Well so much for the new, inclusive, respectful of all views politics. If you don’t all parrot Corbyn you’re out…unless you’re too big to sack in an obvious fit of pique. Hilary Benn is no doubt on notice.
Two things about the BBC coverage…two very important and significant things.
One….where is any mention of Emily Thornberry, the new shadow secretary for defence, taking money from ‘thieving, ambulance chasing lawyers’?…as reported in the Telegraph...
Conservative MP Stewart Jackson said: “Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it’s more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims.”
As secretary for defence how can she possibly genuinely represent the forces when she is in the pay of lawyers who hound these same Forces personnel? Not a question the BBC asks or even makes reference as far as I can tell…here’s the very latest BBC report...not a mention….
The only changes in the shadow cabinet see anti-Trident MP Emily Thornberry replacing shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle, who moves to culture to replace sacked Michael Dugher.
Kevan Jones …..described Ms Thornberry’s appointment as a mistake, saying it left the party’s defence policy “controlled by the North London Labour party”.
In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, she said she had “quite a lot more experience” than people were giving her credit for, pointing out she had family members in the military and a “regiment in my constituency”.
Second omission from the BBC’s reporting is the very relevant and current concern about the ‘narrative’ that feeds into the Jihadist’s propaganda…that the West is to blame for radicalising Muslims with a war on Muslims….a narrative that now sacked Pat McFadden opposed.
Now why would the BBC miss that out of its reporting?…a narrative that the BBC itself has promoted more times than I care to count. Here’s the BBC’s reporting of Stephen Doughty’s resignation, done live on BBC TV…and yet they miss the crucial part of it……in fact despite having the video at the top of the page they don’t report any of his words on this matter saying merely that he was ‘singled out for punishment’….but why?…
Mr McFadden said Mr Corbyn had told him he thought his comments were “an attack on him and that he had come to the conclusion because of that and one or two other things that I shouldn’t continue”.
“He clearly feels that me saying terrorists are entirely responsible for their action, that no-one forces anyone to kill innocent people in Paris, to blow up the London Underground, to behead innocent aid workers, that when I say they are entirely responsible for that, he clearly interpreted that as an attack on him,” he added.
Shadow foreign minister Stephen Doughty – who announced his resignation on the BBC’s Daily Politics – said Mr McFadden had been “singled out for punishment for speaking with honesty and principle”.
They report that ‘terrorists are entirely responsible for their own actions’ but miss out the part that says it is unacceptable to blame the West….it’s a crucial point that plays into so many BBC narratives about the Iraq war, the rise of ISIS, the radicalisation of ‘Young British Muslims’ and who is responsible for the subsequent refugees…no wonder the BBC wants to downplay criticism of its narrative. The Guardian does report it…
However, he [Corbyn] decided to sack McFadden for what he saw as a variety of disloyal interventions, including a question to the prime minister in the House of Commons following the Paris atrocity.
McFadden asked David Cameron to reject the view that terrorist acts were always a response or a reaction to what the west did and to agree that such an approach risked infantilising terrorists when the truth was that they were adults who were entirely responsible for their actions.
Mcfadden finished the question with this…
“No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut and unless we are clear about that we will fail even to be able to understand the threat we face let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it.”
In other words the narrative of Corbyn, STW, Muslim fundamentalists and the BBC excuses terror and leads to a completely wrong-headed analysis and conclusion of cause and effect and hence the wrong solution…..ie the problem isn’t in the teachings and commands of Islam but in Western foreign policy…which must be changed to suit these terrorists and their sympathisers…..and note school exams are being changed to suit Muslims. Tail wagging dog? Terrorism really does pay off doesn’t it as politicians et al run scared.
The BBC wants to keep on blaming the Iraq War for all the ills of the Middle East and also make the West to blame for the current wars and refugee migration.
The BBC has a lot to lose if politicians can successfully counter the BBC narrative which is all too apparently more concerned for terrorists, immigrants and Muslim provocateurs than it is for British troops, British interests, the British people, culture and national identity and society.
Emily Thornberry.
Just when I thought you couldn’t get any lower in terms of a human being, you surprise me and and achieve what I thought was impossible.
How can AlBeeb not reveal the fact that we have a shadow secretary of defence taking work from a company of ill repute like Leigh Day who are attemting to sue our soldiers when they bravely defend the nation often using public funds to do so.
This raises two issues for me.
Firstly, this country needs its own Bill of Rights and not be hamstrung in the ‘uuman rights’ issue and secondly Thornberry herself. What soldier could possibly go into battle knowing that an immoral defence secretary would be prepared to stab them in the back should they survive the conflict. We would have a situation of the brave soldier Royal Marine Blackman times 100.
This fake, phoney socialist landlord, lying woman needs exposing.
But more importantly which traitor made the whole scam of getting taxpayers money to sue British soldiers in the first place?
Thornberry doesn’t know why she was made Shadow Defence Secretary! But, she said, she does have a brother- in-law who is an officer in the Army.
You just couldn’t make it up. These Labour Fascist fantacists’ want to run the country. – Be afraid, be very afraid.
I felt safer with Ed Megabland running the Liebour party.
Sorry, I forgot to add the link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389746/JAN-MOIR-Good-grief-woman-MP-ghastlier-Diane-Abbott.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
w
“woman needs exposing”
I hope you mean the sort of exposure used in ancient Sparta.
Delenda, the very thought means I’ve just choked on my cornflakes!
By the term exposing, I refer more to the fact that she has lived a life based around lies. For example, she claims to have come from a tough working class background, Not true, her father worked for the United Nations as an Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO. He was also a professor. Although her parents divorced at an early age, I assume Thornbury’s father didn’t allow his daughter to starve. Her mother was a teacher and the Mayor of Guildford. Thornbury attended a private school and sent her own daughter to a selective school.
Now if fake,snobby Thornbury was UKIP, just what would the ALBeeb report.
Totally agree. Every sane person knows that the so called ‘Corbynista New Politics’ was created by the left and BBC to hide the venal, vicious and ignorant extremists taking over Labour and in order to force the moderates to change their ways to accommodate the new thinking in the’Broad Church (oops Mosque)’ of the party.
On another subject, noticed that the Victoria Derbyshire production team went into desperate overdrive this morning. Must have done some extraordinary digging to find the only two German women attacked in the Cologne station assaults that could spout such utter nonsense. All involved were on message identifying the sex abusers only as men of North African appearance. Except when one went on to state that an Arab Muslim had helped her with her trolley sometime later so everything was OK now. Wonder how she managed to differentiate he was an Arab Muslim as presumably outwardly he was only of ‘North Africa Appearance’. Maybe he was carrying a copy of the Koran, or perhaps was in the midst of morning prayer and jumped up to help her. Both went on to say that they didn’t blame migration and that they loved the diversity of different cultures.
The second woman then then blamed the ‘Media’ and stated that they shouldn’t be reporting these type of events as it would only encourage others. This after stating that she had been followed ten times previously by similar men, of which Cologne was only the most serious. Assume that will be the official BBC excuse now for not reporting the incidents if even ‘the abused’ don’t want it reported. Have to laugh she then went on to say that although she generally felt safe using the underground she would probably be avoiding men of a dark skin colour. Sometimes I think I am living in a Monty Python sketch.
AFP
No digging required.
One ‘phone call to a German MEP and IslamicAl-Beeb could produce dozens of German women saying how much nicer it was being raped by Africans.
Corbyn keeping Hilary Benn in place makes some sense.
Every day that goes by without any RAF strikes against ISIS/Daesh in Syria – and there have been a lot of them since the House of Commons debate & vote – make Hilary Benn’s impassioned rant, er, I mean speech, appear more & more foolish. Hilary Benn may try to make a bid to replace Corbyn at some point in the future but Benn now appears to be finished, although you will not hear that on the BBC. Wonder if, like his old man, his will be a political career of many attempted comebacks?
It also strikes me that perhaps Cameron is not that desperate to be seen to be attacking ISIS/Daesh but set up the debate and vote merely to inconvenience Labour while sucking up to the White House?
Have there been no air strikes, or are they just not being reported on? (It’s not clear to me)…
Also, the SkyNews expose on the ISIS/Daesh weapons factory(s) over the last few days would seem to suggest some kind of vindication of Cameron’s perspective on air strikes to the detriment of Corbyn’s position?
In answer to question 1, I’m sure the BBC would be first in line to criticise or comment at least if in fact there had been no strikes, and
It is not possible to see any reporting on the weapons factories appearing on the BBC. Doesn’t fit their narrative?
There can’t have been any air strikes otherwise the BBC would be showing pictures of bombed hospitals – probably from another war zone -, pictures of teddy bears in bombed civilian homes, and interviews with doctors treating innocent victims of the air strikes -probably part time actors from Salford.
As of 4 January, only three I think, according to Daily Telegraph. That was confirmation of the situation on 31 December according to a BBC War Correspondent on R4. Cannot remember who. No use of Brimstone missiles on any of the raids, apparently.
We were told how essential it was to attack ISIS/sc-IS/Daesh, how so essential it was to have Brimstone capability available in Syria (despite the fact we’ve sold loads to the Americans!) and that it was vital to play a part (endorsed on R4 just before/after Christmas by some American General who must have been nudged by someone) with our allies in attacking ISIS/sc-IS/Daesh in Syria.
It all seems very hollow now, perhaps a temporary truce was called for Christmas & New Year? There’s a bit of a funny whiff about the whole business, especially when the BBC was talking up the Syrian air strikes before the debate & vote.
Swizz army chief: Europe is “on the verge of civil war”, advises people to arm themselves
http://10news.dk/?p=2158
I dont know if this is true.
and
French police have shot dead a man who was apparently trying to attack a police station, on the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
Police brought in explosives experts after wires were seen extending from the suspect’s body.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35250344
But those wires were just bits of a clock that the Muslim had designed, and was taking to the police station to demonstrate its efficiency.
“In his address, Mr Hollande said 5,000 extra police and gendarmes would be added to existing forces by 2017 in an “unprecedented” strengthening of French security”
Reports IslamicAl-Beeb
No report giving details of how many imports will weaken French security
Ken Livingstone on Daily Politics reveals the real aim of the Labour Party’s so called ‘Defense Review’. Not only to scrap the independent nuclear deterrent, but to leave NATO totally. Apparently neither is needed now because the cold war has ended.
Could it be because it has now become a hot war ? Ukraine, Crimea, Syria ? Repeated testing and transgressions of our air and sea borders by the Russian military. The galactic stupidity and duplicity of this poor excuse for an intelligent being. If the source of information for his review is as poor as the one he quoted on the program, that the nuclear deterrent is irrelevant because both Russia and China can hack and override our launch codes, then he might as well give his decision now. In any event Livingstone I thought the cold war was over. Why then would they have developed an ability to hack in to our systems. The truth is the cold war never existed for his kind or the Labour Party because they were always working hand in glove with the USSR. Think the USSR had a temr for them … ‘useful idiots’. No doubt he will be pushing for a new pact with the benign, tolerant, fair minded, incorruptible Russians as soon as he achieves his goal.
Waiting for Emily Thornberry to re-tweet the picture of the British Submarine shown on the program …. disgraceful …. covered in the White Ensign ! What kind of people fly such a racist chav flag !! Maybe she could sue them for offending her senses. Think she knows a law firm that might be more than willing.
The BBC interviewed some Charlie Hebdo hack who happened to be away at a conference when the killings took place last year.
An absolute dream for Justin Webb in that the French oaf blamed God…note, NOT Allah-got that?
Webb then able to run after the rubber ball that is “all religions need to be curtailed Monsieur?”…can we agree that what I`m suggesting is what you yourself would like to agree with?…can we take that as a “yes” then?…Bon!
Desperate crap again- if IS chop his head off next time they`ll need to catch the sawdust.
But God gets blamed…that`ll be the Gas that the BBC think he is.
As for Islam, Muslims, Allah, jihad?…do such words exist? Justin Webb as BBC spongy cipher of The Libby Pervert School of Hackology reckons that if we could only get rid of holy terrors like Justin Welby as well as not leaping to judge the likes of those St Michaels who killed Lee Rigby…then all would be well, and Muslims would yet learn to sing along to Imagine, at Chop Chop Square Swordsmanship displays.
The French oaf even thought we ought to know of laicite…and he had no clue about it himself, poor gink!
If only Charlie Hebdo had kept him back home to sharpen the pencils-then the world would have been rid of one more useful idiot for Islam…
Mind you-saw the telly show last night about the Hebdo case-and the number of thick hipsters who did nothing but film themselves cringing was quite something-amoral, naive haram lambs to Islams meathooks-every one of them…. we are truly stuffed if THAT is the future for European youthful creative industries…but them we look at the BBC, and know it`s all too real….
Yes indeed chrisH, it’s all very well to panic about the ROP coming to a street near us at any time, but watching how the ‘specially trained forces’ dealt with the situation showed how the chances of ‘friendly fire’ might play a major part in such noble enterprises. Maybe we could persuade IS to stamp their bullets with a koranic verse or two to speed up identification in future.
To some extent Putin has sought to revive the Cold War, but I think that complex as they are, his motives are more internal than external. Ukraine for Russians is a special case and Putin, forever the opportunist, took advantage of the instability in that country in 2014. Whether this might extend at some point in the future to the Baltic States is another matter. If there was as much concern in the EU for helping raise the living standards in those countries as there is for helping illegal immigrants (sorry, refugees) from the Middle East this would be a very remote possibility. But as much as I dislike Putin I don’t think he poses a realistic threat to us at present.
What traitors like Livingstone and Corbyn fail to recognise and refuse to even address is that a future threat could come from almost anywhere. It is in fact Corbyn and Livingstone who are still seeing the world from a Cold War perspective. Although no doubt they would be supporting the other side. What was so extraordinary about Livingstone on todays Daily Politics, considering that he is part of Labour’s defence review, was that most of his information seemed to be based on hearsay.
Sorry OA I do not agree at all with your view on Putin. His stated aim is to return Russia’s’ power status to that enjoyed by the old USSR. To that end he is using every opportunity to extend Russian military options. You seem to think Ukraine was a ‘special case’. Have you forgotten Georgia. Or that he forced Belarus to allow him to establish a Russian base. Or that he has signed a deal for a naval base in Cyprus. Or that his involvement in Syria is to preserve his naval base in that country, added to which he has now established an airbase. Or that he has approached Greece for similar purposes. I think your assessment of Putin and his aims are naive.
‘If there was as much concern in the EU for helping raise the living standards in those countries as there is for helping illegal immigrants (sorry, refugees) from the Middle East this would be a very remote possibility’.
I am afraid your statement also shows a lack of understanding of what has happened in Eastern Europe. I regularly have to travel to Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. Why … because multi national companies have been encouraged by the EU to relocate hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries from the established major economies. Their rise in living standards in the past 15/20 years has been amazing. So money has been invested in the Eastern European states … Billions.
I do however agree whole-heartedly with your comments on Livingstone and Corbyn.
AceFlyingPig (great name by the way), I bow to your greater knowledge of Eastern/Central Europe. I have a little knowledge of Hungary and would completely agree with you, but I do think the Baltic States with their sizeable ethnically Russian minorities are a danger area.
I assure you I am no fan of Putin, quite the opposite, but for obvious historical reasons Ukraine does have a particular place in the Russian psyche. Not in anyway to justify Putin’s actions. And yes it is indeed true that Putin has publicly stated on numerous occasions that the fall of the USSR was the greatest tragedy in his lifetime. All of that is true. The point I was trying to make, despite Putin’s apparent recklessness, I don’t believe Russia poses a nuclear threat to the West. However, the problem for us now is that should the equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis occur with Putin tomorrow, we are living though a period of extraordinarily weak leadership in the West. That is a different matter altogether. Perhaps my view is closer to yours than you think.
I agree OA. Certainly there appears to be no current Western leaders that inspire any confidence. My points were made in response to your original statement.
‘To some extent Putin has sought to revive the Cold War, but I think that complex as they are, his motives are more internal than external. Ukraine for Russians is a special case and Putin, forever the opportunist, took advantage of the instability in that country in 2014.’
I do not believe his motives are more internal than external. Certainly his shows of strength appear to play well within Russia in allegedly restoring national pride after the perceived humiliation of the fall of the Berlin wall, and associated independence of the satellite countries. His actions indicate he is playing a very strategic game and the West has no coherent response. I concede that the ‘special case’ may apply to the Crimea, given away by a previous Russian Leader who circumvented due process for his own political reasons. The excuse used by Putin for military action is always to protect the ethnic Russian population (Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus). I agree that would most certainly be his reason to move in to the Baltics if any opportunity arose. However. the Ukraine’s borders were supposedly guaranteed by both Russia and the USA in return for giving up their nuclear arsenal. A point apparently unknown, or more likely deliberately ignored, by Labour/SNP/Green/CND unilateral disarmers. Having said that the EU and NATO are not without blame for trying to get countries bordering Russia to join their organizations. A move that was always going to prompt a response, although I can understand why the individual countries might want some sort of guarantee against potential future Russian intervention.
Your point about whether Putin poses is a Nuclear threat is an interesting one. I believe none of the major Nuclear Powers currently pose an actual nuclear threat. It is what they can do conventionally under the threat of their nuclear weapons. Hence no one dares challenge Putin when he moves in to Syria in case it might escalate. Pakistan and India may exchange conventional
hostilities but neither would appear likely (thankfully) to use the ultimate weapon.
Anyway I will leave it there. Thanks for the interesting discussion points raised OA. All the best.
This has veered away from BBC bias, but this discussion has helped me clarify my own point of view. Can I ask you one more question? My understanding is that The EU hasn’t made the same kind of investment in the Baltic States as it has in the ex Warsaw Pact counties. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption. You may disagree with me on this, but my feeling is that prosperity in those countries is their best insurance against any possible Russian intervention.
As to Ukraine being a special case I was thinking of it in a wider historical sense, going back to the very beginnings in Kievan Rus, rather than Khrushchev’s gift of Crimea to Ukraine. On that subject I believe Khrushchev’s motives were as much personal as political. It has even been said that he was drunk at the time. I am sure you know the history as well as I do and that’s a whole different discussion. But my point is that despite all the various Ukrainian nationalist groups throughout history, the connection between Russia and Ukraine is very strong. Just for example, If you were to take any random list of say a hundred notable Russians for the last hundred and fifty years a surprising proportion of them would be Ukrainians. You may think it is a trivial point, but I believe Putin is motivated by an almost romantic attachment to Russian history. But whatever he is, we have certainly not seen anything like him in the West in recent times. Even the Oligarchs who put him in place didn’t know what they were getting.
The other problem for Ukraine is that since the Orange Revolution Ukraine has not been served well by its own politicians and has remained a divided country. I have only been to Western Ukraine, but that feeling was always there. I’m glad you raised the overtures made by Nato and the EU. I think that is a very important point. The question is, and this is where we probably would differ, prior to 2013 would Russia have been content to tolerate Ukraine as a fairly compliant neighbour or was some kind of expansion inevitable? Or for that matter would a better governed and more stable Ukraine have avoided the present tragedy. Considering how much coverage the MSM gives to other conflicts I am amazed by how little attention is given to what is a very nasty war.
Your knowledge of Eastern Europe makes a valuable contribution to this site and is certainly very interesting to me. Personal experience is so much more powerful than visits to Wikipedia. I hope you continue to post here.
Hi OA. I agree I don’t want to risk antagonizing other readers by being ‘off-topic’. Although one could argue that the BBC’s coverage of the Ukranian crisis was fairly inept, and it seems to have disappeared from the radar altogether now.
I’m afraid I can’t comment on the Baltic States. The closest I ever got to them was looking across the Gulf of Finland at Estonia when working in Helsinki. So I have no personal knowledge. I would hazard a guess that if the EU and companies are reluctant to invest in them, and I don’t know whether that is true or not, it would be due to a lack of confidence in it’s future stability due to potential Russian interest. I do know that the Ukranian problem has made a lot of companies re-assess the risk of investing in countries close to the Russian border. Where we differ is that I believe that Russia was always intent on re-establishing control of the countries on it’s border in order to re-instate the barrier it had between East and West after the second world war, and re-assert it’s sphere of influence. They just needed the right leader to emerge. Must be very difficult for them to stop Russians close to the border seeing the independent countries benefitting from capitalism. Talking to colleagues in those countries I have been to, a new division now exists between what they call the ‘over forties’ brought up under the old regime, and the younger generation. The former were used to queuing at state shops for limited food, having allotments to grow food and barter with neighbours, speaking Russian as a second language, had no concept of customer service, and relied on state allocated jobs and services, etc. The younger generation speak English as a second language and have none of the other experiences listed. Something that they tell me causes considerable conflict between the generations.
I agree with your comments about the governance and divisions in the Ukraine. Not sure how this can be resolved but it was always likely to be ignited when a strong Russian leader emerged, particularly one with the full support of the FSB and military.
“antagonizing other readers by being ‘off-topic’”
As a source of information about the world the BBC is about as reliable as a Labour Party press release. Speaking for myself, contributors talking about their experiences in the actual world are always welcome.
Trust the BBC to ramp up the ram raids and drive-bys on the Tories, now that Labour are screwed.
They presume to think that if Labour are a vindictive Stalinist clique of mummys boys, then -in the cause of fairness-we can let McDonnell say that Osborne has said that the crisis was over(he never did), and that the rest of Europe thinks Cameron is a laughing stock(who said that Heseltines Spitting Image puppet would never come in handy again?).
BBC agenda sorted-now then, about this show of high spirits in Labour-and Gentleman Jeremys stirling efforts to lead a united and democratic party in the face of the softies?
The BBC are cancerous raddled and utterly addled…unthinking Evan Davis or Martha Kearney either know nothing or do nothing to deal with fat gutless godless tripe like Abbott, Livingston or McDonnell…when the obvious questions about Maos book, the crisis of 2007-10, riding pillock with Corbyn on his Chopper…or being a terrorist sucking apologist for killing British soldiers or Jews don`t get asked.
Thornberry is an open spongebook-got to be in the top 5 Labour lying hypocrites-I`d put Miliband, Benn, Harman, Abbott and Falconer with her , seeing as Lefty competition for trough trotters is so keen…and if Thornberry isn`t creamed and taosted within a month, then we know the liberal media are utter lefty scum…but that`s long been the case.
chris, I think the Beeb only want Corbyn (tax on high incomes at 65%) & Co screwed but would be very happy to have NewLabour “We are very comfortable with the filthy rich” back in power. Remember how the Licence Fee rocketed thanks to ‘No inflation Brown’?
Finally found it try this.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/24/lady-nugees-walled-garden/
Good link. Thornberry is yet another socialist pig straight out of Animal Farm.
Imagine the BBC’s coverage had a Tory or UKIPper done the same.
Hopefully she will be exposed Rees-Mogg style when she next appears on Question Time.
I like the way the BBC political Guru Norman Smith reports on Government policy or Tory problems with a face that would make an undertaker seem cheerful but looks like a puppet on a string when making light of Labour troubles.
Norman Smith ought to be introduced as the Labour Party spokesman not as a political reporter. He makes absolutely no effort to disguise his bias. Is he auditioning to become a Labour MP? What a loss to the Labour Party if he does.
Only a BBC clown who plays at being a reporter/analyst/ correspondent/editor etc….none of that “we`re all in this together” stuff re job titles at the BBC”…could think that Corbyn could EVER represent any “New” kind of anything.
A totally unimaginative thick clone who dreams of being a Stalin, a Mao,a Beria or a Zhukov…because his thick unimaginative and dutiful “Social Revolution” could only come from an Uncle Joe who pats the nations kids on the head-whilst quietly arranging for the goon squads to take the parents away in the night time.
We`re already seeing the show trials-only these shameless thick goons do it all online, or via third parties who are “correct” and “in tune with the leaders will and intentions”.
The youthful revolutionaries are being fed the soya milk, and a chance to spit at Tories or Rachel Reeves-and don`t forget that these thick blunt spoons would rather hate the splitters or traitors in their own midst, than the Tories if they had to choose.
Very Muslim as you`d expect-in both cases , the internal apostates are to be excised first-then the unbelieving proles who are unenlightened or averse to consciousness raising.
Corbyn is evil-but being thick ought to render him harmless-but I`d not risk waiting to find out.
An “arms-length” nasty that one…but plenty of useful idiots and fellow-travellers doughnut around the Beardy Weirdo to create a “movement”…the BBC being primo ultra pares.
It doesn’t get any worse than this: the Left-wing Marxist filth have destroyed Europe; they care nothing about its citizens. Young women being attacked, Muslim terrorists carrying attacks and yet the Marxists continue to use the racist and bigoted card in order to silence its own people. They really are scum!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12086473/Suspects-in-Cologne-sex-attacks-claimed-to-be-Syrian-refugees.html
Terrorism comes in many forms – you don’t need weapons to cow a population into fear as the events on New Years Eve shows.
On another matter, it seems Al-Beeb are taking great delight in the reduction of safe alcohol levels we are now being told we are allowed to drink. After the cancerous processed meat scare last year (bacon singled out) how long will it be before these products are “proscribed” for our own health safety. One little step…..
There are well known health risks associated with alcohol though it is difficult not to see a link with appeasing islam in the way this news is being presented.
The bit the BBC appears to have forgotten to mention is that the new guidance is PROPOSED, and that there is a public consultation open until April 1st 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/health-risks-from-alcohol-new-guidelines
The bbc have gone large on the safer limits being the same for males and females. This is despite documented physiological differences in alcohol metabolisation that make alcohol consumption more risky for women, so it looks like some political correctness has already been introduced to spin the scientific evidence.
Expect the alcohol producer and consumer groups to supply detailed evidence to the consultation,
the Treasury too will show an interest if their alcohol tax earnings are significantly threatened.
e
I suggest a special tax to recover any losses the treasury may incur due to reduced alcohol consumption.
This tax needs to be widely applicable, say a tax on non Muslims.
We could have a national competition to find a name for this tax.
Of no concern to IslamicAl-Beeb, the cocaine supplies, provided by an entrepreneur, will still arrive
My first thought that it the first step to make it harder to acquire alcohol until a virtual ban is in place, just to please the invaders. Note that I said ‘please’ and not ‘satisfy’ as these colonists are satisfied with nothing in our country and won’t be until Sharia is in place.
I also thought that a glass of wine (especially red) a day is supposed to be good for you.
There are well known health risks associated with being raped as well but I don’t see al-beeb trying to appease the Christians.
With the bBBC so utterly biased in favour of anything to do with the M word, little pieces of half decent journalism shine all the more.
So two cheers to Andrew Neil, Portillo, AND Johnson on ‘This Week’ last night. A Muslim journalist (admittedly handicapped by very poor eyesight indeed) who was a pal or else lived near Jihadi John somewhere in London gave a film piece and was interviewed in the studio.
Basically all the guy’s ‘explanations’ for radicalism were shown to be superficial, threadbare, PC nonsense.
Credit where due. Council-estate-brought-up ex-Postie Labour MP Alan Johnson was having none of the ‘poverty breeds radicalisation’ drivel. Portillo pointed out the clean, well-maintained estate with nice new cars parked up which featured as backdrop in the filming.
Neil weighed in with various questions exposing the superficiality of the arguments. It was a victory rarely shown on Al-Beeb. Common sense 3, Muslim extremist apologists 0. Shame it was on at midnight. Probably not by accident.
Do you remember the old Sgt Bilko classic comedies? In which the eponymous hero tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the Colonel, so that even when Bilko isn’t trying to do anything untoward, the Colonel still suspects something.
It got me thinking the same about the bBBC. What’s going on? What are they up to? They’re up to something.
Whenever I watch or listen to the BBC I look out for an agenda, whether it’s news, current affairs, history, documentary or entertainment (including children’s).
In most programmes I’ll spot something.
jtf
Most?
You are not looking hard enough.
I am surprised the, now multicultural, test card has not made a re-appearance.
It was my New Year’s resolution to try and give the BBC the benefit of the doubt a bit more often.
Mind you, I was trashed at the time.
And did I notice a black Artful Dodger in ‘Dickensian’ the other night? Resolution wearing pretty thin already…
Looks like the BBC has decided on the line to take…
The Today Programme
20 mins ·
“We are now experiencing a very racist turn in the debate”
Are ‘we’?
How should Germany respond to the Cologne sex attacks?
BBC.IN
Yes, BBC, do tell ‘us’ how ‘they’ should proceed according to ‘you’.
‘i” shall be assessing and deciding for myself using information and education from multiple other sources to the world’s now most inevitable propaganda and censorship service, ta very much.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/08/bbc-stephen-doughty-daily-politics-laura-kuenssberg?
Ironically, the banner ad to this is ‘Visit Sweden… pleeeeease’.
Sorry chums, nothing will get me across the channel at the moment anywhere from Oslo to Malaga to Athens or anywhere in-between. And that also guides my voting preferences come the EU referendum a fair bit.
Chew on that, BBC, Dave, Jezza, Greens and the Lib Dem bloke I can’t remember.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/laura-kuenssberg-gets-corbynistas-in-a-spin-over-reshuffle-scoop/
Moving to salt flavours now.
Hahaha – how I love it when they start eating themselves!!!
Great tactic, lining up the Corbynistas to shout ‘bias’ in the hope that the bias the other way the other 98% of the time won’t get noticed.
Luckily on this website they won’t get very far with that one.
BBC yet again demonstrate their twisted priorities with this damage limitation/sympathy vote crap:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35251167
Who cares what the Arab ‘world’ thinks? It’s the poor victims’ thoughts and wellbeing that matter.