John Humphrys was telling the world that there was huge concern in many quarters about Trump’s policies, Laura Kuenssberg reckoned, rather grandly, that she was speaking on behalf of the British people as she slandered Trump, and of course this assumption is a common thread throughout BBC coverage…occasionally qualified with a grudging ‘well there may be some who support Trump of course’.
The survey, conducted by YouGov for The Times, found 49 per cent of the British public supported Mr Trump’s UK visit with 36 per cent opposed.
It is the first poll published on the contentious issue which has provoked widespread protest online and outside Westminster.
Since Sunday more than 1.7 million people have signed a petition to prevent Mr Trump visiting the UK saying “it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen.”
So what will be the dominant news story now on the BBC? Will it be the one that accurately reports the views of the silent majority or the views of a highly politicised and ideological group of activists spurred on by their political masters in Labour, the LibDems and the SNP?
I’m guessing the BBC will almost certainly forget the result of this poll almost instantly and will continue to widely promote the anti-democratic intimidation and bullying of the anti-Trump lynch-mob as the only credible and morally acceptable reaction to Trump….as said before, funny how ‘populism’ is suddenly once again popular with the BBC.
The BBC, a danger to democracy, stability and peace? Gotta think so.
I have some advice for the BBC…wait, wait until we can ascertain the good that Trump does…because his legacy maybe that on balance, he does more good than harm.
Trump has set the running dogs of the extremist liberal elite running. There’s wild panic and headless chickens on the continent of Europe as their comfortable existences are threatened much as the Communist Dacha loving elites saw their easy, privileged living coming to an end as the Berlin Wall fell. The greedy, liberal elites, those for instance in the BBC who feel entiltled to our money and to then preach to us about our immorality and racism, see the Trump bulldozer shattering the foundations of their utopian dream, a dream bought at the expense of all those ‘populist’ workers that the BBC elite so disdain, mock and denounce as racist Nazis.
Paradoxically those burgeoning populist Trumpian forces are small and insignificant as John Humphrys reminded us today when he averred that there is ‘huge concern in many quarters’ about Trump’s appalling policies [he didn’t actually say appalling…but Nicky Campbell has…so fair game] echoing Laura Kuenssberg’s attack on Trump where she grandly and mistakenly said she spoke for Britain. Why does the BBC not say that there is huge support in the UK for Trump…just as valid if not more so…and in the US he has the majority for his immigration policy.
The BBC of course doesn’t think Trump is a man who we should do business with but can’t seem to keep the narrative straight. When Farage got his foot in the door first May was criticised for being too slow to contact the new President. Then when she won a small diplomatic coup and was the first national leader to meet Trump she was roundly criticised for being too quick and for fawning…and then she was criticised for being too slow to criticise his immigration policy…the BBC has often moaned about Politicians using soundbites and off the cuff remarks to grab the headlines…and now they demand May does just that…instead she took her time to consider what the issues were and then spoke about it…she unfortunately isn’t made of the same stuff Thatcher was and has caved in to pressure and denounced Trump’s policy as ‘divisive and wrong’…not sure in what way it is divisive.
The BBC et al are hounding May for maintaining and developing further a close working relationship with one of our most powerful and closest allies….strange that on the continent, in the ranks of the EU apparatchiks, they too demand a close relationship with the US….
“We cannot surrender to those who want to weaken or invalidate the Transatlantic bond, without which global order and peace cannot survive. We should remind our American friends of their own motto: United we stand, divided we fall.”
So whilst Trump may make them quake in their Italian loafers they want to do business with him.
So what’s the problem? The BBC tells us…
Donald Trump has professed doubts about Nato, admiration for Russia’s Vladimir Putin and support for Brexit. He has also criticised German Chancellor Angela Merkel, particularly her welcoming policy towards refugees.
In a recent interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper, Mr Trump confirmed his view of the Nato alliance as “obsolete”. He has also dismissed the EU as “basically a vehicle for Germany”.
Interesting that the BBC equates support for Brexit with admiration for Putin. But as with all BBC ‘news’ you have to take it with a pinch of salt.
For instance whilst he may talk of closer relations with Putin he also said…“Well, I start off trusting both [Merkel as well] — but let’s see how long that lasts,” he said. “It may not last long at all.”
Then there’s that comment about NATO being obsolete…well all is not as the BBC tells us…what he actually said…
“I took such heat when I said NATO was obsolete,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying, ‘Trump is right.’”
As for Trump wanting the EU to break up as a policy that’s not true either…he merely thinks that if countries want independence they should have it…
Mr. Trump also said that Britain’s decision to leave the European Union would “end up being a great thing” and predicted that other countries would follow. “People, countries want their own identity, and the U.K. wanted its own identity,” he said.
His critique of German dominance over the European Union is hardly a novel thought; many Europeans share the same complaints.
And of course his criticism of Merkel’s immigration policy as catastrophic was hardly controversial.
So when you actually look at what Trump has said he doesn’t seem to have said anything really controversial unless you are a dyed-in-the wool EU supporter who wishes to hide the truth from the voters….
What is startling is how an incoming American president would make such a statement about a key ally and, in doing so, give succor to populist parties seeking to shatter the European political establishment.
So really we must do what the BBC does…censor the truth and shape the news to reflect what you’d like to happen rather than report what has happened. Can’t have the cosy cartel of the liberal elite shattered by the inconvenient truth can we?
UK manufacturing growth unexpectedly hits 2-1/2-year high – PMI
British manufacturing growth climbed to a two-and-a-half-year high last month, fuelled by new orders from both home and abroad and adding to signs the economy ended 2016 strongly, a survey showed on Tuesday.
The Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) rose to 56.1, the strongest reading since June 2014, from 53.6 in November. That exceeded all forecasts in a Reuters poll, which pointed to a decline to 53.1.
Naturally things could turn around later but that’s not the point..the point is how the BBC reports these things…when the PMI fell slightly the BBC was reporting it relentlessly all day with the narrative that Brexit is destroying the economy….screaming about a ‘dramatic deterioration in the economy‘ and that we were definitely heading for recession…as with the last good news figures, which oddly the BBC decided we had to be careful how we interpret as it was far too early to make a sensible judgement [on the good news that is…on the bad news we’re going into recession] the BBC has gone much less noisy.. Strange no? Not heard a peep on the radio whereas you couldn’t miss it when the PMI fell below 50 and the story is hidden away on the business pages where hardly a soul will see it which is quite extraordinary considering just how relatively high the PMI figure is.
The BBC is definitely trying to hide good news here.
Still, maybe they are just taking advice from Europhile Jonathan Portes [08:35] who on hearing that the Change Britain pro-Brexit group has suggested 400,000 jobs will be created by leaving the EU customs union says these figures are entirely fictional…however….he claims that it is now quite wrong to put hard figures on things as that is meaningless….what we reallyneed to know is that a consensus of ‘experts’ has told us if we leave the EU we are going to Hell in a handcart..so there…oh yes…and he is entirely neutral as Nick Robinson tells us…..really? The Spectator has its doubts…as you might….
It is wearisome work, but I hope the ‘leave’ campaign is carefully monitoring the BBC’s coverage of the referendum. On Monday, the first full weekday since Mr Cameron’s ‘legally binding’ deal, I listened to the Today programme for more than two hours. I heard six speakers for ‘remain’ and two (John Mills and Nigel Lawson) for ‘leave’. In this I am not including any of the BBC interviewers themselves, though my hunch, based solely on the way they ask questions, is that all of them, with the possible exception of John Humphrys, are for ‘remain’. The guests explicitly in favour of ‘remain’ were Carolyn Fairbairn, Sir Mike Rake, Stanley Johnson and Michael Fallon. Jonathan Portes, who is always presented by the BBC as a neutral expert, was actually pushing the EU cause.
So Portes is conveniently claiming hard figures are meaningless just when the Brexit group comes out with some hard figures he disagrees with…..but he adds that the ‘consensus’ is that we are doomed…based on what? Hard figures of the failed experts like him who peddled a message of armageddon during the referendum. But now hard figures are so yesterday when they upset the orthodox bandwagon…then again we are in a post-fact era aren’t we?
Today has shown perfectly why you should despair if you think ‘radical’ Islam is a problem for Europe.
A Muslim drives a truck into a Christmas [Christian] market killing 14, injuring many in a deliberate attack.
What is the response from the BBC, the intelligence community, Royalty towards a radical Islam that is at war with the West? Not the real threat.
Instead blame the Right, warn of the threat the Right poses, the threat ‘populism’ poses…and conflate them all with violent Far-Right groups. Bury the truth along with the victims of ‘Radical’ Islam.
On the Today programme we were told the problem was not immigrants but immigrants being groomed once they were in Europe….thus you are supposed to conclude that it is a failure of Europe to stop radicalisation that is to blame not the immigrant himself…they are the ‘vulnerable victims’. This narrative was backed up by ex-MI6 spook Richard Barrett who said the real question was why would someone want to spread terror?, telling us that it was alienation, marginalisation and discrimination that disassociated them from Society. So again…it is our fault. Why though is it so often only Muslims who ‘radicalise’, terrorise and kill people? That’s the real question.
Later on John Humphrys wanted to know how we can stop radicalisation…first understand, admit, who and why, but no, all we got was another tale of immigrants being radicalised by people in Germany already. However…the ‘big piece’ we are all missing, is the real problem….’cumulative radicalisation‘ no less. What’s that? The rise of the Far-Right of course. Others might call it ‘self-defence’. When terrorists hit on 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan then Iraq….is that ‘radicalisation of the Far Right‘…is Tony Blair a fascist or worse, a populist? I heard it was a justified response to a terror attack.
Anyway, as said before in the last post, the Far-Right would not be on the rise if the likes of the BBC had not worked to open the borders and flood Europe with people who have no loyalty and no desire to integrate into European societies in their millions. Keep smacking someone around the head for long enough telling them how good it is for them and they’re bound to eventually hit back. What’s that favourite Lefty word? Blowback.
Then we had Prince Charles on Thought for the Day [0748] giving us a highly political sermon that essentially equated the Muslim terrorist and his fellow travellers in Germany with Jesus, Mary and Joseph…the Holy Family being refugees themselves.
If you were not a republican before you probably are now as you were treated to a highly misleading and dishonest interpretation of what is happening in the world. Charlieboy told us of the terrible persecution of Christians, of Christians attacked and driven out of their own lands, not just Christians but Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Bahais and other minority groups. What he didn’t mention was who, what religious group, was doing the persecuting around the world….Muslims. He then went on to raise the spectre of the 30’s again and said it was beyond belief that such a thing could be happening once more in Europe….yes Jews are being driven from Europe once more, but that wasn’t what he meant. He spoke of other refugees coming into Europe who then suffered persecution from the ‘Populists’….a pretty disgraceful grouping of all those who voted for Brexit or want to limit immigration with Far-Right groups who use violence. Again no mention of Muslims or the fact that it is in fact they who are driving the new ‘1930’s’ rise of anti-Semitism, backed by the Left….such as our own Labour Party….and by default those who back open borders like the BBC.
Charlieboy then mentions Islam, or rather Muhammed. He was a refugee we are told, only wanting to worship freely. Yes, just like the terrorists now…they do it to make Islam the dominant religion…so they can ‘worship freely’. Muhammed was a warlord who used the religion to draw in supporters for his wars telling them God would reward them with loot, women and land. He had a tribe of Jews beheaded, the women and children enslaved and engaged in a campaign of conquest and colonisation that has resulted in the mass oppression and the inhuman mentality of such a vast swathe of humanity. Forget to mention that Charlieboy?
Prince Charles has spoken out about the danger of religious persecution, warning against a repeat of “the horrors of the past”.
Delivering BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day, the Prince of Wales said the rise of populist groups “aggressive” to minority faiths had “deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days” of the 1930s.
In the Christmas message, he urged respect for those of different faiths.
Then we have the video at the top of this post. A Newsnight film…
Is the “alt right” on the rise in Europe? And if so, is it a fringe movement – or something bigger than that? BBC Newsnight’s Gabriel Gatehouse reports from Austria and France.
Gatehouse didn’t actually listen to what was being told to him. He had a narrative and he stuck to it….what we got was a constant drumbeat warning us of the rise of a new Nazi regime….Gatehouse freely used words like ethnic cleansing, Nazis and references to concentration camps. No analysis of the issues that politicises these people just condemnation and demonisation. In other words just the usual BBC dangerously dismissive and contemptuous treatment telling us these groups had ideas ‘beyond the boundaries of the acceptable’…..er like controlling immigration and stopping Islamisation? Very controversial.
Gatehouse ran through a list of ‘Far-Right’ issues to probe their ‘Far-Rightedness’…gays, Jews, ethnic minorities…er well that would include the Church of Engalnd then as ‘Far Right’ and Muslims of course…only yesterday the BBC was accusing the Cof E of institutional racism….and gays and Jews have never been top of the Christian church’s hit list (or rather…)…nor of the Islamic community’s. Those under the inquisition actually said they had no problem with any if these issues. Damn…Gatehouse had to try another tack.
Gatehouse hilariously asked if the ‘Far Right’ people he was interviewing had any gay friends…and thought it odd, and obviously an indictment, that they didn’t. Yep he really did pull that old chestnut out of the fire….’I have a gay friend…so I can’t be prejudiced’ but turned on its head…’I have no gay friends, therefore I am homophobic’.
Some of Britain’s leading universities are becoming no-go zones for Jewish students because anti-Semitism is so rife, the first ever higher education adjudicator has warned.
Baroness Ruth Deech, a cross-bench peer who formerly held the highest office dealing with student complaints, said that institutions may be failing to combat hatred against Jews as they “afraid of offending” their potential benefactors from Gulf states.
“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said. “I don’t know why they aren’t doing anything about it, it really is a bad situation.”
These ‘Fascist’ ironically want a pan-European identity but with national identities maintained…strong European borders but ‘soft’ and pluralistic within. Almost BBCish….or is it ‘Fascist’?
Hilariously Gatehouse complains that multiculturalism has lost its attractions and now the politics of identity has taken over. Er what? Identity politics is a classic left-wing approach to society…divide and rule, everyone divided up by race and religion and offered policies to suit each and every group in order to win their vote. A famously left-wing tactic. Multiculturalism was all about identity and ‘celebrating diversity’…in other words separate identities. But now it’s a bad thing, in fact a totally diffferent thing, something to label the Right with as yet another example of ‘Fascism’. On the BBC’s ‘Muslims Like Us’ you’ll see the devout Muslims declare that they are ‘Muslim first’. Not ‘Britain first’ then? No shock and horror about that though. It is, apparently, not just Fascism that results from the ‘new’ identity politics but ethnic cleansing as well as Gatehouse goes on to explain as he links to another issue….a group in France says that if immigrants don’t want to integrate they will offer them money and the chance to go to a country where they will feel more at home…not force them but offer them. Gatehouse says this is ‘ethnic cleansing’. Never mind the UK government already does it.
Are you starting to get the idea that Gatehouse doesn’t have a clue what he is saying and what the reality is and has his own agenda to peddle?
You actually struggle to see what the spectre of the 30’s is here…just what are the policies and ideas that Gatehouse says are ‘Far-Right’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’ or have the whiff of the concentration camp about them or have ‘scary connotations’? They all seem fairly mainstream and indeed already put into practise by many governments. Gatehouse comes with preconceived ideas about these people and completely ignores what they actually say preferring to overlay everything with his own narrative, colouring what they say in the darkest tones when such an interpretation, at least from what they said on film, is far from the mark.
Gatehouse in essence has ‘faked’ a film, producing something that is indeed reminiscent of the Thirties…the propaganda films of the Nazis.
Interesting to see that the Right-wingers are all young, educated people….yet another BBC lie laid to rest that it is just ignorant old people who don’t want to see the wonders of the über-Liberal world vision imposed upon them.
Over a year ago, reported by the Washington Post, Trump said he would keep the Obamacare provision for pre-existing conditions….somewhat late, the BBC has just reported this ‘news’ as a breathtaking u-turn by Trump having ‘spent the whole campaign promising to repeal Obamacare’…as BBC News is now reporting disingenuously without the qualification of the inconvenient truth.
The BBC is headlining with Trump loving Obamacare and u-turning on his pledge to repeal and replace it….John Humphrys began with the words that ‘opponents fear, and that is the right word, that 10 years of Democrat legislation will be repealed…..’…..Justin Webb ended the programme by suggesting Trump was a danger to the world….despite his desire for NATO countries to cough up the full 2% of funding and their failure to do so has long been a US complaint and that the BBC itself was highlighting attacks on the UK government for allegedly not doing so recently. The Head of NATO itself said that Europe was shirking its responsibilities.
On Trump’s ‘u-turn’?
The BBC is lying.
The BBC is engaged in massive distortion and misrepresentation of what Trump has said…the BBC’s intent? To sow doubt amongst his supporters and generate a feeling that he is betraying those who voted for him……their latest frontpage headline….
Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?
RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don’t believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.
TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It’s a modern age, and I think we have to have it.
Q: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people with pre-existing conditions is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?
TRUMP: I think they’re wrong 100%. Look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians [and vice-versa]. The insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing.
It literally took 30 seconds to find that quote and yet the BBC’s premier news programme that sets its news agenda for the day didn’t bother to look…because it didn’t want to. Instead it took from CBS what merely confirmed the BBC’s pre-existing opinions…its ‘reporting’ being merely rehashed news releases from other sources not its own actual journalism…as Paxman long ago complained of….
In this press of events there often isn’t the time to get out and find things out: you rely upon second-hand information – quotes from powerful vested interests, assessments from organisations which do the work we don’t have time for, even, god help us, press releases from public relations agencies. The consequence is that what follows isn’t analysis. It’s simply comment, because analysis takes time, and comment is free.
Of course it helps if the comment fits in with your own narrative.
Trump adds that he’ll cover catastrophic coverage and pre-existing conditions.
Note also that the BBC don’t headline with the very emphatic statement in the same interview seconds later that Trump would ‘repeal and replace’ Obamacare.
Why is the BBC, and others, pushing this narrative of alleged backsliding on his promises? Simply because they want to make out he is betraying those who voted for him and thus stir up as much trouble as possible.
Strange the BBC don’t explore the issues in this article also from CBS:
The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.
This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.
We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.
If anyone is to blame for the appalling suffering of Aleppo, it is the Stop The War Coalition. For its relentless propaganda campaign – and downright lies – relating to the recent military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan has achieved its goal of turning public opinion and parliament against initiating any further military interventions.
I think he is being very kind to the BBC as what he describes is the very essence of the BBC’s reporting over the last 13 years….He goes on…
And the remarks made by Seumas Milne, the Guardian journalist and leading Stop the War apologist who works as Jeremy Corbyn’s communications direction, in response to Mr Johnson’s question tell you all you need to know about where these left-wing activists are coming from.
The comments made by the likes of Mr Milne and his fellow travellers on the hard left might be reprehensible, but at least they have the virtue of exposing the Stop the War activists for what they really are: hard left fanatics who are committed to defending Britain’s enemies than those of Britain itself.
He states…
I often found myself left speechless by the bare-faced lies of the anti-war lobby, such as the claim that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had caused the deaths of one million people. This particular lie was made live on-air during a discussion programme on BBC 5 Live which went completely unchallenged by the moderator. (A more accurate figure for war-related fatalities in Iraq would be around the 100,000 mark).
Trouble is it wasn’t only the STWC peddling that figure, it was the BBC’s most senior journalist, John Humphrys, who stated uncategorically that the war had resulted in one million dead Iraqis…he also claimed that the ISG had not recommended a ‘surge’ of troops to defeat the insurgents [and he repeatedly insisted the Surge was failing…even before it had actually begun]…when it clearly stated exactly that course of action. Humphrys of course was one of those involved in the most serious, and high profile, attack on the war by claiming, falsely, that Tony Blair had lied in the Dossier….the BBC completely ignored the fact that one of the world’s most respected weapons experts, David Kelly, said the dossier was entirely reasonable and said nothing more than the UN itself had declared…and that he himself supported the war as he recognised the danger Saddam presented to the world.
The BBC has fought a running campaign against the Iraq War and is siding with the terrorists as it repeatedly insists that events in Syria are the result of Iraq…rather than admitting the obvious truth that the war in Syria is the result of the Arab Spring and ISIS was allowed to bloom because Assad deliberately released its members from his prisons and allowed them to attack his enemies.
The BBC aids and abets the terrorists and runs a narrative that is entirely untrue and highly dangerous, not just for Syrians, but for the whole of Europe as it is flooded with refugees as a result of that war and the cowing of Western politicians by the likes of the BBC and who fear taking action, and for community cohesion in this country as the BBC spreads the lie that there is a war against Muslims.
This is an article that Dr David Kelly, UN weapons inspector, authored just prior to the Iraq war….curiously the BBC never refers to anything Dr Kelly said that confirms the intelligence that Saddam was considered a threat…..Kelly was a world renowned and highly respected expert on WMD….John Humphrys? Not so much.
In the past week, Iraq has begun destroying its stock of al-Samoud II missiles, missiles that have a range greater than the UN-mandated limit of 150 kilometres. This is presented to the international community as evidence of President Saddam Hussein’s compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors.
But Iraq always gave up materials once it was in its interest to do so. Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.
Today Iraq shows superficial co-operation with the inspectorates. Weapons such as 122mm rockets specific for chemical and biological use have been discovered and the destruction of proscribed missiles and associated engines, components and gyroscopes has begun.
Iraq has established two commissions to search for documents and weapons under the direction of Rashid Amer, a former head of Iraq’s concealment activities, and a commission has started to recover weapons from Iraq’s unilateral destruction sites. (These sites, dating back to 1991, were destroyed by Iraq, illegally, without UN supervision and as part of Iraq’s concealment of programmes.) Amer al-Saadi – formerly responsible for conserving Iraq’s WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons – continues to mislead the international community.
It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.
Yet some argue that inspections are working and that more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and that disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.
The UN has been attempting to disarm Iraq ever since 1991 and has failed to do so. It is an abject failure of diplomacy with the split between France, China and Russia on the one hand, and Britain and the United States on the other, creating a lack of ‘permanent five’ unity and resolve. More recently Germany, a temporary yet powerful member of the Security Council, has exacerbated the diplomatic split. The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate. So-called concessions – U2 overflights, the right to interview – were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.
In the years since 1991, during which Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq established an effective concealment and deception organisation which protected many undisclosed assets. In October 2002, Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disclose his arsenal within 30 days. He admitted inspectors and, with characteristic guile, provided some concessions, but still refuses to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations – 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991. (Even these figures, it should be noted, are based in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq.)
Less easy to determine is the extent of activity undertaken since 1991. In its 12,000-page ‘disclosure’ submitted to the inspectors in December 2002, Iraq failed to declare any proscribed activities. Today the truly important issues are declaring the extent and scope of the programmes in 1991 and the personalities, ‘committees’ and organisations involved.
There are indications that the programmes continue.
Iraq continues to develop missile technology, especially fuel propellents and guidance systems for long-range missiles. Iraq has recovered chemical reactors destroyed prior to 1998 for allegedly civilian activity, built biological fermenters and agent dryers, and created transportable production units for biological and chemical agents and the filling of weapons. Key nuclear research and design teams remain in place, even though it is assessed that Iraq is unable to manufacture nuclear weapons unless fissile material is available.
War may now be inevitable. The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.
Since some WMD sites have not been unambiguously identified, and may not be neutralised until war is over, a substantial hazard may be encountered. Sites with manufacturing or storage capabilities for chemical or biological weapons may present a danger and much will depend on the way that those facilities are militarily cancelled and subsequently treated.
Some of the chemical and biological weapons deployed in 1991 are still available, albeit on a reduced scale. Aerial bombs and rockets are readily available to be filled with sarin, VX and mustard or botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and smallpox. More sophisticated weaponry, such as spray devices associated with drones or missiles with separating warheads, may be limited in numbers, but would be far more devastating if used.
The threat from Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries. Perhaps the real threat from Iraq today comes from covert use of such weapons against troops or by terrorists against civilian targets worldwide. The link with al-Qaeda is disputed, but is, in any case, not the principal terrorist link of concern. Iraq has long trained and supported terrorist activities and is quite capable of initiating such activity using its security services.
The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq’s development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert.
What did David Kelly think of the Iraq Intelligence Dossier?
‘I had no doubt about the veracity of it (the Dossier) was absolute….It is an accurate document, I think it is a fair reflection of the intelligence that was available and it’s presented in a very sober and factual way….it is well written.’
“I was personally sympathetic to the war because I recognised from a decade’s work the menace of Iraq’s ability to further develop it’s non-conventional weapons programmes…..We were 100% certain that Saddam had a biological weapons programme.”
I do not feel “deep unease” over the dossier because it is completely coincident with my personal views on Iraq’s unconventional weapons capability.
John Humphrys, that renowned scientist and weapons expert thought, and thinks, differently…as did the BBC’s head legal advisor…..
The BBC’s most senior lawyer has criticised the Hutton report as being “biased”.
Glenn del Medico said the inquiry into the death of Government weapons adviser David Kelly and the role of the BBC in the scandal had been a “dreadful waste of time”.
“It’s unfortunate that Lord Hutton made such a biased report. He got it wrong, but then judges don’t always get it right.”
The BBC hated Hutton, hated Butler but love Chilcott…wonder why…..floor’s yours….
The BBC has a few lines of attack it favours when talking about the ‘disaster’ that is Brexit, that’s one of them by the way, another is that Michael Gove recklessly and irresponsibly spoke disdainfully about experts and the elite thus undermining democracy and society’s respect for aforementioned worthies. Naturally the BBC can speak authoritatively on this subject and scorn Gove for his juvenile and shallow attitude because it never ever doubts the integrity, expertise and professionalism of the Elite and those experts in their fields.
This morning then must have been a blip, the working class John Humphrys allowing ignorance, prejudice and a tabloidesque desire for a story to get the better of his judgement as the Today programme ran a skit about butter not being better. Experts have told us that butter is the work of the devil, now experts tell us it is heavenly, oh wait, Humphrys drags in another expert who tells us put the butter down, stay away from the Lurpak. Experts eh? Still, good job the BBC doesn’t go all Gove on us and question their genius.
Talking of experts you probably thought that the BBC, a long established media company, renowned for the excellence of its programmes and jammed to the rafters with experts on making such programmes, would have been able to replicate the success of one of its flagship programmes, the Real Top Gear. Just a look at the two photos of the presenters shows how it all went wrong with the reproduction…
How did the BBC, which has made Top Gear for years and years to a basic formula, fail to replicate that success?
How did the experts get it so badly wrong?
Their first mistake was wanting to copy the success but to do so by not copying the programme, they didn’t just tinker with the formula they tore it up. What we have now is, yawn, a car show….of cars few people can actually afford even in their dreams. Now OTG had the same cars but they trashed them and didn’t seem to be presenting the show as if we were customers seriously considering shelling out for one of these planet destroyers. The programme’s production values are great, the photography as Rory Reid tore around the Highlands in a Mustang was stunning and absolutely beautiful, the Scottish tourist board should license the footage, but that’s not the beating heart of Top Gear.
It always had brilliant photography and stunning visual effects but that wasn’t the secret of its success.
What was? Three grown men acting like boys. What the BBC then brought us was a boy trying to act as a grown up and Chris Evans could never carry that off. He’s great on the radio but Top Gear was never going to be a good fit.
What about Joey? The BBC thinking? A huge American star, just as big here, sure fire lure to bring in the audience….but does that indicate a lack of confidence in the content of the new show? Top Gear was a ‘star’ already, it didn’t need a big name, in fact what it needs is unknowns making it their own, stamping their personalities on it. Joey is too big a star, too reliant on keeping his dignity to indulge in the stupidity that Clarkson and Co indulged in. All the other presenters are in his shadow and there can never be the banter and fooling about with Joey that was so much a part of the old team, they’ll never be ‘mates’. I like ‘Joey’, with George Clooney and Brad Pitt on the show he might have had some equals, but he’s way out of the current crop of Top Gear presenters’ league.
Therefore….he has to go…and he can take Eddie Jordan with him…why does Jordan think a show that treats him as the ‘fool’ is something he wants to be part of?
Rory Reid, Chris Harris and Sabine Schmitz should be the presenters…maybe Vicki Butler-Henderson should be head-hunted from Fifth Gear to mellow and balance the ballsy Schmitz who might overwhelm the boys. Four presenters max. There are too many now and it is impossible for them to gel as a team as the denim clad old crocks did.
Where is the fun, where is the banter, where is the knockabout stupidity, the special trips, the races that really seemed like races rather than three cars that just happen to be going in the same direction?
I don’t know, guys, just try to make it look like this is a fun programme to make. Laugh a little. Improvise. Crack jokes. Be rude about Mexicans. Punch a man in the face. Anything, so long as it brings a little of the old sparkle back.
How could the BBC ‘experts’ have got things so wrong on a programme that they must have known was based on a specific formula…..and one that was so obvious?
Top Gear has been changed into a car show, it’s Fifth Gear…and Fifth Gear already exists…and relatively few people watch it, no one talks about it…a clue there. Top Gear has been reduced to an animated calendar, beautiful to look at but kinda boring in the end, and it does seem time passes at a calendar-like pace as you watch it…..The old ‘Star in a reasonably priced car‘ was already past its sell by date…what did the BBC do? Add an extra star, make it even longer and more boring but with an exciting new change having a rally car (a mini…why not the Ariel Nomad?) go over a small bump and through a puddle. Yawn. Fast forward.
Three presenters (4 at most), jokes, banter, stupid pranks, great races, fantastic Specials and the stunning visuals….if it in’t broke don’t fix it…..bin Evans (done!), bin Joey, bin Jordan, bin those BBC experts and let’s have some fun.
Just because Old Top Gear had cars in it didn’t mean it was a car show. It’s become a car show, it’s become a car crash.
Majority of MPs in all 3parties want to stay in EU. They’re your democratically elected leaders. Voting Brexit overrules your own MPs
John Humphrys had a fairly good interview with Gordon Brown this morning…though that wasn’t hard as Brown seemed determined to dig his own grave. It is beyond me why the Remain campaign have wheeled this old duffer out to front their latest push, in particular on the subject of immigration which he refuses to debate. Any Labour voter would have listened to Brown and immediately made the decision to vote the opposite of whatever Brown told them to do. He clearly has learned nothing, sounding arrogant, dodgy and evasive.
Whilst Humphrys did give Brown a hard time Justin Webb seemed beamed in from the Remain campaign as he interviewed Liam Fox and went down the road of straw-man point scoring insisting that ‘we need immigration’, making it seem that the Leave camp want to stop it altogether which is far, far from the truth. Webb also insisted that immigration benefits us all when the stats say at best the financials were only just on the immigrant’s side…the EU immigrants that is….but Migration Watch says that that is out of date and the latest immigrants from the EU cost us more than the first waves. Webb also ignores the fact that most are in low paid jobs the taxes from which in no way cover the benefits they receive from schooling their kids, the NHS, housing and all the other services they require and get from the State.
Brown isn’t the only Remain politician to display astounding arrogance, his own Party boss, Corbyn, refuses to talk of immigration and both Cameron and Osborne claimed they would be happy to take Britain out of the EU if the EU refused to reform…and then, when the EU totally stonewalled Cameron they furiously backpedalled on that and now campaign relentlessly to stay in the EU.
The BBC for some reason refuses to mention the very inconvenient, and relevant, fact that Osborne and Cameron said leaving the EU was an option but when James Dyson came out for the Leave campaign the BBC in every bulletin regaled us with tales of how he’d extolled the virtues of the Euro…way back in 2000….we only found out later that the BBC was channelling the Remain camp’s words, their propaganda, as the BBC’s own.
Cameron has of course been incredibly dismissive of the debate on immigration whilst posing as the man with the solutions…both UKIP and Trump have suffered his Flashmanesque arrogance but both have had the last laugh as he crawled to Trump later on and now dances to UKIP’s tune calling a referendum. Shame the BBC fails to challenge him on his attacks.
Immigration seems to be a subject that attracts the grandstanding pious moralisers who won’t make any meaningful comments that will be backed by concrete action, preferring instead to sound as if they are concerned and yet at the same time be pro-immigration and also condemn thse who want to control it as racists.
When you see the massive disdain and dismissive arrogance the Remain camp has for the voters you wonder how they can ever win…and yet with the BBC behind them pushing hard for the EU it is hard to see a definite win for Leave.
Today on Radio One (12:55) we had a blatant plug for Remain and an attempt to swing the youth vote as the BBC went to Berlin and we heard Berliners asking us to stay, young Brit expats saying how wonderful the EU is and BMW predicting doom and gloom on Brexit….no one was brought on to counter any of that pure propaganda.
The BBC has been pushing hard for the youth, ethnic minorites and expats to vote….in conjunction with the electoral commission and the government who gerrymandered the vote by extending the registration period by two days (after a mere two hour shutdown of the regsitration site) to allow up to 500,000 extra voters to sign up late…most, it is predicted, will vote to remain. Rigging the election? I think so. The BBC didn’t ask any difficult questions about this stitch up. Which is curious as they keep telling us this is the most historic electoral event in our recent history…you might think Cameron rigging the referendum might be worth noting.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
G May 6, 2024 at 12:43 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024Sluff, 'Death by using an offensive weapon'? If the bike is not classed as an, 'Offensive Weapon' the Home Office...
Scroblene May 6, 2024 at 12:40 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024I'm here, I'm here, Uppers! Just made some almond biscuits in our new air fryer, and am baking a huge...
Eddy Booth May 6, 2024 at 12:36 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024Watch out for the cyclists there - highest tier idiots
G May 6, 2024 at 12:30 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024Mog, Hopefully there will be some sort of payback and in my lifetime.
Zephir May 6, 2024 at 12:30 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024I often used to visit Cambridge I think another visit is due with a placarcd and megaphone: muslim gang rapists...
Fedup2 May 6, 2024 at 12:24 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024Excellent - pro Palestinian camps set up on lawns at Oxford and Cambridge ——- it’s gonna run and run -...
Fedup2 May 6, 2024 at 12:17 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024The blue labour government spent hundreds of millions on closing roads in favour of arrogant cyclists - screwing up communities...
Sluff May 6, 2024 at 12:15 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024There is a lot to be said for boring when it comes to economic policy. Dear old John Major lost...
Sluff May 6, 2024 at 12:10 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024Earlier on the thread I wrote about the untouchability of cyclists. I referenced a Toady report. Knock me down with...
Fedup2 May 6, 2024 at 12:08 pm on Start the Week 6th May 2024If you use the road you should be insured and pay to use it - like other road users ….....
Ros Altmann 
Emily Thornberry
