Go Ahead, Make My Day

Here’s Clint Eastwood’s performance at the RNC, soon to be considered a classic. A bit wobbly, but still pretty funny.

Will it change anything? I doubt it. I can’t see any worshipers switching sides because of this. But it does give a morale boost, and every little helps. I generally hate celebrities using their fame to push political ideology, and I’d feel that way about this appearance except that Eastwood at least spent a couple years as mayor of Carmel, CA. He ran for office and everything. A small thing, sure, but better than the rest of the Hollywood luvvies. It was apparently too mind-numbingly grinding for him to deal with his wealthy neighbors and their petty zoning squabbles, so he didn’t seek a second term. But he has at least that experience, a little bit of credibility, which none of the Obamessiah-worshiping celebs do.

However, I was momentarily taken aback by Eastwood’s harsh swipe at the war in Afghanistan. The current President didn’t start it, so it can only be taken really as a criticism of the whole war, which means of Bush. Maybe I’m the only one who took it that way, and even some – not most – in the audience laughed. But it sure sounded like he was criticizing the war in total with that dig about the Russians being there for 10 years. None of the punditocracy seems to have noticed, not that I’ve seen yet, anyway.

Other than that, it was very cutting, not at all kind to the President. Beeboids probably burning any Eastwood DVDs they own right about now.

May as well make this a thread for discussion of the BBC’s attacks on the convention in general, so I’ll also point out that once again the BBC went for a Left-wing, partisan voice for their “Viewpoint” piece. The same one as last time, actually: P.J. Crowley. He was previously asked by the BBC to come up with several biased foreign policy questions for the Republican candidates. Crowley’s latest contribution is equally biased, insulting “neo-conservatives who want to save the world”. Much worse is his telling the outright lie that criticism of the President’s job performance is “about style more than substance”. That’s an unbelievable lie. What was the criticism of ObamaCare and the Stimulus and Solyndra and caving to the Russians and China, to name just a handful of examples? That was all criticism about specific policies, and not about how the President appeared detached, or was too cool, or any of that BS. But fits right in with the BBC viewpoint: there can be no legitimate criticism of Him and His Word.

Wake me up when the BBC asks someone from even slightly right of center to write any Viewpoint piece on any topic.

Please feel free to add critiques of other BBC output about the convention to this thread.

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


There comes a time in every successful criminal’s ‘career’ when, after evading Plod with ease for a long time, they become complacent, arrogant, cocky….careless…of course not being caught means they stay in the shadows…they get no recogniton, fame or infamy.  For some this ‘fame’ is undoubtedly a draw, a factor in the game….so much so that they start to tease the police, tempting them to catch them…almost wishing to be caught.

Richard Black has reached this stage in his career….having given years of diligent service in the cause of promoting AGW to a sceptical world he gets ever more obvious and determined to push the pro-warming agenda seemingly regardless of any requirements for truth.  This of course is not a crime…no hang on….it might well be….the BBC is by law required to be accurate, fair, impartial and balanced in its reporting.

This is his latest tour de force…it’s a clever piece…obvious in its bias only if you know what Black’s intentions are and the background to his comments.

It is in essence merely a vehicle to support pro-global warming scientists whilst discrediting sceptics. 

The scientists..Muller and Hansen have been roundly discredited before…Muller’s BEST research even failed to get the backing of a scientist who worked on the project saying ‘that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.’…..whereas Black claims… ‘ it proves ‘sceptics’ were wrong about denying AGW’……. and the BBC later blatantly lied about Muller when he claimed he had once been a sceptic but had ‘seen the light’ and was now a fully converted believer in man made global warming….Muller was always a pro-warmer.


Black wants to talk about the role of formal scientific processes in climate science.

Muller released his ‘research’ without peer review…and so it is untested…..apparently this is the method used in String Theory science…..let’s have a look at what a scientist has to say about the inner workings of String Theory research:

‘In 2008 Physicist Lee Smolin’s book ‘The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next’ was published.

What he had to say about the way science worked and how ideas and theories were produced and then supported regardless of reality was a stinging rebuke to those people who jump on a bandwagon and base their career and funding on the ‘truth’ of that idea….if the idea is discredited so are they, and the funding dries up…..

Here is what he says about String Theory and its proponents….

‘….with a cry of joy, most of these scientists seized on string theory as the answer. But their enthusiasm was such that they came to think not that it might be the answer, but that it must be. They formed themselves into a cult. Dissenters and apostates were not just scorned, they were denied posts in universities. Einstein the thinker could not now get a job in any leading physics department. For any young physicist, it was easiest simply to suppress one‘s doubts and go with the stringies.


Does that remind you of any scientific environment now?   Any Consensus?


Black is supposedly using Muller and Hansen’s ‘research’ as examples of how such research is transmitted to the public and how it is perceived….the reality is that Black is purely trying to push their ideas forward yet again as ‘real science’ that is trustworthy and done by ‘real scientists’….unlike the sceptics who of course are totally unqualified….or mad…or maybe even Nazis.

Here are a couple of lines from Black which are somewhat out of place in a BBC news report…..just too ‘personal’……

‘Rarely if ever have I seen a published scientific paper that states the rationale for its existence so baldly in terms of public perception.’

‘The original BEST study particularly got up the nose of meteorologist turned sceptic blogger Anthony Watts.’


Note the ‘meteorologist turned sceptic blogger’ dismissive tone.


Black goes on to tell us some scientific journals have a ‘politicised slant’ on issues….but what does he choose?  A ‘sceptical’ journal and…..a ‘loony’ creationist journal…an obvious attempt to damn by association:

‘Peer review is far from perfect – especially in a politicised arena such as climate science where some journals exist with a specific, directed slant on the issue.

Energy and Environment, for example, proclaims itself “a forum for more sceptical analyses of ‘climate change'”.

Creationists have attempted to clothe themselves in scientific garb down the years by establishing publications designed to look and feel like scientific journals…..The Journal of Creation.’


Black saves the best slur, or is that BEST, till last…..

‘You can create a parallel world where it isn’t, if you really try.’


Ahhh…that’s it then…the sceptics live in a little world of their own, one they’ve made up?


The only person living in a world of their own is Black….a world that hasn’t ‘warmed’ for over a decade….as proven by ‘BEST’ itself…..

‘Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
A report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’


It is astonishing really that Black is still employed by the BBC.  He is so far from the requirements of a BBC journalist that somebody somewhere in the bowels of the BBC must have noticed he isn’t up to scratch.

Black clearly has not the slightest problem or qualm about twisting the truth nor  any conscience in trying to smear and blacken climate change sceptic’s characters and scientific qualifications.

He is engaged in propaganda against sceptics and for that reason he should be out on his backside looking for a job at the Guardian….or UFO’s Weekly.




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

What Is The Purpose Of Life? Plastic, The Earth Needs Plastic

Now we’ve had a comedy programme showing us the softer side of  Muslims perhaps the BBC will do the same for climate change sceptics who get a rough Press.

Perhaps they could just show this.

Black & Co have a history of trying to discredit climate change sceptics…claiming they are in the pay of big business or influenced by rightwing news papers, that they are nazis, or were abused in their childhood and have a  lack of human empathy.

A quote from one of Black’s efforts to malign sceptics:

“I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood”.

 Is this an orchestrated campaign?  You bet your ass it is. 

‘BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

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

Currying The Khan For Multiculturalism

 BBC have disinterred Alf Garnett  and made him Muslim for a laugh…’rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity’ no doubt!

Citizen Khan:

‘The first in this new family-based sitcom set in the capital of British Pakistan – Sparkhill, Birmingham.’

Citizen Khan seems to have stirred up a few things…possibly not how the BBC intended….‘Viewers say the programme ‘takes the mickey out of Islam’ and is guilty of ‘stereotypes about Asians’

It is possible that the goodly souls at the BBC, or at least the Muslim writer, intended to nudge such reactionary figures into the modern, multi-cultural world rather than live in a ‘British Pakistani’ ghetto even if it’s just in the mentality. (Though their reaction….see below…‘This is not Islam, this is war! ….may not be the desired on)

It is almost certain the main target was non-Muslims….‘Look, says the BBC, ‘here are a Muslim family having the same problems as you, living a similar life…and look…no one is being beheaded or stoned to death’

Muslims are not ‘aliens’, they’re just like you…do not be afraid.

Just to reinforce the point they have parachuted in a white convert as Mosque manager, ‘Dave’, in the programme (and played strangely enough as if he was a classic TV English vicar)…..using Kris Marshall (Nick from ‘My Family’) as the convert….a friendly, well known face to drive home the ‘friendliness’ of Islam?

Propaganda? Possibly….Muslim families are like everyone else…and Islam is so popular even white people like nice ‘Nick’ want to convert.

However a slight give away is that Dave/Nick/Kriss is given the line…‘We are all born Muslim’….regardless of whether you are actually Christian, Jewish or of any other faith.

This is classic Muslim fundamentalist propaganda…it is the line that Muslim extremists use….any radio phone-in or programme about these extremists and you will hear them refer to converts as ‘reverts’…i.e. they have always been Muslim but were ‘lost’ for a while.

Insulting and possibly dangerous stuff to be peddling on the BBC.

However the putting all that aside it is funny…and if it upsets fundamentalist Muslims all good.


Just remember…..

Jesus was English,  God is Church of England


This came from one of the comments….No link for the original forum or wherever it came from but looks genuine enough, so much for tolerance and diversity…the Religion of Peace, bless ’em:

 O Muslims! who witnessed the mockery of Islam on ‘Citizen Khan’ on BBC One Please put a complaint in to BBC now it’s our duty as Muslims to do so :

Follow the below steps.:

1) Go on t: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
2) Click ‘Make a complaint’
3) Ye’
4) ‘Television
5) BBC One
6) Citizen Khan
7) 27/08/2012
8) When it was actually broadcast
9) 22.20
10) Offence
11) No
12) ‘Insults, ridicules Islam. Unfair portryal.
13) In regards to the new comedy series titled ‘Citizen Khan’ i would like to make a formal complaint. Myself and many other Muslims feel disrespected by the sayings and doings throughout the show.
We as Muslims witnessed the show is mocking our Holy Book ‘Quran’ and also the Place of worship ‘Mosque’. The whole show is constantly mocking either the pakistani culture or the religion Islam.
The images put into non-pakistanis or non-muslims about either us Pakistanis or muslims in all are the wrong images which upset us as proud pakistanis and muslims.

We feel though as if this show has crossed the line and we expected a comedy show but now we have witnessed a mocking show. We will not accept this to continue for much longer as it is utterly unacceptable.
We would like you to take what we have said in this letter on board and understand what it means to us British Muslims to have to watch a show that is continuously Mocking Muslims and Pakistanis. We would like to kindly request you that this Comedy Series is either stopped or taken back to the drawing board to fix all this mockery.

14) Yes
15) Fill in your contact details
16) Select where you live
17 UK users ONLY fill in half of postcode
18) Go to review & submint


If i was you i would stay away from BBC as much as possible, it is run by big zionists, mainly jews and indians work for em, and also the public should not even have to pay for TV Licence as it is a zionist scam = fraud which public is blind to loooooooooool


Obviously most modern media is controlled by the Jews.





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

Katty Kay Spreads Unsubstantiated Rumors Of Racism (Later Substantiated)

Look that the garbage Katty Kay is reduced to (re)tweeting, because she apparently has nothing of substance to say about the Republican National Convention last night:


“Allegedly”. It’s from the far-Left (naturally, as Katty retweets little else) Talking Points Memo. It’s just a claim, no video, no proof. But the BBC’s Washington correspondent, anchor of BBC World News America, and well-paid representative of the BBC on shows like “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and as regular guest host for NPR’s Diane Rehm show, has no problem spreading this as yet unsubstantiated rumor. Because it suits her agenda and biased worldview.

UPDATE: It’s substantiated now. RNC staff admit what happened, and the BBC has rushed to report it. The offenders were tossed immediately. Of course, in the interests of “balance”, the BBC finally mentioned the existence of Mia Love. Having now done the bare minimum, they still refused to tell you about the great reception she received, or that today she’s the top search query on Google. BBC very much not with the news trends on this one. I wonder why? Artur Davis’s appearance is still being censored from BBC output.

What’s most disgusting about what Katty’s done here is that it distracts from something the BBC seems to have overlooked in their coverage of the RNC: Mayor of Saratoga Springs and candidate for the House from Utah, Mia Love, gave a speech which received a rousing reception.



Anybody think the crowd was filled with racists? Not only that, but Artur Davis, The Obamessiah’s 2008 campaign co-chair, also spoke last night. No reports of monkey chants or anything. Yet Katty Kay wants to help spread rumors to make you think Republicans are racist. Even if it’s just one lone idiot doing it, Katty wants to discredit the entire Party.

This is not professional behavior, but sadly is what we’ve come to expect from her. Keep in mind that, unlike the other Beeboid twitterers we like to bust for bias here, Katty’s page is an official, BBC-sanctioned account, with logo and everything. There is no “views my own” get-out-of-bias-free disclaimer here. This is not the out-of-school, anything goes, stuff which BBC management has decided is outside their jurisdiction. This is a BBC-sanctioned Twitter account, and Katty is officially representing the the BBC here.

UPDATE: Funny how Katty isn’t tweeting about how some lovely Democrats defaced Mia Love’s Wikipedia page by calling her a dirty, worthless whore’ and ‘House Nigger’. (screenshot of the offending text at the link). Wikipedia has since sent it down the memory hole, but you can still see the evidence that there was an offensive edit they had to fix. But Katty’s interested only in spreading rumors harmful to Republicans, not real evidence of acts that make Democrats look bad.

Come to think of it, where are the mentions of Mia Love or Artur Davis in the BBC reports about last night’s convention launch? Nothing from Mardell, nothing in the pictures the BBC posted, nothing from Mark Mardell, nothing in the video clips. It’s like it didn’t happen. Which, of course, is the impression the BBC wants you to have.

Apparently, their fellow travelers at MSNBC cut back to the studio for commentary when Love and Davis took to the podium, so their audiences weren’t allowed to see them. Does anyone know if the BBC did the same thing during their broadcast? Do BBC audiences have any idea that they even exist?

Considering just how much effort has been spent – by Democrats and their supporters in the media, especially including the BBC – over the last five years (I’m including the 2008 election campaign here) trying to tell you that any opposition to The Obamessiah is based on racism, one might think it’s a big deal that Love and Davis both spoke at the national convention. At least the BBC could have mentioned them just to sneer at such blatant tokenism, right?

Please, defenders of the indefensible, at least show me evidence that the BBC didn’t censor these people’s presence entirely. The BBC wouldn’t be so dishonest, would they?

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

Clean Energy, Dirty Money

The BBC has made it their mission in life to seek out corporate corruption, greed and vested interests lining their pockets at tax payer’s expense….Coca Cola, McDonalds, G4S all being recent targets of the BBC’s anti-capitalist outrage, never mind bankers and oil companies.

Richard Black was very eager to ‘expose’ the Heartland Institute’s finances when he thought they were dodgy, or he could represent them as such.   Black went to town on the Institute smearing them as far as he could….unfortunately for him most of it was rubbish…and Black was forced to admit it…though only by pressure from the Public who made him admit that the Heartland documents were stolen…however he still omitted to reveal that the central document was actually a forgery.  Why? Because of course Heartland publishes sceptical reports on climate change. A crime in the BBC book.

However Black and the BBC are utterly silent when, as mentioned before, a Tory MP is shown to have massive vested interests in promoting pro-climate change legislation and industrial policy…that MP being Tim Yeo….not to mention Lord Deben (AKA John Gummer).

The money swirling around is astonishing…and of course most of it comes from government subsidies at the end of the day to green industries that are not paying their way.

Christopher Booker in the Telegraph and Guido have related the whole sorry saga…..you cannot fail to think that this is entirely wrong…that two of the most influential men in the government in relation to climate change are also in a position to make large sums of money from decisions they themselves make in altering government energy policy.

Curious indeed how silent the BBC remain months after this story first surfaced….not to mention that Cameron’s father-in-law makes £1000 per day from wind farms on his land…at any other time the BBC would be raining hell upon him and his son-in-law.

It seems that the BBC’s commitment to the uptake of renewable energy and climate change propaganda means that they subsume all journalistic principles and corrupt themselves in order to prevent any awkward questions being asked about just exactly where all the money is going and who is benefiting.

Yeo may say he has declared some of these interests…but that didn’t stop the BBC going to town on Jeremy Hunt for his belief that the BSkyB bid should be allowed to go ahead before he was put in charge of the decision making process.  And of course Hunt was not making up to £200,000 per year out of his declared interest.

As Guido says: ‘Given that Yeo makes over £100,000 each year from private green investments, using his role to lobby on behalf of the industry for subsidies represents a serious conflict of interest. This is the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee. Replace the words “green” with “oil”…

Unprincipled, Unscrupulous, venal, corrupt?

The ends justify the means.

Here are a few links to Booker and Guido:







These are some more extremely interesting stories about the effect that adopting renewable energy solutions is having upon German industry and just how effective wind farms really are (Needless to say they are not on the BBC):

Germany’s new “renewable” energy policy

‘It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.

In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.

He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.

Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany.’


Energy Revolution Hiccups Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling for Solutions 

Sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn’t deal with the issues fast.

It was 3 a.m. on a Wednesday when the machines suddenly ground to a halt at Hydro Aluminium in Hamburg. The rolling mill’s highly sensitive monitor stopped production so abruptly that the aluminum belts snagged. They hit the machines and destroyed a piece of the mill. The reason: The voltage off the electricity grid weakened for just a millisecond.

Workers had to free half-finished aluminum rolls from the machines, and several hours passed before they could be restarted. The damage to the machines cost some €10,000 ($12,300).

In the following three weeks, the voltage weakened at the Hamburg factory two more times, each time for a fraction of second. Since the machines were on a production break both times, there was no damage. Still, the company invested €150,000 to set up its own emergency power supply, using batteries, to protect itself from future damages.

“It could have affected us again in the middle of production and even led to a fire,” said plant manager Axel Brand. “That would have been really expensive.”

Ambitious Goals

At other industrial companies, executives at the highest levels are also thinking about freeing themselves from Germany’s electricity grid to cushion the consequences of the country’s transition to renewable energy.


byBishop Hill 

Wind produces more CO2 than gas – the numbers

Ever since Gordon Hughes’ report noted that wind power was more likely to produce more carbon dioxide emissions than gas, I have been looking for the figures behind the claim. In the comments, someone has now posted some details that seem to meet the bill. Although these are not Hughes’ own numbers -they were submitted in evidence to Parliament by an engineer – I assume they are similar.


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

Random Thought

Remember that 11 year  old boy who managed to evade security and check-in at Manchester and board an aircraft…remember how ‘shocked’ the BBC et al were?

Funny how completely unshocked they are when illegal immigrants from very  dodgy parts of the world slip in here and make themselves at home.


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

Mardell Just Can’t Help It

It seems from David’s post that Mardell is having a bad day…or I suppose a normal one for him.

Talking about the Republican Convention Mardell of course uses it as an excuse to talk about Thatcher…sorry force of habit…Thatcher always gets the blame…no, Bush of course, and Hurricane Katrina.

Apparently it was the Republican’s ‘callous incompetence’ that Mardell wanted to highlight.

Funny…I thought it was Mayor Nagin’s total incompetence that resulted in unnecessary death and suffering.

But then of course he’s black, and a Democrat, so BBC SOP…look away, blame the white guy…especially if he’s Republican.

The BBC made highly inflammatory claims of racism on the part of the Republican administration…despite the fact that most of the victims were white.

The BBC’s Gavin Hewitt decided he was ‘outraged’ by events…

‘Running through the coverage of Katrina, like an electric current, was outrage. It is an emotion that stands out in television coverage because it is rare. Most reporters shy away from letting their emotions show.

As we left the house I did a piece to camera off the top of my head. I said, “It seems incredible to me that we are the only boat in the neighbourhood …” There was an immediate note of outrage. It was not planned. It just felt right. It was difficult to understand that we were the only rescue team in an area with so many needs.

We all felt a sense of outrage, that this should not be happening.

Outrage is at its most effective when it is based on compassion; the sense that one is speaking out on behalf of ordinary people. The tone of the reporting of Katrina stood out. A moment when correspondents had the confidence to express outrage at what they saw happening around them.’

It is at times like that when the supposed professionalism of a journalist should kick in….who was Hewitt to judge what was really going on, who was he to say it was outrageous?

The hurricane damage covered an area the size of the UK…no matter how rich a country is that’s a big, big job.  Naturally it was also used to bash Bush for going into Iraq…no opportunity is too small or fleeting to miss….if he hadn’t started that illegal war he would have had troops to deal with the disaster at home…I guess the Republicans just don’t have second sight…or as Mardell might say ‘Obama’s VISION’…shame that unlike the BBC they can’t tell what the weather is going to do 2 years ahead.

Just when does the ‘right’ to be outraged stop for a journalist?  If someone you don’t like gets elected do you start giving your personal opinion…because that’s all it is…and that’s all Hewitt’s ‘outraged’ report from New Orleans was.

If London flooded now and Boris Johnson abandoned the population to its fate you can bet your bottom dollar the BBC would hound him to the ends of the earth…and if Miliband was PM (LOL)…he would get away Scot free.

Think not?  Bush said he didn’t land at any emergency sites because  he didn’t want to get in the way with a Presidential entourage, the BBC damned him for it.

However when John Prescott didn’t visit Hull when it flooded what did John Humphrys say?….‘They don’t want visits from important people they want things done’

And suddenly Kanye West was very popular with the chatterati of the BBC ….though most had never heard of him in all likelihood….only when he said Bush was a racist did the BBC send out the invitations to make a few personal appearances and hang on his every word.

All in all the BBC’s coverage of Katrina was abysmal, partisan, unprofessional and malicious in intent. 


 And Gavin Hewitt by coincidence today seems to continue his invention of  new historical narratives….he has invented a new catch phrase for Europe..or rather the countries that are having to apply austerity measures…they are in a ‘cycle of decline’….the austerity driving them ever closer to economic armageddon…..no reflection of the British economy of course….odd how often the BBC malign ‘austerity’ in Europe but you know they are really intending you apply the unspoken message that austerity here is also dooming us to the poor house.

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

Mark Mardell Inadvertently Exposes Himself And His Colleagues

I apologize in advance for any unpleasant images that title may have evoked. As most people here will know, I’m wont to complain about how Mardell is little more than a British mouthpiece for the White House Press Office. I’ve written at length about how this or that report or blogpost from him is supporting the President’s cause, spouting White House talking points, etc.

This time, though, it’s Mardell himself explaining what the White House talking points are. And it doesn’t take much to see how he and his BBC colleagues are in lock-step with the White House propaganda machine.

Mitt v Isaac in Tampa

One has to feel a little sorry for the BBC’s US President, though. He was supposed to be wallowing in a political event, reporting on Romney accepting the nomination and whatever negative stuff he can imagine. But the Republican convention has been delayed because of the storm, so is stuck having to make something up instead. He’s got copy to file one way or the other, so I suppose the White House talking points have to get in there somehow. However, in casually laying these point out, Mardell inadvertently reveals himself and his colleagues for the White House shills that they are.

First, Mardell cleverly tries to use the storm as a metaphor for the impending doom he wants you think Romney’s campaign senses. They’ve been battered and put off message recently, he explains, and Romney is going to face a tough crowd. No, really.

The house band blast out a sound check, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer rehearses a walk and talk for his show. Everything in the vast auditorium is bathed in blue and red lights, atmospheric, but curiously reminiscent of emergency vehicles at a crash scene.

Yeah, it’s a bit ham-fisted, I know. But it’s not easy churning this stuff out on demand, you know. In any case, this is a not so subtle introduction to the White House talking points. In fact, it’s one of them: Romney is in trouble already.

Still, Republicans are crossing their fingers that there’ll be no accidents this week. They hope that Isaac will miss and Mitt will be a hit.

Who at this point – outside the Beltway and the HuffingtonPost, anyway – still thinks the Republican Party is going to turn on Romney and they won’t rally around him for the goal of unseating the President? This is a mentality from six months ago. Sure, Mardell was right all along that most of the Republican Party and sympathetic conservatives and independents wanted just about anyone but Romney. But that was then and this is now. There’s no way that lingering animosity towards him outweighs the desire to prevent the resurrection of The Obamessiah.

Now for the talking points. I’ll let the BBC’s US President editor explain:

He may not applaud all the statements coming from the floor when the convention does kick off. He has a tricky path to walk.

He might want to convince the conservative base that he really is one of them. But he doesn’t want to play into the hands of the Democrats who are determined to depict him as a scary reactionary in thrall to nutters and cranks.

Nobody is going to depict Romney as a reactionary. Mardell is straining here. But “nutters and cranks”? That’s pretty much how most Beeboids describe the Tea Party movement. But now that Mardell has laid it out there for you, pay attention from now on to how many of the usual BBC suspects start saying that on air.

President Obama, apparently determined to distract attention from the economy, said in an interview this weekend that Romney had “signed up for extreme positions”.

You mean like how BBC economics editor tweeted that Romney had gone “so extreme” by picking Paul Ryan as running mate?

The Obama campaign team pulled out all the stops to link Romney’s name to that of the once obscure congressman Todd Akin, who coined the ugly phrase “legitimate rape”.

You mean like how you and your colleagues pulled out all the stops to spread the story all over the place and link Romney inextricably with Akin? In a way, I should point out, that you don’t do with things that might make the President look bad.

By the time they were through, the uninformed might think Todd Akin was the third name on the ticket.

So would BBC audiences. He’s really writing my jokes for me.

The president’s campaign went into overdrive to highlight an awkward joke Mr Romney made about his birth certificate, suggesting he had strayed into “birther” territory.

You mean like how BBC Washington correspondent and anchor of BBC World News America tweeted that Romney’s joke was “dangerous”?

But they’ve already been buffeted off message in the last week by Mr Obama’s accusations.

Really? Is that why polls now have Romney as tied with or even slightly ahead of the President? So where is Mardell telling you that the President is equally in trouble, campaign on the back foot, after all the missteps like “You didn’t build that”, or the harshly criticized bogus ad accusing Romney of being responsible for a woman dying of cancer, or the Democrat mouthpiece who accused Romney of committing a felony – both of which the President Himself had to dance around deal with a question about it at His recent press conference? Don’t make me laugh. The BBC censored all news of it save for one brief mention by Mardell in a blog post. Which he, naturally, defended.

See, it’s not just me saying this or that is a White House talking point. This is the BBC’s top man in the US, a life-long political junkie, highly trained and an experienced journalist with close contacts in the White House, who regularly receives press releases and emails and all the relevant information, telling you that these are White House talking points. Which he and his colleagues then dutifully support.

Oh, and the whole idea that Romney is in trouble and needs to get his game going for this convention? Don’t take my word for it that it’s a White House talking point: read it on the White House website.

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


Those bad Jews.

An Israeli court has ruled that the state of Israel was not at fault for the death of US activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli army bulldozer in 2003. Ms Corrie’s family had brought a civil claim for negligence against the Israeli ministry of defence. The judge said the 23-year-old’s death was a “regrettable accident” and that the state was not responsible. She had been trying to stop Palestinian homes being pulled down in Gaza.

Erm NOT quite the full story, BBC. Ms Corrie was a terrorist enabler and grossly stupid.  The “Palestinian homes” she was so bravely trying to protect were being used by Palestinian terrorists to fire rockets into Israel and kill innocent Israelis. The truth is Corrie got what she deserved but the BBC plays along with the poor innocent Rachel “peace activist” meme.  Sickening bias and elevation of terrorist enabler Corrie.

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

My number one priority is to get the borrowing down


Labour’s Alistair Darling has surfaced again, possibly the Party leader they should have had(there’s still time)…I wonder if there is any coincidence in this.

‘The relationship between Labour’s two most senior figures has recently become strained amid disagreements over the party’s approach to the City and cuts in public spending. ‘

Oh…and…‘The party will meet for its annual conference next month and senior insiders warn that they are still not in a position to announce many policies.

Two years…and they still haven’t worked it out?


Whilst we keep hearing about Thatcher, and indeed hearing she is to blame for this recession, it might be good to have a reminder of what the BBC can’t bring themselves to drag out of the archives…Darling’s own words and policies: 

Alistair Darling warns of toughest spending cuts for 20 years

• Chancellor and Mandelson spell out election priorities
• PM’s core vote strategy rejected in policy shift

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, and the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, yesterday signalled a shift in government strategy when Darling warned that Britain faces the toughest spending round in 20 years if Labour is re-elected.

His remarks assert his authority over the schools secretary, Ed Balls, and, to a degree, the prime minister, who had tried to claim that the government could create an election dividing line based on Labour investment versus Tory cuts.

The chancellor told the Times that spending restraint was “non-negotiable” as he tries to bring down Britain’s £178bn budget deficit. He said: “The next spending review will be the toughest we have had for 20 years. To me, cutting the borrowing was never negotiable. Gordon accepts that, he knows that.”

We need to protect frontline services, but it’s essential we cut the public deficit.”

He added “many departments will have less money in the next few years”, a tougher stance than his previous position that spending would be “broadly flat” outside the protected areas of schools, police and hospitals.

He said: “I have always been clear that you have to level with people. We are talking about something like a £57bn reduction in expenditure through tax increases and spending cuts. It’s a change in direction.”Saturday 9 January 2010


Even The New Statesman has had a pop:

Shadow cabinet ministers and Labour-supporting bloggers alike have become excited by this quote [below] from the Tory minister Greg Barker, speaking in front of an American audience:

‘We are making cuts that Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s could only have dreamt of.’

He’s right. But the Labour response is, ahem, odd. Angela Eagle, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, says:

‘Greg Barker has let the cat out the bag about the ideological agenda behind this Tory-led government’s deep cuts to public services’

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The inconvenient truth is that Labour, in the so-called Darling plan for deficit reduction, had also planned to go beyond Thatcher, too — and were equally keen to “let the cat out of the bag”.

Here’s the relevant quote from the then chancellor, Alistair Darling, in an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson in March 2010:

Robinson: “The Treasury’s own figures suggest deeper, tougher than Thatcher’s — do you accept that?”

Darling: “They will be deeper and tougher — where we make the precise comparison, I think, is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough.”

The FT quite fairly analysed the figures: the difference between Labour and coalition deficit reduction plans is just £24bn by 2014. Ed Balls’s claim that cutting half as much is “a massive difference” is only true if he offers a route map to explain what tax rises and what growth formulae deliver the same deficit reduction as would Tory cuts. Both Eds sound uncomfortable because sticking to the Darling plan means more painful cuts than they can admit. The argument that they are not in power so don’t need a complete budget may be tactically correct, but it doesn’t work as a public statement. Labour can only take a commanding lead over the next austerity months by offering a more convincing economic alternative.


The Scots have a go:

Selective amnesia as Darling ignores his own role

Tue, 19/06/2012 – 14:43

Alistair Darling has been accused of utter hypocrisy after calling for greater capital investment, despite having personally cut Scotland’s capital budget by 36% when he was chancellor.



Here’s a few quotes from an FT interview:

Osborne is using the same plan as Darling for the ‘cuts’, so called, but has started a year earlier….remember also that Labour had plans to cut NHS spending by £20bn…something the BBC neglects to keep reminding us:


My number one priority is to get the borrowing down, to get the deficit down in the department.

The priority though must be to get our borrowing down, because to be borrowing £178 billion is something you need to get down, you need to reduce it and you need to be pretty single-minded about it.

If we’re going to get long-term growth, you’ve got to get borrowing down.

Yes, we have had to borrow a lot more, but then if you take the revenues from the financial services sectors, who are down by about a third, and that’s bound to have an effect on us.


The BBC thinks we should keep bashing the Bankers, should we?:

The financial services industry, which has obviously taken a knock, this is something that you may want to pursue further. It is a real asset to this country. It’s something that, properly supervised and regulated, will continue to be an asset to this country. The million jobs, it generates a lot of wealth in the country,


Flander’s thinks we can have too much employment and wonders where it all came from….but wasn’t asking the same question back in 2010 of Labour:


One of the reasons that we spent quite a lot of money on getting Jobcentre Plus, getting people back into work, is that what is really damaging to an economy is you start getting long term high levels of unemployment.


Do you understand why the labour market here has performed seemingly a lot better than in the US, where they’ve had a disaster?

Alistair Darling: I think it’s a combination of things. We do have a flexible labour market here. I think that one of the things; I know it has happened here in the private sector, is there are many people who have taken pay cuts, as a trade off against keeping their jobs, which is… there are lots, especially in the SME sector, but also in the car industry, 12 months ago, they went through a lot of; they had to take a lot of difficult decisions.

Banker’s bonuses….Labour wants to tax them?

As far as the bank bonus tax is concerned, I said in December that it was a one off tax and it is a one off tax. We’re doing it this year, and that’s it, because it was designed to deal with a particular problem, and I said to banks that I thought they ought to be using their profits to rebuild their position, and therefore to show some restraint in relation to what they do, but I said they’ve got a choice, and if they insist on paying bonuses, then we will impose this one off charge, and it is a one off charge.


Gordon Brown was praised for making the bank of England independent…he did  didn’t he?

Financial Times: The Bank seem to take the view that the government decides fiscal policy and then the MPC sets the course for the economy with monetary policy.

Alistair Darling: Yes.

Financial Times: Do you think, with interest rates as low as they are, it’s a little bit more complicated than that and there has to be a little bit more give and take? I’m not saying that you tell them what to do, and they still take the decision, but there has to be a bit more discussion between the two?

Alistair Darling: Legally, of course there’s a demarcation, but one can’t move too far without the other, and although I don’t and I wouldn’t suggest to the MPC what it should do, the MPC doesn’t take its decisions in a vacuum. It can see what we’re doing, and as you know, before any fiscal event, budget or pre-budget report, we tell the MPC what we’re doing. The two work together. But I wouldn’t do anything to imperil the independence of the MPC, and that’s actually a cardinal feature of the system we’ve got here now, but I don’t have any problem with the Governor. In fact, it’s very difficult for the Governor to do his job without having a view of the economy generally.



The major problem with the BBC is that it isolates news stories as if they occur in a little bubble of their own….say the British economic woes are completely unaffected by the Euro crash….or Israel is a war monger…despite actually defending itself against 60 years of Muslim attacks.  The BBC found the time to list the Palestinian casualties from the 2009 Gaza conflict for over a year in just about every report from Israel, but can’t find time to report the Fogel family or any background to the 60 year war.

Not making comparisons allows the BBC to create the ‘baseline’, the benchmark from which say Coalition policies  are to be judged…if there is no reference to the previous Labour government or to any concrete proposals from Labour now anything the Coalition does can be made to look extreme or ill-judged.

We know full well that Labour were planning £20 billion worth of cuts in the NHS…but how often, if ever, do you hear any reference to that when we hear the ‘outrage’ at Coalition cuts?

That’s pretty much par for the course on any Coalition policy….whatever they do is twisted to make it look like a looming disaster.

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


Wonder if you caught this debate on the BBC this morning? It concerns the proposed third runway for Heathrow and the debate was between Tim Yeo (Dripping wet alleged Conservative) and Tom Brake (Dripped wet Liberal Democrat).  Remarkably Yeo is NOW in favour of this proposal- but only because of spurious new EU carbon guidelines. But Brake was given the lion’s share of the time to reel out his opposition to the development and Yeo had little to say (Not necessarily a bad thing but where is the balance?)

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


Anyone else notice the rally of the BBC behind Sir Richard Branson’s (Labour backed) attempt to derail (sic) the decision of the Coalition to award the contract for West Coast mainline. Did you catch this pure PR that Branson got away with on Today this morning? Strikes me that the BBC are happy to use Branson in this way to advance a Labour meme whilst posing as defenders of the commuter.

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