No other news outlet seems in the slightest bit concerned, not even the Guardian as far as I can see. Only the BBC has blitzed us all day with this revelation…..never mind that their own graph shows that there was a huge rise in 2009…
Of course there’s no context…no numbers of people who were cut off pre-2009…and figures for pre-payment meters are only available from 2009 apparently so hard to judge what went on before isn’t it?
From 2006 to 2010, the National Housing Federation lead a national campaign to ensure that prepay meter customers don’t pay a penny more than quarterly billed customers. As of April 2010, all prepay meter customers now pay the same or less than quarterly billed prices.
The campaign was launched in January 2007, when the six million energy customers who pay up front to heat and light their homes via prepayment meters paid over £100 per year more than customers who pay quarterly for the energy. Some prepayment customers were being charged £300 a year more than those on higher incomes paying by online debits.
An old story so why has the BBC disinterred it in such a big way? Can’t imagine that it could possibly be a project to make people think that bad things happen under a Tory government? The next 5 years bringing us an entirely negative interpretation of events with the BBC seeking out stories that paint the government in the worst possible light just as the BBC seeks out the unemployed, single mothers and their ilk who are so cruelly treated by this world.
Speaking of which the BBC illustrated their tale of woe about the pre-payment meters by having on an unemployed single mother, cruelly treated by this world, in debt and forced to have a pre-payment meter…..she wasn’t sure how she’d cope with all the bills and also being taken to court for not paying her Television license……oops what???…suddenly the BBC lost interest and you could hear the strangled tones as the presenter moved rapidly on.
The BBC is feeding the Black grievance industry and victimhood narrative, and worse, promoting the idea that all whites are racist, and blacks the victims of that racism….a very dangerous and destructive line that sets one group against another.
Justin Webb demonstrates what is so often wrong with BBC interviewers…they go in with preconceived notions that any interviewee has to then defend themselves against rather than the BBC asking neutral questions intended to genuinely discover what is going on in any given situation that has suddenly got their interest.
Webb in this interview (08:48) with British police officer Michael Matthews, author of “We Are The Cops”, who has long experience of how American police operate, began with the prejudice that American police are brutal, racist, violent and a regard themselves as beleagured ‘superheros’ setting themselves against the rest of the population, the police not being part of the community.
Matthews soon put Webb right on just about every criticism.
Webb’s approach is all too often reflected in the rest of the BBC when it comes to reporting on recent events in the US, reporting as ‘fact’ that America is a racist society and that white police officers are gunning down black men because the white officers are racist.
The BBC plays a dangerous game feeding into the black activists game of race baiting, race hustling and facilitating the grievance industry and the line that Blacks are victims of white People’s prejudices at all times.
Here are just some of the BBC’s own prejudices where it casually accepts that events in Ferguson and Baltimore and elsewhere are caused by police racism…
Justin Brotman is a human rights activist, and the son of one of the co-founders of wholesale superstore Costco. And as the voice behind the @Bipartisanism Twitter account, he became one of the main drivers of a campaign to change the public perception of what happened in Baltimore last week.
“I think what we’re seeing is a bit of a tipping point in American culture. With each incident, with video, with witnesses, we’re starting to think – wow, we really do have this problem in America,” Brotman said.
“People are starting to think ‘How many black men are in jail, and shouldn’t be? How many black men have been killed?’ That’s all starting to percolate clearly.”
It’s obviously a story – but it is none too rare, sadly not that unusual – and if you ask many in the black community, not in the least bit unexpected.
I heard one piece of commentary that more or less started “First there was Ferguson, now Baltimore”‘ – but in truth there has been a whole pile of incidents in between.
I haven’t the space to list them all – the 12-year-old boy shot dead in a park in Cleveland, Ohio, the student left bloody and bruised at the University of Virginia, the man fatally shot eight times in the back in South Carolina, the 44-year-old chased down and killed in Tulsa, Oklahoma, after volunteer officer pulled a firearm instead of a stun gun.
And there are more, culminating in Freddie Gray dying while in the custody of Baltimore police, after his spinal cord had been virtually severed. It’s unlikely you would sustain an injury like that simply by slipping as you stepped into the police wagon.
What the common features are of all these incidents is that the victims were black and the forces of law and order involved in them were for the most part white.
Which brings us back to the opinion piece that made the point that first there was Ferguson, then there was Baltimore. The writer is correct, insofar as they both resulted in looting, burning and vandalising – all playing out on our screens last night.
From the hapless Baltimore mayor through to the president the point has been made – rioting achieves nothing.
But, sadly it has. It has caught people’s attention – because it has conformed to the journalist’s law of what makes a story – it is rare, unexpected and unusual.
Perhaps the lesson is we need to take more notice of things that lead to the riots and sense of alienation by disaffected young African-Americans.
The white cop assaulting or shooting a black man may not be that unusual, but it has already led to dire consequences for those living in Ferguson and in Baltimore.
More black ‘victimhood’….you can’t call a thug a thug…
In the wake of violence and unrest in Baltimore, media commentators as well as politicians – including President Barack Obama – called rioters “thugs”, and were criticised for it. But the term has a much older history.
In the US, “thug” is a loaded term.
“It’s this very effective way of suggesting that the people who are doing the rioting and who are being called thugs don’t actually have a right to their outrage,” she says.
That’s partly why there’s widespread disgust in the African American community over its use. Just take the response Baltimore Councilman Carl Stokes gave to CNN’s Erin Burnett over the word.
“It’s not the right word to call our children ‘thugs,'” Mr Stokes said. “These are children who have been set aside, marginalised, who have not been engaged by us.”
Garber isn’t surprised the word has become so loaded.“In some sense, the history of language is about people trying to wield power over other people,” she says.
“And so this is just one more example of that strife and that effort.”
Here is a typical BBC, very one-sided, look at the ‘problem’…..naturally the BBC doesn’t bother with any context or challenge to the lines being fed to us that blacks are treated more harshly than whites……..
Biker gangs in Waco, Texas, shot each other up and the police moved in to stop the shootings. The police actually shot some of the bikers and arrested over 170…and yet black activists, and the BBC, are asking why there was no ‘tanks’ etc on the streets…it’s a race thing surely?
Well perhaps there were no tanks because, despite police shooting some bikers and arresting 170 or so of them, there were no mass riots, civil disorder and mass destruction in reaction to those shootings and arrests in contrast to how the black community reacted in Baltimore and Ferguson….here are those rioting bikers……
And yet there were heavily armed police at Waco…
Contrast with Baltimore and Ferguson….can you spot the difference?……
And you may remember a previous police action at Waco….guess that was police racism as well….or not as the ‘victims’ of police violence were white……….
How about those racist National Guardsmen?
or indeed back to Waco present day…….those racist cops arresting all these black boys……
The BBC has a new celebrity left winger to flood the airwaves with their views….Steve Hilton, a one time David Cameron advisor….which could explain a lot when you listen to his thoughts.
‘Parish’ Hilton is all about the ‘local’ now, anti-big business, anti-capitalist and confusingly seemingly also anti-communist bu he just doesn’t realise it. He has a very confused message and a very naive one. The BBC likes him though with him popping up everywhere, twice on Today today, on Marr’s Start the Week ,with that other favourite lefty guru Stiglitz, and given a free hand to promote his message on Newsnight….that message being very ‘Occupy’ and would seem better suited to Miliband than the Tories….as the Times points out…‘Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s modernising guru, has a message that the opposition should take to heart‘. One notable omission from Hilton’s hit list is the power hungry, anti- people EU….could it be because Cameron is pro-Europe? Are we being sold a political ideology by Hilton rather than a genuine attempt to understand the problems and come up with a solution?
Hilton tells us he is against the centralised, uniform way of doing things by Government….isn’t that Communism and the Labour way, a way in which the individaul is irrelevant? And yet he ascribes it to Capitalism. He claims that for most of human history politics was local and it was impossible to be organised any other way….really? Has he never heard of the Aztec, Roman, Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Muslim, Soviet, SNP, etc etc empires? Has he never heard of the Domesday Book...’a landmark in the triumph of the centralised written record, once set down fixed forever, over evolving local oral traditions’, the rule of kings and queens, the Aristocracy, the Church? The centralised power of previous societies and ways of ruling were enormous and overwhelming, the privileged elite who held the reins of that power controlled it ruthlessly.
Life for people has never given them so much power than what they have today, especially in the capitalist West where consumer power, political power and now with the internet, the power to challenge the entrenched Media empires, has never been so strong….the power of ‘people power’ and bad publicity is enormous as shown by Thomas Cook being shamed into handing over money it received upon the death of tourists to a charity….but then again a powerful central government is essential to enforce regulations against such big institutions and businesses on behalf of ‘The people’. And in politics things are being shaken up radically….UKIP forced Cameron to change his politics, the SNP wiped the floor with Labour……there is no ‘status quo’ with one overwhelming, out of touch elite, they are vulnerable as never before….people have real political power…certainly it’s not perfect….the EU for instance is vastly out of touch and beyond the power of people to easily effect….but change is possible….the Soviet Empire fell because of ‘People Power’ such as ‘Solidarnosc’ backed up by Maggie and Reagan and those ‘useless’ Nukes….and the ‘Arab Spring’….which the BBC assures us was triggered and maintained by people on the ‘social media’.
Hilton of course talks about the Banks and tearing them apart but also the supermarkets saying that more competition needs to be injected by government…that ‘local’, less intrusive, less powerful government. He tells us that the barriers to entry by competition are too strong and the big supermarkets are just too powerful….has he never heard of Aldi, Lidl and the ‘Pound’ shops, the insurgent low cost supermarkets who are making the big supermarkets run for cover?
You kind of suspect Hilton is the victim of that very thing he tells us we should be wary of, the elitist, closed minds created by being in a limited environment that turns out to be an echo chamber reflecting and reinforcing ideas that he desperately wants to believe in. Just how many ‘real’ people does he talk to rather than activist campaigners and political geeks? Not many it would seem.
Why is the BBC giving him so much airtime? Great publicity for his book…..and yet his ideas smack of easy, utopian crowd pleasing, lefty schmaltz that lack any grounding in the real world and are completely unworkable in that real world….or irrelevant and infantile as someone said….much like Occupy and Giles Fraser.
When the Labour Party wanted to communicate their values to a less than grateful Nation they carved them into the ‘Ed Stone’ for posterity, well three days at least.
When the BBC wants to communicate their values to an expectant Nation they send for the Easton, Mark Easton, for better or worse.
Neither of these two vehicles for ‘The Message’ met with unalloyed joy from a less than adoring population. The Ed Stone was quietly removed and secreted away, hidden from the ridicule and scorn that poured down upon it whilst, unfortunately, Mark Easton is still free to roam the world spreading his own brand of pious worthiness wherever he goes….in this case the interesting perspective that Islamic ‘extremism’ may in fact be thought heroic when the history books are written.
The BBC is not a stranger to offering support and reassurance to terrorists and those who seek to attack the West whether by violence or by using the Media itself, the BBC, along with the Guardian, often being the channel of first choice for the ‘disenfranchised’ to get their message out.
The BBC started early of course, banning Churchill from the airwaves for fear he would upset Herr Hitler, then giving priceless airtime and credibility to the IRA and its bloody message before moving on to the ‘militants’ of the PLO and Hamas, not forgetting the ‘moderates’ of the Muslim Brotherhood and the BBC’s decision to claim that the Muslim Trojan Horse scandal was a hoax generated by racism, Islamophobia and paranoia, and latterly of course the Islamists who can more often than not rely on a sympathetic hearing at the BBC.
Which brings us bang up to date and Mark Easton’s latest foray into the World of Relativity that the BBC exists deep within.
‘One can understand a government’s determination to prevent extremism that might lead to radicalisation and terrorism. But where to draw the line? And indeed, how do we draw up a definition?
There is, it seems to me, an inherent contradiction between banning orders and the core British value that one should be tolerant of different viewpoints.
History tells us that the development of new ideas of governance and government require people to think radically. Extreme views are necessary to test the wisdom of the mainstream.’
The BBC of course has no problem at all in deciding what is extreme and shutting such voices out of the debate…oh they may let them speak but only to give someone else the chance to cast derision, scorn and mockery upon them…..UKIP, the EDL and even the Tories know full well they are considered ‘extremists’ by the BBC.
‘Would those who oppose homosexuality or multiculturalism or feminism be accused of threatening values of tolerance and equality?
‘After my blog earlier this week and an appearance on the BBC News at Ten reporting on government plans to introduce extremist banning orders, it is upsetting to find myself accused of positively comparing the radical Islamist firebrand Anjem Choudary with civil rights hero Mahatma Gandhi.
I would understand people’s shock and horror if I had – but I did not. Quite the reverse. Anjem Choudary is nothing like Mahatma Gandhi. Nor Nelson Mandela for that matter. Indeed, that was my point and I am saddened if it has been misconstrued.’
Anyone reading the original article and reports of his news broadcast will know he is not being truthful with himself….he was clearly trying to relativise the issues and was suggesting that Choudray may be considered a hero like Ghandi or Mandela one day and that his extremist views might not just be a useful sounding board for society but a source and inspiration for a new society and way of governing.
Easton….shame he can’t be found a quiet spot in a very, very big warehouse where he can be parked for a very, very long time…with no wifi.
There has been a concerted effort by the Left, and that includes the BBC, to close down what they see as the ‘Right-wing Press’, an effort that went into overdrive once Murdoch switched his support away from Labour. Leveson failed in its intent to silence the Murdoch media stable but the battle goes on.
No chance is lost to conjure up some lurid conspiracy theory connecting the Press to the Tories or the dark forces of the shadowy elite that run this country in their own interests.
Miliband defeated, Chuka resigns before he’s even got the job, the SNP re-enact Bannockburn, Obama turns out to be a lot ‘whiter’ than he looks….all a result of the fevered manipulations of the gullible, addle headed gloopy minds of the Public by the Right-wing Press.
The latest excuse to put the Press in the stocks is that Chuka u-turn, the Left wasting no time in blaming Press intrusion into Chuka’s personal life despite Chuka himself saying this was not the case, and it turns out Chuka always was a bit of a flighty lightweight when it comes to pressure of any kind….
The video at the top of the post shows the BBC giving Owen Jones a friendly platform to peddle his anti-Murdoch narrative on the ‘Owen Jones’ Show’.
Jones demands that the Media only looks at what he calls substance not private lives and personality. Trouble is he’s not averse to doing just that himself when it suits.
But before we examine Owen’s claims about a Right-wing Press conspiracy let’s have a look at his powers of prediction, his political antennae at work……from 2013:
‘David Cameron is sunk, kaput, finito. He leads a party that has not won an election since 1992: back when nearly no one had heard of the internet; before text messages, DVDs, and even Take That’s first number one hit.
Governing parties almost never increase their vote share at the next election.
Whether or not Labour gains an overall majority in two years’ time, the Tories cannot win, and this famously ruthless party will boot out its loser leader. To borrow a phrase from Italian comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo, David Cameron is a dead man talking.’
Turns out that predictions of Cameron’s political death were somewhat exaggerated. Whatever did become of him?
What of Jones’ dire prophecies that the Right-wing Press are conspiring to undermine Democracy on the orders of their shadowy masters? Are they any more credible than his line about Cameron? It turns out that the opposite is true…the real conspiracy is from the Left to silence a free Press and to impose a Leftwing government upon a people gulled and deprived of genuine debate and information.
The crusade against tabloid journalism spreads far wider than the bungling CPS.
The authoritarian fiasco of Operation Elveden is only the end result of a campaign to sanitise Britain’s unruly press, involving everybody from political leaders and top judges to police chiefs, celebrity crusaders and assorted media snobs. All of them share the same contempt for what one top prosecutor called ‘the gutter press’.
It was the Leveson Inquiry, let us recall, that gave the stamp of official approval to the witch-hunt. It was a showtrial in which the tabloids were found guilty even before proceedings began. The allegedly liberal Guardian has often been in the forefront of the tabloid-bashing ranks, while the BBC has acted as official cheerleader for Lord Justice Leveson, the police and the CPS (and then as chief mourner, when the juries failed to go along with the script).
We need to remind them all that freedom of speech and of the press must mean exactly that – not the ‘freedom’ to say and publish only that of which judges, policemen and assorted prigs approve.
Operation Elveden stands exposed as the result of a political crusade, if not a conspiracy, to criminalise tabloid journalism. Yet the guilty men and women behind that crusade, launched from the heart of Britain’s political and cultural elite, have not yet given up on their campaign to tame press freedom. It is high time they were all held to account.’
It also turns out, ironically, that it is the Leftwing BBC that did for Chuka. No, really. HIGNFY explored Chuka’s policies (6 mins in) and as a result he issued an immediate statement that he had withdrawn his candidacy for leader of the Labour Party….illustrating that HIGNFY is ‘the most powerful programme on televison…if the Tories are watching leave the BBC on.’ Made all the more amusing because the presenter is Labour friendly Robert Peston and his wig…calling Chuka an ‘amateur’.
‘I’m no Chuka-ite, but what a travesty if he’s been bumped out of the Labour leadership competition because of media intrusion. Rather than scrutinising the ideas and policies of our political leaders – except to demonise and caricature them if they even timidly step outside the political status quo – instead the media focuses on personality and personal life. Allegedly doorstepping his family, including his girlfriend’s 102-year-old grandmother – is this really how “media scrutiny” should work in Britain in 2015?
The media has disastrously failed to scrutinise the government’s policies, often serving as a de facto extension of the Tory party’s propaganda unit. Instead it’s personalities and private lives that are hunted. It’s sad. And we all suffer, and our democracy suffers, because of it.
What exactly did ‘they’ do to Miliband? Apparently ‘they’ were race-baiting…….
Is the Sun’s ‘save our bacon’ election front page antisemitic?
Can we agree at least on this: today’s Sun front page, featuring Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich, is cruel, abusive and puerile. We should also be able to agree that savage satire of politicians is inevitable and even desirable in a free press.
But there’s another question where no agreement is going to be possible: was the front page of the Sun surreptitiously antisemitic?
Hang on….Miliband is not ‘Jewish’, he’s from a Jewish heritage…..hence he is eating a non-kosher bacon sandwich, the ‘Tory Press’ didn’t trick him into eating that… it was a PR stunt by Miliband…..that it went wrong is entirely his fault. This claim of anti-Semitism is itself the real story….a very nasty smear alleging racism or in this case anti-Semitism, a tactic used by the Left all the time to silence its critics.
Jones strangely seems to have missed the rather prominent line in that article that undermines his argument completely….’We should also be able to agree that savage satire of politicians is inevitable and even desirable in a free press.’
Owen Jones claims to want to stick to the substance of the arguments but he himself isn’t averse to trying to use ridicule to attack his enemies……
He has nearly 10 million Twitter followers; his YouTube interview with Ed Miliband received well over a million hits and counting; he is listened to by hundreds of thousands of disillusioned Britons, particularly young people who have been repeatedly kicked over the last few years. Russell Brand matters.
Time is running out. But in recognising the gravity of the situation, Russell Brand has done his bit to stave off disaster and defend the struggles for justice that now beckon.’
The discomfort with democracy, the return of the view of voters as insufficiently informed and easily manipulated, is becoming widespread among cut-off elites. Only where once it tended to be the right that railed against voter dumbness, now it’s the left.
The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee used election day, not to celebrate the great right of people to choose their leaders, but to continue the slurs against what she called ‘weak readers’ — members of the electorate whose ‘mind-blowing ignorance’ means they are ‘unaware how their daily struggles will be fought out in distant Westminster’.
Neil Kinnock bemoaned the ‘mood and self-delusion’ that gripped the electorate and made them vote in a self-defeating way. The high priest of the chattering classes, Canon Giles Fraser, railed against the whole idea of democracy. It is little more than an ‘aggregation of self-interest’, he said. He saved his sharpest barbs for ‘the poor’, asking: ‘Why do the poor vote when, by voting, they merely give legitimacy to a system that connives with their oppression?’ Al Gore’s handwringing over the media’s ‘power of persuasion’ and how it triggers mass thinking that is not ‘modulated by logic, reason [or] reflective thought’.
‘Tory press barons worried Labour would end their tax scams published Cameron’s propaganda day after day.
And the vilification worked with gloop-brained voters frightened into sticking with the Tory nasty nurse for fear of something worse.’
The ‘Tory Press‘?
“Rupert Murdoch and the Daily Mail have had British politicians in their top pocket for decades,” said Coogan. “The smear and fear agenda they have peddled over the past few weeks has been pretty shameful. Thankfully we don’t have Fox News on TV, but sadly this election has shown that we do have it in printed form.”
No Fox News but even the Labour supporting BBC had a pop at Miliband because he was so bad…so not just the incorrigible RWP…..
Here is a demonstration of why Miliband lost…..he remained the eternal student activist never rising above the petty squabbles and small politics of that type of environment. Miliband, instead of standing aloof from the attacks on his personality and his ineptness in a statesman-like manner, decided to personally rebut every charge against him in an effort to look both the vulnerable victim and the strong man in standing up to the ‘bullies’….Miliband never looked convincing as the tough all rounder…never less than when he spouted the Americanism ‘Hell yes I’m tough enough’ as everyone watching knew he wasn’t and that the phrase had been practised long and hard with his spinners before hand. Here he is being dragged unwisely into the mud flinging looking more like the office boy every day……
Jones claims we shouldn’t look at the personality of the politicians….and yet their personality reveals so much about how they will react when the time comes to do the job for real. How often has Miliband shown himself to be wanting when off-script and having to respond to spur of the moment events. The Telegraph has kindly put together a few examples of his struggles with real life…….
The BBC itself isn’t shy about looking at the man behind the mask…here demonstrating why eating a bacon sandwich with dignity can have an effect on how people perceive you and hence treat you as it talks about how Cameron’s charm and statesman-like attitude helps him...’His easy charm and ability to appear “prime ministerial” at news conferences and summits helped ensure his personal poll ratings remained well ahead of the Conservative Party’s ratings.’
The BBC delves into Cameron’s past life without embarrassment looking at his personality, his background and his family, putting them all together to form a picture of David Cameron ‘the man’ and politician…..
Mr Cameron’s presentational skills were never in doubt.
His easy charm and ability to appear “prime ministerial” at news conferences and summits helped ensure his personal poll ratings remained well ahead of the Conservative Party’s ratings.
His laid-back, almost patrician style – and tendency to surround himself with advisers from similar backgrounds – led to accusations that he was too remote from the concerns of his party’s rank-and-file, some of whom drifted off to the UK Independence Party, with its traditional right-wing messages on Europe and immigration.
The one fact everyone knows about him is that he comes from a privileged background. He has never made a secret of it.
Not only was he the first former pupil of Eton to hold office since the early 1960s, he can also trace his ancestry back to William IV, making him a distant relative of the Queen.
His biggest mention in the Eton school magazine came when he sprained his ankle dancing to bagpipes on a school trip to Rome.
Samantha Cameron, who works as the creative director of upmarket stationery firm Smythson of Bond Street, which counts Stella McCartney, Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell among its clients, has been credited with transforming her husband’s “Tory boy” image.
She has a tattoo on her ankle and went to art school in Bristol, where she says she was taught to play pool by rap star Tricky.
The couple were introduced by Mr Cameron’s sister Clare, Samantha’s best friend, at a party at the Cameron family home. They were married in 1996.
So there are plenty of things that need to be considered when we judge a man who is putting himself forward as the leader of a political party and potentially the Prime Minister, not just his policies.
But then what of Jones’ demand that only ‘substance’, the policies themselves, matter? Does he always stick to that line or can it be cast aside when convenient? It seems it can be.
When it comes to education Jones thinks that there is far more to it than mere results and league tables….personality and background now count for everything…..
‘How easy it was to scrutinise US power when George W. Bush was in office. After all, it was difficult to defend an administration packed with such repulsive characters, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose attitude towards the rest of the world amounted to thuggish contempt.’
Jones is not above a little hypocrisy…..slapping down Cameron for making a comparison between the 1930’s and Putin’s actions now…..
Owen Jones: William Hague is wrong… we must own up to our brutal colonial past
We associate the term ‘concentration camps’ with the Nazis. But it started with the British
What all that shows is just how Jones’ ‘values’ shift when convenient. One moment personality, character and background maketh the man and are essential in judging that person, the next moment he denounces all such judgements as irrelevant and insubstantial distractions that demean politics and count for very little.
It also shows how Jones is quite prepared to trawl the depths himself and use insult and ridicule to attack those whose politics he doesn’t like and is ready to indulge in deception and lies to bolster his own narrative whilst attacking the integrity of others who do the same.
Jones of course is just one of many on the Left who indulge themselves in such games and are orchestrating a relentless campaign against a free Press in order to ensure that only the ‘approved’ messages are fed to the Public in a sinister and dangerous ploy that’s endgame is the closing down of free speech and the fair and democratic society that we aspire to, the Guardian implying we investigate the Right-wing Press and ‘moderate’ their output to presumably suit their own cultural and political agenda…
‘The press’s role in the 2015 election requires more investigation. As so often, the coverage over six weeks tells us little more than we could have anticipated before the campaign began. Agenda-setting over a longer period is far more important’
Orwell would be horrified that ‘1984’ has turned out to be a manual for the Left rather than serving as a warning of the horrors that await a world that allows itself to be manipulated and controlled by those who claim to be acting in its best interests whilst all the time working to imprison you mentally and physically if you don’t co-operate, closing down free thought, free speech and the individualism that has brought so much success and pleasure to people who have been the beneficiaries of the bloody battles, intellectual and on the actual battlefield, fought over centuries against the oppression and tyranny of institutionalised terror, all too often religious, to make such a society possible.
Owen Jones and his ilk seem to want to bring all that tyranny and oppression back.
All that is holding back the rampages of a BBC on steroids is the EU….leave the EU and the BBC will be free to crush the commercial sector. Never vote UKIP…hurrah for Carswell and his anti-UKIP Kamikazee death plunge!
The BBC faces a major backlash from independent television producers over plans by director-general Tony Hall to compete for programme commissions from other broadcasters and internet services such as Amazon and Netflix.
A group of Britain’s biggest independent producers is preparing a complaint that the expansion will distort competition and amount to illegal state aid.
The threat of a legal complaint to European competition authorities comes as a blow to Lord Hall’s plans for the BBC.
Lord Hall’s plans have led to suspicions from commercial players that the BBC is seeking to build up its global presence with the help of taxpayer support.
A commercial BBC Studios would at least be expected to feed profits from programme-making for other broadcasters back into the BBC to supplement the licence fee. The £3.7bn per year in taxpayer funds are already bolstered by more than £1bn from commercial operations such as international licensing of BBC programmes.
Oryem was abducted by the LRA for two days in 2003. They cut off his lips and ears with a knife and his fingers with an axe.
Stephanie Hegarty…just what is she good for? What does she bring to the BBC other than trite, anodyne, derivative worthiness that we expect from Anglican priests?…somewhat ironic, as you’ll see….she’s not a fan of Christians.
DB on this site and Is the BBC biased? ( Yes it is whatever Cardiff Uni tells us) have been giving Stephanie the old one two for her ever increasingly partisan tweets…. such as this latest example which seems to suggest that the US jury are ‘extremists’ for imposing a death sentence on a mass murderer…
The Tweets unavoidably drew my attention and I thought she was worthy of a closer look…and when you see what she is interested in you can understand why the BBC snapped her up from the New Statesman as they did….she is a budding Paul Mason if ever there was one.
However there is one article that deserves a deal of attention, one which underlines her world view….or maybe she was high on dope or was it just uncut self-righteousness which fired her up and gave strength to her arm as she aimed her censorious brickbats at numerous targets….all the usual suspects for the Left? It looks like she was working for the BBC when she wrote this tract in April 2012….yep, here she is in February and then in November 2012 on FOOC.
‘If the World Service is to survive it will only do so by becoming a tool of corporate colonialism exporting the ideals and propaganda of those with money on those without.
The coallition government will continue to thump about quashing every public institution it can, tearing apart the welfare state, selling schools, forests and anything they can feasibly attach a price tag to. The World Service is just another casualty in what is already an old but painful story.’
Anyway, back to her tract…
There is an organisation called ‘Invisible Children’ that was set up in 2004 to help the children caught up in the war in Central Africa involving the Lord’s Resistance Army, and to encourage governments to get involved to stop the war.
Part of that campaign was a film released in 2012 called ‘Kony 2012′ which set out their case and their desire for the leader of the LRA, Joseph Kony, to be captured and put on trial at the International Criminal Court.
The film was highly successful and generated huge support that influenced US politicians to agree to help defeat the LRA.
‘Last week a video launched on to the internet with the aim of making a psychotic megalomaniac famous.’
Well, Russell did have a mental breakdown some time after the release of the film and was hospitalised for that…nice that Hegarty thinks his mental breakdown is grounds to attack him….an attack which she continues later on.
As for making him famous? Does she have no idea of just what the film and the organisation actually achieved?
She goes on to launch an unrestrained and outlandish attack on Russell’s young (4 years old?) son…
Most of this particular film seems to be taken up by a very blonde and camera-friendly child purportedly of Jason’s own making. This puzzling creature seems to be as adept at using a smart phone as monitoring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. In the video he subtly demonstrates his skills with both.
For a second it seems this could be an infomercial for a new breed of toy soldier – a robot child made out of coltan maybe. Only the genius of Jason Russell could fathom making a small human out of the stuff – a precious Congolese mineral usually used for making mobile phone and missiles – and employing him like a small and loveable, sexless fembot.
Watch the film to see just how weird Hegarty’s interpretation is…..absolutely nowhere near what appears on screen.
Then we get to her own politics as she slips into Lefty speak…
‘These people are no longer in the jungle they are not invisible and most of them are not children anymore. They need all the things we need, jobs to get up for in the morning, schools to send their children to, family, respect, stability and peace. Not wristbands, posters and glitzy, irrelevant films or a raging neo-colonial war.’
Well if they need to go to school, need jobs, need stabiltiy and peace….that’s pretty hard to achieve when there’s an armed band roaming the country killing, mutilating, raping and kidnapping the children. As for neo-colonial war….it was being waged by almost purely African troops.
Hegarty then criticises Russell for ‘supporting’ the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni whom she denounces as homophobic, a trait she then links to a Christian group in the US. But is Russell supporting Museveni or just trying to stop the war? Hegarty thinks the war should continue as that’s better than having an unpleasant homophobe in power in Uganda…
‘The real triumph here for activism and the power of youth.. and the internet. After all can motivating people to care about their fellow man be a bad thing, no matter how veiled, misguided, manipulative and potentially corrupt the cause? Yes, I think it can.
Jason Russell and his army of internet-savvy minions and masters of the YouTube generation are a more hideous force than a clapped up, demented warlord hiding in a bush will ever be.’
Note that she thinks Russell is more dangerous than Kony and his band of murderous thugs….who have killed over 100,000, displaced nearly 2 million and abducted around 30,000 children to be used as child soldiers or sex slaves….the World Bank estimated as many as 66,000 children had been abducted.
Hegarty finishes off with this ripe diatribe which lays out the real ‘enemy’ of civilisation….
Generally, when celebrities and movie stars, the entire US political right wing – along with most of the mainstream church and Fox News – launch upon an idea you can vouch for the fact that it’s not a very good one – experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam seems to be pretty solid on this one, but fuck experience.
The moral of this story is that its ok to peddle untruths, wreak war and masturbate in public, so long as you make nice films full of condescending bullshit about helpless Africans, are a Christian and preferably not gay.
White, Christian, Republican, Straight, work for Fox News…..all sound rather familiar as targets for abuse from the BBC…no wonder they gave Hegarty a job…she’s ‘one of them’.
In fact it was Obama who actually signed off on sending troops to Uganda and the campaign had cross party support in the US from both Democrats and Republicans. So a black president, a Democrat, waded into the racist neo-colonial wars…..how did it go so wrong?
Hegarty, so full of remorse for being white, so full of guilt for living in a society that allows her to make a good living from writing nonsense, so full of bile towards those who would help others because she thinks they aren’t Left wing enough, or black enough, or gay enough…perhaps she should consider as she types away that others are not so lucky….such as this victim of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Oryem Kenneth, 42, who was abducted by the LRA for two days in 2003. They cut off his lips and ears with a knife and his fingers with an axe….
He’s lucky, he had someone to tell his tale and seek to put an end to the conflict that resulted in his mutilation.
If Hegarty had her way there would be endless people such as Oryem Kenneth.
The best leader Labour never had according to the immediate post mortem as Chuka Umunna ducks for cover having had a taste of the limelight.
Will the BBC be chasing him for his response to accusations that this shows that Labour is a shambles, the leadership contest a farce and him a dithering pathetic wannabe who couldn’t hack it?
Not so far….all very respectful and sorrowful that Labour has lost such a high quality (?) candidate….the BBC is quick to reassure us that” there was no scandal that lay behind his decision to step aside.” How very different to their response to Nigel Farage’s saga.
However the blame is already being apportioned…Labour’s Ben Bradshaw was given a platform on 5Live to blame the Press and the dreadful intrusions in to a politician’s personal life…….but it wasn’t ‘The Press’ that thrust Chuka’s girlfriend front and centre onto the political stage as he announced his leadership bid was it?
I imagine he is trying to blame Murdoch and the Mail….the Mirror and the Guardian never stoop to such levels of course.
Nick Robinson has spoken to his sources, wonder who that could be, and he can reveal….“I am told that this includes reporters waiting outside the houses of relatives late at night.” So following the Labour spin on this then.
Prince Charles’ communications with government have been published after a freedom of information request from the Guardian which reports…
The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We fought this case because we believed – and the most senior judges in the country agreed – that the royal family should operate to the same degrees of transparency as anyone else trying to make their influence felt in public life.
If the criteria is one of trying to influence public life……
I wonder if they will be pursuing the BBC with equal vigour to find out the contents of all its communications with government…especially as the BBC is so ‘right wing’.
Will they be demanding to see a transcript of the secret meetings held recently between the BBC and Muslim activists who were demanding that the BBC change how it reports on any events in which Muslims are involved?
Will they be demanding the release of all communications concerning climate change that have passed between the BBC, climate activists, the UEA and government?
Will they be demanding the release of all communications that the BBC has had with the Home Office concerning how it reports on immigration or the EDL or Muslim terrorism?
If not why not? The BBC is far more influential than the prince could ever hope to be…so shouldn’t there be complete transparency in relation to who it talks to and what is said between them?
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
That really is it…except for this…
So the BBC are so excited about an allegation of fraud in the same constituency that Farage stood for election that they run the story with Farage’s name mentioned very, very prominently, implicating him by default, and very little else. Why no mention of the Tory candidate who actually won the seat?
This rush to report from the BBC that hid the fact that a Muslim Mayor of Tower Hamlets was kicked out of office for actual electoral fraud deep down in its ‘England’ page…not on the Frontpage, or the UK page but the England page where you’d have to go looking for it…the Mayor in charge of a £1 billion budget who used it to buy votes and yet the BBC looks to downplay and ignore it as if it didn’t happen. The reason? Because he was Muslim and was voted in by Msulim voters and used claims of racism and Islamophobia to try and shut up those who were asking questions…the BBC is as always reluctant to highlight instances of practises that show Islam in a bad light and especially cases where claims of islamophobia are patently false and used to silence critics because it then raises the question about others who use similar tactics to silence people…..the BBC et al not averse to using the same tactics themselves.
A ’30-day trial’? I’m sure we can hang him out to dry in less time than that……
It is a remarkable thing isn’t it just how much energy the Labour Party and its fellow travellers expend on defending the BBC….the BBC which they insist is in fact right wing and in the pocket of the Conservatives.
We had a look at some of this a while back and wrote that ‘What we have is a BBC reliant on a band of Marxist academic activists and ex-BBC employees to produce pro-BBC propaganda to cover up the corruption, professional, political and financial, that lies at the heart of the Corporation.’
To that band of comrades you can add Labour’s villainous spin doctor Tom Baldwin who has just penned, in the Guardian, where else, a defence of the BBC which by no stretch of the imagination could nary a word of it be described as true. But then again he was the man who placed Labour propaganda into the Times when he was a journalist there so professional ethics are possibly an inconvenience, or rather not an inconvenience, for him.
He tells us that there is a ‘disturbing suggestion that a democratically elected government would seek to stamp on and silence dissent from an independent broadcaster, there is deep falsehood at the heart of this…..[that] the world’s most successful state-funded public service broadcaster is a giant leftwing conspiracy. ‘
This from the man who adds…‘ I write that with the certainty of someone who has spent this year making almost daily complaints to the BBC on behalf of the Labour party.’
So no attempt to stamp on the independence of the BBC by Baldwin in an effort to silence it or make it more pro-Labour than it already was?
He expands upon the reason for Labour’s complaints….‘Our biggest dispute with the BBC was over the prominence it gave to the idea of a deal between Labour and the SNP that was never on the cards……It was a scare story based on a false premise and some badly flawed polls. Britain was not heading for a minority Labour government but towards a Tory majority and we were all making the same mistake in believing the polls. ‘
Well yes….the BBC did give endless prominence to what the BBC presented as a ‘probable’ Labour victory and the prospect of having to deal with the SNP….. as the evidence shows such a deal was a very real prospect as Labour were never going to win a majority. In fact that was the basis for this site saying the BBC was biased in favour of Labour…forever giving the audience the idea that Labour would edge the election. Nice to see Labour actually confirm our view of the BBC’s stance on this. Also Baldwin might want to talk to his boss, ex-boss, who made such a big play of not doing any deals or joining in coalition with the SNP…bound to attract attention.
Baldwin then spins his biggest line…
‘I suspect, however, that something else is going on too. BBC executives and journalists have told me that there were regular, repeated threats from senior Tories during this election campaign about “what would happen afterwards” if they did not do as they were told and fall into line.’
Really? Name names. Or is this just an example of the black arts of the Labour Party spin machine….a lie in other words? Just put it out ‘there’ knowing that it will catch the headlines and eventually the legend will become ‘fact’ courtesy of the useful idiots like Owen Jones who as we speak is probably authoring his next exclamation of his outrage at Tory perfidy.
I too heard a similar tale from BBC executives and journalists who said that Baldwin threatened the BBC with severe repercussions should Labour win the election and its coverage not ‘fall into line’ and favour Labour. See how easy it is to churn out some unattributed pap?
‘Yet even senior Tories seemed a somewhat taken aback at the way the appointment of Whittingdale – the veteran chair of the culture, media and sport select committee – was received. “I think there’s a debate to be had about all sorts of things to do with the BBC [during charter renewal negotiations],” said one, “but fundamentally will there be a public service broadcaster largely funded by the public? Yes.”
That debate – set to include an overhaul of BBC governance and the corporation’s impact on a beleagured local newspaper industry – could be had “without kneecapping the BBC”, he added.
So what’s going on? There is definitely a wing of the Conservative party happy to see the BBC humbled for perceived leftwing bias……And yet, in the runup to the election, when BBC bullying was de rigueur for parties that wanted to be seen in the best light, not one senior government member said that the universal licence fee should be scrapped. Indeed, in his interview with the Radio Times, George Osborne categorically said there were “no plans” to replace the licence fee, even if a future government would “look at all the options”.
Even the BBC itself poo-poos the idea of Tory war against the BBC blaming it on the Right Wing Press….the BBC getting its own attack in on them…….
Does the new culture secretary pose a threat to the BBC, or are Tuesday’s headlines settling private scores?
The appointment of John Whittingdale as Secretary of State for Culture has been met with some fairly bold headlines.
However, the language from the government is rather calmer.
The former Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, was asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme if the government was “going to war” with the corporation.
“No, not at all,” was his response.
“I think there has been some over-excitement in those headlines,” he added.’
It goes on….
‘The charter renewal process is not expected to begin in earnest until the autumn, but the loyal Conservative-supporting newspapers are making very clear what they would like as a “payback” – a smaller BBC.
Will it happen?
For those who want a radical reshaping of the BBC – perhaps even scrapping the licence fee altogether – there is a hope Mr Whittingdale might be their man.
But their hope might be tempered if they read the recent report from his committee on the future of the BBC. Its conclusion was that there was at the moment “no better alternative” to the licence fee to fund an institution that was a “central presence in the life of the country”.
The MPs, though, were open to the idea that the BBC ought to make “bigger, braver decisions” about its services and “do less in some areas”.
However, exactly what, where and how those cuts would be applied, it was leaving to the BBC.’
I assume this Tory initiative is all about curbing the BBC in ‘Tom Baldwin World’…
The feeding frenzy over Labour’s corpse is gaining momentum with the Unions demanding their pound of flesh and a lurch even more leftward than Red Ed promised to deliver whilst others in the party also say the problem with Labour’s election pitch was that it wasn’t Marxist enough, others want to disinter New Labour on whose grave Miliband junior danced…to the Union tune.
Labour was always badly riven by Miliband’s leadership but it wasn’t something the BBC dwelt on preferring to tell us that the Tories were in chaos and so divided about subjects such as Europe and immigration that the party was likely to blow apart.
Once again the BBC was spot on in its analysis.
So why drop a winning formula when you’re on a roll? The BBC continues with its perspicacious political rune reading as Peston tunes in to the vibes….
If there was one policy associated with the Tories it was further deep spending and welfare cuts to generate a budget surplus.
If there was one policy associated with the Scottish National Party it was an end to deep spending and welfare cuts.
Which means that if the integrity of the United Kingdom is to be sustained, somehow a way has to be found – and presumably fairly fast – to reconcile the English vote for more austerity and the Scottish vote for an end to austerity.
Sorry what’s that? The Scots voted for an end to austerity? Did they heck.
Such an interpretation is a complete misreading of the politics that gave the SNP such a landslide win.
Here’s a chart which shows the number of MPs each party won over the years…note in 2005 the number of Scots MPs was reduced from 72 to 59…..
It is clear from that that Labour had held steady for years right up to the 2010 election and that the LibDems were in fact more successful than the SNP…..and then came 2015. The SNP vote had nothing to do with austerity or independence. If the Labour voters had wanted an end to austerity they could have voted for Labour…..but they didn’t, so there must have been another reason.
What changed in the last 5 years in Scotland? For Labour there was a change of leadership and the hopeless Miliband put in place by the unions whilst the SNP possibly benefited from Salmond stepping aside and having the fresh leadership of Nicola Sturgeon who is still in her honeymoon period especially after her performance in the UK TV debates…though not doing so well in the ones in Scotland. That honeymoon period will soon wear off once people start analysing what she really says….her claims to respect democracy when all the time looking to ride roughshod over the independence No vote and impose the SNP’s own party preference and her lies about not wanting independence and immediately the election is over starting her demands for it.
Scots did not vote for the end of austerity when they voted for the SNP. What they saw was that Labour was dead in the water in the UK and that it was a wasted vote for a party that wouldn’t win as a whole. A practical decision was made to vote then for the SNP more as a protest vote against Labour having taken them for granted with the only other choice being the Tories, not going to happen, or the LibDems who, as we know, were even less palatable across the whole of the UK. The only choice left was the SNP. How long the SNP’s dominance lasts depends on Labour resurrecting itself and taking the fight back to Scotland…..I doubt the SNP will be anywhere near as successful in 5 years time as reality sets in and more choices appear.
In the rest of the UK Labour voters went to UKIP…again nothing to do with austerity…they couldn’t bring themselves to vote Tory so they had a protest vote against Labour and its policies on immigration, Europe and the dismal, uninspiring leadership of Miliband.
So in Scotland Labour and Libdems voted SNP, in the UK they mostly voted UKIP…Tories being beyond the pale.
Peston is wrong in claiming that a wish to end austerity was the defining factor in the SNP vote…it’s a convenient narrative for a reporter who seems inclined to put the Labour side all too often……it is an interpretation designed to put pressure on the Tory government of course….the BBC claiming that Britain is now divided and that the Tories don’t have a mandate in Scotland. Unclear why that is so…..they weren’t exactly popular in Scotland over the last 5 years as the chart shows so why have things changed because Scottish Labour MPs have turned into SNP ones? Not quite sure how the SNP expects to be given favourable treatment in respect of austerity. Do they expect to be given relatively more money than the rest of the UK so that they can dodge the cuts? Not sure that would go down too well.
It does look like the BBC is giving the SNP’s line a helping hand in order to split the UK and encourage independence and cause the Tories as much trouble as possible….how often have we heard the BBC kick off a debate about devolution in Wales and the regions? Destroying the UK is a project the Left have long worked towards with Europe being the ‘State’ of choice to rule over a divided and regionalised ‘Britain’.
Perhaps the BBC should be broken up and its powers and huge income devolved…perhaps devolved not to regions but to those with a different political persuasion than the liberal metropolitan elitism on display at the BBC so that all people are truly represented by a news service that doesn’t sneer and look down on them and generates hate against them.
First thing I heard, as posted before, was that the Swedes were to blame for an atheist blogger being hacked to death by Muslim fundamentalists, then we had comedian Sean Hughes invited on to tell us not only about his marvellous comedy but his political views on the election as well.
You may remember that the BBC relentlessly used ‘celebs’ to endorse the BBC’s own anti-Iraq war line…..bringing them on to talk about their latest film, book or groundbreaking piece of artwork only to ask them what were their views on the war in Iraq knowing full well that they’d chunter on about how evil it all was and give Bush a good bashing.
No doubt the same tactic is being employed with the likes of Hughes to spread the vibe about the new government and the election result, the BBC trying to establish the idea that ‘everyone’ hates the Tory government and their evil, nasty policies.
Hughes is well known as being anti-Tory so the BBC were on safe ground asking him…especially as I’m sure they read his Twitter feed when researching him for the programme…
The right wing press will tell you all this week to vote Tory. Stick with you’re gut.
And funnily enough he came up trumps saying he couldn’t stand the Tories and it should be illegal for newspapaers to declare who they recommend you to vote for….no such qualms about an Irish comedian doing the same…and he insists he is Irish not British….so what has he got to do with this election and why does he think he should recommend how the British people should vote? Newspapers can’t take sides but celebrity comedians can? Hypocrite? Yep.
Then we had the BBC delving into Channel 4’s ‘Benefits Street’….apparently all is forgiven, it’s not a callous, exploitative programme revelling in the misery of the poor, it’s not poverty porn…it is though, essential social comment in these straitened times when welfare is being cut and the effects of such immoral policies must be aired, the poor and disenfranchised must have a voice!
The BBC doesn’t do itself any favours with the continuous anti-Tory narrative that also insults the people who voted for them…and UKIP.
Nor does it do itself any favours when it sets out to attack the government and spends its time trying to persuade us how brilliant the BBC is….
“I’d pay 42p a day just to listen to 5live…this is a very cheap deal we get in this country”. Hat Trick Productions co-founder Jimmy Mulville on why he wants to see the licence fee go up and stop BBC3 going on-line only.
No coincidence the BBC pump out this stuff just as someone who has doubts about the BBC licence fee is appointed Culture Secretary……and attempts to undermine him immediately by publishing what it believes are his ‘unpleasant and backward’ social views….
Funny how the BBC thinks that publishing such a voting record would damage Whittingdale.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
When an atheist critic of religious fundamentalism was hacked to death in Bangladesh you may have thought that the killers were the ‘masked men’ with machetes who were the guilty party…not so….the BBC can reveal that he died because Sweden refused him a visa to visit there in April.
Visa application from Ananta Bijoy Das came on April 15 and was denied on April 22 according to Swedish Migration Agency @Migrationsverk
So nothing to do with the Religion of Peace….and indeed on 5Live there was in fact no discussion of the issues that caused his death….he’d still be alive if Sweden had let him visit…it’s the Swede’s fault he’s dead.
Of course the same BBC were delighted when Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders were refused entry to Britain on trumped up charges…..how can criticising religious extremism be considered dangerous and against the interests of this country?
I can’t possibly imagine the BBC’s headlines should any of them end up being similarly assaulted by a Muslim fanatic.
But let’s ask why the Swede’s might have refused an atheist blogger who upsets Msulim sensibilities a visa….could it possibly be due to the large number of Muslims in Sweden and the very pro-Muslim attitude of the Swedish government that turns its back on large scale anti-Semitism by Muslims in their country? Could it be that rather than defend free speech, liberalism and a civilised world the Swedes would rather side with the fanatics for a quiet life…at least for now?
Incredible really that Europe, the birthplace of the Liberal, democratic ethic which gives people around the world a better life, should surrender those values and its culture so easily.
What hope is there for people who seek sanctuary and a safe place where they can think and speak freely when one of the few remaining places in the world to supposedly uphold those values and protect those who wish to live by them capitulates to aggressive, religiously inspired activists who exploit those rights in order to destroy the societies that are shaped by them and should defend them to the last?
Where will people who seek protection from those religious fanatics be able to go if the fanatics hold sway in the places where refuge is sought? The world is getting smaller for people who love freedom, democracy and individualism.
It is an irony that the BBC expresses any dismay at the Swedes when its own narrative is to defend those same fanatics.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The BBC’s very own turbulent trendy priest, Giles Fraser, was a happy boy on Thursday morning. He’d been following the BBC and was excited to know that come Friday the nice Mr Miliband would be padding his way to the Palace to be annointed Prime Minister…Hollyrood Palace presumably.
‘Right now I feel ashamed to be English. Ashamed to belong to a country that has clearly identified itself as insular, self-absorbed and apparently caring so little for the most vulnerable people among us. Why did a million people visiting food banks make such a minimal difference? Did we just vote for our own narrow concerns and sod the rest? Maybe that’s why the pollsters got it so badly wrong: we are not so much a nation of shy voters as of ashamed voters, people who want to present to the nice polling man as socially inclusive, but who, in the privacy of the booth, tick the box of our own self-interest.’
But it is not just the shameful self-interest of the great unwashed that Fraser denounces from his fiery pulpit, he knows who is to blame for the temptations put in the way of wavering, morally uncertain people….
‘We try and control the gods of Rothermere and Murdoch with our electoral intercessions. But maybe they are just too powerful, too remote.’
The Satanic forces of darkness…the Mail and Murdoch.
Bizarrely Fraser goes on to argue that elections are empty and worthless in reality and change nothing….so why is he so disappointed that Labour didn’t get in?
I was also amused to see this from Fraser….which pretty much sums up the problems with the Church…
The idea is that people tend to join churches not because of any specific belief but as a marker of belonging. And the rituals of the church are more an expression of this belonging then they are an ideological statement of faith.
Well you could, I suppose, argue that Miliband and his policies were the cause of his downfall….and never mind the BBC claims that it was the BBC that put Cameron back in the driving seat.
The Guardian, as always has its own agenda…here is the rather sinister final paragraph from that article….
‘The press’s role in the 2015 election requires more investigation. As so often, the coverage over six weeks tells us little more than we could have anticipated before the campaign began. Agenda-setting over a longer period is far more important’
The Press, unlike the BBC, is not required to be impartial and indeed such an ability to take sides is part and parcel of this country’s prized liberty of free speech.
It looks like the Guardian is once again on the warpath against parts of the Press, the Right Wing, that don’t have the same values as the Guardian….funny how it is okay for the Guardian to be profoundly biased in its own reporting, and it was virulently anti-Tory, but for the Right Wing Press to be similarly disposed is morally criminal.
No doubt the Guardian will be teaming up wth the BBC and Labour once again, as it did with Leveson, to try and curtail the freedom’s of the Press and force them to deliver a pro-Labour message…sinister or what?
The Guardian and the BBC…..defenders of tolerance, liberalism, free speech and free thought?