Search Results for: talk to hamas

The BBC’s Increasingly Open Support For A Terrorist Organisation

By | |
8 Comments

 

 

Which senior BBC journalist said this?:

‘We cannot get across the view that Palestinians are a displaced people who are fighting to overthrow, as they see it, a brutal military rule.’

 

Who are ‘the many’  senior BBC journalists who say that ‘They simply cannot get the Palestinian viewpoint acoss, the perspective they cannot say is that Israel is a brutal apartheid state.’

 

They cannot say that..because it isn’t true…however interesting to know that they want to say that….even more interesting to know which BBC journalists said such things…not hard to guess though.  Wonder what the Balen Report says.  Cannot be good can it?  BBC News Kills Jews?

 

There have been protests about BBC coverage being pro-Israeli...the BBC news did not report those protests…however the Today programme, in the shape of Mishal Husain, did. (0839)

Who do they invite in to discuss this?  An ardently pro-Palestinian Greg Philo and the fence sitting Jonathan Freedland who we are told works for the Guardian and the Jewish Chronicle.  We weren’t told he also works for the BBC on a regular basis…which might have coloured and informed your view of his comments as he defends the BBC telling us their coverage is quite fair….which we know to be quite untrue….he is also someone quite critical of Israel’s stance against Hamas….Hardly the ideal balance to the fanatical Philo…but perfect for the BBC.

This was a perfect storm for the BBC…..not only can they have some rabidly  anti-Israeli comments aired and allegations of pro-Palestinian bias countered, but also have someone defend the BBC telling us how good its coverage is.  Win win for the BBC.

 

Earlier in the programme (07:39) we had Justin Webb ‘advising’ the Israelis that killing and mutilating little children was a pointless exercise and that hadn’t they better talk to Hamas?

Lyse Doucet then came on and blamed Israel for the failure of the ceasefire telling us that of course Hamas won’t stop rocketing Israel until Israel deals with Gaza’s economic and social conditions.

Any coincidence that the new BBC drama, The Honourable Woman, is based upon precisely that premise…that the Israelis should be knocking down their ‘walls’, stopping their violence and instead work hand in hand with Palestinians to develop their economy?

That kind of ignores the root of the problem and flips the blame from Hamas to Israel…but Israel is defending itself against rockets and attacks from Hamas and imposed the closure of its borders because of those attacks…therefore the cause of any economic and social problems in Gaza can be traced directly to Hamas and the Palestinian’s 65 year history of terrorism against Israel and not Israel’s sanctions on Gaza.

Curious how Israeli violence in self-defence is futile and brutal whilst Palestinian terrorism is the result of Israeli aggression, a brutal occupation and a vicious apartheid state.

Doucet has turned history on its head in an attempt to support Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

Stop the terrorism, recognise Israel’s right to exist and tear up the charter that demands the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews and the Palestinians might then see a change in their circumstances.

Perhaps the Palestinians should heed their guru, Muhammed, who said that nothing will change for Muslims unless they change what is within themselves first.

 

 

 

 

Road to Damascus

By | | , ,
19 Comments

Jeremy Bowen’s Islam-friendly reporting seems to have come back to bite him on the bum.

All those years of Israel-bashing and pro Palestinian propaganda, all that peculiar sucking up to Gaddafi. Now the BBC don’t seem prepared to give his sneakily defensive interpretation of Bashar al-Assad’s desperate struggles, the time of day. (BBC News24) The BBC is squarely on the side of the rebels. Could Jeremy Bowen be the only one at the BBC who suspects, in a ‘better the Devil you know’ Damascene moment, that toppled dictators could really be replaced by something much worse?

All day the outrage at Russia and China’s refusal to support the UN resolution backing an emasculated Arab League peace plan, has been topping the BBC headlines.

There has been a huge, as yet unquantified death toll in Syria, which makes the argument for the stability of Bashar’s murderous regime against the uncertainty of what the rebels might have to offer, (possibly equally murderous) all the weaker.
Melanie Phillips sets out the “utter intrinsic bankruptcy of the UN.”
I don’t recall the BBC questioning the legitimacy of the UN security Council before, but they seem to be hinting at something like that now, in respect of these vetoes. This is obviously because they approved of previous UN resolutions which have, of course, mostly been against Israel.

A great failing of the BBC is that they refuse to see radical Islam as a threat. “They’re just like us,” they always seem to be saying. “Talk to Hamas. Talk to the Taliban”. They wouldn’t entertain the possibility that radical Islam was beyond reason, that the core beliefs in Islam were irreconcilable with our own. At the same time, the group they chose to portray as ‘other’ with a vengeance, were those dastardly Jews in Israel.
Now look what is happening. The Arab Spring has unleashed goodness knows what. Democracy? Freedom? Not on your Nellie.

It must be worth considering the possibility that being controlled by Despots and Tyrants is the only way of keeping a lid on an explosive, unruly, ungovernable, squabbling bunch of religious maniacs whose hatred of each other is only trumped by their hatred of Israel, America and Britain. The intellectuals and idealists who revolted in Tahrir Square have melted away. Now all that’s left is the wild bunch.
So if Jeremy Bowen’s belated reservations about the Arab world’s new-fangled vision of democracy jars with the BBC, they might stop defending his scrupulous impartiality and start treating him as a pariah, as well as the Jews and the Zionists. Wouldn’t that be weird?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Leadership Debate

By | |
11 Comments

Two of the Today guest editors bucked a familiar BBC trend. Two in a row. Yesterday Tracey Emin courageously admitted that she Voted Tory, (gasp) and our Thursday, Jewish guest editor chose to explore leadership with special reference to the Middle East, whereupon Sarah Montague, the BBC’s premier advocate of the “talk to Hamas strategy’ was dispatched to interview Tony Blair. Tony Blair may not be everyone’s favourite person, but having settled into his post as Middle East Peace Envoy it started to look, to some people, as if he was gradually discovering what was going on.

One wonders whether he felt, like Tracey Emin, that it was difficult to bare his soul openly to the Today audience without obsequiously justifying himself, because some of his answers seemed designed to pre-emptively appease a cynical reception. For example:

“There will always be incidents that go, …it might be acts of terrorism…. it might be raids that go wrong. There will always be reasons why people retreat to their comfort zone and say “I’m not dealing with these people”

Which sounded as though he too was contemplating the inevitability of the Talk to Hamas strategy. Then again, on Israel’s security problem. Because, thanks in no small measure to the BBC, the separation wall has acquired notoriety as a disingenuous excuse for land grab, rather than what it really is, a lifesaving protective barrier against terrorism.

“Look. The Israelis worry hugely about their security.
And their security worry is a genuine worry.
They haven’t just made it up.
They have their genuine security problem.”

Please believe me, he almost pleaded. I do protest! Then he continued with a bizarre and startling example of moral equivalence.

“As a result of that they go into the Palestinian areas. As a result of that many Palestinians feel the weight of the occupation upon them. That makes them more angry; they therefore want to retaliate.
The Palestinians have a genuine worry. particularly with things like settler violence starts [sic] on the increase, they think ‘will these guys ever get out and let us run our state.”

Who is ‘retaliating’ and who is ‘instigating’ here? Let’s leave that aside though, and ask, is Tony Blair really equating ‘settler violence’ with suicide bombings, murderous assaults and rocket attacks on civilians? By jove, it seems he really is.
Sarah moved the discussion on.

“Let’s move on the western leadership because that’s the other big player. I wonder to what extent western leadership has made things more difficult. We encouraged the Palestinian elections. The EU funded them. But when there was an outcome that we didn’t like, which was Hamas being elected, we withdrew aid, and we ignored the result. And I wonder when you look back at what has happened in the past year across the Middle East, and you wonder whether that was a mistake?”

Having avoided looking at the Israeli or the Palestinian leaderships, what was on Sarah’s mind was the Arab Spring. But Tony Blair wasn’t quite finished. He was referring in some way to the IRA, and apparently warming to the idea of talking to Hamas.

“I think historically the difficulty of the west has always been, and you know, we faced the same difficulties with the IRA, the circumstances where people are not foreswearing the use of terrorism to advance their political objectives, can you interact with them or not? I actually think there is an opportunity now, with what is happening across the region, because after all, frankly we will be dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas are associated with them all over the region. Now, I think if Hamas were prepared to at least say ‘look, so far as we’re concerned we’ll pursue our political objectives, but by non violent means, I think that would give you a far greater opportunity of creating circumstances in which you get all of the Palestinian parties in some sort of dialogue.”

Good luck with that. Good luck with Hamas pursuing its political objectives by non violent means. Perhaps a polite notice of eviction will do the trick. Dear Israel, kindly vacate the premises, Yours sincerely, Ismail Hanyieh. Or perhaps not.

Sarah persists.

“We’ve slightly been forced into this because as you say the Muslim Brotherhood now is actually looking like the more moderate of those
Islamist groups rising in Egypt, But back in parliamentary elections as far back as 2005 they did well, and yet we were still supporting and promoting Hosni Mubarak. I wonder whether we have been guilty of thinking that our self interest lies in supporting stability, and making sure that we’ve got intelligence on terrorism and we’ve prioritised that over promoting democracy, over our own values.”

Here the BBC’s real attitude is laid bare. We are, apparently, guilty of supporting despots and tyrants and ignoring peoples’ human right to democracy, and all for a selfish little bit of peace, stability and a tip off or two about potential acts of terrorism. It ignores the nature of Islam, and has done all along. It projects our concept of democracy onto people who haven’t been pressed to be explicit or specific about their aims and aspirations. Sarah criticises our desire for stability as though it was misguided. But isn’t that what the very people who are voting for the Muslim Brotherhood want for themselves, over and above many other things? Could that be part of the reason why they like the Muslim Brotherhood and why they voted for Hamas? Do they prefer order and certainty over chaos and uncertainty. They opt for the certainty of the Islamic conservatism with which they are familiar, over what they see as the decadent and directionless west. But nobody asks these questions.

Tony Blair is unable to say what he might really wish to. What I hope he really wishes to. He is constrained by political correctness and reluctance to risk alienating the audience, or perhaps because he really doesn’t know what he’s been dealing with all along, throughout his Peace Envoyship. He waffles, insinuates and emotes, but he doesn’t and can’t come out with an outright condemnation of Islamism or an explanation as to why our own concept of democracy might differ from that of the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Libyans, the Syrians and the Palestinians.
And as for Sarah and the BBC, they still refuse to see what is in front of their noses.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Lost in Translation

By | |
4 Comments

In days of yore the BBC acquired a reputation for excellence. The world switched off their local news organs, suspicious they were being fed propaganda. They turned instead unto the BBC and they saw that it was good.
Fastforward and into reverse. It has been said that Al Jazeera is now more impartial than the BBC.

The lag between the BBC itself realising this and the media savvy public doing so has yet to be measured. What if Jeremy Hunt’s threatened cost cuts jolted it into reality?
When the BBC is less fascinated by anything Israel does, and stops poring over every fart and speculating about its malevolence we’ll know that time has come. Currently they struggle to report the intricacies of Palestinian politics, other than divulging that Hamas and Fatah are enemies. Hamas being baddies and Fatah moderates. But there’s much, much more to tell.

One year ago, August 11th 2009, Tom Gross urged those who work in the media to read his Mideast dispatch. Who knows whether Jeremy Bowen or any of the BBC Middle East staff subscribe to his blog or have even heard of Tom Gross. Judging by their output, it seems not.

At that time Tom Gross was writing about an eye-opening conference in Bethlehem attended by the Fatah General Assembly which, he said, was:
“woefully underreported in the Western Media. Instead, the BBC, for example, has been running yet more distorted reports about Israel last week, deluding themselves and their viewers that Fatah is a moderate party committed to compromise”

Mahmoud Abbas has persuaded the Western world that he is a moderate and a seeker of peace; but when he speaks in Arabic his rhetoric is somewhat different. He promises his Arab speaking followers a different kind of peace. “Resistance until the Zionist enemy is wiped out.” Even if such drastic measures were successfully accomplished, the hostilities between Palestinian factions and various other warring Islamic parties make peace unlikely. We should be told.

President Obama’s faltering support of Israel has emboldened Abbas further. One year on, things are as bad as ever. Abbas is still saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, which you’d think someone from the BBC’s generous fount of Arabic-speaking employees could kindly pass on.
The BBC is so busy criticising Israel that we don’t get to hear about matters which might broaden our attitude, such as the persecution of Syrian Kurds. Tom Gross said:
“I only wish the BBC and others would devote a fraction of the substantial resources they employ in the Middle East to not only scrutinize every little thing Israel does but to pay a little attention to the hundreds of millions of people living in the 22 dictatorships (and one partial democracy, Iraq) in the region around Israel.”

The BBC is forever urging Israelis to “talk to Hamas” and they spun the Ipsos poll to look as though British Jews agree. If every single British Jew did support direct unconditional talks with Hamas, and unconditional surrender to Fatah, or mass self-flagellation, it wouldn’t be any wonder. Unmedia-savvy British Jews probably rely on the BBC to tell them what’s going on just as much as un-savvy British non Jews, atheists, rastafarians, the socialist workers party, pole dancers, the women’s institute and Uncle Tom Cobbley, probably Abu Hamza, and all.

So Mr. Hunt. Get the scissors out.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Indigestible Poll.

By | |
10 Comments

Jonathan Hoffman and Rabbi Tony Bayfield were asked for their views on an Ipsos Mori poll about whether British Jews were in favour of Motherhood and Apple Pie.

They were.

What was the question Mori asked? Would you prefer Katkins, or this bowl of broken glass?

Nine out of ten cats prefer Katkins.
Evan Davis queried why British Jews who support Israel should be thought of as courageous. With OUR reputation, he winked?

Okay I’ll spell it out. Jews in Britain listen to the BBC, much like everyone else. Horns permitting. They might support Israel, they might have relatives there, and they might go there a lot. But curiously they might rely on Jeremy Bowen to keep them posted on how badly behaved Israelis are.
So, Evan, if they don’t admire Hamas and Hezbollah in quite the way the BBC and the Guardian do, they might need to be plucky.

“A study of more than 4,000 British Jews suggests that although most feel a strong affinity with Israel and strongly support its right to self-defence, a majority believe the country should swap territory for peace, and negotiate with Hamas. Rabbi Jonathan Bayfield and Jonathan Hoffman, vice chairman of the Zionist Federation, debate the importance of British Jews’ sense of identity.”


By the way, Rabbi Bayfield’s name isn’t Jonathan.

Why did the BBC run the story? Are they trying to make it sound as though British Jews want Israel to make yet more unilateral concessions for peace? Talk to Hamas? A missing word is conspicuously absent. Conditional. Good for Jonathan Hoffman for mentioning it.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Left Right and Centre

By | | ,
Comments Off on Left Right and Centre

At odds with the theory that we’re all right wingers, some of us regularly visit “left leaning” Harry’s Place.
Four recent posts there indicate the way we’re heading, frogmarched along to an unknown destination by our trusted state broadcaster.

1.) More Islamic rules being imposed by the ministry of education in Gaza. This doesn’t auger well for a future self-governing state peacefully existing alongside Israel. The BBC could register this, maybe pondering over the wisdom of their persistent urgings to talk to Hamas.

2) “Beti Betak” (My House is Your House) the seldom-heard plight of Jews driven from Egypt, in stark contrast to the much publicised and sympathetically treated Palestinian refugee problem. Then there is the neglect, disregard and denial of access to archives, records, religious artefacts that remain in Egypt following the expulsion of Egypt’s Jews. When will the BBC commission a serious documentary on this subject? Is Jeremy Bowen too busy dreaming of his never to be realised appearance on Strictly Come Dancing. Or Stinkily Come Dancing as Mandrake would have it.

3) Israeli “Organ Harvesting.” This Harry’s Place article explains the fictional origins of both the Aftonbladet blood libel and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
There are two brief BBC web articles about the sensationalised Swedish newspaper allegations that stem from Palestinians tales of kidnapped children, murdered by the IDF for their internal organs.

The BBC articles on the subject are brief, but painstakingly ‘impartial.’ The allegations and refutations are given equal weight which gives unmerited credibility to these completely unsubstantiated and libelous allegations. A sudden outbreak of impartiality on a particular issue can be more biased than actual straightforward bias.

A further indication of their less than even-handed attitude is that in the first piece the BBC chose to feature their pet figure of derision Avigdor Lieberman, when of course they could have featured any of the Swedish protagonists, or the Israeli Ambassador to Sweden who are central to the original story.
The second web article focuses a little more on indignant reactions from Israel, dwelling on them just enough to make them look petty, a message reinforced by gratuitous mention of an online call to “boycott Ikea.”

4.) Finally, Kensington Town Hall is being used as the venue for another horrendous Islamic propaganda meeting, and Harry’s Place gives some staggering examples. K.T.H. seems to be a regular haunt for lefty get-togethers including Islamic hate preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and various others. Someone should complain to the MP for Kensington and Chelsea, the Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind ….of Jewish descent! If the BBC cares for Britain they should be telling us all about it.

I offer each of the above items, and the way they are treated or downplayed by the BBC, to explain my reasons for posting on B-BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Please Tell Your

By | | ,
Comments Off on Please Tell Your

Colleagues

Will the BBC’s Bill Law be telling his colleagues about this meeting in Istanbul? Only it might give them a clue as to the nature of Israel’s enemy.

So much for the Muslim Council of Britain

So much for opening the borders, so much for ‘Talk to Hamas’, so much for the Peace Process. Someone tell the Today programme.

Tell them about the attitude Hamas really has towards the civilians they sacrificed in Gaza:

“Mr. Nazzal told his audience: “Don’t worry about casualties.”
The 23 days of bombardment of Gaza, in which some 1,300 people, many of them civilians and nearly 300 of them children, are believed to have died, was “just the beginning” of the struggle, Mr. Nazzal said.


To laughter in the audience, another speaker noted that twice as many babies were born as children were killed during the war.
Every death, I was told, was a martyrdom on the road to liberation.”


Good for Bill Law for reporting this. Please don’t forget to tell your colleagues, because I’m wondering how long the rest of the BBC’s blindness can go on.


And if any of them saw the Dispatches programme last night a few more alarm bells should have gone off. But no doubt it will be filed away with all the rest under the heading ’tiny minorities’.


Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Hey Presto!

By | | ,
31 Comments

At least 400 BBC employees, goodness knows how many Muslims, Annie Lennox and several MPs declare their abhorrence of Israel ‘for Gaza’. They accept Hamas’s allegations without hesitation or deviation (but with repetition.) Discussions on the BBC reduce the issue to a simple contest; who is the biggest victim, and whose warfare is fair, and whose is a crime.

Squabbling over what is and what is not a war crime, over whether Israel should endure random rocket attacks permanently because retaliation would automatically incur the crime of murdering civilians who were, or were not, imprisoned in an overpopulated hellhole with no way of escaping; disagreeing over white phosphorous, accuracy of targeting, who is a legitimate target and who is a civilian, whether this or that was deliberate or unavoidable, and who is the biggest villain, is a road to nowhere. While all this has been going on front of house, behind the scenes something else has happened.

Slowly but surely, by sleight of hand, the BBC has maneuvered Hamas into the position of graduating by stealth as a fully-fledged legitimate political entity in the eyes of the public. The BBC constantly pleads “talk to Hamas” because not to do so would be churlish, since the BBC has, with its magic trickery, legitimised, normalised and humanised it. There is only one thing worth saying: Recognise Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and re-educate your followers. Agreeing to any of that would entail no longer being fundamentalist extremist Islamists, so what’s the use?


The BBC has made up its mind already because it is not concerned with history, geography or a piddly little existential threat.

However many Fitnas or Panoramas we are shown that tell us there is a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and the west, the media still stops short of connecting this, multiplied several times over, with the threat Israel faces. They don’t like terrorism when it rears its head here, but are unable to empathise with what Israel has lived with since 1948.

These arguments obfuscate the real issue, which is: why is Israel fighting? Why is Hamas, fighting? Why are Syria, Iran and other assorted Arab states involved? In this topsy turvy way, by not asking these questions, the BBC has manipulated public opinion to back the wrong horse.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

SEND IN THE CLOWNS…

By | | ,
255 Comments

I see that my old pal George Mitchell and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana are in the Middle East to help “bring peace.” You can expect to see the BBC give the efforts of this pair of jokers a sympathetic hearing – they have always been kind to Senator Mitchell following his work in Northern Ireland. Now that Obama has recycled this Clintonian bagman him into this role I am certain that the BBC will use the Northern Ireland peace process as the preferred template for creating stability in this region. On News 24 last night I heard someone insist that Israel would “have to” talk to Hamas, just like the British government “had to” talk to the IRA. It’s a completely misleading analogy but the BBC are wedded to it and you can be sure that Israel will be cast as the intransigent villains if they do not set down and enter dialogue with the genocidal Islamic savages in Hamas. The BBC coverage of the brutal murder of an Israeli soldier by Hamas should have re-assured everyone that BBC faux protestations about its’ much vaunted “impartiality”on this issue are as shallow as they are insubstantial. Once again the narrative is that “both sides” have broken their cease-fires and so Hamas get a pass for their act of murderous aggression.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

No more please, you’re killing me!!!

By | |
15 Comments

 

Had to turn off the radio this morning as, on the one hand, somewhat enraged that the BBC presenter made no attempt to do his job and question what was being said and in fact not only went along with it but positively agreed with the thoughts being expressed going on to add his own comments to reinforce them…but also it was so funny, funny/ridiculous, and beyond any rational and ‘normal’ sense of the world that anyone outside a BBC studio would understand and recognise, that it was just unlistenable after a time…beyond satire but I’m sure any ‘right-wing’ comedian could live for a year on this material alone.

The programme was all about the evil european colonists and ‘white guilt’, though apparently that is a white supremacist’s term used to shut down debate and criminalise liberals do-gooders rather than a genuine expression of what the mindset of those who are guilty of ‘white guilt’ is, lol.

Peter Carey on legacies of the past

The prize-winning novelist Peter Carey tackles head on for the first time the legacies of colonialism in his native Australia in his latest book, A Long Way From Home. He talks to Tom Sutcliffe about the damage and loss for the Stolen Generations. The writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch believes Britain is also a nation in denial about the past and present, and argues it’s time to talk more openly about race and identity. The Dutch journalist Geert Mak once travelled the breadth of Europe to explore what it meant to be European at the end of the 20th century. He found countries struggling to understand the wrongs they had committed during the Holocaust, the Second World War and decades of dictator rule.

The basic premise is that Europeans should be guilty [???] about their past and make reparation to the indigenous populations whose culture and identity is very, very important….which is where the problems start with the programme and its narrative.

So culture and identity are important and yet Guardianista Afua Hirsch tells us that there is no such thing as ‘British identity’ or ‘Britishness’ [so very BBC].  She tells us it is our belief in our own identity that is what’s wrong with this country…we believe the lies and myths about our identity….we believe, wrongly, that immigrants have come here and the country has been changed by immigrants…this is a deeply problematic delusion embedded in the concept of Britishness…apparently.  Naturally we are ‘othering’ others…ie immigrants.

She claims that only ‘brown’ people get asked where they come from….er….complete rubbish….ask any Scouser, Cornish or Welsh person etc etc.  A Scot living in England will be ragged for being a Scot and then ragged for being a Sassenach when he goes back to the homeland…she needs to get over being black…it ain’t unique, white people have separate identities just as strong and not based upon colour….she invents her own myths and lies to back up her own anti-white racist narrative that she earns a living off as a professional ‘black victim’.

Hirsch hates being asked about her roots, being ‘othered’, she just wants to be accepted for what she is….and as a ‘British’ person….so no such thing as ‘British’….and yet.

She tells us of her trips to Ghana where her mother came from and how the language is the culture and culture is the language….and how they called her ‘white’, a foreigner, despite herself identifying as ‘black’.  And yet she goes on to claim that identity is not part of a place…but it clearly is all about place and the people who live there and who have developed a particular and singular culture and identity based upon that….she talks nonsense.

She then goes on to moan about the liberal do-gooders who are well-meaning but ‘other’ her as they claim not to see ‘blackness’.

Now she wants to be ‘black’ and for people to ask about her roots saying ‘it is my heritage..let’s talk about it.’

You can’t win can you?…ask her about her roots and she is ‘othered’, don’t ask and treat her as just a person, it is ignoring her heritage and identity as a black person….marginalisng her and her race.

Peter Carey jumps in to say it is ridiculous to claim you don’t notice colour…it is one of the most basic things we notice first about a person.

A tangled web indeed.

Hirsch is full of nonsense about race and identity…on a previous BBC interview a week or so ago she rambled on about ‘white privilege’, ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘structural racism’ and though she isn’t a conspiracy theorist ‘there are reasons society is set up as it is [racist]....it is in certain people’s interests to keep things as they are [white’s on top]’.  In other words ‘society’ has been set up and shaped purely to keep the black man down.

Hirsch, as said, likes to say there is no such thing as Britishness and yet clearly clelebrates her own Ghanaian identity and does not notice the contradiction as she talks of the Ghanaians calling her ‘foreigner’.   Carey blasts the Europeans for ruining Australia and destroying the indigenous society…and yet neither of them see any problem with mass immigrants coming here and destroying British culture…something which Hirsch conveniently tries to claim doesn’t exist…thus it doesn’t matter if mass waves of immigrants come here and take over.

Colonisation and cultural imperialism by people such as Hirsch who are clearly attempting to set up a narrative that there is no such thing as a British society, culture and identity and want to replace that ‘non-existent’ indigenous culture with their own.  Hirsch’s narrative is a part of a bigger one being used by Black extremists to weaponise race and demonise white people, their culture, society and history…the puerile ‘#xxxxmustfall’ campaigns just a foretaste of what is too come as they set out to make ‘whiteness’ unacceptable and white people criminals.  The BBC should stand up to such racism and extremism instead of promoting it.

Any thoughts that the BBC would celebrate and support an indigenous British Hamas or IRA that sought to expell the colonisers as they support Hamas and the IRA?

Just the usual BBC programme channelling that ‘white guilt’ and giving a platform to the radical black activists who seek to undermine society and impose their own racism.