343 Responses to MID WEEK OPEN THREAD…

  1. Ember2013 says:

    The BBC’s distaste of capital punishment has led them to look sympathetically at the German spies executed in Britain during WW1.

    Why didn’t they mention the British spies executed in Germany? I can think one: Edith Cavell – a British nurse working in Belgium who saved many lives (allied and German) before being court martialled and executed.

       65 likes

    • DICK R says:

      All perfectly legal, although the Cavell case was a blunder from the Germans .

         9 likes

      • flexdream says:

        Dick – I don’t think the legality is in question, it’s the one sided coverage i.e. no mention of how Germany executed spies.

           10 likes

        • ROBERT BROWN says:

          All is in order……the BBC are just supporting their socialist allies….the Nazis.

             3 likes

  2. Old Timer says:

    If we are looking for common sense and rational thinking from the BBC or its cohorts in the Marxist Leninist Labour Party we will be for ever disappointed.

    In a comment on the last open thread I looked for the rationale behind the BBC’s weird philosophy. Was it progressive, liberal or just being bloody daft with too much unaccountability and billions of pounds of our cash to fritter away? In reply Dave S gave a couple of thoughtful answers that fitted. He favoured that “it is a result of allowing ourselves to tolerate a situation where we indulge our desires at the expense of our duty to the future of the nation and a denial of reality itself”. Then along came Lord Earls Court who succinctly pointed out that the Frankfurt School was a likely explanation.

    I started to do some research, and then today (26th) johnnythefish posted a summary of some of the Frankfurt School’s strategies from an article. http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3986 It is worth a look as it does fit with what, up to now, has been a mystery to me, why have educated people of apparent intelligence at the BBC, along with their cohorts in the Labour party, (perhaps not so educated or intelligent ) have done their best, time and time again, to destroy this country?

    Following this Frankfurt School’s theory is not easy as most writers and web sites on the subject pontificate into infinity, and beyond, but to summarise; it seems that following the failure of communism to spread to the west after the Russian/ Bolshevik revolution the disappointment of the revolutionaries turned to anger and then a plan. They would disrupt or destroy the capitalist systems and its society from within. I.e. subvert our religion, morals, history, economy and security.

    As a man who has worked in industry and commerce all of his life I would, in the past, have dismissed such ideas as a conspiracy theories, just the dreams and the deliberations of insignificant academic idiots. In the real world where I and millions of other people simply just had to work hard to survive, to improve our lot and that of our families and the businesses that we worked in, we would not believe that others were seriously plotting to undermine that work and those ideals. I would just not have thought it feasible.

    Unfortunately it now all fits together. This Frankfurt Schools’ strategies as listed by Bill Muehlenberg in News Weekly are:-

    The creation of racism offences.
    Continual change to create confusion.
    The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
    The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
    Huge immigration to destroy identity.
    The promotion of excessive drinking.
    Emptying of churches & Christian values discredited.
    An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
    Dependency on the state or state benefits.
    Control and dumbing down of media.
    Encouraging the breakdown of the family.”
    Attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
    Abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
    Abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
    Declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’.

    I can see now where this off the wall thinking and bias by the BBC stems from. It is of course also behind the new ideas they have for destroying society: I.e.

    Political Correctness, which is simply not allowing the tax payers to speak the truth.

    It is what is behind the fanatics who use the fallacy of Climate Change to further promote the destruction of our modern society, and how they can vilify CO2, which is needed for all plants and animals on earth to survive, is beyond me. Or it was.

    It is evidently what is behind the promotion by the BBC of celebrity sexual deviants in all their weird forms that has allowed monsters in the organisation to prey on children. And even now when there is a national debate about the PIE paedophile monsters, they firstly ignore it and then try to defend and go softly on the people who affiliated themselves with it.

    It explains why the BBC excuse and even promote a cult that would send us back to the stone age. A cult that has had no regard or respect for this country but has been allowed to overrun us. It has bombed us, raped our children and even mutilates its own children. It has introduced unnecessary cruelty to farm animals in slaughter houses and is now blatantly ignoring our laws in favour of its own.

    It explains why they can only speak positively of the EU and its unelected Commission in charge of the corrupt and bankrupt Soviet style organisation.

    The same follows why they never criticise obama, the USA Commissar in charge of converting the US to a socialist state.

    These Marxists/ Leninists/ Socialist in the Labour Party and its brainwashed followers running the BBC have added nothing to our society, they wish only to undermine it and destroy it. They are simply evil and should suffer the fate they have and are still faithfully trying to impose on all of us. Destruction.

       121 likes

    • GCooper says:

      Thank you for such an enlightened comment. I, like you, tended to dismiss posts about the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism, until I started to read more about the subject

      I am still wary of conspiracy theories but am no longer in any doubt that we, as a society, have been attacked from within and that, whether they know it or not, our indoctrinated middle class, particularly as represented by politicians and those in the media, are constantly chewing away at the pit props.

      It is a process with an international dimension, too. I was also once inclined to wave away warnings about Maurice Strong and the UN’s Agenda 21, but am increasingly inclined to see that movement as another manifestation of the same dark forces at work.

      And of course, both nationally and internationally, the BBC is fully behind the subversion.

         62 likes

    • john in cheshire says:

      OT, By Jove you’ve got it. A very good synopsis, though I doubt any of the bbc apologists who lurk here will acknowledge as much. Let alone admit they are part of the plan.

         36 likes

      • Wild says:

        What does the Marxist from each according to their ability, to each according to their need mean? Replace the word “need” with want and it becomes clear. It is about taking from those who contribute the most. and giving to those who want the most. The constant anger and dissatisfaction of the Left is rooted in their resentment at having any responsibilities. The call to change (i.e. “smash”) the world rather than understand is derived from their narcissism. The Left is essentially a failure to grow up.

           29 likes

        • Dizzy Ringo says:

          Can I suggest that you read Stanton Edwards biography of Joe McCarthy and Diana West recent book “American Betrayal” for the US corollary to the Frankfurt School.

             7 likes

        • imaynotalwaysloveyou says:

          I’ve often pondered the reasons why left wing people believe the things they do. Or profess to believe. There’s enough evidence re the cultural marxism/agenda 21 arguments and I think it’s a true picture of a policy of deliberate subversion. But after the fall of the Soviet Union why has it continued? My guess is that it comes down to ‘fashion’. It’s lasted a long time but it still really isn’t fashionable anymore to have right aligned views on anything. You’ll be in the ‘out’ group for believing such things. The truth about the hard choices we need to make regarding society and how real life actually works just prompts the average person to stick their fingers in their ears and tune out. I reckon it needs a serious money collapse, or a war, to get people thinking clearly again and to overturn the ruinous policies and laws we’ve all had to suffer for the last 50 odd years.

             15 likes

          • Techno says:

            It is the 1968 intellectual rebels. They defined themselves in opposition to the establishment, and despised the conservatism of ordinary people.

            The trouble is that they still behave as if they are anti-establishment rebels long after they actually became part of the establishment themselves.

            The still despise the conservatism of ordinary people.

               24 likes

          • deception says:

            Does the meaning of society, not define as a collectivist idea, being centralized to be incorporated?
            With the society of street ‘A’, with 10 houses and with about 15 votes ‘against’, being subjugated to the society of street ‘B’, with 15 houses and with about 33 votes ‘for’, within the overall society.
            Surely this is more to suit left wing ideology and should prove that this is more of a form of a collectivized style of democracy. Failing into protecting the individualism or conservatism of right wing ideology.

               3 likes

    • therealguyfaux says:

      And then there is the “boots-on-the-ground” version of this, Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals (whose influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is minimised by the American Left, though Madam Secretary’s honors thesis at university was about it and Obama’s CV, pre-elective office, is that of “community organising in the ‘disadvantaged areas’ of Chicago,” Alinsky’s own self-job-description).

      Boiled down to its essence, it’s “Take the piss, and take the piss outta the Establishment, at every turn.” Alinsky’s rules, being practical as opposed to being purely ideological, have universal application and would work for the Right as well, but his thought was that the Right would be too stuffy, complacent or stupid to engage in it.

      Alinsky recognised that, in order to bring about George Orwell’s dystopian vision of the boot-heel stomping a human face forever, it requires boots on the ground to accomplish it. But you will never hear that part of it reported on, nor that those boots have a game plan, which those who report the “news” fail to identify as being a cynical strategy in the main.

         21 likes

      • Techno says:

        One of Alinsky’s rules is “go outside the experience of your opponent”.

        You see this in action all the time, when Labour MPs and their various establishment supporters say something really outrageously ridiculous. This is intended to wrong foot their opponents by behaving in a way that is completely beyond their opponent’s (usually the Conservatives) ability to anticpate it.

        The last example I can think of was the education boss who claimed she was being purged by Michael Gove, an outrageously wild claim which isn’t even remotely true as her contract had simply come to an end, and she was actually staying on a few months longer than required.

           27 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Re your point about the EU, OT, in his acceptance speech when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize Manuel Barroso told us all without batting an eyelid that ‘the EU is the blueprint for a future world government’. Now the only mooted world government that I’m aware of sits fairly and squarely within Agenda 21, which is the UN’s strategy for taking action against ‘climate change’.

      All the pieces of the jigsaw are out there, it’s just a matter of taking the time to work out how they all fit together.

         28 likes

    • S## the Lot Of Them says:

      A few years ago on this blog there was mention of the Gramscians who infest the levers of power .

         8 likes

    • dez says:

      Old Timer,
       
      This Frankfurt Schools’ strategies as listed by Bill Muehlenberg in News Weekly are:-
       
      The creation of racism offences.
      Continual change to create confusion.
      The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
      The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
      Huge immigration to destroy identity.
      The promotion of excessive drinking.
      Emptying of churches & Christian values discredited.
      An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
      Dependency on the state or state benefits.
      Control and dumbing down of media.
      Encouraging the breakdown of the family.”
      Attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
      Abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
      Abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
      Declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’.”
       
      The Protocols of the elders of Zion are:-
       
      Place our agents and helpers everywhere
      Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
      Start fights between different races, classes and religions
      Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
      Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
      Appeal to successful people’s egos
      Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
      Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism
      Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
      Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
      Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
      Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
      Rewrite history to our benefit
      Create entertaining distractions
      Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
      Encourage people to spy on one another
      Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
      Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold
      Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
      Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
      Replace sound investment with speculation
      Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
      Give bad advice to governments and everyone else
       
      Compare and contrast.
       
      They are both complete garbage of course; but perform a bit of rebranding and remove the ‘Jew’ word and suddenly you have an appreciative audience on B_BBC.

         9 likes

      • Old Timer says:

        From Wikipedia.
        The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.

        Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as though it were a valid document, although it had already been exposed as fraudulent. After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, it ordered the text to be studied in German classrooms. The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his “warrant for genocide”.

        The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world’s economies. It is still widely available today and even now sometimes presented as a genuine document, whether on the Internet or in print in numerous languages.
        ————–
        It is said this document (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) has cost millions of lives. It is more than disappointing to see even one of our resident trolls repeat it.

           21 likes

        • therealguyfaux says:

          For the fact that it is a hoax as to its provenance and a complete libel as to those against whom it was leveled, the Protocols are eerily prescient as to how late 20th/early 21st C. Western democratic societies have been sought to be destabilised by ideologues of the Left; it’s almost as though Lefties may have said, “It’s not a bad plan of action in any event, and we get a bonus– owing to the presence of many Jews in our movement, we can accuse anyone who claims we are engaged in the same sort of activities as the Protocols prescribes as having dug up that old hoary forgery, and accuse them of the rankest sort of anti-Semitism.”

          It is well-too-tinfoil-hat to suggest that it may have been the Left itself who wrote it and deflected it onto the “Zionists,” seeing that the Protocols come from the old Tsarist Russia, and are wholesale borrowings from even earlier source materials; but it certainly seems as though the Lefties have adopted it– the Left could not capture the essence of a plan for destruction of Western societies any better than the Protocols purport to do, so why re-invent the wheel?

          Of course, the Occam’s Razor explanation would be that it was a case of parallel development, of those seeking to maintain the status quo in Russia coming up with a worst-case and blaming it on the Jews, with the Left seeing a number of strategies to hasten what their notion of historical necessity would dictate needs to occur in corrupt decadent societies to bring about a revolution. That the two intersect is perhaps a fortuity or else it is, for lack of a more formal way of putting it, just the way things logically are.

             7 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘They are both complete garbage of course…’

        Just coincidence, then, that here in the UK we have had so many of these non-existent Frankfurt School strategies imposed on us.

           23 likes

      • GCooper says:

        Dez, you uneducated oaf, the aims of the Frankfurt School are a matter of record. They are not disputed by the Alinsky wannabes.

        Do try to improve, or you’ll end up in the remedial class.

           18 likes

      • pah says:

        Nice try Dez, but it only scores 1/10.

        The problem with your little bit of trolling is that the PoEZ is an anti-Semitic hoax designed put the idea that the ‘Jews are everywhere’.

        The Frankfurt School aims are however the real aims of a real school of Marxist thought.

        There is no real connection between the two.

        Trying to conflate them, even to show they are both wrong, is the shameful act of a desperate anti-Semite.

           22 likes

        • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

          You have to sympathise with him, he just can’t get himself off that nightshift duty at albeeba.

             12 likes

          • Guest Who says:

            At risk of ignoring sage advice and offering fodder to those who should not be given it, this rather shows the value of engagement, surely?
            In the case of some, as here, the ideal result is their return to the bunker to sulk.
            But there are those made of sterner stuff, skilled at pushing envelopes just so far, and no more. The trick then is tickle them enough that the veneer is stripped away and they cannot resist showing their true, and less than affectionate colours, which along with the sense of humour bypasses evidently mandatory to be welcomed into the hive, no ever-recycling names can conceal.
            I’ll give Dez credit for staying true to his, at least.

               3 likes

            • stewart says:

              Agonizingly I have to concur. The same could also be said of Scott and Albaman,who have the courage to have their previous posts re-visited.
              Unlike ‘Spellchecker’ and the ‘metaphysician of evil’ who we are unlikely to hear from again.

                 2 likes

      • Dave s says:

        Seems like many of the Frankfurt plans have come to pass. Read the list top down. The Protocols is a complete red herring. You know it and so do we.
        Typical liberal comment.
        Mind you I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories I just think liberalism is the enemy of my country and my way of life.
        I want nothing to do with it and am not interested in debating it.

           5 likes

    • Seek the Truth says:

      Thanks for posting this link. I found it fascinating but scary. It is something that everyone should read.

         8 likes

    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      Thank you Old Timer, now send that to the Guardian……and the BBC…and your MP…..but do not expect them to comment…..as long as the sheeple vote for the main parties, nothing will change.

         2 likes

    • Ken says:

      Look no further than Common Purpose for disruption from within and Agenda21 for disruption from above.

         0 likes

  3. George R says:

    Co-op Group in financial trouble: impact on Labour Party?:
    1.)
    “Co-op to report worst results in history”

    By Robert Peston.
    [Excerpt]:-
    “Among the questions put to them [the public], they are being asked whether the Co-op Group should continue paying a dividend to members, rather than simply cut prices, and whether it should continue to make financial contributions to the Co-operative Party, which in turn supports the Labour Party.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26350008

    2.)


    ‘Management Today’:-

    Excerpt]:-
    “Labour, in particular, will be shaking in its boots: as this chart by the Electoral Commission and the Mirror’s Ampp3d blog shows, it gets over £1m a year in donations from Co-operative societies. At the moment the Co-op is running a survey over whether it should keep making those donations. Presumably Ed Miliband is very nervous.”

    http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1282551/ee-i-ee-i-no-co-op-may-sell-its-farms-plug-2bn-losses/?

       31 likes

  4. Guest Who says:

    OT, but in the zone…
    http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/eu-to-spend-3-on-internet-trolls.html
    ‘“Spending [on] public servants to become Twitter trolls in office hours is wasteful and truly ridiculous”
    Imagine the OT for evenings or at the weekend… if such a thing were carried out ‘off the books’, elsewhere, say?

       11 likes

  5. Milverton says:

    Right, a daft little thing, but it made me smile at nature of the BBCs modern day paranoia.

    I don’t know if any of you will remember the BBC documentary Decisive Weapons from about fifteen years ago or so. It was rather good. So good in fact I had quite a few episodes on VHS, which I realise as I type sounds a bit like admitting I once owned a wax cylinder machine.

    Anyway, my favourite episode, which was about the bayonet, was repeated on BBC4 last night, well past the watershed. Or at least most of it was repeated.

    It starts with a Royal Marines NCO instructing recruits in the use of the old cold steel. In the original version he roars, in full Windsor Davis Sergeant Major Williams style, words to the effect of “On the word of command you will shout ‘En garde!’ and adopt your natural! fighting! stance! Now, I don’t want to see no Cecil’s, no poofs, and I want the enemy to be frightened to death before you even get there!!”

    The first part of that second sentence has been edited out of last nights showing, presumably because if there is one thing the BBC’s inclusiveness demands these days it is plenty of Cecil’s and poofs.

    Perhaps the BBC would prefer Royal Marines NCOs to be more like Sergeant Wilson in Dad’s Army instead, and produce a platoon reminiscent of that Monty Python sketch.

       65 likes

  6. chrisH says:

    Pleased to see that the BBC aren`t able to relay the Guardian false flag of FGM in todays bulletins.
    Too busy firefighting for the IRA and Harriet Harman, too busy scrubbing past archive and wondering whether Hain is best after Jowell, or before…
    Enjoy the rats in a sack as they pass notes out to the BBC to try and shape the narrative-Harman wrote letters to plead for paedophile rights to be considered by her government in 1978, and Hain somehow had a part in letting IRA suspects go free-which as a Young Liberal he was in the habit of condoning anyway.
    So-no blasting at Gove today, mere trench shoring from the evil creepy BBC…paedos or IRA…and the Lefts succcour to both oppressed and vulnerable groups.
    The BBC will now have to find that Third Way between both these positions…fun watching them do so….

       46 likes

    • LeftyLoather says:

      I just think it’s absolutely bloody hilarious that Harperson suddenly doesn’t like “guilty by association” stuff.

      Cry, you raving leftie witch, like we’re doing – but with laughter. ..lol

         9 likes

      • Ken says:

        I have no sympathy whatsoever over Harriet Harmschildren. She has had much too much of an easy time for her demented and damaging beliefs for far far far too long.

        As for her sudden dislike of “guilt by association”, yes, it is most satisfyingly ironic and it demonstrates her rank hypocrisy wonderfully.

           3 likes

  7. tom0mason says:

    Yet again the climate propaganda machine moves into action. According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26337723
    “As many as 1,500 of Indonesia’s islands could be under water by 2050 because of rising sea levels…”
    This of course is total nonsense. But the bBC uses the unchecked sources to give the required alarmist message.

    For real science of the problem look at –
    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/dont-expect-the-truth-from-the-bbc/

       26 likes

    • DICK R says:

      They always use a date in the distant future that is too far ahead for the rational mature ” deniers ” to survive to, so that they can come at as with the usual accusation that we are being selfish , and must ” think of the chiiiiildrennnnn “.

         27 likes

      • tom0mason says:

        Too true

           16 likes

      • therealguyfaux says:

        Odd how they never seem to worry all that much about sticking the responsibility for paying for all this enviroquackery (amongst other foolish things) on the children– but then again, in their pea-brains, their rationalisation must be that, as the children are the ones to be ultimately benefited, fairness dictates that, although those children never could have agreed to do so, the children should be the ones who must ultimately bear the cost.

        In the long run, we’re all dead, right?

           14 likes

      • pah says:

        They ” think of the chiiiiildrennnnn “ just a little too much for my taste.

           18 likes

  8. Dave666 says:

    http://news.uk.msn.com/plea-for-tv-licence-fee-extension
    Well as BBc never makes anything that I don’t mind missing these days I wouldn’t be bothered. Unless of course they propose taxing all our internet capable gadgets. I never got the I-player because 1/ Most of the programs are, let’s face it crap. 2/ They endlessly repeat most of their output anyway.

       14 likes

    • Old Timer says:

      This comes as no surprise. I was 100% sure they would eventually want to tax at least their own output on iPlayer, if not all TV programmes available on the internet.

      To do so however they will have to create a means of collecting cash for the iPlayer, a subscription perhaps?

      That might be backfire of course allowing a government with even teeny weeny cohones to say; “all BBC output is now paid for by subscription and not therefore mandatory”.

      We will need to fight the BBC on this proposal however and I intend to form http://www.fuckthebiasedbbctraitorsparty.com immediately. I think the title is self-explanatory and hope it doesn’t frighten the BBC presenter ladies (of whatever sex) too much.

      It will naturally be a charity and as the leader of the party I will expect the standard emoluments of ; salary, expenses, pension and privileges that are quite normal these days for charities and Quangos like the BBC. A £650,000 salary, with a £1,000,000 pension pot would be about right. As well as expenses paid trips to Hawaii to play golf with Barry and seminars in warm climates to discuss…. Climate Warming.

      You know it makes sense.

         25 likes

    • Alex says:

      The full Tony Hall speech is here:
      http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/oxford-media-convention-tony-hall-speech-in-full/5068094.article?blocktitle=LATEST-NEWS&contentID=870

      So the BBC want to charge the licence fee to those who watch its content offline, but we all thought the licence fee was for the use of a TV (or similar) and not for the right to view content, because the licence fee is curently still payable even if you only ever watch ITV or Sky.

      Seems the BBC want to have it both ways, or maybe they think the licence fee should apply for ITV on demand and maybe Youtube.

         15 likes

      • thoughtful says:

        To give it the original title, it was a British Receiving Licence (and you have to wear evening dress to even say it). The thing was introduced for radio, and then extended for television post war.

        An interesting Wikipedia page which gives a corrected for inflation graph of the cost of the licence shows that it reached its highest cost ever at the end of the Liebour governments reign in 2010 since when it has been in steady decline in real terms.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom_(historical)

           9 likes

  9. George R says:

    Somalia.
    Islam Not BBC’s own ‘Lewthwaite’ groupie, embedded with al Shabab, reports:-

    “Somalia’s al-Shabab: Striking like mosquitoes”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26343248

    This sentence of Ms Harper is particularly telling:-

    “As the gunshots were so near to where I was, I was told to duck down and run back down from the roof in order to avoid stray bullets.”

    Is Ms Harper is not on al Shabab’s side?: she sounds quite excited by these Islamic jihadists.

    Another, non-INBBC view:-

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/?s=somalia

       16 likes

  10. JimS says:

    A strange item on Vanessa Feltz sitting in for Jeremy Vine today.
    Starts with a weird MP talking about charging millionaires for UK visas and giving the money ‘to good causes’. What is wrong with putting it into general taxation? What makes the lottery fund so good, what with all the hangers on writing submissions for a fee.
    Item leads on to two characters who both are in favour of immigration. Neither appears to take on board that it was visas, not citizenship, that was the topic! One character wants to charge as much as possible, the other wants anyone from anywhere to come in! Apparently we desperately need midwives. But doesn’t the indigenous birthrate keep going down?
    So what it comes down to is that we need more immigrants to service the needs of immigrants who apparently contribute more than they take out because they are young! So these pregnant immigrants need no NHS, no maternity leave and no schooling for their offspring. They also need no housing or roads etc. and will never get old!
    By the way, we can’t charge millionaires for visas because they only want them to buy up house in London and force the prices up, making them too dear for the ‘good’ immigrants to afford!

       33 likes

    • GCooper says:

      It’s a shame that the demise of classical education has meant we now have both a media and political class without the slightest understanding of logic.

      Of course, that was why the Left campaigned so hard against traditional education. God forbid people should be able to think through their self-contradictory nonsense.

         33 likes

      • Wild says:

        They are teaching people adherence to the Party line – that is all the climate change “debate” amounts to in the end. Collect your opinions at the door [the Party line is always the same – redistribute more power to the Party elite] and shout down anybody who questions the evidence. If the Left are advocating it the science is almost certain to be bogus. They have absolutely no interest in truth.

           32 likes

      • Peter Thomas says:

        On a lighter note, the study of logic is not yet dead thanks to Jethro…

        Jethro learns about logic

           4 likes

    • nofanofpoliticians says:

      How can you tell a person who is a millionaire from one that isn’t without some kind of means-tested / bureaucratic approach. How will results be checked for overseas visitors?

      These people just do not think things through.

         5 likes

      • lojolondon says:

        I don’t think it is meant to be thought through – clearly just garbage to get some air time and hand out a soundbite to unthinking reporters.

           0 likes

  11. Milverton says:

    Oh dear. Woolwich killers shouting “Allah akbar!” And warning that the US and the UK will never be safe as sentencing is due, and now taken back down to the cells.

    BBC’s ongoing narrative that this had nothing to do with Islam seems as much of a fiction today after months of propaganda as the day the killing happened.

    Campbell and Burden will be treading on eggshells in the morning. I’m sure Campbell’s concern for the terrorists families will be in full flow.

       51 likes

    • chrisH says:

      To be fair to the BBC, their hack did say that the judge (Sweeney) said that “betrayal of Islam” bit first.
      If true, it only continues the line taken by those expert Imams of Islamic Jurisprudence…Boris, Cameron, Obama etc…and to be fair to even the Islamic nutjobs…if these shallow halitosis types presumed to speak on anything pertaining to my faith…I too would be inclined to be angry.
      Serial philanderer and comedy clown, chinless posh boy and a bloke who`s written more autobiographies that legislative bills( fine quote from Sarah Palin!)?…they don`t even know their arses from their elbows.let alone the Surahs of the Sword( and there`s a few of those by now…)

         18 likes

      • Llareggub says:

        Yes, the judge must have got his lines from Downing street about them betraying the Religion of Peace. I think they were right to call the judge a liar on this. Now expect the BBC to be watching their treatment in jail, looking after their human rights. Maybe the inmates will provide them with a hot cup of tea, plenty of sugar, and should their fellow prisoners find a flattened screwdriver I do hope they will hand it to the proper authorities as those things can be dangerous.

           10 likes

    • Paco says:

      You must have missed the bit were their claim they were ‘soldiers of Allah’ was reported?

         4 likes

      • lojolondon says:

        Yes, I did miss that – the whole trial has been really glossed over, hasn’t it?
        But clearly that is why the BBBC came out with the ‘betrayal of Islam’ line. No wonder the soldiers of Allah were angry, they followed explicit orders and end up with a proper jail sentence!

           2 likes

    • Alan Larocka says:

      How bad would the Muslim atrocity actually have to be before the politicians would say ‘this is everything to do with Islam’?

         3 likes

  12. Bob Nelson says:

    PMQs today was highly disquieting. Milipede on climate change using the term ‘denier’ (odd, even for a non-practising Jew) and stating that no-one doubting climate change would have a place in his team: Cameron confirming his belief in climate change and saying it was a major concern for mankind. What chance do we have?

    At least Andrew Neil picked up on the ‘denier’ usage and tried to get a definition from the labour studio guest but she was indoctrinated so he didn’t get far.

       59 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Science, R.I.P.

         32 likes

      • Wild says:

        I find Miliband deeply sinister. It is no surprise that his father was a Stalinist cunt. God help us if he is elected Prime Minister.

           76 likes

        • JohnOfEnfield says:

          I sense he wouldn’t last. Not even past the first “winter of discontent”.

             14 likes

          • DownBoy says:

            Yes, Science R.I.P. Johnny, but, just like with the markets, you can ignore it for a while until reality finally wins. The warmists may run but they ultimately can’t hide from the actual Science.

               25 likes

            • Andy S. says:

              A TRUE scientist champions free enquiry and tolerance. That’s why the “Global Warming” alarmists aren’t true scientists, they are advocates of politically motivated junk science.

                 19 likes

            • johnnythefish says:

              I’m not so sure, DB. Just look how we have succumbed to living under the unelected socialist bureaucracy of the EU with no hope – unless you believe Cameron – of any democratic redress. As long as all the main political parties subscribe to the AGW myth who is to stop it, especially when a gullible public can be so easily convinced by the ‘extreme weather’ arguments of a small but powerful group of eco-‘scientists’ – we could end up soon in another glacial period but the Agenda 21 brigade would still convince a majority it’s all down to ‘global warming’.

                 10 likes

              • Dave says:

                Fry or freeze?
                The Agenda21 fans don’t care either way- as long as 90% of the world’s population is dead

                   2 likes

    • Doublethinker says:

      I thought that he did get a definition from her. Basically you are a ‘denier’ if you don’t fully sign up to the view that man is solely responsible for climate change.
      I am not surprised because the left use ‘racist’ to cover anyone who isn’t happy about multiculturalism and mass immigration, or ‘Fascist’ or ‘Far Right’ or ‘Nazi’ about anyone who doesn’t believe in Big Government.
      I think the left use these labels as shorthand to easily identify those they see as potentially opposing their plans and objectives .
      The BBC has certainly adopted the tags racist and far right . Often those that they label as far right are socialist in outlook although they wish to confine their socialism to one country ie National Socialism. But I don’t expect that the BBC or the left really want to be reminded of that last bit!

         33 likes

      • Andy S. says:

        All those labels, denier, racist, extreme right wing, homophobe, Islamaphobe are the results of the teachings of Saul Alinsky in order to quash the opinions of opponents. It’s all there in “Rules For Radicals”. Denigrate, ridicule, isolate.

        We’ve seen this put into practice this week by Harriet Harman against the Daily Mail. The idea is to make opponents look extreme and beyond the pale.

        It takes backbone to stand up to these leftist totalitarians, something which is conspicuously lacking (Nigel Farage excepted) in today’s career politicians.

           22 likes

        • Joshaw says:

          It also paves the way for legislation to silence people in the future, when the denigration process is almost complete.

             12 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            And that, in the world of Milibean, will be climate scepticism = hate crime, the justification being your views could lead to the harm of future generations.

            Nothing and nobody must be allowed to stand in the way of Agenda 21, comrades!

               6 likes

    • Dinsdale Oblong says:

      So according to Labour, enabling paedophilia is now more acceptable than “Climate Denial” is it ?

         39 likes

    • Ember2013 says:

      Considering the experts admit they couldn’t link the floods to climate change it’s sad to see Miliband resort to the mob rule mentality of consensus. So I guess it’s perceived consensus.

      It certainly isn’t science.

         27 likes

    • TPO says:

      There’s been a not so subtle change in the language use here which I’m sure all are aware of. ‘Climate change’ is being inserted where it used to be ‘global warming’ but with the same inference.
      The reality is that climates do change, just ask any palaeoclimatologist.
      Not so long ago I watched one on TV being interviewed by some BBC droid (Yes we get them over here) whilst standing on Okotots rock about 20 miles south of Calgary. He was explaining how the last ice age had deposited the rock some 15,000 years ago and that they could determine to within a couple of hundred yards that it was broken off from Mount Edith Cavell some 200 miles to the north.
      The BBC droid was quick to reveal his agenda. “That’s near to the Athabascar Glacier, and isn’t that melting?”

      “Oh yes” said the palaeoclimatologist, “And maybe it’ll be gone in about 200 years. But you shouldn’t worry really because in 5,000 years time, where we are standing right now will be under 2 miles of ice. You see it’s all cyclical”

      It certainly shut the BBC droid up, but it left me wondering what the hell it would do to property prices around here.

      In this vein it’s worth noting that the Great Lakes have frozen over for the first time in over 20 years and in 2 years the Arctic ice cap has increased in size by nearly 60%.
      No wonder Canada has more than its fair share of mathematicians and climatologists prepared to buck the trend when it comes to the AGW fallacy and the flawed climate models.
      Oh, and I’m sure the BBC won’t be wanting you to see the documentary where the palaeoclimatologist spells it out as it really is.

         31 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        They re-branded it to ‘climate change’ when they first realised the warming had stopped.

        Then they started with the ‘extreme weather’ association – an even bigger winner as their exultant shriekings in the UK have proved this winter.

           3 likes

  13. George R says:

    INBBC: reporting the Islamic jihad murder of Lee RIGBY.

    To make crystal clear the Islamic jihad nature of this horrific murder, why doesn’t Islam Not BBC use the Islamic names of the Muslim murderers, as they insist?

    Or have I answered my own question?

       36 likes

    • DownBoy says:

      Yes and they are apparently ‘Islamists’. Why not speak plain English and describe them as Muslims? Cos that doesn’t fit the narrative of the multiculti religion of peace.
      Anyone ever heard of violent Hinduists, Shivaists or Vishnuists? Thought not.

         34 likes

      • Bataille says:

        Because they mean different things. They are using plain English, using the word ‘Muslims’ would conflate two different things – which is unclear use of English.

        Any other questions about the language you speak but don’t seem to comprehend the nuances of?

           5 likes

        • john in cheshire says:

          How I wonder, would these ‘islamists’ refer to themselves? I somehow think they would call themselves muslim, and surely they are best to know.

             13 likes

          • Teddy Bear says:

            I think the distinction can best be summed up by comparing the Lee Rigby murderers to somebody like Raheem Kassam. Each may call themselves Muslims, but there is no way that Raheem could ever be seen as an Islamist. Quite the contrary.

               1 likes

        • Joshaw says:

          They aren’t two different things. The word was invented to create an artificial distinction. Without it, Muslims would have difficult questions to answer.

          Surveys of Muslim opinion, particularly in universities, has revealed some disturbing truths. ICM polls and NOP research following the 7/7 bombings did the same.

          Your last sneering sentence is, in many ways, typical. See above: “Denigrate, ridicule, isolate”.

             15 likes

          • Guest Who says:

            I was also impressed with a grammar Nazi opting for going boldly with such a sentence structure, when clearly most particular about nuanced use of English with others.

               8 likes

            • Paco says:

              So says the grammar nazi!

                 3 likes

              • Guest Who says:

                Who… moi?
                Methinks my teasing hath a nerve struck, as Yoda would say, causing evident consternation in the land where those who take themselves too seriously roam.
                Still, it has provided welcome distraction, at least.

                   8 likes

        • stewart says:

          “Because they mean different things.”
          How so?

             6 likes

          • Bataille says:

            Islamism: Islamic fundamentalism or militancy.
            Muslim: A follower of Islam.

            I don’t know if that’s too difficult for you.

            It’s also not so much grammar nazism as knowledge. I know that is scary to your ears, I know knowing things can be scary but you really must try.

               6 likes

            • Rtd Colonel says:

              Islamist a scholar who is knowledgeable about Islam
              Muslim a follower of Islam
              Does that mean that an Islamist is a ‘super’ Muslim?

                 9 likes

            • Guest Who says:

              ‘It’s also not so much grammar nazism as knowledge’
              And such pride in infallibility is power for sure.
              ‘Any other questions about the language you speak but don’t seem to comprehend the nuances of?’
              It’s perhaps not wrong, but still ugly, perhaps reflecting the sentiment, and person behind it?
              And the inability to resist that final paragraph seemed so familiar, even if the latest unsurprisingly combative new name was not.

                 5 likes

              • Bataille says:

                Oh you are tedious.

                However, let us all bow down before you in your expert analysis and brilliance.

                Speaking of which, your last sentence is barely sensical.

                Syntax is different to knowing the nuances of a language anyway. The original poster didn’t understand our vocabulary, I think moving him or her on to syntax so soon would be like asking a paraplegic to run a marathon.

                   3 likes

                • Guest Who says:

                  You have no idea that how much contributing to the tedium in your clearly fun-packed day concerns me.
                  On matters sensicalisciousnessness, it is of course I who should doff my cap to a master.
                  Then again, if teasing a troll, adopting rationality is hardly the best way to derive satisfactory results, so whatever it is inspiring your deteriorating responses, I can only hope to maintain it.
                  Your last sentence in contrast (though I have checked and mine seems OK with a few, perhaps more cryptically adept) is, of course, entirely comprehensible, if a smidge unpleasant and un-PC, as I thought the last time such an analogy was was used by the author to try and belittle the person rather the focussing on their point.
                  Keep up the good work. The more we joust on big werds in English, the less you are trying to mess with matters of BBC inaccuracy and lack of objectivity or integrity elsewhere.
                  Which is nice.

                     7 likes

                  • Bataille says:

                    As unpleasant as your sneering superiority complex is, it is you who seems to forget that the reason grammar was brought up was because one of your rank brought up the difference and ‘plain English’. I pointed out this difference, a clear one, and you felt it necessary to question my sentence structure, rather than engage with the point. My initial point was about grammar, but only because it was the matter in hand.

                    Keep fighting the brave fight, though, because you’re an inspiration to everyone.

                    Oh, and I also assume your last comment was riddled with grammatical issues on purpose, for some clever irony. I certainly hope so – it would be more intelligent than the standard drivel.

                       3 likes

                    • Guest Who says:

                      Sneering? Me?
                      Au contraire! Gentle mocking only.
                      A good sneer takes ability I can only guess at. Though more examples do now seem available than before for any seeking to follow this path, thanks to you.
                      Still, isn’t just grand that we are still tied up here on matters of grammar and such, while the real debates unfold with others (is ‘my rank’ like an ‘ilk’ in non-sneerspeek by chance?) elsewhere less contaminated by those who choose to question folks’ manner of communicating over what they are actually discussing.
                      I took a bet with myself I couldn’t get you to the magic single word column level. Should have taken it, eh?
                      ps: A few questions from others, in plain English, await you still. You seem to prefer dealing with me, though. Why, I wonder?

                         3 likes

                    • Bataille says:

                      The thing is, you still don’t listen.

                      I didn’t raise the grammar issue, the first person who asked why there was a difference did.

                      I was therefore simply answering that question.

                      You made the big deal out of grammar, darling, so don’t try that one.

                         1 likes

            • Guest Who says:

              I miss Doris:)

                 1 likes

            • GCooper says:

              I have to conclude that the concept of a distinction without a difference is too advanced for you.

                 6 likes

            • Roland Deschain says:

              Islamist.

              Oxford Dictionary: Islamic militancy or fundamentalism

              Cambridge Dictionary: a person who believes strongly in Islam, especially one who believes that Islam should influence political systems

              But which is better?
              HHfight-300×166.jpg

                 6 likes

            • stewart says:

              “I know knowing things can be scary but you really must try”
              Does that count as a “sneering superiority complex”?
              But I digress , Imagine this scenario.
              Dave spart, having be incensed by an article in ‘keep left’ leaps onto a table in the executive dinning room ,while clutching a copy of das kapital and crying ‘workers of the world unite’ ,unloads an automatic pistol killing thirteen of his colleagues.
              Not all Marxist would carry out or even approve of such an act , but Dave is clearly a marxist terrorist is he not? If not at which point did he cease to be a Marxist?
              Hope my grammar was up to snuff

                 5 likes

              • Bataille says:

                You don’t grasp that there are different words to describe things, do you?

                For Marxist there is not a term to describe one, if there is such a thing, whereas with Islamist and Muslim there are. It really isn’t difficult.

                   3 likes

                • stewart says:

                  No your right it isnt difficult ‘Islamist’ is a bourgeois liberal construct. In fact quite literally ‘newspeak’
                  Muslim terrorists refer to themselves as just that Muslims . They belive that their literal interpretation of the koran is the correct one.
                  You wouldn’t refer to christian fundamentalists as christianists would you?

                     4 likes

                  • Bataille says:

                    No I’d refer to them as Christian fundamentalists, like you just said, just as I could refer to Islamists as Islamic fundamentalists. It so happens that a word exists to describe Islamic fundamentalists more succinctly, and so that is used.

                       1 likes

                    • stewart says:

                      First ,I welcome your more ‘engaging’
                      tone .
                      But no I dont agree. ‘Islamist’ is a total construct designed to suggest an equivalence with Zionism and thus seperated from Islam. Zionists after all are not necessarily relegious Jews or even Jewish. But no such movment as Islamist exists , The drive for a universal caliphate cannot be separated from from the Muslim faith . Of course not all Muslims seek to bring it about by violence or endorse the use of same , but all must hope for it .
                      If the term has not been inveted to disguise this link ,then why invent it?

                         4 likes

                  • DownBoy says:

                    Okay Bataille, your initial beef was with my querying of the use of Islamist instead of Muslim and you seem to claim that we require the distinction in the English language, since Islamic implies Islamic fundamentalism or militancy.
                    If this be so then why in the name of sanity is this the ONLY religion for which this distinction is required? Hence my point. Name any word suggestive of a verbal distinction relating to any other religion and then, when you can’t find one, ask yourself why.

                       4 likes

                    • stewart says:

                      Exactly no one would object if the BBC used the term ‘Islamic or muslim fundamentalists’
                      The fact is that the liberal inquisition have created the term ‘islamist, to obfuscate the link with islamic doctrine. As we, the hoi-polloi, cannot be trusted with the truth.

                         4 likes

                    • Bataille says:

                      Zionism?
                      Evangelicalism?
                      They spring forth most quickly from the mind.

                      I think what you’re trying to say is that only Islam has this violent streak in it, which is clearly untrue, and examples to the contrary are clear. Breivik, for example. The problems in Nigeria.

                         1 likes

                    • Bataille says:

                      Stewart, I don’t know about you, but to me, ‘Islamist’ sounds more like ‘Islam’ than ‘Muslim’. Thus, if anything, the opposite of what you just claimed is true.

                         2 likes

                    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

                      Trolls are best ignored, and should not be fed.

                         4 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          ‘ They are using plain English, using the word ‘Muslims’ would conflate two different things.’

          So remind me again how the BBC describe the Christians who kill Muslims in the Central African Republic.

             10 likes

        • lojolondon says:

          Talking garbage. The killers refer to themselves as Muslims. Only the MSM, lead by the B-BBC calls ‘bad muslims’ Islamists.

          If a Christian murdered someone in cold blood for religious reasons, would the B-BBC refer to the person as a Christain, or as a ‘follower’ or ‘believer’?
          This is pure 1984 ‘Newspeak’ (Google if you don’t understand)

             6 likes

          • Bataille says:

            Ha, the idea that you think I wouldn’t understand that. I’ve probably read more Orwell than you can dream of you moron, and Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn. (Google if you don’t know who they are).

            If that’s what you believe then fine, but you are wrong, that’s the truth of the matter.

               0 likes

            • Guest Who says:

              At risk of a Welsh scolding (like an English one, only with more consonants), just have to breathe a sigh of relief that phew, here was me worried I’d missed the evening sneering superiority complex master class (now shared with irony failure #101).
              But this one has been an education.
              Fact. No word of a lie.

                 2 likes

              • Bataille says:

                Ooh you were easy to provoke today! Must have been a pretty dull one for you, I mean, you weren’t even involved here! I must be like catnip to you. If you’ve got a thing for me you really must say, I can’t stand all this flirting.

                   0 likes

                • Guest Who says:

                  Provoke?
                  No… Inspire!
                  Some looked to be taking you seriously, but to top off the ‘darling’ you now opt for ‘flirting’?
                  My job is done.
                  Look forward to the next name from the Borg box.
                  Me, I’m off now as it’s Friday night. Leaving a bit of a dilemma for any of a contrary nature risking Danny Many Mates dropping you in it again if you feel like a drive-by posting marathon.

                     2 likes

                  • Bataille says:

                    of*

                    None of what you say make sense, Mr Pseudo Eloquent. Just something to work on. I’ll grade you on Monday.

                       1 likes

    • thoughtful says:

      I complained about the BBC when they were using those names and it seems to me a strange thing that someone on this forum believes that the BBC should be using them.

      To me the use of a name selected to glorify Jihad is appalling. Most UK viewers will not understand the significance nor the meaning of such a name, and I wonder from your post whether you do?

      In addition they have not changed their names by deed poll so it is not an official change of name either.

      After travelling to Mecca Muslims are permitted to change their names to Haji, after fighting Jihad they adopt a Jihadist name.

      Are you seriously suggesting that the correct position for the BBC to take is to play along with them? To me that is the exact opposite of what I believe should be done.

         12 likes

  14. johnnythefish says:

    I have heard a fair bit of the BBC’s coverage of the Harman scandal but by no means all of it.

    The impression I’m getting so far is that Laura Kuinssberg gave Harman a fair old grilling to the point where Harman was beginning to look decidedly uncomfortable.

    Since then it seems the BBC has been trying desperately to make amends and give plenty of its airtime to the Harman/Dromey line.

    However, at no point have I heard the BBC – not even Kuinssberg – challenge Harman or her supporters with the all too clear evidence contained in the NCCL documents unearthed by the Mail. Have I missed something?

       50 likes

    • Milverton says:

      The documents have not been brought up on the BBC at all to my knowledge, and I’ve seen most of the coverage.

      Having Harman’s name all over key evidence would, you might hope, pique some interest by the BBC, but it seems to have been treated rather as an inconvenience, which I think mirrors the Labour party line quite closely. Woodward and Bernstein they ain’t.

      I set me thinking of the last time the BBC came up with a bona fide exclusive. That didn’t cost them a six figure sum, that is. I’m damned if I can remember one.

      I know Five Live Investigates likes to bring us exclusives, but they are resolutely of the “if you want a British passport I know a kebab shop in Selly Oak.” sort. Hardly news, and certainly not exclusive.

      Each week they bring us similar revelations, and the old game of guess what the miscreant looks like is now so boring they might just as well rename the show “Five Guys Named Mo.” and have done with it.

      Apart from that the BBC seems totally reliant on other news sources for their stories. A bit like the rest of us – but without the three and a half billion quid.

         31 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Yes, we don`t see that special pleading document that Harman signs off on do we?
        The Mail showed it-as banged to rights as you can get.
        Harman specifically wants a change in the law or the climate(climate change?) in regard of how paedos are treated by Labours Home Secretary at the time.
        Yet she is able to evade this at every BBC forum.
        Mind you, when Blair, Clinton(H) and Gore can dream up their own f***in autobiographies and evade the Walter Mitty deluded fantasist tag…well this one for Harman is small beer.
        The Left-never have to say you`re sorry, lie shamelessly and repeatedly…and get the Tippex out whilst you do so…Leveson might come to your rescue if you`re clever about it.
        Liberal Fascism…good book by Jonah Goldberg-tells you much of what`s going on…

           26 likes

      • uncle bup says:

        I set me thinking of the last time the BBC came up with a bona fide exclusive. That didn’t cost them a six figure sum, that is. I’m damned if I can remember one.
        ——————————————————————-

        Hey c’mon there was The Voice, a just like every other talent show but with a tiny twist programme. That didn’t cost them six figures.

        Twenty mill p.a. – that’s eight figures innit.

           3 likes

  15. George R says:

    Horrific Islamic jihad murder od Lee Rigby: todasy’s sentences reported:-

    1.) ‘Daily Mail:-

    “Life will NOT mean life: One of Lee Rigby’s murderers given prospect of freedom by judge as both are dragged from dock shouting ‘Allah akbar’ while fighting guards”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568317/Justice-Lee-Rigby-Soldiers-family-arrive-court-wearing-matching-t-shirts-act-solidarity-ahead-sentencing-two-Muslim-converts-murdered-him.html#ixzz2uRyYJBM2

    2.) Islam Not BBC (INBBC):-

    “Lee Rigby murder: Adebolajo and Adebowale sentenced”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26357007

       12 likes

    • George R says:

      Robert Spencer, of ‘Jihadwatch’ makes clear, on Islamic jihad murder of Lee Rigby, what the Court and the MSM (inc INBBC) don’t:-

      “The Imam Sweeney told them: You each converted to Islam some years ago. Thereafter you were radicalised and each became an extremist, espousing views which, as has been said elsewhere, are a betrayal of Islam.’ This enraged them, and they began a fight in the courtroom. It would have been interesting to see Mufti Sweeney explain what exactly was a betrayal of Islam in the actions of Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail ibn Abdullah, aka Adebolajo and Adebowale. Right after the murder, Mujaahid Abu Hamza invoked the Qur’an and made specific reference to the Islamic doctrine that one must fight against those who fight against Islam.”

      -from:-

      “UK: Judge tells jihad murderers of soldier that they betrayed Islam; they start screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ and fighting prison guards”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/uk-judge-tells-jihad-murderers-of-soldier-that-they-betrayed-islam-they-start-screaming-allahu-akbar-and-fighting-prison-guards

         21 likes

      • chrisH says:

        Spencers got them nailed as ever.
        The Christopher Booker of Islamic vigilance…so about as welcome to state them as HE is.
        Never see them on the media here do we?…they know way too much…

           18 likes

    • chrisH says:

      I thought that they were called Al-Jihadi Jolson and Abu Ham Zanwitch nowadays…a “Call Me Chelsea” moment and surely to be respected by the BBC cretins and Owen Jones.
      For it is their right to call themselves what they will, in order to give maximum offence to the rest of us.
      So why aren`t the BBC giving them their NEW names then?…they would do if they were Chelsea/Bradley Manup!
      Oh wait-might threaten community cohesion-and if they`re locked away the Islamic suckups reckon on being safe this news cycle…so out comes the tin helmet, and the braveheart speeches.
      Oh dear-all that rote learning does give the angrier Muslim a longer memory than any featherhead at the BBC in his soundbite cesspit….

         8 likes

  16. Maturecheese says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/26/maria-miller-independent-scotland-lose-bbc

    So if Scotland votes for independence how are we going to stop them watching the BBC that we will have to continue to fund? Are the BBC going to send Capita raiding parties tooled up and in camo over the border?

       23 likes

    • Dave666 says:

      Hang on but an independent Scotland would be able to watch on computers, tablets or other devices. Or will the BBc set up jamming equipment along Hadrian’s wall. Will Capita enforment be making raids over the border?

         12 likes

    • JohnOfEnfield says:

      Sorry, you’ve got things the wrong way round. Clearly the Scots own the BBC just as much as rUK so we could trade the BBC as part of the splitting up of Assets between the new nation states & give it all to Scotland. Kirsty Walk n all. Then we’d be free of the InBBC for EVER. Or am I dreaming?

         17 likes

    • Joshaw says:

      “how are we going to stop them watching the BBC”

      They should be so lucky!

         5 likes

  17. Timbo says:

    Radio Five’s chief narcissist and drug hoover Richard Bacon just cannot help himself.

    One of his guests today was a scientist who talked on a wide range of topics, among them the role of religion in human evolution. It was all pretty sensible and he was careful not to say anything that would upset religious types TOO much, but he did come out with something along the lines of “religion is a check on intelligence”, in that it stops tribe members from getting too clever and killing each other.

    The very next thing out of Bacon’s lips was: “I’ve always thought of religion as a check on intelligence”. It was said jokingly but his intent was obvious.

    Is is really his job to make comments like that? Is he not basically calling all religious people stupid? There’s grounds for complaint here, surely.

       28 likes

    • Lobster says:

      No Timbo, he is not calling ALL religious people stupid – only Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc. You can bet your bottom dollar that that list wouldn’t include you-know-who.

         31 likes

    • IsItMe? says:

      I distinctly remember Bacon saying something like: “So sheep and lambs are the same species? I never knew that. I thought they were two different animals”. This was on his afternoon show a couple of years ago; he was possibly interviewing that Blur bloke who is now a farmer , Alex James.
      Given that my five-year-old daughter knows that a lamb is a young sheep, I’m not sure Bacon is in any position to denigrate someone else’s intelligence.

         30 likes

  18. Alex says:

    Saw this story tucked away down the bottom of the BBC’s site… I thought it would make headline news:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26358662

       11 likes

    • Pounce says:

      I thought the same thing and could but help wonder if this is how the bBC buries bad news. Meanwhile this non-story gets much more publicity:
      Katy Perry Dark Horse video ‘portrays blasphemy’
      Having watched the video all i can say is what the fuck was Pakistani twat Shazad Iqbal from Bradford doing watching a video with scantly dressed women?

      Anybody from the Buggering British Children care to explain the above seen as the paedophilic bBC keeps on telling me that the equally pedophillic Islamic faith is a relgion of peace full of pious followers who don’t do anything in case it offends allah.

         21 likes

    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      I have posted that link into another thread, for the titilation of a particular fan of mine, someone who it seems comes from bongo- bongo land.
      I’m sure he will just love it.
      Cue shouts of: small nation etc….
      Lololol

         6 likes

    • EmersonV says:

      Bbc are very anti English, this is just another example.

         13 likes

    • flexdream says:

      Like most people I’m uninterested in rugby but I like to imagine it free of petty minded narrow nationalism and xenophobia. This ad is the sort of Anglophobia Irn Bru’s ad agency have tried and is pathetic.

         3 likes

  19. Teddy Bear says:

    Muslims refer to a particular area in Jerusalem as the Dome of the Rock or Al Aqsa Mosque or Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary). They call it their 3rd most holiest site in the world, after Mecca and Medina. The reason they claim it’s holy is because it’s where Mohammed is supposed to have ascended to heaven.

    Far be it from me to pour scorn on anybody’s beliefs, I believe everybody is entitled to believe whatever they will provided it doesn’t hurt anybody else. However if the motive for a particular ‘belief’ is to gain an advantage over somebody else, and is completely without any proven merit, then I think the natural and normal reaction would be 🙄

    So considering that Jerusalem, or Al Quds as Muslims refer to it, does not receive one mention in the whole of the Koran, it’s rather spurious that Mohammed somehow chose to ascend to heaven from that spot.

    Now as it happens that same spot is one of the holiest areas in the Jewish religion. It’s the site of the 1st and 2nd Temples and has numerous mentions, not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. Is it a coincidence that this same spot is now claimed to be holy to Muslims, or does this highlight a particular strategy on their part to gloss over any Jewish claim to it, and assert themselves there?

    Whatever you deduce, you surely would agree that this is a pertinent fact in understanding the dynamics of that region.

    So in the following article by the BBC we are told It is holy to Jews because it is the site of the First and Second Temple in ancient times. It is known in Jewish tradition as the “abode of God’s presence”.
    Bear in mind this has been held by Jews for thousands of years without any ulterior motive, it simply was ‘the place’.

    Then we are told It is also of deep religious, political and national significance to Palestinians and to Muslims around the world, housing the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque.
    And what exactly is that ‘significance’ BBC?

    Seems they would rather not mention it.

    They also don’t explain that until now, despite Jews being aware of the political nature of the Muslim claim to this area, they have given deference to them, and respected the Muslim claim that they also consider it holy. Seeing that Israel has never been given credit for this, and the Palestinians are still denying Israel to be a Jewish state, Jews are questioning whether deference should continue to be awarded to the Muslims as before.

    But you wouldn’t know any of this pertinent stuff from the article by the BBC.
    See what it’s wanting you to think and believe.

    Israeli police and Palestinians clash on Temple Mount

       23 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Islam is a joke isn`t it?…but if only we could laugh at it, instead of seeming to quake in our boots if we want a cartoon.
      Mo died in Mecca…or Medina…they can have them two shitholes that none of us could ever visit.
      The notion that he had a dream about Jerusalem or such-or that he somehow ascended to heaven from Al Quds, despite being a bit dead…is pitiful.
      Yet they`re to be indulged and we`re supposed to acquiesce?
      Nah, they can have Saudi…but Israel is for the world, and Israelis are the only people who will decide what is to happen in Gods own sandpit.
      That said-I`ll be surprised if Woolwich Barracks doesn`t become an Islamic Holy Place within our lifetimes, if the craven odious BBC and its chums are not decapitated by the decent majority in this country…with no Imams like Al Clegg or Abu Sweeney mediatng on our behalf.

         18 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Teddy

      As you say – it is beyond doubt that the First and Second Temples were at “The Rock” – so this was definitely the centre of the Jewish faith.

      But where Mohammed is supposed to ascend to heaven is far more vague. It was stated to be “at the farthest mosque” – Al Asqa – but there were no mosques then anyway. Linking Al Asqa to Jerusalem is mere supposition, not fact. If the ascent had been in Jerusalem, the name Jerusalem would have been stated, it was well-known as the centre of Judaism.

      The Dome of the Rock came centuries later – after the Muslims conquered Jerusalem.

      Israel has been more than decent in allowing the Muslims to administer the top of the Rock, the flat area around the Dome. That was the site of the great Second Temple of the Jews, without any doubt, and logic would argue that the Jews have prime claim to the area. They have “settled” for the Western Wall – the Wailing Wall – as their focus, the wall below the Mount.

      What I find most amazing is that the Jews took this decision after they regained eastern Jerusalem and the Mount in the war of 1967 which the Arabs had provoked. Sheer magnanimity – but as usual, the Arabs and the “Palestinians” spit back in their face.

         11 likes

      • Teddy Bear says:

        Thanks for elaborating that point John.
        It’s precisely what the BBC should be making clear so that their readers/audience would be better informed, and understand what is really going on there.

           6 likes

  20. Arthur Penney says:

    The reason why we have had 17 years of minimal increases in temperature have now been explained. It was so obvious!

       11 likes

    • DownBoy says:

      I’m embarrassed, like most of you will be, that I didn’t spot this obvious factor immediately. Still, credit where credit is due, at least George Monbiot, Al Gore and Ed Davey have long campaigned about the cooling effects of pine forests….eh….err……..

         16 likes

      • OldBloke says:

        The strange thing is, yesterday, I had a knock on my door and I was greeted by three men in white coats carrying clipboards. At first I thought I had a visit from Capita concerning my non payment of a T.V. licence. But no. to my complete surprise, one of them told me they were from the East Anglian University carrying out smell tests on humans which was being sponsored by the BBC in connection with Global Warming/Climate Change. Now, I’m not one to step in the way of scientific progress, so I did what they asked of me and after I had bent over and dropped my pants and trousers a long stainless steel tube with a hole down the middle (a bit like a pitot tube) was inserted into my rectum, where upon, given instruction, I broke wind. The sample of rushing air was captured and taken away for analysis. One has to do one’s bit don’t you think?

           12 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Not Shake n’ Vac then?

      What about deep ocean warming?

      Or can any natural phenomenon cause cooling when, um, the earth isn’t warming? How many more might there be?

      Maybe they’re just hedging their bets?

      I’m confused. Is there no real-world evidence to analyse or are these ‘scientists’ simply happy to keep on building their pyramid of hypotheses?

         5 likes

  21. noggin says:

    RE – the sentencing of Fus. L Rigby s Muslim jihad Killers
    45 yrs … not enough and …
    Islamophillia alert! … from the Grand Mufti of the Old Bailey
    (who is obviously schooled by Arch Imam Cameron)
    lots of PC buzz words radicalised … extreme … betraying Islam, after all you re only a convert etc eh!

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-02-26/scuffle-breaks-out-as-defendants-told-they-betray-islam/

    if you listen to the BBC report, you ll hear loudspeakers in the back round … are these the al beebs despised “far right”? …
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26357007

    The protest holding placards wanting capital punishment to be restored?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568317/Justice-Lee-Rigby-Soldiers-family-arrive-court-wearing-matching-t-shirts-act-solidarity-ahead-sentencing-two-Muslim-converts-murdered-him.html

       14 likes

  22. EmersonV says:

    Seems labour let their IRA friends off the hook, what a shower of shite they are.

       37 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      And they got Jonathan Powell on TWATO at lunchtime to spew forth the Labour spin that it was all part of the agreement and you can’t pick which parts suit you and which parts don’t. Totally unchallenged of course.

      But then on came a Democratic Unionist to give the reality – it was a secret deal done between Blair and the IRA and had he known he would not have agreed to it. He also pointed out there is a dedicated team of the Ulster police investigating the Paras involved in Bloody Sunday – so who’s picking and choosing there, then?

      Perhaps this fitted under that glorious catch-all of Labour’s 1997 manifesto – ‘Social Justice’ (along with mass immigration and a whole host of other country-wrecking policies which caught the British electorate with its pants down).

         10 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        I will have to give credit to the 10 o’ clock news tonight where it was made very clear that this was a secret deal between the Blair government and the IRA and that they did not grant equivalent pardons to Loyalist terrorists.

        So why was TWATO so ambivalent when tonight’s news was so categoric?

        Anybody out there from the BBC who can explain?

           2 likes

  23. Dave666 says:

    I would just say I wouldn’t wish to be affiliated with Harman even though I was at DHSS during her “glorious”, not, period in charge.
    Back to business BBc 22:00 news Cable and much ado about the “inflation breaking” proposals for minimum wage. Here is the reality a percentage of f*** all is f*** all. Standard tactics, once upon a time I was involved in pay talks for a government department. No way in the world they would talk flat rate figures, just in percentages, lots of power point presentations. but just percentages . Taken for a ride, you have been.

       7 likes

  24. SilentMajority says:

    “Smell of forest pine can limit climate change – researchers”
    I’m so glad I made the switch from lemon lavatory cleaner.
    If we all did it could cancel out all those coal-fired power stations in China.

       15 likes

    • George R says:

      PMQs today dominated by useful idiots, Cameron and Miliband, vying to champion AGW, with, no doubt, Beeboids such as Hampstead Harrabin, lapping it up, not criticising the spectacle.

      An alternative:

      “UK CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE: WHY DID THE MET OFFICE FORECAST A DRY WINTER?”

      (inc video clip).

      http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/02/25/UK-Climate-Change-Debate-Why-Did-the-Met-Office-Forecast-a-Dry-Winter

         13 likes

    • thoughtful says:

      The thing is that we know pollution is not good. I’m sure no one would want to live in a state like London before the clean air act, where it was so bad that even indoor in a theatre there were times the audience couldn’t see the stage !

      Yet that’s exactly what has happened in Beijing this week, with pollution so bad it’s been 500 times the safe recommended levels – indoors! Goodness only knows what it’s like outdoors,

      So never mind China being concerned about ‘greenhouse gases’ it’s killing it’s own people very efficiently and much more quickly than some nebulous Western conceit.

         8 likes

  25. flexdream says:

    BBC bias.
    It’s “Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning)” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25458533) but “Michael Adebolajo … and Michael Adebowale” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26357007) even though “Michael Adebolajo, 28, appeared before Westminster magistrates holding a copy of the Koran and stating he wished to be known as Mujahid Abu Hamza” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22748021)
    Tag for Gay Liberation and Muslim Exoneration.

       12 likes

    • pounce says:

      It’s “Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning)”

      Aka chick with a dick, who acts like a prick while sucking …dick, yup I can see why the bBC would fight for his corner.

         13 likes

  26. Leha says:

    Dromey got a question @ PMQ’s today – weird or what?

       15 likes

    • Techno says:

      He’s a Champion of the Working Class.

         9 likes

      • stewart says:

        But not enough of a champion to get Bill Morris’ job ,which he clearly thought he was a shoe in for (who knew) Still hatty found a place for him, even at the expense of the sisterhood- theres loyalty ,but to who ?
        (or should that be whom – some one will tell me)

           13 likes

        • feargal the cat says:

          According to the short-list for his parliamentary seat; He may not be a lady, but he’s all women. I’m sure there’s a song in there.

             4 likes

  27. #88 says:

    Are Jeremy Clarkson’s and Top Gear’s days numbered I wonder?

    Over the past few months, beginning with a sneering reference to Clarkson by Andrew Marr (one of those patronising sneers that only rich left wingers can deliver to the hoi polloi) remarkable, overt criticism, sarcasm and sideswipes have followed from within the BBC on the likes of Today and the News Quiz

    I might be imagining it, but also the endless BBC trailers seem to have been few and far between for this season’s Top Gear. Are the BBC about to suffocate their own offspring?

    Tonight on the Sky paper review, the sour faced Labour tribalist, Jackie Smith (she the highly principled one who, isn’t anywhere near as principled when it comes to dipping her hand into the taxpayer’s pocket) chips in with a left wing fusillade attacking Top Gear’s (Clarkson’s) misogyny etc, etc.

    Worse, no doubt Clarkson burns fossil fuels, runs over furry animals, is popular, successful, probably votes Tory and has a penis – in fact is a complete anathema to the well heeled socialist group thinkers in New Broadcasting House.

    Top Gear clearly doesn’t fit easily into the hive. The New Marxists do not tolerate contrary views or independence of thought; those who would be different. As Miliband showed today at PMQ those who would step outside their view of the world have to be silenced.

    Fans of Top Gear should fear the worst

       35 likes

  28. Geoff says:

    Note the ethnic triple on the bBC News Channel at midnight, newscaster, weather forecaster and sports reporter, all decent chaps but hardy a balanced representation.

       25 likes

  29. Leha says:

    Just the 10?

       8 likes

    • Milverton says:

      There should be yellow circles around both of them. Allwright is simply awful. His chosen delivery of talking to people like they are three years of age is intolerable.

         8 likes

  30. Dave666 says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26364891 As I predicted no use of the word “activist” here. So when does a group qualify to be “activists” with the BBc? Is it just the side / view / group the BBc has deemed to favour?

       10 likes

    • flexdream says:

      Interesting how the Ukrainian police on the ground in the Crimea do not seem to be confronting the pro-Russian ‘gunmen’. Why should that be?

         0 likes

  31. AsISeeIt says:

    I’m pleased to say that my boycott of BBC Radio 5 Live is continuing. What a pleasant release it has been – my only slight regret is that a certain fraction of my TV Tax still goes to maintain this awful channel. How could I ever have subjected myself to the priggish cloying Left-wingery on show from its presenters? Particularly galling is that in one or two cases I have heard the same names turn up on alternative broadcast outlets (with a non-tax funded self-financed model – gasp) and noted a slight softening apparent in their political correctness once they were released from the shackles of BBC office culture. The Salford-centric station, evidently bewildered by its own unhappy mix of sport and Leftist issue campaigning daily emits all the colours of the political rainbow – from deep marooned old Labour, through shiny bright activist liberal orange, to rose-tinted utopian pink. To fit in with the bizarre 5 Live house recipe presenters must take on a strange disconnected from reality – indeed an un-earthly – persona. This 5 Live persona slides between the would-be sedentary Che Guevara of the grievance hot line and a down-with-the-kids plucky fresher just arrived off the coach somewhere oop north at a right-on Uni. The latter now busily polishing his Emily Pankhurst button badges in the vain hope of a solidarity shag from some scary Sapphic sisters – the listener notices that what will evidently have to suffice is a quick morning thing; a sorry sprint relay pull-off from Dame Olympia-Wheelchair-Sports and her first-cousin-in-Blair Freya Social-Media-Bra-Burner.

       20 likes

    • Milverton says:

      I wondered yesterday about the eggshells Campbell and burden would need to dance upon about the Woolwich sentences. I need not have been concerned. It wasn’t mentioned. At all.

         23 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        What has been mentioned, on BBC FaceBook at least, is the US court telling YouTube to take down the silly video tha caused many from the religion of peace to go on an irony-free rampage.
        Interesting to note some commenters from said group still not quite grasping the concept of irony in telling others to toe their line or else.
        Also, so far, the BBC mods there seemingly quite happy with calibre of exchange inspired, yet no expressions of concern from such as those here who feel the urge to flag when they are not feeling the love.
        Must be another of those ‘uniques’ that abound.

           10 likes

    • Big Dick says:

      Last time I listened to 5 dead was ,briefly one Sunday last summer, when I was hoping to catch a bit of Grand Prix commentary . This lasted less than a minute or so, as they had more pressing sports to bring us like wimmins something or other . so I listened to Sounds of the Seventies instead .Now have DAB & only listen to LBC or sometimes Radio 2 , but not when that Vanessa oik is on , she is 10 times worse than J Wine !

         3 likes

  32. Bonzo says:

    The reason there has been no global warming for the last 17 years, is because of the smell of pine forests. Why did none of you thickos realise this obvious fact?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

       15 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      Cripes. In that case when we do the loos each weekend as part of our family household cleaning regime, there must be little pockets of AGW offset wafting around. Do we get any green tax concessions for overdoing the Tesco scented bleach?

         9 likes

    • Old Goat says:

      Perhaps we should be pining for the non-existent warming?

         7 likes

      • Arthur Penney says:

        Now we have the unequivocal correct explanation – can we drop the BS about the oceans warming from 1999 (but not before)?

        I am waiting for advice from my AGW masters.

           8 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Wasn’t there a song by Michael Mann called ‘On the Trail of the Lonesome Bristlecone Pine’, the one where he did that little shuffle routine using a hockey stick, a bit of a Gene Kelly pastiche?

        Maybe someone should tell him he was barking up the wrong tree.

           5 likes

      • Flintlock Bill says:

        Very good.

        Anyway, this is good news. I like pine trees. Let’s have more.

           0 likes

    • OldBloke says:

      Sorry to inform you Bonzo, but this was talked about yesterday in this very thread page.

         1 likes

      • Bonzo says:

        I know. I know. Now that I’m pensionable, some days just float by without me noticing. Still, it brings back fond memories of the 60s.

           2 likes

  33. Leha says:

    Can’t be the Pine trees, the forests were destroyed by acid rain about 15 years ago, remember?

       13 likes

  34. noggin says:

    Newsnight mantra … a betrayal of Islam, peaceful, the 1000s
    of peaceful muslims, contributing SO MUCH to this country
    etc etc. … closely followed by most muslims consider their views extreme … hmm most? … define?
    On we go with 2 more jihadists who were jailed for soliciting murder over the “mohamhead toons” given lots of airtime … “everyone was keen to listen to abu hamza” etc
    more bleating from … we just don t know why? WHY?
    “gravy train” er
    More salt in the wounds wheel out noted apologist Peter Neumann who with his eyes tightly shut to reality,
    runs, wait for it … The Int Centre for the Study of Radicalisation 😀 …
    “they don t have any incentive to change their beliefs”
    … because they would have to admit their wrong?
    Hit the nail on the head by mistake there Pete, how much are they paying this bloke?

    9 mins 30
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03wtcyc/Newsnight_26_02_2014/

       12 likes

  35. IsItMe? says:

    Last week, we were told there aren’t enough women on BBC comedy quiz panels. (I would say there’s a simple reason for this: most female comedians just aren’t very good. I am a female, so I can say this).

    Now, apparently, there aren’t enough gays on BBC drama shows:
    “The BBC drama controller has said there are not enough gay characters on TV.

    Ben Stephenson, who is himself gay, called on writers to come forward with more stories which focus on homosexuality.

    The comments were made during the BBC’s Reflect and Represent talk at New Broadcasting House on Monday which aims to discuss the Corporation’s future vision.

    Mr Stephenson said: ‘I am diverse, in that sense (gay), and are there many portrayals of gay characters on television? I would say it’s probably one of the lowest (represented) areas.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569086/There-arent-gay-characters-TV-says-BBC-drama-boss-promises-commission-homosexual-storylines.html

    (What a surprise that the BBC head of drama is gay.)

       34 likes

    • Kyoto says:

      Maybe he should commission a historical 1970s drama about an organisation called something like PIE, and its close relationship with a marxist-front-organisation called something like NCCL.

      However, if Quisling Stephenson did commission it then it would be about how an group of oppressed homosexual pie-makers overcame oppression and discrimination to with, with the help of the NCCL, the UK national pie baking competition of 1979. And this would be just after Margaret Thatcher won her first election.

         32 likes

    • Phil Ford says:

      ‘…most female comedians just aren’t very good. I am a female, so I can say this…

      A pity to see another pointless homophobic pop on these boards to no obvious reason than to have a moan (I’m a queer – and a rightwing, UKIP-voting one, too, so I can say that).

         5 likes

      • IsItMe? says:

        Are you doing anything other than moaning?

        How about the BBC does something really radical? Forget about what colour someone’s skin is or whether they are gay or straight. Give people jobs on the basis of their ability. And commission dramas on the basis of their quality and entertainment value, not on whether they can be used to push some sort of PC agenda on to the public.

        Given that gays account for around 2% of the population, to say that there aren’t enough gay characters on TV is laughable.

           28 likes

      • Deborah says:

        Phil, please don’t take it personally. You see I have to agree with Isitme that female comedians are just not funny, except for Victoria Wood in the past tense as she is definitely past her best in the humour department, the others have never been funny at all.

           9 likes

        • DownBoy says:

          Harriet Harman is quite amusing in a sort of way. The elitist out of touch outrage I mean.

             8 likes

      • Les B Raycist says:

        Look on the bright side at least you’re not black.

           1 likes

    • Dave s says:

      We all know the reason. Cameron is a closet liberal and has never had any intention of giving us a voice over Europe and immigration. Vote at the EU election . Anyone but the Tories. Well UKIP really.

         20 likes

  36. #88 says:

    The BBC could not possibly avoid reporting the awful case of the IRA terrorist John Downey walking free from the old Bailey.

    But the BBC stance is interesting, as you might expect. The story, strangely relegated to a 4th or 5th ranking news item, does not address the fundamental breach of our democratic covenant that took place under Tony Blair i.e. that a Government will uphold laws to protect the individual and that the rule of law will prevail. Rather it is focussing on the ‘crisis’ that confronts the Cameron Government – Teresa Villiers, in particular, found the finger pointed at her on Five Live, yesterday, the BBC only seem to be making a passing factual reference to Labour in its news and online reporting.

    Once again, as with Harman and Co with PIE, as with Miliband Sr, the BBC instinctively move into their ‘defend Labour’ default position.

    Labour, it seems (Blair, Hain and Brown in particular) were involved in the secret, unconstitutional, one-sided appeasement of terrorists. But true to form the BBC would rather we look the other way and see this as a problem for Cameron. And they have already begun to examine, in some detail, not the mess he has been left with, but how he clears it up.

    A new Director General was supposed to have changed the culture in this hopeless organisation. All that has happened since he has arrived, is that things have got much worse and the left wing activists in the Corporation have simple become even more emboldened.

       36 likes

    • #88 says:

      Apologies for the typo. Should read; ‘simply become more emboldened.’

         2 likes

    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Yes, Huw Edwards on News at ten, kept rubbing in the point that some of these immunity letters were issued since 2010!!
      Shock horror, so blame the evil tories and ignore the oleaginous oompah loompah Peter Vain.

         26 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Yes indeed – ignore the ones who struck this odious, underhand deal and lay into the poor buggers who’ve been left to run with it.

        Bit like the 50% tax rate, circa 2010.

           11 likes

    • Doublethinker says:

      Changing the culture of the BBC is almost impossible because just about everyone they employ is of the liberal left outlook. Many of them have worked at the BBC for years with little or no outside experience and, of the few that have worked outside the BBC, several worked for Labour and none for the Toriese. Even if they have worked outside the BBC it has usually been for the public sector. In short the BBC is a ‘hot bed’ of the liberal left, filled with people whose only experience is to work for the state.
      If the culture were to be changed to one which was impartial and balanced, these folks would have to allow views which they strongly disagreed with, to be given a fair crack of the whip. They would only do this under duress and they would kick up an almighty stink and refuse to cooperate with the culture change and hence they would have to be sacked. Unless we hear that certainly hundreds, if not thousands of BBC employees, have been sacked and unless we see mass strikes at the BBC we can be certain that the culture remains unchanged.
      Culture change is not going to happen unless the BBC is broken up and exposed to the commercial world where if they don’t get advertising revenue or subscriptions they don’t get paid.

         26 likes

      • Dave s says:

        Which is why the BBC is so very vulnerable. Always the pendulum swings and as this country, England in particular, moves sharply to the right in politics and just about everything else the BBc is going to find itself with a problem.
        Wait and see. No need to do anything. Events will do for them

           3 likes

  37. AsISeeIt says:

    Six minutes of the sort of footage that really gets the juices flowing in the BBC Newsnight office.

    Jim Reed ‏@jim_reed Feb 23
    Amazing footage from Kiev from behind both lines. Four days old but really worth watching.

    [Jim Reed?] – @jim_reed BBC Newsnight reporter. Any tweets and RTs are my own views, not the BBC’s and all that.

    [Classy, respectful fellow, eh?]

    Jim Reed ‏@jim_reed Feb 23
    @ADogboy13 Yeah fair play to them. Got to be honest doubt I would have the guts.

    [Somehow I guessed that. Sadly, however, I can’t help but feel the scarcely concealed desire to see such scenes repeated closer to home. Just goes to prove that BBC journos love their ‘bang-bang’]

       2 likes

  38. Guest Who says:

    In other news…
    http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/another-suitcase.html
    ‘Tone went on to say the BBC should continue as it is because it is very good’
    Say it often enough, mate… Oh, sorry, you already do.
    ‘Who noticed they weren’t doing anything useful, and when ? ‘
    Anyone feel that’s the kind of question mere mortals would get expedited for asking, mere elected representatives get threatened with a BBC ‘audit’ by Chris Patten for having the temerity to raise, and NAO or PAC committees appear to draw the line at delving into too far?
    http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/going-down.html
    Before BBC staff members get too excited, this is more geographical than another FoI exclusion from the Rose inquiry.
    Given current market rate performance to date, if architects are still bemused as to a sensible solution, I think I have an answer that spares hearing any evil, seeing it or speaking it, in either direction:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Yu6lJst3lkM/Snt-1kmj-mI/AAAAAAAAEss/r433llZf-SU/s400/!_Hannibal_Lecter_!.jpg
    Given recent revelations, it’s possible some in the BBC may have access to the necessary fixtures and fittings quite quickly.

       4 likes

  39. Doublethinker says:

    On the Media Show yesterday there was a discussion about the BBC DG’s speech regarding the future of the corporation. It was apparent that the DG was angling for a revenue stream for the BBC to come from ‘consumers of content’ for all new technology usage.
    Of course when dealing with the BBC one needs to be extremely guarded about what they actually mean. In my view he could mean one of two things. Firstly, that if you had a device that could receive BBC content then you had to pay some form of tax that went to the BBC. This could most likely be a sort of Purchase Tax on all new technology that went to the BBC, regardless of whether you did or didn’t consume their output. Basically a one off License Fee paid up front. Or secondly, that he was talking of something very like a subscription for BBC content consumption of new technology platforms.
    Surely the first interpretation will be heavily resisted by the public and easily got round by buying abroad . If the second interpretation is correct, then if they can have a BBC subscription for new technology, then they must also have it for old fashioned TV consumption. If that is the case then I think contributors to this site will find themselves in the unusual position of agreeing with the DG, and we can celebrate the end of the state funded BBC and its use as a propaganda arm of the Labour party!
    Seems too good to be true doesn’t it. But the wise folks on the panel all agreed that the present funding arrangements were unsustainable. But I just can’t believe that the BBC or Labour would allow the BBC to have to fight for it living. I’m sure that , particularly after trying so hard to shield HH from those nasty people at the Daily Mail, Labour will find a way of keeping the BBC’s strangle hold on news and current affairs, otherwise it loses millions of votes.

       10 likes

    • #88 says:

      I suspect that we will be taxed on our internet access. A tax collected by our ISPs and handed over to the ever growing BBC monolith

         6 likes

      • Joshaw says:

        I’d like to see them try – could be their undoing.

        Computer users have got used to downloading a lot of material for free. Much of it’s illegal, but it’s still a fact. Any attempt to impose a PC tax to finance the BBC would be received with vitriol the likes of which the BBC hasn’t so far experienced.

           11 likes

        • Guest Who says:

          Agree.
          If our little nuclear family is anything to go on.
          The day I announced the TVL DD and hence SKY was biting the dust I was met with a resounding shrug.
          The missus could care less, and the teens haven’t watched anything broadcast on the box (Xbox images… different story) in years. They consider almost anything ‘targeted’ at them by UK broadcast media as lame jokes.
          Dr. Who they find embarrassing, as they do Sherlock. They can be tempted by Top Gear still.
          So, if it’s on the google box the BBC can do what it likes as far as they are all concerned, and if we’re better off as a consequence, all the better.
          However….
          Mess with online on the lappies and they will get deadly serious, especially as Uni looms.
          Paying to keep Byford in retirement bliss, Hugs in FoI lawyers and the staff of Newsnight in libel payment petty cash… when nothing the BBC produces interests them… by loading onto a t’internet free to everyone else on the planet…. not going to fly.
          They will sow seeds of discord that will make the whirlwind that got guys like me fed up with stunts from Savile to McAlpine, seem like a gentle breeze.
          I’d like to see ’em try too.

             4 likes

  40. Teddy Bear says:

    98% of the population in this country are not interested in gay sex. Quite a few of them actually find it offensive. Most don’t care what gay people get up to in the privacy of their own homes, and really don’t want to know. Certainly the picture of gay man using their parts to pleasure each other leaves a particular option that is not really attractive to consider by straight males.

    Yet the very small minority of gays seem to want to thrust their sexual mentality onto the rest of the population, as if they have a moral duty to do it.
    I find THIS offensive, and an affront to my human rights.

    THe BBC drama boss, Ben Stephenson, who just happens to be gay, thinks that licence fee payers should have more gay dramas featured.
    I think the quicker the BBC is privatised, and find out what the public really think of their social manipulation, the better.

    I say to the BBC “Stick it up your own arses t1933.gif

    ‘There aren’t enough gay characters on TV’ says BBC drama boss who promises to commission more homosexual storylines

       40 likes

    • JimS says:

      The best dramas on BBC in recent years have been Spiral, The Killing, The Bridge and Borgen.

      Homosexuals 0
      Good Stories 4
      Made by the BBC 0

         18 likes

  41. George R says:

    For INBBC: to understand about Syria, Islam and Jizya.

    INBBC seems to have trouble understanding the nature of JIHAD in Islam, in e.g. relation to the murder of Lee Rigby; so too, INBBC seems to have trouble understanding the basic Islamic concepts of ‘DHIMMI and ‘JIZYA’.

    1.) INBBC report:-

    “Syria crisis: ISIS imposes rules on Christians in Raqqa”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26366197

    2.) ‘Jihadwatch’ site can explain, Beeboids. Check it out.

    e.g.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/?s=dhimmi+jizya+syria

    and- ‘Islam 101’

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

       6 likes

  42. TPO says:

    Ex-Labour candidate secretly filmed men in shopping centre loo

    http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Ex-Labour-candidate-secretly-filmed-men-shopping/story-20718192-detail/story.html

    Bet the BBC can hardly restrain themselves from reporting this. Oh hang on. They’re not covering it at all.

    Is it because:
    1. It’s not “newsworthy”.
    2. Legal constraints a la Harman the PIE supporter.
    3. It’s not an Ex-Tory candidate.

       23 likes

  43. George R says:

    Will BBC-NUJ, ‘Guardian’, ‘Liberty’ publicly apologise, and reverse their political attitude to arrested Islamic jihadist, MOAZZAM BEGG, given his link to Lee Rigby’s Islamic jihadist murderer?:-

    “Activist linked to Lee Rigby killer has passport confiscated: Leader of Islamic pressure group stopped at Heathrow Airport amid claims of terrorism.”

    (Dec 2013.)

    “Moazzam Begg, a former Gunatanamo Bay inmate, had documents taken.
    “Home Office said it was ‘not in the public interest’ for him to keep a passport.
    “The department suspects he was involved in terrorist activities in Syria.
    “Mr Begg’s group, CagePrisoners, has worked with Woolwich murderer Michael Adebolajo.”
    By ROBERT VERKAIK

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527709/Lee-Rigby-killers-activist-passport-confiscated-Head-Islamic-pressure-group-stopped-Heathrow-Airport-amid-claims-terrorism.html#ixzz2uXdoZtmW

       8 likes

  44. Alan Larocka says:


    Celebrating Lee Rigby’s Death

       9 likes

  45. TPO says:

    Well, well, well. What have we here. Greenpeace founder blows whistle on global warming scam and admits fraud perpetrated by said Greenpeace.

    Is the BBC gagging to report this?
    Of course not, they’re not in the business of reporting news, just propaganda.

    “Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

    Moreover, the Canadian ecologist, who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, admitted that Greenpeace intentionally used faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet. More told the Senate committee that he decided to leave Greenpeace because it was more concerned with politics than it was with the environment.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/27/Greenpeace-Founder-No-Scientific-Proof-for-Global-Warming

       18 likes

    • TPO says:

      Further to the above:

      According to Moore, environmental groups like Greenpeace are not really concerned with the truth or the sciences that govern the earth as it evolves in the cosmos. Rather, he sees Greenpeace as a political organization with a left wing agenda.

      As Delingpole espoused: Watermelons

         19 likes

      • DownBoy says:

        Good find, TPO.

           6 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Everybody, but everybody, should read ‘Watermelons’.

        AND it should be part of the school curriculum to add just that little bit of balance to the AGW brainwashing that goes on within every subject that is taught at GCSE.

           3 likes

  46. Geoff says:

    Melanie Phiilips is on QT tonight, might be worth a watch for once, that is if commie editor Nicolai Gentchev allows a topical immigration question …

       17 likes

  47. Pounce says:

    The bBC yesterday went to great lengths in which to promote the message that those two fucking black murderous Muslims had nothing to do with main stream Islam (yeah right) and that Islam is a religion of peace. (Yeah right).

    Meanwhile in Syria the bBC is reporting this:
    Syria crisis: ISIS imposes rules on Christians in Raqqa
    A jihadist group in Syria has demanded that Christians in the northern city of Raqqa pay a levy in gold and accept curbs on their faith, or face death.

    So much for a fucking religion of peace then.

       30 likes

    • Teddy Bear says:

      Reading further down the BBC article they write:
      The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices – they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS’ conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed.

      RISK being killed??? Like it’s gamble depending on how charitable these terrorists are feeling.

      According to this article at Breitbart

      Held at gunpoint by an al-Qaeda offshoot in the northern Syrian town of Raqa, up to 20 regional Christian leaders on Sunday were forced to publicly chose between converting to Islam, signing an Islamist document formally submitting themselves and their community to servile, or ‘dhimmi’ status or face death by public decapitation.

      Hardly a risk.

         23 likes