Tuesday, 17 July 2018
If this was a story about three black people being refused an Uber ride then imagine the media response, the BBC would be up in arms about racist Americans emboldened by President Donald Trump's election.
However as it's about an Uber driver refusing to take three black Trump supporters the media just don't care.
Parliamentary Labour Party votes to adopt International Definition of Antisemitism in full, in defiance of Jeremy Corbyn’s allies’ attempts to rewrite it per Campaign Against Antisemitism
'Labour Party backbenchers have led a successful rebellion against Jeremy Corbyn's allies by adopting in full the International Definition of Antisemitism within the Parliamentary Labour Party, though the vote does not bind the Labour Party as a whole.
The Labour Party's National Executive Committee (NEC) had rewritten the definition in a long-planned attempt to avoid having to take action against certain forms of antisemitism disguised as discourse about Israel which are clearly identified as antisemitism in the International Definition of Antisemitism.
Following an exceptional open letter from 68 Rabbis across all Jewish denominations, backbench Labour MPs have now won a vote within the Parliamentary Labour Party to adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism in full, including all of its examples, which some Labour figures had attempted to argue were not actually part of the definition.
The NEC will meet tomorrow to decide whether to adopt its own rewritten definition, or the International Definition of Antisemitism backed around the world, and now even backed by Labour MPs.'
You can read more about this here
https://antisemitism.uk/parliamentary-labour-party-votes-to-adopt-international-definition-of-antisemitism-in-defiance-of-jeremy-corbyns-allies-rewritten-definition/ but obviously not on the Labour Party's propaganda arm the BBC, where hating Israel has led to being borderline antisemitic.
Monday, 16 July 2018
The BBC's pro immigration outlook is front and centre in this report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44846002
'The number of EU citizens who emigrated from the UK last year is the highest on record, the Office for National Statistics has said.
A total of 139,000 left the country in 2017. The only other year when the EU emigration figures came close was in 2008, when the figure was 134,000.'
Yes emigration is the issue that people worry about.
' Net long-term migration to the UK from the EU was 101,000 last year, the lowest estimate in five years.'
Just 101,000? Remind me what these levels were pre the last Labour government's decision to open the floodgates to immigrants in 1997.
'Net migration - the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK for at least 12 months and those emigrating - from countries outside the EU has risen to 227,000, the highest level since September 2011.'
Immigration from outside of the EU hits a seven year record but that's not the headline figure?
Sunday, 15 July 2018
Four lies that the likes of the institutionally anti Israel BBC willingly spread and one truth that the BBC prefer to keep secret from the people forced to pay for their spreading of propaganda.
More about this matter herehttps://www.algemeiner.com/2018/07/13/bds-founder-confirms-movement-is-about-ending-the-jewish-state/
The singling out of Israel from all other countries for criticism, the open hatred of Israel, why? Antisemitism?
BDS Founder Confirms Movement Is About Ending the Jewish State - “Most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine... Palestinians and Arabs in general have never, and will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”
'Supporters of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement claim that BDS is about a two-state solution — and bettering the lives of the Palestinian people. At least that's what leftist college students, progressive activist groups,and most media outlets want to believe.
But if you take the word of BDS founder Omar Barghouti, peaceful coexistence is the last thing that BDS is about.
Any BDS supporter interested in the facts need only take four minutes of their life to know what they've signed up for. If they can put down the protest signs equating Zionism with Apartheid long enough to watch a video produced by the BDS watchdog group Canary Mission, Barghouti himself will clarify that the movement to which they've pledged allegiance is based on lies.
The idea of coexistence or a two-state solution is thrown out the window when Barghouti claims, "Most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine," adding that, "Palestinians and Arabs in general have never, and will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state."
To hear him describe Zionism as a myth and still believe that the goal of the BDS movement is peaceful coexistence with Israel is a case study in denial.'
More here https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/07/13/bds-founder-confirms-movement-is-about-ending-the-jewish-state but nothing negative about the BDS movement on the institutionally anti Israel BBC.
Saturday, 14 July 2018
It seems that country specific resolutions or even attention is bad at the United Nations, unless they are aimed at Israel.
Friday, 13 July 2018
This BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-44807972 repeats Sadiq Khan's words re free speech and censorship:
'London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
He defended his decision to allow the Trump baby balloon to fly over Westminster.
"Can you imagine if we limited freedom of speech because someone might get hurt?"
The UK has a "rich history" of the right to protest, and as mayor he "should not be the arbiter of what is in good taste or bad taste".'
The BBC seem to have forgotten https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36516378 from 2016
'Adverts promoting negative body images will be banned across the Transport for London (TfL) network from next month.
As part of his mayoral election manifesto Sadiq Khan pledged to ban adverts promoting "unhealthy or unrealistic" body images.'
Free speech except when it offends Sadiq Khan's sensibilities? BBC supporting Labour figures at all times?
Can you spot the word missing from this BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-4481253
Not too tricky is it? The BBC's desperation to avoid mentioning certain words is palpable.
Thursday, 12 July 2018
'Labour quietly reinstated at least six councillors who posted anti-Semitic messages online, analysis shows, as a party insider told The Telegraph the complaints process is being manipulated by political factions.
Evidence seen by The Telegraph shows senior party members were investigated over posts made on social media, including messages about blood libel, Zionism, linking Israel to Isis and the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic tropes.
All six were reinstated quietly by the party, raising questions about whether Labour's process for rooting out racism is effective. It is unclear whether any disciplinary action was taken before they were cleared.'
More here in The Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/29/labour-quietly-reinstated-six-councillors-posted-anti-semitic/ but obviously not a word on the borderline antisemitic BBC.
Wednesday, 11 July 2018
Iain Dale quite correctly points out the BBC bias in their introductions to interviewees. This is standard on the BBC and is why the BBC should be closed down, it's not unbiased it is very biased against Brexit, the Conservative Party, President Donald Trump and of course Israel.
Tuesday, 10 July 2018
Take a look at the What strictly necessary cookies does the BBC use?
Spot these two:
ckns_nonce - Helps to keep BBC accounts secure while signed in.
ckns_settings-nonce - Stores a unique identifier for the signed in session.
No comment necessary?
Spot these two:
ckns_nonce - Helps to keep BBC accounts secure while signed in.
ckns_settings-nonce - Stores a unique identifier for the signed in session.
No comment necessary?
Labour's new guidelines show it is institutionally antisemitic per Stephen Pollard in The Jewish Chronicle
This JC opinion piece https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/labour-s-new-guidelines-show-it-is-institutionally-antisemitic-1.466685 is hard to argue with, but don't expect Stephen Pollard to be asked about it on the Labour Party's propaganda arm, the BBC.
Here's some extracts:
'This week, the Labour Party adopted its own definition of antisemitism. That's right. The party that has spent the past two years mired in allegations that it refuses to take antisemitism seriously has drawn up its own 16-point code of conduct on antisemitism, a definition that is unique to the Labour Party.
Not one other organisation on the planet operates the same criteria that Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has just adopted. And yet somehow the same Labour Party expects the Jewish community – and everyone else – to take this as serious evidence of its commitment to tackling antisemitism.
To say they are taking us for fools doesn't even come close. Because this is hard left politics at its most cynical and shameful.
Labour has taken some of the language used in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is now widely accepted as the most useful definition and has been adopted by the government, the Crown Prosecution Service, many local councils and many other countries.
But instead of adopting the definition as agreed by all these bodies, Labour has excised the parts which relate to Israel and how criticism of Israel can be antisemitic.
The guidelines, for example, suggest at one point that Israel's "description of itself as a 'Jewish state' can cause particular difficulty in the context of deciding whether language or behaviour is anti-Semitic."
The guidelines go on to say that the use of "Zionist" and "Zionism" in a positive way by pro-Israel supporters is problematic.
This is the nub of it. The guidelines demand that "antisemitic intent" is necessary if any criticism of Israel is to be held as wrong: "It is not antisemitism to refer to 'Zionism' and 'Zionists' as part of a considered discussion about the Israeli state." So you can feel free to go right ahead and scream "Zio" at any random Jew you encounter, and remain a Labour member. Labour has no issue with this, so long as you mean well.
Or go further, if you like. Scream "Zio-Nazi", because so long as your heart is in the right place, that's just fine. As the guidelines put it: "Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors from examples of historic misconduct.
"It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent."
Every time the issue of Labour antisemitism raises its head, the same pattern repeats. The party – and its Dear Leader - says that they are deeply committed to the fight against antisemitism and it is outrageous to suggest otherwise. A smear, even.
And then that same party goes on to show why anyone who falls for that is, to put it at its most charitable, an idiot.
Meanwhile on planet real world, what this really means is that, because antisemitic intent is held to be necessary for any Israel-related language to be antisemitic, those who describe themselves as lifelong antiracists - who just happen to have a problem with what they call Zio-Nazis – can say that because antisemitism is indeed racism, and they are anti-racists, then by definition they have no antisemitic intent and thus cannot be antisemitic.
There are still those who think Labour can be dragged from this sewer. Many of them are admirable people.
But they are simply unwilling, or unable, to face what must surely now be clear to everyone else – that Labour is now in the grip of a hard left so malign that the party is no longer a mainstream vehicle for social change but a vehicle for race hate.
Labour is now institutionally antisemitic. '
Hard to disagree with any of that. By trying to minimise analysis of the Labour Party's ongoing problems with antisemitism the BBC are protecting antisemites, there's a word for people like that - scum.
From RJ at Biased BBC
'I don't know whether it was part of their plan, but I do like way that DD and Boris didn't resign until Gove had committed himself to the surrender document by appearing on the BBC to defend it.
If Gove hadn't knifed Boris in the leadership election two years ago May wouldn't have stood a chance of being elected (not that she was). This way the Brexit team can reassemble, but with Gove uncomfortably allied with the Quislings. Revenge is sweet.'
Nice if true.
Monday, 9 July 2018
This BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44771792 misses a key piece of analysis:
'Sterling fell more than a cent against the dollar to trade at $1.3218. Against the euro, it fell back to €1.1253.
The pound had been in positive territory after investors bet Brexit Secretary David Davis's departure meant a "softer" Brexit was more likely.
But analysts warned sterling was likely to fall further if Mr Johnson launched a leadership challenge to Theresa May.
"The pound can handle ministerial resignations if that's the extent of it... if it means Johnson leaving and not launching a leadership challenge," ING strategist Viraj Patel said.
But he warned that a leadership bid by Mr Johnson would open up further uncertainty.
Simon Derrick, chief currency strategist at Bank of New York Mellon, agreed that traders were now likely to be "more cautious".
"They are now going to start focusing far more on the potential political risks, they will focus on the possibility of a leader challenge, on broader risks in parliament," he said.'
Those' broader risks' include, indeed mainly comprise the risk of a hard-left socialist government under Corbyn, Mcdonnell, Abbott and the rest of the cabal that leads the Labour Party. If the chances of the UK having a Labour government with the associated risk of exchange controls and massive taxation then a run on the pound is a certainty. This is not something that the Labour Party's propaganda arm, the BBC, will ever inform the public of, far better to let the electorate think the pound is slipping because of Brexit uncertainties. Expect interviews with Remoaners saying how much they have lost on their holiday money this summer holiday because of Brexit, expect the BBC to push that narrative.
This 2015 Daily Caller article http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/ is well worth a read, here's an extract:
'The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.
"The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts," Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.
These "compromised" weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency's official temperature record.
Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 "unperturbed" weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These "unperturbed" stations don't need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.
Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.'
I've not seen this report referenced by the warmist BBC but that's not a surprise.
One day I'll revisit how Theresa May won the Conservative election without a proper final vote. What was behind that victory? Other candidates seemed to self-destruct or drop out very easily, some might say suspiciously.
A Remainer said she'd deliver Brexit, how stupid were we to give her the benefit of the doubt? I said after the Brexit vote that this wasn't over and that the Remain establishment wouldn't let us leave in any meaningful way. It looks as though I was right.
This video helps illustrate that the Conservative Party will not pull behind Theresa May and Remain in a future general election, the result will be a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour government and the end of the UK as a viable country.
One has to ask is that what Theresa May wants? Did she want to win the last General Election, her policies seemed designed to turn off Conservative voters.
I think Theresa 'Quisling' May and the rest of the Remoaners in government, Parliament and the BBC should listen to what the British people were promised before the Referendum, read the expensive booklet the government sent every household, remember that we were told/warned that a vote for Brexit meant a vote to leave the Single Market and stop trying to overthrow the democratic will of the people.
In the above video Steve Baker says that 'the establishment' don't want Britain to leave the EU, be under no illusions that the BBC are part of that establishment and are absolutely against Brexit.
This BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44763998 includes this:
'But Labour said a new man fronting the negotiations "changed nothing".
"The deep division at the heart of the Conservative Party has broken out in public and plunged this government into crisis," said shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.'
No mention from the BBC of the splits in the Labour Party over Brexit. It's arguable that the Labour Party is more split over Brexit than the Conservative Party is, but that doesn't fit the BBC's narrative and strategy to stop Brexit and get a Labour government ASAP.
Sunday, 8 July 2018
"Drain the swamp"
The BBC's coverage of Theresa May's 'Brexit' plan if the plan had been for anything other than the softest of Brexit would have been full of apocalyptic warnings from Remainers. That it isn't shows that this plan is for the softest of 'Brexits' and the BBC is satisfied.
Saturday, 7 July 2018
President Donald Trump is a funny guy, odd that the BBC hide this side of him.
I was listening to BBC 5 Live yesterday evening, after 10pm, and they went to Russia to interview an average England football team supporter. Being the diversity obsessed BBC, the female supporter referred to her girlfriend. Gender equality and LGBT in one interview, I can just imagine the BBC presenter and producer in seventh heaven.
Then the nice lesbian lady said that she'd had a good time there with a lovely Israeli group; the Israeli party was 15,000 people and they didn't even qualify for the World Cup. The interview came to an end: nice, friendly, Israelis not being the sort of subject that the BBC want any listeners to hear.
Poor BBC, so near and yet so far!
Friday, 6 July 2018
This BBC report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44728807 on the upcoming Cabinet meeting makes it pretty clear where the BBC stand on the meeting and Brexit.
'Theresa May says her cabinet has "a great opportunity - and a duty" to agree a blueprint for the UK's future relationship with the EU.
Before Friday's crunch Chequers meeting she said she wanted "ambitious new trade deals" and an agreement "in the best interests of the UK and the EU".
The PM must resolve splits within the cabinet over the shape of Brexit.
She is expected to present a proposal for UK-EU customs arrangements that would see the UK set its own tariffs.
Once ministers reach an agreement on the UK's proposal, the EU can then choose to accept or reject the plan.
Seven Brexiteer cabinet ministers met at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Thursday to discuss their tactics and how they plan to push back.
Ministers have been told they will have to hand in their phones and any smartwatches on arrival at Chequers on Friday.'
The institutionally pro the EU BBC slant this report very clearly.
Thursday, 5 July 2018
Wednesday, 4 July 2018
James Delingpole in Breitbart https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/07/04/theresa-may-iturning-brexit-victory-defeat/ has made some nice satirical points comparing England's World Cup victory with the result of the Brexit referendum.
'... if we are to treat international football results in the same way that Theresa May's administration has treated the EU referendum result, then here is what we can expect to happen next.
Much chuntering on social media that 4-3 is too close a score to decide the match result. There needs to be a second England Colombia game, this time where the players are properly informed about what it actually means if one side scores more goals than the other, Twitter experts say.
Massive media campaign – probably funded by George Soros – pouring scorn on every aspect of the original game: the refereeing; the line decisions; the biased camera angles which purported to show the Colombian players fouling the opposition and deliberately scuffing the turf in the penalty area before Kane's penalty kick. It concludes that Colombia – with its longstanding reputation for transparency and moral rectitude, especially with regards to its heroic and selfless contribution to the international war on drugs – is far more deserving of victory than Britain, with its brutal record of colonialist tyranny and its institutionalised racism.
The case for overturning the match result in favour of Colombian victory is pursued in the courts by top QC Jolyon Maugham. Funded by Gina Millar and that plumber bloke, Maugham compellingly argues that when the England players took their penalties against Colombia they had no idea what the consequences for getting the ball past the keeper and into the net would be. Had they been better informed, they would almost certainly have fluffed it, just like the losing, cheating, Colombian fails did.
Prime Minister Theresa May, having carefully listened to the Colombian side of the argument, and having consulted her violently anti-English civil service experts for confirmation of her prejudice, decides that there was never any real appetite in England for an England "hard win" victory. In a new compromise deal, reached after some tough negotiations by her top civil service expert Ollie Robbins, May will declare what she calls a "soft win" victory. The "soft win" decisions are as follows: Colombia in fact won the match; they will automatically win all future matches against England; instead of actually playing those games, the England team will be required to line up in the middle of the pitch and by ritually fouled and buttkicked by the Colombians; Colombia will be paid a £40 million settlement to compensate it for any embarrassment caused by the previous, now rejected result.'
' Unfortunately, at least where Brexit is concerned, it's perilously close to reality'