Category Archives: BBC bias

We haven’t down any climate change for a while, taken over by Trump and Brexit as we have been….but here goes...the BBC’s take on Trump’s climate change policies……

Are the recent actions taken by the Trump team on the issues of climate and energy the opening shots in a war on knowledge?

So are all these moves evidence of a malevolent mindset, determined to crush all this snowflake climate change chatter… taking an ideological stand against what they might see as “warmist” propaganda?

Definitely, according to Alden Meyer, a veteran climate campaigner with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

A ‘war on knowledge’ and a ‘malevolent mindset’?  Cor blimey.  Stone the crows.  It’s wrtten by the BBC’s Matt McGrath but its sensationalist, alarmist, fact-free, highly speculative and childish tone suggests another hand at work.

“We are beginning to see our fears realised less than a week after President Trump has taken office,” said Bob Ward, from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“I hope that the Prime Minister will challenge President Trump about this censorship and political interference in the process of gaining and sharing knowledge about climate change during their meeting on Friday.”

Bob Ward eh?  Who’d have thought that the BBC would go to the shrill non-scientist PR monkey of Big Oil for a quote?  This is what his ‘green’ boss says…. ‘Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.’…..not ‘The Truth’ then?

Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.

Never mind there’s going to be a march…..

A march on Washington by scientists is being proposed, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts have been created based on the the idea that “an American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world”.

Guarantee you’ll hear a lot about that on the Beeb.  The end of the world is nigh.  Or not.

From Janet Daley in the Telegraph…

The BBC foists on us a skewed version of reality
The news media are engaged in a political argument about whether the purpose of journalism is to report the world as it is or to purvey an idealised view
So this is where the bigger question comes in: what is the dissemination of news for? For the BBC – by which I mean, for those who decide these things at the corporation – there is little doubt that the function of news broadcasting is to enlighten the public. I use that word advisedly, in its specialised sense, meaning not simply to inform but to “free from prejudice and superstition”.
BBC news output is specifically designed to counter what it sees as ignorance and popular prejudices. Its coverage of issues in which it believes such prejudices to be rife – immigration, for example – is intended to be instructional and, specifically corrective of what its managers think of, and describe openly in conversation, as the influence of the “Right-wing press”.
The unabashed dissemination of this highly political official viewpoint is justified on the grounds that it is needed to balance the influence of scurrilous newspapers.

Whilst the BBC cheerfully explains away the murder of Jews in Europe by Muslims as justifiable because of what the BBC considers Israel’s ‘war crimes’ in Gaza it reacts with horror, and dishonesty, to Trump’s statement that he thinks waterboarding works and can be justified.

The BBC started the day with a brief moment of honesty as it reported that Trump said he would defer to his security and intelligence advisers as to whether to use such interrogation techniques.  This qualifying piece of information, kind of essential you’d think to the story, rapidly vanished from the news bulletins and all we got was ‘Trump’s going to drill the kneecaps of Muslim babies!!!’ [oh…no, that’s the BBC’s other favoured terror group, the IRA]…this is a normal BBC tactic…have at least one mention of the full story so that when someone complains they can point to that and say everything’s very, very impartial and above board.  For example the BBC does report that he would defer to his advisers here.…but why edit that out in other reports when it is so relevant and critical to the story?

What else is missing?  That he would only do what is legal.

Look at this write up on the BBC website…..both important qualifications to the story are missing…that he would defer to his advisers and that he would only do what is legal.  How can the BBC miss out two such important parts of the story?  Only if you’re desperate to paint Trump as some sort of wild-eyed, reckless thug with no respect for humanity or the rule of law would you do that…I’m sure the BBC is not trying to do that.

Here’s the limited BBC quote…

The issue of torture rose up the agenda after the president’s comments to ABC News on Wednesday.

He said: “When they’re shooting, when they’re chopping off the heads of our people and other people, when they’re chopping off the heads of people because they happen to be a Christian in the Middle East, when Isis (IS) is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since Medieval times, would I feel strongly about waterboarding?

“I have spoken with people at the highest level of intelligence and I asked them the question ‘Does it work? Does torture work?’ and the answer was ‘Yes, absolutely’.”

Ae least they include the bit where he says the intelligence people say torture works…which is at odds with what the BBC has been reporting elsewhere telling us that an ex-CIA chief said waterboarding doesn’t work.

This video is also interesting…check out the reaction of the audience…very much at odds with the BBC’s assertion that Trump is at loggerheads with the CIA….

The BBC is upset…Trump thinks illegal immigrants may have voted in the election….The BBC has mobilised its ‘Reality Check’ team to counter Trump’s lies…

Donald Trump and his team have referred to two studies they say show the threat posed by unauthorised voting; both have been challenged.

A 2014 study published in Electoral Studies found evidence that suggested non-citizens do vote and “can change the outcome of close races”. Donald Trump referred to this study on the campaign trail in Wisconsin on 17 October.

The research has been roundly criticised by political scientists who said it misinterpreted the data.

During the campaign, Mr Trump also referred to a 2012 Pew Center on the States study that found 1.8 million dead Americans were still registered. The deceased, alleged Mr Trump, were still voting. The report, however, does not make any statements about this claim.

The BBC dismisses Trump’s concerns with a swift reference to ‘others roundly criticising’.  That of course does not mean they are right but the BBC for some reason accepts their word.

What did the 2014 study say?

First use of representative sample to measure non-citizen voting in USA.

Some non-citizens cast votes in U.S. elections despite legal bans.

Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.

Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.

Voter photo-identification rules have limited effect on non-citizen participation.

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Pretty clear what that study found.

What of the Pew study?, and note the Pew studies are only of a few thousand people exactly the same as the above…and yet the BBC’s critics of Trump say that study is not representative enough.

The Pew study says that the US voter registration system is open to fraud as well as being inefficient, costly and lessens confidence in the integrity of the system and thus in the results of any election….

Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient
Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System
Needs an Upgrade

These systems are plagued with errors and inefficiencies that waste taxpayer dollars, undermine voter confidence, and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections.

The inability of this paper-based process to keep up with voters as they move or die can lead to problems with the rolls, including the perception that they lack integrity or could be susceptible to fraud.

In all, more than 2.75 million people appear to have multiple registrations.

Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:

1. Approximately 24 million—one of
   every eight—voter registrations in the
   United States are no longer valid or
   are significantly inaccurate.
2. More than 1.8 million deceased
   individuals are listed as voters.
3. Approximately 2.75 million people
   have registrations in more than one
   state.
   Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least
   51 million eligible U.S. citizens are
   unregistered, or more than 24 percent of
   the eligible population

In the 2008 general election, 2.2 million votes were lost because of registration problems, according to a survey by researchers at the California Institute of Technology/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Voting Technology Project.

Although clearly not linked to illegal immigrants directly it does suggest that elections in the US are not as confidence inspiring as they should be…if this was the UK I’m sure the BBC and Guardian would be spluttering in outrage…until they found out that it was mostly in certain immigrant areas that voter fraud was prevalent.

Trump may have a legitimate concern but the BBC are determined to ‘prove’ him wrong regardless and sides with his critics….the BBC tells us Trump is going to have an investigation but that he ‘has no evidence’….well, the studies show he does have enough evidence that would raise concerns and that is why he is having an ‘investigation’….an investigation is not a policy enacted to tackle a known problem which is what the BBC seems to be saying, it’s an ‘investigation’ to determine if there really is a problem.

Note that ‘liberal leaning’ parties like the Democrats want loose electoral laws as it favours them (as in the UK where immigrants will mostly vote Labour…and that was one of the main intentions behind Labour’s mass immigration open door policy of course.)

Nate Silver, an acclaimed statistician with the forecasting firm Five Thirty Eight, calculated that states with newly implemented voter ID laws will experience turnout decrease by as much as 2.4 percent of the registered voter population.

Almost every day, I get e-mails and Twitter messages asking me about the effect of voter identification laws on turnout. Most of these messages, I presume, are from Democrats. They worry that more onerous laws, like those in Pennsylvania, could make it more difficult for Democratic-leaning voting groups like African-Americans and young voters to participate in this November’s election.

My view is that something which might reduce turnout by 2 percent in a key state is meaningful in a practical sense.

It’s clear enough that stricter voter ID requirements are probably bad for Democrats, on balance. In almost every state where the ID laws have been at issue, Republican governors and legislatures have been on the side of passing stricter ones, while Democrats have sought to block them…. higher turnout is helpful to Democrats, on balance. If you take the average between them, it suggests that a 1-point increase in turnout would improve the Democrat’s margin in the popular vote by a half a percentage point, accounting for other factors.

 

Shortly before Sid Miller was sworn into office, the newly elected Texas agriculture chief was asked at a conservative policy forum what keeps him up at night.

“Bad Mexican food,” he said.

Then, after allowing a few moments for laughter: 

“Actually, I sleep pretty well, but I do have some long-range concerns as I hold those two grandbabies on my lap, and I happen to wonder: When they have grandbabies to hold in their lap, will we be a socialist country? Will we be a Muslim country?”

Poor old Sid Miller, invited to talk on the BBC he probably thought he was going to appear on one of the world’s most prestigious and respected political and current affairs programmes that would treat him with fairness, impartiality and respect.  Little did he realise that it is a Democrat supporting nest of liberals who hate American values and culture and have nothing but disdain and contempt for good ole boys like him.

Nick Robinson won himself another pat on the back from the liberal orthodox [07:12] as he confirmed his right-on progressive credentials, giving further evidence of his conversion to the approved liberal mindset with a perfect demonstration of liberal superiority and a haughty disapproval of Sid Miller’s concerns about immigration and Islam.

Miller gave a perfectly reasoned and moderate interview about the concerns over illegal entry into the US but Robinson ended the interview with what you must suspect was the real reason the BBC dragged in what to most Brits must be a pretty obscure character from the depths of Texas.  The BBC wanted to create the impression that Trump is surrounded by and supported by Redneck racists and to that end Robinson hissed his disapproval in a very hostile atmosphere for a comment Miller had made in a previous interview in the US…except of course it wasn’t exactly what he said.

Robinson asked him if he had said he was kept awake at night at the thought that the US might become a Muslim country…..indeed Miller said that, but, as you can see from the quote at the top of this post he first said he was kept awake by the thought that the US might become Socialist.  Why would Robinson miss that out?   Why would Robinson think that anyone who was concerned about Islam taking over their country is a bigot…as Robinson’s attitude clearly indicated he did….and you could hear a pin drop when Miller made the joke about ‘bad Mexican food’.  I’m guessing he won’t be offered a job on the new Top Gear…though prissy Robinson might….good for the soft top cars eh?

‘An age of unprecedented mobility is shaping the world we live in for better and for worse.’  James Harding BBC

Robinson tried to make out firstly that the demographics don’t suggest Muslims will be taking over any time soon, but of course it’s not just the numbers but how much power and influence you cede to them….as in Europe today…a few bombs and suddenly everyone is eager to placate and pander to Muslims….just look at the BBC…how many programmes are dedicated to Muslim issues and how many new Muslim presenters and commentators are suddenly appearing on air?  And of course the demographics in Europe are rapidly changing….and the intent of Muslim activists is very definitely to make Europe and the US ‘Muslim’.

YUSUF QARADAWI: So Constantinople has been conquered and now the second part of the prophecy remains, which is the conquest of Rome. This means that Islam will return to Europe once again.

Perhaps the next conquest will be the conquest of dawah and ideas. There’s no need for conquest to be with the sword. We might conquer these countries without armies. We want armies of dawah preachers and teachers.

Second of course Robinson’s narrative is that there is obviously no problem with Islam when clearly many, many people think, know, there is….just look at a previous post where Historian Tom Holland suggests we had better start thinking about what is happening in Europe…and the problem is compounded by those who don’t or just refuse, to understand…like Nick Robinson who is more intent on signalling his liberal credentials than reporting the truth…

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.

The Spectator explains the problem…and the BBC is a big part of that problem….

All of which nicely demonstrates part of the pickle this country is in. Even the papers that will report on one of the biggest underlying stories of our time, and one which demonstrates an unprecedented change in the make-up of our country, must on all accounts be turned into a good news story. And since expressing any worries about the fact is undoubtedly terribly bigoted and nasty, we’ll all just have to nod our heads, keep our fingers crossed, mouth the same platitudes and all put our collective future in the hopes of Sheikh Mogra.

Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. He doesn’t seem to see the large increase in the Muslim population of the UK as posing any particular challenges and is quoted saying: ‘I just wouldn’t want our fellow citizens to be alarmed by an increase in number… This generation is very much British. They feel very much this is their home.’

Of course they do…except they feel Muslim first…how very ‘Trumpian’.

 Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?

The article is based upon a report which calls out the left for embracing fundamentalists……

Siding With The Oppressor….The Pro-Islamist Left

Emma Barnett…if I was getting paid for this I’d be rolling in it as long as she’s on air.  What a star.  Today’s speciality?  Women MPs, in particular, are under attack….ala Jo Cox…and new recruits are being frightened off.  Well, might suggest alarmist and false claims by the likes of Barnett won’t help.  She told us that one woman was considering taking up the cudgel as an MP but had decided not to due to the perceived violence against women MPs.  On comes the said woman and we find out that’s complete horlicks….not the reason at all that she didn’t want to do the job.  And was Jo Cox targeted because she was a woman? No, not at all. So why is Barnett saying she was and that women MPs in particular are be so targeted? And why link it slyly to Brexit when so many Labour MPs were targeted by Corbyn fans during his leadership election and on many other occasions…men and women?

Just the usual false, sensationalist stories peddled by the BBC in order to create headlines and ‘issues’ and to push their own political agenda.

We had this article recently [apologies to whomever posted it in the comments, I’ve forgotten who you were]..

Most media chiefs believe fake news is good for business

According to the survey of 145 chief executives, editors and digital leaders across 24 countries, 70% believe their position will be “strengthened” by consumers’ desire for trusted and accurate news.

Most respondents see the rise of fake news as “a chance for quality journalism to stand out”

That is one of the reasons the BBC pushes the notion that there is a massive wave of fake news out there on the internet and on the pages of its rivals’ newspapers.  The BBC is trying to create the impression that it is the gold standard and thus become the ‘trusted’ goto provider of news…which means it will have a monopoly of what news people see and hear and thus what they think and how they react.  All very Orwellian.  It is also the chance to discredit other news providers and the internet blogs which the BBC hopes will result in government controls on them….already in operation with Leveson of course which may well result in the destruction of Fleet Street.

The irony is of course that the BBC itself is the biggest generator of fake news and alternate facts….which is why this site has been going relentlessly for over a decade…Bias is just another word for false or fake….when you see it post it here……..another open thread…

You can see LibDem leader Farron getting a roasting from Andrew Neil in the video above over his lies about the Brexit referendum which he claims does not give a mandate to leave the Single Market…despite it being absolutely clear, and made so by politicans on both sides of the referendum again and again, that to vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the Single Market.

If Andrew Neil can do it why cannot so many other BBC presenters?  How many times have I heard Farron get away with murder as he spins his lies about respecting the result of the referendum and it being essential that the British Public have the last say when it is also absolutely clear he means none of it?

Mishal Husain on the BBC’s flagship political programme [07:09] that should, you’d think, be up to the job of quizzing Farron rigorously and forensically examining his statements for post-truth statements. Not so.  Her main concern was one of semantics, whether or not it was the correct description of the vote Farron wants to call it a ‘second referendum’.  Farron was otherwise allowed to escape scrutiny on what is the central question to this attack on Brexit by him….whether there is a mandate for leaving the Single Market….clearly there is but Husain was not interested in the slightest in challenging his highly misleading narrative.

Farron told us that the vote would not be a second referendum but would be about the terms of the deal, the referendum was about a departure he says, not a destination….hmmm…pretty sure most voters had an idea of what they wanted and weren’t voting simply to leave the EU as an end in itself…they had reasons for doing so and a ‘destination’ in mind…again not challenged by Husain.

Farron said the British people should have the final say…hmmm…they have just had that…the government advice on the referendum was that it was the final and binding vote…the result would be respected by government and carried out by them…shame the Supreme Court judges don’t seem to have read that as they have decided that the referendum was not binding but merely advice. [Note 3 of the 8 judges backed the government…so an issue of law or of opinion?  Opinion.  Thus subject to personal views.  And note one judge said the courts should not have been involved...so Daily Mail was right…BBC shows no interest in this judge’s words oddly enough]

Farron said that if the second referendum rejected the deal on Brexit that would be final and we would stay in the EU.  He was challenged here……on the description of the vote.

Curiously Farron says he accepts that the government has a mandate to negotiate but not for what he likes to call a Hard Brexit….in other words a Brexit as voted for in the referendum…you know…the one which did give the government a mandate to leave the Single Market….again no challenge from Husain.

He suggests that if the democratic will of the people is not fulfilled then there will be dissent on the streets and it will lead to a failure of trust in the political system.   LOL.  Farron is at the heart of the elite’s project to snub the people and damn democracy….Brexit was essentially all about a failure of trust in politicians..and every word that comes out of Farron’s mouth proves why they were right to reject him and his collaborators.  He goes on…neither judges, MPs or Lords should have the final say…except they will of course, under Farron’s plan, as they will shape Brexit to their liking, ie no Brexit, and if the people reject that deal then we stay in the EU he says.

So to be clear…Farron wants all those Remain MPs who have the whip hand majority to decide what Brexit should look like, and when they have engineered it so that essentially it is a deal that means we stay in the EU the people will get a vote and as the majority want to leave the EU they will reject such a deal…which means under Farron’s plan we stay in the EU….genius.  Heads Farron wins, tails Farron wins.

Again no challenge.

He then finishes on a douzey…considering his, er, respect for the referendum and democracy…..because, he tells us, the margin was so narrow it would be anti-democratic to carry out what the result of the referendum would entail…therefore we must do what the 48% want and not the 52%…that’s the democratic way, that’s what will unite the country, according to Farron.  I might suggest you will have a civil war and not a united country.  But again no challenge to his delusions and lies.

Remarkable journalism from Husain.

If you want confirmation of Farron’s ability to delude himself and lie through his teeth just watch the video above when he is talking about the Richmond by-election.  He tells us that the by-election was about whatever the electorate wanted it to be about, and it was about Brexit…they don’t want to leave the Single Market or the Custom’s Union.  Hmmm…surely they should wait until they have heard the decisive and democratic decision of Parliament before deciding themselves.  How can they possibly make up their own minds without the help of Farron and his pals?  It seems that when the vote is apparently against Brexit in a by-election [in a hard-core Remain voting constituency] then Farron is willing to accept their verdict without a Parliamentary debate and yet he thinks the actual referendum on this very specific subject is invalid and needs Parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

More Andrew Neil’s please…less useless doormats.

The BBC ‘fact-checking’ for false news?  My arse.

“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.”

The BBC’s narrative about Islamic terrorism and its intentions [the terrorism has a purpose] is distorted by its own beliefs and political agenda…it is the standard bearer for the Left that wants to undermine the West and its economic, political and military near dominance, and it is also determined to rewrite the history that found the BBC guilty of lying about the Iraq Dossier.  To that end it always aims to put the blame for everything that happens in the world, in the Middle East in particular, on Western actions…even climate change of course.

Just as British political, economic and social failures are dated from 1979, ending in 1997 and then starting again in 2010 Islamic terrorism and radicalisation also has a curiously abrupt start…in 2003…let’s just ignore so much history….never mind Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1998 and then there was 9/11…in 2001.  Best just not mention that.

So we can’t rely on the BBC, the source of so many false facts, or alternate facts if you like.  Who can we rely upon?  How about a Muslim woman, a migrant from the Yemen living in Germany…she says that it, radicalisation, isn’t America’s fault…it is there all along..in the religion…you know…Islam…..

 “Ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries.  Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.” On that basis, and in compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…. We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.   Al Qaeda

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.

Trouble is that is the last thing the BBC wants to happen…to have your eyes open to what is the consequence of allowing the mass migration of millions of Muslims into Europe.

We are warned today that over-cooked potatoes are dangerous to our health, however what they don’t warn us about are the threats posed to our democracy by the half-baked thoughts of half-witted BBC presenters.

Just heard Douglas Caerswell talking to Adrian Chiles suggesting that though we should respect this judgement it clearly indicates that if judges are to make such political decisions then perhaps they should be appointed in a way that ensures at the minimum they aren’t ideologically opposed to the government in office.

Chiles jumped in and told us he thought that was a very ‘Trumpian’ idea…’Trumpian’ being a bad thing of course.  Caerswell had to educate him on the American system where the Supreme Court and Federal judges are appointed by government…and have been for hundreds of years.  Then again perhaps it is very Trumpian where ideologically minded judges are not allowed to over-ride the will of the People.  Funny how the BBC would be horrifed if anyone used ‘gay’ to suggest anything was bad but have now adopted ‘Trump’ as a trigger word for signalling disapproval indicating that something is corrupt, immoral or evil.

Caerswell then radically suggested that perhaps the BBC might properly inform the public of what Brexit means and that it might present some positive news and views about Brexit.  Chiles dismissed it, as is the BBC’s wont, by saying Caerswell obviously hadn’t been listening to the BBC.  Well, we have and Caerswell is quite right.  There is no positive news coming out of the BBC about Brexit, it is all doom and gloom and economic armageddon….only this morning we had the Today show trying to paint a free trade deal with the US for agricultural products as a license to poison us with growth hormones and chlorine washed chickens…Mishal Husain somehow thinking washing a chicken in very diluted chlorine wash is worse than swimming in a chlorinated swimming pool and ingesting the water there as you inevitably do…seems she just had an agenda and was sticking to it whatever the evidence really was.

The sheer ignorance of Chiles and his blatant bias is always a joy to behold…he is completely unfit to run any debate on the big issues, perhaps he could get a job as a Supreme Court judge, he seems ideally suited.

It would be quite useful, and unusual, if the BBC were to challenge Gina Miller’s claim that this was all about process and democracy when she knows full well that Parliament is jam-packed with MP’s opposed to Brexit.  She knows they may well pay lip service to Brexit and vote to trigger Article 5o to give the appearance that they respect the will  of the people but that they will then demand a say in what Brexit looks like…as Ken Clarke alluded to this morning…the real opposition begins then as they seek to keep us in the Single Market and the Custom’s Union…which of course means we must keep freedom of movement..hence Brexit is finished and we remain in the EU.  Miller’s claim that this is about democracy is a lie.  Shame that the BBC, now apparently so intent on rooting out false news and lies, seems not so bothered about this whopper.

Aaahh…My job is done…we’re back in control with my hush-puppied foot firmly back on the pleb’s necks once again.

Brexit: Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead

I suppose it is some consolation that Scotland’s own wee Idi Amin gets no say in things.

The court also rejected arguments that the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly should get to vote on Article 50 before it is triggered.

Lord Neuberger said: “Relations with the EU are a matter for the UK government.”

Out of the way peasants….Ken Clarke’s coming through, riding roughshod over your hopes and dreams in his EU bandwagon fueled by the BBC’s hotair propaganda.  Move aside you plebs, you smelly, unwashed ignoramuses…your Emperor is here.

Ken Stott thought that the BBC’s imposition of received pronunciation was the outward sign of an “English culture of a feeling of superiority and entitlement” and that “something we never really got out of is the Lord [John] Reith rubbish that there should be a standard English spoken and that the BBC should lead the way….Reith did more damage to our society than I think anyone gives him the credit for.”

Of course the BBC didn’t just impose received pronunciation but more ominously, it now rigorously imposes its received wisdom, an orthodoxy of thought, values and belief that does enormous damage to British society and interests.

The BBC thinks it very definitely should lead the way, defining what is right, good, proper and acceptable, anything outside its narrow definition is met with violent disapproval and an orchestrated crusade to silence the dissenters and if that fails, to discredit, delegitimise and smear opponents usually with the ever handy cry of ‘racist’.  Look how it treats Trump or Tommy Robinson and the EDL or classically its Stalinist attempt to erase from existence the heretical Quentin Letts’ programme on the Met Office….never mind anyone who talks about controlling immigration or of leaving the EU.

This morning we had another classic on the Today show…in this case instead of loading the argument they didn’t have an argument,  they just didn’t bother bringing on any dissenting voices at all as they discussed the upcoming judgement on Article 50.  We heard from Gina Miller as she was quoted telling us she was only interested in ensuring democracy was seen to be done, we heard from a ‘constitutional expert’ who told us the judges were just doing their job and then we had Mr Toad, or Ken Clarke as some might know him.  Louche, patrician, entitled, contemptuous and superior just about covers the hush-puppy clad EU lap dog.  Maybe I missed out condescending, smug, self-important, aristocratic and arrogant.  You just know he’d rather be making policy down his gentlemen’s club swigging brandy and puffing on his Cuban cigar as he settles in his leather chair with a few good chums.  So inconvenient this thing called democracy where instead of the Tyranny of the Self-selected Elite we get the Tyranny of the Majority, or mob rule as he characterises it, and we end up in a fool’s paradise such as Brexit.

No, the BBC didn’t bother with any dissenting voices, just ploughed on with the pro-EU gang giving no idea that Parliament had ceded sovereignty to ‘The People’ via the referendum and that referendum gave May the mandate to trigger Article 50…no permission from MPs is now needed, and certainly no permission from devolved governments…they seem to want to have two goes at stopping Brexit having both a vote in Parliament with their MPs there and then perhaps a right to block it in their own right….they hope.  But again no idea from the BBC that that would be an injustice.

The BBC seems to delight in giving the bloated aristocrat Clarke as much airtime as possible to disseminate his rankly odorous and offensive piffle as widely as possible with great glee knowing its highly objectionable, contemptuous arrogance really annnoys the Leave side….or any one who thinks democracy is a good idea.

Never mind alternative facts the BBC peddles an alternative reality that has little to do with the world most of us live in.