A new day, more bias….Tory leadership candidate, Andrea Leadsom, is in the BBC’s sights and she’s taking a pounding, the BBC not just reporting but taking a view…..Leadsom is a bad person…lack of experience and judgement we are told.  Hmmm….funny how May’s comments[clearly part of her leadership spiel] about not having children weren’t reacted to in the same way…funny how the BBC is saying that Leadsom is claiming people without children have no stake in this country…isn’t she awful?  Funny how the BBC joined in the anti-Brexit campaign by saying that it was old people who selfishly voted for Brexit denying the young a say, destroying their future….so don’t the old have a stake in society that entitles them to vote as they like then?  May was a Remainer, Leadsom a Brexiteer….any reason why Leadsom is taking so much flak?  Apparently the Times interviewer asked Leadsom about children…it was a leading question knowing full well what May had already said…the BBC is already making judgements despite not having seen the full transcript of the interview.

Remember when Labour and the BBC told us that Old Etonians shouldn’t be running the country because they couldn’t understand what ‘normal people’ thought or wanted?  Didn’t Old Etonians have just as much of a stake in the country as any other person?  When Jo Cox was killed we were told she was the real deal, a people’s person, someone who could genuinely represent the ‘people’…..except she didn’t did she?  She was for Remain and mass immigration…whereas Old Etonian Boris  was on the other side with ‘the people’, all those once-Labour voters.

The BBC is there to check your privilege and approve and licence your acceptance as worthy of being part of their society.  If your ‘out’ you’re going to be denounced as ignorant, uneducated, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, xenophobic,, Islamophobic and guilty of being White.

Essex Police STN ‏@EssexPoliceSTN

You have a split second decision to make … #WhatWouldYouDo #joblikenoother #AirportCops

 

Five police officers murdered in Dallas and Obama’s immediate response was to say it’s the cops’ own fault…they are racists….they must change. He has a very low key response to the use of weapons this time….normally his first reaction to such mass killings is to loudly denounce their ownership and proclaim the laws must change.

I’m guessing he thinks the shootings were terrible but justified…his rhetoric over the years has certainly helped stir up the racial animosity.

The BBC itself has of course helped by repeatedly and loudly proclaiming every shooting of a black person by cops as racist...never mind the circumstances.   The BBC has played its part in increasing racial tension and conflict.  It is widely watched in the US. Are Cops dead due, in part, to BBC journalists’ reckless whipping up of anti-police, anti-white hate?

The BBC take on policing in the US:

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.

The BBC gives us this evidence of Black victimisation by cops…

But they give us no similar chart for whites or Hispanics or other races killed by cops….or the context…the crime rate of various races.

What if the BBC were to actually investigate the issue properly?  Would they find that Blacks were more likely to be killed?  Would they find out why that might be so?  They might, but they’re not interested, the BBC only wants to paint a picture of racist cops killing innocent Blacks….and the result is what we see today in Dallas.

Others are more honest.

The Myths of Black Lives Matter

The movement has won over Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But what if its claims are fiction?

Heather MacDonald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.

“Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force,” writes MacDonald.

MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks “commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime” in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city’s population.

More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks. According to MacDonald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.

“If we’re going to have a ‘Lives Matter’ anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named “White and Hispanic Lives Matter,'” said MacDonald in her Hillsdale speech.

The BBC always like to proclaim that the Black victim was ‘unarmed’ as in Ferguson but downplays the reality of the situation such as in Ferguson the Black ‘victim’ was very heavily built and tall, he punched the police officer and tried to grab his gun and then charged at him at which time he was shot.

Such an economy with the facts is not uncommon amongst those who want to portray every black person’s death as a racist murder by a police officer….

The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

In one of those unintended cases, an undercover cop from the New York Police Department was conducting a gun sting in Mount Vernon, just north of New York City. One of the gun traffickers jumped into the cop’s car, stuck a pistol to his head, grabbed $2,400 and fled. The officer gave chase and opened fire after the thief again pointed his gun at him. Two of the officer’s bullets accidentally hit a 61-year-old bystander, killing him. That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death. In the other collateral damage case, Virginia Beach, Virginia, officers approached a car parked at a convenience store that had a homicide suspect in the passenger seat. The suspect opened fire, sending a bullet through an officer’s shirt. The cops returned fire, killing their assailant as well as a woman in the driver’s seat. That woman entered the Post’s database without qualification as an “unarmed black victim” of police fire.

This is an article that Dr David Kelly, UN weapons inspector, authored just prior to the Iraq war….curiously the BBC never refers to anything Dr Kelly said that confirms the intelligence that Saddam was considered a threat…..Kelly was a world renowned and highly respected expert on WMD….John Humphrys? Not  so much.

‘Only regime change will avert the threat’

In the past week, Iraq has begun destroying its stock of al-Samoud II missiles, missiles that have a range greater than the UN-mandated limit of 150 kilometres. This is presented to the international community as evidence of President Saddam Hussein’s compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors.

But Iraq always gave up materials once it was in its interest to do so. Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.

Today Iraq shows superficial co-operation with the inspectorates. Weapons such as 122mm rockets specific for chemical and biological use have been discovered and the destruction of proscribed missiles and associated engines, components and gyroscopes has begun.

Iraq has established two commissions to search for documents and weapons under the direction of Rashid Amer, a former head of Iraq’s concealment activities, and a commission has started to recover weapons from Iraq’s unilateral destruction sites. (These sites, dating back to 1991, were destroyed by Iraq, illegally, without UN supervision and as part of Iraq’s concealment of programmes.) Amer al-Saadi – formerly responsible for conserving Iraq’s WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons – continues to mislead the international community.

It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.

Yet some argue that inspections are working and that more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and that disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.

The UN has been attempting to disarm Iraq ever since 1991 and has failed to do so. It is an abject failure of diplomacy with the split between France, China and Russia on the one hand, and Britain and the United States on the other, creating a lack of ‘permanent five’ unity and resolve. More recently Germany, a temporary yet powerful member of the Security Council, has exacerbated the diplomatic split. The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate. So-called concessions – U2 overflights, the right to interview – were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.

In the years since 1991, during which Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq established an effective concealment and deception organisation which protected many undisclosed assets. In October 2002, Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disclose his arsenal within 30 days. He admitted inspectors and, with characteristic guile, provided some concessions, but still refuses to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations – 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991. (Even these figures, it should be noted, are based in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq.)

Less easy to determine is the extent of activity undertaken since 1991. In its 12,000-page ‘disclosure’ submitted to the inspectors in December 2002, Iraq failed to declare any proscribed activities. Today the truly important issues are declaring the extent and scope of the programmes in 1991 and the personalities, ‘committees’ and organisations involved.

There are indications that the programmes continue.

Iraq continues to develop missile technology, especially fuel propellents and guidance systems for long-range missiles. Iraq has recovered chemical reactors destroyed prior to 1998 for allegedly civilian activity, built biological fermenters and agent dryers, and created transportable production units for biological and chemical agents and the filling of weapons. Key nuclear research and design teams remain in place, even though it is assessed that Iraq is unable to manufacture nuclear weapons unless fissile material is available.

War may now be inevitable. The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.

Since some WMD sites have not been unambiguously identified, and may not be neutralised until war is over, a substantial hazard may be encountered. Sites with manufacturing or storage capabilities for chemical or biological weapons may present a danger and much will depend on the way that those facilities are militarily cancelled and subsequently treated.

Some of the chemical and biological weapons deployed in 1991 are still available, albeit on a reduced scale. Aerial bombs and rockets are readily available to be filled with sarin, VX and mustard or botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and smallpox. More sophisticated weaponry, such as spray devices associated with drones or missiles with separating warheads, may be limited in numbers, but would be far more devastating if used.

The threat from Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries. Perhaps the real threat from Iraq today comes from covert use of such weapons against troops or by terrorists against civilian targets worldwide. The link with al-Qaeda is disputed, but is, in any case, not the principal terrorist link of concern. Iraq has long trained and supported terrorist activities and is quite capable of initiating such activity using its security services.

The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq’s development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert.

What did David Kelly think of the Iraq Intelligence Dossier?

‘I had no doubt about the veracity of it (the Dossier) was absolute….It is an accurate document, I think it is a fair reflection of the intelligence that was available and it’s presented in a very sober and factual way….it is well written.’

“I was personally sympathetic to the war because I recognised from a decade’s work the menace of Iraq’s ability to further develop it’s non-conventional weapons programmes…..We were 100% certain that Saddam had a biological weapons programme.”

I do not feel “deep unease” over the dossier because it is completely coincident with my personal views on Iraq’s unconventional weapons capability.

John Humphrys, that renowned scientist and weapons expert thought, and thinks, differently…as did the BBC’s head legal advisor…..

The BBC’s most senior lawyer has criticised the Hutton report as being “biased”.

Glenn del Medico said the inquiry into the death of Government weapons adviser David Kelly and the role of the BBC in the scandal had been a “dreadful waste of time”.

“It’s unfortunate that Lord Hutton made such a biased report. He got it wrong, but then judges don’t always get it right.”

The BBC hated Hutton, hated Butler but love Chilcott…wonder why…..floor’s yours….

The BBC has a few lines of attack it favours when talking about the ‘disaster’ that is Brexit, that’s one of them by the way, another is that Michael Gove recklessly and irresponsibly spoke disdainfully about experts and the elite thus undermining democracy and society’s respect for aforementioned worthies.  Naturally the BBC can speak authoritatively on this subject and scorn Gove for his juvenile and shallow attitude because it never ever doubts the integrity, expertise and professionalism of the Elite and those experts in their fields.

This morning then must have been a blip, the working class John Humphrys allowing ignorance, prejudice and a tabloidesque desire for a story to get the better of his judgement as the Today programme ran a skit about butter not being better.  Experts have told us that butter is the work of the devil, now experts tell us it is heavenly, oh wait, Humphrys drags in another expert who tells us put the butter down, stay away from the Lurpak.  Experts eh?  Still, good job the BBC doesn’t go all Gove on us and question their genius.

Talking of experts you probably thought that the BBC, a long established media company, renowned for the excellence of its programmes and jammed to the rafters with experts on making such programmes, would have been able to replicate the success of one of its flagship programmes, the Real Top Gear.  Just a look at the two photos of the presenters shows how it all went wrong with the reproduction…

How did the BBC, which has made Top Gear for years and years to a basic formula, fail to replicate that success?

How did the experts get it so badly wrong?

Their first mistake was wanting to copy the success but to do so by not copying the programme, they didn’t just tinker with the formula they tore it up.  What we have now is, yawn, a car show….of cars few people can actually afford even in their dreams.  Now OTG had the same cars but they trashed them and didn’t seem to be presenting the show as if we were customers seriously considering shelling out for one of these planet destroyers. The programme’s production values are great, the photography as Rory Reid tore around the Highlands in a Mustang was stunning and absolutely beautiful, the Scottish tourist board should license the footage, but that’s not the beating heart of Top Gear.

It always had brilliant photography and stunning visual effects but that wasn’t the secret of its success.

What was?  Three grown men acting like boys.  What the BBC then brought us was a boy trying to act as a grown up and Chris Evans could never carry that off.  He’s great on the radio but Top Gear was never going to be a good fit.

What about Joey?  The BBC thinking?  A huge American star, just as big here, sure fire lure to bring in the audience….but does that indicate a lack of confidence in the content of the new show?  Top Gear was a ‘star’ already, it didn’t need a big name, in fact what it needs is unknowns making it their own, stamping their personalities on it.  Joey is too big a star, too reliant on keeping his dignity to indulge in the stupidity that Clarkson and Co indulged in.  All the other presenters are in his shadow and there can never be the banter and fooling about with Joey that was so much a part of the old team, they’ll never be ‘mates’.  I like ‘Joey’, with George Clooney and Brad Pitt on the show he might have had some equals, but he’s way out of the current crop of Top Gear presenters’ league.

Therefore….he has to go…and he can take Eddie Jordan with him…why does Jordan think a show that treats him as the ‘fool’ is something he wants to be part of?

Rory Reid, Chris Harris and Sabine Schmitz should be the presenters…maybe Vicki Butler-Henderson should be head-hunted from Fifth Gear to mellow and balance the ballsy Schmitz who might overwhelm the boys.  Four presenters max.  There are too many now and it is impossible for them to gel as a team as the denim clad old crocks did.

Where is the fun, where is the banter, where is the knockabout stupidity, the special trips, the races that really seemed like races rather than three cars that just happen to be going in the same direction?

Even the Guardian, which had an innate hatred of Top Gear for so many reasons, thinks the spirit of the old Top gear should be wrought again….

INTRODUCE! You know, some fun

I don’t know, guys, just try to make it look like this is a fun programme to make. Laugh a little. Improvise. Crack jokes. Be rude about Mexicans. Punch a man in the face. Anything, so long as it brings a little of the old sparkle back.

How could the BBC ‘experts’ have got things so wrong on a programme that they must have known was based on a specific formula…..and one that was so obvious?

Top Gear has been changed into a car show, it’s Fifth Gear…and Fifth Gear already exists…and relatively few people watch it, no one talks about it…a clue there.  Top Gear has been reduced to an animated calendar, beautiful to look at but kinda boring in the end, and it does seem time passes at a calendar-like pace as you watch it…..The old ‘Star in a reasonably priced car‘ was already past its sell by date…what did the BBC do?  Add an extra star, make it even longer and more boring but with an exciting new change having a rally car (a mini…why not the Ariel Nomad?) go over a small bump and through a puddle.  Yawn.  Fast forward.

Three presenters (4 at most), jokes, banter, stupid pranks, great races, fantastic Specials and the stunning visuals….if it in’t broke don’t fix it…..bin Evans (done!), bin Joey, bin Jordan, bin those BBC experts and let’s have some fun.

Just because Old Top Gear had cars in it didn’t mean it was a car show.  It’s become a car show, it’s become a car crash.

The BBC has spent the last 10 years or so trying to rewrite history in order to put itself in the right and Blair, Hutton and the British Army in the wrong.

The BBC now ‘reports’ unashamedly that Blair was a liar, that Hutton was a fool in the pay of a liar and that British soldiers may have been brave but they fought an illlegal war…which is why the BBC spends so much time trying to put them in prison and to get the Islamist terrorists released from prison.

We had a quick look at Jeremy Bowen’s recent FOOC piece in which he blamed the Iraq War for the rise of ISIS, a conclusion that suits the BBC’s own anti-Iraq War narrative.  Never mind that ISIS was actually spawned by the Arab Spring.

The Telegraph takes a longer look and comes to a devastating conclusion about Bowen’s reporting that you may find hard to disagree with….

In truth, this account provides only an illusion of understanding. The notion that Western powers are primarily responsible for igniting the conflagrations that rage in Iraq, or elsewhere in the Middle East, is deeply misconceived.

Jeremy Bowen’s reporting only providing an ‘illusion of understanding’ and which is ‘deeply misconceived’.….still, nothing new there, just the usual standard fare we can expect from Bowen and his crew in the Middle East.

Nigel Farage has gone, laid down his arms, his fight over.  For many his place in history is assured, for the BBC and its ilk he will not be allowed to rest in peace, like Thatcher he will be denounced and villified for decades to come.  Perhaps he might like a little retirement job to keep his mind ticking over…..returning the BBC to the People and removing it from the clutches of the elite.

Janet Daley in the Telegraph explains what is happening [2014]….

[The attacks on Farage] have permanently installed the idea that the political class are a united vindictive force which regards the anxieties and concerns of a large proportion of voters with contempt.
The people will not forget this lesson. Even when they return to the fold of the mainstream parties – as I have no doubt they will – in the general election, they will recall this vendetta, and it will leave a bitter suspicion about how seriously their opinions are taken by the governing elite.

Nigel Farage has hung up his spurs for a well deserved rest after having almost single handedly defeated what seemed like the unstoppable forces of the Establishment arrayed against him over the course of nearly three decades.

Much like Thatcher he is destined now to be forever mocked, sneered at and demonised by the likes of the BBC and the Guardian, all the more so for having been their ultimate nemesis, one man up against the torrent of pro-Europe, pro-immigration, pro-open borders propaganda that issued forth from the state broadcaster.

Adrian Chiles, who clearly adheres to the BBC othrodoxy about UKIP, repeatedly today claimed that Farage had ‘stoked the fears about immigration’.

Farage did no such thing.  This is the usual BBC attempt to shape people’s perceptions and create the myth that there is not, and never has been, a problem with immigration…it’s just an imaginary fear created by the likes of Nigel Farage.  Farage stoked nothing.  What he did do was represent those who found themselves without a voice, their opinions shouted down, demonised as racists and silenced by the BBC which failed to report the truth about immigration and the effects it was having on society, the effects the people could see but weren’t allowed to talk about.  Farage gave them a voice, he didn’t create or ‘stoke’ the fears.  They were real and genuine.

Farage should be saluted and celebrated for the work he put in in the face of the enormous pressure and vitriol aimed at him, the tremendous amount of abuse, both verbal and physical, that he withstood, the mocking from the so-called BBC comedians and the interviews that were more like kangaroo courts than informed debate.

All we need to know about the BBC and its attitude towards Nigel Farage, and the people whose views he fronted, is that when LBC’s James O’Brien attempted a public lynching of Farage using lies, smears and innuendo in an aggressively hostile and prejudiced interview that had only one aim, to portray Farage as some sort of Nazi with a dubious morality, the BBC decided that O’Brien was just the man they needed to help present one of their flagship political programmes, Newsnight.

You don’t really have to know a single other thing about the BBC other than to recognise what the recruiting of O’Brien says about its thought processes, its values and the methods it is prepared to use to silence its political opponents…and of course just how biased it genuinely is.

Apart from the very obvious fact of the referendum substantiating Farage’s beliefs there are a couple of other points that should be made.

Remember that poster that the Left got so upset about?

It’s the same photo that the BBC used to propagate its own narrative…..

And today a caller on the Nicky Campbell show justified Farage’s use of the poster saying that the problem was that they may be refugees now but when Merkel gives them all passports and citizenship they can go where they like and many will head to Britain.  Campbell stated the he ‘understood that.’   So Farage was right and the BBC understands that…and yet still launched all out attacks on him for his poster….and the EU seems to have just a loose attitude towards the free movement of asylum seekers and imigrants as to that of EU workers…

POLICIES ON BORDER CHECKS,

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION

Article 77

1. The Union shall develop a policy with a view to:

(a) ensuring the absence of any controls on persons,whatever their nationality, when  crossing internal borders

Remember when Farage was attacked for suggesting HIV positive migrants shouldn’t come here?  The EU agrees…it says a country can limit the freedom of movement for reasons of public health….

There are limitations based on considerations of public security, public policy, public health grounds 

Nigel Farage has been right all along and the BBC’s contempt for him shows which side of the argument they are on….they are in no shape or form impartial or balanced when it comes to immigration or EU membership and blatantly tries to gag those who would criticise either.

“When the British people speak, everyone, including members of parliament, should tremble before their decision . . .”

The big battalions at the BBC have been mobilised to rescue the European Project from self-destruction as it implodes due to its own massive arrogance, contempt for the people and conceited self-righteousness.  Not only the big battalions though, the BBC has launched its EU jihadis out into the wild to go freerange to infiltrate the Press and other media to ambush, deny and harass in order to press the case for a general election and a second referendum by spreading half-truths, smears and outright lies about the Brexit vote and the people who voted Leave, stirring up hate and anger against them.

After Jo Cox’s murder the BBC really stepped up a gear along with Cameron and the Guardian to exploit her death, desperately trying to link the Leave campaign to the murder, Mishal Husain the next day suggesting that it was Leave’s, and only Leave’s, extremist rhetoric that caused Jo Cox’s death.  Then we had the actual vote and the BBC went into meltdown, all semblance of balance and impartiality has been cast aside in order to put an end to this nonsense of a democratic vote overruling the elite’s domination and control….as Michael Heseltine suggests..…

We have a constitutional crisis unprecedented in peacetime and a referendum result that flies in the face in the overwhelming majority of MPs, who believe our national self interest is inextricably interwoven with that of our European neighbours.

Yes that’s right, we must do what our MP’s tell us to do.  Funny I always thought it was the other way around and that the MPs were there to represent us.  But then again the BBC, after the death of Jo Cox, hurried to suggest we ought to have more respect for our politicians and not to believe the evil Press which told us politicians were out of touch with the common man.  What, politicians like Cameron, Osborne, Heseltine, Mandelson, Blair and Clarke?  The most arrogant, conceited, out of touch, patronising, condescending and contemptuous (Did I forget ‘lying’?) bunch of politicians as we’ll ever come across…and they all want you to have another vote…just vote the right way of course.

The BBC really is going to town on this as it works to promote the EU and to inform us, educate us, as to how vital the EU is to maintain peace, security, stability, economic success and the cultural and social benefits of staying part of Big Brother.  The other tactic is to delegitimise the Leave campaign, as said above by blaming it for the death of Jo Cox and for the ‘unleashing of racism’ as well as claiming the campaign was based upon lies and extremism that fooled or tricked the voters, the voters who were too stupid, uneducated or prejudiced or who didn’t care enough to vote the right way. The voters that were too old, too white, too poor, too stupid to be allowed to vote…their vote doesn’t count apparently.  Never mind I know plenty of highly educated, well off young people who voted Out….and no, they’re not ‘racist’ in the slightest….unless smug BBC types count as a race.

On Thursday Melvyn Bragg compromised his integrity and produced a programme that was blatantly about the EU and the benefits of being subsumed by a superstate telling us that splitting authority between different bodies is the road to conflict, that the good order of the state is founded on one ruler, one faith (God Bless the EU) and one system of law and that the solution to fragmentation and instability is ‘sovereignty’…of an overarching super authority.  Just another BBC programme ostensibly about one thing but really a less than subtle allegory with a message about the wonders of the EU superstate and its all encompassing rule.

Then we had From Our Own Correspondent which was again just a vehicle used to deliver a message.  First we had Jeremy Bowen up to his old tricks and telling porkies about Iraq, delivering what has become the BBC standard narrative that the 2003 Iraq War was the root of all the ills in the Middle East….how about the invention of Islam and the Arab conquest and colonisation which is still an ongoing project as Saudi Arabia floods the world, including the UK, with money and fundamentalism to further its Jihad…both hard and soft?

Following Bowen we had a trip to Prague where we learned about the perils of splitting up a state…the BBC didn’t want to suggest that this leads to conflict and bloodshed but…..

Then we went off to Brazil…a country in crisis, a dire situation…a very different country to the booming and confident one it used to be as it’s economy sinks into the mire, we are told….all not compared in the slightest to the UK…no suggestion that this is going to be the fate of a post-Brexit Britain…no really.

Finally there was a report from Sudan, not much about the EU here but naturally Britain got the blame for the civil war there…apparently it was all about ‘divide and rule’….the British’s fault from over a century ago.

Just another day on FOOC where ‘programme’ is just another way of spelling ‘propaganda’.

Just another day on a BBC comedy programme as well as ‘Deadringers’ gave us its unique interpretation of the news….well unique if you don’t include every other BBC comedy show.

Naturally Brexit has destroyed Britain and Leave got their country back….Germany in 1932 apparently.  Personally I’d like to think it was Britain in 1941 after we’d smashed the Nazi hordes trying to subjugate us with their fleets of bombers blitzing our cities.

Leave voters are ‘precious little snowflakes’….not the BBC calling them racist surely?

Farage naturally gets it in the neck…he, and the people who voted with him, are xenophobic, Europhobic, homophobic Klu Klux Klan members…apparently, according to the BBC….and all posh Old Etonians are ‘casual racists’.

Seems that it is the BBC that has the genuine ‘racists’, the people who disdain Leave voters and label them and use that label to attack them…..Deadringers is just another one of those lefty ‘hatecrimes’ dressed up as comedy.  If they’d said about Black people or Muslims what they’ve said about Leave voters the police would be searching their offices and computers right now.  It is outright abuse, discrimination and demonisation of Leave voters.  And it’s not just the comedy ‘racists’ who do this…the BBC’s most repsectable and solid citizens partake in a bit of hate as well….masked, not very successfully, as intelligent and profound comment.

Andrew Marr, Nicky Campbell, John Simpson and Anita Anand all engage in spreading anger, discontent and loathing against Leave voters.

Anand goes it alone in the Telegraph as she tells us ‘Britain needs to pull together to beat this ugly rise in racism’. Really?  I’m sure the police can more than adequately deal with a few nutters and idiots without the involvement of ‘Britain’.  Anand spins a few tales of racism into a country wide phenomenon that is endemic and on the rise…the very fact she writes this article suggests she thinks she is in Germany in 1932 (does she get her material from Deadringers?) and that a new Holocaust is about to happen.  In reality she doesn’t think that, this is just another attempt to put Leave on the backfoot by propagating the idea that racism has suddenly become acceptable and is spreading like a virus across the country due to the Leave campaign.  Just the usual lefty tactic of trying to win a debate by shouting ‘racist’.

John Simpson, well, his article in the New Statesman (A careless, nasty, mendacious and vicious campaign) I don’t really need to ‘Fisk’…read it for yourself, the prejudice, the extremely one-sided nature of his toxic narrative is self-evident and very, very obvious.  Simpson is hugely disappointed about the Out vote and as is the norm blames the racism and ignorance of the Leave voters for it.  Just as he ‘liberated Kabul’ he thinks he won the 1975 referendum…and is gutted that nobody asked him for his opinion this time….the Leave voters were carelessly uninterested in the referendum, they didn’t think it mattered he tells us…what complete bollocks. He tells us that the children and our children’s children have had their futures blighted, again complete bollocks…and naturally Jo Cox’s death is used to prop up his argument, his rant.  Apparently Britain in 1975 was a haven of racial harmony and mutual respect for one and all, especially politicians…now things are so much more brutal and coarse…some thug had the temerity to shout ‘Traitor’ at Cameron…the uppity little pleb, how dare he.

Nicky Campbell also appeared in the New Satesman…the New Statesman certainly understands its contributors and knows where to get a reliably pro-EU line.  Campbell uses much of his space to tell us how wonderful the BBC and 5LIVE is…and all done with ‘unimpeachable impartiality’…can’t say I’ve noticed, but thanks Nicky, must rememebr to check it out again, must have missed something.  Campbell was ‘privileged’ to hear the ‘the pride, the prejudice and the passion’ coming over the airwaves…..the ‘prejudice’…..ahhh yes those racist, bigoted Leave voters eh?  What’s up with them then?  Apparently ‘The referendum’s result surprised no one here’ at 5Live.  LOL.  Had to pick you up off the floor when the result came in luvvie.  Note also Campbell’s little love-in with Corbyn….Marr, also in the New Statesman,  fed us a line about the wonders of Corbyn.

Ahh yes Marr….he graces us with a long analysis of current goings on.  Well, not an analysis more a long winded hatchet job on Leave and its prejudiced and hateful campaign.  He started as he meant to go on, heading his piece…The biggest blunder of them all.  No prizes for guessing what that blunder was.

Rather than see this as a British vote, he portrays it, as the opponents of the vote would like to have it protrayed, as a vote split into certain sectors…..England against Scotland and London, the old versus the young, the rich versus the poor, the ignorant versus the educated…he doesn’t have the guts to say outright the ‘whites against the people with brown skin’…but of course he slips it in later.

He thinks this is the biggest democratic event in our history but then wields the knife to say it was all built on lies and foolishness…

It is also one of the elite’s most significant blunders, provoked by the most senior politicians for the wrong reasons and then pursued in what (to use a crude but apposite phrase) is the biggest establishment cock-up in my lifetime.

And Brexit attracts the ‘wrong sort of people’.…

There are calls for national revolt against the EU coming from across the continent. Far too many of the continent’s leaders welcoming our decision were the wrong sort of people.

The EU protects us all…

There are the darker forebodings about Europe, which has never managed to stay at peace with itself for long as a constellation of independent countries. Immigration pressures and the Russian threat are just a couple of possible sources of future conflict.

That’ll be the EU that has helped to escalate the immigration crisis and provoked Russia and stood back whilst IS and Assad demolish Syria and forced out millions of refugees who then headed towards Europe.

Fair enough he recognises the problems of the EU…

Is it possible that leaders in Brussels will eventually react, once the anger has cooled, to take a different path: to listen much more acutely to the sounds of pain caused by the euro experiment; to do a proper deal for Greece; to reassert democratic accountability (much more Council of Ministers, much less Commission); and to reassess free movement?

Which makes you wonder why the BBC et al so stridently shouts down the Leave campaign which articulates those very concerns and which the referendum was all about.

Marr then makes a big admission, again at odds with the BBC narrative…that Cameron’s much vaunted negotiations with the EU were a failure…

As soon as it became clear that Mrs Merkel was not prepared to countenance an end to the free movement of people, the plan began to fall apart. I vividly remember interviewing Cameron as the details of the negotiation became clear and thinking to myself, between his explanations: “This isn’t nearly enough.”

But Marr slips in his analysis here….

David Cameron and his closest political allies decided that the only way of scuppering Ukip and the Euro-hostile right of the Conservative Party was to give the British people a referendum.

The brutal way of putting this is that Cameron decided to put party management and tactics ahead of grand strategy, grossly overrated his own negotiating skills, and has been badly bitten in the bottom accordingly.

Cameron had no choice…you just have to look at the general election result when UKIP took 4 million votes to know that the Tories, and as it turned out Labour, were on the ropes about Europe.  Marr forgets that Labour is currently being destroyed by that very fact as Labour voters haemorraged away from ‘in’ Corbyn to vote for Out in the referendum.  And this wasn’t just an exercise in party management…as the result of the referendum shows the British public wanted a say that was long denied them about the EU….for them this was about democracy not any political party.

Marr also recognises that there was a ‘project fear’ and yet in all the post-Brexit talk from the BBC all we get is that it was the Leave campaign’s ‘extremist’ rhetoric that brutalised the debate.  But Marr admits….

A close confidant of the Prime Minister told me, when I questioned him about the wisdom of this: “On the contrary, we need more fear. Fear is the only thing that can win it for us . . . We need lots of fear. We need as much fear as we can get.”

Don’t hear that from the likes of Anand do we?

Marr then goes all BBC and reverts to type…

The most significant reason Project Fear failed was that it was confronted by a larger project of fear: the fear of uncontrolled and uncontrollable migration running, cumulatively, into the millions for many years ahead. Frank lies were told. Gross exaggeration ran riot.

Lies and gross exaggeration of the Leave campaign?  Bit of a lie and gross exaggeration in itself that claim.

Oh yes and what about this twaddle?…

A rash of racist and xenophobic politics immediately after the results.

‘Politics’?  Does he mean a rash of racist and xenophobic incidents?

And of course the Leave voters were the losers of society, the people who had nothing…no education, no money, no scruples, no morality it seems….so they voted Leave…..

When George Osborne warned of an economic apocalypse, people with nothing who felt they had no opportunities just put their fingers in their ears and went “la-la-la”.

Seventeen million no-good-for-nothings have hijacked the country and don’t know why…the stupid bastards eh?

Hilariously Red Andy tells us..

There were people who saw what was happening and understood that disregarded Lower and Middle Britain was fed up to the back teeth and ready to revolt: some trade union leaders – whose job it was, after all, to represent them – and some Labour MPs.

Not the old Etonian, the Tory minister, the UKIP fella then, just some Labour chappies and union barons?

Marr presses the Remain line…that a general election is needed…after which of course Brexit will be quietly shelved….

In usual circumstances, we would expect an early general election. There is a strong basic democratic case for one: otherwise, we get a prime minister, never chosen by the country, attempting to enact a manifesto no party has ever stood on in a general election.

Trouble is Cameron promised a referendum pre-2010, backed out then promised it again…and the 2015 election was run knowing a referendum was on the cards…and 17 million voters does give the referendum legitimacy..as well as an act of parliament.  As for a party manifesto…it will be the same as the one they run on now.

Marr ends by implying Leave may have destroyed the country and will have to apologise…

If it turns out that George Osborne’s blood-curdling warnings about jobs and investment turn out to be even half accurate, then those same cheerful gentlemen will have many personal apologies to make to people who do lose their jobs, or see prices rise and their pensions fall. There is plenty of anger still to come.

Perhaps all those who tied us to the sinking disaster zone that is the EU should apologise to all those who lost their jobs, their homes, their identity, their dignity and their hope.  Funny how Marr doesn’t remember, and demand apologies for, the ERM or the lies and deceit that led us into the 1975 referendum, Maastricht and Lisbon…Lisbon where the ashamed and cowardly Brown didn’t dare sign the agreement in public as he signed away British sovereignty, the lies and deceit about immigration…but then the BBC has spent decades covering up those lies, so why reveal them now?

The Empire is striking back and the revolution is in danger.

The BBC is acting as the private propaganda unit of the Remain camp providing them with endless and invaluable proaganda to create the narrative that the referendum was illegitimate and that a general election and a second referendum is necessary or that Brexit can be blocked with some legal trick or that 17 million and 1 signatures on a petition will overturn the result….

Legally speaking, the petition would have to show a clear majority of the electorate now favoured Remain for a second referendum to be triggered, says the BBC’s legal correspondent Clive Coleman.

Utter tosh…there is no legal ruling that allows a petition, signed by who knows who, to overturn a referendum result.  Just more BBC hustling to harass and pressurise politicians into bending the rules towards the BBC’s favoured way.

If the result is overturned and ignored the BBC had better hope people have short memories, the tanks will be on their lawn as well as the politicians’.