Who is more self-important, full of bluster and bull, the BBC’s Jon Sopel or The Donald?  Jon Sopel edges it I think.

The BBC is very pleased with its boy after his rudeness to Trump at the impromptu press conference and has been replaying his ‘impartial, free and fair’ joust with the President throughout the day with glee.   The Today show naturally had a pop at Trump and brought on Sopel to double up on his smugness. [08:23]

Sopel gave us a comedy routine rather than any real analysis of what was going on…for instance he comments on Trump’s hatred of the Media but instead of saying it was fully justified as the vast majority of the Media set themselves against Trump during the election, and that includes the BBC, Sopel told us he had decided that Trump must be watching the cable TV all day instead of governing.  Sopel’s so proud of that analysis, in fact he thinks it’s the only point really worth making, that he puts pen to paper and lays out the full glory of his journalism for us to see…

And here’s my one curious takeaway.

The media that he professes to hate and despise he seems to spend an awful lot of time watching.

You wonder, when does he find time to govern?

Never said that about Obama when he was on the golf course.

He then came up with a tale of a Republican senator contacting the Media and saying Trump was in need of therapy….no mention of who that senator was or whether he was one of those utterly opposed to Trump from the start.  The BBC doesn’t like Trump’s behaviour and takes a superior attitude towards it…Sopel says he might ‘quietly’ suggest things aren’t going smoothly…never mind that no other administration has gone in anyway differently.  Sopel decides that Trump does not like the drudge and detail of goverment…it’s all chaos…he just loves the adoration of the crowd.  Just another smug put down.

The BBC then makes the mistake of bringing on Peter Oborne who gave Sopel both barrels for his hypocrisy, his ‘sneering, superficial, arrogant smugness’, telling us that what is going on is nothing new and that Sopel was a fawning Blairite sycophant who never said such things about Blair despite Blair being so very similar to Trump in so many ways.  The rather shell-shocked Webb and Sopel laugh this off rather than admit to the reality and truthfulness of the comments.

Sopel was later [Radio 2  around 12:07] also dismissed as irrelevant by one of his own BBC colleagues, Mark Lawson, in an indirect way as he stepped up to ‘defend’ Trump or at least put Trump’s case for him…though he still managed to slip in several remarks about psychiatrists…guess you just can’t take the BBC out of the man….and Vanessa Feltz asked if we thought Trump was absurd, crazy and dangerous or maybe he is talking directly to the people…no bias there then.  Lawson thinks Trump has many bad points but says so had every other President…the difference is how it’s being reported…by the likes of Sopel perhaps?  As for a ‘chaotic’ administration, well Trump’s only been in office four weeks and other administrations hadn’t appointed all their officials after years in office…so a couple of weeks is nothing…and of course people get dismissed all the time even as they are announced as the new appointee.

I’m guessing the Media doesn’t like being called out on its bias and anti-Trump messaging….if only more politicians put the boot into the smug shysters of the media the world would be a better place.  And I reckon you could quite truthfully accuse Sopel of showboating and enjoying the limelight just as he accuses Trump of doing…and of not bothering with the detail…though the BBC never did as it ignored Trump’s policies during the election and settled for shouting him down as a racist, sexist Islamophobe instead.

Why is the BBC spending taxpayers’ money to perpetuate the fairy tale of a golden age of Islam? Why is the Beeb peddling a PC myth that is skewed and reductionist at best and ideologically freighted and erroneous at worst?

The BBC’s re-creation of the Middle Ages depicts Cordoba in Muslim Spain with ‘street lighting and running water.’ In contrast Londoners ‘lived in timber-framed houses and used the river as their sewer.’ ‘Muslims were going to beauty parlours, using deodorants and drinking from glasses, at a time when English books of behaviour were still telling page-boys not to pick their nose over their food, spit on the table, or throw uneaten food onto the floor,’ says Auntie, brainwashing school children in her history lessons.

The West was in the gutter while the Muslim world was bathing in perfume. That’s right, says the BBC. Islamic civilisation extricated Europe from the Dark Ages and brought her kicking and screaming into the Enlightenment. Is the Beeb telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?  From Conservative Woman

Ever think the BBC would piss on you from on high and tell you it’s raining? Well they may not be giving you golden showers but they are showering us with a load of old bull with their narrative about the ‘Golden Age of Islamic Science’…yet again.

Melvyn Bragg was pushing the narrative on ‘In Our Time’ which has become very political with subjects so often chosen to be lessons or warnings from history paralleling events today from which we must learn.

Bragg introduced the programme with the thought that Islam and the Koran were the driving forces behind the urge to learn during the ‘Golden Age’.  However, Jim Al Khalili, not a Muslim, disagreed and put a spanner in the works as he said that actually until the Abbasid rule there was no rush to learn and that it was in fact the Abbasid’s obsession with the Persians and their long tradition of learning and scholarship that influenced Muslim era scholars.  Amused to hear Bragg immediately jump in and suggest to Al Khalili that surely Islam and the Koran demanded Muslims learn…I can imagine Bragg silently urging Al Khalili to keep to the narrative….which he then obediently reverted to before going back and saying no, really it was the Persian thing which did it.

Bragg tells us that the Koran and Hadith impress upon Muslims the need to learn….and indeed they do but not in the way Bragg is claiming…as an intellectual knowledge of the world.  It is religious knowledge of the Koran and its commands that is necessary for Muslims to learn….that is why non-Muslims are described as ‘ignorant cattle’ because they have no knowledge of Allah.

When the Koran commands you to read it means read the Koran not the Encyclopedia Brittanica…

The Holy Quran is a divine book in which Allah (s.w.t) has blessed us with a complete code of conduct. Quran includes every aspect of life which a person needs to know about. The best of all education in this world is Qur’an and acquiring it is mandatory for every human being. It is the primary and highly signified learning which is solution to all problems and issues of our life. Learning Quran is a full time benefiting and comforting work which is worth doing.

Quran learning is a very noble act, which should be performed by every Muslim man and woman. It gives him/her knowledge about all aspects of life, brings near to the Creator, and will be a proof of the rewards of his/her good deeds on the Day of Judgment.

Quran learning is equally mandatory on Muslim men and women.

The benefits of Quran learning are unlimited with primary benefit of guidance towards the straight path.

Read! In the Name of your Lord Who has created (all that exists).He has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood). Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous. Who has taught (the writing) by the pen. He has taught man that which he knew not” [al-‘Alaq 96:1-5]

We learn this from a Hadith that best of all are those who are associated with Quran(by learning it and imparting its beneficial knowledge) as RasulUllah(s.a.w) said:

“The best of you is he who learnt the Holy Quran and taught it to others.” (Bukhari)

Just the usual pro-Islam propaganda from the BBC.  More post-truth ignorance and fake news.

The Obligation of Jihad

“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95

Graeme Wood’s The Way of the Strangers: Encounters with the Islamic State reminds us of something that ought to be obvious: Islamic State is very Islamic. “The reality is,” Wood wrote, “that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” “The notion that religious belief is a minor factor in the rise of the Islamic State,” he observes, “is belied by a crushing weight of evidence that religion matters deeply to the vast majority of those who have travelled to fight.”

Pankaj Mishra, someone so pro-Islam it must hurt.  Someone so pro-Islam that he is in complete denial about the very real effect of the ideology upon its devotees.  Someone so pro-Islam the BBC would inevitably want to exploit his thinking.

We’ve already had a look at Pankaj Mishra’s first outing on Book of the Week and concluded that it’s no coincidence that his pro-Islam, anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Hindu rhetoric gets pride of place on the BBC and that perhaps ‘Butterflies and Wheels’ is correct when they conclude about his writing that….‘It’s ugly, nasty, bullying, innuendo-laden stuff…. patronizing clueless nonsense.’

Listening to today’s serving and it just confirms my initial thoughts as we get a determined defence of Islam and the usual narrative that is peddled by the BBC and Muslim activists in the UK trying to distance ISIS from their own radical activities.

What we got was an attempt to airbrush Islam out of the picture as he tried to suggest that Muslim terrorists had no  religious intentions but were in fact religiously illiterate and driven by globalisation not religion….there is no scriptural imperative…which kind of ignores the facts on the ground.  He tells us that ISIS recruits are all petty criminals with a liking for drink, drugs and women and whose knowledge of Islam is limited to what they can glean from ‘Islam for Dummies’.   That’s of course a narrative pushed by the likes of Mehdi Hassan, who as a Shia has no liking for the Sunni ISIS but is himself an Islamist. A narrative that deliberately ignores all the highly educated and devout recruits who head out to Syria to join ISIS….the same sort of people who, had they remained in the UK, would be fêted by the BBC as devout Muslims in need of protection from the Islamophobes.

So all those Muslim terrorists who do it in the name of Islam, all those terrorists who shout Allah Akbar as they pull the trigger, all those Muslims who rush to join a fundamentalist Islamic State, they’re none of them real Muslims.

But again we’ve looked at this many times…and that’s a narrative that’s a huge lie…it has everything to do with Islam and until you accept that truth you will never find a solution.

Tom Holland: We must not deny the religious roots of Islamic State

Salafism today is probably the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world. The interpretation that Isis applies to Muslim scripture may be exceptional for its savagery – but not for its literalism. Islamic State, in its conceit that it has trampled down the weeds and briars of tradition and penetrated to the truth of God’s dictates, is recognisably Salafist. When Islamic State fighters smash the statues of pagan gods, they are following the example of the Prophet; when they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are following the example of the warriors of the original caliphate; when they execute enemy combatants, and impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not glory in.

Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is.

Then how about an expert on ISIS?  Could he tell  us if the religion of peace is the source of so much trouble?  You betcha…

Graeme Wood’s The Way of the Strangers: Encounters with the Islamic State reminds us of something that ought to be obvious: Islamic State is very Islamic.

Time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future. In Islamic State’s propaganda, they certainly are. Sayings attributed to Muhammad that foretold how the armies of Islam would defeat the armies of the Cross serve their ideologues as a hall of mirrors. What happened in the Crusades is happening now; and what happens now foreshadows what is to come.

How much does Islamic State actually believe this stuff? The assumption that it is a proxy for other concerns – born of US foreign policy, or social deprivation, or Islamophobia – comes naturally to commentators in the West. Partly this is because their instincts are often secular and liberal; partly it reflects a proper concern not to tar mainstream Islam with the brush of terrorism.

“The reality is,” Wood wrote, “that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” The strain of the religion that it was channelling derived “from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam” and was fixated on two distinct moments of time: the age of Muhammad and the end of days long promised in Muslim apocalyptic writings. Members of Islamic State, citing the Quran and sayings attributed to the Prophet in their support, believe themselves charged by God with expediting the end of days. It is their mandate utterly to annihilate kufr: disbelief. The world must be washed in blood, so that the divine purpose may be fulfilled. The options for negotiating this around a table at Geneva are, to put it mildly, limited.

“The notion that religious belief is a minor factor in the rise of the Islamic State,” he observes, “is belied by a crushing weight of evidence that religion matters deeply to the vast majority of those who have travelled to fight.”

When Wood asks Hamza Yusuf, an eminent Berkeley Sufi, to demonstrate the group’s errors by relying only on the texts revealed to the Prophet, he struggles to do so: “Yusuf could not point to an instance where the Islamic State was flat-out, verifiably wrong.” This does not mean that it is right but it does suggest – despite what most Muslims desperately and understandably want to believe – that it is no less authentically Islamic than any other manifestation of Islam.

The achievement of Wood’s gripping, sobering and revelatory book is to open our eyes to what the implications of that for all of us may be.

As with Donald T. Trump anyone coming in to drain the swamp had better watch out…the inhabitants of the swamp won’t take it lying down.

There’s going to be a new editor for the Today programme and already she’s shaking things up and disturbing the entrenched orthodox…

BBC slaps down new Today programme editor over pledge to open Thought for the Day to humanists

The new editor of the Today programme has been rebuked by the BBC before taking up her post over a pledge to open up Thought for the Day to humanists.

Sarah Sands, who will join the show later this year, said that the religious slot, which airs at around 7.45am, should surely “also include humanists”, because religion was “robust enough to have challengers”.

But a BBC spokesman said that Ms Sands, the current editor of the Evening Standard, would not have any say over the daily broadcast, which is overseen by the corporation’s religion department, and that there were “no plans” to change its format.

In a piece in the Financial Times Ms Sands wrote: “This slot, it seems to me, is about the meaning of life, so the title hardly does it justice. It is much, much more than platitudes about Jesus and Brexit, balanced now and then with a view from another faith.

“And if this is about profound faith, surely we should also include humanists? I admire religion and believe it is robust enough to have challengers. I wonder what the listeners think of this.”

To me the interesting comment is not on Thought for the Day but is the one about Brexit…is this a hint that she may change the Today show approach to Brexit…and actually introduce more balanced reporting on the subject?

Der Spiegel seems a bit behind the times as it suggests..

It’s High Time for a European Broadcasting Service

Propaganda spreads faster on social media than serious information and we’ve just experienced what an election looks like in the post-factual world. The European Union should launch its own broadcasting channel to counter the lies, draw Europe together and defend democracy.

The EBC would not be, and should not be perceived to be, a propaganda instrument of the European Union. Firm safeguards will need to be put in place to ensure its independence and impartiality and this should be an integral part of its governance structure.

We already have an EBS….it’s pronounced BBC…and as with much of the EU infrastructure its paid for by us Brits.  Speaking of which….the Today show told us this morning that Cornish pasties are under threat #duetoBrexit…EU funding for all sorts of protections for UK products will be cut off…..’EU funding’?  Hmmm…when Boris and Co said we sent £350 million per week to the EU the BBC said oh no we don’t because we get so much of that back and accused Boris of having stolen the referendum…but now the BBC uses similar book cooking accountancy to say the money we get back is from the EU when it is in fact money we have sent to the EU…the same money that the BBC told us Boris was lying about…so now the BBC is lying.  Fake news, post truth?  You bet.

Trump says in his latest Press conference [from 48 mins]…

“The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about it we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk about it. We have to find out what’s going on because the press honestly is out of control.”

Guess he is talking about ‘The Beauty’ that is the BBC.  Guess he’s right too.

The BBC are up to their old tricks again, vilifying the ‘Israelis’ and blaming them for all the violence in the world.

FOOC visited Lebanon where we are told everyone is getting along famously now, Muslim and Christian living in a wonderful multicultural utopia.  Just one fly in the ointment…those Jews across the border.

After several heartwarming tales of mutual respect and cooperation and Muslim/Christian knees-ups, the piece finished with a comment about a memorial for 28 dead…’many of them children‘, killed by Israeli bombs.  Now why did the BBC feel the need to mention that?  Thousands have died in Lebanon from all sorts of atrocities…and yet the BBC rounds off a report with a comment targeting the Jews.

Anyone wonder where Mel Gibson got the idea that the Jews were the origin of all the wars in the world?  Does he watch the BBC?

Others have a less rosy view of what is happening in Lebanon…  ‘My enemy’s enemy’….

Demonstrations and clashes in Lebanon in recent weeks reflect significant changes in the nature of Muslim-Christian relations in that country. Current developments increasingly involve alliances between important Christian and Muslim groups. Tragically, however, the new-found Muslim-Christian cooperation is part of current conflict within Lebanon rather than involving efforts for increased stability and peace in the country.

In the current tensions, however, the basic conflicts are between Sunnis and Shi’is, with Christians forming some alliances with groups on both sides of the current battles. The battle lines in Beirut reflect the changing conflict. Anthony Shadid notes that the “line of separation between Sunnis and Shiites” is roughly the same as the “Green Line” separating Muslim and Christian combatants in the old civil war. (Washington Post, 27 January 2007). In the new struggle, large Christian groups have joined with their old rivals, the Sunnis, in supporting the Siniora government, while a controversial Christian former militia leader and presidential aspirant, Michel Aoun, has joined forces with Hizbullah in opposing the current government.

Or this on a similar note….

This unlikely alliance between Christians and Hezbollah is a far cry from the adversarial relationship depicted between the two groups in the region.

According to the IB Times report, however, the alliance is one of convenience. Hezbollah is Iran’s strongest proxy in that area of Lebanon and has been a key factor in keeping President Bashar Assad’s regime in power after four years of the Syrian war. Protecting Ras Baalbek is a priority for the group because losing it to ISIS would put the surrounding Shiite towns under direct threat.

As a result, Hezbollah has invested heavily in sustaining the relationship with Christians.

The BBC told us the new accord was because they were all tired of fighting…seems that the new accord is all about fighting, they’re not tired at all, they just have more urgent priorities and different people to kill.  Good old BBC, spinning away as always…more fake news.

We have already had a look at the BBC’s upcoming attempt to portray a post-Brexit Britain as akin to something that occupied Europe would have recognised in their latest piece of propaganda, SS-GB…and if you doubt that is the BBC’s intent just see what the actors think it means…

Rufus Sewell in the Sunday Times….

“I thnk reducing Nazis to werewolves and zombies and vampires and aliens, as a knd of entertainment, takes us away from the important fact that they were human beings.  Germany was not populated at that time by all the evil people in the world.  It happened to a lot of normal people.  It could happen again.  It nearly happened here.  What’s vital is that you get the story of the human beings being sucked into an evil-world view without knowing it.  That’s one of the things that makes it so timely that we’re doing it now.”

Maeve Dermody fellow actor…

“The rise in nationalist sentiment around the world makes this warning from an imagined history unusually pertinent….we have such a diminished sense of history.”

Brexit voters were characterised as people with “primitive, savage and evil impulses’ on ‘Book of the week’ this week and today we had yet another example of the BBC demonising and generating hate against Leave voters on the Today show.

We had a ‘door-to-door’ poet walking up to people and creating a personalised poem for them based on what is important to them in their lives.  At 08:50 we had John who said what was important to him was immigration, you immediately got a negative vibe from the poet.  What we didn’t get was a poem.  The BBC skipped that and went on ‘a few doors down’ where they found Alan [no relation] who was having his poem delivered to him…on Prejudice.  Just pure coincidence I’m sure and not staged at all by slick editing.  Alan, naturally, has a German mother who was an immigrant and suffered abuse….when did she come here?  Just after the war?  We weren’t told.  How many doors did they have to knock on to find this piece of ‘gold’?

What was the poet’s idea on ‘prejudice’?  Poor old John and people with similar concerns were dismissed as drunken, spiteful Far Right Nazis who would finish off the unwelcome immigrants by gassing them in concentration camps.  I kid you not.  No mention of ‘gas’ of course but it was implicit and obviously intended for you to think of as the end game.

What on earth possessed the editor or whoever cobbled such a piece of offensive trash together to put that on air?  Clearly the ‘BBC’ has lost all sense of proportion and integrity and is spiralling out of control as it tries to smash Brexit by vilifying those who voted for it.

I see no reason why Lord Hall, as the man in ultimate charge of the BBC, should not have a visit from the police as his organisation is deliberately setting out to generate as much hate against those who voted for Brexit and want to control immigration as possible.  Lock him up!

The BBC is peddling fake news, and it’s a hate crime, just as they did, and do, with Trump as their alarmist and prejudiced reporting quite probably helped to incite a Bitish man to try and kill him.

The BBC’s mind has gone blank…all is a blur…thankfully…forgetfulness is a quality that preserves their dignity.

I was somewhat surprised to hear the BBC castigating the newspapers on ‘You and Yours’ for being full of stories of food prices rocketing due to Brexit.  Surprised because this has been a favourite BBC narrative since the referendum…food prices would rocket and we’d all starve…#DuetoBrexit.

I was also surprised to hear that the present 2.6% rise in wages is considered a low rate of rise by the BBC…after having spent years telling  us Austerity was killing the economy and that wages were stagnating  because of it.  Although 2.6%, a considerable rise on what was happening over the last few years, is considered ‘low’ by the BBC they think a fall in the wage rate rise, from 2.7 to that 2.6% is a  significant sign of impending doom.  Odd that…a comparatively large rise is low but a miniscule fall is significant.  Only on the BBC.  And I note the BBC today was repeatedly broadcasting some thinktank’s claim that we are being impoverished by inflation as wages aren’t keeping up…so inflation is what, 1.8%?, and wages are rising 2.6%……maybe my maths is bad but I’m sure 2.6 is more than 1.8….yep, the BBC even confirms that, and negates its own reports on the same subject…‘Wages grew faster than the rate of inflation at the end of 2016, official figures show.’

Also odd that no one at the BBC seems to have noticed that whilst Obama moaned about the Russians spying on the US, the US has no problem spying on the Russian ambassador..and Mike Flynn [Who is a disaffected Democrat…“I grew up as a Democrat in a very strong Democratic family, but I will tell you that Democratic party that exists in this country is not the Democratic Party that I grew up around in my upbringing,” he said. “I vote for leaders.”]

Curious US intelligence is unconcerned about the Clintons being funded by the Saudis…whom documents suggest were behind 9/11 and who back ISIS now…or about the economic war that Saudis declared on the US when it tried to close down the US fracking industry and end cheap oil in order to keep its dominance of the oil and gas market.

Curious the BBC is so concerned about the Russians hacking our own democracy and yet are unconcerned about the billions the Saudis pour into this country in order to influence our politicians, media, influential thinkers and educators as well as funding Islamic fundamentalism within the Muslim community in the UK.

Oh for the days when it was ‘Better to be Red than dead’…now the BBC prefers ‘Better Muhammed than dead’.  Not quite so catchy but it’ll do.

You have to hand it to the BBC, they do have chutzpah! How else to explain them doing their level best to portray notorious race hustler Diane Abbott as a role model for women entering politics?

Women may be deterred from entering politics because of abuse suffered by female MPs, Diane Abbott says. The shadow home secretary said she was speaking out about her own experiences after recently receiving a series of threats and insults. Last week Brexit secretary David Davis was branded “sexist” for reportedly sending a text saying he would not hug Ms Abbott because he was “not blind”.

Now to be fair, David Davis was wrong to say what he did. I don’t believe that a blind person would want to hug the odious Abbott, not for her looks but for her vile political views.  The BBC may be seeking to confer Sainthood on Abbott but I am convinced the more she speaks the more she destroys Labour.

I’m old enough to remember when the BBC took a very sympathetic line to the old USSR. But things have changed and the BBC now leads the charge against Putin. They have worked themselves up into a frenzy over the resignation of General Flynn, delighted that a scalp has been obtained so early on in the life of the Trump administration. They aren’t bothered about how it came to be that Flynn was hung out to dry by Obama era operatives still within the US intelligence services – the “Deep State’ as some refer to it. No, the BBC angle is that Trump is colluding with Putin in ways that they can’t quite work out, and so endless hours are being given to examining the issue.  Russia IS the BBC bogey-man, the nation that they would quite like us to go to war – and their visceral hatred of Putin shows,