The ban affects direct flights to the UK from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia.
….unlike of course when Trump banned travel from 7 countries because they were breeding grounds for violence and jihadis, not because they were ‘Muslim’….every BBC report included the ‘Mostly Muslim’ prefix, trying to paint Trump as islamophobic.
The BBC manipulating your thoughts by peddling a news narrative that they have engineered to deceive you.
Donald Trump and his advisers rail against “Islamic terrorism”. Will the … advisers, who echo the president’s most bellicose anti-Muslim rhetoric.
President Trump says his US executive order is “not a Muslim ban” and … from seven mainly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
US President Trump suspends refugee admissions and temporarily bars … And anyone arriving from seven Muslim–majority countries – Iraq.
Google fears employees from seven Muslim–majority countries may not be allowed back into the US.
Martin McGuinness is dead, dying from a rare heart condition….many might think it odd that he was found to have had one after a career murdering and torturing so many, and so many of the murdered being women and children.
Then we had Blair and his obedient attack dog, Campbell, on to glorify the terrorist, not to mention the odious Peter Hain…apparently we wouldn’t have had the peace if it weren’t for McGuinness…which kind of misses the fact that we wouldn’t have had the terrorism if it hadn’t been for the likes of McGuinness…this was a one sided-war that the IRA chose to impose upon Britain. Campbell, ever his pro-EU master’s loyal lapdog, linked McGuinness to Brexit and told us how worried he had been about this…how it might result in a breakdown of the Peace and the imposition of a hard border by an intransigent May. So on message on so many things our Campbell.
Norman Tebbit was allowed on later in the day [12:09] to put a stop to the nonsense as he pointed out that the IRA were beaten and knew they could never win, that’s why McGuinness and Adams jumped ship….McGuinness knew he could be arrested at any time and fled for his life. McGuinness never apologised, he felt no remorse and would have done exacly the same again and indeed would not have stopped the murders and torture if he thought it could have brought victory.
Tebbit said we should never have negotiated and just arrested McGuinness….he went on to say that if we had negotiated with Hitler as we did with the IRA Hitler would have been in control. Adrian Chiles immediately jumped in declaring that ‘It’s a hell of a comparison to draw…Hitler and McGuinness’. Obviously Tebbit wasn’t making uch a personal comparison, he was comparing the process of negotiation and the outcome. However we can compare Chiles’ reaction here with his own stance on Farage, UKIP and the Brexiteers….whom he likes to link to the Nazis and the Far Right and racism. Hell of a comparison no?
Oh, here’s the IRA still celebrating one of their great battles…
A comparison of figure 1 to figure 2 indicates that the UK public actually became more positive towards EU immigration between November 2015 and November 2016, the period covering the campaign, vote and supposedly hate-filled aftermath.
There is nothing here that supports the ‘tide of hate thesis’.
The BBC has mounted a sustained campaign of hate against Leave voters denouncing them as racist, ignorant and bigoted, claiming that they have made Britain a nastier, more racist place since the referendum. This is clearly not true and is the blackest of propaganda that is designed to demonise, and licence attacks upon, Leave voters. It is a form of ‘Blood Libel’ intended to set the world against the Brexiteers.
It is something of an irony that it is EU research that helps disprove this fake news peddled by divisive and partisan BBC….the figures suggest the opposite, that migrants are looked upon more positively since the referendum than before…and…the UK’s figures are very similar to levels in the rest of the EU…which has had no Brexit…
Anti-Brexit campaigners, academics and journalists need to consider two questions: is the invocation of a ‘tide of hate’ really a maligning of the motives and rationality of Leave voters by association; and, more importantly, has associating the mass of Brexit supporters with a ‘tide of hate’ advanced the cause of EU and non-EU immigrants in the UK (or in the EU for that matter) one iota?
The assertion of a tide of hate or xenophobia does a disservice to the cause of solidarity between people of different backgrounds and nationalities. It does this by establishing a dubious moral, rather than political, division between people who voted Brexit and those who voted Remain, the former mischaracterised as irrational and hateful. This assumed xenophobic tide is to be ‘called out’, shamed, associated with the far right and not taken seriously or argued with.
The EU collects data on a variety of social attitudes, including immigration. Whilst the spike in reported hate incidents immediately following the EU referendum has been much discussed, the EU’s data suggests that the notion of a general ‘tide of hate’ or xenophobia is, to say the least, a misreading of the mood. Its EU Barometer survey asks whether immigration (EU and non-EU) invokes a positive or negative feeling for respondents. The most recent figures from November 2016 indicate that the UK is average within the EU with regard to positivity towards immigration from EU member states (see fig.1). If there is a tide of hate, this suggests it is not solely a UK/Brexit phenomenon.
It is worth noting that the UK’s trajectory upwards is steeper than the average – the UK has ‘caught up’ with the EU average over the last two years. Has anyone been arguing that UK citizens have become, relatively within the EU, more positive towards EU immigration over the last 2 years? If they have, I have not seen it.
There is nothing here that supports the ‘tide of hate thesis’.
A phone call to the Allan Beswick Show on BBC Radio Manchester and BBC Radio Lancashire has been subject to an investigation by the BBC Trust.
It was found in breach of editorial guidelines for allowing a caller to speak on-air about having sex with his own eight-year-old children. Trustees were deeply troubled by the fact that the caller had been allowed on air in the first place and particularly by the fact that he had then been able to continue for several minutes talking about his crime, advocating sex between adults and very young children, and expounding what he argued were the benefits of distributing videos of child sexual abuse.
Got that? The BBC allows prisoners to phone in and advocate child abuse.
Well, this was always going to be a predictable moment. I refer to the “Mandelisation” of IRA terrorist godfather Martin McGuinness by the BBC on the occasion of his death.
“The BBC has been accused of ‘ despicable fawning’ over ‘terrorist godfather’ and former IRA commander Martin McGuinness in their obituary pieces this morning. On Twitter some furious viewers accused the corporation of having ‘blood on their hands’ and ‘fawning over [him] like he was some sort of misunderstood peacekeeper.’
The family of the former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland announced his death at the age of 66 this morning. But following hours of coverage by the news channel some viewers were left furious and questioned why the BBC was dedicating so much time to McGuinness’s death. One user wrote: ‘BBC showing real bias this morning; no mention that Martin McGuinness was a terrorist just that he was a “peace maker.”‘
The BBC has been central to the process of sanitising this terrorist. On a day like today, I think of his victims and their still grieving families.
A few weeks ago, Boris Johnson made a point about the EU negotiations and the futility of the idea of punishing Britain for the sake of it. ‘If Monsieur Hollande wants to administer punishment beatings to anybody who chooses to escape’, he said, ‘rather in the manner of some World War II movie, then I don’t think that is the way forward, and actually it’s not in the interests of our friends and partners’. Cue howls of outrage. ‘Abhorrent and deeply unhelpful’, said Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator. But was Boris really so wide of the mark?
Yesterday Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, gave an interview to Bild on Sunday where he boasted that no other EU country would consider leaving the union once they see how harshly Britain will be treated by his in negotiations. ‘The remaining member states will fall in love with each other again and renew their vows with the European Union,’ he said. ‘They will all see from Britain’s example that leaving the EU is a bad idea.’
This is precisely the mentality that the Foreign Secretary held up to ridicule – the idea that the EU is held together by fear of what happens if you leave.
Like some latter-day Basil Fawlty, Boris Johnson mentioned the War and didn’t get away with it.
The foreign secretary urged the French president not to “administer punishment beatings” on Britain for choosing to escape the EU “rather in the manner of some World War Two movie”.
Not surprisingly, uproar has ensued. Former Labour leader Ed Miliband said Mr Johnson had shown once again that he could be “supremely clever and yet immensely stupid”.
The foreign secretary has form on this. During the referendum campaign last year he compared the EU to Nazi Germany, telling the Daily Telegraph both were attempting to unify Europe: “Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically.”
This caused a flurry of headlines and a social media storm that passed quickly. Yet the impact on EU politicians was lasting.
One EU diplomat explained it to me like this: “You Brits don’t understand us when we talk about European values. To us they are important because they are not Nazi values, they are not Vichy values, they are not fascist values, not the values of the Greek junta. They are the values of a different Europe.
“So for that clown to compare us to the Nazis, well, that hurts and will not be forgotten.”
Anti-mass immigration campaigner Tommy Robinson was verbally and physically abused by demonstrators on an anti-Islamophobia march on Saturday, after approaching them and attempting to engage in conversation. Police detained him and ordered him off the streets, saying this was “easier” than “taking on” the aggressive protestors.
When Robinson asks why he is the one being manhandled by the authorities despite the demonstrators being aggressive, the officer explained bluntly that “it’s easier to remove you” than to “take on” the angry crowd.
She also claimed Robinson is the one causing the violence “by his sheer presence”.
Just as with Rotherham where the police blamed the girls and refused to tackle the abusers it seems that threats of disorder and community ‘anger’, ie blackmail, will make the police run for cover and stitch up the innocent….just as the BBC protrayed Robinson as a racist thug when he did no more than campaign against funamentalist Islam…just as the ‘respected’ ‘One Law for all’ does….
Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights”
A report by One Law for All has found Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals to be in violation of UK law, public policy and human rights (see report here).
The whole country is a living museum of immigration — if only its people would acknowledge it.
But Brexit Britain, you might suppose, is not a country much inclined to hear migration stories. Whatever else can be read into the referendum vote to leave the European Union, it was characterized by hostility about the flow of people to Britain and campaigning that played heavily on fears of immigration.
Indeed, Brexit follows years of pandering to fears over immigration, cast as legitimate concerns, with polling consistently placing the issue at the top of the public’s list of concerns.
As you can see it’s the usual BBC narrative of a racist Britain that has irrational fears about immigration stoked by lying politicians.
Shabi is a regular both working for and commentating on the BBC…here we get a double whammy of BBC propagandists…Shabi and Adam Curtis as Curtis voices another BBC lie…that the West is to blame for everything…
Curtis will recount how the West continually invented and reinvented Gaddafi and the Assads, creating a series of fictions in order to avoid confronting the true complex reality of the Middle East. The consequences of those lies and inventions form one of the main roots of today’s chaotic political landscape.
The Q&A will be hosted by journalist Rachel Shabi. This event is now sold out. [Shame]
This is all part of the BBC’s 2017 Arabic Festival…in which we are bombarded with messages about immigration, refugees and Palestinians…..just the usual BBC partisan bias feeding Muslims a narrative they want to hear rather than the truth.
Amused to see Shabi thinks she herself is above reproach in the discrediting of the Media…
Have the politicians finally woken up to the enormous damage the BBC does to British interests?…Just a shame they don’t also investigate the BBC’s undermining of security and anti-terrorism actions and its promotion of the Islamist cause…
The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK’s reputation with its “pessimistic and skewed” coverage, MPs have warned.
More than 70 MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a “xenophobic” nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU.
“Some of the signatories of this letter shared many of the concerns about the economic impact of Brexit, but all are delighted to find forecasts of immediate economic harm were at best misplaced. So-called ‘despite Brexit’ reporting may be expected of a partisan press, but licence fee-payers have the right to expect better.”
The letter adds that “BBC bias can have a substantial effect on national debate. We fear that, by misrepresenting our country either as xenophobic or regretful of the Leave vote, the BBC will undermine our efforts to carve out a new, global role for this country.”
The intelligence services all deny any involvement in mounting surveillance against Trump…it’s just impossible that Trump’s phones were tapped because that’s illegal as would be involving the UK…and we know they’d never do anything illegal…and yet Obama tapped Angela Merkel’s phone…and the intelligence services were, as they admit, trying to link Trump to the Russians…just how do they do that without tracking his every move? Is it conceivable that they would allow a man who was supposedly in a conspiracy with the Russians to go unchecked? Perhaps the intelligence services didn’t ask for a wiretap because the Democrat’s claim that Trump is linked to the Russians was complete bunkum and they are only going through the motions as they tell us an investigation is in progess…what other explanation can there be for, what would otherwise be, a serious dereliction of duty?…’former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s remark earlier this month that a paper compiled by the DNI, NSA, FBI, and CIA included “no evidence” of Trump associates’ collusion with Russia. Clapper said neither he nor the agencies had uncovered any “evidence of such collusion.”‘
Dangerous it is. The intelligence relationship between Britain and America is unique and precious. It is critical to our shared efforts to counter terrorism, Russian aggression, the cyber-attacks of China, the nuclear threat from North Korea and much else.
OK…might be more convincing if he hadn’t gone to the BBC and Guardian, the two organisations who have done most to undermine the Western intelligence and security services, who have worked relentlessly to undermine the Prevent anti-terrorist programme, who have supported and excused Muslim terrorists and have themselves both been complicit in promoting the Islamist narrative of Muslims under attack thus providing the anti-Western propaganda that is central to the Islamist’s recruitment drive. The BBC and Guardian further the terrorist cause, Trump wants to stop the terrorists…and yet Trump is the danger?
Curious how the BBC is now so ready to believe the intelligence services when the BBC has spent the last 14 years telling us they are all lying criminals…the Iraq War, Guantanamo, rendition, water boarding, Snowden…now..all change…every word is gospel…as long as Trump is the target.
Of course ‘they’ were tapping his phone, steaming his mail open and putting a glass to the wall…might not have been the FBI but the US has a myriad of known and, less known, agencies and groups capable of doing that…off the record. Inconceivable that rumours of links of the potential next POTUS to the old enemy were not being investigated to the full.
Again, funny how the BBC is completely uninterested in doing any investigative work or providing a counter argument to the Establishment one.
The BBC should be protected by new laws that promote its shows over those of rivals, according to one of the corporation’s most senior executives. James Purnell, director of radio and education, says that the shows the BBC makes must be given more prominence in television guides than those of commercial services Sky, Amazon and Netflix. His demands follow a huge change in television viewing habits with more than 6 million households now signed up to streaming services.
As Peter Wright confirmed in his book Spycatcher, [Prime Minister] Wilson was the victim of a protracted, illegal campaign of destabilisation by a rogue element in the security services. Prompted by CIA fears that Wilson was a Soviet agent – put in place after the KGB had, the spooks believed, poisoned Hugh Gaitskell, the previous Labour leader – these MI5 men burgled the homes of the prime minister’s aides, bugged their phones and spread black, anti-Wilson propaganda throughout the media. They tried to pin all kinds of nonsense on him: that his devoted political secretary, Marcia Williams, posed a threat to national security; that he was a closet IRA sympathiser.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Think it fanciful? The BBC didn’t…it made a film about it...’The Plot Against Harold Wilson’…
When the story broke that Donald Trump repeated a Fox News report hat he had been possibly spied upon by GCHQ on behalf of the CIA [Obama] the BBC treated it all as a joke, a non-story, one that didn’t need any investigation…they didn’t care whether it was true or not, they were going to use it as an example of Trump’s madness, his paranoia or indeed an example of his machiavellian use of ‘fake news’ to manipulate the news narrative and attack his enemies.
The BBC made no attempt to find a counter voice…no one to point out that the US had spied on allies for decades…including the German Chancellors, their Prime Ministers…Merkel included., who had their phones tapped….and that German Intelligence had co-operated in many ways with such operations.
President Barack Obama was told about monitoring of German Chancellor in 2010 and allowed it to continue, says German newspaper
How can the BBC fail to make that very, very apt point instead of laughing it all off? Did Barack Obama also ‘approve’ tapping Trump’s phone?
The BBC failed to point out the rather obvious fact that the US intelligence services were investigating Trump and his associates for any links to Russia…which, it might be added, they haven’t found.
The BBC happily reported as completely credible the dodgy dossier made up by an ex-MI5 agent that Trump had hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed that Obama had slept in in a Russian hotel..and yet make no effort to actually do any real journalism to investigate the claims about GCHQ co-operating with the US intelligence services to track Trump in order to undermine his election campaign.
Regardless of the truth of the story the BBC failed to do its job…it wasn’t in the slightest concerned about establishing the truth but instead eagerly sought to mock and demonise Trump….as you can see from the Wilson story, CIA and British Intelligence can and do co-operate in carrying out political assassinations….Trump must have been a prime target to prevent him getting the Presidency…who can doubt that? How can the BBC fail to make the obvious comaprison with what happened to Wilson….or is that just BBC fake news?
Saturday we also had PJ O’Rourke on the Today show….solely to deliver an anti-Trump screed with no voice to defend Trump at all. Usual BBC impartiality.
The Now Show, so yesterday, so bigoted, prejudiced, lazy, stereotyping, lame, cowardly. Only for very small-minded [in all senses] Guardian readers. Punt and Dennis give Alf Garnett a run for his money. It’s just unfortunate that the BBC clearly sees a long future for such drivel as they’ve recruited a new comedian, an 18 year old whose got cerebral palsy…I had thought his long anti-Trump rants were a result of drink but no, it’s cerebral palsy….that’s his own joke, suck it up….I’m being inclusive in my abuse.
When he wasn’t droning on about Trump being orange or his hair or his racism or his….whatever….he told us of his shock at seeing a page on Facebook [the new ‘Daily Mail’ anti-Christ for the BBC] that asked why we can’t all go around in KKK hoods if Muslims can wear Burkas. Apparently our comedic young friend thinks this is racist, so racist in fact that even a racist would think it is racist because obviously you just can’t compare the two….the KKK is much less frightening….no?
An ideology that says kill Christians and Jews, that says fight the unbeliever until Islam reigns supreme, that says kill gay people, that says kill apostates, that stones adulterers to death, that thinks it’s OK to beat your wife, that says you can keep slaves, that you can keep sex slaves, that you can use your slaves as prostitutes, that you can behead, crucify, chop off hands and feet, of criminals, that makes women but not men wear the veil, that makes women second class citizens…an ideology that has kept much of the world in the Dark Ages for a thousand years…..many would say that the KKK might actually be the more enlightened by comparison…and that Islam is not a race….so it’s not racism to criticise Islam…however as David pointed out the BBC seems to think it is…the only question they think is what punishment should be dished out for such ‘blasphemy’.
Now that quandary sounds familiar….for Islam is in no doubt that Gays should be killed…the only question is how…whether to throw them off a tall place, burn them, or to stone them to death….only quoting the much respected and moderate Muslim scholar, Yusuf Qaradawi.
Mr Qaradawi’s rulings are recognised by Muslims around the world as reflecting the balanced nature of Islamic law and its relevance to modern life. This is the recurrent theme of his programmes on Arab television channels, as well as the popular Islam Online website, for which he acts as patron.
When most Muslims look to Mr Qaradawi, they see a shining example of moderation: in its Islamic meaning. To us, being a moderate Muslim means to practise the religion faithfully, according to its letter and its spirit….if he is an extremist, who is there left to be moderate?
The real question of course is ‘Is Islam compatible with the West’s civilisation?’ The next question might be is it wise to have Muslim activists in positions where they can spread their fundamentalist messages, either in the media or in government office, or in civil society organisations. Was it a mistake to appoint to the Chair of the Tory party, and make her a government minister, someone who proposed arming the terrorist group /Hamas and the disarming of Israel? What hope is there?…Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Minister Ahmed Hussen. BBC’s head of religion, twice…Muslim.
The CIA says…‘Britain is an Islamist swamp. You don’t want to have to spend time spying on your friends.’ But they do.
As far as our closest ally is concerned, Britain is not part of the problem, Britain is the problem. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and Middle East expert on the NSC for three presidents, who has just been appointed to head Barack Obama’s overhaul of Afghan strategy, told me: ‘The 800,000 or so British citizens of Pakistani origin are regarded by the American intelligence community as perhaps the single biggest threat environment that they have to worry about.’