Breach of the Peace

The BBC has written a report about the ruling that led to the conviction and subsequent expulsion from St. Andrews University of a young history student who put his hand down his pants and rubbed it on a Jewish student’s Israeli flag. His mate and co-culprit got off more lightly – he was merely suspended for a year.

Was this just a silly prank by two drunken ‘hey Jimmies’, which received a disproportionately harsh punishment? Or was the harshness meant to deter others who might be planning to express rampantly racist sentiments, which are currently bubbling up throughout our university campuses?

But there’s more to this than meets the eye. The Palestinian Solidarity bunch were performing their particular type of solidarity by providing a baying mob to boo and jeer at the verdict and at the Jewish complainant. But that’s not all. When the case first came to court in May, a cunning and exasperating delaying tactic was devised by the accused. What fun.

Who knows whether this irritated the judge enough to influence his decision to take the case seriously, and to come down on the side of the young man from the rogue Zionist entity, an act that defies the prevailing atmosphere (see judge Bathurst-Norman) amongst a section of the judiciary.

However there’s more ramifications to this. The young pubic hair-wielding fellow was not a “hey Jimmy” out for a drunken Sat’day night punch-up. He was a history student. A history student. Any fule kno that history can, and must be interpreted in more than one way, but I recall a lively debate on one of Melanie Phillips’s Spectator threads that was sparked off by a student at Aberystwyth University who felt he would fail his history degree if he dared to consider any other than the Palestinian narrative.

It seems that Scotland is a hotbed of Israel-bashing, what with the rash of BDS campaigns that have sprouted in places like Dunbartonshire, but as Richard Millett knows only too well, where anti Zionism is concerned London is the Daddy.

An aspect of this case that several people have remarked on is that pro Palestinian activists who parade their antisemitic slogans and incite antisemitic acts of violence and abuse see themselves as anti racist. The stupidity is mind boggling. Their minds have obviously been boggled, (and in my humble opinion even more sinister) not by the BNP, not by the EDL, but by our universities and academic institutions.

Oh yes, and our public broadcasting corporation. First they whip it up, then they report the consequences, almost feigning innocent surprise as though it’s not their fault.

UNTRUSTWORTHY…AGAIN

More digging…it turns out that the outfit that was hired by the BBC trustees to monitor BBC output in connection with the Steve Jones whitewash report on science coverage was the Imperial College Science Communications Group (SCG). Surprise, surprise, they are active in promoting climate change communications. And you can read SCG report co-writer Alice R.Bell’s guide to indoctrinating children about climate change on her blog, here.

It seems that the SCG’s conclusions about the BBC’s news coverage of climate change reporting were based primarily on the analysis of just one (yes one) news story, the report of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review into the “climategate” affair over the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in July 2010 (p75 et sequi in the report). The main concern of the group is that Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation was given too much space and misleadingly introduced as an expert in climate when he is an athropologist. In fact, other experts were given far more airtime, but no matter; and Benny Peiser is more qualified to comment on climate change than Richard Black and Roger Harrabin are to write about it. The SRG don’t say in so many words that overall, coverage of the Climategate story was wrong, but their haughty disdain and disapproval for allowing such a man and such a group airtime is written between the lines in 72point.

It is astonishing that the analysis of one news item about climate change should form the evidential basis of a major review of science coverage. Had the SRG done sustained monitoring of coverage of greenie issues on the website or the Today programme – for example – they would have found a picture of serial distortion and misinformation on an epic scale (as the David Vance example from today shows). Instead, they chose the one climate change story of 2010 where “sceptic” opinion could not be avoided, even by the BBC.

PRESSURE DROP

There was an interesting story on the news this morning about the best way to diagnose people to see if they suffer from high blood pressure.

A quarter of patients may find visiting a GP stressful, leading to misdiagnosis and being given drugs they do not need.Patients in England and Wales will be offered extra checks using a mobile device that records blood pressure over 24 hours, says the watchdog NICE.

The BBC response? Can this be afforded because of the dreaded (but imaginary) cuts?

A RIGHT SIR ANTHONY….

We are not the only people who see the bias that so characterises the BBC output. Take the recent Radio 4 programme “The Reunion”. A B-BBC contributor notes…

“I didn’t listen to this programme because you can only take so much…and you know exactly the direction these fellow travellers will take when discussing Communism….lucky for me Charles Moore has done the hard work and has put the BBC well and truly in the stocks and brought such ambivalence toward ideological and actual threats to this nation up to date:

‘When will the BBC ever tell the truth about Anthony Blunt?’ Charles Moore reviews an edition of The Reunion (Radio 4) that focused on the disgraced art critic and his treachery.

 ‘Blunt was a virtually innocent victim, we were told, and the only villain was the press”.

The Reunion propagated the theory that spying for the Soviets in the Thirties and Forties was nothing worse than an excess of zeal. This is a shocking untruth. Hitler and Stalin were moral equivalents. Indeed, at the time when Blunt signed up for the Soviet Union, Stalin had actually killed far more people than Hitler because the Führer was only just getting into his stride. The BBC would (rightly) never dream of making a programme which sought to excuse traitors who worked for the Nazis.

In our generation, Blunt’s equivalents are the intellectual apologists for Islamist extremism. No doubt it will turn out that some of them worked secretly for countries like Iran, and no doubt, in due time, the BBC will laud them too.’ The BBC already lauds Binyam Mohammed and Mozzam Begg, not to mention the 7/7 bombers who were forced into their actions by our foreign policy and em, ‘discrimination, neglect, fury and resentment, bitter grievances, ignored and demeaned, kept in poverty by a system which cares very little about them.’

Apart from Malcolm Muggeridge’s articles on the USSR journalist Gareth Jones also did his best to expose the horrors of Communism: 

What to make of an organisation that refuses to openly debate history from 70 years ago…..could it be that so many of the Labour Party were Communists that it might be a tad embarrassing for a Labour supporting, but impartial, news gatherer?

Then again its recent coverage of Tony Blair’s article on the recent riots was in a similar vein….completely devoid of any reference to the facts. Should that be necessarily a bad thing, or is it perhaps slightly sinister? When you are told that Blair had an important warning to both politicians and the public…namely Cameron is implementing policies merely for political advantage and that the public should not be allowed to have any say influence on such policy…because of course ‘populist politics’ is the last thing you want in a democracy….you have to conclude it is sinister.

Stephen Glover’s take on Blair rewriting history here.

WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS…

Of course it is not just Evan Davies who has interests that are not immediately obvious; A Biased BBC contributor notes…

“Reference Evan Davis and his membership of the SMF board….John Humphrys is a shareholder in ‘YouGov’ the polling company. Any conflict of interest there when the BBC is telling us Labour is surging in the polls according to YouGov perhaps?

‘Humphrys, who has worked on programmes such as ‘Panorama’, ‘On the Ropes’ and ‘Mastermind’, has hit back at critics who said that there is a conflict of interest between his position on ‘Today’ and the shares that he holds with the company.’
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/469491/Radio-4s-John-Humphrys-set-money-YouGov-float/

http://today.yougov.co.uk/homepage
‘YouGov is the authoritative measure of public opinion and consumer behaviour. It is our ambition to supply a live stream of continuous, accurate data and insight into what people are thinking and doing all over the world, all of the time, so that companies, governments and institutions can better serve the people that sustain them. YouGov is the most quoted research company in the UK, so by joining our panel of over 350,000 members and taking part in our surveys you really can get your voice heard.’

.. and hilariously the recession could all be John Humphry’s fault…or at least the company he holds shares in: ‘….financial institutions used its research in the past to make investment decisions.’
Though of course YouGov was founded by two Tory supporters (one now a Tory MP!)”

ALL WRONGS LEAD TO MURDOCH

There was a particularly nasty little item HERE on Today this morning. It’s yet another BBC led attack on Murdoch, this time bringing in Chris Mullins and Sheila Gunn – John Major’s former press secretary. Gunn, in particular, used the opportunity to have a go at those bad “right-wingers” and “little Englanders”who gave nice Mr Major such a hard time over Europe. It’s obvious that the BBC has determined that Trinity Newspapers and the Guardian have no questions to answer concerning the integrity of their behaviour and so all wrongs can only ever lead to Murdoch.

UNTRUSTWORTHY

I’m head down at the moment helping to write a long paper on BBC bias that I hope will appear in print in due course. I missed – Autonomous Mind and Harmless Sky didn’t – that the BBC trustees had issued a grovelling retraction about the Steve Jones paper that is being used by the corporation to support its climate change activism. In a nutshell the public school hating Professor Jones – in a key section where he argues vehemently for the suppression of all dissent – fingered Lord Lawson and Lord Christopher Monckton for making crassly erroneous statements on specific BBC programmes. He simply did not check his facts. What he said was wrong and now the Trust has begrudgingly owned up, although – par for the course – they haven’t the grace to call it an apology or properly acknowledge their mistake. The retraction has instead been quietly attached to the latest version of the report.

It beggars belief that £140,000 of our cash was spent by the so-called regulatory body of a £3.5bn organisation on this report and that it saw the light of day with such crass errors. It confirms the vindictiveness and hate against “deniers” at the top levels of the corporation and the obscene rush to suppress them.

Part of my current research covers the operations of the BBC Trust. I will make my revelations soon. But what has happened here fits perfectly with what I have uncovered so far…the “trust” is anything but trustworthy on this and other editorial issues.

The Bias Of Katty Kay Revealed On MSNBC

A couple days ago, BBC Washington correspondent and anchor of what’s left of BBC World News America, Katty Kay participated in a panel discussion on Chris “Thrill Up My Leg” Matthews’ show on MSNBC. Unlike the BBC, MSNBC has no Charter & Agreement requiring them to provide balance and remain impartial, and the panel is even more weighted to the Left: John Heilmann from New York Magazine, Katty, Helene Cooper from the New York Times, and Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel. The host himself is now infamous for his over-emotional statement on air of devotion to the President, and has spent much of the time since His election viciously attacking any opponent.

Before we get to the video, I have to say that it’s certainly not Katty’s fault that this is a far-Left echo-chamber, or that Matthews has a specific partisan agenda to push and assembled this panel accordingly. But she is responsible for her own words and behavior. Therein lies the danger of being a talking head on these panels. It’s all opinion-mongering, and there’s no escaping that the whole point of appearances like this is to give opinions on stories. Sometimes that’s not a big deal, like when a pundit is asked to predict how things might turn out, or explain a couple of angles a politician might take on something. But that’s not what’s going on this time.

Since she’s not actually on the BBC here, and is not performing any BBC-related duty, defenders of the indefensible can claim that she has no obligation to be impartial. All I can do is present this from the BBC’s own rulebook, and let people judge for themselves:

BBC News and Current affairs staff, BBC correspondents on non-staff contracts and freelances known primarily as presenters or reporters on BBC news and current affairs programmes, must remain impartial when speaking publicly or taking part in similar events, such as a public discussion or debate.

Now to the video:

Notice how Matthews misses Perry’s joke and claims this is embracing extremism. The first words out of the New York Magazine guy’s mouth are, “The Republican Party right now is a very ideological party.” And the Democrat Party isn’t? Matthews goes on to disparage Perry, and we can see the tone from the outset. Angry, extremist, mean, ideological. Matthews really piles on, blatantly misrepresenting the message of the movement: “We don’t believe in evolution. We don’t believe in Climate Change.” He says this is the language of the Tea Party. Nods of agreement all round, and no protest at all from Katty Kay. She agrees with the characterization that this is what the Tea Party movement is about. If she thought differently, she would have said something.

This has not and has never been the language of the Tea Party movement. The last two and a half years have been about fiscal responsibility. Katty actually later acknowledges this fact, but only after she says that the movement is all social conservatives. Once again I have to state emphatically for any lurking defenders of the indefensible waiting for a gotcha moment: Of course there are plenty of social conservatives in the movement, and of course these issues concern them. Yes, social conservatives have also tried to jump on the bandwagon and co-opt the movement’s energy for their own ends. But the inspiration, the driving force, the raison d’être of the Tea Party movement is fiscal conservatism and nothing else. Remember – and I sympathize with those who get their information on US issues from the BBC who were kept in the dark about this for months – the whole thing started as an anti-tax movement and grew into an anti-ObamaCare and anti-Socialism/Big-Government movement. Nothing else mattered. No social issues inspired this, none of the hundreds of spontaneous protests around the country were about social issues. It’s simply false to portray the movement and the millions of people supportive of it as social conservatives first and foremost. Yet the BBC Washington correspondent plays right along. For her to go along with it and abet Matthews’ smear is biased behavior, and, I believe, a breach of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines for correspondents.

Since a few genius pundits have been comparing Perry to Reagan, the discussion shifts to that idea. But things are different today than they were in 1980. “There seems to be a meanness of spirit,” Katty opines. Yes, she’s making a distinction between Reagan’s campaign and the rougher tone of today, but she’s also acting as if it’s only the Right which is acting this way. When did Katty ever frown at the President for saying “Punch back twice as hard”, or instructing His supporters to argue with opponents and “get in their face”, or for crying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”? Never, and she wouldn’t dream of doing so. In fact, she’s pretending here that it never happened. I suppose that’s to be expected, seeing as how the BBC has censored this news, not allowing you to know about it. This is a BBC Washington Correspondent revealing what she thinks about the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party, and it’s exactly as biased as we’ve all been saying about her work for the BBC.

At one point, Katty states that Perry’s joke was actually him being mean, and that the public doesn’t like that sort of thing. Clearly she misses the point, just like the rest of these Leftoids. From nearly the very beginning of the movement, the Mainstream Media and Leftoid blogosphere have tried to characterize Tea Party people as being angry and mean. People here may recall just how many BBC reports on the movement (just click on anything in the Tag Cloud on the right side of this page with “Tea Party” in it, and you’ll see what I mean) focused on “boiling anger”, etc. So this is nothing new. Then there was the racist angle, thankfully absent from this particular discussion. The thing is, many in the movement have taken the approach of humor with it.

For example, the host of one Tea Party event I attended was a black man, who greeted the crowd by saying, “Hello all you racist rednecks!”. Perry is doing the same thing here. And the Leftoids on the panel simply don’t get the joke, as they’re the very people who actually are making the smear which Perry’s playing on. The crowd in the video obviously gets it, but the BBC Washington correspondent very obviously doesn’t.

There’s also the inevitable mention of Katty’s arch-nemesis, Sarah Palin, who is never far from her thoughts. It’s much harder now for Palin to enter the race, apparently. Glad that’s straightened out.

I’ve made a quite a few posts and comments on this blog highlighting the bias of Katty Kay’s reporting and interviewing manner on the BBC. Her personal opinion revealed here in her capacity as a pundit reflects my charges exactly.