January 2011, after 23 years in power, and go into exile in Saudi Arabia. He was later sentenced to life in prison in absentia.

Not the Iraq war then?  And ISIS?  It came out of the Arab Spring and Syria.  Again not from Iraq 2003.

It’s also interesting to hear all those Syrians and Iraqis who are proud of their countries and who intend to fight to keep them in one piece…..not a message the BBC likes, preferring instead to tell us that Sykes-Picot forced diverse ethnicities and religions unnaturally together, a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode…never mind the Ottoman Empire was constructed from all those various identities itself…and that the Arabs fought to create an Arab nation alongside the British against the Islamic Caliphate.

 

The BBC… which never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

From Fear To Sympathy

 

We had this story earlier in the month:

Illegal immigrant clung to axle of motorhome for more than 100 miles to get to Britain from Calais through the Channel Tunnel

 

Yesterday the BBC tackled it on 5 Live with Clare McDonnell, who, sad to say, could quite easily be mistaken for the much missed Victoria Derbyshire….who, you will be happy to know, brings her undoubted talents and take on the world to the small screen:

James Harding, the director of BBC news and current affairs, said: “Victoria has rightly won many awards for her ability to find the stories that matter in the lives of people in this country.

“We are very excited to bring her range of interests, determination to get to the bottom of the story, and her capacity to surprise, to a television audience.”

 

McDonnell interviewed the two Brits who were surprised to find an immigrant emerge from underneath their motorhome…and who promptly gave him a cup of tea, a sandwich and a banana.

To set the scene McDonnell wanted to give us a ‘a reminder of why immigrants are prepared to go to such lengths to get to Britain.’   I think you can see where she is going with this.

Naturally we hear tales of woe and a love for Britain, a desperate need to work and to live in such a lovely country where justice and law prevail and just how much they really want to contribute.

No doubt they wouldn’t dream of asking for the generous handouts available.

Back to the particular immigrant in question and McDonnell suggests that the couple were  naturally scared but that fear soon turned to sympathy for the poor fellow’s plight….asking if they now had compassion for immigrants…he maybe sent back…how does that make you feel?  she asks.

Indeed they did have sympathy…and then the husband said ‘….but of course this is a small country…can’t take ‘em all’

McDonnell suddenly didn’t want to talk to him and turned to the wife asking how she feels…unfortunately she gave the same answer…essentially ‘we can’t take ‘em all.’

 

Must have been a great disappointment to find two such sympathetic people, so obviously caring and generous…..and they turn out to be complete fascist nazi UKIP voting immigrant bashing little Englanders.

Have they learnt nothing from the years of BBC propaganda?

Just another sad little BBC attempt to tell us how hard life is in an immigrant’s home country and ipso facto how much he needs and deserves a home in the UK,  to tell us how hard a journey he has had to get here…again how desperate he must be….and therefore clearly so deserving of a home for his trouble, and look, he loves Britain, he’s not a scrounger, he wants to work, he wants to be ‘British’…..how can you refuse to love him and find a place not only in your heart but in your home for him?

The message was clear….you might fear immigrants but once you get to know them you can only have sympathy….therefore let ‘em in, all of ‘em….numbers no object.

Shame the BBC doesn’t interview all those people who have had relatives killed by immigrants, or people who have been raped, robbed, burgled, pick-pocketed, credit card scammed, shoplifted or otherwise attacked and abused by them.

In the last ten years more people have been killed by immigrants in the UK than were killed on 7/7…how many more were otherwise victims of crime by immigrants?

Which is more dangerous, terrorism or open door immigration?

 

Both of which the BBC seems to support in its own way.

 

 

 

 

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

Sniping

 

 

I can see why the BBC might find Islam attractive what with death for apostasy being a favoured way of dealing with critical ex-members of the cult.

Paxman is famously grumpy as he slowly grinds to a halt, and Paul Mason shows a distinct lack of loyalty as well…from The Spectator:

Former Newsnight correspondent Paul Mason seems rather happy to be free of Auntie, especially since the Scottish independence referendum campaign sent the establishment to panic stations: ‘Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there,’ he writes on his Facebook page, to the consternation of former colleagues. ‘It’s on my friends-only Facebook page so not meant as any great statement other than weariness,’ Mason tells Mr S, ‘it says what it says.’ Lucky, then that he is now at Channel Four News – that famed bastion of slant free news.

 

 

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

UnIslamic Whadjamacallems

 

Nicky Campbell investigated ISIS this morning and what needed to be done about them.

First of all we have to think up a really uncool name for them…To call them the Islamic State is just addressing them in the manner they want to be addressed and gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve.

Naturally they are ‘unIslamic’ but also barbaric, murderous and cruel terrorists…yes that’s right, terrorists.

Curious that when the BBC wants to defend ‘Islam’ anything that reflects badly upon the religion or community is deemed unIslamic, bad, mad or in this case terrorists.

Curious that when the BBC wants to attack Israel similar bad, mad, unIslamic ‘terrorists’ are described as ‘resisters’, militants heroically defending their land and people against a violent oppressor.

 

Campbell of course couldn’t make it through the programme without finding an excuse to bring Israel into the discussion.  When someone suggested ISIS didn’t follow the norms of most states or international rules Campbell claimed that there would be thousands of people screaming at the radio asking ‘What about Israel?

Why Israel?  Why Israel in particular when Russia has annexed the Crimea and has invaded the Ukraine, never mind its attempts on Georgia and Chechnya…never mind Syrian atrocities, or Iranian, or Pakistani?

Why does Nicky Campbell compare Israel to ISIS?  Must be all those ‘undocumented’ settlements…sorry, illegal settlements.  Again curious how illegal immigrants are welcomed to Britain by the BBC and yet Israeli ‘illegals’ in the West Bank are criminal war mongers.

At best this is Campbell trying to generate some cheap interest in his programme, trying to stimulate some controversy and argument by throwing Israel to the dogs.  At worst he is demonising Israel and legitimising attacks upon it.

 

From The Spectator:

Like it or not, Isis are Muslims. Calling them ‘monsters’ lets us off the hook

There are various pieties that politicians observe in the wake of some barbarity committed by Islamic fundamentalists and duly David Cameron observed them in his statement yesterday about the murder of David Haines. Of the perpetrators, he observed:

They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people – Christians, Muslims, minorities across Iraq and Syria. They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.’

I really wish he wouldn’t. It doesn’t add anything whatever to our understanding of Isis to say that they are not Muslims but monsters. They may not be our preferred kind of Muslims – my own preference is for the C of E sort you used to get in the former Yugoslavia – but they are, unquestionably Muslims of a particularly unattractive stamp. Calling them monsters is an impolite way of abnegating any effort to understand them.

 

 

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

Hoots Mon!

 

 

10609564_10152220286236086_2382043143866995509_n

 

The SNP’s Jim Sillars made some astonishing threats to companies that didn’t promote the SNP pro-independence line:

The No camp fear mongering has had an effect on me – instead of retiring on 19th. September, I am staying in. This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.

The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.

BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.

As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.

As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.

As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.

What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.

I have yet to hear a BBC interview that ripped into any SNP representative about this [I'm sure there must be one]….I heard Jon Pienaar having a friendly chat with Nicola Sturgeon yesterday when he allowed her to get away with dismissing the whole thing as the result of great passion and Sillars’ wife having died.

Never have I heard the BBC link other such examples of businesses being threatened by the SNP to back up claims of SNP bullying…..

This from the Telegraph in December last year:

SNP making ‘threatening phone calls’, say pro-Union businesses. This is sinister

As Scotland gets ready to vote on independence in September next year, one subject above all others prompts business leaders, entrepreneurs and bankers here to lower their voices and look over their shoulders to check that they are not being overheard. Ask them about the risks of breaking up the Union and it rapidly becomes apparent that they are terrified of getting caught speaking publicly about concerns, in case they are targeted for retribution by Alex Salmond’s nationalist administration which runs devolved Scotland. The climate of fear is extraordinary and quite sinister. There is the concern about incurring the wrath of SNP politicians, in terms of smear campaigns instigated in the Scottish parliament and publicised in the media.

 

 

This from the Guardian this July:

Cameron accuses SNP of threats to business leaders over no vote

“A huge amount of pressure is being put on businesses by the Scottish government with all sorts of threats and warnings against speaking out and saying what they believe is the truth. I come across business leader after business leader – large and small in Scotland – who wants to keep our United Kingdom together and thinks it would be crazy to have border controls, different currencies and split up our successful United Kingdom. I urge them to speak out, talk with their work forces about the strength of our United Kingdom and then vote to keep it together.”

 

This also from July this year:

Officials of Scotland’s ruling Scottish National Party have been accused of threatening businesses who oppose independence.

Makers of an episode of Channel 4′s Dispatches, which will air tonight, said they had been spoken to 19 businesses who were aware of threats of “retribution down the track” for those who opposed independence.

Gavin Hewitt, the former chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, told Channel 4 that he or his senior staff had met with Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, on at least six occasions over the past two years.

“He and the SNP have regularly tried to get the message to the Scotch Whisky Association that the Scotch whisky industry should stay out of the independence debate,” Hewitt told the programme.

 

 

So much for the ‘energised, articulate, peaceful debate’ that Salmond tries to portray it as.

It might be a good example of rounded journalism if the BBC were to make a bit of an effort and put all of these examples together and make a solid case against the SNP for its sinister, bullying tactics…this is the SNP who claim that an independent Scotland will be a fairer, more equal, more just place.

Presumably only if the SNP then get booted out at the next election.

 

 

 

 

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