Cameron at PMQs has twice made Corbyn squirm over allegations of anti-Semitism and forced a rapid reaction from him, not to mention his ‘disgraceful’ allegations against Sadiq Khan. Cameron himself though is on sticky ground having had Baroness Warsi as Chair of his party and as a minister of faith to boot. The same Warsi who wanted Israel to be disarmed and left defenceless whilst also demanding the terrorists of Hamas be given weapons. The same Warsi who enjoyed the company of many a devout Muslim in the Muslim university society FOSIS, well known for being the breeding ground of extremists. The same Warsi who made it her job to do whatever it took to undermine the anti-terrorist Prevent programme. The same Warsi who argued for the inclusion of extremist organisations in the national debate about what should be called ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ and what should be acceptable..arguing it is the refusal to accept the radicals’ agenda as ‘normal’ that makes them radical.
Warsi is still at it attempting to muddy the waters and spread the blame…Dog-whistle, nasty, toxic politics based on race and religion? She should know……
Nasty toxic politics of race and religion are corroding public trust in @UKLabour & @Conservatives
Fascinated to know who it is that she thinks are ‘Islamophobic’, how she defines an ‘Islamophobe’ and why, in her opinion, such views are ‘Islamophobic’.
What’s apparent is a growing perception of who so many of the anti-Semites are….hard left politicians and all too many Muslims.
The BBC though doesn’t seem overly keen to hold Corbyn’s feet to the fire [Andrew Neil aside…of course] over long-running allegations of anti-Semitism running rife in his Party. Certainly they report on the issue but there is always more than a touch of equivocation about their reports and a refusal to come to a judgement….which, had this been a Tory or a UKIP offender we can be sure would not be the case…they’d be hung out to dry. The BBC works hard to provide Corbyn with an alibi. Corbyn is painted as the victim of internal Party squabbling, or it was all Miliband’s fault and anyway Corbyn is dealing with the issues by suspending people. Laura Kuenssberg tells us that‘No one believes that Jeremy Corbyn himself tolerates discrimination against Jews.’ Is that true?
This is not some academic exercise or interesting political theory. This is reality – the reality that the Labour Party is now run by a cadre for whom anti-Semitism really is ok, so long as it is dressed up as anti-Zionism. Because Zionism is the enemy of all good people.
People seem pretty concerned about his lack of enthusiasm to suspend people like Shah and Livingstone and there is the matter of his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, never mind his once employment on the rabidly anti-Semitic Iranian Press-TV channel where he has stood by as British Muslims describe Israelis as a disease that needs to be eliminated, and oh yes….the BBC is a ‘Zionist liar’….Via Guido:
Press TV, Iran’s government–run English-language satellite news network, has emerged as the Iranian government’s primary propaganda tool to promote a wide range of pernicious anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in English to a worldwide audience.
I have seen no desire from the BBC to examine the fact that Corbyn’s Labour Party edited Shah’s ‘apology’….
Labour MP Naz Shah’s apology was edited by the party’s HQ to remove all mentions of the term “anti-Semitic”, along with references to wider problems of anti-Semitism in left-wing politics, after it was submitted for approval, BuzzFeed News has learned.
You might think that is hardly the move of a Party intent on irradicating the scourge of anti-Semitism from its ranks…and Corbyn is reacting to allegations made very publicly against Labour and not proactively seeking out those who make such comments.
What about Naz Shah? Surely some mistake? She was emotional and distraught at fellow Muslims being ruthlessly murdered by Jews during the 2014 Gaza battle when she urged Israel to be destroyed and Jews shipped, transported, to America…no?
In 2012 she had pretty similar vitriolic views…tweeting this…never mind Israel has been under attack for 70 years and is defending itself from being ‘wiped out’……
@DavidWardMP@ifti_ifrahim@AsgharAli74@squarefoot@Adamsns@Alyask@KashAhmed77 @13TheCafe “ich bin ein Palistinian #Gaza#FreePalestine#RT
So she was tweeting ‘ich bin ein Palestinian’ to anti-Semite David Ward, and was she really channelling ‘Kennedy’ or was she using German for some other, more sinister, reason? What other association might she be making, David Ward considered? As for ‘#FreePalestine’...that isn’t about Gaza or the West Bank but about wiping out the Jews and erasing Israel from the map.
This is a woman who associates with well known demonisers of Israel such as David Sheen….who naturally is another goto for the BBC as well….
This is a woman who has consistantly attacked Israel and tried to undermine its legitimacy and tried to generate as much antagonism towards it as possible…here, as did Warsi, demanding Israel be denied arms and calling Gaza an open prison. This is not an attitude that she suddenly found irresistable one day as she saw news reports of Israel’s action in Gaza, this is a long-term, dyed-in-the-wool attitude that is prevalent in Muslim communities and on the Hard Left.
The BBC has always reported this as an intemperate, emotional blip and told us of her fulsome apology to the Jewish community…however one look at her Tweets and other comments indicates this is ingrained in her mind. This was not a one off from her. We had an interview on Thursday on the Today programme with two Jews, Rabbi Laura Janner- Klausner, senior rabbi with Reform Judaism, and David Baddiel, who both remarkably thought Shah wasn’t really being anti-Semitic and anyway what a nice person she was and she ahs apologised. Justin Webb didn’t argue against that.
It is a sick irony that she holds a seat on the Home Affairs Select Committee investigating the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK and uses her position to again attack Israel...to call for boycotts and disarmament, and to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa.
Shah’s suggestion that Israel be wiped off the map and moved to America was not the action of someone suddenly overcome by emotion and grief, why should that be..she is after all of Pakistani heritage not Palestinian?, it was the result of a mindset that has been steeped in anti-Jewish and an-Israeli rhetoric for a very long time….as the slippery islamist Mehdi Hasan admitted is all too common in Muslim communities…
It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.
The fact is that all opposition to Israel, such as Shah’s, is based upon one fact…that Israelis are Jews [except for the ones who aren’t…such as Palestinians Israelis…in this apartheid state], Israel is a Jewish state. If it had been a Muslim state carved out of the British Palestinian mandate land, such as Jordan, there would be no problem. It is just the Jews that are the problem it seems.
None of this seems to bother the BBC who dismisses Shah’s ‘moment of madness’ as a blip rather than what it is, just one more piece of evidence from a pattern of behaviour that illustrates a mind that is determined to undermine and, she no doubt hopes, eradicate Israel as a State in the Middle East.
Is it not an irony that a Pakistani heritage Muslim should be castigating Israel? Pakistan that has done so much to turn the world into a seething cauldron of war and religious apartheid? Pakistan that spread nuclear technology to terrorist states, Pakistan that has tried to take Kashmir from India by force, Pakistan that has sponsored so many terrorist groups, Pakistan that created the Taliban and continued to support them as they killed British troops, a Pakistan where no Christian, non-Muslim or even Ahmadi Muslim can really be safe. And Shah has the nerve to criticise Israel? Let’s boycott all Pakistani companies, shops and manufacturers. Let’s disarm Pakistan. Let’s argue for all Muslims in so-called ‘Pakistan’, stolen from India, to be sent to Saudi Arabia if they want to live in a Muslim state.
What does she think of that? Not so funny huh?
#Free’Pakistan’
I’m betting the BBC wouldn’t be too enamoured of such a campaign either….not saying they are anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim at the BBC, but they are.
This week’s show comes from Hull, panellists include Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells Greg Clark, former director of the Centre for Policy Studies Jill Kirby, chairman of the ARK schools charity Paul Marshall, former Labour Health bungler Andy Burnham and an irrelevant scotch person.
Here’s an excellent take on the BBC’s coverage of the Hillsborough Inquest.
“Strange ‘bunch’ our old chums at the BBC. Having ignored South Yorkshire police’s many failings with regards to the Muslim paedophile grooming gangs in Rotherham, in the light of the Hillsborough inquest, they are now vilifying the force with something verging on glee.
For well over a decade, if you recall, South Yorks constabulary (and others) covered up the appalling sexual exploitation of some 1,500 under-age girls in and around the city of Rotherham.
As dereliction of duties go – leaving vulnerable girls to be sexually exploited by marauding gangs of Muslims – it takes some beating. Not according to the good old BBC. The astounding actions of South Yorkshire constabulary were quietly swept under the plush, BBC carpet. How strange.”
Here’s an interesting comment from one of our regular readers;
“EU all sound bites and slogans but no facts.
When will the BBC and other media outlets start to put some facts either in graphical or diagrammatic form to back up opinions and statements ? Any presentation would be welcome
It would appear their elitism extends to the point whereupon they believe the electorate and general public ” cannot understand complex matters”. For example what does ” we are better in than out mean”
or ” we shall be able to govern ourselves” actually refer to ?
The debate homes in on the following areas: Sovereignty; Trade; Immigration; EU Economics and Financing including contributions and rebates.
To date I have not witnessed one rational, reasoned argument backed up by indisputable facts. Is it completely beyond the wit for BBC Journos to shed their inbuilt, personal agenda to open the debate we all want ? Soon as someone voices an opinion that rubs them up the wrong way, they interrupt constantly and then side line into personalties and opinions. Pathetic.
British Steel ;Watched John Humphrey using phrases such as ” Yesterdays production cannot be valid in the future” Since when was he ever an expert in steel production and manufacturing. Simple factual research will show that Nissan, and Vauxhall use 50% of Port Talbot output. The onerous business, and green taxes in the UK are far higher than Sweden Germany, USA or France. That is a main contributor to 1 Million a day losses in addition to China keeping their work force happy to avoid unrest by dumping cheap steel.
Why don’t we have referendum on the BBC to see how many people today agree with the licence fee ? Then we can watch the smugness and supercilious similes get wiped off their faces as they face mass redundancy without a hint of compassion.
“On the BBC World Home page today. One of the ‘Most Popular’ news item in the list was apparently this one: “Hillsborough Justice hailed but not on front of Sun”. You go into look and yes that’s correct and not very sensible of The Sun. The Sun has a piece instead about an EU Cover Up/David Cameron.
BBC bias is getting ridiculous and as I am forced to pay for the privilege of the BBC, which I never watch, I am sick to death of having their (the Governments) bias shoved down my throat at every opportunity. This story is most popular because the BBC highlighted it in the list with an incitative tagline. Strange how their mention of the recent Dutch Referendum was barely mentioned but popular on all other news sites around the world.”
The government makes all sorts of claims about the threat to inward investment to the UK should we leave the EU’s clutches and the BBC does little to dispel such notions. Hence we bring you this piece of puffery from the government from last year in which they boast of their success in attracting record levels of investment to the UK…due to the government’s fabled long term economic plan, their hard work in chasing investment from around the world, the UK infrastructure, the regulatory system, the attractive tax rates, the skilled work force, the R&D levels…and the government strategy that gives the UK the competitive edge in the world…..what’s missing from all that is any mention of the EU which we are now assured is the main reason for investment into the UK…the closeness of the EU market and access to free trade via the UK. However in the full report again there is no mention that the EU is a factor in driving investment towards the UK and only one company of the many highlighted as examples mentions that it chose the UK as a base to export to Europe…but even that is open to interpretation.
The scale of foreign investment is a huge success story which shows that Britain is the place to do business and is more evidence that our long term economic plan is working. Securing investment from overseas is a key part of our One Nation policies to create thousands of jobs, provide security and opportunities for working people throughout the UK.
Trade and Investment Minister Lord Maude said:
2014 was an exceptional year for UK inward investment and we are proud to be bucking the global trend. The UK is a great place for entrepreneurs and corporations to put their energy, their ideas, their money and their talents to work. The Government will continue to work hard to attract investment from across the globe to further strengthen the UK economy.
UKTI statistics show that FDI into the UK came from more than 70 countries, including the world’s leading emerging markets.
Once the referendum is over I imagine the Government will return to boasting of its achievements and claiming all the glory for themselves. Funny how times change, then again it was only a few months ago that both Osborne and Cameron were saying they would be happy to leave the EU if they didn’t get major reforms of the EU….still waiting on that one.
A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.
We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.
We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.
Good luck with that.
Second, it is interesting that Roger Harrabin doesn’t seem to have used the ‘97% of all scientists‘ stick to support his climate change campaigning and beat the Sceptics with…I’ve tried to find something from him but no luck. Now that is very telling if confirmed…Harrabin is a hardcore propagandist for the climate lobby and yet he seems to have taken a look at this ‘killer’ statistic and decided not to use it. Is that because he recognises the stat is bogus and essentially a lie? His non-use of the stat would seem to indicate that it is entirely worthless, and so obviously worthless that Harrabin knows he would get called out on it and he wouldn’t be able to justify its use…exposing him as a propagandist.
Third thing of note relates to that 97% claim. The BBC has frequently reported on fraud and corruption in science, both from the scientists and those who report on it in the scientific journals….but not once have I heard the subject of climate change come under scrutiny in a similar manner….will that change? …from WUWT:
After a decade of slow growth beneath public view, the replication crisis in science begins breaking into public view. First psychology and biomedical studies, now spreading to many other fields — overturning what we were told is settled science, the foundations of our personal behavior and public policy. Here is an introduction to the conflict (there is pushback), with the usual links to detailed information at the end, and some tentative conclusions about effects on public’s trust of science. It’s early days yet, with the real action yet to begin.
This crisis emerged a decade ago as problems in a few fields — especially health care and psychology. Slowly similar problems emerged in other fields, usually failures to replicate widely accepted research.
“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.” — Goethe, from Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soret.
With what we know about the likes of the CRU after their emails were hacked, what we know about the 97% claim, what we know about the ‘hockey stick’ manipulations, what we know about the conspiracy to hide the medieval warm period, and the ‘decline’, it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption. With so many reputations, careers and lucrative research grants on the line there has long been a hard fought battle to silence the critics and those who question the status quo, the so-called ‘consensus’. You just had to see the BBC’s science journos’ united front that marched out to defend the CRU and climate scientist Phil Jones when the emails surfaced to understand the problem…some people were more interested in covering up for the sicentists than in exposing wrongdoing or bad science.
Maybe that will change as WUWT suggests and more and more of that bad science and bad faith is exposed. Again good luck with that. Climate change is a massive industry worth billions which has sucked in not just the scientists but the politicians and journalists as well as the cultural cheerleaders such as artists, actors, singers and writers who so usefully give a ‘human face’ to the science that they so little understand. They have so much tied up in climate change actually happening and being man-made that any criticism or undermining of that belief will only succeed if there is an equally massive turn of events that stops people in their tracks, radically alters their perceptions and dramatically proves the science wrong or maybe wrong. Again, good luck with that….glaciers advancing down Salford high street would be presented as conclusive proof of global warming I’m sure…..and as I said they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privileges and the cash flow….as noted by Matt Ridley in the Times recently …and spot the hand of the Rasputin-like Richard Black in this (You can’t keep a good man down)…..via ‘Not a lot of people know that’…
The editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change. Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change.
The letter was not entirely the work of the peers but, I understand, involved Richard Black, once a BBC environment correspondent and now director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an organisation that spends more than £500,000 a year, largely trying to influence the media.
Of course there is one redoubt in the BBC where journalism is given a fair go…Andrew Neil holds the fort…and here explains, & his colleagues should read it, what good journalism is all about…
The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.
The Sunday Politics remit and interview duration means we are able to carry out proper forensic interviews on such matters.
It is becoming a hallmark of our programme, whether it’s challenging the global warming assumptions of the climate change secretary, the NUT’s historic resistance to school reforms by Tory and Labour governments, or the activities of the leader of the English Defence League.
Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.
We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.
First, the Sunday Politics does not have a position on any of the subjects on which it interrogates people.
Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.
There is hardly any purpose in presenting evidence which supports the interviewee’s position – that is his or her job.
It is for viewers to decide how well the interviewee’s position holds up under scrutiny and the strength of the contrary evidence or points put to him or her.
Taking an opposite or challenging position from the person being interviewed is pretty much standard practice in long-form broadcast interviews.
But the contrary position has to be based on reputable evidence.
The intriguing question of whether the president’s dual colonial inheritance – of Kenyan and Irish ancestry – is helping reshape America’s supposedly “special relationship” with Britain.
The BBC’s own Nick Robinson thinks it’s a question worth asking as he’s doubtful about Obama’s allegiances and priorities…
Confronted directly by the BBC’s political correspondent, Nick Robinson, with the assertion that “unlike many of your predecessors, [you] have not looked towards Europe, let alone Britain,” the president yesterday denied any cooling had taken place.
Sunday morning on R4 we had Paddy O’Connell (10 mins 30s) putting the boot into Boris for being ‘a racist’. O’Connell had on Shirley Williams and Michael Howard to discuss Obama. Williams told us that she was ‘ashamed of the extraordinary comments’ made by Boris.
O’Connell didn’t challenge Williams on her claim and ask her to justify why she thought Boris was racist instead he tried to badger Michael Howard into distancing himself from Boris’ comments….
‘Can you just help us with this Lord Howard?…..Shirley Williams is concerned about the tone of the Mayor of London’s remarks, the ‘part-Kenyan’, I think he even said ‘Keenyan president’, do you distance yourself from Boris Johnson’s remarks about the background of President Obama?’
Where to start? Since when has Shirley Williams been the nation’s goto moral arbiter? The same Shirley Williams whose politics the Public roundly rejected and who would like to see Communism take over in the UK? Why does O’Connell use Williams’ remark as the baseline truth? O’Connell’s default position is that she is right and Howard should distance himself from the remarks…which is quite extraordinary conclusion if you have actually read Boris’ remarks and note that they are entirely innocuous and reasonable…especially when you consider, and have knowledge of, any context. O’Connell clearly falls short there…but what’s new for BBC presenters who think pious grandstanding and holier-than-thou comments are a good substitute for actual facts and analysis?
The real problem isn’t Boris but the likes of Williams, and indeed O’Connell who doesn’t seem capable of thinking for himself. It is their own comments that are in effect ‘racist’…Boris is blond and white, he’s supporting Britain and therefore he is ‘racist’ by default regardless of what he actually says…this is reverse racism by Williams and O’Connell….all White people are inherently racist is the line.
As for the ‘Tone’ of the debate….perhaps the BBC should be more concerned about politicians who cynically and deliberately play the race card to attack and discredit opponents, and to close down debate, rather than engage with their arguments…especially when the alleged racism is nothing more than an outright lie conjured up by the likes of Williams. Surely there is an important issue of freedom of speech and the tricks used to suppress it….tricks used by the BBC itself as here and deployed many times against Nigel Farage.
Of course context and a bit of history, a bit of connected thinking, is beyond the likes of the BBC’s O’Connell who seems more interested in attacking Boris than in putting the record straight. Has anyone ever raised the subject of Obama’s ancestry and its influence on his outlook? No…oh hang on….maybe…
Sir David Manning, who was Britain’s ambassador to Washington from 2003 to 2007 in testimony to a House of Commons foreign affairs committee, said that Obama “comes with a very different perspective” from other presidents.
“He is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia, and who had a Kenyan father,” Manning said. “We now have a Democrat who is not familiar with us.”
So he thinks Obama’s non-European roots may shape his thinking….Sir David Manning…what a bleeding racist scumbag!!!
Let’s have a look at what the BBC itself has said about Obama and his Kenyan roots, his ‘Kenyan blood coursing through his veins‘…..do people think they are relevant and could they in any way have influenced his thinking?…..BBC racist scumbags!!!!…
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 and has been adopted as a Kenyan national hero, who just might become the most powerful man in the world. Barack Obama has never lived in Kenya and he has visited the country just three times. The Kenyan blood comes from his father, Barack Obama senior, who was born in the remote village of Alego where he herded goats as a child.
We are the envy of the whole continent and as for our cousins the Nigerians, this is the ultimate humiliation. They will never be able to live this one down. Then there is Kenya and I ought to tread gently for there might be some raw emotions here, since there are blood claims.
US officials complained Kenyan students were becoming “anti-white” in the year Barack Obama’s father enrolled at university, previously secret files released at the National Archives in Kew reveal. The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational,” the note stated. “The arrival here of these students, many of them of indifferent academic calibre and ill-prepared for the venture, is likely to give rise to difficult problems.”
Did Obama’s father pick up an anti-white attitude from his father? You may guess as much from what Obama himself says about his grandfather’s life under British rule…..the ‘foreign masters’.
So we can all appreciate our own identities, our bloodlines, our beliefs, our backgrounds — that tapestry is what makes us who we are.
My grandfather, for example, he was a cook for the British. And as I went through some of his belongings when I went up-country, I found the passbook he had had to carry as a domestic servant. It listed his age and his height, his tribe, listed the number of teeth he had missing. (Laughter.) And he was referred to as a boy, even though he was a grown man, in that passbook.
A young, ambitious Kenyan today should not have to do what my grandfather did, and serve a foreign master.
He also said this…which is interesting in light of his desire for Britain to be subservient to the EU empire….
[The] arc of progress — from foreign rule to independence; from isolation to education, and engagement with a wider world. It speaks of incredible progress.
Brexit then, freedom from foreign rule, would be ‘incredible progress’? Cheers Bro.
Does the treatment of Black people throughout history by Whites weigh heavily on his thoughts, and does it reflect in his policies? Yes to both those…here he is on the Confederate flag…to him a symbol of racism and slavery…hence it should go…..
Look at us in the United States. Recently, we’ve been having a debate about the Confederate flag. Some of you may be familiar with this. This was a symbol for those states who fought against the Union to preserve slavery. Now, as a historical artifact, it’s important. But some have argued that it’s just a symbol of heritage that should fly in public spaces. The fact is it was a flag that flew over an army that fought to maintain a system of slavery and racial subjugation. So we should understand our history, but we should also recognize that it sends a bad message to those who were liberated from slavery and oppression.
The President-elect’s relatives have told how the family was a victim of the Mau Mau revolt
Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect.
Is the Times being racist or just reporting the facts?
Here is the type of conversation Obama had with his grandmother….would this and the likes of the previous report colour his views of Britain in any shape or form?…..
[Quoting his step-grandmother:] Like other boys, your father would be influenced by the early talk of independence, and he would come home from school talking about the meetings he had seen. Your grandfather agreed with many of the demands of the early parties like KANU, but he remained skeptical that the independence movement would lead to anything, because he thought Africans could never win against the white man’s army. “How can the African defeat the white man,” he would tell Barack, “when he cannot even make his own bicycle?”
It would be perfectly normal to suppose he might have some antipathy to White folks despite his mother’s colour, and that would impact upon his thinking even if subliminally. Clearly race issues loom large in his thinking as we’ve seen time and time again during his Presidency….it is almost inconceivable that how the British dealt with his grandfather didn’t have some impact upon his thinking in some shape or form.
However Boris didn’t actually say that…he only stated that there were many suggested reasons that may possibly have led to Obama removing Churchill’s bust from pride of place in the Oval Office….he made no suggestion hmself…and the one he concentrated on was that Churchill was possibly thought irrelevant for the modern age…which of course he denied.
From all the above examples, from ambassors, to Kenyans, the Guardian, to the BBC itself, Obama’s Kenyan heritage is clearly important to them and to him. How is that they can all raise the subject and tell us how his the ‘Kenyan blood coursing through his veins’ shaped him as a person and yet Boris can’t mention it in a passing comment that didn’t actually reflect his own personal view?
What if Paddy O’Connell’s great grandfather being beaten black and blue by the Black and Tans in 1916 and Paddy subsequently had misgivings about Britain due to that?…would that be racist to say such a thing if it were true at all at all? If it were true I’d bet that it was a subject that would bubble to the surface every now and again and a bitter tone about ‘the British’ would enter the conversation….a man whose sentimental emotions are near the surface….
Paddy O’Connell struggled to compose himself following a reading of a love letter from Emilie Blachere to Remi Ochlik, who died alongside Sunday Times journalist Marie Colvin in the besieged city of Homs last year.
After the end of the poem, which was read by Miss Blachere herself, the airwaves were plunged into silence for about 12 seconds before the presenter regained enough composure to speak again.
Ironically O’Connell works for the BBC which relentlessly peddles the same sort of narrative that they denounce Boris for supposedly arguing [even though that’s not what he said], of historical wrongs leading to modern violence…how many times has the BBC told us that Muslims in the UK are so concerned about the Crusades, the ‘carving up of the Middle East by Sykes Picot’ and the various wars ‘against Muslims by the West’ that such feelings have led to radicalisation and terrorism. And yet they vehemently discount any suggestion that Obama might be similarly effected by the historic oppression of ‘his people’. Seems like the BBC just makes it up as it goes along, picking and choosing narratives that suit their own agenda….defending Muslim terrorists or attacking anyone who wants to leave the EU as racist little Englanders.
The BBC, in league with the Government peddling pro-EU propaganda and carrying out witch-hunts and public show trials and lynchings of those it considers ‘enemies of the State’….The European State of course.
Here is Obama’s friend and mentor…Jeremiah Wright….telling us Obama does not ‘fit the mould’….the mould being white, European, rich and privileged…If you’re judged by who your friends are…….
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
diggSep 17, 16:08 Midweek 17th September 2025 That’s 5 “companions” for each child…. Sounds more like a get into the UK free scam than a humanitarian exercise…
Ian RushlowSep 17, 16:07 Midweek 17th September 2025 The BBC and other controlled media outlets are always keen to mention that Tommy Robinson has several criminal convictions. As…
diggSep 17, 16:01 Midweek 17th September 2025 This demonstrates that Starmers childish lefty vindictiveness and bile is nothing new then! Little wonder that all the shooters in…
Ian RushlowSep 17, 15:59 Midweek 17th September 2025 Whenever involved in any dealings with the police, ask them to identify themselves and make a not of their police…
Emmanuel GoldsteinSep 17, 15:57 Midweek 17th September 2025 It’s been CONFIRMED by the Met Police that of the 26 arrests reported by the media only 8 were attributed…
tomoSep 17, 15:45 Midweek 17th September 2025 TTK fan swag is now an industry…. (see replies) https://twitter.com/lisareality1/status/1967861383799939471
MarkyMarkSep 17, 15:39 Midweek 17th September 2025 Tomo – like this .. HA AHH AAH AH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1owcncKCHg CareerBuilder.com: Monkey Business (Up – Down Profitability)
MarkyMarkSep 17, 15:34 Midweek 17th September 2025 Motion text That this House deplores recent actions taken by US President Donald J Trump, including his Executive Order on…
tomoSep 17, 15:32 Midweek 17th September 2025 it actually shows no sign of decelerating – it’s gonna run off the bottom
MarkyMarkSep 17, 15:22 Midweek 17th September 2025 FREE PALESTINE FROM HAMAS! Maybe actors/politicians should wear a hijab when praising Palestine so they don’t offend the religion they…
Sayeeda Warsi 
Naz Shah MP Verified account 
