The veterans of World War Two – and of D-DAY in particular – make us all feel humble. I guess there will be plenty like me who had a lump in the throat watching them remember their fallen comrades today. The best of British and an inspiration. And then, inevitably, there was Gordon.
Did you hear him being booed? God, that was awful. The BBC showed it but no commentary on why such a remarkable outpouring of anger would occur. And then, of course, there was “Obama beach”. Yes, I know it was a slip of the tongue anyone could make but even so, the BBC have let it pass. Imagine George W Bush had been there and made such a mistake – would the BBC have played that up? Would the BBC comedians have run with it for subsequent eons?
BROWN BOOED ON OBAMA BEACH…
Bookmark the permalink.
Gordon Brown's Mandingo moment?
Will the last person in Britain please turn the lights off
Some people seem to think it's a simple slip of the tongue. I think it's a frank glimpse of a mind which is mad. In Gordon's head, there are beaches with loads of Obamas frolicking around and laughing, playing with beachballs and splashing each other and whathaveyou. He needs urgent psychological help. Thank God he's not in a position of power of anything.
Whatever is it, it highlights the BBC's – and the wider MSM's – inherent left-wing bias. As DV quite rghtly says, if Dubya or any other lefty hate figure had said something similar it'd've been a rich vein of discussion on 'edgy' BBC political satire shows and equally 'edgy' BBC 'comedy' shows.
ugh
Thanks for the Singalongasash bit , brethern . That was last week , though , and I've just got my voice back .
I was watching the coverage of the D-Day commemoration on News 24 and the microphone suddenly stopped working when Brown appeared .
Was this when the booing started and , if so , can there be a clearer case of BBC bias ?
link to Brown's little slip of the tongue….
This guy is beyond a joke.
Unbelievable. The so called 'Newsnight special' is little more than a pro Brown political broadcast.
I was listening the World Service, but after the news they went to boring book discussion so I switched to the news on Five Live. They just talked about "Obama Beach". There was an audible gasp from the studio Beeboid when Mr. Brown said "Obama Beach". They also discussed the booing of Gordon Brown. It was apparently because he showed up an hour late, but most of the veterans were apparently pleased to see him.
Just before that John Piennar was not complimentary of Brown and his situation, and gave a good smackdown to a babbling, dissembling Brownite with a bad rhoticism. Andrew somebody?
Martin.
Yes, that 'Newsnight' special did give the impression that Britain is a one-party state (Labour).
Although Esler was provided with too much material to skim through in 30 minutes, and he spoke almost at Wark-speed gabble, Esler did mention some of the growing number of re-tread unelected new Labour Ministers/Advisers; the Kinnocks (husband and wife Europhiles) were not mentioned. Instead, the BBC had on the latest addition to Labour's democratic deficit, the non-elected Lord Adonis as Transport Minister, whose main qualification for the job seems to be that he's been travelling on trains quite a lot recently.
Brown should have been the last person to represent Britain on such a historic occasion after the way Brown and his dreadful party treated the Gurkha soldiers.
George R,
"Yes, that 'Newsnight' special did give the impression that Britain is a one-party state (Labour)."
So did today's 'PM' (Radio 4).
The substantial interviews were with Derek Simpson of the Unite union, Labour MP Paddy Tipping and – again – Lord Adonis.
This is bad enough but, astonishingly, all three of these Labour interviewees wanted Brown to stay.
How biased is that!
The theme of Obama's speech in Cairo was that the US must not use its military might, it must use diplomacy and seek international consensus.
That is him in a nutshell – an appeaser.
He then has the gall to turn up in Normandy, the biggest example of all of American military might being used to good effect.
Obama's appeasing, his vacillation eg over Iran and Korea, his moral equivocation – all this will simply have the effect of encouraging the bad guys who can see his weakness of will, his pussyfooting. President Pantywaist indeed.
"These are the young Americans who went thousands of miles and defeated the mightiest military empires ever unleashed against us".
Sacrifice and the Greatest Generation
I think booing your country's elected representative at a non-political event disgraceful, particularly when that event takes place outside your country's borders. The American principle that 'Politics stops at the water's edge' should apply here.
If I was a veteran attending that event I would be embarrassed at the rudeness and lack of respect for the occasion. By definition few of the veterans would be still capable of giving the booers a good clip over the ear but I bet many would have liked to.
Without in anyway disputing the BBC's pro Brown bias, had I been covering the event for them, I too would have left commentary on causes of crowd anger (or a loud minority) for some later date.
deegee: Sorry but many of the vets interviewed were close to tears that the Queen was not there (I don't mean Mandy either) as not only OUR head of state (McTwat is just a little fat jock shit who is mentally deranged) and a woman who served in WW2
The Queen wasn't there because the one eyed retard wanted this to be HIM with Obama (stuff the Liebour shits will use in the General Election)
Is there any video or audio of this booing, I can find none at the usual places.
NotaSheep,
FiveLive played audio of the booing and talked about it on the news just after 1AM your time. Might be available on the "Listen Again" feature.
Sky had it. Shocking.
This D-Day orgy is in very bad taste, in my opinion. Here's what's being celebrated: the bankrupting of the British Empire, the expansion of the Comunist one, the doomed experiment aka the State of Israel and the birth of the European Union.
Why didn't we just deal with Hitler in 1940 when we had the chance?!
Talking of Obama boobs, who can forget Pastor Manning: Obama, that's where you firt saw his name, on two great big old tits!
I thought you were leaving David? Good to see you hang around long past your sell-by date. Reminds me of a certain PM we are all stuck with for a while longer. In denial about how much harm he is unintentionally causing…..
Anonymous – nice link
I notice that Brown says that he is getting on with his "policies" oblivious to the fact that it is his policies that have sunk the Labour Party.
Let the BBC pretend as much as they like that it is "all down to the expenses scandel" – apparently unaware that he had been very unpopular before the Telegraph broke the scandel.
As for the "Obabma Beach" it is obvious to me that Brown does not think before he speaks – he was obviousley reading the next sentance in his speech while speaking another.
As someone has mentioned if this had been Bush the "right on comedians" employed by the BBC to spread left wing propaganda would be straight onto it – the BBC would also have had it as a leading story on their website.
Thanks for the good wishes, DickT.
I think you will find that unlike that unlike our unbeloved PM there is a certain majority approving of my presence here, for which I am grateful. However I am all for minorities so thanks for your contribution.
It is time to get very worried Gordon Brown is a very troubled man. Just look at the picture.
Anonymous
It is indeed. Funny how the BBC only see this as a Labour Party thing and nothing to do with Labours years of mismanging the country.
David – Well said – you must stay around.These are intererseting times and no one knows what the outcome will be. With a "leader" in total denial of his unpopularity – anything could happen.
"Thank God he's not in a position of power over anything."
Hands up those that still believe that the future of this country or indeed the world, would ever have been entrusted to someone like Brown.
Ok, it seems there remains many that need still more convincing.
The BBC and The rest of the MSM have many things in common, apart from being controlled by exactly the same set of people.
The main and most consistent one being the collective ability to convince the public that people like Brown, Clinton, Bush, Blair, Cameron and Obama actually control any more then there own personal breakfast menu.
Clinton, Blair and Cameron, are at least good performers who have obvious talent at something apart from just acting. However Brown, Bush and Obama could not get more then a walk on part in East-Enders, without paying a massive bribe.
The most important thing the BBC will never encourage, is any type of glance above lowly prime minister level.
The job of the BBC is convincing the unsuspecting public that we do actually live in a real democracy, and that ultimately the way we vote or not really does make any difference to anything at all, in the medium or long run.
Controlling the world is not easy, especially if you attempt to force people to do what you want. Forcing slaves to work is expensive and uses up a whole lot of expensive whips.
Far better and cheaper, if you simply subvert all sides of the political divide. Even better still if you yourself actually designed and created said political divide, in the first place. Plus of course personally own all of the main international news gathering agencies, ALL of the news-papers, and last but not at all least, all of the worlds state broadcasters including the BBC.
Then you control ALL political agendas, and so can very easily select the policies, and more importantly the ones which are enacted. Or just as importantly the ones which are seen to work well, and ones which are not.
As very clever, as it is not at all new.
Atlas shrugged
As for the BBC's seeming shirt-lifting passion for all things Obama.
I have made this point before, however it was such a profoundly brilliant one, that it simply had to be made again.
The BBC clearly loves Obama, but very obviously hated Bush. Being so obviously bias toward one particular party or individual is not only against the BBC's charter and stated ambitions, it is should be dangerous to the credibility of the BBC. Yet the BBC clearly does not give a flying …. what so called "evil right wingers," think about the BBC.
What makes the BBC so confident in its continued existence. This given the almost certain apparent coming of a landslide Conservative government?
I would bet the house on the fact that even if Cameron got over 80% of the popular vote and a commons majority of over 300 seats. That the BBC is as perfectly safe in Camerons hands as it was in Thatchers or Majors.
I have no doubt that the BBC knows it is. Which is perfectly shown by the BBC's current attitude to all things conservative.
Americans generally know, what we have known for a long time. That although in theory there is an important theoretical and ideological difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. In practice the difference is non existent, mainly because both parties are controlled by EXACTLY the same set of corporate interests groups.
Yet the BBC loves Obama and Clinton, but seems to hate with a personal passion, all things Republican. Notably strange, because where and when it suits the BBC it generally supports republicanism and repeatedly undermines democracy.
In short the BBC, does not seem to make logical sense. Yet the BBC does in reality make PERFECT SENSE, all of the time. You just have to know what the BBC actually is. Which is not in the slightest what the BBC would have us believe it is.
This is because the BBC is not supposed to make sense, as it is said to stand. It is there simply to control the minds of the general population. This so that the BBC can easily continue to make you and your fellow citizens perform like a bunch of vacuously confused sheeple, whenever its controllers wish.
This BBC love-in with Obama is a dead giveaway.
The BBC is not so much Bias.
The BBC is seriously and largely unwittingly, an establishment owned and TOTALLY controlled, corporatist socialist organization, that therefore IS IN ITSELF, and works for, extreme evil.
Oh my God, not the BBC as well.
Is there no institution sacred to you right wing morons? I would personally consider the BBC to by totally biased toward Cameron, but then again you people have screws loose.
No leader but …….
Nice bit of forum trolling there x
I ain't feeding ya
Ps my captcha is – trashipm !! Apt
Oh goody, another defender of the indefensible who can't actually argue a point but instead hurls insults.
It's always interesting to see which issues bring them out of the woodwork, and get the measure of the intellectual strength of these types.
How much more can this man take before he decides that the future is not all about him? Any normal person – even a politician – would have seen that there is little or no support and bowed out gracefully and with some class. What is going on in his head? Is he delusional? He should be humiliated. He should be ashamed. I am now beyond angry and deeply sad for my country.
How could Brown try to upstage Sarkozy by revealing plans to rename Utah Beach !!!!.
I too would have left commentary on causes of crowd anger (or a loud minority) for some later date.
10:00 PM, June 06, 2009
I fear I must disagree, if only logically. This is a piece of news, from a news-managed event, in a 24/7 news environment.
I don't think you can black out and only 'mention' a little bit of local difficulty when it suits subsequently. That is a very slippery slope.
No commentary was necessary for me though. The look on Mr. Brown's face, a now worryingly familiar manic, 'they are all the mad ones; not me, poor misguided fools' grin (appropriate considering the circumstances?) was eloquent enough. If a real ongoing concern.
"When you are 4 or 5 years old, and your parents and your grandparents tell you about this, it sticks with you," said Benoit Noel, 42, who helps administer a museum commemorating what happened on Utah Beach. "Everybody in Normandy remembers the landing. We know what the Americans did for us. We haven't forgotten."
In Normandy, gratitude is lasting – Washington Post
Brown knows he is unpopular enough without antagonising people further. He also knows full well that The Queen is generally popular.
Yet Brown studiously ignored the mounting trouble over the failure to invite The Queen to the D-Day event – he tried to blame it on the French, when it is obvious that he could have ensured an invitation. Another PR disaster – coming straight after the Ghurka disaster. In the Ghurkha disaster Brown acted only after a rebellion in his party in the Commons. On D-Day, he failed to act at all – it was left to Prince Charles (pretty unpopular) to try to dig Brown out of the mess he had made.
It is a measure of how sick people are of Brown generally that there was booing. If Brown had been riding high in the polls I doubt if the gaffe would have led to booing.
Another reason for Brown being unwelcome might be the perception that he has a clear record of astarving the UK armed forces of necessary funding.
Yes, the booing was a national disgrace, seen now around the world. In humiliating Brown the people who booed dragged Britain's reputation down. But if ever there was a demonstration of vox populi, that was it. The skirking lugubrious man deserves everything he gets.
Brown is a "smirking" not "skirking" lugubrious man.
But maybe he is a skirking fool ? – that sounds OK
JohnA said…
The theme of Obama's speech in Cairo was that the US must not use its military might, it must use diplomacy and seek international consensus.
In pursuit of that policy, so readily supported by the BBC, on the world service, Lyse Doucet gets moist interviewing counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen. Kilcullen states that al-Qaeda would collapse in areas of the world where the west have not stirred up the ants nest by poking it with a stick. Quick as a flash, the doleful Doucet suggests that one such place is London.
BBC's Jonny Dymond has just completed a 5 weeks' European propaganda jaunt of the E.U., at licencepayers' expense.
His pro-E.U. headline epitomises the BBC political line which we licencepayers subsidise:
"A toast to Europe's diversity".
('Europe webpage.)
His reports are all imbued with that BBC pro-E.U. political utopianism. While Dymond uses the word 'diversity' (a BBC code word for mass immigration, cultural relativism and dhimmitude), he does not refer to cultural and political conflicts within the E.U. populations, not to the growing 'apartheid' between different ethnic and religious groups. He talks of 'Brussels' without mentioning that the city it is already 25% Muslim. Dymond speaks in wishful-thinking language of 'diversity' without recognising the current opposition to this concept in the voting at the E.U. elections, such as in the Netherlands, and Britain.
Dymond in his propaganda finale, virtuallly says that to be opposed to the E.U. is to 'misread 1,000 years of history'. He certainly misreads history by making no reference to the Eurabia which is the E.U., and he omits reference to 1,400 years of Islamic imperialism, which continues apace.
The following is utter and complete BBC propaganda for the E.U.:
"The benefits of a unified Europe – peaceful, free and prosperous – are taken for granted very quickly these days. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe, that in my youth were a blank space in my mental map, will one day, sooner rather than later I hope, be as rich as their cousins to the west.
"The wild diversity of Europe's different countries and regions continues to thrive and prosper, despite the fears of some." "BBC's Dymond, BBC's pro-E.U candidate.)
In the meantime, the BBC doesn't report the following on the E.U. because it disturbs the BBC stealth project:
'Jihadwatch'-
"Sarkozy: 'The Islamization of Europe is inevitable'"
[Extract]:
"That's all right. Let Europe be conquered and subjugated. It's much more important to shun and vilify all those in Europe who are accused of being fascists or racists, however false the charges may be. It would be better for Europe to fall to jihad and Sharia.
"Of course I am being sarcastic, if it isn't obvious. Actual fascists and racists are abhorrent, and no one should make common cause with them. But the real threat to Europe is not from tiny fringes of genuine neo-Nazis and their ilk (genuine as opposed to those who are falsely accused of being in this camp), and there is no real danger of anyone making common cause with such people anyway. The real threat is from the Islamic jihad, which proceeds apace to encroach upon European liberties — the freedom of speech, the equality of rights of all people before the law — while some stand by, effectively indifferent to that jihad, and instead direct their energies to defaming decent people who are trying to do something to resist its advance." ('Jihadwatch' 6 June.)
Just listened to b/h on radio 4 and am totally shocked as they just spouted that gordon is a Colossus striding the world and linked him with shakespeare's Ceasar !.w.t.f.
Off topic I know but i think it's relevant to BBC bias.
Lord Mandy's emails released today are very critical of Brown – and accurate. They entirely back up the account given by George Osborne of what Mandy told him at the dinner they had in Greece during the summer. The BBC were obsessively interested in Osborne and very critical of him over this. Do you think anyone will resurrect this issue and look at whether Osborne was right?
Sarkozy only wanted Obama there, likewise Brown only went for the photo opportunity. (managed to take his wife even if not the woman who should have been there to represent great britain) The booing was well deserved, and for our unelected leader to prattle on about veterans saving our freedoms (which he and his chums have spent 12 years increasingly trying to take away) was a true pass the sick bag moment.
Will2000
Yes that Lyse Doucet interview was really bad. She was talking to a guy who seems to have real expertise – but all the time she was fishing for answers to match her appeasing views on Islamists.
And her throwaway remark on London was amazing – she seemed to be suggesting that there is only trouble with some nutters in London because we antagonise them, stir up their hatred.
Doucet is one of the top half-dozen BBC presenters who are utterly anti-the West.
And she certainly did not like the expert's view that the way to deal with terrorists is to isolate them, find them, kill them.
For once, I find myself in disagreement with JohnA. I don't think the booing was a national disgrace.
On the contrary, I think it demonstrated that we still have a spine – something many foreigners (especially in the USA) seem unsure of.
The BBC's reluctance to give the veterans' reaction the prominence it deserves betrays both the inexperience of their journalists and producers and the depth of their contempt for the people of this country and their desire to shake off this tenth rate prime minister.
Talking about appeasers – this critique of Obama's Cairo speech gives a long list of how weak he is towards Islamist terrorism and the so-called "Muslim world" :
http://tinyurl.com/m8qprg
Obama and his team appear to be ready to do a Chamberlain-style deal on Israel. "A quarrel in a far-away country". Using the same basic argument as Chamberlain – ditch the small country in favour of some false notion about achieving wider peace – "Obama's Arabian Dreams".
GCooper
Maybe the booing was a national embarassment – rather than a disgrace.
But an embarassment provoked by Brown's disgraceful behaviour in not ensuring an invitation for The Queen – which had already been widely publicised in the US and elsewhere.
JohnA – yes, I'd agree with that.
The one thing that seems sure is that the incident entirely wrong-footed the BBC's crew. They simply did not know how to handle something as spontaneously off-message.
Putting it up online now (which they have) is less a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, than only now getting round to building the blessed stable.
But an embarassment provoked by Brown's disgraceful behaviour in not ensuring an invitation for The Queen
ITV News last night attributed the booing to Brown's general political problems rather than relating to the Queen, which was unfortunate for those in the audience whose only information came from ITV.
Can we have a new open thread, please?