Seen this delight? The BBC hates the fact that this country is STILL at least a nominally Christian country and it is out to use our TV license tax to do something about it.

 The BBC will reportedly increase its coverage of more religions and could broadcast Muslim Friday prayers after critics moaned coverage is biased towards Christianity.

Lord Hall of Birkenhead, head of the taxpayer-funded corporation, is reportedly inviting religious leaders to join discussions about multi-faith coverage.

Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain said the BBC could cover Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid, or children attending Koranic lessons.

The controversial move is in response to criticism the taxpayer-funded corporation delivered a disproportionate amount of programming on Christianity compared with other religions.

Can we expect the Friday Call to prayer to boom out of our Radio care of the BBC? How long before we have Hijab clad BBC presenters providing the ‘news” it spews out?

“In 1265 Simon De Montfort formed the first parliament in England . Six hundred years later the common man still did not have the right to vote . The Chartist Movement was formed in 1808 , and the Reform Act 1867 , nearly sixty years later , brought in most of their demands . But still not everyone had the vote ; women were left out . It wasn’t until 1928 that we finally had universal suffrage for everyone . A worthy ideal one would have thought .

Not it seems for many of the BBC liberal/left self proclaimed intelligentsia . The workers in the north voted for Brexit , the ordinary Joe in America voted for Trump . They were in the D and E social strata , they didn’t go to college , they earned less than $ 33 000 , they were over 40 , they yearned for a time long ago , they had no union , they didn’t understand the complexities of the issue(s) , they were easily manipulated .

President Elect Donald Trump’s decision to appoint Stephen Shannon to the position of Chief Strategist has triggered the snowflakes in the BBC.

Mr Bannon stepped aside as executive chairman of Breitbart – a combative conservative site with an anti-establishment agenda that critics accuse of xenophobia and misogyny – to act as Mr Trump’s campaign chief.

The BBC are in full despair. Having done all they could to demonise Trump they now demonise all around him. Amusingly, they are now working on the premise that of ONLY Trump doesn’t do any of the things he promised he would do then all might be ok. What a pathetic bunch of sore losers they are, unhinged, unbalanced and out of time.

On time, here is a NEW Open thread on which to detail the bias! The floor is yours…

US border patrol agent Michael Bernacke guns his SUV down the wide desert-sand road that lines the US-Mexican border through urban San Luis, Ariz.

To his right stands a steel wall, 20 feet high and reinforced by cement-filled steel piping. To his left another tall fence of steel mesh. Ten yards beyond, a shorter cyclone fence is topped with jagged concertina wire. Visible to the north, through the gauze of fencing are the homes and businesses of this growing Southwest suburbia of 22,000 people.

“This wall works,” says Mr. Bernacke. “A lot of people have the misconception that it is a waste of time and money, but the numbers of apprehensions show that it works.”

Bernacke, the patrol agent, says that since the triple fence was finished in October, there has been a 72 percent decline in illegal migrant apprehensions in the 120-mile swath of the US-Mexican border known as the Yuma sector. Eight hundred people used to be apprehended trying to cross the border here every day. Now, agents catch 50 people or fewer daily.   Where U.S.-Mexico border fence is tall, border crossings fall 2008

Listened this morning to Pienaar witter on about Trump’s ‘racism and inflammatory rhetoric’ about stopping immigration…..either the BBC has a very short memory, is completely incompetent as a news organisation or it is deliberately misleading its audience as to the facts…..If Trump is a racist for wanting to build a wall to control illegal immigration……who else????  Hillary Clinton and the majority of her Democratic colleagues????  Absolutely ‘deplorable!!!…

Why Hillary Clinton voted for the anti-immigrant wall

4 October 2006

Last Friday, however, she did exactly that, joining Senate Republicans and the majority of her Democratic colleagues in voting for an ignominious piece of legislation known as the “Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said “and I do think that you have to control your borders.”

“As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration, including border security and fixing our broken system.”

Fact Sheet: The Secure Fence Act of 2006

“This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”

– President George W. Bush, 10/26/06

Today, President Bush Signed The Secure Fence Act – An Important Step Forward In Our Nation’s Efforts To Control Our Borders And Reform Our Immigration System. Earlier this year, the President laid out a strategy for comprehensive immigration reform. The Secure Fence Act is one part of this reform, and the President will work with Congress to finish the job and pass the remaining elements of this strategy.

The Secure Fence Act Builds On Progress Securing The Border

By Making Wise Use Of Physical Barriers And Deploying 21st Century Technology, We Can Help Our Border Patrol Agents Do Their Job And Make Our Border More Secure. The Secure Fence Act:

• Authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our Southern border;
• Authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally;
• Authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.

Marr says, and I interpret and give voice to his intended meaning, that, ‘as a news service‘ [lol], the BBC would be dishonouring all those who fought the Nazis to not quiz Marine Le Penn in light of the next big threat to Western security…ie the rise of Trump…and of course by implication Brexit and Le Pen herself…all lumped together and branded a ‘threat to Western security’.

Rather think the only people who have betrayed those who died fighting tyranny and oppression are in the ranks of the BBC which even now hunts down our soldiers labelling them war criminals whilst defending and excusing those who seek to kill and murder them on the streets of Britain and around the world.

As for Trump being a threat to Western security who is more threatening?  This man…

…or Trump who wants dialogue with Putin?

Odd how times change…not so long ago the BBC was criticising Clinton for her failure to ‘press the reset button’ on the US’s relation with Russia…..

Whatever happened to the reset button?

Early in the life of the Obama administration we were treated to one of those cheesy “made-for-TV” moments that was just about too corny even for our exalted medium.

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton travelled to Geneva to meet the Russian foreign minister and pressed the reset button.

A real-life big red button, symbolising a new start, a better relationship.

So Obama wanted dialogue with Putin, but failed…was he a ‘threat to Western security’ then?

Just last month the BBC were asking…

Russia and the West: Where did it all go wrong?

It is hard to imagine a period since the end of the Cold War when relations between Russia and the United States have been quite so bad.

The Russian president has spoken explicitly about the worsening climate between Washington and Moscow, insisting that what the Obama administration wants is “diktat” rather than dialogue.

Whatever its immediate strategic intentions, a permanent war in Syria doesn’t benefit Moscow any more than Washington.

But without that basic level of trust and understanding between them, any dialogue rests upon shaky foundations. It was never supposed to be like this. The end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new era.

So where did it all go wrong? Why were Russia and the West unable to forge a different type of relationship? Who is to blame? Was it US over-reach and insensitivity, or Russia’s nostalgia for Soviet greatness?

Sir John Sawers, the former head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), is also a former UK ambassador to the United Nations and has watched Russian diplomacy unfold over recent years.

In a recent BBC interview he said that the West had not paid sufficient attention to building the right strategic relationship with Russia over the last eight years.

“If there was a clear understanding between Washington and Moscow about the rules of the road – that we are not trying to bring down each other’s systems – then solving regional problems like Syria or Ukraine or North Korea – which is coming rapidly down the path towards us – would be easier,” he said.

Several experts I spoke to also pointed to the flat-footedness of the Obama administration’s diplomacy and the mixed signals it has often sent.

Fairly clear, NATO expansion, failure of diplomacy [ie Clinton’s failure] and lack of dialogue ended in a failure to develop good relations with Russia.  So how is Trump’s wish to have amicable relations with Putin a threat when not so long ago the BBC itself concluded such dialogue was necessary?

As always the BBC changes and shifts its new output and conclusions to suit its narrative…this time it hates Trump so everything Trump does is bad…never mind under Obama such a policy of dialogue and diplomacy would have been good.

The BBC is relentless.  Marine Le Pen, from what the BBC describes as the ‘Far  Right’ National Front, was on Marr this morning [a 13 minute interview] and the one and only quote that BBC radio news took from her was that ‘UKIP is just like the National Front’. Listening to the interview and it is clear that this is only in relation to how UKIP and the FN see immigration into the EU….essential context which changes the interpretation when you hear it yourself.  And it is a curious clip to extract, and extracted almost surgically avoiding the intro question from Marr which states UKIP say they are not like the FN and the end comment by Le Pen saying it maybe UKIP policy to say they are not the ‘bad guys’ like the FN.  Just why did the BBC news miss all that out?  Even in the write up the BBC still drags in UKIP who are forced to deny any links to the FN…

A spokesman for UKIP said the party had made it clear for many years that it does not share the same policies of the FN, whose immigration policy is driven by its “long standing antipathy to significant groups”.

“We believe that immigration is a boon to this country, but that it should be controlled, with no hint of favour for any group or ethnicity,” the spokesman added.

The BBC should just sack a good number of those who maintain this narrative and try to smear people and political parties with the tag Nazi, Far Right or Racist just becasue they don’t like their views on controlling immigration.  Let’s have some diversity …of opinion….if they sack Whites to make way for BME people then why not sack Lefties to make way for those whose opinion doesn’t conform to the BBC prescribed orthodoxy….rather than keep up the BBC STENCH…Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans [Stole that from Carry On Spying on telly yesterday…very apt though]

Ironically the BBC sees no paradox in headlining this story….UK ministers ‘stoking fires’ with non-British worker numbers plan….when they themselves run a racial quota system which by definition needs to know the ethnic makeup of the workforce….or indeed councils up and down the country are quizzing people on their sexuality and race on questionnaires about waste disposal.

And why on earth are the BBC quoting the evermore ridiculous Corbyn on the subject of ‘hate’ against minorities?….

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said both Mr Trump and Ms Le Pen use “awful and absurd language” against Muslims and other minorities.

He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “She uses this populism against minorities in order to get herself elected.”

Haven’t seen [Red Andy] Marr but I can only hope he skewered Corbyn on anti-Semitism that people not only blame Corbyn for allowing to happen but actually point the finger at him personally.

The BBC also allowed Corbyn free reign on the subject of Trump, Corbyn coming up with this nonsense…

US president-elect Donald Trump tapped into “real problems” faced by voters but has failed to offer a remedy, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said.

Instead of offering solutions to issues such as falling wages and underfunded public services, Mr Trump has only blamed others, Mr Corbyn said….”There is deep anger at a political elite that doesn’t listen.” 

Trump has no solutions?  What?  Like renegotiating trade deals such as NAFTA, like rebuilding America’s inner cities and infrastructure, like reinvigorating the coal industry, like putting US businesses first, like stopping the flow of illegal immigrants who undermine wages and result in increased taxes etc etc etc?  Yeah…no policies.

Guess the one person who doesn’t actually listen to what’s going on is Corbyn himself.

The BBC has long smeared UKIP with the ‘Far Right’ tag and even made allusions to Nazism and of course is blatantly involved in the campaign to undermine Brexit with claims it is unleashing a tidal wave of racism, hate and fear across the UK…so much so that BBC journalists fear for the future of their children in Britain.

Now they have the template established for how to deal with unwanted election results why let it go to waste?  Why not link Trump to Nazi anti-Semitism and to the worst excesses of the Communist regime?…

Trump’s rude awakening for Germany

A few hours after US President-elect Donald Trump took to the stage to make his acceptance speech, as evening fell in Berlin, small candles were quietly lit and carefully placed in front of aged, stone doorsteps and along the darkening pavements.

Berliners were marking the anniversary of Kristallnacht (when Jewish people and their businesses were violently attacked in 1938).

It was barely noted amid the febrile howl of international reaction to the US election. Neither was the 27th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which shares the same date.

But both events – and all that they represent of this country’s past – explain, partially at least, why Germans were so repulsed by Donald Trump’s election rhetoric and why so few (4% by one poll’s reckoning) wanted him in the White House.

So Trump’s election will bring a return of Kristallnacht-like pogroms and the tyranny and subjugation of a Communist regime [the BBC wishes] where the people are viciously oppressed and dissenters with differing opinions are shot or sent to the Gulag [again…so like the BBC].

The BBC still peddling the lie about Trump and his policies on immigration….exactly why would Germans be repulsed by his views in light of Kristallnacht and the Soviet tyranny?  Please explain BBC…where’s the link other than your attempt to smear Trump as a Nazi or bizarrely at the same time, as a Communist?  Just what did Trump say that was so abhorrent?  The BBC doesn’t want to look to hard at the truth and instead prefers to shout racist or Islamophobe…and indeed is going down exactly the same road it did with Brexit as it tries to portray Trump’s election as unleashing demons…

US Election 2016: Are hate crimes spiking after Trump’s victory?

Never  mind that ‘protestors’ are urging people to kill Trump and indeed white people…even the Guardian gets in on the act...via Guido…[not sure how she hasn’t had her collar felt]…

Three days of anti-Trump rioting and protest, attacks on whites, calls to kill Trump and whites and the BBC thinks Trump voters are the problem?  Just as it ignored threats to kill Farage, massive hate campaigns against Leave voters and the fact that a multitude of the most serious hate crimes are being executed, often literally, by Muslims…often against their own co-religionists who don’t meet their exacting standards of what a Muslim should be.  Muslism are being killed and attacked in the UK because they don’t fit the mainstream criteria that defines what a Muslim should be…and the BBC refuses to point out the fact that it is mainstream Muslim dogma that is driving these attacks….the MCB itself defining Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslim…thus ‘unleashing demons’….no?

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

There’s a very good reason why the BBC is terrified of changing its funding model to a subscription system.  What is happening at the New York Times [CEO the BBC’s Mark Thompson] right now demonstrates what that is….accountability via the wallet.

The NYT ran a deliberately biased, anti-Trump campaign rather than provide its readers with honest and accurate reporting of the election…this of course being precisely the same route that the BBC took, though the NYT openly admitted it was going to be biased because Trump was such an appalling figure in their estimation…

Bad or sloppy journalism doesn’t fully capture the Times sins. Not after it announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.

As media columnist Jim Rutenberg put it in August, most Times reporters saw Trump “as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate” and thus couldn’t be even-handed.

That wasn’t one reporter talking — it was policy. The standards, developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to build public trust, were effectively eliminated as too restrictive for the Trump phenomenon.

The man responsible for that rash decision, top editor Dean Baquet, later said the Rutenberg piece “nailed” his thinking, and went on to insist that Trump “challenged our language” and that, “He will have changed journalism.”

Trump indeed was challenging, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be broken without consequence.

After that, the floodgates opened, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper — all the tools were used to pick a president, the facts be damned.

That bias, that slanted, one-sided journalism, propaganda, is hitting them where it hurts…in the wallet….

Now the bill is coming due. Shocked by Trump’s victory and mocked even by liberals for its bias, the paper is also apparently bleeding readers — and money.

Citing reader anger over election coverage, Rutenberg wrote that, “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions.”

Even its own journalists are asking questions…

Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking

On Tuesday afternoon, The New York Times told readers in its Upshot polling feature that Hillary Clinton had an 84 percent chance of winning. And for many weeks leading up to Election Day, The Times delivered a steady stream of stories. One described Clinton’s powerful and well-organized ground operation — and Trump’s frazzled counterattack. Another claimed a surge in the Latino vote that could decide the election. Others speculated on the composition and tenor of a Clinton cabinet. The picture was of a juggernaut of blue state invincibility that mostly dismissed the likelihood of a Trump White House.

But sometime Tuesday night, that 84-percent Clinton win Upshot figure flipped. Suddenly it was 95 percent — for Donald Trump.

Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”

The Times would serve readers well with fewer brief interviews, fewer snatched slogans that inevitably render a narrow caricature of those who spoke them.

That last comment in particular could also be directed at the BBC…its highly selective use of vox pop street interviews which put up inarticulate, often rough looking people against articulate, well groomed, often immigrant, opposing voices….the BBC deliberately trying to create those ‘narrow caricatures’ of who will vote for any particular side, one uneducated and probably bigoted and racist up against a lovely, educated, cosmopolitan immigrant. Saw it today as the BBC went in search of Trump voters….those they found were fat, working class, rough types with greasy hair, unshaven and clearly not encumbered with a sense of fashion.  And how often have you heard the people say one thing and the BBC to sum up with a conclusion that flies in the face of what has just been said?  Naturally the conclusion is one that suits the liberal, lefty BBC mindset.

The NYT has had to issue a letter pleading for understanding…but just like the BBC it refuses to admit it was wrong…despite previously admitting it was offering up a very one-sided view of the election…..

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

 Clearly the NYT is still intent on attacking Trump and is trying to make out that this is it just doing its job….’ to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.‘   What Trump voter would still subscribe to the NYT now?

And indeed what Tory, UKIP voter or anyone with an interest in fair, accurate and impartial news would subscribe to the BBC?

The BBC is terrified to put its money where its mouth is.  It knows it does not represent the views, opinions and values of most of the country and that its journalism  lacks depth, intelligence, investigative vigour and that ‘unflinching impartiality’ that holds power, all power, to account.  The very opposite in fact as it actually adopts narratives and moulds its news to push those messages be they on climate change, immigration, Labour, the EU or independence for various regions of the UK as it seeks to break Britain up.

As with the NYT...’This is about survival. If it doesn’t change now, the Gray Lady’s days surely are numbered’…..the BBC might well suffer the same fate if it had to genuinely account to its audience for its failings.