Gymnast Louis Smith is being intimidated, bullied and made the subject of serious hate crimes as Muslims make death threats to him every day and the BBC decides it is appropriate to join in and suggest he is racist and ‘Islamophobic’.
In an interview with Emma Barnett on 5Live he was hung out to dry. When asked if he was Islamophobic he said he didn’t know what that meant. Barnett helped him out by saying it can be ‘hateful, or mocking or taking the mickey, it can be many things.’ No, no it is not…it is a very particular word invented by a white, Islamophile, academic who forged it in order to create a new ‘offence’ and a word that could be used, like ‘Racist’, to label, shame and scare people deemed ‘Islamophobic’ into silence.
Smith has been intimidated and bullied and the interview just accepted that what he did was ‘shameful’ and wrong rather than just normal highjinks that signify nothing…though they do reveal a lot about Islam and many Muslims…even the ‘nice’ passive aggressive Muslims who forgave him….what is there to forgive? The BBC dragged in an offended Muslim who told us that Smith’s action reflected the ignorance of the person doing such a thing….hmmm…no. Smith showed he knew the very basics of the religion and one of the major characteristics of it as he shouted ‘Allah Akhbar’….and he was just having a laugh. Barnett told us that far from just being one of those ‘silly things people do’ people [who?] ‘just can’t identify with that particular strain of humour’ [Smith’s]…hmmm…yes…yes they can. Nice of Barnett to be so sanctimonious on behalf of Muslims.
Affter the interview the BBC chose clips of Smith apologising and saying it was a shameful thing he’d done…that has of course now had to be corrected as the truth of the matter comes out and the real crime, being perpetrated against Smith, is highlighted…as he faces daily death threats.
Let’s hope British Gymnastics has a bit of backbone and backs Smith and tells everyone else to do one. Islam means submission……I suggest we all stop submitting to the Muslim intimidation and ‘blackmail’ and celebrate our own culture and values…such as freedom of speech and the freedom to insult or mock [if that was really what Smith was doing] all ideologies…especially those that claim to have been revealed to man over the course of 22 years by an angel whispering in his ear. Even his own wife doubted that…especially as God always supported Muhammed in any argument…funny that.
The BBC of course has no problem not just mocking Christianity but seemingly doing everything it can to undermine, ridicule and discredit it….producing programmes that ‘will rock the foundations’ of the religion, never mind Jerry Springer…..and there’s the Vicar of Dibley, Rev and C4’s Father Ted.
Last year former BBC news anchor Peter Sissons said Christians are “fair game” for insults at the corporation, whilst Muslims must not be offended.
Mr Sissons, whose memoirs were serialised in the Daily Mail, said: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”
‘Citizen Khan’ is apparently a comedy great for the BBC…
After having crucified Smith as a racist Islamophobe Barnett then put all that aside and had a laugh and a giggle about Smith’s appearance on Strictly….suddenly he was wonderful. What a bizarre interview.
Following the inquisition the BBC then moved onto hate crime figures just released that indicate, to the BBC, that Brexit was an exercise in ethnic cleansing. More of which later.
If anyone is to blame for the appalling suffering of Aleppo, it is the Stop The War Coalition. For its relentless propaganda campaign – and downright lies – relating to the recent military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan has achieved its goal of turning public opinion and parliament against initiating any further military interventions.
I think he is being very kind to the BBC as what he describes is the very essence of the BBC’s reporting over the last 13 years….He goes on…
And the remarks made by Seumas Milne, the Guardian journalist and leading Stop the War apologist who works as Jeremy Corbyn’s communications direction, in response to Mr Johnson’s question tell you all you need to know about where these left-wing activists are coming from.
The comments made by the likes of Mr Milne and his fellow travellers on the hard left might be reprehensible, but at least they have the virtue of exposing the Stop the War activists for what they really are: hard left fanatics who are committed to defending Britain’s enemies than those of Britain itself.
He states…
I often found myself left speechless by the bare-faced lies of the anti-war lobby, such as the claim that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had caused the deaths of one million people. This particular lie was made live on-air during a discussion programme on BBC 5 Live which went completely unchallenged by the moderator. (A more accurate figure for war-related fatalities in Iraq would be around the 100,000 mark).
Trouble is it wasn’t only the STWC peddling that figure, it was the BBC’s most senior journalist, John Humphrys, who stated uncategorically that the war had resulted in one million dead Iraqis…he also claimed that the ISG had not recommended a ‘surge’ of troops to defeat the insurgents [and he repeatedly insisted the Surge was failing…even before it had actually begun]…when it clearly stated exactly that course of action. Humphrys of course was one of those involved in the most serious, and high profile, attack on the war by claiming, falsely, that Tony Blair had lied in the Dossier….the BBC completely ignored the fact that one of the world’s most respected weapons experts, David Kelly, said the dossier was entirely reasonable and said nothing more than the UN itself had declared…and that he himself supported the war as he recognised the danger Saddam presented to the world.
The BBC has fought a running campaign against the Iraq War and is siding with the terrorists as it repeatedly insists that events in Syria are the result of Iraq…rather than admitting the obvious truth that the war in Syria is the result of the Arab Spring and ISIS was allowed to bloom because Assad deliberately released its members from his prisons and allowed them to attack his enemies.
The BBC aids and abets the terrorists and runs a narrative that is entirely untrue and highly dangerous, not just for Syrians, but for the whole of Europe as it is flooded with refugees as a result of that war and the cowing of Western politicians by the likes of the BBC and who fear taking action, and for community cohesion in this country as the BBC spreads the lie that there is a war against Muslims.
BBC leading their news this morning with the contention that Brexit means no Marmite in Tesco. They deliberately conflate a trade cost price conflict between Unilever and Tesco with the direct consequence of the Brexit vote. I wonder why the BBC didn’t ponder why when the Pound was rising Unilever prices did not fall? Too obvious?
I don’t know if anyone else listened to the Today programme this morning? It was dreadful and this programme has now adopted a daily regime of “stories” that basically all pirouette around the following narratives.
Why Brexit was wrong and we now all must pay for the folly of daring to vote LEAVE.
Why Donald Trump is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is the safe pair of hands
Why Labour under Corbyn is holding the Government to account and uniting Labour
Why the NHS needs more cash
Why we need to let in those inhabiting the Jungle in France
I am sick of it. The bias is stunning and blatant.
Sweden is a peaceful democratic state that has long been a safe haven for those fleeing conflict. Yet many young people whose families took refuge there are now turning their back on the country. More than 300 people have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq, making Sweden per capita one of the biggest exporters of jihadists in Europe.
Gothenburg is where much of the recruitment for jihad is taking place. It’s one of Sweden’s most diverse cities. A third of the population are from immigrant backgrounds, many of them Muslim, and in the north-eastern suburb of Angered, the proportion rises to more than 70%.
Sweden’s massive housing shortage and long waits for rent controlled apartments in the centre of town mean that many new arrivals end up here, and stay here. This includes some of the 160,000 people who sought asylum in Sweden last year.
Angered has become a tough area to police.
Parts of it are classified as “vulnerable”, which in Swedish police terminology indicates a breakdown of law and order, among other things, and the emergence of a parallel society.
I am told that religious enforcers attempt to control the community to ensure Sharia law is adhered to. They allegedly harass and intimidate people – mainly women – for the way they dress and for attending parties where there is music and dancing, which they consider haram.
So the problem in Sweden is that of a massive lack of resources compounded by a large flow of immigrants allowed into the country regardless of the availability of resources…sounds familiar. Still…let ’em all in anyway.
The immigrants stay together and form ghettos, and due to their lack of education and unwillingness to integrate they become ever more separate from mainstream society and even if the majority do not want to be fundamentalist they are persuaded to be so by ‘religious enforcers’…it only takes a small hardcore of violent and determined fanatics to cow a community….a few beatings of individuals, a few bricks through windows and all the people get the message…conform….or it might be you next.
But it is Sweden’s fault for not making migrants feel at home….despite I’m sure, massive resources being pushed their way…
Suburbs like Angered have become pressure cookers of discontent.
You see this built-up resentment mainly with the second-generation “non-ethnic Swedes”, as they’re known here.
Many of their parents fled war-torn countries in search of safety and found it in Sweden. They appear grateful for what the country has offered them. Their children, however, often feel they’ve been discriminated against and left out of the system. Many young people I spoke to said they felt disconnected from the country where their parents came from – but didn’t feel they were Swedish either.
The reality is that right now young people from immigrant backgrounds are being radicalised.
Why would someone raised in Gothenburg want to leave one of the most peaceful and progressive countries in the developed world to join a violent extremist group in the Middle East?
With so many of them saying they don’t feel Swedish, perhaps the bigger question is: has integration and Sweden’s experiment with multiculturalism failed?
How you feel about Muslim migration depends, to a large degree, on your moral instincts. Consider one of Trump’s more cutting remarks in his Fox interview: “That’s the problem with the liberal policies of this country and this world, it’s acting like it’s our fault. It’s not our fault, OK, it’s not our fault. It’s their fault.” Those who believe Europe ought to welcome Muslim migrants in large numbers might reply that it is our fault, at least in part. You could reasonably argue that the chaos spreading throughout the Arab world is a consequence of the Iraq invasion and the bloody conflicts that have followed or that the market democracies that have profited from capitalist exploitation are to blame for poverty and violence everywhere. It all depends on your particular ideological bent.
That is exactly the BBC ‘analysis’…Iraq and Western foreign policy are to blame…the same narrative peddled by the terrorists.
Importing massive numbers of people with an ideology, mentality and way of life that is radically different from that of European countries was always an experiment that was doomed to failure….nothing to do with moral or ideological bent…it’s pure, and very obvious, fact…the outcome was never in doubt for anyone who didn’t bury their head in the sand due to their ‘ideological bent’.
The wave of refugees will increase, and the price will be paid by the Europeans, already faced with legions of refugees and no plan for dealing with them. Eventually Gaddafi’s prophecy will come true: Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot.
We American should not indulge the schadenfreude aroused by watching our sometimes-condescending older cousins slip farther and farther behind us in global importance and power. Europe is still collectively the world’s largest economy, and its travails will impact the whole globe. More importantly, many of the trends weakening Europe today are active in our own country. The scorning of national pride and American exceptionalism, the decline of Christianity in the public square, multiculturalism and its ethnic separatism and divisive identity politics, and the preference of many Americans for greater social welfare spending, redistribution of wealth, and dirigiste economic policies all point us to a fate like Europe’s.
Self-doubt about the goodness of one’s way of life and living just for today’s pleasures are luxuries a great power cannot afford. In a world of violent ideologies and aggressive autocrats, a free people must have something beyond this world that they believe is worth killing and dying for. Europe seemingly has lost those ideals and beliefs that made it the nurse of freedom, democracy, and human rights. America has taken on that global role, but if we go the way of Europe, if we too no longer know what we believe, who will take our place?
The Today programme interviewed the former head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, today.
What is the only thing of interest the website has taken from that interview and indeed the Today programme itself as it headlines the interview…Ex-MI6 boss rebuffs Johnson demo call…? That Sawers criticises Boris Johnson for suggesting people protest outside of the Russian embassy about Syria.
He’d be better having them protest outside the BBC for what is happening in Syria and in Europe as it is flooded with refugees as the war is as much to do with the BBC’s actions as it has with Russia.
Sawers goes on in the interview to say that ‘What we are seeing in Aleppo today are the direct consequences of Britain’s decision not to engage ourselves, we vacated the theatre and the Russians moved in…it was a mistake…as chemical weapons were being used in Damascus….’
He means of course the chemical weapons like the ones that the BBC had a film of before the vote in Parliament on military action against Syria but which the BBC didn’t release until after the vote had happened….thus denying the MPs the most recent example of Assad’s use of weapons of mass destruction. You must conclude a deliberate choice by the BBC to not release the film because they didn’t want military action to happen and they believed this film might sway the MPs. Such an important decision could conceivably have been sent all the way up to the top, Lord Hall Hall, to decide.
The defeat comes as a potential blow to the authority of Mr Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to Labour’s demands for more evidence of President Assad’s guilt.
…..the evidence that the BBC withheld.
You have to ask now why the BBC is so shy about highlighting Sawers’ comments about the failure of British foreign policy which has resulted in so much death and destruction and disorder. Sawers notes that it was the vote in Parliament that was instrumental in influencing Obama to back away from military action as well.
Very serious and important points raised by Sawers and yet you find no mention on the website. Why? Possibly because what he says is in direct oppostion to everything the BBC believes in regard to the causes of the war in Syria, what can be done about it and of course the fact that the BBC always opposes any kind of military action…which brings us back to that vote.
Ed Miliband was of course the man who marched his troops up to the top of the hill and then ran away, backing out of supporting military action and betraying those millions of Syrians who now pay the price for his cowardice. But why was he so keen not to go to war and why was Cameron so eager to accept the vote as absolutely final? Because Media pressure, especially from the powerful and influential BBC, made politicians terrified of committing themselves to a course of action that they knew would be portrayed as illegal, disproportionate and probably as a war crime with every civilian death being laid at their door in graphic detail.
The BBC has spent over a decade attacking the politicians for the Iraq War and also even more disgracefullly attacking on their own behalf and in coordination with the wretched ambulance chasing lawyers [How little we hear of them now from the BBC as those same lawyers are being brought to book and their businesses taken down] the British troops that they hunted down and happily smeared with any and all claims of wrongdoing that were mostly baseless and without evidence.
Any wonder that politicians would think twice before taking any military action however justified and necessary.
Even now the BBC is aghast at the idea of confrontation as Andrew Mitchell compared the mass slaughter, the chemical weapons, the barrel bombs, the starvation, the bombing of schools, hospitals, aid convoys and welfare workers, with the Nazi support for the Fascists in Spain. For some reason the BBC thought this was all too much…Adrian Chiles suggested that we shouldn’t use such language as it might only inflame the situation and that any action to contain Assad and the Russians would only be provocative and result in more fighting…and that would be bad…worse than the alternative presumably…. the BBC’s answer is to allow Assad and the Russians free reign to do as they like….the same BBC that relentlessly chases down British troops for the slightest misdemeanour. Apparently we have to look at what happened last time we confronted Fascists who were set on taking over the world…we had a world war…can’t have that…so carry on Putin…where do you fancy next? Poland, Hungary, Finland, maybe Sweden? The BBC won’t object…too loudly.
In that comment by Chiles you have the very essence of the BBC thinking on so much…such as Islam and the Muslim community…don’t criticise them or they will get angry and discontented and become radicalised…and it will therefore be your fault….so look away and pretend it isn’t happening as they set up a parallel Islamic society….or the Russians annex country after country. Rather have a Caliphate than take forceful action to prevent mini-Pakistans being set up across the UK and Europe. Better red than dead. Do not, whatever you do, ever stand up for your own culture, beliefs, values and society. This only makes ‘them’ angry…be they Russians or Muslim fundamentalists.
Surrender is the basic BBC creed.
Trouble is the result of that surrender is hundreds of thousands dead, millions of refugees and a Europe being torn apart by the pressures heading their way in a seemingly unstoppable flow.
The irony…the ever so humane BBC helps cause one of the biggest humanitarian disasters since the second world war.
I see Theresa May has ordered Royal Mail bosses to explain themselves as Posties unwittingly shove scam letters through pensioners’ doors…perhaps she could have a word with another communication company’s top brass and suggest they stop supporting terrorists and mass murderers and start getting a grip on what is really going on in the world instead of continuing to live in a fantasy world where ‘diplomacy’ and refraining from confrontation is the only answer. If the Russians know you have no intention of using force to back up your fine words then they will just laugh in your face….as Assad has for the last 4 years.
Even the leftwing Der Spiegel is seeing the light on Syria:
Obama put his eggs in the diplomatic basket, but without the threat of military intervention. The US hoped that Russia would be prepared to drop its support of Assad, an approach which has proven erroneous. Now, the strategists in the White House and in the State Department don’t know what to do.
The “red line” that Obama once drew — the use of chemical weapons by the regime — was transgressed by Assad without consequences. “That robbed US foreign policy of any deterrent effect,” says Thanassis Cambanis, an expert on the Middle East with the Century Foundation. America’s hesitant strategy, he says, encouraged Putin to test out a more offensive-minded approach in the conflict — and to actively intervene militarily a year ago. “Putin waited until he was certain that the US would not intervene and then he did so himself.”
The result of the vote was condemned by former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown, who tweeted that in “50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed [or] ashamed”.
He later told the BBC that by doing nothing President Assad will use chemical weapons more “those weapons will become more commonplace in the Middle East battlefield” and “we will feel the effects of that as well”.
Now in 2016 Der Spiegel notes he was right:
This war isn’t just destroying Syria. It is changing the entire world. Leaders around the world who are interested in crushing uprisings among their populations will take a close look at how the world reacts when the rules of the international community — as weak as they may be — are completely ignored. Such leaders will be pleased to note that nothing is beyond the pale. Huge, bunker-busting bombs can be dropped with impunity on schools and hospitals, as Putin is now doing. Sarin and chlorine gas can be deployed, as Assad has done. And as long as you have a powerful ally, preferably one with a seat on the Security Council, nothing happens.
A few days ago, there were a few — but not many — newspaper reports that Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir had, according to Amnesty International, used chemical weapons in Darfur. The story wasn’t worth much more than a brief blurb. It has, after all, become normal once again.
If there is anything worse in the world than the BBC it is Ofcom, which seeks to help regulate the BBC! I was talking to James Whale about this story last night…
The BBC is “falling short” on serving older women and minority communities, the head of Ofcom has said. Media watchdog chief Sharon White said the corporation is “not doing as good a job as it should be” in these areas. “There is a gap there and it is a gap I would like to see closed over time,” she told the Financial Times.
A BBC spokesman said: “We don’t think any broadcaster does better in representing older women than the BBC.”
Here we have Ofcom actually encouraging the BBC to discriminate in favour of preferred groups, in this case older women and ethnic groups. As if the BBC does not already overly pander to these areas. Surely the person to get the job should be the best person based on their ability to do the job? I oppose discrimination on any grounds but it appears Ofcom, and now the BBC, will happily discriminate to ensure that Ms White’s wish is granted. Pathetic.
“The BBC has guidelines about journalists mouthing off their left-wing views on Twitter, guidelines ignored by Danny Carpenter of BBC Look North, who has rip on Facebook about the government in a comment on a post by Caroline Lucas of the Green Party:”
Is there any doubt that Mr Carpenter speaks on behalf of more than a few of his BBC pals? Sack him.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
ZephirDec 26, 07:23 Christmas 2024 I could shed some light on that, having spent some time at Hs2 head office in Snowhill, Birmingham. The most…
ZephirDec 26, 06:19 Christmas 2024 12 year old dealing drugs in Luton, no idea who dad is, mum, somewhere in Sheffield no one knows where,…
DoublethinkerDec 26, 06:00 Christmas 2024 King Charles obviously thinks of the good of family firm before the good of our country. He calculates that the…
