StatCounter

Sunday, 31 July 2011

Stuart Broad - I never lost the faith

When Stuart Broad first burst onto the English cricket scene I thought he was a potential all-rounder. He was obviously a skilled fast bowler but he also could bat, with his father Chris as a tutor throughout his formative years how could he fail to shine? So whilst his bowling improved by leaps and bounds (pun intended) I was disappointed that his batting did not. I feared Stuart Broad would move from being a near Freddie Flintoff replacement to more of a second Graham Dilley.

Then Stuart Broad's bowling deteriated and it seemed as though his test career might be over, well so said the English cricket pres who are always willing to over-react. So the second Test against India wtarted with Stuart Broad out of form with the bat and the ball and questions being raised about his place in the team. In fact before the first Test Match it was being suggested that Tremlett and Bresnan might feature above him in the England pecking order; all of them behind Jimmy Anderson. So I was happy to see Stuart not ony hit 64 crucial runs but also take a hat-trick. Stuart Broad is back, could the doubters please apologise!

Saturday, 30 July 2011

A weekend off?

Not in the mood for blogging; major personal issues have come to the fore.

Will post a funny or two if I can find some items in next five minutes otherwise for the first time in 5 years I may miss a day of blogging!

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

Amusing and cute or cruel?


I am not sure how to react to this video of a trained walrus but I think I like the idea and it is certainly funny. However does the walrus want to be doing tricks for fish?

How to solve the US deficit problem

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Warren Buffett 7/8/11


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Che Guevara hero of the West's liberals, in his own words

“Hatred as the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent…hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”
-- Ernesto "Che" Guevara speaking about Americans, April 1966 Message to the Tricontinental Conference in Havana, Cuba


Remember that whilst the exact number of executions Che Guevara ordered is unknown, conservative estimates range from 400 to 2,000 over his lifetime. Unfortunately, the lack of proper records mean that the exact number will probably never be known. What is clear is that Che guevara was a violent Communist who thought nothing of killing anyone who opposed him.


Do remember this the next time you see an idiot wearing his 'cool' Che T-shirt or meet anyone, not Spanish, who names their son after this 'hero'.

Monday, 25 July 2011

Perspective

Dizzy Thinks wonders at the current furore over David Cameron, Andy Coulson and phone-hacking:
 'Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: Accused of modifying government policy relating to tobacco advertising in sports in return for a donation of £1 million to his political party
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices. Donation eventually returned (although modified policy remained in force)
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived and won following two elections.

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: Along with his Director of Commmunication accused of lying to Parliament by embelishing and "sexing up" the case for the Iraq War. Presure intensified by the sudden, mysterious death of whistleblower leading to multiple inquiries and conspiracy theories.
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived and won following election.

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: That peerages and knighthoods were offered and exchanged for loans and donations to the Labour Party. Staff in Downing Street including the Prime Minister questioned by Police.
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived

Prime Minister: David Cameron
Allegation: That he previously employed someone who has since resigned, who may have - as yet to be proven but alleged by a whistle-blower who has suddenly died - acted criminally prior to his employment; and to have met with multiple times on both personal and business terms (in keeping with his two predecessors), the Chief Executive of a newspaper business.
Truth Status: What exactly is the allegation? Opinion will depend on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: To Be Confirmed (oddly)'
Dizzy Thinks has a very good point. I think there may be other examples involving Gordon Brown...

Freedom of speech in the USA - some people just cannot take criticism and will use their power to prevent it.


'Jennifer "Jade" Jones -- had her elbow injured (hospitalized) during outrageous and mysterious arrest - disorderly conduct - during peaceful statements at public podium during a town council meeting. Jones had the floor. Police chief Jeff Gilbert (positioned at wall) was directly involved. Many in Quartzsite do not understand why this police chief is not under suspension because Arizona State Dept of Public Safety is already investigating him for criminal accusations by officers in his department. Presiding officer of the meeting (Mayor) could not dissuade police from their mission. Many suspect conspiracy between police chief and council members, other than the mayor.'

Thanks to World Net Daily for the spot.

The EU's plan?

'Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused... For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation.'
Adrian Hilton writing in "The Principality and Power of Europe".

Sound familiar, plausible, possible?

Sunday, 24 July 2011

What links the EU and fundamentalist Islam?

What links the EU and fundamentalist Islam? No, not a distaste for democracy or that both are loved almost unconditionally by the BBC, but the political philiosophy of never giving up power or territory.

The EU - per yesterday's Telegraph:
'Once the EU acquires a power or competence, that takes on the force or mortmain. It must never be relinquished... The ECJ (European Court of Justice) behaves as if the small print of the law does not matter; anything that advances the cause of Europe is legal.'
Islam - per L Dolphin (but I have read similar elsewhere):

'Under Islam, land once possessed by Islam, if subsequently lost to an invader, remains land that is holy to Islam. It is especially imperative that such lost lands be restored to the rightful rule of Islam. Historically, of course, such lost lands now lost to Islam include not only Israel but large portions of Southern Europe, Spain and North Africa. Since Allah's will is for the entire world to come under subjection to the rule of Islam, Muslims are known for their zeal in spreading their religion, whether by peaceful means or by the sword.'
Can anyone think of other similarities between the EU and  fundamentalist Islam?

The worst family photo ever?

If not the worst ever family photo, shall we agree it is very disturbing?

Saturday, 23 July 2011

Sometimes it is difficult not to stare


Does Kate Upton have an unfair advantage in a stareing contest? Well she does in a bikini!

The Oslo attacks

Vile, disgusting and evil; that just about covers my feelings regarding the Oslo attacks. However there is one wrinkle that I need to write about - the BBC.

This is Christmas and all their birthdays in one for the BBC. From now on if anyone dares to doubt the 'religion of peace' then this Oslo attack will be brought up to show that 'all religions have their extremists'. The BBC will ignore the relative number of attacks, ignore the vicious genocidal hatred pumped out by Islamic regimes and the multitude of Islamic terrorist groups on a daily basis and instead concentrate on one isolated event. The BBC were muted in their initial coverage of these attacks as they feared an Islamic dimension but now are in full flow. The BBC disgust me on a daily basis.

Friday, 22 July 2011

The cheekiest football penalty ever?


That's Awana Diab scoring the final goal for the United Arab Emirates in their 6-2 win over Lebanon by back-heeling the ball into the back of the net from the penalty spot; cheeky and may lead to him facing disciplinary action!


In June I posted some more incredible football goals including 'The best penalty ever?' scored by Joonas Jokinen along with the famous Johan Cruyff's pass and shoot penalty; go take a look.

Oh those Russians!

I have just learnt that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a bill that officially classifies beer as alcoholic. It seems that until now anything containing less than 10% alcohol in Russia has been considered a foodstuff.

Wow!

Palestinian incitement of volence and hatred against Jews in what must be classified as child abuse


The video is by the ZOA and contains very little that I have not seen before. However if just one person is persuaded by this video that the Palestinians are brainwashing their children to hate Jews, not Zionists, JEWS and have no intention of living peacefully alongside Israel, then it was worth posting this video.

I wonder if the BBC journalists and management apologists who report events in the Middle East from such a biased perspective or excuse the bias could watch this video and still hold the views that they do?

Thursday, 21 July 2011

Do I hear the word(s) double-standards?

JPost reports that:
'Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he will travel to Gaza if Israel does not apologize to Turkey for last year's Gaza flotilla raid, Turkish daily Hurriyet reported Wednesday.

Erdogan made the statement while on his way to northern Cyprus where he addressed his intent to strike a peace deal between the Greek and Turkish sides of the island nation, according to the report.'
Did you spot the double-standard? The Prime Minister of Turkey made his remarks on the Israeli/Gaza situation whilst on his way to Northern Cyprus. Just to remind you Northern Cyprus is illegally occupied by Turkey, it is recognised as an independent state by just Turkey. Cyprus is now a member of the EU but the EU will not even call for the illegally taken land to be returned to the legitimate Cypriot government.

Is there no concept of irony in Turkish?


Oops or 'what is the maximum number of Firefox tabs I should have open at any one time?'

It would seem that 140 Firefox tabs is too many to have open. Last night Firefox crashed taking Windows Explorer with it. Oddly it asked me if I wanted to save the 140 tabs for when I restarted Firefox, I said yes but Firefox was only teasing me as when it restarted I had just the start up page.

So this morning I have a faster laptop and Firefox is simply zooming along but I have lost the basis of at least 10 articles... As a result I am not happy and blogging may be light today.

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

The BBC are happy to report that they've found some Jewish Israeli extremists

This story is currently being pushed on the BBC Middle East news website, successfully so as it features in the top 10 most read articles. Well done BBC, they have managed to find a minor Jewish group and give them full publicity. Here's an extract from that piece:
'Rabbis Dov Lior and Yacob Yousef had endorsed a highly controversial book, the King's Torah - written by two lesser-known settler rabbis. It justifies killing non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances.

The fifth chapter, entitled "Murder of non-Jews in a time of war" has been widely quoted in the Israeli media. The summary states that "you can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews".

At one point it suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat.'
Disgusting sentiments but have the BBC yet mentioned the recent opinion poll showing that '73% of Palestinians Want Jews Annihilated', have the BBC ever reported the genoicidal statements of various Hamas and Fatah leaders:
'Hamas cleric Ziyad Abu al-Haj's Friday sermon of 3 April 2009 in which he said "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."?

Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Sharia (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University on 13 October 2000 "The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."

Another quotation from a Hamas/Fatah leader: "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."
This is so similar to this long running complaint that I am tempted not to complain. However if I don't, who will? These people need holding to account.


UPDATE:
Complaint logged:
'Complaint type: BBC News
Location: England
What is your complaint about: BBC News Online
Address of the page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14168618
Complaint category: Bias
Complaint summary: Reporting of extremists in Israel but not in Palestinian Territories
Full complaint: This BBC article is currently being pushed on the BBC Middle East news website, successfully so as it features in the top 10 most read articles. Well done BBC you have managed to find a minor Jewish group and give them full publicity. Here's an extract from that piece: 'Rabbis Dov Lior and Yacob Yousef had endorsed a highly controversial book, the King's Torah - written by two lesser-known settler rabbis. It justifies killing non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances. The fifth chapter, entitled "Murder of non-Jews in a time of war" has been widely quoted in the Israeli media. The summary states that "you can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews". At one point it suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat.' Disgusting sentiments and worth reporting BUT could you show me where the BBC have reported the recent opinion poll that showed that 73% of Palestinians Want Jews Annihilated? Could you also show me where the BBC have ever reported the genoicidal statements of various Hamas and Fatah leaders, such as these: 'Hamas cleric Ziyad Abu al-Haj's Friday sermon of 3 April 2009 in which he said "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."? Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Sharia (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University on 13 October 2000 "The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere." Reporting the vile comments of a minor Israeli faction whilst ignoring the more frequent genoicidal comments of senoir figures in the Palestinian leadership does not look like impartiality to me.
Receive a reply: Yes
Contacted us before: Yes
Complaint related to previous contact: No
Title: Mr
First name: NotaSheep
Surname: MaybeaGoat
Email address: notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com
Under 13: No'

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Finally someone at the BBC has the guts to stand up to the loathsome bully Alastair Campbell

Not the 'feared' Jeremy Paxman on BBC 2's Newsnight or John Humphrys on radio 4's Toady but Vanessa Feltz on Radio London
Alastair Campbell v Vanessa Feltz: listen to their sharp exchange over phone hacking… (mp3)
Well done Vanessa Feltz, well done indeed. I have never heard an interviewer treat Alastair Campbell the way he treats others and deserves to be treated. He was his usual nasty, spiteful self but rather than roll over and let him walk over her, like most BBC interviewers do, Vanessa Feltz fought back and more than held her own. My admiration for Vanessa Feltz is through the roof; I just hope her bosses support her because big bad Alastair will not be happy and may look for revenge...

Annoyingly I am a regular listener to Vanessa Feltz's Radio London show but was busy at work this morning and so missed this live.

My previous post was about a putative boxing contest between John Prescott and Wendi Deng/Murdoch, I think a Vanessa Feltz should be employed as Wendi Deng's coach!


Thanks to Biased BBC for the spot.

An idea for a catch-weight boxing bout - Wendi Murdoch vs John Prescott

In the blue corner, Wendi Deng seen throwing a fine right cross at her husband's pie throwing assailant today at the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport committee on phone-hacking. Well done Wendi, very quick reactions and very protective of her husband, Rupert Murdoch.


In the red corner John Prescott seen here throwing a fair straight left whilst on walkabout in 2001


Obviously John Prescott would have a massive weight advantage but Wendi Deng/Murdoch is much younger and fitter. Who would win? There's only one way to find out..... "fight"


Here are the two possible opponents


Wendi vs John
Beauty vs brains...John

Labour links to News International

“When the Tories look for a victim of Baldwin’s journalism they present us with Lord Ashcroft. They don’t see that sympathy for the suffering vulnerability of a billionaire is limited. More to the point is David Kelly – for Baldwin was the News International journalist used to get Kelly’s name out.
For all the awfulness of the Milly Dowler case, the poor child was beyond the reach of this world when the journalists paid for her phone to be hacked. Baldwin’s action as a communications agent for the government of the day started a chain of events which led directly to the death of Dr Kelly.”
For more read Simon Carr's piece in The Independent . Who is Tom Baldwin you might ask, well he is  Ed Miliband's director of strategy and so definitely a relevant figure, not that the BBC would ever say so.

What is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

On the one hand I read in The Sun that:
'SOLDIERS were banned from shooting Taliban fighters planting mines - to avoid waking Afghan locals, a former Royal Marine has revealed.

Craig Smith, 36, said US military chiefs routinely frustrated frontline forces by ordering them to exercise "courageous restraint".

Troops were even told they could be charged with MURDER if they shot anyone without permission from command.

...

He spoke out after an inquest heard 34-year-old hero Sergeant Peter Rayner was blown up, just days after being told not to fire on insurgents who were seen laying deadly IEDs.

One senior officer stunned troops when he ordered them not to shoot a Taliban fighter because gunfire would "wake up and upset the locals".

Instead they were told they must stand by and WATCH.'
Meanwhile I have seen a video that shows the sort of restraint shown by The Taliban. The video is too disturbing for me to post here but you can find it at this American Power Blog post; it shows some extremely graphic video, described thus:
'The Taliban videotaped the brutal execution of more than a dozen Pakistani policemen who were captured during last month's raid in a remote area of northwestern Pakistan.

The graphic video, which shows 16 Pakistani policemen who are lined up and then gunned down by Taliban fighters wielding AK-47s, was taken in early June in the Shaltalu area of the district of Dir in northwestern Pakistan, a Pakistani official and US intelligence officials who track the region told The Long War Journal. The executions were filmed after the policemen were captured during several days of heavy fighting.'
Sometimes I wonder if our military and political leaders have any idea what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What is the truth of the West Bank's legal position?


Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms "West Bank", "occupied territories" and "67 Borders" originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied.

A side of the debate that you rarely hear aired in the UK, where generally there is no debate as the BBC and other media have decided that Israel is at fault, almost no matter what. I have posted videos about the 'occupied territories' and their legal position before, do look them up...



Thanks to Theo Spark for the video spot.

Monday, 18 July 2011

What will satisfy the BBC re the phone-hacking affair?

The BBC are collecting scalps as they fight to first destroy any competition from the right of British politics in the delivery of news and opinion in the UK by ferociously attacking News International and pretending that no other news organisations are as or more guilty than News International. However the BBC's true target is the Conservative lead government and overnight it became clear that the new narrative, presumably agreed with some of the Labour leadership, is to destroy David Cameron's reputation, name and position. The attack dogs have been out already; Denis MacShane has been Tweeting his poison and no doubt Alastair 'pure as the driven snow' Campbell will be interviewed soon about ethical news gathering. The BBC/Labour alliance has no shame or sense of the absurd and so they could even use Damian McBride as an interviewee.

The BBC/Labour sense blood and will try and destabilise the government as much as possible. They will hope to collect David Cameron's scalp but will also try to 'shame' some LibDems into leaving the Coalition and crossing the floor of the House.

One almost admires the single-mindedness of the attacks were it not for the fact that the BBC is meant to be independent and unbiased in its news coverage, something that it has singularly failed to even attempt in its coverage of the phone-hacking story.

Sunday, 17 July 2011

Israel's 'partners in peace' - and yet Israel will always be blamed for the failure of the 'peace process'

Big Peace report the results of the latest opinion poll in the Palestinian territories:
'Data have just been released from a survey completed this week which confirm the implacable, murderous irredentism of Israel’s Palestinian Muslim “peace partners.”

American pollster Stanley Greenberg performed what is described as an “intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

Here are the salient, pathognomonic findings:

First, a mere 73% of the Palestinians surveyed agree with the annihilationist dictates of this canonical hadith (the words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad which have a weight often equal to the Koran), quoted in the Hamas Covenant.
...
Second, 80% agreed with the quoted sentiments expressed in article 15 of the Hamas Covenant (subtitled, “Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is a Personal Duty”) elucidates classical jihadist theory—including jihad martyrdom (i.e., homicide bombing) operations—as well as its practical modern application to the destruction of Israel by jihad,  and the need to recruit the entire global Muslim community, or “umma” in this quintessential Islamic cause:The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters. The indoctrination campaign must involve ulama, educators, teachers and information and media experts, as well as all intellectuals, especially the young people and the sheikhs of Islamic movements…
It is necessary to establish in the minds of all the Muslim generations that the Palestinian issue is a religious issue, and that it must be dealt with as such, for [Palestine] contains Islamic holy places, [namely] the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is inseparably connected, for as long as heaven and earth shall endure, to the holy mosque of Mecca through the Prophet’s nocturnal journey [from the mosque of Mecca to the Al-Aqsa mosque] and through his ascension to heaven thence. “Being stationed on the frontier for the sake of Allah for one day is better than this [entire] world and everything in it; and the place taken up in paradise by the [horseman’s] whip of any one of you [jihad fighters] is better than this [entire] world and everything in it. Every evening [operation] and morning [operation] performed by Muslims for the sake of Allah is better than this [entire] world and everything in it.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja). “By the name of Him who holds Muhammad’s soul in His hand, I wish to launch an attack for the sake of Allah and be killed and attack again and be killed and attack again and be killed.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim)

Third, 72% backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem.

Fourth, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage

Fifth, 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.


Even the findings which delusive “peace processors” obsess over contained no silver linings. When respondents were queried about President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people,”, only 34% said they accepted that idea, while 61% rejected it. And 66% admitted that the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state, i.e., destroy Israel as a Jewish State..'
As I have said over and  over again, don't listen to what the likes of Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter say the Palestinians want and think, instead listen to what the Palestinians themselves say they think and want.
'73% of Palestinians Want Jews Annihilated
53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools
66% admitted that the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state, i.e., destroy Israel as a Jewish State..'
'Partners in peace'? I don't think so. I look forward to the BBC reporting of this opinion poll.... Sorry my mistake; for a moment I forgot that the BBC is institutionally biased against Israel.

Now if you saw the above line and said but why should the BBC cover this story, it's a minor opinion poll and is of no interest to the UK population, ask yourself this - would the BBC have covered the story if it had been about an opinion poll carried out in Israel that revealed that 73% of Israelis wanted to annihilate all Muslims?

Saturday, 16 July 2011

Saturday evening catch-up - A News International and Gordon Brown special (with a little Ken Livingstone added)

Yet more Firefox tabs that need closing.

1) The American Spectator have a fascinating piece about Rupert Murdoch and his left-wing opponents, here's one key paragraph from a must read piece:
'Media Matters, funded by left-wing gazillionaire George Soros , hates Fox News . (And all things conservative, but they love to hate Fox News especially. If your side was pumping out partisan gas disguised as news at places like the broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post -- to name a few -- unchallenged, for decades and decades...well, you'd hate Fox News and the Fair and Balanced crew too.) But it’s not possible for rabid lefties to hate Fox News without really hating Rupert Murdoch and the News Corporation. Murdoch, of course, is the media entrepreneur who will be forever regarded in America as the man who made it possible to break the liberal media monopoly.'


2) The Guardian properly report something that the BBC have tried to hide away:
'Rupert Murdoch attacks Gordon Brown in first interview since NoW closed

Speaking to Wall St Journal, media tycoon defends News Corp's handling of scandal and says MPs' comments are 'total lies'

...

In his first interview about the crisis that has engulfed his media empire, Murdoch said some MPs' comments on the scandal were "total lies" and singled out Brown for criticism over the former prime minister's accusation that News International was guilty of "law-breaking on an industrial scale".

The media baron said Brown "got it entirely wrong" when he alleged that Murdoch's British papers had used "known criminals" to get access to his personal information when Labour was in power.

"The Browns were always friends of ours" until the Sun withdrew its support for Labour before the last general election, he told the Wall Street Journal, his flagship US paper.

On Twitter, Murdoch's biographer Michael Wolff said he "seemed genuinely distressed about Gordon Brown not liking him anymore."'


3) Guido Fawkes also reports The Guardian's apology and has his own take on it.


4) Allison Pearson in The Telegraph is not impressed by Gordon Brown's protestationa and complaints:
'Spare us Gordon Brown. You sacrificed your morals to Rupert Murdoch long ago

For Gordon Brown to complain about the invasion of 'private grief' is like Faustus moaning that someone had forged his signature with the Devil.'
She asks some really pertinent questions, ones that the BBC are completely and deliberately ignoring as they ceaselessly attack News International and promote their beloved Labour party:
'Here’s one you might like to try at home. If a person betrays a distressing secret concerning your child, possibly obtained via illegal means, and reduces you and your spouse to tears, how would you behave towards that person in the future? Would you:

a) Sever all connections with them and contact your lawyers or the police?

b) Pay a visit to them taking an electric hedge-strimmer?

c) Invite them to a sleepover party and attend their wedding?

Incredibly, Gordon and Sarah Brown went for option c. The former prime minister told a BBC interviewer that he cried in 2006 when Rebekah Brooks, then editor of the Sun, rang the Browns to say that her paper knew their son Fraser had cystic fibrosis and was planning to run a front-page exclusive. You can imagine the way Brooks’s call combined that wheedling, insidious tabloid blend of sympathy and threat. It was heartless behaviour at a time when the Browns were still coming to terms with the fact that their new baby faced grave health problems.

Truly shocking, but then I think back to the jolt I felt when I heard that, four years earlier, the Browns had invited several tabloid editors to the funeral of their daughter, who tragically died at 10 days old.

What on earth can they have been thinking? One of the invited journalists told me how incredulous he was that Gordon Brown felt it was appropriate to ask high-profile movers and shakers to such an agonisingly personal event.

For Brown to complain about the invasion of “private grief” was like Faust moaning that someone had forged his signature on the pact with the Devil. Brown told the BBC, “There was nothing you could do, you’re in public life.”

Actually, there were plenty of things that Brown, as a senior member of the New Labour government, could and should have done. He could have told Brooks that it was a private medical matter under Press Complaints Commission rules and she would not have been able to print a word. Or he could have gone completely crazy and put moral principle before political advantage – a quality he extols in his book Courage. But the fact is Gordon wanted to help Rebekah Brooks out. However upset he and Sarah were, the thought of upsetting the Murdoch empire was worse.

Brown’s attack in the Commons yesterday on News International’s “lawbreaking on an industrial scale” would have been magnificent had he made it when it might have personally cost him something.

Spare us the righteous indignation of politicians who suck up to hacks when it suits them and then play the avenging angel as soon as the moral weather changes. Let me put it another way. Sarah and Gordon Brown were so devastated by Brooks’s exposure of their baby’s illness that they invited her to a girly sleepover at Chequers. The other guests included Wendy Deng, the present Mrs Murdoch, and Rupert’s daughter, Elizabeth. These people weren’t just getting into bed together; they were throwing a pyjama party, for heaven’s sake. '


5) Toby Young in The Telegraph is also not impressed by Gordon Brown, his headline of 'Gordon Brown's marvellous display of classic, Presbyterian hypocrisy ' tells you where he stands on the story. Here's Toby Young:
'What a performance! Gordon Brown raised himself up to his full height in the House of Commons yesterday and delivered a thunderous sermon about the sinful behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and the “rats” who work at his British newspapers. These lowlifes had “descended from the gutter to the sewer”, we were told. They intruded on the “private sorrows” of “innocent men, women and children” – his own family, no less – and treated their “innermost feelings” as the “public property of News International”. Unlike his predecessor and his successor, who both allowed themselves to be seduced by this modern-day Mephistopheles, he had been desperate to order a judicial inquiry into the “criminal” behaviour of Murdoch’s employees, but had been cruelly thwarted by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the slippery head of the civil service. Had he been re-elected – which he surely would have been if the minds of the electorate hadn’t been poisoned by this Australian schlockmeister – he would have seen to it that the British Isles were cleansed of every trace of Murdoch’s vile presence.

It was marvellous stuff, a fitting climax to the high drama of the past week. But it does raise one or two awkward questions.

1. As Jacob Rees-Mogg asked when Brown allowed him to get a word in edgewise, if he found the methods of the gutter press so abominable why did he employ both Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride who routinely spread lies and misinformation about the ex-Prime Minister’s political opponents in Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers?

2. As Nadhim Zahawi pointed out, if Brown was so morally disgusted by the behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and his minions, why did he allow his wife, Sarah, to invite Rebekah Brooks, along with Murdoch’s wife Wendi and his daughter Elisabeth, to a “slumber party” at Chequers in 2008? And why did he and Sarah attend the wedding of Rebekah and Charlie Brooks in 2009?

3. If Brown and his wife were “in tears” and “incredibly upset” when the Sun called them in 2006 to ask them about their son’s cystic fibrosis, why didn’t they apply for an injunction to stop the Sun running the story? Why did they, instead, try to ensure the story got the widest possible coverage? According to yesterday’s edition of the paper:

The Sun ran the story after speaking to Mr Brown and wife Sarah. She gave us their consent to run it.

We agreed not to publish until they were ready to go public.

They also asked that the story be allowed to run in other newspapers. We agreed. In the following months the Browns showed no sign of any discontent with The Sun.

They attended a number of functions with The Sun’s then editor Rebekah Brooks and the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch.

Not only that, but Brown gave his first ever interview as Britain’s Prime Minister to one George Pascoe-Watson of the Sun, the very same journalist who wrote about his son’s illness nine months earlier.

4. If, as Brown claims, the Cabinet Secretary obstructed his efforts to order a judicial inquiry into the dastardly goings-on at News International, why did Sir Gus O’Donnell issue a denial immediately after the speech claiming that the decision not to launch an inquiry was Brown’s and Brown’s alone? Sir Gus is now seeking permission to publish the confidential advice to rebut the allegation.

5. Could it be that Brown’s unhappiness with Murdoch doesn’t date from 2006, when the Sun broke the story of his son’s illness, but from the Labour Party Conference in 2009, when, on the eve of Brown’s keynote speech, Murdoch’s British papers decided to withdraw their support from the Prime Minister and throw it behind David Cameron instead? On Monday, Andrew Neil wrote the following Tweet: “Labour Conf ’09. Brown calls Murdoch to stop Sun deserting to Tories. Fails. “I will destroy you,” says Brown. Slams down phone.”

I hope that Gordon Brown, or anyone who thinks he delivered a “powerful speech” yesterday and believes his “moral outrage” is “justified” (see today’s leader in the Guardian), can answer these questions. Because on the face of it this looks like a classic case of Presbyterian hypocrisy. A son of the manse indeed.'


6) Andrew Gilligan in The Telegraph links Ken Livingstone to the News International story thus with a report about questions to the London Mayor, Boris Johnson:
'Andrew Boff (Tory AM): I think it’s very important to ensure that the mayoralty cannot be compromised by undue influence. Bearing in mind when [the hacking] took place [during Ken's term of office], can I ask the mayor to look into the meetings the previous Mayor had with News International?

Boris (grinning broadly): Is this the guy who’s been popping up attacking me for having meetings with journalists?

Boff (innocently): Oh, I wasn’t aware – did he comment?… Could you also, Mr Mayor, look into any contracts that may have been entered into with the Murdoch dynasty?

Boris (mock surprise): Contracts? Involving taxpayers’ money?

Boff: Yes, contracts with the Murdoch dynasty, with Freud Communications [owned by Murdoch’s son-in-law].

Boris (mock incredulity): You’re joking!… I think it would be unbelievable and monstrously hyprocritical, would it not, if the previous Mayor, having broken bread with the hirelings and the leaders of Rupert Murdoch’s group, were then to attack any other person for doing so…wouldn’t it be an unbelievably opportunistic thing to do?

Boff: I think, I’m not sure, that the contract includes a jolly to China that the previous Mayor took.

Boris: Was GLA taxpayers’ money being paid to the Murdoch dynasty?

Boff: I think it was, Mr Mayor.

Boris: That’s unbelievable. What, you mean the thing I terminated as soon as I got in? I think you’ve opened a very fruitful avenue of enquiry! (Laughter)

Labour’s Len Duvall pointed out that what he called “Fraud Communications” was not part of News International. But then in came Dick Tracey on Ken’s relationship with NI itself.

Tracey: Talking about boot-licking News International, do you know there have been 26 bylined articles in NI newspapers since the hacking scandal broke in July 2009? The byline, Mr Mayor, is Ken Livingstone.

Boris (putting on serious expression): You’re joking. I sincerely hope no payment was received! It would be unbelievable, would it not, if cash actually went from agencies of the Murdoch empire into [Ken’s] pockets. Do you think that can have happened?'
Somehow I doubt that the BBC wil be interested in examining Ken Livingstone's previous links to News International. The BBC have adopted a 'year zero' approach to this as with many other stories.'

Are News International the only news organisation guilty of misbehaving? Are they even the most guilty?

If you rely on the BBC for your news then you might be forgiven for believing that it was News International that were the prime villains in the hacking story. The truth, as is so often the case when relying on the BBC for news, is somewhat different. Guido Fawkes here explains that:
'Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver has been accused directly by Max Keiser of Russia Today of knowing about phone hacking. He makes a series of claims about Weaver’s knowledge of phone hacking including that in 2002 she was aware of Piers Morgan knowledge of the neat little trick. Let the circular firing squad begin…'
Guido Fawkes  here explains that:
'The idea that this crisis is only about News International is fanciful. Look who had the most recorded offences:
'

Meanwhile The Huffington Post (the BBC's normally favourite source of US news) manages to report that:
'Piers Morgan may be the next person to become entangled in the British media's ever-widening scandal, as members of Parliament have begun calling for the CNN host and former Daily Mirror editor to come in for questioning on phone hacking at the Mirror and other British tabloids.
The calls came after it was revealed that Morgan, who replaced Larry King in January and was editor at News of the World before going to the Mirror in 1995, has known about phone hacking techniques since at least 2001.'

Odd, we knew that Piers was a fantacist (his diaries showed that) but was he also involved in illegal activities? Time will tell but don't expect the BBC to pay much attention to those allegations.

The BBC in the UK and the left-wing media in the USA want this story to be about News International/News Corp and them alone and they will skew their news reporting accordingly. However this story goes much wider and hopefully the truth about The Mirror Group and others will also emerge. What should also emerge in the UK is the truth about the connections between the Labour leadership of Tony Blair & Gordon Brown and News International, links that go far closer than those of the more recent conservative leadership; the pressure must continue.

The BBC brush-off

My strongest complaint to the BBC about BBC bias has received a Stage 2 complaint response from the BBC and unsurprisingly it's a BBC brush-off albeit a better written one than normal.


'Stephanie Harris stephanie.harris@bbc.co.uk to me
show details 13:24 (21 hours ago)


Dear Sir/Madam
As explained by Alison Wilson of the Editorial Complaints Unit, your complaint has been passed to me to respond to as it fell outside the ECU's remit. You have asked Ms Wilson to make sure that I am aware of the crux of your complaint which you have expressed as follows:
'The BBC reported in August 2010 the despicable comments made by an extremist Israeli rabbi but when I asked why the BBC did not report the genocidal comments regularly made by Hamas and Fatah leaders (both secular and clerical), and I gave examples, I was told that 'We do not report every inflammatory comment by Israelis or Palestinians. There are many on both sides.'

When I pointed out that this was not a satisfactory response and explained why, I was told by Tarik Kafal (Middle East Editor, BBC News Website) in an email of 21 December that 'To report the shrill and extreme statements of some of the Hamas firebrands is therefore misleading.' However the BBC were happy to report the extreme statements of one firebrand Israeli Rabbi. This leads to my key question and main complaint:

Why is it 'misleading' to report the words of 'Hamas firebrands' but not those of an Israeli firebrand?


I have now had an opportunity to review the correspondence to date. I note that you have received substantial answers to all the points you have raised and I endorse these replies.  The replies you have received from Tarik Kafala are comprehensive and there would be no merit in my simply repeating the points he has made. I think the only thing I can add is that BBC journalists must make a judgement about what is newsworthy and there is no reluctance to report on those who make violent denunciations of Israel such as President Ahmadinejad. Here are some examples.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4912198.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6173941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7628316.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8010747.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8007440.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11402101#

I hope that I have addressed your concerns but if not, it would be open to you to appeal to the BBC Trust, which is the final arbiter in the BBC’s complaints process. If you wish to contact the Trust, your correspondence should be addressed within 20 working days to Lucy Tristram, Complaints Manager at the BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk.
Yours sincerely
Stephanie Harris
Head of Editorial Compliance & Accountability,
BBC News'
I will of course be appealing to the BBC Trust but more in hope than expectation...

I have also replied to Ms Harris:
'No Ms Harris you have not addressed my concerns and I am sure that you are well aware of that. Just like Tarik Kafala you have ignored my specific question.  
I will remind you of that question:

''The BBC reported in August 2010 the despicable comments made by an extremist Israeli rabbi but when I asked why the BBC did not report the genocidal comments regularly made by Hamas and Fatah leaders (both secular and clerical), and I gave examples, I was told that 'We do not report every inflammatory comment by Israelis or Palestinians. There are many on both sides.'

When I pointed out that this was not a satisfactory response and explained why, I was told by Tarik Kafal (Middle East Editor, BBC News Website) in an email of 21 December that 'To report the shrill and extreme statements of some of the Hamas firebrands is therefore misleading.' Yet the BBC were happy to report the extreme statements of one firebrand Israeli Rabbi. This leads to my key question and main complaint:

So my key question is this: Why is it 'misleading' to report the words of 'Hamas firebrands' but not those of an Israeli firebrand?'

I did not ask about President Ahmadinejad, I asked why the BBC saw fit to specifically mention the regular extreme statements of one minor Israeli Rabbi and not those of more high profile Hamas and Fatah leaders. Have you any examples of the BBC reporting the genocidal remarks of Hamas and Fatah leaders, I gave you plenty of examples from other sources?

Tarik Kafala and you have both chosen to ignore my question so I will be appealing to the BBC Trust. Hopefully they will actually answer my question rather than, as you have, the question you would have preferred to be asked.

Regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

A complaint to the BBC Trust will be sent soon, a copy will be posted here. Does anyone have any helpful hints as to how to best get a proper response from the BBC Trust; other than offering the members a Knighthood of course.

Saturday morning catchup

Once again, too many Firefox tabs resulting in carashing Firefox and much frustration.

1) Blazing Cat Fur reports that 'The Toronto District School Board has decreed that "Only White People Are Racist" ' and provides the evidence.  Political correctness decrees that white people are in the wrong and in this sort of analysis of course Jews are white people whereas Muslims are not.


2) Fox News has an >to the Mila Kunis story and it may not be good news for Marine Sgt Scott Moore...


3) The often interesting Mother Jones website has interesting piece about life in an Indian call centre. Read it and you may go more gently on the Indian helpdesk the next time you have to call one...


4) Angry Predator identifies a fine example of victimhood poker and it seems that ethnic minority sensibilities outweigh the feminist right to breastfeed.


5) Melanie Phillips thinks that 'From human rights to the EU, the tide's turning against the liberal thought police' - I hope she's right but fear she is not.


6) Der Spiegel warns of the dangers of dildos. Yes I did say dildos.


7) The BBC report with a straigh face that: 'Alastair Campbell was "somewhat of an unguided missile" during talks about intelligence before the Iraq war, a senior MI6 officer has said.' Tell us something we didn't know about that duplicitious c**t.


More later...

Friday, 15 July 2011

Finally something good comes out of South Africa - lingerie!


For more visit the Baci lingerie website or look at the other videos on You Tube. Oh OK here's one more...

Left-wing hypocrisy?

From Twitter I learn that:
'Guardian reader's remedy on press regulation, p6- don't tuck away apologies on p58. Guardian apology to the Sun- p36.'
It's worse than that though, look at The Guardian website front page, can you see a mention of the apology at all?

To give the BBC its due, they do report The Guardian's apology. However whilst the article is headlined 'Guardian apologises to the Sun over Gordon Brown story' and the article starts: 'The Guardian has apologised to the Sun for reporting that it accessed Gordon Brown's son's medical records.' The BBC cannot help themselves as they caption a picture of Gordon Brown looking serious and dour 'Gordon Brown Gordon Brown questioned how the Sun came about information on his son's medical condition'
Did Gordon Brown 'question' how the Sun came upon this information? I would have said that he 'accused' The Sun of foul play. Also was there another news organisation, one with more reach than News International, which reported Gordon Brown's accusations as fact? One with the initials BBC perhaps?

More on Gordon Brown's hideous hypocrisy later today...

Thursday, 14 July 2011

The BBC's approach to news reporting?

Do any of these quotations from leading Nazis in 1930s Germany strike you as being in any way relevant to how the BBC and its friends in the Labour party operate in the 21st century?

"The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention."
Adolf Hitler


“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

Joseph Goebbels



"Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose."

Joseph Goebbels

Gordon Brown - the stench of hypocrisy

I was going to write an expose of Gordon Brown's nauseatingly hypocritical and self-serving House of Commons speech yesterday but I am very short of time today and also Toby Young in The Telegraph has already done a fine job. Here's an extract:
'What a performance! Gordon Brown raised himself up to his full height in the House of Commons yesterday and delivered a thunderous sermon about the sinful behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and the “rats” who work at his British newspapers. These lowlifes had “descended from the gutter to the sewer”, we were told. They intruded on the “private sorrows” of “innocent men, women and children” – his own family, no less – and treated their “innermost feelings” as the “public property of News International”...
 It was marvellous stuff, a fitting climax to the high drama of the past week. But it does raise one or two awkward questions.
1. As Jacob Rees-Mogg asked when Brown allowed him to get a word in edgewise, if he found the methods of the gutter press so abominable why did he employ both Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride who routinely spread lies and misinformation about the ex-Prime Minister’s political opponents in Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers? Doesn’t McBride’s attempt to smear David and Samantha Cameron in the wake of their son Ivan’s death constitute an intrusion into their “private sorrow”?
2. As Nadhim Zahawi pointed out, if Brown was so morally disgusted by the behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and his minions, why did he allow his wife, Sarah, to invite Rebekah Brooks, along with Murdoch’s wife Wendi and his daughter Elisabeth, to a “slumber party” at Chequers in 2008? And why did he and Sarah attend the wedding of Rebekah and Charlie Brooks in 2009?
3. If Brown and his wife were “in tears” and “incredibly upset” when the Sun called them in 2006 to ask them about their son’s cystic fibrosis, why didn’t they apply for an injunction to stop the Sun running the story? Why did they, instead, try to ensure the story got the widest possible coverage? According to yesterday’s edition of the paper:
The Sun ran the story after speaking to Mr Brown and wife Sarah. She gave us their consent to run it.
We agreed not to publish until they were ready to go public.
They also asked that the story be allowed to run in other newspapers. We agreed. In the following months the Browns showed no sign of any discontent with The Sun.
They attended a number of functions with The Sun’s then editor Rebekah Brooks and the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch.
Not only that, but Brown gave his first ever interview as Britain’s Prime Minister to one George Pascoe-Watson of the Sun, the very same journalist who wrote about his son’s illness nine months earlier.

4. If, as Brown claims, the Cabinet Secretary obstructed his efforts to order a judicial inquiry into the dastardly goings-on at News International, why did Sir Gus O’Donnell issue a denial immediately after the speech claiming that the decision not to launch an inquiry was Brown’s and Brown’s alone? Sir Gus is now seeking permission to publish the confidential advice to rebut the allegation.
5. Could it be that Brown’s unhappiness with Murdoch doesn’t date from 2006, when the Sun broke the story of his son’s illness, but from the Labour Party Conference in 2009, when, on the eve of Brown’s keynote speech, Murdoch’s British papers decided to withdraw their support from the Prime Minister and throw it behind David Cameron instead? On Monday, Andrew Neil wrote the following Tweet: “Labour Conf  ’09. Brown calls Murdoch to stop Sun deserting to Tories. Fails. “I will destroy you,” says Brown. Slams down phone.”
I hope that Gordon Brown, or anyone who thinks he delivered a “powerful speech” yesterday and believes his “moral outrage” is “justified” (see today’s leader in the Guardian), can answer these questions. Because on the face of it this looks like a classic case of Presbyterian hypocrisy. A son of the manse indeed.'
Five powerful questions that Gordon Brown needs to answer honestly; do you see the flaw in that point?

Thursday morning catch-up

Usual story, too many open tabs in Firefox and not enough time, oh and this time so many that Firefox keeps crashing:

1) Peter Ferrara for Fox News explains how the US budget can be balanced, after all Republicans did it the last time the Democrats broke the economy. There are of course major parallels with the UK when Margaret Thatcher needed to undo the socialist policies of the previous Labour government. Policies that the left in the UK regularly deride and spew hatred at but were necessary and rescued the UK from bankruptcy; sound familiar? The problem now is that David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher and has already shown himself to be a coward and no Conservative.


2) This Daily Mail article sings the benefits of nudism; not much to disagree with there.


3) The Metro, a London free paper, shows a worrying lack of mathematical knowledge, let alone understanding of global warming. Under the headline 'Melting Arctic ice 'to flood London in 100 years' if global warming continues' The Metro reports that 'London could be flooded within 100 years as melting Arctic ice causes sea levels to rise by up to 900cm (3ft), a new study shows.' One slight problem is that there are around 30cm to a foot, not 300cm. So either this is 90cm (3ft) or 900cm (30ft); maybe they meant 900mm, maybe the journalist doesn't check facts. Whatever the reason if the journalist cannot report a simple pair of related numbers correctly, what hope do we have that the rest of the reporting in that article is any more than writing what the press briefing said? For some real analysis I suggest reading The Daily Bayonet.


4) The BBC reported
that
'The US Army psychiatrist accused in a deadly shooting rampage at a Texas base will face a court martial and possible death penalty, a general has ruled.

Maj Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 32 more in November 2009 at Fort Hood.'
You will not be surprised to learn that the BBC manage not to report Major Hasan's blood-curdling cries as he attacked the soldiers but prefers to say this:
'He has been described as a devout Muslim and a poor-performing military officer who alarmed his superiors with his eccentric behaviour.'


5) VDare wonders at the pairings of the last 20 dancers on America's 'So You Think You Can Dance' - he thinks he may have spotted a patten...

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Is asking actress Mila Kunis out that easy?

The question from Marine Sgt Scott Moore...

The not too reluctant response from Mila Kunis...

Fox News have more detailsabout the story and if you are unsure who Mila Kunis is then can I suggest reading this GQ magazine piece or you could look at the pictures... here's a couple

The one hundred and thirty-ninth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award is presented to the Office for National Statistics for their report as found in yesterday's London Evening Standard'; here's the headline I am sure you will not need to read the rest:
'Official: Londoners pay highest prices in Britain'
London is the most expensive place to live in Britain - "No shit, Sherlock"

Wednesday morning catch-up

Usual story, too many open tabs in Firefox and not enough time:

1) RiaNovosti report that:
'Greece is planning to expand military-technical cooperation with Israel, Defense Minister Panos Beglitis said.

"We will soon sign an agreement on military cooperation which will mainly involve defense industry and supply of armaments," Beglitis said at a session of the Greek parliament on Thursday.

The minister emphasized the importance of closer military ties with Israel, but said bilateral cooperation with Tel Aviv would not affect Greece's relations with Turkey and Arab countries.'
As Turkey moves closer to Islamic rule this a good move by Israel, although I would hate to be the person who has to run the credit check...


2) CatchKevin claims to have a scoop. He claims that:
'Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New International Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda—Think Again! The “Appointed One,” in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!

...

Elena Kagan’s views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It’s unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder? After all, as Obama’s Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court’s docket had nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan’s advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?'
If true, this is fascinating and I am sure will not be explored by the BBC or mainstream American media to whom nothing Barack Obama does is to be questioned.


3) Ed West in The Telegraph writes a piece under the headline 'If Rupert Murdoch is too powerful, then so is the BBC'. This is something that I have raised before, albeit mainly in the comments at Biased-BBC. Here's some of Ed West's piece:
'In all the furore over the size and influence of Rupert Murdoch’s empire, let’s not forget one crucial fact: that the greatest concentration of political power remains with the BBC.

Contrary to the idea that Right-wing press barons set the agenda, television and radio are far more powerful in influencing politics than newspapers. And the further down the newspaper market one goes, the less politics matters: the Sun and News of the World might be nominally Right-wing, yet during the 1980s a majority of Sun readers voted Labour; not only that, but a majority of Sun readers thought that their paper supported Labour. How much influence do downmarket newspapers really have? After all, British tabloids are universally hostile to immigration – and a fine load of difference that has made in recent years.

...

In contrast, the BBC and its house newspaper, the Guardian, wields huge power, both through its biased news coverage and its Left-leaning television making. As Michael Buerk wrote: “What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, where the centre of gravity of an issue lies, are conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it.”'
Very true and this helps to explain why the BBC/Guardian nexus have been all over the News Of The World 'hacking' case, they see this as their best opportunity to a) destroy the hated Murdoch, b) keep their left-wing control of the British media, c) rehabilitate Gordon Brown's reputation and d) end this Conservative government as soon as possible.


4) Front Page look at the amount of money the Palestinians have received over the years and wonder a) where it went and b) are they really poor. Here's a few extracts from a must read piece:
'But do “Palestinian People” really need billions more in aid? The World Bank report for 2011 found that only 16 percent of the West Bank under PA control was living below the poverty line.

How serious is a 16 percent poverty rate? It’s better than the poverty rate in Washington D.C. which hit 18.9 percent. That means that politicians in Washington D.C. are diverting money that could have been used to help needy Americans a few miles from their offices, to help the comparatively better off terrorist populations in the West Bank.

Contrary to the barrage of news stories on the suffering of the Palestinians, the poverty rate for America and the West Bank aren’t that far apart. The California poverty rate is at 15.3 percent. And the national average at 14.3 percent is hardly that much better.

...

Many of the PA’s chief donors have poverty rates in the same range. Some are even worse off. Greece’s poverty rate is at 20 percent. Spain’s is nearly as high. And 17 percent of the EU population is considered to be at risk of poverty. Even Germany’s strong economy still has a 15.5 percent poverty rate. A few percentage points away from the West Bank.

But most damningly Israel’s poverty rate is nearly 24 percent. Worse than in the Palestinian Authority. About half those numbers come from its Arab population, which unlike their cousins in the Palestinian Authority, aren’t the beneficiaries of vast amounts of aid.

...



The Palestinian Authority payroll stands at over 150,000 people. That’s in an area with only 840,000 adult males and 1.5 million adult males and females. That’s one government worker for every 10 adults in the West Bank. 1 government worker for every 5 males.

...

Last month the PA passed a law putting all imprisoned terrorists, even members of Hamas, on its payroll. Now the Palestinian Authority is having payroll problems and expects foreign donors to bail it out– so it can continue paying money to convicted murderers.

And what else is all that money paying for? 1.3 million to computerize the records of the PA’s Religious Courts. So no offenders against Sharia law can hope to dodge the Islamic justice system. Plus another 29 million to construct “model buildings” for religious courts.'


5) WarChick has an interesting theory about what happened to the 2006 docudrama titled The Path to 9-11 which
'was released for public viewing. It was produced by the Disney Corporation. When aired the first night on ABC, it was the second most watched show on television; soon, it became the number one watched television show—number one on the second evening to be exact. Over 25 million viewers in two nights sat around their televisions and embraced as a nation the reality of the sequenced events that led up to the most devastating attacks against the United States since Pearl Harbor.'
Here's Warchick's explanation which if true is incredibly scary:
'Disney is being crippled by current economic hard times. They can make millions of dollars though via the release of DVD sales for the series The Path to 9-11. Michael Moore’s anti-Bush propaganda titled Fahrenheit 9-11 broke records in DVD sales with over 2 million sold on the first day of release. Imagine what The Path of 9-11 would sell if Disney stopped playing politics?
That’s correct, Disney is playing politics. CEO Robert Iger is a major contributor to the Clintons—something Brit Hume discussed several years ago on his Fox News television show. But even when Iger gets challenged about his decisions not to release The Path to 9-11, he cowardly evaded truth—something he obviously hates.'

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

No further comment necessary

If you thought you were depressed about the UK economy; Liam Halligan makes me look cheerful about its prospects

'The only reason we are still able to roll over our sovereign liabilities is because, for the most part, the true extent of the fiscal risks we face hasn't yet been priced in to yields on global markets. What's happening on the eurozone's periphery, even if the current crisis is averted, is just the beginning.'
There's plenty more in Liam's Telegraph article  but I warn you it is not a cheerful read.
'In my view, a sudden and massive re-pricing of Western sovereign risk will happen much sooner than is widely expected. For now, global investors are in denial, assessing that default risks in many of the big emerging markets are much greater than in the West.

This is nonsense – particularly when you consider that the governments of the "advanced" countries are tacitly reliant on debasing and depreciating their currencies in order to lower their liabilities, so imposing on their creditors a form of "soft default".

At some point soon, and it brings me no pleasure to write this, private sector Western investors, together with our emerging market creditors, will drastically cut their exposure to Western sovereign debt. This will come as a rude awakening to the US and the big European sovereigns, who for years now have abused their "risk-free" status.'
Who is Liam Halligan. He is chief economist at Prosperity Capital Management. Greece, Ireland, now Italy the EuroZone is not in a good state and most people are in denial.What should we do, how do we survive the coming financial apocalypse? I don't think any but the super-rich can or will.

Monday, 11 July 2011

Compare and contrast

ITV's 'Strictly Kosheer' per The Guardian:
'Now ladies, this one's for your fuller figures," says Joel, owner of the Mon Amie Studios, a ladieswear emporium in Prestwich, Manchester. A flurry of spendy barmitzvah mams coo in unison over the feathers and diamante trim. "I've never seen this one in the same frock twice," says Joel, raising an eyebrow. Strictly Kosher (Mon, 9pm, ITV1) the new doc about Manchester's 40,000-strong Jewish community is rather fantastic. As Joel wows the women with heels and head-dresses, the Jewish mums trade rival tales of who owns the largest walk-in shoe cupboard, who's got more impending grandchildren and who keeps the strictest Sabbath. "I wouldn't switch a kettle on," says Jewish mum Bernette Clarke, a force of nature who might be politely described as "formidable". "Someone else who isn't Jewish could put it on but I can't ask them, so sometimes you go round the houses for two hours before they get a cup of tea." Bernette's whistlestop tour of Jewish tradition is joyful. "That's my lovely daughter and her lovely husband, she's in Israel. Here's my son," Bernette stops and wobbles a harrassed-looking 20-year-old's cheeks, "Isn't he cute. He's so handsome, isn't he?" Bernette is giving us a trip around Jewish Salford. It's not looking good foreskin-wise for one small lump wrapped in a nappy as a legion of Manc men in kippahs huddle round in a suburban semi-detached living room. "Now, this is yer bris. All Jewish men are circumcised. Has to be done. I mean, I cried buckets when they did my first, but by the second I was fine. And you get a lovely Jewish baby at the end!" says Bernette gleefully. All the men polled seem quite sure babies don't feel any pain at eight days and they can't remember their own bris, so that's fine. "I always stand up the front!" says Bernette's husband with the relish of a man who won't let it put him off the post-op buffet. Bernette talks us through Sabbath preparation, which seems to be a lot of running about pre-cutting kitchen roll, taping up the light in the fridge to stop it flickering and passive-aggressively insinuating to all other members of the family that mother does everything in this house and everyone else is lazy.'

BBC Two's The Life of Muhammad per The Telegraph:
'Toby Dantzic looks ahead to a sensitively made documentary about the life of Islam's prophet.

The BBC’s new three-part series on the life of Muhammad, Islam’s founder and most important prophet, has already caused controversy. Iran’s culture minister Mohammad Hosseini has branded it an attempt ‘to ruin Muslims’ sanctity’.

Yet director Faris Kermani has already proved himself respectful to matters Muslim, as his awe-inspiring 2008 documentary ‘The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World’ bore out. And although this new series charts the landmark moments in Muhammad’s life, Kermani appropriately avoids images of the prophet’s face or dramatic reconstructions of events. Instead Al Jazeera English reporter Rageh Omaar makes Muhammad vivid by retracing his footsteps. There’s much to cover.

From his dramatic flight to Medina, to the founding of the Islamic constitution and his military highs and lows, Muhammad had a rich and varied history. Omaar begins his journey in Mecca, Muhammad’s Arabian birthplace, where he investigates the polytheistic, tribal society Muhammad was born into. His marriage to the wealthy older widow Khadija comes under scrutiny. And we learn how Muhammad received the first of his divine revelations and the impact it had on him and his family.

Throughout the series Omaar will be joined by a host of Islamic experts including academics, religious leaders and even a member of the Jordanian royal family. And as we follow Muhammad’s progress, the series will also examine his legacy, looking at Islam’s role in the world today and its attitude to contemporary society. '
So the Channel 4 documentary will cover 'His marriage to the wealthy older widow Khadija comes under scrutiny.' I wonder if they will also mention his marriage to the six year old Aisha, albeit only consummated when she was 9. I wonder if this 'sensitively made documentary' will mention Muhammad turning from peace to war, vanquishing Jews from Mecca/Medina, ordering the beheading of over 600 boys and men in one night or the mass killing all dogs in Mecca.

'..director Faris Kermani has already proved himself respectful to matters Muslim'
How strange that the BBC chose someone 'respectful to matters Muslim' to direct this series, when is the BBC respectful to matters Christian, let alone Jewish?

I wonder how often the programme will slip into BBC speak and call the 'Islamic prophet Muhammad' "the Prophet Muhammad". I have blogged about this BBC habit before. Muhammad is not the Christian prophet or the Jewish prophet and is certainly not the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or indeed prophet of any religion other than Islam. I find it offensive to be told about "the Prophet Muhammad".

Is Barack Obama the funniest man alive?

I am rarely moved to laugh at any of Barack Obama's pronouncements, except maybe his 57 states visited so far claim. It appears that others find him far funnier...


But it's not just Bill and Hillary Clinton, NY Mag has plenty of other examples of hysterical laughter resulting from a Barack Obama joke. Is he really hysterical or is he just surrounded by sycophants? Anyone who has worked for a company where the boss's every joke is treated as if it was the funniest joke ever will surely recognise the faces on those laughing with/at Barack Obama.

Returning to the 57 states comment, here's a tie-pin image that I found on the web that I think is a subtle reminder of the mistake that the mainstream media ignored...
I really want one of those...

I know it's not targetted at the likes of us but Mrs NotaSheep and I do enjoy The Inbetweeners


And now there's a film but can we risk a visit to a cinema to see it or do we wait for the DVD?
"Can one of you help me, I think she may be a two man job?!"

The truth about the UK's level of debt

Gordon Brown hid it, Ed Balls still denies it and Ed Miliband is too busy jumping on bandwagons to address it but this week the true level of UK debt will be revealed when on Wednesday the Treasury will publish national accounts drawn up on the same basis as listed companies. So for the first time we will see official figures as to the amount of national debts were hidden from the public during the Brown Balls era. We will see the future liabilities of accrued pension rights for public sector workers and the future costs of private PFI projects, as well as the liabilities for Northern Rock, rescued to save jobs in Labour constituencies.

The figures will not be pretty, and they may tell us nothing that those interested in the subject do not already know, but they will show Gordon Brown and Ed Balls up for the devious little f***ers that they were and are.

Saturday, 9 July 2011

A very impressive 'Rule 5' Saturday night post

That's Jessica-Jane Clement with her best assets on display...

It's image quiz time (the answer)

It's an electron micrograph of vinyl groove by Chris Supranowitz.

Thanks to Boing Boing for the image spot.

And well done to Petr who answered 'Groove in one of them there LP records they used to make?' just 17 minutes after I posted the question...