The BBC has been reporting the vandalising of the 7/7 memorial on the radio all day….unfortunately untill I’d seen a web report I had no idea what the graffiti said.

“Blair lied thousands died” and “4 innocent Muslims”.

Curious how coy the BBC can be when it wants to be….not wanting to stir up that islamophobic hate mob that is just waiting for any excuse to attack Muslims….despite little reaction from that ‘mob’ after 9/11, 7/7 and the murder of Lee Rigby.

And very apt that the vandals should bring together the BBC’s own narrative about Blair lying and ‘innocent’ radical Muslims, radicalised to a greater or lesser extent by that very BBC narrative.

Note what the press clipping says…...’There have been four Home Secretaries since the People reported on the “The Vilest Men in Britain” on May 25, 1975.

Not one of Mr. Brittan’s predecessors took effective steps to deal with this festering evil.’

But only Brittan is in the frame today.

The BBC looks to be concentrating on the 1980’s as its starting point for reporting on historic child abuse in the corridors of power and elsewhere and has happily reported Leon Brittan was interviewed by police after a rape allegation was made against him, the police taking no action, and the Today programme dragging in Peter Bottomley…seemingly only on the basis that a false allegation was made against him by the Mail 30 years ago for which he received a large amount of damages…are they hoping a bit of mud sticks to all these Tories?  The BBC seems to be ignoring Labour people.

Timeline: 1980s child abuse allegations

1980s child abuse claims explained

Geoffrey Dicken’s allegations centred around PIE and most of the abuse would have been pre-1980’s.

It is not clear from the reporting that there were at least three ‘dossiers’ from Dickens relating his concerns…..in none of the press reports are there particular mentions of MPs being involved…..Tom Watson is getting his information from Peter McKelvie, a retired child protection team manager, who has spent more than 20 years compiling evidence of alleged child abuse….not sure where McKelvie gets his information….but he seems to have enough to make accusations such as this:  I first contacted Tom Watson MP, about in October 2012, ie the link between a powerful paedophile ring and No. 10 which very much remains a live and ever increasing Police investigation.

Watson uses the same language:

‘….clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10.’

But you have to ask what is that ‘clear intelligence’?  If they have this ‘clear intelligence’ why is it that they do not know what was actually in Geoffrey Dicken’s dossier?  The evidence seems slight with only one politician possibly in the frame with others merely worthy of further investigation……

McKelvie said that:

‘…..he believed there was enough evidence to arrest at least one senior politician.

“I believe there are sufficient grounds to carry out a formal investigation into allegations of up to 20 MPs and Lords over the last three to four decades, some still alive and some dead. The list is there.”

In a letter to his local MP Sir Tony Baldry last month, Mr McKelvie suggested that a further 20 MPs and Lords were implicated in the “cover-up” of abuse of children.

Mr McKelvie, who has compiled a dossier of evidence by speaking to alleged victims and care workers with whom they are in contact, does not suggest that any of the MPs and Lords colluded with each other.’

As we know that eye-witness evidence isn’t necessarily accurate, as the BBC found out to its cost, relying solely on the alleged vicitms to identify the abusers seems somewhat risky….here one witness is under 10:

At least one witness is understood to have told police in the 1980s that he was abused by a Tory MP at the guest house when he was aged under 10

Would any 10 year old be able to identify an MP?  Could you identify your own MP now?

Here the BBC admits not much is really known about the contents of the dossier:

What did the Dickens files allege?

Press reports from the era claimed one file concerned a civil servant and that another one related to an employee of Buckingham Palace. The papers also contained allegations concerning the Paedophile Information Exchange, a group that campaigned to make sex between adults and children legal.

In an interview with the Daily Express in 1983, Mr Dickens said he had eight names of “really important, public figures” he was going to expose.

So where is that ‘clear intelligence‘ Watson talks of?

And I note that whilst the BBC mentions a civil servant and Buckingham Palace it doesn’t mention anything about a senior TV executive:

It seems I am not the only one confused about these dossiers.  Peter Mckelvie himself looks to have got one dossier wrong claiming here…..

‘a newly discovered press cutting (see below) shows that Geoffrey Dickens personally delivered a separate file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington, in August 1983.’

Unfortunately reading the clipping tells a different story…the file came from the police.

Curiously elsewhere McKelvie gets that right:

SCOTLAND YARD FILE #2,  25th August 1983 (delivered to DPP same week as Dickens Dossier #1)

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington, – today takes delivery of a file on paedophilia – the distasteful fruit of two years’ work by Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad. The squad’s thick file, containing the names of the famous, the wealthy, and hundreds of anonymous citizens, was sent from the Yard yesterday.

“Because it has technically left our hands, we can say nothing about the file’s contents as the matter is effectively sub judice”, a Scotland Yard spokesman said last night. “It is now up to the Director to decide what action should be taken. It is purely coincidental that the report has been concluded at the time investigations are under way.”

Source: Daily Express, 25th August 1983, Daily Mail, 25th August 1983

The Independent, and the Telegraph, both seemed to have taken the mistake and run with it:

Westminster child abuse exclusive: Geoffrey Dickens also gave copy of file to top prosecutor Sir Thomas Hetherington

As you can see Dickens didn’t give the dossier to the DPP, the police gave the DPP a file containing the ‘fruits of two years work’.

Also there must have been a lot of people who knew much of what was in Dicken’s dossiers as they were involved in the research…never mind the police:

He [Dickens] used House of Commons researchers and enlisted local reporters, librarians and friends to help go through records, check files, even empty dustbins of some of the suspects. In the end there were just those eight men on the list of shame. Discussions with Scotland Yard followed.

This might be of interest:

The morning after the broadcast of ‘Secret Life of a Paedophile’ (BBC) in 1994, Richard Johnson, the author of the book A Kind of Hush, rang in to the Inside Story team to say that at 1.30 am he had received a phone call from ‘Mick’ (who the central character in A Kind of Hush is based on) to say that the documentary had vindicated him and everything he had told Richard about many years before. According to Richard Johnson the book was loosely based on a paedophile network that included Peter Righton, a Labour MP, a well known Labour politician, and a central figure allegedly named as a major paedophile in Islington children’s homes.

Strangely no mention by the BBC of Harman or Hodges in relation to any of this.

Minced PIE?

Manufacturing The Age Of Consent

Margaret Hodge’s Double Standards on Abuse

From the Sunday People 1983:

DV WARNING —  I WILL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS THAT COULD OPEN US i.e. ME TO LIBEL. PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE.

Ex Guardian editor, Peter Preston, tells us that ‘the most vehement critics of the press are academics and campaigners who’ve long held the BBC as their news chronicler of choice (people who wish that grubby old print could match the loftier aspirations of Broadcasting House).

Ironically the trouble is that it is the BBC’s single minded commitment to those very ‘lofty aspirations’ that corrupts the BBC and tarnishes its fine ideals.  It deems those ‘fine ideals‘ so self-evident that it cannot countenance any other way of looking at the world and ‘manages’ its news output to ensure that its own ideological world view predominates.  How it reports climate change is the classic example of this, its environmental reporters no longer to be trusted as independent, impartial journalists, but more often than not looking like campaigners for a cause….and all backed up by the BBC Trust.

Preston goes on to talk of the BBC chair of that Trust and suggests that if Tory Lord Coe gets the position ‘there ought to be a monstrous howl from everyone who values media freedom.’

Curiously he has nothing to say about all those Guardian journo’s and Labour politicians taking the BBC shilling….though rumour is that James Harding may be heading back to the FT…a suitably pink rag.

The BBC is reporting the arrest of several Israelis:

A number of Jewish suspects have been arrested over the murder of Palestinian teenager Mohammad Abu Khdair, whose death sparked days of violent protests.

Though they haven’t bothered with the arrest of a Palestinian for murder:

Palestinian man arrested in connection with killings of three Jewish teenagers

They do however highlight the arrest of another Palestinian:

A Palestinian-American teenager, a cousin of Mohammad Abu Khdair, was one of those held after the clashes.

Mobile phone footage appears to show two Israeli policemen repeatedly punching Tariq Khdair, 15, from Florida, in the head.

Only nasty Israeli coppers beat people up don’t they?:

Similarly the BBC are keen to report this:

Lord Brittan ‘interviewed over historical rape allegation’

But somehow overlook this:

Labour Lord’s ‘sex attacks on 12 children’: ‘Horrific’ allegations include rape and serious sexual assaults MoS reveals

The case against Brittan was from a single claim whilst at least 12 separate men have complained about the Labour Lord….‘These are some of the most horrific child abuse allegations you can imagine.’

Guess the BBC have their reasons for not reporting that.

The BBC Trust has confirmed why it is unfit for purpose having just published a review of its of its review of its science coverage:

Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science impartiality Review Actions

When the BBC Trust is setting the BBC’s editorial policy on climate change and at the same time is the final arbiter on complaints should you wish to complain about the BBC’s climate change coverage it’s not hard to work out that you are not going to get an independent and impartial decision.

The Trust states that:In 2010 the Trust decided to review the accuracy and impartiality of BBC science coverage…….. The Trust commissioned an independent report from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, together with content analysis from the Science Communication Group at Imperial College London.

Now Professor Steve Jones is far from independent being an ardent clmate change fanatic who owes his living to the BBC and so is unlikely to be impartial.
The BBC is busy brainwashing its staff to accept the line the wish to push:The coverage of science by the BBC continues to be a hotly debated issue.   The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.
Just who runs those seminars?  They sound remarkably like the green ‘black propaganda’ seminars run by Harrabin and climate change campaigner Dr Joe Smith in their CMEP guise…with money from a climate change ‘communications’ group.Once again hardly impartial.Ironically the Trust says that:Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices...and yet the Trust itself is prescribing who and what is to be allowed on air….the only conclusion you can draw is that the BBC has decided no climate sceptics should be allowed any airtime at all.It goes on:

Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified by Professor Jones.

The trouble is the Sceptics aren’t just giving their ‘opinion’, their scepticism is based upon the science, or the lack of science.

For instance they proved that the infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph was wrong.   There is still no proof that CO2 is the driver of climate change.  There is no evidence to show that ‘extreme weather’ is caused, or even being generated, by climate change.  There is no evidence that the oceans are absorbing all the heat.  There is no science to show why global warming has paused for 17 years.

The ‘science’ proves absolutely nothing as of now…..which is why the climate change ‘communicators’ want to concentrate on ‘risk’…yes we can’t prove such and such but what if….?  We just can’t take the risk you know!

The Trust states that:

“This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.”

Unfortunately it means precisely that…..Harrabin and Co are pushing one message and do not publish anything that goes against that message…the ‘inconvenient truth’.

The BBC is no longer a reliable and trustworthy reporter of the ‘science’, instead it has become nothing more than an organisation that has succumbed to political and green lobbyist pressure and compromised its own principles to sell the Public a line, it has become a PR outlet for the Greens.

That has become ever more important as other publications succumb to the green lobby pressure leaving people with few genuinely impartial and accurate sources of information.

Here is the Telegraph’s measured and knowledgeable comment:

BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes

The Daily Mail also seems to have surrendered its integrity and given in to either financial inducement or political pressure to change its tone when reporting climate.  Recently it has been far more ‘on message’ reporting events wihtout any hint of doubt or criticism.

Communication Group at Imperial College London.

From the Guardian:

Murdered Palestinian teenager’s family says new footage shows his abduction

Video appears to bolster family’s claim that murdered teenager Mohamed Abu Khdeir was targeted by Israeli extremists

Despite the Guardian’s claim the video in no way ‘bolsters the families claim that he was targeted by Israeli extremists’…it is  impossible to determine who took him or exactly what went on from the video….like to know how the family know they were asking directions.

The Telegraph reports:

In the hours after his death, rumours appeared on Twitter that Mohammed had been killed by fellow Palestinians as part of a criminal gang feud or by his own relatives in a so-called honour killing amid unsubstantiated suggestions that he was gay. His family have dismissed such assertions out of hand and insist that he had no criminal connections or history of being in trouble.

A group of Muslim Asians attack and nearly kill two black non-Muslims.

The BBC have so far ignored the sentencing of the racist thugs in this country and are more concerned with the death of  a Palestinian in Jerusalem.  Can’t imagine them being so slow to report this if it had been a white right wing thug doing the attacking….only whites can be racist and Islam is the religion of peace.

From the Mail:

Racist thugs jailed for 36 years for battering two men almost to death with baseball bats because they weren’t Muslim

From the Spectator:

The Bradford head teacher who got it right on Islam and education

We should heed Honeyford’s warning, and recognise that what matters to Britain, as a secular nation state, is the extent to which the rising generation of Muslims can become British citizens first, and Muslims second, when it comes to defining their public duties.

The BBC has been repeatedly broadcasting an incendiary audio interview with relatives of the Palestinian teenager killed in Jerusalem as tensions between Israelis and Palestinians are ‘dangerously high’....a soundtrack that is almost certainly already on a Jihadi website added to video and pictures of Israeli or Western ‘atrocities’ against Muslims as a tool to both recruit new Jihadis and to incite more terrorism against Western or Jewish targets.

It must be a serious editorial misjudgement to broadcast what is nothing more than a highly emotive, provocative incitement against Israelis and any who support them.

The interview is one long ‘blood libel’ against all Israelis making provocative and inflammatory claims designed to whip up anti-Jewish sentiment as the Palestinians compare the Jews to Nazis and imply that the murdered Palestinian teen is just the start of a Palestinian ‘Holocaust’, a Jewish ‘Final Solution’ to deal with the Palestinians…. ‘one down, another 5 million Palestinians to go‘,  that the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, plans to kill them all, that the Jews have stolen their land and now are stealing their kids and killing them.

They claim the teenager was just a child, a ‘kid’…but at age 17 he is the same age as the British ISIS member boasting about his Iraq adventure.…’a person claiming to be Nasser’s brother Aseel told BBC Wales he was willing to die for the cause.

The 17-year-old, who is also believed to be in Syria, told the Week in Week Out programme: “Jihad is obligatory.”‘

There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for broadcasting this so called interview which is little more than the usual ugly, racist Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda.  It was first broadcast on ‘Today’ (08:10), then Derbyshire played it on her show but  made no comment…which begs the question played to what purpose, what was the intended reaction that the BBC wanted to get from the listener?  It was clearly intended to provoke some sort of reaction.  Undoubtedly it has been broadcast on other shows throughout the day and is available on the website as a stand-alone.

Perhaps The BBC’s Director General might like to get in touch with his lawyers to check if the BBC is guilty of promoting terrorism:

Terrorism Act 2006

(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another
to publish such a statement;

and (b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he…..(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.

Should the interview be found on a Jihadi website to recruit jihadis and promote terrorism would there be grounds for a prosecution against the BBC who so recklessly broadcast something that directly or indirectly could encourage Muslims to join the Jihad against Israel and the West?

The BBC were slow to report the kidnapping of the three Israelis, but fast off the mark to report the death of the Palestinian and to ascribe his death as the probable result of an Israeli lynch mob.

The BBC is now painting a picture of aggressive, violent Israelis out to attack Palestinians in revenge for the deaths and continually make reference to claims like these:

Scores of Israelis had angrily protested in Jerusalem late on Tuesday, after the funerals of the three Israeli teenagers.

Ghonit Sela, director of the Human Rights in East Jerusalem Project, told the BBC further attacks were feared.

“We saw dozens of people walking in broad daylight in the streets, yelling ‘death to Arabs’, trying to attack Arabs.

or this

“The Israeli police are just here to protect the settlements,” said his friend, Saif. “The settlers come to attack us all the time. They try to push us over the edge. Especially in Jerusalem.”

The BBC’s Kevin Connolly has been reporting that Israelis have been inciting violence against Palestinians but fails to mention anything about Palestinian threats and incitement.

The BBC consistently fails to report the celebrations when an Israeli is killed such as these celebrations of the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers:

PA, Fatah cartoons gloat over teens’ kidnappings

Drawings in official PA newspaper and on Fatah facebook page appear to celebrate abduction of Israelis

This was photographed on the Temple Mount. These ‘Palestinian’ children and their teachers are celebrating the abduction of three Jewish teenagers by holding up their three fingers in what has become the viral sign of joy at the kidnapping.

The BBC fails to report what the Palestinians teach their kids…the first video is interesting as it ends with the thought that once they have finished with Israel they will move on to Iraq and to the creation of a Muslim State without borders…someone has beaten them to it………

Amused to see Robert Peston complaining about Press freedom:

Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

This is coming from a man employed by an organisation that tried to shut down a ‘right wing’ news organisation that was a commercial and political opponent of the BBC.

It also comes on a day when the National Audit Office slams the BBC for its secretive ways:

Imagine that: the BBC is more secretive than anybody

The BBC is more prone to hiding behind commercial secrecy to withhold embarrassing evidence than almost any other organisation, according to public spending watchdogs investigating its costly failures.

The BBC’s willingness to deploy commercial confidentiality and individual privacy as reasons to keep back information put it in a league of its own, the head of the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

An organisation that spends £300,000 hiding a report into its activities in the Middle East perhaps has reasons to be secretive.

One thing to note…I have noticed that searching for BBC reports, even ones from a few days earlier, is becoming harder….BBC articles used to top the search pile but more often than not the Guardian seems to top the list and the BBC often isn’t there leaving you to alter the search terms until you hopefully dig something up….or go back through your history to connect directly to the link if you’ve read the article before.  Is that Google having a different priority for the BBC, or the BBC changing how articles can be linked to, or my own limited ability on the internet?

The BBC also seems to block access to older versions of reports…every time I have tried to use internet archives there is no link to anything but the most current version….meaning all those ‘mistakes’ and inappropriate interpretations of events are ‘vanished’.

Whatever the reasons, a technical glitch or the BBC ‘managing’ its news archives,  it does seem harder to dig up ‘old news’ from the BBC.

You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the BBC….so ready to blame Sykes-Picot and the ‘carving up’ of the Middle East regardless of ethnicity, culture and religion for the current state of affairs there…and yet so ready to encourage us, by hook or by crook,  to accept the oppressive hand of the European Empire erasing our nation states regardless of ethnicity, culture and religion.

How long before an Anglo-Saxon ‘ISIS’ declares its own Jihad against ‘Europe’ and demands its land and culture back?

Wonder if the BBC would be as supportive of those ‘militants’ as they are of the real jihadists?

Radio Four yesterday was cheerleading for Europe with yet another example of its use of a ‘discussion’ as a subterfuge to promote Europe rather than engage in a genuine debate….asking  ‘Would you be better off with Britain out of Europe?’

Remarkably, considering the weight of opinion against the European adventure,  the BBC found difficulty in getting EU sceptics to call in…as it admitted during the programme.

Not only that but some of the ‘callers’ you had to suspect were somewhat more than the average man on the street…’Hazel’ from Aberdeen seemed more likely to have an office in the Scottish parliament building whilst ‘John Butcher from Surrey’ (10 mins 30 sec)  would seem to be conservative councillor John Butcher, once a member of the Conservative Group for Europe…..but the BBC didn’t bother to tell us that and let him go on demanding the full costs of an ‘out of Europe’ vote be quantified whilst telling us that the approach to the referendum was fundamentally dishonest.

The presenter, Shari Vahl, gives the impression of being an enthusiastic EU supporter eagerly listing all the benefits of EU membership, as she sees them.

What isn’t gone into is the fact that the ‘European money’ that the EU so generously sends to us is in fact our own money once the EU has extracted a large wodge  that they take to pay themselves a nice wage, to provide themselves with a generous expense account and to gild their pension pot…what’s left funds Spanish motorways and white elephant airports  as well as some eventually finding its way back across the Channel to us.

We are told all that ‘European money’ will vanish, that businesses won’t invest here, that we won’t be doing any business with Europe, that all that useful legislation passed by the EU wouldn’t have happened if left to a national government, that ex-pats will be deported and should they be allowed to stay in their Spanish villas they won’t get health care anymore.

One of the few sceptical callers to get through took issue with all those points (about 12:36) ….and you could hear the sniggering from the studio….clearly they weren’t actually intending to have a genuine debate.

Another caller slipped through the net and said the majority of people wouldn’t think their lives would be effected in a beneficial way by membership of the EU...Shari Vahl countered with another caller saying he had a different point…clealry thnking he was a pro-EU caller…..the caller was an ex-fisherman who told us of the great fishing industry we used to have…Shari Vahl asked him what happened to that industry when we joined the EU…he said the industry was closed down.

Cue a rapid intervention from Shari Vahl demanding to know what would happen if we left the EU and then went back to the previous caller and said triumphantly ‘There you go, someone whose life has been effected by EU membership!’

Well yes, but not for the good….an industry was destroyed….hardly the beneficial effect the caller was actually talking about.

Shari Vahl was an impressively enthusiastic cheerleader for the EU becoming very animated with pro-EU callers, eagerly listing the apparent benefits of the EU that would either never have happened without the EU’s legisltaion or will be taken from us should we leave.

One of the things not discussed was what happens as the EU draws ever closer to becoming an actual federal state and not just a federation of sovereign nation states….Britain would then have to choose…it wouldn’t be possible to stay a fringe member of a such a state.

That is probably the most important and inevitable question as such a federal state is the intended end result of the European project.

The programme gave the impression of being a ‘debate’ with opposing pro and sceptic ‘experts’ and opposing callers, however the sceptics were few in number and treated with disdain or outright opposition and the whole programme gave the impression of being set up to promote the Dream as much as possible.

All part of the ‘education’ of the ignorant and foolish masses.