‘The Guardian has admitted that a rogue reporter fabricated interviews in articles for the newspaper and falsely claimed to have been present at events he wrote about.
Joseph Mayton, a freelance who has been writing for the Guardian since 2009, has been accused of making up quotes in some of his stories, even filing interviews with people who later said they had never spoken to him.’
The Guardian is always jam packed with fake news, remember the one about Milly Dowler that got 200 people sacked when the Guardian’s lies forced the closure of the News of the World? Or how about the recent ‘traingate’ where the Guardian published a story fabricated by Labour HQ? Or how about that er ‘rogue reporter’ who made up interviews? Or how about this….is it real or fake? Reading it and you might think straight away that it is a spoof, the language is very right-wing, to the point and not very subtle….
I told myself outright: “You’re becoming a racist. What you’re doing is turning you into a terrible, hateful person.” Until that moment I hadn’t even realised that “alt-right” was what I was becoming; I just thought I was a more open-minded person for tolerating these views.
It hit me like a ton of bricks. Online radicalisation of young white men. It’s here, it’s serious, and I was lucky to be able to snap out of it when I did. And if it can get somebody like me to swallow it – a lifelong liberal – I can’t imagine the damage it is doing overall.
It seemed so subtle – at no point did I think my casual and growing Islamophobia was genuine racism. The good news for me is that my journey toward the alt-right was mercifully brief: I never wanted to harm or abuse anybody verbally, it was all very low level – a creeping fear and bigotry that I won’t let infest me again. But I suspect you could, if you don’t catch it quickly, be guided into a much more overt and sinister hatred.
I haven’t yet told my wife that this happened, and I honestly don’t know how to. I need to apologise for what I said and tell her that I certainly don’t believe it. It is going to be a tough conversation and I’m not looking forward to it. I didn’t think this could happen to me. But it did and it will haunt me for a long time to come.
You’d have to think the Guardian realised this was a spoof, it’s ‘anonymous’, and double-bluffed and published anyway….it may read like an simplistic mock lefty piece of angst, all too obviously fake, but maybe they thought all anti-Right-wing rhetoric is good rhetoric even if satirical…somebody might believe it and another recruit to the left’s anti-Right drive is another recruit to the cause.
A notorious Internet troll reportedly convinced The Guardian to publish a fake news story Monday on his journey to becoming a racist member of the “alt-right.”
Godfrey Elfwich, who jokingly describes Xirself (preferred gender pronoun) as a “Genderqueer Muslim atheist,” has gained a large Twitter following for trolling the far-left. In 2015, Elfwich famously made his way onto a BBC radio show and convinced the host that Star Wars was racist because Darth Vader was black.
Historian Dina Gusejnova tells the story of tarpaulin from 17th century mariners to today’s refugee camps and those living on the periphery of society. In the process, Dina shines a light on statelessness, protest, heroism and transgression.
The tarpaulin is a fabric of conflict. Reinvented over its five hundred years of history, the material now has an important role in providing shelter to the millions of people who fall between the cracks of international geopolitics following periods of violence or natural disaster.
Good old Dina was a bit concerned, naturally, about Britain’s ‘closed door policy’ for refugees but she thought that there is only one image that has now come to dominate our understanding of the word tarpaulin…the tented cities that shelter refugees. Yes, I have always been conflicted, morally and intellectually challenged everytime I picked up a tarpaulin…just what is this thing? What is its meaning? Why do I feel so guilty as I so carelessly and casually use it without a deeper understanding of its significant place in modern day life? Now I know. That association with refugees. I’ll never look at a tarpaulin in the same thoughtless way again.
Incredible how hard the BBC works to find any excuse to keep refugees in the headlines…yesterday we heard that 5Live had miraculously, after a long search, found two malnourished children in an Iraqi refugee camp….well go figure…the real story is that they had to look so hard to find these children….kind of suggests the system is pretty much working despite the massive pressures. And now the tarpaulin. Clever idea but all too obvious and groan-worthy when you get hit by the conclusion which comes at you with all the subversive subtlety of a steam train at full speed.
Why did the BBC pick Dina Gusejnova to present this programme on tarpaulins? Because she’s not really interested in tarpaulin merely in using it to explore the idea of statelessness, nationality and the idea that we must think ‘beyond the nation’….experience often shows the State turns against its citizens she tells us…so we learn that international communities and organisations are the utopian answer to protect us…..what saves us is transnational connections, social networks through which the refugees can tell their stories and persuade people to open their borders to the stateless refugee.
The tragedy is apparently that democratic states suspect some refugees of not being all they seem and think they are a possible danger to the State…and we all know that is nonsense.
Listening to R4 this morning and a programme about Jewish humour [not Muslim humour? Wonder why] and the presenter came up with a joke…the punchline of which was ‘Why would I tell you I’m Jewish when I’m surrounded by all these well armed Christians?’
The presenter no doubt rather smugly thought she was being very right-on, edgy and telling it as it is….except of course that’s just not what is happening in modern day Europe as Jews are once again being murdered, attacked and forced to flee this supposedly liberal bastion of human rights, progressive values and cultural diversity. As the Muslims move in to Europe there is often, all too often, a corresponding move out of Jews. Coincidence? I think not.
One day, maybe, we will hear a BBC presenter telling a joke with the punchline ‘Why would I tell you I’m Jewish when I’m surrounded by all these well armed Muslims?’ Don’t hold your breath.
Read this from Harry’s Place….ironically by a ‘liberal’ Muslim……
Some years ago, a friend sent me a shocking article. It said hundreds of British girls were being systematically gang-raped by Muslim gangs. It claimed this was being covered-up.
I’ve never had time for conspiracy theories, especially when they look as hateful as those in the article. So I checked the links and sources in the piece. I found an American racist-far-right website and from there, saw the original source was a similarly unpleasant website in the UK.
I did a brief search for corroboration from reputable mainstream sources. I found none. So I wrote a curt reply to my friend: “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t send me made-up crap from neo-Nazi websites”.
Some months later, I read the seminal exposé of the (mainly) ethnic-Pakistani grooming gang phenomenon by Andrew Norfolk in The Sunday Times.
I was stunned and horrified – not just that these vile crimes were indeed happening and endemic, but that they really were being ignored and “covered-up” by public authorities and the mainstream media.
Some on the left in the West see certain ideas and even some easily verifiable truths, as plain dangerous, much like the totalitarian communists of yesteryear. Dangerous to public order. Dangerous to the ‘common good’.
Whilst this section of the left has always existed, it now seems to have become more ‘mainstream’. It seethes and obsesses within carefully-policed ideological echo-chambers. It dominates in universities, trade unions and the public sector. And whereas it was once mainly prevalent in fringe far-left outfits, it has now effectively co-opted the Labour party through its membership and leadership.
Anyone who has ever tried to engage with this section of the left will know that it doesn’t ‘do debate’ with conservatives on issues like immigration, multiculturalism and identity politics. For it, “the debate is settled”. Opposing views are intrinsically wicked. Such ideas are to be ignored. Muted. Blocked. Banned. Disrupted. Drowned out with fog-horns.
Whilst the overall number of individuals espousing this groundless sense of moral certainty is relatively small, its effect on political discourse has been disproportionately large given that its champions are focused, organised and operate in the relatively influential sectors mentioned above.
As a result, much of the mainstream media and even world leaders have either adopted its illiberal approach and anti-intellectual language or else avoided language that might provoke its ire.
Today, we’re seeing Western governments implement increasingly restrictive ‘hate-speech’ laws to suppress ideas and comments considered dangerous to the common good. Merkel is leading the charge, seeking to block what she considers to be ‘hate speech’ from social media in Germany.
Throughout the West, we see politically inconvenient truths partially censored or unreported. Or else they’re rephrased and altered in order to appear virtuous.
Post truth – Framing ‘truth’ in emotional, ‘ideologically-virtuous’ terms rather than the complex and sometimes unwelcome reality real truth takes.
Didn’t the left invent it? Hasn’t it done this for decades?
It may not be pleasant or kind when the Daily Mail or Sun show pictures of grown men being admitted to the UK as ‘child refugees’. But what’s the alternative? Should such information be kept from the public? Won’t doing so give a monopoly on that truth to the extremists? Doesn’t a monopoly on inconvenient truths by extremists empower them more? Haven’t we learned anything from the grooming scandal?
No one’s suggesting it’s easy to engage with people whose views you dislike, especially over issues that you’d rather were different in reality. But ask yourselves this:
“How’s our current strategy been working out for us?”
I think we’ve all seen how the BBC has reacted to the death of Castro, with reverence, regret and rank hypocrisy. How different was the BBC’s reaction on the death of Margaret Thatcher, or indeed to the life of Donald Trump…Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize before he’d set foot in the White House just about, yesterday the BBC was telling us Trump was about to cause world war 3 because he blamed the Chinese for the Great Global Warming Scam…actually he’s wrong about that, the Chinese benefit but the real culprit is the BBC’s very own Roger Harrabin (and his mate Joe Smith) who has driven the global warming narrative, suppressed the truth and made absolutely sure there are no dissenting voices allowed on the BBC…and when they do get under the wire their blasphemies are rapidly censured, censored and literally erased from history…ala Quentin Letts…..look at the transcript and you’ll wonder why on earth the BBC thought his programme was at all controversial….just Harrabin being a manic control freak.
The BBC’s reporting on Castro pretty much reflected Corbyn’s approach…Castro may have had a few flaws but he was really a jolly good chap…and so anti-American, how can you not really like and admire him? As we’ve said, contrast that with Thatcher or Trump’s reception…but it’s not just the right of centre Big Beasts that get the BBC seal of disapproval…if you’re a simple American white girl from the country and you vote Republican and you let people know that then the BBC aims its guns at you….she represents everything the BBC hates and what’s more it’s that damned internet that’s bypassing the old-school media dinosaurs like the BBC…
The report is just a little ‘snarky’ in how it represents her views using perjorative, negative terms…..
One of Facebook’s most popular conservatives burst into prominence with sharp viral rants against liberals. But how will her underdog attack style play under President Trump?
She’s a free-speech advocate who tells her opponents to sit down and quit throwing tantrums.
A sharply partisan commentator who says she feeds people the truth. A rap fan who’s made an enemy of the Black Lives Matter movement. And a combative polemicist who says that all really she wants to do is start a conversation.
Meet Tomi Lahren: a 24-year-old Republican provocateur, a photogenic rising media star, a high-energy mass of contradictions.
They’re biting, outlandish, dripping with sarcasm and – depending on your political perspective – either righteous and rousing or obnoxious and infuriating.Lahren launched into her tirade against the athlete with characteristic snark. [‘Snark’ or truth?]
“Colin, I support the first amendment, I support your right of freedom of speech and expression. Go for it bud!”
“If this country disgusts you so much, leave,” she continues. “It seems to me that blaming white people for all your problems might make you the racist.”
Fair and balanced, she is not. [All the below…again the truth…not sure how her views here are unfair and unbalanced]
She takes a Trumpish tough line on immigration and Islam. She’s compared Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan, and in the Kaepernick video and others she criticises African-Americans for unemployment, drug abuse and other social problems. On women’s issues she hits at a popular theme on the right these days, that feminism was in the past a laudable quest for equality but has been taken “too far” by campus radicals.
Has she ever changed her mind on other things, or perhaps thought she’s gone too far with one of her videos? [In the BBC’s eyes or a normal persons?]
Remarkable how the BBC sees right-wing views expressed with passion and a level of truthfulness unknown on the Left as ‘snarky’ or ‘Trumpish’ or unfair and unbalanced, provocative, partisan, combative, not forgetting biting, outlandish and sarcastic…just how many negative words can the BBC apply to one person in one article? Bloody loads it would seem. Can’t remember a similar level of ‘snark’ being aimed at Left wing commentators…such as Russell Brand or indeed James O’Brien who was actually given a job on NewsNight on the strength of his anti-Farage ‘provocative, unfair, unbalanced, sarcastic and outlandish ranting’ tirades.
Speaking of Farage…he speaks truth to power, the power that is, or was, the MSM…the internet made UKIP and Brexit, hence two good reasons the BBC hates the Web, he criticises their reporting on immigration, Islam and climate change….might get a job on this site now he’s at a loose end….should he not get the ambassador’s job that is….
Here is a classic example of the way that the Left and Islamist activists combine to attack the Right-leaning Press in order to pressure them into silence and to create a narrative that it is the Right-wing Press that drives ‘Islamophobia’ and anti-immigrant hate crime.
A train crash in Paddington during the period when Muslims practice Ramadan, the driver a Muslim….the Sun links the crash to Ramadan and the possible fatigue and inattention caused by lack of food and sleep. Buzzfeed [the BBC’s new found ally] reports that the Sun has been forced to correct the report that supposedly drives negative notions about Islam by linking Ramadan to the train crash….note who the Buzzfeed journo is…
The Sun has been forced to print a page 2 correction over a claim a train crash in June was caused by a driver who was fasting during Ramadan.
IPSO, the press watchdog, said the paper had made a “significantly misleading statement” in an article headlined “Ramadan train driver in crash”, published on 20 August 2016.
The Sun reported: “A Muslim train driver crashed after going without food or drink for 15 hours during Ramadan,” adding: “Rail accident experts claimed his fast caused the rush-hour derailment that led to three days of disruption.”
The Sun has been forced to print a page 2 correction over a claim a train crash in June was caused by a driver who was fasting during Ramadan.
After a complaint from Miqdaad Versi, a management consultant from London, IPSO said the misleading statement in the article resulted from a failure to accurately interpret the RAIB report, “representing a failure to take care not to publish misleading information”.
Who is the mysterious ‘Miqdaad Versi..management consultant from London’? He’s only the Assistant General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, the extremist Muslim organisation that campaigns to stop the anti-terror and anti-radicalisation programme ‘Prevent’, that was at the heart of the Trojan Horse scandal and which provides the Islamic theological justification as to why Ahmadis are not ‘Muslim’…hence we get numerous violent attacks on Ahmadis by ‘real’ Muslims.
But hang on…why did Versi only go after the right-leaning Sun? Google the story and you’ll see just about every news organisation based their story around the same premise…that fatigue and hunger may have been the cause of the accident…thus linking Islam to the crash. The BBC’s own report emphasised this link from the start to the cause of the crash…..you can see the video above and the opening paragraphs of its write-up….pretty clear what it suggests….
A driver on a Ramadan fast had not eaten for 16 hours before his train was derailed, a report has found.
The crash, near Paddington Station, affected services for days.
A Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) report said it was “unable to determine” whether fasting and interruption to sleep was a factor in the crash.
But the investigation recognised there was research showing fasting can affect people’s concentration levels.
Fasting and driving
The Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) has published research on the effects of fasting on fitness to drive.
It says fasting can have a range of effects including tiredness, dizziness, dehydration, headache, and a reduction in concentration, prompting safety concerns.
The report advises workers to ask for physically demanding tasks to be delayed until after Ramadan, and says managers must be aware of the potential effects of fasting on their staff.
Employers are also called upon to provide as much flexibility as possible, as well as health and well-being guidance for those fasting.
And yet the MCB targets the Sun only. Just another example of Muslim ‘lawfare’ as it’s proponents use every means possible to suppress all criticism of Islam and to force deference and surrender to its values.
Similarly this recent statement from the New Statesman spells out perfectly the Left’s own tactical narrative and how they wish to portray news and comment from the ‘Right’ as the driver of hate crime and thus should be suppressed…or at least made socially unacceptable….
Mair wasn’t endlessly glued to the Sun and Mail websites. He was occupying a place significantly to the right. But his two-decade long journey of radicalisation occurred against a backdrop of stories in which immigration was a problem, and its defenders in the “political elite” held up as an enemy within. When politicians act as if the £270m spent on foreign patients is the reason for the cash crisis in the NHS, when the Prime Minister talks about “citizens of nowhere”, when the Home Secretary says that foreign workers are allowing businesses to keep British ones unskilled and low-paid, that contributes to a political climate in which the opinions which Mair mainlined for two decades become more acceptable.
So let’s not talk about immigration or ‘health tourism’ fraud….but do let’s make false allegations….’citizens of nowhere’? A comment about immigrants? No…about the global elite who jet around the world living in their multiple homes loyal to no nation. Cheap immigrant labour keeping down wages and Brits out of work? A lie driving hate? No….perfectly true as most genuine business analysts will tell you….just ask why is productivity is so low in the UK?…because businesses didn’t invest in training, innovation and R&D because they could just import cheap labour instead.
Fake news, news and comment and ‘lawfare’ that wants to suppress freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press? That’s all coming from the Left and its Islamist allies.
In a tongue-in-cheek article, Washington Post journalist Philip Bump did some calculations around Donald Jr’s statement, using data showing that the annual chance that an American would be murdered by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion.
In a tongue-in-cheek article, Washington Post journalist Philip Bump did some calculations around Donald Jr’s statement, using data showing that the annual chance that an American would be murdered by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion.
Based on his sums, it would take about one and a half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles in order to find three killers.
One thing, amongst many, wrong with the BBC’s counter to Trump jr’s analogy, is that you don’t have to find the attackers…they come to find you…so the chances are increased massively that an attack will happen.
It’s only been two hours since the BBC reported the attack…can’t be long before we hear that the attacker had mental health problems…due to racism and society’s failure to integrate him and accommodate his values and cultural expectations.
Odd, very odd. I read the BBC write up on Francois Fillon and I’m thinking so very Trump. And yet Trump doesn’t get a mention anywhere…not even when the BBC reports that Fillon wants better relations with Russia and opposes abortion…..two things, amongst so many, that the BBC castigated Trump for. Now apparently …not so bad things.
Guess the BBC doesn’t want to admit that Trump isn’t the crazed, dangerous, racist whack-job that they have portrayed him as for the last 6 months day in day out and that many others have the same policies. In other words the BBC doesn’t want us to know that BBC news is completely biased, untrustworthy and not worth paying good money for…especially at the ‘point of a gun’ so to speak.
The Spectator thinks the BBC has got a bad case of the sour grapes as its place as producer of illustrious ‘crown jewel’ programmes is threatened by an upstart commercial company, and one on that bloody independent, free thinking, interwebby thing as well….Netflix….
It wasn’t long ago that Lord Hall Hall was telling us that the world would fall apart without the BBC, that the BBC was the gold standard for television, one that all other companies sought to emulate and learn from….all of course in aid of his campaign to keep the BBC’s highly privileged position and its funding mechanism….he said no commercial company could produce what the BBC does.
That is patently untrue and has been for years. What are the biggest hits that get the ‘watercooler moments’? They’re nearly all American with a few Scandi crime thrillers darkening our shores. Yes the BBC produces some winners but the point is we don’t need the BBC if we want to have great TV, films and documentaries….Hall’s argument does not hold water…the BBC is not the gold standard, not for TV and not for news….and its programmes are all too often merely vehicles for political messages of one sort or another…and that includes its news and current affairs programmes.
Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and Britain’s second most senior cleric, has described the targeting of Christains as ”an affront to decency”. Calling on the silent majority of Christians to defend their beliefs, Sentamu said: ”For those who despair at the treatment meted out to these Christian women the message is clear: wake-up Christian England.”
The Trojan Horse plot was real, the group behind it, the MCB, had already published a blueprint in 2007 that outlined the aims of what became the Trojan Horse plot…and it gave the reasons why schools needed to become more Islamic….
The MCB’s contribution in publishing its report, Towards Greater Understanding, is wholly consistent with the government’s “Every Child Matters” strategy, and complementary to it. The result of meeting Muslim needs in mainstream schools is that Islam and Muslims become a normal part of British life and that we become fully integrated in this way.
The threat is that if schools do not bow down and accomodate Muslim wishes and adopt their practices then Muslims will become alienated and vulnerable to radicalisation…it is that usual blackmail that the Muslim community always uses to put pressure upon government, authority or Society in order to increase the dominance of Isam.
DEMANDS for a ban on “un-Islamic” activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today.
[If you think this was all done by stealth you’d be wrong…it was done with the blessing of the Labour government:]
‘The calls for all children to be taught in Taliban-style conditions will be launched with the help of a senior Government education adviser, Professor Tim Brighouse, chief adviser to London schools.’
Unfortunately, and this sums up the problem perfectly, it is not only the government that adopted that position… the BBC and C4 have always had the narrative, the Islamist narrative, that the answer to stopping the Islamisation, the radicalisation, of the Muslim community, is to allow them to practise Islam however and wherever they wish to…more Islam is the solution to stopping Islamisation….
Last week, on November 11th  Matt Frei on Channel 4 news told a group of veiled Muslim women in Washington that they could all surely agree that the greatest threat of violence in the US came from white men bearing arms. They all did agree, nodding vigorously. On the same day the Today programme on Radio 4 opined that France had wasted a billion Euros on security since the attack on Bataclan when they would have done better to spend it on making Muslims in France feel more comfortable.
That view was adumbrated later in the day on R4, in a programme called ‘The French Culture War,’ by Nick Fraser. His trailer for the programme promised to explore, ‘the misuse of secular ideals,’ in France, a secular country. He ended by telling us that violence and fear will surely subside if France will only, ‘do more to accommodate Muslims.’
Honeyford insisted to the children of his school, that when it comes to identity, it is nationality and not religion that counts.
Of course that is an anathema to the people who populate the BBC….they who hate borders and the nation state…and indeed ‘Britain’. Here’s Ray Honeyford’s article.
The BBC has always insisted that the Trojan Horse plot was a hoax, something, as you will see in the film, that the guilty parties also claim. It wasn’t a hoax [the BBC never mentioned the 2007 MCB document, the blueprint, in reports about the TH plot…why? Because to do so would confirm the TH plot was real…whereas the BBC’s Phil Mackie was insisting that it was all a phoney scare story, the result of racism, Islamophobia and paranoia] and indeed the very same tactics were employed years before as this article reveals long before the Trojan Horse plot came to light…from the Telegraph in 2009…
Robinson, one might assume, had every justification to be proud of her school’s glowing reputation. That is, until the rumblings of racism began.
A handful of Muslim parents began to agitate against the joint assemblies, lobbying other, more liberal parents to join the protest. Their children, they claimed, were being coerced into religious studies that were Christian in essence and contrary to their Muslim faith.
Devastated at the accusations of racism, Robinson’s health suffered and she has spent much of the past year off work. This term, when she returned, the row reignited. In the end, she became so disheartened and distressed that she felt she had no option but to resign.
What is more alarming is that the Meersbrook saga is not an isolated incident. In the past few weeks, there have been several similar situations in which Christianity, especially in the realms of religious education, has come under attack.
Erica Connor, a headmistress at a Woking school, felt forced to seek legal redress after what she claims was a string of ”vituperous” complaints against her by four Muslim governors. Although external consultants investigated the situation and Connor was exonerated – their report found no evidence of racism, Islamophobia or religious bias – the alleged ”harassment” continued. Suffering severe depression, Connor took sick leave and is now suing Surrey county council for damages.
The current BBC film is ‘even-handed’…it gives equal voice and credibility to both sides…which is odd given the BBC’s new found love for genuine balance in its reporting where it supposedly places more emphasis on the side which has the most compelling evidence…and in this case it should be those who say there was an Islamist plot to ‘capture’ British secular schools and to Islamise them. There is no doubting the evidence. But the BBC does doubt and is happy to give the Islamists an unchallenged voice….not revealing, as the Sunday Times does today, that some of the protagonists, including the main instigator, Tahir Alam, have continued to publish extreme, Islamist comments on social media…Alam stating that 9/11 was the ‘controlled demolition of three buildings’ and promoted a video that said the BNP have been bribed by Zionist Neocons ‘to ignore Jew money and attack Islam’.…a video that says…
A claim sometimes made is Zionists are the problem, not Jews. In fact Jews have been a problem for centuries, long before ‘Zionism’ was invented.
The BBC film actually gives more credence to those who say there was no plot than to the critics….it allows a Birmingham City councillor to claim that the reason the Council failed to spot the plot was because government cuts meant there weren’t enough staff….in fact the reason the plot wasn’t ‘spotted’ was because the Council had absolutely no intention of doing anything and even when it came into the full public glare the council leaders continued to deny there was a problem.
The BBC also had a sneaky attack on one of the headteachers, a Sikh, Balwant Bains, who was forced to resign under Islamist pressure, craftily implicating him as the author of the Trojan Horse letter…despite there being absolutely no evidence of that.
We had a clip where the Muslims under suspicion claimed that the letter was a hoax written by someone out for revenge…therefore suggesting a teacher. [and ‘revenge’ for what? Hmmm…being forced out by Islamists? ooops…they confirm the existence of the plot] The BBC film continued for a while giving a decent interval, not too soon to make people realise they were setting someone up, but early enough so the viewer didn’t forget the claim of a hoax written by someone out for revenge. They then put up a statement that Bains had resigned just months before the letter came out….making the implication that perhaps he was the author…
The letter also refers to events at Saltley School and Specialist Science College – where, at the time the letter was being considered by Birmingham City Council – the then headteacher, Balwant Bains, was negotiating his resignation. The letter states that ‘Balwant Bains will soon be sacked and we will move in’. Given that the letter was received by Birmingham City Council in late November 2013, it is surprising that the Council continued to negotiate the terms of Mr Bains’ resignation, eventually signing a compromise agreement with him on 2 January 2014.
Why is the BBC misleading us about the resignation of Balwant Bains and are pointing the finger at him as the author of the Trojan Horse letter?
The BBC are desperate to label the letter a hoax…despite the investigation saying that whatever the source its contents accurately portrayed what was happening in Birmingham schools. The BBC also continues to peddle the very misleading narrative that ‘no extremism was found in the schools’.
The BBC are of course defining ‘extremism’ in the way it always has…that merely of violent Islamism that perverts the good and peaceful religion of Islam.
But the BBC knows the reader or viewer will define extremism as cultural, non-violent extremism, ie Islamic fundamentalism or ‘conservatism’….judging Islam itself to be extreme.
Therefore the BBC hopes you will intepret its claim of no ‘extremism’ as saying there was no Islamisation at the schools…a conclusion that is utterly false….as the government reports clearly state.
The BBC’s Mark Easton doesn’t see the problem….the Trojan Horse plot was just an example of diversity in operation and one to be welcomed…an Islamist school is just like a Catholic one….he also spins that deliberate lie about ‘extremism’ not being found…
The evidence of Islamist extremism in Birmingham schools appears thin. The schools themselves say Ofsted has made “absolutely no suggestion, nor did they find any evidence, that Park View schools either promote or tolerate extremism or radicalisation”.
If, like 629 other state-funded English secondaries, Park View had been allowed to become a faith school, then one presumes the Islamic ethos would no longer be regarded as a threat to the welfare of the pupils. Conservative Muslims would be no different from conservative Catholics looking to escape from moral and cultural relativism.
No clearer sign than that that the BBC is supporting the Islamist cause.
It is perhaps an irony that the same BBC that mourns the death of a Communist dictator who killed or imprisoned thousands for their political views [a BBC that was appalled by Guantanamo Bay and yet just over the fence were Castro’s Gulags, ignored by the BBC and the Left] should be the same BBC that oh so quietly cheered the death of British MP and human rights campaigner, Jo Cox, when they heard her killer was probably a Far-Right extremist who had shouted ‘Britain first’ as he killed her….undoubtedly there were a few subtle high-fives in the BBC news-room that day….just days before the Brexit vote.
For some in the BBC and all too many on the Left the murder of Jo Cox was a ‘necessary murder’, a very sad and unfortunate event but a ‘sacrifice’ that would further the Cause and hopefully swing the referendum their way and which could be exploited later on to silence those who talked about immigration and to drum up support for a purge on conservative or right-leaning media by claiming they provide the backdrop that encourages and ‘gives licence to’ those on the Far-Right who are prepared to use violence to further their aims.
There is of course a concerted attack on the Right just now, not just on the Press but on those on the internet, in politics and indeed anyone who is in a position to influence or speak out in ways that the Left disapprove of…and the BBC is at the forefront of this attack joining forces with the Far-Left and Muslim extremists.
The BBC was absolutely sure that the murder of Jo Cox was an attack on democracy and evidence of the terrible pressure that politicians are under as they are constantly criticised and abused….by the ‘Right’ of course. The BBC is adament that we must protect our politicians and MPs in order that Parliament and Democracy can function properly without intimidation or threats.
Odd then that the BBC makes so little mention of the constant death threats that Nigel Farage gets as well as so many other Leave politicians and voters.
It is of course the likes of the BBC that has ‘licenced’ those attacks as it labels Farage and UKIP as Fascist, racist, Nazi and Islamophobic. Whereas the Leave campaign in no way encouraged or gave the slightest indication they approved of racism, their aim was to control numbers not ethnicity, the BBC has openly demonised and abused Farage and his ilk thus making him a target and encouraging attacks upon him by doing so.
One of Michigan’s 16 electors who will be called upon to cast a vote validating the election of Donald Trump in the Electoral College has testified on video that he and others in the state are receiving “dozens and dozens of death threats” from Hillary Clinton supporters urging them to switch their votes to Clinton.
On Dec. 19 the Electoral College will convene to cast their votes for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, with each state’s electors pledged to vote for the candidate elected on Nov. 8 in their state.
On Wednesday on 5Live the BBC was discussing violence against MPs and no mention was made of the threats to Farage…Labour’s Mary Creagh, who got a brick through her constituency office window, thought it might all be an anti-women plot for some reason…despite the brick lobbing thug being a woman and the consensus being that it was a Corbyn supporter who most likely did the dirty deed….no mention at all of Momentum or the Corbynistas on the programme. Stephen Timms got a mention but not the fact that it was a Muslim who stabbed him. Curious what is relevant and what isn’t in the BBC’s mind.
Funny how the BBC is pushing the narrative that violence against politicians is a very recent phenomenon, naturally one created by the Right…and yet I seem to remember an attempt to kill the whole Tory government in 1984, and indeed Stephen Timms, not to mention Nigel Jones, and countless politicians attacked by the IRA….the same IRA that the BBC was determined should have its propaganda heard on the BBC….so much for silencing voices that create terror and bloodshed…the BBC encouraged it…as they do today as they promote the Islamist agenda whilst ironically trying to silence those who criticise the extremists.
Since 1979 there have now been six fatal attacks on MPs as well as two attempted murders. A survey of UK MPs conducted last year revealed that one in five have been attacked or been subject to an attempted attack while 81 percent have experienced aggressive or intrusive behaviour while in office.
Curious that he thinks what he has to say is persuasive enough to make us rethink Brexit…..he admits staying in the Single Market in a ‘soft Brexit’ means Brexit is meaningless as we would be still essentially fully in the EU. He also admits that he didn’t hold the promised referendum on the EU because he would have lost it..and that anytime over the last 30 years the vote would have been ‘out’…..so much for democracy…so much for the EU…clearly only a project that the so-called elite are enamoured with….
Attempting to secure access to the single market will be the defining negotiation. “Either you get maximum access to the single market – in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European Court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’ Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”
JC Michael Portillo described David Cameron’s decision to hold the EU referendum as the greatest blunder ever made by a British prime minister. Do you agree?
TB I understand the reasons for it. As you may recall, I argued very strongly against it before the general election . . . but . . . I could’ve held one in 2005 and lost one. When we thought we were going to have to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I thought that was a very, very open question as to whether we were going to win or not. What it shows you [is] that if you put this decision to people like this in a referendum, I think at any point in time in the last 30 years you could have got that result.
That we would be isolated and disadvantaged without a voice.
That we would lose influence and have no say in our own future.
That the pound would fall and interest rates rocket.
That uncertainty would create political and economic instability.
That the City would fall from its high perch.
That investment would dry up.
That we would give up on human rights and employment protection for workers who would be returned to the world of the Victorian workhouse.
Note that Major promised that he had secured a great deal that meant the EU’s influence and baleful grip on our laws was limited by the treaty….note how the EU has gotten around that by imposing laws upon us that should be outside its remit by using health and safety or human rights legislation instead.
Just a couple of quotes from Major that says it all really about the EU…
This week’s events in the Soviet Union were a salutary reminder that reform in the Community is not an end in itself. [LOL…the EU is to all intents and purposes so very similar to the Soviet Union…a grand political project imposed regardless of the suffering it imposes upon the people…it is precisely ‘an end in itself’]
The House has been rightly concerned at the creeping extension of Community competence over the last few years. The Commission has often brought forward proposals using a dubious legal base, and the Council has found it difficult to halt that practice in the European Court.
The structure of the treaty puts the issues of foreign and security policy, interior and justice matters and defence policy beyond the reach of the Commission and the European Court. [Or that’s what he believed]
The BBC are overjoyed that John Major thinks Democracy somewhat over-rated.
John Major, the man who thinks Democracy is a ‘Tyranny’, the man who is so ardently pro-EU that he wanted to keep us in the ruinous ERM even as it destroyed our economy, the man who, without consulting us, signed us up to Maastricht and handed us over to the unelected EU ‘dictatorship’, ironically quotes Churchill in a homage to the Magna Carta…
Sir Winston Churchill wrote of Magna Carta:
“The underlying idea of the sovereignty of law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success.”
Remember that quote as Major and his rabble of Remainers betray the People and the Democracy that he claims to respect and says he seeks to defend and yet to all apparent purposes seems instead to be riding roughshod over the rights and liberties of those People.
No surprise that four of the least respected, ultimately failed and least trusted of politicians, Blair, Clegg, Farron and Major, should be leading the charge to double-cross the voters and sell them out to their mates in the EU.
It’s an interesting concept they have come up with…on a yes/no vote that was specifically asking the people of Britain if they wanted to leave or stay in the EU these four Judases now think we must take into account the wishes of the losing side. Just how does that work? Can we be just a little bit in? Just a little bit out? I thought Brexit meant Brexit. A vote to leave means a vote to leave.
What if we apply the same principle to the election? Clearly a great many people didn’t vote Tory so let’s, one, have another vote, and two, let’s take the loser’s thoughts into account and take something from each Party’s manifesto.
Or how about the fact that the Libdems got 2.5 million votes and 8 MPs whilst UKIP got 4 million votes and only one MP…..surely that’s a true tyranny of democracy….let’s hand some of those Libdem seats to UKIP…Farron I’m sure is very much in favour of proportional representation…no? Oh, suddenly the losing side, despite overwhelmingly out voting you, shouldn’t get a fair representation in Parliament. Perhaps Farron will stop slyly claiming that Leave only won by a small margin…thus implying not really legitimate. In that case hand over some seats Farron as you were beaten by a massive margin.
In 2016 the ex and disastrous Prime Minister, John Major [Me], brought himself back into the political world in an attempt to dethrone the rebellious Brexiteers. and to return the deposed Elite to power.
Back in 1990, on his leader’s, Margaret Thatcher’s, betrayal and deposing, John had become the new Prime Minister. Contemporary chronicles report history’s verdict that he was a very bad PM indeed. One wrote that “hell itself is defiled by the foulness of John”. Others were less kind. Many expressed sentiments that made today’s tabloid press seem positively tame. John himself was then rudely cast aside by a roughly treated citizenry and a Labour regime installed.
John’s relationship with his unruly People when in power had rapidly deteriorated to the point of civil war. This was no accident. He had ruinously kept them chained to the ERM in order to complete the grand EU political project, a process that he bungled ignominiously. He had a propensity for – I put this delicately – the wives and daughters of other men. Angry and rebellious, the People demanded the restoration of “ancient liberties” and the return of sovereignty. But John had no intention of appeasing the People, and when he went to the polls in 1997, he rejected their appeals, and demanded even greater allegiance for his EU project.
It was a foolhardy gesture and the People reacted with force, dumping him and installing the Sun King Blair who after several meetings – and what today we would call “a free and frank exchange of views” – an embryo Charter was drawn up promising a referendum on membership of the EU. Blair was himself subsequently deposed after renegeing on the agreement and in his wake his heir apparent was installed after a disastrous regency by Gordon Brown…one David Cameron who continued the charade, promising then refusing to give a voice to the People.
Eventually he was forced into offering a binding agreement: Cameron would issue what became known as the EU Referendum Promise and, in return, the People would swear fealty to him. The Promise was not signed – but the 4,000 word document, written on sheepskin parchment in Medieval Latin, was duly stamped with Cameron’s Seal. Copies were made by monks in the Royal Chancellery, and despatched for public proclamation to towns and cities across Britain. The EU Referendum was on the agenda.
What did the Great EU Referendum Promise say? The first thing to understand is that it was a contemporary document drafted for the wellbeing of the Tory Party. It was time, left-wing media pressure, subsequent events and re-interpretation of the text by great lawyers that reduced the Promise to a lie.
The People had told Cameron – don’t think you can act arbitrarily against us.
Cameron accepted the Referendum under duress and, no doubt, with ill grace, and upon losing the vote gracelessly and shamefully fled the political battlefield and the fallout from his deeds. Within weeks of the actual vote a cabal of opportunistic and deceitful chancers saw their opportunity to destroy it and to return the jealously guarded power to those who had most to lose under the Sovereignty of the People.
The Government proposed a Committee of Brexiteers to enforce the Referendum result and to hold Parliament to its word. This was anathema to an arrogant and presumptious Parliament which believed it was above the law. More important, it was anathema to an autocratic ex-leader of the ToryParty who saw here a principle that could threaten his own legacy.
When the Remain Camp appealed to him, John returned to the political fray in order to save the people from the People and suggested they quash the Great Referendum result with a pile of old Bull. It was, he announced, “unjust, shameful – and illegal”. In the dissolute and corrupt Britain of 2016 the Left’s writ was large and the left-wing media all powerful. They backed John and his cabal, but whilst John rejoiced, the People prepared for civil war.
Thomas Mair has been convicted and sentenced for killing Jo Cox. There are no excuses for what Mair did, no ‘understanding’, no moral equivocation. But there is a stark contrast in how the BBC treats a Far-Right killer and a Muslim one as, with unfortunate timing for the BBC, which had just published a heart-warming story of a Muslim ‘victim’ of radicalisation, this BBC ‘report’ illustrates… “An extremist in the family”.….oh he was a terrorist himself but naturally he was the victim having been a lovely lad led astray, a Muslim alienated by a cruel Britain made an easy and vulnerable recruiting target for the extremist recruiters….and his blameless family were helpless, shocked and distraught at the turn of events having no idea how he came to be ‘radicalised’. The same Dominic Casciani who made ‘An Extremist in the family’ also conjured up this white-wash for the killers of Lee Rigby…and naturally one of them suffered mental health issues…
He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and began suffering periods of acute mental illness, including delusions, such as hearing voices. This mental decline would come to play a key part in his later trial for Lee Rigby’s murder.
Also unfortunate that the mother of this ‘terrorist in the family’ was one of the school governors caught up in the Trojan Horse plot who had to resign. It is remarkable how the BBC blithely assures us that it is a complete mystery how Muslims become radicalised and take at face value claims by the families that they had no idea that their kids were being radicalised or how that could have happened…never mind that again and again we subsequently find out that it was as much the parents doing the radicalising as anyone else. We can be pretty sure there is a constant drum beat of anti-Israel, anti-Iraq War, anti-Western presence in the Middle East and in other Muslim places and conspiracy theories about 9/11 [it was the Jews] and 7/7 [it was MI5] in Muslim homes up and down the country….for example The Jan Trust [Muslim led] was championed by the BBC for its ‘anti-radicalisation’ stand and yet they were promoting the idea that it was right to be angry about Palestine and the various wars…just don’t express that anger as violence…so hardly doing the genuinely important anti-radicalisation work…that of changing the narrative of Muslims under attack…one that the BBC itself spreads.
The BBC disgracefully tried to link Mair’s actions to the Leave campaign in order to make the Brexit debate ‘toxic’…the judge in the case noted that nationalist or patriotic sentiments are legitimate but Mair tainted them and made them toxic…something the BBC tried desperately to exploit in order to paint Leave campaigners and voters as racist, Far-Right extremists…as it continues to do of course…
Addressing Mair, Mr Justice Wilkie said: “You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.
“Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic.”
The BBC was quick to pick up on the police claim that Mair was a terrorist…and yet the poice did not charge him as such…and the judge made no mention of terror…merely stating that the murder was politically motivated. The Police claim is of course itself politically motivated as Muslims and the Left press hard for the likes of Mair to be classified as terrorists in order to allow them to say Muslims are not the only terrorists and therefore anti-terror actions and Press coverage should not concentrate on Muslims and Islam….attempting to close down anti-terror policies and censor the Press.
The BBC has no doubt Mair is a terrorist but remarkably, and commendably, the Guardian raises the question…
There are arguments for and against, Mair may or may not be a terrorist….there is no proof he intended to ‘terrorise’ either us, the Public, or the political Establishment…rather, it was all very personal towards Jo Cox herself by Mair who was acting alone without any outside direction or coercion to kill…
It has become a cliche question among race-rights campaigners (with whom I have common cause): “Why aren’t far-right crimes considered terrorism?” Such a common question that now, it seems, the police are changing tack and labelling Thomas Mair a terrorist (though not so much that they actually charged him with terrorism offences).
And while I don’t doubt that Mair’s motives were political, in the common understanding and usage of the term “terrorism”, more than this is required. Because, though he had far-right sympathies, it’s clear his actions weren’t supporting anyone’s agenda but his own.
To my knowledge there is no organisation that calls for the violent overthrow of the state, or for the killing of leftwing MPs. And though some eyewitnesses reported Mair shouting “Britain first” during his attack on Jo Cox, there’s no evidence he was acting for, or under the instruction of, the legal rightwing organisation of the same name.
The BBC naturally makes no mention of Mair’s well known mental health issues in contrast to how they instantly raise such issues for just about every Muslim terrorist. Here’s the BBC’s only, and very disingenuous, comment on mental health in the Mair case in their write up...
The precise state of Mair’s mind at the time of the attack remains unclear.
He has largely refused to engage with the court process, including attempts to assess whether or not he is capable of standing trial on mental health grounds, or even to enter a plea of not guilty.
No mention that the day before he had sought help from a mental health service…as the Mail points out today…
Actually the Mail does state quite clearly and at length in different articles Mair’s obsession with the Nazis and Far Right ideology…
Mair, 53, spent hours looking up information on the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organisations before brutally attacking the Labour MP in her hometown of Batley, West Yorkshire.
So the BBC at the same time as it makes excuses for a Muslim terrorist, who has done Allah knows what in Syria or Iraq, a BBC that so often claims mental health problems were the cause of ‘Muslim’ terrorism, makes a determined attempt to avoid noting Mair’s well documented issues and rapidly labels him a terrorist when that is up for debate technically and legally as even the Guardian accepts….’political motivation’ alone does not make him a terrorist. He may well be a terrorist but he gave no indication that he intended to ‘terrorise’ others by killing Jo Cox and we would need to see all his communications with Cox to judge exactly what was going on between them.
Why was no medical evidence called on the state of Mair’s mental health?
The prosecution would have had no interest in proving that he was insane, or that his responsibility was diminished as a result of mental health problems.
Why then did the defence not call any such evidence? Insanity or, more realistically, manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, provided the only remotely plausible escape route from a life sentence. So why did the jury not hear from any psychiatrist? There are quite a number of explanations: perhaps Mair had refused to co-operate with the preparation of any such report. Perhaps he had co-operated but the psychiatrists had agreed that he was entirely sane and not suffering from any relevant mental health problems.
Even though the defence did not run any form of “psychiatric” defence, it is likely that before he is sentenced the judge will want to give some consideration to his mental health
So, in light of other widespread comment, you have to ask why the BBC fails to comment on this and use it as an excuse when it is so ready to do so for Muslim killers?
The new recruits to 5Live are stars…Emma Barnett and Nihal….the same old BBC groupthink mindset but on steroids. Hard to believe Barnett could be worse than Derbyshire but it looks like it.
Today she was pretty certain that the fact the story of a serial killer who targeted gay men was not on the frontpage of every newspaper meant that the ‘wider Press’ [naturally not including the BBC] are homophobic…oh…and the police are probably homophobic also as they didn’t do enough to link all the crimes [never mind one victim was buried and had to be exhumed because the police saw no suspicious cirumstances originally] Of course other stories were bigger…the Autumn Statement and Jo Cox.
The police of course have many priorities and this results in them targeting various crimes more than others as a report today points out…perhaps Barnett should do some more research rather than jumping to conclusions shaped by her own prejudices…are the police anti-children as well as homophobic?…
The Metropolitan Police is so obsessed with meeting targets on car thefts and burglaries it routinely fails to protect children from sexual exploitation, a report has found.
A review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) revealed that three quarters of child abuse cases were handled inadequately or required improvement.
The report identified “fundamental deficiencies” and a lack of overall leadership in a force preoccupied with tackling priorities set by the Mayor of London.
What was especially interesting was the truth….Barnett had on someone from Pink News who told us that he didn’t think homophobia was the issue here….why not? Well, most of the media had been constantly in touch with Pink News in order to find out more about the story…all except one organisation. The BBC.