BBC at it again

I know I have mentioned before the BBC's habit of giving a Labour spokesman airtime on the 7pm Radio 4 news. Tonight they did it again. The item about the returning of Abu Quatada to Jordan was the excuse for retelling Yvette Cooper's claims that this decision had taken too long - indeed it had but only thanks to the signing up by her party when in government to the European Human Rights Act. This was followed by a nice long soundbite not from the Home Secretary, a Conservative, but her Labour shadow.

Maybe the BBC should consider which party/parties are in power and making decisions rather than who the BBC would prefer to be in power.

Another Barack Obama verbal cockup by no interest at the BBC

I have previously posted about Barack Obama's various verbal misspeaks - 57 stats etc. and how the BBC just are not interested in the sort of misspeaks that they loved to report when made by George W. Bush. So I was not surprised to learn of this latest example and even less surprised not to see it on the BBC.

It was during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia that Barack Obama decided to call the Falklands by their Spanish name 'Malvinas', unfortunately he instead called them the Maldives, which is a group of atolls off of the south coast of India.No interest at the BBC either in his misspeak or the fact that a US President tried to side with the Argentinians over their ridiculous claim on the Falklands.

BBC incompetence or scaremongering?

The BBC's Breaking News Twitter feed tweeted this this morning

Wouldn't the addition of the word 'next' before 'Tuesday' have made the situation clearer and less threatening?

Ed Miliband's big 'but'

The BBC report the news that:

'Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties, including those from trade unions.

He told the BBC this would remove the influence of "big money" on politics.

But Mr Miliband also said he wanted to keep the system under which union members are asked whether they want to keep paying £3 a year to Labour - around three million currently do so.'

The BBC find the space to tell us that around three million trade union members pay £3 a year to the Labour party but only allow Conservative ministers to say or claim that figure that would be affected by Ed Miliband's £5,000 cap would be much smaller. In fact, in a non-election year, the cap would restrict donations from the Labour party hardly at all. In November the Labour party proudly reported the latest figures from the Electoral Commission thus:

'Labour’s members are our biggest donors'

Income from Labour Party membership fees:

2008: £5.9m
2009: £6.1m
2010: £7.3m
2011 (projected): £7.6m

Income from affiliation fees:

The affiliation fees the Labour Party receives is £7.6m annually.

In addition to affiliation fees, trade unions sometimes choose to make some additional donations to support the Labour Party, particularly at General Elections.

2008: £0.2m
2009: £0.6m
2010: £3.9m
2011: £0.1m'

So on the Labour party's own figures, the percentage of income from Trade Unions and other affiliation fees only that Ed Miliband has offered to forgo would have been in recent years:

2008: 0.15% (normal year)
2009: 4.2% (pre-election year)
2010: 20.7% (election year)
2011: 0.6% (normal year)

So once again we see the BBC promoting an idea from the Labour party as fair and equatable, only reporting Conservative claims as to is irrelevance and ignoring the Labour party's own figures that prove the Conservative party's case. The way that the BBC act as the propaganda arm of the Labour party is clear and disgusting and I cannot believe that David Cameron and his fellow wets at the top of the Conservative party cannot see this and why they continually fail to act upon it.

Sorry Sunny Hundal and Lee Jasper - you will have to wait

Too nice a day to waste on people like you, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow...

Wrong, oh so wrong!

The Telegraph's form guide had this to say about the eventual winner of yesterday's Grand National - Neptune Collonges - 'Tough and a good jumper. May find weight anchoring him at finish.'

Neptune Colonges won the Grand National by a very short nose only overtaking Sunnyhillboy in the last stride or so. Here's the photo-finish photo...

I'd say Neptune Collanges was hardly being anchored by the weight he was carrying at the end of the race!

Ken Livingstone's declared income yesterday and today; I wonder what he will declare tomorrow...

More details at Mark Pack.

Do you support affirmative action in order to help under-represented minorities?

"How is academic ability different from athletic ability"
'Many students support affirmative action, in an effort to promote diversity. They argue that race-based preferences “level the playing field” for disadvantaged minorities. However, these same students refused to sign our petition to apply such policies to the basketball team. At UC Riverside — where the video was filmed — 10/11 active players on the team are African American. Why not use affirmative action to promote diversity there? '

The Exposing Leftists website makes some good points.

Kate Upton and cockroaches - A Friday night Rule 5 post

Kate Upton and the banned advert, too many double-entendres?

For more Kate Upton try looking here, but here's a picture

The BBC and the London Mayoral election

The BBC want Ken Livingstone to win the London Mayoral election. In fact regardless of who was standing for the Labour party and the Conservative party they would want the Labour party candidate to win; that much is obvious. So the comparison of the BBC's profile pages for Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson holds few surprises.

Ken Livingstone's profile does not ignore some of the criticisms of Ken Livingstone but these criticisms are downplayed with lines like 'said by opponents to be one of the "loony left".' The whole tax avoidance matter is described in this one short line:

'In recent weeks he's come under attack for his tax affairs. Livingstone has said the allegations that he avoided tax are "smears"'

No analysis of whether the claims or Ken are correct.

There is also not a word about the controversy over Ken Livingstone's associations with at least one Islamist preacher whose anti-Semitic and homophobic comments are apparently acceptable to the prospective London Mayor and the BBC. Nor is there any mention of his controversial work for the Iranian Press TV. Maybe Ken's decision to court the London Muslim vote has struck a chord with the BBC.


Boris Jonson's profile is less positive in tone. From the opening description of him as 'the gaffe-prone former MP, journalist and TV show host.' the tone is set. Almost every one of his achievements is balanced with a criticism. The line 'Thought of as one of the most colourful politicians, the question is whether Londoners will be convinced by his record as mayor and re-elect him for a second term.' is nicely placed as is ' is followed by a long list of his 'gaffes' with no defence given. The article finishes with the thought that 'His career has proved no less colourful' followed by a long list of his career issues.


So for the BBC Boris Johnson's gaffes and career issues are of great importance but Ken Livingstone's association with less than savoury characters repugnant foreign regimes do not even warrant a mention.

The BBC claim to have impartiality on their genes; I think not.

Mob attack

If a white mob beat, taunted and stripped a lone black man on Martin Luther King day I would expect the media coverage to be wall to wall. Oddly when it is a white man beaten, taunted and stripped on St Patrick's Day the media coverage is all but non-existent; why?

'A feral mob attacked, beat, stripped and tormented a lost tourist on St Patrick's Day in Baltimore. This racist attack was committed while chanting the name of a Black website called 'World Star Hip Hop' that regularly contains virulent racist and violent comments against Whites. Download this video immediately and continue to spread it to help catch these cowardly violent and racist thugs.'

It will have to wait until tomorrow

Unless someone gets there first, tomorrow I will compare and contrast the BBC's profile pages of Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone. Sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel!

Ken Livingstone - not just a "f***ing liar" and a defender of a vile Islamist preacher, he's also got no idea of scale

In yesterday's Evening Standard London Mayor debate, Ken Livingstone made the claim that:

"I immediately discovered I've been paying 35 per cent tax, so much bloody tax the Government should have been able to get another one of these aircraft carriers without planes,"

One of those aircraft carriers costs around £2.5bn, at a 35% tax rate that means Ken has paying tax on earnings of over £7bn. Not even Tony Blair earns that much! More realistically Ken Livingstone is just deluded.

Returning to the matter of tax-avoidance...

The Standard reports that:

'Documents seen by the Standard reveal that he received a £71,746 resettlement grant from the Greater London Authority in the 2008/09 financial year after being defeated by Mr Johnson.
But in the accounts Mr Livingstone released last week he claimed that he only earned £21,645 then. Tory MP Priti Patel said: "This is further dodgy dealings from Ken. He owes it to London's electorate to publish his earnings."'

Meanwhile City AM has discovered that Ken Livingstone 'saved over £75,000 in tax by channelling some of his earnings through a company'. Yes it was legal, but this is the same Ken Livingstone who said:

"These rich bastards just don't get it … no one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in parliament, unless they pay their full share of tax.
"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super rich by exploiting every tax fiddle … [We should] sweep away tax scams and everybody should pay tax at the same rate on earnings and other income."

What Ken Livingstone did was legal and no different from what many contractors in various industries do and what most accountants would recommend. However Ken Livingstone had previously taken a pretty extreme stand against tax avoidance so he has to be judged by higher standards.

Rev Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama

'Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered a sermon at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of their Holy Week event. He admitted his fiery preaching has not changed since his days in seminary and that President Obama did hear 20 years of sermons.'

Thanks to Breitbart for the spot.

For more on Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama take a look here where there is plenty of video quotations from Rev Jeremiah 'Goddam America' Wright.

Beatrix von Bourbon - The Britain's Got Talent audition and the full act - NSFW

I don't watch Britain's Got Talent, I have some degree of self-respect, but did hear of one performance that I thought was worth watching, that of Britain's answer to Dita von Teese, Beatrix von Bourbon.

Here's her Britain's Got Talent audition piece


And here's a lengthier and more revealing version of the act from the Fish & Whips Burlesque contest

I haven't seen breast twirling like that since The Graduate....

Lainie Miller Shows Her BoobTalents to Dustin Hoffman - The funniest movie is here. Find it

There is plenty more of Beatrix von Bourbon on the internet. Whilst she is not a one trick pony, the routines all end up with her less dressed than at the beginning - not that I'm complaining....

For Labour MP for Northfield Richard Burden some deaths are worth remembering but not others

This morning a couple of tweets from British Labour MP Richard Burden caught my attention:

The death of Tom Hurndall was a terrible incident and an Israeli soldier was tried by an Israeli court, found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to a long prison sentence.

Since Richard Burden was so keen to remind us of Tom Hurndall's death, I wondered who else's death he considered worthy of remembrance.

Rachel Corrie's death, whilst sad and regrettable, was not the clear cut event that the supporters of the Palestinian cause/haters of Israel like to portray. Read around the subject please.

Since Richard Burden is so keen on remembering people killed in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict I looked to see if he had posted anything on the 11th March, he hadn't. I wonder if he even knows why that date is important? So why would Richard Burden choose to remember the manslaughter of Tom Hurndall and the accidental killing of Rachel Corrie but not the brutal murder of the five members of the Fogel family?

A man who calls Palestinian terrorists by the term 'resistance groups' has nailed his colours pretty firmly to the mast. I wonder what first interested Richard Burden in this subject area?

One final tweet of Richard Burden's caught my eye

Does Richard Burden not realise that Israeli attacks on Gaza are in response to incessant rocket attacks on Israel? If these rocket attacks ceased then Israel would not need to try and destroy the rocket launchers and their operators? Would he rather more Israelis were killed?


I have plenty more to say about Richard Burden and his interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Watch this space...

My apologies I may have made a mistake in my pieces about Jordan being the real Palestinian state

I have several times, most recently here quoted historical figures including Palestine Liberation Organisation executive committee member Zahir Muhsein who admitted that:

'The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.'

I must admit that I now see that I may have been hasty in repeating that quotation and assuming that it was clear-cut that Jordan was the Palestinian state.

The reason? I have been made aware of this from this blog:

'In July 2010 J. D. Longstreet, a widely read commentator, wrote, “Going back to 1937 we learn that “a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."'

Sorry so I may be wrong the Palestinian state may not be Jordan, maybe it's Syria. One thing I do know, it sure as hell isn't Israel.

Barack Oabama - bored, not interested in being lectured on the realities of economics or just trying to look up Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff skirt?

Tough one to call that. Oh for Bill Clinton as US President, you knew where he'd stand on this one.

I am sure there is a gag involving Brazilian Brazilians but I'm not sure that I want to go there.


Thanks to Breitbart for the video spot.

A belated Happy Easter from Kate Upton - NSFW - Rule 5

A little late but somehow I don't think you will mind!

The Barack Obama birth-certificate queries remain

American Thinker has a nice update... Here's an extract:

'New evidence, however, has reignited conservative interest in Obama's birth certificate. Conservative icon Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, at the behest of a petition presented by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party organization, organized a "cold case posse" and completed a six-month examination of the released birth certificate in order to determine its authenticity. The results are in, Joe says, and they point to the document being a fake.

Skilled as Sherriff Joe's team undoubtedly is in identifying forged documents, last month offered interesting substantiation of the team's findings. Renowned skeptic of global warming theories Lord Christopher Monckton, who has experience investigating high-level fraud as a policy adviser under Margaret Thatcher, has given the claim added veracity.

According to World Net Daily, Monckton said that "it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar's stamp were superimposed on it from another document." If there were a single, original document to verify the president's Hawaiian birth, why "go to all that trouble, he reasoned."

Monckton's conclusion? "My assessment is that they are right to be worried... That document is not genuine."

This conclusion glaringly lacks ambiguity. And if Monckton is correct, we should be beyond worried. We should be outraged, and we should demand justice for the betrayal of the American people's trust.

Mockton's testimony is a bombshell. It is a credible voice suggesting that the image on the White House website, offered to the American people in good faith, was presented as an accurate depiction of Obama's birth certificate, and for whatever reason, it is not. This is forgery, a crime in itself, but it is the reason for the possible forgery -- fraud -- that keeps the media and lawmakers from running with this amazing story.

Anyone calling Obama's birth certificate into question will have to entertain the notion that perhaps the forgery was made because the president does not have legal proof of his American birth. And anyone carrying that message will have the stink of "right-wing birther" on him, and he will be swiftly devoured by the attack dogs in the media and marginalized. So in a way, I don't blame conservative lawmakers and pundits for treading lightly around the issue.

The discourse has already been cleverly manipulated, you see, to shift the burden of proof from Obama to his detractors. Reasonably, it should never have been incumbent upon Americans to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but rather it should have always been incumbent upon Obama to prove to the American people, verifiably and indisputably, that he was born in the United States.

Barack Obama again has that chance, and Arpaio has articulated that very point. "The president can put all this to rest quite easily," he said. "All he has to do is demand [that] the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."

But then, the president has always had the opportunity to do this, and he has never seized it. One can speculate as to why. Some, like Ann Coulter, find the withholding of definitive proof of his birth to be a ruse to whip Obama's opponents into unreasonable frenzy, and thereby marginalize them. On the other hand, it is entirely logical to think that he has not produced definitive proof because there is something that is being hidden from the American public. And the fact that this birth certificate appears to be a forgery certainly strengthens the second possibility.

I've always been one of those who likes to preface sentences with "I'm no birther, but..." But in light of this new evidence, I certainly feel that there is a warrant for investigation to satisfy the birthers' concern, with Obama innocent until proven guilty, of course. And if that makes me a birther, then so be it.'