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.

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’.

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?….

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.

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.

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…

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.

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…

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…

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.

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.

“We will not surrender; they cannot kill all of us.”

 

Agnieszka Kolek was in the cafe in Denmark that was targeted by a Muslim terrorist in the name of his religion.  She says “We will not surrender; they cannot kill all of us.”

The problem is that other people will, and have, surrendered on her behalf.  People in organisations like the BBC, and government, who make excuses for such terrorism and place the blame squarely on the ‘rest of us’ for it.

Note that a Jewish man was shot at a synagogue in Denmark by the terrorist…no doubt the BBC will be justifying his murder by virtue of his Jewishness and thereby must be guilty by association for the supposed sins of Israel…and therefore a worthy target…ala Tim Wilcox.

On that basis presumably Ukrainians can start shooting any Russians they see walking the streets of the UK in retaliation for Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine….and so on for any  other conflict in the world.

There is of course a connection to the 70 year war that the Muslims launched against Israel…and that is the extremely one sided anti-Israel coverage that the BBC broadcasts around the world knowing full well that it will whip up dangerous anti-Jewish sentiments amongst Muslims but still broadcasting it regardless.

The same BBC that goes out of its way to hide or excuse Muslim terrorism or just alien practises that are radical and extreme in a secular, modern demcracy based upon their religion just in case non-Muslims get the mistaken idea that Islam is a deeply violent and unpleasant religion.

Just why did the BBC spend £300,000 hiding the contents of the Balen Report which investigated their reporting in the Middle East?

Just what did it say?  About time we knew, about time the ‘open, transparent and accountable’ BBC let the world have a look.

The organised campaign of threats against Cathy Newman

This is criminal. And Channel Four and Streatham Mosque have both been silent over it.

Monsur Khan@Monsur_Khan

@cathynewman you lying piece of shit. Apologies are no good once the damage has been done. You are an absolute disgrace. Resign bitch!

MU@UddinMotin

@cathynewman go kill your self bitch!!

keremakyol@k_akyl

@cathynewman you know why.I hope you they kill you very soon #HarryIsPregnantFromLouis #1DTourCancelled #HappyWHDay #BocaTN #OTRALIVESTREAM

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)@dizzy_thinks

RT @Barca1CampNou: @cathynewman Hope u and ur family die. U fuckin lying bitch. << bit harsh

mike dowson@mikedowson222

@cathynewman You disgusting, lying. war mongering, racist bitch.

Not just Channel Four and Streatham Mosque ignoring this…the BBC and Owen Jones have remained silent…well about the threats to Cathy Newman…they were quite happy to suggest Newman’s tweet was a threat to Muslims throughout the UK.

Wonder when the BBC will get around to reporting this racism that the Spectator reports…..

The orthodoxy of the ‘safe space’ has now led to racial segregation at a British university

Props to Goldsmiths Students’ Union, for taking the ‘safe space’ concept to absurd new levels. Last week, one faction of the union hosted a screening of the film Dear White People and advertised it as being ‘for BME students’. For those not au fait with this lingo, BME stands for ‘black and minority ethnic’ – and the poster specifies that this screening is for students of ‘African, Caribbean, Arab, Asian and South American ethnic origin’. The union’s welfare and diversity officer and education officer both reiterated this message on Facebook and Twitter, then stated that before the screening, there was a BME ONLY social happening at Cafe Natura.

 

 

 

When Labour opened the borders to a tide of immigrants from Europe one consideration must have been how they would vote, once they became UK citizens, in any referendum on the EU.  The likelihood would have been, as Labour no doubt calculated,  that they would vote to stay in Europe….it is well known that immigrants usually voted Labour and indeed African newspapers would urge immigrants heading to the UK to do so…in the hope that Labour would continue to hold the doors open.

The BBC has famously, and admits as much itself, not reported truthfully on immigration and has hidden the real effects of immigration upon society.

Whilst it supports unlimited immigration to the UK and claims only benefits arise from such immigration they are more open about problems that for example refugees flooding into Lebanon cause the inhabitants, and the BBC frequently raises questions about Han Chinese immigration into Muslim areas of China…

While the situation is complex, many say that ethnic tensions caused by economic and cultural factors are the root cause of the recent violence..

Major development projects have brought prosperity to Xinjiang’s big cities, attracting young and technically qualified Han Chinese from eastern provinces.

The Han Chinese are said to be given the best jobs and the majority do well economically, something that has fuelled resentment among Uighurs.

Such problems do not exist in the UK apparently.

But now the BBC admits the truth, at least one aspect of it….those EU immigrants may help swing not just an EU referendum but the election as well….

General election 2015: The growing impact of the Polish vote

Many in the Polish community say the numbers have risen sharply. Fuelled by worries about an EU referendum and its potential consequences for them, growing numbers want to vote.

the anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from politicians – not just in UKIP, but the prime minister’s focus on immigrants and benefits too.

People are worried about an EU referendum, he tells me. Many Poles fear they will be kicked out of the country if Britain votes to leave the EU. They feel David Cameron wants “to get rid of the Poles”.

“Most people think that will happen,” he says. “First you close the border, then you deal with the people you have here.”

 

Labour’s long term plan is paying off and the BBC’s failure to challenge Labour’s secret immigration plot is having serious consequences…and not just in elections.

Labour stopped the Bank of England from regulating the banks…and spun it to the BBC in a particular way….and the BBC ‘bought it’ lock, stock and barrel apparently…according to a film only shown on Scottish TV as the Telegraph tells us..

The act that some economic experts argue contributed to the financial crisis was captured by a documentary film crew.

Gordon Brown’s economic adviser is seen telling a senior journalist that the Bank strongly objected to the plan to hive off regulation of the finance industry to a new watchdog – but they had no “choice” over the decision.

The then-30 year old is later seen jubilant after the BBC’s John Sergeant gave positive coverage of the move to create the Financial Services Authority, telling Mr Brown: “Sergeant bought the whole bloody lot.”

Mr Balls is then seen briefing Robert Chote, then a senior correspondent at the Financial Times. He is now the head of Office for Budget Responsibility, set up in 2010 by Mr Osborne.

Mr Balls tells Mr Chote: “The Bank wanted to have its cake and eat it. But it was made clear to it, many years ago, that if we were to move to independence then this would happen to regulation. They’ve made no secret of the fact they didn’t want it to happen. And they probably would rather it wasn’t. But that wasn’t really the choice.”

After Mr Sergeant repeated Mr Balls’ argument that the regulatory change was “automatically” linked to independence over interest rates on the BBC news that night, Mr Balls tells Mr Brown: “Sergeant bought the whole bloody lot. It was great.”

 

 

Sergeant might have ‘bought’ Labour’s spin but we’ve been payng the price ever since.  Cheers BBC for not doing your job and challenging Labour’s narrative…as always.