I read with despair this BBC report on the continuing fall out from the outrageous arrest of Damian Green by anti-terrorist police a few days ago. The BBC seems intent to present this episode as if it were merely an issue between the Conservative Party and the procedure followed by the authorities in the Commons rather than the very real conflict this presents between a domineering control freak government and the right MP’s have to provide the public with details that those in power would rather were kept quiet. If we were a police state tomorrow, the BBC would probably turn it into a reality TV show so the bread and circuses were maintained. The twisting and evasions underway between Ms Harperson, Gorbals Mick and the rest sicken me – but the BBC seems disinterested in viewing this as a threat to our fundamental freedoms. Personally, I think the Conservatives should stay away from the State opening of Parliament since it is clearer by the day just how monstrous the Brown Politburo has become, determined to stifle all opposition, aided and abetted by politicised policing.
SHILLING FOR TOTALITARIANISM.
Bookmark the permalink.
Dale has the Harriet Agenda for the “stitch up”
http://tinyurl.com/5qgkhj
Why is it necessary to state the “MPs are not above the law”? I don’t recall anyone claiming they are above the law. It is not clear that any law has been broken – other than through an interpretation that would have most of the House of Commons behind bars. Another veiled smear hiding inside a fatuous statement of the obvious.
We are looking at the bare face of sectarian politics and the BBC is right in there spinning.
Andrew,
Too true. The State broadcaster is a player, not an observer – another reason to axe it.
In the same breath this morning, the BBC think those noise-emitting devices (mosquitoes?) intended to deter yobs and loiterers, are an affront to our civil liberties. They have it all arse-backwards. Deliberately so?
Predictably the BBC wheeled out Chakrabati and an academic to denounce a device which has not been really tested yet, and for once might prove to be useful. The academic repeatedly hammering the point that we need to “talk” to these people.
Fair enough, feel free to leave the cosy confines of UCL and the BBC studio and get talkin’!
This affront, and it is an affront, to Mr Green’s personal liberties has set a terrifying precedent.
Look you dastardly coves, anyone criticizing the lovely Gordon is plain treacherous.
LabourHome is punting for the Tories to be charged with treason for talking the pound down!!!
Channel 4 News, gearing up for its tax funded future, has Krishnan asking reporter if the Tories intend throwing themselves in front of the Queen’s carriage tomorrow. The matter is obviously just a joke featuring those whinging Tories.
will | 02.12.08 – 12:24 pm | #
Conflict of interest has always been an area of some sensitivity, and hence interest to me, since way back when and I ran my ad agency.
The merest hint, from a junior AE sharing accounts up to tenuous links between clients’ holding groups clashing, was enough to either politely step back or, less politely, get booted.
Being funded (or having such funds doled out), even in a small manner (or to the tune of £3.5B) by those you are reporting upon, seems a pretty clear route – despite any claims to the contrary various ‘professionals’ may try to trumpet as to their their ability to perform objectively – to being hopelessly compromised in this regard from the off.
So a wee message from this private person, public-sector funding, public broadcast-weary fee payer… ‘I don’t trust you. And if I don’t trust you, what you have to ‘share’ has no value. And if it has no value I should not have to pay for it.’
And that applies in whatever ‘Westminster Useful Village Idiot’ form it is attempted to be imposed, now and in the future.
Why doesn’t anyone agree that the only cure for this abominable crap is for us to have a written constitution with a bill of rights and a proper republican government. That would also get rid of state broadcasting, the disgraceful monarchy, and the dinosaur superstitions of the tax payer funded church.
OK? No. So line up and attack common sense.
Anyone taken a look at the BBC ‘Have your say’ on the Damien Green issue? If you sort the comments by ‘recommend’ you reach page 12 before you come across any comments in favour of ZanuLabour (i.e. comment is overwhelmingly anti Brown/Smith/police) If you read the first two pages ordered by date/time you would imagine people were much more evenly split. Selective moderating? Heaven forbid such a thought!
DV
“Personally, I think the Conservatives should stay away from the State opening of Parliament”
Those of us who had a decent state education and were taught – among other things – how the English Parliament works know that after the delivery of the Queen’s Speech and the return of MPs to the Commons but before the Speech is discussed a bill is read – the Outlawries Bill. The purpose of this procedure is to establish that the normal business of the House of Commons takes precedence even over a statement of intent from the monarch let alone Gordo.
Rather than staying away from the Commons or formally reading the Outlawries Bill, the Conservatives should insist on a real discussion concerning the affront to parliamentary privilege connived in by the Speaker. If Gordo has to wait to hear a debate on his proposals to ruin this country – tough!
Of course, the Conservatives (and LibDems and the 2 Labour MPs with any testicular fortitude) could refuse the summons to the Lords and insist on debating matters there and then. There is not, I believe, a precedent for this but every newly established precedent started out as a diversion from existing precedent.
“Why doesn’t anyone agree that the only cure for this abominable crap is for us to have a written constitution with a bill of rights and a proper republican government. That would also get rid of state broadcasting, the disgraceful monarchy, and the dinosaur superstitions of the tax payer funded church.”
No it wouldn’t,we would end up with more of the same crap from the same people,with someone like Gordon Brown as president.
You don’t think you would get a say do you?
Umbongo,
Anything to expose Gordo’s arrogance!
mike | 02.12.08 – 2:07 pm | #
I had also noticed a lot of contributions defending Labour and smearing (in some cases defaming) the Conservatives in general and Green in particular. Now, I may be a cynical old slaphead, but I merely jumped to the conclusion the the Labour spin machine had slipped into gear to mobilise as many supporters as possible. Once a few posts had appeared setting out the party line the useful idiots would be sure to follow, which they duly did.
I suppose the alternative explanation is that those who believe Green was in the wrong were all busy until yesterday, so they couldn’t post before (any takers that a Labour/Beeboid troll will post that the BBC selectively allowed only pro Green posts until yesterday?).
AndrewSouthLondon | Homepage | 02.12.08 – 9:25 am |
Why is it necessary to state the “MPs are not above the law”? I don’t recall anyone claiming they are above the law. It is not clear that any law has been broken – other than through an interpretation that would have most of the House of Commons behind bars. Another veiled smear hiding inside a fatuous statement of the obvious.
That’s exactly what I thought. Harman is merely lending support to the idea that Green broke the law somehow, and the BBC is only too happy to help. Just as bad is the way that the BBC allows through only a Lib-Dem line about being concerned about whether or not the police would be allowed to carry out a search at all, further twisting this away from the real issue: that somebody (Mr. Brown) illegally sent the police after Green, as a way to silence him.
Oh, and why did the BBC forget to mention that they sent the anti-terror brigade, not just the regular police?
Poor Nick Robinson isn’t much better. He starts out saying that that meeting really was kind of a “stitch-up”, but then danced away from it. He goes into how the investigation has gone badly wrong, Harman really just wants to make sure they learned from their mistakes so that it wouldn’t happen again, etc. In fact, it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, which should be the real concern. But Robinson isn’t allowed to say that. So he distracts from that by talking about the police, and the Met leadership.
He is then guided into bashing Boris and the Conservatives for criticizing an ongoing police investigation. The end result of all of this is that the listener comes away with no idea that the investigation itself was called for Stalinist purposes, and not because Green did anything illegal. Instead, it’s presented as Green having done something wrong, and only the investigation itself was handled badly. “Oh, stop criticizing the police and let them get on with it,” says Nick, who dismisses it all with a wave of his hand by saying it’s just a cock-up, we’ll all get over it, nothing to see here. Smokescreen, will o’ the wisp, red herring, call it what you like.
It’s one step away from what Putin did while in power, and the BBC is aiding and abetting.
MarkE:
Put on the spot, BBC will desperately try to create “balance” if they can find it. A bit like the old Private Eye spoof on trendy vicars that went “The Devil. Is he really all bad?” They are most uncomfortable with a 100% imbalance in favour of those hated Tories, but thats the serendipity in the Green affair. It actually offends just about every one, from the NO2ID crowd, the libertarian left and right, the “its a police state” teenagers, the Parliamentarians, and possibly the environmentalists (Is it ‘cos my names “Green”?) And the US-hating American posters are bewildered as to whose side they should be on.
On this one its almost impossible to find any support apart from the obviously planted comments from the Millbank news management unit.
Or maybe the lefties are just now getting out of bed.
“Hints of a carefully choreographed climbdown by Brown and Smith”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/themole,0,hints-of-a-carefully-choreographed-climbdown-by-brown-and-smith,59787
There`s going to be a boycott of the STATE opening of Parliament ? In Brussels, where our laws are made ?
A ‘leak’ on Labour’s continuing stealth ‘policy’ of mass immigration, c/o European Union diktat: this time on Iraqi refugees:
“EU ready to accept 10,000 Iraqis”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7754097.stm
-so UK’s Labour government submits to taking even more immigrants. (Once immigrants are in EU, e.g. in the case of many Somalis who first settled in Holland, they didn’t like it there, so decided to switch to the UK, and places like Leicester.) There is no end to the stream of immigrants, wanting the benefits which UK citizens are expected to provide from welfare payments, housing to Sharia-favouring schools, health practices and Sharia law, etc. And then there’s 75 million Muslim Turks next to get EU entry with Labour’s full support.
Wazzup – ‘a written constitution with a bill of rights and a proper republican government. That would also get rid of state broadcasting, the disgraceful monarchy, and the dinosaur superstitions of the tax payer funded church’. You have found the three presents I have asked from Santa this year!
Wazzup / ae1
You philistines. The very fact that the monarchy is outmoded and anachronistic is precisely why it should remain. It’s indefensible.
Blair left it, Brown won’t touch it. The Tories, if anyone, have led very minor reforms. The electorate want to keep it. Even the BBC shies away from overtly critisising the monarchy (though a latent desire to do so is simmering under the surface).
Leftoids with an aversion to the monarchy are left, yet again, swimming against the tide of popular consent. Why feather their foetid little nest?
Nothing will happen.
Nothing
Nothing
Nothing
In a country where most TV and radio is controled by the Left, and the far-Left, nothing will happen.
Tories are terrified of being called radical, far-Right, extremist. They are cowered and knobbled.
All they can do is wimper.
Cameron is a 2nd hand car salesman, he’s not a true Tory, he has no backbone and Margret had more balls.
The man is wet and pathetic. He’s a poor man’s Blair.
The Tories are leader-less and rudderless.
Until we get another Thatcher or Churchil, Socialism will continue to rule.
TT
Seems to me there are cycles in politics – sometimes the only way to win is to capture the middle ground – at other times a pendulum shift against who ever has been in a long time – permission for a bit more “ideology”. The middle ground remains key and sadly, Thatcher is still an object of hate with many younnger people.
Labour is in its death throws but still dangerous and with the help of its friends in the media spinning for all they are worth. Labour have few cards left. What was the Rory Bremner/ Gordo line? – “We are deep in the do-do. This is no time for novices” You may not like young toffs but the voters in the polls say otherwise. Seems to me the course is running well.
There is eleven years of socialism to dismantle – but it can only start after the election is won. The media swung it for Blair in 1997 with its Guardian-driven “Tory Sleaze” hysteria. The BBC will be rooting shamelessly for Gordo, but it is publicly accountable and The Guardian is not. They musn’t be allowed to get away with it again.
…had a very interesting experience tonight.
Obviously out of some masochistic desire for self torture or some deluded hope that the events of the last 4 days might yield some productive results vis-a-vis the end of brown or smith, i put of r4 news at 6. Retreating to the kitchen in disappointment to prepare some comfort food to cushion the blow i found myself “drifting away” to report on benefits claimants having to “do” something for their money. The guy who was reporting (didnt catch his name) had a strange effect and i noticed i had subconscioulsy turned off the report as some sort of subliminal reaction to his monotonous boring drone.
Half way through i managed to “wake” out of it to see myself subconsciously agreeing with him. When i “woke up” i realised i was subconsciously lured into agreeing with his report – through an aversion to his tone which was
bascially very subliminally antagonistic towards claimants having to do any sort of activity towards their
financial renumeration. Very strange.
Now I know quite a few benefit claimants who for the most i havent got the time of day for because they’re mostly unemployable semi criminal alcoholics or drug addicts and i personally dont see why i or any one else who has to work, wants to work, or enjoys work should have to support their habits. But any way it was a very strange insight to catch yourself in this process and i believe has some sort of relation to why people without consciously thinking just keep voting for these toerags and putting up with this crap.
Because they are basically hypnotised by media programming via the radio and television. Its the only thing
to explain xfactor and strickly and is exactly why they are pumped out every saturday night into our living
rooms – consciously or unconsiciously – food for thought. I personally think that subconscious programming isnt
always a deliberately subversive desire to control us but happens as a result of a subconscious ignorance of the
people themselves because i dont think in most cases these people are even aware that they are doing it. Its
just a subconscius chain reaction between unaware individuals…
spent some time on comment is free today.
the anger over this arrest goes right across the political spectrum.
but there is no doubt that there are paid nulabour stooges logging in with brand new names and posting ad hominem attacks on conservatives and anyone who disagrees with zanulabour. if it is on comment is free then they must also target bbc HYS
scary stuff…
“Thatcher is still an object of hate with many younger people.”
Which is odd since she has been gone eighteen years,people are going to be in their thirties for her to have made any impact on them.Could this be the power of the BBC brain washing the young?
I’ve just been watching Newsnight with Paxo discussing the Green arrest with Michael Howard, Ken Livingstone and Sir Ken MacDonald. The discussion centred on whether Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, authorised or knew about the police move to arrest Damien Green. It occurred to me that she actually just might be telling the truth when she denies all knowledge, and Brown might be in a similar situation.
I put it to you that there may be a civil servant ‘leading beyond authority’ who might have sent an inquiry to a similarly inclined police officer who would have then got things moving. None of their bosses would ever be fully in-the-know but, if the police can be co-opted into arresting an MP over a relative insignificance, then Common Purpose could arrange the arrest of anybody over anything.
The other reason why the BBC has been so mealy-mouthed about Green’s arrest is because of the nature of his alleged “offence”. Green has repeatedly exposed the Labour Government’s failure to deal with illegal immigration.
That is not the kind of issue which the BBC would like to see brought to light…
on Al Beebs dont have your say, the beeboid moonbat aka matt frei
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5716&edition=1&ttl=20081203074637&#paginator
the thread was closed after 2 comments and its pretty hard to find the above link on al bebs site
you cant think BBC without thinking leftist scum
Garden Trash | 02.12.08 – 10:13 pm:
The answer to your question is “yes.”
In the Hamilton cash-for-questions affair, the British media, led by the Guardian and the BBC, has demonstrated its ability to brainwash the nation and the world into believing evidence-free allegations, hung entirely on the word of the world’s most notorious, erratic, vengeful, documented liar, levelled against an unblemished minister of the crown.
That’s a fact.
Since I first started posting on B-BBC several years ago, no troll – including the infamous John Reith – has ever succeeded in putting up a cogent argument to the contrary.
So, if the BBC, through its promulgation of allegations as fact coupled to its suppression of the facts, has shown that it possesses the power to brainwash the nation into believing a demonstrably bogus story that tarnished parliament’s reputation around the world, then you can take it as read that the national thinking on all issues can be lain at the BBC’s feet.
That’s why the BBC fears the Hamilton affair as much as the Guardian.
Ross: Your comment ‘The very fact that the monarchy is outmoded and anachronistic is precisely why it should remain. It’s indefensible.’ is a pretty week argument.
It’s like going to your doctor for a headache and when the doctor says ‘Have an aspirin’ you reply ‘No thanks, I’d rather my head was drilled to let out the demons!!’
jimbob – entirely agree this is scary stuff. The carefully planted words of Mandelson smearing the Conservatives on this morning’s Today programme – which were instantly endorsed by Nick Robinson and given headline prominence asap are a clear indication of the new, formidable climate of proapaganda we are now entering.
And if they are empowered to get away with this – just wait to see what they’ll get away with if this lot are ever re-elected. Immunity will kick in and arrests will become routine. Meanwhile the great British public will be fed a Mugabe style diet of smokescreen scapegoating – gawping as some favoured targets (bankers, toffs and Tories … )are burnt at the stake of our degenerate media.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Garden Trash | 02.12.08 – 10:13 pm:
As i noted above there is no doubt that the BBC can be a brainwashing organisation. As you so correctly note with the hamilton affair these allegations were treated in such a way as they “seep” into the consciousness of listeners and are repeated at them in such a regular way with such emotion that you get sick of hearing them. The only ability answer left to the listener is to be coercered into believing them to make the emotional pressure go away.
It plays on the human “quality” that we tend to view the worse of people. Thats why we have the media controlling us both through its ability to accuse people of racism, paedophilia, etc etc and through its content. I dont think its coincidence that in any high profile controversial case the media nearly always report that the individual has had child porn found on their computer. People will believe it and the target is destroyed. No one will be able to come back from this because someone will always be prepared to believe it. The threat i would say would often be enough. Classic soviet techniques.
Why do think that hitlers speeches were such screams of emotion. It would impossible to listen to such tirades on a regular basis without becoming affected by them. The natural human reaction here would be fight or flight. But who could fight the nazi machine. An it would be no easy thing to up sticks either. It is a classic brainwashing technique. Soften the recipient up with some extreme emotional content, audio or pictures of burning babies etc and they can be turned on to any idea that will negate these images in front of them. The film zeitgeist is classic brainwashing material.
Before people get too freaked out i would say that i dont believe its a “conscious” behaviour in all cases. Most people wouldnt be aware they are either doing it or engaged in it. If you put this to the Beeb that would laugh in your face. Thats another classic reaction – denial. For the record as a reaction to the beeb for many years i used to by the daily mail. I found myself becoming “brainwashed” by its hysterical headlines and stories everyday. In the end to have any sort of normal life i had to give up buying it because when you buy it you make an emotional investment in it and once you do that you become open to its suggestion. I found myself hating foreigners and immigrants i used to meet in my daily life and this wasnt healthy. As the son of an immigrant it was also hypocritical. For a deeper understanding of these techniques google Yuri Besmenov. Also look up Anatoliy Golitzyn.
ae1
Not strictly BBC bias, but I am an favour of keeping the monarchy because they have no constitutional role beyond the ceremonial. When Charles blesses us with his opinions on architecture, alternatives to medicine or whatever bee is currently in his bonnet, he gets reported (he is Prince of Wales and will one day be the King’s father) but we don’t have to take any notice and we are allowed to laugh at him. Imagine the situation if we had an elected president to fulfil the same roles (launch ships, open supermarkets and entertain mass murderers); they would comment on their favourite causes, and would then claim that, having been voted into office (even if only by 40% on a 60% turnout) they had a mandate to enforce our compliance with their prejudices.
If we could be confident of getting top class minds standing for the presidency that might not matter, but we would get the same people who stand for parliament; President Blair (A or I) anyone? Branson? Archer?
I do agree with teh disestablishment of teh Church though; if priests want to influenc eteh law, let them stand for parliament. If they command a majority they can influence all they like, but unelected priests should confine themselves to preaching to their congregations.
And on another off topic matter; many people here are falling into the same trap as I did years ago, and have only recently understood. David Cameron is a true Conservative in the mould of Heath or MacMillan; Thatcher and Churchill were not.
The Beebinator | 03.12.08 – 7:56 am |
the thread was closed after 2 comments and its pretty hard to find the above link on al bebs site
What a shame. Matt Frei’s little partisan piece generated 62 comments, and the BBC published only two of them: one for and one against. The other 60 weren’t rejected, just suppressed. They shut it down instead of admitting that they had to reject them all for being to negative.
Excellent work, Matt Frei, and whoever is in charge of the HYS pages at the Ministry of Truth.
Mark: Despite the fact I disagree your points are well made.
AE1
“Ross: Your comment ‘The very fact that the monarchy is outmoded and anachronistic is precisely why it should remain. It’s indefensible.’ is a pretty week argument.
It’s like going to your doctor for a headache and when the doctor says ‘Have an aspirin’ you reply ‘No thanks, I’d rather my head was drilled to let out the demons!!’
”
I do agree. Saying something is indefensible and that’s why it should remain is, on the surface, pretty weird. But think about it – as I’m sure you already have:
The Royals are in no position of real power and whatever power is invested in them is strictly constitutional. Now, apart from 9/11 conspiracy theorists who would argue that the Queen and Prince Philip represent the devil incarnate, there’s nothing to fear. The Royals gave rise to parliament anyway. Henry III believed in the divine right of Kings and Queens but parliament is still traced back to his reign purely to reign in the power of the monarch.
Perhaps why they’re indefensible is their APPARENT lack of contribution to society but really only republicans would falsely maintain that they cost more than they give.
See the Golden Jubilee? Millions swarming in London? They’re popular and even stupid people know they’re an asset.
Ross, despite the Magna Carta declaring that the will of kings was subject to law, the monarchy still believed they were appointed by god – therefore above all men.
It was not until Oliver Cromwell removed Charles head, over 400 years later, that the population realised that they were not.
The monarchy is outdated and reflects feudal times. I prefer to be able to vote our leaders out or in.
An argument which is often given is ‘well what will replace them?’ my argument is ‘why replace them.’
Our forefathers died to have the vote and not have to tip their hats. Despite what you may think I am to the right in politics but pro democracy.
ae1 | 03.12.08 – 7:41 pm:
Your argument is of course a sound one and yet it is based on a bogus premise too: that the monarchy, because it is unelected, serves us in a manner which is below that which an elected representative would conduct themselves.
However, our experience of the British political system tells us that our elected representatives act continually in a partisan fashion. In contrast, the monarchy has proved itself to be institutionally non-partisan.
(Indeed, given the recent events concerning the Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green, it is, conceivably, only the Prime Minister’s regular audiences with the Queen that prevents Gordon Brown from abolishing opposition parties altogether.)
I have no doubt that an elected head of state would be political by nature and divisive. I suggest the the populace should ask themselves which modern country has a better, more professional head of state than ours.
Also bear in mind the enormous fondness the public holds for the Queen and the Princes– contrast that with the general cynical dislike of American and French presidents
I read the report and thought it neutral. Of course, we all no how the matter would be covered if the situation was reversed. One recalls the posturing of Andrew Marr in his Observer incarnation over the ‘abuses’ of Bernard Ingham. Now we have an authentic act of proto-tyranny any sincere democrat should be shouting from the rooftops about.
If Speaker Martin consented to the Police raiding an MP’s Parliamentary Office, he has to go, there’s no question about that.
hippiepooter | 04.12.08 – 11:17 am
One recalls the posturing of Andrew Marr in his Observer incarnation over the ‘abuses’ of Bernard Ingham.
Marr never worked for the Observer.
For most of the late 80s he was at the Economist, writing under a pseudonym.
“The Crown”, in its malign and totalitarian manifestation, is now the Prime Minister & his colleagues in Government. They are the real danger to Parliament. The police should have been sent away with a flea in their ear because they were there on the authority of the Crown, and whether they had had some sort of “warrant” was irrelevant, because that too would have been issued by the Crown. The behaviour of the Government and also the officers of the Commons has been quite disgraceful. (Needless to say, the Queen has has nothing to do with all this; all she can do is look on with horror at what is being done in her name.)
‘Cranmer’:
“The Speaker’s unspeakable incompetence”
[Extract]:
“He may be wearing the robes of the office of Speaker of the House of Commons, but he fills them (amply) with a shameful inadequacy. He is an embarrassment to the Mother of Parliaments, a discomfort to his Scottish compatriots and his Catholic co-religionists, and an offence to the memory of those who paid with their lives to establish the principles of democracy and the sovereignty of the people.
“Words like ‘honour’ and ‘truth’ are alien to him; the virtue of integrity escapes him; and the concepts of responsibility and accountability elude him. Speaker Martin is the most duplicitous, partisan, self-serving and incompetent person ever to hold this great Office of State.”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/12/speakers-unspeakable-incompetence.html