Category Archives: BBC bias

The BBC absolutely tore into Andrea Leadsom for her comments about being a mother after a hatchet job by the Times on her.

The BBC seems remarkably less keen to look at the comments of one of its own former employees who wants to be Labour Leader and has made remarks in the same vein as Leadsom’s…he tells us he’s married, with three kids and is ‘normal’ whereas his rival for the leadership, Angela Eagle, is gay….so presumably not ‘normal’……

Guido, the Spectator, the Independent, Sky, The Standard and the New Statesman have picked up on the story….but not the BBC.

As he used to work on the Today programme I’m sure he knows his way to the studio should he be invited for a grilling ala Leadsom.  How keen they were to underminie the Brexiteer Leadsom, how not so keen to ‘do’ one of their own.

So far the BBC is staunchly ignoring the story and instead brings us a united front…all smiles…

No, no the story isn’t out yet on the Beeb…despite being quite long in the tooth now. That fact checking must be pretty bloody thorough on this one.

‘More or Less’ is one of those BBC flagship programmes that supposedly provide us with a ‘reality check’ on the world, casting a quizzically cynical eye over the world in numbers so that we can get to the truth about events and discover what others seek to hide by blinding and baffling us with stats.

Or that is what ‘More or Less’ promises to do.  Others might think that this programme was itself part of the problem, itself attempting to blind and baffle us with statistics, all the more cynical for its pretence of a claim to the moral highground and the trusted authority of the BBC as it ‘impartially’ dissects the figures to help inform our view of the world.

Sunday morning we had an example of ‘More or Less’ pretending to look critically at the numbers….this time they are looking at the deaths of black men in the US shot by police.  As the BBC seems to be cheerleading the campaign to lynch white police officers in the US, a campaign which has resulted in many police officers being killed and wounded, you might be a bit cynical about just how honest the BBC will be on this subject.  And you know what?  You’d be right to be so cynical.   [This episode of ‘More or Less’ seems to have been overwritten by the news about Turkey for some reason…but it will be rebroadcast on the 22nd at 22:50….never mind, they have kindly written it up for us on the web]

This is the blatant lie that the BBC tells us, that a study of Blacks shot by police said there was no racial difference of thise shot…..

However, Fryer doesn’t find any racial difference in the cases where police offers actually shoot someone.

Note that in the web report the BBC tries at length to dismiss claims that police are being attacked, they try to conflate the recent attacks with the everyday normal threats that the police face, perhaps trying to suggest these attacks are nothing out of the normal therefore we shouldn’t be angry or surprised at them….and therefore not point fingers of blame at the people who are stoking the violence such as #Blacklivesmatter, and of course the BBC itself.

Conversely the BBC went into great detail as to how many Blacks have been killed and concluded that this was definitely something to do with race.  They then qualified that definitive statement by admitting that the Black crime rate is far in excess of the percentage of the population that they represent…Blacks making up 13% of the population but committing 50% of murders…but apparently that is a whole different subject that they didn’t want to get into so the BBC brushed that qualification aside as a very doubtful one.

We then got onto something we brought up in an earlier post, a study by a highly respected black academic, Roland Fryer, which told us that what the BBC has been peddling, that Blacks are more likely to be shot by cops than Whites, is wrong.

The BBC spent a good amount of time explaining that the study showed Blacks are more likely to be more aggressively handled by police when stopped or arrested.  The BBC then told us in a very brief comment that the study showed that Blacks were only equally likely to be shot as Whites…that’s an improvement on the BBC’s normal claim of blacks being gunned down by racist cops but that isn’t the real conclusion of the study.

The BBC mentioned Houston and indeed the study did say that it was possible there was no difference between Black and White shootings there…but the main conclusion of the study was that Blacks were less likely to be shot……this, as you’ve seen above, is what the BBC said:

Fryer doesn’t find any racial difference in the cases where police offers actually shoot someone.

This is what the study said….

Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.

The BBC chose to ignore the highly significant findings that undermined the BBC’s long term narrative of racist police that whites were probably more likely to be shot.

And in other cities that conclusion of the study was born out…but not mentioned by the BBC…

In shootings in 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

Why has the BBC missed out the crucial facts of that study?  The study that shows Whites not just equally likely to be shot as Blacks but in all probability more likely to be shot?

It’s only one study but other figures back that conclusion up especially when the crime rate within the Black community as compared to the White is taken into account.

As we saw in Dallas where ‘angry’ and politicised Blacks murdered police officers in ‘revenge’ for what they have been told is racist policing the BBC’s words have a serious effect on the world as it cheerleads the campaign that incites murder….and you can see the same thing starting here in the UK as #Blacklivesmatter incites and encourages Blacks in Britain to think of themselves as victims….just where will that lead?

The BBC is the real danger to democracy, stability and peace…and ironically, it being so in love with multi-culturalism and diversity, is one of the chief instigators, along with the Guardian, of racial and religious conflict and discontent in Britain.  The BNP and the Far Right could learn a lot from the divisive BBC which quietly supports armed uprisings by minorities.

Just remember the BBC’s Mark Easton thinks that Muslim ‘radicals’ make a valuable contribution to society…they are the new Mandelas, Gandhis, Churchills of this world.

History tells us that the development of new ideas of governance and government require people to think radically. Extreme views are necessary to test the wisdom of the mainstream.

I wonder what new ideas of governance and government Easton has in mind…perhaps an ‘Islamic State’?

The racist cop who shot Delrawn Small in a road rage incident?  Apparently this is him…..

Any wonder the BBC has quietly changed the narrative from racist white cops to protraying the shooting of black men as a ‘police issue’ now….they knew that many of the cops were not white…and yet the BBC didn’t report that fact.

Why not?

Dangerous games the BBC plays as ever more cops get killed or wounded in attacks on them by people who are incited to do so by the media rhetoric and groups like #blacklivesmatter who blatantly call for police to be killed.

An interview that could so easily be on the BBC with its smug, patronising presenters telling us that US cops are all racist…the interviewer showed no interest in the awkward truths that the police officer was stating…he even told him he could leave the studio if he didn’t let the presenter speak…thought it was the guest who was the one meant to speak and who we should be hearing…why else invite him in to talk?….and we are yet to find out the colour of Wayne Isaacs the cop who shot another driver in a road rage incident….from the video Isaacs looks black himself (though admittedly hard to really tell)….maybe that, and the fact that it was a Chinese-American who shot another black person, is why the BBC is now presenting this as a problem of ‘police’ shooting black people…not ‘white police’, just ‘police’….though they ignore the increasing evidence that it is whites who are more likely to be shot….and about time the BBC stopped presenting #Blacklivesmatter as a peaceful group….

Here’s a more balanced look at the issues than the BBC ever provides….and it doesn’t hold back on Obama’s responsibility for whipping up racial tensions…from the Spectator:

The perception that police have an animus against young black men is largely an illusion. It arises from the way a sociological fact has collided with a historical inheritance. Blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the US population, commit around a quarter of its violent crimes, including more than half its murders. They thus have more (and more dramatic) encounters with the police than citizens of other races.

Barack Obama and other politicians have lately encouraged blacks to blame their frequent encounters with police on white prejudice, not black criminality. In the almost cataleptically detached speeches he made on his recent visits to Warsaw and Madrid, the President appeared to recognise that attacking the police is more a political strategy than a description of reality.

The 2014 killing of Michael Brown, a 300lb teenager who attacked a patrolman named Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, after robbing a convenience store, led to protests nationwide. President Obama stoked them. He sent more senior administration officials to Michael Brown’s funeral than he did to Margaret Thatcher’s. He also sent dozens of civil rights officials to investigate. The red-hot attorney general Eric Holder arrived on the scene to scold local authorities and interfere with grand jury proceedings. Yet Wilson’s explanation — that he had shot Brown in self-defence — held up. The stories of Brown’s friends — who said he put his hands up and shouted ‘Don’t shoot!’ — were embellishments.

A week before the Republican convention in Cleveland, street politics is destabilising electoral politics. The events of early July have shifted the presidential campaign seismically. There may be a choice this November between public order and the agenda of Black Lives Matter.

Cleveland Police Association President Steve Loomis: Obama “Has Blood On His Hands”

The president has blood on his hands and it will not be able to come washed off…

How the hell did we ever become the bad guys in this country? I can not imagine how we got here. It is the irresponsible reporting of the media and irresponsible statements from people who are credible – like the president, like celebrities.

You could also make a case that Lord Hall Hall has blood on his hands as his journalists recklessly claim that US police are racists and kill blacks because of that…and they do it again and again and again in the face of the evidence and repeated court cases that pronounce police officers innocent…the BBC thinks differently as with Michael Brown in Ferguson which the BBC still states was a racist killing.

The BBC’s verdict on US police……

Well, slavery may have long gone, but apprehending someone because they could be up to no good, simply because they’re black is still police policy in much of the land.

A couple of days ago ….Mickey Clark on Wake up to Money…‘We should remember how quick we were to forget just how big our economy is and that other countries will always want to trade with us.’

Yeah…funny how quick the BBC was to forget that….seems they’ve forgotten it all over again….

Another week and more doom and gloom from the BBC as it continues to gleefully report Brexit disaster just around the corner…

“You can either wage Jihad by the tongue and by the mouth – that is ideological jihad – or by the hand and the sword. Those are the official categories of jihad.”  BBC

Throughout the day the BBC has been referring to the Jihadist who murdered 84 men, women and children in Nice as an Islamic State ‘Soldier’.  As Victoria Derbyshire told us that British soldiers in Afghanistan whose actions against the Taliban resulted in the accidental death of civilians were ‘murderers’ I suppose it is only fair that an ISIS murderer is defined as a brave and honourable ‘soldier’.

However the BBC, presumably after many complaints, is now referring to the Muslim terrorist as a ‘follower’ of the Islamic State….

So-called Islamic State claimed one of its followers carried out the attack.

Whether a ‘soldier’ or a ‘follower’ the BBC is sure he had mental health issues or that his radicalisation was the result of alienation, discrimination and disaffection and all that….odd that so many white, non-Muslim people, in exactly the same situation don’t go on a ‘crusade’…..just what is it that makes so many Muslims join the Islamic State?  Who knows eh?  Another BBC ‘mystery’.

Once again France must contemplate an attack on its people, but what was the motivation and why was it not stopped?

Immigration has a long history here, integration does not.

There are large populations from France’s former colonies, places like Tunisia.

Some feel their religious beliefs are trampled by a secularism that is fiercely guarded. Some see little hope in a nation which denies them a chance of success.

The forgotten suburbs that house large numbers of immigrants have erupted into protest and violence in previous years.

They are policed by tough units that fail to reflect the communities they control. It is an unhappy mix that can open the way for a minority to be radicalised and moved to violent action.

One moment these terrorists aren’t real Muslim, they are mentally unstable, they are criminals looking for adventure and excitement, they are drunkards, drug takers and ignorant of the beauty of Islam’s true teachings and most of all, they are a very small minority, the vast, vast majority of genuine Muslims don’t agree with their beliefs nor their actions.

Then conversely we are told they are all Muslims and they really want to be free to practise their religion but are prevented from doing so by a fascist secular state which tramples on their beliefs, that whole communities are disaffected not just a tiny minority and they are ready to join ISIS, that they are the victims of a France that ignores and hates them.

Some might think it a shame that the BBC, as always, peddles exactly the same message that the terrorist recruiters do…it’s not as if the BBC doesn’t know this is the recruiter’s message as they report it here….

Imene Ouissi, a 22-year-old student who volunteers for a women’s group in the town of Vallauris, west of Nice, noticed in 2012 that local youths were becoming fascinated by slick recruitment videos produced by Islamic State.

‘You will never succeed here’

At the same time, self-styled preachers emerged with a message targeted at disaffected Muslim youths. Playing on widespread feelings of resentment about poverty and discrimination, they told their audience that they would always be treated as foreigners in France.

In Vallauris, one charismatic figure pitched up in a high-rise housing estate in 2010. People came from all over the region to hear him preach every Friday, until, after three years, the authorities dismantled his makeshift mosque.

“What he said really shook me,” Imene Ouissi recalls. “I had gone there because everyone was talking about it. He spoke the language of the kids, so they identified with him. His message was: you must not stay in a land of villains, you will never succeed here. You must go to a Muslim country.”

The BBC even dismantle its own narative that the terrorist is a petty criminal and therefore not a proper Muslim…here they report crime is preached as a way of attacking the Infidel…much as white, non-Muslim girls in the UK were seen a ‘white trash’ that could be used and abused without Allah being angry, it’s not ‘immoral’ to abuse non-Muslims…..Yazidi girls as well of course….

Kamel, a youth worker in the Nice area, says one of the reasons for the recent success of the Salafist ideology that has inspired jihad, is that it provides a ready and easy way of justifying the actions of petty criminals.

“The kids are told that they are in a land of unbelievers, so when they steal and attack people it is justifiable; the petty criminal is turned into a holy warrior, and is promised status, sexual gratification and eternal life.”

The BBC’s narrative is extremely one-sided and narrow, deliberately so.  They have chosen a particular line about discrimination and a religion ‘trampled’ upon by a brutal secular state because that suits their argument that Muslims, even the terrorists themselves, are always victims and cannot be blamed for their actions.  Certainly many immigrants are poor, though so are many indigenous French, but is that a result of discrimination or just the usual factors that are the inevitable result of being immigrants as in the UK where Muslims from certain Muslim areas of the world are less successful due to their own habit of ghettoising themselves and refusing to learn the language and engage with the full society?  Islam is of course completely incompatible with Western society but that isn’t the fault of the Western societies which is the line the BBC and the Jihadists promote.  The BBC blames the West for not totally changing its own culture and values to suit the Muslims. Why should the West change its values to suit those whose values are completely at odds with the West’s?  They choose to come here, they fit in.  They choose not to.

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

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

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

The BBC could acknowledge for a start that most Jihadists are in fact well educated and often come from good backgrounds and have jobs and are not discirminated against.  The BBC could also acknowledge that they are ‘integrated’ to a large degree and that there are many, many successful Muslims in France.  Why does the BBC not present that picture of France rather than the highly negative one that is the favoured one of the Islamists both violent and non-violent?  Why does the BBC not acknowledge that many, if not most, ‘Jihadists’ come from well-to-do backgrounds, are educated and are ‘integrated’ to a large extent?  Why does the BBC not acknowledge that the one defining characteristic of all Jihadis is that they are Muslim?  That is the really significant factor in radicalisation.

They tell us that the Nice killer was ‘suddenly radicalised’ over a very short period.  No, he wasn’t.  He has been fed Muslim beliefs and teachings all his life, they are the background noise to his life, the ever-present guide, however subconscious and ethereal, that is with him all the time.  They inform his thoughts and beliefs and values even if unconsciously.  Islam primed him for radicalisation, he identitifies strongly with Islam even if he doesn’t practise it devoutly.  On top of that is the narrative that the BBC and its ilk feeds him [see above], that he is a victim of discrimination, that Islam is under attack, that he should be able to practise his religion without restraint, that as a Muslim he will never be accepted as French [rather than the real narrative and reason for being ‘alienated’…. that many Muslims reject French beliefs and culture and so often isolate themselves] and that his only way out of his situation is to fight against the oppressor.

The Jihadi recruiters feed him exactly the same narrative and he either joins the group or his resentment festers and he becomes a malcontent back home who becomes ever more devout as  a Muslim and adopts the dress and language of a ‘believer’ as a political act of defiance…as so many Muslims did on 9/11…as was Bin Laden’s aim, 9/11 being his call to arms for Muslims across the world to unite and fight wherever they lived.  The newly devout believer becomes an activist and political actor using the media, the law and political pressure to spread the influence of Islam….the Jihad of the pen and word which is even more insidious and effective than the bomb…the two combined are devastating in their effectiveness in pressuring politicians scared of appearing ‘Islamophobic’ or racist into granting huge concessions to the Islamists….do you think Warsi would have become Chair of the Tory Party if she’d been a Sikh?

‘One lesson well understood in both Stalin’s Russia and Nazi Germany was that propaganda is most effective when it is backed by terror’

The Jihad of the tongue and mouth, the pen and the word, are in the end the most dangerous….you can see how the Muslim Brotherhood’s Tariq Ramadan has created a powerful and influential ‘moderate’ persona that he has invented to reassure the media and politicians that he is a genuine reformer of Islam and that Islam can indeed be reformed, that we can have a ‘European’ Islam that is compatible with secular, liberal, progressive Western states….and yet anyone who takes the trouble to really find out what he actually thinks and what Islam really means would know that that image of himself that he has created is a total fiction, a mask designed to win over those who have the power to promote Islam and to protect it, unwittingly, until it is powerful and strong enough to take over.

Let’s be clear…Islam cannot be ‘reformed’.  There is only one ‘Islam’, one mosque, one faith, one God…hence the one finger that ISIS wags at us, hence the MCB insists that Ahmadis are not Muslim, hence Shias are not ‘Muslim’.  So when the BBC, and Nicky Campbell, insists that Islam is a faith with many different versions that’s simply not true.  Islam, the Koran, is unchangeable, one faith, one interpretation.  Only Allah can alter a single word of the Koran.  And importantly Muhammed was the Seal of the Prophets, the last prophet, there can be no more…hence there can be no more Korans, no more revelations, no changes, no reforms…unless Allah himself graces us with his presence here on earth and rewrites the Koran.

All that may seem a touch esoteric but it’s vital to understand what’s going on, what is really true and what is so much smoke and mirrors set up to deceive and fool us.

The motivations of the Muslim jihadists?  It’s not hard really is it?  A lifetime immersed in Islamic propaganda, a narrative about Islam under attack by the West, a narrative of Muslims discriminated against in the West and a narrative that the answer is more Islam, that the West must Islamise itself to make Muslims feel more at home and that Muslims must become more devout, more separate from their Western, immoral, neighbours.

In other words the terrorists get what they want either way….they force Islam upon the West by force of arms and conquest or, more likely, they force the West to adopt ever-more Islam friendly policies and cultures in order not to alienate their rapidly growing Muslim populations…so more Islam either way.  You can hear commentators and polticians suggest this every day on the BBC……We must do more to accomodate Muslim beliefs or Muslims will get angry and become radicalised.

They could of course just stand up for their own values and culture and say if Muslims want to live in a Muslim country go and do that….there are many to choose from.  Odd though how so many Muslims would be horrified to actually live in a Muslim country….that should tell those politicians and media collaborators all they need to know about Islam and its effect upon society, industry, science, the arts and free society.

Why bother reforming Islam?  That’s theologically impossible and impossible from a practical point of view…just look at the IRA….it’s been ‘reformed’ many times…and yet the bombs still go off.

Muslims who genuinely want to ‘reform’ should just adopt Christianity and be done with it.

Islam is not compatible with the West and it’s about time the BBC stopped pretending it is and stopped pushing the idea that all the West has to do is accept that Islam is compatible with it and will not compromise the liberal, democratic society that values free speech, free thought and individual identity.  That’s a complete fiction that will only result in mini but ever-growing ‘Pakistans’ within Western states and the inevitable trouble that then arises.

France’s security chief had issued a chilling warning just months before the Nice attack which killed at least 84 people, saying another terrorist incident could plunge France into a bloody civil war.

Patrick Calvar, the head of the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI) – France’s equivalent of MI5 – said growing tensions between “the extreme right and the Muslim world” were close to breaking point, and that a confrontation between the two appeared inevitable.

Listening to much of the BBC’s reporting on the attack in Nice you may have noticed a peculiar omission as they seek to investigate the attack, the methods used and the motivation…..

Before Nice, Palestinian terrorists used cars as lethal weapon

The BBC for some reason fails to mention that vehicles being used to attack pedestrians, Jews,  is a favoured method used by Palestinians.  Does the BBC not want to have comparisons made between their ‘heroic’ Islamist friends in Hamas and the ‘nasty’ Islamists of ISIS?

The BBC is otherwise pretty quick to ‘analyse’ the situation bringing us conclusive facts about the reasons for the terrorist’s radicalisation, his motivation and who to blame for it all.  The BBC’s very slick and practised emergency operation moved into gear as they sought to rapidly control the narrative and downplay the role Islam plays in this attack.

Straight-off the BBC thought that the mental health of the attacker may have played its part, an excuse the BBC always deploys when Islamists attack….this is the BBC that absolutely refused to mention that the killer of Jo Cox had well documented mental health issues and had sought help the night before he attacked Jo Cox.  The BBC wanted to use Jo Cox’s death to attack the Leave campaign by blaming their policies on immigration for generating hate, hence it dosn’t want to muddy the waters and provide an ‘excuse’ for the killer of Jo Cox and a get-out for Leave.  Clearly the BBC uses mental health as a weapon in its arsenal but one only used in the defence of their favoured terrorists.

Next up we had the standard BBC rhetoric….Nicky Campbell (who knows so much about Islam thanks to his guide and mentor the comical Mo Ansar) told us that this was all about alienation not religion and that was essentially the narrative throughout the day as Paul Rogers, a professor of peace studies no less (…from Bradford), told us this had definitely nothing to do with Islam and that we must surrender to the Islamists if we want to live in peace….and naturally we must fight anti-Muslim bigotry which can only lead to more Muslim alienation and disaffection.

Islam is absolutely not a threat to the West.  No, really.

Here’s a couple of questions someone might raise in the good professor’s tutorials….

Why is it that only Muslims get radicalised?

and..

Why is France so much under attack when it didn’t invade Iraq and in fact voted against the invasion?  Isn’t Iraq the cause of all this radicalisation?

The one question the BBC does have an answer for is is ‘who is to blame?‘  Naturally the killer is the victim here….the French government has failed to make him feel loved and at home in France…never mind he had a job, a wife (ex) and three kids…and he’d been allowed to come to France from Tunisia.  Might then seem a tad ungrateful to respond to that by going out and murdering so many French citizens on Bastille Day.

Terrorism is the French government’s fault.  The answer?  More Islam.  Muslims must be allowed to practise their religion freely and to its full extent in order to help them integrate.  Integrate by being totally separate and ghettoised.  Yes I see how that could work.

Perhaps the real problem is the fact that France allowed in so many immigants from North Africa without the jobs or social structure that could accomodate them…..just how do you accomodate people who have an entirely different culture, faith and political and social outlook on life?

That’s a question the BBC dodges and absolutely refuses to deal with seriously…a question that should be on everyone’s lips as millions of Muslims flood into Europe, thanks in large part due to the unilateral actions of Merkel…and with Turkey on the brink how many more will head this way?

Ironically it was on the World at One with the über wet, pro-Islam liberal Mark Mardell that we got a glimpse of what we should really be talking about as a French Republican was allowed to speak truth to power (26 mins 30 secs)..but is anyone listening?  This is a real war…we must understand who is the enemy and how to fight it…and immigration is the problem which produced millions of people who feel ‘not properly treated and want revenge’.  [But are they justified in feeling that way?]  He says we must control the borders. [Racist].  The horrors we see in the Middle East will come here due to immigration of people who bring their problems with them.

Note also that he says intelligence cooperation is a joke in the EU [which we already knew….so much for Remain’s argument].  There is a huge problem with coordination of information.

Schengen doesn’t work…we have a free circulation of terrorists due to EU immigration policies.

Bet Mardell was kicking himself for not having the chance to edit that one down to some anodyne soundbites about a ‘senseless tragedy’.

The BBC is part of the problem.

Operation ‘Get Boris’, a long term BBC mission, moved into top gear yesterday as the state broadcaster did its level best to undermine and vilify our new Foreign Secretary around the world at a time when it should be fairly apparent that such toxic rhetoric is the last thing this country needs as it tries to break away from the EU straitjacket and heads out to do business with the whole world.  It seems the BBC, our national broadcaster, the ‘gold standard’ for others to follow, puts its own politics first rather than the interests of the country.

The BBC is still trying to label Boris as a racist for his Sun column in which he mentioned Obama.  We’ve already looked at that in depth but it does no harm to keep countering the BBC’s continuous lies about this subject.  Boris was merely listing the reasons put forward by others for Obama possibly not wanting a ‘special relationship’ with Britain…and the comment about his Kenyan roots came from the Guardian….Could Obama’s dual colonial heritage spell the end of the special relationship?…...and indeed the BBC itself…..’His meteoric rise to political fame has propelled the name Barack Obama onto the lips of millions of Kenyans.  He has Kenyan blood coursing through his veins.’

I guess if you’re a Lefty mentioning Obama’s race is ‘celebrating diversity’ whereas if you’re a Righty it’s because you’re a fascist xenophobe.

And as the BBC lists all of Boris’ supposed faux pas they don’t mention one that I’m pretty certain they absolutely hate as he lays into Islam…the BBC can’t have you knowing that not everyone panders to the Islamist terrorists as does the BBC…..

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

Is it not ironic that the Turkish army, in a Muslim country, knows better how to deal with Islamists who seek to destroy their own country than do Western politicians and BBC media types who supposedly are defenders of the liberal faith?

Endless BBC bias on display these days….fish in a barrrel or a turkey shoot?  The floor’s yours……..

After the BBC’s faux outrage at the killing of Jo Cox and its attempts to exploit her death by linking her murder to the Brexit campaign telling us that Leave’s rhetoric had whipped up a storm of hatred it seems odd that the BBC is now so silent about this…from the Telegraph…

Another Islamist attack in France and immediately you have the problem spelt out to you by those in charge….the problem is their own refusal to accept what the problem is…..

‘A tragic paradox’