Murray Minced….Hoist by her own Libtards



The BBC has thrown Jenni Murray to the dogs as it warns her that she must not speak out in her private capacity on ‘controversial’ subjects that she discusses on the BBC.

In their report on Murray’s allegedly ‘transmisogynistic’ [I try to learn a new word every day] comments about Transgender ‘women’ the BBC slips in a mischievous stab in the back…quoting Murray on Greer when Greer made similar ‘transmisogynistic’ comments…

In 2015, academic and writer Germaine Greer said that in her opinion, transgender women were “not women”.

Dame Jenni called her comments “unacceptably rude”.

I assume that Murray was then channelling the BBC orthodoxy about what was acceptable and what was not…and this is the BBC’s is not there to be judge and jury, laying down the law as to what is acceptable or not…it is there solely to report…anything else is bias…which is why this site exists and has so much material to fill its pages….more than it can cope with.

Possibly an irony that both Greer and Murray have reached that age when both men and women start to look the same.

Image result for germaine greer


Image result for st trinians head mistress

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

They don’t like it up ’em

The caller introduced himself as “Janne”, and asked her why a story about an attack on a security guard didn’t mention that a foreigner was allegedly behind the assault.

“The truth has to get out there,” the caller says, according to an extract of the conversation published on the newspaper website. “Janne” blames Moroccan street children for the attack, although police are certain it was a local gang of youths. As the caller continues to make his case, Burman gets frustrated until she eventually snaps: “That is called racism.”

Just as in Cologne where the BBC described and disguised migrant gropers who took citizenship as ‘Germans’ could it be that ‘local youths’ is also a euphemism…as the Mail might suggest…

The all-male migrant teen gangs are spreading terror in the centre of the Swedish capital, stealing, groping girls and assaulting security guards, according to Stockholm police.

Can we trust the BBC on matters of race, immigration and Islam?  No, not one little bit.

We know the BBC absolutely hates this site but it seems no one is safe from their ire as Swedes investigating their own journalists come under BBC attack…

The Swedish Trump fans who secretly record journalists

It’s a website that describes itself as a citizens’ initiative set up to ask the questions the mainstream media won’t. Its critics say it’s a “far-right trolling factory” whose sole purpose is to harass and intimidate.

“Granskning Sverige” translates as “Validating Sweden”. The site encourages volunteers to call journalists with a list of questions about their news coverage.

“I would say that the basic theme is xenophobic, they don’t like immigrants,” says Mathias Stahle, an investigative journalist for the Eskilstuna-Kuriren newspaper.

“They would like to read more positive things about Donald Trump, they would like to see positive stories about modern Russia and they want to have positive views of neo-Nazis.”

Unbeknownst to the journalists being called, the conversations are recorded, edited and posted online on the website as well as the YouTube page of Erik Johansson, the administrator of the website.

The BBC throws in every trigger word that it can muster to try and associate this group with Nazis and racism…the BBC insinuating that ‘editing’ of the conversations is somehow sinister…and yet of course the whole BBC story here  is edited and controlled…as pointed out, the BBC’s use of particular words and suggestive tone designed to create the idea that this group is in someway unethical, immoral and far-right…ironically all the whinges the BBC has could be equally thrown back at the BBC…just changing ‘right-wing’ to ‘left-wing’.  The BBC naturally thinks itself above such things…

Johansson – which is an alias – insisted that what he does is no different from the secret recording techniques used by traditional journalists when a direct approach for an interview has failed.

One obvious difference though is that traditional journalistic ethics – like those practised by the BBC – usually require that the person who’s been recorded is given a chance to reply before anything is published.

Lord McAlpine might think differently about the BBC giving him the right to reply.

And in a related story that the BBC always likes to contest…

Swedish police warn Stockholm’s main train station is now overrun by migrant teen gangs ‘stealing and groping girls’

Swedish police warns that Stockholm’s main train station has become unsafe after being ‘taken over’ by dozens of Moroccan street children. 

The all-male migrant teen gangs are spreading terror in the centre of the Swedish capital, stealing, groping girls and assaulting security guards, according to Stockholm police.

Members of the gangs, some as young as nine, roam central Stockholm day and night, refusing help provided by the Swedish authorities.

‘These guys are a huge problem for us. They steal stuff everywhere and assault security guards at the central station,’ one police officer told SVT.

‘They grope girls between their legs, and slap them in the face when they protest. All police officers are aware of this. 

‘I would never let my children go to the central station. No officer would.’ 

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

Something of the night about the BBC?


Marine Le Pen and the BBC….so similar in so many ways.  Le Pen’s National Front party is claimed to be anti-Semitic, an argument could be made that the BBC is similarly biased,  the NF cosies up to Muslims as does the BBC and both have a propensity for publishing photos they shouldn’t, or aren’t allowed to be published….Le Pen publishing photos of ISIS violence and the BBC transmitting sexualised images of children.

Facebook has been criticised for its handling of reports about sexualised images of children on its platform.

The BBC reported dozens of photos to Facebook, but more than 80% were not removed.

They included images from groups where users were discussing swapping what appeared to be child abuse material.

When provided with examples of the images, Facebook reported the BBC journalists involved to the police and cancelled plans for an interview.

It subsequently issued a statement: “It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation.”

Both claim that they did so in pursuit of a higher purpose….and whilst I might sympathise with Le Pen as she comes under attack from a blatant, politically motivated attempt to stop her winning the election using a spurious legal trick I have to laugh at the BBC being reported by Facebook as the two media giants face off…the BBC constantly attacking Facebook for spreading ‘fake news’…but curiously always failing to mention in its reports that Facebook was caught red-handed promoting left-leaning news and blocking right-leaning news.  Just why does the BBC want you to believe Facebook won Trump the election with fake right-wing news when the real story is about its left-wing activities?

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.


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

The ethnic cleansing of the British people, British beliefs, British values


It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.


Peter Hitchens in 2013:

The greatest mass migration in our history has taken place.

The newcomers are lawfully here.

They have the jobs, live in the houses, use the NHS.

Their children are in the schools.

Come to that, they are paying tax.

Our leaders only had to go to Boston, any time in the past five years, and they would have known.

But all our leading politicians were afraid of knowing the truth.

If they knew, they would at least have to pretend to act.

And the truth was, they liked things as they were.

And it was at least partly my own fault.

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London).

We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.

But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients – not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as ‘racists’.

What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as ‘racist’.

And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books.

It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.

They were no threat to us.

The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists.

I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).

I have seen places that I knew and felt at home in, changed completely in a few short years.

I have imagined what it might be like to have grown old while stranded in shabby, narrow streets where my neighbours spoke a different language and I gradually found myself becoming a lonely, shaky voiced stranger in a world I once knew, but which no longer knew me.

I have felt deeply, hopelessly sorry that I did and said nothing in defence of those whose lives were turned upside down, without their ever being asked, and who were warned very clearly that, if they complained, they would be despised outcasts.

And I have spent a great deal of time in the parts of Britain where the revolutionary unintelligentsia don’t go.

Such people seldom, if ever, visit their own country.

Their orbits are in fashionable London zones, and holiday destinations.

They are better acquainted with the Apennines of Italy than with the Pennines of their own country.

But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold and – with the recent, honourable exception of David Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was wrong – they will not change.

The worst part of this is the deep, deep hypocrisy of it.

Even back in my Trotskyist days I had begun to notice that many of the migrants from Asia were in fact not our allies.

They were deeply, unshakably religious.

They were socially conservative.

Their attitudes towards girls and women were, in many cases, close to medieval.

Many of them were horribly hostile to Jews, in a way which we would have condemned fiercely if anyone else had expressed it, but which we somehow managed to forgive and forget in their case.

We have recently seen this in the distressing and embarrassing episode of Lord Ahmed’s outburst against a phantom Jewish conspiracy.

But I recall ten years ago, in a Muslim bookshop in the backstreets of Burnley, seeing on open display a modern edition of Henry Ford’s revolting anti-Jewish diatribe The International Jew, long ago disowned by Ford himself.

It is unthinkable that any mainstream shop in any High Street could sell this toxic tripe.

Many of these new arrivals, though we revolutionaries welcomed them, knew and cared nothing of the great liberal causes we all supported. Or they were hostile to them.

Many on the Left still lie to themselves about this. George Galloway, the most Left-wing MP in Parliament, owes his seat to the support of conservative Muslims.

Yet he voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

It would be interesting to be at any meetings where Mr Galloway discusses this with his constituents.

Of course, all political parties are compromises, but there is a big difference between splitting the difference and flatly ignoring a profound clash of principles.

This sort of cynicism has been at the heart of the deal.

Immigrants have been used by those who wanted to transform the country.

They have taken the parts of them they liked, and made much of them.

They have ignored the parts they did not like.

Mr Galloway likes the Muslims’ opposition to the Iraq War and their scorn for New Labour (and good luck to him). But he does not like their views on sexual morality.

The same is true of many others.

One of the most striking characteristics of the majority of migrants from the Caribbean is their strong, unashamed Christian faith, and their love of disciplined education.

Yet the arrival of many such people in London was never used as a reason to say our society should become more Christian, or our schools should be better-ordered.

At that time, the revolutionary liberals were hoping to wave goodbye to the Church, and were busy driving discipline out of the state schools. So nobody ever said ‘Let us adapt our society to the demands of these newcomers’.

They had the wrong sort of demands.

Instead, the authorities made much of the behaviour of a minority of such migrants, often much disliked by their fellow Afro-Caribbeans – men who took and sold illegal drugs and who were not prepared to respect British law.

If proper policing of such people could be classified as ‘racist’, then the drug laws as a whole could be weakened, and the police placed under liberal control.

This is why the so-called ‘Brixton Riots’ of April 1981 were used as a lever to weaken the police and undermine the drug laws, rather than as a reason to restore proper law and peace to that part of London.

Something very similar happened with the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Few noticed that the report openly urged that people from different ethnic groups should be policed in different ways – and actually condemned ‘colour-blind’ policing.

In whose interests was this?

And wasn’t this attitude, that different types of behaviour could be expected from different ethnic groups, racially prejudiced?

But what did that matter, if it suited the revolutionary liberal agenda of purging the police of old-fashioned conservative types?

The same forces destroyed Ray Honeyford, a Bradford headmaster who – long before it was fashionable – tried to stand up against political correctness in schools. He was driven from his job and of course condemned as a ‘racist’.

Yet it would have been very much in the interests of integration and real equality in Bradford if his warnings had been heeded and acted upon.

As it is, as any observant visitor finds, Bradford’s Muslim citizens and its non-Muslim citizens live in two separate solitudes, barely in contact with each other. Much of the Islamic community is profoundly out of step with modern Britain.

Once again, revolutionary liberals had formed a cynical alliance to destroy conservative opposition.

Their greatest ally has always been the British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.

Absurdly, even when Britain’s frontiers were demolished by the Blair Government and hundreds of thousands of white-skinned Europeans came here to work, it was still possible to smear any doubters as ‘racists’.

It couldn’t have been more obvious that ‘race’ wasn’t the problem.

The thing that made these new residents different was culture – language, customs, attitudes, sense of humour.

Rather than them adapting to our way of life, we were adapting to theirs.

This wasn’t integration.

It was a revolution.

Yet nobody – especially their elected representatives – would listen to them, because they were assumed to be Powellite bigots, motivated by some sort of unreasoning hatred.

I now believe that the unreasoning hatred comes almost entirely from the liberal Left.

Of course, there are still people who harbour stupid racial prejudices.

But most of those concerned about immigration are completely innocent of such feelings.

The screaming, spitting intolerance comes from a pampered elite who are ashamed of their own country, despise patriotism in others and feel none themselves.

They long for a horrible borderless Utopia in which love of country has vanished, nannies are cheap and other people’s wages are low.

What a pity it is that there seems to be no way of turning these people out of their positions of power and influence.

For if there is to be any hope of harmony in these islands, then it can only come through a great effort to bring us all together, once again, in a shared love for this, the most beautiful and blessed plot of earth on the planet.

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

Universal Rule

‘I happen to think this brief glimpse of the truth was the most important political revelation of our time.  We have been betrayed.’  Peter Hitchens on Labour’s secret immigration policy


David Goodhart, the lefty academic who ‘self-radicalised’ as he studied mass immigration and the effects of Islam upon Western society and, as his eyes were opened, came to the conclusion that neither was to our benefit, has revealed to the world, in the Sunday Times, the philosophy behind so much of the BBC’s reporting and of those who support the EU…no surprises here….

At an Oxford college dinner six years ago I told my neighbour – Gus O’Donnell [one of the BBC’s goto voices for  pro-EU pitch dressed up as sage, impartial civil servant advice], then in his last few months as cabinet secretary, the most senior civil servant in the land – that I was writing a book about immigration.  He replied:  “When I was at the Treasury I argued for the most open door possible to immigration….I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare, not national welfare.”  [His job?  Thought he was there to do the bidding of his political masters not make policy himself]

I was surprised to hear this and asked the man sitting next to him, Mark Thompson – then director-general of the BBC – whether he believed global welfare should be put before national welfare, if the two should conflict.  He defended O’Donnell and said he too believed global welfare was paramount.

Is it healthy for a democracy when such powerful persons hold views that are evidently at odds with the core political intuitions of the majority of the public?

Further reading…

David Goodhart in 2004…

Too diverse?

Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state?

The nation state remains irreplaceable as the site for democratic participation and it is hard to imagine how else one can organise welfare states and redistribution except through national tax and public spending. Moreover, since the arrival of immigrant groups from non-liberal or illiberal cultures it has become clear that to remain liberal the state may have to prescribe a clearer hierarchy of values.

Goodhart has critical views about Islam as revealed in this BBC programme….

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

David Coleman, professor of demography at the the University of Oxford, said:

“Many of the consequences of large scale migration are damaging.  We do not need up to 13 million more people by the mid century.   Almost all that increase will be immigrants and their children.  It will not make the UK a happier or richer place.  Crowding and congestion will have entirely negative effects, increasing pressure on schools, hospitals and particulary housing.”

Simon Ross, director of Population Concern, said it was time people looked at the consequences migration had on quality of life.

“There’s a lot of people with vested interests in immigration, the universities and employers for instance….People talk about the taxes that migrants pay but that is a short term view. Migrants have children and get old and we need to take account of the services they will eventually use.  We should not reduce migration simply to a taxation issue.  We should talk about its effect on British society including the need for more housing which effects the green belt and transport infrastructure.  These are quality of life issues.”

The Government knows all this because it studies the consequences of world affairs…but ignores them, or refuses to deal with the difficult questions..such as is Islam compatible with Western democracy?  Western society is heading for implosion and war [many migrants have already joined the war against the West and Western ideas] as immigrants are allowed to flood in, immigrants who don’t hold the same values and beliefs….

You may want to read this forecast from 2007 of what the future may well bring….and indeed has…

Identity & Interest – Potential Implications
While citizenship and physical security will remain important, individual loyalty to the state and state institutions will become increasingly conditional, based on personal identity and interest.
Nationhood and ethnicity in certain countries will continue to influence human behaviour and international relations.
Diaspora communities and their networks will be dynamic and unpredictable features of the political, demographic and economic aspects of globalization.
Physical and cultural origin will continue to be significant to identity, but will be employed increasingly selectively, based on their utility in context and in relation to personal interest.
Communities will increasingly form around the pursuit of common interests.

The expansion of global media and Information Communications Technology (ICT) will
heighten the sense of grievance and marginalization between ‘haves and have-nots’,
nationally and internationally. This is likely to lead to populism, human crises and
confrontations, typified by inter-communal and inter-ethnic conflicts at local level, but,
when related to access to strategic resources necessary to sustain developed or
developing economies, may increase the incidence and risk of international confrontation.
Communicable disease will continue to be a feature of human life; while familiar diseases
will be eradicated or mitigated through prophylaxis or cure, others will emerge, of varying
intensity and impact, alongside the constant risk of low incidence, but potentially high
impact, pandemics.

From Newstime Africa, and why it paid Labour to import voters… 

Thousands of asylum seekers in the UK are to benefit from new rules set by the government to clear backlogs of about 450,000 applicants within the immigration system,

But African’s across the UK have welcomed the news and this will give a big boost to the Labour party in the forthcoming gen­eral elections as this would mean over a million family members who may not have been eli­gi­ble to vote as a result of their status would now cast their votes for the first time in the UK. We are urging all those who are set to benefit from this new rules to cast their votes for the Labour party as they have shown courage in the face of conservative adversity to make this positive move that will go down well in places as far as villages in remote areas in Africa whose loved ones have faced intolerable suffering in Britain as a result of touch immigration policies.

From now on this press would mount a ‘VOTE FOR LABOUR’ campaign in recognition and appreciation of this brilliant move by the labour government to make life much easier for African immigrants in the UK. This move is a clear indication that the Labour party is the party of the people!!

By Voting Labour you secure for yourself a bright future in the UK. The UK conservative party is not an option for immigrants; they simply don’t want to see us here!! At least the Labour government has granted 3 amnesties since they came to power.

My friend, just vote labour!!

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

Muslim anti-Polish racism…BBC interest? Zero


Any interest from the BBC about this anti-Polish racism from a Muslim who tells him this is not your country and slags him off for eating pork…must be due to Brexit then…or Islam….


No BBC shocked outrage?  No calls to the Polish Ambassador? No linking this to the ideology of Islam asking if Britain has become a nastier, more racist place since Islam came to our shores?  No interest at all…which is funny when you consider how much effort the BBC puts into telling us how badly Poles are treated in this country and that they are fleeing back home because of the racism here #DuetoBrexit.

Looking back at a Biased BBC post from 2014 and we have this…which has now been confirmed by the video…

Was amused though to hear the reply of one Polish girl to Peter Allen’s leading question along the lines of….‘Do the Brits like you?’ (49 mins)

Her reply was interesting…she said she was always welcomed by British people…however when living in London…er..the people were different….but now she lives in Manchester and they are really friendly there.

Hmmm…could she really mean that multicultural London, where the Brits have been ethnically cleansed from, is less friendly than good old racist white Britain?


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

The BBC Power Grab


You can get a very good idea of the BBC’s wilfully misleading playing to the gallery attitude and its hypocrisy from two recent speeches, one by Lord Hall Hall, and one by James Purnell.

Lord Hall Hall outlines the BBC’s ever-increasing power bid as it seeks to spread its influence into every media organisation across the country and in many outside as well, and illustrates how the BBC’s ‘diversity’ plan is in essence just a tick-box exercise lacking that thing that Hall Hall claims the BBC is all about…diversity of thought, opinion and intellect.

Today I want to talk a little about why this is so important right now, about what we at the BBC can do to help and how the whole of the industry must come together to support a project that is vital to all our futures.

There’s too big a gap between the education sector and the industry. And as an older generation retires, the struggle is to find a new generation with the skills to replace it.

But the truth is, broadcasting in particular remains a relationship-based, ‘who you know’ industry.

Too often, employers offer placements and internships through networks or contacts. Of course, this marginalises those who don’t have connections, especially those outside the big cities, and it favours the well-connected and well-off from the South East of England.

A sector that, instead of being a force for social mobility, is too often a source of social exclusion.

At the BBC, this is a problem we take very seriously.

First, because it’s part of our mission to represent, and be representative of, the whole of the country. 

And second, because we’re really serious about being the most creative organisation in the world.

We know we can’t achieve this unless we draw on the full creative potential of the whole of the country – and allow no barriers to get in the way.

Getting the very best at the BBC means making sure we draw on all of the talent the country has to offer.

Ours is already one of the most diverse workforces in the UK…For me, one of the real priorities is to get more women, and more people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, into our most senior leadership positions.

And, let me say, this is not just about investing in top talent for the BBC – it’s for the whole industry. One of our first group of Assistant Commissioners, for instance, is now a comedy commissioner at Sky.

To truly address the problem, there has to be sector-wide leadership, and a collective response.

That’s where the role of the National College is so vital….

We want to open up the BBC to you – in every way we can.

I’m aware that a National College needs a national orbit. And as the only employer in our sector who’s everywhere across the UK – I want to throw open our doors.

Can we help you develop regional centres around the UK and widen access to training?

Can we host students at our base in Birmingham, for example? Or in Salford at MediaCity?

We want to put our expertise at your service.

Yep…putting the BBC’s expertise at other meida organisation’s service…and making sure a BBC ‘ethos’ is spread along with that ‘expertise’.

Purnell gives a fine example of the anti-Brexit hypocrisy as he argues for ever-increasing BBC dominance to ‘protect our culture’….

The future of broadcasting isn’t the only thing that will shape the future of our culture. But it matters.

We may not realise what an important thing we could be losing. That in a very English, informal, un-strategic way we lose control of our culture. No one wills it. Nor has it happened yet. But if we don’t act soon our culture could soon be mostly baked on the other side of the Atlantic.

The one thing we do know is that if we get it right, the future of our culture will be supported. Because we will have British institutions, telling British stories, so that we continue to be able to shape our way of life, our customs, ideas and beliefs.

That matters for our culture and OFCOM should have the power to intervene in on-demand environments, not just linear ones, as now to secure prominence for public service content.

Purrnell’s speech is in effect a massive land grab, a power grab that aims to keep the BBC on top, dominating the media landscape as he demands special treatment for the BBC as it is being outgunned by the [American] commercial sector…Purnell wants government intervention to ensure the BBC remains on top as it moves into the digital realm….note his moan about how the media has become less democratic…emm…as the giant BBC is elbowed out of the way by the consumers choosing to watch the massive ‘giant media oligarchs’ such as Amazon or Netflix or Google and Facebook…so more consumer choice is less democratic?  Seems the BBC is just a bit jealous that it has competition for its long held almost monopoly of the media scene…,.

In creating the BBC, Britain gave an example to the world of how the right application of new technology could democratise culture.

Britain managed to develop a model that had the best of all worlds.

A thriving market alongside ambitious public provision.

An openness to American imports made possible by our confidence in our own creative industries.

We never tried to keep Hollywood out, because we were confident that our stuff was good enough to compete – and it was.

That success was built on two foundations – investment and distribution. We funded wonderful work. And we made sure audiences could find it.

But today, we have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both of these are under threat. The good news is that there’s a way to rescue them.

The Economist reported last month that this is a golden age for couch potatoes.

Netflix’s revenues have tripled in five years. Its annual content budget is more than the BBC’s entire income.

There are 350,000 podcast strands available on iTunes. 13 million individual episodes. It would take around 50 lifetimes to listen to them all.

So, this is a Golden Age for consumers.

British talent benefits, as well. The BBC’s House of Cards got remade as Netflix’s first blockbuster drama, while the Night Manager and the Crown shared five awards at the Golden Globes.

But here is the rub. The Crown cost over £100 million. That could have funded BBC2 for three months. Sky and BT spend as much on the Premier League rights every year as BBC One and Channel 4 do on programmes.

As The Economist also said “entertainment has in some ways become less democratic, not more. Technology is making the rich richer, skewing people’s consumption of entertainment towards the biggest hits and the most powerful platforms. This world is dominated by an oligarchy of giants, including Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Disney.”

Every single one of them American.

If our media became dominated by a few American companies, however innovative and well-intentioned, how would that affect our culture, and its ability to evolve?

So, yes this is a golden age for British industry and talent. It is a golden age for consumers. But will it be a golden age for our culture?

the position is precarious.

If investment in British content continues to fall, our cultural success will be in jeopardy.

How do we avoid that? How do we get the best of all worlds again?

First, we need to grow. That will be mainly down to us, the industry. And it’s starting to happen….Thanks to tax credits, an extra £2 billion has gone into films and television programmes.

The BBC’s role is the same today as it was in 1922. It is to bring the best of everything, to everyone.

To do that, as Tony Hall said in January, we need to reinvent public service broadcasting, for a new generation.

To continue to deliver our public purpose, we need to stop this decline by investing.

And in education, we’ll explore new ways of reaching audiences too.

We’ve got many of the world’s best cultural institutions…..The BBC is their loudhailer.

We’re also going to be working with our partners inside and beyond the BBC to create thoughtful content aimed at this audience. And we’re going to see how the BBC can help people consuming that content make even more of it, by learning more about themselves and showing them onward education journeys….We call this scheme of work Ideas Service.

The one thing we do know is that if we get it right, the future of our culture will be supported. Because we will have British institutions, telling British stories, so that we continue to be able to shape our way of life, our customs, ideas and beliefs.

We all need to reinvent radio, to make sure the next generation grows up with a radio habit.

But there is one more urgent thing Parliament can do.

In the 2003 Communications Act, Parliament took a far-sighted decision. It insisted that the Public Service Broadcasters should be at the top of the programme guide on satellite, cable and DTT. That reform has worked well.

But as audiences move to on-demand services like iPlayer that provision risks becoming less effective. New TV set-top boxes and Smart TVs only have a limited number of slots on their front page. If those places are filled by the content from the platform owners or from Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, or Spotify , that leaves little room for the Public Service Broadcasters.

That matters for our culture and OFCOM should have the power to intervene in on-demand environments, not just linear ones, as now to secure prominence for public service content.



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

Armageddon Beckons Once Again


Economic disaster stalks the land once more as the Brexit effect takes hold at long, long last, sighs the BBC with relief…remember though last September when we said this about the BBC’s reluctance to report almost record high PMI figures…

Just a few weeks ago the BBC was trumpeting the then latest PMI figures that had dipped below 50 and in the BBC’s interpretation this definitely showed we were heading for recession due to Brexit.  This ‘news’ was constantly and loudly broadcast on the day the figures were released.

How different yesterday when the latest PMI figures [53.3] were released showing that ‘the month-on-month increase in the PMI level was the joint largest in the survey’s 25-year history.’

The figures were released at 09:30, the BBC didn’t report this until around 21:00 and the radio news was totally silent all day on this remarkable turn around in contrast to the very high profile the figures received last month.  Odd that the BBC was not chomping at the bit to get these latest ‘good news’ figures that give the lie to the BBC’s scaremongering about Brexit.

It seems we have had an effect and the BBC has taken note….they now leap at the chance to publish the latest PMI figures…

UK economy ‘loses momentum’ as services growth slows

Growth in the UK’s service sector eased to a five-month low in February, according to a closely watched survey.

The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers’ index (PMI) for services fell to 53.3, down from 54.5 in January. However, it remains above the 50 threshold that separates growth from contraction.

The economy has “lost momentum” after “impressive” growth [ignored by the BBC] at the end of 2016, said Chris Williamson of IHS Markit.

Markit said the sector had been stung by the steepest rise in costs for more than eight years as a result of the weak pound.

Wonder why the BBC are suddenly so keen to report these latest PMI figures and do so in such a dramatic fashion….the economy ‘losing momentum’ as a headline?


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

Food Fraud #DuetoBrexit?

The BBC tells us [35 mins]…

One of the UK’s leading food fraud experts is warning that a trade deal with the US will result in imports of lower quality food that the British public doesn’t want. Professor Chris Elliott, founder of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast, says that a trade deal after Brexit will mean accepting imports of food that is currently not sold in the UK because of current EU regulations. He warns that such foods will be vulnerable to mislabelling and food fraud.

What the BBC doesn’t emphasises is just how closely tied to the EU he is and how anti-Brexit he is as he scaremongers about it….


And he says…

I still hope that the EU referendum result is a figment of my imagination, but as each day passes the horrible reality of what may happen becomes more and more real. All around the country, people, businesses and universities are all trying to work out what the implications are to their own lives and the functioning of their organisations.

It is my belief and hope that inside or outside the EU we will maintain the same degree of rigour in checking our food is safe and free from fraud. But like so many other issues around Brexit, we are jumping blindfolded by a Union Jack handkerchief into a shark-infested ocean.


I suppose the EU regulations and control stopped a massive EU wide horse meat food fraud from happening?…It didn’t…funny how he fails to mention that on the programme…or anything about what he has been tweeting about so recently…illegal use of pesticides…the EU not stop that then?…


I was invited to work on SANCO project on EU illegal pesticide trade. Declined as involved interviewing crims!



 He attacks the US for chlorine washed chicken…of course we”ve heard that peddled by BBC correspondents before, the chlorine is in very low dilutions and you probably go swimminbg regularly in chlorine filled pools, swallowing much of it.  And yet you still live.  He mentions growth hormones but has to admit that they pose no health risk…unless they are used incorrectly, a qualification you could add to any food stuff or product…not just imports from America.

It seems he is solely concerned in reality with anti-Brexit propaganda and the BBC welcomes him on with open arms of course.

I wonder, did he raise such objections when the EU were negotiating the TTIP trade agreement with the US when others were raising exactly the same concerns?

Concerns have also been raised that TTIP could lead to the erosion of protection offered to European regional food specialities.

Chlorine chicken, hormone beef? European fears over American ‘Frankenfood’ imports

TTIP trade deal could see poorly regulated American food hit British tables

So whether we have Brexit or not we could have the same trade deal problems..if that is what they are.

So nothing to do with Brexit then?

And never mind…

Leading European food safety authorities have determined that several US practices in contention — such as sanitizing poultry in lightly chlorinated water — are safe.

So nothing to do with food safety then?…

French President François Hollande has openly backed the trade deal. But in an interview with The Washington Post, Matthias Fekl, France’s new secretary of state for foreign trade, said he could not envision any deal that opens the door to controversial US foods.

“This is about lifestyle, about way of life,” Fekl said. “Nothing will force us to expand entry into Europe of chlorinated chicken or hormone beef.”


It’s really about paranoia, anti-Americanism and anti-Brexit alarmism.

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

Midweek Open Thread


Sadiq Khan [The man who made being ‘Mooslim’ an election issue in the Mayoral election] claims the SNP are racist..

“In that respect there’s no difference between those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish, and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion.

“Now of course I’m not saying that nationalists are somehow racist or bigoted – but now, more than ever – what we don’t need is more division and separation.”

The SNP’s whole independence campaign is in essence one based upon an anti-English narrative…it can hardly be one of political independence as they wish to tie themselves ever closer to the EU, thus it can only be an anti-English stance that drives them…a belief backed up so often by their rhetoric.  In contrast UKIP is purely about politics and sovereignty but that doesn’t stop the BBC defaming them as racists and Nazis…whilst totally ignoring the claim that the SNP is racist, in fact the BBC so often cheerleading for the independence movement…because of course that lessens the unity and power of Britain and allows the EU to pick off the smaller nation states like Scotland.

Now the BBC is interested…why?  Because a Muslim has piped up and a black, female feminist who backed Khan has fled Twitter in fear for her life because of the abuse she got.  As with Khan, who identifies strongly as Mooslim, she identifies as black, and proud to be British…and yet shouts about nationalism and the horrors of identity politics….She’s a student…“I’m studying to be a critical race theorist”.

Emma Barnett helpfully exposed [52 mins] what we always knew about the BBC and its view of ‘Nationalism’…she defined it thus…

By definition, historically, nationalism is always about there being an us and there being the ‘other’…an Untermenschen.

Yep, she really did equate nationalism with the very worst aspect of the Nazi ideology…..she wriggled as her interviewee, an SNP politician, told her that was outrageous…and he’s right of course….Barnett lied and said she wasn’t saying that about Scotland…but of course that’s precisely what she was saying.

Still, nice to have down in black and white what the BBC’s definition of nationalism is.

The mid-week open thread is all yours…..

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

Canadian Liberals not quite as daft as BBC journalists


Do you remember this, the outrage, the cries of anti-Muslim racism, the warnings that we are heading back to the 1930’s…surely you do?

Canada’s Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families

Unaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns

The federal government’s much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned.

Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program.

I don’t remember it, never heard about it in fact….not a whimper of outraged liberal angst from the BBC…and yet Trump puts a temporary halt of immigration from 7 countries due to security concerns, countries targeted by Obama, and all hell breaks loose….the BBC constantly insinuating this is a ‘Muslim ban’ by always, always adding ‘Muslim majority countries’ to their reports when Islam had nothing to do with the choice.

Even anti-Trump liberals are starting to object to the Media’s portrayal of Trump…

Is there not something faintly ridiculous about the media’s sudden re-imagining of itself as the last bastion and redoubt of democracy in a time of advancing darkness? Absolutely.

Trump’s demonization of the media is a cynical political ploy. But this only raises the question of why this anti-media position should be politically advantageous? Why is journalism one of the least trusted professions among Americans, vying with Congress, prostitutes, and used car salesmen for the bottom of the rankings? Absolutely no self-reflection from the media has followed the election of Trump, only an orgy of self-righteousness and blame-shifting…the media often interprets his comments literally so that they seem untrue and fantastical, even when reading them in context shows that what Trump means is something much less outrageous, or at least different.

And here’s an article [from Jan. 2016] on the problems we’re going to have as, what is basically an ‘army’ from Muslim countries, has been allowed to enter Europe…

Europe’s Man Problem

Migrants to Europe skew heavily male—and that’s dangerous.

According to official counts, a disproportionate number of these migrants are young, unmarried, unaccompanied males. In fact, the sex ratios among migrants are so one-sided—we’re talking worse than those in China, in some cases—that they could radically change the gender balance in European countries in certain age cohorts.  Years of research has shown that male-dominated societies are less stable, because they are more susceptible to higher levels of violence, insurgence and mistreatment of women.  66.26 percent of adult migrants registered through Italy and Greece over the past year were male, according to the International Organization of Migration.According to Swedish government statistics, as of the end of November, 71 percent of all applicants for asylum to Sweden in 2015 were male. 

Fear of terrorism might not be the only reason to be leery of highly abnormal sex ratios among the young adult population. As my co-author Andrea Den Boer and I argued in our book, societies with extremely skewed sex ratios are more unstable even without jihadi ideologues in their midst. Numerous empirical studies have shown that sex ratios correlate significantly with violence and property crime—the higher the sex ratio, the worse the crime rate. Our research also found a link between sex ratios and the emergence of both violent criminal gangs and anti-government movements.

While the humanitarian needs of the refugees streaming into Europe must be foremost in our minds at this time, policymakers in Sweden and other countries should also think of the long-term consequences of an unprecedented alteration in the young adult sex ratios of their societies.

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



The comedian Rory Bremner was on 5 Live earlier last night being rigorously challenged with tough questioning about his ardently pro-Remain position on Brexit….no, sorry, can’t keep that up….he was given such a softball interview it was embarrassing, the presenter chortling along in happy agreement as Bremner offered us his patronising contempt for the Leave voters whom, he told us, were absolutely right that they’d been left behind but were absolutely wrong about the causes…such as the EU and immigration, they were misled, lied to….and of course, Trump and Farage deviously exploited their concerns… ‘Blair’ says in the video above…if it all goes wrong it’s the stupid people’s fault for voting for the conmen.

Trouble is they weren’t ‘left behind’,  they were cast deliberately and ruthlessly onto the scrapheap by politicians, Big Business and the likes of the BBC who didn’t just sit back and not challenge immigration policies and the rush towards ever-closer union but actively promoted it.  Labour knew full well the implications of what mass immigration of cheap labour would do to the job prospects of British workers but they went ahead anyway…mass immigration for Labour, as for the EU itself, is a political project intended to ‘ethnically cleanse’ nation states of citizens loyal to those nations and turn us all into good little EU citizens….with the additional aim for Labour of  ‘browning’ the hideously white UK.

Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”…ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.” 

Blair now reappears on the scene telling us how concerned he is for the good of Britain…this is a man who didn’t give a damn about the good of Britain as he flooded the country with cheap foreign labour and tried to hand us over lock, stock and barrel to the EU Junta.  The BBC of course didn’t question the second coming of Blair, instead giving him lots of airtime and a free pass on his claims about Brexit…yet again the BBC looks away and fails in its job to hold such people to account….would they have done the same if he had supported Brexit?

Bremner and Blair, hard to tell them apart, both media savvy, smooth talking charlattans that the BBC fawns over.


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

Not Us Guv


‘What’s the role of traditional journalism in a world where crying “fake news” has become a potent political tool and trust in the mainstream media has collapsed? Former editor of The Sunday Times Sir Harry Evans is in London for a discussion tonight organised by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on how reporters can make a difference in a “post truth” world.’


Yet more abysmal ‘journalism’ from Nick Robinson [08:20]…perhaps he should consider his position…the longer he stays at the BBC the more useless and biased his reports become.

Trump has refused to bow down to the self-selected Media priesthood with their enormous sense of entitlement and belief that they not only hold government to account but are in fact the real government themselves deciding which policies are acceptable and which not.

The BBC just can’t get over Trump’s cheek and lack of respect for their genius…doesn’t he know they have many degrees in English between them and that their dads held high office within its sainted ranks…as do their brothers and sisters…the BBC is Media Royalty after all.   Surely they deserve some respect for their heritage?  No?

Robinson started off as he meant to go on and did so with no sense of self-awareness as he casually claimed Trump was bullying the Media…this from a man employed by the BBC which has spent the last two years shouting abuse at Trump and doing everything it could to stop him being elected.  Robinson also name checks the ‘post-truth era’ as if it were a real thing and not just a very convenient invention of the left-wing media intended to discredit Trump’s election and Brexit.   Note also the BBC’s sudden u-turn on fake news….from using the term itself as a political weapon against Trump they now denounce Trump for using it against them…. ‘crying “fake news” has become a potent political tool.’  LOL…quelle horreur.

Robinson wheeled in Sir Harry Evans to vent his spleen and he did so in full-on bilious mode.

Trump was a liar, a liar, a liar, a madman, a compulsive liar, a man with a personality defect…and he was a liar.

Who was it said this..was it Lord Hall? …Spot on though and describes exactly what the power of the BBC is to distort what people say and misrepresent them and their intentions….

‘What is important is not what the creator of an idea of genius may mean, but what this idea becomes in the mouth of whomever transmits it.’

Where does the BBC keep digging these people up?  Having said that it doesn’t really need to go out of house as its own journalists are quite ready to demonise Trump calling  him crazy, power mad, a dictator, not forgetting of course the endless times they call him a Fascist, racist, sexist, Islamophobe and link him deliberately to Hitler, Stalin and Mao….

Mr Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy have led to comparisons, from some quarters, with the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

Later changed to the apparently more acceptable...

The US president’s use of “enemies of the people” raises unavoidable echoes of some of history’s most murderous dictators.

Naturally Robinson doesn’t give any weight to the consideration that Trump may actually be right and that the Media is a bunch of lying charlattans who do more to damage democracy than any others bar the politicans themselves [ref.  Nichola Sturgeon].

Undoubtedly Trump will come to some accomodation eventually with the Press which would be a shame…and a shame that more politicians and people under the Media spotlight don’t fight back and hold the Media to account…just about the only thing I can applaud George Galloway for doing.



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

Radio Free Movement


The BBC really is pushing the boat out for immigration today…which is remarkable as the BBC is renowned for not wanting to talk about immigration, for wanting to suppress debate, so much so that they habitually resort to the very sinister and Stalinist tactic of show-trialling anyone who dares to challenge the orthodoxy that immigration is good and that Islam represents no threat to Western civilisation, denouncing such heretics as the Far-Right, Fascists, Nazis and racists….so much for free, fair and impartial debate.

Of course when the BBC does talk about immigration the discussion is rigorously policed and controlled, held within well defined limits of acceptable ideas….step outside the BBC’s approved comfort zone and you’re toast and of course they control any interviews by selecting the interviewee, choosing one who they know will voice the acceptable ideas with an agreeable tone….such as in this interview on the Today show about Swedish immigration, the BBC trying to undermine Trump’s reference to its downsides.  A very short interview clearly only intended to rapidly rebut the concerns about what is happening in Sweden….we hear that yes there is immigrant crime but it is caused by the socio-economic conditions of immigrant families and it is completely untrue that police officers cannot record the ethnicity of criminals….strange then that police officers say they cannot or that it is frowned upon and discouraged by politicians who seek to hide the truth such as the real problem immigration poses…

This month, a seasoned investigator with the police department in Orebro, Peter Springare, caused a stir with a Facebook posting in which he discussed the case files on his desk.

“What I’ve been handling Monday-Friday this week: Rape, rape, serious rape, assault rape, black mail, black mail, assault in court, threats, attack against police, threats against police, drugs, serious drugs, attempted murder, rape again, black mail again and abuse,” Mr. Springare said. He went on to list the first names of the people he said were suspects, all but one of which were traditionally Middle Eastern.

Why such a short interview with someone who was obviously picked to toe the line?  Why no police officers or others who are concerned?  A very one-sided ‘debate’ from the BBC about a problem that is well known and of ever increasing concern.

Following Today we had ‘Start the Week’, subject: ‘Build That Wall’: Barriers and Crossings.  No guesses which were the main walls of contention…Trump and Israel.  Nothing good comes of them we learn.  They did go to Ireland to check out a ‘barrier’ there…the border with NI….not oddly enough the ‘Peace Walls’ which you’d think would be the first port of call and an obvious subject.

Then we had ‘Book of the Week’:  Border – Tales from the Edge of Europe.  Another dose of ‘aren’t borders bad and murderous’.

Then we had ‘Neither Here Nor There’….with a daily dose of unreality as a black immigrant gives us a very select view of immigration…the first programme…How the Israelis are so-badly treating Ethiopian refugees….’Ethiopian Jews remain the most disadvantaged group within the Jewish population. Many have been victims of racism and tensions have boiled over, resulting in clashes in with the police. ‘

The next episode is about the Guyanese immigrant community in the US…the author of these tracts is Guyanese himself….considering the vast diversity of immigrants to the US you might have thought he could choose a more representative group…Hispanics or Cubans…but no, he chooses his own group.

Next he heads off to Sweden to look at Bosnian Muslims…why them?  Probably because they are more European than the rest of the Muslim immigrants and therefore he hopes to persuade us that Sweden is not ‘under attack’.

Then off to Germany to discover just how essential all those Turkish guest workers were to the German economy….just the usual BBC narrative…which neglects all the downsides…such as Turkey views them as a Turkish enclave, a Trojan Horse within Germany and actively told Turks not to assimilate.

Finally it’s Britain’s turn and we get the blame for not integrating the Asians…and of course the compulsory mention of Brexit and the inevitable false association with ‘hate crimes’…

What measures did the British government take to promote integration? What compromises and sacrifices were Asian women themselves prepared to make? And what more could have been done on both sides to ease the multicultural tensions that have surfaced once again in Brexit-era Britain?

So five very targeted programmes all either of interest only to the author or peddling the usual BBC narratives on Israel, Brexit, the wonders of economic migrants and of course crushing the criticism of Sweden’s immigration policy.

Then we have The Underground Railroad…‘the new novel by Colson Whitehead, abridged for radio across 10 episodes. This brilliant and at times brutal novel about the history of slavery and racism in America won the US National Book Award for Fiction in 2016.’

Not a bad days work for the BBC eh?  I have no doubt that the other scheduled programmes on Radio 4, and throughout the BBC, also slipped in pro-immigration, anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, messages…but the dedicated programmes on immigration/race are a remarkable haul for just one day on just one station…is that what we pay the licence fee for, to be bombarded with propaganda that peddles a very, very one-sided view of immigration and is designed to counter what the BBC sees as the ignorant and prejudiced views of most of the population?

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

Bloody Sunday



Heard some of Sunday yesterday just as Roy Hatterseley was brought in to plug his book about the persecution of Catholics in Britain…apparently Catholics survived by sticking rigorously to their faith.  In the usual BBC way this was undoubtedly meant to be a ‘lesson from history’ that parallels Muslim experience of ‘suffering’ in Britain today…good that the BBC should be advising them to be even more fundamentalist.  Amused that even here the BBC slotted in a comment about Brexit…Henry VIII’s Reformation was yet another historical parallel apparently…which you may take as good news…Britain soaring to ever greater heights as the Popish shackles were thrown off.

Then we moved onto the ‘securitisation of Islam’ in America….people only look at Muslims through the prism of security…go figure.  Apparently Trump has appointed people who have what were fringe ideas about Islam…such as it is incompatible with the West.  Hmmm…fringe or mainstream, the BBC and Obama aside?  We were told that Muslims feel under siege, both in the US and here in the UK, and that this has united them in a common cause.  Hmmm…no, what unites them is Islam and 9/11….which was Osama Bin Laden’s call to arms to Muslims across the world…as Lawrence of Arabia might have noted…

Such people demanded a war-cry and banner from outside to combine them, and a stranger to lead them, one whose supremacy should be based on an idea: illogical, undeniable, discriminant: which instinct might accept and reason find no rational basis to reject or approve.  This was the binding assumption of the Arab movement; it was this which gave it an effective, if imbecile unanimity.

Ed Stourton managed to bring Brexit into this….naturally Muslims were suffering even more now after the referendum vote just as Muslims are in the Trump era…aren’t they?

An extremely one-sided narrative about Muslims from someone, Dr Peter Mandaville, who is clearly not a fan of the truth.  So why does the BBC, so concerned about facts, truth and accuracy as it is now, give him a platform to peddle his schmutter totally unchallenged by Stourton?





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