“Michael Buerk in a trailer for the ‘Moral Maze’ commented upon the dangers of broadcasting live…’unusual and dangerous…you cannot tailor it or shape it or sanitise it…’
Unfortunately this is precisely what we get with most BBC programmes, tailored to suit an agenda, shaped to shape your ideas, sanitised to remove difficult and contrary questions.
Eliza Manningham Buller, ex spook, in her first Reith Lecture on ‘Terror’ must have followed the BBC handbook to the letter and has managed to pen a tract worthy of any member of the Stop the War Campaign or the Socialist Worker’s Party….or indeed many a BBC journalist. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0145x77
The lecture was, considering the source, laughable in content and in its intended outcome. What has made this worse is that it is the result, presumably, of much thought and consideration by someone who has unique knowledge and privileged access to information and analysis of events….and yet manages to put together a discourse on the War on Terror which lacks logic, reason and insight as well as coming to conclusions that clearly have no basis in reality.
Just a few contradictions from our ex intelligence chief;
9/11 was a crime not an act of war, or 9/11 was a war in defence of their political establishment, culture and society; Muslims attacked us because they were angry about our support for dictators, or Muslims attacked us because we removed a dictator; force of arms and intelligence cannot defeat terror, or we had to attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban and intelligence and arms were critical to success in Northern Ireland; It was the Palestinian’s plight that recruited Al Qaeda terrorists, or it was a need to belong and search for excitement that recruited terrorists; It was nothing to do with Islam, but Al Qaeda wanted to restore the Islamic Caliphate.
And of course we must negotiate with Al Qaeda….presumably we will be negotiating with an ‘idea’, but if we cannot go to ‘war on terror’ then how can we ‘negotiate with terror’?
Her final nonsense was to claim that she was encouraged that most people did not give victory to the terrorists as they refused to be intimidated and refused to support the diminution of our civil liberties.
Really? The whole of this speech is an historic example of cultural cringe, a cowering before the Muslim terrorist intimidation and his apologists in the Liberal media that it shall surely count as one of the most pitiful examples of a nation’s ’Establishment’ , its political and intellectual leadership, surrendering its values, culture and right to exist.
And what is the most telling aspect of this whole sorry charade is that throughout Manningham Buller makes no reference to Islam itself as the source of the ideology that drives these attacks.
Bin Laden couldn’t make it clearer, Islam is the banner under which he marched, he intended to restore the Caliphate and take Islam to power across the world.
Rule one is know your enemy, know his intentions and beliefs. For a senior Intelligence officer to be in denial or ignorance of that is an absolute betrayal of the people of this country, the whole West in fact and those that rely upon the support of the West to defeat those much derided ‘dictators’ in their own lands.
If the West falls and takes her democratic values with her the world will be a much poorer and dangerous place. Her every word could have tripped off the tongue of any BBC journalist or flowed from his pen without thinking twice. Shouldn’t be surprised if we look in the back of one of Jeremy Bowen’s ‘lost’ notebooks that we find the first draft of this speech….in Arabic naturally.
I wonder if pillow talk influences her in any way?….”Her husband, David, is the son of a former Lieutenant Colonel and a former lecturer in moral philosophy at St Andrews University. He has recently retrained as a carpenter. An Irish Catholic by birth, he is said to have once held strong left-wing views.”
‘If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear results of a hundred battles
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle’.
Sun Tzu’s Art of War
Any bets on which on which path she is on :?~
I can now see why we`re in the pickle we`re in if the likes of this double-barrelled wannebe amdram managed to have the power of life or death in emplying our spooks until recently.
If she personifies the type who let Alistair Campbell edit the reports of her operatives so the “political narrative” looked nicer, then God help us.
I fear that she does.
It would account for why Blair and Browns Axminster rug impression has not been the focus of the BBCs coverage of “sucking up to Gadafi”-but the roles of our security services have been trawled over.
The political class either take the rap for their disgraceful cosying up to Libya…or they get the BBC and their political glove puppets to impugn rogue security agents.
That they seem happy enough-and not frightened of-any MI5/6 reaction to being the straw man of Tripoli, only shows what Manningham Buller and her sort were employed by Labour to do to our security services.
Mission far from impossible…seems accomplished to me at the moment!
Lordy…she looks like a cross between Patricia Hewitt and Shirley Williams…and with worse dress taste and more patronising tones than either.
I do hope both she and her invited “Speech Day” audience removed their shoes in the theatre, and that the microphone was pointed towards Mecca…just as ever these days in Beebland!
Whether her arse or her elbow was pointing towards them really makes no odds…she clearly talks in the knowledge that she doesn`t know one from the other.
Bin Laden will be shyly splashing in the Indian Ocean somewhere tonight…and maybe his tidal power potential makes him another force for good with Tim Black!
I heard the latter part of the first instalment of the Reith lecture. The second instalment is on 13th Sept.
I started to mug up a bit on Ms Manningham Buller so as to post relevant findings, if any, after that. No need now.
I do agree with many of the contributor’s conclusions, but my thinking was that although she revealed some alarming political opinions, simply being invited to express them in the Reith Lectures hardly constitutes bias on the part of the BBC. It could be that in time, albeit a very very long time, someone with the opposite perspective will be invited, to counterbalance. Here are the previous invitees.
There was certainly a left leaning tinge to the questioners at the end – one was Shami
Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, whose school nickname was Bullying Manner, appeared to be saying, unless I’m very much mistaken, that we must talk to the Taliban. She wasn’t quite singing “All they are saying, is Give Peace a Chance” but she did give the impression that she believes that if we engage with the terrorists, and extend the open hand of friendship towards them and look kindly on their requests to get the hell out of Muslim Lands, it might bring about peace in our time. If the Brits and the Yanks get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and stop meddling in ‘Palestine’, she seemed to imply, perhaps MI5 could disband, and save the country a lot of hassle and expense. She didn’t say this in so many words, so I might have been letting my suspicious mind run away with me.
She certainly said George W’s War on Terror was a wrong concept and a recruiting sergeant for foreign and home-grown Jihadis. Her ambivalent attitude to torture, turning a blind eye on the one hand, and being staunchly anti on the other was the subject of Shami’s innocuous question from the floor.
There was a mystery surrounding her abrupt resignation at the time of the London 7/7 bombings, and her pivotal role in the Chilcot enquiry caused one or two upsets.
She does have something of the Catherine Ashton about her – the intellectual stature as well as the appearance – with a slight whiff of Maragaret Beckett. Maybe I’ve got it all wrong, but somehow I don’t think she’s got the measure of these Muslim Jihadi fellows, or this Islam nonsense. Not one little bit. That was worrying.
The openly extremely liberal leanings of Buller and Lambert who were supposedly protecting the security interests of this country are extremely concerning.
It would seem highly unlikely that this brand of liberalism is isolated. One must therefore presume that such thinking runs through senior civil service ranks and stems from sources in the system which supplies them. ? Arab influences in our premier places of learning.
If indeed, this is the case, this country is in BIG TROUBLE and we ordinary citizens have cause to be very concerned.
The comment I posted about 18 months ago about the Reith lectures seems just as apposite today:
. . . Almost no-one outside the BBC/Guardian/AGW loon daisy-chain listens to the Reith Lectures, let alone takes them seriously. The reputation of the Lectures has declined irredeemably over the last few years. Certainly, the millennial Lecture in 2000 struck a new low in cultural comment and it’s been downhill all the way from there.
You only have to look at the lecturers
(listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reith_Lectures )
to see why. With a couple of exceptions, the lecturers in the last 20 years have been drones selected by the BBC from the same bien pensant “intelligentsia” whose mindset is unsurprisingly identical to those whom the BBC recruit and nurture: an inward-looking, intolerant , self-referential and self-satisfied crew of patronising mediocrity.
The BBCs one in 2002 was the one that applies today.
The woman (Oonora O`Neill) spoke of the decline of trust.
She was right to do so-for now trust is not in decline but is gone.
The BBC need to listen again…once you have betrayed trust endemically and serially, then you`ll not get it back.
The BBC died in 2003…but continues to expect us to plug the meter for its life support machine to stay on.
James Murdochs holiday snaps would be more informative than anything that the BBC chooses to promote in its news…so let`s have a test card with them on until we create a news channel that just might give us the truth once in a while!
Appeasement comes naturally to arse lickers. Telling the truth (or at least thinking for yourself) is the enemy of those who are more focused on social advancement than truth. Only societies which give people the freedom to point out establishment delusions are able to survive in the long run.
The BBC seeks to eliminate (by one means or another) any view that does not accord with the interests and views of the Leftist establishment. The Leftist establishment is historically unusual in that it is not only delusional, it also seeks to completely destroy its inheritance.
Why we go along with a system that forces us to pay for people who promote the views and interests of the Leftist establishment is not clear. What is clear is that by allowing the BBC to dominate our television broadcasting (allowing it for example to openly pursue the end of eliminating its rivals) we are the generation (yes us) that gave up on our culture.
Well I happen to think it is worth fighting for. We should fight for (lets us be frank about it) our superior civilization. We should fight for our freedom to speak truth to power. We should expose the nihilism of the BBC.
I would go further and say it is our moral duty (while we have breath in our body) to fight to bring the BBC down by exposing them for what they are – narcissistic British hating parasities. What they hate about Britain most of all is that it is a free society. You think I am going to give that up without a fight!
Well said, Wild! The people on this site haven’t been injected with that lethal ambivalence towards their native land. The poison that has been administered to the left liberal elite at an early age, & festers into appeasement & surrender. We can see right through Islam, & the backdrop is horrific.