Listening to Sunday this morning and we were apparently going to have a look at the Pope Tweeting what we actually got was the talk hijacked by, given over to,  a Muslim who went on to tell us how wonderful the internet is for Islam.  This may have backfired for the BBC who undoubtedly thought this was a good opportunity to show how modern, connected and integrated Muslims are.  In fact what we got was a message that the internet enables Muslims to become even more devout and of more interest, in these days of the Islamic State, how the internet enables Muslims to become one ‘Muslim Nation’, the Ummah, not just an idea but a reality.  So just where do the loyalties lie especially as we noted in a previous post Babar Ahmad told Victoria Derbyshire that no Muslim would believe a non-Muslim in preference to a Muslim even if that Muslim was someone like Osama Bin Laden?

Then we had a piece about a woman only Mosque in Bradford…Stourton did ask if this only perpetuated the idea of women being segregated but this was brushed aside and then we had a lecture from a female Imam, or is it imama?, [who can only preach to women] from Denmark on how empowering this is for women and of course how it will pull the rug from under the ‘Islamophobes” feet as they see how independent and invincible Muslim women are…in their separate little mosque….how is it any different to having the backroom in a Male dominated mosque?  She went on ironically to proudly tell us of her campaign to tweet photos of mosque backdoors where women are allowed to enter the mosque to pray, so modern and progressive, to raise awareness of how Islam treats women.  Isn’t that Islamophobic?

Anti-Semitism?  Stourton did a piece on this but not exactly challenging or indepth and the PSC and anti-Zionist Jews were given a platform to spout their stuff without any questions asked and to justify and hide the reality of their campaigns….nothing anti-Semitic about them, we love Jews and anti-Semitism is terrible.  No BBC journalist hauled into ask them about the rise of anti-Semtiism and how their reporting from the Middle East has helped to drive that.

Why I’m becoming a Jew and why you should, too

Nick Cohen

Bertolt Brecht said: “Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.”

Describe the fantasy the Tsarist and Nazi empires developed that bluntly and it is impossible to understand how the Labour party is in danger of becoming as tainted as Ukip by the racists it attracts.

But consider how many leftwing activists, institutions or academics would agree with a politer version.

Western governments are the main source of the ills of the world. The “Israel lobby” controls western foreign policy. Israel itself is the “root cause” of all the terrors of the Middle East, from the Iraq war to Islamic State. Polite racism turns the Jews, once again, into demons with the supernatural power to manipulate and destroy nations. Or as the Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallström, who sees herself as a feminist rather than a racial conspiracist, explained recently, Islamist attacks in Paris were the fault of Israeli occupiers in the West Bank.

One institution Cohen fails to mention is the BBC.

Time for a new one of these. This is where to detail the bias. The floor is yours!

Glory be, the sainted Obama is soon to leave us…bu his place in history as a great American President is surely cemented.

The BBC is here to ensure it is.

Inside Obama’s Whitehouse

A month after his victory, Barack Obama discovered America was on the verge of a great depression. He puts his plans for change on hold to pass the largest stimulus in history.

Obama promises to close Guantanamo within a year – and it is still open. His attorney general admits that evidence against many of the prisoners could not be used to prosecute because they had been tortured.

And at the Copenhagen summit, the president crashed a meeting between three fellow heads of government in his desperation to do something about climate change.

So episode one of this hagiography the great Obama is on hand to mend the riven US economy, is handed the poision chalice of Guantanamo Bay for him to sort, and he is desperate to do his bit to save the Earth.  What a hero.

Episode two he cures leprosy with a touch of his hand and walks on water….oh sorry…it’s about his greatest legacy…Obamacare….brought in in spite of fearful opposition from the nasty, far-right fanatics of the Teaparty.

There are two more episodes as yet unnamed but let’s think what they could be….they have to paint Obama as the great hero winning through against all odds or failing heroically in the face of massive and overwhelming opposition from unpleasant and selfish vested interests.

Any bets one is about white policemen ‘executing’ innocent black youths and the racism inherent in white America?  Any bets that one will be about Obama’s foreign policy, not of course his actual policy of burying his head in the sand and claiming that that is the sensible and peaceful option not risking his ‘legacy’ by actually taking responsibility and proposing solutions to world crises, but the one where he has battled on against the warmongering hawks and come out victorious having brought Iran in from the cold and judiciously avoided war in Syria, by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq he of course ended those wars, didn’t he?  Oh and of course there will be slipped in his love of all things Muslim and immigrant as part of that.

Or did his actions, or rather inactions, actually empower a brutal and dangerous Iran, kick start the rebirth of the Taliban and ISIS and allow events to tumble so out of control that 11 million people have fled their homes in Syria and who could head towards Europe in the end destabilising and destroying Europe in the process?

What was Obama doing whilst other’s fought for their country’s survival?

Little different today though I’m sure the BBC will see things a little differently.

Astonishing how the BBC can skirt around a subject and not mention it even as they talk about it….when they want to.

Anyone think the Budget was all about not upsetting the punters before the referendum and keeping them onside with the pro-EU government?  Lots of people have that opinion….maybe even the BBC, but it’s not letting on.

Even in this report that is specifically about Osborne mentioning the EU during the course of the Budget the BBC manages to avoid saying his actual budget is designed to further the pro-EU vote…

Budget 2016: Osborne sparks row with EU warning in Budget

The BBC manages to get in one quote three times in the space of a short article telling us how the OBR thinks staying in the EU is for the best…

1. Mr Osborne quoted the OBR as saying a vote to leave “could usher in an extended period of uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU”.
2. OBR chairman Robert Chote said: “But what we have also pointed out is that if you look at the things City economists and other economists are saying, if there were a vote to leave, then people expect a period of uncertainty while the new relationship with the EU is negotiated, and that could have implications for consumer and business confidence, and financial markets.
3. The OBR said its comments on the EU referendum were not an attempt to quantify the impact of a possible exit as this was outside its remit. Mr Chote said the watchdog thought it was sensible “to recognise the fact this is a risk” given the extent to which it is being discussed in the referendum debate.

And then there is this from Laura Kuenssberg..

A Budget conspiracy?

Surely, just surely she will mention the machiavellian ploy to fool the voters and buy their votes with some cheap, short term baubles.  Er, no.

Here is her thinking about George’s thinking…

From time to time, you know I like to pass on some of the conspiracy theories that do the rounds in Westminster.

If that’s not your bag, then please don’t proceed any further, I won’t take it personally.

Of course today, most people in SW1 are firmly in the Budget day two phase, quite rightly poring over the detail as think tanks and independent number crunchers get their hands on it, and in this case, as Tory backbenchers’ tempers rise over some of the proposals.

But one question that remains unanswered is why did the chancellor decide to undertake what’s been described as the biggest ever reduction in borrowing right at the end of the Parliament to magically meet his political target?

Maybe you need a conspiracy theory to answer that.

Yes, yes, yes…but what’s the conspiracy theory, why’d he do it?

The theories centre around George Osborne’s ambitions to move into Number 10.

One minister told me, this is all about “next generation George”, by pushing cuts and consolidation to the last possible moment in the Parliament.

He would therefore be trying to secure the top job when people are feeling more flush due to income tax cuts and the pain from last minute austerity hasn’t yet been felt. This is “fixing the leadership when the sun is shining”, they suggested.

It’s all about personal ambition to be PM…or is it?  Is it the pro-EU ‘fix’?….

But another source suggests something even more devilish.

Is it a desire to join the EU, join the Euro and fling open the borders even more by joining Schengen?…er no….in fact it’s just more George wanting to be Boss…..

It’s pointless, they suggest, being bemused by the seemingly strange timing of it all.

Traditionally governments are tough on spending when they are fresh from election victory, then softer towards the end.

This time, it’s the other way round.

No need for confusion though, this conspiracy implies. The simple reason is that this Parliament is never going to make it to the end of its fixed term in 2020. And that means the cuts, that pain in 2020, is simply never going to happen because there will be a general election long before. And, a different man or woman with their hands on the Red Box.

The theoretical prize is an early election after the Tories have settled their leadership succession, before Labour’s unhappy MPs have had the chutzpah to sort out theirs.

The argument goes, George Osborne newly installed in Number 10, doesn’t have to make the big cuts, dissolves Parliament, goes to the country and beats Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour to a pulp.

But hang on, Kuenssberg finishes with this…

Try raising any of this on the record with any politician? You don’t get very far.

Try raising it off the record, you don’t get that far either.

But there are people who believe this conspiracy could well be the Tory leadership’s dream.

So on the record and off the record she can’t find anyone who can give the slightest bit of credence to her conspiracy theory…in other words this is pure BBC hokum spinning a wild tale to attack Osborne when the real story about his manipulation of the budget to serve the ‘Remain’ campaign’s purposes is ignored.  Consider that before the last budget the BBC were insistent on telling us that Osborne was the most political of all chancellors odd that in two reports on the budget’s ‘politics’ they miss out on the biggest bit of ‘politicking’ going.

Wilful blindness?  Old fashioned bias?   Maybe you need a conspiracy theory to answer that.

Today we were reminded that the BBC was a member of the CBI, and may still be one.

Today we were also reminded that the BBC owns half of UKTV via BBC Worldwide which brings us channels such as  ‘Dave’ and ‘Gold’ …

UKTV, which operates channels such as Dave and Gold, is understood to have been offered six years’ worth of rivals’ revenue and spending data, which would have allowed the digital broadcaster to gain vital insights into other broadcasters’ programming budgets and income streams.

Ever think the BBC might just be too big?

Fascinating watching the BBC at work as 4 of its finest tried to get to grips with the budget, sifting desperately through it in a frantic search for the big ‘un, the scoop that would blow Osborne away.

The best that they could come up with was that he had failed to meet his target of reducing debt as a proportion of GDP….Huw Edwards said sagely that this was ‘significant’. [at 3 hrs 16] unfortunately Paul Johnson from the IFS was in the studio and pulled the rug from under Edwards by saying it was ‘economically not signifcant at all’…Edwards looked chastened and rolled his eyes but recovered with a ‘I meant politically significant of course’...and all his workmates chimed in with a similar line to help him out of his embarrasment, and funnily enough the BBC’s Kamal Ahmed made no mention of its ‘insignificance’ in this report.

Odd that the BBC should now think this figure significant because last year they were dismissing this way of measuring debt out of hand telling us it was an Osborne trick to cover up a failure to lower the deficit.

Huw Edwards wound back the clock as he interviewed Matt Hancock and stated that it was wrong to continue with austerity when the world economy was so weak when instead the government should be stimulating the economy.   Heard that before from the BBC…in fact we heard it everyday for 5 years…it was called Plan B…and it was Labour’s policy.

He also thought it ‘illuminating’ that much of the surplus would come from cutting government spending and not massive growth….hmmm…this from the BBC that was warning us of massive cuts to come in this second Parliament for Cameron, cuts so bad they would take us back to the Thirties and the road to Wigan Pier…..the cuts were going to be ‘utterly terrifying‘….never mind that they would actually take us back to the level of government spending in 1998 under Labour….not the terrifying Thirties then?

To achieve the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of a budget surplus of £23bn by 2019-20 would require “spending cuts on a colossal scale ..

If reductions in departmental spending were to continue at the same pace after the May 2015 election as they had over the past four years, welfare cuts or tax rises worth about £21bn a year would be needed by 2019-20, at a time when the Conservatives were committed to income tax cuts worth £7bn, according to the IFS.

We have always known that the surplus would come from cutting spending…it is not a surprise nor ‘illuminating’ to rediscover this today….the BBC wants us to think that Osborne’s plans are in chaos and that he is flailing around using ‘magic’ as Edwards suggested…..oddly the Guardian also uses that line….Budget 2016: magical thinking from charmed world of the chancellor.

As for the sugar tax….the jury is definitely out on that one, effectiveness wise, despite the BBC’s assertion that Mexico provided proof positive that a sugar tax works……however the studies done were funded by the people who lobbied the Mexican government to impose the sugar tax….and the New Zealand government has looked at this and concluded there is as yet no proof to suggest the tax works.

The Science Media Centre also casts doubt on the findings.

Even the Guardian admits….The evidence that a soda tax can reduce obesity and disease, however, comes largely from theoretical models.

The BBC though were delighted for Jamie Oliver…..as I am.

Guido is not so sure about the hypocritical little chap….

Jamie Oliver is all over the BBC celebrating his punitive sugar tax – but this is sweet hypocrisy. On his website, Jamie offers a series of recipes aimed at children. A bowl of granola for a child’s breakfast, advertised as “a healthy and delicious start to the day”, contains an unbelievable 20.9g of sugar. That’s 23% of an adult’s daily recommended intake, and this is supposed to be for a child.

Experts recommend 4-8 year olds should have 12g of sugar per day, teenagers should have 20-32 grams. A single serving of this Jamie recipe surpasses the maximum recommended teenager’s sugar allowance, and three times that of 8 year olds…

Oh and there’s this from Guido’s site…..gotta love it…..

Here you go, a new Open Thread. BBC seem to abandoned any pretence in the US election and have gone full on anti-Trump mode. It reminds me of the way they treated Reagan and Thatcher -the bile is visceral.

Is the BBC still a member of the CBI?  The BBC suspended its membership during the Scottish independence referendum when the CBI joined the No campaign…..did it renew its membership?

The CBI is now supporting staying in the EU though disingenuously not doing so ‘officially’….

CBI to make economic case to remain in EU after reaffirming strong member mandate

It tells us that….

80% of CBI members, when weighted to reflect its membership – including 71% of small and mid-sized business members – believe that the UK remaining a member of the EU would be best for their business. Overall, 5% say it is in their firms’ best interests for the UK to leave the EU, with 15% unsure.

I don’t have a list of all the members of the CBI but it would be interesting to see who these ‘businesses’ are exactly…if they are like the BBC then clearly their opinon is more political than economic….something Daniel Hannan suggested….

I once attended a regional CBI conference in my constituency. I’m pretty certain that the businesses – in the sense of organisations that had to make profits – were outnumbered by the charities, local government agencies and NGOs. There was even, I remember, a local Scout group. Yet this is the organisation which is represented by the BBC as the voice of British industry.

It does represent some industries, of course, especially the large multi-nationals that are most adept at reaching accommodations with governments. Mega-corporations generally love Brussels, intuiting that the system was made for them. They have invested a great deal of time and money in getting regulations that suit them at the expense of their smaller rivals. The last thing they want is to have to start all over again.

NGO’s, charities, the BBC maybe, and even a scout group…..I’m grateful to the CBI for doing the hard work canvassing their opinions on the EU but don’t present them to us as ‘businesses’ who are completely apolitical.

If the BBC is once again a member perhaps it should consider resuspending itself….for good.

Roger Harrabin’s grip on the BBC’s science output must have slipped as the below is something he would definitely not approve of…..no coincidence perhaps that it is an ITV journalist who made the programme…

Saving Science from the Scientists

Is science quite as scientific as it’s supposed to be? ITV Science Correspondent Alok Jha takes a look at how science research is really carried out, to find out if it is really as rigorous as scientists would like us to think.

In the second and concluding part of this series, Alok looks at the practices and cultures undermining the integrity of scientific research.

Are scientists being pushed into shortcuts and unethical behaviour by the competitiveness of their field?

That is part two, I didn’t hear part one, but no mention of climate change so perhaps Roger’s still influencing coverage for the worse.

We heard that scientific journals like Nature and Science want exciting, positive science stories that don’t upset the applecarts of the vested interests but ultimately end up distorting the real science because they don’t publish the negative papers that contradict the ‘good news’.

We are told that genetics is a robust field because it publishes its data and such data transparency is not practised in other fields…such as climate change perhaps?  Such openness promotes better science as the criticism and exchanges mean the science is constantly improved….science happens by disagreement and challenge……as every good english graduate should know.

Science has to be rescued from the business it has become….[and rescued from the politics].  Scientists have so much invested in their ‘science’ being accepted, careers, reputation and lucrative grants, that temptation to close down debate and protect your own ‘science’ can be overwhelming.

Shame at least one BBC environmental ‘journalist’ has made it his business to use the BBC to campaign about climate change for over 20 years and has been extraordinarilty successful at closing down debate and in creating a powerful, unstoppable narrative that promotes his own views on climate change regardless of the science and did everything he could to support climate scientists to hide their data and excuse their unethical behaviour.