The EU benefits from being one of the most open economies in the world and remains committed to free trade.

Over the next ten to 15 years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside Europe. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to tap into this growth potential by opening up market opportunities for European businesses abroad. One way of ensuring this is through negotiating agreements with our key partners.

European trade policy

Odd, Big Pharma makes a big investment into the UK despite the BBC telling us that Brexit means science and R&D investment will be history and the BBC hardly mentions Brexit at all in its report…merely a snide, off-thread comment…this is happening ‘despite Brexit’…please note Dimbleby…

Of course, all of these new initiatives are being born under the star sign of Brexit which makes them children of uncertainty.

And that’s it….no indepth analysis of why we get this investment even as the ‘catastrophe’ of Brexit looms, no big cheer for Britain, no analysis that suggests this might bode well for the future and that Britain may not sink into economic obscurity and cultural isolation after Brexit….but no…..the BBC’s approach is still to sneer [very quietly in this case] and warn of hard times to come because of all that uncertainty…#duetoBrexit.

Odd also that though the BBC is keen to publish anything said by bankers about fleeing Britain for the Continent they don’t seem too keen to report this double whammy for their worldview…From the Telegraph…

Corbyn more dangerous for markets than hard Brexit, warns Morgan Stanley

The prospect of a radical Left-wing lurch under Jeremy Corbyn is a more serious threat to British asset markets than Brexit and risks setting off a drastic repricing of UK plc, a leading US bank has warned.

In the Guardian too…Corbyn becoming PM is ‘worse threat to business than Brexit’, says bank

You may also remember the BBC totally ignored this warning during the election instead telling us what a champion of anti-terrorist action Corbyn was…despite him being, in essence, a terrorist himself such is his open support for such groups and methods….

The once head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, said:

If you have been listening and watching widely on the BBC recently you will have noticed a very constant theme…that Capitalism is dead, we need a new economic model, and, of course, that Brexit is a disaster.  It seems the BBC is loading many of its programmes with some subtle, and not so subtle, pro-Corbyn messages, never missing a chance to slip in some cheerleading for the thought that the old ways are dead….we need a radical new solution.

On Sunday we had Will Self wheeled on for his thoughts….Will Self reflects on the epidemic of sleeplessness. …harmless enough no?  Ah but…you’re sleepless because you’re a voracious consumer, never happy unless you’re buying something, a victim  of a capitalist plot to keep you on the hamster wheel and under their thumb.  I might suggest the biggest leech on the consumer society is the like of Self who produce complete twaddle and still get paid for it by gullible hacks at the BBC.

Then we have something like today’s effort on Start the Week about Finland….a happy, multicultural, wide open place before it sought independence [geddit?] and we hear that the West’s economic system is broken and needs to change [geddit?] and there is talk of the ‘rise of the Populists’…naturally the evil populists are all right-wing….why is Corbyn not a ‘populist’?

Whilst neither Brexit nor Corbyn were mentioned directly they lurked in the shadows unsaid…apart from an outburst from one speaker who told us that ‘the European Union is one of Man’s greatest creations!’.

There there’s the likes of this little comment from Kamal Ahmed [a Remain supporter and possibly somewhat inclined towards Labour]…

Analysis: Kamal Ahmed, BBC Economics Editor

What is the point of capitalism?

That might seem like a pretty big question, but one answer could be “to provide people the opportunity through work to become richer”.

What, though, if the economy fails in that endeavour?

If the system leaves you – despite all your efforts – worse off in December than you were the previous January?

Or worse off now than you were a decade ago?

If a system does not deliver increasing wealth – even if it is a modest increase – then people, quite naturally, begin to wonder what is the point.

During the referendum Ahmed was very easy going on the Remain camp as he ‘fact checked’ their claims….the worst he’d say was that maybe a bit exaggerated but, you know what, the gist is right….yeah…post-referendum we’ve had that emergency budget, the economic disaster, the never ending dole queues, the rush to the exit of banks and businesses…and oh yes…world war 3.

He also seems to be a long term pal of pro-Remain Alistair Campbell……

Ahmed latched on to Tony Blair’s spin doctor, Alastair Campbell. As a result, Observer readers were “slowly soaked in disinformation” as Ahmed became a “conduit for government announcements”. When The Observer supported the decision to invade Iraq, Davies recounted how colleagues feared Ahmed had crossed the line between dispassionate journalist and government aide.

In fact, senior staff at The Observer did approach Ahmed with their concerns. One says he did believe Ahmed had become too close to Campbell, and told him so. “Kamal would go around calling himself ‘Campbell Ahmed’,” he recalls. “A joke’s a joke, but at the same time, never a truer word was said.”

Ahmed spreading Labour disinformation in the Observer…who’d a thunk?  Not much seems to have changed.  Ahmed like the BBC prepared to hold his nose about Corbyn as long as Labour win?

The BBC is definitely laying the groundwork for the Corbyn narrative on the economic system, that it is broken and needs replacing.  Just a shame it is all so simplistic, idealistic and completely lacking in thought….for instance if we buy nothing then we don’t need all those factories, shops, and transport systems to move the goods…and of course we don’t need the jobs that go with them.  Maybe we can all be poets or ‘thinkers’ like Self…but of course he only eats because he leeches off the system he hates….and if the system isn’t there?….oh….he didn’t think of that.  Never mind, we can all eat grass as they do in North Korea.  Happy days ahead.

So the BBC is out to get Boris once again, and Priti Patel.  Guess what?  Both are high profile Leave campaigners with senior government jobs….Boris being the Leave campaign’s most influential voice.  The BBC would especially  love to take him down and discredit him and thus leave Brexit without such a motivational and inspirational figurehead.

Priti Patel has made a slight gaff but hardly a sackable offence and yet the BBC has been on her case all day….but in all the reporting they fail to reveal the whole truth, in fact they tell a rather large porkie on the radio today…that she didn’t tell the FCO about her trip at all, either during it or after the event.  This is not true.  She informed the FCO of what she was doing as the trip went along as the BBC would know as it has read the letter she published explaining her actions…..

The FCO were aware of the visit while it was underway, but were not informed about it in advance….The Foreign Secretary did become aware of the visit, but not in advance of it.

On her return from Israel, the Secretary of State commissioned Departmental work on humanitarian and development partnership between Israel and the UK, and on disability.

The FCO are clear that UK interests were not damaged or affected by the meetings on this visit.

No surprise the anti-Semitic Labour Party are calling for her resignation after what was a trip that was almost wholely concerned with humanitarian issues.  As well as meeting with 12 charities she met three political figures and the talk was based around a ‘get-to-know-you’ family and background chat, politics in Britain and Israel, and the rise of anti-Semitism in British politics as well as sounding out further ‘prospects for closer collaboration between Israel and the UK on development and humanitarian issues.’  All innocuous and worthwhile you might think.

The BBC prefers to minimise the information of interest, ie what they talked about, and instead tries to suggest some secretive pro-Israeli plot….led by a ‘pro-Israeli Tory peer and campaigner’…

The BBC revealed on Friday that Ms Patel held a number of undisclosed meetings with business and political figures, including Mr Lapid, the leader of Israel’s centrist Yesh Atid party.

No diplomats were present at the meetings, at which the minister was accompanied by an influential pro-Israeli Conservative peer and campaigner, Lord Polak.

Here’s what Priti Patel says of her meeting with Yair Lapid:

Yair Lapid – Leader of Yesh Atid

General introduction. Discussion of backgrounds, families and careers to date. General discussion of British politics, including the growing anti-Semitism within UK politics.

Very sinister.

Can’t imagine the BBC being so upset about a Labour minister going to visit Hamas in similar circumstances.

If you don’t want to read the full post let me sum it up for you…..if you want to control immigration you are somehow morally deficient, lacking in compassion, honesty and intelligence and you are a racist.  There should be no difference between economic migrants and asylum seekers and even confirmed terrorists should be allowed sanctuary here.  Hislop’s whole argument is based upon his intepretation of the Victorian attitude towards immigration…

Britain was such a marvellous country that unfortunate people from countries that were not so marvellous (because they were run by foreigners) might well end up being forced to leave them.

Britain, as the moral as well as the political leader of the world, would therefore welcome these refugees in and trust them to contribute to their new home in a way that would make it even more marvellous.

The real world doesn’t seem to impinge upon Hislop’s utopian idealism at all.  Just the usual smug, patronising elitist take on immigration the BBC has peddled, unsuccessfully, for years…not helped by the use of someone like Robert Windour, the author of Bloody Foreigners, who appeared as an anchor voice commenting on immigration…but again hardly the voice of the common man, as his superior smugness radiated from the screen.

Who are the real extremists, the racists, the immoral ideologues for whom rabid dogma and intolerant and prejudiced ideology trump common sense?

The BBC wants you to believe it is anyone who dares to raise the suggestion that immigration should be controlled, but in fact the real extremist and manufacturer of immigrant hysteria and racist propaganda is the BBC, the BBC that shouts down anyone who wants to control immigration as racists, immoral and stupid little Englanders, the BBC that demands an open door policy allowing in unlimited numbers without regard to their effect on society or indeed if they harbour extreme and violent intentions towards it.  The BBC that pumps out endless pro-immigration propaganda that tries to portray mass immigration as a moral duty that to turn our back upon would reduce us to the level of Nazi barbarians.

Ian Hislop takes up the baton for the BBC as he is given licence to front a programme that is pure propaganda, sanctimonious drivel that has been produced by the BBC in order to influence the Brexit negotiations…highly politicised, partisan misinformation manufactured and shaped to alter your opinions about immigration and thus about the EU which the BBC hopes we will still remain a member of as it also works to undermine Brexit and the referendum vote.  Hardly fulfilling its obligation to be impartial, accurate and honest.

Ian Hislop sinks ever further in my estimation as he sells himself cheap to produce this dishonest and extraordinarily one-sided rant in favour of immigration.  The BBC’s use of Hislop shows they did not have any intention of a proper debate.  Hislop is well known as being pro-immigration and pro-EU and so they knew he would produce a programme that would be ‘on-board’, and such was the case.

Hislop had two weapons…the first, the adoption of the moral high ground, an idealistic hubris that gathered around itself a righteous superiority that declared those who want to welcome all are moral and decent human beings whilst those who seek to slam shut the doors are morally deficient and inhumane racists.  Look at how he talks to the ‘controversial’ Katie Hopkins [about 38 mins in] as he snears and grimaces as if there is bad smell and refuses to accept her language or the truth behind the language she uses that is an all too honest portrayal of the immigrant situation in some cases…..’cockroaches’, ‘feral’ and ‘festering sores’…they all sound prima facia tasteless and improper and yet in context they are not…Hislop wants Hopkins to wrap her allegedly unwelcome ideas in more pleasant, ‘acceptable’ language that doesn’t offend…or tell the truth.  Classic BBC.  The same BBC however that is prepared to label you  a racist, a Nazi, an ignorant, bigoted little englander and who said Tommy Robinson was ‘polluting’ the public’s mind and that the ‘Christian’ DUP were ‘backward and unpleasant’ due to their religiously based views…..so apparently strong and ‘offensive’ language can be used depending upon who is saying it and who the target is.

His second weapon is of course the usual BBC one of omission, omission of uncomfortable facts about immigration such as crimes, terrorism, the negative effects upon schools, the NHS, housing, traffic congestion, and cultural take-over and suppression.  Hislop only really told us of the supposed benefits of immigration missing out the huge amount of evidence that mass immigration and the inevitable lack of integration leads to separation, alienation and eventually conflict….welcome to now.  He concentrated on a comparison from the past which he thought a golden age of immigration and upstanding moral behaviour…claiming that Victorian England would have welcomed in anyone in any numbers and if we lose this welcoming attitude towards immigrants we sink into some immoral cesspit.  Naturally that is nonsense, we have always defended ourselves against invasion and defended our sovereignty and culture…the Victorians would not have allowed millions of highly alien immigrants to flood in who had no intention of integrating and whose own ideology set them against the host nation.  Any sign of an intent to convert Britain to their ideology by subterfuge and force would have been met in return with massive force and crushed…and the guilty parties expelled.

Hislop’s take on immigration is just the usual simplistic, patronising, moralising, extremist open-door immigration puff that we come to expect from the BBC.

He ends with a somewhat pompous and smug moral lecture that said that what we need is facts [lol], less Press hysteria, less political bandwagons, less racism, less dishonesty…more compassion, more idealism, more common sense, a more open mind…and of course…a more open door immigration policy.

It is quite clear this was not an honest debate about immigration, it was itself a vehicle for hysteria, of those who panic at the first sign their East European nannies and plumbers may get more expensive, it was a racist tract that denounced anyone who opposed mass immigration as racist….the BBC always defaults to the idea that it is white little englanders who oppose it and do so because of skin colour [those black Muslim Poles….so many of them flood in here!] As for common sense, that was distinctly lacking.

Baroness Warsi of course finds her way into a BBC programme…in this case being held to account for her election leaflets that said we must control immigration, she naturally defends her position and then says however it is the racist arguments of the BNP and UKIP that we must not condone or pander to and that we mustn’t try to portray immigrants as ‘the other’ who don’t belong here….and at the beginning of the programme we get this clip of her….

Baroness Warsi: “How long before migrants stop having to take the loyalty test?”

Well in her case I’d say never…the woman whose loyalty is clearly for Muslim extremists first having resigned her government job in a show of support for the terrorists of Hamas whilst demanding Israel be disarmed and Hamas armed. The woman who is essentially a mouthpiece for the radicals in the UK, a woman who does all she can to thwart and undermine the government anti-terror programme, a woman who demands those radicals be included in talks about how Islam should be dealt with in society and seen as part of the solution…and terrifyingly she has been asked to join a government commission on countering extremism…be afraid.

Might suggest it is some immigrants who themselves decide to live completely separate lives and want nothing to do with ‘the other’ mainstream population.

Note..the foreign born population of the UK was relatively minute for centuries until after WWII….

Why did the all-powerful BBC refuse to tell the truth about Mr Corbyn?

Theresa May surely has only herself to blame for the Tories’ appalling performance on Thursday. Even before the polls closed it was impossible to find a Conservative MP who thought she had run a good campaign.

But there is another group of people who certainly made a contribution to the outcome and should be hanging their heads in shame this morning. I am speaking of the BBC.

Our national broadcaster accounts for about 50 per cent of news output in this country via its multiple television, radio and web outlets. It is immeasurably more influential than any other news channel or newspaper. That is why it is so important it fulfils its sacred duty to invigilate politicians without fear or favour.

In the case of Jeremy Corbyn, it failed miserably over the past few weeks…..Auntie was laughably indulgent over the past few weeks.

Stephen Glover in the Mail

The once head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, said:

Why has the BBC not made the  slightest attempt to investigate that…in fact why has the BBC done the complete oppsosite and fed us the lie that Corbyn is the best man to defend us from terrorism?

Why did Corbyn do so well in the election?  Having one of the most powerful and influential news broadcasters on-side might have helped.  There is no doubt that the BBC corrupted annd undermined the democratic process and helped rig the election in Labour’s favour.

The Conservatives made an historically bad decision to hold a general election when they already had a majority, a slim one but a majority, and that,  as they should have noted as a caution, had been won against all the odds and the punditry.  If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  May of course had repeatedly stated that there was no need for another general election only to change her mind in what looked a very opportunistic way.  They then made a catastrophic misjudgement in hammering their core vote…the householders who want to pass on their earnings to their children to help them in the future (On top of cutting fuel allowance and the triple lock for Tory voting pensioners).  May had learnt nothing from the Tory voting ‘white van man’ national insurance fiasco and subsequent u-turn.  She compounded the error by back-tracking on it and changing her mind, whilst refusing to admit she’d changed her mind.  Two u-turns whilst proclaiming herself in her main battle-cry to be ‘Strong and Stable’…powerfully undermining her own campaign and the founding principle for her appeal to the electorate…that only a strong and stable leader could deal with the Brexit negotiations.

The other major influence on the outcome of the election were the terrorist attacks which suddenly brought in to play a whole new narrative about police numbers, funding and security.  May, having been Home Secretary and having overseen cuts to the police was all too easily put in the frame for the blame…lack of funding led to the attacks was the simplistic message…a message that was all too effective especially as it met with little scrutiny and examination from the BBC despite clear evidence that police funding was not the issue when it comes to identifying and stopping these killers….after all the police actually already knew who these people were and what they were about.

May made one final ‘error’…one that made sense, but it only made sense if the BBC were neutral and took a non-partisan view…which naturally they didn’t and perhaps the Tories should have factored in the BBC’s hatred of them. [The BBC are back to calling them the ‘nasty party’ as they seek alliance with the ‘socially conservative’ DUP’…question…are Muslim conservatives ‘nasty’ then?] May decided not to take part in any of the debates between the leaders…having seen the TV debates and listened to some on the radio you’ll know they are total nonsense and a bearpit for loud voices chanting well rehearsed soundbites and attack lines…the audience learn nothing.  The BBC however decided this was a good opportunity to attack May and its presenters constantly criticised her for not appearing in the leaders’ debates telling us she was scared….here’s the BBC’s US correspondent, James Cook, giving us his two penneth worth….

I'll tell you what voters don't like. Unnecessary elections. Especially when the leaders who call them refuse to engage in the campaigns.

— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) June 9, 2017

She was dodging the public, debates and interviews long before that.

— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) June 9, 2017

Now that’s a complete lie isn’t it?  May was out on the stump, she appeared in many interviews and did several audience question and answers as well as one-on-one with interviewers.  She in no way ‘dodged the public’ nor rigorous interviews…and of course put herself up for election, the biggest ‘interview’ of all.  So just a BBC lie….but one that was spread and encouraged throughout the campaign…naturally a Labour narrative.

BBC presenters relentlessly attacked May for appearing on the One Show telling us this was a soft interview and she was ‘dodging the public’, however when Corbyn did the same interview he was applauded, not a word of criticism from his fellow travellers at the BBC.

And therein lies the real problem.  The BBC.

The Power and the Inglorious Bias

The BBC is extraordinarily powerful and yet unaccountable with politicians too afraid to tackle its blatant partisan support for Labour and its extreme liberal ideology that it propagates without fear of any genuine censure and retribution.  The BBC is by far the most trusted and goto source for news relying as it does on past reputation, the audience’s innate attachment to it based upon years of ‘brainswashing’ as they grew up watching its programmes and ‘bonding’ with the BBC, putting aside any qualms about bias because they love Top Gear or Poldark or David Attenborough…and of course because the BBC pumps out relentless propaganda on its own behalf telling us how fantastic, how trustworthy, how accurate, how much better quality it is when compared to other news sources…and of course only it can be trusted to deliver the news in an era of ‘post-truth alternate facts’ and ‘fake news’…which is an irony because the BBC is the biggest peddler of fake news out there and is completely untrustworthy as we will show here in an account of how the BBC corrupted British democracy and rigged an election.

The Tories lost it but with a little help from their enemies

It wasn’t all the Tories’ failure but a highly successful campaign by Corbyn, or rather his team, which completely reframed how Corbyn and his fellow disasters-just-waiting-to-happen, Abbott and McDonnell, presented themselves, their policies and ideologies.  From being actual terrorist supporting, far-left, Britain-hating extremists they had a complete make-over, new suits, new hairdos and new policies that were astonishing u-turns after decades of saying the complete opposite. However they got away with it because the BBC did not challenge them at all.  May was pilloried and vilified for her u-turns, McDonnell was allowed by Marr to whitewash over his avowed Marxism despite clear evidence that he was a Marxist including an incriminating video, only Andrew Neil making any attempt to seriously challenge him, Abbott waffled about a change in hairstyle and Corbyn got away with murder as he dumped his career-long love of terrorists, denied his ambition to thwart all anti-terror legislation and to claim he had always supported shoot-to-kill, actually lying in an ITV interview with Peston about a Kuenssberg interview with him in which he claimed he only opposed shoot-to-kill in the 1980’s in NI…that was a total lie…one that the BBC itself challenged at the time when the BBC Trust ruled in Corbyn’s favour that Kuenssberg had misquoted him…she hadn’t…Corbyn had lied but now that the election was ongoing the BBC suddenly forgot that Corbyn had supported shoot-to-kill, and then lied on Peston, and were presenting him as a man who could be trusted to deal with a terrorist threat…also failing to register his long, long support for such terrorists…Muslim ones as well as IRA.

Putting the record straight by bending the truth

A classic example of the BBC’s highly partisan favouring of Corbyn and the whitewashing of his past is this interview with Boris by Mishal Husain ‘putting the record straight’ as she tells it, Husain insisting that Corbyn supports shoot-to-kill and has said so many times…she makes no note that this is a massive opportunistic u-turn on terror and shoot-to-kill by Corbyn preferring instead to make this strident defence of Corbyn against all the documented facts…

Note how Husain, whilst being very unwilling to talk about Corbyn’s voting record on terror laws, and indeed stopping Boris talking about that, tried to turn the tables by cherry-picking one example when Boris opposed a terror measure…the 90 days detention.  This is highly selective and unbalanced…Corbyn just about voted down every anti-terror law he could, and boasted about it, Boris votes against one and this somehow absolves Corbyn for his career long pro-terror stance?  I don’t remember Boris honouring IRA murderers or calling Islamic terrorists ‘friends’ and inviting them into parliament…I do however remember Corbyn doing that.  Husain just ignored all the inconvenient facts that showed Corbyn to be the terrorist’s friend.

Those who control the past control the present

Quite extraordinary how the BBC can totally ignore Corbyn’s past, his celebrated steadfast refusal to change his ideology in 30 or more years and now his astonishingly convenient and well-timed change of heart on terrorism.  Extraordinary when you compare it with how they absolutely slaughtered May for her u-turns and how they now conduct a relentlessly negative and critical ‘exposé’ of the DUP’s ideology, very definitely adopting a censorious tone towards them that is utterly at odds with the indulgent, see-no-evil tone used for Corbyn….the DUP’s sins are being climate sceptics(or ‘deniers’ as the BBC maligns them), opposition to abortion and to same-sex marriage….compare that with Corbyn’s unfaltering, until now, support for terrorists, his failure to tackle anti-Semitism in his party, his desire to abolish NATO, MI5, the Police and the Army and his ruinous economic policies and  you wonder who is really the major threat to Britain, world peace and stability.

The BBC lionised him and covered over his extremism in this profile and highlighted his unchanging policies as a notable part of his career…

He has refused to cave in and now has a chance to fight a general election on his own terms – making the case for a different kind of government in line with the principles he has held, more or less unchanged, since he first entered politics more than 40 years ago.

Strange now that the BBC should make little to no comment about his astonishing make-over and revision of his policies just as an election came into sight.

Greed is good

Consider this…Corbyn is all for fairness, community and an equitable spreading of wealth…and yet one of his major vote catching policies, dumping student loans, is the exact opposite of that appealing as it does to the greed in people, the individual’s self-interest at the expense of the community.  Rather than take responsibility for their own further education and career advancement Corbyn presented the young with a vote-winning proposition they couldn’t refuse whatever it cost society…free university places.  Greed and self-interest is now good under Corbyn…everything that he is supposedly against.  No comment from the BBC?

Safe in his hands

What of that narrative that if only we had more community police officers on the beat we’d gather more intelligence and be able to identify these terrorists?  Complete nonsense.  These people were already on the radar, the problem was that the police could not arrest them and charge them as it was not an offence to merely think certain thoughts, not even to have an ‘ISIS’ flag in your possession as the Muslim who walked freely through Westminster with one draped around his shoulders proved.  One reason of course is the lack of legislation allowing stricter laws that cracked down on ‘thoughts’, legislation so often opposed by…Jeremy Corbyn.  The BBC refuses to allow the salient facts about anti-terrorism to take hold in the public narrative that we have one of the most efficient and effective counter-terror forces in the world…we make arrests every day and have stopped 18 attacks in the last few years….whatever happened to the wise old words that the BBC used to trot out….the terrorists only have to get lucky once, we have to be lucky everyday?  Oh hang on…after the Manchester attack they quote this…

“We used to say that a terrorist only has to be lucky once. We have to be lucky all the time.”

Funny though how that doesn’t seem to apply here for May….the attack isn’t just a terrorist getting ‘lucky’ it’s May’s fault for cutting police budgets….despite pumping in billions more into security and intelligence and the fact that there are 23,000 people ‘of interest’ on the radar…an impossible number to monitor effectively….but remarkable that they know of them all… no?

As Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, noted in a piece in Thursday’s Daily Telegraph that Corbyn’s response was ‘nakedly political’.

Sir Richard — who is no Tory stooge — wrote that ‘if you ask professionals in the police, they would recognise that creating 10,000 jobs for community policing won’t have the slightest effect on the problem of Islamic terrorism’.

Remarkable that the BBC has ignored the fact that Labour in 2015 were proposing to cut the police budget by a further 10% above what the Tories had already cut.  Consider that the police budget has not been cut since 2015 by the Tories and yet they get criticised for the level of funding and that Labour would have cut further…how is it possible that this is not worthy of comment from the BBC?

How is it not worthy of comment that Labour’s ex-shadow home secretary and now Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and Corbyn, have both opposed the counter-terror Prevent programme?

Foreign Policy black propaganda…The Jihadist’s narrative

Corbyn came straight out after Manchester to blame foreign policy for radicalising Muslims…this has long been a BBC narrative as well…it is an utterly false and dangerous narrative, one that is embedded in the Muslim community as a whole and which feeds the Jihadi recruit conveyor belt…it is an entirely false line of propaganda.

The other incredibly dangerous and false narrative is that these terrorists are not driven by religious ideology, that they are somehow perverting the teachings of Islam.  The fact is they are not, ISIS is living history, a revolution that is televised in full technicolour as the Islamic State re-enacts what Muhammed did 1400 years ago as he blitzed the Middle East with a tiny force and established what would become Muslim dominance of the area and beyond….and they are doing it in obedience to the teachings of the Koran and its commands to ‘defend Muslims’ who are under attack…the BBC has been telling Muslims they are under attack, that the West is at war with Islam, for over a decade now.  Any wonder so many British Muslims believe that?  Where is the counter narrative that tells the real story?

Character assassination

The BBC’s ‘flagship’ current affairs programme, Newsnight, broadcast a profile of Corbyn, a profile put together by a left-wing supporter from the New Statesman, Stephen Bush.  This turned out to be a somewhat narrow, dishonest  profile, more idolization, an acclamatory tribute, that airbrushed away any controversial aspects of the Corbyn ideology and turned him into a moderate, reasoned and statesman-like politician well respected by everyone.  Newsnight then balanced that with a somewhat narrow, dishonest protrayal of May…but this time far from being a glowing, positive tribute as Corbyn received we had a snide, sniping, extremely negative attack from Tory wet, Matthew Parris…a fanatical Remain supporter who hates the fact May is actually going to carry out what the voters expect…Brexit.

The BBC had from the beginning of the campaign targeted May and her slogan ‘Strong and Stable’ relentlessly mocking and deriding it and its use making people embarrassed to use it such is the power of the BBC to intimidate and police what you can and cannot say in public, people now self-censoring themselves in case they get ridiculed by the BBC.  The BBC had successfully undermined the Tory’s main theme…..and they couldn’t believe their luck when May did a u-turn on care.  The BBC did not do a similar attack on Corbyn despite the fact that he used his ‘For the many not the few’ slogan again and again, naturally.  Nor did the BBC bother to note he had stolen the slogan not just from Blair but that the LibDems had used it in 2010.  The BBC knew Corbyn was seen as disorganised, weak and incoherent economically so they set out to destroy the Tory message that they represent the only alternative providing in contrast a strong and stable government…and when have you heard a serous attack on Corbyn’s economics….consider that the IFS has said he would impose a rate of tax not seen in peacetime Britain before and you have to ask how the BBC could avoid taking him to task over this.

When May made her speech reacting to the London Bridge attack Laura Kuenssberg claimed that this was an ‘intensely political speech’ hinting that it may be just campaign rhetoric..if you listen to the speech you will hear a perfectly measured speech from the Prime Minister that would be exactly what you might expect from any PM in such a crisis…this was not campaign rhetoric but reasoned comment that laid out how the government might respond, as any member of the public would want to know.  Corbyn, who made a massively political and factually wrong statement after Manchester placing the blame on foreign policy and cuts to police budgets, escaped any negative comment and cirticism from the BBC…quite possibly, not only because they support him, but because they fully back that narrative as well…so far from being impartial they were promoting two of their favourite things…the Labour Party and the narrative that terrorism is just blowback from the West’s actions in the Muslim world…thus we must make amends and open our borders to all the refugees.

Right-Wing online trickery

The BBC has targeted Social Media and blamed it for the rise of Trump and Brexit despite the fact that it is dominated by the Left.  Facebook was pumping out left-leaning ‘news’ before it got caught and all the tech bosses are of the left and anti-Trump.  It suits the BBC  narrative however to portray Social Media as a place that ferments and promotes Right-Wing narratives and discontent, the BBC hoping to discredit what are its biggest rivals now for the attention of the young and the news agenda.

It has continued that false narrative into this election as it claims the Tories have conducted an aggressive and highly negative attack campaign online whilst on the other hand Labour have had a far less aggressive, far lower profile and far more positive campaign aimed at getting people to vote rather than using social media to attack the other side….this articel is almost all about the Tories…the Tories bad, Corbyn good…

The rise of Tory attack ads on Facebook

The Conservatives seem to be targeting Facebook users in marginal constituencies with anti-Jeremy Corbyn attack adverts, designed to draw away the Labour faithful.

Labour are also using Facebook advertising, but their messages are not focused on leaders and their personalities.

The Conservatives are paying for numerous adverts that attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or his close allies, particularly John McDonnell and Diane Abbott. They broadcast a broadly negative message – warning people about the perceived threats of a Corbyn-led government.

Negative political adverts are particularly widespread in the United States, where parties routinely attack the credibility of a candidate and try to alienate their natural supporters. Donald Trump’s election campaign, for example, directed anti-Clinton Facebook adverts at potential Clinton supporters, including African-Americans and young women.

Change of tone for how they describe Labour…

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have also been pushing adverts on social media, though with a different tone. Labour ads on Facebook focus on positive messages, often using the party’s election slogan: “For the many, not the few”.

Oh…and that’s it for the analysis of Labour’s use of Social Media…that’s despite the fact that Labour are using highly negative attack ads….I saw them every day on YouTube…and there’s stuff like this…an utter fabrication, faked news…

Such attack ads by Labour supporters drove the anti-Tory narrative aimed at young voters….

The post was one of many to swarm Facebook by groups in favour of Jeremy Corbyn.

An analysis of the site’s content suggests it may have cost the Tories their majority by driving young Labour supporters to the polls.

Millions used the social network to share articles praising Jeremy Corbyn and trashing the Tories and Theresa May.

These ‘posts’ are likely to have had a powerful effect on Facebook’s predominantly youthful users, who are increasingly reliant on social media as their main source of news.

Of the top 20 most popular political subjects talked about on Facebook, almost all of the discussion topics about Labour cast it in a positive light.

By contrast, six of the seven most popular topics about the Conservatives were deeply critical.

Is it not odd how the BBC could miss all that or indeed how they forget that it was the Left who dominated and originated the use of social media as a means to manipulate the vote…..the Facebook founder even helping Obama…

Army of helpers

With the help of Facebook founder Chris Hughes – who devised an innovative internet fundraising system – the campaign eventually attracted more than three million donors. They donated about $650m (£403m) – more than both presidential contenders in 2004 combined.

Mr Obama had the money for four times as many campaign offices as Mr McCain and a vast army of campaign staff and volunteers. They developed and exploited a vast database of information about potential donors and voters in every key state.

Everyone who visited the Obama website was asked to sign up to get more information. Everyone who did so was asked to contribute, or volunteer. If they did, they received several follow-up calls and messages asking for more money, or more assistance.

The 2008 Obama Presidential campaign made history. Not only was Obama the first African American to be elected president, but he was also the first presidential candidate to effectively use social media as a major campaign strategy. It’s easy to forget, given how ubiquitous social media is today, that in 2008 sending out voting reminders on Twitter and interacting with people on Facebook was a big deal.

The huge success of Barack Obama’s campaigning during his 2008 presidential campaign, when he raised over half his money online and organised huge numbers of “offline” events via the internet.

Tory use of social media is being presented by the BBC as a rather scheming, underhand and dishonest way of tricking voters and manipulating the election…the same tactics by Obama and Labour are applauded with any negative issues airbrushed out of the story.  Once again a very selective and partisan narrative from the BBC.

Namecalling

The BBC is always ready to police our language and will often refuse to use language that it claims is too negative or that presents only the narrative of one side.  Famously of course ‘Terrorism’ is one word that it is reluctant to use despite the fact that it is easily defined and clear when something is a terrorist act…the BBC though has trouble when Muslims commit terrorist acts…then it becomes conflicted as it believes, as said above, that Muslims are only reacting in response to Western aggression and therefore theirs’ is the justifiable violence of Freedom Fighters and Resisters.  The BBC series, ‘The Honourable Woman’, was based upon this theme, the evil Israelis forcing Palestinians to use terrorism as they had no other weapon to combat the all powerful IDF.

The BBC though are quite happy to adopt and use the language of one side when it suits, such as the ‘Bedroom Tax’, or the ‘Dementia Tax’, when such language is used in a derogatory fashion meant to malign and demonise a Tory policy.

How different when it came to Labour’s ‘Garden Tax’…not only would the BBC not use the term but actually refused to talk about the subject at all, John Humphrys dismissing it out of hand when raised on the Today show by a Tory MP, claiming that it wasn’t in the Labour manifesto…when of course it is in there.

And also, thanks to Toobiwan for reminding me, there is ‘Hard Brexit‘and ‘Soft Brexit’, two terms that the BBC is happy to use despite the fact that such things do not exist…as May says ‘Brexit means Brexit’...the purported ‘Soft Brexit’, ie Corbyn’s favoured approach of a tariff free trade deal with all that entails, ie, free movement, is not Brexit at all and is in fact just continued memebership of the EU…in other words a lie…a lie that the BBC is happy to peddle.

Finally, at least all that I can remember off the top of my head, there’s Nick Robinson’s and Dimbleby’s demand that Corbyn get a good Press.  Bias?  Just a bit.

The BBC has been involved in one of the most blatant attempts to steal an election that we will witness, an astonishing corruption of the democratic process, a rigging of the election that very nearly put a terrorist sympathiser in No10.  Putin must be taking notes.

The BBC is running out of lives.

What magic is this?  So glamorous…the new Jacqui Smith……

Apart from the BBC not seeming to get enough of Jacqui Smith at the moment what else was on Marr?

Marr’s paper review had the above mentioned Smith, and the Trump hating BBC journo Jon Sopel, and ex-BBC PR guru for the liberal ‘Tory’ pro-EU Cameron, Craig Oliver….so none likely to be onside for May…and indeed not…and of course Sopel just put the boot into Trump not forgetting a gratuitous dig about his ‘machoness’.  Smith spent her time attacking May on social care so not really a paper review but a political broadcast on behalf of Labour from her.

Marr was on hand to help her with that as he promoted Corbyn’s message about Western intervention causing the deaths in Manchester saying…

‘And of course it has to be said Libya collapsed into a failed state on David Cameron’s watch.  It was our intervention there that knocked out the Gaddafi regime and unfortunately left a failed state.’

…which led to an angry Libyan heritage man to bomb a pop concert targeting mostly young girls….all the Tories’ fault.

Except no…it bloody well wasn’t.  Marr is so caught up in the BBC’s narrative of Western intervention that he can’t even read the news and put the facts together into a coherent whole.

Abedi’s family fled Libya to get away from Gaddafi…they returned to Libya along with Abedi to fight against Gaddafi with the help of that ‘Western intervention’….an intervention directed by the United Nations….action to prevent a massacre that if it had been allowed to happen the BBC would have been making outraged films about, using a Muslim extremist as the presenter just as they did with Srebrenica [and getting that completely wrong…failing to  mention the Muslim fighters were killed because they had been massacring Christians in the surrounding villages] telling us how we had stood by as ‘Muslims’ were massacred once again.

So we helped to fulfil the wishes of Abedi and his family…Gaddafi gone.  How then does this feed into the BBC’s narrative that Western intervention in Libya caused the bomb attack in Manchester?

Marr is talking complete rubbish, dangerous rubbish as he peddles what is not just Corbyn’s line but the terrorist line as well.

He goes on talking rubbish, highly partisan rubbish.  Naturally he doesn’t criticise Corbyn for linking ‘Western intervention’ to terrorism, he himself did just that, he instead targets May and says it is inappropriate and tasteless for her to criticise Corbyn and his own very close ties to and support for terrorists…

‘It’s very difficult to accuse someone in the middle of an election after Manchester of supporting terrorism…it’s a matter of good taste, what’s appropriate and reasonable to say is hard for people to get right.’

Really?  Really?  Are you f**king kidding me?  It’s bad taste to draw attention to the close links a man who wants to be Prime Minister has to terrorists?  It is inappropriate to draw attention to the fact that he thinks the IRA were honourable freedom fighters, that he praises Islamic terrorists, that he wants to hold negotiations with ISIS?  Is there no more appropriate time than after a terrorist attack to state the bleeding obvious about him and what he will do to the country and national security and to point out the absolute lies he tells as he grandstands with feigned outrage…outrage he never expressed towards the IRA or Hamas or Hezbollah as they tried to murder their way to victory?

Red Andy lives.  Twenty two young people don’t any more.  Part of the reason they don’t is the false narrative spread by the likes of Red Andy that excuses and cheerleads for the Islamic terrorists.

Nick Robinson hears from the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith about politicians and decision-making on security; discusses the political power of the press with the editor of the London Evening Standard, George Osborne; and talks to Mark Damazer (former Radio 4 Controller) and Stewart Wood (former adviser to Ed Miliband) about the week’s big campaign interviews.

Treachery, treachery…what to make of a man who not only sells out his country but also his own political party as he undermines both in order to betray the Brexit voting public and sell us out to Brussels?…that man being George Osborne of course.

The BBC have been continuing the effort to attack May’s campaign as they have from the start…when the campaigns were supposedly postponed out of respect for the victims in Manchester the BBC wheeled in a couple of ringers in the shape of Labour ex-senior politicians, Blunkett and Jacqui Smith, to give us their opinion on events….they being ‘civilians’ and so not subject to the imposed silence on the in-office politicians and thus able to carry on campaigning for Labour…and not just campaigning but making the most outrageous claims…that the Tories were responsible for Manchester because of cuts to the police.  The BBC has been helpfully pushing that  line, Emma Barnett demanding a Tory politician admit his guilt saying…’I want you to accept that cuts to the police led to terrorism.’

No coincidence that this is a major Labour narrative now…despite Labour in 2015 saying they would cut an extra 10% of the police budget above what the Tories had already cut….and note the police budget has not been cut since 2015 whilst counter-terrorism has seen a huge rise in budget…..the BBC graciously tell us that but strangely, in its ‘Reality Check’, fail to mention Labour’s prospective extra 10% cut….and notably fail to give us a conclusion.

Today we had Smith wheeled back in though saying little of consequence this time in a programme by Nick Robinson which seemed designed purely as a vehicle to attack May and praise Corbyn….note all the guests were Labour, ex-BBC or anti-May.  The major ‘attraction’ was George Osborne, ostensibly there to talk about Press responsibility but in fact given a platform to further attack and undermine May….what the Telegaph calls a ‘blistering attack on May’s manifesto pledges’.

Naturally this is all related to Brexit and Osborne’s love affair with Brussels….he hopes to fatally wound May, perhaps make her lose the election or at the very least perform so badly that her position as leader is under question…the hope being she is replaced with a more pro-EU person who will kick Brexit into the long grass.   No such thoughts and analysis from Robinson despite Osborne’s motives being blatantly obvious.

Whilst May was savaged it turns out, according to Robinson, that Corbyn has had a great time, successfully keeping his feet apparently [the BBC yesterday praising his pro-terror speech as ‘bold and audacious’]…that’s despite being subject to massive criticism for his pro-terror stance.  Seems Robinson does not read the papers or watch the news.

With Corbyn getting a pretty clean pass from an uncritical BBC [Neil aside] and May savaged at every opportunity it’s no wonder Corbyn is seeing an apparent rise in the polls as he promises the earth buying votes without having any idea how to pay for it all.  His Marxism, his pro-terrorist stance, his bankrupt economics, all get a free pass from the BBC.

All I can say is be careful of which you wish for.   Bankruptcy, unions on the rampage, chaos politicially and throughout society, Britain made a defenceless laughing stock that gets steamrollered by Brussels and terrorists roam parliament, the ‘honoured friends’ of Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn has done an enormous U-turn in his long held political beliefs…claiming after Manchester that he is an implacable enemy of the terrorist…this, and many other claims by him, are a lie….Andrew Neil exposed him but the mainstream BBC applauds him instead.  The BBC, whilst savaging May for her ‘U-turn’ completely ignores Corbyn’s own massive about face.

The Spectator is more critical as it notices that remarkable personal epiphany by Corbyn….

The three lies that Jeremy Corbyn told Andrew Neil last night

Why is a lifelong leftist seemingly abandoning hitherto unshakeable views? For the same reason any politician does anything: There are votes in it.

We learned something important from Jeremy Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Neil: The Labour leader wants to be Prime Minister and will do whatever it takes.

Corbyn told Neil: ‘I didn’t support the IRA. I don’t support the IRA. What I want everywhere is a peace process.’ This is a lie.

Corbyn told Neil: ‘I never met the IRA.’ This is a lie.

Corbyn told Neil: ‘My role was supporting a process which would bring about a dialogue and I believe you have to talk.’ This is a lie.

Extraordinary that a political journalist as astute and sharp as Nick Robinson would rather praise and cheerlead for such a man than expose him and his lies, his support for terrorists and most egregiously his opportunistic exploitation of the dead and wounded at Manchester in a series of lies and misinformation unchallenged by 99.999% of the BBC.

The Labour Party still doesn’t get it; a few do, but most don’t. Corbyn is not some mad old geography teacher with a lapel full of lost causes. He is not well-meaning or idealistic or a bit quirky in his views. He is an extremist and an enabler of extremism. He is a fellow traveller with terrorists and anti-Semites. When the IRA was murdering British soldiers and civilians, Corbyn had their back. When Hamas rains rockets down on Israeli kindergartens, Corbyn has their back. If he was Prime Minister and we came under attack, would he have our back?

The BBC doesn’t get it either.

A probable terrorist attack in Manchester…if it turns out to be Islamic terrorism who ‘enabled’ them?

Nicky Campbell & Co are at the scene and sounding very concerned, talking to relatives and locals, giving out phone numbers…how long before that turns to condemnation…of the security services, of British foreign policy…the bomber a victim of racism, marginalisation and Islamophobia?  Remember these guys are the new Churchills, Mandelas and Ghandis  (© Mark Easton).

The BBC has fed into the terrorist’s narrative of Islam and Muslims under attack by the West.

Only a couple of days ago Jeremy Bowen was telling us that the ‘duplicitous British’ are to blame for everything that is going on in the Middle East today….words have consequences…perhaps the government should start looking at the words the BBC pumps out excusing and cheerleading for terrorists.

Oh yes…vote Corbyn…who loves the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah and wants to negotiate with ISIS.   And of course would not shoot a suicide bomber.

“You can either wage Jihad by the tongue and by the mouth – that is ideological jihad – or by the hand and the sword. Those are the official categories of jihad…..And jihad by the hand and the sword can be done here in France [& the UK] with cars and knives.”  BBC

It is remarkable how politicians and the BBC launch outraged attacks on Google, Facebook and now WhatsApp, for apparently giving terrorists a place to hide…Politicians should perhaps be looking closer to home, such as towards Broadcasting House, for those who promote the terrorist and/or the ‘non-violent’ extremists’ narrative, the BBC of course is happy to divert attention from  its own activites and pose as the champion of democracy and free speech whilst steadily undermining them.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd resolutely announces that ‘Social media firms must join the war on terror’ and yet she ignores the very real danger that is presented by one of the world’s most powerful and influential broadcasting organisations that is spreading extremist propaganda.

She ignores the fact that there is a war being fought, and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs.  The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religioous and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge.  And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals’ like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society, on that phantom menace ‘Islamophobia’.  Of course what is even more frightening is that these men, and women, have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation.

It is the people with ideas, the talkers, the glib snake-oil salesmen, and saleswomen, who are so dangerous, it is they who feed the anger and inspire those who would take up arms…and yet the BBC gives a platform to an endless parade of these Muslim propagandists who encourage Muslims to desire to live ‘as Muslims’ and separate themselves from the societies they are in.  Anjem Choudary, a constant voice on the BBC, is a case in point and yet once he was jailed the BBC told us…

‘It wasn’t a game. The evidence now shows that Anjem Choudary is one of the most dangerous men in Britain. Not a bomb-maker. Not a facilitator. But an ideologue, a thinker, who encouraged others not to stop and think for themselves before they turned to violence to implement their shared worldview.’

Plenty of other examples, such as Cage, the MCB, MPACUK and various ‘independent’ voices such as Tariq Ramadan, all allowed unchallenged airtime on the BBC to peddle their ideas, their ideology.

Baroness Warsi is also a constant voice on the BBC pushing the Muslim narrative, she was on Marr on Sunday and on Start the Week today….

On Start the Week Amol Rajan talks to Sayeeda Warsi about how far Britain’s Muslim community is viewed as ‘the enemy within’.

Let’s remember just why she is a controversial and hardly  ‘moderate’ voice…..

From HurryupHarry....

Baroness Warsi is alleged by multiple sources in and out of government to have consistently resisted calls to develop a proper strategy on integration and tackling extremism at its roots, even though this is the Prime Minister’s policy and part of her job at the Communities and Local Government department. One source says: ‘Sayeeda made clear when she got the job at CLG that she didn’t agree with the Prime Minister and that she simply wasn’t going to do this bit of her job.’

Douglas Murray in the Spectator on those who try to undermine the Prevent programme, as Warsi does….

It is striking that in the past the people who have sought most publicly for the policy to be scrapped are those who quite simply do not want Britain to have a counter-radicalisation strategy because they themselves favour the radicals or are radicals themselves.

Warsi also argued that extremist groups such as Cage should be looked upon as representative voices of the Muslim community [which some might agree with ironically]….until it suited her to attack the BBC for giving them a platform….

Anjem who?

The Islamist Baroness Warsi was also shown up for the hypocrite and opportunist she really is.  She is a long term adversary of the anti-terrorist Prevent programme and not long ago was agitating for the government to engage with Msulim groups that were considered ‘beyond the pale’…presumably those such as Cage, MPACUK and the MCB.  She suggested that by not engaging with such groups the government was disengaged with the Muslim community….she was saying that these groups represent the Muslim community then?

Irony of ironies Warsi then attacked the BBC for giving Choudary airtime….

Criticising the BBC, Baroness Warsi, the former minister for faith and communities, said extremists should not be given platforms to express their damaging views.

Pity the BBC gives her so much airtime to peddle her own Islamist propaganda.

This is the same Warsi who wanted Israel to be disarmed and left defenceless whilst also demanding the terrorists of Hamas be given weapons.  The same Warsi who enjoyed the company of many a devout Muslim in the Muslim university society FOSIS, well known for being the breeding ground of extremists.  The same Warsi who made it her job to do whatever it took to undermine the anti-terrorist Prevent programme.  The same Warsi who argued for the inclusion of extremist organisations in the national debate about what should be called ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ and what should be acceptable..arguing it is the refusal to accept the radicals’ agenda as ‘normal’ that makes them radical.

Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph wrote this article denouncing her and the government’s foolish policies, Islamic ‘radicals’ at the heart of Whitehall, and in which he noted that ‘Baroness Warsi gave official roles to people with links to Islamist groups’.  She was also an outspoken critic of the anti-radicalisation ‘Prevent’ project and supporter of the Islamist student organisation Fosis.

Gilligan says..

For instance the infamous Islamist Tariq Ramadan sits on the Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion or belief which is intended to ‘advise FCO Ministers and staff on how to build on the active approach they already take to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief worldwide.’ and was run by Warsi.

Warsi is still at it attempting to muddy the waters and spread the blame…Dog-whistle, nasty, toxic politics based on race and religion?

So I think pretty clear where Warsi’s loyalties really lie and what her intentions are as she tours the TV  studios and Media outlets.

She is of course given a warm welcome by the BBC…here [H/T Sue at Is the BBC biased? [hell yeah]] we can see how Marr fawns over her….

Andrew Marr’s introduction this morning:

Good morning A simple hire car. A knife – and they’re not hard to buy. And a deranged man who fits no easy pattern. Isn’t the truth that sometimes it is completely impossible to stop acts of terrorism, and we need to learn to live with that unhappy fact?

Sayeeda Warsi was on The Andrew Marr Show this morning arguing that the Westminster attack had nothing to do with Islam. People from all religions can carry out violent acts, she said, and Masood “was a violent Christian long before he was a violent Muslim”. She also condemned the government’s “obsessive focus” on “Islamic ideology” – a term she regards as “not factually correct” – and wants to see the present Prevent strategy replaced by a new strategy which will better engage with Muslims.

Now, you may have thought that her contribution was the usual, predictable guff from the baroness but Andrew Marr ended the interview by gushing:

‘A moment of calm and clever reflection. Sayeeda Warsi, for now, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.’

He’d already described her new book as “eloquent”. 

Her appearance on Start The Week was yet more pro-Muslim propaganda that suggested Muslims were the victims of prejudice and anti-Muslim hate.  She tells us ‘Islamophobia’ is the last bigotry blindspot in the UK and that it is socially acceptable, it passes the ‘dinner table test’ apparently. Of course it’s not prejudice but fact-based opinion that Islam is dangerous, unpleasant and backward….as David Goodhart says…unlikely that knowledge of Islam makes you want to like it…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

And isn’t it more true to say that Muslim extremism has passed the ‘dinner table test’, the Muslim dinner table that is?  Isn’t it true that the ‘extremists’ ‘ narrative is one that is held by the majority of the Muslim community, the anger at Israel and British foreign policy?  They may not openly condone violence but they certainly exploit it, and use the threat of further community ‘anger’, to force politicians and the media to favour Muslims…..‘One lesson well understood in both Stalin’s Russia and Nazi Germany was that propaganda is most effective when it is backed by terror’

She fails to mention one fly in the ointment when she talks of ‘prejudice’ and Muslims as victims….as the slippery Islamist Mehdi Hasan admitted is all too common in Muslim communities…

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.

And is Warsi’s contention that the ‘extremists’ are a fringe group, a ‘ring of criminals’, who don’t represent Muslims or Islam true?  That was a lie said about the Germans who backed Hitler so ardently….as stated by the the Guardian’s own Madeleine Bunting…..

‘He [the Pope at the time] acknowledged he was a “son of the German people” … “but not guilty on that account”; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a “ring of criminals” were responsible for nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else. This is an argument that has long been discredited in Germany as utterly inadequate in explaining how millions supported the Nazis.’

Here is the Guardian again telling us how prevalent the ideology is within the Muslim community and puts the blame on ‘us’…

The entire emphasis on countering narratives and extremism eclipses the myriad reasons why so many Muslims are deeply critical of the government. The problem is defined solely in terms of “extremist narratives” and prevents critical reflection on what “we” might be doing and the political context. Anger over western foreign policy and recent wars, plus the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, are major sources of discontent and dissent, and not only among British Muslims. Here, those involved in government strategy must consider whether they have sufficiently come to terms with the political context, and its role in creating the extremism and radicalisation now being targeted by the government.

And what of Warsi’s claim that Muslims are happily integrating……Trevor Phillips thinks not [No surprise that the BBC’s new MCB favourite spokesman, Miqdaad Versi, argues against him in the Guardian]…..

What it reveals is the unacknowledged creation of a nation within a nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future….Britain is nurturing communities with a complete set of alternate values.

Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it.  They won’t….they really don’t want to adopt much of our decadent way of life.

Many of our elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth

Integrating Muslims will probably be the hardest task of all.  It will mean abandoning the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and adopting a far more muscular approach to integration….deciding how to confront their thinking where it collides with our fundamental values.

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

Just remind me again why the BBC gives so much time to Warsi but attacks Google et al for giving a platform to extremists?

Even some at the BBC itself have doubts about its own peddling of extremist propaganda…but it’s not just videos as he worries about…it’s those supposed voices of ‘moderation’ such as Warsi who are the real problem…

Are we helping ISIS by running its videos on the news?

Social media enable them to fight psychological warfare. The horrifying images of masked men, a faceless enemy, have helped these groups to intimidate the public.

Downloading social media content, mainstream news organisations have used pictures of mass executions, aimed at showing the barbaric actions such militant groups. But the use of these pictures to show how heartless and cruel the group is, in fact serves the interests of ISIS and similar organisations. Winning the hearts and minds of the public is hardly the aim of the extremists. Rather they want the media to show how a group of ‘devoted’ religious men has abandoned life’s luxuries to fight a ‘holy war’.

For this reason we need to reconsider how to deal with such images. I think the time has come to discuss new editorial guidelines on how to deal with organisations like ISIS and its clones.

The BBC has been blitzing us with half-truths and lies by omission as it continues its assault on Trump.

Got to laugh at those who whinge about Trump getting a state visit so ‘early’…same people probably applauded Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize as he took office.

The BBC in all its hours of coverage have never, in my hearing, mentioned that Obama also blocked Iraqi refugees for 6 months…even as they tell us how important an ally Iraq is to us and Trump’s ban will wreck the relationship…or that the countries chosen were chosen by Obama’s administration as of concern….ah no…they have finally caught up after days not reporting it….at least it’s on the website if not on news bulletins.   Read it though and it tries to blame the Republicans for Obama’s restrictions or tries to muddy the water and confuse you as to whether Obama did ban Iraqi refugees…

Trump referred to an incident in May 2011 when the FBI indicted two Iraqi citizens in Kentucky on federal terrorism charges. Both were accused of providing material support to al-Qaeda and had been involved in attacks against US forces in Iraq.

A hearing before the Subcommittee on Counter-terrorism and Intelligence found that the pair had “exploited special Iraqi refugee programs”. The vetting system came under review and this resulted in fewer Iraqi refugee admissions that year.

The number of refugees from Iraq dropped from 18,016 to 9,388 as a result of the suspension. That number increased to 12,163 the following year.

The BBC does not correct anyone who says it is a ban on Muslims….clearly not as so many other Muslim countries are not so banned and Muslims from non-Muslim countries are not banned.  The BBC also insists on referring to the 7 countries as ‘Muslim majority’…when the fact they are Muslim is irrelevant…what they should say perhaps is ‘Terrorist infested’ as a more truthful description and explanation for the bans.

The BBC does not correct, indeed tells us itself, that the British people are alarmed at Trump’s ban…and they reference the petition giving it massive airtime in the hope, no doubt, that more and more people will sign up.

Funny how ‘populism’ is suddenly popular at the BBC….a highly democratic vote to leave the EU is classed by the BBC as a drift towards Fascism and a Britain that is turning nastier and more racist but a very one-sided petition is the voice of the British people being heard?

Let’s look at the petition.   Or rather let’s look at the map of where the signatures are coming from.

Curious thing…nearly all the numbers are from Labour areas…or from Nick Clegg’s and SNP cosmopolitan areas….The demonstration in London was led by Owen Jones and Labour’s top draw politicians were there to speak…..let me put forward a thought…that Labour and LibDem activists are signing up in large numbers in order to embarrass Theresa May?

A fairly obvious conclusion when you look at the facts and who is making the most noise here and who benefits the most from doing so.  The BBC’s finest political brains for some reason have been unable to see such a possibility.

Here’s another oddity…Corbyn is up in arms about Trump coming here…

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said Mr Trump “should not be welcomed to Britain while he abuses our shared values with his shameful Muslim ban and attacks on refugees’ and women’s rights”.

This is the man who said we must invite his friends, the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah into Parliament, and yet he wants to ban the President of our closest and most powerful ally?  Again the BBC’s finest don’t notice anything amiss.

“Tomorrow evening it will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. And I’ve also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well. Unfortunately the Israelis would not allow them to travel here… The idea that [Hamas] should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake and I would invite the government to reconsider its position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah.”

What we’re getting from the BBC is not news but a massive propaganda drive designed to portray Trump as racist, deranged and self-obsessed…not to mention reckless and amateur.

Just another day with Lord Hall Hall’s BBC.  Goebbel’s secretary might have died but his understudies live on….I think he’d be proud.

The BBC brings us wonderful and highly misleading images of Islam in the UK….but others, less intent on hiding the truth, reveal all…are Muslims really fighting back in huge numbers against the ‘radicals’ even as more and more young Muslims become ever-more ‘devout’ and self-identifying as ‘Muslim’ first and foremost?….and did ‘radicalisation’ really start in 2003 because of the Iraq War as the BBC wants you to believe?….

From a Pakistani Muslim, Gina Khan……from 2007 and 2009…

Reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Birmingham

As a young child and teenager I grew up in an area where the majority was English but there were also Greeks, Chinese, Jamaicans and Indians living in the same community. Everybody got on and respected each other. My parents ran supermarkets, so we were integrated, if not allowed to assimilate as females because of the religion. And now the white people are leaving, the area has disintegrated, and it breaks my heart. Most members of my family have moved out.

The area has been Islamised. Mosques, mini-mosques and madrasas rise up on almost every street corner, but there is nothing for the youth. Drugs and crime has made the area unsafe for young girls. Social services and the police know what is going on. I have witnessed anti-west and anti-Jew posters and leaflets appear in shops run by young bearded Muslims. I watched the Islamists mobilise the Muslim community right under my nose. Before 9/11 the time I could not name it, but I knew something was not right, but it was being done in the name of Islam.

I left because there was no way I was going to raise my children as a lone mother in a community where the Imams or mosques did nothing to serve the community or teach a plural Islam. Even the schools were allowing little primary school girls to wear headscarves, and that has nothing to do with religion. The extremists have had over twenty five uncontested years to mobilise the minds of British Muslims and their backwardness now dominates some areas.

Multicultural polices are not working…

 

Gina Khan on Breaking the Silence

Being a British Asian woman from a Pakistani ethnic background, a Muslim, the atrocities commited in the name of Islam effected me profoundly. Being a Pakistani had its own stigmas – being female meant being treated as sub-human in relation to the Muslim man. I can see how the ideology works – half the ideology is about oppressing Muslim women. That’s evident when you note that the first thing Islamists do is reverse the rights and freedom of Muslim women, when they do manage to create an Islamic state, as in Afganistan or Iran. I wasn’t going to participate in my own oppression!

I have lived within the Muslim community in Birmingham. I’m a born and bred brummie, I had been speaking out for a while. I had been writing to a lot of people hoping someone would want to focus on the truth. I knew what I knew and didn’t want to forever remain silent at any cost.

We are engaged in a protracted and widely dispersed war at the Jihadists’ discretion, which I knew had been going on before 9/11; our goverment was in denial…and still is. My insight has been through personal experiences and those of people around me.

My father was indoctrinated with this ideology in the early 1980s…Dad would say ‘you kids don’t know nothing – Islam will take over, there will be mosques everywhere, you must think of your after-life – not this life. Kaffirs will burn in the fire of hell.’

His words would frighten me, and I had no reason to doubt his words of wisdom as he was reading the Quran and attending mosques where pious religious mullahs gave sermons about the Quran. He was becoming anti-Jewish, even though he had never met a Jewish person in his whole life. He was becoming anti-west although he never actually went back to live and retire in Pakistan until mum died.

Now in hindsight I realise he was brainwashed into an ideology – by the same mosques and mullahs in Birmingham that preach tenets of Jihadism. Pensioners as well as the young get indoctrinated. Dad had become colder and more disconnected the more religious he became.

In 1996 I remember seeing flyers and posters advocating meetings for Muslims to talk about Jihad – a call for the ‘umma’ and anti-west propaganda…in a chip shop in Ward End run by mullahs. I remember thinking: why haven’t the police arrested these guys?

When the horrendous events of 9/11 happened , I remember thinking ‘oh my God, they have started to attack the West’. I was gripped in fear…and I understood who the enemy was. I was shocked when I realised that Western governments didn’t know who the enemy was.

I remained silent for most of my life but I was seething with anger at Islamists…how did this goverment not sense what was coming, while many at the grassroots level could sense it ? Remaining silent wasn’t an option for me any more, especially when more Jihadists were being discovered and named locally. Many mujahideens were known to people who had gone off to fight in Jihad in Bosnia. One of the Jihadists who was arrested in Birmingham in February was a friend’s brother. A local British-born Pakistani lad in the armed forces had been killed in action in Afganistan, and I couldn’t believe they wanted to behead someone in the armed forces just to instill fear in us all.

In search of my religion I had also picked up books translated in English from the same bookshops that were raided. I had been a victim of domestic violence…the beating of women authorised in Islamic books and political Islam theories put my faith in turmoil. I’m pleased that other Muslim people are speaking out.

I have stated to many that this war will last at least 25 to 30 years. Prime Minister Brown, just like Mr Blair, won’t use the word ‘Jihad’ – they mention the ideology but never define it to their people, which I believe is counter-productive. Muslims themselves have to understand the concept and reasons behind the ideology, and it isn’t just because of foriegn policy; this ideology was being implemented long before the Iraq or Afganistan war. The only way to really understand the enemy and what Jihad means, is to understand the historical roots of Jihad, intertwined with the history of Muslim women and their struggle to be emancipated.

The real clash is between modern 21st century Muslims living in the present and backward-thinking Muslims with the mindset of the 7th century.

The goverment had until recently engaged and somewhat funded the MCB. In my eyes they are Islamists, they are Jihadists’ mentors.
They are not the voice of British-born Muslims or British Islam. Inayat Bunglawala gets on my nerves…everytime he makes a statement to the press, I wish he’d put a sock in it.

Initially Inayat Bungalawala had supported Osama bin Ladin, calling him a ‘freedom fighter’ in 2001; he supported Wahhabi Clerics and Hamas leaders, and currently these men want a new law so that banning religious discrimination can be implemented – which could shut down debates about Islam.

I know that I will have ‘issues’ if I’m critical of my religion and the supremacist attitude that govern us all currently…..

but what the heck, Islamists disrespect our logical reasoning and humanity every day. I have a right to my full humanity…I do not believe that whoever created me wanted me or any other woman to walk out of the front door with half the IQ He blessed us with, no one could suppress/oppress me or shut me up again – ask my ex-husband. I don’t want my daughter to have my life…I intend to set her free as a full human being, one day. She was born in a free country. She can write her own life script.

In the mean time I will continue to fight this mentality and backward mindset – I will exercise my freedom of opinion and debate…that’s what democracy is all about isn’t it?