Listening to Nicky Campbell’s ‘Your Call’ today….about Corbyn’s ‘leadership’.

Amazed to hear that Corbyn is the ‘new politics’…..isn’t he kind of old hat, a disinterred commie who hasn’t realised his form of state sponsored bullying, intimidation and corruption doesn’t work…not even at the point of a gun (or bricks through windows)?  Strange that not one mention was made by Campbell of UKIP in response…the party that took 4 million votes, so many of them from Labour, at the General Election and took votes from Corbyn at the EU Referendum.  UKIP look to be the real ‘new politics’….and the joy is they have only one MP…so he won’t cause much trouble to the leadership unlike Corbyn’s unruly mob…oh hang on.

Amused to hear Campbell getting on famously with one caller who had a short poem to read out about Labour….the friendly atmosphere suddenly vanished, as did the caller as Campbell cut him off, when he said he thought Corbyn was sinister…I laughed…I am of the same opinion…others might think he’s lovely and friendly…He’s not, he is definitely sinister…Nick Cohen seems to agree….

I can make a fair case for saying that  Jeremy Corbyn is the most hypocritical and unscrupulous leader in Labour’s history.  His paid employment while he was an MP was nothing so elevated as corporate lobbying. It consisted of working for the propaganda stations of Russia and Iran. If you watch the YouTube videos of Corbyn in action, you cannot pretend that he is challenging his paymasters or even politely expressing an alternative point of view. He is a mouthpiece for his ugly employers. A willing rather than a merely mercenary mouthpiece, I grant you. Hatred of the West and the willingness to excuse any state as long as it is anti-Western animated him. He is a propagandist for the love not the money.

‘Jeremy is a decent man’. Really? No decent person is the flunkey of fantastically corrupt states. ‘Jeremy is left-wing.’ Is he? He has a funny way of showing it. Iran and Russia are self-proclaimed conservative states. Iran is the bastion of theocratic Shia conservatism. It persecutes ethnic and religious minorities – until Assad began his mass murders, Iran was the worst place in the world to be a Sunni Muslim – and jails trade unionists. Putin, meanwhile, tells the European far right to reject liberalism, and embrace his reactionary nationalism. From a Russian point of view, Corbyn and Seumas Milne’s most prominent comrade is Marine le Pen.

Owen Smith may hope that an honest critique of Corbyn will shift more away from him. Most Corbyn supporters do not, he may calculate, believe in excusing and indulging Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. They are decent people at heart motivated by justifiable fury at the rotten state of England.

Whether Smith goes with hope or fear will tell us much about him – but much more about the modern Labour Party.

How the BBC treats Corbyn and his sinister activities and ideologies will tell us so much about the BBC….so far it has seemed incredibly reluctant to do little more than scratch the surface of Corbyn’s pact with the Devil.

A caller, a hardcore Corbynista,  to Campbell’s show claimed that the BBC was biased against Corbyn….Campbell let her rant on uninterrupted and engaged in debate with her about the BBC’s ‘bias’.  How unlike the treatment any other caller from the ‘right’ who mentions BBC bias gets…they are instantly derided and shouted down and then cut off.

Campbell boasted that his new found tolerance for those who criticise the BBC shows ‘how we’re listening…that’s what ‘Your Call’ is all about’.  Didn’t last long this new found tolerance. Campbell actually asked for more ‘BBC bashing’…and when we had a couple of callers come on to say their piece he shut them down…one who criticised Pienaar and Kuenssberg, was rapidly told to go away…apparently the golden ones are untouchable and not to be criticised….even if you are an old lefty.

The ‘new politics’ of Corbyn just like the new tolerance of Campbell…illusory.

Twitter’s not the only way….as the BBC’s political correspondent, Chris Mason, uses the back of an envelope to draw up his reports……

Chris Mason put on the spot today as Peter Allen asks him about a hot topic currently hitting the headlines (31 mins)……

Peter Allen:  ‘I’m just reading something, I don’t know what it means…but you’re a reporter Chris…Jeremy Corbyn has won his bid to personally fight a legal action…do you know what that means?’

Chris Mason:    ‘Errrr…No I don’t….’

It’s only the fact that a Labour Donor was taking legal action to remove Corbyn’s name from the leadership ballot.

Why would the BBC’s political correspondent know anything about that?

Jeremy Corbyn has won the right to personally contest a legal bid aimed at taking his name off the Labour leadership ballot.

Labour donor Michael Foster had launched a High Court challenge against the party’s decision to automatically include Mr Corbyn in the upcoming leadership election.

Rarely does the BBC let a day go by without a mention of Boris’ ‘racist’ comment about Obama, his Kenyan heritage and Britain’s ‘special relationship’…never mind that Boris was actually referencing this Guardian article as the BBC knows full well….Could Obama’s dual colonial heritage spell the end of the special relationship?

The constant drip drip drip of comments labelling Boris as racist by the BBC’s finest naturally have an effect as the legend become established as fact.  Which no doubt suits the BBC fine.  Boris is one of those politicians marked down for special treatment along with Farage and anyone else who raise their heads above the parapet and suggest we control immigration.  Others, less brave, keep their heads down….which is the intended effect that the BBC et al seek to achieve as they silence their enemies.

Corbyn himself tried to use Boris’ comment about Obama as proof of racism on PMQs today without raising a comment from the BBC ‘analysts’.  Someone else who hasn’t merited any comment is the Today programme’s very own Justin Webb who writes in the Mail about Obama, the US and racism….what he says is no surprise in its conclusions, people have said it for a long time, what is surprising is his language and that he hasn’t been hung, drawn and quartered for it….here are the relevant and eye-opening thoughts from Webb…

JUSTIN WEBB: The tragic irony is, that under Barack Obama’s policy of not being black, America has become MORE divided by race 

As he prepares to leave office, there is so much anguish among some of his keenest supporters at the grim fact that race relations in the U.S are as bad today as they were when the world was marvelling at Obama’s rise.

In fact, incredibly, some think they are worse, as bad as they were during the Los Angeles riots of 1992.

The truth is that America did not actually elect a black man to the White House. You might just about be able to argue that this is true physically: Obama is of mixed race with a white mother, but psychologically, intellectually and politically, Obama is not a black politician.

And Obama never sought to hide that. This was not a black administration with black concerns at its heart, indeed in his first term he had one of the smallest number of black cabinet members in recent times — fewer than George W. Bush.

No, Obama never intended to be a black president. Remember the controversy over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

For some African Americans that is now a problem, because they feel let down. The Rev. Wright still preaches in North Carolina but now refers to his former friend as ‘our Halfrican-American president’.

It is difficult to avoid a sense that following the recent killings, Wright’s madcap anger rings more bells with black Americans than it did in 2008; in other words, Obama’s approach has lost ground in the nearly eight years he has been in power.

Barack Obama’s policy of not being black has served him well for most of his presidency.

The risk is that it is blowing up in his face in his final months in office.

So what Justin Webb is saying is that Obama isn’t black enough, both in thought and in actual skin tone….and that his policies should be shaped by his skin tone and that somehow black people have different needs to people of a different hue.  Webb probably thinks Bill Clinton was the first black President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWgamQdjnq0

A quite extraordinary set of comments by Webb based upon Obama’s race…and yet….nothing from the great washed…not a peep, not a cry of outrage, not a Twitter terror attack, not a Facebook furore.  Nothing.

Guess the real bigots are those, including those in the BBC, who try to close down debate by labelling their enemies as racists and aim to frighten them into silence.

Elsewhere on planet President and the BBC’s explorations of it…..Trump’s wife may have been fed (sabotage by anti-Trump Republican’s?) Michelle Obama’s best lines to put in her speech but at least she didn’t call her husband’s campaign manager a ‘fucking Jew bastard’.

Who did?  Hmmm…that’ll be Hilary Clinton….(she denies it of course)….

Hillary Clinton is fighting a rearguard action to avoid further damage to her standing with the crucial Jewish vote in her campaign for a Senate seat after a claim that she once used an ethnic insult against one of Bill Clinton’s aides.

A book out today claims that 26 years ago she called Paul Fray, her husband’s campaign manager at the time, a “fucking Jew bastard”.

Funny…never heard the BBC dragging that one out of the archives.

Sarah Brett on 5Live talking about the NHS (31 mins)…her personal experience:

‘I know that it is incredibly frustrating when a family member is in hospital, particularly over a weekend when you think nothing is being done until Monday morning starts again…it happened to me very recently…’

Better have a 7 day service then….let’s talk about it…..or we could talk about BBC bias….floor’s yours….

Front page BBC news and headlining on the bulletins all day….Trump’s missus makes speech that has definite echoes of one made by Obama’s missus.

I’m sure it is earth shattering and indicative of something important…or not.  Obama’s verdict on his own plagiarism? [See below]

I really don’t think this is too big of a deal.

The BBC is always keen to point out when certain people make slip ups, not so keen when it is one of their own, one of the Chosen Ones…like Obama who often ‘mispeaks’ but you rarely hear of it on the BBC.

What about plagiarism?

The BBC investigates…

Plagiarism quiz: Who were the caught-out copycats?

Not really investigates….they have a dig at Joe Biden but what about the Chosen One?

The Pres is right…no big deal….the BBC didn’t even notice.

Jafar Haand ‏@jafarhaand 3h3 hours ago

If you hate #Muslims or #Islam, take this pills. @HashimHabibzada

Good old Hugh Sykes…retweeting Muslim Brotherhood Islamic propaganda.

Anyway back to the real world…or rather planet Sykes…….what of that ‘peaceful coexistence? LOLLOLLOLLOL!!!

Germany train axe attack: Live updates as 18 injured after teenage refugee shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and hacked passengers

An axe attack on passengers on a train in Germany….at least 18 injured, some very seriously….the BBC reports that the attacker was ‘German’, coz he lived in Germany right? and the BBC’s Hugh Sykes considers that this might well be a plot by the Far Right in Germany to get ‘New Germans’ to attack indigenous Germans in order to stir up hatred…apparently the attacker was told that it is the custom in Germany to wallop someone around the head with an axe just as it is to rape and molest girls on New Year…he was just trying to integrate.  Sweet.

Actually, funnily enough, that isn’t what the BBC said, nor Hugh Sykes, though past performances might indicate that such utterances would be perfectly within the realm of possibility for them.

The BBC is, as ever, reluctant to speculate...’The motive for the attack is not yet clear’…..unless of course it is the motivations of white police officers when they shoot a black person, then it’s definitely ‘racism’, or when a Muslim school suffers an arson attack say…then it’s definitely the EDL, despite a distinct lack of evidence….and you’ve just got to love this…

Although the motive has not been established, the BBC’s Damien McGuinness in Berlin says there is nervousness in Germany about attacks by Islamist extremists following the attacks across the border in France.

The BBC clearly doesn’t know that the attacker shouted ‘Allah Akhbar’ as he struck, they’d report it right?….might be a clue as to motive…or maybe not as the BBC tells us of a earlier attack..

In May, a man reportedly shouting “Allahu akbar” (“God is great” in Arabic), killed one person and wounded three others in a knife attack at a railway station near the German city of Munich.

He was later sent to a psychiatric hospital and authorities said they found no links to Islamic extremism.

Ah yes, the favourite get out clause…mental illness…unless it is a white right-winger with well documented mental illness who kills a Labour MP….then it’s definitely political.

Sykes is in fact off on his own little tour of the planetary system as he pumps out what can only be described as the very life-blood of this site….we could have a separate little site just for him.  Twitter is such a rich hunting ground for anyone looking for low flying twits…..

• HughSykes ‏@HughSykes 2h2 hours ago İstanbul, Türkiye

  #terrorism

  Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms

  People say we have so much terrorism because we don’t treat the root cause. The bigger problem is we don’t even know what the root cause is.

Immediately the sale of tech giant ARM was announced the whispers began on the BBC…this was a ‘firesale’, Brexit had devalued the pound and ARM was being gobbled up at a bargain price…and therefore we shouldn’t look on this as a successful sign that the economy may well have a post-Brexit bright side after all.

Curious that tucked away in the business pages we see that ARM was in fact bought at a huge premium not a discount…

That might help to explain why Softbank’s eccentric chief executive Masayoshi Son is paying close to a 50% premium for the UK’s ARM Holdings.

The fall in the Pound may well have encouraged the sale but still at a huge price…had the pound not fallen no doubt a lower price, but still one way above actual value, would have been offered.

Everyone will be very happy with this deal…except it seem some at the BBC who always look on the negative side of life.

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.