Just what are Pienaar’s politics? He has given a very good impression of being a Labour fanboy for many years, you’d hardly ever hear a critical word come out of his mouth about Labour and not much has changed. Just listened to him explain Labour’s position on Brexit…he admitted it wasn’t really clear but he said…that’s their job as the Opposition. So Labour’s job is to confuse, baffle and essentially lie to the voters…just as they did throughout the general election and Pienaar thinks that is acceptable? Corbyn lied to the public and did massive u-turns on his famously long and deeply held convictions about so many things….the BBC barely blinked an eye…indeed they describe his changes of policy as Corbyn ‘evolving’ which is a description intended to portray him as reasonable and open to change when needed when in fact he cynically exploited his position and the BBC refused utterly to nail him for it. So not a cynical, opportunistic vote buying scam as Corbyn u-turns in an exercise of massive deception but a lovely ‘evolution’ of his politics. Wonder what they will make of it when he ‘evolves’ back into the swamp creature that he really is. May, of course, was slaughtered for her u-turns.
And now Corbyn has done another back-flip…promising in the election that Labour was backing Brexit and leaving the Single Market….but that’s all changed now…now we are to be kept in the Single Market in an open-ended agreement that just means we are in the EU but on far worse terms, held hostage by the likes of Druncker. May of course has betrayed Brexit and the voters and has rather decided to do what her Remain cabinet colleagues want…keep us in the EU until, they hope, things change and Brexit can be dumped. Just why are we paying the EU for access to their markets when they sell us far more than we sell to them? Shouldn’t they pay us for access to our market? We have no legal or moral obligation to pay them anything.
Pienaar went on to suggest this was a good politicial ploy by Labour….sit on the fence, keep everyone guessing and then swoop in when Brexit goes wrong [er…will it?] and then pick up the pieces with Jezza in No10.
Apparently all those fanatical Jezza supporters are merely ‘idealists’ who want fairness and equality…not extremist far-left thugs as the BBC portrays anyone on the Right then?
Pienaar seems a little in awe, if not in love, with Corbyn.
He’s pro-Labour like his masters and the whole rotten edifice.
I watched a review of BBC’s Sherlock yesterday, in which the gist of it is that the show – as well as other Berkoff-written crap like Jekyll and his later Dr Who episodes – exist only to keep people in a perpetual state of confusion, blindsided with appeals to intellectual authority and flashy presentation, and kept on the leash with the persistent promise that this episode might have been mediocre, but the next one may be better. This convinced viewers that they should keep watching and defending it, until the fourth and final season also went nowhere and they realised the whole thing had been shit. There’s a clear comparison to Labour, who are so all over the place with their principles that they can be simultaneously for and against key aspects of policy, including Brexit. But their followers are so full of unjustified moral pride and entitlement, not to mention postmodernist nihilism, that they either don’t realise or don’t care about the blatant contradictions. Indeed, I read a particularly hilarious letter recently in the Metro (with no sign of another election, I might add, so there was no practical way this could happen – just childish wish-fulfilment on the part of the author) that said Britain should elect Labour so we can stay in the EU – despite Labour making one of their major campaign pledges this year that they would deliver a full Brexit, including the single market and customs union. Because that’s what Labour does to its voters, it uses bravado and soundbytes and identity politics and fear and conjecture to keep people in the dark at all times about their motives. Labour voters don’t actually know what they’re voting for, just as remain voters clearly didn’t. They only know what they’re voting AGAINST. Britain voted for Brexit because Vote Leave and Leave.EU had actual arguments, facts, and logic to bring people to their side, many of which were uncomfortable to confront, but they also had the optimism of what the future had in store for us. Remain had nothing but fallacies, guilt-by-association comparisons to Hitler, doomsday prophecy, and Marxian ‘better the devil you know’ negativity. Most of their claims, both criticising Brexit and in defence of the EU itself, have been proven completely wrong since the vote, yet they still have the temerity to claim that it’s Brexit voters who are low-information and guided by emotional irrationality.
Much like Trump is being constantly strengthened by the left’s endless whinging and hyperbole, essentially guaranteeing another four years, Brexit is only reinforced by the petulance and delusions of bitter, regressive remoaners – which of course includes the BBC.
Piernaar disclosed his status probably unintentionally during the run up to the Trump election. He was interviewing an American politician at the Dorchester!!! when he made a slighting comment about Trump. The American said that it was not true and the BBC should be unbiased. Piernaar replied to the effect that he was not employed by the BBC but did some work for them as Political correspondent!!!! I wrote to the BBC after that to ask what exactly is the status of Piernaar: is he employed or hired by BBC. No reply. Suggest all on this site write to the BBC to ask the same question.
Like all the Left, the Labour Party relies upon Taqiyya (all means are justified by the end) or to put it in plain words, lying, and most BBC journalists are happy to co-operate. It gets interesting when (on rare occasions) they don’t play ball. An example of this was Iraq. This was because the BBC was so confident of Labour Party victories they could allow a little criticism, from the Left of course.
The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party as I once heard David Attenborough admit. Now I have the highest regard for David Attenborough, but even in the days when he was running it and the BBC was worth paying a license fee for, it promoted the Labour Party. Under the Thatcher and Major government, and the Blair and Brown governments, they gave up any pretense of impartiality.
The first thing the Cameron government should have done was scrap the BBC, as well as reforming the electoral system to prevent postal fraud and unequal sized constituencies and gravy train parliamentary expenses, and call out the politicization of the education system.
That they did nothing was party due to the Liberal Democrats (who from at least the days of Jeremy Thorpe is even more devoid of morals than the Labour Party) but also because they are part of that whole post-war generation of professional politicians who never felt any need, never mind the desire, to make the required changes. The exception was Margaret Thatcher (hated by the BBC needless to add) but even she was too cautious. To be fair however most of her Cabinet were against her.
That nearly all her Cabinet would vote to stay in the EU, and since the electorate just voted to leave the EU, it shows just how out of touch they were with the people they sought to represent. Of course the Leftist principle of “If the people vote the wrong way change the people” (which is all the devotion to unlimited immigration from the Third World amounts to) was contrary to the wishes of Labour voters, but it was in accordance with the desire of Labour politicians to form a one Party State. The BBC (for its own reasons) is only too happy to oblige them in achieving this ambition.
How do BBC -like lefty Pienaar- presenters get away with giving their own opinions. They don’t ask questions they make statements.
A BBC presenter is employed by the BBC and therefore speaks on behalf of the BBC. Surely this contravenes the independence of a broadcaster whose very purpose is to educate and inform.
I am amazed that the human rights legal beagles have not picked up on this. I would have thought the false propaganda the BBC espouses impinges on peoples human rights. It is proven on a daily basis.
Politicians need to start sentences with the BBC thinks this, the BBC thinks that, the view of the BBC is. This will start exposing BBC bias.
The problem now is that the politicians speaking in the media are frightened to expose the BBC for fear of them not being allowed to give thir opinions on future political programmes. A clear case of the tail wagging a pathetically weak governmental dog.
For ‘balance’. Looks magenta to me.