Once again the BBC damages Britain


The BBC has set its hat at destroying Brexit and undermining the British side’s negotiations whilst promoting the EU’s but the BBC damages British interests and democracy in so many other ways, in particular by its arrogant presumption that it knows what is best for the country and that politicians must follow its prescriptions, or else.  Just one small example is how it treats the prospective Trump state visit to Britain…the BBC’s default position is that this is a bad thing, it shouldn’t happen…how many times have you heard a BBC presenter harangue a Tory minister demanding to know why Trump is being allowed into the country?

Now Trump has decided to head to France first, maybe instead of.

Who can blame him…and a bit of a triumph for Macron despite his differences with Trump.  Once again the BBC helps to pull us down.



Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Once again the BBC damages Britain

  1. Dave S says:

    I doubt the President will ever come here. There is no mileage in it now for him as we are becoming an unreliable ally and if the BBC’s man Corbyn is ever PM that is it really. The viscereal anti American attitudes of our progressive elite is going to have repercussions.
    As for France it always looks for the main chance to advance it own agenda and has historic ties with the USA. Maybe Macron is anxious to resume the position the French feel they are entitled to in Europe.


  2. Guest Who says:

    Rather sweet the Speccie assumes a BBC editor actually knows, or even needs to know much about their brief:


    • Up2snuff says:

      GW, have just read that letter from a Corbynista. Is it a spoof?

      My reason for asking is that the writer, in para 3, states ‘I can’t claim to be a political expert’ but then makes a very reasoned analysis of voting motivation and appears to be very aware of the political climate. As I got to the end, an alarm bell rang.


      • Guest Who says:

        Who can say any more?

        Author provenance is, these days, very much ‘purposes of’ to the MSM.


  3. Richard Pinder says:

    I think Trump should only visit the solid Brexit areas such as Boston and Washington D.C. (Durham County) in England, Newport and Gwent in Wales, Banff and Buchan in Scotland and North Antrim and Strangford in Northern Ireland. As well as visiting the Queen at Sandringham in West Norfolk. That should help to avoid any “Trumpton Riots” by those militant socialists who regard Donald Trump as “Half Man Half Biscuit”


  4. Pounce says:

    The irony:
    The President of the US after hearing how all the left wing transsexual chicks with dicks

    feel that he has no right coming to the Uk has now been accepted by France, you know that country over the water which belongs to the humane EU which the nasty UK is leaving and whom the left feel we should remain a part of . I wonder if they will protest on the streets of gay paree in which to express their displeasure?


    • Oaknash says:

      Whilst on the whole I view overeducated and over privledged tossers as part of the problem with this country today. This particular article by Piers Morgan is actually very good. And well illustrates how these left wing arseholes (including journalists are busy undermining our future economic prospects as well as our present ones.

      What this article also does is show the “closed minds” of the MSM and all its imps.
      Morgan because he knew Trump personally realised that at heart he is a good guy and treats him as such.
      Unfortunately (because of the differences in background and the commonly held MSM opinion) Morgan could not see beyond the unproven “waycist” accusations with Robinson and therefore treats him as such.

      Who has the closed mind here – I think we know.



      • NCBBC says:

        I just wonder what would happen if Argentina decided to have another go at the Falklands. We don’t have even half the muscle compared to last time around, and even then we couldn’t have got the Falklands back without America. If America says NO, that’s it. And as for WTO and GATT, the USA holds huge influence in all these bodies. It also have the power to remove us from the UNSC. Such is its power. We are still a permanent member despite vehement opposition of the EU and many other major countries.

        Leftists have never been patriotic. They are descendants of Stalin and Mao. To see Britain reduced gives them satisfaction.


        • Pounce says:

          Totally different ball game now. For a start the argies haven’t updated their armed forces since 1982. It’s offensive air arm hosts only 22 A4 Skyhawks, the same jets used in 1982. The Navy has all its larger ships consigned to port due to a lack of parts, ( frigate class) the army fares a little better but still uses the FN ( iron sights) the same weapon used in 1982.

          If Argentina was to invade they would require to rule the sky, Skyhawks are attack aircraft over 60 years old. They would need the ability to transfer their army across 300 miles of water. They haven’t got that, then they would need to capture the islands , with very few vehicles able to cross the terrain , they simply (at the moment) do not have the caperbility.
          Yes their special,forces could cause a few problems, but if that happened, their bases on the mainland would be open to,attack.
          Finally they require the political will, seen as the last adventure saw the Junta fall, they can only expect the same for anybody who did likewise. Which is why Argentina opines so much to,the world and why they love JC


          • NCBBC says:


            The problem is that we cant get to the Falklands without American help. Even last time we couldn’t do it.

            Too, the last time we had an aircraft carrier at sea.


            • Amounderness Lad says:

              Now, now, NCBBC, don’t forget that we currently have an aircraft carrier at sea, even if it is currently just being worked up.

              The fact there are currently no carrier born aircraft in the world which can take off from it, and don’t mention the currently useless F35 turkey, we can hopefully, if we scour our countries air museums, find enough Gloster Gladiators and spare parts to make them airworthy because they are about the only planes we have which would be able to take off from our new carriers.

              Before anybody scoffs at that idea just bear one thought in mind, any enemy would be so busy laughing on seeing them they would never be able to stop laughing like idiots to be able to concentrate enough to take aim at them.


            • Diane-abbotts-penis says:

              Don’t forget that, unlike last time, we actually have a sizeable base in the Falklands, not just a small group of Royal Marines.

              I don’t believe Argentina would mount a successful invasion in their current state.


            • Pounce says:

              The problem is that we cant get to the Falklands without American help. Even last time we couldn’t do it.

              Actually we can, I did so 3 years ago. but that was by air. You of course refer to moving troops on mass down to the Islands if hostilities were to kick off. We have over 2000 troops on the Island of which half are Army. We have the equipment for many more already in situ. The Islands are well mapped and we know the area. It is a bleak wilderness. The Argentines would have bring everything they require with them. Last time with a much larger and better equipped military they had months in which to prepare. This time we have had 35 years to prepare, big difference.


          • DWBuxton says:

            And we have what? One tatty out of date Carrier just due to undergo sea trials using WindowsXP, and no aircraft. No long range bombers, or bombers at all. A greatly reduced Army with no wartime training. The Army would not perform as in the last Falklands showdown with the long marches and heavy equipment. Add in the long journey time and forget it. We are basically unable to defend ourselves these days


            • Clare says:

              “A greatly reduced Army with no wartime training. The Army would not perform as in the last Falklands showdown with the long marches and heavy equipment.”

              Which war prepared the Army for the Falklands, exactly? Aden, NI ?

              Not saying we shouldn’t be spending more, but you sound like a complete misery. Not unlike the BBC, in fact.


            • Pounce says:

              And we have what? One tatty out of date Carrier just due to undergo sea trials using WindowsXP,

              Why would we require an AC. we already hold the Island. As for the Windows XPs. The intranet system used by the Military Dii ran off Windows XP until 2 years ago, I migrated upto Win 7 last year. nobody now runs off Win XP.

              No long range bombers
              We didn’t in 1982, the Vulcan was refuelled over 8 times and I physically saw the damage on the runway very little. Now we have Submarines with Tomahawk which are now only more lethal and accurate, but they are fired from Submarines.

              A greatly reduced Army with no wartime training.
              Still one of the biggest in Europe bigger than France or Germany) as for no wartime training, We only recently came out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Our JNCOs/NCO/SNCOs/Officers are all veterans of both campaigns and they have actual battle experience.

              The Army would not perform as in the last Falklands showdown with the long marches and heavy equipment.
              Actually the army still trains for its troops to tab, however you are correct, as the troops in the FLs would be fighting from dug in positions. It would be the Argentines who would have to advance to contact.

              Add in the long journey time and forget it.


              • Manxman says:

                The Argies would get their ass’s handed to them Buxton, like yours has just been handed to you..


            • eejo says:

              i thought people on here didn’t believe everything they read/hear on MSM !
              perhaps i am wrong, do research my above links and any associated articles to see
              the bigger picture.


  5. Charlie Martel says:

    So Macron will get the trade deals, the defence deals, the prestige of cosying up to the number one world power.

    And Britain gets zilch, from a once anglophile President.

    UK will be sidelined from Europe, and now from the USA, at this most crucial time, when she needs allies more than ever.

    Well done treacherous beebistan.

    Words fail me to express my skin crawling, stomach churning loathing for you and all you stand for.

    Reform is not enough: the beeb must be utterly destroyed!


    • Jack M says:

      Agreed Charlie…that’s it, isn’t it, Trump was “a once anglophile President”. Following the dreadful treatment of him by the UK MSM , and in particular by the sneering, negative and insulting BBC, I totally understand why he puts France above Britain in his diary, although I find it painful to write that.

      Take a bow in particular Sopel and Kuenssberg. You put your desire to signal your virtue directly to the great man before the interests of your country. He owned you but he will not forget you or what you represent.


      • NCBBC says:

        Jack M
        Succinct and to the point comment.
        Please post it on the Daily Mail too.


      • pertelote says:

        that little beeboid vixen Kuntsberg has done more harm in her short and largely inconsequential life than she knows!..turned out to be a true fuckwit ..of the highest order!

        IMHO SHE IS A TRAITOR.. “plain and simple”..

        a bit like her really!? ..no?

        ..nah..she’s not just plain she’s a f*ckin’ minger..ugly as sin..shallow as a shower. and as thick as mince. Have to say she is such an abhorrent creature that I do not wish her well in life! One of the wonderful Katie Hopkins’ “ferals” I think..yes just look at that face..if you can bear it..ughh!


        • DWBuxton says:

          I remember in the last War, there was much talk all over about the 5th column existing in our own Country, but these days it would seem there is not one 5th column but a whole host of them. From the greenie brigades to the MSM and in a special place all its own the BBC. During the war, aliens were placed in camps on the Isle of Man, these latest groups are more dangerous and so should be placed on an island a long way from civilisation.


      • pertelote says:

        >Jack M… great post!


    • richard D says:

      Charlie – I can’t argue with the basic premise of your points i.e. that Macron will get the kudos from a visit by the POTUS). Isn’t it very strange that, just a few short months ago, Europeans were all come over with disgust that America could elect someone like Mr Trump as President, but now suddenly want to cosy up to him.

      However, Macron, on his own, certainly can’t get trade and defence deals, since they are the prerogative of the EU, and the attempted Free Trade deal between the US and the EU collapsed and burned at the end of last year.

      After all, being able to negotiate independent Trade deals the vast number of countries that would like to trade freely with us is one of the key reasons we want to get out of the EU.

      And you most certainly do have an extremely valid point about the BBC’s treachery to the UK – as Andrea Leadsom’s very much more gentle nudge pointed out last week – which, of course, was completely ignored by the bunch at Broadcasting House…. or vehemently attacked for even being mentioned.


      • Charlie Martel says:

        When Andrea Leadsom suggested the media should be a bit patriotic to Emily Maitliss, she had a meltdown: “are you suggesting I’m unpatriotic?” Well I am Emily, the whole sorry bunch of you, traitors all.


  6. Nibor says:

    I hope Donald visits Disneyworld near Paris . The only way we can claw our way back is for the others to make mistakes and have as stupid an intelligentsia as ours


  7. s.trubble says:

    The rapid and rabid slide of this bBC into a completely partial Labour supporting state organ might have a simple explanation.

    Sir Cliff Richard

    This totally embarrassing episode revealed the truth about the bBC and its methodology of smear.

    Its consequences notwithstanding the legal process will have rendered Lord Hall to a neutered state. A cuckold.

    With the absence of leadership the “red devils” are having a field day.

    Time it was sold off.


  8. Rick Bradford says:

    The man is the President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, and fortunately, one of our closest allies — and one of the oldest. And one of the most reliable.

    Who but a complete traitor would try to damage the most important foreign relationship the UK has? I can imagine Vladimir Putin trying to drive a wedge between the UK and the US. The fact that the BBC shares that ambition says everything about them that I need to know.

    They give ISIS more respect than they do to President Trump.


    • Rob in Cheshire says:

      Unlike the BBC, I don’t think Vladimir Putin has got much against Britain.


    • NCBBC says:

      They give ISIS more respect than they do to President Trump.

      How true. Surely T May, the Home secretary, and the security agencies must take note, and do something about this Quisling organisation.


  9. Manxman says:

    It would be done by now if they did have any intention of reigning them in imo….sorry to say.


  10. Franglais says:

    The BBC and all within need terminating, full stop! Perhaps one of the IS cells can do the deed? Traitors to the core.


  11. pertelote says:

    perhaps there are other “cells”?.. just wondering!


  12. Manxman says:

    The Libralism they have hijacked and turned on its head, political islam has such a grip on them now.

    Interesting read, this……….taster para’s.
    “Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as “social,” or (erroneously) “modern” or the “new,” liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety.

    Although its fundamental claims are universalist, liberalism must be understood first of all as a doctrine and movement that grew out of a distinctive culture and particular historical circumstances. That culture — as Lord Acton recognized most clearly — was the West, the Europe that was or had been in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Its womb, in other words, was the particular human society that underwent “the European miracle” (in E.L. Jones’s phrase). The historical circumstances were the confrontation of the free institutions and values inherited from the Middle Ages with the pretensions of the absolutist state of the 16th and 17th centuries.

    From the struggle of the Dutch against the absolutism of the Spanish Habsburgs issued a polity that manifested basically liberal traits: the rule of law, including especially a firm adherence to property rights; de facto religious toleration; considerable freedom of expression; and a central government of severely limited powers. The astonishing success of the Dutch experiment exerted a “demonstration effect” on European social thought and, gradually, political practice. This was even truer of the later example of England. Throughout the history of liberalism, theory and social reality interacted, with theory stimulated and refined through the observation of practice, and attempts to reform practice undertaken with reference to more accurate theory.