Well then, it didn’t take the BBC long to start the undermining of Boris Johnson. I listened to the Today programme this morning and within ten minutes we had two very hostile interviews conducted by Nick Robinson. The first was with Lord Lawson and the second with Boris Johnson’s father. Both interviews were full on assaults on a/ The basis for Brexit and b/ Boris’s character. Between now and June 23rd, Project Fear will be the main weapon in the pro EU camp. The BBC will be a primary delivery mechanism. Why?

Is Andrew Marr pandering to the Prime Minister and his pro-Europe stance or has Marr just lost his cutting edge as a journalist?

Watching Marr this morning and you have to ask why the BBC put up Nick Robinson against the pro-Britain Kate Hoey…is Nick pro-Europe then as he seemed to be putting the case for the Inners?

Here we have a rather patronising piece from Robinson in which he tells us how important the referendum is for us…really?…He comes up with a clever ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’ scenario as he explains the referendum to us…

There won’t, of course, be any space on the ballot paper to say, “I’d like to stay if only there was less interference from Brussels or bureaucracy or immigration, or if only there was more democracy”.

There won’t be an opportunity to say “I’d like to leave if I could be sure the EU won’t make it harder or more expensive to sell our goods, or force us to allow Europe’s people to move here freely if we want our goods and services and money to move freely there”.

One choice he gives us is for staying, the other is disaster if we leave…..both lean towards staying…..Robinson says the choice is black and white…out or in…Boris thinks not…

‘…significantly he suggested that a no vote might not necessarily result in the UK pulling out of the EU altogether instead, creating a “new relationship based upon trade and cooperation”. 

Curiously, or not as the BBC always does it despite allegedly hating the Mail, Robinson chose to concentrate on the Mail’s frontpage claiming to have exposed a secret plot between Boris and Gove….why not concentrate on Boris’ ‘secret’ plot with Cameron which was on the frontpage of the Times as Robinson actually noted in passing?

Why has Boris not declared his position on Europe yet?  Robinson has worked it all out  He asks if it is due to a process of careful consideration, or one of pathetic procrastination, or one of cynical calculation as many Tories Robinson says he knows have told him?

Hmmm….’pathetic procrastination’?  Very perjorative comment.  As for those Tories feeding Robinson the anti-Boris poison…any chance they are from the pro-Europe camp?….Robinson didn’t bother to reveal his sources.

Hoey said that Boris was touring the UK visiting constituencies talking to the locals…Robinson decided that this showed Boris was more interested in currying favour for his leadership bid…coldly calculating…..never mind contradicting that immediately by quoting Boris himself saying he was ‘veering all over the place like a shopping trolley’ in regards to his decision….doesn’t really sound like a cold, calculated process does it?  That is backed up by his announcement that he is on the ‘Out’ side in which he said it had been an ‘agonisingly difficult’ decision to make and one made with a ‘huge amount of heartache’.  [Just heard Pienaar say Johnson not a man for detail …(isn’t that just a well known public persona?)…and this is all about Johnson’s bid for party leadership….not going to credit him with making an informed and reasoned decison then.]

We heard that the core of the referendum would be about ‘control’ or sovereignty…oddly Marr finished off by then interpreting this as the Brexit campaign being based on a ‘visceral, emotional appeal’.   No…This time it is a cold, practical calculation…people want to take control of their country and lives back from the faceless bureaucracy that is Europe.

Marr went on to interview Farage who pretty much wiped the floor with him as Marr kept coming up with inaccurate claims about Europe and what would happen on Brexit.  Marr then moved on to interview Cameron and told us that Cameron had been doing ‘important work’ as he negotiated with the EU monolith.  That’s of course not the view of most people from Corbyn, to Sturgeon, to Farage, to Gove, to Boris, to, well to many many people.  Cameron was engaged in smoke and mirrors negotiating about very little but trying to generate as many headlines as possible giving the impression he was bravely battling the EU bureaucracy.  The real issues such as immigration and control were left unresolved.

Most of the interview was pretty anodyne with Cameron allowed a free run as he claimed Britain would fall apart economically, that we would not get cooperation on crime and terrorism from Europe, and our firms would suffer discrimination if we left Europe…no challenge from Marr at all.

Marr then came up with this ...’David Cameron may go down in history as the man who saved Britain’s membership of Europe…..’

Really?  Saved us from leaving the EU?

Marr told us that Cameron had busted a gut on these negotiations, he’d worked very, very hard on them….Marr asked if the PM felt that he was being stabbed in the back, betrayed by a very carefully coordinated Brexit campaign out to get him?

No taking sides there then…curious how the Brexit campaign is now a ‘carefully coordinated’ one when the BBC spent the weeks before the EU negotiations painting the campaign as a disorganised rabble ….’rats in a sack’ I think was the actual phrase.

Watch the news clip on Marr and note how the Brexit ministers are described as ‘slipping out the back of No 10 and heading immediately to banks of phones at the Brexit campaign HQ’…..no sly dig there then?

So now the Brexit campaign is some slippery, sinister operation out to do down the heroic PM who ‘bust a gut’ for the UK?

Marr asks what if Brexit happens, these are dangerous times economically and otherwise, what will happen to Europe?

A leading question feeding the PM the chance to paint a bleak picture of a Europe in ruins with the UK not being there to stabilise the emotional, hotblooded Continentals.

He finishes with a pro-EU note….’Let’s take us back to the unhappy prospect of Britain leaving Europe and everything is on a knife edge…..’

So to wrap up…Marr thinks Cameron could ‘save us from leaving Europe, an unhappy prospect which would lead to dangerous times and a Europe in ruins.’

No bias there then.

From February 11th:

BBC governance needs radical overhaul, Committee report finds

Well, the BBC is hyping up Cameron’s play-acting in Brussels, giving us the predictable soap opera spin on whether Call me Dave can pull off a one minute to midnight victory for Blighty! As if. Anyway, there’s going to vast coverage in the next 48 hours so detail the bias HERE!

The law in regard to ‘joint enterprise’ has changed…and the BBC was very excited…it just loves a ‘wrongly convicted’ prisoner set free.

Got the impression listening to the BBC yesterday morning that their initial reaction was rather joyous and that they could foresee plenty of ‘exclusive’ BBC stories down the line about injustices being righted as prisoners put in appeal after appeal all of which the BBC would happily devote much campaigning airtime to.

Only later, as surely the emails and texts rolled in to put a different perspective on things, did I hear the BBC presenters start to give a more sympathetic hearing to the families of the murdered.

Odd how times and opinions change…here’s the now current state of affairs….

The law which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases if defendants “could” have foreseen violent acts by their associates.

However, judges ruled it was wrong to treat “foresight” as a sufficient test.

Delivering the judgement, Lord Neuberger said it was wrong to treat “foresight” as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder.

“The court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right,” he said.

Strange how previously the same Lord Neuberger thought that not only was foresight of intent to kill worthy of a murder conviction but that even if the accessory only foresaw ‘serious injury’ he was still guilty of murder by reason of joint enterprise……

Lord Neuberger set out why the appeal was rejected:
‘Accordingly, in the absence of special factors, and subject to any good
reason to the contrary, I consider that, even if the primary perpetrator
intended to kill the victim, an alleged accessory should not escape a murder
conviction simply because he only foresaw or expected that the perpetrator
intended to cause serious injury. The mere fact that the perpetrator intended
to kill does not render his actions ‘entirely’ or ‘fundamentally’
different from what the alleged accessory foresaw or intended.’

The Hyde principle and the ‘fundamental difference’ rule
In R v Hyde the Court of Appeal set out the basis of secondary liability for
the collateral offence to a joint enterprise.25 The House of Lords in R v
English qualified this basis with the fundamental difference rule.26 In R v
Rahman this law is restated by Lord Brown as follows:

If B realises (without agreeing to such conduct being used) that A may kill
or intentionally inflict serious injury, but nevertheless continues to participate
with A in the venture, that will amount to a sufficient mental element for B to be guilty of murder if A, with the requisite intent, kills in the course
of the venture unless (i) A suddenly produces and uses a weapon of which B
knows nothing and which is more lethal than any weapon which B contemplates
that A or any other participant may be carrying and (ii) for that reason A’s act is to
be regarded as fundamentally different from anything foreseen by B. . . .27
Lord Scott, Lord Rodger and Lord Neuberger endorsed the restatement
of the law proposed by Lord Brown. The law can be summarised as
follows: if a secondary party participates in a joint enterprise in which
the principal commits murder, the secondary party will become liable
for that collateral offence if he contemplated that there was a real risk
that the principal might act with the mens rea for murder in furtherance
of the common purpose unless the English qualification applies. The
qualification requires that the principal suddenly produces and uses a
weapon of which the secondary party knows nothing and which is more
lethal than any weapon of which the secondary party was aware. If this
qualification is satisfied, there is no secondary liability for the collateral
offence.

The BBC’s foody programme ‘TheFood Programme’ is what you might typically think of as a perfect example of BBC think, that middle class do-gooding ‘something must be done’ touch of snobby arrogance that doesn’t brook any opposition….at least in this programme ‘First Bite’.

In her new book, First Bite – How We Learn To Eat, Bee Wilson takes a deep and reflective look at how food choices and habits are shaped, and how they can be changed.

Sheila Dillon is joined by Bee Wilson and special guests to discuss the book’s surprising findings, and how to make positive changes where positive change is needed.

Sheila and Bee are joined by Rosie Boycott, who advises the Mayor of London on food and is Chair of the London Food Board, as well as father and son Geoff and Anthony Whitington who star in the just-released film Fixing Dad, which documents Geoff’s struggles with type 2 diabetes and his two sons’ efforts to help him.

The presenter, Sheila Dillon, is ‘wowed’ by Wilson’s book which is ‘remarkable’ and the whole programme doesn’t put up much, if any, fight against Wilson’s thinking…..people are apparently confused about food and why they eat what they eat…they just don’t realise they are all victims of a conspiracy….presumably by that ‘industrial food system’ which Dillon shows so much disdain for and which has apparently destroyed the British food culture.

Geoff Whitington has diabetes, he was 20 stone, a lorry driver who used to stop at fast food outlets 6 or 7 times a day…but you know what?  His weight and subsequent diabetes….. not his fault.

He tells us (22 mins 30 secs) that he kept telling himself that it was his own fault, he was the one putting this stuff in his own mouth…but he learnt the truth…he’s a victim, it’s not his fault, he was ‘forced’ to eat in that manner by clever marketing by those nasty fast food outlets.

MacDonalds got the blame for this one…so the usual BBC prejudice against the US corporate….no mention of all those greasy spoon truck stops he must also have graced with his business….just how much clever marketing do they do?  Clever buggers at them roadside caffs….. such a magnetic draw…irresistable.

We are told that we live in a dysfunctional food environment, we aren’t clever or educated enough to feed ourselves properly…..the government must do something…it is nothing to do with ‘willpower’ or our own actions.

No voices in opposition, no voices of reason to bring a bit of sense to the discussion, no one to tell the trucker that it was his own damned fault he bulked up.

I imagine there is a reason supermarkets sell fresh fruit and vegetables (so cleverly marketed as the first thing you see when you enter a store…..shocking how they force us to eat our 5 a day!) and fresh meat along with all those wholesome ingredients for homecooking.   Somebody must be buying all that good stuff….can there really be so many know-it-all BBC presenters out there buying it all up whilst the rest of us ignorant plebs gorge ourselves on pizza and oven chips?

Yes, no one knows how to, or has the will to, cook anymore.  No one is interested in the slightest about food and cooking.  Which is why the BBC has so many programmes about…cooking and food.

The Guardian is becoming less of a newspaper and more and more of a campaigning, issues led vehicle for the green ink brigade.  The BBC isn’t far behind especially with its highly inaccurate and one-sided ‘reporting’ of Race in America….even today it tells us that its programme about OJ Simpson was more concerned with racial issues than the murder itself.

The Guardian gives a platform to just about any disgruntled black person to say the most ridiculous rubbish and present it as truth….a ‘truth’ I suspect most black people wouldn’t subscribe to it being the result of a mind that sees everything in terms of race because that is how it has been trained to see the world…everything that you fail  at is because of racism in society not because of your own limitations.  Articles in the Guardian, and BBC, just reinforce that way of seeing the world and reduces the black person to a victim unable to help themselves….it is a self-fulfilling prophecy…but one caused not by the usual suspect racists but by do-gooding white progressives who think black people can’t achieve success without their help…and it makes those white progressives feel very good about themselves as they go about their ‘missionary’ duties to the adopted ‘natives’.

Here’s one such black ‘victim’ given a platform by the Guardian to vent his grievances…

I’m tired of being around people who feel intimidated by my blackness

In our society, black is seen as negative and white as successful, leading many to reach for a cultural mask. It’s time we stopped trying to fit in

[The] psychological coping mechanism, the “cultural mask”…the layering of identities that a black person takes on to cope.

As a black person you almost automatically learn to use this this mask in order to survive in a society predominantly catering to a white audience. It shows in different forms – from extremes of self-hate, where all things black are rejected, to coping strategies such as not wearing braids to a job interview in fear of being deemed “too ethnic”. These compromising adaptation strategies help us feel included, avoiding the fear that if one was to show blackness in its entirety there will be alienation and confusion from one’s counterparts.

We are taught that to be black in our society is to be negative and to be white in our society is to be successful, elegant and all those other positive, sophisticated terms. This negative position has conditioned some of us to not only reject our blackness but to become submissive and not speak out about our experiences of prejudice.

Complete nonsense…‘taught that being black is a negative’?   Since when?  There are many, many high profile, successful black people in the UK.

‘.. compromising adaptation strategies help us feel included‘…you mean like going to a job in a suit or not having a mohican or a crewcut or covered in tattoos or bits of metal thrust through parts of your face?  Nothing to do with race, more to do with corporate culture and general rules on what is acceptable business presentation.

The real racists are people like VV Brown who wrote this whinge…..for in reality it is nothing more than a long attack on white people stereotyping them and ‘their culture’ as racist…..white culture, black culture…..can you have a culture based on skin colour….VV Brown is mistaking the origins of differing cultures….it is not skin colour that defines a culture but where that person, or his predecessors, came from and brought their culture from….White Germans could have a vastly different culture to Brits and yet they are the same colour.

Here’s another mad message from the Guardian..this time its a disappointing rant from Nick Cohen who gets it badly wrong…

Farage’s vile views are dominating the Europhobe pitch

The case for leaving Europe could not be racist. If Farage gave us a referendum about immigration, he would turn it into a culture war. Voting to leave would mean voting against racial equality and gay marriage and in favour of confining women to the kitchen and bedroom.

We got a taste of the Trumpish politics that are about to hit us during last year’s general election campaign. Farage announced on a TV debate that he would stop people coming “into Britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with HIV and get the retro-viral drugs that cost up to £25,000 per year per patient”.

In one sentence he managed to “signal” to his “core” that he was against gays, foreigners and scroungers. It wasn’t so much dog-whistle as wolf-whistle politics. Farage was leering at prejudiced voters and telling them how much he fancied them.

Astonishing and highly inaccurate protrayal of Farage and his policies….he wants to limit immigration…therefore…he’s Hitler reincarnated?  Cohen has lost the plot……his raging, liberal, intolerant arrogance is fully on show here…..a perfect example of the true mind of a ‘liberal’ who speaks grandly of free speech and democracy but when put to the test shows his true colours….all those UKIP voters….prejudiced, bigoted, racist losers who must be defeated….

Our unfair electoral system may have denied Farage a seat. But nearly 4 million people voted for Ukip. They were the “left-behinds” – the losers, who have been hit by conservative economics and liberal multiculturalism. Their secure jobs have gone and so has their sense of national identity. They didn’t retch when Farage conjured the bogey of HIV-infected foreign scroungers. They cheered, and said: “Here’s a man who isn’t afraid of political correctness… Here’s a man who tells it like it is.”

They want their prejudices verified. They want a stage-army of villains to boo and jeer. Whether the Eurosceptics dog whistle or wolf whistle, they will come, and they won’t care that their behaviour wrecks their own cause, and disgraces their country.

It is for this reason, above all others, that they must be comprehensively defeated.

The Today programme graced us with a report revealing that UK children are amongst the unhappiest in  the world and 5Live followed up on that.

0850 A major international study ranks England 13th out of 16 countries when it comes to children’s life satisfaction. Jonathan Bradshaw is a professor of social policy at the University of York who co-edited the report.

I know that the BBC is trying to cut back on spending but does it have to recycyle old news?

From August 2015…the exact same old report …

Children in England ‘among unhappiest in world’

Children in England are among the unhappiest in the world, behind countries such as Ethiopia, Algeria and Romania, research suggests.

The Children’s Society report, which looked at 15 diverse countries, ranked England 14th for life satisfaction of its young people, ahead of South Korea.

If I looked closely would I find that this story is linked to some other that is designed as an attack on some government policy?  Is this the BBC using its services to pressurise the government…or is this just a cock up?

 

 

The BBC’s Hugh Sykes has tweeted that the alleged sex abuse of a 15 year old girl by Sunderland footballer (ex), Adam Johnston, was the result of a conspiracy by Manchester United to undermine Sunderland….or so he has heard from ‘credible’ sources.

The BBC long ignored allegations against Islamist Tower Hamlet Mayor, Lutfur Rahman, until reality caught up with them and they could no longer ignore the story.  Similarly they seem to be ignoring reports about London Mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan who has been linked to Muslim extremist groups by several reports…..and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is in the mix too.

What is also interesting is that the reports about Khan’s brother-in-Law shows how the BBC’s claims that Muslim extremism in the UK is purely a result of the Iraq War is, well, a complete lie, a lie that is politically motivated as the BBC tries to blame all the world’s ills on that war which it so ardently opposed….

‘Mr Javaid’s name appeared on a fatwa in 1998 calling for a “full-scale war of jihad” against Britain and the US.’

From the Mail:

Sadiq Khan, Labour candidate for London mayor, made a speech while the ‘black flag of jihad’ was flying and gave his support to groups linked to extremism

From The Sun:

Extremist views: Labour terror error as Tories fear rout in London mayor contest

LABOUR’S candidate for Mayor of London and party boss Jeremy Corbyn attended a rally in 2006 with an extremist Muslim leader who threatened “fire throughout the world”.

Sadiq Khan later defended Dr Azam Tamimi, a senior figure in the Muslim Association of Britain, for using “flowery” language.

Last night Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke slammed the news, telling The Sun: “Once again this goes to show how the hard-left clique at the top of the Labour Party hate the West and everything we stand for.”

From the Telegraph:

Labour’s mayoral hopeful Sidiq Khan linked to ‘online bin Laden’

Labour’s candidate for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has faced criticism, after it emerged that Labour’s candidate had shared a platform with a group backed by an extremist imam who was as an al-Qaeda recruiter.

From the Evening Standard:

The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.

Douglas Murray in the Spectator illustrates why people like Khan are a problem as they seek to downplay extremism and claim Islam is not extreme itself in comparison to a Western society:

Sadiq Khan MP had a piece in the Telegraph last week attacking an excellent piece by Charles Moore in the same paper the Saturday before. In his piece Sadiq makes a number of claims which are worth rebutting…..

Once again a prominent Muslim has used what could have been an opportunity to tackle a problem to instead underplay the problem and deride legitimate concerns expressed about this. Rather than distracting people from the main problem, Sadiq Khan has merely highlighted it.

Problems such as this:

Among those running against Mr Khan at the 2010 general election in Tooting was a Liberal Democrat candidate who was an Ahmadiyya Muslim. Personally I find the Ahmadiyaa among the most admirable as well as progressive movements within Islam. They are also among the most persecuted and reviled, deemed to be heretics by many Muslims. Bigotry against Ahmadiyaa Muslims was extended towards the Liberal Democrat candidate in Tooting. Indeed it was so strong that during the 2010 campaign it was reported that he was told not to come to an election hustings at Sadiq Khan’s own mosque – the Tooting Islamic Centre.

When the Conservative candidate arrived at the same mosque he was reportedly mistaken for the Ahmadiyya Liberal Democrat candidate. The Conservative candidate then had to be locked in a room at the back of the mosque by members of the mosque to safeguard him from attack.

Why does the BBC also seek to playdown and hide the problem of Islam based ‘extremism’ and also fail to report, until forced to by weight of evdence and other Media being more honest, Khan’s reported links to extremists?

I imagine the naive BBC would love to see a Muslim London mayor, so cosmopolitan…..remind me, just how did that work out for the non-Muslim residents of Tower Hamlets?

From Charles Moore 2013: