I was listening to a “debate” on the FIFA scandal on the BBC this morning (it was on “Today” close to 9am and Barry Hearn was one of the interviewees but there is no link to share with you) and I heard the BBC presenter Evan Davies make the remarkable suggestion that given the concerns expressed regarding the integrity of FIFA, perhaps the UN or EU should be invited in to run it.

Great idea! After all, the EU is renowned for its financial transparency and we all know that the UN is the world’s highest moral guardian. You can always rely on the BBC to argue for one world governance but this one amused me given just how mad the suggestion is. Maybe Dominique Strauss Kahn could fill the supranational role the BBC suggests, I hear he is going to be at a bit of a  loose end?


Leftist agitprop fake charity Oxfam has been given the run of the BBC this morning to warn us of apocalyptic increases in food prices of up to 50% (odd nicely even statistic, btw) caused by “climate change” (They’ve obviously abandoned the global warming line formulation and are now using the more sophisticated but equally unfounded “climate change”) Who would have guessed that one of the cures for this was “to invest in small farmers, especially women.”? This dreary nonsense which Oxfam recycles with regularity is never robustly challenged on the BBC, instead like so much of its output it is spewed out as an article of toxic tree-hugging eco-lunatic faith.


It’s a consistent theme on the BBC – the demonisation of anyone deemed “posh”. Did you catch THIS discussion on whether or not it is right to be rude to posh people? For a hint on where the BBC may stand on this I direct you to the sarcastic introduction by John Humphyrs “I shall now attempt the impossible; I shall invite you to feel sorry for posh people.” Anyone with a decent command of the Queen’s English is, by BBC definition, “posh” and open to a little class warfare from the comrades.

More Than Meets The Eye

Here’s a tale about the BBC and its conjoined twin The Guardian being taken in by the same bit of Pali propaganda.
It seems Jacoub Odeh has been entertaining the gullible siblings.

“The fact that one Yacoub Odeh is the former Lifta resident guiding the BBC’s Wyre Davies and the Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood separately would suggest that this “tour” was a well-organized effort offered to the international media and eagerly picked up by those outlets sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative from 1948.”

The vindictive Israelis want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot on his former home. The remains of the Palestinian village of Lifta are the subject of a legal planning battle. To conserve or build? The BBC article portrays this as an example of Israel’s desire to obliterate precious Palestinian memories by their deliberately ruthless policy of expansionism.
The BBC reconfigures the 1948 war of intended annihilation of Israel by the Arabs, by using this peculiar phrase:

“It(Lifta’s) 3,000 residents were forced out or fled in fighting that erupted before the creation of Israel in 1948, which Palestinians view as the “nakba” or catastrophe. They were not allowed to move back.”

Fighting just “erupts,” you know, spontaneously, for no apparent reason. The emotive language leaves no-one in doubt about which side the BBC is on. Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian goes further, but then, they have no obligation to be impartial, although one would expect them to make an effort to be accurate.

For a more realistic overview, see here, and read the comments:

“As for the other question – well it is pretty clear that there are plenty of people intent upon making political capital out of places such as Lifta.
It is surely telling that their concern does not appear to extend equally to other sites such as the Jewish quarter in Hevron or the ancient 8th century synagogue in Gaza, let alone the Jewish burial ground in Tripoli which is now covered in concrete.”

There’s more to this story than meets the eye. The BBC’s eye anyway.


One of the key points of the BBC’s agenda about climate change (as David skilfully also points out in his post below) is the enthusiastic backing of the political, liberal elite/ruling class in their determined efforts to foist unwanted energy taxes on those who can’t afford them and in the steps towards world government. The tiresomely self-righteous actress Cate Blanchett, who can afford solar panels on her Sydney mansion (no doubt partly because of extensive government subsidies that benefit the rich) and who has forced Sydney Theatre Company “to go green”, is part of that noisome elite. And so BBC Australia correspondent Nick Bryant – who regularly recycles greenie claptrap with relish – here sees a big story in darling Cate’s fascist call for Australians to commit economic suicide by adopting Gillard’s hated carbon tax. The rest of the world may be seeing a glimmer of sense by finally rejecting renewal of the Kyoto protocol, but not Ms Blanchett. Mr Bryant, it is true, gives prominence to opponents of darling Cate’s elitist stance. But I think that veils his main purpose, which is contained in the carefully chosen words to explain why some Australians are resisting the tax:

The attacks on Cate Blanchett also reveal an instinctive suspicion of people in Australia perceived to be part of a cultural or educational elite – especially by the populist right.

That’s right, it’s those nasty “populist” right-wingers again. How dare they?

Ignorant US People Astonish Katty Kay

Check out Katty Kay – taking over for Matt Frei as alpha Beeboid at BBC World News America since he left for Channel 4 – telling Mayor Bloomberg of New York that she is “astonished” to learn that more and more people in the US are turning away from Warmism.

“What is it with the American public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence?”

Calm down, dear. Substitute any other political issue and the Beeboids are usually equally astonished by American public opinion. But never mind.

First of all, it’s not that the people don’t believe the climate changes. That’s BS Number One from the Warmists. Of course the climate changes; we all know that and it’s not in dispute. The question is whether or not it’s caused mostly by human activity. The science on that is being debated all the time, yet the BBC acts as if it’s not, and only whackos don’t get it.

The reason I call this BS #1 is that the very euphemism the Warmists have forced into the discussion – “Climate Change” – is disingenuous. What they all really mean is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The “science” of AGW, invented by people whose careers and fortune depend on it becoming fact, is what Katty is talking about, and not about whether or not the earth’s climate changes or was in a warming trend for a while. But because the Warmists have already won the argument – if you’re using their terminology, they’ve already won the argument, even if you’re still talking – Katty and the BBC can get away with saying that people like me don’t believe in “Global Warming” when in fact it’s that we don’t believe that building one more clean coal plant will sink the Maldives. The recent record cold temperatures around the US probably don’t help. But that’s only weather, yeah.

The reason they switched terms is because “Global Warming” can mean all things to all people. There is no cause or effect implied. Yet we know the BBC and all Warmists believe the cause is human activity, as the topic of this discussion between Kay and Bloomberg proves. As the term itself is dishonest, this BBC segment is dishonest and Katty and Mayor Mikey are dishonest for using the term.

Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is a committed Warmist and an über-Nanny Statist. Don’t even get me started on the behavior he’s banned against the wishes of New Yorkers. Hell, even the fact that he’s mayor right now is undemocratic, because he went against the voters – and his own promise – and twisted enough arms to change the term limit rules so he could buy a third election run for mayor a third time (and I speak as someone who happily voted for him the first time, knowing full well that he was a RINO Nanny). So this guy is the perfect example of an elite ruling class forcing his own personal wishes on a helpless public. No wonder the BBC wanted to talk to him. As soon as Bloomberg says “reduce consumption”, you know where he and the BBC stand. All your personal freedoms are belong to us.

I’m not going to bother getting into more details of Katty’s interview with the mayor, because it’s beyond the point. The BBC – as admitted by Jeremy Paxman in the sidebar – long ago took sides in the debate, and actively works to pursue a specific political agenda. Carbon emission regulations, coal plant permits, government subsidy/investment in various technologies, and the regulations for the entire automotive industry are all political issues. Even if we’re talking about seat belts in cars or helmets for motorcycles, creating a law about any of it is a political issue. No matter which side one is on, it’s done in the legislature by – in theory – democratically elected representatives, and these laws can be changed or repealed entirely by the next batch of democratically elected representatives if that’s what the voters want.

It doesn’t matter which side of the Warmism debate one is on. Legislation is political, full stop. The BBC always takes sides in this specific political issue, and deliberately chooses disingenuous language to support it. And as seen here, they do political advocacy posing as news and information.


Whether you prefer the term “ocean acidification” or the less compelling but more accurate “ocean de-alkalisation”, there’s little doubt that the addition of carbon dioxide to the seas threatens to change them fundamentally over the course of the century.

With his customary brilliant scientific insight and knowledge, Richard Black thus begins his latest blog and greenie sermon, which culminates in a cloud-cuckoo land plea that Micronesia climate nuts can force the abandonment of highly-sensible Czech plans to build coal-fired power stations in order to save shellfish from a preceived threat from the said acidification. You could not make it up; he’s hoping that political activism will stop all development of schemes that involve the use of fossil fuels.

Richard, in reaching these Mickey Mouse conclusions, claims that the science involved is “documented” (I think he means actually settled beyond further discussion) because the UN and the Royal Society have decreed it. This is his usual nicely-phrased but vicious two-fingered put-down of hated sceptics and deniers. As usual, too, he pays not one iota of attention to evidence that suggests a) that the science of so-called acidification is not settled and b) that inter-agency panels on climate change issues are invariably stuffed with eco-nuts whose sole aim is to reinforce their own prejudices and speed the manic drive towards world government.

There’s oodles of evidence that “acidification” or “de-alkalisation” is nothing more than yet another eco-nut fantasy, but Mr Black, as usual, prevents it as proven, undisputable fact.


The people of Wales don’t want windfarms and the associated forests of pylons. The economics of windfarms are those of the madhouse. But we now have a ruling class that – in greedy pursuit of their own self interest, energy taxes and subsidies, and driven by eco-potty ideology – are hell-bent on ruining the countryside of Wales. The people protest, the Welsh Assembly, aided an abetted by the Cleggerons, sticks two big fingers up at them. The BBC, as usual, busts a gut to make the protestors seem like unreasonable Luddites. Note the acres given to the government position – basically, that Welsh people have to put up with whatever is decreed in the mad pursuit of “renewables” – and the total absence of the arguments against these monstrosities. Such protests in Wales may not seem mainstream, but the drive to green energy is tyranny at its worst, and the BBC is totally complicit in the erosion of our fundamental rights.

Amnesty Again

Remember that meeting hosted by Amnesty? The one entitled Complicity in Oppression, Does the Media Aid Israel?
I mentioned the speakers, ex BBC Tim Llewellyn and the BBC’s resident Israel-bashing buddy, bulgy-eyed Abdul Bari (call me Barry) Atwan, Greg Philo and Victoria Brittain. Here’s Richard Millett’s review of what sounds like quite a night.
They brought up such tired old clichés – as though the audience hadn’t heard them a million times before. “But Hamas was democratically elected” “All political parties are completely and utterly dominated by the you-know-what lobby” etc. etc.
“The BBC waits in fear of phone calls from the Israelis” – I recall that laughable quote from Peter Oborne’s ridiculous television programme about the Jewish lobby.

Poor old ”Barry” Atwan complains that he’s not on the BBC enough. They seem to have dropped him on one occasion in favour of the likes of PM Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. (Jewish Lobby again.) Tim Llewellyn has gone off his rocker. He feels sorry for poor Jeremy Bowen, who’s obviously so constrained by the Zionists at the BBC. He’s not completely mad though. One thing he said sounds rather sane. “………… the BBC didn’t properly address his complaints. He referred to one response from the BBC as a “tendentious piece of garbage”.
The BBC is busy celebrating Amnesty’s 50th anniversary. BBC News 24 just interviewed one of its representatives, Dr. Champa Patel, most ingratiatingly. Apparently Dr. Patel works within the anti-racism and community development sector.
Physician, heal thyself.


Anyone catch “Any Questions” on the BBC this lunchtime? I listened to a few minutes of Saint Vince Cable playing to the loudly applauding audience by a/ Mocking Fox and Rupert Murdoch and b/ Pretending that “our” NHS must operate without those voracious reptiles from the Private Sector. Vince can rely on the BBC to at least try to keep his political career afloat.


A man waves goodbye to a passenger on a bus heading into Egypt at the Rafah crossing (28 May 2011)
The BBC seem pretty euphoric about the decision by the Egyptian military to open the Rafah crossing into Gaza. Naturally this is presented as the most benign and enlightened decision one could imagine. Israeli concerns are mentioned but presented as more begrudgery, in true BBC fashion. The fact that Hamas can now get much needed armaments more easily is dismissed as a mere detail as we are all asked to join in BBC praise for the alleged Arab Spring. I heard James Naughtie on Today this morning waxing lyrical about the new Egypt. No mentions of the gang rape of Lara Logan in Freedom Square, no mention of the emerging Nazi Party, no mention of the looming triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood. A secular-ish Egypt is morphing into a new Iran and the BBC can see nothing wrong in that – after all – if you hate Israel you can’t be all that bad, right?


Is the BBC news operation now simply the formal mouthpiece of a number of environmental activists? The WWF – probably the world’s wealthiest group of eco-fascists, swimming in billions of dollars of cash – is bellyaching that strawberry growing in Spain is a scandal. Don’t get me wrong; I am all in favour of sensible preservation of wetlands, and illegal water extraction can be a a menace. But this is more than that, it’s fervent, idealistic hate-the-farmer grandstanding. Never mind the 50,000 souls who depend on soft fruit growing; WWF has decreed they are wicked and it’s trying to stop them making a living. In fact, strawberry growing, it seems, is a greenie hornet’s nest of soul-searching about carbon footprints; here, a pair of intrepid investigative reporters at the Guardian have calaculated to the nearest ounce the respective “carbon footprints” of strawberries from Spain or Scotland. Golly gosh, how wonderful it is that they have so much time to pursue such vital public-interest stories.

The BBC, of course, is up to its neck in this activism and backs it to the hilt. Back in 2007, it was faithfully reporting the WWF eco-fascist efforts in Spain and printed virtually line-for-line its call for a boycott on buying strawberries. Yesterday, it re-visited the story, presenting exactly the same facts, in the same strident, one-sided way. Clearly, the original propaganda burst did not do the trick – and those pesky, selfish farmers are still trying to make a living.

Mark Mardell’s Crisis of Faith, Part III

BBC North America editor Mark Mardell has posted his summary and analysis of the President’s visitation to Ireland and England (not the UK, but England, as we’ll see in a moment). Poor Mardell has been questioning his faith in The Obamessiah for a few weeks now, ever since He decided to listen to reason become a reluctant warrior and finally get on board lead the attack on Libya from behind. Mardell was pretty open about his opinion of military action in previous posts, and is equally revealing here. But his ultimate disappointment is betrayed by the headline:

Obama’s historic speech fails to soar

Aw, poor dear. This isn’t objective analysis, but the expression of a disappointed fan when the latest project by his hero fails to live up to expectations. Mardell shows just how twisted his world view is, and his personal biases are as clear as ever. He certainly didn’t mention the bumbling errors the President made, like writing 2008 in the guest book or screwing up the toast to the Queen or acting like His Irish ancestor meant that He shared the British heritage. Or that He kept saying “England”, when it’s supposed to be Britain or the UK. Imagine if Bush had kept saying England like that, or done any of these things. The Beeboids would have led every programme with a laugh, across the spectrum of broadcasting.

Before getting into what disappointed him, though, Mardell spoke sympathetically about a colleague’s desire to share in this historic event:

I was talking to a colleague beforehand about the eternal tension for broadcast journalists, whether to watch such a speech from an edit suite – which can make practical sense when time is short – or live, which we would all prefer.

He complained: “I’m not going to tell my grandchildren I watched Obama from a cutting room!”

Surely this colleague is a Beeboid, or Mardell would have said he wasn’t, as this is so blatantly impartial. Sadly for the North America editor, the speech didn’t live up to his expectations, but I thought the “historic” bit was that it was The Obamessiah, and the first time a US President spoke at Westminster and not about the content of the speech. But Mardell shares in this worship, and sees nothing biased about his colleague’s attitude or in telling you about it.

So what did Mardell find wrong? Essentially, he felt that the President was too American for his tastes. Sure, he tried to make it sound as if the speech was incoherent, the logic poorly constructed. Have we ever heard Mardell say such a thing about His oration? Only when it’s a message he doesn’t like, like bombing Libya. Mardell does just what defenders of the indefensible accuse us of doing on this blog: complaining when the BBC reports something we don’t like, instead of making an objective case for what they did wrong. Read this bit, and then consider whether or not Mardell says anything further to support the statement:

But it didn’t quite work. It was flat and lacked soaring passion. That is part of the Obama conundrum. Sometimes this tremendous orator doesn’t pull it off. It is often when the argument is over-constructed and the raw emotion can’t burst through the stretched logic.

Nowhere does Mardell explain how the speech didn’t hold together, where the ideas expressed failed to connect into the wonderful whole he was looking for. Instead he complains about certain things the President said, and then reveals his own world view.

For example, the whole middle section of Mardell’s piece is simply laying out various central ideas of the speech. He points out how the President spoke of the historical foundations of the Magna Carta through to how the US and UK still stand for freedom of the individual without state oppression. The rights of liberty espoused by the US and the UK are, the President said, universal rights. This sounds suspiciously like the Bush Doctrine, and so it’s here where Mardell gets upset.

“The future of our children and grandchildren will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren are more prosperous and more free – from the beaches of Normandy to the Balkans to Benghazi. That is our interests and our ideals. And if we fail to meet that responsibility, who would take our place, and what kind of world would we pass on?”

Think about this statement for a moment. This is the kind of American exceptionalism that the BBC hates, the kind that the anti-Bush Leftoids in the US hate, but what most people in the US wanted to hear at last from the first post-American President. It also sounds pretty reasonable. But not to Mark Mardell.

That to me is the key sentence: “Who would take our place?”

He doesn’t spell it out, but it is a reminder many of the rising powers don’t value democracy and human rights. Those that do may not have the desire to promote them in the muscular way that Britain and America can and do – at the point of a gun.

There are two unbelievably biased and wrong-headed things in that last sentence. First of all, I’d like to ask Mardell which “rising powers” are going to promote democracy and human rights at all? I don’t mean which countries are trying to get it right at home, but which ones are, as the term “promote” implies, trying to spread it around and encourage it elsewhere in the world? It’s a fantasy, yet Mardell is ideologically wedded to pacifist isolationism, otherwise known as sticking your head in the sand and keeping it there while someone kicks you in the ass.

Second, and the most biased bit, is Mardell’s lazy sneer: “at the point of a gun”. He’s said it before, and used similar pejorative phrases, about military actions of which he doesn’t approve, and it’s a personal political view. He’s entitled to his opinion, but he is not, as the BBC North America editor, entitled to tell you what foreign policy is correct or not. Yet he does it over and over again.

Where’s the logic failure of the speech, then? How do the President’s points not cohere? Mardell is being dishonest here, either with himself or with his readers. It’s just that he doesn’t like it when his beloved Obamessiah displays attitudes which he finds distasteful: basic US attitudes.

Looking back on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, some won’t think that such a bad thing.

Some won’t, no. But he does anyway. And then we see Mardell’s heart close to breaking.

But here Mr Obama is nearer to a neo-con than the anti-war movement.

Shed a tear. My God, how can this be? I guess Mardell has been in denial for the past two years as the President ramped up two wars, expanded one of them into Pakistan while killing more people via drones than Bush ever dreamed of, and joined in a third war.

Mr Obama, who went on to talk about the strength of the UK and USA’s “patchwork heritage”, two nations based on values not ethnicity, can get away with this. From an old white man it would have sounded like colonial arrogance.

You know, perhaps it’s just me, but when I look at the President, I don’t see a black man first and foremost. I see a man. The color of His skin is about as relevant as His height or the fact that He’s left-handed. Meaning it’s not relevant at all here. It’s irrelevant to the content of His character or, in this case, His speech. Yet Mardell sees a black man first, and hears the words through that filter. Who’s the real racist here, Mark? Rev. Martin Luther King would be very disappointed.

Aside from that, why on earth would it sound like colonial arrogance to say that our shared values and strength are color-blind and universal? Well, here Mardell is extrapolating from that to the idea of bringing democracy to Libya “at the point of a gun”. When whites do it, I suppose, it’s colonialism. When a black man does it, it’s still wrong, according to Mardell, but not quite as wrong. Again, this is just Mardell’s personal bias against the military action against Libya. He’s entitled his personal opinion, but is not entitled to tell you how to think.

Mardell closes by repeating his earlier assertion that the speech didn’t work.

He got near to the heart of the argument about the way the USA and its allies behave in the world, but he didn’t quite make it all the way.

Which argument, Mark? The one the President was actually trying to make, or the one you wanted Him to? It sounded to me like the President was pretty clear about it all. It’s only unclear if one wanted to hear a totally different attitude.

This felt like an attempt to mix too many elements. Flattering Britain, promoting the essential relationship, American exceptionalism, Britain’s role in creating it, universal values.

So Mardell’s bias is pretty obvious. He just doesn’t like any of these things.

They were all there, but like oil and water stayed stubbornly apart.

Really, how so? What didn’t work? How? Mardell doesn’t ever bother to say. He just claims up front it didn’t work, and then repeats the claim at the end, with no substance offered in between to back it up.

It is perhaps the most important argument in the world today. I want to hear more.

No, Mark. You wanted to hear something else entirely.

One other thing wrong with all of Mardell’s reporting on the President’s visit – as well as that of the entire BBC staff, both on air and online – is that nobody dared express a concern about how inappropriate this campaign trip to an adoring audience of non-voters (for that’s what this was, if we’re honest) was while the Midwest has been battered by floods and tornadoes, with entire towns wiped off the face of the earth, with hundreds dead and hundreds more missing. Never mind the economic troubles He’s running from. Not a single Beeboid raised an eyebrow at this all week long. All out of blind worship of The Obamessiah come among them.


As the BBC constantly reminds us, it’s an era of public spending cuts and these nasty right-wing policies are allegedly hurting us all. Not, however, when it comes to tipping money down the drain on green schemes. Here the BBC doesn’t discuss the cost or impact at all – it instead routinely gives platforms for greenie zealots to pontificate why even more of our cash should be wasted.

NuLabour decreed back in 2009 that, despite the recession, at least £30m should be spent on providing charging points for electric cars – those inefficient, ugly CO2-guzzling death traps that only zealous eco-fanatics actually want. They are only being made because of the availability of huge manufacturing subsidies. Green-nut Boris Johnson, however, thinks they are a good idea, and he’s spending every penny of the available government subsidies on wheeling out thousands more charging points. True to form, the BBC mentions nothing at all about the cost, doesn’t take the opportunity to discuss the important (and only relevant) news point about the embarassingly low take-up of electric cars, and quotes a Green party member who predictably bellyaches that the shiny new points don’t use electricity from renewable energy. You couldn’t make it up.