French election: Is online far right a threat to democracy?

The French far right may be tiny on the institutional stage – the National Front (FN) has only two MPs – but on online platforms it is a giant.

Often collectively called the “fachosphère” (from “fascist”), websites denouncing mass immigration and Islam have seen spectacular growth in France over the past 10 years.

The most popular among them dwarf the sites of the current presidential candidates in terms of page views.

Many see the fachosphère as a threat to democracy. One commentator has called it “chilling” and another a “weapon of mass indoctrination”.

The BBC has long made it its business to warn us of the rise of the political Right, not being shy with the allusions to Nazis, concentration camps and  ethnic cleansing, happily associating even the somewhat benign and middleclass UKIP as fascist and the anti-Islam extremism EDL as Far-Right extremists.  But the BBC doesn’t limit itself to scaremongering about the Boys from Brazil, it also tackles the supposed right-wing inspired tidal wave of racist abuse and hate that spread across the UK #duetobrexit that turned Britain into a nastier and more racist place…or so the BBC keeps telling us….just as well we had a referendum…now we know where all the fascists who voted for Leave are…and they can be dealt with when the EU is back in charge.  Then of course there is the social media, the BBC also makes it its job to police that, not just for hate crimes but for any sign of what it deems fake news…the BBC itself deciding what is fake or not..no mirrors at the BBC.

So a fairly comprehensive attempt by the BBC to dominate the news and information and to police our thoughts and to shape them so that we only think approved thoughts and should we happen to be exposed to any toxic, mind-polluting right-wing fake news or hate we will recognise it for what it is and get straight onto Twitter to alert the keyboard warriors so that it can be dealt with and suppressed.

Strangely it is only right-wing news and social media sites that attract the BBC’s critical attention, left-wing sites seem to be either left alone or indeed actually promoted by the BBC.  Very few times will you see the BBC say anything negative about a left-wing site.

Look how it promoted the hard-left fake news site Skwawkbox giving it a prominence without qualifying that with a health warning about its content… and The Canary…a Corbyn supporting online site that sprang up recently only for the BBC to start hyping it and giving it plenty of exposure and promotion [even had it on Question Time]…curiously introducing it as a counter to the right-wing redtops….like the Mirror?  Why is the BBC celebrating a supposed counter to the Right-wing press?  Not sure why the BBC insists the Right have a dominance in the Press when there’s the Guardian, the Independent, the Newstatesman, the Economist, the Financial Times, the Mirror, the Times itself all too often [a big supporter of Remain] and the BBC itself as the biggest, massively dominant news provider of all of them…especially as the papers are losing readers and influence.

Then we have Left-wing violence, intimidation, abuse and hate…..heard about that?  Not so likely if you use the BBC to get your news.  Sure they have started to cover it…but only after a huge fuss was made in the papers and by MPs themselves.  The BBC exaggerates racist abuse and falsely atributes it to Brexit but practically ignores the massive and orchestrated violence and harassment that is coming from the left…and all too often from Corbyn’s supporters…where is the BBC analysis telling us that Corbyn has given them ‘licence’ to act in this way?  The same goes for anti-Semitism…the BBC was very reluctant to expose the rise of that old nasty in the Labour Party.

Just why is the BBC so unwilling to make the same effort to counter genuine violence, hate, abuse and fake news from the Left as it puts into attacking anyone on the Right whom it decides is guilty of such behaviour?

We hear that one of the BBC’s own, Laura Kuenssberg had to have a bodyguard after receiving so much abuse and threats from Left-wingers…hear about that from the BBC?  No.  And still they look the other way when the Left run riot.

Charles Moore in the Spectator notes that the BBC would hound the Right if it had been Tory abuse of Kuenssberg…

However, the bit the Tories haven’t said in public but keep complaining about in private is that the BBC never reported that Kuenssberg was so badly threatened online by Corbyn supporters that she was given personal protection. They feel that this subdued her capacity to cover the contest clearly. They suspect that if Theresa May had possessed fans as thuggish as Mr Corbyn’s, the BBC would have made a meal of it. I do not know the details of this story, and the BBC won’t comment on security questions, but I have had it informally confirmed from within the BBC.

Yesterday I heard a discussion on R4 about how Facebook may have won it  [lol] for Corbyn…not a mention of the vast, vast amounts of fake news, much of it highly abusive and slanderous, that came out of these left-wing sites…which is a shame as the BBC concluded that perhaps these sites are the future of ‘news’ and the biggest influence on election results.

The Mail points out the BBC’s tardiness in mentioning the torrent of abuse and vicious attacks coming from the Left…

For weeks, this paper has documented vicious attacks and smears – including death threats, vandalism and anti-Semitic abuse – directed by Corbynites agaisnt Tories and Labour moderates alike.

Yet before Mrs May announced an inquiry, the BBC barely mentioned this terifying development in olitics – just as during the election it drew a veil over the Labour leadership’s link to terrorist groups.

Indeed, the Corporation kept virtually silent until Labour’s chairman, in a clear attempt to divert attention, accused Right-wingers of abusing candidates online.  Then suddenly the story was leading its news. [Yep…noticed that]

Truly, the BBC has never been more partisan.  Be sure of this:  if its relentless bias helps Mr Corbyn’s thugs triumph against freedom and democracy, their first move will be seizing control of the airwaves [lol…vote Corbyn!!!]

The Mail is spot on….what is happening is an attempt to smash demcoracy and replace it with threats, intimidation and bullying…so Zimbabwean, so SNP.

The BBC supports terrorists, rioters, Left-wing ‘Brownshirt’ street thugs and of course the corrupt tyranny of the undemocratic EU.

The BBC truly is the’enemy of the people’.

Speaking of which…funny how all those who hate the Grenfell inquiry chairman, Mr Martin Moore-Bick, because he is white or not a criminal lawyer get the BBC’s sympathy and support but anyone who criticised the judges ruling on Article 50 was an enemy of Justice dangerously undermining respect for the Law.

What did Chilcott say about Blair?  He wasn’t being entirely honest with people, not being ‘straight with the nation’.  Seems things and people haven’t changed as Blair tells one of the biggest lies of his career and the BBC, knowing it is a whopper, gives him headline space and the top spot on the Today show.  Go figure.

Blair, according to the BBC headline, and note there are no quote marks to qualify his statement, says the EU is prepared to dump freedom of movement…

Tony Blair says EU could be flexible over movement

The BBC knows, everyone knows, that is not going to happen, freedom of movement is a core principle of the EU project designed as it is to smash the nation states and national loyalties in order to create a servile population of ‘EU citizens’ subservient to and beholden to the unelected grandees of the EU superstate regime.

Blair even admit this as he says the principle of freedom of movement will actually remain…what he has on offer is a tinkering around the edges, maybe some give on what benefits migrants might have or the right to move if you have a job or not…and yet aren’t these conditions already in place?  So a huge bit of hype that the EU is going to dump fredom of movement but drill down ever so slightly and you find it’s complete nonsense, a headline grabbing bit of trickery…and the BBC gives him the headline and prominence he wanted knowing that it will sow the seeds of doubt about Brexit regardless of the truth.  Blatantly a spoiler designed to confuse and muddy the waters.  If the EU is clever it will play along offering up ‘hope’ of such a deal knowing it will never happen…Trust the EU? About as much as I trust T. Blair [or indeed David Davis who seems to be all too willing to ‘compromise’ with the EU…ie be a doormat]…the EU that makes people vote again and again until the ‘right’ result is reached, the EU that changes the rules of the game if they don’t suit and that if a treaty is voted out will just rename the treaty and introduce it under some other legislation.

You might ask then why the huge fanfare for his claims, why does the BBC give him so much airtime and the huge prominence to his words when they are meaningless piffle?  Where is the scorn his claims deserve?

Nick Robinson interviewed him on the primetime spot of 08:10 asking if he was an optimist or delusional but generally seemed to go through the motions asking obvious questions and telling Blair that Merkel and Co had said freedom of movement was non-negotiable and yet there was a lack of real fire, no spirited, tough, uncompromising questions that would have nailed Blair’s blather for the lie it was….not instantly challenging him on the point that actually gave the lie to his claim when he said the principle of freedom of movement remained and not objecting at all to Blair’s refusal to tell us who he had spoken to and what exactly had been said.  What we got from Blair was hot air, ‘he said, she said…trust me, would I lie to you?‘

Blair has been given top billing for one of the hugest lies of the Brexit debate and yet no serious inquisition from the BBC, the same BBC that relentlessly chased after the Leave campaign for the £350m statement on the side of the bus and still keep up the attack on that…but Blair telling a massive lie?  Not bothered anywhere near as much.

The BBC will give this a gentle probing but that is it, they know that the game is to get out there the message that Brexit is going to be a disaster and that all bad publicity is good publicity however it comes packaged and to ‘interview’ Blair in a pretence of challenging him actually gives him a huge platform to peddle the Remain campaign’s propaganda as he did this morning running through all the usual scare stories.

I would say let’s have Andrew Neil put Blair on the rack but judging by his last performance I’d have my doubts as he shut Farage down and insisted the debate on Brexit is over which it clearly isn’t as the Remain camp continue to fight on and are committed to making the process ‘hellish’…..

And as the weekend beckons, so does this NEW Open Thread. Detail the bias here please!

Anti-white, anti-British, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Tory, anti-open discussion and closed borders, anti-Trump, anti-Hindu, anti-Israel, anti-the right leaning press, anti-anyone who has any thought that does not conform to the BBC’s world view.

Just what is the problem with the BBC?

One symbol of that problem might be the fact that the BBC rushed out to employ James O’Brien, a man who doesn’t let the facts stand in the way of his bigotry and prejudices, a man who on closing in on someone who has views he holds in disdain treats them with contempt, demonisings them in short order…however get someone on whom he likes or is afraid to challenge due to colour or religion, even if he wanted to, and he shrivels up into a sad little husk….brave to tackle those he knows will get him lots of brownee points from his mates on the left but too afraid to criticise those whom he knows will have a social media army waiting to tear him apart if he should say a word out of line.

Douglas Murray in the Spectator examines O’Brien’s latest incompetence and bigotry….remind me again why the BBC employs him?…..

James O’Brien spreading ‘fake news’ via the BBC is a must-watch

The row about ‘fake news’ and the ‘crooked media’ appears to be ongoing.  And every time the BBC and other mainstream media mention it they present themselves solely as the victims of such phenomena.  So let us turn to just one edition of the BBC’s Newsnight.

On Wednesday of this week the programme was presented by James O’Brien.  Now in the first place Mr O’Brien is a strange choice to present this programme.  Not just because his awkward, cut-out, Lego man gait makes it obvious why he has made his career in radio, but because he is the sort of hyper-partisan figure who, if they came from the opposite political side, would never be hired by the BBC.

But back to Wednesday’s Newsnight. Just after a ‘Viewsnight’ slot given to Tariq Ramadan – dauphin of the Muslim Brotherhood – it was back to the studio for a discussion about President Trump with two guests down the line from Washington.

Here is how O’Brien introduced them: ‘Anne Gearan from the Washington Post and Asra Nomani who has written for outlets such as Breitbart and The Hill.’  To say that the way in which O’Brien introduced the latter was acidic is to understate matters.  Even on the Cathy Newman scale of ‘ostentatiously introducing someone as though they are a bad smell’ O’Brien excelled.  ‘Here’ – he was clearly saying – ‘is a really reputable woman.  And here, by comparison is a lowly, nuts-oid blogger lady who we can all interrupt and laugh at.’

Unfortunately for O’Brien, Nomani used her opening moments to politely correct the BBC’s introduction of her.  An introduction that had indeed been fake and crooked.  For as Nomani informed O’Brien, she is not just some broad who has ‘written for outlets such as Breitbart [lemony face] and The Hill [expectorate]’.  On the contrary, as she had to waste her opening moments explaining, not only has she never ‘written for Breitbart’, the more pertinent fact about her life is that she spent fifteen years at the Wall Street Journal.

So why did Newsnight’s James O’Brien – in a discussion about ‘fake news’ – spread false information about Nomani before he had even begun his first question?  Why did it not concern him that any fair-minded viewer might easily come away with the impression that O’Brien knew nothing about his guest and that he or someone else from the Newsnight team had simply spent the period before transmission lazily searching Google for the most hostile intro they could put together?  Might precisely this type of media ‘bias’ be one of the things that fuels the perception that the mainstream media are intent on bringing down everyone and everything associated not just with Trump but with any of the arguments he makes?

[Murray explains a lot more about Nomani’s background and then goes on…]

As I say – James O’Brien doesn’t know any of this, or doesn’t care about any of this.  He saw a woman he felt he could belittle and diminish as though she were calling in to one of his daytime phone-in shows.  O’Brien and Newsnight don’t need to ask why people are losing trust in mainstream media.  Programmes like theirs on Wednesday night – and their treatment of one guest in particular – are the reason.

Trouble is how many people actually know the BBC is lying to them nearly all the time?  Guido has recently been listing the left-wing activists that the BBC has brought on as just normal concerned citizens on various subjects….but how many people realise that the BBC has been a willing ‘trojan horse’ for Corbyn providing a platform for his activists to spread their propaganda?  The BBC has a long history of doing this but then again when it has two senior journalists openly shilling for Corbyn and telling their fellow colleagues not to print negative stories about him then what can we expect?  This of course applies not just to Corbyn but to Brexit as well when the BBC presents critics of Brexit as independent and impartial commentators when we know they are hardcore Remain campaigners…such as James Chapman….or even, remarkably George Osborne himself…never mind Ken Clarke, Patten and Heseltine who all seem to have new careers on the BBC.  And it goes without saying the same applies to Islam when known Islamists are constant ‘community spokesmen’ on the BBC and Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather set up the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, is called a moderate, reforming Muslim…indeed as Murray points out he was on Newsnight last night.  Ramadan is an islamist…about time the BBC recognised him for what he is instead of giving credibility and authority to everything he says.  Then again they wouldn’t care…..if he was white he’d be a ‘Nazi’ but luckily for him he is not white…the BBC will always look the other way.

“Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they [the media] always come with the same accusations: This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports the death penalty for this crime or this crime or that he is homophobic, that he subjugates women, etcetera. I always try to tell them that it is not that speaker that we are inviting who has these ‘extreme radical views,’ as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has.

Every Muslim believes in these things. Just because they are not telling you about it, or just because they are not out there in the media, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in them.”

The BBC has always opposed telling the truth about Muslim immigration into Europe and the effects it is having upon society, indeed the BBC has deliberately acted to close down such discussions just as it countered the ‘Muslim Demographics’ video on Youtube with its own video as it didn’t like the conclusions that the Muslim Demographics video aired….that Muslims will take over Europe.

The Muslim Brotherhood has long predicted that France will become Muslim, they suggest within a generation, but they can wait.  Our own BBC goto Muslim expert, Mo Ansar predicts something similar…

Even the EU is prediciting massive and overwhelming immigration, the majority of whom will be Muslim….

Europe is ‘underestimating’ scale of migrant crisis and could be flooded by millions of Africans in ‘biblical exodus’ unless urgent action is taken says top official

The number of migrants crossing into Europe from Africa will be in the millions within five years unless urgent action is taken, a senior EU official has warned.

Antonio Tajani, president of the European Parliament, has said the scale and severity of the migrant crisis is being underestimated and must be tackled urgently.

In an interview with Il Messagero newspaper, Mr Tajani said there would be an exodus ‘of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don’t confront the problem now’.

And now we have an Archbishop in France predicting a Muslim takeover by ‘demographics’…

‘Muslim believers say ‘one day this will all be ours’ and call it the Great Replacement’: French Archbishop says higher Muslim birth rate is changing the country

The Archbishop of Strasbourg has said Muslims in his country are aware their high birth rate will soon lead to a ‘Great Replacement’ of the French population….. ‘Muslim believers know very well that their birth rate is such that today, they call it … the Great Replacement, they tell you in a very calm, very positive way that, “one day all this, it will be ours”‘

Do you see the BBC reporting either of these statements or discussing them seriously other than to condemn the speakers as deluded or racists?

Why is the BBC promoting a religion that is clearly not a religion of peace but is in fact one based upon conquest and colonisation, its worshipped leader, Muhammed, was a warlord who happily slaughtered whole tribes personally cutting off heads and proclaimiing that his god will reward his followers with land, women, loot and riches if they fight for him in order to spread a religion that is anti-Semitic,, anti-Christian, misogynist, homophobic and highly oppressive and racist….the death penalty is frequently used for gays and those who wish to leave the religion.  Why would anyone in their right mind promote such an ideology as progressive and liberal?  Islam has nothing in common with Christianity other than a few stories it plagiarised in order to make Christians think it had something for them when Muhammed was looking for recruits.

As David Goodhart said:

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

Charles Moore:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

Boris Johnson:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken.

https://twitter.com/StFrexit/status/885209841077067776

[Thanks to Guest Who for the Tweet above]

The BBC et al always demand that we take in more and more immigrants…more are better for the economy, for diversity, for cheap plumbers and nannies for BBC grandees.  The BBC is a bit of an extremist when it comes to immigration as it campaigns for open borders and limitless immigration into the UK without regard to the real, rather than the imagined, effects that this will have upon the economy, society and the environment.

Ironically the Guardian, which also loves immigration, is headlining with this…

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

So fewer people is better for the environment.  Why then does the BBC et al keep on insisting we cram this country to the gunnels with more and more people, so many of them who don’t share our values and beliefs and, as we already see, are prepared to take up force to make their own culture the dominant one?

Crowded cities, crowded roads, landscapes that turn from green into concrete, schools packed, the NHS in crisis, housing shortages and massive prices, water shortages, pollution rising, energy use up, workers on the dole or on low wages, productivity down, violence, crime and drugs up.

What’s not to like about mass, uncontrolled immigration?

The environment is not just the green stuff…you should be able to walk the streets in safety and live your life as you always have done as a citizen of a free, liberal, democratic western state.  Can you now?

Also note the huge hypocirsy as the right-on Guardian attacks golden boy Macron for his comments on birth control…

Brand new Macron, same old colonialism

The French president’s casual slur against Francophone Africans over birth control bodes ill for a progressive French presidency. Plus ça chang.

France’s newly elected president, Emmanuel Macron, when asked in a press conference at the G20 summit in Hamburg why there was no Marshall plan for Africa, explained that Africa had “civilisational” problems. He added that part of the challenge facing the continent was the countries that “still have seven to eight children per woman”.

The condemnation online was swift and relentless.

As people have noted the Guardian has posted a picture of 3 very white babies and pointed the finger at the West for population overload…never mind the population in the West has been declining…hence the Guardian and BBC have been urging us to import a ready made population from African and Muslim countries.  The BBC and the Guardian cannot be trusted in the slightest to give us the real news when race and religion are involved, even as the war drums beat and there is blood on the streets they still try to silence those who see what is coming as what many call the invasion of Europe continues.

This was at the bottom of the last post but some may miss it…but it’s worth seeing the wild eyed, foam-flecked collaborator that wants us to remain under the EU’s undemocratic boot…

Probably one of the nastiest and utruthful films you will see on the BBC, hopefully.

‘Our country looks deranged, stupid, diminished, flaky, bringing on self-harm, something no-one voted for, a lab rat experiment by the crazies on the rest of us.  No deal would mean busted, broken borders, bankrupt factories, no right for planes to fly, no right for trucks to move…we’d be a poorer, sadder, nastier place, an absurdity sniggered at by the world.  A bad deal may be the best we can get…so compromise and accept it.’

 

Lord Hall Hall complained to his dinner party set that the BBC’s ‘balanced’ coverage of the referendum had lost the referendum for Remain because it gave too much credibility to the Leave campaign.  Now anyone who has seriously consumed the BBC’s coverage of the referendum will know that their coverage was nothing if not biased heavily in favour of Remain.  Makes you wonder just what sort of coverage Lord Hall Hall would have liked.  Then again, wonder no more because after Nick Robinson coincidentally then came out and said the BBC needn’t bother with ‘balance’ any more when reporting on Brexit that’s precisely what happened….’balance’ went out the window and instead we get a torrent of pro-EU, pro-Remain propaganda that is so blatant that even the blindest, deafest, dumbest member of Ofcom should be able to discern it…don’t hold your breath as the inbred Ofcom keeps up its all too close relationship with its BBC family.

When Zac Goldsmith lost Richmond [a Remain stronghold] to a LibDem the BBC excitedly told us this was a sign that Brexit was over, the tide had turned and opinion was moving away from leaving the EU.  Curiously we have heard hardly a peep about Goldsmith winning the seat back at the recent election [in which, contrary to BBC intimation, May won more votes than the Tories did in 2015].  The BBC also told us that the election meant we must have a new direction on Brexit…the voters have spoken apparently and they want to Remain in the EU, or so the BBC told us, a ‘sign from the country’…never mind the election wasn’t decided on Brexit at all and that 80% or more voted for parties that say they suport leaving the EU now.  This was the BBC campaigning for the Remain side….

‘You are a minority government but you’re reading of the public mood is to push on with the same plans for Brexit that you always had…you know that the whole direction of Brexit is now up in the air…you know that!…you didn’t get the Brexit vote you wanted and you didn’t get a huge majority…this was a sign from the country that they were questioning it [your plans for Brexit].’

Never mind a Tory being elected back into a Remain stronghold.

Robinson told us that the BBC has no need to be impartial becaue there is only one side now as Brexit moves forward…

“The referendum is over. The duty we broadcasters had to ‘broadly balance’ the views of the two sides is at an end. Why? Because there are no longer two sides, two campaigns, two rival sets of spokespeople reading out those focus-grouped slogans.”

Quite clearly, and from the instant the result was known, that has not been true…it is quite apparent that there are two sides and that the Remain side have continued to make their arguments as if the referendum is ongoing…and the BBC has given them huge amounts of airtime to make their case.  The BBC has not only allowed them to make their case but has actually come down on their side even more openly as it also argues for a ‘soft Brexit’…the use of ‘Soft’ and ‘hard’ Brexit is in itself an indicator of bias as there are no such things…a ‘Soft’ Brexit is in fact no Brexit at all.

So Robinson is wrong, there are two sides, and the BBC has chosen to promote and defend the Remain side rather than report accurately, fairly and honestly what is going on.  When have you heard the BBC ever make a positive statement about Brexit?  Their coverage has been entirely negative peddling the Remain ‘apocalypse’ scenario despite it being proven wrong again and again.

Here’s a recent Panorama scare story about food prices…

“[Shoppers will face] higher prices, less choice and poorer quality. Brexit, almost in whatever version it is, will introduce barriers. That makes it less efficient which means all three of those benefits – prices, quality and choice – go backwards.”

Brexit was not about economics, it was about sovereignty, control and immigration.  The BBC ignores that and prefers instead to paint a picture of economic doom in a continuation of ‘Project Fear’…never mind that the ONA has released a report telling us that Osborne’s Treasury report that told us that there would be an immediate and dire impact should we vote to leave was wrong and based upon erroneous assumptions.

Hear about that on the BBC?   No, and yet when the Treasury ‘analysis’ came out during the referendum the BBC put it up in headlights….’proof’ that to leave the EU would be a disaster…they of course didn’t mention that the Treasury was at the beck and call of its master, Osborne.  The same BBC that reported with glee the Evening Standard frontpages attacking May…and yet again failing to mention that the new editor of the Evening Standard was someone who would love to see May deposed even if it meant the Tories being shoved out of Office as this meant Brexit would suffer a huge setback….Osborne again.

Funnily enough the Evening Standard had a frontpage suggesting Brexit would cause us cancer.…this is Osborne continuing a theme started by the BBC which has carefully plotted a campaign with the Remain side to attack May on the ECJ…the BBC organised an interview with arch Remainer James Chapman and ran a relentless stream of news stories and programmes based upon it that exaggerated problems, lied about membership of the EU being crucial to staying part of EURATOM and insisted we would need to remain in the ECJ if we wanted to be in EURATOM.

The BBC is working in concert with the Remain camp to stop Brexit.

There is an endless flow of Remain supporters being given a lot of airtime on the BBC and who are welcomed with open arms rather than with rigorous questions and challenges to their claims.  Last weekend we had Vince Cable on to tell us Brexit would never happen as the people realised how terrible it all would be…no challenge from anyone.  Naturally Ken Clarke and Chris Patten and Heseltine have been allowed to peddle their pro-EU misinformation but it doesn’t stop with the usual suspects as the old BBC trick of inviting on artists, writers and film-makers for an interview on their latest project but actually wanting to know their views on the latest issue the BBC is concerned with…at one time it was George Bush and the BBC knew they could reliably ask all these artistes for a negative comment and in the same way they can be relied upon for an anti-Brexit rant or a pro-EU puff as when they had Lord Brown[ex BP] on and he waxed lyrical about the wonders of diversity and Europe [which of course we will not be able to go to once Brexit happens].

Then there are those carefully crafted hatchet jobs, the little films made by people invited onto the BBC to give their opinion…as during the election when Newsnight’s Corbyn’s film was wide-eyed glorification and May’s a sly stab in the back from Matthew Parris.

Here’s the most recent…a film by Remain psycho [so it would seem from the film] Julian Glover who tells May to just lie back and think of Britain as the EU ‘f***s’ us…he tells us the EU will not compromise so we must…a bad deal is better than no deal…what a snivelling little coward……as one of the comments to the video says…’more BBC shite. The sooner we rise up and get rid of the TV licence tax, the better.’…

Probably one of the nastiest and utruthful films you will see, hopefully.

Our country looks deranged, stupid, diminished, flaky, bringing on self-harm, something no-one voted for, a lab rat experiment by the crazies on the rest of us.  No deal would mean busted, broken borders, bankrupt factories, no right for planes to fly, no right for trucks to move…we’d be a poorer, sadder, nastier place, an absurdity sniggered at by the world.  A bad deal may be the best we can get…so compromise and accept it.

Note the BBC is pushing the same line on PM as Is the BBC Biased? notes….

So no deal would be a sudden dramatic rupture. 

Would we recover? In time yes. Probably trade can’t grind to a halt forever. 

And there are those who think it’s worth it. Ukip put out a statement just today saying it’s time to call it quits and walk away. 

But many people in politics and especially in business think no deal would be a disaster for our economy and for our standing in the world. 

The BBC’s Brexit coverage has been atrocious, highly partisan and biased, it is so far from the truth, so far from responsible, measure, accurate journalism that it is beyond a joke.  Lord Hall Hall should be sacked as he is so clearly incapable of not using the BBC as his own personal messaging service pumping out pro-EU propaganda at a relentless rate in order not to ruin his digestion.

Sack him or jail him.  A good case for either as he corrupts the BBC and poisons the public mind.

A new open thread….list the BBC’s bias here.

As mentioned in a previous post the BBC is pretty much ignoring evidence, or rather the lack of it, and has decided Trump jr is guilty of collaborating with the Russian government to install Trump sr as their puppet in Washington.

Anthony Zurcher confirms this is the BBC’s conclusion as he passes judgement on Trump jr and sentences him and Trump sr to a future in which they have ‘only themselves to blame’.  Guilty!!!!

Analysis: A grim situation for Trump Jr

Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

Whether by plan or happenstance, Donald Trump Jr is stumbling into an increasingly dire situation.

The pattern has been set. The New York Times runs a story, Trump Jr issues his response, then the noose tightens.

The presidential son says he was conducting routine opposition research. Then the Times reports that he was told it was the Russian government itself that was coming to his father’s aid.

Now it appears the president’s own family, and his presidency itself, could be in peril. They have only themselves to blame.

Really?  Trump jr was told he was meeting with the Russian government?  Where exactly did Zurcher get that gem from?  Out of his own backside one suspects…ooh no…it was that other source of s**t  journalism, the NYT…

Zurcher doubles up on his ‘analysis’ and reports confidently that Trump jr is guilty…

Is this a smoking gun?

What is a gun? What is smoke? Is anything real anymore? The media could discover a metaphorical .357 Magnum on the floor, still warm to the touch, and it would probably be dismissed by many as just another bit of fake news.

For the first time there’s confirmation of a meeting between Mr Trump’s inner circle and someone with ties to the Russian government where campaign issues were discussed.

More than that, Trump Jr seems to have walked into the meeting with the impression that the Russian government wanted to help his father – and there’s email evidence that supports this.

I’m sorry what?  There’s email evidence to support this story?  OK…show me the email.  No…not got it?  Three blokes come to the NYT and spin them a tale about Trump jr and the NYT splashes it as headline news…the BBC then reports that Trump jr has been caught bang to rights collaborating with the Russkies…just a little inconveniently there is no actual evidence…but hey, the BBC is not one to let the facts get in the way of a good story trashing Trump.

Note Zurcher’s opening line…that this will all be dismissed as fake news…getting his defence in early…but perhaps there is good reason to dismiss it as fake news…because so far it is….and the BBC is quite happy to peddle it as fact….the BBC using the term ‘Russians’ to confuse the issue….’Russians’ could be any individual Russian…no law against meeting such people, but the BBC is using it slyly to suggest ‘Russian government’….when they say Trump jr met ‘Russians’ the BBC want you to believe, without them stating it plainly, it was a Russian government inspired meeting and Trump jr knew this…which he didn’t.

BBC…quality journalism you can trust.   Snigger.