Apparently the use of the term #Alllives matter is a racial slur.  So if you’re not black your life doesn’t matter…so says #Blacklivesmatter.

Thanks to Highland Rebel for this video:

It will be interesting to see how the BBC and the Left respond to these police murders as it is clearly the vitriolic anti-White, anti-police rhetoric of the left, and of the BBC, that has led to these deaths…..the BBC spends a great deal of time trying to link the official Brexit campaign to racist attacks despite Boris and Co never once suggesting in the slightest that people go out and do such things…however…as you see in the film above #BlackLivesmatter is deeply involved in encouraging the murder of police officers and anti-white racism…and the BBC is there alongside with an empathetic eye.

It was hard not to be drawn to the black men and women who turned up in military fatigues, talking about being under attack, and urging the black folk of Charleston to arm themselves….Which has led me here to Dallas, and the Gun Club. 

The BBC of course is on call to report the British #Blacklivesmatter [Run by a Muslim] protest that exploited the deaths of  two black men in the US….

Hundreds join Black Lives Matter march through London

Hundreds of people have marched on Westminster in protest at the shooting of two black men by police in America.  The Black Lives Matter march went through central London to the Houses of Parliament at about 20:00 BST.

The marchers were heard to shout “Hands up, don’t shoot” as they carried banners through the capital.  The march is in response to the fatal shootings of Philando Castile in Minnesota and Alton Sterling in Louisiana.

The Black Lives Matter London Movement was founded by 18-year-old sixth form student Marayam Ali.

She told The Voice:”By these people coming here to stand and unite, they are showing that they are against police brutality and that’s the most important thing.”

The problem for Blacks in the UK is ‘police brutality’?  Not the fact that so many black lives are lost due to other black people killing blacks?  When police moved to try and stop this they were accused of racism.  Guess black lives only matter when they can be exploited as pawns in a political game by black/Muslim activists….and the BBC of course.

Oh yes…remember Ruth Smeeth, the Jewish Labour MP abused by a black Momentum activist who was so matey with Corbyn?  That activist, Marc Wadsworth, is a black power agitator.  Small world.

This was Corbyn’s very friendly reaction to Wadsworth at the end of the meeting about anti-Semitism where the Jewish Smeeth was abused:

This shows you what Wadsworth’s politics are…black power, Malcolm X, militancy….no cooperation, no surrender to the white oppressors…..

If the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah and this guy are Corbyn’s ‘friends’  just why does the BBC’s Nick Robinson think his fellow journalists shouldn’t criticise Corbyn?

Another of Wadsworth’s friends?…Need we say who?…

At least one of the Blacks who murdered the police officers in Dallas had links to Black Power groups….by coincidence in June the BBC was promoting their agenda….by film….

Black Power:  America’s Armed Resistance

And in writing…..

On the ground with America’s Black Power soldiers

Not terrorists or extremists or racists but ‘soldiers’ resisting….the film-maker feels an empathy with them as they propose to kill cops…

It was hard not to be drawn to the black men and women who turned up in military fatigues, talking about being under attack, and urging the black folk of Charleston to arm themselves….Which has led me here to Dallas, and the Gun Club. 

What is the problem?….

This movement is partly a response to years of police brutality towards the black community. Issues brought starkly to life by the killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, of Tamir Rice in Cleveland, of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, among many, many others.

If you are a black man aged 15-34 you’re nine times more likely to be killed than anyone else. Yet African Americans make up just 12% of the US population. Whatever way you look at it, police are clearly killing disproportionately large numbers of African Americans – particularly young black men.

Are yes, statistics…..’disproportionate’ numbers of black men being killed…except that’s not true is it?  Black males are ‘disproportionately responsible for far more crime than whites, hispanics or other ethnic groups…hence they attract more police attention.  Note the use of Michael Brown’s death as an example, as always by the BBC, of police racism….the jury agreed this was self-defence by the police officer and witnesses on the ground confirmed that.

The BBC goes on…..

I wonder if the BBC are as sympathetic with their aims and methods now after 5 dead cops?  Probably.

Yep even as the gunsmoke clears the BBC film-maker, Dan Murdoch, has the photo at the top of this post as his banner on Twitter.

What did he tell BBC news about the Dallas murders?  So proud of his boys?  Shame about the cops but you know…got what was coming?

No of course not…he’s shocked and appalled by the murders.  But still…ya know….

Oh yes….Just as Zimmerman was Hispanic not white one of the police officers who was involved in one of the shootings that led to the protests and murders was of Chinese descent…not white….

A new day, more bias….Tory leadership candidate, Andrea Leadsom, is in the BBC’s sights and she’s taking a pounding, the BBC not just reporting but taking a view…..Leadsom is a bad person…lack of experience and judgement we are told.  Hmmm….funny how May’s comments[clearly part of her leadership spiel] about not having children weren’t reacted to in the same way…funny how the BBC is saying that Leadsom is claiming people without children have no stake in this country…isn’t she awful?  Funny how the BBC joined in the anti-Brexit campaign by saying that it was old people who selfishly voted for Brexit denying the young a say, destroying their future….so don’t the old have a stake in society that entitles them to vote as they like then?  May was a Remainer, Leadsom a Brexiteer….any reason why Leadsom is taking so much flak?  Apparently the Times interviewer asked Leadsom about children…it was a leading question knowing full well what May had already said…the BBC is already making judgements despite not having seen the full transcript of the interview.

Remember when Labour and the BBC told us that Old Etonians shouldn’t be running the country because they couldn’t understand what ‘normal people’ thought or wanted?  Didn’t Old Etonians have just as much of a stake in the country as any other person?  When Jo Cox was killed we were told she was the real deal, a people’s person, someone who could genuinely represent the ‘people’…..except she didn’t did she?  She was for Remain and mass immigration…whereas Old Etonian Boris  was on the other side with ‘the people’, all those once-Labour voters.

The BBC is there to check your privilege and approve and licence your acceptance as worthy of being part of their society.  If your ‘out’ you’re going to be denounced as ignorant, uneducated, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, xenophobic,, Islamophobic and guilty of being White.

Essex Police STN ‏@EssexPoliceSTN

You have a split second decision to make … #WhatWouldYouDo #joblikenoother #AirportCops

 

Five police officers murdered in Dallas and Obama’s immediate response was to say it’s the cops’ own fault…they are racists….they must change. He has a very low key response to the use of weapons this time….normally his first reaction to such mass killings is to loudly denounce their ownership and proclaim the laws must change.

I’m guessing he thinks the shootings were terrible but justified…his rhetoric over the years has certainly helped stir up the racial animosity.

The BBC itself has of course helped by repeatedly and loudly proclaiming every shooting of a black person by cops as racist...never mind the circumstances.   The BBC has played its part in increasing racial tension and conflict.  It is widely watched in the US. Are Cops dead due, in part, to BBC journalists’ reckless whipping up of anti-police, anti-white hate?

The BBC take on policing in the US:

Well, slavery may have long gone, but apprehending someone because they could be up to no good, simply because they’re black is still police policy in much of the land.

The BBC gives us this evidence of Black victimisation by cops…

But they give us no similar chart for whites or Hispanics or other races killed by cops….or the context…the crime rate of various races.

What if the BBC were to actually investigate the issue properly?  Would they find that Blacks were more likely to be killed?  Would they find out why that might be so?  They might, but they’re not interested, the BBC only wants to paint a picture of racist cops killing innocent Blacks….and the result is what we see today in Dallas.

Others are more honest.

The Myths of Black Lives Matter

The movement has won over Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But what if its claims are fiction?

Heather MacDonald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

“Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force,” writes MacDonald.

MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks “commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime” in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city’s population.

More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks. According to MacDonald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.

“If we’re going to have a ‘Lives Matter’ anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named “White and Hispanic Lives Matter,'” said MacDonald in her Hillsdale speech.

The BBC always like to proclaim that the Black victim was ‘unarmed’ as in Ferguson but downplays the reality of the situation such as in Ferguson the Black ‘victim’ was very heavily built and tall, he punched the police officer and tried to grab his gun and then charged at him at which time he was shot.

Such an economy with the facts is not uncommon amongst those who want to portray every black person’s death as a racist murder by a police officer….

The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

In one of those unintended cases, an undercover cop from the New York Police Department was conducting a gun sting in Mount Vernon, just north of New York City. One of the gun traffickers jumped into the cop’s car, stuck a pistol to his head, grabbed $2,400 and fled. The officer gave chase and opened fire after the thief again pointed his gun at him. Two of the officer’s bullets accidentally hit a 61-year-old bystander, killing him. That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death. In the other collateral damage case, Virginia Beach, Virginia, officers approached a car parked at a convenience store that had a homicide suspect in the passenger seat. The suspect opened fire, sending a bullet through an officer’s shirt. The cops returned fire, killing their assailant as well as a woman in the driver’s seat. That woman entered the Post’s database without qualification as an “unarmed black victim” of police fire.

This is an article that Dr David Kelly, UN weapons inspector, authored just prior to the Iraq war….curiously the BBC never refers to anything Dr Kelly said that confirms the intelligence that Saddam was considered a threat…..Kelly was a world renowned and highly respected expert on WMD….John Humphrys? Not  so much.

‘Only regime change will avert the threat’

In the past week, Iraq has begun destroying its stock of al-Samoud II missiles, missiles that have a range greater than the UN-mandated limit of 150 kilometres. This is presented to the international community as evidence of President Saddam Hussein’s compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors.

But Iraq always gave up materials once it was in its interest to do so. Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.

Today Iraq shows superficial co-operation with the inspectorates. Weapons such as 122mm rockets specific for chemical and biological use have been discovered and the destruction of proscribed missiles and associated engines, components and gyroscopes has begun.

Iraq has established two commissions to search for documents and weapons under the direction of Rashid Amer, a former head of Iraq’s concealment activities, and a commission has started to recover weapons from Iraq’s unilateral destruction sites. (These sites, dating back to 1991, were destroyed by Iraq, illegally, without UN supervision and as part of Iraq’s concealment of programmes.) Amer al-Saadi – formerly responsible for conserving Iraq’s WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons – continues to mislead the international community.

It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.

Yet some argue that inspections are working and that more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and that disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.

The UN has been attempting to disarm Iraq ever since 1991 and has failed to do so. It is an abject failure of diplomacy with the split between France, China and Russia on the one hand, and Britain and the United States on the other, creating a lack of ‘permanent five’ unity and resolve. More recently Germany, a temporary yet powerful member of the Security Council, has exacerbated the diplomatic split. The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate. So-called concessions – U2 overflights, the right to interview – were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.

In the years since 1991, during which Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq established an effective concealment and deception organisation which protected many undisclosed assets. In October 2002, Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disclose his arsenal within 30 days. He admitted inspectors and, with characteristic guile, provided some concessions, but still refuses to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations – 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991. (Even these figures, it should be noted, are based in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq.)

Less easy to determine is the extent of activity undertaken since 1991. In its 12,000-page ‘disclosure’ submitted to the inspectors in December 2002, Iraq failed to declare any proscribed activities. Today the truly important issues are declaring the extent and scope of the programmes in 1991 and the personalities, ‘committees’ and organisations involved.

There are indications that the programmes continue.

Iraq continues to develop missile technology, especially fuel propellents and guidance systems for long-range missiles. Iraq has recovered chemical reactors destroyed prior to 1998 for allegedly civilian activity, built biological fermenters and agent dryers, and created transportable production units for biological and chemical agents and the filling of weapons. Key nuclear research and design teams remain in place, even though it is assessed that Iraq is unable to manufacture nuclear weapons unless fissile material is available.

War may now be inevitable. The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.

Since some WMD sites have not been unambiguously identified, and may not be neutralised until war is over, a substantial hazard may be encountered. Sites with manufacturing or storage capabilities for chemical or biological weapons may present a danger and much will depend on the way that those facilities are militarily cancelled and subsequently treated.

Some of the chemical and biological weapons deployed in 1991 are still available, albeit on a reduced scale. Aerial bombs and rockets are readily available to be filled with sarin, VX and mustard or botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and smallpox. More sophisticated weaponry, such as spray devices associated with drones or missiles with separating warheads, may be limited in numbers, but would be far more devastating if used.

The threat from Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries. Perhaps the real threat from Iraq today comes from covert use of such weapons against troops or by terrorists against civilian targets worldwide. The link with al-Qaeda is disputed, but is, in any case, not the principal terrorist link of concern. Iraq has long trained and supported terrorist activities and is quite capable of initiating such activity using its security services.

The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq’s development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert.

What did David Kelly think of the Iraq Intelligence Dossier?

‘I had no doubt about the veracity of it (the Dossier) was absolute….It is an accurate document, I think it is a fair reflection of the intelligence that was available and it’s presented in a very sober and factual way….it is well written.’

“I was personally sympathetic to the war because I recognised from a decade’s work the menace of Iraq’s ability to further develop it’s non-conventional weapons programmes…..We were 100% certain that Saddam had a biological weapons programme.”

I do not feel “deep unease” over the dossier because it is completely coincident with my personal views on Iraq’s unconventional weapons capability.

John Humphrys, that renowned scientist and weapons expert thought, and thinks, differently…as did the BBC’s head legal advisor…..

The BBC’s most senior lawyer has criticised the Hutton report as being “biased”.

Glenn del Medico said the inquiry into the death of Government weapons adviser David Kelly and the role of the BBC in the scandal had been a “dreadful waste of time”.

“It’s unfortunate that Lord Hutton made such a biased report. He got it wrong, but then judges don’t always get it right.”

The BBC hated Hutton, hated Butler but love Chilcott…wonder why…..floor’s yours….

The BBC has a few lines of attack it favours when talking about the ‘disaster’ that is Brexit, that’s one of them by the way, another is that Michael Gove recklessly and irresponsibly spoke disdainfully about experts and the elite thus undermining democracy and society’s respect for aforementioned worthies.  Naturally the BBC can speak authoritatively on this subject and scorn Gove for his juvenile and shallow attitude because it never ever doubts the integrity, expertise and professionalism of the Elite and those experts in their fields.

This morning then must have been a blip, the working class John Humphrys allowing ignorance, prejudice and a tabloidesque desire for a story to get the better of his judgement as the Today programme ran a skit about butter not being better.  Experts have told us that butter is the work of the devil, now experts tell us it is heavenly, oh wait, Humphrys drags in another expert who tells us put the butter down, stay away from the Lurpak.  Experts eh?  Still, good job the BBC doesn’t go all Gove on us and question their genius.

Talking of experts you probably thought that the BBC, a long established media company, renowned for the excellence of its programmes and jammed to the rafters with experts on making such programmes, would have been able to replicate the success of one of its flagship programmes, the Real Top Gear.  Just a look at the two photos of the presenters shows how it all went wrong with the reproduction…

How did the BBC, which has made Top Gear for years and years to a basic formula, fail to replicate that success?

How did the experts get it so badly wrong?

Their first mistake was wanting to copy the success but to do so by not copying the programme, they didn’t just tinker with the formula they tore it up.  What we have now is, yawn, a car show….of cars few people can actually afford even in their dreams.  Now OTG had the same cars but they trashed them and didn’t seem to be presenting the show as if we were customers seriously considering shelling out for one of these planet destroyers. The programme’s production values are great, the photography as Rory Reid tore around the Highlands in a Mustang was stunning and absolutely beautiful, the Scottish tourist board should license the footage, but that’s not the beating heart of Top Gear.

It always had brilliant photography and stunning visual effects but that wasn’t the secret of its success.

What was?  Three grown men acting like boys.  What the BBC then brought us was a boy trying to act as a grown up and Chris Evans could never carry that off.  He’s great on the radio but Top Gear was never going to be a good fit.

What about Joey?  The BBC thinking?  A huge American star, just as big here, sure fire lure to bring in the audience….but does that indicate a lack of confidence in the content of the new show?  Top Gear was a ‘star’ already, it didn’t need a big name, in fact what it needs is unknowns making it their own, stamping their personalities on it.  Joey is too big a star, too reliant on keeping his dignity to indulge in the stupidity that Clarkson and Co indulged in.  All the other presenters are in his shadow and there can never be the banter and fooling about with Joey that was so much a part of the old team, they’ll never be ‘mates’.  I like ‘Joey’, with George Clooney and Brad Pitt on the show he might have had some equals, but he’s way out of the current crop of Top Gear presenters’ league.

Therefore….he has to go…and he can take Eddie Jordan with him…why does Jordan think a show that treats him as the ‘fool’ is something he wants to be part of?

Rory Reid, Chris Harris and Sabine Schmitz should be the presenters…maybe Vicki Butler-Henderson should be head-hunted from Fifth Gear to mellow and balance the ballsy Schmitz who might overwhelm the boys.  Four presenters max.  There are too many now and it is impossible for them to gel as a team as the denim clad old crocks did.

Where is the fun, where is the banter, where is the knockabout stupidity, the special trips, the races that really seemed like races rather than three cars that just happen to be going in the same direction?

Even the Guardian, which had an innate hatred of Top Gear for so many reasons, thinks the spirit of the old Top gear should be wrought again….

INTRODUCE! You know, some fun

I don’t know, guys, just try to make it look like this is a fun programme to make. Laugh a little. Improvise. Crack jokes. Be rude about Mexicans. Punch a man in the face. Anything, so long as it brings a little of the old sparkle back.

How could the BBC ‘experts’ have got things so wrong on a programme that they must have known was based on a specific formula…..and one that was so obvious?

Top Gear has been changed into a car show, it’s Fifth Gear…and Fifth Gear already exists…and relatively few people watch it, no one talks about it…a clue there.  Top Gear has been reduced to an animated calendar, beautiful to look at but kinda boring in the end, and it does seem time passes at a calendar-like pace as you watch it…..The old ‘Star in a reasonably priced car‘ was already past its sell by date…what did the BBC do?  Add an extra star, make it even longer and more boring but with an exciting new change having a rally car (a mini…why not the Ariel Nomad?) go over a small bump and through a puddle.  Yawn.  Fast forward.

Three presenters (4 at most), jokes, banter, stupid pranks, great races, fantastic Specials and the stunning visuals….if it in’t broke don’t fix it…..bin Evans (done!), bin Joey, bin Jordan, bin those BBC experts and let’s have some fun.

Just because Old Top Gear had cars in it didn’t mean it was a car show.  It’s become a car show, it’s become a car crash.

The BBC has spent the last 10 years or so trying to rewrite history in order to put itself in the right and Blair, Hutton and the British Army in the wrong.

The BBC now ‘reports’ unashamedly that Blair was a liar, that Hutton was a fool in the pay of a liar and that British soldiers may have been brave but they fought an illlegal war…which is why the BBC spends so much time trying to put them in prison and to get the Islamist terrorists released from prison.

We had a quick look at Jeremy Bowen’s recent FOOC piece in which he blamed the Iraq War for the rise of ISIS, a conclusion that suits the BBC’s own anti-Iraq War narrative.  Never mind that ISIS was actually spawned by the Arab Spring.

The Telegraph takes a longer look and comes to a devastating conclusion about Bowen’s reporting that you may find hard to disagree with….

In truth, this account provides only an illusion of understanding. The notion that Western powers are primarily responsible for igniting the conflagrations that rage in Iraq, or elsewhere in the Middle East, is deeply misconceived.

Jeremy Bowen’s reporting only providing an ‘illusion of understanding’ and which is ‘deeply misconceived’.….still, nothing new there, just the usual standard fare we can expect from Bowen and his crew in the Middle East.

Nigel Farage has gone, laid down his arms, his fight over.  For many his place in history is assured, for the BBC and its ilk he will not be allowed to rest in peace, like Thatcher he will be denounced and villified for decades to come.  Perhaps he might like a little retirement job to keep his mind ticking over…..returning the BBC to the People and removing it from the clutches of the elite.