Always interesting what you turn up when idly roaming the web…..The NUJ was concerned about ‘social media‘ in February 2016….and seems quite put out that politicians now have an outlet to allow them to make their own voice heard without the media filtering them…

We can’t ignore social media, whether we like it or not. For good or ill it is shaping our industry in many ways. Whether it is a lurch towards clickbait journalism with reporters forced to have audience targets at the forefront of their minds rather than newsgathering, or whether it is the ease in which politicians and celebrities can be reached for comment via twitter, it is a force we have to work with.

Oh and this might explain a lot…..James Landale…

James Landale (born 1969) is a BBC journalist who is the current Diplomatic Editor at BBC News.

Denis McShane, shilling for the EU, reveals….

The anti-EU Brussels correspondent was invented by Boris Johnson when the Daily Telegraph’s correspondent there 25 years ago. His fellow Old Etonian Brussels journalist at the time was James Landale who wrote a little ditty:

“Boris told such dreadful lies It made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes”

Nothings changed all these years later as Landale and his BBC colleagues still peddle the same old tripe about Boris and the EU.

Still, confirms Boris was anti-EU even 25 years ago….so one in the eye for Kuenssberg who reported ‘vicious Westminster rumours’ as fact that Boris only joined Leave as a launch pad for his leadership ambitions…he was, she assured us, in fact pro-EU.  No he wasn’t.

McShane also puts the lie to the BBC’s claim that we are now living in a post-truth era, presumably pre 2016 we were in a golden age of accurate, honest and truthful journalism?

Again though this is of course from a pro-EU stance as told by McShane…

In 1990 another legendary Sun headline “Up Yours Delors!” can be taken as the starting moment of non-stop propaganda against European integration.

According to Roy Greenslade, former Fleet Street editor, now our principal commentator on the press, “For years Britain’s rightwing press has done everything in  its formidable power to demean the European Union and  all its works. Drip by drip by drip, the newspapers have heaped abuse on the EU, blaming every domestic ill on its policies and actions while giving it no credit whatsoever for its benefits. “The coverage of the issue has been marked by a mixture of misinformation and disinformation, replete with inaccuracy, innuendo and insincerity.”

Naturally the pro-EU media are entirely blameless and have conducted their reporting over the decades with integrity and honesty.

McShane whinges about the overwhelming power of the anti-EU papers…

In 2015 the combined circulation of the Eurosceptic press, dailies and Sundays, was 10,239,526. Assuming the Mirror, Guardian, Independent and I to be pro-European their circulation is 2,656,735 so in circulation terms the Europhobe press outnumber the pro-EU press 4-1. Circulation isn’t readership of course, still less on-line readership. Here the Daily Mail with 16 million on-line readers based on monthly aggregates far outweighs anyone else especially those papers behind paywalls.

But McShane fails to note the revelation in the same publication that it is the pro-EU BBC in all its guises which absolutely dominates the news and doesn’t just do ‘drip drip drip’…it bangs, beats and bashes the drum loudly, rolls out the red carpet and a fanfare of trumpets for the blessed EU and excoriates those who oppose the orthdoxy…….

Print newspapers are now the least popular medium people use to keep abreast of news and current affairs, according to research by the communications watchdog Ofcom. The regulator’s annual news consumption study for 2015 found that 31 per cent of the population read a printed newspaper to keep informed down from 41 per cent in the previous year. The decline means that print newspapers are now the least popular medium for checking news, behind television (67 per cent), the internet (41 per cent) and radio (32  per cent).

The top news source in terms of reach was BBC1, which 48 per cent of those surveyed saying they used it to check news, down from 53 per cent in 2014. ITv ranks second, with 27 per cent saying they use it as a news source. The BBC website remains the third mostused news source (23 per cent) with the BBC News Channel in fourth place at 14 per cent. Facebook is the joint fifth most popular source of news in terms of reach, with Sky News, at 12 per cent. The most-used radio stations are BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 2, while the most-read newspapers are the Sun and Daily Mail.

 

Hate Brexit, think it is a car crash on the road to disaster?… then call ze Germans on the emergency stop number…. nein, nein, nein…The Fourth [Reich] emergency service…according to Herr Heseltine.

 

The BBC up to its old tricks again, still fighting the EU referendum trying to sow discontent and division.

Campbell, or Mr Impartiality as he knowingly called himself, is having another of those ‘debates’ that ask ‘Have we done the right thing?’….you know, did we get it all wrong voting for Brexit.

Just asking the question is ensuring that the pot is kept stirred never mind the actual framing of the question in that negative tone.

Does the BBC ask similar questions after every election?  Nearly a year on from the referendum and the BBC is still trying to suggest the country is divided and angry…and yet surely it is the same after any election. More so in fact with voters divided several ways not just between two factions as in the referendum.  Why does the BBC keep framing this as a deeply divided and angry nation?  Why does the BBC keep re-fighting the referendum?

What we keep hearing, and did this morning, from the Remainders, is that Leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for….Campbell said nothing, in fact it was he who fed the question to the Remainder….why did he not challenge that claim which is patently false…everyone knew what they were voting for…to leave the EU…it was on the ballot paper…leave or stay.  Why does the BBC want to push that narrative of voters taking a leap in the dark?  Because they want to delegitimise the vote and suggest voters were misled or misinformed and voted without knowing the consequences…thus we need another vote….or at the very least May must keep us in the Single Market…and thus be forced to keep the borders wide open and in effect still be in the EU…end of Brexit.

You could equally say voters didn’t know what they would have voted for if they had voted Remain…it wouldn’t have been remain in the EU as it is now but a future EU that you would have had no  idea of what it would morph into….such as a superstate that ripped open your borders, took complete control  of your taxes, made all your laws and granted you regional status…and EU citizenry.

At least Leave voters knew what they were definitely getting out of and could make a good guess at that future EU empire building…so no, they didn’t vote out of ignorance…they escaped.

Shame the BBC seeks to encourage that so-called division instead of pulling the country together and making a far more positive case for Brexit than the continual outpouring of doom and gloom that they serve up to us now.

The BBC version of the Great Escape from Michael Heseltine’s Germans…

The Brexit version…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZydbELJVmfY

From the BBC in January...above photo incuded….

Theresa May is to appear in a spread in glossy fashion magazine US Vogue, Downing Street has confirmed.

The prime minister – who is known for her love of fashion, especially eye-catching shoes – posed for the renowned portrait photographer Annie Leibovitz.

“The long-planned shoot for US Vogue will come out in April,” a No 10 spokesman said.

Baroness Thatcher, who died in 2013, was known for her smart, unfussy style including power suits, pussy-bow blouses and an ever-present handbag. [er…amongst other things?]

Oh..here’s the Corbyn supporting Daily Mirror…

If clothes could talk: What Theresa May and the other party leaders’ conference outfits said about them

When you are making your big keynote speech to your party (and the nation), it makes sense to think carefully about what you wear. So we’ve looked at the leaders’ outfits – and what we think they revealed about them.

Rightly or wrongly, the simple fact is that everyone in the public eye is judged on their appearance.

And no, before the sexism row starts AGAIN , it’s not just the women. A wise man once said that ‘clothes make the man’ and they are just as much in the firing line when it comes to their sartorial choices as women.

No denouncements and claims of back to the ’70’s over that from Corbyn?

Hypocrisy…what’s would that be then?

You must remember this from the BBC…….

Politicians have to think before they dress because of the role of television in communication with the voter.

10 sartorial moments that tell us a lot about politics

Does a politician’s appearance influence what voters think of them? Here are 10 moments that suggest that dress is important.

It’s the Easter holiday and Prime Minister David Cameron has been taking his break in Lanzarote. But attention has turned again to his leisurewear. This week Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail said the PM’s loafers gave him “beige-ja-vu” and concluded: “The best thing that can perhaps be said about them is that at least Mr Cameron wore them without socks.”

But why does it matter? Does a politician’s appearance influence what voters think of them? Here are 10 moments in fashion history that politicians might like to take note of before picking out their latest outfit….Politicians have to think before they dress because of the role of television in communication with the voter. 

The Times’ diarist Michael Horsnell described Foot as being “dressed as if he had just returned from walking his dog on Hampstead Heath, in green donkey jacket, sneakers and Paisley tie”. The then Labour MP for Derby South, Walter Johnson, was reported to have called on the Parliamentary Labour Party to reprimand Foot for looking like “an-out of-work navvy” and showing “gross discourtesy to the servicemen he was supposed to be honouring”.

Michael Foot’s cautionary tale of how a single sartorial misstep could become a lightning rod for a more general deluge of mockery was not heeded by former Conservative leader William Hague. Shortly after taking the helm of the party in 1997, William Hague was skewered in the media after wearing a personalised baseball cap on a visit to a theme park.

Under Peter Mandelson’s tutelage, it was sharp suits only for Neil Kinnock – and then for Blair and his “babes,” as the press dubbed the influx of female Labour MPs in 1997, to their annoyance.

At Labour’s party conference in 2000, Tony Blair warmed to his keynote speech a little too readily and his shirt became visibly drenched in sweat. The Evening Standard was on hand to advise that he had “broken the golden rule of never wearing a blue shirt in a hot room”, while the Guardian reported the address was “more perspiration than inspiration”.

Kirsty Walker, former political correspondent for the Daily Mail and associate director of iNHouse PR, says fashion can have a bearing on politicians’ standing. “The way that politicians present themselves and the choices they make in their own lives can say a lot about their personalities – especially when political images are so carefully cultivated,” she argues.

Dr Mair from the London College of Fashion argues that, not only does presentation influence what voters think of politicians, but it can influence politicians’ own behaviour.

“What we wear makes a difference to our own cognition,” Dr Mair says. “Wearing a formal suit might actually make someone behave differently; speak more formally.”

From the German DW…..

DW: How important are a politician’s clothes?

Laura Dunn: Dress and selection of clothes are a part of politics, and a particularly important factor in the presentation of image. They help us form an opinion of the person that’s wearing them and they often become part of the character that we associate with the wearer. We all remember Margaret Thatcher for her bow blouses and structured handbags, much like we associate leopard print shoes and chunky necklaces with Theresa May.  Politicians who have high profile roles are ambassadors for the country that they represent, and their choice of clothes is an important part of promoting their country. 

From the FT……

No small talk, more shoes

 

 

 

 

 

 

May learnt more than a decade ago that an artfully timed style statement can speak louder than words. Ever since she had the audacity to wear a pair of leopard-print kitten heels from Russell & Bromley to berate her “nasty party” at the Tory conference in 2002, she’s mastered the art of feminine projection. The shoes in question guaranteed her a platform on every front page in the land — and well beyond it. And she’s been scooping her rivals with a statement accessory or a “controversial” look ever since. Style statements, as women instinctively understand (and men don’t need to because they rarely need to try and get a word in edgeways), ensure unwavering attention. Most people won’t remember the finer details of George Osborne’s last budget speech in March, but they do recall the spectacle of May’s plunging cleavage on the front row of the Commons. It was an excellent act of sartorial sabotage — and she didn’t say a word.

In this new age of female leadership we should expect May’s strategic wardrobe choices to dominate much of the political conversation that follows. For some, this will be a sad state of the media age we live in. Others still won’t get it. But, watch carefully, and you’ll see how her clothes tell another story, filling in the edges of her personality and revealing more about her character than many of her prewritten speeches. Rather than mask her femininity, like Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel in their strangely asexual pantsuits and block colours, May is a graduate of the same school as Thatcher when it comes to political power dressing. She dresses to look like a woman. She confounds expectation, and works her feminine style to political advantage.

And even the Guardian is at it…telling us how important it is to dress the part….

O’Reilly last week took the unprecedented step of suing the corporation for age and sex discrimination. She says ageism at the BBC is “endemic”. “We have almost come to accept it as the norm, that if you are a woman you have to be a size 8 and have unlined skin. I hoped to be judged on my work as a journalist and broadcaster, not on the way I look.

Of course, this isn’t the first time the BBC has been accused of ageism. In 2007, there was a row when the corporation dropped newsreader Moira Stuart, who was in her late 50s; that same year, the broadcaster Anna Ford asked, “How many presenters do you know on television who are over the age of 60? They’re catered for on Radio 4, but they are not catered for on screen.”

 

Got to laugh…no time lost by the Left attacking the Mail as it focuses on the issue of the day…whose legs are better…May’s or Sturgeon’s?    Nothing new there though…if it weren’t for the Mail what would left-wing ‘journalists’ do all day…another pop  at the Mail’s frontpage recently…All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover…complete rubbish and bizarrely attacking the Mail for covering a story that the Left are peddling themselves...’Google…the terrorists’ friend’….except that day when the Mail intervened…Google became…

Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time

However in the same New Statesman issue we have an attack on Google for their failure to tackle extremism….telling us...’what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies.’….

‘…committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Corbyn has the time to tweet today [presumably when not reading his BBC briefing on its latest research for PMQs]…

…and the BBC runs the story prominently on the frontpage…

Daily Mail urges ‘legs-it’ critics to ‘get a life’

First it’s fairly clear they both dressed to impress, it’s power dressing and body language used to project a message about them…so fair game to comment on that.

Second male politicians get it in the neck all the time…

BORIS Johnson attempted an early-morning run today, but raised some eyebrows after donning bizarre Hawaiian shorts, a polo neck and a red and black striped beanie hat.

The BBC was very interested in Trump’s hands…

The BBC is obsessed with Trump’s hands..

A history of Donald Trump, his ‘tiny’ fingers – and gold Sharpies

Donald Trump has some stand-out physical features. He’s also got gold pens, apparently. More on that shortly.

First there’s that mane of curiously-coloured hair.

The expressive mouth that seems to have a life of its own.

But please, take a second to consider his hands.

The blondish bombshell has defended the size of his digits after a particularly strange bit of name calling.

US election 2016: What is the big deal about Trump’s hands?

We have all heard endless jokes about his hair and tan, but what is the big deal now about Donald Trump’s hands?

This is said to be a sore point for the billionaire, and it was revived this week by rival Republican candidate Marco Rubio, who mocked his adversary’s “small hands”.

And the Mirror was obsessed with dresses…..

Good Morning Britain fashion: Susanna Reid’s lady in red vs true blue Charlotte Hawkins – vote now

But when Reid hid her legs behind a desk the viewers complained…

Susanna Reid gave the launch of Good Morning Britain a leg up when she answered the prayers of viewers who complained that the stars of the show were hidden behind a desk.

After the ITV programme began at 6am, numerous people began moaning that Susanna and her co-hosts were spending too much time half-obscured by the huge table.

But she put all that right when she emerged from the desk, revealing her shapely legs that have helped her win an army of male fans.

Don’t remember Corbyn back in 2014 complaining about that, but then he was a nobody then, hmmm…what’s changed?

We’ve already asked the question as to why the BBC continues to give so much unquestioning airtime and respect to Baroness Warsi, someone who is not a voice of moderation but is a conservative, that is, fundamentalist, Muslim who propagandises on behalf of that ideology every chance she gets….her latest book proclaiming that Muslims are not the ‘enemy within’ and making huge excuses and demands for what she calls tolerance..but is in reality a demand to allow Muslims to live under theocratic rule without interference.

We’ve also asked why Google et al are under so much critical scrutiny for producing ‘fake news’ getting Trump elelcted, Brexit passed and giving a platform to extremists when the BBC is allowed to campaign to stop Trump and Brexit and promote Jihadism without a word of criticism.

It is a curious blindspot that there is so much concern about ‘democracy’ being undermined by Social Media content when Saudi Arabia and fellow Gulf states channel millions, if not billions, into Western countries in order to further the advance and dominance of the Islamic ideology, funding mosques, madrassas, universities and other educational establishments as well as Islamic cultural and outreach institutes and centres that operate to spread the Faith…not to mention political collaboration as the ‘elite’ ingratiate themselves with the Saudi regime.

The fact that we have some 3 million Muslims now living in Britain has meant that voices criticial of Islam are muted in order not to cause ‘offence’ by exposing the reality of the religious ideology unlike in the past where politicians and commentators could speak freely of those hard truths.

The last terror attack in London is a case in point where senior police officers preferred to talk of ‘international terrorism’ rather than Islamic terrorism, some in the Media preferred to not mention Islam in relation to this and politicians fed us a narrative that this was nothing to do with Islam…as is the case with all such terrorism in their eyes.

We have a Tory candidate, Andy Street, who proclaims that poverty is to blame for terrorism and of course that the problem is coming from only a tiny minority in the Muslim community.  Then we have Michael Gove, concerned about ‘Islamism’ but is he concerned about ‘Islam’?  Seems not.

According to Gove Islamism perverts a great faith to inspire violence.  He says that ‘The ideology which drives Islamist extremists may seem alien to many of us in the rational, sceptical, secular West and that it is a sort of madness.  A belief system that governs everything…is to most of us inhumane and irrational.  But unless we understand the nature of this belief system then we will always be one step behind in the battle against terrorist attacks’

So…all good so far…Gove seems to understand that the ideology drives violence.  But wait….he continues…‘It cannot be stressed often enough that the great religion of Islam is a very different belief system from the ideology of Islamism’.

No, no it is not.  Islamism is part and parcel of Islam…..What he calls ‘Islamism’ is merely the drive to implement ‘Islam’ fully as intended by ‘Allah’…the Koran being revealed because the Christians and Jews had not followed their scriptures exactly and had also split their religion up into different sects….not allowed by Islam…hence Shia and Ahmadis are not considered ‘Muslim’.

Islamism is not an ideology, it is a process to implement an ideology.  Islam is political.

There are no extremist Muslims, Islam is ‘extreme’ as an ideology…extremism is part and parcel of Islam…ie it is the ‘normality’ not the extreme, hence a ‘Muslim’ is not an ‘extremist’ just a Muslim….there are people who follow Islam in the proper manner and there are moderates and cultural Muslims who don’t actually live as full ‘Muslims’.  I think it was Iqbal Sacranie, once head of the MCB, who stated that ‘there is no extreme Islam, no moderate Islam, there is just Islam.’  I’m guessing he would know if anyone would.

As Gove himself says, if you don’t understand the beliefs you won’t deal with what is happening…but then again our politicians don’t want to deal with what is happening…the Islamisation of Europe…to do so would mean making Islam illegal…and that’s not going to happen…the only genuine opposition to the Islamist surge will come from the ground up as the ‘elite’ collaborate out of cowardice and the belief that they will come out on top whatever the regime is.

In the Spectator we have an article that says ‘Theocracy should scare us more than terror’…but our politicians and media, the BBC/Guardian, don’t dare say that….but ‘Theocracy’ is rapidly coming our way.  You may not become ‘Muslim’ but you’ll certainly be subject to its laws as we are forced to ‘respect’ and kowtow to Muslim culture, laws and sensibilities in order not to cause ‘offence’.  Islam is political, it is cultural, it is about conquest and colonisation, it has little to do with spirituality in reality……Islam governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life……

Islam’s founder was a warlord.

The real issue is not violence or terrorism but theocracy. Islamist violence stems from anger that Islam’s theocratic potential is being thwarted.

The difficult truth is that Islam is a religion that, from its inception, idealises a very close unity of religion and politics, and that when this ideal is thwarted some of its adherents become enraged. I don’t know whether it can move away from its theocratic impulse, but I am pretty sure that we ought to speak honestly about it.

You may remember the ‘Lancaster Plan’ which someone in the comments brought our attention to…now the write up in the New English Review is somewhat colourful but you cannot deny the basic truth of what is being said about the way we are forced to suppress opinion about Islam in public, otherwise shouted down as racist or Islamophobic, and how politicians would rather surrender to the Islamists than confront them…oh not the violent ones…that’s easy, but the activists who conduct a cultural jihad, that use the law, the media, politics, and infiltrates society to every level in order to further their aims….as encouraged to do so by Mehdi Hasan….and indeed the BBC’s own Mishal Husain  told us when she began on the Today show that she hoped to use the position to promote the image of Islam.  The Trojan Horse plot is a classic example of an attempt to Islamise the UK by the backdoor, non-violently….carried out to a blueprint produced by the most representative Muslim body in the UK…the MCB.

Most commentators like to address the most dangerous issues in terms of violent extremism but that is not the real problem, it’s a deliberate device by the likes of Warsi to divert attention from the very serious concerns about Islam itself…what are those violent extremists intending to force upon us with that violence?  The same thing non-violent conservative Muslims wish to do….make the UK Islamic.  The issue is indeed a choice between theocracy and democracy.

What does the supposed Lancaster Plan consist of?……

The consensus was that we were, and would remain for the foreseeable future, at risk and that the Islamic violence in western societies would gradually increase as the years went by.

Then, quietly and with good manners – almost apologetically, one of our fellow guests disagreed with us. He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan.

The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.

The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. 

The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.

The first stage of the Plan had been a success in that the Muslim population of the U.K. had taken full advantage of it to assert their uniqueness and to demand the respect that they felt was their due, the man said calmly.

Stage two, he informed us, had also been put into effect, but it was only an experiment in devolving power to small areas of the U.K. – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Ulster) – whilst still keeping the U.K. together as a type of politically whole unit. This was so that structures could be put in place to continuously manage that type of change. This would enable, he told us, the granting of some degree of autonomy, in an orderly and managed fashion, to various Muslim enclaves around the country when this became necessary. Precedents for devolution would have been established and the change could therefore be managed easily and without too much fuss from the general population. The whole Plan was really about managing the changes that the Muslims in the U.K. will keep demanding.

He went on to say that further stages of the Lancaster Plan envisaged granting these enclaves the right to implement their own laws, such as sharia law, granting Muslims the right to travel between these enclaves but remain subject only to the laws within them while so doing and expanding the enclaves as the need arose. The final stages of the Plan, he informed us casually, foresaw the need to alter the laws outwith the enclaves as they became bigger and more powerful in the national parliament – repealing such things as the laws that decriminalised homosexuality, the laws that granted equal rights to women and the laws that made all religions equal. The death penalty would have to be re-introduced and it would become necessary to assert in law the primacy of Islam and the superior position of Muslims in the U.K, but by the time that that would have to happen Muslims would constitute at least thirty percent, and more probably fifty percent, of the population. If the current government plans for the increased immigration of Muslims stayed on course then there should be no trouble in reaching that percentage in about fifteen years time, he told us. That would also ensure Britain having good links to the rest of the Islamic world through family and clan ties. The Plan was quite plain about the necessity of confusing and misdirecting the current population about immigration by distracting it with constant talk about refugees and overseas aid and other such trivia that could be magnified out of all proportion.

Such changes would occur incrementally and the formulators of the Plan believed that each small change would pass almost unchallenged for each as it happened would affect only a tiny number of people, or an easily despised minority such as gay people.

It may be fanciful that it is an actual worked through plan, but it could quite easily be the ‘plan’ by default as politicians stand back and don’t stop this process…which is well underway….the BBC having two Muslim heads of religious programming  being just one sign of the ‘elites’ fawning stupidity as was the promotion of Warsi to Chair of the Tory Party in a pathetic attempt to curry favour and show how diverse they were.  Just remember Labour opened the borders in order to ethnically cleanse Britain, to ‘brown’ it, and to rub the Right’s nose in diversity…don’t underestimate the stupidity, naivety and sheer self-destructive impulse that drives the Left in its hatred of ‘Britain’ and indeed the ‘West’…..Merkel is another case in point….political correctness, and fear of the Media, drove her policy and not common sense, national interest and security.

The BBC and the rest of the Remain mafia went after the Mail when it criticised, quite rightly, the Judges’ decision on Article 50…..apparently the Mail was undermining the justice system and respect for their lordships.  Never mind the BBC had a programme dedicated to that very thing…Rogue Justice.

Today I heard Justin Webb saying that ‘What people would be surprised at is a judge, who has had training saying such a thing’…in regard to this…

Abuse charity slams judge’s ‘shocking ignorance’

A domestic abuse charity has criticised the 18-month suspended sentence given to a man who admitted attacking his then wife with a cricket bat. Mustafa Bashir, 34, also forced bleach and pills into Fakhara Karim’s mouth, Manchester Crown Court heard.

But Judge Richard Mansell said Ms Karim was not vulnerable as she was “an intelligent woman with a network of friends” and a degree.  Charity Refuge said the comments showed “shocking ignorance”.

Guess it depends who you are if you want to criticise a judge.

Curiously the BBC report does not include this…from the Express…

Passing an 18 month jail term suspended for two years Judge Mansell QC  said…..”This relationship started well but you began controlling her and how she spent her money.

“You told her how to spend her money and you tried to turn her against her family who you regularly insulted. She would buy clothes that were of a western style which you disapproved of and called her a slag and said her friends were ‘English slag girls.’

Why would the BBC hide the fact that a Pakistani Muslim called white girls that?  Sounds very familiar.

 

[The Daily Mail’s] faults and virtues (there are some of the latter) owe nothing to marketing constructs, the proprietor’s business interests, party loyalties or anything other than the editor’s judgement as to what people will read.

 

Who would you trust to produce the most honest and accurate news, the public service broadcasters like the BBC or the commercial media at the beck and call of corporate interests?  Naturally you’d say the likes of the BBC, free of vested interests,  beholden to no-one, released from the need to raise funds and thus free of having to sell-out to those who provide the money.  But doesn’t that just make the BBC unaccountable?  It demands to be independent of political scrutiny, it has no commercial pressures to hold it in check and its own complaints procedure is infamously labyrinthine, partisan and ineffective…it does in effect also hold itself free from the viewing Publics’ scrutiny.  Will Ofcom change that?  No, by all accounts the new head of Ofcom is more concerned with the BBC filling its ethnic quotas than producing accurate, fact based programming whilst so many other staff are ex-BBC themselves.  What hope for anyone who complains about the BBC to that lot?

In contrast aren’t commercial media subject to far more powerful checks on their behaviour….cashflow?  On the BBC, ironically, they were discussing Google and how it will react to advertisers withdrawing their adverts, and their money, from the platform….the conclusion was that it is in Google’s commerical interest to sort itself out and prevent extremist material being broadcast on YouTube….money talks.

Similarly with the BBC’s favourite hate object, the Daily Mail.  The Mail is portrayed as right-wing but in fact it is ruthlessly impartial in who it attacks…its sole concern is to get a story, one that will attract readers of its hard copy and clicks on its website….one of the most successful news sites in the world.  It will tear into Tories, Labour, the Royal Family and the military if it smells a story and money…it favours no-one, printing only that which is, in ‘the editor’s judgement, what people will read’. So is the Mail in fact a more honest and indeed better news provider than the BBC?  Yes.

Laaura Kuenssberg, allowed off the leash to spread more BBC propaganda about fake news [odd how she is allowed to talk about such a controversial subject but Jenni Murray cannot discuss transgender issues in a private capacity] says…

On the role of the BBC: “We want people to watch and consume what we do but we are not trying to sell anything. So that does give us a freedom in a way.”

That’s the problem….the BBC has the freedom to thumb its nose at all and sundry…completely unaccountable…and when anyone demands satisfaction and redress…the cry goes up ‘independence’…and oh, yes…it is selling ‘something’ all day, everyday…a very extremist liberal world view…pro-EU, pro-Islam, pro-immigration, anti-Tory, pro-Labour, pro-climate change propaganda, anti-Trump, anti-Israel…and maybe anti-Semitic..certainly feeding that hate industry.

As News-Watch says…

The reality is that until BBC bias is governed by genuinely independent scrutiny, the Corporation will remain locked in that skewed journalistic bubble – massively and crassly out of touch with the British people.

An irony that it is the capitalist, money grabbing likes of the Mail produce real, aggressive journalism whilst the safe, well resourced, guaranteed funding of the BBC allows it to produce partisan, biased, fake news.

Linked to this is an ex-BBCers hatchet job on the Mail…no surprise there….

A hatchet job on the Daily Mail: Peter Wilby reviews Mail Men

Many among what Dacre calls “the liberal elite” will find that Addison has written the exposé of the Mail that they always wanted to read. The inside story, with its unexpur­gated f***s and c***s, is as bad as you thought it was. But remember: the paper sells about 1.5 million copies a day, second only to the Sun. Its faults and virtues (there are some of the latter) owe nothing to marketing constructs, the proprietor’s business interests, party loyalties or anything other than the editor’s judgement as to what people will read. Denounce it by all means, but remember that millions of Britons love it.

YouTube has been publishing rude versions of children’s cartoons for years…the BBC has just caught up in an outbreak of outraged primness….naturally the real target is the ‘Social Media’ giants and free speech….the BBC taking another tack on ‘fake news’….dressing it up as concern for unsuspecting kids’ moral health…

Is your child watching fake cartoons?

3 hours ago

As David linked to earlier, the BBC’s pro-Remain stance, it continues apace as Laura Kuenssberg warn us on the Today show of the ‘looming threat of Brexit’ and the ‘long and complicated process’ of negotiation.  We were also told that the EU was a political project not premised upon economics…so why does the BBC insist on shaping its reporting solely upon the economics…and making those reports inevitably negative about the prospects of Brexit when Brexit is really about sovereignty and immigration and not economics?

We were also told that the UK would keep importing EU laws after Brexit…er no, we’ll keep many EU laws already on the statute book but Brexit gives us the power to choose which ones we want to keep…..one reason why Brexit will not be ‘so long and complicated’ as the BBC scaremongers….there will be plenty of negotitation but the UK already obviously meets EU legal requirements and therefore having to come up to speed, as say Canada in its free trade negotiations would have had to do, is not necessary…we’re already there.

Then we had an interview with James Dyson, one of our most successful busnessmen who runs a worldwide business and imports into the UK on WTO terms as he manufactures in the Far East…the BBC interviewer said ‘Don’t you understand’ other businesses’ concerns about trade tariffs?…..he probably does as he imports from outside the EU and pays tariffs…does the BBC understand, that’s the question?  Patronising berk ‘[Simon Jack, the BBC’s business editor].  A very negative interview…and one that confirms the BBC’s pro-Remain stance…especially when the interviewer reeled off a list of all the pro-EU organisations the BBC had been giving a platform to in the last few days.

Jack comes up with some sly digs…asking if Dyson’s anti-EU stance was based purely on the fact that it supports his competitors more than his company, Dyson says it is about soveriegnty…Jack then asks if Brexiteer Dyson is a patriot or a pragmatist….so the pragmatic approach is to stay in the EU and Dyson’s ‘patriotic’ stance is romantic foolery?

“You can either wage Jihad by the tongue and by the mouth – that is ideological jihad – or by the hand and the sword. Those are the official categories of jihad…..And jihad by the hand and the sword can be done here in France [& the UK] with cars and knives.”  BBC

It is remarkable how politicians and the BBC launch outraged attacks on Google, Facebook and now WhatsApp, for apparently giving terrorists a place to hide…Politicians should perhaps be looking closer to home, such as towards Broadcasting House, for those who promote the terrorist and/or the ‘non-violent’ extremists’ narrative, the BBC of course is happy to divert attention from  its own activites and pose as the champion of democracy and free speech whilst steadily undermining them.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd resolutely announces that ‘Social media firms must join the war on terror’ and yet she ignores the very real danger that is presented by one of the world’s most powerful and influential broadcasting organisations that is spreading extremist propaganda.

She ignores the fact that there is a war being fought, and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs.  The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religioous and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge.  And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals’ like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society, on that phantom menace ‘Islamophobia’.  Of course what is even more frightening is that these men, and women, have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation.

It is the people with ideas, the talkers, the glib snake-oil salesmen, and saleswomen, who are so dangerous, it is they who feed the anger and inspire those who would take up arms…and yet the BBC gives a platform to an endless parade of these Muslim propagandists who encourage Muslims to desire to live ‘as Muslims’ and separate themselves from the societies they are in.  Anjem Choudary, a constant voice on the BBC, is a case in point and yet once he was jailed the BBC told us…

‘It wasn’t a game. The evidence now shows that Anjem Choudary is one of the most dangerous men in Britain. Not a bomb-maker. Not a facilitator. But an ideologue, a thinker, who encouraged others not to stop and think for themselves before they turned to violence to implement their shared worldview.’

Plenty of other examples, such as Cage, the MCB, MPACUK and various ‘independent’ voices such as Tariq Ramadan, all allowed unchallenged airtime on the BBC to peddle their ideas, their ideology.

Baroness Warsi is also a constant voice on the BBC pushing the Muslim narrative, she was on Marr on Sunday and on Start the Week today….

On Start the Week Amol Rajan talks to Sayeeda Warsi about how far Britain’s Muslim community is viewed as ‘the enemy within’.

Let’s remember just why she is a controversial and hardly  ‘moderate’ voice…..

From HurryupHarry....

Baroness Warsi is alleged by multiple sources in and out of government to have consistently resisted calls to develop a proper strategy on integration and tackling extremism at its roots, even though this is the Prime Minister’s policy and part of her job at the Communities and Local Government department. One source says: ‘Sayeeda made clear when she got the job at CLG that she didn’t agree with the Prime Minister and that she simply wasn’t going to do this bit of her job.’

Douglas Murray in the Spectator on those who try to undermine the Prevent programme, as Warsi does….

It is striking that in the past the people who have sought most publicly for the policy to be scrapped are those who quite simply do not want Britain to have a counter-radicalisation strategy because they themselves favour the radicals or are radicals themselves.

Warsi also argued that extremist groups such as Cage should be looked upon as representative voices of the Muslim community [which some might agree with ironically]….until it suited her to attack the BBC for giving them a platform….

Anjem who?

The Islamist Baroness Warsi was also shown up for the hypocrite and opportunist she really is.  She is a long term adversary of the anti-terrorist Prevent programme and not long ago was agitating for the government to engage with Msulim groups that were considered ‘beyond the pale’…presumably those such as Cage, MPACUK and the MCB.  She suggested that by not engaging with such groups the government was disengaged with the Muslim community….she was saying that these groups represent the Muslim community then?

Irony of ironies Warsi then attacked the BBC for giving Choudary airtime….

Criticising the BBC, Baroness Warsi, the former minister for faith and communities, said extremists should not be given platforms to express their damaging views.

Pity the BBC gives her so much airtime to peddle her own Islamist propaganda.

This is the same Warsi who wanted Israel to be disarmed and left defenceless whilst also demanding the terrorists of Hamas be given weapons.  The same Warsi who enjoyed the company of many a devout Muslim in the Muslim university society FOSIS, well known for being the breeding ground of extremists.  The same Warsi who made it her job to do whatever it took to undermine the anti-terrorist Prevent programme.  The same Warsi who argued for the inclusion of extremist organisations in the national debate about what should be called ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ and what should be acceptable..arguing it is the refusal to accept the radicals’ agenda as ‘normal’ that makes them radical.

Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph wrote this article denouncing her and the government’s foolish policies, Islamic ‘radicals’ at the heart of Whitehall, and in which he noted that ‘Baroness Warsi gave official roles to people with links to Islamist groups’.  She was also an outspoken critic of the anti-radicalisation ‘Prevent’ project and supporter of the Islamist student organisation Fosis.

Gilligan says..

For instance the infamous Islamist Tariq Ramadan sits on the Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion or belief which is intended to ‘advise FCO Ministers and staff on how to build on the active approach they already take to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief worldwide.’ and was run by Warsi.

Warsi is still at it attempting to muddy the waters and spread the blame…Dog-whistle, nasty, toxic politics based on race and religion?

So I think pretty clear where Warsi’s loyalties really lie and what her intentions are as she tours the TV  studios and Media outlets.

She is of course given a warm welcome by the BBC…here [H/T Sue at Is the BBC biased? [hell yeah]] we can see how Marr fawns over her….

Andrew Marr’s introduction this morning:

Good morning A simple hire car. A knife – and they’re not hard to buy. And a deranged man who fits no easy pattern. Isn’t the truth that sometimes it is completely impossible to stop acts of terrorism, and we need to learn to live with that unhappy fact?

Sayeeda Warsi was on The Andrew Marr Show this morning arguing that the Westminster attack had nothing to do with Islam. People from all religions can carry out violent acts, she said, and Masood “was a violent Christian long before he was a violent Muslim”. She also condemned the government’s “obsessive focus” on “Islamic ideology” – a term she regards as “not factually correct” – and wants to see the present Prevent strategy replaced by a new strategy which will better engage with Muslims.

Now, you may have thought that her contribution was the usual, predictable guff from the baroness but Andrew Marr ended the interview by gushing:

‘A moment of calm and clever reflection. Sayeeda Warsi, for now, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.’

He’d already described her new book as “eloquent”. 

Her appearance on Start The Week was yet more pro-Muslim propaganda that suggested Muslims were the victims of prejudice and anti-Muslim hate.  She tells us ‘Islamophobia’ is the last bigotry blindspot in the UK and that it is socially acceptable, it passes the ‘dinner table test’ apparently. Of course it’s not prejudice but fact-based opinion that Islam is dangerous, unpleasant and backward….as David Goodhart says…unlikely that knowledge of Islam makes you want to like it…

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.

And isn’t it more true to say that Muslim extremism has passed the ‘dinner table test’, the Muslim dinner table that is?  Isn’t it true that the ‘extremists’ ‘ narrative is one that is held by the majority of the Muslim community, the anger at Israel and British foreign policy?  They may not openly condone violence but they certainly exploit it, and use the threat of further community ‘anger’, to force politicians and the media to favour Muslims…..‘One lesson well understood in both Stalin’s Russia and Nazi Germany was that propaganda is most effective when it is backed by terror’

She fails to mention one fly in the ointment when she talks of ‘prejudice’ and Muslims as victims….as the slippery Islamist Mehdi Hasan admitted is all too common in Muslim communities…

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.

And is Warsi’s contention that the ‘extremists’ are a fringe group, a ‘ring of criminals’, who don’t represent Muslims or Islam true?  That was a lie said about the Germans who backed Hitler so ardently….as stated by the the Guardian’s own Madeleine Bunting…..

‘He [the Pope at the time] acknowledged he was a “son of the German people” … “but not guilty on that account”; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a “ring of criminals” were responsible for nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else. This is an argument that has long been discredited in Germany as utterly inadequate in explaining how millions supported the Nazis.’

Here is the Guardian again telling us how prevalent the ideology is within the Muslim community and puts the blame on ‘us’…

The entire emphasis on countering narratives and extremism eclipses the myriad reasons why so many Muslims are deeply critical of the government. The problem is defined solely in terms of “extremist narratives” and prevents critical reflection on what “we” might be doing and the political context. Anger over western foreign policy and recent wars, plus the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, are major sources of discontent and dissent, and not only among British Muslims. Here, those involved in government strategy must consider whether they have sufficiently come to terms with the political context, and its role in creating the extremism and radicalisation now being targeted by the government.

And what of Warsi’s claim that Muslims are happily integrating……Trevor Phillips thinks not [No surprise that the BBC’s new MCB favourite spokesman, Miqdaad Versi, argues against him in the Guardian]…..

What it reveals is the unacknowledged creation of a nation within a nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future….Britain is nurturing communities with a complete set of alternate values.

Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it.  They won’t….they really don’t want to adopt much of our decadent way of life.

Many of our elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth

Integrating Muslims will probably be the hardest task of all.  It will mean abandoning the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and adopting a far more muscular approach to integration….deciding how to confront their thinking where it collides with our fundamental values.

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

Just remind me again why the BBC gives so much time to Warsi but attacks Google et al for giving a platform to extremists?

Even some at the BBC itself have doubts about its own peddling of extremist propaganda…but it’s not just videos as he worries about…it’s those supposed voices of ‘moderation’ such as Warsi who are the real problem…

Are we helping ISIS by running its videos on the news?

Social media enable them to fight psychological warfare. The horrifying images of masked men, a faceless enemy, have helped these groups to intimidate the public.

Downloading social media content, mainstream news organisations have used pictures of mass executions, aimed at showing the barbaric actions such militant groups. But the use of these pictures to show how heartless and cruel the group is, in fact serves the interests of ISIS and similar organisations. Winning the hearts and minds of the public is hardly the aim of the extremists. Rather they want the media to show how a group of ‘devoted’ religious men has abandoned life’s luxuries to fight a ‘holy war’.

For this reason we need to reconsider how to deal with such images. I think the time has come to discuss new editorial guidelines on how to deal with organisations like ISIS and its clones.