The BBC have been bombarding us with endless reports that Imams have signed a letter demanding the release of a British hostage by ISIS.
Clear what the message is…British Muslims, decent, moderate Muslims, have no truck with ISIS and its extremist, distorted version of Isam.
It’s an easy win for the Muslims….what can they lose?…they are saying nothing about their religion, making no objectionable criticisms of its tenets…but get the credit for speaking out against extremism…not Islamic extremism…just head-chopping off extremism.
Now just who could that Home Office insider be? Could he possibly be one of those radical Muslims employed by the Home Office to help them tackle the radicalisation of Muslim youth? Ahem. Let me think. Can we trust a word this guy says? No.
Or could he actually be a genuine Whitehall voice? If so why would he be speaking about this?
We have seen a flurry of articles in various publications that dismiss the ‘Islamic’ part of the ‘Islamic State’ and tell us that ISIS has more in common with modern European fascism or European medieval conflicts than Islamic history….an obvious misdirection attempting to ‘enlighten’ us…the message is that these lands were not Islamic and yet they were extreme and vioelnt, therefore violence in Muslim lands or societies cannot be blamed on Islam, there must be other, underlying, causes common to all societies. However…. ISIS is in fact a perfect, full colour replay of the establishment of Islam across the Middle East by Muhammed…who also felt no qualms about chopping off heads…some he did himself. Perhaps Muhammed wasn’t a Muslim?
Is it possible that the government has been whispering in a few ears and is busy establishing a certain narrative across the Media designed to insulate the Muslim community from any fallout over the Islamic State and British recruits chopping off British heads?
Once again, with the supposed threat of the Far Right, we have that false comparative narrative that if it something bad happens in European, non-Muslim society, then that illustrates that ‘similar’ problems apparently linked to Islam have other underlying causes. Part of that narrative is to create a straw man, to exaggerate the threat from the ‘Far Right’ and make out that white, working class youths are on the march and are just as dangerous as any Muslim terrrorist…hence, we, the British Public, should not criticise or condemn Muslims and Islam, because look….it’s not just Muslims who are radical and dangerous…and after all, the ‘radicalised’ white boys don’t read the Koran…only of course they do…which is why they march ….against it.
One other point is that the BBC links ‘Islamophobia’, or as a more truthful witness might say, justified and reasoned criticism of Islam, only with the ‘Far Right’.
What the BBC’s narrative does is to suggest that if you criticise Islam you must be ‘Far Right’ and your views are completely abhorrent to normal, decent human beings.
The BBC attempts to introduce a virtual blasphemy law…if you speak out against Islam and its practises you are labelled racist and ‘Islamophobic’. The BBC attempts to close down debate and criticism by turning anyone who speaks out into pariahs.
Perhaps that ‘Home Office insider’ should be dragged in for a bit of a bollocking. Far from reducing the likelihood of inter-communal violence he has increased it by trying to close down real debate and discussion of the real causes of Muslim violence and radicalisation…with a bit of help from the BBC.
Jon Snow grandly, sententiously, told us he was ‘bearing witness’ to events in Gaza rather than reporting them in a balanced and impartial manner. Never mind the facts, the context, the causes of those events that Snow ‘bears witness’ to.
And it went downhill from there as it explored how the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been reported….or at least that is how the programme was presented to us.
In fact this was a self serving piece of very, very carefully crafted BBC propaganda designed to tell us the BBC is not pro-Israeli and its seemingly pro-Palestinian stance is merely a just rebalancing of the media narrative which has been too heavily slanted towards ‘plucky’ little Israel.
The programme had two very revealing conclusions. Firstly they told us that neither Israeli nor Hamas social media operations caught the Public imagination. What did catch that imagination were the casualties in Gaza.
Now Hamas might consider that their social media offensive failing is hardly a disaster when they had a massive, powerful, respected, world wide broadcasting organisation such as the BBC pumping out their message for them…the exact message that Hamas were trying to generate…that of high civilian casualties.
In other words what caught the public’s attention was the Hamas message, courtesy of the BBC…and this was a deliberate BBC policy, carried out to the nth degree by the likes of Jon Donnison….undoubtedly overseen approvingly by his boss, Jeremy Bowen.
The second conclusion was that the narrative about Israel has changed over time…once the plucky little country fighting for survival, now the enormously powerful bully turning its might upon a weak and defenceless People who could barely fight back.
Now again that’s a narratve that is familiar…it is one we have heard repeatedly from BBC journalists, that Israel’s overwhelmingly powerful army is crushing a helpless, defenceless Palestinian opponent.
So once again the BBC has worked to completely alter the narrative of the conflict and has managed to create an image of Israel that bears little relation to the truth, missing out important context and causation…never mind that Israel is surrounded by enemies out to destroy it.
Curiously the BBC is far more sympathetic to Iran whom it explains is only so aggressive because of the enemies (The Great Satan) surrounding it.
From those two conclusions we can see just how powerful and effective the BBC’s attempts to manipulate the narrative in favour of the Palestinians and against the Israelis has been.
By coincidence this morning we also heard something about ISIS and what needs to be done to tackle and lessen its appeal to Muslims. The main answer, we were told, was to create functioning, decent states, societies and democracies in the Middle East.
Which, you may recall, is what was attempted in Iraq. What was the main obstacle on the road to a democratic, just State in Iraq? The radical Islamists…..and who encouraged them to fight in Iraq? The BBC….the BBC ‘fought’ the Iraq war all the way, declaring it illegal, Blair a liar and the army murderous.
The BBC was one of the obstacles to that fair and just State as it spent a decade pumping out anti-Iraq war messages that ensured Muslims were in a perpetual state of anger and anti-Western funk.
Once again the BBC has interfered in the Middle East with devastatingly dangerous consequences.
The programme seemed to concentrate more on Israel than the Palestinians or Arabs…..the clips played were all unfavourable to Israel, or intended that way.
We heard Pathe News was terribly pro-Israel…apparently the soundtracks accompanying the reports of Israeli victories in the various wars were far too triumphant ….personally, having heard many a Pathe News film clip, I’d say they were about standard for the time…nothing that would indicate it was intedned to be pro-Israel.
We heard that the BBC was at the mercy of the ‘Jewish Lobby’….a view later reinforced when Bowen came on to claim he was bombarded by complaints…..mostly as a result of orchestrated Jewish campaigns against him and the BBC….oh, yes the Palestinians also complained…but you know what, it was just that terrible old Arafat……not the lovely Hamas…nor the Palestinian people.
What we didn’t hear from Bowen was how his journalists were controlled by Hamas and the reports they sent out were censored by the terrorists…..something which the BBC of course denies.
Those were the most notable points from the programme which overall was just as you might expect…Israel in the wrong and the defenceless Palestinians doing the best they can in a cruel world.
But essentially as said, this was more about the BBC than about either Israel or the Palestinians.
A couple other notable points…one claim was that the UK was very pro-Israel as a bulwark against Arab nationalism….hmmm…well Britain was never enthusiastically pro-Israel and favoured the Arabs far more….not to mention the British long term support for the Muslim Brotherhood….as a bulwark against Arab nationalism….something the BBC fails to mention here for some reason.
One of John Lloyd’s final comments was that social media played no part in the ‘Arab Spring’…which is curious as that was a central theme for much of the BBC reporting at the time….the BBC itself being chastised for its casual use of the social media sources for ‘news’.
Interesting how the Arab Spring is now being quietly downgraded itself….could it be that the BBC prefers to lay the blame for the rise of massive unrest in the Middle East on the doorstep of the Americans and Blair after Iraq 2003?….which is odd really…as the BBC told us this:
“We had a clean revolution [In Tunisia]. The former president turned out to be a coward. He just ran away. Not like the others – like the poor Libyans, or in Syria – but it lit the fuse to all the other revolutions” Wassim Herissi, radio DJ
The downfall of Tunisia’s President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali inspired pro-democracy activists across the Arab world. Widespread discontent at economic hardship, decades of autocratic rule and corruption erupted into mass demonstrations in December 2010 after a young, unemployed man, Mohamed Bouazizi, set fire to himself after officials stopped him selling vegetables in Sidi Bouzid. Around 300 people were killed during the subsequent unrest, which forced Ben Ali to resign in January 2011, after 23 years in power, and go into exile in Saudi Arabia. He was later sentenced to life in prison in absentia.
Not the Iraq war then? And ISIS? It came out of the Arab Spring and Syria. Again not from Iraq 2003.
It’s also interesting to hear all those Syrians and Iraqis who are proud of their countries and who intend to fight to keep them in one piece…..not a message the BBC likes, preferring instead to tell us that Sykes-Picot forced diverse ethnicities and religions unnaturally together, a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode…never mind the Ottoman Empire was constructed from all those various identities itself…and that the Arabs fought to create an Arab nation alongside the British against the Islamic Caliphate.
The BBC… which never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.
James Harding, the director of BBC news and current affairs, said: “Victoria has rightly won many awards for her ability to find the stories that matter in the lives of people in this country.
“We are very excited to bring her range of interests, determination to get to the bottom of the story, and her capacity to surprise, to a television audience.”
McDonnell interviewed the two Brits who were surprised to find an immigrant emerge from underneath their motorhome…and who promptly gave him a cup of tea, a sandwich and a banana.
To set the scene McDonnell wanted to give us a ‘a reminder of why immigrants are prepared to go to such lengths to get to Britain.’ I think you can see where she is going with this.
Naturally we hear tales of woe and a love for Britain, a desperate need to work and to live in such a lovely country where justice and law prevail and just how much they really want to contribute.
No doubt they wouldn’t dream of asking for the generous handouts available.
Back to the particular immigrant in question and McDonnell suggests that the couple were naturally scared but that fear soon turned to sympathy for the poor fellow’s plight….asking if they now had compassion for immigrants…he maybe sent back…how does that make you feel? she asks.
Indeed they did have sympathy…and then the husband said ‘….but of course this is a small country…can’t take ‘em all’
McDonnell suddenly didn’t want to talk to him and turned to the wife asking how she feels…unfortunately she gave the same answer…essentially ‘we can’t take ‘em all.’
Must have been a great disappointment to find two such sympathetic people, so obviously caring and generous…..and they turn out to be complete fascist nazi UKIP voting immigrant bashing little Englanders.
Have they learnt nothing from the years of BBC propaganda?
Just another sad little BBC attempt to tell us how hard life is in an immigrant’s home country and ipso facto how much he needs and deserves a home in the UK, to tell us how hard a journey he has had to get here…again how desperate he must be….and therefore clearly so deserving of a home for his trouble, and look, he loves Britain, he’s not a scrounger, he wants to work, he wants to be ‘British’…..how can you refuse to love him and find a place not only in your heart but in your home for him?
The message was clear….you might fear immigrants but once you get to know them you can only have sympathy….therefore let ‘em in, all of ‘em….numbers no object.
Shame the BBC doesn’t interview all those people who have had relatives killed by immigrants, or people who have been raped, robbed, burgled, pick-pocketed, credit card scammed, shoplifted or otherwise attacked and abused by them.
In the last ten years more people have been killed by immigrants in the UK than were killed on 7/7…how many more were otherwise victims of crime by immigrants?
Which is more dangerous, terrorism or open door immigration?
Both of which the BBC seems to support in its own way.
I can see why the BBC might find Islam attractive what with death for apostasy being a favoured way of dealing with critical ex-members of the cult.
Paxman is famously grumpy as he slowly grinds to a halt, and Paul Mason shows a distinct lack of loyalty as well…from The Spectator:
Former Newsnight correspondent Paul Mason seems rather happy to be free of Auntie, especially since the Scottish independence referendum campaign sent the establishment to panic stations: ‘Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there,’ he writes on his Facebook page, to the consternation of former colleagues. ‘It’s on my friends-only Facebook page so not meant as any great statement other than weariness,’ Mason tells Mr S, ‘it says what it says.’ Lucky, then that he is now at Channel Four News – that famed bastion of slant free news.
First of all we have to think up a really uncool name for them…To call them the Islamic State is just addressing them in the manner they want to be addressed and gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve.
Naturally they are ‘unIslamic’ but also barbaric, murderous and cruel terrorists…yes that’s right, terrorists.
Curious that when the BBC wants to defend ‘Islam’ anything that reflects badly upon the religion or community is deemed unIslamic, bad, mad or in this case terrorists.
Curious that when the BBC wants to attack Israel similar bad, mad, unIslamic ‘terrorists’ are described as ‘resisters’, militants heroically defending their land and people against a violent oppressor.
Campbell of course couldn’t make it through the programme without finding an excuse to bring Israel into the discussion. When someone suggested ISIS didn’t follow the norms of most states or international rules Campbell claimed that there would be thousands of people screaming at the radio asking ‘What about Israel?‘
Why Israel? Why Israel in particular when Russia has annexed the Crimea and has invaded the Ukraine, never mind its attempts on Georgia and Chechnya…never mind Syrian atrocities, or Iranian, or Pakistani?
Why does Nicky Campbell compare Israel to ISIS? Must be all those ‘undocumented’ settlements…sorry, illegal settlements. Again curious how illegal immigrants are welcomed to Britain by the BBC and yet Israeli ‘illegals’ in the West Bank are criminal war mongers.
At best this is Campbell trying to generate some cheap interest in his programme, trying to stimulate some controversy and argument by throwing Israel to the dogs. At worst he is demonising Israel and legitimising attacks upon it.
There are various pieties that politicians observe in the wake of some barbarity committed by Islamic fundamentalists and duly David Cameron observed them in his statement yesterday about the murder of David Haines. Of the perpetrators, he observed:
‘They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people – Christians, Muslims, minorities across Iraq and Syria. They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.’
I really wish he wouldn’t. It doesn’t add anything whatever to our understanding of Isis to say that they are not Muslims but monsters. They may not be our preferred kind of Muslims – my own preference is for the C of E sort you used to get in the former Yugoslavia – but they are, unquestionably Muslims of a particularly unattractive stamp. Calling them monsters is an impolite way of abnegating any effort to understand them.
BBC coverage of all things Israel is always cutting edge bias! I am aware that a rally had been organised to PROTEST against this but I understand thus has been moved. See below.
“Thank you to everyone who has contacted us about our rally to protest media bias against Israel. This is an incredibly important issue, especially in the wake of Operation Protective Edge.
Unfortunately, the date proposed for the rally coincides with that of the Scottish referendum, one of the biggest news stories of the year. As we have approached the date, many of our supporters have contacted us with their concerns that our rally would therefore not have the impact it deserves.
In light of this, we have taken the difficult decision to postpone the rally until after the referendum. We will be releasing details of the new date shortly.”
The SNP’s Jim Sillars made some astonishing threats to companies that didn’t promote the SNP pro-independence line:
The No camp fear mongering has had an effect on me – instead of retiring on 19th. September, I am staying in. This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
I have yet to hear a BBC interview that ripped into any SNP representative about this [I'm sure there must be one]….I heard Jon Pienaar having a friendly chat with Nicola Sturgeon yesterday when he allowed her to get away with dismissing the whole thing as the result of great passion and Sillars’ wife having died.
Never have I heard the BBC link other such examples of businesses being threatened by the SNP to back up claims of SNP bullying…..
SNP making ‘threatening phone calls’, say pro-Union businesses. This is sinister
As Scotland gets ready to vote on independence in September next year, one subject above all others prompts business leaders, entrepreneurs and bankers here to lower their voices and look over their shoulders to check that they are not being overheard. Ask them about the risks of breaking up the Union and it rapidly becomes apparent that they are terrified of getting caught speaking publicly about concerns, in case they are targeted for retribution by Alex Salmond’s nationalist administration which runs devolved Scotland. The climate of fear is extraordinary and quite sinister. There is the concern about incurring the wrath of SNP politicians, in terms of smear campaigns instigated in the Scottish parliament and publicised in the media.
Cameron accuses SNP of threats to business leaders over no vote
“A huge amount of pressure is being put on businesses by the Scottish government with all sorts of threats and warnings against speaking out and saying what they believe is the truth. I come across business leader after business leader – large and small in Scotland – who wants to keep our United Kingdom together and thinks it would be crazy to have border controls, different currencies and split up our successful United Kingdom. I urge them to speak out, talk with their work forces about the strength of our United Kingdom and then vote to keep it together.”
Makers of an episode of Channel 4′s Dispatches, which will air tonight, said they had been spoken to 19 businesses who were aware of threats of “retribution down the track” for those who opposed independence.
Gavin Hewitt, the former chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, told Channel 4 that he or his senior staff had met with Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, on at least six occasions over the past two years.
“He and the SNP have regularly tried to get the message to the Scotch Whisky Association that the Scotch whisky industry should stay out of the independence debate,” Hewitt told the programme.
It might be a good example of rounded journalism if the BBC were to make a bit of an effort and put all of these examples together and make a solid case against the SNP for its sinister, bullying tactics…this is the SNP who claim that an independent Scotland will be a fairer, more equal, more just place.
Presumably only if the SNP then get booted out at the next election.
Why? Because the BBC’s Nick Robinson actually did his job and asked an awkward question…one that Alex Salmond avoided answering…….the spineless Robinson then fell into line and meekly stated that Salmond had answered the question about tax…and note, Robinson has not since gone on to investigate the claims made by Salmond…which is a shame as they bear only a passing resemblance to the truth..but Salmond has Robinson on the run it seems…..
To all tweeting about me saying that @AlexSalmond did not answer me : He DID answer re RBS but did NOT re why trust him not company bosses
In fact Salmond’s ‘answer’ was a masterclass in evasion, bluster and bluff redirecting attention away from the issue and onto Salmond’s favourite subject…the persecution of the poor wee SNP by the bullying English in Westminster….playing the victim card to perfection.
If you watch the video near the end Robinson has to demand the answer again to the question about tax revenues and RBS…so clearly at that time he felt Salmond had not answered the question…..
And, to be clear, for all the outrage of Alex Salmond at what he sees as the politically motivated leaking by the Treasury of this migration south, he has known these were the banks’ respective intentions for months (because RBS, for one, told him).
We received complaints from viewers who felt Nick Robinson’s report on the Scottish First Minister’s press conference implied that Alex Salmond had not answered a question put to him
The BBC’s Political Editor Nick Robinson asked Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond two questions at his press conference on Thursday 11th September. The first question centred on the tax implications of RBS moving its legal headquarters to London; the second on why voters should trust a politician rather than businessmen.
Nick Robinson’s report showed the second question on trust, with a script line noting that Mr Salmond had not answered that point.
The BBC considers that the questions were valid and the overall report balanced and impartial, in line with our editorial guidelines.
Robinson asked if Salmond still believed there were no consequences resulting from businesses such as RBS moving to London, or did Salmond accept that tax revenues would go to London?
Salmond replied that corporation tax depends on economic activity not where your registered office is claiming that RBS’s and Lloyd’s registered office’s were merely brass plaques with no significance.
But that’s not true. The brass plaques represent the legal entity of the company.
The Banks are moving their legal entities from Scotland to England…..and as such would likely be under English tax jurisdiction….and Lloyds does have its head office in London but it is a Scottish company legally…and its subsidairy, The Bank of Scotland, has its HQ in Edinburgh…so that will move also…disengenuous of Salmond to dodge that….
The move will end more than 100 years of heritage for the Edinburgh based Bank of Scotland, which has its head office in St Andrew Square.
As part of such contingency planning, RBS believes that it would be necessary to re-domicile the Bank’s holding company and its primary rated operating entity (The Royal Bank of Scotland plc) to England.
The Guardian looks at businesses moving their head offices…although RBS and Lloyds aren’t moving for tax purposes such effects could happen by default…..
A corporate inversion occurs when a multinational group moves its notional head office, often for tax purposes, from its home jurisdiction to an overseas territory. The impact on operations is often minimal, with manufacturing activities and the markets in which it operates remaining unchanged.
However, combined with a web of crossborder transactions between companies owned by the same group, such inversions can play an important role in shifting profits within an international business to low-tax jurisdictions, boosting returns for shareholders.
Peston says he doesn’t know exactly what will happen tax wise and he is still trying to find out…so Salmond must have been blustering….
Banks and financial services firms have said they will move their tax headquarters, and in some cases part of their operations, to England in the event of a vote for Scottish independence.
Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group said they would “re-domicile” their main groups south of the border if there were a Yes vote.
Tesco Bank would also “re-domicile” in England, Clydesdale Bank would re-register as English, and TSB would also “re-domicile” parts of its business.
But what does that actually mean?
According to Patrick Stevens, tax policy director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation, large companies typically “re-domicile” to take advantage of perks offered by a particular country’s tax regime.
It’s helpful to think of a company having to have a “home” for tax purposes. To move that “home”, multinationals make a holding company tax resident in a particular country.
Like the outcome of the referendum itself, it’s very difficult to see what the eventual tax outcome will be.
However, one thing is certain: banks want to move their tax “homes” south as a backstop in the event of Scottish independence.
Salmond tried to mock Robinson by saying someone from the BBC should know that Lloyds has their head office in London…..but that’s semantics….the registered office is the one that pays the taxes.
Lloyds would relocate its registered office to where it currently has its head office – which is also London (naturally).
Salmond smirked and laughed off any suggestion that he couldn’t be sure about how much oil was in the Clair Field, and the SNP has been insistent in BBC interviews that it was enormous and would guarantee a massive windfall without the BBC challenging that assertion……
The development will produce about 640m barrels of oil over 40 years.
What does Salmond say one day later after the Robinson interview?
Is there a massive unreported oil field off Shetland under the Clair Ridge?
“There is a lot of suggestion.”
Is it credible suggestion?
“Oh yes, it’s credible. But can I confirm it? No. What I can tell you is many of my constituents believe this to be true.”
Are they misguided?
“Well, I don’t know. I can’t say for definite.”
Salmond claimed there must be a conspiracy between No10 and the businesses as they’d all had a chat with Cameron recently….unfortunately Salmond then went on to admit the company announcements weren’t news at all to the Scots, they’d known all along…indeed these businesses had announced these plans and commented on the consequences of Independence months earlier.
Finally Salmond refused to answer the question about the trustworthiness of politicians….he himself has his doubts….
This argument’s been won,” he carries on, “for the following reason: that the overwhelming majority of people want to keep the pound, and secondly they don’t believe the Westminster politicians.”
So all in all, Salmond gave an ‘answer’ but he didn’t say anything that could be relied upon. Many taxes will go to England as a result of the registered offices moving, The BBC did know that Lloyds had its head office in London. The oil field is big but nowhere near as productive as the Yes campaign claim….and Salmond now admits he can’t be sure at all. And of course politicians aren’t trusted anywhere…..all of which are the opposite of what Salmond claimed.
So no, Salmond didn’t answer either question and if Robinson had a bit more backbone he’d have tackled Salmond again, and again.
“Yes, absolutely,” he says. “Of course it is. The problem with Nick … I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like these folk, but they don’t realise they’re biased. It’s the unconscious bias which is the most extraordinary thing of all. If the BBC were covering, in my estimation, any referendum, in any democracy, anywhere in the world, they would cover it impeccably, in a balanced fashion.
“What they don’t understand is they’re players in this.”
He says BBC journalists from London are reporting old news as fresh out of ignorance.
This argument’s been won [of the currency debate],” he carries on, “for the following reason: that the overwhelming majority of people want to keep the pound, and secondly they don’t believe the Westminster politicians.”
Is there a massive unreported oil field off Shetland under the Clair Ridge?
“There is a lot of suggestion.”
Is it credible suggestion?
“Oh yes, it’s credible. But can I confirm it? No. What I can tell you is many of my constituents believe this to be true.”
Are they misguided?
“Well, I don’t know. I can’t say for definite
He’s always said the result would be a Yes. What about the scale of the victory?
“I’d be absolutely delighted with 50.1%. I do have something [greater] in mind but I’m going to leave it to the people.”
I wonder if he will be so accepting of a 50.1% No vote? Keep that statement in mind.
I’m just catching up on some emails and I thought this was one you may wish to engage with and help out on please.
“This petition to the BBC and BBC Trust could really be quite significant if gains momentum. I’m hoping for 10,000 signatures which will really make an impact even if the BBC doesn’t make the relatively small changes demanded/requested.
Did you see that BBC stalwart Nick Robinson has been at the receiving end of Chairman Salmond’s tongue? I feel a bit sorry for Robinson but then again the BBC pander too much to demagogues like Salmond little realising that he will devour them just as easily as anyone else who dares question his ways,
Alex Salmond has backed yes campaigners who staged an angry protest outside the BBC’s Scottish headquarters over perceived bias shown by the corporation’s political editor, Nick Robinson. The National Union of Journalists condemned attempts to intimidate journalists after Sunday’s protesters, objecting to what they regard as the BBC’s pro-union bias, said Robinson was a liar and called for him to be fired.
Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, said he did not want Robinson to be sacked and did not believe he was a liar. But he said the BBC had been unfair and unreasonable in the way it edited a tense exchange between Salmond and Robinson at a press conference on Thursday. Robinson was accused by the first minister of “heckling” after he pressed Salmond to answer further questions about the threat of Scotland-based banks to move their registered offices to London.”
In Alex Salmond’s brave new world, anyone asking any questions he deems unacceptable will be harassed and bullied and intimidated so on this occasion, I stand WITH the BBC. Forgive me!
The Telegraph reports curbs will be imposed on the Muslim Brotherhood due to its ties with armed groups and extremists…one of which of course is Hamas….
Britain to curb Muslim Brotherhood operations in London
Britain set to curtail Muslim Brotherhood activities and block activists coming to London after report finds ties with armed groups and extremists in Middle East and elsewhere
Britain is set to impose curbs on Muslim Brotherhood-linked organisations and block activists moving to London after a report by a senior diplomat raised concerns over the group’s links to extremists in the Middle East.
Critics of the movement accuse it of links to jihadist groups and of pursuing divisive sectarian politics that infringe the freedom of other religions and Islamic interpretations.
The BBC’s senior Middle East journalist misled the audience about the intentions and actions of one of the most influential Islamic fundamentalist groups not just in the Middle East but around the world, notably in America and here in the UK where we had the unedifying spectacle of the SNP cosying up to its members seeking to make them into SNP MSPs in a shameful example of betrayal in order to win the ‘ethnic vote’.
Possibly Bowen played down the Muslim Brotherhood’s extremism because of those close links to the UK…Tariq Ramadan after all is also closely tied to the MB and yet he is a favourite of the BBC who brings him on to reassure everyone that Islam is not only peaceful but can be reformed to make it progressive, liberal and tolerant…..Europeanising Islam he tells us, rather than Islamising Europe.
One hundred and sixteen K on Taxis....It's the unique way that they're funded, and obviously because they're worth it...Not! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763465/BBC-fire-taxi-bill-ferry-staff-Broadcasting-House-hits-115-000.html Dazed & Confused on NEW OPEN THREAD.... - Sep 20, 8:58 pm