Category Archives: BBC bias

Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said “I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren’t sitting back, paging through the emails.“

The Guardian is convinced Trump was elected with Russian help….

Russian hackers were able to access thousands of emails from a top-ranking Democrat after an aide typed the word “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate” by mistake, an investigation by the New York Times has found.

The revelation gives further credence to the CIA’s finding last week that the Kremlin deliberately intervened in the US presidential election to help Donald Trump.

Kremlin hackers access to about 60,000 emails in Podesta’s private Gmail account. According to US intelligence officials, Moscow then gave the email cache to WikiLeaks. The website released them in October, and the email scandal dominated the news cycle and was exploited by Trump.

That conveniently ignores that the real scandal was broken by the New York Times in 2015…as the BBC admits….

Mrs Clinton’s email system became a national story the first week of March 2015, when the New York Times ran a front-page article on the subject. The article said that the system “may have violated federal requirements” and was “alarming” to current and former government archive officials.

Note in that BBC report there is no mention of Wikileaks and the Russians and the Podesta hack but for the Guardian, and paradoxically the BBC itself, as well as Obama, it was the Podesta emails that dominated the news cycle and influenced the outcome of the election.  OK…but wasn’t Clinton’s own email scandal the real issue, the one that Trump said he would see her in prison for?  That if  anything was the vote winner….there was huge scandal around Clinton’s emails before Podesta’s were released so late in the day.  Clinton ignored many, many warnings that her emails were vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence services. It is clear that the US government knew long ago that the Russians were possibly attempting to hack Clinton’s emails and yet only now does it become an issue.  Why?   The BBC constantly defends Obama’s lack of response by saying he accused the Russians on October 7 2016….but that was years after such claims were made public in the media…so why only now when Clinton loses does Obama suddenly turn on the Russians and expel their diplomats?

The BBC back in 2015 suggested that the email scandal could turn the result of the US election….but now it’s the Podesta hack?….

Make no mistake, Tuesday’s New York Times report on Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account during her time as US secretary of state could turn into a major development in the 2016 presidential race.

The BBC has been helpfully conflating the two issues and implying that all Wikileak’s email releases, and indeed all the emails that are under discussion, come from the Podesta hack…

The stakes could scarcely be higher: a foreign state stands accused of mounting a campaign of hacking and leaking to help get its preferred candidate into the White House.

And whatever the final conclusions of the multiple investigations into the alleged Russian hacking operation, many of Clinton’s allies believe the steady trickle of embarrassing emails, drip-fed by Wikileaks through the last crucial weeks of the campaign, may have been enough to deny her the presidency.

And again…

The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign.

By not differentiating clearly which emails came from which source and which are the ones that really felled Clinton the BBC is helping Obama’s narrative that the Podesta emails influenced the election for Trump when the years of revelations and scandals coming from the Benghazi investigation are the real downer for Clinton.

Obama chooses to ignore the inconvenient facts and the BBC happily colludes as it obligingly reports Obama’s claims that Russia hacked Democratic Party emails and thus hijacked the US election to the benefit of Donald Trump as fact.  But just how much fact is there in that sensational and highly political claim?  Look hard and you’ll barely find a mention of Wikileaks and Russians in the run up to the election…here’s Sky’s timeline for the email scandal…no  mention at all of Wikileaks and Russians….it is all about the US government’s own release of emails.

:: November, 2014: The House Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, requests emails from Mrs Clinton. Some 300 emails from the private account are delivered to the committee.

:: December, 2014: Mrs Clinton’s office delivers about 55,000 pages – some 30,490 emails – to the State Department. Another 31,830 emails from her tenure are deemed private and not delivered.

What the Obama narrative ignores is Clinton herself and her unattractiveness as a candidate, her failed, lacklustre campaign, the failed government and policies of Obama and the fact that the email scandal did not originate from Wikileaks and not from the Russians…it came from within the US government itself and numerous FOI requests from news organisations and civil rights groups seeking their release…Clinton  herself stated she wanted the emails released…is she a Russian spy?….

I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.        8:35 PM – 4 Mar 2015

Not to mention the FBI’s own investigation….Is Comey also a Russian spy?  America seems to be rife with them at the highest level…,.

FBI director James Comey stunned the world when he announced the agency was investigating new e-mails sent or received by Mrs Clinton.

Note that this latest investigation was not due to any ‘leaked’ emails but due to a prior FBI investigation…so again no Russians…

The New York Times has reported the messages were discovered after the FBI seized four electronic devices belonging to Mrs Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner. 

They were taken during an investigation into illicit text messages between the former Congressman and a 15-year-old girl.

Emails released due to FOI request by Vice News just before the election….not Russians…

Today, at 3:30, State Dept w/release 1250 pgs of HRC emails recovered by FBI in response to @vicenews #FOIA lawsuit against FBI/State   10:54 AM – 3 Nov 2016

Wikileaks stated Clinton’s own emails came as result of its FOI requests …

From Wikileaks in 2016:

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

From Al Jazeera in March 2015:

Revealed: Clinton’s office was warned over private email use

The New York Times reported Monday night that Clinton used only private email accounts during her tenure — a move that prevented the National Archives and Records Administration from automatically archiving her correspondence for historical purposes when she left office. Instead, the newspaper reported, two months ago Clinton aides turned over some 55,000 pages of emails after they reviewed all the messages she sent and received during her four-year tenure.

The revelations have set off a firestorm for the potential 2016 presidential candidate among open-records advocates who question whether Clinton took this approach to circumvent the normal archiving process for a position of that level.

Issues of computer security have dogged public officials since the dawn of the Internet age. President Bill Clinton, for instance, saved his former CIA director, John Deutch, from prosecution by pardoning him for having classified materials on his laptops and relabeling them as unclassified.

From CBS News in September 2015:

Hackers linked to Russia tried to infiltrate Hillary Clinton’s emails

Hackers linked to Russia tried at least five times to pry into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account while she was secretary of state, emails released Wednesday show.

The phishing attempts highlight the risk of Clinton’s unsecure email being pried open by foreign intelligence agencies.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department and other U.S. government agencies faced their own series of hacking attacks. U.S. counterterrorism officials have linked them to China and Russia. But the government has a large staff of information technology experts, whereas Clinton has yet to provide any information on who maintained her server and how well it was secured.

The emails released Wednesday also show a Clinton confidant urging her boss and others in June 2011 not to “telegraph” how often senior officials at the State Department relied on their private email accounts to do government business because it could inspire hackers to steal information.

The former first lady and New York senator had maintained that nothing was classified in her correspondence, but the intelligence community has identified messages containing “top secret” information.

Now, with Wednesday’s release, some 37 percent of Clinton’s work-related emails have been made public. The State Department has been releasing the emails at the end of every month, and it plans to finish publishing the emails in January, in accordance with a federal judge’s order.

From Wired April 2015:

For a secretary of state, running your own email server might be a clever—if controversial—way to keep your conversations hidden from journalists and their pesky Freedom of Information Act requests. But ask a few security experts, and the consensus is that it’s not a very smart way to keep those conversations hidden from hackers.

The BBC is reporting a Washingon Post breaking story that President Obama is a Russian agent…the Presidency has been hacked…

From the Washington Post:

The Washington Post can reveal that US government officials have announced that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is under investigation as astounding information has come to light that he has been working for the Russian intelligence services for at least two decades infiltrating the American political scene and succeeding wildly beyond whatever the Russians could ever have hoped for.

Our official sources indicate that Obama was first spotted by then Soviet ‘talent scouts’ in the 1980’s as he began to involve himself in protests against Apartheid in South Africa and going on to study political science and international relations at university before moving on to work in the sphere of human rights and involving himself in local politics.

It has been alleged before that Obama is a KGB agent….’A Russian government official bragged that Barack Obama was a KGB operative and that his presidency had been planned since birth, an American physicist and government contractor reports.  The boast from a Communist Party official reportedly occurred during a business trip to Russia,16 years before Barack Obama was ushered into the presidency of the United States. The official boasted angrily that…

“You Americans like to think you’re so perfect!” she snarled. “Well, what if I told you that very, very soon you’re going to have a black president… and he’s going to be a Communist!”

The KGB operative was not finished. As she had now dropped this bombshell on the entire gathering, she felt compelled to continue.

“His name is Barack,” she sneered. “His mother is white and his father is an African black. He has gone to the best schools, he is what you would call ‘Ivy League’.”’

The exact time of his recruitment as a Soviet agent is unknown but the officials state that the Russians funnelled funds to him via Saudi Arabia and the Clintons in order to facilitate his progress in the political world.  Saudi Arabia may not seem to be a likely ally of the Soviets at the time as they were on opposing sides in Afghanistan but both sides recognised that it would be advantageous to put aside their differences to further their own agendas.  The Soviets saw a man who would be highly disruptive to the status quo in White America, one who would seek to undermine White dominance and futher non-White interests, thus weakening, fracturing and destabilising the US, as well as one whose interests in ‘human rights’ would put a break on US ‘aggression’ around the world that was making life difficult for the Soviet’s own freedom of action as well as breaking the old ties with ‘White’, colonial Europe…making Europe vulnerable to Soviet intrigue and threats once again.  The Saudis saw a man who was a Muslim, one who could ease the encroachment of Islam into America, be a powerful voice at the UN for Islamic issues and of course, one who could put an end to America’s support for Israel…and a bonus came later as he was in a position as President to suppress the investigation and report that indicated the Saudis had been behind 9/11.

Remarkably, considering the timing as the Soviet empire crumbled, the plan continued and succeeded, the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, swiftly moving in to take over where the KGB left off.  Obama rapidly moved up the political ranks until he was in a position to compete for the Presidency.  The Clintons again obliged by having Hilary stand as the main opponent ensuring the votes for any other contenders were split and then stepping aside to allow Obama to win the Presidency.  Hilary of course eventually stood against Trump once Obama had run his time, but the Saudis had their own plan in place.  Clinton’s closest aide was a Saudi Muslim with links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Even with Obama gone the malign hand of the Wahhabi Muslims would still wield power behind the throne pushing Muslim interests.

The Russians could not believe that such an outlandish and ambitious plan had succeeded and yet it had.  The Russians had a man in place at the top of US politics.  No matter that their own military was run down, that their economy was on its knees, they had the most valuable asset of all in their battle with the Capitalists, a man on the inside who held the levers of power.  And what an asset…one who stood aside as Putin annexed the Crimea, who stood aside as the Ukraine was attacked, a man whose ‘cautious’ approach to international politics allowed Putin the opportunity to become the hero who saved Syria, not from the Islamic State which Russia refrains from attacking, but from the Free Syrian Army rebels who oppose the Russian’s other puppet President, Assad.  A further and unexpected prize was that Europe was flooded with migrants whose numbers alone threatened the stability of the continent but whose religious identity also meant that Europe would eventually be torn apart by disastrous religious wars allowing, once again, the Russians to sweep into Europe unopposed to re-establish the old empire ‘in the interests of peace and stability’.  An Obama who also stood aside as the Saudis launched an economic war against America aimed at destroying the US fracking industry and undermining its economy with the ultimate aim of keeping it reliant on Middle East oil and gas and thus obliged to dance to the Saudi tune.  An Obama whose early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq allowed the Saudi backed Islamic State to sweep into Iraq and to establish the new ‘Caliphate’….one that the Russians ‘mysteriously’ refuse to attack.

All that may be over now as Obama faces investigation and Clinton failed to take the Presidency. President-elect Trump is of course seemingly Putin friendly but the question remains just how that will pan out in the real world and will his admiration for Putin extend to more than merely cordial relations with Russia or a more sinister partnership that carves up the world into convenient spheres of influence, China aside, a new world in which the liberal, progressive project is made history and a new era of empires and colonialism takes over?

Whatever happens history may not look kindly upon the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

Oh hang on…that was all a big mistake, Obama’s not a Russian spy or a Muslim mole….must be something lost in translation as the BBC transcribed a Washington Post piece that announced the Russians had hacked the US power grid in somewhat alarmist tones…

The BBC started its report cautiously, the Washington Post [a Democrat supporting rag] it told us was reporting that ‘An electrical company in the US state of Vermont says it has found malware code allegedly used by Russian hackers on one of its company laptops.  The Burlington Electric Department said it had taken “immediate action to isolate” the computer, which was not connected to the electrical grid.  The government alerted them to the “Grizzly Steppe” code on Thursday.’

However it soon threw all such caution to the wind and began asserting that Russian fingerprints were all over everything from the attempt to take out Vermont’s power system to the US election’s rigging.  Never mind there seems to be no such attempt to hack Vermont’s power grid…the virus was on a laptop unconnected to the grid and probably infected by accident as the employee who used the laptop surfed the net in his own time. Not a targeted attack at all.

Infowars does what the BBC didn’t want to…adopt a sceptical stance to the Washington Post’s claims.

One other thing the BBC doesn’t bother to inform its audience of…the US’s own involvement in hacking and spying….strange really as the BBC was all over the revelations made by Snowden when they first came out…now they seem to have lost interest as they don’t play to the narrative now being peddled and used to attack Trump.

The US tapped Merkel’s phone and spied on her ministers…as well as on the French…

WikiLeaks: US spied on Angela Merkel’s ministers too, says German newspaper

US ‘spied on French presidents’ – Wikileaks

Odd how all that is being swept under the carpet as Obama proclaim’s his outrage at possible Russian cyberwarfare and claims Trump stole the Presidency because of that.

.

Leave Voters, the new Jews of Europe?

Who are the Fascists, who are the Gangsters?

Farage wants to control immigration.  He is denounced by the BBC as a Fascist, a Nazi even.  But is he the Fascist?

Or, are those who want to control what you say, what you think, how you behave, who want to control every aspect of your life, the real Fascists?’  We have been living in a version of 1984 for a long time now as our voices have been suppressed and our thoughts manipulated or made ‘unacceptable’, a war declared on ‘Britishness’.  It is a paradox that the loudest alarmists of the Liberal coterie declare we are heading towards the 1930’s again as they raise alarming but totally imaginery fantasies of Hitler on the march once more…but in one respect they are right, the vilification, demonisation and attacks, some actually physical, the death threats, those aimed at Leave voters, is certainly reminiscent of the 1930’s.  Leave voters have a good claim on being the ‘new Jews’ of Europe…how long before they are forced to wear Union Flag badges as marks of shame, how long before they  are forced to pay obeyance to the EU orthodoxy, swear loyalty to the Junckers of this world, how long before the bricks come through their windows?  The language used by the BBC journalists and presenters, by dictatorial politicians who want to overturn democracy and the Brexit vote, by the commentators who seek to denigrate, disparage and discredit Leave voters, is the real Fascism, language that also enables others, gives licence to them, to attack Leave voters, to spread hate, stir up anger and drive division in society.  It’s not just the big politicians like Farage that the tactics are used against, remember the UKIP councillor, Rozanne Duncan, whom the BBC set out to deliberately label as a racist as part of their campaign to win the EU referendum?  A massive organisation like the BBC falsely labelling a powerless and vulnerable woman as a racist without giving her the chance to defend herself.  For months the campaign of hate went on before the actual programme was broadcast as the BBC knowingly leaked out suggestions that Duncan had said something ‘racist’ thus releasing the hounds upon her.  Reminiscent of the 1930’s?  I’d say so. How about the use of vox pops?  A well known BBC tactic that selectively chooses who to interview and how to edit those interviews, and then draws their own, very selective, conclusions from them.  The BBC, as pointed out by ‘Is the BBC Biased?’ has been targeting a certain demographic as the ‘voice’ of the Leave voters….

From Emma Jane Kirky’s manipulative Brexit Street series on PM (making some of its Leave-voting ‘vox pops’ sound like stupid, feckless racists – to the delight of pro-EU types on Twitter) to Matthew Price’s startling “Not everyone’s so articulate” report on yesterday’s Today, both from the most deprived Leave-voting parts of two of the poorest places in England,…

…and…

…from Mark Easton and Ed Thomas’s various reports featuring either swastika-festooned or shaven-headed men as representative Leave voters to last week’s Holby City showing a white, working-class woman being stupid, cruel and racist towards a Polish immigrant (and duly getting her comeuppance)…

Have a look at this particularly nasty piece of work from the BBC that sets up two working class white guys down on their luck and exploits them to ‘illustrate’ how racist and uneducated Leave voters are [52 minutes in]…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt5l1_Xj2Jo

A very unpleasant piece of television abusing its power to cruelly abuse and misrepresent these two men and by extension all Brexit voters.

Those who value freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, democracy and genuine liberal values should think carefully about just who are the real ‘gangster’s, the real Fascists…it’s not those who you might think of course,  or rather those whom you are told to think of as Fascist.  The real Fascists are paradoxically those who claim to be the voice of the rational, reasoned, intelligent, moderate, progressive centre but who are anything but.

The BBC’s stalwart elder stateswoman, Libby Purves, who describes herself as being in the lefty ‘tribe’, has railed several times against the ‘Liberal’ howl of rage, anger and contempt against Brexit, Trump, and their voters here in the Sun in June and recently here in the Mail.   Note however, she does not criticise the BBC despite its massive campaign against Brexit and Trump and its sickening post-Brexit portrayal of Britain as a nastier, more racist place.

Despite her fine words and sentiments telling us that…

It was not the actual vote that shocked, it was the online squawk of reaction by my timeline, my tribe: cultural icons, colleagues, friends. If they feel “let down, betrayed, distressed” by the result, so did I by the mass response of the liberal media and arts sector to this vote against a 43-year-old administrative arrangement….the carry-on was beyond parody: anguished bunker mentality tinged with patronising, generalising hauteur about those who voted Leave….elitism erupted like a poisoned boil…..it is almost comic to watch the affluent metropolitan left being cross with the zero-hours strugglers of Sunderland for disrespecting the instructions of a Tory PM and big business.

…Purves’ final paragraph leaves us in no doubt what she really thinks and negates everything she just said…

OK, they[Leave voters] may have spoken wrong and plunged us into difficulties. But it is not fair to blame them more than the arrogant, incompetent Brussels institutions and the decades when governments neglected inequality.

Of course, there is racism to be fought. Yes, there was some disgusting campaigning by Farage. Yet that is no excuse for polishing your liberal credentials by making bogeymen of the poor, the old, the frightened and the insecure. They voted. Listen, engage, help.

That’s pretty arrogant, condescending, dismissive and not a little ‘elitist’ isn’t it?…note the use of the word ‘wrong’ to describe how people voted rather than saying she disagreed with them, and then the rather contemptuous description of the voters as poor, old, frightened [irrational fear and prejudice of immigration of course] and insecure.  So basically Purves’ narrative is exactly the same as the ‘squawking’ Remainers…the Leave voters were wrong, uneducated, bigoted and afraid….a fear whipped up by the ‘disgusting’ [ie racist] campaigning of the likes of the ‘Fascist’ Farage.

The same narrative that could be heard on the BBC on 5Live this morning as the trio of Pienaar, Angela Eagle and Paddy Ashdown lined up against the lone Ian Duncan-Smith as they ‘discussed’ the terrors of 2016, that is, Trump, Brexit, terrorism and Russian aggression, all being bracketed in the same category, with the future being essentially world breakdown, conflict with rising Fascism and gangsterism  laying ruin to the Liberal world.

Ashdown parroted his master’s voice, the sinister and contemptuous Farron, as he tried to tell us the pro-EU Establishment were now the insurgents…apparently the great unwashed have had their ‘howl of rage’ and, well, let’s just push past that and get on with our cosmopolitan, decent Europhile lives and stay in the EU…the new dispossessed, the new voiceless marginalised victims are Remain voters, the ‘progressive, moderate centre’…you know, the ‘decent, reasonable, intelligent’ people as Farron might portray them.  So the Remainers have no voice other than the vast majority of MPs and Lords, the bulk of the media, including of course the dominant and vastly too powerful BBC, the commentatriat, the arts and luvvies incorporated, Academia, Big Business and the City, and the dark forces of has-been politicians still lurking in the corridors of power?  Yes, I can see how they are utterly voiceless and without power and influence.  And as for that irrational, emotion driven ‘howl of rage’ of the Leave voters?  In fact that was completely rational, reasoned and justified anger at the imposition of a Liberal tyranny that inflicted huge changes on their societies, cultures and lives that they were not just not asked about, but were in fact deliberately lied to and misled about.

This morning’s ‘Point of View’ on R4 was another example of the BBC trying to define the post-Brexit narrative as being ‘nasty nationalists with a hint of the Nazi’ voting for Brexit whilst sensible, nice people wanted to vote for Remain.  We were told that Putin’s Fascism is coming to France and America.  Trump apparently is an autocratic dictator who will destroy the democratic America and drag the world down with it.  We heard, or were supposed to  infer, that Brexit voters were those nasty nationalists, a nationalism we were told that was not based on the love of a place or culture but on hatred of ‘the other’, Brexit voters, the ‘volk’, [yes that word was used…and is used in several Remainer articles deliberately associating Brexit with the Nazi’s love of the ‘Volk’…a rather cowardly, sly way of calling Brexiteers white supremacists] see themselves as victims of aliens groups taking over their land…Brexit demands ‘an enemy’, someone to hate.  As said this was not explicit demonisation of Leave voters, you of course were meant to understand the references without them being spelled out to you.

Just another example of the BBC’s language of hate drumming up hostility, division and fear targeting Leave voters just as the Nazis targeted the Jews.

Wanting to take a moment to wish everyone at Biased BBC my very best wishes for 2017. I think 2016 was a landmark year when the influence of the BBC (and the rest of the fake news media) was both exposed and disregarded by many people. It FAILED to stop us voting for Brexit, it FAILED to stop the Trump train in the States, just like it FAILED to stop the Conservatives getting a majority in 2015. The reason it’s stranglehold has been broken is because of the rise of the new media. Whether you like it or not, the social networks have risen up to a point where they are the chosen method of communication by the US President Elect, for instance. I am very active on Twitter, on Gab, on Youtube, as well as on A Tangled Web and this site. In addition I am working on a new book. So my time here is not as great as it once was but THAT is because I can expose and help replace the likes of the BBC in other ways. The thing that irritates me most about the BBC is that it still manages to raid us for £3,5bn a year to sustain its bias. Unlike other failing leftwing media outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times, the BBC can still call on a steady steam of enforced revenue to sustain itself. This is plainly wrong and needs changed. Because all political parties are scared of the BBC, they all resile from plunging a financial dagger through its black heart. Yet until they find the strength to do this, the BBC remains a danger. For that reason, sites like this are important and are read by a large number of concerned people.

A special thank you to Alan for keeping the site rocking when I am not about, much appreciated. A further thank you to Rob, our tech genius who also keeps the show on the electronic road.

That’s IT from me for 2016, thank you all very much for supporting the site, and see you all in the New Year!

The BBC continues to press ahead with its promotion of the liberal’s mythical utopian project that, as with Corbyn, fails to reflect reality and the facts.  Whether Brexit or Trump the BBC buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge reality and why it happened.

They keep talking about Brexit solely through an economic lens and, despite the evidence, try to paint a picture of doom and gloom whilst conversely not genuinely accepting that the EU is an economic basket case which in itself is a purely political project that has been forced through regardless of the disastrous economic consequences that are very real and very, very obvious.  When did the BBC ever ask what would have been the real result of staying inside the EU, an EU that is imploding on just about every front, economically, politically and socially?  They preferred to peddle the Remain claim that Brexit was a great unknown whilst the EU’s success and stability were a certainty.  Hmmm….so stupid…

Trump of course gets nothing but derision and mocking contempt, only yesterday we heard that people were looking for certainty and Trump recognised that…but of course ‘certainty’ is only for stupid people….so not only is Trump stupid but all those who voted for him….the ‘expert’ was absolutely certain about that.

Then there’s Obama, still the One who can do no wrong.  He’s at present making a lot of noise about Russia apparently hacking Clinton’s emails and effecting the outcome ofthe election…what the BBC reported as being like ‘a new Pearl Harbour’….lol.   If so…why?  Clinton must be seriously at fault allowing highly sensitive emails to be hacked and then why would such emails effect the outcome of the election? Only if they actually contained material that was seriously compromising for Clinton or the Democrats…the BBC doesn’t bother to investigate the emails preferring to avoid such difficult questions….as of course does Obama who should surely be disciplining Clinton for such a serious and dangerous breach of security.  Curiously the BBC seems unconcerned about the Russian spy, Snowden, who was aided and abetted by the Guardian, and the BBC itself, to attack US, and Western , intelligence and security, doing them enormous damage.

Obama is talking loudly of the threat to US democracy and when Trump won the Presidency Obama said…

“Everybody is sad when their side loses,” Mr. Obama said with Vice President Joseph R. Biden at his side. “The day after, we have to remember we’re actually all on one team. We are now all rooting for his [Mr. Trump‘s] success in uniting and leading the country. We are Americans first.”

However he has spent the last couple of weeks doing everything he can to undermine the new President and the democratic result of the election including of course pompous, sanctimonious speeches that ‘advise’ Trump on how to be a good President…something Obama knows little about…and as for democracy…Obama was pretty handy with those undemocratic executive orders using them to push through very controversial policies such as Obamacare, dodgy deals with the terrorist state of Iran and on  immigration.

The BBC of course doesn’t ask questions about the reasons for Obama’s attacks on Trump and the rhetoric about Russia…the BBC accepts it all as if every word were the truth and unpolitical when it is very obvious Obama is engaged in a highly partisan attempt to undermine Trump and make his presidency as difficult as possible.

Comes to something when we have to rely on ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine to bring us decent analysis of political news rather than the well-resourced and supposedly ‘gold-standard’ news organisation that is the BBC…

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up….this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures.

The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence “assessment” to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force Trump into an embarrassing political situation.

The BBC…business as normal then.

Nothing to do with BBC bias but it is such an important issue that I think it needs addressing.

Richard Hammond, of The Grand Tour, Neé Top Gear, is getting a spanking from the Gay fraternity for suggesting ice cream is ‘gay’….check out the outrage here.

Hammond must have read this piece from the Daily Stormer…

Then the trend became clear: gay and lesbian couples are especially sweet on ice cream

The Guardian of course is on the case telling us that Hammond’s unPC language even shocked Clarkson and May so outrageous was it…

Clarkson and May appeared taken aback as members of the studio audience applauded and cheered.

Never mind all the jokes are scripted…and Clarkson writes them.

Hammond can relax though…not only are there gay ice cream shops there are ones that sell ‘straight’ ice cream too…

Little did we know that this was an issue but apparently so…but even Facebook backs Hammond up…women like ice cream and real men like cars…..

Perhaps Hammond is hiding something…

Whatever next?  Doritos?

Anyway hope that’s put your minds to rest and that’s another issue of world shattering importance that we’ve put to bed…now onto Obama not interfering in another country’s politics once again as he tells us the Labour Party is disintegrating and on the verge of collapse as it flees from ‘fact and reality’.

The Guardian thinks Obama’s words so important that it is their headline story and Corbyn has had to scramble a response….guess that desire for non-interference in other nation’s political affairs has been shelved now the US elections are over and it’s business as normal.  Curiously Obama, whilst keen to release what the CIA said about Russia, isn’t so keen to release what intelligence says about Saudi Arabia being  behind 9/11.  Which is more important…Russia possibly releasing some emails that shed light on Clinton’s stupidity and possible criminality [and her links to Saudi Arabia] or a country attacking the US and setting off a chain of events worldwide that have changed the course of history?

Hope you all got the socks you wanted from Santa and may the baby Jesus guide you  to the best bargains in the sales.  However back to business here and a new year is fast approaching…a new year but same old bias…..The BBC’s new year revolution?  No more bias?  Guess that’ll be broken day one.  If so you know the drill…..

Damn, the Mail’s fast this morning.  Heard Kuenssberg on Today this morning say she was told that the Queen said she backed Brexit but didn’t report it as only one source…of course such high ethical and professional standards never stopped her ‘reporting’, or printing the legend as fact, that Boris was only backing Leave as a cunning ploy to snatch the Tory leadership…however the ease and readiness with which he stood down from that contest suggests he wasn’t really that bothered about the top job.

The Mail also spotted Kuenssberg’s admission….

`Queen backed Brexit,´ BBC journalist was told

The BBC’s political editor has said she was told that the Queen supported EU withdrawal, but did not report it as she could not find a second source.

Laura Kuenssberg said she was told about the alleged comment months before the eventual appearance of The Sun’s “Queen backs Brexit” headline in March.

The front-page story caused one of the biggest rows of the referendum campaign, leading to a successful complaint to press regulator Ipso by Buckingham Palace, which said it was “misleading”.

The BBC political editor told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In a casual chat with one of my contacts, they said ‘Do you know what? At some point this is going to come out, and I’m telling you now and I don’t know if the BBC would touch it, but the Queen told people at a private lunch that she thinks that we should leave the EU’.

“Apparently at this lunch she said ‘I don’t see why we can’t just get out. What’s the problem?’

“My jaw hit the floor. Very sadly, I only had one source. I spent the next few days trying to prove it. I couldn’t find the evidence.

“Lo and behold, a couple of months later, someone else did. Of course then ensued a huge row between that newspaper and the Palace over what had really been said or not said.”

Yep…bet she was gutted she ‘couldn’t’ report something that was so potentially damaging to the Remain camp’s campaign….she has admitted her ‘reporting’ about Boris was based merely on ‘vicious rumours’ spread by his enemies…so why not report what the Queen said if it came from a presumably reliable and credible source?

Interestingly she didn’t say who her source was…Gove was supposedly the source of the Sun’s story so if Kuenssberg’s source was not Gove…????!!!  She could just say it wasn’t Gove. Would back up the Sun’s original story.

Another amusing Mail tale of note…..Mail reports on the death of Status Quo’s Rick Parfitt…

At the peak of his musical powers, the then married English rocker was spending £1,000 a week on cocaine, £500 a week on vodka, and sleeping with so many groupies that he forgot their names. Pardiff is pictured with third wife….

Yep shocking that ‘Pardiff’ forgot groupies’ names.  Like the Mail’s conclusion that ‘he paid the price for his rock’n’roll lifestyle’…he was 68 and had a great life with all the trimmings.  I’m sure he’ll be rock and rolling in his grave to think he has missed out somehow….or not.  The Mail’s Xmas bashes must be on a level with Status Quo’s.

Contemporary anti-Semitism has been particularly prevalent on British university campuses since 2001 when the UN Conference against Racism in Durban accused Israel of the five cardinal sins against human rights: racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide, and crimes against humanity. Since then campus anti-Semitism has been cloaked in the language of human rights and promulgated in the so-called fight for Palestine; and student supporters of Israel have consequently been labelled as Nazis, apologists for racism, apologists for apartheid and racists by student supporters of Palestine. Although student supporters of Palestine may not intend to be anti-Semitic, the effect of their rhetoric has been to harass those students who support Israel, the overwhelming majority of whom happen to be Jewish.

Anti-Semitism on British University Campuses: An Intractable Problem?  2015

A quick one slipped under the Xmas tree to be opened Christmas morn…

We all know what the BBC thinks of those hill-billy crackers in the US, the rednecks who love their guns and their bibles, they’re there to be mocked, derided and denounced in horrified and appalled tones.  Imagine then how the BBC might react to the news of what the sockless, slip-on wearing, New York Times reading cosmopolitans are spending their money on…guns and baked beans.  The Trump apocalypse is coming.  But you know what….it’s OK, the BBC understands.…have all the guns you want because the world needs you to be safe…you are its future…or you were once….

Why US liberals are now buying guns too

Clara, a 28-year-old nursing student, grew up in the Mid-West, where “the folks that had guns were seen as hicks” or were just “culturally different”, she says.

But since the election of Donald Trump in November she has started going to a gun range for the first time and is shopping around for a semi-automatic pistol.

“It’s been seeing the way that Trump’s election has mobilised a lot of the far right and given them hope,” she says, citing a rise in reports of hate crimes and neo-Nazi activity.

So Liberals must arm themselves because of roaming bands of Fascist Trump supporters hunting down Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, transgender nursing students and Democrat voters.  No mention of gas chambers?  Surely the BBC missed a trick?  Then again it reports of ‘separatist’ movements as it coyly calls them in Catalonia, or indeed in Scotland, but you don’t hear the same language that the BBC uses for Right-Wing ‘separatists’ as in Gabriel Gatehouse’s attack on them in Austria and France in what could be considered hate speech as he called them Nazis and Fascists and claimed their policies smacked of the concentration camp and ethnic cleansing when in fact, if he’d bothered to listen, they were far, far from being anything like the scenario he painted….no mention of gas chambers but he wan’t far off.  How different the treatment then for one group of nationalists and another…the difference?  One group, the ‘Nazis’, wants to control immigration…the other doesn’t speak so much of it and the BBC doesn’t ask.

What else gets the BBC selective treatment?

How about Israel…the UN voted against the ‘illegal Jewish settlements in the illegally occupied West Bank’.  Hmmm…illegal settlers…illegal immigrants?  Aren’t they in fact refugees, many, ironically, driven from Europe by Muslim attacks, and so in a way justice is being served as Jews driven from Europe by Muslims end up doing to Palestinains what Muslim immigrants to Europe do to Jews?  Maybe ‘illegal Jewish settlers’ should actually be described as ‘undocumented migrants’?  You know like the millions of Mexicans who ‘illegally settle in and occupy’ the US?  Why are Jews in the West Bank pilloried and yet Mexicans are applauded and defended along with millions of Muslims who force their way into Europe illegally?

If Mexicans can invade and occupy the US and Muslims can invade and occupy Europe then Jews can invade and occupy Palestinian land…no?

Speaking of Jews…the BBC finally got around to reporting that Jews were under anti-Semitic attack in universities…or maybe not…the BBC took a different tack and has decided that there is no story here, Jews are not under attack and Muslims of course are not doing the attacking….and the BBC has proof that there is no anti-Semitism going on….

Jewish student groups deny university ‘no-go zones’

A claim that Jewish students avoid applying to certain UK universities over anti-Semitism fears has been criticised by a Jewish student group.

Baroness Ruth Deech, the former adjudicator for universities, told the Telegraph that Jewish students felt “unwelcome” on some campuses.

The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) denied that such no-go zones exist.

Note the plural ‘groups’ in the title when in fact it is one group…but is that really the case, is there really no anti-Semitism?…sure the UJS questioned the claim but why?  They know Jewish students suffer hugely from anti-Semitism, that is in major part why the UJS exists, to defend against such hate. …

We work with J-Socs and Jewish students nationwide to protect and maintain the welfare of our members and defend Jewish students’ interests on campus. We aim to empower Jewish students to ensure that they can study in a safe, inclusive and fair environment free from Antisemitism. We work directly with the CST in combatting Antisemitism. 

Consider this statement as the UJS was being asked to end relations with the ‘anti-Semitic’ NUS…

This motion threatens to reduce Jewish students’ role in NUS to victims of antisemitism, whereas the reality is that Jewish life is so much more – it’s vibrant and amazing. Voting against this motion is about giving ourselves the opportunity to show that we have identities to be proud of which we can’t do from outside.’

You might get the clue that the UJS’s position is political wanting to keep their enemies close so to speak and not make a huge fuss about anti-Semitism….Jews do not want to be seen merely as victims unlike so many other groups.

Note the BBC does not mention the massive furore over the NUS ‘s new Muslim head who was claimed to have made anti-Semitic statements.  A strange omission when you consider what the story is about….not so quiet when she was appointed…then it was a celebration of a Muslim getting into such a position.

The Times reported a different tale earlier in the year…

Young Jews reject top universities over antisemitism

So why has the BBC made the editorial decision to run as the main narrative that claims of anti-Semitism at universities are overplayed?  One look at the UJS’s website would show that they are being ‘diplomatic’ when they themselves downplay Deech’s report.  One look at news reports about anti-Semitism in universities would reveal the truth.  The BBC didn’t bother to get the truth because it doesn’t want to dig the dirt on a story that implicates Muslims and indeed Muslim countries that the BBC, whilst happy to complain about their actions in Yemen, seems reluctant to reveal what their malign influence is here in the UK.

Curiously elsewhere the UJS admits anti-Semitism is a problem not being addressed by the NUS…

Following the publication of the Institutional Racism Review (IRR) into the National Union of Students (NUS), UJS Campaigns Director Josh Nagli said:

‘It is clear that NUS will face challenges in breaking down the barriers that Black and Minority Ethnic students continue to face when engaging in its structures. UJS looks forward to playing its part and helping to create a more inclusive and welcoming space for all students.

‘However, many Jewish students are likely to be disappointed because, despite the NUS National President insisting that the report would look into all forms of racism, ‘which includes antisemitism’, there seems to be a lack of any in-depth examination of the challenges facing Jewish students. 

‘This is especially disappointing in light of the fact that Jewish students continue to articulate the struggles they face when engaging with the NUS. This issue was highlighted by the recent Home Affairs Select Committee report and reaffirmed by Government in its response, and it was expected that this would be addressed in the IRR.

‘The report’s treatment of the media coverage of this year’s National Conference is particularly troubling. In no way should reporting allegations of antisemitism be seen as negative reporting. By comparing the use of the word ‘antisemitism’ to words such as “shock” and “controversy”, the report trivialises antisemitism. This only goes further to delegitimise the real experiences of Jewish students.

Or this from February this year:

Anti-Semitism a major problem in UK universities, says former co-chair of Oxford University Labour Club

Funny how the BBC can always find a tale of the unexpected, the angle nobody else would consider…probably because it’s nonsense…whether its Liberals being hunted down in the US en masse or Jews being the most popular students at university.  The BBC can always be relied upon to bring you the news that tells you that everything you thought you knew is wrong.

Good job we have the wonderful BBC to eradicate fake news from the world and keep us so fully and entertainingly informed of what’s truly happening around the world.

Merry Christmas to all our readers and contributors…and a happy new Brexit to one and all…..especially him and him..