Category Archives: BBC bias

‘Pertinent With Nigel Farage’

By | |
21 Comments

 

 

 

The BBC is pumping out yet more pro-immigration propaganda meant to challenge your ignorance and prejudiced stupidity should you be one of those ‘furious faced Ukippers’ who think having control on who and how many people come into the UK is a good idea.

As you may imagine the BBC have handed the baton to Jonathan Freedland who picks it up and runs with it ….to the left of course.

Jonathan Freedland examines current debates surrounding immigration and legislation in the light of the 1905 Aliens Act; the first act to introduce immigration and registration controls into Britain from areas outside the British Empire and seen chiefly as a response to East European Jewish immigration.

Jonathan is joined by Mary Riddell, columnist and political interviewer for the Daily Telegraph, Dr David Glover, Emeritus Professor of English at the University of Southampton and the actor Henry Goodman.

Freedland is pro-immigration and thinks those who oppose it are of the ‘beast’…

David Cameron is trying to feed a beast that cannot be satisfied. There is no move he can make that would ever be enough, not for the constituency that has convinced itself that immigration explains every contemporary misery.

Mary Riddell is an ardent fan of Miliband and is very definitely from the Left and a pro-immigration, anti-UKIP campaigner who thinks that there is a‘poisonous mythology attached to immigration’.…

The Labour Party leader should resist the temptation to shift to the Right to counter Ukip’s threat

 

UKIP need to be exposed, not ignored – Mary Riddell interviews Yvette Cooper

 

 

Dr Glover has a background in sociology and cultural studies and takes a particular interest in immigration….being Jewish, as is Freedland, you may expect that his views  might not be entirely unbiased in their interpretation of the history of Jewish immigration to the UK.

So a programme set up to provide us with an entirely impartial, unbiased, balanced and unprejudiced view of immigration.

The programme began by telling us that ‘Britain prided itself on liberty, that its borders were open and people were free to move in and out as they liked’  It was a ‘point of pride’ at the beginning of the last century that the borders were open.

Why did the BBC pick this particular moment in time?  Because the main immigrants then were Jewish….the BBC is trying to make a ‘resonant’ comparison with Muslims today of course…Jews were being ‘scapegoated’ apparently as are Muslims today…apparently.

Were they?  Were they scapegoated for their Jewishness or their religious practises which they undoubtedly forced upon the rest of the UK ? Or was the Act more about health, jobs, housing and social problems?

Kind of insensitive to make such a comparison between Jews then and Muslims now when Muslims are one of the main instigators of anti-Semitism across Europe right now.

Freedland makes a pointed interruption saying there hasn’t been much said about cultural change being seen as a threat to the make up of British society…..the Jews posed no threat to the ‘make-up’ of British society…maybe 120,000 Jewish immigrants came here over 30 or so years…how many are here now?  Around 300,000.  Compare that with Muslim immigratiion and the effect on the demographics and you can see that Muslims are rapidly increasing in number and vastly outnumber Jews, or any other minority religious community in the UK….and as for cultural changes…where to begin….perhaps attempts to change foreign policy, the Trojan Horse plot and its ilk, force feeding Halal meat to unsuspecting non-Muslims etc etc.  Huge changes forced upon a nation, a society, a culture, that has been given no choice by the ‘elite’ who control such things.

This programme being just another example of that elitist imposition of their own views.

The answer to the question about cultural changes was a dismissive reply that ‘communities eventually find their own level and integrate.‘

So that’s alright then.

Hardly takes into account current circumstances and the failure to integrate, not just failure, but determined efforts not to integrate, by many Muslims led by the Muslim Council of Britain which we are told is most representative of the various Muslim groups in the UK.

We are told all this is ‘pertinent with Nigel Farage’ and his dislike of travelling in trains where no one speaks English…. a deliberate misrepresentation of his actual meaning.

The supposed subject of the programme was the ‘Aliens Act 1905’ which the programme suggested was just a piece of prejudiced anti-immigrant legislation intended to keep out the Joows.

Freedland and Co hugely misrepresented what the Act said…here is a description of it…

Aliens Acts 1905 and 1919

The Aliens Act of 1905 was the first piece of immigration legislation in 20th century Britain. It was the first to define some groups of migrants as ‘undesirable’, thereby making entry to the United Kingdom discretionary, rather than automatic.

The 1905 Act was passed because of fears of degenerating health and housing conditions in London’s East End. The cause of the degeneration was seen as the large number of Russian and Polish Jews who had arrived in the East End after fleeing persecution in Tsarist Russia.

The Act ensured that leave to land could be withheld if the immigrant was judged to be ‘undesirable’ by falling into one of four categories: ‘a) if he cannot show that he has in his possession … the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents …’; ‘b) if he is a lunatic or an idiot or owing to any disease of infirmity liable to become a charge upon the public rates …’; c) ‘if he has been sentenced in a foreign country for a crime, not being an offence of a political character …’; or ‘d) if an expulsion order under this act has [already] been made’.

It seems entirely reasonable and not based upon any particular race or creed being targeted and far from the rabid anti-immigrant tract that the BBC presents it as.

Here is the full text of the Act itself.

And a pertinent extract about asylum seekers being allowed to come in regardless of the ability to provide for themselves…

aaaaalienact

Just another piece of very, very one-sided BBC propaganda promoting immigration combined with a patronising attempt to mislead us about the problems concerning Muslim intentions and the future shape of society in light of that.

Television Is Not For The Likes Of You

By | |
14 Comments

 

We had a look at the Sunday Times attitude towards Richard Littlejohn (H/T  Sue at Is the BBC biased?) and various BBC reviews of films it sees as at odd with its world view.

TV reviewers seem to be a redoubt of a particular brand of liberal, middle class snobbery which looks down its nose at the ‘common man’.

Here is the guilty secret of a Guardianista…

Why Top Gear remains annoyingly excellent television

Liking Top Gear brings shame. Jeremy Clarkson embodies everything that’s wrong with straight, white, old men, pampered but inexplicably vengeful, running the country. I’d rather drive a pastel-blue Hyundai Accent 1.5 CRTD GSI than be among the Top Gear studio audience, with their furious Ukip faces and suspiciously uniform laughter.

 

 

Ah those angry, straight, white, vengeful white men with furious UKIP faces packing out the audience.

The Telegraph is little better.  It reviews Channel Four’s anti-UKIP bit of propaganda and suggests that its not bad except that…

However, it made one fatal error. The white working class, the disenfranchised section of society that Farage has courted, were reduced to an unruly, stereotyped mob, an army of bald-headed, beer-swilling thugs. A braver, more thoughtful piece would have put a “white van man” type at the heart of the drama: challenged his prejudices, certainly, but also given him a voice.

 

Now that’s the kind of support you don’t need….argues that ‘white van man’ is being stereotyped (Isn’t that a stereotype in the first place?)  and then paradoxically claims that their ‘prejudices’ needed to be challenged.

So not only are all UKIP supporters dismissed as white van drivers, their views are dismissed as being based on ignorant prejudice whilst of course any political views the Reviewer holds are intelligent, informed and balanced with a tinge of humanity.

Perhaps we should have a UKIP ‘Lenny Henry’ ..an angry white one of course…demanding equality of representation on TV and in the news.

 

 

What A Kirkup

By | |
48 Comments

 

 

If you were ever worried about free speech in this country and the power of the Muslim attack lobby to frighten people into toeing the line here is the perfect example…

The Telegraph’s James Kirkup wrote an article which was decidedly pro-Muslim and based upon the ‘research’ by the extremist organisation The Muslim Council of Britain….it was originally titled  ‘Worried about Muslims in Britain? Here’s the answer’...Kirkup has now changed that ‘offensive’ title.

The fact that Kirkup, a journalist, doesn’t know what the MCB is and what its intentions are is frightening.

This is the original article from Kirkup with the all new title from which you can see he has no idea what he is talking about…’Values’ are the be all and end all of this debate….

 

British Muslims: integration and segregation are about economics, not values

Many commentators and politicians approach integration as a cultural question, arguing that more should be done to persuade British Muslims to accept “British values”. Perhaps we’d be better off taking an economic perspective, accepting that a better aim is making them better off.

Worried about the rising number of Muslim children in our schools? Then you should hope they pass their exams, go to good universities and get well-paid jobs. Especially the girls. Really, turn more Muslims into fully paid-up members of the Waitrose-shopping, Audi-driving, Boden-wearing middle-classes and their values will take care of themselves.

 

That’ll be right..here’s a perfect example…a Muslim with a first class honours degree and a good job…‘I am a Muslim….I reject Liberal Values’ and that of course is just for starters…..

 

 

 

Kirkup says in his latest apologetic article…

Last week I wrote about Muslims.

My article appears to have caused offence. Quite a lot of people got in touch to accuse me of being “soft” on Muslims, of failing to report and confront what they describe as a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and British society and British values. I don’t share that view. I simply note the concerns those people express.

Others, mainly but not solely Muslims, took a different view of the article. They raised a number of concerns, which I’d like to address here. Broadly, there were three types of complaint.

 

He has no concerns at all about his non-Muslim critics….instead he writes a long apologia to his Muslim critics answering these questions…

1 “Why are you just writing about Muslims?”

2 “You’re treating Muslims as a problem to be solved”

3 “Would you say that about any other group?”

 

The bottom line is that I wrote an article arguing that British Muslims should be richer and more free, and treated just like anyone else. Yet a lot of people thought that article was anti-Muslim.

So I’m amending the headline and withdrawing the poll. And I’m apologising for any offence those aspects of the article caused. But I stand by my argument, and hoping that the changes will allow people to focus on that argument and not the way it was presented.

 

The poll he ran asked if you thought Islam was a problem for British society…he has withdrawn the poll but the result was a resounding yes, Islam is a problem…

 

pollmussies

Kirkup says..

For me, journalism should provoke thoughts, not emotion, not least since the latter often obstruct the former. That’s what happened here: I inadvertently and unnecessarily caused offence, and that obscured my argument.

Journalists should never be afraid to offend. We should report and argue as we see the world, not according to the feelings of others. But offence should only ever be the necessary byproduct of journalism, not its aim.

 

Which is why this principled and professional journalist who cares about facts and is not bothered about causing offence if the facts are the facts changed the title of the original article and removed the poll that was designed to find the truth about how people saw Islam in th UK….can’t offend people with unwelcome truths…..and surely somewhat important to register what a great many people think about Islam and Muslims if you are talking about integration and the future.

Free speech?  My backside.  They didn’t even need an AK47..Kirkup just rolled up and died as a journalist with his self-censorship.

What Kirkup and the BBC don’t admit is that the MCB ‘research’ is purely designed to put pressure on government and ‘society’ to further Muslim interests.  It tells a sorry tale of Islamophobia, disaffection and economic and educational backwardness…more money and cultural awareness and tolerance needed!….as well as one of an ever growing Muslim population…and with such a growing population comes political influence as politicians buy votes with policies designed for specific communities regardless of the cost to society as a whole.

 

Compare the BBC’s report on the MCB’s ‘research’ into the Muslim population with a Telegraph one…the BBC does no thinking for itself, it does no forward thinking about the meaning of this massive population growth…what it does do is take the MCB’s narrative and finshes off with this plea for government and society to ‘deal’ with the issues..

Muslims in Britain: What figures tell us

“This addresses many of the social issues that are always in the media and being discussed,” added Dr Sundas Ali. “Now we have the hard facts, let’s do something about it.”

 

Yes, let’s do something about it….trouble is the MCB’s answer is just ‘more Islam.’  Hardly the real solution.

The Telegraph takes a more honest look at the problems that will be encountered by a ever increasing and powerful and separate Muslim population….

Number of ‘Muslim’ children in Britain doubles in a decade

The number of children growing up as Muslims in the UK has almost doubled in a decade in what experts have described as an “unprecedented” shift in Britain’s social make-up.

Muslims could play a decisive role in the coming general election, expected to be the closest in recent times, making up a significant share of voters in some of the most marginal seats in the country.

The Muslim population will continue expanding for “many decades” to come – something experts said could transform everything from social attitudes to foreign policy.

It is the dramatically younger age profile of the Muslim population which could have the biggest impact in the future.

Prof David Voas, director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research based at Essex University, said: “In terms of ethnic-religious minority groups expanding I think this is probably unprecedented.

“Even if immigration stopped tomorrow it is clear that in due course by the middle of this century or a bit later, 10 per cent of the population of Britain will be of Muslim heritage.”

He said that is likely to change political decisions and social attitudes on both a local and national level.

“It would start off with being relatively small but you could just imagine a situation where a more socially conservative view that might be conducive to Muslims might tip the balance.”

“You could see the effect with local authorities making accommodation with swimming baths where there are women-only swimming periods,” he said.

 

All, you might think, rather serious concerns, ones that might lead to serious conflict, more so than at present, in the future.

Wonder why the BBC completely ignored the likely scenarios.

 

 

iTax, iDon’tpaytax

By | |
18 Comments

It is remarkable how the BBC manages to avoid rigorously investigating donors to the Labour party and their various tax dodges.

The BBC defends Miliband and his inheritance tax dodge…

Ed Miliband should publish tax documents – Conservative MP

 

One rule for the rich and one rule for the rest of us under Miliband as Labour condemns ‘sophisticated tax avoidance’ what ever that means….but defends Miliband’s own dodging.

 

Here the BBC promote Labour as the party that will tackle tax evaders…Ed Balls vows to crack down on tax evasion and the interview is hardly testing for Ed Balls who is fed a question by Marr and allowed to use it, as probably intended, to peddle his own line.

No hard questioning about the hypocrisy in Labour’s claims about dodgy donors to the Tory Party.

However the BBC is keen to highlight every word Miliband utters in relation to this matter….here closely examining the life and times of Tory Lord Fink….

Ed Miliband accuses Fink of U-turn in tax avoidance row

 

And here giving Miliband an unquestioning promotion of his rhetoric on tax avoidance and the Tories’ part in it….

Miliband pledges ‘root and branch’ HMRC review

 

Miliband claims that ‘the coalition is “shrugging its shoulders” on tax avoidance – which he claimed had left a £34bn hole in the UK’s finances.’

How hollow that claim is when you spend just a few minutes researching Labour’s history on tax dodging…something the BBC seems averse to but is quite happy to trawl for old history like this…

HMRC failed to prosecute tycoon over tax evasion

 

The BBC goes on to reinforce Labour’s message with this report…

Ed Miliband: Tax avoidance threatens ‘fabric of society’

Mr Miliband accused the prime minister of “turning a blind eye” to the issue, and said tax avoidance threatened “the fabric of society”.

 

Which is all a bit strange really as a few minutes on Google and you can find plenty of damning information about Labour’s history on Big Business, the mega rich and tax avoidance.

It seems the BBC just isn’t interested in Labour’s role in creating the massive inequality in society and its protection of the mega rich.  Below is a run down of just some embarrassments for Labour…I had to stop looking as it was all too easy….but all too difficult for the BBC.

Here’s the Guardian in 2006…..

Super rich

For the ultra-rich few, this country is now a virtual tax haven, which is why more and more princes, tycoons and oligarchs are making it their home. James Meek sets out to uncover the secrets of Britain’s seriously wealthy

If there is more private wealth in Britain, and in London in particular, than ever before, where is it coming from? One explanation is that in the past few years London has become, even more than in the 1990s, the world’s conduit of choice for private wealth. Its generous tax treatment of the mega-rich, particularly those born abroad, makes it in some ways a virtual tax haven.

One of the big tax advantages for super-rich British residents who aren’t British-born is this country’s unique “non-domiciled” tax rule, which allows tens of thousands of wealthy people to avoid paying tax on income earned overseas. Almost four years after an investigation by Nick Davies in this newspaper showed how the Swedish billionaire Hans Rausing, then described as “the richest man in Britain”, had in one year received more from the Treasury in refunds and grants than it was getting from him in tax, the government shows no sign of closing the loophole. “Non-domicile is much bigger than people think. It’s massively important,” says the hedge fund manager.

“I’ve always thought that England would benefit a lot by becoming an ‘offshore haven’,” says Garnham. “It’s already halfway there. Why not make more of it? We’re only a tiny little island”.

 

In 2013 Labour’s Margaret Hodge said:

Experts offering advice on legislation they helped to create is ‘ridiculous conflict of interest’, says select committee chair Margaret Hodge…”The large accountancy firms are in a powerful position in the tax world and have an unhealthily cosy relationship with government”

 

Of course she was talking about the Coalition government but at the same time Labour were getting massive help from accountants PWC:

PwC said it had provided more than 6,000 hours of free technical support, worth £400,000 to political parties during the year, up by more than 20%, with almost 4,500 hours going to Labour and the balance mainly to the Liberal Democrats.

PwC’s party donation history at the Electoral Commission shows their offer of support for the main political parties is typically taken up by those on the opposition benches. The accountancy profession has been criticised for getting too close to politicians and government offices.

In its annual report, PwC said: “The firm has no political affiliation and does not make any cash donations to any political party or other groups with a political agenda. However, in the interests of the firm and its clients, we seek to develop and maintain constructive relationships with the main political parties.”

 

 

Any more stories about Labour’s dodgy donors?  Yes plenty……

Labour donor Lord Sainsbury avoids £27m capital gains tax

 

Donor John Mills’s gift to Labour avoided tax bill of £1.5m

India Guns For Its Tax Evading Billionaires

Within a week of India’s second richest man, Lakshmi Mittal, complaining that the Indian government was too slow in permitting the construction of new steel mills, Mittal’s home country has guys like him in the cross-hairs.

 

This is from the Guardian in 2002 and is a damning indictment of Labour….

Rich people are costing Britain millions in lost tax by not registering their houses in their own names, according to land registry records and independent accountants’ estimates.

The wealthy individuals who appear to be enjoying the country’s choicest property virtually tax-free, thanks to their exploitation of legal loopholes include a number of Labour party donors, as well as the former Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher, an influential Saudi prince and Mohamed Al Fayed, the controversial owner of Harrods and Fulham football club.

The computer tycoon David Potter, for example, owns not only his London house but also Rush Manor, a lavish home counties retreat by the Thames.

His fortune, despite recent collapses in the value of internet enterprises, is calculated at £98m.

We estimate that he may be avoiding liability on Rush Manor for his heirs of inheritance tax of around £600,000; liability of £80,000 in stamp duty on a sale; and capital gains tax on the profit he would make if he sold the mansion, originally purchased in 1989, of at least £160,000.

Mr Potter, a Labour favourite and £90,000 donor who gave a 1999 lecture at Downing Street on wealth creation, also uses a second controversial tax loophole by claiming to be “non-domiciled”.

In the eyes of the Inland Revenue, they therefore have “non-domicile status”. Although Mr Potter will pay tax on his UK income from Psion, he does not need to pay tax on income and assets he keeps abroad.

Land registry records show the same pattern in the case of a number of high-profile recent donors to the Labour party.

We found:

· a Panama company owning the north London house of pharmaceuticals tycoon Tony Tabatznik;

· an offshore company listed as owning the£9m summer palace occupied by Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal;

· an offshore trust holding the Grosvenor Square flat of the drug manufacturer Isaac Kaye;

· a Jersey trust company listed as owning the Hampstead home of businessman Uri David.

Another donor, financier and philanthropist, Christopher Ondaatje, has given £2m to the Labour party. For 17 years his second house has been Glenthorne, a coastal mansion in north Devon.

Yet although he has written lyrically about his feeling of “coming home” from Canada by buying it, the 93-acre estate is in fact in the name of the offshore Exmoor Ltd.

All these men claim non-domicile status. None wanted to comment on the allegation that they are avoiding tax liabilities on their UK homes.

 

And let’s not forget this one….

Tony Blair’s new government exempted Formula One from the ban on tobacco advertising after its boss, Bernie Ecclestone, had given Labour a donation of £1m.

 

I could go on…in fact let’s not forget that David Miliband, when Foreign Secretary, was sent the same email that the HSBC ‘whistleblower’ sent to the HMRC about tax evaders and yet he and Labour has escaped all investigation whilst the HMRC has been crucified by Labour’s Margaret Hodge in her position as chair of the Public Accounts Committee…not that I’m saying she has a conflict of interest in this…no, wouldn’t say that at all.

Nothing stopping the BBC from investigating that link though is there?  Or indeed highlighting Labour’s very dodgy donor history and its role in facilitating the tax evasion industry…or indeed looking at this again….

 

 

 

Lord Levy’s Levy

By | |
7 Comments

 

The Today programme (about 08:40) wanted to talk about donations to political parties so who did they invite on?  None other than Labour’s Lord Levy who peddled Labour’s knavish bit of election jerry mandering that parties should have donations capped.

This has the effect of limiting donations from single donors such as rich millionaires, who just by coincidence mostly favour the Tory Party and not Labour.  This results in the Tories having far less money to fight election campaigns whilst Labour still gets Union funding as the Unions can get around their supposed limitations on political funding by giving Labour help in kind on top of any cash donation…such as drivers for the famed Barbie Bus.

Humphrys made no comment about this obvious advantage to Labour and almost failed to mention the Unions…..and only did so in passing eventually.

Levy wants the Public to fund political parties directly.  The opposition already get enormous funding from the tax payer and his suggestion that the Unions are capped as well has already happened but as said the Unions can get around that as Levy knows….so the only loser would be the Tory party.  Go figure.

Good that the BBC provides a platform for a bit of blatant Labour policy promotion.

 

Humphrys has a personal interest in all this…he is a shareholder in, and contributor to, the YouGov polling organisation and only days ago ran a poll on this very subject…

Politicians and the Rich: Cause for Concern?

Tthis already highly sensitive issue becomes even more so when those rich people thought to be dodging their taxes are the very same people donating money to political parties. That was Mr Miliband’s accusation in the Commons on Wednesday.

Does it matter that rich people give money to political parties? After all, if they want to ‘waste’ their money on a bunch of politicians (as some would see it), then that’s their business. But those who think it does matter do so because they worry that the donors are buying influence over policy.

 

When Humphrys asks about people ‘buying influence over policy’ does he mean like PWC who provided Labour with massive free support and which says, whilst being entirely non-political it “…in the interests of the firm and its clients, we seek to develop and maintain constructive relationships with the main political parties.”

PwC chairman to receive £3.7m share of rising profits as business grows

 

PwC said it had provided more than 6,000 hours of free technical support, worth £400,000 to political parties during the year, up by more than 20%, with almost 4,500 hours going to Labour and the balance mainly to the Liberal Democrats.

The accountancy profession has been criticised for getting too close to politicians and government offices.

In its annual report, PwC said: “The firm has no political affiliation and does not make any cash donations to any political party or other groups with a political agenda. However, in the interests of the firm and its clients, we seek to develop and maintain constructive relationships with the main political parties.”

 

Humphrys himself says there is no conflict of interest in his shareholding and participation in an influential polling company and his position on the Today programme…

The BBC said there was “no ruling that staff can’t own shares”, but there will be surprise in some quarters that the anchor of the country’s biggest daily radio news programme was allowed a stake in a firm renowned for political polls, reported by Today.

Humphrys told the Times he was comfortable with the shares and it didn’t pose a conflict of interest.

“YouGov features as a ‘basis’ for stories in the same way that any other polling company does. Decisions as to the editorial content of Today are made by its editor, not by me,” he said.

Oy Vey! Never Mind Eh.

By | |
47 Comments

 

A pretty unsympathetic interview from John Humphrys with a Rabbi talking about anti-Semitism in Europe this morning on the Today programme (08:10 ish)

Unsympathetic in comparison to how anyone making similar claims about Islamophobia might be treated by the BBC that is.

When the Rabbi suggested that governments had the responsibility to continually protect Jewish locations Humphrys thought it ‘all a bit much’.

Humphrys suggests that perhaps Jews should take up Netanyahu’s offer and flee to Israel…can’t imagine him suggesting to Muslims that they flee to Pakistan or some such country.

Humphrys then suggested that ‘there is a danger in overstating what’s happening’.  Ever hear that from a BBC presenter in the face of a Muslim complaining of Islamophobia?  No, the BBC laps it up and adds to the hype.

The BBC has a well deserved reputation for downplaying anti-Semitism whilst championing the Islamophobia industry …but it does seem that the Jews are the ‘new Jews’ in Europe and not the Islamists who claim that status for themselves in what is just another way of twisting the knife into the Jewish community by making such a comparison.  An odious comparison when much of the anti-Semitism is coming from the Muslim community itself…their ‘dirty little secret’.

 

 

 

Priorities

By | |
11 Comments

 

 

Whilst the BBC were still refusing to put a name to the attacker in Denmark they have trawled ‘social media’ to find photographs that apparently show evidence of Far Right involvement in an attack on a Jewish cemetry…

Hundreds of Jewish graves have been desecrated at a cemetery in eastern France, near the border with Germany.

Images on social media showed the gravestones in Sarre-Union daubed with swastikas and Nazi slogans.

 

Just the BBC’s usual rapid reaction to any such attack….regardless of lack of real evidence  start pointing the finger of blame at the Far Right by default.

 

Would they be so quick to point the finger in this case at a Jewish cemetry in Glasgow?….

 

Glenduffhill Jewish Cemetery in Glasgow

 

 

An Israeli news site makes no mention of such daubings…

French media sources reported that 36 of the 600 graves in a cemetery in Nice were damaged, with Stars of Davids ripped off of memorial candle lamps and headstones smashed. Parts of some headstones were even stolen.

 

In fact in six other reports from other news organisations make no mention of swaztikas or nazi slogans.

 

A French gendarme stands guard next to tombstones desecrated by vandals

 

The Jerusalem Post shows a photo…from Reuteurs not social media, and says this in its caption…

A French gendarme stands guard next to tombstones desecrated by vandals with Nazi swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans in the Jewish cemetery of Brumath near Strasbourg.

 

The BBC says ‘Nazi slogans’, the JPost says ‘anti-Semitic slogans’.

Why did the BBC choose the very specific term ‘Nazi slogan’ which narrows the culprits down to the Far Right when ‘anti-Semitic slogans’ leaves the field open for a wider range of possibilities?

I can find no photographs with the slogans shown clearly so we’ll just have to take the BBC’s word for it that they are ‘Nazi slogans’ but it is interesting how fast the BBC are to apportion blame to the Far Right even in the most oblique manner in order to divert attention away from Muslims, and how slow to apportion blame when the likely culprit in a crime is a Muslim.

Perhaps it was the Jews themselves…

 

Perhaps we, and the BBC,  should wait for the proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go Slow For Mo

By | |
56 Comments

 

 

No name from the BBC for the gunman in Denmark, they fallback on this get out…

The man’s name has not been released.

 

Certainly the police hadn’t officially released the name but Danish media have published the name as has the Mail and many other news outlets…and the name has been out for many hours now…

Danish-born Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, 22, was killed after opening fire on officers who had closed down the area surrounding Norrebro metro station at about 5am today.

 

Not only that but they have several photos of the man…

Police said El-Hussein is known to them due to past violence, gang-related activities and and possession of weapons

 

The last is a photo released by Danish police in 2013 when the man made a knife attack on someone.

The BBC are still hoping it is another Breivik.

 

 

 

The BBC’s Dresden ‘Mea Culpa’

By | |
29 Comments

 

Dresden…. according to the BBC the rise of Pegida can be attributed to the raid on Dresden.  The German fear of foreigners stems from this raid and its consequences.

But apparently bombing Dresden is acceptable for this German feminist anti-Pegida campaigner if it means clearing the city of Pegida…

fuck pegida

I imagine many at the BBC would agree…ironic, as they now declare bombing Dresden to rid germany of the Nazis was a war crime.

 

“There is very little talk of Dresden as an integral part of the Nazis’ war machine, a railway hub to the Eastern front.” Sebastian Borger

 

 

The white middle class lefties that roam the corridors of the BBC have a double burden to carry around with them being tinged by Marxist and Trotskyite tendencies and horribly scarred with the stigmata of being ‘white’.  They scour the world for worthy causes for which they can blame the West and masochistically then grovel and abase themselves as they proffer up earnest apologies for the sins of their forebears who knew not what they did.

The Second World War is a sore trial for them as it was a war against their mortal enemies, the evils of Fascism and the Far Right, a war in which confusingly their beloved Soviet Union was in partnership with their other enemy of conscience, the Capitalist West.

How can they apologise for ridding the world of the evil of the Nazi regime, done in conjunction with their ideological Motherland, the Soviet Union, and still attack the equally evil Capitalist West for having done so?

They had to find away to apologise for the wickedness of the West without also condemning the Heros of the Revolution.

Dresden.  Dresden was their solution.

Dresden the ‘war crime’, an action worse than anything the Nazis carried out according to the BBC.

Seems others had the same idea…

The civilian deaths at Dresden would be used by two political machines as propaganda. First, the Nazi Propaganda Ministry would attempt to use this to stir public resentment against the Allied invaders. Then during the Cold War, Soviet propaganda would describe this bombing as western cruelty, alienating the East Germans with the British and Americans.

 

The BBC carrying on the good work of the Nazi and Communist propagandists then.

 

Ironically the bombing of Dresden, as well as an attempt to crush German morale and end the war early, was also part of a plan to help the Heros of the Revolution advance ….as the BBC in 1945 tells us....

British and US bombers have dropped hundreds of thousands of explosives on the German city of Dresden.

The city is reported to be a vital command centre for the German defence against Soviet forces approaching from the east.

Dresden is regarded by the Allies as the centre of its rail network linking eastern and southern Germany with Berlin, Prague and Vienna.

Last night, the RAF also hit oil plants at Nuremberg, Bonn and Dortmund.

Fighter Command Spitfires also pinpointed V weapons sites in the Netherlands that have launched hundreds of flying bombs against England in the last year.

 

It should be remembered that Dresden was not the only targeted city….many others had similar attacks upon them but resulted in far fewer caualties.  Dresden had so many casualties because…

Although Dresden did not see particularly more attacks when compared to other German cities, the ideal weather conditions and the common usage of wooden structure made the destruction more widespread. The lack of anti-aircraft fire also contributed to the higher level of destruction, as Germany did not defend her with anti-aircraft guns as Dresden was far from Allied bomber bases, at least earlier in the war.

 

Here is the effect that the raid on Hamburg had on the Germans in 1943…

 

hamburg

Such raids had a massive effect on morale and on the German war production capacity….they suggest that six more such raids could have ended Germany’s armaments production.

It is all very well sitting in your TV studio looking back on history and selectively choosing the narrative you want to portray now in order to suit your own agenda…in the middle of a protracted and enormously violent war things are more black and white and decisions have to be made on the basis that not to make them might mean you are literally wiped out.

It wasn’t a case of clever rhetoric, philosophical intellectualising or moral relativism, they were fighting for their survival….the survival of a whole culture, a society, a political and social construct that had been nurtured over centuries and much blood spent defending it.

Once again that is under threat as we see Islamic terrorism and the Islamist ideology  stalking Europe…and once again the apologists are out in force.

As with Dresden and the men who flew the raids into Germany, it is those who would defend Europe’s heritage, and future as a secular, democratic, free society, that are in the ‘liberal’s’ sights rather than the terrorists and their ideology that would destroy it.

 

From the Guardian…

 “Don’t forget that Auschwitz was liberated just about two weeks before the bombing of Dresden,  And the pictures that emerged from Auschwitz were far more shocking than those of a destroyed Dresden.”

Anmd once again Jews are being hounded and killed across Europe.

Another irony is this ‘BBC’ report by a German journalist, Sebastian Borger from the Berliner Zeitung….

In fact, a lot of British efforts devoted to the post-War reconciliation were focused on Dresden.

By singling out the undoubtedly very beautiful Eastern city as a symbol for many, often more damaged, places in Germany, they unwittingly followed in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels.

In the last months of the war, Hitler’s propaganda minister talked up the “Allied war crime” to inspire an even more dogged defence of the Fatherland against the invading troops, particularly from Soviet Russia.

“Nazi propaganda celebrated its last success,” says the military historian Rolf-Dieter Muller – not least with an unscrupulous manipulation of casualty figures.

While police experts in Dresden concluded the most likely number of deaths to be 25,000, Goebbels increased that horrendous figure tenfold.

The Communist rulers of East Germany perpetuated the myth, as did well-meaning British observers who chose Dresden as the symbol of the horrors of aerial war and a centre for post-War reconciliation.

Thus the already well-established exceptionalism of Dresdeners was reinforced by outsiders.

The War casualties, macabre though it may seem, have become a totemic figure, and no expert opinion will sway the hardcore from the perceived special place of their town.

There is very little talk of Dresden as an integral part of the Nazis’ war machine, a railway hub to the Eastern front.

 

 

 

 

Sackcloth And Ashes

By | |
2 Comments

 

 

 

 

Beware the preacher man….I didn’t take that advise and was treated to a sermon about slavery last Sunday on R4 (13 mins)….should you be a slave don’t despair, have faith, Jesus saves….the manacles of every kind of slavery are hammered loose by the love of Christ….who will be your new Master, the living God, the God of light and truth and justice.  Praise the Lord.

However to more earthly matters slavery apparently is all that demeans human beings…Pope Francis says of modern slavery that it is an open wound on the body of contemporary society, a scourge upon the body of Christ.

It comes in many forms….human trafficking its worst manifestation, and a slavery to ideology and prejudice isn’t too hot but then we get to the real scourge of modern life….a slavery to consumption, a slavish belief in a materialistic world that disregards the supernatural dimension of reality, a slavery to the power of Darkness!

Gosh.

All very good but how do they explain this…

Church of England stores up riches on Earth

The value of Church of England property and shares jumped by £800m last year to nearly £5bn.

The church’s investments in multinationals and other companies which make up the bulk of its share portfolio have also attracted controversy.

 

Or this…

The Church of England’s investments are wide-ranging and complex.

They range from pieces of woodland used for timber to investment strategies run by some of the world’s biggest hedge funds, and stakes in big oil companies.

 

 

The Forces of Darkness indeed.

All that aside and the point of this post is nearing…the trendy Reverend Richard Coles was slapped down as he muttered similar sentiments as the above about the evils of consumption and materialism on Saturday Live.(26 mins)  Very funny it was too to hear his discomfort as he was contradicted by Trend forecaster James Wallman who talks about managing your ‘stuff’.

The goodly Reverend Richard Coles, on a goodly BBC salary, whitters worthily on about the ‘bonfire of the vanities’ long, long ago in Florence whenst the goodly citizens cast all their worldy possessions onto a bonfire lest they be tempted into sin.

The Rev tells us that this was a moral statement against luxury, a moral argument for making your life simpler and clearer…and it has a resonance today…no?

No.  Apparently not.

What James Wallman told us he’s not coming at this from a moralistic perspective.  It’s not about getting rid of all our stuff, it’s not anti-stuff, it’s not anti-capitalism, it’s not anti-consumerism, it’s anti-too much stuff.  You can’t find happiness, identity, status and meaning in things you want.

‘Oh’ says the Rev.  He’d just knitted himself a hair shirt.  Damn!

Giles Fraser no doubt provided a burly shoulder to cry on.