Category Archives: BBC bias

Name, Rank And Number

By | |
43 Comments

Brutal: Pickles castigated Environment Agency chairman Lord Smith, pictured with his Tibetan terrier Jinny

 

Name: Lord Smith

Rank: Incompetent

Number:  Well, his number’s up.

 

Or his number should be up if the BBC were doing its job properly and fully investigating Lord Smith’s role as Chair of the Environment Agency and its policies.

 

Lord Smith has made two statements today which can unequivocably be called lies….about issues that go right to the heart of the flooding in the Somerset Levels.

 

This morning on the Today programme Evan Davis asked Lord Smith about an Environment Agency flood management plan from 2008 which stated that it was a policy to allow the Somerset Levels to flood, to encourage it to flood in fact so that other areas would have less flooding.

 

Lord Smith stated that there were no such plans….the document was an old document that he had never seen.

He repeated all this in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxvolaXDQmw

 

The problem with all that is that in 2012, when Lord Smith was in position, there is this flood management plan for the Somerset Levels from the Environment Agency:

Somerset Levels and Moors

The vision and preferred policy

Policy Option 6-  We will take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits. By adopting this policy and redistributing water some areas will be subject to increased flooding while others will benefit from reduced flooding. The aim is to achieve a net overall benefit. The distribution of floodwater between moors can be determined to some extent by the use of sluices and other structures on the rivers

The distribution of floodwater has developed to some extent by historical ‘accident’ rather than design. When considering the distribution of assets across the sub-area it makes sense to direct water to areas which have limited assets at risk. By redistributing floodwater, primarily from upstream of Langport to the King’s Sedgemoor Drain, the overall damage and disruption from flooding would be reduced. Other redistribution options may also be possible, although modelling has shown that technically not all options are feasible.

 

So either Smith is incompetent or a liar.

Question for the Biased BBC website is why the BBC only chose the 2008 document which allowed Smith to deny all knowledge and brush off all accusations that he was to blame for the flooding in the Somerset levels…or at least for exacerbating the flooding by having a clear policy for using the area as a storage area for flood water.

The 2012 document proves it was policy at a time when he was at the helm.

Smith even admitted to prioritising certain areas...which means allowing others to flood:

He [Smith] also insisted that the agency was right to focus on homes rather than agricultural land. “Lives and people’s homes have to come first,” he said.

 

So clearly he knew of the policy and agreed with it.

 

As for ‘politicisation’, Pickles blamed the government and the Environment Agency not Labour……it is Labour politicising the issues….with the BBC cheering things on.

 

 

The second lie?

Eric Pickles stated that the Environment Agency gave the government the wrong advice about dredging…and that he now believes they should have dredged….so clearly the advice was not to dredge.

Lord Smith said, in the video above, ‘He is wrong’.….Smith then diverts and tries to blame lack of money.

 

But was Pickles wrong?  What advice did the Environment Agency give about dredging?

 

Could it have been something like this from August 2013?

 

 

To me that advice is saying dredging has too many downsides and should be used sparingly and only in very certain circumstances.

In fact what Lord Smith himself was advising:

Dredging rivers not full answer to flooding – Environment Agency

Draining Somerset’s Tone and Parrett rivers would only make a ‘small difference’, says chairman Lord Smith

 

 

 

Smith claims he could only spend £400,000 on dredging and yet his agency says in 2011:

The Environment Agency routinely considers dredging and other types of watercourse management, such as de-silting and vegetation removal, to reduce flood risk. We spend over £20 million per year on dredging, de-silting, removing gravel and obstructions along with weed control to clear channels. As with all our work, it has to be prioritised and justified technically, environmentally and economically.

 

Clearly there must be prioritisation of spending….is the BBC asking that question?  No.

 

The report goes on…….

Some people and organisations are concerned that we do not do enough dredging and watercourse maintenance. In response to this, and to test our understanding of the evidence, we arranged pilot studies in our South West, Thames and North East Regions. The aim of the studies was to confirm to what extent watercourse maintenance or dredging would reduce the likelihood or severity of floods.

What we have learned

Work at the pilot sites showed that the maintenance work reduced flood risk locally. But in some areas the maintenance work was not cost effective – the flood risk benefit of the work did not justify the expenditure. We had to consider the whole catchment (that is, the whole river system) including the purpose of any watercourses in the catchment. Each pilot site was different and decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, using evidence and engineering knowledge to make judgements. Working with local communities to discuss the work and agree if it is the best flood risk management measure for them was beneficial.

 

So is the decision the government’s or the Environment Agency’s not to spend money, to prioritise how it is spent, on dredging or not?  From that it looks like the Environment Agency made the call….so is Smith misleading us again?

 

Another question for the BBC to ask…but hasn’t.

Kind of crucial in the current highly political argument.

 

Here’s what the Daily Mail has to add:

Environment Agency bosses spent £2.4million on PR… but refused £1.7million dredging of key Somerset rivers that could have stopped flooding

 

 

As said Smith was allowed to brush aside questions about the flood management plan and he launched his own defence, claiming that it was all the government’s fault for not allowing him enough money.

Well you can see from the 2011 report above that prioritisation of how funding is spent is down to the Environment Agency….and they spent over £20 million/year on dredging and channel clearance….however all day the BBC has been pumping out Smith’s excuses that he should have been demanding more money for dredging.

From that we are to suppose he was always in favour of dredging and that the only thing stopping him was lack of funds?

Clearly that is a lie.

 

So Smith’s defences are:

1.  I didn’t know anything, it wasn’t me.

2. It was the government, they didn’t give me any money.

3. It was my staff’s fault but I won’t let anyone blame them…no sirree bob!

 

And you know what the BBC has swallowed that hook, line and sinker…anyone would think there was an election coming.

Here is Harrabin failing to do journalistic due diligence:

UK floods: Somerset farmland water plan defended

 

Why has Harrabin got an unnamed ‘mole’ at the Environment Agency when a look at its website gives you the flood plans?

 

 

The BBC doesn’t seem too interested in challenging Smith’s claims….and seem more interested in reporting his comments and others from the Labour Party that point the finger of blame at the Government as a whole rather than the Environment Agency in particular whose responsibility this all is.

 

Another question the BBC might like to answer…is dredging the answer for the Somerset Levels?

The Levels are not like a normal river area….the fact they can remain above water for much of the year is almost purely down to man’s own efforts…therefore perhaps dredging is the answer whereas in a ‘natural’ river area it wouldn’t be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Eye Of The Beholder

By | |
13 Comments

 

 

Same story…..completely different take:

 

From the Guardian 13 Sept. 2013:

Ofcom could easily regulate BBC, says chief executive

Ofcom boss Ed Richards says it would be ‘comparatively easy’ to oversee corporation, but parliament has ultimate responsibility

 

 

 

From the BBC Sept. 13 2013:

Ofcom ‘should not govern’ BBC, says regulator

 

 

Here’s another story that you might keep an eye on to see the BBC reaction to…none so far:

This from the Independent:

MPs try to muzzle media regulator: Fears that ‘sinister’ plans to transfer powers from Ofcom to Government will put diversity and quality in jeopardy

 

Not what you might think from the headline…in fact it seems to free up the commercial broadcasters….but the Independent seems to think this will adversely effect the BBC:

 

The Order has potentially damaging consequences for future quality standards at public service broadcasters (PSBs) ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Under the plans, these channels would only be subject to reviews every 10 years, instead of in the current five-year-cycle.

It is feared that such infrequent assessments will make it impossible to properly judge the value of the BBC’s provision of key public service programme areas – such as news and current affairs and children’s programmes – because of the lack of information about the other PSBs. Peers believe this could affect the BBC’s new Royal Charter and licence fee settlement, which is due at the end of 2016.

 

 

The Science Is Settled, No It Isn’t..Oh..em…It Might Be..Or Not

By | |
119 Comments

 

 

Amazing what a difference a month makes.

One month ago:

Storms’ link to climate change uncertain – Met Office

 

One month later:

Met Office: Evidence ‘suggests climate change link to storms’

 

 

Originally they told us:

The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said.

A spokesman said that was “a research project which hasn’t been done”.

 

Guess they must have rushed through that research project…..

Now we have:

Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.

“But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added.

“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

 

 

I guess that’s ‘all the evidence’ as in ‘all the evidence points to the Boston Bombers being white supremacists’.

 

Don’t you just love that ‘There is no evidence to counter the basic premise…..’?

…but there is no evidence to prove the basic premise either…..

and hang on….the lack of evidence to counter AGW causing storms?…..emm….17 years of no warming is evidence of no warming….for 17 years…so how is global warming causing storms?

 

The lack of evidence that CO2 causes global warming doesn’t stop them closing down Western industry does it?

 

Science eh….who needs it when you’ve got the Voodoo princess, Julia Slingo, making it up as they go along and the BBC unquestioningly printing everything she prophesises.

 

Guess…conjecture, surmise, speculate, reckon, dare say, dodgy…hocum.

 

Some words for any BBC environmental journo looking to investigate the issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shuffling The Deckchairs

By | |
8 Comments

 

 

 

You’d never have known that there were any concerns about growing Union power over the Labour Party from this Today interview last Saturday in which we had Labour man Jim Naughtie interviewing (08:10)  (unfortunately now timed out) Ian Davidson, Labour MP for Glasgow south-west and the former Labour lord chancellor, Lord Falconer to discuss the proposals….so three Labourites in a BBC studio…any possibility they might come up with the truth?

No….You’d have had no idea that the Unions might come out as the dominant group…we were told the concerns are that the Party becomes too centralised…marginalising other groups like the Unions…..no inkling  that that centralisation favours the Unions….and blocks out those inconvenient MPs who voted against Ed Miliband.

No questions from Naughtie that might indicate the Unions will in fact benefit….you come away thinking the opposite….the new rules will marginalise and minimise the role of Trade Unions….‘That’s the intent of these changes…breaking the link with the Unions’.…Lord Falconer telling us that it will increase the power of the individual voter….not a small group of Union leaders…..

All rubbish…even the BBC itself admits that there are huge concerns about a Union power grab (and Miliband’s intent is in fact to tighten links to the Unions):

Some senior Labour party figures are worried a move aimed at diminishing the unions’ influence could end up handing them even more power.

 

 

 

Just for your information here’s a closer look at what the reforms might mean……

 

Here are the voting splits in final round of the Labour Party leadership election 2010:

Section 1 is the MPs, section 2 is LP members, section 3 the Unions….

 

As you can see 262 MPs get the same percentage vote (33.33%)  as 199,671 union members who voted.

This is to change under Miliband’s reforms….the MPs will still select which candidates go on to the short list for leader but lose their block vote in the actual election.

Also…only union members who will have actively chosen to be affiliated with Labour through their union can vote and only their affiliation fees will be forwarded to Labour.

 

At present there are 15 unions affiliated to Labour (not the NUT surprisingly…though allegedly most Labour membership is made up of teachers)…in total there are 6.5 million Trade Union members…

but …

Together, the 15 affiliated trade unions bring the voices of almost 3 million union members to the heart of the Labour Party.

So 2.7 million are actually paying into the general political fund……but at present they are automatically affiliated with Labour and fees for that affiliation (£3 each) finds its way into Labour coffers….£8 million/year.

If under the reformed rules say 33% (as with Unison)  decide to opt-in and affiliate personally that’s still 900,000….and if 50% can be persuaded to vote as the Union directs that’s a potential 450,000 votes…up against 190,000 votes of the Labour Party members who of course won’t vote all for one candidate….as shown above Ed Miliband actually got fewer votes in the members vote but was levered into place by the unions….who will become even more powerful now.

Even on the figures from the 2010 election you can see 200,000 union members actually bothered to vote as against 123,000 LP members….so already they out vote the members on a one man one vote system….and that’s only 7.5% (of 2.7 million affiliated now).

So are the Unions losing power or gaining it?

The Unions have the potential to absolutely control the Labour leadership election result.

 

It should be noted that Labour, as an Opposition party gets ‘short Money’ from public funds to help pay running costs…this amounts to around £8m per year.

Many people suggest that Labour will suffer financially from changing the rules whereby anyone not opting out of the Union’s scheme have a portion of their fees paid into the political fund and to Labour….now they have to actively opt-in to pay Labour.

However…Labour could just raise its affiliation fees….and the Union member wouldn’t actually notice.

For example…Unite has 1.1 million members paying into its political fund (of 1.4 members in total)…..they pay in total around £155 million a year in union subs…..and of that £3.5 million in 2012 went in affiliation fees to Labour….or £3 per person paying into the general political fund and automatically being affiliated to Labour. (Bare in mind full membership of Labour Party costs £45/year)

It has been suggested that maybe only 10% of those paying into the political fund will agree to some of that being siphoned off to support Labour once Miliband’s reforms kick in…if ever…there is a 5 year time schedule…and will Labour want to enforce this change just before the next election?

However Unison already adopts the ‘opt-in’ scheme…in its own unique way and:

Approximately a third of Unison members who pay into our political fund are in the APF.

So not 10% but 33% pay into the Labour affiliation fund at Unison.

 

You might say 33% at Unite would still a big drop….it will only raise around £1.2 million…..but Labour could raise its affiliation fees…and the member wouldn’t pay any more in total…he pays around £150 a year into the Union general fund….and of that only £3 goes at present into the affiliation fees….so treble the fees to £9 and Labour would still get its money…but no one pays any extra in total….the general political fund shrinks a bit but…….

Another wrinkle is that although the general Political Fund is separate from the Labour Party affiliation fund in reality the political fund is used to indirectly support Labour as the Union uses it to campaign on issues that are in effect Labour policies….

As a Unite insider tells us:

In reality, the vast majority of UNITE’s spending from the political fund currently goes to support the Labour Party.

 

Labour’s Electoral College system by which they elect their leader, 1/3 of the vote for MPs, 1/3 to LP members, 1/3 to the Unions, is to go…and the system will be one man one vote.

This is the system now within the union sector of that system…there is no union ‘block vote’ as such….candidates relied upon the Union which backed them to persuade their members to vote for the chosen one.

 

 

 

Does the Union actually have any influence you might ask?

Yes they do.

It’s proven by these figures….GMB, Unison and Unite backed and campaigned for Ed Miliband, USDAW backed David Miliband.

The results show clearly that union members voted mainly in favour of the Union’s favoured candidate….USDAW members voted in bulk for David Miliband…which went against the trend.

They show that any candidate might expect around 50% of any union’s vote that backs him….and here shows that Ed Miliband often received more than double the votes his brother and nearest rival received, the rest shared between other candidates. (What is scary is just how many votes Diane Abbott received!)

 

 

ABBOTT, Diane BALLS, Ed BURNHAM, Andy MILIBAND, David MILIBAND, Ed SPOILT VOTES CAST BALLOT PAPERS DISTRIBUTED TURNOUT
ASLEF 1,791 228 246 626 665 513 4,069 16,137 25.2%
BECTU 588 194 210 715 697 166 2,570 24,204 10.6%
BFAWU 178 152 154 484 231 394 1,593 20,799 7.7%
COMMUNITY 205 184 151 1,292 331 414 2,577 21,827 11.8%
CWU 1,786 7,101 1,417 3,370 2,047 3,236 18,957 173,282 10.9%
GMB 3,213 2,548 3,119 9,746 18,128 6,352 43,106 554,130 7.8%
MUSICIANS UNION 925 221 210 805 865 307 3,333 26,957 12.4%
TSSA 898 285 296 923 544 683 3,629 23,651 15.3%
UCATT 177 185 229 630 2,471 478 4,170 39,530 10.5%
UNISON 2,910 2,141 2,343 6,665 9,652 4,431 28,142 419,142 6.7%
UNITE the UNION 11,129 6,995 7,993 21,778 47,439 15,936 111,270 1,055,074 10.5%
USDAW 1,279 788 881 8,264 1,661 2,329 15,202 352,645 4.3%

 

 

So the Union’s decision on which candidate to back certainly influences its members…therefore the Unions will not only retain their influence over the leadership election but have it enhanced.

The Union Barons will be up against Labour Party members…or at least those that oppose the Union’s chosen candidate.

 

Your next question might be….what if I want to have the Union send money to the Conservatives and not Labour?

Unfortunately the Unions have close ties to Labour, for example Unite:

The union’s political committees are closely tied to Labour and closed to the vast majority of UNITE members.  A small percentage of UNITE members are in the Labour Party, but not even all of these are eligible to take part in UNITE’s political conferences and committees – Rule 22.5 puts extra hurdles in the way.  Only Labour Party members who are delegated from other UNITE committees or who are delegates to Constituency Labour Parties can take part.  The effect is often to make these committees more like the voices of Labour in the union, rather than the voice of the union in the Labour Party.

 

Unite will tell you that voting to have a political fund is vital…whatever party you support…

A YES vote to a Political fund is not a vote
for Labour – it is a vote for a voice
You don’t need to be a Labour supporter to recognise
that over the last century, Labour and the unions have
provided a political balance to the Conservative Party
and the rampant interest of big business. 90 percent of
the current funding of the Tory party comes from big
business. 23 of the current cabinet are millionaires.

 

but of course that is rubbish…as Unite supports only one party…Labour:

With the formation of Unite, our members also approved our own Rule Book, setting out the clear political objectives of our union, which are that we are affiliated to the Labour Party, the party found by working people for working people

From Unite’s rule book:  Their aims….

2.1.5 To further political objectives including by affiliation to the Labour Party….[which are] public ownership of important areas of economic activity and services, including health, education, water, post, rail and local passenger transport

Everything is controlled by Unite’s Executive Council….which is controlled by Labour Party members essentially….many key, influential positions must be occupied by a Labour Party member.

So many of the Unions are almost irrevocably tied to Labour and any political fund will go to furthering Labour’s objectives.

 

 

 

So the Union’s voting power is almost certainly increased dramatically by Miliband’s reforms….and the Unions are irrevocably tied to the Labour Party.

 

So the question might be will Miliband’s reforms work?

The reforms were supposed to be a response to the now proven allegations of vote rigging in Falkirk….to stop abuses of the electoral system and to demonstrate that Miliband wasn’t just a Union puppet, bought and paid for.

The reforms as seen above completely fail to rein in the Unions, doing the opposite in fact…and Labour will probably not lose any funding….at worst any shortfall being made up by use of the Union’s general political funds to campaign on Labour issues….far from remedying the issues raised by Falkirk they exacerbate them….encouraging even more Union ‘persuasion’ and dubious methods of gathering support.

 

The reality is that the reforms are a also ploy designed to recruit more people to Labour…making loose connections at first that they hope will lead to full membership of the Party.

Unite for instance has its own ploy…by allowing students and the unemployed to join the Union…. starting them off on a path that leads to more influence and connections to Labour.

3.3 There shall be a further category of membership open to students and others not in employment who wish to play a part in the work of the union in the wider community.

 

This is from the Collins report that lays out Labour’s reforms:

 

So you can see that these reforms are intended to create a stepping stone, a path for recruitment of supporters who hopefully will turn into full members.

 

One other aspect is Party funding…the potential is that Labour might not lose any money…but its plan also undercuts the Tories funding.

Miliband is proposing a cap of £5,000 on individual donations……as the Tories get millions from individuals that would have a serious effect upon the Tories…whilst Labour can freely continue to get funding from the Unions…not as a single large Union donation but as a collection of individual donations gifted by people who individually opt-in to affiliation.

 

 

The reforms are not about Miliband ‘standing tall‘, as the BBC claim, in opposing the Unions it’s in fact the complete opposite….still doing the Union’s bidding and forging even closer ties to them than at present.

And last summer, after the disaster that kept giving that was Falkirk – when Unite was accused of attempting to rig the process to select a Labour candidate in the by-election – Ed Miliband stood tall and declared it was time for change.

 

Yes change alright…..bit like the Russian Revolution was a ‘change’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Toxic BBC

By | |
17 Comments

 

Two think tanks, Policy Exchange and Civitas, have criticised Ofsted…..apparently that is not allowed.

The boss of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said he was ‘spitting blood’ about the ‘attacks’…he claims the ‘attack dogs’ were set on him by Michael Gove.

Apparently Sir Michael Wilshaw believes he is above criticism.

The BBC seems to agree…at least when it is from ‘Right leaning’ think tanks…or ‘rightwing’ think tanks as they described them on Today this morning.

They are happy to repeat the very political choice of words used…using ‘attack’ in the headline instead of ‘criticism’…which gives the impression of a determined attempt to undermine Ofsted and to destroy it.

Sir Michael Wilshaw ‘spitting blood’ over Ofsted attack

 

Wilshaw is the one doing the ‘attacking’ with intemperate language and ill-judged refusal to accept criticism….all seemingly backed up by the BBC.

The categorisation of the criticism as ‘rightwing’ clearly demonstrates the intent to discredit the source and label the criticism as purely ideological rather based on any substance.

 

However…..from the ‘leftwing’ Demos:

School inspections deeply toxic, thinktank says

Demos report recommends schools collect views of teachers, students and parents instead of using Ofsted inspectors

 

From the NUT:

Teachers call for Ofsted chief to resign

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has called for the resignation of Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw over claims he is demoralising teachers.

 

From the leftwing IPPR:

Ofsted inspections ‘unsatisfactory’ for infants & toddlers

 

and again:

Ofsted chided for poor child-care judgements

 

 

No sign of the political nature of the LibDems support for Sally Morgan and Ofsted in this BBC report:

Ofsted should inspect academy chains – Lib Dems

 

The removal of Sally Morgan was politically motivated?…but Laws defence of her wasn’t?  You wouldn’t know there was an election coming.

You may notice that everything the Tories do now is categorised as ‘electioneering’ whilst Labour and the LibDems usually manage to avoid such labeling…especially by the BBC’s Chris Mason.

 

and…It seems if you are a ‘leftwing’ thnk tank criticism of Ofsted is permissible and justified…if you are a ‘rightwing’ think tank it isn’t.

 

The BBC ‘poisoning the well of democratic debate’?   You could say so…though John Humphrys claims it isn’t:

‘Today is not at war with the government of the day, even if it sometimes feels a bit like that.’

 

He also adds a little self interested plea at the end:

‘The more commercial competition and digital channels there are, the more important a truly independent and properly funded BBC news operation becomes.

We lose sight of that at our peril.’

 

You have to laugh…..there is no station more biased and more ‘big brother’ in how it controls and manipulates the news in order to control the Public’s opinions and view of the world than the BBC….all the more so because it does it whilst pretending not to.

We know where the Sun or Fox News or the Mirror or Guardian stand on most issues….but the BBC?

The BBC lives on its ‘past glories’, its inherited reputation for truthful and accurate reporting, it uses its everyday programming to encourage a feeling of trust and affection for the organisation…and transfers that trust generated by other programmes onto its news output.

How can you doubt any organisation that has David Attenborough as a leading man?

Separate out of the news side from the programming and things might start to look a bit different and viewers might start to be a bit more sceptical about the BBC’s news output, should it still be called the ‘BBC’.

 

BBC website is ‘destroying’ local newspapers and harming democracy, warns Home Secretary Theresa May

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not The BBC News

By | |
18 Comments

 

The BBC were quick to follow Miliband’s lead and challenge the Tories on their supposed lack of women in government…as opposed to Miliband’s  abundance of the female of the species on his front bench….most of whom shouldn’t actually have been there…merely shipped in ‘decoration’ for a photo opportunity….a bit of Politicians’ Page three…..not cheap exploitation of women by Labour there then!

 

Political point scoring aside…does it do Miliband any good?  The BBC aren’t too keen to check that out despite their proclivity for polls on everything.

 

Here’s one that must make uncomfortable reading for those at the BBC who continue to tell us that Miliband is making the political running with his populist, opportunist empty promises…..

 

 

 

Even Nigel Farage is usually ahead of Miliband.

 

About time the BBC started to recognise and admit that Miliband is Kinnock MkII….a windbag with lots of headline catching promises but no substance.

Just think..if Miliband is doing this badly now just how badly would he do if the BBC were to tell the truth about him…that he ran scared from the unions, that far from reining in the Unions’ power he has enhanced it, that he knew all along about Unite’s little vote rigging charade, that Assad sits safely in control in Syria happily bombing schoolchildren because Miliband cowardly ducked the decision to threaten force to bring him to the negotiating table…he was brave to stab his brother in the back in the corridors of Westminster but when it really counted and lives were at stake he dodged the decision.

Miliband is a coward, a charlatan and a liar.

Good job the BBC has his back.

 

Ever get the impression that if Miliband crapped himself in the studio someone from BBC props would rush out and paint it gold?

 

 

EU Uber Alles

By | |
12 Comments

 

 

Just another one, or two, to add to the suspicious list of things the BBC has avoided mentioning recently.

 

The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in an official visit to the UK recently made some startling comments:

Rise of Eurosceptic parties could put peace in Europe at risk, German foreign minister claims

 

Now it would surely be churlish to point out that it was the Germans who started both catastrophic world wars in the last 100 years…..and then ask the obvious question….is he saying we actually can’t trust the Germans unless they are wrapped up in Euro bureaucracy?

 

 

Is it Germany that will start the next war and not the power hungry Nigel Farage who of course is determined to have a European empire?

That’s  a question we can’t answer because the BBC decided not to report the words of the German foreign minister on a state visit who declared we are heading for war if UKIP gets its way.

Might be of note you’d think….every newspaper in the land thought so and duly reported his words…but not the BBC.

Does the BBC not want us to realise just what fanatical lunatics are in charge of the EU?

Herman Van Rompuy: ‘Euroscepticism leads to war’

 

Democracy eh?  Who needs it?

 

The BBC does have time to report this:

The Nazi murder law that still exists

 

but not the rise of the new German ‘bureaucratic empire’…running the EU….based on the power not of its army but of its economy.

The euro crisis will give Germany the empire it’s always dreamed of

 

 

Curiously though the BBC has no time for this major study of the EU dream:

Dutch would be ‘better off’ if they left the euro

There are big economic benefits for the Dutch in leaving the EU, finds a major study

 

 

Surely that is an important analysis that deserves some investigation…one that would form an important part of the debate that is raging now in this country….and that is possibly why the BBC has ignored it.

 

No doubt they will report it in due time…once they have analysed it and come up with a workable interpretation that illustrates just how wrong the study is.