Category Archives: BBC bias

New week, new open thread.  List the bias here…..

Why does it matter that Andrew Marr is such an appallingly bad, partisan and unchallenging interviewer?  The New Statesman tells us why it matters...ironically in praise of Andrew Marr…..

Despite new challengers, Andrew Marr is still the king of the Sunday-morning politics skirmish

The war among the UK’s television channels has shifted to new territory: now it’s Sunday-morning sofa skirmishes.

These things matter because the Sunday-morning political programmes often generate the headlines for the rest of the day’s broadcasting and for the Monday papers; and the commercial companies want to dent the BBC’s reputation for setting the agenda. The corporation can often do it by the sheer volume of its output on TV, including the estimable Sunday Politics, and on radio; but it’s a plus for audiences if other voices can be heard.

Marr has been slammed for this Sunday’s interview with Corbyn and last week’s with McDonnell who was allowed to stop an audio clip of him abusing Esther McVey and joking about lynching her being played. But Marr has always been pretty hopeless as mentioned in many previous posts such as this…

Marr is absolutely hopeless isn’t he?  Yet another interview with a Labour grandee, Corbyn, and it is red carpet treatment all the way with little in the way of demanding and probing questions…McDonnell was given a free ride and a very smug Corbyn couldn’t have got better treatment if he’d written the script himself.

Corbyn told us he’d had a ‘brilliant manifesto‘….no comment from Marr despite the fact that Corbyn’s manifesto was big, huge, on promises, but failed completely to provide genuine costings….the IFS saying Corbyn would have to impose the biggest tax burden on this country of any peace-time era.  Nor did Marr challenge him on the fact that Corbyn was obviously bribing voters, buying their votes….for someone who presents himself as the ‘ethical’ politician, different from all the rest, that deserves some comment you might think.

Corbyn told us that his approach was ‘challenging an economic consensus that impoverished so many people’.  Marr’s response?  ‘It clearly was’.

No comment about Corbyn’s support for the IRA and Muslim terrorists despite the issue being of huge significance in the election and Corbyn doing a massive opportunistic u-turn on his support for terrorists.

Similarly Marr raises the subject of the ‘socially conservative’ DUP…but makes no reference to Corbyn’s close ties to Muslim conservatives or indeed his own extreme views.

Marr is well named.  It suits his style of interviewing.  Marred.  Maybe a new verb…to be ‘Marred’…to be let off the hook in a half-arsed interview.

If programmes like Marr and Today are setting the news agenda for the rest of the day, not just at the BBC but in the Press as well, it is clearly critical that Marr and Co gets things right, asks the right questions and gets the right answers.  If politicians like Corbyn are allowed to lie through their teeth it does major damage to the democratic process….the fact that May was expected to get a landslide majority but was almost defeated at the last election shows how the distortion and corruption of the news can effect the outcome of major political events such as general elections and thus have serious repercussions for the country…and may still as Corbyn and his Stalinist enterprise tries to lie and bully their way to power untroubled by a rigorous and questioning BBC which seems all too ready to put a Labour government into No10 regardless of its true nature.

Sir David Attenborough on Donald Trump: ‘We could shoot him. It’s not a bad idea’

What alternative do we have? Do we have any control or influence over the American elections?’ the naturalist says before joking about an alternative solution.

Thanks to Jerry Owen in the comments for reminding us of Attenborough’s incitement to kill Trump…and of course Attenborough’s not alone as we’ve noted before.

The BBC’s Paul Wood, who concentrates on Trump and Russia, asks in the Spectator…thus putting a firewall between his speculation and the BBC…

Will Donald Trump be assassinated, ousted in a coup or just impeached?

Let’s not forget that BBC virulent anti-Trump rhetoric almost certainly played a part in the actual attempted shooting of Trump by a British man and that a Republican congressman was attacked and shot in an attempted politically motivated murder.

Why refresh our memories about this toxic, extremely polarised, menacing anti-Trump liberal narrative?  Why?  Because Andrew Marr is once again treating us to his version of history, the Marr Book of Alternate Facts, as he reveals that Trump is a ‘bad man’ and that the Right are to blame for the polarisation and breakdown of US politics and democracy.

Marr is a bit of a star when it comes to history….history is apparently a moveable feast and what’s on the menu can be changed to suit your own tastes.  Here’s his view on the Boer war and the British Empire…and its consequences…

Andrew Marr some time ago presented us with his programme on British History…..The Making of Modern Britain.

In the course of this programme we learnt that Darwin’s ideas on the survival of the fittest and the British invention of the concentration camp led to the Nazi ideal of the ‘Aryan Superman’ and the concentration camps in which 6 million Jews were killed…..as the Independent puts it….‘Indeed, it is hard not to avoid the conclusion (watching Marr) that the British Empire was simply a dummy run for the Third Reich, and that, had they known what was coming, many of our grandparents might merely have concluded that “Adolf went a bit too far”.’

No different of course to the standard BBC narrative about the British Empire.

Marr had a trial run airing his views in the Evening Standard not so long ago attacking Social Media [as directed by the BBC whose interests, commercail and political, lie in demonising and reining in social media] as the source of all that is wrong in society today, suggesting that it will lead to civil war and the rise of a new Hitler in Britain. He finished off with a pompous and arrogant bit of advice to Trump…‘Got that Donald?’….and a hint of where he gets his own thinking confirmed by the liberal echo chamber that resounds to anti-Trump conpipracies and rhetoric…

And it’s dangerous. In a new book about Trump’s America, two political scientists from Harvard, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, discuss “How Democracies Die”. In it they emphasise the importance of not just political rules but how we behave. These “soft guard rails” include mutual toleration or “the understanding that competing parties accept one another as legitimate rivals”. Got that, Donald?

So yes, we need basic civility and some mutual respect even when we disagree. This is going to be a difficult year. The last thing we need is a spitting arms race of abuse. History, as so often, tells us why.

Today in the Sunday Times Marr expands and expounds on the narrative he touched on above as he critiques [lol…not in the slightest does he ‘critique’] the book he mentions above….Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die”.  This book is targeted squarely at Trump and accuses him of being a dictator who will kill American democracy.  Marr’s analysis is in fact one long nod of agreement with everything they say….Trump is a bad man and the Republicans are white supremacists who want to make America white again.  The whole premise of Marr’s diatribe is highly one-sided, blinkered, extremely partisan and wrong.

Marr admits that the two authors are ‘anti-Trump politics professors at Harvard’ and yet he fully accepts everything they say as the one version of truth that is true and ominously warns that ‘democracy is in danger’ and that ‘Britain could learn a lot from this study’.…’study’?…..he means of course very partisan, one-sided polemic.

He tells us that they ask if a modern American President could destroy American democracy and then lays out the criteria they used to judge Trump by…naturally this is window dressing for they used no criteria other than their own hatred of Trump and Republicans.

He tells us that every democracy needs ‘gatekeepers’ who can identify the anti-democrats and tyrants before they can establish themselves in the system and take it over.  What are the criteria they use to identify these anti-democrats?

Do they reject, or have a weak commitment to, the democratic rules of the game?

Do they deny the legitimacy of their opponents?

Do they tolerate, or even encourage, the use of violence?

Are they ready to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media?

Marr tells us ‘They find Trump guilty on every count’.  Really? Evidence?  He certainly denies Clinton’s legitimacy to be President but that is run of the mill politics and quite possiby fully jusitified….the other three accusations are based upon the author’s own prejudices aganst Trump.

The problem with Marr’s approach is that it is entirely from the liberal’s very prejudiced and blinkered viewpoint…as said he claims the Republicans are a racist white supremacist party and it is they who created the dangerous politics of ‘identity’.  He has correctly identified ‘identity politics’ as at the heart of the problem but not who created that problem.  It is pretty much orthodox thinking that the Left abandoned the working class and class war when they realised that capitalism had dragged the poor out of poverty and had given them lives far, far better than anything they had known before and that they were just as likely to vote for Right-wing parties as Left.  What to do?  The Left decided that the battle to derail the West would continue with new soldiers….recruited from the various ethnic, religious, gender minority groups that could be exploited by apealing to their own self-interests and buying them with promises that the Left would put them first.  This is the old ‘divide and rule’ game that pits Black against White and Muslim against Christian and Straight against Gay.  A very dangerous game and one the BBC itself plays to the full….ironically in contradiction of its charter requirement to maintain a civil and cohesive society.

The lefty New Statesman claims  that Marr is ‘a transformative political editor for the BBC and possesses an original and free-thinking take on the issues of the day.’

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Marr peddles liberal/left orthodox ‘cure-all’ commentary like a doctor mechanically pushing anti-biotics…without intelligent consideration and without thought for the consequences.  Nothing original or free-thinking about Marr…nor is he a challenging interviewer for those of similar mindset to him…such as just about any Labour politician or anti-Trump polemicist.

Let’s go back and consider those four criteria Marr’s new friends put forward as a way of identifying anti-democratic tyrants who are a ‘danger to democracy’.  Do not all the criteria in fact define the Left’s approach to political discourse and indeed, defines the BBC’s own approach?

First…Do they reject, or have a weak commitment to, the democratic rules of the game?

The Left/BBC have no respect for democracy….witness their attempts to ignore and overturn the Brexit referendum result by any means possible, the cover up of the surge of hate and intimidation against Leave voters and instead reporting solely that it was Leave voters who were guilty of spreading racist hate across the UK, or the cover up of the violence and intimidation by Corbyn’s Brown Shirts as they try to cleanse his party of opponents by undemocratic means.  You can see a recent example of the Remain hate and violence in this report from Guido of a Tory Brexit supporting MP being attacked.

Second….Do they deny the legitimacy of their opponents?

Where to begin here…the Left/BBC have a long track record in demonising anyone who has views and opinions that are different from their own…Enoch Powell was just the start and acted as a template for all other actions to counter those who opposed mass immigration.  The liberal use of the slur ‘racist’ was used to shut down such people and has continued to this day….Farage, Tommy Robinson and Trump are the most prominent victims but it is a widespread tactic that is used on anyone to spread fear and self-censorship on the subject of immigration or Islam.  The BBC has also used similar tactics to try and silence the people who voice concern about the climate change narrative…they are lunatics, or deniers, or people who hate children or they shouldn’t be allowed to speak because they are not scientists…..never mind that BBC journalists are not scientists and indeed the politicians who make critical and expensive decisions based upon the science are not themselves scientists.

Leave voters also felt the firm smack of the BBC’s Stalinist counter-punch as it mobilised its pro-EU propaganda machine and derided them as ignorant and uneducated little Englanders, denouncing them as racists who had ‘made Britain a nastier and more racist place’.  The message being….Leave voters were too thick and bigoted to be allowed to vote.  Delegitimising them?  Just a bit.

The BBC that relentlessly portrays Farage and Leave voters as ‘far-right’, fascists or even Nazis and warns that Brexit is taking us back to the ‘thirties’…in other words to an era when the Nazis were in power and 6 million Jews were murdered by them.  No attempt to draw genuine comparisons between what Corbyn’s supporters are doing with the rise of Hitler and the rise across the world of socilaist utopias in which millions upon millions of people were slaughtered by those socialists or reduced to poverty and misery in police states.

Third….Do they tolerate, or even encourage, the use of violence?

Well we’ve seen the prevalent, casual incitement to kill Trump from the liberal/left, including those at the BBC, attacks on Tommy Robinson are celebrated and the use of violence by the street thugs of UAF are tolerated and indeed whitewashed from the news….the EDL was always to blame for violence despite it being almost 100% the UAF who started it….for the cameras of course.

The BBC covered up Corbyn’s support for terrorism during the election and went so far as to champion his claim that he was against it after the Manchester bomb went off.  The BBC was itself guilty of giving support to the IRA cause as of course Corbyn was, not to mention its cheerleading for Islamist extremists…who apparently should be seen as the new Churchills, Ghandis and Mandelas.  The BBC that gives publicity to anti-Semitic terror groups and suggests that Jews in Europe are legitimate targets because of what Israel does in Gaza [all bad of course].

So  the BBC clearly tolerates and encourages violence.

Fourth….Are they ready to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media?

The BBC that has tried remorselessly to shut down the Murdoch media and is even now generating an anti-Social Media narrative intended to rein that in?  The BBC that has demonised those whose opinions it does not like and tries to silence them and force them off all platforms for voicing their opinions and views?  The BBC that consistently attacks the Right-Wing press, the Mail in particular?  The attempt by the Corbynistas to silence the Mail by intimidating its advertisers?    The BBC that refuses to consider complaints against it in any meaningful way instead being immediately defensive, dismissive and obstructive…thus curtailing your legitimate attempts to get any redress or force the BBC to change its ways.

The BBC is guilty of all four charges…thus we must conclude, using Marr’s own criteria, that the BBC is a danger to democracy.  A conclusion you may have reached a long time ago if you have been reading this site and others like it for any length of time.

Just a week ago the BBC were investigating the history of ‘Fake news‘…..

In record time, the phrase morphed from a description of a social media phenomenon into a journalistic cliche and an angry political slur. How did the term “fake news” evolve – and what’s next in the world of disinformation?

It is, you may be surprised to hear, not a bad run down of how ‘fake news’ came to be the battle cry of the liberal elite…it does look mostly at Trump but concludes he’s not guilty…it was his opponents, including in the media, who weaponised the phrase to discredit him….

Nothing new here

Misinformation, spin, lies and deceit have of course been around forever. But what Silverman and others uncovered was a unique marriage between social media algorithms, advertising systems, people prepared to make stuff up to earn some easy cash and an election that gripped a nation and much of the world.

In the wake of President Trump’s victory, BBC Trending delved into the huge world of pro-Trump Facebook groups. Inside those hyper-partisan spaces there were some outright falsehoods circulating.

But most of the content was more traditional political communication: puffery, drumbeating, and opponent-slagging. There were memes showing Trump as a fearless leader, support for his pledges to deport illegal immigrants, and potted biographies describing the candidate as “the very definition of the American success story.” It was hardly balanced stuff – but nor did much of it qualify as “fake news”.

But pundits scrambling to explain the shock result (and in many cases, their own follies) turned to “fake news” as one possible explanation.

It admits Clinton used the phrase before Trump…despite many a BBC journo accusing Trump…

To say that President Trump was the first politician to deploy the term would itself be, well, “fake news”.

On 8 December 2016, Hillary Clinton made a speech in which she mentioned “the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.”

President-elect Trump took up the phrase the following month, in January 2017, a little over a week before taking office.

Also it noted that ‘fake news’ may not have much impact at all in elections…Nick Robinson, Emma Barnett and Co might do well to note that before claiming that Russian fake news won the US election and Brexit….which of course is fake news from the BBC itself….

The researchers also found that the visits were highly concentrated – 10% of readers made 60% of the visits. And crucially, the researchers concluded “fake news does not crowd out hard news consumption.”

“The reach was relatively wide, but not so deep,” Mantzarlis says. “It’s quite a big step further to say, are people voting on this, making decisions on it.”

“To say it’s poisoning our democracy or it won this guy or the other guy an election, we need a lot more research to be able to say that.”

But one thing is missing from this analysis…the BBC…of course….stories such as this from the Sun today:

Remarkably, or not, you won’t find the story on the BBC website.

A Labour MP admits that when he was a BBC journalist he used the platform to spread his own propaganda and the BBC doesn’t immediately investigate and put it up as frontpage news?  If it had been a Tory MP who had worked for the Mail, a Murdoch paper or Sky I can’t imagine the BBC being so coy.

Then again that’s why this site exists, because BBC bias is real, pervasive and dangerous to British society and democracy….just a few days ago David Attenborough was boasting how his nature programmes had changed government policy but he then also added that people must be careful who they vote for….given that Harrabin and Co seem to think that the Tories are toxic for the environment I imagine Attenborough isn’t suggesting you vote Tory when the chance arises.

It’s hard not to laugh and admittedly I don’t try too hard.

The great and the good of the BBC who have been deriding and demonising Trump have had their pay slashed.  Coincidence? LOL.  They spend their time attacking the government about fair pay and equality and then find it is they who are lined up for a bit of that themselves…and it is one of  their own who has caused this implosion….not before time but if only we could work out a way to cause a similar bit of blowback for all their partisan, subjective and very partial ‘news’ broadcasting.  Someone leaking the Balen Report into the BBC’s bias against the Jews would be a start.

I mentioned before that Sopel had revealed to us one of his usual insightful and completely impartial analyses of what is happening in the White House claiming that it was chaotic with Trump saying one thing and then someone coming out and saying something else….this was apparently symbolic of the Trump administration and his regime and the way things now happen in America under Trump….or indeed at the BBC which announced it had cut Sopel’s pay, then said it hadn’t and then said it had.

This morning we had some more impartial insight as the BBC told us in its news bulletins that ‘the Trump administration had tried to impose tariffs’….and failed.  I thought that was wrong, it was Boeing that had initiated the case against Bombardier.  This was the BBC trying to push its own agenda.   The BBC  today presented a  narrative that Trump’s great plan to put America First was failing….they were mocking him…

It’s seen as a blow to US President Trump’s “America first” trade policy.

Hmmm…it had nothing to do with Trump’s policy except by default.

And how so we know this?  Because BBC reporting from last year shows it was not Trump driving this and there was no attempt to impose tariffs ‘just because’….it was all about the law.

Here’s a relevant quote from December….the tariffs could be lifted….what, not imposed regardless of the law by a Trump Administration out to slam shut its borders?

Wilbur Ross, the US Commerce Secretary, also said import tariffs on the C-Series jet could yet be lifted.

He said Washington understood “the political sensitivity” around the dispute in Canada and the UK.

However he added: “But the fundamentals remain: Even our best friends really have to play by the rules.”

The intitial ruling by the Commerce Department was a preliminary ruling that had to be examined by the US International Trade Commission (USITC).  Both these bodies are government agencies.

From the BBC in September…

The US trade investigation to which Bombardier is being subjected is a complex, multi-stage process.

It involves the interplay of two government agencies, the Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission (USITC).

The USITC effectively ruled there was an arguable case against Bombardier, moving the complaint to the next stage.

Now, it is up to the Department of Commerce to make a preliminary finding on whether Bombardier has in fact received subsides, or is selling below cost.

The USITC has now ruled that there should be no tariffs.  So a Trump Administration body rules that there should be no tariffs because that is the legal judgement and the BBC tries to suggest that Trump’s ‘America First’ policy is on the rocks.  Complete rubbish that is more illustrative of BBC reporter’s own prejudice and desire to paint everything ‘Trump’ as bad and hopeless.

When have you heard the BBC pushing the positives of Brexit and the real reasons for the vote to leave such as sovereignty and immigration being mentioned as positives?  When have you heard the negatives of staying inside the EU being discussed?  All we get from the BBC is an entirely negative view of Brexit, an emphasis on an economy doomed by Brexit using apocalyptic predictions from the architects of Project Fear as their starting point.  A couple of days ago Emma Barnett was asking if the Russians had influenced the Brexit vote, a narrative backed by absolutely no evidence, just a desire to delegitimise Brexit and make it appear as if the result was due to corruption and a cunning plot by Putin to undermine democracy…the irony of course that it is the BBC’s own black propaganda that is undermining democracy as they act as the mouthpiece for the elitist cabal moving to stop Brexit.  Kamal Ahmed’s first question to Remainder Phillip Hammond today was ‘What damage has Brexit done to the British economy?’  Talk about a leading question…not that the sly Hammond would complain.  And note Hammond was given a completely free ride by the BBC after he tried to hijack Brexit and force a soft Brexit upon May[yet again].  Boris on the other hand is absolutely thrashed by the BBC for daring to mention any thoughts on how Brexit should look.

Civitas has done the maths and checked up on the BBC….and found it biased in the extreme against Brexit….

The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation?

How pro-Brexit views have been marginalised in the BBC’s news coverage

The Mail runs through it….

How BBC kept Leavers off the air for a decade: Analysis finds that just 3.2% of guests talking about the EU on the Today Programme over ten-year period were pro-Brexit

Pro-Brexit voices are being drowned out on the BBC’s news programming, an analysis has claimed.

Only a very small proportion of speakers on Radio 4’s Today programme are long-term supporters of leaving the EU, the Civitas think-tank said in a report.

The authors claimed the BBC has been unable to supply an example of a single programme since the June 2016 referendum which has examined the opportunities of Brexit.

Last night the BBC described the analysis as flawed and insisted it was ‘covering the process towards Brexit in a responsible and impartial way’.

The Civitas report, entitled The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation?, said that for the past 20 years the BBC has consistently viewed the issue of withdrawing from the EU through the prism of splits in the Conservative Party.

The authors, David Keighley and Andrew Jubb, wrote: ‘When opinion in favour of leaving the EU has featured, the editorial approach has – at the expense of exploring withdrawal itself – tended heavily towards discrediting and denigrating opposition to the EU as xenophobic.

The BBC, as ususal, are completely dismissive of the findings and are totally unprepared to consider them seriously….

The BBC said: ‘There have been a number of flawed “analyses” trying to depict the BBC as favouring one side or other. The reality is we’re no longer covering the binary choice of a referendum held 18 months ago, we’re covering the process towards Brexit in a responsible and impartial way independent of political pressure.’

The BBC is a danger to democracy and British society and culture.

So Trump’s tax cuts benefit only Big Bad Business [a bigly lie from the BBC]…but also an hypocrisy for this is the anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-elitist BBC that has done a complete volte face and now cheerleads for Big Business, bankers and the elite in the UK and is keen to hear and promote what these Big Businessmen, foreign and domestic, demand Brexit should be….so these businessmen, foreign and domestic, who each had their own vote in the referendum if they were domestic, get given the veto over Brexit almost as if the democratic vote didn’t matter at all and all we need to know is what a few people, the privileged elites, educated too don’t forget, think.  Funny how the BBC’s apparent long held liberal, progressive views go out the window when it suits.  A paradox that they do so in support of an undemocratic tyranny just as they support a religion that is vastly, vastly at odds with their own, and the West’s, values and which will destroy European civilisation, beliefs, values and culture as we know them.

Spot any more dangerous, foolish naivety….list it all here….

Only last July Lord Hall Hall was telling us that he paid his ‘talent’ so much because they are worth it and it is the going market rate, don’t pay it and there will be an exodus of talent…….

“I completely understand that to lots and lots of people these are very large sums but we are a global broadcaster, in a very competitive market,” Lord Hall told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“And we have to be competitive but not foolishly.

“No-one would want us to be paying sums where it’s not at a discount to the market. People expect us to have great broadcasters, great presenters, great stars but pay them less than they would get in the market.”

He said he was “satisfied” that every one of the 96 top earners were worth the money.

Hmmmm….well, they were not worth it.  They were given that money purely because the BBC had so much money floating around, they could pay it so they did…which might indicate the licence fee should be cut….and more salaries cut.  Let’s experiment….offer far lower wages and see if the people recruited are a match, or more than a match, for the supposed superstars we have now.  So what if they do decide to eventually head off to the mega wages of the commercial world?…recruit more people, fresh talent that will bring new life and vibrancy to the BBC instead of the entrenched, aged dinosaurs who dominate the place now.

Lord Hall Hall always insisted that he had to pay the market rate to get top talent and that they would flee the BBC to the commercial companies if their wages were cut.  Well now we will find out….and as said, perhaps find out if there is more talent, and cheaper talent, out there than the BBC believes.

Amused to see Sopel is having a cut…this morning he was chuntering on about how inconsistent the White House was [under Trump…never, ever, happened under Obama],  one minute they’d say one thing and later they might correct the story…..never happen at the BBC of course….from the Telegraph….

BBC confirms pay cut for male stars after it changes story five times

The BBC has confirmed that Huw Edwards, John Humphrys, Jeremy Vine, Nick Robinson, Nicky Campbell and Jon Sopel have agreed to reduce their salaries, after a morning of farce in which the BBC website reported some of their names and then retracted them.The BBC has confirmed that Huw Edwards, John Humphrys, Jeremy Vine, Nick Robinson, Nicky Campbell and Jon Sopel have agreed to reduce their salaries, after a morning of farce in which the BBC website reported some of their names and then retracted them.

A source said: “This hasn’t been handled very well.”

Astonishing how many people are paid over £150,000 at the BBC.

The BBC tells us….

The head of Theresa May’s new anti-extremism commission – set up after the Manchester Arena attack – is facing calls to quit from Muslim groups.

Sara Khan, who has campaigned for women’s rights in Muslim communities, has been given the task of rooting out extremism in the UK.

She has promised “zero tolerance to those who promote hate”.

But her support for the Home Office’s Prevent strategy has led to claims she is too close to the government.

The BBC then  goes on to quote from the groups and people opposed to Khan…quoting them as if they were reasonable, rational, moderates who only want to battle extremism more effectively.

Unfortunately the BBC’s choice of critic is taken from its long list of usual suspects..themselves extremists who push the Islamist agenda…MEND, Baroness Warsi and the MCB….not forgetting Nazi Shah.  Why not just get Sadiq Kahn in to tell us Sara Khan is an ‘uncle tom’ or collaborating with the non-Muslims as is his wont?  Warsi calls her a ‘mouthpiece for the Home Office’…not so very different to ‘uncle tom’ is it?

The BBC presents opposition to the anti-Terror Prevent programme as if it was based upon reason and genuine concerns when in fact opposition is based upon the fact that those opposing it just don’t want radical Muslims stopped, no matter what method you might come up with they’d oppose it.

More dangerous BBC propaganda for the Islamists.  Perhaps Khan could start with clearing out the BBC, that’d help a lot in cutting down on extremism.

The BBC just can’t kill off Boris try as they might…and they do try.  Hard.

Every time he opens his mouth the BBC is there to attack and undermine him, Laura Kuenssberg leading the charge with her long in the tooth conspiracy that every word he utters is a machiavellian plot to take over the leadership of the Tory Party…and she’s not afraid to add in a blatant lie to the anti-Boris spin….

It won’t be the first time that Boris Johnson has called for more cash for the NHS.

Depending on the flavour of your own views, his promise during the referendum of an extra £350m for the NHS was either an entirely sensible and publicly appealing promise of how we should spend the EU membership fees that may (eventually) come back to the country after we leave, or a classic piece of political sleight of hand.

‘Promise’?  No promise was made,, and it certainly wasn’t for £350 million.  Boris was in no position to promise, he wasn’t in government and he could in no way predict future policy….so how could he promise?  It’s BBC lie….and a smear as Kuenssberg calls it a ‘sleight of hand’.

The BBC has targeted Boris for years now and it is clear why as one of the most high profile and popular politicians in Britain who led the Leave campaign and maybe head of the Conservative Party in the BBC’s worst nightmare scenario.  Plenty of reasons to keep on trying to discredit and deride someone so popular and influential.

Look how they react when he comments on what he would like Brexit to take shape as…the BBC launches all out attacks claiming he is betraying May and undermining the untied front the government wants to portray.  The BBC has absolutely nothing to say when pro-EU Remainers in Cabintet, such as Hammond or Rudd, speak out about what they want…soft Brexit.

This is very evident in the last few days…Boris spoke of the need for more money for the NHS and the BBC filled the airwaves with accounts of him being reprimanded and we had headlines like this:

Boris Johnson rebuked over NHS cash plea

In fact Emma Barnett gloated that a Cabinet colleague [clearly Hammond or Rudd, probably Rudd] had come out and said May had ‘bitchslapped’ Boris.  Barnett quoted that and then later asked Vince Cable if he had ever heard of anyone being ‘bitchslapped’ in the same way….she got told off for using the term but claimed she as only quoting someone…but she wasn’t…she was using the term in her own context and clearly not a quote.  Bit odd on a day when the ‘Presidents Club’ and all that was in the news and respect for women on the agenda….and Barnett is calling the PM a bitch and using language normally reserved for the streets on 5 Live.  Odd no problem with ‘bitchslapped’ but ‘shithole’?

Anyway back to Boris…here’s a headline in the Telegraph today as Hammond once again tries to set the Brexit agenda to suit himself….

Theresa May rebukes Philip Hammond after he makes extraordinary public call for soft Brexit

Theresa May has rebuked Philip Hammond after he triggered a furious Cabinet row after making a dramatic public call for a soft Brexit.

The Chancellor used a speech in Davos, Switzerland, to say that there would only be “very modest” changes to relations between the EU and the UK after Brexit.

He praised a call by the CBI group of business leaders for Britain to have the “closest possible relationship between the EU and the UK post-Brexit”.

His comments prompted a backlash from Cabinet colleagues and backbenchers, who accused the Chancellor of putting the Tories on the “path to electoral ruin”.

Sounds pretty serious with Hammond getting ‘Bitchslapped’ apparently….but the BBC hasn’t noticed…well, it has, but it just doesn’t want you to know about it……

Here’s their story…and good old Moggy is their main target…

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Philip Hammond at odds over Brexit

Any mention that Hammond may have spoken out of turn and betrayed May and undermined the government?  No….This is the only, extremely vague, indication that there might be anything going on behind the scenes….and this is the absolute, very last line at the end of a long BBC report…almost like they don’t want you to see even the tiniest suggestion that Hammond is causing trouble….

Asked whether she agreed with Mr Hammond’s comments, the spokesman said: “The cabinet has signed up to the vision the PM has set out in her speeches.”

Extremely, extremely, dishonest of the BBC.