1. George R says:

    “BBC licence fee debate has entered uncharted waters.

    As the Charter review nears and support for decriminalisation of non-payment grows,
    even supporters of the fee are wavering.”



    • Guess Who says:

      The fallback seems to be to give a bit on the busting chavs aspect.

      Interestingly, the Graun Ciffers are more prepared to go into broader issues.

      The attempts by the one or two of 141/7/200 on station to misrepresent the law and make daft analogies are so far going badly.


  2. chrisH says:

    The 9am newsreader on Radio 4 tells me that George Osborne is “trying to move the narrative from the defections to UKIP in his party, and towards the economy”.
    Naughty George…fancy trying to discuss the economy as a mere Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last four years.
    Now-we had Ed Balls and Ed Miliband in last week…now THERE was economic rectitude, competence and no sense of back story or history whatsoever.
    Clean slate-we are where we are-and who`s to say whether thirteen years of malice, grooming and sheer evil fiddling in the nations bloomers actually had ANYTHING to do with the mess that George has manfully been trying to stabilise. Blair, Brown and Miliband/Balls -no charges to answer…mid Staffs, Paul Flowers, PIE, Savile, Jo Moore, lost tax discs for the nation?…bloody Thatchs` fault!
    Only at the BBC…no Euro crisis whatsoever…vote Labour please, Jim and Evan would like that!


    • Guess Who says:

      Raising narratives and what political leaders are prioritising seems ‘brave’ by the BBC so soon after Ed not going anywhere near certain issues, such as economic ones.

      Sheds light on their agenda that they not only want to set a minor sideshow as a main issue, but are stamping their feet when ignored.


    • Thoughtful says:

      The economic recovery is a sham, achieved by the Tories mass immigration which has exceeded even Labours attempts.

      Mass immigration gives a short term boost to GDP which turns into a negative soon after. To keep the rotten Ponzi scheme on the road they need to import increasing numbers of migrants into the country, which is exactly what they are doing.

      There is no economic recovery, it’s a clever illusion.


      • chrisH says:

        Agreed, in that the Tories have ceaselessly bottled so much that needed doing.
        That said, after thirteen years of true incompetence and malice, the Tories have stabilised things.
        True that it`s the peace of the grave…and calm before the tsunami with chickens and albatrosses coming back to roost( err!)…but that we`re not in a perpetual Eurospin of decline is largely due to Hague and (dare I say) Brown.
        That we`re piled high with PFI debt, a poverty pimping set of union barons and a cly, venal elite at the BBC and the Guardian IS Borrown`s legacy though.
        The Tories have been crap-but we`re still standing(of sorts) due to their not crashing and burning as Labour do.
        Vote UKIP!


      • Essex Man says:

        Non EU immigration has been cut , but EU immigration is up, as most of the Euro Zone is in recession . Also remember that the Holland , Belgium, France ,Spain & Portugal ,all had colonies ,& the people from those countries ,if given passports by the former parent country ,can come to that country , France for example, & once in ,can live, & work anywhere in the EU. That is a big problem ,& not the governments fault, as it is part of various EU treaties .


        • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

          But it IS the Governments fault!
          It’s THEIR job to manage the economic and political situation.
          If they cant or wont do it, then they should get out and leave it to someone who can.
          Blame it on Europe? Give me a break!


          • Essex Man says:

            We cannot ,because we would be fined for breaking EU treaties , the government is responsible for up holding those treaties . London had to bring in a low emission zone ,because traffic was causing us to exceed EU emissions standards , that incurred another fine. The only way round it is to leave immediately or declare UDI . No Govt. is going to do that without, a referendum at any rate . Another thing is most people here think a referendum would be the end of the matter ,it would not, as we would still have to abide by certain rules, to continue trading with the EU , like Norway & Switzerland do . Also it is not given, that the country would actually vote to leave , we will have to wait & see . Personally I would vote to leave but , it may turn out like the Scottish referendum result.


            • A Teddy called Moh says:

              They can only fine us if we agree to pay. If the government simply either ignored the fines like France does or take the money fined from the subsidies we provide then what can the EU do? France ignored the EU for years by banning imports of British Beef and no-one did a thing about it. Italy kicked-out its immigrants against EU policy and no-one did a thing about it. The problem is our own left-wing Judiciary who enforce their own left-wing interpretation of the laws to suit their own political leanings and their own moral compass


            • Ian Rushlow says:

              From a legal perspective, for the UK to leave it simply has to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This allows for a negotiated agreement on withdrawal. Article 49A states “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” Both Articles imply that UDI would be acceptable (in a legal sense) should negotiations fail. There is no requirement or provision in EU law for a referendum – that is purely a domestic invention.


      • Englands Dreaming says:

        This is part of the smoke and mirrors used by pro immigration advocates about how immigration is good for the economy. It is hardly ever disputed – even by UKIP. But it is only referring to the total size of the economy; not surprisingly if you have more people working you have a bigger economy. But on a GDP per head basis it is typically marginal perhaps a bit + or a bit – and even when there is a positive impact, the economic benefit for the indigenous population is tiny.

        And this doesnt take into account the additional negatives of increased pressure on schools, health, housing etc.


        • RJ says:

          This is why wages are static even though GDP is up. I’ve yet to hear a BBC journalist mention it. The”country” might be getting richer, but the people in it are not.


  3. Maturecheese says:


    Whats going on here. This story has a date of, 23 February 2013 Last updated at 08:21? It is also third down the list for ‘read’

    Either this is a current story with the wrong date or it’s a bit of mischief making.

    And this for crying out loud 10th July 2012



    • Guess Who says:

      This BBC feature is now being openly mocked across the board.

      It is either being abused from within or being manipulated.

      Whichever it is the BBC won’t admit it and good luck anyone seeking to find out how yet another of their little secrets is configured.


    • Philip says:

      ‘Astronauts’ rocket for climate activists’ (reported in Sunday TIMES 28/09/14).

      TWO NASA Astronaut Scientists whose famous photographs of Earth helped to start the ‘environmental movement’ (in 1968) have stated ‘Climate Science is Bogus. The world has not got warmer for more than 15 years’.. said Charlie Duke ..’we helped start it (the environmental movement) but I do not agree with it’. Walter Cunningham (who flew on Apollo 7 agrees he said: ‘Climate Science is one of the greatest scientific fiascos of all time’. Both say photographs they taken have been ‘exploited’ by campaigners…


      Previously reported in the The Times 26/09/14 we learn that pseudo Environmentalists (i.e. non-qualified BBC ‘poltical’ activists and sponsored UN campaigners admit that ”Climate change could be a lot slower than forecast’! In a new paper ‘Climate Dynamics by Nicholas Cage (independent scientist) co-authored with Prof Judith Curry stated the difference between predictions by the IPCC and are significant. i.e. near half that quoted by the IPCC and over a much longer time period. This contradicts imposed ‘UK and EU government targets’ and faulty Co2 data being used to sponsor a climate of politics (left wing politics).



      • Richard Pinder says:

        At least fifty prominent NASA astronauts and scientists including at least three of the eight remaining moonwalkers Buzz Aldrin, Charles Duke and Harrison Schmitt have come out against the Climate science fraud. That’s 37 percent of Moonwalkers are now censored by the BBC.


  4. Old Goat says:

    07:00 “Today” news “ISIL fighters are within 6 miles of Baghdad”

    07:30 “Today” news “ISIL fighters are within 10 to 15 miles of Baghdad”

    08:00 “Today” news “ISIL fighters are very close to Baghdad”

    09:00 “Today” news “ISIL fighters were within 10 – 15 miles of Baghdad, yesterday”

    Confused? I certainly am.


    • Guess Who says:

      “You put your ISIL in,

      You put your ISIL out,

      You do the hokey-reporting

      And shake your stats about”

      Maybe their ISIL PR contacts are a bit more ‘real-time’ than the RAF has been minded to be, if possibly shy on reality?


      • Old Goat says:

        Yes, the RAF have been busy, haven’t they? Couple of sorties with two Tornado fighters, no bombs dropped. Are they just along for the ride, to keep their buddies from the USA company, one wonders? They don’t seem to be making much impression after all the hype of getting them involved.


        • Mat says:

          To be fair to the R.A.F they probably have to run any bomb dropping past the human rights /litigation /PR/UN/SWP/NUJ/UAF/Tell Mutty/W.I/DFS lawyers first as the BBC would be first in with the war crime /human interest angle for I.S-I-WIZZY brigade !


    • Ember2014 says:

      You can bet your bottom Bitcoin that the BBC reporter is nowhere near Baghdad and is simply regurgitating figures he/she has obtained from that excellent primary news source: Twitter.


  5. Umbongo says:

    Yesterday’s “news where you are” in London at 6:30 pm was another Labour Party political broadcast. Although it led (for 30 seconds) on the visit to London of HMS Westminster, the bulk of the programme (4/5 minutes) dealt approvingly with Labour’s “soak the rich” policies. We were shown, pictures of large houses in central London, clips of Miliband’s speech last week (this is “news”?) and then an interview with Danny Dorling (extreme lefty professor of “social” geography at Oxford) apparently approving Labour’s policy. As “balance” the BBC chose – to an estate agent (the most disliked profession – after MPs and journalists) to note that the mansion tax would disproportionately affect London. The piece ended on the commentator reporting that Osborne is considering making foreign owners of residential property liable to capital gains tax but implying that in his – the commentator’s – PoV this doesn’t really go far enough.
    This whole item – even if sort of topical – was not “news”. Moreover, it was presented as a case for expropriating assets from the law-abiding (who happen to be either rich or live in houses that, through no fault of the occupiers happen to exceed an arbitrary value). There may be a case for arbitrary theft of private property. However, a “news” programme is not the place to make it. Particularly a “news” programee edited and broadcast by an organisation statutorily bound to be impartial.


    • AsISeeIt says:

      “This whole item – even if sort of topical – was not “news”.”

      You are correct of course. I saw this BBC London report and it was quite clear that the item set out with the premise: ‘so, there are these rich people in London and politicians simply must do something about them – this is the lame attempt by George Osbourne….’

      BBC London is a blatantly left-leaning outfit. The only question is how do they get away with it?


      • Lynette says:

        They get away with it because people don’t think they can do anything about it and apathy rules. In fact if enough people protested and made a noise something could be done. Actually history teaches us that it is only necessary for one brave person to stand up against injustice and get a following for action to be taken.


        • Richard Pinder says:

          We cant do anything until we get Frazer Steel’s home address, its probably been found but hasn’t been published yet.


  6. Llareggub says:

    The Oklahoma moslem beheading convert, presented by the BBC as a worker who killed his colleague. Now compare the recent photograph with the one used by the BBC.




  7. Thoughtful says:

    Here is the response from BBC complaints about the continuing Jon Simpson lying saga. Note the continuing use of “we believe” despite the trust having told them not to use this:

    “Turning to the crux of your complaint, we have raised your concerns with the editorial staff at ‘PM’. They noted that there are passages in the Quran that suggest forced conversion is permitted, as you point out. That said, these passages remain subject to many different interpretations, with mainstream Muslim scholarship rejecting forced conversion as a method. We believe it was clear that John Simpsons was speaking about mainstream Islamic practice when referring to forced conversion in this report. ”

    There is no attempt to address or refute the bundle of supporting evidence I supplied, nor have they given any kind of third party evidence to support their point either.

    I sincerely doubt that mainstream Islam has rejected forced conversion, it’s just a convenient get out for Muslim apologists.

    They claim that it was clear that Simpson made it clear he was referring only to mainstream Islam in his report, see what you think:

    “Forcible conversion is not an Islamic tradition”.

    We believe the sky is pink, up is down, black is white etc etc !

    This is desperation stuff, clutching at straws to defend the indefensible, with their burning liberal beliefs meaning that they are unable to accept that there might be anything at all negative about the RoP and to defend a senior presenter who has lied on air in the cause of defending the RoP when it is misbehaving !

    Yet another letter to the Trust has been sent and no doubt there will be a predictable response.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘… these passages remain subject to many different interpretations”

      The BBC’s staff and clean-up kapos seem to be getting keener on the power of interpretation too.

      Combine that with belief and they pretty much can say, and justify (if only to themselves) saying anything about anything.

      What they may struggle with in the real world is when their beliefs and interpretations are questioned on where they inevitably fall, which luckily for them stays their little internal secret.


    • dave s says:

      Liberal do not need evidence . Liberals need only conviction and empathy and a certain disdain for reality.
      That is why despite the best efforts of Isis to convince everyone in the liberal media that they are really devout Muslims that same media will not take them seriously.
      It must be very frustratiing for them


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Well done for persisting. They appear to be digging a bigger hole for themselves in making further unsubstantiated assertions.


      • Guest Who says:

        Those dedicated to evidence over assertion must be penning a stiff note to the BBC about now.

        Might not need a stamp. Doubt the reply, if any, will be shared here either.


      • Chop says:

        It is not up to the BBC to “interpret” things, it is up to the BBC to report facts.

        Interpretations ain’t worth shit, when faced with hard, factual evidence.


  8. Jeff Waters says:

    Anyone know why Allegra Stratton is sat next to White Dee at a meeting of the Conservative Party conference?


    It may be nothing, but it seems a bit odd for a BBC journalist to be taking part in proceedings at a party conference, rather than just observing…



    • Thoughtful says:

      The image you show has no context, but it certainly isn’t the Tory party conference!
      Policy Exchange the advertiser in the background is a centre right think tank. This might be a fringe meeting where certain speakers / guests have been invited to answer questions.

      Allegra Stratton is married to James Forsyth political editor of The Spectator magazine – a Tory supporter hardly a surprise she’d be at the Tory conference.

      Are you trying to imply that there is right wing bias at the BBC?


      • Jeff Waters says:

        ‘it certainly isn’t the Tory party conference!’

        This tweet by the BBC suggests otherwise:

        I’m not alleging any particular bias. I’m just questioning the role of a BBC presenter in an event at which a prominent Labour supporter was speaking (and criticizing government policy).

        BTW, on the topic of Newsnight presenter bias, this tweet by James O’Brien leaves little doubt of his contempt of UKIP:

        The first rule of Ukip logic: there is no logic. But are they really happy to hand power to Ed Milliband?



        • Thoughtful says:

          Jeff if you re read my comment you will see that I said this was probably a fringe meeting which indeed it turns out to be. It isn’t the actual conference!

          In terms of the comment by James O’Brien this is the position that the Tories are taking, especially over the defection of Mark Reckless – a vote for UKIP would let Labour in.

          Again, if anything this is bias towards the Conservatives.


          • IsItMe? says:

            I noticed R5L letting the Rochester Conservative Party chairman have a long rant about how awful and dishonourable Mark Reckless had been and how he had let the Conservative voters of Rochester and Strood down.
            I was a bit surprised for a moment – someone standing up for the Conservative party unchallenged. But a moment’s reflection made me realise it was only the BBC playing its typical political party “Top trumps” – i.e. SNP/Plaid Cymru > Green > Labour > LibDem > Tory > UKIP > EDL.


        • noggin says:

          White Dee? … who the hell is that?


  9. Jeff Waters says:

    Whether a conference fringe meeting is part of the conference is a semantic issue and inconsequential.

    I’m interested in the role of the supposedly politically neutral BBC presenter at the event.

    As for O’Brien’s comment, it’s hard to argue that ‘The first rule of Ukip logic: there is no logic’ doesn’t show anti-UKIP bias.



    • AsISeeIt says:

      Benefits Street’s White Dee talks at Conservative Party conference

      Monday 29th September

      Benefits Street: What more needs to be done to help people into work?
      Allegra Stratton, Political Editor, BBC Newsnight
      Speakers:Mark Hoban MP,Steve Hughes, Head of Economic & Social Policy, Policy Exchange,Deirdre Kelly (White Dee), Television Personality, Benefits Street
      10.00 – 11.00 | Darwin Suite | Novotel Centre, 70 Broad Street, B1 2HT

      Click to access px%20conservative%20conference%202014.pdf

      Our BBC Allegra will have been working for a fee


    • Techno says:

      It probably looks strange to an outsider, but it is normal for journalists and TV presenters from all outlets to chair meetings at party political conferences. They just behave as neutral chair persons. I have seen it myself as I went to a party conference once and attended meetings like this.


  10. Guest Who says:


    As the BBC ‘analyses’ fiscal iniquities elsewhere.


  11. Jeff Waters says:

    UK national debt graph – https://twitter.com/ashmcgregor/status/516550332743442432/photo/1

    Up over 20% up since the election.

    The BBC should be going to town on the Tories’ failure to properly cut public spending. Maybe the reason they don’t is because they don’t want to create a public appetite for austerity.



    • Rufus McDufus says:

      Largely thanks to the £300bn QE that the government was already committed to when the coalition took power.


  12. Thoughtful says:

    I see Camoron has decided to attack the poorest and most vulnerable in society again by freezing benefit for yet another two years.
    He then crows about some of the lowest taxes in the world on business!

    I pay my tax and my National Insurance – on the flip side of that I expect that when and if I need it that safety net is there for me. If the government wants to decrease the cover paid by my National Insurance then the premiums should decrease pro rata.

    No one would do business with an insurance company which cut your cover while increasing your premiums, and we shouldn’t accept it from the government.

    If the state can’t afford the benefits bill then perhaps it shouldn’t have imported so many scroungers from other countries, or if people are swinging the lead then the amount should fall after a period of time.

    Yet again though Camoron protects the wealthiest in society – the pensioners.

    It isn’t just the unemployed he’s taking this money from though, it’s the low earners who receive help to afford various stealth taxes imposed by successive governments.

    I wouldn’t mind so much if the Tories were as tough on Political Correctness and the ridiculous diversity industry which is a parasite on both public and private sectors, but on social policy Camoron is further to the left than Labour ever were / are.

    It’s just yet more greed mongering, the most unpleasant side the Tories have !


    • Jeff Waters says:

      Thoughtful –

      What would you cut to free up money so you could give more money to the unemployed?

      I’d exit the EU and stop foreign aid, for starters. However, I don’t know if I’d give the money saved to the unemployed. I’d be more inclined to spend it on genuine investments in the economy, such as transport infrastructure, or on paying off some of Britain’s ever-increasing national debt.

      I’d also spend more money clamping down on illegal immigration, which will free up jobs for British nationals who are currently unable to find work for no fault of their own. Also, exiting the EU would mean we could ask hundreds of thousands of non-British citizens to leave, creating jobs for unemployed British citizens.



      • Thoughtful says:

        As usual with benefits there’s the usual leap to the unemployed, but that is not what the Tories are mainly cutting.
        It’s people in low paid jobs who can’t afford to make ends meet, or the sick and disabled who can’t work.
        Seriously, you think it’s fair and reasonable to attack the people who are trying, or through no fault of their own are incapable?

        Transport infrastructure? Like HS2 ? Unlikely to ever produce a financial return with projections which make the channel tunnel look like a wise choice!

        In terms of other transport infrastructure, the Tories have pulled so much funding that they aren’t being maintained properly!

        You might feel that reinvestment or reducing the national debt are worthy causes, but not the Tories. They see the money saved as an opportunity to reduce taxes for the super rich, or to fund a zero tax rate on the largely unearned untaxed capital in inheritance. This is an area which IMO should see taxes at 40% for the first £1 !


        • Jeff Waters says:

          ‘you think it’s fair and reasonable to attack the people who are trying, or through no fault of their own are incapable?’

          As a nation, we are deeply in debt, meaning that huge spending cuts need to be made.

          What would you prefer to cut? NHS spending? Fire service spending? Schools? The police? Social services? The armed forces?

          There are no easy answers. It would be great if there were a massive pot of money we could dip into to give everyone everything they want. Labour thought there was, but there isn’t, and never will be. Tough choices need to be made.



          • Thoughtful says:

            When we’re paying council chief execs, hospital trust chief execs, and head teachers of primary schools in excess of £100K there are certainly cuts to be made!
            GPs who earn £200K plus and jobs within councils which no one really knows what they are for.
            ‘Cohesion officers’ which is basically an admission multiculturalism isn’t working costing millions.
            Pensioners benefitting from gilt edged index linked final salary public sector pensions which they have never adequately funded. Police & fire officers retiring with million pound pension pots!

            All of the things you have mentioned have been cut, as has benefit – deeply cut.

            If you want the poor starving in rags on the street begging for scraps like happened before the welfare state, just so the very wealthy can be even more wealthy, then fine. Personally I’m not in that bracket so I’ll not benefit, but don’t think that any of these cuts are born out of a spirit of reducing the national debt because they aren’t.
            The ‘bedroom tax’ raised just £400 million, a pittance in government terms, but it’s made a lot of poor people destitute. Equally the council tax which has been levied on the unemployed has to be paid from benefits.

            At what point do you call a halt Jeff? You and I (& no one else) can live off unemployment benefit, it’s impossible.
            Why not just end it and let the unemployed starve to death ? The Tories might be able to cut another 5% of the very wealthiests tax bills, and you wouldn’t have that inconvenience of needing new homes to be built.

            It seems to me that you begrudge paying the unemployed and other benefits claimants even a penny! Woe betide you if it happens to you!


            • Rufus McDufus says:

              I don’t wish to defend council leaders etc. salaries but cutting those would barely make a dent in the deficit figures.


              • thoughtful says:

                As will a freeze in benefits Rufus. There seems to be a streak within the Tories to punish people on lower earnings, and both the Tories and Labour have loaded stealth taxes onto the working person. BLiar made this OK by handing the poor money in the form of tax credits – now they have the tax income they want to reduce those benefits meaning they are kicking out the box the poor are standing on and they can’t afford to live.


          • Doublethinker says:

            The first thing I would cut would be to reduce the Overseas Aid budget to zero. That saves in excess of 10 billion pa. Then I would move onto public sector pay and have an immediate across the board reduction of 5% for anyone earning more than £30k pa. That would save several billion more. Then I would say to all senior managers in the public sector that their bonuses would only be directly linked for the next 5 years on how much they underspent their budgets. The bigger the underspend the bigger the bonus and the lower next years budget would be. Any overspends would result in reduced pay, no increases in budgets allowed. This would lead to all unnecessary work and activity being stopped. I think that this would also save several more billions pa.
            I would also insist that all empty or partially used government and local government buildings and assets be sold off as well as privatising as many public sector services as possible eg the BBC.
            All of this is what any private sector company would do when facing bankruptcy , which of course is what the UK faces. The public sector has been shielded from economic realities for decades and lived off the backs of the tax payer.


        • stewart says:

          “It’s people in low paid jobs who can’t afford to make ends meet,”
          The best thing the government could do for the low paid is to not tax their income at all , I don’t know why some one hasn’t suggested that already ,oh hold some one has .


      • Arthur Penney says:

        Coming out of Europe would not release funds to pay off some of the National Debt or spend on ‘investment’ etc.

        All it would do would be to slow the INCREASE of the National Debt.


  13. Guest Who says:

    This an interesting internet share (nothing evident, or at least obvious on the BBC’s pages*… yet):


    Thank heavens no state organs here have staff trawling social media/critical blogs with their ‘we note’ A5 ring pads handy.

    ‘Don’t tell ‘im, Raed!’

    Have to say, ‘Palestinian Preventative Security Forces’ is quite the title to conjure with.

    ‘Palestinian Security Forces Spokesman Adnan Al-Damiri refused to elaborate on Qubbaj’s story’

    At least their spokesmen (doubt ‘person’ required there) do have names.

    Seems like there’s a Tell MADA. Probably not as high on the BBC’s quote go-to list.

    *What there was/is, was this;

    Boris in ‘utterly nuts’ UKIP warning

    Really a no-lose for the BBC there, no matter how its ‘no room for context’ headline via ‘quote’ taken.


  14. chrisH says:

    Start the Week began its usual liberal love-in with Karen Armstrong and her “defence of religion”.
    Only the BBC could think her a supporter of religious thought…an ex nun who ended up in academia by shilling for Islam, and scotching many of the basic tenets of the religious life.
    Anyway-Armstrong is happy to mention that the “Holy Scriptures”…the Old Testament and the Alcoran( Lonnie Donegans apt description of the Koran) were both bloodthirsty and violent books.
    Set aside the fact that there is little O.T violence-certainly when compared to the bloodthisty Koran anyway…and note that the Christian New Testament gets no mention whatsoever-clearly doesn`t match her criteria of scripture,because it` calls for no beheading of the infidel.
    You`d have thought that these Westerners with their reason and thought would mention the New Testament as scripture…but no, because it doesn`t match Islams call to violence.
    Shall we tell them that there are a few anti-Semitic quotes in the New Testament that the BBC and Hamas might wish to chew over?
    Best not.


  15. George R says:

    Obama and INBBC, and “underestimating” Islamic State.

    Beeboid Obama supplicants don’t analysis his limited admission on Islamic State; unlike ‘Jihadwatch’, they merely repeat it.


    “Obama: U.S. intelligence underestimated the Islamic State”

    [Opening excerpt]:-

    “Of course U.S. intelligence underestimated the Islamic State. U.S. intelligence is bound as a matter of policy to pretend that there is no Islamic jihad terrorism, and that when Muslims commit acts of jihad terror, they are misunderstanding their own religion and misapplying its tenets. That means that U.S. intelligence is forbidden to understand the enemy properly; is it any wonder that it underestimated the Islamic State?”




    “Obama says Islamic State was ‘underestimated.'”


    Obama Administration not only underestimated Islamic State,

    – it underestimated global Islamic jihadists, and

    – it underestimates the extent to which tenets of Islam motivate it all.


  16. Thoughtful says:

    The Osborne Austerity speech has been the headlines this evening, and I wonder if Cameron knew of it’s content before it was delivered.

    It seems to me that it is a suicide note for the coming election. There is no way that you can tell both the entire public sector, and the private sector low paid, plus those in receipt of benefits that they cannot have a rise in income until 2018 at the earliest.

    No one in their right mind is going to vote for that if they are in one of the groups affected.

    I’ve always thought that Camerons ambition has been to follow Tony BLiar onto the lecture circuit where politicians can make as much money in three lectures as they can as a government minister. I believe Cameron sees his time as PM as paying his dues / learning his trade, or a qualifying period prior to his career as a lecturer.


    • Guest Who says:

      Maybe in a blaze of light vs. years of heat, all will be revealed later…


      Given the PM has adopted Katz’ dire ‘slipway’ meme without the mockery it deserves, it is hard not to wish him as well as some of the tweeters to that thread are doing.

      Sadly I will not be watching. Let us see what the morrow brings.


    • Doublethinker says:

      It was predictable that the BBC reaction to the speech was to roll out an endless procession of people who would suffer dire consequences from the effects of George Osbourne’s very modest proposed cut. One chap even said that he might have to sell his car! Well no tax payer has ever funded my car so I don’t see why I should fund his! The safety net of benefits is just that, a safety net to alleviate the worst effects of being poorly paid or out of work.Its not so that you can live the same life style of those in work who are paying taxes to fund your life style.
      The best of all the analysis, if it can be granted such a title, came form Mr Peston who manged to say that the Tories were going to spend around £30 billion pa less than Labour in order to balance the books. Its as though he wants people to think that Labour has access to £30 billion pa more than the Tories without there being any consequences. He managed to avoid saying that Labour would either raise taxes to fund the £30 billion gap or borrow even more money.Basically they intend to do exactly the same thing as when they got us into this mess in the first place. But of course the BBC doesn’t want to expose the Big Labour Lie does it.


  17. Guest Who says:

    Not just the BBC to be sure, but as the wisdom of White Dee is accorded centre stage, this seems to have escaped the world’s most astoundingly uncurious, over-funded not-news machine.


    It is of course a case of (apparent… a lot of doubt) murder, with sentence actually by state execution, but one has to wonder how such as the BBC’s finest would be reacting at this stage if the conclusion was near in, say, a Texas penitentiary.

    ‘As Islamic courts do not recognize self-defense, especially from a woman, Reyhaneh was charged with first degree murder. The files from the court case are said to have gone missing.

    Missing files? As with Labour councils and the BBC, that sounds familiar. From April:


    Now, back to Miss Dee and her insights. Allegra must be chuffed to be showing Danny Cohen the support that can be offered women these days.

    And Brian seems won over despite himself…


    ‘Deidre Kelly – known as White Dee – charmed a packed fringe meeting at the Tory conference by appearing to agree with the party’s welfare policies.’

    Well, it sounds like a bit more than appearing to agree, which in turn may explain the reaction.


    • Not Henry Lenny says:

      The same fraudulent thief that stole £13000 on her council post and has since lazed under the guise of “depression” . The strange sort of depression that mysteriously vanished when better money came along . She is an utter disgrace and what the tories are doing appearing with her is a mystery to me . She represents a large part of what is wrong with the benefit culture of Britain today .


  18. Thoughtful says:

    BBC PM program reporting a French Muslim woman suing the French government for not doing enough to prevent French Jihadis leaving the country for Syria.
    Another woman interviewed said that there were no signs of what her son was going to do and that he just disappeared, the first she knew was when he phoned her from Syria.

    Not biased but a refreshing change of the ridiculous demands of Muslims that other people sort out their problems, which another admitted were impossible to detect !


  19. George R says:

    – contrasting reports on Ms Le Pen’s Front National party gaining two seats in Senate-





    BBC-NUJ’s “far-right” political line-

    “French far-right National Front wins first Senate seats”



  20. Guest Who says:

    War tends to get messy.


    It will be interesting how the BBC’s finest ME rubble-rousers navigate what inevitably happens when techno-power is eventually deployed against those none too worried about conventions and rules of engagement.

    The twitter feeds of ‘views my own’ Obamaphiles will also be interesting in comparison to when leaders they didn’t like were making the tough calls.


  21. Englands Dreaming says:

    Compare and contrast

    Evening Standard headline on its main online page
    “London Muslim arrested in Bangladesh over “IS recruitment” ”

    “UK ‘Islamic State recruiter’ held in Bangladesh”

    Seems beyond the Beebs investigative powers to name the “man” or provide a photo


  22. thoughtful says:


    When I first saw the headline link I naively thought the BBC might have been showing a different side “Asylum seekers may damage tourism” it said – how wrong I was.

    The usual diatribe against a concerned Tory MP for the town who is probably voicing the concerns of his constituents and will lose votes if he doesn’t say something.

    The drag on some ass hole from the refugee council who is a right liberal leftie who truly drank the Kool-Aid.

    He said: “Asylum seekers are people who have often fled horrifying experiences in their home countries.”

    Lie !
    Asylum seekers have a very low burden of proof to achieve, and if they do then they are granted refugee status. Asylum seekers are those who are not believed at their Croydon interview and are rejected. 85% of them lose their appeal.

    “Some have been raped. Some have been tortured. Many have witnessed the death of a loved one.”

    ‘Some’ might have, but it’s very few and far between. Many have not witnessed anything other than an interesting story.

    The Refugee Council said people should treat those who have “fled horrifying experiences” with “the dignity and humanity they deserve”.

    This is true, but it doesn’t say how we should treat those who have lied and cheated their way into this country in an attempt to fool the authorities, which these people probably have.

    A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those who need it.

    This is of course true, but there is no context and seeing as the Home Office has already refused refugee status to these people it is difficult to see how this is in any way relevant.

    This situation is only supposed to be short term, probably two weeks, so why the need to give it prominence or report it at all, or could it be because there’s a Tory not following the Political correct script?


  23. Philip says:

    Odd admission by the BBC in the Telegraph (26/09/14) in that they (BBC) admit to losing 10% of it’s core (35 to 54) daily listeners over the past five years – (currently 6.8 Million). BBC’s Jamie Angus (speaking at the Broadcasting Press Guild) said he has the solution. It includes ‘lighter news items’, stories on ‘entertainment’ and ‘technology’ as well as ‘gravitas’ in news items. He went on to state that a lot of people had stopped listening because of a preponderence of really difficult and distressing foreign news’. That, he said, was his ‘biggest challenge’. I read that and thought that is exactly the BBC mix of the new trendsetting’ NEWSNIGHT’ (now with R4 poltical cretin EVAN DAVIS) – which Jeremy Paxman said was dumbed down News and comment made by 13 year olds. And then we have the complete disregard of BBC complaints and false news stories planted for pro Labour, Pro EU, Pro Climate Change crisis, Pro perversity and Pro Euthansia, Pro Abortion, Anti Jewish and Anti Family, and a string of sexual delinquents going back 40 years in local Radio and TV presentation as well as incestuous ‘tours of management’ (of Labour Qaungos to Peers routine). And that is without the oft complained of ‘Anti-competitive’ practices to undermine commercial, Radio and TV stations. Yes the decline in Radio 4 listeners is due to the fact that we have all had enough of the BBC – Bloated-Biased-and-Corrupted. I cringe having to listen to Radio 4 News or Comedy as so called ‘entertainment’ that is anathema to many of us. No amount of ‘entertainment’ and pro Left political comedy is going to make this biased dross add up to increased Listeners numbers without raising the license fee to equal and match the Road Tax license for lorries.



    • dave s says:

      Pointless drivel from the BBC apologists. Abolition would give the economy a real boost. All that money left in the pockets of the masses. Just what we need if the BBC is to believed after Osborne’s speech. You know all that groaning on about austerity.
      I would love to hear the BBC lead the 9pm news with
      “For the good of the nation the BBC has decided to abolish itself”


  24. stuart says:

    i just dont get the bbc and radio 5 live,remember just a few weeks ago in america the blanket biased 24/7 coverage the bbc gave to that shooting of that young black man by a white cop in ferguson,top news for a week,why and i have my own ideas is there a total blackout and zero coverage at all about this poor 54 year old white woman who was beheaded at work in oklahoma by this black muslim convert quoting verses from the koran as he slaughtered her in the name of islam and tried to behead another woman but luckily for her he got shot by some off duty policeman,i am wracking my brain wondering why there is not a peep,no phone ins,nothing at all reported on this story on the bbc and radio 5 live,what are they trying to hide and why i wonder.


  25. thoughtful says:


    Somehow I doubt the BBC will be touching this story. They’re not going to want to publicise the fact that people are trying to smear their least favourite party.

    If you’re going to do something like that then you should at least be able to spell, and who the hell are URIP anyway?


    • Englands Dreaming says:

      Hopefully the teachers will look at the graffiti and start teaching the kids english.


    • pah says:

      It says UKIP not URIP. the tail of the ‘g’ in foreigner runs across the top of the ‘K’ in UKIP.

      Still looks like either an idiot wrote it, or it’s a smear, though.


  26. Voice of the Mysterons says:

    More ‘nature v nurture’ tripe from Horizon.

    I note how the female ‘scientist’ views nature as the main cause for male/female characteristics, even though actual science proves that brains are wired differently. After all, why let scientific facts get in the way of feminist propaganda. Evil men up to no good again!

    Remember when Horizon was a respectable scientific program, rather than a dumbed down vehicle for the liberal agenda?


    • thoughtful says:

      I’m not sure the starting premise is even right. They say that more females are wired to empathise and men to be ‘systemisers’.
      Most people are said to be somewhere on the scale between the two.
      Seems to me that this is an artificial construct to begin with, and the crossover between the two genders is sufficient to only render the two polar opposites as merely different. They might have been called A & B and not male & female, and had just as much relevance.

      Although it is slightly different there was debate in the 1960s over gender, whether it was Nature or Nurture which determines whether someone grows up male and female.
      The work of professor John Money with Bruce and Brenda Reimer conclusively proved that it was nature which was the determinant. The study is worth a read if only for the consequences of when scientific belief goes wrong.

      The work of Professor Milton Diamond proved that there was a physical difference in the brains of men & women called the ‘sexually dimorphic nucleus’ in males it is larger than females.

      He was able to show through autopsy that the brains of transgendered people were of the incorrect gender to their physical form.
      He was able to reproduce this condition in lab rats, and the Russians under Communism carried out experiments with pregnant women producing gay & transgender offspring (only under a left wing regime !)

      Our gender appears to be fixed as an on off switch. You’re either one or the other.
      Sexuality is largely similar with a three position switch
      The way we think however is much less fixed and on a kind of sliding scale between two points although it is I believe much more complex than the Horizon program tries to make it.


    • Merched Becca says:

      Watched it – and in a nutshell, total brainwashing crap.
      The way I saw it, It was almost trying to make the case that male and female are exactly the same but only different because of the way that kids are brought up. Girls ‘pink’ , Boys ‘Blue’.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      Only males have the Y chromosome and the Y chromosome is one of the fastest evolving parts of the human genome. To date, over 200 Y-linked genes have been identified. So it is obviously genetic, and males evolve quicker than females. This is what the BBC and its lefties have censored.
      The BBC science producer and ‘One Show’ presenter Michael Mosley has been identified as having a malign influence on the BBC in attempting to censor science, even Climate science on C4, and has successfully blocked the role of Astronomy in Climate science on BBC science programs, by denigrating Astronomers. So with him, you would expect selective censorship to be used to resurrect the Nature v Nurture debate.


      • Merched Becca says:

        A Million years of Evolution = Men – ‘hunters & defenders’. Women – ‘gatherers & mothers’.
        Feminist propaganda attempting to airbrush out ‘mother nature’.
        Simples !


  27. Dave666 says:

    The not very good “hotel of Mum & Dad” has just been on. Where yoofs living with Mummy & Daddy live on their own for a week. Cheap and nasty. However note when they draw up their budgets something features on both of them. yes money for the TV, I assume license.


    • Guess Who says:

      Hardly going to see them dismiss that cost as unnecessary simply by a) having no TV and b) only watching non-live broadcast via catch-up via the net. As our kids have done for years.

      I will need to brief them on how to handle visits by poorly informed or malign BBC commission-sales staff once at uni, as Watchdog seems unwilling to investigate the sharp practices many are allowed to maintain.


  28. George R says:

    INBBC insists, against all the evidence, that Islamic State is not Islamic!

    Even Guardianistas are almost catching up with ‘Jihadwatch’-

    “Schoolgirl jihadis:
    the female Islamists leaving home to join Isis fighters.
    Hundreds of girls and women are going missing in the west, reappearing in Iraq and Syria to bear children for the calipihate.”

    By Harriet Sherwood, Sandra Laville, Kim Willsher in Paris, Ben Knight in Berlin, Maddy French in Vienna and Lauren Gambino in New York.



  29. roland says:

    politacaly correct david cameron said week last that isil have nothing to do with islam or muslims and they are just monsters,ok then.lets refer to isil in future as the monster state.


    • Thoughtful says:

      Why do what the Fascist left want us to do? They’ve already decided to change their name by prefixing it with “the group calling itself” in an attempt to distance it from Islam.

      It is the ISLAMIC state any other description only seeks to hide the truth.


      • Guess Who says:

        Clever semantics again.

        ‘What some are calling’ as in ‘Bedroom Tax’ really wasn’t going to put enough degrees of separation in this time.

        So the full shroud gets pulled over by IS all on its own.

        Thing is, until IS went from u to non-u with a few hard to dismiss PR transgressions in excess of being just naughty boys, I’m pretty sure a fair few went along with the branding quite happily.


  30. Ian Rushlow says:

    Another liberal multicultural success reported by the BBC – there has been a rise in “UK” trafficking, slavery and exploitation (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29420184). Funny, doesn’t seem that long since they were crowing about how Britain had abolished slavery more than 200 years ago. Twice in the article we learn how “trafficking does not have to involve crossing international borders” – which means that this is precisely what it is about: a consequence of the immigration policy that the BBC enthuses. Meanwhile, take a look at this pure propaganda – conveniently available to download and print so it can be used in schools http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29415876.


  31. John Galt says:

    Did anyone else notice the cartwheels of delight from the BBC at Emma Watson’s UN speech. It was greeted as the rebirth of a more man friendly feminism. And there was great emphasis on a ridiculous threat posted by some saddo in his underpants about releasing nude pictures of Emma.

    Yippeee, feminism is relevant again.

    But she spouts all the same ridiculous crap about the glass ceiling and as usual for feminists avoids all the real issues facing (brown) women like “honor killings” and FGM. I guess she’s another feminist whose leftie multicultural credentials are more important.

    There’s a great post on Emma’s poor little rich western girl act called: “Cat’s Paw” at:



    • Guess Who says:

      No real surprise, but the trend of pointless organisations wheeling out celebs in suits to pontificate on the obvious if narrow (or plain gob-smackingly hypocritical in the case of Leo) box-ticks that garner lame stream media attention is gathering apace.

      It’s almost like they need each other to maintain the bread and circus delusions required to ensure their compelled funding flows.


  32. Guess Who says:

    Seems others have noticed several unique trends from the BBC, even getting in that ubiquitous spokesperson to explain how their curiously influenced back archive can end up to the fore as ‘news’ ((c) A. Newsroom Tealady).



  33. Thoughtful says:

    The lies of the Tories get worse !
    Camoron told us he was ‘the heir to Blair’ but despite his idolising of him, he is not in the same league when it comes to getting away with lies or oppressing the populace.

    The BBC have widely run the announcement today by Theresa May to ” ban extremist groups and curb the activities of “harmful” individuals”.

    This of course is a complete lie by the Conservatives, who have had five years in power to do something about Islamic extremism, and have chosen not to. Not only that but there have been accusations from Labour of a Parliamentary timetable so light on legislation that they called it a ‘Zombie Parliament’.
    Nor can it be the Fib Dems objecting, or the Tories would have hung them out to dry.

    If this is so important why wasn’t it introduced years ago when every one knew of the problems with high profile Islamic preachers?

    Theresa May will not introduce this legislation at least not in the form she is announcing it.

    The BBC were very low key interviewing her and failed to ask the pertinent questions, presumably they also know it’s populist rhetoric and is never going to be made law – they like the Tories don’t want the people to know that.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Sorry to disagree here thoughtful, but, they really DO want to enact this legislation.
      The target? Not the Imams, they will continue to be excused and defended by the yuman rites teams and the liberals.
      No, the real objective here is to silence the likes of the EDL. BNP, BRITAIN FIRST.
      and eventually ukip?
      Have I lost the plot? Do I need a tinfoil hat? Maybe, but be aware of the warnings.
      Bliar tried to get religious hate crimes enacted into law and failed thank fuck.

      Be afraid, be very afraid.


      • noggin says:

        Sadly, I have to agree, more “back of fag packet policy”
        from Camoron and co, the “kneejerk” brothers in No10 Sheesh! is there anything they won t lie about?, they simply can t be trusted on anything.
        It will simply give itself more levers to silence REAL
        free speech, imperative to the safety of our nation.
        As an example … R Spencer… prevented from coming
        to the UK, who would speak eloquently and TRUTHFULLY
        about just the situation that this and previous government prevented from being discussed incisively, and the REAL reasons for it.


      • Joshaw says:


        A further concern is that even if the legislation is introduced for the right reasons, which is viewing the Government very generously, the police might decide to go after the low hanging fruit and leave the true threat untouched. They have form on this.

        I don’t like viewing the police in this way but I feel that any other position has become untenable.


        • noggin says:

          yep! too true,
          Again referring back to that example
          Because Islamic organisations would have acted with the usual “herd” mentality, there could have been some kind of violence presumably.
          Not from Mr Spencer, but because of hair-trigger sensitivities of the ROP …
          Result … Ban Mr Spencer?
          The antidote this is more freedom of speech about the motives/reasons for this issue … not less.

          You cannot trust the Government on this, there is too much Islamic vested interest involved, at high levels, and …. they are abject, and clueless cowards.
          The police … sadly, tools of the state


  34. Llareggub says:

    This was my thought when I read the BBC account of Mrs May’s speech, with no reference to Imams and radical mosques, just something vague about overseas activities and lads being radicalised. This will be aimed at the BNP, EDL, Britain First, and possibly UKIP, who are now being branded as extremist, fascist, and far right by the UAF, Stand Up to UKIP, and other organizations favoured by this government and its opposition. University departments, with Islamic centres and researchers into extremism will provide details. Those who have attended Home Office seminars and meetings will tell you of the academics who always draw attention to the far right as the real problem. And not forgetting that Cameron has already excluded Islam from any form of extremism with the use of his logical fallacy which automatically removes Islam from any extremist taint. How can a religion of peace be extremist?



  35. DICK R says:

    BBC interviewing some semi literate female police officer this morning about the involvement with the cover up of the Rotherham child rape by muslims.
    No mention of the fact that they were fully complicit , in order to protect the Labour postal vote and hide the true facts from the public.
    The usual whitewash about learning lessons , improvements being made ,blah blah blah ,but as ever no prosecutions


    • Thoughtful says:

      Did she not use the usual public sector meaningless phrase always trotted out when they screw up – we take XXX very seriously when clearly they haven’t or they wouldn’t be here apologising !


      • DICK R says:

        She did not use the phrases , true , that has probably been coached out of her , but you knew instinctively they were not far from her lips.


  36. George R says:

    Re-INBBC’s sick political joke:-

    ‘Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims’ –

    INBBC has to report this:

    “Belgium tries 46* over Syria jihadist links”




  37. George R says:

    “Theresa May plans new powers to ban extremists from TV appearances”


    If there were cut-backs in Islamic extremists on INBBC, how would it fill
    its current affairs programmes?

    Will May ban Douglas Murray first?


    • RJ says:

      It’s already illegal to stand in a public place and quote Winston Churchill. How many extra powers does she need?


  38. Thoughtful says:


    This is the man who leads ISIS.
    Everyone should read this Wikipedia article so that they understand exactly what is driving ISIS and theology behind it.

    Al Baghdadi is the new Caliph and claims direct descendancy from Mohammed.

    “Al-Baghdadi is believed to have been born near Samarra, Iraq, in 1971.[14] According to a biography that circulated on jihadist internet forums in July 2013, he obtained a BA, MA and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad”

    Probably one of the most qualified Muslim leaders ever in this world, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that he knows more about his religion than whitey lefties who seek to discredit him.
    It’s pretty obvious that plenty of Muslims believe he knows his stuff too judging by the numbers who have travelled there and those who would like to.

    With this information it is so easy to discredit the Fascist lefts lies, all you need do is to gen up on the leader of the gang !


  39. Barlicker says:

    I didn’t watch Evan Davis’s debut on News Night last night since I long since stopped watching the Katz Show. However, I’m not surprised to learn that the Guardian is absolutely thrilled with him. See if you can stomach Mark Lawson’s nauseatingly gushing “review” (or is it a love letter?):


  40. Essex Man says:

    I hope all you Ukippers enjoy the next 5 years living under the Jackboot of Millitwat, Harperson , Balls n Chukkey & the EU , with more mass immigration , with Scots Labourites voting on English laws , cos that is your fate . Their will be no referendum , because a vote for ukip will let labour in . I will be residing in the South of France , seeing out the 2 years before Sarko or another UMP candidate take over the French Presidency ,even Marine Le Penn might make it to the high office . But al bbc will have won, & you are all playing into their hands.There will be lots of champers bottles littering New Broadcasting House , coupled with a massive increase in the licence fee .The Bbc will be fired up, to constantly rub your noses into it. Your fate awaits you .Enjoy .


    • Joshaw says:

      But on that basis, I don’t think anything would ever improve. Voting Tory out of fear is no way to live. A little like a feuding couple sticking together out of fear of separation, and wrecking their lives in the process.

      I’m not convinced about Miliband’s chances anyway. Voting UKIP is not risk free, I admit, but nothing worthwhile ever is.


      • Merched Becca says:

        If enough people vote UKIP, whatever party gets to be the next government will get the message, and so will the rest of Britain.


        • Essex Man says:

          Three or 4 Ukip MP`s will hardly frighten Millitwat , there maybe more Green`s or SNP MP`s than Ukip . It is what the polls, in the marginal seats are saying & Europe is not that high on political problems unless you are Ukip . If Labour win them then ,thats it, NO referendum .


      • Mark says:

        A split non-socialist vote = Labour getting a majority with under 35% of the vote.


        • Epic says:

          They could get votes from Labour too. Ex-Labour voters might not want to go Tory but they might flip to UKIP.
          The more useless Milibananas is and the more reluctant Liebore is to talk about immigration the higher the chances of Labourites turning into Kippers. The English MPs for English laws thing also plays well in traditionally labour voting areas.
          Many Scottish labour voters might go SNP because they’re pissed about losing the independence referendum and annoyed Labour was against it. Labour needs Scottish MPs to get a majority.

          In summary the whole thing could turn out to be one of the least dull general elections of this century.


    • joeb says:

      Do you keep voting tactically to stop Labour getting in? For how long? Forever? And have ‘Socialism Lite’ instead? Yeah, great deal, there. The only way UKIP or any alternative can make any headway is by people voting directly for them. Does that mean Labour get in at the next election, and we get everything you’ve listed? Yes it does. Labour will get in and wreck the economy; everyone will suffer, and worse than the last time. You watch. When the global economy turns down in ’16…

      But here’s the thing. Socialism is dying all over the world, and has been for years. Another Labour government – and perhaps even another after that – will destroy socialism in this country. We CANNOT get to the other side of this without more pain. Political change NEVER happens without disasters first. Otherwise, there would be no reason to change, right? The last financial crisis has brought the world to the point it’s at now. The next disaster pushes it further, which includes the death of socialism. I’m talking 15-20 years. Don’t think it can’t happen.

      But expect them to put up the mother of all fights. They will NOT go quietly into the night. Expect to see masses of civil disorder all over the world, particularly in Europe. We’re already seeing their brownshirt footsoldiers on the streets (UAF, SWP etc), and nothing much has happened yet. You wait until it all kicks off – then you’ll see what sort of country this has become.


      • Llareggub says:

        Trouble is that if we vote a Tory government in we will get Milliband’s policies, plus open door immigration, tightening up on freedom of speech, adoption of UN policies on hate speech, undermining the morale of our army, cultural Marxists running education, multiculturalism, and certainly no referendum on the EU. Progressive Tories will eliminate UKIP by fair means or foul, and the BBC will continue to set a left wing agenda.


    • stewart says:

      So just keep voting for the same bankrupt liberals one slightly less fauxcialist than the other?
      Yours is the council of despair, a future in which nothing will change. Dave will open the door to immigration just as wide Ed he’ll just lie about it, he’ll attack traditional values just as much as Mrs Dromey he’ll just do it more smoothly and he wont give you a referendum on anything he’ll just find another excuse not to
      We UKIPers don’t want either of them so that puts the ball in your court
      Remember vote Tory get Labour .


      • Thoughtful says:

        Funny but Theresa May actually described the Tory party, and the UK as ‘liberal’ in her speech today.


        • Ian Rushlow says:

          To me, ‘liberal’ is a term of abuse, somewhere between paedophile and estate agent in the hierarchy.


    • TigerOC says:

      So you also got the email from Tory Party HQ too. Important: if asked about recent defections to UKIP please ensure that you convey the message that a vote for UKIP WILL RESULT in a Labour government and no EU referendum.

      It is probable that UKIP will have 2 to 3 MP’s before the next election.

      Guy of Guido Fawkes was on the High Street of Clacton a few days ago and could not find a single person who was going to vote Conservative.

      It is probable that UKIP’s performance will split the vote som much there will be a coalition government involving UKIP


    • Doublethinker says:

      Agree. In a Tory seat a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. If you can’t stand the Tories and live in a Labour seat then by all means vote UKIP. But if you want a referendum and want EVEL vote Tory. Then after the election at every by election vote UKIP but don’t let Red Ed in because he will certainly want to impose Marxist policies on the UK and refuse both EVEL and a European in out referendum.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      I live in a solid Tory seat, the only way that is going to change is if we have a combination of Labour and other voters, as well as people who did not bother to vote, join the patriotic Tory voters who have gone over to UKIP, to produce a possible change, but a change that could only mean a UKIP victory.

      The Tory party membership has been decimated, the party has regressed back one hundred years, no one in the party can now progress to the top unless they went to the Bullingdon Club, and you can see from his expression that Cameron has contempt for any Tory MP with working class heritage from David Davis downwards. Usually this would mean that it would motivate the Tories to get rid of Cameron, but instead, they can simply defect to UKIP, as UKIP is the safety valve, keeping Cameron as leader as everyone else in the party leaves to join UKIP. Cameron won leadership of the party, a European election and a General Election, using broken cast iron promises on Europe, and he is trying it on again.

      Thankfully, I have never been fooled into voting for this charlatan.


  41. Essex Man says:

    Yeah Ok , but I don`t want to live under Labour ever again , not for even 3 seconds . By the time your scenario ever comes to fruit , if it works, I will be dead or about 90 years old . Not prepared to take that risk, & in my opinion its a last ditch nuclear option , that might fail , & I got to have 20 years of Labour, to see if that ever happens . Thanks but ,No thanks , too big a risk, & life would be Hell on Earth ,here in England. Labour would introduce a `Scorched Earth Policy` on all white English people .They might even have Gulag `Re education Camps` I am sure Harperson would love that !


    • joeb says:

      You’re going to have to. There’s no other way. No pain, no gain.

      Nowhere in history – not with the Athenians, the Romans – nobody, nowhere – has political change happened unless preceded by economic disaster. Economics first, then political change. That is just a stone cold, irrefutable fact. And that is heading our way, when the Sovereign Debt Crisis rears its head for real this time, not the practice run of a few years ago.

      Things are going to start changing dramatically from the middle of this decade – mark my words. I’m not saying we’ve got twenty more years of Labour, definitely five, hopefully not ten, but it could happen.

      If you don’t want to live here, you may want to move to New Zealand, where the equivalent of the Tories has just won the GE with 49% of the vote. The Labour party got 24%, I believe.


      • deegee says:

        How does the American Revolution fit into that theory? Economically, things were excellent. Otherwise the cry would not have been ‘No taxation without representation but No taxation. The economy is in the toilet and we can’t find money to pay taxes.

        How do you explain the lack of an economic disaster in Toussaint Louverture’s successful slave revolt in Haiti ? Slaves are by definition outside the economy. Indeed they only make sense in a profitable economy. An economic disaster has no room for slaves.

        BTW New Zealand is a lovely place, especially if you have a thing for rain and sheep but like most democracies based on the British model the government changes hands quite frequently between Labour and Nationals. Expecting the government to remain Conservative is a little like waiting for an economic disaster for political change.


        • joeb says:

          You don’t call the taxes of The Stamp Act, The Sugar Act, The Quartering Act, The Townsend Duties, and the East India Company being given tax-free status – without any representation for the colonists in the UK Parliament an economic disaster? I certainly do. That’s why they ended up with a revolution! Economics first, politics afterwards. Politics never comes out of the blue. Why would it? It doesn’t mean only if we collapse into Mad Max, then we get change. Economics always comes first is the point.

          So you think working for nothing is not an economic disaster for those people who were slaves? Interesting! Economics, followed by politics (a revolution), again.


    • stewart says:

      So your just trying to stave those things off ( because they will come eventually under a Tory government)?
      I’m not sure even that will work, If Dave gets in he’ll shift even more to the ‘left’ (what ever that means now)
      Think on this- when you voted conservative last time did you imagine that Dave would enact the pantomime of ‘gay marriage’?


      • RJ says:

        I don’t want a Labour government and all its PC baggage – high taxes, high spending, high immigration, high levels of EU interference, etc, etc

        But I don’t distinguish between Miliband’s Old Labour and Cameron’s New Labour. Well, perhaps the difference is that Miliband will stab me in the front while Cameron will stab me in the back.

        If the economy is all important there’s still no real difference between them. We’ve had 4 years of “cuts and austerity” and GDP is now rising rapidly, but the government is still borrowing at a faster rate this year than it did last year. So much for fiscal competence.

        On other promises; Cameron promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands – well its now 56 X tens of thousands. There was a promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – didn’t happen. In reality there couldn’t be a referendum and we can’t control numbers of immigrants, but that didn’t stop Cameron making the promises.

        In selling this country to the EU I don’t doubt that Cameron will get a better price, but a lot of us don’t want to see our country sold out.

        On every aspect of the debate the BBC is on the side of the big state/Quislings, and not on the side of the people. It is part of the problem not part of the solution – with not even a pretence of neutrality.


  42. George R says:

    BBC-NUJ has joined the ‘love-in’ on Clooneys.

    Note that BBC-NUJ merely describes Mrs Clooney as “human rights lawyer”.

    “Amal Alamuddin: George Clooney’s Anti-Israel Chick Asked by UN to Investigate
    Israel ‘War Crimes;’ Turns It Down, Attacks Israel”

    By Debbie Schlussel.

    (Aug 2014).



  43. George R says:

    When will INBBC do update on the non-Muslim, white victim of her Muslim,
    Islamic jihad beheader in Oklahoma?:-

    “FIRST PHOTOS of Oklahoma Beheader’s Victimm Colleen Hufford”
    – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/first-photos-of-oklahoma-beheaders-victimm-colleen-hufford.html/#sthash.Uf84qF1j.dpuf


    • George R says:

      Perhaps because the photos will also remind people that this is about a black Muslim man
      beheading a white, non-Muslim woman.


  44. noggin says:

    from earlier in the thread. … Re T May/R Spencer ban.
    Because Islamic organisations would have acted with the usual “herd” mentality, there could have been some kind of violence presumably.
    Not from Mr Spencer, but because of hair-trigger sensitivities of the ROP …
    Result … Ban Mr Spencer?
    The only antidote to this is more freedom of speech about the motives/reasons for this issue … not less.
    You simply cannot trust the Government on this, there is too much Islamic vested interest involved, at high levels, and …. they are abject, and clueless cowards.
    The police … sadly, tools of the state ”
    hmmm … I rest my case!

    UK Home Secretary Theresa May:
    Islamic State’s actions “have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran”

    ” as far as the bemused T May is concerned, Britain faces equivalent threats from “extremists on both sides,” a fantasy she has fostered by banning Pamela Geller and me from Britain, as if we were the equivalent of the preachers of hatred and murder whom she has sometimes banned but all too often let into the country”
    “by fostering ignorance of and complacency about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, Theresa May has hastened the day when chaos and bloodshed will engulf the streets of Britain”

    London Imam gets shot down by R Spencer,( could so easily be T “Imam” May).


    • noggin says:

      So that’s Camoron Hammond, Brokenshire, Johnson, Vague, T May …
      hope that all that muslim dollar is worth it!

      Theresa May has decided this in advance:
      “the ideology of extremism and terrorism is the problem;
      legitimate religious belief emphatically is not.”

      Click to access prevent-strategy-review.pdf

      Foreword by Theresa May.


    • lmda says:

      I particularly liked the interviewer’s description of the EDL as “balaclava-wielding thugs”….


      • noggin says:

        The item in question, might not be “wielding” but definitely multi purpose 😀


      • Rufus McDufus says:

        Doesn’t someone “wear” a balaclava? Or did the interviewer mean the EDL hit people gently with their woollen balaclavas?


  45. George R says:

    Of course, INBBC’s Islamophilic political position puts it on board with Cameron-May-Clegg-Miliband-Obama-Islamic interests.

    “UK Home Secretary Theresa May: Islamic State’s actions ‘have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran'”
    By Robert Spencer, today (still banned by Ms May from entry into U.K).


    • George R says:

      -from Robert Spencer (above)-

      “The imam Theresa May weighs in on a question about which her fellow imams, Barack Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron, Philip Hammond, Tony Abbot et al, have already spoken — a veritable ulama of renowned Islamic authorities. Her fatwa echoes theirs: The Islamic State’s ‘actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran. What they believe has no resemblance whatsoever to the beliefs of more than a billion Muslims all over the world.’ What do you bet that Theresa May has never opened a Qur’an in her entire life, and would be abjectly incapable of defending these assertions?

      “The caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has a PhD in Islamic theology. Who is likely to know more about Islam — al-Baghdadi or May? The Islamic State’s actions of kidnapping and enslaving Infidel women are justified in several places in the Qur’an (4:3; 4:24; 23:1-6; 33:50); its practice of beheading is also justified in the Qur’an (47:4; cf. 8:12); its demand of tribute payments from non-Muslims is likewise in the Qur’an (9:29). Perhaps may could debate Anjem Choudary on this question. That will never happen, of course, but if it did it would open a great many people’s eyes in ever so sleepy, blinkered, willfully ignorant Britain.”


  46. TPO says:

    The filthy pernicious disease that is the BBC is at it again rewriting history.
    Not content with a perpetual poisoning of democracy in the UK they are supplanting historical fact with fiction.

    Earlier we had the preposterous, flaccid brained Lisa Jardine uttering “In my search for understanding the motivation of those who joined the race to produce the bomb whose use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalled the world, I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so.”

    Fancy That!

    Now we have the BBC being dragged back to reality from their persistent attempts to deride and smear Florence Nightingale in favour of their “multi culti” heroine Mary Seacole (Back to the black is good, white is bad meme)

    “CBBC sketch ‘inaccurately’ painted Florence Nightingale as racist, BBC Trust finds”

    This exposes the BBC lies and distortions and the following comment encapsulates how vile the BBC has become:

    “The original complaint was made by members of the Nightingale Society, including Prof Lynn McDonald and Dr Eileen Eileen Magnello, who argued it was unfair to bolster Seacole’s achievements at the expense of Nightingale for reasons of “political correctness”.
    Prof McDonald said it had been a “long struggle” against the BBC, which had fought the accusations “all the way”.
    “They seemed to think that because Horrible Histories is funny, it doesn’t matter if it is inaccurate and you can just malign people,” she said. “It is thoroughly dishonest. The portrayal of Mrs Seacole was a complete fabrication, and it made Florence Nightingale out to be a racist.”

    A spokesman for the BBC said: “We note and accept the findings of the Editorial Standards Committee.
    “The intention of this “Horrible Histories” sketch was never to undermine the reputation of such an important historical figure like Florence Nightingale, but to open up a discussion of some of the attitudes of the time.

    Utter bollocks as usual from a BBC liar. It was always their intention to promote the fallacies surrounding Seacole over the incontrovertible facts concerning Nightingale.

    An exposure of the BBC myths can be found here

    Lessons in lies: How the BBC, school text books and even exam boards have twisted history to smear Florence Nightingale and make a saint of this woman

    The most telling piece here is “… it had been a “long struggle” against the BBC, which had fought the accusations “all the way”.
    You really have to smash the vermin in the face before they admit to what they are really up to.


  47. Oldbob says:

    My dearest wish is that I live long enough to see the whole treacherous, stinking, festering heap of left wing shite that is our national broadcaster, brought crashing down.



  48. George R says:

    Is Beeboid CASCIANI now acting as agent for Anjem Choudary?:-

    “Mr Choudary met me on a London street to denounce Parliament’s decision to join military action in Iraq.”

    “Analysis: Can extremism plan work?”



    • George R says:

      What is INBBC policy on the real threat from Islamic jihadist enemy,
      which is at war against us?

      Apparently, it is this:-
      INBBC believes that Islam will become politically benign if we continue to appease it.
      And they continue to believe this dangerous Utopianism,
      regardless of the politically polar opposite reality.


  49. The Old Bloke says:

    So there I am listening to the Archers on Radio 4 and two nights running that well known phrase or saying “Climate Change” get an airing. Sigh. What “Climate Change”? With dropped shoulders I then find myself listening to the live version of *Front Row* and they have some “well spoken” lady talking about her short stories with one being the *assassination of Margaret Thatcher. Hmm. “where was this going” I thought? Yup you’ve guessed it correctly. Yet another dig at the late prime minister, but this lady thought it quite right that it was O.K. to assassinate Lady Thatcher, when she stated that “who wouldn’t”? (Audience laughter) Oldbob, you are right. The BBC is a treacherous, stinking , festering pile of Left Wing shite.
    And I’m sooooo glad that for the last eight years I have not donated a single penny to it.


  50. Geoff says:

    BBC bloody Points West devotes half of its 28 minute show to the ‘missing’ ‘Bristol’ schoolgirl, we’re told Bristol ‘is worried about her’ ….

    Really? all of Bristol? the only thing that I’m worried about is that she might find her way back and I would imagine that Somerset and the rest of the area that Points West serve couldn’t give a toss either. Its high time that ‘local’ programming started being just that rather than the metropolis centric diverse ‘aren’t immigrants great’ crap we’re served.