Monthly Archives: May 2013

The Daily Mail reports that the ‘New Cultural Forum’ has brought out  a report on BBC bias authored by Ed West ….no link to it yet unfortunately:

The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.

The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.

It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.

Sounds all too familiar

In February BBC Brazil’s US-based GOP/Tea Party-hating columnist Lucas Mendes wrote an article attacking Texan conservative politicians, the latest in a long line of partisan hit pieces from this lefty journalist (representing the supposedly impartial BBC). His dislike of conservative America is so all-consuming that he based much of this recent column on fake facts from a satirical article in the New Yorker which he believed was genuine. He has since been forced to apologise, but is still employed by the BBC to give his opinion on US affairs. BBC Brazil does not have a right-of-centre columnist to balance Mendes’ views.

Here’s a link to the Google Translate version of the Mendes article. At the top is this editor’s note:

Editor’s Note: This column was written based on a satire published in “The New Yorker”. The information below about Senator Lamar Smith are false. Lucas Mendes acknowledged the error in a posterior column, published on April 18 .

“Posterior column” As in talking out of his arse. How apt.

Read it all. Impartial BBC, eh?

(Some previous Biased BBC posts about Lucas Mendes can be seen here.)

David Dimbleby admits to being a member of the IRA and that he was very proud to have worn the ‘uniform’…though he insists he didn’t bomb or kneecap anyone….insisting he had nothing to be ashamed of……he never did the disgusting, disgraceful things that Gerry Adams did.

Well no, that’s obviously all untrue…and the BBC would never call Adams disgraceful and disgusting…despite him having been a member of one of the most notorious terrorist groups in the world…and now a respected politician.

The BBC naturally apologised to a, er, Sinn Fein member for labelling him SF/IRA on a name card at Question time….Sinn Fein….murder, bombings and terror have nothing to do with Sinn Fein ideology.

However Boris Johnson and the Tory ‘Toffs’…that’s a different matter…..they are ‘disgusting and disgraceful’…

David Dimbleby claims that when he was a member of the notorious Bullingdon Club  he ‘“loved” being elected to the club and was “really proud” of his uniform…insisting his cohort “never broke windows or got wildly drink”, he dismissed opinions claiming that he ought to be ashamed of his membership.‘

 He goes on to say: ‘ It was a completely different organisation from what it clearly became when Boris Johnson, David Cameron and George Osborne joined, who seem to be ashamed of it, pulling their photographs and so on. But we never did these disgusting, disgraceful things that Boris did.”

Either David is lying through is teeth or he was completely boring and I hope he got debagged regularly for being so pompous and straight laced.

Wiki tells us, as if you couldn’t have guessed, that the Bullingdon has been notorious for  a very long time…long before Dimbleby joined up….

 Infamously, on 12 May 1894 and again on 20 February 1927, after dinner, Bullingdon members smashed almost all the glass of the lights and 468 windows in Peckwater Quad of Christ Church, along with the blinds and doors of the building. As a result, the Club was banned from meeting within 15 miles of Oxford.

It might be noted that all damage is paid on the spot…possibly not always a consolation to the owner of any establishment…but how many ‘working class’ pubs that get trashed are similarly recompensed?

Part of the joys of being a student I would imagine…being old enough to go to pubs, have money to spend and the time to sober up with few responsibilities….not as if it’s just the Bullingdon Club students that get hammered….the newspapers are often filled with photos of students  in various stages of paralysis and tales of excess…they just aren’t dressed in a fancy suit….fancy dress maybe.

Gotta wonder if that colours Dimbleby’s view of the Tory ‘Toffs’ despite himself being TV ‘royalty’.

Would the BBC treat anyone else with such contempt….Labour politicians who dressed up as Nazis for instance…I’m certain none of them got up to any hi jinks at Oxford or Cambridge…which of course they all went to as well as the Tories.

I am certain,  just like David Dimbleby, they were all angels.

Just keep bashing the Tories for being rich….despite people in the media probably earning far more than any of them.

MI5 has reportedly ‘bungled’, Harry Palmer has failed.  There will be no film of this one.

MI5 is being accused of allowing the two Jihadis to carry on their lives despite the security services having a good idea about their inclination towards extremism.

That maybe…it will come out in due course.

But what else might come out of any inquiry?

What about the role of the Media, the BBC in particular, in harassing the security services, the police, the military, the courts and politicians whenever they make a move to question, contain, lock up or deport such people.

Do the security services hold back from taking action because of fears of the Media firestorm that will engulf them, as well as the well practised Muslim ‘grievance’ industry,  especially on occasions when it turns out that although they had some indications that looked suspicious and worth checking they turned out to have innocent explanations.

The BBC hasn’t just reported on various cases of extremist Muslims it has interfered in the process of dealing with them…the BBC has frequently ‘campaigned’ by deliberately highlighting these cases and giving them so much airtime to get prisoners released or to limit detention  or control orders, against extending the time limit for holding suspected terrorists without charge and to present the case against Guantanamo Bay.

Lawyers and civil rights spokesmen  such as Clive Stafford Smith have been given massive amounts of airtime and got away without serious challenge to their assertions of abuse or illegal actions by governments.

Moazzam Begg’s father must have had his own car parking space at the BBC the number of times he was on air….and all to get released a man who admitted training to be a terrorist.

Whilst in the training camp in Afghanistan Begg said he “… met men who seemed to me exemplary in their faith and self-sacrifice, and seen a world that awed and inspired me.”

Guantánamo files leaked in 2011 reveal that the Department of Defense had secretly concluded that Begg was a “confirmed member of al-Qaida,” and that he had been an instructor at the Derunta training camp, as well as having attended the al-Badr and Harakat aI-Ansar training camps.

Note that Begg and convicted terrorist Dhiren Barot were both radicalised long before 2001 or the Iraq War in 2003….as was Mohammed Sidique Khan of the 7/7 plot.

What do I mean by ‘radicalised?  Well he saw that the Taliban were fine examples of an Islamic theocracy:

‘Begg wrote in his autobiography that in 2001, the Taliban had made “some modest progress—in social justice and upholding pure, old Islamic values forgotten in many Islamic countries….As The New York Times put it: “Despite the Taliban’s status as an international pariah for its treatment of women and its hospitality toward al-Qaeda, Begg saw it as a fine, inexpensive place to raise a family.”

Begg recalls telling two U.S. agents who visited him in his Guantanamo Bay cell that:

‘I wanted to live in an Islamic state–one that was free from the corruption and despotism of the rest of the Muslim world…. I knew you wouldn’t understand. The Taliban were better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past 25 years.’

So his radicalisation was in fact to adopt a ‘pure’ form of Islam.

Unfortunately, however much  some people may want to, you cannot separate Islam from the subsequent Jihadi actions.

At the end of the day the security services are under enormous pressure…firstly to stop attacks, and secondly not to make wrongful arrests…being then blamed for discrimination and the targeting of Muslims, leading to a mentality of victimhood and grievance…and then …er…radicalisation….and all to be done with limited resources.

The blame is often highly politicised of course, the media targeting certain people.

This is from the Telegraph where an unnamed source is briefing against Cameron:

One senior Westminster source suggested the visit was a mistake. He said: “I just wonder what he was going to thank them for. While they [the Security Services] did tremendously well during the Olympics 10 months ago a number of pieces of information have come to light since then. The interesting question is how much David Cameron knew about the potential intelligence failings when he went to see them.”

 The BBC’s Jim Muir in Lebanon provided us with what I thought was an uncomfortably pro-Hezbollah report this morning on the Today programme (8:32)…perhaps he had some of those Hezbollah ‘minders’ ‘editing’ his report.

Justin Webb told us that the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, gave a speech which ‘horrified’ Syria watchers.

Muir didn’t seem too concerned…in fact he seemed quite upbeat about it.

Firstly he told us that people have rather overlooked the involvement of Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict.

Could that be because the BBC has been rather remiss in reporting that involvement as I have noted before.…Hezbollah were already well known to be heavily involved in fighting in Damascus on Assad’s behalf.

If you look at this report from the beginning of May by Paul Danahar, linked to on this morning’s Today ‘Live Page’,  there is one thing missing..no mention of Hezbollah…he mentions the ‘rebel’ side’s allies…Jihadists and criminals…oh and denounces Saudi Arabia’s involvement as ‘selfish’….but no Hezbollah nor any such link to Iran or comment about Iran’s motives…merely noting Iran is providing arms to Assad….nothing about Iran wanting to wipe out Israel?

‘The situation has been further complicated by the introduction into the arena of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and armed criminal gangs.  The vacuum created by Western inaction has been filled by two of the Gulf states – Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

These are both sorely undemocratic states, they are not champions of democracy either at home or abroad.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar are meddling in Syria for thoroughly selfish reasons. Freedom, democracy and human rights have absolutely nothing to do with why they are arming the rebels.

President Assad’s Alawite community is a splinter from the Shia faith – its closest allies are in Shia Iran.  Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia hates Shia Iran, so it is using the war in Syria to try and weaken it.’

Fairly strong attack on the Saudis…why not for Iran as well?

Muir in his report, tells us that there is a creeping involvement of Hezbollah….well they’ve been there a long time.  He tells us they were there to protect the border villages initially…but they are fighting, and have been for a long time, in Damascus and other strategic towns.

We then get to Nasrallah’s speech which the BBC kindly offer large portions of to us….

What did it say?

Basically that Israel and America are behind the attacks on Syria and the ‘Resistance’ will be encircled if Syria falls…Palestine will be lost and the people and states of the region will face a bad and harsh oppressive future…[ with Israel and the Americans in charge].

Justin Webb comes in and says the danger is that Hezbollah’s enemies will get back at them not in Syria but in Lebanon.

So just who exactly are Hezbollah’s ‘enemies’?  Does he mean those  nasty, aggressive Israelis?

He might have done.  Muir assures us that Nasrallah has done everything he possibly can to head off the possibility of regional war and that he has demanded that the fighting has to stop…Hezbollah won’t allow sectarian fighting to spread elsewhere.

Nice to know we have the peace loving (Islamic so must be ) Hezbollah reining in the war mongering Israelis and Americans.

Nasrallah, we are told, has promised victory…as he delivered over the Israelis in 2006 Muir says.

No gloating from Muir there at all, I’m certain.

Muir introduces Nasrallah’s next clip by saying  ‘Let’s listen to those stirring words from him’

Stirring words?

From the leader of what is a terrorist organisation?

This report from  the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus gives a much better, not hard to do, perspective on the involvement of Iran and its motivations.

A little bit slack from Muir that he doesn’t mention Iran and its involvement with Hezbollah and their intentions towards Israel…giving the sense that Hezbollah are the ‘peacemakers’ in the region…the Today programme is supposedly the prestige, renowned jewel in the BBC’s news output…but so often it provides half the story…and as in this case seemingly half the story from one side of that story…giving the impression of bias…unintended I’m sure.

BBC Watch has a look at one of Muir’s reports from a few days ago on the same subject which does detail Iran’s involvement…so why not on the Today programme which has such a large and influential audience?.

The BBC raised the issue that it may be converts to Islam who are the real problem when it comes to extreme Muslims, clearly not the  ‘born Muslims’, and therefore nothing inherent in the religion of Islam as such…radicalism is merely the ‘zeal’ of the new convert.

Yes, you don’t see many  ‘born Muslim’ zealots do you?

Evan Davis asks which comes first for converts…

…are they deranged before they are radicalised..or do they become deranged after radicalisation?

That’s a neat trick isn’t it?…which ever way you look at it extremists or radicals are ‘deranged’….putting another layer of separation between any causation and Islamic ideology…along with the ‘zeal’ of the convert and the ‘perverting’ of Islamic teachings.

There is no connection to Islam.

This, from the Guardian was an interesting comment…about the ‘fundamentalists’…

‘Converts to Islam often talk about grappling with trying to distinguish between authentic Islamic teachings and Muslim cultural practices. Most converts are determined to follow the teachings of Muhammad, but would rather leave South Asian culture for South Asian people. The ideology of extremist groups is based on a literalist interpretation of Islamic sources which they claim is pure and uncontaminated, or in other words, free from cultural bias. This is of course highly contestable but for some converts, the promise of an Islam that resembles its earliest form can be especially appealing.’

That raises the awkward and unwanted question..what is the True Islam?  That is the question that the fundamentalists, the radicals, the extremists say they are answering and the answer is a pure version of Islam, the original Islam…the real Islam…it is  of course a version well funded by Saudi Arabia…the birthplace and theocratic heartland of Islam.

A rather ‘fundamental’ question.  If  their version is the real version what does that tell us about Islam? What does that mean for any country that has a growing Muslim population?…and the number of Muslims have doubled since 2002 in the UK.

 It is the question that the BBC avoids like the plague….but it is kind of central to the debate on extremism and indeed on how Islam and Islamic communities might look inside Britain and what might be the effects of  ‘mini Paskistans’ springing up inside British borders….the BBC already pandering to such a notion with its ‘Asian network’.

If you are a ‘native Brit’ of any colour, but a non-Muslim, that might be a question of great interest to you…especially if you live in one of these areas that suddenly become ‘Islamised’…whose laws do you obey?  What cultural practices can you follow…can you still drink, play music, dress as you like, be gay?  Will you decide to move out as 600,000 whites have done from London?

Huge, important questions that the BBC ignores.  And to be fair, the government ignores.

Saturday’s Today programme (8:53) brought on a convert, Abdul Haq Baker, who told us what Islam meant to him and how it inspired him.

He said that when he embraced Islam the ‘Authority’ he acknowledged, that is God’s Authority, transcended everything he rebelled against, he was submitting himself to Allah, the law giver, the law maker.

Islam provided him with a complete structure, a complete way of life that removed any fear of authority, police, government, the intelligence services…you name it…because they were created by man and were so by limited…he was submitting himself to the infinite.

He stated that this ideological and psychological shift was very, very empowering.

It is curious that the BBC et al do not believe, or admit that such issues can be part of normal Islamic observance….the essence of Islam being the ‘Sovereignty of Allah’ over man made laws.

The trouble is that that ’empowerment’ and distance from man made laws, the submission to the total sovereignty of Allah isn’t confined to converts. That is the basis of Islam….Islam meaning Submission…to Allah.

Something that Cameron, Pickles and the BBC need to recognise. 

Where do loyalties lie?  To Islam first or to Britain…to a Britain that is a secular, democratic nation which is governed by a Parliament making laws responding to modern day issues rather than by some dusty, ancient desert text from 1400 years ago…as Keynes might have said:  ‘Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.’?

It is the most important question as Muslims push for Sharia courts and more and more Islamic concessions whilst Muslim majority areas like Tower Hamlets become ‘Islamised’.

Going back to that Guardian article…how does the writer round it off?:

‘No matter how uncomfortable it may be, we have to recognise that our foreign policy is highly problematic. It is the west’s use of violence in Muslim countries – which often causes great harm to civilians – that ultimately provides the fuel that allows extremist groups to recruit both converts and lifelong Muslims.’

Once again the Leftist Media support, acknowledge and give credibility to the terrorists.

Rather than question and challenge the assertions by ‘extremists’ that foreign policy is a ‘war on Islam’ they allow the claim to go uncontested…not just uncontested but as here almost endorsing it in essence…‘Western violence causing great harm to civilians’. …what that message sends out is that the terrorist’s methods may be wrong but their heart is in the right place….that is an incredibly dangerous message, one that itself can only lead to more radicalisation.

This has long been a problem at the BBC…Victoria Derbyshire is especially prone to ‘nodding along’ when callers come on and rant their piece about foreign policy…the BBC itself is of course of the same frame of mind….year on year making claims about the war that can only be inflammatory and which feed into the extremist’s own narrative giving them credibility.

Once again I suggest that if the BBC sticks to reporting news it fulfills its obligations but when it starts to campaign on issues then it has taken sides and should be held responsible and  accountable for the consequences that follow when its broadcasts influence events.

Of course polls reassure us:

British Muslims feel a greater sense of national pride than the average UK citizen, according to the results of a new poll.

While 79 per cent of the Britons quizzed said they agreed with the statement ‘I am proud to be a British citizen’, the figure rose to 83 per cent among Muslims.

I actually appeared on the Nicky Campbell hosted “The Big Questions” a few months ago and have to say I found the host to be pleasant and fair minded in his dealing with me. However, I have received a stream of complaints from Biased BBC readers and others concerning yesterday’s edition of the programme. Did you see it? I watched it myself and was horrified at the lack of balance in the audience debating the big question “Have British Muslims gone far enough in condemning extremists.” Essentially, the debate was conducted between Muslims which is truly remarkable given that they make up less than 5% of UK population but more like 100% of the debating benches in this programme.  There was NO voice there to posit the view that Islam may well be incompatible with modern western democracies and that British muslims need to accept UK laws and pledge loyalty to the British state. Instead there was a lot of the usual flannel about “British foreign policy” virtually forcing poor innocent muslim boys to go out and…chop up British soldiers on the streets of London. The balance in the programme was askew.

Guest post by Graeme Thompson (who comments as ‘hippiepooter’)

How do we combat Jihad?

We recognise it for the Act of Treason that it is.  We recognise that the global counter-terrorist war we have (half) been engaged in is a war against the Jihad being waged against us.  Whether Jihad is prosecuted against us by violence or by the black propaganda of internal enemy organisations like Cageprisoners, we deal with Treason accordingly, we deal with captured enemy accordingly.

Any Muslim who says the West is waging a war against Islam is committing Treason.  Any non-Muslim who says the West is waging war against Islam is committing Treason.  It is enemy black propaganda.  At time of war, aiding and abetting the enemy should lead to immediate incarceration.  We should have military tribunals to deal with these incarcerations according to the rules of war.  We need to have our own Guantanamo’s.  Not just for our domestic jihadists, but for those on the Marxist left and the Jew haters who make common cause with Jihad.  After 12 years of being at war, it is time we got up to speed on what being at war means.

Unlike Melanie Phillips whom I hugely admire, I have a lot of time for the Prime Minister’s diplomatic hypocrisy over Islam in the wake of the Woolwich Jihad atrocity.  There are a lot of British Muslims who practice their religion through the prism of the common humanity that binds us all.  The last thing any decent human being wants to see is a violent backlash against innocent British Muslims at the hands of opportunist racists like the EDL.  President George W Bush did of course set this great example of restraint and tolerance in the wake of 9/11.

However, too much diplomatic hypocrisy leaves us vulnerable.  We encourage the enemy to think we are utterly stupid, we encourage ourselves to be utterly stupid.

One still marvels that most of the country thinks that when waging a counter-terrorist war there is something wrong with having TPOWs (Terrorist Prisoners of War) in Guantanamo or wheresoever.

Who has been at the forefront of fomenting this suicidal idiocy?  The BBC.

The anti-western narrative of its predominantly left wing news and current affairs coverage of the Afghan and Iraq wars has played directly into the hands of jihad propaganda.

Possibly, the best example of the BBC’s complicity with the enemy, is that brainchild of former Guantanamo inmates Moazzem Begg and Binyam Mohamed, Cageprisoners.  It could not be more patently obvious that Cageprisoners is a Jihadi propaganda organisation.  The best argument in favour of Guantanamo is that Jihadists want to close it down.  Moazzem Begg and Binyam Mohamed should be in a British Guantanamo yesterday.  BBC journalists like Steve Evans and Angela Saini who do their propaganda work for them should enjoy a nice friendly chat with officers from MI5 on the meaning of Treason, and be left in no doubt that the next time they commit it they’ll be in a jail cell within 24 hours.

That’s how wars are fought.  If we don’t fight this war we’re in, we’re going to lose it.

Had we heeded Churchill’s warnings about Hitler we could have avoided WWII, let’s hope we heed his warnings about Islam before we end up in WWIII.

Listen up, folks, a few words from the management!

Biased-BBC was created as a forum to highlight and discuss BBC bias. That is the sole focus. Anyone seeking to post any thought in their head can start their own blog. You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to force association with it on others, nor do you have a right to call for violence on this blog.

While anger about a given situation or issue is understandable, calls for violence are beyond the pale, and have no place on a blog with a specific purpose, as this one has. Furthermore, nobody has a right not to be criticized. If you don’t like being told your comment is out of line, go elsewhere. The internet is a vast space, plenty of room for you to say whatever your like out there.

The blog owners are ultimately legally responsible for comments. Nobody has a right to post comments expressing controversial opinions and not expect to experience any consequences. We must all consider the consequences of our speech, and how it affects others. Additionally, there have been instances where someone has taken specific, over-the-top comments and tried to use them as evidence with the intent of causing trouble for owners and authors in their personal and professional lives. Again, the purpose of this blog is not simply to express right-wing opinion, or political or ideological opinions of any kind, on their own, in a vacuum. This blog is meant to be a forum to highlight, discuss, and expose political and ideological bias at the BBC, rants about Islam and other bogeymen serve no purpose other than to provide fodder for our critics, enabling them to avoid addressing issues of BBC bias and focus on personal attacks to discredit the blog, and to distract us from our original purpose. Granted, nearly all complaints about BBC bias will be from a rightward perspective, and some topics will inevitably lead to, hopefully reasonable discussions about issues and policies and the related bigger picture. However, it must be seen in that context for it to be effective. This doesn’t mean all opinions are wrong – it means only that this is not the place for general expression of those opinions without them being somehow part of the ongoing discussion of bias at the BBC.

If you’re not interested in discussing and detailing bias in the BBC’s output, and are interested primarily in expressing why you dislike a religion or political party or ethnic group, this is not the blog for you.

We understand, of course, that events drive much of the discussion, which is perfectly reasonable. But it can get out of hand, and mar the quality of the surrounding discussion. There is also too much overheated speech in debates amongst commenters, which often devolves into personal attacks, and actual discussion of the original issue is then abandoned. Thread after thread gets hijacked. This also serves as a distraction from the purpose of the blog, as critics can then cite a laundry list of personal points over and over again, instead of having to debate the issues at hand. We have many long-time readers who come here to consider discussions of biased BBC broadcasting, and get tired of having to scroll past a stream of unrelated schoolyard shouting matches. We must always consider readers’ needs as well as our own. In fact, the former just might be more important if we’re to resume being effective critics of the BBC. If one of the usual suspects chimes in with an insult, we should take the high road and not give it back. That’s the only way to disarm the tu quoque argument they usually give. Again, if this displeases, there are other places on the internet for you to enjoy yourself.

Going forward,  seriously offensive comments will be removed. We don’t have the resources of the BBC and so cannot be all-vigilant and omnipresent, which means that comments may slip through the cracks and be left up for some time. This is not an indication of condoning. People are welcome to flag up calls for violence or other extreme comments that stay up for more than 24 hours. In those cases, deletion becomes problematic since any nested replies will have to go at the same time.

On occasion, one of the blog owners may insert an editorial remark into a troublesome comment, in the hopes of encouraging the commenter to try a different approach. We’re all guilty of overreacting at times, and it’s not meant to be personal. We must think of the blog as a whole, and our ultimate purpose. In that sense, we should consider the common goal here, rather than ideological fracturing. The blog has at times encouraged and empowered individuals to write complaints to the BBC which have actually had positive effects. That’s the benefit of the kind of community, crowd-sourcing approach that has always been one of this blog’s greatest strengths, and long may it continue. Hopefully, any gentle criticisms will be taken in that light.

This blog thrives when its readers participate in pointing out where the BBC got something wrong, engages in discussion about topics raised, and giving constructive criticism on how to improve. Much of the best content of this blog comes from you, our readers and your comments, and we all learn from each other. But the ultimate goal must be the same if we are to succeed.

Hope you will accept the above as we seek to keep the blog alive and kicking…

That’s a rather neat summing up of the BBC attitude according to Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times.  Something backed up, at least the part about women, by the former Today programme editor Jenny Abramsky who  says that the BBC has a ‘huge responsibility’ to employ more women.

 Liddle says:

‘This is an open letter to a man called James.  This particular James is white, middle-aged and public school and Oxbridge educated, and he’s running the important bits of the BBC.

All the top people of the BBC are called James and are white and public school and Oxbridge eductaed, except for the Director General, who is white and public school and Oxbridge educated and called Tony.

That’s the BBC:  No blacks, no dogs, no Irish.  No women, either, or very few, nor indeed anyone called “Keith”.

Anyway, it is perhaps because they are called James and middle class that they seem terrified of telling the news as it is.  If there were a few more people called Tariq or Keith or Harbinger, then there might be a little less tiptoeing on eggshells, less of this absolute terror of giving offence to the people the Jameses definitely are not.

In Sweden there are riots…almost all the people doing the rioting were, to adapt Nick Robinson’s phrase, people of non-Swedish orign.  These were…are..race riots.

It was not the ordinary Swedes rising up against the oppressive Swedish state; it was immigrants.  Come on James – why not tell us the truth?’