Nobbling Boris

 

 

The BBC, Knights of the Long Knives.  Very adept at political and character assassination or they try to be.  Their heavy handed attacks on Trump and Farage failed miserably despite massive resources thrown at them, Tommy Robinson succumbed to the intense scrutiny and extremely hostile BBC reporting about him and quit the EDL but has since seen the light and bounced back.  Andrea Leadsom might be added to the list as she was beaten up badly over her statement about having children.   May was savaged during the election and Corbyn given a free ride….undoubtedly costing the Tories many votes.  Not forgetting Jacob Rees-Mogg, the DUP, Bush, Sarah Palin and of course Thatcher.  Any theme to those chosen?  All right-wing.  But what about Boris?  Like Trump and Farage he has been subjected to massive amounts of highly negative, if not malign, comment from the BBC and yet he still keeps on rolling.  Just why does the BBC target Boris in particular?

Boris is enormously popular with much of the Public.  This is a problem for the good liberal folk at the BBC who want to stay in the EU and definitely don’t want Boris as PM should he throw his hat into the ring as and when.  So two major issues for the BBC, a very popular politician who supports Brexit and who may lead the Tory Party to another stomping election victory….the BBC not wanting either of those things to happen they see Boris as a huge threat to their hegemony and liberal elitist club.

Consider how the BBC reports Hammond and Rudd.  Hammond has consistently tried to hijack the Brexit process in order to ensure we get the softest of Brexits, in other words no Brexit at all in effect.  He has made statements that go against government policy claiming we need to have the longest transition period possible which he knows would morph gradually into a permanent state of pseudo-non-membership of the EU, he lobbies for a Brexit that is about jobs and the economy, in other words stay in the Single Market, Customs Union and thus keep freedom of movement and rule by the ECJ…ie…stay in the EU, when he knows that the referendum was not won on the jobs and economy platform…it was about sovereignty and immigration, and he has refused to provide money to fund the necessary infrastructure to prepare for a ‘no deal’…or indeed for a Britain which wants to protect its own borders as it leaves the EU.  Then here is Amber Rudd who has campaigned vociferously for a soft Brexit and who just days ago said that a ‘no deal’ was ‘unthinkable’.

So both Hammond and Rudd, two very senior cabinet members, have come out in the Press against a key negotiating lever with the EU and May’s official policy…‘no deal is better than a bad deal’…if you aren’t prepared for a ‘no deal’ you are essentially then at the EU’s mercy with little leverage to make them compromise.

Hammond and Rudd have thrown a huge spanner in the works and yet hardly a peep out of the BBC, no shocked headlines, no claims that they have stabbed May in the back, no claims they are undermining May, no claims they are manoeuvring for the leadership, no legions of commentators wheeled in to heap abuse upon them for their shameless politicking.  Hammond and Rudd of course want to stay in the EU so why would the BBC criticise them?

How different is the BBC approach to Boris.

Boris as Foreign Secretary has a legitimate interest in Brexit negotiations and as the lead Brexit cheerleader we were told by the Remainders that he must now bear responsibility for the outcome of Brexit.  Odd then that when he speaks out, takes that responsibility, he gets  shouted down and loudly abused for having the temerity to do so….and the BBC is the chief cheerleader attacking him.

BBCers constantly asked why he hadn’t been sacked (and of course keep asking when May is going), we hear he’s disingenuous, a clever idiot, an egotist, lazy, self-centred and not fit or competent for Office, that he’s a populist with simple solutions but no positive vision for the Country or Party, a divisive, disloyal figure making life impossible for May, odd, difficult, eccentric, an international joke, self-indulgent and only thinking about himself when important world events are happening, an irresponsible revolutionary who is out of control [and should be sacked], that he’s undermining May, stabbing her in the back, he’s not interested in Brexit [a piece of misinformation that he said he only went with Brexit to annoy Cameron was given a lot of credence in passing by the BBC] and is only really positioning himself for the leadership…hmmm…as most Tory MP’s are Remainders how would that work?  Kuenssberg spent most of her time filing reports that he was intent on the leadership and Brexit was the means to that end…she later admitted that this ‘fact’ was based upon ‘vicious rumours at Westminster’…in other words poison dripped from his enemies….Kuenssberg’s reports seemed to be more about discrediting Boris in the eyes of possible Leave voters than in the truth.

I did think that the BBC had turned a corner way back earlier in the month when Nick Robinson said he was examining what Phillip Hammond [08:10] had been up to and why everyone was up in arms about him.  Would we get the dirt, would Hammond be called a backstabber who was trying to thwart Brexit?   Er no…what we got was a pro-EU Labour MP and someone, although a ‘Leaver’, who was actually employed by Hammond.  Nothing to see here then…Hammond doing a good job under enormous pressure.

Robinson’s introduction was interesting…..he sneeringly referenced the Mail as the ‘chief cheerleader for Brexit’ and their frontpage that shouted ‘Daggers Drawn….PM slaps treacherous chancellor down!’.  Now as just about every other media outlet was giving a similar impression of Hammond’s actions you have to wonder how the BBC could avoid mentioning it or coming to a similar conclusion about Hammond’s betrayal…but they did.  They ignored Hammond’s ‘treachery’ for a long time and finally when they did notice they wheeled in two yes men to blow smoke up our backsides.

Why did Robinson raise the subject?  Not of course because he was in the slightest bit interested in actually holding Hammond to account but first because of course the right-leaning Mail is pretty influential and therefore needs to be discredited and its story attacking a pro-EU Chancellor pooh-poohed and second because the Mail in the same edition had drawn attention to the fact that Robinson had been wrong about Romanian and Bulgarian migration…

The ‘experts’ who rushed to judgement and got it wrong

‘Well, well, well. So much for those predictions of a flood of immigrants coming form Romania and Bulgaria once the door to the UK was opened’  Nick Robinson, BBC political editor May 2014

And the Mail gloated….naturally Robinson made no mention of his own appearance in the paper nor of the reason for it…..

STEPHEN GLOVER: How the Mail got it right on Romanian and Bulgarian migration and the BBC got it so wrong – and deceived Britain

We all know how, in 2004, the Labour government opened the door to immigration from Poland and seven other Eastern European states, while other countries such as Germany and France imposed restrictions. 

The Blair government forecast a relatively small annual influx — of between 5,000 and 13,000. Within five years, nearly a million had arrived.

Following that gigantic miscalculation, one might have expected a little more caution would be shown at the beginning of 2014 when immigration restrictions from Romania and Bulgaria were lifted by the Coalition government. 

The Mail warned that history would repeat itself. So did a small number of other organisations such as Migration Watch, a think-tank run by a respected former British ambassador.

This did not prevent many — most notably the BBC — from predicting that anxieties over the number of migrants would turn out to be misplaced. 

In fact, they were utterly justified. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics estimated there are 413,000 Romanians and Bulgarians living in the United Kingdom, equivalent to the population of Bristol.

How misguided the BBC has been. In January 2014, it carried an uncritical interview with the then Romanian ambassador in London, Dr Ion Jinga.

He said the number of citizens coming from his country to the UK would be ‘fewer than in recent years’. It wasn’t.

But the Beeb was adamant that those expressing concern about a new wave of migration were guilty of scare tactics. 

Even before the gates were opened, BBC2’s Newsnight carried a report in April 2013 which suggested that only 1 per cent of Romanians and 4 per cent of Bulgarians were ‘actively considering work in the UK’.

Where are all the Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants, asked an item on the BBC’s website at the end of January 2014. It claimed ‘some parts of the UK have reported very few arrivals so far’.

This echoed a visit to Luton airport on January 1, 2014, by the publicity-seeking Labour MP Keith Vaz, which was celebrated by the BBC. 

In May 2014, after official figures suggested (wrongly) that very few Romanians and Bulgarians were coming here, the then BBC political editor, Nick Robinson, scoffed: ‘So much for those predictions of a flood of immigrants coming from Romania and Bulgaria once the door to the UK was opened’.

As late as December 2014, Mark Easton — the supposedly authoritative BBC home editor, who over the years has been relaxed about EU immigration — told Radio 4 listeners there were ‘probably 100,000’ Romanians and Bulgarians working in Britain. It took John Humphrys to point out that there were already 189,000.

In short, the all-powerful BBC has been spectacularly wrong. If more than 400,000 people from two countries come to live here in the space of a few years, that surely amounts to some sort of ‘flood’. 

We stand at a crossroads over Brexit, with reactionary forces in the government, led by Chancellor Philip Hammond, intent on ensuring that as little as possible changes.

But for the good of this country — its workers, its public services, its businesses, not to mention social cohesion — we have an opportunity to end wildly uncontrolled immigration, whether the BBC and the Establishment like it or not.

So pro-Brexit Boris gets attacked by the BBC, the pro-Brexit Daily Mail gets attacked by the BBC with the added motivation that the Mail had shown the BBC up to be, at best, incompetent, at worst, wilfully misleading, when reporting on issues like immigration.  The BBC has a long way to go.  Maybe it should just be closed down as it is completely out of control, unaccountable and beyond redemption.

 

 

 

 

‘Britain, please don’t Vote Leave!’ – BBC journalist

Sofia Bettiza is a video journalist at the BBC. Here she is pictured with BBC Europe editor Katya Adler in Strasbourg.

Before the referendum she exclaimed, “Britain, please don’t Vote Leave!”, and afterwards, she joined the group ‘Remain in the European Union – Exit from Brexit!’. Solid remainer, through and through.

This didn’t stop her from being sent to work on Brexit related stories by the BBC. None of this should be surprising, afterall she used to work at the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Next month’s news today

The governor of the Bank of England has to write a letter of explanation to the chancellor if the inflation rate is more than 1% either side of the 2% target. On Tuesday, Mr Carney told MPs on the Treasury Committee that “inflation rising potentially above the 3% level in the coming months is something we have anticipated.”

UK inflation at highest since April 2012

If the Bank of England and the OECD can predict the future, Biased BBC definitely can.

November or December 2017: Carney’s letter will be deeply pessimistic about Brexit, so the BBC will report it as the top story with two or three articles of “analysis” where they cherry pick some other statistics to mislead the nation once again. Several days later Laura Klueless will ask the chancellor some stupid questions and whatever the answers are the BBC will present it as being further proof that Brexit is destroying the economy.

Fall Girl

 

Great shame…poor old Hillary couldn’t make it onto the fawning media circuit today as she had another fall….how would she have coped with the strains and stresses of being President?  She seems completely unable to cope with defeat and the reality of who is to blame…one Hillary Clinton.

The BBC has been glorifying her and promoting her as the great lost opportunity, the solution that a dangerous and uncertain world needed.  Jim Naughty continuing the good work this morning on the Today show as he presented her as a woman wronged, denied the presidency by dirty tricks and Russian lies.  The problem is of course that, just assuming it was the Russians who hacked the emails,  they weren’t lies, the very opposite in fact, the problem was that the emails revealed uncomfortable truths about Clinton and the Democrats….the BBC of course avoided any proper scrutiny of those emails preferring to concentrate on the fact they had been hacked….their content was of no interest to the BBC which only wanted to portray this as a dirty trick….similar hacks or thefts of information from those the BBC opposes are of course legitimate ‘leaks’…the source unimportant and indeed protected.

And why is it wrong for the Russians to interfere in American Democracy when the BBC itself has been involved in full-scale attempts to influence the US election?  The BBC ran a vicious anti-Trump campaign that portrayed him as a sex attacker, a racist, an Islamophobe and an all round illiterate, ignorant, unsophisticated, vulgar, egotistic bigot….and this continues post-election with smears, innuendos and half-truths and outright lies about his connections to the Russians as well as the usual contempt and mockery of the very superior types at the BBC.

 

 

 

Er….that’s not why we booked you!

 

Highly amused….The Today show announced this morning….

Having been released from his position of National Security Adviser, Sir Mark Lyall Grant is now warning about the complexity of setting up new defence and security arrangements with the EU after Brexit.

Just a shame the good Sir Mark didn’t get the memo and was going wildly off message telling us Brexit didn’t really pose any threat to security as we had far better intelligence and military services than the EU and they needed us…a deal would be done.  Sarah Montague seemed most put out as she kept on bashing away whilst Sir Mark kept being optimistic….there’d surely be a lack of information on security due to Brexit, no deal would surely be a very bad deal, wouldn’t information sharing just end, a hard border in NI due to Brexit would surely have huge security ramifications???????

In the end she got so exasperated that she berated him for sounding too upbeat.  Curiously we never hear the BBC tell Remainers that they are too downbeat and pessimistic.

 

 

 

Contemptuous and a little barmy

 

Remarkable…prime time on the Today show and it’s another Remainder making his case to stop Brexit in its tracks…naturally he doesn’t want that, merely the right to properly oversee the process and uphold democracy.  Ken Clarke grabbed the 08:10 spot and was his usual contemptuous, patronising, louche self as he dispensed his wisdom and arrogantly laid down the law declaring that Parliament must have the ability to veto a Brexit ‘no deal’….which of course would mean May would have no big stick to threaten the EU with….as intended by Clarke and his cronies who want to see Brexit fail….what they don’t tell you is that if we were to go cap in hand back to the EU and demand our place back at the table the price would be enormous…for a start the Rebate would go as would many opt outs and veto powers…..making us poorer and powerless to influence anything.

 

Clarke announced that the ‘vast majority’ of the British people don’t want a no deal….Humphrys did not say anything despite that claim being untrue.  Oh few may actually want a ‘no deal’ as their preferred option but they are prepared to accept it rather than a bad deal…as a Sky poll showed…..74% in fact back May’s ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ stance…guess 74% must be pretty much the ‘vast majority’…so Clarke is caught out in a complete lie…just not by the BBC…..and that Sky poll seems to be the norm…

Most Remain voters now back taking control of borders, leaving ECJ and paying no Brexit divorce bill

The majority of Remain voters now agree that Britain should take control of its borders after Brexit, end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and pay little or nothing to leave the EU.

A major survey of more than 20,000 people revealed that an overwhelming majority of voters now prefer a so-called “hard Brexit” to a soft one.

Almost 70 per cent of people said they preferred a deal with the European Union which ended membership of the single market, ongoing payments and continued freedom of movement.

A similar percentage of people said they would prefer “no deal” to a “soft Brexit”.

Interesting also the issue Clarke raises….the Parliamentary veto over ‘no deal’.  Who first raised this?  Oh yes….Remainder Martin Donnelly in George Osborne’s Standard bearer for Remain.  Who then took on the message?  The BBC as it gave Donnelly that prime time 08:10 slot on the Today show to further press the message.  Then we have Labour, McDonnell letting slip he is working in cahoots with Remain Tories to thwart Brexit and he is talking about that issue….the Parliamentary veto…and then along comes Ken Clarke doing the same.  Any chance they are all colluding and plotting away together…along with Carney and Hammond…not forgetting Rudd and Morgan?

A similar pattern happened when James Chapman and Sam Coates from the Remain supporting Times were brought together by the BBC and they set the ball running with alarmist scare-stories about the ECJ and Euratom…..which the BBC gave plenty of airtime in conjunction with Osborne’s Standard and other Remain politicians whom the BBC dragged in to further pad out the alarmist tales.  Very definitely an orchestrated narrative intended to make people fear Brexit would result in all kinds of disasters and this seems to be the BBC’s working model as it daily drip feeds us the next disaster that Brexit will bring to our shores.

 

Can’t help thinking this would be Ken Clarke in another era…..a passed over major sat comfortably in his leather chair, puffing on a cigar with brandy in hand at his club going on about the ‘wogs’……

 

Becky Branford’s Agitprop

Yesterday we revealed how a revolutionary marxist is working as a reporter at BBC News.

Now let’s look at just one of her articles, the merest tip of the iceberg: Is populism a threat to Europe’s economies?

After putting forward the view of the ECB, she then devotes the rest of the article to criticising it, “Has the ECB got its analysis the wrong way about?”.  This concluding segment heavily quotes Olivier Vardakoulias, who we are told is an economist at the New Economics Foundation. Well he is, but what we are not told is that the New Economics Foundation is a left wing think tank who aim to build “a new economy where people really take control“, and that Olivier Vardakoulias is a member of Syriza, one of the far-left populist parties the article is supposed to be about. Branford you may remember was already a supporter of the ‘Greece Solidarity Campaign’ as far back as 2012, and Vardakoulias was a speaker at one of their events. He tells us that if “people will turn to nationalist anti-European parties…this will be a disaster for Europe.”

So what we are left with is that the establishment are wrong, and that the nationalist populists are wrong too, leaving only the far left option that we now know Branford herself supports. This isn’t just bias, this is deliberate subterfuge.

See Change?

 

Panic stations in Liberal ÜberAllesLand when Trump and Brexit happened and there seemed to be an unstoppable rising tide of Rightwingery across Europe.  But how they cheered when Wilders in Holland and Le Pen in France didn’t triumph….the tide had turned, the People had come to their senses and seen off the threat of a return to the Thirties that loomed large.  The Liberals could relax whilst they plotted to impeach Trump and thwart Brexit.

But what to make of the election in Austria where someone who touted a hardline on immigration has come out on top and will probably ally himself with what the BBC call the ‘Far Right’.  Why does the BBC always use that term for Right-wing parties it doesn’t like whilst it never uses the term ‘Far-Left’ as a default description of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party?

The BBC seem to be playing down Sebastian Kurz’s victory, they even compared him to their latest heroes Macron and  Trudeau…

Nicknamed “Wunderwuzzi” (very roughly translated as wonder hotshot), he has been compared to the young leaders of France and Canada, Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau.

No histrionics yet about a ‘return to the Thirties’ and the rise of Fascism across Europe….after all the BBC not long ago pronounced that threat dead and buried.  Wonder how they will react to this should the Mail’s prediction come true….

Eurosceptic party led by ‘the Czech Trump’ is clear favourite to thrash mainstream parties in general elections this week in latest blow to the EU

And what of this from the BBC?….

The stance proved popular with Austrian voters after a huge influx of undocumented migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.

It’s those mysterious ‘undocumented migrants’ making an appearance again.  Such a phrase is not neutral, it is a deliberate attempt to make illegal migrants more human and less ‘illegal’, less criminal, more ‘acceptable’…not illegal but just migrants without the right paperwork…it’s merely bad bureaucracy not a serious matter of social, economic and political concern.   ‘Illegal migrants’ describes them perfectly and validly whilst ‘undocumented migrants’ is subjective and intended to deceive.

The term is political and chosen for a reason…the BBC uses it for Mexicans illegally entering the US intending that actions against the ‘illegals’ will seem harsh, unfair and inhumane as they are merely trying to better themselves as are the millions of Muslims and Africans who are trying to invade Europe but which the BBC wants to let in regardless of the cost in treasure, blood and cultural destruction.

The BBC is very selective in who is granted the status of ‘undocumented migrant’.  For instance if you are a Jewish settler in the West Bank you are an illegal settler or occupier….why does the BBC not describe them as ‘undocumented migrants’?  There is no difference between what they do and what Mexicans, Muslims or Africans do….economic migration…..crossing a border illegally and colonising the land.

The BBC anti-Semitic?  Seems so.

Why are Mexican illegals who enter the US or illegal migrants who slip into the UK not described as illegal settlers or occupiers by the BBC?

One rule for some, another for Jews?