Corbyn’s ‘useful stormtroopers’

 

 

The BBC tells us that Britain is a nastier, more anti-semitic, more misogynist, more violent, more sinister place since Corbyn became leader of Labour….his leadership giving licence to the thugs who roam British streets attacking those they want to silence and abuse.  The BBC gives us an alarming ‘warning from history’ about the rise of the Stalinist left across Europe with the echoes of the Thirties, the gulags, the secret police, the mass murder of millions as they built the Socialist dream State.  Or did I just dream that?  Aah…no…that’s how the BBC protrays Brexit…just replace Stalin with Hitler.

Dan Hodges clearly thinks the BBC and fellow travellers are turning a blind eye to the sinister rise of the Corbyn gangsters….

Imagine the following scenario. In the next few months an extreme party surges to the brink of power on mainland Europe. Its leader is an eccentric maverick with a penchant for spending his time buried deep in the darker recesses of the internet, where he engages with sites populated by posts about and links to conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers and the peddlers of neo-Nazi propaganda.

He openly embraces religious fanatics, personally donates money to virulently racist organisations, and entertains proscribed terrorist groups, describing them as ‘friends’. At his side is a loyal lieutenant, in whose office is proudly displayed a plaque praising the sacrifice of terrorists who murdered police officers and civilians. He frames violent attacks on the headquarters of his political opponents as representing ‘the best of our movement’. He echoes calls for female political opponents to be ‘lynched’. He tells his supporters that media organisations who fail to report in the way they deem appropriate should be forced to do so by direct action.

The rise of this party, understandably, causes consternation. Jewish leaders publicly state they would not even enter the room with its leaders unless the overt racism is addressed. A cross-party parliamentary investigation finds the party has become a ‘safe-space’ for racists. Moderate politicians speak out, but are confronted by an unprecedented campaign of abuse and intimidation. Homophobic and misogynistic slurs become commonplace. Bricks are thrown through windows. The party’s cultish followers, drunk on their own political momentum, chant their leaders’ names at massed rallies. 

Actually, don’t bother to imagine. Simply open your eyes. That party is Labour. That leader is Jeremy Corbyn. And that mainland European country is our own. We live in an era of unprecedented and dramatic political turmoil. But the most significant changes can still occur incrementally and unobtrusively. And that is what has just happened.

Of course the rise of the leftist Blackshirts wouldn’t be ‘unobtrusive’ if the BBC did its job properly…instead of which they actually promote this thuggish, terror supporting regime.

The BBC, as always, one of the biggest dangers to British democracy.

 

 

Tariffic!

 

Trump’s imposing tariffs on steel and the world implodes…we’re going to have a trade war and the wondrous globalisation enrichment programme will come to a shuddering halt….the BBC tells us. Trump is just so stupid and ignorant.  How soon they forget….

EU raises import duties on Chinese steel, angering Beijing

If a country dumped its excess steel at rock-bottom prices that is just the opposite of a tariff….it is ‘trade war’ by other means…it’s unfair competition…which is why tariffs are imposed…to produce a level playing field.  As we know the EU imposes tariffs on imports…unless you’re in the single market…remember that?  Curious the BBC/Remainers complain about Brexit and subsequent likely tariffs but don’t blame the EU for those tariffs…whilst they do blame the US for its tariffs.

Once again the BBC carefully selects who the ‘bad guys’ are…and is also pushing hard on the ‘poisonous food’ from America…#duetobrexit.  We will be importing food from America that is produced cheaply and in filthy conditions and the poor will be forced to eat it as they won’t be able to afford the wholesome, healthy and highly regulated food the EU produces.  Hmmm…so how do these ‘poor’ eat now then as we don’t import this cheap toxic beef and chicken from the US now?  Just how do Americans not die in their millions from all that rubbish they put in their mouths?  You’d have no idea that the US has strict food hygiene standards if you listen to the BBC….let’s not forget for 20 years British beef and lamb were banned from the US…and how many food scandals have we had across Europe in recent years?  Pot calling kettle black methinks.

Here’s the Guardian on the EU’s own chicken production standards….

If consumers knew how farmed chickens were raised, they might never eat their meat again

The year 2012 marked a leap forward for animal welfare in the European Union. Farmers were no longer allowed to keep egg-laying hens in barren battery cages smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Instead, the minimum requirement now is that hens are kept in a cage the size of an A4 sheet of paper, with an extra postcard-sized bit of shared space that allows them to scratch and nest. These are known as enriched cages.

Again…this is all hypocrisy…there’s a hue and cry about tariffs on steel but not on the blocking of the sale of products from part of the huge US food industry….a block which is largely political and economic not on health grounds….as proven with ‘chlorinated chickens’ which they EU knows have no health concerns…they are blocked as a protectionist measure for their own farmers.

Is the EU ban on safety or shutting out competition?

The ban is really just one more form of EU protectionism. EU chicken-producers don’t like US chicken because it retails for around 80 per cent the price of European chicken.

The European Food Safety Agency has passed chlorinated-washed chicken for safe consumption. As well, it might, given that it is quite happy for us to drink water which has been chlorinated in order to kill off microorganisms. At the levels used by US producers, the agency concluded, you would have to eat three whole chickens every day to risk exceeding safe limits. Even among regular consumers of US-produced chicken 99 per cent of the chlorine they ingest comes from drinking water rather than food.

The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”

In conclusion, the review did not identify any likely consumer risks that might arise from the use of ASC, chlorine dioxide or aqueous chlorine (including hypochlorite) when used as decontaminant washes of chicken meat. This also includes the view that there was no evidence that the use of these washes lead to the production of substances with the potential to cause cancer, particularly at the levels of use by the poultry industry. Accordingly there was no need to identify existing risk management options.

The BBC are still peddling that old lie about chlorinated chickens despite chlorine being in our tap-water and of course in swimming pools, ingested by the gallon by our kids.

There is also a lot of noise about hormones in US beef…but it has been shown that they are safe if handled correctly and the right dosage given to the animals…..the EU believes that high dosages will result in cancer and thus bans the import of meat produced in such a way….just in case mistakes happen….which is a bit like banning all cars from a country ‘just in case’ a dangerous fault is introduced due to a mistake at the factory….if that standard was applied to the EU’s own food production then we probably wouldn’t eat anything at all judging by all the past food scandals.

A European Commission directive banning the use of hormones in meat production was introduced in the 1980s. Imported meat from animals with detectable levels of hormonal residues was also banned.

The ban was introduced as evidence suggested oestrogenic hormones were carcinogenic at high levels. While animals given correct dosages were unlikely to have high levels, they could occur if there was misuse, such as tissue from an implantation site being sent for consumption.

But the EU was not just concerned about health – the ban was also based on consumer perception that using hormones to manipulate growth is unnatural, unnecessary and a risk to animal welfare.

In the US, where hormones are used, officials maintain there is no good evidence of any health risk from using hormones. The country has long-debated the issue with the EU as it claims the ban is against the spirit of free trade between countries.

Countries that use hormones can export meat to the EU from production facilites that don’t use hormones…thus we could still import cheaper meat from the US post Brexit hormone-free…

Overseas producers supplying the EU usually designate special production units where no hormonal growth promoters are used. The loss of extra productivity is balanced by the high prices received. However, it can still be argued that producers in these countries are at an advantage compared with EU producers because the bulk of their production benefits from greater overall efficiency and can ‘subsidise’ exports of meat from untreated animals.

Shame we never get the context just the anti-Brexit alarmism from the BBC.

 

 

Weekend Open Thread

 

‘Any Questions’ fielded the editor of the online ‘news site’ The Canary Kerry-Anne Mendoza without telling us it is essentially a mouthpiece for Corbyn…not a ‘news site’ at all is it?,  good of the BBC to give it a platform…though maybe not as what we got was childish, ignorant, partisan nonsense from the editor…a bit of insight into what you could expect from The Canary itself?

Interesting to hear Dimbleby describe the audience as ‘self-selecting’…always thought they were carefully and rigorously vetted and selected for impartiality and to provide a good balance that represented the full spectrum of political viewpoints from across the country….Dimbleby also suggested that most of the audience would like to eat less meat….is that because he ran a poll or because he knows most of them are lefty sandal-wearing veggies?  The latter I suspect.

Any instances of the BBC ‘self-selecting’ the news that suits it….list it all here….

Red Alert

 

 

 

Astonishing, our national broadcaster working hand-in-hand with the Russians to undermine, damage and impugn the credibility and standing of the Foriegn Secretary, Boris Johnson.

We heard today, on the BBC, that the Russians would actually welcome being blamed prematurely for the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter as they could use this to discredit later accusations.  The above video is one from RT and has been edited to, as best as possible, make it look like Boris was directly linking Russia to the poisoning.

For the last two days the BBC has been happy to oblige the Russians telling us that Boris did pretty well outright point the finger of blame at the Russians in his answer in the Commons.  This, the BBC told us, was highly reckless and irresponsible of Boris to do so without evidence….The Today show, the BBC’s flagship news programme and presumably staffed by veteran, experienced and intelligent people, also fed us this line.  What we have been told Boris said and what Boris actually said are two completely different things…the BBC has invented a narrative that is entirely fake about our Foriegn Secretary…the Russians must be delighted to have such useful idiots working for them in one of the world’s most powerful and influential news organisations.

As said, Boris said no such things [read his comments in Hansard] and was in fact very guarded in making any accusations..the BBC knows this because it reported it, whilst still making the accusation,  on the website….

The UK would respond “robustly” to any evidence of Russian involvement in the collapse of former spy Sergei Skripal, Boris Johnson has said.

Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, are critically ill in hospital after being found unconscious in Salisbury, Wiltshire.

The foreign secretary said he was not pointing fingers at this stage, but described Russia as “a malign and disruptive force”.

How curious that both R4 news and 5 Live didn’t seem to know that…was it incompetence or wilfully feeding us misinformation about Boris?

Boris has been under constant BBC attack for every comment he makes…this no doubt due to the fact he is a popular  political figure who is high profile in the Leave lobby and the BBC suspects to its horror, wants to be PM.

In contrast we have Amber Rudd, a hardcore Remainer, whom the BBC has been praising today for her moderation and unwillingness to blame Russia, the BBC delighting in quoting us this [linking it in contrast on the radio to Boris’ ‘reckless rhetoric’]…

Ms Rudd told MPs it was an “outrageous crime”, adding that the government would “act without hesitation as the facts become clearer”.

She refused to speculate on whether the Russian state might have been involved in the attack, saying the police investigation should be based on “facts, not rumour”.

Let’s have a look at what Boris said…it bares no resemblance to the impression you would have got had you been listening to BBC news on the radio for the last two days…Boris does not blame the Russians and says specifically it is too early to say who actually carried out the attack….most of his comments about Russia are in fact in relation to their other activities around the world…the BBC though makes a sly attempt to suggest Boris has linked Russia to the poisoning with this quote..’The foreign secretary said he was not pointing fingers at this stage, but described Russia as “a malign and disruptive force”.’

 

  • (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards Russia.

      
  • Hon. Members will note the echoes of the death of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Although it would be wrong to prejudge the investigation, I can reassure the House that, should evidence emerge that implies state responsibility, Her Majesty’s Government will respond appropriately and robustly, although I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that it would not be right for me to give further details of the investigation now, for fear of prejudicing the outcome.

    This House has profound differences with Russia, which I outlined in the clearest terms when I visited Moscow in December. By annexing Crimea in 2014, igniting the flames of conflict in eastern Ukraine and threatening western democracies, including by interfering in their elections, Russia has challenged the fundamental basis of international order.

    The United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has responded with strength and determination, first by taking unilateral measures after the death of Litvinenko, expelling four Russian diplomats in 2007 and suspending security co-operation between our respective agencies, and then by leading the EU’s response to the annexation of Crimea and the aggression in Ukraine by securing tough sanctions, co-ordinated with the United States and other allies, targeting Russian state-owned banks and defence companies, restricting the energy industry that serves as the central pillar of the Russian economy, and constraining the export of oil exploration and production equipment.

    Whenever those sanctions have come up for renewal, Britain has consistently argued for their extension, and we shall continue to do so until and unless the cause for them is removed. These measures have inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy. Indeed, they help to explain why it endured two years of recession in 2015 and 2016.

    As the House has heard repeatedly, the UK Government have been in the lead at the UN in holding the Russians to account for their support of the barbaric regime of Bashar al-Assad. The UK has been instrumental in supporting Montenegro’s accession to NATO and in helping that country to identify the perpetrators of the Russian-backed attempted coup. This country has exposed the Russian military as cyber-criminals in its attacks on Ukraine and elsewhere.

    As I said, it is too early to speculate about the precise nature of the crime or attempted crime that took place in Salisbury on Sunday, but Members will have their suspicions. If those suspicions prove to be well founded, this Government will take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms. Though I am not now pointing fingers, because we cannot do so, I say to Governments around the world that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished. It may be that this country will continue to pay a price for our continued principles in standing up to Russia, but I hope that the Government will have the support of Members on both sides of the House in continuing to do so. We must await the outcome of the investigation, but in the meantime I should like to express my deep gratitude to the emergency services for the professionalism of their response to the incident in Salisbury.

     

The BBC claims the mention by Boris of Litvinenko is also a direct accusation by him…..and yet they fail to mention that Labour’s Emily Thornberry makes the same comment in the same session minutes later…

As the Secretary of State says, the incident has disturbing echoes of the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko 12 years ago, and it comes after the exposure last June by BuzzFeed News of the fact that, since 2012, 14 individuals considered hostile to the Putin regime have died in mysterious circumstances on British soil.

As usual with the BBC it is one rule for Boris, one rule for everyone else.  The BBC is definitely targeting Boris in an attempt to discredit him and no doubt with the hope that if they keep on portraying him as a disaster as Foreign Secretary May will one day be forced to sack him.

 

 

Loose Change…Loose Talk

We don’t half get some rubbish from the BBC.

According to Nicky Campbell Putin’s speech the other day when he was boasting of Russia’s latest missile and its abilities was in fact part of a Trump/Putin conspiracy to boost American weapons sales…..the speech was ‘very profitable for the American arms industry’ Campbell whispered in such a way as to suggest a bit of Machiavellian connivance between the two old buddies.

And of course it wouldn’t be the BBC without trying to tie Brexit into the mix as it claimed our place in the world is so reduced #duetobrexit that we have no allies and no influence to stop Russia killing people on the streets of Britain ….this was again a narrative today…apparently we are so desperate for allies in a post-Brexit world that we will cosy up to any old tyrannical regime…such as Saudi Arabia….never mind we have been joined at the hip to them for decades…for weapons and oil and politics…and that Russia has been killing people on our streets long before Brexit…still, don’t let the facts get in the way of anti-Brexit propaganda on the BBC.

We also had Tony Livesey suggest that there is no such thing as British Values….just values that are universal and which are not the result of coming from a particular place.  Naturally he was talking to Jo Cox’s sister, Kim LeadBeater, who had been running round the country for the BBC asking people what they thought British values were and concluded….

For me one of the most heart-warming and inspirational conclusions that the kids came to was something I feel myself – that the things the lesson covered were not just British values – they were values that everyone should have, no matter where they live or come from.

“International values” as one child said or, as I like to think of them, ‘human values’.

Apparently primary school children’s views were more worthy and sensible than grumpy old people who griped miserably about the loss of values…

The kids also all agreed on one thing – most adults could benefit from the odd British values lesson!

It was interesting to see the differences between the three groups – to hear the disappointment there was in the older generation over the loss of values they held dear compared to the enthusiasm of the primary school children for being part of such a diverse class.

I suppose that’s why their parents fled to this country…for its lack of values…they didn’t come for the democracy, the tolerance, the freedom.

It is of course rubbish to suggest such things are not the product of a particular place, such as Britain.  Such values come from unique circumstances in combination with political, social, religious and economic situations allied to a mindset of the people…they do not spring forth fully formed around the world out of some hole in the earth.  There are indeed ‘British Values’ that are the result of hundreds of years of struggle, bloodshed and thought that produced the unique circumstances that bred those values.

The BBC once again tries to dismiss the importance of ‘Britain’ in its usual narrative of relativity, of a world where every culture is of equal value and no culture or society is better than any other.  Just not true.