Bye Bye Bias?

 

 

John Whittingdale confirms that the BBC is to lose its power to judge whether the BBC is biased.  Good.  About time.

From the Guardian:

John Whittingdale, the UK culture secretary, has confirmed that the BBC will be stripped of its power to adjudicate on allegations of political bias in its coverage. 

Speaking at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, he said the public should have confidence that complaints are examined independently and carefully. He said it must no longer be the case “that if you make a complaint against the BBC, the decision on whether it is justified is taken by the BBC”.

Whittingdale first signalled such a move in an interview with the Telegraph in June, in which he said he wanted to think about the way questions of impartiality were judged by the BBC Trust.

In his address to Tory conference, Whittingdale said the BBC was the finest broadcaster in the world at its best, but claimed many people feel it had “not always been as fair and impartial as it should [be]”. He said this was one of the key issues being considered in his review of the future of the corporation, which has already had 80,000 responses.

In a green paper published in July, Whittingdale’s department said the BBC Trust model needed to be reformed, with its regulatory functions given either to a unitary board, a new standalone oversight body, or a third party regulatory body such as Ofcom.

It is of interest that there are 80,000 or so responses to the Charter Review from the Public so far…..the BBC and its hangers on constantly claim that the Review Panel is anti-BBC (it is definitely not that….some worked for the BBC and one is from the the Voice of the Listeners and Viewers group of which David Attenborough is a supporter…”If you want to help ensure its quality, please join me in supporting VLV which is doing so much to protect the principle of public service in broadcasting”  and which has many ex-BBC types on its board).  So apart from much support on the Review Panel itself, the BBC and BBC Trust have a huge voice in the Review along with many, many other interested parties….and here we see evidence that the Public also get a chance to voice their opinions.

The BBC has been extremely dishonest in attacking the Review Panel and trying to suggest the Panel is anything but impartial and that it is the sole arbiter of what happens to the BBC when that is far, far from the truth.

 

It is interesting also to note that the BBC’s seeming biggest fan, Tory Lord Fowler, who is one of those who maligned the Review Panel so mendaciously, pops up in the Sunday Times letters page to attack the Government’s proposal to subject the BBC Charter to review every five years instead of ten…this he says will increase the control of government.  He doesn’t like the Royal Charter in itself saying it is ‘a cover for political meddling…..thoroughly undemocratic and hands power to whatever government is in power at the time’….paradoxically suggesting that the answer might be that huge changes to the BBC should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and  approval….not sure how that isn’t a BBC still under a level of political control.  Not sure though how he thinks the current review process is undemocratic and unaccountable as it seems open to anyone to have a say and for Parliament to speak up for or against as the members wish.  Lord Fowler’s ability to comment doesn’t seem to be too constrained by the ‘undemocratic process’.  It’s not as if the BBC itself isn’t political, apart from its proven left-wing bias, it wields enormous power of its own over politicians…as Fowler admitted in 2012…’Surely the corporation has a massive political influence, for why else would cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers queue up to be interviewed on Today or Andrew Marr’s Sunday programme?’

No link to the Times article but essentially Fowler only repeated what he said in the Lords last month…

The Government, in their consultation on the BBC royal charter, skirt around the most basic question, the 20th question: do we need a royal charter at all? The noble Baroness touched on that. It all sounds very grand. It sounds as if it is a defensive mechanism against political interference—the kind of recognition that should be given to an organisation as important and venerable as the BBC. In fact, the royal charter means that the BBC is the plaything of any Government who happen to be in power as the 10-year renewal comes around. It is not just Conservative Governments, but Labour Governments as well.

 

 

Racist ‘Britain’

“Europe You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahedeen Come Roaring”

 

The BBC is indulging in a very dangerous and dishonest attack on British society and in particular white British people, pushing the narrative that they are all racist based purely on the fact that they are white and that other races, and the BBC inlcudes Islam as a race for some reason, are always victims of white peoples’ prejudice thus sowing the seeds of increasing ethnic anger, dissent and ultimately open conflict…note Darcus Howe’s threats in the programme discussed below (8 mins in).

The BBC is highly irresponsible and dangerous, not only stirring up race conflict but religious based terrorism as well as it continually jusitifies and excuses Muslim terrorism and radicalisation.

Perhaps it is about time someone in ‘authority’ started looking at just what the BBC and its employees are doing as they whip up race hate and incite radicalisation.

 

The BBC thinks ‘Britain’ is racist.  But just what do they mean by ‘Britain’?  Or rather, we know they mean ‘White’ Britain, the question is why is the BBC pushing that racist, stereotyping conclusion about white, British, people?

Sian Williams tells us that there is a 20% leap in race crimes in London….but fails to tell us the truth about who is committing those crimes letting us think they are being committed by white people….the Independent gives us the figures that count…

Overall, the number of hate crimes reported in the capital rose by more than 20 per cent since last October, to a total of 11,400.

The majority of hate crime victims are male, and are aged between 20 and 49. Meanwhile, most offenders are male and aged between 20 and 29, around 45 per cent of who are white and British.

45% of offenders are white British.  Hmmm….that means 55% are not white.  So just who is being racist?

And what about this…a Ukrainian migrant, in the UK only a week attacks a Mosque and stabs a Muslim…..

A Ukrainian student has admitted murdering an 82-year-old man who was walking home from a Birmingham mosque.

Mohammed Saleem was stabbed by Pavlo Lapshyn in Small Heath on 29 April, less than a week after Lapshyn had arrived in the UK.

The attacker was a migrant, not British.  Are all migrants racist now then using BBC logic?  Why does the BBC usually underplay migrant crimes and the downsides to immigration in the UK whilst on the other hand always telling us of the supposed benefits of immigration?

The BBC are basing their programme on a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who thinks that ‘Fear of Muslims has stirred up division between neighbours in Britain in a way not seen in living memory, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.’  The Telegraph reports…

The Most Rev Justin Welby said tensions had “seeped into our society” threatening to fracture multiculturalism by widening “cracks” between different communities into seemingly insurmountable barriers. Britain, he said, is now “living in a time of time of tension and fear” in which extremists try to marginalise the mainstream while secularists wish to turn religion itself into an activity like sex, which should be “between consenting adults in private”. He told a gathering organised by Muslim leaders in Cardiff that mainstream elements in all major religions must make their message more “exciting and beautiful” to drown out extremists.

Bizarrely Welby compares Christianity to Islam….

He insisted that many faiths, not just Islam, have a problem with radicalisation.

And, significantly, he said Christians should not deny “accountability” for the role of their faith in “many atrocities” over the centuries including recent decades.

Saying Christians should be accountable for past crimes rather misses the point…certainly Christians have done things ‘in the name of Christianity’ but no-where in Jesus’ teachings does he say kill people, oppress them and force them to adopt his religion….unlike in the Koran.

The BBC also misses the point in claiming that Britain is racist and basing that upon a rise in ‘Islamophobia’, a meaningless word used to silence debate.  Most hate crimes against Muslims came in the wake of the Lee Rigby murder, you remember that?  The hate crime where two Muslims hacked to death a British soldier on a British street?

Much of the increase in race and religious hate crime is likely to be due to a rise in offences in the months immediately following the murder of Lee Rigby in May 2013. Additionally, the police may have improved their recording of crime and the identification of motivating factors in an offence over the last year.

How about Muslims blowing up trains and buses, attacking airports, tryng to blow up night clubs, raping white girls, endless plots to carry out terror attacks in the UK, endless attacks on British society and culture often led by mainstream Muslim groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, how about Muslim teachers telling their pupils that white women are prostitutes, or trying to take over schools to force them to become Islamic, or Muslims carrying out ‘false flag’ attacks on Muslim properties in order to make it look like they are under ‘Islamophobic’ attack, or the ‘Muslim Patrols’, or the Muslim hate preachers that are welcomed into Mosques and university Islamic societies up and down the country…and let’s not forget the Sunni Muslim attacks on Ahmadi Muslims which the BBC seems to want to downplay.

Did I miss any Muslim inspired ‘racism’?  Oh yes, let’s not forget that Islam is not a race, it’s an ideology just like Fascism and Communism, a lot like Fascism and Communism…and therefore open to criticism.

The BBC’s curious notion that ‘Britain’ is racist, ie white Britain, is highly prejudicial and inaccurate, an inaccuracy made all the worse because we know that it is a deliberate choice by the BBC to present the ‘facts’ in a way that makes white Britons out to be racist purely on the basis of their skin colour…you’re white therefore you must be racist.

The BBC is deliberately stirring up race hate against white, British people as it falsely accuses them of being some sort of white supremacists.

The BBC narrative is intended to influence politicians and any other organisations in positions of power so that white people become ‘suspect’ and in need of control and oversight with the policing of their thoughts and perceptions, and of course a necessary increase in the resources and power of non-white communities to help them combat and overcome such prejudice.

The fact is that Welby is right about rising tensions, but who and what is at the centre of that? The starting point for any investigation should be Islam itself. Welby doesn’t start from the right place, blaming people’s reaction to Islam rather than blaming Islam to start with.  People are increasingly and jusitifiably concerned about Islam and the beliefs and actions of Muslims in this country, and that will only increase as Muslim migrants force their way into Europe and those at Calais, who are mostly Muslim, actually attempt to ‘invade’ Britain.

Samira Ahmed, in The Big Issue not on the BBC, tells us we should be concerned about the influx of Muslim men….

Polling here shows a large number of Britons, the majority even, are at best cautious about taking in refugees from Syria because of the fear of conservative Islamic attitudes. Some readers might want to dismiss this as a cover for racism, just as in the 1930s the Daily Mail warned of the “threat” of so many Jews coming from Hitler’s Germany.

But just as in East Germany, looking at gender opens up a legitimate question about how you build a strong and stable society.

The BBC is being entirely dishonest in this programme in not revealing why people have concerns about Islam and the fact that Muslims themselves are the perpetrators of much of the hate crime…not as if the BBC doesn’t know as this BBC report from last week illustrates...The ex-Muslim Britons who are persecuted [by Muslims] for being atheists…

It sounds like a crime from a medieval history book. Apostasy is the decision to renounce a faith and/or convert to another religion. Among some of Britain’s urban Muslims – nearly half of whom were born in the UK and are under 24 – there’s a belief that leaving Islam is a sin and can even be punished by death.

An investigation for the BBC has found evidence of young people suffering threats, intimidation, being ostracised by their communities and, in some cases, encountering serious physical abuse when they told their families they were no longer Muslims.

The Mail from two days ago reports that  ‘Muslim family are driven from their home… after they converted to Christianity: Neighbours vandalise car and call them ‘blasphemers’…

An Asian family who converted to Christianity claim they are being driven out of their home for the second time by Muslim persecutors.  Nissar Hussain, his wife Kubra and their six children said they have suffered an appalling ordeal at the hands of neighbours who regard them as blasphemers.

They claim they are effectively prisoners in their own home after being attacked in the street, having their car windscreens repeatedly smashed and eggs thrown at their windows. Mr Hussain, 49, has even given up his career as a nurse due to the effect on his health.

Police have been called numerous times to deal with the trouble but are said to be reluctant to treat the problem as a religious hate crime. 

The BBC is reluctant to tell us the truth about Muslims and the effect they have on society….where are the BBC reports on the migrants who attack Christians in Germany or the plea by German police to separate Muslims from Christian migrants as the Muslims attack the Christians?  And very reluctant to mention threats like this….

Imam tells Muslim migrants to ‘breed children’ with Europeans to ‘conquer their countries’ and vows: ‘We will trample them underfoot, Allah willing’

 

Welby’s conclusion, that we need more Islam, is the typical weak, cowardly and intellectually dishonest and ill-conceived response we expect from the wishy-washy Church….Islam is irrefutably opposed to Christianity and it uses the beloved inter-faith dialogue merely as a trojan horse to further its own aims until it is the dominant religion and suddenly that interfaith dialogue is no longer so attractive to them.  Perhaps Welby would be wiser to practise a bit of muscular Christianity if he doesn’t want to find himself marginalised and out of a job in the coming years.

People like Welby need to understand that critiscim of Islam is not racism and that it is built upon very real concerns about the teachings and practise of Islam in relation to a Western democratic, liberal, progressive society and the growth of that religion, the growing power and influence of that religion…an influence curiously and paradoxically arising from Muslim terrorism against the West and subsequent claims that Muslims are the real victims of those attacks leading to politicians and the likes of the BBC falling over themselves to reassure Muslims by handing over more and more power, influence and resources to them.

The Mirror may think that the BBC has succumbed to the Muslim grievance industry and is giving into ‘blackmail’…ie the answer to Muslim ‘problems’ is more Islam in Britain…if only we had more Islam the youth wouldn’t be radicalised…those same Radicals who demand what?  er…more Islam….the ‘Radicals’ win then……

WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL

AS the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it’s revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

The introduction of Sharia Law in Britain along with important religious days in the Muslim calendar becoming public holidays for followers of the faith should do the trick, or so claims the secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK and Ireland.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.”

This sounds perilously close to blackmail. Thus far the British people have shown exemplary tolerance in the face of terrorist threats.

There has been no widespread backlash against the Muslim community. Quite rightly, the majority of us can only extend sympathy to those who must feel mortified that, within their vast numbers, lurks a bunch of lunatics with one shared ambition – to bring about the destruction of our democracy.

Except, of course, that many Muslims are in an even greater state of denial than the rest of us about terrorism: “It’s hyped up”, “The government hates Muslims and so does Tony Blair” and “Muslims feel like there is an underlying agenda against us,” are a selection of comments from Walthamstow in East London, the neighbourhood targeted by anti-terror raids last week.

Anyone would think they’d forgotten the banners at a demo, just a few miles down the road, last February which read: “Europe You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahedeen Come Roaring”.

 

New Labour…Old Danger

 

Interesting to see someone thinks as I do about New Labour.  I constantly hear on the BBC and elsewhere that Blair and Co were right-wing whilst I was always of the opinion that Blair was in fact extremely left-wing and smashed those left-wing  policies into the British Establishment, culture and society…yes he cosied up to the banks but even Lenin told us that Capitalism was a necessary part of establishing Communism…it needed the funds Capitalism provided in order to fund the revolution…and of course we had the massive expansion in tax/borrow and spend…so very old socialist Labour.  Blair turned democratic government upside down with his sofa powered cabinet, the evisceration of the civil service, the attempts to undermine just about every national institution and the infiltration of those institutions with Labour placemen and women…never mind the huge project to ethnically cleanse the British population and change not only its physical makeup and identity but also the political views and outlook that the population would then hold..for example importing millions of Europeans would probably ensure any referendum on Europe keeps us in Europe, whilst Labour’s open door to world immigration meant that grateful immigrants were likely to vote for Labour.  Blair’s apparent centrist politics were a means to an end.  The reality can be judged by what he actually did.

Peter Hitchens thinks Blair’s New Labour was as much a menace as Corbyn’s brand of far-left politics….

The hard-Left menace we ignored

The continued rage about Jeremy Corbyn’s rather dated Leftism baffles me. Most British journalists weren’t (as I was) members of the Labour Party in the 1980s. In the months before I quit, I used to be angrily called to order by the chairwoman of my local party. She was cross with me for (as she put it) provoking too much heckling from noisily pro-IRA, ban-the-bomb types.

Meanwhile, the real Left worked by stealth. That is why our political media never understood that the Blairites were in fact far more Left wing than Jeremy Corbyn. The Blair faction’s ideas came from a communist magazine called Marxism Today. The magazine, in turn, got the ideas from a clever Italian revolutionary called Antonio Gramsci. He wanted a cultural revolution, a Leftist takeover of schools, universities, media, police and courts (and of conservative political parties too). That is exactly what New Labour did.

An astonishing number of senior New Labour people, from Peter Mandelson to Alan Milburn, are former Marxist comrades who have never been subjected to the sort of in-depth digging into their pasts that Jeremy Corbyn faces. Why is this? Is one kind of Marxism OK, and the other sort not? Or is it just that most political writers are clueless about politics?

 

 

Subscription or Conscription?

 

The BBC has always opposed a change to the licence fee funding model on the grounds that subscription would be technically too difficult and would cost too much…..not to mention of course that the licence fee is easy money at the moment and a guaranteed source of income regardless of what they produce and who watches.

On the other hand it has decided that it is technically feasible and presumably financially sound to make viewers of the iPlayer abroad sign in with a special code….how then is that model not transferable to British viewers in the UK who can choose to pay a lump sum up front or pay on a subscription basis daily/weekly/monthly or per programme?

From the Mail:

The BBC is planning to allow licence-fee payers to access its iPlayer abroad, it has emerged.

This would enable British holidaymakers to watch award-winning programmes – including The Great British Bake Off, Strictly Come Dancing, and Match Of The Day – on sunny, foreign beaches.

At present, the licence-fee-funded iPlayer is supposed to be watched by only UK TV viewers.

Under the proposal, licence-fee payers could be given a secret code to log on to the iPlayer while abroad – but this code would be designed to expire within several weeks, according to The Times.

This would prevent non-licence-fee-paying expats from illegally using the code, it is reported.

A BBC spokesman told MailOnline in a statement: ‘While there are a range of technical and legal complexities, this is an area where we’ve already started work and agree with the idea of licence fee payers being able to access programmes on BBC iPlayer when they’re on holiday overseas. 

‘We’ll carry on considering how this can be made to work.’ 

Bleeding Heart Sunday

 

The BBC’s ‘Sunday’ carries on as usual with its unusual world view that is at so odds with everyday folk.

We had a piece on the pages of the Koran found at Birmingham University.  The BBC did ask some very awkward questions for Muslims that these Koran pages raise…such as the carbon dating may show that this Koran may show that ‘Islam’ may have been in existence before Muhammed, the man who allegedly ‘invented’ the Koran…which is kind of awkward.  However the carbon dating was only done on the paper used for the Koran, and there was no control reference material to compare the dating process results with….so there could be few genuine conclusions about this Koran either way really.   Anyway all that was dismissed by someone expert from Birmingham who said, in his opinion, that he didn’t think that any of that was true….the Koran couldn’t predate Muhammed.  Yes…‘in my opinon’ or ‘I think’.…..a valuable ‘expert’ insight.

We then had a Muslim councillor from Birmingham tell us that this showed the Koran was unchanged for 1400 years…’unlike’, he slipped in, ‘other religions’.  Now that is kind of aggressive isn’t it, a bit unnecessary.  Why mention that?  If I was a Jew (Though I believe the Torah is itself unchanged and considerably older than the Koran) or Christian living in Birmingham I would be thinking that this councillor clearly has no respect for other religions and looks upon them as false….therefore what does he think of ‘us’?    Curiously the BBC didn’t ask, or didn’t broadcast the question and answer, about the questions raised of the authenticity of the Islamic narrative about Muahmmed and the Koran.  Possibly the answer was somewhat detrimental to the tolerant image of ‘Islam’..much as the ‘unlike other relgions’ is.

We also had a piece that portrayed East Germans as prejudiced, backward hill-billies who hated religion and immigration…and hating immigration and religion was a bad thing, not allowed in the BBC’s view (an irony really when the BBC has spent so much time and effort trying to smash and discredit Christianity despite the lip service of Songs of Praise).  Who did the BBC have on to discuss the issues, and it all related to immigration of course, a Christian and a Muslim, Rev Dr Christophe Tylermann and Dr Riem Spielhaus, no other voices appeared to put any view other than the one that said East Germans were essentially racist,  atheist barbarians….unmentioned went Hungary, which I suspect was the real target.  Curious how you are not allowed to have anti-immigration views.

We also had on Alister McGrath, an extremely aggressive Christian (a fanatical convert from Atheism justifying his own personal journey?) who steamrollered Atheism, shouting it down in effect, ironic in that he attacks Dawkins for being an ‘extremist’.  The presenter seemed to be in happy agreement with him as he claimed and wished for the end of Atheism….the presenter suggesting Atheism perhaps, as a ‘movement’, was a ‘busted flush‘ and asking when we might expect the ‘funeral of the new Atheism’.  Colourful eh?

McGrath said that Atheism was a ‘hopelessly outdated way of looking at things’….unlike the 2000 year old Christian world view?  No explanation of what Atheism actually represents and why it critiques religion, and no reasons why religion is good for the world, better than Atheism.  We also heard that there was no contradiction between science and religion.  Somehow that doesn’t seem to be the real picture does it?

No voices putting the other side here which would have been fascinating given the aggressive, bombastic nature of McGrath.  Christopher Hitchens is well missed.

 

The BBC also looked at this  ‘Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, expresses his concerns on the latest stage of the government’s plans for ‘countering extremism’ which will be discussed at the Conservative Party Conference this week’  which I’m sure we’ll hear a lot of as it is a narrative that the BBC seems all too ready to follow…that it is the government’s anti-extremism programme that is driving radicalism itself….a BBC narrative that we have just looked at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chopperboy…..Victim of an uncaring society

 

The BBC was sure that Clockboy was the victim of  injustice, prejudice and misperceptions perpetrated by a society that has been polluted by an Islamophobic narrative driven by the right-wing press.  It seems that ‘Chopperboy’ in the UK may also be a victim of similar prejudice, his threats to behead and murder so many people merely an articulation of his rage against a society that doesn’t value or accept  him.

The BBC’s Domininc Cascianni tells us the boy was angry with his teachers and that the threats to kill were merely a negotiation tactic to pressure them to allow him to phone his mum.  Sweet.

“I felt angry, very angry with all of them,” the boy has since said of his school, according to defence submissions.

“I just wanted to get excluded. You couldn’t run away, it was secure with locked doors. The best way to get out and go home was to threaten staff with beheadings.

“I found the more I did this the more free time I had and I could get home on my phone.”

Of course family circumstances meant he was ‘vulnerable’ to exploitation….and he took up a deep interest in ‘foreign affairs’.  Really, he was a scholar? Does Casciani really mean he was watching beheading videos on the internet and soaking up the anti-Western propaganda that pours out from Muslim sources, and not just the recognised ‘extremist’ ones, propaganda that pumped out images of Muslims being killed…though not who really kills them…as it is usually other Muslims, the same people pumping out that propaganda ironically….of course he could just have been watching the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East, that would warp anyone’s understanding of the world….

A boy who attempted to incite a man in Australia to carry out an Anzac Day “massacre” has become the the youngest person in the UK to be convicted of a terrorism offence.

But could more have been done to challenge and stop the development of his violent mindset?

The boy’s slide into extremism began more than two years ago, at a crucial period in his development.

His parents had separated, he changed schools, and he was developing a deep interest in world affairs.

It’s always someone else’s fault….there doesn’t seem to be any recognition from Casciani that it might well just be that the boy was so disposed as to want to do these things and follow that path willingly and that his perceptions of the world have been long shaped by a narrative he has been brought up with all his life…Islam.  It is remarkable that there is no mention by Casciani of the role of Islam in his ‘indepth’ exploration of the issues….surely that is at the heart of this…the explicit Islamic obligation to fight for the religion.  To fight for the religion against those who allegedly attack it.  So you have to ask is Islam under attack?  Unfortunately if you watch news from organisations like the BBC which give credibility to the Jihadi narrative, such as Iraq was an illegal war against Muslims, a ‘crusade’ as the BBC often called it, and that Mulsims in the UK are under an Islamophobic assault, then the narrative of an Islam under attack is all too easy to believe and then act upon especially when reinforced by bloody videos purporting to show Western forces slaughtering Muslims.

The major factor in the boy’s extremism is his religion.  It’s an unavoidable conclusion…only Muslims are fighting in the name of Allah.  The connection is undeniable.  Which is why the BBC presumably avoids that connection.

Casciani scripts a long tract explaining away the boys behaviour blaming the anti-radicalisation programme for its ‘failure’ and then disingenuously asks…

Did Channel make mistakes? Could it have done more or were its officials simply confronted with someone they could not turn around?

He has the grace to add this get out clause after having spent the majority of the piece blaming Channel and the authorities….

Well, we don’t really know.

Casciani could ask ‘What did the Muslim community do to change its own anti-Western narrative, to change the Muslim grievance narrative about Islamophobia, to change the Islamic religion itself and its extreme teachings all of which fed the boy’s mindset?’  But no.  That’s not open for discussion.  Casciani knows who is at fault and its not Chopperboy himself that’s for sure.  He’s the real victim here.  In reality the only thing he is a victim of is a theology that predisposed him, primed him, to be a martyr for the cause.

 

 

 

 

Corbylievers

 

 

Just a note to the BBC that seems entirely unaware that Corbyn is not Churchill……

 

Jeremy Corbyn suffered a fresh blow today after seeing his poll rating slump to a record low for a new leader following this week's tumultuous party conference

 

Massed cheerleading from the hard-core believers is not the same as mass popularity.

 

 

On another note…try replacing Black Cabs (BC) with BBC in the narrative in this video and see if the sentiments are the same….a group that doesn’t want competition ...’it’s just protectionism…the last closed shop’…and ‘is it not always going to be the way that the ones who had the monoploy in the past are the ones who are going to resist…there’s never going to be a moment when you’d welcome [change and competition]?’

Sounds familiar.  Roll on Charter Review.

 

 

 

The Lost Boys

 

 

 

Obama not also claiming these lost boys for his virtual family then?

Photo of Chris Harper-Mercer holding a gun from his Myspace page

 

The BBC is in a bit of a quandary….a mixed race killer who likes the IRA (one of the BBC’s favoured terror groups)…..they can’t avoid mentioning the IRA but perhaps, as with the Hispanic George Zimmerman, they can pass Harper off as purely white and settle for rolling their eyes in disgust at the white race…never mind that the mass killer Chris Harper Mercer is mixed race…half black…this is his aunt apparently…

chris harper mercera aunt

In fact the BBC manage to avoid mentioning his race at all, which is unusual for the BBC…..if he’d been white/white you can guarantee it would have been mentioned, repeatedly…they had to settle for ‘conservative/Republican’ to try and damn him.

Though the BBC mentions that and his penchant for the IRA they don’t mention his link on his MySpace page to this fellow Mahmoud Ali Ehsani who has some interesting photos, and captions to go with them…one being ‘“my brave soldiers keep on fighting for the liberation of Palestine against Israel. fuck Israel. Kill the Jews. jews are the only infidels.”  The rest all tag the ‘brave’ Mujahadeen…should add Mercer says he’s not himself religious…..

 

 

Now Harper isn’t a Muslim so why avoid mentioning the link whilst mentioning all the other interesting connections on his Myspace page?

I’m wondering where the campaigns are to call this man a terrorist as with the white supremacist Dylann Roof?

 

Today also brought another BBC sleight of hand where they duck an inconvenient fact.  Remember ‘Clockboy’ and the BBC’s endless reports on him?

It looks like they are less keen on another 14 year old Muslim schoolboy’s talents…the BBC merely reported on the news bulletins that he had been discovered due to his behaviour at school but didn’t expand on that.  They slipped in this less than expansive and informative comment buried deep, deep in their web article…

The court previously heard the teenager had been referred to the authorities by his school on several occasions for threatening behaviour, including telling one teacher he would “cut his throat and watch him bleed to death”.

The BBC then tries to explain away his actions…

The youth had found an online jihadist community through his first smartphone which “filled a void” caused by problems he was having at school and at home as well as a degenerative eye condition.

Poor lad…I’m sure the teacher would have had a Robert Fisk moment as their throat was being cut and think...’I deserve this, I’m white, privileged and have the blood of countless natives on my hands due to Western colonialism’….

“It doesn’t excuse them for beating me up so badly but there was a real reason why they should hate Westerners so much.

“I don’t want this to be seen as a Muslim mob attacking a Westerner for no reason. They had every reason to be angry – I’ve been an outspoken critic of the US actions myself. If I had been them, I would have attacked me.”

 

The Telegraph is more thorough and revealing about his threats…the boy had threatened far more than just slitting the throat of one teacher….

A two-day sentencing hearing was told on Thursday that the youngster, who had a troubled family life, had frequently threatened to kill his teachers, including one who he told he would “cut the throat”.

He told another “you are on my beheading list” and said he had moved “above” another teacher.

He threatened a teaching assistant with a pair of scissors and told another “your time has come”.

 

Why totally ignore that in news bulletins and minimise it to the extreme in the web report?

Perhaps the BBC thinks people might make a connection between how they reported so sympathetically on the ‘clock’ that looked like a bomb and the claims of injustice and islamophobia that must have inspired the reaction to it and the BBC’s latest reports as they look and see a 14 year old Muslim boy in the UK threatening to behead teachers and the BBC downplaying his threats.  It would then be obvious that even 14 year olds cannot be so easily dismissed as potential ‘Jihadis’ and therefore the reaction to ‘Clockboy’ could be seen as entirely justified and wise… his clock did after all look like a bomb…..

 

 

Question Time Live Chat

David Dimbleby presents tonight’s fun and games from Cardiff. Joining him are Conservative secretary of state for Wales Stephen Crabb MP, Daily Telegraph columnist and Margaret Thatcher’s biographer Charles Moore, singer and campaigner Charlotte Church, Labour MP Stephen Kinnock (now where have I heard that name before?) and Plaid Cymru Leader Leanne Wood AM.

Kick off tonight (Thursday) at 22.35

Chat here

Register here if necessary.