Khant, Native informers and Uncle Toms

Dr. Deepa Kumar.


It’s amazing, or not…..Labour’s mayoral candidate for London, Sadiq Khan, has called Muslims who don’t agree with conservative or extremist Muslim views ‘Uncle Toms’….and the BBC has ignored this massive ‘racist’ insult that Khan seems to think that ‘moderate Muslims’ are more like hated native informers than anything else….though the BBC does spend a good deal of time not only defending Khan but also his less than moderate sidekick...Suliman Ghani… light of the recent murder of an Ahmadi shopkeeper this might be of  interest…

Ahmadi shopkeepers face financial ruin after clerics demanded a boycott of their shops.

Imam Suliman Gani, of the TIC, admitted he personally pleaded with the owner of the Lahore Halal Meat in Tooting not to sell his business to an Ahmadi man.

He said: “Since the Qadianis are routinely deceptive about their religion, there was a potential risk of Muslims being offered meat that wasn’t necessarily halal.

Ironically...from 2010…

In his first interview about the hate campaign being waged against the Ahmadiyya community in south London, Tooting MP and shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, talks to Omar Oakes about what has happened and what he is doing to stop it escalating.

Is there a hate campaign going on against the Ahmadiyya community?

“If you read the [Ahmadiyya’s allegations of hate crime] dossier, it’s not just in Wandsworth, but in Walsall, in Birmingham, in other parts of the country, there is clearly a campaign to incite hatred against this group of people. Whether that crosses the criminal threshold, that is for the police.”

That’s why Khan is so happy to share a platform so many times with Suliman Ghani?!!??

Khan….a two-faced, lying, dishonest little weasel?…..does seem so.


Khan is in good company though as he peddles the same line that the nasty little outfit MPACUK do...

‘Uncle Tom’ and ‘House Muslim’ are not racist labels – they are political ones. Only an Uncle Tom would say otherwise.



Not a word from the BBC about a senior Labour politician attacking Muslims who may want to support the government in their fight against radicalisation and terrorism.  Kind of raises a few questions about Mr Khan, his loyalties and what he really believes doesn’t it?  Then again it was the same with Warsi…at least she had the grace to resign….ironically Khan thought she was right to resign….so very principled…Sayeeda Warsi was right to resign over Gaza.…which again must raise a few questions, this time about his position on Israel, Jews and anti-Semitism….even more ironically in the first part of the video interview above he tells us of his concern that extremists will exploit the war in Gaza and use it to say there is a war on Muslims…..and then he goes on to do just that himself in his support for Warsi…..’ David Cameron has been silent while the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza have led to death, suffering and hardship. His and other ministers’ failure to criticise Israel directly is startling.’

Khan though really is in good company, not just with Warsi but with the Guardian as well, as today it has set out deliberately and with determination to undermine the Government’s anti-terrorist/radicalisation programme and conversely aims to incite Muslims to become radicalised and join the ranks of the terrorists.  Not sure how the editor of the Guardian stays out of prison.

Government hid fact it paid for 2012 Olympics film aimed at Muslims


Look who has already picked up on this story…


The Guardian reports with great excitement and indignation that the government produced films and material to counter radical Muslims’ propaganda that the Olympic Games in 2012 were unIslamic because they occurred during Ramadan.  You might think that was a sensible proactive measure to counter the terrorists’ message that was intended to drive a wedge between Muslims and the UK but the Guardian thinks otherwise and its use of language, imagery and provocative tone and narrative is intended to not only draw attention to, but to counter the government’s message, a message that the Guardian labels as sinsiter ‘black propaganda’, butthe Guardian also intends to create anger and dissent amongst Muslims who read the story…and then of course pass it on to other Muslims.

The Guardian has not one, but three reports on this….here’s another two..

The British government has already forgotten the great dangers of propaganda

As titles go, the Research Information and Communication Unit (Ricu) seems bland enough to go unnoticed and innocuous not to raise alarm should it come to attention. The truth, however, seems less benign.

Revelations by the Guardian indicate that the Ricu, the Home Office’s “strategic communications” agency, has been involved in covertly supporting grassroots Muslim organisations in order to propagate “counter-narratives” designed to combat extremism.

So ‘less benign’……just sinister then?

The Guardian adopts the Muslism extremist narrative to counter Prevent and all it entails…

Revelations that the British government has been engaging in a substantial propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the “hearts and minds” of British Muslims and the wider public is of serious concern, as is the disturbing news that deception is involved. The unit’s covert support of ostensibly independent grassroots Muslim organisations and information campaigns is a classic example of so-called black propaganda, whereby greater persuasiveness is sought by disguising the source of a message which, if known, may damage its credibility.

And the Guardian continues down that route pushing the usual terrorist narrative, as does the BBC, about foreign affairs, the Jews, Iraq being the caue of radicalisation…no mention of the real cause….Muslims wanting to impose Islam upon the world….

The entire emphasis on countering narratives and extremism eclipses the myriad reasons why so many Muslims are deeply critical of the government. The problem is defined solely in terms of “extremist narratives” and prevents critical reflection on what “we” might be doing and the political context. Anger over western foreign policy and recent wars, plus the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, are major sources of discontent and dissent, and not only among British Muslims. Here, those involved in government strategy must consider whether they have sufficiently come to terms with the political context, and its role in creating the extremism and radicalisation now being targeted by the government.

Then this as well…

Revealed: UK’s covert propaganda bid to stop Muslims joining Isis

The UK government has embarked on a series of clandestine propaganda campaigns intended to bring about “attitudinal and behavioural change” among young British Muslims as part of a counter-radicalisation programme.

In a sign of mounting anxiety across Whitehall over the persuasiveness of Islamic State’s online propaganda, a secretive Home Office unit has developed a discreet multimillion pound counter-messaging operation that it says privately is running at “industrial pace and scale”.

[This] will dismay some Muslims and may undermine confidence in the Prevent counter-radicalisation programme, which already faces widespread criticism.

You have to ask why a government message that counters the propaganda put out by extremist Muslims should be ‘“ highly unlikely to have any credibility among these [Muslim] audiences” and that disclosure of the government’s role would have a “negative impact on the narrative.”

Why would young Muslims be opposed to a message that preaches non-violence and cohesion?

Why is it that any Muslim group that joins in with the government is seen as Khan’s ‘Uncle Toms’…

The programme risked undermining, rather than amplifying, the work of Muslim civil society if it appeared that groups had been co-opted to a government agenda.

She said: “The community groups are in a double bind; if they don’t disclose government support and it’s revealed, they lose trust. If they do disclose it, they lose trust.

I’m sorry…we have to rely on the ‘work of Muslim civil society’ to counter Islamic extremism on its own!  Total rubbish…..That’ll be the mainstream Muslim community that reinforces the radicals’ message about Muslims under siege, marginalised and discriminated against…as of course does the BBC.  How on earth are they in any shape or form countering, or even showing the slightest interest in countering, the ‘extremists’ message?

The Guardian has set out to not only sabotage the government programme but to create anger, dissent and radicalisation as a counter to it.

The Guardian is fueling the fire and doing what it can to recruit Muslims to the Islamist terrorist cause.

I would suggest lifting Rusbridger [who started all this] and Viner, stick them in the back of a Chinook and drop them off in the Syrian desert from where they can make their own way home with the help of their many friends out there.  Maybe that will open their eyes and make them realise this isn’t a fun little game.




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

Old McDonnell had no qualms



John McDonnell having a nice chat with now infamously immoderate Suliman Ghani…boasting how he, McDonnell, set up mosques and a campaign to boycott Israeli goods…..amused to hear from him that local Muslim councillors represent everybody.  LOL…via Guido…..Suspended Labour councillor Shah Hussain has been on the Daily Politics to defend comparing a Jewish footballer to Hitler. Apparently he is the victim of a “witch-hunt”: “I’m a Muslim councillor and therefore my comments have been taken out of context”.



Livingstone and Khan in very good company…will McDonnell out, out, out himself from the Party?



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

Anti-Semitism in the age of Corbynism


The BBC seems determined to play down the role Corbyn has in the entry of people with extreme views into positions of power in the Labour Party and his lack of enthusiasm for tackling the anti-Semites.

The BBC has finally caught up with events as Labour suspends various members, all Muslim, for their views about Israel but although finally printing the story it gives excuse upon excuse for Corbyn.

The first line in this report is this quote from an MP which is interpreted as evidence of a plot against Corbyn…. the headline of the report gives away the BBC’s approach...’Anti-Semitism row bolsters Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour foes’.

“There is a lot more in this anti-Semitism issue – a lot more. And the people we will take out are all close to Corbyn.”

Is that a plot or the justified reaction of Labour MPs to people making extremely racist comments with the expectation that they will be removed from the Party…given that Corbyn himself, and McDonnell, have said as much?

The BBC confirm’s their interpretation of this as a plot to get rid of Corbyn..

There is no suggestion that this particular MP was involved – and equally no suggestion that the shock felt by long standing Labour Party members at anti-Semitic comments by newer recruits is synthetic.

But for those opposed to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the week could hardly have gone better.

No suggestion this MP was involved?  Involved in what?  Clearly the BBC is suggesting a coup is under way…exploiting anti-Semitism as a lever.

The BBC continues its defence of Corbyn telling us it’s not really much of a problem and that’s why Corbyn is just a bit slow to react…..

There is a consensus that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is not widespread.

That contributed to Jeremy Corbyn’s unfortunate “crisis? What crisis?,” comments which suggested to some that he wasn’t serious enough about tackling a small but highly toxic problem before it became a big and highly toxic problem.

Ken Livingstone’s remarks on Hitler and Zionism were a bonus.

So much like Islamic terrorism…the beliefs and values that drive anti-Semitism are just held by a tiny minority of people who pervert the real ideology…trouble is that’s not true…as Nick Cohen points out…

The Labour party does not have a “problem with antisemitism” it can isolate and treat, like a patient asking a doctor for a course of antibiotics. The party and much of the wider liberal-left have a chronic condition.

It just appears to me that they face interlocking difficulties that are close to insoluble.

They must first pay the political price of confronting supporters from immigrant communities, which Labour MPs from all wings of the party have failed to do for decades.

While Ken Livingstone was forcing startled historians to explain that Adolf Hitler was not a Zionist, I was in Naz Shah’s Bradford. A politician who wants to win there cannot afford to be reasonable, I discovered. He or she cannot deplore the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and say that the Israelis and Palestinians should have their own states. They have to engage in extremist rhetoric of the “sweep all the Jews out” variety or risk their opponents denouncing them as “Zionists”.

The BBC astonishingly but not unusually prints this nonsense…

‘Not about religion’

Mr Aziz said politicians needed to be careful when commenting on the Middle East, but added: “The thing you have got to try and appreciate is that if a particular government – whether it’s the Israeli government, whether it’s the British government – if the government is actually doing something wrong they should be criticised.

“But not the population itself, it’s got nothing to do with them, it’s got nothing to do with the religion.”

Trouble is it’s all about religion.  Why is it that a Pakistani living in the UK is at all concerned about what goes on in the far off Middle East?  The only reason is because he is a Muslim and the people he is criticising are Jews…if they were Muslim he wouldn’t give a damn what they did or why they were there….what are his views on Jordan, or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, or Qatar or Brunei or Malaysia or even Pakistan?  Curiously he doesn’t seem to have any views.

Shame the BBC continues to hide the truth.  Once again the Guardian asks that difficult question that should be on everyone’s lips…

Hidden among the current controversy on antisemitism is an issue so big and so difficult that it is barely addressed.

How, in diverse societies, is it possible to live peacefully alongside minorities whose views and political commitments we disagree with?

Naturally this being the Guardian the real problem is the Jews, sorry, Zionists…whilst Muslims are ‘too often left to be condemned by prejudiced treatment.’

But this is the big question that needs to be asked.  Just don’t expect the BBC to ask it, it’s what they’ve spent years covering up and trying to avoid talking about..hence we get Muslim driving schools and cake bakers to show just ‘how like us’ they all are when the truth is far, far from that in reality….as Nick Cohen told us.

Here’s the kicker…the BBC knows Corbyn’s a wrong’un and yet continues to smooth things over for him…

Pressure is also likely to mount on Jeremy Corbyn to distance himself not just from Ken Livingstone but from his own views.

The BBC itself is very reluctant to tackle Corbyn of his views and his ‘friendship’s’ with terrorists, his employment by the Isamist Iranian Press TV and his gathering together of all the looney-lefties he can drag out of the gutter to form his own little cabal of like-minded fellow travellers around himself.

Even the Guardian has raised doubts about Corbyn…from last August...Why is no one asking about Jeremy Corbyn’s worrying connections?…

Some of the things Corbyn is accused of are, to paraphrase George Orwell, still concerning even if the Daily Mail says so. For one thing, he is the chair of an organisation which a decade ago effectively supported attacks on British troops…. “by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends”.

Then there is Corbyn’s apparent proximity to antisemitism. While I genuinely believe that Corbyn does not have an antisemitic bone in his body, he does have a proclivity for sharing platforms with individuals who do; and his excuses for doing so do not stand up.

I believe [this] shows that the Labour party – and the left more generally – no longer takes antisemitism seriously.

As for the inquiry that the BBC keeps telling us that Corbyn has set up…Shami Chakrabarti is employed at the same firm as one Justine Thornton, otherwise known as Mrs Miliband and oh yes. there’s this about this man…Professor David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism….

The man helping to lead Labour’s inquiry into antisemitism is a named supporter of a group which has dismissed allegations of Jew-hatred in the party as “baseless and disingenuous”.

Prof Feldman is a signatory to Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), a group of Jewish academics who are critical of British Jewish communal institutions.

On Sunday, IJV released a statement which expressed concern “at the proliferation in recent weeks of sweeping allegations of pervasive antisemitism within the Labour Party.”

It added: “Some of these allegations against individuals are, in our view, baseless and disingenuous; in other cases, ill-chosen language has been employed.”

IJV continued: “We are equally concerned, however, by the way in which such accusations are deployed politically – whether by the press, the Conservative Party, opponents of Corbyn’s leadership within Labour, or by those seeking to counter criticism of the actions of the Israeli government. The current climate is quickly coming to resemble a witch-hunt, in which statements and associations, some going back years, are being put under the microscope.”

IJV went on to express “dismay” that “anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia” were not receiving the same attention.

Doesn’t really fill you with confidence that the inquiry will be at all rigorous in taking Labour to task.  Someone needs to, but it won’t be the BBC until someone like Guido does the spade work and forces the BBC to start reporting the bad news.  Why is it that it is a relatively small blog on the internet that is making the running with the news and not the massively resourced BBC?  Could it be that the BBC just isn’t interested in finding out about what’s in Corbyn’s closet?   This is the BBC that trawls social media to find the ‘dirt’ on Israel or video of racists abusing blacks or Muslims but when it comes to anti-Semites they suddenly are not interested.  How odd.








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

The heart of the problem



Just what is Europe’s biggest problem?

As millions of people with beliefs, values and ideologies that are incompatible with a liberal, freedom loving, secular, Christian based, Western Europe, invade that Europe bringing with them all the problems and attitudes that they allege they are escaping from, what does the BBC see as the problem?  Is it the war launched by Islamists against the West?  Is it the social, economic, infrastructure and criminal problems brought by the mass immigration of people with very alien ideas? Or is it something else?

Is Europe lurching to the far right?

A ripple of concern shivered across Europe this week in establishment circles after a right-wing populist candidate stormed to pole position in the first round of Austria’s presidential election.

Guide to nationalist parties challenging Europe

Many European countries are witnessing electoral gains for far-right and nationalist parties, though they span a wide political spectrum.

The migrant crisis has fuelled a backlash against the political establishment, but the wave of discontent also taps into long-standing fears about globalisation and a dilution of national identity.

How is this right-wing backlash reshaping Europe’s political landscape?


So there is a ‘ripple of concern’ sweeping across Europe at the rise of Far Right parties.  No such concern at the rise of Far Left Parties such as the most recent incarnation of the Labour Party in the UK?  No such concern about the rise of Islamist terrorists…the BBC more often excusing and cheerleading for them instead.

And what of those Far Right parties ‘challenging Europe’?  Surely the BBC means challenging the imperialist EU and the boot it places on the Peoples’ neck?

And what of immigration?  I apologise, I was mistaken, the BBC do take it seriously….the problem you see children, is just don’t love and appreciate the millions of alien immigrants who have forced their way into Europe expecting handouts and a life of ease,  or at least easy women…….and have no intention of returning to their own countries….

Migrant Crisis: Changing attitudes of a German city

In the six months since BBC News first visited Oberhausen, the mood here has changed.

“I think that many Germans don’t want to deal with the whole thing, let alone to help those that need it, be it in general or in the street. They just close their mind,” says 75-year-old Vera Hufer.

“It is important to reach out to foreigners and ask them ‘may I help you?’ … If we all put a little effort into it, then it will work.”

The rise of the Far Right?  The rise of the Far Right gives the BBC the shivers.  But who is to blame for the rise of the Far Right?  Who gave the EU and in the UK, the Labour Party, uncritical coverage and support for their immigration policies?  Who is it that has cheerled and spent vast amounts of time, effort and money advocating for open borders and the free movement of people from around the world? Who is it that did not hold to account and challenge their lies about immigration?  Who is it that has worked assiduously to suppress and quash all criticism of such policies and allowed the real racists, the anti-White, anti-British, anti-Western extremists both of the Left and from the Islamic camp, to shape the political narrative and enable them to scare off anyone from engaging in debate for fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic?  Who then has given rise to the rise of the Right as people find the only way to get their voice heard is to vote for the only people willing to stick their head above the parapet…the Far Right?

The answer of course is the BBC itself.  Now so concerned about the rise of the Far Right and yet it is its own actions to suppress democracy and free speech that has led to that rise….just as the BBC’s lies about the ‘war on terror’, its support for terrorsim and radical Islam, its targeted pressure on politicians to make them have qualms about taking military action for fear of the BBC et als’ reaction, has led to what is happening in Syria, all of which was unnecessary as Assad could have been forced to the negotiation table years ago and the war stopped by large scale military action….whereas now Assad is pretty much secure and unmoveable and the refugee flow out of Syria set to continue unabated as he bombs their cities and towns and villages back to the stone age.   That’s in no small part to the BBC and its like-minded do-gooders.

Far from being a force for good, the BBC is a dangerous and out of control organisation whose highly politicised interference in world events ends in vast numbers of dead and an endless stream of refugees made homeless and without hope due to actions in Syria and beyond in effect sanctioned by the BBC which looks on and professes horror but then does all it can to prevent any effective solution to the events unfolding so dramatically before us.

The same can be said for the rise of anti-Semitism…the BBC has played a huge role in recreating that monster with its endless demonisations of Israel, the claims that Gaza is an open prison, that Israelis are war criminals, that Israelis are nazis who deserve to be shot, that Israel itself cannot last and is not a legitimate state, that Palestinians are being murdered by the Israeli state…all these things and more have been peddled by the BBC and the effect is the rise of the anti-Semitic movement that dresses itself up as anti-Zionist…and yet ignores all the other countries that are far, far worse than Israel.

The rise of anti-Semitism, the rise of mass immigration, the securing of Assad’s position, the rise of Islamic radicalisation and terror, the rise of the Far Right….just how much can be layed at the BBC’s door?  The BBC certainly doesn’t want us to know…which is why it spent huge sums of money preventing the public release of the Balen Report which set out just how the BBC’s reporting of events in the Middle East had such a damaging effect on events there and in places like the UK where its anti-Israeli reporting became reflected in the rise of anti-Semitism dressed up in a light disguise as being anti-Israeli.  In light of what is happening today the BBC should be forced to release that report and admit that it has played a highly dangerous role in encouraging the anti-Israel movement, anti-semitism and the rise of violent Islamists.

If the BBC were closed down would the world in fact be a safer place as speech became free again and open debate shaped politics instead of an immensely poweful left-wing agenda force upon politicians by a far too powerful media giant…a media giant that as we speak is still trying to close down its ideological and commercial rivals in order to dominate the news agenda even more than it does already with the connivance of the Labour Party which thought that the left-leaning BBC shouldn’t be subject to the same restrictions on ownership as other media/news organisations?

The world certainly would be a safer place without the BBC. It certainly would be more honest.







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

Nazi Shah?



Cameron at PMQs has twice made Corbyn squirm over allegations of anti-Semitism and forced a rapid reaction from him, not to mention his ‘disgraceful’ allegations against Sadiq Khan.   Cameron himself though is on sticky ground having had Baroness Warsi as Chair of his party and as a minister of faith to boot.  The same Warsi who wanted Israel to be disarmed and left defenceless whilst also demanding the terrorists of Hamas be given weapons.  The same Warsi who enjoyed the company of many a devout Muslim in the Muslim university society FOSIS, well known for being the breeding ground of extremists.  The same Warsi who made it her job to do whatever it took to undermine the anti-terrorist Prevent programme.  The same Warsi who argued for the inclusion of extremist organisations in the national debate about what should be called ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ and what should be acceptable..arguing it is the refusal to accept the radicals’ agenda as ‘normal’ that makes them radical.

Warsi is still at it attempting to muddy the waters and spread the blame…Dog-whistle, nasty, toxic politics based on race and religion?  She should know……

Fascinated to know who it is that she thinks are ‘Islamophobic’, how she defines an ‘Islamophobe’ and why, in her opinion, such views are ‘Islamophobic’.

What’s apparent is a growing perception of who so many of the anti-Semites are….hard left politicians and all too many Muslims.

It was only on April 11 that Cameron had his own little bit of bother with an alleged anti-Semite…and ironically who was it that demanded he deal with this anti-Semitism?…She seemed pretty keen for the BBC to know as well…

  Naz Shah MP Verified account@NazShahBfd Apr 11      @David_Cameron must act now @BBCNews @itvnews @BBCPolitics @UKLabour #No2ClanPolitics #No2Mysoginy #No2Antisemitism …

The BBC though doesn’t seem overly keen to hold Corbyn’s feet to the fire [Andrew Neil aside…of course] over long-running allegations of anti-Semitism running rife in his Party.  Certainly they report on the issue but there is always more than a touch of equivocation about their reports and a refusal to come to a judgement….which, had this been a Tory or a UKIP offender we can be sure would not be the case…they’d be hung out to dry.  The BBC works hard to provide Corbyn with an alibi.  Corbyn is painted as the victim of internal Party squabbling, or it was all Miliband’s fault and anyway Corbyn is dealing with the issues by suspending people.  Laura Kuenssberg tells us that ‘No one believes that Jeremy Corbyn himself tolerates discrimination against Jews.’  Is that true? 

This is not some academic exercise or interesting political theory. This is reality – the reality that the Labour Party is now run by a cadre for whom anti-Semitism really is ok, so long as it is dressed up as anti-Zionism. Because Zionism is the enemy of all good people.

People seem pretty concerned about his lack of enthusiasm to suspend people like Shah and Livingstone and there is the matter of his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, never mind his once employment on the rabidly anti-Semitic Iranian Press-TV channel where he has stood by as British Muslims describe Israelis as a disease that needs to be eliminated, and oh yes….the BBC is a ‘Zionist liar’….Via Guido:

Let’s just remind ourselves, as the BBC doesn’t bother, just what Press TV is like……

Press TV, Iran’s governmentrun English-language satellite news network, has emerged as the Iranian government’s primary propaganda tool to promote a wide range of pernicious anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in English to a worldwide audience.

I have seen no desire from the BBC to examine the fact that Corbyn’s Labour Party edited Shah’s ‘apology’….

Labour HQ Deleted References To Anti-Semitism From Naz Shah’s Apology

Labour MP Naz Shah’s apology was edited by the party’s HQ to remove all mentions of the term “anti-Semitic”, along with references to wider problems of anti-Semitism in left-wing politics, after it was submitted for approval, BuzzFeed News has learned.

You might think that is hardly the move of a Party intent on irradicating the scourge of anti-Semitism from its ranks…and Corbyn is reacting to allegations made very publicly against Labour and not proactively seeking out those who make such comments.

What about Naz Shah?  Surely some mistake?  She was emotional and distraught at fellow Muslims being ruthlessly murdered by Jews during the 2014 Gaza battle when she urged Israel to be destroyed and Jews shipped, transported, to America…no?

In 2012 she had pretty similar vitriolic views…tweeting this…never mind Israel has been under attack for 70 years and is defending itself from being ‘wiped out’……



In 2014 she posted this…



So she was tweeting ‘ich bin ein Palestinian’ to anti-Semite David Ward, and was she really channelling ‘Kennedy’ or was she using German for some other, more sinister, reason?  What other association might she be making, David Ward considered?  As for ‘#FreePalestine’...that isn’t about Gaza or the West Bank but about wiping out the Jews and erasing Israel from the map.

This is a woman who associates with well known demonisers of Israel such as David Sheen….who naturally is another goto for the BBC as well….

thankyou for your time today, shocked at what is happening

This is a woman who has consistantly attacked Israel and tried to undermine its legitimacy and tried to generate as much antagonism towards it as possible…here, as did Warsi, demanding Israel be denied arms and calling Gaza an open prison.  This is not an attitude that she suddenly found irresistable one day as she saw news reports of Israel’s action in Gaza, this is a long-term, dyed-in-the-wool attitude that is prevalent in Muslim communities and on the Hard Left.

The BBC has always reported this as an intemperate, emotional blip and told us of her fulsome apology to the Jewish community…however one look at her Tweets and other comments indicates this is ingrained in her mind.  This was not a one off from her.  We had an interview on Thursday on the Today programme with two Jews, Rabbi Laura Janner- Klausner, senior rabbi with Reform Judaism, and David Baddiel, who both remarkably thought Shah wasn’t really being anti-Semitic and anyway what a nice person she was and she ahs apologised.  Justin Webb didn’t argue against that.

It is a sick irony that she holds a seat on the Home Affairs Select Committee investigating the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK and uses her position to again attack call for boycotts and disarmament, and to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa.

Shah’s suggestion that Israel be wiped off the map and moved to America was not the action of someone suddenly overcome by emotion and grief, why should that be..she is after all of Pakistani heritage not Palestinian?, it was the result of a mindset that has been steeped in anti-Jewish and an-Israeli rhetoric for a very long time….as the slippery islamist Mehdi Hasan admitted is all too common in Muslim communities…

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.

The fact is that all opposition to Israel, such as Shah’s, is based upon one fact…that Israelis are Jews [except for the ones who aren’t…such as Palestinians Israelis…in this apartheid state], Israel is a Jewish state.  If it had been a Muslim state carved out of the British Palestinian mandate land, such as Jordan, there would be no problem.  It is just the Jews that are the problem it seems.

None of this seems to bother the BBC who dismisses Shah’s ‘moment of madness’ as a blip rather than what it is, just one more piece of evidence from a pattern of behaviour that illustrates a mind that is determined to undermine and, she no doubt hopes, eradicate Israel as a State in the Middle East.

Is it not an irony that a Pakistani heritage Muslim should be castigating Israel?  Pakistan that has done so much to turn the world into a seething cauldron of war and religious apartheid?  Pakistan that spread nuclear technology to terrorist states, Pakistan that has tried to take Kashmir from India by force, Pakistan that has sponsored so many terrorist groups, Pakistan that created the Taliban and continued to support them as they killed British troops, a Pakistan where no  Christian, non-Muslim  or even Ahmadi Muslim can really be safe.  And Shah has the nerve to criticise Israel?  Let’s boycott all Pakistani companies, shops and manufacturers. Let’s disarm Pakistan.  Let’s argue for all Muslims in so-called ‘Pakistan’, stolen from India, to be sent to Saudi Arabia if they want to live in a Muslim state.

What does she think of that?  Not so funny huh?


I’m betting the BBC wouldn’t be too enamoured of such a campaign either….not saying they are anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim at the BBC, but they are.









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

The Phoney Pot


The government makes all sorts of claims about the threat to inward investment to the UK should we leave the EU’s clutches and the BBC does little to dispel such notions.  Hence we bring you this piece of puffery from the government from last year in which they boast of their success in attracting record levels of investment to the UK…due to the government’s fabled long term economic plan, their hard work in chasing investment from around the world, the UK infrastructure, the regulatory system, the attractive tax rates, the skilled work force, the R&D levels…and the government strategy that gives the UK the competitive edge in the world…..what’s missing from all that is any mention of the EU which we are now assured is the main reason for investment into the UK…the closeness of the EU market and access to free trade via the UK.  However in the full report again there is no mention that the EU is a factor in driving investment towards the UK and only one company of the many highlighted as examples mentions that it chose the UK as a base to export to Europe…but even that is open to interpretation.

UK wins a record number of investment projects and maintains position as top investment destination in Europe

Prime Minister David Cameron said:

The scale of foreign investment is a huge success story which shows that Britain is the place to do business and is more evidence that our long term economic plan is working. Securing investment from overseas is a key part of our One Nation policies to create thousands of jobs, provide security and opportunities for working people throughout the UK.

Trade and Investment Minister Lord Maude said:

2014 was an exceptional year for UK inward investment and we are proud to be bucking the global trend. The UK is a great place for entrepreneurs and corporations to put their energy, their ideas, their money and their talents to work. The Government will continue to work hard to attract investment from across the globe to further strengthen the UK economy.

UKTI statistics show that FDI into the UK came from more than 70 countries, including the world’s leading emerging markets.

Once the referendum is over I imagine the Government will return to boasting of its achievements and claiming all the glory for themselves.  Funny how times change, then again it was only a few months ago that both Osborne and Cameron were saying they would be happy to leave the EU if they didn’t get major reforms of the EU….still waiting on that one.






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

Climate Change Change


A few notes on climate change…..

Firstly there’s a 163 page complaint gone in to the BBC about its coverage of climate change…I imagine the reply will be somewhat briefer.

Major New Complaint Submitted To BBC Over Climate Bias

A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.

We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.

Good luck with that.

Second, it is interesting that Roger Harrabin doesn’t seem to have used the ‘97% of all scientists‘ stick to support his climate change campaigning and beat the Sceptics with…I’ve tried to find something from him but no luck.   Now that is very telling if confirmed…Harrabin is a hardcore propagandist for the climate lobby and yet he seems to have taken a look at this ‘killer’ statistic and decided not to use it.  Is that because he recognises the stat is bogus and essentially a lie?   His non-use of the stat would seem to indicate that it is entirely worthless, and so obviously worthless that Harrabin knows he would get called out on it and he wouldn’t be able to justify its use…exposing him as a propagandist.

Third thing of note relates to that 97% claim.  The BBC has frequently reported on fraud and corruption in science, both from the scientists and those who report on it in the scientific journals….but not once have I heard the subject of climate change come under scrutiny in a similar manner….will that change? …from WUWT:

Climate science might become the most important casualty of the replication crisis

After a decade of slow growth beneath public view, the replication crisis in science begins breaking into public view. First psychology and biomedical studies, now spreading to many other fields — overturning what we were told is settled science, the foundations of our personal behavior and public policy. Here is an introduction to the conflict (there is pushback), with the usual links to detailed information at the end, and some tentative conclusions about effects on public’s trust of science. It’s early days yet, with the real action yet to begin.

This crisis emerged a decade ago as problems in a few fields — especially health care and psychology. Slowly similar problems emerged in other fields, usually failures to replicate widely accepted research.

“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”
— Goethe, from Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soretclip_image001.

With what we know about the likes of the CRU after their emails were hacked, what we know about the 97% claim, what we know about the ‘hockey stick’ manipulations, what we know about the conspiracy to hide the medieval warm period, and the ‘decline’, it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption.  With so many reputations, careers and lucrative research grants on the line there has long been a hard fought battle to silence the critics and those who question the status quo, the so-called ‘consensus’.  You just had to see the BBC’s science journos’ united front that marched out to defend the CRU and climate scientist Phil Jones when the emails surfaced to understand the problem…some people were more interested in covering up for the sicentists than in exposing wrongdoing or bad science.

Maybe that will change as WUWT suggests and more and more of that bad science and bad faith is exposed.  Again good luck with that.   Climate change is a massive industry worth billions which has sucked in not just the scientists but the politicians and journalists as well as the cultural cheerleaders such as artists, actors, singers and writers who so usefully give a ‘human face’ to the science that they so little understand.  They have so much tied up in climate change actually happening and being man-made that any criticism or undermining of that belief will only succeed if there is an equally massive turn of events that stops people in their tracks, radically alters their perceptions and dramatically proves the science wrong or maybe wrong.  Again, good luck with that….glaciers advancing down Salford high street would be presented as conclusive proof of global warming I’m sure…..and as I said they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privileges and the cash flow….as noted by Matt Ridley in the Times recently …and spot the hand of the Rasputin-like Richard Black in this (You can’t keep a good man down)…..via ‘Not a lot of people know that’…

Climate change lobby wants to kill free speech

The editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change. 
Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change.

 The letter was not entirely the work of the peers but, I understand, involved Richard Black, once a BBC environment correspondent and now director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an organisation that spends more than £500,000 a year, largely trying to influence the media.


Of course there is one redoubt in the BBC where journalism is given a fair go…Andrew Neil holds the fort…and here explains, & his colleagues should read it, what good journalism is all about…

Andrew Neil on Ed Davey climate change interview critics

The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.

The Sunday Politics remit and interview duration means we are able to carry out proper forensic interviews on such matters.

It is becoming a hallmark of our programme, whether it’s challenging the global warming assumptions of the climate change secretary, the NUT’s historic resistance to school reforms by Tory and Labour governments, or the activities of the leader of the English Defence League.

Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.

We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.

First, the Sunday Politics does not have a position on any of the subjects on which it interrogates people.

Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.

There is hardly any purpose in presenting evidence which supports the interviewee’s position – that is his or her job.

It is for viewers to decide how well the interviewee’s position holds up under scrutiny and the strength of the contrary evidence or points put to him or her.

Taking an opposite or challenging position from the person being interviewed is pretty much standard practice in long-form broadcast interviews.

But the contrary position has to be based on reputable evidence.



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

Breaking The Mould


A young, ambitious Kenyan today should not have to do what my grandfather did, and serve a foreign master.


Yep, what happened to Obama’s grandfather under British colonial rule doesn’t hang heavily at all on his thoughts at all.

Though the racist, dog-whistling Guardian in 2009 seemed to think so…

Could Obama’s dual colonial heritage spell the end of the special relationship?

The intriguing question of whether the president’s dual colonial inheritance – of Kenyan and Irish ancestry – is helping reshape America’s supposedly “special relationship” with Britain.

The BBC’s own Nick Robinson thinks it’s a question worth asking as he’s doubtful about Obama’s allegiances and priorities…

Confronted directly by the BBC’s political correspondent, Nick Robinson, with the assertion that “unlike many of your predecessors, [you] have not looked towards Europe, let alone Britain,” the president yesterday denied any cooling had taken place.


Sunday morning on R4 we had Paddy O’Connell (10 mins 30s) putting the boot into Boris for being ‘a racist’.  O’Connell had on Shirley Williams and Michael Howard to discuss Obama.  Williams told us that she was ‘ashamed of the extraordinary comments’ made by Boris.

O’Connell didn’t challenge Williams on her claim and ask her to justify why she thought Boris was racist instead he tried to badger Michael Howard into distancing himself from Boris’ comments….

‘Can you just help us with this Lord Howard?…..Shirley Williams is concerned about the tone of the Mayor of London’s remarks, the ‘part-Kenyan’, I think he even said ‘Keenyan president’, do you distance yourself from Boris Johnson’s remarks about the background of President Obama?’

Where to start?  Since when has Shirley Williams been the nation’s goto moral arbiter?  The same Shirley Williams whose politics the Public roundly rejected and who would like to see Communism take over in the UK?  Why does O’Connell use Williams’ remark as the baseline truth?  O’Connell’s default position is that she is right and Howard should distance himself from the remarks…which is quite extraordinary conclusion if you have actually read Boris’ remarks and note that they are entirely innocuous and reasonable…especially when you consider, and have knowledge of, any context.   O’Connell clearly falls short there…but what’s new for BBC presenters who think pious grandstanding and holier-than-thou comments are a good substitute for actual facts and analysis?

The real problem isn’t Boris but the likes of Williams, and indeed O’Connell who doesn’t seem capable of thinking for himself.  It is their own comments that are in effect ‘racist’…Boris is blond and white, he’s supporting Britain and therefore he is ‘racist’ by default regardless of what he actually says…this is reverse racism by Williams and O’Connell….all White people are inherently racist is the line.

As for the ‘Tone’ of the debate….perhaps the BBC should be more concerned about politicians who cynically and deliberately play the race card to attack and discredit opponents, and to close down debate, rather than engage with their arguments…especially when the alleged racism is nothing more than an outright lie conjured up by the likes of Williams.   Surely there is an important issue of freedom of speech and the tricks used to suppress it….tricks used by the BBC itself as here and deployed many times against Nigel Farage.

Of course context and a bit of history, a bit of connected thinking, is beyond the likes of the BBC’s O’Connell who seems more interested in attacking Boris than in putting the record straight.  Has anyone ever raised the subject of Obama’s ancestry and its influence on his outlook?  No…oh hang on….maybe…

Here’s a British Ambassador to Washington on Obama and whether his world view is shaped along European lines or by other influences…

Sir David Manning, who was Britain’s ambassador to Washington from 2003 to 2007 in testimony to a House of Commons foreign affairs committee, said that Obama “comes with a very different perspective” from other presidents.

“He is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia, and who had a Kenyan father,” Manning said. “We now have a Democrat who is not familiar with us.”

So he thinks Obama’s non-European roots may shape his thinking….Sir David Manning…what a bleeding racist scumbag!!!

Let’s have a look at what the BBC itself has said about Obama and his Kenyan roots, his ‘Kenyan blood coursing through his veins‘… people think they are relevant and could they in any way have influenced his thinking?…..BBC racist scumbags!!!!…

Here’s the BBC commenting in his trip to Kenya in 2008….where we are told he has ‘Kenyan blood coursing through his veins’….

His meteoric rise to political fame has propelled the name Barack Obama onto the lips of millions of Kenyans.  He has Kenyan blood coursing through his veins and has been adopted as a Kenyan national hero, who just might become the most powerful man in the world.  Barack Obama has never lived in Kenya and he has visited the country just three times.  The Kenyan blood comes from his father, Barack Obama senior, who was born in the remote village of Alego where he herded goats as a child.

Here we have a report that tells of his ‘blood claims’ in Kenya….

Jealous pride

We are the envy of the whole continent and as for our cousins the Nigerians, this is the ultimate humiliation.  They will never be able to live this one down. Then there is Kenya and I ought to tread gently for there might be some raw emotions here, since there are blood claims.

Then we get to Obama’s father and how he reacted to the ‘White world’……

US officials complained Kenyan students were becoming “anti-white” in the year Barack Obama’s father enrolled at university, previously secret files released at the National Archives in Kew reveal.  The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational,” the note stated.  “The arrival here of these students, many of them of indifferent academic calibre and ill-prepared for the venture, is likely to give rise to difficult problems.”

Did Obama’s father pick up an anti-white attitude from his father?  You may guess as much from what Obama himself says about his grandfather’s life under British rule…..the ‘foreign masters’.

These are some comments made by Obama in a speech to Kenyans in 2015….

So we can all appreciate our own identities, our bloodlines, our beliefs, our backgrounds — that tapestry is what makes us who we are. 

My grandfather, for example, he was a cook for the British. And as I went through some of his belongings when I went up-country, I found the passbook he had had to carry as a domestic servant.  It listed his age and his height, his tribe, listed the number of teeth he had missing.  (Laughter.)  And he was referred to as a boy, even though he was a grown man, in that passbook. 

A young, ambitious Kenyan today should not have to do what my grandfather did, and serve a foreign master.

He also said this…which is interesting in light of his desire for Britain to be subservient to the EU empire….

[The] arc of progress  — from foreign rule to independence; from isolation to education, and engagement with a wider world.  It speaks of incredible progress.

Brexit then, freedom from foreign rule, would be ‘incredible progress’?  Cheers Bro.

Does the treatment of Black people throughout history by Whites weigh heavily on his thoughts, and does it reflect in his policies?  Yes to both those…here he is on the Confederate flag…to him a symbol of racism and slavery…hence it should go…..

Look at us in the United States.  Recently, we’ve been having a debate about the Confederate flag.  Some of you may be familiar with this.  This was a symbol for those states who fought against the Union to preserve slavery.  Now, as a historical artifact, it’s important.  But some have argued that it’s just a symbol of heritage that should fly in public spaces. The fact is it was a flag that flew over an army that fought to maintain a system of slavery and racial subjugation.  So we should understand our history, but we should also recognize that it sends a bad message to those who were liberated from slavery and oppression. 

Here is the Times in 2008 reporting that…

Beatings and abuse made Barack Obama’s grandfather loathe the British

December 3, 2008

Ben Macintyre and Paul Orengoh

The President-elect’s relatives have told how the family was a victim of the Mau Mau revolt

Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect.

Is the Times being racist or just reporting the facts?

Here is the type of conversation Obama had with his grandmother….would this and the likes of the previous report colour his views of Britain in any shape or form?…..

[Quoting his step-grandmother:] Like other boys, your father would be influenced by the early talk of independence, and he would come home from school talking about the meetings he had seen. Your grandfather agreed with many of the demands of the early parties like KANU, but he remained skeptical that the independence movement would lead to anything, because he thought Africans could never win against the white man’s army. “How can the African defeat the white man,” he would tell Barack, “when he cannot even make his own bicycle?”

It would be perfectly normal to suppose he might have some antipathy to White folks despite his mother’s colour, and that would impact upon his thinking even if subliminally.  Clearly race issues loom large in his thinking as we’ve seen time and time again during his Presidency….it is almost inconceivable that how the British dealt with his grandfather didn’t have some impact upon his thinking in some shape or form.

However Boris didn’t actually say that…he only stated that there were many suggested reasons that may possibly have led to Obama removing Churchill’s bust from pride of place in the Oval Office….he made no suggestion hmself…and the one he concentrated on was that Churchill was possibly thought irrelevant for the modern age…which of course he denied.

From all the above examples, from ambassors, to Kenyans, the Guardian, to the BBC itself, Obama’s Kenyan heritage is clearly important to them and to him.  How is that they can all raise the subject and tell us how his the ‘Kenyan blood coursing through his veins’ shaped him as a person and yet Boris can’t mention it in a passing comment that didn’t actually reflect his own personal view?

What if Paddy O’Connell’s great grandfather being beaten black and blue by the Black and Tans in 1916 and Paddy subsequently had misgivings about Britain due to that?…would that be racist to say such a thing if it were true at all at all?  If it were true I’d bet that it was a subject that would bubble to the surface every now and again and a bitter tone about ‘the British’ would enter the conversation….a man whose sentimental emotions are near  the surface….

Paddy O’Connell struggled to compose himself following a reading of a love letter from Emilie Blachere to Remi Ochlik, who died alongside Sunday Times journalist Marie Colvin in the besieged city of Homs last year.

After the end of the poem, which was read by Miss Blachere herself, the airwaves were plunged into silence for about 12 seconds before the presenter regained enough composure to speak again.

Ironically O’Connell works for the BBC which relentlessly peddles the same sort of narrative that they denounce Boris for supposedly arguing [even though that’s not what he said], of historical wrongs leading to modern violence…how many times has the BBC told us that Muslims in the UK are so concerned about the Crusades, the ‘carving up of the Middle East by Sykes Picot’ and the various wars ‘against Muslims by the West’ that such feelings have led to radicalisation and terrorism.  And yet they vehemently discount any suggestion that Obama might be similarly effected by the historic oppression of ‘his people’.   Seems like the BBC just makes it up as it goes along, picking and choosing narratives that suit their own agenda….defending Muslim terrorists or attacking anyone who wants to leave the EU as racist little Englanders.

The BBC, in league with the Government peddling pro-EU propaganda and carrying out witch-hunts and public show trials and lynchings of those it considers ‘enemies of the State’….The European State of course.


Here is Obama’s friend and mentor…Jeremiah Wright….telling us Obama does not ‘fit the mould’….the mould being white, European, rich and privileged…If you’re judged by who your friends are…….




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

The Whiphand




Obama makes a blatant threat that if we vote for Brexit we’ll be at the back of the queue for trade deals.

So, let’s be clear…do what Obama says or else.  So much for a special relationship.

Back last year the US said there would be no deals…so ‘back of the queue’ seems like an improvement in some ways, however it is clearly a staged threat designed to get the headlines and scare people into voting to stay aboard the sinking ship….the US is in fact, like the EU, very, very keen to sign up countries to free trade deals…

Obama was sending a clear signal about strategic priorities. “His [Michael Froman] appointment is further proof that trade issues are front and centre for this administration.

And of course does much of its work through the World Trade Organisation whose rules are designed to free up trade and minimise tariffs…

Trade Agreements can create opportunities for Americans and help to grow the U.S. economy.

The United States has free trade agreements (FTAs) in effect with 20 countries. These FTAs build on the foundation of the WTO Agreement, with more comprehensive and stronger disciplines than the WTO Agreement. Many of our FTAs are bilateral agreements between two governments. But some, like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, are multilateral agreements among several parties.

Tariffs: more bindings and closer to zero

The bulkiest results of Uruguay Round are the 22,500 pages listing individual countries’ commitments on specific categories of goods and services. These include commitments to cut and “bind” their customs duty rates on imports of goods. In some cases, tariffs are being cut to zero. There is also a significant increase in the number of “bound” tariffs — duty rates that are committed in the WTO and are difficult to raise.

The BBC seems remarkably sanguine about Obama’s threat and indeed seems to think it is worth repeating endlessly but without any critique of what Obama is saying….here the BBC randomly inserts the phrase into a report on other things Obama said but which are otherwise unrelated…

US President Barack Obama has urged young people to “reject pessimism and cynicism” and “know that progress is possible and problems can be solved”.  Speaking in London, he said: “Take a longer, more optimistic view of history.” 

Earlier, the US president visited the Globe theatre and watched actors perform scenes from Hamlet.  It came a day after he said Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for US trade deals if it left the EU.

No need for that, nothing to do with the report.

There’s scant discussion on Obama’s claims of the glories of the EU being the result of Britain’s membership..

“The UK is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong European Union. It leverages UK power to be part of the EU.  “I don’t think the EU moderates British influence in the world, it magnifies it.”

The BBC suggests that the Brexit campaign needs to answer questions raised by Obama, curious that the BBC doesn’t similarly interrogate the Remain camp when they make sweeping claims of doom and anarchy if Britain goes independent and gave Osborne’s dodgy dossier from the Treasury a free pass with hardly a look askance.

What of the EU and security?  Does the EU make us safer?  Curiously Obama didn’t think so in March…

Mr Obama reflects on “what went wrong”, saying: “There’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”

Mr Cameron, he said, became “distracted by a range of other things”. He also criticised former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, saying he had tried to claim the spotlight.

He also criticised what he called “free riders” in the interview, saying European and Gulf countries were calling for action against Gaddafi, adding: “But what has been a habit over the last several decades in these circumstances is people pushing us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”

Hang on though…a few weeks later, a week before he is due to come to Europe to peddle Cameron’s script on the marvels of the EU, he sees it all differently…..

Asked for his worst mistake while in office, Mr Obama named the failure to plan for the aftermath of Col Gaddafi’s ousting as Libyan leader, which sparked years of instability that are only just showing signs of easing.

What can have changed?  Is he on the campaign trail for Cameron and any old cynical about-face will do? People will forget won’t they?….looks like the media has forgotten, so maybe he’s right and he’ll get away with it as the headlines are full of his dire warnings about Brexit.

What the BBC doesn’t point out is that the EU was always an American project as much as anyones with massive sums of money and support propping up the status quo from day one….

US officials trying to rebuild and stabilize postwar Europe worked from the assumption that it required rapid unification, perhaps leading to a United States of Europe. The encouragement of European unification, one of the most consistent components of Harry S. Truman’s foreign policy, was even more strongly emphasized under his successor General Dwight D.Eisenhower. Moreover, under both Truman and Eisenhower, US policymakers conceived of European unification not only as an important end in itself, but also as a way to solve the German problem.

The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood

The CIA admits as much itself…

Marshall suggested that European countries in need of aid should join in drawing up a program for presentation to the United States. Great Britain and France invited twenty-two countries to participate in a conference to draft a blueprint for European reconstruction. Sixteen nations responded, forming a Committee for European Economic Cooperation.


From the Telegraph…

Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state.

The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.

When reporting the words of Obama perhaps the BBC should be making more effort to put a bit of context into that and remind us that the EU is one of the Americans’ pet projects so that we can judge his words more fairly.


And remember just how much our ‘friendship’ with the US meant in 2010 when the sabres were rattling over the Falklands again…

So far, the mounting Falklands conflict has been met with deafening silence from Washington. …..[which] demonstrates an extraordinary level of indifference towards America’s closest ally.

Obama is keen to appease the likes of Hugo Chavez as part of his policy of engagement with dictatorial regimes, and does not want to rock the boat in Latin America. Thirdly, the alliance with Britain has been given extremely short shrift by the Obama team, who seemingly care little for the Anglo-American partnership or the broader transatlantic alliance.   It is at times of crisis that you know who your real friends are. 

Obama….Keen to appease dictators and those who run oppressive regimes…but quite happy to throw the democratic Brits to the sharks….and now keen to appease the EU and push the UK under a Euro-bus.

At 07:09 this morning on the Today programme we had a little heads up on the EU and Obama, and again no dismay or surprise at Obama’s blackmail but they did insist the Brexit campaign had to answer questions raised by Obama, though the BBC itself wasn’t bothering to tackle what he said in any critical way despite telling us that ‘controversy reigns over his words’.  The BBC seems to hold the Brexiteers to a higher standard than the EU’s fellow travellers when having to explain themselves.

We heard later on from Justin Webb that the US doesn’t want to make free trade deals with individual countries and prefers to make them with big blocs…..not true….

Free Trade Agreements Australia

The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2005. U.S. two-way trade with Australia was $26.7 billion in 2009, up 23 percent from 2004. U.S. goods exports were $18.9 billion in 2009, up 33 percent from 2004, and U.S. goods imports were $7.8 billion, up 3.5 percent from 2004.

And of course there are many more countries with similar bilateral trade deals.

Jon Sopel thinks that, ‘you know what’, Obama said what he said about the back of the queue not because he was trying to help Cameron, no, no, but because he believes it…and even when he leaves office that will be the US policy.  Just a little helpful nudge from Sopel for the Remain campaign there.

Webb has usually managed to hold the line on Europe and give a balanced presentation on the Today programme but it all went a bit awry in this interview with the former head of UK Trade & Investment Sir Andrew Cahn and Former Labour Foreign Secretary and a member of Vote Leave Lord Owen.

Webb starts his interview well….raising an ‘important point’ that we do good trade now with the US that works perfectly well for us and that’s not likely to get worse if we leave the EU.

It goes down hill from there generally as Cahn feeds us a line that Britain created the single market, that Britain made Europe enlarge itself eastwards and it was Britain that made Europe liberal, and that Obama wants that influence to continue making Europe a  more liberal, open, free trading place benefiting from Britain’s political wisdom [LOL]…you might be sceptical about that long list but Webb wasn’t insisting to Lord Owen that ‘Look Lord Owen, you’d want that wouldn’t you?’  suggesting that Webb was onboard with that argument however false and self-serving it is.

Lord Owen suggests that the EU will inevitably collapse due to the flaws in the structure of the Eurozone and we should leave rather than be dragged down with it.   Webb grabs that idea of an EU falling apart and turns it on its head suggesting that Obama is saying ‘look at the state of Europe and we can’t afford to have a Europe without Britain in it’….Webb adds ‘..and that is quite telling isn’t it’.…thereby not only twisting Lord Owen’s point to defend the EU but raising his own interpretation from an interesting question to a point of fact….that the EU will be in peril without the UK.  Why would that be?  It’s primary raison d’être was to be a mechanism designed to defang Germany and prick the arrogance of the French and thus keep the peace.  There was no role for Britain envisioned in that original purpose other than to encourage German/French entente cordial with a bit of cheerleading from the sidelines.  Webb does note though that Cahn doesn’t deny that that the EU is a ‘sinking ship’ but Webb goes on to tell us we have the ‘best of both worlds’ being placed where we are right now which you might see as a pro-Remain statement.

What of the claim that the EU has protected us from fighting with each other?  What really kept the peace?…Well you might think that having hundreds of thousands of US and British troops in Germany kept the peace and a German constitution that restrained military adventurism, never mind the constant threat of Soviet tank armies sweeping across the border which no doubt concentrated minds and stopped infighting…nowt to do with the EU structure as such, more to do with NATO….and never mind that Germany is now the dominant country making all the calls economically and on immigration…Germany’s unilateral decision to invite in the world will destroy Europe and in no way make it safer….and of course it is the same Obama whose foreign policy it was to stand back and let the war in Syria escalate and watch without concern as millions of people fled their homes and head towards Europe… Obama possibly not unhappy to see a white Europe invaded by people from the Middle East and Africa.

The most telling statement againsts staying actually came from the pro-Remain Cahn as he admitted that the Euro single currency was a historic mistake that is at the heart of the EU’s problems.

No exploration of that major admission…..if that is the case what is the answer?  It can only be the reintroduction of national currencies and economic flexibility.  Which means that EU political and economic ‘ever-closer union’ would have to be halted and a more flexible approach adopted allowing countries to swiftly adapt to changing circumstances instead of being hog-tied to the German mega-economy that forces them into poverty whilst Germany reaps all the rewards.

The EU needs to reform massively, the ‘reforms’ that Cameron claims he got were laughable and nothing more than a political con-trick.  Without Britain leaving and forcing the EU to concentrate on the matter there will never be any genuine reform and the ideologically driven attempt to force so many vastly different nations into one ill-fitting Euro-empire will flounder on the rocks of the EU mandarins’ arrogance and ambitions.

Perhaps that is what is missing from the debate…just what is wrong with, and how badly wrong is,  the European Union?  Not only that but what are the risks attached to staying in the EU?  All the attention is on the so-called risks of leaving but of those of being ever more closely tied to that ‘sinking ship’ are generally ignored when they are very, very relevant as the EU heads towards ever-closer union and will inevitably try to drag Britain in with it along with signing up to that ‘historic mistake’ of the single currency….made all the harder to refuse with a ‘remain’ vote.


Below is the BBC’s Katty Kay’s little party political broadcast on behave of the Remain campaign…..

Why Americans should care about Brexit

The president’s former chief economic adviser defended Mr Obama’s decision to weigh in on Brexit so forcefully.  It’s a bit like when your sister goes out with a bad date, Austan Goolsbee told me, you just have to say something.  Truth is though, most Americans are not very focused on the June 23rd vote on whether Britain should stay in or leave the EU.  They should be, Mr Goolsbee argued because there are knock on economic consequences.  Anything that adds uncertainty to the global financial system poses a risk and Brexit, he says, does that because we don’t know what the impact will be on British and European banks’ ability to operate across continental borders.




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

Batting For the EU and playing the race card

Something mysterious happened when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009.

Something vanished from that room, and no one could quite explain why.  It was a bust of Winston Churchill – the great British war time leader. It was a fine goggle-eyed object, done by the brilliant sculptor Jacob Epstein, and it had sat there for almost ten years.

But on day one of the Obama administration it was returned, without ceremony, to the British embassy in Washington. No one was sure whether the President had himself been involved in the decision.  Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.  Some said that perhaps Churchill was seen as less important than he once was. Perhaps his ideas were old-fashioned and out of date.

Well, if that’s why Churchill was banished from the Oval Office, they could not have been more wrong.

Boris in The Sun

Funny how all the pro-EU lobby pick out one remark out of many, and a remark that wasn’t one that Boris claimed to think himself, he was merely reporting various motivations for Obama, if it was him, and it was, to remove the Churchill bust.




The BBC isn’t too bothered with nuances or indeed truth….they just lay into Boris for his ‘racism’ as much as any other pro-EU, partisan, self-interested party.  The idea of course is to distract you from what Boris had to say about the hopeless EU regime…how many people just know about these claims of racism against Boris and never read the whole article in The Sun?  Any thoughts that this is just a highly politicised attack on Boris from the EU’s useful idiots? Shame the independent, honest and trusted BBC joins in with the anti-Boris slurs……

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg seems just a little too pleased at this…

Downing Street is cockahoop tonight, not just because of President Obama’s backing for the Remain campaign, but because of his elegant slapdown of Boris Johnson.

Mr Johnson raised eyebrows by referring to the president’s Kenyan roots, questioning whether that meant he had Britain’s best interests at heart. He also reminded Sun readers that Mr Obama had removed a bust of Churchill from the Oval Office, a story that didn’t escape the British press at the time.

Mr Johnson’s comments were branded offensive and insensitive by many but the president didn’t resort to even mentioning them. Instead, he spoke about how much he loved Winston Churchill, and why he had moved the bust of the former prime minister to his private residence, where he sees it every day.

The president didn’t just back the prime minister’s case, but smoothly and – without breaking a sweat – took the most well-known leader of the Leave campaign down a peg or two.

Kuenssberg is either in love with Obama or the EU, maybe both.  Boris is not in the race it seems.  Not much ‘journalism’ there…..just salacious tittle-tattle, inuendo and ‘smears’ of her own…note how Kuenssberg gets it wrong about the bust in the corridor…it was never in the Oval Office.

The BBC targets Boris even more obviously with this attempt to link Boris to racism and smears….

Obama hits back at Boris Johnson’s alleged smears

US president Barack Obama has hit back after Boris Johnson’s comments about his “part-Kenyan” ancestry.

Mr Johnson said the removal of a bust of Churchill from Obama’s office was seen by some as a sign of an “ancestral dislike of the British Empire”.

The comments in article for The Sun were branded “idiotic” and “deeply offensive” by Churchill’s grandson.

Mr Obama made clear his admiration for Britain’s wartime leader in pointed remarks at a press conference.

He did not mention Mr Johnson by name but said he had a bust of Churchill outside the Treaty Room – his private office on the second floor of his official residence.

Note the BBC only later admits that Soames is on the Pro-EU side and one of Churchill’s busts was removed from the Whitehouse……

A Churchill bust lent to President George Bush by Tony Blair was removed from the Oval Office along with other art lent to the Bush presidency after Mr Obama’s 2009 inauguration “as is common practice at the end of every presidency”, the White House said at the time.

Boris was right…the bust of Churchill was removed from the Oval Office and sent back to the British embassy…but a second one remains…in a corridor at the White House.  Boris only referred to the bust with pride of place in the Oval Office in his piece….a reference made by all the media when the bust was removed.

As for complete it Boris or the White House that got it wrong?…here’s the White House telling it like it isn’t….

Fact Check: The Bust of Winston Churchill

The bust of Winston Churchill has a prominent place in the White House — in the Residence, outside the Treaty Room.

Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.

Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column.  He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again.

Except no it doesn’t….the bust being talking about, from the Oval Office, was sent back to the British embassy….as the same person has to admit in a later update….


Since my post on the fact that the bust of Winston Churchill has remained on display in the White House, despite assertions to the contrary, I have received a bunch of questions — so let me provide some additional info….The version lent by Prime Minister Blair was displayed by President Bush until the end of his Presidency.  On January 20, 2009 — Inauguration Day — all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency.

I’m sure the British government would have allowed Obama to keep hold of Churchill had he wanted to…as the Telegraph reports…

Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats.

When British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: “Thanks, but no thanks.”

So Obama dumped Churchill…he admits he removed it to make way for one of Martin Luther King…

“There are only so many tables where you can put busts otherwise it starts to looks a little cluttered.”

As the first African American president, he said, a bust of Martin Luther King would be “appropriate”, to remind him “of all the hard work of a lot of people who somehow allow me to have the privilege of holding this office”.

 What about the ‘controversy’ about those comments about Obama’s ‘part-Kenyan’ ancestry’?  Boris was laying out a list of other people’s arguments as to why the bust had been removed…and as Martin Luther King replaced him and Obama made specific reference to race as to the reason he chose that bust race is an issue raised by Obama himself ….and a bit hypocritical of the Guardian to attack Boris…London mayor under fire for remark about ‘part-Kenyan’ Barack Obama when in 2009 they themselves asked this…

Could Obama’s dual colonial heritage spell the end of the special relationship?

…And went on to say exactly what Boris said…

Earlier this week it was noted that the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, in describing Gordon Brown’s visit to the White House, appeared to demote the two countries’ “special relationship” to merely a “special partnership”.

That phrase, “special relationship”, was coined by Winston Churchill, whose bronze bust, sculpted by Sir Jacob Epstein, was prominently displayed in the Oval Office. When Obama moved in, the statuette was politely returned to the British embassy as surplus to decorative requirements.

When the bust was removed from the White House the BBC of course sided with Obama explaining that Obama was “looking forward not backward”.  Which is why he put a bust of long dead MLK on his desk instead….perhaps that is why he titled his memoir… ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance’.

When both the Guardian and the BBC report this tripe as if it were an honest comment you know we are being lied to..

Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell called for Mr Johnson to withdraw his comment, writing on Twitter: “Mask slips again. Boris part-Kenyan Obama comment is yet another example of dog whistle racism from senior Tories.”


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

Boris on the EU Disaster


The BBC and its fellow pro-EU travellers don’t want you to know what Boris said in full, rather distracting you with lurid and false claims of ‘dogwhistle racism’, so here is Boris’ article in The Sun in full…..


Something mysterious happened when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009.

Something vanished from that room, and no one could quite explain why.

It was a bust of Winston Churchill – the great British war time leader. It was a fine goggle-eyed object, done by the brilliant sculptor Jacob Epstein, and it had sat there for almost ten years.

But on day one of the Obama administration it was returned, without ceremony, to the British embassy in Washington.

No one was sure whether the President had himself been involved in the decision.

Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.

Some said that perhaps Churchill was seen as less important than he once was. Perhaps his ideas were old-fashioned and out of date.

Well, if that’s why Churchill was banished from the Oval Office, they could not have been more wrong.

What was he fighting for, in the Second World War? Why did he work so hard for the American entry into the war?

Yes, he was fighting for British survival; but he was also fighting against the dictatorships for democracy in Europe – for the right of the people to choose who makes their laws, and to kick them out at elections.

At the very heart of Winston Churchill’s political beliefs was what he saw as the supreme right of every voter, with his or her little pencil, to decide who governs the country.

And today it is a tragedy that the European Union – that body long ago established with the high and noble motive of making another war impossible – is itself beginning to stifle democracy, in this country and around Europe.

If you include both primary and secondary legislation, the EU now generates 60 per cent of all the laws that pass through Westminster.

We are are giving £20bn a year, or £350m a week, to Brussels – about half of which is spent by EU bureaucrats in this country, and half we never see again.

We have lost control of our borders to Brussels; we have lost control of our trade policy; and with every year that passes we see the EU take control of more and more areas of public policy.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is now taking decisions about human rights of all kinds. In their desperation to prop up the euro, the other EU countries are planning a further lunge towards a political and fiscal union.

If we are stay in this system, we will find ourselves hauled inch by inch towards a federal superstate – with no proper accountability to the people.

Can you name your Euro-MP? Can you say what they are doing in Strasbourg?

It is a measure of the fatuity of that Euro-parliament that some of the bravest Euro-MPs, such as Sayeed Kamal and Daniel Hannan, are campaigning for Britain to leave.

This project is a million miles away from the Common Market that we signed up for in 1973.

It is deeply anti-democratic – and much as I admire the United States, and much as I respect the President, I believe he must admit that his country would not dream of embroiling itself in anything of the kind.

The US guards its democracy with more hysterical jealousy than any other country on earth.

It is not just that the Americans refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, or that they have refused to sign up to the International Convention on the Law of the Sea.

America is the only country in the world that has so far failed to sign up to the UN convention on the rights of the child, or the UN convention on the emancipation of women.

For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy – it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do.

It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical. The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU, for themselves or for their neighbours in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?

There are those who think that Britain has more “influence” within the EU than outside, and that therefore we can be of more value to Washington.

That is nonsense. The UK has been outvoted 40 times in Brussels in the last 5 years, and the total bill for those defeats – in extra costs for UK government and business – is put at £2.4 bn a year.

How can we have “influence” in the Brussels commission, when only 3.6 per cent of Commission officials come from this country?

Can you imagine the Americans entrusting their trade negotiations to a body that comprised only 3.6% Americans? The idea is laughable.

The truth is that the UK would GAIN influence outside. We would be able to speak up again in international bodies, rather than having our views represented – half-heartedly and imperfectly – by the EU.

Then there are those who say that we would be somehow more “influential” in Washington, because of our membership of the EU.

Really? We have been in the EU for 43 years, and we haven’t even been able to do a free trade deal with the US.

And then there are the defeatists who say that yes, the EU is anti-democratic, but that we are too small and frail to survive on our own.

I really don’t know what country they are talking about. The Britain I see is the fifth biggest economy on earth, a world leader in all kinds of 21 century sectors, with a capital city that is in many ways the capital of the world.

I think it is time to channel the spirit of the early Obama, and believe in Britain again.

Can we take back control of our borders and our money and our system of government? Yes we can.

Can we stand on our own two feet? Yes we can.

Can we build a new and prosperous relationship with the rest of the EU, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation? Yes we can.

Can we speak up for the hundreds of millions around the continent who also feel estranged from the Brussels project?

Can we once again be the champions of democracy? Yes we can.

And by doing all those we can thrive as never before – and therefore be even better and more valuable allies of the United States.

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

Maple Syrup from Dodgy Dave



A counter to the BBC’s endless pro-EU campaign propaganda……can we have a good free trade deal and no swarms of immigrants?

Cameron insists no-one will be keen to engage with an independent Britain and arrange trade deals with us, name-checking Canada as an example of why that is not a good idea, which is odd really as he himself was pretty keen for the EU to do a deal with Canada in 2012 as such a deal would bring enormous benefits to the UK and the EU…

Cameron urges EU to strike free trade deal with Canada. TORONTO STAR

27  Jan 2012 Toronto Star, page A4

OTTAWA— British Prime Minister David Cameron is urging his fellow European leaders to move quickly to sign a free-trade deal with Canada.

He said opening up export markets for the European Union’s 27 member countries is a key part of an urgently needed effort to strengthen the continent’s economies.

“Let’s get EU free trade agreements with India, Canada and Singapore finalized by the end of the year,” he said in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

If these trade liberalization deals were in place, it could generate an additional $118 billion in economic activity in EU countries, Cameron said.


Government welcomes historic EU-Canada free trade agreement

Landmark trade deal between the EU and Canada will benefit the UK economy and businesses by over £1.3 billion a year.

The overall expected benefit to the EU is £7.9 billion and £5.6 billion for Canada each year. Canada will also gain greater access to a single market of 500 million people. The boost to Canada’s economy is C$12 billion and the equivalent to 80,000 jobs.


Hang on…free trade that’s very beneficial to the EU and Canada, amongst others?…and yet no freedom of movement of labour?  How can that be the BBC asks?  Was it the BBC asking or me?  Just me.


Would the EU lock the UK, the 5th largest economy in the world and an important trade partner with the EU, out of its markets?  Hardly seems likely when it is committed to open markets and free trade……import tariffs very low or zero…..

The EU benefits from being one of the most open economies in the world and remains committed to free trade.

  • The average applied tariff for goods imported into the EU is very low. More than 70% of imports enter the EU at zero or reduced tariffs.

  • The EU’s services markets are highly open and we have arguably the most open investment regime in the world.

  • The EU has not reacted to the crisis by closing markets. However some the EU’s trading partners have not been so restrained as the EU has highlighted in the Trade and Investment Barriers Report and the report on protectionism.

  • In fact the EU has retained its capacity to conclude and implement trade agreements. The recent Free Trade Agreements with South Korea and with Singapore are examples of this and the EU has an ambitious agenda of trade agreements in the pipeline.

And to re-emphasise that….. the EU is only 10% of world demand….there is a whole wide world of opportunity out there…..and the EU is very keen to make deals with non-EU trade partners……

Over the next ten to 15 years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside Europe. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to tap into this growth potential by opening up market opportunities for European businesses abroad. One way of ensuring this is through negotiating agreements with our key partners.



Remember why Cameron lost the 2010 election majority?…because he’s a slippery, untrustworthy supporter of the European Union who used every excuse under the sun to slip his ‘cast-iron guarantee’ for a referendum….

Conservative leader confirms U-turn on his ‘cast iron guarantee’ that a Tory government would hold a public vote on the controversial treaty.
Confirming a complete U-turn on his “cast iron guarantee” that a Tory government would hold a public vote on the controversial treaty, the party chief said the Czech Republic’s decision to ratify the agreement meant he could “no more hold a referendum on the treaty than … a referendum on the sun rising in the morning.”

David Cameron U-turn denies Britain EU referendum

BRITONS have been robbed of the chance to vote on a power grab by Brussels despite promises of a referendum.

In the wake of the Lisbon Treaty fiasco, David Cameron vowed Britain would never again give away powers to Brussels without first holding a referendum.

In a spectacular U-turn, however, Mr Cameron has now backed plans to sneak changes into the Lisbon Treaty without triggering referendums across Europe.

It is a significant victory for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was last night dining with the Camerons at ­Chequers, the Prime Minister’s country retreat in Buckinghamshire.


I imagine all Cameron’s twisting and turning on the referendum will leave the way open for a judicial review and a legal challenge as he undemocratically suppresses the Leave campaign and misuses the resources of government to campaign for what should be a lobby group interest and not a government one….the referendum is after all supposed to be a vote of the people not the bureaucracy.

And one last look at the sell-out Cameron’s untrustworthy judgement and nature…especially in light of his recent decision to make all schools academies…this is a bit ironic…from DV on ‘A Tangled Web’ in 2007


Well now, hasn’t “Call Me [Dodgy] Dave” Cameron gotten himself into a real mess following his ever-so-clever idea to abandon English Grammar Schools in order to win plaudits for the left? Faced with a continuing revolt among MPs and grassroots Tories, David Willetts, the education spokesman, has announced that in some specific areas, new grammars could be built after all.  Two weeks ago Mr Willetts and Mr Cameron said selection by ability did not work and that no more grammar schools would be built under a Tory government.

Listen, I couldn’t be more pleased than to see Cameron swing on this. His betrayal of our Grammar’s is symptomatic of his more general betrayal of Conservative values. This man is a Vichy Conservative, and he has been destroying the Party that he leads. As if you needed any further evidence of Cameron’s true values, just consider the fact that he has appointed former editor of the “News of the World”, Andy Coulson, as their head of communications and planning. The “News of the World” is a scumbag rag. The fit with Cameron is perfect.








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

Opportunity Knocks



Hope that( if in office ) dismantles .Your aware of his scandal & are just too fucking scared. Yet you want license fees

The BBC used its own resources to attack and undermine its commercial Press rivals by claiming they knew about Whittingdale and suppressed the story in order to have some leverage over him in regard to Press regulation.

Logically that makes no sense….if they had published they would have reinforced the case against themselves in the fervid period just after Leveson and  although Whittingdale would have had to resign at the time his replacement would have been even harsher.  Rather than blackmail it was a straightforward calculation that to publish actually damaged their own case.

But the BBC has pressed on with the line that this was a blackmail scenario…and yet, as they try to attack the minister in charge of the BBC Charter review, you have to ask what did the BBC itself know?  It is inconceivable that they did not know in light of the widely known revelations on the internet and in the book by Natalie Rowe that spelt out in no uncertain terms that Whittingdale was damaged goods.

In June 2015 she published some of the photos and detailed the allegations….about a Tory minister and his drug addict, hooker girlfriend……

The BBC knew about the scandal right from the start of 2014 and in the middle of 2015, nearly a year ago, there is perfect proof that the story was out there in all its glorious detail…and yet the BBC failed to report it and now hypocritically attacks the Press for doing the same.

The BBC couldn’t publish though it would have loved to do so as it would have been hypocritical in light of Leveson and the BBC’s support for that, and it would have looked a very obvious attack on someone with so much influence over the BBC’s future.  They had to wait until some other news source broke the story…and conveniently it was done so by Byline, conveniently with Peter Jukes, very much of the BBC, organising Byline’s workload…..but as it was a backwater publication it took the appearance of a press release on Hacked Off’s website reporting the story, referencing Byline, to give the BBC the real sanction to publish the story itself.   Note how Hacked Off avoided mentioning the lurid details of the allegations…was this principle or tactical?…..not wanting to appear like a sensationalist scandal mag and yet wanting to get the story out there to hit Whittingdale and the government were it hurts.   Not saying of course that Byline and Jukes, Hacked Off and the BBC, along with the BBC’s man, Hislop, were in any way in league with each other.



The BBC’s overboard reaction to this story was clearly a politically motivated, opportune attack on the man who has their future in his hands, and on the Press, which the BBC so looks down on and wishes to rein in so that it, the BBC, rules the media world and thus much of the real world, in effect.

Should there be an inquiry into the BBC’s reporting on this story so obviously is it targeted at getting a minsiter to resign and an attack on the free Press?

And why does the BBC not also target its old friend the Guardian?  It after all knew of the story themselves…and didn’t want to sign up to the new regulator…

“awkward online dating” I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Also Guardian knew of story Years ago.



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

Birds of a feather



Diane von Furstenberg: “I started my business to pay my own bills and sleep with whoever I wanted”

In fact, she’s the epitome of what you might call “a strong woman”. Von Furstenberg is dismissive of that term though. “I never met a woman who wasn’t strong” she declared, “but I think men and religion can make them hide it. It’s telling that when tragedy strikes it’s always the women who take over.”

Diane von Furstenberg started her business so that she didn’t have to rely on a man for a living and didn’t have to marry for security…she could do so, in the West, for love, even if the man was poor as a church, or mosque, mouse.

So women in the progressive West are pretty free to do as they like should circumstances permit…whereas in other cultures women maybe strong except when oppressed by men and religion.  And oppressed by other women….such as Anita Anand whose take on the world is naive and childlike and full of wishful thinking and wilful blindness.  Anand thinks religion plays no part in women’s oppression.

The BBC’s Anita Anand, in this 2002 article, is pretty unconcerned about the Burkha in Afghanistan and elsewhere because, you see, when the Taliban fell the women of Afghanistan didn’t all rush into the streets ripping off their veils, ipso facto, they are happy being clad in what amounts to a body bag…in reality they are in effect dead to the world, locked into that symbol of oppression.

The Taliban had been forced into the mountains. They had been bombed into the ground. They weren’t running the show anymore. And yet – and yet… women still didn’t take to the streets on mass and get rid of the veil. Sure some did. But not the majority. They still chose to wear the veil.

While the West was clapping itself on the back with such enthusiasm they lost sight of one point. The war against the Taliban can only make sense if we take into account the real truth. Their crime, as far as I am concerned, was not their belief in Islam – as my fellow speakers will tell you, women too voluntarily have that belief. The Taliban’s crime was that they didn’t give women a choice!

The Hindu Anand sticks up for Islam and the Taliban, not so bad it seems, as long as they give women a choice….well they do have a choice…being stoned or lashed.  Hurray for the good guys of the Taliban, so progressive.

She says she loves the West and yet criticises it as if it were the evil twin of the Taliban, the equal to its oppression of women.  She does that BBC trick of relativising everything and reducing the argument down to the point of sublime ridiculousness with single extreme points being used to represent whole swathes of culture, history and society…here she tries to suggest that all that suffrage is being presented as if it was purely to enable Jennifer Lopez et al to bare their breasts in public…

Let’s not indulge the idea that 1,000 years of women’s progress was achieved so Jennifer Lopez could display her breasts.

I don’t think any people do reduce the argument for women’s rights down to the right to go topless.  Somehow I think the argument is more rounded and grown up than that.

She reduces the criticism of Islam down to it being an argument solely about women’s rights, and even then she dismisses that as nothing to do with Islam.  In other words the Taliban aren’t so bad, they’re guided by Islam but it isn’t Islam that makes women wear the veil and  the Burkha …so the Taliban aren’t so bad really when compared to the West….the West that still oppresses women, secretly….

And OK – so we in the west have freedoms of choice and expression. Does that make the west a female-friendly place. Don’t kid yourselves for a second.

Ask yourself…if you were a woman where would you rather live…Afghanistan or any Islamic state, or the UK?

Anand then digs out some quotes from the Bible to show how despotic and misogynist Christians are….

We live in a nominally Christian country – and so (as George Dubya is so keen to remind us) do the Americans. Christianity believes that pretty much everything awful is the fault of Eve and her apple.

St Paul in the New Testament says: “ A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don’t permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam wasn’t the one deceived. It was the woman was deceived and became a sinner, but women will be saved through childbearing.”

The reformer Martin Luther was even more blunt. Speaking of women and childbirth he said: “If they become tired or even die, that doesn’t matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there”.

Words like this wouldn’t have been unheard of from the mouths of the Taleban a few months ago, would they? Perhaps the world of Kandahar and that of Big Brother really aren’t as different as we think.

So Mullah Omar [RIP] and Justin Welby…one and the same really, brothers under the skin, under the cassock?

A nonsense as Anand knows, the Christian Church has had its teeth pulled long ago and has been reduced to a ceremonial, ritualistic role that is more worthy godfather to the country than turbulent priest raving about hairshirts and damnation…those wannabe turbulent priests, such as Giles Fraser, have had to turn to Marxism to get their kicks these days, the Church has lost its bite…thankfully.  And that’s the point, Islam has not been neuteured so that it fits in with a tolerant, progressive, Western society.  It is still the ancient, barbaric, bigoted and intolerant ideology that stormed out of the desert 1400 years ago to imprison and colonise so much of the world at the point of a sword.

Which brings us to the latest of Anand’s anti-Western diatribes…for this she has linked up with the ‘Gone native’ William Dalrymple, who seems to have a preference for the Islamist to the Westerner.  This if anything is even more childish and infantile than the 2002 article…its language and use of simplistic and exaggerated representations of British actions as brutal or immoral are the stuff of naive teen essays thinking that sensationalism makes up for lack of argument….

Viewpoint: Koh-i-Noor – a gift at the point of a bayonet

The Koh-i-Noor was taken by the British, by force, from a frightened little boy, his son.

Therefore the diamond came to Britain thanks to dubious legality and very clear immorality.

Those untrustworthy, scheming, bullying British…

Despite signing treaties of friendship with Ranjit Singh, after his death the British began garrisoning troops around the border.

These were deemed acts of naked aggression by the Sikhs and provoked war. Having surreptitiously cut deals with leading members of his court, the British managed to persuade them to betray their King and weaken his army, leading to defeat in the first Anglo-Sikh War.

Inveigling their way into the Lahore Durbar in this way, they separated Duleep Singh from his mother, the Regent, dragging her screaming to a tower and contrived a second Anglo-Sikh war. What was left was a thoroughly weakened realm.

Alone and terrified, this small child was surrounded by grown British men, and told to sign away his future.

Alone and terrified?  Really?  In fact he was well served by his advisors as you’d expect any regent to be.  Anand paints a picture that is designed purely to attack the British, she makes no mention of the previous history of the diamond which would bring into the open the fact that it has changed hands, at the point of a bayonet, many times in its history and the ‘owner’ from whom the British took it was in fact only the owner due to it being forceably removed from a previous ‘owner’.

A previous BBC article makes this plain…

The Koh-i-Noor, meaning “Mountain of Light” in Persian, is the most famous diamond in the Crown Jewels. It has been the subject of conquest and intrigue for centuries, passing through the hands of Mughal princes, Iranian warriors, Afghan rulers and Punjabi Maharajas.

I guess Anand thought that might undermine the argument a bit too much…..winning it in battle is a perfectly normal and expected part of war….Nelson’s sailors were rewarded handsomely with money from the sale of captured ships.

Anand says….

Had the diamond truly been a gift, the Delhi Gazette, a British newspaper, would hardly have printed in May 1848: “This famous diamond (the largest and most precious in the world) forfeited by the treachery of the sovereign at Lahore, and now under the security of British bayonets at the fortress of Goindghur, it is hoped ere long, as one of the splendid trophies of our military valour, be brought to England in attention of the glory of our arms in India”.

But the diamond was not a gift and was never presented as such…it was taken in war as compensation for having to fight the war….as the man who arranged the transfer,  the Marquess of Dalhousie, explained…

The motive was simply this: that it was more for the honour of the Queen that the Koh-i-noor should be surrendered directly from the hand of the conquered prince into the hands of the sovereign who was his conqueror, than it should be presented to her as a gift—which is always a favour—by any joint-stock company among her subjects.


Anand finishes with this barb…..

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know of many “gifts” that are handed over at the point of a bayonet.

Can we have America back then from those violent, scheming Yankee rebels who took it from us at the point of a bayonet?…or how about Pakistan?  Can India have ‘Pakistan’ back as it was basically stolen at the point of a bayonet by the Muslims?


I note the article was originally titled…

Koh-i-Noor – a gift at the point of a bayonet

It was updated, and had some dates corrected, with this title…

Viewpoint: Koh-i-Noor – a gift at the point of a bayonet

Any thought that such an obviously one-sided article that painted the British in such a bad light without making reference to context and the broad sweep of history was eventually deigned slightly unworkable as ‘news’ and was reduced to a mere ‘viewpoint’ on consideration of its lack of merit as a factual piece?


Anand, despite professing her love of Britain, seems to have a few problems with the West…how soon she forgets the reason she is here in Britain….that her parents were driven out of what became Pakistan by the Muslim ethnic cleansing of the Hindus and Sikhs on Partition….the only reference to this was this uninformative comment which hardly gives evidence to the horrors that went on as nearly a million people were murdered and millions more driven from their homes and land in order to create a Muslim state…

 My parents were Hindus from India but before partition they came from the Muslim dominated North West Frontier Province

…and yet the BBC et al demonise Israel and demand its removal from the map and from its place in the world.  Why not then similarly Pakistan?  Anti-‘Zionism’?  Hardly.

Let’s keep the diamond and send Anand to the land of her fathers instead as she seems so enamoured with the culture of the Taliban….it must be terrifying for her to lie awake at night thinking that Justin Welby is planning to launch a religious war of conquest, a crusade, across Britain, teaming up with those extremists of the Catholic Church, expecting to hear the Inquisiton knocking at her door at any moment to test her faith in the one true God and to teach her to be a good Christian woman, quiet, submissive and obedient.













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