Mindset and MisMatch

 

This is the view of the BBC on Muslims in the UK…

 

Male, Muslim and marginalised

Mahtab Hussain’s photographic portraits of Muslim men in the UK explore complex themes of identity and marginalisation.

He says Muslim men in Britain have had a “plethora of labels” thrown on them, from terrorist to sexual groomer, and that they are struggling to find their place in society.

The problem, as the BBC sees it, is the way we look at them.…but the reality is that the problem is the way they look at us…through the distorting prism of the Koran.

The BBC though at least is admitting there is a problem with Muslim integration, they just refuse to admit the real cause…..and the real consequences of that…Douglas Murray is more honest and open…however even he won’t admit that the answer is a hardcore non-immigration policy…we recently looked at Murray’s latest book,  The Strange Death of Europehere...

 

Simply Red

 

What has been one of the major news stories today, one that the BBC has been giving priority to throughout the day?

BBC cameraman run down by Corbyn perhaps?  Well nothing that exciting.  Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, has been in the Guardian revealing the bombshell news that Labour might get beaten in the coming election..and beaten by a landslide.  What’s new, what’s news, about that?  Nothing.  However the BBC has been giving his words almost top billing all day so far telling us that ‘Tom Watson has warned of a Tory landslide’.

The BBC’s choice of word is interesting…’warned’…why did the BBC choose that loaded word instead of saying Tom Watson claims or states or predicts that the Tories will win by a landslide?  ‘Warned’ is alarmist, it says a Tory ‘landslide’ is a bad thing…something that needs to be warned of.

And why is the BBC giving such a nothing story such a  high profile?  Watson is clearly giving out a message here and it’s not at all subtle or missable…he’s ‘warning’ of a Tory landslide in the hope that disenchanted Labour voters will put aside their dislike of Corbyn and rally to the Party’s aid if not to win then at least to reduce the Tory majority.

The BBC must know that…so you have to ask why they have been pumping out what is obvious Labour propaganda all day?

And if you think that’s a very cynical and suspicious view of the BBC then listen to what Nick Robinson said this morning [yes he’s still around if not on the election team]…

‘Now you might think predicting Labour can’t win is a bit of Right-wing propaganda but of course this morning we’ve been reminded that some in the Labour Party, not least the deputy leader, Tom Watson, want to get that message out because they think warnings of a Tory landslide are the best way to bring their voters back home.’ [to Labour]

Nick Robinson dobs in his own side….caught red-handed filling the airwaves with Labour spin.  Let’s get that message out luvvies…champers on ice for the big win!!!!

 

 

 

Robinson Crusoe

Related image

 

Nick Robinson has allegedly been sidelined by the BBC for this election in favour of younger presenters…he’s not happy…

Veteran star Nick Robinson, 53, at war with BBC bosses as he’s left off General Election team in favour of young female stars

VETERAN presenter Nick Robinson is at war with BBC bosses after being left out of the election team.

Young stars Steph McGovern, 34, and Tina Daheley, 36, have key presenting roles instead.

Former political editor Nick, 53, hosts Radio 4’s Today show and has been part of the BBC’s election coverage since 2001.

He has demanded a meeting with Jonathan Munro, the head of newsgathering, and James Harding, the director of news and current affairs.

A source said: “Nick is really unhappy and downright confused. He wasn’t told in advance and only discovered when the line-up was announced earlier this week.

“He fired off a furious email to Jonathan to voice his disappointment. Nick also has serious questions about his future at the BBC.

“It’s very likely bosses wanted to try out younger talent and make their election line-up more diverse.

“It’s bonkers. Nick is the best political voice we have.” [lol]

Maybe the bosses just thought Nick was not firing on all cylinders these days as we’ve pointed out on these pages many a time…and he seems just a little bit biased on many occasions….no doubt his recent rambling defence of the BBC didn’t help as it stirred up even more controversy.  Maybe Kuenssberg should be given a rest as well….certainly stopped from giving us her ‘informed’ opinion.  The facts will do nicely, I can make up my own mind about how to interpret them thanks.

Can’t say I’d miss him if he is sidelined…his interviews never seem to hit the spot and often appear more about point scoring than informing.

 

Katty Kay in Dogged Daze

Image result for victor meldrew

 

What world does Katty Kay live in?  Her own little personal post-truth bubble presumably.  Why did Trump sack Comey?  Because Trump is a thin-skinnned, grumpy, crazy, old man.

Is Trump’s thin skin getting in the way of his presidency?

What if the Comey firing is nothing to do with the Russia probe or the Clinton email server but is actually just a result of the president’s thin-skinned character?

And would that be more or less alarming than Comey being fired in order to impede the Russia investigation, which is the case Democrats are making this week?

New reporting from the Washington Post, and other US media outlets, which are the recipients of a huge amount of leaks this week, suggest Mr Trump was upset by the Comey testimony at the Senate last week.

Oh the Washington Post…the rabidly anti-Trump Washington Post?

Hmmm…er….wasn’t the actual reason that Comey misled Congress …a fact the BBC knows about but other than this one mention refuses to admit is the given reason for the sacking…

The move came as it emerged Mr Comey gave inaccurate information to Congress last week about Mrs Clinton’s emails.

The Telegraph reports the true reason for the sacking…

James Comey ‘gave wrong information’ to Congress in his testimony about Hillary Clinton’s aides emails

How is it that Katty Kay misses that and goes off on a tangent invented by the Washington Post?

Kay goes on kattily…

But is being thin-skinned now getting in the way of his ability to do his job effectively? The sacking of James Comey might be evidence of that.

Mr Trump hated what he heard in Mr Comey’s testimony. It made him angry, he felt disparaged and he hit back. This, we understand, was Mr Trump’s MO as a business man.

But the scale now is far larger and he hit back in a way that undermines his credibility (because the story is not straight) and diminishes trust in the institutions of government.

It may simply be about Mr Trump’s personality. He doesn’t forgive grudges and feels somehow unfairly treated. Then he acts fast, sometimes impulsively, especially when he’s angry.

At 70 years old, his character is unlikely to change.

If the firing of Mr Comey is an example, it’s not a good sign for long-term stability in this White House.

So desperate to spread this slanderous tripe that she even sidelines the claim that Trump is in league with the Russians.  Bizarre stuff from KK.

 

 

We’re Doomed

Remember the BBC’s hyperbolic, apocalypic doom-mongering about ‘austerity’?…

When you sit down and read the Office for Budget Responsibility report it reads like a book of doom. It is utterly terrifying, suggesting that spending will have to be hacked back to the levels of the 1930s as a proportion of GDP. That is an extraordinary concept, you’re back to the land of Road to Wigan Pier.

“The scale of cuts details in non-protected departments will face cuts of roughly another third. You have to question whether that is achievable. We are told that 60 per cent of the cuts are still to come. We are facing an extraordinary, cavernous financial hole, which to some extent yesterday’s razzmatazz around a politically popular budget rather glossed over.

Curiously no such wild ravings about the Corbyn manifesto, no cries of ‘utterly terrifying’,  no dark messages about returning to the bad old days of the grim and  miserable 1970’s with the dead unburied and mountains of uncollected rubbish in the streets swarming with rats and the unions running riot.

Image result for 1970s  dead unburied   rubbish in streets      Coffins in a disused Liverpool warehouse waiting for gravediggers to end their strike before funerals can take place,

 

The BBC has a very short memory when it suits and is quite capable of looking away and bluffing it when it comes to examining the economy under the Tories.

Since 2010 the BBC has bombarded the government with shocked analyses of its austerity plans and their effects…the BBC has blitzed the Public with the message that austerity is appalling and, on the other hand, debt under the Tories is massive and growing prodigiously fast.  This is a contradictory message Labour likes to push as well.

Indeed it is the current message…various Corbynistas came onto Campbell’s show today to tell us of the evils of austerity and the crippling debt that the Tories have burdened the country with.  Campbell said absolutely nothing and let them get away with making those contrary claims….and making no mention of the fact that Corbyn wants to add massively to that debt that the Corbynistas complain so loudly about.

You may have noticed a paradox though…on the one hand they complain of austerity, on the other they complain of the mounting debt.  What’s missing is firstly the truth, secondly some basic intelligence and understanding.

Why is the national debt rising?  Because we still have a deficit.  Why do we have a deficit?  Because the government spends more [on all those services and infrastructure so beloved of the Corbynistas] than it raises….and that’s despite attempts to bring down the deficit, attempts of which the same Corbynistas complain bitterly before complaining about the mountain of debt.

But wait…let’s have some context, some history.

Why do we have that massive debt and that deficit anyway?  It must be the Tories’ fault coz it’s growing under their reign.  Right? Wrong.

That debt is Labour’s debt, the deficit is Labour’s deficit.  Until the deficit is zero the debt will keep rising…to get the deficit down and the debt down you have to make cuts, or improve the economy massively….neither one of which Corbyn is capable of.

Way back in 2009 the accountants PWC predicted that the debt in 2015 would be around £1.4 trillion…and they were pretty much spot on.  2009?  That’s when Labour were in power…so it confirms that it is Labour policies that put us in the position we are in now….the BBC at the time even confirmed it…naturally it was John Ware, along with Andrew Neil, one of the few real journalists at the BBC prepared to tell the inconvenient truth…

A recent IPSOS/MORI poll found that 50% of people still do not accept that there is a need to cut spending to pay off the national debt, now rising at a giddy £5,656 per second, and set to go on rising until 2014 when it will settle at just under £1.4 trillion.

And who is to blame for austerity?….from the same 2009 programme…

An even higher percentage of the electorate are probably unaware that based on current government forecasts, Britain’s is facing not one but “two parliaments of intensifying pain”, as the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) predicted.

The IFS said that for each of the next eight years, a new round of cuts will have to be found to fill the black hole in the nation’s finances – a hole the Treasury estimates amounts to a £90bn shortfall between tax revenues and government spending.

So in 2009 the IFS were predicting that to get our finances in order we would face two parliaments, 10 years, of cuts….that is Labour’s fault.

The debt we have now is Labour’s fault.  The austerity we have now is Labour’s fault.

Shame that BBC presenters, and even their so-called expert finance and economics journalists, are today still expressing shocked outrage at the level of debt the ‘Tories’ have burdened us with….and oh yes…those utterly terrifying spending cuts that take us back to the 1930’s as a proportion of GDP?  Why did Norman Smith not just take us back to around 2000/2001 when Labour were in power and the level of spending was almost exactly the same as the 1930’s…and we were in the black…and the country wasn’t reduced to poverty and ruin or indeed put on the road to Wigan Pier?  That came soon after as Labour went on a massive spending spree and let the Banks run riot.  A golden age of finance indeed.

 

The Kuenssberg Iceberg delusion

 

Kuenssberg has been pushing the idea that it is possible and morally acceptable to bin Brexit, to betray those who voted in the referendum to leave the EU….just vote Labour and seee your EU dreams come true!…what she misses, apart from the fact that such a move would indeed be a betrayal, not just of the voters but of democracy itself, is that most people, even Remain voters, now want Brexit to be implemented with as little fuss and as quickly and efficiently as possible….even the lefty New Statesman can see that…

The Remain delusion: “the 48 per cent” do not exist

The number who want Brexit stopped or radically softened is only 25 per cent.

Almost a year on, Theresa May is pursuing a “hard Brexit” (the Prime Minister prefers “clean”) and is on course to secure a landslide election victory. But Remainers hope that tactical voting by “the 48 per cent” against anti-EU candidates could yet thwart the Conservatives. Their ambitions, however, are likely to be disappointed. The truth, which few have recognised, is that “the 48 per cent” no longer exist.

After voting Remain, they ceased to act as a unified political bloc. The crucial figure for understanding May’s decision to pursue Brexit is not “the 48 per cent” or “the 52 per cent” but the 69 per cent – the number who believe the government has a duty to leave the EU (more than a third of whom voted Remain). A mere 21 per cent agree that the government should either block Brexit or seek to prevent it through a second referendum.

“The 48 per cent” are not even united on the desirability of a “soft Brexit”. Only 24 per cent, according to YouGov polling, believe it is more important to enjoy tariff-free trade with the EU than it is to control immigration (16 per cent believe the reverse, while 40 per cent, like Boris Johnson, want to have their cake and eat it). Fifty two per cent believe May’s proposed Brexit deal would be “good for Britain” (only 22 per cent believe it would be bad) and 61 per cent believe it “respects the referendum” (only 11 per cent believe it does not). Far from believing the government has no mandate for a “hard Brexit”, 64 per cent believe this version respects the vote and only 12 per cent believe it does not. Finally, 55 per cent support May’s assertion that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, while only 24 per cent oppose this stance.

Politics, of course, is about leading opinion, not following it. But to grasp their predicament, Remainers most recognise that they enjoy the support not of “the 48 per cent” but “the 25 per cent”. These figures help explain why the Conservatives enjoy a mammoth poll lead (leading among Remainers in yesterday’s ICM poll), why the anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats have not surged and why promising a second referendum would not be an electoral panacea for Labour or a new party.

As long as Remainers speak as if there is a nascent “progressive majority” built on “the 48 per cent”, they will repeat the very mistake that led to Brexit: misreading the electorate.

Take note Kuenssberg.

 

Highland Sting

 

The BBC are being highly misleading in their reports of what the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, said today about government restrictions to welfare for families with more than two children.  Davidson said, in an interview with Emma Barnett on 5 Live [12:12], that she thought the rules on welfare were entirely right but if on implementation they were found not to work as intended then she was prepared to see them reviewed.

The following BBC news bulletin immediately reported this as Davidson saying she was ‘open to seeing the rules reviewed’ without any qualification that she believed the rules as they stood were fine until proven otherwise…this gives the impression that she thinks that the rules are in fact wrong and need revision already…that just isn’t the case.

This is the BBC trying to spin the impression that even the Scottish Tory leader is against the ‘controversial’ rules and they must change.

Even in the web report the BBC continues to massage her words…

Rape clause: Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson ‘open to review’

Speaking to BBC Radio 5 live’s Emma Barnett, Ms Davidson said she would be willing to examine whether there were “better ways of doing it” if it was felt to be necessary.

Only later admitting that she said she was open to reviewing the rules if, once implemented, ‘there are issues with that’……..

“In terms of how that works on the ground, if there are issues with that, then I am completely open – if there are better ways of doing it – to reviewing that.”

So why try to give the impression, and indeed make out absolutely in its other reports, that Davidson thinks the rules are already in need of review?

Have to say Barnett was pretty useless in the interview failing on several occasions to understand what was being said even as Davidson gave clear, coherent and reasoned aswers to her questions.

Davidson wanted a higher percentage of immigrants who came to the UK to head towards Scotland, more of the brightest and best.  Barnett just couldn’t work that out..how can Davidson get more immigrants when the Tories were promising to lower immigration?  Simple…Scotland gets only 4% of the total immigrants to the UK…Davidson merely said that she wanted a higher percentage of that total, even if a lower total, to head towards Scotland.  Now a mere 4% of 300,000 or so, perhaps later maybe say 10% of 30,000…it’s a percentage thing not a pure numbers argument.  Davidson merely questioned why Scotland attracted fewer than its fair share of the brightest and best.  Simple, you’d have thought.

Then there was child poverty…welfare is not devolved so Barnett wanted to blame the UK government for higher child poverty in Scotland…Davidson said that all things being equal it then must be the educational and economic policies of the SNP that caused the higher poverty in Scotland…which is a fair and reasonable assessment….and yet Barnett just couldn’t undertand that argument.

So three major arguments Barnett couldn’t understand despite Davidson making her case quite plain and simple.  Guess Barnett just didn’t want to understand…despite Davidson repeating her arguments several times….oh and Barnett told us that the ‘so-called bedroom tax’ was a bad thing.  No bias there then.  At one point Davidson noted that Barnett seemed to be reading off a Labour Party press release…Barnett quite discomfitted…as she’d been caught bang to rights really….it did indeed sound just like that.

Barnett was based in Edinburgh in the Elephant House cafe where JK Rowling wrote her fantasy fiction about magic and mystery….how very apt for a BBC fantasy politics production.

 

 

 

 

Comey of errors

 

The BBC was pumping out excited, conspiratorial, sensationalist stories about Trump’s sacking of Comey yesterday, even suggesting this smacked of Nixonian intrigue and coverup.  Trouble is in all their reporting, on the radio at least, they missed out, funnily enough, the crucial fact that told the lie to their version of events….that Trump sacked Comey after he had misled Congress last week…the BBC were reporting he had been sacked almost at random, out of the blue…they demand to know why Comey hadn’t been sacked when Trump became President, why now?  Curious they don’t actually seem interested in the actual answer…even suggesting it is a cover up…

Was it a cover-up?

The abruptness and timing of Mr Comey’s dismissal, to put it mildly, is highly suspicious.

That BBC report even mentions that Comey was up before Congress last week…but fails to mention the crucial fact that he ‘misled’ them…which explains the ‘abruptness’ of the sacking….

Just over a week ago, the FBI director talked about his agency’s investigation into Russian meddling in the US presidential election – and possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign – before a Senate committee.

A crucial fact is missing though, one which the Telegraph kindly shares with us…

James Comey ‘gave wrong information’ to Congress in his testimony about Hillary Clinton’s aides emails

Oh wait…the BBC does actually know that…and has reported it in a website write-up…

The move came as it emerged Mr Comey gave inaccurate information to Congress last week about Mrs Clinton’s emails.

So why has the BBC, including the ‘beauty’ Jon Sopel, otherwise been reporting all day that it is a complete mystery why this sacking came so suddenly when it knows the answer?

Yep, it’s all a mystery to the BBC…

If the dismissal was because of the email investigation, why act now? How the Trump White House answers that question will go a long way toward determining whether the cover-up allegations die down over time.

Why has the BBC not been making much noise about the fact that the Democrats wanted Comey sacked but are now ‘outraged’ at his sacking?…indeed only last week Clinton was blaming Comey for her failure to win the Presidency.

One week ago, Clinton said during a forum that she was “on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off.”

So was Comey in league with Trump…and Trump in league with the Russians as the BBC suggest?  Surely Comey must have been…oh….er…but he was in charge of the investigation into alleged Russian links to Trump’s team [not Trump himself]…so if Clinton thought he was in collusion with Trump/Russians how could he be in charge of such an investigation?  Conflict of interest?

Seems the Dems change their stance to suit…and the BBC is quite unconcerned about raising such difficulties solely interested as they are in attacking Trump.

Democrats once blamed Comey; now they’re defending him

The BBC also fails to point out that Comey had been heavily criticised by the professionals in the FBI for not putting Clinton in the dock…hence he then went on to reopen investigations leading to the letter that Clinton blames for her downfall….though she could otherwise have been in prison really.

Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents

FBI Agents Say Comey ‘Stood In The Way’ Of Clinton Email Investigation

Mutiny! FBI turning on James Comey?

 

Traducing Trump always trumps the truth for the BBC.  Fake news…the beauty.

And does the sacking of Comey mean the investigation nto alleged Russian links to Trump’s team is over?  Of course not…it is such a high profile investigation Trump would never be able to kick it into the long grass and ‘cover it up’..if there is anything to cover up.

 

Chaos? What Chaos?

 

Someone has leaked the Corbynista manifesto…..or is it merely a photocopy of an old 1970’s one found in a bin somewhere?

The Telegraph spells out the truly dramatic implications of Corbyn’s giant leap backwards…

And…

Labour has produced a fantasy-land blueprint for a socialist Britain

The late Sir Gerald Kaufman famously dubbed the 1983 Labour manifesto “the longest suicide note in history”. The draft version of the party’s programme for the election on June 8 runs it a close second. It is as if the Blair years had simply not happened.

A government led by Jeremy Corbyn would renationalise energy and the railways. It would impose wage caps on businesses. It would water down the controls put in place to mitigate the levels of immigration caused by the last Labour administration, declare war on private education, introduce rent controls, freeze rail fares, abolish university tuition fees and render Britain’s nuclear deterrent almost useless.

The manifesto seems as rooted in the Seventies as its leader, who was also heavily involved in drawing up the 1983 document that took the party to its worst post-war defeat.

Quite clear what the Telegraph thinks of the manifesto…editorial hyperbole?  No…an entirely accurate summation of the Corbyn project as it sets out to tax the rich until the pips squeak, nationalise industry, release the unions from their shackles and impose huge costs on the country to pay for a vast range of ‘populist’ policies designed to attract the easy vote…just where will Corbyn get the money to renationalise all those industries, to abolish university fees, to fund all the schools and all the new schools needed to educate those pupils who are taxed out of private education etc etc etc?  Where does the hundreds of billions come from?  Borrowing?  And how do we pay that off?  How does your kids or grandkids  pay that off?  Highly irresponsible policies designed for short term electoral gains based around buying votes rather than being a responsible government that shepherds its resources, nurtures the economy instead of leeching off it, and creates a future that does not burden today’s young with massive government debt….which means even more austerity in the future or bankruptcy.

However, read the BBC’s two senior political journalists and you’d really be none the wiser as to the dramatic and ruinous nature of Labour’s broadside to a modern and prosperous Britain.

Chris Mason and Kuenssberg produce two reports that are so anodyne and unchallenging that you’d think they were coming out of Labour HQ itself.  Apparently this manifesto [not yet signed off] is entirely harmless…and indeed may be quite attractive to many we are told…Mason’s total analysis comes to this really…

There is meaty stuff in this, which some people will delight in seeing a big party [surely he means big government] advocate at a general election.

Others will label it a throwback to a different political era.

They both list massive spending commitments but seem entirely unconcerned about where the money will come from to fund them.  The BBC’s ‘reporting’ puts a fine gloss on the manifesto and doesn’t critique it at all…indeed we get more than a hint of approval and less any sense of actual hard nosed examination of the proposals…consider the Telegraph’s blast…just one paragraph that says more than two complete BBC reports…..

The fantasy-land nature of the manifesto is underscored by a host of spending commitments made with total abandon – free school meals; double paid paternity leave; increased benefits; 10,000 more police officers; 3,000 additional prison staff; billions extra to be spent on the NHS and social care; higher public sector pay – all before the costs of renationalising FTSE-quoted companies has even been factored in.

The BBC unfortunately seems to be peddling the fantasyland politics and delusional economics of Corbyn’s Old Labour.