The Mexican government is showing no signs of stepping away from its aggressive diplomatic campaign to help its citizens living and working in the United States evade U.S. immigration law enforcement agents.
In Texas, the Mexican Consulate in El Paso announced this week that it would extend through March a program that pays for illegal aliens to obtain legal representation. According to the El PasoTimes, more than $120,000 has been spent since it started earlier this year.
In Sacramento, Mexico spends $250,000 to defend illegal immigrants.
The consular actions are part of a campaign launched in March by the Mexican government to establish “advocacy” departments in each of 50 consulates across the country. The $50 million earmarked is on top of Mexico’s considerable budget for its network of consulates north of the border.
Any outrage from the BBC and Corbyn et al about ‘illegal Mexican settlers/occupiers’? No? Odd. The BBC gets very upset about ‘illegal Israeli settlers’…indeed not bothering to ‘sack’ a regular commentator on the BBC who said Israeli settlers were all nazis and should be shot. Caroline Thatcher on the other hand was dumped for saying someone looked like a golliwog. Priorities…and Jews seem to come last.
Why are illegal Mexican settlers into the US not considered illegal occupiers by the BBC? Why does the BBC prefer to call them ‘undocumented migrants’ rather than illegal settlers? What is the difference between Jews and Mexicans in the BBC’s mind? Are the Israelis not just undocumented migrants looking for a new home?
The use of the term ‘undocumented migrant’ is highly political and not neutral at all…so why does the BBC use it when ‘illegal migrant’ is the correct and official term?
Also why is the BBC unconcerned that a foreign government is encouraging the invasion of the US by its own citizens? Russia may or may not have revealed Hillary Clinton’s compromising emails but the BBC is insisting that Russia is interfering in US democracy…not so bothered about an actual invasion of the US by millions of Mexicans and other South Americans.
The BBC’s own values and beliefs shaping its news so that some things are bad, some are good…but it is the BBC that decides what we must think about these issues not us.
Had to turn off the radio this morning as, on the one hand, somewhat enraged that the BBC presenter made no attempt to do his job and question what was being said and in fact not only went along with it but positively agreed with the thoughts being expressed going on to add his own comments to reinforce them…but also it was so funny, funny/ridiculous, and beyond any rational and ‘normal’ sense of the world that anyone outside a BBC studio would understand and recognise, that it was just unlistenable after a time…beyond satire but I’m sure any ‘right-wing’ comedian could live for a year on this material alone.
The programme was all about the evil european colonists and ‘white guilt’, though apparently that is a white supremacist’s term used to shut down debate and criminalise liberals do-gooders rather than a genuine expression of what the mindset of those who are guilty of ‘white guilt’ is, lol.
The prize-winning novelist Peter Carey tackles head on for the first time the legacies of colonialism in his native Australia in his latest book, A Long Way From Home. He talks to Tom Sutcliffe about the damage and loss for the Stolen Generations. The writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch believes Britain is also a nation in denial about the past and present, and argues it’s time to talk more openly about race and identity. The Dutch journalist Geert Mak once travelled the breadth of Europe to explore what it meant to be European at the end of the 20th century. He found countries struggling to understand the wrongs they had committed during the Holocaust, the Second World War and decades of dictator rule.
The basic premise is that Europeans should be guilty [???] about their past and make reparation to the indigenous populations whose culture and identity is very, very important….which is where the problems start with the programme and its narrative.
So culture and identity are important and yet Guardianista Afua Hirsch tells us that there is no such thing as ‘British identity’ or ‘Britishness’ [so very BBC]. She tells us it is our belief in our own identity that is what’s wrong with this country…we believe the lies and myths about our identity….we believe, wrongly, that immigrants have come here and the country has been changed by immigrants…this is a deeply problematic delusion embedded in the concept of Britishness…apparently. Naturally we are ‘othering’ others…ie immigrants.
She claims that only ‘brown’ people get asked where they come from….er….complete rubbish….ask any Scouser, Cornish or Welsh person etc etc. A Scot living in England will be ragged for being a Scot and then ragged for being a Sassenach when he goes back to the homeland…she needs to get over being black…it ain’t unique, white people have separate identities just as strong and not based upon colour….she invents her own myths and lies to back up her own anti-white racist narrative that she earns a living off as a professional ‘black victim’.
Hirsch hates being asked about her roots, being ‘othered’, she just wants to be accepted for what she is….and as a ‘British’ person….so no such thing as ‘British’….and yet.
She tells us of her trips to Ghana where her mother came from and how the language is the culture and culture is the language….and how they called her ‘white’, a foreigner, despite herself identifying as ‘black’. And yet she goes on to claim that identity is not part of a place…but it clearly is all about place and the people who live there and who have developed a particular and singular culture and identity based upon that….she talks nonsense.
She then goes on to moan about the liberal do-gooders who are well-meaning but ‘other’ her as they claim not to see ‘blackness’.
Now she wants to be ‘black’ and for people to ask about her roots saying ‘it is my heritage..let’s talk about it.’
You can’t win can you?…ask her about her roots and she is ‘othered’, don’t ask and treat her as just a person, it is ignoring her heritage and identity as a black person….marginalisng her and her race.
Peter Carey jumps in to say it is ridiculous to claim you don’t notice colour…it is one of the most basic things we notice first about a person.
A tangled web indeed.
Hirsch is full of nonsense about race and identity…on a previous BBC interview a week or so ago she rambled on about ‘white privilege’, ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘structural racism’ and though she isn’t a conspiracy theorist ‘there are reasons society is set up as it is [racist]....it is in certain people’s interests to keep things as they are [white’s on top]’. In other words ‘society’ has been set up and shaped purely to keep the black man down.
Hirsch, as said, likes to say there is no such thing as Britishness and yet clearly clelebrates her own Ghanaian identity and does not notice the contradiction as she talks of the Ghanaians calling her ‘foreigner’. Carey blasts the Europeans for ruining Australia and destroying the indigenous society…and yet neither of them see any problem with mass immigrants coming here and destroying British culture…something which Hirsch conveniently tries to claim doesn’t exist…thus it doesn’t matter if mass waves of immigrants come here and take over.
Colonisation and cultural imperialism by people such as Hirsch who are clearly attempting to set up a narrative that there is no such thing as a British society, culture and identity and want to replace that ‘non-existent’ indigenous culture with their own. Hirsch’s narrative is a part of a bigger one being used by Black extremists to weaponise race and demonise white people, their culture, society and history…the puerile ‘#xxxxmustfall’ campaigns just a foretaste of what is too come as they set out to make ‘whiteness’ unacceptable and white people criminals. The BBC should stand up to such racism and extremism instead of promoting it.
Any thoughts that the BBC would celebrate and support an indigenous British Hamas or IRA that sought to expell the colonisers as they support Hamas and the IRA?
Just the usual BBC programme channelling that ‘white guilt’ and giving a platform to the radical black activists who seek to undermine society and impose their own racism.
Two Republican Senators [one and two] say Trump did not make the infamous comments claimed by a Democrat…and of course Trump denies it himself though admitting ‘tough’ language as he questioned the need to keep the borders so open. The BBC is still not quoting them and giving their denials prominence such as the one below….
Perdue said, “The gross misrepresentation was that language was used in there that was not used and also that the tone of that meeting was not contributory and not constructive.”
He added, “I’m telling you he did not use that word, George. And I’m telling you it’s a gross misrepresentation. How many times do you want me to say that?”
The BBC of course is not noting the rather dubious past of Democrat Durbin, his hypocrisy and penchant for lying about what went on in meetings. Durbin himself has used the term ‘Chain migration’ and insisted such as system had to end, but now it is a ‘racist’ term, a slur. He was caught out before lying about what was said in a meeting….
In 2013 when, during bipartisan negotiations to avert a government shutdown, Durbin claimed that a Republican leader had told President Barack Obama, “I cannot even stand to look at you.” The claim was refuted by those present, and even by then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
Dick Durbin vs The [Obama] White House
The Senate’s number two Democrat says a GOP leader said something nasty to Obama during the shutdown. The White House says it never happened. They can’t both be right.
“It did not happen,” White House spokesperson Jay Carney said when questioned about the incident.
No interest from the BBC in Durbin’s credibility….surely important when it is purely based upon his word that they make these ‘sensationalist’ claims of Trump being a racist [even though calling a country a ‘shithole’ is not racist, merely a matter of fact based on the situation not skin colour].
The BBC is in fact doubling up on its ‘alternate facts as news’ presentation as its latest report, not mentioning those denials, tries to make out that a Republican supports the Democrat version….but he does not, here the BBC reporting a ‘no denial’ as proof and then goes on to misrepresent what he actually said in his news release [odd how the BBC can quote one Republican whose words they can twist but not two whose words are quite clear and contradict the BBC ‘truth’?!]….
But another Republican senator who was there, Lindsey Graham, did not deny the comments were made.
“Following comments by the president, I said my piece directly to him yesterday. The president and all those attending the meeting know what I said and how I feel,” he said.
But look at the news release and it gives no indication he is talking about Trump saying ‘shithole’, it can be read, and is probably meant to be read, as Graham not being too happy with the idea that a loose immigration system as they have now should be tightened up in the way Trump wants…….nothing to do with ‘racism’ or ‘shithole’ language…..
The BBC then slips in this misleading quote….
House Speaker Paul Ryan, a senior Republican, said that Donald Trump’s immigration comments were “very unfortunate” and “unhelpful”.
However Ryan [not a friend of Trump] wasn’t at the meeting, he was reacting to reports he had read….
“I read those comments later last night, the first thing that came to my mind was very unfortunate, unhelpful,” the Wisconsin Republican said at WisPolitics Luncheon
You can judge the dishonesty and bad faith whirling aorund when you hear Ryan go on to celebrate immigration, thus trying to distance himself from Trump…..
Ryan discussed his Irish roots and said immigration is “a thing to celebrate.”
“I read those comments later last night. So the first thing that came to my mind was, very unfortunate, very unhelpful. But you know what I thought of right away? I thought of my own family.
And yet he is also in fact against chain immigration and illegal immigration…
Our immigration system is broken, and the evidence is overwhelming. Eleven million undocumented immigrants are living in the United States. Because they lack legal status, they are outside the scope of the law. We don’t know who they are or in what activities they are involved. We encourage people to break the law and punish those who follow it. Immigrants who attempt to come to this country by legal means find themselves wrapped up in endless paperwork and bureaucracy. The current backlog for family-sponsored visas is so vast that it could take up to 11.5 years for the visa to be processed.
Reforming our immigration system will help strengthen America in several important ways.
We often give out visas based primarily on people’s family connections, not their talents or skills. Consequently, we are missing out and falling behind.
We need an immigration system that upholds the rule of law and helps our economy grow.
An illustration of how context, politics and relationships mix together to create events….and the BBC dodges all that as it sees what it wants to hear, Trump is a racist, and joyfully reports that as fact.
So it wasn't "the one-sided caricature from his armchair critics" but this stunning revelation in Private Eye about Toby Young that would surely have got him sacked. He attended a recent secret eugenics conference with neo-nazis and paedophiles (c) Private Eye pic.twitter.com/AwuRGyTDS6
“Our records indicate the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for the event to be allowed to go ahead.
“We are an institution that is committed to free speech but also to combatting racism and sexism in all forms.
“We have suspended approval for any further conferences of this nature by the honorary lecturer and speakers pending our investigation into the case.
….hmmm….so they forgot the other years that the conference was held there then?
The London Conference on Intelligence, held annually since 2014 at University College London, focused on research about how genetic and racial differences allegedly affect the intelligence of different demographics, among other topics.
I naively thought that if I resigned from the Office for Students, stepped down from the Fulbright Commission and apologised for the offensive things I’d said on Twitter the witch-hunt would end. In fact, it has reached a new, frenzied pitch. The mob’s blood lust is up and it won’t rest until it has completely destroyed me.
Things took an ugly turn yesterday when Private Eye published a story saying I had attended ‘a secretive conference’ at University College London last year organised by Dr James Thompson, an Honorary Lecturer in Psychology at UCL. This is an annual affair known as the London Conference on Intelligence. It then went on to summarise some of the more outlandish papers presented at this event in previous years – not in the year I attended, mind – such as a paper arguing that racial differences in penis length predict different levels of parental care. It pointed out that in 2015 and 2016 this conference had been attended by someone described by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a ‘white nationalist and extremist’. It even dug up a blog post by one of the attendees in which he tried to justify child rape. It described all these people as my ‘friends’.
Needless to say, this article has led to a deluge of grotesque smears, on everything from the Canary to Russia Today. (The Russia Today article is headlined: ‘Shamed Toby Young ‘attended secret eugenics conference with neo-Nazis and paedophiles’.) More alarmingly, seemingly respectable, mainstream newspapers have followed up these stories – slightly toned down, of course, but with the same implication: that I am a neo-Nazi, an apologist for paedophilia and God knows what else.
So here are the facts. Yes, I went to the 2017 London Conference on Intelligence – I popped in for a few hours on a Saturday and sat at the back. I did not present a paper or give a lecture or appear on a platform or anything remotely like that. I had not met any of the other people in the lecture room before, save for Dr Thompson, and was unfamiliar with their work. I was completely ignorant of what had been discussed at the same event in previous years. All I knew was that some of them occupied the weird and whacky outer fringe of the world of genetics.
My reason for attending was because I had been asked – as a journalist – to give a lecture by the International Society of Intelligence Researchers at the University of Montreal later in the year and I was planning to talk about the history of controversies provoked by intelligence researchers. I thought the UCL conference would provide me with some anecdotal material for the lecture – and it did. To repeat, I was there as a journalist researching a talk I had to give a few months later and which was subsequently published.
Yes, I heard some people express some pretty odd views. But I don’t accept that listening to someone putting forward an idea constitutes tacit acceptance or approval of that idea, however unpalatable. That’s the kind of reasoning that leads to people being no-platformed on university campuses.
In an article for the Guardian, the University of Montreal conference, where I did actually speak, is described as ‘similar’ to the UCL conference. Complete nonsense. It was a super-respectable, three-day affair held at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Numerous world-renowned academics spoke at it, including Steven Pinker, the famous Harvard professor, and James Flynn, the political scientist who has given his name to the ‘Flynn effect’. In 2015, the same lecture I gave – the Constance Holden Memorial Address — was given by Dr Alice Dreger, a well-regarded author and academic.
You can see the website for the Montreal conference, and the roster of speakers, here. Virtually every one is a tenured professor. To reiterate, that’s the conference I spoke at, not the one in London.
Polly Toynbee joined the lynch mob earlier today – or, rather, re-appeared in the lynch mob – in a column headlined: ‘With his views on eugenics, why does Toby Young still have a job in education?’ In the column, she repeats the smear in the headline, calling me a ‘eugenicist’ – again, the implication being that I’m some kind of neo-Nazi. In case you miss the point, she says I’m on the ‘far right’ and I think ‘the poor are inferior’. (Bit rich, considering Polly sent her children to expensive private schools and mine are all at state schools, but still.)
Polly’s ‘eugenicist’ slur – which has been thrown at me by virtually the entire Parliamentary Labour Party – is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of an article I wrote for an Australian periodical in 2015 called Quadrant and is then ‘backed up’ by Polly by selectively quoting from it. She also throws in the fact that I attended a ‘secretive eugenics conference’, etc., etc.
Imagine you are having in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and you produce four embryos. One is to be implanted. You are told that there is a genetic test for predisposition to scoring well on IQ tests (let’s call this intelligence). If an embryo has gene subtypes (alleles) A, B there is a greater than 50% chance it will score more than 140 if given an ordinary education and upbringing. If it has subtypes C, D there is a much lower chance it will score over 140. Would you test the four embryos for these gene subtypes and use this information in selecting which embryo to implant?
Now, we haven’t yet developed the ‘genetic test’ referred to by Savulescu, and it’s possible that we may never do so because: (a) intelligence may not be genetically-based; and (b) even if it is, we may never discover all the subs-sets and combinations of genes associated with it. But what if it is and we do? Science fiction today becomes science fact tomorrow. In my Quadrant article, I discuss an obvious risk associated with the technology described by Savulescu, namely, that if it is ever invented, the first people to take advantage of it will be the rich so they can give their children an even greater advantage than they currently enjoy. In short, it will make inequality even worse.
My solution to this problem, set out in the article, is that this technology, if it comes on stream, should be banned for everyone except the very poor. I wasn’t proposing sterilisation of the poor or some fiendish form of genetic engineering so they could have babies with ‘high IQ genes’ or anything like that. Just a form of IVF that would be available on the National Health to the least well off, should they wish to take advantage of it. Not mandatory, just an option, a way of giving their children a head start. I was thinking about how to reduce the risk that this new technology will exacerbate existing levels of inequality – how to use it to reduce inequality. I described my proposal as ‘a form of egalitarianism’.
It is for this that Polly Toynbee – who obviously hasn’t read the article – has labelled me a ‘eugenicist’.
You think I’m mischaracterising my article? Dressing it up to make it sound less like an extract from Mein Kampf? Don’t take my word for it. Read this summary of my argument by Iain Brassington, who writes a bioethics blog for the Journal of Medical Ethics. After marvelling at all the people who’ve called me a ‘eugenicist’ (including Vince Cable, no less), he points out that what I’m suggesting ‘is in many ways, fairly unremarkable’.
What’s notable from a bioethicist’s perspective is just how familiar the arguments being presented here are. It’s hard to read Young’s article without thinking of a good chunk of the work on genetic screening, and on enhancement, that’s been done over the past few years… it’s pretty standard stuff in seminar discussions about screening; and nor is there anything that is obviously morally beyond the pale.
Hear that Polly? Nothing that is obviously morally beyond the pale. He thinks I’m wrong about lots of stuff, by the way – just not a Nazi. Read his piece. It’s very good.
So that’s the long and the short of it. Because, as a journalist, I went and had a look at a strange conference being held at UCL – and because I discussed a familiar bio-ethics problem in an obscure Australian periodical – I’m some kind of ‘far right’ nut job who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near kids, let alone schools.
It has been suggested – in the Guardian and elsewhere – that the reason I stepped down from the Office for Students is because I knew the Private Eye article was coming out and my number was up. That’s balls. I said some stupid, puerile things on Twitter late at night of which I’m thoroughly ashamed and for which I’ve unreservedly apologised. It became clear that having said those things, I couldn’t serve on the Office for Students without causing an almighty stink that would render it unable to do its job. But I’m not remotely ashamed of having attended the London Conference on Intelligence.
I believe in free speech. That includes defending the right of researchers and academics, however beyond the pale, to present their findings to other researchers in their field at academic conferences so they can be scrutinised and debated. If you believe someone is putting forward a theory that is wrong, unsupported by the evidence, you should want their theories to be exposed to scrutiny, not swept under the carpet. No-platforming people whose ideas you disapprove of is self-defeating.
That’s been my lifelong credo – and I had hoped to bring it to bear in the Office for Students, which has been tasked with protecting academic freedom. That is not to be and I have accepted that. But enough already. Just because I sat at the back in a lecture room at UCL one afternoon, scribbling away in my reporter’s notepad, while some right-wing fruitcakes held forth about ‘dysgenics’ does not make me a Nazi. If it did, then the fact that Jeremy Corbyn regularly attended a conference run by Holocaust-denier Paul Eisen would make him an anti-Semite.
Humphrys: “Good, slight change of subject — first question will be how much of your salary you are prepared to hand over to Carrie Gracie to keep her, and then a few comments about your other colleagues, you know, like our Middle East editor and the other men who are earning too much…”
Sopel: “I mean, obviously if we are talking about the scope for the greatest redistribution I’ll have to come back and say, ‘well yes Mr Humphrys, but…’.”
Humphrys: “And I could save you the trouble, because I could volunteer that I’ve handed over already more than you fucking earn, but I’m still left with more than anybody else and that seems to me to be entirely just – something like that would do it?”
Sopel: “Don’t.”
Humphrys: “Dear God. She’s actually suggested that you should lose money; you know that, don’t you? You’ve read the thing properly, have you?”
Sopel: “Yeah, I have. Yep.”
Humphrys: “And the idea is that I’m not allowed to talk to her about it throughout the whole course of the programme. Not a word.”
Sopel: “I mean…can we have this conversation…I’d love to talk to you about it.”
Last week we had a proper right-wing comedian on the News Quiz, which the liberal lefty comics seem to think is their private club, and he was a bit of a star and got a few cheers from the audience and some good write-ups. Clearly too popular and that had to stop.
They all embarrassed themselves as they poured forth their smug, entitled smackdowns onto a man who is clearly not at home in such an environment and is not able to respond in kind….or maybe with a well-deserved right hook perhaps.
Next week’s ‘right-wing comedian’? Isabel Hardman, columnist from the Spectator….let’s hope she has looked and learnt and will come suitably equiped…with some pro-Trump cheerleading, stop immigration, privatise the NHS and Brexit is terrific comments to appal the echo-chamber of Bubbleheads.
Just as with pay for the girls the BBC is paying lip service to the issue of right-wing thinking being given a proper platform, treated with respect and genuine attempts made to consider things as if right-wing views are acceptable.
Democratic senator Dick Durbin has claimed Trump is racist for using the term ‘chain migration’.….Breitbart has dug up a clip of Durbin himself using the full term in the Senate in 2010…..
“The DREAM Act would not allow what is known as chain migration,” Durbin said. “In fact, DREAM Act students would have very limited ability to sponsor their family members for legal status.”
Remarkable that the BBC doesn’t bother to substantiate Durbin’s claims….the BBC has reported that two Republicans at the meeting back Trump’s version of events and yet apart from a one line mention of that the BBC otherwise ignores it preferring instead to headline every news bulletin with sensationalist news that ‘Africa’ is up in arms and is demanding an apology from Trump for his comments and the UN has called him a racist….and yet the BBC has absolutely no proof he made such comments other than the word of a man who is proven to be somewhat duplicitous and untrustworthy. Did Trump mis-speak or Durbin deliberately ‘mis-hear’?
And that leads to another major issue that the BBC ignores…Durbin’s betrayal of the principle that what is said in a private meeting is kept private. Instead Durbin has ‘leaked’ a version of events that he has undoubtedly ‘sexed up’ and has done so for party political interests….look at the reaction from around the world and you can see it is the US that is being damaged by Durbin’s claims. Durbin has put party before country and has done severe damage to US interests…and yet the BBC says nothing other than of course to glory in the fallout.
Durbin has betrayed his country for cheap political advantage. Much as the BBC does itself….cheerleading as it does for the IRA, Muslim extremists and a terrorist supporting Marxist leading the Labour party…not to mention collaborating with the EU junta. lol.
Likely Coventry is described as such because it smells bad, is an unpleasant place to be, trashy, un-kept, or generally lacking in desirable qualities.
That’s odd because as we know the use of that phrase is predicated upon racism and skin colour….as the liberal quoted by the BBC tells us:…incredible the way he can just twist things to make black white and white black…..apparently Trump was actually calling Haitians and Africans ‘shitholes’ not their countries….most might agree with Trump…hence they flee their own ‘shithole’ countries and head towards America….
Yes, it was racist
Mr McIlwain: Yesterday, Donald Trump said African and Haitian immigrants hail from “shithole countries”. A little black girl and child of Haitian immigrants I know overheard. Unprompted, and defiant she responded to her mother: “Donald Trump is a shithole!” The word itself was foreign to her, but she intuitively understood the words were derogatory, demeaning – racist. [really? No. she didn’t] In Trump’s words she recognised a constellation of associations and inferences that Trump drew on to make this so.[No she didn’t]
A statement is racist when it explicitly denigrates and/or asserts as true a negative, longstanding stereotype about an entire group of people, signalled by the colour of their skin. “Shithole” fits the bill in the vilest way. [er in what way is ‘shithole’ associated in anyway with colour of skin? It describes a place not a person] Those who manage with a straight face to say Trump’s words were not racist no doubt will point out that he did not specify that black people from these countries are shitholes. But, he did not have to.
We have longstanding and differential associations between the colours white and black. For much of our recent history, white has always represented all that is pure, clean, desirable. These associations are found in the language of our dictionaries, the one-time definition of Africa as the “dark continent”, and the way we demarcated slaves from non-slaves throughout the slave trade. These associations define our beauty standards, animated through film and television’s past and present. And, these colour associations still dominate our perceptions of leadership, images of success and attributions of worth and value.
Because of these longstanding and pervasive associations between black and white, Trump need only connect a few dots to express his racism. Denigrate immigrants from countries like Africa and Haiti as shitholes with no value, then specify their opposite – people from “Norway“. Even a little girl can see what the primary difference is between the two.
The only dots being connected are by a ‘professional black’ whose whole identity and being is wrapped up in being ‘black’, a black ‘victim’….naturally he works in the media department of his university…..
Typical of the mindset of so many on the left…and in the BBC.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
diggDec 27, 11:49 Christmas 2024 1. I reckon any real “journalists” in Gaza would never risk grouping together like this…..why should they? 2. What would…
tomoDec 27, 11:48 Christmas 2024 January 6th Act II [img]https://i.ibb.co/Qvfdvn9/1132238-8l4t5wnreql956g.png[/img] [img]https://i.ibb.co/StdhDmM/1132238-hy5xv7eqxrm9lak.png[/img] [img]https://i.ibb.co/ngn6gg1/1132238-q625hf4cnlgn76x.png[/img]
ZephirDec 27, 11:23 Christmas 2024 What we used to do when fun was allowed, glasses of water and buggery not required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwOOLLGBy-4
FlotsamDec 27, 11:21 Christmas 2024 Perhaps we should market “Labour stole our WFA” tea cosies
AsISeeItDec 27, 11:06 Christmas 2024 There’s always a spare room at the – Holiday – Inn
