“Let’s not overstate it,” says Jo Coburn…

…when a guest gets enthusiastic about the rallies for the Brexit Party.

That’s at 0:40 minutes in on this clip on Politics Live, uploaded to YouTube by the eminent True Brit.

That made me curious about the lone voice of sanity on the panel. He is Tom Harwood, award-winning journalist and commentator, who writes for Guido Fawkes.

Then I checked his opposition out:

*Sam Gyimah, Conservative MP and a Remainer.

*Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP. Here’s a tweet from her:

Today is #EuropeDay. A day when we celebrate our continent in all its richness and diversity And when we celebrate the European Union which is, at its heart, a project of peace and unity …

(That made me feel quite ill.)

*Grace Blakeley, journalist and economist. Here’s a tweet from her:

A Green New Deal isn’t enough – we need a Global Green New Deal And that means we need new international institutions built on genuine solidarity, not the imperialist faux-internationalism of the ‘liberal rules-based order’…

(Somebody pass me a bucket.)

Tom Harwood continues enthusiastically, and when he says, “I’m staggered, really, as someone who isn’t naturally predisposed to the cheerleading for Nigel Farage…” he’s interrupted by one among the female opposition, with, “You’re predisposed to it now.”

It’s so typical of the left to make snide comments when they don’t have a valid response to a valid point – which is most of the time.

At this stage the Peterborough rally is being shown.

When Tom Harwood encourages everyone to look at Margaret Thatcher’s rallies in 1953, at 1:40 in, there is a gasp of astonishment, followed by, “Oh my God,” and then Jo Coburn asks Glace Blakely whether she will be looking at clips of Margaret Thatcher. The question is no doubt flippant and the answer is naturally in the negative.

Grace Blakely then makes it clear that she believes there will be a rise in popularity of the Brexit Party, but only because of its “populism,” in the absence of policies.

Then Molly Scott asks Tom Harwood what the Brexit Party can offer, “other than being angry,” demonstrating, for the nth time, the left’s inability to debate in a civil fashion.

Tom responds politely, but of course his support of the Brexit Party is dismissed by Grace who believes it is “far right,” Molly by pouring vitriol on its Italian equivalent, a smiling Sam Gyimah with his assertion that any other politician could arise and also “muster huge audiences” and by Jo, who feels obliged to add her opinion by pointing out that Jeremy Corbyn “also did that.” (Not sure what kind of support Corbyn could currently rally.)

Meanwhile, someone named ‘Vera’ has been trying to interject, with Jo asking her to hold on. Finally Vera appears on a screen from an outside feed to proclaim that the ‘people’s vote’ rally attracted over a million supporters (which Tom then disputes) and goes on to fiddle with other stats to try to diminish Brexit.

I’m not sure who Vera is or why her opinion should matter, but by my count that makes it 5 blinkered Remainers to 1 Brexiteer, since Jo Coburn, representative of that most-trusted and impartial broadcaster, must surely have nightmares at the prospect of the EU being undermined by Brexit.

The clip only lasts 6:22 minutes. Yet it’s bursting with enough anti-Brexit bias to make any reasonable person turn away in disgust before the end. So here’s a question, esteemed colleagues: what on earth can be done to oblige the BBC to represent all shades of opinion on all subjects in a fair and responsible manner?

The Deep State of Mire the PM has created for herself – and us

Post created by Up2snuff

Had Theresa May had the nerve, the honesty, the decency to accept her Withdrawal Agreement was no good and had gone for a No Deal Brexit on 29 March, she would possibly by now be a hero instead of a villain. In addition, her Chancellor Philip Hammond would have probably been in a position to introduce some groundbreaking tax reforms at the Party Conference in September that not only would please the country but also cut the fiscal legs from under Labour. More perhaps on that another time.

If Prime Ministers are advised to do two things then they would be ‘Do not make promises that are not kept.’ and ‘Do not create Calendar dates that will remind the Opposition, the Media and the Voter of your failures.’.

Theresa May has fallen into both traps.

While a break from Parliament business may provide her with a pause to think, she might be wise to remember and re-read her leadership speech outside Downing Street after she had won the Party leadership. The manifest unfairness and divisiveness of pandering to a small minority of Remain voters, many in both Houses of Parliament or retired from there, will be remembered every time Europe and the EU and Brexit are mentioned. Then there is the phrase “Leave means leave.”

The media and the voter will have reminders when Parliament returns on 23 April, again on 2 May in Local Authority elections and on 22/23 May in Europe when the EU Parliament Elections take place, irrespective of whether the UK has to vote. After a brief pause, the media and the voter will have another reminder from the Conservative Party Conference and then again as the 31st October revised deadline for the UK’s departure from the EU, barring or perhaps because of the result of a ‘Peoples Vote’ Referendum.

I do not think the Prime Minister can possibly survive in post much beyond 31st October 2019. In an Age of Equality it would be proper to think of her as a ‘Dead Man Walking’ or a ‘Zombie PM’. Lame Duck seems wholly inadequate.

Should something remarkable happen if Theresa May hangs on and wins a Confidence Vote in December 2019 then the big Calendar reminders will still come around without fail, along with all the small ones, prompted by any news events from the EU, again next year and after that all while she remains as leader.

Candace Owens blasts the Democrats ….

….and gets some heart-warming help from a Republican.

Some of my eminent colleagues here have watched clips of Candace Owens fighting back against the Democrats, including her powerful defence against a sly, PeeCee defamer named Lieu, during the hearing on hate crimes. Out of general interest and in order to hear more from Candace, I decided to plough through 3 hours of the hearing on YouTube.

An hour and 38 minutes in, Republican Representative Buck of Colorado broke through Democrat propaganda and questioned Candace with evident admiration. Here’s how he began:

Ms Owens, I’m going to address these questions to you, if I may. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, [holding up a file] but it’s a memorandum that the majority Democrats prepared for the committee members and in this memorandum they go through the various witnesses’ names and organisations that they represent, the Anti-Defamation League, the Equal Justice Society, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law and then we get to you.

Oh my goodness. Candace Owens, Director of Communications at the conservative …. Nobody else is described as progressive or liberal but you are described as a conservative advocacy group for Turning Point USA and a conservative commentator and political activist known for her criticism of Black Lives Matter and the Democrat Party. I think you’ve caused my friends on the left to go to their safe spaces and I’d love to explore with you a little bit of the reasons for that…

Then Representative Buck asks Candace a number of questions which bring a smile to her face. Brought a smile to my face too as the back and forth between the two of them demonstrated the best of America when they cut through lefty PeeCee like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

I’m going to plough through the next two hours of the hearing on the lookout for another gem or two in between the propaganda onslaught from the Democrats.

Meanwhile, here’s Candace and Representative Buck.

Update:

Here’s the address to a UK audience by Candace and Charlie of Turning Point. It’s over an hour, but Representative lieu chose to play a half-minute clip of it during the hearing to try to smear Candace as an apologist for Hitler.

And here’s Lieu with his attempted smear. He has the gall to turn to other witnesses without even giving Candace a chance to respond. She gets the chance at 5:30 in, and demolishes him as well as Chairman Nadler, who tries to defend Lieu.

Update April 14:

Candace Owens reminds me of Diamond and Silk, two powerful black American women who also testified before Congress and who also refused to show the slightest respect for sly Democrats with no moral fibre who tried to bring them down.

The Deplorable Choir….

….takes its name, of course, from Hilary Clinton’s backfiring attempt to denigrate Trump supporters.

Here’s what freedom looks and sounds like:

Proud to be Deplorable

Vote Republican song

No smokin’ gun

Brick by brick

Pro-life Song

And this guy John Morgan is so good I thought for a moment that Bush had taken up a new career:

George W Bush sings Hallelujah to Donald Trump

I realise this is all a touch off topic for this fine website, but I needed a break from the appalling Brexit betrayal and, of course, from the BBC’s delight in the betrayal.

I hope my esteemed colleagues here enjoy the entertainment.

Just a request or three

David Vance has appealed over the years to contributors to moderate their language, so I’m just echoing that appeal here. There’s nothing to be gained by competing with the comments section under many YouTube videos, and swearing probably drives some people away from the site who would otherwise contribute.

More disturbing are attacks on political figures which can be interpreted as promoting violence and even assassination. This blog is not a hate site, never was and I’m sure never will be.

We have to also consider the disturbing moves on the part of the ‘government’ towards a police state, where people can be hauled out of their homes, shoved before a kangaroo court without genuine legal aid and jailed for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion.

Passionate argument against the foul BBC and its ilk is what we should be aiming at, so let’s try not to be diverted from that course.

The Independent and the BBC

I have always seen the Independent as a left-to far-left publication, not quite as an unhinged as the dreadful Guardian but still pickled in bias. So I was surprised to see the article, Coffee with Chuka Umunna is a step too far for Jeremy Corbyn, by one Flic Everett. She doesn’t seem to appreciate Corbyn much, with barbs like

….from the very beginning of the Brexit process, leader of the Opposition has behaved like a sulky teen forced to visit his nan

And

….Corbyn has fudged and dissembled, sniped and muttered, and divided his own party….

And

High principles that go unchallenged when you’re cycling round a few far-left meeting halls are not fit for purpose when you intend to run the country.

This made me recall that Dimbleby also doesn’t seem fond of Corbyn. He allowed questions quite critical of him on QT re anti-Semitism and refrained from jumping in and interrupting panelists who would also attack Corbyn.

As recently as the last QT, Fiona Bruce echoed Everett’s concerns by pointing out to the Labour guy that Corbyn had walked out of a meeting because Umunna was present.

This makes me wonder why Corbyn doesn’t get wholehearted support from these representatives of the left. Do they see him as the wrong leader to defeat the Tories because he is too far left?

What say you?

Tommy Robinson sues the police!

Update March 12: Ezra Levant is doing a fine job reporting from the trial on Twitter.

Yesterday, March 11th, Ezra Levant got an urgent request from his friend Tommy to hop over from Canada to London and then Peterborough to report on his suit against the police in civil court. It’s probably unnecessary since there are so many fair and impartial UK media people keen to report honestly on anything to do with Tommy Robinson. John Sweeney will most likely be the first one in court, representing that most-trusted broadcaster known as the BBC.

UK media will no doubt be appalled and outraged at the harassment of Tommy and his family by the Cambridgeshire police, and will therefore report on the trial in impeccable and comprehensive detail. But just to be sure, he wanted Ezra Levant with him for his input and support.

I suppose Ezra has already landed and has made his way to Peterborough for the beginning of proceedings at 10am. The exercise is costly and he has appealed for help. Info on developments can be found here and donations made for those able so to do.

Here’s Tommy from yesterday, discussing the issue.

Thanks to StewGreen and G.W.F. for providing links on the Open Thread.

To John Sweeney Cc BBC Panorama

Update March 11: I messed the links up on the initial post, but all links are fixed now

As a keen follower of Panodrama, I note you are suspected of being a bigot here and here, and a homophobe. I reserve judgement, because I think the remarks you made could be due simply to your rough Irish sense of humour rather than any real animosity towards these groups of people including your own. I also note that you strenuously denied these deficiencies of character and I’m inclined to believe you.

But you shouldn’t be surprised if people who are constantly judged and disparaged by the BBC simply for holding valid beliefs the BBC disapproves of should judge and disparage you after the unwitting revelations you made in Panodrama.

However, there are two extremely damaging revelations that cannot be debated or excused. The first is your hero-worship of the IRA’s Martin McGuinness and the second is the idea you came up with of sexualising a heated argument between Tommy Robinson and Lucy Brown, thereby potentially portraying Tommy as a sexual predator.

The working title of your Panorama is (or was) Tommy Takedown. It seems in order to facilitate this objective you worked closely with a violent, far-left outfit with the peculiar label of HopenotHate. Tommy Robinson confronted you several times with that allegation. You only responded near the end of the ‘interview’ with a partial admission that you have had some input from some people. Your ‘executive producer’ would also neither confirm nor deny the same allegation, saying only this is an ongoing documentary.

Apparently it is ongoing, since you were seen last week with far-left ‘activist’ Mike Stuchbery. Stuchbery was apparently responsible for sending a pack of five men (including a druggie, ‘journalists’ and a dog) to intimidate Tommy Robinson’s wife and children while he was out of the country.

It is unclear to me what kind of ‘Panorama’ you now intend to produce, or will be able to produce on Tommy Robinson. What would you call it – Post-Panodrama butt-covering exercise? Well over 10 000 people saw Panodrama on a giant screen outside BBC studios on February 23rd. And in just over two weeks, Panodrama has now been viewed on the Internet by millions of people in the UK and worldwide. Your reputation, along with that of the BBC, has been seriously damaged, perhaps irreversibly. Productions of Panorama will now be viewed by many with skepticism and a Panorama on Tommy Robinson will be regarded with raised eyebrows at best and ridicule of the BBC at worst.

However, there are steps you can take to regain some credibility. The first, and most obvious, is to tear Tommy Takedown up and throw it in the bin where it belongs. The second is to apologise unreservedly for the intended sexual slur against Tommy Robinson – a fraudulent claim which, as he said, could have ruined him. The third is to scout around for stories of interest to the general public – and not just the BBC elite and your fellow-travelers – and to tell them honestly and impartially. Don’t decide beforehand that you are going to take someone down and then scout around for ‘evidence’ to back your biased intention.

Here’s an idea: Facebook has banned Tommy Robinson, with no justification and out of narrow, left-wing spite and fear of Tommy’s numerous enemies. At the same time, Facebook allows terrorist organisations such as Hamas to incite murder against Jews on its platform, but immediately removed an account inciting murder against Palestinians. That account was created to test mark Zuckerberg’s alleged commitment to fair play. The Israel Law Centre, Shurat Hadin, sued Facebook (unsuccessfully) in 2016 in a New York court and is now suing Facebook again for a billion dollars.

This is a huge and complex story and worthy of the attention of a diligent investigative journalist such as John Ware, who unfortunately no longer does Panorama. Mr. Sweeney, I doubt you could as good a job as him but you could certainly try.

Oh, and one more thing: BBC, I realize this would be a drastic omission for you, but please stop plastering ‘Yaxley-Lennon’ over every story on Tommy Robinson. Everybody knows by now who he is and despite your efforts he will always be regarded as Tommy Robinson and admired and respected around the world for his courage and commitment in the face of evil.

Here’s hoping Panodrama…

…will make the BBC paranoid.

Update 26/02:
Here’s the good-quality original Panodrama from Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel with added subtitles.

Update 27/02:
From a comment by theisland below:

Donations and sign up for free updates from Tommy Robinson is still working:

here or here

(on-off problems with the first link, but the second is working fine.)

Update 27/02:
So they’ve banned Tommy Robinson from Facebook – not through any wrongdoing, but simply for opposing the elite with their slick agenda against Western civilisation. I find it hard to express my disgust with Mark Zuckerberg and company.

Update 27/02:
And now Amazon has banned Mohammed’s Koran, co-written by Peter McLoughlin and Tommy Robinson. The elite really are circling the wagons against the truth.

Original post:
Been scouting to find a good video of Panodrama and have struggled through about half of this one.

I can see the difficulty of getting a good reproduction of Panodrama (great title, by the way) by filming the big screen and live-streaming the result on Youtube. Still, it seems the quality of the original is also poor. Pity that Tommy Robinson evidently couldn’t get a pro to assist with its creation.

I’m no techie, but it seems evident that there should have been transcripts alongside interviews and phone conversations – some of which are really hard to hear.

But I’m not complaining. Tommy Robinson, a little guy, has giant courage and he’s held up a powerful middle finger to the BBC here.

It’s possible that he might even have shamed them into scrapping their ‘Panorama’ about him.

I was impressed by this passionate speech before the film by Richard someone at 20min 30sec in on this clip.

It’s rumoured that uploaded videos are being taken down. If true, could be that the BBC has enough power and influence to get YouTube to do so. Of course, YouTube could decide itself to delete them.

Well, whatever the case, Panodrama is now all over the Internet, a blow has been struck against the vile establishment and, boy, does it do my heart good to see it!

Update 25/02:
Found another Panodrama video of the event with much better audio. It was too far from the screen to clearly see the actors in this drama, but since necessity is the mother of invention it can be downloaded and then played together with the first link on this post with that poor audio muted.

(Well, I’m going to try that now.)

Hopefully the masters of the Internet at silicon valley will allow Tommy’s video with subtitles to be posted across all relevant media.

A questionable amount of time….

….spent watching Question Time

I think people here who believe that the BBC reads this blog are correct. I think Fiona Bruce has come across comments on her lack of clarity of speech and has decided not to take criticism from right-wing Neanderthals at Biased BBC. Indeed, she appears to have doubled down on her diction and is now swallowing every sixth or seventh word.

And whoever is responsible for selecting the panel almost certainly read a comment about panel selection being a touch more fair than it was during Dimbleby’s tenure. Four dogmatic Remainers to one leaver supports the supposition that the BBC is grimly determined to spurn constructive criticism from this blog.

Still, QT is sometimes worth watching. Five minutes out of the hour yesterday were quite instructive. Pro-Brexit Conservative Michael Forsyth held his wicket well against a determined attack from Brexit-hater and journalist Hugo Rifkind.

34:12 minutes in:

Rifkind: Speaking of being wrong consistently, I was reading today the vote leave manifesto – I believe you’re on the board of vote leave …. and not once in there was the Irish border mentioned, not once in there were the words customs union mentioned. All the problems that have come up with Brexit were not foreseen by you….by your movement….

Forsyth: Sorry, on the customs union…

Rifkind: The words customs union are not in there.

Forsyth: Well of course they are not in there because we were wanting to leave the European Union, which means leaving the customs union….

Rifkind: You didn’t happen to mention that that was part of what you were leaving. It’s possible perhaps you hadn’t heard of it at the time.

[Appreciative audience laughter at Rifkind’s snide comment]

Forsyth: Well it’s possible you haven’t read …

[More laughter and some applause]

….It’s possible you haven’t read….

[More of same]

….It’s possible, Hugo, I’m surprised [inaudible] it’s possible that you have not read the Conservative Party manifesto, which gives a commitment – every single Tory MP was elected on a manifesto that said we will be leaving the Customs Union and we will be leaving the single market and…

Rifkind: This was after the referendum….

Forsyth: …and that is what people have voted for and I did a number of…

Bruce: Why is the border not mentioned in there?

Forsyth: Because it’s not an issue.

[More laughter and some cries from audience members wanting to interject]

Rifkind: Seems to be a bit of an issue.

Forsyth: It’s an issue by those people trying to reverse the result of the referendum. The EU said….

Bruce: What do you think of the response from the audience when you say that Michael. People are just laughing.

Forsyth: I, no, well I think they, it’s because they’ve been listening to the BBC, who’s made this an issue when it’s not an issue.

Bruce: Ohh, it’s our fault.

[You have that one right, Fiona. Jeering and applause from the audience; jeering no doubt directed at Forsythe]

Forsyth: I mean, the EU….

Bruce: How could I have not realised – it’s the BBC’s fault.

[Now she’s really milking this, to audience laughter]

Forsyth: Well I can help you. The EU….

Bruce: I might pass on that.

[What makes me think she doesn’t want to hear what the eminent Forsyth has to say about the EU]

Forsyth: The EU have said they don’t want a hard border, the Irish government have said they don’t want a hard border and the British government have said they don’t want a hard border so who exactly is going to put this hard border in place?

At this point Fiona Bruce decided to move on to another issue. Can’t dwell on a statement by a Conservative that makes a strong case for Brexit.

And the only border the EU believes in is one that keeps its dictatorial clique safe in its ivory tower in Brussels. The British government doesn’t seem to worry much about borders either – except when it’s denying entry to activists whose politics conflict with those of the PeeCee elite or, to its eternal shame, denying asylum to Pakistani Christians at risk of death at the hands of their Muslim compatriots.

And the BBC? Not much for borders either but a great fan of employment barriers to any political journalists who are not to the left of the political spectrum – and the further left, the better.

Emily Maitlis chairs an Intelligence Squared debate

I noted on a recent thread that my esteemed colleagues here were less than complimentary about Emily Maitlis. So when her name cropped up while I was Googling Intelligence Squared debates, I thought I’d plonk the debate above the line.

This was the proposition:

The world should recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

Ehud Olmert and Jack Straw were among the debaters. I’m sure I don’t need to state which side Jack Straw was on.

There was an extraordinary moment after the Palestinian speaker had spouted the customary fallacious nonsense against Israel and was challenged by Maitlis over her exaggeration of Gaza fatalities in the confrontation with the IDF on the border. It might have to go down as the first time the BBC ever bluntly told a Palestinian she was being economical with the truth.

If that wasn’t enough to make me fall off my chair there was an even stronger challenge from Maitlis after Olmert’s partner, a UK barrister, pointed out that the Palestinian debater is not prepared to recognize Israel within any boundaries at all.

Having recovered from the fall off the chair I watched the rest of the debate with increased interest. Maitlis also strongly challenged the Israeli side and I have to conclude that overall she didn’t do a bad job at all as chair.

I haven’t been able to find out where the debate was held but the audience was evidently slanted – surprise, surprise – in favour of the Palestinians. Still, there was considerable support for the proposition and I came away from the debate with the impression that the UK tide might finally be turning against the Arab side of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

But perhaps that is unduly optimistic.

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes of the BBC is named…

…but is unlikely to be shamed since it’s doubtful he has any shame.

About 6 months ago I Googled for an old video attack on Israel by Wingfield-Hayes – which struck me as particularly vicious at the time and still does. I put it in ‘Favourites’ for future reference and went back to it today. But lo and behold, the video snapshot faded after a few seconds and I was informed that This content is not available in your location.

I found that rather odd since I’m in Israel, the video was filmed in Israel and Ramallah and plonked on the BBC website under the ‘Middle East’ category. Well, I guess the kindest interpretation is that there is a copyright issue and, just as I cannot access old Question Time programmes on the BBC site, I can now no longer have Wingfield-Hayes’ fossilized old bias inflicted on me.

A less kind interpretation is that the BBC has recently become aware of the foul nature of Wingfield-Hayes’ video and blocked it for Israeli viewers.

Anyway, all I can share for now with the good people on this site in terms of evidence is the link and the blurb:

Tel Aviv is like a new Miami but does it help talks?

Life in Tel Aviv is good with no attacks for years, despite the height of the Middle East conflict going on less than an hour away in the West Bank. But does this help the peace talks?

Israeli and Palestinian leaders are resuming their face to face talks in a bid to prevent the new negotiations from collapsing just days after their launch.
They will be joined by the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh.

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports.

14 Sep 2010

The analysis will have to be done from memory:

Wingfield-Hayes strolls along a Tel Aviv beach while the cameraman videos Israelis having fun and relaxing. He (or his editor, if such a person exists) must have been particularly happy with the video of two women lolling on deck chairs asleep or half-asleep since that became the snapshot mentioned above and will be the first thing anyone sees when accessing Wingfield-Hayes’ understanding of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The scene changes to an interview with a jeweller who is unconcerned about the conflict and for whom life is just fine.

Then we see Wingfield-Hayes strolling in relaxed companionship through the streets of Ramallah with a good-looking young Israeli-Arab (or perhaps he is Palestinian) who earnestly objects to the ‘occupation.’

The message? The Palestinians (or Israeli-Arabs or both) would create a wonderful future between the river and the sea if only those intransigent Israelis would allow them to do so. They represent the vigorous, young future.

The Je.., er, Israelis, on the other hand, represent the past. They are lazy, indolent, pleasure-seeking and interested in adorning themselves with fine jewelry (and profiting from it) rather than resolving the conflict. They should not become complacent because of the lull in (terror) attacks.

One can of course read a much more insidious message into that last bit. I leave it up to the BBC to consider the implications of it and to Wingfield-Hayes and his conscience (if he has one).

Edit 22/11
On the advice of a friend I have deleted ‘Rupert’ and replaced it with ‘Wingfield-Hayes’ in the text above. Use of the first name alone implies familiarity, perhaps friendship, and Wingfield-Hayes is an enemy of me and mine.

Intelligence Squared has Webb preening and Corbyn getting bashed

I drafted the following contribution before I saw the news of the horrific shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh

I appreciate the opportunity to expose the vile anti-Semitism that leads to these attacks, whether coming from Jeremy Corbyn or any other source, including the BBC itself – often disguised as criticism of Israel.

Here’s the earlier draft:

Intelligence Squared US is an interesting debating forum, left-leaning since it’s filled to the brim with academics, but still worth watching because of the differing perspectives from the knowledgeable panel members and the often-fiery debates. There are several on the IQ2 US site and on YouTube stretching back many years.

Intelligence Squared UK, on the other hand, is not only a pale imitation of its US counterpart but has also mangled the US format beyond recognition – with ‘debates’ that are actually left-wing echo chambers with no room for dissent. And so you have Justin Webb, lately BBC North America ‘Editor’, chairing a lefty fest around the following leading question:

Is the Trump presidency causing irreparable damage to America?

For those of my esteemed colleagues who might watch the thing, I should state that Webb engages in a long, excruciating introduction, which is well worth skipping, except that, at 3 minutes in, he has something to say about his ‘interview’ of Obama, putting a humorous slant on it. I watched it at the time, and it was apparent that Webb had no idea how to conduct the interview and sat there mesmerised by the great man, like a rabbit caught in the headlights of his car. Well, I guess Webb’s capacity for self delusion is boundless. He probably also thinks he’s a good journalist rather than a propagandist.

There is one panel member, the lady journalist, who has a couple of sensible things to say about the topic, but apart from that the audience is also predominately anti-Trump and the entire thing is probably a waste of time.

However, while surfing through the IQ debates I stumbled on a podcast questioning whether Jeremy Corbyn is fit to become Prime Minister.

This was much more of a real debate, with Howard Jacobson and Anna Soubry crossing swords with Ash Sarkar (I’d never heard of her, luckily) and Chris Williamson (of whom unfortunately I had).

Jacobson is really impressive, especially with his scathing and hilarious opening attack on Corbyn for his anti-Semitism.

Apparently there will be a video of the podcast at some stage. Might be worth watching it with the sound muted when Sarkar and Williamson open their mouths.

The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald mirror the BBC

I hope my esteemed colleagues will indulge me if I present a case against the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, rather than against the BBC. The latter is only guilty by association here since it practices the precise blinkered left-wing ideology demonstrated by these afore-mentioned publications.

Nick Miller, an alleged journalist ‘reporting’ for these papers, wrote an article purporting to enlighten his readers about anti-Semitism in Europe. Instead, it appears he set out to deliberately mislead them by pretending that the threat to Jews is overwhelmingly from the right.

So I emailed him:

To Nick Miller,

I refer to your article in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on anti-Semitism in Europe published on September 7th.

I note that you have concentrated almost exclusively on anti-Semitism from the right in countries such as Greece and Poland. While there certainly is a disturbing increase in anti-Semitism coming from the right in a few European countries, it is eclipsed by the anti-Semitism coming from Muslims in Europe – most prevalent in France, Sweden and even the UK, where the unholy alliance of Jeremy Corbyn with radical Islam and his unwillingness to expel anti-Semites from the Labour Party has caused a number of Jews to doubt their future in a country where Corbyn is likely to become Prime Minister.

Yet one has to scroll practically to the end of your article to find one paragraph on the very real threat posed to the Jews of Europe by Muslims:

“Both Williams and Schnurbein point to anti-Jewish sentiment imported to Europe in recent years through the influx of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa where a bias against Jews “has been culturally produced over the last 70 years”, Williams says.”

And that statement is then immediately minimised here:

“But the effect should not be over-emphasised. Europe was not a clean slate – indeed, a survey in 2014 found that anti-Semitic sentiment was more prevalent in Greece than in Iran.”

And it is virtually discounted here:

“Williams says Muslim communities should not be made a convenient scapegoat for Europe’s rise in anti-Semitism. “It’s not something that is coming from without, it’s something that needs to be dealt with within,” he says.”

I battle to understand that statement. This is not a matter of looking for scapegoats, but dealing with very real Muslim anti-Semitism, both from without and within Europe.

Regarding the 2014 survey, Greek Jews pointed out that there has been no violence against Jews in Greece, as opposed to France.

In recent years there have been frequent violent attacks and horrific murders of Jews by Muslims in France, and French Jews are emigrating in increasing numbers:

And the situation in Sweden is also dire:

“Historically, anti-Semitism in Sweden could mainly be attributed to right-wing extremists. While this problem persists, a study from 2013 showed that 51 percent of anti-Semitic incidents in Sweden were attributed to Muslim extremists. Only 5 percent were carried out by right-wing extremists; 25 percent were perpetrated by left-wing extremists:”

Frankly, Mr. Miller, you do the Jews of Europe a disservice by obfuscating and minimising Muslim anti-Semitism to the point of non-existence. You also do a disservice to the truth.

Regards, etc.

And he failed to respond. Since my email did not bounce back, I assume either he read it or someone in his office, or whatever, did.

So today I gave the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age some info on their ‘Feedback’ page, pasting my email to Miller in and politely telling them that Miller’s article does no credit to their publications and that as long as the mainstream, left-wing media, so prevalent across the globe, insists on obfuscating and filtering news through its rigid ideology, social media will continue to be a viable alternative.

I didn’t mention fine sites such as this one, but Google might help them find such genuine information, in the unlikely event they’ll be seeking it out.

I look forward to the mainstream media becoming more and more irrelevant, something they richly deserve.

The BBC tried to diminish Entebbe

…but only succeeded in further diminishing itself.

I am pleased to report to esteemed colleagues on this fine site that I finally downloaded British government documents on the Entebbe rescue opened to the public in May 2007 and pounced on by alleged journalist Dan Parkinson who was named and shamed by the indefatigable BBC Watch for triumphantly plucking part of a conspiracy theory from the documents in order to demean and discredit the Israelis and diminish one of the most brilliant and daring rescue operations of modern times.

Here’s the conspiracy theory, in full, sent to the FOC from the British Embassy in Paris:

June 30 1976

A contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association rang me on 29 June to say that according to his information, the hijack was the work of the PFLF, with help from the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Beit. The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO’s standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans. Their nightmare is that after the November elections, one will witness the imposition in the Middle East of a Pax Americana, which will be to the advantage of the PLO (will gain international respectability and perhaps the right to establish a state on evacuated territories) and to the disadvantage of the Refusal Front (who will be squeezed right out in any overall peace settlement ….) and Israel (who will be forced to evacuate occupied territory). Hence the unholy alliance of the hijacking. My contact says that the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis.

Amazing how the Israeli Secret Service would conspire to commit an atrocity on fellow Israelis at the hands of German and Arab terrorists. Only an anti-Semite (or a BBC journalist) could believe such trash.

Even worse, Parkinson had this to say about dual UK-Israeli citizen Dora Bloch:

Two Israeli civilian hostages died in the shooting, and a third died later in a Nairobi hospital.

No, Dora Bloch was abducted from the hospital in Kampala (this ‘journalist’ can’t even get his cities/countries right) and murdered by Amin’s thugs. Her body was recovered later that year 32 km from Kampala and her callous murder caused Britain to break off relations with Uganda.

It defies belief that Parkinson did not know about this, since it caused outrage amongst the public at the time – and since the documents he sourced the story from have several letters and other references to the disappearance of Dora Bloch as the British government strove to find out what had happened to her.

It’s high time the BBC understood that it can no longer simply throw things it doesn’t like down the Memory Hole. We’ll just fish them out again and shove them in the BBC’s smug face.