Mid-Week Open Thread

The ‘deep left’ Mary Riddell and someone from the Economist, the Economist which just printed a hatchet job on May, on the Today programme to discuss May, Brexit and ‘muddle’….no bias there then.  The BBC failing to challenge Corbyn as he says he is not wedded to freedom of movement but, oh, hang on, demands we remain members of the Single Market which entails keeping freedom of movement…so pretty much wedded to freedom of movement just not to the truth….Jon Pienaar calls Corbyn ‘deep Left’…sorry what? The extremist  ‘Far Left’ surely?  The BBC once again covering for Corbyn.  I’m sure there’s plenty more bias out there…..

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

The Golden Age of Israeli Science

 

The BBC knows that most people when asked about Islam will reveal that they have negative views about the ideology judging it unpleasant, backward, homophobic, mysogynist, anti-Semitic and violent, not to mention most terrorists are Muslim.  The BBC, tasked by its Charter with maintaining a civil society and cohesion, has decided that the best way to tackle such prejudiced, ill-informed and ignorant beliefs is first to create an understanding that Islam is the religion of peace, second that ‘Muslim’ terrorists are in fact not Muslim and are distorting the beautiful teachings of Muhammed [never mind that the BBC also insists we shape our society to suit Muslim demands so that they don’t radicalise and become terrorists…if Islam is the religion of peace and the terrorists aren’t real Muslims why is that necessary?] and finally of course we have the most ingenius of counters to the terror that is engulfing our cities and countries….remind people that a thousand years ago in lands where Islam ruled supreme [due to a violent blitzkrieg of conquest and colonisation ala ISIS…nothing to do with Islam of course!] there were scientists and scholars who continued to study and develop the sciences and extend learning.  This the BBC tells us was the Islamic Golden Age of Science.

What do you suppose the BBC intends we take from this?  Are we supposed to suddenly dismiss all we know about Islam and its beliefs, teachings and values and embrace its culture and values just because one thousand years ago a man who happened to be Muslim by accident of birth or conquest was good at science?  Are we to dismiss our concerns about terrorism done in the name of Islam because someone one thousand years ago made a better mouse-trap?  Of course that really is the BBC intent…redeem Islam’s reputation…show ‘Muslims’ were good at science and somehow that must translate into having warm fuzzy feelings about Islam today which must over-ride our everyday, parochial concerns about Islamic conservative values and practices being forced upon our society…..helped along by the useful idiots who set off bombs, who aren’t Muslims remember, but erm, were radicalised because they were Muslim and alienated by a society that marginalised and ignored them.

Odd how science done by Muslims [though in fact many scientists and scholars were atheists/Christian or Jewish] is ‘Muslim’ and yet terrorism done by Muslims is not ‘Muslim’.

Perhaps that’s why the BBC does all it can to hide the fact that the Jews/Israelis are brilliant at science and have achieved astounding things from the deserts of the Middle East when all around them is backward and hopeless, and Muslim…and all despite being under siege by Muslims for over 70 years.

The BBC clearly thinks that if you knew what geniuses the Israelis are you wouldn’t believe a word that the BBC’s Middle East correspondents pump out about Israel…you know all that bad, fake news that spreads anti-Semitism around the world and makes it acceptable around the dinner table or down the gym.

BBC Watch notes that the BBC just isn’t keen on letting its viewers and readers know just how good the Israelis are at science and high tech….

The BBC’s “soft boycott” of Israel

A few weeks ago Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard drew attention to the BBC’s “soft boycott” of Israel. The term, coined by Mr Pollard, describes the BBC’s tendency to report on Israeli innovations and technological breakthroughs without mentioning that they took place at Israeli institutions and companies. Most recently, the BBC recently reported on a breakthrough in cancer treatment by the Weizmann Institute, but the Israeli origins of the research were significantly downplayed.

There are times when the BBC completely ignores Israel’s connection to a newsworthy company, times when Israel’s connection is significantly downplayed and times when Israel’s connection is specifically focused on, in cases which fit a particular agenda and narrative of Israel as a militaristic and pariah state.

In some cases brilliant Israeli inventions are reported by the BBC but their Israeli origins are completely ignored.

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

The ‘Ugly mood in our country post-Brexit’

 

 

Following our look at the Guardian’s concerns about Ofcom’s pro-BBC bias have a look at why a genuinely independent and effective BBC regulator is badly needed…from ‘News-Watch’ as it reports the BBC’s stone-walling response to its complaint about the BBC’s constant, malicious and racist, anti-white, labelling of post-Brexit Britain  as a nastier, more racist place…..[if you read Press reports on the day you will actually note that the attack mentioned below was more likely the result of drug-taking, alcohol and teenage boredom/stupidity/abandon…all of which the residents had complained of for months as the ‘gang’ had attacked many people at random previously]

On August, 31, Arkadiusz Jozwik, a Polish man living in Harlow, was killed in a late-night fracas in the pizza parlour where he worked.

In the immediate aftermath of the crime, police arrested six local youths (all under 16) but quickly released them on bail without charge.   There were no further developments until this week when a 15-year-old from Harlow was charged with Mr Jozwik’s manslaughter. Of fundamental importance, it has also emerged that a race hate charge in connection with the death is not being pursued.

When news of the killing emerged, the BBC’s news operation went into hyper-ventilating overdrive.

On the BBC1 News at Six, reporter Daniel Sandford compiled a report in which the fulcrum was there were now fears that this was a ‘a frenzied racist attack triggered by the Brexit referendum’.

A few hours later, John Sweeney, on BBC2’s Newsnight – one of the Corporation’s main investigative journalists – took matters a step further in the editing of his report. He included as the conclusion so that it could not be ignored this inflammatory sounbdbite from another local Polish man:

‘But I mean, Nigel Farage, I mean, thank you for that, because you are part of this death, and you’ve got blood on your hands, thanks to you, thanks for all your decision, wherever you are, er . . . yeah, it’s your call.’

Clearly in play and being reinforced to maximum extent by the Corporation was the central idea – evident in other programmes, too, as is documented on the News-watch website here –  that June 23 had unleashed a torrent of racist venom. In the BBC’s world the jackboots were now out – and on the march.

The following Monday, Guardian columnist and political activist (sorry, ‘rights campaigner’) Garry Younge was allowed to put together for a BBC Radio 4 series a barrage of sensationalist allegations in the same vein: that Britain, overnight since June 23, had become a seething cesspit of race-hate. Attacks were underway in terrifying, unprecedented volume.

On the advice of a senior BBC news executive – who claimed that the Corporation was listening to problems about post-Brexit coverage – News-watch submitted a formal complaint about the coverage of Harlow killing to the BBC Complaints Unit, focusing principally on the Sandford report.

Over seven-pages, it detailed that his approach was sensationalist, deliberately contrived to give maximum impact to the race hate claims, and also pointed out that it was seriously irresponsible and premature – in the light of the facts known to the police on August 31 and more generally about race-hate crime – to speculate so prominently either about race-hate motivation or about the crime’s possible link to Brexit.

The BBC’s response? A curt high-handed letter. It asserted that such speculation was legitimate because there had been a rise in reports of race-hate crime since June 23, and because other possible motives for Mr Jozwik’s death had been included in Sandford’s report.

The letter – which was mostly in an obviously standard format, and was so slipshod that it even spelled the name of Sandford incorrectly, omitting the ‘d’ – glossed over with what can only described as haughty arrogance the key points.

In response, News-watch submitted a second complaints letter pointing out the omissions and stating that the reply was totally unsatisfactory. That was on October 20.  On November 30 (ironically, the day of the manslaughter charges were laid) came the Complaints Unit’s second reply. It states:

‘We are sorry to tell you that we have nothing to add to our previous reply. We do not believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation. We will not therefore correspond further in response to additional points, or further comments or questions made about this issue or our responses to it.’The lessons learnt? The core BBC complaints process, which will remain as the conduit which will deal with most of the complaints submitted to the BBC after Charter renewal, is intrinsically and, irrevocably unfit for purpose. The Corporation remains the primary judge of what is deemed a ‘significant issue of general importance’

The second Complaints Unit letter does point out that the BBC Trust, in some circumstances, does entertain appeals. But the fact is that – as Richard Ayre, one of the current Trustees, has admitted – it has not upheld a complaint on EU-related matters in its entire existence.

Will Ofcom change that approach? Don’t hold your breath. And meanwhile, the totally inaccurate BBC assumptions about Brexit and race-hate continue to spew forth.

 

 

 

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

The Guardian’s Guardian Guardian

Is the Guardian acting as the Guardian of the media guardian Ofcom or is it actually being critical of it?

Whichever, it comes to something when even the Guardian notices that Ofcom is jampacked to the gills with BBC types which kind of makes a mockery of Government plans to use Ofcom as the BBC’s new independent regulator….

For what is this monster, as the scales drop from tabloid eyes? Its supreme chair, the monarch of the top board, is a former director of BBC policy planning. The subsidiary content board that will handle the vast bulk of BBC regulation is currently chaired by Nick Pollard, a former BBC (and almost everything else) hand recalled to the colours to report on the corporation’s Jimmy Savile coverage.

Those who sit alongside him include a former BBC news and current affairs (Wales); a former BBC head of news and current affairs (Northern Ireland); a former BBC controller of public policy; a couple of experienced BBC freelance broadcasters – and now, recruited to run the content-board show, a former deputy boss of the BBC newsroom and editor of News 24.

And if, perchance, the next row is yet another Brexit bomb, then note that Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, is the wife of Robert Chote, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility whose forecasts of post-EU financial hardship so outraged mighty media Leavers. What’s more, Sharon was a top Treasury mandarin whisked over to Ofcom on George Osborne’s watch – and just look who sits there at her boardroom side: Graham Mather, chairman of the European Policy Forum. Cue nest-of-elite-vipers diatribe.

Look at Leveson, with his almost obsessive anxiety to keep newspaper editors or political players away from press regulation. Then ask yourself whether Ofcom’s nominating committee (choosing candidates, giving ministers only approval rights for topmost posts) is Leveson-compliant.

Will it effect the deliberations of Ofcom?  Consider that the Cardiff school of journalism is also jampacked with BBC types and like-minded souls, and then consider that they declared, after lengthy study and thought, LOL, that the BBC was right-wing.  The BBC must be laughing their socks off.

Whatever next?  Perhaps the BBC will  notice all the criticism of the supposed  new independent, government aproved, Press regulator, Impress…that monstrous child of the spank-loving Max Mosley…and jampacked to the gills with people who hate the right-leaning Press such as the Sun, the Mail and the Express….their greatest desire seemingly to close down all such papers…a desire expressed in quite extreme and blatantly not impartial language….as exposed on Guido and in the Press over the last couple of weeks.  Just that the BBC doesn’t seem to have noticed that particular aspect of those who run Impress….kind of crucial though one might think…a regulator who hates certain publications and wants nothing less than to close them down…fair hearing or kangaroo court?

 

The Guardian unfortunately reverts to type as it hilariously pronounces that LBC’s/BBC’s James O’Brien could be ‘the face of 2016’. as he declares that Brexit was the Devil’s work [he being pro-EU natch] and that it is a nothing less than a darkness called ‘white supremacy’ that is feeding the monstrous populism that is on the rise across the world.  Wonder what he made of the Arab Spring, that ‘populist’ uprising that was celebrated by the BBC and, funnily enough, carried out by Arabs and not the white supremacists that so perturb the imaginings of our sad little James O’Brien.  Note this little post-truth snippet from the Guardian’s love-in for O’Brien...’O’Brien was one of the few interviewers to rattle Farage in the past – the then Ukip leader curtailed a 2014 interview in which the presenter tried to press him on his expenses.’  Really?  No, what actually happened was that Farage wiped the floor with O’Brien and even extended the interview way beyond the agreed time…and it was his aide, not himself, that finally ended the interview/kangaroo court/lynching/crassbunkumnonsense.

 

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

A Government for ‘All the Media’

 

Good to see that Theresa May is putting her principles into action and is making sure that it is not just the elitist, entitled, self-aggrandising BBC that gets the opportunity to broadcast and print the breaking stories which previously ensured its inherited status as the news broadcaster of choice….government media releases for all the Media.

Perhaps we are seeing a new world where the BBC is quietly sidelined and government no longer sees the BBC as the first port of call when it needs to announce policy or thinking.

Apparently, according to the Spectator [H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?], this has gone down like a ‘cup of cold sick’ at BBC HQ as Theresa May gives her first interview of the year to Sky and to the Telegraph in print and not to Andrew Marr who was fully expecting to have first dibs.

No doubt this is why Marr, taking his revenge, featured guests of an entirely Remoaner hue on his show…I’m sure Marr was in fact only doing his professional duty and taking the chance to quiz them rigorously, pointing out the error of their ways and holding them to account as he recently published his own view that Remainers should bite the bullet and try to make a success of Brexit [which he calls ‘The Great Disaster’] noting that if the ‘elite’ blocked Brexit ‘the glossy fabric of British democracy would be ripped to shreds. Frankly, I dread to think what would follow.’

I’m pretty sure that would be the correct conclusion…civil war might well break out.  The blatantly pro-EU, anti-Brexit BBC would of course be one of the first ‘up against the wall’  as an institution.  No wonder Marr is worried.

Note that Marr dismisses May’s Telegraph interview as ‘glorious glossy verbiage’ [again H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?  Seems ever more proven each day, each minute]…that’s despite May suggesting something that has been redhot in the Media for days, if not weeks now…

Theresa May signals that Britain will leave Single Market so it can take control of immigration

Asked repeatedly whether Britain will leave the Single Market, the Prime Minister said that she will not try to “keep bits of membership”.

Her comments suggest that Britain is prepared to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union and apply for a good deal from outside after Brexit.

Extraordinary that Marr not only ignores that report but gliby dismisses it in such a manner.  Interesting though that Marr accepts the Economist’s hatchet job on May as an honest and perceptive interpretation of her government as indecisive and lacking direction but Marr does not refer to the Mail’s takedown of that article…

A crude hatchet job on Mrs May and a cynical bid to stop Brexit

He does however like the Mail’s story about the Jewish lobby running Britain….an ‘absolutely cracking story’ according to Marr.  Always interesting what catches a Beeboid’s eye.

 

 

 

 

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

Russia’s ‘Investigation’ into Clinton’s email scandal

 

 

It is now clear that Russia has been viciously maligned and defamed by claims that it hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in order to influence the US election.  Russia was merely carrying out an ‘investigation’ using skilled outside investigators in the interests of truth and honesty that it believes should be part of the electoral process.

The same way that Qatar used its Muslim propaganda ‘news’ organisation, Al Jazeera, to ‘investigate’ alleged Israeli interference in British politics and thus itself interfered in British politics.

The conversation involved Mr Masot and Maria Strizzolo, an aide to education minister Robert Halfon, the former political director of Conservative Friends of Israel, as well as an undercover reporter.

It was recorded in October 2016 as part of an investigation by Al Jazeera.

Strange how Qatar’s six months of spying on British politicians and state interference in British politics isn’t remarked upon by the BBC…or rather is classed as an ‘investigation’…because of course it is targeted at the Jews.  Russia allegedly interferes in order to stop the BBC’s favoured candidate from winning the US election and the BBC reports what is in the main Democratic Party misinformation with a straight face and yet ignores Qatar’s blatant attempt to make life awkward for Israel and intended to stir up the old accusations used by anti-Semites about the ‘Jewish lobby’.  This is a Muslim nation’s black op against the Jews….why not report it as such?

Alan Duncan himself is prone to interfering in Israeli politics so fair enough that the Israelis might want to tackle someone who is such a vocal and aggressive anti-Israel critic….Duncan is very pro-Arab and thinks Israel is the problem.  He is fanatically opposed to Jewish settlers…or ‘undocumented migrants seeking a better life for themselves, bringing diversity, prosperity and openness to the hideously Muslim Palestinian lands’ as the BBC might, or might not, say. Why is it OK for Duncan to travel the world on the British government ticket to target Israel and not for Israel to target him?  Why is it OK for Qatar to ‘hack’ British politics but not for Russia to hack US politics?

Just how true is the video?  The edits and cut aways are constant and obvious….just how much re-editing has gone into the film and just how much has the time-line changed?  It’s the easiest thing in the world to mash together different words and sentences to recreate a conversation that didn’t happen.

 

 

‘THE German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were 20 times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministries only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew. . It is from such abuses that Hitler has freed Germany.’

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

Little Nothings

Some examples of the BBC’s reporting that clearly demonstrate its political inclinations….

Here the EU is the blameless victim as terrorists move freely around Europe…it’s not the EU’s open border policy but a failure of the selfish nation states that is a problem…we need to change the culture and have more co-operation and information sharing…ie give the EU more control….[oh…and having effective border controls will be hugely expensive…so let’s not have them eh?  So Sir Ivan Rogers no?…the BBC ever keen to find something to create a negative and pessimistic tone towards anything that puts a spoke in the EU’s Grand Project]

Berlin truck attack: Can the EU stop another Amri?

Then we have Ivan Rogers…..no reference to his hugely damaging interventions in the EU reform negotiations pre the referendum in which he, a highly pro-EU mandarin, in effect said we aren’t going to succeed and so we shouldn’t bother…an attitude that he would of course have continued with had he been still at the helm of the Brexit negotiations…but the BBC doesn’t think that important…they don’t even mention his complete unsuitability for the role or his ardently pro-EU leanings in this write up on his behalf….

Sir Ivan Rogers: Former UK ambassador to the EU quits civil service

Rogers’ failure and the BBC’s own failure to mention it is odd as in this BBC report [naturally an anti-Brexit story] the failed reform negotiations are deemed a highly relevant example of what not to do…

Mr Faull warns that Theresa May’s government could be in danger of repeating the mistake of David Cameron who believed that Mrs Merkel would come to his rescue. Mr Faull was the senior European Commission official involved in the Cameron negotiations.

Here’s another example of the BBC’s finest reporting of fact….political change is dismissed as the result of some irrational, nihilistic ‘anger’ rather than people voting democratically for the policies they want….this take on the reasons people voted is purely designed to denigrate the voters, dismiss them as Clinton does as ‘Deplorables’, and to portray the voters as victims of a lack of education and a failure to understand the world, the useful idiots gulled by Fascist rabble rousers who exploit their ‘ignorance’ and emotions to get themselves elected….

2016: The year of anger

Does one emotion above all hold the key to understanding a year of tumultuous political change?

Both supporters and detractors see Donald Trump’s victory as a tribute to his knack for understanding people’s discontent, then channelling it.

“Trump gave anger the green light,” argues Arlie Hochshild, a sociologist based at the University of California.  [hmmm…has she never heard of the Tea Party…or of the anti-Bush hate camapigns etc etc etc?  Don’t think Trump invented ‘anger’]

‘Anger’ is portrayed as an irrational and negative state of mind….if you’re angry about something you’re a fanatic, an extremist not a reasoned and measured person who thinks rationally and calmly…you’re a victim of your emotions, emotions exploited and ‘channelled’ by the likes of Trump.  Just another invented narrative created to attack The Donald and Brexit.  The narrative that Trump gave licence to ‘anger’ is of course the same sort of narrative that the BBC wants to create in regard to Brexit as they now portray Britain, post-Brexit, as a ‘nastier, more racist place’.

Then there’s this fine example of reporting from Jeremy Bowen..

Five issues which shaped the Middle East in 2016

What would those five issues be?  The Islamic State, Allepo, Yemen, young people and of course Israel.

Odd that Turkey’s role in the Middle Eastern mess gets barely a mention, just a quick line under ‘Aleppo’…

Increasingly the war is dominated by the agendas of the major powers that have intervened in the Syrian war. One example that affected matters in Aleppo was Turkey’s decision to make a priority of its fight with the Kurds.

That meant it needed better relations with the Russians, which meant looking away in Aleppo as Russia led the charge against its erstwhile clients, in return for Russian acquiescence in Turkey’s actions in northern Syria.

So Turkey’s influence is restricted to what happened in Aleppo?  This from the BBC that races back in time to WWI and the end of the Ottoman caliphate to find excuses to blame the UK for what is happening now in the Middle East [apparently we ‘carved up the Middle East’ in a ignorant, arrogant and careless manner…it’s all our fault] but always fails to mention that it was Turkey that insisted Iraq include the Kurdish areas as it didn’t want an independent land for the Kurds on its borders.

Turkey has been attacking and murdering the Kurds for decades now, thousands of Kurdish villages have been destroyed and tens of thousands of Kurds killed….and yet the BBC only reports what Israeli tanks do…or indeed what Saudi Arabia does in Yemen…Bowen does ‘report’ on that in this piece…and has a personal opinion which he generously shares with us…

Years of war, corruption and under-development weakened Yemen before the war between the Houthis and a Saudi-led coalition pushed it into catastrophe.

Figures are not precise but one estimate is that 10,000 have been killed in the war and 37,000 wounded. Many are civilians….Every war is brutal but the one in Yemen also features the grotesque sight of the region’s wealthiest countries bombing the poorest, helped by the US and Britain…Despite all that firepower, the Saudis have not crushed the Houthis, which means that misery and death will be the fate of many Yemenis in 2017. 

Ah yes, all that ‘misery and death’…but not so concerned about the Kurds’misery and death’ at the hands of the Turks.

The Islamic State was only able to operate so freely and succesfully because Turkey allowed them to slip across theTurkish border unhindered allowing recruits and munitions into the Islamic State land.  Turkey also refused co-operation with Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and indeed attacked them more often than not.  Turkey was on the Islamic State’s side.

Turkey has played an enormous and influential role in events in the Middle East which has gone largely uncommented on by the BBC which prefers to bring us endless tales of Israeli transgressions…never once comparing Israel to Pakistan which is not only an Islamic mirror image of Israel but is vastly more dangerous and the exporter of so much trouble around the world.

Turkey’s role in the Middle East has been massive and yet Bowen barely mentions it…then agian as the BBC’s senior Middle East editor I suppose it is too much to expect a full and proper analysis of what is happening.

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

Whipped Dog

 

 

The squeaky wheel gets the most grease, a lesson that Muslim agitators learnt a long time ago as a few bombs, vigorous and cynical use of the race/Islamophobia card and cries of victimhood saw the Establishment blackmailed and bullied into handing out favoured group status to Muslims in the UK….Warsi is the prime example….Chair of the Tory Party because of her talent and skill?  Or because she was Muslim.

It is amusing to see the BBC’s most vociferous critics are those whom the BBC is a natural ally to, the SNP and Labour.  Then again the BBC’s less than rigorous reporting on both Parties’ issues could be because of the relentless and aggressive campaigns by both parties to control the BBC’s output.

It certainly seems to work, a lesson both the Tory Party and the Brexiteers should learn.

We all know of Nick Robinson’s famous plea for his colleagues not to be critical of Corbyn, in other words not to report the truth if it meant Corbyn would have a negative Press. It seems that one of his colleagues slipped up but the BBC Trust stepped in to smooth things over…subject to appeal.

Have a look at this Corbyn hagiography by the BBC…

The Jeremy Corbyn Story: Profile of Labour leader

An extraordinary love-in that portrays Corbyn as some latter-day saint never mind his support for extreme and, as history shows, dangerous and deadly far -left politics and his liking for terrorist groups…and his refusal to deal with anti-Semitism in his party in any convincing manner.

The BBC is of course also a natural friend to the SNP as a successful SNP means the break up of the UK and an EU takeover as divide and rule kicks in and the then cut adrift nations of the once UK would seek the so-called protection of a bigger ‘state’, the EU….maybe they should learn the lessons of Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain.

Lord Hall has buckled to SNP pressure over BBC news

The BBC’s plans for a Scottish Six news programme are an insulting lot of claptrap and a sop to the Nationalists….we’re on the brink of a cave-in by the BBC top brass in the face of Nicola Sturgeon’s strident demands for more control over the national broadcaster by her government and the SNP-dominated parliament. 

The BBC has been the SNP’s whipping dog in Scotland for years now and as a result it cowers and grovels and in effect becomes a ‘State broadcaster’ in Scotland, one that is far from independent any more….from the Spectator….

During the Scottish independence referendum, BBC Scotland was regularly accused of showing bias against the SNP. The Beeb’s supposed pro-Union slant led Alex Salmond to brand its coverage ‘a disgrace’.

However, now it seems brains at the BBC are keen to get the Nats back on side. Donalda MacKinnon, BBC Scotland’s new director, has given an exclusive interview to The National — the pro-independence paper — in which she makes a play for the Scottish nationalists. MacKinnon promises to address the lack of trust felt by a ‘significant number’ of people following the independence referendum:

‘We take pride in the fact that the majority of our audiences still trust the BBC. However, there is a significant number still in Scotland whose trust we lost and I think there’s still a bit of work to be done in that regard. I think it’s part of my mission to try and address these perceptions, which may have led to that loss of trust.’

Listening to how the BBC reports the mad mutterings of Sturgeon in reverent and awed tones you have to think the SNP is well served by the BBC which never challenges her on her claim that ‘Scotland’ voted to stay in the EU and therefore its views should be considered in the Brexit negotiations.  ‘Scotland’ did not have a vote in the referendum, individual Scots, Britons, had a vote…it was a ‘British’ vote regardless of nation or region, and the Scots voted to stay in Britain…therefore the BBC should question hard Sturgeon’s highly charged rhetoric, but it doesn’t because it wants Scotland to break away and the UK divided and weakened making it easy meat for the EU to pick off or bully.

I wonder if the BBC will be working hard to address the concerns of the majority of people in the UK who backed Brexit and want immigration controlled or who think Islam is a cause for concern?

 

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

No News Is Good News

 

The BBC is flooding the airwaves with pessimistic ‘analysis’ of the supposed Brexit fallout as it seeks to create a mood of despair and looming disaster #DuetoBrexit.

It’s not just what it reports, most of it false, but what it omits from its news bulletins that is designed to mislead the viewer and keep up the charade that Brexit is leading to armageddon of all  kinds be it economic, social or cultural.

We’ve already noted the series of programmes that are outright EU propaganda, ‘The New World’ and ‘Imagining the truth’, indeed today we had another serving of the propaganda forced down our throats as an ardently pro-globalisation fan was commissioned to tell us why globalisation must continue…with all that entails…such as open borders and free movement of labour.  He blatantly refused to accept the answers given to him and announced, in contradiction to what had been said, that all his guests thought globalisation was good, it might have a few problems but it was good.  He told us in his trail for the programme that he was seeking to stop the backlash against globalisation…no bias there then.

What else did the BBC bring us recently?  We know they hid the very good news about the manufacturing PMI figures in the darkest obscurity of the Business pages and kept the news off the airwaves when a slight drop in the same figures had previously resulted in headline news all day.  The promising Service PMI figures released a few days later were similarly relegated to the same obscurity…anyone heard that Services were performing well?

What did hit the frontpage?  Oh yes, as we’ve noted, the pro-EU Jamie Oliver’s Italian restaurants closing #duetoBrexit…even though that is complete tosh….the restaurants were roundly panned as overpriced and badly run in 2015.

What didn’t hit the BBC frontpage?  The Times’ front page announced that ‘Britain has world’s top economy after Brexit’.  You’d think the BBC would be trumpeting such a fantastic result from the rooftops as a sign of confidence in Britain…but no…it doesn’t even mention it on the website.  There is also the report that the Bank of England and the ‘expert’ economists failed miserably to forecast the outcome of the Brexit vote and on the Today programme it wheeled in EU fan Vicky Pryce to rubbish the story [08:19:45]…not as if she didn’t have an interest in doing so…her own reputation at stake…[naturally the BBC fails to make clear Pryce’s interest in denying the story]…

A ‘no’ vote in the EU referendum would be ‘disastrous’ for the UK economy, according to economist Vicky Pryce.

‘There is a lot of confusion in people’s minds as to what it [a no vote] will mean,’ she said. ‘We will know after two years what it will mean, which will be disastrous for the economy, and after that even more so.

The BBC’s pro-Remain stooge, Kamal Ahmed, reports the story of the Bank of England’s ‘Michael Fish’ moment…and does so in a clear attempt to downplay the significance of the beating that the bank takes, along with all those ‘experts’….now we know...’Making judgements on that is always going to be a tricky, imprecise business.’  And that’s it folks….. none of the lurid headlines about fake news, post-truth eras and fact-free zones that the BBC pumps out when referring to the Leave campaign.  Bizarre no?  Remain made highly sensationalist predictions as to what the result of a Brexit vote would be, none of which came true [the fall in the pound was actually a bonus not a disaster] and yet the BBC absolutely refuses, even when faced with clear evidence, to admit that the Remain campaign was based upon melodramatic, scaremongering, shock inducing lies about economic armageddon and even claims that we would have a world war due to Brexit.

The BBC has another stab at reporting the ‘Michael Fish’ story…and misses out, deliberately hides?, a crucial claim by the Cambridge University study that said the Treasury predictions were ‘flawed and partisan’.…the BBC instead peddles Remain myths that the Treasury forecasts were purely objective economics…

The failure to predict the financial crisis was a “Michael Fish” moment for economists, the Bank of England’s chief economist has said.

Andy Haldane compared financial forecasts to the famously inaccurate forecast by the BBC weatherman, ahead of the UK’s great storm of 1987.

The Bank denies claims it gave gloomy forecasts to support the Remain side.

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney told the Treasury Select Committee last year that the Bank’s advice before the EU referendum had been “analytically based and objectively given”, adding: “It is not a political opinion, it is an economic opinion

Also highly amused to hear on ‘Wake up to money’ [21 mins] the presenters desperately trying to squeeze out of a guest that Brexit has been a disaster for her business as she kept insisting that it had been actually quite good as exports pick up.  The BBC falls back on the old standby…that surely prices of her materials must have gone up?!!  Have heard several business people given the same treatment as they keep telling us how their businesses are thriving.  The BBC just doesn’t want to believe.

 

 

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

Booking the cooks

 

Jamie Oliver today made an angry Instagram post, insisting while he could accept a Brexit result he would be 'out' of Britain if Boris Johnson becomes PM 

 

Remain are so desperate to keep Operation #Brexitdisastrousfailure in the headlines that they are sacrificing their leading lights… Sir Ivan Rogers has fallen on his sword and gone down making as much noise as possible, the BBC reporting with reverence his death rattle as wisdom to be passed on to future generations and now Jamie Oliver has made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause and closed his Italian restaurants in order to garner a few anti-Brexit headlines…which the BBC obligingly provides.

Jamie was a vociferous backer of the Remain campaign, but the BBC doesn’t tell us that as it reports…

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie’s Italian restaurants.

The company said that the market was “tough” and the uncertainties caused by Brexit had intensified the pressures.

The price of ingredients bought in Italy has gone up because of the fall in the value of the pound against the euro since the vote to leave the EU.

Chief executive Simon Blagden said: “As every restaurant owner knows, this is a tough market and, post-Brexit, the pressures and unknowns have made it even harder.”

So Brexit closed down poor old Jamie’s marvellously European restaurant chain?  Not so much.  It closed because it was crap…and prices of ingredients were already high due to their supposedly being so high quality…this from 2015, long before the dread Brexit vote….

Jamie’s one-star meals: Customers give Jamie Oliver’s Italian chain the lowest marks of any comparable restaurants as staff slam conditions 

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is dealing with a deluge of criticism over his Jamie’s Italian chain after scathing reviews from customers and staff alike.

The business has the lowest ratings on Google reviews compared to its main competitors with around one in four grading one of his restaurants at one-star since September. 

Customers have criticised the food and service online. 

One writer, known as Jane S, said Jamie should ‘get a grip’ over his Italian restaurant in Westfield in Shepherd’s Bush, London.

On TripAdvisor she said: ‘This is a chain restaurant and as such, my expectations were not great. However this did not even meet my limited expectations. 

‘I love Jamie Oliver recipes but the food we were presented with, in my opinion, did not represent his cuisine and that, I suppose is the crux of the problem, when you become such a big brand.’

In a Google review of a Jamie’s Italian in Portsmouth, Paul Cartmell wrote: ‘The worst food ever tasted in any eating place. Had the autumn risotto and it was like eating a bowl of salt, my father had steak and you could have re-soled a shoe with it and my mother had pasta and there was not enough to feed a four-year-old.

‘The only one who had a nice meal was my wife who had trout but you had to buy all the trimmings separate. We complained but the chef just turned his nose up. Never again.’ 

Other complaints include meals being overpriced, although the chain has said prices are higher because better quality ingredients are used. 

So essentially the BBC peddling a Remain campaigner’s propaganda which is patently untrue.  More BBC fake news.

 

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

Truth and Consequences

 

It must be an enormously frustrating time for BBC journalists…the Scots didn’t vote for independence and split the UK making it easy meat for an EU Empire annexation, the British people voted to leave the EU and Donald Trump was elected in the US…and ‘racist white police’ in the US shooting ‘unarmed black youths’ turned out to be just as much ethnic minority officers…so another one of those BBC ‘facts’ revealed to be a lie.  BBC ‘bias’ is of course just another way of saying BBC ‘fake news’ because that is what it is, untrue and shaped to present a view of the world that is entirely, and dangerously, false.

Still, never mind, they control the airwaves and so they think they can still control history as they remorsely pump out pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-Islamic propaganda 24 hours a day.

The new narratives are naturally about fabricating a myth that the voters for Trump and Brexit were fooled by lies and fake news and that those voters don’t actually care anymore whether they are told lies or not…they’ll carry on voting regardless, facts just don’t matter.  A convenient narrative designed to delegitimise Brexit and Trump’s election, a narrative that the BBC has been pushing hard for the last two weeks or so and no doubt will continue to do so until it has established the legend as ‘fact’.

Just look at Radio 4…two series that are blatantly pro-EU, pro-immigration and which both push the lie that we are in a ‘post-fact’ era[that in itself is the biggest lie]. One series is ‘The New World’ and the other is ‘Imagining the new truth’…hmm yes, a very telling title, very apt as the BBC really does imagine, invent, fabricate, the new truth.

In ‘Imagining the new truth’ we have artists and writers telling us their vision of the world post-Trump/Brexit.  Naturally it is a very left-wing view…almost extreme.  For example we had on Tuesday author Daniel Kehlman telling us that all the worries about immigration, about the Islamification of Europe, about terrorism, are a result of paranoia, of foolishness, a lack of education and understanding, and of course, Right-Wing propaganda…fake news.  He compared it all to the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages, completely irrational attacks on innocent people as a result of fear and loathing whipped up by…medieval fake news.  Yep no bombs, no sex attacks, no Trojan Horse plots, no wgae drops, no job losses, no homelessness, no queues at GPs, at A&E, at schools, and no ever-increasing chaos on ever-more crowded roads and public transport.

Then we have ‘The New World’…..each programme a carefully crafted exercise in deceit and manipulation as we are fed narratives shaped to push a message…you listen and listen, it’s all fairly anodyne and on the fence for a while, then wham, we get to the malicious and misleading point they have been slowly, slowly working towards, the dramatic exhortation that denounces certain thoughts, people and ideas and preachs the preferred orthodoxy.

We had one that concluded that Putin, the Chinese Commies, and Trump were all the same…’fascist strongmen’ who were going to bring the world to the point of destruction….instead we need men of ‘vison and restraint’…really?  Like Obama?  The man who allows Iran to arm itself with nukes, who let Russia annex the Crimea and invade the Ukraine, who let Assad and Russia dominate in the Middle East and who stood aside as Europe was swamped with immmigrants.   Trump was lectured that he had to come to some agreement with Putin and not face him aggressively…hmmm…er…isn’t that exactly what he said he wanted to do and for which he was roundly condemned by the BBC for being a Putin stooge?

Then we had one about ‘populism’, that word used by the BBC to condemn and dismiss anyone who votes for anyone who doesn’t have the same values as the BBC.  It started off inoffensively enough but soon got to the real message…the ‘populists’ are bigots and racists, uneducated, working class, white country hicks.

We all know that the Left’s favoured weapon when faced with having to defend their open borders immigration policy is to call anyone who disagrees a racist.  Actually, you know, the BBC tells us, they’re absolutely right…those people who oppose immigration are racists and bigots…the only problem is they don’t care about beng called racist and so the weapon is ineffective now.  Hmmm…no…people are massively offended by being labelled racist for wanting to control immigration and it is a weapon used to shut off debate by ‘shaming’ people…a weapon that it is acknowledged has been hugely effective in silencing people, the result of which has been politicians, journalists and police officers prevented from doing their jobs and hugely damaging changes to society along with unspeakable crimes committed and hidden due to political correctness.  Thousands of young girls were raped and abused because the likes of the BBC stood silent.  The BBC knew…one BBC journalist admitted he saw what was going on and ‘wondered why the police did nothing’…why did he do nothing?  The police got away with doing nothing because they weren’t held to account by the likes of that BBC journalist.

Then we had one on ‘demography’…ie immigration…again a slow burn…a long explanation of why, and how beneficial itis, Africans just had to come to Europe….you waited and waited, you knew it had to come eventually and then bingo!…it’s there….mass immigration …we’re lucky to have it….it’s been a tremendous boon, we have a ‘favourable demographic’ in the UK, a demographic dividend that is very good and will help us to grow, be more dynamic, prosperous and open…whilst Brexit means no more lovely immigrants, the economy will collapse and you will have to work until you drop and all on lower wages. Oh and the answer to an ageing population? Keep importing millions of young people….yep…that’ll work, no flaw in that plan at all.  And one last hit….Whites in America are very racist…they don’t want to pay taxes to educate brown skinned immigrants….hmmm…really?  Maybe it is actually they don’t want to pay taxes to pay for the health, schools and housing, and all the rest, for illegal immigrants not because of skin colour at all.   Would you pay all that for someone who jumped over your garden fence and demanded you did so because it was his, and his family’s, human right?

And then there was Jo Fidgen bringing us ‘Nothing but the truth’….  ho ho ho.

Are we really living in a post-truth world? It has been an extraordinary year for the concept of veracity. Brexit. Trump. Experts have taken a beating, facts have apparently taken second place to emotion and feeling. And what about truth? It seems like fewer and fewer people, whether voters or politicians, care what’s true anymore.

This programme had been trailed for a week or two telling us that it would examine if we are really living in a post-truth world….problem was the programme was not at all about examining that question but instead used the programme as a vehicle to attack all the usual suspects that the BBC has issues with.

So what were the issues that so alarmed the BBC…Trump and his ‘lies’, the Brexit ‘lie’ about £350 million and Gove’s attack on the ‘experts’….coz they have been proved so right haven’t they so far?

Fidgen announces that she, as a liberal, is ‘flipping terrified‘ of the apparent new world order…why?  And just what is this new world order?  Just how different is it really and in what way will Europe not be able to work together just because the UK doesn’t want to be completely under the EU yoke?

Then we had the next BBC bête noire…the Iraq War…that organ of mass deception.  lol.  Trouble is Blair didn’t lie, the Dossier wasn’t ‘sexed up’, it was as David Kelly, that world renowned weapons control expert, stated, merely a run down of what the UN had already reported…and he himself thought the war was necessary as he recognised the huge danger Saddam posed to the world.  Let’s not forget that Parliament voted for the war.  Oh yes…Bush also very definitely lied about WMD and our thought processes are coloured by our ideology…hmmm…so pro-EU apparatchik, Sir Ivan Rogers, was never going to be a good head of negotiations to leave the EU then?  Who knew eh?

We rationalise away the facts…say on Brexit and immigration…we don’t want to accept that Brexit will be a disaster and that immigration, and the EU, is great for us…really.  We’re such stupid fools.  Thank Allah we have the BBC to guide us through the darkness of our ignorance.

We heard that’ ‘as a Jew’, ‘populism’ is a disaster….it’s the 1930’s all over again.  No, no it’s not.  Not unless a certain ideology takes over then ‘as a Jew’ be scared, be very scared…hmm…they already are…just the BBC hasn’t noticed.

But why has liberalism fallen, why have facts become so irrelevant, why have feelings and emotions become the new ‘facts’?  The Internet.  The Internet has changed everything as it creates echo chambers that mean people no longer encounter dissenting and different view points and information and we also have a new phenomenon…psycholgical geography….I kid you  not.  Of course both of these concepts are complete bunk.

The Internet if anything has opened up thought and opinion, it has democratised information and broken the monopoly of government and the MSM.  Before we had the bubbles…if you read the Telegraph did you read the Guardian?  No.  But now you can, pay-walls allowing.  There is a vast amount of easily available news, thought and opinion out there from all walks of life and people read it all the time.  How can the BBC possibly claim that the Internet creates closed off echo chambers when it does the opposite….the BBC itself is the biggest echo chamber around where received opinion is the only thought allowed.

As for ‘geographical psychology’ as a new concept…again bunkum….it’s not a new phenomenon….people have always moved towards areas where like-people live…either through the necessity of work or due to the constraints put on them by immigration to a new land….the cost of housing and the fact that they want to live in a strange land with people whom they know and trust.  Silicon Valley and California, the West Coast, is a lefty, liberal, hippy hotbed…it has been for ever….just as the shipyards and mines created certain communities because that’s where all the workers with the same interests and lives were, had to be…and Brixton is Brixton because Black immigrants moved there decades ago…it’s not a stunning new phenomenon that this academic has just revealed but he suggests it is in order to create the idea that a whole new world has come about where fascist, populist, Trump-like politicians have polarised nations to their detriment.  Yeah…accept there have always been Republican and Democrat states just as there have always been ‘safe-seats’ in the UK.  Politics has always been polarised.  That’s politics stupid.  That’s life.

I’m not even going to venture down the road of tackling politicised ‘neuroticism’.  Needless to say it’s all a convenient line to create the idea that the world is changing for the worse.

So we’ve had Brexit, Gove and experts, immigration, the Iraq War, Trumpism, what else is there, what other BBC bête noire to digest?  Oh…how about climate change?  Ah yes…Trump doesn’t want to argue with the facts he just ignores them and goes for the emotion, climate change has been politicised and the overwhelming sicentific evidence trashed.

Anyway….The Trump and Brexit campaigns were based on lies not supported by the facts….and facts matter more than ever now [whose ‘facts’ though?] but what’s really worrying is the people’s lack of trust in the experts, in the politicians, in the journalists…it’s bad for democracy.

No…it’s bloody good for democracy that we don’t believe these liars and charlattans in the media, in politics and in the ranks of the so-called experts who themselves set aside that expertise in favour of their own prejudices, ideologies and views.

The Internet is a vital tool for that democracy…one that the BBC, that inbred echo chamber, works relentlessly to neuter and silence…it’s just too damned truthful.

 

 

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

No Minister

 

So you’re a BBC news editor faced with a choice…the pro-EU mandarin, Ivan Rogers, has gone all Kamikazi, and you’re reporting the aftermath of his suicide attack on the Brexiteers.  Do you report his critics’ or his defenders’ words?  You being a BBC employee naturally know what’s in our best interest and shape the news to present Rogers as the telling-truth-to-power victim of the Brexit thought-police.  The reality?  A pro-EU civil servant went public with a hugely anti-Brexit message with the intent of putting pressure on the  government to comply with his own pro-EU views…and the BBC were there to help as they were given the exclusive scoop…wonder why.  Possibly because they are the most powerful, and pro-EU, media platform out there and one guaranteed to give Rogers a favourable platform from which to peddle his pro-EU spiel.  How right he was.

Today we had some interviews on the Today programme….on one we had Lord Marland backing Rogers and telling us how the civil service was incapable of negotiating Brexit and Sir Robert Cooper telling us there is a policy vacuum in government.

Then later we had Matts Persson, a Cameron EU advisor, on.  Interestingly he said that the headlines [the BBC of course the worse culprit ed.]  had been very unfair, that is, misleading, after Rogers’ resignation…They had reported Rogers’ claim that the government was ‘muddled’ and lacked the negotiating skills but both those claims were wrong….planning, as you might expect, was ‘far advanced’ and there was good expertise in the civil service.  Not only that but the negotiating position was very clear.

Not at all the message the BBC wanted to peddle and indeed they didn’t.  In the follwoing news bulletins which messages do you think the BBC news editor chose?  Not Persson’s but both Marland and Cooper’s negative take on Brexit.  Persson doesn’t get a mention at all anymore.

The BBC has also chosen not to report the essential point about Rogers’ not being fit to lead the Brexit negotiations…not only is he a dyed-in-the-wool pro-EU mandarin but he lacks the will to tackle EU reform.  He was the major stumbling block to negotiating the reforms Cameron claimed he wanted.  Rogers said we could not get much so don’t ask for much…a classically bad negotiating stance….so we ask for little and get, of course, even less.

So in effect Rogers empowered the Brexit vote by failing to secure major reforms that were promised.  Even more ironically his departure, the departure of a key, for the Remainers, pro-EU person at the Brexit negotiations, was the result of his doom and gloom being reported by the pro-EU BBC….a feat of which they were boasting as he announced his resignation….lol.

All that smacks of very bad judgement, both politically and tactically…he placed himself in the firing line, and the BBC, thinking they were helping to undermine Brexit, reported with glee his words that Brexit would take 10 years and may not even happen.  He completely misjudged how we should negotiate with Brussels on the reforms, proably coloured by his own pro-EU feelings…it is likely he didn’t actually want any reforms.  Not only that but he was also the one who advised May not to promise EU migrants in the UK that they could stay regardless…and for which May got enormous amount of flak, not least from the BBC.

The BBC of course doesn’t highlight those major flaws in his CV…look at this report in the immediate wake of  his resignation….no mention of his damaging role in the ‘reforms’ and no mention that he is very pro-EU…

UK’s ambassador to the EU Sir Ivan Rogers resigns

Strangely the BBC totally ignores what Tim Shipman said in his book about Rogers…remember Tim Shipman’s book?  The one that the BBC relentlessly once reported when they thought it had negative things to say about Brexit?  No so keen now to dip into the book for quotes…such as this…all pretty damning for him…

Tim Shipman reveals in his unrivalled referendum book All Out War, Cameron’s aides blame Rogers for blocking them from seeking a better deal on immigration and the ECJ:

‘We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers,’ one Cameron adviser said. ‘They were status quo. They were happy to take “No” for an answer, happy to believe things weren’t possible when they could be possible. I’ve lost count of the number of times Ivan threatened to resign.’ The politicos say Rogers was aggressive in dismissing their arguments, and went over their heads to Cameron: ‘He would send emails that were the stuff of legend, saying why didn’t we know anything? We were just politicos, we didn’t understand.’ Another aide said Rogers’ emails were ‘notorious’.

Rogers also clashed with the special advisers over their desire to include reforms of the European Court of Justice in the renegotiation. ‘Korski had a long-running battle with officials saying that we needed to do something, and he kept getting told that it was impossible to do something,’ a Number 10 source said. A range of proposals were put forward, ranging from new rules on the selection of judges to proposals for the EC] to get out of lower-level decisions. Their advocates believe the plan would have allowed Britain to get a serious review of the court on the agenda. It was rejected by officials over the summer.

 

The BBC does bring us Rogers’ resignation letter in full...with the BBC own selective musings and annotations inserted where they think we can benefit from their insight and perception.  Naturally the points selected are negative for Brexit and the BBC’s own interpretation ramps that up, sexing up the negative and essentially inventing meanings and intent to the words….and what you don’t get is any analysis from the BBC that actually challenges any of Rogers’ assertions….the BBC just accepts his claim that the government has no idea about Brexit and that there are no people skilled enough to negotiate it in the UK….as said above they in fact completely ignore anyone who suggests otherwise and doesn’t adopt the correct narrative….and whilst parsing every word that seemingly criticises the government the BBC doesn’t bother with his final words to his fellow civil servants…

I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.

Why would he need to tell them that?  If they are impartial civil servants they would surely do their job regardless of whether they voted Remain or not….but seemingly Rogers thinks that might not be the case…which of course, ironically, is why he himself had to go….a point the BBC seems to avoid reminding us of preferring instead to ‘report’ the Remain camp’s ‘concern’ about Rogers resignation [which of course is very telling in itself].

 

 

 

 

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

#DespiteBrexit…Again..and Again…and Again

 

 

The BBC isn’t trumpeting this for some reason…from Reuters…

UK manufacturing growth unexpectedly hits 2-1/2-year high – PMI

British manufacturing growth climbed to a two-and-a-half-year high last month, fuelled by new orders from both home and abroad and adding to signs the economy ended 2016 strongly, a survey showed on Tuesday.

The Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) rose to 56.1, the strongest reading since June 2014, from 53.6 in November. That exceeded all forecasts in a Reuters poll, which pointed to a decline to 53.1.

Naturally things could turn around later but that’s not the point..the point is how the BBC reports these things…when the PMI fell slightly the BBC was reporting it relentlessly all day with the narrative that Brexit is destroying the economy….screaming about a ‘dramatic deterioration in the economy‘ and that we were definitely heading for recession…as with the last good news figures, which oddly the BBC decided we had to be careful how we interpret as it was far too early to make a sensible judgement [on the good news that is…on the bad news we’re going into recession] the BBC has gone much less noisy..  Strange no?  Not heard a peep on the radio whereas you couldn’t miss it when the PMI fell below 50 and the story is hidden away on the business pages where hardly a soul will see it which is quite extraordinary considering just how relatively high the PMI figure is.

The BBC is definitely trying to hide good news here.

Still, maybe they are just taking advice from Europhile Jonathan Portes [08:35] who on hearing that the Change Britain pro-Brexit group has suggested 400,000 jobs will be created by leaving the EU customs union says these figures are entirely fictional…however….he claims that it is now quite wrong to put hard figures on things as that is meaningless….what we reallyneed to know is that a consensus of ‘experts’ has told us if we leave the EU we are going to Hell in a handcart..so there…oh yes…and he is entirely neutral as Nick Robinson tells us…..really?  The Spectator has its doubts…as you might….

It is wearisome work, but I hope the ‘leave’ campaign is carefully monitoring the BBC’s coverage of the referendum. On Monday, the first full weekday since Mr Cameron’s ‘legally binding’ deal, I listened to the Today programme for more than two hours. I heard six speakers for ‘remain’ and two (John Mills and Nigel Lawson) for ‘leave’. In this I am not including any of the BBC interviewers themselves, though my hunch, based solely on the way they ask questions, is that all of them, with the possible exception of John Humphrys, are for ‘remain’. The guests explicitly in favour of ‘remain’ were Carolyn Fairbairn, Sir Mike Rake, Stanley Johnson and Michael Fallon. Jonathan Portes, who is always presented by the BBC as a neutral expert, was actually pushing the EU cause.

So Portes is conveniently claiming hard figures are meaningless just when the Brexit group comes out with some hard figures he disagrees with…..but he adds that the ‘consensus’ is that we are doomed…based on what?   Hard figures of the failed experts like him who peddled a message of armageddon during the referendum.  But now hard figures are so yesterday when they upset the orthodox bandwagon…then again we are in a post-fact era aren’t we?

 

 

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

Close but no cigar

 

 

Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said “I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren’t sitting back, paging through the emails.

 

 

The Guardian is convinced Trump was elected with Russian help….

Russian hackers were able to access thousands of emails from a top-ranking Democrat after an aide typed the word “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate” by mistake, an investigation by the New York Times has found.

The revelation gives further credence to the CIA’s finding last week that the Kremlin deliberately intervened in the US presidential election to help Donald Trump.

Kremlin hackers access to about 60,000 emails in Podesta’s private Gmail account. According to US intelligence officials, Moscow then gave the email cache to WikiLeaks. The website released them in October, and the email scandal dominated the news cycle and was exploited by Trump.

That conveniently ignores that the real scandal was broken by the New York Times in 2015…as the BBC admits….

Mrs Clinton’s email system became a national story the first week of March 2015, when the New York Times ran a front-page article on the subject. The article said that the system “may have violated federal requirements” and was “alarming” to current and former government archive officials.

Note in that BBC report there is no mention of Wikileaks and the Russians and the Podesta hack but for the Guardian, and paradoxically the BBC itself, as well as Obama, it was the Podesta emails that dominated the news cycle and influenced the outcome of the election.  OK…but wasn’t Clinton’s own email scandal the real issue, the one that Trump said he would see her in prison for?  That if  anything was the vote winner….there was huge scandal around Clinton’s emails before Podesta’s were released so late in the day.  Clinton ignored many, many warnings that her emails were vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence services. It is clear that the US government knew long ago that the Russians were possibly attempting to hack Clinton’s emails and yet only now does it become an issue.  Why?   The BBC constantly defends Obama’s lack of response by saying he accused the Russians on October 7 2016….but that was years after such claims were made public in the media…so why only now when Clinton loses does Obama suddenly turn on the Russians and expel their diplomats?

The BBC back in 2015 suggested that the email scandal could turn the result of the US election….but now it’s the Podesta hack?….

Make no mistake, Tuesday’s New York Times report on Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account during her time as US secretary of state could turn into a major development in the 2016 presidential race.

The BBC has been helpfully conflating the two issues and implying that all Wikileak’s email releases, and indeed all the emails that are under discussion, come from the Podesta hack…

The stakes could scarcely be higher: a foreign state stands accused of mounting a campaign of hacking and leaking to help get its preferred candidate into the White House.

And whatever the final conclusions of the multiple investigations into the alleged Russian hacking operation, many of Clinton’s allies believe the steady trickle of embarrassing emails, drip-fed by Wikileaks through the last crucial weeks of the campaign, may have been enough to deny her the presidency.

And again…

The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign.

By not differentiating clearly which emails came from which source and which are the ones that really felled Clinton the BBC is helping Obama’s narrative that the Podesta emails influenced the election for Trump when the years of revelations and scandals coming from the Benghazi investigation are the real downer for Clinton.

Obama chooses to ignore the inconvenient facts and the BBC happily colludes as it obligingly reports Obama’s claims that Russia hacked Democratic Party emails and thus hijacked the US election to the benefit of Donald Trump as fact.  But just how much fact is there in that sensational and highly political claim?  Look hard and you’ll barely find a mention of Wikileaks and Russians in the run up to the election…here’s Sky’s timeline for the email scandal…no  mention at all of Wikileaks and Russians….it is all about the US government’s own release of emails.

:: November, 2014: The House Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, requests emails from Mrs Clinton. Some 300 emails from the private account are delivered to the committee.

:: December, 2014: Mrs Clinton’s office delivers about 55,000 pages – some 30,490 emails – to the State Department. Another 31,830 emails from her tenure are deemed private and not delivered.

What the Obama narrative ignores is Clinton herself and her unattractiveness as a candidate, her failed, lacklustre campaign, the failed government and policies of Obama and the fact that the email scandal did not originate from Wikileaks and not from the Russians…it came from within the US government itself and numerous FOI requests from news organisations and civil rights groups seeking their release…Clinton  herself stated she wanted the emails released…is she a Russian spy?….

I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.       

Not to mention the FBI’s own investigation….Is Comey also a Russian spy?  America seems to be rife with them at the highest level…,.

FBI director James Comey stunned the world when he announced the agency was investigating new e-mails sent or received by Mrs Clinton.

Note that this latest investigation was not due to any ‘leaked’ emails but due to a prior FBI investigation…so again no Russians…

The New York Times has reported the messages were discovered after the FBI seized four electronic devices belonging to Mrs Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner. 

They were taken during an investigation into illicit text messages between the former Congressman and a 15-year-old girl.

Emails released due to FOI request by Vice News just before the election….not Russians…

Today, at 3:30, State Dept w/release 1250 pgs of HRC emails recovered by FBI in response to lawsuit against FBI/State  

 

Wikileaks stated Clinton’s own emails came as result of its FOI requests …

From Wikileaks in 2016:

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

From Al Jazeera in March 2015:

Revealed: Clinton’s office was warned over private email use

The New York Times reported Monday night that Clinton used only private email accounts during her tenure — a move that prevented the National Archives and Records Administration from automatically archiving her correspondence for historical purposes when she left office. Instead, the newspaper reported, two months ago Clinton aides turned over some 55,000 pages of emails after they reviewed all the messages she sent and received during her four-year tenure.

The revelations have set off a firestorm for the potential 2016 presidential candidate among open-records advocates who question whether Clinton took this approach to circumvent the normal archiving process for a position of that level.

Issues of computer security have dogged public officials since the dawn of the Internet age. President Bill Clinton, for instance, saved his former CIA director, John Deutch, from prosecution by pardoning him for having classified materials on his laptops and relabeling them as unclassified.

From CBS News in September 2015:

Hackers linked to Russia tried to infiltrate Hillary Clinton’s emails

Hackers linked to Russia tried at least five times to pry into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account while she was secretary of state, emails released Wednesday show.

The phishing attempts highlight the risk of Clinton’s unsecure email being pried open by foreign intelligence agencies.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department and other U.S. government agencies faced their own series of hacking attacks. U.S. counterterrorism officials have linked them to China and Russia. But the government has a large staff of information technology experts, whereas Clinton has yet to provide any information on who maintained her server and how well it was secured.

The emails released Wednesday also show a Clinton confidant urging her boss and others in June 2011 not to “telegraph” how often senior officials at the State Department relied on their private email accounts to do government business because it could inspire hackers to steal information.

The former first lady and New York senator had maintained that nothing was classified in her correspondence, but the intelligence community has identified messages containing “top secret” information.

Now, with Wednesday’s release, some 37 percent of Clinton’s work-related emails have been made public. The State Department has been releasing the emails at the end of every month, and it plans to finish publishing the emails in January, in accordance with a federal judge’s order.

 

From Wired April 2015:

For a secretary of state, running your own email server might be a clever—if controversial—way to keep your conversations hidden from journalists and their pesky Freedom of Information Act requests. But ask a few security experts, and the consensus is that it’s not a very smart way to keep those conversations hidden from hackers.

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