Morning all. Time for a brand new week and a brand new Open Thread! The floor is yours!
START THE WEEK OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- tomo Nov 5, 04:42
Start the Week 4th November 2024
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1853639713380266379 - Eddy Booth Nov 5, 01:33
Start the Week 4th November 2024
“Plans to ban smoking outside schools and hospitals” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79ze8gv1w4o “The Tobacco and Vapes Bill would also make it impossible for… - JohnC Nov 5, 01:25
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Doctors paid £200,000 overtime to tackle NHS backlog https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0lkxl7061o And once again the BBC use this 100% fake, staged left-wing… - Eddy Booth Nov 5, 01:03
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Joe Rogan and Elon Musk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qZl_5xHoBw&t=4566s Timestamp, they discuss illegals being moved to swing states Love it if trump can… - JohnC Nov 5, 00:28
Start the Week 4th November 2024
The first thing they should teach is that classing a dislike of Islam as a ‘phobia’ is gross misinformation. The… - StewGreen Nov 5, 00:08
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Who is this woman ? https://twitter.com/realmrsthatcher/status/1853336135990407414 Well Twitter isn’t helping by refusing to embed this tweet . you’ll have to… - StewGreen Nov 4, 23:43
Start the Week 4th November 2024
the female/male boxer Imane Khelif, is trending Piers Morgan is convinced the leaked report is true Libmob media call it… - vlad Nov 4, 22:35
Start the Week 4th November 2024
Yep, let market forces decide whether the ‘customers’ want DEI ‘firepersons’ or fireMEN who actually get the job done. PS.… - vlad Nov 4, 22:21
Start the Week 4th November 2024
@Fedup2 – The results are already in. They were decided in 2020 by Obama’s gang of crooks. But I don’t…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Is INBBC trying to hide away the latest UK arrests of Islamic jihad suspects?
1.)
‘Jihadwatch’-
“UK: Six more Muslims arrested by counter-terror police”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/uk-six-more-muslims-arrested-by-counter-terror-police/comment-page-1#comment-1134192
2.)
INBBC-
“Six arrested by anti-terror police”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29610742
Supplementary.
“Arrested, sister of ‘5-star jihadi’:
Five family members held by terrorism officers. ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2791994/three-men-three-women-arrested-anti-terror-raids-london-south.html#ixzz3GCLYtpJd
Newsnight: inflation is startling low and may lead to problems!
The pint glass is always 3/4 empty and full of crap, according to the BBC, when the Tories run the economy.
Not only Rotherham Pakistani Muslim sex crimes against children… now Manchester-
Will BBC-NUJ, with all the resources of Salford Media City at hand, now follow up
ITV News’ investigative report?:-
“ITV News investigation finds hundreds of child abusers walking free in Manchester
due to police failings.”
(inc video clips).
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-14/itv-news-investigation-finds-hundreds-of-child-abusers-walking-free-in-manchester-due-to-police-failings/
Well George it is … “the norm” not the exception, as was recently revealed.
The question … what are we going to do about it?
Trust … Mr Petrodollars best friend … Camerimam? ,
how about P “Hafiz” Hammond?, T “Masjid” May?
deny/appease, deny/appease, deny/appease.
…. won t be long, remember our police running away from a muslim mob?
Sweden – a haven for terrorists and traffickers?
http://www.d-intl.com/2014/09/29/swed…
Supplementary-
“Downfall of Islamized Sweden: Borrows 10,000,000 kroner per hour
to finance Muslim immigration”
By Nicolai Sennels.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/downfall-of-islamized-sweden-borrows-10000000-kroner-per-hour-to-finance-muslim-immigration
-And Sweden is still held up as the Utopian socialist model for society
by Labour Party/BBC-NUJ!
It’s been terrifying for a long time, and this latest video puts it starkly and truthfully. Norway and Denmark are also committing national suicide. The Saudi’s Wahhabi world plan to install islam widely and irreversibly from Iceland and Canada, to Chile, Australia, in West and East Africa, etc. and to promote extremism elsewhere is succeeding fantastically through the stupidity of western governments.
It’s been terrifying for a long time, and this latest video puts it starkly and truthfully. Norway and Denmark are also committing national suicide. The Saudi’s Wahhabi world plan to install islam widely and irreversibly from Iceland and Canada, to Chile, Australia, in West and East Africa, etc. and to promote extremism elsewhere is succeeding fantastically through the stupidity of ‘western’ governments.
Pat does not seem to like Sweden.It is hard not to agree. Such stupidity from a nation deserves it’s reward.
Sad to say it but Sweden is finished. First nation in history to voluntarily die off through an excess of liberalism.
OT
Control the borders – the Australian way. No messing.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/14/australia-launches-impressive-border-contol-message/
A message to Tory readers ….
Given that there are many Tory supporters following this site, and no doubt, Tory MPs. What is our Prime Minister going to do about Al Beeb and its Bias?
The Tory party is the problem. Not UKIp or us. On all important matters it is just another party of the liberal elite. Just why the BBC attacks Cameron is odd. Classic misdirection?
“The Tory party is the problem”
oh and “elites”, being the operative word, not in fiscal endeavour, not in management, not in moral character, not in social care for the poorest most vulnerable in our society, must be their self belief, and grasping self valuation, …. Self-servatives, yep! that name does fit.
Ukip won`t close the Bbc , but the Conservatives may force the Bbc to slim down, if they win the next election , if the right vote is split & Millipeed wins , its win win, for the Bbc ,£180 licence fee for starters , you Kippers won`t win the election , & we get the outcome which is really going to rub the rights nose in it, Tory & Ukip. If you can`t see that then ,just wait & see , with Millipeed its going to be worse than Armageddon .
Then the country- that is the shires- will be ungovernable. UKIP is the expression of a mood of real anger that is not going away. Milleband and the liberals will find themselves in continual trouble. The current Tory party will hopefully split into real conservatives and Cameron liberals.
Whatever happens voting Tory is no longer an option if you want to restore sanity to England.
It looks like Cameron is dependent on his fellow socialist to be a boggy man, but Milliband will only gain one percent and only lose seats to UKIP and win seats from the Libdems, there is no chance that they could lose seats to Lord Snot, and there is no way that the Tories are going to get more votes than UKIP in a Labour held seat.
So Labour will only have more seats than the Tories because the Tories will lose twice as many seats to UKIP. But UKIP would hold the balance of power with some help from others such as the Democratic Unionists. The Tory Coalition then needs to formally transfer all those pro-EU traitors to the LibDem part of the coalition where they belong, then the Tories need to expel all those who voted for Lord Snot instead of David Davis, they then need to modernise the party by barring anyone who was a member of the Bullingdon Club from the party, and only then would it be possible for UKIP to go into a Coalition with the Tories.
What’s a boggy man? and why does Cameron want to be one?
According to the new BBC Trust ‘Chairman’, incidentally headhunted by Lord Hall’s wife’s company, the state broadcaster is not impartial and unbiased:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29128419
(listen to short video).
Lord Hall’s wife’s company was paid a third of the new Chairman’s first year salary as headhunting fee, which is just another unbelievable, astounding crony fact surrounding the appointment!
So there you have it, the BBC is not biased, does not believe in cronyism nor is it stuffed to the rafters of left leaning, Labour voters either!
A pig has just flown by my window!
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/david-keighley-new-bbc-boss-falls-first-hurdle-bias-bias-2/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429
“UKIP candidate admits animal welfare charges”
Other than the fact that this man is a UKIP candidate what other reason could their possibly be for this story to reach the pages of the BBC news website?
Of course it has no relevance to his politics, and I’m absolutely certain if he wasn’t a member of UKIP, then the BBC would not have seen fit to report it, even if he was a member of a mainstream political party.
It’s not as if this is a major crime, failing to remove a number of dead sheep from the moors in the middle of winter especially considering he’s 71 years old!
Yet more bias exposed.
It seems a right of passage to anyone trying to break into the closed shop is to be held to the highest of standards (as all should), if sometimes beyond reason.
That the establishment can rely on the state broadcaster to do their dirty work on upstarts whilst quietly tidying away ongoing lapses, perhaps explains if not excuses their fondness for its retention.
A safe pair of dirty hands indeed.
At the same time they’re smearing UKIP, they’ve failed to report Camerons next plan to allow the very wealthy to avoid paying any inheritance tax at all.
The current threshold stands at around £650K which with a bit of inheritance tax planning means that effectively no one with an estate less than £2 million need pay any tax at all.
No one likes paying tax and yet if we want public services and some kind of order, it has to be paid, and inheritance is one of the most unfair forms of income there is. It means that the lazy feckless and undeserving are able to have a lifestyle which they should never have without an inheritance. It also means that those who do deserve affluence often do not achieve it because of the higher tax levied on them.
Inheritance tax is a great leveller. It helps social mobility, and allow lower income tax to be levied on those who are earning a higher income.
Abolishing inheritance tax entrenches privilege and wealth, it prevents social mobility, and the deserving from receiving the rewards they have earned.
Much of the wealth passed has never been taxed. Camerons father in law received his massive estates from the King, when his female ancestor was his mistress, the estate has risen in value and never been taxes as a result. This is of course why Cameron wants to abolish inheritance tax, because it benefits him directly.
And who is going to pay for this? Well it’s the poor of course who are going to be starved and frozen to death. And before anyone says ‘no one has starved to death in Britain’ In February this year an unemployed man who had his benefit but for no good reason did starve to death, last year was a mild winter, but people do die of hypothermia every year.
Only a Victorian Miser of the like of Ebenezer Scrooge would see this as a decent way to run a country. Cameron and the Tories should hang their heads in shame over their untrammelled greed.
Actually, the current threshold is £325,000. £650,000 for a couple.
I don’t know where you get the idea that someone with a £400,000 house has never paid tax on the money used to acquire it and should fork out a further £30,000 to HM Government for the privilege of dying.
You may be willing to be a cash cow for an incompetent state but there are many who aren’t, myself included.
Half the money I earn is taken from me as tax. Any money the other half earns is taxed again. When I die 40% plus of what is left will be taken by the state. At a simplistic level 70% (50% plus 40% of 50%) is taken from me as tax.
Did I really work 7 days a week at two and sometimes three jobs, at the same time educating myself to degree level just so the state can take 70% of everything I earned?
And for what? Schools that give no education, hospitals that murder patients, roads full of holes, a politicised police force, a benefits system that encourages the workshy, pointless foreign wars, a legal system designed to aid the guilty and punish the victim and on and on and on.
I must be fucking mad.
…and the unnecessarily expensive occasional ‘supply’ of electricity from windmills.
One of the reasons that stately homes were opened to the public was the imposition of inheritance taxes on these estates – so much for “wealth passed has never been taxed”.
By 1884 Estate Duty taxed property of any manner bequeathed at death, but even when the Liberal government in 1894 reformed and tidied the complicated system at 8% on properties valued at over one million pounds, they were not punitive to a social class able to live comfortably off inherited wealth far below that sum. Death duties, however, slowly increased and became a serious problem for the country estate throughout the first half of the 20th century, reaching a zenith when assisting in the funding of World War II. This proved to be the deciding factor for many families when in 1940 death duties were raised from 50% to 65%, and following the cessation of hostilities they were twice raised further between 1946 and 1949. Wikipedia
Then you have to accept that either people die in the streets, or that income tax has to go up.
Tax HAS to be paid from somewhere like it or not, and saying you don’t want to pay it on your death is saying you want to pay more in life !
I don’t believe anyone reading these pages will be caught by inheritance tax as things stand , so why the fuss? Are you all so touched by the belief that one day you will make it so rich that it will affect you?
Pah you can’t be living in the UK if you’re paying that much inheritance tax, and you can’t have done any inheritance tax planning either!
The point is not to keep income tax the same and reduce inheritance tax. The point is to increase inheritance tax and reduce income tax, so that those who deserve the money get to keep more of it!
The current system means those who deserve it don’t get to keep it, whilst those who haven’t earned it get a whole load of wealth they don’t deserve simply by accident of birth.
“so that those who deserve the money get to keep more of it!”
Who decides ‘who deserves’ you?
They themselves decide in the size of their pay packets. If you accept that profit is the reward for enterprise, and that society rewards those who produce what it wants then it might be said that all of society make that decision.
‘The current system means those who deserve it don’t get to keep it, whilst those who haven’t earned it get a whole load of wealth they don’t deserve simply by accident of birth. ‘
If somebody chooses to save their money and/or invest it in property so they can hand something on to their children rather than spend it as fast as they earn it, that is their choice. For government to dictate otherwise is pure authoritarianism and yet a further erosion of our individual freedom. And as an aside, what is fair in someone who has chosen to save/invest then having to pay care home fees whilst the feckless who have spent everything get funded by the state? The spenders only pay one lot of tax whilst the savers get whacked either with inheritance tax or care home fees or both.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure in previous posts you’ve only been too quick to point out how hard done-by and unfairly indebted the young of today are – surely leaving them a bob or two in your will helps, doesn’t it?
“For government to dictate otherwise is pure authoritarianism ”
No its ‘Income Redistribution’
We aren’t talking about the government taking everything you do know that?
In addition to that there is a large amount of tax free capital which can be left as an inheritance, but to have it completely tax free is not fair and equitable.
Leaving someone a ‘bob or two’ in a will might help some, but what about those who receive nothing?
In addition the UK is the only country in the civilised world where a parent can exclude one or more offspring completely from their inheritance. This means it’s possible to write a Sharia compliant will in the UK excluding daughters with the full blessing of the state, and tax free too !
“In addition the UK is the only country in the civilised world where a parent can exclude one or more offspring completely from their inheritance.”
Not true. For instance it’s possible in all US states except, I believe, Louisiana. It’s also possible to get around it in many cases by gifting before death.
“In February this year an unemployed man who had his benefit but for no good reason did starve to death, last year was a mild winter, but people do die of hypothermia every year.”
Exactly the sort of shroud waving I expect from Labour. Successive governments have chosen to spend our money on an increasing army of bossy, talentless parasites, unjustified wars and God knows what else, yet you claim that people are starving because the Government is not helping itself to enough of our money?
One reason why the value of estates has risen over the years is high property values due to increased demand. I wonder how that came about?
One last point. It’s not really an inheritance tax at all, it’s a death duty because it’s based on the size of the deceased’s estate, not the amount that each heir is due to inherit. I assume governments prefer the term “inheritance tax” because it sounds less contentious. Heirs belonging to larger families can receive relatively little individually yet the estate can still attract death duty.
Also agree entirely with other critical comments, above.
If anyone wants to know the abject cluelessness of the government
on another pertinent issue, regarding Islamic extremism here in Britain … check out the “Extremism in Schools Committee” …
shocking disregard of the threat, still waffling on about the laughable “prevent” strategy
… on BBC Parliament, (just for once hat tip BBC ).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793696/bbc-ban-guests-ebola-hit-countries-entering-buildings-terrified-staff-fear-catch-disease.html
Dilemmas abound. Media-driven panic or sensible precaution?
It is to be hoped that any ‘banned’ do not arrive in certain taxis, especially to BBC Bristol, or Sam Mason may have a bit of a case when it comes to making judgement calls.
The BBC, ebola and multiculturalism.
‘They do not like it up ’em, they DON’T LIKE IT UP ‘EM!’
Corporal Jack Jones from when the BBC used to do comedy.
Is my memory at fault, or is it only a few says since the BBC were critical of parent at a school in Stockport who didn’t want a boy newly arrived from West Africa to attend classes?
Hypocrisy – thy name is BBC.
I always find oppressive media censorship a concern…
http://www.businessinsider.com/bbc-condemns-china-censorship
Maybe a Chinese spokesperson could say they believe they have got it about right and then refuse to answer any more on the basis of anything they fancy?
Perhaps the Chinese could mention the Balen report……
When were the Clooneys, now UK residents, elected as Euro MPs to represent Greece?
It doesn’t seem to matter to BBC-NUJ, whose default political position is to support such celeb champagne ‘lefties,’ and to provide them with as much publicity as they want.
You’re right, George. Mrs Clooney may be rich, glamourous and trendy jetsetty leftie, but we haven’t lost our marbles yet.
BBC-NUJ policy on Ebola and Broadcasting House-
“BBC to ban some guests from Ebola-hit countries from even entering buildings as terrified staff fear they may catch disease ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793696/bbc-ban-guests-ebola-hit-countries-entering-buildings-terrified-staff-fear-catch-disease.html#ixzz3GE8VC0n8
Tory peer David Freud makes a silly remark about work and the severely disabled and the predictable faux outrage storm begins. Well, what can this be but “the return of the Nasty Party”. So, that’s the topic for the first half of Question Time and HIGNFY sorted out.
The BBC maggots are certainly crawling all over this one.
This is the rebuttal that they certainly won’t be covering:
“Miliband Slammed for “Shameful”, “Disgraceful” Attack on Freud …But Welfare Minister Offers grovelling Apology ”
Interesting that Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners, heavily caveating her criticism accordingly. The Adam Smith Institute have come out in support of Freud, condemning Labour for misrepresenting what he said:
“Lord Freud has been shamefully mistreated by Ed Miliband. His point was that the market value of some people’s wages is below the minimum wage. This is often true of the severely disabled and can have appalling consequences for their self-esteem and quality of life. Fixing this problem was the justification for Remploy, a government-funded firm that gave jobs to disabled people who could not find work elsewhere.
To point out that someone’s market value is less than minimum wage has nothing to do with their moral value as human beings. Freud’s point was that we should help people in this situation by allowing them to find jobs paying below the minimum wage and topping up their pay directly to make up the difference.
Even if you don’t agree with this method, it is motivated by compassion for the disabled and an understanding of the unpleasant side-effects of our minimum wage laws. Freud’s only crime was to speak bluntly: it is disgraceful to use his words against him in the way Miliband has.”
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/miliband-slammed-for-shameful-disgraceful-attack-on-freud/
Remind me again how trash TV covered the criminal neglect that caused the death of 1200 people in Mid Staffs under the watch of Labour’s health minister Andy Burnham.
Oh yes, that’s right, never mentioned whenever he’s being interviewed.
Freud’s language was crass, but in fairness, Five Live have interviewed the father of a boy whose disability, to all intents and purposes, precludes him from entering ‘gainful employment’ (am I allowed to use those words?). He was supportive of Freud, if not his words, his intentions. Many disabled people, branded unemployable – not least by the last government – are desperate to make some sort of positive, productive contribution and to feel valued by undertaking some sort of work.
Five Live did though counter this by having one of the country’s charidee troughers along to wring his hands and criticise without knowing the full context or intention of what was said. But as we know the ‘third sector’ is piled full of self serving lefties (A Labour government in exile, some say).
Two other points:
I note Miliband was so utterly incensed, so utterly and completely outraged by what Freud had said…he waited for two weeks to ambush the PM at PMQs – talk about using disabled people to give yourself a leg up when you’re desperate…and for your own party political ends.
In his mea culpa, Freud mentioned that in answering the question asked of him, he also talked about supporting such workers through tax credits. Why is this missing from the recording the BBC are playing?
and finally (I lied!) When did the BBC get to know about this ambush?
Sorry. I should have said ‘Universal Credit’ not ‘Tax Credit’
Esther McVey who can be a real nasty piece of work was asked if the market rate was £2 an hour for a disabled worker, then who would make up the rate to the minimum wage.
McVey lived up to her cruel and unfeeling image and said that disabled people receive enough money in the form of the support worker needed to help them perform the task, and should not receive any more money at all !
Breath taking cruelty ! To expect someone to work for just £80 pw and to pay their bills from this just confirms what everyone thought the cruel Tories were like.
We used to have remploy to take these people, but the government closed it, promising that the disabled employees would receive support which everyone knew would never be forthcoming.
Now the Tories meanness has returned to bite them in the ass and they deserve every criticism they get.
I have a disabled half-brother who lives with 2 others (varying levels of disability) in a bungalow staffed 24×7 by care workers. He has two foreign holidays a year, a third holiday in the UK, and a new car every 3 years. Another of the residents also gets a new car every 3 years – so that’s 2 cars between 3 of them when their travel needs are extremely modest to say the least. He works at a supermarket 2 days a weeks for less than a minimum wage.
Please explain the ‘meanness’ in that.
‘We used to have remploy to take these people, but the government closed it’
On the advice, Thoughtful, of experts in the employment of severely disabled people. Remploy had the effect of ‘ghetoising’ people whose self esteem and contribution would be better addressed by moving them into main stream employment.
But if the BBC gave us a programme about Remploy, giving us the ‘truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth’ – a concept alien to the world’s most trusted broadcaster’ – you might learn that your friends in the LABOUR government started the programme of closures – something that I am familiar, with having successfully absorbed a number of brilliant ex-Remploy staff into my own organisation.
“her cruel and unfeeling image ”
Like this?
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/
Trash TV trying to whip up hysteria again.
On the front page of their website is this:
“Asylum seeker baby born in Australia denied refugee visa”
Well first off it’s an illegal immigrant not an “asylum seeker”.
The second point is that out of humanitarian grounds the Australians allowed the mother to be moved from a detention centre of illegal immigrants in Nauru for the birth of the child.
It’s worth reading if only to see how the BBC whip up froth with emotive phraseology.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29625556
The BBC would be better employed worrying about containing the import of Islamic extremism into Britain rather than the justifiable actions of the Australian government.
‘Australia asylum – why is it controversial?’ – the BBC asks in a little insert piece within the article.
Controversial in whose eyes?
Obviously the BBC’s:
‘To stop the influx, the government has adopted hard-line measures intended as a deterrent
Everyone who arrives is detained. Under a new policy, they are processed in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Those found to be refugees will be resettled in PNG, Nauru or Cambodia
Tony Abbot’s government has also adopted a policy of tow-backs, or turning boats around
Rights groups and the UN have voiced serious concerns about the policies and accuse Australia of shirking international obligations.’
Certain others might say Australia is simply trying to stem the tide and protect its borders from mass illegal immigration. But the BBC never sees a problem through the eyes of ‘certain others’, instead it inevitably finds space to quote its socialist mates at the UN or human rights groups.
Insidious as ever.
How can it be an illegal immigrant if it didn’t enter a country illegally?
If the parents are claiming asylum then the child is a child of parents seeking asylum. If they have been refused a refugee status then they are failed asylum seekers, and presumably when the child is old enough to travel they will be returned whence they came.
The report says: ‘They landed on Australian territory in September last year and were taken to the off-shore processing centre in Nauru.’
I guess if they arrived by scheduled plane or boat and entered through port authorities they were not illegal immigrants. Arrival by any other mode is surely illegal – but when they’re caught, of course, they immediately claim asylum. As the BBC are being somewhat coy with their phrasing, I’d put my money on them being illegals.
Such is the ‘leftist’ cultural Beeboid position that it is unimaginable that they would ever provide this sort of interview with Bosch FAWSTIN-
“Video: Michael Loftus interviews ex-Muslim cartoonist Bosch Fawstin”
(5 min video)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/video-michael-loftus-interviews-ex-muslim-cartoonist-bosch-fawstin
Fawstin’s site:-
http://fawstin.blogspot.co.uk/
I love this phrase which appeared at the bottom of the BBCs news page. Freudian slip?
“[an error occurred while processing this directive]”
‘English votes for English laws’ – not if the BBC can help it. Their plan is to present it as a ‘Tory’ stitch-up, Laura Kuenssberg describing it as a Tory initiative on Newsnight, when in fact many Liberal Democrats and several Labour MPs support what is so clearly a fair proposal.
McDoom doesn’t like it, though, and he was a great prime minister who balanced the books and gave us no more boom and bust. Errmmm…..
Well he did half the job, he eliminated the boom!
GRrrrrrrrrrrr got asked for the first Children in Need donation today, I think the till attended was a bit surprised when I refused point blank giving the explanation that I can’t approve of an organisation which criminalises 200 000 poor people every year, and then wants to use my money to offer some of these same families charity !
Plus the fact that they’re using TV tax money to administer the charity, and then tell everyone that all the money raised goes to charity.
Another response you could have given, thoughtful, would have been to ask how much of the money raised goes to the white girl children, systematically drugged, beaten, raped & pimped out in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Bradford, Blackburn, Preston, Sheffield, Newcastle, anywhere, in fact, where muslim men live in sufficient numbers to seemingly paralyse the local authorities into a state of submission so abject that they collectively turn the blind eye. A response duplicated, of course, by the BBC. Beyond ironic.
These really are our children in need.
Ms Montague on yesterday’s Today referred to the leaders of Isis as “Commanders”. Can you fathom? Are you listening Auntie? They are terrorists, murdering fucking terrorists. Ok? Even by your own shameful standards of being a collective apologist for islam, this is utterly inappropriate use of the word.
“This winter many poorer people & families will be faced with a choice between heating or eating.”
Heard that phrase going around recently? It seems to be a left wing collective, where numerous people (common purpose?) speak out in regional media and the odd sympathetic national.
But not on the BBC
This week gas prices fell yet again to a new low, and the price has been pretty low for months.
Again normally there would be story after story about greedy utility companies profiteering, and how life would be a garden of Eden if only they were re-nationalised.
Except there are non of these stories on the BBC.
And there’s a reason for that !
Ed Millibands promise to force energy companies to peg their prices mean that they are unwilling or unable to pass the savings onto consumers from a low price which realistically has only one way it can go.
So when you hear the phrase that people will have a choice between heating and eating, just remember that this iniquity is being forced on them by the idiotic policies of Ed Milliband and his gang of clowns who are costing the average UK family an extra £150 this winter in artificially inflated utility prices